Essa
.. taunfiu“ ,

.?

 

 

.
.3 :3
9.11... (.39
a»? .
.cV-wil

.:

 

.mvg. Wm

 

I.)

 

‘ x
_
v. A
.

n... 1%..
. .3
.u

tun

 

... un‘. O . 1 . . .
. 22mm. Kmflgmmxfwm?
’ i

K. In. I:

v‘ 3|

it...
.Itlx

.f I... l: ‘,
:l .1. L

)..\

1 (3,-3.1

a n. I, a .OH-I

.3111

‘lyn

uh .—
Y‘L

5
.°-.‘.-

 

I University

 

] 131293

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BENEFITS SOUGHT, RECREATION ACTIVITIES,

AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS

presented by

Mary Stuart Wisnom

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. dcgnm,n Parks, Recreation, and
Tourism Resources

 

lag/IL) O/flt I
/

Major professor

[Mme May 12, 1999

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action /Equul Opportunity Institution 0-12771

Milt? A "V. l IIIIII'I‘I'II‘I'IIIIIIIIII IIII‘IIIIIIII

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

a ’7 4:
NOV ii 8 2000

lit ‘0? 1 :0 2051

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use animal-.9669.“

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BENEFITS SOUGHT, RECREATION ACTIVITIES,
AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS

By

Mary Stuart Wisnom

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

1999

ABSTRACT

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BENEFITS SOUGHT, RECREATION ACTIVITIES,
AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS

By

Mary Stuart Wisnom

In the last 10 years, the need for more research on the benefits of recreation has
been recognized by professionals in the field and initial efforts have been taken to translate
this research into USCfiJl guidelines for management. As agencies attempt to incorporate
knowledge about the benefits associated with recreation into their decision making
practices, a better understanding of how these benefits are related to recreation activities
and user groups will be helpfiil. The objectives of this research are to test relationships
between benefits sought by visitors during a recreation experience, recreation activities,
and user group characteristics. The data comes from a 1996 on-site self-administered
survey of visitors to a system of 13 parks surrounding the Detroit metropolitan region in
Southeast Michigan.

The research questions were tested by comparing the importance ratings for six
user perceived benefits of recreation: socializing, exercising, relaxing, excitement, learning,
and enjoying nature. User group characteristics included size, gender, and age categories
of the user groups. Subjects were also classified into activity groups based on the visitor’s
primary recreation activity participated in during the park visit: trail activities, general
activities, golf, water-related activities, winter activities, touring facilities, and attending

special events. One way analysis of variance was used to test for differences in participant

recreation benefit ratings across activity and user groups. Schefi‘e's test was employed to
compare pairwise differences in benefit ratings. Linear regression analysis was used to
estimate the ability of group characteristics and recreation activities to predict benefit
ratings.

The importance of different benefits varied according to user group characteristics
and primary activities. Socializing was rated more important by larger groups. Groups
with women rated nature enjoyment as more important than groups without women.
Male only groups rated excitement higher than groups with women. Those subjects
visiting the park primarily for trail and winter activities tended to seek exercise and nature
enjoyment in their recreation experience. Visitors engaged in general and water-related
activities cited socializing, enjoying nature, and relaxing as most important. Groups
touring facilities and attending special events were most likely to seek nature enjoyment,
while those touring facilities, also rated socializing as important. Activity variables slightly
outperform group characteristics in predicting benefit ratings, with the exception of
socializing. To assist in the application of this material to recreation managers, benefit
profiles were developed for each of the six benefits with discussion of marketing,
management and planning applications. Suggestions are made for further research on the

benefits of recreation.

DEDICATION

For their support and belief in me, I would like to dedicate this work to my father
and mother.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am sincerely grateful to the many people that helped make the completion of this
project possible. I would like to express a special thank you to all of my doctoral
committee members: Dr. Daniel Stynes, my Dissertation Director, for his never ending
support, wisdom, and commitment to the completion of this project; to Dr. Richard
Paulsen for his encouragement; to Dr. Michael Chubb for his insight; and, finally, to Dr.
James Bristor, my Doctoral Committee Chair, for his continued guidance and caring
throughout my graduate education.

I would like to thank my parents, family, and fiiends for their never faltering
encouragement, love, and support. Thanks to my colleagues in the Department of
Recreation, Parks, and Leisure Service Administration at Central Michigan University for
their assistance and patience. Thanks to my fiiends in the Department of Park,
Recreation, and Tourism Resources at Michigan State University for their help and
encouragement. Additional appreciation is offered to Dan Duncan and the Huron Clinton
Metropolitan Authority for allowing me to expand their research project to include
material related to my dissertation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1
Literature and Events Associated with Recreation Benefits ................... 5
Benefits of Public Recreation .......................................... 8
Statement of the Problem ............................................ 10
Research Questions ................................................ 10
Defining the Benefits of Recreation ................................. 11

Group Characteristics ............................................ 14
Recreation Activities ............................................ 15
Hypotheses ...................................................... 15
Summary of the Content of the Dissertation .............................. 16
CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................... 17
Benefits Sought and Recreation Activities ............................... 18
Benefits Sought and Group Characteristics .............................. 22
Recreation Activities and Group Characteristics ........................... 26
Benefits Sought, Recreation Activities, and Group Characteristics ............. 29
Predicting Benefits Sought ........................................ 34

Single and Multiple Activity Research ............................... 34
CHAPTER 3 - METHODS ............................................. 37
Study Project and Sites ............................................. 37
Study Population and Sampling Plan ................................... 40
Response Rates and Representativeness of the HCMA Park User Study Sample . . 4O
Questionnaire Design ............................................... 41
Benefits Sought ................................................ 42

Group Characteristics ............................................ 43
Recreation Activities ............................................ 44

Data Analysis ..................................................... 46
Limitations ....................................................... 48

vi

CHAPTER 4 - RESULTS .............................................. 50

Park Visitor Characteristics .......................................... 50
Park Visit Characteristics ............................................ 52
Benefits Sought ................................................ 52
Recreation Activities ............................................ 53
Group Characteristics ............................................ 54
Tests of the Four Research Hypotheses ................................. 55
Benefits Sought and Recreation Activities ............................ 55
Interpretation of the ANOVA/Schefi‘e Tables ............................. 56
Benefit Sought and Group Characteristics ............................ 60
Recreation Activities and Group Characteristics ........................ 63

Predicting Benefits Sought by Recreation Activities and Group Characteristics 66

CHAPTER 5 - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .......................... 68
Benefit Profiles ................................................... 68
Enjoy Nature and The Outdoors .................................... 69
Get Some Exercise .............................................. 71
Relax and Rest ................................................. 72
Spend Time with Friends and Family ................................ 73
Develop Skills and Learning ....................................... 75
Excitement and Thrills ........................................... 76
Conclusions ...................................................... 77
Recreation Management Applications Using Benefit Profiles ................. 78
Sample HCMA Management Recommendations .......................... 81
Management Decisions .......................................... 81
Marketing .................................................... 87
Recommendations for Future Research ................................. 90
APPENDIX
Huron-Clinton Metroparks User Survey ................................. 93
LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................. 98

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Recreation Activity Groups .................................... 45

Table 2. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of HCMA Park Visitors . 51

Table 3. Benefit Importance Ratings. .................................... 52
Table 4. HCMA Visitors by Primary Activity .............................. 54
Table 5. HCMA Visitors by Demographic Subgroups ....................... 55
Table 6. Comparison of Benefit Ratings by Primary Activity .................. 56
Table 7. Comparison of Benefit Ratings by Group Characteristics. .............. 61
Table 8. Comparison of Activity Ratings by Group Characteristics .............. 64

Table 9. Variance in Benefits Sought Explained by Activity and Group Variables . . . 67

viii

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.

Figure 10.

LIST OF FIGURES

HCMA Park Location Map .................................... 39
Benefit Sought Survey Question ................................. 42
Group Characteristics Survey Question ........................... 43
Recreation Activity Survey Question ............................. 44
Benefit Profile for Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors ................. 69
Benefit Profile for Get Some Exercise ............................ 71
Benefit Profile for Relax/Rest ................................... 73
Benefit Profile for Spend Time with Friends and Family ............... 74
Benefit Profile for Develop Skills/Learning ......................... 75
Benefit Profile for Excitement/Thrills ............................. 77

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

As the recreation industry has grown into a multibillion dollar business (Bergstrom
& Cordell, 1991), interest in all factors affecting the success of this indusz has increased.
Due to this growth and interest, a need for information about the recreation experience
was recognized (Driver, 1990; Lewis and Kaiser, 1991; Schreyer and Driver, 1989, 1990;
Schreyer, 1984), and recreation practitioners and academicians have increased their
investigations of the many facets of the recreation experience (Harper, 1994).

Prior to the 1980's, recreation research concentrated on recreation activities,
facilities, and user groups (Driver & Bruns, in press). With the growth of recreation
knowledge in the 1980's, researchers began to change this focus to also include participant
benefits (Driver & Bruns, in press; Schreyer & Driver, 1989; Stynes & Driver, 1990). This
change in focus can also be attributed to the increased pressure for public recreation
managers to justify the receipt of public firnding and the increased interest in marketing in
the field of recreation as a whole.

The idea of considering the benefits associated with a product or service when
developing management practices is not a new concept. In 1964, Russell Haley suggested
that customers be segmented based on the benefits they seek in a product. This same
concept was discussed by recreation managers and researchers as early as 1968 (Driver,
1993). However, our present knowledge concerning the benefits of recreation is limited
(Allen, Wright, & Harwell, 1995; Colton & Jackson, 1995; Schreyer & Driver, 1989).

While we know that recreation benefits exist, that there are many different kinds of

recreation benefits, and that different people seek different recreation benefits at different
times, there is still a need for a more thorough understanding of the benefits of the
recreation experience. Understanding which benefits are most common to a recreation
participant, which benefits tend to be associated with which recreation activities and which
recreation participants; can advance our understanding of the benefits of a recreation
experience. By expanding our knowledge of the recreation experience, we can assist
recreation managers in making more educated agency decisions.

In the past, most recreation management, planning, and marketing decisions were
based primarily on managers perceptions of recreation activities, facilities, and user
groups. Managers selected and offered what they considered to be “popular” activities,
designed and managed what they perceived to be appropriate facilities, and attempted to
serve a wide range of user groups with the programs and facilities provided. However
more recently, some recreation practitioners have sought to better understand what their
customers are seeking in a recreation experience and to utilize this information in
management decisions. By incorporating this type of information, recreation managers
can improve the provision of recreation services and the development of recreation
facilities (Harper and Balmer, 1989). When faced with decisions regarding recreation
service options, it is important to know not only what benefits people seek from the
experience, but also the extent to which a particular recreation experience provides the
benefits that people seek. If a recreation participant’s motivations are known, the process
of selecting and predicting the services people will select is much easier (Harper and

Balmer, 1989). For example, if your agency is aware that 80 percent of your customer

base is motivated to exercise during their free time, then your agency is likely to attract
more customers if it selects programs that focus on exercise and wellness.

Since the mid 1980's, some managers have begun to implement a ‘benefits
approach’ to recreation services, which requires management to question why an
individual chooses to participate in a recreation experience and to evaluate the specific
outcomes of that recreation experience. Stated specifically by Crompton and Lamb (1986,
p. 10), “people spend their money, time and energy resources with the expectation of
receiving benefits, not for the delivery of services themselves. Citizens don’t buy
programs or services, they buy the expectation of benefits.” So it is to the advantage of
the recreation manager to know and integrate benefit information into their agency
decisions (Driver, 1995).

A benefits approach to recreation management has been described to include a
three phase implementation strategy (Allen, 1997): Phase I - Benefit and Opportunity
Identification, Phase H - Implementation, and Phase HI - Evaluation and Documentation.
In Phase I, the recreation agency must identify potential benefits sought by users,
determine a core group of benefits which users seek and management can realistically
provide, and develop a link between identified benefits and potential activity opportunities
offered by the agency. The agency will then analyze and modify the agency mission and
goals to reflect the benefits sought by the user and through the activities provided by the
agency. In Phase H, the agency sites, areas, and services are modified to produce the
targeted benefits. Monitoring instruments are developed and implemented to assess the

benefit realization of users. Phase 111 includes the evaluation of modified recreation

services, sites and areas, documenting benefit achievement, and sharing the agency’ 3
findings with others interested in a benefits approach to recreation management.

It has taken almost 20 years for the acceptance and practice of this approach in the
field of recreation and leisure services. Over the last several years, the terms most often
used to describe this concept have been a Benefits Driven Approach to Leisure or Benefits
Approach to Leisure (BAL) and Benefits Based Management (BBM). For the purpose of
this dissertation, this concept will identified as a ‘benefits approach.’

Recreation activities, facilities, and user groups will always be central to recreation
management (Peterson, 1996), however, the evolution to a benefits approach requires a
better understanding of what benefits people gain from recreation and how these benefits
may vary across activities, facilities, and user groups (Allen, 1996; Iso-Ahola, 1989).
Schreyer and Driver (1989) stressed the need for benefits research to emphasize "both
prediction and causal explanation: what types of recreation opportunities (and
characteristics of particular opportunities) cause or facilitate particular types of benefits, to
which types of users, and why?” (p. 388). By answering these questions, recreation
managers and academicians will increase their knowledge of how to bridge the more
traditional management approaches of the past to a benefits approach. With a benefits
approach, recreation practitioners will continue to make decisions to provide activities for
particular user groups, but with a knowledge of which benefits are being sought and
received by the user. Conversely, as in Phase H of the benefits approach, recreation
managers can translate a desire to provide a particular benefit into the activities and
facilities most likely to produce this benefit and develop and direct programs toward users

most likely to desire that benefit.

i E i ' h R r i n B 11 fi

While elements of recreation user benefits and their relationship to recreation
activities and group characteristics were included in studies prior to the 1960's, the earliest
notable work on recreation benefits was the 1962 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review
Commission (ORRRC, Study Reports 5, 20, 22, & 27). The ORRRC Study Reports 5 &
20, define recreation groups using demographic, socioeconomic, social components, and
activity participation variables. Reports 22 and 27 include information on the "benefits
and values" of recreation and trends related to benefits. The material found in the
ORRRC study reports was of value, however, was limited in its usefulness in that it was
mostly descriptive and didn't identify specific relationships between benefits, activities, and
user groups.

From 1960 to 1980, economic methods for measuring recreation supply and
demand dominated the research agenda (Schreyer & Driver, 1989). During this time,
questions about the benefits participants receive from recreation were largely absent
(Stynes and Driver, 1990). The central management questions during this period were
how much, what, and where to provide recreation. Research, which was mostly applied,
was also directed by these questions. Toward the end of the 1960's, studies of user
attitudes, motivations, and satisfaction began to provide information about the values
associated with outdoor recreation use from which inferences about benefits could be
made (Driver, Nash, & Haas, 1987). These types of research were more likely to discuss
motivations, preferences, attitudes, and interests in broad terms, although user benefits
were frequently a key dimension. This type of research continued into the 1980's,

however, during this time many of the research projects were primarily concerned with

classifying recreation activities into groups. A number of variables have been used to
classify recreation activities, including past leisure behavior (McKechnie, 1974), perceived
similarities of leisure activities (Becker, 1976), frequency of participation and importance
ratings (Gudykunst, Morram Kantor, & Parker, 1981; Romsa & Girling, 1976), activity
preferences and participation (Chase & Cheek, 1979), and leisure satisfaction and attitudes
(Ragheb, 1980).

During the 1980's there was increased emphasis placed on the benefits associated
with a recreation experience and, in turn, a growth of knowledge related to the benefits of
recreation. During this time, two comprehensive assessments of the benefits of outdoor
recreation appeared. The first, entitled Won, edited by
John R. Kelly (1981), includes nine chapters highlighting the personal and societal benefits
of recreation and one chapter on economic valuation methods. The President's
WWW (PCAO, 1936) had 11
chapters, two of which were centered on “values and benefits” and “motivations” of an
outdoor recreation experience.

Increased interest in recreation user benefits was shown, when in May of 1984 and
1989, two separate workshops were held to establish the state of knowledge about the
benefits of recreation. The 1984 workshop was held at Utah State University, Logan,
Utah, with the primary tasks of: (1) discussing the potential of a change in recreation
management from an activity approach to a benefits approach, (2) considering problems
related to a benefits approach, and (3) identifying the most useful research strategies for
investigating the benefits of recreation, most specifically wildland recreation (Schreyer,

1984). The primary tasks of the 1989 workshop, held at Snowbird, Utah, were: (1)

specifying the beneficial consequences of leisure, (2) measuring the magnitude and relative
importance of those consequences, (3) identifying research needs, and (4) outlining
alternative research designs for the benefits of recreation (Driver, Brown, & Peterson,
1991b). This workshop prompted the development of a text titled Benefits of Leisure
(Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 19913), which includes over 20 papers on the physiological,
psychological, social, economic, and environmental benefits of leisure. While the material
included in this text covered a wide range of benefits of recreation, in 1990, Stynes and
Driver stated that:

our general conclusions about leisure benefits are not very different

from the ORRRC studies. That is, most scientists believe there

are important benefits of outdoor recreation and leisure. However,

few would contend that we have adequate empirical evidence to

scientifically confirm these hypotheses. In particular, our

understanding of how different situational factors and contexts

influence the nature and extent of benefits for difi‘erent population

subgroups is weak, as is our understanding of how leisure

experiences interact with everything else in contributing to

individual, family and social well being (p. 5).

The 1990's have sparked greater support for the benefits approach to recreation
management, a greater need for literature related to this topic in order to implement this
approach, and, hence, more research highlighting the benefits of recreation. In the 1990's,
published research on the benefits of recreation has increased significantly. There have

been more than 25 research articles on benefits published in the W

Research, There were two textbooks published during the 1990's: War;
which summarize existing empirical research on the benefits of recreation and leisure
(Driver, Brown and Peterson, 1991) and WW
BenefitLAppmgh which applies benefits research to recreation program development
(Edginton, et al., 1998). More recently, Internet web pages (Academy of Leisure
Sciences, 1999; Driver, 1999), a newsletter entitled, WW1:
Wm (Hoots, 1993/1996), and on-line bulletin boards (Benefits List, 1999)
have been dedicated to disseminating information on the benefits of leisure and recreation.
Recreation benefits have also been recently emphasized in other research journals and
recreation publications (e. g. Leisure Sciences and Park and Recreation Magazine). The
increase in popular literature related to the benefits of recreation over the last eight years
indicates that the benefits approach has achieved some support in the recreation industry.
Ifwe are going to increase the effectiveness of a benefits approach to recreation
management, more in—depth information is still needed.
E E [E l l' E .

The public recreation systems in the United States are based on the notion that
access to basic beneficial recreation opportunities is the right of all citizens, not just a
privilege for those who can afford to pay for services. This belief is held because it is
generally acknowledged that there are a range of significant user benefits which result
from participation in recreation. It is therefore believed to be in the public interest to
provide recreation facilities and services that provide these benefits (Harper and Balmer,

1989)

In the past 20 years, public recreation agencies have faced increasing fiscal
constraints (Allen, 1996; Allen, Stevens, & Harwell, 1996; Allen, Wright & Harwell,
1996; Graefe et al., 1981; Lewis and Kaiser, 1991). As a result, public recreation
managers have had to work more efficiently. Recreation managers presently need
techniques that can help them do a better job of managing their services and facilities with
limited resources (Godbey, 1995; Westland, 1986). It was clear by the late 1980's that
new information was required for public recreation service providers to verify their need
for financial resources and to justify the existence of recreation services. At the same
time, public recreation providers were being forced to raise more money through
alternative sources (other than tax dollars) and, therefore, nwded information to
adequately compete with other recreation service providers, as well as other users of
public funds. Some public recreation managers believe that a benefits approach to
recreation management is one way to compete effectively (Allen, Stevens & Harwell,
1996; Bruns, 1993; Stein & Lee, 1995). If public recreation managers can prove that
benefits are being received by the users and the community they serve, they can use this
information to enhance their application for financial resources. Or if particular recreation
services can be linked to benefits the agency seeks to firlfill, these services may have more
acceptance within the community and within the agency’s governing body. These ideas
are all part of the process of a benefits approach to recreation management. It is apparent
that in order to assist in integrating a benefits approach that recreation agencies and

practitioners need a greater understanding of the benefits of recreation (Harper, 1994).

Statemsmnftbehnblem

Reduced financial resources have made it increasingly difficult to provide the
recreation services and facilities necessary to satisfy the needs of the public recreation
customer. Harper and Balmer (1989) predict fiscal constraints are likely to continue into
the next century. To meet public demands and ensure the most productive development
and utilization of facilities and services, recreation managers have to make sure their
management choices are economically efficient, yet provide the greatest customer benefits
now and for the future.

