THE CONTRIBUTION OF WILD FOOD EXPERIENCES
TO SENSE OF PLACE IN McBRIDE, BRITISH COLUMBIA
by
Thea Zuiker
B.A., Dalhousie University, 2011

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
August 2016
© Thea Zuiker, 2016

ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken to explore the contribution of wild food experiences (foraging,
fishing, hunting, picnicking, processing, trading/gifting, eating) to three dimensions of sense of
place (place attachment, place dependence, and place identity) in the intermountain village of
McBride, British Columbia, Canada. For the purposes of the study, wild food is defined as
plants, fungi, and animals that have been acquired locally and have required little to no human
input for their existence. A household questionnaire was distributed and semi-structured
interviews were conducted to assess the prevalence of wild food in McBride and the overall
contribution of wild food experiences to three dimensions of sense of place. Additionally, the
study examined the differences of sense of place among wild food consumers and the ability of
wild food experiences to bring wilderness into the sense of McBride. The results show that wild
food is consumed by 83.3% of McBride residents and berries, fish, moose, deer, mushrooms, and
birds are most frequently and abundantly consumed. Wild food experiences contributed to each
dimension of sense of place for all interviewees, though manifesting differently for each
individual. Exploring sense of place through wild food experiences adds a novel perspective to
the literature that links the place of residence and wilderness settings. This study provides
preliminary insight to the overlooked presence of wild food in local food systems and the
importance of wild food experiences in amenity-rich places.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................ vii
Ch 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
Ch. 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................... 3
Sense of Place.............................................................................................................................. 4
Place and Food ............................................................................................................................ 7
Place and Wilderness ................................................................................................................ 10
Wild Food.................................................................................................................................. 13
Ch. 3. METHODS......................................................................................................................... 16
Study Site .................................................................................................................................. 16
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 19
Household survey .................................................................................................................. 21
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 24
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 25
Ch. 4. RESULTS........................................................................................................................... 27
Household Survey ..................................................................................................................... 27
Overview of household survey respondents. ......................................................................... 28
Overview of wild food consumers......................................................................................... 32
The economic contribution of wild food in McBride. ........................................................... 37
Household survey and sense of place. ................................................................................... 39
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 49
Overview of interview respondents and representativeness .................................................. 50
Sense of place and wild food experiences. ............................................................................ 54
Ch. 5. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................... 81
Contribution of Wild Food to Sense of Place ........................................................................... 81
Identity. .................................................................................................................................. 83
Dependence. .......................................................................................................................... 84
Attachment............................................................................................................................. 84
iii

Sense of Wilderness as Place .................................................................................................... 85
Identity. .................................................................................................................................. 88
Dependence. .......................................................................................................................... 88
Attachment............................................................................................................................. 89
Place and Time .......................................................................................................................... 89
Other Considerations ................................................................................................................. 93
Authentic sense of place. ....................................................................................................... 93
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 94
Ch. 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 100
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................. 109
Household Survey ................................................................................................................... 109
Interview Guide ....................................................................................................................... 114

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of wild food (WF) consumers by total survey respondents ....................... 33
Table 2. Overall importance mean of wild food to way of life by gender, length of residence, and
generation Canadian (n = 66) ........................................................................................................ 41
Table 3. Profile of McBride wild food consumers by overall importance of wild food to way of
life (% by quintile) (n = 66) .......................................................................................................... 43
Table 4. Estimated yearly value by overall importance of wild food to way of life (% by quintile)
(n = 66).......................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 5. Frequency of consumption mean of wild foods by overall importance to way of life (n =
66) ................................................................................................................................................. 45
Table 6. Importance mean of motivators by overall importance to way of life (n = 66) .............. 45
Table 7. Overall importance of wild food to way of life by support for wild food initiatives (n =
66) ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Table 8. Profile respondents for whom wild food is important by method of acquisition (n = 37)
....................................................................................................................................................... 47
Table 9. Regular consumers for whom wild food is important to way of life (n = 37) ................ 49
Table 10. Overview of interview respondents compared to total survey respondents and wild
food (WF) consumers ................................................................................................................... 50
Table 11. Details of wild foods consumed over lifetime .............................................................. 53
Table 12. Contribution of wild food experiences to sense of place dimensions........................... 82
Table 13. Berry experience and sense of place implication.......................................................... 86
Table 14. Scale of wild food experiences as they relate to space and time by interviewee ......... 90

v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Village of McBride in relation to British Columbia and Alberta (modified from
Destination BC Corp., 2016) ........................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2. The surrounding landscape of Village of McBride, depicting wilderness and
agricultural areas (modified from Google Maps, 2016) ............................................................... 18
Figure 3. Municipal boundaries of the Village of McBride (modified from Village Office
website, 2016) ............................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Gender of household survey respondents (n = 80) ........................................................ 28
Figure 5. Generation Canadian of household survey respondents (n = 80) .................................. 29
Figure 6. Length of residence of household survey respondents (n = 80) .................................... 30
Figure 7. McBride wild food (WF) consumers (n = 80) ............................................................... 31
Figure 8. Reasons for wild food non-consumption (n = 13) ......................................................... 32
Figure 9. Methods of wild food acquisition (n = 67) .................................................................... 34
Figure 10. Wild food consumption and frequencies (n = 67) ....................................................... 36
Figure 11. Quantity (kg) of selected wild food acquired by household per season (n = 67) ........ 37
Figure 12. Estimated yearly value of wild food per household (n = 67) ...................................... 38
Figure 13. Overall importance of wild food to way of life (n = 66) ............................................. 40
Figure 14. Method of wild food knowledge acquisition (n = 67) ................................................. 42
Figure 15. Length of residence of interview respondents (n = 11) ............................................... 51
Figure 16. Methods of wild food acquisition for interview respondents (n = 11) ........................ 52
Figure 17. Wild food consumption of interview respondents (n = 11) ......................................... 53
Figure 18. Responses to question asking interviewees if they share wild food (n = 11) .............. 57
Figure 19. Knowledge acquisition of interview respondents (n = 11) .......................................... 63
Figure 20. Responses to question asking interviewees if they share wild food knowledge (n = 11)
....................................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 21. Functional motivations for consuming wild food among interview respondents (n =
11) ................................................................................................................................................. 65
Figure 22. Present wild food consumption of interview respondents compared to past (n = 11) 72
Figure 23. Interview respondents’ connection to surrounding wilderness through wild food
experiences (n = 11) ...................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 24. Interview respondents’ connection to people through wild food experiences (n = 11)
....................................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 25. Interview respondents’ connection to Village of McBride through wild food
experiences (n = 11) ...................................................................................................................... 76

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. David Connell. I owe him
many thanks for his patience, encouragement, and guidance throughout my graduate experience.
His love of education and learning is truly contagious and inspiring. I would also like to thank
my wonderfully supportive committee members, Dr. Angèle Smith and Dr. Hugues Massicotte.
It was an absolute pleasure to work with all three and I could not have asked for a better team. I
would also like to thank Dr. Kevin Hutchings from the English Department for taking the time to
sit as my external examiner.
A very special thanks goes out to the Village of McBride, its residents, and of course to the
research participants. Their generosity, hospitality, and interest made this study possible.
I would like to extend a warm thank you to my friends and colleagues for their continual support.
In particular, I would like to thank my comrades Amy Blanding and Michael Dewar for
celebrating each small victory and commiserating when necessary.
To my tremendously caring family: thank you. I could not have completed this without their
unwavering support and encouragement throughout this process.
I would like to acknowledge the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition for providing me with funding
through the Northern Agriculture Research Initiative. Their support in the early stages of this
process was incredibly helpful.
And finally, thank you to the all the faculty and staff who have taught and helped me throughout
my time at the University of Northern British Columbia.

vii

INTRODUCTION

Scholars have been exploring the relationship between people and places for decades. This
interconnection between people and place was initially explored primarily by phenomenologists
(e.g., Buttimer & Seamon, 1980; Relph, 2008; Tuan, 1974) in hopes of better understanding
environment-behaviour connections (Low & Altman, 1992). Concepts like sense of place, place
attachment, place identity, and place meaning have been examined to shed light on social
housing, pro-environmental behaviour, community design, and more (Manzo & Devine-Wright,
2014). The increasingly globalized and mobile nature of our world continues to inspire
researchers across disciplines to focus their attention on the processes and experiences that draw
people to and keep people in places.
While there is still considerable debate among place theorists concerning how place
concepts relate to one another (Hernández, Hidalgo & Ruiz, 2014), this study takes the position
that sense of place encompasses other place terms as dimensions of the overarching concept
(Shamai, 1991; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Sense of place may be broadly defined as “the
meaning attached to a spatial setting by a person or group” (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001, p. 233).
This study was undertaken to explore the dimensions of sense of place through the lens of
wild food, examining a range of wild food experiences that may contribute to person-place
relationships for residents of the Village of McBride, located in the Robson Valley of British
Columbia. The study examines three dimensions of sense of place (attachment, dependence, and
identity) through past and present wild food experiences in both wilderness settings (hunting,
fishing, foraging, and picnicking) and in residential settings (processing, trading/gifting, eating),
with specific focus on experiences that occur in the McBride area. The primary research question
1

is: In what ways do wild food experiences contribute to sense of place in the village of McBride?
The sub-questions include: What is the prevalence of wild food in the village of McBride? How
do senses of place differ among wild food consumers? Do wild food experiences help draw the
surrounding wilderness into the sense of place of residence?
Due to the wide-ranging wild food activities that can be associated with sense of place, it
was hypothesized that wild food experiences would contribute to sense of place in various ways
amongst consumers. It was further hypothesized that, due to the familiarity one must have with
the surrounding environment, wild food experiences would encourage not only a sense of place
in wilderness settings, but draw the wilderness into the sense of the place of residence,
effectively broadening the place of residence to include wilderness.
This study looks at a specific and essentially place-based element of the food system:
wild food. Similar to other place studies focusing on food, our study shows the multidimensional
ways in which wild food experiences contribute to sense of place. For the purposes of this study,
wild food is defined as plants, fungi, and animals that have been acquired locally and have
required little to no input for their existence. For example, moose, rainbow trout, fiddleheads,
and morel mushrooms acquired from the McBride area would all be included.
The varying activities associated with wild food experiences cover a broad range of
literature. The study draws from, but does not hold strict reins to, human geography,
environmental psychology, sociology of food, environmental anthropology, ethnoecology, and
leisure studies.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW
The growing interest in the relationship between people and place has led to the proliferation of
distinct yet related concepts for describing the human-place relationship. This includes sense of
place (Williams & Stewart, 1998; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Stedman, 2003), place
attachment (Brown & Perkins, 1992; Low & Altman, 1992, Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Williams &
Vaske, 2003), place dependence (Gibbons & Ruddell, 1995; Pretty, Chipuer & Bramston, 2003;
Hunt, 2008), place identity (Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983; Korpela, 1989; Dixon &
Durrheim, 2000), topophilia (Tuan, 1974; González, 2005; Oliveira, Roca & Leitão, 2010),
community attachment (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Hummon, 1992; McCool & Martin, 1994;
Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2004), belonging (Jacobson, 2002; Mormon-Robinson, 2003;
Trudeau, 2006; Nelson & Hiemstra, 2008), insideness (Relph, 2008; Rowles, 1983; Lim &
Barton; 2010), and rootedness (Tuan, 1980; McAndrew, 1998; Andreotti, Galès, Fuentes, 2013),
among others. Though it is still debated how place concepts relate to one another, many
researchers argue that sense of place is a multidimensional concept comprising two, three, or five
facets (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981; Williams & Vaske, 2003; Kyle, Graefe & Manning, 2005;
Jorgensen & Stedman, 2006; Scopelliti & Tiberio, 2010; Raymond, Brown & Weber, 2010;
Lewicka, 2011).
Place is defined as the meeting of the physical environment, human behaviour, and social
processes (Stedman, 2003). It is “the experience of a particular location with some measure of
groundedness (however, unstable), sense of boundaries (however, permeable), and connection to
everyday life, even if its identity is constructed, traversed by power, and never fixed” (Escobar,
2001, 140). Relph (2008) posits that place is a phenomenon of experience with “remarkable
capacity to make connections between self, community, and earth” (vii). In contrast to space,
3

which is seen as a generic and undifferentiated phenomenon, places are familiar, known, lived-in
through experience (Beatley, 2004) and have “a range of subtleties and significances as great as
the range of human experiences and intentions” (Relph, 2008, p. 26).
Sense of place has been described as a multidimensional concept comprising three
dimensions: place attachment, place dependence, and place identity. Steele (1981) defines having
a sense of place as “an experiential process created by the setting, combined with what a person
brings to it” (p. 9). A sense of a place creates feelings of attachment to a place, and the more of
an insider one is, the stronger these feelings are (Relph, 2008, p. 49). Place attachment is
described as “the emotional bonds between people and a particular place or environment”
(Seamon, 2014, p. 11). Place dependence is considered to be a “functional connection based
specifically on the individual physical connection to a setting” (Raymond, Brown, and Weber,
2010, p. 426). On the other hand, place identity is defined as ‘dimensions of the self that develop
in relation to the physical environment’ (Manzo, 2003, p. 47). Consistent with this literature, this
study holds sense of place as the overarching term encompassing three dimensions; place
attachment, place dependence and place identity.

Sense of Place
Sense of place “resides in human interpretations of the setting, which are constructed
through experience with it” (Stedman, 2003, p. 672). Sense of place creates an identity of ‘home’
by offering the contrast of ‘away’ (Rose, 1995, p. 97), or in other words, what it means to be
inside or outside a place. But to be at home in a place requires an authentic sense of place, which
is:

4

“understood to be a direct and genuine experience of the entire complex of the
identity of places… It comes from a full awareness of places for what they are
as products of man’s intentions and the meaningful settings for human
activities, or from a profound and unselfconscious identity with place” (Relph,
2008, p.64).
An authentic sense of place indicates a genuine attachment to place, yet paradoxically, being
unselfconscious, often goes unnoticed (Tuan, 1977, p. 146). Tuan (1977) argues that this type of
attachment “may come simply with familiarity and ease, with the assurance of nurture and
security, with the memory of sounds and smells, of communal activities and homely pleasures
accumulated over time” (p. 159). To have a place created and maintained unselfconsciously
results in a place with “distinct and profound identity” (p. 68) that fits the unique group of people
that live there. If a person does not have a place in which he or she feels like an insider, he or she
is essentially placeless or without roots.
For a place to be authentically our home—a place to which we are really rooted and
attached—the facets of its physical appearance, our awareness of its persistence through time,
and the fact that it is where we know and are known must be “profoundly significant and
inseparable” (Relph, 2008, p. 41). Relph (2008) says that these home places are the foundations
of our existence and provide “the context for all human activity … security and identity for
individuals and groups” (p. 41). While the experience of home implies the existence of place,
place does not necessarily suggest the presence of home. Home is what Tuan (1977) calls an
“intimate place” (p. 144). Platt (1996) also states that second only to the body, home is the
“penultimate place of experience” (p. 112) and it provides a context in which boundaries are
constructed between the inside and the outside (p. 113).
5

All places require an inside that is distinct from an outside, yet our experiences in place
determine the degree to which we feel insideness. Relph (2008) says that home typically is
experienced as “the most fundamental form of insideness” and is achieved when “a place is
experienced without deliberate and selfconscious reflection yet is full with significances” (p. 55).
This is what he calls existential insideness and is characterized by deep belonging and identity
with a place; it is “part of knowing implicitly that this place is where you belong—in all other
places we are existential outsiders no matter how open we are to their symbols and
significances” (p. 55). A person who experiences place from this perspective “is part of that
place and it is a part of him” (p. 55). The boundary between the inside (place) and the outside
(space) is determined by our intentions and experiences. New experiences outside home redefine
what it means to be inside or belong, and may make us feel “more at home in a larger world”
(Platt, 1996, p. 114). Platt (1996) states that through venturing outward “meaningful places
become visible and ‘legible’ in the blur of unfamiliar space” (p. 114).
The degree to which one experiences insideness of a place reveals much about the
phenomenon. At the deepest levels, a person experiences a place authentically and is
unselfconscious of his or her association with that place (Relph, 2008). This place is “home,
where…roots are, a centre of safety and security, a field of care of concern, a point of
orientation” (Relph, 2008, p. 142). To feel insideness to this degree is a personal yet
intersubjective experience and creates the “essence of a sense of place” (Relph, 2008, p. 142). To
experience existential insideness, a person becomes a part of place as it is a part of him or her
(Relph, 2008, p. 55). Existential insideness works to foster an authentic sense of place; a sense of
“being inside and belonging to […] place both as an individual and member of a community, and
to know this without reflecting upon it” (p. 65).

6

Feelings of attachment, rootedness, and belonging to places come from communal and
personal experiences that foster a “familiarity that is part of knowing and being known here, in
this particular place” (Relph, 2008, p. 34). Attachment creates roots in places and familiarity
encourages detailed knowledge and “sense of care and concern for that place” (p. 34). Relph
(2008) indicates that “to have roots in a place is to have a secure point from which to look out on
the world, a firm grasp of one’s own position in the order of things, and a significant spiritual
and psychological attachment to somewhere in particular” (p. 38).
The multiplicity of meaningful experiences we have in places creates feelings of
attachment for that place and brings them into our “fields of care” (Relph, 2008, p. 38). Places
fuse the human and natural orders of the world and are the loci of significant experiences. They
are defined by experiences and intentions which work to give meaning to particular settings or
environments. They provide identity to the individual and the community and often are
“profound centres of human existence to which people have deep emotional and psychological
ties” (Relph, 2008, p. 141).

