culture that constrains: Experience of "nature" as part of a wilderness adventure program, The

Haluza-DeLay, Randolph

In the popular press, wilderness and adventure programs are often equated with personal and ecocentric development. In an increasingly urbanized world, one could reasonably expect that encounter with the natural world becomes important in the development of an environmental ethic, and that wilderness tripping would be a place for participants to consider their relations with the planet. Wilderness program leaders can point to anecdotal evidence of the power of program participation, but little systematic investigation has considered the phenomenon of the "relationship with nature" or developing environmental concern on an adventure program.

This study begins to fill this need through an ethnographic analysis of the individual and group experience of the natural world during a 12-day outdoor adventure program for teens run by an outdoor centre in Alberta, Canada.

Review of the Published Landscape

Adventure education and environmental education have been described as two trunks of the same tree (Priest, 1986). There are similarities. Both have grown in sophistication from common roots in outdoor education and both often use outdoor experiences in the process of teaching and learning. In this way both adventure and environmental education can be forms of experiential education.

There are also differences between adventure and environmental education, primarily in purpose and methodology. Adventure education is the intentional use of challenge or adventure components to serve an educational purpose. However, the purpose is generally to promote personal or interpersonal growth. Much of environmental education is experiential, involving outdoor experiences, issue investigation, role playing, service learning, and more. In environmental education, the emphasis is only partly on the intrapersonal and social development. The aim of environmental education is to impact knowledge about the environment with the hope of making change.

In practice, many outdoor centres and leaders desire to do both adventure and environmental education. Many of the potential intra- and interpersonal benefits of wilderness and adventure-based programs have been investigated (e.g., Hattie, Marsh, Neill, and Richards, 1997); however, the published literature has revealed little investigation into the role of adventure programming in the formation of participant relationships with the natural world or concern for the environment (Hanna, 1995b).

Purdue and Warder (1981) found positive changes in environmental attitudes in the participants of a 17-- day backpacking trip. They also surmised that the measure would be different if there were negative parts of the experience, such as rain. Gillet, Thomas, Skok, and McLaughlin (1991) concluded that there were changes in ecological knowledge, but not environmental attitudes, after a six-day backpacking trip with teenage participants. Hanna (1995a) compared adult adventure and environmental education program participants. Although she measured changes in environmental knowledge and attitude among participants in all four program variants, the transfer to pro-environmental behaviour was weak or nonexistent. Hanna (1995b, p. 42) states that, "Findings suggest that while outdoor pursuits programs may have some environmental learning, it cannot be expected." Still, it is a common belief among outdoor leaders that wilderness-based adventure programs can have a beneficial effect on participants' development of environmental awareness.

Two criticisms of adventure programming in relation to developing environmental concern should be clearly noted. First, adventure education may promote an adversarial relationship with the natural world as a place against which to test oneself. There are doubts whether any awareness developed through a wilderness trip in another environment will transfer to the participant's home setting (Hanna, 1995a; Raffan, 1990).

This first criticism is surmountable. LaChapelle (1991) and Horwood (1991) describe an emphasis on working with the natural environment and developing a sense of the wilderness place in which participants travel. Henderson (forthcoming) shows ways to overcome the unreflective "hurry-up" and "man-against-- nature" tendencies and connect to the land differently. Still, in many adventure programs, the outdoor environment may be viewed as an opponent by participants, if not the leaders. These programs reflect a "conquering" mentality that parallels dominant societal patterns of thinking about the natural world.

The second criticism of adventure education is more difficult to address. There exists a reasonably solid body of research into place-attachment and the role of meaningful locales in fostering a sense of place, including environmental concern (e.g., Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson, 1991). Most researchers into place-based environmental concern have focused on people "rooted" in a location (Relph, 1976). On the other hand, Cuthbertson, Heine, and Whitson (1997) argue that transients, such as outdoor educators (an extremely mobile subculture), and nomadic peoples, such as the Gwich'in Dene of the Canadian North, can have a profound connection with the land reflected also in environmental concern.

