Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

By applying the theoretical framework of symbolic interactionism, this study explores the meanings stakeholders hold about Everglades National Park (EVER). Based on our analysis, four themes reflecting what EVER means to participants emerged: (1) A place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats that should be preserved. (2) A place to see different habitats and enjoy recreation and tourism. (3) An ancestral home to look after and take care of. (4) A place for financial investment to support livelihood. We found these dimensions to be interconnected altogether playing a crucial role in shaping their experiences and meanings. Study findings illuminate the meanings of natural places social factors into protected area management. Future research should explore more the meanings stakeholders create regarding national parks, and protected areas to be able to design management strategies that reflect such meanings.

Plain language summary

Understanding the meanings that stakeholders put on a particular natural area is important for fostering a relationship between managing agencies and related stakeholders. This study identifies what Everglades National Park (EVER) means to different people. To this end, residents, NGOs, federal government agencies, state/local governments, business groups, and scientists were asked to focus on the meanings the park holds for them. Using symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework, we explored how stakeholders ascribed meanings to EVER. Analysis of the interview data generated four research themes: EVER as a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats, a place for recreation and tourism, a place for an ancestral home, and a place for financial investment. The results of this study add to the literature by delving into the specific meanings stakeholders have about the park. The results contribute by incorporating social factors into protected area management and thus helping to identify how different stakeholders view the park and what is important to them.

Keywords

stakeholders place meanings natural places Everglades National Park symbolic interactionism qualitative method

Introduction

A national park is more than an ecosystem but is also part of a larger context surrounded by gateway communities, stakeholders, and often tourism-related development (Howe et al., 2012). Not surprisingly, decisions made within the park affect communities as well (National Research Council, 2014). Failure to account for this has led to negative interactions between stakeholders and the National Park System (NPS; Tuxill et al., 2009). To address this issue, the NPS has sought “A Call to Action,” preparing for a second century of stewardship and engagement since the mid-2010s to be more inclusive of stakeholders’ ideas and views about the parks (National Park Service [NPS], 2018). A stakeholder is defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). In the case of national parks, stakeholders can be recreation-based groups, tourism sectors, environmental groups, indigenous groups, media groups, concessioners, adjacent communities, interest groups, visitors, and NPS employees (NPS, 2015).

We believe the relationship between stakeholders and the NPS, which has proven vital for natural resource management (Choe & Schuett, 2020), hinges on, among multiple factors, understanding the meanings stakeholders form about these areas. While some work has been done in this area (Heikkila & Gerlak, 2014; Lee et al., 2018; Ogden, 2006; Pryor, 2005), given that people’s views about places can be complex as they reflect dynamic interactions among thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, more research is needed to better capture such views (G. T. Kyle et al., 2004).

A way to achieve such a more comprehensive understanding is through the study of the different stakeholders managing protected areas, with increased recognition of their views, interests, concerns, and knowledge regarding local resources (Luloff et al., 2011; Tuxill et al., 2009). Such processes can help academics and practitioners understand the way stakeholders think about and behave in relation to a park and its salient issues (Choe & Schuett, 2020; Luloff et al., 2004).

More specifically, this study highlights the social aspects of place discussed by Agnew (1987), which focuses on the meanings people ascribe to settings. Place, according to human geographers, “is a center of meaning constructed by experience” (Tuan, 1977, p. 152). As noted by F. Xu and Fox (2014), individuals strengthen emotional bonds and assign special meanings to natural places. These place meanings are symbolic and evaluative values and significance of settings (Choe, Lee, & Andereck, 2024; Stedman, 2003; Yoo et al., 2022).

Following Wynveen et al. (2010), we approached the study of place meaning using symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism indicates that place meanings emerge from dynamic processes that encompass the individual, the environment, and their social contexts. This framework supports the understanding of meanings stakeholders construct within the context of multiple socio-ecological contexts. The relevance of this relies on better understanding the meanings people form about natural places, which can provide scholars and practitioners with knowledge that can help them design pertinent management strategies. Thus, learning more about what parks mean to stakeholders is fundamental to increasing the stewardship of these distinctive places.

Problem Statement and Objectives

By exploring the meanings stakeholders have about parks, we seek to fill a gap in the scholarly literature in that prior research on meanings of natural places has primarily focused on park visitor and resident populations (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002; Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Although many studies have noted the significance of comprehending the meanings that make up individuals’ attachment to place, limited research has focused on the specific meanings given to natural places by an array of community stakeholders (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002; Y. Huang et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018). That is, research is needed on the meanings of a (natural) place beyond the commonly studied park visitors and resident populations (Y. Huang et al., 2017). This is further justified when thinking about how the meaning of a place can vary according to the individuals and settings (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002). Consequently, our study is important because meanings are needed in situations where there is an array of stakeholders’ values and views in relation to effective planning and management of parks and protected areas.

Accordingly, this paper explores how stakeholders beyond the commonly studied park visitors and resident populations, living in the vicinity of Everglades National Park (EVER), ascribe specific meanings to a natural park. The guiding research question was: What meanings do stakeholders residing in the vicinity of EVER have about the park?

EVER was chosen as research site for several reasons. First, multiple stakeholders are involved in this park given its closeness to urban spaces and rich in biodiversity. Second, such participation is not new; Everglades restoration activities have progressed since the late 1990s from a series of individual activities by various state and federal agencies to a coordinated multi-stakeholder effort (Sheikh, 2002). Finally, and more recently, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) has led to extensive stakeholder involvement of diverse interest groups (National Research Council, 2014).

Conceptual Framework

The Construction of Place Meanings

Place refers to the “‘locales in which people find themselves, live, have experiences, interpret, understand and find meaning” (Peet, 1998, p. 48). Places matter, as people live, develop relationships with, and derive meaning from them (Tuan, 1977). Meaning, an intersubjective matter of people–environment relations, is the most fundamental unit to understand people and their perceptions (Blumer, 1969). That is, place exerts its influence on the behavior of individuals through physical features and symbolic meanings (Stedman, 2003). Thus, places are “repositories and contexts within which interpersonal, community, and cultural relationships occur, and it is to those social relationships, not just place qua place, to which people are attached [sic]” (Altman & Low, 1992, p. 7).

Place meaning is a broad concept that looks at the way people use a place and associate esthetic appreciation, a sense of belonging, emotional bonds, memories, and/or knowledge of that place (Cheng et al., 2003). Place meanings create deep and lasting emotional attachment to a place (Smaldone et al., 2008). They are not limited to a specific site but can be collectively experienced across various individuals and settings (Manzo, 2005), leading to functional, social, or symbolic elements of place (Raymond et al., 2010). The symbolic meaning that people feel about a park develops into its place meaning for them (Brehm et al., 2013).

Place Meanings and Natural Settings

Individuals establish emotional connections and assign special meanings to natural environments (F. Xu & Fox, 2014). Acknowledging the physical, psychological, and social advantages associated with visiting national parks, visitors ascribe value to these environments (G. T. Kyle et al., 2004). The meanings people attach to natural settings involve “the very sense of who we are” (Williams, 2002, p. 353) and anticipation of socially constructed actions aimed at protecting these natural settings (Cheng et al., 2003).

