INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University M oorilm s International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8324768 S p o t t s , D aniel M. A STUDY OF AN URBAN POPULATION’S FAMILIARITY WITH THEIR LOCAL PARKS Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 43106 Copyright 1983 by Spotts, Daniel M. All Rights Reserved 1983 PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this m aterial h as been filmed in the b est possible way from th e available copy. Problems enco u n tered with this d o cu m en t have been identified here with a check m ark V 1. G lossy ph o to g rap h s or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, p ap er or prin t______ 3. P hotographs with dark b a ck g ro u n d ______ 4. Illustrations a re poor co p y ______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original 6. Print show s through a s th ere is text on both s id e s of p ag e ______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ 10. . copy__ ___ C om puter printout p ag es with indistinct prin t______ 11. P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or author. 12. P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two pages n u m b e re d _____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. O ther_____________________________________________ ____________________________ University Microfilms International A STUDY OF AN URBAN POPULATION'S FAMILIARITY WITH THEIR LOCAL PARKS By Daniel M. S po tts A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e requirem ents f o r th e degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Park and Recreation Resources 1983 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF AN URBAN POPULATION'S FAMILIARITY WITH THEIR LOCAL PARKS By Daniel M. S p otts Most s tu d ie s o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice have assumed t h a t r e c r e a t i o n i s t s possess complete knowledge o f th e r e c r e a tio n opportu­ n i t i e s a v a ila b le to them, d e s p ite em pirical evidence to th e c o n tr a ry . This study c o n tr ib u te s to th e development o f a theory o f r e c r e a t io n s i t e choice t h a t accounts fo r p e o p le 's incomplete knowledge o f r e c r e a ­ tio n s i t e s by id e n tify in g r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park f a m i l i a r i t y and (1) personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (2) d ista n c e s from resid en c es to p a rk s , and (3) p a r k - v i s i t a t i o n p a tt e r n s . Park f a m i l i a r i t y i s conceptualized as a continuum ranging from "awareness" t h a t a park e x i s t s to d e ta ile d "knowledge" o f a p a rk 's lo c a tio n and a m e n ities. Data were c o lle c te d through a p e rso n a l-in te rv ie w survey o f 201 r e s id e n ts o f Lansing, Michigan. "Awareness" o f parks was measured by asking respondents to in d ic a te on a l i s t o f 19 Lansing parks tho se they had heard o f . "Knowledge" o f a given park was measured by quizzing aware respondents on th e l o c a ti o n , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s o f t h a t park. "Park-system aware­ ness" was estim ated by th e number o f parks on th e l i s t o f 19 parks t h a t a given respondent had heard o f . "Park-system knowledge" f o r a Daniel M. Spotts given respondent was estim ated by the number o f c o r r e c t answers given to quiz items p e rta in in g to th e l o c a ti o n s , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s o f nine parks. Respondents w ith high awareness o f th e park system, compared to those with low awareness, were o l d e r , had longer r e s i d e n t i a l te n u r e , p a r tic ip a te d in more resource-based r e c re a tio n a c t i v i t i e s , and included a lower proportion o f Blacks. Respondents with high knowledge o f most p a rk s, compared to tho se with low knowledge of th ese p a rk s , were younger, p a r t i c i p a te d in more r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s , and were more l i k e l y to re s id e with c h ild r e n . In d iv id u als with high knowledge of th e park system, compared t o those with low knowledge, were b e t t e r educated, p a rtic ip a te d in more r e c re a tio n a c t i v i t i e s , and contained la r g e r proportions o f w h ite - c o lla r workers and in d iv id u a ls re s id in g with c h ild re n . Awareness o f many parks s i g n i f i c a n t l y declined with in cre asin g d ista n c e from respon dents' re s id e n c e s. Those who had v i s i t e d a given park displayed higher knowledge le v e ls than those who had n o t , and those who had v i s i t e d i t long ago had lower knowledge le v e ls than those who had done so more r e c e n tly . Recommendations a re made fo r f u r t h e r research and f o r park-inform ation d issem in ation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am pleased to acknowledge th e a s s is ta n c e o f several i n d i ­ v idu als who c o n trib u te d to t h i s p r o je c t in a v a r ie ty o f ways. I am p a r t i c u l a r l y g ra te f u l f o r the a s s is ta n c e o f my major p r o f e s s o r , Daniel Stynes, whose in s ig h ts were invaluable in designing the study and i n te r p r e t i n g th e r e s u l t s . The o th e r members o f my guidance com­ m itte e , Robert W ittic k , Richard Farace, and Maureen McDonough, pro­ vided many helpful comments on a d r a f t o f t h i s paper. I am a ls o indebted to P rofessors Bernard F i n i f t e r and Joe Fridgen f o r t h e i r help in lo c a tin g l i t e r a t u r e , and to Cathy E ckstein, Joe Thome, and Terry Westover f o r t h e i r a s s is ta n c e with in te rv ie w in g . Much o f t h i s study was supported through a coop erativ e a g re e ­ ment between Michigan S ta te U n iv ersity and the North Central Forest Experiment S ta tio n . John Dwyer o f the Experiment S ta tio n was i n s t r u ­ mental in f a c i l i t a t i n g t h i s coop eratio n. The a s s is ta n c e o f Dr. Dwyer and th e North Central F o re st Experiment S ta tio n is g r e a t ly a p p re c ia te d . F in a lly , I am very g ra te f u l f o r the encouragement o f my wife and p aren ts throughout my doctoral program. TABLE OF CONTENTS P age LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... ix Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. . . 1 Evidence o f Ignorance ................................................................... A Proposed Model o f R e cre atio n -S ite Choice ..................... Support f o r th e Model . . . .... . . . ... . . . . . ... .„ . D elim itation o f the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O b j e c t i v e s ........................................................................................ Discussion o f O bjectives .......................................................... Measurement o f Park F a m ilia rity .......................................... Park F a m ilia rity and Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s . . . . Park F a m ilia rity and Distance .............................................. Park F a m ilia r ity and P a rk -V isita tio n P a tte rn s . . . . Organization o f the P a p e r .......................................................... 4 7 9 11 14 14 14 15 16 17 17 CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING PARK FAMILIARITY ................. 19 Conceptualizing Park F a m ilia rity .......................................... Measuring Park F a m ilia rity ...................................................... Measuring Awareness ................................................................... Measuring Knowledge ................................................................... 19 22 22 24 PROCEDURES............................................................................................ 31 Study P o p u l a t i o n ........................................................................... Parks S elected f o r Study .......................................................... Q uestionnaire Design ................................................................... Parks L i s t ................................................................................... Features Q u i z ............................................................................... D etailed Questions on Study Parks ...................................... Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s ...................................................... Measurement o f Distance . . . .................................................. Sampling Procedures ....................................................................... Data C o lle ctio n and P rep aratio n .............................................. General A nalytical Procedures .................................................. 31 32 37 38 39 39 41 41 43 53 55 iii Page IV. V. CONSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT OF FAMILIARITY MEASURES . . . 56 Individual Park-Knowledge Scales .......................................... C o n s t r u c t i o n ......................................... Frequency D is trib u tio n s ........................................................... R e l i a b i l i t y .................................................................................... V a l i d i t y ........................................................................................ R e p ro d u cib ility ............................................................................ Scales f o r th e Measurement o f Park-System F a m ilia r ity . C onstruction ................................................................................ Frequency D is trib u tio n s ..................................... R e l i a b i l i t y and V a lid ity ....................................................... Summary................................................................................................. 57 57 59 62 65 70 74 74 75 77 78 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK FAMILIARITY AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................... 79 C o rre la te s o f Park-System F a m i l i a r i t y ............................... . 80 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 0 R e s u l t s ............................................................................................ 81 C o rre la te s o f Awareness o f Individual Parks . . . . . . 86 Natural Areas ................................................................................ 88 Community Parks ............................................................................ 88 Neighborhood Parks . . . . 93 Summary.......................................................... 93 C o rre la te s o f Knowledge o f Individual Parks ...................... 96 Fenner Arboretum . . . . . 99 S c o tt Vioods.................................................................................... 105 Gier P a r k ........................................................................................ 105 Frances P a r k .................................................................. 106 106 P o tte r P a r k .................................................................................... R iv e rfro n t P a r k ............................................................................ 106 Summary............................................................................................ 107 VI. VII. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK FAMILIARITY AND DISTANCES FROM RESIDENCES TO PA R K S.......................................................... 110 Park Awareness and Distance ...................................................... Park Knowledge and D i s t a n c e ................................ Summary................................................................................................ Ill 117 122 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK KNOWLEDGE AND PARKVISITATION PATTERNS............................................. The R e la tio n sh ip Between Park Knowledge and Recency o f V i s i t a t i o n ................................................................................ The R e la tio n sh ip Between Park Knowledge and Frequency o f V i s i t a t i o n ......................................... iv 123 123 126 Page A Model o f Park-Inform ation Flow .......................................... Support f o r th e Model ................................................................... 128 131 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. 135 Summary o f R esults ....................................................................... Measurement o f Park F a m ilia r ity .......................................... Park F a m ilia r ity and Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s . . . . Park F a m ilia rity and Distance ............................................... Park F a m ilia r ity and P a rk -V isita tio n P a tte rn s . . . . Study L i m i t a t i o n s ........................................................................... D i s c u s s i o n ........................................................................................ Suggestions f o r F urther Research ..................... 135 135 136 136 137 137 140 141 APPENDICES............................................................................................................. 145 V III. A. BASIC DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS ................................... 146 B. SUGGESTIONS FOR INFORMATION DISSEMINATION . . . . . . . . 164 C. QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................................................... 172 D. MAP USED IN PARK-LOCATION Q U I Z ................................................... 190 E. ADVANCE LETTER................................................... 192 F. CARDS SHOWN TO RESPONDENTS ............................................................ 194 ................................................................................................ 196 LITERATURE CITED v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. C h a r a c te r is tic s o f the 19 Parks Selected f o r Study . . . . 33 2. D escriptio ns o f Study P a r k s .............................. 36 3. D e fin itio n s o f Terms Used in This Study ................................... 42 4. D e fin itio n s and Populations o f Geographic S tr a ta .................. 45 5. Breakdown o f Designated Sample ....................................................... 50 6. Comparisons o f Demographic C h a r a c te r is tic s o f the Sample With Census Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Items Comprising Individual Park-Know!edge Scales . . . . 58 8 . R esults o f Matched S p lit- H a lf R e l i a b i l i t y Analyses . . . . 64 7. 9. . 52 Knowledge o f Study Parks by Whether Parks Had Ever Been V isite d ................................................................................... 69 10. R esults o f Scalogram Analyses Performed on Respondents Aware o f a Given Park .................................................. 73 11. Awareness o f Park System by Nominal-Level V ariables . . . 82 12. Awareness o f Park System by In terv a l and Ratio-Level V ariables ............................................................................... 83 13. Knowledge o f Park System by Nominal-Level V ariables 84 . . . 14. Knowledge o f Park System by In terv a l and Ratio-Level V a r i a b l e s ................................. 85 15. Park Awareness o f Nominal-Level V ariables 89 . . . . . . . . 16. Park Awareness by In te rv a l and Ratio-Level V ariables . . . 91 17. S t a t i s t i c a l l y S i g n if ic a n t R elatio n sh ip s Between Park Awareness and Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s . ............................. 94 18. Scores Comprising Knowledge Groups o f Each Study Park 97 Vi . . Table Page 19. Park Knowledge by Nominal-Level V a r i a b l e s ......................... 20. Park Knowledge by In terv a l and Ratio-Level V ariables . . . 21. V is ita tio n C h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e Low-, Medium-, and High-Know!edge Groups o f Each Study Park .............................. 104 S t a t i s t i c a l l y S ig n if ic a n t R e lationship s Between Park Knowledge and Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s .................................. 108 22. . 100 102 23. Park Awareness by Distance From Respondent's Residence . . 116 24. Park Knowledge by Distance From Respondent's Residence . . 118 25. Park V is ita tio n Among Aware Respondents by Distance From Respondents' Residences ...................................................... 120 Recent V i s i t o r s ' Proximity to Study Parks Compared to Other Aware Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 27. Park Knowledge by Recency o f V is i t a t i o n ................................... 125 28. Rank-Order C o rrela tio n s Between Park Knowledge and Frequency o f V is ita tio n in th e Last Year .............................. 127 Knowledge o f S p e c ific Aspects o f Study Parks Among Those Who Had Heard o f But Never V isited Them ................. 133 Al. Awareness Levels o f 19 Lansing P arks, in Rank Order 148 A2. V is ita tio n Levels o f 19 Lansing Parks, in Rank Order . . . 151 A3. V is ita tio n Levels of 19 Lansing Parks Among Those Who Had Heard of a Given Park, in Rank O r d e r .............................. 152 Knowledge o f S elected Park F e a tu re s, in Rank Order . . . . 154 26. 29. A4. . . . A5. Knowledge o f S elected Park Features Among Those Who Had Heard o f th e Park Containing a Given F e a tu re , in Rank O r d e r ................................................................................... 155 A6. A Comparison o f How Respondents F i r s t Found Out About Each Study P a r k ............................................................................... 157 A7. Knowledge o f Study-Park Locations Among Respondents Who Had Heard o f a Given P a r k .................................................. 159 v ii Table Page A8. Knowledge o f Study-Park Locations Among Respondents Who Had V isite d a Given P a r k ....................................................... 159 A9. Knowledge o f Whether Each Study Park Has o r Doesn't Have S elected Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Among Respondents Who Had Heard o f a Given P a r k ................................................... 161 yiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A Proposed Model o f R e cre atio n -S ite Choice ............................... 8 2. A Typology o f Techniques That Have Been Used to Measure Knowledge ........................................................................... 25 3. Locations o f th e 19 Parks Selected f o r Study ........................... 35 4. Geographic S t r a t a and Locations o f Respondents' R e s i d e n c e s ............................................................................................ 46 Frequency D is trib u tio n s o f Individual Park-Knowledge Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 60 Frequency D is trib u tio n s o f Measures o f Park-System Awareness and Park-System Knowledge ...................................... 76 7. Park-Awareness Levels by Distance Band ....................................... 112 8. Average Park-Awareness Levels by Distance Band ...................... 114 9. A Model o f Park-Inform ation F l o w ................................................... 129 5. 6. ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Many o f th e challenges faced by park and r e c r e a tio n p r o f e s ­ s io n a ls stem from th e amount o f v i s i t a t i o n received by th e parks they manage. In th e case o f c e r t a i n n atio n al p a rk s , excessive v i s i t a t i o n th re a te n s to d e stro y both the f r a g i l e environments in th e parks and th e q u a li t y o f v i s i t o r s ' experiences (USDI, 1980). In th e case o f many neighborhood p a rk s , on the o th e r hand, a lac k o f v i s i t a t i o n r a i s e s questions regarding why th ese a re as a re not being used (Gold, 1972, 1977). V is i t a t i o n le v e ls a re a ls o a c e n tra l concern in park planning. When new parks a re being planned f o r a community, s t a t e , or re g io n , i t i s extremely useful to have a c c u ra te e stim ate s o f th e amount o f v i s i t a t i o n t h a t w ill l i k e l y occur so t h a t adequate f a c i l i t i e s can be included in th e design. V i s i t a t i o n le v e ls a re th e outcomes o f hundreds o f d e cisio n s t h a t people make regard in g whether to v i s i t c e r t a i n parks. Conse­ q u e n tly , co n sid era b le re se a rc h has been conducted on th e f a c t o r s influ en cin g th e s e c h o ic e s , w ith th e goal of developing models t h a t can be used t o help manage, understand, and p r e d ic t park v i s i t a t i o n . Most s tu d ie s o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice have used e i t h e r aggregate re g re ss io n o r g r a v ity models to p r e d i c t th e number o f 1 2 v i s i t s to a given s i t e from a given o r ig in area on th e b a sis o f : (1) measures o f th e s iz e and/or socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a given area o f o r i g i n , (2) in d ic e s o f s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and (3) th e d ista n c e from a given o r i g in to a given s i t e . More complex models have included a d d itio n a l v a ria b le s such as measures o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u b s t i t u t e s i t e s and s u b je c tiv e measures o f a s i t e ' s a c c e ss ib ility . Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f most o f th ese s tu d ie s i s t h e i r "economic-man" assumption t h a t people possess complete knowledge of th e range o f a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s a v a ila b le t o them. S lu y te r (1977), f o r example, assumed t h a t " a ll in d iv id u a ls w ill have knowledge of th e a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r tu n itie s and w ill choose th e 'optimal s i t e " ' (p. 35). Some s tu d ie s have been reasonably successful in p re d ic tin g v i s i t a t i o n l e v e l s ; o th e rs have n o t. Cheung's (1972) re g re ss io n model, f o r example, explained 91% o f th e v a r i a ti o n in th e number o f day-use p a r t i e s tr a v e li n g from a given o r ig in to each o f 12 p rov in cial and natio n al parks in Saskatchewan. Independent v a ria b le s included the population s iz e o f a given o r i g i n , park a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , d i s t a n c e , and s u b s t i t u t e re c re a tio n s i t e s . Population s iz e and d ista n c e alone explained 84% o f th e v a r i a t i o n in th e dependent v a r i a b le . S im ila rly , Cesario and Knetsch's (1976) model explained 87% o f th e v a r ia tio n in th e number o f day-use p a r t i e s t r a v e li n g to 38 s t a t e parks in Pennsylvania, New York, and New Je rs e y . Independent v a ria b le s included population s i z e , park a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and the 3 combined monetary and temporal c o s t o f t r a v e lin g from a given o r i g in to a given park. Other s tu d ie s have been l e s s successful in modeling r e c r e a t io n s i t e c h oices. S lu y te r (1977), f o r example, developed a s e r i e s o f re g re ss io n models t o p r e d ic t day-use o f pu b lic -ac ce ss boat-1aunch 2 s i t e s in Michigan. The model with th e h ig h est R v a lu e , which p re ­ d ic te d v i s i t a t i o n to e ig h t s i t e s in th e southern p o rtio n o f Michigan's lower p e n in su la , explained only 53% o f th e v a r i a ti o n in th e dependent v a ria b le . Independent v a ria b le s included population s i z e , s i t e a t t r a c ­ tiv e n e s s , tr a v e l tim e, s u b je c tiv e measures o f a c c e s s i b i l i t y , and lake acreage. S im ila r ly , Dee and Liebman (1971) developed 18 re g re ss io n models to p r e d ic t atten dance a t v arious types o f playgrounds by 2 various age groups o f c h ild r e n . The median R value was only 0.57 . Independent v a ria b le s included d ista n c e and th e a v a ila b le o f p u b lic ly and p r iv a te ly owned s u b s t i t u t e f a c i l i t i e s . One p o ssib le exp lanation f o r th e r e l a t i v e l y low p r e d ic tiv e power o f some s i t e - c h o ic e models may be t h e i r assumption o f p e rf e c t knowledge, which may be p a r t i c u l a r l y u n r e a l i s t i c in some s i t u a t i o n s . People may have only lim ite d f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n a re a s t h a t t y p i c a l l y do not re c e iv e much p u b l i c i t y —such as boat-launch s i t e s and playgrounds. And i f people a re igno ran t o f th e e x is te n c e o f c e r t a i n a r e a s , they obviously w ill not con sid er them in t h e i r d e cisio n making and w ill not v i s i t them. Or even i f people a re aware o f th e e x is te n c e o f c e r t a i n r e c r e a tio n s i t e s , t h e i r ignorance o f th e spe­ c i f i c f a c i l i t i e s a t th e se s i t e s may lik ew ise prevent v i s i t a t i o n from 4 o c cu rrin g . Thus th e f a i l u r e to account f o r incomplete f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s may have introduced e r r o r s in to s ite - c h o ic e models. Evidence o f Ignorance There i s c o n sid era b le evidence t h a t the public indeed lacks complete knowledge o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . The National Urban Recrea­ tio n Study (USDI, 1978) found t h a t r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s and programs in some c i t i e s were unknown to many people, and i t recommended an expansion o f "local e f f o r t s to inform c it i z e n s of e x is tin g r e c r e a tio n o p p o rtu n itie s " (p. 112). Research has d isc lo s e d t h a t some people a re ill-in fo rm e d even o f those urban parks t h a t a re c lo se to t h e i r homes. Hayward, W eitzer, and Mores' (1980a, 1980b) s tu d ie s o f urban parks in New England revealed c o n sid era b le ignorance o f park ru le s and park fe a tu r e s among people who liv e d w ithin a m ile o f th e s e parks and who had v i s i t e d them w ith in the l a s t y e a r. Recreation Resource Consult­ a n ts (1972, p. 46) queried i n n e r - c it y re s id e n ts o f Lansing, Michigan, and found t h a t 10% did not know th e lo c a tio n s o f th e two parks c lo s e s t to t h e i r home, 21% had no knowledge o f th e r e c re a tio n f a c i l i t i e s a v a ila b le a t e i t h e r park, and 26% could not r e c a ll th e name o f e i t h e r park. S im ila rly , B u tle r and Booth (1979, p. 122) found t h a t 30% of a sample o f London, O ntario , r e s id e n ts could not id e n tify th e park n e a r e s t t h e i r re s id e n c e . The r e s u l t s o f surveys conducted in Rockford, I l l i n o i s ; S t. P e tersb u rg , F lo rid a ; and Washington, D.C., a re c o n s is te n t with t h i s p a tt e r n . When asked why they had not used th e r e c re a tio n 5 f a c i l i t y c lo s e s t to t h e i r home in th e l a s t month, ignorance o f the f a c i l i t y o r o f i t s programs was c it e d by 10% o f th e Rockford respond­ e n ts , by 12% o f th e S t. Petersburg respo ndents, and by 26% o f the Washington, D.C., respondents (Hatry e t a l . , 1977, p. 4 8 ). These s tu d ie s suggest t h a t ignorance o f nearby r e c r e a tio n o p p o r tu n itie s may be a f a c t o r c o n trib u tin g to th e phenomenon o f nonuse o f neighborhood parks mentioned e a r l i e r . The r e s u l t s o f o th e r s tu d ie s suggest t h a t ignorance o f parks t h a t a re more d i s t a n t from p e o p le 's homes may be more widespread. In a survey o f v i s i t o r s a t th e s i x Ingham County, Michigan, parks ( F rits c h e n , Nelson, & Moncrief, 1979), respondents were asked i f they had "heard of" each o f th e o th e r f i v e parks in th e county system. Subsequent a n a ly s is (Stynes, 1982) revealed t h a t , on th e average, 45% of th e sample was unaware o f the o th e r f iv e county p a rk s. Simi­ l a r l y , a p i l o t study conducted in Vancouver found t h a t , when presented with a map showing th e o u t li n e s o f nearby m etro politan p a rk s , " r e s i ­ dents on one sid e o f th e c i t y had l i t t l e o r no knowledge e i t h e r o f th e names or o f th e a t t r i b u t e s o f parks on th e f a r sid e o f the c ity ." ^ There is a lso some evidence t h a t ignorance o f r e c r e a tio n oppor­ t u n i t i e s does a f f e c t d e c isio n making regarding v i s i t a t i o n . T h irty - two p e rc en t o f th e respondents to the Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey affirm ed t h a t "lack o f inform ation on outdoor r e c r e a tio n a reas" had prevented them from using such a re a s in th e p ast y e ar (Robinson, 1979). This may be only a co n serv a tiv e e stim ate ^Mercer (1971, p. 141) d e scrib e s t h i s unpublished study con­ ducted by Timothy O'Riordan. 6 o f the e x te n t to which ignorance precludes v i s i t a t i o n sin c e many respondents may not have re a liz e d t h a t they were igno rant o f outdoorr e c r e a tio n a re a s and t h a t t h i s was preventing them from v i s i t i n g th ese a re a s . The em pirical evidence c it e d above c l e a r l y suggests t h a t people make r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choices based on incomplete inform ation and t h a t many o f th e s e d e c is io n s a re th e r e f o re suboptimal in n a tu re . Thus i t would appear t h a t the economic-man assumption o f f u l l y r a tio n a l behavior based on p e r f e c t knowledge o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s i s u n re a listic . Simon's (1957) concept o f "bounded r a t i o n a l i t y " i s more c o n s is te n t with th e evidence. Simon suggests t h a t in d iv id u a ls form ulate s im p lifie d models o f r e a l i t y and base t h e i r d e c isio n s on th ese conceptions r a t h e r than on o b je c tiv e r e a l i t y . This occurs because an in d iv id u a l faced with a d e c isio n u su a lly cannot g ath er enough inform ation about th e s i t u a t i o n to a sse ss a c c u ra te ly th e range of r i s k s and re tu r n s involved and to d e lim it a l l a v a ila b le a l t e r n a ­ tiv e s. By c re a tin g and co nsid erin g only a simple model o f r e a l i t y , the in d ividu al s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduces th e d i f f i c u l t y o f d e c isio n making. Since ignorance o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s e x i s t s , and sin c e t h i s ignorance appears to have an in flu e n c e on v i s i t a t i o n d e c i s i o n s , i t would appear t h a t th e f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r should be e x p l i c i t l y accounted f o r in c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c h o ic e. In p a s t s tu d ie s o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c h o ic e , t h i s f a c t o r probably has been only i n d i r e c t l y and p a r t i a l l y accounted f o r by v i r t u e o f i t s c o r r e l a t io n with some o f th e v a r ia b le s o f th e s e s t u d i e s , such as d i s t a n c e , socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Such 7 c o r r e l a t io n s a re suggested by Stynes' (1982) fin d in g s t h a t awareness o f th e Ingham County parks was r e l a te d to d i s t a n c e , y e ars o f r e s i ­ dence in th e county, and gender, and t h a t the parks t h a t o ffe re d popular a c t i v i t i e s had th e h ig h est awareness l e v e l s . A Proposed Model o f R e c re a tio n -S ite Choice Figure 1 p resen ts a hypothetical model o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice t h a t tak e s account o f th e f a m i l i a r i t y v a r i a b l e . D istance, s i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s , and socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which have been included in p a st s tu d ie s o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c h o ic e , remain as 2 im portant elements of t h i s model. However, f a m i l i a r i t y and a v a r ie ty o f o th e r v a ria b le s believed to be im portant d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t in flu e n c e s on s i t e choices a re included as e la b o r a tio n s o f previous c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s . The model in Figure 1 proposes th e follow ing processes and re la tio n sh ip s. A v i s i t to a r e c re a tio n s i t e i s th e outcome o f an 3 i n d i v i d u a l 's s i t e choice. Several f a c t o r s in flu e n c e t h i s d e c is io n : th e d is ta n c e s from the i n d i v i d u a l 's home t o a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s ; th e 2 S i t e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s can be considered a fu n c tio n o f th e " s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " portrayed in Figure 1. The "personal c h a r a c t e r i s ­ t i c s " dep icted in Figure 1 include socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and in d ic es o f an i n d i v i d u a l 's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . 3 R e c r e a tio n - s ite choices a re probably in tim a te ly r e l a t e d to r e c r e a t i o n - a c t i v i t y c h o ic e s. One's s e le c tio n o f a re c r e a tio n s i t e may be influenced by o n e 's choice o f a c t i v i t i e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n . A l t e r n a ti v e ly , o n e 's s e le c tio n o f a r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e in may be influenced by o n e 's choice o f a s i t e to v i s i t . The i n t e r ­ a c tio n of r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e and r e c r e a t i o n - a c t i v i t y choices has y e t to be f u l l y explored. In Figure 1, th e process o f choosing a r e c r e a ­ tio n s i t e i s assumed to involve a ls o th e process o f choosing one o r more r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n . Feedback Loop Influences on Psychological S ta te s Social R elationships Distances from Home to S ite s Psychological S ta te s Perceptions site s S ite C h a r a c te r is tic s \\ F a m ilia rity with site s // Choice o f S i t e Preferences fo r s ite s Personal C h a ra c te ris tic s Recreation S k ills Mass Media Figure 1 . —A proposed model o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice. V is ita tio n 9 i n d i v i d u a l 's p ercep tio n s o f , f a m i l i a r i t y w ith , and preferences f o r a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s ; and th e i n d i v i d u a l 's r e c r e a tio n s k i l l s . P e rc e p tio n s, f a m i l i a r i t y , and preferences a re i n t e r r e l a t e d psychological s t a t e s t h a t a re each influenced by th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s , th e personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s , so c ial r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and th e mass media. F a m ilia rity i s a ls o i n f l u ­ enced by th e d ista n c e s from an in d iv i d u a l's home to th e a l t e r n a t i v e r e c r e a tio n s i t e s : People who l i v e c lo se to a r e c r e a tio n s i t e a re more l i k e l y to be f a m i li a r w ith i t than people who l i v e f a r from i t . Personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the mass media in flu e n ce r e c r e a ­ t io n s k i l l s as well as p e rc e p tio n s, p re fe re n c e s , and f a m i l i a r i t y . Once v i s i t a t i o n o ccurs, th e experience has the e f f e c t o f a l t e r i n g an i n d iv i d u a l's p e rc e p tio n s, p re fe re n c e s , and level o f f a m i l i a r i t y . This e f f e c t i s symbolized by th e feedback loop in Figure 1. Support fo r th e Model Not a l l o f the hypothesized r e la tio n s h ip s in Figure 1 have been subjected to in v e s tig a tio n . Some o f th ese r e l a t i o n s h i p s , however, have been examined in various s tu d ie s . The r e s u l t s o f th e se i n v e s t i ­ gations provide a degree o f support f o r th e model. Stynes' (1982) fin d in g s (reviewed above) support th e hypothe­ sized r e l a ti o n s h i p s between f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and d is ta n c e . Buhyoff, Leuschner, and Wellman (1979) found t h a t f o r e s t stands along th e Blue Ridge Parkway t h a t were damaged by an i n f e s t a t i o n o f southern pine b e e tle were perceived more n e g ativ e ly by people who knew th e cause 10 o f the damage than by people who did n o t. This supports th e hypothe­ sized in flu e n ce o f f a m i l i a r i t y on p ercep tions o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . The r e s u l t s o f several s tu d ie s support th e hypothesis t h a t f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s a f f e c t s s i t e c h o ic e s. Both ex post fa c to s tu d ie s (Adams, 1971, p. 16; Deasy & G rie s s , 1966; Maw, 1974, p. 105) and f i e l d experiments (Brown & Hunt, 1969; Colton, 1970) in d ic a te t h a t tim ely and re le v a n t inform ation can in flu e n ce p e o p le 's d e cisio n s regarding whether to v i s i t c e r t a i n re c r e a tio n site s. F ield experiments have a lso demonstrated t h a t inform ation can influ ence p e o p le 's d e c isio n s regarding whether to tra v e l to c e r ­ t a i n areas w ith in r e c r e a tio n s i t e s (Blake, 1971; Krumpe, 1979; Lime & Lucas, 1977; McDonald, 1969, p. 17; Reyburn & Knudson, 1975; Roggenbuck & B e r r i e r , 1982). The r e s u l t s o f two s tu d ie s support th e hypothesis t h a t v i s i ­ t a t i o n in fluences f a m i l i a r i t y . McDonald (1969, p. 5) found t h a t people who had prev io u sly v i s i t e d Yellowstone National Park had g re a te r f a m i l i a r i t y w ith th e p a rk 's i n t e r p r e t i v e f a c i l i t i e s than first-tim e v is ito rs . S im ila r ly , Hammitt (1981) found t h a t p e o p le 's experiences a t a botanical area tended to in c re a s e t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with t h i s s i t e . Banerjee (1977) found t h a t people under 25 y e ars o f age, compared to o ld e r in d iv id u a ls , had more p o s itiv e p erception s o f a n a tu ra l c o a s t l in e in a s t a t e park and more neg ativ e p ercep tio n s o f developed c o a s t l in e s . This provides some evidence t h a t a t l e a s t one personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s r e l a te d to p erceptio ns o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . 11 Carls (1974) found t h a t p e o p le 's preferences f o r outdoorr e c re a tio n scenes dep icted in c o lo r photographs decreased as the le v e ls o f development in th e se scenes in c re a s e d . This supports the hypothesized r e l a ti o n s h i p between s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and preferences f o r re c r e a tio n s i t e s . Goodrich's (1978) fin d in g s t h a t fav o ra b le perceptions o f vacation d e s tin a tio n s were highly c o rr e la te d w ith preferences f o r such a re as support to some e x te n t the hypothesized i n t e r r e l a t i o n o f p ercep tions and p re fe re n c e s . Distance and s im ila r v a ria b le s (such as tra v e l time) were found to be important p re d ic to rs o f v i s i t o r flows from a given o r ig in to a given re c r e a tio n s i t e in each o f th e s tu d ie s o f s i t e choice reviewed above. This supports th e hypothesized in flu e n c e o f d i s ­ tance on r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c ho ices. D elim itatio n o f th e Study The model presented in Figure 1 provided th e t h e o r e ti c a l context f o r t h i s study. This in v e s tig a tio n examined how f a m i l i a r i t y with re c re a tio n s i t e s was r e l a te d to th r e e o th e r v a ria b le s h ig h lig h ted in Figure 1: (1) personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , (2) d is ta n c e s from r e s i ­ dences to s i t e s , and (3) v i s i t a t i o n to s i t e s . These r e l a ti o n s h i p s were stu d ied to f a c i l i t a t e the in c lu sio n o f th e f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r in a comprehensive theory o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c h o ic e; including t h i s f a c t o r in such a theory r e q u ire s a d eterm ination o f whether the f a c t o r i s r e l a te d to o th e r v a ria b le s in th e model and, i f s o , how th e f a c t o r i s r e l a te d t o th ese o th e r v a r i a b le s . 