The Impact of NOLS Rocky Mountain on the Development of a Sense of Place

Abstract

Background: One of the core environmental studies learning objectives at NOLS is for students to develop a “sense of place” by experiencing wilderness and exploring relationships with their surroundings. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore how students report developing a sense of place after completing a course based out of NOLS Rocky Mountain in Lander, Wyoming. A secondary focus of this study was to understand sense-of-place development through past NOLS research on learning mechanisms. Methodology/Approach: Data were analyzed from 511 NOLS students who answered the open-ended question: Did NOLS help you develop a personal relationship to the places you visited? If so, how? This study utilized a grounded theory approach to design and analysis. Findings/Conclusions: Analyses revealed nine core categories related to developing an expeditionary and wilderness-focused sense of place. The two predominant themes supporting a sense of place were the ability of a NOLS course to facilitate nature appreciation and specific instructor-oriented and NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms. Implications: This article offers insights into how NOLS supports a sense of place, clarifies related learning mechanisms, and discusses curricular considerations related to facilitating person–environment relationships within landscapes understood as wilderness.

Keywords

sense of place place attachment place meaning environmental education outdoor adventure education

Founded in 1965 by Paul Petzoldt, NOLS (formerly the National Outdoor Leadership School) (NOLS, 2016) seeks to be the leading source and teacher of wilderness skills and leadership that serve people and the environment. NOLS is the largest backcountry permit holder in the United States and facilitates extended wilderness expeditions across the world for participants of many ages who wish to learn expeditionary and leadership skills. The NOLS expedition curriculum centers on leadership, environmental studies, outdoor skills, and risk management and is delivered through backpacking, mountaineering, rock climbing, whitewater canoeing, and many other course activity types (NOLS, 2016). NOLS programs rely on an experiential approach by teaching students the knowledge and skills required to independently lead others safely and effectively in a variety of wilderness and community environments through direct experience, practice, and reflection (NOLS, 2016). Landscapes understood as wilderness are framed throughout the rest of this article to refer descriptively to places where natural features and forces are most prominent and that are currently uninhabited by human beings (Wilderness Act, 1964). This framing comes with acknowledgment that wilderness is a cultural and contested construct (Cronin, 1996; Fox, 2000; Nash, 1982).

One of the core environmental studies learning objectives at NOLS is for students to develop a “sense of place” by experiencing landscapes understood as wilderness and exploring relationships with their surroundings (O’Donnell, 2014). Sense of place was classically discussed within the human geography field as the emotional bonds that develop between a person and an environment (Tuan, 1977). More contemporary discussions on sense-of-place education emphasize and critique the multiple meanings, histories, and tensions that are present in nearly every place on earth that people inhabit or once inhabited (Watchow & Brown, 2015). In the context of this study and in the context of NOLS’s ability to facilitate educational experiences for others, sense of place is defined as the personal relationship students develop with wilderness areas traveled while participating on an extended outdoor educational expeditionary program (O’Donnell, 2014).

Supporting sense-of-place development is important to NOLS because articulating an environmental ethic and supporting students’ abilities in noticing and appreciating the natural world during and beyond NOLS are goals of every course. Therefore, helping students develop a personal and positive relationship to natural environments is foundational to the NOLS environmental studies curriculum (NOLS, 2016) and is considered by many to be imperative in addressing some of the long-term sustainability challenges of the planet (Brookes & Dahle, 2007). Research supports NOLS’s ability in improving both the cognitive and emotional aspects of students’ environmental ethics developed during NOLS experiences (Waage, Paisley, & Gookin, 2012). Other research shows place-based sentiments can be linked to longer term proenvironmental behavior and intentions (Halpenny, 2010; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001). Waage et al. (2012) discuss environmental behavior as a set of nested systems and “believe taking an increasingly ecological approach that considers a wide range of factors while focusing on the ways these systems interact is vital to understanding the various differences in individuals’ environmental ethics and, in turn, how they engage in behavior” (p. 26). Extending from this idea, we suggest that exploring the ways NOLS students report sense-of-place development is important in understanding environmental ethic and behavior formation within the NOLS context. Given the lack of research in this area of the NOLS curriculum, the purpose of this study was to explore how NOLS course participants report developing a wilderness-focused sense of place after completing a course out of NOLS Rocky Mountain in Lander, Wyoming. A secondary focus of this study was to clarify the learning mechanisms associated with sense-of-place development at NOLS.