A handful of recent studies have examined place meaning, usually focusing on identifying and delineating the meaning residents and/or visitors have about natural settings (Gunderson & Watson, 2007). Meanings often connect closely with the qualities that define the location, which encompasses both its physical and social aspects, enriched through personal experiences (Wynveen & Kyle, 2015). These attributes consist of the physical and social characteristics inherent in the setting, enhanced through experience (G. Kyle & Chick, 2007; Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2010). Meanings associated with social identities and ecosystem protection appear to proliferate in these relationships. For instance, Gunderson and Watson (2007) investigated the values related to both individuals and the community held by visitors and local residents concerning the Bitterroot National Forest. They found social identity meanings, as well as meanings associated with study participants’ jobs and watershed protection, expressed in residents’ descriptions of places.

Wynveen and Kyle (2015) classified meanings of natural settings into four categories. One set of meanings pertains to individuals’ self-experience while in a place. Various research has noted that individuals from Western cultures often attribute the concept of solitude to natural surroundings (G. Kyle & Chick, 2007). Second, individuals form these meanings about settings that incorporate interaction with others, which can be identified as community, social identity, family, or cultural identity meanings. Third, meanings can encompass the interactions between an individual and the physical characteristics of a place, such as esthetic beauty (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002) or pristineness, that is, absence of roads and other built structures, which mark a contrast with settings of daily life (Manzo, 2005). Similarly, Gunderson and Watson (2007) reported the significance of uniqueness of the setting, related to interesting flora, fauna, or geological formations. People develop meanings associated with the inherent value of nature or the necessity to protect the environment for its own intrinsic value (G. Kyle & Chick, 2007). Specific meanings are attributed to protected places designated for conservation, natural resource-based recreation, and related (Manzo, 2005). These meanings can be affected by the culturally defined symbols in labels such as “National Park,” “National Forest,” and “wilderness” (G. T. Kyle et al., 2004). Fourth, the concept of place meanings can encompass how a place provides chances for individuals to engage in activities they desire, for example, recreational activities (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002), resource dependency originating from recreational activities (Smith, 2011), and knowledge about the setting (Manzo, 2005).

Besides recreational activities, certain individuals rely on a particular place for their economic livelihood through resource extraction and tourism, to sustain themselves, support their families, and contribute to their communities. These individuals frequently convey meanings associated with the link between places and their employment (Gunderson & Watson, 2007). Recently, Choe, Lee, and Lin (2024) conducted a study examining how cultural ecosystem services values affected tourists’ spiritual well-being and life satisfaction in the post-pandemic era. They revealed seven themes related to tourists’ cultural ecosystem services values and meanings at Saguaro National Park: national environment, learning, socialization, escape and solitude, mental well-being, outdoor recreation during COVID-19, and tourism during COVID-19.

While EVER has been the focus of much attention in academia, much of the research has focused on examining the role of stakeholders in restoration (Ogden, 2006), collaborative management (Heikkila & Gerlak, 2014; Pryor, 2005), stakeholder-management conflict (Bustam, 2009), and the values reflected in Twitter content discussing a park amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Choe et al., 2022). To our knowledge, no studies on EVER has focused on meanings beyond the typically studied visitors and residents. Here, we expanded such an approach by focusing on the meanings of a more diverse set of stakeholders and supported by interactional symbolic interactionism.

Theoretical Framework

Symbolic Interactionism

This study has its theoretical underpinnings in symbolic interactionism, which Blumer (1969, p. 2) notes is based on three premises: “(1) Human beings act toward things based on the meaning things have for them; (2) The meaning of such things is derived from or arises out of, the social interaction one has with one’s fellows; and (3) These meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretive process used by the person in dealing with the things he encounters.” Symbolic interactionism deliberates stimuli (such as previous motives, emotions, interactions with others, societal influences, and the physical environment) as elements within the social realm that individuals integrate into their conceptualizations (Charon, 2007). This distinction holds importance because, even though proponents of symbolic interactionism argue that the physical environment does not inherently determine meaning, it allows the view of a place’s physical characteristics as elements that humans engage with, thereby shaping and influencing a range of possible experiences (Milligan, 1998).

By applying symbolic interactionism, researchers can interpret the stakeholders’ meaning in a given situation (Charon, 2007). Knowing more about the meanings attributed to parks can enable practitioners to get a better understanding of the meanings that stakeholders residing in the vicinity of EVER form about the park, what is important for them, and what needs to be protected. The various meanings of natural areas represent the multiple ways people are connected to natural places. The type of meanings formed and maintained are situationally constructed, as the meanings of places in spheres such as home, work, and recreation are negotiated by community members in complex social processes (Auburn & Barnes, 2006). Cheng et al. (2003) emphasize that “place meanings include instrumental or utilitarian values as well as intangible values such as belonging, attachment, beauty, and spirituality” (p. 89). Studies have proposed that people assign meaning to a place that mirrors their social and cultural origins (Eisenhauer et al., 2000). In a similar way, which developed from earlier research by Lee (1972), proposed that place meanings are the social construction of cultural groups. Likewise, the perspective of symbolic interactionism suggests that place meanings emerge from the interactions between the individual, the environment, and their social contexts (Wynveen & Kyle, 2015). As a result, the characteristics of the setting, the person’s perceptions and thoughts about the place, and their interactions with others regarding the environment all have an impact on the variety of meanings ascribed to a place (G. Kyle & Chick, 2007).

According to Charon (2007), social interaction involves five main ideas: (1) humans are social creatures, so social interaction is important when creating and forming meanings (Mead, 1934); (2) humans are thinkers, and use symbols, so meanings originate from interactions with others and society (Blumer, 1969), and social objects with common cultural backgrounds, such as words are used socially and (Charon, 2007), and individuals have the ability to assume the perspective of the broader collective (referred to as the “generalized other”), wherein they try to envision the viewpoint of another person or group, and form meanings (Mead, 1934); (3) humans do not sense their situation directly but experience the real world by defining what holds significance within their surroundings (Blumer, 1969), and they continuously interpret the world and assign meanings to objects; (4) humans consider past experiences, but their actions are motivated by what is occurring in the current situation, and present meanings are reactions to current stimuli (Mead, 1934); and (5) humans are active participants in creating their experiences (Blumer, 1969). Instead of meanings inherent in the physical environment, humans shape their own meanings (Blumer, 1969).

Methodology

Site Selection

Located at the southern tip of the Florida peninsula, EVER encompasses 1,508,570 acres and received its designation as a national park in 1947. It attracts an average of 1 million recreation visits per year (NPS, 2023a). This is a reflection of some unique characteristics including being near large urban areas, holding rich biological diversity, being an International Biosphere Reserve in 1976, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1979, a Wetland of International Importance in 1987, and a prominent tourist destination.

