Promoting Diversity in Public Outreachand Volunteerism for Sustainable

Ecosystems

Report #4/4 prepared for:Operations Division: Environmental Section and Forestry Section

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Minnesota

Prepared by: Pamela Herou, Nicole Harder, Nora Helf, Brian Ites,

Rebecca Price, and John Stelzner

College of Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resource SciencesUniversity of Minnesota

December 7, 2006

i

Acknowledgments

We would first and foremost like to thank the Minneapolis Park and RecreationBoard (MPRB) for their cooperation with interviews and the valuable informationthey were able to provide us. Specifically, Jim Hermann, as he served as the voiceof the Forestry Section of the MPRB, in helping us understand the needs of thePark Board. We also appreciate the direction from Marcia Holmberg and for herconstant guidance throughout this project. Other MPRB staff members that wewould extend out thanks to for providing insight are: Paul Domholt, Jason Green,Jamie McBride, MaryLynn Pulscher, and Abby Schrader.

Many people shared their insights relating to other volunteer programs around themetro area; we would like to thank:

• Jenny Winkelman from the Mississippi Watershed ManagementOrganization

• Jason Sanders from the Dodge Nature Center• Elizabeth Storey from the Friends of Mississippi• Tessa Pinkstaff from the Great River Greening• Renee Vail from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

These people provided us with useful advice for understanding the importance ofvolunteer programs.

Furthermore, we acknowledge Dr. Kristen Nelson and Dr. Gary Johnson for theircontinuous guidance and support. With their direction throughout this project wewere able to gain a better understanding on how to create and work with a projectin a real world setting. We would also like to extend our gratitude to our teachingassistant, Stephanie Grayzeck. Her ongoing assistance helped to move the projectalong smoothly. Finally, we would like to thank our classmates for providing uswith supporting information. Through collaboration, we created linkages betweengroups to work toward our common vision.

ii

Executive Summary

This report was developed as a resource for the Minneapolis Parks and RecreationBoard (MPRB) as they create a new comprehensive plan. It focuses on publicoutreach and volunteer opportunities that impart knowledge about ecosystems,while taking into consideration the growing diversity of Minneapolis’ population.The Minneapolis park system was created in the late 1800s, forming a legacy forgreen space in a growing urban setting that is invaluable today. The Minneapolispark system consists of more than 150 parks, natural areas and recreationalcenters. Students in ESPM 4195: Problem Solving and Planning in NaturalResources course at the University of Minnesota crafted the following report tosupport the MPRB in strengthening existing volunteer operations and enhancingeducational and public outreach programs by promoting ecological andorganizational sustainability. The findings and recommendations are based oninformation collected through interviews with public outreach and volunteercoordinators, attendance at MPRB town hall meetings, census and data literaturereview, and park user surveys After reviewing the goals and objectives of eachMPRB environmental education class offered from winter 2005 through fall2006, we found that most of the programs emphasized wildlife, nativebiodiversity and water quality. The classes offered focus less on historical andinvasive species perspectives. After reviewing literature we found that the key toattracting volunteers and creating meaningful, sustainable relationships with themis to purposely address their desire for values, understanding social experienceand career opportunities served by volunteerism.

From the demographic data, we found that not only has there been an increase intotal population in Minneapolis for the first time since 1950, but there have alsobeen large increases in diverse populations. The majority of the increase lieswithin the Hmong and Somali populations. After careful consideration ourrecommendations are as follows:

Recommendation 1: Expand current environmental education programs as afoundation for diverse ecosystems.

Recommendation 2: Enrich current volunteer programs to strengthen ecosystemprograms and support residents’ well-being.

Recommendation 3: Provide diverse resident populations with ecologicalknowledge and access to diverse landscapes.

iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures ....................................................................................................... ivList of Tables ........................................................................................................ iv

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

Methods ................................................................................................................. 2Site Description ............................................................................................... 2Research Techniques ....................................................................................... 6

Findings ................................................................................................................. 8Site Visit .......................................................................................................... 8Demographics .................................................................................................. 9Volunteerism .................................................................................................. 11Volunteer Coordination ................................................................................. 12Community Environmental Values ............................................................... 13Community Awareness of MPRB Educational and Volunteer Opportunities 13Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Organization .................................... 14Environmental Education and Outreach Programs ........................................ 15Current Environmental Education Curriculum .............................................. 16

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 18Recommendation 1: Expand Current Environmental Education Programs

as a Foundation for Diverse Ecosystems .................................................. 18Recommendation 2: Enrich Current Volunteer Programs to Strengthen

Ecosystem Programs and Support Residents’ Well-being ...................... 21Recommendation 3: Provide Diverse Resident Populations with Ecological

Knowledge and Access to Diverse Landscapes ....................................... 23

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 26

References ............................................................................................................ 27

Appendix A: Interview Questions ...................................................................... 29Appendix B: Park User Survey ........................................................................... 30Appendix C: 2006 MPRB Forestry Section Special Events/Projects/Updated

10/4/06 .......................................................................................................... 31Appendix D. Curriculum that Exhibits Both Historical Ecology and Invasive

Species .......................................................................................................... 35

iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Grand Rounds,Minneapolis, MN, 2006 ................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. Minneapolis population by census year: 1980-2000 .......................... 10

Figure 3. Minneapolis population by race/ethnicity in 1990 and 2000 .............. 10

Figure 4. MPRB Organization Chart .................................................................. 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Curriculum themes in MPRB Environmental Education Programsoffered from 2005 to 2006 ............................................................................. 17

1

Introduction

The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) contributes to the broadercommunity in many ways, two important contributions are its public outreach andcitizen involvement. Public outreach that imparts knowledge about ecosystems isan effective way to inform residents about issues that will affect their localcommunities and quality of life. By understanding these issues, localcommunities can become empowered to improve their communities. One methodof community empowerment as described by Peter Dreier suggests that,“Community organizing involves mobilizing people to combat common problemsand to increase their voice in institutions and decisions that affect their lives andcommunities” (1996). A key challenge in outreach programs is creating links indiverse urban populations. There are many differences in cultural ideas, and forthis reason, park and environmental programs work to diversify their offerings. As one Florida educator pointed out, “A ‘cookie-cutter’ or ‘one-size-fits all’approach to public outreach results in some parties being overlooked orunintentionally omitted” (US Army Corps of Engineers 2003). BecauseMinneapolis is evolving to be a more ethnically diversity community, there is aneed to focus on specialized outreach programs for new residents over the next 30years. While outreach programs can educate citizens, volunteerism also connectspeople with other community members and gives participants a sense of pride intheir communities. In a study done at Cornell University, Moen and Fields (1998)found that “Volunteerism is particularly beneficial to men, urbanites, those withless income, in poor health, and retirees who don't work.” Many of Minneapolis’residents would benefit from volunteerism and environmental education outreachefforts provided by the MPRB.

In the fall of 2006, the Forestry and Environmental Operations Divisions of theMPRB invited students in the ESPM 4195: Problem Solving and Planning inNatural Resources course at the University of Minnesota to assist them indeveloping ideas and support materials for a new comprehensive plan for the parksystem. The MPRB’s plan “will define priorities for the allocation of resourcesand delivery of services to create a park system alert to the needs of thecommunity and integral to a thriving city” (MPRB 2006). With the plan in place,the park system will operate in a way that is sustainable, providing recreationalopportunities well into the future for the growing population. The vision thatguides this collaboration project for the comprehensive plan is to enhance parkmanagement in a sustainable manner while maintaining local heritage, meetingthe needs of the public, and promoting environmental awareness. To address thisvision the students worked with the MPRB staff to focus four projects: (1)Managing transitions between diverse land types, (2) Prioritizing landmanagement for the environmental section, (3) Managing the human/naturalsystems interface: historical and cultural landscapes and uses, and finally the

2

topic of this report, (4) Environmental education and volunteerism for futureecosystems.

In 1965, when the last comprehensive plan was created, the demographics of theMinneapolis area were very different. In recent years, population growth hasresulted in an increase in competing land use interests. As population densitiesincrease, more park users will recreate within Minneapolis parks, making itextremely important to manage for a sustainable park system. Current populationtrends have shown an increase in population in general, but specifically in a moreethnically diverse population. The 2000 Minnesota Census revealed a statewide113.8% increase in residents of African descent since 1990; it also revealed a111.1% increase in residents of Asian descent in the same time period (USCensus Bureau 2000). This has created a corresponding need to focus publicoutreach toward new residents as well as longstanding residents.

One way to link residents with the MPRB ecosystems is through public outreachand a sustainable volunteer program that integrates hands-on landscapemanagement practices with conservation education. To address these issues, thereport goal is to support the MPRB in and enhancing educational and publicoutreach programs and strengthening existing volunteer operations by promotingecological and organizational sustainability.

The following objectives helped us achieve this goal:

1. Inventory the current public outreach and volunteer programs.2. Review the literature, plans and options in other municipal park systems

for public outreach and volunteer programs.3. Assess park staff and relevant partners’ interests and needs.4. Developing a vision statement to identify issues and make

recommendations for policies, regulations, and management.5. Link the recommendations to relevant Minneapolis Park and Recreation

Board comprehensive planning documents.