Although the amount of literature related to the benefits of recreation has
increased in the 1990's, this type of literature is limited. Recreation management and
planning has historically been centered around activity characteristics and user group
characteristics (Harper, 1994). As agencies attempt to focus more attention on recreation
benefits, a better understanding of how recreation benefits are related to activities and user
groups will be needed.

W

Expanded information on the benefits of recreation is needed to assist with the
implementation of a benefits approach to recreation management. Knowing that
understanding recreation activities and user groups are also critical to recreation agency
decision making and, ultimately, the success of a recreation agency, these two variables
are integrated into this research. Specifically, this dissertation will identify the benefits
park visitors seek for themselves fiom a recreation experience and determine how these
benefits vary across recreation activities and user groups. Testing the relationships among

these three variables (benefits sought, recreation activities and user groups) can offer

10

critical insight and practical assistance to recreation managers using a benefits approach to
management. The four fundamental research questions directing this dissertation are:
(1) Which benefits tend to be associated with which recreation activities?;
(2) Do benefits vary with user group characteristics?;
(3) Do different types of groups participate in distinct recreation activities?; and
(4) How well do demographic variables and recreation activities predict benefits
sought in a recreation experience?

The first two research questions are central to the advancement of a benefits
approach to recreation management. Discovering these relationships can advance our
understanding of recreation benefits. Public recreation managers have begun to recognize
that if the basic principles of recreation user benefits are understood, they can be applied
to all contexts of recreation delivery (Iso-Ahola, 1989). Recreation researchers have
indicated that this understanding is firndamental to explaining and predicting recreation
behaviors (Ingharn, 1986; Iso-Ahola, 1988), devising and selecting management objectives
and practices (Driver, 1986), organizing and conducting recreation inventories (Driver,
1986; Knopf et al., 1983), and developing visitor information and marketing plans (Driver,
1986). In essence, if recreation managers want to do a better job, they need to
understand what recreation benefits are sought, by which customers, and through which
recreation activities.

I E . l E a [E .
Several definitions of the term "recreation benefit" have been advanced (Schreyer,
1984). Two basic approaches may be identified. Recreation user benefits can be

conceptualized as benefits sought through recreation experience or as benefits received

11

flow the recreation experience. The benefits sought approach focuses attention on the
motivations for pursuing a recreation activity. Benefits sought have also been described as
stimuli, reasons, and purposes.

Psychologists tend to approach the topic of benefits sought from the perspective of
motivations, an internal catalyst that arouses and directs human behavior (Iso-Ahola,
1989). People don’t just choose to walk, play games or fish, they seek out some type of
benefit. Most human actions are directed, and this inner motivation leads to actions that
bring people closer to their goals (Gleitrnan, 1986; Losier, Bourque & Vallerand, 1992).
Crandall (1980) used the benefit sought format in his definition of a benefit as “why
people do specific activities; what personality needs might be fulfilled by leisure; (and)
motivations of leisure...” (p. 45).

Although the majority of his research uses a psychological attitude approach,
Driver (1990) prefers to define benefits as benefits received; outcomes, consequences or
improved conditions which occur as a result of participating in a recreation activity.

Other descriptors used to explain benefits received are gains, impacts, and results.

Each of these approaches to defining user benefits are important to understand
since they offer insight for recreation managers regarding the whole recreation experience.
Understanding what benefits recreation participants seek through a recreation experience
can lead to an increased understanding of user motivations. Knowing what a user seeks in
a recreation experience, recreation managers will be better able to anticipate and serve
user needs, and enhance their ability to attract and retain customers. Recreation
professionals can also use this information to discover the perceived value of their

programs and to help in the planning and marketing of their products and services. By

12

understanding benefits received from a recreation experience, recreation professionals can
systematically evaluate the impacts of their programs. Program evaluations are often
needed to justify budgets or to compete successfully with other recreation programs.

The benefits of recreation can have a variety of recipients, including an individual,
a family, a small group, a community, a society, an organization, a nation, or the world.
The types of benefits that are hypothesized to result from recreation have not changed
significantly over time (Stynes & Driver, 1990). Benefits are often categorized into: social
benefits, economic benefits, environmental benefits and personal benefits (Academy of
Leisure Sciences, 1999; Driver, 1986; Driver, Nash & Haas, 1987; Harper and Balmer,
1989; Stein and Lee, 1995).

Social benefits are typically advantages to groups of people such as a community,
family, or an organization. Examples of social benefits include building strong
communities, promoting cultural harmony, and increasing organizational wellness. An
economic benefit is the profit (or cost) to the recreation provider, participant, or the
surrounding community, that can be expressed in monetary terms, such as increased
earnings, creating a more productive work force, or reducing the high cost of vandalism.
An environmental benefit is the enhancement of natural resources through the preservation
or maintenance of our land and wildlife resources, such as protecting an endangered
species or allowing for the development of a park to improve the environmental health of
a connnunity. Finally, personal benefits encompass the physiological, psychological,
sociological, and economic benefits which are pursued and received by an individual.
Personal benefits can include increasing your level of fitness, being social, reducing stress,

enjoying nature, seeking excitement, or learning a skill. While benefits sought and

13

received can be grouped into the four categories described, benefits sought are most often
associated with personal benefits. For the purposes of this research project, the benefit
type and approach used is personal benefits sought.

[1 Cl . .

Recreation participants are ofien classified into some type of user group (Allen &
Donnelly, 1985; Buchanan et al., 1981; Etzkorn, 1964; Field & O’Leary, 1973).
These user grOUps may be defined by a variety of characteristics, including demographic,
socioeconomic, and geographic. The make-up of the group can influence the selection of
recreation activities (Burch, 1969; McClaskie, Napier, & Christensen, 1986) and benefits
sought through the recreation experience (Ajzen, 1991; Altman, 1981; Dunlap and Catton,
1979; Ewert, 1993; Unger, 1984).

Previous studies have shown that group characteristics influence an individual's
recreation experience in a variety of ways. Some general findings include (1) social
interaction between members of a recreation user group are often cited as an important
element of the recreation experience (Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993; Crandall, 1979;
Etzkorn, 1964), (2) a social group can be a motivator for recreation activities (Adams,
1979; Buchanan, et al., 1981; Burch, 1964; Burch 1969; Scott & Godbey, 1992), (3) a
leisure situation that includes more than one participant can enhance the subjects
experience (Kelly, 1978a, Unger, 1984), and more recently, (4) the make-up of a
recreation user group can influence the benefits the group seeks in a recreation experience
(Ajzen, 1991, Altman, 1981; Dunlap and Catton, 1979; Ewert, 1993; Floyd & Gramann,

1995; Heywood, 1987).

14

In past research, user groups have been defined by the size of the group (Adams,
1079; Ewert, 1993; Heywood, 1987; Unger, 1984), the familiarity of the group members
(Heywood, 1987), the relationship of the group members (Buchanan et al., 1981), and the
gender of the group members (Donald & Havighurst, 1959; Hawes, 1979; Pierce, 1980;
Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, & Kaufinan, 1985). For the purposes of this research project, user
groups will be defined based on size of group, the gender, and age of the participants.

Recreation has been defined as a “voluntary nonwork activity” (Kelly, 1990, p.27).
Over the years, recreation activities have been associated with particular types of benefits.
As early as 1964, touring and nature related activities were being linked to learning
benefits (Etzkorn, 1964). More recently, canoeing and kayaking have been linked to rest
and relaxation (Stein & Lee, 1995). There are literally thousands of recreation
alternatives. The recreation activities selected for this research project include those
outdoor recreation activities typically found in a general day use outdoor park setting.
Hmotheses
The specific null hypotheses to be tested in this dissertation are as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Benefits sought during a park visit do not vary significantly
with recreation activities .

Hypothesis 2: Benefits sought do not vary significantly with the
demographic makeup of the group visiting the park.

Hypothesis 3: Participation in recreation activities does not vary
significantly with the demographic makeup of the group
visiting the park.

In addition to the three null hypotheses, this research project will test the ability of

the demographic makeup of the group and recreation activities to predict the importance

15

of benefits sought during the park visit. The research hypotheses for this dissertation will
be tested using data from a 1995-96 park visitor survey at the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan
Authority park system located in Southeast Michigan. Included in this report will be an
overview of the benefits sought, recreation activity, and a demographic description of the
park visitor.

S E l C E l l; . .

Chapter 1 provides the general background, reasons for, and hypotheses of the
study. Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature related to the relationships of benefits
sought, recreation activities, and group characteristics, an overview of the typical formats
used in benefits research, and the selected format for this dissertation. Chapter 3 describes
the methods employed to investigate the research questions of this dissertation, including
the study population, sampling plan, a description of the survey questions and data
analysis. Chapter 4 contains a profile of the sampled visitors and a summary of findings
related to the research questions of this dissertation. Chapter 5 begins with benefit
profiles describing each of the six benefits investigated in this dissertation, and ends with

management recommendations and suggestions for further research on recreation benefits.

16

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Although a benefits approach to recreation management has only been practiced
for a short time, research that can help in our understanding of recreation benefits, dates
back to the early 1960's. This chapter provides a summary of research literature related to
the relationships between benefits sought, recreation activities, and groups characteristics.
The literature review is organized around the relationships among the three sets of
variables tested in this dissertation: (l) benefits sought and recreation activities, (2)
benefits sought and group characteristics, (3) recreation activities and group
characteristics, and (4) benefits sought, recreation activities and group characteristics.

Research on the benefits sought through a recreation experience include in-depth
studies of a single recreation activity and general multiple activity studies. Single activity
studies generally provide a profile of the activity, the participants, and often highlight the
benefits sought or received from the activity. For instance, research on running may
describe the activity in terms of the average length and speed of the run, the demographic
characteristics of the participant, and the primary benefit sought through the activity.

Multiple activity studies have a format that classifies or segments individuals or
multiple activities based on benefits sought. Some segments are based on other variables,
but these segments are often then described in terms of their differences in benefits or
motivations. For instance, a research project that is attempting to segment recreation
activities may categorize these recreation activities as trail and water-related activities and

describe similarities among the participants, such as trail users seek excitement and those

17

participating in water—related activities seek relaxation. In each of the first four sections of
this chapter, the two types of research are separately addressed. The fifih section of this
chapter is a discussion of the two research formats and the advantages and disadvantages
associated with each. This section will include the rationale used in selecting the format
for this dissertation.

Six principal benefits stand out in the literature as being those most significant to
an outdoor recreation experience: learning, socializing, exercising, enjoying nature,
relaxing, and excitement (Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991; Schreyer & Driver, 1989;
Wellman, Dawson, & Roggenbuch, 1982). This chapter will report on research related to
these benefits. Selected research on recreation activities will cover traditional outdoor day
use recreation activities. Group characteristics will include size and composition of the
user group.

As the focus of recreation management has begun to shift from an activity
approach to a benefit approach, it was only natural to find a large amount of the research
concentrated on the relationships between benefits sought and recreation activities.
Learning is often cited as a motivation for recreation. Learning benefits of recreation
include: (1) learning about specific recreation activities and developing skills, (2) learning
about the natural or cultural environment, (3) becoming a more effective environmental
decision maker, (4) developing pride in the community, (5) learning about the self, and
(6) for children, cognitive, emotional, social, physical development, and problem solving
(Barnett, 1991; Buhyoff& Brown, 1975; Driver, Nash, & Haas, 1987; Roggenbuck,

Loomis, & Dagostino, 1991). The benefits of learning are sought through several types of

18

activities. Reported in single activity research, non-motor boating (Colton & Jackson,
1995; Graefe, 1977; Graefe, et al., 1981; Hollender, 1977; Knopf, et al., 1983), touring
and nature-related activities (Etzkorn, 1964) were closely associated with learning. In
multiple activity studies, learning was reportedly sought through sports in general (London
et al., 197 7), and golf specifically (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1988), special events (Tinsley &
Kass, 1979; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1988), walking, hiking (Stein & Lee, 1995), fishing, and
canoeing (Driver & Knopf, 1976).

Social interaction is among the most frequently reported reason for participation in
recreation and leisure (Auld & Case, 1997; Iso-Ahola, 1980). Recreation has been
demonstrated to be highly social in nature and to facilitate development of fiiendships and
family relationships (Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993; Orthner & Mancini, 1980, 1991). It is
not surprising that individuals have been shown to engage in recreation specifically for
social reasons (Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Iso-Ahola & Allen, 1982; London, Crandall, &
Fitzgibbons, 1977; Tinsley & Kass, 1978). Socializing was reported to be sought in
several studies of river rafters (Graefe, 1977; Graefe et al., 1981; Knopf et al., 1983). In
multiple activity studies, sports participants (London et al., 1977; Tinsley & Tinsley,
1988), picnickers (Driver & Cooksey, 1980; Tinsley & Johnson, 1984; Tinsley & Tinsley,
1988), swimmers (Driver & Cooksey, 1980), anglers (Driver & Knopf, 1976), golfers
(Driver & Knopf, 1976), walkers, hikers, rafters (Stein & Lee, 1995), and those attending
special events (Tinsley & Johnson, 1984; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1988) were most likely to
seek social benefits.

The research on the physical health benefits of physical recreation and exercise is

widely recognized. Although the virtues of exercise have been discussed for centuries, the

19

importance of physical exertion to vitality and endurance has been appreciated only since
the middle of our 20th century (Paffenbarger, Hyde, & Dow, 1991). Today, more than
ever, we find individuals spending their leisure time in pursuit of fitness. Fitness was
shown to be sought through recreation sports (White, 1995), non-motor boating
(Hollender, 1977; Knopf et al., 1983), and nrnning (Clough, et al., 1989) in several single
activity studies. Swimmers (Driver & Cooksey, 1988; Driver & Knopf, 1976), walkers
(Market Opinion Research, 1986), bikers, nature observers, and individuals canoeing,
kayaking, and driving for pleasure (Stein & Lee, 1995) were reported to seek exercise
more than other recreation activities in studies that compared several activities.

Though some persons work outside, the only length of time that most of us spend
outside is when we are participating in leisure and recreation (Rolston, 1991). When this
is the case, one can not deny nature enjoyment is often an important motivator (Driver,
Nash, & Haas, 1987). Enjoying nature was shown to be sought in studies of non-motor
boating (Colton & Jackson, 1995; Hollender, 197 7). Nature observation (Stein & Lee,
1995; Rossman & Ulehla, 1977), driving for pleasure, biking, kayaking, canoeing (Stein &
Lee, 1995), trail, water and winter sports (Market Opinion Research, 1986) were all
reported in multiple activity studies to attract participants who seek the benefit of enjoying
nature and the outdoors.

Words and phrases such as, slow down, escape, or release stress often convey the
need to relax. Frequently we pursue recreation just to rest and relax. Rest and relaxation
were reportedly sought through swimming (Berger & Owen, 1992) and non-motor
boating (Cohen & Jackson, 1995; Hollender, 1977) in single activity studies. In multiple

activity studies, relaxation was most often achieved through traditional trail activities such

20

as, jogging, biking, roller skating, also through participating in sports (Tinsley & Johnson,
1984), and being a sports spectator (Market Opinion Research, 1986). Fishing (Driver &
Cooksey, 1980; Driver & Knopf, 1976), golfing (Driver & Knopf, 1976), swimming
(Driver & Knopf, 1976; Tinsley & Johnson, 1984), nature observation, and water-related
activities (Market Opinion Research, 1986) were also found to be associated with rest and
relaxation.

Excitement and thrills are also sought through recreation, often seen as the
opposite of rest and relaxation. Many so-called "adventure recreation” programs, such as
mountain climbing and white water rafting, are premised on the notion that exposure to
challenging situations can have beneficial consequences (Ewert, 1993). Challenge and
excitement were reportedly sought in high altitude climbing (Ewert, 1994), non-motor
boating (Colton & Jackson, 1995; Graefe, 1977; Hollender, 1977) and running (Clough, et
al., 1989) in single activity studies. In studies that compared several recreation activities,
excitement was most often associated with sports, winter and water activities, fishing
(Market Opinion Research, 1986), nature observation, biking, canoeing, and kayaking
(Stein & Lee, 1995).

These studies have advanced our knowledge of how specific benefits can be
related to specific activities. Of the 21 studies reviewed that test these relationships, there
are many similarities across each of the selected benefits sought. For example, each
benefit was associated with at least two trail and three water-related activities. However,
notable differences also occur. Mth only two exceptions, special events, walking, golf,
and hiking, were found to be associated with learning and social benefits. (Walking was

noted as also being linked to exercise and golf to relaxing.) Winter activities were only

21

linked to enjoying nature and excitement, picnicking was only associated with socializing,
and spectator sports were only connected with relaxing. Scenic driving, touring, and
nature observation were associated with learning, exercise, and, of course, enjoying
nature.

WWW

Outdoor recreation groups have been defined in research using a variety of
variables including, size of the party, primary gender of the group members, or whether
the group consists of family or fiiends. A review of this research indicates that group
size, gender, and composition of the group seem to influence the benefits sought in a
recreation experience. Although authors have repeatedly noted the strength of these
relationships, few studies have actually been completed and findings have not been
consistent. The six research studies that center specifically on gender differences
examined the individual characteristics of the recreation participants and drew general
conclusions about gender differences.

As early as 1959, Donald and Havighurst utilized a questionnaire to estimate
reasons for (benefits sought) participation in an individual’s favorite leisure activity. The
group studied was a sample of individuals over 16 years of age from a rural area in New
Zealand and from Kansas City, Missouri. Each of the respondents was asked to indicate
their two favorite leisure activities and to rank, in order of importance, their reasons for
participating in these activities from a list of 12 pre-selected reasons. Reasons with a
higher rank were "Just for the Pleasure of It," "Welcome Change from Work," "Gives
New Experience" and "Contact with Friends." To find out whether these reasons were

related in any systematic fashion to selected leisure activity categories, a chi-square

22

analysis was completed. Although it was not the objective of this research, this study was
the first to point out the connection between the size of a user group and the goal of a
social benefit from a recreation experience. Although the researchers wanted to focus on
the relationships of recreation activities and the benefit sought through that activity,
activities typically conducted in groups were placed in three categories (formal, informal
and sports), each of which indicated the social benefit of “contact with fiiends” as most
important. Hence, in this research project larger groups typically had a higher rating of
importance for social benefits.

Adams (1979) found that whether or not a recreation participant is alone had an
efiea on the benefits sought by anglers. Those participants alone sought exercise and
meeting new people, while those with family desired to spend time with other families
(Adams, 1979). Heywood (1987) reported that river floaters in small groups desired quiet
and escape while participating in their recreation experience, while those in larger groups
desired adventure. Solo climbers sought escape in their climb of Mt. McKinley, whereas
guided groups sought excitement and social benefits (Ewert, 1993). In a study of several
activities, Unger (1984) found that individuals involved in recreation experiences where
others were present perceived a better leisure experience than those who were alone.

Party composition also has been found to effect the benefit sought by recreation
participants. In a study of river floaters, Heywood (1987) found that if some of the user
group members were unknown to the participant, he/ she was more likely to seek
adventure. If the group members were known, escape and quiet were often preferred
(Heywood, 1987). Buchanan, Christensen and Burdge (1981) tested if the party

composition of either friends only, family only, or a combination of both fiiends and family

23

influenced the recreation benefit sought for anglers, swimmers, and power boaters. Those
fishing in family groups sought social benefits and time for reflection, family/fiiend groups
pursued escape and being with fiiends, and fiiends only groups sought reflection.
Swimmers in family groups pursued learning, risk and excitement, family/fiiend groups
desired exercise, and fiiends groups sought being with fiiends and escaping one’s family.
The composition of the user group did not alter the benefits sought by power boaters.

Although Tinsley and Tinsley (1988) reported a consistent lack of evidence that
benefits sought vary by gender, several other studies have shown just the opposite. In
investigating the individual difl‘erences of recreation participants, Donald and Havighurst
(1959) reported that there were two differences in motivations between men and women.
The reason “A Welcome Change from My Work” was given by 55% of the men and 41%
of the women, while the reason “I Feel That I Am Being Creative” was expressed by 24%
of the women and 6% of the men. There were no significant relationships between
reasons and age or occupational status in this study. A study by Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs and
Kaufman (1985) of older adults found that women (65 years or older) sought
companionship and recognition more often than other benefits and men were more likely
to seek power in a recreation experience.

Toth and Brown (1997) studied differences in fishing motivations between groups
defined by race and gender. The most marked differences were present between racial
groups, however, some gender differences were found. Exploratory factor analysis was
used to group the reasons for fishing for men and women and slight differences were
uncovered. For example, family recreation, escape and relaxation were sought by each

gender group, being outdoors was included for women and not for men.