EVER was selected for this study because it is known for the participation of organizations and residents with the park. Everglades restoration activities have progressed from a series of individual activities by various state and federal agencies to a coordinated multi-stakeholder effort in the late 1990s (Sheikh, 2002) because the growth of population and development in its proximity, has squeezed EVER from both coasts, also accelerating the pollution affecting park wildlife and ecosystems. Furthermore, approximately 180 plant and animal species found in EVER are categorized by the State of Florida as either threatened, endangered, species of special concern, or subject to commercial exploitation (NPS, 2023a). In 1999, the CERP was established to address the imperiled state of the park’s flora and fauna and to rejuvenate the EVER ecosystem. Thus, this initiative stands as the world’s most extensive ecosystem restoration project, with an estimated duration of 35 years and funding amounting to $7.8 billion contributed by both the federal government and the state of Florida (Clarke & Dalrymple, 2018). One of its advancements in implementation is the understanding that various stakeholders should be involved and committed to sustain restoration efforts.

Data Collection

In this research, we used a qualitative approach—in-person, semi-structured interviews—for data collection, which was conducted in the spring of 2015. We chose this approach to gain a deeper understanding of the attitudes, feelings, and values of the study participants (Creswell, 2009). This is because qualitative research design views humans as an instrument for exploring how they perceive the world around them (Given, 2008). Given (2008) posits that qualitative research aims to delve into phenomena and uncover true inner meanings and novel insights.

Given its distinctive characteristics, the qualitative study employs the inductive approach to explore deeper into the breadth and depth of the research problem (Johnson & Christensen, 2004). This approach enabled researchers to interpret the meanings, behaviors, and experiences of stakeholders engaged with EVER.

While conducting interviews as a qualitative research tool can be costly and time-consuming, particularly if transcription and recording are required (Alamri, 2019), qualitative research methods have the strength of being able to capture a dense description of participants’ feelings, opinions, and experiences (Denzin, 1989). Additionally, it enables a holistic understanding of the human experience within specific contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). This approach allows researchers to grasp thicker descriptions or more detailed narratives of participants’ engagement with the setting and their experiences within a community of practice (Geertz, 1973), which may have been difficult or invisible to grasp from an outsider (Atkins & Wallace, 2012).

The sample for this study consisted of a variety of stakeholders connected to EVER. Snowball sampling was applied to identify initial contacts (seeds) and recruit participants from various stakeholder groups from the study site. Snowball sampling is often used to uncover hidden populations, have target characteristics that are rare to find, conduct research in underserved social groups, and broaden their participant pool by leveraging interviewees’ social networks (Cohen & Arieli, 2011). However, this method may limit the representativeness of the sample and potentially lead to sampling bias (Parker et al., 2019).

Contact information was publicly available on the Everglades Coalition website for those who met the participant selection criteria. Study participants were selected when they held a position as an officer or a member of the board of directors, were actively involved in the respective organizations, and showed a willingness to partake in interviews. When potential participants agreed to participate in interviews, they received a follow-up email detailing the study overview and interview questions. Then, the interview location was discussed with participants from both within and outside of EVER. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min. The interviewees were informed of the researcher’s identity, the purpose of the study, the participant’s rights, and the anonymity statement.

In this study, based on previous research on the meanings formed about natural settings, the interviews included guiding questions focused on two topics such as the meanings stakeholders have about EVER and gradually narrowed to topics concerning a physical description of a place. The first part of the interview was adapted from several sources (Smaldone et al., 2008; Williams & Patterson, 1996), and respondents were asked about the meanings they have about EVER for example, “What does this place mean to you?” or “What kind of a place is this?.” The latter series of questions were adapted from Wynveen and Kyle’s (2015) work, asking participants to provide a verbal depiction of a place that they found “mind as being important, memorable, meaningful or special” and “describe the thoughts, feelings, memories, and associations that come to mind when you think about this place” (pp. 132–133). When the stakeholders were asked the interview questions, most of them responded at an individual level, but a few responded on behalf of their organizations based on their positions as experts in their field.

In an adaptation of Conroy and Peterson (2013), the types of stakeholder groups included in our study were consumers or residents, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), federal government agencies, state and local governments, business entities, and scientists (See Table 1). A total of 41 key informant interviews were conducted (male: 26, female: 15). Table 1 shows the different categories of stakeholders and the corresponding number of interviews who have a connection to EVER. Seven were consumers or residents, 15 were NGOs, three were federal government agencies, six were state and local governments, five were business entities, and four were scientist groups.

Table 1.

Categories and Number of Interviews Interacting With EVER.

Stakeholder	Examples of organizations	Number of respondents
Consumers/Residents	Local residents, Native American tribes (Miccosukee and Seminole), and citizens who participate in natural resource-associated activities	7
NGOs	Arthur R. Marshall Foundation for the Everglades, Florida Division Izaak Walton League of America, Sierra Club Florida, National Parks Conservation Association Sun Coast Region, Florida Wildlife Federation, and Florida Trail Association	15
Federal government agencies	U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and South Florida Water Management District	4
State/Local governments	Elected members of the City of Homestead, the City of Miami such as city officials and mayors, South Florida Water, and Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources	6
Businesses	Business owners, outdoor businesses, and recreation business groups	5
Scientists	University researchers, technicians, biologist, and ecologists	4

Data Analysis

These data were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis method (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Interviews were recorded with participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim. We analyzed these data using the qualitative data analysis software, ATLAS.ti, and applied a content analysis methodology. As shown in Figure 1, the procedure followed Cho and Lee’s (2014) inductive qualitative content analysis methodology. First, we generated codes from the raw data of interview transcripts and field notes, synthesizing them based on the unit of analysis. Second, we formed open codes across the dataset to identify meaningful units through a line-by-line analysis. Third, we formulated the preliminary codes using data. We added new codes as necessary to accommodate data that did not fit the existing codes. Fourth, we grouped similar codes together and organized them into subthemes. Fifth, we reorganized subthemes into broader themes. This process involved grouping, revising, and ensuring the mutual exclusivity of themes. Finally, at this point, the final themes were developed.

Figure 1.

Procedure for an inductive qualitative content analysis methodology adopted from Cho and Lee (2014).

Adapting Wynveen et al.’s (2010) suggested applicability of symbolic interactionism to understand place meanings, we revisited the revealed themes and quotes to support evidence of the five central ideas of symbolic interactionism described by Charon (2007). This study investigated the symbols (words) used to explain the meanings and noted where participants’ descriptions of place meanings could be seen to reference the influence of setting, individual, and/or individual’s social contexts. Finally, we labeled references to key concepts inherent in each of the five main ideas of social interactionism.

Trustworthiness

The study validity can be improved by comparing and contrasting the findings for credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this research, credibility was achieved through confirming evaluation of data analysis conclusions, in a process wherein colleagues and fellow researchers checked each other’s interpretations. Transferability was reached by thick description (Geertz, 1973), allowing the researchers to assess the applicability of the findings to different settings, situations, or subjects. Dependability was obtained through an inquiry audit by eliciting a colleague’s review of the study process, and the auditor provided feedback to the researcher who evaluated it. Confirmability was earned through reflexivity, a data audit, and triangulation of the transcripts with additional documents, for example, field notes.

Findings

In the description of the meanings stakeholders have about EVER, four research themes emerged: EVER as a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats, a place for recreation and tourism a place for an ancestral home, and a place for financial investment. In this section, we describe each meaning and show excerpts from respondents’ narratives evidencing the five central ideas of symbolic interactionism.

