THE NATUREMAPPING PROGRAM: RESOURCE AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION REFORM

Margaret T. Tudor and Karen M. Dvornich

****************************************************************************************************

Abstract: Environmental education for youth and adults is being redefined at resource agencies. The driving forces are education reform and citizen demands to be involved in environmental management decisions. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife examined its traditional environmental education programs and identified the need to create opportunities for citizen involvement as a means to educate while directly impacting its mission. Through a partnership with Washington Cooperative Research Unit Gap Analysis Project, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife created the NatureMapping Program. The NatureMapping Program enables volunteers, including schools, to collect environmental data that are valuable to governments and communtities for problem solving and decision making. A recent study of schools actively NatureMapping describes increased school-community links, motivated students, and a systemic change in curriculum through interdisciplinary inquiry. Resource experts have benefited from new species information and increased community involvement.

****************************************************************************************************

Margaret T. Tudor is the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Project WILD Coordinator and The NatureMapping Program Education Director. Karen M. Dvornich is The NatureMapping Program National Director and the Washington Gap Analysis Project Assistant with the Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife research unit.

****************************************************************************************************

Environmental education for youth and adults is being redefined at natural resource agencies. The driving forces come from two fronts, K-12 education reform and citizen demands to be involved in environmental management decisions affecting their future. Natural resource agency environmental education can develop genuine experiences that facilitate schools' changing to meet the challenge of improving student learning. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) examined its traditional environmental education programs and identified the need to create opportunities for stewardship as a means to educate while directly impacting its mission. The Washington Cooperative Research Unit Gap Analysis Project (WAGAP), part of a national program, sought data to meet its objective to identify plant communities and terrestrial animal species not adequately protected to enhance bio-diversity (Scott et al.,1993).

The WDFW and WAGAP combined interests to form The NatureMapping Program to promote community-based environmental protection by mapping wildlife sightings and habitat. The prdicted distribution maps, created by WAGAP using expert and volunteer observations, are available for use by researchers, communities, and students. This program illustrates the potential for environmental education to capitalize on stewardship as a tool to educate.

This article describes how natural resource environmental education can provide genuine opportunities for school and community involvement that increases the prospect of future participation in decision making. Resource agency education can provide effective environmental education by making stewardship opportunities available, which contribute both to agency work to achieve its mission and to education of the individual, while building comunity understanding.

The Changing Definition of Environmental Education

Society has changed the way it views education. Education reformers are demanding measurable results in student learning through authentic experiences (Wiley,1995). Resource agencies are demanding measurable results of education program impact on resources (Tudor,1992). The challenge for resource agencies is to serve the needs of K-12 and community education while meeting agency goals and objectives. As a result, environmental education practitioners must recognize where education is going and change their programs accordingly. In meeting an agency's demand for more value, agency educators must develop opportunities that become learnig improvement tools for schools and stewardship activities for the public, while satisfying government mandates.

If environmental education programs are to survive at resource agencies, they must more directly meet the agency's mission (Tudor,1992). Resource agencies are charged by citizens to manage resources for a sustainable future. These agencies have the option of using regulation and education but can rarely achieve their mission through regulation alone. Education can help meet the mission using the education process a a tool to enable citizens to particiapte in what a resource agency does. Encouraging citizens and schools to voluntarily participate in resource management develops essential knowledge and actively prepares learners for responsible decision making and civic involvement, both benchmarks of successful education. Resource agencies, using this rationale, are in a position to capitalize on the public's interest in sustaining resources and focusing volunteer energies on contributing to local and state research, planning and implementation efforts.

