Citation
Changing landscapes

Material Information

Title:
Changing landscapes wind energy development surrounding southwestern U.S. national parks
Creator:
McPartland, Susan M
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Wind power ( lcsh )
National parks and reserves -- United States ( lcsh )
National parks and reserves -- New Mexico ( lcsh )
National parks and reserves ( fast )
Wind power ( fast )
New Mexico ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Renewable energy development is expanding throughout the United States. With the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the location of such development becomes increasingly important. While many investigations of physical ecological impacts of renewable energy structures have been undertaken, the social impacts of such landscape alteration have received little attention. This research project focuses on the social impact of renewable energy development, especially on how such landscape alteration will be perceived if renewable energy structures are part of the landscapes visible from national parks. The three national monuments involved in this research are representative of many national park units, particularly in the southwest. Each park tells the history of both the individual site and of the region of which it is a part. Similar to many National Park Service units, these three national monuments are small in area. The landscapes visible from and associated with them are not managed by the National Park Service. These visible landscapes are part of the histories and stories for which each national monument is known. Therefore, alterations to these visible landscapes have the potential of impacting how visitors experience these sites. To understand potential impacts to visitor experience, the concept of place attachment was investigated along with visitor attitudes toward renewable energy development. This study used qualitative research methods to measure and understand place attachments for national parks in the southwestern United States near where wind energy could be developed, as well as attitudes toward potential wind energy development visible from those national park sites. It was determined that surveyed visitors hold positive levels of place attachment, indicating the importance of these sites. Attitudes about renewable energy were found to be positive at the conceptual level. With regard to attitudes about where development should take place, it was found that respondents agree to the idea of culturally significant landscapes being avoided. Concerning renewable energy potentially being a part of the landscapes visible from National Park Service units, results demonstrate that visitors do not want such development to be visible. Visitors anticipate that their experience of the sites will be lowered by such landscape alteration.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Susan M. McPartland.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
858280719 ( OCLC )
ocn858280719

Auraria Membership

Aggregations:
Auraria Library
University of Colorado Denver

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CHANGING LANDSCAPES:
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING SOUTHWESTERN
U S. NATIONAL PARKS
by
Susan M. McPartland
B.A., Pacific Lutheran University, 2001
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Social Sciences
Master of Social Sciences: Society and the Environment
2012


This thesis for the Master of Social Sciences degree by
Susan M. McPartland
has been approved for the
Master of Social Science
by
Brian Page, Ph.D., Chair
Virginia Fink, Ph.D.
Kerri Cahill, Ph.D.
Date April 6. 2012


McPartland, Susan, M., Master of Social Sciences
Changing Landscapes: Wind Energy Development Surrounding Southwestern U.S.
National Parks
Thesis directed by Brian Page, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Renewable energy development is expanding throughout the United States. With
the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the location of such
development becomes increasingly important. While many investigations of physical
ecological impacts of renewable energy structures have been undertaken, the social
impacts of such landscape alteration have received little attention. This research project
focuses on the social impact of renewable energy development, especially on how such
landscape alteration will be perceived if renewable energy structures are part of the
landscapes visible from national parks. The three national monuments involved in this
research are representative of many national park units, particularly in the southwest.
Each park tells the history of both the individual site and of the region of which it is a
part. Similar to many National Park Service units, these three national monuments are
small in area. The landscapes visible from and associated with them are not managed by
the National Park Service. These visible landscapes are part of the histories and stories
for which each national monument is known. Therefore, alterations to these visible
landscapes have the potential of impacting how visitors experience these sites. To
understand potential impacts to visitor experience, the concept of place attachment was
investigated along with visitor attitudes toward renewable energy development. This
study used qualitative research methods to measure and understand place attachments for
national parks in the southwestern United States near where wind energy could be


developed, as well as attitudes toward potential wind energy development visible from
those national park sites. It was determined that surveyed visitors hold positive levels of
place attachment, indicating the importance of these sites. Attitudes about renewable
energy were found to be positive at the conceptual level. With regard to attitudes about
where development should take place, it was found that respondents agree to the idea of
culturally significant landscapes being avoided. Concerning renewable energy potentially
being a part of the landscapes visible from National Park Service units, results
demonstrate that visitors do not want such development to be visible. Visitors anticipate
that their experience of the sites will be lowered by such landscape alteration.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Brian Page, Ph.D.
IV


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION................................................... 10
Introduction........................................................10
Scope and Limitation................................................12
Arrangement of the Thesis...........................................14
CHAPTER II REVIEW 01 THE LITERATURE.......................................15
Politics and Policies of Renewable Energy Development...............15
Social Implications of Renewable Energy Development.................17
Place Attachment....................................................20
Conclusions.........................................................25
Role of Theory......................................................25
CHAPTER III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS................................27
Research Questions..................................................27
Research Methods....................................................27
Overview........................................................27
GIS Site Selection Analysis.....................................28
Data Collection.................................................30
Impacts to Participants.........................................34
Analysis Methods....................................................35
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS.......................................................38
Research Sites......................................................40
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument.......................40
Fort Union National Monument....................................42
Capulin Volcano National Monument...............................44
v


Research Findings....................................................47
Place Attachment..................................................47
Place Identity.................................................47
Place Dependence...............................................52
Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development.....................58
Conditions on Renewable Energy Development........................66
Visitor Experience................................................70
Ideas of Change...................................................75
Place Attachments Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development..78
CHAPTER V DISCUS SION.......................................................83
Conclusions..........................................................83
Implications.........................................................89
APPENDICES..................................................................98
A. GIS Dataset Source List...........................................98
B. Overlay Analysis Maps.............................................99
C. Questionnaire....................................................102
D. Questionnaire by Topic...........................................112
E. Human Subjects Research Approval.................................114
F. Photo Gallery of Research Sites..................................116
vi


LIST OF TABLES
Table IV. 1 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Annual Visitation............41
Table IV.2 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Monthly Visitation............42
Table IV.3 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation.........................43
Table IV.4 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation.........................44
Table IV.5 Capulin Volcano National Annual Visitation..............................46
Table IV.6 Capulin Volcano National Monthly Visitation.............................46
Table IV.7 Statement 1, Place Identity: The landscapes visible from this park mean a lot
to me.............................................................................51
Table IV.8 Statement 2, Place Identity: I feel an emotional connection with the
landscapes I can see from the park................................................51
Table IV.9 Statement 3, Place Identity: I identify strongly with the landscapes visible
from this park....................................................................51
Table IV. 10 Place Identity Collapsed Variable....................................52
Table IV. 11 Statement 4, Place Dependence: I enjoy visiting national park sites in the
southwestern U.S. more than any other region in the U.S...........................57
Table IV. 12 Statement 5, Place Dependence: I get more personal satisfaction from
visiting this national park site than any other national park site................57
Table IV. 13 Statement 6, Place Dependence: I cannot get a similar experience at any
other location in the southwestern U.S............................................57
Table IV. 14 Place Dependence Collapsed Variable..................................58
Table IV. 15 Statement 7, Renewable Energy Development: I think renewable energy
development (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is important..........................64
Table IV. 16 Statement 13, Renewable Energy Development: I would participate in a
renewable energy program with my energy provider, even with an extra cost.........64
Table IV. 17 Statement 12, Renewable Energy Development: I think that fossil fuels
should continue to be the primary energy source for the U.S.......................65
Table IV. 18 Statement 8, Renewable Energy Development: I would choose wind energy
over other renewable energy developments.........................................65
vii


Table IV. 19 Statement 14, Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms
have an artistic quality to them and are pleasurable to look at...........65
Table IV.20 Statement 9, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that
developers should try to avoid popular and scenic landscapes when they are determining
potential wind farm sites....................................................69
Table IV.21 Statement 10, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that
wind farms should be placed where they will be most productive, regardless of
surrounding features.........................................................69
Table IV.22 Statement 11, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that
wind farms should be placed near populated places............................69
Table IV.23 Statement 15, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My emotional connection
with the landscapes visible from this national park site would decrease if wind farms
could be seen................................................................74
Table IV.24 Statement 16, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My enjoyment of this
national park site would increase if wind farms were part of the landscapes I can see from
here.........................................................................74
Table IV.25 Statement 18, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I am comfortable
with wind farms being visible from any national park site....................75
Table IV.26 Statement 19, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I would still visit a
national park site if wind farms were built directly next to them............75
Table IV.27 Statement 17, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: Ideally, I would want the
view from this national park to never change.................................78
Table IV.28 Statement 20, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: If landscapes seen
from national parks were changed, it would be better if they were changed because of
wind farm developments rather than housing developments or commercial business
developments.................................................................78
Table IV.29 Place Identity and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy..............82
Table IV.30 Place Dependency and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy............82
vm


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BLM Bureau of Land Management
DOI Department of the Interior
EIA Energy Information Administration
GIS Geographic Information Systems
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
SPSS Statistical Pack for the Social Sciences
NM National Monument
NPS National Park Service


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
With the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the
question of where such development is taking place becomes paramount, especially as
renewable energy structures such as wind turbines, solar collector panels, hydroelectric
dams, geothermal plants, and biomass systems are become increasingly common. Large-
scale development of such structures often occurs in relatively undeveloped and rural
landscapes. Of these structures, wind turbines and solar collectors are particularly visible
from long distances and require being in high or open areas. Communities located or
invested in areas where development exists have largely responded negatively to these
highly visible structures.1 The potential for future conflicts, as well as partnerships,
among renewable energy developers, individuals, organizations, and communities will
increase proportionately with expanded development. Where renewable energy has been
developed thus far has largely been based on factors such as energy potential, ease of
access and levels of impact on various animal and plant species. The inevitability of U.S.
landscapes being altered by renewable energy development, and the existing instances of
conflict surrounding such alteration, means that social factors should also be considered.
While the building of renewable energy structures in some locations may be resisted, in
other locations these structures may actually be desired.
1 See subsequent section for further details.
10


The National Park Service (NPS) is one agency that currently finds itself grasping
with difficult managerial decisions concerning renewable energy development. This
development, while not taking place inside the parks themselves, nonetheless has the
potential to impact both the natural and cultural resources the National Park Service
strives to protect. On August 5, 2010, the Director of the National Park Service sent a
memorandum to regional directors, associate directors and park superintendents titled
Renewable Energy Development near Units of the National Park System. This
memorandum stressed the importance of national park system units addressing such
development, along with support of the U.S. Department of the Interiors (DOI) positive
stance toward renewable energy development. The effects of this seemingly contradictory
need for both preservation and development are at the heart of this proposed research.
This research aims at understanding the potential effects of wind energy development on
NPS visitor experiences.
This study uses qualitative research methods to measure and understand place
attachments assigned to potentially affected national parks in the southwestern United
States and attitudes toward wind energy development visible from those national park
sites. The relationships between place attachment and attitudes toward wind energy
development have been explored.
Objective and Need
The objective of this study is to understand if national park visitors anticipate
their experiences would be impacted by renewable energy development being visible
11


from national park units. The study does this by first establishing if visitors hold
emotional connections to the sites being investigated, as well as to national parks in
general. Then, attitudes concerning various aspects of renewable and wind energy
development are explored. This study is needed to understand the social implications of
this type of development. In particular, the study is needed to inform national park
managers who currently face or may become faced with renewable energy development
proposals near the national park units they oversee. No known previous studies have
looked at the social implications of such development in the specific context of national
park units. The findings of this study will help inform larger conversations concerning
how landscape alteration near national parks will take place.
Scope and Limitation
This research relates to academic bodies of literature concerning both social
impacts of renewable energy development and place attachment. In addition, research is
directed to NPS managers. This study examines three national monuments within the
southwestern United StatesSalinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort Union
National Monument, and Capulin Volcano National Monument, hereinafter referred to
Salinas Pueblo Missions, Fort Union, and Capulin Volcano. The three sites were selected
as representative of southwestern U.S. national parks. The study began and ended in June
2011. Findings specifically apply to these sites. However, implications of findings may
also be applied to comparable southwestern U.S. national park units. The study was
limited by the number of visitors surveyed at these three national monuments. While
12


statistical significance is possible with the population surveyed, the nature of low
visitation at all sites, combined with the timeframe of the study, did not allow for a large
sample population. This study cannot guarantee that park visitors at other national park
units will have the same reactions as respondents to this research.
Other limitations for this study relate to what was not collected within the survey
instrument. The accuracy and honesty with which respondents answered questions or if
they had incentives to answer in a certain way was not controlled for in the survey.
Respondents were not asked if they had any affiliations with energy development
(renewable or otherwise), related companies, or political groups. It is therefore unknown
if a portion of respondents held biases regarding this research topic due to occupation or
associations. It has therefore been assumed that respondents answered truthfully and
without bias.
In addition to the above limitation, the study is limited to the specific category of
NPS visitors. The study could not guarantee varying backgrounds and levels of diversity
within the respondents. Race, gender, and religious affiliation were not inquired to during
this study. These results cannot be applied to individual groups within the larger U.S. and
international population. Therefore, it can be said that findings are representative of some
NPS visitors.
13


Arrangement of the Thesis
This document consists of five chapters. A review of literature will be provided in
the second chapter. Research questions and methods will be presented in the third
chapter. Findings will be reported in the fourth chapter, and conclusions and implications
will be presented in the fifth/fmal chapter.
14


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Politics and Policies of Renewable Energy Development
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2010 Annual
Energy Review, renewable energy consumption in the United States grew by 18%
between 2007 and 2010. Even more striking, this growth occurred during an economic
downturn during which overall energy consumption declined by nearly 6%. Renewable
energy accounted for 8% of the entire U.S. energy consumption in 2010. Wind-generated
energy production has increased the most quickly, with an increase of 63% between 2007
and 2010.
Reasons for the rise of renewable energy development may be tied to federal and
state policies that support and encourage such development. President Barack Obama has
led a federal-level initiative for renewable energy development. A key part of the
presidents energy program is the development of alternative energies. Under the
directives of President Obama, federal agencies have development mechanisms to
facilitate and safeguard renewable energy development.
The emphasis on wind energy development has led to federal departments and
agencies to issue guidelines for how such development should occur. The Department of
the Interior recently released voluntary guidelines for onshore wind energy development. 2
2 The presidents policies toward energy development can be reviewed in detail at
http ://www. whitehouse. gov/energy.
15


These guidelines are aimed at wind energy developers in an attempt to help them
minimize impacts to wildlife and habitats. The existence of such guidelines demonstrates
that wind energy development is being actively sought and is highly likely to expand
throughout the United States. The western portion of the United States is likely to see a
majority of these developments. Not only does this region contain high wind energy
potential, but also agencies have drafted further guidelines for development in these
areas.3
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has developed a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which looks at public lands in the western
United States.4 This document investigates three alternatives for how the Bureau of Land
Management will move forward with wind energy development. The document also
provides mitigating measures that will be used during such development. For the topic of
this research, more important than specific information contained in this document, is the
fact that it simply exists. This document would not have been crafted without the strong
anticipation of developing wind energy. Other examples of federal agencies anticipating
wind energy development include the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture has drafted wind energy directives that strive to help guide
decisions on special use authorizations of wind energy development within the Pacific
3 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed GIS datasets and maps demonstrated wind
energy potential. A more detailed discussion and examples of these datasets will be discussed in the
methods section of this document.
4 For copies of this and other supporting documents, go to http://windeis.anl.gov/index.cfm.
16


West region of the agency.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has created guidelines for
land-based wind energy development as well.6 7
Beyond federal agencies anticipating and supporting renewable energy,
specifically wind energy development, most states have standards and goals relating to
this type of development. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that only
n
fifteen states do not have renewable portfolio standards or goals as of July 2012. The
above guidelines and the existence of state incentives indicate that renewable energy is
supported on many institutional levels within the United States. The political support
seen for this type of development demonstrates the likelihood that wind and other
renewable energy will expand in the southwestern United States in the near future. Many
of these mandates and guidelines surrounding renewable energy development attempt to
understand, and avoid, impacts to natural resources. Such documents do not necessarily
contend with the social implications of such development. Some past research, however,
has investigated how communities and individuals have reacted to wind energy
development.
Social Implications of Renewable Energy Development
While the potential physical impacts of renewable energy structures have been
well studied, landscape alteration still warrants further research. Studies about the
5 A copy of the proposed wind directives can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/wind/.
6 This document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_fmal.pdf.
7 Maps and explanations can be found at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/.
17


aesthetic and social impacts of such development are still relatively uncommon and,
moreover, this research has focused almost exclusively on areas in which development
has already occurred. This research into landscape alteration includes investigations of
renewable energy construction along the coasts of Australia, California deserts, northern
Jutland peninsula of Denmark, and Nantucket Cape in Massachusetts.891011 These
investigations show strong sentiments of disapproval about such development,
particularly regarding wind turbines, by local communities, organizations, and
individuals. As Abby Goodnough wrote in a New York Times article on January 5, 2010,
when ecological landscapes hold meaning for individuals or communities, strong
reactions to the development of renewable energy structures can have deep emotional
impacts and spiritual implications for those individuals and communities. There are many
theories as to why renewable energy structures are often greeted with disapproval by the
communities that look upon them. To determine socially favorable ways and places to
develop these technologies, this conflict needs to be reconciled. Research on how
individuals connect to a place and their reactions to alteration of that place can help meet
this goal.
A common theme in various theories as to why renewable energy structures,
particularly wind turbines, are often met with disapproval is the conflict between 9 10 11
Martin J. Pasqualetti. Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes, Geographical
Review 90 (2001): 381-394.
9
Andrew Lothian. Scenic Perceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South Australian
Landscapes, Geographical Research 46 (2008): 196-207.
David Mercer. The Great Australian Wind Rush and the Devaluation of Land Amenity, Australian
Geographer 34 (2003): 91-121.
10 Moller, Bemd. Changing Wind-Power Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual Impact on Land
Use and Population in Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied Energy 83 (2006): 477-494.
11 Jay Wickersham. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind Power Challenges
the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental Affairs 31 (2004): 324-347.
18


technology and ecological landscapes. For example, Brittan makes the argument that
wind farms are often seen as visually displeasing because they are not placed in a
landscape in a way that will result in balanced or aesthetically pleasing scenery as one
would find in a painting These preconceived ideas about scenery conflict with the
idea of large, industrial, human-made objects being placed in largely undeveloped rural
areas. Pasqualetti contends that emotional reactions to wind energy farms and turbines
can be linked to U.S. society not being accustomed to directly seeing sources of
electricity.12 13 14 The American desire for renewable energy and unchanged landscapes are
incompatible, especially because of the infrastructure needed to produce renewable
energy. When individuals consume clean renewable energy, they often do not consider
the aesthetics of the energy source structures; visible renewable energy structures may
thus create a dissonance. In investigating wind farms in the mountains of California,
Pasqualetti concludes that the locations of wind farms should not be determined solely on
the technical productivity of a site. Rather, places to which individuals, communities, and
groups have developed strong emotional ties should be avoided despite potential energy
gains.15 A balancing act between energy needs and socially desired landscapes will be
necessary as renewable energy production increases. Without incorporating research on
the social implications of alteration in terms of place attachments, this balance will be
difficult to find.
12 Gordon G. Brittan. Wind, Energy, Landscape: Reconciling Nature and Technology, Philosophy and
Geography 4 (2001): 169-184.
13 Brittan, Wind, Energy, Landscape, 203-217.
14 Martin J. Pasqualetti. Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the California Desert,
Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001): 689-699.
Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381-394.
Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381-394.
Pasqualetti, Wind Energy Landscapes, 689-699.
19


As described above, the installation of renewable energy structures has shown to
be a contentious issue in the United States. While scholars have speculated on the root of
such conflict, few details are known as to how and why individuals and communities
often disapprove of the installation. Questions that need to be investigated include Why
do people care if a landscape is altered? Is there a specific aversion to this type of
alteration? Are local community members more likely to disapprove than outsiders?
When is such landscape alteration acceptable? How can alteration be made aesthetically
pleasing? The first step in answering these questions is to understand how individuals
form connections with physical locations. Subsequently, if and how these connections are
disrupted in the face of alteration can be explored.
Place Attachment
The idea of geographical locations holding attachments that are socially
assembled rather than innate to that space is best described in Cresswells observation
that [1 location became place when it became meaningful. Meaning marks the difference
between 33.325 44.422 (a mere location) and Baghdadthe place that occupies that
location.16 How individuals, societies, and communities attribute meanings to
geographical locations can be termed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of this
research study, the most commonly used term in current literature, place attachment, will
be used. Place attachment describes the emotional connection that an individual has with
a physical location or even a specific type of climate or landscape. The inclusion of the
16 Cresswell, Tim. Place. Engham: Elsevier Inc, 2009.
20


emotional importance of physical location is often credited to geographer Yi-Fu
Tuan.17 18 Tuans 1977 book Space and Place explored the codependent nature of place
and space.
The many disciplines that study place attachments do so from a variety of
frameworks. Geographers, particularly humanist, often take a phenomenological
approach, in which the process of interaction with locations is understood to build into
place attachments. In this approach, experience is at the root of why people develop
attachments toward physical locations. Sociologists understand place attachment as sets
of values and shared symbols that are associated with a physical location to create
common meanings. This approach is constructionist in nature; the previously held values
of individuals and society create specific types of place attachments. Psychologists
understand place attachments as a cognitive process where individuals interpret physical
locations and those interpretations shape their reactions to that location.19 20 Tuans
understanding fits his above-described approach of personal experience being the root of
ascribed meanings and emotions to locations, which then can become places to which
place attachment occurs. The level of place attachment that is held depends on a variety
of influencing factors. 17 18 19 20
17
Kari Gunderson and Alan Watson. Understanding Place Meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest,
Montana, Society and Natural Resources 20: 705-721.
18 Mae A. Davenport and Dorothy H. Anderson. Getting From Sense of Place to Place-Based
Management: an Interpretive Investigation of Place Meanings and Perceptions of Landscape Change,
Society and Natural Resources 18 (2005): 625-641.
19
Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625-641.
20
Smaldone, David, Charles Hams and Nick Sanyal. The Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings,
40 92008): 479-504.
21


Place attachment is comprised of two compounding factors: (1) place dependence;
and (2) place identity. As Smaldone, David and Harris explain, the concepts of place
identity and place dependence were frameworked by Stokols and Shumaker in the early
1980s. The concepts are widely seen as the two main categories explaining why people
ascribe attachments to locations. Place dependence speaks to the concept that a specific
type of setting is needed for particular experiences. The aspects that are of value to a
visitor depend on what type of location is being visited. The larger emotional role of
23
place dependence is the ability to create and fulfill objectives and desires for happiness.
In place identity, the individual places emotional values onto a physical location,
thereby creating a place that houses a variety of meanings, which culminate in self-
identity development and a sense of belonging. In other words, a location is identified
with emotions and personal connections and then becomes a place. Place identity speaks
25
to the emotional connections and attachments a visitor feels toward a specific site.
Those specific place attachments cannot be recreated elsewhere. The two terms are
codependent in many ways; the first is a symbolic level and the second is a physical
level. Both are needed to form place attachment. While these two dimensions of
emotional bonding are widely agreed upon, the specific variables involved in how and
why the bonding occurs are not the same for every person or every situation. 22 23 24 25
Smaldone, Harris and Sanyal, Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 479-504.
22
Kyle, Gerard et al. Effect of Activity Involvement and Place Attachment on
Recreationists Perceptions of Setting Density Journal of Leisure Research 36 (2004): 209-231.
23
Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705-721.
24
Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705-721. Davenport and Anderson, From
Sense of Place, 625-641.
25
Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209-231.
22


Place attachment, as particularly understood through place identity and place
dependence, relies on variables beyond aesthetic qualities of a place whether a
phenomenological, constructionist, or cognitive approach is understood. These
influencing variables include the abundance and quality of physical activities present,
preferred aesthetic qualities, frequency of visitation, proximity to living sites, and
sociodemographics.26 27 28 29 These variables can predict levels of place attachment
toward a physical location. Sites that are physically visited and personally experienced
tend to carry stronger levels of place attachment than sites that have not been physically
visited. Similarly, the more often an individual visits a site, the stronger the emotional
bond and levels of attachment will be. These influencing factors of involvement (physical
experience of landscape) and frequency (number of visits) are critical to establishing the
30 31 32 33 34
likelihood that an individual will ascribe place attachments to a landscape.
Important factors in a persons level of place attachment, particularly when formed or
influenced by involvement with a physical place, are the expectations of and for that
place. These expectations can be linked to the attitudes individuals have toward potential
changes to place. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
26 Richard C. Stedman. Is it Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the Physical
Environment to Sense of Place, Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 671-685.
27
Gerard Kyle, Alan Graefe and Robert Manning. Testing the Dimensionality of Place
Attachment in Recreational Settings, Environment and Behavior 37 (2005): 153-177.
28
Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705-721.
29
Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625-641.
30
Richard Grusin. Reproducing Yosemite: Olmsted, Environmentalism, and the Nature of Aesthetic
Agency, Cultural Studies 12 (1998): 332-359.
31
Irwin Altmanband Setha M. Low. Place Attachment, Human Behavior, and Environment: Advances in
Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, 1992.
32 Bediktsson, Karl. Scenophobia, Geography and the Aesthetic Politics of Landscape. Swedish Society
for Anthropology and Geography 1 (2007): 203-217.
33
Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705-721.
34
Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209-231.
23


These broad findings about how and why place meanings are ascribed provide
insights to the social connections every individual has with physical locations. The
influence of these place attachments can be far-reaching on personal and social levels.
When considering publicly protected lands, such as national parks, the question becomes
if and how these variables of place attachment relate to visitor attitudes about park
management techniques and physical conditions of parks. Explorations of specific
research projects grappling with this question have found that, while the ways in which
place attachments are formed or influenced may differ, one factor is always present
change. As Abrahamsson explains, place attachments are paradoxically both resistant to
change and are constantly changing. As a physical location changes, so too can levels
of place attachments. This is due to the fact that individuals currently experience those
places differently than was previously possible. At the same time, an emotional bond to a
place can remain even in the face of great change to physical space. Previous
research demonstrates that environmental concern, stewardship, and attitudes toward
management practices within publicly operated parks increase with increased levels of
place attachment. Publicly protected lands are unique entities in which place
attachments must be situated specifically. At the same time, the type of change and the
attitudes toward that change held by visitors must also be understood within that specific 35 36 37 38 39
35
Abrahamsson, Kurt V. Landscapes Lost and Gained: on Changes in Semiotic Resources, Human
Ecology Review 6 (1999): 51-61.
36 Davenport and Anderson. From Sense of Place, 625-641.
37
Smaldone, Hams and Sanyal, Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 479-504.
38
Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705-721.
39
Cynthia A. Warzecha and David W. Lime. Place Attachment in Canyonlands National Park: Visitors
Assessment of Setting Attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers, Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration 19 (2001): 59-78.
24


context. In the case of this research, changes to national park landscapes through
renewable energy development, specifically wind energy development, are being focused
on.
Conclusions
As described previously, a great deal is known about place attachment and
previous research has delved into how those place attachments can influence a visitors
attitude toward how a place is managed and presented. What has not been done is the
synthesizing of place attachment studies with studies concerning the social impact of
renewable energy structures, particularly wind farms. By conducting an analysis that
measures levels of place attachments held by park visitors, their attitudes toward potential
wind energy development in landscapes visible from national parks, and additional
compounding variables, a fuller view of if and how park visitor experience will be
affected by wind energy development near parks will be gained. Understanding these
relationships between place attachment and wind energy attitudes will add to the body of
knowledge in a unique way, yet in a way that will be applicable to publicly protected
lands affected by potential renewable energy development. The specific parks being
studied in this research exemplify rural landscapes in which renewable energy potential is
high and development is seemingly inevitable.
Role of Theory
25


Critical theory is the theoretical foundation of this research. This theory has been
chosen because it examines society and culture with an interdisciplinary focus. Critical
theory can be used as a dynamic way to approach complex intersections of disciplines.40
In this research, the intersections of place attachments, publicly protected lands, and
landscape alterations create a unique situation. Critical theory aims to move and
challenge society through the process of explaining and understanding elements of that
society. It also understands experiences as being socially constructed through dialectical
processes.41 These underlying tenets are vital to this research as potential for conflicts
arise between forces of development and forces of emotional connections. Critical theory
has been used in this study as a framework in which the social constructions of place
attachments and attitudes toward wind energy development are explored and sought to be
understood dynamically.
40
Jenny Lunn. The Role of Religion, Spirituality and Faith in Development: A Critical Theory
Approach, Third World Quarterly 30: 937-951.
41 Kincheloe, Joe L. and Peter McLaren. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative Research, In
Ethnography and schools: qualitative approaches to the study of education, edited by Yali Zou and
Enrique T. Trueb, 87-110. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2002.
26


