Park Ranger Literature Review
Background and Purpose:
This preliminary literature review was prepared by the National Park Service (NPS)
Social Science Program for Ed Clark of Shenandoah National Park and supported by Ken
Johnson of the Institute for Conservation Law Enforcement. The principal investigator is
Elise Thatcher, Research Assistant with the Social Science Program.
Clark, Johnson and others are engaged in the research and development of resource law
enforcement capacities to mitigate complex and trans-boundary threats to parks. A major
component will be a three-year demonstration project to develop intelligence collection
and analysis tools. This project will also develop work-force management tools,
allocating protection assets to values at risk. These will be deployed and tested at pilot
parks.
Work to date suggests that these advanced protection capacities will require the NPS
work force to operate effectively in a management-directed environment. The envisioned
work force will also likely value extensive team-work across disciplines, and appreciate a
long- term focused, information-driven work environment.
At this time it is arguable that these values are not as strong within the NPS law
enforcement sector as is necessary for effective natural resource protection. This force
may properly have evolved to value independence in decision-making, and rangers may
be most productive in response to rapidly changing priorities. But as a result rangers may
place lower value on participating in information-driven workplaces.
The demonstration project includes funding to research what design elements will
support adoption of different behaviors to implement the envisioned changes. These data
may inform such decisions as the design of the work force, computer interfaces, training,
and performance measures.
Clark requested the assistance of the NPS Social Science Program to determine the state
of knowledge of the characteristics, motivators, personal values and expectations of the
present NPS law enforcement ranger workforce.
The purpose of this review is, therefore, to assess what research on NPS or Canadian law
enforcement park rangers has been done. It will then be used to determine what further
research needs to be conducted in order to assist this project.
Literature:
Pendleton, M. R. (1996a). Crime, criminals and guns in “natural settings”: exploring the
basis for disarming federal rangers. American Journal of Police, 4, 3-25.
Pendleton, M. R. (1998). Policing the park: understanding soft enforcement. Journal of
Leisure Research, 30, 552 – 572.
Pendleton, M. R. (2000). Leisure, crime and cops: exploring a paradox of our civility.
Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 111-6.
Soden, D. & Hester, W. (1989). Law enforcement in the national park service: the
ranger’s perspective. Criminal Justice Review, 14, 63-73.
Process:
Resources used for this review are those available through the online libraries of Texas
AM University and the Department of the Interior Library. The online search engine
Academic Search Premier was the key database used through the libraries of Texas AM
with results provided through online journal services EBSCO and SFX. Search engines
HeinOnline and InfoTrac OneFile were used through the Department of the Interior
Library website. These academic databases were searched with the following keywords,
both separately and in combination with one another: “law,” “enforcement,” “natural
resources,” “rural,” “police,” “park rangers,” “rangers,” “nature,” “outdoor(s).”
Additional articles of interest identified in the bibliographies from the articles found were
included in the search, although not often located. Articles not available within
immediate document retrieval capabilities are included in the section titled “Other
Articles.”
While this preliminary literature review is limited in scope, the search conducted
generally yields a reliable estimate of the volume of available literature on the subject of
NPS and Canadian park rangers. What is important in this case is that there are more
articles addressing this topic which were immediately unavailable. A more complete
literature review would include these articles and communication with identified
researcher Michael R. Pendleton to ferret out further data. Such a review may also use
broader search criteria, e.g. from the related disciplines of police-work, to uncover
information.
Findings:
Research on the personal values, motivators and behaviors of the NPS law enforcement
ranger work force is limited, although there appears to be a good beginning for academic
research in the articles included below. Information on visitor perceptions and
expectations of this work force is similarly limited. Research on the mission effectiveness
of the work force is largely non-existent. This is somewhat surprising in light of the long
standing debate within the NPS on the proper role of the ranger.
The majority of literature considering US and Canadian national park rangers addresses
crime rates in US and Canadian national parks. As a result, they are more focused on the
working environment of park rangers rather than the rangers themselves. This review
includes one such article (Pendleton, 2000). The remaining three articles focus on park
rangers and their work with a focus on the increase of park ranger law enforcement
duties.
Two themes come to the fore in the second group of articles. First, the law enforcement
component of ranger duties has increased in correspondence with the increase in crime in
NPS and Canadian units in the past twenty years (Soden & Hester, 1989). Since the late
1980’s there has been a disagreement of opinion within the ranger corps about the
increase in law enforcement duties. Of two hundred park rangers surveyed, half viewed
NPS agency law enforcement decisions (which usually meant increased law enforcement
duties) in a neutral or negative light. Gender, education, age, ideology, and field of study
did not appear to affect rangers’ opinions. Those most likely to view law enforcement
duties negatively had served long enough that their initial duties were more naturalist
rather than enforcement oriented.1 Overall, however, NPS park rangers incorporated law
enforcement duties in their workload without significant protest. Authors Soden and
Hester attribute this ability to incorporate less-than-appealing duties to rangers’ high
levels of job satisfaction associated with other duties. They also cite park rangers’
appreciation for NPS agency “openness” to new methods for addressing contemporary
problems.
The second dominant theme is the manner that NPS and Canadian park rangers carry out
law enforcement duties in response to criminal incidents. In comparison with urban
police, rangers are more likely to “encourage, bargain, avoid, or bluff” when talking with
the perpetrator of a crime in order to arrange a solution (Pendleton, 1998). This approach
is called “soft enforcement” because rangers prefer to rely on “officer presence and
verbal persuasion” rather than threaten perpetrators with arrest. Often rangers do not
report incidents because they feel that “staying on the good side” of park visitors and
local residents allows them more leverage in convincing visitors not to commit criminal
acts in the future. Soft enforcement also stems from rangers’ belief in acting as natural
resource guardians rather than hard-line urban law enforcement officers. This role
enables them to address crimes involving agriculture and natural resources that differ
from those associated with urban areas, e.g. Native American harvesting of specific
plants. Important here is the assumption that rangers, as locals, are privy to local
knowledge of people and natural resources unknown to outsiders.