Place and Food
It is widely accepted that a powerful relationship exists between food and place (e.g., Delind,
2006; Dusselier, 2002; Gombay, 2010; Sims, 2009). Feagan (2007) says “food and place are
intertwined in robust ways in the geographic imagination and central to our lifeworld” (p. 23).
When considering food terms such as slow food, local food, 100-mile diet, farmers’ markets,
terroir, placed-based diet, back-to-the-land, and homesteading, it is difficult to ignore the

7

connection between the food we eat and the places we live, as illustrated by the following
perspectives.
Local food movement efforts, for example, support “the emergence of visible practices
around the recreation of place” (Feagan, 2007, p. 30) with the hope that they will highlight the
importance of the people-place relationship. Those who advocate for local food are aware of the
importance of place as food creates a connection between people and the land (Delind, 2006). By
encouraging practices that give meaning and attachment to a place, local food systems advocates
suggest we may learn to live better in place.
Some have argued passionately that we must find ways to define the places we live in
more biophysical terms—advocating for bioregions and foodsheds. This is what Thayer calls the
Deep Home Place; the “region where the heart has taken root and ‘home’ territory sprung forth”
(Thayer, 2003, p. 88). If we can begin to understand our actions in a bioregional sense, scholars
argue, living more sustainable and place-based lives will become an easier feat. Kloppenburg,
Hendrickson, and Stevenson (1996) suggest that our experience with food can help to foster
attachment and commitment to the natural world. They state, “If we are to become native to our
places, the foodshed is one way of envisioning that beloved country” (Kloppenburg et al., 1996,
p. 123). By encouraging experiences that ground us in place, they argue, we will recognize more
easily our ecological position in the world.
While most studies linking food and place have focused on agriculture, more and more
scholars are looking to wild food as a way to ground people in places. However, until recently,
studies on wild food have been scant. Wild food studies have largely focused on the folk
knowledge and their uses in Aboriginal societies (Bharucha & Pretty, 2010; Etkin, 2000;
Kuhnlein & Turner, 1991; Leonti, Nebel, Rivera & Heinrich, 2006; Rampedi & Oliver, 2013;

8

Reyes-García et al., 2008) and its potential to supplement breadbaskets in food insecure
countries (Acipa, Kamatenesi-Mugisha & Oryem-Origa, 2013; Bharucha & Pretty, 2010; Shad,
Shah & Bakht, 2013). While the documented reports of the folk classification of wild plants and
animals are exhaustive, few studies have examined the use of wild food by non-Aboriginals in
North America (Turner & von Aderkas, 2012), let alone its contribution to sense of place in such
places.
What distinguishes wild food from agriculture is the wilderness element. This, in addition
to the already rich relationship between people, the places they live, and the food they eat, adds
another facet to the person-place-food phenomenon. Recently, scholars with primarily leisure
studies backgrounds have explored sense of place in natural settings through wilderness
experiences (Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Steel, 2000; Wickham, 2001; Vitterso, Vorkinn &
Vistad 2001). While none examine the wild food facet specifically, many touch on associated
wild food experiences such as fishing or hunting. However, few studies have merged these
seemingly diverse settings by examining how such experiences may contribute to a sense of
place beyond the recreational setting or how wild food experiences may be informed by
attachment, dependence, or identity with other places (such as the place of residence).
Wild food has been explored in relation to sense of place by Crouch (1993-4), who
pointed to the importance of the paw paw (Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal), a wild plant that is
genetically similar to the banana and native to northern Indiana where she lives. She argues that
those who learn about and eat the paw paw “will interact with, and come to know, their home
places and the world-at-large quite differently than those who eat bananas” (Delind, 2006, p.
134). She suggests that her experience with the paw paw, and arguably other wild plants,
displays the interactions between the biological, ecological, and the social.
9

The literature suggests that there is an opportunity to explore the contribution of wild
food experiences to sense of place in non-Aboriginal communities. As food has been identified
as an important element of place, it is natural to assume that wild food and experiences thereof
would have a similar effect.

Place and Wilderness
Recognizing the dominance of the residence in place studies, some scholars focus on sense of
place beyond the home. Research has revealed a strong connection between experiences in the
wilderness settings and the development of people-place relationships (Frederickson &
Anderson, 1999; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Marcus & Barnes, 1999; Mitchell, Force, Carroll and
McLaughlin 1993; Williams et al., 1992). Studies associated with forest resources and leisure
studies have examined the creation of sense of place through experiences in wilderness settings
(Bricker & Kerstetter, 2000; Steel, 2000; Wickham, 2001; Vitterso, Vorkinn, & Vistad 2001).
Studies exploring sense of place and wilderness experiences such as camping, hiking, fishing,
and whitewater recreation have defined sense of place as ecological stewardship or commitment
to revisit the place (Manzo, 2003). Mitchell et al. (1993) measured wilderness place attachment
by wilderness group membership, concern for place management, and attitudes toward the place.
Some studies have examined how person-nature relationships influence the sense of self
(Manzo, 2003). Literature on concepts such as “deep ecology” (Fox, 1990; Nash, 1990;
Zimmerman, Callicott, Sessions, Warren, & Clark, 1993) and “ecological self” (Bragg, 1996)
suggest that experiences in natural settings are necessary to the perception of oneself. Some
researchers have found that the self-construct can shift to include the natural environment
through experiences in wilderness areas (Frederickson & Anderson, 1999).

10

Kalinowksi (1996) provides an insight into how Aldo Leopold’s hunting practices
allowed him to enter his ecological community as a good citizen. To be a good ecological citizen
requires “an ethic founded in our instinctive moral sentiments, an aesthetic that connects and
sensitizes us to our surroundings, and experience to teach us to expand our environmental
awareness while remaining rooted in the primitive origins of our social conscience” (p. 141).
Once this ethic, aesthetic, and experience are fulfilled, a person is fully included in the
community when he or she becomes “emotionally rooted to a place they can call their own” (p.
141). Experiences that draw one into the ecological community, such as hunting, have the
potential to give a person a unique experience of place, whereby they are no longer an “observer
of the ‘other’ but as a participant in an ecological community that includes prey and predator” (p.
147). Kalinowski argues that these experiences are valuable because nature is not viewed “as
merely a collection of entities ‘out there,’ belonging to someone else, that we picture as more or
less ‘scenic’” (p. 149). To heal our “environmental wounds” he argues we must seek
experiences, such as hunting, that ground us in the ecological community.
Some scholars argue that ecological literacy contributes to sense of place, as it requires
both the ability to read the environment and “interpret the stories of the landscape” (Curthoys &
Cuthburtson, 2002, p. 226). Ecological literacy is defined as the ability to “comprehend and
critically evaluate basic principles which govern natural systems; linkages among living
organisms and the physical environment, and consequences of human activity on natural
systems” (RELATE, 2001, first paragraph). Curthoys and Cuthbertson (2002) describe an
ecologically literate citizen as “someone who knows about, cares for, and acts on behalf of the
cultural and ecological integrity of their home-place” (p. 227). While wild food experiences may
not require full ecological literacy of the participant, such experiences require at least some

11

knowledge or understanding of the local flora and fauna and therefore may help to convert
generic wilderness into place. The recognition of natural elements as being essential to having
sense of place means that we look at nature as more than simply natural resources. Evernden
(1993) claims:
If we encounter nature as natural resources, then we deny it any of the
character of worldhood. And we simultaneously deny ourselves access to it as
home. It is characterized as space, not place. There is no human involvement
and therefore no sense of significance in such a nature (p. 66).
In areas where people are more integrated with or dependent on their natural
environment, alternative visions of wilderness exist. Gómez-Pompa and Kaus (1992, p. 273)
point out that “indigenous groups in the tropics […] do not consider the tropical forest
environment to be wild; it is their home”. The Posey (1998) and Fairhead and Leach (1996)
studies on anthropogenic forest islands found that the distinction between nature and culture
became difficult to discern “not only because they look natural but are culture, but also because
they are cultural in a subtle way” (Dove and Carpenter, 2008, 3). Instead of strictly cultivated,
the forests were managed (Posey, 1998) or enriched (Fairhead and Leach, 1996), and in the
‘wildest’ areas of the Amazon rainforest, the landscape has been manipulated by the people who
call it home.
Inhabitants of rural areas too have an alternative to what urbanites may call wilderness.
Because rural dwellers and agriculturalists have an intimate relationship with the environment,
“nature is no longer an object, an it, but a world of complexity whose living components are
personified and deified in local myths” (Gómez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992, p. 273). This means that
those cultures that require a deeper relationship with the land do not see it as outside the place
12

they live. Rather, it is categorically and necessarily inside their place. Like urbanities, their
conceptions of wilderness are determined by settings in which they have little or no experience
and “to them, the urban setting might be perceived as wilderness” (Gómez-Pompa and Kaus,
1992, p. 273).
The literature shows that wilderness experiences contribute to sense of place in
natural settings. Experiences in natural settings encourage place attachment to the
wilderness and may contribute to the development of place identity, or “ecological self.”
Ecological literacy, or the knowledge of flora and fauna, contributes to sense of place as
it requires familiarity with and understanding of wilderness settings. Wild food
experiences often necessitate experiences in and familiarity with wilderness settings,
and it is hypothesized that such experiences may contribute to sense of place similarly
to other wilderness experiences.

Wild Food
For the purposes of this study, wild food is defined as flora and fauna that have been
acquired for food consumption and have required little to no input for their existence. As
indicated earlier, moose, rainbow trout, fiddleheads, or morel mushrooms acquired from the
surrounding area of McBride would all be included. Wild food has been described as native or
untamed plants and animals (Jones & Madsen, 1991; Melainey, Przybylski & Sherriff, 1999;
Ryder & Latham, 2005), undomesticated (Dakora, 1997; Ockerman & Basu, 2009), uncultivated
(Mazhar, Satheesh, Buckles & Akhter, 2002; Aryal, Berg & Ogle, 2009), neglected or
underutilized species (Blench, 1997; Padulosi, Eyzaquirre & Hodgkin, 1999), famine food
13

(Guinand & Lemessa, 2001; Muller & Almedom, 2008; Khan, Hasan & Jahan, 2012), hunted
and gathered food (Milton, 2000), traditional or indigenous food (Kuhnlein & Receveur, 1996;
Pieroni & Price, 2006; Kuhnlein, Erasmus, Spigelski & Burlingame, 2013), non-timber forest
products (Chamberlain & Bush, 1998; Boxall, Murray & Unterschultz, 2003), or perhaps,
simply, not agriculture (Dwyer & Minnegal, 1991; Blake, Chisholm, Clark and Mudar, 1992;
Shackleton, Shackleton & Cousins, 2000). Dufour and Wilson (1994) placed wild and
domesticated foods along a continuum, whereby wild food can be found at one pole and
domesticated food at the other: wild, managed, cultivated/raised, semi-domesticated,
domesticated. However, defining wild and domesticated food in this context has also been
controversial (Tardío et al., 2006). For example, wild plants or animals may be cultivated or
raised, and domesticated plants or animals may grow or range as feral species (Etkin, 1994). And
in many cases, it is impossible to genetically distinguish between wild and domesticated foods
(Tardío et al., 2006).
Wild food is sometimes associated with non-timber forest products (NTFP). While there
is no definition of NTFPs that is generally accepted (Mitchell et al. p. 117), they consist of
elements of wild food “as those biological organisms, excluding timber, valued by humans for
both consumptive and non-consumptive purposes found in various forms of forested landscapes”
(Davidson-Hunt, Duchesne & Zasada, 2001, p. 5). Beatley (2004) points out NTFPs are not only
important for supplemental food and income for communities, they “represent a method of forest
use that generally conserves the resource and is both born from and strengthens a sense of
connection to environment and place” (p. 153). A recent study (Mitchell et al., 2010) was
conducted to classify plant and fungal NTFPs in the Robson Valley Forest District (including
McBride) and while the study called for further research focusing on developing management
14

strategies, consumer markets, and economic opportunities for NTFP in the region, the economic
and cultural value of NTFPs remains undocumented. No systematic data collection exists on the
harvesting, sale, licensing or monitoring of most NTFPs and the national policy agenda has
largely ignored the value they hold by those who harvest them recreationally, culturally,
commercially or for subsistence.
The concept of wild food is tangled up in Western ideas of wild and wilderness, which in
turn are informed by their distinction from agriculture. It was during the agricultural revolution
that, for the first time, there came to be a distinction between cultivated, settled, and
domesticated land and uncultivated, savage, and wild land (Short, 1991). In Hebrew, wilderness
means unsown land and in Greek, not cultivated. Wilderness has long been characteristic of
geographic space in the Western mindset. Like space, it is perceived as “generic and
nonspecific,” free from our embedded memories and stories (Beatley, 2004, p. 25). This
conception of wilderness works to enforce the idea that humans are separate from nature, but this
is not entirely accurate. Gómez-Pompa and Kaus (1992) call for a reinterpretation of the
‘wilderness myth’, arguing that “the concept of wilderness as the untouched or untamed land is
mostly an urban perception” (p. 273). When the space of the wilderness becomes imbued with
significance, it no longer simply comprises objective or indifferent geological features (Relph,
2008). Rather, it is infused with meaning, history, and community, and it becomes easier to
attach ourselves to it (Tall, 1996, p. 110).
This study explores the colloquial understanding of wild food as it relates to its
distinction to agriculture and its embeddedness in wilderness. This study hopes to build on
Crouch’s work that shows the connection between wild food consumption and connection to
place.
15

METHODS
This exploratory research centers on the Village of McBride, British Columbia (BC), an
isolated settlement in the central-east part of the province (Figure 1). As described next, the
history and location of the site provide an appropriate context to examine the relationship
between wild food and sense of place. The chapter also describes the data collection methods for
the household surveys and resident interviews and the techniques used to analyse the data. The
chapter concludes with a discussion of limitations.

Study Site
The study site was selected primarily for its proximity to wilderness settings and potential for
wild food opportunities in nearby forests, lakes, rivers, and mountains (Figure 2). The Village of
McBride is located in the Robson Valley, 210 km southeast of Prince George, British Columbia,
and 166 km west of Jasper, Alberta. The village occupies a part of the Simpcw First Nation and
Lheidli T’enneh First Nation traditional territories. The Robson Valley is an agriculture- and
natural resource-rich corridor along the Fraser River, nestled between the Rocky and Cariboo
Mountain ranges. The valley is sparsely populated with a few communities throughout, McBride
being one of the largest with roughly 600 residents.
Due to the aforementioned wilderness proximity, opportunities for wild food experiences
in McBride abound. The richness of the valley attracts wild game (e.g. moose, deer, and grouse),
and fishes (e.g. rainbow trout) are abundant in lakes and rivers in the area. Both the boreal forest
and more disturbed land such as roadsides or farms provide wild foods like huckleberries,
blueberries and shaggy mane mushrooms.

16

)LJXUH7KH9LOODJHRI0F%ULGHLQUHODWLRQWR%ULWLVK&ROXPELDDQG$OEHUWD PRGLILHGIURP
'HVWLQDWLRQ%&&RUS 




7KHYLOODJHJUHZXSDURXQGWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH*UDQG7UXQN3DFLILF5DLOZD\DQG

ZDVHVWDEOLVKHGLQ5DLOVKLSSLQJDJULFXOWXUHDQGIRUHVWU\KDYHKLVWRULFDOO\EHHQDQG
FRQWLQXHWREH0F%ULGH¶VSULPDU\LQGXVWULHV$FFRUGLQJWRWKH6WDWLVWLFV&DQDGD&HQVXV
3URILOHRI0F%ULGHUHVLGHQWVOLYHLQSULYDWHGZHOOLQJVRIZKLFKDUHRFFXSLHGE\
XVXDOUHVLGHQWV7KHFHQVXVGDWDLQGLFDWHWKDW0F%ULGHUHVLGHQWVDUHIHPDOHDQG
PDOH

17

)LJXUH7KHVXUURXQGLQJODQGVFDSHRIWKH9LOODJHRI0F%ULGHGHSLFWLQJZLOGHUQHVVDQG
DJULFXOWXUDODUHDV PRGLILHGIURP*RRJOH0DSV 




0F%ULGHKDVEHHQODUJHO\GHSHQGHQWRQWKHIRUHVWU\LQGXVWU\DQGVXEMHFWWRLWVERRPVDQG
EXVWV5HFHQWPLOOFORVXUHVDQGDJHQHUDOGHFOLQHLQIRUHVWPDQXIDFWXULQJLQWKHDUHDKDVOHGWR
MREORVVDQGRXWPLJUDWLRQRIUHVLGHQWV0F%ULGH¶VSRSXODWLRQGHFUHDVHGE\SHUFHQWIURP
WR7KHPHGLDQDJHRIWKHUHVLGHQWVLV\HDUVURXJKO\ILYH\HDUVROGHUWKDQWKH
PHGLDQDJHRIWKH)UDVHU)RUW*HRUJH5HJLRQDO'LVWULFW+RZHYHUWKHWRXULVPLQGXVWU\ODUJHO\
LQWKHIRUPRIHFRDGYHQWXUHKDVEHFRPHLQFUHDVLQJO\LPSRUWDQWWRSUHVHQWGD\OLIHLQ0F%ULGH
7KHVXUURXQGLQJZLOGHUQHVVSURYLGHVWKHEDFNGURSIRUZRUOGFODVVQDWXUHEDVHGWRXULVPOLNH
VQRZPRELOLQJELUGLQJKLNLQJVNLLQJDQGILVKLQJ7KH&DQDGLDQ1DWLRQDO5DLOZD\WKHVFKRRO
GLVWULFWDQGWKHKRVSLWDODUHDOVRLPSRUWDQWHPSOR\HUVLQWKHDUHD
18

