BEAR JAMS IN KANANASKIS COUNTRY: VISITOR AND EXPERT PERCEPTIONS
OF ROADSIDE BEAR VIEWING MANAGEMENT IN PETER LOUGHEED
PROVINCIAL PARK, ALBERTA

By

Annie Pumphrey
B.A., University of Alberta, 2015

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

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
March 2023

© Annie Pumphrey, 2023

Abstract
Bear viewing poses significant risks for humans and wildlife, particularly in the form of "bear
jams" - traffic congestion caused by people slowing down or stopping to view bears. This study
addresses gaps in our understanding of the human dimensions of roadside bear viewing, focusing
on the case study of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (PLPP) in Alberta, Canada. A mixedmethods approach is employed in this study, comprising a survey (n=380) of visitors who have
witnessed or engaged in roadside bear viewing and interviews with experts who have experience
in bear-related fields (n=22). The main findings indicate that a balanced approach is needed to
manage bears and humans. The study suggests human, bear, infrastructure, and habitat-related
approaches, including implementing no-stopping zones, enforcing regulations, and improving
education and outreach, are key to managing roadside bear viewing. The results of this study
provide valuable insight for park managers and wildlife officials to develop effective
management strategies that balance the needs of both humans and bears. The data collected in
this study underscore the importance of a holistic and adaptive management approach to
addressing roadside bear viewing. The findings apply to PLPP and parks facing similar
challenges.

ii

Acknowledgements

Thank you to:

Dr. Zoë A. Meletis: one of the most supportive, kind, and all-around amazing supervisors a
student could ever ask for;

My committee members, Dr. Annie Booth, and Dr. Chris Johnson: for your patience, insights,
and knowledge sharing, Dr. Sarah Elmeligi for your valuable comments as an external
examiner, and Dr. Pam Wright, for your support and feedback;

Erin Nevison: for the wines, whines, and getting through grad school while raising 19 cats;

The Gillphreys, Patrick Robinson, and the Saarelas for your constant support;

Jess & Bryan Bell and Maxine Bennett & Emma Schroder for your couches, beers, and
friendship in supporting me through my wandering ways;

Participating experts and survey-takers: your contributions made this research possible;

Staff and volunteers with Alberta Parks and WildSmart, who informed this project;

The BC Real Estate Foundation, UNBC, and the Social Science and Research Council of Canada
for funding.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of tables and figures ........................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................1
Introduction to the thesis .............................................................................................................1
Introduction to the project ........................................................................................................1
Terms used in this paper...........................................................................................................2
Study site ......................................................................................................................................3
Study rationale and research questions ........................................................................................7
Research objective ......................................................................................................................10
Structure .....................................................................................................................................10
Methodology ..............................................................................................................................11
Case study ...............................................................................................................................11
Social constructionism............................................................................................................12
Adapted grounded theory .......................................................................................................14
Methods ......................................................................................................................................15
Visitor survey ..........................................................................................................................15
Expert interviews ....................................................................................................................16
Use of the term “expert” ........................................................................................................17
Ethical considerations ................................................................................................................21
Chapter 2: Background ...............................................................................................................22
Introduction ................................................................................................................................22
Context and practices .................................................................................................................23
Bear management practices ...................................................................................................23
A literature review of management approaches to bear viewing ...........................................26
Bears and people in the Bow Valley, Alberta ............................................................................29
Grizzly bear management in Alberta ......................................................................................29
Bear management in the Bow Valley......................................................................................31
Management of bear viewing specific to Peter Lougheed Provincial Park ...............................34
iv

Bears in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park..............................................................................34
Past and current management strategies ...............................................................................34
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................39
Chapter 3: Visitor perceptions of bear jams and related management strategies ................40
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................40
Management implications and conclusions ................................................................................41
Introduction ................................................................................................................................42
Bear jam-related collaboration and education ......................................................................43
Roadside bear management in nearby parks .........................................................................43
Research project .....................................................................................................................43
Context, considerations, and key concepts .................................................................................44
Study area ...............................................................................................................................44
Impacts of COVID-19 and provincial politics........................................................................45
Theoretical framework ...............................................................................................................46
Human dimensions of wildlife ................................................................................................46
Political ecology .....................................................................................................................47
Project design, methods, and data collection .............................................................................48
Survey design and sampling strategy .....................................................................................48
Data analysis and interpretation of codes..............................................................................51
Results ........................................................................................................................................52
Sample characteristics............................................................................................................52
Visitor interests and motivations ............................................................................................54
Experiences and perceptions ..................................................................................................55
Understandings of risk ...........................................................................................................58
Education, outreach, and communications ............................................................................60
Support for management strategies ........................................................................................61
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................62
Roadside bear viewing as experienced and explained ...........................................................62
A primarily Alberta-based sample with other biases .............................................................64

v

Wildlife photographers as a key demographic of concern .....................................................64
Personal behaviour ................................................................................................................65
Respondent understandings of risk to bears and humans ......................................................68
Park education, communications, and outreach improvements .............................................70
Stated respondent support/non-support for management options..........................................71
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................74
Chapter 4: Expert perspectives on roadside bear management ..............................................76
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................76
Introduction ................................................................................................................................77
A background of roadside bear viewing .................................................................................78
The project ..................................................................................................................................80
Research questions and objectives .........................................................................................80
Author positionality ................................................................................................................81
Study site .................................................................................................................................81
Context .......................................................................................................................................82
Roadside bear viewing in Kananaskis ....................................................................................82
Management of roadside bear viewing in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park .........................83
Public education and communication in Kananaskis ............................................................84
Methods and methodology .........................................................................................................85
A case study of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park ...................................................................85
Data analysis and interpretation ............................................................................................88
Results ........................................................................................................................................89
Sample demographics of interview participants ....................................................................89
Perceived causes of bear jams ...............................................................................................90
Risks associated with roadside bear viewing .........................................................................96
Challenges of high visitation and limited resources ..............................................................97
Suggested strategies ...............................................................................................................99
Discussion ................................................................................................................................109
Human-related strategies .....................................................................................................110
vi

Managing roadside habitat and providing alternatives .......................................................114
Infrastructure management ..................................................................................................115
Limitations of research .........................................................................................................116
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................118
Chapter 5: Conclusion ...............................................................................................................120
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................120
Summary of findings ................................................................................................................120
Implications and suggestions for management ........................................................................124
Considerations and limitations of project .................................................................................130
Questions raised and ideas for future research .........................................................................133
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................134
References ...................................................................................................................................135
Appendix A: Visitor Survey ......................................................................................................159
Appendix B: Interview Guide ...................................................................................................176
Appendix C: Promotional Materials for Visitor Survey ........................................................179
Appendix D: Alberta Parks Wildlife Viewing Guidelines......................................................181
Appendix E: Research Ethics Board Approvals .....................................................................183
Appendix F: Alberta Parks Research Permit .........................................................................187

vii

List of Tables
Table 1 Three types of wildlife management approaches ............................................................24
Table 2 Human bear occurrence definitions ..................................................................................38
Table 3 Survey respondent demographics .....................................................................................53
Table 4 Survey respondent reported behaviours when viewing wildlife on the road ...................56
Table 5 Survey respondent perceptions of safety around bears in PLPP .....................................59
Table 6 Survey respondent support for roadside bear management strategies in PLPP ................62
Table 7 Expert roles/affiliation categories ....................................................................................90
Table 8 Perceived causes of bear jams in PLPP by interview participants ..................................91
Table 9 Rated effectiveness of messaging approaches by interview participants ......................103

List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Parks and Protected Areas in Southwestern Alberta ...........................................5
Figure 2 Map of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park ..........................................................................6
Figure 3 Hazard-acceptance model for roadside bear viewing .....................................................26
Figure 4 Map showing the seven bear management areas (BMAs) in Alberta ............................31
Figure 5 Bear management and grizzly bear occurrences in BMA 5 ...........................................37
Figure 6 Survey respondent perceptions of why bear jams occur ................................................58
Figure 7 Map of PLPP with inset ..................................................................................................82
Figure 8 Bear safety brochures distributed by the Alberta Government ......................................85

viii

Chapter 1: Introduction
1 Introduction to the thesis
The inspiration for this Master's project came from my time living, recreating, and
working for Alberta Parks in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, including observations and
conversations with staff and community members about roadside bear viewing. The first two
chapters introduce the overall project, including background material to contextualize the
research within the literature and management practices. The document's core comprises two
manuscript-style chapters (Chapters 3 and 4) authored by Pumphrey and Meletis (supervisor),
and each has been submitted to peer-reviewed journals. This full thesis document will be
available in the UNBC online thesis repository:
https://unbc.arcabc.ca/islandora/object/unbc%3Adtc.
1.2 Introduction to the project
Parks and protected areas in Alberta, Canada, draw visitors seeking nature and wildlife as
part of their tourism and recreation experiences. Bear viewing, including the viewing of both
black bears (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), is a popular activity in
Alberta's Rocky Mountain parks. Bear viewing is a form of “non-consumptive” wildlife tourism
that supports local economies while increasing wildlife valuation by facilitating a restorative
connection between humans and nature (Curtin, 2009; Curtin & Kragh, 2014; Richardson et al.,
2014). However, non-consumptive wildlife tourism is associated with impacts to the
environment and the species within it (Meletis & Campbell, 2007). When it comes to bear
viewing, impacts are present to both humans and bears (Penteriani et al., 2017). One particular
phenomenon of concern is the formation of a “bear jam,” when traffic congestion occurs due to
people slowing down or stopping to view roadside bears.

1

Roadside bear viewing and bear jams occur in parks and protected areas across North
America, from Yellowstone National Park, USA, to Banff National Park, Canada (Haroldson et
al., 2013; Parks Canada, 2019b). Increasing visitation to parks and protected areas has
compounded the challenges associated with roadside bear viewing and bear jams (Colgan, 2020;
Penteriani et al., 2017; Weaver & Lawton, 2017). Understanding the human dimensions of
wildlife viewing and human-bear interactions can lead to more effective communication and
management of roadside bear viewing (Richardson et al., 2015).
In this thesis, I investigate visitor and expert perceptions of roadside bear viewing, bear
jams and their management in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (PLPP), Alberta. This research
project was designed with contextual knowledge and known data gaps in mind. The thesis is
written with the objective of collecting and interpreting human-dimension data to reduce the
impacts of roadside bear viewing for both bears and humans.
1.3 Terms used in this paper
In this paper, the term “bear jam” refers to vehicular congestion or traffic resulting from
drivers stopping or slowing down on the road to engage in bear viewing (Gunther & Wyman,
2008; Richardson et al., 2015). I use the broader term “wildlife viewing” to encompass “nonconsumptive” animal viewing more broadly (Duffus & Dearden, 1990; Reynolds & Braithwaite,
2001). The terms “human-wildlife conflict” and “human-wildlife interaction” are both used in
the literature that informs this thesis. “Human-wildlife conflict” implies that wildlife threatens
people's safety, well-being, and interests (White & Ward, 2011). On the other hand, the term
“human-wildlife interaction” emphasizes the coexistence and interactions between humans and
wildlife beyond conflicts and includes the “risk-benefit beliefs people have towards a species and
the related perceptions of control over hazard” (Frank & Glikman, 2019, p. 10).

2

More specifically, the term “human-bear conflict” is used in this document to explain
when a bear is: harmed or destroyed by a human (excluding legal harvest), makes physical
contact with a human, shows predatory behaviour, causes a human to take evasive action, or
shows stress-related or overly curious behaviour (Hopkins et al., 2010, p. 157; Schirokauer &
Boyd, 1998). “Human-bear interaction” is used to describe occurrences where bears and humans
are “mutually aware of each other” (Hopkins et al., 2010, p. 157; Smith et al., 2005). Defining
the above terms and using them consistently and in alignment with the relevant literature
supports efficient communication and collaboration among agencies engaged in bear
management (Hopkins et al., 2010).
2 Study site
The case study for this research project is Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, located within
the Kananaskis region of, Alberta. Kananaskis is a provincially managed area established in
1978 on Treaty 7 lands and within Metis Region. This region includes the traditional and
ancestral territory of the Îyârhe Nakoda (comprised of the Chiniki, Bearspaw and
Wesley/Goodstoney Nations), the Tsuut'ina Nation, the Siksikaitsitapi (comprised of the Kainai,
Siksika, Piikani and Amskapi Nations), and the Métis (personal communication, 2022;
Government of Alberta, 2018a).
In this thesis, the use of the term “Kananaskis region” or “Kananaskis” is used to discuss
a larger region that encompasses PLPP, as defined by the Alberta Parks Operations Division
(Figure 1, p. 5). Kananaskis contains 51 parks with varying levels of protection, including 39
provincial recreation areas, six provincial parks (including PLPP), four wildland provincial
parks, one ecological reserve, and one natural area (Government of Alberta, 2018b).

3

As the Kananaskis region incorporates multiple land-use zones, there are distinct
management plans for districts within the region1. The focus of this project is PLPP (Figure 2, p.
6), which is managed under the 2006 Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks
Management Plan, and recommendations resulting from this study could be taken into
consideration in updated versions of this plan. As of 2022, PLPP is designated as a Provincial
Park under the Provincial Parks and Protected Areas Act and operates under Alberta Parks via
the Ministry of Forestry, Parks, and Tourism (Government of Alberta, 2022e).

1

Eight key management plans within the Kananaskis region include: Elbow-Sheep Wildland Provincial
Park, Evan-Thomas Provincial Recreation Area, Canmore Nordic Centre Provincial Park (strategic plan),
Kananaskis-Bow Valley Protected Areas, Kananaskis Provincial Recreation Areas & Bragg Creek
Provincial Park, Peter Lougheed and Spray Valley Provincial Parks, Plateau Mountain Ecological
Reserve, Sheep River PP & Bluerock Wildland Provincial Park (Government of Alberta, 2019d)

4

Figure 1 Map of Parks and Protected Areas in Southwestern Alberta. Peter Lougheed Provincial Park is
highlighted in red. The Kananaskis region is outlined in pink, and the light purple lines and text represent
districts within the Kananaskis region. Adapted and reprinted with permission from Government of Alberta.
(2016b). Parks and protected areas (including Crown reservations) with region/district boundaries [Map].
Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-parks-andprotected-areas-crown-reservations-with-region-district-boundaries-provincial#summary.

5

Figure 2 Map of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park. Map is from the 2006 Peter Lougheed &
Spray Valley Management Plan. Reprinted with permission from Government of Alberta.
(2006). Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks Management Plan (p. 20). Alberta
Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778548945.

6

PLPP encompasses an area of over 50,000 ha within the Kananaskis region of the Rocky
Mountains of Alberta (Government of Alberta, 2017a). PLPP contains seven vehicle-accessible
campgrounds, six backcountry campgrounds, over 220 km of trails, and recreational
opportunities including hiking, biking, skiing, and wildlife viewing (Government of Alberta,
2006). The park is within an hour’s drive of Calgary—a city of over 1.3 million people (Statistics
Canada, 2017a). As a result, the park experiences high visitor rates. The region of Kananaskis
had an estimated 5.4 million visitors in 2020—a 35% increase in visitation from the year prior
(Colgan, 2020). High visitation rates and a healthy population of grizzly and black bears make
PLPP a fitting case study for examining roadside bear viewing (Government of Alberta, 2022d).
3 Study rationale and research questions
This project was designed in collaboration with Alberta Parks, the non-profit organization
WildSmart, and personal experience working in PLPP, including observations of roadside bear
viewing and communications with current and past park staff. I had preconceptions of
management challenges related to roadside bear viewing in PLPP long before this project began,
including inconsistencies in public messaging about bears and roadside bear viewing; park
resources directed towards managing roadside bear viewing; and regulatory obstacles to
enforcement of undesired visitor behaviours while roadside bear viewing. This prior knowledge
from informal interactions about roadside bear viewing is integrated into this project’s data
collection tools (visitor survey and expert interviews). Personal bias has been tempered, as the
project design and methods tools were developed in collaboration with two representatives from
Alberta Parks and WildSmart.

7

The goal of this research was to examine visitor and expert perceptions of roadside bear
viewing to improve management practices. The following three research questions guided the
project:
1) How can roadside bear viewing be managed to improve visitor experiences and to reduce
risks to bears and humans?
This first research question focuses on current roadside bear viewing management
practices and potential gaps where improvements can be made. Addressing this question
involved investigating strategies employed to deal with roadside bear viewing (both in PLPP and
in other parks). Government documents (including management plans and reports) were used to
understand existing bear management practices, in addition to academic literature on bear
management and related case studies in North America. Furthermore, answering this question
involved examining current roadside bear management practices in PLPP from the perspectives
of visitors and experts. To do this, I conducted and analysed visitor surveys and expert
interviews to illustrate how different experiences of roadside bear viewing intersect with the dual
goals of reducing risks to bears and humans.
2) What are the perceived risks associated with bear viewing—including bear jams—in
Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, from the perspectives of park staff, visitors, and other
local experts (NGO staff; volunteers)?
The second question investigates perceptions of risk associated with roadside bear
viewing and bear jams specific to PLPP. The emphasis on risk was included because prior
conversations with park staff highlighted concerns for roadside bear viewing risks and visitor
perceptions of risks to humans and bears. With limited existing human dimensions data in the

8

park, I set out to gather data that might provide novel insights to the phenomenon of roadside
bear viewing.
I wanted to know how participants understood and viewed the relationship between
bears, visitors, park management, and other factors in roadside bear viewing. The dual emphasis
on experts and visitors in this project is important because issues relating to parks and protected
areas impacts multiple actors, and so incorporating a multitude of perspectives is important in the
development of more informed management approaches.
3) Considering the literature and this case study, how could the management of roadside
bear viewing in PLPP be improved?
An overarching objective of this research is to present data and recommendations
applicable to the field of bear management and park agencies, specifically Alberta Parks. As
roadside bear viewing management occurs across and between different levels, recommendations
in this study are presented and directed into five levels:
a) cross agency level: neighbouring agencies including (but not limited to): Parks Canada,
BC Parks, the towns of Canmore and Banff, the Kananaskis Improvement District, and
Stoney Nakoda.
b) provincial level: Alberta Parks Operations Division (under the Ministry of Forest, Parks
and Tourism), Alberta Lands Division (under the Ministry of Environment and Protected
Areas).
c) regional level: Kananaskis region, including all related management plans.
d) park-specific level: Peter Lougheed Provincial Park via the Peter Lougheed & Spray
Valley Management Plan.

9

e) community level: volunteers, researchers, community members, and non-profit
organizations including (but not limited to): WildSmart and Friends of Kananaskis.
The literature review and empirical data presented in this thesis provides valuable human
dimensions insights and park management recommendations to Alberta Parks and to other parks
facing similar challenges related to roadside bear viewing.
4 Research objective
This project aims to generate information of use to Alberta Parks staff, human
dimensions of wildlife-interested scholars, and community members. A key goal of this research
is to inform improved park management and reduce the negative impacts of roadside bear
viewing on humans and bears while facilitating responsible and meaningful visitor experiences.
5 Structure
This thesis follows a 'manuscript-style' format. There are changes in writing styles and
formatting between chapters, as Chapters 3 and 4 were submitted as articles to peer-reviewed
journals and follow differing author guidelines as per those journals. I am the primary researcher
and author for this entire project, which is why this document begins in the first-person. I use
“we” in Chapters 3 and 4, as these chapters were written as journal articles alongside my
supervisor Dr. Meletis. This document begins with two introductory chapters. Chapter 1 briefly
introduces the project, including research design, research questions, theoretical framework,
methods, methodologies, and rationale. Chapter 2 shares the background and context of the
project as a case study of the human dimensions of wildlife, including a literature review of
roadside bear viewing and bear management in North America, including Alberta and PLPP.
This project focuses on the human side of roadside bear viewing in PLPP by emphasizing two
key groups: visitors, and those with expertise related to bear management and bear visitation in

10

PLPP. Chapters 3 (visitors) and 4 (experts) are papers that each closely examine the mixed
methods and qualitative research conducted for this project. Chapter 3 provides visitor-related
results, analysis, and discussion generated via the online survey I designed and implemented in
2021 (3.5 months). Chapter 4 is a comprehensive analysis of expert insights and understandings
of roadside bear viewing grounded in the semi-structured interviews I conducted in 2021 (4
months). Finally, Chapter 5 brings both groups together, combining the visitor survey, expert
interview data, and discussion with insights from the literature. This chapter aims to highlight
patterns in the experiences and constructions of roadside bear viewing within and across the
groups to inform management.
6 Methodology
This research is a mixed-methods, human-focused case study. A mixed-methods
approach allowed for the incorporation of different information sources, and for the integration
of qualitative data on roadside bear viewing in PLPP. This project aimed to hear from people, in
their own words, about how they experience, and perceive roadside bear viewing, related risks,
and potential management interventions. Three methodological approaches informed this project:
a) a case study, b) the concept of social constructionism, and c) the use of adapted grounded
theory (via a social constructionist lens).
6.2 Case study
This project is a case study involving the in-depth examination of a single occurrence to
understand the larger scope of similar occurrences of a phenomenon (Baxter, 2016; Gerring,
2007). PLPP is one manifestation of a phenomenon—roadside bear jams—that occurs similarly
in other places worldwide (Gunther & Wyman, 2008; Haroldson & Gunther, 2013; Parks
Canada, 2019b; Richardson et al., 2015).

11

The case study for this project is cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. As a crosssectional case study, this project explored the occurrence of bear jams at a specific place and
time (Baxter, 2016). However, I also sought to contextualize the data, patterns, and analyses
within a broader literature. Considering the time available for completing my Master's degree
and for the park's data needs, the timeframe was suitable. Despite being limited in time and scale,
using a case study methodology offers a degree of transferability in that applicable theories and
understandings in the data can connect the case with the rest of the world and broader related
phenomena (Baxter, 2016; Yin, 2003). The analysis I present here is influenced by and nested
within related literature and case studies, allowing for discussions beyond PLPP.
6.3 Social constructionism
This project employs a social constructionist approach since it centers on analyzing the
constructions of social structures and how they relate to human-wildlife interactions. In more
specific terms, this approach examines ways the participants in this project experience and
understand roadside bear viewing and its management. Social constructionism is a useful tool in
understanding the human dimensions of bear viewing, as it is a methodological approach
suggesting that people derive meaning from socially constructing the world they experience
(Andrews, 2012; Walker, 2015). In the case of this study, I chose to examine the lived
experiences of people who experience bear jams (Dudley & Stolton, 1999; Winchester & Rofe,
2016), as I knew the park had little data on human data relating to roadside bear viewing.
In my project, I have chosen to use the term 'social constructionism' over 'social constructivism'.
While Andrews (2012) acknowledges that the terms “tend to be used interchangeably,”
constructivism holds that “each individual mentally constructs the world of experience through
cognitive processes,” while constructionism “has a social rather than an individual focus”

12

(Andrews, 2012, p. 39). In the case of researching human perceptions of bear viewing, the
knowledge and truth of people's experiences and understandings of roadside bear viewing is
informed by their lived experiences (e.g., observations, familiarity/comfort with bears, or
work/volunteer experience) and key elements of these (e.g., stories told by others, messaging
about bears and cultures of risk). However, these understandings are also related to more general,
societal constructions that extend beyond individual experiences and lives. Lemelin and Wiersma
describe constructionism concerning wildlife tourism as “seeking to understand the lived reality
of those who are the subject of reflection, to find out what is meaningful to the actors” (Lemelin
& Wiersma, 2007b, p. 38). Perceptions of wildlife occur at the intersection of personal
experience and social influences. These perceptions influence how people engage in bear
viewing, and in turn, how they might respond to park management interventions. Tourist sites
are where visitors construct and reflect social meaning (Lemelin & Wiersma, 2007a). Human
dimensions research in PLPP can provide key insights into the types of messaging most likely to
influence visitor behavior. Roadside bear viewing from the perspective of visitors and experts
could help managers make more informed decisions about management (Lemelin & Wiersma,
2007a).
Lemelin and Wiersma (2007a) identify a need for human dimensions research in bear
management, especially in parks and protected areas facing human-bear interactions.
Emphasizing qualitative questions and answers in this project allows me to present roadside bear
viewing and potential ways to address it in participants' own words. Understanding the social
factors contributing to experiences and perceptions of wildlife tourism can provide a valuable
perspective for park management, complement quantitative data, and provide unique insights to
improve management interventions.

13

6.4 Adapted grounded theory
Adapted grounded theory is a methodological approach designed to generate theory from
data (Punch, 2013). To conduct this research, I wanted to incorporate prior knowledge gained
from my observations and conversations as a park staff member, as well as familiarity with
related case studies and literature of bear viewing, park management, and park communications.
It made sense to use adapted theory for this project because it allowed both inductive and
deductive analysis of the data. I searched for themes arising in expert interviews and visitor
surveys while simultaneously considering preconceived notions and anticipated findings. This
project’s research design also fits with the conceptualization of grounded theory, as it is a nonprescriptive process that acts as an adaptable guide for researchers (Bulawa, 2014).
There is no singular way of conducting grounded theory research. However, there are
integral elements of the theory, including theoretical sensitivity, theoretical sampling, the use of
a constant comparative method, and integrating theoretical memos into one's work (Bulawa,
2014, p. 165; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In designing and carrying out this project, I was attentive
to related theory (such as human dimensions of wildlife theory) via my literature review of
roadside bear viewing management across North America. This enabled me to be sensitive to
ideas and theories represented in related literatures but also to seek out an additional dataset to
complement and add to existing knowledge. Theoretical sampling also informed this project.
Glaser (1978) describes theoretical sampling as follows:
The data collection process for generating theory is whereby the analyst jointly collects,
codes, and analyses his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them
to develop his theory as it emerges. (Glaser, 1978, p. 36).
As part of a project-long iterative process, I categorized, re-categorized, and informed the data
through field notes and discussions with my supervisor. I used the constant comparative

14

technique in the coding process to limit the impact of preconceived ideas on my analysis. In the
constant comparative technique, as described by Bulawa, “each incident should be compared
with previous incidents in the same group as well as different groups that may [be] coded in the
same category” (Bulawa, 2014, p. 157; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The adapted grounded theory
approach allowed me to investigate human dimensions of PLPP within the broader context of
related literature and practices.
7 Methods
I used a mixed methods approach to address the project’s three research questions. This
approach allowed for collecting quantitative and qualitative data via interviews and online
surveys. As this project is a case study linked to broader contexts, employing a mix of
approaches and methods afforded me with tools to triangulate upon key topics. I used expert
interviews and an online visitor survey to generate original data on human-bear interactions in
PLPP.
7.2 Visitor survey
Past visitors to PLPP were a key demographic in this case study since visitors are the
primary participants of roadside bear viewing within the park. To reach visitors during the
COVID-19 era, I used an online survey to collect data on their experiences and perceptions of
roadside bear viewing in PLPP. The survey included questions about a) bear viewing and bear
jams, b) park management strategies, and c) public education, outreach, and messaging
associated with roadside bear viewing.
Surveys are a valuable tool for collecting original data about phenomena, behaviours,
experiences, and attitudes, and are standard tools in parks and tourism-related research (Best &
Harrison, 2009; McGuirk & O'Neill, 2016). For example, a survey conducted by Richardson et

15

al. (2015) gathered information from park visitors about park policies and management
initiatives. The 2015 Richardson et al. visitor survey informed some of the survey questions for
this research project (Appendix A). The Richardson et al. survey asked about perceptions of
roadside bear viewing and management practices after visitors were provided with information
about Yellowstone's past and current roadside bear policies and management challenges
(Richardson et al., 2015).
I used the Survey Monkey platform to create and distribute the survey, which consisted
of 27 questions (including both open-ended and closed-ended questions). The surveying period
was from June 1 to September 15, 2021. Promotion and recruitment occurred online via social
media, through a project website, in a printed newspaper ad, on the radio, and via information
sharing at visitor centres throughout the Kananaskis region (Appendix C). To encourage and
reward survey participation (Stähli & Joye, 2022), 100 stickers were given away in a draw for
completed surveys, in addition to a larger prize draw for a pair of binoculars. A total of 380
respondents completed the survey. The results of the visitor survey are presented in Chapter 3.
7.3 Expert interviews
Experts on bears and bear management were another key demographic in this project. I
used semi-structured interviews to learn how park staff and other experts in the Kananaskis area
experienced, perceived, and understood roadside bear viewing and related risks in PLPP. I chose
to use a semi-structured interview format because it allows for the open-ended exploration of
varied knowledge and perceptions (Dunn, 2016, p. 150).
The semi-structured interview guide consisted of 13 questions of various types, including
open, closed, and ranking questions. I conducted the interviews online (via Zoom) and over the
phone (Appendix B). I contacted 42 experts initially and completed 22 total interviews with a

16

participation rate of 52%. Interviews took place between July and November 2021. It is pertinent
to note that all research occurred during the COVID-19 era. The pandemic likely affected
people's ability or interest in participating in this study due to pandemic-related pressures,
demands, and other resource-related challenges. Chapter 4 of this thesis presents the data and
analyses associated with the expert interviews.
7.4 Use of the term “expert”
7.4.1 Rationale
Scientific knowledge is “a dominant lens through which humanity makes sense of, and
decisions about, environmental change” (Ellis, 2005; Partidario & Sheate, 2013; Rathwell et al.,
2015, p. 2; Smith & Sharp, 2012). However, over the last few decades, scholars and practitioners
are realizing how relying solely on scientific lenses has led to the “detrimental exclusion of
knowledge produced by local scientific practices” such as agency and institutional knowledge
(Fortmann & Ballard, 2011; Tengö et al., 2014, p. 6). It is for this reason that many scholars of
conservation, parks management, and tourism have increasingly called for diverse forms of
expertise to be incorporated into both the study and management of parks, conservation, and
recreation sites (Fazey et al., 2006; Tengö et al., 2014).
The incorporation of a more comprehensive set of participants into scientific research and
knowledge production fits into the concept of “open science” (Fraisl et al., 2022), and with the
increased attention paid by conservation and park management to the necessity for incorporating
more diverse actors, forms of expertise, and vantage points for holistic success in the long term.
Bringing together the expertise of actors from different knowledge systems has been argued to
create “novel and hybrid understandings of environmental change and adaptation strategies”
(Armitage et al., 2011; Rathwell et al., 2015, p. 7). In applied natural resource management,

17

incorporating different knowledge systems “between actors and across scales” can contribute to a
better understanding and management of natural resource challenges (Fazey et al., 2013; GómezBaggethun et al., 2013; Rathwell et al., 2015, p. 7). In the article “Creating Synergies between
Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge” by Tengö et al. (2021, p. 1), the
integration of local knowledge in environmental management and conservation is explained as
bringing such benefits as:
•

…strengthening public engagement with environmental issues and building partnerships
for better governance (Januchowski-Hartley et al., 2016; Visseren-Hamakers, 2013);

•

…contributing local and context specific knowledge that can improve management
implementation and efficiency and also increase the capacity to transform decisions into
actions that are sustained over time (Danielsen et al., 2007, 2010); and

•

…contributing complementary and unique knowledge on ecosystem dynamic and human
nature interactions over time (Gadgil et al., 1993; Gavin et al., 2015; Tengö et al., 2021,
p. 1).