Elements of Good Environmental Education Programs

The cofounders of The NatureMapping Program have identified key emerging elements in the environmental education field necessary to meet multiple expectations from scientists, schools,and communities. These include:
* Increasing recognition of the need for a community-based approach to environmental education (Wals,Beringer& Stapp,1990).
* Agreement that environmental education includes use of scientific methodology plus skills to investigate and evaluate situations (Hungerford & Volk,1990).
* Recognition that environmental education lends itself to a concept-framed thematic school curriculum integrating subject area and exercising problem solving and other subject areas and exercising problem solving and other higher order thinking skills (Bardwell & Tudor,1994)
* Increasing recognition of the value and application of the democratic process, or citizenship skills, in the field (Hammond,1994).
* Using findings in brain-based research to guide efforts to improve education (Caine & Caine,1990). Research shows we learn best when we are able to build a meaningful story with an emotional connection through real world experiences that involve challenges with questioning (Costa,1985;Sylvester,1994).

The preceding elements are supported by the experience of environmental education leaders in the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE) Monograph on Environmental Problem Solving (Bardwell, Monroe, & Tudor, 1994). The stewardship value of this type of environmental education is also relected in NAAEE standards(1999).

Reforming Resource Agency Environmental Education Program

Considering the evolving view of environmental education, the mission of the resource agency and school improvement goals, WDFW attempted to create a program to fulfill expectations at several levels. The following principles guided the design of resource agency education programming:

* To apply in-program design and practice the goals of environmental education, taking learners of all ages from awareness to action through research , problem solving, planning, and implementaion.
*To design an environmental education program within a watershed management framework, building in curriculum integration opportunities that develop higher order thinking skills and behaviors and capitalize on different modes of learning for K-12.
*To identify an opportunity for formal and nonformal education sectors to participate in a research endeavor (collecting useful data) and to become involved in what the resource agency does.
*To design opportunities for citizens and students to build their understanding, decision making, and community management skills.

WDFW has expanded its definition of resource education to include stewardship opportunities to build knowledge and skills. The expected outcomes are increased understanding and demonstrated skill in appropriate ecosystem management behaviors. With this approach we expect adults and schools linked to their communities to actively participate in definiing and sustaining fish and wildlife resources.

The NatureMapping Program Model

In 1992, WDFW and the University of Washington joined forces to build a volunteer monitoring program now called The NatureMapping Program. A key component of the education program has been the development of citizen-generated fish and wildlife data. The formation of The NatureMapping Program model has become vital to fulfilling the deparment's education mission while meeting school improvement expectations.

NatureMapping is an opportunity for the public to collect data and monitor fish, wildlife, and their habitats. This opportunity allows individuals to build, through data collection, an information base for understanding and independent decision making. This information may be used within the community and offered to state entities responsible for development of policies, planning and action.

The partnership between the WDFW and the WAGAP grew out of the Gap Analysis Project's need to describe the state wildlife presence. WAGAP wanted wildlife data about common species over vast areas that are not included in expert-collected records in order to build comprehensive biodiversity maps. The WDFW's education program was committed to offering genuine opportunities for "learning by doing" and found WAGAP willing to accept nonexpert data.

The co-development of The NatureMapping Program was designed to meet both resource and education goals at resource agencies while addressing resource and educaton needs at the community level. The following objectives frame the work of The NatureMapping Program to meet resource goals.

*Establish a watershed delineated wildlife database for the local community.
*Contribute to the state's biological database through WAGAP.
*Provide a research foundation to build a local wateshed inventory depicting environmental and other factors necessary for developing watershed management plans.
*Keep common species common--that is, to establish a data baseline on wildlife currently present to make proactive local land management decisions.

To meet education goals, the program:

*Provides genuine opportunities for K-12 education to study biological and other community factors and their role in watershed health (K-12 education goal).
*Provides stewardship opportunities for citizens where stewardship becomes the means to educate (community education goal).
*Develops a NatureMapping observation skill or "search image" among the public (public education goal) where people gathering data will develop lifelong observation skills and commitment.