EVER as a Place With Unique Natural Resources and Biodiverse Ecosystem Habitats

Unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats were the most frequently cited theme among all stakeholders. Respondents’ perceptions of biodiverse ecosystem habitats were associated with unique natural resources that cannot be found in other places. For instance, several interviewees spoke of the unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats as natural manifestation of their attachment to place. EVER represents the biggest and most vital remnant of native plant communities in South Florida (I-11); it is home to alligators, native animals, and reptiles (I-48), and is a unique wetland ecosystem with several endangered species (I-29). A resident mentioned “It is very important because the national park is preserving the native vegetation” (I-19). This perception of preservation of various species was further described in an interview with a landscape architect from Miami: “The Park preserves habitat that supports a significant number of avian and faunal species, many common to and only found within the Everglades ecosystem” (I-23).

The interviews indicated that various stakeholders highlighted intrinsic values of a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats, such as how they appreciated the environment of EVER, were proud of the park, and wanted to preserve its biodiversity. For instance, one president of a volunteer organization described EVER like this:

Everglades National Park is the heart of the huge biological system in the driving force, a repository for life. We have enormous valuable marine fisheries around here. We have all kinds of upland habitat. It is important to many different kinds of animals. … It is important in its own right as it has intrinsic values that should be protected. … A dollar value doesn’t adequately reflect the reasons why we need to protect things because sometimes they deserve protection for their own right (I-6).

Similarly, many participants repeatedly stressed that EVER is an important natural and global asset. An education director from a voluntary organization said, “It is an incredibly biodiverse area and globally important for preservation” (I-17). Also, an environmental education associate in Miami-Dade County mentioned that “The park has become even more important to people. Our county gets more urbanized, and it keeps changing. The pressure is greater, but the pressure will also be there to protect the park” (I-10). In addition, a resident and retired park ranger mentioned that “It is very important because the national park is preserving the native vegetation” (I-19).

The above excerpts suggest that the respondents appreciated the opportunities biodiversity afforded, such as watching wildlife, and also valued it intrinsically valued the biodiversity. The excerpts exhibit two central themes of symbolic interactionism. First, the generalized other was invoked when participants considered the surrounding and salient social contexts, which evidences the complicated thought processes important in the second central idea. An example is the imagined viewpoint of a certain group in “… we [South Florida people] have,” said when considering the interconnectedness between humans and the environment. The occurrence of this feature illustrated the multifaceted nature of creating and maintaining meaning, combining concrete and abstract thought processes. Second, while all the meanings discussed in this study originate from individuals and their social contexts, in referencing biodiversity the participants gave evidence that physical environmental attributes serve as social objects (the fifth central idea of symbolic interactionism), wherein these informants engage with these physical environmental aspects during the process of meaning creation.

EVER as a Place for Recreation and Tourism

Regarding the individuals’ recreation and tourism, participants go to EVER to see different habitats and enjoy recreational activities and tourism. Study participants stated that they feel connected to EVER for various recreation and tourism, which is one qualitative feature of the emotional tie to EVER. As one member of a volunteer group aptly expressed, “we go to the Anhinga trail and couple of other places to feel the activity and nature” (I-13). A director of an environmental group shared her recreational engagement in EVER, saying “it becomes even more important to the community for recreation, tourism, education, and conservation, birdwatching, boating, bicycle riding, camping, and enjoying the knowledge of Everglades National Park” (I-31). The recreation and tourism value of EVER was developed through a combination of closeness to a residence, repeated visitation, and high involvement in EVER.

Furthermore, a chair of the advisory council from Sierra Club Florida shared that EVER is a place to escape everyday life and reconnect with nature: “what it means to me is a place of real Florida; a place to get away from the hustle and bustle of stressed life and go hiking” (I-8). A wetland ecologist found the park “[A] place to seek refuge, [a] way to get outside of the city, recreate, kayak on the water, great place to visit” (I-14). This is about creating open space that participants can use for a variety of formal and informal recreation and tourism purposes. Thus, participants shared that they are fortunate to be able go to EVER because it is a largely unspoiled wilderness destination quite close by. One retired senior naturalist from Miami-Dade Parks Department said, “it is right on our doorstep here. It is very close, and the last wilderness experience left in Florida” (I-51). As this quotation indicates, as people interact with the environment and gain experience, spaces become places imbued with social and cultural meaning. The respondent’s phrase “it is right on our doorstep here” suggests that he interacts with the surrounding from the moment he enters it.

The trolley program has been a success tourism between EVER and the city of Homestead. The original tourism concept of “the Trolley to the National Parks” program was created from between two national parks (Everglades and Biscayne) and in partnership with the National Parks and Conservation Association (NPCA), and Homestead about a need for public transportation to the park by using an existing public trolley system. It is the first national public transportation system to connect two National Parks with a free park admission and guided tour provided by rangers and volunteers. The trolley offers free park admission and transportation to residents, neighbors, and visitors (City of Homestead, 2016). According to the vice mayor of the city of Homestead:

It is a good partnership, at the city side from the tourism aspect. There are 1.5 million visitors to these national parks every single year. We are trying to find a way to get us to gateway. As you visit the park, you always come here, shop here, stay in our hotels, eat at our restaurants, and really connect us from an economic standpoint (I-36).

Various business stakeholders shared examples of how increased tourism has benefited the local area for outdoor recreation, tourism, infrastructure, and employment. These relationships boosted tourism in the adjacent community by naming Homestead as a “Gateway Community.”

EVER as a Place for an Ancestral Home

Respondents from each stakeholder group shared a conception of EVER as a place for an ancestral home, manifested in the sentiment of residents (Native Americans), volunteers, and business stakeholders. Residents perceived that EVER was a place where they lived (home, hometown, and history). For instance, an owner of a Florida outdoors business said, “I grew up spending much of my life in Everglades National Park. I have been to Everglades National Park many times. It has been related to my life a long time” (I-39). It became an important representation of wild Florida and part of their cultural and natural history. A museum director and local historian expressed her attachment to EVER by saying, “my delight is when somebody new to Everglades National Park came in and got to see their roots, their new home, and their new history” (I-45). Residents also perceived EVER as a place where they live and a home for future generations. One resident interviewee backed this up by saying, “it is a place that I need to look after and take care of. We came here to give back what we have taken for free for future generations” (I-2). Furthermore, EVER was perceived as an ancestral home of Native American cultural icons, having important historical significance for these people. A teacher of culture and language commented, “I am a full-blooded Seminole Native American in South Florida. Everglades National Park, the Swamp, and South Florida is home for the Seminoles” (I-48). The place carrying one’s past into the future is where ancestors lived, the spiritual and physical realms (Rameka, 2016).

In addition, participants perceived this area to be a hometown. Residents have a long history in and are familiar with this area, leading to their attachment. For instance, a nature photographer participant stated, “I was born and raised in Miami, Florida. I spend a lot of time in Everglades National Park” (I-35). An environmental education associate in Miami-Dade County mentioned that she is highly attached to EVER because of its proximity to her hometown and history, saying: “It is only 40 minutes from my hometown, a different world entirely. I have a very strong emotional attachment. The more you know about the park, the more interesting it gets and more attached to the home and land where our ancestors lived in the past” (I-10). Participants spoke of their perceived comfort and attachment due to destination proximity and cultural familiarity with EVER. People tend to feel nostalgic for places and recall memories that involve places from their past, be it their hometown and/or childhood home, motivating them to travel to return to and reconnect with the past (Liu & Choe, 2023; Pearce, 2012).