)LJXUH0XQLFLSDOERXQGDULHVRIWKH9LOODJHRI0F%ULGH PRGLILHGIURP9LOODJH2IILFH
ZHEVLWH 



'DWD&ROOHFWLRQ
7KHUHVHDUFKLVEDVHGRQKRXVHKROGVXUYH\GDWDFROOHFWHGGXULQJ-XO\DQGLQWHUYLHZ
GDWDFROOHFWHGEHWZHHQ6HSWHPEHUDQG$SULOLQWKH9LOODJHRI0F%ULGH%ULWLVK
&ROXPELD7KHKRXVHKROGVXUYH\DQGLQWHUYLHZPHWKRGVVHOHFWHGWRDQVZHUWKHUHVHDUFK
19

questions were based largely on the research designs of two community attachment studies
(Brehm, Eisenhauer & Krannich, 2004; Brehm, 2007). Brehm et al. (2004) examine the
environmental facet in community attachment in two small communities in intermountain
Wyoming and Utah. They draw from the work of Beckley (2003), who advocates for the use of
several methods to understand the full details of a phenomenon.
Brehm et al. (2004) employed household surveys consisting of Likert-type scale questions to
understand the importance of various aspects to the community in which they live, ranging from
1 = “not at all important” to 7 = “extremely important.” Residential addresses from public utility
records in the 2004 study were assigned a number and 200 households were randomly selected.
Additional replacement households were randomly drawn to use if no contact was made, the
home was vacant, or the address was non-existent. The questionnaire included a question
addressing the respondent’s willingness to participate in a follow-up interview process. Fortyeight respondents, from a total of 200, indicated a willingness to participate in this subsequent
inquiry. The researchers contacted each volunteer respondent and from that conducted 28 faceto-face in-depth interviews.
While Brehm, Eisenhauer, and Krannich’s (2004) household survey provided an
overview of community attachment, the interviews unveiled “the emotional nuances of
community attachment” (Brehm, 2007, p. 478). This type of research allowed the participants to
frame their sentimental and emotional attachments to the natural environment in their own terms.
Interviews were generally 45 minutes to two hours and were conversation style, following a
loosely guided question plan. Brehm (2007) found that narratives from individual members of
the community revealed a “less distinct separation between the social and natural environment
dimensions of attachment” (p. 478) than previous quantitative analyses had shown. By using
20

narrative inquiry, she was able to build on the frame that the quantitative data provided. She
argues that research into the environmental facet of community attachment is imperative in
facilitating effective planning and reducing land use conflicts.
Household survey. The household survey for this study was designed to reveal the
prevalence of wild food in the Village of McBride. Two-hundred-and-fifty household
questionnaires were distributed around McBride, slightly fewer than the 256 McBride dwellings
indicated by the census data. The five-page questionnaire consisted of fifteen questions directed
toward the person most involved with wild food within the household. Unless otherwise stated,
the questions sought the most appropriate response from a single individual. This section of the
study was interested in understanding what wild foods are eaten in McBride, how often they are
consumed, how they are acquired, the quantity acquired (dollar value and weight), motivations
for consumption, overall importance to way of life, and support for wild food initiatives in the
area. Beyond this, the study sought to understand if length of residence, generation Canadian,
cultural background, or gender were influential on wild food consumption.
The questionnaire began by asking the respondent if they eat wild food. A follow-up
question asked those who do not consume wild food for their reasons for non-consumption and
then to proceed to the latter third of the questionnaire. Two Likert-type tables consisted of a
comprehensive list of twelve wild foods found in the area and space to specify three others.
These questions asked the respondents’ frequency of consumption: quite often (many times per
season), regularly (a few times per season), sometimes (at least once per season), not very often
(every second or third season), or never; and their best estimation of the average quantity they
acquire per season. This question was asked in the colloquially accepted measurement of pounds
(none, less than 10 lb, 10-30 lb, 31-100 lb, 101-500 lb, 500+ lb) but converted to kilograms for
21

analysis. Respondents were asked how they acquire wild food and how they learned their
practices. For these two questions, they were able to select all answers that apply from a
predetermined list, with an option to specify another.
Three Likert-type questions were essential in determining the connection of wild food to
the respondents’ ways of life. The respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of
preselected motivators for consuming wild food (e.g. nutrition), the overall importance of wild
food to their lifestyle, and supportiveness of wild food initiatives in McBride. The overall
importance to way of life and the importance of each motivator were helpful in providing a
preliminary understanding of place attachment, identity, and dependence. The data from these
questions were later used to complement the results discovered through interview analysis.
The 2011 census data indicate that McBride residents are 51.3% female and 48.7% male.
Though one gender would not likely apply to all members of the household, the survey asked the
respondent to indicate his or her gender. As the household member most involved with wild food
within the household was asked to complete the survey, a gender analysis of prominent wild food
consumers could be done.
The age group representation of the village is not possible to discern, as the age of the
respondent was intentionally omitted from the survey questions. This omission was for the
primary reason that, being a household survey, one age would not have been applicable to all
members of the household. The respondent was asked to indicate his or her length of residence
within McBride (see Table 1), as the length of residence in an area has been linked to the
strength of place attachment (Brehm, 2007). Also, with concerns for questionnaire brevity, an
age question was unnecessary if length of residence was already addressed.

22

The completed questionnaire data were entered into the statistical analysis software
program SPSS. The software allowed for easy organization of information and creation of
frequency and cross-tabulation tables. For example, length of residence was cross-tabulated by
wild food acquisition, frequency of moose consumption, or weight of berries acquired per
season. Prevalence of wild food consumption was assessed through a general ‘yes’ or ‘no’
question concerning wild food consumption. Details of wild food prevalence were determined
through questions asking the frequency, weight, and dollar value of preselected wild foods
known to be in the area. Categories were created based on the overall importance of wild food to
way of life (e.g. Not at all important, Not Very important, Neutral, Important, Very important).
These categories were cross-tabulated with other respondent variables (e.g. gender) to explore
the connection between wild food experiences and sense of place.
In order to raise awareness about the research, on July 18, 2013, I travelled to McBride to
put up posters informing residents of the upcoming questionnaire distribution. Approximately ten
posters were put up in public places that are frequently visited. Additionally, advertisements
were placed in both The Valley Sentinel and The Little McBride newspapers prior to
questionnaire distribution.
Two-hundred-and-fifty questionnaires were hand-delivered to each household over two
days (July 22 and 23) and were picked up from each household within approximately seventytwo hours. As the response rate was relatively low upon first collection, reminders were taped to
doors the following week (July 30) and additional questionnaires were gathered. The reminder
and pickup process was repeated August 7 to ensure the collection of any other completed
questionnaires. Eighty household questionnaires were completed for a response rate of 32% (80
of 250).

23

Interviews. The purpose of the follow-up interview was to draw out the nuances of wild food
experiences as they relate to sense of place dimensions. Interviewees were recruited through the
household survey which included a question asking respondents’ willingness to participate in a
follow-up interview process (see Appendix). The respondents were able to select ‘Yes,’
‘Maybe,’ or ‘No,’ and asked to provide contact information. All of the respondents who
indicated they were or might be interested in participating in the interview process were
contacted several times through the contact information they provided, whether telephone
number, email address, or both. Three of such respondents were not interviewed, as repeated
attempts to connect with them became futile. The initial contact was brief and conversation
focused on finding the best availability of the participant. Nine interviews with eleven
respondents were completed. Seven of the interviews were conducted during the period between
23 and 27 September, 2013, three were completed between 9 and 13 December, 2013, and one
was completed April 15, 2014.
The interviews were pre-arranged and took place in a setting that the respondent felt
comfortable and the researcher felt secure. This setting was either the home of the interviewee or
a local restaurant, aptly named ‘Morels.’ The interviewees were presented with a consent form
detailing the study and the purpose of the research, and reminding them of the voluntary nature
of their participation. Consent forms were signed by each interviewee and interviews were
recorded. The interviews ranged from 30 to 80 minutes and were conversation-style, following a
question guide.
The interviews had three general sections: (1) the respondent’s understanding of wild
food, (2) their personal experiences with wild food, and (3) their wild food experiences in the
McBride area. Section 1 addressed topics like their definition of wild food, the universality of
24

their definition and wild food’s relationship to agriculture. Sections 2 and 3 focused more on the
relationship between wild food and sense of place. Section 2 built on the framework the
questionnaire data provided, inquiring in more detail about wild foods consumed, methods of
acquisition, knowledge acquisition, sustainability of practices, significant wild food memories,
motivations for consumption, and how their experiences have changed over time. Section 3
sought to build on the overall findings from the household survey. The interviewees were asked
about their relationship with McBride through the lens of wild food experiences. The interviews
were structured to suit the individual experiences of the respondents, as per their questionnaire
data.
The interview data were first organized by interviewee and question. Sense of place
dimension tables were created and statements from each interviewee were organized into either
place attachment, place dependence, or place identity subheadings. In some cases, statements
would be relevant to two or three categories. Statements relating to wild food from each sense of
place dimension were identified and ‘Sense of place and wild food’ summary tables were created
for each interviewee. Summary tables were also created for wild food experiences relating to
McBride and elsewhere, and for wild food experiences at different stages of the interviewee’s
life.

Limitations
This study contains certain limitations with respect to methods and applicability. The survey
instrument did not include a comprehensive list of wild foods available in the McBride area.
Wild foods that were later identified in the ‘other’ section of the survey, as well as in the
interview process were not able to be quantified (e.g., elk, snowshoe hare). Additionally, the
25

survey respondents were only able to select from a predetermined list that did not include a high
level of detail. For example, survey respondents were able to provide insight on berry
consumption in general, but not the specific variety (e.g. huckleberry). These omissions prevent
a detailed understanding of wild food consumption. The household survey instrument also
omitted a question addressing details of the respondent (e.g. age, occupation, income), which
prevents a more in-depth analysis of wild food consumption by consumer.

26

RESULTS
The purpose of the research was to explore the contribution of wild food experiences to
three sense of place dimensions: identity, dependence, and attachment. The primary research
question asked was, in what ways do wild food experiences contribute to sense of place in the
Village of McBride? The three sub-questions were: What is the prevalence of wild food in the
village of McBride? How do senses of place differ among wild food consumers? Do wild food
experiences help draw the surrounding wilderness into the sense of place of residence? The
household survey was employed to explore the prevalence of wild food in McBride and to
validate the selection of the site as a laboratory for exploring sense of place dimensions through
the lens of wild food. The interviews were later conducted to answer the primary research
question and to assess the differences of sense of place dimensions among wild food consumers.
The results from the two datasets will be presented in this section: (1) the results from the
household survey and (2) the results from the interview process. First the results from the
household survey will be presented, followed by the results from the interview processes.

Household Survey
The household survey results assess the prevalence of wild food in the Village of
McBride and assess the validity of selecting McBride as a site for exploring the connection
between wild food experiences and sense of place. While the household survey was designed
primarily to reveal the prevalence of wild food in McBride, additional questions were included to
gain insight to the contribution of wild food.

27

Overview of household survey respondents. The following overview of households is based
on demographics of household members and the consumption of wild food. Eighty household
questionnaires were completed of the 250 that were distributed, for a response rate of 32%.
Reasons for non-distribution include apparent vacancies (empty homes with for-sale signs, for
example), no trespassing signs, or territorial guard dogs. Forty-seven percent of the respondents
indicated they are female, 43% male, and 10.0% preferred not to disclose or did not answer the
question (Figure 4). As indicated earlier, the 2011 census data indicate that McBride residents
are 51.3% female and 48.7% male. Thus, compared to all residents, the interview results suggest
that a slightly higher proportion of men living in McBride are more involved with wild food.
Figure 4. Gender of household survey respondents (n = 80)

28

Figure 5 shows that 82.5% of residents did not identify with another heritage group or
tradition aside from Canadian, 8.8% did identify another heritage group or tradition (German,
Italian, Scottish, Danish, Mohawk, and Métis heritage groups were indicated), and 8.8% of
respondents did not answer this question. The census profile of McBride indicates that the
mother tongue of 10.3% of the population is a language other than English. While the minority
numbers are too small to be representative in themselves, the survey results point to the other
heritage groups or traditions suggested by the census profile.
Figure 5. Generation Canadian of household survey respondents (n = 80)

Figure 6 shows the length of residence of the survey respondents. Approximately twothirds of the respondents have lived in McBride for more than 20 years, while approximately
29

one-third has lived in McBride for less than 20. Census data do not include length of residence,
so it is not possible to discern the representativeness of these results for the entire population.
Figure 6. Length of residence of household survey respondents (n = 80)

The results show that 83.8% of the respondents eat wild food (refer to Figure 7). Wild
foods are plants, fungi, and animals that have been acquired locally and have required little to no
input for their existence. It is important to note that 8.8% of respondents initially indicated that
they do not eat wild food, yet proceeded to complete the questionnaire with full indication that
they do eat wild food, if infrequently. This group of people was moved from the non-wild foodconsuming group to the wild food-consuming group (i.e., they are included in the 83.8%).

30

Figure 7. McBride wild food (WF) consumers (n = 80)

Those who indicated that they did not consume wild food (16.2% of households) were
asked to select all applicable reasons for not consuming wild food (see Figure 8). Lack of interest
was the most significant factor in determining non-consumption of wild food.

31

Figure 8. Reasons for wild food non-consumption (n = 13)

Overview of wild food consumers. Almost half (seven out of fifteen questions) of the survey
consisted of questions only applicable to wild food consumers (questions 3-9), such as method of
wild food acquisition or dollar value consumed annually by household. The results presented in
this section focus on respondents who consume wild food (n=67).
A profile of wild food consumers is presented in Table 1. The first column shows the
percent of wild food consumers by demographic variable relative to the total population; for
example, 47.5% of survey respondents are women. The second column shows the percent of
wild food consumers by variable relative to all wild food consumers; for example, 47.8% of all
wild food consumers are women. The third column shows the percent of wild food consumers
within each category; for example, 82.4% of all women respondents consume wild food.

32

The representativeness of the wild food consumers relative to all respondents is also
shown in Table 1. By comparing the results of the first two columns, we can see that the percent
of wild food consumers is within a 3% range of the total respondents for each variable. For
example, 42.5% of the total survey respondents are men, and 43.3% of wild food consumers are
men, for a difference of 0.8%. Due to the close ratio of respondents within each category, the
wild food consumers are considered representative of the total survey respondents.
Table 1. Comparison of wild food (WF) consumers by total survey respondents
Percent of
total (%)
(n = 80)

Percent of all wild
food consumers
(%) (n = 67)

Percent of wild
food consumers
by variable (%)

Difference
from
average WF
consumption
(83.8%) (%)

47.5
42.5
10.0

47.8
43.3
9.0

84.2
85.3
75.0

+0.4
+1.5
-8.8

11.3
8.8
13.8
30.0
32.5
3.75

13.4
7.5
16.4
26.9
34.3
1.5

100.0
71.4
100.0
75.0
88.5
33.3

+16.2
-12.4
+16.2
-8.8
+4.7
-50.5

12.5
11.3
11.3
22.5
11.3
22.5
8.8

9.0
11.9
10.4
23.9
11.9
25.4
7.5

60.0
88.9
77.8
88.9
88.7
94.4
71.4

-23.8
+5.1
-6.0
+5.1
+4.9
+10.6
-12.4

Gender
Female
Male
Undisclosed
Length of
residence
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-40 years
40+ years
Undisclosed
Generation
Canadian
Born elsewhere
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth+
Undisclosed

33

The last column of Table 1 shows the percentage difference between the overall average
wild food consumption (83.3%) and the variable. For example, 100% of respondents with 11-20
years of residence in McBride consume wild food; a 16.2% increase from the average. Table 1
indicates that residents of McBride of 20 or more years of residence make up nearly two-thirds
of wild food consumers. Respondents whose length of residence is 0-5 years, 11-20 years, or 40+
years consume wild food more than the overall average wild food consumption; residents of 6-10
years and 21-40 years consume less. First, third, fourth, and fifth or more generation Canadians
consume more wild food than the survey average; those born elsewhere, and second generation
Canadians consume less.
Methods of wild food acquisition. Figure 9 shows that the respondents typically employ
multiple methods of wild food acquisition. The most significant methods for wild food
acquisition were by foraging, from friends, angling, from family, and hunting (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Methods of wild food acquisition (n = 67)

34

Profile of popular wild foods in McBride. Data were collected in the survey to provide a
profile of the most popular wild foods consumed in McBride. Popularity was determined by total
number of consumers, frequency of consumption, and weight consumed.
Respondents were asked to complete a table indicating the various wild foods they
consume and the frequency consumed. Respondents were able to select ‘Never,’ ‘Not very often
(every second or third season),’ ‘Sometimes (at least once per season),’ ‘Regularly (a few times
per season),’ or ‘Quite often (many times per season)’. ‘Never’ responses were not included in
the results table. The most consumed wild foods were also found to be the most frequently
consumed within households. As shown in Figure 10, berries (consumed by 92.5% of all wild
food consumers) and fish (80.6%) have very high total consumption, moose and deer were high
(60-79%), birds and mushrooms were medium (40-59%), fern was low (20-39%), lichens,
mosses, and algae; cat-tail; bear; and celery were very low (0-19%), and other totalled 22.5%.
Included in the ‘Other’ category were wild greens and herbs, mountain goat, snowshoe hare,
caribou, and elk. Figure 10 shows the total number of consumers of selected wild foods in the
McBride region. Further analysis below focused on the most frequently consumed wild foods,
namely berries, fish, moose, deer, birds, and mushrooms.

35

Figure 10. Wild food consumption and frequencies (n = 67)

Further details of household wild food consumption were determined by asking the
respondents to estimate the amount (by weight) his or her household consumes yearly for various
wild foods. Figure 11 shows the results of the most consumed wild foods (consumed by at least
40% of the respondents). Berries, fish, moose, deer, mushrooms, and birds were the most
consumed wild foods in McBride by weight. Assuming these respondents are representative of
36

the entire population of McBride, it can be estimated that the village consumes 635-2270 kg of
berries, 2085-7485 kg of moose, 1630-4765 kg of deer, 545-2085 kg of fish, 105-455 kg of birds,
and 75-385 kg of mushrooms per year.
Figure 11. Quantity (kg) of selected wild food acquired by household per season (n = 67)

The economic contribution of wild food in McBride. The economic contribution of wild
food in McBride was determined by asking the respondents to estimate the yearly value of wild
food his or her household consumes if they were to buy it in a grocery store (Figure 12). The
combined estimated yearly value for all respondents falls between $14,000 and $23,000, and
possibly more as a cap was not provided in the survey. If these respondents are representative of
the entire population of McBride, it can be estimated that the village consumes the equivalent of
37

$40,000-70,000 of wild food, were it bought in a grocery store. An internal check was completed
to assess data consistency by comparing an estimate of household wild food to an assigned dollar
value.
Figure 12. Estimated yearly value of wild food per household (n = 67)

A dollar value was assigned to deer, moose, birds and mushrooms based on the 2013
average retail prices of beef ($14.7/kg), chicken ($7.17/kg), and mushrooms ($7.88/kg) from
Statistics Canada. The 2016 Loblaws catalogue was consulted for the market value of Canadian
wild blueberries (the non-sale price is $11.32/kg) and rainbow trout fillets ($25.32/kg) and
assigned to berries and fish respectively. The assigned dollar value was multiplied by lowest and
highest weight of each wild food. The lowest and highest numbers were added together for a
revised annual wild food value for the village of $75,000-$245,000. The difference in estimation
38

between weight value and market value could be explained by the lack of knowledge among
respondents of accurate market values of wild foods (or their domestic equivalent).
The consumption of wild food was examined in relation to total annual food purchases by
households. According to Statistics Canada, the 2013 average household food expenditure for
food purchased in stores in British Columbia is $8,118. If the revised annual wild food values are
divided by the 256 households occupied by usual residents, this would mean a value of $292$957 of wild food is consumed on average per household, or 3.5%-10.5% of the food
expenditure.