Conceptual Framework

Sense of place has a long and rich history in the ways NOLS approaches environmental studies. In the 2002 NOLS Environmental Educator Notebook, John Gookin (2002) proclaimed that “environmental studies at NOLS are positive, fun, and relevant. It is based on both practical needs and developing a sense of place” (p. 4). Long-time NOLS instructor Marco Johnson (2002) argued, “Environmental ethics means helping students foster a sense of place” (p. 5), making explicit links between environmental appreciation, values, and ethics. In the same instructor manual, Rob MacLean (2002) described a sense of place at NOLS as a three-part framework: “1. Being comfortable and at home in an environment; 2. An awareness and understanding of life processes in that environment; 3. Being mentally present in a place and not being absorbed by distractions” (p. 17). These ways of thinking about person–place relationships continue to frame environmental studies within NOLS culture (O’Donnell, 2014).

Currently, the teaching of the environmental studies curriculum at NOLS begins with building a foundation of science followed by activities that support students in developing a sense of place (see Figure 1). Activities and classes with themes related to ecological knowledge, appreciation of places traveled, and minimum impact practices coincide with classes on land management and other environmental issues, which encourage students to make curricular connections and engage in proenvironmental actions in their everyday lives (O’Donnell, 2014). The 2014 NOLS Environmental Educator Notebook provides the most current definition of sense of place that is used at NOLS and that provides the basis for this study; the definition is framed as one of the five school-wide environmental studies outcomes: “Students develop a sense of place by experiencing wilderness and exploring relationships with their surroundings” (O’Donnell, 2014, p. 46).

Figure 1.

NOLS environmental studies progression (O’Donnell, 2014).

Empirical work supports an approach that is useful to the framing of this study by defining a sense of place as a combination of place attachment and place meaning (Kudryavtsev, Stedman, & Krasny, 2012). Place attachment is conceptualized as the strength of the bonds a person or a group has to their environment (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Place meaning represents the symbolism people use to characterize the meanings assigned to specific places (Davenport & Anderson, 2005). Kudryavtsev et al. (2012) suggested that sense of place (place attachment and place meaning) can be positively influenced both experientially and instructionally. Combining an experiential and an instructional approach to sense of place “takes advantage of nurturing place meanings both through direct place experiences and through instruction, negotiation, and interpretation” (p. 240). The ways sense of place is nurtured within an educational context such as NOLS should also take into consideration the ways travel, skill, and activities shape attention to the environment (Beringer, 2004). Indeed, it is reasonable to surmise that the educational principles, practices, and travel that make up the NOLS Rocky Mountain programs also shape and help to produce a certain type of wilderness person–place relationship experienced by participants (Mullins, 2014, 2018). Overall, sense of place is framed in this study as a positioned and nuanced concept shaped by experience and instruction (Kudryavtsev et al., 2012; Mullins, 2009).

Although it cannot be assumed that all participants positively relate to their surroundings during wilderness education trips (Haluza-DeLay, 1999), outdoor environmental education and outdoor recreation experiences have long shown promise in positively affecting views toward the natural world, including new meanings applied to nature (Palmberg & Kuru, 2010), increased knowledge of the environment (Gillett, Thomas, Skok, & McLaughlin, 1991), and highlighting the importance of how appreciation of the outdoor experience developed early in life can influence environmental attitudes later in life (Ewert, Place, & Sibthorp, 2005). Although longitudinal research demonstrates that an appreciation of nature is a long-term outcome for those who participate in NOLS programs (Sibthorp, Furman, Paisley, & Gookin, 2008), no research we are aware of examines the process and facets of sense-of-place development specifically within NOLS experiences that could be leveraged to improve environmental studies outcomes. This exploratory study is meant to fill part of this gap.

NOLS Learning Mechanisms

Mechanisms of student learning at NOLS are explored in-depth by Paisley, Furman, Sibthorp, and Gookin (2008) and will help to frame this study’s findings. Paisley et al. showed that NOLS students generally learn through five domains: structure-oriented mechanisms (built into courses by curriculum managers and program supervisors), instructor-oriented mechanisms (through the ways instructors direct how course content is delivered), student-oriented mechanisms (learning that occurs through independent student acts), student-and-instructor-oriented mechanisms (learning that results from both student and instructor actions), and qualities of the environment (learning through interaction of both natural and social environments). Given that this research study explores not only “if” students report developing a sense of place but “how,” these domains will help frame how sense-of-place development can be relatable to curriculum managers, program supervisors, and instructors. These learning mechanisms will be discussed in greater detail in the results section of this article.