Description of The NatureMapping Program

The National Gap Analysis Program's goals are to produce a statewide report card on biodiversity and assess habitats that are at risk. In preparing the state biological survey, the federally funded Gap program needs information on all species. Expert information sources do not fill Gap's data requirements. In response to Gap's need, The NatureMapping Program cofounders developed written guldelines, or protocols, for data collection for the public including educators (Dvornich & Tudor,1993). Those guidelines were continually revised in response to critiques. Teachers guided students to collect data on all wildlife they observed and reported in a simple format. The reporting form, a "Gap 1040, "similar to the IRS 1040, enables individuals to gather data differently, but report their results in a consistent fomat. This handwritten document is then sent to the Gap Analysis program for digitized entry. To capture the public data collected for NatureMapping, the Gap Analysis Program created a Geographical Infomation System (GIS) public data set, adding to existing data sets used for the state biological survey. The database consists of 17 Gap 1040 variables that include:

*Observed fauna (or species)
* Habitat descriptions with codes
*Date
*Location by state, county, township, range, section, or latitude and longitude
*Number of individuals observed, whether estimated, and how observed (i.e., saw, heard)
*Observer identification number and comments.

These data, reported by NatureMappers, are compiled, edited, and overlaid on wildlife range maps along with other datasets from researchers, museums,and resource agencies. For quality control, volunteer records falling within the predicted ranges pass the course-scale evaluation. Sightings falling outside the predicted ranges, or noted as species of interest, undergo a fine-scale evaluation by interested researchers and agency biologists. The state biological survey reveals areas of high biodiversity and is valuable for community growth planning efforts (Dvornich, Tudor, & Grue, 1995).

Creating a NatureMapping Search Image

One aim of The NatureMapping Program is to help learners create a NatureMapping observation skill or search image, in which participants expand their ability to find wildlife by learning where to look, what to listen for, and to characterize other environmental features in their midst. Creating a search image in children and adults is a deliberate skill development in observation, essential to mastering scientific methodology. While many NatureMappers are experience birders, the Program is designed to encourage learners who are daunted by the task of identifying wildlife. The NatureMapping guidelines (Dvornich & Tudow, 2000) encourage participants to record, at a minimum, the physical and behavioral characteristics of wildlife sighted, along with a detailed description of the habitat.

NatureMappers may begin with reports of such common species as crows, starlings, and house sparrows. The Program emphasizes the educational value of observing wildlife and habitat and is designed to encourage as much observation as possible even without positive identificationn. Where the observer has struggled to identify a species, scientists associated with NatureMapping can provide feedback and suggestions on possible identification. Volunteers are encouraged to take photographs of wildlife in question for verification by an expert. In some instances, descriptions of species (including birds) and their habitats have provdied the NautreMapping scientist with enough clues to provide a positive identification.

How NatureMapping Evolved

The pilot NatureMapping effort began in 1993 with 23 teachers and a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. These parrticipants and other teachers submitted over 3,000 records in the first year. Their sightings, along with those from farmers and other citizen volunteers, provided data in areas not already sampled (e.g., their own property). By September 2000, NatureMapping volunteers had submitted over 180,000 records to the NatureMapping database.

In order to fill gaps in wildlife and habitat data, WAGAP enlisted active community stewards. Retired natural resource professional confirmed that the habitat that appeared to be present on satellite imagery actually existed on the ground (ground truthing). Audubon members inventoried areas for which there were little or no data. Later, schools and communities were invited to contribute to the baseline data. What began as a government effort to fill gaps in knowledge expanded to a community effort to learn more about its natural resources.

The NatureMapping Program depended on partnerships to build the numbers of participating data collectors. Parnerships began with Washington's Project GREEN (Global Rivers Environmental Education Newwork, now run by Earthforce, involving 9,200 students), and local government-sponsored "Stream Teams". These groups coordinated watershed-wide collection of water quality and stream characteristic data by teachrs, students, and volunteers and added wildlife and habitat data collection to their tasks.