CHAPTER III
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS
Research Questions
The key research questions under consideration are As renewable energy
development alters landscapes that are visible from and associated with National Park
Service units, how are visitor experiences potentially impacted? Do visitors hold levels of
place attachment to these sites? What are their attitudes toward renewable energy
development? What is the relationship between park visitor attitudes toward potential
wind energy development and their levels ofplace attachment for national park sites?
Research Methods
Overview
This research was guided by a geographic information system (GIS) and
conducted with qualitative methods. Research took place at three national monuments in
New Mexico between June 3and 19, 2011. The research instrument was a visitor
questionnaire, which had both demographic and Likert-scale questions. Context
photographs of established wind farms within southwestern U.S. landscapes were
provided to respondents. At each national monument, surveying was conducted at a
minimum from a Friday to a Sunday. This was done to obtain the highest number of
visitor responses possible. Detailed information about each national monument will be
provided while discussing the findings of this research.
27


GIS Site Selection Analysis
Research took place at Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort Union
National Monument, and Capulin Volcano National Monument, all of which are in New
Mexico. The state of New Mexico was chosen due to the high level of favorable wind
energy potential available, the large amount of government incentives for renewable
energy, the prevalence of statewide community projects supporting renewable energy
development, and proposed energy transmission lines. According to the New Mexico
State Land Office, which currently operates the Caprock Wind Ranch on state trust lands,
New Mexico is ranked twelfth in the United States in wind energy potential; however, it
is ranked eighth in the United States for existing wind energy capacity. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration lists wind as both the primary renewable energy capacity and
generation source for the state. The states renewable energy production tax credit offered
to corporations gives tax credits for wind production for the first 400,000 megawatt
(MW) hours annually for ten years. Projects such as Dreaming New Mexico
(www.dreamingnewmexico.org) and programs such as New Mexico State University
Institute for Energy and the Environment (http://iee.nmsu.edu) and the New Mexico
Wind Energy Working Group through the NM Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources
Department (http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/ECMD/RenewableEnergy/WWG.htm)
demonstrate a favorable social climate for wind and other renewable energy to be
developed in New Mexico. Once New Mexico was identified as the desired region of
study, influencing variables concerning where wind energy development is likely to
occur, along with locations of national park sites, were examined using GIS analysis.
28


Datasets for wind energy potential, transportation (interstates, highways, and
railroads), proposed energy transmission lines, populated areas, surface land ownership,
and national park boundaries were obtained and layered using ESRI ArcGIS Desktop
9.3.1 software. Wind energy potential was obtained from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) and provides seven wind power classespoor, marginal, fair, good,
excellent, outstanding, and superb. This information served as the base layer upon which
additional GIS layers were added during this overlay analysis. For data source details for
the remaining GIS layers, see Appendix A.
When all datasets were layered on top of one another, a visual analysis narrowed
the list of New Mexico national parks to those located in the eastern part of the state,
where wind energy potential consistently ranges from marginal to good, where
transportation systems consistently pass nearby parks and populated areas, and where
energy transmission projects are proposed. Transportation and populated areas are key to
wind energy development, as large amounts of materials must be brought to each site.
Land surface ownership was also examined as a contributing factor to where wind farms
are likely to be built. The eastern part of the state consists largely of private and state
lands, whereas the western part houses large tracks of various governmental agency
managed lands. Due to this researchs focus on National Park Service units, particularly
small units that do not own large amounts of land, the eastern part of the state again was
chosen as a focus area. Furthermore, parks abutting other federally managed lands are
more likely to be directly involved in the planning process for renewable energy or other
types of development. This warrants attention to the parks, in this case those in the
29


eastern part of the state that are adjacent to private or state managed lands. (See Appendix
B for the maps used in this initial visual analysis.)
After an investigation of national park sites in the eastern part of New Mexico,
three research sites were chosen. Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort
Union National Monument, and Capulin Volcano National Monument were identified as
the most favorable research sites for the following reasons: (1) each park lies in or near
marginal wind power class categories; (2) is less than ten miles away from a major
transportation line (railroad, interstate, or highway); (3) is in close proximity to additional
landscapes with fair or good wind power classes; and (4) is the same type of national
park, i.e., a national monument.(See Appendix B for detail and context maps of the
selected research sites.) Having three research sites that are designated as national
monuments provides an important opportunity for cross-comparison in this study. While
the specific focus or mission of each site differ, there is a much higher likelihood that the
types of visitors for each site share more commonalities than visitors going to a national
preserve or a national park.
Data Collection
During the course of this research, obtaining thirty completed surveys from each
national monument was set as the minimum necessary number of surveys to reach
statistical significance. As will be discussed in the findings sections, that minimum was
met. Data collection took place in two consecutive steps with each respondent. Once a
respondent was identified via convenience sampling and the goals and process of the
30


research were explained and agreed to, the subject was offered context photographs to
view. The context photographs consisted of six southwestern landscapes containing
visible wind farms. The photographs were specifically obtained through the Internet so
that the photographs were publicly accessible. The opportunity to view these photographs
was presented to participants before the survey to help them visualize how landscape
alteration due to wind energy development could look from southwestern national parks.
Majority of respondents either quickly flipped through the photographs or chose to not
view the photographs at all. While not recorded in the questionnaire, the researcher
observed that most respondents verbally indicated that they already knew what such
developments looked like. The questionnaire was then presented to the respondent.
The questionnaire used in this research is divided into three different sections. (A
copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.) The format and wording of the
questionnaire was modeled after visitor surveys conducted by the National Park Service
where appropriate. The questions cover a range of potentially-compounding factors to
place attachment, such as frequency of visitation and attitudes toward renewable energy
development, as well as more straightforward demographic information. All of the
questions included were designed to situate research subjects against one another.
Iterations of the questionnaire was presented to twenty test subjects prior to this research
to ensure that all questions were easily interpretable and that the questionnaire could be
completed within ten to fifteen minutes. At the top of each survey page, a park code and
survey number (e.g., CAVO_l, which represented Capulin Volcano National Monument 42
42The Park Studies Unit of the University of Idaho is responsible for conducting visitor surveys and other
visitor related services within the National Park Service. More information, including past surveys, can be
found at http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.htm.
31


questionnaire number one) was added to completed questionnaires to uniquely and
anonymously identify each one.
The questionnaire begins with an introduction page that explains why this
research is being conducted, clarifies permissions and affiliations of the research,
specifies the age requirement of eighteen, makes clear that participation is anonymous
and voluntary, offers a website where results will be posted, and includes contact
information of the committee chair for the research. This introduction page was removed
by the researcher and given to respondents after they completed the questionnaire. The
second page consists of directions for filling out the survey. The first section of the
questionnaire itself, titled Section A, asks five questions about the participants visit to
the national monument.
The second section, titled Section B, presents twenty Likert-scale questions.
The questions were developed to specifically test levels of place attachment and attitudes
toward wind energy (both visible from the specific park site and from national park sites
in general). In designing these questions, an approach similar to how the research site
selection through GIS was used. Site selection, for example, began with national-scale
inquires, then considered regional scales, and finally identified local, site levels for
research. Likewise, the questions measuring attitudes toward renewable energy in this
section address broad-scale concepts, then regional physical conditions, and then local,
site-specific issues. The wording and structure of questions were modeled from leisure
research studies concerning visitor perception of crowding and were informed by the
32


above literature review.43 (For an explanation of this questionnaire by topic see Appendix
D)
The third and final section, titled Section C, asks five demographic and
socioeconomic questions such as age, income, education level, and housing type. These
questions were designed to provide potentially influencing factors for the attitudes tested
in the previous section. At the end of this section an opportunity to provide written
comments was provided.
At all three research sites, contact was made with visitors on their way to each
resource, e.g., ruins, visitor centers, viewpoints, etc.; at which time they were asked to fill
out a questionnaire at the end of their visit. This method of introducing the topic of wind
energy development being visible from the park before a visitors trip was purposeful.
Before measuring levels of a visitors place attachment, it was important to ensure they
had in fact interacted with the landscapes in question. At all three sites, visitors passed
the research table on their way from parking areas to the resources (ruins, visitor centers,
viewpoints, etc.). As an incentive to participate, respondents were offered cold lemonade
or water to drink while they completed the questionnaire. Seating was also provided in
shady spots whenever possible. Temperatures ranged from the low to mid-70s
(Fahrenheit) throughout the month of June 2011, and the incentive of a cool drink was
often welcomed by visitors.
43
Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209-231.This research concerning place
attachments in recreational settings conducted by Kyle et al. also included a third place attachment variable
of social bonding. This variable was not tested in this research.
33


Impacts to Participants
This research provided visitors the opportunity to give feedback about the future
of the national monument that they were visiting in a unique way that they otherwise
would not have been able to do. By understanding how wind energy development would
impact visitor experience, how park visitors feel about a park, and whether they would
continue coming to the park, the park visitors who were sampled will be able shape if and
possibly how the parks themselves react to potential developments. While park managers
do not have authority to directly start or stop development, they do have the ability to
collaborate with neighbors, other agencies, and communities. This study will bring park
visitor voices into those collaborative discussions. As with any research, there are some
potentially negative impacts that come along with positive impacts to the research
participants.
No uniquely personal information was collected from participants, so there is no
risk that visitors can be singled out by their responses. The most personal information
collected was a home ZIP code. The questionnaire also clearly states that a participant did
not have to respond to a question if they did not want to. This was added to the
questionnaire as a safety instrument to ensure participants would not feel pressured by
this research. Potential negative impacts to the participants are the interruption of their
itinerary by ten to fifteen minutes and that visitors may become worried about
development near national parks. It was therefore clearly stated that the research was
based in the hypothetical realm.
34


The questionnaire used in this research was submitted to the Colorado Multiple
Institutional Review Board for exemption. A certification of exemption was granted as no
adverse impacts to participants were found. (See Appendix E for the certification of
exemption.)
Analysis Methods
The questionnaires collected at each national park site were uniquely coded and
entered in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 software.
Analysis was conducted for each individual site and comparing all three to learn if, how,
and why wind energy development potentially impacts place attachment levels held by
visitors to those sites.
Respondents were asked to respond to Section B of the questionnaire on a scale
from one to five: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and, strongly disagree. For
ease of interpretation and to improve statistical significance, datasets were collapsed and
recoded into three rather than five categories. Responses of strongly disagree and
disagree were recoded into one disagree variable. Responses of neutrality remained the
same. Responses of agree and strongly agree were recoded into one agree variable. Once
the datasets were recoded, analysis was conducted in two phases.
35


First, contingency tables44 were created within SPSS to tabulate responses to
Section B of the questionnaire. Missing variables were not considered during analysis.
The statistical significance between the variables is reported with Pearsons chi-square.
Chi-square measures the difference between the observed counts and the expected counts,
i.e., it measures how closely related the variables are. The more closely related the two
variables are to one another, the less of a difference there will be between the observed
and the expected count. The more unrelated or independent the variables are, the larger
the difference between observed and counted, leading to a larger chi-square value.45 The
chi-square significance value is commonly referred to as p-value and is of most
importance when determining how related two variables are. The lower the significance
value, the less difference there is between the observed and the expected results;
therefore, demonstrating that the variables are related to or dependent upon each other. A
statistically significant chi-square is considered to be at or below a significance value of
0.05.
In addition to chi-square, a measure of effect was also computed for each
contingency tablethe measure of Crammers V. This value measures the effect or
association of the relationship that has been identified in the chi-square and p-value. This
value ranges from 0 to 1, with zero indicating that there is no relationship between the
variables. Where the reported value lies between 0 and 1 shows the amount of effect the
44 Contingency tables are created by comparing two variables, where one variable is a nominal value and
the other is an ordinal variable. The nominal value is considered to be the more stable or slower to change
variable, whereas the ordinal variable is the less stable variable and is more likely to change. This analysis
is called cross-tabulation in SPSS.
45 Russell K. Schutt. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Boson: Sage
Publications, 2006.
36


variables have on each other0.10 indicates a small effect, 0.30 indicates a medium
effect, and 0.50 indicates a large effect.
37


CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
After brief background information for each national monument is presented, the
research findings will be presented by the topic questions listed below. A detailed
discussion of the implications of findings will then be presented with conclusions. The
topics of (and questions for) analysis that will be discussed are
Place Attachment: Do respondents hold levels of place attachment? What are their
reported levels for the particular site compared to other national parks? The
questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do respondents hold concerning
renewable energy development? What are attitudes toward renewable energy and
wind energy in general? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this
inquiry are numbers 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14.
Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do respondents
hold toward conditions of renewable energy development (such as whether it is
built near populated places, built away from scenic and popular landscapes, or
built in the most productive areas possible) being put in place? The questionnaire
statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 9, 10, and 11.
Visitor Experience: Do respondents expect that their experience of the sites would
change if wind energy development were visible from the sites? What attitudes do
38


respondents hold toward wind farms potentially being visible from any national
park sites? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are
numbers 15, 16, 18, and 19.
Ideas of Change: What attitudes do respondents hold concerning the idea of
changes to landscapes visible from national parks? What are their attitudes to
development types other than wind energy? The questionnaire statements in
consideration for this inquiry are numbers 17 and 20.
Place Attachments and Renewable Energy Attitudes: Are the attitudes held by
respondents influenced by their levels of place identity and place dependence?
Questionnaire statement 15 will be considered with collapsed variables of place
identity and place dependence.
39


Research Sites
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument is located in central New Mexico.
The historic ruins represent the intersection of Pueblo Indians with Spanish explorers and
colonizers. The monument consists of three separate units: Quarai, Abo, and Gran
Quivira, each of which has its own unique narrative that adds to the complex and
important stories still prevalent in the southwestern United States.46 Research was
conducted at the Gran Quivira unit. This unit was chosen due to the beautiful vistas
visible from the ruins. An existing row of wind towers is barely visible northwest from
the park. They are difficult to see from the ruins, but it is important to note that the wind
towers are fairly visible on the drive to this unit.
As seen in Table IV. 1, over the last ten years Salinas Pueblo Missions has had
around 33,000 visitors per year. This number is the combination of all three units.
According to park staff, the Gran Quivira unit has the lowest visitation of the three sites
due to its remote location. As seen in Table IV.2, visitation during 2011 was lower than
most previous years. The month of June 2011 had 33.2% fewer visitors than the previous
year. Despite lower visitation rates, the aim of collecting thirty questionnaires was
exceeded and forty completed questionnaires were collected.
46 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/sapu/index.htm.
40


Research was conducted between Friday, June 3 and Sunday, June 5, 2011, in a
breezeway outside of the Gran Quivira visitor center. This location was ideal for making
contact with visitors. Visitors walk through the breezeway on their way from the parking
lot to the visitor center and then onto the ruins. As visitors approached, the researcher
was introduced along with the research study. Visitors were asked if they would complete
a survey on their way back from the ruins. For photographs of the Salinas Pueblo
Missions site, see Appendix F.
Table IV.l Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument
Annual Visitation.
Year and Recreational Visitors
2002 35,670 2007 33,060
2003 33,827 2008 31,248
2004 34,216 2009 37,848
2005 34,810 2010 32,941
2006 32,996 2011 29,786
41


Table IV.2 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Monthly Visitation.
2011 Recreation Visits
January 1,523
February 2,204
March 2,992
April 2,980
May 4,462
June 3,975
July 4,211
August 3,466
September 3,614
October 4,030
November 2,320
December 1,475
2010 Recreation Visits
January 1,363
February 1,313
March 2,992
April 3,159
May 3,852
June 3,307
July 3,278
August 3,152
September 4,016
October 3,888
November 1,872
December 1,361
2009 Recreation Visits
January 1,908
February 2.204
March 2,992
April 2,980
May 4,462
June 3,975
July 4,211
August 3,466
September 3,614
October 4,241
November 2,320
December 1,475
2008 Recreation Visits
January 1,502
February 1,856
March 3,118
April 2,553
May 3,009
June 2,674
July 2,949
August 3,304
September 2,994
October 3,571
November 2,386
December 1,332
2007 Recreation Visits
January 878
February 1,605
March 2,861
April 2,847
May 3,722
June 3,705
July 3,445
August 3,007
September 3,767
October 3,829
November 2,005
December 1,389
Fort Union National Monument
Fort Union National Monument is located in northern New Mexico, to the east of
the Rocky Mountains. The remains of three iterations of Fort Union can be viewed by
visitors. Fort Union was first established in 1851 and served as an important connecting
42


point along the Santa Fe Trail.47 The landscapes surrounding Fort Union include
mountains, prairie, and Santa Fe Trail.
As seen in Table IV.3, over the last ten years Fort Union has had an average of
11,000 visitors per year. Following a trend similar to Salinas Pueblo Missions, visitation
was lower in 2011 than most previous years. However, the number of visitors in June
2011 was fairly comparable to June 2010 with just 7.4% fewer visitors (see Table IV.4).
Of the three research sites, Fort Union has the lowest visitation; therefore, more time was
needed to collect the minimum number of questionnaires. Forty were ultimately obtained.
Research was conducted between Friday, June 19 and Monday, June 13, 2011,
outside the visitor center. Visitors passed the research table on their way from the parking
area to visitor center entrance. As visitors approached, the researcher introduced herself
and the research study. Visitors were asked if they would complete a survey on their way
back from the fort and visitor center. For photographs of the Fort Union site, see
Appendix F.
Table IV.3Fort Union National Monument Monthly
Visitation.
Year and Recreational Visitors
2002 13,198 2007 10,534
2003 12,944 2008 9,171
2004 13,230 2009 11,070
2005 11,645 2010 10,638
2006 10,347 2011 9,575
47 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/foun/index.htm.
43


Table IV.4 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation.
2011 Recreation Visits
January 240
February 227
March 886
April 716
May 977
June 1,360
July 1,364
August 1,275
September 993
October 891
November 422
December 224
2010 Recreation Visits
January 256
February 175
March 728
April 785
May 1,115
June 1,468
July 1,705
August 1,476
September 1,212
October 986
November 452
December 280
2009 Recreation Visits
January 361
February 359
March 735
April 795
May 1,204
June 1,422
July 1,773
August 1,574
September 1,222
October 992
November 425
December 208
2008 Recreation
Visits
January 256
February 479
March 840
April 648
May 943
June 943
July 1,515
August 1,236
September 839
October 760
November 431
December 281
2007 Recreation
Visits
January 183
February 317
March 827
April 823
May 1,196
June 1,331
July 1,414
August 1,515
September 1,100
October 982
November 590
December 256
Capulin Volcano National Monument
Capulin Volcano National Monument is located in northeastern New Mexico.
This volcanic cone stands more than 1,000 feet above the surrounding plains.
Breathtaking views are visible all the way from the road going up the volcano to the
parking lot and especially from the top. According to educational signs at the monument,
44


five states can be seen on a clear day from the top of the volcano. The landscapes visible
from the volcano demonstrate the many forms and stages of the larger volcanic field of
48
which Capulin Volcano is a part.
As seen in Table IV.5, over the last ten years Capulin Volcano has averaged
52,000 visitors per year. Following the same trend seen at the other two national
monuments, visitation for 2011 was lower than previous years. The month of June 2011,
however, saw similar numbers as the year before, with only 3.9% fewer visitors than in
June 2010 (see Table IV. 6). Capulin Volcano is the busiest of the three national
monuments researched for this study due to its high visibility and ease of access. As of
result of this higher visitation rate, sixty questionnaires were collected at Capulin
Volcano.
Research was conducted between Friday, June 17and Sunday, June 19, 2011, at
the volcano trailhead located at the upper parking lot. Visitors initially passed the
research table on their ascent up the trail. As visitors approached the trailhead, the
researcher was introduced along with the research study. Visitors were asked if they
would complete a survey after their descent from the trail. In addition, visitors who did
not climb the trail and remained in the parking lot area were also approached and asked to
complete a survey after they had enjoyed the incredible views visible from the parking lot
edge. For photographs of the Capulin Volcano site, see Appendix F.
48 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/cavo/index.htm.
45


Table IV.5 Capulin Volcano National Annual Visitation.
Year and Recreational Visitors
2002 58,675 2007 49,182
2003 61,373 2008 45,178
2004 57,692 2009 50,935
2005 53,521 2010 48,580
2006 49,823 2011 46,358
Table IV.6 Capulin Volcano National Monthly Visitation.
2011 Recreation Visits
January 972
February 796
March 3,607
April 1,786
May 3,777
June 8,122
July 11,929
August 6,356
September 4,104
October 2,586
November 1,394
December 929
2010 Recreation Visits
January 981
February 487
March 2,335
April 1,811
May 4,260
June 8,454
July 13,070
August 7,230
September 4,105
October 2,811
November 1,439
December 1,597
2009 Recreation Visits
January 1,318
February 895
March 3,883
April 1,583
May 4,693
June 9,608
July 12,267
August 7,523
September 4,059
October 2,219
November 1,482
December 1,405
2008 Recreation Visits
January 806
February 876
March 3,314
April 1,389
May 3,692
June 8,393
July 11,063
August 7,184
September 3,376
October 2,564
November 1,316
December 1,205
2007 Recreation Visits
January 225
February 713
March 3,806
April 1,534
May 4,260
June 9,358
July 12,508
August 7,419
September 4,046
October 2,854
November 1,427
December 1,032
46


Research Findings
Place Attachment
Do respondents hold levels of place attachment? What are their reported levels for
the particular site compared to other national parks? The questionnaire statements in
consideration for this inquiry are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Theories related to the factors that make up place attachment, place identity, and
place dependence were tested through the questionnaire. Statement numbers 1, 2, and 3
correspond to place identity. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 correspond to place dependence.
Place Identity
Three different statements were crafted to address the dimensionality of place
identity. Place identity goes beyond simply liking a specific landscape or siteit is the
concept of being emotionally vested in a landscape to the point where part of who a
person is related to that sites existence.49 As the name implies, with place identity a
location becomes a place when an individual identifies with that site. When measuring
place identity, it was important to frame the same or similar concepts of place identity in
different ways, as some respondents may react to the word emotional differently than
to the word identify.
49
Kyle, Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153-177.
47


The three statements concerning place identity were as follows: (1) the
landscapes visible from this park mean a lot to me;(2) I feel an emotional connection
with the landscapes I can see from the park;and (3) I identify strongly with the
landscapes visible from this park.
Concerning the first statement, respondents at all three national monuments were
found to hold high levels of place identity. See Table IV. 7 for complete findings. Eight-
seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and eighty-eight percent at
Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement, thus demonstrating high levels of place
identity. Fort Union respondents were not far behind with seventy-seven percent
agreeing. Among the three sites, an average of eighty-five percent of respondents agreed
with the statement, while just over ten percent were neutral and just over four percent
disagreed. A p-value of 0.304 and a Crammers V of 0.132 were found, signifying low
correlations between the park sites and responses. Although not statistically significant, a
clear pattern of place identity is present. These findings show that respondents consider
each respective national monument a place of importance to them.
While incidents of strong agreement with the second statement were not as
frequent as with the first statement, the vast majority of respondents at all three
monuments agreed, once again demonstrating positive levels of place attachment. See
Table IV.8 for complete findings. At both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano,
sixty-seven percent of respondents were in agreement, while sixty-two percent at Fort
Union were in agreement. Higher rates of neutrality were found in response to this
48


second statement than in the first statement, with twenty-five percent of respondents at
Salinas Pueblo Missions reporting neutrality, thirty-two percent at Fort Union and twenty
percent at Capulin Volcano. Respondents at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the
statement the most, with approximately twelve percent disagreement, while seven percent
of visitors at Salinas Pueblo Missions and five percent at Fort Union disagreed. While
results still indicate positive place identity levels, it is also evident that respondents
reacted to the wording on this second statement differently than they did to the first
statement. However, the levels of disagreement, which would indicate a lack of place
identity, did not significantly change between these two statements. A p-value of 0.575
and a Crammers V of 0.102 were found, again not implying a correlation between
research site and response despite a visible pattern.
The same results were echoed with the third place identity statement. At all three
monuments, the majority of respondents agreed with the statement. See Table IV.9 for
complete findings. Respondents at Capulin Volcano had the higher rate of agreement
with this statement with seventy-three percent. Sixty-two percent and fifty-five percent at
Fort Union and Salinas Pueblo Missions, respectively, agreed. It is interesting to note that
respondents at Capulin Volcano tended have more agreement and less neutrality than at
the other sites eighteen percent of respondents being neutral on the topic. Thirty-seven
percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions and thirty percent at Fort Union were neutral. Levels
of disagreement to the statement were low, with seven percent of respondents at both
Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union reporting disagreement and eight percent at
Capulin Volcano. A p-value of 0.315 and a Crammers V of 0.130 were found, again
49


demonstrating little correlation between site location and response. From the pattern of
agreement found in responses, it can be concluded that visitors at all three national
monuments do hold levels of place identity concerning this statement.
Respondents at all three national monuments consistently reported that the
specific landscapes visible from their respective sites are ones they value and identify
with. There were some small variations among the three sites for statements relating to
place identity. No clear pattern within these differences indicates that respondents from
one park had higher or lower levels of place identity. The three variables relating to place
identity were collapsed into one new place identity to understand broad findings related
to place identity. Numeric responses to statements relating to place identity (numbers 1
through 3) were averaged and rounded into a new variable.50As seen in Table IV. 10, the
collapsed variable demonstrates positive levels of place identity at all three national
monuments. The collapsed variable also indicates that place identity is not universal
among respondents because an average of thirty percent of all respondents were neutral
in their levels of place identity. Concerning place identity, it can be concluded from the
above results that one factor, place identity, of place attachment was found for
respondents at all three sites.
50 For example, if a respondent had agreement for the first value (numeric value of 3), neutrality for the
second statement (numeric value of 2), and disagreement for the third value (numeric value of 1), the new
collapsed variable would be 2. This value would signify a neutral level of place identity.
50


Table IV.7 Statement 1, Place Identity: The landscapes visible
from this park mean a lot to me.
Sec B: 1 Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Pueblo Volcano
Disagree 0 3 3 6
0% 7.5% 5% 4.3%
Neutral 5 6 4 15
12.5% 15% 6.7% 10.7%
Agree 35 31 53 119
87.5% 77.5% 88.3% 85%
Chi-Square: 4.845 p-va ue: 0.304 Crammers V: 0.132
Table IV.8 Statement 2, Place Identity: I feel an emotional
connection with the landscapes I can see from the park.
Sec B: 2 Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Pueblo Volcano
Disagree 3 2 7 12
7.5% 5% 11.9% 8.6%
Neutral 10 13 12 35
25% 32.5% 20.3% 25.2%
Agree 27 25 40 92
67.5% 62.5% 67.8% 66.2%
Chi-square: 2.901 p-value: 0.575 Crammers V: 0.102
Table IV.9 Statement 3, Place Identity: I identify strongly with
the landscapes visible from this park.
Sec B: 3 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 3 3 5 11
7.5% 7.5% 8.3% 7.9%
Neutral 15 12 11 3
37.5% 30% 18.3% 27.1%
Agree 22 25 44 91
55% 62.5% 73.3% 65%
Chi-square: 4.742 p-value: 0.315 Crammers V: 0.130
51


Table IV.10 Place Identity Collapsed Variable.
Place Identity Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Lack of 0 1 2 3
Level 0% 2.5% 3.3% 2.1%
Neutral 13 14 16 43
Level 32.5% 35% 26.7% 30.7%
Positive 27 25 42 94
Level 67.5% 62.5% 70% 67.1%
Chi-square: 2.081 p-value: 0.721 Crammers V: 0.086
Place Dependence
Three different statements measuring place dependence were used in this study.
The questions were varied to determine how visitors situate these specific sites, general
southwestern landscapes, and all national park sites in the United States against one
another. Place dependency speaks to the concept that the type of location itself matters in
the formation of broader place attachments. Specific locations provide opportunities and
experiences that lead to an individual valuing of that location (Kyle et al. 2005).51 As the
word dependence implies, this means that the same levels of place attachments would not
otherwise form if the location itself were different or if opportunities available at the
location change. The place that is being depended on can range from a small and specific
location to a type of climate or landscape.
The three statements concerning place dependence were as follows: (1) I enjoy
visiting national park sites in the southwestern U.S. more than any other region in the
U.S.;(2) I get more personal satisfaction from visiting this national park site than any
51 Kyle, Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153-177.
52


other national park site; and (3) I cannot get a similar experience at any other location
in the southwestern U.S.
For the first place dependence statement, respondents at all three monuments had
similar levels of agreement with or neutrality to the statement. (See Table IV. 11 for
complete findings.) Thirty-eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions
agreed with the statement, while forty percent at Fort Union and forty-two percent at
Capulin Volcano agreed. Nearly identical numbers of respondents at each site reported
being neutral on the topic, with thirty-eight percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, forty
percent at Fort Union, and forty-four percent at Capulin Volcano. An average of twenty
percent of respondents at each site disagreed with the statement. Overall, respondents
either tended to agree or could not say that visiting NPS sites in the southwestern United
States was preferred over all other regions. A p-value of 0.810 and a Crammers V of
0.076 were found, again signifying no strong association between site and response.
With the exception of Capulin Volcano, respondents largely disagreed with the
second place dependence statement. (See Table IV. 12 for complete findings.) Fifty-two
percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, fifty-six percent at Fort Union and
thirty-five percent at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. Respondents at
Capulin Volcano were much more neutral in their responses, with over fifty-two percent
reporting neutrality toward the statement. Thirty-seven percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions and twenty-three percent at Fort Union were neutral in their responses.
Low levels of agreement were reported at all three sites, with ten percent of Salinas
53