Household survey and sense of place. While the primary purpose of the household survey
was to assess the prevalence of wild food in McBride, the results from the following questions
lend insight to the connection between wild food experiences and sense of place at the household
level.
The respondents were asked to complete a Likert-style question addressing the overall
importance of wild food to their way of life, where 1 = Not all important, 2 = Not very
important, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important. The results show that wild food is
important or very important to the way of life for over half of wild food consumers (Figure 13).
The mean value for all wild food consumers is 3.348, indicating that the average level of
importance of wild food to way of life falls between neutral and important.

39

Figure 13. Overall importance of wild food to way of life (n = 66)

The overall importance mean was cross-tabulated by gender, length of residence, and
generation Canadian (Table 2). The second column of Table 2 shows the mean of each
demographic. For example, the overall importance mean for women is 3.375, indicating the
average wild food important for women falls between neutral and important. The third column
shows the difference (+/-) between the mean for each demographic and the overall mean for wild
food consumers. For example, the mean of residents of 21-40 years is 0.178 higher than the
mean for all wild food consumers, putting them in the important to very important range.
Overall, the mean is based on scale data and only indicates more or less.

40

Table 2. Overall importance mean of wild food to way of life by gender, length of residence, and
generation Canadian (n = 66)
Overall importance mean

Difference from overall
mean of wild food
consumers (3.348)

3.375
3.350
3.167

+0.027
+0.002
-0.181

3.000
3.200
3.273
3.526
3.478

-0.348
-0.148
-0.075
+0.178
+0.130

3.400
3.500
3.286
3.600
3.125
3.059

+0.052
+0.152
-0.062
+0.252
-0.223
-0.289

Gender
Female (n = 32)
Male (n = 28)
Undisclosed (n = 6)
Length of residence
0-5 years (n = 9)
6-10 years (n = 5)
11-20 years (n = 11)
21-40 years (n = 18)
40+ years (n = 23)
Generation Canadian
Born elsewhere (n = 6)
First (n = 8)
Second (n = 7)
Third (n = 15)
Fourth (n = 8)
Fifth+ (n = 17)

Table 2 shows a similar importance mean between the men and women. The importance
mean for residents of 0-20 years is less than the overall importance mean of the respondents; for
residents of 21-40+ years, it is more. Wild food appears to be more important to people who
have lived in McBride for more than 20 years. The importance mean of second, fourth, and fifth
or more generation Canadians is less than the overall importance mean; the importance mean of
those born elsewhere, first, and third generation Canadians is more.

41

Wild food consumers were asked to select all ways in which they learned their wild food
practices (Figure 14). The majority (61.2%) learned their practices from family and roughly 40%
learned from friends. Books, internet, and trial-and-error were also cited as methods of
knowledge acquisition.
Figure 14. Method of wild food knowledge acquisition (n = 67)

Overall importance mean categories. Profiles of each category of overall importance (Not at
all important, Not very important, Neutral, Important, and Very important) were created to
understand in more detail the demographics of each category. Table 3 shows the gender, length
of residence, and generation Canadian of wild food consumers by the overall importance
category. For example, the second column shows the percentage of respondents who indicated
wild food is very important to their way of life. The highest values for each demographic
variable are bolded. For example, the highest percentage of 40+ year residents (42.9%) falls
under very important and is therefore bolded.
42

Table 3 indicates that the highest percentage of women is in the important category; the
highest percentage of men is in the very important category. The highest percentage of residents
of 0-5 years is in the not at all important category; 6-10 years not very important; 11-20 years
neutral; 21-40 years not very important and neutral; 40+ years very important. The highest
percentage of those born elsewhere is neutral; first generation not very important; second
generation important; third generation important; fourth generation not at all important; fifth or
more not very important.
Table 3. Profile of McBride wild food consumers by overall importance of wild food to way of
life (% by quintile) (n = 66)
Very
important
(n = 14)

Important
(n = 23)

Neutral
(n = 9)

Not very
important
(n = 12)

Not at all
important
(n = 8)

Female
Male
Undisclosed

35.7
57.1
7.1

60.9
34.8
4.4

44.4
22.2
33.3

50.0
50.0
0.0

37.5
50.0
12.5

Length of
residence
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-40 years
40+ years

14.3
0.0
14.3
28.6
42.9

8.7
13.0
17.4
26.1
34.8

11.1
0.0
22.2
33.3
33.3

16.7
16.7
8.3
33.3
25.0

25.0
0.0
25.0
12.5
37.5

Generation
Canadian
Born elsewhere
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth+
Undisclosed

14.3
21.4
0.0
21.4
14.3
21.4
7.1

4.3
4.3
17.4
30.4
13.0
21.7
8.7

22.2
11.1
22.2
22.2
0.0
11.1
11.1

8.3
25.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
50.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
12.5
12.5
37.5
25.0
12.5

Gender

43

Table 4 documents the estimated yearly value of wild food consumed by overall
importance to way of life. The highest percentage of residents who estimated yearly value is less
than $40 is in the not at all important category; $50-150 not very important, $151-600 important,
and $601-1000 very important. Based on general observation, there is a relationship between
importance to way of life and estimated yearly value of wild food the household consumed. The
higher the estimated yearly value of wild food, the higher the overall importance of wild food to
way of life.
Table 4. Estimated yearly value by overall importance of wild food to way of life (% by quintile)
(n = 66)
Estimated
yearly value

Very
important
(n = 14)

Important
(n = 23)

Neutral
(n = 9)

Not very
important
(n = 12)

Not at all
important
(n = 8)

Less than
$50
$50-150

0.0

4.4

66.7

33.3

75.0

21.4

39.1

11.1

50.0

12.5

$151-300

0.0

26.1

11.1

8.3

12.5

$301-600

21.4

21.7

11.1

8.3

0.0

$601-1000

35.7

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

$1000

21.4

4.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 5 shows the overall importance to way of life by the frequency of consumption of
the most popular wild foods. Means were calculated for the frequency of wild food consumption
for the most popular wild foods (berries, fish, moose, deer, mushrooms, and birds), where 1 =
Never, 2 = Not often, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Regularly, 5 = Quite often. The means were compared
to the overall importance to way of life categories. Means greater than or equal to 3 were bolded,
as these wild foods are consumed at least once per season. General observation shows a

44

relationship between overall importance and frequency of consumption. Interestingly, even for
those respondents who indicated wild food to be ‘Not very important to their way of life,’ berries
were regularly consumed on average and fish were sometimes-regularly consumed on average.
Table 5. Frequency of consumption mean of wild foods by overall importance to way of life (n =
66)

Berries
Moose
Fish
Deer
Mushrooms
Birds

Very
important (n
= 14)
4.00
3.71
4.39
3.79
2.11
2.92

Important
(n = 23)

Neutral
(n = 9)

4.22
2.90
3.32
2.68
2.37
2.22

2.89
2.14
2.83
2.57
2.14
1.43

Not very
important
(n = 12)
4.08
2.09
3.42
2.55
1.73
1.67

Not at all
important
(n = 8)
3.00
1.43
2.29
1.57
1.14
1.00

Table 6 elaborates on the analysis of the overall importance of wild food to way of life by
motivation for wild food consumption. Means were calculated and based on the overall
importance of each motivator, where 1 = Not at all important, 2 = Not very important, 3 =
Neutral, 4 = Important, 5 = Very important. The most significant motivators for whom wild food
is important or very important to way of life are nutrition, saving money, recreation, and
connecting with nature. Nutrition, recreation, and connecting with people are important
motivators for those who consider wild food to be neutral to their overall way of life.

Table 6. Importance mean of motivators by overall importance to way of life (n = 66)
Very
important
(n = 14)

Important
(n = 23)

Neutral
(n = 9)
45

Not very
important
(n = 12)

Not at all
important
(n = 8)

Nutrition
Save money
Recreation
Connect with
nature
Exercise
Tradition
Connect with
people
Local food
movement

4.64
4.50
4.50

4.09
3.95
3.58

4.00
3.14
3.50

2.36
2.46
2.56

2.33
1.86
2.00

4.15

3.68

3.17

2.73

2.27

3.93
3.42

3.47
2.75

3.29
2.50

2.34
1.70

1.50
1.86

2.92

3.37

3.57

2.64

1.71

2.20

2.84

2.83

1.60

1.33

Support for wild food initiatives (wild food land use planning; wild food festivals and
events; more wild food available in stores and restaurants; and wild food workshops and classes)
was also compared to overall importance of wild food to way of life (Table 7). This question was
included to understand McBride residents’ ideas for wild food in the future. Means were
calculated for the support for each initiative, where 1 = Very unsupportive, 2 = unsupportive, 3 =
Neutral, 4 = Supportive, 5 = Very supportive. The means were compared to the overall
importance to way of life categories. General observation shows a relationship between overall
importance of wild food to way of life and support for wild food initiatives. While a considerable
number of the respondents indicated a neutral attitude toward the proposed initiatives, many
more respondents were supportive than unsupportive. All results that are greater than or equal to
3.5 have been bolded, showing mild support or higher.

Table 7. Overall importance of wild food to way of life by support for wild food initiatives (n =
66)
Very
important
(n = 14)

Important
(n = 23)

Neutral
(n = 9)
46

Not very
important
(n = 12)

Not at all
important
(n = 8)

Land use
planning
Events,
festivals
Stores,
restaurants
Classes,
workshops

4.00

3.50

3.50

3.08

3.17

3.67

3.57

3.86

3.08

2.67

4.08

3.32

3.89

3.25

3.00

3.90

3.64

3.63

3.08

2.40

Table 8 shows a profile of respondents for whom wild food is important by method of
acquisition. This table was created to further understand the differences between wild food
consumers, particularly those for whom wild food is important (values of very important and
important were combined, n = 37). Gender and length of residence were cross-tabulated by
method of acquisition to assess the potential differences between men and women and length of
residence. The higher percentage gender is bolded in each category, and any percentage of length
of residence higher than 30 is bolded.
Table 8. Profile respondents for whom wild food is important by method of acquisition (n = 37)

Gender
Women
Men
Undisclosed

Foraging

From
friends

Angling

From
family

Hunting

70.0
30.0
0.0

68.8
31.3
0.0

30.0
65.0
5.0

56.3
37.5
6.3

21.4
78.6
0.0

10.0
5.0
20.0
30.0
35.0

18.8
6.3
18.8
37.5
18.8

10.0
5.0
20.0
25.0
40.0

6.3
6.3
31.3
31.3
25.0

7.1
14.3
14.3
28.6
35.7

Length of
residence
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-40 years
40+ years

47

Table 8 reveals that angling and hunting are employed more by men than women; women
acquire wild food from family and friends, and by foraging more than men. More than two-thirds
of foragers are residents of more than 20 years; residents of 21-40 years make up 37.5% of those
who acquire wild food from friends, residents of 40+ years make up more than a third of anglers
and hunters, and residents of 11-40 years make up roughly two-thirds of those who acquire wild
food from family. General observation shows a relationship between gender and method of wild
food acquisition as well as a relationship between length of residence and wild food acquisition,
regardless of method. Based on these results it could be concluded that, for those who consider
wild food to be very important to their way of life, women who have lived in McBride for twenty
or more years make up the majority of foragers and those who acquire wild food from family or
friends; men who have lived in McBride for twenty or more years make up the majority of
anglers and hunters.

A category of ‘regular’ consumers was also analysed (Table 9). This group was created
by combining the response categories of Regularly and Quite Often to the question about
frequency of wild foods (berries, fish, moose, deer, mushrooms, and birds) consumed. Table 9
shows these regular consumers by gender and length of residence. The highest consumers
(percentage greater than 10) within each category have been bolded. For example, women who
have been living in McBride for more than forty years harvest berries more frequently than
others. In the cases where there is a significant difference within the category (percentage greater
than or equal to 20), the result has been bolded and italicized. For example, men who have been
living in McBride for more than forty years harvest mushrooms significantly more than others.

48

Table 9. Regular consumers for whom wild food is important to way of life (n = 37)
Berries
(n = 29)

Fish
(n = 20)

Moose
(n = 17)

Deer
(n = 15)

Birds
(n = 9)

Mushrooms
(n = 7)

Women

58.6

45.0

29.4

33.3

22.2

57.1

Men

37.9

45.0

64.7

66.7

77.8

42.9

Undisclosed

3.4

10.0

5.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0-5 years

13.8

10.0

0.0

6.7

0.0

14.3

6-10 years

6.9

5.0

5.9

6.7

0.0

0.0

11-20 years

17.2

2.5

11.8

13.3

22.2

28.6

21-40 years

24.1

20.0

41.2

26.7

33.3

28.6

40+ years

37.9

40.0

41.2

46.7

44.4

28.6

Gender

Length of
residence

Complementary to the results from Table 9, women make up the majority of regular
berry and mushroom consumers, while men make up the majority of regular deer, moose, and
deer consumers. Regular fish consumption is equal between the genders. Residents of more than
20 years make up the majority of regular consumers for each wild food.

Interviews
This section presents the results from the interviews. In order to explore the contribution
of wild food experiences to sense of place interview data were organized based on the three
dimensions of sense of place: attachment, dependence, and identity. While the household survey
is critical in understanding the overall presence of wild food in the village of McBride,
interviews provide more flexibility that allows for more depth and breadth. First, an overview of
the interview respondents will be presented, followed by wild food experiences as they relate to
49

(1) place identity, (2) place dependence, and (3) place attachment. Each dimension of sense of
place heading has several subheadings.
Overview of interview respondents and representativeness. Table 10 provides an overview
of interview respondents as they relate to the total household survey respondents (n = 80) and
wild food consuming survey respondents (n = 67). As all interview respondents were wild food
consumers, the percentage of interview respondents are compared to percentage of wild food
consumers (+/-). There is a relatively equal representation of men and women. Length of
residence is better represented when divided into two categories, residents of twenty or less years
(survey = 37.3%, interviews = 45.0%) and residents of more than twenty years (survey = 61.2%,
interviews = 55.0%). Figure 15 shows the length of residence of interview respondents.
Table 10. Overview of interview respondents compared to total survey respondents and wild
food (WF) consumers
Percent of
total (%)
(n = 80)

Percent of WF
survey
respondents (%)
(n = 67)

Percent of
interview
respondents
(%)
(n = 11)

Difference
from
average WF
survey
respondents
(%)

47.5
42.5
10.0

47.8
43.3
9.0

45.5
54.5
0.0

-2.3
+11.2
-9.0

11.3
8.8
13.8
30.0
32.5
3.75

13.4
7.5
16.4
26.9
34.3
1.5

18.0
18.0
9.0
37.0
18.0
0.0

+4.6
+10.5
-7.4
+10.1
-16.3
-1.5

Gender
Female
Male
Undisclosed
Length of
residence
0-5 years
6-10 years
11-20 years
21-40 years
40+ years
Undisclosed

50

Figure 15. Length of residence of interview respondents (n = 11)

Acquiring wild food by foraging and from friends are the most employed methods
(Figure 16); nearly half of the survey respondents acquire wild food by these means; and 90.9%
of interviewees forage and 63.3% acquire wild food from friends.

51

Figure 16. Methods of wild food acquisition for interview respondents (n = 11)

Figure 17 and Table 11 document the wild foods consumed by interviewees over their
lifetime. These tables show all wild foods that have been consumed, whether regularly or not.
Berries and moose have been consumed by 100% of interviewees, fish have been consumed by
54.5%, mushrooms 45.5%, deer 36.4%, and birds 18.2%. Table 11 gives more detail on type of
wild food, such as huckleberry or morel mushroom, or other less frequently consumed wild food
(e.g. spruce tips).

52

Figure 17. Wild food consumption of interview respondents (n = 11)

Table 11. Details of wild foods consumed over lifetime
Respondent*
Wild foods consumed
Huckleberries, moose
Shelly
Saskatoon berries, blueberries, moose, black bear
Audrey
Pete
Andy &
Lucy
James
Norma & Ed

Huckleberries, trout, moose
Moose, rabbit, spruce tips, deer, raspberries, peppergrass

Ben

Morel and shaggy mane mushrooms, huckleberries, blueberries, raspberries,
moose, deer, fish
Saskatoon berries, rosehips, chickweed, nettles

Margaret

Moose, deer, elk, grouse, rabbit
Blueberries, chokecherries, raspberries,
blackberries, salmon, moose, elk, morel and puffball mushrooms

Lake and rainbow trout, salmon, lingcod, deer, moose, pheasant, spruce and blue
grouse, morel, puffball and shaggy mane mushrooms, Oregon grape,
huckleberries, blueberries, wild asparagus
*Pseudonyms were assigned to research participants.
Harry

53

Sense of place and wild food experiences. This study approaches the connection of wild
food to sense of place in two ways. One is framed by literature illustrating the importance of
food to sense of place, while the other is guided by studies that focus on sense of place in the
wilderness. Wild experiences are organized by sense of place dimension (identity, dependence,
and attachment) whether they relate to the McBride food system, the surrounding wilderness, or
both.

