How Significant and for Whom? Investigationg the Influence of Conservation Corps on Environmental Attitudes

Item

Title

Eng How Significant and for Whom? Investigationg the Influence of Conservation Corps on Environmental Attitudes

Date

2013

Creator

Eng Martin, Andrea S

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

 

 

 
HOW SIGNIFICANT AND FOR WHOM?
INVESTIGATING THE INFLUENCE OF CONSERVATION CORPS PROGRAMS
ON ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES

by
Andrea S. Martin

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2013


 


 

© 2013 by Andrea S. Martin. All rights reserved.


 


 

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Andrea Suzanne Martin

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Carri J. LeRoy
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date


 


 

ABSTRACT
How Significant and For Whom? Investigating the Influence of Conservation Corps
Programs on Environmental Attitudes
Andrea S. Martin
Conservation corps are programs for teenagers and young adults that provide education,
job training and valuable work experience in community service and natural resource
management. The past research on conservation corps (hereafter corps) has been
infrequent and has mainly focused on the personal and leadership development of
members and alumni. Using Tanner’s (1980) theory of Significant Life Experiences, this
thesis sought to add to the existing literature on corps by focusing more closely on
participants’ interactions with the environment and the influence the corps experience
may have on environmental attitudes and actions. The research is inconclusive about the
role of corps on environmental thought and actions, because participants as a group had a
high score on Dunlap et al.’s New Ecological Paradigm (2000), suggesting corps could
be both influencing these opinions and attracting participants that are more
environmentally inclined than the average US population. Qualitative analysis reveals
that corps are extremely significant to participants in multiple areas of their lives and are
transformative experiences to many alumni.


 


 


 
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures..................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................vii
Chapter 1: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
Environmental Education in the Classroom........................................................................2
Experiential Education.........................................................................................................7
Wilderness Therapy.............................................................................................................8
Environmental Service Learning.......................................................................................10
Socio-Economic Limitations to Participation in Experiential Education..........................11
Evaluating Environmental and Experiential Education Programs: Significant Life
Experiences........................................................................................................................15
Theories to Evaluate Environmental Education and Experiential Education....................20
Methods for Evaluation......................................................................................................23
Past Research Conclusions................................................................................................24
Conservation Corps in Experiential Education Evaluation...............................................26
Chapter 2: THESIS MANUSCRIPT FORMATTED FOR PUBLICATION...................34
Introduction........................................................................................................................34
Abbreviated Review of the Literature................................................................................37
Research Methodology......................................................................................................40
Participants.............................................................................................................40
Sessions and Seasons Completed by Survey Respondents....................................41
Data Collection......................................................................................................42
Statistical Analyses................................................................................................45
Qualitative Analyses..............................................................................................46
Results................................................................................................................................48
New Ecological Paradigm......................................................................................48
Experience Survey.................................................................................................49
Regression..............................................................................................................52
Community Analysis.............................................................................................53
Open-Ended Survey Responses.............................................................................55
Interview Responses..............................................................................................59
Discussion..........................................................................................................................61
Effect of Corps Experience on Environmental Attitudes......................................61
Effect of Corps Experience on Social and Personal Development........................63
Usefulness of the New Ecological Paradigm.........................................................63
Conclusion.........................................................................................................................64
Chapter 3: EXPANDED FINDINGS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND
INTERDISCIPLINARY ASPECTS OF STUDY.............................................................66
Personal Interest in Conservation Corps............................................................................66
Historical Background of Corps........................................................................................67


 

 

iv
 


 
Participating Corps.............................................................................................................69
Northwest Youth Corps.........................................................................................69
Montana Conservation Corps................................................................................70
Southwest Conservation Corps..............................................................................71
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps...............................................................................72
Mile High Youth Corps.........................................................................................73
Expanded Methods.............................................................................................................75
Different Survey for Northwest Youth Corps Alumni..........................................75
Social Media: Outreach to Alumni........................................................................75
Participants Representing Multiple Corps.............................................................76
Expanded Results...............................................................................................................77
Expanded Statistical Analysis................................................................................77
Pairwise Comparisons............................................................................................78
Reaction to the New Ecological Paradigm............................................................79
Expanded Discussion.........................................................................................................80
Reasons for Differences in NEP Reaction.............................................................80
Effect of Gender.....................................................................................................81
Effect of Race........................................................................................................83
Similarities Within Sample....................................................................................83
Recommendations for Future Research.............................................................................84
Interdisciplinary Aspects of this Study..............................................................................85
Appendices
A: Data Collection Materials (survey and interview questions)............................87
B: Demographic Information About Survey Participants......................................95
C: Indicator Question Analysis..............................................................................96
D: Expanded Regression Results...........................................................................97
Works Cited.......................................................................................................................98


 

 

v
 


 
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1: Survey Participation by Conservation Corps.....................................................42
Figure 2: Significant Results of Group Scores on the NEP...............................................49
Figure 3: Significant ANOVA Results of Group Experience Survey Scores....................50
Figure 4: Effect of Number of Sessions Completed on Experience Survey Score............51
Figure 5: Association of NEP and Experience Survey Scores..........................................53
Figure 6: Effect of Gender on NEP Responses..................................................................54
Figure 7: Effect of Number of Sessions Completed on Survey Scores.............................78

Tables
Table 1: Resampled ANOVAs of Group NEP Scores.......................................................48
Table 2: Resampled ANOVAs of Group Experience Survey Scores................................50
Table 3: Experience Survey Scores Compared with Demographic Groups......................52
Table 4: Effect of Demographic Variables on Survey Responses....................................53
Table 5: Significant Pairwise Comparisons.......................................................................79


 

 

vi
 


 
Acknowledgements
I have many people to thank for helping and assisting me through the last several months
of thesis writing. First, my reader and advisor, Carri LeRoy, for pushing me to write
something that I’m proud of and for all the hours of slow and patient statistical advice
and hand-holding. I’ve learned so much from you that I didn’t expect would come out of
this process. Thank you to Jeff Parker, Liz Karas, Ryan O’Sullivan, and Jeff Olson from
Northwest Youth Corps; Harry Bruell, Amy Foss and David Critton from Southwest
Conservation Corps; Gretchen Van De Carr and Suzy Buozo from Rocky Mountain
Youth Corps; Shannon Stober, and Lee Gault from Montana Conservation Corps and
Nancy Wilson and Kelly Causey from Mile High Youth Corps for helping with my
research and sending out my survey to all your alumni. I hope this study is helpful to you
in evaluating your organizations and in continuing dialogue, research and celebration of
the incredible work that corps do.
Next, of course, thank you to my family: I know you don’t even really know what
my thesis is about, but I also know you’ve been thinking of me and rooting me on all the
same. Thanks to all my MES friends and colleagues, especially that special group of CAL
weekend warriors. Thanks to Chris for the editing help, doing all the chores while I was
in the home stretch and listening while I talked out every thesis problem possible. Thank
you to my lab buddies, Brittany and Robyn, and my yoga buddies, Katie and Hannah.
The total frustration experienced occasionally through all of this has always been worth it
because of the great friends made in the process.
Last, thank you to all the past, present and future corps members (especially those
represented in these pages!) out there working hard, camping in the snow, swinging tools
in the hot sun and helping communities big and small. I am so proud to call myself a
former corps member and leader and count myself among you. I hope this work
represents us all well.


 

 

vii
 


 
Chapter 1: Review of the Literature

Introduction
A review of environmental education literature reveals that “significant life experiences”
can be used as metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental and experiential
education in terms of environmental awareness, sensitivity and advocacy. Past evaluation
of environmental and experiential education programming uses the existence of
significant life experiences to assert that these programs are often effective in changing
behaviors of participants, and are successful in promoting altered environmental attitudes.
However, the literature lacks assessment regarding the role of significant life experiences
in conservation corps programming, a form of experiential education where teens and
young adults work in natural resource management in teams or crews, over several
weeks. These programs often provide monetary compensation, unlike summer camps or
adventure education programs, such as Outward Bound or trips offered by the National
Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) that often have steep tuition rates. In this way,
conservation corps programs may reveal a more diverse participant pool that the majority
of outdoor programs, making them worthy of further academic study.
There are multiple studies about the effectiveness of environmental education to
increase students’ environmental literacy and interest in environmental issues, however,
few examine the long term influence of environmental and experiential education on
environmental thought and action of students turned adults. Long term evaluation of
youth conservation corps’ programming, especially evaluation that investigates the
influence of significant life experiences, is needed. Conservation programs have the


 

 

1
 


 
potential to alter participant’s career choices, hobbies, interests and actions on
environmental issues, but more research is needed to say this with certainty.
This literature review will investigate previous research in the field of
environmental education, including the challenges to teaching about the environment in a
traditional classroom setting, and the potential risks of teaching about environmental
challenges to the personal development of children (Sobel 1996, 2005; Ellison 2003). The
literature review will also summarize the expansion of environmental education into the
realms of experiential education, wilderness therapy and ecotherapy and the potential
influences of these programs. The development of evaluation tools and methods to
investigate the effectiveness of environmental education, specifically the use of
significant life experiences as a gauge of program effectiveness is used to provide context
for this study’s goals and questions. Academic theories, including place-based theory,
social learning theory and constructivist theory are also examined to provide further
context and justification for the study design. The role of environmental service learning,
especially the use of the Civilian Conservation Corps model for the personal, social and
work skill development of teens and young adults is investigated, as is the history of
academic research on conservation corps. Finally, the need for further research is
summarized and discussed.

Environmental Education in the Classroom
Environmental education (EE) was recognized as an academic discipline in the 1960s
when it was introduced by William B. Strapp and colleagues (1969), with the journal
article The Concept of Environmental Education. According to Strapp et al., (1969) EE


 

 

2
 


 
“is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical
environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve [environmental]
problems, and motivated to work toward their solutions” (p. 34). Environmental
education has developed as a field in the last 45 years, and has now come to include both
formal classroom education experiences as well as experiential education. The latter field
encompasses other program types including wilderness therapy, adventure education and
environmental service learning.
Despite increasing discussions about the need for environmental education in the
classroom, instructors have struggled to teach this subject effectively (Hankins 1993;
Hosley 1974; Loskota 2004; Louv 2008; Saylan and Blumstein 2011). Educators need to
be creative to incorporate environmental education into classroom environments where
education standards and state testing often dictate curriculum (Louv 2008). A study of an
urban high school climate change education program in a classroom setting was
completed in 2008. The study was created to “assist urban high school students in making
meaningful connections to information from the current scientific literature that has
implications for Earth’s climate” (Rule and Meyer 2009, p. 337). The curriculum exposed
students to climate change concepts, as well as biological drivers of climate change, and
expected the students to investigate organisms that are being affected by climate change
in some way, including habitat changes, phenology offsets, and temperatures effecting
mortality and predation. Additionally, these lessons involved many opportunities for
group work, and incorporated graphing lessons to meet state mathematics standards. The
students were surveyed after their participation in the multi-week lesson about what they
learned and enjoyed, and the majority of participants liked multiple aspects of the


 

 

3
 


 
program. They felt the graphing lessons had provided them with new skills, they enjoyed
learning about different animals in their nearby ecoregions, and they had felt the group
work was empowering. Some students commented that, “they were glad to finally
understand what global warming was all about, and benefitted from the thoughtprovoking lesson” (p. 341). The post-survey questions also included requests for
suggestions from students on ways to improve the lesson. Many of the participants
wanted a “phase-two” style of lessons, incorporating ways they could be involved in
stopping climate change. Students suggested ecology or conservation projects that they
could be involved with in a classroom setting (ibid.).
The example above (Rule and Meyer 2009) demonstrates that the interests and
passions of students have the potential to reach beyond the training and expertise of their
teachers. Elementary school teachers are often not experts in scientific and environmental
fields, and feel uncomfortable teaching about unfamiliar subjects, so they tend to avoid
these fields in their teaching programs (Ernst, 2007). An example of this disconnect
comes from the Pacific Northwest. The introduction of an invasive crayfish species in
Washington State had researchers confused as to the cause, since regulations on boats and
other watercrafts are very strict. It was eventually discovered that the crayfish were
included in a curriculum “kit” for elementary school teachers, as part of a lesson allowing
the students to care for the crayfish for several weeks, learning about their needs, diet and
habitat. At the end of the unit on crayfish, many were released into local streams, or
given to children to take home. This resulted in the invasive population growing rapidly
(Larson & Olden, 2008).


 

 

4
 


 
Though rare, when educators have the time, confidence and resources to prioritize
environmental topics, there are risks of causing ecological damage, as can be seen from
the example above. Psychological damage to students is another risk of teaching about
environmental issues and problems. Ellison (2003) writes in her personal essay Starting
Small, about how big environmental issues created frustration for her own children, and
resulted in them feeling utterly powerless to improve a world they were told was in
serious danger. Often teaching young children about global problems like climate change
or the destruction of the Amazon rainforest can lead to increased apathy because there are
no immediate solutions. David Sobel (1996; 2005), a proponent of place-based education,
argues that expecting young children to be able to tackle big environmental problems,
like climate change or the the Valdez oil spill, before they understand the basic ecology
of their neighborhood or local state park causes frustration and confusion in young minds.
Problems of a global scale, which cannot be solved by children or adults individually, can
become so big and insurmountable, that young children may disengage from
environmental issues altogether. The literature shows overwhelmingly (Tanner 1980;
Vaske and Kobrin 2001; Chawla 1999; 2006; 2008) that environmental activism is not
the result of fear or anger over global environmental problems, but rather the result of
childhood interaction with nature and subsequent attachment to natural areas as both a
young person and an adult.
James Swan (2010), a psychology researcher also writes about the sense of
helplessness that often accompanies environmental education, calling it “well informed
futility.” Swan (2010) refers to Aldo Leopold’s (1949) so-called “ecological conscience”
when he calls for the use of “nature bonding” or immersion in natural environments as a


 

 

5
 


 
tool to allow young people to engage more fully with their environment and feel they
have the power to solve environmental problems. David Sobel (1996, 2004) and Richard
Louv (2008) also argue for more time of unstructured play in nature as a child and young
person. Arguments for more unstructured play are supported by Bixler et al. (2002) who
researched several aspects of the “childhood play hypothesis,” (the idea that children
need unstructured time playing in natural areas to gain attachment to nature.) Combined,
these studies confirm the earlier work of Tanner (1980) that emotional attachment and
understanding of ecosystems happens at many stages of life, but most often as a child,
and these early opportunities to learn have the greatest probability of creating
environmental advocates.
An earlier study by Bixler and colleagues (1999) investigated “disgust sensitivity”
in young people with regard to their interest in engaging with the environment. It was
found that those with higher levels of disgust sensitivity (essentially, people who are
more prone to experience a deep aversion to a wide range of things or circumstances, like
dirt or insects) would show aversion to more environmental activities. Disgust, according
to Levenson (1992) and Mandler (1984, as cited by Bixler et al. 1999, p. 3), “has
evolutionary, cognitive, social, and cultural components.” Bixler and colleagues’ (1999)
research concludes with the recommendation that more effort be made to expose young
children to nature, as disgust for organic materials and insects is seen as a learned
behavior. Additionally, Bixler (1999) and Crompton and Sellar (1981) call for prolonged
exposure to nature especially for urban youth, to break down socialized aversion to
aspects of the environment. This concern can be addressed through many types of
outdoor programming, including conservation corps.


 

 

6
 


 
Place-based education has emerged as a potential solution to the issues of
inadequate educator knowledge and environmental apathy. Place-based education seeks
to expose young people to environmental knowledge, problems and solutions that are
locally oriented, and are often solvable at the local level (Gruenewald, 2003; Hill, 2008;
Louv, 2008). Additionally, place-based education is not solely focused on the
environment, but can be realized in multiple ways, such as allowing children to learn
about accounting at a local business, or civics at a town hall meeting (Sobel 2004).
The increasing popularity of place-based education has led to the formation of
multiple outdoor schools, like the North Cascades Institute in Washington, the McCall
Outdoor Science School in Idaho, or the Great Smoky Mountains Institute in Tennessee.
These are places where school-aged children can come spend a day or week learning
about a relatively local ecosystem, by playing outdoors and doing a variety of science
projects under the supervision of instructors and chaperones. These programs often aim
to discuss the needs and challenges of these ecosystems, and work to empower children
to actively engage in solutions to these issues when they return home. Outdoor Schools
are increasing in popularity, especially in the western United States; however, these
alternative programs are often not available to underfunded school districts, reinforcing
issues of limited exposure to nature for urban students (Saylan and Blumstein 2011;
Gruenewald 2004).

Experiential Education
Outdoor science schools fall under the definition of experiential education which has
emerged from environmental education. Experiential education includes wilderness


 

 

7
 


 
therapy, adventure education, and environmental service learning (Itin 1999).
Environmental service learning programs, which include conservation corps, have
become regarded as influential in creating environmental awareness, and are increasingly
the subject of academic research and evaluation (Furco 1996; Seaman and Gass 2004).