Pueblo Missions, twenty percent of Fort Union, and twelve percent of Capulin Volcano
respondents agreeing with the statement. A p-value of 0.046 and a Crammers V of 0.187
indicate that the variables of site and response to this statement are related; however, the
measure of association between them is low. Overall, respondents at both Salinas Pueblo
Missions and Fort Union demonstrated a lack of place dependence by indicating that they
do not get more personal satisfaction from visiting these particular sites than any other
comparable sites. Respondents at Capulin Volcano reported more neutral levels of place
dependence, although they too did not agree with this statement.
The third and final place dependence variable asked respondents to rank their
level of agreement toward the idea that a comparable experience could not be found at
any other location in the southwestern United States.(See Table IV. 13 for complete
findings.) In response to this statement, seventeen percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions, thirty-three percent at Fort Union, and thirty-two percent at Capulin
Volcano agreed. The majority of respondents at each site were neutral toward the topic,
with at Salinas Pueblo Missions, at Fort Union, and at Capulin Volcano. Respondents at
Salinas Pueblo Missions demonstrated the highest level of disagreement that a similar
experience was not possible at any other southwestern location, with forty-percent
disagreeing. Twenty-three percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin
Volcano disagreed with the statement. A p-value of 0.279 and a Crammers V of 0.136
again indicate that the variables of site location were not statistically significant
concerning how respondents answered; however, the Crammers V indicates that there is
some level of effect between the two variables. The pattern of responses visible in these
54


results demonstrates neutral levels of place dependence at all three sites. It is important to
note that a large portion of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents demonstrated a lack of
place dependence. This may be due to the fact that Salinas Pueblo Missions is comprised
of three separate units, including the research site at Gran Quivira. If respondents from
this site also visited the other two units, it seems likely that they would believe
52
comparable experiences are in fact possible at other locations.
When discussing place dependence, questionnaire statements and their responses
can be further divided into two topics: (1) southwestern landscapes; and (2) individual
sites. Considering the first topic, respondents were either neutral or in agreement that
they valued NPS sites in the southwestern United States over other regions. This shows
that there is a dependence on southwestern landscapes themselves. As for these particular
sites being valued above any others, responses to statement five demonstrated that place
dependence for the sites was low. Capulin Volcano respondents were more hesitant to say
that the site itself is not unique and therefore uniquely needed for that experience. With
the exception of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, respondents also did not report
that their experiences were unique to the sites themselves. When considered as a whole,
place dependence statements most frequently were responded to neutrally, showing a lack
of place dependence. 52
52 Rangers present at the Gran Quivira unit during research reported that visitors often visit at least two if
not all three Salinas Pueblo Missions units. While it is speculated here that the presence of three units
within Salinas Pueblo Missions account for how respondents reacted to this questionnaire statement,
respondents were not directly asked if they were in fact planning to visit two or more of these units.
55


The lack of place dependence implies that levels of place attachments concerning
southwestern landscapes are not dependent upon these individual sites and that place
attachments are possible while visiting other southwestern sites. This does not necessarily
imply that visitors do not value these specific sites, but rather that these particular sites
are not required in order for an emotional connection to southwestern landscapes to exist.
Considering the place identity findings previously discussed, results show that, along
with other southwestern sites and landscapes, these particular sites do contribute to broad
place identity and therefore place attachments. Place dependence, however, lies within a
regional southwestern context rather than site-specific contexts. A collapsed variable of
place dependence that combines results from all place dependence-related statements was
created to understand broad findings relating to place dependence. As seen in Table
IV. 14, when all factors of place dependence are combined, a pattern of neutrality appears,
with an average of sixty-two percent of respondents among all three sites reporting
neutral levels of place dependence. This collapsed variable, as well as the results for
individual place dependence statements, indicates that place dependence cannot be
verified or denied among respondents. 53
53 The collapsed place dependence variable was created using the same methods as the collapsed place
identity variable.
56


Table IV.ll Statement 4, Place Dependence:
I enjoy visiting national park sites in the southwestern U.S.
more than any other region in the U.S.
Sec B: 4 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 9 8 8 25
23.1% 20% 13.6% 18.1%
Neutral 15 16 26 57
38.5% 40% 44.1% 41.3%
Agree 15 16 25 56
38.5% 40% 42.4% 40.6%
Chi-square: 1.579 p-value: 0.812 Crammers V: 0.076
Table IV.12 Statement 5, Place Dependence: I get more
personal satisfaction from visiting this national park site than
any other national park site.
Sec B: 5 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 21 52.5% 22 56.4% 21 35.6% 64 46.4%
Neutral 15 9 31 55
37.5% 23.1% 52.5% 39.9%
Agree 4 8 7 19
10% 20.5% 11.9% 13.8%
Chi-square: 9.699 p-value: 0.046 Crammers V: 0.187
Table IV.13 Statement 6, Place Dependence:
I cannot get a similar experience at any other location in the
southwestern U.S.
Sec B: 6 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 16 9 14 39
40% 23.1% 23.7% 28.3%
Neutral 17 17 26 60
42.5% 43.6% 44.1% 43.5%
Agree 7 13 19 39
17.5% 33.3% 32.2% 28.3%
Chi-square: 5.082 p-va ue: 0.279 Crammers V: 0.136
57


Table IV.14 Place Dependence Collapsed Variable.
Place Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Dependence Pueblo Volcano
Lack of 9 9 11 29
Level 20.7% 22.5% 18.3% 20.7%
Neutral 26 23 38 87
Level 65% 57.5% 63.3% 62.1%
Positive 5 8 11 24
Level 12.5% 20% 18.3% 17.1%
Chi-square: 1.235 p-value: 0.872 Crammers V: 0.066
Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development
A series of statements involving various considerations about renewable energy
development were presented to respondents. Just as with place attachment-related
statements, various topics within the broader category of renewable energy development
were tested. This was done to understand respondents general attitudes toward
renewable energy, especially wind energy, as well as their attitudes toward conditions or
limitations being placed on such development. These statements also evaluated how
respondents thought that their experiences would change if wind energy developments
were visible from NPS sites.
Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do respondents hold concerning
renewable energy development? What are attitudes toward renewable energy and wind
energy in general? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are
numbers 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14.
The two categories of questions within this topic investigated attitudes toward
renewable energy in general and wind energy in particular. The statements measuring
58


attitudes about the broad concept of renewable energy development were as follows: (1)
I think renewable energy development (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is important; (2) I
would participate in a renewable energy program with my energy provider, even with an
extra cost;and (3) I think that fossil fuels should continue to be the primary energy
source for the U.S.The statements measuring attitudes to wind energy development
specifically were I would choose wind energy over other renewable energy
development and I think that wind farms have an artistic quality to them and are
pleasurable to look at.Specific statements concerning the visibility of wind energy
development were also presented and will be discussed later.
As noted above, the statements presented to respondents concerning the broad
topic of renewable energy development sought to contextualize their attitudes toward
renewable energy. Questions were aimed at understanding if such development, including
the specific type of wind energy, is viewed positively or negatively. The three statements
relating to this topic aim at gauging not only what respondents think about renewable
energy, but if they would consume its product. As a counterpoint to these questions,
respondents attitudes toward the current U.S. reliance on fossil fuels were also
measured.
Concerning the first renewable energy statement, respondents at all three national
monuments demonstrated positive attitudes toward renewable energy development. (See
Table IV. 15 for complete findings.) Over seventy-seven percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions agreed with the statement, along with eighty-five percent of respondents
59


at Fort Union and over eighty-six percent at Capulin Volcano. An interesting pattern
within these results is that respondents at Capulin Volcano reported less neutrality toward
the topic, with only five percent. While only eight percent showed negative attitudes,
respondents at this site showed definite opinions on the topic, rather than being impartial.
While those who displayed negative attitudes were a minority, these findings show the
strong opinions respondents hold concerning renewable energy development. A p-value
of 0.358 and a Crammers V of 0.125 were found, showing that there is no relationship
between research sites and the responses. Although not statistically significant, the clear
pattern of positive attitudes toward renewable energy is visible in these results.
When respondents were then asked if they would, even at a cost, participate in an
energy program utilizing renewable energy development, responses again showed a
support for this type of development. (See Table IV. 16 for complete findings.) Attitudes
toward the idea of participating in a renewable energy program at a cost, however, were
not as positive as attitudes toward the basic idea of such development. At all three
national monuments, approximately fifty percent of respondents reported that they would
participate in such a program. More neutral views on the subject were held by
respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, with just over thirty-seven percent reporting
neutrality, whereas just over twenty-seven percent at Fort Union and twenty percent at
Capulin Volcano held neutral opinions. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were the
least likely to disagree, with just over twelve percent reporting disagreement, while
twenty five percent of respondents a Fort Union and thirty percent of respondents at
Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. This demonstrates hesitation from
60


respondents when it comes to consuming renewable energy products if an additional cost
is associated with them. A p-value of 0.208 and a Crammers V of 0.124 were found,
indicating that research sites are not related to responses; however, the Crammers V
measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables. Overall, the
results do show positive attitudes toward renewable energy as more respondents reported
that they would consume renewable energy than not. Due to the fact that an alternative
statement asking if respondents would consume renewable energy at no additional cost
was not asked, it is unknown if the idea of an extra cost caused the hesitation evident in
these findings.
In contrast to the above statement, respondents were asked if they believed fossil
fuels should remain the primary energy source of the United States. In line with the
results for the two previous statements, the majority of respondents disagreed with this
idea. (See Table IV. 17 for complete findings.) Fifty-five percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions, over sixty-two percent at Fort Union, and sixty-one percent at Capulin
Volcano disagreed with the statement. By not supporting fossil fuels as the United States
future primary energy source, respondents show positive attitudes toward alternative
energy sources being adopted.54 While overall attitudes showed support for alternative
energies, not all respondents agreed. At both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union,
thirty percent of respondents were neutral on the topic, while approximately seventeen
percent at Capulin Volcano were neutral. As far as agreeing that fossil fuels should
54 Respondents were not asked what energy sources besides fossil fuels they believe should be adopted in
the United States. Renewable energy is a commonly known alternative; however, coal and nuclear power
are also alternatives. Therefore, this question cannot be interpreted as specifically supporting renewable
energy over other alternatives, but it does show support for the category of alterative energies, which
include renewable energy. An explanation of energy alternatives can be found athttp://energy.gov/science-
innovation/energy-sources.
61


remain as the primary U.S. energy source, fifteen percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions, slightly over seven percent at Fort Union and twenty-two percent at
Capulin Volcano agreed. A p-value of 0.216 and a Crammers V of 0.144 were found,
indicating that research sites are not related to responses; however, the Crammers V
measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables. The pattern
of responses at the three national monuments indicate that respondents do not agree that
fossil fuels should continue to be the primary energy source for the United States, thereby
showing positive attitudes to alternative energies, which may include renewable energy.
As mentioned previously, along with statements regarding the broad concept of
renewable energy, respondents were also presented with statements concerning the
specific development type of wind energy. When specifically asked if they would choose
wind energy over other renewable energy developments, most respondents reported that
they would. (See Table IV. 18 for complete findings.) Approximately fifty-two percent of
respondents at Fort Union and fifty-five percent at Capulin Volcano agreed with this
statement, demonstrating strongly positive attitudes toward wind energy development.
However, only thirty-seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed
with the statement. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were instead largely neutral
on the topic, with forty-five percent reporting indifference. In comparison, twenty-seven
percent of respondents at Fort Union and just under thirty-two percent Capulin Volcano
reported neutrality. Among respondents who disagreed and showed negative attitudes
toward wind energy, those at Capulin Volcano demonstrated the least amount of
disagreement with just over thirteen percent. Seventeen percent of respondents at Salinas
62


Pueblo Missions and twenty percent at Fort Union disagreed. A p-value of 0.368 and a
Crammers V of 0.124 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to
responses; however, the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of
association between the variables. The pattern of results show that respondents at Fort
Union and Capulin Volcano hold strongly positive attitudes toward wind energy
development and that respondents at Salinas Pueblo Mission hold moderately positive
attitudes.
As another way to examine visitor attitudes toward wind energy development,
respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the idea that wind farms have an artistic
quality and are pleasurable to look at. (See Table IV. 19 for complete findings.) This
statement reflects the idea that attitudes toward wind farms may be positive or negative
not just because of the energy they can provide, but because of the physical structures
themselves. Responses to this statement were mixed at the three national monuments.
Respondents at Fort Union had the highest rate of disagreement with forty-seven percent
disagreeing. Thirty-seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and under
twenty-two percent at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. Respondents at
Capulin Volcano were the most neutral on the topic with forty-five percent reporting
neutrality. Thirty-two percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and seventeen
percent at Fort Union reported neutrality. As far as agreement with the statement,
approximately thirty percent of respondents at all three sites agreed with the statement. A
p-value of 0.031 and a Crammers V of 0.195 were found, showing that the location at
which respondents responded is related to their responses. However, like most of the
63


results for previous statements, the association between the two variables is low. These
results do not indicate a clear pattern among the sites as to whether respondents believe
wind farms have an artistic quality to them. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions
agreed, disagreed, or were neutral in nearly equal proportion. Respondents at Fort Union
largely disagreed that wind farms have artistic qualities. Respondents at Capulin Volcano
were largely neutral on the topic. With no clear consensus among respondents, it appears
that responses to this statement varied by the individual and that considerations about
artistic quality do not appear to heavily influence attitudes toward wind energy
development.
Table IV.15Statement 7, Renewable Energy Development:
I think renewable energy development (solar, wind,
geothermal, etc.) is important.
Sec B: 7 Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Pueblo Volcano
Disagree 3 1 5 9
7.5% 2.5% 8.3% 6.4%
Neutral 6 5 3 14
15% 12.5% 5% 10%
Agree 31 34 52 117
77.5% 85% 86.7% 83.6%
Chi-square: ^ .375 p-va ue: 0.358 Crammers V: 0.125
Table IV.16Statement 13, Renewable Energy Development:
I would participate in a renewable energy program with my
energy provider, even with an extra cost.
Sec B: 13 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 5 10 18 33
12.5% 25% 30.5% 23.7%
Neutral 15 11 12 38
37.5% 27.5% 20.3% 27.3%
Agree 20 19 29 68
50% 47.5% 49.2% 48.9%
64


Chi-square: 5.889 p-value: 0.208
Crammers V: 0.146
Table IV.17Statement 12, Renewable Energy Development:
I think that fossil fuels should continue to be the primary
energy source for the U.S.
Sec B: 12 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 22 55% 25 62.5% 36 61% 83 59.7%
Neutral 12 12 10 34
30% 30% 16.9% 24.5%
Agree 6 3 13 22
15% 7.5% 22% 15.8%
Chi-square: 5.788 p-va ue: 0.216 Crammers V: 0.144
Table IV.18Statement 8, Renewable Energy Development:
I would choose wind energy over other renewable energy
developments.
Sec B: 8 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 7 8 8 23
17.5% 20% 13.3% 16.4%
Neutral 18 11 19 48
45% 27.5% 31.7% 34.3%
Agree 15 21 33 69
37.5% 52.5% 55% 49.3%
Chi-square: 4.294 p-value: 0.368 Crammers V: 0.124
Table IV.19Statement 14, Renewable Energy Development:
I think that wind farms have an artistic quality to them and are
pleasurable to look at.
Sec B: 14 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 15 19 13 47
37.5% 47.5% 21.7% 33.6%
Neutral 13 7 27 47
32.5% 17.5% 45% 33.6%
Agree 12 14 20 46
30% 35% 33.3% 32.9%
Chi-square: 0.613 p-va ue: 0.031 Crammers V: 0.195
65


Conditions on Renewable Energy Development
What attitudes do respondents hold toward conditions being placed on renewable
energy development (such as whether it is built near populated places, built away from
scenic and popular landscapes, or built in the most productive areas possible) being put in
place? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 9, 10,
and 11.
The series of questionnaire statements concerning conditions on renewable energy
development aim at understanding if specific placement of renewable energy is important
to respondents. This topic was presented in three different ways to understand in what
circumstances visitors believe restrictions should or should not be placed on renewable
energy development.
Concerning the first statement about whether popular and scenic landscapes
should be avoided when developing wind energy, respondents at all three national
monuments demonstrated strong support for developers avoiding such areas. (See Table
IV.20 for complete findings.) Seventy-five percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo
Missions, sixty-two percent at Fort Union, and seventy-three percent at Capulin Volcano
agreed with the statement. Twenty-five percent of respondents at both Salinas Pueblo
Missions and Fort Union and just under seventeen percent of Capulin Volcano
respondents were neutral. No respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions disagreed with the
statement, while just over twelve percent of those at Fort Union and ten percent at
66


Capulin Volcano disagreed. A p-value of 0.182 and a Crammers V of 0.149 were found,
indicating that research sites are not related to responses; however, the Crammers V
measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables. The patterns
seen in the results demonstrate highly positive attitudes toward wind energy developers
avoiding popular and scenic landscapes.
When alternatively asked if wind energy development should occur where it
would be most productive, regardless of surrounding features, respondents demonstrated
a lack of support for this concept. (See Table IV.21 for complete findings.)
Approximately fifty-eight percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin
Volcano and forty-eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions disagreed
with the statement. More respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were neutral on the
topic than at the two other sites, with thirty percent of visitors reporting neutrality. Fifteen
percent were neutral at Fort Union and twenty percent at Capulin Volcano.
Approximately twenty-two percent of respondents at both Salinas Pueblo Missions and
Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement, while slightly more respondents at Fort
Union did so with twenty-seven percent of respondents agreeing. A p-value of 0.533 and
a Crammers V of 0.106 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to
responses; however, the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of
association between the variables. By demonstrating negative attitudes toward wind
energy being developed solely for productivity without surrounding features being taken
into consideration, respondents confirm the stance reported in the first statement relating
to conditions on renewable energy development. In other words, landscapes and their
67


associated features should, according to respondents, be considered while developing
wind energy.
The final question concerning conditions of wind energy development asked
respondents to gauge their level of agreement toward the idea that wind energy should be
developed near populated places. (See Table IV.22 for complete findings.) Forty-five and
forty-eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano,
respectively, agreed with the statement. Fort Union had less agreement with thirty five
percent of respondents agreeing. A larger portion of Fort Union respondents reported
neutrality with forty-five percent being neutral on the topic, whereas thirty-two percent of
Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents and thirty-five percent of Capulin Volcano
respondents were neutral. Respondents at Capulin Volcano had the lowest levels of
disagreement with seventeen percent, while twenty-two percent of Salinas Pueblo
Missions respondents and twenty percent of Fort Union respondents disagreed. The
results from this statement show an interesting distinction among respondents. Many of
the respondents in this research agreed with the statement, indicating that wind energy
development should occur where other types of development are already in existence.
The responses to this statement clarify that when respondents previously expressed the
attitudes that popular and scenic landscapes should be avoided for such development,
they categorize populated places differently. Overall, respondents at Salinas Pueblo
Missions and Capulin Volcano demonstrated moderately positive attitudes toward wind
energy development being placed near populated places and respondents at Fort Union
demonstrated mildly positive attitudes.
68


Table IV.20 Statement 9, Conditions on Renewable Energy
Development: I think that developers should try to avoid
popular and scenic landscapes when they are determining
potential wind farm sites.
Sec B: 9 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 0 5 6 11
0% 12.5% 10% 7.9%
Neutral 10 10 10 30
25% 25% 16.7% 21.4%
Agree 30 25 44 99
75% 62.5% 73.3% 70.7%
Chi-square: 6.246 p-value: 0.182 Crammers V: 0.149
Table IV.21 Statement 10, Conditions on Renewable Energy
Development: I think that wind farms should be placed where
they will be most productive, regardless of surrounding
features.
Sec B: 10 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 19 23 35 77
47.5% 57.5% 58.3% 55%
Neutral 12 6 12 30
30% 15% 20% 21.4%
Agree 9 11 13 33
22.5% 27.5% 21.7% 23.6%
Chi-square: 3.149 p-value: 0.533 Crammers V: 0.106
Table IV.22 Statement 11, Conditions on Renewable Energy
Development: I think that wind farms should be placed near
populated places.
Sec B: 11 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 9 8 10 27
22.5% 20% 16.9% 19.4%
Neutral 13 18 21 52
32.5% 45% 35.6% 37.4%
Agree 18 14 28 60
45% 35% 47.5% 43.2%
69


Chi-square: 2.214 p-value: 0.696
Crammers V: 0.089
Visitor Experience
Do respondents expect that their experience of the sites would change if wind
energy development was visible from the sites? What attitudes do respondents hold
toward wind farms potentially being visible from any national park sites? The
questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 15, 16, 18, and 19.
Questionnaire statements concerning visitor experiences aim at understanding if
the theoretical presence of wind energy development is amenable to respondents. The
statements attempt to understand if visitors anticipate that their levels of experience, be it
enjoyment or willingness to visit, would change if visible landscapes were altered by
wind energy development.
The first two statements concerning visitor experiences relate to the initial
inquires regarding place attachment. These two statements point to the emotional
attachment respondents have to the site and ask them to situate that connection against
the concept of wind energy development being visible. The first statement asks whether
the respondents emotional connection with the landscapes visible from the national
monument would decrease if wind energy development were visible. At two of the three
sites there was general agreement that emotional connections to visible landscapes from
the sites would decrease if wind energy developments were visible. (See Table IV.23 for
complete findings.) Respondents at Capulin Volcano had the highest level of agreement
with forty-eight percent. Forty-five percent of respondents at Fort Union and forty-two
70


percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed with the statement. There were slight
variations among the three sites when it came to respondents being neutral on the topic,
with seventeen percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, twenty-seven percent at Fort Union,
and twenty percent of respondents at Capulin Volcano reporting neutrality.
Approximately twenty-seven percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin
Volcano disagreed with the statement, implying that their emotional connection would
not decrease with such development. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions
demonstrated a different trend than at the other two sites. Here, a relatively equal number
of respondents disagreed or agreed with the statement. A p-value of 0.510 and a
Crammers V of 0.108 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to
responses; however, the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of
association between the variables. These findings imply that there is a fairly equal chance
that Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents emotional connections will decrease or remain
the same if wind energy developments are visible. It is more likely that emotional
connections will be negatively impacted for Fort Union and Capulin Volcano
respondents. Overall results indicate that there moderately negative impacts to visitor
experience could occur with visible development.
The second visitor experience statement examines whether respondents
enjoyment of the national monument would increase if wind energy development were
visible. While responses to the previous statement indicated that emotional connections to
visible landscapes would be altered but not strongly so, respondents strongly disagreed
that their enjoyment of the same landscapes would increase if wind energy developments
71


were visible. (See Table IV.24 for complete list findings.) The majority of respondents at
each national monument disagreed with the statement, with seventy-two percent at
Salinas Pueblo Missions, seventy percent at Fort Union, and sixty-two percent at Capulin
Volcano. Twenty-five percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, eighteen percent at Fort Union,
and twenty-three percent at Capulin Volcano were neutral on the topic. Only three
percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed that their enjoyment would
increase, with twelve percent at Fort Union and fifteen percent at Capulin Volcano
sharing that view. A p-value of 0.316 and a Crammers V of 0.130 were found, indicating
that research sites are not related to responses; however, the Crammers V measure does
indicate a small amount of association between the variables. When considering the
responses to the first and second statements together, it appears that respondents,
particularly respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, are uncertain that their experiences
would be changed for the worse with visible wind energy development; however, they
are much more confident that their experiences would not improve if the landscapes were
altered. These results thus indicate negative attitudes toward wind energy developments
being visible from each research site.
Respondents were then asked if they were comfortable with wind energy
developments being visible from any NPS site. This statement was presented to
understand if attitudes to such developments being visible from these specific parks differ
from NPS sites in general. Respondents at all three sites, albeit with less strength at
Salinas Pueblo Missions, demonstrated that they were not comfortable with wind energy
developments being visible from any NPS site. (See Table IV.25 for complete findings.)
Fifty percent of Fort Union respondents and fifty-eight percent of Capulin Volcano
72


respondents disagreed with the statement, therefore holding negative attitudes toward
such development being visible. Forty percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions
reported the same attitudes. Following the same trend as previous statements, respondents
at Salinas Pueblo Missions tended to be more neutral on this topic, with thirty eight
percent of respondents being neutral, whereas eighteen percent of Fort Union respondents
and seventeen percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were neutral on the topic.
Twenty-two percent of Salinas Pueblo Mission respondents demonstrated that they would
be comfortable with visible wind energy development near any NPS site, while thirty-two
percent at Fort Union and twenty-five percent at Capulin Volcano held the same attitudes.
A p-value of 0.103 and a Crammers V of 0.166 were found, indicating that research sites
are not related to responses; however, the Crammers V measure does indicate a small
amount of association between the variables. These results show that respondents are
generally not comfortable with this type of development being visible from any NPS site.
Although responses to previous statements indicate that, overall, visitors involved
in this research do not have positive attitudes toward the concept of wind energy
development being visible, this does not necessarily mean that visitors would discontinue
going to national park sites if such development did occur. When asked to rank
agreement toward the statement that they would continue to visit national parks even with
such visible development, the majority of respondents at each site indicated that they
would continue to visit. (See Table IV.26for complete findings.) Seventy-two percent of
respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, seventy-five percent at Fort Union, and sixty
percent at Capulin Volcano agreed that they would continue to visit even with this type of
73


landscape alteration. There was slightly more hesitation at this statement among Capulin
Volcano respondents. Eighteen percent of respondents there were neutral on the subject,
while fifteen percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions and eight percent at Fort Union were
neutral. Twenty-two percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were in disagreement with
the statement, and eighteen percent of Fort Union respondents and thirteen percent of
Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents also disagreed. A p-value of 0.393 and a Crammers
V of 0.121 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses;
however, the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of association between
the variables. While not statistically significant, a clear trend in the results is that, despite
preferring that such landscape alteration from wind energy development not take place
near national park sites, such change would not necessarily displace visitors from these or
any other national park sites.
Table IV.23 Statement 15, Visible Wind Farms from the Site:
My emotional connection with the landscapes visible from this
national park site would decrease if wind farms could be seen.
Sec B: 15 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 16 11 16 43
40% 27.5% 26.7% 30.7%
Neutral 7 11 12 30
17.5% 27.5% 20% 21.4%
Agree 17 18 32 67
42.5% 45% 53.3% 47.9%
Chi-square: 3.295 p-value: 0.510 Crammers V: 0.108
Table IV.24 Statement 16, Visible Wind Farms from the Site:
My enjoyment of this national park site would increase if wind
farms were part of the landscapes I can see from here.
Sec B: 16 Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Pueblo Volcano
74