Conclusions:
The majority of research on NPS and Canadian park rangers conducted thus far has been
concerned with their growing role as law enforcement officers. Pendleton asserts that
although more hard enforcement tactics are being adopted, soft enforcement remains
rangers’ prevailing approach when immediately responding to criminal activity within a
park. Soft enforcement exhibited rangers’ reluctance to use centralized, protocol-oriented
response methods. The four methods used by rangers (bluffing, encouraging, bargaining,
1
Soden & Hester separated those surveyed into the following years of service: less than 1, 1-3, 4-9, 10-19,
20-29, and more than 30. It is not specified at what years of service park rangers were more likely to
disagree with increasing law enforcement duties.
and avoiding) are indicative of the complex web of options presented by soft enforcement
for rangers to address incidents. Although Pendleton argues that this complexity and its
strong ties to the community are what makes a blend of soft and hard enforcement a
viable option for rangers addressing law enforcement incidents, his work does not make
it clear to the principal investigator if the individualized, independent approach rangers
use in soft enforcement deters natural resource crimes to the degree that it sufficiently
minimizes criminal efforts in parks.
Further Research:
Upon reviewing these articles it appears there remains a need for a comprehensive study
to determine if soft enforcement methods by NPS park rangers can prevent crimes
involving agriculture, wildlife or other natural resources from being committed in NPS
units. It appears research is also needed to determine the most effective way to add
information-focused, management-driven capacities to the existing capacities of the NPS
ranger corps. Before conducting such research a more complete literature review,
addressing the articles included in the “Other Articles” section, is highly recommended.
Researcher of Interest:
Michael R. Pendleton, formerly of the Law and Society Department at the University of
Washington, Seattle, appears to have done significant work on this subject. He operates
his own consulting business in Kingston, Washington. His can be contacted at:
Pendleton Consulting
34225 Bridgeview Dr. NE
Kingston, Washington, 98346
Business phone: (360) 638-1179
Business cell: (360) 509-1333
Fax: (360) 638-1779
Website: http://www.pendleton-consulting.com/index.html
Email: mpendleton@telebyte.com
Other Articles:
The following peer reviewed and gray literature articles were not immediately available.
They may be of significant help for future research.
*Carroll, M. (1988). A tale of two rivers: comparing NPS - local
interactions in two areas. Society and Natural Resources, 1, 317-333.
*Charles, M. (1982). The Yellowstone ranger: the social control and
socialization of federal law enforcement officers. Human Organization,
41, 216-226.
*Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. Eck and D. Weisdurd (Eds.),
Crime and place. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
*Forsyth, C. (1994). Bookers and peacemakers: types of game wardens.
Sociological Spectrum, 14, 47-63.
Jowett, P. (1992). Law enforcement in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.
Paper presented at symposium on Emerging Issues in Criminal Justice:
Crime and Enforcement in Natural Settings. Seattle, Washington, March.
Kennedy, J. (1988). The symbolic infrastructure of natural resource
management: an example of the U.S. Forest Service. Society and Natural
Resources, 1, 241-251.
Manning, P. (1977). Police work: the social organization of policing.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Mott, W. P. (1986). Keynote-speakers-Director Mott's comments. Ranger:
Journal of the Association of National Park Rangers, 11,1.
Pendleton M. (1996b). Crime and law enforcement in natural settings. A report to the
United States Forest Service.
Pendleton, M. (1996c). Understanding vandalism in natural settings:
exploring the basis for protective enforcement. Paper presented at the
1996 Montana Recreation and Park Association Annual Conference.
Missoula, Montana, September: 22-24.
Pendleton, M. (1997a). Looking the other way: the institutional
accommodation of tree theft. Qualitative Sociology, 3, 325-340.
Pesavento, L. C., Bator, M.G., & Ross, J. (2001). Staff development practices: is your
organization “learning” in the 21st century? Parks & Recreation, 36, 24-31.
Rollins & Associates. (1994). Planning Report for Managing the West Coast Trail: A
Survey of West Coast Trail Hikers, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.
Sauer, C. (1998). The resource management ranger. Speech given at the
Annual Law Enforcement Training Course. Tacoma, Washington.
*Walsh, W. and Donovan, E. (1984). Job stress in game conservation officers. Journal of
Police Science and Administration, 12, 333-8.
Parks Canada Reports:
Jowett, P.(1993). Heritage resource threat assessment. Parks Canada
report.
Parks Canada. (1996). Law enforcement operational review: Pacific Rim
National Park Reserve. Parks Canada report.
Pendleton, M. (1997b). Policing the park: toward a protection model of park law
enforcement. A report to Parks Canada.
Pendleton, M. (1997c). The threat of crime in national parks: the case
of Pacific Rim Canadian National Park Reserve. A report to Parks Canada.
Recent Media Pieces:
Dougherty, Ryan. (2004, Summer). The Endangered park ranger. National Parks, 78, 7.
Fialka, John J. (2003, Jan 22). In the wild: a ranger's death shows new hazards of a
venerable job. Wall Street Journal, p. A1.
Park Watch. (2000, September 1). Canadian Geographic, 120, 22.
Toops, Connie. (2005, Winter). Raiders of the Last Parks. National Parks, 79, 24 –29.
Shore, D. (1994). “Bad Lands.” Outside, 19, 56-71.
With Rangers Diverted to Security, Parks Feel the Strain. (2001, November 12) New
York Times, p. A14.
* Requests have been made for these articles