Wilderness Therapy
Wilderness therapy has an extremely varied definition and also encompasses multiple
theories of practice. Keith Russell (2001) synthesized all definitions of wilderness
therapy used by groups claiming to offer wilderness therapy as a service. He concluded
that there was the need for better definitions for parents and educators, but ultimately he
called for individual organizations to define themselves and their program goals
explicitly. Wilderness therapy is a popular treatment method for young people who have
troubles with substance abuse, behavior management or have been convicted of criminal
activity (often referred to as “at risk,” “disconnected” or “opportunity” youth (Bridgeland
and Milano, 2012). Outward Bound, a well-known wilderness therapy program, was
evaluated in 1971, and found to be significantly effective at reducing recidivism rates of
juvenile offenders one year after treatment. However, after four years, the difference in
recidivism between treatment and control groups had disappeared (Kelly and Baer 1971;
Kelly 1974).
A meta-analysis of evaluations of wilderness therapy programs by Lipsey and
Wilson (2010) found that programs are significantly effective at reducing the recidivism
rates for Caucasian men who had already been arrested, but were not significantly
effective for women or other racial categories. This conclusion led the authors to call for


 

 

8
 


 
further research into effects on women and minority groups, as well as future
comparisons between therapy programs and programs where community service is
emphasized (like conservation corps).
Further, Lipsey and Wilson (2000) also found that programs that extend more
than 5 or 6 weeks begin to lose effectiveness, counter to the assertions about length of
childhood nature exposure being an important aspect of programming (Bixler 1999;
2002; Louv 2008; Swan 2010). Lipsey and Wilson (2000) conclude that shorter (and
therefore more cost effective) wilderness immersion programs may actually be more
effective for “at risk” youth undergoing levels of therapy (ibid.).
In a study of the effectiveness of a specific adventure-based therapy program that
involved structured lessons and reflection, Gillis et al. (2008) found that juvenile
offenders who underwent the wilderness adventure model of treatment had improved
mental health scores and had significantly fewer arrests over a 3 year study period in
comparison with other forms of outdoor programming (Gillis et al., 2008). This study
refuted its predecessor that had showed no significant influence of wilderness therapy
programs in juvenile offenders (Jones et al. 2004). Jones et al. (2004), used a broad
definition of wilderness therapy that encompassed multiple types of programming,
including programs based entirely on outdoor immersion with few structured “therapy”
sessions, as well as those with education group activities, challenges and expectations of
improved performance. By narrowing the definition of wilderness therapy to include only
programs with active education and therapy sessions Gillis et al. (2008), found that
wilderness therapy programs resulted in significant improvements in participant behavior
after leaving the program when compared to a control group.


 

 

9
 


 
Environmental Service Learning
Service learning, as an extension of experiential education, has three goals: “allowing
students to become more effective change agents, developing students’ sense of
belonging in [their] communities… and developing student competence” (Carver 1997, p.
143). Environmental service learning, as described by Curry et al. (2002) is an
opportunity to meet the goals of experiential education, while also creating attachment to
a place and environmental stewards.
Simon and Wang (2002) conducted a study on the influence of AmeriCorps
service on participants. The AmeriCorps program was implemented in 1994 and has
become a well-known and respected government initiative that provides valuable work
experiences for young people after high school or college. AmeriCorps does not focus
specifically on environmental issues; however, many of its programs focus on disaster
management and preparedness, natural resources conservation or sustainability education.
The study found that AmeriCorps service was influential in increasing participant’s
interest in joining community groups. Additionally, participants demonstrated shifts in
personal and social values; notably they ranked survey items about personal freedom and
friendship higher after their service than they had before it. Similarly, Frumkin et al.
(2009) and Nesbit and Brudney (2010) found that AmeriCorps participants showed
increased interest in community involvement, civic activities such as voting and
volunteering, and showed greater interest in working in the public sector and for
government organizations in the future.
Conservation corps are very similar to environmental service learning, much more
so than other forms of experiential education. Current corps programs emphasize the


 

 

10
 


 
importance of service to both the environment and their community in their programming
(www.thecorpsnetwork.org). Corps service is often located in a specific geographic
location, leading to place attachment and increased environmental interest, as mentioned
by Curry (2002). Additionally, many corps work specifically in disaster relief and
recovery, lending many young and able members to help in the aftermath of natural
disasters, such as 2012’s Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast United States
(www.thecorpsnetwork.org, 2013).

Socio-Economic Limitations to Participation in Experiential Education
Participation in experiential education programs is often limited by social and economic
factors (Rodriguez & Roberts, 2005; Orren & Werner, 2007). Many experiential
education programs (such as outdoor schools discussed previously) have fees that must
be met either by school districts or individuals for youth participation. Additionally, in
residential environmental education programs, organizations depend on parental or
community chaperones to volunteer in behavior management and dissemination of
material to participants (Stern et al, 2008). In predominately working class communities,
taking several days off work to chaperone a field trip is extremely difficult.
In addition to the financial and personal obligations felt by poor and minority
groups that limit participation in environmental and outdoor education, the history of
minority racial groups’ environmental interactions reveals that there may be learned
aversion of many non-white groups that negatively influences their interest in the
environment and in becoming engaged in environmental issues. Byrne and Wolch’s
(2009) research on the history of parks reveals that city, state and national parks were


 

 

11
 


 
originally intended to be places of leisure and vacation for wealthy white people, even as
they often were located in, and ultimately displaced, many low-income and minority
neighborhoods. Rosenweig and Blackmar (1992) discuss early parks in the United States:
“African-Americans and Irish [-American] families… were evicted from Seneca Village
when it was razed to create Central Park. Like other early parks, Central Park was far
from public transportation and beyond walking distance from working class tenements.”
Rosenzweig and Blackmar (1992), use case studies of well-known urban parks to
argue that in most urban areas, access to green space is extremely disproportionate among
socio-economic groups. Low-income and minority residents often have limited access to
natural spaces within their neighborhoods, and fewer resources to access green spaces
that are of significant distance from them.
Bixler and Carlisle (1994) investigated the fears of urban students when out in
wild spaces. One of the major reasons for engaging in their research was that, at the time
of writing, the majority of visitors to recreational parks and forests, as well as wilderness
areas were white, middle-class, well-educated, and often male. Critics argue that the
outreach and interpretation by parks perpetuates the low diversity of visitors by only
reaching out to those who are already visiting. The authors argue that better
understanding the experiences, both positive and negative, of students that visit parks in
structured, and often mandatory settings, is a unique and useful tool to understand urban
and minority groups’ aversions to visiting parks, forests, and other wild spaces.
Bixler and Carlisle (1994) found that many urban youth had fears of megafauna
that were not present in the park, or in the nearby ecosystem. Fears of bears, lions and
tigers were cited often, revealing that many of the urban students learned about science


 

 

12
 


 
and nature from watching movies and television, and had limited access to place-based
education. Additionally, fear of snakes and insects were mentioned in the majority of
urban students’ observed responses. Further findings of the study showed that most of the
urban students reacted emotionally to the threats they assumed were present, such as
strangers in the woods or bears, instead of reacting to something they saw, smelled or
heard that made them feel threatened. This led the researchers to conclude that the urban
students had “developed misconceptions about wildland areas from other sources” long
before exposure to wild spaces (Bixler and Carlisle, 1994).
Cassandra Johnson (1998) investigated a similar topic, researching the impact of
the collective memory of African Americans and its impact on their interest in wilderness
areas. Johnson (1998) found, through use of a place attachment scale, developed by
Williams (1992), that African Americans were less likely to have an appreciation of
wildlands than white people, and that women were less likely to appreciate wildlands
than men, regardless of race. Johnson (1998) argues that this difference was directly
related to the social history of slavery, sharecropping and lynching, though participants
were not asked directly if the reasons for aversion had to do with these memories or
familial experiences. Additionally, Johnson (1998) implies that it can be assumed the
parents and adult role models of the observed youth share similar assumptions about the
environment, and similarly gain information about nature from unreliable sources like
television.
An expanded form of experiential education, adventure education, can be
extremely expensive, including the rental of technical gear for activities like kayaking,
rock climbing, or backcountry camping, as well as transportation to remote locations.


 

 

13
 


 
Inclusion in these activities is usually reserved for kids and teens whose families have
expendable income. The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) is one of many
adventure programming groups that provide scholarships; however, they are difficult to
get, and extremely limited. Some wilderness therapy programs can be partially paid for
by medical insurance plans, if the individual has insurance or by state agencies as a form
of rehabilitative programming for troubled individuals.
Medina (2001) writes about the socio-economic factors that contribute to the large
proportion of white participants and leaders in environmental and adventure programs.
One of the major factors she points to is the required training that outdoor leaders must
complete, including wilderness first aid, or wilderness first responder training, which can
cost upwards of $700, and is very rarely paid for in-full by employers (Medina, 2001).
Additionally, work as an outdoor or adventure leader is often seasonal, and unlike other
seasonal jobs like wildland fire-fighting, outdoor leaders rarely make enough money in a
season to sustain themselves when the season’s activities end, nor is there an option for
unemployment benefits during the off season. These financial issues in concert mean that
outdoor leaders must travel for other seasonal jobs (for example as a river raft guide and
then a ski lift operator) or be dependent on support from family members during off
seasons. Lastly, outdoor and adventure programs (including programs like Outward
Bound) also often require a season of internship for very little pay before being hired as
staff at regular pay rates. These factors all lead to low diversity in leader populations, and
can contribute to discouragement in youth participants that wish to continue in the
outdoor leadership field.


 

 

14
 


 
Service learning programs represent a growing opportunity for American youth.
Environment service learning is a part of experiential education that has had notable
positive effects on minority youth, particularly African American and Hispanic young
men and women (Nesbit and Brudney 2010, Jastrzab et al. 1997) A recent privatelyfunded report on “Opportunity Youth” by Peter D. Hart Research Associates found that
nearly 1/6 of young people 16 to 24 years old are out of school and un-or underemployed. The opportunity youth cohort is made up of more young women than men,
and more than half are youth of color. This group is at risk of incarceration, homelessness
and huge social and financial strain on society (Bridgeland and Milano, 2012). State and
Nationally-based corps programs are listed in the report as a promising opportunity for
opportunity youth, because corps programs often provide education, job training, and, in
some cases, assistance in finding jobs or paying for school after participation (Bridgeland
and Milano, 2012). Jastrzab et al. (1997) investigated corps programs that specifically
target minority and poor communities, concluding that corps programs provide valuable
and meaningful experiences that increase participants’ ability to find employment or
receive education than similar young men and women with no corps experience (ibid.).

Evaluating Environmental and Experiential Education Programs: Significant Life
Experiences
There is an abundance of research evaluating different forms of both environmental and
experiential education. Most environmental educators and proponents of place-based
education, adventure education and wilderness therapy believe strongly that programs for
young people ranging from elementary school students to teenage inmates in juvenile


 

 

15
 


 
detention centers not only help to mitigate behavioral and social issues, but also are
successful at creating environmental stewards and future environmental advocates
(Loskota 2004; Louv 2008; Browne, Garst & Bialeschki, 2011; Swan 2010). Louv (2008)
has promoted this opinion quite successfully, in his popular and influential book Last
Child in the Woods. Louv (2008) writes about the ability of natural spaces to help young
people cope with ailments like Attention Deficit Disorder and also about the potential
long term effects of unstructured play in nature as an extremely meaningful activity to the
current and future generation’s environmental stewards (Frumkin & Louv 2007; Louv
2008).
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) studied how educators can help people transition
from being knowledgeable about the environment to taking pro-environmental actions.
“Pro-environmental behavior” they define as: “behavior that consciously seeks to
minimize the negative impact of one’s actions on the natural and built world.” In their
investigation, they concluded that simply having knowledge of environmental issues does
not automatically translate into action on behalf of nature (ibid.). Kollmuss and Agyeman
(2002) do not conclude their study with concrete recommendations, but they do point out
that a multitude of factors, including demographic background, economic need and
mobility, social capital, and cultural beliefs, among others, should all be taken into
consideration when attempting to evaluate the reasoning behind action or inaction,
specifically in regard to environmental issues.
Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) also discuss the importance of attaching value to a
place in order to feel the need to take action to protect it. A variety of recent research
points out that places that evoke emotional and value-laden responses are imperative to


 

 

16
 


 
the creation of future environmental activists (Chawla & Cushing 2007; Chawla 2008;
Louv 2008; Swan 2010). One classification of emotional attachment to place developing
environmental interest and advocacy is the term “significant life experience.”
Thomas Tanner (1980) introduced the concept of Significant Life Experiences
(SLE) as a potential gauge to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental and experiential
education programming. Tanner (1980) asserts that if the goal of environmental
education is to create people interested in and willing to work for the betterment of the
environment, then educators must know the best ways to engage students so that they will
be interested in nature many years after an outdoor experience. Tanner (1980) invited
environmental leaders from groups including the National Wildlife Federation, The
Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society and the Sierra Club to share information
regarding their influences in becoming interested in the environment and the age(s) at
which this happened. The invitation did not explain Tanner’s hypotheses about SLEs but
the results showed that each respondent attributed their environmentalism to positive
experiences spent in nature as a younger person, and many attributed their environmental
work to the encouragement of parents, teachers or other adults to engage with the
outdoors (Tanner 1980). Similarly, Swan (2010) relates the five avenues through which
people become interested in environmental issues including 1) personal health, 2) desire
for increased social justice, 3) concern for the public and 4) becoming well-informed, but
makes the argument that it is 5) “profound emotional/spiritual experiences” that are most
often the cause of increased environmental interest and action. Swan (2010) writes, “the
Achilles Heel of the environmental movement is the need to use fear to continually
motivate people.” Swan (2010) argues that it is not a fear of a destroyed planet that will


 

 

17
 


 
motivate action on behalf of the environment, but rather positive, significant life
experiences in natural areas that are effective.
 
While the majority of environmental education literature focuses on the education
of children, Tanner’s (1980) results do not necessarily call for this. The participants’
responses reference multiple experiences growing up, including times as teenagers and
young adults, implying that a multitude of opportunities exist to engage people of
multiple ages and backgrounds in environmental education, and thus create a more
informed citizenry. Chawla (1998) provides a review of the subsequent research on SLEs,
which had, up until that time been focused primarily on environmental leaders, and the
factors that influenced a lifetime of advocacy and outreach in nature and conservation
activities. Tanner (1980), Chawla (1998) and Swan (2010) all reference the
“grandparents” of the environmental movement, John Muir, Rachel Carson, and Aldo
Leopold as well as current leaders in environmentally-focused organizations, as people
who had significant interactions with nature as children, and often attribute those
moments to their lifelong commitment to environmental advocacy. However, as Chawla
(1998; 1999) points out, the research concerning SLEs of adults who are not career
environmental activists is sparse. There has not yet been a study discussing SLEs that
uses a control to compare the childhood nature experiences of environmental leaders with
those that have not devoted lives and careers to environmental education and advocacy.
Significant Life Experiences, the outdoor play hypothesis, and the efficacy of
environmental education programs were examined together by Wells and Lekies (2006).
Taking the conclusions of Chawla (1998; 1999) they surveyed a large pool of adults
taken from the general public and investigated the impact of environmental interactions


 

 

18
 


 
as children (separated into ‘wild’ and ‘domesticated’ nature experiences) on their
decision making as adults. The researchers found that children who participated in “wild
nature” activities, including hiking, camping, hunting or fishing in natural areas before
they were 11 years old were more likely to show pro-environmental behavior as adults.
The authors took care to mention that it is adult and parental environmental behavior that
is often necessary to provide those significant life experiences for children (Wells and
Lekies 2006 p. 13).
Arnold and colleagues (2009) also investigated the reach of SLEs in nature on
adult environmental attitudes and actions. Using qualitative interviews, the researchers
investigated the early life influences that had led the small sample size of 12 teenage
(ages 16-19) environmental leaders to become involved in education, activism and
sustainability with regard to the environment. The responses from participants were
grouped into two categories: influential experiences and influential people. While some
youth were more influenced by friends or teachers, all participants mentioned time spent
in nature as an influential experience that had inspired their interest in environmental
leadership. One participant specifically discussed a conservation corps-like experience,
saying that her experience with a backcountry wilderness operations crew was “the
greatest experience of [her] life” (ibid.).
Arnold and colleagues’ (2009) study speaks to the need of more and continued
environmental interaction for today’s youth, mentioned by Louv (2008) Sobel (1996,
2004) and Chawla (1998); however, they do not address any of the limitations, in terms
of poor and minority access to the environment and natural spaces, that Wells and Lekies
(2006) attempted to address with their expansive survey effort. The qualitative


 

 

19
 


 
methodology used by Arnold and colleagues’ (2009) may have allowed the researchers to
delve deeper into the specific combination of factors that had influenced the young
environmental leaders who participated in their study. The conclusions Arnold and
colleagues’ (2009) assert reveal that youth interest in the environment is likely the result
of many factors, including parental involvement in outdoor/environmental activities,
family income level, geographic location, gender and race.