The place for an ancestral home meaning theme offers evidence of the second central idea of symbolic interactionism, which emphasizes that individuals utilize symbols (e.g., words) to contemplate and convey their thoughts and emotions regarding places. The informants’ deliberately used language, including descriptive terms and phrases associated with an ancestral home, referencing roots, home, history, homeland, growing up, spending much of their lives, long relation to their lives, and being a full-blooded Seminole.

EVER as a Place for Financial Investment

Respondents from each stakeholder group discussed their financial investment to EVER in terms of activity, dependence, and work. Business and science groups expressed the importance of EVER to their livelihood. For example, one participant had several positions, including fisherman, fishing guide, guided tour, and research manager (I-40). The primary goal of his work was to restore freshwater flow to EVER to improve estuary habitat. He had also been involved in advocacy work with EVER’s GMP process for 10 years to improve wildlife habitat through marine zoning areas to minimize human impacts. He had this to say of an example of his livelihood and attachment to EVER: “Everglades National Park means everything to my fishing business. … Sound management of that park gives us a good wildlife habitat that can sustain fisheries which is important to me, my business, my livelihood, and quality of life” (I-40).

Business stakeholders expressed that EVER meant the possessions of assets and activities needed to make their living (livelihood, dependence). For instance, the owner of a recreation business opined that EVER’s diverse wildlife is an incredible ecotourism resource:

We try to promote ecotourism in the park. That means we have wilderness in our backyard that will never be developed. It is going to be a nice place to see birds and sea creatures. If you go to the mainland part of Everglades, there is a chance to see panthers. It is a really important resource for us (I-32).

Science stakeholders talked about their interdisciplinary research and education to improve the ecosystem of EVER. Scientists engaged with EVER work on a variety of levels. At the managerial level, they help park managers develop the Everglades Restoration plans. At the legislative level, they give tours in EVER to policy makers. At the developmental level, they educate decision-makers about the significance of EVER. Mostly, scientists who participated in the interviews were involved in affecting the health of the ecosystem for restoration planning efforts and delivering more water to EVER. Researchers conducted studies in EVER, renewed research permits, submitted an annual report every year, and made research understandable. For example, one participant, a senior scientist with Coastal Engineering Consultants (I-39), worked as a member of the peer review panel on the Army Corps of Engineers’ project restoring upstream lands. Scientists were “indirectly helping, but would say [they were] directly helping with restoration efforts” (I-26).

The physical attributes of this largest subtropical wilderness in the world turned attention toward connections between the setting and the participants’ daily lives. Stakeholders valued financial investment because the uniqueness of the place afforded interaction with others and the setting. The meanings about the place are based partly on the experiences they recalled there and the thoughts and perceptions invoked when visiting or thinking about it. In keeping with the third symbolic interactionism central idea, continuous cognitive processes and interactions within social contexts shape and sustain the meanings attributed to places. Finally, meanings described in the financial investment theme combined cognitive and emotional responses to interacting with the environment. Hence, these data support the framework of symbolic interactionism which assumes that humans define their situation and then respond to their definition.

Discussion and Conclusion

The meanings stakeholders have about natural settings help explain how stakeholders view and value the park (Choe, Lee, & Andereck, 2024; Lee et al., 2018). The findings of this study support the central ideas of symbolic interactionism concerning the creation of these meanings. Data analysis generated themes of EVER as a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats, a place for recreation and tourism, a place for an ancestral home, and a place for financial investment.

The finding that stakeholders’ symbolic engagement with EVER was associated with a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats adds support to existing research on the emotional connection to the unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats and how it influences symbolic meanings and attachment to place (Raymond et al., 2010). However, this study found that various stakeholders emphasized intrinsic values of unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats, expressing their appreciation for EVER’s pristine ecology, and environmental quality, natural, beautiful, or unique appearance, and richness in biological diversity.

Second, the physical attributes of the place can facilitate or restrict one’s ability to experience a setting and participate in specific recreation and tourism (Wynveen et al., 2010), supporting past research that stakeholders may create attachment to a specific park because of its recreational benefits (Xu et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2021). The place for recreation and tourism meaning theme evidences the fifth central idea of symbolic interactionism, which underscores that individuals actively participate in creating their own experiences. Respondents conveyed that the expressions of these meanings differed, but from our interviews, we deduced that the knowledge they gained through their engagement with the environment played a role in creating the meanings they attributed to. Further, their interactions within different social contexts, such as conservationists, also contributed to the meaning formation, supporting the first central idea, that meaning is created in social interaction.

Third, stakeholders’ symbolic engagement with EVER was associated with a place for ancestral home, shared specifically by (Native American) residents, volunteers, and business stakeholder groups. The ancestral home theme that emerged support the premise that place attachment occurs when people experience powerful, long periods of time in a place so that it becomes a vast repository of meanings and rootedness (Bustam, 2009; Lee et al., 2018), in this case causing EVER to come to symbolize a person’s identity. The current study supports distinguishable properties of ancestral home, such as local knowledge and lived experience, as well as shared history, interests, and concerns (Bustam, 2009; Lee et al., 2018). For instance, this research found that EVER means homeland and place of historical significance for the Seminoles, which is consistent with past research showing ancestral and cultural connections (Lee et al., 2018; Raymond et al., 2010).

As proposed by Williams (2002), place meanings exhibit various layers, ranging from concrete and commonly accepted to symbolic and reflective of one’s identity. In this research, the ancestral home meaning was instantiated when EVER was perceived as ancestral home by these stakeholders, as a locale where they were born, grew up, and lived much of their lives and where they feel connected to their ancestors (Raymond et al., 2010), history, or hometown. A place for an ancestral home theme showed not only the significance of the past but also that of the connection between place meanings and individual identity, as respondents described how EVER constituted a part of their identity connected to their ancestry. The place served as a repository for memories woven into their identities (Altman & Low, 1992). In light of the crucial role of the past in constructing identity (Rameka, 2016), the places are of great import, instantiating the fourth central theme of symbolic interactionism, where humans reflect past experiences when responding to current stimuli.

Fourth, in the case of business and science groups, a place for financial investment meaning of EVER is likely to lead to a functional attachment to the place. Stakeholders’ livelihoods depended on EVER in terms of activity and dependence, which yielded their financial investment in EVER, because of its natural resources for ecotourism, business, and research. This finding is consistent with previous work which showed functional attachment to place given the recreational and/or work opportunities parks provide, which results in revitalization of commercial districts and the creation of local jobs and economic benefits to local residents and businesses (Lee et al., 2018; Williams, 2002).