Place identity and wild food experiences. Place identity is described as elements of the self
that are reflected in the environment. The identity of a place is created by the characteristics that
set it apart from other places. This section explores wild food experiences as they relate to
McBride identity (history, food system, and wilderness) and personal identity. Knowledge of and
familiarity with the place are also discussed through experiences with wild food.

McBride history. As mentioned above, McBride’s history is inextricably linked to the
building of the Grand Trunk Railway as the town was established as a maintenance depot for the
project. The building of the railroad, the town’s subsequent settlement, and wild food are tied
together, says one respondent. Margaret describes the how the burning of the wilderness to make
way for the railroad encouraged game traffic and the growth of berries, which are now among
the most consumed wild foods in the area. She indicates that wild foods like berries and
dandelion were important for the earliest settlers of McBride due to its isolation in a wilderness
setting.

54

Part of this was all bush and thick bush, very thick bush. And when the railroad was
coming through, they sort of did things the fast and furious way—they just lit fires and
burned through bush. And […] not much population [was] here then of course, lit the fire
after the fire and regrowth and got this berry bushes coming up, game coming through.
But I think people recognized the berries. I think that was predominately more than, well,
because in the earlier years, people had to make do with what was around them, right. So
I think the dandelion really came into play.

McBride’s food system. The identity of a place is partially created by the characteristics that
set it apart from other places. This section explores the role of wild food in McBride’s food
system and the abundance of certain types of wild food unique to the region. The results from the
interviewees show a strong presence of wild food within the McBride food system. Norma
believes that half the food base in McBride consists of wild food and locally grown food.
Norma: If you count in the local organics as well, not just the wild, I’d say probably
makes up half of the base.
Shelly points out that, “People eat lots of wild meat” in McBride, a statement to which Margaret,
James, and Harry concur. Margaret states that wild game is the primary meat source for village
residents, while James estimates that the majority of those who hunt in the area do so for the
purpose of acquiring food. Overall, Harry guesses that a quarter of the village eats wild game.
Margaret: There are people in the community who that is their main—the wild meat, is
what fills their freezer.

55

James: I think probably you’re gonna find that 90% of the people around here do hunt for
the meat.
Harry: Like in a rural setting like this, I would imagine there’s probably about 25% of the
town eat wild game.
Respondents’ understanding of wild food was typically through its contrast to agriculture.
Instead of defining what wild food is, respondents indicated what it is not. Shelly indicates it is
not grown, farmed, or domesticated; Pete says it is not husbanded or grown with intent; Norma,
Ed, and Ben posit that it is not grown, but there on its own and does not need tending; Harry
defines wild food as not domesticated; and Andy relates wild food to that of pre-settlement. Lucy
and Margaret see wild food on its own terms as emergency food and volunteering, native species
respectively.
With the exception of one respondent, all interviewees indicated that wild food is
important to the people of McBride. Most interviewees make reference to berries and wild game
(particularly moose and deer) as being the most important wild food for the people of McBride.
Additionally, two respondents mention the importance of elk and fish and one respondent bear.
Most interviewees indicated saving money to be the most important reason for wild food
consumption in McBride. Recreation, health, and variety were also indicated.
The bartering system in McBride and the presence of wild food within it was referenced
by many of the respondents. Norma describes the barter system as “part of what makes McBride
so incredible.” The exchange of food (wild and domesticated), value-added products, knowledge,
and services contributes to the unique identity of McBride and its people. When asked about her

56

thoughts on the regulated inclusion of wild food in grocery stores in the area, Norma says, “I
don’t think it would matter, we’ve all got our own.”
Norma: I’ve got canned goods. I can trade canned jams for some buffalo or some moose
or some elk. And so we do a lot of the old barter system. […] Like, right now a jar of jam
is about eight dollars in town and a pound of meat is about three. And we kind of go off
that system. I also do a lot of home baking so pies, meat pies, and I freeze ‘em or trade.
You know, “Well I’m gonna give you so much moose. And in exchange for that I get two
jars of jam and three meat pies, or…” And it’s just whatever we feel’s fair and sometimes
it’s—we’ll help, you know, they’ll go hunting and we’ll help clean it and preserve it and
make the sausage.
The sharing of wild food with friends, neighbours, and family is done by 82% of the
interview respondents (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Responses to question asking interviewees if they share wild food (n = 11)

No
9%
(n = 1)

N/A
9%
(n = 1)

Yes
82%
(n = 9)

57

McBride’s ready access to wilderness and wild food. The results show that interviewees
consider the surrounding wilderness, though distinguishable in its physical qualities from the
town itself (e.g. unpopulated, forested area), to be an essential element of McBride. Audrey no
longer sees the wilderness as being separate from the village, but rather an integral element of it.
Audrey: When you’ve lived in a place for as long as we have, well that’s home. And I
don’t think of it as wilderness.
Ready access to and use of the wilderness for the purpose of acquiring wild food is
considered by respondents to be important to the residents of McBride. Harry compares the wild
food experience of bigger cities to that of McBride, highlighting the ready accessibility of the
wilderness, “People say like in Kamloops they’d have to drive like 200 miles in order to pick up
their wild game. We just have to drive five minutes.”
Some of the respondents indicate that the wilderness is a strong impetus for moving to or
staying in McBride.
Norma: I think you’ll find those that weren’t raised here […] moved here because of the
surroundings. We wanted the quiet, we wanted the beauty, we wanted the chance to be
able to walk and talk and hike and get our own stuff.
Harry: Most people that live here choose to live here, right. Because they like it—small
town, close to the wilderness, close to the wildness.
Margaret: I think a lot of people have been attracted to moving here from elsewhere
because for some reason they come through for whatever reason and they’ve been struck
by the beauty. Which, I forget that, I kind of take that for granted, because it’s always
there, I always see it. But it is an amazing and beautiful countryside.
58

Shelly, Andy, and Pete express the importance of the wilderness to identity of the people
of McBride. Pete says that the presence of the wilderness is meaningful to McBride and
contributes to the identity of many.
Pete: It’s significant to the community. I don’t know if it’s the whole identity or anything.
It certainly is for a lot of people. […] Just like the fact that it’s there perhaps.
Shelly rather poetically quotes a colloquial saying that suggests the creation of a strong bond
between the people and the wilderness through the drinking of the Fraser river.
Shelly: We always say, “Well if you drink the water out of the river, you’re done—
you’re staying here.”
The abundance and prevalence of certain types of wild food in the region contributes to
the specialness of McBride. Huckleberries, raspberries, mushrooms (shaggy mane, morels,
puffballs), elk, moose, and deer are among the most frequently referenced wild foods in the area.
When asked why he thought these types of foods were more important to the people of the
region, Pete stated, “Probably because they’re more prevalent.” However, it should also be noted
that less favourable traits of wild food may also contribute to the distinct identity of a place. For
example, both Pete and James point out the poor fishing in the area. The legality of fishing near
salmon spawning beds make fishing less desirable in the area than in others. Harry indicates that
McBride’s rural setting and access to wilderness contributes to its unique identity, saying:
In a rural setting like this [… ] probably about twenty-five percent of the town eat wild
game. It’s because there’s so much abundance of it. Why wouldn’t you? You know, why
would you go to a grocery store buy a hundred pounds of deer that’s gonna cost you a

59

thousand dollars? Whereas it costs you like ten dollars in gas and five bucks in bullets
and get your own.
Norma acknowledges that while wild food experiences may occur in other places, the
ways in which they manifest are unique to a particular environment and the people who live
there. And while similar wild foods can be found in many places, she points out that the
relationship she has with wild food in McBride differs from that of other places she has lived: “I
grew up picking wild berries but, different culture, different environment.”
Personal identity. Place identity reflects elements of the self in the environment. This section
explores the personal ways in which place identity is expressed through wild food. Shelly links
her huckleberry-picking experiences directly to her personal identity. “If the day comes when
I’m too crippled to pick my own then you probably should shoot me. What’s the point, you
know. That’ll be it.” For Andy, bush experiences are vital in drawing out true elements of the
self and of others. He says, “You’d find out who your friends are in the bush,” while Lucy says
you’re able to discover “who is reliable.”
Andy: It’s kind of obscure in civilization because you can mask yourself so much. And in
a small town it’s harder to mask yourself and in the bush, it’s impossible. […] And the
more you do it, the more you understand that. I used to travel in the bush here, way back.
So we always packed and used plates ‘cause we didn’t have the toys back then. And also
it’s better to do all that yourself. If you climb a mountain with a quad, any fool can do
that. If you climb the mountain with your legs, then by the time you get up there, you’re
in tune with what you’re doing.

60

One respondent in particular had a deep connection with wild food and considers it to be
an extremely important element of his life. However, his connection to McBride is weak and he
feels no rootedness in and little belonging to the place. Instead, his experience with hunting
allows him to feel more connected to wilderness in general. His practices allow him to
experience and navigate unknown territories more easily and make him feel more comfortable in
new wilderness areas. While hunting may not necessarily make him feel connected to the place
in which he lives, it instead places him as an individual in a system of interconnected species.
James: You feel more—it’s different—I think it’s a little bit different when you’re
gathering your own—you know, some of your own food. I think you’ve got more of a
connection with nature and the whole system, right. The whole food chain or whatever.
Andy reiterates James’ sentiment saying that wild food experiences encourage one to “kind of
live like a bear.”

Knowledge and familiarity. Knowledge and familiarity with a place contribute to place
identity, as they allow for intimate and comfortable experiences with place to occur. Knowledge
of wild food creates knowledge of the wilderness in which it has been acquired. For Shelly,
knowledge of wild food helps her to understand her relationship with a wilderness setting. She
recounts her experience of moving to Quadra Island from the age of sixteen to twenty. Her
account not only highlights the importance of wild food to her experience of place, but also
recognizes its distinct quality in other places.
Shelly: And I felt like I didn’t know the names of any plants, I didn’t know what I could
eat and couldn’t eat. Like, I just didn’t know anything about it, so I felt really out of place
61

there and that was just one of the reasons I felt that way, but it was kind of a big one.
Because there’s no huckleberries down there. So I’m like, “What’s that and what’s that
and is that poisonous?” You know, everything seemed really foreign. So for me, I think
it’s very true ‘cause I ended up coming home just because I felt like I knew how to live
here and I didn’t feel like I knew how to live in that environment. […] I always wanted to
come home.
The knowledge of significant places or methods for acquiring wild food was described to
have been typically passed down through families or learned from friends. Figure 19 describes
knowledge acquisition of the interviewees: 72.7% acquired wild food knowledge from family,
27.3% from friends and books respectively, and 9.1% from the internet. Figure 20 shows roughly
three-quarters of respondents openly share wild food knowledge. Shelly’s knowledge of local
plants extends past what is edible. In fact, referring to poison hemlock of the carrot family, she
says “probably the first thing I learned as a child was, ‘this is the one that you never, ever eat.’”
Margaret: And I’m guessing that traditionally […] kids went with their parents or family
and that’s how the places sort of carried on, knowing where they are.
James: Me and my brother used to do it when we were kids and lots of my friends did it,
so just—yeah got into it and I enjoy it more than anything.

62

Figure 19. Knowledge acquisition of interview respondents (n = 11)

Internet

Figure 20. Responses to question asking interviewees if they share wild food knowledge (n = 11)

63

Although Norma has experience picking wild berries while visiting her Grandparents in
Cody, Wyoming, she does not currently have the confidence to harvest wild foods in McBride.
She says, “I think the hardest thing when you talk about wild food—and what you can and
cannot eat and how—is just the learning of it. It’s something that has become obsolete in most
cultures. And it’s really hard to go back and learn it without making yourself sick.” She says she
has used the internet and talked to neighbours, but the best way for her to learn is to be shown by
a native to the area. While she has great interest in understanding the local flora, she has
struggled to find time to go harvesting with someone.
Harry is now in the position where he can pass the knowledge he learned from his parents
and grandparents to his grandchildren. By sharing his knowledge and experiences with his
grandchildren, he is sharing pieces of his personal history while simultaneously creating
tradition.
Harry: Well, I’m sorta getting back into that sort of stuff ‘cause we got grandkids now,
right. […] So it’s kinda you know, trying to get back to tradition like that and then I try to
take my other two grandkids on little fishing excursions and stuff like that. Like, you
know, showing them, “This is what I did when I was a kid.”
James’s hunting experience has given him a more formal understanding of the place in
which he lives. As legal hunting is restricted to zones, he draws for moose in the 7-3 region,
which includes McBride.

Place dependence and wild food experiences. Place dependence refers to the opportunities a
setting provides an individual to fulfill his or her activities or goals. This functional dimension of
64

sense of place is explored to describe how the elements of place meet the needs of the
respondent. Content analysis of interview data revealed five distinct functions were identified
with reference to wild food experiences: economics, taste, nutrition, recreation, and emergency
(Figure 21). These functions were initially explored through a question in the household survey
and later explored through content analysis of the interview data. Saving money and selfsufficiency are grouped together as economical motivators.

Figure 21. Functional motivations for consuming wild food among interview respondents (n =
11)

Taste. Wild food, almost by definition, is not usually found in grocery stores or restaurants.
While there are some exceptions, many wild foods must be acquired from wilderness places
personally or by someone familiar. As a result, interviewees often seek wild foods for their

65

unique flavours that the interviewees link to the place where they acquire wild food. Many are
attracted to the flavours of wild foods for their intrinsic value.
Norma: The mountain blueberries around here are fantastic.
Ben: I’d go out picking morels right now if I can find some ‘cause they’re tasty.
Shelly: I love [huckleberries]—they’re delicious.
Lucy: The new growth on spruce trees in the spring, [Andy] always nibbles on that. It’s a
little strong for me, but he enjoys them.
Pete points out that many wild foods are not grown domestically or available for purchase
in grocery stores, so they can only be found in certain places through hunting, fishing or
gathering (Table 16).
Pete: Huckleberries, as far as I know, are not grown domestically, so it was something
you could only get by [picking].
Other respondents go on to describe the taste of wild foods in contrast to their domestic
counterparts and value the depth of flavour of wild foods.
Harry: I do like the taste of fresh fish rather than a canned fish or a fish that’s in a grocery
store. […] A couple years ago I went up to Moose Lake and I caught about an eightpound lake trout. It was probably the best fish I had tasted for years, because it’s in very
cold water. A lake trout is a char so it’s white meat and it was just—we barbequed it—it
was just beautiful. And you can’t get that from the store.
Audrey: Blueberries though—and they’re wild, we don’t buy blueberries. I know the
bought ones are larger, but they’re not as flavourful.
66

Margaret: And that’s the only liver I’ll eat is moose liver. I had no problem eating moose
liver. Other livers, not fond of.
Nutrition. Similar to taste, interviewees are motivated to eat wild foods because of their
nutritious value.
Andy: They have the vitamins and minerals that we need.
Margaret: I mean the nutrition available is incredible. A lady that […] had been in
Germany in the war […] said they made nettle soup all the time—it’s delicious.
The wilderness area surrounding McBride provides village dwellers the opportunity to
hunt, fish, and forage for healthy alternatives to store-bought food. As illustrated by the
following statements, interviewees refer to wild food as a healthier choice than store-bought or
conventionally produced farm food.
James: I enjoy it and it’s healthier food. I like wild meat rather than [store-bought].
Shelly: It’s healthier. It’s generally leaner meat and you know that it’s not full of
chemicals—or you’re hoping it’s not. You know, so it ought to be a lot healthier for you
than some of the things you get in the store.
Harry: And the thing is, wild game doesn’t have any fat. […] There’s no steroids put in it.
It’s not sat there in a pen and fattened up. And you can see it when you buy meat how
much fat is in it, right. And you know, moose is very lean, deer is very lean, I mean,
bison. All these different types of wild game—there’s no fat. They don’t have fat, really.
Well, a couple species do like moose can get fat, depending on the year, right. But that’s

67

for their own reserves, right. But it’s not from just being lazy, you know, like stuck in a
pen.
Recreation. Recreation was identified as an important motivator for participating in wild food
experiences. The surrounding wilderness provides the backdrop in which such experiences may
take place. James indicates that hunting is a good recreational activity in such a place, as “there
isn’t much else to do.” Berry picking for Shelly provides her with opportunities to spend time
with her mother or for solitude in the forest.
Shelly: I usually take mum berry picking but if I want to be alone I’ll just leave. I’ll just
go being alone in the forest. It’s why you go out there. You know, there’s no phones,
nobody asking you to go to work, nobody asking you to crawl under their trailer and fix
their plumbing. There’s no relatives. There’s no step relatives! Just me and the dogs,
right. So it’s very peaceful and you get a chance to relax and unwind.
Margaret has recently starting exploring wild native plants that volunteer in her yard.
Margaret: Every year’s an experiment and it’s just kinda fun.
James hunts for recreational reasons mainly, and any meat he gets from experience is an added
bonus. For him, challenge and excitement are the feelings he most often associates with hunting.
James: It’s just the love of the hunt. Finding what you’re looking for. And you know, like
some things, especially when you’ve got a challenging hunt, it might take you a couple
weeks or years, several years before you find what you’re after. […] What I like is the
time when I find what I’m after to the time I pull the trigger—that’s really what keeps me
doing it. I enjoy that part of it. It’s just adrenaline, just like any other thing you’d do for
excitement.
68

Andy and Lucy often explore the surrounding wilderness with their off-road vehicle. While
raspberry picking may not always be the primary impetus for exploration, picking wild
raspberries is associated with the feelings of enjoyment they get.
Lucy: We cruise all the roads and if it’s raspberry time, we pick the wild raspberries. I
mean, we have raspberries growing here too, but if we’re out in the bush enjoying being
out, we’ll pick wild raspberries too.
For some interviewees, feelings of enjoyment are associated with the social opportunities
that wild food experiences allow.
Norma: Out of the harvesting and the growing of the local produce and of gathering some
of the berries and stuff—yes, that’s fun. That’s—you get a group of ladies together, take
a picnic lunch, and we gossip and pick berries and laugh and carry on.
Harry and Lucy associate the social opportunities mostly with past experiences. Harry talks
about picking wild asparagus as a child, and Lucy references times when her children were
young.
Harry: Say you go out for the day and you’re getting wild asparagus, you’d spend the
whole day swimming in the lake or hiking or you know. And my mom always packed a
picnic basket, so of course you know, you’d have your cast iron frying pan with onions
frying and your hotdogs and relish and all that stuff and make a day of it!
Lucy: So you’d go out as a family or with your neighbours and have an afternoon picking
berries. And you’d come home with lots.