Theories to Evaluate Environmental and Experiential Education
One of the fundamental problems researchers face when attempting to evaluate
environmental and experiential education programs is in defining what kind of
programming they are evaluating. There are multiple theories that researchers may find
useful in evaluating environmental and experiential education programs. Place-based
education, social learning, constructivist, and Foucadian theories are all used in the
literature as potentially relevant tools with which to evaluate environmental programs.
They are briefly defined below:
Place-based learning theory, also called the pedagogy of place, was made popular
by Sobel (2006). Place-based education is multidisciplinary and encourages students and
teachers to focus learning on a specific place, natural or socially constructed. Sociallearning theory, first presented by Bandura (1977) asserts that, in group environments
learning happens from the social interactions between people as well as from the
experience itself. Constructivist theory similarly evaluates an experience by an individual
participant’s construction of that experience. In constructivist theory, learning happens
from people, including peers and formal educators, the natural or built environment, and


 

 

20
 


 
through the processing of the experience by the individual. Foucauldian theory (Foucault,
1972) aims to investigate the social and political structures and practices in place that
create the reality of an experience and works to critique them. Additionally, Foucauldian
theory investigates and questions the participants of an experience, noting who is
involved and who is left out (ibid.).
Seaman and Gass (2004) write about the need for a reevaluation of current
theories and practices of the fields of both environmental service learning and
outdoor/adventure programming, writing that they must be treated as distinct disciplines,
and not as expansions of the same field. This is a problem also discussed by HaluzaDelay (2001) in his investigation of adventure programming: the theories used in
environmental/experiential education are not always sufficient. Gruenewald (2004)
discusses the need for more critical views of environmental and experiential education by
calling for the implementation of a Foucauldian perspective in environmental education
programming. Gruenewald (2004) strongly questions the purpose of environmental
education that aims to work harmoniously within school standards, writing that the act of
supporting standards simultaneously supports a larger socio-political system that
regularly harms the natural environment and disadvantaged groups of people
disproportionately (ibid.).
Many long-term environmental education programs are evaluated using
constructivist learning theory and/or social learning theory, working under the
assumption that the outdoor environment and the group atmosphere of most programs are
teaching participants in multiple ways. Quay (2003) argues that constructivism, social
construction and cultural discourses should be used together to evaluate any experiential


 

 

21
 


 
education program. Constructivist learning theory is criticized by Haluza-Delay (2001) as
falling short of the actual goals of environmental education assessments. He writes:
“constructivist learning theory proposes that learners are actors in the knowledge making
process… however much of the research in environmental education (EE) has been
deterministic.” The goal of most environmental programs to change the future actions of
participants from what they might have been to those focused on the environment goes
against constructivist learning theory, in that it removes the agency of constructing the
experience from the participants themselves.
All of the above theories could be used to evaluate corps programs. Foucauldian
theory is likely best used in evaluating the intentions of corps as a national movement,
and not individual corps. Place-based education has the potential to be very powerful in
the corps environment. Because corps often complete work in relatively small geographic
areas and in specific communities, providing place-based educational opportunities
would likely be meaningful and would add positively to the corps experience; especially
for younger participants. However, corps that focus on work with young adults who are
over the age of 18 often attract participants from a variety of locations
(www.thecorpsnetwork.org, personal communications, April 2013). Because of this,
place-based education should be used as McInerney (2011) writes, with a critical
perspective and should “encourage young people to connect local issued to global
environmental, financial and social concerns, such as climate change, water scarcity,
poverty and trade” (ibid).
Social learning and constructivist theories are also useful to evaluate corps
because corps programs are inherently interdisciplinary. Corps work in natural resource


 

 

22
 


 
management, urban renewal, agriculture, and sustainability. Corps participants recruit
volunteers, provide aid to victims of natural disasters, and provide assistance and support
to low income communities. Additionally, corps participants work in challenging
conditions under a variety of leaders and leadership styles, in a variety of geographic
locations and very closely with a group of peers that often start out as strangers. Because
of this, both social learning and constructivist theories are important lenses with which to
view these programs, as learning is likely happening on a variety of levels.

Methods for Evaluation
Methods for assessing environmental education and experiential education programs are
diverse. The most common method portrayed in the literature is surveying, as seen in the
work of Stern and colleagues (2008), who surveyed elementary school students in a
short-term longitudinal study who had been a part of a 3-or 5-day residential program at
Great Smoky Mountain National Park (Stern et al. 2008). Hanna (1995), Dempsey (2012)
and Maravilla (2012) all used surveying methods with children and teenagers to collect
all or portions of their data; however, administering surveys to young people has been
questioned in the literature (Borgers et al. 2000). Children and teens are very “context
sensitive” and may not engage with researchers with comfort, influencing their
participation and quality of responses. Additionally, the reading level of children and
teens (and adults) may have influence of the quality of responses and data quality in
general because teen and child participants with low reading skills are more likely to skip
questions (ibid.).


 

 

23
 


 
Referencing the work of Chawla (1998) and Tanner (1980), Haluza-Delay (2001)
studied the effect of SLEs in environmental programs. He investigated how teenagers in
adventure education programs are actually constructing their experiences through
qualitative observations, and used two phases of semi-structured interviews. In her
assessment of the influence of an environmental education program called Sea Camp
Maravilla (2012), used both survey data and semi-structured interviews with youth
participants to reach the conclusion that the Sea Camp experience was important to most
participants, but especially so with the guidance of an invested adult mentor. Similar to
the work of Arnold and colleagues (2009), the interviews necessitated a smaller sample
size; however, also revealed the intricacies of each youth participant’s experience.

Past Research Conclusions
The conclusions of many evaluative studies of environmental/experiential education
programs are actually quite disheartening. Haluza-Delay (2001) found that adventure
programming removed from home environments was successful in alienating participants
further from nature, in that they felt it was not something they interacted with on a
regular basis, but a pristine and peaceful place far away. Haluza-Delay (2001) ended his
assessment with a call for improved programming that provides connections between
wilderness spaces (where adventure and environmental education alike is often placed)
and the participants’ home environments. The quantitative study What Difference Does it
Make (Stern et al. 2008) came to similar conclusions. While this study was focused on 3and 5-day residential education programs in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
as opposed to the 12-day adventure education program with teenagers in Haluza-Delay’s


 

 

24
 


 
(2001) study, the results were similar. The largest percentage retention of subject matter
over a 90 day gap after the environmental program’s conclusion was directly related to
the preparation and interest of park educational staff, the children’s classroom teachers
and the adult chaperones.
Hanna (1995) also writes about the need for programmatic structure in
environmental and experiential education programming, including adults and educators
who can assist in making environmental concepts relatable. In Hanna’s (1995) study, an
Audubon Society sponsored field ecology program and an Outward Bound adventure
program were compared in terms of increased environmental knowledge, knowledge
retention, and continued interest in environmental interactions. While both programs
showed dramatic increases in both knowledge and interest in nature, the most structured
program, the Audubon Backcountry Adventure program designed for youth participants
had the highest scores on all evaluations, and the highest levels of knowledge retention.
The adventure-based Outward Bound programs showed very low knowledge retention
rates (Hanna, 1995).
Proponents of place-based environmental education use Haluza-Delay’s (2001)
conclusions to argue for less spectacular, but more financially and logistically possible
alternatives to connect children and teens with nature, and Sobel’s (2004) book
introducing place-based education urges educators and parents to allow students and
children to understand that they are a part of nature, not outside and looking in on it.
Haluza Delay’s (2001) study is evidence that immersion programs with no curriculum or
context have the potential to be as damaging as charging children with solving problems
like climate change (Ellison 2007), they can result in increased apathy and helplessness.


 

 

25
 


 
Conservation Corps in Experiential Education Evaluations
One aspect of experiential education that is largely overlooked in the literature is the role
of conservation corps programming in regard to future environmental attitudes of
participants. The Corps model has taken many forms since beginning in 1933. The
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was created by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
as part of the New Deal. The CCC was intended as a job training program for young men
who would stay busy and active and earn small stipends to send to families struggling
during the Great Depression. In addition to earning small wages and traveling the
country, CCC participants performed an incredible amount of work in the US National
Forest and National Park systems, planted thousands of trees, fought wildfires, and built
and maintained hundreds of miles of recreational trail still in use today. The CCC model
has been reincarnated many times, including the emergence of the Youth Conservation
Corps (YCC) of the 1970s, which began out of a similarly low, but not nearly as
devastating economic situation as the Great Depression in the United States. The YCC
was an attempt to put teenagers and young adults to work during the summer months to
keep them busy, out of trouble, and doing important work for their country. The YCC no
longer exists, but in its place are multiple state and regionally-directed conservation corps
programs that are continued by non-profits through contract work, as well as budgeting
though federal AmeriCorps funding. AmeriCorps was implemented as a federal initiative
in 1994 by President Clinton. AmeriCorps programming is not solely directed to corps
programs, but many corps receive AmeriCorps funding and have grown under the
support of this federal program.


 

 

26
 


 
Corps programming is a widely utilized transitional service for young people after
high school or college, as well as a source of labor for many forms of environmental and
social services. However, there has been limited research into whether or not these
programs provide the type of significant life experiences and experiential education
outcomes previously discussed. Evaluations of various types of conservation corps
programming have been done periodically in the last 25 years, but none have
incorporated qualitative methods focused specifically on how participants feel about the
environment (Jastrzab e al. 1997; Driver 1984; Dempsey 2012).
Additionally, there is no current research that defines what exactly a conservation
corps is. Some corps programs are voluntary, and participants earn a small volunteer
stipend, others pay hourly wages, some have mandatory environmental education
components, while others rely on spontaneous interactions with the found environment.
This makes corps programs difficult to evaluate, and difficult to prescribe a particular
learning theory to their process. Many corps programs, like Northwest Youth Corps
(NYC) in Oregon, have an environmental education component, and participants are
given the option of completing high school science and education credit while a part of
the program. The corps members at NYC are administered an identical pre-and postsession test on scientific concepts including biology, ecology and current environmental
issues, as well as lessons on various professional behaviors, such as writing a resume or
interviewing for a job, to gauge knowledge retention over the course of their experience,
based on mandatory hour-long lessons called SEED (Something Educational Every Day).
However, there is no testing later in the school year to see if knowledge was retained over
the long term.


 

 

27
 


 
Early evaluations of the YCC ( Marans et al, 1972; Driver & Johnson, 1984)
found that the majority of participants found the program enjoyable, and felt they had
gained valuable knowledge and skills from the experience. Using pre-and postexperience surveys—most YCC programs were 8 weeks long— Marans et al. (1972)
found that knowledge, attitudes and interest in environmental issues, especially natural
resources management, improved during the course of the experience. The Department of
the Interior funded Marans and colleagues (1972) to research YCC’s impact on five
areas: 1) participant’s attitudes about their YCC experience, 2) changes in understanding
of environmental and ecological issues, 3) changes in attitudes and relationships with
peers and adults, 4) changes in recreational and work skills and 5) changes in selfconcept or perceptions of self (p. 1-2). Overall, participants were found to have improved
in all areas when compared to their pre-corps selves.
Marans and colleagues (1972) were careful to point out that while the majority of
their participants reported positive changes and positive impressions of their time in the
YCC, the results do not conclude that these positive changes were entirely the result of
YCC participation. Because the participants were quite young and going through maturity
during the study, some of the positive changes may have happened organically within
each participant as they were exposed to a variety of job and life experiences.
In Marans and colleagues’ (1972) study, participant interest in environmental
issues, the fifth criteria for evaluation, showed the most modest improvement. While
participants entered and exited the program with high levels of environmental concern,
their understanding of environmental issues, and their general knowledge about nature
and the environment increased only marginally. The researchers found that the highest


 

 

28
 


 
levels of improvement were found in crews that emphasized education more than work,
or that had well-coordinated education and work programs. These finding echo the
research of Haluza Delay (2001) and Hanna (1995) who call for structure in immersion
programs to retain effectiveness, especially when learning about the environment.
Marans et al (1972) present concerns about the conclusiveness of the research.
The authors point out that the youth participants in the first years of the YCC were
chosen among many applicants. The selection process could have biased the results in
favor of young people who would show the greatest improvements in the study areas, as
well as those that would show the greatest interest and engagement in the programming
they were provided. Additionally, another flaw cited is the lack of follow-up on the
retention of knowledge and positive environmental attitudes several months or years after
completing a summer of work with YCC. Long-term studies of environmental and
experiential education programs require substantial resources and are largely missing
from the evaluation literature.
Driver and Johnson (1984) completed a pilot study investigating the potential
long-term effectiveness of the YCC. By surveying former YCC participants and parents
of participants, the researchers investigated whether the YCC was influential in
influencing positive behavior in five broad categories: 1) increased environmental
awareness and appreciation 2) improved work attitudes, habits and skills 3) improved
ability to get along with others 4) increased self-confidence 5) improved basic
orientations to life (e.g., education and career objectives. Alumni and parents felt the
YCC had moderately to greatly influenced participants’ environmental awareness,
outdoor recreation interest and ability to work with others, among others (ibid.).


 

 

29
 


 
Female respondents and parents of female participants reported that female enrollees
were significantly influenced by the YCC experience. Male YCC alumni and their
parents did not report significant influence of the experience. Young women “had
significantly higher scores on scales which define attributes that are probably more
commonly associated with males. These include Tool Skills and Safety, Practical
Outdoor Skills, Outdoor Work Enjoyment an Physical Fitness” (Driver and Johnson
1984, p. 7).
Abt and Associates sponsored an evaluation of youth corps in 1997 (Jastrzab et al.
1997). The study was focused largely on urban-based youth corps programs, including
two youth corps west, and 6 youth corps east of the Mississippi. With the exception of the
Washington State Service Corps, all were based in cities or largely urban counties.
Jastrzab et al. (1997) analyzed nine outcome categories for participants: 1) civic, social
and personal development, 2) current and planned involvement in community service, 3)
current or planned involvement in other service, such as Volunteers in Service to
America (VISTA) or the military, 4) voting behavior, 5) education and training plans and
achievements, 6) employment and earnings, 7) involvement with risk behavior, 8)
educational aspirations and expectations, and 9) work performance. Many of the effects
of corps programs were positive but not significant, leading the researchers to conclude:
“Collectively, the findings suggest that the programs generate positive, if not robust,
effects on participants” (Jastrzab et al. 1997, p. 17). Among the insignificant results, two
significant conclusions were reached: first, arrest rates decreased in youth corps
participants compared to control group. Secondly, corps participants were significantly
less likely to pursue degree or trade programs after participation. Additionally, all


 

 

30
 


 
demographic groups, including all participants of color and white women, were found to
have improved success in finding employment after their corps experience, especially
African American males (ibid.).
Dempsey (2012) examined the importance of conservation programs, specifically
the California Conservation Corps on the “young adult transition.” The study utilized the
alumni website for the California Conservation Corps, where Dempsey’s survey was
posted for nearly a year, allowing past participants to reflect on their experiences from as
long as twenty five years ago. The California Conservation Corps is the longest running
conservation program in the United States, and their alumni network is well-developed
and established. Dempsey’s (2012) study is the only long-term evaluative study of corps
programs currently published.
Dempsey’s (2012) survey investigated several aspects important to experiential
educators including ethnicity, gender and age demographics, initial reasons for joining,
employment opportunities after, influence in career choice later in life and interest in
environmental issues. The study found that 69% of respondents felt their participation in
the California Conservation Corps “greatly influenced” their environmental decisions
later in life (Dempsey, 2012).
A recent study on conservation programs in the United States has been undertaken
by Duerden et al. (2013) and was funded by the Public Lands Service Coalition (PLSC).
The study found that corps were influential in changing participants’ attitudes toward
service and environmental activism and increased interest in environmental recreation. In
an upcoming manuscript, Duerden et al. and PLSC organizations identified three
priorities of their programming that should be evaluated (Duerden et al. in press). The


 

 

31
 


 
research sought to investigate corps participants’ intention to pursue natural resource
management careers or education, positive attitudes towards public lands and
environmental activism as a result of corps participation (Duerden et al. in press).
The research concluded that of 10 Public Land Service Coalition (PLSC)
organizations based in western states (Montana, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico
and California) that worked with teens and young adults (ages 18 to 25), all were
successful in meeting the three desired outcomes of the Corps Network. The study used
an online survey community composed of youth who had never participated in a
conservation corps, and were located in the same states as the experimental group. While
the study showed conservation corps to be significant life experiences, they found no
significant influences of gender, age or racial identity on participants’ experiences.
Duerden et al.s’ (2013; in press) research continues. In the summer of 2012, they
continued investigating the Corps Network’s priorities with several more conservation
corps, this time focusing on a larger spectrum of participants, aged 14-26 years old. The
corps participants were compared to a control group that represented the same age,
gender and racial ratio as corps participants. After one year of data collection, Duerden et
al. (2013; in press) have concluded that participation in a conservation corps is a fun and
exciting experience and had the result of inspiring participants to be more interested in
natural resources based careers, outdoor recreation, and to continue to be involved in
corps programs in the future (Duerden et al. 2013; in press). This research will continue
for multiple seasons, and employs retrospective survey techniques, and a control group.
The conclusions of Duerden et al. (in press) and Dempsey (2012) are exciting for
the field of environmental service learning and experiential education. Dempsey’s (2012)


 

 

32
 


 
finding with the California Conservation Corps, that an experience as a young adult can
influence environmental thoughts and feelings 25 years later, accompanied by the body
of literature about the social and behavioral influence of environmental experiences on
youth reveals the needs for more longitudinal studies of youth programs, like those
currently underway by Duerden et al. (in press).
The Corps Network and its thousands of participants and volunteers would greatly
benefit from continued academic understanding of corps’ influence on the environment
from a long-term perspective that encompasses both policy and advocacy. Additionally,
the literature shows a lack of inclusion of creative research methodology. The heavy
prevalence on survey data collection could be leaving out audiences that do not learn well
in that context, or who could better express themselves through qualitative research
methods like group or individual interviews. The following study will attempt to
supplement survey data with qualitative interviews and will attempt to utilize the recent
research methodology of Dempsey (2012) and Duerden et al. (2013; in press) by
engaging alumni from multiple conservation corps organizations to investigate the
influence of their conservation corps experience on their adult life.


