EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF WEB 2.0-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO
PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES WITH APPLICATION TO GLEN CANYON
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND RAINBOW BRIDGE NATIONAL
MONUMENT
By
Christopher Ebling, Bachelor of Science
APPROVED:
_____________________________________Dr. Theresa Coble, Thesis Director
_____________________________________Dr. Daniel Scognamillo, Committee Member
_____________________________________Dr. Yanli Zhang, Committee Member
_____________________________________Dr. Dorothy Anderson, Committee Member
_____________________________________Ms. Rosemary Sucec, Committee Member
_____________________________________Dr. Mary Nelle Brunson, Dean, Graduate School
EXPLORING THE POTENTIAL USE OF WEB 2.0-BASED TECHNOLOGY TO
PROTECT CULTURAL RESOURCES WITH APPLICATION TO GLEN CANYON
NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND RAINBOW BRIDGE NATIONAL
MONUMENT
Christopher Ebling, Bachelor of Science in Forestry
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Stephen F. Austin State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
For the Degree of
ii
This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law,
no part of this document may be reproduced without the
expressed permission of the author.
ABSTRACT
In 2011 the management of the Glen Canyon and Rainbow
Bridge National Recreation area (GLCA/RABR) engaged a
research team to provide managers with a strategy for
protection of cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake
Powell. The team consists of academic staff from Stephen F.
Austin State University, North Carolina State University,
and the University of Copenhagen, as well as both graduate
and undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State
University.
This primary research project generated three ancillary
research projects focused on specific aspects of cultural
resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR
conducted by graduate students on the research team. The
first project focused on boater relationships with the v
resource and management. The second study focused on the
types of messages that will be most effective in countering
non-compliant behaviors by visitors. This study (the third)
examined the potential impact of Web 2.0 technology and
social media applications to influence non-compliant visitor
behaviors with the objective of reducing impacts to cultural
and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.
The purpose of this study was three-fold. The first
objective is to understand the experiences, perspectives
and/or beliefs of park managers regarding using Web 2.0
technology to protect cultural resources at their sites.
Second, the study investigated the extent and nature of
emerging Web 2.0-based communities that are focused on
National Park Service (NPS) sites. Third, the study provided
recommendations for using Web 2.0 technology to protect
cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.
Using a mixed method approach the study conducted a
detailed netnographic investigation of 22 NPS sites. The
sites were chosen using purposeful sampling with guidance
from GCLA/RABR staff. Once the netnographic study was
vi
complete, the researcher, again with guidance from GCLA/RABR
staff, chose two sites for detailed interviews with on-site
staff members. Using a snowball sampling technique, an
additional seven sites were added to the interview list
based on recommendations from the initial two respondents.
In total, the researcher interviewed nine individuals
representing seven NPS sites.
The results show that park-based social media
communities have indeed emerged. Further, these park-based
social media communities derive their shared identities on
the basis of common interests and activities. An analysis of
the netnographic data suggests the existence of three
different community types: intentional, extended intentional, and
incidental. Intentional communities involve social media sites
that are created and maintained by Park Service staff.
Interactions between intentional community members typically
involve the exchange of bi-directional postings. Extended
intentional communities form when Park Service staff extends
social media interactions to external communities beyond the
intentional community. Extended intentional communities
vii
often involve interactions between Park Service staff and
organizations such as non-profit organizations, advocacy
groups, commercial enterprises and other government
agencies. Incidental communities form when individuals come
together to share a common interest or activity focus using
a shared social media application. Incidental communities
can be temporal and fluid, with community members joining
and exiting as interests and activity involvement changes
over time.
Interview data suggest that community members,
especially intentional community members, will engage in a
variety of social media-based activities focused on the park
site. For example, park visitors and other interested
parties participate in photography contests focused on park
resources. Others have joined in resource monitoring and
reporting activities, thereby extending the reach of park
staff. However, interview participants were unable to verify
that social media engagement fostered resource protective
attitudes and behaviors. In fact, the sparse social media
application metrics available to park staff (likes, shares,
viii
favorites, re-tweets) suggests that posts containing
protective messages generate a small response when compared
to posts containing images of scenery or wildlife and/or
posts that make use of interpretive techniques. Exploring
the relationship between park social media
postings/community building efforts and the resource
protective attitudes and behaviors of target audiences is an
area worthy of further research. The results of this study
should be combined with the two other studies focused on key
cultural resource protection challenges at GLCA/RABR. Also,
future research could examine what happens when social media
applications are used to deliver messages that (1) elicit
key behavioral, normative, and control beliefs (Ham, 2007),
(2) target specific boater communities, and (3) modify
boater attitudes and behaviors such that cultural resource
protection is strengthened within the park.
ix
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I would like to recognize all of the help and support I
have received that made this study possible. First and
foremost is my faculty adviser Dr. Theresa Coble. Thank you
for all of your insights, direction, and the many hours of
review you provided to guide me along the way. Second I’d
like to thank the members of the GCLA/RABR research team;
Dr. Dorothy Anderson, Dr, Dr. Frank Sondergaard Jensen, Dr.
Yu-fai Leung, and fellow graduate students Ryan Scavo and
Doug Lowthian for the great teamwork involved in the overall
project. I would like to thank Ms. Rosemary Sucec, the
Cultural Resource Program Manager at GCLA/RABR, for her
insights into her visitor community, her help in selecting
sites to conduct research, and her willingness to support
the project at any and all times and in any way as well as
the NPS respondents who took time out of their busy
schedules to speak with me. Finally I would like to thank
my wife, Karen, for her support, encouragement, and
x
CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT NOTICE...................................iii
ABSTRACT............................................iv
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS....................................vii
LIST OF TABLES......................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES....................................xii
INTRODUCTION........................................15
Impacts from Recreational Activity.................19
Primary Cultural Resource Protection Research......21
Objectives of Web 2.0 Study........................23
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................25
Factors That Influence Visitor Behavior at GLCA/RABR
...................................................25
Societal Norms.....................................27
Community Norms....................................28
What Is Community?.................................29
Web 2.0-Facilitated Community Engagement...........31
Activity Theory....................................35
National Park Service Perspective..................44
METHODOLOGY.........................................48
The Netnographic Study Element.....................49
Netnographic Data Collection Process Detail......53
Interview Study Element............................58
Interview Process Detail.........................59
Interview Plan...................................61
Interview Questions..............................62
Data Analysis......................................64
Netnographic Data Analysis.......................64
Interview Data Analysis..........................65
RESULTS.............................................67
Data Coding Results................................68
Theme 1: Managers actively employed visitor use management
strategies and tactics to protect park archeological, cultural, historical,
and natural resources..................................72
Strategies and Tactics Used to Address Visitor-
Caused Impacts...................................73
Theme 2: The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media
applications to engage their communities of interest............77
Social Media Applications Used and Their Strategic
Purposes.........................................78
Respondent’s Perception of Constraints Limiting
Social Media Application.........................80
Respondent’s Perceptions of Social Media
Effectiveness....................................84
Facebook Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic
Study............................................86
Twitter Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic
Study............................................95
Park Use of Social Media to Engage Visitors in
Monitoring Programs.............................100
Theme 3: Internet-based communities of interest have formed that are
focused on the parks...................................104
Intentional Community...........................104
Extended Intentional Community..................111
Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.....................113
DISCUSSION.........................................123
Intentional Community.............................123
Extended Intentional Community....................125
Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.......................127
Recommendations...................................131
CONCLUSION.........................................137
REFERENCES.........................................141
APPENDIX A: GLCA/RABR PORTENTIAL INTERVIEW LIST. . . .147
VITA...............................................149
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Aspects of Community in Literature........15
Table 2. The Netnographic Research Process.........35
Table 3. Sites Selected for Netnographic Study.. . . .36
Table 4. Data Elements Collected By Application Type.
....................................................37
Table 5. Interview Respondents.....................43
Table 6. Data Segments, Coding Categories, Concepts,
and Themes..........................................53
Table 7. Visitor Use Management Tactics............57
Table 8. Sites Mapped to Intentional Community.. . . .88
Table 9. Number of Sites in Extended Community.. . . .95
Table 10. Sites Mapped to Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.
....................................................97
Table 11. Mapping Community Structure to Netnographic
Study Data.........................................111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. The Social Network Spiral................20
Figure 4. Links to Social Media Applications from Park
NPS Home Page.......................................38
Figure 5. Data Collection from Park Facebook Page.. 39
Figure 6. Date of DEWA's First Facebook Post.......40
Figure 7. Using Facebook Search Function to Locate
Facebook Sites......................................41
Figure 8. Flickr Search Function Result............42
Figure 9. Linkage Between Park Facebook Page and
External Organizations..............................49
Figure 10. An Interpretive Facebook Post...........70
Figure 11. An Educational Facebook Post............71
Figure 12. Facebook Used for Visitor Engagement.. . .72
Figure 13. Facebook Used to Reach Out to the
Community...........................................73
Figure 14. Facebook Used for Outreach to Underserved
Audiences...........................................74
Figure 15. Facebook Used to Provide General
Information and Promote Safety......................75
Figure 16. Facebook Used to Publicize Resource
Protection Efforts..................................76
Figure 17. Facebook Used to Foster Resource Protective
Attitudes and Behavior..............................77
Figure 18. Facebook Used to Promote Photo Sharing.. 78
Figure 19. Twitter Used to Provide Interpretive
Opportunities.......................................79
Figure 20. Twitter Used to Promote Educational
Outcomes............................................80
Figure 21. Twitter Used to Engage in Outreach to
Underserved Audiences...............................80
Figure 22. Twitter Used to Announce an Event.......81
Figure 23. Twitter Used to Convey General Information.
....................................................81
Figure 24. Twitter Used to Convey Safety Information.
....................................................82
Figure 25. Twitter Used to Engage Visitors Directly.
....................................................82
Figure 26. Monitoring Program Invitation...........84
Figure 27. Visitor Resource Monitoring Facebook Post.
....................................................85
Figure 28. Instagram Post Showing a Mountain Goat.. 86
Figure 29. Flickr Post Showing Seasonal Staff......86
Figure 30. NOCA Facebook Community Page............90
Figure 31. A Typical Facebook Posting..............91
Figure 32. Facebook Posting from External Community
Members.............................................92
Figure 33. Facebook Picture Sharing................93
Figure 34. BICA Twitter Community Page.............94
Figure 35. GRTE Extended Community linkages........96
Figure 36. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.. .99
Figure 37. Flickr Image Sharing Community.........100
Figure 38. YouTube Video Sharing Community........101
Figure 39. Pinterest Discovery Application........101
Figure 40. Tumblr Blogging Community..............102
Figure 41. Intentional Community Structure........106
Figure 42. Extended Intentional Community.........108
Figure 43. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.. 109
Figure 44. Intentional Community Recommendations.. 116
Figure 45. Extended Intentional Community
Recommendations....................................117
Figure 46. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community
Recommendations....................................118
INTRODUCTION
Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area
(GLCA) is a place of stark beauty, powerful landscapes and
thousands of acres of clear deep water. In the midst of a
harsh desert landscape, it offers visitors’ opportunities
for swimming, boating, water skiing, fishing, wake boarding,
kayaking and other water-based recreational activities. The
lake provides easy access to the formerly relatively
inaccessible Rainbow Bridge National Monument (RABR). It is
a place of many contrasts: the reds and tans of the desert
rock and the deep blue and green water; the heat and arid
climate in contrast to the abundance of water; its
wilderness character, remote location and virtually
inaccessible canyons juxtaposed with the motorized, semi-
urban nature of much of the water and shoreline recreation
at the park. A 2007 visitor survey reported that 43% of
visitors had been to the park more than 3 times in their
lifetime (Holmes, Manni, Eury, & Hollenhorst, 2007). This
repeat visitation indicates a possible sense of ownership
and attachment among a significant portion of its users.
Lake users and entrepreneurs have invested millions of
dollars in boats and commercial infrastructure to facilitate
recreating on and temporarily inhabiting Lake Powell and
GLCA/RABR. Despite this sense of ownership and attachment,
there is a reported lack of stewardship behavior among
members of the boating population at the recreation area
(Various park staff, personal and research team interviews,
December 2011).
The history of recreational boater use in the Glen
Canyon and Lake Powell area is not long. The first
expeditions into the area in the late 1800’s mainly saw the
river as an obstacle to travel rather than a destination
unto its own. John Wesley Powell’s 1869 expedition, which
gave us the name “Glen Canyon,” was the first to travel the
length of the river corridor rather than just crossing it
(Powell, 2008). His journals painted a picture of beauty and
enchantment, but the remote location and lack of
infrastructure prohibited frequent travel in the area until
well into the next century.
In the 1930s, recreational travel began in earnest on
the Colorado River; however, for the most part visitation
occurred downstream from Glen Canyon and up two Colorado
River tributaries known as the San Juan and Escalante
Rivers. Rafters did begin to float downstream through Glen
Canyon from Hite and Bullfrog to Lees Ferry and points
beyond. Future Senator and Presidential contender Barry
Goldwater rafted Glen Canyon in 1940. He also ran a lodge at
the roadway entering the Rainbow Bridge National Monument
(RABR) for a time. He would later write,
While Glen Canyon dam has created the most beautiful lake in the world and brought millions of dollars to my state and the state of Utah, I think of that river as I saw it as a boy. And thatis the way I would like to see it again.
Though the late Senator’s longings for the wild river were
passionate, it is telling that while at a rest stop near the
Utah-Arizona state line on his 1940 rafting expedition, he
took the occasion to carve his name in the sandstone. He and
others of his generation were predecessors for the many
thousands who would etch their names in sandstone or paint
them on canyon walls, beginning the widespread problem of
graffiti in GLCA and RABR today (Farmer, 1999).
The character of Glen Canyon recreation and tourism
took a decidedly sharp turn in 1963. Prior to the
construction of the dam, recreational use of the river
corridor was limited to the intrepid few, those who floated
in army surplus inflatable rafts down the river or those who
pushed up river by outboard motor from Lees Ferry to Bridge
Canyon or up the San Juan River. After Lake Powell was
created, thousands and eventually millions of visitors
embarked upon houseboats, personal watercraft, all manners
of powerboats, and to a lesser extent, human-powered craft,
to explore the largest lake in the west. Figure 1 provides a
map of Glen Canyon and Lake Powell as they exist today. From
the early 1960s onward, Glen Canyon was primarily regarded
as a lake created for recreational use, water storage, and
hydro-electrical power generation rather than a canyon that
was drowned to satisfy our seemingly insatiable appetite for
water and energy in the arid southwest (Farmer, 1999).
Impacts from Recreational Activity
Visitor impacts to resources are a significant issue
along the shorelines of Lake Powell at the GLCA/RABR, units
of the National Park Service (NPS) stretching across
southern Utah, into northern Arizona. With an estimated
1,900 miles of shoreline, the lake provides boater access to
many of the culturally significant areas managed by the
park, such as archeological and paleontological sites like
Descending Sheep Panel and Three Roof Ruin (National Park
Service).
The park has experienced a continual flux in visitation
since opening for public use in 1972, with annual
recreational visitation averaging over two million since
2010 –many of which occurring as recreational boating on
Lake Powell (NPS). Similar to other Utah recreation areas,
motorboat use is the primary form of recreation on Lake
Powell (NPS). In fact, the 2010 Utah State Boating Strategic
Plan highlights that, although registered boater numbers
have remained consistent over the past ten years
(approximately 70,000 registered vessels annually), boating
areas have not increased, thus large numbers of boaters
compete for limited resources (lakes, rivers, etc.).
