.v .3!
I. :{r ‘5!
i s1... “:1

:51; . ‘5.
. 5.3

. . aidnfiii. .

“it . . ‘I? .373.

x. o gut-«vi.
k. .- .3
£33.

Ox
2:!
3......

3.
‘ .91.. \
\f‘..uh.§..ls
1.2.3.9... . .
I:
i.

 

 

URPARY
MiCha ‘ State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

The Connection Between Leisure Participation and Public
Engagement

presented by

Afke Moufakkir-van der Woud

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for the
PhD degree in Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Resources

 

 

/%/i 02%;?“ flézmm

Major Professor’s Signature
8-Oe~oq
Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:/Prolecc&Pres/CIRCIDateDue.indd

 

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LEISURE PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT

By

Aflce Moufakkir-van der Woud

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fiilfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

2009

ABSTRACT

THE CONNECTION BETWEEN LEISURE PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT

By
Aflce Moufakkir-van der Woud

Public engagement has recently received increased attention fiom policymakers
and academics because of its benefits to society. Multiple studies identified sources that
have the potential to generate, revive and augment public engagement. These include
family, church, school, work place, political establishments, third places, and more
recently leisure participation. The main problem of this study was to identify which
forms of leisure participation were most relevant to the generation of public engagement.
The forms of leisure included participation in sport activities, cultural and expressive
activities, home and garden-based hobby activities, outdoor activities, social activities,
visitation to leisure and recreation sites, and media participation. As leisure does not exist
in a vacuum, demographic characteristics of respondents and community characteristics
were also included in the analysis.

A mail survey was randomly administered to people residing in the province of
Friesland located in the Northern part of the Netherlands. The results were based on a
sample of 409 respondents, representing a 29% response rate. The analysis focused on
finding associations between selected leisure participation characteristics, community
characteristics and demographic characteristics, and the dimensions of public
engagement. Different leisure forms and types of activities were associated with different
dimensions of public engagement. Furthermore, a discriminant analysis was performed to

distinguish between publicly engaged and non-engaged respondents.

The discriminant model indicated that the most useful predictors for
distinguishing between the politically engaged and non-engaged were age, and range of
media participation. The most USCfiJI predictors for distinguishing between the civically
engaged and non-engaged were marital status, and range of visitations to recreation and
leisure sites. The overall results suggest that leisure participation does not necessarily
influence public engagement.

The complexity of associations between forms of leisure and dimensions of
public engagement demands the attention of academic and policymakers. There is a need
to focus efforts on facilitating and promoting the recreation and leisure forms that
appeared to be more associated with public engagement. There is also a need to raise
(more) awareness about the role that leisure can have on public engagement, to citizens,
policymakers, and leisure professionals. Leisure and recreation providers can take a more
progressive role in contributing to public policy and community building. Furthermore,
for fiirther understanding of the leisure participation and public engagement
phenomenon, leisure scholars need to shift discourse fi'om whether there is a relationship
between the two concepts to where do actual relationships exist. For this, more focused
longitudinal leisure behavior studies are necessary. Furthermore, consideration should

also be on ways of influencing public engagement through leisure participation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to thank Dr. Nelson for his patience, endless
encouragement, trust, and support. This dissertation would not have come to light
without his input, guidance and availability. I am indebted to Dr. Vogt fiom whom I
learned a lot during my student and graduate assistant career at MSU. Thank you for your
insight and input.

I would also like to thank the committee members for giving me the opportunity
to finish this work, and for their contribution. I would not have been able to write this
dissertation without the knowledge background that I have acquired from the faculty and
staff of the Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources throughout my fruitful years at
MSU. Thank you for having always been very kind and helpful to me.

My thanks also go to my children, Leila-Janneke, Galil-Taeke and Nadya-Rinske,
to my parents, family and friends for their support and understanding. Finally, I would
like to thank my husband, Omar, from the bottom of my heart, for his support, insight,
and most importantly detemiination. His continuous belief in me has given me the

courage to complete this academic journey, and progress fiirther.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER I FRAME OF REFERENCE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT .................... 1
Problem definition ..................................................................................................... 4
Problem statement ............................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the study ................................................................................................ 11
Delimitations and scope of the study ....................................................................... 12
CHAPTER H REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... 14
Defining engagement .............................................................................................. 16
Defining political engagement and civic engagement ........................................ l8
Defining public engagement ............................................................................. 21
Dimensions of public engagement ........................................................................... 23

A typology of public engagement ..................................................................... 26
Benefits of public engagement ................................................................................ 28
Sources and correlates of public engagement ........................................................... 30
The decline in public engagement ........................................................................... 34
Nature of the decline in public engagement ....................................................... 36
Critiquing the observed decline in public engagement ....................................... 37
Criticizing public engagement: The dark side .......................................................... 44
Locating public engagement in the social capital literature ...................................... 49
Locating public engagement in leisure studies ......................................................... 55
Public engagement and leisure in the Netherlands ................................................... 6O
Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................... 67
Definition of concepts ....................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER [[1 METHOD AND PROCEDURES .......................................................... 69
Developing research questions ................................................................................ 69
Definition of variables in the study .......................................................................... 75
Public engagement ............................................................................................ 75
Operationalization of public engagement variables ........................................... 75

Type of leisure participation ............................................................................. 76

Range of leisure participation ............................................................................ 77

Rate of leisure participation .............................................................................. 77
Involvement in leisure participation .................................................................. 78
Operationalization of leisure variables .............................................................. 78
Community Characteristics ............................................................................... 8O
Demographic Characteristics ............................................................................ 80
Research design ...................................................................................................... 81
Site selection ..................................................................................................... 81

Survey instrument ............................................................................................. 82

Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 83

Survey response ................................................................................................ 84
Population, sample and unit of analysis ............................................................. 84
Data analysis preparation and procedures ................................................................ 85
Analysis stages ................................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................... 98
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Public engagement dimensions ................................................................................ 98
Political engagement ....................................................................................... 100
Civic engagement ........................................................................................... 102
Expressive engagement (Public voice) ............................................................ 103
Cognitive engagement .................................................................................... 104
Leisure Participation Characteristics ...................................................................... 106
Active leisure participation ............................................................................. 107
Passive leisure participation ............................................................................ 115
Community Characteristics ................................................................................... 117
Demographic characteristics .................................................................................. 120
ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATIONS
Differences in selected leisure participation characteristics .................................... 122
Range of leisure participation .......................................................................... 122
Type of leisure participation ........................................................................... 126
Rate of leisure participation ............................................................................ 128
Level of involvement and public engagement ................................................. 133
Differences in selected community characteristics ................................................. 136
Differences in selected demographic characteristics .............................................. 138
DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS
Discriminating leisure participation characteristics ................................................ 142
Discriminating community characteristics ............................................................. 146
Discriminating demographic characteristics .......................................................... 147
Predicting public engagement ................................................................................ 151
CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 156
Leisure participation and public engagement ......................................................... 159
Community and public engagement ...................................................................... 164
Demographics and public engagement .................................................................. 165
Predicting public engagement and the importance of leisure participation ............. 165
Limitations ............................................................................................................ 167
Implications .......................................................................................................... 169
Directions for fiiture research ................................................................................ 170
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 173
APPENDIX A: Content analysis: locating public engagement in the
literature ................................................................................................................ 174
APPENDIX B: Core indicatorszof engagement ...................................................... 177

vi

APPENDIX C: Survey instrument ......................................................................... 179

APPENDIX D: accompanying letter survey .......................................................... 196
APPENDD( E: SPSS additional output ................................................................. 199
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 2022

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Trust in government ........................................................................................... 9
Table 2. Visits to museums and theatres, 1995-2003. ..................................................... 64
Table 3. Media use, 1975-2005, in percentages and hours per week ............................... 64
Table 4. Sport participation, 1995, 2000, 2005 ............................................................... 65
Table 5. Membership in organizations, population aged 18 years and older,

1995,1999, 2003. ........................................................................................................... 66
Table 6. Participation in voluntary work, population aged 18 years and older,

1997-2004 ..................................................................................................................... 66
Table 7. Total membership of organizations in various sectors, 1995, 2000, 2005 .......... 67
Table 8. Response Rates ............................................................................................... 84
Table 9. Demographic characteristics of the sample vs. the population .......................... 86
Table 10. Independent variables in the discriminant analysis ......................................... 95
Table 11. Opinion about public engagement in Friesland (N=409). .............................. 100
Table 12. Voting behavior (N=404) ............................................................................. 101
Table 13. Engagement in non-political organizations or groups in the past 12 months
(N=409) ....................................................................................................................... 103
Table 14. Expressive engagement indicators (n=409) .................................................. 104
Table 15. Level of interest in politics and national affairs (N=409) .............................. 104
Table 16. Respondents’ willingness to support and/or aid in case of national disasters
(N=409) ....................................................................................................................... 105
Table 17. Public engagement profile ............................................................................ 106
Table 18. Respondents’ participation in sports activities .............................................. 108

Table 19. Percentage of respondents engaged in different sport activities in the past
twelve months (N=409) ............................................................................................... 109

viii

Table 20. Respondents’ participation in cultural and expressive activities in the past 12
months ......................................................................................................................... 1 10

Table 21. Percentage of respondents engaged in different cultural and expressive
activities in the past twelve months (N=409) ............................................................... 110

Table 22. Respondents’ participation in home and garden based hobby activities in the
past twelve months ...................................................................................................... 111

Table 23. Percentage of respondents engaged in different home and garden based hobby
activities in the past twelve months (N=409) ............................................................... 111

Table 24. Respondents’ participation in outdoor activities in the past twelve months 112

Table 25. Percentage of respondents engaged in different outdoor activities in the past

twelve months (N=409) ............................................................................................... 113
Table 26. Social participation in the past twelve months .............................................. 114
Table 27. Visitation to social establishments in past twelve months (N=409) ............... 114
Table 28. Number of times respondents spent time socializing in past twelve months

(N=407) ....................................................................................................................... 114
Table 29. Range of visitation activities in the past twelve months ................................ 115

Table 30. Visitation to leisure and recreation sites in the past twelve months (N=409).116

Table 31. Range of participation in media activities ..................................................... 116
Table 32. Media participation (average number of hours per week spent doing each

activity not work related) N=409 ................................................................................. 117
Table 33. Community characteristics of respondents .................................................... 118
Table 34. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N=409) ................................... 121

Table 35. Differences in range of leisure participation between publicly engaged and
non-engaged respondents ............................................................................................. 121

Table 36. Differences in type of leisure activity engaged in between publicly engaged
and non-engaged respondents ...................................................................................... 127

Table 37. Differences in rate of leisure participation between publicly engaged and non-
engaged respondents .................................................................................................... 130

ix

Table 38. Associations between the number of times respondents engaged in socializing
activities in the past 12 months and public engagement dimensions ............................. 131

Table 39. Associations between the number of times respondents visited leisure and
recreation sites and public engagement dimensions ...................................................... 132

Table 40. Associations between rate of media participation and public engagement
dimensions .................................................................................................................. 133

Table 41. Differences in membership status regarding leisure activities between publicly
engaged and non-engaged respondents ........................................................................ 135

Table 42. Differences in community characteristics between publicly engaged and non-
engaged respondents .................................................................................................... 137

Table 43. Differences in demographic characteristics between publicly engaged and non-
engaged respondents .................................................................................................... 140

Table 44. Results of the discriminant function with leisure participation
characteristics .............................................................................................................. 143

Table 45. Discriminant firnction analysis classifying politically and civically engaged and
non-engaged citizens on leisure participation ............................................................... 144

Table 46. Leisure predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged

citizens ........................................................................................................................ 144
Table 47. Leisure classifications results ...................................................................... 145
Table 48. Results of the discriminant functions with community characteristics ........... 147
Table 49. Results of the discriminant functions with demographic characteristics ....... 148

Table 50. Discriminant function analysis classifying politically and civically engaged and
non-engaged citizens on demographic characteristics .................................................. 149

Table 51. Demographic predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged

citizens ........................................................................................................................ 149
Table 52. Demographic characteristics classifications results ....................................... 150
Table 53. Results of the overall discriminant fiinction .................................................. 152

Table 54. Overall discriminant function analysis classifying politically and civically
engaged and non-engaged citizens ............................................................................... 153

Table 55. Predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged citizens ...... 154

Table 56. Classification results .................................................................................... 155
Table 57. Public engagement in Friesland and the US .................................................. 159
Table 58. Forms of leisure Frisian respondents participate in ....................................... 160

Table 59. Significant associations between forms of leisure participation and public

engagement dimensions by leisure participation characteristic. .................................... 163
Table A Locating public engagement in the leisure literature ...................................... 175
Table B. Indicators of engagement ............................................................................... 177
Table C Participation in other sport activities ............................................................... 200
Table D Participation in other home and garden based hobby activities ....................... 201

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Interest in domestic politics .............................................................................. 8
Figure 2. Political engagement by age ............................................................................ 20
Figure 3. Dimensions and core indicators of public engagement .................................... 25
Figure 4. Engagement among Americans age 15+ ......................................................... 27
Figure 5. Sources of civic engagement ........................................................................... 32
Figure 6. The erosion of civic engagement in America ................................................... 36
Figure 7. Causes of the decline in civic engagement in America. ................................... 37
Figure 8. Volunteerism by age ....................................................................................... 42
Figure 9. A leap in online giving .................................................................................... 44
Figure 10. Dimensions of social capital by the Saguaro Seminar (2004, p. 8-11) ............ 52
Figure 11. Locating leisure in Social Capital .................................................................. 53
Figure 12. Conceptual fi'amework .................................................................................. 68
Figure 13. Stages in the Discriminant Analysis Decision Diagram ................................. 93
Figure 14. Voting behavior of respondents ................................................................... 101
Figure 15. Public engagement of respondents .............................................................. 105

xii

CHAPTER I

FRAME OF REFERENCE AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

I know of no Wer depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a
wholesome discretion, the remeay is not to take it from them, but to iry'orm their
discretion
Thomas Jefferson (1820)

Europe ’s progress now depends on its citizens. It cannot rely on a narrow circle of
politicians, administrators and intellectuals, no matter how well intentioned

The European Economic and Social Committee, President Roger Briesch, (2004)

This study is about public engagement and its association with leisure
participation. Modern scholars have traced the public engagement discourse back to the
writings of the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville. In Democracy in America,
Tocqueville placed great importance on the "art of association" as a key to the strength of
American democracy. He wrote: "Americans of all ages, all stations of life, and all types
of disposition are forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and
industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different types--
religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very
minute” (Tocqueville, [1840] 1961). The engagement of nineteenth century Americans
had enchanted Tocqueville, who saw it as a platform on which all other progresses
depended. As he testifies: “In the United States associations are established to promote
the public safety, commerce, industry, morality, and religion. There is no end which the
human will despairs of attaining through the combined power of individuals united into a
society.” This image of people trusting each other, helping, working and cooperating

with each other for the benefit of the whole community refers to public engagement.

Public engagement is a multifaceted phenomenon (Zukin et al., 2006). That is,
there exist a plethora of definitions of public engagement, and no one does cover all the
complexities of this concept. It is important to note at this stage that the literature uses
civic engagement interchangeably with public engagement and social capital. Public
engagement represents only one dimension of social capital (Saguaro Seminar, 2004).
Although the concept of social capital is not new to the social sciences, Putnam (1993)
and his Making Democracy Work made the concept attractive to modern economic,
social and political theories (van Schaik, 2002). Putnam's (1997, pg 31) widely invoked
definition of social capital relates the concept to “features of social life - networks, norms
and trust - that facilitate c00peration and coordination for mutual benefit.” The term
public engagement has meanings to different people. However, most definitions seem to
share some core elements. “Civic engagement means working to make a difference in the
civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills,
values and motivation to make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a
community, through both political and non-political processes” (Ehrlich et al, 2000, p.
vi). As most of the definitions of civic engagement testify, civic engagement
encompasses two main dimensions —the civic dimension and the political dimension. The
use of civic engagement to include civic and political engagement seems to present some
degree of confusion. To dissipate this confusion it has been advisable to use the term
public engagement to incorporate both civic engagement with its civic components and
political engagement with its political components (Zukin et al., 2006). Zukin and
colleagues (2006) identified two other dimensions of public engagement, namely public

voice, and cognitive engagement.

The rationale for this inclusion is the changing nature of engagement, represented
in changing times, circumstances, and opportunities for engagement (Zukin et al., 2006).
Broadly defined, public engagement is considered to be engagement of citizens in public
life (Long et al., 2001; Calvert et al., 2002; Fiorina, 2002; Haight et al., 2002; Jenkins et
al., 2003). The most used definition of this concept is the one proposed by the American
Psychological Association, that frames public engagement as the:

“individual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public
concern. Civic engagement can take many forms, fiom individual voluntarism to
organizational involvement to electoral participation. It can include efi'orts to directly
address an issue, work with others in a community to solve a problem or interact with the
institutions of representative democracy. Civic engagement encompasses a range of
specific activities such as working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood
association, writing a letter to an elected oflicial or voting. Indeed an underlying
principal of our approach is that an engaged citizen should have the ability, agency and
opportunity to move comfortably among these various types of civic acts ” (Carpini,
2007)

From this definition, it becomes clear that public engagement includes
engagement in formal as well as informal spheres of life. This most comprehensive and
widely used definition of civic engagement is, nevertheless, limited in scope in that it
does not include public voice and cognitive engagement identified by Zukin et al. (2006)
and Keeter et al. (2002) in their works on public engagement, and Krishna and Uphoff,
(1999) in their social capital related studies. These two lenses have added more width to
the study of public engagement. Implicit in this argument is the notion that if public
engagement is about engaging citizens to participate in civil life, participation can be
easier nurtured when there are signs of a healthy attitude. The importance of public

engagement lies in the benefits that it brings to a community and society, and the adverse

impacts that may accrue in its absence.

Citizens can contribute to their communities in a myriad of ways (Putnam, 1995).
Public engagement has recently received increased attention because of its benefits to
society. An engaged citizenry leads to vibrant communities and a vibrant society
(Putnam, 2000). As public engagement is multifaceted, the benefits that public
engagement does have on communities are diverse and well documented (e.g., Putnam et
al. 1993; Fukuyama 1995; Verba et al., 1995; Lyson and Tolbert 1996; Menckens et al.,

2006)

Problem definition

Acknowledging the importance of public engagement in American life,
contemporary scholars have expressed unease about recent trends in civic engagement in
the United States. They have observed the spirit of civic engagement waning (Levy,
1999). Contemporary discussion about civic engagement has mostly focused on trends in
the participation of individuals--in political activities (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993;
Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995), in community organizations (Putnam, 1995; Ladd,
1996; Putnam, 1996), in charitable giving, and in institutions of religious worship
(Hodgkinson, 1996). More recently, Putnam (1995) argued that citizen's participation in
the broader social and civic life of communities has diminished significantly over the
past three decades. Americans are participating less in many kinds of shared endeavors,
from unions and political parties to religious groups and other sorts of voluntary

membership organizations (Skocpol and Fiorina, 1999).

The most familiar examples of civic decline are Americans’ growing refusal to go
to the polls; decline in working for a political party; serving as an officer of a club or
organization, serving on an organizational committee, attending a school or community
meeting, or attending a political event. The decline is also attributed to informal civic
engagement in that “purely pleasurable get-togethers are becoming increasingly scarce;
families, too, are spending less time together than they used to. Americans have become
less public-spirited in less visible ways, as well” (Saguaro Seminar, 2000, p. 5). They are
“bowling alone”! (Putnam, 1995). These alarming indicators have instigated disturbing
realities in the minds of Americans that the American civil society may also be
weakening (Putnam, 1995).

Critics of this claim (e.g., Samuelson, 1996; Ladd, 1999; Verba and Nie, 1972;
Zukin et al., 2006) advanced that the observed decline is rather an illusion, further
arguing that, for example, membership has increased in some associations, in most recent
years. Arguably, they posited that even if there was a decline, it was not attributable to
the people, per se. (V erba and Nie, 1972; Zukin et al., 2006; Rosenstone and Hansen,
1993; Verba et al., 1995; Society for Nonprofit Organization; Keeter et al., 2002; Public
Management, 2004; Zukin et al., 2006).

The decline in public engagement in the United States is not a singular trend but
rather a bundle of related changes in the social and political spheres of society (e. g.,
Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995; Samuelson, 1996;
Ladd, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003; Zukin et al., 2006). Drawing back from
involvement with community affairs and politics is not an issue in America only; the case

is similar all over the world (Putnam et al., 1993, p. 3).

In Europe, a decline in public engagement has also alarmed policymakers and
researchers alike. Europe is changing. A brief outline of the areas of change should be
sufficient to indicate both their scale and their potential importance for a theory of civic
engagement. As nicely summarized by Field (2003):

“Work has become increasingly flexible and adaptable, economic institutions have
adjusted to the pressures and opportunities of globalized markets. In much of the world,
family structures have been transformed with exceptionally dramatic changes in the role
of women and the elderly. Communism has collapsed removing at a stroke the one
visible socioeconomic alternative to capitalism, and helping further to open up world
markets to deregulated competition. Information technology in particular, and scientific
advance in general, have brought about enormous growth in humanity's capacity for
control over its destiny, as well as in its ability to foul it up, generating a pervasive
awareness of risk and uncertainty ” (p. 92).

This change must have consequences on people’s values, behaviors and lifestyle.
In addition to a more individualized and reflexive citizenry (Field, 2003), the European
Union (EU) has grown bigger to include 28 member states, while other candidate
countries are waiting for entrance. This enlargement has been seen as a blessing by many
but also as a curse by many others (Dekker et al., 2007). Those who recognize the
importance of a larger Europe, do, nevertheless, recognize the problems or dangers that
might emanate from this enlargement. For example, it is indicated in the Atlas European
Values that: “Europe has only been accepted in an instrumental and utilitarian way”. This
rational-based European citizenship also leads to apparently strange contradictions. For
example, 71% of the Greeks find EU-membership a good thing, but the same percentage
has no confidence in the Union, whereas only 7% of Russians feel European, two-thirds

of the population want to join the Union”

(http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.com/inside1 .html).

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee conference
declared in his opening speech: “The EU is in a serious crisis of trust,” and “Yes, we all
know there is a democratic deficit, but there is also a deficit of participation" (Press,
EESC, 2004). In the Netherlands, membership in organizations has declined, and so has
the active participation of the Dutch people in community life (SCP, 2006). The SCP
surveyed organizations in the most important branches of the Dutch civil society,
namely, broadcasting organizations, churches, sports clubs, international aid
organizations, women organizations, elderly organizations, and healthcare organizations.
Between 1994 and 2003, the number of political party membership dropped 7%.
Churches saw a drop of 9%, and women organizations scored the highest drop of 33%.
As represented in Figure 1, there has been a slight decline in interest in politics. What is
important to observe is that, for example, over one-half of the Dutch population do not
consider themselves to be “very” or “normally” interested in politics, and less than one-

half would engage in changing a law that is considered unjust (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Interest in domestic politics.

 

1995 2000 2006

 

1= Consider self to be ‘very’ or ‘normally’ interested in politics.

2= Reads about domestic politics, e. g. newspaper reports, ‘regulariy’ (not
‘ocmsionally’ or less).

3= Would be ‘vcry’ or ‘somewhat’ likely to try to do something if
Parliament was passing a law he or she considered unjust.

4= Feels the public should be given ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ more say in local

. and provincial administration.

Source: SCP (CV ’95-‘06)

Also, there is an observed decline in government trust, and an increase in a
perceived government concern for citizens (Table 1). Therefore, addressing this decline
is of great importance. An active, well-connected, trusting, and engaged citizem‘y is
firndamental to vibrant communities, a strong democracy, personal welfare, and health
and happiness (National Conference on Citizenship -NCC, 2006). “If we nurture the
health of our civic stock, our economic and political stocks also should rise” (NCC,
2006, p. 5). What needs to be done to enhance engagement and make civic gains is thus a

valid question.

Table 1. Trust in government.

 

Agree (completely) with the following 1996 2000 2002 2004 2006

 

statements % % % % %
Whatever the government does is of little 21 na na 36 29
use for everyday life

People like me have no influence over 46 52 49 54 50

what the government does
I don’t think MPs and ministers care much 42 48 46 51 46
about what people like me think

When I see the politicians act, I think na na 48 55 49
they’re arrogant
MPs pay too much attention to the 54 58 60 64 59

interests of a few powerful groups rather
than to the general interest
What we need are fewer laws and 29 32 na 59 54
institutions and more courageous, tireless
and dedicated leaders whom the people
can trust
Thinks that in general ‘most people can be 56 47 52 53 51
trusted’ (rather than you can’t be too
careful’ and ‘don’t know’)
Source: SCP (CV ’95-’06).

Multiple studies (e.g., Putnam, 1993; 2000; Saguaro Seminar, 2000; Keeter et al.,
2002; Canada25, 2005; National Conference on Citizenship, 2006; World Bank, 2007)
identified and recommended a few sources that potentially generate and augment public
engagement. These include family, church, school, work place, political establishments,
and third places. The need for greater public engagement has led researchers to explore
ways in which this trend may be counterbalanced (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005). Leisure
has been identified as another source to generate and augment public engagement.

The benefits of leisure are well documented (e. g., Driver, Brown, and Peterson,

1991; Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, 1992; Driver and Burns, 1999).

Researchers have gradually, yet increasingly, focused on the connection between
citizenship (social capital, and public engagement) and leisure participation (Glover and
Hemingway, 2005). As Hemingway (1988) described, “leisure served as an "arena" for
the development and practice of civic virtues, qualified by certain types of activity.
Through leisure activity citizens connect and community is generated as civic friendships
are developed and maintained” (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005). In recent years, leisure
scholars have produced a small body of literature that directly explored the concept of
citizenship and its prospects for finding meaning and application in the field of leisure
studies (e.g., Hemingway, 1999; Arai, 2000; Hemingway, 2001; Arai and Pedlar, 2003;
DeGraaf and Jordan, 2003; Jarvie, 2003; Glover, 2004a; 2004b; Blackshaw and Long,
2005; Glover and Hemingway, 2005). Hemingway (1999) theorized both the generation
of social capital in leisure and its transferability to civic engagement will be affected by
the kinds of leisure in which individuals participate and how leisure services are
organized and delivered. Furthermore, he also suggested that more leisure contributes to
individual development and to the generation and enhancement of social capital.
Specifically, Hemingway (1999) noted that: “though perhaps most basically, we
simply do not know enough about what forms of leisure are associated with the
development of social capital in general. Nor do we necessarily know much about the
process of social capital development itself” (pp. 7-6). Maynard and Kleiber (2005)
posited that “leisure services, although deficient in some ways, offer some of the best
prospects for providing activities, resources and facilities that are conducive to both the

generation of social capital and the strengthening of citizenship.”

10

Ifthere is the opinion that certain forms of leisure produce and enhance civic
engagement, the question that arises is what kinds of leisure in what kinds of settings
seem to be most relevant to the regeneration of civic engagement? (Hemingway, 1999).

On this background, the problem statement of this study presents itself thusly:

Problem statement

Certain forms of leisure participation are more relevant to the generation of public

engagement than others.

Purpose of the study

Monitoring the level of public engagement is important for a working democracy.
Identifying the characteristics that are most relevant to the generation of public
engagement may help policymakers to enhance public engagement in the community, by
encouraging participation in the leisure forms that are most relevant to the generation of
public engagement. Results may bring policymakers and leisure professionals to work
together on developing effective leisure and recreation programs for the community.
Furthermore, this study hopes to contribute to the revival of public engagement and
related topics in leisure studies (Hemingway, 1999; Glover, 2002; Glover and
Hemingway, 2005; Maynard and Kleiber, 2005). As a soCietal capital, public
engagement can decline, be redressed or even augmented. The purpose of public
engagement researchers has been to examine the decline, find venues to redress it or even
augment it. A number of authors suggest the lack of public engagement may be corrected

through the promotion of the identified forms of leisure activity.

11

The results can guide leisure services (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005), governments
(Coalter, 1988), and other organizations (NGOs) (Glover, 2002) to use leisure as another
venue to shape, redress or even augment citizens’ engagement in civic life.

If leisure “is viewed as learned behavior” (Kelly, 1999), “then we may use our leisure
opportunities, activities, and relationships to explore the potential of tomorrow” (p. 208).
This potential can be interpreted as the type of citizens the human community is striving
to become. In Stebbins’ (2005) words: “Having time is one thing; using it to one’s best
advantage is another (. . .). It brings up the necessity of leisure education. If people are
going to use their time to their own best advantage, they need to know something about
these types of leisure, what they can get fi'om them and how to balance them into an
optimal leisure lifestyle. Furthermore, leisure research has been predominantly focused
on psychological factors related to individual participation (Yuen et. al., 2005),
motivation, satisfaction, and constraints (Hemingway, 1999). It has been acknowledged
that the relationship between leisure and civic engagement remains under-theorized in
the leisure studies (e.g., Coalter, 1998), and therefore “leisure scholars are recognizing
the importance of expanding leisure discourse to other disciplines” (Arai and Pedlar,
2003, p. 186). Subsequently, “doing so could reduce the isolation of leisure research and
at the same time contribute to practical action enhancing the formation of democratic

social capital” (Hemingway, 1999, p. 164).

Delimitations and scope of the study

Hemingway (1999) raised interest regarding the extent to which a certain leisure

activity does in fact develop public engagement. This research endeavor could not be

12

comprehensively undertaken by the present study because of sample size concerns. Some

activities (hunting, golf, field hockey for example) were found in a low level in the

sample.
Also, this study focused on leisure participation of individual adults (18 years and

older) members of the households surveyed, and did not consider household leisure
participation, such as parents bringing their children to sport or music activities.
Furthermore, as this study was delimited to a specific geographic area, generalization to
the overall population was not recommended. Moreover, generalization to any other

geographic area was also not recommended, because of the fact that each area has its

own make-up, including demographics and leisure opportunities.

13

Ii

'13!

V5“

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Public engagement’s importance lies in the benefits that it brings to a community
and society, and the adverse impacts that may accrue in its absence. Public engagement is
multifaceted. Citizens can contribute to their communities in a myriad of ways. The
width of civic engagement, which relates to its diverse indicators, makes of this social
phenomenon a complex concept to measure. However, most, if not all, definitions of
public engagement encompass engagement in the political sphere of society as well as
the civil one. What brought public engagement to the fore front of scholarly and
policymaldng debates is the decline observed by Putnam (1995). The erosion of civic life
in America generated a great body of research trying to understand this phenomenon in
the hope of redressing its slope or even enhancing it. While some researchers have
lamented the decline, others saw it as an illusion, and many others have referred to the
change in citizens’ interest as well the changing time in society as proxies for the
explanation of the observed decline. On the other hand, stressing the width of public
engagement, scholars have documented even a rise in some dimensions of public

engagement and not a decline. This debate has also resonated outside of the US to reach
the Netherlands. Tire decline in public engagement is not atypical to the US. Like many
other countries, the Netherlands has also observed a decline in some indicators of public
engagetnent. No matter what the decline is, it has attracted the attention of scholars and

policymakers alike, and the sources and correlates of public engagement have become

Very important to make citizens more engaged, to contribute to a better society.

14

On this challenging background, the literature review of this study focuses
primarily on (a) defining public engagement, (b) dimensions of public engagement, (c)
be nefits of public engagement, ((1) sources of public engagement, (e) decline in public
engagement, (f) criticizing public engagement, (g) public engagement in the social
cap ital literature, (h) public engagement in leisure studies, and (i) public engagement and
l ei we in the Netherlands. As there are many sources that are conducive to public
engagement and good citizenry, one source that has been recognized by ancient Greece
as a well that feeds the good in citizens is leisure (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005). More
recently, leisure scholars have produced a small body of literature that directly explores
the concept of public engagement (and social capital) and its prospects for finding
meaning and application in the field of leisure studies. Thus, the last part of the literature
revi ew of this study focuses on locating public engagement in the leisure studies. A
Cont ent analysis was performed on leisure academic journals to facilitate this inquiry
(ap pendix A). It is important at this stage to indicate that leisure has been conceptualized
mai rrly in four basic contexts: state of being, state of mind, time, and activities (e.g.,
GO (ibey, 1999). While leisure may be thought of as a cluster of activities, it remains,
l-.'LQ\"\Iever, that “perhaps some [activities] have a higher potential than others do [to serve
as a basis for leisure]” (Godbey, 1999, p. 9). Leisure activities include a wide range of
aetiwities “starting from such passive activities as reading and extending to more active
Ones such as sports or games” (Bhally, 1994, p 32). French sociologist Dumazedier
( 1 959) defined leisure as “an activity to which the individual freely devotes himself
Q‘~11iside the needs and obligations of his occupations, his family and society, for his

rel'c‘txation, diversion and personal development” (Bhally, 1994, p. 31).

15

These activities are freely undertaken without obligation or duty towards family,
community or society. They are thus “voluntary”, undertaken for their own sake, and
e: c p 1 easurable” (Godbey, 1999, p. 9). As the context of this study is the Netherlands, it was
appropriate to also document public engagement, and leisure participation in the
Netherlands. It should, however, be emphasized, here, that the Dutch literature about
public engagement is scarce, and what there is, is predominantly (if not all) descriptive.
“ I n fact, most of the literature on citizenship has been conceptual, rather than empirical”

(Glover, 2000, p. 207).

Defining engagement

The understanding that governments and markets cannot provide all that is
nec essary to make a “good” society has become an accepted reality (National Organizing
CoI'l'unittee, 2005, p. 4). Nineteen century philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville observed in
DeMOCracy in America (first published in 1835) the importance of associations in

trait: sforming a community in to a fervent democracy. Interest in enhancing public
e“gz1gement in the civic sphere of society is vital for democracy (Putnam, 1993). The
be Ilefits of public engagement are widely documented (F ukuyama 1995; Braithwaite and
Lfivi 1998; Jackman and Miller 1998, Levi and Stoker 2000; Putnam, 2000; Joslyn and
Q igler 2001; Rosenfeld et. al. 2001; Youniss et al. 2001; McCarthy et.al., 2002; Ray,
20()2; Uslaner 2002; Wollebaek and Selle 2002; McLaren and Baird 2003; Teorell
2003;). Civic engagement is multifaceted, and encompasses several dimensions and

Indictors (Zukin, Keeter, Andolina, Jenkins, and Carpini, 2006).

16

This multifaceted nature has made an all comprehensive one definition of public
egtjgagement difficult, if not senseless (Lopez, Levine, Both, Kiesa, Kirby, and Marcelo,
2 006). In fact, a plethora of definitions exists, making more interesting and usefirl to

capture the nature of the civic engagement phenomenon. Thus, a few definitions are
j 1.1 stifled and warrant documentation. The following selection has been chosen to

represent the width of civic engagement:
' l 'he Office of the Associate Provost for Outreach (2004) defines civic engagement as:

‘ ‘working to make a diflerence in the civic life of our communities through individual or
collective actions designed to identifiz and address issues of public concern. Civic
engagement can take many forms, from individual volunteerism to organizational
involvement to electoral participation. It can include efi‘orts to directly address an issue,

Work with others in a community to solve a problem, or interact with the institutions of
representative democracy ”.

The Task Force on Civic Engagement at the University of Minnesota gives the following
d efi nition:

Ci vie Engagement means an institutional commitment to public purposes and

;e~‘—>2)onsibilities intended to strengthen a democratic way of life in the rapidly changing
vomation Age of the 21st century.

The New Student Politics Curriculum Guide indicates:

3" civic engagement we mean exercising personal agency in a public domain; and we
SSlime that becoming civically engaged is a developmental process characterized by
g Giving facility with ideas, situations, skills and awareness.

\QQording to the New York Times:

e i 1-"1'c engagement means working to make a dzfierence in the civic life of our
t O'innunities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation
0 Make that diflerence.

17

Another widely used definition of civic engagement is the one offered by the American

P sychological Association (Carpini, 2007):

[rzzdivl'dual and collective actions designed to identify and address issues of public
concern. Civic engagement can take many forms, from individual voluntarism to
organizational involvement to electoral participation. It can include efforts to directly

Me” an issue, work with others in a community to solve a problem or interact with the
i’zstl'tutions of representative democracy. Civic engagement encompasses a range of

specific activities such as working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood
association, writing a letter to an elected oflicial or voting. Indeed an underlying

principal of our approach is that an engaged citizen should have the ability, agency and
opportunity to move comfortably among these various Opes of civic acts.
These definitions confirm the width of civic engagement, which clearly

encompasses two major forms of engagements: political engagement, and non-political
processes, each having respective indicators (Lopez et al., 2006). These indicators also

emp hasize the complex nature of each one of the forms of engagement. These forms are

al So referred to as dimensions of civic engagement.

bei‘ining political engagement and civic engagement
Civic engagement and political engagement have different goals and activities,

di f ferent places in which they take place, different indicators, and also differ in the level

of

effort entailed (Zukin et al., 2006). Like other authors (e. g., Verba et al., 1995;
IQileod et al., 1996), Kim and Ball-Rokeach (2006, p. 16) regarded civic engagement as

‘{

an investment of valuable resources, such as time, money, knowledge, or experience, in

Qtl vrtres that are meant to influence the community decrsron-makrng process (. . .), as
Q1113! actual “behaviors” implicated in local policy-making and community opinion-
thaldng processes— attending city council meetings, meeting elected officials, sending a

l e1flier“ to the editor, or participating in a protest, for example.” Civic engagement normally
QCcurs within nongovernmental organizations.