 

 

33
 


 
Chapter 2: Article Manuscript
Formatted for publication in the Journal of Experiential Education

Introduction

Conservation corps are defined by the Corps Network as: “comprehensive youth
development programs that provide their participants with job training, academic
programming, leadership skills, and additional support through a strategy of service that
improves communities and the environment” (www.thecorpsnetwork.org/about).
 The
following study attempts to shed light on the potential of conservation corps to be a
solution to two ongoing needs. The first is “nature deficit disorder” a term coined by
Richard Louv to describe the personal and ecological consequences to young people’s
increased aversion to nature. Louv’s (2008) recent environmental education classic, Last
Child in the Woods, makes the case for the need to expose young people to the outdoors.
Louv (2008) writes about the damage caused by being perpetually “plugged in” to cell
phones, the internet, television and social media (pp. 59-64). Additionally, Louv (2008)
argues that it is often the exaggerated fear of injury or danger that keeps many parents
from encouraging their children to play outside, or from prioritizing outdoor activities
like hiking or camping as a family (p. 121).
The second need conservation corps (hereafter “corps”) address is the high rate of
unemployment of young people in the United States. Conservation corps have a long
history of providing employment to young men and women in times of economic
hardship. The Civilian Conservation Corps was created by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt in 1933 in response to the Great Depression. Currently, the now five-year-old


 

 

34
 


 
economic recession may be slowly turning around; however, the youth employment crisis
is not yet solved, and most likely will not be for many years to come (Bridgeland and
Milano 2012). The young adult demographic, especially the group labeled “The
Forgotten Half,” or “Opportunity Youth” which represents the 55% of young people ages
16 to 24 who are unemployed, has undoubtedly suffered in their transition to adulthood
as the economy has continued to stagnate (Bridgeland and Milano 2012; Dempsey 2012).
By providing employment, modest payment, education assistance and job training, corps
are a welcome alternative to fast food or other entry-level jobs that are currently available
to young people.
The Corps Network serves as the national representative for state and countybased corps. The Corps Network website, informs visitors that more than 30,000 young
men and women are enrolled in corps programs annually and that “each year corps
organize an additional 289,000 community volunteers who work alongside corps
members to generate 13.5 million hours of service every year”
(www.corpsnetwork.org/about 2013). In conservation corps programs, youth (usually
between the ages of 14 and 25) do a multitude of tasks ranging from trail construction
and maintenance in National Parks and Forests to filling sandbags in the face of floods
and hurricanes. Corps members often work in natural resource management, completing
projects for the United States Forest Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of
Land Management, and others. Projects are often completed while camping in natural
environments, where crews must live and work as a unit for many days, weeks or months.
Through sweat, teamwork and occasional tears, these young men and women accomplish
major projects and often do the work many adults do not want to do.


 

 

35
 


 
Many conservation corps programs also have formal education components.
These can range from high school-level biology lessons to in-depth seminar-style
discussions about the role of race in group dynamics, debating politically-sensitive issues
like state testing standards, to lessons about how to write a cover letter and resume.
Natural resource-based corps programs are often immersion-style, meaning that the
participants live together for many days, weeks and sometimes months in an outdoor
environment. This setting provides for challenging, and at times dangerous, situations
that require communication, teamwork and leadership, in addition to physical strength
and endurance.
This study was designed to determine whether participation in a corps program as
a teenager or young adult is a significant life experience. Specifically, the data collection
materials were designed to gauge general feelings about each participant’s experience(s)
with a conservation program, their impressions about the environment in relation to the
corps program, and their impressions about the value of their social and personal
development (or lack thereof) during the corps experience. The research was most
concerned with the impact corps participation had on interest in and action on
environmental issues. This was achieved by the inclusion of a vetted environmental
attitude scale, the New Ecological Paradigm (Dunlap 1978, 2000). Specifically, the study
aimed to answer the following research questions: 1) Does participation in a conservation
corps program as a teenager provide experiences in nature that are significant in
influencing participants’ attitudes toward the environment later in life? 2) Does
participation in a conservation corps as a teenager or young adult have immediate effects
on participants’ environmental interests and attitudes? 3) Was participation in a


 

 

36
 


 
conservation corps program significant in helping participants develop social and
leadership skills? 4) Are demographic characteristics (age, sex, gender, income, etc.) of
participants related to their interest in environmental issues?

Review of the Literature
Environmental education (EE) has been a recognized academic discipline since the late
1960s. Strapp et al. (1969) first brought forth the idea of education with the purpose of
producing citizens that are invested in protecting the environment and advocating on its
behalf. Experiential education has grown from the EE movement and encompasses
multiple forms of programming including wilderness therapy, ecotherapy and
environmental service learning (Itin 1999). Experiential education looks to multiple
theories to evaluate program effectiveness, including place-based, constructivist and
social learning theories (Sobel 2004; Haluza Delay 2001). Experiential programming
allows for environmental education and facilitates productive group interactions through
planned challenges and group activities, as well as by letting the natural environment
(and subsequent weather events, wildlife interactions, and physical challenges) be a part
of the learning and teaching process (Itin 1999; Quay 2003; Seaman and Gass 2011).
A review of the literature on both environmental and experiential education
reveals that “significant life experiences” (SLEs) can be used as metrics to evaluate the
long term effectiveness of these programs in terms of facilitating changes in
environmental awareness, sensitivity and advocacy (Tanner 1980; Chawla 1998; Haluza
Delay 2001). Past evaluation of environmental and experiential education programming
uses the existence of SLEs to assert that experiential education is often effective in


 

 

37
 


 
changing behaviors of participants, and is successful in promoting altered environmental
attitudes (ibid.). Nevertheless, the literature lacks assessment regarding the role of
significant life experiences in conservation corps programming, despite the fact that corps
exemplify many tenets of experiential and environmental education.
Communities of color and families with low socio-economic status often have
difficulty accessing environmental programs. Tuition rates, poor geographic access and a
lack of outdoor leaders from racial minorities or disadvantaged socio-economic
upbringing have a negative affect on minority and low-income communities’ exposure to
outdoor work. Lack of exposure and education results in lower rates of recreational
activity in environmental spaces and lower levels of interest in environmental issues and
actions than more privileged demographic groups and can result in learned aversion-tonature attitudes (Medina 2001; Johnson 1998; Bixler 1994).
Corps have the potential to access these communities because of the diversity of
programs they offer, which includes job training, education, community involvement and
monetary compensation. Evaluation of corps programs show that they have positive
influences on participants’ abilities to find employment, and show significantly reduction
in the incarceration rates of youth (Jastrzab et al. 1997; Bridgeland and Milano 2012).
Additionally, studies show that corps are effective at engaging disadvantaged youth and
improving their prospects in the job market (Bridgeland and Milano 2012).
Arnold and colleagues’ (2009) investigation of SLEs on adult environmental
attitudes and actions found that all participants attributed their interests in the
environment to influential people and/or influential experiences. Corps usually provide
mentorship to participants through staff and trained crew or corps leaders. Often these


 

 

38
 


 
leaders have moved up from member to leader, giving participants an example and goal
to one day lead crews (www.corpsnetwork.org; personal communication, April, 2013).
Corps have not yet been evaluated by their potential to provide SLEs to
participants. Evaluation of the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) (Marans et al. 1972,
Driver and Johnson 1984) using pre- and post-experience surveys found that knowledge,
attitudes and interest in environmental issues, especially natural resources management,
improved during the course of the experience, implying that corps participation was quite
influential. Unfortunately, this analysis was not repeated as participants became adults to
investigate long term effect of the YCC. Dempsey (2012) examined the importance of the
California Conservation Corps on the “young adult transition” and is the only research
published to-date on conservation corps that investigates the long-term effect of corps on
participants. Dempsey (2012) found that 69% of respondents felt their participation in the
California Conservation Corps “greatly influenced” their environmental decisions later in
life (ibid.).
A recent study on conservation programs in the United States has been completed
by Duerden et al. (2013) and was funded by the Public Lands Service Coalition ( 2012;
unpublished manuscript, expected 2013). The study showed that participation in a corps
program produced a variety of positive effects, including greater interest in outdoor
recreation and increased intention to pursue natural resource management careers when
compared with a control group. The study showed conservation corps to be significant
life experiences, however, no significant influences of gender, age or racial identity on
participants’ experiences were found when compared with a control. Research on corps
by Duerden et al. has continued (in press) and is planned to continue in the upcoming


 

 

39
 


 
years; employing retrospective survey techniques, and a control group to investigate
effect of corps participation over several years.
The following study will attempt to supplement these quantitative survey studies
with qualitative interviews and open-ended survey responses. It will use the research
methodology of both Dempsey (2012) and Duerden et al. (2013; in press) by engaging
alumni from multiple conservation corps organizations to discuss the impact of their
conservation corps experience on their adult life. Based on the literature, it was assumed
that the following study would find an overall significant influence of corps participation
on alumni participants’ environmental attitudes. Additionally, it was assumed that
demographic variables would prove to be influential in participants’ feelings about their
corps participation.

Methods
Participants:
In order to answer interdisciplinary research questions posed by this study, a mixed
methods research approach was employed. A total of 390 adult alumni of conservation
corps programs began a questionnaire about their experiences via an online survey found
at surveymonkey.com. A total of 330 participants answered the final question of the
survey, implying they finished the survey in entirety. A strict vetting process was
followed for all statistical analyses. Of the 330 complete surveys, 274 were concluded to
be eligible for all statistical analyses, including the summaries of demographic
information. Answers to qualitative questions were retained, regardless of the
participant’s inclusion in other analyses.


 

 

40
 


 
Participants were contacted using alumni lists of the following organizations:
Northwest Youth Corps, Southwest Conservation Corps, Rocky Mountain Youth Corps,
Montana Conservation Corps and Mile High Youth Corps (for more about individual
organizations, see Chapter 3). Participants who are alumni of other corps (such as the
Washington Conservation Corps or Student Conservation Association, among others)
were also represented, but were not encouraged to take the survey by staff at those
organizations (see Figure 1). Participants were predominately white (86.5%), young, and
had a variety of education levels. More women (57%) completed the survey than men,
and more participants thought of their family as middle income (63.5%) than any other
income level (for complete demographic data on participants, see Appendix B). A sub-set
of survey participants were contacted for short phone interviews to elaborate on their
survey responses. A total of nine participants were interviewed.

Sessions and Seasons Completed by Survey Respondents
All survey respondents had worked with a conservation corps at least once in their past.
The majority of participants (94.2%) had completed at least one session as a crew
member. The remaining 5.8% had worked as crew leaders only. Crew leaders were not
specifically encouraged to complete the survey, but there were not clear instructions
discouraging leaders to participate. The majority of participants had completed one or
two sessions or seasons as a crew member, about a quarter of participants had completed
three or more sessions. The majority of the survey participants never worked as crew
leaders (62%). Of those that did, more than half completed just one crew leader season or
session (see Appendix B).


 

 

41
 


 

Data Collection
Each conservation corps organization was contacted to develop a method for recruiting
alumni survey participants. Each organization used varying methods to recruit alumni
participation. The survey was most commonly posted on organizations’ Facebook pages,
but was also posted on corps websites and/or emailed to alumni via specific alumni email
mailing lists, and in a newsletter format. In all cases, the organizations were in charge of
how and when the survey was posted to various sites. Each survey was also posted for
varying lengths of time, ranging from several months in some cases, to 2-3 weeks in
other cases; however, nearly all survey activity was seen within a few days of posting,
and very little activity was seen one week after posting. It can be concluded that survey
availability was likely not a significant factor in the participation of alumni from any
particular group.


 

 

42
 


 
Each organization was provided with a short biography of the researcher, stating
specifically that the researcher had previous conservation corps experience. The
biography also stated briefly what the purpose of the research was, and provided all
participants with the researcher’s academic email address. No participants contacted the
researcher independently.
The survey included a total of 46 questions, divided into three sections. The first
section asked for demographic information, including the participant’s age, sex, racial
identity, family financial status at the time of corps participation, and the number of
seasons completed with a corps working as both a crew member and a crew leader. This
section also included two open-ended questions: one asking participants to list what
organizations they had worked with, and another asking participants to describe the types
of projects they had engaged in as a corps member. The second section of the survey
consisted of questions developed by the researcher, referred to throughout this paper as
the Experience Survey. These questions pertained to impressions about participation in a
conservation corps and addressed the following themes: 1) broad, general feelings about
their experience in a conservation corps, (referred to as “general”) 2) impressions about
the role of the environment in their experience in a conservation corps (referred to as
“environmental”) and 3) impressions about their opportunities for personal and social
development during their experience in a conservation corps (referred to as “social”)
The Experience Survey questions were all placed on a five-point Likert scale,
asking participants to rate a statement from strongly disagree to strongly agree; “neutral”
represented the mid-scale response. The third section of the survey was Dunlap and Van
Liere’s revised New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (1978, 2000). The NEP is the most


 

 

43
 


 
well-recognized and used survey tool for quantifying environmentalism (Dunlap 2000)
The survey asks participants to rate 15 statements on a 5-point scale from strongly
disagree to strongly agree, the mid-point of the scale is “unsure.” The highest score
achievable is 75. The questions rotate positive environmental statements and negative
environmental statements, so that participants would be unlikely to pick one score for
every response (see Appendix A for complete data collection tools).
In a pilot test of the complete survey for alumni, one participant with an advanced
ecology degree commented that many of the statements on the NEP were far too broad
and simple to be relevant, and therefore answered “unsure” on many questions. This
concern had been previously raised in regard to the original version of the NEP (Lalonde
and Jackson, 2002) in a study where the researchers used qualitative methods to
investigate the usefulness of the NEP for a group of participants with advanced degrees,
who similarly, had concerns with the simplicity of the questions. Nevertheless, because
the NEP is so well-recognized and widely used, it was concluded that it was the best
potential survey to give to a diverse audience. A comment box was added after the 15
NEP questions to allow participants to relate any frustrations they may have had while
answering the questions. Additionally, the open-ended question inadvertently provided
many participants an opportunity to voice their own political thoughts and concerns.
At the end of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to write anything
additional about their time with a conservation corps, or about the survey. This was a tool
used by Dempsey (2012) and allowed many participants to relate very personal
connections with their experience. The last two questions asked participants if they would
be willing to participate in an interview with the researcher. Participants could then enter


 

 

44
 


 
their name and contact information to be reached at a later time. Out of the total 330
participants that answered this question, 237 (71%) consented to be contacted for an
interview. Participants were eligible to be interviewed, even if they had not completed the
survey in full and were not included in the statistical analyses. The survey for adult
alumni remained active on various sites from January 28th until April 15th 2013.

Statistical Analyses
Multiple statistical tests were employed to analyze the quantitative survey data. The
scored data on the NEP and the Conservation Corps Experience sections were not
normally distributed, and did not become so in any attempted transformation. Resampling
methods (10,000 permutations) were used to conduct both Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) tests on participant demographics and scores on both sections of the survey,
and to conduct non-parametric t-tests, comparing scores on the NEP and Experience
surveys within each demographic variable.
Simple Linear Regression was used to examine relationships among continuous
variables. The number of sessions participants completed as crew members and crew
leaders were compared against their scores on the NEP and Experience Surveys.
Additionally, regression analysis was used to compare each participant’s NEP score to
their Experience score and their mean score on each individual section (general,
environment, social) of the Experience Survey.
Statistical software PCORD (version 6) was employed to conduct multivariate
analysis of the survey data, investigating relationships among participants’ overall survey
responses with eight demographic variables: age, gender identity, family income, racial


 

 

45
 


 
identity, parental involvement, level of education, and the number of sessions completed
with a conservation corps, both as a crew member and a crew leader. A Euclidian
distance measure was used in Multiresponse Permutation Procedures (MRPP) to identify
significant demographic indicators in group responses for all Likert scale questions, as
well as the Experience Survey and NEP separately. Pairwise comparisons were
conducted for each MRPP to identify significant differences in responses among groups.
An Indicator Species Analysis (ISA—hereafter referred to as the Indicator Question
Analysis (IQA)) was used in PC-ORD to identify questions that had significantly
different responses from one group within a particular demographic. The IQA was used
on all grouping variables, regardless of significance of MRPP results.