The theme of a place for financial investment exemplifies the three central ideas of symbolic interactionism and provides evidence relating to the influence of social contexts. The findings emphasize that place meaning encompasses not only financial benefits but also a combination of social interactions for symbolic, economic, environmental, and entrepreneurial value. Respondents use the pronoun “we” to indicate the socially interactive situatedness of the place. The informant’s use of “we,” along with other respondents, exemplified the co-production process of meaning, as referenced in the first idea that individuals interactively create and shared meanings. Interestingly, it was challenging to separate statements related to this theme from those related to other identified themes. Wynveen et al. (2010) argue that this difficulty confirms that social interaction is important in forming a wide variety of place meanings and suggests interaction might precede the development of other meanings.

These dimensions are interconnected, although it seems that the setting plays a crucial role in shaping the experiences and meanings linked to the unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats. In reviewing related research, Eisenhauer et al. (2000) conclude that the reasons places have special meanings are the “environmental features/characteristics of place,” being a “site for recreational activities,” “family/friend related reasons,” and “economic/consumptive issues”; they further state that appreciating the environmental features of a place can involve different activities and experiences. In a similar study, results have shown that attachment to place develops from multiple meanings, all of which connect and involve other activities (Raymond et al., 2010). Our results are consistent with those of past studies showing that stakeholders’ place meanings can differ through their processes of activities and involvement such as recreation, protecting natural resources, preserving historic resources, maximizing financial resources, or a combination of reasons.

Several arguments can explain these findings. Place meanings can connect with some expected behaviors and relationships, the relationships developed through stakeholders’ symbolic engagement with EVER: we infer such engagement to mean stakeholders’“attachment to place” and/or “ownership” of EVER, the place. People’s emotional connections with the environment emerge from experiences and interactions in which specific meanings became connected with physical places (Eisenhauer et al., 2000). Specifically, individuals develop attachment to places, developing in their psyche emotional connections and caring for such areas (Eisenhauer et al., 2000). According to Ramkissoon et al. (2013), the study setting may explain how place meanings result in greater attachment to a place, which in turn leads to greater place satisfaction. In natural environments, a place acquires special significance because such environments boost positive emotions.

These meanings evolve into symbols representing a dynamic, socially constructed, and interactive relationship (Williams & Patterson, 1996). By actively engaging with places and imbuing them with meaning, individuals can cultivate relationships with these places. These relationships are lifelong, evolving over time, and influenced by past experiences (Manzo, 2005). Understanding the specific place meaning in the individual’s psyche is therefore a pre-requisite to motivating and further engaging the stakeholder in the participation processes (Tuxill et al., 2009) and can help to better incorporate social factors important to the stakeholders’ values in the management practices of protected areas at EVER.

Theoretical Implications

From a theoretical perspective, this study helps illuminate the meanings an array of stakeholders develop about national parks. First, this research fills a gap in the literature by exploring the meanings stakeholders have, going beyond research focused on park visitor and resident populations (Ramkissoon et al., 2013). Given the differences in interest have led to diverse place meanings uncovered because of this expansion of the specific meanings given to natural places by a variety of stakeholders, a considerable proportion of respondents maintained that there was a difference in emphasis regarding how stakeholders create meanings.

In this study, stakeholders’ varying backgrounds and views seem to be intertwined with interests, activities, involvement, and caring through participatory engagement, which yields meanings. Overall, a vast majority of participants perceived that stakeholders create EVER in meaning as a place with unique natural resources and biodiverse ecosystem habitats. Residents and NGOs were concerned about biodiversity preservation, intrinsic value, and how they could contribute to a sense of living in a natural setting. Business and science stakeholders, on the other hand, also perceived that EVER could also create a culture of a functional ecosystem and encourage alternative livelihoods because of its importance to their dependence, and way of life, as well as to their ability to maintain financial values. This difference in views illustrates the scope of interests and activities in which stakeholders engage, their policy issues, and their organizational form. Thus, the findings of this study reaffirm the multilayer nature of creating and maintaining meaning, combining concrete and abstract thought processes. However, more studies about the specific meanings natural places are given by various stakeholders are needed as the meaning and the formation of attachment to place can vary according to the background of individuals (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002).

Second, in answer to Wynveen et al.’s (2010) call for application of the social interactionist framework to place meaning, the respondents’ narratives were shown to support the central ideas of the framework. By centralizing the interaction of elements, symbolic interactionist framework provides an apt framework for exploring place meaning formation through the interaction of setting with an individual and their social world (Wynveen et al., 2010). In our study, the interpretations of meanings showed how individual experiences are developed interactively with others and with the natural environment (Jordan et al., 2009). Humans, being purposive agents (Blumer, 1969), can self-reflect and actively interpret the world by experiencing it and reflecting on their experiences (Jordan et al., 2009).

Third, this study contributes to the literature by integrating social factors (place meanings) into the concept of protected area management, which helped to identify reasons why places have meaning. The study findings clarified multiple meanings involved in attachment to EVER that have emerged from four themes.

Managerial Implications

Many practical implications can be drawn from this study. The findings imply that protected area managers need to consider the significance of the meanings people have about places. This is because meanings relate to some expected behaviors and relationships, such as improved relationships with stakeholders and/or organizations, pro-environmental behaviors, public participation, improved communication, and collaboration. By identifying these four emergent themes, the study’s findings provide useable knowledge for creating management strategies for areas considered special by constituents.

The findings of this study offer valuable insights into how place meanings help park management incorporate these diverse meanings effectively, and what strategies could be employed to address potential conflicts between stakeholders. Effective strategies could be employed to address potential conflicts between different users and conflicts between recreational use and nature conservation in natural areas. To raise environmental awareness among stakeholders, park management can prioritize educational initiatives for youth, older people, newcomers, and recreational and voluntary groups (Choe, 2016). This approach allows stakeholders to better recognize the vulnerability and take more initiative in developing ways to reduce it. Furthermore, interpretive and volunteer programs can also attract visitors who are interested in learning and environmental conservation (Eck et al., 2023; Song et al., 2024). These programs include the Citizen Science Journeys, National Parks BioBlitz, International Volunteers-in-Parks, Amtrak Trails & Rails, Girl Scout Ranger Program, Resource Stewardship Scout Ranger Program, Community Volunteer Ambassador Program, and Trolley Program (NPS, 2023b).

Park managers can incorporate these diverse meanings in sustaining protected areas, engaging a range of groups in decision-making processes. For example, park managers can use public participation geographic information systems in collaboration with researchers to understand the meanings held by stakeholders involved in regional research in Florida (Choe, 2016). This approach, by delineating the geographical boundaries of stakeholders’ place meanings and attachments, enables park managers to incorporate psychological and spatial data into natural resources management, thereby personalizing the public’s connection to the natural area (Choe et al., 2023; Gunderson & Watson, 2007). The park management can foster hometown connections and a sense of stewardship among stakeholders by engaging them in the conservation of natural heritage and its associated cultural significance. Park practitioners can also provide special skills training and offer a path for employment opportunities, such as youth corps, conservation corps, internships, environmental leadership training programs, and partnerships with local businesses for sustainable ventures.

Park managers need to understand how to communicate with stakeholders in accordance with the specific meanings they give natural places through communication that goes to the heart of the meanings that stakeholders have for EVER. The meanings identified in this research can help communicators in conveying meaningful messages and practices about national parks to develop a more tailored message in a way that they feel comfortable with and are receptive to. Managers can appeal to stakeholders focus on the identified themes, for instance, through heartfelt stories about people’s connection to the park. In this way, the NPS implicitly impresses visitors with increased engagement and raises awareness and support for a sustainability issue.