Visitors to Lake Powell access is available at monitored
marinas including Wahweap, Antelope Point, Dangling Rope,
Halls Crossing, and Bullfrog as well as a launch site in the
Hite District (National Park Service, n.d.) However, once on
the water, visitor activity monitoring declines
significantly, including at sites included in this study.
The vastness of the recreation area combined with the
seemingly unregulated visitor accessibility yet limited
availability of on-site patrol or law enforcement staff has
significant implications for the rich cultural and natural
resources located along Lake Powell. As a result, in recent
years, GLCA/RABR has experienced significant resource
degradation issues ranging from looting and theft of
artifacts to extensive graffiti and overall site vandalism
caused by non-compliant behavior.
Historically, the NPS has responded to an array of
visitor impacts caused by non-compliant behavior. This
behavior is defined by Sharpe and Johnson, respectively, as
“any act that detracts from the social or physical
environment” and minor rule-breaking behavior or failures to
comply with minimum impact regulations (e.g. off-trail
hiking, souvenir collecting, feeding wild animals, and
littering” (Anderson, Lime, & Wang, 1998). In a mid-1990s
service wide survey, Anderson notes that park managers
estimated visitor impacts caused by non-compliant behavior
cost millions of dollars annually – with “historical sites
suffer[ing] the most damage” of all (Anderson et al., 1998).
Thus, GCLA/RABR’s compliancy and visitor impact issues are
not an anomaly. However, even in the face of non-compliancy
issues, land management agencies, like the NPS, are still
required to diligently work toward fulfilling their agency
mission. For the NPS, this is to (NPS Management Policies,
2006):
Promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks…to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. (p. 10)
Moreover, as stated in the park’s enabling legislation,
GLCA/RABR must also “provide for public outdoor recreation
use and enjoyment of Lake Powell…and to preserve scenic,
scientific, and historical features” (Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area Enabling Legislation). Consequently, as
resource degradation continues, fulfilling the park mission
will prove increasingly difficult.
Primary Cultural Resource Protection Research
In 2011 the management of GLCA/RABR engaged a research
team to provide managers with a strategy for protecting
cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake Powell. The team
consisted of professorial staff from Stephen F. Austin State
University, North Carolina State University, and the
University of Copenhagen as well as both graduate and
undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State
University.
GCLA/RABR management divided Lake Powell into three
main units, Lee’s Ferry, Wahweap and Bullfrog. The Lee’s
Ferry unit includes that portion of the Colorado River that
lies below the Glen Canyon dam. The Wahweap unit includes
Wahweap bay and the area between the Glen Canyon dam and the
Bullfrog marina. The Bullfrog unit includes Bullfrog Bay and
the area above Bullfrog marina.
While GLCA/RABR possesses management plans, all were
written between the 1970s and 1990s. Since that time threats
have changed and priorities have shifted. Across the
country, existing, disparate research provides guidance on
lakeshore site protection, but no overarching, synthetic
report exists on the best practices that constitute a
protection strategy, and that simultaneously anticipates the
next 40 years of park management at GLCA/RABR.
The research team reviewed and built upon current
literature and surveyed field experts to identify the most
effective methods for protecting cultural sites from adverse
or unacceptable impacts. The review included: (a) an
examination of literature specific to visitor/boater impacts
to cultural sites located along lakeshores; (b) contact with
lakeshore recreation areas, whether federal (like other NPS
units) or state, to identify their strategies for site
protection; (c) an examination of the value of tactics, such
as educational programs, interpretive media, camera
surveillance, signage; site closure, the presence of
uniformed personnel, and site stewardship programs; (d) an
examination of the literature as it relates to boater
attitudes and perceptions; and (e) an examination of
innovative approaches to protect cultural resources. The
final deliverable included a written report that summarizes
the results of the literature review and outlines
recommendations for the effective protection and management
of lakeshore cultural sites at GLCA/RABR.
This primary research project spawned three ancillary
research projects focused on specific aspects of cultural
resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR
conducted by graduate students on the research team. The
first project focused on boater relationships with the
resource and management. The second focused on the types of
messages that will be most effective in countering non-
compliant behaviors by visitors. The third studied the
potential impact of Web 2.0 wireless technology and social
media applications to influence non-compliant visitor
behaviors with the objective of reducing impacts to cultural
and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.
Objectives of Web 2.0 Study
The purpose of this study was three-fold. The first
objective was to understand the experiences, perspectives
and/or beliefs of park managers regarding the use of Web 2.0
technology to protect cultural resources at their sites. For
example, the study explored NPS personnel’s perspectives on
how Web 2.0 technology has helped cultural resource
protection efforts at their site. Second, the study
investigated the extent and nature of the Web 2.0-based
communities that have formed that are focused NPS parks.
Third, the study provided recommendations for using Web 2.0
technology to protect cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.
In summary, the objectives of the research project were to:
1. Understand the experiences, perspectives and/or beliefs of park personnel regarding using Web 2.0 technology to protect cultural resources at their sites.
Explore whether Web 2.0 -based programs can influence visitor behaviors.
Explore whether Web 2.0 -based programs can foster a sense of community and alter communitynorms and behaviors.
2. Identify barriers and constraints that inhibit theeffective use of Web 2.0 technologies within the parks.
3. Provide recommendations for using Web 2.0 technology to protect cultural resources at GLCA/RABR.
The audience for this study is wide and diverse. Within
GLCA/RABR the audience includes staff engaged directly in
the protection of park cultural resources, such as senior
management, law enforcement staff, and cultural resource
staff as well as those involved indirectly, such as
interpretive and maintenance staff. Key non-NSP stakeholders
in the communities surrounding the park will also benefit
from this study. Key stakeholders include park
concessionaires, municipalities such as the city of Page,
Arizona, Native American groups, and friend organizations
engaged in protecting their particular resource of interest.
The study will also inform the wider community of
professionals engaged in cultural and natural resource
protection on both public and private lands as well as those
in academia focused on resource protection research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Factors That Influence Visitor Behavior at GLCA/RABR
Visitors to the GLCA/RABR face a variety of
restrictions that influence their decision making and
recreational behavior, such as constraints, societal norms,
and community norms. Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey (1991)
proposed a hierarchical model (Figure 2) of constraints for
leisure behaviors composed of three types of leisure
constraints: intrapersonal constraints, interpersonal
constraints, and structural constraints.
Intrapersonal constraints include self-appraisal of
skill level, stress levels, religious beliefs, and
appropriateness of an activity. Interpersonal constraints
result from interpersonal interaction and/or relationships
between individual’s characteristics. Structural constraints
include life stage, financial resources, time availability,
and season (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1987). According to
this model constraints are resolved in a hierarchical or
sequential manner. Intrapersonal constraints frame leisure
preferences. Once preferences are established an individual
must overcome any interpersonal constraints to engaging in
an activity. Finally, any and all structural constraints
need to be overcome before deciding to participate in any
given activity.
Figure 2. A Hierarchical Constraint Model for Leisure
Behavior.
However, several studies challenged Crawford’s
assertion that each constraint be encountered and resolved
serially before engaging in an activity. A study conducted
by Gilbert and Hudson (2004) found no evidence supporting
the idea that interpersonal constraints are encountered, and
must be overcome, before structural constraints. Chick and
Dong (2004) noted that Crawford’s hierarchical model was
tested primarily in countries with a western culture and may
not be applicable universally. To integrate these findings
into a leisure constraint model Kimm (2009) proposed three
separate models which account for the nature of the society
IntrapersonalConstraints
InterpersonalConstraints
StructuralConstraints
ActivityParticipation
Interpersonal Com patibility &Coordination
LeisurePreferences
Overcom e Overcom e
in which an activity is performed and allowing constraints
to work independently of each other as well
interdependently. From these models he concludes that
leisure constraints can be highly interactive and can
function in complimentary or interdependent ways and can
vary significantly across cultures.
Societal Norms
Societal norms provide an impetus for individuals to
perform, or not perform, specific behaviors in specific
contexts and can be defined as promoting behavior that
benefits the group and prohibiting behavior that harms the
group. The literature describes two main types of norms,
descriptive and injunctive. Descriptive norms are typical
patterns of behavior generally accompanied by the
expectation that people will behave according to the
pattern. Injunctive norms are rules specifying behaviors in
which persons ought (or ought not) to engage. Both
descriptive and injunctive norms are usually communicated
informally and emerge from everyday social interaction,
rather than enforced by the justice system or other formal
authority (Kitts & Chiang, 2008). Norms often include
enforcement as part of their definition. Visitors who
violate norms run the risk of punishment while those who
comply may earn rewards. Punishments can be internal or
informal. Internal punishments are the feelings people have
when they know their behavior has been consistent (pride,
guiltlessness) or inconsistent (guilt, shame) with a
societal obligation. Informal punishments are reactions to
rewards (admiration) or punishments (embarrassment) from
significant others. The social power of any given norm is a
function of the interaction between the expectations about
behavioral standards and/or obligations and the costs or
benefits associated with the behavior. In a study of non-
compliant behavior (littering) in a park setting Heywood and
Murdock (2002) found a high level of obligation to not
litter associated with high expectations of informal
sanctions from significant others. More significantly, the
study also found a strong correlation between the social
obligation not to litter and the observed litter condition
of a park.
Community Norms
Communities play an important role in enforcing
societal norms and can be more effective that regulatory
measures targeting non-compliant behaviors. In a study of
attitudes toward natural resource management practices
Harrington (2008) found that community networks and local
organizations are immensely important for community cohesion
and knowledge transfer, and both individuals and groups can
act as surrogate extension officers and models for better
conservation practices. Community organizations can
facilitate the emergence and maintenance of norms that will
predispose individuals to cooperate while regulation can
work against the emergence of trust and voluntary
cooperative behavior, which have been shown to decline as
state intervention increases (Horne, 2000). In addition,
cooperation that is the result of externally imposed rules
can disappear very quickly (Ostrom, 2000). In a study of
ethical behaviors in the legal profession, Wendel (2001)
found that informal customs and norms held by the legal
community can be as important as legal punishments.
Community norms that motivate individuals to behave in a
certain way are more likely to result in long-term
commitment to desired outcomes (Minato, Curtis, & Allan,
2010).
Community norms create expectations about how people
should act but they need to be maintained by constant
interaction and the knowledge that others are behaving as
expected (Minato, Curtis, & Allan, 2010). Enhancing the
visibility of behaviors that will produce desired outcomes
may be an effective strategy to promote new norms and to
increase the likelihood that non-cooperators will be
punished (Minato, Curtis, & Allan, 2010). Cohesive groups
are more effective in enforcing community norms. Studies
show that in cohesive communities, people express greater
willingness to punish those who engage in deviant behavior
(Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) and one reason for
higher levels of order in cohesive groups is that deviance
is more likely to be punished in such groups (Homans, 1961).
What Is Community?
MacQueen (2001) defines community as “a group of people
with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties,
common perspectives, and engage in joint action in
geographical locations or settings” and identifies three
aspects of community as follows:
Table 1. Aspects of Community in Literature.
ASPECTS DESCRIPTION
Community as place. Physical location, workplace, suburb, neighborhood.
Community as social system.
Community networks, social bonds,and interactions between people.
Community as interest-based groups.
Heterogeneous groups of people who share needs, tasks, occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations.
Of the three aspects listed community as interest-based
groups is the most applicable to this study.
A critical aspect of community is the “sense of
community” defined as “a feeling that members have of
belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and
to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be
met through their commitment to be together (McMillan &
Chavis, 1986). Four elements contribute to a shared sense of
community:
Community membership. Defined by the five dimensionsof boundaries, emotional safety, a sense of identification, personal investment, and a common symbol system.
Influence. A bidirectional attribute where members of the group must feel empowered to have influence over what a group does, and group cohesiveness depends upon the group having some influence over its members.
Integration and need fulfillment. Members of a groupare seen as being rewarded in various ways for theirparticipation.
Shared emotional connection. Characterized by greater personal interaction, quality of the interaction, closure to events, importance of group events, personal investment of group, effect of honor and humiliation on group members, and spiritual bonding.
White and Hendee (2000) found that outdoor and
wilderness settings, such as those found at the
GLCA/RABR, provide excellent opportunities for community
formation in that these environments typically allow for
the formation of shared goals, facilitate sense-making of
personal and community identity, and create communities
that are often reflective of society at large.
Web 2.0-Facilitated Community Engagement
Since the introduction of the first commercial web
browser, NetScape, in 1994 the internet has fundamentally
altered the way in which people communicate with each other,
obtain information, and interact with public and private
organizations. Chang, and Kannan (2008) identified four
types of communities enabled by Web 1.0 technologies. The
first, transaction communities, were limited to textual
interaction among community users, with the community
organizer focused on providing content to users and
controlling the interactions; primarily facilitating the
buying and selling of products and services. Second,
interest-oriented communities evolved to serve specific
communities of interest. Members had significantly higher
degrees of interaction than in a community of transactions,
and the interactions were usually on topics of concern, such
as financial planning and medical conditions. The third type
of community was a fantasy-oriented community where users
role-played. For example, some online applications created
fantasy environments in which groups of users could
interact. The fourth type involved community of
relationships built around certain life experiences that are
usually intense and lead to personal bonding between
members.
The introduction of affordable broadband wireless
technologies untethered internet access and provided access
to information and services independent of location. The
emergence of social networking applications (termed Web 2.0)
enabled the creation of global communities centered on
shared experience and interests. Widespread Web 2.0
technologies include “social networking” applications like
Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, wikis, blogs, video
sharing, and social bookmarking (e.g., Pintrest). Podcasts
available through iTunes and YouTube videos allow
individuals and groups to provide detailed audio and video
information to clients asynchronously, while webcams provide
information in real time, web logs (blogs) allow visitors to
create content relevant to their experiences. Musiał and
Karizonaienko (2009) identified categories of Web 2.0 social
networking communities created to address common interests
including:
1. General interest – Facebook, Friendster2. Dating – Yahoo! Personals, Match.com, eHarmony,
Christian Mingle3. School alumni – Classmates.com4. Professionals – LinkedIn;5. Scientists – SciSpace.net, Epernicus, ResearchGate6. Artists –Taltopia;7. Activists – Care2, WiserEarth;8. Politics – dol2day;9. Fantasy– Elftown;10. Teenagers – Piczo, Faces.com, Habbo;11. Mobile communities – itsmy, MocoSpace12. Religion– MyChurch
13. Customers – Yelp, Inc., Epinions.com;14. Endurance athletes – athlinks.
This is a small sample of the classes of Web 2.0-based
communities existing on the internet. Currently no practical
limit on the nature or size of Web 2.0-based communities
exists and many examples of both very large communities and
what are termed “micro-communities” can be found.
Web 2.0 extended the capabilities of the Web 1.0
infrastructure in the following significant ways:
Users can create and exchange their own content.
Adds the mobility component to the infrastructure allowing content providers to engage end users at the time and place of theirchoosing as well as through the device of theirchoosing.
These factors significantly enhance the content provider’s
ability to engage the end user and create self-sustaining
virtual communities.
The unique characteristics of Web 2.0-enabled
communities results in deeper community engagement in a
variety of ways. Gunawardena, Hermans, Sanchez, Richmond,
Bohley, and Tuttle (2009) proposed a theoretical framework
within which social networking tools can be used for
building online communities of practice. Using a wiki as the
core social networking tool, the authors proposed a six
stage process of collective intelligence development used as
part of the community building process (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The Social Network Spiral.