WDFW created a NatureMapping Program video for teachers describing how students can collect wildlife and habitat information. A National Fish and Wildlife Foundation grant was used to create an educational/data entry software package for NatureMappers to manage their data and learn more about wildlife. Using the sofware, NatureMappers can print a hard copy of field notebook screens to take to the field for recording observations, or they can record directly on a laptop computer when in the field.

NatureMappers are networked through a web site homepage (www.fish.washington.edu/naturemapping). The homepage contains the protocols for collecting wildlife data, state wildlife and habitat codes plus pictures with descriptions of typical wildlife associated with particular habitats.

The program cofounders jointly provide The NatureMapping Program workshops to educators and community partners who need training in reporting and mapping observed wildlife. NatureMapping in Washinton now offers four types of workshops. Participants learn how to collect and report data in the Level I workshop, how to design a research project in Level II, and how to manage data with NatureMapping sofware, analyzing the data using spreadsheets, with an introduction to GIS technology in the Level III workshop. The Level IV workshop provides experience using NatureMapping and WAGAP data with GIS.

Through a 1996-98 National Project WILD (Wildlife in Learning Design) grant, the NatureMapping Program created and distributed NatureMapping field kits containing bird, mammal, reptile and amphibian field guides, plus binoculars, to the urban Tacoma and Seattle School Districts. As part of the "Wild in the City" grant (awarded by the Council for Environmental Education, North American Association of Environmental Education and the US Environmental Protection Agency through National Project WILD) elementary and middle school teachers received field kits and training to collect data. These skills were taught in conjunction with Project WILD's activity guide (Council for Environmental Education, 1992), which provides a framework and context for NatureMapping field studies. Since this grant, the outdoor equipment company REI, a corporate NatureMapping partner, provides these kits at cost to registered NatureMappers.

NatureMapping in Action

Schools, county planners, and resource professionals are working together using as a tool to help define their community in preparation for making good management decisions.

For the past five years Bainbridge Island students collected data on wildlife. Audubon members and parents assisted with field trips and wildlife identification around their homes. The City of Bainbridge Island with the Bainbridge Island Land Trust purchased land for a wildlife corridor and asked local Woodward Middle School 5th and 6th grade students to monitor wildlife. The city planned to use student data to assess what species were using the corridor. High school students mentored younger students. Students along with teachers, parents, city and land trust personnel developed their expertise with the help fo NatureMapping workshops to prepare for this fieldwork. In 1999-2000, 300 sixth grade students and 11 teachers at the sister Sakai Intermediate School NatureMapped their backyards and island corridors. Teacher Tom Leigh, who brought NatureMapping from Woodward Middle School to Sakai, feels that NatureMapping is now at a point where their "data is starting to mean something" (Frank, 2000, p.50)

Orchard Prairie School, a one-room K-7 schoolhouse in Spokane (70 students), involved the entire school in mapping wildlife at a school nature area they created. During the 1998-1999 school year, the students wrote a book, Little River Boy, about the adventures of a toy floating down the Little Spokane River and discovering the different habitats along the way (Orchard Prairie School,1999). During the 1999-2000 school year, the students submitted comments that included analysis of NatureMapping data, on a proposed road realignment for an environmental impact statemant. In suppoort of their comments, they provided results of a survey of area residents' attitudes, and described potential effects of road alignments. Orchard Prairie students have progressed to using GIS sofware with their NatureMapping data to answer their research questions.

Snohomish County Surface Water Management, a local government agency, has used NatureMapping to engage students and the community to collect data on wildlife in the watershed. The Surface Water Management agency was awarded a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to use NatureMapping to study French Creek habitat. At the conclusion of the fieldwork in 1999, 1330 records were tabulated. Volunteers observed 19 mammal, 6 reptile and amphibian, and 70 bird species at eight study sites. Volunteers spent more thatn 300 hours working on the project with senior county planners. The local government aimed to build public understanding and public involvement in policy setting and implementation, using NatureMapping as one of its tools.