Method

This study is part of a larger project (see Farrell, 2016) where a 30-item pre- and postsurvey was administered during the summer of 2016 to all NOLS Rocky Mountain students. The larger project’s purpose was to understand more generally the worldviews of NOLS Rocky Mountain students, their self-reported roles in the world, any personal changes they experienced during the course, as well as any personal relationships formed with the places they visited. Analyses of the data from the larger study are currently underway. The analysis performed for this study was approved by the Brock University Research Ethics Board. Data were analyzed from 511 NOLS students (178 female, 321 male, 12 unidentified). The mean age of the participants who provided responses to the questionnaire was 18.8 years (standard deviation of 4.6) and ranged from 14 to 64. The participants were asked the open-ended question: Did NOLS help you develop a personal relationship to the places you visited? If so, how? Developing a “personal relationship to places traveled” is the language NOLS uses to cover, define, and deliver sense-of-place education through its environmental studies curriculum (O’Donnell, 2014).

As the findings of this study will demonstrate, these prompted descriptions gave the researchers a blend of both emic and etic perspectives through illuminating respondents’ indigenous and curriculum-influenced perspectives at the completion of a NOLS course (Yin, 2010). This study followed the approach and analytical steps of two completed NOLS research studies (see Paisley et al., 2008; Waage et al., 2012). Utilizing grounded theory, we believe, was the best approach to unpacking a subjective concept like sense of place within an educational context such as NOLS because our focus was to understand emerging patterns of “inductive qualitative interaction” (Stern, 2007, p. 117) of human beings with natural environments from different points of view.

Our study proceeded with the following analytical steps. First, two of the researchers read through all the responses independently using the constant comparison method to manually form initial categories in the data through open coding. Due to the amount of data and the purpose of the study, the initial coding of both researchers was descriptive with a focus on scoping for broad categories within the “yes” responses. This initial stage of coding included an audit trail for the purposes of trustworthiness and transparency. In comparing initial categories together, the researchers interpreted 11 categories in total agreement, three categories in similar agreement (primarily semantic differences), three distinct categories (from Researcher 1), and six distinct categories (from Researcher 2) for a total of 23 categories.

Next, two researchers discussed and compared the initial 23 categories from the affirmative responses and collaboratively made decisions where disagreements, inconsistencies, and connections between categories existed. This axial coding process resulted in the merging, renaming, and deleting of categories, and it was finalized with 14 core categories that the researchers interpreted as most accurately representing how NOLS Rocky Mountain students answered the question (Kelle, 2007). Individual statements were the units of analysis. Individual statements were enumerated by category to report the relative magnitude of each category in comparison with others. Decision rules included enumerating statements based on the first idea mentioned in each statement. Finally, categories were rereviewed and examined for “contrast” (Paisley et al., 2008, p. 204) to ensure that a difference existed based on the source of the categories (Spradley, 1979). In other words, we wanted to know if those students who reported the development of a relationship between themselves and the areas they traveled clearly described differences between the categories. Minor adjustments to the placement of statements were made based on this final analytical step. The same analytical approach was used for the “no” responses secondarily and is discussed in the final section of the results.

Results

When asked, “Did NOLS help you develop a personal relationship to the places you visited? If so, how?” 83 participants (16%) responded “no,” 369 (72%) responded “yes,” 23 (4.5%) responded with unrelated answers, and 36 (7%) offered no response. Of the “yes” respondents, 26 provided no explanation and six provided explanations that were unrelated to the question. This resulted in a total of 337 students (66% of N) who responded affirmatively and provided usable details. Responses varied from one word to several sentences. The usable 337 “yes” responses were placed into 14 categories organized by percentage. Of these 14 categories, five did not represent at least 4% of the total usable responses and were excluded because they were “considered comparatively idiosyncratic” (Waage et al., 2012, p. 21) to the other categories. This left a total of 308 responses organized into nine categories: sensing connectedness and appreciating nature (35%), instructor-oriented and NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms (20%), emerging new perspectives on life and nature (9.8%), feeling like this place is home (8.2%), special and positive memories generated about this place (6.6%), experiencing and overcoming challenges (5.5%), living in a remote and harsh environment (5.5%), wanting to return to the places traveled (5%), and feeling competent living in a wilderness setting (4.4%). Table 1 provides examples of each category in the words of participants. What follows are brief descriptions of each category combined with a discussion about their links to NOLS learning mechanisms and outcomes. Each statement shared is complete, is taken from one individual student’s response, and is included only once in this article.

Table 1.

Results: Did NOLS Help You to Develop a Personal Relationship to the Places You Visited? If So, How?