Expert interviews can be used to provide access to a specific, localized area of knowledge. In
addition, experts have awareness, observational and experiential expertise in their field of work
and have “a shared understanding of the social relevance of the research” (Bogner, et al., 2009,
p. 2). Furthermore, expert interviews help us to understand relevant stakeholders' various forms
of knowledge, values, and decision-making processes (Young et al., 2018).
7.4.2 Approach
To better understand the human dimensions of roadside bear viewing in PLPP, I chose to
focus on two key groups. One group was experts who inform, work with, and experience
roadside bear viewing as a phenomenon in PLPP, and the second group was visitors to PLPP.

18

These two groups represent those most closely involved in roadside bear viewing in the park.
The experts interviewed were chosen because of their knowledge, applied experience, and skills,
and for a diversity of vantage points, experiences, and opinions.
Experts included Alberta Parks and Parks Canada staff members working in different
positions—conservation officers, bear technicians, and communications staff. Interviewees also
included “local experts” such as volunteers and NGO staff members (Berkes, 2004; Fazey et al.,
2006). Local experts bring expertise to a more holistic understanding of roadside bear viewing
and the human dimensions of wildlife more broadly (Berkes, 2004; Fazey et al., 2006).
Furthermore, reports and messaging about human-bear interactions in the Kananaskis/Bow
Valley are generated by various actors, not just Alberta Parks staff.
To qualify as an “expert” in the initial selection of interviewees for this project, participants
met at least two of the following criteria representing extensive knowledge of bear viewing and
proximity to bear jams and their management in PLPP. Prospective participants had to have:
•

education/training (either professional training or academic education) in a field relating
to parks and protected areas, bear management, bear ecology, or bear aversion;

•

over five years experience either working for a park (either Alberta Parks or Parks
Canada) in PLPP, a park bordering PLPP, or volunteering for an NGO operating in
Kananaskis; and

•

work or volunteer-related experience associated with roadside bear viewing (i.e.,
enforcement, visitor relations, bear aversion, bear monitoring, management planning).

The above guidelines were chosen to ensure that interviewed participants held scientific or local
knowledge/experience of human-bear interactions and roadside bear viewing. I was interested in
presenting validated knowledge on roadside bear viewing through interpreting patterns and

19

themes within and across the expert interviews and visitor surveys. According to Tengö et al.
(2014), validation of knowledge can be achieved through triangulation, and they interpret
“validity” as:
…not only as the extent to which our observations reflect the phenomena we are
interested in (which implies continually checking, questioning and theoretically
interpreting findings), but the collective judgment we can derive from such
interpretations. For example, one can use different data sources to triangulate, checking
the meaning of extreme cases, looking for contrary examples, examining rival
explanations, and obtaining feedback from collaborators. This “intersubjective” approach
to collaboration across knowledge systems should be complemented by “communicative
validity,” in which the validity of knowledge claims is tested in a dialogue with
informants and peers (Kvale, 1995; Tengö et al., 2014, p. 584).
In my project, I triangulated roadside bear viewing via three main data sets:
•

data collected via a visitor survey;

•

answers provided during expert interviews; and

•

a literature review that included government documents and academic peerreviewed articles.

I iteratively reviewed and analyzed the survey and interview data, comparing it with relevant
literature and communications with park staff. I kept detailed notes both on the analysis software
platform and in a research notebook. This analysis was conducted to address the data gap
identified by Alberta Parks and to provide human dimensions insights into how roadside bear
viewing is experienced and understood. Some studies have similarly triangulated such data sets
and included a more diverse categorization of experts. For example, Kinsley (2019) used expert
interviews, government documents and websites, and media coverage to understand the recent
ban on grizzly bear hunting and related influences, and Meletis (2007) included local people in
Tortuguero, Costa Rica, as experts on ecotourism and its impacts on the local village.
Furthermore, Fuentes et al. (2021) paired an expert workshop with diverse participants from a

20

range of academic, governmental, and non-governmental actors, with a survey of recreational
boaters to gain insights into potential conservation interventions to reduce boat strikes on sea
turtles in Florida.
A key goal of this project was to provide exploratory data and analyses about how
different groups of humans construct bear viewing and bear jams. To do this, I contacted experts
and used snowball sampling via participant referrals. The expert nature of these participants was
further emphasized by the networks of people and organizations that they were connected to.
Peer referrals were often shared, with the same names being put forward.
8 Ethical considerations
In accordance with ethical and legal research practice, all research tools and documents
used in this project were reviewed and approved by the UNBC Research Ethics Board
(E2021.0420.014.00). Documents and tools approved by the Research Ethics Board included the
expert interview guide, the visitor survey questions and platform, information/consent letters,
and all promotional materials (Appendix F). An Alberta Parks Research and Collection Permit
(Permit No: 21-277) was attained prior to conducting fieldwork (Appendix E).

21

Chapter 2: Background
1 Introduction
A literature review for this project included an overview of ecology and conservation
considerations for bears in Alberta and an examination of management strategies for bears, bear
viewing and human-bear interactions in PLPP and North America. I systematically identified and
reviewed articles on bear management, including gray literature (park reports and plans), park
websites, and other non-academic articles (e.g., NGO-authored texts) found in relevant humanwildlife databases. The literature review provided context and justification for the project
(Charles Sturt University, 2020), and informed my adapted grounded theory analysis of the
resulting data. The literature review was composed of three parts:
a) a review of the roadside bear viewing literature, including cases and strategies for
managing roadside bear viewing in parks outside of PLPP;
b) a brief overview of bear ecology, management, and human-bear interactions in
Alberta, including the Bow Valley region; and
c) examining past and present roadside bear viewing management within
Kananaskis.
To conduct this context-related literature review, I used specific search terms such as “humanwildlife conflict,” “human-wildlife interactions,” “bear jam*,” “highway bear viewing,”
“wildlife viewing,” “bear management,” “risk,” “roadside bear viewing,” and “aversive
conditioning,” and refined my searches to cover literature related to “human wildlife
interactions” and “human wildlife conflict” as they relate to bear viewing and its management. I
used database searches through the UNBC Geoffrey R. Weller Library website. While my focus
is on a Canadian case study, references from the United States were included. Although there are
22

limited studies on the human dimensions and management of roadside bear viewing in North
America, the literature does appear to be growing.
2 Context and practices
2.2 Bear management practices
An overview of the main objectives and strategies for general bear management is helpful
in situating this project in the field of human-bear research. In North America, Hopkins et al.
(2010) suggest that the four main objectives of bear management include conservation, sustained
yield harvest, predator/depredation control, and elements of human-bear management (Hopkins
et al., 2010, p. 154; Miller, 1990). Within the field of human-bear management, Hopkins et al.
(2010) further categorize management strategies into three groups: reactive, proactive, and
adaptive management (Table 1, p. 24). Reactive management typically focuses management
actions on individual bears on a case-by-case basis after an incident has occurred, whereas
proactive management is aimed at populations of bears to prevent conflicts (Hopkins et al.,
2010). Out of the three approaches, adaptive management tends to be cited as the most effective
of wildlife management strategies (Hopkins et al., 2010; Organ et al., 2020; Riley et al., 2003;
Williams et al., 2009). Adaptive management can reduce uncertainty in wildlife management
while allowing an agency/park to learn from its prior management actions (Organ et al., 2020, p.
105).

23

Table 1 Three types of wildlife management approaches (reactive, proactive, and adaptive) including their
targets, key strategies, and methods. Text is directly quoted from Hopkins et al., 2010 (Hopkins et al.,
2010, p. 156; Thompson & McCurdy, 1995; Walters, 1986).

Management
type

Target

Strategy

Methods

Reactive

Individual
bears

• Respond to bears involved
in incidents through prompt
and direct action.
• Prevent future conflict with
specific bears or reduce
local population if specific
individual can’t be
identified.
• Case-by-case basis.

• Capture (immobilization,
handling, and marking)
• Monitoring
• Removal (lethal or non-lethal)
• Translocation/relocation
• On-site release
• Hazing/aversive conditioning
• Closing areas to human access
• Increase harvest of bears to
reduce bear incidents

Proactive

• Deter or prevent individual
bears not previously or
currently involved in bear
incidents from being
involved in incidents.
Population
• Application of management
of bears
measures to people and
human-use areas where
conflicts and other bear
incidents occurred or may
occur.

• Management of edible waste
• Implementing food storage
• Regulations
• Exclusion (e.g., fencing)
• Public education
• Closing bear management
areas

Adaptive

Employs both reactive and proactive management methods. A dynamic
management strategy which adjusts according to new information from
management and research.

24

Another form of wildlife management related to this research project is the concept of
“holistic management” (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014; Gosnell et al., 2020; Savory & Butterfield,
2016). Holistic management was developed in the 1960s in the context of ranching/grazing
management, based on the concept that nature is composed of “integrated wholes, not parts, and
that all things are connected” (Gosnell et al., 2020, p. 849; Savory & Butterfield, 1999). A more
holistic, wider range of interventions in wildlife management that “integrates human and ecological dimensions, engages stakeholders in all aspects of management processes, and explicitly
identifies and pursues impact-focused objectives that reflect human values” can reduce
segregation between agencies and better achieve management objectives (Riley et al., 2002, p.
591). In bear management, a holistic management approach can involve elements including (but
not limited to) human dimensions, landscape (natural and human-made), bear habitat, and
infrastructure.
Understanding human perceptions of wildlife management can provide park managers
with new insights into the perceptions of the risks and benefits of a particular strategy. Bruskotter
& Wilson (2014) have emphasized how gaining public tolerance for wildlife management
strategies requires understanding human perceptions of risk/benefit, value for a species, and trust
in the agency (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014). Figure 3 (p. 26) is an adapted hazard-acceptance
model from Bruskotter & Wilson illustrating how to build human tolerance by combining visitor
perceptions of risk/benefit, understanding of visitor valuation of bears, trust in park management,
and control of a hazard (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014, p. 161).

25

Figure 3 Hazard-acceptance model for roadside bear viewing. Adapted with permission from Bruskotter,
J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to
find tolerance for large carnivores (p. 161). Conservation Letters, 7, 158–165.

This model is a useful tool for highlighting the roles that human dimensions data can play in
illuminating key elements of conservation and management. It can also be used to gauge
influences on levels of support for particular wildlife management approaches.
2.3 A literature review of management approaches to bear viewing
The literature review includes planning and management measures used to address
roadside bear viewing, and evidence of success for these measures. The literature review also
highlights forms of roadside bear viewing-related messaging that could be introduced in PLPP
through lessons learned from other documented campaigns. For instance, Yosemite National
Park started the “Red Bear Dead Bear” initiative in 2007—an engagement project aimed at
26

educating the public on roadside bear viewing safety and vehicular collisions with bears (Mazur
et al., 2018). This project involved developing and implementing a roadside bear viewing
messaging campaign followed by a review of its efficacy. Educational panels and signs that read
“Speeding Kills Bears” were put up along roadsides at sites where prior collisions had occurred
(Mazur et al., 2018; Yosemite Conservancy, 2019a). Contrary to expectations, the rates of bear
collisions increased after the project was introduced (National Park Service, 2019a). A possible
explanation for the increase in collisions was that the program contributed to a culture of higher
levels of the public/visitors reporting such incidents (Mazur et al., 2018). The red and yellow
signs that read “Speeding Kills Bears” were placed at the locations of bear strikes, yet “a major
oversight of the program was that [park staff] assumed drivers seeing the signs knew what they
meant” (Mazur et al., 2018, p. 391). The “Red Bear Dead Bear” case study offers valuable
lessons for PLPP, such as the importance of designing clear, understandable signage to
accompany management efforts, and the need to pilot initiatives. This case study signals that
visitors must understand where such a campaign or intervention comes from in terms of the
rationale behind it and the results it is expected to yield. It also reminds us that follow-up and
ongoing communication are imperative after something new is introduced, particularly if it is not
yielding the expected results.
Another case of interest is that of dynamic messaging in Yellowstone over the years.
Yellowstone National Park’s signage efforts offer an interesting survey of various messaging
formats to educate visitors on roadside bear viewing etiquette (National Park Service, 2019b).
Some considerations from Yellowstone might apply to Kananaskis. For example, online
resources for Yellowstone include a list of visitor guidelines on how to behave while observing
bears on the road. Furthermore, their official website has a short, informative video explaining

27

expectations and issues surrounding roadside bear viewing, and includes footage of undesirable
incidents (National Park Service, 2019b). In Yellowstone National Park, the approach to humanbear conflict management aims to balance visitor satisfaction with bear conservation (Coleman et
al., 2013; Gunther, 1994; National Park Service, 2019b). This is also key to the long-term
success of PLPP. Instead of discouraging visitors from stopping on the road to view bears (as is
done in Kananaskis), Yellowstone (and Yosemite) National Parks allow visitors to stop at
approved roadside pull-outs (Government of Alberta, 2019a; National Park Service, 2019b;
Yosemite Conservancy, 2019b), highlighting another tool that might prove useful for PLPP.
Yellowstone National Park has also begun publishing and publicly posting the Annual Bear
Management Report—an overview of bear-related initiatives and incidents for every season. It
presents yearly cub production, bear mortalities and causes of death, human-bear conflicts
(including a conflict map), specific management actions, and ecological monitoring projects
(National Park Service, 2019c). This report includes a specific section on 'Management of
Roadside Bear Viewing,’ citing 1,170 roadside bear jams, where staff spent 1,806 hours
managing bear jams (National Park Service, 2019c, p. 2).
These reports are easily accessible, relatively short (e.g., the 2019 report is 20 pages
long), include accessible graphs and tables, feature photos, and are clearly designed for public
consumption. The Yellowstone reports include budget percentages and staff hours dedicated to
bear jam management to conserve bears and to mitigate visitor impacts on bears. Public reports
highlighting roadside bear viewing's consequences and responses could improve staff-visitor
communications.
Another factor to consider while examining management strategies is funding and
resource (e.g., staffing) availability within and across parks. In practice, it is well known that

28

resource constraints can impact conservation and management goals. Park policy on paper often
does not translate to policy in action, hence the term “paper parks” (Dudley & Stolton, 1999).
For example, park policy is often not adequately enforced due to resource-related issues such as
insufficient funding and staffing resources for effective enforcement. Further, one should not
assume that the continued implementation of certain wildlife management programs correlates
with known success or effectiveness. Existing programming (and a lack of changes) frequently
reflect political or budgetary restrictions (Dudley & Stolton, 1999). There are many on-theground challenges that should be incorporated into recommendations for improved park
management. This project bridges suggestions from the literature and the data with knowledge of
park challenges on the ground.
3 Bears and people in the Bow Valley, Alberta
3.2 Grizzly bear management in Alberta
In 2010, a DNA-based population inventory was conducted in Alberta, which suggested
an approximate grizzly bear population of 691 individuals (Festa-Bianchet, 2010; Government of
Alberta, 2020e). In the province of Alberta, grizzly bear management falls under seven ‘Grizzly
Bear Management Areas’ (BMAs) (Figure 4, p. 31). Each BMA has been identified as a unique
social and ecological region for bear conservation. This project’s recommendations draw from
Alberta’s Grizzly Bear Management Recovery Plan and the BMA 5 specific recovery plan and
speak to the overarching goals and objectives of the current program. The goals for each BMA
differ slightly, but in general, they include:
…Reducing human-caused mortality, maintaining closure on hunting, controlling access
development and use, determining population size and trends, creating grizzly bear
priority areas, reducing the number of human/bear conflicts, maintaining current grizzly
bear distribution, developing and enhancing education programs, and establishing
regional implementation teams (Government of Alberta, 2016a, p. 4).

29

The goals of working to reduce the number of roadside bear viewing-associated human/bear
conflicts and developing and enhancing related education programs and align with the intentions
of this research project.
In addition to determining provincially identified grizzly bear management objectives,
the province of Alberta also provides educational content regarding bear safety. The Alberta
government provides public resources on bear safety through visitor centres and their website.
The “Alberta BearSmart Program Manual” is one of the resources available as part of the more
extensive Alberta BearSmart Program2. The manual outlines key messages surrounding bear
safety in the province to “enhance public safety, reduce bear mortalities and contribute to
fostering a stewardship ethic that promotes bear conservation” (Government of Alberta, 2011, p.
4). The BearSmart Manual is helpful as it outlines the provincial government’s standardized
messaging surrounding bears, bear management, and bear safety. However, the document does
not provide information specifically focused on roadside bear viewing practices, suggesting that
an update is needed. Furthermore, roadside bear viewing guidelines are not readily accessible in
PLPP; access to such information is limited to visitor centre recommendations or self-directed
online access.

2

Alberta BearSmart Manual: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9780778570431

30

Figure 4 Map showing the seven bear management areas
(BMAs) in Alberta. Reprinted with permission from
Government of Alberta. (2020e). Alberta Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan (p. 12). Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460147917.

3.3 Bear management in the Bow Valley
As is the case with many contemporary conservation efforts, grizzly and black bear
management in the Bow Valley involves multi-actor cooperation and partnerships. It occurs
through collaboration with many agencies, including the Government of Alberta (including

31

Alberta Parks), Parks Canada, and the municipalities of Banff and Canmore. This section will
briefly examine a few of the related management plans and working groups in Kananaskis.
The Eastern Slopes Grizzly Bear Project (ESGBP) was an 11-year project in the Central
Rockies Ecosystem (including the Kananaskis region and Banff National Park) aiming to gather
data on the population dynamics, reproduction, and mortality of grizzly bears and the influences
people have on them (Herrero & Gibeau, 2005). The ESGBP developed nine categories of
management recommendations, including:
•

demography and monitoring;

•

mortality (recording, understanding and managing);

•

habitat (distribution, selection, security, connectivity);

•

bear-human conflict (avoiding and managing);

•

interagency coordination and cooperation;

•

planning/management strategies and processes;

•

public/business/First Nation involvement and information exchange;

•

funding to maintain grizzly bears; and

•

implementation of ESGBP management recommendations (Herrero & Gibeau, 2005 pp.
228-240).

The data and recommendations from the ESCBP have been integral to providing a better
understanding of the grizzly bear population and management challenges to decision-makers and
researchers in the Bow Valley (Carruthers Den Hoed, 2020).
A contributing group to bear management in the Kananaskis/Bow Valley is The Bow
Valley Human-Wildlife Coexistence Technical Working Group. This working group reports on
the state of human-wildlife coexistence in the Bow Valley and consists of various governmental
32

and non-governmental stakeholders (Alberta Environment & Parks, 2018). The working group
identifies human-wildlife issues in the region and forms recommendations to reduce humanwildlife conflict with various species, including bears.
Cooperation with Indigenous knowledge keepers is also a component of contemporary
management in the area. In 2016, the Stoney Nakoda partnered with the Foothills Research
Institute and Alberta Environment and Parks to identify culturally significant places in the park
to document traditional knowledge of grizzly habitat. This comprehensive assessment,
"Enhancing grizzly bear management programs through the inclusion of cultural monitoring and
traditional ecological knowledge," provides traditional insight into the region's populations,
management, and cultural values of grizzly bears (Stoney Tribal Administration, 2016).
Recommendations from this assessment include:
•

conducting ceremonies to support Indigenous relationships with grizzly bears and
culturally significant areas;

•

providing activity restrictions for areas in Kananaskis identified as critical periods and
places for grizzly bear activity;

•

pursuing ongoing cultural monitoring for grizzly bears, restricting development in
specified areas of Kananaskis;

•

creating more wildlife crossing structures; and

•

supporting Stoney Cultural Awareness to acknowledge and educate about Traditional
Knowledge perspectives (Stoney Tribal Administration, 2016, pp. 23-24).

Non-profit organizations, such as Yellowstone to Yukon, also contribute data to assist in
managing bears in the Bow Valley. For example, in 2022, Yellowstone to Yukon released a
cumulative effects report with collaboration from Alberta Parks and the towns of Canmore and
33

Banff (Yellowstone to Yukon, 2022). This report highlighted critical grizzly corridors and
implications for further development in the valley (Carlson et al., 2022). This brief overview of
existing working groups and their management approaches emphasizes the complexity of bear
management, the diverse forms of expertise included (government; NGO; Indigenous), and the
multi-actor collaboration that is part of bear management in the Bow Valley Region.
4 Management of bear viewing specific to Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
4.2 Bears in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
PLPP is located within Bear Management Area 5 of the Alberta BMAs (Figure 4, p. 31).
The park comprises alpine and subalpine regions and is home to an abundance of black bears and
a population of approximately 50–75 grizzly bears—the number fluctuating due to the range and
movement of the species (Government of Alberta, 2006). PLPP provides critical habitat for
grizzly bears (Garshelis et al., 2005). Grizzly bears have been a threatened species in Alberta
since 2010 due to “population size, human-caused mortality rates and questionable habitat
quality” (Government of Alberta, 2016a). In the Kananaskis region (including PLPP), natural
food sources for grizzly bears include green vegetation, insects, rodents, berries, and carrion
(Munro et al., 2006). In 2020, there were 12 known grizzly bear mortalities in BMA 5 (five or
42% were highway mortalities and four involved young-of-the-year cubs), which is the highest
mortality rate in BMA 5 since 2009 (Government of Alberta, 2022d). The prevalence of
highway-bear collisions in the region highlights the importance of reducing impacts for roadside
bears.
4.3 Past and current management strategies
The Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks Management Plan is the
overarching framework in PLPP. This management plan has an ecosystem-based approach with

34

an overarching objective to balance ecosystem protection with human use (Government of
Alberta, 2006, p. 4). The management plan acknowledges that “people are a fundamental part of
the ecosystem,” and that “understanding the relationship between people and the environment is
the foundation of good management decisions” (Government of Alberta, 2006, p. 4).
The following bullets are the proposed management objectives in order of prioritization from the
Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks Management Plan:
a) preservation: to preserve or enhance naturally occurring ecosystems including especially
rare or uncommon species and to ensure that natural ecological processes are allowed to
occur;
b) outdoor recreation: to provide opportunities for recreational uses such as camping,
hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, boating, and fishing;
c) heritage appreciation: to provide opportunities for visitors to experience, understand
and appreciate the natural resources of the parks; and
d) heritage tourism: to provide opportunities for visitors to experience and enjoy high
quality natural, cultural and scenic resources through provision of appropriate sustainable
tourism facilities and services. (Government of Alberta, 2006, p. 18).
Currently, roadside bear viewing incidents and bear jams in PLPP are responded to by Alberta
Parks staff, including Conservation Officers, Bear Technicians, and Park Recreation and
Resource Officers. Conservation Officers are presently the only staff that have enforcement
powers (i.e., the only ones who can issue tickets and fines for roadside bear related violations). In
addition to enforcement, messaging about bears and roadside bear viewing is key to preventing
and mitigating bear jams (Abrams et al., 2020; Richardson et al., 2015). Information about
roadside bear viewing does not come from the park alone. Volunteers from local NGOs,
35

including Bow Valley WildSmart and the Friends of Kananaskis, support Alberta Parks staff by
educating the public about roadside bear safety and, at times, assisting with the set-up of
temporary no-stopping zones used to prevent bear jams from growing. These no-stopping zones
are sections of the highway where a bear jam has formed or is likely to form. Staff or volunteers
set up temporary stop signs and move traffic along to prevent traffic build-up and human-bear
conflict.
Most of the roadside bear viewing management effort in PLPP, however, is directed at
bears rather than humans (Carruthers Den Hoed, 2020). Aversive conditioning is a key element
of the bear management program in Kananaskis. Bear Technicians and Conservation Officers
use noise and pain stimuli to “discourage bears from utilizing developed areas such as
campgrounds and residential areas and to increase the wariness of those bears when interacting
with the public” (Government of Alberta, 2011; Government of Alberta, 2020c, p. 17). Research
by Honeyman (2008) found that in radio-collared bears, aversive conditioning increased bears’
wariness with respect to humans, and led to grizzly bears being less likely to visit areas
frequented by humans (Honeyman, 2008). Most of the aversive conditioning in PLPP occurs
along roadsides (Government of Alberta, 2020c). This illustrates the influential role that roads
and roadside bear viewing occupy in park management of bear-human relations. For example,
out of 403 aversive conditioning actions in 2018, 59% of the actions took place along
roadsides—and 81% of the overall occurrences involved the same four collared bears
(Government of Alberta, 2020c). Figure 5 (p. 37) illustrates the high concentration of aversive
conditioning actions on grizzly bears in PLPP (Table 2, p. 38 for government definitions of
occurrences).

36

Figure 5 Bear management and grizzly bear occurrences in Bear Management Area
5, ranked by severity level (n= 238). The most aversive conditioning occurrences are
ranked as low severity and are in the northern half of BMA 5 in PLPP. As noted in
Table 2 (next page), low severity occurrences primarily consist of bears feeding on
natural foods within/along human development areas, including roads. Reprinted with
permission from Government of Alberta. (2020c). Grizzly bear occurrence summary
2018 bear management area (BMA) 5 (p. 11). Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/grizzly-bear-occurrence-summary-bma-5.

37

Table 2 Human bear occurrence definitions. Reprinted with permission from Government of Alberta.
(2020c). Grizzly bear occurrence summary 2018 bear management area (BMA) 5 (p. 24). Environment
and Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/grizzly-bear-occurrence-summary-bma-5.

One of the previously used techniques used for managing human-bear interactions in PLPP was
the Karelian Bear Dog program (KBD). This program involved specially bred and trained dogs
and skilled handlers for “bear shepherding.” Bear shepherding is when KBDs provide noise and
pain stimuli to “teach bears to recognize and avoid humans and their personal space or developed

38

site ‘boundaries’” (Honeyman, 2008, p. 3; Hunt, 2003). While no longer implemented in PLPP
(partly due to the cost of implementation), bear dog programs continue to operate in parks in the
United States, such as Denali and Glacier National Parks (Wind River Bear Institute, 2020).
5 Conclusion
Background information on grizzly bear management in the province of Alberta—and
more specifically, in PLPP, offers important context for understanding roadside bear
management and challenges in this place. The following two chapters will add layers of human
dimensions to this case study by presenting new data and analyses about visitor and expert
experiences and perceptions of roadside bear viewing and related management strategies.

39

Chapter 3: Visitor perceptions of bear jams and related management strategies
Abstract: Roadside bear viewing poses risks for both humans and wildlife. One such risk is the
formation of a “bear jam”—vehicle traffic jams resulting from when drivers stop or slow down
on a road to engage in bear viewing. Challenges associated with bear jams include potential
vehicular collisions, habituation of bears, costs in terms of park resources, and the need for
effective communication and outreach to park visitors. In Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
(PLPP), Alberta, substantial data gaps exist in terms of understanding and addressing the human
dimensions of human-bear interactions. An online survey was conducted (n=380) in 2021 to
gather visitor perceptions and experiences about bear jams and roadside bear management in
PLPP. Survey respondents indicated support for a balanced management of both humans and
bears in the park including the use of no-stopping zones; bolstering enforcement; and improving
consistency and accessibility of education, communication, and outreach tactics. The resulting
data and analyses provide insights into perceptions of risk and safety (for both humans and
bears) to inform management approaches aimed at reducing the negative impacts of roadside
bear viewing. This study combines scholarly and practical considerations with the aim of
establishing a more adaptive and holistic approach to managing roadside bear viewing in parks.

Keywords: Human wildlife interactions, park management, wildlife viewing, Ursus arctos,
human dimensions, wildlife management

40

1 Management implications and conclusions
Human dimensions-based research can provide unique insights in response to wildlife
management challenges. However, human dimensions research is often under-represented in
park decision-making. This project on roadside bear viewing was designed to collect visitor data
to improve roadside bear viewing management in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (PLPP),
Alberta. We discuss visitor experiences and perceptions of roadside bear viewing and explore
respondent’s support/lack of support for bear management strategies in the park. The main
findings of this study are that:
•

visitors to the park viewed bear jams as negatively impacting their park experiences;

•

while visitors expressed concerned about the impacts of roadside bear viewing on both
bears and humans, respondents emphasized a greater overall concern for bear-related
impacts;

•

there is a clear need for more concise, consistent, and readily available messaging
outlining desired human behaviours for roadside bear viewing; and

•

visitors reported general support for a multi-pronged management approach to bear
viewing, including additional staff/volunteer presence, signage and education, and
enforcement measures.