Methods

Site DescriptionMinneapolis is located along the banks of the Mississippi River in the east-centralportion of Minnesota. The city’s name originated from the presence of numerouslakes in the area and is derived from a combination of Dakota and Greek wordsfor water and city. Combined, the city of St. Paul and Minneapolis arecollectively known as the “Twin Cities” and form the core of the state’s largestmetropolitan area.

3

The Minneapolis area was first occupied by the Dakota people, whose bands werehunters and gatherers and accomplished in horsemanship. By 1800, theMdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) had established themselves near present day St.Anthony Falls. During this time, fur trading with the American Fur Company andmissionaries was the Dakota’s main form of commerce and communication withEuropean immigrants. The Fort Snelling military compound was established in1819 and helped spur development in the region and the growth of the TwinCities. Minneapolis sprang up on Fort Snelling land near St. Anthony’s Falls onthe west bank of the Mississippi. In 1829, a Mdewakanton village was located onwhat is now known as Lake Calhoun. Fort Snelling Indian Agent, LawrenceTaliaferro, began to work with this band, encouraging them to begin farming withthe plow. In 1838, an agreement was reached about the land east of theMississippi River which opened the land to private ownership by Europeansettlers. By 1839, there were approximately 500 non-native people in the area(Minneapolis Public Library 2001). By 1846, the region had seen major changes,including logging of trees and conversion of the vast prairies into farms. Thebuffalo population in Minnesota had been depleted and the population of deer,bear, and other animals had been significantly reduced in the Minneapolis area. During this same time, whooping cough decimated a large portion of the Dakotapeople. Due to their growing dependence on immigrant’s goods, the Dakotacontinued to sell off their land, even though the concept of private ownership wasforeign to them. To receive the commercial goods, treaties were agreed upon, andthe Dakota began to lose control over much of their ancestral land (MinneapolisPublic Library 2001).

Early economic activity in Minneapolis centered on fur trading and then timbersales, but when the availability of wild game and timber declined, Minneapolisbusiness owners changed the course of the area’s industry. Although many citieswere successful at producing and exporting flour, Minneapolis’ close proximity tothe Mississippi River and St. Anthony Falls allowed flour mills to rely onhydropower, which enabled Minneapolis to become the world’s largest flourproducer. As railroads expanded and technologies improved, Minneapolisdeveloped diverse industries. Minneapolis is now home to many banking,medical, and technological operations, and is widely considered the main hub ofcommerce in the Upper Midwest.

Over time, Minneapolis residents could trace their origins to primarily NativeAmerican, Scandinavian, and German heritages. Later, migrations of EasternEuropeans as well as the more recent arrival of Latin American, Asian, andAfrican immigrants, have further diversified the city’s ethnic makeup. As of2000, the population of Minneapolis was 382,618 (City of Minneapolis 2000). Amajority of these residents are between the ages of 25-44, and have an averageincome of $37,974 (City of Minneapolis 2000).

4

The early history of Minneapolis contributes to the foundation of the MPRB,which began when Edward Murphy donated the first parkland in 1857. By 1883,an independent Board of Park and Commissioners was created for the city. In thelate 1800s they had a vision to create corridors that would connect parks aroundthe city called the “Grand Rounds.” In the early 1900s, the Board of Parks andCommissioners chose to create a Recreation Division. Although the RecreationDivision was added in the early 1900s, it did not become part of the title until the1960s. After years of planning, the “Bicycle Grand Rounds” was created in thelate 1990s (Figure 1). During the late 1960s, park usage soared to unprecedentedlevels which became a challenge for sustainable management of the parks. Theneed to respond to increased uses can be seen in the recent budget shortfallidentified on the MPRB website. “An analysis of system infrastructure identified$100 million in capital improvement needs for the neighborhood park system andfunding gaps of $5 million for programs and other services. The Board is seekingto increase funding to begin capital improvements and program enhancements”(MPRB 2006).

A unique characteristic of the MPRB is that it is an independent institution ratherthan a division under the city of Minneapolis. It is independently funded andorganized into five divisions: recreation, operations, administration, development,and planning.

“The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) is a semi-autonomous independent body of City Government founded in 1883 bylegislative authority. It is responsible for maintaining and developing theMinneapolis Park system and providing a comprehensive set of servicesand recreation programs that meet the needs of all Minneapolis citizens.The MPRB also provides for the policing of park properties andmaintenance of street trees. Just as the City of Minneapolis has electedofficials (City Council Members), who direct the work of CityDepartments and staff, the MPRB has its own elected officials (Board ofCommissioners) who direct the work of MPRB Divisions and staff.Commissioners are elected every four years (same schedule as the Mayorand City Council Members). The Board also levies taxes within the limitsset by the Board of Estimate and Taxation, files appropriations, andcontrols expenditures from several operating funds” (MPRB 2006).

The MPRB land management area includes 6,400 acres divided into more than150 parks ranging in size and type (Figure 1). There are 43.6 miles of walkingpaths and 43.36 miles of biking paths (MPRB 2006). The paths run throughparkland composed of a variety of ecotones. From mixed-mesic hardwood standsto black spruce bogs and from prairies to lakeshores, the landscape varies greatlythroughout the system. The quaking bog, located in Theodore Wirth Park, isunique to the area and one of the last remaining natural bogs in Minnesota.

5

Figure 1. Map of Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Grand Rounds, Minneapolis, MN, 2006. (Source: MPRB 2006)

6

Research TechniquesA mixed method approach is very useful in examining both qualitative andquantitative data. As described by John W. Creswell (2003), author of ResearchDesign this method is based on the presumption that “…collecting diverse typesof data best provides an understanding of a research problem.” We used thefollowing methods in this study: town hall meetings, site visits, interview,surveys, literature reviews, and document reviews.

Town Hall Meetings and Site VisitsIn an effort to better understand Minneapolis citizens’ concerns, we attended twoof six town hall meetings organized by the MPRB for the comprehensiveplanning process. The meetings were intended to gauge public sentimentregarding open space and recreation in order to help plan for the Minneapolispark system’s future (MPRB 2006). The comprehensive plan is in its secondphase of five: the Community Outreach and Research phase. In this phase,MPRB asks the questions, “What are the current demands and needs, and whatare the evolving trends?” (MPRB 2006). Four authors of this report attended townhall meetings September 26 at Whittier Park Community Center, and October 3 atLoring Park Recreation Center. Upon entering the facility, each person was givena name tag with a number that coincided with a specific focus group. Each groupconsisted of approximately ten people. We divided up into different groups forthe breakout session, as a means of getting a better understanding of theparticipant’s desires and concerns. From 6:30 to 8:30 pm, a facilitator asked parkusers open-ended questions as a means of achieving a general consensus aboutwhat the participants viewed as important issues. The facilitator compared andcontrasted the varying participant opinions by identifying commonalities anddifferences within discussions. We took notes at these meetings and used theinsights as a general introduction to the MPRB.

As an introduction to the MPRB, Marcia Holmberg, Environmental Sectionvisited the class for a question and answer session on September 14, 2006. Wealso visited the Minnehaha Regional Park for a follow up meeting. We gainedvaluable knowledge about the natural areas, as well as environmental volunteerand education programs within the Operations Division of the MPRB. Meetingwith Marcia was helpful because we were able to gain knowledge about the waythe MPRB functions. We also learned about concerns and needs in regard to thenew comprehensive plan.

InterviewsInterviews are a way to gain insight into the topics that are important to theinterviewees, and also a vocabulary to talk about those topics. According to PaulNichols (1991), “The researcher discovers not only the themes and topics whichinterviews see as important, but how they think about and describe them.”

7

We completed one key interview with Abby Schrader, the volunteer coordinatorfor the MPRB about her plans for the future. We did this in order to understandthe way volunteerism is currently organized within the MPRB. We thenconducted four interviews with volunteer coordinators in other Twin Citiesprograms and one interview with the Mississippi Watershed ManagementOrganization’s environmental education and outreach coordinator. Theseinterviews provided us with information about the programs and the coordinators’experience with volunteerism. We gathered this information to determine whichactivities were deemed most productive and engaging. In addition, we wereinterested in understanding which activities were less effective. We used thisinformation to assist with our recommendations for the future of the MPRB’svolunteer and outreach programs within the MPRB.

We conducted seven interviews that were done over the phone and in person. Weasked seven open-ended questions (Appendix A). The information collected fromthe interviews was compared and contrasted in order to identify common themesamong volunteer and outreach programs.