1. Context. The process of collective intelligence creation in social networking environments begins in context, the context of the site and the context of individuals using the site.
2. Discourse. Discourse shapes community meaning. A common culture is formed as participants bring their life experience, knowledge, and insights to the group through discourse.
3. Action. The process of developing socially-mediated cognition. For example, community membersidentify a goal and through social media tool use connect with others that share the goal.
4. Reflection. The interaction of personal experienceand group thinking. This phase focuses on the consideration and integration of unfamiliar pointsof view.
5. Reorganization. A process through which community members adjust meanings and content within the social networking environment characterized by thesynthesis of historic and novel perspectives.
6. Socially mediated metacognition. A level of community understanding arrived at by offering one’s thoughts to others for inspection, and acting as a critic of one’s partner’s thinking.
Activity Theory
This study drew upon activity theory to assess the
potential impact of social media applications on cultural
resource protection. The primary characteristics of activity
theory that distinguishes it from other behavioral theories,
such as the theory of planned behavior, is that activity
theory considers an entire work/activity system (including
teams and organizations.) beyond a single actor. Activity
theory attempts to account for environment, history of the
person, culture, motivations, and the complexity of real
life activity that shapes a person’s actions. The unit of
analysis in activity theory is the concept of object-
oriented, collective and culturally mediated human activity,
or activity system (Nardi, 1995). Also, activity theory is
not predictive. Rather, it provides a framework for
identifying all key components of an activity system and the
interdependencies and influences acting on an activity
system. Figure 4 describes a generic activity system in
which two independent subjects or communities are
interacting with a common set of objects.
Figure 4. A Generic Activity Diagram.
Subject Subject
RulesRules Com m unity Com m unityDivisionOf
Labor
DivisionOf
Labor
M ediatingArtifacts
M ediatingArtifactsObject 1
Object 2
The components of an activity system are defined as follows
(Engestrom, 1999):
Object-oriented - the objective of the activity system. Object refers to the objectivity of the reality; items are considered objective according to natural sciences but also have social and cultural properties.
Subject or internalization - actors engaged in theactivities or the traditional notion of mental processes.
Community or externalization - social context; allactors involved in the activity system.
Tools or tool mediation - the artifacts (or concepts) used by actors in the system. Tools influence actor-structure interactions, they change with accumulating experience. In addition to physical shape, the knowledge also evolves. Tools are influenced by culture, and their use is a way for the accumulation and transmission of
social knowledge. Tools influence both the agents and the structure.
Division of labor - social strata, hierarchical structure of activity, the division of activities among actors in the system.
Rules - conventions, guidelines and rules regulating activities in the system
Activity theory recognizes that individual behaviors do
not occur in a vacuum, are dependent upon the context within
which the behaviors occur, and result from an interaction
between the subject performing the activity, the object upon
which an activity is performed, and mediating artifacts
(Engestrom, 1999).
Activity theory intersects the social media spiral at
the action component in that the activities defined and
undertaken using available tools within the various
activity systems result in socially mediated cognition.
Overlaying GCLA/RABR staff and the boater community on
this generic model illustrates the interaction between two
subject communities: park staff and boaters (Figure 5). In
reality, there are many more communities interacting with
the common set of objects, such as the City of Page,
Arizona, boat rental agencies, Native American groups, and
the Bureau of Reclamation. Each would be represented by a
separate triangle in Figure 5. In this diagram, object two
represents the GLCA/RABR resource base as seen from the
perspective of the representative communities.
Figure 5. A Simple GLCA/RABR Activity Diagram.
Park Staff Boaters
NationalPark ServiceNorm s
LegislationPark RulesNPS Rules
M anagem entLaw Enforcem entInterpretationArcheology
ConstraintsSocial Norm s
Law Enforcem entInterpretive Program s
M onitor & Reporting ToolsGLCA ResourcesPark Perspective
GLCA ResourcesBoater Perspective
Park/BoaterPerspectiveOverlap
Park RulesIndividual ConstraintsSocial Norm s
BoatingCom m unityNorm s
ConstraintsSocial Norm s
Park RegulationsLaw Enforcem ent
Signage
OperatorsM arinas
Rental Agencies
From a park staff perspective the resources include the
totality of the GLCA/RABR region including Lake Powell,
geologic features, biological features, paleontological
features, archeological, cultural, and historical features,
and viewscapes. From a boating community perspective the
resources include Lake Powell, lake-related recreational
features, and, to a lesser extent, the broader features
defined by the park staff perspective. One area of overlap
between the two groups is the cultural, archeological, and
historical resources found in the park (object 2). Even
though the two subject groups overlap in this area, each
brings their own perspective to the cultural resource base
found within the park. This particular intersection is the
focal point of this research project.
The activities performed by the park staff are largely
defined by the federal regulations under which they operate
as well as derivative park regulations. The boater community
is constrained by park regulations as well. In addition, the
boater community is constrained by social norms and
individual values which mediate individual activities such
as vandalism, littering, and noise levels.
Mediating tools are those elements which define and/or
constrain the interaction between the subjects (park staff
and boaters) and the objects (GLCA/RABR cultural resources).
NPS regulations and applicable federal legislation guide
park staff activities. For illustrative purposes, tools at
their disposal would include the various monitoring and
reporting tools developed to aide in the fulfillment of NSP
regulations as well as external tools such as the Visitor
Experience Resource Protection (VERP) framework. Boaters, in
turn, are constrained by park rules and regulations as well
as law enforcement. Both the NPS and boater communities are
influenced by specific constraints (intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and structural) as well as societal and
community norms of behavior. Interpretive programming can be
used to alter the constraints and norms that guide group and
individual behaviors within the park. The focus of a Web
2.0-based intervention program would be to engage the key
individual stakeholders and communities as defined within an
activity framework to alter perceptions of acceptable
behavior relative to cultural resources within GLCA/RABR.
Many studies have been conducted to assess the
acceptance of internet technology and applications to
disseminate information to existing and potential clients in
a commercial context. Thackeray, Neiger, Hanson, and
McKensie (2009) assert that Web 2.0 technologies enhance
promotional activities dramatically by engaging the client
directly in the process through content creation and
sharing, networking, and bookmarking. Wright and Hinson
(2008) found that social networking technologies are an
effective compliment to traditional information
dissemination techniques and have changed the way
organizations engage external audiences. Leppaniemi and
Karjalouto (2005) found that consumers were willing to
accept mobile advertising using SMS technology (similar to
Twitter) as long as consumers have a choice (advertising
should allow users to decide whether or not to receive
messages), users remain in control (users could bypass sales
messages easily), users can customize what they receive
(users should be able to filter the messages received), and
there is a mutual benefit (users want to get something
back).
Government agencies at all levels of government have
been quick to adopt Web 2.0 capabilities to improve the
level of service provided to citizens. A survey of the
political entities governing Texas Congressional district
three shows that all maintain an internet presence through
web pages as well as provide collaborative services through
applications such as Facebook and Twitter. Osmo (2008) found
that Web 2.0 technologies can change perceptions of
governmental agencies by making access simpler and user-
friendly as well as making government activities more
transparent, participative, and inclusive. Chang and Kannan
(2008) found that citizens are willing to interact with
government agencies provided that these agencies “meet the
user where they are” and do not require users to seek out
government information portals.
Nonprofit organizations are changing how they
communicate with their stakeholders (Greenberg & MacAulay,
2009). A 2010 study of 409 non-profit organizations found
that 99% used some form of social media including email
(97.8%), Web 2.0 collaborative applications (54.5%), video
sharing (51.1%), and blogs (48.4%) (Curtis, Edwards, Fraser,
Gudelsky, Holmquist, Thornton, & Sweetser, 2010). The
objectives for social media use include fundraising,
relationship cultivation, communication of strategy and
events, press releases, and campaign status as well as
providing real time networking and sharing between
stakeholders (Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009).
Like government agencies advocacy groups have
discovered the power of Web 2.0 technologies to facilitate
civic engagement and collective action. The strategic use of
social media applications by these groups fall into four
categories; collaboration via cost-effective broadcast
capabilities, publication through inexpensive content
creation and distribution through e-publishing applications,
mobilization through peer-to-peer decentralized
communications, and observation through image and video
creation and dissemination. (Surman & Reilly, 2003). In a
study of fifty three public advocacy groups, Obar, Zube, and
Lampe (2012) found that social media facilitates engagement
and action by strengthening outreach efforts, enabling
dialogs between the group and its constituents and the
general public, as well as enhancing collective action
efforts through an increased speed and reach of
communication. Robelia, Greenhow, and Burton (2011) found
that participation in a community of like-minded users via
social networking technologies spurred participants to learn
more about environmental issues and pursue mitigation
through personal and public engagement. Social media
technologies are also viewed as a cost effective way to
accomplish more in an era of declining donations.
Social networking applications have seen wide
acceptance in the health care industry. Web 2.0 technologies
have enabled a patient driven healthcare model where
patients engage physicians directly concerning aspects of
their healthcare regime, research disease processes and
treatment options directly, maintain their own healthcare
records, and engage with emotional support and information
exchange groups (Swan, 2009). A 2010 study found that over
700 of the nation’s hospitals have a social media and social
networking presence to enhance their ability to market
services and communicate to stakeholders (Deloitte, 2010).
60% of surveyed physicians and 65 % of surveyed nurses
expressed interest in using social networks for professional
purposes.
The tourism industry has embraced Web 2.0 applications
both as a means of information dissemination and monitoring
visitor attitudes towards and evaluations of tourism
locations. Web 2.0 technologies enable Internet users to
become the co-producers, the co-designers, the co-marketers
and the co-distributors of tourism experiences and services
(Sigala, 2007). They do this by formulating and posting
opinions on hotels, travel destinations, tourist service
organizers and agents and participating in discussion on
tourism-related issues. (Kopera, 2009). Thevenot (2007)
notes the importance of blogging in the tourism industry as
a way to engage clients directly, disseminate promotional
information, take and respond to customer feedback, and
respond to negative comments. In a study conducted in 2011
at various park locations in and around San Francisco,
California, Knackmuhs (2011) found that social media
applications had the potential to impact interpretive
outcomes and place attachment.
Recognizing of the importance of establishing a
presence on the internet, the GLCA/RABR maintains a web site
tied the National Park Service’s main web site that provides
basic, standardized information about the area. While
GLCA/RABR does maintain a presence on Facebook and YouTube,
the park does not maintain a presence on collaborative
social networking sites such Twitter. As a result, the park
can be said to maintain a passive posture regarding visitor
engagement; relying on visitors to initiate contact with the
park.
Many other individuals and organizations have
established Web 2.0-based sites focused on the GLCA/RABR
area, providing general information, feedback on the area
and available activities, serving as public sites for
advocacy groups, commercial sites for area businesses, and
providing a forum for GLCA/RABR visitors. Some of the sites
include:
Glen Canyon Institute, whose mission is to restore a healthy Colorado River through GlenCanyon and the Grand Canyon.
The Glen Canyon Natural History Association, whose mission is to support and fund education, research, interpretation, and visitor services within the public lands on the Colorado Plateau.
Glen Canyon Dam Dismantlers, whose mission isto remove Glen Canyon dam entirely to restorethe free flow of the Colorado River through Glen Canyon and The Grand Canyon.
Wayne's Words, a bulletin board focusing on GLCA/RABR area allowing users to exchange information, ask questions, and offer items for sale.
National Park Service Perspective
Recent NPS activities reinforce the importance of
improving the technology infrastructure for park
concessionaires and visitors. In September of 2012 the
National Park Hospitality Association (NPHA) petitioned the
Director of the National Park Service to issue a Director’s
Order defining a clear national strategy on cell and
internet connectivity in parks. In response, the NPS
proposed a pilot effort in five parks to evaluate the
efficacy of the following goals (National Park Hospitality
Association, 2012):
Provide a basic level of non-fee internet access at all major, developed visitor areas in the national park system.
Provide basic cell phone service at all majorvisitor areas in national park units, as well
as along most roads and at major sites such as trailheads.
Deliver timely, park-focused information within national parks through smart phones, tablets and computers.
Give individual parks discretion on where cell phone service is available, and whether the service provides full or emergency-only service.
Identify and employ best available and practical technologies that minimize visual impacts of cell and internet access systems.
Create special gateway zones at park entry points using downloadable data to replace both low-power radio systems and printed material hand-outs.
Design a system that is financially sustainable, generating revenues adequate to install, maintain and upgrade internet access. To do this, concessioners are offeredthe opportunity to develop and operate these systems, either individually or through a collaborative venture with other concessioners.
Offer additional bandwidth where possible to park visitors on a fee basis.
Coordinate efforts of the NPS, concessioners and friend organizations to create official park apps which can be readily downloaded to all major mobile channels, and which work to
aid park visits, even when not connected to the internet, through GPS and other technologies.
In 2012 the Technology Subcommittee of the National
Park System Advisory drafted a white paper focused on the
existing and aspirational use of technology within the
national park system to provide virtual services to park
visitors (National Park System Advisory Board Education
Committee, 2012). The study sought to answer three
questions:
What is the current state of technology within NPS?
What should be the basic virtual services for NPS?
What should be the NPS’s aspirations virtual services?
The purpose of the study was to inform park management on
technology-enabled visitor services that can:
Deepen and extend place-based learning.
Give voice to diverse communities and perspectives.
Provide many paths to access the park experience.
Deepen personal connections and connectivity.
Visualize abstract concepts.
At the conclusion of the white paper, the authors
recommend a suite of baseline and aspirational services to
be considered for implementation within the national parks.
The baseline capabilities include:
Partial WIFI/cell phone access in parks.
Leverage technology NPS already has e.g., webpages, Facebook pages.
Every project planned with mobile in mind.
Employee professional development opportunities via and regarding tech.
NPS maintain analytics and report out on techuse.
Encourage the use of the new educational portal.
Designated Tweeting/social media Park Ranger (shared between parks)
Communication by NPS of technology resources to general public.
Aspirational capabilities recommended by the authors
include:
Develop NPS mobile learning strategy.
Develop an exemplar of mobile technology tools for learning.
Stimulate thematic collaboration across parks.
Support technology development.
Develop a framework for emerging technologiesfor learning.
Deploy technology that supports large-scale data collection from park users.
METHODOLOGY
For this study I chose to take a mixed method approach
using two research techniques; netnography and telephone
interviews. The netnographic element of the study involved a
detailed investigation of the social media use of 23 NPS
parks. I selected the study sites based on three criteria;
the presence of cultural resources, the presence of
archeological resources, and the presence of recreational
water within the park. While the main focus was on national
recreation areas, I also included national parks and
national historical parks in the study to broaden the scope
of responses. The netnographic process involved visiting the
NPS home page and the various social media applications used
by each park, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Fickr,
YouTube, Tumblr, and Pinterest. For Facebook I collected the
page inception date and the number of “likes”. For twitter I
collected the page inception date, the number of followers,
and the number of tweets sent by the park. For Instagram,
Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr, and Pinterest I collected a simple
yes or no if the site contained any reference to the park
under study. If the park’s NPS home page did not contain a
link to Facebook or Twitter, I used my personal Facebook and
Twitter home page to search for the parks under study using
the embedded search features. If the search was successful,
I navigated from the search results to the Facebook and
Twitter pages to collect the information. I used the search
functions embedded in Instagram, Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr,
and Pinterest to determine if any content referencing the
park in question was present.