Contemporary management and evolving related literature suggest that informed park
management requires park agencies to recognize visitor values, behaviours, and insights (Bath,
1998; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019; Teel & Manfredo, 2010). Results discussed in this paper support
a holistic, adaptive approach to managing roadside bear viewing in PLPP.

41

2 Introduction
Visitors to the Rocky Mountains often want to engage with nature and wildlife. In PLPP,
bear viewing is a sought-after experience, yet poses risks to humans and wildlife (Penteriani et
al., 2017). “Bear jams” are vehicle traffic jams resulting from drivers stopping or slowing down
to view bears and are commonplace in PLPP (Gunther & Wyman, 2008; Richardson et al.,
2015). Known impacts of roadside bear viewing include vehicular collisions, vehicles striking
animals, habituation of bears to visitors and vehicles (can lead to bear relocation or destruction of
bears), diversion of park resources to bear jams (labour costs; time spent), and visitor satisfaction
and conservation challenges (Herrero et al., 2005; Penteriani et al., 2017).
In PLPP, roadside bear jams are primarily framed as a “bear problem” in park documents
and interventions. They are mainly managed via an aversive conditioning program directed at
bears and carried out by park staff. This program has been in place since 2001 and uses noise and
pain stimuli (often 12-gauge bean bags or rubber bullets) to “discourage bears from utilizing
developed areas such as campgrounds and residential areas and to increase the wariness of those
bears when interacting with the public” (Government of Alberta 2011; Government of Alberta,
2020c, p. 17). Staff are directed to bear jams from phone reports through Kananaskis Emergency
Services, in-person reports, and during park patrols. Out of 403 aversive conditioning actions
towards bears in PLPP in 2018, 59% of the actions took place along roadsides—and 81% of the
overall occurrences involved the same four collared bears, illustrating the influential role that
roads and bear jams occupy in park management of bear-human relations in PLPP (Government
of Alberta, 2020c). The combined popularity of bear viewing and the need to properly manage it
for both conservation and recreation goals must be considered together for the long-term success

42

of PLPP. The sections that follow detail aspects of these dual management goals and how this
project fits within them.
2.2 Bear jam-related collaboration and education
Local Non-Profit Governmental Organizations (NGOs) such as Bow Valley WildSmart
and the Friends of Kananaskis contribute to the educational element of the Alberta government’s
human-bear conflict mitigation approach. While the park and other organizations deliver a
breadth of interpretive programs, bear safety workshops and presentations, there is a gap in terms
of on-site messaging specific to roadside bear viewing in PLPP (e.g., no permanent roadside bear
viewing-specific signs and information exist on site). Some bear safety guidance is available to
campers, hikers, and mountain bikers but it is mainly limited to brochures and online content that
visitors must seek out themselves (Government of Alberta, 2011, 2020c).
2.3 Roadside bear management in nearby parks
While PLPP management tends to focus on the “bear side” of roadside bear management,
other parks in the region take a more human-centered approach. For example, the “Wildlife
Guardians” program in Jasper, Banff, and Waterton National Parks dedicates specific staff to
monitoring highways within these parks for bear jams and provides interventions and visitor
education on responsible wildlife viewing (Parks Canada, 2019a, 2020). Learning from such
examples and others further afield could be a consideration in refining roadside bear viewing
management.
2.4 Research project
The management of roadside bear viewing encompasses a variety of overlapping
considerations, including human, bear, habitat, and infrastructure management. Each of these can
be approached via the literature, park practice, and by incorporating knowledge from the

43

involved actors. This paper reports on the project component designed in collaboration with staff
in PLPP to provide insights into visitor perceptions and understandings of roadside bear viewing.
The larger project included expert perspectives and was geared towards providing information
that might assist in reducing the negative impacts of roadside bear viewing while maintaining
visitor satisfaction. The two guiding research questions were:
1) What are the perceived risks associated with roadside bear viewing—including bear jams—in
PLPP from the perspectives of park staff, visitors, and other local experts (NGO staff members,
residents, volunteers)? and
2) Considering the literature and this case study, how could the management of roadside bear
viewing in PLPP be improved?
3 Context, considerations, and key concepts
3.2 Study area
PLPP is part of the larger Kananaskis Region in Alberta. The park is over 50,000 ha in
size and consists of montane, subalpine, and alpine habitats (Government of Alberta, 2017a).
The current management plan for PLPP includes the neighbouring Spray Valley Provincial Park,
and park management priorities include preservation, outdoor recreation, heritage appreciation,
and heritage tourism (Government of Alberta, 2006). One of the priorities in the management
plan is to maintain a sustainable grizzly bear population, as these two parks ‘appear to be
important areas for grizzly bear cub production’ (Government of Alberta, 2006, p. 10). Two
other guiding management documents for the park include the Provincial Parks Act and the 1999
Kananaskis Country Recreation Policy.
With striking mountain landscapes, wildlife viewing opportunities, seven vehicleaccessible campgrounds, six backcountry campgrounds, over 220 km of trails and a variety of
44

recreational opportunities, PLPP attracts a diverse and growing visitor population (Government
of Alberta, 2006, p. 13). The park is located an hour from Calgary—a city of over 1.3 million
people (Statistics Canada, 2017a), and as a result, experiences high visitor rates. The most recent
publicly available statistic from PLPP is from 2011, suggesting over 1 million visits that year
(Alberta Tourism, Parks, and Recreation, 2014). In Kananaskis Country, there were an estimated
5.4 million visitors in 2020 (Colgan, 2020).
As the park receives more visitors, PLPP may face heightened human impacts. Two
highways intersect the park—Highway 40 (paved) and the unpaved Highway 742 (SmithDorrien Highway). The park is a critical habitat and movement corridor for wildlife, so these
highways provide wildlife viewing opportunities (Garshelis et al., 2005). PLPP is home to an
abundance of black bears (recent population estimate unknown) and a population of
approximately 50–75 grizzly bears—the number fluctuates due to the range and movement of the
species (Government of Alberta, 2006). Bear viewing is a popular tourist activity in the Bow
Valley corridor, and most often occurs along roadways. Roadside bear viewing poses risks to
visitors, park staff, and wildlife (Penteriani et al., 2017).
3.3 Impacts of COVID-19 and provincial politics
Given that this case study was conducted during a particular timeframe (June 1 to
September 15, 2021), it is important to mention certain key influences. COVID-19, its impacts,
and related guidelines and regulatory changes (at the federal and provincial levels in Alberta,
Canada) impacted visitation to the area during the time this project was carried out. For example,
international visitation was much lower than usual (Templeton et al., 2021).
Additionally, interpretation and public education programs were not operating in the
Kananaskis region in 2021 because of changes to provincial government policy and budgets,

45

including the introduction of the 2020 provincial ‘Optimizing Alberta Parks’ plan. This plan
included the de-gazettement of certain provincial parks and budgetary curtailments leading to the
temporary closure of two visitor centres in the Kananaskis region: the Barrier Lake Visitor
Information Centre and the Elbow Valley Visitor Centre. Furthermore, cuts to seasonal park
interpreter and park ranger jobs resulted in limited educational programming (Government of
Alberta, 2020a, 2020b). By contrast, in more typical summer seasons, Kananaskis runs
educational programs including presentations in campgrounds/visitor centres, in-school
programming, and roving educators on trails. Noting such changes and regular practices is
important given that interpretive programs promote learning and engagement in natural resource
topics and can guide appropriate behaviour to reduce human-wildlife conflicts (Marley et al.,
2017; Moscardo et al., 2004; Orams, 1996).
4 Theoretical Framework
4.2 Human dimensions of wildlife
Human dimensions of wildlife (HDW) is a field of study that seeks to explain “human
thought and action regarding wildlife using the concepts and methods of social science,”
(Manfredo & Vaske, 1995, p. 17) and is used as a framework to inform this paper. The HDW
literature examines the different values people place on wildlife, how visitors/tourists/users
accept or reject implemented practices, their related expectations of wildlife managers, and the
influence of various stakeholders on wildlife management decisions (Decker et al., 1992, 2004;
Decker & Brown, 1989). Decker et al. (2004) suggest that HDW knowledge is influential on
wildlife management in three main ways: wildlife policies, management practices, and education
efforts/informed communications strategies (Decker et al., 2004, p. 193). HDW research can be
used to address questions relating to human attitudes, beliefs, and understandings of a wildlife-

46

related issue (Bath, 1998, p. 351). Terms and concepts from the HDW literature are incorporated
into this paper. The term “wildlife/bear viewing” is used in this paper to encompass so-called
non-consumptive (Meletis & Campbell, 2007) recreational animal viewing as a part of humanwildlife relations (Duffus & Dearden, 1990; Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001). The term “bears”
includes black bears and grizzly bears unless otherwise specified.
4.3 Political ecology
This project was informed by political ecology. Political ecology is a theoretically
informed approach to interpreting and understanding environmental issues and how they relate to
the broader contexts of human dimensions and social change (Campbell et al., 2007; Robbins,
2004; Wilshusen, 2003). Robbins (2007) describes political ecology as a lens to focus on humannature relationships to better “[understand] and [analyze] environmental influences on social
activity” (Robbins, 2007, p. 2). Political ecology acknowledges the “determinacy of human
culture on landscapes” (Robbins, 2007, p. 2). Political ecology scholarship contributed to the
contextualization and analysis of project data in this case. It also prompted us to pay attention to
factors such as policy changes and the influence of COVID-19 in this case study.
Political ecology is also relevant to this paper in terms of its emphasis on both applied
and academic outcomes, as well as consideration given to different types of actors and expertise
as they relate to conservation and management (Campbell et al., 2007; Robbins, 2004). This
project aimed to include different actors, integrate different perspectives, and ultimately,
illuminate shared interests between actors linked to bear viewing in PLPP. We also drew on the
type of approach used in many political ecology studies in generating a case study of a
phenomenon in situ. Our approach was to triangulate official sources such as government
documents and websites, visitor data, and expert interviews, as well as personal and professional

47

observations. Integrating a political ecology framework into this project assisted in identifying
possible influences on visitors in the absence of clear behavioural guidelines (Stott & Sullivan,
2000, p. 4). In addition, this framework allowed for the holistic integration of politics, beliefs,
and values as forwarded via respondent (and expert) explanations of roadside bear viewing and
contributing factors.
5 Project design, methods, and data collection
5.2 Survey design and sampling strategy
To gain insights into visitor understandings of roadside bear viewing in PLPP, we
conducted an online survey with 27 questions (23 closed; 4 open-ended). An online survey was
chosen as COVID-19 institutional and government-related ethics restrictions made it the most
appropriate way to reach people during the pandemic (Newman et al., 2021). Furthermore,
online surveys are fitting for visitation studies as they are time and cost effective and they can
reach a large sample, regardless of where respondents may be (Best & Harrison, 2009). The
survey was available from June 1 to September 15, 2021, as this timeframe aligned with the bear
viewing season in PLPP. The survey was hosted by the online platform SurveyMonkey.
Purposive sampling was used to recruit people with past PLPP visitation experiences by
limiting participation to those who had self-identified as visiting PLPP within the past five years
(Etikan, 2016; Palys, 2008). Distribution of the online survey link was supported through
collaboration with project partners and non-profit groups in the region, including Friends of
Kananaskis and Bow Valley WildSmart (shared through organization newsletters and websites).
The survey link was additionally shared on 10 Facebook groups relating to tourism, wildlife
viewing, recreation, and community in Kananaskis and Alberta (Franz et al., 2019; Sloan &
Quan-Haase, 2017). Additionally, an ad was published in a Canmore newspaper inviting the

48

public to participate in the survey, a local radio station promoted the survey for two weeks, and
posters advertised the survey at the Elbow Valley and Kananaskis Visitor Information Centres
and the Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre. The chosen organizations, locations, and pages are
logical arenas for recruitment as they consist of individuals interested in wildlife, including park
visitors (Etikan, 2016; Sloan & Quan-Haase, 2017).
Some biases likely exist in the data because purposeful sampling and strategic
recruitment were used through specific sites and groups (Etikan, 2016; Saumure & Given, 2008a,
2008b). For example, we likely excluded those without regular internet access, and we may have
over-recruited certain types of respondents. Those who responded to the link shared on social
media pages may have a vested interest in sharing opinions and insights because they want to
influence change in their community (Saumure & Given, 2008a). Furthermore, social desirability
bias—the desire for respondents to present themselves in the most favorable manner according to
social norms of their region—may have impacted respondent answers (King & Bruner, 2000;
Leggett et al., 2003; Smith, 2007). Therefore, patterns recorded among this group of respondents
might not be reflective of the larger group of people with PLPP visitation experiences (Etikan,
2016).
It was difficult to recruit prior international visitors to PLPP since visitation patterns had
changed in 2020 and 2021 due to COVID-19, and since regional and local sites/pages were used
(Lebrun & Bouchet, 2021; Templeton et al., 2021). We were unable to find visitation
demographics for the Kananaskis region from non-pandemic seasons, however, a study by Geng
et al. (2021) found that international visitors made up 46% of surveyed respondents in their 2019
case study in Banff National Park (neighbouring PLPP). A summary of provincial visitation

49

characteristics reports international visitors made up approximately 7% of visitors in Alberta in
2019 (Government of Alberta, 2022f).
The mixed methods survey consisted of quantitative closed and ranking style questions as
well as more qualitative open-ended questions. Five questions used a 5-point Likert scale
(strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree) to measure
respondent opinions, values, and beliefs, and allow for consistency in analysis, and one question
used a 4-point scale to measure respondent support on management strategies (Horst & Pyburn,
2018). The survey was crafted to elicit visitor comments on roadside bear viewing, bear jam
experiences, and perceptions of the impacts of bear jams and bear viewing management, as well
as suggested improvements.
The survey questionnaire had four main sections:
a) visitation profile and demographics;
b) experiences and initial perceptions of roadside bear viewing in PLPP;
c) constructions of risk associated with roadside bear viewing; and
d) opinions on interventions and management strategies.
Similar surveys are commonplace in tourism and recreation scholarship and have also been used
to collect data on bear viewing and visitor perspectives in Yellowstone National Park
(Richardson et al., 2015; Taylor et al., 2014) and the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (Keating
& Krannich, 2020). For example, a survey conducted by Richardson et al. (2015) gathered
information from park visitors on perceptions of roadside bear viewing and management
practices to inform park policy and management through human dimensions data (Richardson et
al., 2015). The 2015 Richardson et al. visitor survey informed some of the survey questions for
this research project.
50

5.3 Data analysis and interpretation of codes
Adapted grounded theory (Bulawa, 2014; Punch, 2013) was used to search for both
preconceived notions inspired by the literature and the author’s insider knowledge of PLPP, and
to look for new, emerging, and unexpected patterns in the qualitative data. Analysis consisted of
'adapted' rather than 'pure' or 'classical' grounded theory in that it was not solely data driven. It
drew on the researcher's reflexive nature, knowledge of the site, past experiences, and contextrelated observations. The author “recursively reviewed” data and code connections to critically
self-evaluate the process as “patterns, relationships, and differences [arose]” (Cope, 2016, p.
381).
NVivo was used to extract and record concept-driven thematic codes that emerged from
the three research questions (Cope, 2016; Gibbs, 2018), and in response to those questions.
Coding was used to capture themes, and these codes were re-organized throughout the analysis
to investigate relationships between responses and between data sets. Five main coding
categories were created:
•

perceived causes of roadside bear jams;

•

perceptions of past/present roadside bear management;

•

risks and impacts of roadside bear viewing;

•

experiences and perceptions of roadside bear viewing; and

•

perceptions/suggestions of alternative roadside bear management approaches.

After the first round of coding survey data into the main categories, sub-codes were created to
further categorize data, and four key elements of roadside bear management were identified
within each of the main categories (1-5 above): human-related, bear-related, habitat-related, and
infrastructure-related. Occurrences, patterns, and relationships between the sub-codes were
51

analyzed to address the project’s three research questions, and to offer insights into perceptions
of roadside bear management practices in PLPP.
6 Results
6.2 Sample characteristics
A total of 380 respondents completed the online survey (Table 3, p. 53), and the sample
was primarily Alberta-based (96%, 332). One-third of those respondents (33%, 115) were from
areas near PLPP, such as Bow Valley including the municipalities of Canmore, Banff,
Kananaskis, Exshaw, Lac Des Arcs, Dead Man’s Flats, and Lake Louise. In addition, 135 (39%)
respondents were from Calgary, and 24% (82) were from the rest of Alberta. Only 5 (2%)
respondents were from another province in Canada (British Columbia), and 3 (<1%) were from
outside Canada. As mentioned, the prominence of Albertan respondents is likely because of
survey distribution through Alberta-based Facebook groups, non-profit organizations, and visitor
centres. Travel and recreation patterns in the region were also skewed since the survey took place
during the COVID-19 pandemic (Templeton et al., 2021). Therefore, the resulting data do not
necessarily reflect an “average tourist” (in a non-pandemic season) if such a person exists (Zabel,
2014). Unfortunately, no official PLPP visitation statistics for that year (or years prior) were
available for comparison.
In addition to the Alberta bias, the sample was highly educated: 18% (61) respondents
had a master's degree and almost half (50%, 172) of respondents had either a bachelor's degree or
college diploma or trades certificate. These numbers are higher than provincial averages for
Alberta, where 58% of Albertans have either a bachelor's degree, college diploma, or trades
certificate (Statistics Canada, 2017a). Survey numbers fit better with the educational profile of
the nearby town of Canmore, where 68% of residents have a post-secondary qualification

52

(Government of Alberta, 2022a; Statistics Canada, 2017b). One-fifth of respondents (19%, 64)
reported having volunteered in PLPP. Sharing the survey link in online newsletters of local nonprofit organizations with large volunteer bases likely explains the prevalence of volunteer
respondents. Respondents who volunteered in Kananaskis were more likely to have intimate
knowledge of and understanding of respectful bear-viewing behaviours than non-volunteer
visitors.

Table 3 Survey respondent demographics (n= 380) including gender, age, education, and household
income. Top responses in each demographic category are highlighted.
Gender
(n=345)

Age
(n=346)

Education
(n=346)

Household Income
in CAD $
(n=344)

Non-binary
Female
Male
Prefer not to say
18-34 years old
35-49 years old
50-64 years old
65-79 years old
80 years or older
Prefer not to say
Some High School
High School Diploma
Some university, college or trade school
Bachelor's Degree or college diploma or
trades certificate
Master's Degree
Some graduate school
Ph.D/doctoral degree or equivalent
Prefer not to say
Under $15,000
Between $15,000 and $29,999
Between $30,000 and $49,999
Between $50,000 and $74,999
Between $75,000 and $99,999
Between $100,000 and $150,000
Over $150,000
Prefer not to say

<1% (1)
61% (210)
37% (128)
2% (7)
27% (94)
33% (115)
27% (92)
10% (33)
<1% (1)
3% (11)
1% (3)
4% (15)
17% (59)
50% (172)
18% (61)
2% (8)
4% (13)
4% (15)
<1% (1)
4% (12)
7% (25)
13% (44)
13% (43)
21% (73)
20% (70)
22% (76)

Participating visitors to PLPP reported engaging in a wide range of recreational activities
across all seasons. According to survey data, reported top activities in the park included day
53

hiking, sightseeing, hobby wildlife photography, front country camping, and picnicking. Bear
viewing was not evident as a primary reason for visiting PLPP in the sample group, and 57%
(213) of respondents replied that they travel to PLPP to see wildlife other than bears.
Furthermore, over half of respondents indicated no preference between seeing a black bear, a
grizzly bear, or a bear cub.
Alberta Parks and local non-profit organizations requested data on the prevalence of
wildlife photographers, as there is a pervasive belief that wildlife photography is a crucial
motivator for bear jams (personal communication, 2022). 10% (33) of respondents reported
participating in professional wildlife photography in PLPP. Further, 63% (227) reported
engaging in hobby/amateur wildlife photography.
6.3 Visitor interests and motivations
Participating visitors to PLPP reported engaging in a wide range of recreational activities
across all seasons. According to our survey data, their top reported activities in the park included
day hiking, sightseeing, hobby wildlife photography, front country camping, and picnicking.
Wildlife photography is a contentious element in managing roadside bear viewing in PLPP,
according to Author 1’s prior experiences working with park staff and living in the area. There is
a pervasive belief that wildlife photography is a crucial motivator for bear jams (personal
communication, 2022). Wildlife photography is represented in the survey—10% (33) of
respondents reported participating in professional wildlife photography in PLPP. Further, 63%
(227) reported engaging in hobby/amateur wildlife photography.
Respondents did not cite bear viewing as a primary reason for visiting PLPP. However,
when asked if bear viewing was one of the main reasons for their travel to PLPP, 25% (94)
agreed, 48% (180) disagreed, and the remainder 27% (106) replied neutrally. Over half of the

54

respondents indicated no preference between seeing a black bear, a grizzly bear, or a bear cub.
Finally, 57% (213) of respondents replied that they travel to PLPP to see wildlife other than
bears.
6.4 Experiences and perceptions
Almost two thirds of respondents (71%, 271) had seen a bear jam (or more than one) in
PLPP, and just over two thirds of respondents (77%, 293) had seen a bear jam somewhere other
than PLPP. Of those that had witnessed a bear jam in PLPP, over half (65%, 195), said that bear
jams had negatively impacted their experience in PLPP. Further, when asked “do you think that
bear jams are a significant problem in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park?” 51% (178) of survey
participants answered ‘yes’. Frustrations associated with bear jams included: anxiety induced by
watching visitors place themselves, others, and wildlife at risk, and becoming stuck in traffic on
the highway. Impacts and concerns highlighted by two respondents illustrate such inclusions:
It's incredibly frustrating to have cars slow down ahead of you and stop traffic to view
animals including bears so they can get a poor-quality picture to put on social media
which just incentivizes other people to act the same way. I've seen children leave cars
when cubs are in the area, I've seen people get way too close to bears, and I've seen
people be inconsiderate of other patrons by blocking traffic so they can stop their cars
and look (R286).
I grew up near Kananaskis and spent a great deal of my youth and young adult life
recreating and working in the area, though I have not visited the region for several years.
I stopped visiting because of the high visitor numbers and reckless behaviour so many of
them display both to each other on the highways and to wildlife when they encounter
them. It simply is no longer an enjoyable experience for me (R36).

55

While most respondents reported negative experiences and perceptions of roadside bear viewing
in PLPP, a small portion of the sample (3%, 23) highlighted positive impacts:
The chance to see a bear is a life-changing experience for many people (R50).
I have had so many profound experiences – bears are so remarkably beautiful and
amazingly adaptable (R101).
When asked about their behaviour while watching bears or other wildlife, most
respondents stated that rather than stopping upon seeing a roadside bear, they would continue to
drive by at a safe speed or slow down to view the bear (Table 4, p. 56). It is worth noting that the
breakdown of answers was quite similar when respondents were asked about wildlife more
generally. In each case, over half of respondents said they would “drive by at a safe speed”.
Respondents may have adjusted their answers to indicate more desirable behaviours given that
most of them reported being aware of bear jams’ potential negative impacts.
Table 4 Survey respondent reported behaviours when viewing wildlife on the road (n=377). *Short
period of time is less than 5 minutes; a longer period is more than 10 minutes. Top responses for both
prompts are highlighted.

If/when you see a
bear along the road
do you normally
(377)
If/when you see
other wildlife along
the road do you
normally (377)

Drive by
at a safe
speed

Slow
down to
view

Stop vehicle
for a short
period of time*

Stop vehicle
for a longer
period of time*

Get out of
vehicle

Approach
animal

55%
(208)

49%
(184)

31%
(118)

6%
(21)

1%
(5)

0

62%
(232)

49%
(184)

23%
(85)

5%
(17)

2%
(6)

0

The survey asked respondents about their perceptions of what causes bear jams through
three ways: an open-ended question inviting stories and experiences of bear jams, and two
closed-ended questions, one where respondents were given a list of ten causations of bear jams

56

and asked to select the top four they agreed with. The top reported causes of bear jams were that:
a) people want to get a photo or video, b) people are excited to see bears, and c) people do not
understand the risks and dangers of roadside bear viewing to themselves and to the bears (Figure
6, p. 58).
A recurring pattern in open-ended responses was the notion of herd mentality or peer
pressure playing a role in the manifestation and escalation of bear jams and associated
undesirable human behaviours. Participants suggested that the number of people involved was
key in inciting others to participate in a bear jam. A perceived local-tourist divide was also
present in the data—respondents suggested local people tended to be better behaved and
identified ‘tourists behaving badly’ as primarily being outsiders or non-locals, and those mainly
responsible for creating problems:
…cars pulled over on the side of the highway and suddenly stopping to pull over so a
bunch of stupid foreigners can attempt to take pictures and get too close (R271).
Before COVID, we [had] many tourists from other countries. There were very dangerous
situations with people getting out of their vehicles to get better photos of the bear and
also crossing the road in front of oncoming traffic (R356).

57

Figure 6 Survey respondent perceptions of why bear jams occur (n=356). Surveyed respondents were
given the question “Why do you think bear jams occur?” and then asked to select the top four statements
that they agree with. Results are presented above, in descending ranked order.

6.5 Understandings of risk
Several questions about the risks associated with roadside bear viewing were included in
the survey. These questions provided insights and explanations into undesirable visitor behaviour
and informed potential management responses. Over half (66%, 236) of respondents strongly
agreed that bear jams posed a risk to bears (22%, 77 agreed), whereas only 29% (102) of
respondents strongly agreed that bear jams posed a risk to humans (48%, 172 agreed). These
results suggest that this sample of visitors view bear jams as having more of a negative impact on
bears than on humans. The survey results differ from the perceptions of experts interviewed for
this project (Chapter 4).

58

Table 5 Survey respondent perceptions of safety around bears in PLPP. Survey respondents were asked
“How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements?” and to rank each statement
below. Top rankings for each statement are highlighted.

I feel comfortable spending time/recreating
in areas with bears (375)
I feel comfortable viewing bears from inside
a vehicle (376)
I feel comfortable viewing bears from outside
of a vehicle (376)
When visiting Peter Lougheed Provincial
Park, I worry about my safety or that of
others because of the bears nearby (376)
Bears in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
limit my recreational opportunities (376)

Strongly
disagree

Disagree

2%
8
1%
5
25%
95
18%
68

7%
28
3%
10
32%
119
30%
111

Neither
agree nor
disagree
1%
46
5%
19
16%
60
22%
81

41%
155

35%
131

18%
66

Agree

Strongly
Agree

48%
180
43%
160
21%
80
27%
100

30%
113
48%
182
6%
22
4%
16

5%
20

1%
4

Most respondents also reported being comfortable recreating in areas with bears (78%, 293) and
viewing bears from within their vehicles (91%, 342) (Table 5, p. 59), indicating that most
respondents were comfortable sharing space with bears.
Risk to bears
The survey also asked participants to specify which types of risks to people and bears
concerned them. Respondents’ main reported concerns about risks to bears were regarding the
habituation of bears to people—78.09% (278) of respondents either agreed (49%) or strongly
agreed (29%) that roadside bear viewing can make bears comfortable around people.
Respondents were likewise concerned about vehicles striking bears. Increased aggression of
bears towards humans was also ranked highly as a concern— 74% (264) of respondents either
agreed (49%) or strongly agreed (25%) that roadside bear viewing can make bears aggressive
towards people. Finally, a large percentage (75%, 269) of respondents indicated that roadside
bear viewing could increase the chances of bears being destroyed (killed) or relocated by park
staff.

59

6.6 Education, outreach, and communications
In response to being asked about where and how they accessed information relating to
bears and roadside bear viewing in Kananaskis, respondents indicated several key resources.
Alberta Parks Visitor Centres were the most reported locations for accessing educational
information (74%, 88). However, almost half of respondents said they also accessed educational
information via the Alberta Parks website (58%, 69), on Alberta Parks social media (48%, 57),
on another website/news/social media (51%, 61), or in a campground (55%, 65). Not accessing
information was also a prevalent theme in survey responses. More than half (56%, 202) of
respondents reported not ever (over all times visiting PLPP/Kananaskis) receiving educational
information about bear jams or safe and respectful wildlife viewing in PLPP/Kananaskis.
Respondent comments on the limited PLPP messaging on desirable and undesirable
human behaviour (i.e., in person, printed, online, signage) are unsurprising given the limited
resources that exist and the lack of signage in the park. Participant suggestions about how
communication with visitors might be improved included suggestions such as this:
…more clear communication would be a good step. There is consistent signage about not
feeding wildlife/leaving out attractants, but I can't say the same about avoiding bear jams
(R13).
It was criticized by survey respondents that wildlife viewing guidelines were unclear. One
respondent called for:
…[greater] consistency between parks and conservation staff on viewing. Some said it is
fine to watch, others tell me to move immediately (R268).
The critiques of messaging also fit with one of the main reasons selected as causing bear jams:
people do not understand the risks and dangers of roadside bear viewing to themselves and the

60

bears. This response indicates there is room for improvement in education and outreach in the
park about roadside viewing. The following quote highlights such needs:
The number of visitors who seem to have no knowledge of or preparation for the risks
they might encounter in the park has increased a lot over the years, even pre-COVID.
Ill-informed and ill-prepared drivers, hikers, etc. are posing risks to themselves, others,
and wildlife (R73).
The survey also invited participants to indicate which forms of media are likely to be most
effective in terms of connecting visitors with information, from their perspective. The perceived
usefulness of outreach/messaging mediums relating to roadside bear viewing varied widely
according to respondents. According to survey respondents, the top three “most effective” forms
of park-related messaging in this case are or would be in-person communication, information
shared by non-profit organizations, and information shared via Alberta Parks social media.
6.7 Support for management strategies
Respondents were also questioned about existing and possible future management
strategies. When presented with five management interventions associated with roadside bear
viewing, those surveyed generally supported a wide range of park management actions. For
example, respondents supported increased signage, increased investment in more significant staff
presence, increased fines, and no-stopping zones to deter bear jam formation (Table 6, p. 62).
The least popular intervention was reduced speed limits along Hwys 40 and 742. Only 40%
(141) respondents expressed support for this hypothetical measure. At the same time, 37% (131)
of respondents indicated not supporting reduced speed limits on Hwy 40 and 742 to prevent bear
viewing. The 37% who indicated being unsupportive of reduced speed limits also elicited the
largest “unsupportive” response, by far.