24

Both Hawes (1979) and Pierce (1980) found some gender differences when
looking at the perceived benefits received fi'om a recreation experience. In a nationwide
study, Hawes (197 9) measured the satisfactions derived from the subject’s three favorite
recreation activities. Both men and women rated “Peace of Mind” as most important.
Women rated learning, “Get the Most Out of Life,” and escape as the three next most
important satisfactions. The men’s ratings were different with “Get the Most Out of Life,”
excitement, enjoyment and nostalgia as the four next most important satisfactions.

Pierce (1980) surveyed urban residents to determine the extent to which they
perceived receiving benefits fiom their free time activities. Both men and women rated
relaxation as the most important reason for pursuing fiee time activities. However, as
with Hawes (1979), the remainder of the benefits were ranked differently for men as
compared to women. Women ranked learning, intimacy, and achievement as second
through fourth in importance, while men rated power, learning and time filling as second
through fourth in importance after relaxation.

The size, gender, and party composition of a recreation user group has been
shown, on occasion, to affect the benefits that users or groups of users seek in a recreation
experience. However, due to the limited number of studies and the lack of consistency in
research formats, it is difficult to draw any overall conclusions about the relationship of
these variables. In general, individuals recreating in small groups or alone sought escape,
quiet, and exercise. Larger groups more often sought adventure, excitement, and social
benefits. The gender and age make-up of participant groups does in some cases influence
the benefits sought in a recreation experience. The lack of consistency in the findings

compelled this researcher to delve more in—depth into these relationships. Thus, the size,

25

gender, and age configuration of recreation group members were selected as variables for
this research project.

Relationships between recreation activities and user group characteristics have
been widely studied, dating back to as early as the 1960's. The first two studies that
looked at the relationships between of recreation activities and participant characteristics
were published by William R. Burch, Jr. In both studies the research method is unclear,
however, Burch describes the influence of the user group on the selection of the recreation
activity. Camping groups were the focus of the first published study relating leisure
activities and user groups. Burch (1964) set out to investigate two aspects of the outdoor
recreation experience; recreation behavior and the recreationists' conception of the
recreation land resource system. Burch suggested, at the conclusion of this study that, “a
person's (recreation activity) decisions appear to be associated with the social groups with
which one is amliated” (p. 707). A few years later, Burch (1969) conducted research on a
sample of wilderness and auto campers in a park area in Oregon. Burch investigated three
hypotheses in this study, the third relating to what he termed " personal community. " This
hypothesis suggested that transactions with and socialization by one's workmates, parents,
spouse, and fiiends will shape the nature of one’s leisure participation. The findings of this
study suggested that social groups are ‘sources of meaning’ for leisure activities. Burch
indicated that “once a person has sorted out his range of leisure alternatives he tends to
have a circle of fiiends which reinforces his remaining with this range” (p. 141).

After Burch’s preliminary conclusions concerning the influence of the group on the

selection of recreation activities, several other researchers set out to test these same

26

relationships. Studies testing relationships between recreation activities and user group
characteristics generally compare several different recreation activities. Dottavio, O'Leary
and Koth, (1980) found that group characteristics, including age and gender variables,
enhance the predictability of frequency of participation in recreation activities. The
researchers studied both social groups (i.e. family, fiiends) and socio-demographic groups
(i.e. age, gender) and tested their strength of prediction of recreation participation. The
dependent variable of recreation participation was frequency of participation in one of 12
outdoor recreation activities. The investigators found that when social group variables
were combined with age and gender of a participant, there were increases (ranging from
.001 - .1) in the ability to predict frequency of participation in 10 out of 11 outdoor
recreation activities, including biking, hiking, hunting, picnicking, motor boating and
sailing, water skiing, and swimming. (The ability to predict other boating activities
showed no increase.)

Choi, Loomis & Ditton (1994) found that group composition affects the type of
recreation participation. In this study, the four activities observed were going to a nearby
beach park, touring a nearby waterfront shopping and historic district, fishing on a party
boat, and visiting a marine theme park. Group composition and the option for an
alternative activity appear to reflect the “family orientation” of certain activities, making
them attractive to family groups. Party boat fishing, which is often considered less family
oriented, was a more likely substitute for non-family types of activities.

Although more females are participating in outdoor pursuits than ever before
(Henderson, 1992), several researchers have found that adult women tend to perceive less

freedom in leisure pursuits than adult men (Jackson & Henderson, 1994; Larson, et al.,

27

1997; Phillip, 1997). Kelly (1980), found that gender was a better predictor of some
outdoor recreation activities than others, specifically fishing, boating, and golf. Similar to
the research projects investigating the relationships of gender and benefits sought, those
examining gender and recreation activities also looked at the recreation participant as an
individual and not a member of a user group.

The most comprehensive recent publication on participation patterns in certain
types of outdoor recreation activities comes from the 1994-95 National Survey of
Recreation and the Environment, published by the US. Forest Service (W ellner, 1997).
According to this survey, the greatest differences in participation between men and women
in traditional outdoor day use activities are in fresh water fishing, golf, and running, where
men participate more often, and ice skating, walking, picnicking, and bird watching, where
women participate more often. While participation in many activities generally declines
with age, many activities appear among the top ten in all age groups. These include
walking, birdwatching, sightseeing, attending outdoor sports events, hiking, swimming
(pool and non pool), picnicking, motor boating, and camping. Participating in many
activities decline with age, such as running, while some increase, such as motor boating
(Unkel, 1981; Wellner, 1997). Young adults are more likely than older Americans to take
part in sport and recreation activities. Although, Unkel (1981) reported that the presence
of children in the family did not effect the type of recreation activity participation, it was
also later reported that activities which tend to occur often in household with children are

picnicking, swimming, sledding, and water siding (W ellner, 1997).

28

 

The remaining studies highlighted in this chapter contain the three variables of
benefits sought, recreation activities and user group characteristics. As these are the focus
of this dissertation, more details for these studies are provided. Allen and Donnelly
(1985) studied a random sample of individuals from Laramie, Wyoming to test the
relationships between participation in leisure activities, social units, and reasons for
participating in activities. A modified item pool from Driver’s Recreation Experience
Preference (REP) scales was used to assess the subject’s reasons for engaging in his/her
most enjoyable recreation activities.

The research set out to determine relationships between the social units within
which individuals participate in their two most enjoyable recreation activities and their
reasons for participating in these activities. Outdoor activities predominated as the two
most enjoyable activities with the majority of participation in the farnily/fiiends social
group. The reasons of family togetherness, relation with nature, being with people,
escaping the family, escaping physical pressure, and meeting new people were the primary
discriminating variables in predicting the social unit of participation. However, these
reasons were not, in general, viewed as the primary reasons for engaging in a participant’s
most enjoyable activity. The most important reasons were achievement, escape social
pressures, exercise, rest, and learning. Allen and Donnelly (1985) concluded, “that the
type and degree of social interaction desired vary with the social unit of participation, but
the primary reasons for participation remain relatively stable regardless of the social unit of

participation” (p. 422).

29

The summary report of the President’s Commission of Americans Outdoors
(Market Opinion Research, 1986) claims that five types of motivations drive American
adults to participate in outdoor recreation: “Fitness,” “Social,” “Excitement,” “Experience
Self and Nature,” and “Conformist/ Space Cramped.” Two other motivations were
revealed, and were not strongly related to any one of the other five motivations, “For
Change” and “To Learn.” Outdoor recreation activities were combined into six major
groups based on the subject’s likeliness to participate in each of the activities: “Ball
Games and Running,” “Spectator Outings,” “Fishing, Hunting and Horsepower,”
“Observing Nature,” “Water and Golf,” and “Winter Sports.”

Benefit profiles were used to show the relationships of benefits sought, recreation
activity groups, and demographic characteristics. The five motivational groups participate
in different recreation activities and at different rates. The “Excitement” group made up
16% of the adult population. They are active participants in ball games, water and winter
sports, fishing and hunting. Two-thirds of this group were males and this group had a
median age of 32 years. The “Conformist/Space Crarnped” group made up 33% of the
adult population. These two groups were similar in that they like outdoor recreation as a
chance to be alone and to study nature. They participate in spectator outings and all kinds
of sports, but they are most likely to be involved in quiet in-the-woods-and-water sports.
There is an equal number of males and females in this group and the median age is 35
years.

The “Fitness” group in this study comprises ten percent of adults. They are
motivated to participate in outdoor activities for fitness (not social) reasons. A large

portion of this group walk for pleasure. Fifty—six percent of this group are female, they

30

are highest on the socioeconomic scale in relationship to other motivational groups. Their
median age is 46. Finally, the “Social” group was motivated by a concern for fitness and
the desire for sociability in their outdoor recreation pursuits. They participate in a wide
assortment of activities. Two-thirds are women and their median age is 49.

The profile format was found by this researcher to be easy to follow and includes
much of the information necessary for a public recreation manager to use in his/her
management practices. Each benefit profile was developed to include the pertinent
findings of the research related to the recreation activities and user group characteristics of
the individually profiled benefit. By placing this information together in one
comprehensive summary, recreation managers can review the material easily and
concentrate their efforts on those benefits they wish to provide to their user. (Similar
benefit profiles will be used to summarize results in this dissertation.)

In the late 1960's, Driver began work on the development of psychometric
instruments to identify and assess "the relative importance of benefit-implying reasons why
recreationists select particular activities" (Driver, Tinsley , & Manfredo, 1991, p. 272).
Driver's instrument was designed to investigate a subject’s recent recreation experience.
Administered in most cases as on-site surveys, the Recreation Experience Preference
(REP) Scales were developed and refined fiom 1968 to about 1982. Currently, 43 REP
scales and 19 domains (benefits sought) exist to measure the extent to which specific
benefits are desired and expected fi'om leisure activities. The current list of benefit
domains used by Driver et al. (1991) include enjoy nature, physical fitness, reduce tension,
escape physical stressors, outdoor learning, share similar values, independence, family

relations, introspection, be with considerate people, achievement! stimulation, physical rest,

31

teach/lead others, risk taking, risk reduction, meet new pe0ple, creativity, nostalgia, and
agreeable temperatures (Driver, Tinsley , & Manfredo, 1991). Several of the benefits that
Driver includes in his REP scales are used in this dissertation.

One of the more comprehensive research studies using the REP scales is reported
in the BenefitsofLeisure (Driver, Tinsley & Manfredo, 1991). The study measured
preferred benefits of participants in six activities along the Huron River in Ann Arbor,
Michigan (the same general geographic region and type of park used in this dissertation).
The activities were camping, picnicking, swimming, boating, sailing, and fishing, and the
seven most important benefits overall were escape daily routine, physical rest, enjoy
nature, escape physical pressures, tranquility, be with other people, and slow down
mentally. Some variation in benefits sought was found between the activity groups with
some of the lower ranked benefits. For example, picnickers ranked family togetherness as
the fourth most important benefit, boaters ranked exercise as fourth and learning as the
sixth most important benefit, and anglers ranked both learning and nostalgia as the seventh
most important benefit. Rankings were based on mean ratings using a 6-point Likert
importance scale, so differences in rankings could be caused by differences in mean ratings
as small as .1.

Stein and Lee (1995) investigated the relationships between benefits desired by a
recreation participant, the recreation activity, and setting characteristics. The study was
conducted with visitors to a natural area in western Colorado in 1992-93. Data were
gathered using on-site interviews and mail back questionnaires inquiring about the
subjects’ actual recreation experience. Cluster analysis was used to group visitors into

one of four benefit “types” based on their desires for particular recreation benefits. Type 1

32

was most oriented toward independence and stress relief, Type 2 stressed similar values
and learning new things, Type 3 ranked socialization highest, and Type 4 included a
mixture of both types 1 and 3 with a strong desire for stress reduction/fitness and nature
appreciation.

Relationships were found between the most satisfying activities and benefit types.
Mountain biking was the most satisfying activity for individuals seeking stress relief and
independence (Type 1). Hiking and walking were most satisfying for those interested in
learning and sharing (Type 2). The social group (Type 3) also designated biking, walking
and hiking, but sought rafting, driving for pleasure and sightseeing as well. Relative to the
other groups, types 1 and 4 had a greater desire for more undisturbed, natural settings and
less facility development.

As with much of the research that looked at only two of the variables tested in this
dissertation, the research that has investigated the three variables of benefits sought,
recreation activities, group characteristics have very distinct research designs making
comparisons difficult. All are multiple activity studies. In the two earlier studies (Allen &
Donnelly, 1985; Market Opinion Research, 1986), respondents describe a hypothetical
situation, while the later two studies (Driver, et al., 1991; Stein & Lee, 1995), measure
perceptions of actual recent recreation experiences.

E l' . E E S 1

No studies were found that compared the ability of different variables to predict
benefits sought. Although some relationships were found, the real key to a successful
benefits approach to recreation management will be in the ability of the recreation manager

to predict what benefits users and potential users will be seeking.

33

Typically a new research topic will follow a predictable pattern. Early research on
a topic will generally focus on defining, and then describing the variable. The next stage
of research will be to test the relationships of the topic to other key variables. Later
research frequently will test predictive models. Benefit research has not yet reached the
predictive stage.

Research may be divided into two types: single activity and multiple activity
studies. Single activity studies allow the researcher to look closely into a particular
recreation activity and uncover many facets of that activity. This type of in-depth
information can be very useful to recreation agencies that provide one particular activity,
however, public recreation agencies fiequently provide a wide range of recreation services
and activities. It would be more helpful, therefore, for public recreation managers to not
only gather information on more than one activity, but also to compare and contrast the
recreation benefits sought through different activities. The lack of consistency seen in
single activity research makes comparisons between activities difficult.

Studying multiple activities within a single study allows for the comparison of a
variety of recreation activities. This is the method selected for this dissertation. Public
recreation managers typically offer a variety of programs, services, and facilities in an
attempt to satisfy people with varying needs. So, for public recreation managers, a study
which captures this variance can be very helpfirl. Due to the nature of this type of inquiry,
however, researchers tend to select a technique of acquiring knowledge of recreation
activities that may not be Optimal for use by managers. Each of the single recreation

activity studies reported in this chapter, have used subjects who were presently, or just

34

recently, engaged in the recreation activity of the study. In multiple activity studies,
researchers don’t typically use this approach. Multiple activity studies often measure
attitudes and perceptions, independent of any particular visit or experience.

All but three of the multiple activity studies reviewed in this chapter (Buchanan, et
al., 1981; Driver, Tinsley and Manfredo, 1991; Stein & Lee, 1995) used other approaches.
The most common forms of inquiry use techniques which involve having a subject
describe a variety of familiar or unfamiliar recreation activities (Hawes, 197 9; Tinsley &
Tinsley, 1988; London, Crandall, & Fitzgibbons, 1977; Unger, 1984; Williams, 1988),
having a subject describe his/her favorite recreation activity (Allen & Donnelly, 1985;
Beard and Ragheb, 1983; Donald & Havighurst, 1959; Driver & Knopf; 1976; Loundbury
& Hoopes, 1988; Pierce, 1980), or having a subject describe an activity in which the
subject has participated in the past (Ruckenstein & Marisi, 1983; Tinsley & Johnson,
1984; Tinsley & Kass, 1978, 1979; Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, & Kaufinan, 1985). A concern
with these types of studies is that they are not situation specific. The subject reports
motivation for and satisfaction with a hypothetical scenario.

Asking about the benefits sought by the user in a particular recreation experience
should produce more realistic results. This method is effective in that it ensures actual
experience and some familiarity with the activity. Also, by using this method, the subject
does not have to rely on his/her recollection of an activity that may have occurred some
time ago. Since this form of inquiry may ensure more valid and vivid recall, it was the
method chosen in this dissertation.

Although relationships between benefits sought, recreation activities, and other

group characteristics have been researched since the late 1950's, our knowledge of these

35

benefits is still limited. Most research has looked at the relationships of recreation
activities to benefits sought and user group characteristics; presently patterns of
similarities are beginning to emerge in these areas. Although authors of recreation
literature are often reporting the influences of recreation activities and group
characteristics on benefits sought, reaching relevant conclusions are difficult.

Two types of research dominate the benefits sought literature. Single activity
research, although effective for in-depth inquiry of a recent recreation experience, unless
common designs are used, does not allow for comparison across studies, and therefore,
activities. Multiple activity research, although allowing comparisons among activities,
typically has not featured recent recreation experiences. This dissertation is an attempt to
further our knowledge of the relationships of benefits sought, recreation activities, and
group characteristics. The methods selected will allow for comparisons across activities

and focus on a respondent’s recent recreation experience.

36

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

This chapter delineates the procedures followed in conducting the investigation of
the relationships of benefits sought, recreation activities, and user group characteristics.
The chapter is divided into six sections: (1) study project and sites, (2) study population
and sampling plan, (3) response rates and representativeness of the HCMA Park User
Study sample, (4) questionnaire design, (5) data analysis, and (6) limitations. The first
three sections describe the data source, the HCMA Park User Study. Sections four and
five detail the methods used to test the hypotheses. Limitations of the design are
discussed at the end of this chapter.

Wm

Data were gathered in a visitor survey at parks operated by the Huron-Clinton
Metropolitan Authority (HCMA). HCMA is a regional park system (Lee, 1972) that
includes 13 parks located in Southeast Michigan. The park user survey was conducted in
1995-95 by Michigan State University’s Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism
Resources under contract with HCMA. The overall purpose of the project was to
generate information which could help HCMA evaluate current operations and to assist in
making decisions for the HCMA park system’s future. HCMA requested information
about park visitors to assess their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, use
patterns, preferences for new or expanded park facilities and programs, and satisfaction
with their visit to the park. Questions were included to test the hypotheses in this

dissertation and to provide recommendations to HCMA to assist in implementing a

37

benefits approach to recreation management. Data were collected over an entire year,
beginning December 1, 1995. For a full summary of the HCMA Park User Study, see
Paulsen, Stynes, Nelson, Wisnom, & Elwert (1996).

HCMA parks are located in both urban and rural areas, surrounding the Detroit
metropolitan region in Southeast Michigan. (See Figure 1.) The parks in this system were
developed along either the Huron or Clinton Rivers, and each park includes a river, pond
and/or lake. Although the parks contain many water-based recreation facilities, there are a
wide variety of non-water based outdoor recreation opportunities available to those who
visit the parks. The size of the parks range from 53 to 4,461 acres. Some of the parks in
the HCMA park system provide only open/picnic areas, play areas, and natural trails,
while other parks include more extensive developments such as beaches, marinas, golf
courses, nature centers, swimming pools, and paved trails. The diversity of locations and
facilities in the HCMA park system suggest a broad cross section of park users, recreation
activities, and benefits sought. The findings of this research are generalizable to similar

kinds of day use parks.

38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R
I!
I- mm
cum
I m
m
-l
m
l'
l-
- r
"' E" I:
I— ' = -
a —l 5
-
It
"‘ m
.— ; , '— m
— I
If _- —
u
I
It
Will. I-
aim E I
-
fl
“
1. biennium 6. BanaMealamMetmpu-Ir
770m |.539Acres
OaukeStClair Soadrofarigiuon
2. WWW 7. WWW
2.429Acres I.595Acru
Westot'NewHaven NorthofDexter
lSII-yCraetMetnput 8. Dawn-mm
4.461Acres l23Acres
SurroundingsWCreeklake NearDexter
4. WWW 9. MW
2124Acres 53Acres
NorrhwesroiPoatiac NorthwestofAnaArbor
5. WW 1.. lawn-roam
4.337%": l.256Acres
SurroundingKenruke NearBeIleville

Figure I, HCMA Park Location Map

39

 

 

 

ll. WW

|.531 Acres
Between Believille and [it Rock

12. WNW

0.7mm
Near F1. Rock

13. WWW

l.607Acrea
OnLakeErie

HURON-CW
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY
Mum
Immghllidgeorivewnlaml
Brights. Micki, “I IG-IDI

(810) 217-2757 OR rmrm

Studxlicnnlationandfiamnlmaflan

The study population included all visitors to the HCMA parks from December 1,
1995 to November 30, 1996. During the study period, there were 2.7 million visitors to
the 13 parks. A stratified random sample of visitors was taken at all 13 park locations.
Visitors were sampled on 42 randomly selected dates throughout the one year period.
Visitors to each of the 13 parks were sampled on 10 or 11 different days at each of the 13
parks during each of the four seasons. Approximately half of the dates were weekend days
and half were weekdays. Separate sampling dates were selected for the five parks located
in the north section of the region and the eight parks located in the south section of the
region.

The data were gathered using an on-site self-administered survey. Park gate
persomrel were instructed to distribute surveys to selected visitors as they entered the park
and to return the survey as they exited the park or via mail, using a business reply
envelope. (For a detailed summary of the sampling process, see Paulsen, Stynes, Nelson,

Wisnom, & Elwert, 1996, pp 4 - 16.)