With the guidance of the Cultural Resource Program
Manager at GCLA/RABR, I compiled a list of potential parks
to conduct interviews. From this list I selected two initial
sites to conduct interviews, Amistad NRA (AMIS) and Bighorn
Canyon NRA (BICA). Both sites contain extensive cultural or
archeological resources and recreational water that sustains
heavy use. I identified the potential respondents by
contacting the park superintendent at each of the two parks
using email. I identified myself and the purpose of my
communication and study and asked for the superintendent’s
recommendations for interviewees. In response I received
either a direct response from the superintendent or a
response from the staff member designated for an interview.
I conducted the interviews via telephone. If more than one
respondent was present at the park I used speakerphone
technology so all respondents could be a part of the
conversation at the same time. In one case the respondents
were in different locations. In this case I used
teleconferencing technology to join all parties in the
conversation. At the end of each interview I asked each
respondent to recommend additional parks and or people to
interview. Based on their feedback I selected an additional
five parks to contact which resulted in an additional seven
respondents using the same process described above.
The Netnographic Study Element
Kozinets (2002) defines netnography as “an interpretive
method devised specifically to investigate the behaviors of
cultures an communities present on the internet”.
Netnography provides a structured approach (Table 2) to the
study of complex internet-based interactions between
communities and individuals within communities.
Table 2. The Netnographic Research Process.
Using
purposeful
sampling
techniques I
identified 22
sites for
netnographic
RESEARCH ELEMENT DESCRIPTIONResearch Planning Problem Definition
Research objectivesResearch questions
EntréeEntry into the communityGetting to know the players
Data Collection ArchivedElicitedField notes
Data AnalysisConstruct classification systemCodingSynthesis and contextualization
study (Table 3) that met a minimum of two of the three
following criteria:
Presence of cultural resource sites. Presence of archeological sites. Presence of recreational water features.
In addition to the 14 sites that met all three
selection criteria, I included eight sites that that did not
meet at least one of the criteria in order to expand the
coverage to potentially capture additional relevant
practices. To increase the breadth of parks sampled I
included national parks, national recreation areas, and
national historic parks in the sample.
Table 3. Sites Selected for Netnographic Study.
NPS SITE CATEGORY CULTURALSITES
ARCHEOLOGICALSITES
RECREATIONALWATER
Grand Teton NP Y Y Y
Bighorn Canyon NRA Y Y Y
North Cascades Cluster NP Y Y Y
Amistad NRA Y Y Y
Golden Gate NRA Y Y Y
Delaware Water Gap NRA Y Y Y
Glen Canyon NRA Y Y Y
Great Basin NP Y Y Y
Jean Lafitte NHP Y N Y
Big South Fork NRA Y N Y
Chattahoochee River NRA N N Y
Lake Mead NRA N N Y
Lake Roosevelt NRA Y Y Y
Mississippi NRA Y Y Y
Missouri NRA Y Y Y
Santa Monica Mountains NRA Y Y N
Upper Delaware NRA Y Y Y
Whiskeytown NRA N N Y
Chickasaw NRA Y Y Y
NPS SITE CATEGORY CULTURALSITES
ARCHEOLOGICALSITES
RECREATIONALWATER
Gateway NRA Y N Y
Curecanti NRA Y Y Y
Lake Meredith NRA Y Y Y
Gauley River NRA Y N Y
Netnographic Data Collection Process Detail
For each site selected for netnographic study I
collected the data listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Data Elements Collected By Application Type.
APPLICATION DATA ELEMENTFacebook Date page created, number of likes,
number of extended community members.Twitter Date page created, number of followers,
number of tweets
Instagram Yes/No
Flickr Yes/No
YouTube Yes/No
Tumblr Yes/No
Pinterest Yes/No
The data collection process began with a visit to the
Web 1.0 park home page hosted on the NPS servers. Once on
the page I checked for the presence of a park-specific link
to a social media page maintained by the park (Figure 4).
Figure 2. Links to Social Media Applications from Park NPS Home Page.
If a link was present I used the link to navigate to
the park’s social media pages to collect the information
described above (Figure 5).
Figure 3. Data Collection from Park Facebook Page.
In order to collect the inception dates I followed the
site’s Facebook timeline back to the creation date listed on
the timeline or the date of the first Facebook post (Figure
6).
Figure 4. Date of DEWA's First Facebook Post.
If the park’s Web 1.0 homepage did not contain a link
to its social media sites, I used the search functions
embedded in the social media applications to find these
sites. In Figure 7 I used the search function from my
personal Facebook page to find the Facebook site maintained
by AMIS.
Figure 5. Using Facebook Search Function to Locate FacebookSites.
While the mechanics were somewhat different, I used the
same general process for obtaining Twitter data as well.
In order to determine if a park had a presence on sites
like Instagram, Flickr, YouTube, Tumblr, or Pinterest I
conducted a search using the search functions embedded in
each of these applications (Figure 8).
Figure 6. Flickr Search Function Result.
While the mechanics were slightly different, I used the
same process for searching all of the applications listed
above.
Interview Study Element
With the guidance of the Cultural Resource Program
Manager at GCLA/RABR I developed a list of potential sites
to be contacted and interviewed (Appendix A) from which we
selected two initial interview sites using purposeful
sampling techniques. Using snowball sampling I added
additional parks based on recommendations from initial
respondents. In total, I interviewed nine individuals
representing seven NPS sites, including both national parks
and national recreation areas.
During 2014 I conducted in-depth interviews with NPS
park staff directly involved with protecting cultural and/or
archeological resources, interpreting park resources, and/or
involved in the social media activities at the park (Table
5).
Table 5. Interview Respondents.
PARK INTERVIEWEES INTERVIEWDATE
ROLE
Grand Teton NP
2 1/29/2014 Public affairs specialist for strategic communication and social media.Social media editorand Facebook administrator.
BighornCanyon NRA
21
1/18/20142/27/2014
Resource managementleadership.Interpretation leadership.Interpretive staff and social media coordination.
North Cascades NP
1 2/19/2014 Physical and biological sciencesmanagment. Archeological and historic structuresoversight
AmistadNRA
1 2/12/2014 Archeological and cultural resource oversight
Delaware WaterGap NRA
1 4/4/2014 Interpretive Leadership
Golden 1 10/14/201Interpretive staff
Gate NRA
4 Social media coordination
Interview Process Detail
In order to identify the interviewees at each site
selected, I contacted the park superintendent at each park
via email. The text of the email is as follows:
Dear Superintendent,Interpretive Manager, Cultural/Archeological Resource Manager
My name is Chris Ebling and I am a graduate student at Stephen F Austin State University in Nacogdoches Texas. In 2011 the management of the Glen Canyon/Rainbow Bridge NRA engaged a research team to provide managers with a strategy for protection of cultural sites along the shoreline of Lake Powell. The team consists of professorial staff from Stephen F. Austin State University and North Carolina State University as well as both graduate and undergraduate students from Stephen F. Austin State University.
The research team will review and build upon current literature and survey field experts to identifythe most effective methods for protecting cultural sites from adverse or unacceptable impacts. The review will include: (a) an examination of literature specificto visitor/boater impacts to cultural sites located along lakeshores; (b) contact with lakeshore recreationareas, whether federal (like other NPS units) or state,to identify their strategies for site protection; (c) an examination of the value of tactics, such as educational programs; interpretive media; camera surveillance; signage; site closure; the presence of uniformed personnel; and site stewardship programs; (d)an examination of the literature as it relates to boater attitudes and perceptions; and (e) an examination of innovative approaches to protect cultural resources. The final deliverable includes written report that summarizes the results of the literature review and outlines recommendations for the effective protection and management of lakeshore cultural sites at GLCA/RABR.
This primary research project initiated three ancillary research projects focused on specific aspects
of cultural resource protection and recreation use at GLCA/RABR, conducted by graduate students on the research team. The first project will focus on boater relationship with the resource and management. The second will focus on the types of messages that will bemost effective in countering non-compliant behaviors byvisitors. The third will study the potential impact of Web 2.0 wireless technology and social media applications to influence non-compliant visitor behaviors with the objective of reducing damage to cultural and archeological resources within the GLCA/RABR.
My piece of the puzzle is to study the potential impact of Web 2.0 on cultural resource protection. Since your organization is involved directly in this activity I feel that your input is critical to the success of my research. Would your park be willing to participate in a telephone interview focused on this topic?
I look forward to talking to you. If you have any questions please contact me.
I received responses either directly from the park
superintendent or from the staff member designated to
participate in the interview.
After making initial contact with the respondent and
answering any questions they had, the respondent(s) and I
mutually agreed to an interview date and time. At the
prescribed time I contacted the respondent(s) by telephone.
If two respondents were present at the same location, they
employed speakerphone technology to allow multiple
respondents to participate simultaneously. In one instance
the respondents were located in different locations. In this
case we I used teleconferencing technology to bridge the
locations into a single call.
I recorded all of the interviews using a Sony model
ICD-AX412 digital recorder. All recordings were made in
the .mp3 format and transferred to a Dell XPS M1130 laptop
computer for archival and analysis.
Interview Plan
This project leveraged the interview plan developed as
part of the larger research project described in the
introduction section of this document, where possible, by
adding a series of specific questions to the larger
interview plan. Potential interview sites were screened and
prioritized based on the following criteria:
Presence of archeological and/or cultural resources on the property.
Proximity of recreationally-focused water resources to cultural resource sites.
Instances of cultural resource impacts by visitors.
Extent of social media platform use and activity
The potential respondents at the properties included:
1. Staff cultural resource manager.2. Staff archeologist.3. Senior park management.4. Information technology staff.
Interview Questions
The interview questions were designed to obtain
information on the existing technology deployment within a
park, the perceived barriers to additional technology
deployments within the park, and the park manager’s
assessment of how to protect existing archeological
resources within the park from further degradation. The
questions asked of respondents were:
1. Describe the cultural resources at your site.
2. Are you currently experiencing unacceptable impacts to cultural resources at your site? Have you had unacceptable impacts to culturalresources in the past?
3. In general, what is your strategy to minimizethese unacceptable impacts?
4. How do visitors tend to get information aboutpark attractions, resources, rules, regulations and programming at your site?
5. How do you use the web to communicate with audiences about cultural resources at your site?
6. How do you use social media to communicate audiences about cultural resources at your site?
7. Does anything hinder or constrain your ability to do more to reach your audiences through the web or social media?
8. Are there any groups that have formed on the web that focus on your site? Please tell me about these groups…
9. Have any of these groups fostered what you might describe as an “online community”? Please explain your answer…
10. Do you interact with those groups online? Whyor why not?
11. In your opinion, how effective is it to use the web and social media to educate visitors and/or change their behavior? Has your site ever tried to use the web or social media in
this way? Please describe your experience in this area…
12. In your opinion, has the use of the web and/or social media improved visitor compliance with park rules and regulations atyour site?
13. How is information about park-focused online groups used in your park planning efforts?
14. Do you have any goals for using the web or social media to communicate with your audiences about your park in general and/or about your cultural resources?
In addition to the initial questions listed above, I
asked a series of clarifying and probing questions gain
deeper insights. These probing questions included:
In what ways and to what extent where resourcesimpacted?
Can you give any specific examples of social media application use?
What types of research data did you have that demonstrates these trends?
What kind of evidence was available to inform your conclusions about effectiveness?
Data Analysis
Netnographic Data Analysis
The primary focus of the netnographic component of this
study was to understand the communities that have formed
that are centered on the parks selected for study. This
involved studying the linkages that exist between the
community elements (individuals and organizations) and the
interactions between these elements. For Facebook, I
determined the individual members of a park’s Facebook
community as evidenced by the number of “likes” associated
with that page. By “liking” a Facebook page an individual
becomes part of the community and receives posts from the
park automatically, can comment on posts, can post
independently on the park site, and can share posts with
others outside the park’s direct community. For Twitter, I
determined the extent of the park’s community as evidenced
by the number of “followers” associated with the park’s
Twitter feed. Followers receive park tweets automatically,
can respond to tweets directly, and can share park tweets
with others outside the park community by “favoriting” any
given tweet.
I also determined the number of external organizations
that are part of the park’s community. I did this by
documenting the links between the park’s Facebook page and
pages associated with external organizations as evidenced by
number of organizational “likes” present on the park’s
Facebook page (Figure 9).
Figure 7. Linkage Between Park Facebook Page and External Organizations.
Interview Data Analysis
Since the data obtained through interviews was
narrative in nature, I used qualitative analysis techniques
to analyze the data. Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA)
describes a range of processes and procedures whereby
qualitative data evolves into some form of explanation,
understanding, or interpretation of the situation under
investigation (Gibbs & Taylor, 2010). The process of QDA
involves three steps: transcribing, coding, and the
identifying themes.
The transcribing process involved transcribing the
interviews into text that could be analyzed. The coding step
involved looking for themes within the text and applying
labels to them that indicate they are examples of some
thematic idea. This coding process enabled me to retrieve
and collect all the text and other data associated with some
thematic idea so that the data could be examined and
compared. Once encoded, I organized the data using computer-
assisted techniques. For this study I used a QDA application
called MaxQDA
I analyzed these data using framework analysis
techniques (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). Framework analysis
develops a hierarchical thematic framework used to classify
and organize data according to key themes, concepts, and
emergent categories. The framework identified the main
themes and subtopics within the coded data sets. I charted
each (table 5) where each case has its own row and columns
representing the subtopics. Cells contain relevant summaries
from the data set. I used these charts to examine the data
for patterns and connections The final step was to construct
a series of activity diagrams which detail the activity
systems currently present at GLCA/RABR.
RESULTS
Data collected as part of the interview process confirm
that each of the sites in the study incur visitor-caused
impacts to cultural and/or archeological resources to a
varying degree. Each of these sites uses traditional
management tools in an attempt to minimize these impacts.
These tools include deterrence and enforcement activities,
regulation, visitor education programs, and site management
practices such as resource closures.
The parks studied are all using Web 2.0 and social
media applications to a degree, primarily Facebook and
Twitter. Social media use varies from a few initial posts
made at site inception to multiple posts every day. Some
parks proactively answer questions and respond to comments
made by individuals in the community. Other parks do not
monitor their social media pages and, therefore, do not
interact with their social media communities in any
meaningful way.
The parks use social media for a wide variety of
purposes including interpretation, education, visitor
engagement, community outreach, safety and general
information, park status, resource protection, and
activities like photo sharing. However, respondents stated
that they do not have any direct evidence to support the
effectiveness of their social media activities. Through
trial and error they have learned that posts that contain
pictures get the most “likes” and are shared most often on
Facebook. The same holds true for Twitter but to a lesser
extent due to lower Twitter participation rates on the part
of community members.
They also observed that posts focused on resource
protection and regulatory messages seem to get the least
attention, as measured by “likes”, “shares”, and “re-
tweets”. Respondents also stated that they have no way of
demonstrating a positive return on investment related to
their social media programs. This makes further investment
in social media-related activities difficult to justify in
an era of declining budgets.
These data suggests the existence of three distinct
community types centered on the parks studied; intentional
communities, extended intentional communities, and
incidental/ad hoc communities. Intentional communities are
those established and maintained by the Park Service site
for the purpose of interacting with visitors and other
interested parties. Extended intentional communities form
through linkages between the park’s social media page and
other social media sites such as other NPS sites, commercial
enterprises, non-profit enterprises, government agencies,
municipalities, and others. Incidental/ad hoc communities
are communities that form around a park that have not been
formally established by park staff or by other third
parties.
Data Coding Results
As part of the interview analysis process I coded a
total of 452 individual text segments. I then organized
these segments into coding categories, ultimately leading to
the emergence of three broad themes that I will explore in
detail (Table 6).