These school and community examples demonstrate how NatureMapping contributes to the environmental education process. Knowledge acquired by students and the public through sound scientific observations is being translated into action to sustain communities and their resources.

Research on the Effects of NatureMapping

Recent research demonstrates the positive effects of NatureMapping on students using this program. A masters thesis by Kathryn Frank (2000), entitled "Connecting with nature: A study of the effects of The NatureMapping Program on its grade school participants, their schools and their communities,"provides useful case study research. Frank compared, the effects of NatureMapping experiences among 6 schools that have NatureMapped (for a minumum of 1 year) to 6 equivalent grade levels within the same schools on non-NatureMapping students. Throught iinterviews, experienced NatureMapping students reflected on biodiversity, observation, and research skills. In comparison, non-NatureMapping students reflected on trash, recreation skills, and hard work.

Teacher and community member interviews supported the findings from student interviews that NatureMapping students learned ecological concepts, observation, and recording skills. Teachers also reported, "To a lesser extent students learned about their communities and agencies, and the impacts human activities have on nature, how to ask question, and how to analyze and communicate results" (Frank 2000, p. 160). Students believed that their data were useful to others and exhibited a heightened sense of stewardship. Teachers like The NatureMappng Program because it was real, with goals and objectives beyond education. Teachers reported that students put more effort into NatureMapping because others would use the results. An added benefit included teacher observations that NatureMapping positively affected students who did not rraditionally excel in the classroom.

NatureMapping was considered "more effective at teaching the students to notice and have knowledge of their natural environments than were the students' typical experiences with other outdoor educational and community service activities" (Frank, 2000, p. 101). Students, teachers, and community members thought that the Program increased the students' ability to answer one essential question of environmental literacy, "What do we have where we live?"

Value of The NatureMapping Program

More than 500 groups of educators and volunteers representing over 50,000 NatureMappers are now participants in The NatureMapping Program. Resource agencies and local governments benefit because NatureMapping participants often choose to become "long-term monitors." Schools gain relevant student learning opportunities through their participation in NatureMapping activities. Typically, while water quality monitoring and measuring stream characteristics, students will collect data on wildlife and habitat. For these teachers and students, taking inventory of their environment and applying their data to real situations in the community offers an authentic and relevant educational experience. These experiences provide service-learning opportunities as well as genuine training toward careers in natural resource fields.

Waterville Elementary School, located in rural eastern Washington, involved farmers in a scientific study of short-horned lizards. Since 1993, teachers of grades 4 through 6 have incorporated NatureMapping activities in their frequent visits to their local creek, and made observations from their classroom windows. They decided to focus on a study of the short-horned lizard prevalent in the area. Students recruited wheat farmers to report lizard sightings while operating their tractors. In 1999, 20 farmers agreed to join the study and attached student-created data collection forms to their steering wheels. Students used disposable cameras to record their sightings. Following one semester of data collection, farmers and students consolidated their data on a local map. Teachers Diane Peterson and Cathi Nelson aimed to involve their students in "real science" through these NatureMapping activities, confident that these activities satisfy science standards for scientific inquiry (Frank, 2000).

In southern rural Spokane, Washington, seventh and eighth-grade Chase Middle School students publish a watershed newpaper each year describing what they have learned using NatureMapping. Students of teachers Heather Cassidy and Diane Gibson studied their school grounds and nearby public properties. With a technology grant the teachers purchased computers to produce the Glenrose Watershed Gazette, a newspaper describing what the student learned about wildlife, habitat, and other natural aspects of the community through NatureMapping. The newspaper complete with articles, artwork, photographs, graphs, and GIS maps has been delivered to all 2,000 residences in the community for the last 3 years. The interest has grown and students from nearby Ferris High School now join Chase Middle School to learn how to use GIS with NatureMapping data through the local cooperative extension service.