61

Table 6 Survey respondent support for roadside bear management strategies in PLPP. Top rankings are
highlighted. *Hwy 40 and Hwy 742 are the two main roads that lead into PLPP. Hwy 742 (aka “SmithDorrien Highway” or “Spray Lakes Road”).
Stronger fines for people getting out of vehicles to view
bears (355)
Improved signs along Hwy 40/742 with bear viewing rules
and guidelines (353)
The use of no-stopping zones along Hwy 40/742 to prevent
bear viewing in dangerous places (354)
The use of lower speed limits along Hwy 40/742 to allow
for bear viewing from moving vehicles (without stopping)
(353)
Additional patrols by staff/volunteers to break up bear jams
and to provide education about rules and reasons for them
(353)

Supportive
84%
(299)
82%
(291)
74%
(261)

Unsupportive
8%
(27)
5%
(18)
16%
(56)

Neutral/unsure
8%
(29)
12%
(44)
10%
(37)

40%
(141)

37%
(131)

23%
(81)

81%
(285)

6%
(22)

13%
(46)

One of the open-ended survey questions asked respondents to propose management
strategies. Suggestions not specifically included in the survey questions themselves included
increasing park resources (e.g., staff); improving cellphone service to allow for easier bear jam
reporting; and offering greater consistency of messaging and delivery via park staff. Employing a
strategy similar to Parks Canada’s Wildlife Guardian program (Parks Canada, 2019a) was also
suggested. Another respondent forwarded that it might be wise to use a ‘jam matrix’ to help park
staff/volunteers determine which bear jams to break up:
In the mountain national parks there is a bear jam matrix which is used to determine
whether or not a jam should be managed or dispersed. I would love to see something like
this implemented, provided of course the parks have the staff available to enforce it.
Allowing supervised viewing opportunities, when possible, would not be a bad idea
(R50).
7 Discussion
7.2 Roadside bear viewing as experienced and explained
One of the main goals of this project was to improve our understanding of how visitors
perceive, participate in, and experience roadside bear viewing. The survey asked about this in
62

various ways. Choosing from a set of answers, respondents indicated that bear jams were caused
by visitors:
a) wanting to get a photo or video (80%; 285);
b) being excited to see bears (80%; 283); and
c) not understand the risks and dangers of roadside bear viewing (79%; 280).
Such results reflect some of the main causes of bear jams in PLPP. The emphasis on
photography speaks to concerns raised by the park about it playing a key role in roadside bear
viewing. The rising prominence of photography and social media use of photos for visitation
bragging rights or proof of “close encounters with wildlife” means more potential risks to
humans and bears. For example, a study conducted in Yellowstone National Park over the last
forty years suggested that people approach wildlife at increasingly close distances (Cherry et al.,
2018). Considered alongside the survey data, this highlights the need for greater management
attention to roadside viewing. Furthermore, almost two-thirds of respondents reported having
seen one or more bear jam in PLPP (71%, 271), and just over two-thirds had witnessed one
elsewhere (77%, 293), indicating that bear jams are a common experience. Despite jams being
commonplace, respondents positioned themselves as engaging in respectful behaviour during
roadside viewing. In contrast, they described others as ‘tourists behaving badly:’
I will pull over, stop, usually we observe for a moment, and I tell any friends/guests
visiting Canada that might be with me that we stay in the car, and that all those people
running after the bear with their camera are stupid (R117).
This fits with other examples of studies in which visitors acknowledge problematic aspects of
travel, tourism, or recreation, but distance themselves from it, blaming others instead (Orams,
1994). This distancing is something that could be addressed in communications and educational
materials generated by the park.
63

7.3 A primarily Alberta-based sample with other biases
There are likely unique aspects to this data set related to its Alberta/regional bias. For
example, a locally biased sample is likely to have regular, year-round proximity to the types of
landscapes, wildlife, and encounters in the park, which can influence their understandings and
experiences of wildlife. Such routine exposure can also affect people's sense of connection and
ownership. For example, scholars have noted that correlations exist between the amount of time
people recreate in an area and their level of stewardship and sense of protection towards that area
(Elmeligi et al., 2021; Popovicova & Gregg, 2010). Such relationships could be reflected in the
respondent data. For example, when asked if they felt comfortable spending time and recreating
in areas with bears, 78% (293) of respondents agreed. Respondents also suggested a somewhat
comfortable familiarity with bears, aligning with scholars' claims that localized visitors tend to
be at ease around areas with bears, having previous bear experiences (Kretser et al., 2009).
Regarding how they value bears, 86% (322) of those surveyed said bears are important to the
environment. For improved bear management, such considerations and relationships should also
be considered since Albertans comprise a large percentage of visitors during regular years. For
example, tailored local/regional campaigns that engage local stewardship and pride might be
effective. PLPP might look to other such efforts by parks elsewhere to engage folks “in the
know” to ensure ongoing relations and messaging in the region.
7.4 Wildlife photographers as a key demographic of concern
Visitors aiming to take photographs of wildlife (bears included) are of particular interest
to the park, as managing them requires unique considerations. For example, while some
professional photographers with zoom lenses can take photos from safe distances, photography
can also prompt people to try and get closer to wildlife. This type of photography can contribute

64

to additional animal stress and increase habituation (Penteriani et al., 2017; Rode et al., 2006).
Safety risks for humans can also result (Lemelin, 2006). The self-reporting about engaging with
photography represented in our survey results fits with pre-project park notions about the
prevalence of photographers and photography in PLPP visitation. This suggests that specific
messaging about photography is a potential inclusion in PLPP. There is substantial literature that
could inform this tailored approach. A global analysis of 38 wildlife photography guidelines by
Fennell & Yazdan Panah (2020) found that the top three statements were related to
regulations/law, maintaining appropriate distance from wildlife, and information on breeding
behaviour (Fennell & Yazdan Panah, 2020, p. 9). Furthermore, studies have shown that many
wildlife photography guidelines in the tourism industry do not provide reasoning or education
behind the guidelines (Garrod & Fennell, 2004; Malloy & Fennell, 1998). To prevent related
negative impacts, PLPP could offer clear multi-format guidance on desired behaviour of
photographers (i.e., minimum distances from wildlife; duration of photography sessions)
(Fennell & Yazdan Panah, 2020; Lemelin, 2006), and make sure to include information on
potential benefits for bears, humans, conservation, and the park if guidance is adhered to.
7.5 Personal behaviour
Some response patterns suggest an exaggerated portrait of respectful and desirable
behaviour in the park. For example, no respondents (0%) said they would approach a bear (by
foot) or other wildlife along the roadside. This response pattern does not match the desire to get
close to and photograph bears reported by the same sample of visitors. The fact that most
respondents know they should not undertake such actions may have influenced their responses.
However, almost half of respondents admitted that they slow down to view roadside wildlife
(49%, 184), and over half said that they drive by at a safe speed when they see bears (55%, 208)

65

or other wildlife (62%, 232). A further 11 respondents commented on having reported bear jams
to park staff, as illustrated here:
I normally visit Kananaskis multiple times a week looking for bears. If I see one, I stop to
take a quick photo them move on. If there is a bear jam, I always call it in (R165).
In the absence of directed park messaging about desirable and undesirable human behaviour
while roadside viewing, respondents suggested their own guidelines for responding to bear jams.
I always have a three-car rule...if there's more than three cars on a bear, then I don't stop
at all. Similarly, if I'm viewing and photographing a bear and more than three cars stop,
I move on (R181).
The largely local nature of the sample could have influenced conservation-related responses, as
previously mentioned. For example, such respondents might be more likely to engage in
behaviours promoting stewardship or protection of PLPP, according to related studies (Elmeligi
et al., 2021; Popovicova & Gregg, 2010). Another phenomenon to be considered when
interpreting the data is the "social desirability bias" that can occur when respondents want to give
the correct answer to appear informed and cooperative (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Taylor et al.,
2014). Survey answers (reported behaviour) from this study would be complemented by
observational data on actual visitor behaviour in the park.
Visitors speak to “visitors policing visitors”
With limited park resources and large visitation numbers, park staff in PLPP can only
respond to a portion of bear jams. As such, some visitors take it upon themselves to ‘publicly
police’ other visitors at bear jams. This phenomenon was noted in visitor surveys:
I often try and get the bear to leave by honking or occasionally using a bear banger.
People get very angry when I have tried to get the bear to leave (R81).

66

Respondents also pointed out that policing visitors by visitors can lead to negative experiences
and inter-visitor conflicts:
Sometimes people get too judgmental. For example, in one situation I was stopped
viewing a black bear with two cubs. I was at an appropriate distance, and I was only
stopped for a minute or two, and someone approached my window and screamed at me to
“give the bear her space” (R173).
The need for improved enforcement
The perceived lack of roadside bear viewing-related enforcement and reports of visitors
attempting to police each other were two common themes in respondent data. While public
policing can be beneficial in spreading educational messaging and reducing bear jams, it can also
result in inconsistent expectations, interrupted visitation experiences, gatekeeping of wildlife
viewing by ‘locals,’ and conflict. It is also important to remember that this “policing” is
occurring without training, resources, or sanctioned authority. Tourism literature has shown that
interactions between locals and tourists can impact a visitor’s perception and experience of a
destination (Stylidis & Woosnam, 2022; Tasci & Severt, 2017). The potential for negative
interactions and conflicts is high in this case and runs counter to the goal of good relations
between local people and visitors from further away.
Improved relations between visitors and local people have been shown to augment tourist
satisfaction and contribute to more positive local attitudes towards tourism (Bimonte & Punzo,
2016). There might be an opportunity to embed the goal of improved relations within roadside
bear viewing management. A program of local resident ‘ambassadors’ who promote and educate
visitors about the destination is one tool that can be used to strengthen such relationships for
improved tourism success (Wang et al., 2022). The Bow Valley WildSmart “Trusted
Messengers” project is an example of this, where representatives were chosen from five
67

recreational organizations (i.e., trail runners, mountain bikers) to be trained ambassadors for
human-wildlife coexistence in their communities (Biosphere Institute, 2021).
7.6 Respondent understandings of risk to bears and humans
Our survey suggests that the primarily localized sample group has a predominately
positive attitude toward bears and is typically more concerned about the risks of bear jams for
bears than for people. Public attitudes towards bears vary with bear behaviour, the prevalence of
recent negative interactions, and demographics (Booth & Ryan, 2019; Campbell & Lancaster,
2010; Freedman et al., 2003; Gore, 2004; Herrero & Higgins, 1999). A study by Campbell &
Lancaster (2010) in British Columbia found that most interviewed participants did not perceive
bears to be dangerous to humans (Campbell & Lancaster, 2010). Studies have shown general
tolerance and acceptance of bears in North America (Kellert, 1994), whereas more negative
attitudes tend to occur when bears are involved in damage to property (Freedman et al., 2003 ;
Morzillo 2007). These expected results from the literature and the suggestions about visitors'
comfort in sharing space with bears indicate a need to make people more aware of the potential
human-side risks relating to roadside bear viewing in PLPP.
Risk to humans
Perceptions and attitudes of risk towards bears have been shown to differ depending on a
person’s residential area (if they live somewhere where bears habituate), wildlife values, and
occupation/hobbies (Booth & Ryan, 2019; Ericsson & Heberlein, 2003; Kleiven et al., 2004;
Kubo et al., 2011). When asked about their perceptions of risk associated with bear viewing,
around half (48%, 179) of respondents stated that they did not worry about the safety of
themselves or others because of the presence of bears in PLPP, and over two-thirds of
respondents (78%, 293) reported feeling comfortable spending time and recreating in areas with

68

bears (Table 5, p. 59). The prominence of bear safety education and the common practice of
carrying bear spray in Kananaskis may be two contributing factors to those perspectives (Town
of Canmore, 2020).
A study in Japan by Kubo & Shoji (2014) profiled groups of residents using four factors
(seriousness, avoidability, accountability, and management) to understand risk perceptions
toward bears (Kubo & Shoji, 2014). From these four factors, Kubo & Shoji identified three
groups of risk perceptions:
•

those with negative bear experiences who consider bears high risk;

•

those who felt less accountable/neutral towards risks from bears because their lives were
disconnected from bears; and

•

those with positive attitudes towards bears and their conservation (Kubo & Shoji, 2014,
p. 208).

When paralleled with Kubo & Shoji’s segmentation of risk perception, respondents from the
PLPP case study fell into the latter category (c), as respondents have more positive attitudes
towards bears and a lower perception of risk to bears from humans. It is possible that future
research on PLPP in summer seasons (i.e., with more typical numbers of international visitors)
would yield a broader range of perspectives.
Risk to bears
Respondent answers imply concern about the negative impacts of roadside viewing on
bears. Over half (66%, 236) of respondents strongly agreed that bear jams pose a risk to bears,
whereas only 29% (102) strongly agreed that bear jams pose a risk to humans. These data fit with
research on perceptions of black bears in urban areas of BC (Booth & Ryan, 2019; Campbell &
Lancaster, 2010), which found evidence that if people value bears, they will, in turn, have greater
69

concern for bears' wellbeing and therefore be more likely to act to support bears. There is an
opportunity for the park to consider leveraging such concerns to prevent and minimize bear jams.
For example, the park could include rationale for desired roadside bear viewing behaviours
including consequence and risk associated relating to bear jams.
7.7 Park education, communications, and outreach improvements
Perceptions of messaging
Survey data indicates there is room for improvement in park messaging in Kananaskis, in
terms of content and delivery. The main document that Alberta Parks staff hand out to visitors
regarding bear safety in Kananaskis is the Bear Smart brochure (Government of Alberta, 2014).
There is also a provincial publication: “The BearSmart Guide to Playing Safely in Bear and
Cougar Country” (Government of Alberta, 2019b). Unfortunately, neither document mentions
roadside bear viewing or bear jams. There are wildlife viewing guidelines on the summer trail
maps for Kananaskis (Government of Alberta 2019c) and the Alberta Parks website
(Government of Alberta, 2019a), but the content across these sources could be more consistent
and easier to access. These suggestions are reflected in the survey data.
PLPP could refine its communications strategy to include clearer viewing guidelines and
to address other shortcomings of existing messaging. This strategy could be informed by
suggestions in the literature and practice in other parks. A 2013 study in Ohio examined the
effectiveness of bear safety education and found that effective educational and safety guidelines
should: highlight the benefits of responsible human behaviour on wildlife, give guidance on how
to reduce risks, and address how species’ exposure to certain human behaviours can have
negative consequences (Slagle et al., 2013). According to a study in US National Parks, effective
wildlife viewing guidelines “recognize the value of the visitors’ experience in maintaining safe

70

distances and include tactics to support wildlife viewing and photography skills, thereby
reducing the behavioural barriers” (Abrams et al., 2020, p. 11).
As professional and hobby wildlife photographers are an identified user group in PLPP,
providing tailored guidelines pertaining to them could be an effective park strategy. In terms of
messaging, infrastructure, and outreach, amateur and professional wildlife photographers could
be recognized, anticipated, and addressed. A study of wildlife jams in Yellowstone National Park
investigated how people understood and followed safety guidelines for viewing wildlife in terms
of interacting with and retaining information from park signs (Taylor et al., 2014). Most visitors
were found to have seen signage in the park and could also correctly identify recommended
viewing distances for grizzlies and black bears as a result of having seen park signs. This study
and the related signs offer a model for options in PLPP.
7.8 Stated respondent support/non-support for management options
People management/enforcement
Survey respondents voiced support for more direct on-site management of visitors,
including increases in education, outreach, and enforcement. Despite some respondent critiques
of park actions and inactions, 84% (299) of respondents supported the general idea of heavier
fines for visitors caught getting out of vehicles to view bears on/along roadsides and approaching
bears. However, using fines to enforce roadside bear viewing-related violations remains a
challenge in PLPP. A combination of stipulations within park regulations and highway
authorities poses obstacles for officers writing tickets. For instance, in Alberta, there is no
specific fine in the Provincial Parks Act for stopping on a highway to view wildlife. Lastly,
reported support for hypothetical enforcement and general fine increases might be exaggerated,

71

and could be quite different from visitor responses to increased fines being enforced more strictly
on the ground.
Interestingly, critiques of enforcement also appeared. For example, nine respondents
described the approach/attitude of park staff towards visitors at bear jams as “rude.” One
respondent stated:
A more considered approach by parks staff would be helpful. Often times they don’t
bother educating the public and can be rude (R126).
Over three quarters (81%, 285) of respondents indicated support for improving on-site signage
and face-to-face interactions with staff/volunteers. These responses included additional patrols
by staff/volunteers to break up bear jams and to provide education. As previously discussed,
increased staff presence in PLPP could take a form similar to Parks Canada’s Wildlife Guardian
program, which uses an educational and on-site approach. The literature supports such
combinations. For example, a recent study of a safe wildlife viewing campaign found “personalbenefit messages…instead of only fear appeals” to be beneficial, “especially when visitor risk
perceptions could be low” (Abrams et al., 2020, p. 267). The findings from this study also
recommended giving visitors resources and the opportunity to make a “behavioural
compromise…[emphasizing] aspects of the visitor experience to be gained by engaging in the
desired behaviour” (Abrams et al., 2020, p. 267). Using such tactics could increase on-site bear
jam education effectiveness in PLPP and help to address photography-associated pressures headon for the benefit of multiple actors.
Managed viewing
Managed bear viewing is a contentious topic. The survey data suggests support for
formalized bear viewing options in PLPP at the Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre. This could be
a way to satisfy visitor demands while also preventing and mitigating bear jams by offering
72

official viewing infrastructure. The data set suggests that bear viewing and bear jams are
commonplace in PLPP, and responses indicate an interest in sanctioned space for viewing. One
respondent hinted at managed viewing as a potential option by saying:
I get that we can't really shut it all down and give the land back to the animals, but it just
seems so short-sighted to me to put all the focus on bear jams. Viewing bears in a natural
setting is a profound experience for people. Is there a way to have monitored bear jams,
if not by staff, but volunteers, to ensure no one leaves their vehicle? Or something more
balanced? (R101)
Bear-related concerns about managed viewing areas include habituation, stress, and
changes in distribution and foraging behaviour (Rode et al., 2006). Managed viewing can also
conflict with wildlife values, such as the desire to experience wild animals in their “natural”
habitat rather than from an approved or hardened site (Curtin, 2009; Herrero & Gibeau, 2005).
There was not much explicit discussion of managed bear viewing sites by respondents, but 4%
(15) of respondents mentioned managed bear viewing sites, such as the back deck of the Peter
Lougheed Discovery Centre. That site provides an elevated viewing vantage point in an electricfenced open meadow often frequented by bears. Promoting a bear viewing area such as the Peter
Lougheed Discovery Centre would require careful management and education to minimize
impacts on wildlife and to maintain positive encounters (Aumiller & Matt, 1994; Penteriani et
al., 2017).
No stopping zones
More permanent and enforced no-stopping zones could be used in PLPP, according to
respondents. Currently, these zones are used in PLPP, but their use is geographically and
temporally limited. Park staff discretionarily set up temporary no-stopping zones near roadside
bears to prevent bear jam formation or continuation, but there are no permanent zones. In our

73

survey, 74% (261) of respondents stated that they would support the use of no-stopping zones
along Hwy 40/742 to prevent bear viewing in dangerous places. Precedents for such park zones
exist in and have been captured in the literature. Parks such as Yellowstone employ temporary
no-stopping zones, particularly “during staff shortages, in areas where bear-jams occur on a daily
basis, when traffic becomes unmanageable, or when stopping is unsafe or not feasible” (Gunther
& Biel, 1999, p. 2). Kootenay National Park (less than a three-hour drive from PLPP) uses a
seasonal no-stopping zone when wildlife are feeding at lower elevations (Parks Canada, 2022).
One of the reasons for the use of temporary rather than permanent no-stopping zones in PLPP
and elsewhere is that temporary zones require significantly less staff time and resources.
However, a bridge between respondent answers and current practices might be possible, such as
more consistent seasonal no-stopping zones (e.g., signs with known closure periods), and
context-specific restrictions.
8 Conclusion
As visitation increases in Alberta’s Provincial Parks, there is a need for consistent and
tailored management of people to reduce the risks and impacts of roadside bear viewing. To date,
there has not been any prior research on the human dimensions of bear viewing in PPLP. This
research project provides new data on visitor perceptions and experiences of roadside bear
viewing and offers insights into how the public perceives management strategies. Respondent’s
perceived risks associated with roadside bear viewing focused primarily on impacts on bears.
This highlights the value respondents place on the protection of bears in the park. The literature
review and empirical case study suggest visitor support for Alberta Parks taking increased steps
to manage roadside bear viewing through consistent and clear behavioural guidelines, increased
enforcement, and staff presence.

74

This visitor perception study is part of a larger research project that triangulates roadside
bear viewing and its management via a review of government documents and related scholarship
combined with the visitor data presented here and semi-structured interviews with related
experts. Project findings may have implications for a more integrated approach to roadside bear
management in PLPP and in parks and protected areas experiencing similar challenges.

75

Chapter 4 - Expert perspectives on roadside bear management
Abstract: In North America, bear viewing is becoming increasingly popular with visitors to
parks and protected areas. In the face of heightened visitation pressures in parks, this demand for
roadside bear viewing poses risks to humans and wildlife. One related challenge is the formation
of "bear jams" - traffic congestion caused by people slowing down or stopping to view bears.
Using Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (PLPP), within the region of Kananaskis, Alberta,
Canada, as a case study for this paper, we examine the gaps in our understanding of the human
dimensions of roadside bear viewing. Semi-structured interviews (n=22) were conducted with
informed participants including park staff, non-profit group members and ecologists to collect a
diversity of insights on management strategies, risks, and observed human behavior relating to
roadside bear viewing. Based on the findings of this study, a more holistic and adaptive approach
could be more effective at reducing the risk associated with roadside bear viewing while
balancing conservation and recreation goals. Respondents emphasized a need for more clarity
and consistency when it comes to the type of messaging and delivery of messaging around
respectful roadside bear viewing practices. This study contributes valuable human dimensions
data towards developing more effective approaches to mitigating the risks and challenges
associated with roadside bear viewing.

Keywords: human-bear conflict, bear viewing, grizzly bear, park management, wildlife tourism,
Alberta (Canada).

76

1 Introduction
Wildlife has an increasing role in North America’s tourism industry. Observing and
interacting with wildlife in their natural environment is a growingly popular experience sought
by tourists, leading to increased visitation to locations offering viewing opportunities (Newsome
et al., 2005; Newsome & Rodger, 2013; Rodger et al., 2007; Tisdell & Wilson, 2002). The global
wildlife tourism market in 2022 was worth an estimated US$ 135 billion, with an anticipated
compound annual growth rate of 5% from 2022-2023 (Future Market Insights, 2022). However,
the growth of wildlife tourism is accompanied by direct and indirect environmental, social, and
economic impacts (Boyle & Samson, 1985; Green & Higginbottom, 2001; Reynolds &
Braithwaite, 2001). Newsome et al., explain ecological impacts of wildlife tourism as belonging
to three main categories: access, observation, and close contact/feeding (Newsome et al., 2005).
All three categories of impacts pertain to bear viewing.
Bear viewing is a prominent and expanding wildlife-based tourism activity in Western
Canada. However, it can pose challenges for park managers as they balance human safety with
conservation and tourism demands. In 2017, wildlife viewing ranked as one of the top five
activities for domestic tourism in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta (Government of Alberta,
2017b), and is a known draw for international tourists. In Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
(PLPP), Alberta, there is increasing visitation and demand for wildlife viewing opportunities.
However, roadside bear viewing requires complex management. The formation of "bear jams"—
traffic congestion caused by people stopping or slowing down in a vehicle to view bears
(Gunther & Biel, 1999; Hopkins et al., 2010)—is a significant management challenge throughout
parks in the Canadian Rockies.

77

Studies of wildlife tourism within National Parks in the United States, such as Yosemite,
Yellowstone, and Katmai, offer valuable insights into such challenges. Factors that influence
bear viewing tourism include geographical location, access to a park, demographics of visitors,
presence of information centres or facilities, accessibility to online or in-person messaging, park
history, culture, budgetary constraints, management strategies, the protected status of species,
and the presence of enforcement (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Richardson et al., 2014; Taylor
et al., 2014). This complex list of factors highlights how planning for and managing different
protected areas requires the integration of different approaches. While individual parks face
distinct challenges associated with bear viewing, there are also shared management issues across
parks. Comparing the successes and challenges of strategies for roadside bear viewing can reveal
potential solutions for PLPP.
Such solutions should be informed by a wildlife tourism framework. This is relevant for
researching human dimensions of roadside bear viewing. This is because it allows the
incorporation of topics such as animal welfare, conservation goals/values, regional economic
gains, park management guidelines, and visitor satisfaction. Reynolds and Braithwaite (2001)
highlight how efficient park management relies on generating an understanding of the human
dimensions and suggest that recognizing the motivations and perspectives of the public bolsters
current research in the field of wildlife tourism (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001). Related
literature identifies a need for qualitative research on human behaviours and perceptions in
wildlife tourism (Reynolds & Braithwaite, 2001; Richardson et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2014).
1.2 A background of roadside bear viewing
Ecotourism is a growing phenomenon in North America for domestic and international
tourists seeking nature experiences (Das & Chatterjee, 2015; Ismail et al., 2021; Knight, 2009).

78

Wildlife viewing is a significant component of ecotourism, and some of the most sought-after
wildlife experiences involve viewing charismatic megafauna (Di Minin et al., 2013; Mariyam et
al., 2022). Bears (including black bears, grizzly bears, and polar bears) are one of the charismatic
species in North America that attract tourists desiring a wildlife viewing experience (Nevin et al.,
2014; Skibins et al., 2012).
In North America, bear viewing is found in both protected and non-protected areas and
occurs at permanent and temporary viewing sites. Permanent viewing sites offer vantage points
where bear sightings are predictable, such as salmon-bearing streams where bears feed
(Penteriani et al., 2017). However, potential impacts on bears from permanent viewing sites
include disturbance of natural movement/feeding patterns (Olson et al., 1998; Rode et al., 2006,
2007), impacts on raising young (Chi & Gilbert, 1999; Rode et al., 2006), and increased
habituation to humans (Smith et al., 2005). Permanent viewing sites are often managed by an
agency and provide visitors with viewing platforms such as those found at Katmai National Park
in Alaska or Tweedsmuir Provincial Park in British Columbia (Penteriani et al., 2017; Skibins &
Sharp, 2017). In British Columbia, there are also permanent viewing sites offering a more zoolike experience, including wildlife refuges such as Kicking Horse Mountain in Golden and
Grouse Mountain in North Vancouver, which offer bear viewing of captive grizzly bears.
On the other hand, temporary viewing sites offer opportunistic viewing experiences
where bears are known to frequent (Penteriani et al., 2017). In North America, many temporary
viewing sites include roadways that intersect bear habitats, often in protected areas (Gunther &
Biel, 1999; Haroldson & Gunther, 2013). Despite roadside wildlife viewing opportunities being
predictable, these viewing opportunities are not always spatially or temporally precise. Sows
(females) with cubs are more common than boars (males) at road-accessible viewing areas, as

79

they tend to occupy less optimal habitat (which in this case is closer to people) and are typically
less transient and more active during the day (Ordiz et al., 2007; Penteriani et al., 2017). In the
front ranges of the Canadian Rockies, bears are a favoured attraction for domestic and
international tourists, and bear viewing—often roadside—is a common occurrence (Elmeligi et
al., 2021; Garshelis et al., 2005; Government of Alberta, 2017b; Harding, 2014).
2 The project
2.1 Research questions and objectives
This study aimed to generate information useful for Alberta Parks staff, scholars that
research the human dimensions of wildlife, and community members. Alberta Parks staff
members had previously shared management challenges related to roadside bear viewing in
PLPP. These challenges included inconsistencies in public messaging, staff burnout related to
time spent and resources directed toward roadside bear viewing management, and the limitations
that regulatory obstacles present in trying to prevent and mitigate roadside bear viewing and its
impacts. We integrated this prior knowledge from informal interactions about roadside bear
viewing into the data collection tools to examine roadside bear viewing and potential ways of
addressing it. The two questions guiding this paper are:
1) What are the perceived risks associated with roadside bear viewing—including bear
jams—in PLPP from the perspectives of park staff, visitors, and other local experts (NGO
staff members, residents, volunteers)?
2) Considering the literature and this case study, how could the management of roadside
bear viewing in PLPP be improved?
Informed by communications with park staff in PLPP and a review of relevant literature, this
paper and the larger project it comes from aim to contribute new information on the human

80

dimensions of roadside bear viewing and related impacts. In this paper, the focus is on expert
perspectives and recommendations on causes, challenges, and management strategies relating to
roadside bear viewing in PLPP.
2.2 Author positionality
Author 1 has lived and worked for Alberta Parks in PLPP for over five years. Through
personal experiences, observations, and conversations with various park staff and community
members over the past years, the author has an insider perspective of roadside bear viewing in
PLPP. The positionality of this author is one of limited proximity—she did not directly work in a
bear technician or ecology role. However, her observations of visitor behaviours and
relations/experience with bear technicians and ecologists in Kananaskis provide her with insights
into the community, park, and issues of roadside bear viewing in PLPP.
2.3 Study site
The Bow Valley corridor has been described as an area with one of the highest levels of
human activity in Alberta where grizzly bears still live on the landscape (Alberta Environment &
Parks, 2018). PLPP lies within the Kananaskis region, a provincially managed area home to 51
parks (Figure 7, p. 82). Those parks have various land-use designations and protected statuses
(Government of Alberta, 2020d). There are approximately 50–75 grizzly bears in PLPP—the
number fluctuates due to the range and movement of the species (Government of Alberta, 2006).
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the Kananaskis region has experienced record visitation
numbers, with over 5.3 million visitors in 2020 (CBC News, 2021). Visitor demands for bear
viewing experiences in PLPP are placing increasing pressure on park staff to find a balance in
managing human-bear coexistence in the park.