SurveysAccording to Margarete Sandelowski (2000), surveys are an important method to“obtain a common dataset on pre-selected variables, and descriptive statistics tosummarize them.” With this in mind, we designed and implemented a survey witheight questions that asked park users about their primary activities and opinionsregarding the Minneapolis Park System and volunteering opportunities (AppendixB). In teams of two, we visited one high-use and one low-use regional park, twocommunity parks, and the University of Minnesota Campus. We chose to conductsurveys at these Minneapolis parks and the University of Minnesota campus inorder to reach park users of all types. College students are a high user group, butare under-represented in public outreach efforts (Pulscher, personalcommunication). Currently, the MPRB is interested in increasing the use of theparks by this user group, so a special effort was made to talk with students on theUniversity of Minnesota campus. Upon arrival, we surveyed random individualswho were willing to answer our questions. We surveyed people on weekends andweekdays, both during the day and evening, in order to get a diverse sampling ofresponses. Fifty-two respondents provided us with their input. We then analyzedthe surveys by identifying common themes of uses, opinions and concerns aboutthe Minneapolis park system. While the sampling method was not designed to bestatistically significant, the findings provided a basic understanding of uses andopinions of park users, which helped to determine qualitative considerations.

Literature and Document ReviewLiterature and document review, as a method of research, “help[s] limit the scopeof their inquiry, and they convey the importance of studying a topic to readers”(Creswell 2003). With the amount of articles that are available concerningvolunteerism, a literature review was necessary to focus the topics that we were

8

going to include in the recommendations. We conducted a literature search forarticles containing information on volunteerism and public outreach. Morespecifically, we reviewed articles that focused on measures of effective volunteerprograms and motivations for volunteering. We reviewed articles focused onpublic outreach for diverse and underrepresented populations. In addition, wereviewed information in Studies in Outdoor Recreation about thesociodemographics of outdoor recreation, for demographic and socioeconomiccharacteristics (Manning 1999). Two sources provided us with information onMinnesota demographics; census data came from the 2000 US Census and alsothe City of Minneapolis census 2000.

In an attempt to gauge the current information about MPRB’s EnvironmentalOperations infrastructure, we completed document retrieval and analysis ofrelevant materials. Specifically, we analyzed documents related to MPRBeducational, outreach, and volunteerism efforts. We obtained and reviewed thefollowing data:

1. City of Minneapolis Organizational Chart 2. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Organizational Chart3. Environmental Operations Section Organizational Chart4. Forestry Section Organizational Chart5. 2005 Budget and Budget Cut details6. Environmental Policy Statement7. Environmental Mission Statement

In addition to these documents, we also obtained and reviewed copies of currentenvironmental education curriculum in order to determine how the subject matterreflects the diversity of local ecosystems and, in turn, promotes the ecologicalgoals of the MPRB. Due to the extensive nature of written curriculum records(more than 100 programs), we chose to look at the programs offered from winter2005 to fall of 2006. We identified goals and objectives of each program and thenclassified them based on whether they focused on any or all of the followingfactors: local/community relevance, ecosystem functions, maintaining nativebiodiversity, invasive species, water quality, wildlife, and age group audience. All of the programs are only offered in English. Finally, we analyzed the relevantfactors to determine how the programs address ecosystem material.

Findings

Site VisitOne important thing we learned, from interviews with MPRB staff, was that themajority of programs offered though the MPRB are recreation programs. Thereare fewer environmental programs or programs that focus on the historical aspects

9

of the parks. Most volunteers in the city are involved with the recreation centers,volunteering their time with activities such as coaching. One suggestion was toimprove volunteer coordination for ecosystem events. Often large groups ofvolunteers are sent for single events and it is hard utilizing the volunteers to thefullest potential. Usually, working with these large volunteer groups is morechallenging than helpful. Staff in the Environmental Section needs to focus onvegetation management, not volunteer coordination. They would like to workwith volunteers, but believe that events should be coordinated by someone withmore knowledge and experience in volunteer coordination. Overall volunteers canbe an asset to the section if volunteer events are designed and executed moresmoothly. To date, the main activities volunteers participate in are buckthornremoval and picking up trash. The reason these two activities are so prevalent isbecause they are activities that require the least amount of training and planning.

DemographicsThe City of Minneapolis has experienced a gain in total population for the firsttime since 1950 (Figure 2). This is a total increase of 3.6% (14,235 people). Theage structure of Minneapolis has stayed relatively constant. The average age in1990 was 31.5 and in 2000 it was 31.2 (City of Minneapolis 2000).

One-hundred percent of the total population gain is based on residents whoincrease the city’s diversity. The Caucasian population decreased by 13.8% or atotal of 37,781 (Figure 3). Of ethnically diverse groups, the largest residentgroups in Minneapolis consist of African Americans (3,957 people) andHispanics (29,175 people), and the second largest population consists of AsianAmericans. Although Minneapolis has become home to many immigrants fromall over the world, the largest percentage of increase of ethnic people has been ofHmong, Somali and Hispanic populations (of any race) (City of Minneapolis2000). Due to these shifting demographics, Minneapolis Park and RecreationBoard will need a special focus on these residents when developing the newcomprehensive plan for the park system.

Figure 2. Minneapolis population by cel Minneapolis 2000)

US ZOO0 Census

year: 1980-2000. (Source: City of

Figure 3. Minneapolis population by racelethnicity in 1990 and 2000. (Source: City of Minneapolis 2000)

11

VolunteerismIn addition to providing personal and social benefits to millions of citizens,volunteer efforts in the US contribute vital support to numerous publicorganizations around the country. According to the Corporation for National andCommunity Service (CNS), the independent federal agency that manages andprovides grants for domestic volunteer efforts, 65.4 million Americansparticipated in volunteer activities in 2005 (CNS 2005). Up from the 58.9 millionvolunteers in 2002, this represents an increase of 1.2% in the national volunteerrate. Locally, Minnesota boasts one of the highest volunteer rates in the nationamong seniors and young adults and ranks third among all states with particularlyhigh statewide volunteer rate of 40.7% (CNS 2005).

An examination of various journal articles related to social psychology,volunteerism, and management helps to reveal the motivations behindvolunteering as well as the benefits that may be generated by this type of service. Studies led by College of St. Catherine psychologist E. Gil Clary found that thereare six specific functions that help individuals to meet personal needs andmotivate them to volunteer. These functional categories are values,understanding, social, career, protective and enhancement. To those motivated byvalues, volunteering is an expression of altruism that allows them to convey theirsense of concern for others. This sense of concern is often displayed in a varietyof ways from disaster relief efforts to community food drives. People whovolunteer to satiate a need to express their altruism are also typically morededicated to a project and committed to seeing its completion. The motivatingfunction of understanding gives the volunteer a chance to learn new skills and/orto display those that they currently possess. Older volunteers may seek todemonstrate skills acquired over a lifetime, while younger volunteers often lookto volunteering as a way to gain new abilities. The social function of volunteeringis often related to the value and understanding motivators, but itself providespeople with a forum for social interaction and with a place to have their actionsviewed positively by others. The fourth function, a concern for career, is based inthe hope that volunteer activities may be able to further professional goals. Young volunteers often use volunteer opportunities to gain experience andprofessional contacts that they might otherwise be unable to acquire. The finaltwo functional motivators are related to the health and well-being of the volunteerthrough repairing and improving the self-image and self-esteem of volunteerparticipants. The protective function states that by being a part of a volunteereffort, many people are able to reduce feelings of guilt over being more fortunatethan others. The freewill donation of time, efforts and funds can also serve theego by protecting volunteers from negative feelings of themselves, or to helpthem escape from such feelings. The sixth and final functional motivator isenhancement. While closely related to the protective function, it is nonetheless aseparate concept. Rather than to simply neutralize guilt and negativity,volunteering has been shown to help with personal growth and to improve self-esteem.

12

Clary (2005) found that there is also a correlation between these functionalmotivators and volunteer satisfaction, commitment and the ability for volunteercoordinators to effectively attract and match volunteers with rewardingopportunities. Volunteers that took part in the research were much more satisfiedwith their volunteer efforts and enthusiastic about repeating their efforts whentheir functional motivations were being met. When a high degree of correlationexists between the goals and values of the volunteer organization and theindividual, “ideological currency” is created (Thompson and Bunderson 2003). Although volunteers do not receive payment for their efforts, they nonethelessdevelop what sociologist call a “Psychological Contract.” The psychologicalcontract is an informal agreement concerning a set of beliefs and obligations thatare held reciprocally between an individual and the organization with which theyare working (Rosseau 1990).

Volunteer CoordinationInterviews were done with volunteer coordinators from around the Twin Cities todetermine how efficient volunteer programs are created and maintained. Efficientvolunteer programs are structured in a variety of ways. Twin Cities volunteercoordinators pointed out that programs have to present the opportunities forvolunteering. Volunteer coordinators attract volunteers through word-of-mouth,data bases of previous and potential volunteers, and advertising in localnewsletters. Once people are interested in volunteering for the first time, it isimportant to organize their experience. This benefits the organization and satisfiesthe volunteers. In general, coordinators work with groups of 5-500 participants,including Boy and Girl Scout groups, corporations such as Target, neighborhoodgroups, and church groups. Interviewees were asked what types of activities weremost successful. The word “successful” was defined in two different ways:amount of work done (i.e., how much buckthorn was removed or how much trashwas picked up), and satisfaction levels of the volunteers. When the first definitionwas applied, invasive species removal with large groups was the most successful.When the second definition was applied, community events and planting eventswere deemed the most successful. A lack of resources, both time and money,were the two biggest challenges facing most coordinators. Another challengementioned was the difficulty of finding volunteers to maintain sites. To determinevolunteer satisfaction levels, a few coordinators mentioned they had sent outsurveys or developed evaluations online for their volunteer database. Currently,MPRB is creating a database of volunteers which will be accessible within thenear future.