The Frank (2000) study demonstrates that the most significant effect The NatureMapping Program has on schools is to improve communities' impressions of schools and their students. For effects on the community, Frank writes that schools reported more interactions between school and community. Teachers and community members reported appreciating networking with colleagues, community and agency staff.

Through NatureMapping, WDFW education programs are taking steps to foster collaborative resource management through public involvement and education with schools linked to communities. The case studies (Frank, 2000) illustrate how opportunities provided by The NatureMapping Program are effective in fostering government-community collaboration.

Value to Resource Agencies

Resource agency biologists initially were skeptical of the value of this type of education outreach both for learners and for their work. Many biologists admitted that they worked in communities hostile to the regulatory role of the agency. Biologists now welcome activity that engages the community in positive stewardship roles by helping the participants to understand their natural heritage. This experience helps change negative perceptions of agency biologists.

Braus (1995) identified a lack of communication and collaboration between resource agencies and citizens. NatureMapping is a tool to help meet this challenge by facilitating the role of resource agency educators to help translate, for information and understanding, the professional work of the agency, in ways the public can use for community natural resource managemet.

Resource biologists are also apprehensive about the quality of volunteer-collected data and their ability to handle large quantities of public data. The quality concerns of biologists, however, are being addressed. Analysis of 5 years of NatureMapping datasets show information consistent with expert datasets, and has provided new expert-verified information on a few species. Resource agency comfort level with NatureMapping has improved, and scientists and program managers are reconsidering their work in light of this opportunity to involve a committed citizenry and students.

Data collected by the public already have provided scientific observation and triangulation value to expert data. Often The NatureMapping Program observations provide information about areas not convered by experts or include species not monitored by any other expert group. This infomation has value for present and succeeding generations of scientists and land managers, as well as to local governments for making decisions. This approach to resource agency environmental education clearly distinguishes itself from advocacy, where volunteers are empowered to conduct their own research.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Agency biologists in wildlife diversity, habitat and fish management programs are now working with The NatureMapping Program to determine other useful data that citizens can collect that will contribute to agency needs and have value for local community education and resource management. Protocols have been developed for citizens data collection on fish and streams, and will be added to the NatureMapping sofware and web site. In the future, invasive exotic species will be incorportated into the appropriate modules.

After two years of planning with Washington Department of Ecology and volunteer water quality groups, a comprehensive water module has been added to collect water quality and stream restoration project data on-line. Data contributors create their own mini-web page to store and analyze their own data, and have the option to add pictures and links to other web sites. NatureMapping's goal is to create data collection modules on terrestrial and aquatic invertabrates, freshwater fish, vegetation, soil, and climate in collaboration with other natural resource agencies. Development will continue on The NatureMapping Program sofware to allow on-line data entry and analysis for all the modules.

Feedback is a crucial part of The NatureMapping Program. In the past, GIS maps and species reports have been mailed to NatureMappers. However, there is now an elctronic feeback loop in place for participants to:
*Find out how their data compare with expert data.
*Access agency information to add to their own community inventory.
*Become part of a scientific team studying biodiversity locally and statewide
*Have an opportunity to learn and use GIS technology.

State departments of eduation are now preparing to include GIS technology in educational technology opportunities for K-12 education. Teachers face challenges in learning how to use the sofware, affording the hardware, locating technical support, and finding local data sets to apply to GIS analysis. NatureMapping has created the "Community Explorer" sofware to overcome these challenges and to introduce teachers to the functions of GIS. The "Community Explorer" sofware demonstrates:

*How GIS works without having to purchase a GIS software package.
*How to overcome common technical problems most users experience.
*How to use GIS to ask ecologically based questions using data from NatureMapping modules.

Biodiversity is a complex area of study. The NatureMapping Program is building the infrastructure to collect large volumes of biodiversity data that can help leaners of all ages and backgrounds to better understand the variety of life on which we all depend.