Humans experience the places in which they live and travel through a variety of affective, physical, and cognitive means. Geographical studies useful to the practitioner of wilderness programs will investigate the inner world of the participant and the constructed nature of perceptions of place. A critique of this individualistic focus is that individual views do not necessarily add up to the views and actions of society; the influence of self-perpetuating societal patterns must be recognized. For example, although concern for the environment ranks high in most public opinion polls and there is a general good feeling about nature, little social change reflecting this concern seems to be occurring (Gigliotti, 1993).

Methods of Inquiry

Program instructors assume that something is happening inside participants regarding the environment while on a wilderness trip. What is it? And how is it happening? The purpose of this project was to investigate the developing relationship of the participants with the natural world during a wilderness trip, both as individuals and as a group.

Participants on outdoor adventure programs will be influenced by their membership in their societal milieu to variant degrees. While on the trip, they become members of a group that forms its own culture. Spradley (1980, p. 6) defines culture as "the acquired knowledge people use to interpret experience and generate behaviour." Using this co-generated knowledge (some of which comes from experience prior to the trip), the wilderness program group forms group norms, behaviours, interpretations of events, and stories. This cultural knowledge takes both explicit and unconscious (tacit) forms.

Several methods were chosen as a combined approach to investigating the research question. I accompanied a 12-day wilderness adventure trip run by a local outdoor education and recreation centre, then conducted two sets of follow-up interviews two weeks and four to six months after the trip.

This trip was selected for several reasons. First, the length of the trip was long enough to allow for immersion in the wilderness experience and for significant social interaction to occur. Second, I was able to meet with the trip leader beforehand and discuss the program expectations and leadership philosophy. Third, the trip was one of few local programs of this type. Such accessibility was necessary to ensure that participants would be located nearby for follow-up. Fourth, the participants on this trip would be meeting several times beforehand to plan the trip. This would allow me to build rapport and develop an appreciation of the trip leader's style as well as the orientation of the participants.

The itinerary of the trip is included in Figure 1. Pre-- trip programmatic goals were oriented around "care of self, others, and the environment." Eight youth, ages 14 to 16 years old, went on the trip. The leader and one participant were female. The teens helped to plan the itinerary, choosing the basic activities and locations. Due to personal issues, one participant left the trip on the eighth day. All the youth were from a community of 30,000 residents, ten kilometres from the city of Edmonton. In pre-trip meetings, my role was explained as the "adult-along," who was also doing research for a university degree.

Participant observation has been used by other researchers investigating wilderness tripping who felt the method appropriate in uncovering the character of what is often an unbounded experience for participants (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1987; Hunter, 1991). Participant observation is particularly adept at understanding the effect of personal interaction within a social milieu (Glancy, 1986). One of the distinct disadvantages of participant observation is the immense amount of time and data involved. I used a modified form of Spradley's (1980) Developmental Research Sequence as a reference, as it employs methods for directing the observations into more carefully focused categories. Following Hunter's (1987) experience of the impracticality of his initial plans to only record his notes at night, I openly took crib notes of conversations and events and expanded them at night, taking care to represent participants in their own words and to make data collection as ordinary as possible. The first six days of the trip were spent making descriptive observations. At this point I was able to withdraw for a night, review the notes, and develop some domains upon which to concentrate.

Henderson (1991) notes that interviewing is the best method for pursuing a subject in depth, creating inter-- action with an individual, and remaining open to discovery. Spradley (1980) emphasizes the usefulness of both informal and formal interviews. The post-trip interviews themselves became part of the trip experience. Several participants commented that the interview process got them to think more deeply upon the experience. Not only did it provide richer data, but it also extended the reflective value of the trip for these youth and made it more meaningful, as per good experiential learning theory.

Analysis began after a few days of data collection and continued throughout the writing process. Emerging interpretations were checked with participants as much as possible. Other researchers have noted the importance of staying close to the "practitioner's common-sense wisdom" (Goodson & Mangan, 1991) and using this as another data set. In addition to participant feedback, I used my experience, and parallels with other wilderness programs I had seen or instructed, to determine the viability of emerging themes (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). In addition, other experienced leaders felt that tentative conclusions seemed useful in describing some of the circumstances they had observed on wilderness programs. That the conclusions seemed relevant to the field is another measure of credibility.