These interviews were helpful in determining that finding inexpensive, efficientways to run volunteer events is of utmost importance, along with creating a wayin which areas can be maintained after these events take place. It was alsodetermined from these interviews that having volunteers who are satisfied withtheir volunteer experience is important in order to have successful events and toencourage volunteers to return.

13

Community Environmental ValuesDetermining how Minneapolis residents view and interact with the localenvironment is important for understanding how to best structure volunteerprograms. From 2004 to 2005, an environmental knowledge and attitudes surveywas funded by the Mississippi Watershed Management Organization (MWMO)and conducted by the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs (HECUA)Environmental Sustainability Program, Longfellow Community Council, andSeward Neighborhood Group (Nerbonne and Schreiber 2005). This survey wasconducted in an area of south Minneapolis called the Seward and Longfellowneighborhoods. The survey inquired about residents’ environmental knowledge,attitudes, and behaviors regarding water quality and sought to discover thebridges and barriers that might exist to assist (or inhibit) positive action(Nerbonne and Schreiber 2005). In 2005, HECUA conducted a more in-depthsurvey that included interviews with 19 nonrandomly chosen participants fromthe 2004 survey. Based on the 2004 survey results, 54% of the participantsbelieved that they would do more to improve local water quality but they did notknow what they could do to help (Nerbonne and Schreiber 2005). Sixty-sixpercent of the participants said that more information would encourage them totake positive actions to improve water quality. These results suggest that residentsbelieve education and more knowledge about how to protect their environmentwould help them become more engaged in taking positive actions. In the 2005survey, participants were asked who they thought was responsible for maintainingenvironmental quality. Interviewees believed the government has theresponsibility for giving instructions about how an individual should act, both bypassing regulations and modeling appropriate behaviors. Once instructed, theindividual is responsible for following the guidelines and holding the governmentaccountable through voting and having voice (Nerbonne and Schreiber 2005). This is important to note because it indicates a direct connection betweenknowledge and action. Once residents are educated on environmental issues, theyhave the responsibility to use this information to take positive action.

Community Awareness of MPRB Educational and Volunteer OpportunitiesA short survey was designed and implemented in order to determine park users’primary activities and opinions regarding the Minneapolis Park System andvolunteering opportunities. Fifty-two individuals responded to an eight-questionsurvey done by group members in five areas of Minneapolis, including four parksand the University of Minnesota Campus. The most prevalent finding was thatmany park users did were not aware of MPRB volunteer or education programs.Thirty-five out of fifty-two individuals responded that they were unaware of thevolunteering and education opportunities offered by the MPRB. Elevenindividuals had volunteered previously; eight of these individuals volunteeredwith youth sports in some aspect. In regard to the individuals who had notvolunteered previously, 92% of respondents provided reasons such as “Haven’theard about opportunities” or “Don’t have enough time”. Out of the thirteenindividuals who were familiar with the educational programs offered, twelve of

14

Figure 4. MPRB Organization Chart. (Source: http://www.mineapolisparks.org/forms/about/mprbOrgChart.pdf)

them had children in the home who had previously attended classes orparticipated in youth sports. This is important because it indicates that there is aneed for spreading awareness of the positive opportunities the MPRB offers to thepublic, especially for adults without children.

Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board OrganizationAlong with the Mayor, City Council, Library Board, School Board,Neighborhood Revitalization Board and the Board of Estimate, Minneapolisvoters also elect the Park Board. Nine Commissioners are elected during theGeneral Election every four years (Figure 4). Three of these Commissioners areelected at-large and six from geographically based park districts. The Park BoardCommissioners develop park policies, and enact ordinances governing the use ofneighborhood and regional parks, parkways, beaches and lakes, and special usefacilities such as pools, ice arenas and municipal golf courses. A Superintendentof Parks, Jon Gurben, is employed by the Board of Commissioners. Thissuperintendent supervises approximately 600 permanent year-round staffmembers, as well as about 1,500 part-time staff members. Mr. Gurben and his

15

staff also maintain and develop the Minneapolis park system, providingcomprehensive services and recreation programs, policing of park properties, aswell as maintenance of city boardwalk trees.

Environmental Education and Outreach ProgramsEducating residents about ecosystems can be done in a number of ways.Typically, environmental education is done using hands-on and outdoor activitiesto pique learners’ interests and create long-lasting associations. Through time,organizations have experimented with other methods and determined that there isa multitude of ways to teach people about the environment. Aside fromcommonly used environmental education methods, staff members in the MPRB’sForestry and Environmental sections use volunteerism, public outreach, andpartnerships with schools in order to teach ecological lessons.

The Forestry Section facilitates several community-wide volunteer events(Appendix D); the Arbor Day tree planting is one example. This event has beencontinually successful, with high participation rates and increased publicawareness about local trees. Forestry public outreach methods range from treecare clinics and tree planting projects, to information sessions during meetingswith neighborhood committees or elected officials. In addition, the ForestrySection maintains ongoing partnerships with area schools that provide positivelearning opportunities for both the teachers and the children of those schools.

Two examples of outreach programs that combine education and volunteerism arethe Earth Day Celebration and the Arbor Day Celebration. Earth Day Celebrationis a large-scale, city-wide annual event that has occurred on April 22 of each yearfor the past 12 years. It is a collaborative effort between local agencies, such asthe City of Minneapolis Solid Waste and Recycling, Hennepin CountyEnvironmental Services, and neighborhood organizations (MPRB 2006). Participants in this event assist in controlling pollution in parklands by removinggarbage. Certain clean-up sites are chosen (parks) and MPRB staff members arestationed at those sites to provide direction and answer questions. After the clean-up work is completed, participants have the option to socialize with theirneighbors by participating in celebratory activities. Children can also participatein Earth Day by creating posters (at neighborhood parks with recreation centers)and entering them in a contest. Aspects of all winning posters are combined inorder to create a poster collage that is then distributed to the neighborhood parks.

Another important outreach program it the Arbor Day Celebration, a large-scale,city-wide annual event. This event occurs each spring as it has for the past 27years. The Forestry Section organizes this event, as “a way to remind everyoneabout the importance of trees and how to take care of them” (MPRB 2006). Manyvolunteers participate in tree planting and mulching during this event; in 2006,3,500 trees were planted across the city. In order to provide on-site education andoutreach, “Elmer The Elm Tree” attends Arbor Day Celebrations. Urban foresters

16

also bring their tools and equipment for residents to learn about. In 2006, theMPRB partnered with the Nellie Stone Johnson School in an integrated program. Students participated in the planting and mulching activities, created relatedartwork, and learned about the native trees that are important parts of theecosystems where their ancestors lived (MPRB 2006).

Both outreach programs are examples of how large-scale events can besuccessfully organized. When they are well-advertised, these events can beimportant ways to engage residents and promote ecosystem awareness, for bothchildren and adults. MPRB employees who staff these events use the opportunityto educate attendees about environmental issues and concerns that are central tosustainable park management. The 2006 Arbor Day Celebration was even able tosuccessfully incorporate a diversity recognition component by encouragingstudents explore their heritage through family trees.

Environmental Operations also educates residents through diverse volunteeropportunities and performs public outreach and education programs through theEnvironmental Section of the Operations Division. The Environmental Sectionalso monitors lake quality and offers horticultural services, as well as providingnaturalists’ services for public outreach and education. As EnvironmentalEducation Coordinator, MaryLynn Pulscher oversees a variety of environmentaleducation programs offered at parks with recreation centers throughoutMinneapolis. Each program consists of four classes, and each class lasts from oneto four hours. Programs are taught and administered by one full-time permanentnaturalist, Jamie McBride, and several part-time seasonal naturalists. Staffinglevel of part-time park naturalists varies based on seasonal needs and fundsavailability in the MPRB budget. In 2005, this program received a $58,000reduction in funding from the previous year; this amount takes into account bothreductions in financial contributions and fee increases (MPRB 2006). In addition,public and private grants augment environmental education program resources.

Current Environmental Education CurriculumThe MPRB has upwards of 100 complete curriculums in their archives; only aselect few are used each season. The number of programs offered per seasonvaries based on demand for environmental educational programs. Curriculum isrewritten each season in order to offer diverse options. Successful elements ofpast programs are reused in order to maximize effectiveness.

Based on a complete review of the winter 2005- fall 2006 regular curriculum, 18programs in total, we noted several major findings (Table 1). These programs aredesigned for school-age children. All programs are locally relevant and addressecosystem functions. Few programs include information about the socialhistorical context or invasive species. Important areas of emphasis were: wildlife(13/18), native biodiversity (12/18), and water quality (10/18).

Table 1. Curriculum themes in MPRB Environmental Education Programs offered from 2005 to 2006.