Disagree 29 72.5% 28 70% 37 61.7% 94 67.1%
Neutral 10 7 14 31
25% 17.5% 23.3% 22.1%
Agree 1 5 9 15
2.5% 12.5% 15% 10.7%
Chi-square: 4.730 p-value: 0.316 Crammers V: 0.130
Table IV.25Statement 18, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS
Site: I am comfortable with wind farms being visible from any
national park site.
Sec B: 18 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 16 20 35 71
40% 50% 58.3% 50.7%
Neutral 15 7 10 32
37.5% 17.5% 16.7% 22.9%
Agree 9 13 15 37
22.5% 32.5% 25% 26.4%
Chi-square: 7.694 p-va ue: 0.103 Crammers V: 0.166
Table IV.26Statement 19, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS
Site: I would still visit a national park site if wind farms were
built directly next to them.
Sec B: 19 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 5 7 13 25
12.5% 17.5% 21.7% 17.9%
Neutral 6 3 11 20
15% 7.5% 18.3% 14.3%
Agree 29 30 36 95
72.5% 75% 60% 67.9%
Chi-square: ^ .099 p-va ue: 0.393 Crammers V: 0.121
Ideas of Change
What attitudes do respondents hold concerning the idea of changes to landscapes
visible from national parks? What are their attitudes about development types other than
75


wind energy? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers
17 and 20.
The two remaining questionnaire statements to be discussed concern visitor
attitudes toward the concept of landscape alteration itself. These questions attempt to
contextualize if any type of change is deemed acceptable or unacceptable, or if wind
energy development and renewable energy development is uniquely viewed as such.
The first statement about the idea of landscape change asks respondents if ideally
they would like the view from the national monument to never change. Majority of
visitors at all three sites moderately agreed with the statement. (See Table IV.27 for
complete findings.) Sixty percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents, sixty-two
percent of Fort Union respondents, and sixty-three percent of Capulin Volcano
respondents agreed with the statement, demonstrating negative attitudes toward the idea
of landscape alteration in general. Results for neutrality and disagreement were also
uniform among the sites. An average of twenty-five percent of respondents at each
national monument was neutral on the topic, while around twelve percent disagreed. A p-
value of 0.942 and a Crammers V of 0.053 were found, indicating that research sites are
not related to responses and that there is no discernable association between the variables.
These results demonstrate that change of any kind, not just wind energy development, is
undesirable to respondents.
76


The final questionnaire statement specifically compares wind energy development
against other types of development, such as housing or commercial business. This
statement was developed to ensure consistency of attitudes. Respondents showed
moderately strong attitudes that wind energy development is preferred over other types of
development. (See Table IV.28 for complete findings.)Sixty-five percent of respondents
at Salinas Pueblo Missions, sixty-seven at Fort Union, and seventy-eight at Capulin
Volcano agreed with the statement. Twenty-five percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions
respondents, thirteen percent of Fort Union respondents, and eighteen percent of Capulin
Volcano respondents were neutral on the topic. Ten percent of respondents at Salinas
Pueblo Missions, twenty percent at Fort Union, and only three percent at Capulin
Volcano were in disagreement with the statement. A p-value of 0.055 and a Crammers V
of 0.182 were found, indicating that there is a relationship between which research site
respondents were at and how they responded. As with previously discussed findings, the
Crammers V value indicates that the two variables only slightly affect one another.
While landscape alterations are generally not preferred by respondents, the results from
this last statement indicate that if such change is going to occur, wind energy
development is favored over other types of development. This corresponds to the
favorable attitudes toward renewable energy, especially wind energy development, that
were identified in previous findings.
77


Table IV.27 Statement 17, Visible Wind Farms from the Site:
Ideally, I would want the view from this national park to never
change.
Sec B: 17 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total
Disagree 5 6 6 17
12.5% 15% 10% 12.1%
Neutral 11 9 16 36
27.5% 22.5% 26.7% 25.7%
Agree 24 25 38 87
60% 62.5% 63.3% 62.1%
Chi-square: 0.776 p-value: 0.942 Crammers V: 0.053
Table IV.28 Statement 20, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS
Site: If landscapes seen from national parks were changed, it
would be better if they were changed because of wind farm
developments rather than housing developments or commercial
business developments.
Sec B: 20 Salinas Fort Union Capulin Total
Pueblo Volcano
Disagree 4 8 2 14
10% 20.5% 3.3% 10.1%
Neutral 10 5 11 26
25% 12.8% 18.3% 18.7%
Agree 26 26 47 99
65% 66.7% 78.3% 71.2%
Chi-square: 9.257 p-value: 0.055 Crammers V: 0.182
Place Attachments Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development
As discussed above, respondents hold positive levels of place identity and neutral
levels of place dependence, and their attitudes toward renewable and wind energy
developments are generally positive. It is important to again note that respondents also
indicated that ideally landscape alteration would not occur; however, if it does occur,
negative impacts to visitor experience are likely. The question of whether the identified
levels of place attachment influence these attitudes is raised in this research. To
78


understand if levels of place attachment influence attitudes toward renewable energy
development, a comparative analysis was conducted between the two variables. The
collapsed variables of place identity and place dependence were used in this analysis.
Previous research on place attachment has demonstrated that the existence of
place attachments can influence visitor attitudes toward park conditions and management
practices.55 56 Place attachment signifies investment in a location, making it possible for
57
physical alteration of that location to impact how an individual perceives the location.
In a 2005 study on place attachment levels in recreational settings, Kyle et al. found that
respondents with higher levels of place identity tended to perceive changing conditions as
problematic, as compared to those with lower levels of place attachment. In the same
study, researchers found that respondents with low levels of place dependence were more
willing to accept a variety of changing conditions for recreational settings than those with
high levels of place dependence.
The first visitor experience related questionnaire statement (number fifteen) is
being used for this analysis to determine if the above previous research findings hold true
for this research. The statement reads: My emotional connection with the landscapes
visible from this national park site would decrease if wind farms could be seen.This was
chosen as a representative statement from the questionnaire because it relates to both
place identity and place dependence while gauging attitudes toward wind energy
development. The statement includes a component of place identity by asking if the 55 56 57
55 Warzecha and Lime, Place Attachment in Canyonlands NP, 59-78.
56 Kyle, Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153-177.
57
Abrahamsson, Landscapes Lost and Gained 51-61.
79


respondents emotional connection would be altered. The statement also includes a
component of place dependence by specifically asking about the national monument
respondents were visiting, therefore contextualizing their response to that particular
place.
When the variable of place identity was compared to the responses to this
statement, a correlation between place identity and attitudes toward wind energy
development was found. (See Table IV.29 complete findings.) Of the total respondents,
the majority said their emotional connection would decrease despite their existing levels
of place attachment. Within this general trend, a specific correlation between high levels
of place identity and reports that emotional connections would decrease with visible wind
energy developments was found. Of respondents with positive levels of place identity,
fifty-five percent reported that their emotional connection would decrease with such
development being visible. Statistical significance is present between place identity and
this measured attitude toward wind energy development with a p-value of 0.040. The
Crammers V measure of effect indicates the association between the variables is in
existence; however, it is slight. These results show that, as predicted in previous
literature, respondents with higher levels of place identity find the condition of landscape
alteration to be more problematic than respondents with low or negative levels of place
identity.
Previous studies also predict that respondents with positive levels of place
dependence will have a similar reaction as those with positive levels of place identity.
80


The lower the level of place dependence, the less issue respondents will take with
changing conditions to recreational settings. When place dependence is compared with
the same questionnaire statement, it could therefore be predicted that the general lack of
place dependence found in respondents would lead to more neutral responses to the
statement. This trend was partially seen during this comparison. (See Table IV.30 of
complete findings.) Of the respondents who reported negative levels of place
dependence, forty-one percent reported that their emotional connection to the visible
landscapes would not decrease if wind energy developments were present. This is in
contrast to respondents with neutral or positive levels of place dependence. These
respondents agreed that their emotional connections would in fact decrease with this type
of visible development. The correlation between these two variables was, however, not
found to be statistically significant. There was a p-value of 0.580 and a Crammers V of
0.101, indicating that the observed correlation may have been due to random chance.
Further research exploring the two variables of place attachment would need to be
conducted to confirm or deny this observation. However, the results for this analysis do
indicate that respondents with low levels of place dependence do not anticipate that their
emotional connections would be diminished.
The relationship between place attachment levels and the perception of varying
conditions for recreational settings found in previous research was also found to be true
via the present research project. The comparison of factors related to place attachments
and attitudes toward wind energy development demonstrate that the higher the level of
place identity, the more likely the respondent is to have a negative view of that
81


development. As seen in the above findings, positive place identity levels lead to more
frequent anticipation that negative impacts, such as lowered emotional connections to
visible landscapes, would occur. Relatedly, a lack of place dependence leads to lower
reports of the same negative impact.
Table IV.29 Place Identity and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy.
Place Identity Levels
Emotional connection would decrease w/wind farms Negative Neutral Positive Total
No 0 20 23 43
0% 46.5% 24.5% 30.7%
Neutral 1 33.3% 10 23.3% 19 20.2% 30 21.4%
Yes 2 13 52 67
66.7% 30.2% 55.3% 47.9%
Total 3 43 94 140
100% 100% 100% 100%
Chi-square: 10.046 p-va ue: 0.040 Crammers V: 0.189
Table IV.30 Place Dependency and Attitudes Toward Renewable
Energy.
Place Depenc ence Levels
Emotional Connection would decrease w/wind farms Negative Neutral Positive Total
No 12 41.4% 26 29.9% 5 20.8% 43 30.7%
Neutral 6 20.7% 18 20.7% 6 25% 30 21.4%
Yes 11 37.9% 43 49.4% 13 54.2% 67 47.9%
total 29 100% 87 100% 24 100% 140 100%
Chi-square: 10.046 p-va ue: 0.040 Crammers V: 0.189
82


CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Conclusions
Renewable energy development is expanding throughout the United States. With
the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the question of where
such development is taking place becomes increasingly important. While many
investigations of ecological impacts of renewable energy structures have been
undertaken, the aesthetic and social impacts of such landscape alteration have received
little attention. This topic has been investigated through this study by focusing on three
southwestern U.S. national monuments. This research has aimed to understand the
potential impacts to visitor experience caused by renewable energy development,
specifically wind energy. Levels of place attachments for research sites and attitudes
toward renewable energy development were examined. The relationship between place
attachments and attitudes concerning renewable energy development was also explored.
This research seeks to understand how visitors to national parks could potentially
be affected by the presence of wind energy development near park boundaries. To
understand if and how such development being visible from park sites could impact
visitor experience, it first needed to be established whether visitors are emotionally
connected to the sites being investigated. This research has tested levels of place
attachment, specifically through the variables of place identity and place dependence, and
has established that visitors are invested in the sites where this research was conducted.
83


As was discussed in the findings section, strong levels of place identity were
found for respondents at all three national monuments. While there were small variations
among the sites, regarding the levels of agreement, neutrality, or disagreement with place
identity questionnaire statements, there was no conclusive pattern suggesting that
respondents from a particular site held significantly different levels of place identity.
With regard to place dependence, results show that respondents at all three sites do
depend on southwestern landscapes for the development of place attachments. However,
results indicated that while the individual sites are important components of the collective
southwestern landscape, the sites themselves are not necessarily needed for the
development of place attachments for most of the individuals surveyed. When all place
dependence variables are considered together, respondents were most frequently neutral
in their responses, therefore demonstrating neutral levels of place dependence.
This is not to say that the sites themselves are not important, as high levels of
place identity establish that the opposite is true. What this lack does imply is that
respondents think of these sites as part of a larger whole rather than separately. When
individuals think of southwestern landscapes and reflect on or experience an emotional
connection from this type of landscape, they regard the site they were visiting as one
component of these emotional connections. If strong levels of place dependence had been
found, an individual would theoretically only be able to conjure the effects of this
emotional connection when considering the specific site. In this research, however,
individuals thoughts about a specific national monument relate to their broader
84


experiences in the southwest. That finding does not necessarily imply that these national
monuments are not important because these specific sites are locations at which
individuals can obtain the experience they need for broader place attachments to be made.
The second part of answering the research question involved understanding visitor
attitudes toward renewable energy. Previous research has shown that individuals and
communities have often reacted negatively toward the development of particularly wind
energy.58 59 60 61 62 It is important to note that previous research has focused on areas
where development has already occurred, whereas this present study focuses on
hypothetical development. However, the research results presented here reflect an already
seen trendindividuals support the concept of renewable energy development, but when
specific ground locations are discussed, negative attitudes toward such development tend
to rise. For example, the Gallup Poll has found high support for the development of
renewable energy, with seventy-seven percent of Americans agreeing that the U.S.
government should increase financial support and incentives for alternative energy
sources, including wind energy development.58 59 60 61 62 63 However, in spite of this support,
negative reactions to actual development have often been seen, such as at the Cape Wind
development project in Massachusetts. Reactions from local communities to this project
have been highly negative, with individuals and communities claiming that spiritual,
58
Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381-394.
59 Pasqualetti, Wind Energy Landscapes, 689-699.
60 Jay Wickersham. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind Power Challenges
the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental Affairs 31 (2004): 324-347.
61 Lothian, Scenic Perceptions of Visual Effects of Wind Fanns, 196-207.
62 Bend Moller. Changing Wind-Power Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual Impact on Land Use
and Population in Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied Energy 83 (2006): 477-494.
63Jeffery Jones. Americans on energy: promote both new sources and old Gallup (2009): accessed March
3, 2012, www.gallup.com/poll/116713/americans-energy-promote-new-sources-old.aspx.
85


environmental, and economic degradation will occur with the installation of wind farms
in the bay.64 65 The present research study found potential for similar reactions to future
wind energy development near the boundaries of national parks and monuments.
The contrast between recorded national-level approval of and local-level
opposition to renewable energy development guided the development of three different
scales of inquiry in this research. In the first scale, broad level concepts of renewable
energy and wind energy development were explored. This scale is reflective of what the
Gallup Poll reported. The second scale of inquiry moved away from the conceptual and
presented respondents with a series of physical conditions that could be placed on this
type of development. At this scale respondents are prompted to think in terms of where
and how development should occur. The third scale of inquiry places wind energy
development at the specific national monuments. At this scale respondents are prompted
to imagine development on ground-level terms. It is at this scale that factors of visitor
experience have been investigated.
Concerning the first level of inquiry, the present research found that, in general,
respondents held highly positive attitudes toward renewable energy development. Among
all respondents, eight-four percent agreed that renewable energy development is
important (see Table IV. 15). Respondents also showed positive attitudes toward
renewable energy consumption by agreeing that they would participate in such programs. 64 65
64
Abby Goodnough. For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle is Spiritual, New York Times, January 4,
2010.
65 Parker, Audra. The price of Cape Winds power. Cape Cod Times. February 25, 2008.
86


In addition, sixty percent of all respondents disagreed that fossil fuels should remain the
primary energy source for U.S., again demonstrating positive attitudes toward renewable
energy development. These results are consistent with nationwide Gallup Polls that have
inquired about attitudes toward renewable energy on very broad scales, without
mentioning specific locations or conditions.66
This broad scale inquiry was continued in the questionnaire statements about
attitudes toward wind energy development. When the specific prospect of wind
development was presented to respondents, attitudes were again largely positive. The
majority of respondents at Fort Union and Capulin Volcano reported that they would
choose wind energy development over other types of renewable energies. Respondents at
Salinas Pueblo Missions did not make as strong of an assertion, with more respondents
being neutral about whether they preferred wind energy over other sources of renewable
energy (see Table IV. 16). Overall, when the broad-scale topic of renewable energy was
presented to respondents, the potential occurrence of such development was met with
positive, approving attitudes.
The questionnaire statements reflecting the mid-level scale of inquiry sought to
understand if respondents believe that social factors should be taken into consideration
when situating renewable energy development, especially wind energy. When presented
with the idea of potential conditions of or considerations for where wind energy should
be developed, respondents held positive attitudes for development avoiding popular and
66
Jones, Americans on Energy.
87


scenic landscapes. Furthermore, respondents held negative attitudes toward the idea that
development should occur on the basis of productivity of alone. Finally, respondents held
positive attitudes about development occurring near already developed, populated
locations. This last element is particularly relevant to the three national monuments in
this research as they are all remotely located. The findings suggest that national park
visitors would rather this type of development occur in areas unlike these particular sites.
It is also important to note that when renewable energy was presented in the study in
more particular terms than in the first scale of inquiry, respondents demonstrated stronger
attitudes about how such development should occur. These attitudes were not reflected in
the previous broad-scale inquires.
Given that previous studies have found largely negative reactions to renewable
energy development, a key purpose of this particular research endeavor was to anticipate
social impacts before they occur. It cannot be determined from this research alone if the
park visitors surveyed anticipate impacts to themselves for the same reasons as previous
research has theorized.67 Instead, this research aimed to establish a baseline for attitudes
about renewable energy. This research subsequently investigated whether park visitors
anticipate that their experiences in these and other national park units would be impacted
if visible development occurs. The questionnaire statements on this topic relate to the
final, local and site-specific scale of inquiry being used in this research.
67Brittan theorizes that the physical structures of renewable energy are in conflict with preconceived ideas
of scenery. Individuals therefore find these structures aesthetically displeasing and respond negatively to
them (2001). Pasqualetti contends that one cause of negative reactions is that U.S. society is not
accustomed to viewing its sources of energy (2001a, 2001b).
88


As discussed in the findings section, questionnaire statements relating to topics of
visitor experience were multidimensional. Findings demonstrated that respondents
anticipate moderate impacts to their emotional connections to the landscapes visible from
the national monuments, should wind energy development occur in those locations.
Among all respondents, forty-eight percent reported that their emotional connections
would decrease with landscape alteration due to wind energy development. While
respondents only moderately expected negative impacts to their connection to these
places, it is interesting to note that respondents strongly agreed that such development
would not increase their enjoyment.68 Beyond these national monuments, findings
showed that respondents were largely uncomfortable with this type of development being
visible from any national park unit. While these findings imply that surveyed visitors at
all three national monuments hold negative attitudes toward wind energy being visible
from these and other national park units, the findings do not show that visitation would
necessarily be affected. Among all respondents, sixty-eight percent reported that they
would continue to visit a national park unit that had wind energy development adjacent to
it.
Implications
This research has identified a connection between two fields of study, which
typically are not considered in tandemplace attachment and social impacts of
renewable energy development. When attitudes toward wind energy development were
compared with reported levels of place identity and place dependence, it was found that
68 The implications of this finding will be discussed in the next section of this document.
89


stronger favorable attitudes toward both factors indicate stronger attitudes against such
development. While previous research has found that place attachments influence
perceptions of management actions and conditions, research in this field has not
investigated the specific topic of renewable energy development. Through the present
findings, it can be concluded that theories of place attachment and their influence on
perceptions of resources can also be applied to renewable energy development and the
landscape alteration that results from this type of development.
In addition to holding implications for further academic study, the results from
this research also demonstrate regional scale implications. Respondents were found to
hold levels of place attachments, particularly place dependence for southwestern U.S.
landscapes. Thus, while this study focused on three specific locations, the results of this
research can be applied to the landscapes in this region. Even with a lack of place
dependence for one of these specific sites, the individual is benefiting from the existence
of the site. In the same way that individual sites are part of a collective development of
place attachments, alterations to these sites could also be a component of lowered place
attachments to the region. If the landscapes visible from these sites were altered by wind
energy development, the individual may have opportunities of the same experiences
elsewhere. However, if multiple landscapes were altered by the same or similar
developments, individuals may no longer feel that they can obtain those experiences, and
place attachments would be lowered. These sites should, therefore, be considered not just
individually but as part of a collective regional landscape. What happens at these sites
and what happens at other similar sites are in fact all interrelated because of place
90


dependence on southwestern landscapes as a whole. Southwestern landscapes are an
integral part of the place attachments found in this research. This finding implies that
conversations surrounding renewable energy developments need to take place on both
local and regional scales, just as multiple scales of landscapes are involved in why
individuals are emotionally vested in this region.
Resources managers, particularly national park managers, are in the position to be
involved in these local and regional conversations. The broadest implication of the
present research, as applicable to such managers, is that renewable energy development,
specifically wind energy development, is an important topic to park visitors. The strong
attitudes toward wind energy and the potential for its development in areas visible from
national park units demonstrate that this topic is worth further discussion. The nuances
within visitor responses should be further analyzed for each individual national
monument to understand the implications of this topic. While there was consensus among
the site visitors on most topics, many of the responses to questionnaire statements
demonstrated that some visitors held strong opposing viewpoints.
Another important implication for park managers at these three national
monuments is the reassurance that their sites are, in fact, important to their visitors. The
individual factor of place identity showed that visitors who participated in this research
hold strong emotional connections associated with the sites they visited. Following
previously presented theories of place identity, these sites are part of the formation of
visitor self-identity. In some way, the existence of these sites and the southwestern
91


landscapes they hold are part of the visitors identity. In addition, the individual factor of
place dependence showed that the sites are important in a larger context of the
southwestern locations, which contribute to the creation of place attachments.
Renewable energy, including wind energy, is valued by respondents at all three
national monuments. However, results imply that respondents would rather development
occur in alternative settings, such as populated areas, unlike those currently surrounding
these sites. In addition, respondents hold positive attitudes toward popular and scenic
landscapes being avoided when determining development sites, regardless of the
potential for high wind energy productivity. These results are significant for managers of
these and similar national park units as they provide evidence that their key stakeholders,
visitors, want considerations to be made concerning where renewable energy is
developed.
The third and final scale of inquiry focused on the site-specific locations of the
three national monuments where research was conducted. With the potential inclusion of
wind energy near these sites, it was sought to understand if respondents anticipated
changes to their experiences of the sites. There are three main implications of findings
related to visitor experience. First, these findings demonstrate the serious manner in
which renewable energy development should be handled, as respondents do not want
such development to be visible from national parks and believe that their connections to
those sites would be diminished because of it. Results imply that renewable energy
developments such as wind farms should not, if possible, occur where visible from
national parks.
92


Results provide evidence that developing wind energy on lands visible from
national parks should not specifically be sought out. Respondents at all three national
monuments reported that their enjoyment of the sites would definitely not increase if such
development were visible. These results eliminate the possibility that such development
could be considered an asset to visitors. The second visitor experience implication is,
therefore, that wind energy development should not be sought out for landscapes visible
from or within national parks. In other words, there are clear patterns in the responses
that these developments are not desired to be in close proximity to national park units.
The third visitor experience implication is that, while attitudes toward such developments
in landscapes visible from these sites are negative, the results do not imply that visitation
would correspondingly change. This implication is important for current park managers
who may be worrying or wondering about how their visitation could change if renewable
energy structures were visible in nearby landscapes. This, of course, does not imply that
visitors would not be upset or, alternatively, that some visitors would not possibly enjoy
the altered view; however, the trend found in this research implies that large changes to
visitation are unlikely.
There were strong sentiments among respondents that changes to the landscapes
seen from these sites would ideally not occur, with sixty-two percent of respondents at all
three sites indicating positive attitudes toward the idea of visible landscapes never
changing. With the rapid increase of renewable energy production, as well as other types
of development, it is difficult to say that such an ideal can be maintained. An interesting
93


finding in this research is that respondents implied that they would rather see wind energy
development as opposed to other development types such as housing or commercial
business. While further research would be needed to understand how park visitors rank
different types of development, these results imply that wind energy development is not
opposed in all situations, particularly if a less appealing option were also under
consideration. If wind energy were to be developed within visible landscapes from a
national park unit, contextualizing such development against other types of development
could be a management strategy. Again, additional research would need to be conducted
before such management strategies could be applied. Ultimately, environmental as well
as social impacts should be considered before any type of major renewable energy
development occurs near national parks. This preference of wind energy over other
development types should also be taken into consideration when the long-term prospect
of development surrounding national park units is considered. Rather than renewable
energy being something to necessarily work against, the findings should be considered as
a decision-making tool.
There is the potential for visitors levels of place attachments and enjoyment of
the national monuments to decrease, despite broad level agreement that renewable energy
development is needed. This is important for park managers to consider if renewable
energy developments are proposed in their regions. Altogether, this research
demonstrates that the inclusion of wind energy development near national parks has the
potential to follow patterns seen in areas where development has already occurred or is
being proposed. It is, therefore, a topic that warrants further attention. Active
94


conversations between park managers and their visitors, in addition to conversations
between park managers and local communities, will be an important in determining how
(or if) placement of development near park boundaries can be approached.
With regard to the NPS mission to preserve natural and cultural resources and
DOI support for advancing renewable energy technologies and development, the results
of this research can and should be used as part of the decision-making process about
future renewable energy development on or near public lands. The various results
pertaining to both place attachments and visitor attitudes can be weighed against one
another, as well as against other potential impacts, perhaps to natural resources, when
development is proposed. By considering this information by itself and combining it with
other information, conversations and decisions about where renewable energy should
occur can be further informed. Established processes in place to approve development,
such as environmental impact statements conducted by the Bureau of Land Management,
include public comments and support. These findings add to that larger public voice and
show the complexity of landscape alteration from renewable energy development. Based
on the results of this research, park managers who grapple with renewable energy
development would be justified in adding the voices of park visitors into these
conversations. This research provides a model and starting point for building these
conversations.
95


REFERENCES
Abrahamsson, Kurt V. Landscapes Lost and Gained: on Changes in Semiotic
Resources, Human Ecology Review 6 (1999): 51-61
Altman, Irwin and Setha M. Low. Place Attachment, Human Behavior, and Environment:
Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, 1992.
Benediktsson, Karl. Scenophobia, Geography and the Aesthetic Politics of
Landscape. Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 1 (2007): 203-
217.
Brittan, Gordon G. Wind, Energy, Landscape: Reconciling Nature and Technology,
Philosophy and Geography 4 (2001): 169-184.Cresswell, Tim. Place. Engham:
Elsevier Inc, 2009.
Davenport, Mae A. and Dorothy H. Anderson. Getting From Sense of Place to Place-
Based Management: an Interpretive Investigation of Place Meanings and
Perceptions of Landscape Change, Society and Natural Resources 18 (2005):
625-641.
Goodnough, Abby. For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle is Spiritual, New York
Times, January 4, 2010.
Grusin, Richard. Reproducing Yosemite: Olmsted, Environmentalism, and the Nature of
Aesthetic Agency, Cultural Studies 12 (1998): 332-359.
Gunderson, Kari and Alan Watson. Understanding Place Meanings on the Bitterroot
National Forest, Montana, Society and Natural Resources 20: 705-721.
Jones, Jeffrey. Americans on energy: promote both new sources and old Gallup (2009):
accessed March 3, 2012, www.gallup.com/poll/116713/americans-energy-
promote-new-sources-old.aspx.
Kincheloe, Joe L. and Peter McLaren. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative
Research, In Ethnography and schools: qualitative approaches to the study of
education, edited by Yali Zou and Enrique T. Trueb, 87-110. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield Pub, 2002.
Kyle, Gerard, Alan Graefe and Robert Manning. Testing the Dimensionality of Place
Attachment in Recreational Settings, Environment and Behavior 37 (2005): 153-
177.
Kyle, Gerard et al. Effect of Activity Involvement and Place Attachment on
96


Recreationists Perceptions of Setting Density, Journal of Leisure Research 36
(2004): 209-231.
Lunn, Jenny. The Role of Religion, Spirituality and Faith in Development: A Critical
Theory Approach, Third World Quarterly 30: 937-951
Lothian, Andrew. Scenic Perceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South
Australian Landscapes, Geographical Research 46 (2008): 196-207.
Mercer, David. The Great Australian Wind Rush and the Devaluation of Land
Amenity, Australian Geographer 34 (2003): 91-121.
Moller, Bemd. Changing Wind-Power Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual
Impact on Land Use and Population in Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied
Energy 83 (2006): 477-494.
Parker, Audra. The price of Cape Winds power. Cape Cod Times. February 25, 2008.
Pasqualetti, Martin J. Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes,
Geographical Review 90 (2001): 381-394.
Pasqualetti, Martin J. Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the
California Desert, Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001): 689-699.
Schutt, Russell K. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research.
Boson: Sage Publications, 2006
Smaldone, David, Charles Harris and Nick Sanyal. The Role of Time in Developing
Place Meanings, 40 92008): 479-504.
Stedman, Richard C. Is it Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the
Physical Environment to Sense of Place, Society and Natural Resources 16
(2003): 671-685.
Warzecha, Cynthia A. and David W. Lime. Place Attachment in Canyonlands National
Park: Visitors Assessment of Setting Attributes on the Colorado and Green
Rivers f Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 (2001): 59-78.
Wickersham, Jay. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind
Power Challenges the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental
Affairs 31 (2004): 324-347.
97


APPENDICES
A. GIS Dataset Source List
Dataset Description Type Source Source Link
Wind Energy Potential Vector polygon National Renewable Energy Laboratory http: //www. nr el. gov/gi s/dataanal y si s. html
Highways & Interstates Vector line USGS: North American Atlas http: //nati onal atl as. gov/mapl ay er s. html
Railroads Vector line USGS: North American Atlas http: //nati onal atl as. gov/mapl ay er s. html
Populated Areas Vector polygon USGS: North American Atlas http: //nati onal atl as. gov/mapl ay er s. html
Surface Land Ownership Vector polygon Bureau of Land Management httD://www.blm.sov/nm/st/en/Drog/more/ge ogranhic sciences/spatial data metadata.ht ml
National Park Boundaries Vector polygon National Park Service http: //sci ence. nature. np s. gov/nrdata/
Sunzia SW Transmission Lines Vector polygon SunZia http://www.sunzia.net/
West Wide Energy Corridor Vector polyon WWEC Programmatic EIS httn: //corri dorei s. anl. gov/ ei s/fmao/gi s/index. cfim
98


B. Overlay Analysis Maps
B.l Wind Energy Potential, Energy Corridors and Transportation
99


B.2 SurfaceOwnership.
New Mexico
N
s
1:3,500,000
0 10 20 40 60 80
l Mile
Legend
State Boundary
] City
' Interstate
' Highway
Railroad
BLM
BOR
| DOA
| U S. Department ofDefense
| U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. ForestService
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Indain/ Tribal
National Park Service
Private
New Mexico Trust Lands
New Mexico State Game and Fish
New Mexico State Park
Valles Caldera N ational Preserve
100


Full Text

PAGE 1

CHANGING LANDSCAPES: WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING SOUTHWESTERN U.S. NATIONAL PARKS by Susan M McPartland B.A., Pacific Lutheran University, 2001 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Social Sciences Master of Social Sciences: Society and the Environment 2012

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for the Master of Social Sciences degree by Susan M. McPartland has been approved for the Master of Social Science by Brian Page, Ph.D ., Chair Virginia Fink, Ph.D Kerri Cahill, Ph.D Date April 6, 2012

PAGE 3

iii McPartland, Susan, M ., Master of Social Sciences Changing Landscapes: Wind Energy Development Surrounding Southwestern U.S. National Parks Thesis directed by Brian Page, Ph.D ABSTRACT Renewable energy development is expanding throughout the United States. With the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the location of such development becomes increasingly important. While many investigations of physical ecological impacts of renewable energy structures have been undertaken, the social impacts of such landscape alteration have received little attention. This research project focuses on the social impact of renewable energy development, e specially on how such landscape alteration will be perceived if renewable energy structures are part of the landscapes visible from national parks. The three national monuments involved in this research are representative of many national park units, particularly in th e southwest. Each park tells the history of both the individual site and of the region of which it is a part. Similar to many National Park Service units, these three national monuments are small in area. The landscapes visible from and associated with the m are not managed by the National Park Service. These visible landscapes are part of the histories and stories for which each national monument is known. Therefore, alterations to these visible landscapes have the potential of impacting how visitors experi ence these sites. To understand potential impacts to visitor experience, the concept of place attachment was investigated along with visitor attitudes toward renewable energy development. This study used qualitative research methods to measure and understa nd place attachments for national parks in the southwestern United States near where wind energy could be

PAGE 4

iv developed, as well as attitudes toward potential wind energy development visible from those national park sites. It was determined that surveyed visit ors hold positive levels of place attachment, indicating the importance of these sites. Attitudes about renewable energy were found to be positive at the conceptual level. With regard to attitudes about where development should take place, it was found tha t respondents agree to the idea of culturally significant landscapes being avoided. Concerning renewable energy potentially being a part of the landscapes visible from National Park Service units, results demonstrate that visitors do not want such developm ent to be visible. Visitors anticipate that their experience of the sites will be lowered by such landscape alteration The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Brian Page, Ph.D .