18

It is engagement in “organized voluntary activity focused on problem solving and

1.161 ping others, a definition that obviously encompasses a vast range of settings, goals,

and behaviors” (Zukin etal., 2006, p. 61).
The best example of this kind of participation is volunteer work in one’s

community (Zukin et al., 2006). Zukin et al. (2006, p. 6) define political engagement as
‘ ‘activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action -either directly by
afl‘ecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the

sel ection of people who make those policies”. While voting is the most important

in d i cator of this activity, activities such as working for a candidate or party, or trying to

convince someone how to vote are also as important.
Although political engagement and civic engagement are two different forms of

public engagement, they are related to each other (Putnam, 19993; 2000; Skocpol, 1999),
811d share the same important contribution to a healthy civil society (Zukin et al., 2006).
Alt hough citizenship in the US is likely to be more civic than political, both kinds of
ellgagement have important consequences on citizens’ lives. A good example is that

11 1‘1 strated by the A1 Gore/George W Bush presidential campaign (Figure 2): As the

3’9“ nger generation is more liberal and Democratic than the rest of the electorate, had

I:
he)! turned out to vote at the same rate as older ones, it is believed that Al Gore would
1‘13-‘re won the 2004 election (Zukin et al., 2006). As Skocpol (1999, p. 33) acknowledged,

f . .
91‘ a healthy socrety, the two forms of engagement are important: “throughout most of

American history, active democratic government and a vibrant civil society centered in

t\ederated associations went hand in hand.”

19

Figure 2. Political engagement by age.

 

Age 1525 7&26-37

Age 38-56
lAlways votes in elections

Age 57+ ‘_
DFollow public affairs regularly J
Sow: NCES Survey, Zukin et.al. (2006), p. 7.

The line between public and private —and thus between political and civic
eng agement is blurred. As one sphere affects the other, there is no strict line between
p01 itical engagement and civic engagement on the part of citizens (Zukin et al., 2006).
C ampbell (2004, p. 7), on the other hand, made a clear distinction between the motives of

the two forms of engagement. Civic engagement, according to him, consists of “non-
re IIlunerative, publicly spirited collective action that is not motivated by the desire to
E‘ii‘éct public policy”. As such, it forms a sharp contrast with political participation, which
chsists of “those activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at
it"fluencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take”. What
111a), be interesting to observe fi'om this discussion is that the benefits of both forms of

§tlgagement are equally important, and that, regardless of the motives, space and

lrltensity of each, the benefits have no boundaries.

20

Defining public engagement

Broadly defined, civic engagement is considered to be engagement of citizens in
public life (Calvert et al., 2002; Haight et al., 2002; Long et al., 2001; Fiorina, 2002;
Jenkins et al., 2003), connoting civic engagement to only engagement in civic spheres of
society, if not confusing, seems to tend to neglect political engagement. Thus, civic
engagement and political engagement are two dimensions of public engagement, with
d i fierent indicators. In other words, while the literature uses civic engagement to
i 11 corporate both civic and political engagements, for the sake of clarity, instead of using
c i Vic engagement to connote engagement in the political as well as civic sphere of
society, this study uses public engagement to embrace both the political and civic
d i mensions of engagement in public life. Public engagement involves engagement in
po 1 itical affairs as well as Civil Society. The London School of Economics Centre for
C i vi] Society refers to civil society as: ”the arena of uncoerced collective action around
811 axed interests, purposes and values.” In theory, its institutional forms are distinct fiom
t he se of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state,
Ci Vi 1 society, family and market are ofien complex, blurred and negotiated. Civil society
c0 himonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their
d egree of formality, autonomy and power. Civil societies are often populated by
c:’I-.g“=lt‘nizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations,
c"'()‘57.'lrnunity groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional

Oclatrons, trade unions, self-help groups, socral movements, busmess assocratrons,

Cc ~ .
a1 11: 10118 and advocacy groups.

21

At its core, public engagement is the engagement of citizens with their society
and government (Gottlieb, Karla and Robinson, 2002).
Although the meaning of public engagement can vary widely, there are common themes
consistent to nearly all definitions (Gottlieb et al., 2002):
Active participation (interaction, involvement, participation)
Focused on community (society, public, government, common good)
Manifested through a variety of activities, including (but not limited to) voting,
coalition building, political involvement, community service, dialogue and
relationship building.
Ju st as there are common themes throughout the varying definitions of public
engagement, there are also common characteristics of what constitutes an "engaged
c it izen". An engaged citizen:
0 recognizes himself or herself as a member of a larger social fabric and the sees
the value of every person
0 considers social problems to be at least partly his or her own and addresses
society's problems in an informed manner
o is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions of issues

0 involves the community in decision-making processes
0 questions governmental policies and practices and determines ways to alter public

0 gfclxifles the time, attention, understanding and action to fisrther collective civic

goals (Gottllieb et al., 2002).

In much of the literature, researchers have measured only one dimension of
Du b1 ic engagement, either political or civic, while others have examined both
di mensions, and a few have added new ones (Zukin et al., 2006). As mentioned
previously, there are debates about how to define civic engagement and each study has
u Sea multiple indicators because “people have numerous ways to influence the world
Ett‘Qq—ltld them, and it is important to look beyond the most frequently measured forms of

g‘I'Etgement (voting and volunteering)” (Lopez et al., 2006, p. 6). Their study, for

exam . . . . .
ple, asks about 19 major indicators of crvrc engagement, plus several other forms of

22

participation. This breadth of engagement is therefore important and so are the

dimensions of public engagement.

Dimensions of public engagement
As there are several ways for people to become engaged and to contribute to a
healthy society, public engagement also becomes multifaceted and the concept complex
(Ketter et al., 2002; Zukin et al., 2006). Authors studying this concept have focused
primarily on two dimensions: political engagement and civic engagement. However, as
the nature of citizen engagement in public life is changing and evolving, studying public
engagement warrants the inclusion of other dimensions. For example, Keeter et al.
(2 O 02) emphasized 19 indicators that they divided into three main dimensions of
activities: civic activities, electoral activities, and political voice activities. These
cat egories represent three different ways in which individuals can contribute to public

1 i fie (appendix B: Core indicators of engagement).

Civic activities generally focus on improving ones’ local community and helping
individuals. Examples of civic activities include volunteer service, joining a local
civic association, or supporting a non-profit organization or cause by participating
in a fimdraiser.

Electoral activities concentrate on the political process and include activities such
as voting, persuading others to vote, or volunteering for a political campaign.

‘ Political voice activities are things people do to express their political or social
viewpoints and include activities like writing to an elected official, sending an e-

mail petition, or protesting.

Verba and Nie (1972) identified four dimensions of engagement: voting, election
E‘hlpaign activity, contacting public officials, and cooperative activity (e. g., working

i n 15‘ . .
QI‘rmally wrth others to solve a community problem).

23

Brady (1999) distinguishes between electoral (voting campaign activity) and non-
electoral activities, which is categorized in “conventional” (informal community work,

organizational memberships, attending meetings) and unconventional (signing petitions

or participating in demonstrations or boycotts) behavior.
Besides political and civic engagement, Zukin et al (2006)identif1ed two other

ki nds of public engagement: (a) public voice, and (b) cognitive engagement. Public voice
refers to actions in which citizens give expression to their views on public issues, such as
s i gming petitions, engaging in e—mail campaigns, starting or contributing to political
b l o gs, or writing letters to the editor, or contacting public officials, or contacting the
m edia. Cognitive engagement encompasses paying attention to political and public
aff‘airs, such as: following the news in newspapers, talking about politics with friends and

f‘atmily, or simply being interested in public affairs. Figure 3, features the four dimensions

of public engagement and their respective 22 core indicators.
The accumulation of knowledge and understanding has always necessitated using

C! i fierent lenses to look at social phenomena. The inclusion of, for example, the cognitive
d i mension to the study of public engagement was preceded by the inclusion of this

(i i mension in the study of social capital. Krishna and Uphoff (1999, p. 7) proposed two
f0 r1113 of social capital: structural and cognitive. Stressing also the importance of
co glitive forms of social capital, they argued that this form “facilitates MBCA [mutually
be l'1<§f1cial collective action] through established roles and social networks supplemented
by "ules, procedures and precedents, while the second predisposes people toward MBCA

C)
11 the basis of shared norms, values, attitudes and beliefs”. Both forms are interrelated

an . .
a one is as much important as the other.

24

 

They both require investment of time and effort, if not always money. Assessing
cognitive engagement is like assessing the attitudes towards engaging in activities in the

fixture.

Figure 3. Dimensions and core indicators of public engagement.

 

Civic indicators

0 Community problem solving
0 Regular volunteering for a non-electoral organization
0 Active membership in a group or association
0 Participation in fund-raising run/walk/ride
0 Other firnd-raising for charity

Political indicators
0 Regular voting
0 Persuading others
0 Displaying buttons, signs, stickers
0 Campaign contributions
0 Volunteer for candidate or political organizations

P niblic voice
0 Contacting officials
o Contacting the print media
0 Contacting the broadcast media
0 Protesting
0 E-mail petitions
o Boycotting
o Boycotting
o Canvassing
C(Ignitive engagement

0 Following government and public affairs

0 Talking to family and fiiends about politics
0 Political knowledge

0 Attention to the news media

 

 

3 out-cc: Zukin et al., 2006, p. 57-58.

25

Assessing the cognitive engagement of young people may be an important
indicator of likely future participation in politics and public affairs for young people who
have yet to develop the habits of participation (Zukin et al., 2006). Researchers have
been alarmed by the observed decline in public engagement, especially among the
younger generations (Putnam, 1995)-Generation X and Generation Y.

While Putnam, for example, lamented the decline, others (e. g., Loez et al., 2006; Zukin et

al - , 2006) criticized Putnam’s observations, and advanced that if not an illusion, the
d ecline represents just a shifi in the forms of engagement due to changing times and

engagement preference. Others have advanced alternative theories to explain the nature

0 f” the decline in public engagement.

A typology of public engagement
Keeter et al., (2002, p. 23-24) posited “Concerned, outwardly focused citizens can

fi 11 «:1 a host of opportunities to “make a difference.” From shoveling snow off a
De: i ghbor’s walkway to running for national office, from donating time or money to a
lo cal food bank to advocating legislation to change government policy, opportunities
ab- Ound for those dedicated to making their world a better place.” They have thus

Cle\Veloped a typology of engagement based on the types and levels of engagement, and

cc... 1'1 sider people to be civically engaged if they participated in two or more of the

tb 1 lowing civic activities:
Regular volunteering for an organization other than a candidate or political party;

" Working with others to solve a community problem in the past year;
‘ Raising money for charity, through a run/walk or any other means in the past

year; or
Actively participating in a group or association.

26

Those considered to be politically engaged are those who participated in two or more

activities fiom among the following (also referred to as the electoral specialists in 2002):

“Always” voting (or, for youth under 20 who have not yet had an opportunity to
vote, intention to always vote);

Volunteering for a political organization or a candidate;

Trying to persuade someone how to vote;

Displaying a button, bumper sticker, or sign on behalf of a candidate;
Contributing money to a party or candidate in the past 12 months (Keeter et al.,
2002, p. 23-24; Zukin et al., 2006, p. 63-64).

' I 'he dual activists are those who are both civically and electorally engaged, and the civic

Wadi?“ are those who are civically engaged but not politically. And finally, there are

the disengaged, those who meet neither standards. The results of the study show that

about one-half may be labeled as disengaged (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Engagement among Americans age 15 +

 

Dual Civic
activists specialists
16% 16%

Political
specialists f3
20%

 

 

 

 

; ource: NCES, Zukin et al., 2006, p. 64.

 

27

Benefits of public engagement
Public engagement recently received increased attention because of its benefits to
society. An engaged citizenry leads to vibrant communities and a society (Putnam,
2 000). The benefits that public engagement has on communities are well documented.
S ocial scientists found a relationship between public engagement and political efficacy,
and problem solving. Membership association is believed to have a positive effect on
i nt erpersonal trust (e. g., Fukuyama 1995; Braithwaite and Levi 1998; Jackman and

Mi ller 1998; Levi and Stoker 2000; Uslaner 2002; McLaren and Baird 2003).

As supported by Putnam (2000, p. 21): “Trustworthiness lubricates social life.
Frequent interaction among a diverse set of people tends to produce a norm of
gemeralized reciprocity.” Other scholars also argue that involvement in voluntary
as sociations increases trust in government (Joslyn and Cigler, 2001), political activity
(T eorell, 2003) and social capital formation (Wollebaek and Selle, 2002).

S u pporters of public engagement believe it would lead to reduced crime rates (Rosenfeld

e1: _. al., 2001; McCarthy et. al., 2002), more efficient and responsive democratic
governments (Putnam et. al., 1993; Ray, 2002), and an empowered and vibrant citizenry,
i n eluding young people (Youniss et.al., 2001). People who are engaged are more tolerant
(Hooghe, 2003), and spread tolerance among other groups (Mutz, 2002b), and are more
1 i 1‘:er to respect others (Eberly and Streeter, 2002). Membership of associations enhances
p Q'litical behavior, sense of efficacy, and political attitude (Verba et al., 1995; Ayala,
2 O 00; Ray 2002; Teorell, 2003 ;). More broadly engaged citizens in politics (V erba et al.,

1 9
9 5 ; Teorell, 2003 ;) and group involvement are more likely to vote (Cassel, 1999).

28

 

Voluntary associations strengthen social bonds and develop a sense of community
(Dekker and van den Broek, 1998; Galston, 2000; Ray, 2002); they encourage
cooperation and enhance coordination to help solve collective action problems in
communities (Brehm and Rahn, 1997). Engagement in voluntary associations increases
social capital in communities (Wollebaek and Selle, 2002).
Multiple association memberships even in homogeneous groups can increase political
activity (Teorell, 2003) and social capital formation (Wollebaek and Selle, 2002).
According to Mencken et.al. (2006), the civic society literature has largely
neglected the concept of economic growth, which includes variables such as increases in
50b8, earnings, and income. However, over the last ten years, a new line of research in the
sociology of economic development has emerged, which emphasizes public engagement
as an economic development tool at both the county and place levels (e. g., Lyson and
Tolbert 1996; Tolbert, Lyson, and Irwin 1998; Irwin, Tolbert, and Lyson 1999; Tolbert et
al. 2002; Irwin et al. 2004). Mencken et.al. (2006) tested the extent to which public
engagement measures lead to economic grth in Appalachian counties during the
I 9903, which suffered from deindustrialization. In so doing, their model examined the
effects of civic engagement measures from the civil society perspective on employment
and earnings growth. They found the region gained many jobs. Besides other market
competition based measures, civic engagement held a net positive impact on economic
gr‘Q‘Kath (increases in private non-farm employment, private establishment, per capita
a

i hes . . . .
lne, earnings, etc.). Furthermore, thlS study confirms that crvrc engagement also has

13Q’sitive effect on socio-economic well-being both directly and indirectly, through

N

homic growth.

29

Research has shown that whether at the county or the place level, communities
with higher levels of civic engagement (more civic organizations, third places, civically
engaged churches, etc.) consistently have lower levels of poverty, lower levels of income
inequality, higher median family incomes, fewer crimes, and better indicators of public
health (Tolbert, Lyson, and Irwin 1998; Lee and Ousey 2001; Lyson, Torres, and Welsh
200 l ; Tolbert et al. 2002; Lyson and Tolbert 2003).
Others have reported that in communities with more social capital (which includes public
engagement), rates of poverty, unemployment, and crime tend to be lower (e.g., Sampson
and Groves 1989; Tolbert, Lyson and Irwin 1998; Green and Haines 2001). It follows
that the list of public engagement correlates is too long to cover, but most importantly, it
is generally argued that, public engagement enhances government performance, and
c01'1301‘ate performance —two important domains in public life (Putnam, 1993; Cusack,
1999; Putnam, 2002; Coffe and Geys, 2005; Andrews, 2007). Putnam (1993, p. 120)
argued that public engagement of a region was “the most important factor in explaining
good government” and in the absence of associational life, citizens may be less able to
a“iiclllate their political demands, making it more difficult for public organizations to
meet their needs. Likewise, Clapham et al. (2000, p. 232) found that community
involvement improves decision-making because it is “open to the influence, in practice

Qt inst in principle, to most of the people they serve.”

Sources and correlates of public engagement

“Engaged citizens do not create themselves. We should no more expect

S
thtaneous engagement than we do spontaneous combustion” (Keeter et al., 2002, p. 2).

3O

Studies (e. g., Saguaro Seminar, 2000; Keeter et al., 2002; Canada25, 2005; National
Conference on Citizenship, 2006; World Bank, 2007) recommended several sources, and
generated a few recommendations to help engage citizens. These include family, church,
school, work place, political establishments, and other organizations.

The Saguaro Seminar (2000), for example, examined sources such as the
workplace, the arts, politics and government, religion, schools, youth organizations, and
families; each of which has the potential for enhancing civic engagement in society. It
has been argued that every institution has the potential for enhancing civic engagement

(Figure 5).

In their work on citizen engagement, Verba, Schlozman, and Brady (1995)

developed a model that situates the roots of political participation in a set of
Chronological stages. They say some resources develop early in life while others occur
immediately before the individual decides to be engaged in public life. Zukin et al.
(2006) followed this lead and developed a model containing eight steps that lead to the
involvement in public life. The steps included: initial characteristics (sex, age, minority
Stalls and mother’s education), early socialization, education, television avoidance,

generational identification, social capital, political capital, positive attitudes toward

politics and government, and mobilization.

31

Figure 5. Sources of civic engagement

 

Source:

 

Source _-

 

 

Source:

The Workplace. This chapter examines how the assumptions, laws, and structures of
employment can be transformed to bolster family and civic life.

The Arts. This chapter examines the potential of artists and cultural organizations to
unite people in creative endeavors that build and celebrate community.

Politics and Government. This chapter examines troubles plaguing American
democracy and suggests ways that citizens and political leaders can enhance civic
interest and participation.

Religion. This chapter examines the role of houses of worship and other faith-based
organimtions in healing spiritual, cultural, and social problems.

Schools, Youth Organizations, and Families. This chapter examines ways to engage
America’s young pe0ple, who are the next generation of social capitalists.

(Saguaro Seminar, 2000, p. 9).

Association: the freedom of citizens to associate

Resources: their ability to mobilize resources to fulfill the objectives of their
organizations

Voice: their ability to formulate and express opinion

Information: their access to information (necessary for their ability to exercise voice,
engage in negotiation and gain access to resources

Negotiation: the existence of spaces and rules of engagement for negotiation,
participation and public debate.

(The World Bank, 200 7).

o The Internet: e-participation in e-democracy, using e-methods for e-engagement of
virtual citizens.

: (Bristol City Council, 2005).

Leisure: an "arena" for the development and practice of civic virtues, qualified
by certain types of activity. Through leisure activity citizens connect and
community is generated as civic fiiendships are developed and maintained.

Maynard and Kleiber, 2005).

Play and expression: (related to leisure participation) The play and expression
mode of engagement encompasses all types of artistic and sporting activities
that involve interaction with the community or society.

&erce: (Canada25. D. 13).

 

32

 

In their model, Zukin et.al. (2006) concluded that for public engagement in
general, political capital and early socialization to be the strongest precursors for public
engagement. As for political engagement, political capital and mobilization are found to

be the strongest. With regards to civic engagement, political capital, was followed by
mobilization, social capital, and education and early socialization. For expressive
engagement, the strongest precursor was political capital, the second was mobilization
and then education. That is, the other factors lacked an important impact on boosting
public engagement or respective dimensions of public engagement.
According to Putnam (1993; 2000), local institutions such as churches,
associations, and so-called “third places” (barber shops, cafes, and other sites of informal
public life) create community solidarity and serve as forums for public engagement. In
turn, these institutions help citizens to take roots in a community, and thereby enhance
local quality of life (Grant et al., 2004). Other scholars paid attention to the type of

residential stability as an enhancing factor to public engagement, and thus to community

quality of life.
For example, studies have found that residential stability or residential tenure,

defined as “a continuous measure of years of neighborhood residence” (Kim and Ball-

Rokeach, 2006) has a positive effect on civic engagement, because it provides a positive

v
e1"lue to influence civic engagement in communities (Shah, McLeod, and Yoon, 2001;

K6418 and Kwak; 2003). According to Kim et al., (2006, p. 422), this happens not

13%
ause of the tenure per se, but “through integrated connectedness to a storytelling

11
Qt\>\Iork.”

33

That is, residents who have lived longer in their neighborhoods have had more
opportunities, through the local media, community organizations, and talking with other
neighbors, to participate in a neighborhood than those with shorter residential tenure.

Other researchers have also found living in a more stable community (longer residential

tenure and higher percentage of homeownership) to be a positive factor in civic

engagement (Paek et al., 2005).

The decline in public engagement

The decline in American civic and political engagement represents one of the
most compelling social science discourses in recent scholarship. Discussions engaging
civil society received much attention following Putnam’s (1995; 2000) discourse about

the erosion of civic and political engagement of Americans. In his work, Putnam (1995;

2000) observed a significant decline in trust in public institutions, in people’s

involvement in civic associations, accompanied by a parallel shift in the political attitude I
Of a Widespread disengagement from the political system, as well, including a decrease in
Voter turnout both at the national and local levels. Putnam demonstrated that on a range
of indicators of civic engagement including voting, political participation, newspaper

:-
e'E‘dership, and participation in local associations that there were serious grounds for
J t1Qern.
Regarding the realms of political and civic engagement he was able to
(l

§rl'lonstrate hat, for example, over the last three decades of the twentieth century there

Lq been a firndamental shift in: Voting, political knowledge, political trust, and
E a~S'ssroots political activism.

34

Americans signed 30 percent fewer petitions and were 40 percent less consumer
boycotts, as compared to just a decade or two ago. The declines are equally visible in
non-political community life: membership and activity in all sorts of local clubs and civic
and religious organizations have been falling at an accelerating pace.
In the mid-19703 the average American attended some club meeting every month, by
1 998 that rate of attendance had been cut by nearly 60 percent. In all 30 large
organizations that Putnam examined in his 1995 study, the decline was visible as
indicated in the Figures 6 and 7. These Figures testify to the importance of the observed
decline, and thus warrant visual representation. They represent some of the core
indicators of civic engagement, namely volunteering, active organizational involvement,
club meeting attendance, and charitable giving. Putnam (2001) explained: “any
organization, not just one of my 32 national organizations —— shows a quite dramatic
drOp, basically a cut in half, over these years. Every one of the 12 different kinds of
connectedness covered in the survey shows the same decline.” Active engagement in
local clubs or organizations has declined by half from the mid-1970 to mid-1990 and the
mean number of club meetings noticeably witnessed a sharp decline from 1975-1999.
Charitable giving, one of the core indicators of civic engagement, also marked a decline
P'qtnam (1995). There are other indictors which observed decline that have attracted the

a
1tendon of scholars and policymakers alike. A comprehensive illustration of the erosion

F public engagement is offered in the Figure 6.

35

Nature of the decline in public engagement

Americans “bowling alone” (Putnam, 1995) served as an alarming indicator for
the decline in America’s civic engagement. Putnam’s work has instigated disturbing

realities in the minds of Americans that the American civil society may also be

weakening.

Figure 6. The erosion of civic engagement in America.

 

The most familiar example of civic decline is Americans’ growing refusal to go to the
polls - Casting a ballot in national elections has dropped by roughly 25% since the mid-
] 9608. There has been an even bigger decline — between 30% and 40% - in how many
Americans work for a political party, serve as an oflicer of a club or organization, serve
on an organizational committee, attend a school or community meeting, or attend a
political event.3 Even purely pleasurable get-togethers are becoming increasingly scarce.
For example, the number of times per year that Americans entertain friends at home has
dropped by 45% since the mid-1970s, and the fraction of Americans who go to others’
homes to socialize has plunged nearly that much since the early l980s.4 Once-familiar
social activities - picnicking, playing cards with friends, even hanging out at the
neighborhood bar — are fast becoming relics of a bygone era. Families, too, are spending
less time together than they used to. Parents and their children are about one-third less
likely to take vacations together, watch television together, or even chat with one
mothers In a recent YMCA survey, American adolescents said “not having enough time
t({gefl’her” with parents ranked as their top concern. More than four in ten parents said they
dldn’t have enough time to spend with their kids - mainly because of work obligations.
0}" feelings about one another and about our communal obligations have also changed in
dIStl’eessing ways over the past generation. Only about a third of Americans think most
Other people can be trusted, down from more than half of Americans who were trusting in
l 960 . There has been an equally steep decline since the early 19503 in the belief that
fhnericans are as honest and moral as they used to be. These trends are troubling for two
Important reasons. First, our perception of others affects our willingness to work and
sQCialize together. Second, and worse, our perceptions may reflect an actual decline in
:‘ustworthiness. Perhaps it is no surprise that we are fast building two kinds of walled
l QCieties: gated communities and prisons. Americans have become less public—spirited in
638 visible ways, as well. Even as the number of charitable organizations has exploded,
:hé fraction of our national income contributed to them has shrunk. We are more likely to
&nore traffic signals and to gesticulate rudely at fellow drivers. Americans
Verwhehningly believe that our culture has become coarse and uncivil.

 

 

  
 
  
     
  
 

8%

“roe: Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America (2000, p. 5).

 

 

36

The decline in civic engagement in America may be attributed to factors, such as

demographic shifi, television entertainment, women entry in the labor force,

consumption, pressure to work long hours and weekends, proliferation of suburbs, car-

centered cities and insufficient amounts of communal space, lack of general
neighborliness, focus on the self over others in the supermarket line, time constraints on
lei sure activity and community involvement, need for speed, devaluation of everyday

conversations, and atomization of home and family life by media technologies (Saguaro

Seminar, 2000) (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Causes of the decline in civic engagement in America.

In America, Putnam demonstrates that the single most important cause of the decline in
civic engagement is an irreversible demographic shift. Namely, an exceptionally civic
generation of older Americans is slowing down and dying, and far less civic-minded
generations of Baby Boomers and Baby Busters are taking their place. Other profound
and durable social changes have only magnified the generational impact. Entertainment
Felevision, a veritable death ray for civic life, has become our primary source of
information and relaxation, crowding out more sociable leisure-time activities. Women
have poured into the formal labor force, opening new doors for them but also sapping the
nmghborhood and voluntary organizations that used to flourish under unpaid female
ladership. In a consumption-mad, booming economy, working professionals with civic
leadership skills face increasing pressure to work long hours and weekends, forcing them
t°.Skip school meetings and family dinners. And the proliferation of suburbs and exurbs,
“nth their car-focused culture and absence of community spaces, has distanced neighbor
fi’Om neighbor, all but eliminating the sorts of casual interactions on which yesterday’s
SI“all towns and urban neighborhoods thrived. This steep decline in social capital, not
Surprisingly, has affected all of us: Black, White, Native American Latino, Asian

erican; male and female; young and middle-aged; city dwellers, suburbanites, and
residents; professionals and blue-collar employees.

 

  
  
   

 

I‘hce: Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America (2000, p. 5).
thumg the observed decline In public engagement

The decline in the United States is not a singular trend but rather a bundle of

r
§l*‘I-ted changes in the social and political spheres of society (e. g., Horan, 1971;

37

Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1995; Samuelson, 1996; Bussemaker and
Voet, 1998; Drenth, 1998; Knijn, 1998; Ladd, 1999; Voet, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Mutz,
2002a; 2002b; Skocpol, 2003; Bookrnan, 2004; Blanchard et al., 2006; Zukin et al.,
2006). Thus, while Putnam (2000) talked about the erosion of engagement in public life,
Zukin et al. (2006) discuss the evolvement of public life. Following Putnam (2000)’s
discourse, the decline in public engagement is generational, arguing that the younger
generation is less engaged than the older generation.

According to him, there is a generation gap in, for example, voter turnout over the
past 3 0 plus years. Besides the other factors that contribute to the erosion of political and
civic engagement, Putnam advanced that the most important factor has been the
replacement of older, more engaged cohorts with younger, less engaged ones.

As documented earlier, Putnam (1995) demonstrated a successive generational decline
following World War II, evidenced in decreasing tendencies to join civic associations
and an increasing distrust in political institutions. Even before Putnam, there had been
longitudinal accounts of a decline in associational memberships. Skocpol (2003), for
examPI e, studied the memberships of large, national associations and found membership
beginning to decline in most cases by the 1920’s. Skocpol demonstrated that the
phenomenon decline lies in the changing shape of associational life. She argued:
‘ :4fier 1960 epochal changes in racial ideals and sex relationships delegitimated old-line
S membership associations and pushed male and female leaders in new directions. New
political opportunities and challenges drew resources and civic activists toward centrally
hanged lobbying. Innovative technologies and sources of financial support enabled
hen», memberless models of association building to take hold And finally, shifts in
4 merican class structure and elite careers created a broad constituency for
b’ofeSSionally managed organizing... The most privileged Americans can now organize

W conierzd largely mnong themselves, without regularly engaging the majority of
Qimzens (Skocpo12003: 178).

38

Others (e.g., Samuelson, 1996; Ladd, 1999) explained the decline is illusory, even
arguing that some organizations had witnessed an increase in membership in more recent
years. These authors posited that the decline in membership might be related not to the
people but to the organizations themselves. They advanced some associations might have
simply been unsuccessful in attracting members and win support. On the other hand,

regarding voting, the decline in voter turnout may be attributed to intervening external

factors.
For example, registration rules, voter access, and electoral systems all influence

people’s likelihood to vote (Verba and Nie, 1972). Zukin et a1 (2006, p. 92) empirically

supported this proposition. Of the major reasons for not voting in the 2002 elections

among those who are eligible was “I recently moved and haven’t registered at my current

address”. This was true for 19% of the sample.

Lack of information about who to vote for was also an important barrier to voting
participation. On the other hand, while participation in activities, such as joining political
Clubs and attending the public meetings of local governments clearly declined over the

past half century, others such as political contributions increased (Rosenstone and

Hansen, 1993; Verba et al., 1995).
Moreover, other activities such as television watching have taken up time from

DeOple that might be devoted to engaging in civic duties (Putnam, 1995). Also, the entry
waomen in the labor force may have influenced the time spent in participation in civic

activities (Bussemaker and Voet, 1998; Drenth, 1998; Knijn, 1998; Voet, 1998; Putnam,

2000; Bookrnan, 2004).

39

Putnam (2000) indicated that dual-earner households, suburban sprawl, and
commuting times are also factors that provide explanations for civic decline. Another
theory to explain the decline in civic engagement is what has been labeled “cross-cutting
network” (Horan, 1971; Mutz, 2002a; 2002b; Blanchard et al., 2006). Cross-cutting

networks refer to the degree that individuals are embedded in environments containing

multiple political viewpoints. That is, when people are faced with multiple viewpoints

they are more likely to disengage from political participation because of fear of sanctions

fiorn members of competing factions. Others (e.g., Blanchard et al, 2006, p. 2254) found

that local economic concentration is associated with lower levels of civic participation.
That is, residents of communities with highly concentrated economies tend to vote less
and are less likely to keep up with local affairs, participate in associations, engage in
reform efforts or participate in protest activities at the same level as their counterparts in
economically dispersed environments.

Similarly, in a commentary by Public Management (2004, p. 4) citizens have
become more helpful not less, more engaged not less, claiming that public engagement
has not decline but changed. They supported that:

“the change in civic participation in the past-half century is most noticeable in the
relative lack of residence involvement in such organizations as the PTA and the Boy
couts. However, at the same time, citizen participation in disaster recovery efforts has
een overwhelming (. . .) This sense of social responsibility became more evident after

the attacks of September 11, 2001. Food, clothing, blood, money, and time were donated,
and responding agencies were inundated with offers to help.”

40

In sum, whether there is a decline in civic engagement or not, surely, new forms
of engagement have taken roots. Zukin et al. (2006, p. 11) explained the nature of the
civic decline, supporting that public engagement is “multifaceted”, “delicate”,
“changeable” and “depends on one’s own values.” Among other questions, they have
asked why there is this divide in engagement between generations. Their explanation is
that history has an effect on people’s behaviors and attitudes: “each new cohort has the
potential to develop its own worldviews, which in turn affect its members’ most specific
opinions and behaviors”. “Citizens can participate in public life in a myriad ways, fi'om
donating time at a local official to complain about street repairs in one’s neighborhood”.
Their arguments supported the idea that public engagement is not declining but it is
evolving. The reasons for the move away from traditional focus of political engagement

such as voting are mostly structural, driven by three decades of political, economic, and
SOCiO-cultural change. Assessing citizenship participation, Zukin et a1 (2006, p. 186)
argued claiming that today’s youth’s participation is lesser was simplistic. “Simple
Claims that today’s youth (i.e., members of Generation X, and especially the Dot-Net
generation) are apathetic and disengaged from civic life are simply wrong”.

I“ the ir cohort or generational comparative research, they found young adults to be less
invol Ved in traditional political activities, but equally or even more engaged than their
count erparts in many of their indicators, including, for example, voluntary or charitable

aCtl.Vi‘ties (Figure 8).

41

Figure 8. Volunteerism by age.

M"

Age 15-25 Age 16-37 Age 38-56 Age 57+

 

 

 

 

 

Cl Regular volunteering I Any volunteering

 

 

Source: NCES Survey, Zukin et al., p. 8.

According to Zukin et al (2006): “Today’s youth are less likely to engage in

activities such as voting, campaigning, contacting public officials, identifying with the

maj 01’ political parties, or joining or being active in other explicitly political

organizations. They are also less likely to express interest in politics and political affairs,

to FOllow such issues in the media, or to be knowledgeable about them” (pp. 189-191).

They identified a few factors that explain this phenomenon:

As new generations are influenced by the nature of the time, younger generations’
beliefs are different from older generations’ beliefs. The former believe that the
Private sector of businesses and corporations has a greater influence on their lives
t1‘Ian does government.

he younger generation holds negative images of politics. Their attitudes towards the
political system are dominated by images of partisan bickering, corruption, lying,

oring politics, confilsing, and self-interest oriented.

They have a mixed attitude towards certain issues; they don’t trust government, yet
tl"hey are more likely to support social welfare.
rhey may lack resources that steer people into politics, namely experience and
3ducation- As they grow older and have changes within the life cycle, they may gain
critical Skills and orientation that will lead them into public life, and may eventually

ecome involved in the political life, as well.

42

o The way they have been socialized also has an effect on their engagement behavior.
Individuals who grew up in families that discuss political issues at home are more
likely to become engaged.

0 They might feel less effective than their older cohorts, and this may lead to
disengagement.

Moreover, Long et al. (2001) explained that college student reported that they
tend to be engaged in one specific form of public engagement rather than across multiple
forms. Others (e. g, Lopez et al., 2006) indicated that: “Young people appear to be
paying attention to politics and following the news. Seventy-two percent of young
Americans say they follow what’s going on in government and public affairs at least
some of the time” (p. 5). This example supports the cognitive processes of public
engagement and its relevance. In addition, they found the form and level of public
engagement to be related to ethnicity, as well. Furthermore, while generally voting
participation has declined, donations to support political candidates or donation to
charities have increased (Society for Nonprofit Organization), as explained by Figure 9.
Therefore, redressing decline or simply enhancing public engagement is of great
importance because an active, well-connected, trusting, and engaged citizenry is
fundamental to vibrant communities, a strong democracy, personal welfare, health and
happiness (National Conference on Citizenship, 2006). Accordingly, “if we nurture the
health of our civic stock, our economic and political stocks also should rise” (National
Conference on Citizenship, 2006, p. 5). What needs to be done to enhance engagement
and make civic gains is thus a valid question (e.g., Saguaro Seminar, 2000; Keeter et al.,

2002; Canada25, 2005; National Conference on Citizenship, 2006; World Bank, 2007).

43

Figure 9. A leap in online giving

 

Online giving in the US. jumped to $6.87 billion in 2006, 51% more than in 2005,
ePhilanthropy(www.ephilanthropy. com) reports. This growth was driven by increases in
online donations for many small as well as large nonprofits and unprecedented Internet use
for disaster and non-disaster support.

“There is a surge of interest in philanthropy and civic engagement, and people of all ages
are online, presenting a huge opportunity, ” says Katrin Verclas, executive director of the
Nonprofit Technology Network (www.men. org). “Generations X and M — younger people
— are the next generation of donors. They have money and they ’re online. Smart nonprofit
organizations that want to fiirther their cause go to where their donors are. And they are
online. ” For guidance an appealing to these donors, check out the following Nonprofit
World articles at www.snpo.org: “Charity Begins on the Web: Tips to Enhance Online
Fundraising” (Vol. 23, No. 4) and “Ten Ways to Raise More Funds Over the Internet” (Vol.
24, No. 4).

 

 

 

Source: Society for Nonprofit Organization. p. 30.

Criticizing public engagement: The dark side

The study of civil society, social capital and public engagement has received
popularity since Putnam (1993) proposed a positive relationship between civic
engagement and democratic governance (Armony, 2004). Armony (2004) dedicated a
whole book, The Dubious Link: Civic Engagement and Democratization, to discuss and
revise the claims made by Putnam and other “neo-Tocquevilleans”.

Armony also criticized the “dark side” of civil society and public engagement and
its widely acclaimed relationship with democratic principles. He argued that some
aspects of public engagement are inimical to democracy. Documenting examples from
the US, Germany and Argentina, he suggested that, in contrast, civic engagement does
not automatically produce generalized social trust and bridge people. Rather, participants
in groups may become bonded to use their social capital to achieve distinctly

undemocratic ends, such as discriminating against others.

44

Armory used the case in the US in relation to segregation, where white Americans would
form congregations and public meetings to support segregation against Afiican
Americans. This confirmed the case where civic engagement perpetuated inequality and
exclusion. In Germany, for example, he criticized the impact of public support of the
Nazi regime, precipitating the breakdown of democracy. The dark side of public
engagement has generated significant debate among most recent scholars (e.g.,
Blackshaw and Long, 2005; Theiss-Morse and Hibbing, 2005).