12 Although r e l a ti o n s h i p s between th e above th re e v a r ia b le s and f a m i l i a r i t y had been stu d ie d by Hammitt (1981), McDonald (1969), and Stynes (1982), f u r t h e r re se a rc h in to th ese r e l a ti o n s h i p s was neces­ sary f o r several rea so n s. Hammitt’s (1981) and McDonald's (1969) fin d in g s suggest t h a t v i s i t a t i o n p o s i t iv e l y in flu e n c e s f a m i l i a r i t y . Consequently, i t was considered necessary to more thoroughly examine r e l a ti o n s h i p s between th e s e two v a r i a b le s . This was done by in v es­ t i g a t i n g r e l a ti o n s h i p s between f a m i l i a r i t y and two s p e c i f i c v i s i t a ­ tio n p a tt e r n s : th e recency o f an i n d i v i d u a l 's l a s t v i s i t to a park and th e frequency o f h is o r her v i s i t a t i o n to t h a t park. The r e l a ti o n s h i p s suggested by Stynes (1982) f in d in g s —t h a t park awareness i s r e l a te d to d ista n c e and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s — needed to be more f u l l y explored f o r th r e e re a so n s. F i r s t , respond­ ents were questioned only on whether they had "heard of" v ariou s parks and were not queried on o th e r a sp ec ts o f t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y such as t h e i r knowledge o f park lo c a tio n s and a m e n ities. Second, respondents were park v i s i t o r s who were l i k e l y to be more f a m i li a r w ith parks than n o n v is ito r s . I t was hypothesized t h a t somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e l a ­ tio n s h ip s e x is te d in general p o p u latio n s. And t h i r d , r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park awareness and both d ista n c e and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were i d e n t i f i e d in th e c o n te x t o f a general re g re ss io n model designed to sim ultaneously ex p lain v a r i a ti o n in th e sam ple's awareness o f a ll s ix Ingham County parks. o v e ra ll r e l a t i o n s h i p s . This approach i s usefu l f o r id e n tify in g However, r e l a ti o n s h i p s t h a t may e x i s t f o r d i f f e r e n t types o f parks analyzed one a t a time a re a ls o worthy o f i n v e s ti g a t i o n . 13 This study advanced beyond Stynes' (1982) re se a rc h (1) by measuring not only whether people had "heard of" s e le c te d parks but a lso whether they were f a m i l i a r w ith th e lo c a tio n s and am en ities o f th e s e p a rk s, (2) by studying a sample drawn from a general population r a t h e r than a sample o f park v i s i t o r s , and (3) by id e n tif y in g r e l a ­ tio n s h ip s between park f a m i l i a r i t y and o th e r v a r ia b le s as they e x i s t f o r s e le c te d types o f parks examined one a t a time r a t h e r than sim ul­ ta n e o u sly . The general approach taken was a p e rs o n a l-in te rv ie w survey o f the Lansing, Michigan, population t h a t queried people about t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with and use o f se le c te d types o f lo c a l parks. Only th e hypothesized r e l a ti o n s h i p s between f a m i l i a r i t y and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , d i s t a n c e , and v i s i t a t i o n were form ally t e s t e d in t h i s study . R elatio n sh ip s between f a m i l i a r i t y and s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were, however, i n d i r e c t l y and info rm ally examined by determining which o f th e above v a ria b le s were r e l a te d to p e o p le 's f a m i l i a r i t y with which types o f parks. Also, th e hypothesized i n f l u ­ ence o f th e mass media and o f so cial r e l a ti o n s h i p s on f a m i l i a r i t y was s u p e r f i c i a l l y in v e s tig a te d by determining th e e x te n t to which people learned o f c e r t a i n parks through the mass media o r through f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s , co-w orkers, e t c . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between preferences f o r r e c r e a tio n s i t e s and f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s was not s tu d ie d . The hypothe­ siz ed in flu e n ce o f f a m i l i a r i t y on p ercep tions o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s and on the actual choice o f a s i t e was a ls o not s tu d ie d . F u rth e r­ more, no c o n sid e ra tio n was given to th ose r e l a ti o n s h i p s shown in Figure 1 t h a t do not involve th e f a m i l i a r i t y v a r i a b le . Thus t h i s 14 study was not a comprehensive in v e s tig a tio n o f the e n t i r e r e c r e a t io n s i te - c h o ic e p ro c e ss , nor was i t a complete in v e s tig a tio n o f th e r o le o f f a m i l i a r i t y in s i t e c h o ic es; i t only examined c e r t a i n elements o f th is ro le. O bjectives 1. Measure th e p u b l ic 's f a m i l i a r i t y with an urban park system and with s e le c te d types o f urban parks. 2. Assess th e r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y , and r e p r o d u c i b il i ty o f th ese measures. 3. I n v e s tig a te r e l a ti o n s h i p s between urban-park f a m i l i a r i t y and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 4. In v e s tig a te r e l a ti o n s h i p s between urban-park f a m i l i a r i t y and d ista n c e s from in d iv id u a ls ' homes to urban parks. 5. I n v e s tig a te r e l a ti o n s h i p s between urban-park f a m i l i a r i t y and p a tte rn s o f v i s i t a t i o n to urban parks. Discussion o f O bjectives Measurement o f Park F a m ilia r ity Park f a m i l i a r i t y has n o t been adequately conceptualized and measured in p a st s t u d i e s . This has hindered a complete understanding o f t h i s phenomenon sin c e to understand any phenomenon and i t s r e l a ­ tio n to o th e r v a r i a b l e s , i t i s obviously necessary to develop useful c o n c e p tu a liz a tio n s and measurements o f i t . Most s tu d ie s t h a t have measured park f a m i l i a r i t y have been surveys such as those c it e d above, which included a s in g le question on t h i s s u b je c t along with a ho st o f q uestions on o th e r s u b je c ts . 15 This sin g le question t y p i c a l l y measured only one a sp ec t o f one park, such as th e name o f th e park c lo s e s t to respon dents' homes. These s tu d ie s consequently have revealed nothing about p e o p le 's f a m i l i a r i t y with the range o f parks a v a ila b le to them o r about th e e x te n t o f t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with th e various asp ects o f th ese p a rk s, such as t h e i r l o c a ti o n s , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s . Furthermore, th e issu e o f how park f a m i l i a r i t y should be conceptualized and measured has not even been discussed in any stu d ies. In c o n t r a s t , th e methodological issu e s a sso c ia te d with measuring perceptions o f and p references f o r landscapes (including r e c r e a tio n s i t e s ) have been discussed in numerous s tu d ie s ( e . g . , Penning-Rowsell, 1975; Penning-Rowsell & Hardy, 1973; Probst Buhyoff, 1980). & This study advanced beyond past e f f o r t s to measure park f a m i l i a r i t y by (1) co nceptu alizing t h i s phenomenon, (2) weighing a l t e r n a t i v e measurement tech n iq u es, (3) measuring th e p u b l ic 's fa m il­ i a r i t y with a la rg e number o f parks, and (4) a sse ssin g in d e t a i l th e measurement p ro p e rtie s o f the r e s u l ti n g s c a le s . Park F a m ilia rity and Personal C h a r a c te ris tic s R e lationship s between park f a m i l i a r i t y and personal c h a r­ a c t e r i s t i c s were stud ied because i t was considered l i k e l y t h a t p e o p le 's personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have a s i g n i f i c a n t bearing on th e e x te n t to which they a re fa m ilia r with p arks. An i n d i v i d u a l 's edu­ catio n a l attainm ent and whether an individual re sid e d with c h ild re n were considered to be p a r t i c u l a r l y l i k e l y c o r r e l a t e s o f park fa m il­ ia rity . 16 People with r e l a t i v e l y high l e v e ls o f education were expected to be ov errep resented among those with high f a m i l i a r i t y with most parks. This hypothesis seemed p la u s ib le sin c e th e members o f upper so c ia l c la s s e s have been found to possess g r e a te r knowledge o f r e t a i l s to r e s ( P o t t e r , 1979) and o f c i t i e s in general (O rleans, 1973). People re s id in g with c h ild re n were a ls o expected to be o verrep resented among those with high f a m i l i a r i t y with most parks sin c e such i n d i ­ v id u als would be more l i k e l y to have learned about parks from th e c h ild re n in t h e i r households and to have sought and obtained informa­ t io n about re c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s f o r c h ild r e n . Park F a m ilia rity and Distance R elationship s between park f a m i l i a r i t y and d is ta n c e were in v e s tig a te d because i t was considered l i k e l y , based on geographic s t u d i e s , t h a t d ista n c e ex erted a s i g n i f i c a n t , neg ative in flu en ce on park f a m i l i a r i t y . Bowlby (1972, p. 44) and Hanson (1977, p. 7 5 ), f o r example, found t h a t people who liv e d c lo se to c e r t a i n grocery s to r e s were much more l i k e l y to know o f th ese s to r e s than people who liv e d f a r from them. I t was hypothesized t h a t people who liv e d c lo s e to c e r t a i n types o f urban parks would, s i m i l a r l y , be much more l i k e l y to know o f them than people who liv e d f a r from them. A dramatic d e c lin e in awareness le v e ls with in creasin g d ista n c e from p e o p le 's homes to a given park was expected in th e case o f neighborhood p a rk s, and a l e s s dram atic d e c lin e in th e case o f o th e r types o f parks t h a t were more widely p ub licized and used. 17 I t was reasoned t h a t the discovery of a neg ativ e r e l a ti o n s h i p between park f a m i l i a r i t y and d ista n c e would imply t h a t a p a rk 's awareness l e v e l , c a lc u la te d as th e percentage o f an e n t i r e sample t h a t was aware o f i t , should id e a ll y be supplemented w ith f ig u re s d e sc rib in g th e awareness l e v e ls o f people r e s id in g a t various d ista n c e s from t h i s park. Such f ig u r e s might i n d i c a t e , f o r example, t h a t a park had an o v e ra ll awareness level of 70%, but an awareness level o f 90% among nearby r e s i d e n t s , and an awareness lev el of only 30% among d i s ­ ta n t resid en ts. Park F a m ilia r ity and P a rk -V is ita tio n P a tte rn s As mentioned above, r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park f a m i l i a r i t y and c e r t a i n p a r k - v i s i t a t i o n p a tte r n s were stu died to provide a more thorough understanding o f th e apparent in flu e n ce o f park v i s i t a t i o n on park knowledge. The two v i s i t a t i o n p a tte r n s t h a t were se le c te d f o r study—recency and frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n —were considered l i k e l y to provide some i n s i g h ts in to th e dynamics o f park f a m i l i a r i t y . It was hypothesized t h a t park f a m i l i a r i t y increased with in cre asin g f r e ­ quency o f v i s i t a t i o n and declined w ith th e passage o f time since an in d i v i d u a l 's l a s t v i s i t . Organization o f th e Paper The i n i t i a l c h ap ters o f th e d i s s e r t a t i o n d isc u ss how park f a m i l i a r i t y was c o n ce p tu a liz ed , o p e ra tio n a lly d e fin e d , and measured in t h i s study. This i n i t i a l p o rtio n o f the paper a ls o d isc u sse s th e measurement p r o p e r tie s o f th e r e s u l t i n g s c a l e s . The remainder 18 o f th e study d e als with how park f a m i l i a r i t y was r e l a te d to personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , d is ta n c e s from p e o p le 's homes to p a rk s , and parkv i s i t a t i o n p a tt e r n s . In th e ch ap ter on r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park knowledge and p a r k - v i s i t a t i o n p a t t e r n s , a simple model o f "parkinform ation flow" i s proposed, which i n te g r a t e s many o f th e fin d in g s presented throughout th e paper. The f i n a l c h ap ter summarizes and d isc u sse s the r e s u l t s , notes th e l im i t a t i o n s o f th e s tu d y , and sug­ g e sts to p ic s f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h . The basic d e s c r i p t iv e r e s u l t s t h a t emerged from th e survey a re discussed in Appendix A. Some recommendations f o r th e d issem in ation o f inform ation about p a rk s, based on some o f th e f in d in g s o f t h i s stu d y , a re presented in Appendix B. CHAPTER I I CONCEPTUALIZING AND MEASURING PARK FAMILIARITY The r e s u l t s o f an in v e s tig a tio n in to any phenomenon depend on how t h a t phenomenon i s conceptualized and measured. In t h i s chap­ t e r , th e concepts o f "awareness" and "knowledge" w ill be defined f i r s t as general terms and then as terms ap p lied to ind iv id u al parks and park systems. This w ill be followed by a d isc u ssio n of th e a l t e r n a ­ t i v e techniques a v a ila b le f o r measuring awareness and knowledge, and a r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f how awareness and knowledge were measured in t h i s study. Conceptualizing Park F a m ilia r ity An i n d i v i d u a l 's f a m i l i a r i t y w ith something can be co nceptu al­ ized as a poin t on a continuum ranging from a s t a t e o f being merely conscious o f the e x is te n c e o f something, to a s t a t e o f being i n t i ­ m ately f a m i li a r with t h i s th in g . The lower extreme o f th e continuum— th e s t a t e o f being merely conscious o f th e e x is te n c e o f something— can be defined as "awareness." All o th e r po ints on th e continuum, which re p re s e n t deeper degrees o f f a m i l i a r i t y , can be defined as "knowledge," in keeping with one o f W ebster's d e f i n i t i o n s o f knowledge as "the f a c t o r c o n d itio n o f knowing something with a con sid erab le degree o f f a m i l i a r i t y gained through experience o f o r c o n ta c t o r 19 20 a s s o c ia tio n with th e individual o r th in g so known" (W ebster's Third New I n te rn a tio n a l D ic tio n a ry , 1976, p. 1252). Knowledge, th e n , can be viewed as a deeper form o f f a m i l i a r i t y than awareness. Several authors make a s im ila r conceptual d i s t i n c t i o n between awareness and knowledge. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971, p. 106), in t h e i r c l a s s i c volume on th e d if f u s io n o f in n o v atio n s, d is tin g u is h between the mere awareness t h a t an innovation e x i s t s and two deeper forms o f f a m i l i a r i t y —knowledge o f how to use th e innovation p ro p e rly , and knowledge o f th e p rin c ip le s underlying i t s fu n c tio n in g . Likewise, Lavidge and S te in e r (1961, p. 61) d escrib e a s e r i e s o f ste p s t h a t con­ sumers pass through as they progress from t o ta l ignorance o f a product to a d e cisio n to purchase i t . The f i r s t s te p i s described as aware­ ness o f the e x iste n c e o f th e pro duct, and th e second s te p as knowledge o f what the product has to o f f e r . This c le a r l y im plies a view o f awareness as a basic form o f f a m i l i a r i t y t h a t provides a foundation f o r knowledge as a deeper form o f f a m i l i a r i t y . The d i s t i n c t i o n between awareness and knowledge as ap p lied to innovations and consumer products can e a s i l y be extended to th e case o f parks. A person i s e i t h e r aware o r unaware o f th e e x iste n ce o f a park, and tho se aware o f i t may possess varying degrees o f knowledge of what th e park has to o f f e r . In t h i s study th e term "awareness," as applied to an in divid ual park, r e f e r s t o th e s t a t e o f being con­ scious o f th e p a rk 's e x is te n c e , and "knowledge" r e f e r s to f a m i l i a r i t y with th e p a rk 's lo c a tio n a n d /or am enities. These d e f i n i ti o n s imply, of c o u rse, t h a t an in d iv id u a l possesses knowledge o f a park only i f t h a t individual i s aware o f i t s e x is te n c e . 21 The concepts o f awareness and knowledge as applied to i n d i ­ vidual parks can be extended to apply to an e n t i r e park system. An indiv id ual may merely be aware o f the e x iste n c e o f one or more o f th e parks in a park system, o r an individual may be aware o f t h e i r e x i s t ­ ence and a ls o f a m i li a r w ith t h e i r lo c a tio n s and a m e n ities. The former s t a t e may be termed "park-system awareness," and th e l a t t e r s t a t e "park-system knowledge." The e x te n t to which one i s aware o f a park system, th e n , i s th e e x te n t to which he o r she i s conscious o f the e x iste n ce o f each o f th e parks in a given park system. This may be considered th e "breadth" o f o n e 's f a m i l i a r i t y w ith th e park system. The e x te n t to which one possesses knowledge o f a park system i s th e e x te n t to which he o r she i s f a m ilia r with th e lo c a tio n s and am enities o f each o f th e parks in a given park system. This may be considered th e "depth" o f o n e 's f a m i l i a r i t y with th e park system. Since one can be f a m ilia r with th e lo c a tio n s and am enities o f only those parks t h a t one i s a t l e a s t aware o f , th e r e i s c l e a r l y some overlap in th e concepts o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge. Thus i f an in d ividual possesses some knowledge o f th re e o f the parks in a park system, t h i s in dividual must be aware o f a t l e a s t th r e e parks in th e park system. I f , on th e o th e r hand, an ind ividu al i s aware o f th r e e parks in th e park system, i t does not n e c e s s a r ily follow t h a t t h i s indiv idu al possesses knowledge o f th ese parks beyond merely being conscious o f t h e i r e x is te n c e . 22 Measuring Park F a m ilia rity Measuring Awareness Two approaches have been employed to measure awareness--unaided r e c a l l and aided r e c a l l . Both techniques have been widely used in marketing and a d v e r tis in g resea rch to measure brand awareness and a d v e rtis in g e f f e c t i v e n e s s . The u n a id e d -rec all technique involves asking respondents to r e c a l l s p e c if ic f a c t s w ithout any a s s is ta n c e from th e in te rv ie w e r o r q u e s tio n n a ire . The a id e d - r e c a ll tech n iq u e, on the o th e r hand, involves asking respondents to r e c a l l f a c t s a f t e r they have been informed o f the general su b je c t m atter through the wording o f th e question o r some o th e r means. A study o f the p u b l ic 's awareness o f Smokey th e Bear (Haug A sso c ia te s, 1968) i l l u s t r a t e s th e d i s t i n c t i o n between th e s e two tec h n iq u e s. Interv iew ers measured unaided r e c a l l o f Smokey by simply showing a p ic tu re o f him to people and ask in g , "Who i s t h i s a p ic tu r e of?" Next they measured aided r e c a ll o f Smokey among people unable to answer t h i s question by sa y in g , "This i s a p ic tu re o f Smokey th e Bear. Have you heard h is name before?" Both th e unaided- and a id e d - re c a ll techniques have been used to measure awareness o f individual parks and park systems. B u tle r and Booth (1979) used th e u n a id e d -re c a ll technique to measure awareness o f ind ividual parks by asking respondents to name th e park c lo s e s t to t h e i r homes. R ecreation Resource Consultants (1972) used t h i s technique to measure awareness o f th e Lansing park system by asking respondents to name as many o f L ansing's parks as they could th in k o f. F rits c h e n , Nelson, and Moncrief (1979) used th e a id e d -re c a ll technique to measure awareness o f ind ividu al parks by presenting 23 respondents with a p a r k 's name and then asking i f they had heard o f it. Since each respondent was queried in t h i s manner about each o f th e parks in th e county system, th e r e s u l ti n g combination o f responses c o n s titu te d a measurement o f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l 's awareness o f th e park system using the a id e d - r e c a ll technique. Both th e unaided- and a id e d - r e c a ll techniques have advantages and disadv an tag es. The main disadvantage o f th e a id e d - r e c a ll te c h ­ nique i s t h a t i t makes i t p o ss ib le f o r respondents to r e p o r t t h a t they a re aware o f something when in f a c t they a re n o t. T h is , o f c o u rs e , i s not p o ss ib le with th e u n a id e d -re c a ll tec h n iq u e , sin c e respondents must come up with th e s p e c i f i c inform ation requested on t h e i r own. The main disadvantage o f th e u n a id e d -rec all technique i s t h a t i t can y i e l d somewhat e r r a t i c r e s u l t s . A respondent may f a i l to men­ t io n th e name o f a park he o r she i s a c t u a l l y aware o f simply because o f a l e s s than thorough memory se arc h . This i s e s p e c ia lly l i k e l y i f respondents a re asked to name as many parks as they can th in k o f r a t h e r than j u s t th e park c l o s e s t to t h e i r homes, Furthermore, respondents may f a i l to mention th e names o f parks they a re aware o f simply because t h e i r memories f a i l to serve them well during t h e i r in te rv ie w s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f th e se in terview s a re te n se s i t u a t i o n s f o r them. Both o f th e s e f a c t o r s a f f e c t th e r e l i a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s produced by the u n a id e d -rec all technique—i . e . , somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s may emerge i f th e same people a re interviewed in th e same way a t a l a t e r tim e. The a id e d - r e c a ll technique is a ff e c te d by th e same d i f f i c u l t i e s but to a l e s s e r e x te n t, because providing some informa­ tio n to respondents serv es to focus t h e i r minds on th e s u b je c t m a tte r 24 under i n v e s ti g a t i o n . For t h i s rea so n , th e a id e d - r e c a ll technique was s e le c te d f o r use in t h i s study to measure awareness o f both individ ual parks and a park system. Respondents were given a l i s t o f parks and were asked to in d ic a te f o r each park on th e l i s t whether they had heard o f i t . The r e s u l t i n g responses rep re se n te d measures o f each re s p o n d e n t's aware­ ness o f each park on th e l i s t . The t o t a l number o f parks on th e l i s t t h a t a respondent rep o rte d having heard o f was used as a measure of t h a t re s p o n d e n t's awareness o f the park system. Special methods (described in th e next ch ap ter) were employed to account f o r th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f in s in c e re o r confused resp o n ses. I t would have been p o s s ib le to use both th e unaided- and a id e d - r e c a ll tec h n iq u e s, as in th e Smokey th e Bear stu d y , but th e added complexity o f using both methods to c o l l e c t data on a la rg e number o f parks outweighed th e p o te n tia l b e n e f its o f t h i s approach. Measuring Knowledge Six techniques have been employed to measure th e p u b l i c 's knowledge o f a wide v a r i e t y o f s u b je c ts : (1) open-ended q u e s tio n s , (2) item l i s t i n g , (3) map sk e tc h in g , (4) map placement, (5) photo­ graph i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and (6) d isc rim in a to ry t e s t i n g . discussed below. Each w ill be The f i r s t th r e e techniques can be considered " u n a id e d -re c a ll" techniques sin c e they measure knowledge w ithout providing any a s s i s t a n c e to respondents; th e o th e r tech niq ues can be considered " a id e d - r e c a ll" techniques sin c e they provide respondents with a degree o f a s s is ta n c e (Figure 2 ) . Thus in th e c o n te x t of All Techniques Unaided-Recall Techniques Open-ended Questions Item L istin g Map Sketching Aided-Recall Techniques Map Placement Photograph I d e n t i f ic a t i o n D iscrim inatory Testing Figure 2 . —A typology o f techniques t h a t have been used to measure knowledge. 26 measuring knowledge (as opposed to aw areness), "unaided r e c a l l " and "aided r e c a l l " a re g en eric terms r a t h e r than names f o r s p e c i f i c te c h ­ niques. Unaided-Recall Techniques Knowledge has been commonly measured in th e so c ial sciences by asking respondents open-ended q uestion s such a s , "How many judges serve on th e Supreme Court?" S o c io lo g ists and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s have used t h i s technique to measure knowledge o f th e f a c t s surround­ ing the Kennedy a s s a s s in a tio n ( S p itz e r & Denzin, 1965), and knowledge o f various p o l i t i c a l f a c t s (H astin gs, 1956; Matthews & P ro th ro , 1966; McCormick & Wahl, 1955). The i t e m - l i s t i n g technique involves asking respondents to l i s t every asp ect o r element o f a s u b je c t t h a t they have knowledge o f . Hayward, W eitzer, and More (1980a, 1980b), f o r example, employed t h i s technique by asking respondents to name as many o f the " d i f f e r ­ ent places o r f a c i l i t i e s " in se le c te d urban parks as they could th in k o f. The map-sketching technique involves asking respondents to draw a map o f an a re a . Lynch (1960) and Orleans (1973), f o r example, asked respondents to draw maps o f c e r t a i n c i t i e s , showing a l l th e s t r e e t s , neighborhoods, and landmarks they could th in k o f . Aided-Recall Techniques The map-placement technique involves asking respondents to in d ic a te on a map th e lo c a tio n s o f c e r t a i n types o f places they a re f a m ilia r w ith . P o tte r (1979), f o r example, asked respondents to 27 in d ic a te on a s t r e e t map " a ll o f th e shopping p laces w ith which they were p e rso n ally a c q u a in te d ." This i s considered a technique f o r measuring knowledge, r a t h e r than awareness, sin c e i t measures not only whether respondents a re aware o f th e e x iste n c e o f c e r t a i n p la c e s , but a ls o whether they a re f a m ilia r with the lo c a tio n s o f th ese p la c e s . Photographs have a ls o been used to measure knowledge. Mil gram and o th e rs (1972) measured p e o p le 's knowledge o f New York City by showing them c o lo r s l i d e s taken a t various po in ts in th e C ity and asking them to i d e n t i f y the borough, neighborhood, and s t r e e t a s s o ­ c ia te d with each scene. Hayward e t a l . (1980a, 1980b) s i m il a r ly measured p e o p le 's knowledge o f se le c te d urban parks by showing them photographs of park i n t e r i o r s and asking them to in d ic a te on maps of the parks where they thought each photograph was tak en. Hammitt (1981) measured p e o p le 's knowledge o f a bo tanical a rea by showing them photographs o f th e area and asking them whether each o f th e recorded scenes was f a m i li a r to them. The d is c r im in a to r y - te s tin g technique involves presenting respondents with a questio n and two o r more p o ss ib le answers, and asking them to s e l e c t th e c o rr e c t response. This technique o ften takes the form o f t r u e - f a l s e and m u ltip le -c h o ic e q u e s tio n s , much l i k e those o f school exam inations. Like open-ended q u e s tio n s , d isc rim in a to ry t e s t i n g i s a commonly used method f o r measuring knowledge in the so c ia l sc ie n c e s. S o c io lo g is ts and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s have used t h i s te c h ­ nique to measure knowledge of medical f a c t s (Lewis, 1963), nuclear weapons (Putney & M iddleton, 1963), fo re ig n c o u n trie s (Robinson, 1967), and c u rre n t events (Suchman, 1950). Recreation re s e a rc h e rs have used 28 t h i s technique to study th e p u b l ic 's knowledge o f w ilderness concepts (Young, 1978), and t h e i r knowledge o f ru le s and codes o f conduct gov­ erning th e use o f c i t y parks (Hayward e t a l . , 1980a, 1980b), camp­ grounds (Ross & M oeller, 1974), and w ildlands (Folkman, 1965, 1979).1 I t i s im portant to d is tin g u is h th e above techniques f o r measuring knowledge from th e various techniques f o r measuring percep­ tio n s . The measurement o f knowledge i s th e measurement o f how much someone a c t u a l l y knows about something. The measurement o f percep­ t i o n s , on the o th e r hand, i s th e measurement o f how an individual views o r f e e l s about something. Lynch (1960), f o r example, measured p e o p le 's perceptions o f se le c te d c i t i e s by asking them what elements o f th e c i t i e s they thought were "most d i s t i n c t i v e . " Other re s e a rc h e rs have measured p e o p le 's p erception s o f t h e i r knowledge o f something. Bowlby (1972) and Hanson (1973, 1977), f o r example, measured p e o p le 's perceptions o f t h e i r knowledge o f grocery s to r e s by asking them to r a t e t h e i r knowledge o f a given s t o r e on a 7 -p o in t ord in al s c a le ranging from " t o t a l l y un fam iliar" to "extremely f a m i l i a r ." S im ila r ly , Hayward e t a l . (1980a, 1980b) asked respondents I t should be noted t h a t th e la b e ll i n g o f a l t e r n a t i v e responses to d isc rim in a to ry t e s t q uestion s can a f f e c t the v a l i d i t y o f th e r e s u l t ­ ing d a ta . H ill (1975) and Robertson (1981), f o r example, attempted to measure knowledge of th e U.S. Forest S e rv ic e 's code o f w ilderness conduct by asking respondents i f they agreed o r disagreed with s t a t e ­ ments d e scrib in g both recommended and discouraged types o f w ilderness behavior. The r e s u l t i n g data were r e a l l y measures o f respon dents' a t t i t u d e s toward d i f f e r e n t types o f w ilderness conduct r a t h e r than measures o f t h e i r know!edge about th e procedures recommended by th e Forest S ervice. While th ese data probably r e f l e c t e d to some e x te n t resp ond en ts' knowledge o f the Forest Service code, t h i s knowledge could have been more d i r e c t l y and v a lid ly measured by la b e ll i n g th e a l t e r ­ n a tiv e responses " c o r r e c t ," " i n c o r r e c t ," and " d o n 't know." 29 to place several a re a s o f a c e r t a i n park in rank ord er according to how knowledgeable they f e l t they were with each o f them. The proce­ dures e s s e n t i a l l y amount to measuring how people fe e l about t h e i r knowledge, r a t h e r than measuring what t h e i r knowledge a c t u a l l y i s . As such, they a re techniques f o r measuring p erceptio ns r a t h e r than knowledge. The method employed in t h i s study to measure park knowledge was s e le c te d from th e s ix a l t e r n a t i v e s discussed above through a process o f e lim in a tio n . The various u n a id e d -re c a ll techniques were r e je c te d because they sh are th e r e l i a b i l i t y problems o f th e unaidedr e c a ll technique f o r measuring awareness (discussed in th e previous se ctio n ). The map-sketching technique was considered e s p e c ia lly problem atic because i t can confound an i n d i v i d u a l 's a b i l i t y to make a map with knowledge th e in d iv id u a l might have but cannot re p re s e n t in map form (O rleans, 1973, p. 129). Furthermore, th e r e i s th e problem of how to s y s te m a tic a lly aggregate th e indiv id u al maps so t h a t general conclusions can be made (Milgram e t a l . , 1972, p. 196). Of th e a id e d - r e c a ll techniques a v a i l a b l e , d is c rim in a to ry te s t i n g was considered th e most a p p ro p ria te and e f f i c i e n t . I t was recognized t h a t with t h i s technique respondents could o b ta in c o r r e c t answers by g uessin g, but i t was reasoned t h a t t h i s problem could be la r g e ly overcome by t a c t f u l l y re q u e stin g respondents to r e f r a i n from guessing. The weaknesses and d i f f i c u l t i e s o f th e o th e r a id e d -r e c a ll techniques were considered much more se v e re . The map-placement technique was considered l i k e l y to confound an i n d i v i d u a l 's knowl­ edge of parks with his o r her a b i l i t y to i n t e r p r e t a map. The 30 p h o to g ra p h -id e n tific a tio n technique was considered problem atic because respondents could s t a t e t h a t they recognized a scene when in f a c t they did n o t. Furthermore, sin c e th e study sought to measure knowledge o f a la r g e number o f p a rk s , a la rg e number o f photographs would have been r e q u ir e d , and t h i s would have placed burdens on both the re s e a rc h budget and in te rv ie w e rs . The d is c r im in a to r y - te s tin g technique was used to measure knowledge o f ind ividual parks by quizzing respondents about th e lo c a ­ t i o n , f a c i l i t i e s , and unique f e a tu r e s o f th e s e park s. Knowledge o f a park system was measured by simply combining th e responses to th e quiz questions p e rta in in g to th e s e in d iv id u al p a rk s. Respondents were quizzed on th e lo c a tio n s o f vario us parks by asking them to d e t e r ­ mine which o f a l t e r n a t i v e green dots on a map rep re se n te d th e c o rr e c t lo c a tio n o f a given park. So t h a t knowledge o f park lo c a tio n s would not be o verly confounded by map-reading a b i l i t y , respondents who had d i f f i c u l t y with map i n t e r p r e t a t i o n were asked to provide d riv in g d i r e c ti o n s to th e v a rio u s p arks. The next c h a p te r provides f u r t h e r d e t a i l s on how th e quizzing procedures were designed and ex ecu ted, and on how th e a id e d - r e c a ll technique was employed to measure aware­ ness of both individual parks and a park system. CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURES The fin d in g s presented in t h i s study emerged from s t a t i s t i c a l analyses o f data c o lle c te d in a p e rso n a l-in te rv ie w survey o f th e Lansing, Michigan, p opu latio n. This ch ap ter discu sses th e procedures followed in conducting th e survey and th e a n a ly s is . The i n i t i a l se c ­ tio n s o f th e ch ap ter explain why Lansing r e s id e n ts were s e le c te d f o r stu d y , which parks in Lansing were the s u b je c ts o f q u e stio n in g , how park awareness and park knowledge were measured using th e aid ed r e c a ll and d is c rim in a to r y - te s tin g tec h n iq u e s, and how th e various independent v a ria b le s were measured. The f i n a l s e c tio n s o f th e chap­ t e r d e sc rib e sampling and d a ta - c o lle c tio n procedures and some general a n a ly tic a l procedures. Study Population Legal re s id e n ts o f th e c i t y o f Lansing, Michigan, were se le c te d as th e study population f o r several reasons. A general population such as t h i s was chosen, r a t h e r than a population o f park u s e r s , because i t was d e s ir a b le to f u l l y re p r e s e n t those t h a t may not be v i s i t i n g parks due to t h e i r ignorance o f them. I t was recognized t h a t such ignorance would probably be l e s s p re v a le n t among park u sers than among th e gen­ e ra l p op ulatio n. Lansing r e s id e n ts were a ls o se le c te d f o r study because th e c i t y ' s proximity to Michigan S ta te U n iversity perm itted a 32 c lo s e ly supervised p e rs o n a l-in te rv ie w survey w ithin budgetary con­ stra in ts. The City o f Lansing, moreover, supports a la rg e and d iv erse park system, which perm itted r e s u l t s to be obtained f o r a v a r i e ty of park ty p es. Parks S elected f o r Study Since th e re a re over 100 parks in th e Lansing park system, i t was p o ssib le to study only a subset o f them. A judgment sample o f 19 parks was drawn, which rep resented much o f th e d i v e r s i t y o f th e e n t i r e park system in terms of l o c a ti o n , acrea g e , degree o f develop­ ment, y ears o f e x is te n c e , v i s i b i l i t y from passing t r a f f i c , mass-media p u b l i c i t y , types o f v i s i t o r s , and socioeconomic s t a tu s o f surrounding neighborhood. This sample o f parks included neighborhood p a rk s , com­ munity parks, and parks with c ity -w id e c l i e n t e l e s . The names and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e parks a re displayed in Table 1; t h e i r lo c a tio n s a re shown in Figure 3. Respondents were queried about whether they had "heard of" each o f the 19 parks and whether they had "ever v i s i t e d " each o f them. This y ie ld e d d a ta on th e awareness and v i s i t a t i o n le v e ls o f each park. Six o f th e 19 parks were sin g led ou t f o r more in-d ep th study of knowledge l e v e l s , sources o f inform ation , and p a tte r n s o f v i s i t a t i o n . These s i x p a rk s, h e r e a f t e r termed "study p a rk s," a re described in Table 2. Each o f th e study parks represen ted a major type o f urban park and served (according to th e Lansing Parks and Recreation Depart­ ment) a city -w id e c l i e n t e l e . Parks with city -w id e c l i e n t e l e s were se le c te d f o r in-d ep th study because i t was a n tic ip a te d t h a t such Table 1.—C h a ra c te ris tic s o f the 19 parks selected f o r study. Name Acres Percentage o f Acreage Natural o r Undeveloped Years of Operation School Park S ite Main A ttra c tio n s Attwood Park 28.8 0 19 Yes B a sk e tb a ll, b a ll f i e l d , play equipment Bancroft Park 42.4 57 61 No League diamonds, t r a i l s , sledding h ill Cavanaugh Park 25.0 59 23 Yes Sledding h i l l , b a s k e tb a ll, b all field Comstock Park 8.2 0 47 No League diamonds, sledding h i l l , b asketball 41.8 19 11 No League diamonds, te n n is c o u r ts , tra ils 120.0 86 27 No Nature c e n t e r , t r a i l s , i n t e r p r e ­ t i v e programs F e r r is Park 3.0 0 60 No Ball f i e l d , b a s k e t b a ll , play equipment Frances Park 57.8 33 63 No Rose garden, p ic n ic p a v i l l i o n , r i v e r overlook Gier Park 37.2 2 36 Yes Community c e n t e r , sledding h i l l , league diamonds 139.3 71 57 No Community c e n t e r , e x e rc is e t r a i l , Scout camp Davis Park Fenner Arboretum Grand Woods Table 1 .—Continued. Name Hunter Park Acres Percentage o f Acreage Natural o r Undeveloped Years of Operation School Park S ite t Main A ttra c tio n s No Swimming p oo l, horseshoes, te n n is c o u rts 14.0 0 41 4.6 0 7 Yes Community c e n t e r , ball f i e l d , te n n is c o u rts Moores Park 22.9 6 73 Yes Swimming pool, f i s h i n g , s u f f l e board Munn Park 14.4 26 11 No B a sk e tb a ll, play equipment, r i p a r i a n land P o tte r Park 98.5 32 64 No Zoo, t r a i n r i d e , canoe r e n t a l s , te n n is c o u rts R iv erfro n t Park 20.9 37 8 No Amphitheaters, e x e rc is e t r a i l , te n n is c o u rts S c o tt Woods 87.4 91 24 No Mature f o r e s t , c re e k , t r a i l s , picnicking Tecumseh Park 39.0 47 31 No Ball f i e l d , b a s k e t b a ll , te n n is co u rts Washington Park 45.4 44 39 No League diamond, ic e r i n k , te n n is co u rts Kingsley Place C.C. Sources: Percentage o f acreage undeveloped estim ated by Strunk (1983); remainder o f data from Parks and Recreation Department, City o f Lansing. 