69

Emergency. Wild foods were identified by some interviewees as being important for their
value as emergency foods. Emergency foods are directly related to experiences in place. For
Norma, wild foods harvested or traded for from spring to fall may become necessary in the
winter if Highway 16 that goes through McBride on becomes impassable.
Norma: We’ve got a cold storage room; we’ve got a huge pantry. So when you do this
and you live here, because the roads become impassable in the winter, you have a deep
freeze and you stock up for the winter.
Similar to Norma, Lucy highlights the value of wild food if food supplies to McBride are cut.
She also speaks to its importance as a bush food if one became lost in the wilderness.
It’s nice to know about the other foods that are available in case you were ever lost in the
bush or food supplies were cut. That’s how I think of the wild foods is in—well many of
them, I don’t use them now, but I know I can use them if I need to. For example the
cambium layer on birch trees—do you know?—or dandelions, stinging nettle—‘cause I
know these things are edible and I rarely, but occasionally have harvested them and
they’re there and I like to know that they’re there.
Harry references the value of his wild food knowledge in the event of an emergency of great
scale: “I know that if there was some kind of major catastrophe, I could survive in the
wilderness.

Self-sufficiency and economics. Self-sufficiency and economic reasons are considered by
most interviewees to be an important motivation for engaging in wild food experiences (Table

70

18). Shelly points out that the socioeconomic position of residents necessitates the town’s overall
dependence on wild food.
Shelly: Well, if you don’t have a lot of money, that’s a lot of food to feed yourself or
your family or whatever. I think people around here have always been a little bit on the
poor side. So, anything you can get for free is good.
Interviewees expressed views demonstrating that the surrounding wilderness provides an
essential function in meeting the needs of McBride dwellers, as it contains necessary foodstuffs
to augment their pantry, and lessens the dependency on food that must be purchased. For Ben,
the primary purpose of hunting and fishing is to acquire wild food, whereas for James, acquiring
food from hunting is an added bonus.
Ben: I don’t do stuff for enjoyment. Fishin’ or huntin’. I do it for the food. That’s what
I’ve always done it for.
James: I mean it’s nice to be able to fill the freezer. [...] It’s not like I never bought meat.
But I haven’t had to buy much the last couple years, because of […] the amount of
hunting I’ve been doing.
Margaret and Shelly are interested in the self-sufficiency facet that wild food allows. With her
garden and berry picking, Shelly no longer purchases fruit or vegetables from the grocery store.
Margaret: It’s sort of working towards self-sufficiency idea. And I’m still learning—
there’s so much to learn.

71

Shelly: I don’t actually purchase any fruit or vegetables from the grocery store anymore.
Basically, with my garden and the berries that I pick I don’t have to buy fruit and
vegetables. I have everything I need and I can store it in the cellar.
Changes in place dependence. Approximately half of the interviewees note a decline in
personal consumption of wild food throughout their lifetime. While all other motivators remain
consistent throughout the interviewees’ lifetimes, self-sufficiency and saving money are
associated by many with the past. Figure 19 shows the interviewees’ wild food consumption over
their lifetime and indicates that, with the exception of one respondent, wild food consumption
changes over time: 54.5% eat less wild food compared to past consumption, 45.5% eat more, and
9% eat roughly the equivalent.
Figure 22. Present wild food consumption of interview respondents compared to past (n = 11)

72

Changes in wild food consumption were explored further (Table 22). One interviewee
attributes the decline in wild food dependence to the “ready availability of food.” Another
suggested that times were simply “better economically.” Harry, for example, estimates his
childhood diet consisted of eighty percent wild food, but now makes up less than ten percent.
Lucy raised her children on wild game from the area, but says she no longer depends on it.
Lucy: I mean my kids grew up on moose meat and venison and we don’t hunt anymore.
We’d rather have the moose and deer wander safely through the yard than think of
putting them in the freezer. But in the past, I have depended on that.
Audrey simply states that because times are better economically, people do not need to hunt as
often.
Audrey: Well, people in the area, […] various people, hunted. And probably not just for
the challenge and the fun of it, but for economical reasons. […] People don’t do it as
much as they used to.
Ben and Pete decreased their wild food acquisition as they noticed an increase of wastefulness.
Ben: I used to eat moose and deer all the time, but the last two moose I got, got freezer
burnt and I tossed ‘em in the garbage. So I quit huntin’.
Pete: I haven’t actually gone huckleberry picking in a while. […] I have a tendency to
wind up forgetting them in the freezer, so it just seems like a pointless exercise.
Norma and Ed on the other hand are largely motivated to eat wild food for health reasons. The
ready access of wild food in McBride allows them to realize this goal and they have increased
their wild food consumption since moving there.

73

Norma: In my case it has always been because—if I’ve grown it or it’s grown wild—I
know what’s in it, where it’s been, what’s happened to it. And like I said I have severe
allergies.

Place attachment and wild food experiences. Place attachment is understood broadly as the
emotional bonds a person has with a particular location. All sentiments were categorized by
interviewee as they related to the McBride area. Analysis of the interview data was employed to
understand this dimension of sense of place. Some relevant survey data are included in these
results (Figures 23, 24 and 25).
Interviewees were asked a series of questions that related specifically to the social and
environmental (built and natural) facets of place attachment. They were asked if their wild food
experiences make them feel more connected to the surrounding wilderness (82% said yes, Figure
20), to people (73% said yes, Figure 21), to the Village of McBride (73% said yes, Figure 22).

74

Figure 23. Interview respondents’ connection to surrounding wilderness through wild food
experiences (n = 11)

Figure 24. Interview respondents’ connection to people through wild food experiences (n = 11)

75

Figure 25. Interview respondents’ connection to Village of McBride through wild food
experiences (n = 11)

Care/concern. Care and concern are typically articulated by employing proper harvesting and
hunting techniques or interest in plant and animal populations and their continued availability in
the area. Most interviewees expressed either care or concern for place in specific reference to
wild food experiences. Harry and James expressed care through their understanding of species
preservation, as both are interested in the maintenance of local game species. An avid hunter,
James describes his practices as “conservative” and indicates it is important to him that
populations are maintained and hunting laws are obeyed.
James: Definitely a conservative. There’s lots of stuff that I don’t agree with that they
allow. Like, for instance […] in this area they have a calf season on moose for ten days or
something.
76

Harry describes how conservative hunting techniques can ensure the continuation of deer
populations.
Harry: I think that people that hunt want to preserve because they know if they—you
know, if there’s like four deer there and three are does and a buck, they’re probably
gonna take maybe one doe out of that. So they know the species is gonna survive. They
won’t shoot the buck because then they know that that’s the end of the species, basically.
So they’ll take one of the does.
Margaret expresses concern for the regional salmon populations due to their exposure to
radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster which occurred in Japan in 2011.
Margaret: Well, especially now it’s going to get quite interesting because the ocean fish
and therefore the salmon are [exposed to radiation]. What’s this radiation travelling
across the ocean from Japan going to do to them? And they are, they come up here to
spawn and they spawn up here. Go down and they’re exposed to that, come up again, and
you know.
Shelly shows her concern for local huckleberry populations due to the increasing unsustainable
practices in the area.
Shelly: Actually, I’ve noticed people that used to be sustainable. […] But I notice now
there’s more […] stepping on the trees, breaking branches, […] picking the leaves and
everything along with the berries. […] I think because people are in a hurry and they
want the most berries they can have in the shortest amount of time. So, basically, they
just go and kinda rip everything into their bucket. So, yeah, you do see damage to the
berry plants and things that you didn’t used to see.

77

When asked about the regulated inclusion of wild food in McBride, Pete expressed some concern
for species populations: “Hmm, I have mixed feelings. It’d be nice if it was available, but I can
see overharvesting complications.” James expressed distinct opposition to including wild food in
the food system as it may “open the door for illegal activities” or threaten a way of life for some
people.
James: If they could market it and there was money in it, […] it would probably limit the
guys that do it […] because they love doing it […] and become more of a harvesting of
resources.
Shelly too has mixed feelings concerning a more regulated inclusion on wild food in the food
system. She thinks it might be an interesting initiative provided it was carried out sustainably and
indicates it might provide a good income for those who may have lost their jobs due to the
sawmill closure. However, she feels this would conflict with her personal experience of
harvesting, and again is concerned about the lack of care this may bring to the forest
environment.

Comfort. Feelings of comfort in place are also expressed in relation to wild food experiences.
Typically, feelings of comfort are expressed in reference to familiarity in wilderness settings.
Andy and Lucy winter in the village and have a seasonal homestead in the McBride area. Lucy
indicates that she gets a sense of security knowing an emergency supply of food can be harvested
if necessary.
Lucy: It’s nice to know about the other foods that are available in case you were ever lost
in the bush or food supplies were cut.

78

Harry expresses a similar sense of security from having his knowledge of the wilderness and its
food sources.
Harry: I know that if there was some kind of major catastrophe, I could survive in the
wilderness. […] ‘Cause I know enough about the wilderness, where if I were sent out
there, if I had just, you know, a pack of matches or a lighter, I know I could survive.
‘Cause I’ve read, I’ve watched, I’ve learned from relatives and that. You know, like
bulrushes—like I have ‘em in my pond and stuff—but that’s an edible food source.
James hunts recreationally for both trophies and meat and will typically include hunting in
vacation time or even vacation for the purpose of hunting. He notes that his experience allows
him to feel comfortable and confident in the bush, regardless of setting, saying “I’m comfortable
in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of nowhere.”
James: It makes me feel more comfortable—I mean, you learn about the bush so you’re
more comfortable in the bush.
Shelly, on the other hand expresses her comfort with the McBride area by contrasting it
with her discomfort living in a coastal environment for four years. Her discomfort there was
directly linked to her unfamiliarity with the environment.
Shelly: I felt really bewildered and unhappy because actually I didn’t know anything
about the landscape. […] I never felt comfortable completely down there.

Enjoyment. Wild food experiences are often associated with feelings of pleasure, joy, or
excitement. Typically, feelings of enjoyment are expressed in reference to recreational activities
that are associated with wild food, such as fishing, hunting, or berry picking. Berry picking for
79

Shelly provides her with opportunities to spend time with her mother or for solitude in the forest
(see above, p. 68). For James, challenge and excitement are the feelings most often associated
with hunting (see above, p. 68).
Feelings of enjoyment are sometimes linked to the social opportunities that wild food
experiences allow. Norma and Harry both talk about making a day out of harvesting wild plants
with friends and family. Harry talks about picking wild asparagus as a child in the Okanagan,
and Norma references berry picking with friends in McBride.

80

DISCUSSION
This research sought to explore sense of place through the lens of wild food experiences.
The primary research question was: In what ways do wild food experiences contribute to sense
of place in the village of McBride? There were three sub-questions. (1) Do wild food experiences
help draw the surrounding wilderness into the sense of place of residence? (2) Do senses of place
differ among wild food consumers? (3) What is the prevalence of wild food in the village of
McBride? This study revealed the connection of wild food experiences with the place of
residence of the respondents, the Village of McBride.

Contribution of Wild Food to Sense of Place
The results showed that wild food experiences contribute to sense of place in McBride,
BC. First, the results show that wild food is prevalent in McBride. It is important to the way of
life of wild food consumers and holds an important economic place within the food system.
Berries, moose, fish, deer, mushrooms, and birds are the most consumed wild foods (by
percentage, frequency, and weight) in the area. The most important motivations for consuming
wild food are nutrition, saving money, recreation, and connecting with nature.
Instructions given to households asked for the person most involved in wild food to
complete the questionnaire on behalf of the household. The responses, therefore, provide some
insights about the consumption of wild food among residents, but do not represent all residents
of McBride. Some differences are found between genders and length of residence. While men
and women consume wild food almost equally, differences exist between method of acquisition
and amount of wild foods consumed. Some differences are found between genders and length of
residence. While men and women consume wild food almost equally, differences exist between
81

method of acquisition and amount of wild foods consumed. Length of residence appears to be
directly related to engagement in wild food in general (level of consumption and estimated
household value). However, presumably due to the general transferability of wild food skills,
length of residence was not shown to be an important variable in the connection of wild food
experience to sense of place amongst interviewees.
Table 12 provides a summary of the qualities of wild food experiences as revealed by
interviewees and the three dimensions of sense of place. The greyscale represents the numbers of
interviewees associated with each indicator of sense of place. Light grey represents one to four
interviewees (some), medium grey five to seven (several), and dark grey eight to eleven (most).
Table 12. Contribution of wild food experiences to sense of place dimensions
Place identity

Place dependence

Place attachment

Regional history

Save money

Awe

Familiarity and knowledge

Taste

Comfort

Personal identity (Elsewhere)

Nutrition

Enjoyment

Personal identity (McBride)

Recreation

Belonging

McBride identity

Economics

Care and concern

As evident in the summary table, many qualities of wild food experiences relate to the
three dimensions of sense of place. Wild food experiences contribute across all sense of place
dimensions for each respondent, and manifest slightly differently between wild food consumers.
For example, Norma and Shelly mentioned day trips of picking huckleberries in the surrounding
82

area. For both, picking berries is a recreational activity that supplements the pantry. However,
berry picking provides Shelly peaceful solitude, whereas for Norma, it is a chance to engage in
social bonding. Differences in sense of place dimensions by interviewee (e.g. primary method of
acquisition, gender, length of residence) were insignificant. It should be noted that differences by
method of acquisition may be difficult to discern as most interviewees employed multiple
methods of wild food acquisition. The insignificance of differences by length of residence may
be accounted for by the fact that wild food skills are transferrable from other places. This is
especially true as all interviewees either grew up in McBride or moved to McBride most recently
from within British Columbia.
This study takes the position that sense of place comprises three dimensions: place
identity (elements of the self that are reflected in place), place dependence (functional aspects
that place provides), and place attachment (emotional bonds to place). The primary goal of this
research was to explore the contribution of wild food experiences to each dimension of place to
reveal their contribution to the overall sense of place. The results show that wild food
experiences contribute to sense of place in McBride through all three dimensions of sense of
place. As evident in Table 20, wild food contributes most to place identity through personal
history and McBride identity; place dependence through taste, nutrition, recreation, and
economics; and place attachment through comfort, enjoyment, and care and/or concern.
Identity. Wild food experiences contribute to dimensions of the self that are reflected in place
through direct personal identity and the through personal connection to the overall identity of
McBride. Many respondents linked wild food experiences to the general socioeconomics of
McBride residents and the overall food system of McBride. Norma speaks to the importance of

83

wild food to the McBride identity when she describes the food system and the unique qualities
that it has:
“Most of the people in town that come here to hunt or fish or that live here and hunt and
fish, don’t just hunt and fish, they hunt and fish and they trade for a hind of beef or for
some buffalo or you know, ‘I’ve got a moose I only need a third of it, I’ll trade you for
you know, so many jars of jam and so many homemade bread for a month or’—it’s just
what we do.”
The inclusion of wild plants, animals, and fungi in the food system requires knowledge of
the bioregion and speaks to Kloppenburg et al.’s (1996) call for place-based foodsheds.
Dependence. Many qualities of wild food experiences are linked to sense of place through the
functional qualities that wild food provides, particularly for its economic, nutritional, taste, and
recreational values. As place dependence is considered to be a “functional connection based
specifically on the individual physical connection to a setting” (Raymond, Brown, and Weber,
2010, p. 426), it is abundantly clear that wild food experiences require easy access to wilderness.
Moreover, if wild food is to fulfill the functional needs in the place one lives, one would require
easy wilderness access from their place of residence.
Attachment. Wild food experiences contribute to the emotional bonds the respondents have
with McBride, including feelings of care, comfort, enjoyment, belonging, and awe. Feelings of
attachment, rootedness, and belonging to places come from communal and personal experiences
that foster a “familiarity that is part of knowing and being known here, in this particular place”
(Relph, 2008, p. 34). Shelly’s experience with wild food in McBride versus her experiences on

84

Quadra Island are a poignant example of the ways in which wild food experiences contribute to
place attachment and identity:
I felt really bewildered and unhappy because actually I didn’t know anything about the
landscape. And I felt like I didn’t know the names of any plants, I didn’t know what I
could eat and couldn’t eat. Like, I just didn’t know anything about it, so I felt really out
of place there and that was just one of the reasons I felt that way, but it was kind of a big
one. Because there’s no huckleberries down there. So I’m like, “What’s that and what’s
that and is that poisonous?” You know, everything seemed really foreign. So for me I
think it’s very true ‘cause I ended up coming home just because I felt like I knew how to
live here and I didn’t feel like I knew how to live in that environment. […] I liked the
ocean. It’s not hard to get attached to the ocean. It’s interesting and beautiful. But I still—
I always missed it here. I always wanted to come home—I never felt comfortable
completely down there.