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 10 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10 Scope and Limitation ............................................................................................ 12 Arrangement of the Thesis .................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 15 Politics and Policies of Renewable Energy Development .................................... 15 Social Implications of Renewable Energy Development ..................................... 17 Place Attachment .................................................................................................. 20 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 25 Role of Theory ...................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS ........................................ 27 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 27 Research Methods ................................................................................................. 27 Overview ......................................................................................................... 27 GIS Site Selection Analysis ............................................................................ 28 Data Collection ............................................................................................... 30 Impacts to Participants .................................................................................... 34 Analysis Methods .................................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 38 Research Sites ....................................................................................................... 40 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument ................................................ 40 Fort Union National Monument ...................................................................... 42 Capulin Volcano National Monument ............................................................ 44

PAGE 6

vi Research Findings ................................................................................................. 47 Place Attachment ............................................................................................ 47 Place Identity ............................................................................................ 47 Place Dependence ..................................................................................... 52 Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development ....................................... 58 Conditions on Renewable Energy Development ............................................ 66 Visitor Experience .......................................................................................... 70 Ideas of Change ............................................................................................... 75 Place Attachments Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Development ........ 78 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 83 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 83 Implications ........................................................................................................... 89 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 98 A. GIS Dataset Source List ................................................................................... 98 B. Overlay Analysis Maps .................................................................................... 99 C. Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 102 D. Questionnaire by Topic .................................................................................. 112 E. Human Subjects Research Approval .............................................................. 114 F. Photo Gallery of Research Sites ..................................................................... 116

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table IV.1 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Annual Visitation. ................. 41 Table IV.2 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Monthly Visitation. ............... 42 Table IV.3 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation. ..................................... 43 Table IV.4 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visit ation. ..................................... 44 Table IV.5 Capulin Volcano National Annual Visitation. ................................................ 46 T able IV.6 Capulin Volcano National Monthly Visitation. .............................................. 46 Table IV.7 Statement 1, Place Identity: The landscapes visible from this park mean a lot to me. ............................................................................................................................... 51 Table IV.8 Statement 2, Place Identity: I feel an emotional connection with the landscapes I can see from the park. ................................................................................. 51 Table IV.9 Statement 3, Place Identity: I identify strongly with the landscapes visible from this park. ................................................................................................................. 51 Table IV.10 Place Identity Collapsed Variable. ............................................................... 52 Table IV.11 Statement 4, Place Dependence: I enjoy visiting national park sites in the southwestern U.S. more than any other region in the U.S. ............................................. 57 Table IV.12 Statement 5, Place Dependence: I get more personal satisfaction from visiting this national park site than any other national park site. .................................... 57 Table IV.13 Statement 6, Place Dependence: I cannot get a similar experience at any other location in the southwestern U.S. .......................................................................... 57 Table IV.14 Place Dependence Collapsed Variable. ........................................................ 58 Table IV.15 Statement 7, Renewable Energy Development: I think renewable energy development (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is important. .............................................. 64 Table IV.16 Statement 13, Renew able Energy Development: I would participate in a renewable energy program with my energy provider, even with an extra cost. ............. 64 Table IV.17 Statement 12, Renewab le Energy Development: I think that fossil fuels should continue to be the primary energy source for the U.S. ........................................ 65 Table IV.18 Statement 8, Renewable Energy Devel opment: I would choose wind energy over other renewable energy developments. ................................................................... 65

PAGE 8

viii Table IV.19 Statement 14, Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms have an artistic quality to them and are pleasurable to look at. ...................................... 65 Table IV.20 Statement 9, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that developers should try to avoid popular and scenic landscapes when they are determining potential wind farm sites. ................................................................................................ 69 Table IV.21 Statement 10, Conditions on Renewable Energ y Development: I think that wind farms should be placed where they will be most productive, regardless of surrounding features. ....................................................................................................... 69 Table IV.22 Statement 11, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms should be placed near populated places. ...................................................... 69 Table IV.23 Statement 15, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My emotional connection with the landscapes visible from this national park site would decrease if wind farms could be seen. .................................................................................................................. 74 Table IV.24 Statement 16, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My enjoyment of this national park site would increase if wind farms were part of the landscapes I can see from here. ................................................................................................................................. 74 Table IV.25 Statement 18, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I am comfortable with wind farms being visible from any national park site. ............................................ 75 Table IV.26 Statement 1 9, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I would still visit a national park site if wind farms were built directly next to them. .................................. 75 Table IV.27 Statement 17, V isible Wind Farms from the Site: Ideally, I would want the view from this national park to never change. ................................................................ 78 Table IV.28 Statement 20, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: If landscapes seen from national parks were changed, it would be better if they were changed because of wind farm developments rather than housing developments or commercial business developments. .................................................................................................................. 78 Table IV.29 Place Identity and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy. ............................ 82 Table IV.30 Place Dependency and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy. .................... 82

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BLM Bureau of Land Management DOI Department of the Interior EIA Energy Information Administration GIS Geographic Information Systems NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement SPSS Statistical Pack for the Social Sciences NM National Monument NPS National Park Service

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTE R I INTRODUCTION Introduction With the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the question of where such development is taking place becomes paramount, especially as renewable energy structures such as wind turbines, solar collector panels, hydroelectric dams, geothermal plants and biomass systems are become increasingly common. Largescale development of such structures often occurs in relatively undeveloped and rural landscapes. Of these structures, wind turbines and sola r collectors are particularly visible from long distances and require being in high or open areas. Communities located or invested in areas where development exists have largely responded negatively to these highly visible structures.1 The potential for future conflicts, as well as partnerships, among renewable energy developers, individuals, organizations and communities will increase proportionately with expanded development. Where renewable energy has been developed thus far has largely been based on fa ctors such as energy potential, ease of access and levels of impact on various animal and plant species. The inevitability of U.S. landscapes being altered by renewable energy development, and the existing instances of conflict surrounding such alteration, means that social factors should also be considered. While the building of renewable energy structures in some locations may be resisted, in other locations these structures may actually be desired. 1 See subsequent section for further details.

PAGE 11

11 The National Park Service (NPS) is one agency that curr ently finds itself grasping with difficult managerial decisions concerning renewable energy development. This development, while not taking place inside the parks themselves, nonetheless has the potential to impact both the natural and cultural resources t he N ational P ark S ervice strives to protect. On August 5, 2010, the Director of the N ational P ark S ervice sent a memorandum to r egional directors a ssociate directors and park s uperintendents titled Renewable Energy Development near Units of the National Park System. This memorandum stressed the importance of national park system units addressing such development, along with support of the U.S. Department of the Interiors (DOI) positive stance toward renewable energy development. The effects of this seem ingly contradictory need for both preservation and development are at the heart of this proposed research. This research aims at understanding the potential effects of wind energy development on NPS visitor experiences. This study uses qualitative research methods to measure and understand place attachments assigned to potentially affected national parks in the southwestern United States and attitudes toward wind energy development visible from those national park sites. The relationships between place attachment and attitudes toward wind energy development ha ve been explored. Objective and Need The objective of this study is to understand if national park visitors anticipate their experiences would be impacted by renewab le energy development being visible

PAGE 12

12 from national park units. The study does this by first establishing if visitors hold emotional connections to the sites being investigated, as well as to national parks in general. Then, attitudes concerning various aspe cts of renewable and wind energy development are explored. This study is needed to understand the social implications of this type of development. In particular, the study is needed to inform national park managers who currently face or may become faced wi th renewable energy development proposals near the national park units they oversee. No known previous studies have looked at the social implications of such development in the specific context of national park units. The findings of this study will help i nform larger conversations concerning how landscape alteration near national parks will take place. Scope and L imitation This research relates to academic bodies of literature concerning both social impacts of renewable energy development and place atta chment. In addition, research is directed to NPS managers. This study examines three national monuments within the southwestern United States Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort Union National Monument and Capulin Volcano National Monument hereinafter referred to Salinas Pueblo Missions, Fort Union, and Capulin Volcano. The three sites were selected as representative of southwestern U.S. national parks. The study began and ended in June 2011. Findings specifically apply to these sites. Howeve r, implications of findings may also be applied to comparable southwestern U.S. national park units. The study was limited by the number of visitors surveyed at these three national monuments. While

PAGE 13

13 statistical significance is possible with the population surveyed, the nature of low visitation at all sites, combined with the timeframe of the study, did not allow for a large sample population. This study cannot guarantee that park visitors at other national park units will have the same reactions as responde nts to this research. Other limitations for this study relate to what was not collected within the survey instrument. The accuracy and honesty with which respondents answered questions or if they had incentives to answer in a certain way was not controll ed for in the survey Respondents were not asked if they had any affiliations with energy development (renewable or otherwise), related companies or political groups. It is therefore unknown if a portion of respondents held biases regarding this research topic due to occupation or associations. It has therefore been assumed that respondents answered truthfully and without bias. In addition to the above limitation, the study is limited to the specific category of NPS visitors. The study could not guarantee varying backgrounds and levels of diversity within the respondents. Race, gender and religious affiliation were not inquired to during this stud y. These results cannot be applied to individual groups within the larger U.S. and international population. Therefore, i t can be said that findings are representative of some NPS visitors

PAGE 14

14 Arrangement of the T hesis This document consists of five chapters. A review of literature will be provided in the second chapter. Research questions and methods will be presented in the third chapter. Findings will be reported in the fourth chapter, and conclusions and implications will be presented in the fifth / final chapter

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Politics and P olicies of R enewable E nergy D evelopment According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2010 Annual Energy Review, renewable energy consumption in the United States grew by 18% between 2007 and 2010. Even more striking, this growth occurred during an economic downturn during which overall energy consumption declined by nearly 6% Renewable energy accounted for 8% of the entire U.S. energy consumption in 2010. Windgenerated energy production has increased the most quickly, with an increase of 63% between 2007 and 2010. Reasons for the rise of renewable energy development may be tied to federal and state policies that support and encourage such development. President Barack Obama has led a federal level initiative for renewable energy development. A key part of the presidents energy program is the development of alternative energies. Under the directives of President Obama, federal agencies have development mechanisms to facilitate and safeguard renewable energy development.2 The emphasis on wind energy development has led to federal departments and agencies to issue guidelines for how such development should occur. The Department of the Interior recently released voluntary guidelines for onshore wind energy development. 2 The presidents policies toward energy development can be reviewed in detail at http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy

PAGE 16

16 These guidelines are aimed at wind energy developers in an attempt to help them minimize impacts to wildlife and habitats. The existence of such guidelines demonstrates that wind energy development is being a ctively sought and is highly likely to expand throughout the United States The western portion of the United States is likely to see a majority of these developments. Not only does this region contain high wind energy potential, but also agencies have drafted further guidelines for development in these areas.3 The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has developed a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) which looks at public lands in the western United States .4 This document investigates three al ternatives for how the B ureau of Land Management will move forward with wind energy development. The document also provides mitigating measures that will be used during such development. For the topic of this research, more important than specific information contained in this document, is the fact that it simply exists. This document would not have been crafted without the strong anticipation of developing wind energy. Other example s of federal agencies anticipating wind energy development include the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) The U.S. Department of Agriculture has drafted wind energy directives that strive to help guide decisions on special use authorizations of wind energy development within the Pacific 3 The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has developed GIS datasets and maps demonstrated win d energy potential. A more detailed discussion and examples of these datasets will be discussed in the methods section of this document. 4 For copies of this and other supporting documents, go to http://windeis.anl.gov/index.cfm

PAGE 17

17 West region of the agency.5 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has created guidelines for land based wind energy development as well.6 Beyond federal agencies anticipating and supporting renewable energy, specifically wind energy development, most states have standards and goals relating to this type of development. The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that only fifteen states do not have renewable portfolio standards or goals as of July 2012.7 The above guidelines and the existence of state incentives indicate that renewable energy is supported on many institutional levels within the United States The political support seen for this type of development demonstrates the likelihood that wind and other renewable en ergy will expand in the southwestern United States in the near future. Many of these mandates and guidelines surrounding renewable energy development attempt to understand, and avoid, impacts to natural resources. Such documents do not necessarily contend with the social implications of such development. Some past research, however, has investigated how communities and individuals have reacted to wind energy development Social I mplications of R enewable E nergy D evelopment While the potential physical impa cts of renewable energy structures have been well studied, landscape alteration still warrants further research. Studies about the 5 A copy of the proposed w ind directives can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/specialuses/wind/. 6 This document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/WEG_final.pdf 7 Maps and explanations can be found at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/

PAGE 18

18 aesthetic and social impacts of such development are still relatively uncommon and, moreover, this research has focused almos t exclusively on areas in which development has already occurred. This research into landscape alteration includes investigations of renewable energy construction along the coasts of Australia, California deserts northern Jutland peninsula of Denmark, and Nantucket Cape in Massachusetts .8 9 10 11 These investigations show strong sentiments of disapproval about such development, particularly regarding wind turbines, by local communities, organizations and individuals. As Abby Goodnough wrote in a New York Times article on January 5, 2010, when ecological landscapes hold meaning for individuals or communities, strong reactions to the development of renewable energy structures can have deep emotional impacts and spiritual implications for those individuals and com munities. There are many theories as to why renewable energy structures are often greeted with disapproval by the communities that look upon them. To determine socially favorable ways and places to develop these technologies, this conflict needs to be reconciled. Research on how individuals connect to a place and their reactions to alteration of that place can help meet this goal. A common theme in various theories as to why renewable energy structures, particularly wind turbines, are often met with disapproval is the conflict between 8Martin J. Pasqualetti. Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind Energy Landscapes, Geographical Review 90 (2001): 381394. 9 Andrew Lothian. Scenic Perceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South Australian Landscapes, Geographical Research 46 ( 2008): 196 207. David Mercer. The Great Australian Wind Rush and the Devaluation of Land Amenity, Australian Geographer 34 (2003): 91121. 10 Moller, Bernd. Changing Wind Power Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual Impact on Land Use and Population i n Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied Energy 83 (2006): 477494. 11 Jay Wickersham. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind Power Challenges the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental Affairs 31 (2004): 324347.

PAGE 19

19 technology and ecological l andscapes. For example, Brittan makes the argument that wind farms are often seen as visually displeasing because they are not placed in a landscape in a way that will result in balanced or aes thetically pleasing scenery as one would find in a painting12. These preconceived ideas about scenery conflict with the idea of large, industrial, humanmade objects being placed in largely undeve loped rural areas .13 Pasqualetti contends that emotional r eactions to wind energy farms and turbines can be linked to U.S. society not being accustomed to directly seeing sources of electricity.14 The American desire for renewable energy and unchanged landscapes are incompatible, especially because of the infrastr ucture needed to produce renewable energy. When individual s consume clean renewable energy, they often do not consider the aesthetics of the energy source structures ; visible renewable energy structures may thus create a dissonance. In investigating wind farms in the mountains of California Pasqualetti concludes that the locations of wind farms should not be determined solely on the technical productivity of a site. Rather, places to which individuals, communities and groups have developed strong emotional ties should be avoided despite potential energy gains .15 A balancing act between energy needs and socially desired landscapes will be necessary as renewable energy production increases. Without incorporating research on the social implications of altera tion in terms of place attachments, this balance will be difficult to find. 12 Gordon G. Brittan. Wind, Energy, Landscape: Reconciling Nature and Technology, Philosophy and Geography 4 (2001): 169184. 13 Brittan, Wind, Energy, Landscape, 203 217. 14 Martin J. Pasqualetti. Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the Cal ifornia Desert, Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001): 689699. Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381 394. 15 Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381 394. Pasqualetti, Wind Energy Landscapes, 689 699.

PAGE 20

20 As described above, the installation of renewable energy structures has shown to be a contentious issue in the United States While scholars have speculated on the root of such co nflict, few details are known as to how and why individuals and communities often disapprove of the installation Questions that need to be investigated include Why do people care if a landscape is altered? Is there a specific aversion to this type of alteration? Are local community members more likely to disapprove than outsiders? When is such landscape alteration acceptable? How can alteration be made aesthetically pleasing? The first step in answering these questions is to understand how individuals form connections with physical locations. Subsequently, if and how these connections are disrupted in the face of alteration can be explored Place A ttachment The idea of geographical locations holding attachments that are socially assembled rather than innate to that space is best described in Cresswells observation that [l]ocation became place when it became meaningful. Meaning marks the difference between 33.325o 44.422o (a mere location) and Baghdad the place that occupies that location .16 How i ndividuals, societies and communities attribute meanings to geographical locations can be termed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of this research study the most commonly used term in current literature, place attachment will be used. Place attachm ent describes the emotional connection that an individual has with a physical location or even a specific type of climate or landscape. The inclusion of the 16 Cresswell, Tim. Place Engham: Elsevier Inc, 2009.

PAGE 21

21 emotional importance of physical location is often credited to geographer Y i Fu Tuan .17 18 Tuans 1977 book Space and Place explored the codependent nature of place and space. The many disciplines that study place attachments do so from a variety of frameworks. Geographers, particularly humanist, often take a phenomenological approach, in which the process of interaction with locations is understood to build into place attachments. In this approach, experience is at the root of why people develop attachments toward physical locations. Sociologists understand place attachment as sets of values and sha red symbols that are associated with a physical location to create common meanings. This approach is constructionist in nature; the previously held values of individuals and society create specific types of place attachments. Psychologists understand place attachments as a cognitive process where individuals interpret physical locations and those interpretations shape their reactions to that location.19 20 Tuans understanding fits his above described approach of personal experience being the root of ascribed meanings and emotions to locations which then can become places to which place attachment occurs The level of place attachment that is held depends on a variety of influencing factors. 17 Kari Gunderson and Alan Watson. Understanding Place Meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana, Society and Natural Resources 20: 705721. 18 Mae A. Davenport and Dorothy H. Anderson. Getting From Sense of Place to PlaceBa sed Management: an Interpretive Investigation of Place Meanings and Perceptions of Landscape Change, Society and Natural Resources 18 (2005): 625641. 19 Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625 641. 20 Smaldone, David, Charles Harris and Nick San yal. The Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 40 92008): 479504.

PAGE 22

22 Place attachment is comprised of two compounding factors: (1) place dependence; and (2) place identity. As Smaldone David and Harris e xplain the concepts of place identity and place dependence were frameworked by Stokols and Shumaker in the early 1980s.21 The concepts are widely seen as the two main categories explainin g why people ascribe attachments to locations. Place dependence speaks to the concept that a specific type of setting is needed for particular experiences. The aspects that are of value to a visitor depend on what type of location is being visited .22 The larger emotional role of place dependence is the ability to create and fulfill objectives and d esires for happiness .23 In place identity, the individual places emotional values onto a physical location, thereby creating a place that houses a variety of meani ngs which culminate in self identity development and a sense of belonging .24 In other words, a location is identified with emotions and personal connections and then becomes a place. Place identity speaks to the emotional connections and attachments a visi to r feels toward a specific site.25 Th os e specific place attachments cannot be recreated elsewhere. The two terms are codependent in many ways ; the first is a symbolic level and the second is a physical level. Both are needed to form place attachment. While these two dimensions of emotional bonding are widely agreed upon, the specific variables involved in how and why the bonding occurs are not the same for every person or every situation. 21 Smaldone Harris and Sanyal Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 479 504. 22 Kyle, Gerard et al. Effect of Activity Involvement and Place Attachment on Recreationists P erceptions of Setting Density, Journal of Leisure Research 36 (2004): 209231. 23 Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705 721. 24 Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705 721. Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625641. 25 Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209 231.

PAGE 23

23 Place attachment, as particularly understood through place identity and place dependence, relies on variables beyond aesthetic qualities of a place whether a phenomenological, constructionist or cognitive approach is understood. These influencing variables include the abundance and quality of physical activities present, preferred aesthetic qualities, frequency of visitation, proximity to living sites and sociodemographics .26 27 28 29 These variables can predict levels of place attachment toward a physical location. Sites that are physically visited and personally experienced tend to carry stronger levels of place attachment than sites that have not been physically visited. Similarly, the more often an individual visits a site, the stronger the emotional bond and levels of attachment will be. These influencing factors of invol vement (physical experience of landscape) and frequency (number of visits) are critical to establishing the likelihood that an individual will ascribe place attachments to a landscape.30 31 32 33 34 Important factors in a persons level of place attachment, par ticularly when formed or influenced by involvement with a physical place, are the expectations of and for that place. These expectations can be linked to the attitudes individuals have toward potential changes to place. 26 Richard C. Stedman. Is it Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place, Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 671 685. 27 Gerard Kyle, Alan Graefe and Robert Manning. Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings, Environment and Behavior 37 (2005): 153177. 28 Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705 721. 29 Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625 641. 30 Richard Grusin. Reproducing Yosemite: Olmsted, Environmentalism, and the Nature of Aesthetic Agency, Cultural Studies 12 (1998): 332359. 31 Irwin Altmanband Setha M. Low. Place Attachment, Human Behavior, and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, 1992. 32 B ediktsson, Karl. Scenophobia, Geography and the Aesthetic Politics of Landscape. Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 1 (2007): 203217. 33 Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705 721. 34 Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209 231.

PAGE 24

24 These broad findings about how and why place meanings are ascribed provide insights to the social connections every individual has with physical locations. The influence of these place attachments can be far reaching on personal and social levels. When considering publicly protected lands such as national parks, the question becomes if and how these variables of place attachment relate to visitor attitudes about park management techniques and physical conditions of parks. Explorations of specific research projects grappling with this questi on have found that, while the ways in which place attachments are formed or influenced may differ, one factor is always present change. As Abrahamsson explains, place attachments are paradoxically both resistant to change and are constantly changing.35 As a physical location changes, so too can levels of place attachments. This is due to the fact that individuals currently experience those places differently than was previously possible. At the same time, an emotional bond to a place can remain even in the f ace of great change to physical space.36 37 38 Previous research demonstrates that environmental concern, stewardship and attitudes toward management practices within publicly operated parks increase with increased levels of place attachment .39 Publicly protected lands are unique entities in which place attachments must be situated specifically. At the same time, the type of change and the attitudes toward that change held by visitors must also be understood within that specific 35 Abrahamsson, Kurt V. Landscapes Lost and Gained: on Changes in Semiotic Resources, Human Ecology Review 6 (1999): 5161. 36 Davenport and Anderson, From Sense of Place, 625 641. 37 Smaldone Harris and Sanyal Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 479 504. 38 Gunderson and Watson, Understanding Place Meanings, 705 721. 39 Cynthia A. Warzecha and David W. Lime. Place Attachment in Canyonlands National Park: Visitors Assessment of Setting Attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 (2001): 5978.

PAGE 25

25 context. In the case of this research, changes to national park landscapes through renewable energy development, specifically wind energy development, are being focused on. Conclusions As described previously, a great deal is known about place attachment and previous research has delved into how those place attachments can influence a visitors attitude toward how a place is managed and presented. What has not been done is the synthesizing of place attachment studies with studies concerning the social impact of renewab le energy structures, particularly wind farms. By conducting an analysis that measures levels of place attachments held by park visitors, their attitudes toward potential wind energy development in landscapes visible from national parks and additional com pounding variables, a fuller view of if and how park visitor experience will be affected by wind energy development near parks will be gained. Understanding these relationships between place attachment and wind energy attitudes will add to the body of know ledge in a unique way, yet in a way that will be applicable to publicly protected lands affected by potential renewable energy development. The specific parks being studied in this research exemplify rural landscapes in which renewable energy potential is high and development is seemingly inevitable Role of Theory

PAGE 26

26 Critical theory is the theoretical foundation of this research. This theory has been chosen because it examines society and culture with an interdisciplinary focus. Critical theory can be used as a dynamic way to approach complex intersections of disciplines .40 In this research, the intersections of place attachments, publicly protect ed lands and landscape alterations create a unique situation. Critical theory aims to move and challenge society through the process of explaining and understanding elements of that society. It also understands experiences as being socially constructed through dialectical proce sses.41 These underlying ten e ts are vital to this research as potential for conflicts arise between forces of development and forces of emotional connections. Critical theory has been used in this study as a framework in which the social constructions of place attachments and attitudes toward wind energy development are explored and sought to be understood dynamically 40 Jenny Lunn. The Role of Religion, Spirituality and Faith in Development: A Critical Theory Approach, Third World Quarterly 30: 937951. 41 Kincheloe, Joe L. and Peter McLaren. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative Research, In Ethnography and schools: qualitative approaches to the study of education, edited by Yali Zou and Enrique T. Trueb, 87 110. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2002.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER III RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS Research Question s The key research question s under consideration are As renewable energy development alters landscapes that are visible from and associated with National Park Service units, how are visitor experiences potentially impacted? Do visitors hold levels of place attachment to these sites? What are their attitudes toward renewable energy development? What is the relati onship between park visitor attitudes toward potential wind energy development and their levels of place attachment for national park sites? Research M ethods Overview This research was guided by a geographic information system (GIS) and conducted with qualitative methods. Research took place at three national m onuments in New Mexico between June 3and 19, 2011. The research instrument was a visitor questionnaire which had both demographic and Likert scale questions. Context phot ographs of established wind farms within southwestern U.S. landscapes were provided to respondents. At each national monument, surveying was conducted at a minimum from a Friday to a Sunday. This was done to obtain the highest number of visitor responses possible. D etailed information about each national monument will be provided while discussing the findings of this research.