Qualitative Analysis
Multiple methods were employed to select interview participants. From the survey data,
multivariate statistics were used to create a dual axis Ordination chart, so that respondents
could be grouped into similar clusters. Participants were chosen from the clusters, as
potential interviewees. Single axis ordination charts and randomization were also used to
identify potential interview subjects. If the participant had consented to be contacted, s/he
was emailed or called to set up a time for an interview. Approximately 50 survey
respondents were identified to be interviewed through the methods above. Of those,
approximately 30 had consented to be contacted for an interview, and nine interviews
were conducted. It was noticed through these processes that participants with negative
corps experiences and comments most often did not consent to be contacted for an
interview, which may have biased our findings.


 

 

46
 


 
All interviews were recorded and transcribed by the researcher. Qualitative
software Dedoose (www.dedoose.com) was used to code the interviews and open-ended
survey responses. Excerpts were taken from each interview and particular comments
were kept for coding from the survey responses. The qualitative codes were grouped into
eight umbrella categories: 1) “Corps Experience,” 2) “Social Development,” 3)
“Environment,” 4) “Pre-Corps,” 5) “Testimonials,” 6) “Crew Leader Experiences” and 7)
“Survey Comments.” “Corps Experience” was used to cluster excerpts and quotations
that discussed multiple aspects of participants’ corps experiences. This included logistics
information regarding the types of projects and crew living experiences respondents had,
as well as personal reflections about people who were found to be challenging, significant
or who participants had learned from. Additionally, “Corps Experience” included
reflections about what the experience had meant to participants and included both
positive and negative comments.
“Social Development” and “Environment” referred to instances where
participants directly referenced aspects of leadership development or personal growth, or
of nature/environment interaction, respectively. The code “Testimonials” was created for
comments from participants who chose to relate personally important aspects of their
corps experience without any prompting from the survey questions. Many participants
told stories about their crews or projects in narrative form, and several commented about
their experience with emotional and personal statements. As much as possible, the coding
process attempted to mirror the three categories of questions from the Experience Survey:
Environment, Social/ Personal Growth, and General Impressions about the program.


 

 

47
 


 
Additional categories were created specific to the NEP responses, and were
grouped into 5 areas: positive, negative, explanatory (referring to participants who chose
to defend their answers on the survey with examples), environmental concern (many
participants took the opportunity to voice their own concerns and frustrations about
environmental issues or policies) and personal criticism (some respondents who did not
like the NEP chose to criticize the researcher personally).

Results
New Ecological Paradigm
Resampled Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the effect of eight
demographic variables on participants’ NEP score. Gender was the only significant effect
on NEP score (Table 1). Women as a group scored nearly 4 points higher on the NEP
than their male counterparts.

Resampled t-tests were also completed investigating the effect of demographic
variables and NEP score. Three significant responses were found: gender (p < 0.005),


 

 

48
 


 
number of sessions completed as a crew member (p = 0.016), and parental presence when
participants were growing up (p = 0.048) (see Figure 2). Participants who grew up with
both parents scored lower on the NEP than participants who grew up in other family
situations, including participants with divorced parents, single parents, grandparents or
other family members, and adoptive or foster parents. Participants who had worked only
as crew leaders and never as crew members were excluded from the test examining the
effect of number of sessions completed.

Experience Survey
The survey respondents had a group mean on the Experience Survey of 65.288 out of a
possible 80. Resampled ANOVAs investigating the relationship between demographic
variables and participants’ score on the Experience Survey produced two significant
results and two nearly-significant results (Table 2). The number of sessions participants
completed (including participants who had worked only as crew leaders), significantly
affected participants’ Experience scores (p = 0.035) (Figure 3). Excluding participants
who had never worked as a crewmember on a corps produced a more significant effect on
Experience score (p < 0.0005). Race was also a significant effect on Experience score


 

 

49
 


 
(p = 0.03); Native Americans (n = 7) had the highest mean Experience score (68.571)
The ANOVA tests also showed two nearly significant effects: the age of participants at
the time of taking the survey (p= 0.065) and participant’s level of education when taking
the survey (p = 0.084).


 
 
 


 

 

50
 


 
The effect of demographic variables on Experience score was also analyzed with
resampled t-tests (Table 3) and produced one significant result: number of sessions
completed (Figure 4). Participants who had completed only one session with a corps had,
as a group, a significantly lower average Experience score than participants who had
completed two or more sessions with a corps (p = 0.010). Resampled t-tests comparing
scores on the Experience Survey of white and non-white survey participants were not
significant (p = 0.570), suggesting that the significant ANOVA result (Figure 3) was the
result of significant differences among minority groups.


 

 

51
 


 

Regression
Participant responses on the NEP and the Experience sections of the survey were
analyzed separately and against one another using multiple methods. Simple Linear
Regression was used to investigate the relationship between the two survey scores.
Participants’ score on the Experience survey was positively and significantly associated
with participants’ NEP score (R2 = 0.03, p = 0.004) (Figure 5). The three sections of the
Experience survey were also analyzed separately against participant NEP score. Scores
on the “environment” and “social and personal development” sections were positively
and significantly associated with NEP scores (R2 = 0.024, p = 0.011, R2 = 0.034, p =
0.002). The “general impressions” section of the survey was not statistically related to
participants’ NEP score (R2 = 0.006, p = 0.190) (see Appendix C).


 

 

52
 


 

Community Analysis
Multivariate tests performed in PCORD (version 6) showed significantly that there was
more difference than would be expected by chance among two demographic variables
and all Likert Scale survey responses: gender (A = 0.007, p < 0.005), and participant
level of education (A = 0.004, p = 0.013) (Table 4) were found to be small but significant
effects on survey responses. The number of sessions a participant completed (excluding
zero) was nearly significant (p = 0.102).


 

 

53
 


 

MRPP Analysis using only participant responses on the NEP showed similar results. The
effect size of gender (Figure 6) was larger using only the NEP data, but equally as
significant (A = 0.011, p < 0.005). Level of education remained a small but significant
effect (A= 0.007, p = 0.005).

Analysis of the effect of demographic variables on Experience Score using MRPP had
one significant result. The number of sessions completed as a crew member (excluding
zero), was a significant effect on participants’ score on the Experience survey (A= 0.007,
p = 0.007).
Indicator Question Analysis (IQA) was used to identify questions that participants
answered significantly differently within demographic groups (Appendix C). Gender had
the largest effect on answers to specific questions. Of the 31 Likert Scale survey


 

 

54
 


 
questions, 13 were significantly affected by gender; 8 were male identified and and 5
were female identified (Appendix B). Women in general answered more similarly on the
survey questions as a whole, and answered more positively on the NEP. Men as a group
answered with more disagreement than women on the NEP but answered more positively
than women on the three statistically significant indicator questions from the Experience
survey (see Appendix C).

Open-Ended Survey Responses
There were four open-ended questions on the participant survey. The first asked
participants to list the conservation corps they had worked with in the past. The second
asked participants to describe some projects they had worked on. The last two openended questions were clearly optional. One asked participants to comment on the NEP
section of the survey, and the last asked participants to add anything additional about
their experience and/or the survey itself. Questions that were clearly optional received
much less participation than those that were not. There was a wide variety of responses.
Results for these questions are summarized below:
Open-ended 1: What Conservation Corps Have You Worked For?
This question was mainly straightforward. Most respondents simply listed the corps they
had served with. There was a surprising number of participants that had worked for two
or more corps previously; 28 participants listed 3 or more corps that they had worked for
as a crew member or crew leader. Some respondents elaborated, describing the type of
crew they had been a part of; this was most common for crews like “saw crew” “cut and
run crew” or, in the case of participants from NYC, respondents that had participated in


 

 

55
 


 
exclusively backcountry leadership programs made sure to include that information.
Similarly, participants who had served with immersion crews, living in the backcountry
for many weeks referenced that aspect of their corps experience.

Open-ended 2: What types of projects did you work on with your crew? For instance, tell
me what types of projects you did and where you camped/stayed while doing
conservation work.
The responses to this question were varied. Some respondents answered briefly, listing
one or two projects, or the general work of their crew, like “installed high-efficiency
shower heads in low-income households.” Other participants described in detail all the
projects they had completed, like this person:
“My crew was a cut-and-run crew… We completed over five-hundred miles of trail in
two months, in 9-day on, 5-day off rotations. We cleared these trails along the way of
fallen trees, branches, etc. We also rehabilitated the trails themselves. We built structures
into trails to guide water away from the trail and into common water sources, as well as
to build up a trail when sediment moves down with water. We camped in tents, mostly far
away from our vehicle. We camped near water sources such as streams, creeks and lakes.
The views were remarkable. We stayed up to 10,000 feet up into the mountains.”

Other participants took this opportunity to talk about why their time in a corps was
important to them. Many made comments like “good times” or “awesome” somewhere in
their descriptions. Others, like this participant discussed their personal transformation
(these types of comments were coded under “Testimonials”):
I went from searching for an identity and a place to fit in to a coolheaded, self-reliant
individual… My crew did most of our work in The Bob [Marshall], the Scapegoat, the
Selway-Bitterroot, and the Frank Church Wildernesses. Only a handful of times did we
receive stock support. Most hitches we looked like a backcountry version of the Beverly
Hillbillies; 9-10 days worth of food, tools, and gear strapped to every inch of our packs,
hiking up to 70 miles. I still look back on those days with a great big smile.


 

 

56
 


 
Open-Ended 3: Responses to the New Ecological Paradigm
The majority of the comments on the NEP were negative or critical. Out of a total of 82
comments that were relevant to the NEP, 36 comments (44%) were coded as “NEP
Negative.” Many participants took issue with the middle point on the Likert Scale being
“unsure” instead of neutral. There were also many comments about the wording of the
survey, specifically in the question: “The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with
the impacts of modern industrial nations.” There were several comments about the phrase
“the balance of nature,” provoking many participants to say those words did not make
sense, or there was no way to quantify that statement. Other participants commented that
this section of the survey seemed written by an “activist” or otherwise commented that
the survey had a political agenda or bias to it. While it was made clear that this survey
was a well-known and widely-used survey, many participants seemed to think that the
survey was written by the researcher, and so directed occasional personal criticism at the
researcher.
The feelings of participants that the researcher had a bias could also be seen in the
many responses that attempted to explain their answers to the survey. Many chose to
define what they felt nature or the environment was, or to quantify their answer in some
way, like this respondent: “I agree that we need a balance between us and nature. But in
the natural order of things, life dies and moves on. We cannot expect to keep everything
around forever. The environment can adapt if things are allowed to die out.”
Nevertheless, there were also a small number of respondents that reacted
positively to the survey; 6 responses (7%) were coded as “NEP Positive”. Many
respondents felt that this open-ended question was an appropriate place to discuss their
own personal environmental beliefs or concerns, saying things like: “We have PASSED


 

 

57
 


 
the limit of the number of people the earth can support.” Or, “Most people are either not
fully aware of the full extent of the impact humans are having on the Earth and the ones
that do have some idea would rather have their cushy houses and fancy cars than save the
most important resource we have, the Earth itself.” The reactions to the NEP are
discussed more fully in Chapter 3.

Open-ended 4: Final Comments on Corps Experience/Survey
There were a variety of responses to this question. There were multiple participants that
requested to read the final results of the study, or expressed personal or academic interest
in the results. Most participants had positive comments about their experience, like:
“Yah! Conservation! One of the true highlights of my life!”; “[Corps] changed my life
(for the better of course). I wish everyone did it at some point in their youth.”; “It was a
life-changing experience.”; “Conservation work has inspired me to truly dream and has
given me confidence in my abilities to succeed”; “I think that conservation corps are the
best way for an individual [to] gain an appreciation for public land, the environment,
manual labor and teamwork.”
There were a small number of negative responses; a total of 11 survey comments
(8%) were coded as “Negative Corps Comments.” The negative comments included
statements that the participant would not work with a corps again if given the chance and
comments about working long hours or dislike of the food. Others (of which there were
very few) were quite scathing:
My experience with [a conservation corps] has led me to believe that these non-profit
groups predate on relatively un-educated, low income young people who are too
inexperienced to realize that they are being taken advantage of. Many of the crew
members I came into contact with were either college dropouts or had no education past
high school. I understand the premise behind the conservation corps is to provide
training and skills to people with very little work experience or education. However,
these positions often pay less than fast-food jobs and provide little, if any, marketable job


 

 

58
 


 
skills. The inclusion of first aid training, red card certificates, and the like would greatly
improve the utility of these programs from the perspective of the employee. As a
member of a trail crew, I received almost no training on how to correctly use the tools
required by this job. I felt that the trail work completed by my crew was poorly done.
The food we were provided on my trail crew was wholly inadequate and unhealthy (think
cut up hot dogs in mac’n cheese). Upon returning to camp after a day’s trail work, the
mandatory meal preparation/clean-up/and environmental kum-ba-yah sessions sucked up
the rest of the evening despite the fact we weren’t getting paid to do any of that. I would
have much preferred to take care of my own quick meal and gone on a hike or sat in a
lawn chair and read a book. I find it impossible to understand how this oppressively
structured environment is supposed to teach young people to work as part of a team and
be "responsible". What’s more, the crew supervisors are saddled with an immense
amount of pressure for just a pittance more in remuneration, leading them into petty
power trips and emotional breakdowns.

The above comment represents the minority of the survey respondents. The majority of
participants who took the time to add a response had very positive comments. A coding
category called “Transformative Experiences” was added to house all survey comments
that directly referred to their lives being changed in some way by the experience in a
corps, like this participant:
I owe a lot of who I discovered myself to be to [a conservation corps]. My crew leader
fostered a supportive environment in which I was able to develop and realize my true self. I
cherish my time in the woods dearly and will never forget or stop missing my crew and
experience. I sincerely believe that all young people should experience something similar
to [a conservation corps] because it aids development so readily.

A total of 52 responses (38%) were coded as being evidence of transformative
experiences.
Interview Responses
A small subset of nine survey respondents who were willing and available, were
contacted for follow-up interviews. The interviews were all conducted over the phone,
and each lasted between 15 and 30 minutes. Four alumni from Montana Conservation
Corps, two from Southwest Conservation Corps, one from Northwest Youth Corps, one
from Rocky Mountain Youth Corps and one from Mile High Youth Corps were
interviewed. The survey participants were very different from one another. One


 

 

59
 


 
participant was a corps member 13 years ago, several had completed seasons with a corps
within the last 3-5 years. One participant was still with a corps, serving on a veteran fire
crew. One participant now works full time with a conservation corps. Three of the nine
had served as crew leaders at least once. Each interviewee said they would recommend
the corps experience, and would send their own children, nieces or nephews to a corps
because they had personally found it a worthwhile experience. One participant
commented that s/he would recommend a conservation corps because: “it builds
character.”
Eight of the nine interview participants had continued to work in similar fields as
conservation corps for some time after their corps season. These jobs and activities
included leading backpacking trips, working for the US Forest Service or helping with
disaster recovery with other organizations. Many interviewees commented that they were
happiest doing the type of work they had done with a corps, included things like working
in a team, doing physical outdoor labor, and being challenged regularly. Eight of the nine
answered that yes, their interest in the environment increased after their time on a
conservation corps. One participant mentioned that before corps s/he had been idealistic
about environmental issue, but after participation in corps s/he “went from nominally
interested to genuinely and passionately involved.” The ninth participant felt that her/his
interest in the environment had remained the same. All expressed that they had enjoying
many of the same hobbies and outdoor activities before their time with a corps, included
hiking, biking, snowboarding, gardening and hunting. Several interview participants felt
their interest in these hobbies had been amplified by their corps experience, or had
brought them to a geographic location where these activities could be enjoyed more


 

 

60
 


 
regularly. All interviewees felt they had changed in some way during their time with a
corps:
It totally changed where I was headed with my life. I mean nothing bad was going on or
anything, but I mean I didn’t have a job that I loved, just work at the time before I did
[corps]… it helped me kind of realize that I wanted to have something to do with working
outdoors in the forest… something that I don’t think I ever would have realized if I had
stayed in Minnesota that year. And, I think it also, it helped me be a little more outgoing
and learn some leadership skills and how to work with a co-leader, and get through some
of those challenges. I’m realizing things I learned after the fact that I didn’t realize I
learned at the time.