Lawn; II.‘ 2" kaia~.‘.r..sr ar‘. 0 -r‘ 1 us _'=.-I. 3: r. ,uu‘

The unit of analysis for any research project is what or whom is being studied. For
this project, the user group (the group of individuals entering the park in the subject’s
vehicle) is the unit of analysis. The completion of the instrument was designated to an
occupant of the vehicle sixteen years and older. Each of the questions pertain to the group
as a whole. It is assumed that the subject’s response reflects the recreation activities and

benefits sought by all members of the user group.

40

Of 10,127 surveys distributed, 4,137 were returned yielding an overall response
rate of 41%. One hundred and six surveys were incomplete and dropped from the
analysis, yielding 4,031 useable returns. The full sample size yielded sampling errors of
approximately 1% for binary variables (Babbie, 1992).

The response rate for the winter season was 54%, but the response rate decreased
substantially in the spring and summer seasons, with a slight rebound in the fall. While
there are some individual parks with a fairly consistent and high response rate throughout
the study, most parks show a gradual decrease. The HCMA report (Paulsen, Stynes,
Nelson, Wisnom, & Elwert, 1996, pp 14 - 18) presents a detailed description of response
rates of the HCMA Park User Study.

The sharp drop in the summer response rate (31%), suggests that there may have
been some distribution or collection problems during the summer period. The low
response rate generated in this research indicates the possibility of under representation of
some groups of park visitors, especially summer park visitors. The groups which appear
to be under represented are minority groups and groups of lower education and income
levels. These sample biases are more likely to affect estimates of distributions on
particular variables (e. g. income and education) than tests of relationships between
variables. Therefore, it is assumed that the sample generated is reasonably representative
for the purposes of this dissertation.

Q . . I} .

The HCMA Park User Survey data is used as a secondary data source for this

dissertation. Three sets of variables were measured to test the study hypotheses;

0 benefits sought during the park visit;

41

0 primary activity participated in during the park visit; and

- group characteristics of park users.
These variables were measured using three separate survey questions. (See Appendix for
the survey instrument.) The following three sections describe how each of the variables
were measured.

Benefitsfinught

To measure benefits sought during the visit, subjects were asked to indicate, from
a list of six pro-defined benefit items, “how important to you are each of the following
reasons for visiting this park today?” (See Figure 2.) The subjects were to choose the level
of importance for each benefit on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “Extremely
Important” to “Not Important.” For the purposes of this dissertation, “reasons for visiting
this park” are interpreted as benefits sought. The six benefit sought items cover the most
common categories of leisure benefits identified in the literature (Driver, Brown, &
Peterson, 1991; Schreyer & Driver, 1989; Wellman, Dawson,& Roggenbuch, 1982):
“Spend Time with Friends and Family,” “Get Some Exercise,” “Rest/relax,”

“Excitement/tinills,” “Develop Skills/learning,” and “Enjoy Nature and the Outdoors.”

 

 

How important to you are each of the following reasons for visiting this park today?
(Please circle one number for each reason.)

Extremely Very Somewhat Not
Reason for Visiting Important Important Important Important Important
Spend time with fiiends and family 1 2 3 4 5
Get some exercise 1 2 3 4 5
Relax/rest 1 2 3 4 5
Excitemartfthrills l 2 3 4 5
Develop skills/leaming 1 2 3 4 5
Enjoy nature and the outdoors 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

Figure; Benefit Sought Survey Question.

42

3 Cl . .
To determine the characteristics of the group visiting the park, respondents were

asked to report the size of the party, and the gender and age categories of each of the

individuals in the vehicle. (See Figure 3.) The “group” is defined as all persons entering

the park in the same vehicle.

 

Including yourself, how many people in your vehicle are in EACH of the following age and
gender groups?

 

 

 

 

 

Children Males Females Adults Males Females
Under 5 years of age 18 to 35 years old

5 to 12 years old 36 to 59 years old

13 to 17 years old 60 years of age and over

 

 

 

 

Barrel, Group Characteristics Survey Question.

Visitor parties were categorized into adult only groups or groups with both adults
and children. (Adults were defined as those individuals 18 years of age and older.) Visitor
parties were classified into male only groups, female only groups, and groups which have
both genders represented. Two group size categories were formed, those visiting the park
alone and those in groups of more than one and less than ten. (Groups of more than ten,

typically arriving by bus, were not sampled in the HCMA Park User Study.) Therefore,

eight user groups were defined:
- male alone,
0 female alone,
- group of male adults,
0 group of female adults,
0 group of mixed gender adults,
0 group of male adult(s) and child(ren),
- group of female adult(s) and child(ren), and

group of mixed gender adult(s) and child(ren),

43

E i l . . .

Park visitors were asked to indicate which recreation activities they, or anyone in
their vehicle, participated in during their visit to the park that day. Each subject was also
asked, “Which of the above activities was the primary reason for visiting the park today?”
(See Figure 4.) This “primary activity” is the variable used in this dissertation to define
recreation activity groups. Ifthe respondent didn’t come to the park for any particular
reason, he/she was asked to indicate “none” on the survey. Ninety percent of the

respondents indicated a primary activity.

 

 

 

General Activities Water- related Activities Games and Sports
Cl Nature Observation/Photography Cl Sunbathe CI Golf
D Scenic Drive 0 Boat - Non—motor CI Play other Games/Sports
D Picnic CI Boat - Motor CI Watch Games or Sports
Trail Activities D Fish from Boat ['3 Use Playgrormd Equip.
13 Bicycle Cl Fish from Shore Winter Activities
CI Walk or Hike Cl Waterslide l'_".| Ice Fish
C] Walk Pet(s) Cl Swim/Wade in Lake El Cross Country Ski
Cl Run/Jog Cl Swim/Wade in Pool B Sled/1’ oboggan
D Rollerskate/In-line Skate/ Ski (Including Wavepool) Cl Ice Skate
Tour Facilities Events and Other Activities
Cl Visit Nature Center D Attend a Special Event in the Park (please specify)
CI Visit Farm D Other (please specify)
Cl Visit Grist Mill
Which of the above activities was the primary reason for visiting the park today?
(If you didn’t come to the park for any particular activity, write NONE.)

 

 

 

Elli-TEA. Recreation Activity Survey Question

In order to have adequate sample sizes for sub-group analysis, activities were
grouped into seven categories. These groups were loosely based on the type of park
facility needed for the subject to participate: (1) trail activities, (2) general activities, (3)
golf, (4) water-related activities, (5) winter activities, (6) touring facilities, and (7) special

event activities. Table 1 includes a list of each activity and the category in which the

activity was placed. The number and percent of subjects represented in each activity

 

 

 

 

 

category is also reported.
Table 1
E . i . . a
Group N Percent Group N Percent
Trail Activities Winter Activities‘
Walk or Hike 559 45 Ice Fish 59 33
Bicycle 241 20 Cross Country Ski 48 27
Roller/in-line Skate 202 16 Sled or Toboggan 41 23
Walk Pet 118 10 Ice Skate 29 17
Run or Jog 112 9 Total Winter Activities 177 100
Total Trail Activities 1232 100 Touring Facilities
General Activities Visit Nature Center 67 46
Nature Observation 203 30 Visit Farm 56 39
Picnic 198 29 Visit Grist Mill 21 15
Scenic Drive 180 26 Total Tour Activities 144 100
Use Playground Equipment 61 8 Special Event Activities
Sunbathe 31 4 Attend a Special Event 99 100
Play Games/Sports l9 3
Total General Activities 692 100 No Primary Activity 351 100
Golf 326 100 ‘Winteraetivitieswuemlyhclndedonthewintuqnestioma'le.
Water-related Activities
Fish from Shore 78 31
Swim or Wade in Lake 56 22
Boat - Non-motor 53 21
Fish from Boat 28 11
Swim or Wade in Pool 19 8
Boat - Motor 18 7

Total Water Activities 252 100

The trail activity category included walking/hiking, bicycling, roller/in-line skating,
walking a pet, and mnning/jogging. F orty-five percent of the subjects in this category
were walkers/hikers. Nature observation, picnic, scenic drive, using the playground
equipment, sunbathing and playing games and sports (other than golf) were included in a

general activity category, the largest number of subjects in this activity group came to the

45

park to observe nature (3 0%), picnic (29%), or a scenic drive (26%). Since golfers utilize
a unique park facility, they were placed in a category by themselves. Ten percent of the
total sample selected golf as their primary activity while visiting the park. Water-related
activities included fishing (ice fishing was classified with winter activities), boating and
swimming. Forty-two percent of this category were subjects that either fished from a
boat or fished from shore. The winter activities were only available to subjects sampled
during the winter season. Winter activities included ice fishing, cross country skiing,
sledding, and ice skating. Visiting the Nature Center, Grist Mill, or Farm were labeled as
touring facilities. And finally, those visiting the park for a special event were placed in a
special event activities category.

Ten percent of all subjects (n=351) indicated that there was no one particular
activity they could identify as their primary activity during their visit. Preliminary analyses
were conducted to identify the composition of those indicating no primary activity. The
group that indicated no primary activity was found to be most similar to the general
activity group in terms of benefits sought and user characteristics. Because there was no
clear picture of the recreation activities that these respondents were participating in during
their park visit, this category was dropped from further analysis.

QataAnalxsis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (Version
7.5) (SPSS, 1996). The sample was described using means, frequencies and percentages.
Groups were defined based on activity and user group categories and the benefit rating
was the dependent variable. One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test

for differences in benefit ratings across subgroups. The F test, which is the ratio of

46

between group variance to within group variance, was utilized. A statistically significant F
test indicates (with some specified degree of confidence) that there is a difference among
the subgroup means. Scheffe's test was employed to test for differences in means
between individual subgroup pairs. The Schefi‘e test adjusts for a greater likelihood of
Type I errors when making multiple pairwise tests.

Hypothesis 1: Benefits sought during a park visit do not vary significantly
with recreation activities.

The recreation activity category was used as the independent variable and the six benefit

sought categories were the dependent variables.

Hypothesis 2: Benefits sought do not vary significantly with the demographic
makeup of the group visiting the park.

The user group category acted as the independent variable, while the six benefit sought

categories were the dependent variables.

Hypothesis 3: Participation in recreation activities does not vary significantly
with the demographic makeup of the group visiting the park.

The user group category was the independent variable, with the recreation activity
categories as the dependent variables. To use AN OVA to test this hypothesis, dummy
variables were developed for each of the seven primary activity categories (i.e. for each
activity category, a code of one indicated the selected primary activity, a zero code meant
the activity category was not selected as the primary activity).

Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ability of group characteristics
and recreation activity variables to explain difl‘erences in benefit ratings. Linear regression
predicts the value of a dependent variable as a linear firnction of one or more independent

variab1e(s). Separate equations were used to test the ability of each of the two

47

independent variables (user group characteristics and recreation activities) to predict each
of the six dependent variables (benefits sought). The recreation activity and group
characteristic variables were tested separately and also together to evaluate their relative
performance in predicting benefits. The “coefficient of determination,” R2, identifies the
percentage of variance in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables.

I . . .

A number of limitations should be noted in regards to this dissertation, most
importantly, the constraints imposed by a general park visitor survey. First, when
gathering information on benefits sought, subjects were asked the “reason for visiting the
park today.” This reason was interpreted as the benefits sought in the recreation
experience as a whole. Benefit data were collected using this question alone, another
limitation dictated by the use of a park visitor survey. Using an alternative form of data
collection could have allowed for more complex scales of measurement or even multiple
approaches to measuring benefits. Second, in collecting information on the benefits sought
from recreation activities, subjects were limited to the six pre-established categories.
Third, a closed ended question was used for this inquiry, thus not allowing the subject to
deviate from the six benefits listed. Other benefits that may have been sought by the
subject were not measured and not reported. Lastly, there are numerous types of
recreation activities which can fill an individual’s free time. The recreation activities
selected for this dissertation are limited to outdoor recreation activities typically found in a
general day use outdoor park setting.

It is assumed that the subject took into consideration each member of the group,

when reporting benefits sought and the primary activity. Although the questions were

48

conveyed in the survey in this manner, some subjects may have indicated their individual
preferences.

Activity categories were grouped based on the kinds of facilities required to
participate in this type of activity, for example, water-related activities, trail activities and
golf. This grouping method permits the results to be more directly linked to management
decisions such as designing, developing or enhancing facilities or areas. This method of
categorization could have altered the recreation activity variable to also include aspects of
the park facility itself. Due to the aggregation of the recreation activities into broader
categories, benefits may vary within the activity groups.

The low response rate generated in this research indicates the possibility of under
representation of some groups of park visitors. The groups which appear to be under

represented are minority groups and groups of lower education and income levels.

49

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The primary objective of this dissertation is to expand our knowledge and
understanding of the relationships between benefits sought in a recreation experience, the
primary recreation activity participant in during a park visit, and the user group visiting the
park. An on site self-administered survey was used to gather the data for this research.
Three sets of variables were used to test the study hypotheses: Benefits sought, recreation
activities, and group characteristics.

Results are presented in seven sections. The first section contains a profile of
visitors to the HCMA regional park system. The second section describes the variables
used to test the three null hypotheses. Sample means, medians, and frequency
distributions are presented for benefits sought. Frequencies and percents are presented for
group characteristics and primary activities. Results of the hypothesis tests are presented
in the remaining four sections: the relationships between benefits sought and primary
recreation activity; benefits sought and group characteristics; primary recreation activity
and group characteristics; and finally, the power of the two variables for predicting
benefits sought.

E l 3.5 i Cl . .

Visitor characteristics are based on a sample of 4,031 visitors to the HCMA parks
in 1995/96. Half of the sample were female and half were male (Table 2). Ninety-two
percent of the visitors sampled were white. The average age of the visitors completing the

survey was 44 years. Half of respondents were between the ages of 36 and 59 with 31%

50

between the ages of 18 - 35, (only the visitors 16 years of age or older were asked to

complete the survey). Two thirds of visitors were married (Table 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
.D‘rwuu. 1.1!-050'10 Hi .1 a ' i o__ M‘LI. 'ir
Gender Percent N Employment StatrlL Percent N
Male 50% 1813 Employed full-time 57% 2090
Female 50% 1 805 Retired l 9% 698
Ethnicity Homemaker 9% 327
White 92% 3414 Employed part-time 8% 297
Black 3% 91 Student 4% 147
Other' 5% 200 Unemployed 2% 61
Age Cat_egories Other 1% 54
Less than 18 years 1% 45 Household Income
18-35 years 31% 1126 Lessthan$25,000 11% 346
36 - 59 years 50% 1822 $25,000 - 49,000 31% 940
60 years and older 18% 657 $50,000 - 74,999 31% 955
Marigl Status $75,000 and greater 27% 843
Married 67% 2566 County of 0m!
Unmarried’ 33% 1244 Wayne 27% 986
Egucation Oakland 24% 902
Less than HS diploma 4% 138 Other 19% 704
High school diploma 17% 630 Macomb 15% 553
Tech/Vocational 7% 248 Livingston 8% 289
Some college 29% 1060 M 7% 116-
4 year college degree 22:» 2;; :Eflgfi giggly: mghgsivafiowmmic and Multi-racial.
W o

 

Twenty-nine percent of the respondents had completed some college and 25% had
completed a four year academic degree. F ifiy-seven percent were employed firll-time and
19% were retired. Total yearly household income (before taxes) was obtained in four
categories: 11% of respondents made under $25,000, 31% of respondents were
represented in each of the categories of $25,000 to $49,999 and $50,000 to $74,999, and

27% of respondents had a household income at or over $75,000. The majority of park

51

visitors (81%) live within the five county region where the parks are located; Oakland,
Livingston, Wayne, Washtenaw and Macomb counties (Table 2).

Benefitsficught

Respondents rated each of six reasons for visiting the park on a Likert scale from 5
(Extremely Important) to 1 (Not Important). (Items were originally coded from one as
“Extremely Important” and 5 as “Not Important” and were reverse coded so higher scores
indicated a higher importance.) The reasons for visiting (or benefits sought) were, “Spend
Time with Friends and Family,” “Get Some Exercise,” “Relax/rest,” “Excitement/thrills,”
“Develop Skills/learning,” and “Enjoy Nature and the Outdoors.” (See Table 3.) These
benefit sought categories will subsequently be referred to as socializing, exercising,
relaxing, excitement, learning, and enjoying nature, respectively. Please note when
reviewing and interpreting the results of this research, the labels chosen to be used in the

remainder of this document are much broader than they are operationally defined in the

 

 

 

questionnaire.
Table 3
Percent
Extremel V Important Somewhat Not Mem‘ Median N2

Reasons for Vldflng hwportani’ Inpgikrt Important Important
Enjoy nature and the outdoors 52.9 29.1 13.7 2.5 1.7 4.29 4.1 3668
Get some exercise 39.8 27.3 18.3 6.8 7.8 3.84 3.6 3566
Relax/red 32.1 29.4 22.8 8.0 7.7 3.70 3.4 3432
Spmdtime with {Haida/family 35.9 24.6 18.0 5.6 15.9 3.59 3.4 3369
Develop skills/learning 11.3 14.1 23.1 20.3 31.1 2.54 1.9 3204
[inhuman/thrills 8.4 11.0 19.3 20.3 41.0 2.26 1.4 3175

 

'Mems based on scores of5=Extreme1y Inportant, 4=Very Important 3=1nportant, 2=Somewhat Inportant md lcht Important.
’Missingresponses not included

52

Enjoying nature was the most important reason for visiting a park, with a mean score
of 4.3 and a median of 4.1 on a five point scale. Approximately 53% of respondents rated
enjoying nature as “Extremely Important,” with less than 2% rating it as “Not Important.”

The mean ratings for exercising (3.8), relaxing (3.7), and socializing (3.6) fell
between “Very Important” and “Important,” similar to median ratings. “Extremely
Important” and “Very Important” received a similar number of responses with the benefit
items exercising and relaxing (totaling 67% and 61% respectively). Eight percent of
respondents rated exercising and relaxing as “Not Important.” Socializing had ratings of
“Extremely Important” and “Very lrnportant” similar to the other benefit sought
categories, however, a much larger number (16%) of respondents selected “Not
Important.” Scores for socializing were the most evenly distributed across the five
response categories.

Average importance ratings for learning and excitement were between “Important”
and “Somewhat Important” and medians were 1.9 and 1.4 respectively. Over half of the
respondents rated learning and excitement as “Somewhat Important or “Not Important.”
Not all subjects responded to each benefit item, so the total number of respondents (N)
fluctuates from 3,175 to 3,668.

B . 3 . . .

Respondent groups participated in an average of 2.5 different activities during their
visit; 36% participated in only one activity. For 38% of visitor groups, a trail activity was

their primary activity, followed by general activities (21%), and golf(10%) (Table 4).

53

Table 4

 

 

 

HCHHCIHTI E. 5"1
Type N Percent
Trail activities 1232 37.6
General activities 692 21 . 1
Golf 326 10.0
Water-related activities 252 7.7
Winter activities2 177 5.4
Touring facilities 144 4.4
Special event activities 99 3.0
No primary activig' 351 10.7
Total 3273 100

 

1Rates of participatim for 'mdividual adivities are presarted in Table 2.
2Winter adivities were only included on the winter questiormaire.

E El . .

The average size of respondent groups entering the park was 2.4 persons. Visitors
were divided evenly between men and women. Thirty-nine percent of visitor groups
consisted of two people. Twenty-eight percent visited the park alone. Forty-seven
percent of the groups contained both males and females, 22% of parties were females only
and 31% of groups were males only. Two-thirds of groups were all adults and 32%
contained both adults and children (ages 17 and under).

For the purposes of this dissertation, respondent parties were placed into eight
mutually exclusive types of groups (Table 5). The groups are based on the size of the
group and the age and gender of group members. Approximately one third (3 0%) of all
groups are adult only groups (more than one in the party) including both ma1e(s) and
female(s). Adult men traveling to the park alone make up 19% of all groups. Groups
consisting of both genders with child(ren) make-up another 17% of all user groups. The

group with the smallest representation are groups of female adults (4%).

54

Table 5

 

 

 

HEN?!” l E 1.5!
Group Characteristics:' N Percent
Male Alone 689 19%
Female Alone 332 9%
Group Male Adults 218 6%
Group Female Adults 149 4%
Group Mixed Gender Adults 1 121 30%
Group Male Adult(s) & Child(ren) 214 6%
Group Female Adult(s) & Child(ren) 351 9%
Group Mixed Gender Adult(s) & Child(ren) 613 17%
Total 3687 100

 

‘Variables labeled “group” include parties of more than one and adults are those subjeds 18 years of age or older.

Icstsaftheficurfiesearchflxpmheses

As the sample size for the HCMA visitor survey was quite large (N=4,031),
virtually all hypothesis tests on the full sample are statistically significant at the 99 percent
confidence level. As the Scheffe test sample sizes are smaller, the statistical significance of
these subgroup tests are more meaningfirl. The analysis will focus on the strength of the
relationships in the sample, not just the tests of statistical significance, i.e. how different

are the benefit ratings across visitor subgroups defined by recreation activities and group

characteristics.
i ivi '
Hypothesis 1: Benefits sought do not vary significantly with recreation
activities.