Curriculum Name Season AgeGroup

LocalRelevance

EcosystemFunctions

NativeBiodiversity

InvasiveSpecies

WaterQuality

Wildlife Historical

Egg-Stravaganza Spring 4 - 5 Y Y Y N Y Y NIn Cold Blood Spring 6 - 12 Y Y Y Y Y Y NMinnesota Rocks! Spring 6 - 12 Y Y N N Y N YSpring Fling Spring 6 - 12 Y Y N N N Y NLittle Sunflowers Summer 4 - 5 Y Y N N N Y N27 Million Degrees Fahrenheit Summer 6 - 12 Y Y Y N N N NOutdoor Adventures Summer 6 - 12 Y Y N N Y Y YSilly Science Summer 6 - 12 Y Y Y Y Y Y NWonderful Wings Summer 6 - 12 Y Y Y N Y Y NFall in the Forest Fall 4 - 5 Y Y N N Y N NSee You Next Spring Fall 4 - 5 Y Y Y N Y Y NBirds of Prey Fall 6 - 12 Y Y Y N Y Y NLeader of the Pack Fall 6 - 12 Y Y Y N N Y NSewer Rats Fall 6 - 12 Y Y Y Y Y N NBirds, Bears & Butterflies Winter 4 - 5 Y Y Y N N Y NFurry Fear Factor Winter 6 - 12 Y Y Y N N Y NSlimy Science Winter 6 - 12 Y Y N N N N NWild About Winter Winter 6 - 12 Y Y Y N N Y N

Codes: Y = Yes, the program contains this emphasis; N = No, the program does not contain information on this topic.

18

Aside from the regular curriculum, the Environmental Education Section alsoteaches one-time classes upon request. These classes are available to both adultsand children, and include the following:

1. Naturalist Round-Up: subject matter varies based on the Park Naturalists’choices.

2. Moonlight Paddle: evening canoe trips, water quality and wildlifediscussions occur with Park Naturalists.

3. Spring Birding: bird watching, web of life, and habitat discussions areguided by Park Naturalists at local parks.

4. Snowshoeing: snowshoeing trips to Minnehaha Falls, geology, and waterquality discussions are led by Park Naturalists.

Recommendations

This project’s main goal is to provide the MPRB with options andrecommendations to aid in the enhancement of current environmental educationopportunities, expansion of current volunteer programs, and to provide ethnicallyand racially diverse populations with ecological knowledge.

Recommendation 1: Expand current environmental education programs as afoundation for diverse ecosystems.

Recommendation 2: Enrich current volunteer programs to strengthen ecosystem programs and support residents’ well-being.

Recommendation 3: Provide diverse resident populations with ecologicalknowledge and access to diverse landscapes.

Recommendation 1: Expand Current Environmental Education Programs as aFoundation for Diverse Ecosystems

Based on the MPRB mission statement, the sustainability of our natural areas is aspecific concern for all Park Board Divisions, including the Forestry Section andEnvironmental Section. The MPRB emphasizes that it will “…strive topermanently preserve, protect, maintain, improve, and enhance the City’sparkland” (MPRB 2006). As a specific goal, the MPRB plans to “Ensure thelong-term quality of land, air, water, and biological resources within the parksystem by monitoring conditions and implementing the best practices available”(MPRB 2006).

19

To ensure the sustainability of the park natural areas, educating users andresidents near these areas is a necessity. Case studies in other environmentalorganizations have shown that informed citizens are more likely to make choicesthat promote sustainability in our natural environment. One example of this is theWatercraft Inspection Program that the Minnesota Department of NaturalResources offers. This program has successfully reduced the rate at which lakesand rivers are becoming infested with Eurasian Water milfoil and Zebra Mussels. These invasive species are most often spread through human activity; thereforepublic education efforts prove to be a successful method of controlling the spreadof invasive species by boaters (Martin 2001).

A solid foundation of environmental education programs already exist within theMinneapolis parks system; they can be enriched in order to achieve specificecosystem objectives for sustainability. Working with the EnvironmentalEducation staff on ecosystem sustainability goals would likely have a lastingimpact. Current curriculum is designed around an effective teaching method,commonly referred to as the “inquiry method.” The method uses hands-onlearning to achieve ecosystem-related learning goals and objectives.

After reviewing the goals and objectives of each MPRB environmental educationclass offered from 2005 to 2006, we found that most of the programs emphasizedwildlife, native biodiversity and water quality. These classes have a limited focuson historical and invasive species perspectives; historical perspectives arecurrently included in two of the environmental education curriculums, MinnesotaRocks and Outdoor Adventures, while three include invasive species information. These programs are: In Cold Blood, Silly Science, and Sewer Rats. Werecommend that in the future, additional programs be offered or current programsrevised to include content that focuses on invasive species and historicalecosystems education about parklands.

A historical perspective on ecosystems is an essential component of the MPRBenvironmental education curriculum because learning about the history of an areacan give us a sense of place and ownership within that environment. Learningabout the history of a place can help us learn from our past mistakes so we do notrepeat them; it can also help us to value the aesthetics and ecological benefits ofpast ecosystems. As one example, ecological restoration identifies a reference sitein order to mirror the species composition of that site. Ecologists study the historyof a site in order to help shape the future of the site. As Nancy Langston (2005)points out in her article Reflections: On Teaching World Forest History, “Historymatters: It’s not just about understanding the past; it’s necessary for creating abetter future.” William Jordan (2003) also speaks to the importance of history in“Sunflower Forest”:

“Because one of our abilities is a sense of history, and of history as akind of progress, or at least change, the relationship must

20

acknowledge and deal with the past—the history of our interactionwith a particular landscape, and the deeper history of the generalrelationship of our species with the rest of nature.”

A greater understanding of our relationship with nature can also be achievedthrough environmental education about invasive species. These are non-native aswell as aggressive native species that are remarkably successful at proliferating innew environments. Invasive species are an immediate concern for our society andthe natural landscape. As stated by the Ecological Society of America, “Invasivespecies can be thought of as biological pollutants, with potentially severe impactson the ecosystems they inhabit” (2004). Since these species are strongcompetitors or predators, they often cause the destruction of more diverse nativeecosystems, resulting in monocultures of an invasive plant or animal. Preventionis commonly considered the best remedy to these problems; “preventive measurestypically offer the most cost-effective means to minimize or eliminateenvironmental and economic impacts” (USDA Forest Service 2006). For thisreason, education about how to limit the spread of these species is essential,because it builds a knowledge base for park users and Minneapolis residentsabout how their actions can support the prevention of ecosystem decline.

Since new curriculum is developed each season, integrating historical ecosystemand invasive species content can be done with existing money and personnel. Many resources already exist that would assist in adding this material; referencematerials such as Project Learning Tree offer curriculum ideas and even describeactivities that can be conducted with students (Appendix D).

When a new curriculum is written, a broader audience needs to be reached for theprograms to provide maximum benefit to the Park Board and Minneapolisresidents. For environmental education programs to be a successful method ofoutreach, they must be widely available to all park users and neighbors. Based onthe qualitative findings in our park user survey, the only adults familiar with theMPRB environmental education programs were families whose childrenparticipate in classes. To more fully influence all park users and Minneapolisresidents, advertising for the environmental education programs could beenhanced by exploring new advertising methods in order to attract members ofthe community that currently do not use MPRB environmental educationprograms.

Integrating changes into the MPRB environmental education curriculum is notgoing to come without challenges; however, most of these challenges can beeasily overcome. One such challenge is to make sure the historical ecosystem andinvasive species perspectives that are added into the curriculum are relevant andaccurate. This challenge can be overcome by collaborating with knowledgeablestaff within the MPRB when writing or recruiting these areas of the curriculum. For example, if future curriculum will include material about Eurasian water

21

milfoil, developers can consult the water quality staff within MPRB. Likewise, ifcurriculum will include material about historical ecology, developers can consultthe ecological services staff within MPRB. This exchange, as well as a briefreview of the written curriculum, would take little time and would ensure thatconcepts are adequately addressed; it would also allow Park Board staff to usetwo-way communication to strengthen their programming across divisions.

Recommendation 2: Enrich Current Volunteer Programs to StrengthenEcosystem Programs and Support Residents’ Well-being

In addition to providing benefits to individuals and society as a whole, volunteerefforts in the US contribute vital support to numerous organizations around thecountry. In 2005, the Corporation for National and Community Service found astatewide volunteer rate of 40.7% in Minnesota. Furthermore, according to theIndependent Sector, in 2004 one volunteer hour in Minnesota was equal to $18.18(2005). The MPRB believes its volunteers are valued partners in helping toachieve its mission and wants to work with this tremendous volunteer resource asfully as possible. Volunteer efforts help the MPRB achieve goals that could nototherwise be met by offsetting the difficulties associated with limited resources.In addition, volunteering is a cost-effective form of positive public relations, asvolunteers who have had a satisfactory experience promote the park system. Theconnection between the MPRB and the community is strengthened by having asuccessful volunteer program. Overall, community support, through volunteerism,is essential in achieving MPRB goals because it increases awareness, ecologicalunderstanding, resident satisfaction, and support for the park system.