Sense of Wilderness as Place
Wilderness is important for sense of place in McBride and wild food experiences are
meaningful ways of bringing wilderness into sense of place. Wild food experiences are unique
place experiences as they bring elements of the wilderness into the place of residence in a
tangible way: a physical piece of wilderness is brought from the outside in. Unlike experiences
that may be considered more purely recreational, such as skiing or sport fishing, wild food
experiences bring material elements of the wilderness back into the place in which the
forager/hunter/fisher resides. As a result, the sense of place implications of the experiences in the
surrounding wilderness are felt throughout the village. Such experiences create connections
85

between friends, family, and neighbours, and draw the wilderness into the sense of place. For
instance, picking berries may, upon first glance, appears to be a simple activity that takes place
in the late summer/early fall months to supplement one’s pantry. Upon further investigation,
however, it becomes apparent how impactful such an activity may be upon the sense of place of
an individual or group. Table 13 summarizes the sense of place implications of picking berries in
the McBride area. The first column shows experiences mentioned by interviewees, while the
second column shows the sense of place implication of such experiences.
Table 13. Berry experience and sense of place implication
Wild food experience

Sense of place implication

A day trip of berry picking

Recreation, social bonding

Recognizing berries in the woods

Familiarity with plants in surrounding area

Picking berries in sustainable manner

Care and concern for environment

Teaching children about harvesting

Connecting generations and maintaining
tradition

Sorting and processing collected berries

Supplementing pantry, social bonding

Trading a jar of jam for moose meat

Strengthening social ties to neighbours

Consuming moose meat with family

Social bonding

Reflecting on past berry picking experiences

Personal identity

Wild food experiences transcend place literature that relates to food and wilderness as
wild food experiences contribute to sense of place whether in relation to its quality as food or as
a wilderness experience. The results from this study reiterate the powerful connection between
place and food as suggested by the literature (Delind, 2006; Dusselier, 2002; Gombay, 2010;
86

Sims, 2009). Local food scholars (Feagan, 2007; Kloppenburg, Hendrickson, and Stevenson,
2006) support the creation and maintenance of place through food movements and argue that
such “visible practices” (Feagan, 2007, p. 30) will lead to better, more sustainable people-place
relationships. While the prevalence of wild food in the McBride food system is clear, it can
hardly be classified as an intentional movement. Rather, wild food experiences exist as a result
of the geographic and economic circumstances that are inseparable from the place itself. In
essence, wild food experiences are as much an expression of place as they are contributors to
sense of place.
Wild food experiences bring qualities of wilderness into the discussion of place and food.
It is the wilderness element after all that distinguishes wild food experiences from other food and
place studies. This adds more depth to the already rich relationship identified between people,
the places they live, and the food they eat. Delind (2006) posits that northern Indiana residents
can create richer relationships with their place through learning about and consumption of the
paw paw, a plant native to the region. Similarly, experiences with wild local plants, fungi, and
animals by McBride residents arguably display the interaction between the social, ecological,
and biological as seen in Table 13.
Wild food experiences not only bring qualities of food into discussion of place and
wilderness, but also can contribute to bringing wilderness into the overall sense of place of
residence. The results from this study are consistent with literature associated with forest
resources (Mitchell et al., 1993) and leisure studies (Frederickson & Anderson, 1999; Bricker &
Kerstetter, 2000) that have shown that wilderness experiences contribute to a sense of place in
wilderness settings. This study shows that wild food experiences in wilderness settings (1)
contribute to a sense of place where wild food was acquired, and (2) the residence of the
87

hunter/fisher/harvester, effectively bringing wilderness into the overall sense of place of
residence. This will be discussed further below.
This study examined the dimensions of place as they relate to wild food experiences to
explore the ways they contribute to a sense of place in the wilderness, but also the ways in which
they bring wilderness into the sense of McBride. While other processes were mentioned as
contributors to creating sense of place in wilderness settings (e.g., hiking, camping), most
respondents indicate that wild food experiences are important in fostering this connection. In a
unique way, wild food brings the wilderness into the sense of place of McBride through all
dimensions of sense of place (identity, dependence, attachment).
Identity. Wild food experiences contribute to dimensions of the self that are reflected in the
wilderness through direct personal identity and through personal connection to the overall
identity of McBride. Most interview respondents indicated that the wilderness is essential to their
personal identity and the overall identity of McBride and (with the exception of one interviewee)
wild food experiences contributed to creating a sense of place in the surrounding wilderness. For
example, James says his hunting experiences connect him “with nature and the whole system,
[…] the whole food chain.” This speaks to the ecological self, or self-identity that includes the
natural environment (Frederickson & Anderson, 1999), as well as Aldo Leopold’s ecological
community, making him a “participant in an ecological community that includes prey and
predator” (Kalinowski, 1996, p. 147).
Dependence. Many qualities of wild food experiences are linked to sense of place in the
wilderness surrounding McBride through the functional qualities that wild food provides,
particularly for its economic, nutritional, taste, and recreational values. McBride’s ready access
to the wilderness and the availability of certain types of wild food allow for wild food
88

experiences to be more easily carried out. For example, hunting in the surrounding area of
McBride is not only much more acceptable than doing the same in the Greater Toronto Area, it is
more feasible. James said that one of the reasons he chose to make a short-term move to
McBride was “the good hunting in the area.” Berries (huckleberries, raspberries, Saskatoon
berries) mushrooms (shaggy manes, morels, puffballs), moose, and deer are among the most
abundant wild foods in the area and, as a consequence, are the most frequently consumed wild
foods. As mentioned above, it can be estimated that the village consumes 635-2270 kg of berries,
2085-7485 kg of moose, 1630-4765 kg of deer, 545-2085 kg of fish, 105-455 kg of birds, and
75-385 kg of mushrooms per year for an overall yearly value of $75,000-$245,000.
Attachment. Wild food experiences contribute to the emotional bonds the respondents have
with the wilderness surrounding McBride, including feelings of care, comfort, enjoyment,
belonging, and awe. Wild food experiences require familiarity and knowledge of wilderness
settings for all interview respondents encourage a sense of care and concern for the wilderness
surrounding McBride. This reflects Relph’s (2008) position that familiarity of a setting creates
emotional bonds and with it such bonds foster care and concern.

Place and Time
Wild food experiences were linked in many cases to other places and times, yet inform sense of
place in McBride regardless. Space and time are attributes that transcend all dimensions of sense
of place as they relate to wild food experiences. Wild food experiences in McBride were linked
to other places and times through past and present places of residence and/or recreation: The
Village of McBride, the regional wilderness of McBride (Robson Valley), and other places of
residence in British Columbia, Canada, or internationally. Wild food experiences in other places
89

inform sense of place in McBride, particularly through its contribution to personal identity. The
contribution of wild food experiences to sense of places other than McBride varies among
interviewees (see Table 14).
Table 14. Scale of wild food experiences as they relate to space and time by interviewee
Respondent

McBride

Robson Valley

British
Columbia

National/
International

Margaret

Strong

Weak

N/A

N/A

Ed

Strong

Moderate

Weak

N/A

Norma

Strong

Moderate

Weak

Weak

Andy

Strong

Strong

N/A

N/A

Lucy

Strong

Strong

N/A

Weak

Audrey

Strong

Strong

N/A

Weak

Shelly

Strong

Strong

Weak

N/A

Pete

Strong

Moderate

Moderate

N/A

Ben

Strong

Moderate

Strong

N/A

Harry

Strong

Strong

Strong

N/A

James

Strong

Strong

Strong

Strong

Table 14 illustrates further the individualized breakdown of the scale (influenced by
space and/or time) of wild food experiences into either strong, moderate, weak, or not applicable
(N/A). The lightest shade of grey (weak) indicates that wild food experiences contribute to one
dimension of sense of place, which is in all cases place identity. The medium shade of grey
(moderate) indicates that wild food experiences contribute to two dimensions of sense of place.
90

For example, wild food contributes moderately to Glen’s sense of place in the Robson Valley, as
his past experiences contribute to his personal identity (place identity) and to emotional bonding
(place attachment) with the area. However, he no longer regularly engages in wild food
experiences in the area, and therefore the Robson Valley no longer fulfills a functional element
of sense of place (place dependence). The darkest shade of grey (strong) indicates that wild food
experiences contribute to all three dimensions of sense of place.
Shared characteristics between respondents help explain the differences observed. Based
on similarities, interviewees can be broken down into five categories (1 = Margaret; 2 = Ed and
Norma; 3 = Andy, Lucy, Audrey, Shelly, and Pete; 4 = Ben and Harry; 5 = James). Category 1
contains only Margaret, a relative newcomer to wild food, but long-time resident of McBride.
She has minimal experiences with wild food, only harvesting wild plants that volunteer in her
garden. Category 2 contains Ed and Norma, newcomers to both wild food and McBride, but very
much engaged in the local food system and interested in learning more about wild edibles.
Category 3 has the greatest number of respondents. All are long-time residents of McBride
and/or the Robson Valley and have had many important experiences with wild food in the area
over their lifetimes. Category 4 consists of Ben and Harry. These respondents have all lived
throughout British Columbia and/or Alberta and have significant wild food experiences in
McBride and elsewhere. Category 5 is made up of only James, a self-proclaimed short-term
resident of McBride for whom hunting has long been and likely will continually be an integral
element of his way of life.
All dimensions of sense of place are affected by the attribute of time to wild food
experiences. The dimension of time is important for sense of place, as it is over time that
meaning and culture become embedded. Relph (2008) highlights the awareness of the
91

persistence of a place through time as a criterion for creating and maintaining a sense of place,
and Tuan (1977) suggests that place is “time made visible” (p. 179). While time was not
explored as a distinct dimension in this study, its relationship with wild food experiences is
evident in the results. Typically, wild food experiences were linked to place and time through
memories of past wild food experiences and interest in conservation and/or sustainability. One
respondent linked the history of McBride directly to wild food, describing the emergence of
more berries from the settling of the area and the building of the railway (see p. 55). Most
respondents indicated that wild food experiences have a strong connection to time, connecting
one’s present sense of place to both the past and the future.
Wild food experiences, for all respondents, are tied to memories of past experiences,
whether in McBride or elsewhere. While not all wild food experiences are explicitly linked to the
place in which the interviewees currently reside, past wild food experiences give context for
present wild food experiences in McBride. Harry, for example, has lived and fished in the
McBride area for twenty years and considers the place to be home, even if many of his wild food
experiences reference his childhood in the north Okanagan region of British Columbia. Audrey,
on the other hand, links her wild food experiences to habits that became ingrained when living in
Saskatchewan throughout the First and Second World Wars and Great Depression. Wild food
experiences can provide insight into the socioeconomic position of a place at a given time. In
Audrey’s case, wild food experiences were directly influenced by war and economic depression
and speak largely to the functional role (place dependence) wild food played. In turn, such
experiences inform personal identity (place identity) and the development of emotional bonds
with places (place attachment).

92

Conservation and sustainability are essential concepts in providing a further temporal
dimension of wild food experiences by connecting present practices to the future. All interview
respondents who currently engage in wild food experiences indicated that they employ
sustainable methods for the purposes of conserving populations. The conservation and
sustainability of wild food practices addresses an emotional connection with places as it infers a
level of care and/or concern for the continuation of place qualities (e.g. abundance of
huckleberries).

Other Considerations
Authentic sense of place. Wild food experiences contribute to sense of place regardless of
selfconscious or unselfconscious motivations, and both arguably contribute to an authentic sense
of place. Some place scholars indicate that authentic sense of place requires experiences that are
undeliberate and unselfconscious. Tuan (1977) points out that the activities that contribute most
to creating an authentic sense of place are often overlooked for their mundaneness. Motivations
for engaging in wild food experiences for some interview respondents were not immediately
apparent to them; some respondents considered wild food experiences to be mundane and/or
embedded in lifestyle, and it was therefore somewhat difficult for them to identify specific
motivations. The survey results point to the unselfconscious nature of berry and fish
consumption in McBride. Respondents who indicated that wild food is not very important to
their overall way of life consumed berries at least a few times per season on average and
consumed fish at least once per season on average. Respondents who indicated that wild food
was not at all important to their way of life still consumed berries at least once per season on
average.
93

However, some respondents were conscious of their motivations to engage in wild food
experiences: to save money, connect with nature, support local food systems, connect with
people, or maintain tradition for example. Awareness of motivations may be attributed to relative
newness with the area and/or to wild food experiences, as is the case with Norma and Ed.
Norma: I think the hardest thing when we moved here was just learning what was right
and wrong and what was safe around. […] The internet, as wonderful as it is, doesn’t
give you a detailed description of what’s everywhere, of what would actually grow in our
area and how it would grow and what’s around it. […] None of that’s on there. So I think
the hardest thing when you talk about wild food and what you can and cannot eat and
how—is just the learning of it. It’s something that has become obsolete in most cultures.
While place theorists suggest that the elements that make a place authentically home are
undeliberate, conscious wild food consumption arguably contributes just as authentically to sense
of place.

Limitations
As mentioned above, the study contains limitations in regard to applicability and
methods. Due to the confines of the survey instrument, an assessment of all wild foods in the
area was not able to be completed. Excluded from the study were elk, snowshoe hare, and leafy
greens for example.
Additionally, being a household survey predominantly focusing on the prevalence of wild
food in the area, few conclusions were drawn with respect to individual consumers. The survey
purposed to answer the research question of wild food prevalence by asking about frequency,
weight, and dollar value consumed by household. While the survey was completed by the
94

respondent most involved with wild food, a question was not included to assess other potential
consumers in the household. Conclusions therefore can only be drawn from the respondent as a
representative of his or her household. The omission of questions addressing respondent details
(e.g. age, occupation, income) limits an in-depth analysis of wild food consumption by
consumer.
The study is limited in applicability. Though wild food has begun to attract attention in
urban areas (CBC, 15 April 2013), wild food experiences as strong contributors to sense of place
will likely be typically applicable to rural communities with direct access to wild food resources.

95

CONCLUSION
The results of this research demonstrate that wild food is an important contributor to
sense of place for the people interviewed in McBride. Furthermore, given the prevalence of wild
food among households in McBride as shown in the household survey, it can be inferred that
wild food experiences contribute to the sense of place for a large majority of McBride residents.
Through its quality as food, wild food has become embedded in the food system of McBride.
Through its quality as a wilderness experience, wild food experiences help create a sense of
place in the surrounding wilderness and draw the wilderness into the overall sense of place of
McBride. It is important to note that this study demonstrates the contribution of wild food
experiences to sense of place in a non-Aboriginal community. This research presents a
preliminary exploration of sense of place and wild food in a non-Aboriginal context.
An inquiry into experiences that encourage a connection between wild food and place is
valuable if we are to not completely lose our means of creating and maintaining places of natural
and cultural significance. As Edward Relph states, “to be human is to have and to know your
place” (Relph, 2008, 1). Wild food experiences represent one way of understanding and
becoming familiar with place. Wild food experiences are unique in that they incorporate food to
wilderness experiences and wilderness to food experiences in a tangible and intimate way.
Unlike other wilderness activities, wild food experiences are linked to sustenance.
Although the results of this study may be somewhat limited in applicability to other
geographic areas, the results suggest the potentially overlooked prevalence of wild food in rural
food systems. To date, place studies have largely focused on processes or experiences in
residential or recreation places, rarely linking the two. Furthermore, studies have not explored
how specific wilderness experiences contribute to a sense of a place of residence or how sense of
96

place may affect experiences in the surrounding areas. This study reiterates the importance of
food to sense of place and the importance of wilderness experiences in creating sense of place in
wilderness settings. This study demonstrates that wild food experiences contribute to sense of
place in McBride and demonstrates that such experiences help to bring the wilderness into the
sense of place through three dimensions: place identity, place dependence, and place attachment.
This study further demonstrates through the lens of wild food how sense of place is affected by
other places and by the dimension of time. Therefore, the results show an opportunity to examine
the contribution of wild food to sense of place in other locales, particularly rural communities
with ready access to wilderness. This study also shows that there may be many opportunities to
examine the place of wild food in local food systems specifically, and the Canadian food system
in general.
This study examined the ways in which wild food experiences contribute to these sense
of place dimensions. It is shown that the experience of wild food encourages people to feel at
home in a larger world and thus encourages compassionate and kindly use and helps to foster a
sense of place that includes the land in a rich way. The wild food experience by definition
requires an intimate knowledge of the natural elements of place and works to reinforce local food
systems. These practices have been shown both to create and maintain the resilience of places.
Therefore, as Turner et al. (2011) suggest, regional agriculture and rural development plans
should account for and support the creation of innovative for-profit activities such as the
controlled hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild foods.
Motivations for engaging in wild food experiences are directly linked to sense of place
and change through time and location. Sense of place influences and is influenced by wild food
experiences. Places are not closed environments. The boundaries are in flux and influenced by
97

experiences in other places and times. The characteristics of a place allow for certain activities to
develop and in turn contribute to sense of place. Sense of place is impacted by the wild food
experiences that occur within the place of residence or wilderness and the social actors present
during such activities. Regardless of what comes first, having a sense of place or engaging wild
food experiences, this study shows that wild food experiences continually strengthen the bond
between people and the places in which they live and recreate.
Wild food experiences are not a prerequisite for creating or maintaining a sense of place
in McBride or drawing the wilderness into one’s sense of place. A person may have a strong
sense of place and/or a connection to the surrounding wilderness without an intimate knowledge
of wild food. While wild food experiences do not necessarily make one feel at home in the place
in which they reside, such experiences contribute to the overall sense of place, as evident for
each respondent in this study. For some respondents, wild food experiences help to bring
wilderness into the sense of place through ecological citizenship. This membership places a
person within the broader ecological community, essentially making one a part of the biological
system in which one lives. In a similar vein to avid hunter, Aldo Leopold, one participant (James,
also a hunter) commented on this connection specifically. He indicated that his practices made
him feel as if he were part of the whole system, highlighting the potential for wild food
experiences to contribute to the creation and maintenance of ecological citizenship.
Future studies on sense of place and wild food should include an examination of activities
that take place in wilderness settings and previous places of significance. Such experiences,
though occurring outside municipal boundaries, may be equally important to contributing to
sense of place as those that occur within. It is important to address the experiences that give
meaning to the places where people reside and recreate, and to address the experiences that
98

connect them. Ultimately, wild food experiences do not occur as one specific activity in one
specific locale, but rather encompass many activities that occur in many places throughout a
person’s lifetime.