Hypothesis 1 was rejected. The importance of different benefits varied in relation
to the primary activity. Means for each benefit item were significantly different at the .01

significance level for each of the seven activity groups (Table 6).

55

Table 6

C . EL fiE'IE' 5..

 

 

 

 

Mean‘ and Schefi'e test’
Get Some Develop skills/ Excitement/ Enjoy nature Spend time with Relax/rest
My Exercise learning thrills & the friends/family
Trail activities 4.5 a 2.2 d 2.0 c 4.4 a,b 3.3 c 3.5 b,c
General activities 3.2 d 2.4 c,d 2.2 b,c 4.4 a,b 3.7 a,b,c 3.9 a,b
Golfactivities 3.9 b 3.1 a,b 2.7 a,b 3.8 c 3.6 a,b,c 3.3 c
Water-related activities 3.1 d 2.6 c,d 2.6 a,b 4.1 b,c 4.0 a,b 4.0 a
Winter activities' 3.8 b,c 2.9 b,c 2.9 a 4.2 a,b 3.6 b,c 3.4 c
Touring facilities 3.4 c,d 3.4 a 2.3 b,d 4.5 a 4.1 a 3.6 a,b,c
Special Event activities 3.2 d 2.9 b,c 2.2 b,c 4.2 b 3.8 a,b,c 3.5 b,c
Overall Mean 3.8 3.5 2.3 4.3 3.6 3.7
F 143.841 29.67 20.659 18.774 13.549 13.18
N 2670 2400 2386 2699 2505 2537
Sign. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 

'Winter adivities were only included on the winter questionnaire.

2Mean mambasedmthe ratings 5=extremely inportmt, 4=very inponant, 3=important, 2=somewhat inportant,1=na inportant
’ a,b,c, anddindicate subgroupswheremeansaresigrificamly difi‘erurtata95%confidmce level, asdaerrninedbytheSdrefi‘etest

W

The exercise benefit and Table 6 will be used to illustrate how the tables and

statistical tests are interpreted. In Table 6, the primary activity categories (values of the

independent variable) are found in rows and the benefits sought (dependent variables) in

the columns. The F ratio of 143.841 is significant at the .001 level, indicating the seven

means in the exercise column are not all equal in the population. The highest mean rating

for exercise was by individuals engaged in trail activities (4.5). Golf (3.9) and winter

activities (3.8) also had mean importance ratings for exercise at or above the overall mean.

Ratings for the remaining four activities fell below the overall mean.

Letters following the individual ratings (a-d) indicate the results of the Schefie

test. Schefi‘e tests for differences in means between each pair of activities. The Scheffe

test discloses which activities (or user groups in Tables 7 and 8) differ from one another in

56

terms of benefit ratings at the 95% confidence level. In general, the mean ratings in these
tables must differ by at least .3 to be significantly different from one another.

For exercise, activities fall into four different subgroups labeled (a) — (d).
Activities with the same letter do not differ significantly in their mean ratings, but are
different from activities with a different letter. Thus, individuals participating in trail
activities rated exercise significantly different than each of the other six primary activity
categories, so only trail activities fall into group (a).

Visitors whose primary activity was golf did not differ in their ratings of exercise.
Winter activities fall into both group (b) and (c), meaning the exercise ratings of winter
activity visitors do not differ significantly from touring. The exercise rating for visitors
touring facilities (c,d) are significantly different from golf and trail activities, but not winter
(b,c), general (d), water-related (d), and special event activities ((1). Other columns in
Table 6 and Tables 7 and 8 are interpreted in a similar fashion.

Trail activities, such as running, biking and walking, have been commonly
associated with exercise in previous research (Clough et al., 1989; Market Opinion
Research, 1986; Stein & Lee, 1995). Several water-related activities also were found, in
past research literature, to be linked to exercise (Driver & Cooksey, 1988; Driver and
Knopf, 1976; Hollender, 1977; Knopf et al., 1983; Stein & Lee, 1995). However, in this
research, exercise was rated as less important for water-related activities. A possible
reason for this is that a large number (42%) of those groups included in the water-related
activity category selected their primary activity to be fishing, and past research was

focused primarily on swimming and boating.

57

As in past research (Etzkorn, 1964; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1988), learning was found
to be a more important benefit for groups whose primary activity was touring (3.4) or golf
(3 . l). The ratings for these two groups were not significantly different from each other.
Golfers rated learning significantly higher in importance than groups primarily engaged in
winter activities (2.9) or those attending a special event (2.9). Visitors whose primary
activity was water-related (2.6) or a general (2.4) activity rated learning similar to winter
and special event groups. The trail activity group rated learning as the least important
benefit (2.2), which is contrary to Stein and Lee’s (1995) finding that walking and hiking
were related to learning. This difi‘erence in findings may be attributed to the difference in
settings for the two research projects. Stein and Lee completed their research in a remote
natural area in Western Colorado. For this dissertation, the setting is more of a suburban
park setting.

Excitement is rated the least important of the six benefits for all primary activity
groups. The highest mean score for excitement (2.9) was lower than all the subgroup
scores for exercise (3.8), socializing (3.6), enjoying nature (4.3), and relaxing (3.7).
Subjects designating winter (2.9), golf (2.7), and water-related (2.6) activities as their
primary activity rated excitement as more important than the other groups. Market
Opinion Research (1986) also found golf (included in the sports category), water and
winter activities to be the most exciting. Both golf and winter activity groups rated
“Excitement/tinills” higher than the other activity groups, and, as may be expected, rated
relaxing lowest. Touring groups had the next highest rating (2.3) for excitement, which
was not significantly different from either golf or water-related activities. Trail groups

rated excitement as the least important benefit, with a mean score of 2.0.

58

The majority of past benefit research has been completed in outdoor/natural
settings. Therefore, almost every recreation activity has been associated with enjoying
nature. HCMA visitors rated enjoying nature higher than any other benefit item.
However, some significant differences existed between activity subgroups in their ratings
of enjoying nature. Respondents who participated in touring (4.5), trail (4.4), general
(4.4) and winter (4.2) activities rated enjoying nature as more important than other activity
groups. Trail, general and winter groups were not significantly different fiom special event
(4.2) and water-related (4.1) activities. Golfers (3.8) gave enjoying nature the lowest
rating of any activity group. Their rating of 3.8 was significantly lower than all other
activity groups with the exception of the water-related activity group.

Consistent with past research (Driver & Cooksey, 1980; Driver & Knopf, 1976;
Graefe, 1977; Graefe et al., 1981; Knopf et al., 1983; London et al., 1977; Tinsley &
Johnson, 1984; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1988; Stein & Lee, 1995), groups whose primary
activity was touring (4.1), water-related (4.0), special event (3 .8), general activities (3.7),
or golf (3.6) rated socializing higher than the remaining activity groups. These five
activity groups did not differ significantly from one another, but were different from winter
(3.6) and trail (3.3) activity groups. General, golf, and special event activity groups also
were found to be similar to winter and trail activity groups when rating the importance of
socializing.

Relaxing had the lowest F-ratio (F=l3. l 8) of the six benefits tested, indicating a
weaker relationship with the primary activity groups than the other benefit sought
categories. There was some variation in subgroup means based on the Scheffe test.

Subjects who participated in water-related recreation (4.0), general activities (3.9), and

59

touring activities (3.6) rated relaxing as significantly more important than other groups
engaged in activities. Those subjects who selected a general or touring activity as their
primary activity were also found to be similar to trail (3.5) and special event (3.5) groups.
Winter (3.4) and golf (3.3) activity groups rated “Relax/rest” as less important than all
other groups, but, were found to not be significantly different than touring and trail
activity groups.

In summary, those respondents visiting the HCMA park primarily for trail activities
tended to be seeking exercise and nature enjoyment in their recreation experience and
were least likely to be seeking learning or excitement. The primary benefits cited by
visitors engaged in general and water-related activities were socializing, enjoying nature
and relaxing. Golfers rated exercise as the most important benefit and excitement as least
important. Winter activity participants were seeking the enjoyment of nature and exercise.
Although subjects participating in winter activities rated excitement as the least important
of the benefits they were pursuing, their rating for excitement was the highest of all
activity groups. Those subjects coming to tour the nature center, farm or grist mill were
most likely to seek nature enjoyment and socializing, and least likely to be seeking
excitement. Finally, those who were attending a special event were seeking the enjoyment
of nature and not likely to seek learning, excitement, or exercise.

WW

Hypothesis 2: Benefits sought do not vary significantly with the
demographic makeup of the group visiting the park.

Hypothesis 2 was rejected. The importance of different benefits varied according
to group characteristics. Means for each benefit item were significantly different at the .0]

significance level across the eight park visitor groups (Table 7).

6O

Table7
h r ' i

 

Mean1 and Scheffe test‘
Spend time Develop skills/Excitement! Get some Enjoy nature Relax/rest

 

 

 

 

with
Group Charmfigticsgl friends/family learning thrills exercise & the outdoors
Male Alone 2.4 d 2.4 b,c 2.1 c,d 3.9 a,b,c 4.1 b 3.6 a
Female Alone 2.6 d 2.4 b,c 1.9 d 4.2 a 4.5 a 3.8 a
Group Male Adults 3.7 c 3.1 a 2.9 a 3.8 b,c,d 4.2 b 3.5 a
Group Female Adults 4.0 a,b,c 2.3 c 2.1 c,d 4.1 a,b 4.4 a,b 3.7 a
Group Mixed Gender Adults 3.8 b,c 2.2 c 2.1 c,d 4.0 a,b,c 4.4 a,b 3.8 a
Group Male Adult(S) & 4.0 a,b,c 2.9 a 2.6 a,b 3.5 d 4.2 b 3.6 a
Child(ren)
Group Female Adult(s) & 4.2 a,b 3.0 a 2.4 b,c 3.5 d 4.3 a,b 3.5 a
Child(ren)
Group Mixed Gender Adult(s) 4.3 a 2.8 a,b 2.4 b,c 3.6 c,d 4.3 a,b 3.7 a
& Child(ren)
Overall Mean 3.6 3.5 2.3 3.8 4.3 3.7
F 143.876 25.265 16.324 14.868 7.104 3.637
N 3151 2994 2971 3323 3417 3201
Sign 0-00 0-00 0-00 9.00 0-00 m
'Variables labeled “group” include parties of more than one and adults are those subjeas 18 years of age or older.
2Meansooresarebasedontheratings5=erdremelyinportarrt,4=veryinportmrt,3' 2=somewhatinportant,l=notinportmt

’a,b,c, and d indicate subgroups where means are significantly different at a 95% confidence level, as determined by the Sdrefi'e test.

As expected, socializing (Spend Time with Friends and F arnily) was more

important to larger groups, particularly those that included children. Groups of adults and

children and the all female adult groups had an average rating for social benefits as “Very

Important” or higher, while all male adult groups (3.7) and mixed gender adult groups

(3.8) rated social benefits lower in importance. As might be expected, individuals entering

the park alone rated socializing significantly less important than the other groups.

Socializing was the benefit sought category with the highest F-ratio (F =143.876),

indicating the greatest amount of variance between groups relative to the variation within

groups.

“Learning/developing Skills” was rated highest by groups of male adults (3.1) and

groups of adult(s) and child(ren) (female - 3.0, male - 2.9, mixed gender - 2.8). Males and

61

females alone (2.4), female adult groups (2.3), and mixed gender adult groups (2.2) rated
learning as less important.

Male groups rated excitement as more important than female or mixed gender
groups (male adults - 2.9, male adult(s) and child(ren) - 2.6). All groups of adults and
children were found to be not significantly different (male - 2.6, female and mixed gender -
2.4). Males alone, groups of female adults and mixed gender adults rated excitement the
same at 2.1 and were not significantly different from females alone (1.9).

Whether or not children were present in the group is the most important predictor
of variations in ratings of exercise. All adult groups rated exercise higher than groups
consisting of both adult(s) and child(ren). Adults alone or in groups generally did not
differ in their ratings of the importance of exercise, except for male only adult groups
(mean scores ranging from 3.9 - 4.2). Groups of male adults (3.8) and all groups with
children rated exercise as less important than all other groups. Mean ratings of exercise
for groups with children were either 3 .5 or 3 .6, denoting the average score fell
approximately halfway between “Important (3 )” and “Very Important (4).”

All demographic groups rated “Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors” as important.
The presence of a female in the user group seemed to be the distinguishing factor in the
importance rating of this perceived benefit. Groups with female members rated this
benefit as significantly more important (4.3 - 4.5) than all male groups (4.1 - 4.2).

All the importance ratings for relaxing fell somewhere between a rating of “Very
Important (4)” and “Important (3).” Although the AN OVA test found a statistically
significant difl‘erence in ratings of “Relax/rest” across types of user groups, the Schefi'e

test showed no significant pairwise differences.

62

Of the group demographic characteristics that had the most influence on the
ratings of benefits sought in a recreation experience, size of the group was most notable
with socializing. In addition, whether or not there are child(ren) in a group was a critical
factor with regards to the importance ratings of exercise. Also, groups with women
tended to rate nature enjoyment as more important than groups without women. Similar
to Hawes (1979), male-only groups gave higher importance ratings for excitement.

I! .5... 13 :1 ..

Hypothesis 3: Participation in recreation activities do not vary significantly with
the demographic makeup of the group visiting the park.

Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Ratings of participation for six of the primary activity
categories were significantly different across the eight demographic groups at a <.01 level
of significance. The special event activities category was significantly different at the .014
level, due largely to a smaller number of respondents (Table 8). The number of
respondents in each activity group category ranged from 1152 (trail activities) to 99
(special event activities). The greatest between group variance relative to within group
variance was observed in the golf activity category (F =8l.801) and the least difference
was in the special event activity category (F =2.52). To use One Way ANOVA to test
Hypothesis 3, dummy variables were developed for each primary activity category. Codes
of 1 = “primary activity selected” and 0 = “primary activity not selected” were used. The
means for the dummy variables can be interpreted as the percent of each group
participating in the activity, e. g. 19% of male only groups listed golfas their primary
activity. To assist with the interpretation of this table, means are reported as a percent,

each row totaling 100%.

63

Table8
C . “ME. 15 :1 ..

Percent2 & Sdrefie tedJ

 

 

Golf Trail Touring Winter General Water- Special Event.

 

 

 

Gm Characterisdesfl Activities Adivities Facilities W Adivities Aaivities
Male Alone 19% b 47% b 0% c 7% b 17% c,d 7% a,b 2% a
Female Alone 5% c,d 67% a 3% b,c 2% b 19% b,c,d 2% b 2% a
GroupMaleAdults 57%a 15%c 0%c 6%b 8%d 13%a 1%a
Group Female Adults 6% c,d 55% a,b 6% b,c 3% b 19% b,c,d 7% a,b 4% a
Group Mixed Garder Adults 6% c,d 54% a,b 2% b,c 2% b 25% a,b,c 6% a,b 4% a
Group Male Adult(s) & Child(ren) 14% b,c 25% c 7% b,c 19% a 21% a,b,c,d 11% a,b 3% a
Group Female Adult(s) & Child(ren) 2% d 23% c 17% a 5% b 33% a,b 15% a 5% a
m Mixed Gender Adult(s) & Child(ren) 2% d 29% c 8% b 10% b 35% a 8% a,b 4% a
Overall Percent 1 1% 42% 5% 6% 24% 9% 3%
F 81.801 39.811 22.476 13.671 11.740 6.066 2.520
N 296 l 152 127 l 59 646 232 99
Sign 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.014

 

‘Variables labeled “group” include parties of more than one and adults are those subjeds 18 years of age or older.
zMeans are based on dummy variable codings of l=primary aaivity selected & Oarot seleaed, expressed as a percart.
’ a,b,c, and d indicate subgroups where means are sigrificantly different at a 95% confidence level, as determined by the Sdreffe test.

As in earlier studies (W ellner, 1997), groups of male adults were most likely to be
golfers. More than half (57%) of HCMA groups consisting of male adults visited the park
primarily to golf. Males visiting the park alone (19%) and groups of male adult(s) with
child(ren) (14%) were next most likely to be golfing. Female adult groups (6%), groups
of mixed gender adults (6%) or females alone (5%) were significantly less likely to select
golf as their primary activity. Finally, female and mixed gender groups of adults with
children were least likely to select golfas their primary activity (2%).

Adult groups with females present were most likely to select trail activities as their
primary activity (67% of females alone, 55% of groups of female adults, and 45% of
groups of mixed gender adults). Each of these groups were identified by the Schefie test
as being not significantly different from one another. Groups of females, mixed gender
adults and men alone (47%) had similar propensities to engage in trail activities. Groups
of male adults and all groups of child(ren) and adult(s) were not significantly different

fi'om one another and least likely to select a trail activity as their primary activity.

64

Groups of female adult(s) and child(ren) were most likely to be touring facilities,
such as visiting the nature center, farm or grist mill (17%). Their rate of participation was
significantly higher than all other groups. Mixed gender adult(s) and child(ren) (8%) were
less likely to be touring, followed by groups of male adult(s) and child(ren) (7%), groups
of female adults (6%), females alone (3%) and mixed gender adults (2%). These five
groups were not significantly different from each other in their propensity to visit the park
for a touring activity. Not one group of adult males alone or in groups selected touring
activities as their primary activity.

Nineteen percent of groups of male adult(s) and child(ren) selected winter
activities as their primary activity. According to the Scheffe test their participation rate
was significantly higher than all other user groups. Participation rates in winter activities
for all remaining types of groups were less than 10%.

The larger size groups were more likely to select a general activity, which included
activities such as picnicking, nature observation, scenic driving, using playground
equipment, sunbathing, and playing games and sports. The group most likely to select
general activities as their primary activity were groups of adult(s) and child(ren) and mixed
gender adults (21%, 35% respectively). Females alone (19%) and females in groups
(19%) were the next group most likely to select general activities. Those least likely to
select general activities were males alone (17%) and males in groups (8%). With the
exception of the group with the highest percent (groups of mixed gender adult(s) and
child(ren)) and the lowest percent (groups of male adults), participation rates in general

activities were not significantly different across demographic groups.

65

A wide variety of groups participated in water-related activities (fishing, boating
or swimming). There was little variation in rates of participation between user groups.
Groups of female adult(s) and child(ren) (15%) and groups ofmen (13%) were most likely
to select water-related activities. Females alone (2%) were the least likely to select water-
related activities as their primary activity.

Only a small percentage of visitor groups selected special event activities as their
primary activity (with a range from 1% to 5%). And although the ANOVA test found a
significant difference in ratings across types of user groups, the Scheffe test showed no
significant pairwise differences, indicating a weak relationship, partly due to a small
sarnple size.

In summary, gender best explains differences in participation in trail, golf and
touring activities. Male groups are more likely to be golfing and female groups are more
likely to be using trails. Group size predicts participation in general activities, as larger
groups are more likely than smaller groups to select a general activity as their primary
activity. Groups with children are more likely to participate in touring activities (e.g.
visiting nature centers) than those without children. Women visiting the park alone were
not likely to participate in water-related activities, while groups of male adult(s) and

child(ren) were the most likely to be visiting the park for a winter activity.

1-231% .o_1r 0 t‘ urns -ii ..-! 0-0 -.--. '1'
Linear regression procedures were used to test the relative ability of the primary

activity and group characteristics to predict benefit ratings. Activity and group

characteristics were converted to dummy variables and entered as sets of independent

variables for predicting each of the six benefit ratings. The adjusted R2 is used as an

indicator of the explanatory or predictive power of each set of variables. Group and
activity variables each explain between 75 and 90 percent of the variation in visitor benefit

ratings across the six benefits (Table 9).

 

 

 

Table 9
..-ra 'r3 r o 'r r- 1‘00 1 s c o 0 .r -
Adjusted R’

Excitement! Develop Skills! Gd some Spend time with Relax/Red Enjoy nature and
Variablqs) thrills learning exercise friendyfamily the outdoors
Group Characteristics 0.896 0.875 0.759 0.802 0.784 0.784
Activity Groups 0.897 0.880 0.812 0.751 0.794 0.791
Group Characteristics and 0.901 0.885 0.813 0.811 0.797 0.796
Activity Groups

 

Due to considerable intercorrelation between the activity variables and the group
characteristic variables, entering both sets of variables yields little improvement in
predictive power. Activities better predict the importance of exercising, while user groups
better predict “Spending time with Friends and Family.” Otherwise, activity variables only
slightly outperform group characteristics in explaining the importance of each of the

remaining benefits (Table 9).