Theiss-Morse and Hibbing (2005, p. 228) criticized the importance given to civic
engagement for generating good citizens for the following three main reasons: (a)
voluntary participation in civil associations does not encourage inter-group interactions,
that is, people join groups that are homogeneous, (b) civic participation does not lead to
political participation, and may even turn people away from political participation, and
(c) not all groups promote democratic values. They argued:

o The voluntary associations people are most likely to join are decidedly
homogeneous and therefore incapable of generating the benefits claimed.

0 Civic participation in some circumstances actually turns people off of politics,
leaving them less, not more, politically engaged.

0 Many groups do not pursue the kinds of goals that would be necessary for
promoting democratic citizenship.
They maintained that the claims, “excitement”, and “enthusiasm” held by Putnam and
proponents of civic participation concerning the beneficent effects of community and
group involvement on the development of good citizenship are overly simplified.

Accordingly, “for true civic engagement to be achieved, a more realistic view is

necessary” (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing, 2005, p. 228).

45

In their extensive account of why civic participation is not a panacea, these authors
asked:

“Who could possibly be opposed to the idea of people working together to better their
community? Virtually no one. The concerns expressed about civic participation have not
been attached to the typically laudable immediate community outcomes but rather to
proponents’ optimistic claims for the positive effects of civic participation. Does
involvement in community organizations and voluntary associations really make people
better citizens and make democracies stronger?” (p. 232).

They questioned the benefit accounts of civic participation and in some cases even argue
about the negative effects that it entails, basing their argument on criticism of four issues:
(a) diversity and enhancement of citizen values, (b) the civic versus political divide, (c)
the importance of group goals, and (d) civic engagement and the good citizen. Putnam
(2000, pp, 21-22) acknowledged that there is a dark side to social capital that may be
used for anti-social purposes: “. . .urban gangs, NIMBYS (‘not in my back yard’)
movement, and power elites often exploit social capital to achieve ends that are antisocial
from a wider perspective. Effectively, social capital can have either positive or negative
functions for people and/or associations (Blackshaw and Long, 2005). Putnam (2000)
specifically drew a crucial distinction between “bonding” and “bridging” social capital.
Bonding activities are “inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and
homogeneous groups,” whereas bridging activities are “outward looking and encompass
people across diverse social cleavages” (p. 22).

Bonding presents a challenge because individuals who are not similar to people in
the group are either not accepted or do not accept the opinions of the group, themselves.
Putnam (2000) explained:

“Bonding capital is good for under-girding specific reciprocity and mobilizing

solidarity... Bridging networks, by contrast, are better for linkage to external assets and
for information diffusion. ..

46

Moreover, bridging social capital can generate broader identities and reciprocity, whereas
bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves. . .. Bonding social capital constitutes
a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a sociological
WD—40” (pp. 22-23).
This generates the issue of trust and consensus (Theiss—Morse and Hibbing, 2005).
Theiss-Morse and Hibbing (2005, p. 23 2) drew attention to the homogenic nature
of group membership, and argued that “membership in a homogeneous group would not
improve the extent to which trust is generalized to people outside the group”, supporting
this argument by turning to groups social psychology research. They maintained that it is
difficult for homogeneous group to interact with other groups. “The social psychology
research on groups, however, shows how difficult it can be to get people involved in
heterogeneous groups, and even if they do join a heterogeneous group, they are likely to
gravitate toward and interact with fellow group members who are similar to them” (p.
233). According to social psychology research on groups, people are attracted to those
who are similar to them. People choose fiiends who resemble them in their
demographics, attitudes, values (Newcomb, 1961), personality (Boyden et al., 1984),
interpersonal style, and communication skills (Burleson and Samter, 1996). Conflict
avoidance is common within associational groups, and consensus becomes the norm.
This contributes to distrust, and discourages people fi'om becoming a member.
Homogeneous groups develop strong trust, but at the same time tend to exclude those
who are different. Therefore, the evidence that civic participation, exemplified in joining
voluntary associations, enhances trust and civic values, through active participation in

community discussion and community life, is weak.

47

Strong emphasis on civic engagement may diminish participation in the political
sphere. Berry et al. (2003, p. 6) suggested that “as the nonprofit sector has grown and
increasingly taken over a wide range of social service delivery, the concomitant increase
in civic indicators (e. g. volunteering and charitable filndraising) may have come at the
expense of political voice”. Theiss-Morse and Hibbing (2005)acknowledged: “the
participants, students from colleges and universities across the country, were actively
engaged in volunteer and service learning activities.” But any talk of political
engagement—voting, running for office, lobbying—and they recoiled with disgust” (p.
236). Similarly, Zukin et al., (2006, p. 69) empirically showed that younger people are
engaged in civic duties, but disengaged from conventional politics. For example, in their
representative sample, only 51% of the respondents indicated that they have always
voted. Of the rest who did not vote, 21% indicated that they “are not interested in
politics”, and 16% indicated that they “really dislike politics and government” (p. 92).

Also, 39% of the sample believes that “Most people elected to public office work
to serve their own personal interest” compared to 31% who believe that “Most people
elected to public office work to serve the public interest” (p. 109). Those who have
negative views of politics see politics involving corruption, lying, and favoritism. Theiss-
Morse and Hibbing (2005, p. 236) offered the following arguments why voluntary
association activity might not increase political activity: (a) Associations increasingly
limit members’ participation; (b) the federal govemment’s role is less likely to stimulate
political participation; (c) civic participation leads to negative views of democratic

governance; and ((1) increased generalized trust enables more he riders.

48

Also some authors criticized the civil society thesis for its elitist bias, suggesting that it
ignores how factors like class, race and sex may account for both the existence of public
engagement and its effects (Elshtain, 1981; Bussemaker and Voet, 1998; Pateman, 1988;
Fraser, 1989; Jones, 1990; Lister, 1990; Bock and James, 1992; Rendal, 1994;;Skocpol
1996; Blackshaw and Long, 2005). For them, women’s condition related to patriarchy
and the ethics of care has made of public engagement an added burden on women (Knijn,
1998; Voet, 1998). They maintained that Putnam paid little or no attention to the feminist

theoretical critique.

Locating public engagement in the social capital literature

“The central idea of social capital, in my view, is that networks and the associated
norms of reciprocity have value. They have value for the peOple who are in them, and
they have, at least in some instances, demonstrable extemalities, so that there are both
public and private faces of social capital” (Putnam, 2001, p. 1). Definitions of social
capital abound. Social scientists -e.g., Bourdieu (1986); Coleman (1990); Putnam (1993;
1995; 2000); Fukuyama (1995); Lin (2001)- as well as organizations and NGOs -e.g.:
World Bank (1998, p. iii); OECD (2001); Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002, p. 4);
Saguaro seminar (2004, p. 1); World health organization (2003, p. 7), all have networks
as a core component of the social capital study. That is, although there is no one
universal definition of social capital, there appears to be general agreement on the

importance of networks, trust, and reciprocity to social capital.

49

Much attention has been paid to formal networks in the community and formal forms

of social capital, such as those occuning through civic associations, religious and

spiritual groups, political parties, sport clubs, unions and the like. The informal social

networks that operate in a community such as social interaction between neighbors,

groups of fiiends and informal interest groups are also important components of social

capital. For Putnam (1995), social capital “refers to features of social organizations, such

as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for

mutual benefit” (p. 2). He firrther defined social capital as the “connections among

individuals —social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arises

from them” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19). His conception of social capital has the following

principal characteristics (Blackshaw and Long, 2004, p. 241):

It is both a public and a private good in that I benefit from my contribution to
social capital and so do others;

It is evidenced in many different forms — through family, neighbors, sport groups,
church groups, personal social circles, civic organizations, and now w-groups.
Some of these connections are repeated and intensive, some are episodic and
casual; some are formal, some informal; and

Its networks and reciprocity are ‘generally good for those inside the network, but
the external effects of social capital are by no means positive.

The World Bank (1998, p. 3) identified the following common features across the

different concepts of social capital and the different disciplinary perspectives:

All link the economic, social, and political spheres, and assume that social
relationships influence how markets and states operate, and in turn are influenced
by those markets and states.

All focus on relationships and the ways in which reliable, stable relationships
among actors can enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of both collective and
individual action

All imply that social capital can be strengthened, and that this is a process that
requires resources.

50

Social capital leads to good government (Putnam 1993, p. 176), and helps
societies prosper in so many ways (U lsaner and Dekker, 2001). The correlates and
benefits of social capital have been widely discussed (e. g, Agnitsch et al., 2006). Social
capital has been studied in relation to social relationships (Coleman, 1990), the family
(Boisjoly et al., 1995), a working democracy (Putnam, 1993), economic development
(Knack and Keefer, 1997), participation in voluntary associations (W ollebaek and Selle,
2002), social network of community gardeners (Glover, 2004), citizenship participation
(Glover, 2004), leisure and democratic citizenship (Hemingway, 1999), social wellbeing
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002), and the wellbeing in later life (Maynard, and
Kleiber, 2005). Thus, social capital “relates to several basic dimensions of social life”
(van Schaik, 2002, p. 5). Putnam (2002) explained: “Accepting that there is no single
form of social capital, we need to think about its multiple dimensions” (p. 2).

The Saguaro Seminar (2004, p. 8-11) identified nine different dimensions of
social capital that have emerged fi'om the Social Community Benchmark Survey, an
instrument developed by Putnam as a project of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University and numerous community foundations nation-wide.
These dimensions include trust, diversity of fiiendships, political participation, civic
leadership and associational involvement, informal socializing, giving and volunteering,
faith-based engagement, equality of civic engagement across the community, and

variation between communities/community analyses (Figure 10).

51

Figure 10. Dimensions of social capital by the Saguaro Seminar
(2004, p. 8—11).

 

 

Trust: at the core of social capital is the question of whether people can trust other people.
Trust makes trade and interaction between people easy. This dimension of social capital
combines generalized trust and inter-racial trust. “Generalized social trust is extremely
important in lubricating social interaction and getting things accomplished. Generalized
trust includes trust of people in neighborhoods, coworkers, sh0p clerks, co-religionists,
local police, and finally “most pe0ple”. Inter-racial trust looks at the health of a community
with regard to inter-racial relationships. It looks at the extent to which different racial
groups (whites, Afi'ica-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians) trust one another.

Diversity of friendships: this index measures the degree to which people’s social networks
are diverse.

Political participation: it combines conventional politics participation and protest politics
participation. The latter refers to protest such as taking parts in marches, demonstrations,
boycotts, rallies, participating in groups that took action for social reforms, participating in
labor and ethnically-related groups. The former looks at how many in a community are
registered to vote, actually vote, express interest in politics, are knowledgeable about
political affairs and read the newspaper regularly.

Civic leadership and associational involvement: this includes measure of the frequency of
engagement in groups, clubs and local discussions of town or school affairs, and also
whether the respondent took a leader role within these groups. In addition, it measures
involvement in a broad range of categories of groups, such as organizations affiliated with
religion; sports clubs, leagues, or outdoor activities; youth organimtions; parent
association; etc.

Informal socializing: relates to the development of social connections through informal
fiiendships. It measures the degree to which people had fiiends over to their home, hung
out with friends in a public place, socializing with co-workers outside the work, played
cards or board games with others, and visited with relatives.

Giving and volunteering: this dimension includes measures such as giving to clmrity or
volunteering. It measures how often community residence volunteer at various venues and
how generous they are in giving time or money.

Faith-based engagement: this measure looks at religious attendance and membership,
participation in church activities bedsides services, participation in organizations affiliated
with religion, giving to religious causes and volunteering at a place of worship.

Equality of civic engagement across the community: this measure is an average
correlation across 8 different types of civic participation and across the measure of class
(race, income, and education) to see how skewed civic participation in a community is.

Variation between communities/community analysis: this measure compares communities
on the 11 dimensions with regard to the stock of each communities social capital.

 

52

 

These dimensions do not exist in a vacuum. They are related to leisure
participation activities (Hemingway, 1999), and directly or indirectly occur in leisure
contexts (Glover, 2002), either through getting together for a meal or during dinner
parties, or having a drink at a bar, sporting, volunteering, petitioning during free time, or
simply joining a community garden association. Again, “leisure, whether sport, arts or
socializing (. . .) brings pe0ple together” (Blackshaw and Long, 2005, p. 144). Similarly,
“Newton (2002) noted that social capital can be conceptualized in terms of networks that
take the form of voluntary associations of citizens who are bound together by a common
interest, an interest that can be conceivably associated with leisure (e.g., team sport,
bridge clubs, community theater groups).” To capture social capital, it has been advised
to “concentrate on the social context in which social networks and structures actually
exist. In short, when it comes to the study of social capital, they emphasized “context,
and it counts crucially” (Blackshaw and Long, 2005, p. 144-145), and most of the social

networks take place in the context of leisure (Figure 11).

Figure 1 I. Locating leisure in Social Capital

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Capital
F - -------------- q
l
r
5 i . I
Trust r Political engagement Civic engagement
r
I Leis" text
I ________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

Public engagement (political participation, civic leadership and associational
involvement, giving and volunteering, faith-based engagement) may be included as one
dimension of social capital. On the other hand, this recognition makes the study of public
engagement complicated for leisure researchers, especially with regards to Stebbins’
(1997, 1999) serious leisure conceptualization. He contrasted “serious leisure” to “casual
leisure”, a kind of leisure activity that is more “important to the wellbeing of individual
and society” (Rojek, 2000, p. 18). Stebbins (2004) defined casual or “unserious” leisure
“as all leisure not classifiable as amateur, hobbyist or career volunteering” (p. 2001). The
types of casual leisure activities are those that include “play (including dabbling),
relaxation (e. g. sitting, napping, strolling), passive entertainment (e. g. TV, books,
recorded music), active entertainment (eg. games of chance, party games), sociable
conversation, and sensory stimulation (eg. sex, eating, drinking)”. On the other hand,
serious leisure is: “the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist or volunteer activity
that participants find so substantial and interesting that, in the typical case, they launch
themselves on a career centered on acquiring and expressing its special skills, knowledge
and experience (. . .)

Serious leisure is constituted of three types: amateurism, hobbyist activities and
career volunteering”. In this context, serious leisure appears to invade civic engagement
and political engagement, for these take place in serious leisure context:

“Social capital is created from a myriad of everyday interactions between people and is
embodied in such structures as civic and religious groups, family membership, informal

community networks, and in norms of volunteerism, altruism and trust” (World Health
Organization, 2003, p. 7).

54

Locating public engagement in leisure studies

Besides the previously mentioned sources of public engagement, researchers
examined other venues that could help redress the decline in public engagement; thereby
contributing to the quality of life of individuals and communities. One of these sources is
leisure. Maynard and Kleiber (2005) traced leisure social capital relationship to ancient
Greece and the writings of Aristotle. “Aristotle’s conceptualizations of leisure,
community and fiiendship reveal a number of similarities to the contemporary concept of
social capital.” They further posit that “leisure services, although deficient in some ways,
offer some of the best prospects for providing activities, resources and facilities that are
conducive to both the generation of social capital and the strengthening of citizenship.”

The benefits of leisure are well documented (e. g., Driver, Brown, and Peterson,
1991; Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, 1992; Iso—Ahola (1997); Driver and
Burns, 1999). Hemingway (1999, p. 164) called for integrating public engagement in the
leisure studies: “Perhaps in addition to questions about motivation, satisfaction, and
constraints in and on leisure, we need to ask about the formation of trust, cooperation,
and social connectedness. Doing so could reduce the isolation of leisure research and at
the same time contribute to practical action enhancing the formation of democratic social
capital”. Similarly, Blackshaw and Long (2005, p. 244) advance that, “leisure, whether
sport, arts or socializing, does not have to be valued only because it can create
employment, generate income or improve health, but because it brings people together.”

Leisure researchers have gradually, yet increasingly, focused on the connection
between social capital (of which civic engagement is one dimension) and leisure

participation (Glover and Hemingway, 2005).

55

“As Hemingway (1988) described, leisure served as an "arena" for the development and
practice of civic virtues, qualified by certain types of activity. Through leisure activity
citizens connect and community is generated as civic fiiendships are developed and
maintained” (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005).

In recent years, leisure scholars have produced a small body of literature that
directly explores the concept of social capital and its prospects for finding meaning and
application in the field of leisure studies (e. g., Hemingway, 1999; Rojek, 2002; Arai,
2000; Hemingway, 2001; Arai and Pedlar, 2003; DeGraaf and Jordan, 2003; Jarvie,
2003; Glover, 20043; 2004b; Blackshaw and Long, 2005; Glover and Hemingway, 2005;
Rojek, 2005).

However, not much has been done since Hemingway’s invitation and the content
analysis that was undertaken with this regards for the purpose of this study supports
Glover’s (2002) claim that, in fact, most of the leisure literature on citizenship has been
conceptual, rather than empirical, as well as Hemingway’s leisure isolation argument.
The content analysis was performed on a 12 year period of three of the most widely read
academic leisure journals, including Journal of Leisure Research, Leisure Sciences, and
Leisure Studies. The purpose of this analysis was to locate public engagement in the
leisure literature, and to find out about the research designs, including the research
methods and techniques that have been used in this regard. Basically, journal articles that
have in their title citizenship, social capital, participation, or engagement were included
in the analysis. Accordingly, 16 articles were identified and reviewed, of which 7 were in

the Journal of Leisure Research, 4 in the Leisure Sciences, and 5 in the Leisure Studies.

56

It is worth noting that of the 16 articles, 10 are empirical and the rest are non-
empirical. Of the empirical ones, 2 are quantitative and used questionnaires, while the
rest employed a qualitative research design and used interviews as a research technique.
Two articles used a mixed mode survey design related to the case study method.

Of the quantitative articles only 2 employed statistical analyses, namely Factor Analysis,
and correlations (Appendix A: Content analysis: Locating public engagement in the
leisure literature). Furthermore, the majority of the authors have explicitly referred to
their work as exploratory, including Glover (2002); Blackshaw and Long (2005), and
Glover and Bates (2006); Autry and Anderson (2007).

From this description of the content of articles related to (either social capital or)
public engagement, it is clear that this phenomenon as a field of inquiry has not received
adequate attention from the leisure scholarship. Nevertheless, there seems to be a pattern
of inquiry based on the recommendations of the engaged authors. For example,
Hemingway (1999) suggested both the generation of social capital in leisure and its
transferability to public engagement will be affected by the kinds of leisure in which
individuals participate and how leisure services are organized and delivered. Specifically,
Hemingway (1999, pp. 7-8) noted that: “though perhaps most basically, we simply do not
know enough about what forms of leisure are associated with the development of social
capital in general. Nor do we necessarily know much about the process of social capital
development itself.” His essay and suggestions for firture research seem to have been
instrumental in developing Glover’s (2002) hypotheses. Hemingway’s central issue

addressed the role leisure plays in the enablement of democratic citizenship.

57

He advanced that: leisure activity which generates social capital is more conducive to
greater democracy than leisure activity which does not.

Different forms of democracy entail different forms of citizenship, and different
forms of leisure are conducive to different forms of citizenship. From his propositions, a
few hypotheses could be developed:

0 It is likely that strong citizenship requires substantially greater commitment of
time than weak citizenship,

0 There is a relationship between the forms of leisure (privately, commercially, and
publicly provided leisure activity) and the creation of social capital,

0 There a relationship between forms of leisure participation (individual and
societal) and democratic participation.

0 There is an important association of democratic social capital with specific form
of leisure activity (namely private, commercial, and public).

Glover’s (2002) study empirically examined (the last hypothesis) the citizenship
orientation of individuals at three community centers with different services related to the
mode of leisure service as advanced by Hemingway. He hypothesized that social
citizenship orientations are more likely to be associated more strongly with co-
production and direct provision, and that political citizenship orientations are more likely
to have a stronger association with co-production than with contract or direct provision
of services. He found a relationship exists between citizenship orientation and the nature
of public service. He concludes that his results imply that: “relationships exist between
how people think of themselves as participants in their communities (citizenship
orientation) and the nature of public services (production models)” (p. 204). Other
researchers (Autry and Anderson, 2007) looked at recreation programs and found that

these, regardless of the form, have a positive effect on neighborhood youth when parental

involvement was present.

58

Autry and Anderson (2007, p. 281) qualitatively investigated the neighborhood
and its relationship with social capital. The neighborhood investigated had a lack of trust,
hopelessness, and a presence of crime. The authors argued the “key ingredient to
addressing institutional anomies and building hope, trust and social capital within
Glenview was the parents of the youth that lived there”. Parents “had to be involved with
other community members in all phases of recreation programming/events/presence if it
was to be successful.” On a similar background, Glover and Bates (2006), using a
narrative research approach, identified “nostalgia” of parents and neighbors as a
contributing factor in grass-root associations, “a driving force” (p. 348) to an “improved
neighborhood life for neighborhood youth” (p. 347).

Hemingway (1999), Glover (2002), SPRE Roundtable (2004) and (Glover and
Hemingway, 2005, p. 388) invited researchers to “rethink” leisure and community
research. Coalter contended that “the implicit ideology of much theory and research in
‘mainstream’ leisure studies parallels the classic, evolutionary, view of citizenship
formulated by Marshall (1963)”. Coalter was referring to Marshall’s areas of rights that
include civil rights, political rights, and social rights, supporting that these rights “are
augmented by the development of positive public policies for leisure” (1998, p. 21).
Through “leisure citizenship”, a citizenship whereby citizens have access to leisure
provision and use leisure for societal benefits, public leisure provision can contribute to
enhance the standards and quality of life of citizens and their communities. Hemingway
(1999) suggested both the generation of social capital in leisure and its transferability to
civic engagement will be affected by the kinds of leisure in which individuals participate

and how leisure services are organized and delivered.

59

Furthermore, he also suggests that more leisure contributes to individual development
and to the generation and enhancement of social capital.

Specifically, Hemingway (1999, pp. 7-8) noted that:

“though perhaps most basically, we simply do not know enough about what forms of
leisure are associated with the develOpment of social capital in general. Nor do we
necessarily know much about the process of social capital development itself.”

His essay and suggestions for fiirther considerations have been instrumental in
developing the present study’s problem statement and hypotheses. He hypothesized that:

o It is likely that strong citizenship requires substantially greater commitment of
time than weak citizenship,

0 There is an important association of democratic social capital with specific form
of leisure activity,

0 Forms of leisure participation conceptually linked to strong citizenship are
declining in the U. S.,

o The relationship between the forms of leisure (privately, commercially, and
publicly provided leisure activity) and the creation of social capital,
0 The relationship between forms of leisure participation (individual and societal)
and democratic participation.
Thus, as supported by Glover and Hemingway (2005), the issue is not whether or
not leisure is associated with civic engagement or other forms of social capital, but what

kinds of leisure in what kinds of settings seem to be most relevant to the regeneration of

civic engagement.

Public engagement and leisure in the Netherlands
Drawing back from involvements with community affairs and politics is not an
issue in America only; the case is similar all over the world: “From Moscow to East St.

Louis, from Mexico City to Cairo, despair about public institutions deepens” (Putnam et

al,l993,p.3)

60

Like in the US and Canada, in Europe, a decline in civic engagement has also alarmed
policymakers and researchers alike. Europe is changing. A brief outline of the areas of
change should be sufficient to indicate both their scale and their potential importance for
a theory of civic engagement. As nicely summarized by Field (2003, p. 92):
“Work has become increasingly flexible and adaptable, economic institutions have
adjusted to the pressures and opportunities of globalized markets. In much of the world,
family structures have been transformed, with exceptionally dramatic changes in the role
of women and the elderly. Communism has collapsed, removing at a stroke the one
visible socioeconomic alternative to capitalism, and helping firrther to open up world
markets to deregulated competition. Information technology in particular, and scientific
advance in general, have brought about enormous growth in humanity's capacity for
control over its destiny, as well as in its ability to foul it up, generating a pervasive
awareness of risk and uncertainty.”

This change must have consequences on people’s values, behaviors and lifestyles.
In addition to a more individualized and reflexive citizenry (Field, 2003), the European
Union (EU) has grown bigger to include 28 member states, while other three candidate
countries are waiting for entrance. This enlargement has been seen as a blessing by many
but also as a curse by many others (Dekker et al., 2007). Those who recognize the
importance of a larger Europe, do, nevertheless, recognize the problem or dangers that
might emanate fiom this enlargement. For example, it is indicated in the Atlas European
Values that: “Europe has only been accepted in an instrumental and utilitarian way. This
rational-based European citizenship leads also to strange apparent contradictions, for
example 71% of the Greeks find EU-membership a good thing, but the same percentage
has no confidence in the Union. Although only 7% of Russians feel European, two-third

of the population wants to join the Union” (http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.com/

insidel .html).

61

This has resulted in the 2004 European Economic and Social Committee
conference (EB SC: Participatory democracy: current situation and opportunities
provided by the European Constitution) dedicated to enhancing governance and
individual capacity; contributing to the efforts of citizen’s groups and governmental
agencies; and enhancing public engagement and community building. The purpose of the
conference was to push forward participatory democracy as “A key instrument for re-
establishing confidence” within the people in Europe (EESC, 2004). EESC President
declared in his opening speech: “The EU is in a serious crisis of trust,” and “Yes, we all
know there is a democratic deficit, but there is also a deficit of participation" (Press,
EESC, 2004).

Of particular concern of the present study is the Dutch situation. It has been
acknowledged by the Dutch government that “the activities undertaken by people in their
leisure time play a role in determining their quality of life [and that] participation in
culture and sport fosters personal development and social cohesion” (Sociaal Cultureel
Plan Bureau, p. 2006, p.69). However, according to the most recent publication by the
(SCP), in the Netherlands, membership in voluntary organization has declined, and so
has the active participation of the Dutch people in community life, and in sporting and
other leisure-based activities (SCP, 2005).

The SCP study surveyed organizations in the most important branches of the Dutch civil
society, namely, broadcasting organizations, churches, sports clubs, international aid

organizations, women organizations, elderly organizations, and healthcare organizations.

62

Highlights from the SCP research (2006) are:

According to the SCP results, participation in sport in an organized context follows
the same downward trend as the general decline in organized participation in leisure
time activities. Membership of sports clubs fell from 58% in 1995 to 56% in 2003.
Fewer women are members than men.

By contrast, three—quarters of young people (6—19 years) are members of at least one
sports club. The proportion of people taking part in team sport remained virtually
constant, at 18% in 1995 and 19% in 2005. On the other hand, participation in solo
sports increased fiom 51% in 1995 to 58% in 2005. In general, 45% of the population
spends at least two hours a week taking part in sport.

The main trend in leisure time use is the rapid rise of the Internet and e-mail. Today,
almost all Dutch households have a pc, and in the vast majority of cases they also
have an Internet connection. Time spent on the computer largely impacts on the time
spent watching television, reading and visiting. Roughly a quarter of the population
read a library book once a month. The actual time spent reading has almost halved in
30 years (to 3.8 hours per week).

Although a large majority of the population (80%) visit a museum, theatre
performance or concert at least once a year, the percentage of regular visitors is small
(5-6%); around a quarter of the population occasionally partake in ‘arts and culture’.
In all cases where comparison with earlier years is possible, membership in
organizations shows a decline compared with just over ten years ago. This decline is
greatest in religious and ideological organizations and rather less marked in leisure
organizations. The percentage of Dutch people who are not members of any
association increased over the period studied, and over the same period there was a
concomitant decrease in the percentage of people who were members or donor
members of multiple organizations (p. 77).

Between 1994 and 2003, the number of political party membership dropped 7%.
Churches saw a drop of 9%, and women organizations scored the highest drop of
33%.

The membership of civil society organizations shows a decline, especially in
religious and ideological organizations. There is also a downward trend in most types
of voluntary work. The participation rates vary with social position and stage of life
(p. 82).

The turnout Figures at national elections show no sign of decline in recent years. In
1994, 78.8% of those entitled to vote did so; in 1998 the Figure was 73%, in 2002
79%, in 2006 80% (p. 131).

The following tables were adapted fi'om the SCP research (2006). They document

the Dutch participation in some of the social and political activities, including sport and

leisure participation, political participation, and participation in voluntary activities.

63

Table 2 shows that visits to museums and theatres have declined fiom 1995 to 2003, for
both men and women. While Internet use has increased, not only that fewer people read,
but also that they devote less time to printed media. TV time watching has decreased,

which mirrored in an increase in the time spent using computers (1’ able 3).

Table 2. Visits to museums and theatres, 1995-2003.

 

 

Museums Theatre
1995 1999 2003 1995 1999 2003
Visits (%) 35 37 38 25 25 24
Number of visits per 100 inhabitants 76 77 82 59 58 58
Frequent visitors (%) 6 6 6 5 5 5
Occasional visitors (%) 29 31 32 20 20 19
Men 33 36 37 22 22 21
Women 36 39 39 29 28 28
6—11 years 40 46 54 17 23 24
12-19 years 39 39 45 18 20 19
20-34 years 31 28 27 25 22 22
35-49 years 38 39 39 29 23 25
50-64 years 36 43 43 32 33 30
65-79 years 29 39 36 25 29 25
>80 years 14 18 21 13 16 19

 

Source : SCP (2006).

Table 3. Media use, 19 75-2005, in percentages and hours per week.

 

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

 

Media use: participation (%) 99 100 100 100 99 99 99
TV (incl. Video, teletext) 94 96 98 97 96 97 95
Audio (radio and music) 68 60 52 50 41 36 28
Printed media 96 95 94 91 89 84 81
Computer, Internet/E-Mail na na 4 13 23 45 68
Media use (hours per week) 18.5 17.8 19.0 18.8 18.8 18.7 18.9
TV (incl. Video, teletext) 10.2 10.3 12.1 12.0 12.4 12.4 10.8
Audio (radio and music) 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.5
Printed media 6.1 5.7 5.3 5.1 4.6 3.9 3.8
Computer, Internet/E-Mail na na 0.1 0.5 0.9 1.8 3.8

 

Source : SCP (2006).

64

In 2005, 45% of the Dutch population was active in sport on a weekly basis,
compared with 40% in 1995. This increase is also reflected in the average number of
hours spent on sport. Despite the fall in the amount of free time available (SCP, p. 73-4),
the time spent on sport and exercise increased fiom 2.1 hours per week in 1995 to 2.6

hours in 2005 (Table 4).

Table 4. Sport participation, 1995, 2000, 2005.

 

 

1995 2000 2005
Average number of hours per week 2.1 1.8 2.6
Percentage participants (weekly) 40.1 39.0 45.2

 

Source SCP (2006)

The NISB, the Dutch institute for sport and exercise defines sport participation as
the percentage of the Dutch population participating 12 or more times per year in
sporting activities. The Plan Bureau’s Figures also show an increase in participation,
from 44% in 1979 to 64% in 2003. Young people spent more time on sport than any
other age group and also have a higher membership rate in sport associations. However,
the biggest increase in time spent on sport occurred among older people (65+).

Table 5 shows that participation and membership in voluntary organizations
declined in 2003 compared to 1995, and to 1999 in some cases. Membership of
organizations in other sectors indicates that church communities witnessed a dramatic
loss of 10% in their membership (2000-2005). Participation in voluntary organizations
remained somewhat stable across a range of activities (Table 6).

Political party membership saw a decline in 2000 compared with 1995, but this decline
redressed to a positive 3% in 2005. On the other hand trade union membership marked a

decline in 2005 (Table 7).

65

Table 5. Membership in organizations, population aged 18 years and older,
1995,1999, 2003.

 

Membership percentage 1995 1999 2003

 

Ideological organizations totall 15% 12% 12%
Interest groups total“ 26 26 22
Recreational organisations3 42 41 39
Nature/environmental organizations na na 22
Other types of organization 19 19 16
Not a member of any of above organisations“ 42 43 46
Member of one organization 34 34 34
Member of two or more 24 23 20
Average number (among people who are members)5 1.9 1.7 1.5
Consider self member of a church community 63 62 61
Population aged 18 years and older (x 1000) 12,039 12,298 12,599

 

1. Political party or associations, organization with specific social purpose.

2. Employees’ or employers’ organization, educational or school association

3. Sports club, singing/Music/drama club, hobby club, women’s association or union.
4. Excluding nature/environmental organization.

5. Excluding mane/environmental organization.

Source: SCP (2006)

Table 6. Participation in voluntary work, population aged 18 years and older, 199 7-
2004.

1997 1999 2001 2003 2004

 

Total active in organized context 43 45 43 42 43
of whom in the fields of:
Politics, employment and religion 13 13 12 11 -
Politics 1 2 1 2 1
Employment organization 4 4 3 3 2
Religious group 9 8 9 8 8
Sport, hobby and culture 21 22 21 21
Sports association 12 14 13 14 13
Hobby club 5 5 5 5 4
Cultural association‘ 5 5 5 5 5
Youth work and school 13 13 13 12
Youth work 4 4 5 4 4
School2 9 9 9 3 9
Other organizations 8 7 7 7 7

 

1. Singing, Music, theatre.
2. Parents’ association, school board, working in library, reading assistant, etc.

Source: CBS (POLS ’97-’04)

66

Table 7. Total membership of organizations in various sectors, 1995, 2000, 2005.

 

 

 

1995 2000 2005 % change % change
1995-2000 2000—2005
Trade unions (x 1000) 1,873 1,912 1,899 +2 -1
Ditto as % of labor force 28.4 26.6 25.7 -6 -3
Political parties (x 1000)1 318 294 303 -3 +3
Ditto as % of population aged 2.6 2.4 2.4 -8 0
18 years and older
Church communities (x 1000) 8,7762 7,980 7,403 -9 -7
Ditto as % of the population 57.3 50.3 45.4 -12 -10
15 largest nature and 2,867 3,382 3,412 +18 +1
environmental organizations
(x 1000)3
Ditto as % of population 18.6 21.3 20.9 +15 -2
15 largest sports associations 3,451 3,560 3,756 +3 +6
(x 1000) '
Ditto as % of population 22.4 22.4 23.0 0 +3
1.At the start of 2007, 311,774 people were afliliated to a political party.
2.Estirnate.

3.It is estimated that around 100,000 people are affiliated to three or more organizations; an average, people
are members of two organizations.

Source: CBS (Statline), NOC*NSF (SLT ’95-’05).

Conceptual Framework

Summarizing the literature, Figure 12 presents the conceptual framework of this
study. The two distinct concepts to be studied were leisure participation and public
engagement. The literature review offers the basic assumption of this study that leisure
participation has an effect on public engagement. More specifically, it is hypothesized
that the variables related to leisure participation, modeled as independent variables,
which include type of participation, frequency of participation, and level of involvement,
as well as selected demographic characteristics and community characteristics, influence

the dependent variables which include the four dimensions of public engagement.

67

Figure 12. Conceptual framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Concept:
Lersure Partrcrpatron ’ Concept:
Demography Pubhc Engagement
Commrmity
Independent variables Dependent variables
I Type of leisure participation I Political engagement
I Range of leisure participation I Civic engagement
I Rate of leisure participation I Expressive engagement
I Involvement in leisure participation (pubhc voice)
I Cognitive engagement
I Demographic characteristics
I Communitv characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of concepts

This study defines public engagement as: “the lawfirl political and civic actions
taken by citizens to positively contribute to the quality of life of their communities”
(American Psychiatric Association).

Leisure participation has been defined as: “a number of occupations in which the
individual may indulge in of his own free will —either to rest, to amuse himself, to add to
his knowledge or improve his skills disinterestedly or to increase his voluntary
participation in the life of the community after discharging his professional, family, and
social duties” (Godbey, 1999, p. 5). It is worth reiterating that much of what is included
in public engagement takes place in a leisure context. It could also be labelled as leisure
participation or as in Stebbins’ words: “serious leisure”. The argument remains, however,
that not all leisure participation is civic, deemed to be civic, or “serious” In this study
volunteering activities were therefore included as public engagement activities rather

than leisure activities, because of their “direct” civic dimensions.

68

CHAPTER III
METHOD AND PROCEDURES
The research problem of this study was to determine what forms of leisure
participation are most relevant to the generation of public engagement, in order to offer
recommendations for enhancing public engagement through leisure participation. The
focus of this study was on the behavior of individuals, and therefore the method chosen
to investigate the problem was the survey research approach. This chapter justifies the

research design, procedures, and instrumentation.

Developing research questions

The content analysis performed by the present study has documented (Appendix
A) that the research approach scholars have adapted in their efforts remains
predominantly qualitative. Most of the leisure literature relating to social capital and
public engagement has been explicitly introduced as “exploratory” (e. g., Glover, 2002;
Blackshaw and Long, 2005; Warde, Tampubolon, and Savage, 2005; Glover and Bates,
2006; Autry and Anderson, 2007). Interestingly, Glover and Hemingway (2005) invite
leisure researchers to reflect on the basic question: does leisure have a central role in the
creation of public engagement? Two questions have been advanced: “First, what grounds
do we have for expecting citizenship to be affected by leisure?” and “Second, does the
civic approach in fact help us answer this question better than the resources approach?
The authors maintain that “each question must be answered if we are to make a case that

leisure has a role in creating social capital and for civic engagement specifically” (p.

395)

69

Recognizing the dark side of social capital that it may “strengthen undesirable
social networks and lock people into situations from which they would much prefer to
escape”, Glover and Hemingway (2005, p. 398) hypothesized there might be a difference
in the effects that passive leisure pursuits as opposed to active leisure pursuits may have
on social capital. They propose that: “passivity in leisure may destroy the relational basis
for social capital just as readily as active forms of leisure build it up” and offer this
speculation as another issue that deserves scholarly attention. Coalter (1998) also
proposed that the profit-oriented and supposedly exploitative nature of commercial
leisure provision does not automatically mean that it does not provide satisfying forms of
social membership and identity. This assumption also presents an issue for research to
examine whether satisfying forms of citizenship depend on the mode of its provision.

Hemingway (1999) has set the ground for leisure researchers to include social
capital and public engagement in their leisure research and scholarly repertoire.