Successes

The NatureMapping Program was selected from more than 2,000 applicants to receive the 1995 fifth annual RENEW America National Award on Environmental Sustainability in the wildlife and habitat category. Thirteen state, including Virginia, Iowa, Idaho, and California, have begun comparable programs based on the original Washington NatureMapping example. The NatureMapping Program is also growing internationally, with active participatin from Australia, Norway and Canada.

Conclusion

The NatureMapping Program, in combination with other environmental eduation programs, goes a long way toward addressing a need expressed by Braus (1995): "We need to give people a solid science education--but we also need to give them life skills they will need to be responsible citizens" (p.47). The NatureMapping Program helps people buld observation skills and encourages participants to use those skills to collect data to answer their questions. NatureMappers are capable of, and become committed to, defining and monitoring the natural components of their community, expeciallyl fish, wildlife, and habitats. Research projects and data generated by NatureMappers usually result in community problem-solving actions, all of which directly contribute to the resource agency's science and mission. The NatureMapping Proram's experience with school-community collaboration indicates that this approach to environmental education is working to meet education obectives for resource agencies, schools, and communities.

References

* Bardwell, L.V., Monroe,M., & Tudor, M.T. (Eds.) (1994). Environmental problem solving; theory, practice and possibilities in environmental eduation. North American Asosociation of Environmental Education monograph. Troy, OH: NAAEE.
* Bardwell, L.V., & Tudor, M.T. (1994).Problem solving throught a cognitive lens. In L.V.Bardwell, M.Monroe, & M.T. Tudor (Eds), Environmental Problem Solving: Theory, practice and possibilities in environmental education. North American Association of Environmental Education monograph. Troy, OH: NAAEE
* Braus, J. (1995). Environmental education. Bioscience, 45, 45-51
* Caine, N.M., & Caine, G. (1990). Understanding a brain-based approach to learning and teaching. Educatonal Leadership (October)
* Costa, A. (1985). Toward a model of human intellectual functioning. In A.L.Costa (Ed), Developing minds: A resource for teaching thinking. Alexanderia, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
* Council for Environmental Education. (1992). Project WILD K-12 Activity Guide. Houston, TX: Council for Environmental Education.
* Dvornich, K.M., & Tudor, M.T., (1993). Guidelines for data collection and monitoring of birds, herps and other vertebrates. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
* Dvornich, K.M., & Tudor, M.T., (2000). Guidelines for data collection and monitoring of birds, herps and other vertebrates. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
* Dvornich, K.M., Tudor, M.T. & Grue, C.E. (1995). NatureMapping: Assisting management of natural resources through public education and public participation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23(4), 609-614.
* Franak, K, (2000). Connecting with nature: A study of the effects of The NatureMapping Program on its grade school participants, their schools and their communities. Master's thesis, Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management, Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
* Hammond, W. (1994). Action within schools. In L.V. Bardwell, M. Monroe, & M.T. Tudor (Eds), Environmental problem solving: Theory, practice and possibilitiies in environmental education. NAAEE monograph, Troy OH: NAAEE.
* Hungerford, H., & Volk, T. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-12.
* North American Association for Environmental Education, (1999). Environmental education guidelines for excellence: What school-age learners should know and be able todo. Troy, OH: NAAEE.
* Orchard Prairie School. (1999) Little River Boy, Spokane, WA: Author.
* Scott, J.M., Davis, F.W., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Ulliman, J., & Wright, R.G. (1993). Gap analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs, 123, 1-41.
* Sylvester, R. (1994). What the biology of the brain tells us about learning. Educational Leadership (December 1993/January 1994).
* Tudor, J. (1992). Evaluation of Project WILD: The State of Washington 1984-1992. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Wildlife.
* Wals, A.F.J., Berringer, A., & Stapp, W.B. (1990). Education in Action: A community problem solving program for schools. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(4), 13-20.
* Wiley, M., (1995). Washington's environmental educaton Model Schools Program. Environmental Communicator (December), 10-11.