67

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This research has shown for the HCMA park users, that benefits sought vary
across recreation activities and user groups. However, while some activities are carried
out for quite different benefits, others provide similar kinds of benefits. Benefits sought on
a particular park visit will depend somewhat on the group make-up. Group variables are
more important in predicting social benefits, while particular activities tend to be more
directly associated with exercise, learning, enjoying nature, relaxing, or excitement. This
information can be used to enhance recreation marketing, management, and planning
efforts.

Benefitfimfiles

The summary and conclusions will be presented in a “benefit profile” format. Each
profile will highlight the activity and user groups most and least likely to seek the
highlighted benefit. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the uses of these benefit
profiles in the marketing, management and planning efforts of the recreation professional
in general, for Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (HCMA) specifically, and

recommendations for further research.

68

WW

Enjoying nature was rated higher in importance by respondents than any other

reason for visiting the park (Figure 5). All activity groups rated enjoying nature as the

most important benefit, with the exception of golfers and trail users, who rated enjoying

nature as the second most important reason for their park visit.

 

Benefit Profile for “Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors”

Overall Mean Rating = 4.3 Overall Rank = #1
By Subgroups High Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Touring Facilities - 4.5 Golf Activities - 3.8

Trail Activities - 4.4
General Activities - 4.4

Group Female Alone - 4.5 Male Alone - 4.1
Group Female Adults - 4.4 Group Male Adults - 4.2
Group Mixed Gender Adults - 4.4

Variation Explained By Group 78.4%

 

By Activity 79.1%
By Both 79.6%

Overall enjoying nature is the most important benefit sought when visiting a park.
Recreation activity groups are slightly better than group characteristics in their
ability to predict this benefit.

General, water-related, winter, tour and special event activity participants rated
“Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors” as more important than all other benefits
sought.

Nature center, farm or mill visitors rated nature enjoyment as more important than
any other activity group.

All user groups rated enjoying nature as the most important reason for visiting the
park.

The groups most likely to seek nature enjoyment were those with at least one
female member.

 

Figure; Benefit Profile for Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors.

69

 

Activity groups explained approximately 79% of the variation in benefit ratings, about the
same as user group characteristics (78%). Those individuals whose primary activity was
touring a nature center, farm or mill rated enjoying nature as more important than all other
activity groups. Although these activities are, for the most part, indoor activities, and one
might question the rating of this “outdoor” nature benefit. Visitors who tour these
facilities may have a desire to learn while touring, in order to enhance their nature
experience. General and trail activity groups also rated enjoying nature as very important.
A possible explanation for this is that these activity groups, which include hikers, bikers,
runners, in-line skaters, picnickers, nature observers and scenic drivers, tend to participate
in their activities in the “natur ” areas of the park. Golfers, who play in more manicured
areas of the parks, assigned the lowest rating to this benefit.

Each of the eight user groups rated enjoying nature as the most important benefit
associated with their visit to the park. Groups of mixed gender and a mixture of children
and adults rated both enjoying nature and socializing as the most important reasons for
visiting the park. The presence of a female in the user group was the most important
factor in predicting the enjoyment of nature. Groups with a female present rated enjoying
nature as more important than any of the groups without a female and females visiting the
park alone gave enjoying nature the highest rating of the eight groups. Males visiting the
park either alone or in groups of adults or with children rated enjoying nature as least

important.

70

m x r i
Getting exercise was the second most important reason for respondents visiting the
park (Figure 6). Activity groups performed better than user groups in predicting the
ratings for exercise, explaining 81% of the variance. The two activity groups that rated
exercising as most important were trail users and golfers. Trail users rated exercise as
significantly more important than all other activity groups. Golfer ratings of exercise,
although slightly higher, were not significantly different than those participating in winter

activities (e. g. ice skaters, ice anglers, cross country skiers, and sledders).

 

Benefit Profile for “Get Some Exercise”

Overall Mean Rating = 3.8 Overall Rank = #2
By Subgroups High Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Trail Activities - 4.5 Water-related Activities - 3.]
Golf - 3.9 General Activities - 3.2

Winter Activities - 3.8 Special Event Activities - 3.2
Touring Facilities - 3.4

 

Group Female Alone - 4.2 Group Male Adult(s) & Child(ren)- 3.5
Group Female Adults - 4.1 Group Female Adult(s) & Child(ren)-3.5
Variation Explained By Group 75.9%
By Activity 81.2%
By Both 81.3%
Summary:
> Overall getting exercise is the second most important benefit sought when visiting a
park.
> Recreation activity groups slightly outperform group characteristics in their ability
to predict this benefit.
> Golfers and trail activity participants rated “Get Some Exercise” as more important
than all other benefits sought.
> For all adult only groups, getting exercise as the second most important reason for
visiting the park.

 

 

Emmi Benefit Profile for Get Some Exercise.

71

All other activity groups rated exercise as the fourth most important reason for
visiting the park and were found through the Scheffe test to not be significantly different
from one another. With these groups (general, water-related, touring and special event)
exercise was less important than socializing, enjoying nature and relaxing, but more
important than developing skills and excitement.

All adult only groups, regardless of gender, rated exercise as the second most
important benefit. Females alone or in groups rated exercising as more important than all
other groups, followed by groups of mixed gender adults, males visiting the park alone
and groups of men. With the exception of groups of male adults, all adult groups were
found to be not significantly different in their importance ratings of exercise.

In summary, trail, golf and adult groups were most likely to rate exercise as
important. Adults were more likely to select trail activities as their primary activity than
groups of adult(s) and child(ren), in all cases with the exception of groups of male adults.
The majority of groups of male adults were golfing.

Relaxandfiesr

Relaxing was rated below exercise as the third most important reason for
respondent groups visiting the park (Figure 7). Subjects participating in water-related
activities, such as fishing, boating and swimming, rated relaxing as more important than
other activity groups, followed closely by general activity participants and those touring
facilities. These three groups were found to not significantly different from one another in
the ratings of “Relax/rest.” Winter activity participants and golfers were least likely to be
seeking a relaxing visit to the park. Activity groups explain 79% of the variance in ratings

of relaxing.

72

 

Benefit Profile for “Relax/Rest”

Overall Mean Rating = 3.7 Overall Rank = #3
By Subgroups High Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Water-related Activities - 4.0 Golf Activities - 3.3
General Activities - 3.9 Winter Activities - 3.4

Tour Facilities - 3.6

Variation Explained By Group 78.4%
By Activity 79.4%
By Both 79.7%
Summary:

> Overall relaxing is the third most important benefit sought when visiting a park.

> Recreation activity groups slightly outperform group characteristics in their ability
to predict this benefit.

> Relaxing was more important to water-related activity participants than any other
activity group.

> The importance of relaxation didn’t vary across user groups.

Emil Benefit Profile for Relax/Rest.

 

 

 

S 11' 'lE' 1 IE '1

“Spend Time with Friends/Family” is the fourth most important reason for
respondents visiting the park. Group characteristics explain 80% of the variance in
importance ratings for socializing and activity groups predict 75%. The larger the group
and the more mixed in gender and age, the more important socializing becomes. Groups
of more than one rated spending time with others as one of the top three reasons for
visiting the park. Groups of female adults and adult(s) and child(ren) selected this benefit
as most important and were found to be significantly different fi'om each other. Individuals
visiting the park alone don’t rate socializing as high in importance as other groups (Figure

8).

73

 

Benefit Profile for “Spend Time with Friends and Family”

Overall Mean Rating = 3.6 Overall Rank = #4
By Subgroups High Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Touring Facilities - 4.1 Trail Activities - 3.3
Water-related Activities - 4.0
Group Group Mixed Gender Adult(s) Males Alone - 2.4
& Child(ren) - 4.3 Females Alone - 2.6
Group Female Adult(s) & Child(ren) - 4.2
Variation Explained By Group 80.2%
By Activity 75.1%
By Both 81.1%
Summary:

> Overall spending time with fiiends and family is the fourth most important benefit
sought when visiting a park.

> Group characteristics outperform activity groups in their ability to predict this
social benefit.

> The larger the group the more important the ratings for the benefit “Spend Time
with Friends and Family.”

> Mixed gender and age categories increase the importance ratings for this benefit.

v Participants involved in touring activities, water-related activities and special event
activities rated this benefit as the second most important.

 

 

Figure 8. Benefit Profile for Spend Time with Friends and Family.

Socializing was seen as most important by respondents participating in touring
activities, followed by water-related activities and special events. Each of these activity
groups selected this benefit as the second most important benefit, behind enjoying nature.
Trail activity participants were least likely to rate this benefit as important. These findings
are consistent with the fact that those activities most likely to be associated with
socialization (touring, water-related and special event), were also most likely to have

larger numbers of participants.

74

 

MW

Learning and excitement were both consistently rated as less important than the
other benefit sought categories by every respondent activity and user group. Both
learning and excitement benefit ratings were more predictable based on the higher adjusted
R1 ratings. Activity groups (88%) are only slightly better predictors of learning benefit

ratings than group characteristics (87.5%) (Figure 9).

 

Benefit Profile for “Develop Skills/Learning”

Overall Mean Rating = 2.5 Overall Rank = #5
By Subgroups High Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Touring Facilities - 3.4 Trail Activities - 2.2
Golf Activities - 3.1 General Activities - 2.4
Group Group Male Adults - 3.1 Group Mixed Gender Adults - 2.2
Group Female Adult(s) Group Female Adults - 2.3
& Child(ren) - 3.0
Variation Explained By Group 87.5%
By Activity 88.0%
By Both 88.5%
Summary:
I> Overall developing skills is the fifth most important benefit sought when visiting a
park.
> Activity groups slightly outperform group characteristics in their ability to predict
this benefit.
v Participants involved in touring activities rated learning as more important than any
other activity group.

> Groups of male adults (golfers) and any groups with children (touring) were most
likely to seek the benefit of “Develop Skills/learning.”

 

 

 

Figure 9, Benefit Profile for Develop Skills/Learning.

For each of the primary activity groups, learning was rated as the fifth most
important benefit sought. (Excitement was also fifth for water-related and winter activity

groups.) The groups that rated learning as most important were those subjects touring

75

nature center, farm or mill facilities. Golfers rated learning the second highest importance
rating. Those touring facilities were not significantly different than golfers in their
importance ratings for learning. Trail users were least likely to rate learning as important.

For each of the user groups, learning was also rated as the fifth most important
benefit sought. Groups of male adults were most likely to rate learning as important and
groups of mixed gender adults were least likely. Since the majority of male adult groups
participated in golf, and no male adult groups participated in touring activities, the
learning (developing skills) benefit was most likely sought by male golfers. Others seeking
learning are groups with child(ren).

WM:

Excitement is the benefit rated the least important by all respondents. User group
variables and activity variables each alone, and together, explain 90% of the variation in
visitor ratings of excitement (Figure 10). The factor most influential in predicting ratings
of excitement seems to be gender. Men, in adult only or adult(s) and child(ren) groups,

rate excitement as more important than other groups.

76

 

Benefit Profile for “Excitement/Thrills”

Overall Mean Rating = 2.3 Overall Rank = #6
By Subgroups Higher Benefit Lower Benefit
Activity Winter Activities - 2.9 Trail Activities - 2.0
Golf Activities - 2.7 General Activities - 2.2
Water-related Activities - 2.6 Special Event Activities - 2.2
Group Group Male Adults - 2.9 Female Alone - 1.9
Group Male Adult(s) & Child(ren) - 2.6
Variation Explained By Group 89.6%
By Activity 89.7%
By Both 90.1%
Summary:

> This potential benefit was rated as least important by all park visitors.

> Activity groups slightly outperform group characteristics in their ability to predict
this benefit.

v Participants involved in golf, water-related and winter activities rated learning as
more important than any other activity group.

> Groups most likely to seek excitement were all male groups; either alone, in groups
of adults or adult(s) and child(ren).

Eigum Benefit Profile for Excitement/Thrills.

 

 

 

Golfers and visitors participating in water-related and winter activities rate
excitement as highest of the seven activity groups. Visitors conring to use trails, attend
special events or to participate in general activities were least likely to seek out excitement
in their visit to the park.

Conclusions

In reviewing the benefit profiles several overall conclusions can be drawn. First,
activity variables slightly outperform group characteristics in predicting benefit ratings,
with the exception of socializing. Second, enjoying nature was rated most important by all

activity and user groups with three exceptions, trail users, and golfers rated exercise as

77

most important and socializing was rated as important as enjoying nature to groups of
mixed gender adult(s) and child(ren). Third, when comparing mean ratings, the four
benefits that were rated highest in importance were enjoying nature, exercising, relaxing,
and socializing. Learning and excitement tend to be secondary benefits in that all activity
and user groups rated each of the four other benefits higher than either learning or
excitement, with only two exceptions. Touring facility groups rated exercise as important
as learning and males visiting the park alone rated socializing as important as learning.
Excitement was rated as the least important benefit by all activity and user groups with
two exceptions, winter and water-related activity groups rated learning as important as
excitement. Finally, different user group characteristics tend to influence the importance
of different benefits. Group size is most influential with regards to socializing, the
presence of children with regards to exercising, and gender with regards to enjoying
nature and excitement.

These benefit profiles allow recreation managers to review characteristics of
particular benefits in a comprehensive, yet simple format. Management questions

regarding the relationships of a benefit sought, recreation activity, or user group

characteristics, can be answered using these profiles.

 

In the past, recreation professionals have often approached the planning, marketing
and management of public parks based on activities or facilities they felt were appropriate
for the population being served. More recent literature has suggested that recreation
professionals should focus more on the motivations of the recreation participant or

benefits of participation in recreation activities.

78

There are patterns in the HCMA data that can help recreation professionals better
understand the benefits sought by their customers, that are obtained through the recreation
activities and facilities provided. Larry Allen (1996) has suggested a three phase benefits
approach to recreation management. The results of this research can assist recreation
agencies in a majority of the efforts involved in Phase I, Benefit and Opportunity
Identification, of this process. Once the agency mission and goals are adjusted, the
implementation phase (Phase II) of a benefits approach can begin. Phase 11 includes
modifying recreation sites, areas and services to meet the target benefits of your user
population. There are several other ways the benefit profiles may be used in particular
management decisions. Recreation professionals can use the benefit profiles for explaining
and predicting recreation behaviors, devising and selecting management objectives and
practices, organizing and conducting recreation facility inventories, reviewing options for
developing new facilities, and developing visitor information and marketing plans. For
example, a park system may have just acquired a set sum of money to expand its facilities
or program offerings. The agency’s primary options include, a new trail, increasing the
number of special event activities, or developing a nature center. After reviewing the
goals of the agency and its targeted user groups and the benefits they seek, the park
system may desire to provide an additional area in the park for exercise, in this case a trail
is the most natural choice. Ifthe park wants to increase the social aspect of the park
experience, then the nature center or special events should be investigated.

There are a variety of management decisions that can be supported by the benefit
information reported in this research project. Learning customer motivations (benefits

sought) and characteristics makes the process of serving the customer more

79

straightforward. With this knowledge, it is easier to understand and even predict the
actions of the customer and potential customer. A possible scenario may be that an agency
has just learned from a recent visitor survey that the population currently served is made
up of 80% adults only groups and 20% groups of adults with children. Ifthe mission of
the agency is focused on the promotion of family interaction and socializing, a future
objective of the agency may be to implement facilities and programs to increase the
percent of groups with children entering the park. This study provides some direction as
to which activities or facilities have the best chance of attracting this type of market and
what this market is seeking in a recreation experience.

Marketing decisions can also be enhanced using the results of this research.
Benefit profiles summarize the activities and types of user groups most likely to seek out
particular benefits from a park visit. Knowing which benefits their customers are most
likely seeking, can provide direction to a marketing campaign. For example, assume that a
park presently has two main facilities, a general open area for picnicking and sunbathing
and a river with a canoe livery. This study indicates that enjoying nature and the outdoors
is a benefit that many park visitors are seeking, so the marketing plan should highlight this
aspect. We also know that individuals involved in water-related and general activities are
likely to seek relaxation in their park visit, so this too should be highlighted in marketing
materials. Based on this study, individuals most likely to seek out these types of park
facilities are larger groups of both adults and children, so this is the population that should
be targeted.

There has been considerable interest in translating research into useful guidelines

for management. A benefits approach to recreation management is a theme that has

80

received some attention (Allen, Stevens & Harwell, 1996; Bruns, 1993; Stein & Lee,
1995). However, the lack of sufficient knowledge on benefits remains an obstacle to
implementing this approach. Recreation management and planning has historically been
centered around activities and user groups (Harper, 1994). As agency managers attempt
to give more attention to benefits, a better understanding of how benefits are related to
activities and user groups will be helpful. This research shows that benefits can be related
to more traditional activity and demographic subgroups. VVrth this information, the
benefits approach can more readily build upon existing management and planning models,

versus requiring an entirely new philosophy and approach.

 

There are several ways that recreation benefit information may be used by a
recreation agency. The two most common uses are (1) as a tool to assist in management
decisions to enhance the likelihood of customers receiving the benefits they seek and (2)
as a promotional vehicle to attract customers. This section of the dissertation will focus
on actions HCMA has taken since the completion of the HCMA Park User Study in 1996,
to enhance the Metropark visitor’s experience and recommendations to further improve
both marketing and management decisions for the HCMA regional park system.

I l l: . .

The benefit receiving the highest average importance rating fi'om HCMA park
visitors is “Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors.” HCMA’s administration should be
encouraged by this finding, knowing that this benefit is presently the foundation of the
HCMA mission statement which drives the direction and decisions of the agency.

Specifically stated, “this Metropark system is dedicated to providing natural resources and

81

park facilities for enjoyment today and preservation for tomorrow” (Huron Clinton
Metropolitan Authority, 1995, p. l).

HCMA already recognizes the importance that customer’s place on enjoying
nature in management decisions. As part of the 1995-96 Park User Study, an
Importance/Performance Analysis (Martilla and James, 1977) was completed.
Importance/Performance Analysis (UP) is a technique used to guide management decision
making, by cross referencing a customer’s rating of the importance placed on a selected
characteristic and a satisfaction, or agency performance, rating of the same characteristic.
In this study, park visitors indicated that the “Overall Beauty of the Park” was very
important to their overall enjoyment of their visit, and also gave a high rating for the
beauty of the park (Paulsen, et al., 1996). Using the UP technique, scenic beauty fell in a
quadrant Martilla and James (1977) label as “Keep up the Good Work” (Paulsen, et. al.,
1996)

Since the study, HCMA has made several decisions to augment the scenic beauty
of the parks and to possibly enrich the visitor’s enjoyment of his/her natural enviromnent.
These decisions include:

0 The addition of an unpaved interpretive trail and implemented interpretive
presentations for families visiting the wave pool at Lake Erie Metropark.

- The development of a “Nature Links” program for Metropark golf courses, which
places interpretive signs throughout the courses highlighting bird species, wetland
habitats, etc.

0 The implementation of hunter safety programs at various Metroparks.

There are several additional steps that HCMA could take to maintain the scenic beauty of

the Metroparks and to further enhance the customer’s nature experience:

82

0 New facility development projects need not detract from the natural beauty of the
parks. Visitors that rated enjoying nature as most important were those
participating in trail, general, tour, and winter activities, so “natural” facility
development should be emphasized in these areas of the Metroparks.

- Consideration should be given to developing and/or maintaining native plant
species and habitats, to controlling litter and debris, to maintaining habitat
appropriate biological carrying capacity to prevent the over browsing of deer, and
other environmental problems.

0 Programs similar to “Nature Links,” can be implemented in other facility areas in
the Metroparks. Interpretive signs could also be developed to change with the
four seasons, highlighting the flora, fauna, and wildlife most prevalent in each
season.

0 To enhance the trail users nature experience, it is suggested that the design of the
trails specifically designated for nature enjoyment, not be paved, be wooded and
natural, provide educational opportunities using interpretive communication
techniques, and have benches periodically placed for nature observation.

It is clear, through the policies and practices of HCMA, that the importance of
nature enjoyment is recognized and emphasized. This same consideration, however, is not
as clear with the benefit of exercise. “Get Some Exercise” is the benefit rated as second
most important to HCMA park visitors. Trail users and golfers rated exercising as more
important than enjoying nature. Presently, HCMA has at least one trail at each of their
Metroparks, and 10 of the 13 parks have golf courses. Trail users are the largest group of
visitors to the Metroparks, with 38% of park visitors selecting a trail activity as their
primary activity. Golfers make up another 10% of park visitors. Knowing that such a
large group of park visitors may be visiting the park for the benefit of exercise, HCMA
management would be wise to place more emphasis on this benefit in management and

marketing solutions. One example of this change could be for HCMA to incorporate, into

their mission, a statement reflecting the exercising needs of park visitors.