Description of the Trip Culture

This study does not intend to be a complete ethnography of the group and their personal/social/environment interactions. Instead, it seeks to delve into some of those aspects that relate to or impact upon the perceptions of, and interaction with, the environments in which the program took place. Several relevant cultural norms are outlined in Figure 2 and detailed below. Finally, participant self-description of a sense of closeness with nature will be described.

Teens Interacting with Teens in the Wilderness

The natural environment was an important location for the trip to occur, but as Mackenzie, one of the trip's participants, pointed out, more than anything the wilderness setting provided the backdrop to the social experience of "teens interacting with teens in the wilderness." As the trip progressed, the participants seemed to make more effort to focus their attention on other group members. Conversely, the experience of the natural setting depreciated in significance. My field notes are full of instances early in the trip where participants noticed things related to nature or talked about it spontaneously. The number of recorded incidents dwindled as the trip went on.

As the social interaction became a more important component of the trip experience, there was less wandering off, writing in journals, or otherwise taking solitary personal time. The members of the group who were not preparing meals hung around the prep area more as the trip passed, and the amount of time and quality of effort spent in meal preparation increased.

At our first night's campsite, I recorded:

Danny and JJ wandered down to the creek and splashed around. So did other teens as the evening wore on. Someone discovered a waterfall upstream. Luke went for a walk. Someone else found the bear hang. (Field notes, Day One)

In contrast, on Day Ten, no one left the campsite in the five-hour period around dinner. Instead, they chopped wood, horsed around with each other, teased Lynn (the trip leader), made hot drinks, prepped the spaghetti dinner in several courses, and built and played with the fire.

Staying together as a group was a strongly held social norm for the members of this group. This can be seen in the growing time spent at meal preparation. Another example is the reaction of the group members to short planned solo reflective times. Before each episode, members argued that they wanted to spend more time together.

The group tacitly enforced staying close together on the trail as well as the river. During the first two days of the trip, the group had hiked separately or in twos and threes. By Day Four, staying together had begun to be accepted and self-enforced by group members, as noted in my fieldnotes:

During today's hike they never spread out as we'd done other days. Exception: if someone was slow to get up and start when the others left the rest break. Then the rear person would hurry to catch up. This is something we [leaders] encourage... saying, "catch up." (Field notes, Day Four)

The adult leaders contributed, albeit unconsciously, to the pressure to stay together, as the following example shows:

Bob was hanging back [while hiking]. "Are you tired?" I asked. He said no. He seemed to be watching the scenery or just wanted to hike more alone. He sped up when I asked if he was OK. (Field notes, Day Four)

The group members stayed together on the river as well, more than needed for safety. Only Mackenzie ever went far ahead and no one lagged back. Mackenzie had also hiked ahead once. The others teased her, such that when she paddled ahead while in the kayak, she commented, "I don't know what was wrong with me." Deliberate Attention to Nature is A Little Odd

A tacit cultural norm that developed in this group was that deliberate attention to the natural world was considered "odd" behaviour and not normal. Although rarely expressed overtly, the group exerted subtle influence to censure attention to the natural setting and keep group members focused on the social experience. Staying together was one way. In addition, comments were made to draw attention to those who made a point to take more than ordinary notice of their surroundings. When jj chased a deer to observe and take pictures, they teased him for several days. Mackenzie hiked alone one day, which she said gave her a chance to look around; she, too, was teased.

Close observation of detail in the environment was not part of the ordinary way of functioning for the group, as represented by the following incident. The trip participants tended to miss so much during the sweep before leaving the campsite each morning that Lynn took to doing it herself:

All except JJ were cleaning up, walking back and forth, eyes cast toward the ground. Danny noticed Kenneth and his handful of litter and asked, "How come you get all the garbage?" With a slight sarcastic edge, Kenneth said, "because I can see it." (Field notes, Day Eleven)

In another incident, after a litter pick-up competition, Danny again reinforced the notion that too much attention to the natural world was not normal behaviour:

JJ (to Danny): I was thinking about that some.