According to a study done by Clary (2005), people are motivated to volunteer inorder to meet ego-related personal needs. His research identified six specificfunctional motivators: values, understanding, social, career, protective andenhancement (See the Findings Section for more detail). Incorporating theprinciple of functional motivators as a guideline for program design will help tomatch volunteers’ interests with volunteer opportunities. This will increase thelikelihood that volunteers have satisfying experiences and are committed tocontinued volunteer efforts.

Volunteer coordinators pointed out that the main challenge in regards tomaximizing volunteer efforts is making good use of time and resources. Werecommend hiring an intern to support the Environmental Section’s volunteercoordinator, Abby Schrader. Having a dedicated individual who can devote asubstantial amount of time to volunteer management will help strengthen theprogram and efforts of both Abby and the entire Operations Division of theMPRB. This would simplify the MPRB staff’s responsibilities during volunteerevents and allow them to focus on operations needs, while still being involvedwith volunteers.

22

Another important component of volunteer programs is maintaining an organizedsystem for obtaining and sustaining volunteers for the MPRB. To create asustainable and satisfying volunteer program, we recommend that the MPRButilize the volunteer database that is currently being developed by Abby Schrader.An intern can be trained to use the online database and organize a variety ofvolunteer activities, such as invasive species removal and seed plantings. Usingthe online database, the intern could contact people for upcoming volunteerevents and request that individuals with topical knowledge or interest in learningmore become supervisors at specific events. The intern could assist with thisvolunteer supervisor training. This would allow Environmental Section staff agreater opportunity to educate the supervisors, and not be required to coordinatethe volunteer activity, as much as oversee the event. Finally, hiring an internwould be an excellent learning experience for a willing student or creative person,many of whom would value the experience even without pay, making it cost-effective.

Another challenge facing the MPRB is finding a way to effectively shareresources and combine efforts. Communication between departments isinvaluable, and combining efforts to improve the database will be a key steppingstone to making intradepartmental communication the best it can be. As theVolunteer Coordinator begins to train department staff to use the database, it isimperative that department staff share knowledge about their responsibilities andprogram goals. Most importantly, database training will help departments learnhow to use the database to the maximum potential by maintaining contact withvolunteers, resulting in lasting relationships. By cataloging contact information, itwould be possible to match volunteers’ interests and keep them informed aboutnew opportunities and MPRB initiatives. It is important to match volunteerinterests with similar activities so that volunteers’ functional motivators will bemet (Clary 2005). If a volunteer’s functional motivators are met, they are morelikely to have a satisfying experience and will be more likely to volunteer again inthe future. One of the most salient functions served by volunteering is that ofsocial recognition (Clary 2005). Public recognition of MPRB volunteers’ effortsis part of the current volunteer recognition banquet. Our recommendation is tomake this event more inclusive of all volunteers within the MPRB, includingthose that have volunteered with Environmental Operations. Recognition willhelp create a sustainable base of volunteers. The MPRB will be able to maintainan efficient and sustainable volunteer program by providing volunteers withsatisfying opportunities, hiring an intern, utilizing the online volunteer database,positively recognizing volunteers’ efforts, using volunteers’ skills and knowledgeto their fullest potential and streamlining the application process.

23

Recommendation 3: Provide Diverse Resident Populations with EcologicalKnowledge and Access to Diverse Landscapes

Recently, Minneapolis’ population has diversified. For example, the Hispanic andLatino population grew by 269.3% in the last ten years (City of Minneapolis2000). There has also been a large influx of Hmong and Somali immigrants to thearea. With this in mind, future park planning efforts are challenged to find newways to meet the cultural needs of new Minneapolis residents, bridge culturalbarriers, and provide access to ecological knowledge about Minneapolisparklands.

With new residents and park users, MPRB will have to plan for diverse culturaluses, possible language barriers, and park access. These diverse populations havemany different cultural and social interests that will be expressed through theirpark use. For example, the Somali and Hmong residents have distinct culturaltraditions and relationships to the land. Religious beliefs drive many of theSomali social customs and Hmong social norms come from strong family bonds(The Minneapolis Foundation 2004). It is important to understand that thesedifferences exist in order to better facilitate the interests of the diverse park usersin the Minneapolis population and effectively address community needs.

According to Low, Taplin and Scheld, “Accommodating the differences in theways social classes and ethnic groups use and value public sites is essential tomaking decisions that sustain cultural and social diversity” (2005). Tailoringprograms to specific cultural practices and more specifically to ethnic groups canhelp to bring in nontraditional park users and get them involved in activities tostrengthen their ecological knowledge about the parklands. An example of thiscould be to have single-sex programs or facilities to promote recreationalactivities and dissemination of ecological knowledge Muslim residents (Stodolskaand Yi-Kook 2005). Another way of reaching out to diverse groups of people is tohave more family activities, especially accommodating for large families. Hmong, Hispanic and Muslim families gather in large numbers and providingpark use opportunities for larger groups will aid in reaching these groups(Stodolska and Yi-Kook 2005).

Many of the Minneapolis parks may already be set up for the needs of the diversepark users. In an effort to attract more diverse users or to make the parks moresuited for their interests, the MPRB could showcase any specific changes theyhave made to accommodate those users on the website. The MPRB could also getin touch with the local community group leaders and contribute a small section totheir community newsletter or newspaper. The section could include the differentprograms that the park offers for that specific community group. One challengewith this is that the paper may not have space for a new section in their paper. TheMPRB could however always put the information on the website.

24

Language is one of the primary barriers that non-English speaking or “English asa second language” residents face on a daily basis. In a study done on the Somaliand Hmong communities in Minneapolis and St. Paul, the authors found that,language, “presents more of an obstacle for newly-arrived Somalis than for theHmong, who have typically been in the United States longer” (Basnyat andLayman 2003). This is just one example of the many cultural barriers that diversecultures face. As new residents come to Minneapolis, language barriers can be adifficult obstacle for them to overcome. As in school and health care facilities, theparks in Minneapolis can be a place for new residents to become integrated in thecommunity. The parks are a way for these individuals to become familiar withand comfortable with the landscape and also a way to build a “sense of place” fortheir families.

With an increase in diverse populations, the MPRB can be a resource to buildbridges for English as a second language and non-English speaking residents tobecome integrated into the community. One way the MPRB could do this is toconsider the needs of diverse users and develop a management plan attuned totheir needs. A first step would include forming an advisory committee or somemeans of consultation when planning and creating new trails, signs, andeducational materials. A special focus should be placed on the group(s) that are inhighest density in a specific area and who have not traditionally been MPRB’starget population. The MPRB has a history of conversations with neighborhoodgroups that can serve as a foundation for expanded efforts. After consulting aboutecosystem modifications, signs and educational materials could be produced inmultiple languages to reach a wide array of users. For example, the MinneapolisFoundation, a nonprofit organization, distributes its quarterly newsletter in fourlanguages (2004). The MPRB currently translates signs in other languages; werecommend that they continue and expand the translation program. For largeoutreach events or educational programs an interpreter can be available totranslate information for non-English speaking participants. Educational andoutreach programs could be offered by and targeted for people who speak thesame language. For example in Chicago, organizers found a way to bridgeprograms for new residents. “In parks like Lincoln with large concentrations ofcertain minority groups, staff of the same race/ethnicity, and in some cases thosewho speak the same language, could go far in serving clientele and lesseningdiscrimination, real and/ or perceived” (Gobster 2002).

The MPRB website could be easily translated into a few languages, so that non-English speaking citizens can understand the information provided by the MPRB.The state of Colorado website is designed so that it can be easily translated into toseven different languages. This provides access to information that wouldotherwise not be available for non-English speakers (City of Boulder 2006). Using multiple languages makes new residents feel more comfortable, improvescommunication, and reduces unnecessary conflicts and misunderstandings.Tailoring websites to multiple languages is becoming more common and allows

25

for an organization to reach out to a larger audience. This would be a reasonablestep to take because it can be contracted out to a translation company and willrequire a minimal amount of time from the MPRB. For smaller projects, staffmembers could use, Alta Vista, where a website can be entered into their programand submitted for translation in the language needed (Overture Services 2006).

There are a few challenges that must be addressed when considering amultilingual web page. One issue that may arise is maintaining the web site overtime. This may require an on-going contract for a minimal amount of work. Another problem that may occur is the challenge of achieving an accuratetranslation. The translation may be inaccurate or confusing and as a result, theMPRB’s message may be skewed. It addresses this problem MPRB may be ableto turn to the advisory board members who are skilled in two languages. Theycould review any translations for accuracy before they are posted.

Another issue that faces the MPRB is providing access to ecological knowledgeabout the parklands for all Minneapolis residents. Proximity to a park may havethe greatest effects on those who use a specific park. In the Minneapolis parksystem there are two types of parks, larger regional parks and community parks,primarily for neighborhood residents. The community parks typically contain asports field, a playground and a picnic/seating area. Theodore Wirth, the longest-serving superintendent of the Minneapolis Parks System, had a vision for the city. He believed that “Parks are for the masses and not the classes.” Wirth worked toachieve the admirable goal of having a park within six blocks of every home. Asstated by the MPRB,

“The backbone of Minneapolis Parks is our neighborhood parks,which help provide the ‘sense of place’ for many Minneapolitans. It iswhere we connect in very profound ways with our friends, neighbors,family, environment, and ourselves to celebrate, learn, communicate,contemplate, play or console - it is our shared space and our publichome. Our community celebrations are a synergy of neighborhoodinvolvement that serves to strengthen community interaction andunderstanding” (MPRB 2006).