35 Grand Woods Tecumseh Comstock Ban c ro ft . _ R iv e r- Fernslfront Kingsley Scale: 1 = 1 .2 7 mi. IH u nter P o tte r Moores Frances Lansing City Limits Fenner Washington S cott Woods Cavanaugh Davis r Attwood Figure 3 . —Locations of the 19 parks s e le c te d f o r study. Table 2 .—D escriptions o f study parks. Park D escription Fenner Arboretum A natural area t h a t f e a tu r e s a t r a i l system, natu re c e n t e r , p icn ic a r e a , and i n t e r p r e t i v e programs. Located a t th e i n te r s e c t i o n o f two a r t e r i a l s t r e e t s . S c o tt Woods A natural area t h a t f e a tu r e s a beech-maple f o r e s t , a c re e k , t r a i l s , p ic n ic a re a , basketball c o u r t, and play equipment. With th e exception of t r a i l s , a l l development i s c lu s te r e d in one corner o f the park. Located a t the term in atio n o f two dead-end r e s i d e n t ia l s i d e - s t r e e t s , one o f which i s unpaved. Gier Park Features th re e l i g h t e d , league ball f i e l d s ; a sledding h i l l ; and a community c e n te r t h a t provides f a c i l i t i e s f o r m eetings, b a s k e tb a ll, and sh u ffleb o a rd . Located j u s t o f f a major highway, from which i t is v i s i b l e . Surrounded by a low-income r e s i d e n t ia l a re a . Frances Park Features a rose garden, r i v e r overlook, p icn ic p a v ilio n , and various r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s . Located on a scenic d riv e along th e Grand River. Surrounded by a high-income r e s i d e n t ia l a re a . P o tte r Park Features a zoo, t r a i n r i d e , canoe r e n t a l s , te n n is c o u r t s , p icn ic f a c i l i t i e s , and play equipment. Located on a major thoro ugh fare. Receives co n sid erab le p u b lic ity from th e mass media. R iv erfro n t Park A r e l a t i v e l y new park t h a t f e a tu re s a board-walk along th e Grand R iver, te n n is c o u rts , a s c u lp tu r e , and two am phith eaters. Is the s i t e o f e th n ic f e s t i v a l s , c o n c e rts , Fourth o f Ju ly c e l e b r a ti o n s , union r a l l i e s , e t c . Located a d ja ce n t to the c e n tra l business d i s t r i c t on major s t r e e t s . Receives co n sid erab le p u b lic ity from the mass media. A ccessible to downtown workers and stu d e n ts a t Lansing Community College. 37 parks g e n e ra lly would have higher awareness le v e ls than neighborhood parks. Parks with r e l a t i v e l y high awareness le v e ls were d e sired because t h i s meant la r g e r numbers o f respondents who would be aware of th e parks and th e re f o re could be asked th e more d e ta il e d knowledge q u e stio n s . S c o tt Woods was s e le c te d as a study park because i t is a la r g e ly undeveloped, f o r e s te d a r e a , th e r e s u l t s fo r which would be compared with th e o t h e r , more developed p a rk s, p a r t i c u l a r l y th e o th er n a tu ra l area (Fenner Arboretum). Q uestionnaire Design The q u e stio n n a ire (Appendix C) evolved from a s e r i e s o f p re ­ te sts. F i r s t , a rudimentary self-com pleted v e rsio n o f th e q u e stio n ­ n a ire was adm inistered to 19 re s id e n ts o f th e Lansing a re a . Based on th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s ex p erien c e, a prelim inary interview schedule was developed and t e s te d on f i v e o th e r area r e s i d e n t s . F urth er r e f i n e ­ ments were then made, and a f i n a l version was t e s te d on th r e e a d d i­ tio n a l r e s id e n ts o f th e Lansing a re a . As mentioned in the previous c h a p te r, aided r e c a l l as a te c h ­ nique f o r measuring park awareness was employed by asking respondents i f they had heard o f c e r t a i n parks on a l i s t , and d isc rim in a to ry t e s t ­ ing as a technique fo r measuring park knowledge was employed by q u iz ­ zing respondents on th e f e a t u r e s , f a c i l i t i e s , and lo c a tio n s of se le c te d parks. The design o f th e l i s t o f parks and o f th e various quizzes i s described below. 38 Parks L is t To determine t h e i r awareness o f and v i s i t a t i o n to th e 19 parks s e le c te d f o r stu d y , respondents were presented with a form t h a t l i s t e d th e parks and provided spaces f o r them to in d ic a te in w ritin g whether they had "heard of" o r "ever v i s i t e d " each park. (See Appendix C.) I t was a n tic ip a te d t h a t some respondents might confuse parks with names o f parks—i . e . , they might a s s o c ia te a name on th e l i s t with th e wrong place. The q u e stio n n a ire was designed to account f o r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y in th r e e ways. F i r s t , respondents were given th e option o f in d ic a tin g t h a t they were "not sure" about whether they had "heard of" a given park on th e l i s t . S im ila rly , they were given th e option o f in d ic a tin g t h a t they were "not sure" about whether they had "ever v i s i te d " a given park on the l i s t . I t was hoped t h a t respondents who suspected t h e i r own u n c e rta in ty about or confusion o f c e r t a i n parks and names o f parks would use th e "not sure" o p tio n s . The "not sure" respondents could then be e lim inated from estim ates o f awareness and v i s i t a t i o n l e v e ls . Second, a f i c t i t i o u s park name—"Hickory Park"—was added to th e l i s t . The number o f respondents in d ic a tin g t h a t they had "heard of" o r "ever v i s i te d " t h i s n o n e x iste n t park provided a useful e s t i ­ mate o f th e amount of e r r o r p re se n t with th e data on e x is tin g p ark s. I t was reasoned t h a t i f e r r o r s in th e data on awareness and v i s i t a ­ t io n le v e ls were i n e v i t a b l e , then a t l e a s t th e magnitude o f such e r r o r s should be estim ated. T h ird, respondents were asked a t a l a t e r p o in t in th e i n t e r ­ view to s t a t e what they believed to be the "main a t t r a c t i o n " a t th ose 39 study parks t h a t they rep o rted having "heard o f . " I f respondents mentioned an a t t r a c t i o n not p re se n t a t th e park they were asked a bo ut, then i t was obvious they were confusing t h i s park with some o th e r park. Interv iew ers then p o l i t e l y informed respondents o f t h e i r e r r o r and c o rre c te d any e r r o r s in t h e i r responses to the parks l i s t t h a t were r e l a t e d t o t h i s confusion. Confused responses to th e "main a t t r a c t i o n " questio n s were encountered in only a few in sta n c e s in the field . These q uestions were asked only w ith regard to the s ix primary study parks because o f th e need to keep th e d u ra tio n o f in terview s w ithin reason. Features Quiz A fter completing the parks l i s t , respondents were quizzed on t h e i r knowledge o f 16 unique f e a tu r e s found e i t h e r in the s ix study parks o r th re e o th e r parks included on th e parks l i s t . The quizzing process involved d e sc rib in g or naming a park f e a t u r e ( e . g . , zoo, Sugar Bush T r a i l , f i r e b e l l ) and asking respondents to determine which of the parks in Lansing contained i t . Respondents were discouraged from guessing. D etailed Questions on Study Parks A fter th e f e a tu r e s q u iz , questioning focused on th e study parks. Questions about a given study park were asked only o f respond­ e n ts who had in d ic a te d t h a t they had "heard of" t h a t park. All such respondents were asked how they f i r s t found o ut about a given study park; tho se who had v i s i t e d a p a r t i c u l a r study park were asked when they l a s t v i s i t e d i t ; th ose who had v i s i t e d i t w ithin th e l a s t 12 40 months were asked to e stim a te th e number o f times they had v i s i t e d i t w ith in t h i s time p e rio d . Next, respondents were quizzed on t h e i r knowledge o f r e c r e a ­ tio n f a c i l i t i e s and park l o c a ti o n s . Knowledge o f re c r e a tio n f a c i l i ­ t i e s was measured by quizzing respondents on whether a given study park "has" o r " d o e s n 't have" each o f f i v e r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s : te n n is c o u r t s , play equipment, shu fflebo ard c o u r t s , p icn ic t a b l e s , and b a sk etb a ll c o u r t ( s ) . Responses to th e s e qu estio n s were obtained by asking respondents to f i l l ou t a form. provided f o r each q u e stio n on t h i s form. A " d o n 't know" op tion was (See Appendix C.) Respond­ en ts were discouraged from guessing. Knowledge o f park lo c a tio n s was measured by asking respondents to lo c a te each study park ( t h a t they had heard o f) on an 8£" x 11" g en eralized s t r e e t map o f Lanisng. The map showed th e major s t r e e t s and landmarks in th e Lansing a re a . A reduced copy o f th e map i s d i s ­ played in Appendix D. Respondents were asked to lo c a te each o f th e study parks they had heard o f from among 16 numbered green dots on the map. Subjects were again discouraged from guessing. Those who had d i f f i c u l t y w ith map reading were asked to provide d riv in g d i r e c ­ t io n s to th e park. The basic r e s u l t s t h a t emerged from th e parks l i s t , th e ques­ tio n on how people became aware o f the study p a rk s , and th e various quizzes a re presented in Appendix A. 41 Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s Respondents were given a l i s t o f 20 re c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s and were asked to in d ic a te which, i f any, they had p a r t i c i p a te d in during th e l a s t 12 months. S ubjects were t o l d t h a t t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a given a c t i v i t y could have taken p lace in Lansing o r elsew here. In th e a n a l y s i s , th e se d a ta were manipulated to form sev eral in d ic e s o f th e e x te n t o f respo ndents' involvement in c e r t a i n broad c la s s e s o f r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . The in d ic e s formed were: th e number o f resource-based a c t i v i t i e s a respondent had p a r t i c i p a te d i n , th e number o f a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s engaged i n , and th e number o f general a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n . The d e f i n i t i o n s o f "reso u rce -b ased ," " a t h l e t i c , " and "g en eral" a c t i v i t i e s , as used in t h i s s tu d y , a re p re ­ sented in Table 3. C o n s titu tiv e and o p e ra tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f o th e r sp ecial terms employed in t h i s study a re a ls o presented in Table 3. Additional personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured in c lu d e : gender, r a c e / e t h n i c i t y , age, y e a rs o f resid en c e in th e Lansing a r e a , presence o f c h ild re n in th e household, y e a rs o f e d u ca tio n , and occupation. Measurement o f Distance Distance v a ria b le s were c re a te d in th e follow ing manner. The lo c a tio n s of a l l 19 parks stu d ied and th e addresses o f a l l respondents were p lo tte d on a la rg e s t r e e t map o f th e Lansing a re a . The C artesian coo rd in ates o f th e s e lo c a tio n s were then estim ated using an e le c t r o n i c DIGITIZER. A simple FORTRAN program w r itte n by th e au th o r then used th e se coo rd in ates as in p u t to c a l c u l a t e the r e c ta n g u la r , o r "Manhattan," d ista n c e from each o f th e resp o n d en ts' homes to each of th e 19 p a rk s, according to th e follow ing formula: Table 3 .--D efinitions of terms used in th is study. Term Park Awareness Park Knowledge Park-System Awareness Park-System Knowledge Study parks Resource-based a c tiv itie s A thletic a c tiv itie s General a c tiv itie s W hite-collar occupations B lue-collar occupations White (with regard to race/ethnicity) Lansing area Constitutive Definition The s ta te of being conscious of the existence of a park. The degree to which a person who is aware of a given park knows i t s location and/or amenities. The degree to which one is conscious of the existence of a ll of the parks comprising a park system. The degree to which one knows the locations and/or amenities of a ll of the parks compris­ ing a park system. Fenner Arboretum, Scott Woods, Gier Park, Frances Park, Potter Park, Riverfront Park Swimming in lakes or streams, canoeing, f is h ­ ing, power boating, w ater-skiing, hiking, bird watching/nature photography, camping, cross­ country skiing. Softball or baseball, ten n is, g o lf, basketball. Picnicking, swimming in pools, bicycling, shuffleboard, attending outdoor entertainm ent, ice skating, toboganning, o r sledding. P rofessional/technical, m anagers/administrators, sales workers, and c le ric a l workers. Craftspersons, operatives, and nonfarm laborers. Caucasian but not Hispanic. The c itie s of Lansing, East Lansing, Okemos, H aslett, H olt, Dimondale, OeWitt, Bath, and Wacousta, and surrounding environs in the town­ ships of Meridian, Delta, Delhi, Lansing, Windsor, Waterton, DeWitt, Bath, and Alaiedon. Operational Definition A positive response to the question, "Have you heard of th is park?" One or more correct responses to items in the fe a tu re s, lo catio n , and/or f a c i li ti e s quizzes pertaining to a given study park. The number of parks on the parks l i s t th a t have been "heard o f." The sum of correct responses to the fe a tu re s, locatio n , and f a c i li ti e s quizzes. where: D.i = th e re c ta n g u la r d ista n c e from resid en c e i to park j *w X.j =th e x co ordinate o f resid en ce i X.- =th e x co o rd in ate o f park j Yj =th e y co o rd in ate o f resid ence i Yj =th e y co o rd in ate o f park j J J As in d ic a te d by t h i s form ula, re c ta n g u la r d is ta n c e i s the sum o f th e two le g s of a r i g h t t r i a n g l e whose hypotenuse i s th e d i r e c t o r a i r l i n e d is ta n c e between two p o i n ts , in t h i s case between a resid en ce and a p a rk . Rectangular di sta n ce i s , t h e r e f o r e , always g r e a te r than ai r l i ne d is ta n c e . Rectangular r a t h e r than a i r l i n e d ista n c e s were c a lc u la te d because in an urban area one u su a lly cannot tr a v e l d i r e c t l y t o a d e s t i n a t i o n , but must follow e x is tin g th o ro u g h fares, which a re t y p i ­ c a l l y l a i d out in a r e c ta n g u la r p a tt e r n . (Even i f o n e 's ro u te involves not j u s t two but many " le g s ," th e sum o f th ese legs is m athem atically equal to th e sum o f th e two leg s o f the r i g h t t r i a n g l e . ) The use o f re c ta n g u la r d ista n c e was p a r t i c u l a r l y ap p ro p ria te f o r t h i s stu d y , sin ce most o f th e s t r e e t s in Lansing a re l a i d o ut in a g rid -ty p e p a tte rn . Sampling Procedures Stynes (1982) found a negative r e l a ti o n s h i p between awareness of Ingham County, Michigan, parks and d ista n c e from th e s e parks to respondents' homes. V is i t a t i o n to th ese parks was a ls o found to be n e g ativ e ly r e l a te d to d is ta n c e . Both awareness and v i s i t a t i o n were 44 expected to be s i m il a r ly r e l a te d to d ista n c e in th e case o f L ansing's parks. Consequently, i t was considered im portant t h a t in d iv id u a ls liv in g both clo se to and f a r from a given park be adequately re p r e ­ sented in th e sample. graphic a re a . The sample was t h e r e f o re s t r a t i f i e d by geo­ Geographic s t r a t i f i c a t i o n a ls o helped ensure t h a t re s id e n ts o f th e v ario u s socioeconomic, r a c i a l , and e th n ic neighbor­ hoods in th e c i t y would be adequately rep resen ted in th e sample. Geographic s t r a t a , o r a r e a s , were form ulated by div id in g up the c i t y such t h a t a l l p o rtio n s o f a given stratum would be roughly the same d ista n c e from each o f the study p a rk s. Thus s t r a t a t h a t would have included la r g e numbers o f respondents who liv e d very c lo s e to a study park but o th e rs who liv e d very f a r from i t were avoided. This procedure was an attem pt to ensure rough homogeneity w ithin each stratum in terms o f d is ta n c e to each of th e study p ark s. Such homo­ geneity was d e s ir a b le t o f a c i l i t a t e comparisons o f th e v arious s t r a t a in terms o f t h e i r awareness and knowledge o f parks. Thus each stratum e i t h e r wholly surrounded one or more o f th e study parks o r did not contain any o f th e study parks. Each stratum c o n sisted o f two o r more 1980 Census t r a c t s , with two exceptions in which elongated t r a c t s were divided among two s t r a t a . The s t r a t a a re defined in Table 4 and displayed in Figure 4. The s t r a t a c o n s t it u t in g th e northern and c e n tra l p o rtio n s o f the c i t y (1 through 7) were s l i g h t l y oversampled, and th e s t r a t a c o n s t it u t in g th e southern p o rtio n of th e c i t y (8 and 9) were under­ sampled. The southern s t r a t a were sampled a t h a lf th e r a t e a t which Table 4 . —D e fin itio n s and populations o f geographic s tra ta . Stratum Census T racts Comprising Stratum 1980 Population o f Stratum Percentage o f 1980 Lansing Population (N=130,414) Achi eved Sample Size 1 3 3 .0 1;33 .02 6,178 4.74 12 2 1; Portion of 2; 3; 32 8,810 6.76 16 3 4 ; 1 5 ; 16 7,522 5.77 14 4 5; 6 ; 7; 8 ; 11; Portion o f 13; 14; Portion of 2 17,817 13.66 33 5 9; 10; 30; Portion of 38.01; Portion o f 31.02 8,680 6.66 16 6 1 7 .0 1 ;1 7 .0 2 ; 24; 25 11,789 9.04 22 7 19; 12; 20; 21; 22; 23; 26; 29.01; 29.02; Portion o f 13 24,365 18.68 45 8 2 0 2 .2 ;3 6 .0 1 ; 3 6 .0 2 ;3 7 ; 51; 52 29,739 22.80 29 9 27; 28; Portion o f 53.02; 53.03; 53.04 15,514 11.89 14 130,414 100.00 201 Totals 46 River front T Lansing Pot-1—| City te r I Limits S c o tt i Woods Figure 4 . --Geographic s t r a t a and lo c a tio n s o f respondents' re s id e n c e s. 47 the remainder o f th e c i t y was sampled. Weights were used in th e a n a ly s is to compensate f o r t h i s sampling scheme. The purpose f o r sampling th e vario u s s t r a t a a t d i f f e r e n t r a t e s was to f u r t h e r ensure t h a t th e sample would be balanced geo­ g r a p h ic a lly , i . e . , t h a t i t would adequately r e p re s e n t both people liv i n g c lo se to and f a r from each o f th e study p ark s. Since th e s e parks a re lo cated in th e northern and c e n tra l p o rtio n s o f th e c i t y , sampling th e southern s t r a t a a t th e normal r a t e would have re s u lte d in a sample t h a t contained r e l a t i v e l y la r g e numbers o f people who liv e d f a r from th e study p a rk s, and r e l a t i v e l y few people who liv e d c lo se to th e study parks. This can be e a s i l y seen i f one v i s u a li z e s co n ce n tric d ista n c e bands drawn around a given park. The more remote bands have l a r g e r a re as than th e l e s s remote bands, and consequently a re l i k e l y to contain more people. Thus people l i v i n g in th e se remote d ista n c e bands a re more l i k e l y to be included in a random sample. Sampling the southern s t r a t a a t a lower r a t e ensured t h a t th e sample would not be composed la r g e ly o f people who liv e d f a r from th e study parks. Budgetary l i m i ta t io n s and th e in h e re n t c o s t l i n e s s o f a p e rso n a l-in te rv ie w survey d ic ta te d t h a t th e sample s iz e be lim ite d to about 200 respondents. This was considered th e minimum s iz e necessary to permit meaningful a n a l y s i s . The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n procedure increased the lik e lih o o d t h a t t h i s r e l a t i v e l y small sample would adequately capture th e v a r i a ti o n o f th e population on r e le v a n t v a r i a b l e s . I t was assumed t h a t interv iew s could be secured from only about 80% o f th e households c o n ta c te d . This c a l le d f o r a designated 48 sample s iz e o f 250, which would presumably y i e l d an achieved sample s iz e o f 200. To determine the number o f desig nated households t h a t should f a l l in to each stra tu m , th e population o f each stratum was estim ated from 1980 Census d ata and then m u ltip lie d by a sampling f r a c t io n c a lc u la te d according to the follow ing formula: Sampling f r a c t io n = - j — — —§----£ + £ £ y-j i=l 1 j =8 J where: x.. = population o f northern stratum i y^ = population o f southern stratum (8 or 9) j Only h a lf the population of th e two southern s t r a t a were m u ltip lie d by th e r e s u l ti n g sampling f r a c t io n so t h a t households in th ese s t r a t a would be sampled a t only h a lf th e r a t e a t which th e remainder o f th e c i t y was sampled. The sampling frame was th e most re c e n t e d itio n o f th e Lansing 2 City D irec to ry , published by R. L. Polk and Company (1981). Of cou rse, t h i s d ir e c to r y was not organized according to th e geographic su b d iv ision s developed fo r t h i s stu d y , which would have perm itted se p ara te subsamples o f a p p ro p ria te s iz e s to be drawn from each geo­ graphic stratum . Consequently, th e follow ing procedure was adopted to y i e l d a g eo grap hically s t r a t i f i e d sample. Beginning with a random s t a r t , a system atic sample o f 310 occupied, nonbusiness addresses was drawn from th e address s e c tio n o f th e d i r e c to r y . 2 The lo c a tio n The use o f Polk d i r e c t o r i e s in sampling i s suggested by Sudman (1976, p. 58) and Kish (1965, p. 352). The d ir e c to r y f o r Lansing i s annually updated. 49 o f each household s e le c te d was consecu tiv ely p lo tte d on a la rg e s t r e e t map o f Lansing with stratum boundaries drawn i n . Households f a l l i n g on boundary s t r e e t s were d e le te d from th e sample. A fter the d e sire d number o f households in each stratum was reached, any a d d i­ tio n a l addresses lo ca te d in th e s e s t r a t a were a ls o d e le te d . This procedure was continued u n t il each stratum had th e d e sired number of households. sample. The r e s u l ti n g 250 addresses c o n s titu te d th e designated The p lo ts o f th e 250 addresses on th e s t r e e t map revealed t h a t th e sample had a s a t i s f a c t o r y s p a tia l d i s t r i b u t i o n , including households in each of th e c i t y ' s major neighborhoods. The number of interview s d e sire d in each stratum was c a lc u ­ la te d using th e same formula used t o c a l c u l a t e th e number o f d e sig ­ nated households except th e c o n stan t in th e numerator was changed from 250 to 200. Interview ing in a given stratum continued u n til t h i s d e sired number was reached. In th e course o f in te rv ie w in g , i t became ev id en t t h a t response r a t e s were not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the c i t y and t h a t th e designated sample needed to be expanded in s t r a t a 1 , 2 , and 3. Con­ seq u en tly , te n o f th e e x tra addresses previously d e le te d from the sample were retu rn ed to i t , y ie ld in g a f i n a l designated sample s iz e of 260. Of th e 260 addresses in th e f i n a l designated sample, 243 were found to e x i s t and to be occupied. Interview s were obtained from 189 (78%) o f th e se 243 households, r e f u s a l s were encountered in 18% of them, and 4% did not have an e l i g i b l e person a t home a f t e r a t l e a s t th re e attem pts to o b ta in an interv iew (Table 5 ). Twelve a d d itio n a l 50 in terv iew s were conducted in a l t e r n a t i v e households t h a t were not included in the designated sample, r e s u l ti n g in a f i n a l sample s iz e o f 201 respondents. The lo c a tio n s o f th e 201 resp ond ents' resid en ces a re displayed in Figure 4. Table 5 . —Breakdown of desig nated sample. N S uccessfully interviewed® 189 Percentage o f E n tire Designated Sample (260) Percentage o f E x is tin g , Occupied Addresses (243) 72.7% 77.8% Refusal 44 16.9 18.1 Not a t home 10 3.8 4.1 Vacant^ 9 3.5 • • • No such addressc 8 3.1 • • • 100. 0% 100. 0% T otals 260 a Does not include th e 12 respondents interview ed a t nondesignated add resses. Total completed interview s = 201. ^Households t h a t were occupied according to the Polk D irectory but were found to be vacant. Households l i s t e d as vacant in th e Polk D irectory were considered i n e l i g i b l e f o r in clu sio n in th e designated sample. c Includes in c o r r e c t s t r e e t numbers and b u ildings t h a t had been razed. The twelve a l t e r n a t i v e households were e i t h e r a d ja c e n t to or d i r e c t l y across th e s t r e e t from designated households t h a t were found to be v a ca n t, to have no one a t home a f t e r a t l e a s t th r e e a tte m p ts , 51 o r to be occupied by someone who refu sed to be in terview ed. In ter­ viewers were in s tr u c te d to c o n ta c t th ese nearby homes as a means o f in creasin g the e f f ic ie n c y o f interview ing once i t became c le a r t h a t th e interview ing process was becoming unacceptably expensive. The b ias r e s u l ti n g from t h i s procedure was considered to be n e g lig ib le because (1 ) th e number o f in terview s secured in t h i s manner was small r e l a t i v e to th e o v e ra ll sample; ( 2) th e in d iv id u a ls interview ed in t h i s way were l i k e l y to possess c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s im ila r to the r e s id e n ts o f designated households because o f th e proxim ity o f t h e i r dw ellings; (3) a l t e r n a t i v e addresses (with one exception) were con­ ta c te d only in s t r a t a 4 and 7, both o f which had r e l a t i v e l y la rg e sample s iz e s and were s l i g h t l y oversampled; and (4) comparisons o f sample data with Census fig u r e s in d ic ate d t h a t a t l e a s t in terms o f demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , th e o v e ra ll sample—including the respond­ e n ts from these 12 nondesignated households—was g e n e ra lly re p r e s e n ta ­ t i v e o f th e Lansing population (Table 6 ) . The 12 a l t e r n a t i v e addresses were ignored in c a lc u la tin g th e response r a t e rep orted in Table 5. However, sin c e th e number o f respondents from a l t e r n a t i v e addresses was sm a ll, th e o v e ra ll response r a t e f o r th e study was considered about th e same as t h a t rep o rte d in Table 5-78% . Children under 15 y ears o f age were excluded from th e study . Due to budgetary c o n s t r a i n t s , in te rv ie w e rs s e le c te d respondents w ithin households according to a predetermined quota procedure r a t h e r than through a random -selection procedure. The l a t t e r procedure would have req uired numerous c o s t ly and time-consuming c a ll-b a c k s to ob tain 52 Table 6. —Comparisons o f demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e sample with Census f i g u r e s . C h a r a c te r is tic Weighted Sample N=201 1980 Census3 (Persons Age 15 and Older Only) N=98,819 GENDER Male 47% 47% Female 53 53 100% 100% T o tals 00 RACE 83% Black 17 12 Other 0 5 100% 100% 4% 5% 15-24 19% 28% 25-34 25 35-44 15 27 12 45-54 12 11 55-64 13 10 65-74 10 7 75-84 4 4 85+ 2 1 100% 100% T otals PERSONS OF SPANISH 0RIGINb to Whi t e AGE T o tals Source: Bureau o f th e Census, 1980 Census o f P opu lation : General P o p u la tion C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , P a rt 24—Michigan" PC80-1B24. August 1982, p. 93. ^Persons o f Spanish o r i g in may be o f any ra c e . 53 interv iew s from randomly s e le c te d household members who were d i f f i ­ c u l t to fin d a t home. The quota procedure involved s e le c tin g respondents w ithin households according to p r i o r i t i e s based on th e a n tic ip a te d d i f f i ­ c u lty o f fin d in g c e r t a i n types o f people a t home. Male heads of households were th e top p r i o r i t y , followed by female heads o f house­ h o ld s, o th e r m ales, and f i n a l l y o th e r fem ales. This procedure, o f c o u rse, y ield ed a sample t h a t was n o t f u l l y random. However, em piri­ cal evidence (Stephenson, 1979; Sudman, 1966) suggests t h a t sub­ s t a n ti v e r e s u l t s a re la r g e ly un affected by p r o b a b ility sampling with quotas as compared to f u l l p r o b a b ility sampling. The c h a r a c te r o f th e sample can be summarized as a sy s te m a tic , s i n g l e - u n i t , g eographically s t r a t i f i e d , s i n g l e - s ta g e , random sample with unequal u n i t p r o b a b i l i t i e s and respondents w ith in households se le c te d according to q u otas. The sample was assumed to be a simple random sample in a l l a n a ly se s. Data C o lle c tio n and P rep aration Personal in terview s were considered a more a p p ro p ria te mode o f a d m in istra tio n than telephone interview s o r mailed q u e stio n n a ire s because t h i s (1) f a c i l i t a t e d th e c o lle c tio n o f a la r g e amount o f d a ta , (2) prevented respondents from o btain in g answers to quiz ques­ t io n s from o th e r in d iv id u a ls o r from m a te ria ls such as c i t y maps, (3 ) allowed confusion between parks and names o f parks to be r e a d ily c le a re d up, (4) helped c r e a t e and m aintain i n t e r e s t in a s u b je c t t h a t 54 was not s a l i e n t to many respond en ts, and (5) perm itted the use o f visu al aid s such as the map used in th e lo c a tio n q u iz. An advance l e t t e r was se n t to th e members o f a l l households in th e designated sample to inform them t h a t t h e i r household had been s e le c te d a t random and t h a t they would be v i s i t e d by an in te rv ie w e r. (See Appendix E.) The auth or conducted 64% o f th e interv iew s and interviewed in each o f th e nine s t r a t a . The remaining interview s were conducted by th re e o th e r graduate s tu d e n ts . These stu d e n ts were informed of th e o b je c tiv e s o f each q uestion and were tr a in e d through the use o f mock in te rv ie w s. Interview ers who were not knowl­ edgeable about c e r t a i n o f th e study parks were taken to them and fa m ilia r iz e d with t h e i r l o c a ti o n s , f a c i l i t i e s , and f e a t u r e s . In ter­ viewing took place from Ju ly 23 to October 13, 1981, between th e hours o f 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m ., and on a l l days o f th e week. Questionnaire responses were coded and then p ro fe s s io n a lly key-punched and machine v e r i f i e d . A l i s t i n g o f th e r e s u l ti n g data was checked a g a in s t each of th e responses recorded in each o f th e 201 q u e stio n n a ire s. Coding and key-punching e r r o r s were i d e n t i f i e d and removed. The d ista n c e s c a lc u la te d in th e FORTRAN program described above were a u to m a tic a lly punched on cards by the computer. These cards were then combined with the manually punched cards to form th e computer f i l e used in th e a n a ly s is . 55 General A nalytical Procedures The a n a ly s is was performed using th e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e Social Sciences (Nie e t a l . , 1975) on th e Cyber 750 computer a t Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity . A s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n ific a n c e level o f .05 was used throughout th e a n a ly s is . S ta tis tic a lly sig n ific a n t re s u lts a re marked with an a s t e r i s k (* ). The data in a l l analyses were weighted in o rd er to compensate f o r undersampling th e southern p o rtio n o f th e c i t y . The weight fo r respondents re s id in g in the southern s e c to rs was 1.648; th e weight 3 f o r o th e r respondents was 0.824. In t a b l e s , s t a t i s t i c s c a lc u la te d from subsamples o f fewer than 20 respondents and which th e r e f o re should be in te r p r e te d with cautio n a re placed in p a re n th eses. In contin g en cy -tab le a n a ly se s, th e c h i-sq u a re s t a t i s t i c i s reported only i f th e average expected frequency o f th e t a b l e meets o r exceeds the minimum values recommended in an empirical study by Roscoe and Byars (1971, p. 759). 3 There was l i t t l e d iff e r e n c e in th e r e s u l t s produced by weighted versus unweighted d a ta . The a b so lu te frequency counts f o r weighted versus unweighted data g e n e ra lly did not d i f f e r by more than 5 and never d i f f e r e d by more than 14. CHAPTER IV CONSTRUCTION AND ASSESSMENT OF FAMILIARITY MEASURES The previous c h a p te r described the various q u e stio n n a ire items t h a t were developed to employ the a id e d - r e c a ll and d isc rim in a to ry t e s t i n g techniques. This ch ap ter w ill d e scrib e how th e se items were combined to form th e sc a le s used in the analyses rep o rted in suc­ ceeding c h a p te rs . This ch ap ter w ill a ls o d isc u ss th e s c a l e s ' f r e ­ quency d i s t r i b u t i o n s and th e e x te n t to which th ese s c a le s possess the p ro p e rtie s o f r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . The r e p r o d u c i b il i ty o f th e knowledge sc a le s f o r th e individual study parks w ill a ls o be examined.^ I t was necessary to asse ss th e measurement p r o p e r tie s o f th e various s c a le s because th e s e p ro p e r tie s were unknown, t h i s being the f i r s t attem pt to measure park f a m i l i a r i t y using th ese p a r t i c u l a r types o f s c a le s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s assessment w ill be discussed in d e ta il because the c r e d i b i l i t y and i n t e r p r e t a b i l i t y o f th e analyses presented in subsequent ch ap ters depend on th e q u a lity and c h a r a c te r ­ i s t i c s o f these s c a le s . ^The r e p r o d u c i b il i ty o f th e measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge was not assessed because th ese measures included more items than could be handled in SPSS's GUTTMAN SCALE procedure. 56 57 The analyses involving th e measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge included a l l respondents in th e sample (N=201). Each a n a ly s is involving the knowledge sc a le s o f a p a r t i c u ­ l a r study p a rk , however, excluded those respondents who were unaware o f t h a t park, in keeping w ith th e d e f i n i t i o n o f park knowledge as a q u a li t y possessed only by in d iv id u a ls aware o f a given park. The c o n s tru c tio n and assessment o f in d ividu al park-knowledge s c a le s w ill be discussed f i r s t . This w ill be followed by a d is c u s ­ sion o f the c o n stru c tio n and assessment o f th e measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge. Individual Park-Knowledge Scales Construction The knowledge s c a le f o r a given study park c o n siste d o f a l l the quiz items p e rta in in g to t h a t park. each s c a le a re d isplayed in Table 7. The items t h a t c o n s t it u t e d Each s c a le included items t h a t assessed whether a respondent c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d th e lo c a tio n of the p ark, th e presence o r absence o f f i v e r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s , and the presence o f one o r more unique f e a tu r e s o f th e park. Respondents were assigned scores on a given s c a le by summing th e number o f items they c o r r e c t l y answered. Thus respondents who c o r r e c t l y answered a l l seven o f th e items in th e S c o tt Woods s c a le received a score o f 7 on t h i s s c a l e ; respondents who were f a m ilia r with only th e lo c a tio n o f and b all f i e l d a t G ier Park received a score o f 2 on th e Gier Park s c a l e , e tc . Table 7 .—Items comprising individual park-knowledge scales. T ra it Measured by Item Fenner Arboretum Scott Woods Gier Park Frances Park Potter Park Riverfront Park Knowledge of park's location 1. Location 1. Location 1. Location 1. Location 1. Location 1. Location Knowledge of whether park has or doesn't have each of these recreation f a c ilitie s 2. Tennis courts 2. Tennis courts 2. Tennis courts 2. Tennis courts 2. Tennis courts 2. Tennis courts 3. Play equipment 3. Play equipment 3. Play equi pment 3. Play equipment 3. Play equipment 3. Play equipment 4. Shuff1eboard courts 4. Shuffleboard courts 4. Shuffleboard courts 4 . Shuffleboard courts 4. Shuffleboard courts 4. Shuffleboard courts 5. Picnic tables 5. Picnic tables 5. Picnic tables 5. Picnic tables 5. Picnic tables 5. Picnic tables 6. Basketball court(s) 6. Basketball court(s) 6. Basketball court(s) 6. Basketball court(s) 6. Basketball court(s) 6. Basketball court(s) 7. Nature center 7. Small creek crossed by foot bridges 7. Three lighted ball fie ld s 7. Rose garden 7. Zoo 7. Sunbowl Amphitheater Knowledge of the presence of these features in the park 8. Sugar bush tra il 9. Indian garden 10. Firebell 8. Train ride 9. Canoes th a t you can ren t 8. Saltshed Amphitheater 9. Metal sculp­ tu re of an eagle called "The Windlord" 59 All p o s s ib le items r e l a t i n g to knowledge o f a given park were included in th e r e s p e c tiv e s c a le s because several advantages accrue from maximizing th e len g th o f a s c a l e . F i r s t , a longer sc a le m ini­ mizes th e number of t i e s and thus y i e l d s a stro n g e r ordinal s c a l e . Second, a longer s c a le i s always more r e l i a b l e than a s h o r te r one because with more items i t i s more l i k e l y t h a t th e random e rr o r s a sso c ia te d with each item w ill cancel each o th e r o ut (Magnusson, 1967, p. 68) . And t h i r d , a longer s c a le i s more l i k e l y to possess a high degree o f c o n te n t v a l i d i t y than a s h o rte r sc a le because th e r e i s g r e a te r assurance t h a t a l l fundamental a sp ec ts o f th e mental 2 domain under in v e s tig a tio n a re represen ted in the s c a le . Frequency D is trib u tio n s The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f th e s ix sc a le s a re displayed in Figure 5. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Frances, P o t t e r , and R iv erfro n t Parks g rad u a lly r i s e to a peak and then d e c lin e —e i t h e r g r a d u a lly , as with R iv erfro n t Park, o r suddenly, as w ith Frances and P o tte r Parks. In c o n t r a s t , th e d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Gier Park and S c o tt Woods involve la rg e p ro p o rtio n s o f respondents with low l e v e ls o f knowledge and p ro g re ssiv e ly lower p ropo rtions w ith higher le v e ls o f knowledge. Thus most o f th e people who were aware o f Frances, P o t t e r , o r River­ f r o n t Parks were m oderately knowledgeable about th e se p a rk s, whereas most o f those who were aware o f Gier Park o r S c o tt Woods had low 2 The f a c t t h a t th e s ix s c a le s were o f d i f f e r e n t lengths did not preclude a comparison o f r e s u l t s across parks in subsequent an aly ­ ses sin ce th e focus o f th e s e analyses was on p e o p le 's know ledgeability r e l a t i v e to o th e rs in th e sample r a t h e r than on t h e i r know ledgeability in an a b so lu te se n se . 60 35* * FENNER ARBORETIM j... 8j 2 0 - - te is * - bl |S 10" lii “■ 5 • • 3 4 5 6 10 KNOWLEDGE SCORE 35 fX • ■ scon woods 3 4 30- t . !"*»■■ 5 IS 10 ± - ■ E 5- • 1 2 5 KNOWLEDGE SCORE 35- • I M+ GIER PARK | 25” | 20-& 15 -. Ul ifc 10. 8 “■ 5+ 2 3 4 KNOWLEDGE SCORE F ig u rt S.—Frequency d is trib u tio n s o f In d iv id u a l park-fcnowladge s c a lts . 61 FRANCES PARK -H 1 Z 3 KNOWLEDGE SCORE POTTER PARK ! Ul i a. KNOWLEDGE SCORE 35 30 RIVERFRONT PARK 25 20 IS 10 S WOWLEDGE SCORE Figure 5 .—Continued. 