Danny: What?

JJ: That the earth gives us a lot. It feels good to give back to it.

Danny (sarcastically): So you're going to pick up trash at home? (Field notes, Day Four)

This is only one of several examples when participants were censured by other group members for talking about nature or about a connection to the natural world. As the trip went on, such topics came up less frequently in group discussions or in interactions between group members. However, some participants shared their feelings of closeness to the natural world with me. These conversations never occurred with other group members present and were usually cut off by the participants, as if embarrassed. The tacit rule to avoid deep appreciation of nature may have been in effect. Other subjects were rarely so bluntly terminated although, to be sure, few deeply personal topics were addressed.

The exceptions to this norm were in moments of spectacular views, such as the moment we rounded a bend in the trail to look down on glacial blue Marvel Lake several hundred feet below. Several of the participants later said this was one of the most memorable moments of the trip. Secondly, planned solo sits seemed to give an acceptable opportunity to pay attention to the natural world. Although the teens often found their way back together, nearly every person on the trip said the times of solitude were when they felt closest to nature or were able to look around themselves. In essence, by taking away the people, a structured time to slow down and observe was provided. For this reason, such experiences are to be highly recommended as a program tool.

The Trip is About Challenge

The notion of challenge is embedded in the very activities upon which the trip itinerary was based. The activities themselves were the primary draw of the trip for most of the participants. Physical discomfort and dealing with their fears were other challenges the trip participants described; no one felt the group provided a social challenge.

The importance of challenge was evidenced by the prominent role of this theme in the stories and highlights participants told about the trip-such as the August snowstorm or rescuing a swamped canoe. On the other hand, the group established the clear norm that the challenge should be freely chosen. This was emphasized by Lynn from the very beginning and internalized by the group. Challenge was good, but challenge should be by choice.

While all of the trip participants discussed the real challenge of the trip for themselves, only a few of the teens used the word or idea of "conquering" in my presence. For example, JJ explained why he liked the backpacking segment in the community meeting on Day Five:

I thought I would hate [the backpacking segment] but I liked it. I thought we conquered Wonder Pass and Assiniboine Pass, which is good. I'd like to go back and conquer the rest of the trail-all hundred kilometres, (Field notes, Day Five)

On Day Six, jj described his rock climbing experience:

I felt that we conquered something today. Going up that 150 foot [climb]. I looked down once and said, "I want to give up, I want to give up." Then I thought about it: "You know the feeling I would get if I got on top of this?"...It was so great when we got on top of there. (Field notes, Day Six).

Luke also used the expression of "conquering":

I always wondered why people would hike up to Mt. Assiniboine. Like, what's there?...But now I realize why. And it's because of the feel of the accomplishment. Maybe the view and how you conquered that kind of thing. (Field notes, Day Five)

These expressions of conquering may hint at the feeling that they conquered the mountain/rock, but also imply the overcoming of a challenge rooted within themselves. Both JJ and Luke also noted powerful instances of connection to the natural world and said they gained confidence and "grew" from the experiences on the trip.

Mackenzie expressed a sense of competing with nature in the same breath she described a sense of closeness to it:

I think that the harder I pushed, the more I felt close to nature. 'Cause it was the thing that was challenging me, so I was trying to beat it, in some way. Like I wasn't competing with the other people on the trip. I was competing with nature. So, I think that was really a big part of [feeling close to nature]. (Post-trip Interview One)

Physical discomfort and fear were other challenges mentioned by trip participants. Occasionally, individuals wished for some of the conveniences of home. Canoeing in damp weather and big waves, Gary commented, "I'd like this a lot if we could blast down the rapids and paddle the river real fast and go home. [Go to a] warm house, shower, dry clothes, not just a tent." Fears of animals, steeps and heights, and darkness were fears that affected the trip participants and impacted a sense of closeness with the natural world at times. For example, Mackenzie said she felt a closeness to the natural world when sleeping outside, then made an exception of the night she had been disturbed by rustling in the bush near her bedroll. Discomfort and fear did not appear to be too great for the participants, although an implication is that these two elements may hinder a positive feeling about the wilderness setting. In the end, however, challenge was a very personal and individualistic characteristic.