The regional parks contain most of the natural areas and ecosystems known toMinnesota, while community parks focus on recreational landscaping and urbanforestry. Typically there is more biological and ecological diversity in regionalparks and more recreational activities at the community parks. However, there areonly a few regional parks in Minneapolis and these are generally located nearolder, well-established neighborhoods. New residents from diverse ethnic groupshave limited access to the parks with higher ecological diversity and as a result tothe ecological knowledge associated with repeated daily visits to the largerregional parks.

26

One way to strengthen resident experiences with diverse ecosystem ecology is toenhance the smaller community parks with instructional gardens that emphasizeone ecological feature. This could be done by planting more native vegetationgardens, such as a prairie garden, and providing complementary signage andprograms that focus on ecological knowledge. As shown earlier, MPRB currentlyprovides programs that focus on ecology. Where you are offering environmentaleducation programs, plant a native vegetation garden as an example for theecological subject matter. In addition, you could link the small learning gardensto information about how to visit the larger remnants of prairie or oak savannah inthe regional parks or even at state sites across Minnesota. This would meanmanaging the smaller parks and gardens in a way that would provide thisecological setting. For example, Lincoln Park in Chicago holds that, “Enhancingnatural landscape features such as trees, water bodies, and beaches should belooked at as a priority since it supports the needs of all groups” (Gobster 2002).

A challenge would lie in deciding whether the efforts to do this in smallercommunity parks, especially low use ones, would benefit the community and theMPRB sufficiently. Another challenge with programs targeting smallercommunity parks would be in the allocation of resources and deciding whichparks to work in. This may also take time and money away from gardening/landscaping needs in larger parks like Minnehaha Falls.

When preparing for a new comprehensive plan, the MPRB is challenged withfinding innovative ways to meet the cultural needs of Minneapolis’ diverseresidents, bridging cultural barriers, and provide access to ecological knowledgeabout parklands into the future.

Conclusion

The vision that guides this collaborative project for the new comprehensive planis to enhance park management in a sustainable manner while maintaining localheritage, meeting the needs of the public, and promoting environmentalawareness. Ecological and organizational sustainability within the MPRBoperations can be supported by growing current volunteer opportunities andpublic outreach programs. While education can inform citizens through outreachprograms, volunteerism connects people with other community members and alsogives participants a sense of pride in their communities. The combined efforts ofmanaging transitions between diverse land types, prioritizing land managementfor environmental operations, and sustainable use, management and preservationof ecological heritage within the new comprehensive plan will benefit from theincreased education and involvement of the public.

27

References

Basnyat, A., and A. Layman. 2003. The Social State?: Social Capital of theSomali and Hmong Communities in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Minnesota SocialCapital Research Project. Retrieved on October 15, 2006 fromhttp://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/POSC/MNSC/MNSCAP.pdf

City of Boulder, Colorado: Official Website. 2006. Retrieved on November 13,2006. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/

City of Minneapolis: Official Website. 2000. 1990-2000: Population by Race andEthnicity for Minneapolis. Retrieved on November 1, 2006.http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/planning/census2000/1990-to-2000-Population-Change-by-Race-and-Ethnicity-for-Minneapolis.asp

Clary, G. E., M. Snyder, R. Ridge, and J. Copeland. 1998. Understanding andassessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 74(6):1516-1530.

Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethods Approaches, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Corporation for Community and National Service. 2006. Volunteering inAmerica: State Trends and Rankings 2002-2005. Retrieved on November 4,2006. http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/VIA/VIA_fullreport.pdf

Dreier, P. 1996. Community empowerment strategies: The limits and potentialstrategies of community organizing in urban neighborhoods. Cityscape: AJournal of Policy Development and Research 2(2):121-159.

Ecological Society of America. 2004. Invasive Species Fact Sheet. Retrieved on16 October 2006. http://www.esa.org/teaching_learning/pdfDocs/invasion.pdf.

Gobster, P. 2002. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverseclientele. Leisure Sciences 24:143-159.

Independent Sector. 2005. Dollar Value of Volunteer Time. http://www.independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteer_time.html

Jordan, W. 2003. Sunflower Forest. University of California Press,18-19.Langston, N. 2005. Reflections: On teaching world Forest History.

Environmental History, 10(1), 20-29.Liao-Troth, M. A. 2005. Are they here for the long haul? The effects of functional

motives and personality factors on the psychological contracts of volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(4):510-530.

Low, S., S. Scheld, and D. Taplin. 2005. Rethinking Urban Parks. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.

Manning, R. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research forSatisfaction. 2d ed. Oregon: Oregon State University.

Martin, R. 2001. Clean boats, Clean waters. Wisconsin Natural ResourcesMagazine. Retrieved on November 15, 2006. http://www.wnrmag.com/supps/2001/jun01/intro.htm

28

Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2006. Home Page. Retrieved on 12October 2006. http://www.minneapolisparks.org/home.asp.

Minneapolis Public Library. 2001. A History of Minneapolis. Retrieved on 23October 2006. http://www.mpls.lib.mn.us/history/.

Moen, P., and V. Fields. 2002. Midcourse in the United States: Does unpaidcommunity participation replace paid work? Aging International 27:21-48.

Nerbonne, J. F., and R. Schreiber. 2005. Connecting knowledge, attitudes andbehaviors regarding urban water quality: A Mississippi WatershedManagement Organization Study. Lauderdale, Minnesota.

Nichols, P. 1991. Social Survey Methods: A Fieldguide for Development Workers. Oxford: Oxfam.

Overture Services. 2006. Alta Vista Babel Fish Translation. Retrieved onNovember 18, 2006. http://babelfish.altavista.com/.

Rousseau, D. M. 1990. New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’sobligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior 11:389-400.

Sandelowski, M. 2000. Focus on research methods: Whatever happened toqualitative description? Research in Nursing Health 23:334-340.

Stodolska, M., and J. Yi-Kook. 2005. Ethnicity, immigration and constraints. In Constraints to leisure, ed. E. L. Jackson. State College, PA: VenturePublishing.

Texas A& M University. 2000. Retrieved on November 20, 2006.http://www.rpts.tamu.edu/Pugsley/Wirth%20Th.htm.

The Minneapolis Foundation. 2004. Destination 2010: A student Achievementand Scholarship Program of the Minneapolis Foundation. Retrieved onNovember 20, 2006.http://www.minneapolisfoundation.org/publications/D2010CommunityReport2004.pdf

The Minneapolis Foundation. 2004. Immigration in Minnesota: DiscoveringCommon Ground. Retrieved on November 11, 2006.http://www.minneapolisfoundation.org/immigration/ImmigrationBrochure.pdf

Thompson, J. A., and J. S. Bunderson. 2003. Violations of principle: Ideologicalcurrency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review28(4):571-586.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan(CERP): Appendix A. 22A-4: Public Involvement. Retrieved on November13, 2006.http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/program/program_docs/pmp_study_florida/pmp_study_fbfk_app_a.pdf

US Census Bureau 2000. Census 2000 Data for the State of Minnesota. Retrievedon September 20, 2006. http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/mn.html

US Census Bureau. 2000. Fact Sheet: Minnesota. Retrieved on October 16, 2006. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Invasive Species Program. Retrieved on November1, 2006. http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/index.shtml.

29

Appendix A. Interview Questions

1. What sort of advertising/public outreach do you do to attract volunteers?

2. What kinds of groups do you most often work with? Maybe ask aboutgender, age, race, group size, etc.

3. What types of volunteer activities do you find are the most successful?

4. If you had your choice, what types of activities would you like to add to (ordelete from) your program?

5. What would you say is your biggest challenge as volunteer coordinator?

6. Have you done any sort of surveys to determine volunteers’ levels ofsatisfaction or motives for participating in these activities?

7. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could determine theirmotives/satisfaction levels?

30

Appendix B. Park User Survey

How often do you visit a park within Minneapolis city limits?Not very often 1-2 times/week 3-4 times/week 5-7 times/week

For what reason do you use the parks the most? Walking/running biking playing with kids organized sports other

What changes (if any) would make you use the parks more often?

Have you ever taken a class at a park’s recreation center? Yes No

If not, why not?No interest too expensive haven’t heard about them timing is inconvenient

Have you ever volunteered at a park? Yes No

If not, why not?No interest haven’t heard about opportunities don’t have enough time

If you have volunteered at a park before, please answer the questions on the back of thispage.

If you have never volunteered, you are finished. Thank you for your time!

What was the best part of your volunteer experience?

What was the worst part of your volunteer experience?

What sort of volunteer activities would you be interested in?

Thank you for completing this survey! Your answers will help us to improve local parks.

