NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Research in the Parks NPS Symposium Series No. 1

This paper is a summary of the general findings of a recent exploratory investigation into the leisure activities among lower, working, and middle-class blacks and whites living in a middle-sized city—Nashville, Tennessee. [2]

We attempted to study leisure in its social context; that is, in addition to identifying which particular social and economic groups participate in various leisure activities, we attempted to examine the nature of the social relationships, if they existed at all, which characterize a particular form of leisure.

The data were generated by means of a questionnaire survey taken in the spring of 1971. The sample consisted of 301 adults, half of whom were white (149) and half were black (152). Respondents were the heads of households systematically selected so as to have an approximately equal number of blacks and whites in three roughly defined status groups—lower, working, and middle class. [3] With this sample we have been able to investigate racial difference in leisure activities, while controlling, through sampling and statistically, the effects of social and economic status. Similarly, we have been able to examine social class difference in leisure within and between racial groups.

Using a relatively large number of open-ended questions, we obtained information on an extensive range of informal and formal activities which our respondents were engaged in during their nonwork time. Included were questions about evening activities, sports participation, voluntary associations, hobbies, visiting with neighbors and friends, vacation travel, musical preference styles, and the use of local, state, and national parks and recreation areas.

There are several general findings which we feel are significant. These are:

(1) Leisure activities are social activities. Among all urbanites, and particularly among blacks, they occur in relatively small social groups characterized by relatively high continuity of membership.

(2) There is a relatively strong relationship between social and economic status and patterns of leisure activities. In addition to the general relationship which suggests differences in kinds of leisure activities associated with different social classes, our data also indicate that the urban poor—both black and white—are principally concerned with basic problems of housing, food, clothing, and only secondarily concerned with recreation and leisure.

(3) Differences in the use patterns of local neighborhood parks as compared to state and national parks reflect differences in the life styles and social and economic constraints which are placed upon inner-city residents.

A brief review of the results of our investigation which have led us to these generalizations follows.

THE SOCIAL NATURE OF LEISURE

One major conclusion is that leisure activities are group phenomena. In almost every activity that we investigated, the major exception being hobbies, informal groups of family and friends are involved.

Evenings are frequently spent in the home, either watching television with family or visiting with relatives and friends. The home is the favorite location for meeting close friends and associates.

Most sports, by their nature, are group activities. Yet in addition to this, our data indicate that most sports participation takes place with the same people—either family or friends—who are members of a small and relatively cohesive group. Seventy-five percent of our respondents who participated in a sport indicated that it was usually played with the same group. While two-thirds of the respondents who participated in a sport indicated that they enjoyed the activity for the physical exercise, a third of them indicated that they were primarily motivated by the social, rather than physical, nature of the sport.

Formal voluntary associations, such as unions, P.T.A., service clubs and fraternal organizations, are generally thought of as means for political and economic representation, community service, etc. [4] While this may be the case, our results indicate that a relatively large number of our respondents have particular friends whom they meet at such formal meetings. Our data also indicate that the presence of friends is strongly related to the frequency of attendance. These results suggest that these organizations provide a setting in which small, relatively cohesive groups of friends are established and maintained.

In the case of vacations, as might be expected, we found that vacation travel frequently involves family and friends. Previous researchers have suggested that families travel to "see the sights." This is also true of our respondents, but an additional finding is that sights seen are in locales of extended family and friends.

People rarely go to parks and recreation areas alone. Over 95% of those going to parks go with family or friends. Significantly, the most popular activities in local, state, and national parks—picnicking, walking and hiking, swimming, using playground equipment, "laying around," "doing nothing"—are activities that are characterized by a relatively low level of organization. As such, they provide the highest potential for spontaneous social interaction among the participants.

THE EFFECTS OF RACIAL AND SOCIAL STATUS

Of the two major independent variables we have focused upon—race and socioeconomic status—our findings indicate that social class is far more important in determining patterns of leisure than is racial status. There are some differences in the leisure activities of blacks and whites after controls have been made for social and economic status.

Our data indicate that the rank order (by frequency of participation) of evening activities found among whites is similar to that found among blacks. Of the several activities which were mentioned by our respondents, sports participation, going out of the home for entertainment, reading, and attending a cultural event were positively related to social status.

Concerning sports participation, our data suggest that whites, in general, do not participate in sports as frequently as do blacks. Those whites who do participate in sports are more likely to be of higher status. Among blacks, sports participation is more frequent and more widely distributed across social status groups.