But Sometimes, a Connectedness to Nature

Despite the strong emphasis on the social experience and the developing group norms (the cumulative effect of which was to relegate the natural world to a taken-for-granted, but unremarked backdrop for the adventure program experience), some of the trip participants described a sense of connection to the natural world. This reminds us, as Schutz (1973) said, real life and research are "not at all free from contradiction."

In post-trip interviews, seven of the eight participants said they had felt a "closeness to nature" at points in the trip. Generally, experiencing characteristics such as lack of people, few human developments, undisturbed thick forests, a sense of freedom, unfamiliarity, and relaxation produced positive feelings about nature. Three participants expressed a sense of connection with the natural world that went beyond these characteristics and into a deeper sense. These impressions were never expressed in the group. On one occasion, Luke described how he believed he was getting more responsible, then continued:

Luke: But it's something with the outdoors 'cause it doesn't happen at home. I think it's maybe nature, some power. You know how they say there's some power. I don't know what it is but...Maybe it's because I don't want this to become that.

R: You don't want this to become that?

Luke: This, like this (gestures with arm sweep to include surroundings), to become all sloppy and.... I don't know what it is. I honestly don't. Maybe at the end of this trip I'll find out. But I really should get to bed. (Field notes, Day Five).

Luke seemed embarrassed and was apologetic when mentioning the powerful feeling of the natural world. After the trip, he described an incident during a recent holiday:

LUKE: I like the beauty of nature. That's most breathtaking to see. I just love that. I want to be it, be part of it. I remember going to [a place in British Columbia] when I was a little kid. I always wanted to be part of it. If I came back I'd want to be that hill. Kind of thing, you know what I mean? I wanna be it, kind of...I feel a really strong, um, to want to be that thing. I don't know, it's just something (dwindled off).

R: You want to be that hill. What do you mean by that?

LUKE: Well, especially in, um. Near Kelowna there's a bunch of rolling hills, mountains kinda. I just wish I was that. Something inside me. I don't know, it's hard to explain. It's just, I wish I could come out and just be that kind of thing. I don't know if you understand what I'm saying but just kind of-I want to be that kind of thing. If I had a job to be that rock-well, not rock but that formation. It's just something I really like. Heh. (Embarrassed.) (Post-trip Interview Two)

The feeling that Luke expressed for the natural world at times is startlingly vivid, as is the difficulty he had articulating the feeling. For Luke, two factors were helpful in gaining this sense of connection. Feeling he was the only person who had been to a place was valuable, as was the reflective time afforded by solitude experiences. Ironically, on each of the two solos, Luke congregated with others. Evidently, reflective time was necessary for Luke, but it did not need to be a long period of alone time.

JJ, usually gregarious and boisterous, explained that during the first solo sit, he stayed apart from the rest of the boys, thinking "about how it came to be."

R: And you felt connected to it?

JJ: Like you were supposed to be there your whole life, but you really weren't there.

R: What did you think of that feeling?

JJ (slowly, very thoughtful expression and tone): I liked it. (Post-trip Interview One)

From other conversations, it was clear that JJ had been thinking about issues of personal growth and attributed it to challenging himself and exploring the landscape.

Mackenzie thought that she "bonded with nature" when there were no other people around. She forcefully described the different mindset of being in the natural world.

Mackenzie (very enthusiastic): Yeah. And you just totally forget when there's all that beauty surrounding you. I'm sure when...we were nearing the van [on the last hiking day] I was like, "Oh god, I have to do this and this and this when I get home." But when I was just hiking by myself, I wasn't even thinking about anything. I was just hiking around. (Post-trip Interview One)

Other group members also mentioned the sense of reduced busyness, freedom, unfamiliarity, and openness that was produced on this trip in a wilderness setting. The trip participants often described this feeling in contrast to the feelings and routines of "civilization" and asserted they could not find this sense at home, even in nearby natural areas. Partly, these reserves were too familiar. In the teens' experiential reality, even those places were still "in civilization."