81

Figure 7 Map of PLPP with inset showing location of the park
within Southeast Alberta. Reprinted with permission from
Robinson. (2022). Map of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
with inset of SE Alberta [Map]. ArcGIS.

3 Context
3.1 Roadside bear viewing risks in Kananaskis
Risks associated with roadside bear viewing are known to impact both humans and bears,
and include vehicle collisions, habituation of bears to humans and human areas, the cost of park
resources in responding to bear jams, and sustaining visitor satisfaction (Herrero et al., 2005;
Penteriani et al., 2017). A secondary risk to humans arises when Conservation Officers—
responsible for enforcement and public safety in Kananaskis—are drawn to roadside bear jams

82

located away from the park facility zones (where the highest densities of visitors recreate). Such
cases, with staff occupied with bear jams, can increase response times for other public safety
incidents (e.g., a fall on a park trail). Such delays are profound in that they can negatively affect
outcomes of time-sensitive first aid or safety incidents, which can also impact visitor experiences
and satisfaction and workplace satisfaction for staff.
3.2 Management of roadside bear viewing in PLPP
Since gaining protected status in the late 1970s, there have been identified shifts in bear
management approaches in the Kananaskis region. These changes include a shift in the 1990s
from recreation-focused to more conservation-focused park management, to a shift from a bearfocused to a broader human-wildlife-conflict focus in the early 2000s up until today (Carruthers
Den Hoed et al., 2020). Not surprisingly, the grizzly population in Kananaskis has coincided
with a growing number of human-bear interactions, many of which occur roadside (Garshelis et
al., 2005; Government of Alberta, 2022c).
Alberta Parks employs an aversive conditioning program in PLPP, which involves
moving bears away from undesirable areas (typically human-use locations such as campgrounds
or roadsides). The program uses pain or noise stimuli such as non-lethal projectiles (Government
of Alberta, 2020e; 2022a). Bear technicians and Conservation Officers carry out aversive
conditioning actions and are also responsible for bear monitoring and public communications at
bear jams. In addition, temporary no-stopping zones are used in the park to discourage the
formation of bear jams. These no-stopping zones are set up by park staff members when a
roadside bear is present and consist of temporary signage and a combination of
education/enforcement to ensure visitor compliance.

83

3.3 Public education and communication in Kananaskis
Bear safety and education in Kananaskis is developed and implemented by governmental
and non-governmental groups. A robust network of volunteers supports Alberta Parks through
non-profit organizations, including the Friends of Kananaskis3 and Bow Valley WildSmart4.
These volunteers assist with wildlife monitoring and engage the public in bear safety outreach on
trails and at bear jams. Alberta Parks also employs environmental educators and nature
interpreters to develop and deliver a breadth of in-person programming throughout Kananaskis.
This programming includes public programming for various age groups and bear safety
workshops for private operators in the park. Alberta Parks presently offers bear safety messaging
through brochures and online content (Figure 8, p. 85), but most messaging surrounds attractant
management and hiking/camping tips (Government of Alberta, 2011). In addition, the Alberta
Parks website has a section on wildlife viewing that provides information for visitors (Appendix
C). However, dedicated signage and greater consistency are needed. Communications with park
staff suggest this is a shortcoming that needs to be addressed.

3
4

Friends of Kananaskis Country. https://www.kananaskis.org/
WildSmart. Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley. https://www.biosphereinstitute.org/wildsmart

84

Figure 8 Bear safety brochures distributed by the Alberta Government. The Bear Smart
Brochure (left) focuses on bear safety in provincial parks, and The BearSmart Guide
(right) is a provincially distributed document for people recreating in bear/cougar
country. Adapted and reprinted with permission from Government of Alberta. (2014).
BearSmart brochure. Alberta Parks. https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/123478/bearsmart-brochure-web.pdf and Government of Alberta. (2019b). The BearSmart guide to
playing safely in bear and cougar country. Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460142691.

4 Methods and methodology
4.1 A case study of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park
This project is a case study of human-bear relations centred on roadside bear viewing in
PLPP. In addition to the lead author’s prior knowledge of PLPP and ongoing relationships with
the park, interviews were used to complement visitor survey data (Chapter 3). Semi-structured

85

interviews reveal how park staff and local experts experience, perceive, and understand roadside
bear viewing and related risks in/around PLPP. Interviews provide first-hand narratives from
members of specific interest groups and are a prevalent social science method in human-wildlife
interactions, as narratives can reveal the social and cultural elements of natural resource
challenges (Bixler, 2013; Hughes & Nielsen, 2019). Narratives explain how stakeholders make
sense of their surroundings, and through the analysis of these narratives, researchers can
understand connections and causes linked to larger discourses (Adger et al., 2001; Bixler, 2013;
Gergen, 1994).
Interviews (22) were conducted between July and November 2021. Interview participants
included conservation officers, bear technicians, ecologists, communicators, and local NGO
members. This sample group was selected to collect a diversity of vantage points and a range of
experiences and opinions on management strategies and observed human behaviours relating to
roadside bear viewing. Participants chosen for interviews met at least two of the following
guidelines to qualify for this project’s understanding of “expert” (more on experts in Chapter 1):
•

education/training (either professional training or academic education) in a field relating
to parks and protected areas, bear management, bear ecology, or bear aversion;

•

over five years experience either working for a park (either Alberta Parks or Parks
Canada) in PLPP or a park bordering PLPP or volunteering for an NGO operating in
Kananaskis; and

•

work or volunteer-related experience associated with roadside bear viewing (i.e.,
enforcement, visitor relations, bear aversion, bear monitoring, management planning).
Expert knowledge in this project is seen as including both scientific and local expertise

(Fazey et al., 2006; Knapp et al., 2013). An example of a local expert is one that has
86

observational expertise and personal/relational experience that can lead to the co-production of
knowledge with other locals (Berkes, 2004; Fazey et al., 2006). Other human dimensions of
wildlife studies have used similar definitions of experts in interview participant selection
(Buchholtz et al., 2020; Knapp et al., 2013; Lemelin, 2006). For example, the Bow Valley
Human-Wildlife Coexistence Technical Working Group defines “wildlife management and
communications experts” as including municipal, provincial, federal and non-governmental
organizations, environmental, planning, and communication specialists (Alberta Environment &
Parks, 2018, p. 4). The lead author drew from this Working Group’s list of experts and
organizations when determining the study’s criteria for “experts” and compiling the initial list of
interviewee contacts.
Participants took part in interviews online via Zoom or by phone; the interviews lasted an
average of 20 minutes. Online interviews were beneficial for this project, as they allowed for
easy access and flexibility for both participants and the researcher during COVID-19. Requiring
access to the internet and a device and being familiar with technology are limitations of online
interviews (Janghorban et al., 2014). Furthermore, body language related authenticity and nonverbal cues such as eye contact are experienced differently in online interviews, which can
impact rapport with the interviewer (Bargh et al., 2002; Labinjo et al., 2021). Notes and memos
were recorded post-interview and during the transcription process to augment transcripts of the
interviews and to aid in analysis. Themes and patterns were examined within and between
interviews, and ended once data saturation was determined (Bulawa, 2014; Fusch & Ness, 2015).
Alphanumeric codes were assigned to participants to ensure anonymity, and the project received
approval from the UNBC Research Ethics Board (E2021.0420.014.00).

87

The lead author’s connection to the park generated an initial list of participants, including
park staff, volunteers, and non-profit organizers. From these initial contacts and interviews,
purposeful and snowball sampling was used to recruit further participants and to add diversity
within the sample (Noy, 2008; Saumure & Given, 2008b). The semi-structured interview guide
used in administering online interviews includes thirteen questions organized into five sections
(Appendix B):
a) demographics and sample characteristics;
b) factors contributing to roadside bear viewing (e.g., landscape, humans, wildlife);
c) risks of roadside bear viewing (to both humans and wildlife);
d) experiences and perceptions of roadside bear viewing; and
e) perceptions and suggestions for management approaches.
Interviews followed an open-ended pyramid structure, with more general questions at the end
(Dunn, 2016). Participants were encouraged to revisit prior answers and to expand on previous
topics discussed to provide clarification and increase the depth of answers (Dunn, 2016). The
interview data were collected to gain insights into expert understandings of roadside bear
viewing and to be considered along with visitor survey results during analysis. Expert interviews
revealed patterns within expert framings of roadside bear viewing and provided insights into
existing and potential interventions.
4.2 Data analysis and interpretation
Thematic coding and interpretive qualitative analysis were used to organize and interpret
the 22 interviews. Thematic analysis is a qualitative approach helpful in identifying patterns and
expressions of themes (Guest et al., 2012; Riessman, 2008). This process was inductive and
deductive—knowledge of pre-existing themes likely to emerge was integrated with a reflexive
88

process that allowed patterns to emerge from the data. The lead author’s experience working in
parks with bears and her prior knowledge of PLPP contributed to developing the initial themes.
During the coding and analysis process, the identified themes were continually revised with the
research questions in mind to reveal meaning and practical significance of the interview data and
patterns within it (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes also emerged from the participating experts
themselves. We have preserved the perspectives of individual interviewees as much as possible
by presenting direct quotes drawn directly from interview transcripts. During analysis, themes
that did not fit within standard themes or that offered new or adapted versions of such themes
were recorded and added as the analysis progressed. The analysis was conducted using QSR
International’s NVivo software.
5 Results
5.1 Sample demographics of interview participants
After contacting an initial 42 experts, the author interviewed 22 participants between July
and November 2021 (Table 7, p. 90). The participation rate of the interviews was 52%.

89

Table 7 Expert roles/affiliation categories (n=24). Participants were asked what role(s) they have relating
to bears and human-bear interactions, and this table contains the categories of affiliations that emerged
during data analysis. Participants had an average of 10.5 years spent working in the field of human-bear
interactions. Two participants self-identified as fitting into more than one category which is why there are
24 answers for 22 respondents.

Alberta Parks Conservation Officers

32% (n=7)

Members of a non-profit

23% (n=5)

Ecologist or Biologists

18% (n=4)

Alberta Parks Bear Technicians

14% (n=3)

Parks Canada Staff

14% (n=3)

Alberta Parks Education/Outreach Staff

9% (n=2)

Most interview participants were current or former Conservation Officers, who (along
with bear technicians) are those who directly respond to roadside bear viewing incidents in
PLPP. The sample also included volunteers from Bow Valley WildSmart and Friends of
Kananaskis. Parks Canada staff were from Kootenay National Park, Jasper National Park, and
Banff National Park.
5.2 Perceived causes of bear jams
Interview questions were designed to explore each expert’s understanding of bear jams.
For instance, we were interested in who the experts deemed responsible for causing bear jams.
From the data, four categories were created representing the causes of bear jams: human-related,
bear-related, habitat-related, and infrastructure-related (Table 8, p. 91). The most prevalent cause
of bear jams, as suggested by participants, was acting without common sense, or what one
participant referred to as “bear blindness”—when people see bears and “everything else goes out
the window” (B13).

90

Table 8 Perceived causes of bear jams in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park (Alberta, Canada) by interview
participants (n=22), separated into four categories: human-related, bear-related, habitat-related, and
infrastructure-related causes.

Participants

Human-related

Visitors acting without common sense

71%
(n=15)

Visitors being driven by exceptionalism
(wildlife photographers)

43%
(n=9)

Visitors acting upon herd mentality

43%
(n=9)

Visitors seeking an intimate wildlife
encounter

38%
(n=8)

Visitors acting without knowledge of
appropriate behaviours

29%
(n=6)

Bears using roads as a wildlife corridor
Bear-related
Sows protecting cubs from boars
Habitat-related

Infrastructure-related

24%
(n=5)
10%
(n=2)

Park allowing the presence of natural
roadside attractants

67%
(n=14)

Visitors utilizing roads for sightlines to see
bears

43%
(n=9)

Visitors compensating for lack of pull-outs

10%
(n=2)

91

Human-related causes
When asked, “what do you think causes bear jams,” most respondents (59%, 13)
identified human-related causes. The following quote highlights a lack of common sense that
experts associated with bear jams and related risks to human safety:
I have observed in both my work here with Alberta Parks and in my work with Banff
National Park that when people see charismatic megafauna, something clicks off in their
brain, and they're overcome with the desire to get a good picture, or to get a good
viewing experience, and that can override their desire for personal safety. I think often in
those cases, people forget that bears are wild animals who have their own need for space
and their own personal bubble, which can cause people to get too close or to forget that
these animals are real animals—real wild animals—and not just a viewing opportunity or
a perfect Instagram moment (B13).
Experts also emphasized wildlife photographers as a particular kind of actor involved in roadside
bear viewing. Participants suggested that the behaviour of wildlife photographers may be caused
by a sense of exceptionalism, and they may think park guidelines or certain behaviours do not
apply to them. An anecdote shared by a participating park staff highlights some of the challenges
that experts presented to do with wildlife photographers and this apparent sense of
exceptionalism:
…a photographer comes out, and he's like, “oh, I only spent three hours with one bear,
and I got a couple of great photos,” but he didn't see that the rest of the day there were
other people that were also photographing and spending lots of time near that bear.
They're ultimately habituating those individual animals and not recognizing what kind of
a contribution they're having to the larger picture (B04).
The notion of visitors acting as how they see others act—described as “herd mentality” (B01) or
“follower mentality” (B08) came up in the interview responses (43%, 9), where participants

92

explained some visitors as being more likely to have undesirable behaviours when they see
others doing the same. As one participant explained:
…you see one car door open and then before you know it, every single car door is open
in the space of a couple seconds, because they were just waiting for that first person to do
it. That mob mentality—seeing other people acting in a certain way gives people the sort
of permission to do the same and drives how they behave too (B19).
Visitors seeking wildlife experiences was a common suggested cause for bear jams (38%, 8).
The concept of “seeking a wildlife experience” was coded into: visitors wanting to capture and
share the experience with others; visitors seeking a novel/unique experience; the feelings of
excitement and intensity of seeing bears; and, as the following participant described, connecting
with nature:
These animals exist in documentaries and storybooks. And to see them in real life. I
mean, it's an amazing opportunity…when we see these animals, it's an opportunity to feel
connected with other beings, with something larger than ourselves, to be able to feel
closer to these ecological connections we have with the larger biosphere (B13).
This participant discussed how viewing a bear can foster stewardship:
…[seeing a bear] creates this sense of awe…a certain connection is formed…there is
certainly value to witnessing a grizzly bear on the landscape and then suddenly becoming
more of its champion (B17).
Another highlighted human cause of bear jams was visitors acting without knowledge of
appropriate behaviours associated with roadside bear viewing (29%, 6) due to either lack of
access/exposure to park messaging or communication with staff. As one participant stated:
…there are many people that just don't know (B06).

93

Sometimes experts forwarded a combination of human causes of bear jams, such as the
suggested combination below of visitors seeking wildlife encounters while lacking knowledge or
awareness:
…[visitors] don't know what the hell they're doing, but they're connecting with nature
(B09).
These examples of what wildlife seeking entails illustrate the complexity and interconnectivity of
the human causes of bear jams, alluding to the need for careful attention to such factors, and
calling for a tailored mix of messaging, staff presence and actions, and social pressure to reduce
bear jams.
Bear-related causes
Participating experts acknowledged bear behaviour as a contributing factor to bear jams
as well. The frequent presence of roadside bears is one of the reasons why PLPP is a destination
for bear viewing. For instance, sows use roadside corridors in PLPP to protect cubs from
predation from boars (Ordiz et al., 2007; Penteriani et al., 2017). Participants (24%, 5) explained
how roadsides act as safe spaces for females with cubs by providing refugia by male bears
(boars):
These sows with cubs are on the human landscape because they want to be around
people because it's safer for them than being around boars. They're on the human
landscape and they're making use of the foods here. We know they're going to be there.
We know that they're going to come and use these resources (B22).
Participants (10%, 2) discussed one of the reasons why bears frequent roadsides is because roads
offer a desirable travel corridor:
[Roads] are a good wildlife corridor, they’re an easy way for bears to move around. So
that’s what brings the bears in (B03).

94

Habitat-related causes
Landscape or habitat features were also cited as contributing to bear jams. For example,
over half of participants (67%, 14) said the presence of natural attractants contributed to why
bears become habituated to roadsides in PLPP. While these natural attractants are typically
native species, the presence and abundance of forage increases with roadside vegetation
management, as discussed in the following quote:
We can't go around beating the hell out of a bear for situations that we created. And what
I mean by creating is, you know…there was back in the day where in the Kananaskis
Valley…you'd be lucky to see one grizzly a year. But, by opening up the canopy by
making roadsides and trails and all that, we improved vegetation. So, we've created our
own issues (B18).
Another participant echoed habitat and infrastructure characteristics as creating attractants for
bears that can lead to viewing opportunities for humans:
The infrastructure that we create creates these lovely spots where there's good bear food,
so that draws [bears] into areas where bears and humans end up meeting (B13).
Infrastructure-related causes
Infrastructure deficits were also suggested as contributing to bear jams. Participants
(10%, 2) brought up the existence or non-existence of pullouts and highway infrastructure (i.e.,
shoulders, pullouts) as contributing to traffic congestion during bear viewing:
There's no shoulder on the road whatsoever, right? And so, we have vehicles parked on
both sides, lining the road, and it is very difficult because there is essentially no room.
Not even one-way traffic can get through. You're really restricted with how you can move
(B01).
Some infrastructure and landscape features such as tight corridors and highly vegetated sections
of roadways were seen as rendering bear viewing particularly unsafe (43%, 9):

95

In Kananaskis Country, it’s a two-lane highway with barely any shoulders with a lot of
blind corners and no real pull-outs…a lot of the time, the trees are right against the road
or close enough that a bear can’t be a good distance away from the road where people
can safely view it from the highway. A lot of the time, the bears are within 10 to 20
meters of the highway. So, the landscape provides challenges (B07).
Participants pointed out the lack of pullouts and passing lanes in some areas as essentially
forcing visitors to participate in bear jams, with road design and use funnelling them into an
existing jam or not having a safe way to move around it.
5.3 Risks associated with roadside bear viewing
Interviewees suggested that risks to bears were more likely than risks to humans at
roadside bear jams. Potential bear-related impacts of concern included the disturbance of their
natural feeding processes, increased bear mortality or injury caused by vehicle strikes, the
potential for bear family groups to be broken up, pushing bears away from their natural habitat,
and the disturbance of bear movement patterns and their travel through natural corridors.
Reported consequences for bears included both direct and indirect impacts, as illustrated in this
participant quote:
…and then the safety piece for the wildlife because it does stress out the wildlife, and not
only can the wildlife get hit by vehicles along the highway, but if bears get too close and
if they cause problems with people, they're likely to get relocated or destroyed (B06).
Another participant explained how roadside bear viewing can impact natural movement patterns:
Bear jams can very often block a travel route for a bear. So, if a bear has the intention to
go from point A to point B, a bear jam can prevent that from happening and then actually
impact their movement patterns around the landscape. And many times, that can mean
pushing the bear into less desirable places, so [if] the bear was just about to exit a
facility zone, whether it's a day use area, campground, or busy area, and then a bear jam
can block that bear from leaving that spot (B11).
96

In PLPP, roadsides provide a food source for bears in the form of berries, and other forage
(Alberta Environment & Parks, 2018). Therefore, the presence of bear jams in conjunction with
the hazing of bears away from such areas is problematic, as explained by some participants:
I think it disturbs the bear's natural feeding processes. They are just out there trying to
get enough food into their systems. It’s interfering with their feeding habits—or if we see
a mother with cubs—with her ability to teach her cubs about the safe places to feed.
I think we do see a challenge there because often roadsides are where there's the best
food. The way we cut down trees along roadsides or day-use areas allows sunlight in,
and that allows for the growth of good bear food sources: shepherdia bushes, dandelions,
ground cover…that's going to provide a decent caloric intake. So, it creates a real
challenge for bears (B13).
Though most participants focused on the risks to bears rather than humans, some chose to
highlight human-related risks. These included the possibilities of human-vehicle accidents (while
inside and outside of vehicles during bear jams) and secondary risks from emergency response
vehicles getting stuck at bear jams:
…I remember talking to some of the Conservation Officers and Kananaskis Emergency
Services last summer when they couldn't get to an emergency because of a bear jam.
That's a big problem in my part (B06).
Additional risks to humans included risks to staff, such as the compounding stress brought on by
the continual beratement of staff by visitors trying to see bears. This is compounded by the
emotional distress over witnessing or having to take part in the destruction/relocation of a bear.
5.4 Challenges of high visitation and limited resources
When asked about concerns and challenges, almost half of the experts (41%, 9) pointed
to insufficient staffing and resources as a challenge for effective management of roadside bear
viewing in PLPP (41%, 9). First, participants suggested that in PLPP, bear jams demanded

97

repetitive and constant attention in the form of aversion actions directed at bears. Participants
described these as often involving the same individual bears in similar locations throughout the
day/week/season (Government of Alberta, 2022c). Second, experts suggested that the visitor-topark-staff-member ratio was insufficient and that the staff time allotted to roadside bear incidents
was challenging to manage in terms of overall workload and priorities. Further, they pointed out
that some individual bears occupied a lot of staff time and resources:
…given our current budgetary financial situation—it doesn’t really make sense to just
fully commit [staff] to one bear for the entire day, because [the bear] continually moves
in and out of the trees (B15).
Currently and at the time of the study, bear technicians and Conservation Officers (employed by
Alberta Parks) are the employees who conduct bear aversion and respond to roadside bear
incidents. Conservation Officers are responsible for various duties in the park, including ensuring
public safety, conducting backcountry patrols, and carrying out enforcement. Participants (33%,
7) mentioned that responding to roadside bear incidents can pose a challenge for staff members
and the park in terms of prioritizing daily duties, and suggested that bear jams can be disruptive
to work shifts and schedules in that they draw disproportionate resources:
…[staff] are being pulled in so many directions that they're really not efficient…because
they can't invest enough time into doing everything they need to do (B18).
On a typical weekend day in PLPP during the summer, there is an average of 2 to 5 staff
(Conservation Officers) working in PLPP who are responsible for public safety incidents, visitor
compliance/enforcement, and patrols in addition to responding to bear jams (personal
communication, 2022). This is a small number for such a vast area with diverse and numerous
management goals.

98

5.6 Suggested strategies
Participants discussed a diversity of management considerations for roadside bear
viewing in PLPP in response to five strategy-related questions:
a) What do you think Alberta Parks is doing well in managing roadside bear viewing?
b) How could Alberta Parks improve how they manage roadside bear viewing?
c) Which tools would be most effective for addressing undesirable human behaviour
relating to roadside bear viewing (for example—signs, staff presence, fines)?
d) When it comes to communicating respectful bear viewing behaviours to the public, what
forms of education and outreach do you think are the most effective and why?
e) In dealing with bear jams, some parks prioritize managing bears, and some focus on
managing people. Which focus is the better choice, and why?
Recommended strategies were coded into four categories: human management; bear
management; habitat management; and infrastructure management.
Human management
Experts reported being frustrated by inappropriate behaviours from visitors viewing bears
roadside. The vast majority (81%, 18) of participants stated that they had witnessed visitors
getting out of vehicles while roadside bear viewing, indicating unsafe behaviour as common
practice. Furthermore, 76% (17) of participants said they had seen visitors approaching bears at
unsafe distances5. The following participant shared a story about responding to a bear jam in
PLPP:

5

Note: Alberta Parks recommends a 100m distance from wildlife (including while in a vehicle)
(Government of Alberta, 2019a).

99

There was a bear jam…right by a guardrail. And [the bears] were feeding down the
slope, so, you [couldn’t] really see them from the highway. There were probably 30 to 40
vehicles stopped on both sides of the highway and probably 15 to 20 people out of their
vehicle at the guardrail, 5 to 10 meters from a grizzly bear with cubs, taking
photos…thinking it was a good idea. I was kind of expecting somebody to get mauled
(B14).
Another participant echoed the above sentiment in their description of experiences with visitors
getting too close to bears:
We have humans that get out of their vehicles with their kids. They’re trying to get the
photo; they’re pulling out their cell phones—which don’t have a great camera on them,
to be realistic—they want to get closer, they want to get a better photo. And they’re
getting within 10, 20 meters of a grizzly bear that sometimes has cubs. I just shake my
head, you know, it’s just not worth it. We see interactions that are pretty scary. We’ve
had had bluff charges. Sooner or later, we’re going to have a bear make contact with a
human (B03).
Participants also reported seeing people feeding bears, failing to obey the rules of the road,
disobeying regulations and enforcement officers/park staff, and luring/provoking bears to react to
a photo. One participant expressed their frustration with visitors:
I think the complete disregard for the rules of the road when there’s bears around—it’s
pretty concerning. People don’t even look at the road anymore. We’ve deployed the nostopping signs to try and stop bear jams from happening, and then we have people park
one meter in front of these signs. They just don’t see it, or they see it and just don’t care.
And then also, people who just speed through the bear jams going 80, 90 kilometers an
hour while there’s people and bears everywhere. I’m surprised there (haven’t) been more
fatalities (B14).

100

A managed bear viewing opportunity exists in the back meadow of the Peter Lougheed
Discovery Centre. Of those interviewed, 38% (8) spoke of the viewing deck as an opportunity
for managed bear viewing:
I think the back of the visitor centre is a great thing to have. It’s a great tool to be able to
say, ‘well, you know what, if you go to the back of the visitor centre, you can safely view
a bear from there.’ And then they still get that experience. It is helpful for staff to be able
to provide alternatives at certain times of the year where visitors can still get what they
want (B12).
Only one participant contributed an answer about positive visitor behaviours at bear jams.
Participants generally framed roadside bear viewing in a negative way. This might have been
influenced by interview questions focusing on challenges and concerns, but these results fit with
the informal expert views of bear jams that Author 1 had previously encountered.
Education, outreach, and communications
In addition to comments about existing education and outreach tools for preventing bear
jams, participants also recommended additional education and outreach (Table 9, p. 103). A
concern advanced by 11 (52%) participants was the challenge of conveying desired behaviours
to visitors on site, at roadside bear jams. An Alberta Parks staff member explained that educating
the public is complicated because bear jams can occur at different times and places:
It's complicated because we do allow [bear viewing] sometimes. And I think we really
struggle sometimes to explain to people when it's okay and when it isn't. So, if you haven't
been talked to directly about it, not everybody knows what the rules are when it comes to
wildlife safety. We're getting more and more people coming into the mountain parks who
are new to the outdoors. So, a lack of education is definitely there, even though the
people that do the education are working very hard (B19).

101

Interview participants (52%, 11) emphasized the effectiveness of in-person face-to-face
conversation and education with visitors at bear jams:
Ultimately, face-to-face interactions are important…where people have the opportunity
to go to interpretive shows, point duties, roves…having an opportunity for people to hear
directly from a tangible, reputable source saying ‘hey—this is what’s going on, this is
why it’s wrong’…and then people can ask their questions or voice an opinion and have
that direct conversation (B07).
Participants also explained how difficult it can be to connect with and communicate effectively
with visitors:
It can be very challenging because it feels like herding cats when you're just one
individual and there's a never-ending supply of members of the public (B04).
It’s difficult because different people respond to different kinds of education in different
ways (B15).
Many professionals deliver public messaging in Kananaskis, including Conservation Officers,
Park Recreation and Resource Officers, bear technicians, park interpreters, and visitor centre
staff, who receive separate training. Participants also highlighted the need for consistent delivery
of park messaging and suggested that having different types of park staff involved can also
complicate delivery:
One of the things I'm concerned about is the lack of consistency. Some Conservation
Officers don't react when there are people pulled over on the side of the road. Other
Conservation Officers play quite a heavy hand and don't allow anybody to stop ever. I
think there needs to be some consistency in how that situation will be managed, and I
think there needs to be better communication to people of ‘this is what the expected
behaviours are’ (B08).

102

Participants were asked what forms of education and outreach they thought were most effective
for communicating respectful bear viewing behaviours. Answers to the questions about
education and outreach provide the park with informed perspectives on improving park
messaging.
Table 9 Rated effectiveness of messaging approaches, as chosen by interview participants in descending
order (n=22). Survey participants were given a list of messaging approaches and asked what they
considered to be most effective in reducing risks associated with roadside bear viewing in PLPP.

According to participants, effective messaging:
Manages and describes expectations of desired behaviours
Provides reasoning behind desired behaviours
Is consistent in delivery and wording
Explains consequences of undesired behaviours
Is proactive and designed to prevent future unwanted
interactions (emphasizes risks to humans and bears, messaging
should reach visitors in multiple formats).