Participating in voluntary associations is related to both social class and race. Respondents who are of higher status belong to more organizations than those of lower status. In contrast to membership, we have found some indications that the intensity of involvement in voluntary organizations varies inversely with status, i.e., respondents of lower status apparently belong to few organizations, but their membership is more involved, they attend more frequently, and are more likely to have friends who are also members. Blacks in every status group, particularly the lowest, report higher rates of membership and higher levels of involvement in voluntary associations than do whites. [5]

Vacation travel is strongly related to social class and race. Respondents in groups of higher status and whites travel more. Traveling alone is infrequent in all groups, yet it occurs most often among whites of higher status. Blacks are more likely to travel further, in a northerly direction, and are more likely to visit relatives and friends during vacation travel than are whites.

The results of an attempt to obtain some indication of the presence of class and ethnic subculture in the urban community by asking questions about musical preference styles indicate that among whites there may be two such subcultures. One, highlighted by a preference for country and western music, is found among the lower and working class; the second, clearly more ambiguous in content although dominated by "pop" music, is found among middle-class whites. Our data indicate that there are musical preference styles that are distinctively black, i.e., soul, gospel, jazz. These are preferred throughout black communities and are not strongly associated with any status level.

Finances seem to play a major role in determining the leisure activities of our respondents. In order to obtain some indication of leisure preferences, without regard to finances, we asked, "Now we would like you to imagine that you were suddenly given a large sum of money, let's say $1,000, to spend on yourself and your family. What things would you buy?" The answers were coded in one of 15 categories developed after the interviewing was completed.

When we began looking at the answers given to this question, we saw that we were not obtaining the kinds of data that we had unthinkingly expected. Even though the question was asked toward the end of a questionnaire in which leisure activities were frequently mentioned, only 9% of our respondents mentioned a purchase related to recreation or leisure—most of these were whites of higher status. Only 1% of the black respondents and 2% of the lower and working class respondents mentioned recreation and leisure.

There emerged a relatively clear pattern between the answers to this question and socioeconomic status. All those items which were related to everyday needs of family and household, i.e., paying bills, housing, home mortgage, remodeling, clothing, transportation, medical care, were most often mentioned by the respondents of lower status—both black and white.

Those items which were not related to immediate consumption and survival, i.e., life insurance, investments, savings, education, gifts or contributions, or those which were for vacation expense or recreation transportation were more frequently chosen by respondents of higher status.

We feel the implication of this data is quite clear. Even in the middle of a questionnaire where recreation and leisure have been identified and talked about, most of the respondents, particularly those who are of lower status, have major concerns with basic day-to-day survival. Purchases that do not satisfy these requirements—either those which are "for the future" or those which have little connection with daily survival—and recreation and leisure expenses for vacation and travel are not frequently mentioned. In short, these data strongly suggest that before people concern themselves with elaborate forms of recreation and leisure, the basic requirements of housing, food, clothing, and transportation must be satisfied.

In addition to the expected finding regarding the general effect of socioeconomic status on leisure activities and the understandable finding concerning economic constraints on recreational leisure, two general patterns emerge from our data regarding leisure activities of blacks and whites. First, it appears that blacks, particularly those who are in lower social and economic groups, are members of more closed or cohesive groups. This is seen in a variety of leisure activities and is suggested in a variety of ways. For example, blacks are more likely to entertain their friends in the more closed and familiar settings of home and neighborhood than are whites. Among lower class blacks, not only is the level of participation in sports relatively high but also we have found that there is a particularly strong tendency for lower-class blacks to participate in a sport with the same people each time they play. Vacation travel for blacks, although less frequent than whites, is more likely to be with family members and blacks are more likely to visit family members than are whites. Similarly, with voluntary associations, blacks are more likely to be members and and more likely to have particular friends whom they meet when they attend the meetings of the organization.

The second general tendency which emerges from our data is found in the relationship between social and economic status and leisure activities within racial groups. We have consistently found, with evening activities, sports participation, activities with friends, voluntary associations, vacation travel, and musical preference styles, that the relationship between social and economic status and variety in leisure activities is more pronounced among whites than among blacks. In other words, we found that the patterns of leisure characterizing middle-class blacks are not greatly different from those of lower status. Among whites, in contrast, there are relatively large differences in the leisure activities of different status levels.