62 le v e ls o f knowledge about th e s e parks. The d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Fenner Arboretum has th e l e a s t recognizable p a tte rn and appears to be almost bimodal. Figure 5 a ls o r e v e a ls t h a t some in d iv id u a ls were aware o f c e r t a i n parks but had no knowledge of t h e i r lo c a tio n s or a m e n ities: In th e case o f a l l parks except P o t t e r , some respondents received a score o f 0 , which denotes t h a t they were aware o f the park but f a i l e d a l l o f th e quiz items r e l a t i n g to the p a rk 's l o c a ti o n , f a c i l i t i e s , and f e a t u r e s . score o f 0. In th e case o f P o tte r Park, no in d iv id u a ls received a Thus th e e n t i r e sample was not only aware o f th e e x i s t ­ ence o f P o tte r Park but a ls o had a t l e a s t some knowledge o f i t . The knowledge s c a l e s , co n stru cted by using th e procedures described above, a re ord in al s c a l e s . Magnusson (1967, p. 13) d e sc rib e s a technique whereby an o rd in al sc a le can be converted to an in te r v a l s c a le i f th e phenomenon being measured can be assumed to be normally d i s t r i b u t e d in the p o p ulatio n. In te rv a l sc a le s a re d e s ir a b le because they permit more powerful a n a ly s is than ordinal s c a l e s . Chi-square g o o d n e ss-o f-fit t e s t s were conducted on th e sample frequency d i s t r i ­ butions f o r each park to determine i f knowledge o f any o f th e parks could be assumed to be normally d i s t r i b u t e d in th e po p u latio n . The r e s u l t s o f th ese t e s t s were negative f o r each p ark , so th e technique Magnusson d e scrib e s was not employed. R e lia b ility R e l i a b i l i t y r e f e r s to th e degree o f random e r r o r in a measure­ ment. There a re th r e e a sp e c ts o f th e concept o f r e l i a b i l i t y : 63 p r e c i s i o n , s t a b i l i t y , and in te r n a l con sisten cy (Magnusson, 1967, p. 119). P re cisio n r e f e r s to consisten cy in th e r e s u l t s o f e q u iv a le n t instrum ents adm inistered to th e same in d iv id u a ls a t th e same tim e; s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to c o n sisten c y in th e r e s u l t s o f repeated a d m in istra ­ tio n s o f th e same instrum ent to the same i n d iv id u a ls ; and in te rn a l c o n sisten c y r e f e r s to c o n sisten c y in in d iv id u a ls ' responses to the various items o f a measure. The p a r t i c u l a r asp ect o f r e l i a b i l i t y with which one i s concerned determines which o f the various c o e f f i c i e n t s should be c a lc u la te d . The concern here was with th e s c a l e s ' p r e c is io n . To have assessed s t a b i l i t y would have req uired another survey; and to have assessed in te r n a l c o n siste n c y , o r homogeneity, would have been o f 3 l i t t l e value sin c e th e knowledge t e s t s a re in h e re n tly heterogeneous. The matched s p l i t - h a l f method i s a p p ro p ria te f o r e stim atin g the p re c isio n o f a heterogeneous t e s t (Magnusson, 1967, p. 119). The knowledge items f o r each o f th e s ix parks were divided in to two halves such t h a t th e r e s u l t i n g halves were as s im ila r as p o s s ib le in terms o f both d i f f i c u l t y and c o n te n t. 4 3 Spearman-Brown s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y Respondents were quizzed on a wide v a r ie ty o f a sp ec ts o f park knowledge. Knowledge o f c e r t a i n a sp e c ts of th e park was found to be not always highly c o rr e la te d with knowledge o f o th e r a sp ec ts o f th e park , p o ssib ly owing to d iffe re n c e s in a given re s p o n d e n t's r e c r e a ­ tio n a l i n t e r e s t s and sources o f inform ation about p a rk s. Measures o f homogeneity, including th e widely used "Cronbach's a lp h a ," would merely have r e f l e c t e d th e s e low i n te r - it e m c o r r e l a t io n s in low c o e f f i c i e n t s . Yet low homogeneity in a measure designed to p r e d ic t a heterogeneous phenomenon l i k e park knowledge does n o t n e c e s s a r ily re p r e s e n t e r r o r (A n a sta si, 1976, p. 117; S e l l t i z e t a l . , 1976, p. 197). 4 A f a c t o r a n a ly s is o f knowledge items was employed to a s s i s t in d iv id in g th e v a rio u s items in to two h a lv e s. I f two items each loaded stro n g ly on a given f a c t o r , one item was placed in one o f th e halves and th e o th e r item in th e o th e r h a l f . 64 c o e f f i c i e n t s were then c a l c u l a t e d . In a b so lu te term s, th e r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s o f th e s c a le s f o r Fenner Arboretum (0.848) and S c o tt Woods (0.870) were f a i r l y high, while tho se f o r th e o th e r parks were low er, e s p e c ia lly those f o r Gier Park (0.685) and P o tte r Park (0.628) (Table 8 ). Table 8 . —R esults o f matched s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y a n a ly se s. Fenner Arboretum N=157 S c o tt Woods N=62 Gier Park N=160 Frances Park N=190 P o tte r Park N=201 R iv erfro n t Park N=199 Means P a rt 1 P a rt 2 2.23 2.17 1.19 1.04 1.11 1.11 1.75 1.75 2.86 3.28 1.69 1.75 Variances P a rt 1 P a rt 2 1.95 1.59 1.59 1.18 1.44 0.66 1.03 0.75 0.56 0.79 1.30 0.80 Spearman-Brown R e l i a b i l i t y Coef. .848 .870 .685 .699 .628 .725 The low r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r th e developed parks r e f l e c t th e f a c t t h a t t h e r e was r e l a t i v e l y l e s s v a r i a ti o n in th e knowledge scores f o r th e s e parks compared to the scores f o r th e n a tu ra l a re a s . The more homogeneous a group i s with re s p e c t to th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c being measured, th e more d i f f i c u l t i t i s to ob tain high r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s . This i s because s l i g h t random e rr o r s in individual scores may lead to changes in r e l a t i v e p o s itio n in a group where th e scores o f many in d iv id u a ls a re c lo se to one a n o th e r, whereas th e same e r r o r s may not lead to changes in r e l a t i v e p o s itio n 65 in a group where in d iv id u a ls d i f f e r markedly from one another ( S e l l t i z e t a l . , 1959, p. 181). Thus the r e s u l t s did not n e c e s s a r ily mean t h a t some sc a le s had more random e r r o r than o t h e r s , but r a t h e r t h a t the e x iste n c e of random e r r o r was more problem atic with th e low -variance sc a le s than with th e h igh-variance s c a le s . Future e f f o r t s to con­ s t r u c t park-knowledge s c a le s should attem pt to maximize t h e i r r e l i a ­ b i l i t y by including more items in them. The park-knowledge sc a le s were used in subsequent analyses as measures o f the knowledge o f a given individual r e l a t i v e to t h a t o f o th e r people aware o f a given park. The low r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r th e low-variance s c a le s suggest t h a t th e r e l a t i v e p o s itio n s o f some respondents were a ffe c te d to some degree by random e r r o r s . In view o f t h i s , i t was a p p ro p ria te to attem pt to make only crude r a t h e r than f i n e d i s t i n c t i o n s among p e o p le 's le v e ls o f knowledge: C haracter­ izin g a re sp o n d e n t's knowledgeability as high , medium, o r low was more l i k e l y to be c o rr e c t than c h a ra c te riz in g i t as a s p e c i f i c sc o re. Consequently, in d iv id u a ls were divided in to h ig h, medium, and low knowledge groups in most o f th e analyses rep o rte d in t h i s and suc­ ceeding c h a p te rs . V a lid ity The concept o f v a l i d i t y i s concerned with whether a measure measures what i t pu rports to measure. of v a lid ity : There a re th re e b asic types content v a l i d i t y , c o n s tru c t v a l i d i t y , and c r i t e r i o n - r e l a te d v a l i d i t y . C r i te r io n - r e l a t e d v a l i d i t y i s evaluated by check­ ing performance on a t e s t a g a in s t some c r i t e r i o n t h a t i s a d i r e c t 66 and independent measure o f the phenomenon the t e s t i s designed to p re d ic t (A n a stasi, 1976, p. 140). Since a p p ro p ria te c r i t e r i a were not a v a ila b le in t h i s s i t u a t i o n , only con tent and c o n s tru c t v a l i d i t y were a sse ssed . Content V a lid ity Content v a l i d i t y r e f e r s to th e degree to which th e items o f a s c a le s o le ly and adequately re p re s e n t the c o n te n t o f th e mental domain being in v e s tig a te d . I t i s u su a lly evaluated on a s u b je c tiv e b a sis as (1 ) th e degree to which th e con ten t o f each item p e rta in s to th e phe­ nomenon being measured, and (2 ) th e degree to which th e s e t of items re p re se n ts a l l a sp ec ts o f the phenomenon (Shaw & W right, 1967, p. 18). I t can be sa id t h a t th e v ariou s knowledge sc a le s possessed content v a l i d i t y . The items in each s c a le p e rta in e d only to knowledge o f t h a t park as opposed t o use o f i t or to some o th e r phenomenon. And the s e t o f items c o n s t it u t in g each sc a le rep re se n te d most o f the impor­ t a n t asp ects o f park knowledge, including f a m i l i a r i t y with a given p a r k 's lo c a tio n , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s . The items in th e s c a l e s , moreover, assessed f a m i l i a r i t y with park am enities found both on the perim eters and in th e i n t e r i o r s o f the parks. Perhaps most impor­ t a n t l y , each s c a le included items t h a t assessed f a m i l i a r i t y with th e p a rk 's im portant a t t r a c t i o n s : th e n atu re c e n te r a t Fenner Arboretum, the rose garden a t Frances Park, th e lig h te d b a ll f i e l d s a t Gier Park, th e creek a t S c o tt Woods, e t c . These s c a le s would c l e a r l y have lacked con ten t v a l i d i t y had they not assessed f a m i l i a r i t y with the 67 a t t r a c t i o n s t h a t c o n trib u te d most s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the e s s e n tia l c h a ra c te r of each park. Construct V a lid ity Construct v a l i d i t y r e f e r s to the e x te n t to which a p a r t i c u l a r measure r e l a t e s to o th e r measures in a manner t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e o r e t i c a l l y derived hypotheses concerning the concepts t h a t a re being measured (Carmines & Z e l l e r , 1979, p. 23 ). The hypotheses generated to t e s t c o n s tru c t v a l i d i t y can be derived from lo g ic a l exp ectatio n s as well as from formal th e o r ie s (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955, p. 284). A common method o f e stim atin g c o n stru c t v a l i d i t y i s the known-groups technique. I f our understanding o f a c o n s tru c t lead s us to expect two o r more groups to d i f f e r on a t e s t , i t follow s t h a t a v a lid s c a le to measure th e c o n stru c t should y i e l d d i f f e r e n t scores f o r th ese groups. Thus Thurstone and Chave (1929, p. 73) v a lid a te d a sc a le fo r measuring a t t i t u d e s toward "the church" by demonstrating score d iffe r e n c e s between those who attended church fre q u e n tly and those who did n o t. In th e case o f park knowledge, i t was reasonable to expect people who had v i s i t e d a park to have g r e a te r knowledge than those who had n o t, because o f th e o pp ortu nity f o r d i r e c t ob ser­ vation o f th e p a rk ’s c o n te n ts . In d iv id u a ls who had never v i s i t e d a park, however, were expected to have obtained some knowledge o f i t from th e media, from o th e r people, and/or from d riv in g o r walking by i t . Contingency-table analyses were conducted to t e s t t h i s hypothe­ sis. The knowledge d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r each park were divided in to th re e 68 groups using c u to f f p o in ts as c lo se to th e 25th and 75th p e r c e n tile s 5 as p o s s ib le . Scores f a l l i n g roughly in th e upper 25% o f a given d i s t r i b u t i o n re p re se n te d "low knowledge"; scores f a l l i n g roughly in the upper 25% o f a given d i s t r i b u t i o n rep resen ted "high knowledge"; and scores f a l l i n g between th e s e extremes rep re se n te d "medium knowl­ edge." The pro p o rtio n s o f v i s i t o r s and n o n v is ito r s f a l l i n g in to th e se th re e groups a re compared in Table 9. N onvisitors were defined as in d iv id u a ls who in d ic a te d e i t h e r t h a t they had never v i s i t e d a given park o r t h a t they were "not s u re ." The r e s u l t s in d ic a te d , in th e case o f each p ark , t h a t nonv i s i t o r s were much more l i k e l y to have low knowledge than v i s i t o r s , and v i s i t o r s were much more l i k e l y to have high knowledge than non­ v isito rs.6 (Sam ple-size l im i t a t i o n s made comparisons o f percentages problem atic in th e case o f P o tte r Park, but th e o v e ra ll r e l a ti o n s h i p was in th e expected d i r e c ti o n and was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . ) Thus th e r e was em pirical support f o r th e hypothesized r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park knowledge and park v i s i t a t i o n , and evidence t h a t th e s c a le s possessed c o n s tr u c t v a l i d i t y . I t i s doubtful th e s e r e l a t i o n ­ ships would have emerged i f th e s c a le s measured a phenomenon o th e r than park knowledge o r i f th e s c a le s were overly in fluenced by guessing. 5 The b a s is f o r subdividing th e knowledge d i s t r i b u t i o n s in t h i s manner i s explained in th e next c h a p te r. These r e s u l t s were c o n s i s t e n t with th e fin d in g s by McDonald (1969) and Hammitt (1981) t h a t were discussed in Chapter I . 69 Table 9 . —Knowledge o f study parks by whether parks had ever been v isite d . A11 Park Fenner Arboretum S co tt Woods Gier Park Frances Park P o tte r Park R iv erfro n t Park Kn?” l®?ge Ever V isite d Aware Subjects ^ No ____ : Yes Low Medium High N=157 22% 54 24 100% N=22 67% 33 0 100% N=134 15% 57 28 100% Low Medium High N=62 29% 43 28 100% N=26 61% 39 0 100% N=36 7% 45 48 100% Low Medium High N=160 21% 54 25 100% N=42 55% 45 0 100% N=118 9% 57 34 100% Low Medium High N=190 22% 46 32 100% N=18 (91%) ( 9 ) ( 0 ) 100% N=172 15% 50 35 100% Low Medium High N=201 25% 64 11 100% N=4 ( 100%) ( o ) ( 0 ) 100% N=197 24% 65 11 100% Low Medium High N=199 33% 42 25 100% N=33 78% 20 2 100% N=166 24% 46 30 100% Ch. Square S i9' 31.57 .000* 27.50 . 000* 47.74 . 000* 55.31 . 000* 12.34 . 002* 35.85 . 000* 70 R e p ro d u cib ility R e p ro d u cib ility i s a useful but n o nessential property o f s c a le s . A s c a le i s s a id to possess r e p r o d u c i b il i ty i f a l l o f a sam ple's responses to a s e t o f items can be reproduced s o le ly on the b a sis o f t h e i r t o t a l sc o re s . R e p ro d u cib ility im plies t h a t a s c a l e 's items can be ordered by degree o f d i f f i c u l t y and t h a t respondents who c o r r e c t l y answer a d i f f i c u l t item w ill c o r r e c tly answer a l l l e s s d i f f i c u l t item s. I t a ls o im plies t h a t respondents who f a i l an easy item w ill always f a i l a l l o f th e more d i f f i c u l t item s. A fiv e -ite m knowledge s c a le with p e r f e c t r e p r o d u c i b il i ty would d isp la y the p a t ­ te r n o f responses shown below, where "1" in d ic a te s passing an item and "0 " in d ic a te s f a i l i n g an item: A HYPOTHETICAL KNOWLEDGE SCALE WITH PERFECT REPRODUCIBILITY Knowledge Score (Sum o f C orrect Answers) Most D i f f i c u l t Item A KNOWLEDGE ITEMS 5 1 4 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 1 C Le a s t D i f f i c u l t Item E D 1 1 1 1 1 1 71 Scalogram a n a l y s i s , o r Guttman s c a l i n g , i s a technique t h a t a sse ss e s th e degree to which the responses to a s c a l e 's items conform to t h i s p e rf e c t p a tt e r n . Scales t h a t c lo s e ly approximate t h i s p a tte rn a re sa id to be cumulative s c a l e s . Although scalogram a n a ly s is had been used as a method o f c o n stru c tin g a t t i t u d e s c a l e s , Edwards (1957, p. 172) argued t h a t scalogram a n a ly s is could perhaps be most a c c u ra te ly described as a process by which i t i s determined whether a s e r i e s o f items and a sample o f s u b je c ts conform t o a s p e c if ie d s e t o f c r i t e r i a designated as th e requirem ents o f a Guttman s c a l e . I t is th is h y p o th e s is -te s tin g fu n ctio n o f scalogram a n a ly s is t h a t was employed in t h i s study. I t was a n tic ip a te d t h a t th e discovery o f a cumulative s t r u c ­ tu re in park-knowledge s c a le s would help sim p lify f u tu re e f f o r t s to measure t h i s phenomenon: I f park knowledge i s cum ulative, then c e r ­ t a i n types o f ite m s, w ith very few e x ce p tio n s, w ill be passed only by in d iv id u a ls who pass a l l o th e r knowledge item s. Thus "high knowledge" o f a park could simply be measured as the a b i l i t y to pass t h i s type o f knowledge item. I t was hypothesized t h a t items t e s t i n g knowledge o f f e a tu re s and f a c i l i t i e s located in park i n t e r i o r s would possess t h i s p ro perty . The c r i t e r i a used to e v a lu a te conformity t o a p e rf e c t cumula­ t i v e p a tte rn were a c o e f f i c i e n t o f r e p r o d u c i b il i ty o f a l e a s t 0 .9 0 , and a c o e f f i c i e n t o f s c a l a b i l i t y o f a t l e a s t 0.60 (Mclver & Carmines, 1981). Using th e s e s ta n d a rd s, i t was concluded t h a t none o f th e 72 sc a le s were cumulative (Table 1 0 ) / This im plies t h a t , in th e case o f each s c a l e , a given score was obtained through many combinations o f c o r r e c t and in c o r r e c t responses to a given s c a l e 's item s. I f th e sc a le s had been cum ulative, on th e o th e r hand, a given score on a given s c a le (with very few exceptions) would have been obtained through only one combination o f c o r r e c t and in c o rr e c t responses. I t was hypothesized t h a t a cumulative response p a tte r n was not emerging because th e sample f o r each park included in d iv id u a ls who had never v i s i t e d t h a t park. Such in d iv id u a ls , having learned o f c e r t a i n park f a c i l i t i e s and fe a tu r e s through in te rp e rs o n a l com­ munication and the mass media, might have been ab le to pass d i f f i c u l t items without a lso having been a b le to pass th e l e s s d i f f i c u l t item s. V is ito rs able to pass d i f f i c u l t item s, on the o th e r hand, would p re ­ sumably have been able a ls o to pass th e e a s i e r items as a r e s u l t o f having a c t u a l l y observed the fe a tu r e s o r f a c i l i t i e s th ese items r e p ­ re se n te d . But when n o n v is ito r s were excluded from the samples, th e analyses yield ed c o e f f i c i e n t s o f r e p r o d u c ib ility and s c a l a b i l i t y t h a t were a c t u a l l y somewhat lower than those of th e previous s e t o f analy ses. I t was f u r t h e r hypothesized t h a t a cumulative response p a tte r n e x is te d among items t e s t i n g knowledge o f l o c a t i o n s , f e a t u r e s , and the 7The c o e f f i c i e n t of r e p r o d u c i b il i ty can be sp u rio u sly high. To be m eaningful, i t must exceed the minimum marginal r e p r o d u c i b il i ty s u f f i c i e n t l y to be r e f l e c t e d in a c o e f f i c i e n t o f s c a l a b i l i t y o f a t l e a s t 0.60. T h erefore, in view o f the r e l a t i v e l y low c o e f f i c i e n t s o f s c a l a b i l i t y rep o rted in Table 10, th e r e l a t i v e l y high c o e f f i c i e n t s o f r e p r o d u c ib ility do n ot in d ic a te t h a t th e s c a le s approximated a cumu­ la tiv e stru c tu re . Table 10.—Results o f scalogram analyses performed on respondents aware o f a given park. S ta tistic Fenner Arboretum N=157 S cott Woods N=62 Gier Park N=160 Frances Park N-190 P o tte r Park N=201 R iv erfro n t Park N=199 C o e ffic ie n t o f r e p r o d u c ib ility .86 .85 .84 .86 .87 .78 C o e ffic ie n t o f sc a la b ility .49 .54 .44 .34 .29 .17 Minimum marginal r e p r o d u c ib ility .72 .68 .72 .78 .82 .74 Percent improvement .14 .17 .12 .07 .05 .04 74 presence o f r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s ; but th e in c lu sio n in th e a n a ly s is of items t e s t i n g knowledge o f th e absence o f c e r t a i n re c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s masked t h i s p a t t e r n . Under t h i s hypothesis i t was expected t h a t knowledge o f the obscure f e a tu r e s o r f a c i l i t i e s in th e park would n e arly always be a s s o c ia te d with knowledge o f th e more obvious f e a tu r e s or f a c i l i t i e s in the park. Subsequent a n a l y s i s , however, revealed th e re was no support f o r t h i s h y p o th e sis, e i t h e r among v i s i t o r s and n o n v is ito rs to a given park o r among only v i s i t o r s . The la c k o f r e p r o d u c i b il i ty ev id en t from each s e t o f a n a ly s is suggests t h a t park knowledge i s a complex phenomenon. The complexity of park knowledge may r e s u l t from i t s im portant r e l a ti o n s h i p with park v i s i t a t i o n (Table 9 ) , a complex behavior t h a t v a rie s with r e c r e a ­ tio n a l preferences and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , th e noncumulative n a tu re o f park knowledge may be th e r e s u l t o f respondents (1) having more keenly observed and /or b e t t e r remembered th ose park f e a t u r e s o r f a c i l i t i e s t h a t were o f i n t e r e s t to them, (2) having learned o f th e l e s s obvious park f e a tu r e s or f a c i l i t i e s while remaining ig n o ran t o f th e more obvious f e a tu re s o r f a c i l i t i e s because o f th e freedom of movement p o ss ib le in urban p a rk s , (3) having gained knowledge from mass media and in te rp e rs o n a l communication in a d d itio n to actu al o b se rv a tio n , e t c . S cales f o r the Measurement of Park-System Fami1i a r i ty C onstruction The s c a le used t o measure park-system awareness c o n siste d o f tho se q u e stio n n a ire items t h a t measured resp o n d en ts' awareness o f 75 the v a rio u s parks l i s t e d on th e park l i s t . Respondents were assigned scores on t h i s s c a le by summing th e number o f parks on the l i s t t h a t they rep o rte d having "heard o f . " "Not su re" responses were not included in th e s e summations. The s c a le used to measure park-system knowledge c o n siste d o f a l l o f th e items c o n s t i t u t i n g th e f e a tu r e s q u iz , th e f a c i l i t i e s q u iz , and th e lo c a tio n s q u iz. Respondents were assigned sco res on t h i s s c a le by summing th e number o f items in th e se quizzes t h a t they c o r ­ r e c t l y answered. Frequency D is tr ib u tio n s The frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f th e measures o f park-system awareness and knowledge a re d isplayed in Figure 6. tio n s a re approximately normal. Both d i s t r i b u ­ Thus most respondents possessed a moderate lev el of awareness and knowledge o f th e park system, as estim ated by th e s e measures. On th e average, respondents had heard o f 11.2 o f th e 19 p a rk s. All respondents in d ic a te d they had heard o f a t l e a s t two o f th e parks on the l i s t . Four respondents in d ic a te d t h a t they had heard o f a l l 19 parks. The sample c o r r e c t l y answered an average o f 20.2 of the 52 quiz item s. The scores fo r th e knowledge measure ranged from a low o f 3 to a high of 40. PERCENTAGE OF ENTIRE SAMPLE (N-201) 14 15 PERCENTAGE OF ENTIRE SAMPLE (N-201) NUMBER OF PARKS HEARD OF (PARK-SYSTEM AWARENESS) 16151413- cn 12 - 11- 10987- 6543- 215 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE ITEMS CORRECTLY ANSWERED (PARK-SYSTEM KNOWLEDGE) Figure 6 .--Frequency distributions of measures of park-system awareness and park-system knowledge. 41 77 R e l i a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y Using the same procedures described above, th e Spearman-Brown r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r th e measure o f park-system awareness was found to be 0.82 . This was considered an acceptably high f i g u r e . The measure o f park-system awareness rep re se n te d 19 of the parks in th e park system, but i t was intended to be a su rro g a te meas­ ure o f respondents' awareness o f th e e n t i r e system. I t was considered v a lid as such sin c e th e 19 parks on the parks l i s t were d i s t r i b u t e d throughout th e c i t y and rep resented th e major types o f parks in the park system. Using th e same procedures o u tlin e d above, th e Spearman-Brown r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t f o r th e measure o f park-system knowledge was found to be 0 .8 9 , an acceptably high f i g u r e . The measure o f park- system knowledge rep resen ted nine o f the parks in th e park system— th e s ix study parks plus th re e a d d itio n a l parks whose am enities were included in the f e a tu r e s quiz (Washington, Moores, and Hunter P a rk s). However, th e sc a le was intended to be a su rro g a te measure o f respond­ e n t s ' knowledge of the e n t i r e park system. While i t would have been d e s ir a b le to have had more parks re p re s e n te d , the sc a le was considered adequate since th e lo c a tio n s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th ese nine parks rep resented most o f th e d i v e r s i t y o f th e park system. To have meas­ ured knowledge o f more than nine parks would have s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased th e len g th and complexity o f in te rv ie w s. Park-system knowledge, as a concept, involves knowledge of the lo c a tio n s and am enities o f th e parks comprising a park system. By combining responses to th e f e a t u r e s , f a c i l i t i e s , and lo c a tio n s 78 q u iz z e s, t h i s measure o f park-system knowledge rep resen ted these fundamental asp ects o f th e c o ncept, and th e r e fo re i t was concluded t h a t they possessed co ntent v a l i d i t y . Summary The p a tte rn s displayed by th e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f most in div id ual park-knowledge sc a le s r e f l e c t e d e i t h e r a low o r moderate lev el o f knowledge among most o f th e respondents aware o f a given park. The ind ividu al park sc a le s with low varian ces did not have a high degree of p re c is io n ; th e re was evidence t h a t a l l th e in d iv id u a l-p a rk sc a le s possessed both con ten t and c o n s tru c t v a l i d i t y , and none o f th e in d iv id u a l-p a rk s c a le s was cum ulative. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f th e measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge were approximately normal. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s o f th ese measures were acceptably high, and th e r e was reason to b e liev e t h a t they were v a lid s c a le s . CHAPTER V RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK FAMILIARITY AND PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS This ch ap ter d isc u sse s how park f a m i l i a r i t y i s r e l a te d both to socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and to in d ic e s o f r e c r e a tio n p a r t i c i p a ­ tio n . The d isc u ssio n focuses on p a tte r n s t h a t emerged from analyzing th e s e r e l a ti o n s h i p s w ith re s p e c t to the park system and to d i f f e r e n t types o f indiv id ual parks. The chapter begins a t a general lev el by d isc u ssin g r e l a t i o n ­ ships between personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and park-system f a m i l i a r i t y . Then r e l a ti o n s h i p s between personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and f a m i l i a r i t y with individual parks a re d isc u sse d . Next, the r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to awareness of in dividual parks a re summarized and compared with th e r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to awareness o f th e park system. F i n a ll y , th e r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to knowledge o f in dividual parks a re summarized and compared with the r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to knowledge o f th e park system. The e x te n t to which an i n d i v i d u a l 's f a m i l i a r i t y with e i t h e r a park system o r an individual park d i f f e r s from t h a t o f o th e rs can be assessed by examining where, in th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r measure, h is o r her score l i e s ; i f th e score f a l l s in th e upper por­ tio n o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n , he o r she has a high le v e l o f f a m i l i a r i t y r e l a t i v e to o th e r s , and v ic e v e rs a . 79 In t h i s c h a p te r , th e scores of 80 th e vario us f a m i l i a r i t y measures a re in te r p r e te d in t h i s r e l a t i v e sense as th e e x te n t to which they d e v ia te from th e norm, and not in an a b so lu te sense as th e e x te n t to which they d e v ia te from some minimum value. C o rre la te s o f Park-System F a m ilia r ity Procedures To f a c i l i t a t e in te r in d iv id u a l comparisons o f park-system awareness, th e sample was divided in to th re e groups re p re se n tin g low, medium, and high awareness o f th e park system. The groups were formed by divid in g th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e measure o f park-system awareness in to th r e e groups such t h a t the c u to f f p o in ts were as clo se to th e 25th and 75th p e r c e n tile s as p o s s ib le . In g e n e ra l, th e "high awareness" group c o n siste d o f in d iv id u a ls who scored in th e upper 25% o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n , th e "low awareness" group c o n siste d o f i n d i ­ v id u als who scored in th e lower 25% o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the "medium awareness" group c o n sisted o f in d iv id u a ls who scored between th ese extremes. Using th e same procedures, th e sample was a lso divided in to groups re p re se n tin g low, medium, and high knowledge o f th e park system. The 25th and 75th p e rc e n tile s were chosen as c u to f f p o in ts because th ese were th e c u to f f p o in ts used to subdivide th e knowledge sc a le s o f individual parks. Formulating groups in th e same manner f a c i l i t a t e d comparisons o f r e s u l t s . The r a t i o n a l e f o r using th ese c u to f f p o in ts in th e case of th e knowledge sc a le s f o r ind ividu al parks i s describ ed in a subsequent s e c tio n . 81 Contingency-table analyses were conducted to compare those personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e low -, medium-, and high-awareness/ knowledge groups t h a t were measured on a nominal s c a l e ; one-way analyses o f varian ce were conducted to compare th ose c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t were measured on an in te r v a l or r a t i o s c a le . The r e s u l t s o f analyses involving th e measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge were not compared sin ce th e l a t t e r s c a le rep resen ted nine p a rk s, whereas th e former s c a le r e p r e ­ sented 19 parks. Comparisons o f r e s u l t s involving th e s e two measures would have been problem atic, f o r i t would have been impossible to determine whether d if fe r e n c e s (o r s i m i l a r i t i e s ) in r e s u l t s were due to th e n atu re o f th e phenomena measured or to th e f a c t t h a t one measure rep re se n te d more than twice as many parks as th e o th e r . Results Compared to th o se with low awareness o f th e park system, those with high awareness included lower p ro portio ns o f Blacks and tended to be o l d e r , to have liv e d in the Lansing area lo n g e r, and to have p a r t i c i p a te d in more resource-based a c t i v i t i e s (Tables 11 and 12). Compared to those with low knowledge of th e park system, those with high knowledge were b e t t e r educated, p a r tic ip a te d in more reso u rce based and general a c t i v i t i e s , and contained la r g e r p rop ortion s of w h ite - c o lla r workers and in d iv id u a ls re s id in g with c h ild re n (Tables 13 and 14). Table 11.—Awareness o f park system by nom inal-level v a ria b le s . All Subjects N=201 Low Awareness Group N=99 Medium Awareness Group N=110 GENDER Male Female T otals 47% 53 100% 46% 54 T0O£ 43% 57 100% 58% 42 100% RACE/ETHNICITY White Black Hispanic T otals 79% 17 4 100% 64% 31 5 100% 84% 11 5 100% 83% 15 2 100% CHILDREN UNDER 15 Yes No T otals 39% 61 100% 32% 68 100% 41% 59 100% 39% 61 100% OCCUPATION White c o l l a r Blue c o l l a r Homemaker R etired Student Unemployed T otals 34% 23 16 16 8 3 100% 36% 25 14 8 14 3 100% 29% 23 20 17 6 5 100% 44% 17 8 25 6 0 100% Vari able High Awareness Group N=43 ChiSquare Sig. 2.75 .253 9.89 .042* 1.19 .551 14.54 .150 Table 12.—Awareness o f park system by in te rv a l and r a tio - le v e l v a ria b le s . All Subjects N=201 Low Awareness Group N=49 Medium Awareness Group N=110 High Awareness Group N=43 FRatio Sig. Age 42.3 37.1 42.9 46.7 3.34 .037* Yrs. o f resid en ce in area 24.9 13.5 26.1 35.0 16.45 .000* Yrs. o f education 12.8 12.4 12.7 13.3 1.32 .269 No. resource-based a c t i v i t i e s 2.6 2.1 2.6 3.2 3.49 .032* No. general a c t i v i t i e s 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.6 1.09 .339 No. a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.2 0.87 .419 Total no. a c t i v i t i e s 5.9 5.2 5.8 7.0 2.22 .111 V ariable Table 13.— Knowledge o f park system by nom inal-level v a ria b le s . All Subjects N=201 Low Knowledge Group N=47 Medium Knowledge Group N=100 High Knowledge Group N=54 ChiSquare Sig. GENDER Male Female T otals 47% 53 100% 53% 47 100% 41% 59 100% 51% 49 100% 2.33 .312 RACE/ETHNICITY White Black Hispanic T otals 79% 17 4 100% 69% 26 5 100% 79% 17 4 100% 88% 9 3 100% 5.97 .201 CHILDREN UNDER 15 Yes No T otals 39% 61 100% 25% 75 100% 36% 64 100% 55% 45 100% 9.95 .007* OCCUPATION White c o l l a r Blue c o l l a r Homemaker Retired Student Unemployed T otals 34% 23 16 16 8 3 100% 17% 32 10 25 14 2 100% 42% 16 16 16 7 3 100% 33% 26 21 9 5 6 100% 19.81 .031* V ariable Table 14.—Knowledge o f park system by in te rv a l and r a tio - le v e l v a ria b le s . All Subjects N=201 Low Knowledge Group N=47 High Knowledge Group N=54 FRatio S ig . Age 42.3 44.0 43.3 39.2 1.09 .337 Yrs. of residence in area 24.9 22.7 25.2 26.3 0.43 .649 Yrs. o f education 12.8 11.8 12.9 13.5 5.61 .004* No. resource-based a c t i v i t i e s 2.6 2.1 2.3 3.6 9.16 .000* No. general a c t i v i t i e s 2.3 2.0 2.1 3.0 7.06 .001* No. a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.76 .468 Total no. a c t i v i t i e s 5.9 5.0 5.3 7.8 8.24 .000* Variable Medium Knowledge Group N=100 86 C o rrela te s o f Awareness Of Individual Parks Data were c o lle c te d on respon dents' awareness o f 19 d i f f e r e n t parks. Since id e n tify in g th e c o r r e l a t e s o f park awareness in th e case o f each o f th e se parks obviously would have been cumbersome, examples o f the major types o f parks in Lansing were sin g led out f o r stu d y . The follow ing fo u r types o f parks were defined on th e b a sis o f th e kinds of am enities they o f f e r : (1) n a tu ra l a re a s ; (2) major cityw ide p a rk s, which provide a t t r a c t i o n s w ith e s s e n t i a l l y un iv ersal appeal ( e . g . , rose garden, zoo, a m p h ith e a te rs); (3) community p a rk s, which provide a t t r a c ­ tio n s with somewhat l e s s un iv ersal appeal ( e . g . , community c e n t e r , swimming poo l, a r t i f i c i a l ic e r i n k ) ; and (4) neighborhood p a rk s , which provide f a c i l i t i e s designed to serve only r e s id e n ts o f th e surrounding neighborhood ( e . g . , play equipment, b a ll f i e l d ) . Under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a ­ tio n scheme, n atu ral a re a s were rep resen ted by Fenner Arboretum and S c o tt Woods; major cityw ide parks by Frances, P o t t e r , and R iv erfro n t Parks; community parks by Gier Park, Grand Woods, Hunter Park, Kingsley Place Community C enter, Moores Park, and Washington Park; and neighbor­ hood parks by Attwood, B ancroft, Cavanaugh, Comstock, Davis, F e r r i s , Munn, and Tecumseh Parks. The awareness l e v e ls o f th e major cityw ide parks were so high t h a t i t was concluded t h a t v i r t u a l l y a l l types o f people were aware o f th ese parks. From a p r a c tic a l s ta n d p o in t, moreover, th e r e were simply not enough respondents unaware o f th e s e parks to have perm itted mean­ ingful comparisons w ith aware respondents. T herefo re, th e a n a ly s is focused on th e sam ple's awareness o f n a tu ra l a r e a s , community p a rk s , and neighborhood parks. 87 Two examples o f each o f th e se park types were sin g led out fo r a n a ly s is to determine whether s im ila r r e s u l t s emerged f o r th e same types o f parks. Fenner Arboretum and S c o tt Woods were se le c te d to re p re se n t natu ral a reas sin c e th ese were th e p rin c ip a l parks o f t h i s type in Lansing. Gier and Washington Parks were se le c te d to r e p r e ­ se n t community parks sin c e they were both lo cated on major s t r e e t s and o ffe re d important a t t r a c t i o n s to the communities surrounding them— a community c e n te r in th e case o f Gier Park and an a r t i f i c i a l ic e rin k (during the w inter months) in th e case of Washington Park. park s, moreover, provided f a c i l i t i e s f o r league s o f t b a l l . Both Tecumseh and Attwood Parks were s e le c te d to re p re s e n t neighborhood parks because they were wholly surrounded by r e s i d e n t i a l a re a s and o ffere d only f a c i l i t i e s designed to serve th e surrounding neighborhood r a t h e r J5TTT. . A than an e n t i r e community o r c i t y . In each o f the analyses rep o rted below, th e e n t i r e sample o f 201 respondents was divided in to two groups: respondents. aware respondents and unaware The aware respondents were those who in d ic a te d t h a t they had "heard o f" a given park, and the unaware respondents were those who in d ic a te d e i t h e r t h a t they had not "heard o f" th e park or t h a t they were "not s u r e ." Including the "not sure" respondents in th e unaware group was considered a s a f e r procedure than including them in th e aware group. Of c o u rse, th e aware group as thus defined included both i n d i ­ v id u als who had v i s i t e d a given park and in d iv id u a ls who had n o t. C ontingency-table analyses were conducted to compare those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f aware and unaware groups t h a t were measured on a nominal s c a l e ; t - t e s t s were conducted to compare those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 88 t h a t were measured on an in te rv a l o r r a t i o s c a le . The r e s u l t s o f c o n tin g en cy -tab le analyses are presented in Table 15. The r e s u l t s o f t - t e s t s a re presented in Table 16. Natural Areas There were both s i m i l a r i t i e s and d iffe re n c e s in the r e s u l t s f o r th e two natural a re a s . With regard to s i m i l a r i t i e s , the unaware groups f o r both n a tu ra l a r e a s , compared to th e aware groups, contained s i g n i f i c a n t l y more Blacks, were s i g n i f i c a n t l y younger, and had le s s r e s i d e n t ia l te n u re . With regard to d i f f e r e n c e s , unaware respondents p a r tic ip a te d in s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer resource-based a c t i v i t i e s than aware respondents in th e case o f S c o tt Woods but not in th e case of Fenner Arboretum. Also, in d iv id u a ls r e s id in g with c h il d r e n , respond­ e n ts with lower educational a tta in m e n t, and b l u e - c o ll a r workers were overrepresented in th e unaware group in th e case o f Fenner Arboretum but not in th e case o f S c o tt Woods. Education may have been r e l a te d to awareness o f Fenner Arboretum but not to an awareness of S co tt Woods because the former had an educational o r i e n t a t i o n , with i t s natu re c e n te r and i n t e r p r e t i v e programs, whereas th e l a t t e r had no such f a c i l i t i e s o r programs. Community Parks The r e s u l t s f o r the two community parks were s im ila r in t h a t stu d en ts were overrepresented among th e unaware groups f o r both parks. However, the d if fe r e n c e s in th e r e s u l t s fo r th e two parks were more pervasive. Blacks were overrepresented among those unaware o f Gier Park but not among those unaware o f Washington Park; in d iv id u a ls Table 15.