Participants
81%
(n=17)
62%
(n=13)
52%
(n=11)
52%
(n=11)
24%
(n=5)

103

The importance of including specific education about roadside bear viewing was pointed
out by 11 (52%) participants. The following quote illustrates the necessity of addressing visitor
behaviour via educational messaging, and mentions key challenges. The last part of this quote
bridges the concepts of conservation with human safety, suggesting that strategic education can
be employed to reconceptualize bear-human relations (i.e., steps to protect humans might also
protect bears, and vice versa, emphasizing the potential for messaging about mutual or multispecies benefits):
We're seeing a lot of new people on the landscape who aren't necessarily coming with a
basis of understanding or education in how to safely conduct themselves in a wilderness
area. That creates a challenge for park staff to get that messaging across to people, to
help them take steps to protect themselves, and also cultivate the understanding that
when they take these steps to protect themselves, they're also by association protecting
wildlife (B13).
Participants repeatedly emphasized the need for tactful education, as well as consistent
messaging and delivery.
Support for enforcement accompanied by suggested improvements
Interview participants (62%, 13) supported the issuing of violation tickets to visitors
while roadside bear viewing for unacceptable/undesirable behaviours (i.e., approaching, feeding,
or harassing bears, vehicle-related violations). In addition, 23% (5) of participants raised
concerns about the limitations of provincial park regulations concerning roadside bear viewing
infractions.

104

One participant, for example, called for clarification of what defines “harassment,” suggesting
that broader definitions would allow for more effective enforcement:
…we need to have changes to our Parks Act…there's nothing about harassing wildlife.
Not even under The Wildlife Act. We've had people flying drones over top of bears, we've
had people tracking and following bears non-stop. There needs to be something that we
can get them with for harassment of wildlife (B03).
Participants called for regulations to delineate appropriate/inappropriate bear viewing in terms of
length of time to view, suggesting that Alberta Parks could clarify maximum viewing distances:
Wildlife harassment needs to be defined more appropriately…spending 30 minutes
roadside photographing a bear—even if you're pulled off safely and you think it's a safe
distance—that's too long of a time period, therefore it's considered harassment and you
could be issued a violation ticket (B04).
Five participants (23%) recommended higher fine amounts and a more consistent enforcement
approach for violations while roadside bear viewing. Participants also suggested that enforcing
violations could be coupled with media outreach to highlight the potential consequences of
undesirable behaviors.
Volunteers identified as a critical element of public engagement in Kananaskis
Over the past five years, an average of 20 to 30 volunteers from WildSmart (a non-profit
organization) have actively participated in public education and outreach on the landscape in
Kananaskis (personal communication, 2022).

105

Participants emphasized volunteers' critical roles in PLPP in providing support to public
education and communication surrounding bear safety:
There's a lot of passionate people that are willing to give up their time and help out. But
there's just got to be that unanimous support across the board from the government in
what they’re doing…showing that appreciation, that support and that [the government]
values the same things that these dedicated volunteers value. I have a lot of conversations
with volunteers where they feel demoralized, you know, when things happen, or rules are
changed or money's taken away (B06).
Interview participants suggested that volunteers play a significant role in delivering bear safety
messaging in Kananaskis, especially during eras when budget curtailments reduced the number
of public-facing staff hired by Alberta Parks. Participants stressed that providing good volunteer
training, maintaining morale, and demonstrating appreciation for volunteers are crucial to the
retention and continued success of the program. An Alberta Parks staff member highlighted the
importance of volunteers in this way:
The Volunteer Wildlife Ambassadors on the landscape have a huge effect. They are able
to have those valuable one-on-one conversations with people, answer their questions,
and give people some simple and easy to follow instructions to keep themselves safe so
they feel empowered when they're in bear country—to feel safe and explore safely, but
also do the right thing if they do see a bear or see bear signs (B13).
Participants supported the efforts of Alberta Parks staff and volunteers in providing education to
the public. However, they also voiced concern about the need for explicit, consistent messaging
about roadside bear viewing behaviours.
Bear management
Participants shared ideas about how to improve the management of roadside bears. Two
participants emphasized the potential of concentrating bear aversion actions on females with

106

cubs. Females protect cubs against predation from adult male bears, as well as from other
dangers. Resident female bears with cubs are prominent in PLPP, as some female bears seek
protection in spaces that also happen to be human-populated areas of parks, such as roadsides
(Schwartz et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2014). A former park ecologist further highlighted the
benefits of sow- and cub-focused management:
Personally, I would like to see a little more focus on female reproducing grizzly bears
and try to get that particular cohort to stop utilizing roads and other developments with
the hope that that group of bears sticks around and is able to reproduce and help the
population grow. So basically, from a management perspective, try to strategically work
on a certain cohort of bears that are important to the population as a whole (B10).
Such quotes illustrate that there might be benefits to re-examining management components that
are standard practice, as changes to bear management/conservation could contribute to reducing
bear jams and their negative impacts.
Habitat management
Strategies for habitat management include removing natural food sources for bears along
the roadside. For example, in Kananaskis, natural attractants such as buffaloberry (Shepherdia
canadensis) are controlled or removed around human-use areas and encouraged to grow outside
of human-use areas (Government of Alberta, 2004). Participants coupled this suggestion with
enhancing bear habitat away from the road and other human-use areas to encourage bears to use
habitats further away from human presence or use:
[Alberta Parks] have done a pretty good job of habitat removal—so removing shepherdia
from campgrounds or roadside areas that are problematic—but basically all you're
doing is taking food away from bears and you're not actually replacing it anywhere else.
And so that habitat enhancement needs to be a part of the management actions in Peter
Lougheed (B08).

107

This participant explained how the presence of natural attractants along the roadside in PLPP
remains a perpetual management challenge for the park:
We do a lot of aversive conditioning where we chase bears off the road. But they're just
going to come back because that's where the forage is. So, you can chase bears off the
road, but that's just a management action that never ends. It just goes on and on and on
forever (B08).
Participants (19%, 4) suggested removing or controlling roadside attractants such as
buffaloberries as a management option. In addition to managing attractants along roadsides in
PLPP, participants offered suggestions for road design and construction modifications.
Infrastructure management
Suggested strategies for road infrastructure modifications included altering, removing, or
constructing physical elements within the park to reduce the risks and impacts of roadside bear
viewing in PLPP. Roadside mitigation structures such as fencing were one option suggested by 2
(10%) interview participants. Another infrastructure recommendation was creating spaces such
as pull-outs or lanes to allow for more responsible roadside bear viewing:
You could create a slow-down lane where you’re giving the best of both worlds—where
the bear is safe, the people are safe, and everybody is getting to enjoy the experience
(B07).
This suggestion allows for improved bear conservation while encouraging enhanced or at least
less detrimental viewing opportunities. Better/safer viewing opportunities could benefit both
bears and humans and could contribute to visitor satisfaction.

108

No-stopping zones
No-stopping zones were one of the potential interventions favoured by participants.
Almost three quarters or 71% (15) of interviewees supported the efficacy of temporary nostopping zones in PLPP. One of them explained it this way:
I like the new method now of putting up the no-stopping signs. In the past it's very
difficult to actually enforce and tell people to get back in their vehicle and they need to
move along. So having that no-stopping zone I think helps quite a lot…providing that
barrier (B15).
Another participant commented that no-stopping zones are only effective when accompanied by
park staff, such as an enforcement officer:
In terms of how well [no-stopping zones] are working, it's difficult to say because there
needs to be the enforcement side of things. What do people do when there isn't a
Conservation Officer nearby? Chances are, they're probably still stopping (B04).
Interview participants also supported using electric signage to inform and direct visitors. In
recent years, Alberta Parks has installed large electric signboards, which rotate through different
locations. In addition, they capture visitor attention by providing dynamic seasonal messaging.
The expert perceptions of and suggestions for roadside bear management in PLPP
recorded in this project have wide-ranging applicability. A combined approach incorporating the
bear, human, habitat, and infrastructure elements suggested by the participating experts offers
opportunities for adaptive, integrated management.
6 Discussion
The findings from this research have highlighted the need for an updated and more
diverse management approach to roadside bear viewing in PLPP at cross agency, provincial,
regional, park-specific, and community management levels. Respondents emphasized the need
for more clarity and consistency in the type and delivery of messaging surrounding respectful
109

bear viewing behaviours. While many of the suggestions and strategies for managing roadside
bear viewing are presently in use in PLPP, respondent perceptions and insights into their efficacy
are valuable resources for park managers.
6.1 Human-related strategies
Messaging needs to be clear and consistent
The effectiveness of bear-related messaging is influenced by many factors, complicating
its design and delivery. For example, PLPP lies within a corridor of overlapping land-use
jurisdictions, including municipalities, provincial, and federal parks (Alberta Parks, BC Parks,
Parks Canada, Town of Canmore, Town of Banff). Each of these jurisdictions employs different
methods and content in communications and roadside bear viewing management. Clarity of
jurisdictions, mandates, and functions is crucial for visitor compliance and sound management,
and for avoiding oversaturation and uncertainty for park visitors (Abrams et al., 2020; Ballantyne
et al., 2009). Clear and consistent messaging about roadside bear viewing is also needed, as not
all roadside bear viewing incidents are the same. Variation in location, time of season/day,
foraging conditions, bears (gender, number/sex of individuals, presence of cubs, history of
aversion actions), and number/behaviour of humans are some of the many factors that can
contribute to a bear jam (Penteriani et al., 2017; Taylor et al., 2014). The complexity of bear
jams also complicates messaging design and content.
The complex nature of human behaviour and our psyches must also be considered in
messaging efforts. Understanding visitor demographics and behaviours is invaluable for
effectively targeting bear safety messaging (Bright et al., 2000; Miller et al., 2018). In addition,
studies have found that injunctive-prescriptive messaging (explaining the desired behaviour in

110

conjunction with outlining the negative consequences of transgressions) is a practical approach
to designing messaging for signage and outreach (Winter et al., 1998; Winter, 2008).
Decades of studies suggest that information alone is insufficient for communicating
desirable behaviours and preventing undesirable ones (Gore & Knuth, 2009; Lu et al., 2018;
Rickard et al., 2011). Messaging that solely focuses on how to avoid conflict has been found to
be less effective than messaging that also includes information about the benefits of desired
behaviours (Slagle et al., 2013). For this reason, and in the face of diverse visitor groups and park
conditions, it might be helpful to use shared conservation goals or achievements as unifying
rallying points in park communications. Managers can construct messaging in a way that purveys
behavioural expectations and park regulations while simultaneously offering visitors a sense of
stewardship and recognized contributions towards protecting bears through responsible actions
(Ballantyne et al., 2009). Strategically developing intentional tone and content beyond the
information on roadside bear viewing signs, texts, and images could provide opportunities for
Alberta Parks and partner organizations to target critical concerns and different visitor groups
while emphasizing safety for humans and bears. Explaining and incorporating the literature on
social marketing (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000) might also benefit future park planning and
management in terms of using positive peer pressure among and between park user groups to
prevent and mitigate the impacts of bear jams.
Creative ways must be found to bolster enforcement
As indicated in interview responses, enforcement plays an integral role in gaining the
compliance of visitors during roadside bear viewing. This strategy is well supported in the
literature (Carruthers Den Hoed et al., 2020; Gunther et al., 2018). In practice, there are
limitations to enforcement capacity due to funding and labour. For example, in PLPP,

111

Conservation Officers are the only Alberta Parks staff with the authority to issue violation tickets
(at the time of this study). There are a limited number of staff members available for direct
enforcement (approximately 2–5 staff per day in the summer).
For Conservation Officers, regulatory challenges limit available enforcement options for
managing undesirable visitor behaviours at roadside bear viewing incidents. The Parks Act is one
of the overarching documents that guides Alberta Parks enforcement officers. Under The Parks
Act, the definition of harassment of wildlife is ambiguous, complicating judgement on when
intervention and enforcement should occur. For example, Section 17(1) of the Parks Act states
that a Conservation Officer can:
…order a person to cease or refrain from any activity that the officer considers is, or is
potentially, dangerous to human life or health or public safety or detrimental to the
environment or property in a park or recreation area or the use and enjoyment of the park
or recreation area by others (Government of Alberta, 2022c).
This section applies to people getting out of their vehicles and approaching bears. However, such
an application could also be challenging to prove in court if those ticketed should decide to
contest their ticket.
Including specific guidelines for roadside bear viewing in The Parks Act could assist with
enforcement judgements and actions and defences of appealed charges. An example exists in the
Canadian federal Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act, which legally defines
minimum distances for whale watching and enforceable limits to approaching marine mammals
(Government of Canada, 2018). This clarifies what can and cannot be done in terms of
interacting with and viewing the animals. Introducing legally defined viewing distances could be
beneficial for visitor compliance and conservation while offering more explicit details on when
to enforce and less opportunity for challenging enforcement.

112

Developing a rubric or guidelines for park staff and volunteers to respond to roadside
bear viewing incidents and bear jams could be a valuable tool to improve the consistency of
response. The Government of Alberta has a response guide for both grizzly and black bears in
the province (Government of Alberta, 2016c, 2019e). These guides provide “clear, concise, and
consistent direction” to staff in responding to bear incidents (Government of Alberta, 2016c, p.
1). The guides are used to:
[Incorporate] the results of [incident investigations] along with assessing the grizzly bear
sex/age classification, behaviour, and known conflict history, to enable staff to determine
appropriate response options to a conflict situation. (Government of Alberta, 2016c, p. 2).
Developing a similar guide outlining options for managing humans (i.e., what to do if someone is
outside of their vehicle, what to do if someone is approaching a bear) in addition to managing
bears may be valuable.
Clarifying Alberta Park’s position on bear viewing
This project’s expert interviews and literature review indicate a need for greater clarity on
whether Alberta Parks supports or discourages roadside bear viewing, and which types it
condones. A clear position on roadside bear viewing expectations could be emphasized in park
policy documents (such as the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Management Plan), on
government websites, through staff training resources, and in promotional materials for the
public. The guidelines for wildlife viewing on Alberta Park’s website suggest support for
roadside bear viewing if visitors respect the bears and follow guidelines (Government of Alberta,
2019a). However, the expert and visitor responses we collected suggest a lack of consistency in
communications about roadside bear viewing, and in on-the-ground enforcement of roadside
bear viewing. These gaps can generate or exacerbate confusion about desired behaviours.

113

Alberta Parks (as an entire operations division and at park-specific levels) could also
identify and support viewing in certain areas, while discouraging general roadside viewing. The
Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre in PLPP is an option for a managed bear viewing area in the
park. The centre serves as a visitor centre, lounge, interpretive theatre, and museum. A large,
elevated deck behind the building looks out to a meadow where grizzlies commonly forage on
silverweed (Argentina anserina). An electric fence in the viewing area discourages bears from
walking through the parking lot or venturing too close to visitors. While the Discovery Centre
deck is informally recommended to visitors as a bear viewing area by some park staff,
participants suggested formalizing and advertising this to visitors wanting to see bears. Such a
move would support ongoing bear viewing and related visitor satisfaction while removing the
roadside as a site for human-bear conflict in the form of bear jams and their related risks. A sitespecific plan outlining conservation and educational objectives for using the deck as an
observation platform could be included in relevant park management documents such as the
Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Management Plan.
6.2 Managing roadside habitat and providing alternatives
Habitat security is necessary for improving human-wildlife coexistence in the Bow
Valley, including Banff National Park, the towns of Banff and Canmore, and Kananaskis
(Alberta Environment & Parks, 2018). Open-canopy forest (prime grizzly habitat) has been
reduced by fire suppression in the area leading to increased forest density and abundance (Hamer
& Herrero, 1987; Souliere et al., 2020). As discussed by participants, increased forest density, in
combination with roadside attractants, encourages bears to habituate road corridors. Creating
desirable bear habitats away from human-use areas to reduce human-bear interactions is an
option being implemented near Lake Louise, as explained by this participant:

114

There is a project out in Lake Louise where they're foresting some habitat patches with
the idea of creating good wildlife habitat immediately adjacent to the community…in the
montane, in the valley bottom, but further afield from townsites. It could be a kilometer
way, but it gives interfaces where there's alternatives. So, if you do have to haze a bear, it
might discover another place in which to go to feed where it doesn't get bothered or
disturbed by people (B16).
In their 2018 report, The Human-Wildlife Coexistence Technical Working Group provided the
following habitat-related recommendations to reduce human-wildlife conflict (including humanbear conflict) in the Bow Valley and Kananaskis area:
•

improving habitat security (reducing human use) and habitat quality (burning or
vegetation enhancement) in areas away from roads where we do want bears;

•

[excluding] wildlife from urban areas and reducing attractive roadside vegetation so bears
spend less time in close proximity to people; and

•

[hazing] wildlife (carnivores and elk) …out of urban areas to reduce close interactions
with people (Alberta Environment & Parks, 2018, p. 37).

In PLPP, some of the above habitat management recommendations already exist (excluding
wildlife from human-use areas via hazing). However, improving habitat security and quality
away from roadsides and reducing attractive roadside vegetation could supplement these
practices. Improved habitat goals and practices, specifically with respect to bear viewing could
be added to park management plans in the area.
6.3 Infrastructure management
Construction and adaptation of highway infrastructure, including fencing, wildlife
overpasses, pull-outs and passing lanes, can be practical tools for mitigating roadside humanbear encounters and collisions. The combination of wildlife overpasses/underpasses and fencing
115

reduces wildlife-vehicle collisions with multiple species and limits the presence of bears foraging
roadside in Banff National Park (Gilhooly et al., 2019). However, there are concerns that wildlife
fencing along sections of the Trans-Canada highway in Banff National Park may impact habitat
use and distribution of bears (Gilhooly et al., 2019; Herrero et al., 2001).
Just as bears can be kept away from humans via alternative corridor provision or fencing,
humans can be kept further from bears by offering them alternative vantage points from which to
view bears. In “hot spots” known for roadside bear viewing, infrastructure modifications such as
slow-down lanes or pull-outs would allow for viewing while alleviating the risk of bear jams
(Richardson et al., 2015). In Yellowstone National Park, visitors are encouraged to use roadside
pullouts to view bears to prevent the formation of bear jams (National Park Service, 2019b).
Experts in this study highlighted the lack of highway pullouts or shoulders in PLPP, suggesting
this is a potential area for improvement, and one that could prevent and alleviate bear jams.
No-stopping zones (either temporary, seasonal, or permanent) presently used in PLPP, in
addition to Yellowstone National Park and Kootenay National Park, have been proven effective
at reducing bear jams (Gunther & Biel, 1999; Parks Canada, 2022). Alberta Parks began using
temporary no-stopping zones in 2019 to allow roadside bears to forage without disturbance from
visitors in PLPP (Biosphere Institute, 2019). An additional benefit of these zones is that the
temporary signage gives enforcement officers a stronger case for issuing violation tickets to
drivers who stop. Wildlife fencing, overpasses, pullouts, and no-stopping zones are all
infrastructure options that may be of benefit in PLPP to reduce roadside bear jams.
6.4 Limitations of research
A potential limitation of this project is the limited diversity of experts interviewed.
Project timeline constraints and the additional stressors brought on by conducting interviews

116

during the COVID-19 era (i.e., additional work-related stress and limited time availability for
park staff) likely contributed to a smaller sample size. Snowball sampling was used to recruit
interviewees, which has some limitations as it can lead to a like-minded sample group, as
experienced individuals tend to nominate others from their communities with similar
perspectives (Noy, 2008). The lead author’s insider perspectives and prior relations with some
participants attributed to some interviewees answering questions in a way that excluded detail
and assumed prior knowledge, resulting in some data lacking context or detail—however the
lead author could contextualize when needed.
The initial research design included interviewing 3–4 individuals from seven defined
categories of ‘expert’: Conservation Officers, bear technicians, biologists, park planners, park
managers, local NGOs, and community volunteers. Two categories of experts, park planners and
park managers, are missing from the interview data due to their lack of availability during the
research field season. Consequently, the presented data lacks perspectives and insights from
higher-level decision makers in Alberta Parks. Insights from upper-level staff in the Alberta
Government are something that could be included in future research. Some of these limitations
were mitigated in the larger project by triangulating on bear jams as a topic via combining expert
interviews with visitor surveys and a comprehensive literature review of applied and academic
documents.
Indigenous perspectives are also missing from the interview data and should be included.
In 2016, the Stoney Nakoda Nation conducted a comprehensive assessment of grizzly bear
management in Kananaskis to provide traditional insight into the region's populations,
management, and cultural values of grizzly bears (Stoney Tribal Administration, 2016). The
initial participant list included Indigenous experts related to the 2016 assessment. However, the

117

COVID-19 pandemic coincided with this project’s fieldwork season, and some of the intended
Indigenous participants were involved with COVID-19-related community response in addition
to numerous other roles. Indigenous representatives and communities can face “consultation
burnout” when there are too many requests and initiatives for consultation on research and
projects (Nelitz et al., 2008). Out of respect for these individuals’ priorities during the pandemic,
we chose not to persist with multiple interview requests. Contemporary and future human
dimensions research on bear viewing should include Indigenous knowledge and management
perspectives.
7 Conclusion
The results from this study can be a valuable resource for park managers beyond PLPP as
they offer insights into park communications and management. Staff members in PLPP have
highlighted the need for human dimensions perspectives on human-bear interactions in parks
(personal communication, 2021). This project provides a case study of how experts understand,
experience, and perceive roadside bear viewing. As illustrated in this paper, strategies for
managing roadside bear viewing occurs at different levels of government (provincial, regional,
park-specific), community, and even cross-agency. Recommendations from this study could be
integrated into future planning documents, specifically the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley
Management Plan. Recommendations include:
•

increasing the presence of consistent and clear messaging of responsible roadside bear
viewing behaviours for visitors;

•

constructing and adapting highway infrastructure;

•

managing roadside attractants;

•

developing a rubric for responding to roadside bear viewing incidents;

118

•

developing the visitor centre deck for opportunistic bear viewing; and

•

improving regulatory definitions to assist enforcement officers.

Challenges to managing roadside bear viewing are not unique to PLPP. Findings and
recommendations from this research apply to other agencies and protected area managers in
Canada and the USA. As discussed in this paper, bear viewing is a significant component of
tourism in North American parks. With growing visitation numbers across many parks in Canada
and the USA, an increased understanding of options for roadside bear viewing is necessary if we
are to manage parks for the safety of humans and bears.

119

Chapter 5: Conclusion
1 Introduction
This chapter is designed to bring my Masters project to a close by examining themes
across both manuscript style chapters (3 & 4), and both data sets (visitor survey; expert
interviews). It considers what this project's data, analysis, and literature review suggest in terms
of implications and recommendations. When I undertook this project, my goal was to take a
closer look at roadside bear viewing in PLPP. My goal was to contribute data and perspectives
that did not currently exist in connection with the park. The project was both park-driven and
related to my own informal observations; I wanted to know more about how and why bear jams
occur, and how we might better address them. I wanted to focus on the human side of this
management and conservation challenge by examining roadside bear viewing from the points of
view of both visitors to the park, and experts with relevant expertise. Combining these two data
sets with a literature review that includes a broader context enabled me to triangulate roadside
bear viewing. This allowed me to identify potential ways to improve roadside bear viewing
management in PLPP. Triangulation allows researchers to gather different aspects of a particular
issue (Flick, 2004) and in this case, would add the “human dimensions” layer missing from
PLPP. I present a summary of what I found here, and offer recommendations based on the
academic research that I conducted paired with my “insider perspective” as a former PLPP
employee and a seasonal BC Parks employee.
2 Summary of findings
I will revisit this project’s three guiding research questions and discuss how they relate to
project data and the literature review. This will provide structure for this closing discussion of
my overall findings.

120

1. How can roadside bear viewing be addressed to improve park management and visitor
experiences and to reduce risks to bears and humans?
Visitor and expert perspectives and suggestions about roadside bear viewing management
strategies offer useful insights for park managers to improve current approaches. Understanding
visitor and expert perceptions of risks/benefits associated with roadside bear viewing, public
valuation of bears, trust and support in park management can lead to increased effectiveness of
management approaches in wildlife management (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014, p. 161). Results
from the visitor survey indicate that respondents voiced support for a wide range of roadside bear
viewing management approaches including increased signage, increased investment in more
significant staff presence, increased fines, and continued use of no-stopping zones. In the expert
interviews, management suggestions included the development and implementation of clear and
consistent guidelines for respectful behaviour while viewing roadside bears. These guidelines
would augment and complement suggested regulatory modifications to support enforcement
actions. Across both data sets, participants named visitors’ lack of knowledge about appropriate
roadside bear viewing behaviours as a primary cause of bear jams. This is a concern that must be
addressed. Both visitors and experts view the phenomenon of unaware visitors as compounded
by the lack of face-to-face exposure to park staff/volunteers.
2. What are the perceived risks associated with bear viewing in Peter Lougheed Provincial
Park, from the perspectives of park staff, visitors, and other local experts?
As part of the online survey and the expert interviews, I asked several questions about the
risks associated with roadside viewing for humans and bears. I included these to collect data on
risk perceptions across these groups. I did so in the context of park and personal interest in risks
associated with roadside bear viewing, as well as their associated costs and impacts (e.g.,

121

human/wildlife safety; financial impacts; impacts on staff retention). In the expert interviews,
when asked “which risk is most important to address,” participants said that vehicle-related
collisions resulting from roadside bear viewing were of the greatest concern (with concern for
human safety, including the safety of park staff members). On the other hand, results from the
survey suggested that visitors regarded bear jams and roadside bear viewing as having more of a
negative impact on bears than humans. They did not specifically mention the risks to park staff.
Experts and visitors gave similar answers when defining the risks associated with roadside bear
viewing and bear jams. Risks to bears included the disturbance of natural bear feeding processes,
increased bear mortality or injury caused by vehicle strikes, the potential for bear family groups
to be broken up, pushing bears away from their natural habitat, and the disturbance of natural
bear movement patterns and their travel through natural corridors. Risks to humans included
being involved in vehicle accidents (either inside or outside of a vehicle) while viewing a bear,
being involved in vehicle accidents while trying to drive around a bear jam or being attacked by
a bear. The overarching risk to both humans and bears, as identified by both experts and visitors
who participated in this project, was vehicle collisions. This suggests an opportunity for outreach
to park visitors, and for piloting other efforts to reduce vehicle-related risks.
3. Considering the literature and this case study, how could the management of roadside
bear viewing in PLPP be improved?
This project took a mixed-methods approach using expert and visitor data in combination
with a literature review of management strategies for bears to elicit prospective
recommendations. Resulting recommendations for the management of roadside bear viewing and
human-bear interactions in PLPP and North America are multi-pronged. There was a diversity of
respondent vantage points on the causes and challenges of roadside bear viewing. Participant

122

opinions combined with observed human behaviours pointed towards a gap in communication
and outreach (both in the messaging itself and its delivery). Examining case studies of roadside
bear viewing and related wildlife management literature, it becomes clear that effective roadside
bear viewing management must involve a more holistic approach. It requires consideration of
human, bear, habitat, and landscape-related elements. As discussed in this thesis, holistic
management in land or wildlife management considers all parts of a system to make betterinformed decisions (Bruskotter & Wilson, 2014; Gosnell et al., 2020; Savory & Butterfield,
2016). In the case of roadside bear management, holistic management should involve the
consideration of human activity and behaviour, bear ecology and habitat, road and park
infrastructure, and communications/outreach strategies, as suggested by project participants. The
following interview respondents explained how holistic management can work to better address
human-bear interactions:
One of the things that is so challenging about human-bear conflict management and
human-wildlife conflict management is that we have this huge toolkit…like this quiver of
tools. And there is not one individual tool that is a silver bullet. We really need a
combination of all of these different kinds of tools. It's like a recipe, right? When you're
baking something like every single recipe has slightly different quantities of all of your
different ingredients and every different human-bear conflict situation requires a slightly
different quantity of all of the different tools that we use.
You can either manage the people, you can manage the bears, or you can manage the
landscape. And I think that it's not effective to choose to just do one of those. I think that
a much more effective model is to combine all of those pieces together (B22).
Incorporating bear, human, habitat, and landscape factors into wildlife management supports a
more adaptive, not reactive, approach in response to challenges relating to roadside bear viewing.
As mentioned by Organ et al. (2020), adaptive management approaches involve iterative and
123

dynamic decision-making based on the incorporation of research and learning from past
challenges to prevent conflicts and anticipate obstacles (Organ et al., 2020). The insights gleaned
from this project can now be used to address some gaps in the “human dimensions” of bear
viewing and management in PLPP.
4 Implications and suggestions for management
Results of the interviews, surveys, and literature review provide novel insights into how
roadside bear viewing is experienced and perceived by visitors and experts and inform
recommendations for innovative management improvements. Looking across the data sets and
contextualizing them within related literature, the following suggestions emerge. Each
recommendation in this section is presented with a scale or level of management (e.g. park
level). This is the level/scale at which each recommendation is most likely actionable. Included
levels are: cross-agency, provincial, regional, park-specific, and community (see Chapter 1 pp. 910 for definitions of management levels).
a) Clarify Alberta Park’s stance on roadside bear viewing (provincial, regional, and
park-specific levels). The findings from our visitor survey and expert interviews indicate
a significant degree of confusion regarding Alberta Parks' stance on roadside bear
viewing. The guidelines for wildlife viewing on Alberta Parks' website suggest support
for roadside bear viewing, provided that visitors respect the bears and adhere to the
guidelines (Government of Alberta, 2019a). Feedback from experts and visitors in this
project, however, suggests a lack of consistency in communications and on-the-ground
enforcement, leading to potential visitor confusion in terms of sanctioned park activities
and desired visitor behaviours. On a provincial and regional scale, it is recommended that
Alberta Parks and Kananaskis regional managers establish a clear and consistent position
124

on roadside bear viewing via inclusion in managerial frameworks and
communications/outreach. On a regional and park-specific scale, this stance should then
be reflected in the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Management Plan, all media
platforms, in the training of staff members, and in staff interactions with visitors.
b) Provide the public with consistent and clear guidelines for respectful bear viewing
behavior (cross-agency, provincial, regional, park-specific, and community levels).
Alberta Parks presently offers guidelines for wildlife viewing on its website (Government
of Alberta, 2019a). However, responses from both visitors and experts revealed that this
messaging needs to be distributed and communicated to the public more consistently and
clearly. This can be achieved through signage, media, brochures, and other
education/outreach formats. It is recommended that park managers, interpretive staff, and
ecologists in Kananaskis collaborate to develop and make accessible consistent and
standardized messaging for desired behaviors while roadside bear viewing in the park.
Furthermore, consistency in messaging across agencies (including community
organizations such as WildSmart) should be considered. From the literature, injunctiveprescriptive messaging is shown to be effective (telling people what they should do and
using positive language) in addition to explaining the consequential risks to both humans
and bears (Winter et al., 1998; Winter, 2008). Developing and sharing specific guidelines
for roadside wildlife photography is an additional communications strategy suggested by
respondents, the literature, and park staff member observations. As such efforts continue
over time, signage and other messaging could be adapted/updated to include the
contributions that visitors are making to the conservation effort. This could be done by
citing impacts linked to bear viewing improvements in PLPP.
125

c) Improve regulatory definitions to assist enforcement officers (provincial and regional
levels). Developing a clear definition of 'harassment of wildlife' under The Parks Act and
including specific regulations for appropriate roadside bear viewing (i.e., defining
minimum distances and enforceable limits for approaching wildlife) could assist
enforcement officers with communicating expectations to the public and issuing violation
tickets. Interviewed experts highlighted enforcement challenges linked to this lack of
clarity, and survey respondents also supported the need for enforcement. An improved
definition of harassment, with details regarding bear viewing and impacts, would
facilitate enforcement and provide clearer behavioural expectations for visitors. A
relevant example is the Canadian Marine Mammal Regulations definition of minimum
distances for whale watching (Government of Canada, 2018). An improved definition of
bear/wildlife viewing distances and expected behaviours should be clearly communicated
via multiple media to both staff members and visitors.
d) Create a response guide pertaining to roadside bear viewing (provincial and regional
levels). Developing a rubric or response chart to guide park staff and volunteers on how
to respond to roadside bear viewing/bear jam incidents could be a valuable tool to
improve the consistency of responses. While guides exist for bear-specific responses, a
guide including response options for human management (i.e., what to do if someone is
outside of their vehicle, what to do if someone is approaching a bear) in correlation with
bear behaviours may better enable staff to determine appropriate response options to a
conflict situation.