We anticipated neither of these findings. We do believe, upon reflection, that they are related to one another, and that they reflect some of the consequences of racial prejudice and discrimination for the life styles of blacks. Racial discrimination, indeed racial conflict, has had the consequence of increasing the level of cohesion within the black community. [6] This is reflected in the higher level of social closure which seems to characterize the leisure activities of the blacks we have investigated. Second, racial discrimination has had the effect of limiting the life-space of blacks relative to whites; that is, blacks have a much smaller or more restricted field of leisure opportunities. As a consequence, we find less variation in the leisure patterns of blacks than we find among whites.

THE USE OF PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

The relationships we have found between social and economic status, particularly between family resources and patterns of leisure, as well as the racial differences in the homogeneity of leisure activities and community cohesion are, we believe, reflected in the differential use of local, state, and national parks.

As might be expected, given the easy access of local and neighborhood parks compared to the more distant state and national parks, there are considerable differences in the frequency of use of local or neighborhood parks compared to the state and national parks. The frequent use of local parks and recreation areas characterizes our sample of families. Ninety percent reported that they and their families had used such parks at least once during the month prior to our interview. Most used them several times each month. This is true for both blacks and whites and for all social status groups. Although more blacks do not use the parks at all, those who do use them do so more often than whites. In general, respondents of lower status are less likely to use them than those of higher status, but there is little relationship between social status and the use of neighborhood parks. Within racial groups we find some difference. Among blacks, there is a higher rate of use of local parks among those respondents of lower status. Among whites there is no difference between status levels.

The results obtained concerning the use of the more distant state and national parks stand in sharp contrast to those of local or neighborhood parks. Fifty-five percent of our urban respondents indicated that they had not been to such a park in the last 2 years. Unlike local parks, the users and nonusers of state and national parks are not so evenly distributed in the urban population. They are more frequently used by whites and by middle-class families than by blacks and lower and working-class families. Sixty-eight percent of whites of lower status and 78% of blacks of lower status have not used a state or national park in the last 2 years. Within every social status group, the proportion of blacks who use state and national parks is lower than the proportion of whites.

There are at least four hypotheses which might be used to explain these differences. Differences in the use of these parks may reflect differences in recreation and leisure associated with various social and economic status groups. Such a hypothesis suggests that one reason middle-class whites use national and state parks more frequently than the lower class and blacks is because they prefer the activities which are available in such parks.

Based on our data comparing leisure activities in local parks with those in state and national parks, the overriding conclusion must be that there is little difference. Activities which exist in local parks also are found in state and national parks. In both cases, eating and picnicking, hiking or walking, swimming, fishing, boating, and "just having fun doing nothing" are popular activities. There are some differences. Baseball is a frequent activity in local parks, but it is rarely played in state and national parks. Camping is unique to state and national parks while relatively rare in local neighborhood parks. The relationships between these activities and social status are consistent with the life style hypothesis; that is, baseball is associated with the lower and working class and camping with the middle class. These data provide some support for the argument that the general relationship between state and national park use and socioeconomic status is in part explained by the activities which characterize different parks. Yet given the overall similarity of park activities, it is difficult to accept this as the single explanation for the differences found in frequency of park use.

There is a second life-style hypothesis. This one, rather than focusing on the specific recreation and leisure activities associated with different social and economic groups, suggests that racial and social economic differences in the more general adaptations to urban life are reflected in the differential use patterns for local and national parks.

There is a considerable literature in the social sciences suggesting that the lower and working classes spend their leisure time in somewhat limited geographic areas. [7] Especially with regard to their nonwork time, the lower and working class might be termed "locals" while urbanites of higher status are "cosmopolitans". This difference can be seen in studies of the urban working classes which have shown that relatively strong interpersonal networks of neighbors and strong attachment to neighborhoods characterize many working-class residential areas. While neighborliness is found in all social strata, once the distribution is made between casual acquaintances and relatively high levels of interdependence with neighbors, research indicates that the lower classes are more closely tied to their neighborhoods than are the middle class. Among the lower class, friends are more likely to be neighbors. Among the middle class, while one might be friendly with his neighbors, friends are more likely to be chosen for common interests rather than physical proximity. The implication is that the lower and working classes spend more time and are much more comfortable when they remain in the familiar surroundings of their own neighborhood.

When local parks are scattered throughout the city as they are in Nashville, the lower and working classes may use such parks without going beyond what is their local territory or "turf," yet, in the case of the more distant state and national parks, these obviously require movement out of familiar neighborhood territory. Among the middle class, the more cosmopolitan character of their life styles is compatible with trips to the more distant state and national parks.