83

Trail users, golfers and winter activity participants are the activity groups most
likely seeking the benefit of exercise, therefore, emphasis on these activity groups would
provide the greatest impact in management decisions. There appear to be two distinct
subgroups of trail users, those who seek exercise and those who seek nature enjoyment.
Because of the demand for use of trails in the Metroparks, many trails are over crowded
during peak visitor times. In addition, user conflicts occur between individuals seeking
exercise on a trail and those seeking nature enjoyment. In 1995-96, when asked what new
facilities park visitors would like to see developed at their park, the three most selected
facilities were hike-only trails (31%), bike trails (23%), and in-line skate trails (21%)
(Paulsen, et al., 1996). Recognizing this need, HCMA has since established several
“Wheels Only” and “Feet Only” trails in the Metroparks. HCMA has also linked three
park trails (Willow, Oakwoods and Lower Huron) to establish a trail for visitors desiring
to exercise at distances up to 20 miles. Presently, HCMA is working in partnership with
the Department of Natural Resources and Oakland County Parks to join the exercise trail
at Kensington Metropark with a trail at Lyon Oaks County Park. Once this project is
completed trail enthusiasts will have a distance of 10.2 miles available for their enjoyment
and use.

To enhance the experience of trail users seeking exercise:

- Distance markers and signs could be placed along paved trails with fitness
information specifically designed for each of the trail user groups (walker, biker,
in-line skater, jogger). Informational signs may include the location of appropriate
paths, calories burned based on distance and activity, and health and wellness tips.

0 Partnerships with area fitness centers can be developed to increase the number of

fitness focused events in the Metroparks, including fun runs, in-line skating clinics,
and bicycle races.

84

0 “March for Parks” activities, trail clean-ups, and other similar activities can not
only promote fitness, but also increase visitor ownership and decrease
inappropriate behavior in the parks.

Golfers and those visiting the park for winter activities, such as sledding, ice
skating, cross country skiing, and ice fishing, also rated exercise as very important. In my
opinion, it is the actual act of “getting out of the house” or “getting away from wor ”that
makes these two activity groups place such an emphasis on exercise. By HCMA
increasing the number of golf courses over the last 3 years and choosing to keep each of
the 13 Metroparks open during the winter, in 1995, HCMA is allowing these groups
access to facilities necessary to get the exercise they desire. However, more can be done
for these activity groups to facilitate their exercise regime. To contribute to a golfers
exercise experience:

0 HCMA can encourage walking the courses by designating specific times on the
golf courses for walkers only. (Presently, HCMA allows both walking and using a

golfcart on the courses.)

- HCMA could develop and distribute to golfers a brochure highlighting a variety of
warm up and regular exercises specifically designed to improve their golf game.

0 Golf clinics could include tips to enhancing your game using exercise.

- Like many golf courses with the desire to return to the traditions of golf, HCMA
could designate a few of their courses as walk only courses. (Presently, HCMA is
in the process of developing an educational facility for golfers, with the Michigan
Golf Foundation at Huron Meadows Metropark, which will include a “walk only”
nine-hole executive course.)

Wmter activity participants also rate exercising as very important. Due to the
limited number of outdoor ‘exercise-related’ recreation activities available to the residents
of Michigan in the winter months, the fact that these parks are open and offer a wide

variety of winter activities, is one possible reason for this benefit’s popularity. Over the

last several years, Southeast Michigan has experienced a decrease in the amount of

85

snowfall, an increase in cold weather ‘snowless’ days, and the increase in warmer weather
winter days. Each of these changes is influencing winter activity participation throughout
the state, as well as at the Metroparks. Providing traditional outdoor winter activities with
Michigan’s uncertain weather may require artificial snow and ice. Due to HCMA’s
emphasis on a natural experience, implementing this type of equipment may be an option,
but only if it can be implemented while still maintaining the scenic beauty of the parks. If
these weather changes continue, HCMA may need to come to the realization that getting
exercise through winter activities may be less and less likely and may be replaced with
activities more likely to be sought in the fall and spring.

Other recommendations for HCMA managers include:

0 The addition of other winter activity facilities and programs, such as snowshoe
trails, ski and snowshoe rentals and races.

- Adding ice rinks, sledding hills, and cross country ski trails to those parks that do
not presently have them.

HCMA would be wise not to ignore social nature of their parks. “Spending Time
with Friends and Family” was also rated as very important to HCMA park visitors.
Activity groups that rated exercise as highest in importance (trail, golf, and winter activity
groups) were those that rate socializing lowest in importance. Those activity groups that
consider socializing to be most important are those participating in water-related, general,
tour, and special event activities. Water-related activities include fishing, swimming, and
boating. General activities include picnicking, nature observation, sunbathing, playing
games and sports, using playground equipment, and scenic driving. The facilities
associated with these types of activities are typically outdoor open areas where groups of

visitors are likely to gather. In 1997, Metro Beach Metropark opened an indoor facility to

86

house some of the social events for this park. (Some of the dance and concert programs
at Metro Beach Metropark have been in ongoing since the 1950's.) To increase the
visitor’s opportunity to socialize during water-related and general activity participation,
HCMA may choose to develop or increase the number of gathering areas for visitors
around popular park locations. Gathering areas could include benches, picnic tables,
canopies, and popular game and sports facilities.

Touring facilities and special events are natural settings for social interaction. The
Nature Centers, Farm, and Grist Mill are already popular gathering spots for Metropark
visitors. To increase visitors to these facilities, and thus enhance the social experience for
the customer, HCMA may want to alternate the facility exhibits more often to increase the
number of repeat visitors to the facilities. The Metroparks house some of the largest
outdoor events in Southeast Michigan, including boat shows, car shows, and concerts.
These events are always great way to encourage social interaction; however, increasing
HCMA’s smaller events such as fishing tournaments, nature or arts and crafts programs
may bring smaller groups of families and fiiends together.

Marketing

HCMA currently promotes the Metroparks using a variety of means, including
public service announcements, radio advertisements, cable television announcements, and
a quarterly newsletter that is distributed to over 60,000 patrons of the Metroparks.
HCMA produces a large map of the Metroparks, that includes a listing of the facilities
available at each park, and an individual brochure for each of the Metroparks listing its
unique features. HCMA has a brochure highlighting the opportunities for golf in the

Metropark system. In-house, HCMA develops and distributes to area schools,

87

announcements of educational programs specifically designed for them. Now that HCMA
is aware of the benefits their customers are seeking, these promotional materials can be
updated to reflect the benefits sought by the visitors of the Metroparks.

The goal of any marketing plan is to increase customer awareness of your agency
and to prompt consumers to action. The actions HCMA may be seeking through their
marketing plan include increasing the number of day visitors to the Metroparks, selling
tickets to a special event, increasing the number of corporate events at the parks, or
surpassing last years yearly park permit sales. Whatever the action, it is easier to prompt a
customer to action using benefit information than by highlighting features or facilities of
the park. By spotlighting benefits in marketing efforts, the agency to will be emphasizing
the motivations that drive customers to action.

As with HCMA management decisions, enjoying nature is the focus of many of the
promotional materials developed for, or by, HCMA Exercise should also be emphasized
in these materials, especially those aimed at trail, golf, and winter activity participants.
“Enjoying Nature and the Outdoors” and “Spending Time with Friends and Family” were
rated as important by each of the water-related, general, touring, and special event activity
groups, therefore, this should be the focus of marketing materials targeted to attract
individuals to these activities. Vlfrth the information generated by this dissertation, HCMA
now knows what benefits each activity group seeks during their park visit. This
information will be very helpful to those responsible for marketing the Metroparks. When
developing the promotional materials for a particular facility or program, the benefit

sought by those activity groups should be emphasized.

88

This dissertation revealed that all user groups place great importance on the benefit
of enjoying nature, however, groups with adult women place the greatest emphasis on this
benefit. Adults, alone or in groups, feel exercising is important in their park visit, with the
one exception, groups of male adults, who place less importance on exercise. All groups
of both adult(s) and child(ren) and adult female groups feel that “Spending Time with
Friends and Family” to be more important than other groups. HCMA can use this
information to better understand the needs of, or benefits sought by, their visitor
population. Knowing the needs of your customers is the first step to a successfirl
marketing plan. The next step is to use this information to entice your target market to
action. For example, if the a goal of HCMA is to attract more adults visiting the park
alone, marketing materials should focus on exercise and enjoying nature.

HCMA should review their current marketing strategies to ensure the message
relayed is appropriate. A benefit approach to marketing allows HCMA to be more
strategic and aggressive in their marketing plan. To continue to attract visitors to the
Metroparks, it is recommended that enjoying nature, exercising, and socializing be
accentuated in both the written materials and graphics incorporated into the current
promotional materials generated for HCMA. To draw new target markets to the
Metroparks, it is recommended that HCMA investigate the benefits these new markets
seek and then decide what programs, facilities, and marketing strategies would best attract

these markets.

89

Recommendationsfnrfunueliesearch

Earlier discussions in this study suggested an increase of multiple activity studies
to enhance our ability to compare activities, as well as studies that focus on recently
experienced recreation activities. To achieve this, a park user questionnaire was
implemented and this task was accomplished. However, this format also has its
limitations. Fitting a study of recreation benefits into a general applied visitor survey
design constrains the depth of measures that can be made. In addition, due to the
stnrcture of the HCMA Park User Survey, limits were placed on the number of benefits
that could be measured. Future research of this type should include other benefits (e.g.
escape, challenge, etc). It is also suggested that the “Enjoyment of Nature and the
Outdoors” benefit be separated into fun/enjoyment and nature appreciation, and
“Learning/ skill Development” category be two separate items. In the HCMA data there
seems to be two distinct benefits being measured in one category. For example, it is
assumed that male adult golfers were rating the “Developing Skills” portion of this benefit
as important and groups of touring adults and children were rating the “Learning” portion
of the benefit as important. Although the two benefits are similar, managers may view
fulfillment of each of the benefits in different ways (e. g. a clinic for golfers to develop their
skills and a learning center for those touring facilities).

The data collected for this research project came from one regional public park
system. A desirable future direction for benefits research is to vary the research setting to
different kind of parks and recreation agencies. If these same research questions were

posed in a variety of recreation settings, both public and private, we would have a more

90

complete understanding of recreation participants in general and a better understanding of
how benefits vary by settings.

Unexplainable variations in benefits sought within activity and user groups were
still present in the findings of this dissertation. To help explain these variations, research
may need to focus on the decision making process of the user or why people seek
particular benefits. Such research might study individual variations as opposed to the
variations of group means employed in this dissertation.

Recreation managers may also wish to know whether individuals consciously seek
specific benefits or do they visit recreation areas out of habit or convenience. In this
study, the average number of visits to the parks the year prior to this study was 9.4 visits;
ten percent of the visitors made more than 20 visits a year. Another possibility is that
some individuals are not seeking a particular benefit but instead are avoiding other
elements of their lives. Qualitative research methods should be employed to answer some
of these questions.

As other researchers have recommended, we need to look not only at benefits
sought, but also benefits received, as a way to better evaluate recreation programs,
facilities, and services. This suggestion was frequently mentioned in the Benefitsgf
Leisure text (Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991). By studying both “sides” of the
recreation experience, practitioners will be able to assess not only what the customer
desires, but whether or not this desire is met by the recreation experience, and how well
the recreation agency has performed in satisfying these desires. Studying both the benefits

sought and benefits received in a recreation experience will likely require me and post-

91

test designs to first learn what benefits the recreation participant seeks from an experience
and then to measure the extent to which that benefit was received.

Benefits received, or outcomes, have received greater emphasis in studying the the
physiological and stress reducing benefits of exercise and physical activity (Sefton &
Mummery, 1995). This may be due to the relative ease of measuring these types of
benefits. For example, it is much easier to measure an individual’s blood pressure and
heart rate after a four mile walk than it is to measure the amount of enjoyment an
individual receives from the natural surroundings during the same experience. Many
reported recreation benefits are more subjective and, therefore, more difficult to measure.
There is no guarantee that an individual’s subjective perceptions will be consistent with
more objective measures, eg. one may run to improve health, but in reality, be damaging
one’s knees and putting undue stress on the heart. However, if one believes something to
be a benefit, then it may serve that purpose. Researchers and practitioners need to answer
the question, “Can we just measure perceptions or do we need objective measures?”

In the last 10 years, there has been a growing recognition of the need for more
research and information on the benefits of recreation. This dissertation, and other similar
research projects, have begun to address this need. However, research on the benefits of
recreation is still in the early stages, and although good progress has been made recently,
many more well developed and focused research projects will need to be completed before

we firlly appreciate and understand the benefits of a recreation experience.

92

 

APPENDIX

93

APPENDlX

Huron-Clinton Metroparks User Survey

The Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority (HCMA) and Michigan State University would like your help.
Please take about 10 minutes to tell us about your experiences in the park today. By completing and returning the
questionnaire, you can help the Metroparks better serve you and other park visitors. Participation in the survey is
voluntary and your responses are completely anonymous.

Please complete the survey at your convenience during your visit today, seal it in the envelope provided and
drop it in one of the red drop boxes located at each park exit. If you are unable to return it as you leave, please mail
it in the business reply envelope. If you have any questions about the survey, contact me at (517) 353-5190.

Dr. Richard Paulsen, Project Director
Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources
Michigan State University
INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR VISIT TODAY

1. lntheboxattheright, .
a) Circlethchornyouarrivcdinthcparktoday. :‘mms(m) 7 l8 29 310411512

1:) Circle the houryou will leave thepark today. Evening (PM) 5 7 3 9 10 1|

 

 

 

 

2. Including yourself. how many people in your vehicle are in EACH of the following age and gender groups?

 

 

 

Children Males Females Adults Males Females
Undcr5yearsofage 18m35yearsold

5t012yearsold 36to59yearsold

13to17yearsold 60yearsofageandovcr

 

3. Whattypeofnntorvehiclepermitdidyouusetoentertheparktoday?

 

 

Cl Daily Permit D Annual Sticker
4. Did you purchase an annual motor vehicle permit for the Huron-Clinton Metroparks in 1995?
C] No C] Yes-D 1fyes,approximate1yhowmanydayswasitusedinl995? days
5. Check each activity that you or anyone in your vehicle aredoingtoday in this Metropark
General Activities Water- related Activities Games and Sports
0 Nanne Observation/Photography U Sunbathe Cl Golf
DScenicDrive DBoat-Non-rnotcr DPlayotherGarnesorSports
DPicnic CIBoat-Motor DWatchGamesorSports
Trail Activities 0 Fishfi'omBoat Cl UsePlayground Equiprnentfl'otLot
0 Bicycle C1 Fish from Shore Winter Activities
0 Walk or Hike D Waterslide Cl Ice Fish
0 Walk Pet(s) D Swim/Wade in Lake 13 Cross Country Ski
Cl Run/Jog D Swim/Wade in Pool 0 Sled/Toboggan
fJ Rollerskatdln—line Skate or Ski (Including WW) 0 Ice Skate
Tour Facilities Events and Other Activities
Cl Visit Nature Center 0 Attend a Special Evert in the Park (please specify)
13 Visit Farm 0 Other (please specify)
0 Visit Grist Mill '

6. Which of the above activities was the primary reason for visiting the park today?

 

(If you didn’t come to the park for any particular activity, write NONE.)

94

7. In choosing a park for your trip today, how important are each of the following park cluraeten'sties.

(Please circle one number for each characteristic.)

Extremely Very

Somewhat Not

Park Characteristic Important Important Important Important Important

Overall beauty of the park

Facilities clean and in working order
Availability of facilities (tables, courts. etc.)
Friendliness & courteousness of park staff

-_——_a—n~p—

2

wwwwwwwwu

AAAAa-AAJ-A
mmuummmmu

2
2
2
Safetyandseeunty 2
Prieeofadmissiontothcuea 2
Qualityoffoodateoncessions 2
Closetohome 2
Notcrowded 2
8. HowimponanttoyouareeaehofthefollowingreasonsforvisitingthisMetroparktoday?
(Pleasedrelcommnnbaforeaehreasort)
Extremely Very Somewhat Not
Reason for Visiting Important Important Important Important Important
Spmdtimewithfriendsmdfmiily I 2 3 4 5
Getsomeexercise l 2 3 4 5
Relax/rest l 2 3 4 5
Exciternentlthrills l 2 3 4 5
Developskills/leaming l 2 3 4 5
Enjoynaturemdtheoutdoors l 2 3 4 5

YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT NEW FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS

9. Whichofthefollowing facilitieswmldyouliketoseedevelopedorexpmdedatthisMeflopark?

(Checkuptothreefacilitiesthatymwwldprefer)

ommmrwmo 0 osmium
a EnelosetLYear-muanolfDrivingRanch VolleyballComts
o mumswsu Trails o SooeerFields

o masochism o 'I‘ennisCourts
o WamrPlayI-‘aeilitiea . o GolfCourse

U HikingOnly‘Irails
Cl Childrm’sPlayArea
0 Bicycleka

Cl Muina

0 Othetlplwesvedfy)

IO. Whichofthefollowingpmgramsorspeeialeveutswouldymliketoseeoffuedorexpandedathis
Metroplk? (Oncltaptothreeprogramsthatmildbeofinteresttoym)

CINahircProgmrs DCarShons DGolfToumaments
CID-teem U BoatShows OFishingToumanierits
UHistayProgrm UArts&CnftsShows DWaterSaIetyPrograms
UMusicConcerts OllunterSal‘etyProgr-arm DOtlter(pleasespecify)

 

YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH AND USE OF HURON-CLINTON METROPARKS

ll. WereyouawarethatevunedneadayadmissionisfreetoanyMempark?
Cl No D Yes 4 Ifyes,didywtakeadvantageofthisfieedayinl995?
0N0 DNo,haveannualpermit CIYes

95

YOUR FAMILIARITY WITH AND USE OF HURON-CLINTON METROPARKS (coat)
l2. This park is one of 13 Metroparks in Southeast Michigan. (See the enclosed map for park locations.) Use the following
chart to tell us which ofthese parks you are aware ofand how many times you have visited each park in the pastyear.
In Column A, check V beside each Metropark that you are familiar with
In Column 3, estimate the NUMBER of times you have visited each Metropark in the past l2 months.

 

A B
Huron-Clint“: Check if NUMBER of times you
Metro arlts familiar with have visited the Metropark
p the New in the Inst 12 months.

 

Metro Beach (I)
Woleott Mill (2)
Stony Creek (3)
Indian Springs (4)
Winston (5)
Hum Meadows (6)
Hudson Mills (7)
Dexter-Huron (8)
Delhi (9)
Loweriluron (10)
Willow (ll)
Oakwoods(12)
LakeErie (l3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l3. Whendidyoufirst visitanHCMA Metropark?
OToday ClWithinthepastyear DWithinthepastSyears DMorethanSyearsago

14. How doyouget information about the Metroparks, including facilities, programs andspeeial events?

(M‘m‘W’) o ParkBroehureorMap
0 I'V/Radio 0 Word ofMouth (frientk/family) 0 Paris Newsletter
0 Road Sign/Billboard o Newspaper/Magazine o more):

 

IS. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR VISIT TODAY? Please rate our paformance on each of the
following dwacteristics (Please circle one lumber for each park characteristic.)

Very Don’t
ParkCharacteristic Excellent Good Good Fair Poor Know
Overallbeautyofthepark l 2 3 4 5 CI
Facilitiescleanandinworkingorder l 2 3 4 5 Cl
Availability of facilities(tables, corms, etc.) I 2 3 4 5 Cl
Friendlineastoomeousneasofparkstafl‘ l 2 3 4 5 Cl
Safetymdseemity l 2 3 4 5 Cl
Priecofarhnissimtothepark I 2 3 4 5 Cl
Qualityoffood'atooneessions t 2 3 4 5 c1
Iadtofcrowdingtthepark l 2 3 4 5 0
Overall satisfaction with your visit today I 2 3 4 S D

96

l6. COMMENTS What did you particularly like or dislike about your visrt to this Metropark today”

 

 

 

SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOU. To better understand our visitors. please tell us a little about you and your
family. If you would rather not answer a particular question, leave it blank. All responses are completely anonymous.

I7.

18.

I9.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

What is your home zip code?
What is your age?
Areyou(check one): Cl Female CI Male

Whatisyourcurrentemploymmtstatus? (Cheek one)

 

0 Employed Full-time 0 Student 0 Other (please specify)
0 Employed Part-time 0 Retired

Cl Unemployed 0 Homemaker

How many people in your household rue employed 7 Full-time Part-time

Whatisyourcurrerrtmaritalstatus?(Cheekone)
USIngldnevermarried DMarried ClDivoreed/‘Separated UWidowed

Howmanychildrenfll yearsoldoryounger) livcinyom'household?
How many adults (over 18 years of age) live in you household?