PAGE 28

28 GIS S ite S election A nalysis Research took place at Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort Union National Monument and Capulin Volcano National Monument all of which are in New Mexico. The state of New Mexico was chosen due to the high level of favorable wind energy potent ial available, the large amount of government incentives for renewable energy, the prevalence of state wide community projects supporting renewable energy development, and proposed energy transmission lines. According to the New Mexico State Land Office, which currently operates the Caprock Wind Ranch on state trust lands New Mexico is ranked twelfth in the United States in wind energy potential; however, it is ranked eighth in the United States for existing wind energy capacity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists wind as both the primary renewable energy capacity and generation source f or the state. The states renewable energy production tax credit offered to corporations gives tax credits for wind production for the first 400,000 megawatt (MW) hours annually for ten years. Projects such as Dreaming New Mexico ( www.dreamingnewmexico.org ) and programs such as New Mexico State University Institute for Energy and the Environment ( http://iee.nmsu.edu) and the New Mexico Wind Energy Working Group through the NM Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department ( http://www.emnrd.state.nm.us/E CMD/RenewableEnergy/WWG.htm ) demonstrate a favorable social climate for wind and other renewable energy to be developed in New Mexico. Once New Mexico was identified as the desired region of study, influencing variables concerning where wind energy development is likely to occur along with locations of national park sites were examined using GIS analysis

PAGE 29

29 Datasets for wind energy potential, transportation (interstates, highways and railroads), proposed energy transmission lines, populated areas, surface land ownership, and national park boundaries were obtained and layered using ESRI ArcGIS Desktop 9.3.1 software. Wind energy potential was obtained from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and provides seven wind power classes poor, marginal, fair, good, excellent, outstanding and superb. This information served as the base layer upon which additional GIS layers were added during this overlay analysis. For data source details for the remaining GIS layers, see Appendix A When all datasets wer e layered on top of one another a visual analysis narrowed the list of New Mexico national parks to those located in the eastern part of the state where wind energy potential consistently ranges from marginal to good, where transportation systems consistently pass nearby parks and populated areas and where energy transmission projects are proposed. Transportation and populated areas are key to wind energy development as large amounts of materials must be brought to each site. Land surface ownership was also examined as a contributing factor to where wind farms are likely to be built. The eastern p art of the state consists largely of private and state lands whereas the western part houses large tracks of various governmental agency managed lands. Due to th is researchs focus on National Park Service units, particularly small units that do not own large amounts of land, the eastern part of the state again was chosen as a focus area. Further more parks abutting other federally managed lands are more likely to be directly involved in the planning process for renewable energy or other types of development. This warrants attention to the parks, in this case those in the

PAGE 30

30 eastern part of the state that are adjacent to private or state managed lands. ( See Appendix B for the maps used in this initial visual analysis. ) After a n in vestigation of national park sites in the eastern part of New Mexico three research sites were chosen. Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, Fort Union National Monument and Capulin Volcano National Monument were identified as the most favorable research sites for the following reasons: (1) each park lies in or near marginal wind power class categories ; (2) is less than ten miles away from a major transportation line ( rail road, inters tate or highway ); (3) is in close proximity to additional landscapes with fair or good wind power classes ; and (4) is the same type of national park i.e., a national monument .( See Appendix B for detail and context maps of the selected research sites. ) Having three research sites that are designated as national monuments provides an important opportunity for cross comparison in this study. While the specific focus or mission of each site differ, there is a much higher likelihood that the types of visitors for each site share more commonalities than visitors going to a national preserve or a national park Data C ollection During the course of this research obtaining thirty completed surveys from each national monument was set as the minimum necessary number of surveys to reach statistical significance. As will be discussed in the findings sections, that minimum was met Data collection took place in two consecutive steps with each respondent. Once a respondent was identified via convenience sampling and the goals and process of the

PAGE 31

31 research were explained and agreed to, the subject was offered context photographs to view. The context photographs consisted of six southwestern landscapes containing visible wind farms. The photographs were specifically obt ained through the Internet so that the photographs were publicly accessible. The opportunity to view these photographs was presented to participants before the survey to help them visualize how landscape alteration due to wind energy development could look from southwestern national parks M ajority of respondents either quickly flipped through the photographs or chose to not view the photographs at all. While not recorded in the questionnaire, the researcher observed that most respondents verbally indicated that they already knew what such developments looked like. The questionnaire was then presented to the respondent. The questionnaire used in this research is divided into three different sections. ( A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C.) The format and wording of the questionnaire was modeled after visitor surveys conducted by the N ational P ark S ervice where appropriate .42 The questions cover a range of potentially compounding factors to place attachment such as frequency of visitation and attitudes toward renewable energy development as well as more straightforward demographic information. All of the questions included were designed to situate research subject s against one another. Iterations of the questionnaire was presented to twenty test subjects prior to this research to ensure that all questions were easily interpretable and that the questionnaire could be completed within ten to fifteen minutes. At the top of each survey page a park code and survey number ( e.g. CAVO_1 which r epresented Capulin Volcano N ational M onument 42The Park Studies Unit of the University of Idaho is responsible for conducting visitor surveys and other visitor related services within the National Park Service. More information, including past surveys, can be found at http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/vsp.htm

PAGE 32

32 questionnaire number one) was added to completed questionnaires to uniquely and anonymously identify each one. The questionnaire begins with an introduction page that explains why this research is being conduct ed, clarifies permissions and affiliations of the research, specifies the age requirement of eighteen, makes clear that participation is anonymous and voluntary, offers a website where results will be posted, and includes contact information of the committee chair for the research. This introduction page was removed by the researcher and given to respondent s after they completed the questionnaire. The second page consists of directions for filling out the survey. The first section of the questionnaire itsel f, titled Section A, asks five questions about the participants visit to the national monument. The second section, titled Section B, presents twenty Likert scale questions. The questions were developed to specifically test levels of place attachment and attitudes toward wind energy (both visible from the specific park site and from national park sites in general). In designing these questions a n approach similar to how the research site selection through GIS was used. Site selection, for example, began with national scale inquires, then considered regional scales, and finally identified local, site levels for research. Likewise, the questions measuring attitudes toward renewable energy in this section address broad scale concept s then regional ph ysical condition s and then local, site specific issues. The wording and structure of questions were modeled from leisure research studies concerning visitor perception of crowding and were informed by the

PAGE 33

33 above literature review.43 ( For an explanation of t his questionnaire by topic see Appendix D. ) The third and final section, title d Section C, asks five demographic and socioeconomic questions such as age, income, education level and housing type. These questions were designed to provide potentially inf luencing factors for the attitudes tested in the previous section. At the end of this section an opportunity to provide written comments was provided. At all three research sites, contact was made with visitors on their way to each resource e.g., ruins, visitor centers, viewpoints, etc.; at which time they were asked to fill out a questionnaire at the end of their visit This method of introducing the topic of wind energy development being visible from the park before a visitors trip was purposeful. Befo re measuring levels of a visitors place attachment it was important to ensure they had in fact interacted with the landscapes in question. At all three sites visitors passed the research table on their way from parking areas to the resources (ruins, vis itor centers, viewpoints, etc.). As an incentive to participate respondents were offered cold lemonade or water to drink while they completed the questionnaire. Seating was also provided in shady spots whenever possible. Temperatures ranged from the low to mid 70s (Fahrenheit) throughout the month of June 2011, and t he incentive of a cool drink was often welcomed by visitors. 43 Kyle, Effect of Activity Involvement on Place Attachment, 209 231 .This research concerning place attachments in recreational settings conducted by Kyle et al. also included a third place attachment variable of social bonding. This variable was not tested in this research.

PAGE 34

34 Impacts to P articipants This research provided visitors the opportunity to give feedback about the future of the national monument that they were visiting in a unique way that they otherwise would not have be en able to do. By understanding how wind energy development would impact visitor experience, how park visitor s feel about a park, and whether they would continue coming to the park, the park visitors who were sampled will be able shape if and possibly how the parks themselves react to potential developments. While park managers do not have authority to directly start or stop development, they do have the ability to collaborate with neighbors, other agencies and communities. This study will bring park visitor voices into those collaborative discussions. As with any research, there are some potentially negative impacts that come along with positive impacts to the research participants. No uniquely personal information was collected from part icipants so there is no risk that visitors can be singled out by their responses. The most personal information collected was a home ZIP code. The questionnaire also clearly states that a participant did not have to respond to a question if they did not w ant to. This was added to the questionnaire as a safety instrument to ensure participants would not feel pressured by this research. Potential negative impacts to the participants are the interruption of their itinerary by ten to fifteen minutes and that v isitors may become worried about development near national parks. It was therefore clearly stated that the research was based in the hypothetical realm.

PAGE 35

35 The questionnaire used in this research was submitted to the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review B oard for exemption. A certification of exemption was granted as no adverse impacts to participants were found. ( See Appendix E for the certification of exemption.) Analysis M ethods The questionnaires collected at each national park site were uniquely coded and entered in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 software. Analysis was conducted for each individual site and comparing all three to learn if, how, and why wind energy development potentia lly impacts place attachment levels held by visitors to those sites. Respondents were asked to respond to Section B of the questionnaire on a scale from one to five: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree and, strongly disagree. For ease of interpr etation and to improve statistical significance, datasets were collapsed and recoded into three rather than five categories. Responses of strongly disagree and disagree were recoded into one disagree variable. Responses of neutrality remained the same. Res ponses of agree and strongly agree were recoded into one agree variable. Once the datasets were recoded, analysis was conducted in two phases.

PAGE 36

36 First, contingency tables44 were created within SPSS to tabulate responses to Section B of the questionnaire. Mis sing variables were not considered during analysis. The statistical significance between the variables is reported with Pearsons chi square Chi square measures the difference between the observed counts and the expected counts i.e., it measures how clos ely related the variables are. The more closely related the two variables are to one another the less of a difference there will be between the observed and the expected count. The more unrelated or independent the variables are the larger the difference between observed and counted, leading to a larger c hi square value .45 The chi square significance value is commonly referred to as pvalue and is of most importance when determining how related two variables are. The lower the significance value, the less difference there is between the observed and the expected results ; therefore, demonstrating that the variables are related to or dependent upon each other. A statistically significant chisquare is considered to be at or below a significance value of 0.05. In addition to chi square, a measure of effect was also computed for each contingency table the measure of Crammers V This value measures the effect or association of the relationship that has been identified in the chi square and pvalue. This value ranges from 0 to 1, with zero indicating that there is no relationship between the variables. Where the reported value lies between 0 and 1 shows the amount of effect the 44 Contingency tables are created by comparing two variables, where one variable is a nominal value and the other is an ordinal variable. The n ominal value is considered to be the more stable or slower to change variable, whereas the ordinal variable is the less stable variable and is more likely to change. This analysis is called cross tabulation in SPSS. 45 Russell K. Schutt. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Boson: Sage Publications, 2006.

PAGE 37

37 variables have on each other 0.10 indicates a small effect, 0.30 indicates a medium e ffect and 0.50 indicates a large effect.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS After brief background information for each national monument is presented, the research findings will be presented by the topic questions listed below. A detailed discussion of the implications of findings will then be presented with conclusions. T he topi cs of (and questions for) analysis that will be discussed are Place Attachment: Do respondents hold levels of place attachment? What are their reported levels for the particular site compared to other national parks? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do respondents hold concerning renewable energy development? What are attitudes toward renewable energy and wind energy in general? The questionnaire st atements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14. Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do respondents hold toward conditions of renewable energy development ( such as whether it is built near populated places, built away from scenic and popular landscapes, or built in the most productive areas possible) being put in place? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 9, 10, and 11. Visitor Experience: Do respondents expect that their experience of the sites would change if wind energy development were visible from the sites? What attitudes do

PAGE 39

39 respondents hold toward wind farms potentially being visible from any national park sites? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 15, 16, 18, and 19. Ideas of Change: What attitudes do respondents hold concerning the idea of changes to landscapes visible from national parks? What are their attitudes to development types other than w ind energy ? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 17 and 20. Place Attachments and Renewable Energy Attitudes: Are the attitudes held by respondents influence d by their levels of place identity and place dependence? Qu estionnaire statement 15 will be considered with collapsed variables of place identity and place dependence.

PAGE 40

40 Research Sites Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument is located in central New Mexico. The histori c ruins represent the intersection of Pueblo Indians with Spanish explorers and colonizers. The monument consists of three separate units: Quarai, Abo, and Gran Quivira, each of which has its own unique narrative that add s to the complex and important stor ies still prevalent in the southwestern United States.46 Research was conducted at the Gran Quivira unit. This unit was chosen due to the beautiful vistas visible from the ruins. An existing row of wind towers is barely visible northwest from the park. They are difficult to see from the ruins, but it is importa nt to note that the wind towers are fairly visible on the drive to this unit. As seen in T able IV.1 over the last ten years Salinas Pueblo Missions has had around 33,000 visitors per year. This number is the combination of all three units. According to park staff, the Gran Quivira unit has the lowest visitation of the three sites due to its remote location. As seen in T able IV.2 visitation during 2011 was lower than most previous years. The month of June 2011 had 33.2% fewer visitors than the previous y ear. Despite lower visitation rates, the aim of collecting thirty questionnaires was exceeded and forty completed questionnaires were collected. 46 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/sapu/index.htm

PAGE 41

41 Research was conducted between Friday June 3 and Sunday June 5, 2011, in a breezeway outside of the Gran Qu ivira visitor center. This location was ideal for making contact with visitors. Visitors walk through the breezeway on their way from the parking lot to the visitor center and then onto the ruins. As visitors approached, the researcher was introduced along with the research study. Visitors were asked if they would complete a survey on their way back from the ruins. For photographs of the Salinas Pueblo Missions site see Appendix F. Table IV.1 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Annual Visitation Year and Recreational Visitors 2002 35,670 2007 33,060 2003 33,827 2008 31,248 2004 34,216 2009 37,848 2005 34,810 2010 32,941 2006 32,996 2011 29,786

PAGE 42

42 Table IV.2 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument Monthly Visitation 2011 Recreation Visits 2010 Recreation Visits 2009 Recreation Visits January 1,523 January 1,363 January 1,908 February 2,204 February 1,313 February 2.204 March 2,992 March 2,992 March 2,992 April 2,980 April 3,159 April 2,980 May 4,462 May 3,852 May 4,462 June 3,975 June 3,307 June 3,975 July 4,211 July 3,278 July 4,211 August 3,466 August 3,152 August 3,466 September 3,614 September 4,016 September 3,614 October 4,030 October 3,888 October 4,241 November 2,320 November 1,872 November 2,320 December 1,475 December 1,361 December 1,475 2008 Recreation Visits 2007 Recreation Visits January 1,502 January 878 February 1,856 February 1,605 March 3,118 March 2,861 April 2,553 April 2,847 May 3,009 May 3,722 June 2,674 June 3,705 July 2,949 July 3,445 August 3,304 August 3,007 September 2,994 September 3,767 October 3,571 October 3,829 November 2,386 November 2,005 December 1,332 December 1,389 Fort Union National Monument Fort Union National Monument is located in northern New Mexico, to the east of the Rocky Mountains. The remains of three iterations of Fort Union can be viewed by visitors. Fort Union was first established in 1851 and served as an important connecting

PAGE 43

43 point along the Santa Fe Trail.47 The landscapes surrounding Fort Union include mountains, prairie and Santa Fe Trail. As seen in T able IV. 3, over the last ten years Fort Union has had an average of 11,000 visitors per year. Following a trend similar to Salinas Pueblo Missions, visitation was lower in 2011 than most previous years. However, the number of visitors in June 2011 was fairly comparable to June 2010 with just 7.4% fewer visitors (see T able IV.4 ). Of the three research sites, Fort Union has the lowest visitation ; therefore more time was needed to collect the minimum number of questionnaires. Fo rty were ultimately obtained Research was conducted between Friday, June 19 and Monday, June 13, 2011, outside the visitor center. Visitors passed the research table on their way from the parking area to visitor center entrance. As visitors approached, the researcher introduced herself and the research study. Visitors were asked if they would complete a survey on their way back from the fort and visitor center. For photographs of the Fort Union site see Appendix F. Table IV.3Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation Year and Recreational Visitors 2002 13,198 2007 10,534 2003 12,944 2008 9,171 2004 13,230 2009 11,070 2005 11,645 2010 10,638 2006 10,347 2011 9,575 47 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/foun/index.htm

PAGE 44

44 Table IV.4 Fort Union National Monument Monthly Visitation 2011 Recreation Visits 2010 Recreation Visits 2009 Recreation Visits January 240 January 256 January 361 February 227 February 175 February 359 March 886 March 728 March 735 April 716 April 785 April 795 May 977 May 1,115 May 1,204 June 1,360 June 1,468 June 1,422 July 1,364 July 1,705 July 1,773 August 1,275 August 1,476 August 1,574 September 993 September 1,212 September 1,222 October 891 October 986 October 992 November 422 November 452 November 425 December 224 December 280 December 208 2008 Recreation Visits 2007 Recreation Visits January 256 January 183 February 479 February 317 March 840 March 827 April 648 April 823 May 943 May 1,196 June 943 June 1,331 July 1,515 July 1,414 August 1,236 August 1,515 September 839 September 1,100 October 760 October 982 November 431 November 590 December 281 December 256 Capulin Volcano National Monument Capulin Volcano National Monument is located in northeastern New Mexico. This volcanic cone stands more than 1,000 feet above the surrounding plains. Breathtaking views are visible all the way from the road going up the volcano to the parking lot and especially from the top. According to educational signs at the monument

PAGE 45

45 five states can be seen on a clear day from the top of the volcano. The landscapes visible from the volcano demonstrate the many forms and stages of the larger volcanic field of which Capulin Volcano is a part.48 As seen in T able IV. 5, over the last ten years Capulin Volcano has averaged 52,000 visitors per year. Following the same trend seen at the other two national monuments, visitation for 2011 was lower than previous years. The month of June 2011, however, saw similar numbers as the year before with only 3.9% fewer visitors than in June 2010 (see T able IV. 6). Capulin Volcano is the busiest of the three national monuments researched for this study due to i ts high visibility and ease of access. As of result of this higher visitatio n rate, sixty questionnaires were collected at Capulin Volcano Research was conducted between Friday June 17and Sunday, June 19, 2011, at the volcano trailhead located at the upper parking lot. Visitors initially passed the research table on their ascent up the trail. As visitors approached the trailhead, the researcher was introduced along with the research study. Visitors were asked if they would complete a survey after their descent from the trail. In addition, visitors who did not climb the trail and remained in the parking lot area were also approached and asked to complete a survey after they had enjoyed the incredible views visible from the parking lot edg e. For photographs of the Capulin Volcano site see Appendix F. 48 See additional background information at the following website http://www.nps.gov/cavo/index.htm

PAGE 46

46 Table IV.5 Capulin Volcano National Annual Visitation Year and Recreational Visitors 2002 58,675 2007 49,182 2003 61,373 2008 45,178 2004 57,692 2009 50,935 2005 53,521 2010 48,580 2006 49,823 2011 46,358 Table IV.6 Capulin Volcano National Monthly Visitation 2011 Recreation Visits 2010 Recreation Visits 2009 Recreation Visits January 972 January 981 January 1,318 February 796 February 487 February 895 March 3,607 March 2,335 March 3,883 April 1,786 April 1,811 April 1,583 May 3,777 May 4,260 May 4,693 June 8,122 June 8,454 June 9,608 July 11,929 July 13,070 July 12,267 August 6,356 August 7,230 August 7,523 September 4,104 September 4,105 September 4,059 October 2,586 October 2,811 October 2,219 November 1,394 November 1,439 November 1,482 December 929 December 1,597 December 1,405 2008 Recreation Visits 2007 Recreation Visits January 806 January 225 February 876 February 713 March 3,314 March 3,806 April 1,389 April 1,534 May 3,692 May 4,260 June 8,393 June 9,358 July 11,063 July 12,508 August 7,184 August 7,419 September 3,376 September 4,046 October 2,564 October 2,854 November 1,316 November 1,427 December 1,205 December 1,032

PAGE 47

47 Research Findings Place Attachment Do respondents hold levels of place attachment? What are their reported levels for the particular site compared to other national parks? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Theories related to the factors that make up place attachment, place identity and place dependence were tested through the questionnaire. Statement numbers 1, 2, and 3 correspond to place identity. Numbers 4, 5, and 6 c orrespond to place dependence. Place Identity Three different statements were crafted to address the dimensionality of place identity. Place identity goes beyond simply liking a specific landscape or site it is the concept of being emotionally vested in a landscape to the point where part of who a person is related to that site s existence.49 As the name implies, with place identity a location becomes a place when an individual identifies with that site. Whe n measuring place identity, it was important to frame the same or similar concepts of place identity in different ways as some respondents may react to the word emotional differently than to the word identify . 49 Kyle, Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153 177.

PAGE 48

48 The three statements concerning place id entity were as follows: (1) the landscapes visible from this park mean a lot to me ;(2) I feel an emotional connection with the landscapes I can see from the park ; and (3) I identify strongly with the landscapes visible from this park. Concerning the first statement, respondents at all three national monuments were found to hold high levels of place identity. See Table IV. 7 for complete findings. Eight seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and eighty eight percent at Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement thus demonstrating high levels of place identity. Fort Union respondents were not far behind with seventy seven percent agreeing. Among the three sites, an average of eighty five percent of respondents agreed with the statement, while just over ten percent were neutral and just over four percent disagreed A p value of 0.304 and a Crammers V of 0.132 were found, signifying low correlations between the park sites and responses. Although not statistically significant, a clear pattern of place identity is present. These findings show that respondents consider each respective national monument a place of importance to them. While incidents of strong agreement with the second statement were not as frequent as with the first statement, the vast majority of respondents at all three monuments agreed once again demonstrating positive levels of place attachment. See Table IV.8 for complete findings. At both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano, sixty seven percent of respondents were in agreement while sixty two percent at Fort Union were in agreement. Higher rates of neutrality were found in response to this

PAGE 49

49 second statement than in the first statement, with twenty five percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions reporting neutrality, thirty two percent at Fort Union and twenty percent at Capulin Volcano. Respondents at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement the most, with approximately twelve percent disagreement while seven percent of visitors at Salinas Pueblo Missions and five percent at Fort Union disagreed. While results still indicate positive place identity levels, it is also evident that respondents reacted to the wording on this second statement differently than they did t o the first statement. However, the levels of disagreement, which would indicate a lack of place identity, did not significantly change between these two statements. A p value of 0.575 and a Crammers V of 0.102 were found, again not implying a correlation between research site and response despite a visible pattern. The same results were echoed with the third place identity statement. At all three monuments the majority of respondents agreed with the statement. See Table IV.9 for complete findings. Respo ndents at Capulin Volcano had the higher rate of agreement with this statement with seventy three percent. Sixty two percent and fifty five percent at Fort Union and Salinas Pueblo Missions respectively agreed It is interesting to note that respondents at Capulin Volcano tended have more agreement and less neutrality than at the other sites eighteen percent of respondents being neutral on the topic. Thirty seven percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions and thirty percent at Fort Union were neutral. Levels of d isagreement to the statement were low, with seven percent of respondents at both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union reporting disagreement and eight percent at Capulin Volcano. A pvalue of 0.315 and a Crammers V of 0.130 were found, again

PAGE 50

50 demonstrati ng little correlation between site location and response. From the pattern of agreement found in responses, it can be concluded that visitors at all three national monuments do hold levels of place identity concerning this statement. Respondents at all three national monuments consistently reported that the specific landscapes visible from their respective sites are ones they value and identify with. There were some small variations among the three sites for statements relating to place identity. No clear pattern within these differences indicates that respondents from one park had higher or lower levels of place identity. The three variables relating to place identity were collapsed into one new place identity to understand broad findi ngs related to place identity. Numeric responses to statements relating to place identity (numbers 1 through 3) were averaged and rounded into a new variable.50As seen in Table IV. 10, the collapsed variable demonstrates positive levels of place identity at all three national monuments. The collapsed variable also indicates that place identity is not universal among respondents because an average of thirty percent of all respondents were neutral in their levels of place identity. Concerning place identity, it can be concluded from the above results that one factor, place identity, of place attachment was found for respondents at all three sites. 50 For example, if a respondent had agreement for the first value (numeric value of 3), neutrality for the second statement (numeric value of 2), and disagreement for the third value (numeric value of 1), the new collapsed variable would be 2. This value wou ld signify a neutral level of place identity.

PAGE 51

51 Table IV. 7 Statement 1, Place Identity: The landscapes visible from this park mean a lot to me . Sec B: 1 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 0 0% 3 7.5% 3 5% 6 4.3% Neutral 5 12.5% 6 15% 4 6.7% 15 10.7% Agree 35 87.5% 31 77.5% 53 88.3% 119 85% Chi Square: 4.845 p value: 0.304 Crammers V: 0.132 Table IV.8 Statement 2, Place Identity: I feel an emotional connection with the landscapes I can see from the park . Sec B: 2 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 3 7.5% 2 5% 7 11.9% 12 8.6% Neutral 10 25% 13 32.5% 12 20.3% 35 25.2% Agree 27 67.5% 25 62.5% 40 67.8% 92 66.2% Chi square: 2.901 p value: 0.575 Crammers V: 0.102 Table IV.9 Statement 3, Place Identity: I identify strongly with the landscapes visible from this park . Sec B: 3 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 3 7.5% 3 7.5% 5 8.3% 11 7.9% Neutral 15 37.5% 12 30% 11 18.3% 3 27.1% Agree 22 55% 25 62.5% 44 73.3% 91 65% Chi square: 4.742 p value: 0.315 Crammers V: 0.130

PAGE 52

52 Table IV.10 Place Identity Collapsed Variable Place Identity Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Lack of Level 0 0% 1 2.5% 2 3.3% 3 2.1% Neutral Level 13 32.5% 14 35% 16 26.7% 43 30.7% Positive Level 27 67.5% 25 62.5% 42 70% 94 67.1% Chi square: 2.081 p value: 0.721 Crammers V: 0.086 Place Dependence Three different statements measuring place dependence were used in this study. The questions were varied to determine how visitors situate these specific sites, general southwestern landscapes and all national park sites in the United States against one another Place dependency speaks to the concept that the type of location itself matters in the formation of broader place atta chments. Specific locations provide opportunities and experiences that lead to an individual valuing of that location (Kyle et al. 2005) .51 As the word dependence implies, this means that the same levels of place attachments would not otherwise form if the location itself were different or if opportunities available at the location change. The place that is being depended on can range from a small and specific location to a type of climate or landscape. The three statements concerning place dependence were as follows: (1) I enjoy visiting national park sites in the southwestern U.S. more than any other region in the U.S .;(2) I get more p ersonal satisfaction from visiting this national park site than any 51 Kyle, Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153 177.