126

e) Develop and promote the viewing deck at the Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre as a
sanctioned alternative for informed bear viewing (park-specific level). The back deck
of the Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre could serve as an ideal location where visitors
may have a chance to view bears could placate visitor demands for bear viewing while
offering a site for park education and outreach specific to bear viewing. The deck serves
as a valuable tool for park staff in managing bear jams, by redirecting bear-seekers to this
location, potentially alleviating some pressures from roadside bear jams. While the
presence of bears in the Discovery Centre meadow may not be predictable or consistent,
the location presents opportunities for educating the public through interpretive signage
and engaging displays on bears and bear viewing. Promoting a bear viewing area such as
the Peter Lougheed Discovery Centre would require careful management and education
to minimize risks such as bear habituation to humans. It must also be carefully designed
in order to ensure positive tourism encounters including for tourists who enjoy
“discovering” wildlife.
f) Consider modifications or implementations to highway infrastructure (cross-agency
level). Permanent and temporary infrastructure modifications (including fencing, wildlife
overpasses, pull-outs and passing lanes) were recommended in both the data sets and in
the literature. Experts and visitors in this study highlighted the lack of highway pullouts
or shoulders in PLPP lead to higher rates of congestion and hazard during bear jams,
suggesting this is a potential area for improvement. In “hot spots” known for roadside
bear viewing, infrastructure modifications such as slow-down lanes or pull-outs would
allow for viewing while alleviating the risk of bear jams (Richardson et al., 2015).
Construction and adaptation of highway infrastructure can be practical tools for
127

mitigating roadside human-bear encounters and collisions (Gilhooly et al., 2019; National
Park Service, 2019b).
g) Implement seasonal or permanent no-stopping zones on sections of Hwy 40 (crossagency and regional levels). The results of the online survey and expert interviews
indicate a strong belief in the effectiveness of no-stopping zones on Hwy 40 in PLPP.
Implementing a greater number of no-stopping zones in PLPP, as well as potentially
establishing more permanent or seasonal no-stopping zones (similar to those in Kootenay
National Park), could effectively decrease the formation of bear jams and facilitate the
efforts of enforcement officers and park staff in breaking up and enforcing against these
jams.
h) Seek and acknowledge human perspectives on bear management (cross-agency,
provincial, regional, park-specific, and community levels). Incorporating human
dimensions (desires, attitudes, behaviours, demographics) into bear management in PLPP
can improve management practices, and inform education and communications efforts
(Decker et al., 2004). In effect, multiple kinds of actors already contribute to bear
viewing education and management in PLPP, as demonstrated by this project’s
participating experts. Integrating multi-actor collaboration through perspectives from
visitors, staff, residents, local NGOs, and Indigenous groups on bear management
practices can deepen knowledge and improve support and tolerance for management
approaches. The integration of human perspectives should also be done when trying to
understand human-wildlife interactions in PLPP, such as in the case of bear jams. This
can occur via surveys and interviews, the incorporation of citizen science programs, and

128

piloting projects that include repeat evaluations to make sure they are achieving desired
goals. Ongoing follow-up and communication with staff and the public on management
or regulatory changes as well as contentious issues would also be an appropriate practice
for better including the human side of bear management in PLPP.
A closing recommendation from this study is to update the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley
Provincial Parks Management Plan. At the time of this thesis publication, the current (2006)
management plan is seventeen years old and does not adequately reflect or address heightened
visitation and resulting challenges in the park. In Parks Canada, the Canada National Parks Act
requires park management plans to be reviewed at least once every ten years (Government of
Canada, 2000). Adopting a similar timeframe for management plan review could be beneficial
for the Alberta Government to better manage changing landscapes and visitation.
Improvements to the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Management Plan might include
more specific delineation and emphasis on the types of human-bear conflict in the region (i.e.,
roadside bear viewing) and draw from the above recommendations to include actionable items to
mitigate impacts. Currently, Section 6.2.2 of the plan addresses human-bear conflict
management and risk mitigation:
The risk of human-bear conflict will be addressed by a variety of measures including
visitor information and education, site planning and design, temporary closures,
monitoring bear movements, use of aversion techniques, and managing attractants (e.g.,
human food, garbage, and natural bear foods such as buffaloberry bushes). (Government
of Alberta, 2006, p. 24).
Each of the above-mentioned measures could be expanded upon and paired with specific actions
to support improved human-bear management in PLPP.
These recommendations are carefully drawn from a close examination of this case study
of PLPP (survey; interviews; additional observations) embedded within a comprehensive review

129

of bear viewing management research and applied strategies across parks in North America.
Furthermore, each of the above recommendations align with one or more of the management
objectives under the Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks Management Plan:
preservation, outdoor recreation, heritage appreciation, and heritage tourism (Government of
Alberta, 2006).
Implementing these recommendations could contribute to increased safety of visitors,
staff, and bears, while balancing visitor satisfaction and conservation management goals of
Alberta Parks.
5 Considerations and limitations of the project
This case study is temporally limited, and it occurred during a very particular era which
did influence its design and may have influenced some results. This project was conducted
during part of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-present). The pandemic impacted visitation
and Alberta Parks operations during the fieldwork period (summer 2021). This must be
considered in interpreting the results of this study and in considering how representative 2021
was compared with other years. Regional visitation does make up a large percentage of visitors
in Alberta during more typical visitation seasons (international visitors made up only 7% of
visitors in Alberta in 2019), and so data is still relevant to the park (Government of Alberta,
2017b).
The pandemic also impacted the project design by moving it from a planned in-person
survey to an online survey. Both expert and visitor participation may also have been influenced
by the timing of this project. Further, the visitor sample ended up being regional in nature. This
was no doubt influenced by the travel restrictions in place in Canada, which greatly reduced
international tourism at various times in response to COVID-19 public health concerns. In sum,

130

COVID-19 led to an atypical sample of visitor respondents and atypical challenges for park
management. While neither COVID-19 or related impacts were the focus of this project, both
must be mentioned here because of the changes that impacted both the project design and the
resulting data, particularly on the visitor side.
Similarly, this project was conducted during a very particular political time in Alberta.
Budgetary decisions linked to changes in provincial political leadership impact park operations.
This is a regular occurrence but changes in management should be noted relative to the outcomes
of the research. For example, the usual interpretation programs and staff (offering environmental
education and in-person park messaging) were not available in 2021. Two visitor centres that
typically operate during the summer seasons were closed, and there were cuts to some seasonal
park roles. All of this led to reduced opportunities for public access to park information and
education during the time that this project was conducted. However, respondents in the project
drew from post-pandemic experience relating to roadside bear viewing.
As will be discussed in the next section, future human dimensions research in the Kananaskis
region would benefit from gathering visitor data in person to build upon this data set and also to
capture a broader sample of visitors during a more typical summer visitation season (which
would include more international travel).
Kananaskis Conservation Pass
On June 1st, 2021 (during data collection for this project), the province of Alberta
implemented the Kananaskis Conservation Pass. This pass marked the province's first vehiclebased required entry pass. There are different variants of the pass, but the standard cost is
$15/vehicle/day or $90/year, which includes entry to parks and public lands in the Kananaskis
region, including PLPP (Government of Alberta, 2021). In the first year, the pass generated over

131

$12 million in revenue (Government of Alberta, 2022b). The government claims the fees will
pay for conservation, public safety, services, and facilities (Government of Alberta, 2021).
However, there are critiques regarding the lack of government transparency about where the
funds are allocated (Ellis, 2022). During the analysis of the results, the implemented pass
appeared in survey respondents' open-ended responses. Revenue collected from the Kananaskis
Conservation Pass has reportedly contributed to additional privately hired (non-government)
staff to enforce and monitor high-volume areas of the park (Kaisar, 2022). Noting this increase in
staff presence in Kananaskis/PLPP is relevant, as under-staffing was cited by both respondent
groups in this project.
Pilot project for Kananaskis public transit
A project to pilot a public transit system in the Kananaskis region is slated for 2023 to
alleviate traffic/parking congestion and provide more accessibility for outdoor recreation (Lee,
2022). The Kananaskis Improvement District (KID) is considering a pilot project with
recommendations for implementation in 2024 (Lee, 2022; Mucha & Holroyd, 2022). Studies
have shown that improved public transportation and connectivity in parks and protected areas
can lead to efficiency and increased visitor satisfaction (Mace et al., 2013; Taff et al., 2013), but
can also impact visitors' sense of freedom (Pettebone et al., 2011). Reduction in traffic and
congestion through shuttles and public transportation may influence roadside bear viewing and
visitor perceptions/experiences of wildlife viewing from roadways in Kananaskis, including
opportunities for wildlife-related education and messaging. This new development also
represents a unique opportunity for related follow-up research.

132

6 Questions raised and ideas for future research
Situated in the context of human dimensions of wildlife research and with the goal of
contributing applied recommendations, this project’s findings target management practices, and
inform education and communications strategies (Decker et al., 2004). However, embracing an
adaptive management approach in PLPP would require continual re-examination of visitor
behaviours, attitudes, and insights, and would require significant resources. This research was
therefore designed as a cross-sectional case study (examining roadside bear viewing at a specific
place and time) to offer first insights into the human dimensions of bear viewing in PLPP. A
future longitudinal study involving returning and re-examining visitor perceptions of roadside
bear viewing would provide additional insight to park managers since they are known to be
particularly beneficial when studying human-wildlife interactions (Baxter, 2016). For example,
Richardson et al. (2015) highlighted the usefulness of conducting longitudinal studies of visitor
perceptions, as the values and behaviors of visitors shift over time in response to broader
cultural, political, economic, and ecological changes (Manfredo, 2008). As this study occurred
during the COVID-19 pandemic, the sample size and context did not reflect a typical summer
season. Conducting a similar study in a more ‘typical’ visitation season would provide
comparative data and would shed light on commonalities, differences, and changes across
visitation and conservation eras over time. This would allow for capturing the experiences of
out-of-province and international visitors.
Park planners, park managers, and Indigenous perspectives are missing from the
interview data due to project limitations and COVID-19 related influences. Qualitative research
that incorporates those key perspectives would add depth and richness to this topic. The
Kananaskis Conservation Pass and the public transportation pilot project (as mentioned above),

133

illustrate how parks and protected areas are a constantly shifting landscape—politically,
ecologically, and culturally. For this reason, management and communications strategies need to
shift accordingly. Investing in collecting and understanding human data must be a key
component of future-focused adaptive management.
7 Conclusion
The results of this research are a valuable resource for managers in PLPP and other parks
facing management challenges related to roadside bear viewing. The project includes two
original data sets, analysis, and integrated recommendations. Human dimensions research can
offer insights into human-wildlife relations that result in innovative or complementary
approaches to effective management. In managing roadside bear viewing, humans, bears, habitat,
and infrastructure-related factors must be considered, particularly if visitor satisfaction is a goal.
Such strategies should include developing clear and consistent messaging about the park,
sanctioned and enjoyable activities, desired human behaviours within the park, and potential
conservation contributions visitors can make. Key ingredients for improved compliance and
overall management in PLPP include no-stopping zones and alternative bear viewing locations,
as well as clearly defined regulations and communications about respectful bear viewing.
Lastly, the challenges of managing roadside bear viewing are not unique to PLPP. As
discussed in the literature, bear viewing is a significant component of tourism in North American
parks. Therefore, this project's results and suggested approaches might apply to other agencies
and protected areas in Canada and the USA. With growing visitation across many parks in North
America, and beyond, an increased understanding of the human side of roadside bear viewing
coupled with a push for holistic bear viewing management options is critical for bear
conservation success, continued human enjoyment, and more effective park management.

134

References
Abrams, K. M., Leong, K., Melena, S., & Teel, T. (2020). Encouraging safe wildlife viewing in
national parks: Effects of a communication campaign on visitors’ behavior.
Environmental Communication, 14, 255–270.
Adger, W., Benjaminsen, T., Brown, K., & Svarstad, H. (2001). Advancing a political ecology of
global environmental discourses. Development and Change, 32, 681–715.
Alberta Environment and Parks. (2018). The Human-Wildlife (HWC) Technical Report.
https://banff.ca/DocumentCenter/View/5520/Human-Wildlife-Coexistence-Bow-ValleyReport
Alberta Tourism, Parks, and Recreation. (2014). The Economic Impact of Tourism in Kananaskis
Country in 2011. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/economic-impact-of-tourism-inkananaskis-country
Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Review, 11, 39–46.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Comanagement and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic.
Symposium on Social Theory and the Environment in the New World (Dis)Order, 21,
995–1004.
Aumiller, L. D., & Matt, C. A. (1994). Management of McNeil River State Game Sanctuary for
viewing of brown bears. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 9, 51–61.
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists’ support for conservation messages and
sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management,
30, 658–664.
Bargh, J. A., McKenna, K. Y. A., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2002). Can you see the real me?
Activation and expression of the ‘true self’ on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58,
33–48.
Bath, A. J. (1998). The role of human dimensions in wildlife resource research in wildlife
management. Ursus, 10, 349–355.

135

Baxter, J. (2016). Case Studies in Qualitative Research. In I. Hay, Qualitative Research Methods
in Human Geography (4th ed., pp. 130–146). Oxford University Press.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation Biology, 18, 621–
630.
Best, S., & Harrison, C. (2009). Internet survey methods. In pages 413-434, The SAGE
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Bimonte, S., & Punzo, L. F. (2016). Tourist development and host–guest interaction: An
economic exchange theory. Annals of Tourism Research, 58, 128–139.
Biosphere Institute. (2019, June 21). Bear Report. Biosphere Institute of the Bow Valley.
https://www.biosphereinstitute.org/bear-report/2019/1/4/bear-activity-november-23-tonovember-29-a85nw-zxfx4-2bbpd-9l78r-2mp4s-jwx2t-dsjt5-jcnre-n2kl8-enymj
Biosphere Institute. (2021). The Wildlife Ambassadors: Co-designed Conservation with
Community.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c13e2e48f51309499864d1d/t/61b23e8e0b892a574
5e80211/1639071375696/Ecotrust+Trusted+Messengers+Results+Summary.pdf
Bixler, P. (2013). The political ecology of local environmental narratives: Power, knowledge,
and mountain caribou conservation. Journal of Political Ecology, 20, 273-285.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: Expert Interviews—An Introduction to
a New Methodological Debate. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing
Experts (pp. 1–13). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Booth, A. L., & Ryan, D. A. J. (2019). A tale of two cities, with bears: Understanding attitudes
towards urban bears in British Columbia, Canada. Urban Ecosystems, 22, 961–973.
Boyle, S. A., & Samson, F. B. (1985). Effects of nonconsumptive recreation on wildlife: A
review. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 13, 110–116.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77–101.

136

Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., & Fulton, D. C. (2000). Segmenting the public: An application of
value orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 218–
226.
Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: Using
psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters, 7, 158–
165.
Buchholtz, E. K., Fitzgerald, L. A., Songhurst, A., McCulloch, G. P., & Stronza, A. L. (2020).
Experts and elephants: Local ecological knowledge predicts landscape use for a species
involved in human-wildlife conflict. Ecology and Society, 25, 26-41.
Bulawa, P. (2014). Adapting grounded theory in qualitative research: reflections from personal
experience. International Research in Education, 2, 145-167.
Campbell, L.M, Gray, N.J, & Meletis, Z.A. (2007). Political Ecology Perspectives on
Ecotourism to Parks and Protected areas. In Hanna, K, Clark, D, & Slocombe, S (Eds.),
Transforming Parks and Protected Areas (1st ed., pp. 111–120). Routledge.
Campbell, M., & Lancaster, B. (2010). Public attitudes toward black bears (Ursus americanus)
and cougars (Puma concolor) on Vancouver Island. Society & Animals, 18, 40–57.
Carlson, M., Young, H., Linnard, A., & Ryan, M. (2022). Supplementing environmental
assessments with cumulative effects scenario modeling for grizzly bear connectivity in
the Bow Valley, Alberta, Canada. Environmental Management, 70, 1066–1077.
Carruthers Den Hoed, D., Murphy, M. N., Halpenny, E. A., & Mucha, D. (2020). Grizzly bear
management in the Kananaskis Valley: Forty years of figuring it out. Land, 9, 501-517.
CBC News. (2021, October 18). Kananaskis park pass raises $10M in its first few months. CBC
News Calgary. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kananaskis-park-passes-jasonnixon-1.6214995
Charles Sturt University. (2020). Literature Review: Systematic literature reviews. Charles Sturt
University Library: https://libguides.csu.edu.au/review/Systematic

137

Cherry, C., Leong, K. M., Wallen, R., & Buttke, D. (2018). Risk-enhancing behaviors associated
with human injuries from bison encounters at Yellowstone National Park, 2000–2015.
One Health, 6, 1–6.
Chi, D.K. & B.K. Gilbert. (1999). Habitat security for Alaskan black bears at key foraging sites:
are there thresholds for human disturbance? Ursus, 11, 225 – 238.
Coleman, T. H., Schwartz, C. C., Gunther, K. A., & Creel, S. (2013). Grizzly bear and human
interaction in Yellowstone National Park: An evaluation of bear management areas. The
Journal of Wildlife Management, 77, 1311–1320.
Colgan, G. (2020, February 25). Kananaskis Country sees record visitors for 2020. Rocky
Mountain Outlook. https://www.rmotoday.com/canmore/kananaskis-country-sees-recordvisitors-for-2020-3452289
Cope, M. (2016). Organizing and Analyzing Qualitative Data. In Hay, I (Ed.), Qualitative
research methods in human geography (4th ed., pp. 373–393). Oxford University Press.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife tourism: The intangible, psychological benefits of human–wildlife
encounters. Current Issues in Tourism, 12, 451–474.
Curtin, S., & Kragh, G. (2014). Wildlife tourism: Reconnecting people with nature. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 545-554.
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Jensen, P. M., & Pirhofer-Walzl, K. (2010). Environmental
monitoring: The scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of
peoples involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 1166–1168.
Danielsen, F., Mendoza, M. M., Tagtag, A., Alviola, P. A., Balete, D. S., Jensen, A. E., Enghoff,
M., & Poulsen, M. K. (2007). Increasing conservation management action by involving
local people in natural resource monitoring. Ambio, 36, 566–570.
Das, M., & Chatterjee, B. (2015). Ecotourism: A panacea or a predicament? Tourism
Management Perspectives, 14, 3–16.

138

Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., Connelly, N, Enck, J, Pomerantz, G, Purdy, K, & Siemer, W. (1992).
Toward a Comprehensive Paradigm of Wildlife Management: Integrating the Human and
Biological Dimensions. In Mangun, W (Ed.), American fish and wildlife policy: The
human dimension (pp. 33–54). Southern Illinois Press.
Decker, D.J., Brown, T.L., Vaske, J.J., & Manfredo, M.J. (2004). Human Dimensions of
Wildlife Management. In Manfredo, M.J, Vaske, J.J, Field, D, Brown, P.J, & Bruyere,
B.L (Eds.), Society and natural resources: A summary of knowledge prepared for the
10th international symposium on society and natural resources (pp. 187–198). Modern
Litho.
Decker, D.J. & Brown, T.M. (1989). The future of human dimensions of wildlife management:
Can we fulfill the promise? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, 415–425.
Di Minin, E., Fraser, I., Slotow, R., & MacMillan, D. C. (2013). Understanding heterogeneous
preference of tourists for big game species: Implications for conservation and
management. Animal Conservation, 16, 249–258.
Dudley, N., & Stolton, S. (1999). Conversion of paper parks to effective management:
Developing a target. Threats to Forest Protected Areas A Research Report. IUCN The
World Conservation Union for the World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation
and Sustainable Use.
Duffus, D. A., & Dearden, P. (1990). Non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recreation: A
conceptual framework. Biological Conservation, 53, 213–231.
Dunn, K. (2016). Interviewing. In Hay, I (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human
Geography (pp. 149–188). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, C. (2022, March 21). Pass revenues seemingly not all going back into K-Country as
promised. Rocky Mountain Outlook. https://www.rmotoday.com/kananaskiscountry/pass-revenues-seemingly-not-all-going-back-into-k-country-as-promised5181702
Ellis, S. C. (2005). Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in
environmental decision making. Arctic, 58, 66–77.
139

Elmeligi, S., Nevin, O. T., Taylor, J., & Convery, I. (2021). Visitor attitudes and expectations of
grizzly bear management in the Canadian Rocky Mountain National Parks. Journal of
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 36, 100444.
Ericsson, G., & Heberlein, T. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in
Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation, 111, 149–159.
Etikan, I. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American
Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1-4.
Fazey, I., Evely, A., Reed, M., Stringer, L., Kruijsen, J., White, P., Newsham, A., Jin, L.,
Cortazzi, M., Phillipson, J., Blackstock, K., Entwistle, N., Sheate, W., Armstrong, F.,
Blackmore, C., Fazey, J., & Ingram, J. (2013). Knowledge Exchange: A research agenda
for environmental management. Environmental Conservation, 40, 19-36.
Fazey, I., Fazey, J., Salisbury, J., Lindenmayer, D., & Dovers, S. (2006). The nature and role of
experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environmental Conservation, 33,
1-10.
Fennell, D. A., & Yazdan panah, H. (2020). Tourism and wildlife photography codes of ethics:
Developing a clearer picture. Annals of Tourism Research, 85, 103023.
Festa-Bianchet, M. (2010). Status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) in Alberta: Update 2010
(Wildlife Status Report No. 37). Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/4470165
Flick, U. (2004). Triangulation in Qualitative Research. In Flick, U, von Kardoff, E, & Steinke, I
(Eds.), A Companion to Qualitative Research (pp. 178–183). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Fortmann, L., & Ballard, H. (2011). Sciences, knowledges, and the practice of forestry.
European Journal of Forest Research, 130, 467–477.
Fraisl, D., Hager, G., Bedessem, B., Gold, M., Hsing, P.-Y., Danielsen, F., Hitchcock, C. B.,
Hulbert, J. M., Piera, J., Spiers, H., Thiel, M., & Haklay, M. (2022). Citizen science in
environmental and ecological sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2, 64.

140

Frank, B., & Glikman, J. A. (2019). Chapter One: Human-Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to
Include Coexistence. In B. Frank, J. A. Glikman, & S. Marchini (Eds.), Human-Wildlife
Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence (pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
Franz, D., Marsh, H. E., Chen, J. I., & Teo, A. R. (2019). Using Facebook for qualitative
research: A brief primer. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21.
Freedman, A. H., Portier, K. M., & Sunquist, M. E. (2003). Life history analysis for black bears
(Ursus americanus) in a changing demographic landscape. Ecological Modelling, 167,
47–64.
Fuentes, M. M. P. B., Meletis, Z. A., Wildermann, N. E., & Ware, M. (2021). Conservation
interventions to reduce vessel strikes on sea turtles: A case study in Florida. Marine
Policy, 128, 104471.
Fusch, P., & Ness, L. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research.
Qualitative Report, 20, 1408–1416.
Future Market Insights. (2022). Wildlife Tourism Market Snapshot (2022-2032).
https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/wildlife-tourism-sector-outlook-andanalysis
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation.
Ambio, 22, 151–156.
Garrod, B., & Fennell, D. A. (2004). A content analysis of whalewatching codes of conduct.
Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 334–352.
Garshelis, D. L., Gibeau, M. L., & Herrero, S. (2005). Grizzly bear demographics in and around
Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife
Management, 69, 277–297.
Gavin, M. C., McCarter, J., Mead, A., Berkes, F., Stepp, J. R., Peterson, D., & Tang, R. (2015).
Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 30,
140–145.