Sensing connectedness and appreciating nature (35%)	Yes. I enjoyed watching crickets and butterflies and seeing the stars appear. I liked understanding the character of each campsite and enjoyed navigating by the look of rocks and trees.
Instructor-oriented and NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms (20%)	Yes, through our nature nugget lessons. I learned many interesting facts about the plants and animals in the Bear Tooth range and I believe that the more you know about something, the greater your appreciation is for that thing.
Emerging new perspectives on life and nature (9.8%)	It did! I grew fond of areas I would have originally thought were small worthless places.
Feeling like this place is home (8.2%)	Yes, because when you stay in one place, it sort of becomes a home in the wilderness.
Special and positive memories generated about this place (6.6%)	Yes, I loved each and every place, and I can remember my experiences there with great detail and awe.
Experiencing and overcoming challenges (5.5%)	Yes, it made me respect the challenges of the mountains and the diversity and ability of the wildlife we saw.
Living in a remote and harsh environment (5.5%)	I have had a lasting relationship with the Winds and NOLS fostered that and helped it grow by taking me to more remote and beautiful places and showing [me] what a place looks like with very little human impact. This became something important to me.
Wanting to return to the places traveled (5%)	I believe so. I have always loved the outdoors and now I want to spend more time in the Wind River Range.
Feeling competent living in a wilderness setting (4.4%)	Yes, I felt very connected to the places I visited because I walked there and very conscious of the route. (Map skills were very exciting)

In all, 35% of the “yes” respondents reported that a personal relationship was developed to NOLS areas through a sense of connectedness to and an appreciation of nature during the NOLS experience. This category was formed through the many ways students reported being emotionally affected by exposure to the natural environment. These themes ranged from students’ reports of “beauty,” “awesomeness,” and “views” to broader feelings of connection to nature as a whole. One student remarked, “It just made me realize how connected we are as humans to the outdoors and our environment.” Another student explained, “Yes, you appreciate the pristine nature of these places. I also have a pretty deep connection with Mt. Woodrow Wilson.”

These responses provide evidence to NOLS Rocky Mountain showing specifically how it meets its learning objective of connecting students to wild places (NOLS, 2016). Although this finding is not surprising and likely common to many expeditionary outdoor adventure education programs, NOLS should feel confident that the most frequently reported learning mechanisms that appear to facilitate a sense of place for students are qualities related to the environments traveled and student-oriented learning mechanisms as discussed previously by Paisley et al. (2008). In other words, feeling connected to one’s surroundings and appreciating nature was most often the result of environmental factors that are a part of each course combined with student-oriented mechanisms where students reported learning independently from interacting with their surroundings. Specific learning mechanisms mentioned included the particular areas chosen for expedition travel, having the chance to observe and appreciate diverse landscapes within natural environments, and directly interacting with landscapes that were novel and different from home environments.

The second most frequent student responses (20% of the “yes” responses) were scaffolded by instructor-oriented and NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms linked to sense-of-place development. Instructor-oriented learning mechanisms were those direct actions taken by instructors that impacted student learning (Paisley et al., 2008). In the context of this study, NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms resulted from programing aspects of NOLS such as classes, course length, rituals, and routines. Specifically, students mentioned learning mechanisms such as classes on environmental studies (“They definitively did. I think just learning about the places we went and why the different things were growing and living there was awesome . . . . Having the knowledge makes a personal relationship easier”), developing familiar rituals (“Sleeping, drinking, and relieving myself where we traveled made me feel one with it”), facilitating authentic experiences (“Yes, by [instructors] making the experiences raw and real rather than sheltered and protective”), facilitating reflection (“Yes, by being guided in reflections, daily readings pertaining to the outdoors and values connected to this, and by allowing for quiet time”), and leading discussions on natural history and Indigenous awareness (“NOLS helped me by paying tribute to the people who used to live on the land we hiked on”). A major subtheme within this category was having the opportunity to practice environmental ethics. Students mentioned common Leave No Trace practices (“Everyday leaving our previous campsite the exact same as when we found it the night before was incredibly powerful. I often imagined others happening upon our campsite with the same awe we initially felt”), a sense of ownership (“Yes. I felt a sense of ownership and responsibility over each place we visited due to LNT [Leave No Trace] principles and open discussions about wilderness”), and greater sensitivity toward impacts (“Yes, because I realized how big of an impact I can have on the land, be it negative or positive and how it is my responsibility to protect the land and do my duty to raise awareness about how important and treasured this land is”). These learning mechanisms are relatable to instruction and curriculum structure and highlight part of “what works” within the environmental studies curriculum that impacted sense-of-place development for students.