Discussion

Effect of Corps Experience on Environmental Attitudes
The effect of conservation corps on participants’ environmental attitudes is not strongly
conclusive based on the data gathered. The significant effect of the number of sessions a
participant completed on both the New Ecological Paradigm and Experience Survey
scores may imply that corps participation has an effect on participants’ environmental
attitudes. However, the average score of all survey participants on the NEP was 60.825,
translating to an average per-question score of 4.055, or “mildly agree” to each NEP
question. This is substantially higher than the mean NEP scores found by Rideout et al.
(2005) who surveyed college students in person and by email and found mean NEP
scores of 51.3 and 54.0 respectively, and Gallagher (2013) who used the NEP to survey
inmates in Washington State finding mean NEP scores of 54 in the experimental study
groups. Additionally, Gardner and Stern (2002) place the mean NEP score of 45 as the
threshold between agreement with the paradigm and ambivalence to the concepts
addressed, placing the corps alumni from this study far above this threshold. Given the
significant among group effect (p <0.0005) of numbers of sessions completed as a corps


 

 

61
 


 
member (excluding zero), it cannot be concluded with certainty that conservation corps
influence interest and action on environmental issues. It is also quite likely that people
who are pre-disposed to be environmentally interested may be more attracted than
average to corps programs, or may readily seek them out.
The qualitative data suggest that changing environmental attitudes is not seen as a
significant part of the corps mission or experience. The experience of living outside in
National Forests or wilderness areas for many weeks was mentioned several times as a
highlight of the corps experience, but answers specific to the environment were rare in
both the interviews and qualitative survey responses. When participants were asked about
their favorite parts of the program, seeing new places, living outside, and getting to do
meaningful work were mentioned often, which could be concluded to mean that the
environment as a setting for a challenging and enjoyable experience was a significant part
of the corps experience. However, when asked the question: “Do you think you became
any more or less interested in the environment or in environmental issues after your time
in a conservation corps?” most interview participants answered that they became more
interested, and referenced several times that they became more aware of environmental
issues through the experience. The answers to this question were usually short in
comparison with their answers about their crew, or how they had changed while a
member of a conservation corps. Unfortunately, these data cannot lead to conclusions
about the effect of a corps experience over time on environmental thought and action.
Past studies on corps (Marans et al. 1972, Driver and Johnson, 1984, Dempsey, 2012,
Duerden et al. 2013, Duerden and Edwards, in press) show increased environmental
interest in corps participants when compared with control groups. These studies lend


 

 

62
 


 
themselves to the possibility of corps participation being a likely effect on NEP scores
and environmental interest in general.

Effect of Conservation Corps Experience on Social and Personal Development
In the qualitative analysis, the effect of an experience with a conservation corps did
appear to be significant to participants in terms of their social and personal development,
which supports the previous conclusions made by Dempsey (2012) and Duerden et al.
(2013; in press) that corps participants feel more capable and apt to challenge themselves.
Many participants commented that their time in a corps changed their lives. In the
unsolicited open-ended question in the survey, participants were asked to add anything
they wanted about their time in a corps, and many respondents (approximately 52
individuals, 18%) chose to give a type of testimonial about how they had been influenced
positively by their time in corps (only 8% responded negatively). Additionally, because
these transformative experiences were often happening in State Parks or National Parks
and Forests, corps could be influencing public perception of these areas. This effect was
alluded to in several interviews, though actual change in perception as an effect of corps
participation cannot be concluded with the available data.

Usefulness of the New Ecological Paradigm
The last conclusion that can be drawn from this study is the questionable usefulness of
the NEP in surveying a diverse group of respondents. The survey, updated in 2000
(Dunlap et al. 2000), did not seem to be relevant to many survey participants, who took
issue with the vague wording and broad generalizations of many of the questions. Several
survey participants stopped taking the survey entirely when they reached the NEP. There


 

 

63
 


 
is no way to know if that was simply due to fatigue with the survey as a whole, or if
participants found it offensive or irrelevant. Regardless, the number of incomplete
surveys is evidence against posting the NEP at the end of a survey (as was done in this
study) in the future.
Additionally, a few participants expressed confusion at the inclusion of the
survey, commenting that corps do not often talk about the macro-level environmental
effect of their actions, making the survey seem abstract and foreign to this community.
Duerden and Edwards (in press) employed the Environmental Movement Activism Scale
(Milfont and Duckitt 2010), which may have been more appropriate to measure intent to
be involved in environmental programs; however, it may have been potentially less
useful in discerning participants’ broad environmental attitudes.
Despite the negative response to the NEP’s inclusion in the survey, the significant
difference in responses between men and women does support previous studies
(Zelenzny et al. 2000) that show women tend to answer quite differently, usually more
positively, on the NEP and other scales of environmental attitudes (Tindall et al. 2003).
In this study, women, on average, scored nearly 4 points higher than their male
counterparts on the survey. The effect of gender is discussed more fully in Chapter 3.

Conclusion

Based on the data collected, it cannot be said with certainty that conservation corps are
significant life experiences in influencing participants’ environmental interests and
attitudes. The significantly higher score on the Experience and NEP surveys for corps


 

 

64
 


 
members that had completed more sessions implies an effect of corps participation.
However, the high group mean NEP score also implies that corps participants may be
more environmentally inclined than average. The qualitative data does suggest that corps
participation is seen as a very important experience to many alumni, and implies that
corps are significant life experiences for some participants. The results of this study
coupled with the small but growing literature on corps suggest that corps have the
potential for great influence on participants, and in the current economic recession in the
United States, these programs are needed (and are in need of further evaluation and
development) just as much as they were back in 1933. Continued research on the
influence of conservation corps is needed.


 

 

65
 


 
Chapter 3: Expanded Methods, Results and Discussion
This chapter contains the researcher’s personal interest and justification for completing
this thesis. Additionally, a brief history of the conservation corps movement in the United
States is outlined and the five corps that participated in this research are discussed. This
chapter also contains the expanded methods, results and discussion from the study and
contains recommendations for future research with corps and continued use of the survey
tools. Last, the interdisciplinary nature of this study is discussed.

Personal Interest in Conservation Corps
As a former leader of conservation corps, I can attest personally to the amazing outcomes
of programs that expect great things from young people in the outdoors. I have also felt
certain that these programs are beneficial to the environment for several important
reasons. First, the work done by corps often involves improving recreational areas, work I
see as environmentally beneficial because it discourages users from disturbing wilderness
areas that have not been designated for recreational use. Second, educational lessons are
more relevant in the natural environment when an ecosystem can be studied up close,
leading to more engaging environmental lessons (Sobel, 2004; Louv 2008). Third, and
most importantly to me, I felt that exposing young people to nature in the ways corps
programs do, for several days or weeks at a time encourages pro-environmental behavior
because leadership development and personal growth is occurring in a dynamic natural
setting.
To investigate this, I carried out a small pilot study in the summer of 2012 with
leaders of experiential education programs. A small group of outdoor leaders completed
online surveys and were interviewed for my study. The interviews were intended to


 

 

66
 


 
assess the goals and intentions of the adult leaders and supervisors of youth outdoor
education including work, volunteer, and therapy programs. Additionally, the research
was intended to investigate what these leaders felt about their roles, and the importance
of the work they did or do currently, both in the lives of the youth participants, and for
the environment. Analysis of these data led to the conclusion that it is an interest in the
outdoors, and not in youth education that leads people into outdoor leadership programs.
Additionally, the leaders, without exception, noticed positive changes and growth in the
youth over the course of an outdoor program, and the influence on the youth participants’
personal growth and development was seen as the sole purpose of these programs. I was
curious then, if the participants themselves felt the same, which was the rationale for this
investigation into the attitudes and perspectives of conservation corps alumni.

Historical Background of Corps
The work of conservation corps has proved to be meaningful and effective during times
of economic hardship in the United States. As the United States makes its way slowly out
of a recession, the work of conservation corps programs is more important than ever. In
1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), saying to
congress:
I propose to create a civilian conservation corps to be used in simple work not interfering with
normal employment, and confining itself to forestry, the prevention of soil erosion, flood control
and similar projects. I call your attention to the fact that this type of work is of definite practical
value, not only through the prevention of great present financial loss, but also as a means of
creating future national wealth. This is brought home by the news we are receiving today of vast
damage caused by floods on the Ohio and other rivers.
… This enterprise is an established part of our national policy. It will conserve our precious
natural resources. It will pay dividends to the present and future generations. It will make
improvements in national and state domains which have been largely forgotten in the past few
years of industrial development.


 

 

67
 


 
More important, however, than the material gains will be the moral and spiritual value of such
work. The overwhelming majority of unemployed Americans, who are now walking the streets
and receiving private or public relief, would infinitely prefer to work. We can take a vast army of
these unemployed out into healthful surroundings. We can eliminate to some extent at least the
threat that enforced idleness brings to spiritual and moral stability. It is not a panacea for all the
unemployment but it is an essential step in this emergency. I ask its adoption. (Taken from FDR’s
“Three Essentials for Unemployment Relief” speech to Congress, 1933)

This New Deal initiative would remain in place for nine years and provide employment,
job skills training, much needed stipends and new hope for more than 2.5 million young
men as the United States slowly crawled out of the Great Depression (Salmond, 1967, p.
v). Similarly, many presidents since that time have looked for ways to get young people
outside and working. The CCC model has taken on several forms throughout the years,
including the Youth Conservation Corps movement of the 1970s, and AmeriCorps, put
into place by President Clinton in 1994. Most recently, the Obama administration has
passed initiatives to get more young people outside with summer employment on public
lands through providing additional funding to corps programs in 2012
(http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Obama-Administration-to-Hire-20000-YoungPeople-for-Summer-Work-on-Public-Lands.cfm).
The work of many conservation programs is to not only provide employment for
youth, but to also provide both experiential and formalized education experiences, job
training and exposure to new places and people. In this way, conservation corps are
naturally interdisciplinary. Corps engage diverse participants, often focusing on urban
and rural youth, they provide diverse education that creates understanding of both
ecology and biology as well as policy and they allow member to learn more about the
importance of community involvement. The work of each of the conservation corps
included in this study is discussed below.


 

 

68
 


 
Corps Participation
The five conservation corps programs included in this study have many similarities and
differences; however, it was concluded that because each has a similar mission, the
inclusion of all corps in the data collection and analysis processes was appropriate. Each
corps uses language in its mission statement about creating opportunities for young
adults, providing job training and education, exposure to the outdoors, and exposure to a
healthy lifestyle, as well as providing participants with the tools and knowledge to
become stewards of the earth. Below is a brief description of the program offerings of the
five corps that participated in this study.

Northwest Youth Corps
Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) is located in Eugene, OR. It is one of the oldest
conservation programs in the United States. Started in 1984, NYC was intentionally
modeled after the CCC and YCC programs that came before it. NYC was created with
the intention of providing a job training and educational program for Pacific Northwest
Youth. The first year of programming provided 52 teenagers summer employment and
work experience, by assigning them work in the outdoors. These youth were mainly
building slash piles from waste branches and debris left over from logging projects in
Oregon.
From those small beginnings, NYC has grown tremendously. In 2011, NYC
served 1,100 youth through five areas of programming (Northwest Youth Corps 2011
Annual Report). Currently, NYC completes projects through work contracts with the US
Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, The Nature Conservancy and other land


 

 

69
 


 
management agencies in Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho and Arizona. Projects
include trail construction and maintenance, invasive species eradication, fuels reduction
through slash piling and tree thinning, and other restoration projects including planting
native vegetation or participating in threatened species surveys.
In addition to 4-6 weeks of nearly 40 hours per week of manual labor, youth
participants are given the opportunity to earn high school physical education and science
credit through daily educational lessons called SEED (Something Educational Every
Day). These lessons involve natural science topics ranging from forest succession to the
salmon life cycle, as well as job training sessions, where youth participants learn about
better practices for applying for jobs through resume and cover letter writing, and mock
interviews.

Montana Conservation Corps
Started in 1991, Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) enrolls more than 200 young adults
ages 18 to 26 from across the country annually in AmeriCorps programs to work as crew
leaders or crew members on adult conservation crews. Additionally, MCC enrolls more
than 100 Montana teenagers between the ages of 15 to 17, in Youth Service Expedition
programs. Adult participants earn small living stipends and education awards through the
AmeriCorps program. Youth participants meet volunteer requirements for high school
and earn small service awards.
MCC has five state offices, located in Missoula (called Western Wildlands by
members), Helena (Continental Divide), Bozeman (Greater Yellowstone), Kalispell
(Northern Rockies) and Billings (Eastern Wildlands). Crews complete projects both local


 

 

70
 


 
communities helping with disaster relief, various volunteer events and helping lowincome communities prepare their homes for winter through weatherization assistance.
MCC members also work in wild spaces, such as National Forests, State and National
Parks, wildlife refuges and federally designated wilderness areas doing a variety of
natural resource management and recreation-focused tasks.
Adult crews work together on “hitches” that vary in length from 6 to 12 days at a
time, and remain together for the duration of their service with the corps. Youth crews
serve for 4 weeks total, often changing projects every week or two, and exploring
Montana on the weekends. Both youth and adult crews have mandatory education lessons
where members discuss the importance of environmental stewardship, community service
and leadership (mtcorps.org/about).

Southwest Conservation Corps
Started in 1998, the Southwest Conservation Corps (SCC) offers year-round programs
throughout the southwestern United States. SCC was modeled after the CCC and has
grown very quickly to currently offer programming based in three states, operating out of
four regional offices in: Durango, CO; Salida, CO; Acoma, NM and Tucson, AZ. SCC is
a member of the Mountain Alliance of Conservation Corps as well the Colorado Youth
Corps Association; both are organizations that provide support for multiple regional
corps. SCC programs involve young people between the ages of 12 to 25 in a variety of
programs. Corps members provide support to local and urban communities in a variety of
ways. Most recently, SCC corps members have been a part of the Hurricane Sandy relief
effort in the Northeastern United States.


 

 

71
 


 
In addition to community service programs SCC corps members do many natural
resource based projects in natural and wild spaces throughout the Southwest. Work
projects include the work of the Sustainable Forestry team, where members learn how to
operate chainsaws safely and effectively to reduce hazardous trees in forests through
thinning methods. Other work projects include trail building, fencing construction and
removal, erosion control, pollution and litter control assignments and invasive vegetation
eradication.
SCC offers corps members opportunities to gain skills and certifications that they
can take out into the work force. Additionally, many of the SCC’s positions allow
participants the opportunity to earn an AmeriCorps education award to continue their
education after their service. Participants also have the opportunity to work in SCC’s
crew leader development program, where they learn the skills necessary to be an effective
outdoor leader. Lastly, SCC is home to a very successful Veteran Fire Corps program
employing men and women who have recently been discharged from the military in
projects and trainings that will prepare them for careers with the Forest Service, Bureau
of Land Management and other federal and state agencies (scc.org/about)

Rocky Mountain Youth Corps
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (RMYC) was started in 1993 by the city of Steamboat
Springs, CO, and is also a member of the Colorado Youth Corps Association. RMYC was
created with the intention of providing better employment opportunities for the area’s youth
and young adults and in 1999 became its own non-profit allowing the organization to
expand their program reach and serve more teenagers and young adults in the local area.


 

 

72
 


 
RMYC has five types of programming: Conservation Corps, Community Youth
Corps, Yampa Valley Science School, Historic Preservation Crew and Service Learning
Corps. RMYC’s Conservation Corps program serves 100-150 young people between the
ages of 16 to 25 each year through 6 areas of conservation corps programming. The
Regional Conservation Crews for ages16-18; the Colorado Fourteeners Crews; the
Leadership Development Crews; the Continental Divide Trail Crews; the Chainsaw Crews;
and the Veterans Corps. Members in the Conservation Corps programs complete a variety
of projects including environmental restoration through watershed improvement projects,
removal of hazardous and fuel trees caused by beetle kill and invasive species removal.
Additionally, these crews work on improving the recreational opportunities in the local area
by working on trail construction and maintenance and maintenance of parks and campsites.
RMYC also offers a variety of community-based programs. Yampa Valley School is
a week long and science and service experience where high school students get the
opportunity to teach and mentor 6th-grade students from the local community. The
Community Youth Corps programs enroll more than 50 youth annually in two-week service
projects for their communities. Last, the Historic Preservation Crew works to restore
historically significant buildings and structures in Routte County (where RMYC is located)
during the summer months.

Mile High Youth Corps
Based in Denver, CO, Mile High Youth Corps (MHYC) was also founded on the ideals
and structure of the CCC. MHYC was originally founded by Boulder County
Commissioner Josie Heath in 1992 and was created to address the employment and


 

 

73
 


 
educational needs of youth by putting them to work on projects that benefited the
community. The main focus of MHYC’s work is on improving conservation and local
neighborhoods in the greater Denver areas. In 2009 MHYC expanded their programming
to including work and opportunities for young people out of an office in Colorado
Springs.
MHYC is also a member of the Colorado Youth Corps Association, and offers
three major areas of programming for young adults. First is the 11-month long
AmeriCorps Leadership and Conservation program where members learn new skills in
sustainability, conservation and outdoor work before becoming supervisors of crews
during the summer and fall sessions of programming. The second opportunity for youth is
the Water and Energy Conservation program, where members work with local
community members to install high efficiency showerheads and toilets for low-income
neighborhoods and community non-profits. The third major area of programming is the
Land Conservation program, divided into the Summer of Service or Fall Forestry
sessions. These are 12-week long programs where members work within the local
community and also complete “hitches” in outdoor areas doing work in natural resource
management and conservation. The Land Conservation programs have a required
environmental education component.
MHYC has grown tremendously and has been able to successfully cultivate the
number and types of programs it offers Colorado and the Nation’s youth in a short time.
Additionally, MHYC offers education, job training and educational awards to members
in a highly urban area. In 2009, MHYC was awarded two ‘Project of the Year’ awards


 

 

74
 


 
from The Corps Network for outstanding community programming and opportunities for
participants.
Expanded Methods
Different Survey for Northwest Youth Corps Alumni
Because of mid-research complications and changes, Northwest Youth Corps (NYC) had
a slightly different survey than Southwest Conservation Corps, Mile High Youth Corps,
Montana Conservation Corps and Rocky Mountain Youth Corps. The survey provided to
alumni of NYC asked questions specific to participants’ time working with that
organization, and referenced NYC in several questions. Alumni from other organizations’
were provided a more generalized survey that was relevant to multiple conservation
corps.