PAGE 53

53 other national park site ; and (3) I cannot get a similar experience at any other location in the southwestern U.S. For the first place dependence statement, respondents at all three monuments had similar levels of agreement with or neutrality to the statement. ( See Table IV. 11 for complete findings. ) Thirty eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed with the statement, while forty percent at Fort Union and forty two percent at Capulin Volcano agreed. Nearly identical numbers of respondents at each site reported being neutral on the topic with thirty eight percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, forty pe rcent at Fort Union, and forty four percent at Capulin Volcano. An average of twenty percent of respondents at each site disagreed with the statement. Overall, respondents either tended to agree or could not say that visiting NPS sites in the southwest ern United States was preferred over all other regions. A pvalue of 0.810 and a Crammers V of 0.076 were found, again signifying no strong association between site and response. With the exception of Capulin Volcano, respondents largely disagreed with the s econd place dependence statement. ( See Table IV. 12 for complete findings.) Fifty two percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, fifty six percent at Fort Union and thirty five percent at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. Respondents at Capulin Volcano were much more neutral in their responses with over fifty two percent reporting neutrality toward the statement. Thirty seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and twenty three percent at Fort Union were neutral in their re sponses. Low levels of agreement were reported at all three sites with ten percent of Salinas

PAGE 54

54 Pueblo Missions, twenty percent of Fort Union, and twelve percent of Capulin Volcano respondents agreeing with the statement. A p value of 0.046 and a Crammers V of 0.187 indicate that the variables of site and response to this statement are related ; however the measure of association between them is low. Overall, respondents at both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union demonstrated a lack of place dependence by indicating that they do not get more personal satisfaction from visiting these particular sites than any other comparable site s Respondents at Capulin Volcano reported more neutral levels of place dependence, although they too did not agree with this statement. The third and final place dependence variable asked respondents to rank their level of agreement toward the idea that a comparable experience could not be found at any other location in the southwestern United States.( See Table IV. 13 for comple te findings.) In response to this statement seventeen percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, thirty three percent at Fort Union and thirty two percent at Capulin Volcano agreed. The majority of respondents at each site were neutral toward the topic with at Salinas Pueblo Missions, at Fort Union, and at Capulin Volcano. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions demonstrated the highest level of disagreement that a similar experience was not possible at any other southwestern location, with fort y percent disagreeing. Twenty three percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. A p value of 0.279 and a Crammers V of 0.136 again indicate that the variables of site location were not statistically signific ant concerning how respondents answered; however, the Crammers V indicates that there is some level of effect between the two variables. The pattern of responses visible in these

PAGE 55

55 results demonstrates neutral levels of place dependence at all three sites. It is important to note that a large portion of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents demonstrated a lack of place dependence. This may be due to the fact that Salinas Pueblo Missions is comprised of three separate units, including the research site at Gran Quivira. If respondents from this site also visited the other two units, it seems likely that they would believe comparable experiences are in fact possible at other locations.52 When discussing place dependence, questionnaire statements and their response s can be further divided into two topics : (1) southwestern landscapes ; and (2) individual sites. Considering the first topic respondents were either neutral or in agreement that they valued NPS sites in the southwestern United States over other regions. T his shows that there is a dependence on southwestern landscapes themselves. As for the se particular sites being valued above any others, responses to statement five demonstrated that place dependence for the sites was low. Capulin Volcano respondents were more hesitant to say that the site itself is not unique and therefore uniquely needed for that experience. With the exception of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, respondents also did not report that their experiences were unique to the sites themsel ves. When considered as a whole, place dependence statements most frequently were responded to neutrally, showing a lack of place dependence. 52 Rangers present at the Gran Quivira unit during research reported that visitors often visit at least two if not all three Salinas Pueblo Missions units. While it is speculated here that the presence of three units within Salinas Pueblo Missions account for how respondents reacted to this questionnaire statement, respondents were not directly asked if they were in fact planning to visit two or more of these units.

PAGE 56

56 The lack of place dependence implies that levels of place attachments concerning southwestern landscapes are not dependent upon these individual sites and that place attachments are possible while visiting other southwestern sites. Th is does not necessarily imply that visitors do not value these specific sites, but rather that these particular sites are not required in order for an emotional connection to southwestern landscapes to exist. Considering the place identity findings previously discussed, results show that along with other southwestern sites and landscapes these particular sites do contribute to broad place identity and therefore place attachments. P lace dependence, however, lies within a regional southwestern context rather than site specific contexts. A collapsed variable of place dependence that combines results from all place de pendencerelated statements was created to understand broad findings relating to place dependence.53 As seen in T able IV. 14, when all factors of place dependence are combined, a pattern of neutrality appears with an average of sixty two percent of responde nts among all three sites reporting neutral levels of place dependence. This collapsed variable as well as the results for individual place dependence statements indicate s that place dependence cannot be verified or denied among respondents. 53 The collapsed place dependence variable was created using the same methods as the collapsed place identity variable.

PAGE 57

57 Table IV.11 Statement 4, Place Dependence: I enjoy visiting national park sites in the southwestern U.S. more than any other region in the U.S. Sec B: 4 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 9 23.1% 8 20% 8 13.6% 25 18.1% Neutral 15 38.5% 16 40% 26 44.1% 57 41.3% Agree 15 38.5% 16 40% 25 42.4% 56 40.6% Chi square: 1.579 p value: 0.812 Crammers V: 0.076 Table IV.12 Statement 5, Place Dependence: I get more personal satisfaction from visiting this national park site than any other national park site . Sec B: 5 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 21 52.5% 22 56.4% 21 35.6% 64 46.4% Neutral 15 37.5% 9 23.1% 31 52.5% 55 39.9% Agree 4 10% 8 20.5% 7 11.9% 19 13.8% Chi square: 9.699 p value: 0.046 Crammers V: 0.187 Table IV.13 Statement 6, Place Dependence : I cannot get a similar experience at any other location in the southwestern U.S. Sec B: 6 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 16 40% 9 23.1% 14 23.7% 39 28.3% Neutral 17 42.5% 17 43.6% 26 44.1% 60 43.5% Agree 7 17.5% 13 33.3% 19 32.2% 39 28.3% Chi square: 5.082 p value: 0.279 Crammers V: 0.136

PAGE 58

58 Table IV.14 Place Dependence Collapsed Variable. Place Dependence Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Lack of Level 9 20.7% 9 22.5% 11 18.3% 29 20.7% Neutral Level 26 65% 23 57.5% 38 63.3% 87 62.1% Positive Level 5 12.5% 8 20% 11 18.3% 24 17.1% Chi square: 1.235 p value: 0.872 Crammers V: 0.066 Attitudes Toward Renewable E nergy D evelopment A series of statements involving various considerations about renewable energy development were presented to respondents. Just as with place attachment related statements, various topics within the broader category of renewable energy development were tested. This was done to understand respondents general attitudes toward renewable energy, especially wind energy, as well as their attitudes toward condit ions or limitations being placed on such development These statements also evaluated how respondents thought that their experiences would change if wind energy developments were visible from NPS sites. Renewable Energy Development: What attitudes do res pondents hold concerning renewable energy development? What are attitudes toward renewable energy and wind energy in general? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14. The two categories of questions within this topic investigated attitudes toward renewable energy in general and wind energy in particular The statements measuring

PAGE 59

59 attitudes about the broad concept of renewable energy development were as follows: (1) I think r enewable e nergy development (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is important ; (2) I would participate in a r enewable e nergy program with my energy provider, even with an extra cost ; and (3) I think that f ossil f uels should continue to be the primary energy source for the U.S. The stat ements measuring attitudes to wind energy development specifically were I would choose w ind e nergy over other renewable energy development and I think that w ind f arms have an artistic quality to them and are pleasurable to look at. Specific statements concerning the visibility of wind energy development were also presented and will be discussed later. As noted above, the statements presented to respondents concerning the broad topic of renewable energy development sought to context ualize their attitudes toward renewable energy. Questions were aimed at understanding if such development, including the specific type of wind energy, is viewed positively or negatively. The three statements relating to this topic aim at gauging not only w hat respondents think about renewable energy but if they would consume its product. As a counterpoint to these questions, respondents attitudes toward the current U.S. reliance on fossil fuels were also measured. Concerning the first renewable energy st atement, respondents at all three national monuments demonstrated positive attitudes toward renewable energy development. ( See Table IV. 15 for complete findings.) Over seventy seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed with the statemen t, along with eighty five percent of respondents

PAGE 60

60 at Fort Union and over eighty six percent at Capulin Volcano. An interesting pattern within these results is that respondents at Capulin Volcano reported less neutrality toward the topic with only five perc ent. While only eight percent showed negative attitudes, respondents at this site showed definite opinions on the topic rather than being impartial. While those who displayed negative attitudes were a minority, these findings show the strong opinions respondents hold concerning renewable energy development. A p value of 0.358 and a Crammers V of 0.125 were found, showing that there is no relationship between research sites and the responses. Although not statistically significant, the clear pattern of pos itive attitudes toward renewable energy is visible in these results. When respondents were then asked if they would, even at a cost, participate in an energy program utilizing renewable energy development, responses again showed a support for this type of development. ( See Table IV. 16 for complete findings.) Attitudes toward the idea of participating in a renewable energy program at a cost, however, were not as positive as attitudes toward the basic idea of such development. At all three national monuments approximately fifty percent of respondents reported that they would participate in such a program. More neutral views on the subject were held by respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions with just over thirty seven percent reporting neutrality, whereas ju st over twenty seven percent at Fort Union and twenty percent at Capulin Volcano held neutral opinions Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were the least likely to disagree, with just over twelve percent reporting disagreement, while twenty five percen t of respondents a Fort Union and thirty percent of respondents at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. This demonstrates hesitation from

PAGE 61

61 respondents when it comes to consuming renewable energy products if an additional cost is associated with the m A p value of 0.208 and a Crammers V of 0.124 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables. Overall, the results do show positive attitudes toward renewable energy as more respondents reported that they would consume renewable energy than not. Due to the fact that an alternative statement asking if respondents would consume renewable energy at no additional cost was not asked, it is unknown if the idea of an extra cost caused the hesitation evident in these findings. In contrast to the above statement, respondents were asked if they believed fossil fuels should remain the p rimary energy source of the United States In line with the results for the two previous statements, the majority of respondents disagreed with this idea. ( See Table IV. 17 for complete findings.) Fifty five percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions over sixty two percent at Fort Union, and sixty one percent at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. By not supporting fossil fuels as the United States future primary energy source, respondents show positive attitudes toward alternative energy sources being adopted.54 While overall attitudes showed support for alternative energies, not all respondents agreed. At both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union, thirty percent of respondents were neutral on the topic while a pproximately seventeen percent at Capulin Volcano were neutral. As far as agreeing that fossil fuels should 54 Respondents were not asked what energy sources besides fossil fuels they believe should be adopted in the Unite d States. Renewable energy is a commonly known alternative; however, coal and nuclear power are also alternatives. Therefore, this question cannot be interpreted as specifically supporting renewable energy over other alternatives, but it does show support for the category of alterative energies, which include renewable energy. An explanation of energy alternatives can be found at http://energy.gov/science innovation/energysources

PAGE 62

62 remain as the primary U.S. energy source, fifteen percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, slightly over seven percent at Fort Union and twenty two percent at Capuli n Volcano agreed. A p value of 0.216 and a Crammers V of 0.144 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables. The pattern of resp onses at the three national monument s indicate that respondents do not agree that fossil fuels should continue to be the primary energy source for the United States thereby showing positive attitudes to alternative energies which may include renewable en ergy. As mentioned previously, along with statements regarding the broad concept of renewable energy, respondents were also presented with statements concerning the specific development type of wind energy. When specifically asked if they would choose win d energy over other renewable energy developments, most respondents reported that they would. ( See Table IV. 18 for complete findings.) Approximately fifty two percent of respondents at Fort Union and fifty five percent at Capulin Volcano agreed with this s tatement, demonstrating strongly positive attitudes toward wind energy development. However, only thirty seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed with the statement. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were instead largely neutral on the topic with forty five percent reporting indifference. In comparison, twenty seven percent of respondents at Fort Union and just under thirty two percent Capulin Volcano reported neutrality. Among respondents who disagreed and showed negative attitudes toward wind energy, those at Capulin Volcano demonstrated the least amount of disagreement with just over thirteen percent. Seventeen percent of respondents at Salinas

PAGE 63

63 Pueblo Missions and twenty percent at Fort Union disagreed. A p value of 0.368 and a Crammers V of 0.124 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of association between the variables The pattern of results show that respondents at Fort Union and Capulin Volcano hold strongly positive attitudes toward wind energy development and that respondents at Salinas Pueblo Mission hold moderately positive attitudes. As another way to examine vi sitor attitudes toward wind energy development, respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the idea that wind farms have an artistic quality and are pleasurable to look at. ( See Table IV. 19 for complete findings.) This statement reflects the idea tha t attitudes toward wind farms may be positive or negative not just because of the energy they can provide but because of the physical structures themselves. Responses to this statement were mixed at the three national monuments. Respondents at Fort Union had the highest rate of disagreement with forty seven percent disagreeing. Thirty seven percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and under twenty two percent at Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement. Respondents at Capulin Volcano were the most neutral on the topic with forty five percent reporting neutrality. Thirty two percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and seventeen percent at Fort Union reported neutrality. As far as agreement with the statement, approximately thirty perce nt of respondents at all three sites agreed with the statement. A pvalue of 0.031 and a Crammers V of 0.195 were found, showing that the location at which respondents responded is related to their responses. However, like most of the

PAGE 64

64 results for previous statements, the association between the two variables is low These results do not indicate a clear pattern among the sites as to whether respondents believe wind farms have an artistic quality to them. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed, disag reed or were neutral in nearly equal proportion. Respondents at Fort Union largely disagreed that wind farms have artistic qualities. Respondents at Capulin Volcano were largely neutral on the topic. With no clear consensus among respondents it appears t hat responses to this statement varied by the individual and that considerations about artistic quality do not appear to heavily influence attitudes toward wind energy development. Table IV.15Statement 7, Renewable Energy Development: I think renewable energy development (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) is important. Sec B: 7 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 3 7.5% 1 2.5% 5 8.3% 9 6.4% Neutral 6 15% 5 12.5% 3 5% 14 10% Agree 31 77.5% 34 85% 52 86.7% 117 83.6% Chi square: 4.375 p value: 0.358 Crammers V: 0.125 Table IV.16Statement 13, Renewable Energy Development: I would participate in a renewable energy program with my energy provider, even with an extra cost. Sec B: 13 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 5 12.5% 10 25% 18 30.5% 33 23.7% Neutral 15 37.5% 11 27.5% 12 20.3% 38 27.3% Agree 20 50% 19 47.5% 29 49.2% 68 48.9%

PAGE 65

65 Chi square: 5.889 p value: 0.208 Crammers V: 0.146 Table IV.17Statement 12, Renewable Energy Development: I think that fossil fuels should continue to be the primary energy source for the U.S. Sec B: 12 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 22 55% 25 62.5% 36 61% 83 59.7% Neutral 12 30% 12 30% 10 16.9% 34 24.5% Agree 6 15% 3 7.5% 13 22% 22 15.8% Chi square: 5.788 p value: 0.216 Crammers V: 0.144 Table IV.18Statement 8, Renewable Energy Development: I would choose wind energy over other renewable energy developments. Sec B: 8 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 7 17.5% 8 20% 8 13.3% 23 16.4% Neutral 18 45% 11 27.5% 19 31.7% 48 34.3% Agree 15 37.5% 21 52.5% 33 55% 69 49.3% Chi square: 4.294 p value: 0.368 Crammers V: 0.124 Table IV.19Statement 14, Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms have an artistic quality to them and are pleasurable to look at. Sec B: 14 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 15 37.5% 19 47.5% 13 21.7% 47 33.6% Neutral 13 32.5% 7 17.5% 27 45% 47 33.6% Agree 12 30% 14 35% 20 33.3% 46 32.9% Chi square: 10.613 p value: 0.031 Crammers V: 0.195

PAGE 66

66 Conditions on R enewable E nergy D evelopment What attitudes do respondents hold toward conditions being placed on renewable energy development (such as whether it is built near populated places, built away from scenic and popular landscapes, or built in the most productive areas possible) being put in place? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 9, 10, and 11. The series of questionnaire statements concerning conditions on renewable energy development aim at understanding if specific placement of renewable energy is important to respondents. This topic w as presented in three different ways to understand in what circumstances visitors believe restrictions should or should not be placed on renewable energy development. Concerning the first statement about whether popular and scenic landscapes should be avoided when developing wind energy, respondents at all three national monuments demonstrated strong support for developers avoiding such areas. ( See Table IV. 20 for complete findings.) Seventy five percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, sixty tw o percent at Fort Union, and seventy three percent at Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement. Twenty five percent of respondents at both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Fort Union and just under seventeen percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were neutral. No respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions disagreed with the statement, while just over twelve percent of those at Fort Union and ten percent at

PAGE 67

67 Capulin Volcano disagreed. A p value of 0.182 and a Crammers V of 0.149 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables. The patterns seen in the results demonstrate highly positive attitudes toward wind energy developers avoiding popular and scenic landscapes. When alternatively asked if wind energy development should occur where it would be most productive, regardless of surrounding features, respondents demonstrated a lack of support for this concept. ( See T able IV. 21 for complete findings.) Approximately fifty eight percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin Volcano and forty eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions disagreed with the statement. More respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions were neutral on t he topic than at the two other sites, with thirty percent of visitors reporting neutrality. Fifteen percent were neutral at Fort Union and twenty percent at Capulin Volcano. Approximately twenty two percent of respondents at both Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement, while slightly more respondents at Fort Union did so with twenty seven percent of respondents agreeing A p value of 0.533 and a Crammers V of 0.106 were found, indicating that research sites are not relate d to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables. By demonstrating negative attitudes toward wind energy being developed solely for productivity without surrounding features being taken into consideration, respondents confirm the stance reported in the first statement relating to conditions on renewable energy development. In other words, landscapes and their

PAGE 68

68 associated features should, according to respondents, be considered while developing win d energy. The final question concerning conditions of wind energy development asked respondents to gauge their level of agreement toward the idea that wind energy should be developed near populated places. ( See T able IV. 22 for complete findings.) Forty fi ve and forty eight percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano, respectively, agreed with the statement. Fort Union had less agreement with thirty five percent of respondents agreeing. A larger portion of Fort Union respondents re ported neutrality with forty five percent being neutral on the topic, whereas thirty two percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents and thirty five percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were neutral. Respondents at Capulin Volcano had the lowest level s of disagreement with seventeen percent, while twenty two percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents and twenty percent of Fort Union respondents disagreed. The results from this statement show an interesting distinction among respondents. Many of the respondents in this research agreed with the statement, indicating that wind energy development should occur where other types of development are already in existence. The responses to this statement clarify that when respondents previously expressed the attitudes that popular and scenic landscapes should be avoided for such development, they categorize populated places differently. Overall, respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions and Capulin Volcano demonstrated moderately positive attitudes toward wind en ergy development being placed near populated places and respondents at Fort Union demonstrated mildly positive attitudes.

PAGE 69

69 Table IV.20 Statement 9, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that developers should try to avoid popular and scenic landscapes when they are determining potential wind farm sites. Sec B: 9 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 0 0% 5 12.5% 6 10% 11 7.9% Neutral 10 25% 10 25% 10 16.7% 30 21.4% Agree 30 75% 25 62.5% 44 73.3% 99 70.7% Chi square: 6.246 p value: 0.182 Crammers V: 0.149 Table IV.21 Statement 10, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms should be placed where they will be most productive, regardless of surrounding features. Sec B: 10 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 19 47.5% 23 57.5% 35 58.3% 77 55% Neutral 12 30% 6 15% 12 20% 30 21.4% Agree 9 22.5% 11 27.5% 13 21.7% 33 23.6% Chi square: 3.149 p value: 0.533 Crammers V: 0.106 Table IV.22 Statement 11, Conditions on Renewable Energy Development: I think that wind farms should be placed near populated places. Sec B: 11 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 9 22.5% 8 20% 10 16.9% 27 19.4% Neutral 13 32.5% 18 45% 21 35.6% 52 37.4% Agree 18 45% 14 35% 28 47.5% 60 43.2%

PAGE 70

70 Chi square: 2.214 p value: 0.696 Crammers V: 0.089 Visitor E xperience Do respondents expect that their experience of the sites would change if wind energy development was visible from the sites? What attitudes do respondents hold toward wind farms potentially being visible from any national park sites? The questionnaire stat ements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 15, 16, 18, and 19. Questionnaire statements concerning visitor experiences aim at understanding if the theoretical presence of wind energy development is amenable to respondents. The statements attempt to understand if visitors anticipate that their levels of experience, be it enjoyment or willingness to visit, would change if visible landscapes were altered by wind energy development. The first two statements concerning visitor experiences relate to t he initial inquires regarding place attachment. These two statements point to the emotional attachment respondents have to the site and ask them to situate that connection against the concept of wind energy development being visible. The first statement as ks whether the respondent s emotional connection with the landscapes visible from the national monument would decrease if wind energy development were visible At two of the three sites there was general agreement that emotional connections to visible land scapes from the sites would decrease if wind energy developments were visible. ( See Table IV. 23 for complete findings. ) Respondents at Capulin Volcano had the highest level of agreement with forty eight percent. Forty five percent of respondents at Fort Union and fort y two

PAGE 71

71 percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed with the statement. There were slight variations among the three sites when it came to respondents being neutral on the topic with seventeen percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, twenty seven percent at Fort Union, and twenty percent of respondents at Capulin Volcano reporting neutrality Approximately twenty seven percent of respondents at both Fort Union and Capulin Volcano disagreed with the statement implying that their emotional connection wou ld not decrease with such development. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions demonstrated a different trend than at the other two sites. Here, a relatively equal number of respondents disagreed or agreed with the statement. A p value of 0.510 and a Cramme rs V of 0.108 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables. These findings imply that there is a fairly equal chance that Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents emotional connections will decrease or remain the same if wind energy developments are visible. It is more likely that emotional connections will be negatively impacted for Fort Union and Capulin Volcano respondents. Overall results indicate that there moderately negative impacts to visitor experience could occur with visible development. The second visitor experience statement examines whether respondents enjoyment of the national monument would increase if wind energy development were visible. While responses to the previous statement indicated that emotional connections to visible landscapes would be altered but not strongly so, respondents strongly disa greed that their enjoyment of the same landscapes would increase if wind energy developments

PAGE 72

72 were visible. ( See T able IV. 24 for complete list findings .) The majority of respondents at each national monument disagreed with the statement, with seventy two pe rcent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, seventy percent at Fort Union, and sixty two percent at Capulin Volcano. Twenty five percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions, eighteen percent at Fort Union, and twenty three percent at Capulin Volcano were neutral on the topic Only three percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions agreed that their enjoyment would increase, with twelve percent at Fort Union and fifteen percent at Capulin Volcano sharing that view A p value of 0.316 and a Crammers V of 0.130 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables. When considering the responses to the first and second statements together, it appears that re spondents particularly respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, are uncertain that their experiences would be changed for the worse with visible wind energy development; however they are much more confident that their experiences would not improve if the landscapes were altered. These results thus indicate negative attitudes toward wind energy developments being visible from each research site. Respondents were then asked if they were comfortable with wind energy developments being visible from any NPS sit e. This statement was presented to understand if attitudes to such developments being visible from these specific parks differ from NPS sites in general. Respondents at all three sites, albeit with less strength at Salinas Pueblo Missions, demonstrated tha t they were not comfortable with wind energy developments being visible from any NPS site. ( See T able IV. 25 for complete findings.) Fifty percent of Fort Union respondents and fifty eight percent of Capulin Volcano

PAGE 73

73 respondents disagreed with the statement, therefore holding negative attitudes toward such development being visible. Forty percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions reported the same attitudes. Following the same trend as previous statements, respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions tended to be more neutral on this topic, with thirty eight percent of respondents being neutral, whereas eighteen percent of Fort Union r espondents and seventeen percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were neutral on the topic. Twenty two percent of Salinas Pueblo Mission respondents demonstrated that they would be comfortable with visible wind energy development near any NPS site, while th irty two percent at Fort Union and twenty five percent at Capulin Volcano held the same attitudes. A p value of 0.103 and a Crammers V of 0.166 were found, indicating that research sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables. These results show that respondents are generally not comfortable with this type of development being visible from any NPS site. Although responses to previous statements indicate that overal l, visitors involved in this research do not have positive attitudes toward the concept of wind energy development being visible, this does not necessarily mean that visitors would discontinue going to national park sites if such development did occur. Whe n asked to rank agreement toward the statement that they would continue to visit national parks even with such visible development, the majority of respondents at each site indicated that they would continue to visit. ( See T able IV. 26for complete findings.) Seventy two percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, seventy five percent at Fort Union, and sixty percent at Capulin Volcano agreed that they woul d continue to visit even with this type of

PAGE 74

74 landscape alteration. There was slightly more hesitati on at this statement among Capulin Volcano respondents. Eighteen percent of respondents there were neutral on the subject, while fifteen percent at Salinas Pueblo Missions and eight percent at Fort Union were neutral. Twenty two percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were in disagreement with the statement, and eighteen percent of Fort Union respondents and thirteen percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents also disagreed. A p value of 0.393 and a Crammers V of 0.121 were found, indicating that resear ch sites are not related to responses ; however the Crammers V measure does indicate a small amount of associat ion between the variables While not statistically significant, a clear trend in the results is that despite preferring that such landscape alt eration from wind energy development not take place near national park sites, such change would not necessarily displace visitors from these or any other national park sites. Table IV.23 Statement 15, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My emotional connection with the landscapes visible from this national park site would decrease if wind farms could be seen. Sec B: 15 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 16 40% 11 27.5% 16 26.7% 43 30.7% Neutral 7 17.5% 11 27.5% 12 20% 30 21.4% Agree 17 42.5% 18 45% 32 53.3% 67 47.9% Chi square: 3.295 p value: 0.510 Crammers V: 0.108 Table IV.24 Statement 16, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: My enjoyment of this national park site would increase if wind farms were part of the landscapes I can see from here. Sec B: 16 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total

PAGE 75

75 Disagree 29 72.5% 28 70% 37 61.7% 94 67.1% Neutral 10 25% 7 17.5% 14 23.3% 31 22.1% Agree 1 2.5% 5 12.5% 9 15% 15 10.7% Chi square: 4.730 p value: 0.316 Crammers V: 0.130 Table IV.25Statement 18 Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I am comfortable with wind farms being visible from any national park site. Sec B: 18 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 16 40% 20 50% 35 58.3% 71 50.7% Neutral 15 37.5% 7 17.5% 10 16.7% 32 22.9% Agree 9 22.5% 13 32.5% 15 25% 37 26.4% Chi square: 7.694 p value: 0.103 Crammers V: 0.166 Table IV.26Statement 19 Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: I would still visit a national park site if wind farms were built directly next to them. Sec B: 19 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 5 12.5% 7 17.5% 13 21.7% 25 17.9% Neutral 6 15% 3 7.5% 11 18.3% 20 14.3% Agree 29 72.5% 30 75% 36 60% 95 67.9% Chi square: 4.099 p value: 0.393 Crammers V: 0.121 Ideas of C hange What attitudes do respondents hold concerning the idea of changes to landscapes visible from national parks? What are their attitudes about development types other than

PAGE 76

76 wind energy? The questionnaire statements in consideration for this inquiry are numbers 17 and 20. The two remaining questionnaire statements to be discussed concern visitor attitudes toward the concept of landscape alteration itself. These questions attempt t o contextualize if any type of change is deemed acceptable or unacceptable, or if wind energy development and renewable energy development is uniquely viewed as such. The first statement about the idea of landscape change asks respondents if ideally they would like the view from the national monument to never change. M ajority of visitors at all three sites moderately agreed with the statement. ( See T able IV. 27 for complete findings ) Sixty percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents, sixty two percent o f Fort Union respondents and sixty three percent of Capulin Volcano respondents agreed with the statement, demonstrating negative attitudes toward the idea of landscape alteration in general. Results for neutrality and disagreement were also uniform among the sites. An average of twenty five percent of respondents at each national monument was neutral on the topic while around twelve percent disagreed A p value of 0.942 and a Crammers V of 0.053 were found, indicating that research sites are not rela ted to responses and that there is no discernable associat ion between the variables These results demonstrate that change of any kind, not just wind energy development, is undesirable to respondents.

PAGE 77

77 The final questionnaire statement specifically compares wind energy development against other types of development, such as housing or commercial business. This statement was developed to ensure consistency of attitudes. Respondents showed moderately strong attitudes that wind energy development is preferred over other types of development. ( See T able IV. 28 for complete findings .) Sixty five percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, sixty seven at Fort Union, and seventy eight at Capulin Volcano agreed with the statement. Twenty five percent of Salinas Pueblo Missions respondents, thirteen percent of Fort Union respondents and eighteen percent of Capulin Volcano respondents were neutral on the topic. Ten percent of respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions, twenty percent at Fort Union, and only three per cent at Capulin Volcano were in disagreement with the statement. A p value of 0.055 and a Crammers V of 0.182 were found, indicating that there is a relationship between which research site respondents were at and how they responded. As with previously di scussed findings, the Crammers V value indicates that the two variables only slightly affect one another. While landscape alterations are generally not preferred by respondents, the results from this last statement indicate that if such change is going to occur, wind energy development is favored over other types of development. This corresponds to the favorable attitudes toward renewable energy, especially wind energy development, that were i dentified in previous findings.