Table 6. Data Segments, Coding Categories, Concepts, and Themes.
THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY
NUMBER ofSEGMENTS
Theme 1. Managers actively employed visitor use management strategies andtactics to protect park archeological,cultural, historical, and natural resources.
Cultural Resource Damage
General 32Access to cultural sites
6
Visitor ImpactPrevention Practices
Closure 5Gaming 2Citizen Science
2
Rapid Intervention
2
Restriction 2Education 13Interpretation
6
Enforcement 1Signage 4Monitoring 10School programs
5
Campout programs
1
Theme 2. The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media applications to engage their communities of
Effectiveness General 13Increased visitor viewings
14
Analytics 7Traditional vs. social media
11
Visitor 10
THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY
NUMBER ofSEGMENTS
interest feedback
Usage Constraints
General 2Geography 6Management support
9
Funding 5Staffing 21Staff Capabilities
5
ROI 2Staff demographics
6
Interdivisional support
3
Technology 6Visitor demographics
9
NPS regulations
12
New feature requests
4
Park Web 2.0 Usage
General 2Overall Strategy
27
Research 4Staff Training
3
Blogs 2Reporting 1Cultural resouce protection
27
Cultural 1
THEMES CONCEPT CODING CATEGORY
NUMBER ofSEGMENTS
resourcesYouTube 12Visitor use locations
1
Applications 1Twitter use 16Podcasts 1Skype 1Photo sharing
6
Flickr 1Facebook use 9Newspaper 1Messaging 1Use of social media
3
Information 7Reporting 3Facebook 7Twitter 2
Theme 3. Internet-basedcommunities ofinterest have formed that are focused onthe park.
Visitor Information Sources
General 1Facebook 3Face to face 2Commercial enterprises
2
Newspaper 1Signage 1Web site 8Gateway communities
1
Visitor Centers
7
Partners 1General 31Partner feedback
5
Non-profit partnerships
8
Commercial enterprises
7
Government 1
Theme one covers the presence of visitor-caused impacts
within a park and the strategies and tactics employed by
park management today to prevent visitor-caused impacts to
park cultural, archeological, and natural resources. Theme
two explores the usage of Web 2.0 technology and social
media applications by the parks in the study. This theme
includes the overall social media strategy, social media
applications employed, the purpose and target audience for
various social media tools. This theme also includes the
constraints encountered by park staff in their use of social
media as well as the perceived effectiveness of these tools.
Theme three probes the perceived ability of social media to
foster communities of interest around a park based on common
interests and social media applications. The community theme
will be explored in detail in conjunction with the
netnographic data with the intent of relating community
formation and interaction to the fundamentals of Activity
Theory.
Theme 1: Managers actively employed visitor use management strategies
and tactics to protect park archeological, cultural, historical, and natural
resources.
All of the respondents noted varying degrees of
visitor-caused impacts to natural and cultural resources
within their parks. Vandalism was a major source of visitor-
caused impacts. Respondents at North Cascades National Park
(NOCA) identified “some vandalism” while respondents at
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA) noted the
“defacing” of structures. According to respondents at Golden
Gate National Recreation Area (GOGA), being in an urban
location makes the park particularly vulnerable. Respondents
at GOGA also noted “a fair amount of graffiti, given the
urban population. On Alcatraz Island “some areas of the
buildings [are] getting graffitied [sic] to the point of
doing physical damage in terms of plaster being damaged”.
Theft was noted as another issue by respondents at
NOCA. “There is some evidence that things have walked away
from a small corral sights” and respondents at Bighorn
Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA) noted that “a lot of
surface collecting was done”. Respondents at DEWA noted that
“copper stealing is out of control in this area”.
Boaters are a source of impacts where boating is a
major recreational activity. Respondents at Amistad National
Recreation Area (AMIS) noted that “every major shelter
anywhere along the lake has been hit and in some places hit
pretty bad” and that paleo-Indian sites have been damaged in
areas “only accessible by boat”. BICA noted that access to
their cultural sites is “primarily through boating” and
therefore they concluded that any impacts resulted from
boating community activities.
Strategies and Tactics Used to Address Visitor-Caused
Impacts
The sites interviewed employ a wide variety of
traditional techniques to address unacceptable impacts to
resource conditions, including signage, closure, education,
and interpretive programs. Table 7 highlights some of these
practices.
Table 7. Visitor Use Management Tactics.
TACTIC CATEGORY
TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS
Deterrance andEnforcement
Signage GRTE "Physical signage at some sites is very important"
BICA "One whole sign talks about the importance of preserving"
GOGA "We try to do signage where appropriate"
Provide personnel and law enforcement
AMIS If they [law enforcement] notice something that looks out of the ordinary to them they give me a call."
AMIS [I] take them to abunch of rock art sites and try to get them familiar with the area’s archaeology and cultural resources[and] get them excited about it."
DEWA We’ve purchased remote security systems for various high
TACTIC CATEGORY
TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS
profile buildings.
DEWA "We have volunteers who do monitoring for us."
GOGA People would take a photograph and then tag it, and send it in to the site so that people could see [the impacts]."
Regulation Access Restriction
AMIS "We do take regular tours there [the rock art sites]."
AMIS "We have a protective fence around the most important best preserved parts ofit [rock art panel]."
GRTE "We actually invite people to walk inside the building. Maybe because we [allow]that they don’t feel the need to go into the other
TACTIC CATEGORY
TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS
buildings."
DEWA "But they [visitors] do lessdamage if they’re allowed just to walk in, for some reason."
Site Management
Closure GRTE "The buildings areclosed and locked at night."
GOGA "In some cases we’ve just had to close those areas off unless they’remonitored by a staff member."
BICA "We do a field school in the park, an archeological field school."
BICA [We conduct] ethnographic projects with the different tribal colleges too.
GOGA "[Create a programwith] an educational message in it but
TACTIC CATEGORY
TACTIC SITE† RESPONDENT STATEMENTS
gamify it in a waythat would make itappealing."
GOGA " I think that’s because the kids will bring the adults into it."
DEWQA "Every program hassome sort of protected message.And we try to integrate it into the program"
NOCA "[We] talk to visitors about wilderness ethics,leave-no-trace values or ethics."
†AMIS – Amistad National Recreation AreaDEWA – Delaware Water Gap National Recreation AreaGOGA – Golden Gate National Recreation AreaGRTE – Grand Tetons National ParkNOCA – North Cascades National ParkBICA – Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area
Theme 2: The parks have begun to use Web 2.0 and social media applications to
engage their communities of interest
Today visitors obtain information about the park from a
variety of sources. External to the park these sources
include print media, commercial enterprises, gateway
communities, and park partners. NOCA respondents said that
the park frequently distributes press releases “and hope
that the newspaper finds it interesting” enough to warrant
publication. DEWA respondents said that visitors obtain
information about the park “primarily by third party. It’s
local businesses, it’s word of mouth, and it’s that type of
thing.” Since Jackson Wyoming is a gateway community for
Grand Teton National Park (GRTE), respondents said that a
great deal of information is available “through hotels,
through restaurants, through business in the town”. NOCA
respondents said that they work with a non-profit partner
“that does a lot of outdoors education and so they serve as
an important arm or partner with the park to do education
about the park and provide information”.
Within the park, visitors obtain information through
visitor centers, face-to-face encounters, and the park’s web
site. Visitor center usage can vary considerably depending
on the nature of the park and the purpose of the visit. GRTE
respondents assert that “most of our visitors will visit one
of the visitor centers”. Other third party visitor centers
can augment the park visitor center. For example, NOCA
respondents said that, “[The] power company that manages the
dams, have a small visitor center [that] certainly gives out
park information”.
NOCA respondents said that the park maintains a staff
of “roving rangers in the campgrounds, major campgrounds,
[and] automobile campgrounds giving out information”. At the
same time these respondents noted that “they [visitors] can
go in and actually recreate all day, all week and not even
interact with the ranger or any of our literature”. GRTE
respondents noted that “a large portion of our visitors, or
those that want to visit, visit our website” where “there’s
a great deal of information on how to plan your visit, on
local lodging, on tips for camping”.
All of the sites interviewed made extensive use of Web
1.0 technology. In every instance the site maintained a web
page that conformed to the NPS standard template for look,
feel and information content. As part of this template, all
of the sites contained links to the main NPS Web 1.0 site as
well as to NPS Web 2.0 sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
In cases where the sites maintained a site-specific Web 2.0
presence the pages also included links to these pages. Many
include links to image sharing sites, such as Flickr, video
sites, such as YouTube, and informational sites such as
those providing podcasts.
Social Media Applications Used and Their Strategic Purposes
All of the sites interviewed have adopted Web 2.0
technologies and social media applications to some degree.
GRTE respondents claimed that “all the parks are required to
have a signed social media strategy prior to implementing a
presence on any of the social media sites”. However, the
depth of the strategy varies widely across parks. According
to respondents at DEWA, the strategy is limited to
“send[ing] people back to our website” and “we don’t have a
lot of proactiveness [sic] to really sit down and think
about what we want to do.” Respondents at BICA are trying to
“figure out what our audience really wants and we’re kind of
doing a shotgun approach”. At AMIS respondents noted that
“goals for social media resources would be the same as goals
for any of our other interpretive resources”. On the other
end of the spectrum, GRTE has clear and concise objectives
for their social media program which respondents summarized
as follows:
To attract new and diverse audiences, provide open and engaging platforms for civic engagement, easy and accessible portals to frequently check and change park information,”
“Promote intellectual and emotional connections betweenpark visitors and park stories”, and
“To promote a feeling of ownership among park visitorsby encouraging them to post their own photos or experiences”.
GRTE is also exploring ways to integrate their social
media programs with their traditional programming.
Respondents envisioned using “#envisionthefuture [hashtag]
that people can follow on Facebook or Twitter that [can be]
integrated into hardcopy materials [and] informational
materials in the park”. And while respondents at GRTE are
exploring ways of using “social media to advocate resource
protection when it comes to public engagement and getting
people involved and try to get them to care about planning
efforts”, they “have not used social media tools to advocate
against resource impact in that regard, like very direct
messaging”. BICA addresses resource protection through
traditional leave no trace messaging but respondents claim
that they “haven’t put up much directly about don’t mess
with the park”.
Respondent’s Perception of Constraints Limiting Social MediaApplication
Many factors combine to hinder the widespread
deployment of social media applications within the parks,
but most respondents identified common themes. The first
theme involves the geography of the parks themselves as well
as limitations of the technology deployed. Park properties
often encompass vast areas with highly variable elevations.
As a result, respondents at GRTE noted that wireless data
reception within the park is “pretty spotty down in the
valley” while respondents at NOCA affirmed that “access to
some of the social media would be constrained just by where
you’re at in the park”. Respondents at GOGA acknowledged
“the connectivity issue is a problem” and that “there are
neat tools available, but it only works when you have that
Wi-Fi or that cell connection”. Respondents at BICA noted
that “there’re not many places where you can actually get
cellphone coverage” and within NOCA respondents noted that
“we don’t have any cell towers in the park at all”.
All of the respondents identified funding and/or
staffing as a barrier to widespread deployment and use of
social media applications. Respondents at NOCA noted that”
because of budget cuts, the interpretive side of things have
just taken a hit” and that “information access for the
public has probably taken a bit of a hit because of the
budget difficulties”.
Staffing is a multidimensional issue. The first
dimension involves staff time dedicated to a social media
program. Respondents at DEWA stated that “we’re kind of a
little short staffed” while respondents at AMIS stated that
“[we’re] not sure we have somebody who’s officially tasked
with managing it [social media] yet”. Respondents at NOCA
highlighted “key vacancies in our staff that we need to fill
and plan to fill and with the stated emphasis that at least
part of their time [will be] to ramp back up our outreach
via that means”. The parks employ various strategies to
counter the staffing shortfall. Often this involves sharing
of responsibility between multiple staff members.
Respondents at BICA, for example, stated that “one of our
interpretive rangers does the website and one of them does
Facebook”. Another strategy is to assign staff to social
media outreach on a part time basis. A respondent at BICA
said that “I wear that hat about an hour a day if that” and
responsibility for social media “becomes a collateral duty
and optional duty of managers”. A third strategy is to
rotate responsibility for posting to social media sites
among park functions. According to respondents, GOGA “[uses]
a team approach “to managing their social media presence. At
DEWA, respondents stated that individuals on rotation are
“responsible for going in there [Facebook] at least twice a
day and making sure that no questions have popped up and
responding to those questions”.
Another dimension of the staffing issue involves staff
capabilities vis-à-vis social media applications.
Respondents at NOCA noted that “we’ve done the best we can
with what we have and our limited knowledge”. Staff
demographics is also viewed and an issue. Respondents at
DEWA noted that “we’re kind of the older crowd” and that
“I’m all for the new social media, but it doesn’t mean I can
lead it”. DEWA respondents hoped that new blood will “have
an understanding better than any of us and be able to help
us from that vision of how we can use these different things
to the maximum benefit”. However, new staff presents a new
set of issues. For example, GOGA respondents stated that
“people are a little paranoid about [having] someone’s first
job in the Park Service [involve] tweeting”. GOGA
respondents say that they are addressing this problem by
“broadening out our team” via cross training.
Another common factor identified by the respondents was
the tepid support of social media programs by management.
While there is broad support for interpretation, this
support does not necessarily translate into interpretation
via social media. At DEWA, for example, respondents noted
that the response to a proposal to create a Facebook page
was “good for you; [but] don’t make us do anything with it”.
Respondents at NOCA asserted that, “The superintendent of
Little Bighorn is a social media coordinator [and] while
they’re very interested in social media, and they say it’s
important, and I think they believe it’s important, [I] have
yet to [find] a leader in the organization who is willing to
require their managers to participate” and that “I’ve never
seen one make it a requirement”. Respondents at GOGA claimed
that staff stepped out ahead of management direction and
implemented social media programs on their own, noting that
“some of us out there have a reputation for doing something
and then asking for permission later on if we need to”. GOGA
respondents say that they’ve “just developed a formal policy
even though some of our stuff has been going on for seven or
eight years”. Interdivisional support was cited as an issue
as well. DEWA respondents stated, regarding their social
media implementation, that “right now it’s very much our
perspective” and that they would like to “have time to go
out and go up there and get the latest of what Resource
Management’s doing, what Culture Resources is doing”.
Another constraint in an era of declining budgets is
the inability to articulate a clear return on investment
(ROI) for allocating resources to social media programs.
NOCA respondents noted “I can come to my boss and tell him
exactly what it costs me to do social media, but I will
never to be able to come to my boss and tell them exactly
what their return on investment was”.
Finally, most respondents cited Park Service
regulations and process as a significant barrier. Some of
the problems relate to the technology itself. GRTE
respondents noted that they “can only use platforms that
have been approved by the Department of the Interior”. Often
the interpretive staff wants to try something new that
required technology not on the approved list. DEWA
respondents stated that “it’s a pain in the butt to go
through the processes, especially if it’s not already on the
list”. In order to use unapproved software the staff “have
to ask for an exemption. Then our IT people are so swamped
just getting them to have time to come and load it because
we are not allowed to load it ourselves”.
Respondents also views NPS rules that prevent them from
promoting their sites as a problem. GOGA respondents noted
that “if we could spend money to promote through social
media platforms or advertising that would certainly increase
retention and use but we can’t do that”. GRTE respondents
expanded on this issue, saying “it’s hard because we can’t
provide incentives, we can’t do contests. A lot of those
marketing strategies [shown to work] through research and
data we can’t engage as a government agency. So we are
hamstrung there a bit.”