The study findings offer important managerial implications for practitioners in the post-pandemic era to develop strategies considering the diverse meanings attributed to protected areas by various stakeholders as manifested through socially constructed actions. This emphasizes the necessity of flexible and reversible place meanings that can adapt to ever-changing environments and evolve organically (Moon et al., 2021; Warren & Dinnie, 2017). Moreover, the pandemic has amplified the significance of outdoor settings such as public green nature areas and parks in promoting visitors’ physical and mental well-being and fostering positive social connections (Levinger et al., 2022). Consequently, various interpretations of place meanings have become more dynamic and uncertain in the post-pandemic era (J. H. Huang et al., 2022; Sang, 2021). Thus, the findings of this research can offer valuable insight for park practitioners and stakeholders to enhance park management with design strategies considering the myriad place meanings attributed to protected areas in the post-pandemic period (Choe, Lee, & Lin, 2024). Ensuring the flexibility of place meanings is vital to encouraging stakeholder engagement in decision-making processes and synthesizing study findings into management strategies within the park setting (Choe, Lee, & Lin, 2024).

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Due to the limited selection of the sample only drawn from EVER and the potential biases in the snowball sampling from the Everglades Coalition webpage, there may have sample limitations on the composition of stakeholders. Therefore, the sample may not represent a range of perspectives, and the results are specific to EVER and not applicable to other national parks or protected areas. Further research could incorporate a variety of samples from other destinations and include a more diverse set of stakeholders located beyond the park boundaries. Second, a researcher may have a bias in conducting the interviews because of a lack of objectivity based on individual environmental values and specific value orientations toward nature. In addition, respondents can have a bias because of poor memory, exaggeration, a lack of relationship with the interviewer, or a misunderstanding of the interviewer’s purpose. In future studies, different research methods can be employed for collecting data, such as more diverse interviewers, mixed-methods, focus groups, and expert panels. Future studies can also identify place meanings across different stakeholder groups linked to a specific stakeholder group or analyze discrepancies among these groups’ perceptions. This approach could provide valuable insights into how respondents’ socio-economic status intersects with individuals’ perceptions of place meanings. Further investigation can provide additional perspectives by including internal stakeholder groups, for example, NPS employees or vendors. Additional research could incorporate interview questions about stakeholders involved in the collaborative process, for example, role, conflict, power, influence, inequality, and the political environment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the interviewees for their time and valuable contribution to this research. This study is part of the dissertation written by at Texas A&M University entitled “Examining the relationship between stakeholders and Everglades National Park.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yunseon Choe

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Agnew

(1987). The United States in the world-economy: A regional geography. CUP Archive.

Alamri

W. A.

(2019). Effectiveness of qualitative research methods: Interviews and diaries. International Journal of English and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 65–70.

Altman

Low

S. M.

(1992). Place Attachment. Plenum Press.

Atkins

Wallace

(2012). Insider research. In Atkins

Wallace

(Eds.), Qualitative research in education (pp. 47–64). Sage Publications.

Auburn

Barnes

(2006). Producing place: A neo-Schutzian perspective on the ‘psychology of place’. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 38–50.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. University of California Press.

Brehm

J. M.

Eisenhauer

B. W.

Stedman

R. C.

(2013). Environmental concern: Examining the role of place meaning and place attachment. Society & Natural Resources, 26(5), 522–538.

Bricker

K. S.

Kerstetter

D. L.

(2002). An interpretation of special place meanings whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of the American River. Tourism Geographies, 4(4), 396–425.

Bustam

T. D.

(2009). Place attachment, power mechanisms, landscape valuation, and attitudes toward protected area management of Everglades National Park, Florida [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3400232)

10.

Charon

J. M.

(2007). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Pearson Prentice Hall.

11.

Cheng

A. S.

Kruger

L. E.

Daniels

S. E.

(2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science research Agenda. Society & Natural Resources, 16(2), 87–104.

12.

Cho

J. Y.

Lee

E. H.

(2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. Qualitative Report, 19(32).

13.

Choe

(2016). Examining the relationship between stakeholders and Everglades National Park [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University]. The OAK Trust Digital Repository. https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/158622

14.

Choe

Lee

C. K.

Choi

Kim

Sim

K. W.

(2023). Identifying tourist spatial and temporal patterns using GPS and sequence alignment method. Journal of Travel Research, 62(6), 1181–1201.

15.

Choe

Lee

Andereck

(2024). Values to visit a culturally significant but forbidden land: A case of North Korea. Sage Open, 14(1), 1–16.

16.

Choe

Lee

(2022). Exploring values via the innovative application of social media with parks amid COVID-19: A qualitative content analysis of text and images using ATLAS.ti. Sustainability, 14(20), 13026.

17.

Choe

Lee

Lin

(2024). Exploring relationships among cultural ecosystem service values, spiritual well-being, and life satisfaction: Implications for the post-pandemic era. Tourism Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3727/108354224X17059673670361

18.

Choe

Schuett

M. A.

(2020). Stakeholders’ perceptions of social and environmental changes affecting Everglades National Park in South Florida. Environmental Development, 35, 100524.

19.

City of Homestead (2016). Homestead trolley to the national parks. Retrieved November 10, 2024, from https://www.cityofhomestead.com/index.aspx?nid=357

20.

Cohen

Arieli

(2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48(4), 423–435.

21.

Conroy

M. J.

Peterson

J. T.

(2013). Decision making in natural resource management: A structured, adaptive approach. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

22.

Clarke

A. L.

Dalrymple

G. H.

(2003). $7.8 billion for Everglades restoration: why do environmentalists look so worried?. Population and Environment, 24, 541–569.

23.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

24.

Denzin

N. K.

(1989). Interpretive interactionism. Sage.

25.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

26.

Eck

Choe

(2023). Environmental interpretation and socio-cognitive mindfulness: A literature review. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 44(Part B), 100704.

27.

Eisenhauer

B. W.

Krannich

R. S.

Blahna

D. J.

(2000). Attachments to special places on public lands: An analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections. Society & Natural Resources, 13(5), 421–441.

28.

Freeman

R. E.

(1984). Strategic planning: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.

29.

Geertz

(1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In Gertz

(Ed.), The interpretation of cultures (pp. 3–30). Basic Books.

30.

Given

L. M.

(Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Sage.

31.

Gunderson

Watson

(2007). Understanding place meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest, Montana. Society & Natural Resources, 20(8), 705–721.

32.

Heikkila

Gerlak

A. K.

(2014). Investigating collaborative processes over time: A 10-year study of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 1–21.

33.

Howe

McMahon

E. T.

Propst

(2012). Balancing nature and commerce in gateway communities. Island Press.

34.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

35.

Huang

J. H.

Floyd

M. F.

Tateosian

L. G.

Aaron Hipp

(2022). Exploring public values through Twitter data associated with urban parks pre- and post- COVID-19. Landscape and Urban Planning, 227, 104517.

36.

Huang

Montgomery

(2017). The meanings of destination: A Q method approach. Journal of Travel Research, 56(6), 793–807.