Social Media: Outreach to Alumni
To reach the alumni of the multiple groups willing to help with this project, social media
were utilized in several ways. The majority of participants were made aware of my
project and how they could share about their experience via an email sent out by the
organization, or a posting on corps’ Facebook pages.
This form of reaching alumni had multiple limitations. Social media is a fairly
recent phenomenon, and therefore, the majority of users of these tools represent relatively
young alumni. The majority of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 25.
While this is an important demographic to reach, it may not be the most representative of
the long-term impacts of participation in a youth conservation corps on participants’ life
choices.


 

 

75
 


 
The major concern in the collection of survey and interview responses was in the
use of Facebook as a recruitment tool. People who would see the posts of an organization
have to literally “like” the organization’s page to access their posts. Because of this, the
people with the most access to my survey methods were those that were more likely to
have enjoyed their experience with a conservation program. This was also likely to be the
case with the use of email or electronic newsletters to access alumni responses.
Maintaining an up-to-date email address with an organization is largely the role of the
participant, and they are more likely to do this if they enjoyed their time, agree with the
mission of the group, and want to remain in contact with them. In this way the results
were probably fairly biased. With unlimited resources and time, there may have been
other ways to gain access to the contact information of alumni that did not love or
appreciate their experience in youth corps. However, those methods were impossible
given the time-frame allowed.

Participants Representing Multiple Conservation Corps
The survey participants represented many more conservation programs than was
anticipated. Additionally, many participants had completed a session or two with more
than one conservation corps, making it impossible to identify how they had received the
survey. There was also much more diversity in the types of tasks former corps members
had been involved in with a conservation organization than expected. For instance, Mile
High Youth Corps had many participants who had spent the majority of their time
working with the corps in urban areas, doing tasks like installing water-saving shower
heads and doing energy audits for community members. These tasks were usually in


 

 

76
 


 
addition to at least some time spent in natural-resource-based tasks with land
management agencies; however, it was difficult to decide if these participants should be
grouped with the rest. Ultimately, these participants were included in the analyses and
results.
Additionally, several participants, specifically from Southwest Conservation Corps, were
involved in a Veteran Fire Corps (VFC) program. The VFC programs are a relatively
recent development in multiple corps organizations. They provide training and
employment to military veterans who are transitioning into civilian life, with the
expectation that the veterans will eventually find employment with the Forest Service,
Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs or other management agency.
One VFC participant was interviewed about their experience for this study, and the VFC
experience was found to be similar in many ways to the youth corps experience conveyed
by other interview participants. However, the experience of veterans in conservation
corps is an area in need of more research and investigation.

Expanded Results

Expanded Statistical Analysis
Regression analysis was performed on continuous demographic variables. The number of
sessions a participant had completed, and the number of sessions completed as a crew
leader, was analyzed against scores on the NEP and the Experience section of the survey
(Figure 7). The number of sessions completed with a corps was significantly, but only


 

 

77
 


 
marginally associated, with participant score on the Experience Survey (R2 = 0.041, p =
0.001). Number of sessions was negatively and significantly associated with score on the
NEP (R2 = -0.015, p = 0.047). Scores on the NEP seemed to “peak” among alumni who
had completed 3-4 sessions, and then began to decline.

Pairwise Comparisons
MRPP analysis also tested for pairwise comparisons within demographic groups (Table
5). Level of Education showed multiple statistically significant and nearly significant
results. Participants who had earned a Bachelor’s Degree and participants who had less
than a high school diploma had the highest mean and median NEP scores (61.59 and
61.25 respectively, median score 62). In general, unlikely groups had more similar and
more different average NEP scores based on their level of education. All respondents,
regardless of education had relatively similar Experience scores (between 67 and 66); the
exception is participants who had earned a High School Degree, those participants had a
mean Experience score of 63.14. Additionally, participants who had grown up with
adoptive parents (n = 2) had nearly-significantly different respondents than those that
grew up in more “alternative” family situations including foster care, multiple home


 

 

78
 


 
environments or living with siblings (n = 11) however the small sample sizes make it
difficult to trust this result.
A Bonferroni Correction calculated that the p-value of each pairwise comparison
should be 0.003 or lower to represent a significant interaction. There is a trend toward
significance, but none of these comparisons are statistically significant when corrected
for multiple permutations.

Reaction to the New Ecological Paradigm
There was a variety of reactions to the use of the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) from
survey participants. An early pilot of the survey to a participant with an advanced degree
in ecology led me to include an open-ended question at the end of the survey asking for
any comments on this portion of the survey. Some participants took this question to mean
comments on the entire survey up to that point and had a large array of answers. The


 

 

79
 


 
majority of participants chose not to comment (70.1%). The participants who did
comment specifically on the NEP had quite polarized reactions. The participants either
agreed very much with the survey or strongly disagreed with the survey for several
reasons. Some participants questioned the validity of the survey, saying it was poorly
worded, vague, and should not be used for academic research in the future. Many had
issues with specific questions, saying they felt the available Likert Scale responses were
not adequate for them to express their opinion. Some participants were quite frustrated or
angered by the survey.
The term “balance of nature” was both confusing and upsetting for many
participants. Many commented that these questions were “idiotic” or argued their stance
on a particular question, some saying that humans did have the right to alter Earth, or that
they did not “believe in nature” so these questions were irrelevant to them. Additionally,
the scores on the NEP, which could range from as low as 15 to as high as 75, were quite
varied (mean = 60.8; median = 61; highest score = 75; lowest score = 35).

Expanded Discussion

Reasons for Differences in NEP Reaction
The reasons for the diversity of scores on the NEP are many. The geographical location
of each corps, could be extremely influential, especially for participants who were under
the age of 18 upon participating in a corps, Northwest Youth Corps is based in Eugene,
OR, a city and state with extremely liberal political, social and environmental leanings.
The Southwest Conservation Corps works in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and


 

 

80
 


 
Colorado—three of the four are majority moderate or Republican politically, and are also
home of high levels of natural resource extraction.
One participant pointed out that organizational and crew culture could be
extremely different between corps programs. Additionally, within each organization, it is
often in the hands of the crew leader to truly impart knowledge or discussion onto their
crews. A crew leader with pro-environmental leanings is more likely to influence this
thinking in their crew, especially if they work with teenagers rather than adults.
The types of projects crews have the opportunity to work on also could strongly
influence the environmental effect they perceive themselves of making. Crews in the
southwestern United States reported working on crews that were assigned to pick up litter
along the US/Mexico border. Additionally, some corps participants, specifically alumni
from Mile High Youth Corps work largely in urban areas improving the sustainability
and energy efficiency of low income households. It is likely it would be more difficult to
feel inspired by nature in these scenarios, than in restoring an old trail on Mt. Hood in
Oregon or in the Bridger-Teton National Forest in western Wyoming. A better control to
account for the variability of project work is needed for future studies into this topic.

Effect of Gender
Gender had a significant effect on participants’ survey responses. Corps have been
historically utilized by men more than women, however, currently there are now many
young women participating in corps, both as members and as leaders. The Indictor
“Question” Analysis showed that more often than not, women answered questions more
positively than their male counterparts on the New Ecological Paradigm. Men scored


 

 

81
 


 
higher on the Experience section of the survey, but this difference was not significant
(effect = 0.834, p = 0.341).
The women who participate in conservation corps may be more interested in the
environmental aspects of these programs and less-so in the work experience aspect of
corps. Women may also be more agreeable in surveys. Additionally, all survey
participants were made aware that the researcher was female, and most were informed
that the researcher had previous corps experience, both of which may have influenced
responses. Traditional gender roles placing women in domestic occupations and men in
occupations where manual labor is prevalent, may lead women in corps to feel more
pride in their accomplishments and value in their work, though there is no documented
evidence regarding this.
In the follow-up interviews, six interview participants were female and three were
male. None of the participants mentioned anything specific about their experience as a
man or woman on a conservation crew; however, they were not asked explicitly if they
felt their experience was impacted by their gender.
According to the Pew Research Center, young women spend more time online
and on social networking sites than their male counterparts (Pew Research Center 2013).
Of the 274 survey participants, 156 (56.9%) of them were female. Additionally, a total of
390 surveys were started by participants and 116 (30%) were thrown out because they
were incomplete. Of the surveys thrown out, 56% were female. This may be an indicator
that women were more interested in taking the survey to begin with, or that they had
more immediate access to the surveys posted on Facebook than men.


 

 

82
 


 
Effect of Race
The survey respondents were overwhelmingly white (86%). Race was found to be an
insignificant effect in all analyses. The Indicator Question Analysis found two questions
answered statistically differently by racial groups (Appendix B). Participants who
identified themselves as Native American (n = 7) answered the question My career and
educational interests changed after my experience with a conservation corps more
positively than average, indicating that corps may have been influential in helping this
demographic group to learn about new options or opportunities for them in the future, or
had given them more education on the types of jobs encompassed by corps.
Asian Americans (n = 7) answered the question Human ingenuity will insure that
we do not make the earth unlivable, a question included in the NEP, more negatively than
average (absolute difference = 0.98). This suggests that this demographic is for some
reason more doubtful of the abilities of human intervention to stop or fix environmental
problems. Both of these statistically significant responses are interesting; however, they
come from an extremely small sample size. Native Americans and Asians as racial
groups each made up only 2.5% of the survey population respectively, each consisted of
seven participants. With a larger sample size these statistics would be more conclusive.

Similarities Within Sample
Of the six demographic variables analyzed in this study (age, gender, race, parental
presence, income and education), three had majority representation. The survey
respondents were 86% white, 68% of participants grew up with both parents, and 55%
were 25 years of age or older. Additionally, women made up 57% of the survey


 

 

83
 


 
population. The homogeneity of the data may have contributed to the lack of effect of
race, income and parental presence in the MRPP analyses.
Recommendations for Future Research
To more-fully answer the question of how effective conservation corps participation has
been on participants’ environmental interests and attitudes, there are many additions to be
made to this study. These additions include: the use of a control group, additional
questions pertaining to participants’ environmental interaction growing up, including the
interest their parents showed in recreating out of doors, and/or advocating on
environmental issues.
The study would also benefit from the addition of retrospective questions asking
participants to rate statements as they think they might have done before their corps
experience and also currently. Retrospective survey techniques might have the possibility
of showing the changes participants had gone through from the individual participant’s
perspective. In addition, less questions about participant overall experience and more
about the environment would make the effect of corps on environmental interest more
apparent.
More open-ended questions pertaining to pre-and-post-corps actions on
environmental issues would provide a more complete picture of potential corps effects.
Many survey participants mentioned that they felt the survey would be more
representative if more questions allowed alumni to elaborate on their responses. This was
the case for questions on the Experience Survey and on the New Ecological Paradigm.
Using a qualitative focus to answer the same research questions as posed by this study


 

 

84
 


 
may prove to be effective because corps have a variety of programming and work with
quite diverse audiences.
The primary goal of conservation corps is not necessarily to create environmental
advocates, but to empower young people through hard work and community service.
Because of this, the inclusion of the NEP and environmentally-focused questions was
novel and even confusing to some participants. The NEP seemed to frustrate survey
participants, which could have negatively affected overall results. Had the environmental
questions been introduced with more clarity, a stronger effect might have been apparent.

Interdisciplinary Aspects of this Study
This thesis project reflects the interdisciplinary focus of The Evergreen State College’s
Graduate Program on the Environment in several ways. First, conservation corps
programs are themselves interdisciplinary. Corps engage young people from a variety of
backgrounds and geographic locations to work in natural resource management,
maintenance of recreation areas, sustainability initiatives and disaster recovery, crossing a
variety of professional disciplines. The focus on teamwork creates a challenge that
prepares participants for work projects in professional and academic arenas. Most corps
participants are relatively young when starting work with a conservation corps, making
corps quite influential on the psychology of young minds by exposing participants to new
people and new experiences.
In the creation of the survey and interview materials used for this study, several
aspects of group development, environmental behaviors, and methods for teaching and
facilitating environmental and experiential education were considered. The personal,


 

 

85
 


 
social and psychological effects of conservation corps participation was addressed in the
survey questions, as was the environmental focus of corps. Additionally, the research
attempted to address the social factors leading to participant interest in the environment
and the influence of socio-economic variables on corps participation. The use of both
quantitative and qualitative survey questions as well as the addition of interviews
contributed to a rich, interdisciplinary data set that has really only begun to be analyzed.
There are many more questions to ask and answer just about this group of participants
and these five organizations.
The dissemination of the survey materials was collaborative and novel. High
levels of communication and collaboration were needed between the researcher and the
five conservation corps included in this study in order to post the survey at the
appropriate time and in the appropriate place to encourage alumni participation. The use
of Facebook and other social media platforms was extremely successful, and hopefully
represents a new way to conduct research and hear about the influence of programs long
after their completion. Lastly, this study has revealed some of the cautions and limitations
to using social media as a data collection tool and likely informs future research.
In all, this thesis has been an attempt to continue research and discussion about
the incredible work that conservation corps and their young adult participants do for a
variety of communities. Conservation corps represent a mutually beneficial avenue to
address needed environmental and recovery work, while providing participants
opportunities to improve their lives. Continued and ongoing research is needed to truly
understand the effect of the corps experience.


 

 

86
 


 
Appendix A: Data Collection Tools
Survey Administered to Corps Alumni
Survey to be administered to Northwest Youth Corps (NYC), Southwest Conservation
Corps (SCC), the Montana Conservation Corps (MCC), and Rocky Mountain Youth
Corps (RMYC), in the spring of 2013.
Demographic Information:
This section of the survey is to gather a bit of information about you. This information
will not be used to identify you.
1. What is your age?
18-25
26-35
36-45
46 or over
2. What is your gender?
Male
Female
3. What race or ethnicity do you identify with? (Choose as many as apply)
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic/Latino
Asian
Pacific Islander
Native American
Other—please specify
4. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you
have earned?
Less than a high school degree
High school degree or equivalent
Some college but no degree
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Other—please specify


 

 

87
 


 

5. When you were growing up, who did you live with? (Choose all that apply)
Both parents
Split custody with both parents
One parent—mother
One parent--father
Grandparents
Adoptive parents
Foster parents
Other—please specify
6. Please tell me what conservation organization(s) you have worked with (for
example: Montana Conservation Corps, the Student Conservation Association, etc.)

7. How old were you when you were first a crew member on a conservation corps?
Under 15 years old
15-19
20-25
26-30
Over 30 years old
8. At the time of your participation in a conservation corps, how would you describe
your family’s economic situation?
Poor
Low income
Middle income
High income
9. How many seasons did you serve as a crew member of a conservation corps?
1
2
3
4
5 or more


 

 

88
 


 
10. How many seasons (if any) were you a crew leader with a conservation corps?
1
2
3
4
5 or more
11. Please tell me a bit about the types of crews you were on. For instance, tell me
what types of projects you did and where you camped/stayed while doing
conservation work.
Experience Working with a Conservation Corps:
This section asks you to rate aspects of your experience working with a conservation
corps from 1 to 5 accordingly to the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5
Disagree
Strongly
NeutralAgree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
12. I enjoyed my time as a crew member of a conservation corps
1
2
3
4
5
13. I felt the work was too hard and I did not get the chance to enjoy the outdoors
during my time working in conservation
1
2
3
4
5
14. I feel I changed for the better during my time with a conservation corps
1
2
3
4
5
15. I would be the same person I am today if I had never participated in a
conservation corps
1
2
3
4
5
16. I feel the work I participated in, as a crew member was important and helpful to
the environment
1
2
3
4
5
17. I was at times confused about whether the work my crew did was actually
helpful to the environment
1
2
3
4
5


 

 

89
 


 
18. I was more interested in environmental problems after my time on a
conservation corps than before
1
2
3
4
5
19. I do not feel my interest in environmental issues changed after my time with a
conservation corps
1
2
3
4
5
20. Regular educational lessons, taught by my crew leaders and others, about the
environment and other topics were part of my conservation corps experience
Yes
No (If you answer ‘no’, please proceed to question 23)
21. The educational lessons I was taught made the work I was doing with my crew
more relevant
1
2
3
4
5
22. I did not learn new things from the educational lessons
1
2
3
4
5
23. I feel I learned a lot about the environment simply by being outside for several
weeks.
1
2
3
4
5
24. I was challenged personally and socially during my time with a conservation
corps
1
2
3
4
5
25. I felt the crew environment was too “campy” and did not challenge me
1
2
3
4
5
26. I felt that physical strength was the most important attribute on my crew, and
not communication or teamwork
1
2
3
4
5
27. I felt my skills and talents were appreciated and fostered by my crew and crew
leader
1
2
3
4
5
28. My career and educational interests changed after my experience with a
conservation corps
1
2
3
4
5
29. Conservation corps programs are important to the social development of young
people
1
2
3
4
5


 

 

90
 


 
New Ecological Paradigm
You're almost done!! This last section is a recognized survey titled The New Ecological
Paradigm, created by Riley E. Dunlap. It is just 15 questions that you rank from 1 to 5 on
a slightly different scale as the previous section
1
Strongly
Disagree

2
Mildly
Disagree

3
4
5
Unsure Mildly
Strongly
Agree
Agree

30. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support
1
2
3
4
5
31. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs
1
2
3
4
5
32. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences
1
2
3
4
5
33. Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable
1
2
3
4
5
34. Humans are severely abusing the earth
1
2
3
4

5

35. The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them
1
2
3
4
5
36. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
1
2
3
4
5
37. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern
industrial nations
1
2
3
4
5
38. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature
1
2
3
4
5
39. The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated
1
2
3
4
5
40. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
1
2
3
4
5
41. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature
1
2
3
4
5


 

 

91
 


 
42. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
1
2
3
4
5
43. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to
control it
1
2
3
4
5
44. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major
environmental catastrophe
1
2
3
4
5
45. Do you have any comments about this portion of the survey?