Emerging new perspectives on life and nature were reported in 9.8% of the “yes” responses as a factor that helped to facilitate relationships to landscapes understood as wilderness. Statements such as “Yes, I connected deeply with nature and myself. I understand the mountains and I can hear the trees” exemplifies a shift in perspective toward one’s self combined with aspects of the natural world. Another participant remarked, “Yes, I feel connected to the land that I visited and the impact that I had on it as well as the impact it had on me,” demonstrating emergence and recognition of feelings of reciprocity between a person and a landscape. Finally, another student explained, “Yes, I had growing experiences all over the places. I grew and became a different person than when I first laced up my boots—I owe it to those places to have that attachment.” For this student, recognizing personal growth during the experience appeared to make those places more meaningful. Overall, this category took shape because of student-oriented learning mechanisms and qualities of the environment with emphasis on independent student learning and independent emerging perspectives.

Feeling like the place is home was mentioned in 8.2% of the “yes” responses. Remarks such as “Yes, because when you stay in one place it sort of becomes a home in the wilderness” and “I kind of did because I thought that that was my home and my home is something that is very special to me” demonstrate the bonding to areas traveled that some students reported. Other reports of feeling at home were driven by descriptions of what it is like to live and feel ownership in an outdoor environment: “Living in them and feeling like they were to some extent mine (and everyone else’s) was wonderful.” Another participant explained the importance of living in a place highlighting how reliance on an area for a resource such as water changes one’s relationship to it: “Yes, I think specifically relying on the land around me for water made me develop respect for the places in an emotional way.” Similar to emerging new perspectives, all statements within this category appear to be the result of student-oriented learning mechanisms and qualities of the environments traveled.

Although it is beyond the scope of this article to detail every category, Table 1 provides introductory examples. Special and positive memories generated about places traveled were reported in 6.6% of the “yes” responses and should remind instructors that talking with students about place-based positive memories may help in articulating a relationship to NOLS areas. Experiencing and overcoming challenges (5.5% of “yes” responses) was important to students in how they conceptualized a personal relationship to areas visited. Instructors may be able to intentionally use challenge as an educational tool by framing a challenge as a relationship builder to NOLS areas not based on conquering but instead on developing a healthy way of relating and learning. Living in a remote and harsh environment (5.5%) was another key factor for students as witnessing and experiencing the power of the environments traveled had a solidifying effect on their relationship to those areas. Realizations of wanting to return to the places traveled (5%) appeared to be a signpost to some students that they had formed a meaningful relationship to a specific environment. Finally, feeling competent living in an outdoor setting (4.4%) was described through skill building that led to being comfortable in natural environments. Learning to be comfortable in an outdoor environment in an expeditionary context should be thought of as an important precursor to developing an emotional bond to it.

In summary, sense-of-place development was reported in diverse ways by students in this study. The nine distinct categories demonstrate this diversity. The most frequently reported learning mechanisms that students associated with sense-of-place development were qualities of the environment and NOLS structure-oriented learning mechanisms. Instructor-oriented learning mechanisms also played a significant role in sense-of-place development. The next section provides a summary of the “no” responses to provide information about reported barriers to developing a sense of place.

Barriers to Sense of Place

As mentioned, 83 participants (16%) responded “no” in answering the question, “Did NOLS help you develop a personal relationship to the places you visited? If so, how?” Two of the researchers analyzed the “no” responses, and although core themes did not arise in comparison with the “yes” responses, useful information was derived from the data and is described below. Of the “no” responses, 41 participants simply stated “no” or “not really” with no additional detail. The remaining 42 responses provided some insight on barriers to sense-of-place development. Although examples included feeling connected to people rather than to the areas traveled (“No, I feel no personal connection to the mountains as much as the people I was with”) and feeling more in tune with NOLS activities such as rock climbing (“Not really, except making me want to come back here and climb more”), the most frequent “no” responses appear to relate to the very idea of forming a personal relationship with a NOLS area. Some participants reported discomfort with the idea (“Not really, I cannot be that spiritual with the land. Too hippy”). Some participants took issue with the role NOLS might play in the process of forming a personal relationship (“No, I think the only way to create relationship is through yourself, NOLS did not help me with that”). Other participants seemed to grapple with the meaning of a personal relationship (“No, honestly I don’t think so. Memories, but not a relationship”). Finally, participants also relied on previous feelings about nature that were reportedly unchanged by NOLS (“No, I already really liked nature and I feel really connected to it and also felt that way before”). It is also noteworthy that some participants instead of simply writing “no” often wrote out “Not a personal relationship” perhaps signaling resistance to the idea of sense of place or to the phrasing of the question and concept.