The positive feelings about nature did not result in an increased sense of environmental care at home for any of the trip participants, according to the post-trip interviews. For Gary, Peter, and Bob, environmental concern was for the wilderness settings to "remain as they are." Kenneth said that he didn't think about the environment much: "I didn't notice anything wrong with it [while on the trip]." Mackenzie stated during an interview, "Nature doesn't really have much to do with me now," a thought that was echoed in one form or another by every teen.

Discussing the Trip

The participants on the Wilderness Explorations trip created a mini-society with its own norms and ways of operating. A number of cultural themes arose through the 12 days that the group was together. These influenced the participants' experience of and relationship to the natural world. Most significantly, although the trip took place in primarily natural settings and the activities depended upon and were chosen by the participants for their outdoor adventure qualities, the natural world was primarily taken for granted. The group culture constrained a deeper experience of the natural world. Obviously, this creation of a culture was not done in a vacuum. The group members came out of a society with its own entrenched social norms, including a worldveiw in which nature is objectified and considered something to be used for human purposes, for instance, as a resource. Even viewing the natural world as a recreational resource objectifies it to serve human purposes (Wilson, 1991). In the dominant social worldview, nature is inert, passive, and fundamentally ignored or taken for granted (Merchant, 1980; Wilson, 1991).

Spradley (1980) suggests that an organizing domain of a culture is a theme that is found in many other domains. The tension diagrammed in Figure 3 is an organizing domain of the mini-society created in this trip. Many of the aspects of the group formed on this 12-- day trip can be understood in the light of the tension diagrammed in Figure 3. Many of the actions of the members of the group can be understood as an attempt to balance opposing pulls of exploring the unfamiliar and maintaining the familiar.

A number of group norms show the attempt to balance the two sides of the organizing domain. Staying together was a way for the group to explore together, but also keep it safe. Other researchers have noted that cooperation is often needed on wilderness programs to achieve comfort (Henderson & Bialeschki, 1987; Hunter, 1987).

Challenging oneself was accepted as a group norm. Whereas challenge is good, challenge should also be by choice, and participants did back off challenges at times. Thus, the group members balanced the tension, allowing neither boredom nor terror to occur. Challenge was generally viewed as a challenge with self, rather than against the land or natural setting.

The importance of the group may have been because the participants were at the age when the peer group has a very large influence. It may also have been because the group was a more familiar component of everyday life at home. In the unfamiliar, unique, challenging, and possibly fearful environment that the wilderness is for most people, the group can be a bastion of familiarity and stability. Most people have far more practice being with other humans. The group seemed to provide an anchor to everyday life and provide the haven for keeping the experience comfortable enough for the members.

Nature was unfamiliar-ergo a place for challenge. To the trip participants, the natural world had attraction; there was the urge to explore, but to keep it safe enough to do so without too much discomfort or fear. The teens tended to describe nature as "not civilization." Therefore, since this dichotomy was established by the members of the culture, it is not inappropriate to associate these two constructs with the two sides of this tension which served as the underlying theme of the trip.

Finally, deliberate attention to the natural world was viewed as odd and secondary to the human interaction. The decline in attention to the natural environment as the trip went on occurred as the social experience became more dominant, but also perhaps represents the long-term discomfort of many days in an unfamiliar reality. The natural world was a valued location for the trip, but ignored on most other levels. Youth without a social scheme that supports attention to nature or environmental concern are not likely to go against social standards that see these interests as irrelevant.

On the other hand, it was also clear that individuals and the group related to the natural world in different fashions. Although the group norms tended to ignore the natural setting except in times of spectacular moments or program-guided attention, individuals could have meaningful and deep-felt connections with the same natural setting. The experiences of the individuals did not add to the totality of the group's cultural norms regarding the relationship with the natural world.