A few of the advanced propositions have been investigated empirically. For example,
Warde and colleagues (2005) focused on the role of informal leisure activities (e. g.,
being invited to someone’s house, drinking and eating socially) in social capital
formation among members of local political associations. That is, differences in network
structures and nature of network ties can be explained by the type of recreational activity
(informal versus formal). They investigated the extent to which involvement in formal
associations might generate more wide ranging informal contacts, and concluded that
“recreational practices generally involve considerable informal social mixing” (p. 403),

and that homophily does not seem to have an effect on informal social networks.

70

Trying to shed some light on the role of leisure in the production of social capital,
Glover and colleagues (2005) examined the role that leisure plays in mobilizing
necessary resources for grass-root organizations. They argue that social relationships
formed within community garden settings helped community garden leaders to secure
resources. Gardening skills were accessed through networking with people who were
gardeners. Effectively, “garden leaders drew upon their social ties to recruit people to
participate in their gardens” (Glover et al., 2005, p. 459). Social networking occurred
during informal conversations with individuals who belonged outside of the immediate
social circles of the gardeners. The intrinsic motivation to socialize and participate is an
important element of leisure, perceived as a state of perceived freedom.

“Leisure episodes are, therefore, seemingly firndamental to the production of
social capital, too, in as much as they facilitate relationship building, which is the first
step in the development of social capital”. That is, social networking occurs in a leisure
context, thereby making of leisure a “social lubricant (enabler) of social capital
production” (p. 468), which in turn assists in the mobilization of resources. Freedom of
choice, an essential element that defines leisure, categorizes the volunteering spirit of
community participation. At the same time, the feeling of obligation instituted in the
spirit of volunteering gives leisure its other dimension which is the “seriousness” of
leisure. This obligation is termed agreeable obligation, an attitude where volunteers
enjoy pleasant interactions with fellow gardeners, share their resources, and contribute to

the wellbeing of their community (Glover et al., 2005, p. 459).

71

Glover and colleagues (2005) firrther propose the following research questions for the
leisure studies community to reflect on: “what is it about certain leisure contexts that
facilitate bridging social capital?” (p. 470). “Do brief leisure episodes have any
implications for driving strangers to share their resources with others?” And “do
individuals enter. leisure-oriented social networks deliberately to access resources or is
such access simply a by-product of the relationship building associated with social
interaction in leisure activity or during leisure episodes?” (p. 471).

Summarizing, the leisure scholarship concern with the leisure-citizenship inquiry
revolves around five investigative domains: level of leisure activity (passive versus
active leisure pursuits and their effect on citizenship); mode of leisure provision (public
versus private leisure delivery and their effect on citizenship); type of leisure activity
(formal versus informal leisure pursuits and their effect on citizenship); form of leisure
activity (individual versus social leisure pursuits and their effect on citizenship); and
fiequency of leisure activity (time and duration of engagement in a leisure pursuit and
their effect on citizenship).

Furthermore, as leisure does not exist in a vacuum (Kelly, 1996) and is subject to
change throughout the life cycle of individuals (Godbey, 1994), it is also important to
mention that scholars of public engagement have also see engagement as a movement
through time (Verba and Brady, 1995). Researchers argued that the engagement of
citizens is shaped by several factors, including demographic characteristics (e. g., Keeter
et al., 2002; Zukin et al., 2006;) and community characteristics (Putnam, 1993; 1995;
Shah et al., 2001; Kang and Kwak, 2003; Pack et al., 2005; Kim and Ball-Rokeach,

2006)

72

In modeling citizen engagement, Zukin et al. (2006) clearly supported that:

“The decision to participate seems pretty straighflorward. You either do it or you don ’t —
the “it ” being any number of things that comprise the array of politically sequential
behaviors. However, the process that leads to that decision is not simple. There are a
multitude of characteristics, traits, and experiences that inspire someone to be engaged
in public life ” (p. 124).

In addition, as public engagement is about community life, and as community life
takes form within community leisure contexts (Coatler, 1998; Zukin et al., 2006) it was
the purpose of this study to also investigate the extent to which community
characteristics are associated with public engagement. Arai and Pedlar (2003) addressed
the consumptive nature of leisure as opposed to the leisure practice which they described
as “communal leisure, as community of people sharing and celebrating a focal practice.”
This practice makes of leisure a “shared meaning” (p. 190). This shared meaning results
from the connectedness and the nature of community. That is, “different community
structures will give rise to different outcomes with respect to trust, mutuality and
cooperation in society” (p. 192), and different community structures encompass different
forms of openness, trust, and social cohesion. Large-scale communities are more likely to
lack the conditions for these attributes because of the growing shift within individualism
toward consumption and privatization. Arai and Pedlar support Borgrnann’s reflection
that in “Western cities the majority of leisure and consumption is privatized and occurs in
private spaces. Borgrnann (1992) noted:

In leisure, individualism seems to be close to the extreme privacy Tocqueville foresaw

more than a century and a half ago. Here individualism throws one ‘back forever upon
himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his
own heart ’ (Tocqueville). But we have artfully concealed the desolation of this solitude

behind the massive ostentation of the public realm and under the judicial elaboration of
privacy (Cited in Arai and Pedlar, 2002, p. 189).

73

The multifaceted nature of the public engagement phenomenon necessitates an

examination into the association between community characteristics and public

engagement, as well as demographic characteristics and public engagement.

Accordingly, four primary research questions have been developed, leading to a set of

sub-questions as stated below.

RQl:

RQ2:

RQ3 :

RQ4:

To what extent are selected leisure participation characteristics associated with
public engagement?

To what extent are selected community characteristics associated with public
engagement?

To what extent are selected demographic characteristics associated with public
engagement?

Which of the leisure participation, community, and demographic characteristics,
if any, best discriminate between engaged and non-engaged citizens?

The derived research questions (sub-questions) were:

SQl :
SQ2:
SQ3:
SQ4:
SQ5:
SQ6:
SQ7:
SQ8:
SQ9:
SQlO:

$011:

How publicly engaged are the Frisian residents?

What are the leisure participation characteristics of the Frisian residents?

What are the community characteristics of the Frisian residents?

What are the demographic characteristics of the Frisian residents?

What, if any, are the differences in selected leisure participation characteristics
between engaged and non-engaged residents?

What, if any, are the differences in selected community characteristics between
engaged and non-engaged residents?

What, if any, are the differences in selected demographic characteristics between
engaged and non-engaged residents?

Which leisure venues, if any, are the most effective in predicting public
engagement?

Which community characteristics, if any, are the most effective in predicting
public engagement?

Which demographic characteristics, if any, are the most effective in predicting
public engagement?

Which of the assessed characteristics are most effective in predicting public
engagement?

74

Definition of variables in the study

Public engagement

To assess the current state of public engagement in Friesland a set of survey
questions was developed, drawing where possible on prior scholarly research including
the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey instrument (SCCBS), the European
Values Survey (EVS), and the National Civic Engagement Survey (NCESI and NCESZ).
The measures of public engagement included 12 activities covering political, civic,
expressive and cognitive engagement. As such the measures were consistent with earlier
studies (e. g., Zukin et.al, 2006). These authors argued in favor of the notion of four
interrelated but ultimately distinct dimensions of public engagement: political
engagement, civic, expressive (public voice) engagement, and cognitive engagement.
As there are dimensions of public engagement, there are also indicators for each

dimension (Brady, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Zukin et al., 2006).

Operationalization of public engagement variables

The four dimensions were operationalized using the following indicators:

Indicators of political engagement

Regular voting: Have you voted in the European elections of 2004? Have
you voted in the municipal elections of 2006? Have you
voted in the national elections of 2006? Have you voted in
the provincial elections of 2007? These four questions were
transformed into one variable as an indicator of regular
voting with the categories: always vote, sometimes vote
and did not vote.

Volunteering for a political organization or group: In the past 12 months have you spent
time volunteering for a political organization or group?

Membership in a political organization or group: In the past 12 months did you belong
to or donate money to a political organization or group?

75

Indicators of civic engagement

Community problem solving: Have you worked together informally with someone or
some group on a project or to solve a problem in the
community where you live in the past 12 months?

Volunteering for a non electoral organization or group: In the past 12 months have you
spent time volunteering for any one or more of the listed
groups or organizations?

Membership in a group or organization: In the past 12 months did you belong or donate
money to any one or more of the listed groups or

organizations?
Donating Blood: Have you donated blood in the past twelve months?
Indicators of public voice
Petition: In the past 12 months have you signed a written or an e-
mail petition?
Protesting: In the past 12 months have you participated in a

demonstration, protest march or boycott?

Public/political meeting: In the past 12 months have you attended a public or
political meeting about some issue?

Indicators of cognitive engagement

Following government and public aflairs: How interested would you say you are in
political and national affairs?

Willingness to support public and national causes: If representatives of government were
to ask your support in econonrizing on water because of

some national disaster how would you rate your
willingness to cooperate?

Type of leisure participation

The present study distinguished between two basic types of leisure pursuits:
active leisure participation and passive leisure participation. Active participation included
sport activities, cultural and expressive activities, home and garden based activities,
outdoor activities, and socializing activities. Passive participation included visitation to

recreation and leisure sites, and media involvement.

76

Participation in the different leisure pursuits was measured by asking how many
times respondents engaged in these pursuits in the past twelve months. Participation in
sport was further defined as engaging at least once per month (12 times per year) in a
certain sport activity. This choice allows for comparison between existing Dutch studies

of leisure participation and data of the present study.

Range of leisure participation

The range of participation was defined as the number of different activities
respondents engaged in and was measured by determining how many activities within a
certain form (sport, culture and expression, hobby, outdoor, social, media, and visits to
recreation sites), of leisure the respondent was involved in. A distinction was made
between non-participation or not engaging in any activities, participation or engaging in
one activity and participation in multiple activities or participating in two or more

activities.

Rate of leisure participation

For active participation the rate of participation was measured in terms of average
number of hours per week spent doing a certain activity. The rate of passive participation
was measured in number of times per year respondents engaged in a certain activity.
Regarding media participation, respondents were asked about the average number of

hours per week they engaged in a particular media activity.

77

Involvement in leisure participation

In studies about leisure involvement, most definitions and operationalizations of
the concept have been borrowed from the consumer behavior literature (Havitz and
Dimanche, 1997) defining involvement in terms of “personal relevance.”

In this sense, involvement reflects the degree to which a person devotes him or herself to
an activity or associated product (Peter and Olson, 1987). To measure the devotion, for

selected leisure activities, the study examined whether respondents held a membership to
a club or association regarding the particular leisure activity in which they were engaged.

The study assumed that persons holding a membership to a club or association
with regards to a particular leisure pursuit are more devoted than those that do not hold a
membership. The level of involvement was measured for participation in sport activities,
expressive and cultural activities, home based activities and outdoor activities.

Also, the range of leisure participation involvement was measured by how many
memberships to certain leisure associations the respondent held. Here also a distinction
was made between non-participation or no memberships, participation or membership

and participation in multiple activities or multiple memberships.

Operationalization of leisure variables

To operationalize the leisure participation dimensions, item questions based on
the validated National Survey on Recreation and the Environment ’s Lifestyles Scale
(N SRELS) (Green et al., 2006) were used. In addition, item questions related specifically
to sporting activities have been adapted from the Social en Cultureel Planbureau (SCP,

2007) -the Social and Cultural Planning Office".

78

These items were used to be consistent with the bureau’s measurement items, for firrther
comparative analysis as well as valid policy recommendations. This source is widely
used by researchers in the Netherlands. Accordingly the four variables regarding leisure

participation were operationalized using the following questions:

Active participation:

Sport participation: What kind of sport activities do you engage in? Do you
engage in organized sport activities? Are you a member of
a sport club or association? How many hours do you
normally engage in your sporting activities per week?

Cultural and emressive participation: What kind of cultural and expressive activities do
you engage in? Do you engage in organized cultural and
expressive activities? Are you a member of a cultural and
expression club or association? How many hours do you
normally engage in your cultural and expressive activities
per week?

Participation in home and garden based activities: What kind of H and G activities do
you engage in? Do you engage in organized HandG
activities? Are you a member of an H and G club or
association? How many hours do you normally engage in
your H and G activities per week?

Participation in outdoor activities: What kind of outdoor activities do you engage in?
Do you engage in organized outdoor activities? Are you a
member of an outdoor club or association? How many
hours do you normally engage in your outdoor activities
per week?

Social pm'ticipation: How often did you visit any one or more of the listed
establishments in the past 12 months (bar, restaurant,
club/disco, casino)? Please indicate how many times in the
past 12 months you spent time engaging in the listed
activities (spent time with fiiends, spent time with
colleagues from work, spent time with people from
religion, spent time with people in non electoral
associations, spent time with people in Internet
communities)?

79

Passive participation:

Visitation of recreation and leisure sites: How often did you visit any one or more of the
listed sites in the past 12 months (museum, concert, theatre,
cinema, library, countryside, playground, amusement park,
zoo, sports event)?

Media participation: Please indicate how many hours you generally spent per
week on the listed activities, not including the hours spent
on these activities for work related purposes (watching
television, listening to the radio, reading newspapers,
reading books/literature, reading magazines, surfing the
Internet)?

Community Characteristics

The community characteristics included were operationalized as follows:

Size of community: How many citizens does the city, town or village where
you live in have?

Residential tenure or length of residence in current community: For how many years
have you been living in your current place of residence?

Anticipation tenure or future residency in the same community: Do you expect to be
living in your community five years from now?

Demographic Characteristics

The study included the following demographic characteristics:

Sex: Are you male/female?

Age: What is your age?

Marital status: What is your marital status?

Ethnical background: What is your ethnical background?
Family status: Do you have children? If so, how many?

80

Research design

To assess the connections between leisure participation and public engagement,
the quantitative paradigm was chosen and more specifically the survey approach. As
indicated in the review of the literature, survey research is a method that has been widely
applied in leisure studies and political science studies.

Surveys are particularly usefirl in describing behaviors, attitudes, and orientations of a
large population (Rubin and Babbie, 1997). A carefully selected probability sample in
combination with a questionnaire offers the possibility of making refined descriptive
assertions about a city, region or nation. Moreover, surveys and self-administered
surveys in particular make large samples feasible. Large samples are important when the
analyses of a study are descriptive or explanatory innature. Surveys allow for the
analysis of multiple variables simultaneously, thus enabling the discovery of

relationships and associations between different variables (Rubin and Babbie, 1997).

Site selection

The Province of Friesland in the Netherlands was the site selected for this study.
There were three main reasons: (a) part of the budget for this research was supported by a
local university; (b) according to previous studies, size of community seems to have a
strong connection with public engagement. Friesland is a province with a lot of small and
midsize communities and prides itself on having publically involved communities, so it
offered an opportunity for testing this hypothesis; and (c) it was also convenient for the

author is a Friesland native.

81

Survey instrument

To collect data, a survey instrument (appendix C) was developed using the
aforementioned items. In total, the instrument contained 29 item questions, divided into 6
main categories. The first set of questions asked about respondents’ leisure behavior, the
second category of questions were related to their participation in the community and the
third set of questions involved matters of public affairs. In the fourth and fifth section,
questions pertaining to respectively community characteristics and demographic
characteristics were asked. The last questions were designed to inquire about
respondents’ general impression of public engagement in Friesland.

The developed instrument was piloted on a small group of undergraduate (9
persons) and graduate students (3 persons), as well as among a convenience sample of
Frisian residents (16 persons). This group of 28 persons was not asked for personal data
but to examine the survey for readability and clarity. Their examination also helped fine
tuning the questions and completing the lists of most practiced leisure activities.

To obtain information from Frisian residents, the developed survey instrument
was sent as a self-administered mail survey to selected households in the province of
Friesland, The Netherlands. Household addresses were randomly selected from the Dutch
national phone directory: the Yellow Pages (De Telefoongids). The sampling frame was
the directory of the province Friesland of 2007 which had approximately 268,400 entries
in the private household section, including some business entries. According to the
Central Bureau of Statistics in the Netherlands (CBS), the total number of private

households in Friesland on the first of January 2006 was 274,354.

82

This implies that approximately 6,000 households were not included because they are not
registered in the phone directory. The layout of the directory’s pages is in four columns.
From every page two names (households/addresses) were selected by taking the first
name in the first and fourth column. If the selected entry was a business entry the next
name down the column was taken. This procedure resulted in a mailing list of 1,522
households.

The first mailing was sent out to these 1,522 households on February 1" 2008
(week 5 of the calendar year). The mailing included the survey instrument (Appendix C),
a cover letter (Appendix D) and a postage paid return envelope. On February 159‘ 2008
(week 7 of the calendar year) a reminder postcard was sent out to all households in the
sample, with the exception of bad addresses and those who indicated the addressee was

deceased or refirsed to participate (1522-72=1450 reminder postcards).

Confidentiality

Participation in the study was anonymous and completely voluntary. The
completed surveys could not be related to the household addresses unless they were
returned in the original envelopes, for example in case of bad addresses. The data were
treated as anonymous data. Although the e-mail addresses were collected of respondents
interested in the results of the study, the computer files were set up in such a way that

this information could not be linked to the completed survey forms.

83

Survey response

The first mailing resulted in 259 (17%) completed questionnaires (Table 8). After
sending out the reminder postcard, an additional 150 completed questionnaires were
returned. Of the 1,522 households in the sample, 85 were bad addresses, leaving 1,437
households in the sample. With a total of 409 completed questionnaires this yielded a

response of 29%.

Table 8. Response Rates.

 

 

% of % of % of
1”t mailing 1522 Reminder 1522 Total 1522
Returned completed 259 17.0 150 9.8 409 26.9
Bad address 51 3.4 10 0.7 61 4.0
Deceased 13 0.8 11 0.7 24 1.6
Refused/incomplete 8 0.5 5 0.3 13 0.8

 

Population, sample and unit of analysis

The population of this study consisted of Frisian households listed in the phone
directory. Because Human Subjects at MSU requires persons included in a study to be 18
years of age or older, the accompanying letter requested an adult household member to
complete the questionnaire (Appendix D.). Therefore, the unit of analysis was not
households but adult members of households.

To determine whether the sample was representative of the population of interest, the
demographics of the participants were compared to the population of interest. Most of the
participants’ demographic characteristics measured were similar to the population of

interest (Table 9).

84

The distribution sex, ethnic background and whether there were children in the
household were very similar. In the variables age and marital status there were some
differences in the distributions. These differences can in part be explained by how the
variables were measured. For age the present study used different categories than the
statistical bureau, because the study could not include persons younger than 18.

This does not fully account for the sample almost half of the respondents were between

45 and 64 years of age, whereas in the population little over one quarter was between 45
and 64 years. Since persons younger than 18 were not included, the percentage singles in
the Frisian population is expected to be higher because in the provincial Figures persons

of all ages are included.

Data analysis preparation and procedures

First, the composite scores for the four dimensions of public engagement were
calculated. As some people can be more engaged in particular activities than others, or be
completely unengaged, following the lead of Zukin et al (2006), to pursue this reasoning
more systematically, survey respondents were sorted according to the pattern of their
involvement in the key arenas of public engagement. To undertake this sorting, the ,
criteria used by Zukin et. al. (2006) were also used in this study. In their study they used
a standard that is based on measurement theory and on common-sense or reasonable on
its face (so-called face validity). In their metric someone was considered to be engaged

when participating in two or more activities measuring a certain dimension.

85

Table 9. Demographic characteristics of the sample vs. the population.

 

 

Percentage of Frisian
Percentage of Sample population’

Characteristic N=409 N=642,230(2006)
Sex

Male 52.1 49.9

Female 47.9 50.1

Total 100.0 100.0
Age

Younger than 15 years Not in sample 19.0

15-19 years Different in sample1 5-3

18-19 years 3.4 Category from sample

20-24 years 3.7 5.8

25-44 years 28.9 27.2

45-64 years 45.2 26.8

65-79 years 15.4 11.2

80 or older 3.4 3.9

Total 100.0 100.0
Marital status

Single 27.8 45.3

Married 59.9 43.8

Divorced/ separated 5.1 5. 1

Widowed 7.1 5.7

Total 100.0 100.0
Ethnic background

Native Dutch 95.1 91.8

European Dutch 2.4 4.7

Non-European Dutch 2.5 3.5

Total 100.0 100.0
Households:

With children 73.1 68.1

No children 26.9 31.9

Total 100.0 100.0

 

1. Human subjects required respondents of 18 years or older.

2. Source: Centraal Bureau Statistiek (CBS) StatLine, retrieved April, 2008.

Each of the dimensions in this study was measured by a set of indicators or

questions, most of which were dichotomous and if they were not they were recoded into

dichotomous indicators with value 1 equaling “yes” or a checked box and value 0

equaling “no” or an unchecked box.

86

The political engagement dimension, for example, was a composite of six dichotomous
questions or political engagement indicators. The voting questions were not dichotomous
but were recoded into a dichotomous question by considering the “don’t remember”
option as a “no”.

The dimension was then calculated by adding the six separate questions resulting
in a single variable with seven values (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Using the metric of
engaging in two activities or more equals being engaged, this variable was recoded. As
voting can be considered as one activity and four of the six indicators relate to voting
behavior, the proposed metric was adapted slightly. For this dimension the threshold for
being engaged was set as engaging in four or more activities, hence the variable was
recoded into a new variable with two values: 0 = not politically engaged (composite
score of 3 or less) and 1 = politically engaged (composite score of 4 or more).

Similarly, the dimension of civic engagement was calculated by adding the four
civic engagement indicators. Two of these indicators were dichotomous questions
(donating blood and informally working on a community project) and two were
calculated into dichotomous questions (membership in non-political organizations and
volunteering in non-political organizations). For the latter, respondents were asked to
indicate whether they: 1) held a membership to a list of 15 non-political organizations,
and 2) whether they volunteered for any of the 15 listed non-political organizations. Each
of these 30 items were treated as a dichotomous variable (value 1 = checked box and
value 0 = unchecked box). The membership variable and the volunteer variable were
calculated by adding the 15 related items resulting in two variables with a maximum of

16 values (0, 1, 2 ..... 15).

87

These two variables were then recoded into variables with three values (0 = not engaged,
I = engaged in one organization and 2 = engaged in 2 or more organizations).

Finally, the two recoded variables were recoded one last time into dichotomous
variables with value 0 = not engaged and value 1 = engaged in at least one non-political
organization. Adding the four dichotomous variables resulted in a composite indicator of
civic engagement with five values (0, 1, 2, 3, 4), which was then recoded using the
metric of being engaged when participating in two or more activities, into an indicator
with two values where 0 = not civically engaged (composite score equals 0 or 1) and 1 =
civically engaged (composite score of 2 or higher).

The composite score of expressive engagement was calculated by adding the
three expressive engagement indicators (all dichotomous variables) resulting in a single
variable with four values. This variable was then also recoded into a variable with two
values: 0 = not expressively engaged (composite score of 0 or 1) and 1 = expressively
engaged (composite score of 2 or 3).

The composite score of cognitive engagement was calculated by adding the two
cognitive engagement indicators. Both these indicators were continuous, but were
recoded as dichotomous. For the variable “interest in politics” the values “4” (somewhat
interested) and “5” (very interested) were recoded in “1”, all other values were recoded
as “0”. For the variable ‘Willingness to support/aid in case of national disasters”, the
values “5” (high) and “6” (very high) were recoded into “1” and all other values were

recoded in “0”.

88

These two variables were then added resulting in a cognitive engagement
indicator with 3 values (0, 1, and 2). This variable was recoded with value 0 = not
cognitively engaged (composite score of 0 and 1) and 1 = cognitively engaged
(composite score 2).

Next, the composite scores for the leisure participation variables were calculated.
For each of the leisure categories (sport, cultural and expressive activities, home based
(hobby) activities, outdoor activities, social activities, visiting recreational sites and
media participation), a composite score was calculated which allowed for measuring the
range of activities people participate in within a specific leisure category. Within each
leisure category a set of dichotomous item variables were added together and then
recoded into a new variable with three values: non participation, participation and
participation in multiple activities.

For example respondent X does not engage in any sport activities, he is classified
as a non-participant in sports; respondent Y engages only in soccer, he is classified as a
participant in sports; respondent Z engages in cycling, swimming, volleyball and soccer,
he then is classified as a participant in multiple sports. In most categories (cultural and
expressive activities, home based activities, outdoor activities, and visitation to
recreational sites) this referred to any participation in the past 12 months. Participation in
sport and social activities, however, was defined as participating at least once per month
(12 times per year) in an activity belonging to these respective categories. Media
participation was defined in terms of number of hours per week and thus the range of

participation reflected the number of activities engaged in on a weekly basis.

89

In some categories the activities were not measured using a dichotomous question
(visitation to recreational sites, social participation, and media participation).

In these cases the variables pertaining to the categories were first recoded into a
dichotomous variable with values 0 = non-participation in the particular activity and 1 =

participation in that particular activity.

Analysis stages

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 15. The results are presented in three stages. Firstly, descriptive analyses were
used to provide a profile of the sample population with regards to their public
engagement, leisure participation, demographic, and community characteristics.
Secondly, relational analyses were performed to establish if differences existed between
publicly engaged and non-engaged citizens with regards to the independent variables.
Thirdly, a discriminant analysis was performed to develop a model that predicts the
influence of leisure participation characteristics, community characteristics and
demographic characteristics on the dimensions of public engagement.

The first stage involved performing a descriptive univariate analysis of the four
public engagement dimensions, leisure participation characteristics, community
characteristics, and demographic characteristics. Frequency tables and measures of
central tendency were used to describe the characteristics of the respondents.

In the second stage bivariate analyses were performed to find significant
relationships between the independent and dependent variables in order to be able to

distinguish between publicly engaged and non-engaged citizens.

9O

The bivariate analyses were also used to support the selection of the leisure participation,
community and demographic characteristics to be included in the predictive model. To
describe the associations between the independent and dependent variables, cross-
tabulations and a comparison of the means test were used in combination with chi-square
tests and t-tests to determine the significance of the findings.

The third stage of analysis focused on developing a predictive model that
differentiates publicly engaged citizens fiom the publicly non-engaged citizens.
Discriminant analyses were performed according to the six-stage model building
perspective of Hair et al. (1998) (Figure 13).

Discriminant analysis is used primarily to identify variables that contribute to
differences in the a priori defined groups with the use of discriminant functions and is
also used for classifying objects into one or more groups that have already been defined
(Aaker et al., 2001). It is a multivariate statistical technique used to estimate the
relationship between a single categorical dependent variable and a set of multiple metric
independent variables and non-metric dummy variables in order to understand the
differences among the groups, to predict the likelihood that an observation will belong to
a particular group (Hair et al., 1998, Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001), and to determine
which weightings of metric independent variables best discriminates between two or
more groups of cases and do so better than by chance. It is useful for situations where the
researcher wants to build a predictive model. In the case of the present study,
discriminant analysis was used to distinguish engaged citizens from non-engaged citizens

according to selected independent variables.

91

The study analyzed the three sets of independent variables (leisure participation,
community and demographic characteristics) separately in relation to the public
engagement dimensions and in addition to that an attempt was made to develop a model
that combines the three sets of characteristics in relation to the public engagement

dimensions.

92

Figure 13. Stages in the Discriminant Analysis Decision Diagram

Researchfimblem
Select objective(s):

Stage 1 Evaluate group differences on a multivariate profile
Classify observations into groups
Identify dimensions of discrimination between groups

1

Stage 2 Selection of independent variables
Sample size considerations
Creation of analysis and holdout samples

1

Normality of independent variables

Stage 3 Linearity of relationships
Lack of multi collinearity among independent variables
Equal dispersion matrices

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Stage 4 Simultaneous or stepwise estimation
Significance of discriminant function(s)

 

 

Determine optimal cutting score
Specify criterion for assessing hit ratio
Statistical significance of predictive accuracy

 

 

sage 5

 

Emulation 91 Single Function
Discriminant weights
Discriminant loadings

Partial F values

Stage 6 Split-sampler or cross-validation
Profiling group differences

 

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

93

Selection of independent and dependent variables

According to Hair et al. (1998), independent variables usually are selected in two
ways. The first approach involves identifying variables either fi'om previous research (in
this case only demographic characteristics and to some extent the community
characteristics have been used in previous research) or fi'om the theoretical model that is
the underlying basis of the research question (in this study, the problem statement is:
what forms of leisure seem to be most relevant to the generation of public engagement?)

The second approach is intuition —utilizing the researcher’s knowledge and
intuitively selecting variables for which no previous research or theory exists but that
logically might be related to predicting group membership. The groups for the dependent
variables the content analysis performed by this study indicates that empirical-
quantitative research regarding the influence of demographics and leisure participation
on public engagement is lacking. This lack has also been supported by previous research.
However, the leisure literature, as is supported by the literature review chapter has
advanced several theories/hypothesis.

The research questions, and consequently the independent variables in this study,
have been based on the theories/questions advanced by the leisure scholars who have
written about social capital/civic engagement/citizenship participation and leisure
participation. Furthermore, the discriminant analysis included those independent
variables showing a significant relationship with the public engagement dimensions.
Three demographic characteristics: sex, ethnic background and marital status were not
measured as ratio or quantitative variables and were therefore recoded into dummy

variables (Table 10).

94

Table 10. Independent variables in the discriminant analysis.

 

 

Variable Measurement level Remarks
Demographic characteristics
Age Ratio
Sex Dichotomous Recoded into a dummy
variable where male=1
and not male=0
Ethnic background Dichotomous Recoded into 1 dummy
variable with Dutch
origin=1 and not Dutch
origin=0
Marital status Dichotomous Recoded into 1 dummy
variable where married
AND in a long term
relationship=l and not
married AND in a long
term relationship=0
Number of children Ratio
Community characteristics
Community size Ratio
Length of residency Ratio
Leisure characteristics These variables show for
each venue the number of
different activities in
which respondents
engaged in the past
twelve months
Level of sport engagement Ratio

Level of cultural engagement Ratio
Level of outdoor engagement Ratio
Level of visitation engagement Ratio
Level of social engagement Ratio
Level of media engagement Ratio

As for the selection of the leisure behavior characteristics, since the study aimed
to compare across the different leisure venues, there was only one characteristic that
could be included in the analysis because it was measured the same way for the seven

forms of leisure included in the study: the range of leisure activities.

95

The dependent variables were selected according to their category sample sizes. Political
engagement and civic engagement were included. Expressive and cognitive engagement
were not included in these analyses for sample size reasons: the categories (groups)
varied too widely in size. Both the political engagement and civic engagement variables

have two categories (groups): the engaged and the non-engaged.

Assumptions and validation

Normality: firstly, the independent ratio level variables in the discriminant
analysis were tested for normality. The analysis showed that for the variables media
participation, cultural participation, outdoor participation and the number of residents
normality could not be assumed (the kurtosis and skewness statistics were outside the
acceptance range of -1 and +1). When examining the Shapiro-Wilks test results, it
appeared for these variables non-normality did not occur by chance, however, the central
limits theorenr, suggests that normality may be assumed given the sample size in the
study (N=409). Although normality may be assumed, the next step was to identifying
outliers within the distribution of these variables.

Outliers: all four variables showed outliers in the individual distributions, but

 

these outliers were not abnormal scores. They were, therefore, not included in the
analysis. For the eight models tested in the discriminant analysis, outliers in the
classification output of the analysis were detected. In these cases outlier was defined as a
case that is distant fi'om the centroid of the group to which it had the highest probability

of belonging.

96

Cases with a Mahalanobis D2 distance greater than the critical value were identified as
outliers. Consequently, the discriminant analysis was estimated again without these cases
to increase the percentage of correctly classified cases. If this was the case, the output of
the discriminant analysis'with transformations was used; if not the original output was
then used.

Homogeneity of variances/covariances: it was assumed that the
variance/covariance matrices of variables are homogeneous across groups. Although
minor deviations are not that important (Hair et al., 1998), the variances in the
discriminant analysis were tested with the Box’s M statistics. In the base line analysis,
homogeneity was assumed but in most analyses this homogeneity assumption was
violated. Therefore, the analysis was performed again but specifying separate-groups
covariance for the classification. Ifthe classification improved by more than 2%, the
transformed analysis was used in the interpretation, if not the original output was used.

Multicolinearim this can be identified in discriminant analysis by examining the
tolerance values. If a tolerance problem occurs in a simultaneous entry problem, SPSS
will include a table entitled “Variables failing tolerance test”. As such an anomaly did
not appear in the output, no problem with tolerance value was assumed was assumed

values, and all selected variables were included in the analyses.

97

CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The nature of citizen engagement in public life in the United States [and elsewhere] is
changing. Citizen participation both determines who will hold positions of government
power and communicates the public ’s values and opinions to these ofiicials.

Consequently, changes in the nature and scope of participation afl'ect the quality of our
democracy (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 3).

Those leisure services which are of great benefit to our world and for which we must
plan will be those which help us see why it makes sense to celebrate this world and our
very lives (Godbey, 1999, p. 147).

The first part of this chapter presents descriptive analysis about public
engagement of the Frisian residents, their leisure participation, demographic
characteristics, and community characteristics. Theisecond part focuses on associations
between public engagement and leisure participation, community characteristics, and
demographic characteristics. The third part, describes the discriminating and predictive
value of the selected leisure participation characteristics, community characteristics and

demographic characteristics.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

Public engagement dimensions

This section documents public engagement of the people residing in the Province
of Friesland in the Netherlands. Information related to political, civic, expressive and

cognitive engagement is presented.

98

The changing nature of Europe exacerbated by its enlargement and changing economic,
social and political agendas has been acknowledged as a challenge by both policymakers
and researchers (Dekker et al., 2007).

Similar to the US and Canada, a decline in civic engagement has been a source of
alarm in European countries, including the Netherlands (EESC, 2004). According to the
most recent publication by the SCP (2005), membership in the Netherlands in voluntary
organizations has declined, and so has the active participation of the Dutch people in
community life, and in sporting and other leisure-based activities. Documentation of the
Dutch participation in some of the social and political activities, including sport and
leisure participation, political participation, and participation in voluntary activities was
presented in the literature chapter of this study, indicating a decline in several civic as
well as political activities. It is worth noting that data assessing cognitive engagement
and expressive engagement were not filtered by the SCP. That is, (contrary to the present
study that defines the classic civic engagement to include the four engagement
dimensions of political engagement, civic, cognitive, and expressive) studies addressing
the public engagement issue in the Netherlands included only the political and civic
dimensions of engagement. Before assessing the four dimensions of public engagement
of Frisian residents, first, it was important to assess their opinion about the state of public
engagement in the Province. Accordingly, respondents were asked to give their opinion
about the overall state of public engagement in the Province of F riesland. As can be seen
in Table 11, a small majority (36.9%) reported that they have no idea about the status of

public engagement in their Province.

99

Little over one quarter (28.4%) of respondents said that public engagement in the
Province has remained unchanged, while a little less than one quarter indicated that it had

decreased.

Table 11. Opinion about public engagement in Friesland (N = 4 09).

 

 

 

% of respondents
Public engagement increased 11.2
Public engagement has decreased 22.7
Public engagement has remained unchanged 28.4
No idea 36.9
Other opinion 0. 7
Total 100.0

 

Political engagement

Regular voting

When asked about their voting behavior, the majority of respondents indicated
that they have voted for the past four major elections, as is indicated in Table 12.
As can be seen in Figure 15, two thirds (67%) of respondents indicated that they voted in
all four previous elections. One quarter (25%) voted in two or three of the past four
elections and 7 percent did not vote at all. It is interesting to note that the Frisian turnout
figure, 92%, at the national election in 2006 seems to be considerably higher than the

national turnout figure, 81% (SCP, 2006).

100

Table 12. Voting behavior (N = 404)

 

 

%
% % cannot % %
Elections voters non voters remember No response Total
European 2004 71.1 18.8 8.8 1.2 100.0
Municipal 2006 85.1 10.8 3.2 1.0 100.0
National 2006 91.9 6.6 0.5 1.0 100.0
Provincial 2007 81.4 13.2 4.4 1.0 100.0

 

Figure 14. Voting behavior of respondents.

67%

25%

 

Membership and volunteering for political organizations or groups

Concerning membership in and volunteer activities for a political organization or
group, results indicate that over the past 12 months 7% of respondents held a
membership to a political organization or group, and 5% volunteered for a political

organization or group.

10]

Political engagement
Respondents to the Friesland survey were considered to be politically engaged if they
participated in four or more of the following activities:

Vote in the European elections (2004)

Vote in the municipal elections (2006)

Vote in the national elections (2006)

Vote in the provincial elections (2007)

Were a member of a political group or organization in the past 12 months
Volunteered for a political group or organization in the past 12 months

Two thirds (67%) of those surveyed met this standard and thus can be considered to be

politically engaged.

Civic engagement

Civic engagement was gauged by assessing engagement in the following
activities: volunteering in non-political group or organizations; engagement in
community problem- solving; informally working with others to solve a community
problem; and donating blood. According to data displayed in Table 13, almost half of the
respondents (49%) volunteered for at least one non-political organization or group in the
past 12 months. Little over one third of these volunteers did so for multiple
organizations. Almost three quarters (75%) of respondents said they held a membership
in at least one organization or group in the past year, while more than two thirds of them

were members in more than one organization.

102

Table I3. Engagement in non-political organizations or groups in the past 12 months

(N= 409).

 

 

 

Volunteer Membership
Non engagement 51.1% 25.4%
Single organization or
group 30.1 28.1
Multiple organizations 18.8 46.5
Total 100.0 100.0

 

Regarding community problem solving, 17% of respondents indicated that they
had informally worked on a community project in the past 12 months. About 12%
donated blood at least once in the past 12 months.