The “no” responses may be interpreted in the following ways. Like other aspects of the NOLS curriculum, not all students will necessarily gravitate toward all parts of environmental studies. In comparison with the rest of the environmental studies curriculum, sense-of-place development is the least tangible, and part of the purpose of teaching for a sense of place at NOLS is, at the very least, to introduce new thinking about ways of relating to parts of the natural world. Even simply asking students to consider the possibility of relating to a natural area accomplishes part of this curricular goal. Conversely, as some of the “no” responses indicate discomfort toward the notion of a “personal relationship,” NOLS instructors may consider multiple ways of communicating the significance of sense-of-place development beyond the language NOLS uses to define it in its curriculum materials. As some of these findings suggest, asking students how they feel about and notice their surroundings, combined with imparting knowledge about cultural and natural history, could accomplish this goal of the environmental studies curriculum without ever mentioning “sense of place.” This underscores the idea that pathways to sense-of-place development will look different for different students, course types, and areas traveled. These findings are meant to broaden possibilities of engaging students with this aspect of the NOLS environmental studies curriculum. Finally, some of the resistance that students appeared to have in answering the question may help craft more relatable questions in future work. Although most students responded positively when considering a personal relationship with NOLS environments, adding questions with more open language, context, and possible interpretations associated with personal meaning and the significance of places experienced could generate a greater range of responses combined with conducting qualitative in-depth interviews.

Discussion and Recommendations

Overall, the findings from this study suggest NOLS courses can positively shape the development of a sense of place within its North American wilderness expeditionary context, and they are generally consistent with person–environment research within (Gress & Hall, 2017; Hutson & Bailey, 2008; Paisley et al., 2008; Waage et al., 2012) and outside (Breunig, Murtell, & Russell, 2015; Gillett et al., 1991; Grimwood, Haberer, & Legault, 2015; Harper, 2018; Mikaels & Asfeldt, 2016; Mullins, 2009; Palmberg & Kuru, 2010) of NOLS. Participants’ answers to the survey question represented “opportunities for creating their own place stories” (Mikaels & Asfeldt, 2016, p. 9) that give structure to an intangible aspect of the NOLS environmental studies curriculum that can help program managers and instructors improve and expand environmental studies outcomes.

Practically, these findings can help NOLS fine-tune the ways it supports sense-of-place development for its students on courses in the United States and Canada through curriculum planning and delivery. Of note, sense of place appears to interact in important ways with other aspects of the NOLS environmental studies curriculum. For example, practicing the Leave No Trace principles was mentioned as a source of sense-of-place development. In teaching about Leave No Trace, instructors should remind students that practicing environmental ethics can be a form of engaged place-responsiveness (Watchow & Brown, 2015). Although critiques of Leave No Trace demonstrate how it may distance participants from the land (see Mullins, 2018), others suggest that embedding Leave No Trace into a place-based approach could be a useful educational strategy (North & Hutson, 2011). Instructors can operationalize a place-based approach to Leave No Trace by making explicit why a practice such as storing food safely away from wildlife is not only showing respect for animals but also represents a response of care for mechanisms of interdependence within a specific habitat. In addition, and consistent with findings from Hanna (1995), instructors expressing place-based thoughts and opinions on issues affecting areas visited was reported as giving students the confidence to articulate their own expressions of person–place relationships. Program supervisors should encourage instructors to talk openly on negative issues (e.g., climate change) affecting NOLS environments to model person–place engagement and feelings of concern. When students make these same connections, topics such as Leave No Trace, climate change, and sense of place are more intentionally linked.

Theoretically, the findings in this study provide additional basis for discussion on the ramifications of an educational organization such as NOLS producing a wilderness-focused sense of place for students. It is important to acknowledge that these findings appear largely shaped by NOLS culture and Eurocentric ways of valuing outdoor environments. We reiterate this point here to highlight the complex nature of sense of place and wilderness as contested concepts and pedagogical tools that provide positive benefits for participants but also privilege some ways of thinking and feeling about places in the natural world over others. Although the findings and recommendations from this study are helpful for NOLS Rocky Mountain in the way it approaches environmental studies, the findings may also provide points of reflection for identifying curricular gaps and mapping out possible new directions.