99

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Acipa, A., Kamatenesi-Mugisha, M., & Oryem-Origa, H. (2013). Documentation and Nutritional
profile of some selected food plants of Otwal and Ngai sun counties Oyam District,
Northern Uganda. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development,
13(2), 1-24.
Andreotti, A., Le Galès, P., Fuentes, M., & Javier, F. (2013). Transnational mobility and
rootedness: the upper middle classes in European cities. Global Networks, 13(1), 41-59.
Aryal, K., Berg, Å., & Ogle, B. (2009). Uncultivated plants and livelihood support–a case study
from the Chepang people of Nepal. Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 7, 409-422.
Beatley, T. (2005). Native to nowhere: Sustaining home and community in a global age. Island
Press.
Beatley, T., & Manning, K. (1997). The ecology of place: Planning for environment, economy,
and community. Island Press.
Beckley, T. M. (2003). The relative importance of sociocultural and ecological factors in
attachment to place. In Kruger, L. E. (ed.), Understanding Community-Forest Relations,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Portland, OR.
Bharucha, Z., & Pretty, J. (2010). The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural
systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences, 365(1554), 2913-2926.
Blake, M., Chisholm, B. S., Clark, J. E., & Mudar, K. (1992). Non-agricultural staples and
agricultural supplements: Early Formative subsistence in the Soconusco region,
Mexico. Transitions to Agriculture, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI, 133-151.
Blench, R. M. (1997). Neglected species, livelihoods and biodiversity in difficult areas: how
should the public sector respond? Natural Resource Perspectives Paper, 23.
Boxall, P. C., Murray, G., Unterschultz, J. R., & Boxall, P. C. (2003). Non-timber forest products
from the Canadian boreal forest: an exploration of aboriginal opportunities. Journal of
Forest Economics, 9(2), 75-96.
Bragg, E. A. (1996). Towards ecological self: Deep ecology meets constructionist selftheory. Journal of environmental psychology, 16(2), 93-108.
Brehm, J. M. (2007). Community attachment: The complexity and consequence of the natural
environment facet. Human Ecology 35, 477-488.

100

Brehm, J. M., Eisenhauer, B. W. and Krannich, R. S. (2004). Dimensions of community
attachment and their relationship to well-being in the amentity-rich rural west. Rural
Sociology 69(3), pp. 405-429.
Bricker, K., & Kerstetter, D. (2000). Level of specialization and place attachment: An
exploratory study of whitewater recreationists. Leisure Sciences, 22, 233–257.
Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. In Place
attachment (pp. 279-304). Springer US.
Buttimer, A., & Seamon, D. (Eds.). (1980). The human experience of space and place. London:
Croom Helm.
Chamberlain, J., Bush, R., & Hammett, A. L. (1998). Non-timber forest products. Forest
Products Journal, 48(10), 10.
Crouch, M. (1993-4), ‘‘Eating our Teachers,’’ Planet Drum 22(Winter), 5–6.
Curthoys, L., & Cuthbertson, B. (2002). Listening to the landscape: Interpretive planning for
ecological literacy. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 224-240.
Dakora, F. (1997). Using indigenous knowledge to increase agricultural productivity in
Africa. Indigenous Knowledge and its Uses in Southern Africa.
Davidson-Hunt, I., Duchesne, L. C., & Zasada, J. C. (2001). Non-timber forest products: local
livelihoods and integrated forest management.
Delind, L. B. (2006). Of bodies, place, and culture: Re-situating local food. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 121-146.
Destination BC Corp. (2016) [Modified map of British Columbia]. Retrieved from
http://www.hellobc.com/getmedia/0de8a359-2d38-4200-bc5e-5bb5ee763c41/mapsbritish-columbia.aspx
Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place‐identity: a discursive approach to locating
self and other. British journal of social psychology, 39(1), 27-44.
Dove, M. R., & Carpenter, C. (2008). Environmental anthropology: A historical reader. Dove,
Michael R. and Carol Carpenter, eds.
Dufour, D. L., & Wilson, W. M. (1994). Characteristics of ‘wild’plant foods used by indigenous
populations in Amazonia. In N.L. Etkin (Ed.) Eating on the Wild Side, 114-142.
Dusselier, J. (2002). Does food make place? Food protests in Japanese American concentration
camps. Food and Foodways, 10(3), 137-165.
Dwyer, P. D., & Minnegal, M. (1991). Hunting in lowland, tropical rain forest: Towards a model
101

of non-agricultural subsistence. Human Ecology, 19(2), 187-212.
Escobar, A. (2001). Place, economy, and culture in a post-development era. In R. Prazniak & A.
Dirlik (Eds.) Places and Politics in an Age of Globalization, 193-217.
Etkin, N. L. (Ed.). (2000). Eating on the wild side: The pharmacologic, ecologic and social
implications of using noncultigens. University of Arizona Press.
Evernden, L. L. N. (1993). The natural alien: Humankind and environment. University of
Toronto Press.
Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (1996). Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a
forest-savanna mosaic (Vol. 90). Cambridge University Press.
Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in
human geography, 31(1), 23-42.
Fox, W. (1990). Toward a transpersonal ecology: Developing new foundations for
environmentalism. SUNY Press.
Frederickson, L. M., & Anderson, D. H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness
experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19,
21–39.
Gibbons, S., & Ruddell, E. J. (1995). The effect of goal orientation and place dependence on
select goal interferences among winter backcountry users. Leisure Sciences, 17(3), 171183.
Google Maps. (2016). [Modified map of the Village of McBride and area]. Retrieved from
https://www.google.ca/maps
Gombay, N. (2010). Making a living: place, food, and economy in an Inuit community. UBC
Press.
Gomez-Pompa, A., & Kaus, A. (1992). Taming the wilderness myth. BioScience, 42(4), 271279.
González, B. M. (2005). Topophilia and Topophobia The Home as an Evocative Place of
Contradictory Emotions. Space and Culture, 8(2), 193-213.
Gordon, D. (2013, April 15). The Popularity of Foraging for Your Food. Here and Now Toronto
@ CBC. Episode retrieved from
http://www.cbc.ca/hereandnowtoronto/episodes/2013/04/15/the-popularity-of-foragingfor-your-food/
Guinand, Y., & Lemessa, D. (2001). Wild-food plants in Ethiopia: Reflections on the role of
102

wild foods and famine foods at a time of drought. The Potential of Indigenous Wild
Foods, 22, 31.
Hernández, B., Hidalgo, M. C., & Ruiz, C. (2014). Theoretical and methodological aspects of
research on place attachment. In L.C. Manzo & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place
attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 125-138). New York:
Routledge.
Hummon, D. M. (1992). Community attachment. In Place attachment (pp. 253-278). Springer
US.
Hunt, L. M. (2008). Examining state dependence and place attachment within a recreational
fishing site choice model. Journal of Leisure Research,40(1), 110.
Jacobson, D. (2002). Place and belonging in America. JHU Press.
Jones, K. T., & Madsen, D. B. (1991). Further experiments in native food procurement. Utah
Archaeology, 4(1), 68-77.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners
attitudes toward their properties. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(3), 233-248.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2006). A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of
place dimensions: Attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore
properties. Journal of environmental management, 79(3), 316-327.
Kalinowski, F. A. (1996). Aldo Leopold as hunter and communitarian. Rooted in the Land:
Essays on Community and Place, 140-149.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American
sociological review, 328-339.
Khan, M. A., Hasan, M. N., Jahan, N., Das, P. R., Islam, M. T., Bhuiyan, M. S. A., ... &
Rahmatullah, M. (2012). Ethnomedicinal wisdom and famine food plants of the Hajong
community of Baromari village in Netrakona district of Bangladesh. American-Eurasian
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 387-398.
Kloppenburg Jr, J., Hendrickson, J., & Stevenson, G. W. (1996). Coming in to the
foodshed. Agriculture and human values, 13(3), 33-42.
Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of
Environmental psychology, 9(3), 241-256.

103

Kuhnlein, H. V., Erasmus, B., Spigelski, D., & Burlingame, B. (2013). Indigenous peoples' food
systems and well-being: interventions and policies for healthy communities. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Kuhnlein, H. V., & Receveur, O. (1996). Dietary change and traditional food systems of
indigenous peoples. Annual review of nutrition, 16(1), 417-442.
Kuhnlein, H. V., & Turner, N. J. (1991). Traditional plant foods of Canadian indigenous
peoples: nutrition, botany, and use. Taylor & Francis.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in
recreational settings. Environment and behavior, 37(2), 153-177.
Leonti, M., Nebel, S., Rivera, D., & Heinrich, M. (2006). Wild gathered food plants in the
European Mediterranean: A comparative analysis. Economic Botany, 60(2), 130-142.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of
environmental psychology, 31(3), 207-230.
Lim, M., & Barton, A. C. (2010). Exploring insideness in urban children’s sense of
place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 328-337.
Loblaws Inc. (2016). [Real Canadian Superstore flyer]. Retrieved from
http://www.realcanadiansuperstore.ca/en_CA/flyers.pageview.banner@RCSSW.storenu
m@1564.week@current.html
Low, S., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, & S. Low
(Eds.), Human behavior and environments: Advances in theory and research (pp. 1–12).
New York: Plenum Press.
Malainey, M. E., Przybylski, R., & Sherriff, B. L. (1999). The effects of thermal and oxidative
degradation on the fatty acid composition of food plants and animals of Western Canada:
implications for the identification of archaeological vessel residues. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 26(1), 95-103.
Manzo, L. C. (2003). Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships
with places. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(1), 47-61.
Manzo, L. C., & Devine-Wright, P. (Eds.). (2014). Place Attachment: Advances in theory,
methods and applications. New York: Routledge.
Marcus, C. C., & Barnes, M. (1999). Healing gardens: therapeutic benefits and design
recommendations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Mazhar, F., Satheesh, P. V., Buckles, D., & Akhter, F. (2002). Uncultivated Food: The Missing
Link in Livelihood and Poverty Programs. South Asia Network.
104

McAndrew, F. T. (1998). The measurement of ‘rootedness’ and the prediction of attachment to
home-towns in college students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(4), 409-417.
McCool, S. F., & Martin, S. R. (1994). Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism
development. Journal of Travel research, 32(3), 29-34.
Milton, K. (2000). Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective. The American journal of
clinical nutrition, 71(3), 665-667.
Mitchell, M. Y., Force, J. E., Carroll, M. S., & McLaughlin, W. J. (1993). Forest places of the
heart: Incorporating special places into public management. Journal of Forestry, 91, 32–
37.
Mormon-Robinson, A. (2003). I Still Call Australia Home: Indigenous Belonging and. Place in a
White Postcolonizing Society.
Muller, J., & Almedom, A. M. (2008). What is “famine food”? Distinguishing between
traditional vegetables and special foods for times of hunger/scarcity (Boumba,
Niger). Human Ecology, 36(4), 599-607.
Nelson, L., & Hiemstra, N. (2008). Latino immigrants and the renegotiation of place and
belonging in small town America. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(3), 319-342.
Nash, R. (1990). The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Values.
Ockerman, H. W., & Basu, L. (2009). Undomesticated food animals hunted and used for
food. Agricultural sciences, 1, UNESCO-EOLSS, Paris.
Oliveira, J., Roca, Z., & Leitão, N. (2010). Territorial identity and development: From topophilia
to terraphilia. Land use policy, 27(3), 801-814.
Padulosi, S., Eyzaguirre, P., & Hodgkin, T. (1999). Challenges and strategies in promoting
conservation and use of neglected and underutilized crop species. In J. Janick (Ed.)
Perspectives on new crops and new uses, 140-145.
Pieroni, A., & Price, L. L. (2006). Eating and healing: traditional food as medicine. Food
Products Press.
Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst adolescents and
adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating features of place attachment,
sense of community and place dependence in relation to place identity. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 273-287.
Posey, D. A. (1998). The 'Balance Sheet' and the 'Sacred Balance': Valuing the Knowledge of
Indigenous and Traditional Peoples1. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and
Ecology, 2(2), 91-106.
105

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world
socialization of the self. Journal of environmental psychology, 3(1), 57-83.
Rampedi, I. T., & Olivier, J. (2013). Traditional Beverages Derived from Wild Food Plant
Species in the Vhembe District, Limpopo Province in South Africa. Ecology of food and
nutrition, 52(3), 203-222.
Raymond, C. M., Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2010). The measurement of place attachment:
Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 30(4), 422-434.
RELATE. (2001). Realizing environmental literacy through advanced technology and
experimentation. On-line at: http://lpsl.coe.uga.edu/RELATE/text/define.html.
Relph, E. (2008). Place and placelessness. London: Sage.
Reyes-García, V., Vadez, V., Marti, N., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R. & Tanner, S. (2008).
Ethnobotanical knowledge and crop diversity in swidden fields. Hum. Ecol. 36, 569–580.
Rose, G. (1995). Place and identity: a sense of place. A Place in the World, 87-132.
Rowles, G. D. (1983). Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from
Appalachia. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(4), 299-313.
Ryder, M., & Latham, Y. (2005). Cultivation of native food plants in south-eastern
Australia. Barton, ACT, Australia: Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation.
Seamon, D. (2014). Place attachment and phenomenology: The synergistic dynamism of place.
In L.C. Manzo and P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place Attachment: Advances in theory,
methods and applications (pp.11-22). New York: Routledge
Scopelliti, M., & Tiberio, L. (2010). Homesickness in university students: the role of multiple
place attachment. Environment and behavior.
Shackleton, S., Shackleton, C., & Cousins, B. (2000). Re-valuing the Communual Lands of
Southern Africa: New Understandings of Rural Livelihoods. London: Overseas
Development Institute.
Shad, A. A., Shah, H. U., & Bakht, J. (2013). Ethnobotanical assessment and nutritive potential
of wild plants. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 23(1): 92-97
Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347-358.
Short, J. R. (1991). Imagined country: environment, culture, and society. Syracuse University
106

Press.
Sims, R. (2009). Food, place and authenticity: local food and the sustainable tourism
experience. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(3), 321-336.
Statistics Canada (2011). Census Profile, McBride, VL, British Columbia, 2011. Retrieved from
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=5953012&Geo2=CD&Code2=5
953&Data=Count&SearchText=mcbride&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All
&Custom=&TABID=1
Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical
environment to sense of place. Society &Natural Resources, 16(8), 671-685.
Steel, D. (2000). Polar bonds: Environmental relationships in polar regions. Environment and
Behavior, 32, 796–816.
Steele, F. (1981). The Sense of Place. Boston: CB.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of
settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the environment,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 441-488.
Tall, D. (1996). Dwelling; making peace with space and place. In W. Vitek & W. Jackson (Eds.),
Rooted in the land: Essays on community and place, 104-12.
Tardío, J., Pardo-de-Santayana, M., & Morales, R. (2006). Ethnobotanical review of wild edible
plants in Spain. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 152(1), 27-71.
Thayer, R. L. (2003). LifePlace: Bioregional thought and practice. Univ of California Press.
Trudeau, D. (2006). Politics of belonging in the construction of landscapes: place-making,
boundary-drawing and exclusion. Cultural geographies, 13(3), 421-443.
Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Tuan, Y. F. (1980). Rootedness and sense of place. Landscape, 24, 3-8.
Turner, N. J., Łuczaj, Ł. J., Migliorini, P., Pieroni, A., Dreon, A. L., Sacchetti, L. E., & Paoletti,
M. G. (2011). Edible and tended wild plants, traditional ecological knowledge and
agroecology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences,30(1-2), 198-225.
Turner, N. J., & von Aderkas, P. (2012). Sustained by First Nations: European newcomers' use
of Indigenous plant foods in temperate North America. Acta Societatis Botanicorum
Poloniae, 81(4), 295-315.
Vaske, J. J., & Kobrin, K. C. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible
107

behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16-21.
Village of McBride. (2016). Official Community Plan Map. Retrieved from
http://www.mcbride.ca/village-office/maps
Vitterso, J., Vorkinn, M., & Vistad, O. (2001). Congruence between recreational mode and
actual behavior: A prerequisite for optimal experiences? Journal of Leisure Research, 33,
137–159.
Wickham, T. D. (2001). Attachments to places and activities: The relationship of psychological
constructs to customer satisfaction. Dissertation Abstracts, 16, 3348.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the
commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure
Sciences, 14, 29–46.
Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of place: An elusive concept that is finding a
home in ecosystem management. Journal of forestry, 96(5), 18-23.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and
generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest science, 49(6), 830-840.
Zimmerman, M. E., Callicott, J. B., Sessions, G., Warren, K. J., & Clark, J. (1993).
Environmental philosophy. From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Pearson

108

APPENDIX
Household Survey

109

110

111

112

113

Interview Guide
The purpose of the interview is to reveal the nuances of wild food in the creation and
maintenance of sense of place. The interview will be pre-arranged and take place in a setting that
the respondent feels comfortable, and the researcher feels secure. Likely, this will be in the home
of the respondent. The respondent will be informed of the purpose of the research, and will be
asked if the interview can be recorded. If the informant does not give permission, notes will be
taken instead. The interview will be approximately an hour and will be conversation style, using
the following question guide. The interview will be slightly restructured to suit the individual
interests of the respondents.
1. Defining wild food (10 minutes)
This section will attempt to show the variability in the concept, as supported by the
literature.
Prompt: How do you define wild food? Would you consider your definition to be
universal? Why or why not? What do you think the most important wild foods are in the
McBride region? Why those?
2. Wild food and the respondent (15-20 minutes)
This section will display the story of wild food in the life of the respondent. While the
following section will focus on its role in sense of place, I anticipate such ideas will be
evident here as well. The previously completed survey will be used as a point of
reference and the following prompts will be phrased to be consistent with their responses
to the questionnaire.
Prompts: Tell me more about the kinds of wild food you include in your life. Why do you
include these and not others? Tell me more about your methods for acquiring wild food.
Tell me more about how you learned to do this? Do you think your practices are
sustainable? Why or why not? How would you feel about regulated inclusion of wild
food in the McBride food system? Would you be interested in supporting new wild food
initiatives in the area? Why or why not?
3. Wild food and sense of place (25 minutes)
This section will seek to tease out the role of wild food in creating and maintaining sense
of place. I will ask questions about feelings of connectedness to the community and to the
local environment.
(a) Can you recount a memorable experience you had with wild food? What about that
experience made it memorable? How does that compare with your general
experiences? Does wild food make you feel more connected to your local
environment? To people? To McBride? How long have you lived in McBride? Do
you share wild food with other people in your community? Do you share your
knowledge with others in your community?
(b) How important do you believe that wild food is to McBride as a whole? How
important do you consider McBride’s connection to the ‘wilderness’ is in creating a
sense of identity for those who live here? Would you say that your knowledge makes
you feel more comfortable in a new wilderness environment?
114

115