People were considered to be civically engaged when they participated in two or
more of the following activities in the past 12 months:

Held a membership to at least one organization or group other than a political one
Volunteered for at least one organization or group other than a political one
Inforrnally worked on a community project

Donated blood.

By this standard, almost half (49%) of the respondents were civically engaged.

Expressive engagement (Public voice)

Almost a quarter (22.5%) of respondents indicated they had participated in at
least one activity that was considered an indicator of public voice or expressive
engagement.

18% of the Frisian residents surveyed said they had signed a petition in the past 12
months. Seven percent indicated they attended a political meeting and 3% participated in

a demonstration, protest or boycott in the past 12 months (Table 14).

103

Table 14. Expressive engagement indicators (n=4 09).

 

 

% Yes
Signed a petition in the past 12 months 17.9%
Attended a public meeting in the past 12 months 7.1%
Participated in a demonstration, protest march, or boycott 3.2%

 

Respondents were considered to be expressively engaged when they did at least
two of the above mentioned activities. By this standard 5% of the Frisian residents were

expressively engaged.

Table 15. Level of interest in politics and national aflairs (N = 409)

 

 

 

 

Level of interest % of respondents
Very much interested 21.5
Somewhat interested 50.9

Little interested 19.6

Not interested ' 5.9

Don’t know 2.2

Total 100.0
Cognitive engagement

Most respondents (92%) indicated they had some level of interest in politics and
national affairs, three quarters (72%) were really interested and approximately one third
of those interested were highly interested (Table 15). Slightly more than three quarters
(78.4%) of those surveyed showed a high willingness to support or aid in case of national
disasters (Table 16).

To be considered cognitively engaged respondents had to be at least somewhat
interested in political and national affairs and have a high willingness to support/aid in
case of national disasters. By this standard, almost two thirds (61.6%) were cognitively

engaged.

104

Table 16. Respondents ’ willingness to support and/or aid in case of national disasters
(N = 4 09)

 

 

 

Willingness to support % of respondents
Very high 35.9
High 42.5
Depends 16.9
Low 1.5
None 0.7
Don’t know 2.4
Total 100.0

 

As depicted in Figure 15, residents of the Province of Friesland seem to be more

politically engaged and more cognitively engaged than civically or expressively engaged.

Figure 15. Public engagement of respondents.

62%

67% 49%

 

105

Overall, the results indicate that 12 % of Frisian respondents are not at all
engaged in public life (Table 17). This differs very much from the American situation
where Zukin et al. (2006) found 48% of their sample to be disengaged.
Approximately one quarter (25%) were engaged in a single public engagement
dimension, 35% in two dimensions, 26% in three dimensions, and 3% of the Frisian

respondents were found to be engaged in all four dimensions.

Table 1 7. Public engagement profile.

 

 

Number of

respondents %
Not engaged 48 11.7
Engaged in one single dimension 102 24.9
Engaged in two dimensions 142 34.7
Engaged in three dimensions 107 26.2
Engaged in all four dimensions 10 2.5
Total 409 100.0

 

Leisure Participation Characteristics

This section describes the four dimensions of leisure participation of the Frisian
residents. Data are presented by type of leisure, hence the first part describes active
leisure participation and the second part describes Frisians’ passive leisure participation.
For each of the different forms within active and passive leisure participation, data
regarding the range of participation, type of activity, rate or frequency of participation as

well as data the level of involvement are presented.

106

Active leisure participation

Active leisure participation includes sport participation, cultural and expressive
participation, participation in home and garden based leisure activities, participation in
outdoor activities, and participation in social activities. Descriptive data pertaining to

these categories of leisure participation are presented.

Sport participation

Sports participation is high in Friesland. Almost three quarters (72%) of the
respondents indicated they participated at least once per month in one or more sport
activities in the past 12 months, of which almost half engaged in multiple sport activities
and 37% participated in organized sport activities (Table 18). According to the latest data
available from the NISB (Nederlands Instituut voor Sport en Bewegen, 2003), the Dutch
institute for sports and exercise, in 2003 sport participation among the Dutch population
between 18 and 79 years of age was 64. %. Furthermore the 2003 NISB Figures show
36% of the Dutch population aged between 6 and 69 years held a membership to an
association or club. Since this number has slowly but steadily increased from 30% in
1979, one would expect it to be slightly higher in 2007. The present study included
people in the ages between 18 and 97, knowing that young people show a higher sport
membership rate, 32% of Frisian respondents indicating they hold a membership to a
sport club or association is similar to that of the Dutch population. In addition
respondents were asked whether they belonged to a commercial sport institution such as
e. g. a health club or fitness centre. This was the case for 78 persons (19%) who indicated

they hold a membership to such a facility.

107

Frisian respondents spent on average 4.7 hours per week engaging in sport activities,

compared to an average of 2.6 hours per week of the Dutch population in 2005.

Table 18. Respondents’ partiapation in sports activities.

 

 

 

Non Multiple
participation Participation participation Total
n % n % n % n %

Sport activities 115 28.1 162 39.6 132 32.3 409 100
Organized sport 409 100
activities 259 63.3 120 29.3 30 7.4
Membership in sport
associations/clubs 278 68.0 115 28.1 16 3.9 409 100
Mean number of
hours per week N/A n Mean n Mean n Mean
engaged in sport 153 3 .6 131 5.9 284 4.7
activities

 

The most popular sports in terms of number of participants in Friesland are
cycling, swimming, and fitness/aerobics, followed by tennis, ice skating, volleyball and
soccer (Table 19). The other Sports mentioned more than once included horse riding,

billiards and gymnastics See Appendix E for a full list of other sports.

108

Table 19. Percentage of respondents engaged in drflerent sport activities in the past
twelve months (N=409)

 

% engaged in % holding a Mean number
Type of sport % engaged organized membership to of hours spent

 

activity in activities activities an association per week
"Cycling 34.0 1.5 0.7 3.5
Swimming 14.7 3.2 1.5 1.4
Fitness/Aerobics 14.2 7.8 3.9 2.3
Tennis 9.8 5.6 5.9 2.1
Ice skating 7.3 1.7 1.7 1.8
Volleyball 7. 1 5.9 5.4 2.9
Soccer 6.4 5.1 3.9 3.3
Running/jogging 5.1 1.2 1.5 4.6
Kaatsen” 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.5
Kortball 2.9 2.9 2.4 4.2
Golf 2.2 1.0 1.5 4.6
Field hockey 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0
Other sports 9.0 4.9 4.9 2.0

 

* Kaatsen is a traditional Frisian sport mostly played outdoors from April through August

Cultural and expressive participation

Little more than one third (40%) of Frisian residents engage in cultural and
expressive activities, and 16.3% do so in organized setting (Table 20). Residents spent on
average 4.2 hours per week engaging in these activities.
The most common activities they pursue are musical activities including playing music
and singing (Table 21). This is comparable with Figures fi'om the 2003 SCP (2005b);
showing 44% of the Dutch population aged 12 years and older was being involved in
cultural and expressive activities. These people spent an average of 3.5 hours per week
engaging in these activities, with musical activities being the most popular (21%).
Thirteen percent of respondents indicated they held a membership to a

cultural/expressive association or club.

109

Table 20. Respondents ’ participation in cultural and expressive activities in the past 12
months.

 

 

Non Multiple
participation Participation participation Total
Cultural activities 274 60.4% 125 30.6% 37 9.0% 409 100%
Organized cultural 342 83.6 64 15.6 3 0.7 409 100

activities
Membershipincultural 356 87.0 53 13.0 0 0.0 409 100
associations/clubs

 

Average number of
hours spent on cultural n n 11
activities per week N/A 117 3 .5 34 6.6 151 4.2

 

Table 21. Percentage of respondents engaged in difi’erent cultural and expressive
activities in the past twelve months 0V: 409)

 

% engaged % holding a Mean number
% engaged in organized membership to of hours spent

 

Type of activity in activities activities an association per week
Music/singing 20.3 9.3 8.6 3.7
Photography 11.5 0.0 0.0 2.6
Drawing/Painting 9.5 2.0 0.2 3.7
Drama/Theatre 4.9 2.9 2.9 3.6
Dance 4.4 2.9 1.2 3 .2

 

Participation in home and garden based activities

Almost two-thirds (64.8%) of the respondents indicated they engage in home and garden
based hobby activities, of which more than half do so in more than one activity (Table
22). The mean number of hours spent on these activities was 7.5 with the most popular

activity being gardening (Table 23).

110

Table 22. Respondents ’ participation in home and garden based hobby activities in the
past twelve months.

 

 

 

Non Multiple

participation Participation participation Total
71de 144 35.2% 128 31.3% 137 33.5% 409 100%
activities
OrganizedHand 365 89.2 41 10.0 3 0.7 409 100
G activities
Membership in 388 94.9 21 5.1 0 0.0 409 100
H and G
associations/
clubs
Average number n n n
of hours spent on N/A 114 5.1 130 9.6 244 7.5
H and G
activities per
week

 

Table 23. Percentage of respondents engaged in different home and garden based hobby
activities in the past twelve months (N = 409)

 

 

% % engaged % holding a Mean number
Type of hobby engaged in in organized membership to of hours spent
activity activities activities an association per week
Gardening 38.6 0.7 1.0 3.4
Cooking/baking 27.4 4.4 0.0 4.6
Home improvement 24.9 0.2 0.0 4.0
Crafts 6.1 4.2 1.0 6.4

Other activities 13.2 2.0 1.0 6.3

111

Crafis included needlework, quilting, scrap booking and sculpting. Other activities
mentioned more than once were playing cards (poker and bridge), gaming (computer)
and doing crossword puzzles (see appendix E for a full list of other home and garden

based activities).

Participation in outdoor activities

Little over two-thirds (68.2%) of respondents reported having been engaged in
outdoor activities in the past 12 months (Table 24). Little over 10 percent reported
engaging in organized activities and number of hours spent per week engaging in outdoor
activities was the average 3.9 hours for those engaging in only one outdoor activity.

The average for respondents engaging in more than one activity was 9.8 hours.

Table 24. Respondents ’ participation in outdoor activities in the past twelve months

 

 

 

Non Multiple

participation Participation participation Total
Outdoor activities 130 31.8% 210 51.3% 69 16.9% 409 100%
Organized outdoor
activities 365 89.2 41 10.0 3 0.7 409 100
Membership in outdoor
associations/clubs 369 90.2 32 7 .8 8 2.0 409 100
Average number of
hours spent on outdoor n n 11
activities per week N/A 187 3.9 64 9.8 251 5.4

 

Most popular outdoor activities were walking and hiking, with little more than
half (5 1 .3%) of respondents saying they participated in either one, followed by water

sports with 13.2% of respondents engaging in water sports activities (Table 25).

112

Other outdoor activities mentioned were mountain biking (2 persons = 0.5%) and dog

training (1 person = 0.2%).

Table 25. Percentage of respondents engaged in diflerent outdoor activities in the past
twelve months (N = 4 09)

 

% engaged in % holding a Mean number
Type of outdoor % engaged organized membership to of hours spent

 

activity in activities activities an association per week
Walking/hiking 51.3 5.1 1.5 3.9
Water sports 13.2 1.7 2.7 5.2
Fishing 7.8 1.0 2.7 4.8
Bird watching 7.6 0.5 1.2 3.2
Conservation 5.4 1.7 3.2 5.1
Nordic walking 3.4 0.5 0.0 2.7
Hunting 1.5 0.5 1.0 5.3
Other outdoor

activities 0.7 0.5 0.2 3.7

 

Participation in social activities

Social participation was measured by respondents’ visitation to “social”
establishments in the past twelve months and the number of times respondents spent time
socializing in different settings in the past twelve months. Table 28 shows that 14% of
respondents were classified as non social participants. This does not mean that they do
not engage socially, it means they engaged less than once per month in the past twelve
months in each of the “social” activities included in the survey. Almost two-thirds of
respondents engaged at least once per month in multiple (more than 1) social activities

(Table 26).

113

sF“.—I_

if.

T.. -

la

_\l\.\L. ./.\. on. 0 1E. 104me

View. N.

Table 26. Social participation in the past twelve months

 

 

 

Number of % of

respondents respondents
Non-participation 58 14.2
Participation 100 24.4
Multiple participation 251 61.4
Total 409 100.0

 

The social establishments visited most were restaurants (91%) and pub/bar/café’s
(66%). The socializing activities engaged in most were spending time with fi'iends (90%)

and spending time with people in non-political associations (60%) (Table 27 and 28).

Table 27. Visitation to social establishments in past twelve months (N = 409)

 

 

 

Number of visits Café/bar/pub Restaurant Disco/club Casino
None 36.1% 9.3% 75.3% 85.9%
< 3 per year 16.9 20.8 12.0 10.0
3-11 per year 22.0 43.3 3.4 3.3
Once per month 9.3 14.9 3.9 0.3

2 or 3 per week 8.1 8.8 4.4 0.5
At least 1 per week 7.6 2.9 1.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Table 28. Number of times respondents spent time socializing in past twelve months
W: 40 7)

 

 

Non

electoral Internet
Number of times Friends Colleagues Religion associations communities
Once per week 32.9% 6.9% 7.4% 28.3% 8.6%
2-3 times per
month 23.8 10.3 4.9 9.6 3.2
Once per month 11.5 5.7 2.9 5.7 2.5
3-12 times per year 15.0 12.8 3.4 9.1 1.7
< 3 times per year 6.4 17.2 6.9 7.1 3.9
Never 4.7 14.7 23.8 16.7 40.8
N/A 5.7 32.4 50.6 23.6 39.3

 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

114

Passive leisure participation
Passive leisure participation includes visitation to leisure and recreation sites and

media participation. Descriptive data pertaining to these types of leisure participation,

including percentage and rate of participation are presented.

Visitation to leisure and recreation sites

Table 29 shows that almost ninety-five percent of the respondents visited at least
one leisure or recreation site in the past 12 months. More than three fourth (84%) visited
multiple different sites of which more than half visited five or more different leisure and

recreation sites.

Table 29. Range of visitation activities in the past twelve months

 

 

 

Number of % of

respondents respondents
Non visitation 24 5.9
Visitation 43 10.5
Multiple visitation 342 83.6
Total 409 100.0

 

The most frequently visited leisure and recreation sites were
countryside/forests/parks, museums and theatres, followed by concerts, libraries and

cinemas (Table 30).The other sites mentioned were churches and a horse market.

115

Table 30. Visitation to leisure and recreation sites in the past twelve months (N = 409)

 

% Never % Visited % Visited 3 % 12 times or

 

 

Site visited < 3 times to 11 times more often Total
Countryside/forest/ 100.0
park 27.4 12.7 25.7 4.2

Museum 42.8 41.6 14.9 0.7 100.0
Theatre 45.5 35.5 16.6 2.4 100.0
Concert 52.3 28.9 17.8 1.0 100.0
Library 53.5 11.7 14.7 20.0 100.0
Cinema 54.0 29.3 14.2 2.4 100.0
Zoo/botanical 66.5 33.0 0.5 0.0 100.0
gardens

Amusement park 70.7 26.2 2.9 0.2 100.0
Playground 72.3 14.0 10.0 3.7 100.0
Sport event/match 81.9 5.6 7.1 5.4 100.0
Other sites 98.8 0.5 0.0 0.7 100.0
Media particzpation

Media participation among the respondents is high with almost all (99%)
respondents engaged in multiple media activities on a weekly basis, of which little more

than half participate in all of the six listed activities on a weekly basis (Table 31).

Table 31. Range of participation in media activities.

 

 

Number of
respondents % of respondents
Non participation 0 0.0
Participation (1 activity) 6 1.5
Multiple participation 403 98.5
2-3 activities 28 6.8
4-5 activities 169 41.3
all 6 activities 206 50.4

 

Total 409 100.0

 

116

Concerning their media participation, Table 32 shows that respondents spent the
highest amount of time watching television, followed by listening to the radio and

reading newspapers. The least time is spent reading magazines.

Table 32. Media particrpation (average number of hours per week spent doing each
activity not work related) N = 4 09

 

% %<2 %2-5 %6—10 %>10

 

Activity Never hrs. hrs. hrs. hrs. Total
Watching television 2.4 4.9 8.3 34.7 39.6 100.0
Listening to the
radio 15.9 16.6 18.6 15.9 33.0 100.0
Reading newspaper 9.3 26.2 34.7 20.5 9.3 100.0
Reading 100.0
books/literature 17.4 30.1 27.9 13.2 11.5
Surfing the Internet 22.2 30.1 24.4 11.0 12.2 100.0
Reading magazines 16.6 49.1 23.7 6.6 3.9 100.0

 

Community Characteristics

Size of community

According to the official figures of the province (F riesland in Cijfers, 2007), the
ten largest communities in the province of Friesland are: Leeuwarden (Friesland’s capital
with 92,347 inhabitants), Drachten (44,444), Sneek (33,000), Heerenveen (28,470),
Harlingen (15,450), Franeker (13,210), Dokkum (13,150), Joure (12,902), Wolvega
(12,110) and Lemmer (10,220). These Figures show that F riesland does not have many
large communities (communities with more than 50,000 inhabitants). Leeuwarden is the
only city with more than 50,000 inhabitants. Moreover, F riesland is the second least
densely populated province in The Netherlands with 193 inhabitants per km2, indicating

that most of its residents live in small communities.

117

Similarly, it was found in the present study that eight percent of the respondents
live in communities with less than 500 inhabitants (Table 33). A little over half of the
respondents (52%) live in what are considered to be small communities with no more
than 5,000 inhabitants and approximately one fifth of respondents live in the capital of

Leeuwarden.

Table 33. Community characteristics of respondents

 

 

 

Characteristic % of respondents
Size of community (N=382)

Less than 500 inhabitants 7.9
501 — 1,500 inhabitants 23.8
1,501 — 5,000 inhabitants 20.9
5,001 — 10,000 inhabitants 10.2
10,001 — 50,000 inhabitants 18.6
More than 50,000 inhabitants 18.6
Total 100.0
Mean number of inhabitants 22,311
Median number of inhabitants 4,650
Maximum number of inhabitants 100,000

Length of residency (N = 408)

 

Less than five years 12.3
Five to ten years 19.1
Eleven to twenty years 21.1
More than 20 years 47.5
Total 100.0
Mean number of years 23.4
Median number of years 20.0
Maximum number of years 97.0

Future residency in current
community(N= 409)

 

Yes 68.5
No 1 1.7
Don’t know 19.8
Total 100.0

 

118

Length of residency

The maximum number of years lived in a community in Friesland was 97 years,
and the median was 20 years. Almost half of the respondents (48%) lived more than 20
years in the same community, and little over one fifth (21%) lived between 11 to 20
years in the same community (Table 33). This suggests that a large number of Frisians

have taken roots in their community.

Commitment to live in the community

When respondents were asked whether they expect to live five years or longer in
their respective communities, more than two thirds (69%) responded positively. The
remaining was either unsure or did not expect to be living in that community in the
coming five years. This information relates to the hypothesis that residents who

anticipate residing longer in their community are likely to be publicly engaged.

119

Demographic characteristics

As Table 9 (page 93) indicates, the demographic characteristics of the
respondents are very similar to those of the Frisian population. Little over half of the
respondents were male and consequently little less than half were female (Table 34).
Most respondents were between 45 and 64 years of age with a mean age of 50. Almost
two-thirds, 60% were married or in a long term relationship and 95% were of native
Dutch descent. Almost three-quarters (73%) of respondents indicated they had children.

The average number of children of those reporting having children, was two.

The aforementioned descriptive data provide the ground for the analysis of
associations. The upcoming pan discusses the differences in - and relationships between
selected independent characteristics and the public engagement dimensions. Findings are
presented by public engagement dimension, as such comparing the engaged and non-

engaged citizens with regards to the selected characteristics.

120

Table 34. Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 4 09).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic % of respondents
Sex
Male 52.1
Female 47.9
Total 100.0
Age
18-24 years 7.1
25-44 years 28.9
45-64 years 45.2
65-79 years 15.4
80 or older 3.4
Total 100.0
Mean age 50.1
Median age 52
Minimum and maximum age 18 and 97
Marital status
Single 27 .8
Married/in a long term relationship 59.9
Divorced/ separated 5. 1
Widowed 7.1
Total 100.0
Ethnic background
Native Dutch 95.1
European Dutch 2.4
Non-European Dutch 2.5
Total 100.0
Number of respondents with/without
children
With children 73.1
No children 26.9
Total 100.0
Mean number of children in household 1.9
Median number of children in household 2
Minimum and maximum number of 0 and 8

children

 

121

vi

1 .
.615

@311 111

ANALYISIS OF ASSOCIATIONS

Differences in selected leisure participation characteristics

Based on Hemingway’s (1999) inspiring essay, public engagement was believed
to be linked to specific leisure activities, and hypothesized that public engagement is
affected by the kind of leisure activity in which individuals participate. Thus, the main
objective of this section revolved around finding associations between leisure
participation characteristics and public engagement dimensions. The following
discussion is limited to differences in the range, type, rate and level of involvement or

membership status of leisure participation.

Range of leisure participation

Table 35 shows the differences between engaged and non-engaged respondents
with regards to the number of different activities they engage in within each form of
leisure. Politically engaged respondents were significantly more likely to participate in
home based hobby activities, outdoor activities and media activities. Participation in the
number of different activities within these forms of leisure was also significantly higher
than that of their politically non-engaged counterparts. As compared to the non-engaged,
civically engaged respondents were more likely to participate more in sport activities,
cultural activities, socializing activities, and pay more visits to recreational and leisure
sites. They also were found to participate in more different media activities. Expressively
engaged respondents were more likely to participate in cultural activities as compared to
their counterparts. Also, the number of different cultural activities, socializing, and media

activities participated in was significantly higher for the engaged respondents.

122

As for cognitive engagement, differences were found with regards to cultural
activities, home based hobby activities, outdoor activities, visitation to recreational and
leisure sites, as well as media activities. That is, the cognitively engaged people were
more likely to participate in these activities, and the number of different activities
engaged in within each of these forms of leisure was significantly higher for engaged

respondents than it was for the non-engaged ones.

123

 

Tab/e 3’5. [abate/Ives in range al'lt'is‘ure participation bylaw/11 public/y engaged and imn—t’ngaget/ I'l’.\'/)()ll(i(’lll.s‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

filfi‘ipflion W777Baliitigaliengagernenit,WW,, 7 , _ , ,ijiicgigaggnientw if, ligaigessive engagement Cognitive engagement
(.9? {/1 non; ‘71 (A non— ‘% (/( non— (/( 7t non—

H7. 7 7 engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaAged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic
Sport(111111111213 7 22,2- 7» 7’ W 7 iii? 7 7 V V ,,,..,..,i,i- ’ 7 7 if, 7

N0 21Cll\lllt‘.\ 25.2 34.1 X3236] 23.8 32.4 x—‘=5.04i= 15.8 28.7 x2252 26.2 31.2 X22134
1 aethity 41.6 35.6 39.6 39.6 36.8 39.7 41.3 36.9

>1 activity 332 30.4 36.6 28.0 47.4 31.5 32.5 31.8

Mean 1.21 1.09 t:-] . 10 1.29 1.05 t=—2.35* 1.63 1.15 t=—1.66 1.22 1.08 t=—1.40
Cultural

activities

N0 aetititiex‘ 59.9 61,5 x3210 55.0 65.7 #253934 26.3 62.1 x1=1224>1= 55.6 68.2 x3=7.29*
1 activity 31.0 29.6 35.6 25.6 47.4 29.7 33.3 26.1

>1 'dCliHl) 9.1 8.9 9.4 8.7 26.3 8.2 11.1 5.7

Mean 0.51 0,49 1:—.19 0.57 0.43 t=—1.88** 1.05 0.48 t=—2.89‘i= 0.58 0.39 t=—2.6l*
Hobby~

activities 7

N6 activities 32.1 41.5 X3=6.68* 35.6 34.8 X32282 36.8 35.1 x3=.24 34.9 35.7 X‘:8.06*
1 activity 30.3 33.3 27.7 34.8 26.3 31.5 27.0 38.2

> 1 activity 37.6 25.2 36.6 30.4 36.8 33.3 38.1 26.1

Mean 1.19 0.93 122503 1.12 1.08 1:—.41 1.00 1.11 1:52 1.17 0.99 t=-1.78**
Outdoor

activities 7

N0 activities 30.7 34.1 x3=9.2 1 30.2 33.3 X32524” 10.5 32.8 x2417 27.8 38.2 X‘=5.18**
1 activity 48.5 57.0 56.4 46.4 68.4 50.5 53.6 47.8

>1 activity 20.8 8.9 13.4 20.3 21.1 16.7 18.7 14.0

Mean 0.97 0.79 t=—2.08* 0.87 0.94 1:79 1.32 0.89 t=—l 82:” 0.98 0.80 t=-2.07*

 

 

124

 

 

ill l( t I I l l S I I i i I I ) Ill(( I ) ) I' i 1’ 1’ l l — II J [J 1 [UV )UHCIBIHJ
t V ' H ' I 1 I ’I ’ ‘ I ' '1’, “I I“ /\ (”It (I‘ ()(l (I “I I()II (I ‘g(‘£‘()/ ‘/
ll) 4 i It ’1’] i “([1]). [)1 ,0, (”1(1'5 ”I ’(lngC ()/ If I [l ( /)(I I[( [,)((,I() I I C I _

 

 

fifticipatitm

Stain/1:171:
at'tii'itiex

No activities
1 actiiit)
>1 acthit;

ML
Visitation
At'tii'ities
N0 actixities
1 actixit)’
> 1 acthity

Mean

Media
activities
No activities
1 activity
>1 activity

Mean

Civic crifiigement

l‘lxmcssiw 01283189111991, -

Cognitive engagement

 

 

 

 

 

 

' {/t ‘/t non—
. (7 _ t/ ‘/t 11011— ‘/( ‘/( non— ‘ 7 7 7 7 77 7 ) 777 t"
9‘ 1 ii n10nd St'itistic engined entiat'ed Statistic engaged engagedfiifiitati$7157engaged engaged Sta 1s 1c
engaget e7 7g: ge7 . t . g. C s ; . , , . .. ,
. ,2- 5 17.2 X32347
14 6 13.3 x3=206 10.9 17.4 x~:5.964= 5.3 1+6 X -300 ('3: 65.0
(5527 60.7 63.4 64.7 (372) (:11; 2715 1778
- - t) _ . _ ..
19.7 2.5.9 33.7 17.
t=—1.72**
_ 7 2.07
s 31 2 34 t: 75 2.54 1.97 [23.4—1* 3.16 2.21 t——2.40 -37
1 x2125 3.2 10.2 x3=9.79i=
,2 7 X‘:20.88“ 0.0 (1.2 9
5.8 5.9 x :39 3.0 8. 5 10 5 9.5 1.1
‘ 5.0 15.9 10.. .. 7 2 7777
8:: 34:3 921 75.4 89.5 83.3 b7~~
-- r“ =—4.14*
:1: '- 11 12‘ l .03 4.75 3-69 t
t 7g 12-4.73- 3.00 4..
4.41 4.21 t:—.71 4.93 ..
4 ~_ 0.0 0.0 X229.77*
' ' 0.5 2.4 - ” 962
0'4 9:: 99 g 97 6 100.0 98.5 1000 t
99.6 .).. -~ ' 77
7) __ 5.33 4.89 t=-3.94 ‘
5 78 4 97 t:—3.14* 5.40 4.90 t=—4.31* 5.68 5.14 l— 2.11
Significance p<0.05. ’1"? Significance p<0.10.
125

 

 

Type of leisure participation

In this section selected single activities within the different forms of leisure
participation are examined in relation to the public engagement dimensions. The small
nature of the sample size (N= 409) of the present study did not allow for the
consideration of all activities in the questionnaire, and therefore the focus was only on
those activities that were practiced by at least 30 respondents. As shown in Table 36,
expressively engaged residents are more likely to participate in cycling, and cognitively
engaged residents are more likely to play tennis than their non-engaged counterparts.
Regarding specific cultural and expressive activities figures, music and singing activities
appear to be associated with civic engagement and cognitive engagement. That is, in both
dimensions the engaged are more likely to participate in such activities. There is also a
significant relation between photography and expressive, as well as cognitive
engagement. Also, here, the engaged are more likely to participate in activities relating to
photography (Table 36). With regards to home and garden—based hobby activities, only
those respondents who are engaged in gardening are more likely to be politically and
cognitively engaged. Of the outdoor activities, walking and/or hiking are positively
associated with cognitive engagement. Fishing appears to be negatively associated with
civic engagement, suggesting that the non-engaged are more likely to go fishing or that
fishing is a more solitary, nature based pursuit. Bird watching is associated with both
political and expressive engagement. In both these two dimensions, engaged respondents

were more likely to participate in bird watching than the non-engaged ones (Table 36).

126

 

l ) t f I t 7 i ' ‘ ' ’ ‘ ”ll L’Ug’l‘tl I'('.\'[)()lI(/(‘Ill.\'
‘ h i i ‘ ' I" ‘ ‘ ’ ’ " ‘l 111] /l( /\ ( ll‘g’U‘gW (/ (”Id IIU/l ( ‘ ‘
‘(l/ [(2 3(. I) ll lil’llt'LW ”I l7\.ll(’ (if [FINN] () (H “1 ll7\ (Il‘tgtl‘g’t (I Ill / l [H (( l/ 7

 

 

 

 

 

 

.3 . . ,4 it - t Cognifigtfli‘gfmfiniw
. . “ .‘ . 1 1i rmncnt prrtsSl}E7Lflbdgt7nlcn, 444 7 7-2. . . .‘ .7
‘Typeol‘actixiti Political engagement 77 U ('l'£(;:i~:§7 Statistic ‘/( (/( non- 7 7 {/r 2717197117] SltlllSlIL
(I; 1 (i? mmd Statistic enuiiued enuaned Cllgili—‘Cd engaged SHIN” 6'11”“ng anfiCL’
engaget engage . . . c‘: r C 7
j' 7 ,...‘ k k V 1_ . #35: 653 318 X72052
strontium/iii ( _ 18 9 X; , H p 3 35.7 X’:0..58 52.6 33.1 >293); ‘1’47 146 X20700
' a j j ._ . :-—-~ ~ ‘ “" i i ,1 T: ,1. - ' ,
Siiiiiiiiinv 1: 0 14.1 X3=009 17-3 ‘3‘] x28? 251 1 i3: X32130 13.9 14.6 X72005
, ‘5 . . '1: ..5( 14.9 13.5 X; . 9 .3) ' :_ 3 0 6.4 x~=3.36*
:1tness/Ae1tmtts R; 1:71) 2;; 39 1079 8.7 X‘=0.50 157?5 95 X _0.8_ 11
enms . - ~ —~ ~~
Cultural 2 4.
‘ X :395'
.,- .) . x~=1.57 23.4 15.3 . .
(16111171173 7 2| 7; 17 8 \(,_0 79 2777 13.0 X21314} 31.6 :3? X3_ 7 59:1: 15 1 5.7 X72831».
‘ (t (Y , 1 — ~ 77 . ) 3 _ ‘_H . . 7
PhUZI'LUS-inTHl: 117 1 1 1 X32029 10,4 12.6 X72047) 30.5 9 7 X32090 9.9 8.9 X'=0.11
moved/1:71) I. 84 11‘.) XL] as 8.0 10.1 x-=0.1s 15.8 -~
‘awmg 2011 mg . . - ~~~
. . - . 2: , 1 42,5 32.5 #724061“-
gin/2(1)} at tn [ties 774 Q 75 9 X3—157'7’i‘ 41 6 3577 X'=1.47 31,0 :32 $341118 [)9 0 24.8 X“=0.83
ai‘ enin9 . -. — ~' “ ‘ 1_ 7 31,0 2 .2 — - “ ' 2_ (
. C :_ 3 27.1 x -00- » 2 22.3 x 4095
EOOkmg/bakmg 37"; 3% £582: 3:: 24.6 x-’=0.02 21.1 25.1 X 20.16 26.6
ome 2.5.. 4— — I - “‘ ‘“
improvement
Outdoor 4 3 98" 54 4 46 5 X32240
-' 2 , .3 X"=~- ~ ' " 2
gallium . 7 540 45 9 X32237 5375 49.3 X72072 73.7 :2 (1 X32109 130 12.1 X72027
Wf‘ mfg/hiking 6.4 1218 x20 46 11.4 15.0 X7“:l-1577 5‘3 {7 x2020 8.7 6.4 X;=0-75
Ff? ”0‘“ ‘go 7'4 x2005 4.5 11.1 X’7:o.28"' 70.5 6-0 x3=5.16* 9.] 5.1 x-:2.24
Blisidmvitchino 9’9 30 X2613"?~ 6.9 8.2 x—=0.24 - I .1 -
C . . .

 

x t V ..
" Slgnil‘icance p<0.()5 . *’ Sigmhcancc p<0.10.

127

 

01'!

More detailed information about the type of activities regarding socializing
participation, visitation to recreational and leisure sites, and media participation, and their
association with the public engagement dimensions can be found in the following section

on associations between the rate of leisure participation and public engagement.

Rate of leisure participation

As the rate or frequency of leisure participation was not measured the same
across the different leisure venues the results are not comparable and are therefore
discussed separately. Note that where possible they are compared. It was hypothesized
that people who spend more time participating in leisure activities are more likely to be
publicly engaged. Means were compared where possible and Chi-square values
computed to serve this purpose. As can be seen in Table 37 , no statistically significant
differences were recorded to suggest that people who spend more time participating in
sport activities were more likely to be civically, politically, cognitively, or expressively
engaged. Similarly, there is no indication to support the hypothesis that people who spent
more time participating in home-based hobby activities were more likely to be publicly
engaged. With regards to the frequency of cultural and expressive leisure participation
and dimensions of public engagement, it appears that the expressively engaged and the
politically engaged are more likely than their non- engaged counterparts to spend more
time participating in cultural and expressive activities (Table 37). However, the mean
average number of hours spent in these activities was not found to be significantly higher
for the engaged respondents. Table 37 also suggests that there is a relationship between

participating in outdoor activities and expressive and cognitive engagement.

128

Note, however, that the mean number of hours for this type of leisure activities is not
significamly higher or lower for the expressively and cognitively engaged. The mean
number of hours for outdoor participation of the civically engaged, however, was
significantly lower than that of the non-engaged.

With regards to participating in socializing activities, politically engaged
respondents were more likely to spend more time in the past 12 months with people fi'om
religious groups and with people in Internet communities. Politically non-engaged
respondents were significantly more likely to visit discos and clubs in the past twelve
months (Table 38). As for civically engaged respondents, they seem to more ofien spent
time with colleagues, with people in religious groups and with people in internet
communities. The civically disengaged are more likely to more often visit a disco or
club. The expressive engagement dimension was not associated with any of the
socializing activities, in other words there were no significant differences between the
expressively engaged and non-engaged. Cognitive engagement was found to be
positively associated with spending time with colleagues. That is, the cognitively
engaged more often spent time with colleagues in the past 12 months, and to visit

restaurants.

129

fab/11 7. [113/1111171003‘ [11 I'tllt’ ()‘f/HiSllI't’[)(1!‘11(‘1[)(l[1()11 lH’llt‘l’t’ll pub/[11V mgr/god11mlI1011—mgugm/ t‘vs‘pnndvntv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4:-.- .. . . PolitflLc‘llgagsnwnt ,, ,, , .9239 9.111491401119111 ,.1‘3xvr955i.‘££!1g980919m-..,. -. C93"itiYLQ‘lgaggllfllLA-z
R1110 Hi ‘9'? ‘/1 non: W H {/1 (71' non: ‘/( ‘71 non- (/( 7, non-

Mpatitrn . engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic _engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic
Spur! x3:3.62 x3:8.311r=r= 733.05 x~:3.34
(Milli/1‘1».

Noiio 27.7 34.8 25.7 34.3 15.8 30.8 27.0 35.0

Up 111 2 14.2 9.6 14.4 11.1 5.3 13.1 13.5 13.5

hours

2—51iouii. 37.6 38.5 37.6 38.2 42.1 37.7 40.1 34.4

(1101101114 14.6 12.6 17.8 10.1 21.1 13.6 14.3 13.4

> 10|111tll‘.\ 5.8 4.4 4.5 6.3 15.8 4.9 5.2 5.7

Mean 4.8 44 1:41.79 4.6 4.8 1:41.27 6.4 4.5 1:159 4.6 4.8 1:0.47
Cit/111ml

111-11111171 x3:7.871==1= X3:7.02 x3:19.78* x2673
None 62.8 63.7 57.4 68.6 31.6 64.6 58.3 70.7

Up to 2 7.3 8.1 7.9 7.2 15.8 7.2 8.7 5.7

hours

25 hours 23.7 16.3 26.2 16.4 26.3 21.0 23.8 17.2

6—10hour8 5.1 7.4 6.4 5.3 26.3 4.9 6.3 5.1

>10hours 1.1 4.4 2.0 2.4 0.0 2.3 2.8 1.3

Mean . .9 4.8 t:-l.16 4.2 4.2 1:004 4.0 4.2 1:0.29 4.3 3.9 1:073
11013131 x3:1.91 ’JJXZT—I’ETQ x»’:1.69
activities

None 38.5 44.4 40.3 40.6 42.1 40.4 41.0 39.5

Up to 2 5.1 3.7 4.5 4.8 10.5 4.4 4.4 5.1

hours

25 hours 28.9 25.2 28.4 27.1 21.1 28.0 29.1 25.5

6-10 hours 13.9 14,8 15.4 13.0 10.5 14.4 13.9 14.6

> 10 hours 13.6 11.9 11.4 14.5 15.8 12.9 11.6 15.3

Mean 7.6 7.5 1:011 7.6 7.4 1:021 6.5 7.6 1:066 7.5 7.7 1:0.21
Outdoor 2 .
activities x3:1.73 x3:6.60 x3:15.36=1= x~:8.1 W
None 374 41.5 36.8 40.6 15.8 39.8 34.3 45.9

Up to 2 9.9 10.4 11.9 8.2 5.3 10.3 12.0 7.0

hours

25 hours 34.1 33.3 37.3 30.4 36.8 33.7 35.5 31.2

6-10 hours 12.1 81 9.5 12.1 15.8 10.5 12.4 8.3

>10 hours 6.6 6.7 4.5 8.7 26.3 5.7 6.0 7.6

mean 6.1 5.4 1:060 4.7 6.1 1:1.95** 8.3 5.2 1:- .59 5.2 5.9 1:092

 

* Significance p<0.05, ** Significance p<0.10.