31

Appendix C. 2006 MPRB Forestry Section Special Events/Projects/ Updated 10/4/06

Dist Date What Location # Trees Contacts # Vol Group Other Other Staff3/ 4 Jan 17,

TuesCPR/First Aide Review

MPRB Headquarters 0 Nicole Battles 612-872-3233

Forestry Staff/ 26

2/ P&L Jan 19,Thurs

CPR/First AideReview

MPRB Headquarters 0 Nicole Battles 612-872-3233

Forestry Staff/ 27

1/ 5 Jan 24,Tues

CPR/First AideReview

MPRB Headquarters 0 Nicole Battles 612-872-3233

Forestry Staff/ 29

All Feb 23,Thurs

TreeApTraining12:30-2:30

MPRB Headquarters/Board Room

Brian LarsonPaul Domholt

Forestry Foreman/ 6 Ralph, Paul, Jim

All Feb 27,Mon

Pesticide Test/8:30

Mn Dept of Ag Paul Domholt 9 Arborists taking test/ SeeList

1 Feb 28,Tues

Neigh Tree Clinic7 to 8 pm

Linden Hills Co-op

0 Mary Zelleny Arimond 920-5228

18 Linden Hills Neighborhoodresidents

MPRB Spr 2006Planting

Ralph/ bring maps

1 Mar 7,Tues

Neigh Tree Clinic7 to 8 pm

Linden Hills Co-op

0 Mary Zelleny Arimond 920-5228

18 Neighborhood residents Selecting the righttree/

None

1 Mar 14,Tues

Neigh Tree Clinic7 to 8 pm

Linden Hills Co-op

0 Mary Zelleny Arimond 920-5228

18 Neighborhood residents MPRB Tree Care

Rand Windsperger

All Mar 15,Wed

GIS Training City of Mpls9 to 11:30

Ralph SievertMark Benichek

Forestry Foreman Ralph, Paul, Jim Roxanne, Paula

All Mar 21,Tues

Shade Tree ShortCourse

Bethel College 0 Gary Johnson Forestry Staff/ 69 All

All Mar 22, Wed

Shade Tree ShortCourse

Bethel College 0 Gary Johnson Forestry Staff/ 69 All

All Mar 28,Tues

Saw Class MPRB Park Matt Timinski Forestry Staff

All Mar 29,Wed

Saw Class MPRB Park Matt Timinski Forestry Staff

1 Mar 29,Wed

Tree Clinic,Fulton Neigh

Pershing Park 7 to 8:30 pm

0 Will Cowden 612-385-3052

40 MnReLeaf Grant Tree CareClinic with Rainbow

Tree Care andDED info

Ralph/ 10 to 15 min

All Mar 30,Thur

Pesticide Test/ Mn Dept of Ag Paul Domholt 9 Arborists taking test/

All Apr 13,Thurs

Tree City USA Mn LandscapeArboretum

Linda Meyer651-772-7926

Tree City USA/ AwardLuncheon

Paula, Sara,Roxanne

Randy, Ralph, Jim,Matt

All Apr 28,Fri

State Arbor Day/Noon

State Fair Grounds Paul Domholt/Jim Hermann

Elmer the elm tree/Promote Field Days

PR Opportunity Dawn Sommers

River4

Apr 29,Sat

Planting Project Johnson and Broadway Tree Trust Lorrie StrommeNancy Pryzmus

OK/ Deliver woodchips,help plant

Randy Windsperger

M’Haha5

May 12,Fri

Arbor Day Whittier School/ Park 20/ TreeTrust

Kirsten Andenas651-644-5800Cell/ 612-590-1818

200 Students/ Tree Trust /MPRB helping to planttrees

OK/ Deliverwoodchips

Bruce Monteith

Lakes1

May 13,Sat

10:30 SW Calhoun HoldingPonds

10 Pam Zander651-736-1168Paul Domholt

25 Plant, water, Woodchipson flatbed/ Rope andSaddle climb

Troop 21172/3 graders

Timinski 2 staff

Lakes May 17, Arbor Day South Harriet School 12 Annie Wade 360 K-4 grade students/ Presenter Domholt

1 Wed 9 to Noon Principal668-3210Paul Domholt

Deliver woodchips, pre-plant trees Tues

Elmer Elward/ LichliterGary Myhre

River3

May 19, Fri ‘Official’ ArborDay

Farview Park10 to 2

66/ TreeTrust

Udupa, Dr Padmini668-2932Paul Domholt

500 *Tues, Pre-auger holes *Wed, Trees delivered to Northside/ Bachmans*Thurs, DeliverChips/Gilbert

ElmerPresenter

Keith Ehrenberg

River3

May 20,Sat9:30 am

Deliverwoodchips PlantProject

Wirth Lake/ West sideby new bridge

50TreesShrubs

Brian LarsonPaul Domholt

20 Webelos Cub Scouts/ 4th

gradersWheel barrow

BucketsForks#10 Cont

3 Forestry StaffKeeganBean/ SpencerMihalow/ Moberg

M’Haha May 21,Sun

Linden HillsFestival

Linden Hills Park Noonto 5

0 John Reinan612-673-7402

ElmerEscort

Shawn BrustJeff Pohl

M’Haha2

May 23,Tues

Arbor Day Northrop School4315 31rst Av STree Trust Event

8 trees Kirsten Andenas651-644-5800

Deliver Woodchips / northparking lot

Many shrubs 0

River3

May 24,Wed

Arbor Day1 to 4 pm

Plymouth and 94/Lyndale

12/ U of MElms

Barb Spears651-644-5800Paul Domholt

50 Grant Project with TreeTrust, NRCC, MnDOT/PW PW/Don Lauzon 708-0739

Shovels (14)Buckets (28)Rakes (7)

Keith Ehrenberg3 staff

M’Haha2

May 30,Tues/1:00 to 2:30

Woodchips inflatbed

WenonahSchool 5625 23rd Av S

38 Paul DomholtMike Cramer/850-5611Rene Carry 668-5040

14 Mulch/ WaterService Group; 4th/5th

gradersMulch/ Water

20 Buckets/ Prunetrees

Kevin O’Connor/1 staff

River3

May 31,Wed

Arbor Day10:30-11:30

4600 Lyndale Av N

7/ ElmBachman

Amy LuesebrinkLBNA staff763-561-1616

50 4th Graders/ water, plant,Woodchips on flatbed

Water Truck/Elmer/ Sparrow

Paul DomholtEhrenberg/ 7 staff

M’Haha2

May 31,Wed/1:30 to 3:00

Woodchips inflatbed

KeewaydinSchool5209 30th Av S

60 Paul DomholtMike Cramer/ 850-5611Mary Noble/ VicePrincipal 668-4670

34 Keewaydin Service Group; 4th/5th

gradersMulch/ Water

40 Buckets/ Prunetrees

Kevin O’Connor/2 staff

Lakes1

June 3,Sat

B’day Bash1 to 4:00Lake Harriet

MPRB/ Ralph ? Bucket Rides2 Towers

ElmerJohn MihalowEscort

Timinski/ D. HendricksonShaun BrustJoe Sparrow

M’Haha5

June 3,Sat

Pioneers/ SoldiersCemeteryWed-Sun8 – 4:30

Eagle Scout Project/ 9to 3Will revisit 4 timesduring the summer/Use Tree Gators

20 Nico Eller 612-822-4400Sue Huntier-Weir 612-624-1853Paul Domholt

40 Flatbed with mulch, watertruck, plant trees/ remove plasticwrap on trunks

PW/ ForemanMark Stensrud 673-5720 Pat Wood 729-8484

Timinski/ 3 staff/ wheel barrows/key to gate?

3 June 21,Wed

Mulching LoringPark

0 Matt Timinski Teen Teamworks Ehrenberg

All June 20 to 22

NUCFAC North Star Hotel Jim Hermann221-9278

MPRB Educational Tour

All June 26 to 28

METRIA Arboretum Jim Hermann221-9278

MPRB Educational Tour

3 July 15, Ole Olson Park Park Dedication 1 Jim Hermann Plant one tree Elmer Ehrenberg

Sat 11 to 12:30 221-9278 Escort3River

July 19,Wed

Mulching/watering

Loring ParkSculpture Garden9 am to Noon

Abby 252525

Water LoringSculpture Garden/ Dunwoody

WateringMulchingMulching

Ehrenberg

RiverAll

July 24 to 30

ISA Field Days

Loring Park Paul and Matt Miscl Set-up

1 Sept 16,Sat

Fall Festival Pershing Park Teresa612-827-4946

“Elmer” the elm tree ElmerEscort

Elward

Elmer Candidates: Escort:Glen Walton/ John Elward/ John Lichliter/ Jeff Pohl/ Joe Sparrow/ Shaun Brust Glen Walton/ John Lichliter/ Jeff Pohl/ Joe Sparrow/Shaun BrustForester Presenter:Jeff Pohl/ John Elward For further information contact: Paul Domholt/ CommunityForestry Coordinator/612-313-7732/ pdomholt@minneapolisparks.org

35

Appendix D. Curriculum that Exhibits Both HistoricalEcology and Invasive Species.

36

37

38

39