First, although there is evidence within the findings highlighting the importance of learning about Indigenous histories on lands where NOLS Rocky Mountain courses travel as supporting a sense of place, examples were rare. NOLS is currently working to bolster Indigenous perspectives within its curricula in the United States and Canada and aims to increases the role and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples in its programs. The findings from this study may help NOLS Rocky Mountain gain a fuller view of what programs do and do not teach about the environments where NOLS operates and can help to make a case for continued bolstering of topics such as Indigenous perspectives within programs. Second, views of what the “wilderness” represents are many sided. For NOLS, landscapes understood as wilderness primarily represent areas meant to inspire a connection to nature and the practices of leadership and environmental stewardship. However, like many outdoor adventure education programs, NOLS Rocky Mountain courses also use environments with histories of forced colonization of people and natural systems (Fox, 2000). NOLS could integrate this juxtaposition into its curriculum to provide balance in how it portrays stories of land history, philosophy, and ethics to its students.

Limitations and Conclusion

As with other limitations related to self-report data such as exaggeration of responses, varied interpretations of what was being asked, and social desirability, these findings should be interpreted carefully. Our findings and recommendations are most relevant to NOLS Rocky Mountain courses and expeditionary educational programs with a similar mission. Overall, the findings from this study suggest that NOLS Rocky Mountain courses can positively shape the development of a sense of place within its wilderness expeditionary context through a variety of learning mechanisms. Sense-of-place development at NOLS Rocky Mountain may be strengthened and expanded by more widely including Indigenous knowledge and critical perspectives about land, natural systems, and the contested person–place relationships that have defined landscapes understood as wilderness. Additional work exploring the possible links between person–environment relationships at NOLS and future intentions for proenvironmental behavior is currently underway.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments related to the development of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially funded by the Brock University Environmental Sustainability Research Centre.

ORCID iD

Garrett Hutson

Author Biographies

Garrett Hutson is an associate professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies and a participating faculty member within the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre at Brock University in St. Catharines, Ontario. He is a former NOLS instructor and currently teaches undergraduate courses on leadership, risk management, and outdoor education.

Liz Peredun received her Bachelor of Arts in English and her Bachelor of Recreation and Leisure Studies in Outdoor Recreation. She works backpacking and river courses for NOLS and as a Program Facilitator at the Youth Achievement Centre in Whitehorse, Yukon. Liz writes about gendered place-based narratives in The Palgrave International Handbook of Women and Outdoor Learning.

Shannon Rochelle is the research manager for NOLS where she also has taught expedition courses for more than 20 years. Her research interests include what and how students learn on expedition courses and the influence the natural environment and course community have on that learning.

References

Beringer

(2004). Toward an ecological paradigm in adventure programming. Journal of Experiential Education, 27, 51-66. doi:10.1177/105382590402700105

Breunig

Murtell

Russell

(2015). Students’ experiences with/in integrated environmental studies programs in Ontario. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15, 267-283. doi:10.1080/14729679.2014.955354

Brookes

Dahle

(2007). Preface. In Henderson

Vikander

(Eds.), Nature first: Outdoor life the friluftsliv way (pp. 8-114). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Natural Heritage.

Cronin

(1996). The trouble with wilderness: Or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, 1, 7-28.

Davenport

M. A.

Anderson

D. H.

(2005). Getting from sense of place to place-based management: An interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 625-641. doi:10.1080/08941920590959613

Ewert

Place

Sibthorp

(2005). Early life outdoor experiences and an individual’s environmental attitude. Leisure Sciences, 27, 229-235. doi:10.1080/01490400590930853

Farrell

(2016). A scientific study of sense of place in NOLS education. Unpublished research proposal, Yale University School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, USA.

Fox

K. M.

(2000). Navigating confluences: Revisiting the meaning of “wilderness experience.” In McCool

S. F.

Cole

D. N.

Borrie

W. T.

O’Loughlin

(Eds.), Proceedings wilderness science in a time of change: A conference: Vol. 2. wilderness within the context of larger systems (RMRS-P-15, pp. 49-58). Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research.

Gillett

Thomas

Skok

McLaughlin

(1991). The effects of wilderness camping and hiking on the self-concept and the environmental attitudes and knowledge of twelfth graders. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 34-44. doi:10.1080/00958964.1991.10801966

10.

Gookin

(2002). Defining environmental education. In Gookin

Wells

(Eds.), NOLS environmental educator notebook (p. 4). Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School.

11.

Gress

Hall

(2017). Diversity in the outdoors: National Outdoor Leadership School student’s attitudes about wilderness. Journal of Experiential Education, 40, 114-134. doi:10.1177/1053825916689267

12.