130

 

 

Table 31
(rm-1111

51101211:
Spendir
{fiends
Spend-1r
coiieagt
Spendin
people i
grips
Spendin
people 11
organza
Spending
people 0'
mmmun
Visiting ;
Visiting ;
Visiting 1
Visiting a
\k

1' .
5131:1531

 

 

'11»: -
t‘n‘tii‘ye:

iibi'an- .

 

Table 38. Associations between the number of times respondents engaged in socializing
activities in the past 12 months and public engagement dimensions

 

 

 

Chi-squares

Political Civic Expressive Cognitive
Socializing activia'es engagement engagement engagement engagement
Spending time with
friends 5.363 5.793 0.836 7.312
Spending time with
colleagues 2.067 12.494* 10.583 13.931*
Spending time with
people fiom religious 11.149* 34.260* 1.303 3.137
groups
Spending time with
people in non-political 9.419 51.574* 5.569 5.926
organizations
Spending time with
people on internet 12.832* 7.458 2.876 5.697
communities
Visiting a café/bar/pub 6.355 8.401 3.506 6.432
Visiting a restaurant 2.725 6.408 8.201 16.709*
Visiting a disco/club 24813“ 14.893* 3.330 4.783
Visiting a casino 9719* 6.180 3.637 5.888
*Significance p<0.05

As far as the number of visits to leisure and recreational sites in the past 12

months are concerned, museum visitation appears to be associated with three dimensions

of public engagement. When examining the associations it was found that the more times

people visited a museum in the past 12 months the more likely they are to be politically

and cognitively engaged. The association with civic engagement is a negative one, in

other words the more times people visited a museum the less likely they were to be

civically engaged. Political engagement is further also positively associated with the

number of times people visited the theatre and a sports event. Civic engagement is

positively associated with the number of times people visited a concert, a theatre, a

library, and the countryside.

Cognitively engaged respondents more often visit a concert, a theatre, a cinema,
and the countryside. Expressive engagement was not associated with the number of times

people visit any of the sites listed (Table 39).

Table 39. Associations between the number of times respondents visited leisure and
recreation sites and public engagement dimensions

 

 

 

Chi-squares

Political Civic Expressive Cognitive
Visited sites engagement engagement engagement engagement
Museum 8833* 24.961* 5.121 25.183“
Concert/music event 2.333 14.122“ 4.984 18.318"
Theatre 13.657* 14.974* 0.716 1606]“
Cinema 1.714 6.015 3.347 10.175*
Library 6.622 9.63 7* 6.672 4.003
Countryside/forest 6.227 9.3 85 * 5.820 8. 153 *
Playground 4.247 5.744 1.356 1.917
Amusement park 0.887 6.137 0.659 0.769
Zoo 0.383 3.556 0.220 2.246
Sports event 1025]" 2.862 1.466 1.492
*Significance p<0.05

Regarding the number of hours spent engaging in different types of media
activities, and association with public engagement, the amount of time people spent
watching television does not seem to affect public engagement of people. On the other
hand, there is an association between the number of hours spent listening to the radio and
civic engagement. As people spent more hours listening to the radio, the likelihood of
being civically engaged increases. That is up to six hours per week because when people
spent more than six hours per week the likelihood of being engaged decreases slightly
again. Newspaper readership appears to be positively associated with both political and

cognitive engagement and book readership is associated with expressive engagement.

132

Also the more time people spent reading magazines is positively related to
political engagement. But for these readership activities, it can be seen that when people
spent more than ten hours per week engaging in these activities, the likelihood of being
engaged decreases again. As the amount of time spent surfing the Internet for
recreational purposes increases so does the likelihood of being engaged in each of the
public engagement dimensions. Spending more than 6 hours per week surfing the

Internet for recreational purposes has a negative impact on being engaged (Table 40).

Table 40. Associations between rate of media participation and public engagement
dimensions

 

 

Chi-squares
Political Civic Expressive Cognitive

Type of media activity engagement engagement engagement engagement
Watching television 5.201 3.123 6.246 2.033
Listening to the radio 5.290 18.744* 3.236 1.949
Reading newspaper 28.064“ 6.142 2.836 17882"
Reading books, novels 6.648 8.727 10.199“ 8.527
Reading magazines 12794“ 4.355 5.235 3.239
Surfing the Internet 16797" 19116“ 17079" 10780“

 

*Significance p<0.05.

Level of involvement and public engagement

The level of involvement was only measured for the categories of participation in
sport activities, expressive and cultural activities, home and garden-based hobby
activities, and outdoor activities. The analysis is based on the range of memberships
respondents hold in the above mentioned leisure categories. As can be seen in Table 41,
people who hold multiple sport clubs memberships are more likely to be civically

engaged than those who hold only one membership or those who do not at all.

133

As reported by the value of the Chi—Square, this difference is statistically significant.
Regarding the other dimensions, no statistical significance was recorded.

Also, it appears that people who are members of a cultural clubs or associations are more
likely to be civically and politically engaged than those who are not members of any
cultural club or association. Regarding the other dimensions of public engagement, no
statistical significance was reported. It is important to note that none of the respondents
indicated that they held multiple memberships in cultural clubs or associations. There
were also no respondents who indicated they held multiple memberships to associations
with regard to home-and garden-based hobby activities. Table 41 shows that holding a
membership in clubs/associations related to these activities does not correlate with being
engaged or not in any of the public engagement dimensions. Also, as far as membership
status is concerned with regards to outdoor organizations, there are no significant
differences between engaged and non-engaged respondents in any of the four

dimensions.

134

 

 

(1} [(1 fl [21./()l()ll(()s I” H I” (’8 ll) 8 ( «

 

 

 

‘ . . . . 4' .1 . 1' xi - Co nitive engwflL_
Politic-ii engagement Civic engagement .. 7,7 ,, , [91‘1“2955'29 (089.891.1199.-.. 7: V437fl_
”2‘72: 1 . .. 2 7 5 ’ ’ (/, 71 non— .7 ._
2 . . A, . ( (/ [1011- .‘ . _ x 04 0 7. ) 02 0 ,i SiatlSlIC
Memht’rfihip % 1 W ”0nd 8t'uistic enufued enuaged Statistic engaged _rflé1aged W
status engaget engage <77-_‘_._.__C_‘L_—#————_'———‘ 3 /
X 1.777 ’ 2.2-44——— . ) 2: 2 67.1 (194 X 25.40" '
575111111. 1:11.111 (1 8 704 x3— 93 59.4 76.3 X‘:17.97* 2:»: 2:3 X 0-1 700 24.2
* e‘ 1 i H. . ~- - .. -1... g .
iOniigiiiiierslih1iI 29 () 25.2 33.7 22.7 ~31} 38 2.4 (7.4
' ’ “ ' 1.0 - ~~ - -
> 1 membership 3.6 4.4 ("9
2 , i .8 x3:1.73
Cultural or 111771113 X7 7 07+ 79 7 ()4 7 X51909“ 84.2 87.2 X 20,141 111:; 213(9) 7
N0 membership 83.9 93.3 ’= - ' '7, 15.8 12.8 - ’“
1 membership 16.1 6.7 38:) 88 0,0 0,0 0.0 0.0
> 1 membership 0.0 0.0 - -
i_ , 94.9 x3:0.00
Hob/21‘ activities X3 l 97 94 (7 9g '1 X12008 100.0 94.6 X —l.08 921.8 5 1
No membership 93.8 97.0 "= . - ' ‘ '7 0,0 5.4 _._ .-
l membership 6.2 3-0 5'3 :2 0,0 0.0 0.0 0-0
> 1 membership 0.0 0.0 0~ '

Outdoor activities

2 92.4 x3=261
. 2- '1 90.5 X 22.09 88.9

No membership 88.7 93.3 X32267 89.6 90.8 X —0.57 fig 7.4 8.3 (7)2

1 membership 8.8 5.9 Z: Y: 0.0 2.1 2.8 ,

> 1 membership 2.6 0.7 ~-- -

 

*Signii‘icance p<().()5.

135

 

nu¥

1:.

.L‘

P
ad

a

h
3:

~n‘u.

Differences in selected community characteristics

Another of the main objectives of the study was to learn if there are differences
between publicly engaged and publicly non-engaged citizens with regard to their
community characteristics. Assessing public engagement by community size, it appears
that the difference in engagement is statistically significant only for political and civic
engagement, suggesting that politically engaged and civically engaged respondents live
in smaller communities (Table 42). Researchers have found that living in a more stable
community (longer residential tenure and higher percentage of homeownership) to be a
positive factor in civic engagement (Pack et al., 2005). Accordingly, the study tested for
a relationship between length of residency and the four dimensions of public
engagement. With regards to being civically and cognitively engaged respondents differ
significantly (Table 42). Although it was hypothesized that engaged citizens have
stronger ties with their communities, the reverse seems to hold true as civically engaged
and cognitively engaged respondents have lived in their communities less years than their
non engaged counterparts. Furthermore, as Table 42 shows, respondents who said they
would be living in their community for the coming five years or longer are more likely to
be civically engaged than their counterparts. It appears also that those who have indicated
that they anticipate to be still living in their community five years fi'om now or longer,
are more likely to be politically engaged than those who were undecided and those who
were thinking about leaving to another community. This difference is statistically
significant for both dimensions (p<.001). On the other hand, however, neither the results
related to cognitive engagement nor to expressive engagement are statistically

significant.

136

 

Tab/e ~12. 1'21‘t'f‘et'etteex in (*(nntnunity ("harm'teristies betii'een public/y engaged and nun—engaged respondents

    

 

figharacteristic

Political engagement

 

 

 

Civic gttgascmcm. W

 

....!‘1¥pr9§sWivc egagemem W W

gigggniitiye engagement

 

{/1 (/( non— ‘/( ‘/( non— ‘/t ‘/t non— (7! ‘Z non—
\7W 7g engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic engageid engaged Statistic engaged engaged Statistic
Size W
(nut/tinting:
S 500 7.0 9.5 X32639 8.9 as X32800 1 1.1 7.7 x2104 7.1 9.1 X3=2.44
501 - 1 500 25.0 21.4 26.0 21.6 5.6 24.7 23.4 24.5
1501 ~ 5.000 22.3 18.3 21.9 20.0 16.7 21.2 19.2 23.8
5.001 - 10.000 11.3 7.9 12.5 7.9 0.0 10.7 10.9 9.1
10.001 - 50.000 18.8 18.3 16.1 21.1 38.9 17.6 19.7 16.8
> 50.001) 15.6 24.6 14.6 22.0 27.8 18.1 I9.7 16.8
Mean number 01‘ 19.865 27.283 t=2.06* 18.644 26.018 t:2.17* 30,658 21.899 t=—l.08 23.274 20,703 t:-.73
inhabitants
Length of
reside/10‘ 1 7
< 5 Years 10.9 14.9 X32526 12.9 11.6 X12071 15.8 12.1 X':|.79 14.1 X'=4.42
5- 10 Years 17.9 21.0 20.4 17.9 26.3 18.8
11 - 20 years 19.7 23.9 20.4 21.7 10.5 21.6
> 201/ears 51.5 39.6 46.3 48.8 47.4 47.6
Mean number of 24.1 21.9 t:-1.12 21.9 24.9 t:1.73** 21.3 23.5
years
Future reside/rev
Yes i 73.7 57.8 X21976": 76.7 60.4 X32153? 78.9 67.9
NO 6.9 21.5 10.9 12.6 10.5
Don’t know 193 20.7 12.4 27.1 10.5 20.3

 

* Significance p<().()5 .

** Significance [KO-10-

137

 

 

Differences in selected demographic characteristics

The study also investigated the degree in which publicly engaged citizens differ
fi'om non-engaged citizens with regard to their demographic characteristics. The selected
demographic characteristics included: sex, ethnic background, age, marital status and
family. While according to Zukin’s study sex or minority status do not seem to contribute
much to the understanding of why people are engaged, in the present study males appear
to be more politically as well as cognitively engaged than females (Table 43). There is no
apparent difference regarding their civic and expressive engagements. As for ethnic
background, the results indicate that native Dutch citizens are significantly more likely to
be politically engaged, but they are significamly less likely to be expressively engaged.
There seems to be no significant relationship between ethnic background and civic
engagement as well as between ethnic background and cognitive engagement (Table 43).
This is, similar to the situation in the US, where “whites outpace nonwhites in their levels
of participation (. . .) The reality is that minority participation (and minority voices) is
disproportionately absent from the public realm (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 125).

Age appears to be associated with political as well as civic engagement.
Politically engaged respondents were older than their non-engaged counterparts. On the
other hand civically engaged respondents were significantly younger than their
counterparts. Examining the distributions across the age categories for each engagement
there is no one linear pattern indicating that the older a person the more likely he/she is to
be engaged. There seem to be different patterns in the different dimensions of

engagement.

138

For example, in the category 25-44 years old respondents seem to be more likely to be
civically and cognitively engaged and politically and expressively non-engaged.

This is a similar pattern to citizens’ engagement in the US (Zukin et al., 2006: 86) and
supports the argument that public engagement is a movement that takes shape throughout
the lifecycles of individuals (Verba, Schlozman, and Brady, 1995).

Similarly, the associations between marital status and the dimensions of public
engagement were tested. The results show a significant relationship only between marital
status and political engagement as well as civic engagement (Table 41). That is married
citizens/citizens in a long term relationship are more likely to be politically as well as
civically engaged. With regards to family status, it appeared that respondents with
children are more likely to be politically engaged, but not civically, cognitively or
expressively engaged. Also the number of children of the politically engaged respondents

was significantly higher than that of politically non-engaged (Table 43).

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . ‘ _ ) ) ‘J ‘ 11S
Table #3 Difierenees in demographic ('ltaraetertsttt'S between public/y engaged and non cngaga] responder
. . . . ., s 1 . t Cognitive engagement
~ - - ' ,1 1 C we en a ement 7,7,,[3P'95fl1’ffflgdgemeinWW a. If . .
WEharacterlstLQ. 7. .l’plaingitensdgsmenWtW (fl W" 7 £15474 (7, .7, no” ‘ . 7. d 301.1226 8mm
. /( *d [:13]:er Statistic engaged engaged Statistic engaged engaged Stat1st1c enggtge “:6: $23.18*
31:7”; ’ “13:7 L :53 )6: 306* 51.0 53.1 X3: .19 68.4 51.3 x =2.13 44.; 43.5 ~~
Chit 1 44.9 541 49.0 46.9 31.6 48.7 ~ ~-
61 it: C . . . 7
3 - 3 x-=13.07*
A14" . __/) :2: 0 0 7.0 X 23.82 4.4 10..
“fi-7 2_ 4.5 8,7 x _2371 . 78 2
18.26L years 1.5 17,3 X —50.27 . 7 7] 1 19 4 29.5 ~ -
~ 6.2 - . ~ -
2 .. ~ 2 .3 34.6 31.8 a .. 48.6 404
4:: ::ii: 5.23 29.3 52.2 38.8 (1223 4:: '59 14.7
65—79 3621-; 16.1 14.3 10.4 20.4 00 36 1.6 6.4
80 6161(161- 2.9 4.5 1-0 58 ' “ 14
:— 50.2 50.0 t=-.
Mean .166 52 6 45.2 1:429?» 48.6 51.6 [2183 52.3 50.0 1 .68
(C. ~ ‘7. 4 2W 15.3 X22614
Marital status 10 2 03 0 X3274 53:1: 109 17.9 X_=10.64=E: 53 1:1? X _9.22 ;:.3 72.0
miffed/in a 771 6317 78.7 66.7 7347 7—- 3
10110 term
a 9
Relationship 4 0 6 g 10_5 4.9 6.3 3.-
Divorced/ 5.8 3.7 - “
Separated 9 S 4 8 7 5'3 72 5.6 9.6
Widowed 6.2 8. ~ - ~
Ethnical 7
2_ ;. 94.3 X“=3.56
b‘“'k’?’""l”’d 97 1 91 1 XL“) 0. 970 93,2 x3=676 94.7 92(1) x _21.45r 9:16) 38
11213356211100 115 4.4 1-5 3‘4 20 33 2.8 1.9
Non-Euro D. 1.4 4.5 1-5 3‘4 i 7 7g 4 7% 2 X3: 00
Households: 2_ 78.9 73.1 X‘: .32 . . ~ . -
2 9 69.6 X —3.07 26 8
' ' .5 63.0 x =11.12 77.- 7 26.9 26.6 .
vii/11611111336?“ 2i5 37.0 22.8 30-4 “1'1
t=.86
Mean number of t 3 49,. 1 9 1 8 [2-48 1.9 1.9 t=—.13 1.8 1.9
children 2.0 1.5 =-. - “ ‘ ‘
’ Significance p<0.05 . ** Significance p<0.10.

 

 

140

 

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS

To better understand what factors influence citizens’ public engagement, a
discriminant analysis procedure was employed. It is important to note that the primary
goals of discriminant analysis are to find the dimensions along which groups differ and to
find classification firnctions to predict group membership and thereby determining
whether groups differ with regard to the mean of a variable, and then to use that variable
to predict group membership (Bonn et al., 1999, Shanka and Taylor, 2004). Because the
objective of the present study was to determine the discriminating capabilities of the
independent variables, all variables were simultaneously entered into the models as
opposed to the stepwise approach to discriminant analysis where the variables are entered
in a stepwise procedure starting with the most discriminating ones (Hair et al., 1998).
The objective is to include all the relationships and not to remove certain relationships in
the analysis in order to find the ones that best discriminate between publicly engaged and
non-engaged citizens. This section compares politically and civically engaged citizens on
the selected statistically significant demographic, community and leisure behavior
characteristics. First, each individual set of characteristics were entered into a model to
discriminate between: a) politically engaged and non-engaged citizens and b) civically
engaged and non-engaged citizens. Secondly, all three sets of characteristics were
entered together into a model to discriminate between: a) politically engaged and non-

engaged citizens and b) civically engaged and non-engaged citizens.

141

Discriminating leisure participation characteristics

The objective of this paragraph is to establish which leisure venues, if any, are the
most effective in predicting public engagement. The results of the two discriminant
analyses are presented in Table 44. In each of the analyses seven variables entered the
equation: sports participation, cultural participation, hobby participation, outdoor
participation, media participation, socializing participation and visitation to leisure
recreational sites. The group centroids, or group means on each of the variables, were
found to be 0.151 for politically engaged citizens, - 0.307 for politically non-engaged
citizens, 0.310 for civically engaged citizens and — 0.303 for civically non-engaged
citizens.

The canonical correlation as a measure of association reflecting the degree of
relatedness between the two groups and the discriminating function in each analysis
indicates that the discriminant firnction does not explain the group differences well. In
the political engagement function only 4.5% ((0.294)2= 0.045) of the variance in the
dependent variable can be explained by the 7 independent variables. In the civic
engagement model 8.6% ((0.294)2=0.086) can be accounted for. Wilks’ lambda values
support these findings. According to Klecka (1980) a small value of Wilks’ lambda
suggests a great separation between groups, while a large value indicates less
discrimination because the groups centroids are closer together. Nevertheless as indicated
by the statistically significant X2 values (18.449 with p=0.010 for political engagement
and 36.366 with p<0.01 for civic engagement) the seven variables defining the firnctions

would be able to fairly discriminate between engaged and non-engaged citizens.

142

Table 44. Results of the discriminant fimction with leisure participation characteristics

 

 

 

 

 

Political engagement Civic engagement
Eigen value 0.047 0.094
Canonical correlation 0.211 0.294
Wilks’s lambda 0.955 0.914
X2 18.449 36.366
Df 7 7
P 0.010 0.000
Group centroids Engaged citizens 0.151 Engaged citizens ' 0.310
Non-engaged - 0.307 Non-engaged - 0.303
citizens citizens

 

The discriminant loadings or correlations between the discriminating variables
and the standard canonical discriminant function of seven variables are presented in
Table 45. They show the relative contribution of each of the seven variables to the
discriminant functions, in other words which variables are substantive discriminators
worthy of note. According to Hair et. al. (1998), in simultaneous discriminant analysis,
variables exhibiting a loading of :1: 0.30 or higher are considered substantive. To adjust
for unequal means and standard deviations the loadings were standardized. Table 46
shows the standardized coefficients of the loadings. From the variables that make
substantive contributions to the functions, media participation was the most important
predictor for both the political and civic engagement dimension. The second most
important predictor for political engagement was participation in hobby activities and for
civic engagement visitation to leisure and recreation sites. The third predictor of political
engagement was participation in outdoor activities and for civic engagement it was
participation in socializing activities. The other leisure venues do not seem to make a
large contribution in discriminating both between politically and civically engaged and

non-engaged citizens.

143

Table 45. Discriminant function analysis classzjj'ing politically and civically engaged
and non-engaged citizens on leisure pmticipation

 

 

 

 

Political engagement Civic engagement
Discriminant loadings of predictors
Media 0.719 Visitation 0.763
Hobby 0.559 Media 0.696
Outdoor 0.458 Socializing 0.555
Sport 0.257 Sport 0.380
Socializing - 0.171 Cultural 0.304
Visitation 0.166 Outdoor - 0.125
Cultural 0.044 Hobby 0.066

 

Table 46. Leisure predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged
citizens

 

 

 

 

Political engggement Civic engagement
Standardized canonical discriminantfimction coeflicients
Media 0.787 Media 0.464
Hobby 0.403 Visitation 0.435
Outdoor 0. 3 16 Socializing 0.343
Socializing -0.295 Outdoor -0.246
Visitation -0.209 Sport 0.240
Sport 0.202 Cultural 0. 1 15
Cultural -0.070 Hobby -0.052

 

The effectiveness of the discriminant firnctions is often related to the percentage
of cases that were classified correctly (Hair et al, 1998, Bonn et al, 1999). Table 47
presents the classification matrix for politically and civically engaged and non-engaged
citizens. The table shows that 97% of the politically engaged citizens, and 12% of
politically non-engaged, were correctly classified. Of the civically engaged citizens 77%
were correctly classified as being engaged and 47% as non-engaged. Overall 69% of the
original grouped cases for political engagement and 62% of the original grouped cases

for civic engagement were correctly classified.

144

The leisure variables entered into the model can be classified as useful predictors of
group membership if the classification accuracy rate is significantly higher than the
accuracy rate attainable by chance alone.

Operationally the obtained classification rate should be 25% or higher than the
proportional by chance accuracy rate. Therefore the proportional by chance accuracy
rates were calculated by squaring and summing the proportion of cases in each group
from the table of prior probabilities. For political engagement the proportional by chance
accuracy rate was (0.330)2 + (0.670)2 =0.558. The accuracy computed by SPSS was 69%
which was smaller than the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 70% (1.25 X
56%). Hence the criteria for classification accuracy for political engagement were not
satisfied. For civic engagement, the classification accuracy criteria were not satisfied.
The accuracy rate computed by SPSS of 62% was smaller than the proportional by
chance accuracy criteria of 63%. In other words the obtained functions do not

satisfactorily classify cases and caution should be added to the interpretation.

Table 4 7. Leisure classifications results

 

 

 

Political engammgement“ Civic engagementb
Predicted group Predicted group
membership Total membership Total
Original Engaged Non- Engaged Non-
engaged engaged

Engaged 265 (97%) 9 (3%) 274 155 (77%) 47 (23%) 202
Non-
engrged 119 (88%) 16 (12%) 135 109 (53%) 98 (47%) 207

a) 68.7% of original grouped cases correctly classified
b) 61.9% of original grouped cases correctly classified

145

To conclude, the analyses indicate that the leisure venues that are most effective
in predicting political engagement are media activities, visitation to leisure and
recreational sites, home based hobby activities, socializing activities and outdoor
recreation activities.

That is, politically engaged respondents were more likely to participate in more different
media, hobby and outdoor activities than their non-engaged counterparts and civically
engaged respondents were more likely to participate in media activities, socializing
activities and pay more visits to recreational and leisure sites than their non-engaged
counterparts. However caution should be added since both models did not meet the

classification criteria.

Discriminating community characteristics

This section focuses on identifying which community characteristics, if any, are
the most effective in predicting political and civic engagement. In the ideal case the
discriminant analysis finds a projection that completely separates the categories
(engaged/non-engaged). However, in most cases there is no transformation that provides
complete separation, so the goal is to find the transformation that minimizes the overlap
of the transformed distributions. Table 48 shows the results of the discriminant analyses
with the two selected community characteristics: number of inhabitants and number of
years in community. The results show that both analyses yield centroids that are very
similar, in other words the transformations were not satisfactorily able to minimize the
overlap of the distributions. The canonical correlation in each analysis indicates that the

discriminant firnction also does not explain the group differences well.

146

In the political engagement function only 1% ((0.112)2= 0.0125) of the variance
in the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables and in the civic
engagement model 2% ((0.136)2=0.0185) can be accounted for. The Wilks’ lambda
values support these findings. These values in both firnctions are close to one indicating
that the firnctions do not separate between the groups. Moreover, the X2 values were
found not to be significant, indicating that the two community characteristics as a set of
predictors do not discriminate between politically and civically engaged and non-

engaged citizens.

Table 48. Results of the discriminant fimctions with community characteristics.

 

 

 

 

Political engagement Civic egggement
Eigen value 0.013 0.019
Canonical 0.112 0.136
correlation
Wilks’s lambda 0.988 0.982
X2 4.751 7.039
Df 2 2
P 0.093 0.030
Group centroids Engaged citizens - 0.078 Engaged citizens - 0.136
Non-engaged 0. 161 Non-engaged 0. 13 7
citizens citizens

 

Discriminating demographic characteristics

Results of the two discriminant analyses are presented in Table 49. In each of the

analyses, five variables entered the equation: age, sex, marital status, ethnical

background and number of children.

147

The group means, on each of the variables, were found to be 0.214 for politically
engaged citizens, - 0.433 for politically non—engaged citizens, 0.230 for civically engaged
citizens and — 0.226 for civically non-engaged citizens.

The canonical correlation as a measure of association reflecting the degree of
relatedness between the two groups and the discriminating firnction in each analysis
indicates that the discriminant function does not explain the group differences well. In
the political engagement function only 6% ((0.292)2= 0.0642) of the variance in the
dependent variable can be explained by the five independent variables. In the civic
engagement model 5% ((0.223)2=0.0497) can be accounted for. The Wilks’s lambda
values support these findings. Nevertheless as indicated by the statistically significant X2
values (35.97 with p<.001 for political engagement and 20.499 with p<.01 for civic
engagement) the five variables defining the firnctions would be able to fairly discriminate

between engaged and non-engaged citizens.

Table 49. Results of the discriminant fimctions with demographic characteristics

 

 

 

 

Political engggement Civic eggggement
Eigen value 0.093 0.052
Canonical 0.292 0.223
correlation
Wilks’s lambda 0.915 0.950
X2 35.970 20.499
Df 5 5
P 0.000 0.001
Group centroids Engaged citizens 0.214 Engaged citizens 0.230
Non-engaged - 0.433 Non-engaged - 0.226
citizens citizens

 

148

\JIJ.ES\.\

The discriminant loadings or correlations between the discriminating variables
and the standard canonical discriminant function of five variables are presented in Table
50 and Table 51. From the variables that make substantive contributions to the firnctions,
marital status was the most important predictor. The second most important predictor
was age, and the third predictor was ethnic background. Sex and the number of children
respondents have do not seem to make a large contribution in discriminating both

between politically and civically engaged and non-engaged citizens.

Table 50. Discriminant function analysis classibzing politically and civically engaged
and non-engaged citizens on demographic characteristics

 

 

 

 

Political engagement Civic enggggment
Discriminant loadings of predictors
Marital status 0.707 Marital status 0.652
Age 0.699 Age - 0.380
Number of children 0.558 Ethnical background 0.348
Ethnical background 0.430 Number of children 0.127
Sex 0.285 Sex - 0.084

 

Table 5]. Demographic predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged
Citizens

 

 

 

 

Political engggement Civic engagement
Standardized canonical discriminant fimction coeflicients of predictors
Marital status 0.551 Marital status 0.830
Age 0.469 Age - 0.729
Ethnic background 0.424 Ethnic background 0.452
Sex 0.147 Number of children 0.137
Number of children 0.105 Sex - 0.086

 

Table 52 presents the classification matrix for politically and civically engaged
and non-engaged citizens. The table shows that 91% of the politically engaged citizens

and 33% of the politically non-engaged were correctly classified.

149

Of the civically engaged citizens 76% were correctly classified as being engaged and
43% as non-engaged. Overall, 72% of the grouped cases for political engagement were
correctly classified and 60% of the grouped cases for civic engagement. To determine the
usefirlness of the predictors the classification rates were compared with the proportional
by chance accuracy rate.

For political engagement the proportional by chance accuracy rate was (0.330)2 +
(0.670)2 =0.558. The accuracy computed by SPSS was 72% which was greater than or
equal to the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 70% (1.25 X 55.8%). Hence the
criteria for classification accuracy are satisfied. For civic engagement however, the
classification accuracy criteria were not satisfied. The accuracy rate computed by SPSS

of 60% was smaller than the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 63%.

Table 52. Demographic characteristics classifications results

 

 

 

 

Political eng_a_gementa Civic englgementb
Predicted group Predicted group
membership Total membership Total
Original Engaged Non- Engaged Non-
engaged engaged
Engaged 249 25 (9%) 274 154 (76%) 48 (24%) 202
(91%)

Non-

engaged 9O (67%) 45 (33%) 135 117 (57%) 89 (43%) 206
a) 71.9% correctly classified
b) 59.6% correctly classified

To conclude, the analyses indicate that the demographic characteristics that are
the most effective in predicting political engagement are marital status, age, and ethnic
background. That is, politically engaged respondents were more likely to be married or in
a long term relationship, older, and of native Dutch origin than their non-engaged

counterparts.

150

This was the same for the civically engaged except for the fact that they were younger
than their counterparts. However, it is necessary to note that regarding civic engagement,

the model did not meet the classification accuracy criteria satisfactorily.

Predicting public engagement

Although the previous paragraphs support some relationship and between the
public engagement dimensions and the separate sets of selected independent
characteristics, in reality the process is complex (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 133). What
contributes to the complexity of this task as Zukin and his colleagues have noted that
individuals’ engagement is shaped by multiple initial characteristics or traits including
for example: sex, mother’s education, minority status, age, and traits or factors shaping
the individual later on in life. Thus, to fully understand how these characteristics operate,
there is a need to take the various predictors into account at the same time. For this
reason, in the last models, the three sets of independent variables were entered together in
the analyses. Table 53 presents the results of the two discriminant analyses. In each of
the analyses, fourteen variables entered the equation: sport participation, cultural
participation, hobby participation, outdoor participation, media participation, socializing
participation, visitation to recreational and leisure sites, number of community
inhabitants, number of years in community, age, sex, marital status, ethnic background
and family status. The group centroids, or group means on each of the variables, were
found to be 0.299 for politically engaged citizens, - 0.612 for politically non-engaged
citizens, 0.416 for civically engaged citizens and — 0.478 for civically non-engaged

citizens.

151

The canonical correlation as a measure of association reflecting the degree of relatedness
between the two groups and the discriminating firnction in each analysis indicates that
the discriminant firnction does not explain the group differences well. In the political
engagement firnction 16% ((0.394)2= 0.155) of the variance in the dependent variable can
be explained by the 14 independent variables.

In the civic engagement model 15% ((0.386)2=0.149) can be accounted for. The
Wilks’s lambda values support these findings. However, the statistically significant X2
values (62.825 with p<0.001 for political engagement and 60.030 with p< 0.001 for civic
engagement) indicate that the 14 variables defining the firnctions would be able to fairly

discriminate between engaged and non-engaged citizens.

Table 53. Results of the overall discriminant fimction '

 

Political engagement

 

Civic engggement

 

 

 

Eigen value 0. 184 0. 175
Canonical correlation 0.394 0.386
Wilks’s lambda 0.845 0.851
X2 62.825 60.030
Df 14 14
P 0.000 0.000
Group centroids Engaged 0.299 Engaged citizens 0.416
citizens
Non-engaged - 0.612 Non-engaged - 0.418
citizens citizens

 

Tables 54 and 55 show the discriminant loadings or correlations between the

discriminating variables, the standard canonical discriminant function of the 14 variables
and the standardized canonical discriminate function coefficients. The most important
predictors in the political engagement function are: age, marital status, family status and

media participation.

152

Civically engaged and non-engaged citizens are best discriminated by: participation in
visitation to recreation and leisure sites, media participation, socializing activities, and

marital status.

Table 5 4. Overall discriminant function analysis classifying politically and civically
engaged and non—engaged citizens

 

 

Political engagement Civic engagement
Predictors Correlation coeflicients
Demographics
Sex 0.226 - 0.044
Marital status 0.502 0.367
Family status 0.409 0.139
Age 0.541 - 0.199
Ethnical background 0.316 0.239
Community
No. of residents - 0.250 - 0.265
No. of years in community 0.071 - 0.199
Leisure participation
Sport range 0.098 0.259
Cultural range - 0.024 0.211
Hobby range 0.295 0.071
Outdoor range 0.245 - 0.096
Socializing range - 0.124 0.401
Visitation range 0.144 0.558
Media range 0.386 0.496

 

The standardized results show that for political engagement only age and media
participation make a significant contribution to the firnction, with age making the greatest
contribution. For civic engagement participating in socializing activities, marital status
and visitation to recreation and leisure sites are the variables making a substantive
contribution to the function, with participation in socializing activities being the most

important.

153

Table 55. Predictors of politically and civically engaged and non-engaged citizens

 

 

 

Political engagement Civic engagement
Standardized canonical discriminant junction coeflicients
Age 0.773 Socializing range 0.522
Media range 0.476 Marital status 0.418
Ethnical background 0.287 Visitation range 0.355
Marital status 0.257 No. of residents - 0.296
Visitation range 0.197 Outdoor range - 0.293
No of years in community - 0.176 Ethnical background 0.289
Hobby range 0.174 Media range 0.287
Sport range 0.159 No of children 0.238
Sex 0.158 Sport range 0.195
No. of residents - 0.135 Cultural range 0.145
Social range 0.123 Sex - 0.030
No. of children 0.071 No. of years in community - 0.021
Outdoor range 0.045 Hobby range 0.018
Cultural range 0045 Age - 0.001

 

In the classification matrix (Table 56) for politically and civically engaged and
non-engaged citizens the percentage of cases classified correctly are presented. Of the
politically engaged 91% and of the politically non-engaged 40% were correctly
classified. Of the civically engaged citizens 78% were correctly classified as being
engaged and 57% as non-engaged. Overall 74% of the grouped cases for political
engagement were correctly classified and 67% of the grouped cases for civic
engagement.

To determine the usefiilness of the predictors the classification rates were
compared with the proportional by chance accuracy rate. For political engagement the
proportional by chance accuracy rate was (0.328)2 + (0.672)2 =0.559. The accuracy
computed by SPSS was 74% which was greater than or equal to the proportional by
chance accuracy criteria of 70% (1.25 X 55.9%). Hence the criteria for classification

accuracy are satisfied.

154

Table 56. Classification results

 

 

 

Political engagement“ Civic engagementb
Predicted group Predicted group
membership Total membership Total
Original Engaged Non— Engaged Non-
engaged engaged
Engaged 233 23 256 149 42 191
(91%) (9%) (78%) (22%)
Non-
engaged 75 50 125 83 107 190
(60%) (40%) (44%) (5 6%)
a) 74% correctly classified
b) 67% correctly classified

For civic engagement, the classification the proportional by chance accuracy rate
was (0.499)2 + (0.501)2 =0.500. The accuracy rate computed by SPSS of 67% was also
larger than the proportional by chance accuracy criteria of 63% (1.25 X 50%).

From the list of fourteen variables entered, the most useful predictors for distinguishing
between politically engaged and politically non-engaged were age and media
participation, whereas for civic engagement socializing participation, marital status and
visitation to recreation and leisure sites were most useful in distinguishing between

engaged and non-engaged respondents.

155

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Citizens’ engagement has traditionally encompassed civic engagement and
political engagement. More recently, because of the changing nature of society (Putnam,
1995), and the changing nature of people’s engagement, citizens’ engagement has come
to incorporate two dimensions other than the civic and political ones, and these are
cognitive engagement and expressive engagement (Zukin et al., 2006). Zukin and
colleagues empirically supported this acknowledgment, identifying the difference in
engagement between four generations. They found generation Y, the generation that was
labeled as politically and civically unengaged, engaged in so many other ways. Their
findings supported the multifaceted nature of public engagement. The present study also
argues that it is difficult, if not, firtile, to measure the overall public engagement of
respondents in an aggregated manner. Concluding that, in general, citizens are or are not
engaged in public life is thus pointless.

As there are a myriad of ways that citizens can engage in public life, it seemed
rather more appropriate to focus on measuring each dimension of public engagement
separately. Perhaps, it is also a chance to critique Putnam’s discussion of the decline of
American citizens' participation in civil society. To some scholars, people are not
unengaged; rather it is the absence of facilitators of engagement that inhibits people fi'om
engaging. Furthermore, while participation in political activities clearly declined,
political contributions increased (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and

Brady, 1995).

156

Others pointed to the nature of engagement that has changed, arguing that new forms of
engagement have been established (e. g., Public Management, 2004; Zukin et al., 2006;
Keeter et al., 2002). Zukin and his colleagues advanced that engagement needs to be
assessed according to its dimensionality. People may be engaged politically but not
civically, and this does not make of them unengaged citizens. They may also be engaged
in one dimension more than another. What counts is their connectedness and
participation in making a difference in their communities, no matter what type of
engagement that might be. Moreover, no one type of engagement can substitute for
another. As these authors argued, there “may be times and circumstances in which one
type of engagement is preferable to another” (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 208). Whether the
decline was observed or just an illusion (e.g., Samuelson, 1996; Ladd, 1999), Putnam’s
alarming cry instigated disturbing realities in the minds of Americans, that the American
civil society was weakening (Putnam, 1995). The same discussion was reported in
several European studies, alerting both academics and policymakers. The concern
resulted in public meetings, conferences and academic papers (EESC, 2004). The studies,
nevertheless, remain descriptive or at best associational. A comprehensive study centered
specifically on the relationship between public engagement and leisure participation was
not found either. Like in the US, the analysis of public engagement in European studies
(e. g., van Schaik, 2002; Dekker, 2004) has traditionally used the political and civic
dimensions only, regardless of the changing nature of engagement (Zukin et al., 2006).
There is hardly any evidence in the Dutch civic engagement literature indicating an
advanced scholarship. Rather, the depth of literature floats at the tip of the iceberg’s level

of the public engagement discourse.

157

The present study was not able to find an analysis of public engagement
independent from the most common used data source: the Dutch Values Survey, a sister
instrument of the World Values Survey. For a comprehensive analysis of citizen’s
engagement, there is either a need for independent data, or the incorporation of more
variables in the Dutch and World Values Survey (WVS). To overcome this limitation,
the present study used the WVS, the National Civic Engagement Survey (N CBS) in
addition to the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment’s lifestyles scale
(N SRELS) as well as leisure and sport item questions from the Sociaal en Cultureel Plan
Bureau (SCP).

Three levels of analysis were performed to address the study’s problem statement.
The first was descriptive, and the second associational. These paved the ground for the
multi-variate analysis. Discriminant analysis appeared to be the most appropriate
modeling technique to find out which of the assessed characteristics were more important
or relevant in predicting public engagement. As with any study based on the analyses of
cross-sectional survey data, the findings presented are complex, incomplete and
sometimes difficult to interpret. However, several patterns emerged that point to
significant and interpretable associations between the selected independent variables and
public engagement.

First, how politically and civically engaged are Frisian citizens? Table 57 offers
data about the Frisians and the Americans. It shows that both are politically and
cognitively engaged. However, the Americans are more cognitively engaged, while the
Frisian appeared to be more politically engaged. This high political engagement is likely

to be related to a relatively high tum-out rate in elections in F riesland.

158

Table 5 7. Public engagement in F riesland and the US

 

 

”P'u'lrnliggngggement dimension Friesland US
Politically engaged 67% 36%
Civically engaged 49% 32%
Expressively engaged 5% 24%
Cognitively engaged 62% 75%

 

Leisure participation and public engagement

Hemingway (1988) described leisure as an arena "for the development and
practice of civic virtues, qualified by certain types of activity. Through leisure activity
citizens connect and community is generated as civic fiiendships are developed and
maintained” (Maynard and Kleiber, 2005). Ifleisure is claimed to be a source of good
citizenry, the immediate questions that follow, then, are: what forms of leisure are
associated with good citizenry? How can leisure professionals use leisure to promote and
enhance public engagement? The leisure forms included in this study were: sport
participation, participation in cultural and expressive activities, participation in home and
garden-based hobby activities, participation in outdoor activities, participation in
socializing activities, visitation to recreational and leisure sites, and media participation
(Table 58). How and if these forms of leisure are associated with public engagement was
the next question. To answer this question, measures of association were performed,
identifying differences in leisure participation characteristics between engaged and non-
engaged respondents. Within the different forms of leisure, the selected leisure
participation characteristics included: type of participation, rate of participation (number
of hours/times), range (number of different activities engaged in), and membership status

(membership in a leisure-related association/club).

159

Table 58. Forms of leisure Frisian respondents participate in.

 

Politically Civically Expressively Cognitively

 

Total engaged engaged engaged engaged
Forms of leisure N=409 n=274 n=202 n=l9 n=252
Media
participation 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Visitation to sites 94.] 94.2 91.3 100.0 96.8
Socializing 85.8 85.4 89.1 94.7 87.7
Sport participation 71.9 74.8 76.2 84.2 3.8
Outdoor
participation 68.2 69.3 69.8 89.5 72.2
Hobby
participation 64.8 67.9 64.4 63.2 63.1
Cultural
participation 39.6 40. 1 45.0 73 .7 44.4

 

Table 59 summarizes the significant associations measured between the forms of
leisure participation and the public engagement dimensions. Results show that there is no
clear pattern in associations. Each dimension shows different associations with the
independent variables.

With regards to the range or number of activities engaged in, politically engaged
respondents were more likely to participate in more hobby, outdoor and media activities.
Civically engaged respondents participated in more sport, cultural, social, visitation and
media activities than their non-engaged counterparts. Similarly, the expressively engaged
participated in more cultural social and media activities. Those who are cognitively
engaged participated more in cultural activities, hobby, outdoor, visitation to recreational
sites, and media activities.

With regards to the type of activity, the analysis included only the specific types

of activities that were practiced by at least 30 respondents.

160

Also, the forms of leisure, social, visitation, and media are not included here, because
they were measured difl‘erently. Data pertaining to the type of activity in these forms are
included in the “rate” of activity. Findings show that politically engaged respondents
were significantly more likely to participate in gardening (hobby) and bird watching
(outdoor). Civically engaged respondents were more likely to participate in music and
singing activities (cultural) and less likely to participate in fishing (outdoor) than their
non-engaged counterparts. In other words there is a negative relationship between fishing
and civic engagement. Positive connections were found between expressive engagement
and cycling (sport), photography (cultural) and birdwatching (outdoor). Participation in
tennis (sport), photography and music activities (cultural), gardening (hobby) and
walking (outdoor) were found to have a positive connection with cognitive engagement.

Looking at the participation rate, the number of hours spent by the publically
engaged respondents who participate in sport, cultural and hobby activities was not
significantly higher or lower than those who are publically disengaged. Civically
engaged people, however, spent significantly less hours in participating in outdoor
activities. Political engagement showed significant relations with the rate of participation
in social activities.

More specifically, the politically engaged spent more time socializing in religious
groups, internet communities. They spent less time in discos or clubs. Civically engaged
respondents spent more time socializing with colleagues, in religious groups, and in
Internet communities. They spent less time in discos or clubs. Cognitively engaged

respondents spent more time socializing with colleagues, and in restaurants.

161

Connections between the rate of visitation to recreation and leisure sites and the public
engagement dimensions were also found. More. specifically, politically engaged
respondents visited a museum, theatre, and a sports event more often than their non
engaged counterparts.

The civically engaged were found to visit a concert, theatre, library, and the
countryside more times than the non-engaged. They visited a museum fewer times than
the non-engaged. The cognitively engaged visited the museum, concert, theatre, cinema,
and countryside more often.

The rate of media participation (except for television watching) showed positive
connections with the four public engagement dimensions. Generally, the more time
respondents spent in this form of leisure the more likely they were to be engaged. This
was true for up to six hours. When respondents spent more than 6 hours in these
activities they appeared less engaged. Political engagement showed a positive connection
with reading newspapers, reading magazines, and surfing the Internet. Civic engagement
showed connections with listening to the radio and surfing the internet. Expressive
engagement showed more connections with reading books, and surfing the Internet. For
cognitive engagement, the connections were more with reading newspapers, and surfing
the Internet.

With regards to the level of involvement, the study also found positive
connections. Respondents holding (multiple) memberships to certain associations were
more likely to be engaged. The analysis of this variable included only sport, cultural

activities, hobby and outdoor activities (Table 59).

162

Table 59. Significant associations between forms of leisure participation and public

engagement dimensions by leisure participation characteristic.

 

Leisure participation Politically Civically Expressively Cognitively

 

 

 

 

 

characteristic engaged engaged engaged engaged
Range Sport
Cultural Cultural Cultural
Hobby Hobby
Outdoor Outdoor
Social Social
Visitation Visitation
Media Media Media Media
Type Sport Sport
Cultural Cultural Cultural
Hobby Hobby
Outdoor -/- Outdoor Outdoor Outdoor
Rate -/- Outdoor
Social Social Social
Visitation Visitation Visitation
Media Media Media Media
Level Sport
Cultural Cultural

 

Regarding the analyses of discriminating leisure participation characteristics, the

leisure forms that were most effective in predicting political engagement were

participation in media activities, and visitation to leisure and recreational sites. In

predicting civic engagement, participation in media activities and participation in

socializing activities were most effective.

163

Community and public engagement

The community characteristics included in this study were: size of community,
length of residency, and fiiture of residency. Regarding size of the community the study
found that more than half of the respondents live in small communities, those with no
more than 5,000 inhabitants. Studies found residential stability or residential tenure has a
positive effect on civic engagement, because it provides a positive venue to influence
civic engagement in communities (e.g., Shah, McLeod, and Yoon, 2001; Kang and
Kwak; 2003, Kim and Ball-Rokeach, 2006). In the case of the present study, the median
number of years respondents lived in their community was 20 years. Almost half of the
respondents lived more than 20 years in the same community. This suggests that a large
number of F risians have taken root in their community. When respondents were asked
whether they expected to live five years or longer in their respective communities, more
than two thirds responded positively.

The results of the analysis of associations of the different community
characteristics and the public engagement dimensions were similar to the ones found
between leisure participation and public engagement: they don’t show a distinct pattern
of associations. However, with regards to political engagement and civic engagement the
differences seemed to be more prevalent. Politically engaged respondents were more
likely to live in smaller communities, and be living in their communities for at least five
more years. However, the results of the discriminant analyses that were performed to
identify which community characteristics were most effective in predicting public
engagement showed that the selected community characteristics were not effective in

discriminating between publicly engaged and disengaged respondents.

164

Demographics and public engagement

The demographics included in the present study were: gender, age, marital status,
ethnic background, and number of children in household. As Table 9 indicates,
demographic characteristics of the respondents are very similar to those of the Frisian
population. Little over half of the respondents were male and consequently little less than
half were female. Most respondents were between 45 and 64 years of age with a mean
age of 50. Almost two-thirds were married or in a long term relationship, and 95% were
of native Dutch descent. Approximately, three-quarters of respondents indicated they had
children, with an average number of two children.

Regarding demographics, the study found associations with different public
engagement dimensions for all of the variables measured. Furthermore, political and
civic engagements seemed to be more connected. The demographic characteristics most
effective in predicting political engagement were marital status, age, and ethnic
background. That is, politically engaged respondents were more likely to be married or in
a long term relationship, older, and of native Dutch origin than their counterparts. This
was the same for the civically engaged, except that they were younger than their

counterparts.

Predicting public engagement and the importance of leisure participation

Previous studies discussed supported some relationship between the public
engagement dimensions and the separate sets of selected independent characteristics.

However, the reality of the process is more complex (Zukin et al., 2006).

165

What contributes to the complexity is the fact that individuals’ engagement is shaped by
multiple initial characteristics. Multiple traits or factors shape the individual later on in
life (V erba, et al,. 1995). Therefore, in order to fully understand how these characteristics
operate, there is a need to take the various predictors into account at the same time. For
this reason, in the last models, the three sets (leisure, community and demographic
characteristics) of independent variables were entered together into the model.

From a list of fourteen variables entered, the most usefirl predictors for
distinguishing between politically engaged and politically non-engaged people were age,
and media participation. For civic engagement, socializing participation, marital status,
and visitation to recreation sites were most usefirl in distinguishing between the engaged
and non-engaged. These results confirm in part the results of the bivariate analysis and
the discriminant analysis for leisure participation only. In the bivariate analysis media
participation, cultural participation, visitation to recreation sites, and participation in
socializing activities were most connected to the public engagement dimensions.
Visitation to recreation sites in the overall model discriminated the civically engaged
from the non-engaged, while in the leisure only model it did so for political engagement
and not for civic engagement. Participation in socializing activities was found to be
discriminating between civically engaged and non-engaged respondents both in the
model that included leisure characteristics only, as well as the overall model. Media
engagement was most strongly associated with public engagement dimensions, and
proved to be a discriminating factor in the leisure only-model for both political and civic

engagement.

166

Although, in the overall model media participation was not as effective with
regards to civic engagement, this form of leisure participation may be considered of great
importance. Mainly because in today’s society, “the ways in which people make their

voices heard in the political arena have evolv ” (Zukin et al., 2006, p. 3).

Limitations

There are several potential limitations to this study. These involve threats to
internal validity, including level of analysis, measurement, survey implementation, and
other threats related to external validity. One major challenge of this study was the
conceptualization of leisure participation of residents and its relation to the chosen unit of
analysis. Leisure behavior was measured at an individual level, asking adult members of
households about the type of leisure activities they participated in. This approach may
not reflect their leisure participation well, in that it is possible that while they did not play
field hockey, they might be involved through accompanying their children to the field
hockey field, as parents and spectators. In this case, their involvement might have an
influence on their public engagement. Had the study taken for instance household leisure
behavior as a unit of analysis the results might have been different, perhaps showing
stronger connections between leisure participation and public engagement. Another
limitation related to the measurement of leisure participation was related to time. In the
survey, respondents were asked about their participation in leisure activities as well as
leisure activities in the past twelve months. This may not accurately reflect their general

leisure participation or public engagement.

167

There exist circumstances where people may be prevented from engaging in certain
activities for a short period of time. This study did not control for such incidences.

A further limitation involved a weakness in the measurement of political engagement,
and concerned the salience of the activities, especially in the domain of electoral
activities. There are several elections. Some occur every few years, and therefore
respondents may not be able to recall with precision whether they participated in these
activities.

Another measurement issue involved the relatively low reliabilities for the
measured dimensions of public engagement. The low alphas indicate that not much of the
variance accounted for was due to true score variance, and that these variables were not
measured with much precision. Although the measures used in this study were taken
from previous large-scale surveys (Zukin et al., 2006), items were dichotomized before
analysis in order to be consistent with previous research using this measure. Each item
that comprises one of the four composite scores for public engagement was dichotomized
then summed to develop each of the four composite scores. This reduced variability in
responses. These items may not be representing the attitude or behavior of interest with
sufficient accuracy.

Limitations related to external validity of the study related to low response rate,
which may limit generalizability to the overall population of the Netherlands, or to other
countries. As the study was delimited to the province of F riesland, the results may not
apply in other provinces of the Netherlands, because each province has its unique make
up, including demographics and leisure opportunities. Therefore, the results should be

interpreted cautiously.

168

Implications

The results of this study suggest that although the public engagement dimensions
seem to have connections with specific leisure forms and activities, the forms of leisure
studied do not play a big role in distinguishing engaged citizens fi'om disengaged
citizens. Nevertheless leisure and recreation professionals as well as decision makers
should promote those activities that are more associated with public engagement. Most
important connections were found with: (a) media participation: surfing the Internet,
reading newspapers and books, and listening to the radio; (b) participation in cultural and
expressive activities: making music /singing, and photography; (c) visitation to
recreational and leisure sites: museums, concerts, theatres, and the countryside; and (d)
participation in socializing activities: spending time in religious groups, Internet
communities, and with colleagues

As citizens can be engaged in different ways, looking at engagement by
dimension may help to focus interest on the one that is more critical or lagging behind, to
redress it, enhance it, or even augment it. Therefore, local, regional and national
governments should give more importance to recreation and leisure organizations as
advisors in the decision making process. As such, leisure can become not only a resource
of public engagement but also a space for public engagement.

Leisure and recreation organizations/professionals should form partnerships or
create other cooperative initiatives with each other and with governments, to develop
programs and offer more diverse opportunities for citizens to widen their leisure
repertoire. People participating in multiple leisure activities appeared to be more likely to

be publicly engaged.

169

On this background, leisure and recreation organizations and local governments

should join forces in community building efforts, developing programs and stimulating

local initiatives. Specifically, they need to:

Understand the multifaceted nature of public engagement, and examine
engagement by dimension and not as an aggregated whole;

Facilitate those leisure activities that are associated with public engagement;
Promote those leisure activities that are associated with public engagement;
Acknowledge the importance of recreation and leisure organizations in affecting
citizens’ public engagement through recreation and leisure provision;

Raise awareness about the potential impacts of leisure participation on public
engagement, among citizens and the recreation and leisure profession;

Increase the influence of recreation and leisure organizations in public decision
making and community life;

Create partnerships between leisure and recreation organizations and other
community-based organization for cooperative initiatives;

Become involved in community building.

Directions for future research

In this study, forms of leisure were investigated in relation to public engagement.

There is more need for dissecting leisure participation and its role in affecting public

engagement. The following directions may advance our understanding of this

phenomenon:

170

For generalizabilty purposes, this study could be replicated in other provinces of
the Netherlands and countries;

Bigger sample sizes would allow for comparison between single leisure activities
rather than forms of leisure;

In this study, the forms of leisure were investigated in relation to public
engagement. There is more need for dissecting leisure participation and its role in
affecting public engagement. The following questions may advance our
understanding of this phenomenon: Which leisure —individual or organized— is
more associated with public engagement? Which leisure —passive or active- is
more associated with public engagement? Which leisure —serious or casual- is
more associated with public engagement? Which leisure —commercial or no-
commercial- is more associated with public engagement?

Investigating characteristics of leisure activities, such as the benefits derived by
the individual, the skills involved, and the setting may lead to a new typology of
leisure with regards to its connection to public engagement;

To firlly understand individuals’ or households’ leisure behavior and public
engagement it is necessary to study their behavior over time. Longitudinal studies
may provide insight into these issues during their lifecycle;

There is a need to also study the impacts of leisure constraints on public

engagement;

171

o In the literature, leisure is claimed to be a source of good citizenry. The
immediate questions that arise are: What forms of leisure are associated with
good citizenry? How can leisure professionals enlighten citizens to become
engaged citizens, if not more engaged, through the use of leisure?

What are the dangers of promoting the forms and types of leisure that enhance
public engagement, and forgetting about the rest? Would it mean that leisure will
be policed even more? Would it have an effect on the core condition of leisure
which is intrinsic motivation? (e. g. Nash’s and Driver’s discussion of ‘that’s
good leisure and what’s bad leisurel”) What implications does the promoting of
selected leisure activities have on people’s freedoms?

o For compatibility, internal validity, and reliability issues, this study used a
previously established measure of public engagement. Similarly, a replication of
this study may help further our understanding of the connection between public
engagement and leisure participation.

0 This study focused on linear connections between the two phenomena. Other non-
linear relationship may exist, and therefore the recommendation would be to use

other modeling tools.

172

APPENDICES

173

APPENDIX A

CONTENT ANALYSIS:
LOCATING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE LEISURE LITERATURE

174

 

808838:
38:889. 83 5:9» com

 

80:28 808885 ”30:83:33: 38082
35808:: _N 952285 30.585 8:83 32820 05 33 803883— noom 93 .§:<
8888on 80%
382888 a 8 38898
mo 33:: :8 .8898
43:8 88 882% 3:088:85 82328..
$883.38 mm 05835 303:8m 8:83 mo 308898 05 3 88:08m coom 082m
88586
80:23 mo 588880 388
$5833: 5 952885 _wouEEm 2:83 on: 83 883 .88:888. 2:. voom 835
888% 3380828 308880
883: . 8:23 8 085 m— 8:88.82 63::
acne—8.80 $88653: vom 80:85 3oEn8m mo 38:2. mo 8838a 23 @38055 Noon 835
mauve—38 888% 3838 .38:888 ems—:30: a
£888.. 38836 2:89.— 8 80838033: 8.36 ”8:82 3.85
86968.: a 8:2 autism co ease. 888 88.8.88 823m 32 Be 8:.
888%
8:83 8280qu 088880:
88m 3oEn8oéoZ mo 38:3. 93 .3888 338 .8884 32 8:88:80:
588%
8:83 8388: 3:88 83380:
88m 88:89:02 mo 38:2. 330m 05 8 3:82 @883 moom 33 .855
$03.88
383808 , se.—88m 083m :8
$935 23838:: 8:83 3:88 338 83 8:038: £23383.
88mm 8383.3: omm 380m 388:5 mo 38:2. 338 388.8: 808883“ meow .2683
£928:
3uamtfim can 2:85 .5502 3:3. .3 09C. 35:2. 05,—. 80> .85:<

 

8.88583 28.me 2% S EmEmMemeo QNEEMEBSN .V 83$

175

 

 

80003800 3

080022200 04

000

08002200 0

080020230 0

80,2020:
0300228
.03“ 3.8
008m

800
b00:000m

032228
0200233
0:0:020H

0008—

820.20 Z

.8308:

.8025

00028252

.8025

03:25:

30288080 Z

00022080802

80:20m
2:204

3030
2:204

8030
2:204

838m
2:204

220082
2:204

.20 38:2

220082
2:204

00 38:2.

838m
2:204
838m
2:204

20:0020w

2288800 .20 800020008
RE. 20 a 828 380

02.30 :02: 8

00:08 b8:8800 80829, .20
80802080 08 :00 002w000bm
80200 8 002208.30

”200:0 2:22 :2

588%: 0:22. 0582
0:0—gm 8 0:020

8:280:22 0.0 .20 80802080
05 0:0 :020202 200080

2 0020022200 38:82:00

”02 53 s 8&8 008

00:0 0: 82200. 2:22 820:
080800 808%

02::8800 8 32000 3300
8220002 ”82:08.: 828000
a0020:0222 w:_0=:m
02:00.20

00:00 2:22 28 52800.52:
02 0:0 32000 32000

00 0000:00 05 .20 002022008
_805 < 2.32 0: 20 223
002 0080 0008:0220:

.20 00:00 0 82800002

38

NOON

moon

ooom

moom

moom

moom

coon

20>2O

8:2.
204000
0:0 .33.

8:0

20222
0:0 800002

E0
0:0 .2320

0:04 0:0
05082005

83m
0:0 .2055

176

APPENDIX B

CORE INDICATORS OF ENGAGEMENT

177

Table B. Core indicators of engagement

 

Indicator

Survey Question

 

Civic Activity imficators

 

Community problem solving

Have you ever worked together informally with someone or some group
to solve a problem in the community where you live? If so was this in the
last 12 months or not?

 

 

Regular volunteering

Have you ever spent time in any community service or volunteer activity,
or haven’t you had time to do this? By volunteer activity, I mean, actually
working in some way to help others for no pay. If so, have done this in the
last 12 months? Thinking about the volunteer work over the last 12
months, is this something you do on a regular basis, or just once in a
while?

 

Active membership in a group
or association

Do you belong to, or donate money to any groups or associations, either
locally or nationally? Are you an active member of this group/any of these
groups, a memberbut not active, or lmve you given money only?

 

Participation in fund-raising
Run/walk/ride

Have you personally walked, ran, or bicycled for a charitable cause- this is
separate from sponsoring (giving money to this tyg of event?

 

Other fund-raising for charity

Have you ever done anything else to help raise money for a charitable
cause?

 

Electoral Activity Indicators

 

 

Regular voting We know that most people do not vote in all elections. Usually between
one-quarter to one-half of those eligible actually come out to vote. Can
you tell me how often you vote in local and national elections? Always,
sometimes, rarely, or never?

Persuading others When there is an election taking place do you generally talk to any people

and try to show them why they should vote for or against one of the
parties or candidates, or not?

 

Displaying buttons, signs
stickers

Do you wear a campaign button, put a sticker on your car, or place a sign
in front of your house, or aren’t these things that you do?

 

Campaign contributions

In the past 12 months, did you contribute money to a camiidate, a political
party, or any organization that supported candidates?

 

Volunteering for candidate or

 

From volunteering sequence, respondent indicated having volunteered for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

political organizations “a political organization or candidate running for office”
Political Voice Indicators

Contacting ofi‘icials Now I am going to read you a quick list of things people have done to
express their views. For each one I read, please tell me whether you have
ever done it or not. (For each YES, prose: And have you done this in the
past 12 months, or not?): contacted or visited a public official at any level
of govermnent- to ask for assistance or to express your opinion?

Contactigg the print media Contacted a newspaper or maQZine to express your opinion or an issue?

Contacting the broadcast Called in to a radio or television talk show to express your opinion on a

media political issue, even if you did not get on the air?

Protestirg Taken part in a protest, march or demonstration?

E-mail petitions Signed an e-rmil petition?

Written petitions Signed a written petition about a political or social issue?

Boycotting Not bought something because of conditions under which the product is
made, or because you dislike the conduct of the company that produces it?

Buycotting Bought a certain product or service because you like the social or political
values of the company that produces or provides it?

Canvassing Have you worked as a canvasser — having gone door to door for a political

 

or social group or candidate?

 

Source: The civic and political health of the nation report by Scott Keeter, Cliff Zukin, Molly Andolina,
and Krista Jenkins, CIRCLE, 2002.

178

 

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

a) Dutch version
b) English version

179

Vriieajdsbesteding en Civiele participate in Nederlaud,
Een onderzoek in Friesland

Instructies:

Dank u voor uw moeite die u wilt nemen om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek naar uw
vrijetijdsbesteding en maatschappelijke participatie. Uw ervaringen zijn belangrijk in de
ontwikkeling van en het welzijn in onze gemeenschappen. Leest u alstublieft de vragen
rustig door voordat u antwoord geeft. Mocht uw opmerkingen hebben, bewaar die voor

het eind van de enquéte.

 

 

De eerste vragen gaan over uw vrijetijdsbesteding.

 

1. Kunt u voor de onderstaande sporten aangeven of u ze in de afgelopen 12
maanden A) minstens l keer per maand heeft beoefend, B) of u aan
georganiseerde activiteiten (denk aan wekelijkse bijeenkomsten, competities,
trainingen, evenementen) van deze sport meedoet, C) lid bent van een
vereniging en D) hoeveel uur per week 11 gemiddeld aan deze sportactiviteit

besteedt.

A

B

C

D

Beoefenen Georganiseerd Lid vereniging Aantal

Voetbal

Volleybal

Hockey

Tennis

Schaatsen

Fietsen
Zwemmen
Korfbal

Golf

Anders: .......

DDDDDDDCJDCJ

D

DDDDDCJCJCJD

DUDDDDDDCJC}

uren per week

IIIIIIIIIII
ccccccccccc
...........
nnnnnnnnnnn
...........
00000000000
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo
ooooooooooo

ooooooooooo

2. Met wie onderneemt u doorgaaris de onderstaande sportactiviteiten?

Alleen
Voetbal D
Volleybal [1
Hockey [:1
Tennis D
Schaatsen I]
Fietsen D
Zwemmen D
Korfbal D
Golf I]
Anders: . . . . D

DDDDDDDDCJC]

180

DEDUDDDDCJD

Met vrienden Met het gezin/ Anders: .......

D

DDDDCICIDCIC}

 

Bent u lid van een commerciele sportorganisatie (bijv. een fitnesscentrum) ?
1] JA D NEE

Kunt u voor de onderstaande hobbies aangeven of u ze in de afgelopen 12
maanden A) heeft gepraktiseerd, B) aan georganiseerde activiteiten
(wekelijkse bijeenkomsten, beurzen etc.) deelneemt, C) lid bent van een
vereniging/club en D) hoeveel uren u gemiddeld per week besteedt aan deze
hobby.
A B C D
Beoefenen Georganiseerd Lid vereniging Aantal
uren per week

Tekenen D [J D ...........
Zingen/muziek maken [3 D D ...........
Toneelspelen D I] D ...........
Dansen E] I] D ...........
F otografre D [I D ...........
Klussen [I D I] ...........
Tuinieren D I] E] ...........
Koken I] I] D ...........
Anders: ...... E] D E] ...........

Met wie ondemeemt u doorgaans de onderstaande hobby activiteiten?
Alleen Met vrienden Met het gezin Anders: .......

Tekenen E] E] D D
Zingen/muziek maken D D D D
Toneelspelen D D E] D
Dansen I] D [I] E]
Fotografie D D D E]
Klussen D D I] D
Tuinieren E] D D D
Koken D D E] D
Anders: ...... E] D D I]

Kunt u voor de onderstaande buitenactiviteiten aangeven of u ze in de
afgelopen 12 maanden A) heefi gepraktiseerd, B) aan georganiseerde
activiteiten (wekelijkse bijeenkomsten, evenementen etc.) deelneemt, C) lid
bent van een vereniging/club en D) hoeveel uren u gemiddeld per week
besteedt aan deze activiteit.
A B C D
Beoefenen Georganiseerd Lid vereniging Aantal
uren per week
Vissen/hengelsport D
Vogels kijken D
Jagen l]
Watersport E]

DUDE]
DUDE

...........

181

Natuurbeheer D D E] ...........
Lopen I] D E] ...........
Nordic walking [I D [3 ...........
Anders: .......... D D D ...........

Met wie ondemeemt u doorgaans de onderstaande hobby activiteiten?
Alleen Met vrienden Met het gezin Anders: .......

Vissen/hengelsport I] E] I] D
Vogels kijken [:1 D D E]
Jagen E] D D D
Watersport D E] [J D
Natuurbeheer D I] D D
Lopen D [3 D D
Nordic walking D E] El D
Anders: ...... D D D I]

Kunt u aangeven hoe vaak u de volgende plaatsen bezocht heefl in de
afgelopen 12 maanden?
12 keer of vaker 3 tot 11 keer minder dan 3 keer Nooit

Museum [1 D E] E]
Concert D D D

Theater [1 E] I] D
Cinema/filmhuis E] D D D
Bibliotheek D I] D D
Platteland/bos E] E] El [3
Speeltuin C] D D D
Attractiepark E] E] D D
Dierentuin E] D D D
Anders: ......... D D D D

Kunt u aangeven met wie u de volgende plaatsen bezoekt?
Alleen met vrienden met gezin Anders, n1: . . .

Museum [I D I] D
Concert [1 D I] D
Theater D D D D
Cinema/filmhuis D D D D
Bibliotheek D [I D D
Platteland/bos D D I] E]
Speeltuin I] D I] D
Attractiepark D D D I]
Dierentuin D D I] U
Anders: ......... El [I D E]

Kunt u aangeven hoe vaak u de volgende activiteiten in de afgelopen 12
maanden heeft ondemomen?

182

Minstens 1 keer 2-3 keer 1 keer 3-11 keer < 3 keer Nooit
per week per maand per maand per jaar per jaar

Cafe’ bezoek D D I] D D [:1
Restaurant bezoek D D E] D I] I]
Discotheek/club bezoek E] D E] D D 1:]
Casino bezoek D D D D D E]
11. Kunt u aangeven met wie u deze activiteiten ondemeemt?
Alleen Met vrienden Met gezin Anders: . .

Cafe bezoek [I C] D [1

Restaurant bezoek D D D E]
Discotheek/club bezoek E] D E] [3

Casino bezoek D D D D

12. Kunt u aangeven hoeveel tijd (naast uw werk) u per week gwoonweg
spendeert aan de volgende activiteiten?
Nooit tot 2 uren 2-5 uren 6-10 uren > 10 uren
per week per week per week per week

TV kij ken D D E] E] E]
Radio luisteren D D E] D
Krant lezen D D D D [I]
Boeken/literatuur lezen El E] El [3 D
Tijdschriften lezen I] D D D [3
Op het internet surfen E] D E] D E]

(voor vermaak en informatie)

 

 

 

De volgende vragen ggan over uw participatie in de gemeenschap

 

13. Bekijk a.u.b goed de volgende lijst met organisaties en groepen die zich bezig
houden met bepaalde activiteiten. Geef an of u in de afgelopen 12 maanden
A) lid was van een dergelijke organisatie/groep en B) onbetaald
vrijwilligerswerk deed voor een dergelijke organisatie/groep.

A) lid B) vrijwilliger

a organisaties m.b.t. activiteiten voor ouderen,

gehandicapten of anderzijns hulpbehoevenden E] [I
b Religieuze en kerkelijke organisaties D [3
c Educatieve, kunstzinnige vormgeving, muziek,

culturele groeperingen D D
d vakbonden I] E]
e Politieke partijen of groepen [J I]
f Locale maatschappelijke initiatieven m.b.t. bv.

Armoedebestrijding, werkgelegenheid, huisvesting

Ruimtelijke ordening [J E]
g Organisaties m.b.t. ontwikkelingssamenwerking D D
h Mensenrechten organisaties I] I]

183

15.

go

Organisaties m.b.t. natuurbehoud, milieu,

dieren rechten [I D
j Professionele organisaties El [3
k Jeugdwerk (scouting, jeugdclubs) [I D
1 Sport en/of recreatie (vereniging/club) D D
m Vrouwengroepen D E]
n Vredesbewegingen D D
o Vrijwillige organisaties m.b.t. gezondheidszorg E] E]
p Andere groepen: .......................... E] D

14. Kunt u aangeven hoe vaak u in de afgelopen 12 maanden aan elk van de
volgende activiteiten heefi deelgenomen?
Minstens 1 keer 1-3 keer 1 keer 3-11 keer < 3 keer Nooit
per week per maand per maand per jaar per jaar
a tijd verdrijven met vrienden E] D D D D [:1
b tijd verdrijven met collega’s
van werk of uit de industrie

na werktijd D D D I] D I]
c tijd verdrijven met mensen van uw
geloof [I] D I] D E] D

d tijd verdrijven met mensen in verenigingen
clubs en andere vrijwillige organisaties

(sport, cultuur, gemeenschap) [I D D D E] D
e tijd verdrijven met mensen
via internet gemeenschappen D D D D [:1 D

 

 

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op publieke/burger zaken

 

 

Heefi u in de afgelopen 12 maanden een of meerdere van de volgende dingen

gedaan?
J A NEE Kan ik me niet
herinneren
a Ben petitie ondertekend? D D D
b Een politieke bijeenkomst bijgewoond? E] I] [j
c Aan een gemeenschapsproject gewerkt? D [I D
d Deelgenomen aan demonstraties,
protesten, of boycotts? D D D
e Bloed gedoneerd? E] [:1 D E] kan
geen bloed
doneren

184

16. Hoe geinteresseerd bent u in politieke en nationale aangelegenheden?

D Erg ge'interesseerd

D Enigzins ge‘interesseerd
El Weinig geinteresseerd
E] Niet geinteresseerd

E] 1k weet niet

17. Heeft u tijdens een van de hierna genoemde verkiezingen uw stem

uitgebracht?
J A NEE Kan ik me niet herinneren
a Gemeente verkiezingen 2006 D E] I]
b Provinciale verkiezingen 2007 D D D
c. Landelijke verkiezingen 2006 E] D D
d Europese verkiezingen 2004 [3 E] E]

 

 

De volgende vragen hebben betrekking op de gemeenschap waar u woont.

 

18. Hoeveel inwoners telt de stad, dorp of buurtschap waar u woont?
................... INWONERS

19. Hoe lang woont u a] in deze stad, dorp of buurtschap?
....................... JAAR

20. Denkt u dat u over vijfjaar nog in dezelfde stad, dorp, buurtschap zult wonen?
El JA D NEE El Ik weet niet

21. Als volksvertegenwoordigers u op zouden roepen water te besparen
als gevolg van een ramp, hoe groot schat u dan de kans dat u uw medewerkin g
zal verlenen?

E] zeer groot

D groot

D hang er van af
[II niet groot

E] nihil

D ik weet niet

185

 

22. A13 volksvertegenwoordigers iedereen op zouden roepen water te
besparen als gevolg van een ramp, hoe groot acht u dan de kans dat
de mensen in uw directe omgeving/gemeenschap hun medewerking zouden
verlenen?

D zeer groot

D groot

I] hang er van af
D niet groot

I] nihil

D ik weet niet

 

 

De laatste vragen hebben betrekking op uw demografische kenmerken, ik stel ze
om er zeker van te zijn dat de selecteerde bewoners een representatieve
afvaardiging zijn van de gehele Friese bevolking.

 

23. Bent u D MAN of Cl VROUW
24. Hoe oud bent u? ......... JAAR

25. What is uw huwelijke staat?

I] Alleenstaand
D Gehuwd
[I] Gescheiden
D In een langdurige relatie
D Weduwe/naar
D Anders, namelijk: ...............
26. Heeft u kinderen? E] NEE D JA
U
Hoe veel? . . .
kinderen

27. Wat is uw ethnische achtergrond?

D Blank Nederlandse

D Marokkaans Nederlandse

I] Turks Nederlandse

D Surinaams Nederlandse

D Antilliaans Nederlandse

El Chinees Nederlandse

El Indonesisch Nederlandse

D Niet Nederlandse

El Anders, namelijk ...........................

186

 

 

Als allerlaatste wil ik graag uw mening over civiele participatie in Friesland.
Met civiele participatie doel ik op alle individuele en collectieve activiteiten die
gericht zijn op het aan de orde stellen van on oplossen van zaken van algemeen

belang

 

 

 

28. Bent 11 van mening dat de civiele participatie is:

D Gestegen

I] Gedaald

El Hetzelde gebleven

D Geen idee

[J andere mening: .............. .

29. Waarom bent u die mening toegedaan (antwoord vraag 28)?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Zou u het op prijs stellen een kopie van de resultaten van dit onderzoek te
ontvangen?

DNEE [:1 JA
U

Geef a.u.b. uw e-mail adres: .....................

Overige opmerkingen en suggesties:

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.........

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
............
ccccccc

Nogrnaals mijn hartelijke dank voor het invullen van deze enquéte. Wilt u hem a.u.b.
retoumeren rn de portbetaalde envelop of an: Afke Moufakkir-van der Woud,

International Office Management, Christelijke Hogeschool Nederland, Postbu31298,
8900 CG, Leeuwarden. E-mail: a.moufakkir@chn.nl.

187

Leisure behavior and civic engagement in the Netha'lands
A survey of Frisian residents

W:

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey about your leisure behaviour and civic
engagement. Your responses are very important in the development of and the quality of life in
our communities. Please read each question carefiilly before responding. Answer to the best of
your ability and save any additional comments for the end.

 

This first set of questions asks about your leisure behavior.

 

1. Please indicate of the following sports whether you in the past 12 months A) at least
once per month practised them B) were involved in organized activities (think of
weekly meetings, competitions, training, events) C) were a member of an association
and D) how many hours on average per week you spent on these sports.

A B C D
Practise Organized Member assoc. Number of hours
per week
Soccer I] El El ...........
Volleyball D E] D ...........
Hockey [3 El CI ...........
Tennis El E] I] ...........
Skating D I] E] ...........
Cycling D 1:] D ...........
Swimming [:1 D D ...........
Korfball D D E] ...........
Golf [I I] I] ...........
Other: .......... E] [I E] ...........
2. With whom do you engage in these sport activities?
Alone With friends With family Other: .....
Soccer [1 E] El [:1
Volleyball E] E] E] E]
Hockey C] D I] E]
Tennis D D I] D
Skating E] E] D D
Cycling D I] D [:1
Swimming D E] E] D
Korfball C] D D E]
Golf I] I] D D
Other: ......... II] E1 [:1 E]
3. Do you hold a membership to a sports association (for example a fitness centre)?
[1 YES [3 NO

188

Please indicate of the following activities whether you in the past 12 months A)
practised them B) were involved in organized activities (think of weekly meetings,
competitions, training, events) C) are a member of an association and D) how many
hours on average per week you spent on these activities.

A B C D
Practise Organized Member assoc. Number of hours
per week
Drawing 1:] D [J ..........
Singing/making music D D E] ..........
Acting (theatre) D D D ..........
Dancing 1] E] E] ..........
Photography E! El 1] ..........
Home improvement projects [1 El E1 ..........
Gardening [3 E] E] ..........
Cooking [1 E] El ..........
Other: .......... E] E] D ..........

With whom do you engage in the following hobbies?
Alone With friends With family Other: .....

Drawing D [1 E] D
Singing/making music 1:] [3 E] D
Acting (theatre) C] [1 El [:1
Dancing [1 E] El 1]
Photography [3 D I] D
Home improvement projects E] D C] [:1
Gardening [3 [3 [J D
Cooking [3 [J D [1
Other: ...... D E] D 1]

Please indicate of the following outdoor activities whether you in the past 12 months
A) practised them B) were involved in organized activities (think of weekly
meetings, competitions, training, events) C) are a member of an association and D)
how many hours on average per week you spent on these activities.

A B C D

Practise Organized Member assoc. Number of hours
per week

Fishing
Birding
Hunting
Water sports
Conservation
Walking
Nordic walking
Other: ..........

DDDDDDCJCI
DDDDDDDD
DDDDDDDU

189

With whom do you engage in the following outdoor activities?
Alone With friends With family Other: .....

Fishing E] D E] E]
Birding D D D [3
Hunting E] El E] E]
Water sports E] 1] E] E]
Conservation E] E] E] E]
Walking 1] E] E] E]
Nordic Walking E] E] D D
Other: ...... I] E] I] E]

Please indicate how often you visited the following sites in the past 12 months
12 or more times 3 to 11 times less than 3 times Never

Museum E] E] E] E]
Concert D E] E] D
Theatre I] D E] E]
Cinema E] E] E] E]
Library E] E] I] 1]
Countryside/forest E] E] I] E]
Playground E] E] E] E]
Amusement park I] E] E] [3
Zoo I] E] E] D
Sports event E] D E] E]
Other: .......... E] E] E] E]

Please indicate with whom you visited the following sites?
Alone With fi'iends With family Other: .....

Museum E] E] E] E]
Concert D E] E] E]
Theatre I] E] E] E]
Cinema E] E] E] [3
Library E] E] E] E]
Countryside/forest E] E] E] E]
Playground E] E] D I]
Amusement park E] E] E] E]
Zoo E] E] E] E]
Sports event E] E] E] D
Other: .......... D D E] E]

190

10. Please indicate how often you engaged in the following activities in the past 12

months:
At least once 1-3 times Once 3-11 times < 3 times Never
per week per month per month per year per year
Going to a pub E] E] E] E] E] E]
Going to a restaurant E] E] I] E] E] D
Dancing/going to a disco D E] D I] E] [3
Going to a casino E] E] E] E] E] E]

11. Please indicate with whom you engaged in the following activities:
Alone With friends With family/relatives Other

Going to a pub E] l] D D
Going to a restaurant E] E] E] D
Dancing/going to a disco E] E] D E]
Going to a casino E] E] E] E]

12. Please indicate how many hours (when you are not at work) you spent doing any of
the following activities in a typical week over the past 12 months:
Never up to 2 hours 2-5 hours 6-10 hours > 10 hours

Watching TV E] E] E] E] E]
Listening to the radio E] D E] D E]
Reading newspapers E] D E] E] E]
Reading novels/literature E] E] E] E] E]
Reading magazines E] D E] E] D
Surfing the internet E] E] I] E] E]

(for entertainment or information)

 

The next set of questions asks about your enggement in communities ]

 

 

13. Please look carefully at the following list of voluntary organisations and activities
and indicate whether in the past 12 months A) you belonged to any, and B) which, if
any you did voluntary unpaid work for.

A) member B) volunteer

a Social welfare services for elderly

handicapped or deprived people E] E]
b Religious or church organizations I] E]
c Education, arts, music or cultural activities E] E]
(1 Trade unions E] E]
e Political parties or groups E] E]
f Local community action on issues like

Poverty, employment, housing, planning E] [J
g Third world development E] E]
h Human rights [3 D

r Organisations on issues like

191

“COBB-‘K’H'

Environmental activities,

Conservation and Animal rights E]
Professional associations [3
Youth work (scouts, youth clubs) E]
Sports and/or recreation E]
Women’s groups E]
Peace movement E]
Voluntary organisations concerned with health [3
Other groups: .......................... l]

DDDDDDDC]

Please indicate how many times you did any of the following activities in the past 12
months:
At least once 1-3 times Once 3-11 times < 3 times Never
per week per month per month per year per year

Spend time with friends E] E] E] E] E] I]
Spend time with colleagues

from work or your profession

outside the workplace E] E] E] D D E]
Spend time with people at your

church, mosque, synagogue E] E] D D E] E]

Spend time with people in clubs
and voluntary associations

 

 

(sport, culture, communal) E] E] E] E] E] D
6 Spend time with people via
internet communities E] E] E] E] E] E]
The next questions are about public affairs J
15. Which of the following things have you done in the past 12 months?
YES NO DON’T REMEMBER
a Have you signed a petition? D E] E]
b Attended a political meeting or rally? E] D E]
c Worked on a community project? E] E] E]
d Participated in any demonstrations,
protests, boycotts, marches? E] E] D
e Donated blood? El E] l] E] can’t
give blood
16. How interested would you say you are you in politics and national afl'airs?
E] Very interested
E] Somewhat interested
E] Only slightly interested
E] Not at all interested
E] Don’t know

192

17. Did you vote in any of the following elections?
YES NO DON’T REMEMBER
Municipal elections 2006
Provincial elections 2007
National elections 2006

European elections 2004

[EDGE]
DUDE]
DUDE]

 

 

a

b

c

d

L The next set of questions asks about the local community where you live

18 How many citizens does the city, town or village have were you live in?
................... CITIZENS

19. For how many years have you been living in this city, town or village?
....................... YEAR

20. Do you expect to be living in your community five years from now?
E] YES [3 NO E] DON’T KNOW

21. If public officials asked you to conserve water because of some emergency,
how likely is it that you would cooperate?

E] Very likely

E] Likely

E] Neither/Depends
E] Unlikely

E] Very Unlikely

E] Don’t know

22. If public officials asked everyone to conserve water because of some emergency,
how likely is it that people in your community would cooperate?

E] Very likely

E] Likely

E] Neither/Depends
E] Unlikely

E] Very Unlikely

E] Don’t know

 

This set of questions asks about your demographic characteristics, this is to make
sure the sample represents residents in Friesland

 

 

 

23. What is your sex? D MALE E] FEMALE

24. How old are you? ........... YEARS

193

25. What is your marital status?

E] Single

D Married

E] Divorced/separated

E] In a long term relationship
E] Widow/er

E] Other: ...............

26. Do you have any children? E] NO [3 YES
U
How many? Children

27. What is your ethnical background?

E] White Dutch/Caucasian

E] Moroccan Dutch

E] Turkish Dutch

E] Suriname Dutch

E] Antillean Dutch

E] Chinese Dutch

E] Indonesian Dutch

E] Non Dutch

D Other, namely ...........................

 

 

Finally we would like to hear your opinion on the state of civic engagement in Friesland.
Civic engagement being all individual and collective actions designed to identify and
address issues of public concern.

 

28. Would you say civic engagement has:

E] Increased

E] Decreased

E] Remained the same
E] Don’t know

D Other, ........

29. Why do you believe this (your answer to Question 28) is so?

Would you like receive a copy of the results of this study?
E] NO E] YES

U
Please provide your e-mail address:

194

 

Additional comments:

Thank you for completing this survey. Please return in the postage paid envelope to: Afl(6
Moufakkir-van der Woud, International Office Management, Christelij ke Hogeschool
Nederland, Postbus 1298, 8900 CG, Leeuwarden. E-mail: a.moufakkir@chn.nl

195

APPENDIX D

ACCOMPANYING LETTER SURVEY

a) Dutch version
b) English version

196

l februari 2007

Beste inwoner van F riesland,

Verzuiling en een gulle verzorgingsstaat, zorgden jarenlang voor een krachtig georganiseerd
middenveld in onze sarnenleving. Door ontzuiling en afslanking van de verzorgingsstaat heefi de
maatschappij aan bindende kracht ingeleverd. Bovendien hebben de komst van emancipatie en de
toenemende individualisering een negatief effect gehad op de sociale cohesie en civiele
participatie. Civiele participatie is het meedoen in het publieke domein van de maatschappij, het
gaat dan om bijvoorbeeld meehelpen op de school van je kinderen, klussen bij de buren, doneren
aan een hulpverlenende instantie, vrijwilliger zijn bij de toneelvereniging, het verlenen van
mantelzorg etc. Het verlies aan traditionele instituties wordt vaak gezien als een bedreiging voor
de samenhang en participatie. Maar er bestaat wel degelijk de mogelijkheid dat er nieuwe
factoren zijn die als bindende kracht (kunnen) fungeren. Door verschillende instanties wordt er
momenteel onderzoek gedaan naar deze mogelijk bindende factoren. In het kader van mijn
studie aan Michigan State University (MSU), binnen de leerstoel Community, Agriculture,
Recreation, and Resource Studies (CARRS), en mijn docentschap aan de Christelijke Hogeschool
Nederland (CI-IN) werk ik aan mijn promotic onderzoek waarin vrijetijdsbesteding als mogelijk
bindende factor centraal staat. Doel van dit onderzoek is bet in kaart brengen van de invloeden
die bepaalde vormen van vrijetijdsbesteding hebben op civiele participatielk hoop daarmee
wegen te vinden de civiele participatie kunnen bevorderen; en op die manier een bijdrage te
kunnen leveren aan sociale samenhang en het welzijn in onze gemeenschappen.

U bent één van de 1000 in het telefoonboek geregistreerde bewoners in F riesland die geselecteerd
is om een waardevol bijdrage aan dit onderzoek te leveren. Uw mening en ervaringen zijn erg
belangrijk en helpen om een representatief collectief beeld van de friese bewoners weer te geven.
[k zou het op prijs stellen als een bewoner in uw huishouden van 18 jaar of ouder de bijgesloten
enquete in zou willen vullen en retoumeren in de portbetaalde envelop. Het duurt ongeveer 15
minuten om de enquete in te vullen. Door de enquete in te vullen en te retoumeren geefi u uw
vrijwillige toestemming om aan dit onderzoek deel te nemen. Uw antwoorden zullen
vertrouwelijk worden behandeld met respect voor privacy zoals die wettelijk is vastgesteld en uw
naam ml niet worden gekoppeld aan de resultaten van het onderzoek. U staat volledig in uw recht
bepaalde vragen niet te beantwoorden of deelname aaan dit onderzoek geheel te weigeren.

Mocht u vragen hebben naar aanleiding van dit onderzoek, dan kunt u contact met mij opnemen;
via e-mail: a.moufakkir@chn.nl of tel.: 0566 602427/058 2441507, u kunt ook contact op
nemen met mijn promotor professor Chuck Nelson op tel.: 001 517 4320272, e-mail:
nelsonc@,§_arrs.msu.ed_u of via de post: 142 Natural Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824 in de
Verenigde Staten. Mocht u vragen hebben over uw rechten als deelnemer in een onderzoek van
MSU dan kunt u contact opnemen met Peter Valilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human Research
Protections. Zijn contactgegevens zijn: tel. 001 517 3552180; fax 001 517 432 4503; e-mail:
irb@msu.edu; post: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 in de Verenigde Staten.

Nogmaals mijn dank voor uw hulp.

Met vriendelijke groet,

Afl(e van der Woud.
Prornovendus CARRS, Michigan State University en docente Cl-IN te Leeuwarden.

bijlagen.

197

1 February, 2008

Dear resident from Friesland.

For a long time, the Dutch welfare state and its denominational segregation were responsible for
a strongly organized ‘centre-field’ of society. However, due to a decrease of this welfare state,
Dutch society has lost a lot of its cohesive power. Besides, emancipation and increasing
individualization have had a negative impact on the social cohesion and civic engagement. Civic
engagement refers to participation in public society, more specifically to engaging in activities
such as: working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood association, writing a letter to an
elected official or voting. Although the loss of traditional institutions is often seen as a threat to
coherence and participation in society, there is a possibility that other new binding factors will
arise. Different institutions are curremly researching these possible binding factors. To complete
my Ph.D. program at the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource
Studies (CARRS) and as a lecturer at the Christelijke Hogeschool Nederland (CI-IN), I am
conducting a study that focuses on leisure as a possible new binding factor. The purpose of my
research is to understand the impacts that certain leisure activities have on civic engagement, in
the hope to find avenues to contribute to enhancing civic engagement; thereby contributing to the
quality of life in our communities.

You are one of 1000 in the yellow pages registered telephone users randomly selected across
Friesland to provide a valuable perspective on this issue. Your opinions are important and help
accurately represent the collective views of the Frisian residents. 1 would like to invite a member
of your household that is 18 years of age or older to please take the 15 minutes needed to
complete the survey and then mail it to me in the postage paid envelope. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing the questionnaire and mailing it
back. Your responses will be confidential and your name will not be connected with the results of
this research. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you
refuse to answer any particular questions or choose not to participate, you will not suffer any

penalty.

Ifyou have any questions or concerns about this survey, please contact me at e-mail:
a.moufakkr@chn.nl or phone: 0566 602427, you may also contact my professor Chuck Nelson at
phone: 001 517 4320272, e—mail: nelsonc@carrs.msu.edu or regular mail: 142 Natural
Resources, East Lansing, MI 48824. In case you have questions or concerns about your right as a
research participant, please feel free to contact Peter Valilenko, Ph.D., Director of Human
Research Protections. His contact information is: phone 001 517 3552180; fax 001 517 432 4503;
e-mail: irb@msu.edu; regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.Thanks for you help.

Sincerely,

Aflte van der Woud.
Ph.D candidate at CARRS, Alichigan State University and lecturer at the Christelijke
Hogeschool Nederland in Leeuwarden.

Enc.

198

APPENDIX E

SPSS ADDITIONAL OUTPUT

Leisure participation characteristics
- participation in other sport activities

- participation in other home and garden based hobby activities

199

Table C. Participation in other sport activities

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Valid 379 92.7
Better moving 1 ,2
Biljards 6 1,5
Boxing 1 ,2
bridge 1 ,2
Darts 1 ,2
Dogs sport 1 ,2
Gymnastics 5 1,2
Horse riding 5 1,2
Jeu de Boule ]. ,2
Karate l ,2
Kickboxing 1 ,2
scootmobiel 1 ,2
Skateboarding l ,2
Skien 1 ,2
Spinning 1 ,2
Tai Chi 1 ,2
TangSooDe 1 ,2
yoga 1 ,2

 

200

 

Table D. Participation in other home and garden based hobby activities

 

Frequency

Percent

 

 

Archive research
Bilj ards

Bridge

Board games
Collecting stamps
Computer

Country Womenclub
Cows

crossword puzzels
di

Dog club

Dogs sport

Filming

Flower arranging
Gaming

Going out

Quilting
Handicrafts/ needlework
Horse riding

Karate

language course
Making postcards
Mechanics/motor
Model construction
motorcycle
Oldtimers

Playing cards
Puzzle

Reading

scientific research
scrapbooking
Sculpt/Beeldhouwen
Train

Volunteer Miller
Volunteer bus driver
Weather

Woman of now
Working

writing

 

b—I—‘h—lh—ih-Ihdl—lI-HNl—iI—iWNNl—‘F-‘Nw—i—IflbHHN—l—lh—ifl—i—iI—IFHWI—ih-il—il—iI—l

 

U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U

“N

U

U U U U U U U U

NNNNNNNNMNAQMMNNMQNIONCNNMNNNNNNNNQNNNNN

N

U U U U U U U U U U

U

 

201

 

REFERENCES

202

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. and Day, GS. (2001). Marketing Research (7th edn), New York:
Wiley.

Armony, A. C. (2004). The Dubious Link: Civic Engagement and Democratization.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Arai, S., and Pedlar, A. (2003). Moving beyond individualism in leisure theory: A critical
analysis of concepts of community and social engagement. Leisure Studies, 22, 185-202.

Ayala, L.J., (2000). Trained for democracy: the differing effects of voluntary and

involuntary organizations on political participation. Political Research Quarterly. 53, 99-
115.

Blanchard, T. and Matthews, TL, (2006). The configuration of local economic power
and civic participation in the global economy. Social forces, Volume 84, Number 4, June.

Bock, G., and James, S. eds. (1992). Beyond equality and drflerence, citizenship, feminist
politics and female subjectivity. London and New York: Routledge.

Bonn, M.A., Furr, H.L. and Susskind, AM. (1999). Predicting a behavioral profile for
pleasure travelers on the basis of Internet use segmentation. Journal of Travel Research,
Volume 37, Number 4, 333-340.

Bookman, A. (2004). Starting in our own backyards. How working families can build
community and survive the new economy. New York: Routledge.

Boyden, T., Carroll, 18., and Maier RA, (1984). Similarity and attraction in
homosexual males: the effects of age and masculinity-femininity. Sex Roles, 10, 939—48.

Brady, H. (1999). Political participation: In Measures of political attitudes, J. P.
Robinson, P. R. Shaver, and L. S. Wrightsman. New York: Academic Press.

Brehm, J., and Rahn, W., (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and
consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41 , 999—1023.

Briesch, R., (2004). Participatory democracy: current situation and opportunities
provided by the European constitution, the ESC. March 8-9, 2004, from:

http: //www. esc. eu. int/pages/en/acs/events/08_ 03 _04 _democracy/Intervention_ Briesch_ e
n. pdf, Retrieved November 2007

Burleson, BR, and Samter, W., (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young
adults: foundations of attraction, fiiendship, and relationship satisfaction.
Communication Reports, 1745-1043, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1996, Pages 127 — 139.

203

Bussemaker, J ., and Voet, R. eds. (1998). Sex, participation and citizenship in the
Netherlands. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Canada (2005). Enhancing Civic Engagement: How can Canada develop the most
engaged citizens in the world? Content Management Guide. June 2005 fi'om
http:/lwww.canada25.com/collateral/CanadaZ5%20Civic%2OEngagement%20Content%
20Guide.pdf

Carpini, M. (2007). Civic engagement and service learning. American Psychological
Association. From http://www.apa.org/ed/slce/civicengagement.html#definition.
Retrieved October 2008

Cassel, CA, (1999). Voluntary associations, churches, and social participation theories
of turnout. Social Science Quarterly, 80, 504—17.

Coalter, F. (1998). Leisure studies, leisure policy and social citizenship: The failure of
welfare or the limits of welfare? Leisure Studies, 1 7, 21-3 6.

Dekker, P., and Brock, van den, A., (1998). Civil society in comparative perspective:
involvement in voluntary associations in North America and Western Europe. Voluntas,
9, 1 1—3 8.

Dekker, P. and Brock, van der A. (2004). Civil society in longitudinal and comparative
perspective: Voluntary associations, political involvement, social trust, and happiness in
a dozen countries. Paper presented at the 6th annual conference of the International
Society for Third-sector Research, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada

Dekker, P., Horst, der, A., Kox, H., Lejour, A., Straathof, B., Tammes, P., et al. (2007).
Market Place Europe: Fifty years of public opinion and market integration in the
European Union, Europemr Outlook 5. From:
http://www.scp.nl/english/publications/books/978903 7703061/Market_Place_Europe.pdf
. Retrieved March 2008.

Drenth, A., van, (1998). Political empowerment of women in the Netherlands. In
Bussemaker, J., and Voet, R. eds. Sex, participation and citizenship in the Netherlands,
79-90. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Driver, BL, and Burns, RH, (1999). Concepts and uses of the benefit approach to
leisure. Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century, 349-3 69.

Driver, B.L., Brown, PI, and Peterson, eds. ( 1991). Benefits of leisure. Pennsylvania:
Venture Publishing, Inc.

Durkheim, E., (1984). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Macmillan.

204

Eberly, DE, and Streeter, R., (2002). The Soul of Civil Society: Voluntary Associations
and the Public Value of Moral Habits. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Elshtain, J .B., (1981). Public man, private woman, women in social and political
thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Etzioni, A., (1996). The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic
Society. New York: Basic Books.

European Values Survey. Methodological Questionnaire. From:
http://spitswww.uvt.nl/web/fsw/evs/documents/Surveys/In%20general/Quesl990.pdf.
Retrieved November 2007.

European Values Survey. Methodological Questionnaire: Dutch version. From:
http://www.europeanvalues.nl/index2.htm. Retrieved November 2007

Fraser, N., (1989). Unruly practices: Power, discourse and sex in contemporary social
theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Friesland in cijfers (2007). From: http:/lwww.fryslan.nl/frc2003/start.htrn. retrieved
october 18, 2008

Fukuyama, F., (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New
York: Free Press.

F ukuyama, F., (1999). The Great Disruption Human nature and the reconstitution of
social order. London: Profile Books.

Galston, W.A., (2000). Civil society and the “art of association.” Journal of Democracy,
Volume 11, Number 1, January 2000, pp. 64-70.

Glover, T., (2004a). The 'community' center and the social construction of citizenship.
Leisure Sciences, 26, 63-83.

Glover, T., (2004b). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners.
Leisure Sciences, 26, 143-162.

Glover, TD, and Hemingway, J. L., (2005). Locating Leisure in the Social Capital
Literature. Journal of Leisure Research, 3 7(4), 387+.

Glover, TD, (2002). Citizenship and the production of public recreation: Is there an
empirical relationship? Journal of Leisure Research, 34 (2), 204-231.

Gottlieb, K., and Robinson, G., (2002). A Practical Guide for Integrating Civic
Responsibility In to the Curriculum. Washington DC: Community College Press.

205

Grant, G., Jones, W.J., and Trautner, M.N., (2004). Do Facilities with Distant
Headquarters Pollute More? How Civic Engagement Conditions the Environmental
Performance of Absentee Managed Plants? Social Forces, 83(1), 189-214.

Green, G., and Haines, A., (2001). Asset Building and Community Development.
California: Sage Publications

Green, G.T., Cordell, K. H., Carter, B. T., and DiStefano, C., (2006). Construction and
validation of the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment’s Lifestyles Scale.
Journal of Leisure Research, 38(4), 513 a.f.

Hair, J .F . Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, KL. and Black, WC. (1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis (5th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hartman, R., Huy. M., and Wheeler, D., (1997). Why Paper Mills Clean Up:
Determinants of Pollution Abatement in Four Asian Countries. Policy Research
Department Working Paper 1710. Washington DC: World Bank, Policy Research
Department. '

Hemingway, J., (1988). Leisure and civility: Reflections on a Greek ideal. Leisure
Sciences, 10, 179-191.

Hemingway, J ., (1999). Leisure, social capital, and democratic citizenship. Journal of
Leisure Research, 31(2), 150-165.

Hemingway, J ., (2001). What goes around comes around: Teaching foe and about social
and human capital in leisure studies. Schole, 16, 1-13.

Hodginson, VA, (1996). Nonprofit Almanac, 1996-9 7. Dimensions of the Independent
Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Human Resources and Human Development Canada. (2008). Indicators of Wellbeing in
Canada. http:/lwww4.hrsdc.gc.ca/indicator.jsp?lang=engandindicatorid=51, Retrieved
October 18, 2008.

Irwin, M.D., Blanchard, T., Tolbert, C.M., Nucci, A. and Lyson, T. (2004). Why people
stay: The impact of community context on nonmigration in the USA. Population-E, 59,
567—592.

Irwin, M.D., Tolbert, C.M., and Lyson, TA, (1999). There’s no place like home: Non-
migration and civic engagement. Environment and Planning A, 31, 2223—223 8.

Jarvie, G., (2003). Communitarism, sport and social capital: Neighbourly insights into
Scottish sport. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 38, 139-153.

Jones, KB, (1990). Citizenship in a woman-fiiendly policy. Sign, 15, no. 4, 781-812.

206

Joslyn, M.R., Cigler, A, (2001). Group involvement and democratic orientations: social
capital in the post election context. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 357- 68.

Kang, N., and Kwak, N. (2003). A multilevel approach to civic participation—Individual
length of residence, neighborhood residential stability, and their interactive effects with
media use. Communication Research, 30, 80—106.

Ketter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., and Jenkins, K. (2002) The Civic and Political
Health of a Nation: A Generational Portrait. CIRCLE and The Pew Charitable Trusts.
From http:/lwww.civicyouth.org/research/products/youth_index.htm. Retrieved
November 2007

Kim, J .C., and Ball-Rokeach, 8.1., (2006). Community Storytelling Network,
Neighborhood Context, and Civic Engagement: A Multilevel Approach.
Human Communication Research, 32, 41 1—43 9.

Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant Analysis: Quantitative Application in the Social
Sciences. Sage University Paper Series No. 07-019. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kleiber, D., (1999). Lives in context: A dialectical interpretation - Leisure and
experience and human development. New York: Basic Books.

Knijn, T., (1998). Participation through care? The case of the Dutch housewife. In J.
Bussemaker, and R. Voet (eds). Sex, participation and citizenship in the Netherlands.
Ashgate: Aldershot.

Krishna, A., and Uphoff, N., (1999). Mapping and measuring social capital. Social
Capital Initiative Working Paper No 13, The World Bank Social Development Family
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network.

Ladd, EC, (1996). The Data Just Don't Show Erosion of America's 'Social Capital’.
Public Perspective, 7(4), 1, 5-22.

Ladd, EC, (1999) The Ladd Report, New York: Free Press. Contains a critique of
Putnam's original (1995) article.

Levy, C. S., and Brint, S., (1999). Professions and Civic Engagement: Trends in Rhetoric
andPractice, 1875-1995. In: F iorina, MP, and Skocpol, T., Eds Civic Engagement in
American Democracy. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

Lister, R, (1990). Women, economic dependency and citizenship. Journal for Social
Policy, vol. 19, no. 4, 445-467.

Lyson, TA, and Tolbert, C.M., (1996). Small manufacturing and nonmetropolitan
socioeconomic wellbeing. Environment and Planning, A 28, 1779—1794.

207

Lyson, T.A., Torres, RI and Welsh, R., (2001). Scale of agricultural production, civic
engagement, and community welfare. Social Forces 80, 311—327.

Mannell, RC, and Reid, D., (1999). Work and Leisure. In Jackson, EL, and Burton,
T.L., Eds. Leisure Studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century, 151-165. State College,
PA: Venture Publishing.

Maynard, SS, and Kleiber, DA, (2005). Using Leisure Services to Build Social Capital
in Later Life: Classical Traditions, Contemporary Realities, and Emerging Possibilities.
Journal of Leisure Research, 3 7(4).

McCarthy, B., Hagan, J., and Martin, M.J., (2002). In and out of harm’s way: violent
victimization and the social capital of fictive street families. Criminology, 40, 831—65.

McLaren, L.M., Baird, V.A., (2003). Growing trust: the role of communal participation
in the creation of interpersonal trust. Philadelphia: Presented at Annual. Meeting of
American Political Scientists Association.

Menckens, C.F., Bader, C., and Poison, EC, (2006). Integrating civil society and
economic growth in Appalachia. Growth and Change, Vol. 37, No. 1 (March 2006), 107—
127.

Mesch, G., and Orit, M., (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception, and Local
Attachment. Environment and Behavior 30, 504-19.

Mesch, G., (1996). The Effect of Environmental Concerns and Government Incentives
on Organized Action in Local Areas. Urban Aflairs Review 1, 346-66.

Molotch, H., Freudenberg, W., and Paulsen, K., (2000). History Repeats Itself, but
How?: City Character, Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place. American
Sociological Review, 65, 791-823.

Mutz, DC, (2002). The consequences of crosscutting networks for political
participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 83 8—55.

National Conference on Citizenship, (2006). America ’s Civic Health Index: Broken
Engagement.

National Statistics, (2002). Sport and leisure: Results fiom the sports and leisure module
household survey. London: TSO.

Nederlands Instituut voor Sport en Bewegen, from:
http:/lwww.boskompas.nl/page/478/_Sportparticipatie, Retrieved October 20, 2008

Newcomb, T.M., (1961). The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston.

208

Office of the Associate Provost for Outreach, (2004). Public engagement terminology.
Northern Kentucky University. May 15, 2008, from:
http:/lwww.nku.edu/~nkuope/definitions.htm1. Retrieved February, 2009

Oliver, J .E., (1999). “The Effects of Metropolitan Economic Segregation on Local Civic
Participation. American Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 186-212.

Oxendine, AR, (2004). Inequality and isolation: the impact of economic stratification
on bridging and bonding social capital. Chicago: Presented at Annual Meeting of the
Midwest Political Scientists Association.

Paek, H.J., Yoon, SH, and Shah, D.V., (2005). Local news, social integration, and
community participation: Hierarchical linear modeling of contextual and cross-level
effects. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 587—606.

Pargal, S., and Wheeler, D., (1995). Informal Regulation of Industrial Pollution in
Developing Countries: Evidence from Indonesia. Policy Research Department Working
Paper #1416. Washington DC: World Bank, Policy Research Department.

Pargal, S., Hettige, H., Singh, M., and Wheeler, D., (2002). Formal and Informal
Regulation of Industrial Polution: Comparative Evidence from Indonesia and US. Policy

Research Department Working Paper #1797, Washington D.C.: World Bank, Policy
Research Department.

Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario, (1992). The benefits of park and recreation:
A catalogue. Ontario: Ministry of Tourism and Recreation

Pateman, C., (1989). The disorder of women. Democracy, feminism and political theory.
Cambridge: Policy Press.

Public Management, (2004). Commentary: Citizens have become more helpful, not less.

Putnam, RD, and Feldstein, L., (2003). Better together: Restoring the American
community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, RD, (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, spring, 27-
40.

Putnam, RD, (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

Putnam, RD, (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital
in America. Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664-683.

Putnam, R.D. , (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community,
New York: Simon and Schuster.

209

Putnam, RD, (2001). Social capital measurement and consequences. IS UMA Spring,
volume 2, number 1.

Putnam, R.D., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, KY, (1993). Mala'ng democracy work: Covoc
tradition in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Rahn, W., (1998). Generation and national identity: A data essay. Communication in the
future of democracy workshop. Washington, DC: Annenberg Center.

Ray, M.R., (2002). The Changing and Unchanging Face of US. Civil Society. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Rendall, J ., (1994). Citizenship, culture and civilization: The language of British
Sufl‘ragists, 1866-1874. In Daley, C., and Nolan, M., eds. Sufirage and beyond 127-50.
Auckland: Auckland University Press.

Rojek, C., (2002). Civil labor, leisure and post work society. Loisir et Societe/Society and
Leisure, 25, 21-35.

Rojek, C., (2005). An outline of the action approach to leisure studies. Leisure Studies,
24, 13-25.

Rosenfeld, R., Messner, SF, and Baumer, RP, (2001). Social capital and homicide.
Social Forces 80, 283—3 09.

Rosenstone, SJ, and Hansen, J .M., (1993). Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy
in America. New York: Macmillan.

Saguaro Seminar at John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
(2000). Social Capital Benchmark Survey, 2000. The Roper Center for Public Opinion
Research. From http:/lwww.ropercenter.uconn.edu/misc/usmisc2000-
soccap/usnfichOOO-soccapPDF. Retrieved November 2007

Sampson, R, and Byron-Groves, W., (1989). Community Structure and Crime: Testing
Social-Disorganization Theory. American Journal of Sociology 94, 7 74-802.

Schaik, T., van, (2002). Social capital in the European Values Study Surveys: Country
paper prepared for the OECD-ONS International Conference on Social Capital
Measurement. London, September 25-27, from
http://www.uvt.nl/faculteiten/feb/organisatie/dept/eco/schaik/evsoecd.pdf. Retrieved
November 2007

Shah, D.V., McLeod, J.M., and Yoon, SH, (2001). Communication, context, and

community: An exploration of print, broadcast and Internet influences. Communication
Research, 28, 464-5 06.

210

Shanka, T. and Taylor, R. (2004). Discriminating Factors of First-time and Repeat
Visitors to Wine Festivals. Current Issues in Tourism, Volume 7, Number 2, 134-145
Sklar, F., and Ames, R., (1983). Corporate Philanthropy and Inner City Social Action
Groups: Can Partnership Policies Succeed? Journal of Voluntary Action Research 12, 46-
58.

Skocpol, T., and F iorina, MP, (1999). Making Sense of the Civic Engagement Debate.
In Skocpol, T., and F iorina, M.P., Eds. Civic Engagement in American Democracy, 1-23.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Skocpol, T., (1999). How Americans became civic. In Civic engagement in American
democracy, Skocpol T., and Fiona M.P., eds. Washington, DC: Brooking Institute
Press.

Skocpol, T., (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in
American civic life. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sociaal en Cultureel Planburea (2007). Sport in the Netherlands: A short introduction,
The Hague: SCP.

Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, (2005a). Nederlanders minder vaak lid en minder vaak
actief van een organisatie. From:
http://www.scp.nl/publicaties/persberichten/9037701264.shtm1. Retrieved February 2008

Social en Cultureel Plan bureau, (2005b).Cultuurminnaars en cultuurmijders. Trends in
de belangstelling voor kunsten en cultureel erfgoed. From:
http:/lwww.scp.nl/publicaties/boeken/903 7702287/Cultuurrninnaars_en_cultuurmijders.p
df , Retrieved 18 October 2008.

Society for Nonprofit Organization. Nonprofit briefs. Nonprofit World Volume 25 ,
number 6, 30.

Stebbins, R. A., (2004). Serious leisure, volunteerism and quality of life. In Haworth J .T.,
and and Veal, A.J., Eds. Work and Leisure, 200-230. New York: Routledge.

Stebbins R. A. (2005). Leisure reflections. Recreational specializations, serious leisure
and complex leis ure activity. LSA Newsletter No. 70 — March 2005 (11)

Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, LS. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4“ edn).
Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Teorell, J ., (2003). Linking social capital to political participation: voluntary associations
and networks of recruitment in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26, 49—66.

211

The European Economic and Social Committee, (2004). Participatory democracy - A
key instrument for re-establishing confidence. Press Release, No. 32/2004. 9 March
2004.

Theiss-Morse, and Hibbing, (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Reviews,
227—49.

Tocqueville, A., [1840] (1969). Democracy in America. New York: Anchor

Tolbert, C.M., Irwin,M.D., Lyson, TA. and Nucci, AR, (2002). Civic community in
small-town America: How civic welfare is influenced by local capitalism and civic
engagement. Rural Sociology 67, 90—113.

Tolbert, C.M., Lyson, TA, and Irwin, M.D., (1998). Local capitalism, civic engagement,
and socioeconomic well-being. Social Forces 77, 401—428.

Uslaner, E., (2002). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, [15,
569-590.

Verba, S., and Nie, ’N.H., (1972). Participation in America Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, KL, and Brady, HE, (1995). Voice and equality: civic
voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Vort, R, (1998). Citizenship and female participation. In Bussemaker, J ., andVoet, R.,
eds. Sex, participation and citizenship in the Netherlands, 11-24. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Wollebaek, D., and Selle, P., (2002). Does participation in voluntary associations
contribute to social capital? The impact of intensity, scope, and type. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 31, 32—6 1.

World Bank, (2007). Participation and civic engagement. The ARVTN Framework: A Way
to Assess the Enabling Environment for Civic Engagement. From
http://go.wor1dbank.org/378AB9OH00. Retrieved F ebruari 2008

Young, Frank, W., and Lyson, TA, (1993). Branch Plants and Poverty in the American
South. Sociological Forum 8, 433-50.

Youniss, J.A., McLellan, A., and Yates, M., (2001). What we know about ensexing civic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-632.

Yuen, F.C., Pedlar, A. and Mannell, RC. (2005). Building Community and Social

Capital through Children's Leisure in the Context of an International Camp. Journal of
Leisure Research. Volume: 37(4).

212

Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., and Carpini, M.X D., eds. (2006). A
new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen.
New York: Oxford University Press. '

213