Published by the National Association for Interpretation, which describes itself as: "...a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) professional association for those involved in the interpretation of natural and cultural heritage resources in settings such as parks, zoos, museums, nature centers, aquaria, botanical gardens, and historical sites."
Recent articles include:
"Early Childhood Nature Play"
"Getting Campers to Interpretive Programs"
"Multiple Goal Conveyance in a State Park Interpretive Boat Cruise"
"Why Do They Come? Understanding Attendance at Ranger-Led Programs in Great Smoky Mountains National Park"
Based on the above, I believe the journal should be listed here. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you define "environmental journal" as any journal that ever published an article dealing with environmental issues. Determining this will often involve original research and interpretation.
No, if you go by the inclusion criteria given in the lead of this list: this journal clearly is not "focused" on environmental issues, even though they may be included in the scope.
No, if you go by the journal's homepage, which not even mentions the word "environmental".
So it all depends on how you want to define "environmental journal". Personally, I would define that as a journal dedicated to environmental issues, not just any journal that occasionally also publishes something related. But I also know that David tends to go for the latter, wider definition :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Randykitty -- helpful as usual! I concede that it would likely be a stretch to include JIR here if this list includes only journals with a primary focus on the environment. If that's the consensus, I'd suggest tweaking the intro to this article to make that clearer. Point taken on OR/interpretation, as well... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I would strongly argue that JIR belongs in this list. Heritage interpretation (of which environmental interpretation is a part) is a key - perhaps the key part of the environmental experience for millions of people around the world. It may, in fact, be the only structured source of learning about the environment which a person ever engages in as an adult. It is, in many ways, inextricably linked to environmental education - as both fields have "a similar mission of creating an environmental ethic" (Knapp 2005) . NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Kashmiri and Randykitty, have both made the valid point, though, that it is not clear from JIR's website, mission statement, etc. that environment (or even environmental interpretation) is a key focus of the journal. At some point it may be useful to revisit what should and shouldn't be included in this list-article. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Following the above reasoning, an art magazine that has published, say, on techniques of oil painting of natural landscapes would also qualify an an "environmental journal"; as would one on photographing the nature; or even on travels and camping in the wild. All travel magazines go here - all of that sure is about "experiencing the environment", isn't it? But - don't you feel that this would be an overstretch of the definition? When the subject of a journal is clearly mentioned on its website, I believe we are not supposed to second-guess it (WP:OR) in order to fit it into a category the editors don't even claim it belongs to. kashmiriTALK 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not original research to categorize a journal based on the content it self-evidently publishes.
"Travel and art magazines" are not scholarly, peer-reviewed academic journals, so that argument is more or less irrelevant in this context. We have already filtered them out.
If there is a specific art journal which routinely publishes peer-reviewed research and discourse on art relating to the environment, I would argue that it would belong in this list.
You are trying to filter out JIR by dint of the fact that "Environmental" is not in its name, apparently - which ignores the fact that interpretation, as a profession, is engaged in both environmental and cultural aspects. When something is arguably validly categorizable in two different places, the correct answer would be to categorize it in both places - not to exclude it from either one. Heritage interpretation refers to both environmental and cultural heritage.
For example, there are a great many journals in this list which, by their names, would seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the environment - I'm thinking primarily about the swathe of oil, gas and energy journals, including energy law journals, that are listed here. But they appear to routinely address issues linking natural resource exploitation, human resource demands and environmental impacts. Ergo, I think they belong here. That they could be categorized also in a separate List of energy journals or List of law journals is of no consequence - we are not required to make categorization exclusive.
A journal, by whatever name, that routinely publishes scholarly, peer-reviewed research and discourse on aspects of the environment or the human relationship with the environment belongs in this list, in my opinion. JIR does that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)