What is the highs! level ofeducation you have completed? (Check one)

0 Lessthanahighschooldiploma 0 Someeollege

CI lfighaehooldiploma CI 4-yexeollegedegree

Cl Teelmieal/Voeationalkgreebeyondhighscbool O Advanceddegree

Whatwasyourtotal householdincornebeforetaxesinl995? (Pleaseapproximatcthismimberifthissurvey
:1 Under $25,000 :1 sso,ooom374,999 ”m‘mwm '99”

O $25,000toS49,999 0 $75,0000rmorc OChoosenottoanswer

Whichcategorybestdeaaibesyorrraeeoretlmicbackgtound? (Checkmc)

 

0 White 0 Arab/Chaldem Cl Multi-Raeial
D Hispanic/[Aim O NativeAmericar'i D 0ther(list):
0 Black 0 AsianIPacific Islander

FINALCOMMENTS. PleasewfiteanyaddifimaleonunmuyoumayhavemungdusaothaMeuopmks.

 

 

 

Retar- your completed survey by placing it in the envelope, sealing it and dropping it in one of the
reddrop boaealoeatedattheparkesitasyou leavethepark.

THANK YOU FOR HELPING US WITH THIS SURVEY.

97

REFERENCES

98

LIST OF REFERENCES

The Academy of Leisure Sciences (1999). The academy of leisure sciences home
page. 111; benefits of leisure, [On-line] Available:
http://www.geog.ualberta.ca/als/alswp7.html

Adams, S. W. (1979) Segmentation of a recreational fishing market: a conomical

analysis of fishing attributes and party composition. MW
82- 91.

Ajzen, I. (1991). Benefits of leisure: a social psychological perspective. In Driver,

B.L., Brown, R]. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Wm. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, Inc.

Allen, L. R. (1 996). Benefits-based management of recreation services. PM
W, 64- 74

Allen, L R. & Donnelly, M. A. (1985). An analysis of the social unit of
participation and the perceived psychological outcomes associated with most enjoyable

recreation activities. W, 421-441.

Allen, L. R., Stevens, B. ,& Harwell, R. (1996). Benefits-based management

activity plarming model for youth in at-risk environments. Wm
Adnunistmficnlflll 10-19

Allen, L. R, Wright, P. S. ,& Harwell, R (1995). The content of recreation
experiences: the missing element in benefits based management of leisure services

WWW Arlington, Virginia National
Recreation and Parks Association Annual Congress, San Antonio Texas. 44.

Altman, I. (1981). W New York: New York:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

Auld, C. J. & Case, A]. (1997). Social exchange processes in leisure and non—

leisure settings: a review and exploratory investigation. WW
22(2). 183- 200

Babbie, E. (1992). WW (6“ ed.). Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Barnett, LA. (1991). Developmental Benefits of Play for Children. In Driver,

B.L., Brown, R]. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), W. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, Inc.

99

Beard, J.G. & Ragheb, MG. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. mm
W 219-228.

Becker, B W. (1976). Perceived similarities among recreational activities

W112 122

Benefits List (1999). W [On-line]. Available Email:
benefits@ilogic.com

Berger, B. G. & Owen, D R (1992). Preliminary analysis of a causal relationship
between swimming and stress reduction: intense exercise may negate the effects.

19W”- 85

Bergstrom, J. C. & Cordell, H. K. (1991) An analysis of the demand for and value
of outdoor recreation in the United States. MW 67-86.

Bruns, D. (1995) Implementing the benefits-based approach to management in

ourdoor recreation areas and research needs. WWW
research, Arlington, Virginia. National Recreation and Parks Association Annual

Congress, San Antonio Texas. 45.

Buchanan, T. ,Christensen, J. E. ,& Burdge, R. J (1981). Social groups and the
meanings of outdoor recreation activities. WW 254-266.

Buhyofl‘, G.J. & Brown, R]. (1975). Social and individual learning benefits from
recreational enjoyments. As presented by Roggenbuck, J .W., Loomis, R.J., & Dagostino,
J. V. (1991). Learning benefits of leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., & Peterson, G.L.
(Eds), W. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Burch, W.R. (1964). Two concepts for guiding recreation management decisions.

MW, 707-712-

Burch, W. R. (1969). The social circles of leisure: competing explanations.
Ioumalnilarsurefiesearcbm). 125-143

Chase, D. R. & Cheek, N. J., Jr. (1979). Activity preferences and participation.
conclusions from a factor analytic study. WW 92-101.

Choi, S, Loomis, D. K. ,& Ditton, RB. (1994). Effect of social group, activity
and specialization on recreation substitution decisions. WW6, 143- 159.

Clough, P. ,Shepard, J. ,& Maughan, R (1989). Motives for participation in
recreational running W115), 297-309

Coleman, D. & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1993) Leisure and health: the role of social
support and self- determination. W 111- 128.

100

Colton, J. W & Jackson, E. L (1995). Recreation benefits. refinement and

clarification of benefit dimensions WWW
Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and Parks Association Annual Congress, San

Antonio Texas. 91.

Crandall, R. (1979). Social interaction, affect and leisure. WM
W3). 165-181-

Crandall, R. (1980). Motivations for leisure. W,
45-54.

Crompton, 1L. & Lamb, D. (1986). W
New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Kleiber, DA. (1991). Leisure and self-actualization. In

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), W. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, Inc.

Donald, M.N. & Havighurst, RT. (1959). The meaning of leisure. W5,
_3_Z, 355-360.

Dottavio, F .D., O’Leary, J .T., & Koth, B. (1980). The social group variable in
recreation participation studies. Journal of Leisure Resmgh, 12(4), 357-367.

Driver, B. L. (1986). Benefits of river and trail recreation: The limited state of

outdoor recreation participation. In Sequire, S. (Ed), W

W. (pp 44-58) Vancouver, BC:
Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia.

Driver, B L. (1990). Focusing research on the benefits of leisure: special issue
introduction loumalnfiLeisureResemm). 93-93

Driver, BL (1993) Did you know? W
W 2.

Driver, B. L. (1995). A conceptual scafl‘old for the benefits approach to leisure.
- - . - Arlington, Virginia: National
Recreation and Parks Association Annual Congress, San Antonio Texas. 40.

 

Driver, B. L. (1999). The benefits approach to leisure policy analysis and

management an Update [On-line] W
W OAvailable: http: //info metla. fi/iufro95abs/d6pap1. htrn

101

Driver, B. L. & Bruns, D. H. (in press). Concepts and uses of the benefits

approach to leisure In Burton, T. and Jackson, E. (Eds) LeimSmdiesALLhe
Millenmum, State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing.

Driver, B. L. & Brown, P. J. (1987). Probable personal benefits of outdoor
recreation. In’ ‘ 11’ 111111 1 11.: ‘ 9.11-111' ..1. :.'i..
Washington, D. C.: US Government Printing Oflice. Values section, (pp. 63- 70).

Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., & Peterson, G.L. (1991). Research on leisure benefits:
an introduction to this volume. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds),
Benefitseflleimre. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Driver, B.L. & Cooksey, RW. (1980). Preferred psychological outcomes of
recreational fishing. As presented by Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H.E.A., & Manfredo, M.J.
(1991). The paragraphs about leisure and recreation experience preference scales: results
from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological
benefits of leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefitsef
Leisure. State College, PA‘ Venture Publishing, Inc.

Driver, B.L. & Knopf, RC. (1976). Temporary escape, one product of sport
fisheries management. W, 21-29.

Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H.E.A., & Manfredo, M.J. (1991). The paragraphs about
leisure and recreation experience preference scales: results from two inventories designed
to assess the breadth of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In Driver, B.L.,

Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. aids), Benefitsefl‘eisure. State College, PA: Venture
Publishing, Inc.

Driver, B. L ,Nash, R, & Haas, G. E. (1987). Wilderness benefits: a state-of-

knowledge review In RC. Lucas (Ed.,) WWW
Cenflemnee, General Technical Report INT-220, (pp. 294-319) Ogden, UT: USDA

Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Dunlap, R. E. & Catton, W. R, Jr. (1979). Environmental sociology. Annual
WW 243-273

Edginton, C. R ,Hanson, C. J. ,Edginton, S. R, & Hudson, S. D. (1998). mm
: - r 1. 3rd edition. Boston,

 

Massachusetts: McGraw-Hill

Etzkorn, K. P. (1964). Leisure and camping: the social meaning of a form of
Public recreation WW2 76- 89

Ewert, A (1993). Difl‘erences 1n the level of motive importance based on trip
outcome, experience level and group type. mm 335- 349.

102

Ewert, A. (1994). Playing the edge: motivation and risk taking in an altitude
wilderness environment. Enfl'genmenz end Behaxier, 261 11. 3-24.

Field, D. R. & O’ Leary, J. T. (1973). Social groups as a basis for assessing
participation in selected water activities. W, 16- 25.

Floyd, M. F & Gramann, J. H. (1995). Perceived benefits of outdoor recreation
participation: a comparison of Anglo-Americans and Mexican Americans. Bmeeedings

WE Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and
Parks Association Annual Congress, San Antonio Texas. 29.

Gleitman, H. (1986). mm. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.

Godbey, G. (1995). Why the paradigm shift to the BAL? Bremeflngsfmmfle

WM Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and Parks
Association Annual Congress, San Antonio Texas. 41.

Graefe AR (1977) WWW

expemeemmgmm Unpublished Dissertation University of Wisconsin,
Green Bay.

Graefe, A. R. ,Ditton, R. B. R,oggenbuck, J. W. ,& Schreyer, R. (1981). Notes on
the stability of factor structure of leisure meanings WALD. 51-65.

Gudykunst, W. B. ,Morra, J. A, Kantor, WI, & Parker, H. A (1981). Dimensions

of leisure activities: a factor analytic study in New England. WM
13 ( 11, 28-42.

Haley, R (1964). Benefit segmentation: A decision-oriented research tool.
J k ' 3 -3 3-32.

Harper, J.A. (1994). h fi li R ' . Presentation to National
Recreation and Parks Association Annual Congress: Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Harper, J. A. & Balmer, K. R. (1989) The perceived benefits of public leisure
services: an exploratory investigation. W, 171- 188.

Hawes, D. K. (1979). Satisfactions derived from leisure-time pursuits: an
exploratory nationwide study. Jemal of Lg'sgre Research, 10141, 247—264.

Henderson, K. A. ‘(1992) Women & the outdoor pursuits. LeumalefPhysjeaJ

 

Heywood, J. L. (1 987). Experience preferences of participants in different types
of river recreation groups.)_o_1_1m_a1_ef_Le_su_e_Re§_a_1;eh._l_2(1), 1- 12

103

Holland, S.M., Fedler, AJ., & Ditton, RB. (1986). [MW
_;as._Bi W1) 79-91.

Hollender, J .W. (1977). Motivational dimensions of the camping experience.

JeurnaJ efLeisure Research, 9121, 133-141.

Hoots, T-A- (1993/1996). WWW
Dana Point, California: BBM Project Director.

Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority (1995) mm. Brighton, Michigan:
Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority.

Ingharn, R. (1986). Psychological contributions to the study of leisure - Part one.
W 255-279.

Iso-Ahola, S-E. (Ed) (1980). SocraLpsxclmlogicaLperspmtixesmlermrflnd
recremion. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Iso-Ahola, SE. (1988). The social psychology of leisure: past, present and firture

research. In LA. Barnett (Ed), MW (pp. 75-93). Champaign, ll:
Sagarnore Publishing.

Iso-Ahola, SE. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In Jackson, E.L. & Burton T.L.,

(Eds), Understandingleisure and recreation; mapping the pest, charting me future. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

 

Iso-Ahola, S. E. & Allen, J. E. (1982). The dynamics of leisure motivation: the

effects of outcome on leisure needs. W,
141- 149.

Jackson, EL. & Henderson, RA. (1994). Gender-based analysis of leisure
constraints. LeisureSeLeneesJZ, 31-51.

Kelly, J .R. (1978). Leisure styles and choices in three environments. Paeifie
Socielegicaj Review, 21, 187-208.

Kelly, JR. (1980). Outdoor recreation participation. W129-
153.

Kclly, JR- (1981) WWW Washington, DC:
US. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.

Kelly, JR. (1990). Leisure. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

104

Knopf, R. C. ,Peterson, G. L. ,& Leatherberry, E C. (1983). Motives for
recreational river floating: relative consistency across settings. Lei rsme Seien nees 513 1,
231-255

Larson, R.W., Gillrnan, S.A., & Richards, M.H. (1997). Divergent experiences of
family leisure: fathers, mothers, and young adolescents. Jeurnal ef Leisure Reseflch,
29111, 78-97.

Lee, R. G. (1972). The social definition of outdoor recreation places In Burch,

W R. Cheek, N. H. & Taylor, L. (Eds.,) Secial behavior, na1ural reseur ces, and1he
W New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.

London, M., Crandall, R, & Fitzgibbons, D. (1977). The psychological structure
of leisure: activities, needs and people. Jeumal efLeis11re Research, 9141, 252-263.

Losier, G.F., Bourque, P.E., & Vallerand, RJ. (1992). A motivational model of
leisure participation in the elderly. [he Jegmal 91 Psyeholegy, 127121, 153-170.

Lounsbury, J.W. & Hoopes, LL. (1988). Five-year stability of leisure activity and
motivation factors. urn of isur R s 20 2 118-134.

Lewis, D.E. & H.F. Kaiser (1991). Managerial needs for information on benefits of
leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds) Benefi1s efleisgre, State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Mannell, RC. & Stynes, DJ. (1991). A retrospective: the benefits of leisure. In
Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefits ef leisure, State College,
PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Market Opinion Research (1986). WWW
Amerieen ad1111§ end 1he metivefigns whieh drive partieipefien, Washington, DC:

President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. pp. 12.

Martilla, J .A. & James, J .C. (1977). Importance-Performance Analysis. .112qu ef
Marketing, January, 1977 77 - 79.

McCaskie, S.L., Napier, T.L., & Christensen, 1E. (1986). Factors influencing

outdoor recreation participation: a state study. Jegmal efLeis11re Researeh, 18131, 190-
205.

McKechnie, GE. (1974). Psychological structure of leisure. W
Researeh, 61 Winter1, 27-45.

Mueller E & Gwin, G (1962) WWW

afi’ee1i 111g demen g1 ameng Amerieen edul1s, Washington, D. C.: Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission, Study Reports 5,20, 22 & 27. pp. 91.

105

Orthner, D. J. & Mancini, J. A. (1980). Leisure behavior and gorup dynamics: the

case ofthe family 1n 150- Ahola S E 03d)SociaLpsxc11_Qlogical_perspectiy_es_Qn1eisure
and recreation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.

Orthner, DJ. & Mancini, J .A. (1990). Leisure impacts on family interaction and
cohesion. Jeurnal ef Leisure Researeh, 22121, 125-137.

Orthner, D.J. & Mancini, J .A (1991). Benefits of leisure for family bonding. In
Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State College,
PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Paffenbarger, R. S. Jr ,Hy,de R. T, & Dow, A. (1991) Health benefits of Physrcal
Activity In Driver, B. L. ,Brown, P J ,& Peterson, G. L. (Eds ) BeaefitsefLeisrLe.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Paulsen, R ,Stynes, D. ,Nelson, C. ,Wisnorn, M. ,& Elwert, K. (1996). HCMA
1995- 96 Bar 11 use: Sway; Ei gal Repefi. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Park,

Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University.

Peterson,C. (1996). , A , .. . . _
Alberta, Canada. Alberta Recreation and Parks Association

 

Philipp, SF. (1997). Race, gender and leisure benefits. Leisure Seienees; July
1 997 191 -2.07

Pierce, RC. (1980). Dimensions of Leisure 1: Satisfactions. We
Researeh, 12111, 5-19.

President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO) (1986). WE
eemmission en Americans eutdeors: a literature review, December, 1986.

Ragheb, MG. (1980). Interrelationships among leisure participation, leisure
satisfaction and leisure attitudes. Journal 9f Leisure Research, 12121, 138-149.

Roggenbuck, J.W., Loomis, RJ., & Dagostino, J. V. (1991). Learning benefits of
leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J., & Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefi1s efLeis11re. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Rolston, H. (1990) Creation and recreation: environmental benefits of human
leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. and Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefi1s ef Leisure. State
College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Romsa, G.H. & Girling, S. (1976). The identification of outdoor recreation
market segments on the basis of frequency of participation. m l . L i r Re

8141, 247-255.

106

Rossman, B.B. & Ulehla, Z]. (197 7). Psychological reward values associated
with wilderness use: A fimctional-reinforcement approach. Environment and Behavion

9111, 41-66.

Ruckenstein, M. & Marisi, DO. (1983). Reasons and incentives for participation
in physical recreational activities according to work intensity. Proceedings from the

sympesium on leisure reseagch, Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and Parks
Association Annual Congress, Kansas City, Missouri. 22.

Schreyer, R. (19841me Logan, UT:

Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, 43 pp.

Schreyer, R. & Driver, BL. (1989). The benefits of leisure. In Jackson, E.L. &
Burton, TL. (Eds), n r n in l i r n r r i n' m ' '
flame, State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Schreyer, R. & Driver, BL. (1990). The benefits of wildland recreation
participation: what we know and where we need to go. In Driver, B.L. (Ed),
1n ri1 11m 1 ,1 i _ in ‘ 1 1111- .’ .ngz‘mn" An not: Fort Collins,
Colorado: USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-l96.

Sefton, J .M. & Mummery, W.K. (1995). Benefi1s ef Reerea1ie11 Researeh
Updtfl State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Scott, D. & Godbey, GO (1992). An analysis of adult play groups: social versus
serious participation in contract bridge. Leisure Seiences, 14, 47-67.

SPSS (1996). MW (Standard Version 7.5)
[Computer Software] SPSS, Inc..

Stein, T. V. & Lee, M. E. (1995). Managing recreation resources for positive
outcomes: an application of benefits-based management. Journal 6f Park and Reerea tion

AdministLatien, 1313 1, 52-70.

Stockdale, J .E. (1989). Concepts and measures of leisure participation and
preference. In Jackson, EL. & Burton, T.L. (Eds), 11nders1anding leisure and

reereation: mapping the past, charting the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing,
Inc.

Stynes, DJ. & Driver, BL. (1990, March). Irendsiruncasnremmtcflthe
benefieial eensequences ef leisure Paper presented at the meeting of the 1990 National

Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium, Indianapolis, IN.

Tinsley, H.E.A. & Johnson, TL (1984). A preliminary taxonomy of leisure
activities. Jeumal 6f Leisure Research, 16, 234-244.

107

Tinsley, H.E.A. & Kass, RA. (1979). The latent structure of need satisfying
properties of leisure activities. learnal efLeis11re Researeh 11141, 278-291.

Tinsley, H.E.A. & Kass, RA. (1978). Leisure activities and need satisfaction: a
replication and extension. Jeamaj of Leisure Researeh, 10131, 191-202.

Tinsley, H.E.A., Teaff, J.D., Colbs, S.L., & Kaufman, N. (1985). A system of
classifying leisure activities in terms of psychological benefits of participation reported by

older persons. Jearnal ef fierentelegy 40121, 172—178.

Tinsley, H.E.A. & Tinsley, DJ. (1988) An expanded context for the study of
career decisionmaking, development and maturity. As presented by Driver, B.L., Tinsley,
H.E.A., & Manfredo, M.J. (1991). The paragraphs about leisure and recreation
experience preference scales: results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth
of the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In Driver, B.L., Brown, P.J. &
Peterson, G.L. (Eds), Benefits of Leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Toth, J .F., Jr. & Brown, RB. (1997). Racial and gender meanings of why people
participate in recreational fishing. Leis11re Seiences, 19, 129-146.

Unger, LS. (1984). The effect of situational variables on the subjective leisure
experience. Leisare Scienees, 6131, 291-313.

Unkel, MB. (1981). Physical recreation participation of females and males during
the adults life cycle. Leisure Seienees, 4111, 1-27.

Wellman, J.D., Dawson, MS, & Roggenbuck, J .W. (1982). Park managers
predictions of the motivations of visitors to two national park service areas. learnal 6f

Lame Researeh, 14(1), 1-15.

Wellner, AS. (1997). Americans a1 play; demographics 01 outdoor recreation and
1ravel Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publication, Inc.

Westland, C. (1986). Participation in Trail and River Recreation. In Seguire, S.
(Ed), Pr edin th I t rnati nal 11 re nTr il 11 Riv r r tion
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

White, SA. (1995). The purposes of sport among male and female intercollegiate

and recreational sports participants. 1n1ema1ienal learnal 6f Spefls Esyehelegy, 26, 490-
502.

Williams, DR. (1988). Measuring perceived similarity among outdoor recreation
activities: a comparison of visual and verbal stimulus presentations. Leisure Seienees, 10,
153-166.

108

1110-11an STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
[1111111WillillHill11111111111111111111“Will
31293017700547