These norms show the important role of outdoor trip leaders. In some ways, program leaders contributed to the formation of norms that were less than optimal in regards to forming an appreciation for the natural world. Like many adventure programs, this one was planned more for social interaction than for experience of the self or the natural world. Community meetings were held every night. Meals were eaten together. The group camped in the same site, putting 10 people into a small space. On the other hand, planned opportunities for self-reflection or environmental awareness were minimal. One official solo was held. Other ones were organized more as an occasion than an expectation. Opportunities for observation of the natural world were as scattered teachable moments instead of as planned program elements.

Programmatic goals may be in conflict with each other. Forming group bonds to facilitate social development may result in norms that give secondary stature to the natural world. On the other hand, that some of the participants noted times in which they experienced a sense of connection implies that, with careful program leadership, multiple goals could be met. If care of the environment or appreciation of the natural world is desired, then ample opportunities for observation, reflection, and discussion on how to take care of it must be planned. It is too easy, with complicated meals or long days on the river or trail, to skip a natural history activity, but this sends a hidden message to participants about the relative value of such activities and their intended purposes. Even talking about a sense of connection with nature makes it more ordinary. These are valuable steps in avoiding a culture that constrains experience of the natural environment.

Other researchers have also noted the tendency of less experienced recreationists to seek sources of familiarity as hedges against the unfamiliar natural environments (Fishwick & Vining, 1992; Relph, 1976). The organizing domain of this trip-that participants seek to balance the tension between exploring the unfamiliar and maintaining the familiar, and their related constructs-suggests the difficult equilibrium that instructors have to maintain. On the one hand, adventure education is founded upon keeping people off balance in unfamiliar social and physical environments (Walsh & Golins, 1976). On the other hand, too foreign, challenging, or terrifying an environment is not likely to be conducive for real learning, or become a place with which one could build positive affective bonds.

Heading for Home

As effective environmental education, this wilderness trip was not a success, at least in the short term. The trip experience generated only general feelings of goodwill for the natural world. Post-trip reflection did not indicate any increase in environmentally responsible behaviour. There may even have been less than before the trip, if the comparison with wilderness settings leads participants to the view that there is no nature at home and that the environment at home is wrecked (Haluza-DeLay, in press).

This finding would lend credence to the criticism that environmental awareness developed in the wilderness may not effectively transfer to the home context. Still, a little experience in the outdoors is preferable to none (Hanna, 1995b). Perhaps outdoor leaders should help participants appreciate the natural world in general rather than in wilderness-specific ways.

As Porteous (1990) noted in his study of playgrounds, youth need places to explore. Most places in our over-built cities are either not safe enough or too safe, lacking the "loose parts" with which to explore and create. Nature, as the setting for the trip, the adventure, and the personal growth some of the trip participants noted, seems to have played a facilitative role. These instances of a feeling of connection hint that the personal growth of the person was pulled into relationship with this thing called nature. Belonging there, being the hill, and competition with the land drawing the person closer to it are all instances where the person's self was in relationship with the natural world, and the self was being affected. The teens described a value of the trip as "getting away," but there also seems to be a purposeful, although mostly unrecognized, movement toward something more fundamental.

If these conclusions have any credibility, they lead us to the understanding that wilderness leaders need to help participants become aware of the much different manifestations of nature in the participants' own homes. Wilderness is an elitist landscape-a privileged opportunity for only a few. The focus on the spectacular vistas and the pristine landscapes may blind us to other realities-the-close-to-home small views and social inequities (Cronon, 1996). Just as personal development cannot (and does not) happen only on wilderness trips, people need to find an environmental awareness meaningful in the home environment. Experiential educators consciously plan for transfer of self- and interpersonal learning from program to home context. The same should be done for application of environmental awareness. Experience in wilderness settings does not necessarily speak for itself in a way that will help participants create environmentally responsible behaviour.

The ethical valuation of caring for the earth would seem to have similarities to values of compassion for others and caring for oneself. Care for others logically includes care for the air we all breathe, or providing healthy, unpoisoned food and water for others to consume. The next step would be extending moral consideration to the planet upon which we live and depend. Yet along the way to instilling a sense of care for the environment that translates into action at home, there remain the programmatic and societal barriers. Further research on other trips is needed to demonstrate the similarities and differences between the cultural norms of this trip and other wilderness program groups, and help practitioners develop more effective programs.