Respondent’s Perceptions of Social Media Effectiveness
Perceived effectiveness and normalization is the key to
long-term adoption of any technology. Respondents are
skeptical about using social network applications as a
delivery mechanism for protective messages. NOCA respondents
expressed concerns about “the loss of that face-to-face
ability to talk about particular issues” when using social
media for resource protection purposes. They also said that
anecdotally visitors don’t seem to respond to protective or
safety messaging, noting that “on Facebook whatever I’ve
posted on safety doesn’t get a lot of responses”. However,
most respondents believe that social media has “extremely
high potential”.
The problem lies in the inability to demonstrate
effectivity quantitatively, as noted before in the ROI
discussion. Anecdotally, respondents have determined what
types of posts seem to garner the most interest with the
visitor community. NOCA respondents noted that posts
comprised of text only get “buried in people’s feeds in half
an hour because no one, no one likes it or follows it or
shares it”. On the other hand, posts that contain pictures
and/or videos get visitor attention. NOCA respondents said
that “anytime I share a cute furry critter, we go on fire”
and GRTE respondents highlighted a post with “a 15-second
video a couple weeks ago [that] 12,000 people viewed which
was fantastic”. According to GRTE respondents, the key lies
in understanding what your audience wants to see. For
example, “quotes by John Muir or Emerson…[and] photographs
of the mountains [is] what’s more likely to get them to look
at the page and look at the post.” Similarly, [we’re]“trying
to grab their attention long enough that they actually read
the information we put on there”. However, there is no way
of knowing if any given post had an effect on visitor
behaviors. NOCA respondents noted “that’s not to say that
it’s [a post] not leaving an impression and promoting a more
responsible visit to our park the next time they come. It
may be, but I’ll never know”. GRTE respondents asserted that
“there’s really no way to know their behavior was a result
of your positive communication”.
All of the respondents cited a lack of data as a
significant factor limiting their ability to demonstrate the
effectiveness of their social media programs. GRTE
respondents noted that “Facebook collects very generic data
on your page like the number of people who see it a day “.
As a result, NOCA respondents said that “there’s no way for
me to point to [anything] other than activity. The only
thing I can show…was we’ve created this community online,
[and] we’re raising awareness about our park. That’s the
best I can do.” Park staff wants to be able to use
analytical data to assess the success of what they are
trying, to understand “where did we move the needle”.
Facebook Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic Study
I collected all of the netnographic data over an
extended period of time in 2014. Therefore, these data
represent a snapshot of highly volatile data elements at the
time of collection. Of the 22 sites surveyed, only one -
Gateway National Recreation Area (GATE) - did not maintain a
presence on Facebook. Of the sites that did maintain a
Facebook presence, the earliest was created in March of 2009
(Lake Mead National Recreation Area) and the most recent
start up (Lake Meredith National Recreation Area) occurred
in October 2014. Activity levels on park-sponsored Facebook
sites varied widely. On one extreme, GRTE posts at least
once every day. On the other end of the spectrum, AMIS had
not posted a single item since the site’s inception in
August of 2010 at the time of data collection.
The study sites use Facebook for a wide variety of
purposes, including interpretation, education, visitor
engagement, community outreach, safety, responding to
visitor requests, resource protection, resource monitoring,
photo sharing, and general information dissemination. Figure
10 provides an example of a Facebook post used to fulfill an
interpretive function. In this post the park uses a quote by
Olaus Murie, a former director of the Wilderness Society, to
link the wilderness experience to happiness.
Figure 8. An Interpretive Facebook Post.
Figure 11 provides an example of Facebook used to
promote educational outcomes. In this post the park uses the
phenomenon of turquoise glacial lakes to teach the reader
about glacial processes.
Figure 9. An Educational Facebook Post.
Figure 12 provides an example of Facebook used to
engage the visitor community. In this post the park invites
visitors to participate in a photography contest designed to
highlight the lesser known features of GRTE. The winner was
to be decided by votes from the larger community.
Figure 10. Facebook Used for Visitor Engagement.
Figure 13 provides an example of Facebook used to reach
out to the community. In this post the park invites the
community to view the videos created by a local high school
in response to the 50th anniversary of the wilderness act.
Figure 11. Facebook Used to Reach Out to the Community.
Figure 14 provides an example of Facebook used reach
out to an underserved audience. In this post the park
highlights the efforts of a national Latino organization to
involve their community in the park experience. In it the
park provides a link to the activities of the group.
Figure 12. Facebook Used for Outreach to Underserved Audiences.
Figure 15 provides an example of Facebook used to
provide general information and promote visitor safety. In
this case the park uses a post to inform visitors of road
closures and warn of dangerous road conditions.
Figure 13. Facebook Used to Provide General Information andPromote Safety.
Figure 16 provides an example of Facebook used to
promote resource protection. This post is significant in
that it demonstrates an attempt use social media to raise
awareness of visitor-caused impacts to resource conditions.
In this post the park points out impacts occurring in the
Figure 14. Facebook Used to Publicize Resource Protection Efforts.
Figure 17 provides an example of a Facebook post used
to foster resource protective attitudes and behavior. As in
Figure 16, this post is significant for its focus on
resource protection. However, while Figure 16 calls
attention to a specific situation, Figure 17 attempts to
raise awareness of resource protection concepts (e.g.,
ensuring that wilderness remains “untrammeled”) by invoking
a tenet of the Wilderness Act.
Figure 15. Facebook Used to Foster Resource Protective Attitudes and Behavior.
Figure 18 provides an example of Facebook used to
promote photo sharing. In this case a recent visitor from
Australia posted a photo to the GRTE Facebook page along
with a statement of his appreciation of the viewscape.
Figure 16. Facebook Used to Promote Photo Sharing.
Twitter Use by Parks Selected for Netnographic Study
All of the netnographic data was collected over an
extended period of time in 2014. Therefore, these data
represent a snapshot of highly volatile data elements at the
time of collection. Of the 23 sites surveyed, six parks did
not maintain a presence on Twitter. Of those that did
maintain a Twitter presence, the earliest was created in
September of 2008 (Lake Mead NRA) and the most recent
addition (Gauley River NRA) happened in May of 2013. Like
Facebook, use of Twitter varied widely across parks, as
measured by the number of tweets posted and the number of
followers generated. The number of followers for active
twitter accounts ranged from a high of 21,200 (GRTE) to a
low of 614 (AMIS), possibly reflecting differing levels of
social media activity between the two sites or differing
levels of overall public interest. The number of tweets sent
by parks ranged from a high of 4,048 (GATE) and a low of 1
(AMIS). The parks used Twitter for a variety of purposes,
some of which overlap with Facebook and some of which are
unique to Twitter. These purposes include interpretation,
education, community outreach, event announcements, park
status announcements, general and safety information, and
visitor engagement. Unlike Facebook, a Twitter post is
limited to 144 characters. This forces users to send short
messages and/or provide URL links to more extensive content.
Figure 19 shows Twitter being used to provide audiences
with an interpretive opportunity. In this instance the tweet
is accompanied by an interpretive video.
Figure 17. Twitter Used to Provide Interpretive Opportunities.
Figure 20 provides an example of Twitter being used for
educational purposes. In this case the park forwarded a
message from the Grand Teton Foundation highlighting
research which links children’s well-being to contact with
nature.
Figure 18. Twitter Used to Promote Educational Outcomes.
Figure 21 provides an example of Twitter being used to
engage in outreach to underserved audiences. In this message
the park provides a picture of underserved youth enjoying
the park along with links to relevant Twitter feeds and a
website.
Figure 19. Twitter Used to Engage in Outreach to Underserved Audiences.
Figure 22 provides an example of Twitter being used to
announce an event, in this case a guided trail hike. This
tweet also provides an example of community outreach in that
the target of the tweet is the local community.
Figure 20. Twitter Used to Announce an Event.
Figure 23 provides an example of Twitter being used to
convey general information. In this tweet the park informs
potential visitors that a facility within the park has
closed for the winter season.
Figure 21. Twitter Used to Convey General Information.
Figure 24 provides an example of Twitter being used to
convey safety information. In this case the Tweet informs
visitors of road closures.
Figure 22. Twitter Used to Convey Safety Information.
Figure 25 provides an example of Twitter used to engage
visitors directly. In this tweet the park asks visitors to
link the park to pictures they have taken (i.e., tagging).
The tweet also provides a link to an image posted to
Instagram by a previous visitor. This tweet is significant
in that it provides an example of park staff monitoring and
engaging the incidental/ad hoc community. It should also be
noted that the tweet thanks a visitor “by name” for sharing
their park photo on Instagram.
Figure 23. Twitter Used to Engage Visitors Directly.
Park Use of Social Media to Engage Visitors in MonitoringPrograms
Social media applications have shown potential to
engage visitors in citizen science and resource monitoring
activities. According to respondents at GOGA the park
conducted a “bio-blitz in conjunction with National
Geographic. There was an application that they used during
[the event] where people would take a photograph and then
tag it. [They would then] send it in to [our] site so that
people could see that [this plant is] not a native to that
area”. Respondents claim that GOGA plans to continue to
investigate this potential by looking “at how people are
using different things on their mobile devices, and trying
to get them to use them in a positive way”. GRTE encourages
visitors to participate in their program to monitor invasive
mountain goats by taking a picture of any goats they see and
sending the picture to park social media sites. Since every
picture is time and location tagged, park staff can get a
better idea of where the goats are in the park. Figure 26
illustrates this use of Facebook, inviting visitors to
participate in the GRTE goat monitoring project to track the
dispersal of invasive mountain goats throughout the park.
Figure 24. Monitoring Program Invitation.
Visitors have also taken the initiative to monitor park
resources via social media on their own. For example, Figure
27 shows an instance where a visitor caught another visitor
in some questionable activity within GRTE. The post
highlights the willingness of visitors to participate in
monitoring programs, and even report instances of observed
noncompliant behavior, without park instigation.
Figure 25. Visitor Resource Monitoring Facebook Post.
To a lesser extent, parks post to other social media
sites such as Instagram for the purpose of image sharing
(Table 10). Figure 28 provides an example of an Instagram
post and Figure 29 provides an example of a Flickr post.
Theme 3: Internet-based communities of interest have formed that are focused
on the parks.
The primary difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
technologies is that Web 2.0 functions in a much more
interactive manner, allowing users to create and share their
own content. The ability to create and share content, in
turn, fosters the development of communities centered on
common interests. The thrust of this study is to identify
the communities that have formed around selected study
sites, and to understand if these communities can be
influenced, via social media, to adopt resource protective
attitudes and behaviors especially regardint cultural
resources within NPS sites. This section will draw heavily
on data collected as part of the netnography study augmented
with data collected from respondents.
Analysis of the netnographic data suggests the presence
of three distinct communities focused on the parks;
intentional, extended intentional, and incidental/ad hoc.
Intentional Community
I define intentional communities as those established and
maintained by the Park Service site for the purpose of
interacting with visitors and other interested parties.
Today intentional communities are focused primarily on
Facebook and Twitter and, in a few instances, Instagram and
Flickr. The key characteristic of the intentional community
is the ongoing interaction between park staff and interested
parties.
Table 8 identifies and provides details on the
intentional communities established and maintained by the
study sites.
Table 8. Sites Mapped to Intentional Community.
NPS SITE INTENTIONAL (DIRECTED) COMMUNITYFACEBOOK TWITTER
CREATED LIKES CREATED TWEETS FOLLOWERSGrand Teton
5/22/2010
248,570
Jun-09 788
21,200
Bighorn Canyon
11/4/2009
3,628
Dec-09 2,138
1,639
North Cascades Cluster
8/16/2010
7,072
Sep-10 488
4,792
Amistad 8/16/2010
103
Jul-09 1
614
Golden Gate
8/16/2010
4,804
Jul-09 2,146
6,850
Delaware Water Gap
7/5/2011
5,182
Jul-11 233
1,634
Glen Canyon
7/17/2010
8,231
N/A N/A N/A
Great Basin
4/10/2010
180
Feb-11 314
3,963
Jean Lafitte
8/20/2012
1,712
Aug-02 1,831
1,442
Big South Fork
2/18/2011
3,079
Nov-10 1,387
2,817
Chattahoochee River
Jun-11 3,885
Jun-12 948
1,695
Lake Mead Mar-09 5,059
Sep-08 2,920
5,398
NPS SITE INTENTIONAL (DIRECTED) COMMUNITYFACEBOOK TWITTER
CREATED LIKES CREATED TWEETS FOLLOWERS
Lake Roosevelt
9/22/2011
1,413
Sep-11 55
849
Mississippi
2010 162
N/A N/A N/A
Missouri May-11 905
Dec-11 431
1,529
Santa Monica Mountains
Dec-09 12,072
N/A N/A N/A
Upper Delaware
Jun-12 1,032
N/A N/A N/A
Whiskeytown
Aug-12 1,343
N/A N/A N/A
Chickasaw Nov-10 3,259
Jan-11 183
2,880
Gateway N/A N/A Jun-09 4,048
4,309
Curecanti Nov-12 2,032
Aug-09 529
2,684
Lake Meredith
Oct-14 483
N/A N/A N/A
Gauley River
Jul-11 5,515
May-13 423
1,248
From a Facebook perspective becoming an intentional
community member involves “liking” the park’s Facebook page.
From that point forward the community member receives posts
made by Park Service staff automatically and can see posts
made by the broader community. By “liking” posts the
community member shares the posts with those within the park
site community and with those who are a part of the member’s
extended community.
Figure 30 shows a typical Facebook page for a NPS site,
in this case for NOCA. This home page contains key
information about the site including how many people are
members of the intentional committee (number of “likes”),
the category of the site (national park), and a short
description of the park itself. Links from the home page can
take the park’s timeline, (which contains all of the posts
made since inception), photo galleries, and reviews of the
park. A prospective community member is invited to “like”
the page thereby joining the community as well as send
messages to park staff directly.
Figure 28. NOCA Facebook Community Page.
Figure 31 shows a typical Facebook posting with like, share,and comment indicators highlighted in red.
Figure 29. A Typical Facebook Posting.
Figure 32 shows Facebook postings to the community pagefrom external community members.
Figure 30. Facebook Posting from External Community Members.
Figure 33 shows Facebook picture sharing from external community members.
Figure 31. Facebook Picture Sharing.
From a Twitter perspective this interaction begins with
following the park’s Twitter feed and becoming a member of
the community. As a member he/she can tweet messages posted
by the park, can “favorite” and/or re-tweet the original
message. Re-tweeting shares the tweet with others, including
others potentially outside of the primary community. Figure
34 shows the Twitter community page from BICA. As was the
case with the Facebook community homepage, the Twitter
community home page contains key information about the
community. The community member can see the number of people
in the community (number of followers), how many tweets the
park staff have sent out to the community, a short
description of the park itself, and links to the complete
community twitter stream and to other media elements posted
by the community.
Figure 32. BICA Twitter Community Page.
Extended Intentional Community
I define extended intentional community as community formed
through linkages—often bi-directional—between the park’s
social media pages and social media sites maintained by
other organizations. These external sites can be other NPS
sites, commercial enterprises, non-profit enterprises,
government agencies, municipalities, and others.
Table 9 shows the number of members in a site’s
extended community.
Table 9. Number of Sites in Extended Community.
PARK EXTENDEDCOMMUNITY
Grand Teton 22
Bighorn Canyon 43
North Cascades Cluster 68
Amistad 0
Golden Gate 99
Delaware Water Gap 93
Glen Canyon 50
Great Basin 0
Jean Lafitte 20
Big South Fork 2
Chattahoochee River 61
Lake Mead 195
Lake Roosevelt 26
Mississippi 0
Missouri 93
Santa Monica Mountains 74
Upper Delaware 101
Whiskeytown 89
Chickasaw 37
Gateway N
Curecanti 98
Lake Meredith 5
Gauley River 46
Figure 35 shows a subset of the linkages between GRTE’s
Facebook page and members of the site’s extended community.
Figure 33. GRTE Extended Community linkages.
Incidental/Ad Hoc Community
I define incidental/ad hoc communities as communities that
form around a park that have not been formally established
by park staff or by other third parties.
Table 10 identifies whether or not a site is the focus
of incidental/ad hoc communities.
Table 10. Sites Mapped to Incidental/Ad Hoc Community.
INCIDENTAL/AD HOC COMMUNITYNPS SITE FLICKR YOUTUBE TUMBLR INSTAGRAM PINTERES
TGrand Teton Y Y Y Y Y
Bighorn Canyon Y Y Y N Y
North Cascades Cluster Y Y Y Y Y
Amistad Y N Y N Y
Golden Gate Y Y Y Y Y
Delaware Water Gap Y Y Y N Y
Glen Canyon Y Y Y Y Y
Great Basin Y Y Y Y Y
Jean Lafitte Y Y Y N Y
Big South Fork Y Y Y Y Y
Chattahoochee River Y Y Y Y Y
Lake Mead Y Y Y Y Y
INCIDENTAL/AD HOC COMMUNITYNPS SITE FLICKR YOUTUBE TUMBLR INSTAGRAM PINTERES
TLake Roosevelt Y Y N N N
Mississippi Y Y N N Y
Missouri N Y N N N
Santa Monica Mountains Y Y N N Y
Upper Delaware Y Y N N Y
Whiskeytown Y Y Y N Y
Chickasaw Y Y Y N Y
Gateway Y Y Y Y Y
Curecanti Y Y Y N Y
Lake Meredith Y Y Y N Y
Gauley River Y Y Y Y Y
These communities are loosely defined in that the
organizing factor of these communities is often based on the
interests of the community members, the focus of the
interests, and the applications used to share community
content. The potential for community exists where these
three elements intersect (Figure 36). The graphic shows two
individuals defined within the context of interest, focus,
and application. In this example the shared interest is in
photography, the shared focus of this interest is in AMIS,
and the application used to share the results of the
interest and focus areas is Instagram. The potential for
community exists where the interest, focus, and application
dimensions of the two individuals overlap.
Figure 34. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.
Interest
Focus
Application(Photography) (Instagram )
Interest Application(Photography)
(Am istad NRA)
(Instagram )
(Am istad)
Focus
Incidental Com m unity
Individual 1
Individual 2
Additional examples of incidental/ad hoc communities
could include individuals who share images of a site via a
photo sharing applications such as Instagram and Flickr,
video sharing applications such as YouTube, blogging
applications such as those housed by Tumblr, and visual
discovery applications such as Pinterest. Figure 37 shows an
example of an image sharing community. In this case the
interest is photography, the focus on the interest is BICA,
and the application used to share the result of the interest
and focus in Flickr.
Figure 35. Flickr Image Sharing Community.
Each of these images was taken and posted by a different
member of the community. The image in the lower right corner
is a video.
Figure 38 shows an example of a video sharing community
via YouTube. In this example the members share an interest
in videography, have focused this interest on AMIS, and are
using YouTube to share the results of this interest and
focus.
Figure 36. YouTube Video Sharing Community.
Figure 39 shows an example of a discovery community. In
this example the interest is in sharing places for others to
discover, the focus is NOCA, and the application is
Pinterest.
Figure 37. Pinterest Discovery Application.
Figure 40 shows an example of a blogging community. In
this example the interest is in writing about experiences,
the focus of the interest is GRTE, and the application
linking readers to blogs is Tumblr.
Figure 38. Tumblr Blogging Community.
Today intentional community building via social media
is not a significant focus of the sites interviewed,
especially as community building relates to the visitor
community. The major community building activities that do
take place typically involve park partners.
Partners are important components of the park ecosystem
and form the basis for a loose community structure.
Respondents at DEWA note “partners that of course are very
focused on us because they have an environmental education
center located within the boundaries of the park”.
Respondents at NOCA highlighted Seattle City Light which is
involved in “everything from researching the park to
resource management, wildlife monitoring as well as some of
this outdoor education”. Respondents at DEWA highlighted the
Appalachian Mountain Club, a volunteer organization that
“comes out and volunteers to work on trails”.
Interactions between the parks and their partners tend
to occur using traditional methods, such as face to face
meetings, rather than through social media applications. For
example, Respondents at GRTE noted that “we don’t often
directly interact with them {via social media}. They will
share information, share a video or photo, they will re-
tweet something or we will re-tweet something of theirs
that’s cool but there’s not a lot of direct back and forth”.
Respondents at DEWA stated that “we have formal annual
meetings” with the partners. Respondents at BICA stated that
interactions with partners are “more in person than online
and we’re more likely to go to their meetings or something
than do something online with them”. Respondents at NOCA
stated that they meet frequently with their partners but the
interactions tend to be on “on an as-needed basis”.
Respondents at NOCA highlighted the Little Horn friends
group that supports the park by “putting up markers and
memorials and funding teacher rangers” and that they
participate in “regular meetings with their board, which
typically [the] superintendent or chief of interpretation
attend”.
However, the parks have noticed the formation of
communities focused on their sites. For example, respondents
at GRTE observed that “a lot of our partners link to our
social media sites now, not just our website”. Respondents
at BICA stated that the “Pryor Mountain Wild Horse groups…
tend to follow us on Facebook”. The parks are beginning to
understand the importance of community building to their
social media programs as well. Respondents at AMIS asserted
that “you have to find something that motivates people to
want to follow your feed, your, your Facebook page, you
know, your YouTube channel or whatever. Um, you have to find
a way, and you just, you have to build a community before
any of those tools will be effective at doing anything.”
DISCUSSION
The focus of this study was to evaluate the potential
of social media programs to foster protective behaviors
towards cultural resources in communities focused on parks
within the national park system. The netnographic research
showed that communities have formed focused on the parks
studied. I have characterized these communities as intentional
communities, extended intentional communities, and incidental or ad hoc
communities. Activity Theory provides an excellent framework
for describing these communities and characterizing the
interactions between activity elements.
Intentional Community
Intentional communities are those established and
maintained by Park Service staff. The mediating artifacts
(social media applications) used are both Facebook and
Twitter and, to a much lesser extent, Instagram and YouTube.
Using the activity diagram as a template, Figure 41
graphically describes the structure of an intentional
community.
Figure 39. Intentional Community Structure.
Objects in green are in the Park Service domain.
Objects in blue are in the external community domain. Solid
lines indicate continuous flow. Dotted lines indicate one-
time events. Line thickness indicates relative volume of
traffic between the objects. The black triangles reflect the
interactions between objects in the activity theory model.
The items in gray are included for completeness but are not
part of the study. This convention also applies to Figures
42 and 43.
The focus of the activity is the NPS site which is
acted upon by both park staff and external interested
parties. The artifacts that mediate the activity, Facebook
and Twitter, were created by and maintained by the Park
Service staff. Park Service staff “post” and “tweet” images,
text, video, and audio to the external communities using the
mediating artifacts. Using the same mediating artifacts, the
external communities receive and act upon the content. In
the case of Facebook the options include “liking” and/or
“sharing” the post and responding to the post. The act of
“liking” or “sharing” a post has a multiplying effect in
that this action makes the post available to other
communities external to the intentional community. This
entire interaction is contingent upon the singular event of
an external entity “liking” the Facebook page associated
with the park and, thereby, subscribing to content posted by
the park.
In the case of Twitter the options include
“favoriting”, “re-tweeting”, or responding to the content.
Like Facebook, the act of “favoriting”, “re-tweeting”, or
responding to the content has a multiplying effect that
makes the content available to other communities outside of
the intentional community.
Extended Intentional Community
Extended intentional communities result from Park
Service staff linking their Facebook page to pages created
by other entities. These entities may include other
communities, non-profit organizations, commercial concerns,
and local, state, and national government organizations.
Figure 42 graphically describes an extended intentional
community.
Figure 40. Extended Intentional Community.
The extended intentional community comes into being
through the simple act of “liking”, and thereby linking, two
Facebook pages. The primary differentiator between the
intentional community and the extended intentional community
is that entities within the extended community universe may
not receive content posted by entities in the intentional
community automatically. Like the intentional community,
linking to other pages in the extended community yields a
multiplying effect. Figure 42 demonstrates this effect by
tracing a single path through the extended community. In
this case, the park’s Facebook page links to a first tier
community page via the “like” process. The first tier page
is, in turn, linked to 25 additional pages within its
extended intentional community. “Liking” an organization in
the first tier then opens the 38 sites that comprise the
second tier’s extended community. “Liking” an organization
on the second tier opens up the 101 sites that comprise the
third tier’s extended community.
Incidental/Ad Hoc Community
Incidental/ad hoc communities form without any specific
intent to create community linkages between individuals or
activities. Figure 43 graphically depicts the structure of
an unintentional/hoc community.
Figure 41. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Structure.
While the park initiative is a determining factor in
the formation of intentional and extended intentional, as
Figure 43 shows incidental/ad hoc communities can form
without any deliberate action on the park of the park. As
noted earlier, incidental/ad hoc communities form at the
intersection of three elements, an interest, the focus of
that interest, and a social media application that mediates
the interest and focus. An example of an incidental/ad hoc
community is where individuals come together around their
shared interest in photography, have focused that interest
on GRTE, and use Instagram to share that interest and focus
with others. Another example is where individuals are
interested in videography, have focused this interest on
AMIS, and use YouTube share that interest and focus with
others. A key characteristic of incidental/ad hoc
communities is that they are fluid and dynamic, forming and
reforming over time. Community members may also overlap with
other communities. For example, individuals focused on AMIS
may belong to both the photography/Instagram and
videography/YouTube community simultaneously.
The netnographic study reinforces other community
concepts found in the literature. McQueen (2001) defines
community in three dimensions, community as place, community
as a social system, and community as interest-based groups.
Table 11 maps McQueen’s definition of community aspects to
the components identified by the netnographic research.
Table 11. Mapping Community Structure to Netnographic StudyData.
ASPECTS DESCRIPTION STUDY MAPPING
Community as place
Physical location, workplace, suburb, neighborhood.
NPS properties such as GRTE.
Community as social system
Community networks, social bonds, and interactions betweenpeople.
Social media networks such as Facebook andTwitter.
Community as interest-based groups
Heterogeneous groupsof people who share needs, tasks, occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations.
Visitors, partners, non-profit groups, government organizations, commercial entities.
Community as place refers to a physical location such
as a workplace, suburb, or neighborhood. In the case of this
study the communities identified in this study the places
are parks within the park system. Community as social system
refers to networks, social bonds, and interpersonal
interactions. This study identified three distinct network
types; intentional, extended intentional, and incidental/ad
hoc. Community as interest-based groups refers to
heterogeneous groups of people who share needs, tasks,
occupations, struggles, interests, or aspirations. This
study identified individuals who form groups based on common
interests such as photography and videography. The
communities defined within the study contain elements of all
three concepts. For example, an intentional community formed
around a place such as Grand Teton National Park, involves
interpersonal communications such as shared comments and
postings, and involves a common interest in the park itself.
The netnography study shows that social media programs
have the ability to create communities focus on NPS sites.
Respondents recognized the importance of community to their
efforts and the potential of social media applications to
foster communities. Some have taken preliminary steps to
leverage social media to create community and foster
protective behaviors within the communities that do exist.
Examples include strengthening the bonds with existing
intentional communities through outreach, engaging visitors
and external community members in virtual activities such as
photo contests, and inviting community members to join
citizen science and resource monitoring programs.
However, many factors hinder the further development
and expansion of these community building activities. First
and foremost is staffing and funding. All of the sites
interviewed noted the lack of time and resources needed to
develop and implement a comprehensive social media program.
The second involves the limitations of the technology
itself. Combined with the vastness and geography of Park
Service properties the reach and coverage of social media
applications is extremely limited; often being confined to
visitor centers. Another involves the lack of analytical
data on their social media programs. Currently data is
limited to what is available through the applications alone.
For example, how many “likes” or “shares” on a Facebook page
or post and how many “favorites” or “re-tweets” of a Twitter
feed. Park staff lack critical data that would provide
insights on how to format content or what content is most
effective at attracting the attention of the target
audience. They also lack any data that would indicate that a
particular social media program, such as a cultural resource
impact awareness program, had any impact on the attitudes or
behaviors of park visitors. The dearth of hard data makes it
difficult for park management to justify expanded social
media application deployment.
Recommendations
In 2012 the Technology Subcommittee of the National
Park Service conducted a study that provided a conceptual
framework for technology use within the park system
(National Education Council, 2012). The authors then extend
the conceptual framework to describe how the implementation
of these recommendations would enhance the visitor
experience at the GLCA/RABR, beginning with a baseline
assessment of current capabilities. GLCA/RABR’s current
technology infrastructure is weak. Wi-Fi and cell phone
reception is poor in this area. Visitors to Carl Hayden,
Wahweap and Bullfrog Visitor Centers encounter poor cellular
coverage, low bandwidth, and limited access to online
resources.
Based on the basic and goals described by the committee
GLCA/RABR management should build a roadmap to build out
their infrastructure designed to enhance the visitor
experience as follows:
Create “virtual visitor services zones” at all visitor centers, marinas, lake access points, and key community portals, extending the reach of cellular and Wi-Fi services, andincreasing bandwidth.
Extend the popular LAKE Ranger Program by adding Wi-Fi hotspot capability to the “floating visitor centers”.
Provide technology-enhanced interpretive experiences by using technology to provide another portal to the meanings and significance of park cultural resources.
Designate a Social Media Park Ranger to facilitate park engagement with Web 2.0 content and capabilities.
Produce a steady flow of articles, blog postings, webinars, images, videos, podcasts,lesson plans, announcements, oral histories, interactive maps, and related content and usethis content as the basis for two-way
dialogue, community engagement, and communitybuilding efforts.
Launch a social media campaign, calling attention to the need for cultural resource protection, recognizing businesses and organizations who implement targeted education and outreach initiatives, and eliciting stewardship commitments.
Use technology to build a stewardship coalition among concessioners, tour operators, boat owners, boat rental companies, marina owners, and corporate sponsors.
Develop a series of applications including those that provide navigational support to the boater community and facilitate monitoring of cultural and archeological sites within the park.
Engage repeat visitors and local audiences inmeaningful ways, using technology to deepen their connection to park stories and themes, to provide a forum where they can share theirown Glen Canyon experiences, and to mobilize participation in citizen science initiatives.
The technology recommendations and scenarios listed
above focus on using technology in new ways to engage the
visitor community to enhance their learning opportunities
and to make personal connections to cultural resources
within the park. Implementing the technology recommendations
will yield a mobile platform upon which future services can
be deployed.
These recommendations involve considerable expense and
would require a long deployment timeframe. In the short term
park staff should engage the three existing community types
identified in this study with the specific goal of
strengthening community structure and fostering protective
behaviors within and between community elements. The
recommendations which follow extend only to strengthening
social media communities associated with the park. They do
not cover the nature of the target audience nor the message
content that would be most effective in reaching the target
community. All of these elements are critical components of
an effective social media campaign. These elements are the
subject of the two other studies commissioned as part of the
broader GLCA/RABR study. Figure 44 describes the focus areas
for the intentional community.