—Park awareness by nominal-level variables. Variable All Subjects N=201 Fenner Arboretum Unaware Aware Chi- Sig. N=44 N=157 Sq. Scott Woods Unaware Aware Chi- Sig. Sq. N=139 N=62 Gier Park Unaware Aware ChiN=41 N=160 Sq. Sig. GENDER 44% 56 47* 53 100* 100* 100* 74* 21 5 100* 91% 8 1 100* 70* 28 2 100* 81* 14 5 100* 41% 59 100* 32% 68 100* 30* 70 100* 41% 59 100* 33* 25 17 14 9 2 36% 17 14 23 5 5 30* 24 12 10 18 6 35% 22 17 18 5 3 100% 100* 100% 100% 45* 55 51* 49 100* 100* 43% 46 11 100* 90% 8 2 100* 39* 61 100* 52* 48 100* 35% 65 100% White c o lla r Blue c o lla r Homemaker Retired Student Unemployed 34* 23 16 16 8 3 22% 35 15 6 22 0 37* 19 16 20 4 4 Totals 100% 100* 100% Male Female Totals 47* 53 46% 54 47* 53 100* 100* 79* 17 4 100* 0.00 .949 0.56 .455 0.15 .695 4.96 .084 1.59 .207 10.21 .069 RACE/ETHNICITY White Black Hispanic Totals 46.05 .000* 7.29 .026* CHILDREN UNDER 15 Yes No Totals 4.28 .039* 1.60 .205 OCCUPATION 27.69 .000* 5.55 .353 Table 15.—Continued. Variable All Subjects N=201 Washington Park Unaware Aware Chi- Sig. N=50 N=151 Sq. Tecumseh Park Unaware Aware ChiN=119 N=82 Sq. Sig. Attwood Park Unaware Aware Chi N=147 N=54 Sq. Sig. GENDER Male 47% 53 47% 53 46% 54 48% 52 43% 57 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 79% 17 4 81% 14 5 77% 20 3 79% 16 5 79% 20 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 35% 65 43% 57 32% 68 57% 43 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 34% 18 12 18 16 2 34% 24 17 16 5 4 34% 22 16 16 9 3 35% 23 15 17 6 4 31% 23 16 17 8 5 43% 20 15 14 8 0 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 44% 56 51% 49 100% 100% 79% 20 1 79% 16 5 100% 100% 100% 39% 61 26% 74 43% 57 100% 100% White c o lla r Blue c o lla r Homemaker Retired Student Unemployed 34% 23 16 16 8 3 Totals 100% Female Totals 0.02 .893 0.79 .374 0.39 .533 1.61 .446 10.43 .001* 4.67 .457 RACE/ETHNICITY White Black Hispanic Totals 1.32 .517 1.42 .492 CHILDREN UNDER 15 Yes No Totals 4.28 .039* 1.40 .237 OCCUPATION 8.49 .131 0.91 .969 91 Table 16.—Park awareness by interval and ratio-level variables. T Value 2-Tailed Probability 45.4 -5.43 .000* 10.9 28.9 -6.79 .000* 12.8 11.6 13.1 -3.64 .000* No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.2 2.7 -1.25 .213 No. general activities 2.3 2.4 2.3 0.59 .558 No. athletic activities 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.78 .077 Total no. activities 5.9 6.0 5.9 0.13 .894 N«201 N=139 N=61 Age 42.3 40.4 46.7 -2.28 .024* Yrs. of residence in area 24.9 21.8 31.9 -3.46 .001* Yrs. of education 12.8 12.6 13.2 -1.30 .194 No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.4 3.0 -1.94 .054* No. general activities 2.3 2.4 2.1 0.98 .327 No. athletic activities 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.25 .806 Total no. activities 5.9 5.8 6.1 -0.49 .624 N°201 N»41 N-159 Age 42.3 38.7 43.3 -1.42 .156 Yrs. of residence in area 24.9 19.8 26.2 -1.90 .059 Yrs. of education 12.8 12.1 13.0 -1.79 .075 No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.4 2.6 -0.78 .438 No. general activities 2.3 2.1 2.4 -0.97 .331 No. athletic activities 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.75 .451 Total no. activities 5.9 5.6 6.0 -0.57 .571 Variable All Subjects Unaware Subjects Aware Subjects N=201 Nf44 Ha156 Age 42.3 31.6 Yrs. of residence in area 24.9 Yrs. of education FENNER ARBORETUM SCOTT WOODS GIER PARK 92 Table 16.—Continued. Value c-iaitea Probability 43.0 -0.89 .374 20.4 26.4 -1.92 .057 12.8 12.9 12.8 0.23 .820 No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.5 2.6 -0.50 .620 No. general activities 2.3 2.2 2.3 -0.63 .532 No. athletic activities 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.71 .476 Total no. activities 5.9 5.7 5.9 -0.30 .767 N=201 N-119 N«81 Age 42.3 42.3 42.3 0.01 .991 Yrs. of residence In area 24.9 23.8 26.5 -0.95 .343 Yrs. of education 12.8 12.5 13.2 -1.85 .065 No. resource-based ac tiv itie s 2.6 2.4 2.8 -1.47 .142 No. general activities 2.3 2.1 2.6 -1.82 .070 No. athletic activities 1.0 0.9 1.1 -0.95 .343 Total no. activities 5.9 5.5 6.5 -1.77 .079 N-201 N°147 Ng53 Age 42.3 43.3 39.8 1.19 .235 Yrs. of residence 1n area 24.9 24.6 25.8 -0.38 .706 Yrs. of education 12.8 12.5 13.5 -2.71 .008* No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.5 2.9 -1.25 .212 No. general activities 2.3 2.2 2.7 -1.99 .048* No. athletic activities 1.0 0.9 1.2 -1.35 .178 Total no. activities 5.9 5.6 6.8 -1.84 .067 Variable All Subjects Unaware Subjects Aware Subjects N=201 N*50 N-150 Age 42.3 40.3 Yrs. of residence In area 24.9 Yrs. of education WASHINGTON PARK TECUMSEH PARK ATTWOOD PARK 93 without c h ild re n in the household were overrep resen ted among those unaware o f Washington Park but not among those unaware o f G ier Park. Neighborhood Parks Several r e l a ti o n s h i p s emerged in the case o f Attwood Park t h a t did not in th e case o f Tecumseh Park. Those unaware o f Attwood Park, compared to those who were aware o f t h i s p a rk , tended t o be people who did not r e s id e with c h ild r e n , who were l e s s educated, and who p a r t i c i p a te d in fewer general re c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . Summary Table 17 summarizes th e r e s u l t s presented in t h i s s e c tio n by recording which v a ria b le s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a te d to awareness o f the vario u s parks. Table 17 h ig h lig h ts th e f a c t t h a t w ithin each p a ir o f park types th e r e were both s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f ­ fere n ce s in r e s u l t s . R a c e /e th n ic ity , age, and length o f residency were r e l a te d to awareness in th e case o f both n atu ral a r e a s , but education and occupation were r e l a te d to awareness o f Fenner Arboretum o n ly , and p a r t i c i p a ti o n in resource-based a c t i v i t i e s was r e l a te d to awareness o f S c o tt Woods only. V ir tu a lly no socioeconomic or r e c r e a t i o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a ria b le s were r e l a te d t o awareness o f e i t h e r community park. Presence o f c h ild r e n , y e ars o f e d u catio n , and p a r­ t i c i p a t i o n in general a c t i v i t i e s were r e l a te d to awareness o f Attwood Park but not to awareness o f Tecumseh Park. These d if f e r e n c e s w ithin the p a ir s o f park types suggested t h a t each park possesses a degree o f uniqueness. This in tu rn made i t d i f f i c u l t to g e n e ra liz e about which v a ria b le s were r e l a te d to Table 17.—S t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip s between park awareness and personal c h a ra c te ris tic s . Fenner Arboretum S cott Woods R a ce /e th n ic ity X X Children under 15 X Occupation X Age X X Yrs. o f residence in area X X Yrs. o f education X V ariable Gier Park Washington Park Tecumseh Park Attwood Park Gender No. resource-based a c tiv itie s No. general a c t i v i t i e s No. a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s Total no. a c t i v i t i e s X X X X X 95 awareness of s p e c if ic ty pes o f parks. e v e r, a re apparent in Table 17: Two general p a t t e r n s , how­ (1) gender, th e number of a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s p a rt i c i p a te d i n , and th e t o t a l number o f r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i ­ t i e s p a r tic ip a te d in were not r e l a te d to awareness o f any of th e parks stu d ie d ; and (2) most socioeconomic v a ria b le s were im portant c o r r e l a t e s o f park awareness in th e case o f th e two n a tu ra l a re as but not in the case o f the community o r neighborhood parks. The uniqueness o f each park, which i s apparent from t h i s a n a ly s is , suggests the value o f id e n tify in g r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park-awareness le v e ls and park c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as a crea g e , years of o p e ra tio n , degree o f development, v i s i b i l i t y from passing t r a f f i c , and number and type o f f a c i l i t i e s provided. The c o r r e l a t e s o f park-system awareness were s im ila r to the c o r r e l a t e s o f only one o f th e parks stu died in t h i s s e c tio n : Woods. S co tt The group c o n s is tin g o f those with high awareness o f th e park system and th e group c o n s is tin g o f th ose aware o f S co tt Woods both included lower pro p o rtio n s o f Blacks and tended t o be o l d e r , to have liv e d in th e Lansing area lo n g e r, and to have p a r t i c i p a te d in more resource-based a c t i v i t i e s compared to o th e r respondents. This sug­ gested t h a t th ose who had heard o f S c o tt Woods should have been aware o f more o f th e o th e r 18 parks on th e parks l i s t than those who had not heard o f S c o tt Woods. indeed th e case. Subsequent a n a ly s is revealed t h a t t h i s was Those aware o f S co tt Woods had heard o f an average o f 12.8 o th er p ark s, whereas those unaware o f t h i s park had heard o f an average of 10.1 o th e r parks. The d if f e r e n c e between th e se means was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ( t- v a lu e = 5.29; p < .001). 96 C o rrelates o f Knowledge o f Individual Parks The s ix study parks a re th e s u b je c t o f th e analyses rep o rted in t h i s s e c tio n . As in th e analyses rep o rte d in th e previous c h a p te r , the a n a ly s is f o r a given park included only those respondents who reported being aware of t h a t park. Respondents aware o f a given park were divided in to low -, medium-, and high-knowledge groups. The groups were formed by d iv id ­ ing each p a r k 's d i s t r i b u t i o n o f knowledge scores in to th re e groups such t h a t th e c u to f f po in ts were as c lo se to the 25th and 75th p e r­ c e n t i l e s as p o s s ib le . The knowledge scores c o n s t it u t in g each group f o r each park a re shown in Table 18. In g e n e r a l, th e high-knowledge group of a given park c o n siste d o f in d iv id u a ls who scored in th e upper 25% o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n , the low-knowledge groups c o n siste d of in d iv id u a ls who scored in the lower 25% o f th e d i s t r i b u t i o n , and the medium-knowledge group c o n siste d o f in d iv id u a ls who scored between th ese extremes. In th e d isc u ssio n below, members o f th e low-knowledge group f o r a given park a re r e f e r r e d to simply as th e "lows," and members o f the high-knowledge group simply as th e "highs." Since th e low -, medium-, and high-knowledge groups o f each park c o n sisted o f in d iv id u a ls who scored in roughly comparable areas of t h e i r re s p e c tiv e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , low knowledge, medium knowledge, and high knowledge had s im ila r meanings f o r each park. Thus i t was p o ssib le to compare r e s u l t s acro ss parks and so determine whether c e r t a i n v a ria b le s were r e l a te d to p e o p le 's r e l a t i v e know !edgeabilities o f c e r t a i n types o f parks. Table 18.—Scores comprising knowledge groups o f each study park. Know!edge Group Medi urn Low Park High Scores P e r c e n tile s Scores P e rc e n tile s Scores P e rc e n tile s 1-3 0-22 4-7 23-76 8-11 77-100 S co tt Woods 1 0-29 2-4 30-72 5-8 73-100 Gier Park 1 0-21 2-4 22-75 5-8 76-100 Frances Park 1-3 0-22 4-5 23-68 6-8 69-100 P o tte r Park 1-6 0-25 7-8 26-89 9-10 90-100 R iv erfro n t Park 1-3 0-33 4-5 34-75 6-10 76-100 Fenner Arboretum 98 The 25th and 75th p e rc e n tile s were chosen as th e c u to ff p oin ts because t h i s i s o l a t e d respondents a t th e extremes o f th e d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n s and thus ensured t h a t th e low- and high-knowledge groups c o n siste d only o f in d iv id u a ls with k n o w led geabilities t h a t d e f i n i t e l y d if f e r e d from th e norm. Moreover, th e high-knowledge group f o r each park as thus defined c o n siste d only o f in d iv id u a ls who had v i s i t e d t h a t park, with th e exception o f a s in g le respondent in th e case o f R iv erfro n t Park. The c om parability o f th e high-knowledge groups was enhanced by t h i s consistency in t h e i r composition. Knowledge scores could a lso have been converted in to z -sco re s to o b tain measures o f r e l a t i v e kn ow led g eab ilities t h a t could have been compared across p arks. T his, however, would have req u ire d an assump­ tio n t h a t the sc a le s had equal i n t e r v a l s . And sin c e some sc a le s lacked a high level o f r e l i a b i l i t y , attem pting to make f i n e d i s t i n c ­ tio n s among p e o p le 's kn ow led g eab ilities through th e use o f z -sco re s was not as a p p ro p ria te as making only crude d i s t i n c t i o n s by grouping scores in to general c a te g o r ie s . This a n a ly s is was conducted in th e same manner as th e one in the previous s e c tio n except t h a t i n t e r v a l - o r r a t i o - l e v e l v a ria b le s were analyzed using one-way a n a ly s is o f v ariance in ste a d o f t - t e s t s J H h e a n a ly s is - o f - v a ria n c e model assumes t h a t group variances a re equal. For each a n a ly s is o f variance conducted, th e Cochran's C s t a t i s t i c was c a lc u la te d to determine i f t h i s assumption had been v io la te d . The r e s u l t s o f th ese t e s t s in d ic a te d t h a t group variances could not be assumed to be equal in 9 o f th e 48 analyses o f variance reported below. These v i o l a t i o n s , however, were considered to have n e g lig ib le e f f e c t s on th e r e s u l t s because th e sample s iz e s o f th e th re e groups, in th e case o f each a n a l y s i s , were approximately symmet­ r i c a l in t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n . According to em pirical t e s t s conducted by Box (1954, p. 301), e i t h e r a uniform o r symmetrical d i s t r i b u t i o n 99 The r e s u l t s o f c o n tin g en c y -tab le analyses a re presented in Table 19. The r e s u l t s o f analyses o f v ariance a re presented in Table 20. In in te r p r e t i n g th e r e s u l t s in t h i s s e c t i o n , i t i s useful to keep in mind th e d i f f e r i n g p a tte r n s o f park v i s i t a t i o n displayed by th e lows and th e highs (Table 2 1 ). The m ajo rity o f the lows f o r each park were in d iv id u a ls who e i t h e r never v i s i t e d the park o r l a s t v i s i t e d i t more than a y ear before being interview ed. The m ajo rity of the highs f o r each park, on the o th e r hand, were in d iv id u a ls who l a s t v i s i t e d i t w ith in th e one-year period before being interview ed. Thus th e lows were la r g e ly n o n v is ito r s and nonrecent v i s i t o r s , whereas th e highs were la r g e ly r e c e n t v i s i t o r s . Fenner Arboretum Compared to th e h ig h s, th e lows were more l i k e l y to be male, Black, r e t i r e d , to be s t u d e n ts , and to not r e s id e with c h ild r e n . The highs, on the o th e r hand, were more l i k e l y than th e lows to be fem ale, White, below average in age, above average in th e number o f reso u rcebased o r general a c t i v i t i e s p a r tic ip a te d i n , to r e s id e with c h ild r e n , and to work in a w h ite - c o lla r occupation. o f group s iz e s la r g e ly a m elio rates th e e f f e c t s o f unequal group v a ria n c e s. A formula Box (1954, p. 301) provided was used to e s t i ­ mate th e bias introduced by unequal variances in th e case o f P o tte r Park (which has th e l e a s t symmetrical group s iz e s ) f o r th e le n g th o f-resid e n cy v a ria b le (which has the most unequal group v a ria n c e s ). The r e s u l t s , even f o r t h i s worst p o ssib le c a s e , confirmed t h a t very l i t t l e bias was introduced by unequal group v a ria n c e s. Table 19.—Park knowledge by nominal-level v a ria b le s. Scott Woods Fenner Arboretum Variable Low Medium High All N=157 N=35 N=84 N=38 Chi- Sig. Sq. All Low Medium High N=62 N=18 N=26 N=17 ChiSq. Sig. Gier Park All Low Medium High N=160 N=33 N=86 N=40 ChiSq. Sig. 6.35 .042* 8.07 .089 18.42 .000* 19.91 .030* GENDER Male 47* 59* 44* 41* 4.07 .131 47* 35* 45* 63* 53 65 55 37 (48) 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 94* 94* 91* (82*) 100* (86*) 81* 97* 78* 76* 24 4 4 8 (18) 0 ( 9) 14 3 15 20 2 2 2 1 ( 0) 0 ( 5) 5 0 7 4 100* 100* 100* 59 100* 100* 100* White 90* 74* Black 8 Hispanic 2 Totals (52*) 37 56 .229 63* (68) 41 2.95 (32*) 49 53 Female 51* RACE/ETHNICITY 13.74 .008* .132 100* 100* 100* 100* 41* 33* 31* 69* 59 67 69 31 100* 100* 100* 100* (29*) 35* 40* 33* 35* 19 (19) 22 10 20 37 ( 9) 13 (19) 17 15 19 14 23 (27) 31 ( 5) 18 28 21 4 5 ( 9) 0 ( 9) 5 0 6 8 5 ( 0) 0 (19) 3 7 1 2 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* Yes 35* 24* 31* 52* 32* (18*) 34* (43*) No 65 76 69 48 68 (82) 66 (57) 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* 100* White collar 37* 21* 42* 41* 36* (41*) 37* Blue collar 19 22 18 20 18 (14) Homemaker 16 14 17 17 13 Retired 20 31 18 11 Student 4 12 1 2 Unemployed 4 0 4 9 100* 100* 100* Totals 7.08 CHILDREN UNDER 15 Totals 7.32 .026* 2.60 .273 OCCUPATION Totals 100* 18.69 .044* 100* • • • • • • 100* 100* Table 19.—Continued. Potter Park Frances Park Variable Low Medium High All N=190 N=42 N=87 N=61 ChiSq. Sig. All N=201 Low Medium High N=51 N=128 N=22 ChiSq. Sig. Riverfront Park All Low Medium High ChiN=199 N=66 N=83 N=49 Sq. Sig. GENDER 57% 53 59 53 43 100% 100% 79% 60% 78% 17 19 15 17 4 2 5 5 100% 100% 48% 53 55 53 52 100% 100% 82% 77% 85% 79% 17 15 18 15 4 3 5 0 100% 100% 45% 39% Female 55 45 55 61 100Z 100% 100% 100% White 79% 78% 83% 72% 79% Black 17 18 10 27 4 4 7 1 100% 100% 100% 100% Yes 40% 27% 36% 54% No 60 73 64 46 100% 100% 100% 100% White collar 33% 33% 36% 27% 34% Blue collar 23 25 21 26 Homemaker 17 10 16 Retired 17 22 Student 7 Unemployed Totals 47% 47% 55% .290 41% 45% 45% 2.48 47% 47% Male 100% 100% 0.07 .963 100% 100% 2.73 .256 1.00 .910 .078 .675 5.87 .826 RACE/ETHNICITY Hispanic Totals 8.65 .070 100% 100% 1.95 .746 100% 100% CHILDREN UNDER 15 Totals 38% 40% 35% 42% 62 60 65 58 100% 100% 27% 36% 40% 23 23 23 24 22 15 16 14 15 12 11 17 24 13 13 8 8 8 8 7 10 5 3 2 11 3 3 4 3 100% 100% 100% 100% 39% 13% 45% 63% 61 87 55 37 100% 100% 29% 37% 26% 34% 23 20 24 22 22 16 11 17 21 8 16 29 4 5 13 8 3 6 1 4 3 100% 100% 100% 100% 8.41 .015* 100% 100% 21.70 .000* 100% 100% OCCUPATION Totals 15.10 .128 100% 100% 14.42 .155 100% 100% 102 Table 20. —Park knowledge by Interval and ratio-level variables. Variable FENNER ARBORETUM All Aware Subjects Mean Value For... MediumLowKnowledge Knowledge Group Group HlghKnowledge Group F Ratio Sig. N=157 N«35 N=84 N°38 Age 45.4 48.5 47.0 39.1 3.05 .050* Yrs. of residence in area 28.9 30.9 30.1 24.4 1.47 .234 Yrs. of education 13.1 12.6 13.3 13.4 1.16 .315 No. resource-based activities 2.7 2.0 2.5 3.7 6.82 . 001* No. general activities 2.3 1.7 2.2 3.0 5.62 .004* No. athletic activities 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.84 .162 Total no. activities 5.9 4.5 5.5 7.8 6.94 . 001* N-62 Nb18 N*26 Ng17 Age 46.7 (52.1) 51.7 (33.8) 6.60 .003* Yrs. of residence in area 31.9 (36.1) 34.9 (22.8 ) 2.93 .061 Yrs. of education 13.2 (12.9) 13.2 (13.3) 0.12 .883 No. resource-based activities 3.0 ( 2 . 2) 2.7 ( 4.4) 6.46 .003* No. general activities 2.1 ( l.B ) 1.6 ( 3.3) 10.91 .000* No. athletic activities 1.0 ( 0.9) 0.7 ( 1.4) 1.82 .171 Total no. activities 6.1 ( 5.0) 4.9 ( 9 .D 9.58 .000* N-160 N*33 Nc86 N°40 Age 43.3 51.3 44.7 33.6 9.98 .000* Yrs. of residence in area 26.2 30.4 27.6 20.0 3.09 .048* Yrs. of education 13.0 13.5 12.9 12.6 1.11 .332 No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.9 0.58 .559 No. general activities 2.4 2.3 2.1 3.1 5.45 .005* No. athletic activities 1.0 0.6 0.8 1.5 6.37 . 002* Total no. activities 6.0 5.3 5.5 7.5 4.05 .019* SCOTT WOODS GIER PARK 103 Table 20.-- Continued. Variable All Aware Subjects Mean Value F o r... MedlumLowKnowledge Knowledge Group Group H1ghKnowledge Group F Ratio Sig. N=190 N-42 N«87 Ml Age 43.1 46.5 45.5 37.4 4.50 .012* Yrs. of residence In area 25.9 25.3 28.8 22.1 2.20 .114 Yrs. of education 12.7 12.8 12.5 13.0 0.55 .579 No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.8 0.90 .407 No. general activities 2.3 2.0 2.1 2.7 3.33 .038* No. athletic activities 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 3.50 .032* Total no. activities 5.8 4.9 5.5 6.8 2.95 .055* FRANCES PARK N-201 ML N-128 N=22 Age 42.3 51.7 39.5 37.0 9.85 . 000* Yrs. of residence 1n area 24.9 30.8 23.7 18.3 4.00 . 020* Yrs. of education 12.8 12.7 12.8 13.0 0.10 .902 No. resource-based activities 2.6 1.9 2 .8 3.2 4.80 .009* No. general activities 2.3 1.7 2.5 2.8 4.81 .009* No. athletic activities 1.0 0.8 1.1 0.7 2.24 .109 Total no. activities 5.9 4.3 6.4 6.8 5.13 .007* N*199 Mi N«83 JM9 Age 42.3 45.7 40.3 41.2 1.74 .177 Yrs. of residence In area 24.9 27.9 23.8 22.8 1.24 .291 Yrs. of education 12.8 12.1 13.0 13.5 4.98 .008* No. resource-based activities 2.6 2.3 2.7 3.0 1.96 .143 No. general activities 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.9 3.37 .036* No. athletic activities 1 .0 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.59 .558 Total no. activities 5.9 5.3 5.8 7.1 2.65 .073 POTTER PARK RIVERFRONT PARK 104 Table 21.—Visitation characteristics of the low-, medium-, and high-knowledge groups of each study park. Park Visitation Status Fenner Arboretum Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals Scott Woods Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals G1er Park Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals Frances Park Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals Potter Park Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals All Aware Subjects Medium High N°84 N-38 19 37 31 N-33 40% 15 33 12 9% 25 38 28 0% 9 39 52 100% 100% 100% 100% N*60 N°17 N«17 N«155 13% 43% 15 16 26 (91*) ( 9) ( 0) ( 0) N«26 39% 29 22 10 100% 100% 100% 100% N-1S8 N=31 76% 8 13 3 100% N*86 21% 12 38 N=40 N-189 9% 10 29 52 100% N*42 N«86 2% 9 37 52 100% 100% N-201 N»51 8% 24 N-127 Ne22 31 37 100% 32 61 100% N-66 39% 0 N«83 16 45 18 74 N°49 2% 0 5 93 100% 100% 100% 27% 9 31 33 100% 2% 11 30 57 100% N-199 Riverfront Park Never visited Visited over 5 yrs. ago Visited within last 5 yrs. Visited within last year Totals Knowledge Group Low 17% 0 14 69 100% 37% 20 25 18 100% 29 100% 0% 7 8% 0 ( 0%) ( 0) (24) (76) 0% 4 31 65 100% N«61 0% 4 20 76 0% 4 18 78 100% 105 S c o tt Woods As observed with Fenner Arboretum, th e lows were more l i k e l y than th e highs to be Black, r e t i r e d , and to not re s id e with c h ild r e n ; and th e highs were below average in age and above average in p a r t i c i ­ pation in resource-based and general a c t i v i t i e s . But several d i f f e r ­ ences in th e r e s u l t s f o r th e two n atu ral areas a ls o emerged. The Fenner Arboretum lows tended to be male, whereas th e S c o tt Woods lows tended to be female. The Fenner Arboretum highs tended to be White and to work in w h ite - c o lla r occup atio ns, whereas no such tendencies e x is te d among the S c o tt Woods highs. The Fenner Arboretum lows were more l i k e l y to be stu d e n ts than th e Fenner Arboretum h ig h s, whereas no such r e l a ti o n s h i p e x is te d in the case o f S c o tt Woods. Gier Park As observed in th e case o f both n atu ral a r e a s , the highs were more l i k e l y than the lows to be below average in age, to be above average in th e number o f general a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , and to re s id e with c h ild re n . But whereas those with high knowledge o f the natu ral areas tended to p a r t i c i p a t e in r e l a t i v e l y more resource-based a c t i v i t i e s , th e Gier Park highs tended to p a r t i c i p a t e in more a t h l e t i c a c tiv itie s. This probably r e f l e c t e d th e f a c t t h a t Gier Park was a highly developed area providing a t h l e t i c f a c i l i t i e s , whereas th e natural areas were la r g e ly undeveloped a reas providing a e s t h e ti c am enities. The highs contained higher r e p re s e n ta tio n s of b lu e - c o lla r workers (37%) and males (63%) than were observed with any o f the 106 o th e r p arks. The l a t t e r fin d in g was probably another r e f l e c t i o n o f th e p a rk 's a t h l e t i c o r i e n t a t i o n . Another d i s t i n c t i o n between the two natu ral a reas and Gier Park i s t h a t in the case of Fenner Arboretum and S co tt Woods th e lows were more l i k e l y to be Black than th e h ig h s, whereas in th e case o f Gier Park th e highs were more l i k e l y to be Black than the lows. Frances Park As observed w ith Gier Park, th e highs were more l i k e l y than th e lows to be Black, below average in a g e, above average in the number o f general and a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s p a rt i c i p a te d i n , and to re s id e with c h ild re n . The s i m i l a r i t y between th e two parks did n o t, however, e x i s t with re s p e c t to gender; th e Gier Park highs tended to be male, whereas th e Frances Park highs tended to be female. P o tte r Park As with both n a tu ra l a r e a s , the highs were more l i k e l y than the lows to be below average in age, above average in th e number of general and resource-based a c t i v i t i e s they p a r t i c i p a te d i n , and to r e s id e with c h ild re n . Most o f th e resource-based a c t i v i t i e s involved some type o f a p p re c ia tio n o f the n a tu ra l w orld, which may explain why in d iv id u a ls who were f a m i li a r with th e natural a re a s o r with the park t h a t had a zoo were more l i k e l y to have p a rt i c i p a te d in a v a rie ty o f th ese a c t i v i t i e s . R iv erfro nt Park The highs were s im ila r to th e lows except they were r e l a t i v e l y b e t t e r educated and p a r t i c i p a te d in more general a c t i v i t i e s . 107 Suronar.y Table 22 summarizes th e r e s u l t s presented in t h i s s e c tio n by recording which v a ria b le s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a te d to knowledge o f the various parks. According to Table 22, th e v a ria b le s t h a t were im portant c o r r e l a t e s of knowledge in the case o f most parks were: number of general a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , t o t a l number o f a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , presence of c h ild r e n , and age. In gen­ e r a l , the lows fo r most parks tended to be above average in age, below average in number of r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , and to not r e s id e with c h ild r e n . The highs f o r most p a rk s , in d i r e c t c o n tr a s t , tended to be below average in age, above average in number o f r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , and to r e s id e with c h ild re n . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e s e groups were what one would have expected, sin ce the lows were mostly n o n v is ito rs or nonrecent v i s i t o r s to th e various p a rk s, whereas th e highs were mostly re c e n t v i s i t o r s . The lows, who were o ld e r in d iv id u a ls , were l e s s l i k e l y to be a c tiv e in outdoor r e c r e a tio n o r to be re c e n t park u s e r s , and hence they were le s s l i k e l y to be knowledgeable about parks. The h ig h s, on th e o th e r hand, were younger in d iv id u a ls , who were more a p t t o be a c t iv e in o u t­ door re c r e a tio n and to be re c e n t park u s e r s , and thus they were more l i k e l y to be knowledgeable about parks. The presence o f c h ild re n was p o s i t iv e l y r e l a te d to knowledge in th e case o f Fenner Arboretum, Frances Park, Gier Park, and P o tte r Park, perhaps because each o f th ese parks provides f a c i l i t i e s with appeal to c h ild re n : Fenner Arboretum provides a natu re c e n te r with e x h ib its f o r c h ild r e n ; Frances Park provides e x te n siv e play equipment; Table 2 2 .—S t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip s between park knowledge and personal c h a ra c te ris tic s . Variable Fenner Arboretum S cott Woods Gender Gier Park Frances Park P o tte r Park X R a ce /e th n ic ity X Children under 15 X Occupation X • • • X Age X X X X Yrs. o f residence in area X X X X X X Yrs. o f education X No. resource-based a c tiv itie s X X No. general a c t i v i t i e s X X No. a t h l e t i c a c t i v i t i e s Total no. a c t i v i t i e s R iv erfro n t Park X X X X X X X X X X X X 109 Gier Park o f f e r s b a ll f i e l d s f o r l i t t l e - l e a g u e com p etitio n; and P o tte r Park provides a zoo and a t r a i n r i d e . The weak r e l a ti o n s h i p in the case o f S c o tt Woods and th e absence o f a r e l a ti o n s h i p in th e case o f R iv erfro nt Park may have r e f l e c t e d the lack o f a t t r a c t i o n s f o r c h ild re n a t th e s e p a rk s, including t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y lim ite d pro­ v isio n o f play equipment. Thus th e r e s u l t s o f th e park-know!edge a n a ly s is seemed to r e f l e c t park c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as did th e r e s u l t s o f the park-awareness a n a l y s i s . This suggests t h a t r e la tio n s h ip s between park c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and park knowledge, as well as park awareness, a re worthy o f study. There were both s i m i l a r i t i e s and d if f e r e n c e s in th e r e s u l t s t h a t emerged from th e a n a ly s is o f park-system knowledge and th e analy­ ses o f knowledge o f in div id u al parks. Those with high knowledge of th e park system tended to p a r t i c i p a t e in more general a c t i v i t i e s and to r e s id e with c h il d r e n , as did those with high knowledge o f most of th e individual study parks. On th e o th e r hand, th ose with high knowl­ edge o f th e park system tended to be b e t t e r educated, to p a r t i c i p a t e in more resource-based a c t i v i t i e s , and to be w h ite - c o lla r w orkers, whereas th e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were not p re se n t with th e highs o f most study parks. Moreover, age was found to be n e g a tiv e ly r e l a te d to knowledge in th e case o f f iv e o f the s ix study p a rk s, whereas no such r e l a ti o n s h i p emerged in th e case o f park-system knowledge. To some e x te n t, th ese d if fe r e n c e s in r e s u l t s may have been due to the f a c t t h a t only in d iv id u a ls aware o f a given park were stu d ied in the in d ividual park-know!edge a n a l y s i s , whereas th e e n t i r e sample was included in th e a n a ly s is o f park-system knowledge. CHAPTER VI RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK FAMILIARITY AND DISTANCES FROM RESIDENCES TO PARKS This ch ap ter d isc u sse s th e e x te n t to which respondents who were f a m ilia r with a given park tended to l i v e c lo s e r to i t than respondents who were u n fa m ilia r with i t . The ch ap ter begins with a d isc u ssio n o f r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park awareness and d is ta n c e . This i s followed by a d isc u ssio n o f r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park knowl­ edge and d is ta n c e . In each a n a l y s i s , th e same procedures followed in the previous c h ap ter were used to c l a s s i f y respondents as being "unaware" o r "aware" or as having "low," "medium," o r "high" knowledge o f a given park. R elatio n sh ip s between awareness o f a given park and d ista n c e were i d e n t i f i e d both by comparing aware respondents and unaware respondents in terms o f th e mean d is ta n c e from t h e i r homes to th e park and by c a lc u la tin g th e awareness le v e ls o f respondents l iv i n g in each o f several H -m ile d is ta n c e bands centered on the park. The awareness lev el a sso c ia te d with each o f th e se d is ta n c e bands was estim ated as th e prop ortion o f th e respondents re s id in g in th e band t h a t had "heard of" th e park. 110 Ill Park Awareness and Distance The various curves presented in Figure 7 demonstrate t h a t awareness o f most parks f lu c tu a te d over spaced The o v e ra ll aware­ ness level o f a park (Table A l), sin c e i t was c a lc u la te d from th e sample as a whole, represen ted a cityw ide average t h a t may not have a c c u ra te ly r e f l e c t e d i t s awareness lev el among r e s id e n ts o f a given neighborhood. S c o tt Woods, f o r example, had an o v e ra ll awareness lev el o f 31%, but i t s awareness level among respondents r e s id in g w ithin 14 m iles o f th e park was 60%, and i t s awareness lev el among respondents re s id in g between 4£ and 6 m iles o f th e park was only 13%. The l a t t e r awareness lev el seems p a r t i c u l a r l y low sin ce S c o tt Woods i s supposed to be a park t h a t serves a cityw ide c l i e n t e l e . The awareness curves f o r some parks ( e . g . , Munn, Cavanaugh, Attwood) declined acro ss d ista n c e bands, whereas th e awareness curves f o r o th e r parks ( e . g . , F e r r i s , P o t t e r , Moores, R iv erfro n t) remained r e l a t i v e l y horizontal acro ss d ista n c e bands. To determine how aware­ ness le v e ls varied over space in g e n e ra l, awareness le v e ls fo r a given d ista n c e band were averaged acro ss a l l 18 parks. This was done f o r each of th e fo u r d is ta n c e bands a l l parks had in common. The r e s u l t s , displayed g ra p h ic a lly in Figure 8 , revealed t h a t awareness l e v e l s , on the average, declined from 75% among respondents r e s id in g w ithin th e ^om e o f th e curves in Figure 7 do not include estim ates o f awareness le v e ls f o r c e r t a i n o f th e more remote d ista n c e bands due to i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers o f respondents r e s id in g in th ese p o rtio n s o f the c i t y . The t o t a l sample s iz e upon which each curve i s based i s reported next to th e park name id e n tify in g a given curve. The r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to Grand Woods (which i s o u tsid e th e c i t y l i m i t s ) a re not shown in Figure 7 due to i n s u f f i c i e n t numbers o f respondents r e s id in g w ithin the le a st-re m o te d ista n c e band surrounding t h i s park. 112 RIVERFRONT (N=201) 100 90 80 as « “ ■s o UJ ce 70 50 BANCROFT (N=194) 50 \ HUNTER ' (N=199) 40 TECUMSEH (N«188) 30 ATTWOOD (N=183) 20 10 ' -t- 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 RECTANGULAR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE IN MILES POTTER (N=185) 100 ' FRANCES (N*185) 30FENNER (N*182) 70z LU WASHINGTON (N-198) 60- U. O UJ ce 50- 3 UJ 40- £ 30- to 20- SC0TT WOODS (N=190) 10- 0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 RECTANGULAR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE IN MILES Figure 7: Park awareness levels by distance band. 7.5 9.0 113 10090 - MOORES (N=201) PERCENTAGE AWARE OF A GIVEN PARK 8070COMSTOCK (N-199) 6050- KINGSLEY (N=194) 40- SU­ ED10- 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 RECTANGULAR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE IN MILES 100- 90- PERCENTAGE AWARE OF A GIVEN PARK 807060- 40CAVANAUGH (=201) 20- JDAVIS (N=150) 10- 0 3.0 1.5 4.5 6.0 RECTANGULAR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE IN MILES Figure 7 .--Continued. 7.5 9.0 114 100 - - AVERAGE AWARENESS LEVEL 90-- SO­ SO40 30 20 0 - 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 RECTANGULAR DISTANCE FROM RESIDENCE IN MILES Figure 8 . —Average park-awareness le v e ls by d is ta n c e band. 115 f i r s t l^ -m ile d is ta n c e bands to 55% among respondents r e s id in g w ith in th e 4£- to 6-m ile d is ta n c e bands. T - te s t s revealed t h a t , on the av erage, unaware respondents tended to l i v e f a r t h e r from a given park in th e case o f 9 o f th e 19 parks (Table 23). The awareness l e v e ls o f th e s e nine parks declin ed more r e g u la r ly and markedly across d is ta n c e bands than th e awareness le v e ls o f th e o th e r ten parks (Figure 7 ) . Using th e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme described in Chapter V, i t was apparent t h a t th ese nine parks included a n a tu ra l a rea (S c o tt Woods), a major cityw ide park (F ra n ce s), a community park (Washington), and neighborhood parks (Attwood, B ancroft, Cavanaugh, Davis, Munn, p and Tecumseh). Thus d ista n c e was r e l a te d to awareness o f several d i f f e r e n t types o f parks. But d ista n c e was n o t r e l a t e d to awareness of a l l o f the parks o f a given ty p e. No r e l a ti o n s h i p s between aware­ ness and d is ta n c e emerged in the case o f a n a tu ra l area (Fenner Arboretum), c e r t a i n major cityw ide parks ( P o tte r and R iv e r f r o n t) , c e r t a i n community parks (G ier, Grand Woods, Hunter, Kingsley Place Community C enter, and Moores), and c e r t a i n neighborhood parks (Comstock and F e r r i s ) . Thus i t cannot be sa id t h a t awareness was r e l a te d to d ista n c e f o r a l l members o f a c e r t a i n c la s s o f p a rk s. It can only be concluded t h a t d is ta n c e , l i k e personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , was r e l a te d to park awareness in th e case o f some but not a l l parks o f a given typ e. 2 Some cau tio n i s r e q u i s i t e in i n te r p r e t i n g th e r e s u l t s f o r Frances Park sin ce th e r e were only te n respondents in th e unaware group (Table 23). Table 23.—Park awareness by distance from respondent's residence. Park Attwood Bancroft Cavanaugh Comstock Davi s Fenner F erri s Frances Gier Grand Moods Hunter Kingsley Place Moores Munn P o tte r R iverfro nt S c o tt Moods Tecumseh Washington All parks Mean Distance For • No. Subjects Unaware Aware All Subjects N=201 147 67 111 76 142 44 123 10 41 116 64 116 25 166 0 2 139 119 50 53 133 89 124 58 156 77 190 159 84 136 84 175 34 201 198 61 81 150 4 .2 4.4 3.3 3.6 4.2 3.9 3.3 3.5 4.5 6.1 3.5 3.2 2.9 4.5 3.5 3.3 3.5 4.5 3.0 3.8 • • Unaware Subjects Aware Subjects 4.5 5.2 3.6 3.7 4 .5 4.3 3.4 (5.0) 4.7 5.9 3.7 3.1 3.2 4.7 3.2 4.0 2.9 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.2 3.5 4.5 6.4 3.4 3.4 2.9 3.4 • • (4.0) 3.7 4.7 3.4 • • 3.3 2.9 4.1 2.8 T Value 2-T ailed P ro b a b ility 4.02 3.28 2.72 0.55 2.51 1.70 0.73 3.52 0.49 -1.56 1.13 -1.18 1.24 3.66 .000* .001* .007* .583 .013* .090 .464 .001* .626 .121 .259 .241 .218 .000* • • 0.54 3.32 2.01 2.57 • • .591 .001* .046* .011* 117 The ten parks f o r which awareness was not r e l a te d to d ista n c e were e i t h e r parks t h a t were above average in y e ars o f o peration (Comstock, F e r r i s , Grand Woods, Hunter, Moores, and P o tte r) and/or had been pub licized to some e x te n t by th e lo cal press o r by the Lansing Parks and Recreation Department (Fenner Arboretum, G ie r, 3 Kingsley Place Community C enter, P o t t e r , and R iv e rf r o n t) . This sug­ g e sts t h a t a p a rk 's age and whether i t has been pub licized a f f e c t i t s awareness le v e ls over space, but firm conclusions cannot be drawn without c o lla b o ra tin g evidence from s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s . Since awareness o f some parks s i g n i f i c a n t l y declined with in creasin g d ista n c e from respo ndents' homes, the d i f f e r i n g personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f those who were aware and those who were unaware o f some o f th ese parks ( e . g . , Attwood and S co tt Woods) may r e f l e c t the d i f f e r i n g socioeconomic compositions o f th e neighborhoods immediately surrounding th ese parks compared to more o u tly in g neighborhoods. Thus in th e case o f some parks stu d ied in Chapter V, d ista n c e may have been an in tervening v a r ia b le in r e la tio n s h ip s between park awareness and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Park Knowledge and Distance Park knowledge was found to be r e la te d to d is ta n c e in the case of only one o f th e s ix study parks: S c o tt Woods (Table 24). Those with low knowledge o f S c o tt Woods, on th e average, tended to l iv e f a r t h e r from t h i s park than those with medium o r high knowledge. 