141

Geng, D. C., Innes, J. L., Wu, W., Wang, W., & Wang, G. (2021). Seasonal variation in visitor
satisfaction and its management implications in Banff National Park. Sustainability, 13,
1681.
Gergen, K. (1994). Toward Transformation In Social Knowledge (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Gerring, J. (2007). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Oxford University Press.
Gibbs, G. (2018). Thematic coding and categorizing. In Analyzing qualitative data (pp. 53-74).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gilhooly, P. S., Nielsen, S. E., Whittington, J., & St. Clair, C. C. (2019). Wildlife mortality on
roads and railways following highway mitigation. Ecosphere, 10, 1-16.
Glaser, B. (1978). Advances in The Methodology of Grounded Theory: Theoretical Sensitivity.
Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Mill Valley: The Sociology Press.
Gómez-Baggethun, E., Corbera, E., & Reyes-García, V. (2013). Traditional ecological
knowledge and global environmental change: Research findings and policy implications.
Ecology and Society, 18, 72.
Gore, M., & Knuth, B. (2009). Mass media effect on the operating environment of a wildlife‐
related risk‐communication campaign. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 73, 1407–
1413.
Gore, M.L. (2004). Comparison of intervention programs designed to reduce human-bear
conflict: A literature review (HDRU Series No. 4-04). Cornell University.
https://hdl.handle.net/1813/40392
Gosnell, H., Grimm, K., & Goldstein, B. E. (2020). A half century of holistic management: What
does the evidence reveal? Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 849–867.
Government of Alberta. (2004). Evan-Thomas Provincial Recreation Area management plan.
Alberta Parks. https://www. albertaparks.ca/media/447224/etmgmtplan.pdf

142

Government of Alberta. (2006). Peter Lougheed & Spray Valley Provincial Parks Management
Plan. Alberta Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/0778548945
Government of Alberta. (2011). Alberta BearSmart program manual: Enhancing the
opportunities for humans and bears to co-exist in Alberta. Alberta Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9780778570431
Government of Alberta. (2014). BearSmart brochure. Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/media/123478/bear-smart-brochure-web.pdf
Government of Alberta (2016a). Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Planning. Alberta Environment
and Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/70a45aa0-91fa-43d1-826ef96f5e0300cd/resource/4ccf2a04-b5a6-43c6-bd18-c743a4e8ebf4/download/2016-albertagrizzly-bear-recovery-planning-may-2016.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2016b). Parks and protected areas (including Crown reservations) with
region/district boundaries [Map]. Environment and Sustainable Resource Development.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/alberta-parks-and-protected-areas-crownreservations-with-region-district-boundaries-provincial#summary
Government of Alberta. (2016c). Grizzly bear response guide. Alberta Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/grizzly-bear-response-guide
Government of Alberta. (2017a). Parks research and management, Peter Lougheed Provincial
Park. Alberta Parks,. https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/peter-lougheedpp/park-research-management/
Government of Alberta. (2017b). Tourism in Canadian Rockies tourism region 2017: A summary
of 2017 visitor numbers, expenditures and characteristics. Jobs, Economy and
Innovation. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2367-9565
Government of Alberta. (2018a, November 6). Kananaskis Country History. Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/informationfacilities/history/
Government of Alberta. (2018b, October 13). Kananaskis Country Park Management. Alberta
Parks. https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/parkmanagement/
143

Government of Alberta. (2019a, May 2). Wildlife viewing. Kananaskis Country, Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/advisories-publicsafety/wildlife/wildlife-viewing/
Government of Alberta. (2019b). The BearSmart guide to playing safely in bear and cougar
country. Environment and Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460142691
Government of Alberta. (2019c, July 9). Kananaskis Country maps. Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/library/kananaskiscountry-maps/
Government of Alberta. (2019d, January 3). Kananaskis Country Management Plans. Alberta
Parks. https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/parkmanagement/kc-management/management-plans/
Government of Alberta. (2019e). Black bear response guide. Alberta Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460144480
Government of Alberta. (2020a). Optimizing Alberta Parks—The parks impacted list. Alberta
Parks. https://albertaparks.ca/media/6496183/parks-impacted-list.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2020b). Budget 2020: A plan for jobs and the economy. Treasury Board
and Finance. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/budget-2020
Government of Alberta. (2020c). Grizzly bear occurrence summary 2018 bear management area
(BMA) 5. Environment and Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/grizzly-bearoccurrence-summary-bma-5
Government of Alberta. (2020d). Kananaskis Country: Information & Facilities. Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/ kananaskis/kananaskis-country/information-facilities/
Government of Alberta. (2020e). Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Environment and Parks.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460147917
Government of Alberta. (2021). Kananaskis Conservation Pass – Overview. Alberta Parks.
https://www.alberta.ca/kananaskis-conservation-pass.aspx
Government of Alberta. (2022a, February 6). Canmore – educational attainment.
https://regionaldashboard.alberta.ca/region/canmore/educational-attainment/#/
144

Government of Alberta. (2022b, March 25). Improving trails, transit and expanding K-Country
[Press release]. Alberta Parks. https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=821909045F30B9358-731F-DF52A01BCE495EE3
Government of Alberta. (2022c). Provincial Parks Act.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/p35#detailed
Government of Alberta. (2022d). Grizzly Bear Occurrence Summary 2020 Bear Management
Area (BMA) 5. Environment and Parks. https://open.alberta.ca/publications/grizzly-bearoccurrence-summary-bma-5
Government of Alberta. (2022e). Ministry of Forestry, Parks and Tourism.
https://www.alberta.ca/forestry-parks-and-tourism.aspx
Government of Alberta (2022f). Tourism in Alberta 2019: A summary of visitor numbers,
expenditures and characteristics. Alberta Jobs, Economy, & Innovation.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2292-9908
Government of Canada. (2000). Canada National Parks Act, S.C. 2000, c. 32 (Section 11).
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-14.01/page2.html?txthl=management%20plan#s-11
Government of Canada. (2018). Marine Mammal Regulations, SOR/93-56. https://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-93-56/index.html
Green, R., & Higginbottom, K. (2001). The Negative Effects of Wildlife Tourism on Wildlife.
Wildlife Tourism Research Report Series No. 5. https://www.wildlifetourism.org.au/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/Negative_Effects_of_Wildlife_Tourism_on_Wildlife.pdf
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., & Namey, E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. SAGE Publications,
Inc. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/applied-thematic-analysis
Gunther, K. A. (1994). Bear Management in Yellowstone National Park, 1960-93. 9, 549–560.
https://www.bearbiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gunther_Vol_9.pdf
Gunther, K., & Biel, M. (1999). Reducing human-caused black and grizzly bear mortality along
roadside corridors in Yellowstone National Park. Bear Management Office, Yellowstone
National Park, WY.
145

Gunther, K., Wilmot, K., Cain, S., Wyman, T., Reinertson, E., & Bramblett, A. (2018).
Managing human-habituated bears to enhance survival, habitat effectiveness, and public
viewing. Human-Wildlife Interactions, 12, 373–386.
Gunther, K., & Wyman, T. (2008). Human habituated bears: The next challenge in bear
management in Yellowstone National Park. Yellowstone Science, 16, 35–41.
Hamer, D., & Herrero, S. (1987). Wildfire’s influence on grizzly bear feeding ecology in Banff
National Park, Alberta. 7, Proceedings of the International Conference for Bear Research
and Management, 179–186.
Harding, L. (2014). What good is a bear to society? Society & Animals, 22, 174–193.
Haroldson, M.A & Gunther, K.A. (2013). Roadside bear viewing opportunities in Yellowstone
National Park: Characteristics, trends, and influence of whitebark pine. Ursus, 24, 27–41.
Herrero, S., & Gibeau, M. (2005). Biology, demography, ecology and management of grizzly
bears in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country: Final report of the
Eastern Slopes grizzly bear project 2005. University of Calgary.
Herrero, S., & Higgins, A. (1999). Human injuries inflicted by bears in British Columbia: 196097. Ursus, 11, 209–218.
Herrero, S., Roulet, J., & Gibeau, M. (2001). Banff National Park: Science and policy in grizzly
bear management. Ursus, 12, 161-167.
Herrero, S., Smith, T., DeBruyn, T., Gunther, K., & Matt, C. (2005). From the field: brown bear
habituation to people—safety, risks, and benefits. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33, 362–373.
Honeyman, J. M. (2008). A Retrospective Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Aversive
Conditioning on Grizzly Bears in Peter Lougheed Provincial Park, Alberta, Canada.
Thesis, Royal Roads University, Canada.
Hopkins III, J., Herrero, S., Shideler, R., Gunther, K., Schwartz, C., & Kalinowski, S. (2010). A
proposed lexicon of terms and concepts for human–bear management in North America.
Ursus, 21, 154–168.
Horst, S. J., & Pyburn, E.M. (2018). Likert scaling. In B. B. Frey (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia
of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. SAGE Publications, Inc.
146

Hughes, C., & Nielsen, S. E. (2019). ‘Bear are only the lightning rod’: Ongoing acrimony in
Alberta’s grizzly bear recovery. Society & Natural Resources, 32, 34–52.
Hunt, C. L. (2003). “Partners-In-Life” Program: Bear Shepherding guidelines for safe and
effective treatment. Wind River Bear Institute, Heber City, Utah.
Ismail, F., Imran, A., Khan, N., & Qureshi, M. I. (2021). Past, present and future of ecotourism,
A systematic Literature Review from last decade. Studies of Applied Economics, 39.
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new
generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International Journal
of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9.
Januchowski-Hartley, S. (2016). Scientists stand with Standing Rock. Science, 353, 1506–1506.
Kaisar, S. (2022, September 9). NDP says ‘it’s absurd’ Alberta pays contractor $833K to enforce
Kananaskis Conservation Pass. CTV News Edmonton.
https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/alberta-spends-833k-to-enforce-kananaskis-conservationpass-so-far-this-year-1.6060975
Keating, J. M., & Krannich, R. S. (2020). An assessment of factors influencing bear viewing
experiences on the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge: Implications for management.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 25, 268–280.
Kellert, S. R. (1994). Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. Bears: Their Biology
and Management, 9, 43–50.
King, M. F., & Bruner, G. C. (2000). Social desirability bias: A neglected aspect of validity
testing. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 79–103.
Kinsley, B. C. (2019). Investigating scientific, social and other influences on the 2017 British
Columbia grizzly bear hunt ban Thesis, University of Northern British Columbia,
Canada.
Kleiven, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (2004). Factors influencing the social acceptability of
large carnivore behaviours. Biodiversity & Conservation, 13, 1647–1658.

147

Knapp, C., Cochran, J., Chapin III, F. S., Kofinas, G., & Sayre, N. (2013). Putting local
knowledge and context to work for Gunnison sage-grouse conservation. Human-Wildlife
Interactions, 7, 195–213.
Knight, J. (2009). Making wildlife viewable: habituation and attraction. Society and Animals, 17,
167–184.
Kretser, H. E., Curtis, P. D., & Knuth, B. A. (2009). Landscape, social, and spatial influences on
perceptions of human–black bear interactions in the Adirondack Park, NY. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 393–406.
Kubo, T., & Shoji, Y. (2014). Spatial tradeoffs between residents’ preferences for brown bear
conservation and the mitigation of human–bear conflicts. Biological Conservation, 176,
126–132.
Kubo, T., Shoji, Y., & Tsuge, T. (2011). Understanding visitor perceptions of risk associated
with outdoor recreation: A case study of hiking through the brown bear habitat in
Daisetsuzan National Park, Japan. Journal of Forest Economics, 57, 31–40.
Kvale, S. (1995). The social construction of validity. Qualitative Inquiry, 1, 19–40.
Labinjo, T., Ashmore, R., Serrant, L., & Turner, J. (2021). The use of zoom videoconferencing
for qualitative data generation: A reflective account of a research study. Journal of
Biogeneric Science and Research, 10.
Lebrun, A. M., Su, C. J., & Bouchet, P. (2021). Domestic tourists’ experience in protected
natural parks: A new trend in pandemic crisis?. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 35.
Lee, J. (2022, December 2). K-Country public transit feasibility study gets green light. Rocky
Mountain Outlook. https://www.rmotoday.com/kananaskis-country/k-country-publictransit-feasibility-study-gets-green-light-6172587
Leggett, C. G., Kleckner, N. S., Boyle, K. J., Duffield, J. W., & Mitchell, R. C. (2003). Social
desirability bias in contingent valuation surveys administered through in-person
interviews. Land Economics, 79, 561–575.

148

Lemelin, R. H. (2006). The gawk, the glance, and the gaze: Ocular consumption and polar bear
tourism in Churchill, Manitoba, Canada. Current Issues in Tourism, 9, 516–534.
Lemelin, R. H., & Wiersma, E. C. (2007a). Perceptions of polar bear tourists: A qualitative
analysis. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 45–52.
Lemelin, R. H., & Wiersma, E. C. (2007b). Gazing upon Nanuk, the polar bear: the social and
visual dimensions of the wildlife gaze in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Geography, 30, 37–
53.
Lu, H., Siemer, W. F., Baumer, M. S., & Decker, D. J. (2018). Exploring the role of gain versus
loss framing and point of reference in messages to reduce human–bear conflicts. The
Social Science Journal, 55, 182–192.
Mace, B. L., Marquit, J. D., & Bates, S. C. (2013). Visitor assessment of the mandatory
alternative transportation system at Zion National Park. Environmental Management, 52,
1271–1285.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through community-based social
marketing. The American Psychologist, 55, 531-537.
Malloy, D. C., & Fennell, D. A. (1998). Codes of ethics and tourism: An exploratory content
analysis. Tourism Management, 19, 453–461.
Manfredo, M. J. (2008). Attitudes and the Study of Human Dimensions of Wildlife. In M. J.
Manfredo, Who Cares About Wildlife? (pp. 75–109). Springer US.
Manfredo, M., & Vaske, J. (1995). Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management: Basic
Concepts. In R.L Knight & K. Gutzwiller (Ed.), Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence
Through Management and Research (pp. 17–49). Island Press.
Mariyam, D., Vijayakrishnan, S., & Karanth, K. K. (2022). Influence of charismatic species and
conservation engagement on the nature-viewing preferences of wildlife tourists. Tourism
Recreation Research, 1–10.
Marley, J., Hyde, A., Salkeld, J. H., Prima, M.-C., Parrott, L., Senger, S. E., & Tyson, R. C.
(2017). Does human education reduce conflicts between humans and bears? An agentbased modelling approach. Ecological Modelling, 343, 15–24.
149

Mazur, R., Leahy, R., Lee-Roney, C., & Patrick, K. (2018). Using global positioning system
technology to manage human-black bear incidents at Yosemite National Park. HumanWildlife Interactions, 12, 387–395.
McGuirk, P., & O’Neill, P. (2016). Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Human Geography. In I.
Hay (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (pp. 246–273). Oxford
University Press.
Meletis, Z. A., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). Call it consumption! Re-conceptualizing ecotourism
as consumption and consumptive. Geography Compass, 1, 850–870.
Miller, S.D. (1990). Population management of bears in North America. Bears: Their Biology
and Management, 8, 357-373.
Miller, Z. D., Freimund, W., Metcalf, E. C., & Nickerson, N. (2018). Targeting your audience:
Wildlife value orientations and the relevance of messages about bear safety. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 23, 213–226.
Morzillo, A. T., Mertig, A. G., Garner, N., & Liu, J. (2007). Resident attitudes toward black
bears and population recovery in East Texas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 417–
428.
Moscardo, Gianna, Woods, Barbara, and Saltzer, Rebecca. (2004). The Role of Interpretation in
Wildlife Tourism. In Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning (pp. 231–
251). Common Ground Publishing.
Mucha, D., & Holroyd, P. (2022, November 22). Kananaskis Region Transportation KID
Council Discussion. Kananaskis Improvement District Regular Council Meeting,
Canmore, AB.
https://kananaskis.allnetmeetings.com/pubs/download.aspx?ty=ag&agid=B4ABD61EDA74-4A31-B757-97713A005A29&atid=51DC2A69-65CC-4875-BFC0C1D1E14017FB
Munro, R., Nielsen, S., Price, M., Stenhouse, G., & Boyce, M. (2006). Seasonal and diel patterns
of grizzly bear diet and activity in West-Central Alberta. Journal of Mammalogy, 87,
1112–1121.

150

National Park Service. (2019a, June 23). Bear Management. Yosemite National Park California.
https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/bear-management.htm
National Park Service. (2019b, July 16). Watch Roadside Bears. Yellowstone National Park.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/roadside-bears.htm
National Park Service. (2019c). Yellowstone Bear Management Program Annual Report.
Yellowstone Center for Resources.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/upload/2019-BEAR-REPORTFINAL_reduced.pdf
Nelitz, M., Murray, C., & Wieckowski, K. (2008). Returning Salmon: Integrated planning and
the Wild Salmon Policy in B.C. David Suzuki Foundation. https://psf.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/Download-PDF962-1.pdf
Nevin, O., Swain, P., & Convery, I. (2014). Bears, place-making, and authenticity in British
Columbia. Natural Areas Journal, 34, 216–221.
Newman, P. A., Guta, A., & Black, T. (2021). Ethical considerations for qualitative research
methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and other emergency situations: Navigating the
virtual field. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20.
Newsome, D., Dowling, R., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Wildlife Tourism. Channel View
Publications.
Newsome, D., & Rodger, K. (2013). Wildlife Tourism. In A. Holden & D. A. Fennell, The
Routledge Handbook of Tourism and the Environment (pp. 345–358). Routledge.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: The hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative
research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 327–344.
Olson, T. L., Squibb, R. C., & Gilbert, B. (1998). Brown bear diurnal activity and human use: A
comparison of two salmon streams. Ursus, 10, 547–555.
Orams, M. (1994). Creating effective interpretation for managing interaction between tourists
and wildlife. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 21–34.
Orams, M. B. (1996). A conceptual model of tourist‐wildlife interaction: The case for education
as a management strategy. Australian Geographer, 27, 39–51.
151

Ordiz, A, Rodríguez, C, Naves, J, Fernández, A, Huber, D, Kaczensky, P, Mertens, A,
Mertzanis, Y, Mustoni, A, Palazón, S, Quenette, P.Y, Rauer, G, & Swenson, J.E (2007).
Distance-based criteria to identify minimum number of brown bear females with cubs in
Europe. Ursus, 18, 158-167.
Organ, J., McDonald, J., Riley, S., & Mahoney, S. (2020). Adaptive Management in Wildlife
Conservation (pp. 93–106).
Palys, T. (2008). Purposive Sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods (pp. 698-698). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Parks Canada. (2019a, March 14). The Mountain National Parks—Education. Parks Canada.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/mtn/ours-bears/gestion-management/education
Parks Canada. (2019b, July 2). The Mountain National Parks- Tips for Roadside Bear Viewing.
Parks Canada. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/mtn/ours-bears/securite-safety/observationviewing
Parks Canada. (2020, July 24). Jasper National Park—Wildlife guardians. Parks Canada.
Parks Canada. (2022). No-stopping zone implemented for 11 kilometres on Highway 93 South.
Kootenay National Park. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pnnp/bc/kootenay/visit/directions/olive
Partidario, M. R., & Sheate, W. R. (2013). Knowledge brokerage-potential for increased
capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 39, 26–36.
Penteriani, V., López-Bao, J. V., Bettega, C., Dalerum, F., Delgado, M. del M., Jerina, K.,
Kojola, I., Krofel, M., & Ordiz, A. (2017). Consequences of brown bear viewing tourism:
A review. Biological Conservation, 206, 169–180.
Pettebone, D., Newman, P., Lawson, S. R., Hunt, L., Monz, C., & Zwiefka, J. (2011). Estimating
visitors’ travel mode choices along the Bear Lake Road in Rocky Mountain National
Park. Special Section on Alternative Travel Futures, 19, 1210–1221.

152

Popovicova, J., & Gregg, A.L. (2010). Evaluating approaches for gathering public input in
master planning efforts for future development of a recreational reservoir. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 28, 96–115.
Punch, K. (2013). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Rathwell, K., Armitage, D., & Berkes, F. (2015). Bridging knowledge systems to enhance
governance of the environmental commons: A typology of settings. International Journal
of the Commons, 9, 851-880.
Reynolds, P. C., & Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife
tourism. Tourism Management, 22, 31–42.
Richardson, L., Gunther, K., Rosen, T., & Schwartz, C. (2015). Visitor perceptions of roadside
bear viewing and management in Yellowstone National Park. The George Wright Forum,
32, 299-307.
Richardson, L., Rosen, T., Gunther, K., & Schwartz, C. (2014). The economics of roadside bear
viewing. Journal of Environmental Management, 140, 102–110.
Rickard, L., McComas, K., & Newman, S. (2011). Visitor proficiency profiling and risk
communication at a National Park. Environmental Communication, 5, 62–82.
Riessman, C. K. (2008). Thematic Analysis Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. F., Siemer, W. F., Mattfeld, G. F., &
Parsons, G. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30,
585–593.
Riley, S., Siemer, W., Carpenter, L., Organ, J., & Berchielli, L. (2003). Adaptive impact
management: An integrative approach to wildlife management. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 8, 81–95.
Robbins, P. (2004). Political Ecology Emerges. In Political Ecology A Critical Introduction (2nd
ed., pp. 82–100). Wiley-Blackwell.

153

Robbins, P. (Ed.). (2007). Political Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Environment and Society (Vol.
4, pp. 1383–1387). SAGE Publications, Inc; Gale In Context: Environmental Studies.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2660700867/GRNR?u=unorthbc&sid=bookmarkGRNR&xid=460fcf5a
Robinson. (2022). Map of Peter Lougheed Provincial Park with inset of SE Alberta [Map].
ArcGIS.
Rode, K., Farley, S., & Robbins, C. (2006). Behavioral responses of brown bears mediate
nutritional effects of experimentally introduced tourism. Biological Conservation, 133,
70–80.
Rode, K.D, Farley, S. D., Jennifer Fortin, & Robbins, C. T. (2007). Nutritional consequences of
experimentally introduced tourism in brown bears. The Journal of Wildlife Management,
71, 929–939.
Rodger, K., Moore, S., & Newsome, D. (2007). Wildlife tours in Australia: Characteristics, the
place of science and sustainable futures. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 160-179.
Saumure, K., & Given, L. M. (2008a). Convenience Sample. In The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods (pp. 125–125). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Saumure, K., & Given, L. M. (2008b). Nonprobability Sampling. In The SAGE encyclopedia of
qualitative research methods (pp. 563–563). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Savory, A., & Butterfield, J. (1999). Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision
Making (2nd ed.). Island Press.
Savory, A., & Butterfield, J. (2016). Holistic management – A commonsense revolution to
restore our environment (Third Edition). African Journal of Range and Forage Science,
34, 143-144.
Schirokauer, D. W., & Boyd, H. M. (1998). Bear-human conflict management in Denali National
Park and Preserve, 1982-94. Ursus, 10, 395–403.
Schwartz, C. C., Cain, S. L., Podruzny, S., Cherry, S., & Frattaroli, L. (2010). Contrasting
activity patterns of sympatric and allopatric black and grizzly bears. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 74, 1628–1638.
154

Skibins, J. C., Hallo, J. C., Sharp, J. L., & Manning, R. E. (2012). Quantifying the role of
viewing the Denali “big 5” in visitor satisfaction and awareness: Conservation
implications for flagship recognition and resource management. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 17, 112–128.
Skibins, J. C., & Sharp, R. L. (2017). Evaluation of the brown bear viewing experience at Katmai
National Park and Preserve: Implications for management. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, 22, 476–482.
Slagle, K., Zajac, R., Bruskotter, J., Wilson, R., & Prange, S. (2013). Building tolerance for
bears: A communications experiment. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77, 863–869.
Sloan, L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2017). The SAGE Handbook of Social Media Research Methods
(First ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Smith, H. A., & Sharp, K. (2012). Indigenous climate knowledges. WIREs Climate Change, 3,
467–476.
Smith, T., Herrero, S., & DeBruyn, T. (2005). Alaskan brown bears, humans, and habituation.
Ursus, 16, 1–10.
Smith, W. W. (2007). Social desirability bias and exit survey responses: The case of a First
Nations campground in Central Ontario, Canada. Tourism Management, 28, 917-919.
Souliere, C.M., Coogan, S.C., Stenhouse, G.B., & Nielsen, S.E. (2020). Harvested forests as a
surrogate to wildfires in relation to grizzly bear food-supply in west-central
Alberta. Forest Ecology and Management, 456, 117685.
Stähli, M. E., & Joye, D. (2022). The SAGE Handbook of Survey Methodology (pp. 425-440).
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Statistics Canada. (2017a, November 29). Census profile, 2016 census Calgary, Alberta and
Alberta. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CMACA&Code1=825&Geo2=PR&Code2=48
&SearchText=Calgary&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&
GeoCode=825&TABID=1&type=0

155

Statistics Canada. (2017b). Focus on geography series, 2016 census, province of Alberta.
https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-preng.cfm?Lang=Eng&GK=PR&GC=48&TOPIC=10
Stoney Tribal Administration. (2016). Cultural Assessment for the “Enhancing grizzly bear
management programs through the inclusion of cultural monitoring and traditional
ecological knowledge.” https://livingwtwildlife.ca/assets/pdf/Stoney-Nakoda-NationsCultural-Assessment-for-the-Enhancing-grizzly-bear-management-programs-throughthe-inclusion-of-cultural-monitoring-and-traditional-ecological-knowledge-2016.pdf
Stott, P., & Sullivan, S. (2000). Introduction. In P. Stott & S. Sullivan (Eds.) Political Ecology:
Science, Myth and Power) (pp. 1–11), Edward Arnold.
Stylidis, D., Woosnam, K. M., & Tasci, A. D. A. (2022). The effect of resident-tourist interaction
quality on destination image and loyalty. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30, 1219–1239.
Taff, D., Newman, P., Pettebone, D., White, D. D., Lawson, S. R., Monz, C., & Vagias, W. M.
(2013). Dimensions of alternative transportation experience in Yosemite and Rocky
Mountain National Parks. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 37–46.
Tasci, A. D. A., & Severt, D. (2017). A triple lens measurement of host–guest perceptions for
sustainable gaze in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25, 711–731.
Taylor, P. A., Gunther, K. A., & Grandjean, B. D. (2014). Viewing an iconic animal in an iconic
national park: Bears and people in Yellowstone. The George Wright Forum, 12, 300-310.
Teel, T. L., & Manfredo, M. J. (2010). Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife
conservation. Conservation Biology, 24, 128–139.
Templeton, A. J., Goonan, K., & Fyall, A. (2021). COVID-19 and its impact on visitation and
management at US national parks. International Hospitality Review, 35, 240–259.
Tengö, M., Austin, B. J., Danielsen, F., & Fernández-Llamazares, Á. (2021). Creating synergies
between citizen science and indigenous and local knowledge. BioScience, 71, 503–518.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014). Connecting
diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence
base approach. AMBIO, 43, 579–591.
156

Thompson, S. C., & McCurdy, K. E. (1995). Black bear management in Yosemite National Park:
More a people management problem. Proceedings of the Fifth Western Black Bear
Workshop, 105–115.
Tisdell, C., & Wilson, C. (2002). Economic, Educational and Conservation Benefits of Sea
Turtle Based Ecotourism: A Study focused on Mon Repos. Wildlife Tourism Report
Series. CRC Sustainable Tourism, University of Queensland.
Town of Canmore. (2020). Bow Valley human-wildlife coexistence status report 2019.
https://canmore.ca/documents/livable-canmore/3701-bow-valley-human-wildlife-statusreport-2019
Visseren-Hamakers, I. J. (2013). Partnerships and sustainable development: The lessons learned
from international biodiversity governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23,
145–160.
Walker, C. (2015). Social constructionism and qualitative research. Journal of Theory
Construction & Testing, 19, 37–38.
Walters, C. J. (1986). Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan Publishers
Ltd.
Wang, H., Liu, L., & Sha, H. (2022). Exploring how the psychological resilience of residents of
tourism destinations affected brand ambassador behavior during the COVID-19
pandemic. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 12, 337.
Weaver, D. B., & Lawton, L. J. (2017). A new visitation paradigm for protected areas. Tourism
Management, 60, 140–146.
White, P., & Ward, A. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and
emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildlife Research, 37, 623–629.
Williams, B. K., Szaro, R. C., & Shapiro, C. D. (2009). Adaptive management: The U.S.
Department of the Interior technical guide (2009 Edition, p. 84) [Report]. USGS
Publications Warehouse. http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70194537

157

Wilshusen, P. R. (2003). Exploring the Political Contours of Conservation: A Conceptual View
of Power in Practice. In S.R Brechin, P.R Wilshusen, C.L Fortwangler & P.C West (Eds)
Contested Nature: Promoting International Biodiversity Conservation with Social Justice
in the Twenty-first Century (pp. 41-57). State University of New York Press.
Winchester, H. P., Rofe, M. W., & Hay, I. (2016). Qualitative Research and Its Place in Human
Geography. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (4th ed., pp. 3–28).
Oxford University Press.
Wind River Bear Institute. (2020). Our Clients. Wind River Bear Institute. http://beardogs.org/
Winter, P. L. (2008). Park signs and visitor behavior: A research summary. Park Science, 31(1),
34–35.
Winter, P. L., Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., Rhoads, K., & Sagarin, B. J. (1998). An analysis of
normative messages in signs at recreation settings. Journal of Interpretation Research, 3,
39–47.
Yellowstone to Yukon. (2002). Grizzly Bear Movement and Conflict Risk in the Bow Valley: A
Cumulative Effects Model. Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (6th ed.). SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Yosemite Conservancy. (2019a). Bear Encounters. http://keepbearswild.org/bear-encounters/
Yosemite Conservancy. (2019b). Vehicle-bear collisions. Keep Bears Wild.
http://keepbearswild.org/vehicle-bear-collisions/
Young, J. C., Rose, D. C., Mumby, H. S., Benitez-Capistros, F., Derrick, C. J., Finch, T., Garcia,
C., Home, C., Marwaha, E., Morgans, C., Parkinson, S., Shah, J., Wilson, K. A., &
Mukherjee, N. (2018). A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in
conservation science research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 10–19.
Zabel, L. (2014). Understanding Volunteerism in the Kananaskis Region: A Case Study of Staff
and Volunteers. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.

158

Appendix A: Visitor Survey

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

Appendix B: Interview Guide

Thank you for participating in this interview. We wouldn’t be able to do this work without
you. Once you start speaking, I will consider that you have given oral consent to
participate. Please remember that you can skip questions or stop at any time. When I ask
specific questions about bear viewing, I am referring to bear viewing in Peter Lougheed
Provincial Park. Let me know if you need any clarifications or breaks during the interview.
Note: for this project, we are going to use the definition of a “bear jam” as: vehicle traffic jams
resulting from when drivers stop or slow down on a road to engage in bear viewing.

1. a) Please introduce yourself and what role(s) you have relating to bears and human-bear
interactions. For example, you might be a park employee or a volunteer, or both.
Park employee- scientist
Park employee- other: ___________
NGO employee- scientist
NGO employee- other: ___________
Volunteer- scientist
Volunteer- other: _______________
Professional photographer
Amateur photographer
Other:
_____________________________

176

b). How long have you been in this position?

2. How do bears and human-bear interactions relate to the work that you do?

3. When you hear the term “bear jam,” what comes to mind?

4. What do you think causes bear jams?

5. What types of risks do you associate with bear jams, if any?

6. a) Which of these risks do you think are the most important to address and b) why?

7. Do you have any observations or concerns to share about bear viewing in Peter
Lougheed Provincial Park?

8. What do you think Alberta Parks is doing well in managing roadside bear viewing?

9. How could Alberta Parks improve in how they manage roadside bear viewing?

10. Which tools do you think would be most effective for addressing undesirable human
behaviour relating to roadside bear viewing (for example—signs, staff presence, fines)?

11. When it comes to communicating respectful bear viewing behaviours to the public,
what forms of education and outreach do you think are the most effective and why?

12. In dealing with bear jams, some Parks prioritize managing bears, and some focus on
managing people. Which focus do you think is the better choice, and why?

177

13. As part of this research, I’m trying to understand how people experience and
understand bear jams. Do you have any stories or experiences of bear jams that you would
like to share? The stories don’t have to be your own.

14. Do you have any questions for me, or anything to add?

15. Is there anyone you know who might be a good fit for participating in an interview for
this project?

Thank you for taking the time to complete this interview. This project could not be conducted
without the generous contribution of time and insight from people like yourself. Your answers,
combined with those of others will generate beneficial information on perceptions and best
practices for managing roadside bear viewing for the benefit of Alberta Parks, the surrounding
community of Canmore/Bow Valley, and the academic community.

178

Appendix C: Promotional Materials for Visitor Survey

Advertisement for the survey, posted at visitor centres in Kananaskis.

Example of a post used to advertise the survey on social media.

179

Sticker given away as an incentive for survey participants.

Screenshot of website (www.kananaskisbearproject.com) used to recruit and communicate with project participants.

180

Appendix D: Alberta Parks Wildlife Viewing Guidelines

181

Government of Alberta. (2019a, May 2). Wildlife viewing. Kananaskis Country, Alberta Parks.
https://www.albertaparks.ca/parks/kananaskis/kananaskis-country/advisories-publicsafety/wildlife/wildlife-viewing/

182

Appendix E: Research Ethics Board Approvals

183

184

185

186

Appendix F: Alberta Parks Research Permit

187

188

189