37.

Johnson

R. B.

Christensen

L. B.

(2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Allyn and Bacon.

38.

Jordan

D. J.

Cox

Thompson

Jeon

Palacios

Patterson

Henderson

K. A.

(2009). An exploration of the meanings of parks in Oklahoma. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(2), 17–32.

39.

Kyle

Chick

(2007). The social construction of a sense of place. Leisure Sciences, 29(3), 209–225.

40.

Kyle

G. T.

Mowen

A. J.

Tarrant

(2004). Linking place preferences with place meaning: An examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 439–454.

41.

Lee

(1972). The social definition of recreation places. In Burch

Jr. Cheek

Jr. Tylor

(Eds.), Social behavior, natural resources and the environment (pp. 68–84). Harper and Row.

42.

Lee

J. H.

Matarrita-Cascante

Schuett

(2018). Examining the conflicting relationship between US National parks and host communities: understanding a community’s diverging perspectives. Sustainability, 10(10), 3667.

43.

Levinger

Cerin

Milner

Hill

K. D.

(2022). Older people and nature: The benefits of outdoors, parks and nature in light of COVID-19 and beyond- where to from here? International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 32(6), 1329–1336.

44.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

45.

Liu

Choe

(2023). Motivation-based segmentation of tourist shoppers to Hainan during COVID-19. Sage Open, 13(3), 1–14.

46.

Luloff

A. E.

Finley

J. C.

Diefenbach

Stedman

R. C.

San Julian

Zinn

Swope

Brennan

M. A.

Matarrita

(2004). A comparison of hunter movement, activities and opinions during two Pennsylvania hunting seasons. The Human Dimensions Unit.

47.

Luloff

A. E.

Finley

J. C.

Myers

Metcalf

Matarrita

Gordon

J. S.

Raboanarielina

Gruver

(2011). What do stakeholders add to identification of conservation lands? Society & Natural Resources, 24(12), 1345–1353.

48.

Manzo

L. C.

(2005). For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 67–86.

49.

Matarrita-Cascante

Stedman

Luloff

A. E.

(2010). Permanent and seasonal residents’ community attachment in natural amenity-rich areas: Exploring the contribution of landscape-related factors. Environment and Behavior, 42(2), 197–220.

50.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press.

51.

Milligan

M. J.

(1998). Interactional past and potential: The social construction of place attachment. Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), 1–33.

52.

Moon

Choe

Song

(2021). Determinants of consumers’ online/offline shopping behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041593

53.

National Park Service. (2015). Stewardship institute. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from http://www.nps.gov/orgs/1412/index.htm

54.

National Park Service. (2018). A Call to Action preparing for a second century of stewardship and engagement. https://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/index.html

55.

National Park Service. (2023a). Everglades National Park Florida. https://www.nps.gov/ever/learn/news/parkstatistics.htm

56.

National Park Service. (2023b). Volunteer programs. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/volunteer/programs.htm

57.

National Research Council. (2014). Progress toward restoring the Everglades: The Fifth Biennial Review: 2014. National Academies Press.

58.

Ogden

(2006). Public participation in environmental decision-making: A case study of ecosystem restoration in South Florida. Cahiers d’Economie et Sociologie Rurales, 80(1), 53–73.

59.

Parker

Scott

Geddes

(2019). Snowball sampling. Sage Research Methods Foundations.

60.

Pearce

(2012). The Ulysses factor: Evaluating visitors in tourist settings. Springer Science & Business Media.

61.

Peet

(1998). Modern geographical thought. Blackwell.

62.

Pryor

B. K.

(2005). The role of an environmental NGO in the landmark Florida Everglades Restoration: An ethnography of environmental conflict resolution with many twists and turns. Heliographica Press.

63.

Rameka

(2016). Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua: ‘I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past’. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(4), 387–398.

64.

Ramkissoon

Graham Smith

L. D.

Weiler

(2013). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36, 552–566.

65.

Raymond

C. M.

Brown

Weber

(2010). The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 422–434.

66.

Sang

(2021). Reconstructing the place branding model from the perspective of Peircean semiotics. Annals of Tourism Research, 89, 103209.

67.

Sheikh

P. A.

(2002). Florida Everglades restoration: Background on implementation and early lessons. Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31621.html

68.

Smaldone

Harris

Sanyal

(2008). The role of time in developing place meanings. Journal of leisure research, 40(4), 479–504.

69.

Smith

S. L.

(2011). An analysis of marine reserve co-management within the Caribbean: Factors influencing stakeholder participation (Doctoral dissertation). http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=oa_diss

70.

Song

Moon

Choe

(2024). Determinants of cultural heritage tourism demands: Learning in cultural heritage tourism destination. Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport & Tourism Education, 35, 100499.

71.

Stedman

R. C.

(2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 671–685.

72.

Tuan

Y. F.

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

73.

Tuxill

J. L.

Mitchell

Clark

(2009). Stronger together: A manual on the principles and practices of civic engagement. National Park Service Conservation Study Institute and National Park Service Northeast Region Office of Interpretation and Education.

74.

Warren

Dinnie

(2017). Exploring the dimensions of place branding: An application of the ICON model to the branding of Toronto. International Journal of Tourism Cities, 3(1), 56–68.

75.

Williams

D. R.

(2002). Leisure identities, globalization, and the politics of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 351–367.

76.

Williams

D. R.

Patterson

M. E.

(1996). Environmental meaning and ecosystem management: Perspectives from environmental psychology and human geography. Society & Natural Resources, 9(5), 507–521.

77.

Wynveen

C. J.

Kyle

G. T.

(2015). A place meaning scale for tropical marine settings. Environmental Management, 55(1), 128–142.

78.

Wynveen

C. J.

Kyle

G. T.

Sutton

S. G.

(2010). Place meanings ascribed to marine settings: The case of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Leisure Sciences, 32(3), 270–287.

79.

Fox

(2014). Modelling attitudes to nature, tourism and sustainable development in national parks: A survey of visitors in China and the UK. Tourism Management, 45, 142–158.

80.

Lee

J. H.

Matarrita-Cascante

(2021). Profiling attached residents in an urban community in the US: An empirical study of social–landscape interactions within a park. The Social Sciences, 11(1), 5.

81.

Matarrita-Cascante

Lee

J. H.

Luloff

A. E.

(2019). Incorporating physical environment-related factors in an assessment of community attachment: Understanding urban park contributions. Sustainability, 11(20), 5603.

82.

Yoo

Choe

Lee

(2022). Exploring pilgrimage value by ZMET: The mind of Christian pilgrims. Annals of Tourism Research, 96, 103466.

Exploring Place Meanings Stakeholders Have About Everglades National Park

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Problem Statement and Objectives

Conceptual Framework

The Construction of Place Meanings

Place Meanings and Natural Settings

Theoretical Framework

Symbolic Interactionism

Methodology

Site Selection

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Trustworthiness

Findings

EVER as a Place With Unique Natural Resources and Biodiverse Ecosystem Habitats

EVER as a Place for Recreation and Tourism

EVER as a Place for an Ancestral Home

EVER as a Place for Financial Investment

Discussion and Conclusion

Theoretical Implications

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References