The differential use of state and national parks may also be explained in terms of the variable access to such parks and recreation areas as access is determined not by life style, but rather by the resources which families have at their disposal for recreation. State and national parks located out of the city require considerable time and transportation expense if they are to be used. As we have seen, these extra resources are not readily available to families of lower status.

In addition to the level and security of economic resources that are apparently required to use state and national parks, an extended trip to such a recreation area requires considerable organization and planning before it is made. There is a considerable literature on the urban lower class, both black and white, which indicates that its condition of economic marginality and insecurity reduces the family's ability to develop extended time perspectives and control which are required to make such a trip. [8]

The lower frequency of use of state and national parks by blacks may reflect the general pattern suggested earlier, i.e., that there has developed within the black community higher levels of community cohesion, and a general pattern of not venturing into what has traditionally been regarded as white territory. The more limited life-space of blacks has not yet been extended to include state and national parks. Even though civil rights legislation may have removed official barriers, either a 'cultural lag' or perhaps the continued use of informal sanctions by whites may be inhibiting the use of such parks by blacks. Thus middle-class blacks who have the incomes and resources to use state and national parks are inhibited and use them less frequently than whites of similar status.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC POLICY

One implication that might be drawn from our data is that the first priority for all government agencies is the provision of social and economic security for American families. Particularly those data generated from our question concerning the spending of $1000 suggest that lower class families are primarily concerned with satisfying basic requirements for living and only secondarily with elaborate forms of recreation and leisure.

Public parks and recreation areas can be viewed as a social welfare service which is provided by local, state, and federal governments. Clearly, they are a public service and serve the public good. They provide green spaces which enhance the esthetic quality of cities, provide a means of preserving natural areas, and, as we have seen, provide the locale for recreation and leisure activities which serve to maintain and develop informal social groups of family and friends. These are important services, especially for families who do not have the resources required to purchase such services themselves.

Our data regarding the differential use of this service, especially in the case of state and national parks, do raise some questions concerning the equitable distribution of the service. State and national parks, while for the public good, are used almost exclusively by those of higher status. Only in local parks and recreation areas do we find a more equitable distribution of these public benefits.

We have suggested that this differential use pattern is a reflection of the more pervasive system of social stratification and the corresponding differences in life styles found in American cities. There is relatively little that the National Park Service can do to increase the use of national parks by the lower classes if the patterns we have found reflect the adaptations of urban poor families to social and economic marginality. On the other hand, the data indicating the more equitable use of local parks and recreation areas suggest that if the federal government is interested in providing this social service to the urban lower class, it should extend its domain to facilitate the development of parks and recreation areas within the cities.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

¹This research was conducted under a contract with the National Park Ser vice: Contract No. 14-10-6:990-315. It was supported in part by the Urban and Regional Development Center, Vanderbilt University.

²A detailed report of these findings is in William L. Yancey, David Britt. and Jane Snell Patterns of Leisure in the Inner-City, The Urban and Regional Development Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. Sept. 1971.

³Comparing the distributions of the blacks and whites on income, education. and occupational status we find some differences. In education the black sample is slightly higher than the white sample. In occupational status they are closely matched. In income the white sample is slightly higher.

⁴See S. M. Lipset. Political Man, Doubleday and Co., New York, 1963.

⁵These findings are consistent with considerable literature on this subject, most especially that stemming from Gunnar Myrdal, The American Dilemma, Harper and Row, New York, 1944.

⁶For a recent discussion of cohesion in the black community see Joseph S. Himes, "The Functions of Racial Conflict," Social Forces, Vol. 45, Sept. 1966. p. 1-10.

⁷See Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers, Free Press, New York, 1962 and Gerald Suttles The Social Order of the Slum, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1968. For a review of the literature on patterns of neighboring see William L. Yancey, "Architecture, Interaction and Social Control: The Case of a Large Scale Public Housing Project," Environment and Behavior, 1971, Vol. 3, No. 1.

⁸Edward Banfield has recently used the concept of time perspective to define and to a large degree explain much of the behavior exhibited among the urban lower class. We take a different position here in that we see the shorter time perspective of the lower class as an adaptation to economic marginality and in security rather than the cause of poverty. See Edward Banfield, The Unheavenly City, Little, Brown, Boston, 1969.