Grimwood

Haberer

Legault

(2015). Guides to sustainable connections? Exploring human-nature relationships among wilderness travel leaders. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15, 138-151. doi:10.1080/14729679.2013.867814

13.

Halpenny

(2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 409-421. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.006

14.

Haluza-DeLay

(1999). The culture that constrains: Experience of “nature” as part of a wilderness adventure program. Journal of Experiential Education, 22, 129-137. doi:10.11772F105382599902200305

15.

Hanna

(1995). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology education programming. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 21-32. doi:10.1080/00958964.1995.9941968

16.

Harper

(2018). Locating self in place during a study abroad experience: Emerging adults, global awareness, and the Andes. Journal of Experiential Education, 41, 295-311. doi:10.1177/1053825918761995

17.

Hutson

Bailey

(2008). Awakening place awareness during a 30-day wilderness leadership program. International Journal of Wilderness, 14(3), 23-22.

18.

Johnson

(2002). NOLS expectations for environmental studies. In Gookin

Wells

(Eds.), NOLS environmental educator notebook (p. 5). Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School.

19.

Jorgensen

B. S.

Stedman

R. C.

(2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233-248. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226

20.

Kelle

(2007). The development of categories: Different approaches in grounded theory. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 191-213). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Kudryavtsev

Stedman

R. C.

Krasny

M. E.

(2012). Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 18, 229-250. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.609615

22.

MacLean

(2002). Being here now: Teaching a sense of place. In Gookin

Wells

(Eds.), NOLS environmental educator notebook (pp. 17-19). Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School.

23.

Mikaels

Asfeldt

(2016). Becoming-crocus, becoming-river, becoming-bear: A relational materialist exploration of place. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20(2), 2-13. doi:10.1007/BF03401009

24.

Mullins

P. M.

(2009). Living stories of the landscape: Perception of place through canoeing in Canada’s north. Tourism Geographies, 11, 233-255. doi:10.1080/14616680902827191

25.

Mullins

P. M.

(2014). Conceptualizing skill within a participatory ecological approach to outdoor adventure. Journal of Experiential Education, 37, 320-334.

26.

Mullins

P. M.

(2018). Toward a participatory ecological ethic for outdoor activities: Reconsidering traces. In Grimwood

B. S. R.

Caton

Cooke

(Eds.), New moral natures in tourism (pp. 149-164). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Nash

(1982). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

28.

National Outdoor Leadership School. (2016). Learning goals and objectives for NOLS expeditions. Lander, WY: Author. Retrieved from https://www.nols.edu/media/filer_public/c4/65/c465a321-a419-4766-8fea-811b3f955630/nols_learning_goalsandobjectives.pdf

29.

North

Hutson

(2011). Environmental myopia: The case for bifocals. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 229-237. doi:10.1375/ajee.27.2.229

30.

O’Donnell

(Ed.). (2014). National Outdoor Leadership School environmental educator notebook. Lander, WY: National Outdoor Leadership School.

31.

Paisley

Furman

Sibthorp

Gookin

(2008). Student learning in outdoor education: A case study from the National Outdoor Leadership School. Journal of Experiential Education, 30, 201-222. doi:10.11772F105382590703000302

32.

Palmberg

Kuru

(2010). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32-36. doi:10.1080/00958960009598649

33.

Sibthorp

Furman

Paisley

Gookin

(2008). Long-term impacts attributed to participation in wilderness education: Preliminary findings from NOLS. Research in Outdoor Education, 9, 86-103.

34.

Spradley

J. P.

(1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

35.

Stern

(2007). On solid ground: Essential properties for growing grounded theory. In Bryant

Charmaz

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 114-126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Tuan

Y.-F.

(1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

37.

Vaske

J. J.

Kobrin

K. C.

(2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16-21. doi:10.1080/00958960109598658

38.

Waage

Paisley

Gookin

(2012). Understanding the contribution of wilderness-based experiences to the creation of an environmental ethic in youth. Research in Outdoor Education, 11, 18-27.

39.

Watchow

Brown

(2015). Programming for place-responsiveness: Enhancing adventure learning and outdoor travel. In Black

Bricker

(Eds.), Adventure programming and travel for the 21st century (pp. 35-47). State College, PA: Venture.

40.

Wilderness Act. (1964). United States of America public law 88-577. Retrieved from https://www.wilderness.net/nwps/legisact

41.

Yin

(2010). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York, NY: Guilford Press.