Figure 42. Intentional Community Recommendations.
Park Staff
ParkFacebookPage
ExternalFacebookAccount
ExternalTwitterAccount
Like Post
Share Post
“Favorite”Tweet
Retweet
OtherCom m unities
OtherCom m unities
NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control
InterpretationInternsOther Staff
Im agesVideoTextAudio
Social M ediaSite Rules
Local NPS SiteRegional NSPNational NPS
VisitorsPartnersNon-ProfitsLocal/State/NatlGovCom m ercial Entities
InterestedParties
ParkTwitterFeed
NPS Site
LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e
1
2
2
3
1. Tightly couple the content between Facebook and Twitter. Use Twitter to leverage content available on and drive traffic to the Facebook site. The goal is to increase awareness and reach of content available and drive traffic to the park’s Facebook page (See line onein Figure 44).
2. Encourage and strengthen bidirectional communication channels between internal and external Facebook and Twitter accounts. The goal is to increase the level of posts, comments, and tweets initiated by the external community (See lines 2 in Figure 44).
3. Encourage and strengthen bidirectional communications channels between internal and external Facebook and Twitter accounts (see lines three in Figure 44).
Figure 45 describes recommendations for strengthening theextended intentional community.
Figure 43. Extended Intentional Community Recommendations.
Park Staff
ParkFacebookPage
1stTierFacebook(25)
Like Page
NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control
InterpretationInternsOther Staff
Social M ediaSite Rules
Local NPS Site PartnersNon-ProfitsLocal/State/NatlGovCom m ercial Entities
Like Page
2nd Tier(38)
2nd Tier
Like Page
Like Page
NPS Site
3nd Tier(101)
3nd Tier
3nd Tier
3nd Tier
Like Page
LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e
The goal of this recommendation is to leverage the
multiplier effect of engaging downstream Facebook entities
to increase the reach of park Facebook content. Key elements
of the recommendation are:
1. Develop a strategy for selecting downstream Facebook entities and selecting only those that align with park goals.
2. Post content directly to chosen Facebook pages to increase downstream awareness and drive traffic back tothe park Facebook page.
Figure 44. Incidental/Ad Hoc Community Recommendations.
Park Staff
NPS RulesSite-specific RulesSocial M edia PlanConfiguration Control
InterpretationInternsOther Staff
Social M ediaSite Rules
Local NPS Site Visitors
Flickr
Tum blr
YouTube
Interested PartiesNPS Site
LEGENDGreen NPSBlue ExternalRed New em phasisGray Not studiedLine weight Relative volum e
The goal of this recommendation is to engage the
incidental community directly to increase awareness and
drive traffic to the park’s social media pages.
1. Monitor select applications for relevant content.
2. Like and comment on content found on incidental community pages.
3. Post park content directly on incidental community pages with links back to park social media pages.
4. Select notable content on incidental community sites and post on park’s social media pages with attribution given to the originator of the content.
CONCLUSION
Since its inception, managers at GLCA/RABR have
sought to dissuade park visitors from engaging in behaviors
that are detrimental to park cultural resources. In the
past, agencies with oversight responsibility did not
actively engage in mediation and prevention programs.
However, when the NPS assumed responsibility for the area
they began to implement prevention programs in keeping with
their preservation and conservation mission. Park management
has used many of the tactical tools at their disposal to
influence visitor behaviors, including site management
techniques, deterrence and enforcement, regulations, and
visitor education. However, according to current park
management, these measures have largely failed and cultural
resource destruction continues unabated.
Park management has yet to implement a comprehensive,
proactive, regional program designed to counter visitor
impacts to cultural resource as outlined in the 1987 CRMP.
Park management has experience developing and implementing
successful comprehensive resource protection programs. For
example, the Zebra/Quagga Mussel prevention program, rolled
out in 2000, is designed to minimize the risk of inadvertent
introduction of mussels into Lake Powell by the boating
community. Key aspects of the program include a boater risk
assessment protocol implemented by park entry staff, boat
inspections conducted at public boat ramps, boat
certification requirements, boat quarantine as indicated,
and boater education programs. In lieu of a comprehensive
intervention program as exemplified by the Zebra Mussel
program, degradation of park cultural resources continues
unabated and threatens to destroy a significant percentage
of existing cultural resources within the park if left
unchecked.
With the advent of wireless technologies and social
networking applications managers at GLCA/RABR have a new set
of tools to apply to the cultural resource destruction
problem. As noted in the literature review communities of
like-minded individuals have significant impact on the
behaviors of group members. Social network-based communities
are a subset of communities in general but differ in
significant ways. First, social media communities are
geographically dispersed and informal. Group members rarely
see another group member and only know the personal traits
that other members choose to share with the group. Second,
communication within the group is driven by the end user and
frequently occurs asynchronously. Group members decided
when, from where, and through which technology to engage the
group. As noted earlier a number of web 1.0 communities
centered on the GLCA/RABR are in place. However, Web 2.0-
based social networks, being more interactive in nature,
have the potential of impacting non-compliant visitor
behaviors through the formation of group values, self-
regulation, and punishment of non-compliant group members.
This study investigated the potential impact of Web
2.0-based tools to influence communities focused on the
GLCA/RABR area, specifically by using these tools to reduce
non-compliant visitor behaviors. My results show that social
media-based communities have formed focused on the national
parks.
Many different communities exist which derive their
identities based on common interests and activities. An
analysis of the netnographic data suggests the existence of
three different community types, intentional, extended
intentional, and incidental. Intentional communities involve
social media sites that are created and maintained by Park
Service staff. Interactions between community members
typically involve bidirectional postings between community
members. Extended intentional communities form when Park
Service staff extends social media interactions to external
communities beyond the first level intentional community.
Often these communities involve interactions between the
Park Service site and other organizations such as government
agencies, non-profit organizations, advocacy groups, and
commercial enterprises. Incidental communities form when
individuals come together to share a common interest and
focus using a common social media application. Incidental
communities can be temporal and fluid, with community
members joining and exiting as interests and focus changes
over time.
The interview data suggests that community members,
especially intentional community members, will engage in a
variety of social media-based activities focused on the park
site. For example, park visitors and other interested
parties participate in photography contests focused on park
resources. Others have joined in resource monitoring and
reporting activities, thereby extending the reach of park
staff. However, the interview data does not show a linkage
between social media programs and resource protection
attitudes and behaviors. If fact, the sparse social media
application metrics available to park staff (likes, shares,
favorites, re-tweets) suggests that posts containing
protective messages generate a small response when compared
to posts containing images of scenery or wildlife. The
inability to demonstrate a causal relationship between
social media programs and protective attitudes and behaviors
suggests an area of further research focused on this
relationship. Using the results of this study, combined with
the two other studies focused on the cultural resource
protection problem at GLCA/RABR, further research could
study the specific impact of using social media applications
to deliver proven messages, targeted at the boater
community, to modify boater attitudes and behaviors towards
cultural resource protection within the park.
REFERENCES
Brown, C., Clark, K., Coble, T., Druin, A., Gray, T., Henriquez, A., Kodak, D., Krueger, K., & Searson M. (2012). National park system advisory board education committee technology subcommittee white paper, National Education Council.
Chang, A. & Kannan, P. K. (2008). Leveraging Web 2.0 in government. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.
Chou, S., Hunt, Y.M., Beckjord E.B., Moser R.P. & Hesse B.W.(2009). Social media use in the United States: Implications for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research; 11(4), 48.
Chick, G. & Dong, E. (2004). Possibility of refining the hierarchical model of leisure constraints through cross cultural research (Report No. NE-317). Newtown square, PA: USDA Forest Service.
Crawford, D., Jackson E. L. & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320.
Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, Kristen L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J. Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36, 90–92.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. Perspectives on Activity Theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Farmer, J. (1999). Glen Canyon dammed: Inventing Lake Powell and the canyon country. Tucson, ARIZONA: University of Arizona Press.
Gibbs, G. R. & Taylor, C. (2010). "What is qualitative data analysis (QDA)? Retrieved from onlineqda.hud.ac.uk/Intro_QDA/what_is_qda.php.
Gilbert, D. & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: a skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(1), 106-123.
Greenberg, J. & MacAulay, M. (2009). NPO 2.0? Exploring the web presence of environmental nonprofit organizations in Canada. Global Media Journal, 2(1), 63-88.
Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical frameworkfor building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16.
Ham, Sam H., Brown, Terry J., Curtis, Jim, Weiler, Betty, Hughes, Mark, & Poll, Mark (2007). Promoting Persuasion in Protected Areas. Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.
Heywood, J.L. & Murdock, W.E. (2002). Social norms in outdoor recreation: searching for the behavior-condition link. Leisure Sciences: 24(3-4), 283-295.
Holmes, N., Manni, M., Eury, D., & Hollenhorst, S. (2007). Glen Canyon National Recreation area visitor study (VSPreport No. 186). Retrieved from University of Idaho Park Studies Unit website: http://psu.uidaho.edu/files/vsp/reports/186_GLCA_rept.pdf.
Horne, C. (2001) Sociological perspectives on the emergence of social norms. In Hechter , M. & Opp, K. (Eds.), Social Norms, 3(34). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Horne, C. (2000). Community and the state: the relationship between normative and legal controls. European Sociological Review 16(3), 225-43.
Keckley, P. H. & Hoffmann, M. (2010). Social networks in health care: communication, collaboration and insights. Washington, DC: Deloitte Center for Health Solutions,
Kimmm, J. (2009). Three-factor model and pyramid model of leisure constraints. Journal of Travel and Tourism Research. 9(2).
Kitts, J. A. & Yen-Sheng C. (2008). Norms. In V. Parillo (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Problems (pp. 625-626). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kollock, P. (1994) The emergence of exchange structures: an experimental study of uncertainty, commitment, and trust. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 313–345.
Knackmuhs. E. (2011). But does it work?: the impact of social media use on interpretive outcomes and place attachment at San Francisco bay area park (master’s thesis). Stephen F. Austin State University: Nacagdoches, TX.
Kopera, S. (2009). Application of social software in tourism industry. Institute of Organization and Managment in Industry, 3(1), 120 – 127.
Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(February), 61–72. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
Kozinetts, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing Ethnographic Research Online (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leppaniemi, M., Karjalouto, H. (2005). Factors influencing consumers’ willingness to accept mobile advertising : a conceptual model.Business, 3(3), 197-213.
MacQueen K. M., McLellan E., Metzger D. S., Kegeles S., Strauss R. P., & Scotti R. (2001).What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1929-1938.
Minato, W., Curtis, A., & Allan, C. (2010): Social norms and natural resource management in a changing rural community. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(4), 381.
Musiał, K. & KArizonaienko, P. (2013). Social networks on the internet. World Wide Web, 16, 31–72.
Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
NPHA, NPS will team up to boost cell and internet access in parks (2012, October/November). National Park Hospitality Association. Retrieved from http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/nps/1_31_13_NHPA_connectivity_plans.pdf.
National Park System Advisory Board Education Committee (2012). Technology Subcommittee White Paper. Retrieved from http://www.nps.gov/resources/upload/Task-6-NPSAB-Education-Technology.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Park Service (1987). GLCA/RABR resource management plan: cultural component.
Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: an analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, (2), 1-25.
Okun, M. A.; Ruehlman, L.; Karoly, P.; Lutz, R., Fairholme, C., & Schaub, R. (2003). Social support and social norms: do both contribute to predicting leisure-time exercise? American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(5), 493-507.
Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in government: why and how (Report No. 23358 EN). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities. Retrieved from http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC45269.pdf.
Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.
Powell, J, W. (1895). Canyons of the Colorado (HTML version). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/8082/8082-h/8082-h.htm.
Snape, D. & Spencer-Ritchie, L .(2003). The Foundations of Qualitative Research. In Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Ed.),Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 2-23), London: Sage Publications.
Robelia, B. A., Greenhow, C., & Burton, L. (2011). Environmental learning in online social networks: adopting environmentally responsible behaviors. Environmental Education Research, 17(4), 553-575.
Sigala, M. (2007). WEB 2.0 in the tourism industry: a new tourism generation and new e-business models. Chios, Greece: University of the Aegean,
Surman, M. & Reilly, K. (2003). Appropriating the internet for social change. Brooklyn, NY: Social Science Research Council.
Swan, M. (2009). Emerging patient-driven health care models: an examination of health social networks, consumer personalized medicine
and quantified self-tracking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 6, 492-525.
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: use of Web 2.0 social media. Health Promotion Practice, 9(4), 338-43. doi:10.1177/1524839908325335.
Thevenot, G. (2007). Blogging as a social media. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 7(3-4), 287-289. doi:10.1057/palgrave.thr.605006.2
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: how nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35,102–106.
Bradley, W. (2001). Nonlegal regulation of the legal profession: social norms in professional communities. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(5).
White, D. D. & Hendee, J. C. (2000). Primal hypotheses: the relationship between naturalness, solitude and the wilderness experience benefits of development of self, development of community and spiritual development. Ogden UT: USDA Forest Service.
United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service (1987). Research management plan, cultural component. Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Page, Arizona.
United States General Accounting Office (1987). Problems protecting and preserving federal archeological resources. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. General Accounting Office.
Wright, D. K., & Hinson, M. D. (2008). How blogs and social mediaare changing public relations and the way it is practiced. Public Relations Journal, 2(2), 1-21.
APPENDIX A: GLCA/RABR PORTENTIAL INTERVIEW LIST
NAME STATE BODY OF WATERAmistad NRA TX Reservoir
Bighorn Canyon NRA
MT Reservoir
Curecanti NRA CO Lake
Lake Chelan NRA WA Lake
Lake Mead NRA NV Reservoir
Lake Roosevelt NRA
WA Reservoir
Ross Lake NRA WA Lake
Santa Monica Mts. CA Lake
Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity NRA
CA Reservoir
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
MI Lake
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
MI Lake
Isle Royale National Park
MI Lake
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore
IN Lake
NAME STATE BODY OF WATER
Voyageurs National Park
MN Lakes
Rio Grande Wild &Scenic River
TX River
Padre Island National Seashore
TX Ocean
Buffalo National River
AR River
Obed Wild & Scenic River
TN River
Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area
TN River
Great Basin National Park
NV Lake
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore
NV Lake
Big Fork NationalRiver & Recreation Area
TN/KY River
Little River Canyon National Preserve
AL River
Jean Lafitte National HistoricPark and Reserve
LA Lake
NAME STATE BODY OF WATER
Chattahoochee National Recreation Area
GA River
Cumberland IslandNational Seashore
GA Ocean
Gulf Islands National Seashore
FL/MS Ocean
Canaveral National Seashore
FL Ocean
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
NC Ocean
Cape Lookout National Seashore
NC Ocean
Wheeling NationalHeritage Area
WV River
New River Gorge National River
WV River
VITA
Chris received his Bachelor of Science in Forestry
degree from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural
Resources and Environment in 1976. For the next 35 years
Chris worked in the telecommunications and computer
industries in various technical and senior management
positions for large multinational corporations. In June of
2011 Chris enrolled in the Masters of Science in Resource
Interpretation program at Stephen F. Austin State University
in Nacogdoches, Texas, and expects to complete the program
in May of 2015. Chris is a Texas Master Naturalist and
frequently teaches classes on forest ecology, forest
management, dendrology, and entomology to master naturalist
and other groups in North Texas. Chris chairs the land
committee of the Connemara Conservancy Foundation, a land
trust focused on preserving endangered landscapes and