3 The number o f years t h a t each park had been in operation i s recorded in Table 1. Table 24.—Park knowledge by distance from respondent's residence. Mean Distance F o r . . . Fenner Arboretum S c o tt Woods Gier Park Frances Park P o tte r Park R iv erfro nt Park All Aware Subjects LowKnowledge Group MediumKnowledge Group HighKnowledge Group N=157 N=35 N=84 N=38 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.3 N=62 N=18 N=26 N=17 2.9 (3.7) 2.5 (2.9) N=160 N=33 N=86 N=40 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.3 N=190 N=42 N=87 N=61 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.2 N=201 N=51 N=128 N=22 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.2 N=199 N=66 N=83 N=49 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.2 F Ratio Sig. 1.75 .178 3.32 .043* 0.43 .653 1.84 .162 0.66 .516 1.27 .282 119 Some caution i s req u ire d in i n te r p r e t i n g th ese r e s u l t s , however, since they a re based on small sample s i z e s . A previous a n a ly s is had d isc lo s e d t h a t park knowledge was r e l a te d to park v i s i t a t i o n (Table 9 ). Based on th ese f i n d in g s , i t was hypothesized t h a t th e nonexistence o f r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park knowledge and d is ta n c e in th e case o f most parks could be explained by th e nonexistence o f r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park v i s i t a t i o n and d is ta n c e in th e case o f th e s e same p arks. I t was a ls o hypothesized t h a t th e r e l a ti o n s h i p between knowledge o f S c o tt Woods and d is ta n c e could be explained by th e e x is te n c e o f r e l a ti o n s h i p s between v i s i t a ­ tio n to S c o tt Woods and d is ta n c e . To t e s t th e se hypotheses, analyses o f v i s i t a t i o n by d ista n c e were conducted on th e same aware respondents included in th e analyses o f knowledge by d is ta n c e . The r e s u l t s were mixed. Whether an aware respondent had ever v i s i t e d a given park was not r e l a te d to d is ta n c e in th e case of most parks f o r which knowledge was found to be u n re la te d to d ista n c e (Table 25). And whether an aware respondent had r e c e n tly v i s i t e d a given park was not r e l a te d to d ista n c e in the case o f a l l parks f o r which knowledge was found to be u n rela te d to d is ta n c e (Table 26). But the expected r e l a ti o n s h i p s between v i s i t a t i o n and d ista n c e in th e case o f S c o tt Woods did not emerge (Tables 25 and 26). Furthermore, an unexpected r e l a ti o n s h i p between v i s i t a t i o n to Gier Park and d ista n c e did emerge. Among aware resp o n d en ts, those who had v i s i t e d Gier Park a c t u a l l y tended to l i v e f a r t h e r from the park than tho se who had not v i s i t e d i t . Yet no corresponding f i n d ­ ings had emerged in th e a n a ly s is of knowledge o f Gier Park by d is ta n c e ; Table 25.—Park v is it a t io n among aware respondents by distance from respondents' residences. Mean Distan ce F o r . . . Number o f . . . Park Aware N onvisitors V is ito rs Aware N onvisitors V is ito rs T Value 2-Tailed P ro b a b ility Fenner Arboretum 22 134 4.3 3.7 1.51 .134 S c o tt Woods 25 36 3.3 2.7 1.57 .121 Gier Park 42 117 3.6 4.8 -3.27 .001* Frances Park 18 172 (3.6) 3.5 0.39 .699 P o tte r Park 4 196 (3.5) 3.5 -0.05 .959 32 165 3.5 3.3 0.63 .528 R iv erfro nt Park Table 26.—Recent v is it o r s ' p ro xim ity to study parks compared to oth er aware respondents. Mean Disti ince F o r . . . Number o f . . . Park Recent V is ito rs Other Aware Subjects Recent V is ito rs Other Aware Subjects T Value 2-T ailed P ro b a b ility Fenner Arboretum 46 107 3.5 3.9 -1.29 .200 S c o tt Woods 15 44 (2.4) 3.1 -1.46 .149 Gier Park 51 106 4.2 4.5 -0.88 .378 Frances Park 98 90 3.3 3.6 -1.09 .275 P o tte r Park 113 86 3.5 3.4 0.49 .625 R iv erfro n t Park 137 60 3.3 3.4 -0.10 .924 aRecent v i s i t o r s were th ose who had v i s i t e d a given park w ithin th e l a s t y e a r. 122 those with medium and /or high knowledge o f Gier Park did not tend to l i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a r t h e r from t h i s park than those with low knowl­ edge o f i t (Table 24). Based on th ese a n a ly se s, i t can only be concluded t h a t a r e l a ti o n s h i p between park knowledge and d is ta n c e , o r th e lack of such a r e l a t i o n s h i p , does not always correspond with the e x iste n ce or nonexistence o f a r e l a ti o n s h i p between park v i s i t a t i o n and d i s ­ tan ce. A more d e f i n i t i v e understanding of r e la tio n s h ip s among park knowledge, park v i s i t a t i o n , and d ista n c e might have emerged from a two-way a n a ly s is o f v ariance with knowledge and v i s i t a t i o n as f a c to r s and d ista n c e as th e dependent v a ria b le . There were, however, i n s u f ­ f i c i e n t numbers of cases to permit such an a n a ly s is . Summary The awareness le v e ls o f most parks flu c tu a te d over space. Awareness l e v e l s , on th e average, declined from 75% among respondents re s id in g w ithin the f i r s t l i - m i l e d ista n c e bands to 55% among respond­ ents r e s id in g w ithin th e 4£-mile to 6-mile d ista n c e bands. Unaware respondents, on th e average, tended to l i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a r t h e r from a given park in th e case o f 9 o f th e 19 parks s tu d ie d . nine parks represented several d i f f e r e n t park ty p e s. These But d ista n c e was not r e l a te d to awareness in th e case o f a l l parks o f a given type. Distance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a te d to park knowledge only in the case o f S c o tt Woods. CHAPTER V II RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PARK KNOWLEDGE AND PARK-VISITATION PATTERNS In th e d icu ssio n on c o n s tru c t v a l i d i t y in Chapter IV, i t was shown t h a t park v i s i t o r s had higher knowledge l e v e ls than n o n v is ito r s . These fin d in g s a re c o n s is te n t with those o f McDonald (1969, p. 5) and Hammitt (1981) and provide a d d itio n a l evidence to support th e hypothe­ s i s proposed in Chapter I t h a t v i s i t a t i o n in flu e n ce s knowledge. This chapter examines r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park v i s i t a t i o n and park knowledge in somewhat g r e a te r d e t a i l . The f i r s t two se c tio n s o f th e ch ap ter d isc u ss th e r e s u l t s o f t e s t s t h a t were conducted to determine whether knowledge declined with th e amount o f time t h a t had elapsed sin ce an individual l a s t v i s i t e d a park and whether knowledge increased as frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n in c re a se d . The c h ap ter concludes by in co rp o ra tin g several o f th e fin d in g s discussed in t h i s and o th e r chapters in to a simple model o f park-inform ation flow. The R e lationship Between Park Knowledge and Recency o f V is ita tio n I t was hypothesized t h a t knowledge le v e ls had declined with th e amount o f time t h a t had elapsed sin c e a resp o n d en t's l a s t v i s i t . Thus i t was expected t h a t in d iv id u a ls who had l a s t v i s i t e d a park long ago would d isp la y lower knowledge le v e ls than in d iv id u a ls who 123 124 had re c e n tly v i s i t e d th e park. To t e s t t h i s h y p o th esis, in d iv id u a ls who had v i s i t e d a given study park were sin g led o ut and divided in to two groups: those who had v i s i t e d th e park w ithin th e 12-month period before the in te rv ie w and those who had l a s t v i s i t e d th e park more than 12 months before th e in te rv ie w . th e se two groups were then compared. The knowledge l e v e ls o f Knowledge le v e ls were defined using the same procedure followed in Chapter V, except th e frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n o f knowledge scores f o r v i s i t o r s to a given park ( r a t h e r than a l l aware respondents) was divided in to th re e groups, r e p re s e n t­ ing low, medium, and high le v e ls o f knowledge. The r e s u l t s , shown in Table 27, supported th e h y p o th esis. In th e case o f each park, nonrecent v i s i t o r s d isplayed higher p roportions in the low-knowledge c a t e g o r i e s , whereas re c e n t v i s i t o r s displayed higher p roportions in the high-knowledge c a te g o r y .1 Memory lapse i s c e r t a i n l y a p o ssib le explanation f o r these re su lts. Also, remarks made by respondents during interv iew s revealed t h a t some o f them c o r r e c t l y r e c o lle c te d th e presence o r absence o f c e r t a i n fe a tu re s or f a c i l i t i e s but responded " d o n 't know" because th e leng th o f time t h a t had elapsed since t h e i r l a s t v i s i t made them u n c ertain t h a t th e park was th e same as i t had been on t h i s l a s t v i s i t . H h e "over a y e ar ago" category o f v i s i t o r s adm itted ly combined a very broad range o f responses to th e q uestion on recency o f v i s i t a ­ t i o n . However, when th e se v i s i t o r s were more p r e c is e ly categ o rized as having v i s i t e d the park e i t h e r w ithin th e l a s t f i v e years o r more than f iv e years ago, s im ila r r e s u l t s emerged and th e null hypothesis was again r e je c te d in th e case o f each park. Combining respondents in to a broad "over a y ear ago" category provided s u f f i c i e n t numbers o f respondents so t h a t meaningful percentages could be re p o rte d . 125 Table 27.—Park knowledge by recency o f v is it a t io n . Park Fenner Arboretum S c o tt Woods Gier Park Frances Park P o tte r Park R iv erfro n t Park Knowledge Level All V is ito rs Last Time V isited Within Last Year Over a Year Ago Low Medium High T otals N=134 15% 57 28 100% N=47 9% 49 42 100% N=87 18% 61 21 100% Low Medium High T otals N=35 26% 45 29 100% N=16 ( 5%) (47 ) (48 ) 100% N=19 (43%) (44 ) Low Medi urn High T otals N=116 27% 55 18 100% N=52 13% 57 30 100% N=64 38% 54 8 100% Low Medium High T otals N=172 15% 49 36 100% N=99 7% 46 47 100% N=73 26% 54 20 100% Low Medium High T o tals N=196 24% 65 11 100% N=114 17% 68 15 100% N=82 34% 60 6 100% Low Medium High T otals N=166 24% 46 30 100% N=138 22% 45 33 100% N=28 38% 53 9 100% P V ChiSquare Sig. 7.47 .024* 8.34 .015* 15.30 .001* 18.12 .000* 10.05 .007* 7.82 .020* 100% 126 The R elatio n sh ip Between Park Knowledge and Frequency o f V is ita tio n Respondents who had v i s i t e d a park w ith in th e 12-month period before being interview ed were asked to e stim ate th e number o f times they had v i s i t e d th e park during t h i s period. I t was hypothesized t h a t freq u e n t v i s i t s caused knowledge to in cre ase and t h a t , as a r e s u l t , the f r e q u e n c y - o f - v is ita tio n d a ta would be highly c o rr e la te d with knowledge sc o re s . To t e s t t h i s h y p o th esis, th e (uncategorized) knowledge scores o f in d iv id u a ls who had v i s i t e d a given park w ithin th e 12 months before being interview ed were c o r r e la te d with th ese i n d iv id u a ls ' e stim ate s o f the number o f times they had v i s i t e d th e park during t h i s p e rio d . K en dall's tau was se le c te d as an a p p ro p ria te c o r r e l a t io n c o ef­ f i c i e n t because th e knowledge sc a le s were o rdin al sc a le s and because ran k-order c o r r e l a t io n c o e f f i c i e n t s can d e te c t n o n lin e ar r e l a t i o n ­ s h ip s . I t was a n ti c i p a te d t h a t knowledge may in c re a se with a few i n i t i a l v i s i t s but then lev el o f f with continued v i s i t s . The r e s u l t s (Table 28) did not support th e h y p o th esis. Knowl­ edge scores were only weakly c o r r e la te d with th e number o f v i s i t s , and in th e case o f th e n a tu ra l a r e a s , th e r e l a ti o n s h i p was not even p o s i­ t i v e in d i r e c t i o n . A p o ss ib le explanation f o r th e s e r e s u l t s i s t h a t some freq u e n t v i s i t o r s may have had r e l a t i v e l y low knowledge i f they c o n s i s t e n t l y v i s i t e d th e same p a r t o f the park. I t i s a ls o p o ssib le t h a t th e data on frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n were inadequate to e f f e c t i v e l y t e s t th e in flu e n ce o f repeated v i s i t s on th e development o f park knowledge. Since frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n was measured only f o r the Table 28.—Rank-order c o r r e la tio n s between park knowledge and frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n in the l a s t y e a r. K endall's ta u a N o f cases*5 Fenner Arboretum Scott Woods Gier Park Frances Park P o tte r Park -.1 4 (-.0 6 ) .24 .39 .14 .25 54 96 117 132 49 15 R iv erfront Park The t e s t s o f s ig n ific a n c e f o r K endall's tau rep orted by SPSS a re meaningful only when th e re a re no t i e s o r r e l a t i v e l y few t i e s (B lalock, 1979, p. 438). Since a la r g e number o f t i e s were involved in th ese a n a ly se s, s ig n ific a n c e le v e ls a re not rep orted above. ^The number o f cases reported f o r th ese analyses d i f f e r s from t h a t rep o rted in Table 27 because weighting in SPSS's nonparametric c o r r e la tio n procedures i s accomplished through reproduc­ ing cases r a t h e r than m ultiplying cases by weighting f a c t o r s . 128 one-year period before a given respon dent’s in te rv ie w , i t i s p o ssib le t h a t in freq u e n t v i s i t o r s during t h i s period could have had high knowledge le v e ls because they were freq u e n t v i s i t o r s during th e pre­ vious y e ar o r s e r i e s o f y e ars and/or because they had been v i s i t i n g the park over th e course o f a r e l a t i v e l y long period o f tim e. A b e tt e r measure o f repeated v i s i t s would have been the number of v i s i t s made in th e l a s t f i v e y e a r s , but obviously i t would have been d i f f i c u l t f o r respondents to have a c c u ra te ly re c a lle d t h e i r behavior t h i s f a r in to th e p a s t. Many respondents had d i f f i c u l t y estim atin g the number o f v i s i t s they made during a one-year p e rio d . S t i l l another problem with th e s e data i s t h a t they imply equal amounts o f time were spent during each v i s i t . Yet a person who had made two v i s i t s o f six hours each would l i k e l y have had more opportunity to le a rn about the p a rk 's co n ten ts than someone who had made two v i s i t s o f 20 minutes each. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a ly s is were considered in co n c lu siv e . A Model o f Park-Inform ation Flow Figure 9 p o rtra y s a hypothetical model o f what may be termed "park-inform ation flo w ." This model i l l u s t r a t e s th e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s of park awareness, park knowledge, and park v i s i t a t i o n . The follow ­ ing r e la tio n s h ip s and processes a re suggested in Figure 9. An i n d i ­ vidual can become aware o f th e e x iste n c e o f a park in a v a rie ty o f ways. Once aware o f th e park, th e individual can develop knowledge of i t s lo c a tio n and a m e n ities. This might occur immediately upon becoming aware o f th e park, as th e r e s u l t o f inform ation-seeking a c t i v i t i e s , o r through haphazardly o b tain in g inform ation about the 129 Interp erson al Communication feedback loop Mass Media Awareness o f Park Passed By Group A f f i l i a t i o n v Knowledge o f Park V is ita tio n to Park •memory lap se •u n c e rta in ty t h a t park i s th e same Figure 9 . —A model of park-inform ation flow. 130 park. Once an in dividual le a rn s o f th e lo c a tio n o f th e park and perhaps something o f what i s a v a ila b le t h e r e , v i s i t a t i o n can occur. Once th e park i s v i s i t e d , knowledge i s increased as th e in d ividual observes the co n ten ts o f th e park. This increased knowledge may influ ence subsequent v i s i t s , which in tu rn may f u r t h e r in cre ase knowledge. Once v i s i t a t i o n c e a s e s , however, knowledge may d e c lin e as a r e s u l t of memory lap se and l e s s c e r t a i n t y t h a t th e park s t i l l e x is ts and/or co ntains th e same am enities i t did when i t was l a s t v i s i t e d . An inform ation flow i s implied in t h i s model. Information about a park, o r ig in a tin g from various so u rc es, flows through formal and informal channels to an in d iv id u a l, who thereby becomes f a m i li a r with th e park. I f the park i s v i s i t e d , th e park i t s e l f becomes a source of info rm ation , which f u r t h e r f a m i li a r iz e s th e in div id ual with i t s lo c a tio n and am e n ities. F in a lly , the i n d i v i d u a l 's accumulated inform ation about th e park flows from his o r her consciousness as time elap ses sin ce the i n d i v i d u a l 's l a s t v i s i t to the park. The model o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e c h o ic e, portrayed in Figure 1, re p re s e n ts th e m u ltitu d e o f f a c t o r s t h a t h y p o th e tic a lly u n d e rlie an i n d iv i d u a l's choice o f a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e from among a s e t o f a v a i l ­ able s i t e s . In c o n t r a s t , th e model in Figure 9 re p re s e n ts th e process by which one o f th e se f a c t o r s —f a m i l i a r i t y —in cre ases and dim inishes with re s p e c t to only one o f many a l t e r n a t i v e s i t e s . The same process o f inform ation flow can , h y p o th e tic a lly , be sa id to e x i s t f o r any park. A given individual may be a t a d i f f e r ­ ent sta g e in th e process o f inform ation flow f o r each a l t e r n a t i v e site . Thus an ind ividual may be ig norant o f one s i t e , may be f a m i li a r 131 with only th e lo c a tio n o f another s i t e , may have in tim a te knowledge o f y e t ano ther s i t e , e t c . These d i f f e r e n t le v e ls o f f a m i l i a r i t y may then a f f e c t which s i t e th e individ ual v i s i t s . An individ ual may f a i l to c o n sid er a c e r t a i n s i t e due to h is o r her ignorance o f i t , may con sid er only f a m i li a r s i t e s i f he o r she wants t o avoid u n c e r t a i n t y , e t c . The combination of the d i f f e r e n t le v e ls o f f a m i l i a r i t y w ith each a v a i l ­ able s i t e c o n s t i t u t e s th e f a m i l i a r i t y f a c t o r in th e model of r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice portrayed in Figure 1. Support fo r the Model Many o f the r e s u l t s presented in t h i s and o th e r c h a p te rs , as well as some f in d in g s presented by o th e r a u th o r s , provide a degree o f support f o r t h i s model. occu rren ces, a p rocess. However, th e model im plies a sequence of Since th ese r e s u l t s do not t r a c e changes in the same in d iv id u a ls over tim e, they only i n d i r e c t l y support the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s . N e v erth ele ss, th e model provides a p re ­ lim inary framework f o r in te g r a tin g many o f th e fin d in g s in t h i s and o th e r s t u d i e s . The sources o f park awareness shown in Figure 9—in te rp erso n al communication, mass media, o rg a n iz a tio n a l a f f i l i a t i o n , and passing by—were the most f r e q u e n tly c it e d means by which respondents became aware o f the various study parks (Table A6). These various sources a p p aren tly do not always c re a t e knowledge a t th e same time they c re a te awareness sin ce some in d iv id u a ls were found to be aware o f c e r t a i n parks but to have no knowledge o f them (Figure 5 ) . Thus i t seems 132 reasonable to d is tin g u is h awareness and knowledge as two se p a ra te stag es in th e model. Most aware in d iv id u a ls who had never v i s i t e d a park did have some knowledge o f i t (Table 9 ). This knowledge, not s u r p r i s i n g l y , was mostly knowledge t h a t could have been obtained w ithout a c tu a lly v i s i t i n g a p ark , such as knowledge o f lo c a tio n s and o f pub licized f e a tu r e s such as th e n a tu re c e n te r a t Fenner Arboretum (Table 29). I t seems reasonable f o r such knowledge to be considered a necessary stage before v i s i t a t i o n can occur because an unaccompanied individual must a t l e a s t know th e lo c a tio n o f a s i t e before he o r she can v i s i t it. But knowledge can a p p aren tly be not only a necessary ste p in a process leading to v i s i t a t i o n , but a ls o a causal in flu e n ce on v i s i t a ­ t i o n , as th e numerous ex post fa c to s tu d ie s and f i e l d experiments c it e d in Chapter I dem onstrate. Once one or more v i s i t s o c cu r, knowl­ edge in c r e a s e s , as shown by th e f a c t t h a t v i s i t o r s displayed higher le v e ls o f knowledge than n o n v is ito r s (Table 9 ) —hence th e feedback loop portrayed in Figure 9. I t remains to be seen whether the feedback e f f e c t portrayed in Figure 9 occurs every time a v i s i t occurs sin c e th e a n a ly s is o f the r e l a ti o n s h i p between frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n and park knowledge was in co n c lu siv e . The o th e r a n a ly s is discussed in t h i s c h a p te r , how­ e v e r, provides evidence to support th e presence o f th e l a s t stage o f th e process portrayed in Figure 9—th e d e c lin e o f knowledge with th e passage o f time sin c e an i n d i v i d u a l 's l a s t v i s i t to the park. I t is a ls o p o ssib le t h a t , due to memory la p s e , awareness can d e c lin e with Table 29.—Knowledge o f s p e c ific asp ects o f study parks among those who had heard of but never v is ite d them. Scott Hoods Tenner Arboretum item Percentage Answering Correctly N=22 Nature center 63X Location 33 Basketball court(s) (No) 26 Iten Percentage Answering Correctly N=26 Gier Park Percentage Answering Iten Correctly N=42 Frances Park Item Riverfront Park Percentage Answering Correctly N=18 11 Percentage Answering Correctly N=33 Item Picnic tables (Yes) 16X Location 33X Location (32X) Location 88X Picnic tables (Yes) (14) Picnic tables (Yes) 35 16 Play equipment (Yes) 22 Shuffleboard courts (No) Rose garden ( 9) Tennis courts (Yes) 15 10 Basketball court(s) (Yes) 10 Location 10 Shuffleboard courts (Yes) 6 Basketball court(s) (Yes) ( 5) Tennis courts' Play equipment (Yes) 10 Small creek crossed by foot bridges 10 4 Tennis courts (No) ( 0) Picnic tables (Yes) 10 3 Tennis courts (No) 2 Play equipment (Yes) ( 0) Play equipment (Yes) Metal sculpture of an eagle called "The Hindlord" Three lighted ball fields 2 Saltshed Amphitheater 7 0 Shuffleboard courts (Yes) ( 0) Basketball court(s) (Yes) Picnic tables (Yes) 19 Tennis courts (No) 19 Shuffleboard courts (No) 19 Play equip* ment (No) 7 Sugar bush tra il 7 Sunbowl Amphitheater 5 Indian garden 0 Basketball court(s) (No) 5 F1rebell 0 Shuffleboard courts (No) 3 NOTE: Correct answers to fa c ilitie s quiz Items are In parentheses below the Item. Potter Park Is omitted due to sample-slze limitations. 134 time before i t rip en s in to knowledge, but th e r e i s p r e s e n tly no evidence to suggest t h i s . CHAPTER V III CONCLUSIONS This f i n a l ch ap ter summarizes and d isc u sse s th e in v e s tig a ­ t i o n ' s f in d in g s , notes some study l i m i t a t i o n s , and p resen ts sugges­ tio n s f o r f u r t h e r re s e a rc h . The summary o f r e s u l t s i s organized according to the s tu d y 's o b j e c ti v e s , which were l i s t e d in Chapter I . Summary o f R esults Measurement o f Park F a m ilia rity Most respondents had e i t h e r a low o r a moderate lev e l o f o v e ra ll knowledge about most o f th e study parks they were aware o f . The r e l i a b i l i t y o f the knowledge sc a le s o f individual parks was ade­ quate f o r making crude d i s t i n c t i o n s among p e o p le 's k n o w le d g e a b ilitie s, but i t would have been higher had more items been included in them. There was evidence t h a t th ese sc a le s possessed both c o n te n t and con­ stru c t v a lid ity . Knowledge o f individual parks was not found t o be cumulative in n a tu re . On the average, respondents had heard o f 11.2 o f th e 19 parks l i s t e d on th e parks l i s t , and they c o r r e c t l y answered 20.2 o f th e 52 items composing th e l o c a ti o n , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s q u izz es. measures o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge were found to have accep tab le r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . 135 The 136 Park F a m ilia rity and Personal C h a r a c te r is tic s Respondents with high awareness o f th e park system were o l d e r , had liv e d in th e Lansing area lo n g e r, p a r t i c i p a te d in more resource-based a c t i v i t i e s , and included a lower prop ortion o f Blacks compared to tho se w ith low awareness o f th e park system. In d iv id u a ls with high knowledge o f th e park system, compared to those w ith low knowledge, were b e t t e r educated, p a r t i c i p a te d in more resource-based and general a c t i v i t i e s , and were more l i k e l y to be w h ite - c o lla r workers and to r e s id e with c h ild r e n . Most socioeconomic v a ria b le s were im portant c o r r e l a t e s o f park awareness in th e case o f n a tu ra l a re a s but not in the case o f th e com­ munity o r neighborhood parks s tu d ie d . In d iv id u a ls with low knowledge o f most study parks tended to be e i t h e r people who had never v i s i t e d th e park o r people who had v i s i t e d i t long ago, whereas tho se with high knowledge tended to be people who had r e c e n tly v i s i t e d th e park. Respondents with low knowledge o f most parks tended to be above average in age, below average in number o f r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s p a r t i c i p a te d i n , and to not r e s id e with c h ild r e n . Those with high knowledge o f most p a rk s , in c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n , tended to be below average in age, above average in number o f re c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s p a r­ t i c i p a t e d i n , and to r e s id e with c h ild r e n . Park F a m ilia rity and Distance The awareness l e v e ls o f most parks f l u c tu a te d over space. Awareness l e v e l s , on th e av erag e, declin ed from 7525 among respondents r e s id in g w ith in th e f i r s t 1^-mile d is ta n c e bands to 55% among 137 respondents r e s id in g w ith in th e 4£- to 6-m ile d is ta n c e bands. Unaware respon dents, on th e averag e, tended to l i v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y f a r t h e r from a given park in th e case o f 9 o f th e 19 parks s tu d ie d . nine parks rep re se n te d several d i f f e r e n t park ty p e s . These But d ista n c e was not r e l a te d to awareness in th e case o f a l l parks o f a given ty p e. Distance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a te d to park knowledge only in th e case o f S c o tt Woods. Park F a m ilia rity and P a rk -V isita tio n P a tte rn s V is ito rs to parks displayed higher knowledge le v e ls than non­ v i s i t o r s , presumably because they had a c t u a l l y observed th e c o nten ts o f parks. Among those who had v i s i t e d a park, however, tho se who did so long ago had lower knowledge le v e ls than those who did so more r e c e n t l y , perhaps because of memory la p s e . The r e s u l t s o f analyses o f the r e l a ti o n s h i p between frequency o f v i s i t a t i o n and park knowledge were deemed in co n clu siv e. Study L im itatio ns Budgetary c o n s t r a i n ts u su a lly l i m i t the accuracy and a p p l i ­ c a b i l i t y o f resea rch r e s u l t s , and t h i s study i s no e xceptio n. Such c o n s t r a i n ts n e c e s s ita te d t h a t the sample s iz e be lim ite d to 201 respondents. This caused some analyses to be conducted on a small number o f respondents, p a r t i c u l a r l y analyses r e la te d to S c o tt Woods. The percentages rep o rte d in th e l a t t e r analyses may not be very reliab le . The s t a t i s t i c s in d ic a tin g th e e x iste n c e o r nonexistence o f th e o v e ra ll r e l a ti o n s h i p s t e s te d in th e se analyses can be i n t e r ­ preted with more co nfid ence, however. 138 Another d i f f i c u l t y r e l a te d to the sm allness o f the sample s iz e is t h a t i t precluded analyses t h a t could have c o n tro lle d f o r the p o ss ib le in te rv en in g e f f e c t s o f a t h i r d o r fo u rth v a ria b le in certain b iv ariate rela tio n sh ip s. I t i s p o ssib le t h a t some o f th ese b i v a r i a t e re la tio n s h ip s were, in f a c t , a ffe c te d by in te rv en in g v a r i ­ a b le s . D istance, f o r example, may have intervened in r e l a ti o n s h i p s between park awareness and personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as noted in Chapter VI. Future in v e s tig a tio n s with la r g e r sample s iz e s would permit more s o p h is tic a te d analyses to be conducted, which in tu rn would provide deeper i n s i g h ts in to how park f a m i l i a r i t y i s r e l a te d to o th e r v a ria b le s . Budgetary c o n s t r a i n ts a lso n e c e s s ita te d th re e o th e r compro­ mises in the sampling plan : (1) th e population o f the southern por­ tio n o f Lansing was undersampled r e l a t i v e to th e remainder o f the c i t y ; (2) respondents w ith in households were se le c te d according to quotas r a t h e r than a t random; and (3) 12 respondents were interviewed in households not included in th e designated sample. None o f th ese procedures, however, i s believed to have introduced enough e r r o r to c a s t doubt on th e o v e ra ll conclusions drawn above, f o r reasons c ite d in Chapter I I I . I t i s necessary to keep in mind t h a t th e r e s u l t s presented in t h i s study a re a fun ctio n o f th e methods employed to produce them. Somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s may have emerged, f o r example, i f a d i f ­ f e r e n t sample o f parks had been drawn; i f "reso u rce-b ased ," " a t h l e t i c , " and "general" re c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s had been defined d i f f e r e n t l y ; and 139 i f th e low-, medium-, and high-awareness/knowledge groups had been formed using c u to f f p o in ts o th e r than th e 25th and 75th p e r c e n t i l e s . Somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s may a ls o have emerged i f awareness and knowledge had been measured using techniques o th e r than aid ed r e c a ll and d isc rim in a to ry t e s t i n g . Methodological s tu d ie s comparing th e r e s u l t s of various methods o f measuring awareness and knowledge a re needed to determine the e x te n t to which r e s u l t s vary according to the types o f techniques employed. The f a c t t h a t a few people claimed to have "heard of" a f i c t i t i o u s park on th e parks l i s t (Table Al) w arrants some a d d itio n al caution in i n te r p r e t i n g r e s u l t s emerging from the use o f th e a id e d - re c a ll technique. Of a l l the r e s u l t s presented above, those t h a t a re in g r e a t e s t need o f v a lid a tio n from f u tu r e in v e s tig a tio n s concern awareness and knowledge o f the park system. This i s because th ese analyses involve g e n e ra liz a tio n s not only from a sample of people to a population o f people, but a lso from a sample o f parks to a population o f parks. There was reason to b e lie v e t h a t both samples were reasonably r e p r e ­ s e n ta tiv e o f t h e i r re s p e c tiv e p opu lations. N ev erth eless, more rigorous conclusions about the n a tu re o f th e p u b l ic 's f a m i l i a r i t y with park systems could be obtained by querying respondents about t h e i r aware­ ness and knowledge o f each o f th e parks in a given park system. This would probably re q u ire t h a t a c i t y with a sm aller park system than Lansing's be se le c te d f o r study. F in a lly , i t should be noted t h a t th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s study may not be u n iv e r s a lly g e n e ra liz a b le to th e parks o r th e populations o f o th e r c i t i e s . Many o f the r e s u l t s suggest t h a t each park possessed 140 a degree o f uniqueness w ith re s p e c t to the types o f people t h a t were f a m ilia r with i t . This in tu rn suggests t h a t the fin d in g s p e rta in in g to any one park may not be g e n e ra liz a b le to seemingly s im ila r parks in o th e r c i t i e s . D ifferences in th e populations and physical siz e s o f Lansing and o th e r c i t i e s may a ls o i n h i b i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i li t y o f th ese r e s u l t s . C i ti e s with proportionably la r g e r r a c i a l / e t h n i c m in o r i t ie s , f o r example, may contain n a tu ra l a re as with lower aware­ ness le v e ls than those in Lansing. S im ila r ly , l a r g e r c i t i e s with g r e a te r in tra -u rb a n d is ta n c e s may co ntain neighborhood parks with lower awareness le v e ls than those in Lansing. Discussion The model o f r e c r e a t i o n - s i t e choice displayed in Figure 1 hypothesized t h a t personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , d ista n c e s from resid en ces to p a rk s, and p a r k - v i s i t a t i o n p a tte r n s were each r e l a te d to park fa m ilia rity . Based on th e above fin d in g s , i t can be g e n e ra lly con­ cluded t h a t each o f th e s e r e la tio n s h ip s e x is te d . But t h i s statem ent must be q u a lif ie d to account f o r th e f a c t t h a t some, but not a l l , personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were r e l a te d to park f a m i l i a r i t y ; t h a t d i s ­ tances from residences to parks were n e g a tiv e ly r e l a te d to park f a m i l i a r i t y in th e case o f some, but not a l l , park s; and t h a t some, but not a l l , p a tte r n s o f v i s i t a t i o n were con clu siv ely found to be r e la te d to park f a m i l i a r i t y . Thus to a s s e r t t h a t personal c h a r a c te r ­ i s t i c s , d ista n c e s from resid en ces to p a rk s, and p a r k - v i s i t a t i o n p a tte r n s were each r e l a t e d to park f a m i l i a r i t y re q u ire s t h a t one sp e cify which personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which p a rk s, and which p a tte rn s 141 of v i s i t a t i o n one i s r e f e r r in g t o . Moreover, one must a ls o sp e c ify which element o f park f a m i l i a r i t y one i s r e f e r r i n g t o , be i t aware­ ness o f the park system, knowledge o f the park system, awareness o f individual parks, o r knowledge o f individual parks. Thus one general conclusion t h a t can be drawn from t h i s study i s t h a t both th e concept o f park f a m i l i a r i t y and th e n a tu re o f i t s r e la tio n s h ip s with o th e r v a ria b le s a re q u ite complex'. This complexity suggests t h a t f u r t h e r research i s needed to more f u l l y explain what accounts f o r v a r ia tio n s in p e o p le 's f a m i l i a r i t y with d i f f e r e n t types o f parks. Suggestions f o r F urther Research Research i s needed on r e l a ti o n s h i p s between p e o p le 's p r e f e r ­ ences f o r r e c r e a tio n s i t e s and t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with th ese s i t e s . Differences in such p referen ces might ex p lain a g r e a t deal about v a ria tio n s in p e o p le 's f a m i l i a r i t y with re c r e a tio n s i t e s . I t is l i k e l y t h a t p e o p le 's p referen ces f o r re c r e a tio n s i t e s in flu e n ce which s i t e s they v i s i t and thereby become f a m i li a r w ith . And i t i s a ls o l i k e l y t h a t p e o p le 's p referen ces f o r c e r t a i n r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s w ithin re c r e a tio n s i t e s in flu e n ce which f a c i l i t i e s they n o tic e and remember. Many of th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s study suggest t h a t f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c re a tio n s i t e s i s r e l a te d to s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These r e la tio n s h ip s could be i d e n t i f i e d through analyses o f awareness and knowledge le v e ls with re c r e a tio n s i t e s as the u n its o f a n a ly s is and s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as independent v a r i a b le s . A useful " s i t e c h a r­ a c t e r i s t i c " to study in such research would be th e amount o f p u b l ic i ty 142 received by a given s i t e as estim ated from a con ten t a n a ly s is o f the mass media. Longitudinal s tu d ie s a re needed to determine how f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s changes over time in th e case o f both i n d i ­ v id u als and population a g g re g ate s. The models proposed in Figures 1 and 9 each imply dynamic processes t h a t can be f u l l y understood only by in co rp o ra tin g the element o f time in th e re se a rc h d e sig n . One p o s s i b i l i t y f o r a lo n g itu d in a l study would be to draw a sample o f new r e s id e n ts o f a c i t y o r region and t r a c e th e changes occurring over time in t h e i r f a m i l i a r i t y with r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . Within such a study i t would be useful t o i d e n t i f y the major f a c t o r s underlying th e s e changes, and th e periods in which they took p lac e. Research i s a ls o needed on how th e mass media in flu e n ce p e o p le 's f a m i l i a r i t y w ith r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . L i t t l e i s known about the e x te n t to which th e mention o r d isc u ssio n o f parks in th e mass media informs (or i ll - i n f o r m s ) the p ublic about p a rk s. And l i t t l e is known about the e x te n t to which inform ation campaigns using th e mass media have been o r would be e f f e c t i v e in informing people about parks. Several s tu d ie s have demonstrated t h a t w ell-designed media campaigns can e f f e c t i v e l y inform people about a v a r i e ty o f su b je c ts (Douglas e t a l . , 1970; Haefner, 1976; Mendelsohn, 1973; Salcedo e t a l . , 1974), and one study in p a r t i c u l a r (A llen, 1974) found t h a t newspaper and ra d io p u b l ic i ty heightened an urban p o p u la tio n 's awareness o f the f a c t t h a t t h e i r park d i s t r i c t provided r e c r e a tio n programs. But resea rch i s lacking on th e e x te n t to which media campaigns can e f f e c ­ t i v e l y inform people about th e lo c a tio n s and am enities o f s p e c i f i c 143 re c r e a tio n s i t e s . Also lacking i s research on e x a c tly how th e i n f o r ­ mation dissem inated in media campaigns i s used in th e s e le c tio n o f r e c r e a tio n s i t e s . I n v e s tig a tio n s o f which o f a l t e r n a t i v e media are most e f f e c t i v e in informing people about s p e c i f i c a sp ec ts o f r e c r e a ­ tio n s i t e s would a ls o be u s e f u l. The importance o f resea rch on how to e f f e c t i v e l y inform people about re c r e a tio n o p p o r tu n itie s has been recognized in several stu d ies. More than a decade ago, the National Academy o f Sciences (1969) recommended research on "developing an e f f e c t i v e communications system to inform r e c re a tio n u sers o f re c re a tio n se rv ic e s and to pro­ vide feedback from u se rs to th e managers o f th e a c t i v i t i e s " (p. 7 ). In the National Recreation and Park A s s o c ia tio n 's review o f p o lic y r e la te d resea rch on urban r e c r e a t i o n , resea rch leading to the develop­ ment o f methods f o r in c re a sin g the p u b l ic 's awareness o f r e c r e a tio n o p p o rtu n itie s was i d e n t i f i e d as an im portant research to p ic by an advisory committee o f p r o f e s s io n a ls , e d u c a to rs, and re s e a rc h e rs (Verhoven, 1975, p. 1 5 ). S im ila r ly , th e U.S. Department o f the I n t e r i o r 's (1981, p. 18) "National Agenda f o r Recreation Research" c a lle d f o r th e development o f approaches f o r using the media to guide the p u b lic to underused r e c r e a tio n a re a s . E ducators, u n iv e r s ity employees, and c e r t a i n government employees ra te d t h i s and r e l a te d ta s k s among t h e i r f i r s t f i v e p r i o r i t i e s f o r needed re s e a rc h . Future a ttem pts to measure knowledge o f ind ividual parks or park systems using th e methods employed in t h i s study should include as many items in th e se measures as p o ss ib le in order to enhance t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . One p o s s i b i l i t y f o r in cre asin g th e len g th 144 o f sc a le s would be to quiz respondents on t h e i r knowledge o f the p o l ic i e s governing th e use o f individual parks and/or a park system. Hayward, W eitzer, and More (1980a, 1980b), fo r example, te s te d respondents on whether a c e r t a i n park had s p e c i f i c o p e ra tin g hours, p ro h ib ite d a lc o h o lic beverages, had a system f o r re s e rv in g picn ic t a b l e s and te n n is c o u r t s , and provided a c t i v i t i e s f o r which a fe e was charged. F in a lly , th e r e a r e th e two types o f in v e s tig a tio n s mentioned in the s e c tio n on study l i m i t a t i o n s : (1) comparisons o f the r e s u l t s obtained from variou s methods o f measuring awareness and knowledge and (2) s tu d ie s t h a t involve querying people about t h e i r awareness and knowledge of each o f th e parks in a given c i t y ' s park system. Questioning people about each o f the u n i ts in a p a r t i c u l a r park system would perm it comparison o f th e c o r r e l a t e s o f park-system awareness and park-system knowledge because each measure would r e p re s e n t th e same parks. Such a comparison was not p o ss ib le in th e p re se n t study because th e measure o f park-system knowledge rep resen ted l e s s than h a lf o f th e parks included in th e measure o f park-system awareness. C learly a g r e a t deal has y e t to be revealed about th e p u b l i c 's f a m i l i a r i t y with p ark s. This study shed some l i g h t on t h i s phenomenon by id e n tify in g some b a sic r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Future s tu d ie s w ill hopefully b u ild on t h i s foundation and provide deeper in s ig h ts in to th e n a tu re , dynamics, and c o r r e l a t e s o f park f a m i l i a r i t y . APPENDICES APPENDIX A BASIC DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS 146 APPENDIX A BASIC DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS This appendix p resen ts th e basic r e s u l t s t h a t emerged from (1) th e parks l i s t ; (2) the f e a t u r e s , l o c a ti o n s , and f a c i l i t i e s q u izz es; and (3) th e qu estion on how people became aware o f th e study parks. These r e s u l t s revealed which types o f parks had th e hig h est awareness and v i s i t a t i o n l e v e l s , which inform ation sources most f r e ­ quently led to the discovery o f th e various study p a rk s, and which park l o c a ti o n s , f e a t u r e s , and f a c i l i t i e s were most widely known among respondents. Awareness o f and V is ita tio n to Parks Awareness o f Parks The awareness le v e ls f o r each o f th e 19 parks l i s t e d on th e parks l i s t a re presented in rank order in Table Al. The awareness l e v e ls ranged from 100% f o r P o tte r Park to only 17% fo r Munn Park. Almost h a lf of th e park names were recognized by under 50% o f the sample. These fin d in g s a re g e n e ra lly c o n s is te n t with those o f s tu d ie s c it e d e a r l i e r , which revealed t h a t some people a re i l l informed about urban parks. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the parks t h a t had th e hig h est awareness l e v e l s —P o t t e r , R iv e rfro n t, Frances, Moores, G ie r, Fenner, Washington, and Hunter—were those t h a t o ffe re d major a t t r a c t i o n s , as in d ic a te d 147 148 Table Al . —Awareness le v e ls o f 19 Lansing parks, in rank o rde r. Percentage o f Sample (N=201) T h a t . . . Rank Park Had Heard of I t Total Had Never Heard o f I t Was Not Sure 100 0 0 100% 1 P o tte r Park 2 R iv erfro n t Park 99 1 0 100% 3 Frances Park 95 4 1 100% 4 Moores Park 87 10 3 100% 5 Gier Park 79 16 5 100% 6 Fenner Arboretum 78 20 2 100% 7 Washington Park 75 21 4 100% 8 Hunter Park 68 27 5 100% 9 Bancroft Park 66 27 7 100% 10 Comstock Park 62 34 4 100% 11 Cavanaugh Park 45 46 9 100% 12 Grand Woods 42 52 6 100% 13 Kingsley Place Community Center 42 53 5 100% 14 Tecumseh Park 40 53 7 100% 15 F e r r is Park 39 53 8 100% 16 S c o tt Woods 31 60 9 100% 17 Davis Park 29 67 4 100% 18 Attwood Park 26 65 9 100% 19 Munn Park 17 76 7 100% 20 Hickory Park (fic titio u s) 5 89 6 100% 149 in Table 1. a ttra c tio n s. The parks w ith lower awareness le v e ls did not o f f e r such Stynes (1982) s i m il a r ly found t h a t th e Ingham County parks with th e hig h est awareness le v e ls were th ose t h a t provided f a c i l i t i e s f o r swimming, a very popular re c r e a tio n a c t i v i t y . Bancroft Park had th e h ig h e st awareness lev el among parks t h a t did not o f f e r major a t t r a c t i o n s , perhaps because i t was one o f th e o ld e s t in th e park system. heard o f S c o tt Woods. Less than a t h i r d o f th e sample had Davis, Attwood, and Munn Parks—lo c a te d in th e r e l a t i v e l y newer, r e s i d e n t i a l south sid e o f th e c i t y —had the lowest awareness le v e ls o f th e 19 parks. In th e case o f each p ark , l e s s than 10% o f th e sample i n d i ­ cated they were "not su re" about whether they recognized th e park name. Five percen t o f th e sample in d ic a te d they had heard o f th e f i c t i t i o u s park on th e l i s t ("Hickory P ark"). This suggests t h a t the awareness le v e ls f o r some parks on th e l i s t may have been somewhat exaggerated. But sin c e underestim ation o f park awareness was a ls o p o s s ib le , due to people being aware o f th e e x is te n c e o f a park on the l i s t but not recognizing i t s name, th ese e r r o r s may have to some e x te n t cancelled each o th e r o u t . 1 Nine o f th e 11 in d iv id u a ls who in d ic ate d t h a t they had heard o f "Hickory Park" were male. Consequently th e 11 in d iv id u a ls who in d ic a te d t h a t they had heard o f Hickory Park were not elim in ated from th e sample in d e riv in g the estim ated awareness le v e ls rep o rte d in Table Al. Another c on sid­ e r a tio n weighing a g a in s t such a procedure was t h a t th e se in d iv id u a ls may have provided q u ite r e l i a b l e inform ation f o r some o f th e parks on th e l i s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y those t h a t received fewer "not sure" responses. 150 V is ita tio n to Parks The percentage o f the sample re p o rtin g they had v i s i t e d a given park i s presented in rank o rd er in Table A2. g e n e ra lly r e f l e c t the r e s u l t s in Table Al: These r e s u l t s Most respondents had v i s i t e d the parks with high awareness le v e ls t h a t o ffe re d major a t t r a c t i o n s , and fewer respondents had v i s i t e d thfe more obscure parks t h a t did not o f f e r such a t t r a c t i o n s . Less than 8% o f th e sample i n d i ­ cated they were "not sure" about whether they had ever v i s i t e d a given park on the l i s t . Only one respondent in d ic ate d he had v i s i t e d the f i c t i t i o u s park. To a degree, th e s i m i l a r i t y o f th e r e s u l t s in Tables Al and A2 was expected, sin ce people obviously cannot v i s i t parks they have never heard o f . Thus v i s i t a t i o n le v e ls must be a sso c ia te d with a t l e a s t e q u iv a le n t awareness l e v e l s . On th e o th e r hand, i t i s p o ss ib le f o r people to be aware o f parks but never to have v i s i t e d them. Table A3 r e p o rts what percentage o f th e respondents aware o f a given park had a lso v i s i t e d i t . In th e case o f fo u r p a rk s, le s s than h a lf o f th e in d iv id u a ls who rep o rte d being aware o f a park had a lso v i s i t e d it. This suggests t h a t lack o f knowledge o f the lo c a tio n s and ameni­ t i e s o f urban p arks, in a d d itio n to lack o f awareness, may i n h i b i t park v i s i t a t i o n . In Chapter IV th e knowledge le v e ls o f people who rep o rted they were aware o f c e r t a i n parks but had never v i s i t e d them a re documented and compared with the knowledge le v e ls o f park v i s i t o r s . 151 Table A 2 .~ V is ita tio n s le v e ls o f 19 Lansing parks, in rank o rd e r. Percentage o f Sample (N=201) T h a t .. . Rank Park Had V isited I t Had Never V isited I t Was Not Sure Total 1 P o tte r Park 98 2 0 100% 2 Frances Park 86 13 1 100% 3 R iv erfro n t Park 82 17 1 100% 4 Moores Park 72 25 3 100% 5 Fenner Arboretum 67 31 2 100% 6 Gier Park 59 39 2 100% 7 Washington Park 54 43 3 100% 8 Bancroft Park 48 45 7 100% 9 Comstock Park 45 53 2 100% 10 Hunter Park 32 62 6 100% 11 Grand Woods 31 65 4 100% 12 F e r ris Park 25 71 4 100% 13 Cavanaugh Park 22 71 7 100% 14 Davis Park 20 77 3 100% 15 Tecumseh Park 18 76 6 100% 16 S c o tt Woods 18 77 5 100% 17 Kingsley Place Community Center 18 81 1 100% 18 Attwood Park 11 85 4 100% 19 Munn Park 9 88 3 100% 20 Hickory Park (fic titio u s) 0 97 3 100% Table A3.—V is ita tio n le v e ls o f 19 Lansing parks among those who had heard o f a given p ark, in rank order. Numhpr Who n iiv ivviiiiu d Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Park P o tte r Park Frances Park Fenner Arboretum Moores Park R iv erfro n t Park Grand Woods Gier Park Bancroft Park Comstock Park Washington Park Davis Park F e rris Park S c o tt Woods Munn Park Cavanaugh Park Hunter Park Tecumseh Park Kingsley Place Community Center Attwood Park Hickory Park (fic titio u s) Had Heard of I t Percentage o f Those Who Had Heard o f th e Park T h a t . .. Total Had V isited I t Had Never V isited I t Was Not Sure 201 190 157 175 199 85 160 133 124 151 58 77 62 35 90 137 82 98 90 86 83 83 74 74 73 73 72 69 65 59 52 50 47 46 2 9 13 14 16 22 25 23 24 26 28 31 37 48 46 46 45 0 1 1 3 1 4 1 4 3 2 3 4 4 0 4 7 9 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 84 44 55 1 100% 54 40 52 8 100% 11 (8) (84) (8) 100% 153 Knowledge o f Park Features The parks l i s t assessed respondents* awareness o f th e e x i s t ­ ence o f a sample o f p a rk s; the f e a tu r e s quiz measured th e respo nden ts' knowledge o f th e co n ten ts o f s e le c te d parks. The r e s u l t s (Table A4) again r e f l e c t to some e x te n t the d i f f e r i n g awareness le v e ls a s s o c ia te d with th e p a rk s, sin c e respondents obviously could not i d e n t i f y th e park containing a given f e a t u r e i f they were not aware o f th e e x i s t 2 ence o f t h a t park. The zoo a t P o t t e r Park was known to 99% o f the sample and was by f a r th e b e st known f e a tu r e on th e l i s t (Table A4). The canoe r e n t a l s and t r a i n rid e a t P o tte r Park were known to almost th r e e - q u a r te r s o f th e sample. Only about o n e -q u a rte r o f the sample c o r r e c t l y a sso c ia te d th e names o f two am phitheaters w ith R iv erfro n t Park and only 14% c o r­ r e c t l y a sso c ia te d th e Windlord sc u lp tu re with t h i s park. These r e s u l t s a re r a t h e r s u r p r is in g sin c e 99% o f th e sample had heard o f R iv erfro n t Park and 82% had v i s i t e d i t . S im ila r ly , although 31% o f th e sample had heard o f S c o tt Woods and 18% had v i s i t e d i t , only 8% a s so c ia te d "a small creek crossed by fo o tb rid g e s" with t h i s park. One might have expected knowledge le v e ls f o r th e s e items to have been equiva­ l e n t to v i s i t a t i o n l e v e l s , assuming t h a t th e sample people who had v i s i t e d a park should a ls o have been ab le to c o r r e c t l y answer the quiz q uestion s p e rta in in g to t h a t park. But t h i s was not th e c a se . One f a c t o r underlying th e se r e s u l t s may have been memory la p se among park v isito rs. 2 According to t h i s h y p o th esis, re c e n t v i s i t o r s should have Table A5 p resen ts r e s u l t s p e rta in in g to knowledge o f park f e a tu r e s among respondents aware o f th e park c o n ta in in g a given f e a tu r e . Table A4.— Knowledge o f selected park fe a tu re s , in rank order. Feature Rank Park Containing Feature Percentage o f Sample (N=201) Whose Response Was... Correct Wrong Total "Don't Know" 1 Zoo P o tte r 99 0 1 100% 2 Canoes t h a t you can r e n t P o tte r 74 5 21 100% 3 Train rid e P o tte r 72 0 28 100% 4 Nature Center Fenner 68 3 29 100% 5 Rose Garden Frances 63 10 27 100% 6 Outdoor swimming pool Moores 57 5 38 100% 7 Outdoor swimming pool Hunter 52 5 43 100% 8 A r t i f i c i a l ic e rin k Washington 39 14 47 100% 9 Sugar bush t r a i l Fenner 33 1 66 100% 10 S a l t Shed Amphitheater R iv erfro nt 25 4 71 100% 11 Sunbowl Amphitheater R iverfront 24 2 74 100% 12 Three lig h te d ball f i e l d s Gier 21 28 51 100% 13 Metal sc u lp tu re o f an eagle c a lle d "The Windlord" R iverfro nt 14 2 84 100% 14 Indian garden Fenner 10 2 88 100% 15 Small creek crossed by fo o t bridges S c o tt Woods 8 13 79 100% 16 F ire bell Fenner 6 1 93 100% Table A5.~Knowledge o f selected park features among those who had heard o f the park containing a given fe a tu re , in rank o rde r. Feature Containing Feature s ™P1e 5 lze Percentage Whose Response W as... C orrect Wrong "Don't Know" 1 Zoo P o tte r 201 99 0 1 2 Nature Center Fenner 157 86 2 12 3 Outdoor swimming pool Hunter 137 76 2 22 4 Canoes t h a t you can r e n t P o tte r 201 74 5 21 5 Train r id e P o tte r 201 72 0 28 6 Rose garden Frances 1.90 66 10 24 7 Outdoor swimming pool Moores 175 65 6 29 8 A r t i f i c i a l ic e rin k Washington 151 52 14 34 9 Sugar Bush t r a i l Fenner 157 42 1 57 S c o tt Woods 62 27 13 60 11 Small creek crossed by fo o t bridges S a lt Shed Amphitheater R iverfro nt 199 26 4 70 12 Three lig h te d ball f i e l d s Gier 160 26 27 47 13 Sunbowl Amphitheater R iverfro nt 199 24 2 74 14 Metal s c u lp tu re o f an eagle c a lle d "The Windlord" R iv erfro nt 199 14 2 84 15 Indian garden Fenner 157 13 1 86 16 F ire bell Fenner 157 8 1 91 10 156 displayed higher knowledge le v e ls than l e s s re c e n t v i s i t o r s . This hypothesis i s t e s te d in Chapter VII. D etailed R esults f o r Study Parks Information Sources Those respondents who s t a te d they had "heard of" a given study park were asked how they f i r s t found out about i t . Since some respond­ ents discovered some parks long ago, th e r e c o lle c tio n s of th e se i n d i ­ v id uals may not have been very a c c u ra te . The r e l i a b i l i t y o f the r e s u l t s i s probably a ffe c te d to some e x te n t by t h i s problem. The o v erall p a tte rn s t h a t emerged from the d a ta , however, were probably a reasonably good approximation o f how people a c t u a l l y discovered the various study parks. Interperso nal communication o f one type o r another was the most fre q u e n tly c it e d i n i t i a l source o f inform ation in the case o f a ll parks except R iv erfro n t (Table A6). Family members were a p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y prominent i n i t i a l source o f inform ation about P o tte r Park, which perhaps r e f l e c t s th e z o o 's appeal to f a m ilie s . Other s tu d ie s have a ls o revealed the prominence o f i n t e r p e r ­ sonal communication as a means o f discovering re c re a tio n s i t e s . Lucas (1970), Lime (1971), and Fisher (1975) each found in te rp erso n al com­ munication to be th e most fre q u e n tly c i t e d i n i t i a l source o f informa­ t io n about campgrounds. The a u th o r 's a n a ly sis o f data c o lle c te d in a survey o f Ingham County, Michigan, park v i s i t o r s (F ritsc h en e t a l . , 1979) revealed in te rp e rso n a l communication to be th e most fre q u e n tly c it e d i n i t i a l source o f inform ation in th e case o f th re e o f the six parks in th e county system. 157 Table A6.~A comparison o f how respondents f i r s t found o u t about each study park. Fenner Arboretum N=155 S co tt Woods N=59 Gier Park N=157 Frances Park N=189 P o tte r Park N=201 R iv erfro n t Park N=199 17% 15% 16% 15% 7% 20 29 14 21 37 6 Co-worker(s); classm ate(s) 4 0 3 2 2 2 Other; "wordof-mouth" Su b to tals 6 14 4 5 4 2 Sources of Information INTERPERSONAL F riend(s) Family member(s) 7% 37% 60% 36% 44% 58% 17% 18% 0% 5% 4% 3% 34% MASS MEDIA Newspaper Radio 0 0 3 0 0 5 T elevision 1 0 0 0 0 5 Unspecified 1 0 0 0 1 6 20% 0% 8% 4% 4% 50% 13% 22% 12% 18% 7% 26% GROUP AFFILIATION3 2% 4% 19% 11% 0% 2% SCHOOL FIELD TRIP/ PICNIC 9% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 12% 4% 11% 6% 8% 1% 7% 10% 14% 17% 19% 4% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% S ub to tals PASSED BY OTHER DON'T KNOW Grand T otals a Involvement with groups such as S couts, Women's Clubs, Jaycees, churches, s o f t b a ll lea g u es, e t c . 158 R iv erfro nt Park was a major exception to th e p a tte r n o f d i s ­ covering parks through in te rp e rso n a l communication. Mass media was th e most fre q u e n tly c i t e d source o f i n i t i a l inform ation about t h i s park. Half o f those aware o f R iv erfro n t Park rep o rte d discovering i t in t h i s manner, which probably r e f l e c t s th e la rg e amount o f p u b l ic i ty given to the f e s t i v a l s and c e le b r a tio n s held a t t h i s park. The news­ paper was app aren tly th e most important type o f mass media in inform­ ing people about R iv erfro n t Park and each o f the o th e r parks. Compared to th e o th er p a rk s, a higher percentage o f respond­ ents discovered Gier Park v ia a f f i l i a t i o n with some o rg a n iz a tio n . This i s la r g e ly because 13% o f th ese respondents became aware o f th e park through involvement with a s o f t b a ll leag ue. Some respondents became aware of Fenner Arboretum o r P o tte r Park through a school f i e l d t r i p o r p ic n ic . These r e s u l t s suggested t h a t th e way people discover a park depends to some e x te n t on i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the types o f a c t i v i t i e s held th e r e . Knowledge o f Park Locations Table A7 re p o r ts th e percentage of in d iv id u a ls aware o f a given park who e i t h e r c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d i t s lo c a tio n on a map (Appendix D) or gave c o r r e c t d riv in g d i r e c t i o n s . Less than h a lf (48%) o f those aware o f S co tt Woods were f a m ilia r with i t s lo c a tio n . Almost two- t h ir d s (63%) o f those who had "heard o f" Gier Park could i d e n t i f y i t s lo c a tio n . G reater f a m i l i a r i t y with lo c a tio n s was evid en t in th e case of Frances Park (76% c o r r e c t) and Fenner Arboretum (79% c o r r e c t ) , and p a r t i c u l a r l y P o tte r and R iv erfro n t Parks (89% c o r r e c t e a c h ). g e n e ra l, few wrong answers were given. In 159 Table A7.—Knowledge o f study-park lo c a tio n s among respondents who had heard o f a given park. Fenner Arboretum N=157 S c o tt Woods N=62 Gier Park N=160 Frances Park N=190 79% 48% 63% 76% 89% 89% 7 15 10 7 9 6 DON'T KNOW 14 37 27 17 2 5 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Response CORRECT WRONG P o tte r Park N=201 R iv erfro n t Park N=199 Table A8.—■Knowledge o f study-park lo c a tio n s among respondents who had v i s i t e d a given park. Response CORRECT Fenner Arboretum N=134 S c o tt Woods N=36 Gier Park N=118 Frances Park N=172 P o tte r Park N=197 86% 75% 74% 81% 89% 90% R iv erfro n t Park N=166 WRONG 7 11 8 7 9 6 DON'T KNOW 7 14 18 12 2 4 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 160 I t i s p o ss ib le t h a t fewer respondents were f a m i li a r with th e l o c a tio n s o f Gier Park and S c o tt Woods because, compared to o th er study p a rk s, sm a ller p ro p o rtio n s o f those who had heard o f th e s e parks had a c t u a l l y v i s i t e d them (Table A3). Levels o f lo c a tio n a l knowledge among j u s t those who had v i s i t e d th ese parks (Table A8) a re c o n sid e r­ ably higher and a re more comparable to th e le v e ls rep o rted f o r o th e r parks in Table A7. The f a m i l i a r i t y o f park v i s i t o r s with lo c a tio n s was g e n e ra lly q u ite high, as one would e x p ec t, but i t i s worthwhile to note t h a t i t was not u n iv e r s a l. This again may have been due to memory l a p s e , or i t may have been due to th e f a c t t h a t some respondents were dependent on th e lo c a tio n a l knowledge o f o th ers when they v i s i t e d parks. Twenty p e rc en t o f the sample lacked th e a b i l i t y to i n t e r p r e t 3 th e map. This i s a s u b s ta n tia l percentage in view of th e f a c t t h a t many c i t i e s , inclu ding Lansing, use maps as t h e i r primary device f o r informing people about th e lo c a tio n s o f parks. Other tec h n iq u e s, such as i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f nearby landmarks, would be useful supple­ ments to maps. Knowledge o f Recreation F a c i l i t i e s In c o n tr a s t to th e g e n e ra lly widespread f a m i l i a r i t y with park l o c a ti o n s , respondents were much l e s s knowledgeable about whether each o f th e parks stu d ied "has" o r " d o e s n 't have" c e r t a i n r e c re a tio n f a c i l i t i e s (Table A9). 3 The p rop ortions o f c o r r e c t responses were Blacks, H isp anics, and in d iv id u a ls with r e l a t i v e l y low edu­ c a tio n a l le v e ls were ov errepresented among those lacking map-reading s k ills . 161 Table A9.~Knowledge o f whether each study park has o r d o e s n 't have se le c te d r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s among respondents who had heard o f a given park. Recreati on F a c ility Fenner Arboretum N=157 Sco tt Woods N=62 Gier Park N=160 Frances Park N-190 TENNIS COURTS (NO) (NO) (NO) (NO) (YES) (YES) 44% 37% 20% 17% 53% 32% 1 3 10 15 16 24 Don't know 55 60 70 68 31 44 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% PLAY EQUIPMENT (NO) (YES) (YES) (YES) (YES) (YES) Correct 22% 23% 45% 75% 92% 36% Wrong 21 15 6 1 1 17 Don't know 57 62 49 24 7 47 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (NO) (NO) (YES) (YES) (NO) (NO) 41% 39% 4% 7% 21% 26% 0 0 17 26 12 4 Don't know 59 61 79 67 67 70 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% PICNIC TABLES (YES) (YES) (YES) (YES) (YES) (YES) 64% 39% 35% 82% 96% 64% 4 5 6 1 1 8 Don't know 32 56 59 17 3 28 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% (NO) (YES) (YES) (YES) (NO) (NO) 43% 11% 32% 27% 19% 33% Correct Wrong SHUFFLEBOARD COURTS C orrect Wrong Correct Wrong BASKETBALL COURT(S) Correct P o tte r Park N=201 R iv erfro n t Park N=199 0 24 7 16 25 6 Don't know 57 65 61 57 56 T otals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 61 100% Wrong NOTE: Correct answers a re in parentheses above each column. 162 g e n e ra lly lower, and th e prop o rtio n s of wrong responses were g e n erally higher. Picnic ta b l e s were the most widely known f a c i l i t i e s a t fiv e of the s ix parks. Respondents were g e n e ra lly ill- in f o rm e d about the presence o r absence o f t e n n i s , sh u ffle b o a rd , and bask etb all c o u rts in each park. R iv erfro n t P a rk 's mass-media exposure may have con­ t r ib u t e d to i t s high awareness l e v e l , but sin ce th ese messages did not mention th e f a c i l i t i e s (or f e a tu r e s ) a v a ila b le a t t h i s p a rk , th ese am enities were g e n e ra lly no more widely known than those o f o th e r p a rk s. The play equipment and p icn ic ta b l e s a t Frances and P o tte r Parks were more widely known than th e play equipment and picn ic ta b le s a t Gier Park, R iv e rfro n t Park, and S c o tt Woods, perhaps because a t th ese parks they were more e x te n siv e ly provided and more obviously lo c a te d . Many o th e r f a c to r s could have accounted f o r v a r i a ti o n s in p e o p le 's knowledge o f r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s , including whether a respondent had ever v i s i t e d th e park and how long ago i t was l a s t v i s i t e d , and whether he o r she was i n te r e s te d in th e type of r e c r e a ­ tio n provided by a given f a c i l i t y . The e x te n t to which park v i s i t a t i o n and r e c r e a tio n p a r t i c i p a t i o n a re r e la te d to o v e ra ll park knowledge is discussed in th e t e x t . Summary The parks t h a t o ffe re d major a t t r a c t i o n s had th e h ig h est awareness and v i s i t a t i o n l e v e l s . The various f e a tu r e s found in the parks v aried widely in t h e i r n o t o r ie ty , ranging from an obscure 163 f i r e b e l l a t Fenner Arboretum to the almost u n iv e rs a lly known zoo a t P o tte r Park. In terp e rso n al communication was th e most fre q u e n tly c it e d i n i t i a l source o f inform ation about a l l study parks except R iv e rfro n t, which was most fre q u e n tly discovered through the mass media. The lo c a tio n s o f G ier Park and e s p e c ia lly S c o tt Woods were more obscure in the minds o f respondents than th e lo c a tio n s o f the o th e r study parks. Most respondents were g e n erally u n c ertain as to which parks contained which re c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s . .APPENDIX B SUGGESTIONS FOR INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 164 APPENDIX B SUGGESTIONS FOR INFORMATION DISSEMINATION Some o f th e r e s u l t s t h a t emerged from t h i s study have impor­ t a n t im p lica tio n s f o r th e dissem ination o f inform ation about parks. This appendix b r i e f l y d isc u sse s th e r o l e o f inform ation dissem ination in r e c re a tio n reso urce management and then suggests a number o f ways in which c e r t a i n r e s u l t s could be used to b e t t e r inform people about urban p a rk s . Inform ation and Recreation Resource Management The importance o f b e t t e r informing people about parks has been in c re a s in g ly recognized in re c e n t y e a r s . To some e x t e n t , t h i s may be due to a d if f u s io n o f marketing concepts to n o n p ro fit o rg a n i­ z a tio n s in general ( e . g . , Herron, 1977; K o tle r, 1975; Maddalena, 1981) and to park and r e c r e a tio n agencies in p a r t i c u l a r ( e . g . , Howard & Crompton, 1980; La Page, 1974). The essence o f marketing concepts i s t h a t o rg a n iz a tio n s can be more successful by meeting p e o p le 's needs. One o f th e s e needs i s f o r in fo rm atio n , which can a id them in d e c isio n making. According to sev eral authors (Clark & Stankey, 1979; Merriam & Knopp, 1976; Worf, 1980), th e b e n e fits o f b e t t e r informing people about r e c r e a tio n o p p o r tu n itie s can p o t e n t i a l l y extend to both r e c r e a ­ t i o n i s t s and r e c r e a t io n reso u rce managers. 165 R e c r e a tio n is ts can 166 p o t e n t i a l l y b e n e f it by being able to make more informed d e cisio n s about which r e c r e a tio n s i t e s w ill provide them with the s p e c i f i c types o f experiences they seek. Managers can p o t e n t i a l l y b e n e f it from informing r e c r e a t i o n i s t s about little -k n o w n re c r e a tio n s i t e s , as several s tu d ie s ( c ite d in Chapter I) have demonstrated t h a t t h i s can d i v e r t use from better-known and more heavily used s i t e s . This d iv ersio n o f use can r e s u l t in reduced crowding a t th e more heavily used s i t e s , fewer c o n f l i c t s among d i f f e r e n t types o f r e c r e a t i o n i s t s v i s i t i n g th ese s i t e s , and l e s s damage to th e physical and b io lo g ic al resources o f th e se s i t e s . (None o f th e se b e n e f its w ill a c c ru e , o f c o u rse, i f a given s i t e o r a small s e t o f s i t e s i s o v e rp u b lic iz e d , sin ce excessive v i s i t a t i o n would r e s u l t . There i s l e s s danger o f such negative e f f e c t s i f people a re informed o f a wide range o f oppor­ tu n itie s .) Suggestions f o r Information Dissemination Several resea rch f in d in g s , viewed t o g e t h e r , in d ic a te t h a t the e f f o r t s o f park and r e c re a tio n agencies to inform people about parks have not been e n t i r e l y su c c e s s fu l. F i r s t , th e fin d in g s o f t h i s and o th e r s tu d ie s ( c ite d in Chapter I) demonstrated t h a t th e public had incomplete knowledge o f parks. Second, nearly o n e -th ird o f the respondents to th e Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey (Robinson, 1979) affirm ed t h a t "lack o f inform ation on outdoor r e c ­ r e a tio n a re as" had prevented them from using such a re as in th e p a st y e a r. And t h i r d , t h i s in v e s tig a tio n found t h a t most respondents discovered most study parks through a v a rie ty o f informal means 167 r a t h e r than through inform ation dissem inated by th e Lansing Depart­ ment o f Parks and Recreation (Table A6). Since c u rre n t and p a s t methods o f inform ation dissem ination have a p p aren tly had lim ite d e f f e c t i v e n e s s , i t would appear t h a t more vigorous and c r e a t i v e e f f o r t s should be made to inform people about parks. Many o f th e fin d in g s o f t h i s study suggest a v a r ie ty o f simple ways to heighten th e p u b l i c 's f a m i l i a r i t y with parks. Perhaps th e e a s i e s t and l e a s t expensive way would be to more widely d i s t r i b u t e the maps o f th e park system t h a t a re t y p i c a l l y p rin te d by park and r e c r e a tio n a g en c ie s, including th e Lansing Department o f Parks and Recreation. The maps o f th e Lansing park system a re ap p aren tly not widely d i s t r i b u t e d . Maps were given to respondents upon completion o f in te rv ie w s; none o f th e 128 in d iv id u a ls interviewed by th e author in d ic ate d e i t h e r t h a t they had seen th e map before o r t h a t they already had a"copy. One way to more thoroughly d isp e rse th e s e maps would be to d i s t r i b u t e them to school c h ild re n in t h e i r c la s s e s and ask them to take them home to t h e i r p a re n ts. S u b stan tia l pro p o rtio n s of those lacking in awareness or knowledge o f parks were found to re s id e with c h ild r e n , d e s p ite th e f a c t t h a t those with higher park f a m il­ i a r i t y were g e n e ra lly more in c lin e d to r e s id e with c h ild re n (Tables 11, 13, 15, and 19). Thus many of the people who might need the informa­ t io n most would be reached. While wider d i s t r i b u t i o n o f maps would be u s e f u l , t h i s kind of inform ation about an e n t i r e park system should be supplemented with inform ation t h a t does no t re q u ir e map-reading s k i l l s , in view o f th e f a c t t h a t about 20% o f those interview ed in t h i s study lacked such 168 sk ills. Maps could be supplemented by w ritte n d e s c r ip tio n s o f the lo c a tio n s o f parks in r e l a t i o n to well-known landmarks. Since Blacks, H ispanics, and those w ith r e l a t i v e l y low educational le v e ls were overrepresen ted among those lacking map-reading s k i l l s , the landmarks described should probably be those t h a t a re l i k e l y t o be known to th e s e kinds o f people. Many respondents discovered c e r t a i n study parks by simply passing by them (Table A6). This informal lea rn in g process could be e x p lo ited by d is p la y in g , near park e n tra n c e s , signs t h a t s u c c in c tly d escrib e th e f a c i l i t i e s provided w ithin them. Symbols rep re se n tin g the various re c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s w ithin a given park c o u ld , fo r example, be displayed below th e usual sign d isp lay in g th e p a r k 's name. I t might be b e n e fic ia l to p u b lic iz e re c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s w ithin parks as well as o u tsid e o f parks. The f a c t t h a t those who had v i s i t e d parks displayed higher knowledge le v e ls than those who had not (Table 9) suggests t h a t a lea rn in g process tak e s place during park v i s i t a t i o n . Yet park v i s i t o r s have apparently not learned a ll th e re i s to le a rn about parks because ignorance o f park f a c i l i t i e s and f e a tu r e s was found even among those who had re c e n tly v i s i t e d th ese s i t e s (Table 27). T his, to some e x te n t, may be due to some am enities being lo cated in the l e s s - v i s i b l e a reas of parks. The landscaping in h ere n t to parks probably c o n tr ib u te s to th e problem. Signs p u b li­ c iz in g the le s s-o b v io u sly lo ca te d f a c i l i t i e s in parks would f a c i l i ­ t a t e th e lea rn in g process t h a t e v id e n tly accompanies park v i s i t a t i o n . In a d d itio n to s ig n s , maps, and w r itte n d e s c r ip tio n s o f park lo c a ti o n s , th e r e a re o f course th e mass media. The media can be used 169 to remind people o f the re c r e a tio n o p p o rtu n itie s a v a ila b le to them and to inform them o f changes t h a t have taken place in parks. These fu n ctio n s seem to be im portant because respondents who had l a s t v i s i t e d parks long ago were found to be l e s s knowledgeable about them than those who had more re c e n tly v i s i t e d them, suggesting t h a t people a re l i k e l y to f o r g e t about th e c ontents o f parks and/or become uncer­ t a i n as to whether th e parks have changed sin c e t h e i r l a s t v i s i t (Table 27). Allen (1974) found t h a t newspaper and ra d io p u b l ic i ty h e ig h t­ ened an urban p o p u la tio n 's awareness o f th e f a c t t h a t t h e i r park d i s t r i c t provided r e c r e a tio n programs. Park managers who a re i n te r e s te d in using the mass media to dissem inate inform ation can gain some helpful in s ig h ts from t h i s study as well as from d e s c r ip ­ t io n s o f some successful information campaigns on o th e r su b je c ts (Douglas e t a l . , 1970; Haefner, 1976; Mendelsohn, 1973; Salcedo e t a l . , 1974). They can a ls o gain several in s ig h ts from t h i s study. The r e s u l t s o f t h i s in v e s tig a tio n suggest t h a t th e design o f an inform ation campaign i d e a lly should ta k e account o f th e d i f f e r i n g awareness and knowledge le v e ls o f th e parks to be p u b lic iz e d . S co tt Woods, f o r example, had a low awareness level (Table A l), and r e l a ­ t i v e l y few of those who were aware o f i t were f a m ilia r with i t s lo c a tio n (Table A7), f e a tu r e s (Table A5), o r f a c i l i t i e s (Table A9). The i n i t i a l emphasis in p u b lic iz in g such a park should probably be on making people aware o f i t s e x iste n ce and f a m ilia r with i t s lo c a tio n . Once t h i s i s accomplished, a tt e n t i o n could be turned to f a m ilia r iz in g people with the p a rk 's f e a tu r e s and f a c i l i t i e s . A tw o-step approach 170 such as t h i s may be more e f f e c t i v e than attem pting to sim ultaneously c r e a t e basic as well as d e ta ile d f a m i l i a r i t y w ith t h i s kind o f p a r k J Cost c o n s id e r a tio n s , moreover, in e v ita b ly l i m i t th e d u ratio n and s iz e o f mass-media messages, which may preclude e f f o r t s to communicate a g re a t deal of inform ation through them. In th e case o f a park l i k e R iv e rfro n t, on the o th e r hand, a d i r e c t approach may be f e a s i b l e . R iv erfro n t Park had a very high awareness level (Table A l), and n e a rly a l l those who were aware o f i t were f a m i li a r with i t s lo c a tio n (Table A7). Knowledge o f the f e a tu r e s (Table A5) and most o f th e f a c i l i t i e s (Table A9) a v a ila b le a t R iv erfro n t Park, however, was low. With such a park th e r e would be e s s e n t i a l l y no need to inform people o f i t s e x is te n c e o r lo c a ti o n ; th e co n ten ts o f the park could be immediately p u b lic iz e d . A few a d d itio n a l comments about th e use o f th e mass media a re in o rd e r. F i r s t , i t i s sometimes a s s e r te d t h a t , to be e f f e c t i v e , an inform ation campaign should be ta rg e te d a t some s p e c i f i c subgroup o f a p opulation. In c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s t h i s approach may be j u s t i f i a b l e and b e n e fic ia l (Mendelsohn, 1973), but e f f e c t i v e inform ation cam­ paigns have, n e v e r th e le s s , been conducted t h a t were not ta rg e te d a t any p a r t i c u l a r subgroup (A llen, 1974; Douglas e t a l . , 1970; Salcedo e t a l . , 1974). Second, managers should be e s p e c ia lly c a re fu l not to over­ p u b lic iz e n a tu ra l a r e a s . Often th o se who v i s i t n a tu ra l a re a s a re seeking a degree o f s o l i t u d e , which would obviously be im possible in ^This, in f a c t , would be an i n t e r e s t i n g hypothesis f o r re s e a rc h e rs to t e s t . 171 th e presence o f la rg e numbers o f people a t t r a c t e d to such a re as as th e r e s u l t of a massive inform ation campaign. Some n a tu ra l a r e a s , including those stu d ied in t h i s i n v e s ti g a t i o n , probably could be pu b lic ize d somewhat to s e le c te d audiences w ithout causing th e "social carry in g c a p a c itie s " o f th e se a reas to be exceeded, but l a r g e - s c a le inform ation campaigns would l i k e l y r e s u l t in v i s i t a t i o n l e v e ls t h a t would preclude the very experiences th e s e a re as a re supposed to pro­ vide. Thus in th e case o f n a tu ra l a r e a s , i t might be b e s t to seek a balance between a highly informed p ublic and a t o t a l l y ig n o ran t p u b lic . APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE 172 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE D ep t, o f P a rk & R e c r e a tio n R e so u rce s M ich ig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty 131 N a tu r a l R e so u rc e s B u ild in g E a s t L a n s in g , Ml 48824 I ___________ __ _________________ (Do Not W rite i n Above S pace) URBAN PARK FAMILIARITY SURVEY I n te r v ie w e r ______________________________________ __ D ate o f I n te r v ie w __________________________________ R e s p o n d e n t's S t r e e t A d d re s s ________________________________ Z ip _____________ S tra tu m Number C ard Number CALL RECORD C a ll Number 1 2 3 Time (AM o r PM) D ate Day o f Week R e s u lts In te rv ie w e r' s In itia ls ( ( ) No one 15 o r o l d e r a t home a f t e r 3 c a l l - b a c k s ) No such a d d re s s ( ) V acant CODER 174 I F PERSON ANSWERING IS UNDER 1 5 , ASK FOR SOMEONE 15 OR OLDER H i. My name i s (NAME OF INTERVIEWER). I 'm r e p r e s e n t i n g M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty . W e're c o n d u c tin g a s u rv e y t o f i n d o u t how much p e o p le know a b o u t and u s e p a rk s i n t h e a r e a . We r e c e n t l y m a ile d you t h i s l e t t e r (SHOW LETTER) t o l e t you know t h a t t h i s a d d r e s s was random ly s e l e c t e d f o r o u r s u rv e y . I ' d l i k e t o come i n and a s k you a few q u e s ti o n s ; th e in te r v ie w s h o u ld t a k e no lo n g e r th a n 20 m in u te s . | --------1 COME BACK LATER 1 i-----------------1 COME IN I Thank you. Your an sw ers w i l l be c o n fid e n tia l. I w o n 't a s k you y o u r name and y o u r a d d r e s s w o n 't be i d e n t i f i e d i n any way when th e r e s u l t s a r e p u b lis h e d . The q u e s tio n s I ’m g o in g t o a s k you d e a l w ith p a rk s i n th e C ity o f L a n s in g , as o pposed t o p a rk s i n E a s t L a n s in g , to w n sh ip p a r k s , o r c o u n ty p a r k s . MAKE DATE FOR A MORE CONVENIENT TIME. Day: _____________________ T im e :____________ j -----------------1 REFUSAL I Thank you anyway. (FILL OUT INFORMATION ON REFUSALS) A. SELF-RATING OF KNOWLEDGE A l. F i r s t o f a l l , how w ould you r a t e y o u r know ledge o f p a rk s i n th e C ity o f L a n sin g on t h i s s c a l e (HAND R "KNOWLEDGE OF PARKS" CARD), w here 10 i n d i c a t e s t h a t you a r e v e ry f a m i l i a r w ith a l l o f L a n s in g 's p a rk s and 1 i n d i c a t e s t h a t you know n o th in g a b o u t any o f them? NUMBER__________ B. ACTIVITIES LIST O .K ., now w e 'd l i k e a l i t t l e in f o r m a tio n a b o u t y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in re c re a tio n a c t i v i t i e s . HAND R ACTIVITIES LIST AND SAY: B l. T h is i s a l i s t o f r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s . F o r e a c h a c t i v i t y , w ould you p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w ith ch eck m arks w h e th e r you d i d n 't p a r t i c i p a t e , p a r t i c i p a t e d 1 -4 t im e s , o r p a r t i c i p a t e d m ore th a n 4 tim e s s in c e (MONTH OF INTERVIEW) o f l a s t y e a r . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n may h av e ta k e n p la c e i n L a n s in g o r e ls e w h e re . IF R PARTICIPATED IN ONE OR MORE ACTIVITIES, ASK: B la . Do you f e e l t h a t you h av e t o t r a v e l o u t s i d e o f th e c i t y t o p a r t i ­ c i p a t e i n m ost o f t h e r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s you e n jo y , o r do you f e e l t h a t you can p a r t i c i p a t e i n m ost a c t i v i t i e s w i t h in t h e c i t y ? I OUTSIDE ClTY \ | INSIDE CtfT~l | SOME IN /SOME OtJT 1 1 D.K. 1 175 PARTICIPATED PARTICIPATED MORE THAN 4 TIMES 1 -4 TIMES DIDN' T PARTICIPATE ACTIVITY P i c n i c k i n g ........................................................... ( ) . . . ( ) • • Swimming i n p o o l s ...................................... ( ) . . . < ) . . Swimming i n la k e s o r s tr e a m s . ). ). C anoeing . . ( . . ( ........................................................ ( ) • • • ( ) • • F i s h i n g .................................................................. ( ) . . . ( ) . . Power b o a t i n g .................................................... ( ) . . . ( ) . . W ater s k i i n g .................................................... ( ) • • • ( ) • • T e n n i s .................................................................. ( ) . . . ( ) . . G o lf .........................................................................( ). ). B a s k e t b a l l ........................................................... ( ) . . . ( ) . . S o ftb a ll o r b a s e b a l l ). ). ( . . ( . . ( H i k i n g .................................................................. ( ) . . . ( ) • • B ird w a tc h in g o r n a t u r e p h o to g ra p h y ( ). ). B ic y c lin g ( ) . . . ( ) . . C a m p in g ( )• )• S h u f fle b o a rd C ) . . . ( ) . . ) . . . ( ) • • A tte n d in g o u td o o r d a n c e s , c o n c e r t s , or p l a y s ( . . ( • • ( I c e s k a t i n g .................................................... ( C ro s s -c o u n try s k i i n g . . . . ( ). . . ( ). T oboganning o r s le d d in g . . . . ( ). . . ( ). . 176 C. PARKS LIST Now w e’d l i k e t o f i n d o u t w hich p a rk s i n L a n s in g p e o p le h av e h e a rd o f o r v i s i t e d . HAND R PARKS LIST AND SAY: T h is i s a l i s t o f some p a rk s i n L a n s in g . F o r e a c h p a rk l i s t e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e f i r s t w h e th e r y o u 'v e h e a r d o f i t o r n o t h e a r d o f i t , o r t h a t y o u 'r e n o t s u r e . Then, i f y o u 'v e h e a r d o f a p a r k , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e th e r y o u 'v e v i s i t e d i t , o r t h a t y o u 'r e n o t s u r e . D. FEATURES QUIZ O .K ., now w e 'd l i k e t o f i n d o u t how much p e o p le know a b o u t t h e s p e c i a l f e a t u r e s o f L a n s in g 's p a r k s . I 'm g o in g t o r e a d a l i s t o f p a rk f e a t u r e s . P le a s e t e l l me w hich p a rk h a s e ach f e a t u r e . I f you d o n 't know, p l e a s e j u s t sa y so r a t h e r th a n g u e s s in g . WRONG DON'T CORRECT ( S p e c if y ) KNOW D l. F i r s t , w hich p a rk i n t h e C ity o f L a n sin g h a s a zoo? ( D2, . . . a n a t u r e c e n te r ? ( D3. . . . a m e ta l s c u l p t u r e o f an e a g le c a l l e d " th e W in d lo rd "? ( D4. . . . a r o s e g a rd e n ? ( D5. . . . a s m a ll c re e k c r o s s e d by f o o t b r id g e s ? ( D6. . . . c a n o e s t h a t you can re n t? ( D7. . . . t h e S a l t Shed A m p h ith e a te r? ( D8. . . . t h r e e l i g h t e d b a l l f ie l c E ? ( D9. . . . a n I n d ia n g a rd e n ? ( DIO. . . . a n a r t i f i c i a l i c e r in k ? ( D ll. . . . a t r a i n rid e ? ( D12. . . . t h e S ugar Bush t r a i l ? ( D13. . . . t h e Sunbowl Amphi­ th e a te r? ( D14. . . . a f i r e b e l l ? ( D15. . . . Two p a rk s h a v e o u td o o r swimming p o o l s . Can you name one o f them , o r p e rh a p s b o th o f them ? H ( M ( ) ) ( ( ) ___________________________ _( ) ■■■ ( ) ) ) ).. ( ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ) ) ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ) ( ) ____________________________ < ) ) ( ) ____________________________ ( .) ) ) ( ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ( ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ____________________________ ( ) ) ) ) ( ( ) __( ) ____________________________ ( ) ) PARKS IN THE CITY OF LANSING HAVE YOU HEARD OF THIS PARK? NO NOT SURE YES NO F e n n e r A rboretum . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . F ra n c e s P a rk . ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . ( ). . . ( ). . .( ). . P o t t e r P a rk . . . . ( ). . . ( ). . .( ). . R i v e r f r o n t P a rk . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ).. S c o t t Woods . . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . Grand Woods . . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . ) . . . ( ) . . . . . ( G ie r P a r k M oores P a rk B a n c ro ft P a rk . . . ( ). . .( ). W ashington P a rk . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). K in g s le y P la c e Community C e n te r . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . D avis P a r k ...................... ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . H u n te r P a rk . . . . ( ). ). Cavanaugh P a r k . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . A ttw ood P a r k . . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . Munn P a r k ...................... ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . Comstock P a rk . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . F e r r i s P a rk . . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . H ic k o ry P a r k . . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . Tecumseh P a rk . . . ( ) . . . ( ) . . . ( ). . . . ( ). . . ( ) . . . .( I F HEARD OF, HAVE YOU EVER V ISITED IT ? . . NOT SURE YES 178 E. FOLLOW-UPS ON STUDY PARKS O.K. now I ' d l i k e t o a s k some m ore d e t a i l e d q u e s ti o n s a b o u t 9 few o f t h e p a rk s you h av e e i t h e r h e a r d o f o r v i s i t e d . I ' l l b e a s k in g you th e same s e r i e s o f q u e s ti o n s f o r e a c h p a r k . IF R HAS HEARD OF FENNER ARBORETUM, ASK: E l. What w ould you sa y i s t h e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t F e n n e r A rboretum ? rp in E2. How d id you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t F e n n e r A rboretum ?_______________ fP ^ I IF R HAS VISITED FENNER E3. When was t h e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d F e n n e r A rboretum ? rpTicri IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E 3a. IF R HAS NOT VISITED FENNER E4. I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t F e n n e r A rboretum t h a t ' s k e p t you from v is itin g it? 1YES | 1 l~N5~t— + - GO TO ANOTHER PARK E 4a. What i s i t ? A bout how many tim e s have you v i s i t e d F e n n e r A rboretum w i t h in t h e l a s t y e a r ? ______________________ rpTKTi rang 179 IF R HAS HEARD OF FRANCES PARK. ASK: E5. What w ould you s a y I s th e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t F ra n c e s P ark ? ~E7gTl E6. How d id you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t F ra n c e s P ark ? IF R HAS VISITED FRANCES E7. When was t h e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d F ra n c e s P a rk ? IF R HAS NOT VISITED FRANCES E8. I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t F ra n c e s P a rk t h a t ' s k e p t you from v i s i t i n g i t ? rro GO TO ANOTHER PARK IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E7a. A bout how many tim e s have you v i s i t e d F ra n c e s P a rk w i t h in t h e l a s t y e a r? m o E8a. What i s i t ? 180 IF R HAS HEARD OF GIER PARK. ASK: E9. What w ould you sa y i s t h e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t G ie r P a rk ? HH3 E10. How d id you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t G ie r P a rk ? ______ IF R HAS VISITED GIER E ll. When was th e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d G ie r P ark ? nrrq IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E l l a . About how many tim e s have you v i s i t e d G ie r P a rk w i t h in t h e l a s t y e a r? IF R HAS NOT VISITED GIER E12. I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t G ie r P a rk t h a t ' s k e p t you from v i s i t i n g i t ? T fN O l E 12a. What i s i t ? D7KJ » GO TO ANOTHER PARK 181 IF R HAS HEARD OF POTTER PARK, ASK: E13. What w ould you s a y I s t h e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t P o t t e r P a rk ? I D.K.I E14. How d id you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t P o t t e r Park?_ [~D^1 IF R HAS VISITED POTTER E15. When was t h e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d P o t t e r P a rk ? nnq IF R HAS NOT VISITED POTTER E16. I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t P o t t e r P a rk t h a t s k e p t you from v i s i t i n g i t ? 'rw v IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E lb a . What i s i t ? E15a. A bout how many tim e s h a v e you v i s i t e d P o t t e r P a rk w i t h in th e l a s t y e a r? "PTKTI •GO TO ANOTHER PARK IF R HAS HEARD OF RIVERFRONT PARK, ASK: E17. What w ould you s a y i s t h e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t R i v e r f r o n t P a rk ? ro in E18. How d id you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t R i v e r f r o n t P a rk ? "6 7 0 IF R HAS NOT VISITED RIVERFRONT IF R HAS VISITED RIVERFRONT E19. When was t h e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d R i v e r f r o n t P a rk ? E20. I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t R iv e r f r o n t P a rk t h a t ’s k e p t you from v i s i t i n g i t ? GO TO ANOTHER PARK jo g IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E20a E 19a. A bout how many tim e s h a v e you v i s i t e d R i v e r f r o n t P a rk w i t h in t h e l a s t y e a r? D.K.I What i s i t ? 183 IF R HAS HEARD OF SCOTT WOODS. ASK: E21. What w ould you s a y i s t h e m ain a t t r a c t i o n a t S c o t t Woods? " D ig E22. How d i d you f i r s t f i n d o u t a b o u t S c o t t Woods? D.K.I E23. IF R HAS VISITED SCOTT WOODS IF R HAS NOT VISITED SCOTT WOODS When was t h e l a s t tim e you v i s i t e d S c o tt Woods? E24. LBJU I s t h e r e a n y th in g a b o u t S c o t t Woods t h a t s k e p t you from v i s i t i n g i t ? ( YES I |~NO> IF VISITED WITHIN LAST YEAR, ASK: E 24a. What i s i t ? E23a. About how many tim e s h av e you v i s i t e d S c o tt Woods w i t h in th e l a s t y e a r? roi; ■GO TO ANOTHER PARK 184 F. FACILITIES CHART Now w e’d l i k e t o f i n d o u t how much p e o p le know a b o u t w hich p a rk s h av e c e rta in re c re a tio n f a c i l i t i e s . HAND FACILITIES CHART TO R AND SAY: On t h i s c h a r t w ould you p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e th e r e a c h o f t h e s e p a rk s h a s o r d o e s n 't h av e e ach o f t h e s e r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . I f y o u 'r e n o t s u r e o r i f you d o n 't know, p l e a s e j u s t ch e ck t h e " d o n ’t know" box r a t h e r th a n g u e s s in g . I f y o u 'v e n e v e r h e a r d o f one o r m ore o f th e s e p a r k s , j u s t s k ip t h a t row . G. MAP TEST O .K ., now w e 'd l i k e t o s e e i f p e o p le can l o c a t e c e r t a i n p a rk s on a map o f L a n s in g . On t h i s map (HAND MAP TO R) w e 'v e shown t h e m a jo r s t r e e t s o f t h e c i t y , some lan d m ark s i n t h e a r e a , and s e v e r a l p a r k s , w hich a r e t h e g re e n d o ts w ith num bers on them . Your r e s i d e n c e i s l o c a t e d i n t h i s a r e a (POINT TO AREA OF RESIDENCE). I 'm g o in g t o name a few p a rk s i n L a n s in g . P le a s e l e t me know w h ich d o t e a c h p a rk i s by t e l l i n g me th e num ber on i t . I f you d o n 't know w hich d o t a p a rk i s , p l e a s e j u s t sa y so r a t h e r th a n g u e s s in g . MENTION ONLY PARKS R HAS HEARD OF NUMBER G l. G2. G3. G4. G5. G6. F e n n e r A rboretum ? F ra n c e s P a rk ? G ie r P ark ? P o t t e r P ark? R i v e r f r o n t P ark ? S c o t t Woods? DON’T KNOW RECREATION FACILITIES P la y g ro u n d Equipm ent T e n n is C o u rts PARK Has S h u f fle b o a rd C o u rts P i c n ic T a b le s B a s k e tb a ll C o u r t(s ) D oesn' t D o n 't D oesn' t D o n 't D o e s n 't D o n 't D oesn1t D o n 't D oesn' t D o n 't Know Know Has Have Know Has Have Know Has Have Know Has Have Have F en n er A rboretum ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) F ra n c e s P a rk ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) G ie r P a rk ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) P o t t e r P a rk ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( > ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) R iv e rfro n t P a rk ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) S c o t t Woods ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 186 (G. DRIVING DIRECTIONS OPTION) INTRODUCTION I f i t w ould b e e a s i e r f o r you t o sim p ly t e l l me how you w ould g e t t o c e r t a i n p a r k s , we c a n do t h a t i n s t e a d o f u s in g t h e map. ASK QUESTIONS ONLY IF R HAS HEARD OF THE' PARK. STUDY PARK Do you know w here (NAME OF PARK) i s lo c a te d ? NO YES Fenner A rboretum ( ) ( ) F ra n c e s P a rk ( ) ( ) G ie r P a rk ( ) ( ) P o t t e r P a rk ( ) ( ) R i v e r f r o n t P a rk ( ) ( ) S c o t t Woods ( ) IF YES, Could you t e l l me how you w ould g e t t o (NAME OF PARK?) ________________________________ H. PERSONAL INFORMATION W e've come t o t h e f i n a l s e c t i o n o f th e i n t e r v i e w . I n t h i s s e c t i o n w e 'd l i k e t o a s k some g e n e r a l q u e s tio n s a b o u t y o u r s e l f . We n e e d t h i s in f o r m a tio n i n o r d e r t o know w hich ty p e s o f p e o p le a r e m ore o r l e s s f a m i l i a r w ith w hich p a r k s . H I. F i r s t , how lo n g h a v e you l i v e d a t t h i s a d d r e s s ? ________________ HAND R CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS LIST AND ASK: H2. Have you e v e r l i v e d a t some o t h e r a d d re s s i n one o r m ore o f th e c i t i e s o r to w n sh ip s on t h i s l i s t ? I YE§ I GO TO H3. CM] Cn T r TI H2a. I f we d e f in e " th e L a n sin g a r e a " a s t h e s e c i t i e s and to w n s h ip s , how lo n g w ould you sa y y o u 'v e l i v e d i n " t h e L a n s in g a r e a " a l t o g e t h e r ? ________________________ I N.R.I H2b. Have you e v e r l i v e d a t a n o th e r a d d re s s i n one o f t h e s e c i t i e s o r to w n s h ip s f o r a lo n g e r p e r i o d o f tim e th a n y o u 'v e l i v e d h e re ? I YES I fW l GO TO H3. HT r ] H2c. What i s t h e a d d r e s s o f t h e fo rm e r r e s i d e n c e t h a t you l i v e d i n f o r t h e lo n g e s t p e r i o d o f tim e? S t r e e t ___________________________________ H2d. C ity o r Tow nship_____________ non How lo n g d id you l i v e th e r e ? cum H 3. How o ld w e re you on y o u r l a s t b i r t h d a y ? _________ HA. How many o t h e r p e o p le l i v e i n t h i s h o u s e h o ld ? ___ H 5. Do any c h i l d r e n u n d e r 15 l i v e i n t h i s h o u se h o ld ? m m GO TO H 6. H 5a. How many?___ H 5b. What a g e ( s ) ? um i cm m 188 H6. A re you w o rk in g a t p r e s e n t ? rusi NO N.R. T H6e. What s o r t o f w ork do you do? TW A re you t e m p o r a r il y l a i d o f f , unem ployed, a home­ m ak e r, a s t u d e n t , o r w hat? TEMPORARILY LAID OFF 1 DISABLED | RETIRED 1 I H65teMAEETT STUDENT t I UNEMPLOYED! PROBE IF NECESSARY: H6b. What k in d o f ( b u s i n e s s / in d u s try ) i s th a t? n m H6c. H 6f. Where do you go t o s c h o o l? non Where do you work? non H6d. How lo n g h a v e you w orked th e r e ? m xi H7. What i s t h e ro~| 1T 2 h i g h e s t l e v e l o f e d u c a tio n you h a v e c o m p leted ? I N.R.l GRADES OF SCHOOL UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLING I ~5~l I M.A. o r M.S. I 4 I 5 1 6 I 7 I 8 I 3 I 16 I i r T I T l 1131' 14 P B 'I B.A. o r b . 5 ~ GRADUATE DEGREES M .D ., D .D .S ., L .L .D . o r o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g re e ________ i I P 3 189 H8. Where do you u s u a l l y o b t a i n in f o r m a tio n a b o u t L a n s in g 's p a rk s ? i~dxi non T h a t 's a l l t h e q u e s ti o n s I h a v e . GIVE PARK INFORMATION TO R Thank you v e r y much f o r y o u r tim e and c o o p e r a tio n . RECORD R’ s SEX: I MALE | I FEMALE | RECORD R 's RACE: I WHITE I I BLACft I I HISPANIC 1 I ORIENTAL 1 I OTHER (S p e c if y ) THUMBNAIL SKETCH AND OTHER COMMENTS: ~1 APPENDIX D MAP USED IN PARK-LOCATION QUIZ 190 O RD. GROVE PLEASANT MAP USED IN PARK-LOCATION QUIZ APPENDIX E ADVANCE LETTER 192 APPENDIX E ADVANCE LETTER M ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48824 DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING D ear R e s id e n ts , As a g r a d u a te s tu d e n t a t M ich ig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , I am c o n d u c tin g a s u rv e y o f L a n s in g r e s i d e n t s on t h e s u b j e c t o f c i t y p a r k s . The r e s u l t s o f th e s u rv e y w i l l h e lp t h e L a n s in g P a rk s and R e c r e a tio n D ep artm en t t o b e t t e r s e r v e t h e p u b l i c 's r e c r e a t i o n n e e d s . Your a d d re s s was random ly s e l e c t e d from t h e L a n s in g C ity D ir e c to r y f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s s u rv e y . W ith in t h e n e x t w eek, an i n t e r v i e w e r from M ich ig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty w i l l v i s i t y o u r r e s i d e n c e t o r e q u e s t an i n t e r v i e w w i t h an a d u l t member o f t h e h o u s e h o ld . You s h o u ld f i n d t h e i n te r v ie w b o th i n t e r e s t i n g and i n f o r m a t iv e . The i n t e r v i e w e r w i l l le a v e some in f o r m a tio n a b o u t t h e L a n s in g p a rk sy ste m w ith you f o r y o u r f u t u r e u s e . The i n te r v ie w w i l l o n ly t a k e a b o u t 20 m in u te s o f y o u r tim e . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s tu d y i s im p o r ta n t r e g a r d l e s s o f how much you u s e t h e p a r k s . I w ould g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e y o u r c o o p e r a tio n . T h is l e t t e r s e r v e s t o a l e r t you t o t h e s u rv e y so t h a t when t h e i n t e r v i e w e r a r r i v e s you w i l l know t h a t h e /s h e i s a s s o c i a t e d w ith a l e g i t i m a t e s tu d y . The i n t e r v i e w e r w i l l i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f a s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f M ich ig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty i n c o n ju n c tio n w ith t h e L a n s in g P a r k s S u rv e y . Thank you v e ry much f o r y o u r c o o p e r a tio n . S i n c e r e ly y o u r s , D a n ie l M. S p o tts R e s e a rc h A s s i s t a n t 193 APPENDIX F CARDS SHOWN TO RESPONDENTS 194 APPENDIX F CARDS SHOWN TO RESPONDENTS KNOWLEDGE OF PARKS IN THE CITY OF LANSING 10 —I— V ery f a m i l i a r w ith a l l o f L a n s in g 's P a rk s 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Know n o th in g a b o u t any o f L a n s in g 's P a rk s CITIES AND TOWNSHIPS IN THE LANSING AREA CITIES L a n s in g TOWNSHIPS M e rid ia n E a s t L a n sin g D e lta Okemos D e lh i H a s le tt L a n s in g H o lt W indsor D im ondale W a te rto n D e w itt D e w itt B ath B ath W aucosta A la ie d o n 195 LITERATURE CITED 196 LITERATURE CITED Adams, Robert L. A. "Weather, Weather Information and Outdoor Rec­ re a tio n D ecisions: A Case Study o f the New England Beach T r ip ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Clark U n iv e rs ity , 1971. A llen, John Robert. "A Study to A scertain the E ffe ctiv en e ss o f Correct Public R elatio n s Technique f o r In creasing th e Aware­ ness Level o f a Park D i s t r i c t . " M.S. t h e s i s , Southern I l l i n o i s U n iv e rs ity , 1974. A n astasi, Anne. Psychological T e s tin g . Publishing Co., I n c . , 1976. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan Banerjee, T rid ib . "Who Values What? Audience Reactions to Coastal Scenery." Landscape A rc h ite c tu re 67 (1977): 240-43. Blake, C lifto n G. "Two Methods o f Presenting a Promotional Message to National F o rest Amphitheater V i s i t o r s : A Measure o f Their E ffe c tiv e n e s s ." M a ste r's t h e s i s , Utah S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1971. Blalock, Hubert M., J r . Social S t a t i s t i c s . McGraw-Hill Book C o., 1979. Rev. 2nd ed. New York: Bowlby, Sophia Rhodope. "S patial V a ria tio n s in Consumer's Informa­ tio n L evels." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern U n iv e rs ity , 1972. Box, G. E. P. "Some Theorems on Quadratic Forms Applied in th e Study of Analysis o f Variance Problems. I . E ffe c t o f In e q u a lity o f Variance in the One-Way C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " Annals o f Mathematical S t a t i s t i c s 25 (1954): 290-302. Brown, Perry J . , and Hunt, John D. "The Influence o f Information Signs on V is ito r D is tr ib u tio n and Use." Journal o f Leisure Research 1(1) (1969): 79-83. Buhyoff, G. L .; Leuschner, W. A .; and Wellman, J . D. "A esthetic Impacts o f Southern Pine Beetle Damage." Journal o f Environmen­ ta l Management 8 (1979): 261-67. 197 198 B u tle r, R. W., and Booth, P. J . "Use and Awareness o f Urban Recrea­ tio n F a c i l i t i e s : The Value o f Telephone Interview s in Recreation Research." In Contemporary Leisure Research: Proceedings o f the Second Canadian~Cdngress on Leisure Research. Edited by E. M. Avedon, M. Le L ievre, and T. 0. S tew art. O ntario: Ontario Research Council on L e isu re , 1979. C a rls, E. Glenn. "The E ffe c ts o f People and Man-Induced Conditions on Preferences f o r Outdoor Recreation Landscapes." Journal of Leisure Research 6(2) (1974): 113-24. Carmines, Edward G ., and Z e l l e r , Richard A. R e l i a b i l i t y and V a lid ity Assessment. Sage U n iv ersity Paper s e r i e s on Q u a n tita tiv e Applic a tio n s in th e Social S cien ces, s e r i e s no. 07-017. Beverly H i l ls : Sage P u b lic a tio n s , 1979. C esario, F. J . , and Knetsch, J . L. "A Recreation S i t e Demand and B enefit Estim ation Model." Regional Studies 10 (1976): 97-104. Cheunq, Hym. "A Day Use Park V i s i t a t i o n Model." Research 4(2) (1972): 139-56. Journal o f Leisure Clark, John P. "Measuring A lienation Within a Social System." American S ociological Review 24 (1959): 849-52. Clark, Roger N., and Stankey, George H. "The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework f o r Planning, Management, and Research." USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-98. P a c ific Northwest F o rest and Range Experiment S t a ti o n , 1979. Colton, Craig W. "The Use o f T elevisio n Messages to Modify T o u ris t Behavior Related to th e V is itin g o f Outdoor Recreation A ttra c ­ t i o n s . " M.S. t h e s i s , Utah S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1970. Cronbach, Lee J . , and Meehl, Paul E. "Construct V a lid ity in Psycho­ lo g ic a l T e s ts ." Psychological B u lle tin 52(4) (1955): 281-302. Deasy, George F ., and G r e is s , P h y llis R. "Impact o f a T o u ris t F a c i l i t y on I t s H in te rla n d ." Annals o f the A ssociation o f American Geoqraphers 56(2) (1966): 290-306. Dee, Norbert, and Liebman, Jon C. "A S t a t i s t i c a l Study of Attendance a t Urban Playgrounds." Journal o f L eisure Research 2(3) (1970): 145-59. Douglas, Dorothy F .; E s tle y , Bruce H.; and Chaffee, Steven H. "An Information Campaign That Changed Community A t t it u d e s ." Journalism Q uarterly 47 (1970): 479-92. Edwards, A. Techniques of A ttitu d e Scale C onstruction . C l i f f s , N .J .: P r e n tic e - H a ll, 1957. Enqlewood 199 F is h e r, Kimberly D. "Factors In flu en cin g th e Timing o f U sers' Decisions to V i s i t P a r tic u la r Campgrounds." Unpublished paper U n iv e rsity o f W aterloo, 1975. Folkman, William S. "Residents o f Butte County, C a lif o r n ia : Their Knowledge and A ttitu d e s Regarding F o rest F ire P rev en tio n ." USDA F orest S ervice Research Paper PSW-25. Berkeley, C a l i f . : P a c if ic Southwest F o re st and Range Experiment S t a t i o n , 1965. ________ . "Urban Users o f Wildland Areas as F o rest F ire R isks." USDA F o rest S ervice Research Paper PSW-137. Berkeley, C a l i f . : P a c if ic Southwest F o re st and Range Experiment S t a ti o n , 1979. F rits c h e n , J a n e t; Nelson, C harles; and M oncrief, Lewis W. "A ttitu d e s and C h a r a c te r is ti c s o f Ingham County Park U sers." East Lansing: Recreation Research and Planning U n it, Department o f Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1979. Gold, Seymour M. "Nonuse o f Neighborhood P a rk s." o f Planners Journal 38(6) (1972): 369-78. American I n s t i t u t e . "Neighborhood P arks, th e Nonuse Phenomenon." Q uarterly 1(2) (1977): 319-28. Evaluation Goodrich, Jonathan N. "The R e lation ship Between P references f o r and Perceptions o f Vacation D e stin a tio n s : A pplication o f a Choice Model." Journal o f Travel Research 17(2) (1978): 8-13. Haefner, James F. "Can TV A dvertising Influence Employers to Hire o r Train Disadvantaged Persons?" Journalism Q uarterly 53 (1976): 211-15. Hammitt, William E. "The F a m ilia rity -P re fe re n c e Component o f On-Site Recreational E xperiences." L eisure Sciences 4(2) (1981): 177-93. Hanson, Susan Easton. "Inform ation Levels and th e Intra-U rban Travel P a tte rn s o f Swedish Households." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Northwestern U n iv e rs ity , 1973. ________ . "Measuring th e Cognitive Levels o f Urban R e sid en ts." Geografiska Annaler 59B (1977): 67-81. H astings, P h i l l i p K. "The Voter and th e Non-Voter." o f Sociology 62 (1956): 302-307. American Journal Hatry, Harry P .; B l a i r , Louis H.; F is k , Donald M.; G re in e r, John H.; H a ll, John R ., J r . ; and Schaenman, P h ilip S. How E ffe c tiv e Are Your Community Services? Procedures f o r Monitoring th e Effec­ tiv e n e s s o f Municipal S e rv ice s. Washington, D.C.: The Urban I n s t i t u t e , 1977. 2 00 Haug A sso c ia te s, Inc. Public Images and A ttitu d e s Toward Smokey the Bear and Forest F ir e s . Washington, D.C.: USDA F o rest S e rv ic e , Cooperative Forest F ire Prevention Program, 1968. Hayward, D. Geoffrey; W eitzer, William H.; and More, Muriel E. "The P u b lic 's Image and Use o f Forest Park." Amherst: Environment and Behavior Research C enter, The Environmental I n s t i t u t e , U niversity o f M assachusetts, 1980. (a) ________ . "The P u b lic 's Image and Use o f E lizab eth P ark." Amherst: Environment and Behavior Research C enter, The Environmental I n s t i t u t e , U n iv e rsity o f M assachusetts, 1980. (b) Herron, Douglas B. Marketing Management f o r Social Service Agencies. Columbus, Ohio: A sso ciation o f Professional YMCA D ir e c to r s , 1978. H i l l , J . M. "A Comparative Study o f Student Awareness With United S ta te s Forest Service Recommended Methods o f Wilderness Conduct." M aster's t h e s i s , U n iv e rsity o f Utah, 1975. Howard, Dennis R ., and Crompton, John L. Financing, Managing, and Marketinq R ecreation and Park Resources. Dubuque, Iowa: Brown, 1980. Kish, L e s lie . 1965. Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons, K o tler, P h i l i p . Marketing f o r N on-Profit O rg a n iz atio n s. C l i f f s , N .J .! P r e n t ic e - H a l l , 1975. Englewood Krumpe, Edwin E. " R e d is trib u tin g Backcountry Use by a B eh avio rallyBased Communications Device." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Colorado S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1979. La Page, Wilbur F. "Market Research—The Missing Link in Resource Development Planning f o r Outdoor R e cre atio n ." In Outdoor Recrea­ tio n Research: Applying th e R e s u lts . USDA F o rest Service General Technical Report NC-9. S t. P au l, Minn.: North Central Forest Experiment S t a t i o n , 1974. Lavidge, Robert J . , and S t e in e r , Gary A. "A Model f o r P re d ic tiv e Measurements o f A dvertising E ffe c tiv e n e s s ." Journal o f Marketing 25(6) (1961): 59-62. Lewis, Lionel S. "Knowledge, Danger, C e rta in ty , and th e Theory of Magic." American Journal o f Sociology 69 (1963): 7-12. Lime, David W. "Factors Influencing Campground Use in th e Superior National F orest o f Minnesota." USDA F o rest Service Research Paper NC-60. 1971. 201 ________ , and Lucas, Robert C. "Good Information Improves th e Wilder­ ness Experience." N a tu r a lis t 28 (1977): 18-21. Lucas, Robert C. "User Evaluation o f Campgrounds on Two Michigan National F o r e s ts ." USDA F orest Service Research Paper NC-44. 1970. Lynch, Kevin. The Image o f th e C ity . P re ss, 1960. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Maddalena, L. A Communications Manual f o r Non-Profit O rganizations. New York: AMACOM, 1981. Magnusson, David. T est Theory. Publishing Co., 1967. Reading, M ass.: Addison-Wesley Matthews, Donald R ., and P ro th ro , James W. Negroes and the New Southern P o l i t i c s . New York: H arcourt, Brace, & World, I n c . , 1966. Maw, Ray. "Assessment o f Demand f o r R ecreation—A Modelling Approach." In Leisure Research and P o lic y . Edited by Ian Appleton. Edinburgh: S c o ttis h Academic P r e s s , 1974. McCormick, Thomas C ., and Wahl, Richard. "P redictin g E lectio n Turnout: A Test o f a Behavior H ypothesis." American Journal o f Sociology 61 (1955): 39-47. McDonald, Arthur L. "Final Report to the National Park S e rv ic e , Yellowstone Park." Boseman: Psychology Department, Montana S ta te U n iv e rsity , 1969. On f i l e a t th e Natural Resources L ibrary, U.S. Department o f the I n t e r i o r , Washington, D.C. 20240. (Mimeographed.) Mclver, John P ., and Carmines, Edward G. Unidimensional S c a lin g . Sage U n iv ersity Paper s e r i e s on Q u a n tita tiv e A pplications in the Social S ciences, s e r i e s no. 07-024. Beverly H i l l s : Sage P u b lic a tio n s , 1981. Mendelsohn, Harold. "Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Can Succeed." Public Opinion Q uarterly 37(1) (1973): 50-61. Mercer, D. "D iscretio n ary Travel Behavior and th e Urban Mental Map." A u stralian Geographical Studies 9(2) (1971): 133-43. Merriam, L. C., and Knopp, T. B. "Meeting th e Wilderness Needs o f the Many." Western Wildlands 3(2) (1976): 17-22. Milgram, S tan ley ; Greenwald, J u d ith ; K e ssle r, Suzanne; McKenna, Wendy; and Waters, J u d ith . "A Psychological Map o f New York C ity ." American S c i e n t i s t 60 (1972): 194-200. 202 National Academy o f Sciences. A Program fo r Outdoor Recreation Research. P u b lic a tio n 17271! Washington, D.C.: National Academy o f S ciences, 1969. Nie, Norman H.; H ull, C. H adlai; Je n k in s, Jean G.; S te in b re n n e r, Karen; and B rent, Dale H. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e Social S cien ces. 2nd ed. New YorFl McGraw-Hill Book C o., 1975. O rleans, P e te r. " D if f e r e n tia l Cognition o f Urban R esidents: E ffe cts o f Social Scale on Mapping." In Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and S p atial Behavior. Edited by Roger M. Downs and David Stea. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1973. Penning-Rowsell, E. C. "C o n strain ts on the A pplication o f Landscape E v alu atio n s." T ransactions o f th e I n s t i t u t e o f B r i ti s h Geog­ raphers 66 (1975): 149-55. ________ , and Hardy, D. I . "Landscape Evaluation and Planning P o licy : A Comparative Survey in the Sye Valley Area o f Outstanding Natural Beauty." Regional Studies 7 (1973): 153-60. P o t t e r , Robert B. "Perception o f Urban R e ta ilin g F a c i l i t i e s : An Analysis o f Consumer Information F ie ld s ." Geografiska Annaler 61B (1979): 19-29. P ro b st, D. B ., and Buhyoff, G. J . "Policy Capturing and Landscape Preference Q u a n tific a tio n : A Methodological Study." Journal o f Environmental Management 11 (1980): 45-59. Putney, S n e ll, and Middleton, R u ssell. "Some Factor Associated With Student Acceptance o r R ejection o f War." American Sociological Review 27 (1962): 655-67. R. L. Polk and Co. 1981 G reater Lansing (Ingham County, Mich.) City D ire c to ry . T aylor, Mich.: R. L. Polk & Co., P u b lis h e rs , 1981. Recreation Resource C o nsu ltan ts. "Recreation in th e Lansing Model C itie s Areas: A Study o f Spare-Time Behavior and A t t it u d e s ." Report to the Lansing Planning Board. 1972. Reyburn, J e r ry H ., and Knudson, Douglas M. "The Influence o f Adver­ t i s i n g on Attendance a t Park Programs." Journal o f Environmental Education 7(2) (1975): 59-64. Robertson, Rachel Dawn. Wilderness A reas." 1981. "An I n v e s tig a tio n o f V is ito r Behavior in Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv ersity o f Iowa, Robinson, John P. Public Information About World A f f a ir s . Ann Arbor: Survey Research C enter, I n s t i t u t e f o r Social Research, U niv ersity o f Michigan, 1967. 203 ________ . "The 1977 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Survey: Some R esults and Conclusions." The Third Nationwide Outdoor Recrea­ tio n Plan: Appendix I I . Survey Technical Report 4. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o f the I n t e r i o r , H eritage Conservation and Recreation S e rv ice , 1979. Rogers, E v ere tt M., with Shoemaker, F. Floyd. Communication o f Innovations: A C ross-C ultural Approach. 2nd ed. New York: The Free P r e s s , 1971. Roggenbuck, Joseph W., and B e r rie r , Deborah L. "A Comparison o f th e E ffectiv en ess o f Two Communication S tr a te g ie s in Dispersing Wilderness Campers." Journal o f Leisure Research 14(1) (1982): 77-89. Roscoe, John T ., and Byars, Jackson A. "An In v e s tig a tio n o f the R e s tra in ts With Respect to Sample Size Commonly Imposed on the Use o f the Chi Square S t a t i s t i c . " Journal o f the American S ta ­ t i s t i c a l A ssociation 66(336) (1971): 755-59. Ross, Terence L ., and M oeller, George H. "Communicating Rules in Recreation Areas." USDA F o rest Service Research Paper NE-297. Upper Darby, Penn.: N ortheastern Forest Experiment S t a ti o n , 1974. Salcedo, Rodolfo N.; Read, Hadley; Evans, James F .; and Kong, Ana C. "A Successful Information Campaign on P e s t i c i d e s ." Journalism Q uarterly 51 (1974): 91-95. S e l l t i z , C la ir e ; Jahoda, Marie; Deutsch, Morton; and Cook, S tu a r t W. Research Methods in Social R e la tio n s . Rev. ed. New York: H o lt, R in eh art, and Winston, 1959. S e l l t i z , C la ire ; Writsman, Lawrence S .; and Cook, S tu a rt W. Research Methods in Social R e la tio n s. 3rd ed. New York: H olt, R inehart, and Winston, 1976. Shaw, Marvin E ., and W right, Jack M. Scales f o r th e Measurement of A ttitu d e s . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Simon, Herbert A. Models o f Man: Social and R a tio n a l. John Wiley and Sons, 1957. New York: S lu y te r , James P. "P re d ictin g Use Levels f o r M ichigan's Inland Lake Public Access S i t e s : A M ultiple Regression Approach With Emphasis on S i t e A ttr a c tiv e n e s s ." M aster's t h e s i s , Michigan S ta te Uni­ v e r s i t y , 1977. S p i t z e r , Stephen P ., and Denzin, Norman K. "Levels o f Knowledge in an Emergent C r i s i s . " Social Forces 44 (1965): 234-37. 204 Stephenson, C. Bruce. " P ro b a b ility Sampling With Quotas: An Experi­ ment." Public Opinion Q u arterly 43(4) (1979): 477-96. Strunk, John R. "An I n v e s tig a tio n o f R e la tio n sh ip s Between Urban Park C h a r a c te r is ti c s and P a tte rn s o f Awareness and Use." Unpublished Paper f o r M.S. d e g re e, Michigan S t a te U n iv e rs ity , 1983. Stynes, Daniel J . "The Role o f Information in Recreation S i t e S e lec ­ t i o n . " Forest and River R ecreatio n: Research Update. M iscel­ laneous P u b lica tio n 18. U n iv e rsity o f Minnesota, A g ric u ltu ra l Experiment S t a ti o n , 1982. Suchman, Edward A. "The U t i l i t y o f Sealogram A n a ly sis." In Measure­ ment and P r e d i c t io n . Vol. 4 in S tudies in Social Psychology in World War I I . Edited by Samuel A. S to u ffe r e t a l . P rin c eto n : Princeton U n iv e rsity P r e s s , 1950. ________ . "Sociomedical V a ria tio n s Among Ethnic Groups." Journal o f Sociology 70 (1964): 319-31. American Sudman, Seymour. " P ro b a b ility Sampling With Quotas." Journal o f th e American S t a t i s t i c a l A ssociation 61 (1966): 749-71. ________ . Applied Sampling. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1976. T hurstone, L. L ., and Chave, E. J . The Measurement o f A t t i t u d e . Chicago: U niv ersity o f Chicago P r e s s , 1929. U.S. Department o f Commerce, Bureau o f th e Census. 1980 Census o f Population: General Population C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . P a rt 24-Michigan. PC80-1-B24. August 1982. U.S. Department o f th e I n t e r i o r . "National Urban Recreation Study: Executive Report." Washington, D.C.: Government P r in tin g O ffic e , 1978. ________ . S ta te o f th e Parks—1980: A Report to th e Congress. Washington, D.C.: National Park S e rv ic e , O ffice o f Science and Technology, 1980. ________ . A National Agenda f o r Recreation Research. Washington, D.C.: National Park S e rv ic e , Recreation Resource Development D iv isio n , 1981. Verhoven, P eter J . , J r . "An Evaluation o f P o lic y - r e la te d Research in th e F ield o f Municipal Recreation and P a rk s." Vol. 1: Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: National R ecreation and Park A sso c ia tio n , 1975. 205 W ebster's Third New In te rn a tio n a l D ic tio n a ry . G. & C. Merriam Co., 1976. S p r in g f ie ld , M ass.: Worf, William A. "A Shopping Catalog f o r F orest Recreation Oppor­ t u n i t i e s . " In Tourism Marketing and Management I s s u e s . Edited by Donald E. Hawkins, El wood L. S h a fer, and James M. Rovelstad. Washington, D.C.: George Washington U n iv e rs ity , 1980. Young, Robert A llen. "An Analysis o f Wilderness Concepts and Values." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n iv e rsity o f I l l i n o i s , 1978.