46. I would be willing to talk more with the researcher in an interview if contacted
Yes
No
47. Contact Information

48. If you would like, please add any additional comments you have about your
experience with a conservation corps, or about this survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

92
 


 
Interview Questions for Former Participants of Youth Conservation Corps
Warm Up:
• To start, will you tell me a bit about your job, hobbies and interests?

•

Do you like to be outside, either for work or for fun?

Main Body of Interview:
• When were you part of a conservation corps?


 

 

•

What did your friends and family think of your participation?

•

Do you remember what types of projects you worked on with your crew? Can you
tell me about them?

•

Please tell me a bit about your crew.

•

Please tell me about your crew leaders.

•

What was your favorite part of your time on a conservation corps?

•

What was the hardest or least enjoyable part of your time with a conservation
corps?

•

Do you think that your time with a corps (specific to participant) changed you in
any way?

•

Did your hobbies or interests change in any way after your time in conservation?
93
 


 

•

Do you think about (specific corps) ever, now, in your adult life?

•

Do you think that you became any more or less interested in nature after your
time with (specific corps)?

•

Were you involved in any with conservation corps after your participation as a
corps member? For instance, did you ever crew lead for a corps, or contribute
financially?

Cool Down:
• If you could explain your corps experience in just one minute, what would you
say?

•


 

 

Would you ever send your kids, nephews, nieces, etc. to a youth corps program?
Why or why not?

94
 


 
Appendix B: Survey Participant Demographic Information

Age

18-25

Gender

Male

Race

White

54.70%

26-35
39.80%
56.90%
Hispanic

86.50%
Less than
HSD
3.00%
Parental
Presence

Both
Parents
67.90%

Income

Poor

Zero

Zero
62.20%


 

 

HSD or
equivalent
10.10%
Split
Custody
11.70%
21.20%
One

5.80%
Crew
Leader

3.60%

Low
4.00%

Crew
Member

5.50%

Female

43.10%

Level of
Education

36-45

48.20%
One
19.00%

Asian

Native American

2.50%

2.50%

Some
College

Associates/Trade

27.40%

4.70%

Mother

Father

10.60%
Middle

8.40%

MA/MS
or
beyond

BA/BS
47.10%
Grandparents

7.70%
Adopted

1.10%

1%

Other*
*
4.10%

High
11.30%
Three

23.70%
Two

4.70%

3.30%

63.50%
Two

Other*

Four
12.40%

Three

4.02%

2.20%
Five or
More

1.1

3.6

Four
5.80%

Six or
More

Five

3.60%

95
 


 
Appendix C: Indicator Species Analysis
Demographic
Group

Mean
Score

Group Mean
Score

Question

Indicating For

p value

Exp.9: The educational lessons I was taught made the
work I was doing with my crew more relevant

Men

3.695

3.551

0.022

Q12: I was challenged personally and socially during
my time with a conservation corps

Women

4.533

4.641

0.002

Q13: I felt the crew environment was too "campy"
and did not challenge me

Men

3.916

3.864

0.055

NEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number
of people the earth can support.

Women

4.46

4.281

0.0006

NEP2: Humans have the right to modify the natural
environment to suit their needs

Men

3.152

3.737

0.0002

NEP3: When humans interfere with nature, it often
produces disastrous consequences

Women

4.237

4.058

0.001

NEP4: Human ingenuity will insure that we do not
make the earth unlivable

Men

3.263

3.427

0.029

NEP6: The earth has plenty of natural resources if we
just learn how to develop them

Men

2.644

2.814

0.043

NEP8: The balance of nature is strong enough to
cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations

Men

4.025

4.179

0.023

Men

4.079

4.186

0.009

Men

4.322

4.482

0.013

Men

3.966

4.150

0.007

Women

4.429

4.259

0.0006

Native Americans

4.571

3.799

0.021

Asian Americans

3.427

2.429

0.019

Poor

3.636

4.127

0.041

Wealthy

4.903

4.675

0.004

5 sessions

3.000

3.168

0.051

5 sessions

4.500

4.058

0.035

GENDER

NEP10: The so-called "ecological crisis" facing
humankind has been greatly exaggerated
NEP12: Humans were meant to rule over the rest of
nature
NEP14: Humans will eventually learn enough about
how nature works to be able to control it
NEP15: If things continue on their present course, we
will soon experience a major environmental
catastrophe
RACE
Exp. 16: My career and educational interests changed
after my experience with a conservation corps
NEP4: Human ingenuity will insure that we do not
make the earth unlivable
INCOME
Exp. 14: I felt that physical strength was the most
important attribute on my crew, and not
communication or teamwork
NEP9: Despite our special abilities, humans are still
subject to the laws of nature
NUMBER OF SESSIONS AS A CREW MEMBER
Exp. 6: I was at times confused about whether the
work my crew did was actually helpful to the
environment
NEP3: When humans interfere with nature, it often
produces disastrous consequences

Significant Indicator Question Analysis Results. Each response is significantly different from total
demographic group response on specific Likert-Scale survey questions. Group mean score is
compared to the larger demographic group score for each question.


 

 

96
 


 
Appendix D: Regression Analysis of Three Sections of Experience Survey Scores v.
NEP Score

R2= 0.024, p = 0.011


 

R2 = 0.006, p = 0.190


 

R2 = 0.034, p = 0.002


 


 


 


 

 

97
 


 
Works Cited
Arnold, H.E., Cohen, F.G., Warner, A. (2009). Youth and environmental action:
Perspectives of young environmental leaders on their formative influences.
Journal of Environmental Education 40(3), 27-36.
Bandura, A., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Social learning theory.
 
Borgers, N. de Leeue, E., Hox, J. (2000). Children as respondents in survey research;
cognitive development and response quality. Bulletin de Methodologoie
Sociologique 66, 60-75.
Bridgeland, J.M., Milano, J.A. Opportunity road: the promise and challenge of America’s
forgotten youth. Peter D. Hart Research Associates.
Browne, L. P., Garst, B. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2011). Engaging Youth in
Environmental Sustainability: Impact of the Camp 2 Grow Program. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 29(3).
Byrne, J., & Wolch, J. (2009). Nature, race, and parks: past research and future directions
for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 743-765.
Bixler, R. D., Carlisle, C. L., Hammltt, W. E., & Floyd, M. F. (1994). Observed fears
and discomforts among urban students on field trips to wildland areas. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 26(1), 24-33.
Bixler, R. D., & Floyd, M. F. (1999). Hands on or hands off? Disgust sensitivity and
preference for environmental education activities. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 30(3), 4-11.


 

 

98
 


 
Bixler, R. D. Floyd, M.F., Hammitt, W.E. (2002). Environmental socialization:
Quantitative tests of the childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior
34(6), 795-818.
Carver, R.L. (1997). Theoretical underpinnings of service learning. Theory into Practice
36(3), 143-149.
Chawla, L. (1998). Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: review
and recommendations. Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 359–374.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior.
Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437–452.
Chawla, L. (2008). Participation and the ecology of environmental awareness and action.
Participation and Learning, 98–110.
Crompton, J. L., & Sellar, C. (1981). Do outdoor education experiences contribute to
positive development in the affective domain? The Journal of Environmental
Education, 12(4), 21-29.
Curry, J.M., Heffner, G., Warners, D. (2002). Environmental service-learning: social
transformation through caring for a particular place. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 58-66.
Dempsey, D. J. (2012). Hard work, low pay, miserable conditions: the California
Conservation Corps and the young adult transition. Humboldt State University.
Retrieved from http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/handle/2148/997


 

 

99
 


 
Driver, B. L., & Johnson, L. A. (1984). A pilot study of the perceived long-term benefits
of the Youth Conservation Corps. The Journal of Environmental Education,
15(2), 3-11.
Duerden, M. Edwards, M. (In Press 2013). Unpublished manuscript for The Journal of
Environmental Education.
Duerden, M. Edwards, M. Lizzo, R. (2013). Public Lands Service Coalition 2012
Evaluation Report. Texas A&M University.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D. (1978). The "New Environmental Paradigm." The Journal
of Environmental Education, 9, 10-19.
Dunlap, R.E., Van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G., Jones, R.E. (2000). Measuring endorsement
of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. The Journal of Social
Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
Ellison, K. (2003). Starting small. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(10),
564-564.
Ernst, J. (2007). Factors associated with K-12 teachers’ use of environment-based
education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 38(3), 15–32.
Frumkin, H., & Louv, R. (2007). The powerful link between conserving land and
preserving health. Land Trust Alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.childrenandnature.org/resourcestools/FrumkinLouv.pdf
Furco, A. (1996). Service learning: a balanced approach to experiential education.
Expanding Boundaries and Learning, 1, 1-6.
Gardner, G.T., Stern, P.C. (2002). Environmental problems and human behavior (2nd
edition.). Boston: Pearson.


 

 

100
 


 
Gillis, H. L., Gass, M. A., & Russell, K. C. (2008). The effectiveness of Project
Adventure’s behavior management programs for male offenders in residential
treatment. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 25(3), 227–247.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for
place-conscious education. American educational research journal, 40(3), 619–
654.
Gruenewald, D.A. (2004). A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education: toward
the sociological challenge of the Earth Charter. Curriculum Inquiry 34(1), 71-107.
Frumkin, P., Jastrzab, J., Vaaler, M., Greeney, A., Grimm, R. T., Cramer, K., & Dietz,
N. (2009). Inside national service: AmeriCorps' impact on participants. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), 394-416.
Haluza-Delay, R. (2001). Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature
following a 12-day wilderness program. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 32(4), 43-48.
Hankins, A. (1993). Environmental education: from camp to classroom (Master's thesis
The Evergreen State College).
Hanna, G. (1995). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology
education programming. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 21–32.
Hill, A. (2008). Connection to place as a central theme for sustainable outdoor education.
New Zealand Journal of Outdoor Education: Ko Tane Mahuta Pupuke, 2(4), 26.
Hosley, E. W. (1974). A comparison of two methods of instruction in environmental
education (Master's thesis).


 

 

101
 


 
Itin, C. (1999). Reasserting the philosophy of experiential education as a vehicle for
change in the 21st century. Journal of Experiential Education, 22(2), 91-98.
Jastrzab, J., Blomquist, J. Masker, J., Orr, L. (1997). Youth Corps: Promising Strategies
for young people and their communities. Abt and Associates.
Johnson, C. (1998). A consideration of collective memory in African American
attachment to wildland recreation places. Human Ecology Review 5(1), 5-15.
Jones, C. D., Lowe, L. A., & Risler, E. A. (2004). The effectiveness of wilderness
adventure therapy programs for young people involved in the juvenile justice
system. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 22(2), 53–67.
Kelly, F.J., Baer, D.J. (1971). Physical challenge as a treatement for delinquency. Crime
and Delinquency 17, 437-445.
Kelly, F. J. (1974, October). Outward Bound and delinquency: A ten year experience. In
International Conference of the Association of Experiential Education, Estes
Park, CO.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally
and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental
education research, 8(3), 239-260.
Lalonde, R., & Jackson, E. L. (2002). The new environmental paradigm scale: has it
outlived its usefulness?. The Journal of Environmental Education, 33(4), 28-36.
Larson, E. R., & Olden, J. D. (2008). Do schools and golf courses represent emerging
pathways for crayfish invasions. Aquatic Invasions, 3(4), 465–468.
Levenson, R. W. (1992). Autonomic nervous system differences among emotions.
Psychological science, 3(1), 23-27.


 

 

102
 


 
Loskota, A. M. (2004). Environmental education to sustainability education: effective
and inclusive strategies for teaching to all elementary students (Master's thesis,
The Evergreen State College).
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit
disorder. Algonquin Books.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: WW
Norton.
Marans, R. W., Driver, B.L., Scott, J.C. (1972). Youth and the Environment: An
Evaluation of the 1971 Youth Conservation Corps. Institute for Social Research.
University of Michigan.
Maravilla, K. N. (2012). Personal growth through guided discoveries: An assessment of
returning sea campers' self-efficacy and environmental ethics. Humboldt State
University. Retrieved from http://humboldt-dspace.calstate.edu/handle/2148/992
McInerney, P. Smyth, J. Down, B. (2011). Coming to a place near you? The politics and
possibilities of a critical pedagogy of place-based education. Asia-Pacific Journal
of Teacher Education 39(1), 3-16.
Medina, J. (2001). Types of Positions, Job Responsibilities, and Training Backgrounds
of Outdoor/Adventure Leaders. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(3), 150–
59.
Nesbit, R., & Brudney, J. L. (2010). At your service? Volunteering and national service
in 2020. Public Administration Review, 70(s1), S107-S113.
Orren, P. M., & Werner, P. D. (2007). Effects of brief wilderness programs in relation to
adolescents’ race. Journal of Experiential Education, 30(2), 117–133.


 

 

103
 


 
Quay, J. (2003). Experience and participation: Relating theories of learning. Journal of
Experiential Education, 26(2), 105-112.
Rideout, B.E., Hushen, K., McGinty, D., Perkins, S., Tate, J. (2005). Endorsement of the
new ecological paradigm in systematic and email samples of college students.
Journal of Environmental Education 36(2), 15-23.
Rodriguez, D. A., & Roberts, N. S. (2005). Understanding the influence of gender and
ethnicity on evaluations of outdoor leader effectiveness. World Leisure Journal,
47(1), 32–44.
Rozenweig, R., Blackmar, E. (1992). The Park and the People. Ithaca NY: Cornell
University Press.
Rule, A. C., & Meyer, M. A. (2009). Teaching urban high school students global climate
change information and graph interpretation skills using evidence from the
scientific literature. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(5), 335-347.
Russell, K. C. (2001). What is wilderness therapy? Journal of Experiential Education,
24(2), 70–79.
Salmond, J. (1967). The Civilian Conservation Corps 1933-1942: a New Deal Case
Study. Durham, NC.
Saylan, C. Blemstein, D.T. (2011). The failure of environmental education (and how we
can fix it). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Seaman, J. Gass, M. (2004). Service-learning and outdoor education: Promising reform
movements or future relics? Journal of Experiential Education 27(1), 67-86.
Simon, C.A. Wang, C. (2002). The impact of AmeriCorps service on volunteer
participation. Administration and Society 34(5), 522-540.


 

 

104
 


 
Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education (Vol. 1).
Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society.
Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based Education: Connecting Classroom and Community. Great
Barrington. MA: Orion Society.
Stapp, W. B., Bennett, D., Bryan, W., Fulton, J., MacGregor, J., & Nowak, P. (1969).
The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education,
1(1), 30–31.
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., & Ardoin, N. M. (2008). What difference does it make?
Assessing outcomes from participation in a residential environmental education
program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(4), 31–43.
Swan, J. A. (2010). Transpersonal psychology and the ecological conscience. Journal of
Transpersonal Psychology, 42(1), 2.
Tanner, T. (1980). Significant life experiences: A new research area in environmental
education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 11(4), 20–24.
Tindall, D.B., Davies, S., Mauboules, C. (2003). Activism and conservation behavior in
an environmental movement: the contradictory effects of gender. Society and
Natural Resources, 16, 909-932.
Vaske, J.J. Kobrin, K.C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible
behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education 32(4), 16-21.
Wells, N.M., Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood
nature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children Youth and Environments,
16(1), 1-24.


 

 

105
 


 
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond
the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to
place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29-46.
Wilson, S.J., Lipsey, M.W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth:
a meta analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning 23,
pp. 1-12.
Zelezny, L.C., Poh-Pheng, C., Aldrich, C. (2000). Elaborating on Gender Differences in
Environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56(3), 443-457.


 


 

 

106
 

Media

Martin_A2013.pdf