PAGE 78

78 Table IV.27 Statement 17, Visible Wind Farms from the Site: Ideally, I would want the view from this national park to never change. Sec B: 17 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 5 12.5% 6 15% 6 10% 17 12.1% Neutral 11 27.5% 9 22.5% 16 26.7% 36 25.7% Agree 24 60% 25 62.5% 38 63.3% 87 62.1% Chi square: 0.776 p value: 0.942 Crammers V: 0.053 Table IV.28 Statement 20, Visible Wind Farms from any NPS Site: If landscapes seen from national parks were changed, it would be better if they were changed because of wind farm developments rather than housing developments or commercial business developments. Sec B: 20 Salinas Pueblo Fort Union Capulin Volcano Total Disagree 4 10% 8 20.5% 2 3.3% 14 10.1% Neutral 10 25% 5 12.8% 11 18.3% 26 18.7% Agree 26 65% 26 66.7% 47 78.3% 99 71.2% Chi square: 9.257 p value: 0.055 Crammers V: 0.182 Place Attachments Attitudes T oward Renewable Energy Development As discussed above, respondents hold positive levels of place identity and neutral levels of place dependence, and their attitudes toward renewable and wind energy developments are generally positive. It is important to again note that respondents also indicated that ideally landscape alteration would not occur; however, if it does occur, negative impacts to visitor experience are likely. The question of whether the identified levels of place attachment influence these attitudes is raised in this research. To

PAGE 79

79 understand if levels of place attachment influence attitudes toward renewable energy development, a comparative analysis was conducted between the two variables. The collapsed variables of place identity and place dependence were used in this analysis. Previous research on place attachment has demonstrated that the existence of place attachments can influence visitor attitudes toward park condi tions and management practices .55 56 Place attachment signifies investment in a location, making it possible for physical alteration of that location to impact how an individual perceives the location .57 In a 2005 study on place attachment levels in recreational settings, Kyle et al found that respondents with higher levels of place identity tended to perceive changi ng conditions as problematic as compared to those with lower levels of place attachment. In the same study, researchers found that respondents with low levels of place dependence were more willing to accept a variety of changing conditions for recreationa l settings than those with high levels of place dependence. The first visitor experience related questionnaire statement (number fifteen) is being used for this analysis to determine if the above previous research findings hold true for this research. Th e statement reads: My emotional connection with the landscapes visible from this national park site would decrease if wind farms could be seen. This was chosen as a representative statement from the questionnaire because it relates to both place identity and place dependence while gauging attitudes toward wind energy development. The statement includes a component of place identity by asking if the 55 Warzecha and Lime, Place Attachment in Canyonlands NP, 59 78. 56 Kyle, Te sting the Dimensionality of Place Attachments, 153 177. 57 Abrahamsson, Landscapes Lost and Gained , 5161.

PAGE 80

80 respondent s emotional connection would be altered. The statement also includes a component of place dependence by specifically asking about the national monument respondents were visiting, therefore contextualizing their response to that particular place. When the variable of place identity was compared to the responses to this statement, a correlation between place identity and attitudes toward wind energy development was found. ( See T able IV. 29 complete findings .) Of the total respondents, the majority said their emotional connection would decrease despite their existing levels of place attachment. Within this general trend, a specific correlation between high levels of place identity and reports that emotional connections would decrease with visible wind energy developments was found. Of respondents with positive levels of place identity, fifty five percent r eported that their emotional connection would decrease with such development being visible. Statistical significance is present between place identity and this measured attitude toward wind energy development with a p value of 0.040. The Crammers V measur e of effect indicates the association between the variables is in existence; however, it is slight. These results show that, as predicted in previous literature, respondents with higher levels of place identity find the condition of landscape alteration to be more problematic than respondents with low or negative levels of place identity. Previous studies also predict that respondents with positive levels of place dependence will have a similar reaction as those with positive levels of place identity.

PAGE 81

81 The lower the level of place dependence, the less issue respondents will take with changing conditions to recreational settings. When place dependence is compared with the same questionnaire statement, it could therefore be predict ed that the general lack of place dependence found in respondents would lead to more neutral responses to the statement. This trend was partially seen during this comparison. ( See Table IV. 30 of complete findings. ) Of the respondents who reported negative levels of place dependence, forty one percent reported that their emotional connection to the visible landscapes would not decrease if wind energy developments were present. This is in contrast to respondents with neutral or positive levels of place dependence. These respondents agreed that their emotional connections would in fact decrease with this type of visible development. The correlation between these two variables was, however, not found to be statistically significant. There was a p value of 0.580 and a Crammers V of 0.101, indicating that the observed correlation may have be en due to random chance. Further research exploring the two variables of place attachment would need to be conducted to confirm or den y this observation. However, the results for this analysis do indicate that respondents with low levels of place dependence do not anticipate that their emotional connections would be diminished. The relationship between place attachment levels and the p erception of varying conditions for recreational settings found in previous research was also found to be true via the present research project Th e comparison of factors related to place attachments and attitudes toward wind energy development demonstrate that the higher the level of place identity, the more likely the respondent is to have a negative view of that

PAGE 82

82 development. As seen in the above findings, positive place identity levels lead to more frequent anticipation that negative impacts, such as low ered emotional connections to visible landscapes, would occur. Relatedly a lack of place dependence leads to lower reports of the same negative impact. Table IV.29 Place Identity and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy. Place Identity Levels Emotional c onnection would decrease w/wind farms Negative Neutral Positive Total No 0 0% 20 46.5% 23 24.5% 43 30.7% Neutral 1 33.3% 10 23.3% 19 20.2% 30 21.4% Yes 2 66.7% 13 30.2% 52 55.3% 67 47.9% Total 3 100% 43 100% 94 100% 140 100% Chi square: 10.046 p value: 0.040 Crammers V: 0.189 Table IV.30 Place Dependency and Attitudes Toward Renewable Energy Place Dependence Levels Emotional Connection would decrease w/wind farms Negative Neutral Positive Total No 12 41.4% 26 29.9% 5 20.8% 43 30.7% Neutral 6 20.7% 18 20.7% 6 25% 30 21.4% Yes 11 37.9% 43 49.4% 13 54.2% 67 47.9% total 29 100% 87 100% 24 100% 140 100% Chi square: 10.046 p value: 0.040 Crammers V: 0.189

PAGE 83

83 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Conclusions Renewable energy development is expanding throughout the United States. With the rapid increase in wind and other renewable energy production, the question of where such development is taking place becomes increasingly important. While many investigations of ecological impacts of renewable energy structures have been undertaken, the aesthetic and social impacts of such landscape alteration have received little attention. This topic has been investigated through this study by focusing on three southwestern U .S. national monuments. This research has aimed to understand the potential impacts to visitor experience caused by renewable energy development, specifically wind energy. Levels of place attachment s for research sites and attitudes toward renewable energy development were examined. The relationship between place attachments and attitudes concerning renewable energy development was also explored. This research seeks to understand how visitors to national parks could potentially be affected by the presence of wind energy development near park boundaries. To understand if and how such development being visible from park sites could impact visitor experience, it first needed to be established whether visitors are emotionally connected to the sites being invest igated. This research has tested levels of place attachment, specifically through the variables of place identity and place dependence, and has established that visitors are invested in the sites where this research was conducted.

PAGE 84

84 As was discussed in the findings section, strong levels of place identity were found for respondents at all three national monuments. While there were small variations among the sites, regarding the levels of agreement, neutrality or disagreement with place identity questionnai re statements, there was no conclusive pattern suggesting that respondents from a particular site held significantly different levels of place identity. With regard to place dependence, results show that respondents at all three sites do depend on southwes tern landscapes for the development of place attachments. However, results indicated that while the individual sites are important components of the collective southwestern landscape, the sites themselves are not necessarily needed for the development of place attachments for most of the individuals surveyed. When all place dependence variables are considered together, respondents were most frequently neutral in their responses, therefore demonstrating neutral levels of place dependence. This is not to sa y that the sites themselves are not important, as high levels of place identity establish that the opposite is true. What this lack does imply is that respondents think of these sites as part of a larger whole rather than separately. When individual s think of southwestern landscapes and reflect on or experience an emotional connection from this type of landscape, they regard the site they were visiting as one component of these emotional connections. If strong levels of place dependence had been found, an i ndividual would theoretically only be able to conjure the effects of this emotional connection when considering the specific site. In this research, however, individuals thoughts about a specific national monument relate to their broader

PAGE 85

85 experiences in th e southwest. T hat finding does not necessarily imply that the se national monuments are not important because the se specific sites are locations at which individual s can obtain the experience they need for broader place attachments to be made. The second p art of answering the research question involved understanding visitor attitudes toward renewable energy. Previous research has shown that individuals and communities have often reacted negatively toward the development of particularly wind energy .58 59 60 61 62 It is important to note that previous research has focused on areas where development has already occurred, whereas this present study focuses on hypothetical development. However, the research results presented here reflect an already seen trend individuals support the concept of renewable energy development but when specific ground locations are discussed, negative attitudes toward such development tend to rise. For example, the Gallup Poll has found high support for the development of renewable energy, with seventy seven percent of Americans agreeing that the U.S. government should increase financial support and incentives for alternative energy sources, including wind energy development .63 However, in spite of this support, negative reactions to actual development have often been seen, such as at the Cape Wind development project in Massachusetts. Reactions from local communities to this project have been highly negative, with individuals and communities claiming that spiritual, 58 Pasqualetti, Morality, Space and Power, 381 394. 59 Pasqualetti, Wind Energy Landscapes, 689 699. 60 Jay Wickersham Sacred Landscapes and Prof ane Structures: How Offshore Wind Power Challenges the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental Affairs 31 (2004): 324347. 61 Lothian, Scenic Perceptions of Visual Effects of Wind Farms, 196 207. 62 Bend Moller. Changing Wind Power Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual Impact on Land Use and Population in Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied Energy 83 (2006): 477494. 63Jeffery Jones. Americans on energy: promote both new sources and old Gallup (2009): accessed March 3, 2012, www.gallup.com/poll/116713/americans energypromote new sources old.aspx.

PAGE 86

86 environmental an d economic degradation will occur with the installation of wind farms i n the bay .64 65 The present research study found potential for similar reactions to future wind energy development near the boundaries of national parks and monuments. The contrast between recorded national level approval of and local level opposition to renewable energy development guided the development of three different scales of inquiry in this research. In the first scale, broad level concepts of renewable energy and wind energy development were explored. This scale is reflective of what the Gallup Poll reported. The second scale of inquiry moved away from the conceptual and presented respondents with a series of physical conditions that could be placed on this type of development. At this scale respondents are prompted to think in terms of where and how development should occur. The third scale of inquiry places wind energy development at the specific national monuments. At this scale respondents are prompted to ima gine development on ground level terms. It is at this scale that factors of visitor experience have been investigated. Concerning the first level of inquiry, the present research found that, in general, respondents held highly positive attitudes toward re newable energy development. Among all respondents, eight four percent agreed that renewable energy development is important ( s ee Table IV. 15). Respondents also showed positive attitudes toward renewable energy consumption by agreeing that they would partic ipate in such programs. 64 Abby Goodnough. For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle is Spiritual, New York Times January 4, 2010. 65 Parker, Audra. The price of Cape Winds power. Cape Cod Tim es. February 25, 2008.

PAGE 87

87 In addition, sixty percent of all respondents disagreed that fossil fuels should remain the primary energy source for U.S., again demonstrating positive attitudes toward renewable energy development. These results are consistent wit h nationwide Gallup Polls that have inquire d about attitudes toward renewable energy on very broad scales, without mentioning specific locations or conditions.66 This broad scale inquiry was continued in the questionnaire statements about attitudes toward wind energy development. When the specific prospect of wind development was presented to respondents, attitudes were again largely positive. The majority of respondents at Fort Union and Capulin Volcano reported that they would choose wind energy developm ent over other types of renewable energies. Respondents at Salinas Pueblo Missions did not make as strong of an assertion, with more respondents being neutral about whether they preferred wind energy over other sources of renewable energy ( s ee Table IV. 16) Overall, when the broad scale topic of renewable energy was presented to respondents, the potential occurrence of such development was met with positive, approving attitudes The questionnaire statements reflecting the mid level scale of inquiry sought to understand if respondents believe that social factors should be taken into consideration when situating renewable energy development, especially wind energy. When presented with the idea of potential conditions of or considerations for where wind energy should be developed, respondents held positive attitudes for development avoiding popular and 66 Jones, Americans on Energy.

PAGE 88

88 scenic landscapes. Furthermore, respondents held negative attitudes toward the idea that development should occur on the basis of productivity of alone. Finally, respondents held positive attitudes about development occurring near already developed, populated locations. This last element is particularly relevant to the three national monuments in this research as they are all remotely located. The findings suggest that national park visitors would rather this type of development occur in areas unlike these particular sites. It is also important to note that when renewable energy was presented in the study in more particular terms than in the first scale of inquiry, respondents demonstrated stronger attitudes about how such development should occur. These attitudes were not reflected in the previous broad scale inquires. Given that previous studies have found largely negative reactions to renewable energy developmen t, a key purpose of this particular research endeavor was to anticipate social impacts before they occur. It cannot be determined from this research alone if the park visitors surveyed anticipate impacts to themselves for the same reasons as previous resea rch has theorized .67 Instead, this research aimed to establish a baseline for attitudes about renewable energy. This research subsequently investigated whether park visitors anticipate that their experiences in these and other national park units would be i mpacted if visible development occurs. The questionnaire statements on this topic relate to the final, local and site specific scale of inquiry being used in this research. 67Brittan theorizes that the physical structures of renewable energy are in conflict with preconceived ideas of scenery. Individuals therefore find these structures aesthetically displeasing and respond negatively to them (2001). Pasqualetti contends that one cause of negative reactions is that U.S. society is not accustomed to viewing its sources of energy (2001a, 2001b).

PAGE 89

89 As discussed in the findings section, questionnaire statements relating to topics of visitor experience were multidimensional. Findings demonstrated that respondents anticipate moderate impacts to their emotional connections to the landscapes visible from the national monuments, should wind energy development occur in those locations. A mong all respondents, forty eight percent reported that their emotional connections would decrease with landscape alteration due to wind energy development. While respondents only moderately expected negative impacts to their connection to these places, it is interesting to note that respondents strongly agreed that such development would not increase their enjoyment.68 Beyond these national monuments, findings showed that respondents were largely uncomfortable with this type of development being visible fro m any national park unit. While these findings imply that surveyed visitors at all three national monuments hold negative attitudes toward wind energy being visible from these and other national park units, the findings do not show that visitation would ne cessarily be affected. Among all respondents, sixty eight percent reported that they would continue to visit a national park unit that had wind ene rgy development adjacent to it. Implications This research has identified a connection between two fields of study which typically are not considered in tandem place attachment and social impacts of renewable energy development. When attitudes toward wind energy development were compared with reported levels of place identity and place dependence, it was found that 68 The implications of this finding will be discussed in the next section of this document.

PAGE 90

90 stronger favorable attitudes toward both factors indicate stronger attitudes against such development. While previous research has found t hat place attachments influence perceptions of management actions and conditions, research in this field has not investigated the specific topic of renewable energy development. Through the present findings, it can be concluded that theories of place attac hment and their influence on perceptions of resources can also be applied to renewable energy development and the landscape alteration that results from this type of development. In addition to holding implications for further academic study, the results from this research also demonstrate regional scale implications. Respondents were found to hold levels of place attachments, particularly place dependence for southwestern U.S. landscapes Thus, while this study focused on three specific locations, the results of this research can be applied to the landscapes in this region. Even with a lack of place dependence for one of these specific sites, the individual is benefiting from the existence of the site. In the same way that individual sites are part of a c ollective development of place attachments, alterations to these sites could also be a component of lowered place attachments to the region If the landscapes visible from these sites were altered by wind energy development, the individual may have opportunities of the same experiences elsewhere. However, if multiple landscapes were altered by the same or similar developments, individual s may no longer feel that they can obtain those experiences, and place attachments would be lower ed These sites should, t herefore, be considered not just individually but as part of a collective regional landscape. What happens at these sites and what happens at other similar sites are in fact all interrelated because of place

PAGE 91

91 dependence on southwestern landscapes as a whole Southwestern landscapes are an integral part of the place attachments found in this research. This finding implies that conversations surrounding renewable energy developments need to take place on both local and regional scales just as multiple scales of landscapes are involved in why individuals are emotionally vested in this region. Resources managers, particularly national park managers, are in the position to be involved in these local and regional conversations. The broadest implication of the pre sent research, as applicable to such managers, is that renewable energy development, specifically wind energy development, is an important topic to park visitors. The strong attitudes toward wind energy and the potential for its development in areas visibl e from national park units demonstrate that this topic is worth further discussion. The nuances within visitor responses should be further analyzed for each individual national monument to understand the implications of this topic. While there was consensus among the site visitors on most topics, many of the responses to questionnaire statements demonstrated that some visitors held strong opposing viewpoints. Another important implication for park managers at these three national monuments is the reassura nce that their sites are, in fact, important to their visitors. The individual factor of place identity showed that visitors who participated in this research hold strong emotional connections associated with the sites they visited. Following previously pr esented theories of place identity, these sites are part of the formation of visitor self identity. In some way, the existence of these sites and the southwestern

PAGE 92

92 landscapes they hold are part of the visitors identity In addition, the individual factor o f place dependence showed that the sites are important in a larger context of the southwestern locations, which contribute to the creation of place attachments. Renewable energy, including wind energy, is valued by respondents at all three national monum ents. However, results imply that respondents would rather development occur in alternative settings, such as populated areas, unlike those currently surrounding these sites. In addition, respondents hold positive attitudes toward popular and scenic landsc apes being avoided when determining development sites, regardless of the potential for high wind energy productivity. These results are significant for managers of these and similar national park units as they provide evidence that their key stakeholders, visitors, want considerations to be made concerning where renewable energy is developed. The third and final scale of inquiry focused on the site specific locations of the three national monuments where research was conducted. With the potential inclusion of wind energy near these sites, it was sought to understand if respondents anticipated changes to their experiences of the sites. There are three main implications of findings related to visitor experience. First, these findings demonstrate the serious manner in which renewable energy development should be handled, as respondents do not want such development to be visible from national pa rks and believe that their connections to those sites would be diminished because of it. Results imply that renewable energy developments such as wind farms should not if possible, occur where visible from national parks.

PAGE 93

93 Results provide evidence that developing wind energy on lands visible from national parks should not specifically be sought out. Respondents at all three national monuments reported that their enjoyment of the sites would definitely not increase if such development were visible. These r esults eliminate the possibility that such development could be considered an asset to visitors. The second visitor experience implication is, therefore, that wind energy development should not be sought out for landscapes visible from or within national parks. In other words, there are clear patterns in the responses that these developments are not desired to be in close proximity to national park units. The third visitor experience implication is that, while attitudes toward such developments in landscape s visible from these sites are negative, the results do not imply that visitation would correspondingly change. This implication is important for current park managers who may be worrying or wondering about how their visitation could change if renewable en ergy structures were visible in nearby landscapes. This, of course, does not imply that visitors would not be upset or alternatively, that some visitors would not possibly enjoy the altered view; however, the trend found in this research implies that large changes to visitation are unlikely. There were strong sentiments among respondents that changes to the landscapes seen from these sites would ideally not occur, with sixty two percent of respondents at all three sites indicating positive attitudes toward the idea of visible landscapes never changing. With the rapid increase of renewable energy production, as well as other types of development, it is difficult to say that such an ideal can be maintained. An interesting

PAGE 94

94 finding in this research is tha t respondents implied that they would rather see wind energy development as opposed to other development types such as housing or commercial business. While further research would be needed to understand how park visitors rank different types of developmen t, these results imply that wind energy development is not opposed in all situations, particularly if a less appealing option were also under consideration. If wind energy were to be developed within visible landscapes from a national park unit, contextual izing such development against other types of development could be a management strategy. Again, additional research would need to be conducted before such management strategies could be applied. Ultimately, environmental as well as social impacts should be considered before any type of major renewable energy development occurs near national parks. This preference of wind energy over other development types should also be taken into consideration when the longterm prospect of development surrounding national park units is considered. Rather than renewable energy being something to necessarily work against, the findings should be considered as a decision making tool. There is the potential for visitors levels of place attachments and enjoyment of the natio nal monuments to decrease, despite broad level agreement that renewable energy development is needed. This is important for park managers to consider if renewable energy developments are proposed in their regions. Altogether, this research demonstrates tha t the inclusion of wind energy development near national parks has the potential to follow patterns seen in areas where development has already occurred or is being proposed. It is, therefore, a topic that warrants further attention. Active

PAGE 95

95 conversations between park managers and their visitors, in addition to conversations between park managers and local communities, will be an important in determining how (or if) placement of development near park boundaries can be approached. W ith regar d t o the NPS miss ion to preserve natural and cultural resources and D OI support for advancing renewable energy technologies and development, the results of this research can and should be used as part of the decision making process about future renewable energy development on or near public lands The various results pertaining to both place attachments and visitor attitudes can be weighed against one another as well as against other potential impacts, perhaps to natural resources, when development is proposed By consider ing this information by itself and combining it with other information, conversations and decisions about where renewable energy should occur can be further informed. Established processes in place to approve development, such as environmental impact statements conducted by the Bureau of Land Management, include public comments and support. These findings add to that larger public voice and show the complexity of landscape alteration from renewable energy development. Based on the results of this research, park managers who grapple with renewable energy development would be justified in adding the voices of park visitors into these conversations. This research provides a model and starting point for building these conversations.

PAGE 96

96 REFERENCES Abrahamsson, Kurt V. Landscapes Lost and Gained: on Changes in Semiotic Resources, Human Ecology Review 6 (1999): 5161 Altman, Irwin and Setha M. Low. Place Attachment, Human Behavior, and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Plenum Press, 1992. Benediktsson, Karl. Scenophobia, Geography and the Aesthetic Politics of Landscape. Swedish Society for Anthropology and Geography 1 (2007): 203217. Brittan, Gordon G. Wind, Energy, Landscape: Reconciling Nature and Technology, Philosophy and Geography 4 (2001): 169184.Cresswell, Tim. Place. Engham: Elsevier Inc, 2009. Davenport, Mae A. and Dorothy H. Anderson. Getting From Sense of Place to Plac e Based Management: an Interpretive Investigation of Place Meanings and Perceptions of Landscape Change, Society and Natural Resources 18 (2005): 625641. Goodnough, Abby. For Cape Cod Wind Farm, New Hurdle is Spiritual, New York Times January 4, 2010. Grusin, Richard. Reproducing Yosemite: Olmsted, Environmentalism, and the Nature of Aesthetic Agency, Cultural Studies 12 (1998): 332359. Gunderson, Kari and Alan Watson. Understanding Place Meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana, Society and Natural Resources 20: 705721. Jones, Jeffrey. Americans on energy: promote both new sources and old Gallup (2009): accessed March 3, 2012, www.gallup.com/poll/116713/americans energy promote new sources old.aspx. Kincheloe, Joe L. and Pe ter McLaren. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative Research, In Ethnography and schools: qualitative approaches to the study of education, edited by Yali Zou and Enrique T. Trueb, 87110. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Pub, 2002. Kyle, Gerard, Alan Graefe and Robert Manning. Testing the Dimensionality of Place Attachment in Recreational Settings, Environment and Behavior 37 (2005): 153177. Kyle, Gerard et al. Effect of Activity Involvement and Place Attachment on

PAGE 97

97 Recreationi sts Perceptions of Setting Density, Journal of Leisure Research 36 (2004): 209231. Lunn, Jenny. The Role of Religion, Spirituality and Faith in Development: A Critical Theory Approach, Third World Quarterly 30: 937951 Lothian, Andrew. Scenic Per ceptions of the Visual Effects of Wind Farms on South Australian Landscapes, Geographical Research 46 (2008): 196207. Mercer, David. The Great Australian Wind Rush and the Devaluation of Land Amenity, Australian Geographer 34 (2003): 91121. Molle r, Bernd. Changing WindPower Landscapes: Regional Assessment of Visual Impact on Land Use and Population in Northern Jutland, Denmark, Applied Energy 83 (2006): 477 494. Parker, Audra. The price of Cape Winds power. Cape Cod Times. February 25, 2008. Pasqualetti, Martin J. Morality, Space, and the Power of WindEnergy Landscapes, Geographical Review 90 (2001): 381394. Pasqualetti, Martin J. Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the California Desert, Society and Natural Resources 14 (2001): 689699. Schutt, Russell K. Investigating the Social World: The Process and Practice of Research. Boson: Sage Publications, 2006 Smaldone, David, Charles Harris and Nick Sanyal. The Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings, 40 9 2008): 479504. Stedman, Richard C. Is it Really Just a Social Construction?: The Contribution of the Physical Environment to Sense of Place, Society and Natural Resources 16 (2003): 671685. Warzecha, Cynthia A. and David W. Lime. Place Attachment i n Canyonlands National Park: Visitors Assessment of Setting Attributes on the Colorado and Green Rivers, Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19 (2001): 5978. Wickersham, Jay. Sacred Landscapes and Profane Structures: How Offshore Wind Powe r Challenges the Environmental Impact Review Process, Environmental Affairs 31 (2004): 324347.

PAGE 98

98 APPENDICES A. GIS Dataset Source List Dataset Description Type Source Source Link Wind Energy Potential Vector polygon National Renewable Energy Laboratory http://www.nrel.gov/gis/data_analysis.html Highways & Interstates Vector line USGS: North American Atlas http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html Rail r oads Vector line USGS: North American Atlas http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html Populated Areas Vector polygon USGS: North American Atlas http://nationalatlas.gov/maplayers.html Surface Land Ownership Vector polygon Bureau of Land Management http://w ww.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/more/ge ographic_sciences/spatial_data_metadata.ht ml National Park Boundaries Vector polygon National Park Service http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/ Sunzia SW Transmission Lines Vector polygon SunZia http://www.sunzia.net/ West Wide Energy Corridor Vector polyon WWEC Programmatic EIS http://corridoreis.anl.gov/eis/fmap/gis/index. cfm

PAGE 99

99 B. Overlay Analysis Maps B.1 Wind Energy Potential, Energy Corridors and Tran sportation

PAGE 100

100 B .2 Surface Ownership

PAGE 101

101 B .3Research Sites Overview

PAGE 102

102 C. Questionnaire

PAGE 103

103

PAGE 104

104

PAGE 105

105

PAGE 106

106

PAGE 107

107

PAGE 108

108

PAGE 109

109

PAGE 110

110

PAGE 111

111

PAGE 112

112 D. Questionnaire by Topic SECTION B Place Attachment Place Identity 1. The landscapes surrounding this park mean a lot to me 2. I feel an emotional connection with the surrounding landscape 3. I identify strongly with the landscapes visible from this park Place Dependence 4. I enjoy visiting national park sites in the Southwest U.S. more than any other region in the U.S. 5. I get more personal satisfaction from visiting this National Park site than any other National Park site 6. I cannot get a similar experience at any other location in the Southwestern U.S. Attitude T oward Wind Energy Renewable Energy & Wind Energy 7. National scale renewable energy development is important 8. You would choose wind energy over other renewable energy developments 9. Careful consideration should be taken when choosing sites for Wind Farms 10. Wind towers should be placed where they will be most productive, regardless of surrounding features. 11. W ind towers should be placed near populated places 12. Fossil Fuels should continue to be the primary energy source for the U.S. 13. You would participate in a Renewable Energy Program with your energy provider, even at an extra cost 14. Wind Farms and towers have an artistic quality to them and are pleasurable to look at Wind Energy Visible From Site 15. Your emotional connection with this landscape would decrease if wind towers were visible from this National Park site 16. Your enjoyment of this National Park site would inc rease if Wind Farms were visible from this site 17. Ideally, the view from this National Park would never change Wind Energy from Any National Park Site

PAGE 113

113 18. You are comfortable with Wind Farms being visible from any National Park site 19. I would still visit a Nation al Park site if Wind Farms were built directly next to them. 20. If Landscapes seen from National Parks were changed, it would be better if they were changed because of Wind Farm development rather than urban sprawl or commercial business development.

PAGE 114

114 E. Human Subjects Research Approval

PAGE 115

115

PAGE 116

116 F. Photo Gallery of Research Sites Salinas Pueblo Missions NM: Research table in breezeway. Salinas Pueblo Missions NM: View of breezeway on trail from parking lot area.

PAGE 117

117 Salinas Pueblo Missions NM: View of ruins. Salinas Pueblo Missions NM: Looking northwest from ruins.

PAGE 118

118 Fort Union NM: View of research site from the visitor center. Fort Union NM: View of Fort Union ruins

PAGE 119

119 Fort Union N M : View of Fort Union ruins Fort Union NM: View of Fort Union ruins

PAGE 120

120 Capulin Volcano NM: Research site at base of the volcano. Capulin Volcano NM: View of Capulin Volcano.

PAGE 121

121 Capulin Volcano NM: View from Crater Rim Trail Capulin Volcano NM: View from parking lot.