It is my belief still that adventure programs could be an effective form of environmental education. This research indicates that programmatic emphases may need to be adjusted in order to help participants become conscious to the need to care for their home environment. Participants reentering the larger society will need all the strength, commitment, and perseverance that adventure programs seek to develop in order to swim against the current of a society that undervalues environmentally sustainable lifestyles.

References

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

Cuthbertson, B., Heine, M., and Whitson, D. (1996). Producing meaning through movement: An alternative view of sense of place. Trumpeter, 14(2), 72-75.

Fishwick, L., & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phenomenology of recreation place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 57-63.

Gigliotti, L.M. (1993). Environmental attitudes: Twenty years of change? Journal of Environmental Education, 23(1), 15-26.

Gillet, D. R, Thomas, G. P., Skok, R. L., McLaughlin, T.L. (1991). The effects of wilderness camping and hiking on the self-concept and the environmental attitudes and knowledge of 12th graders. Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 33-44.

Glancy, M. (1986). Participant observation in the recreation setting. Journal of Leisure Research, 18(2), 59-80.

Goodson, I. F., & Mangan, J. M. (Eds.). (1991). Qualitative education research studies: Methodologies in transition. London, Ontario: Research Unit on Classroom Learning and Computer Use in Schools, Division of Curriculum Studies, Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Haluza-DeLay, R. (in press). Nothing here to care about: Participant's constructions of "nature" following a 12-day wilderness program. Journal of Environmental Education.

Hanna, G. (1995a). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology education programming. Journal of Environmental Education, 27(l), 21-32.

Hanna, G. (1995b). High school outdoor pursuits: What of environmental learnings? Avante, 1(2) p. 32-41.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T, & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out of class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43-87.

Henderson, B. (forthcoming) The place of deep ecology and ecopsychology in adventure education. In J. C. Miles and S. (Eds.) Priest, Adventure programming. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to recreation, parks and leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (1987). A qualitative evaluation of a women's week experience. Journal of Experiential Education, 10(2), 25-28.

Horwood, B. (1991). Tasting the berries: Deep ecology and experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 14(3), 21-26.

Hunter, R. I. (1987). The impact of an outdoor rehabilitation program for adjudicated juveniles. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 21(3), 30-43.

LaChapelle, D. (1991). Educating for deep ecology. Journal of Experiential Education, 14(3), 18-22.

Merchant, C. (1980). The death of nature. New York: Harper and Row.

Porteous, J. D. (1990). Landscapes of the mind: Worlds of sense and metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Priest, S. (1986). Redefining outdoor education: A matter of many relationships. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(3), 13-15.

Purdue, R., & Warder, D. (1981). Environmental education and attitude change. Journal of Environmental Education, 12(4), 27-28.

Raffan, J. (1992). Frontier, homeland and sacred space: A collaborative investigation into cross-cultural perceptions of place in the Thelon Game Sanctuary, Northwest Territories. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Queen's University, Kingston, ON (Eric microfilm ED356 937).

Raffan, J. (1990). The failed curriculum. Journal of Experiential Education, 13(3), 47-49.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.

Schutz, A. (1973). Collected papers 1: The problem of social reality The Hague: Nijhoff.

Spradley, J. P (1980). Participant observation. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.

Walsh, V., & Golins, G. (1976). The exploration of the Outward Bound process. Denver: Colorado Outward Bound School.

Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. & Watson, A. E. (1991). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), p. 29-46.

Wilson, A. (1991). The culture of nature: North American landscape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez. Toronto: Between the Lines.

Randolph Haluza-DeLay is an itinerant outdoor educator, now on the faculty of Lakehead University, Outdoor Recreation, Parks, and Tourism, 955 Oliver Rd, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1 Canada. Other recent positions have included being an instructor for Outward Bound and serving as executive director of an outdoor centre in Alberta. His favorite role is as the father of two kids whose favorite bedtime stories are field guides to local birds. He can be reached at randyhd@mercury.lakeheadu.ca

Copyright Association for Experiential Education Dec 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved