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

Once established, the management of a park presents an interesting challenge to any individual or group who would assume such a task. It is an interesting challenge because the two major components which will interact in a park—people and resources—require a substantive expertise somewhat unique but not independent of the other. Parks are an interrelationship between man and resources. We are well on our way to providing planners, developers, and managers with basic knowledge concerning the resource, but somehow we have failed to incorporate equivalent knowledge and sensitivity toward the human resource and social dimensions of a park (Burdge and Field 1972).

Too often, park planning groups have operated from a resource perspective in toto, failing to understand people, the nature of recreational publics, or the social meaning of leisure places in the society. At best, a resource perspective of park development emerges with a narrow set of assumptions about man that excludes a human behavioral component. A park is not a park without people. In fact, considered in its broadest context, parks are a product of culture (Klausner 1971).

Created by man, parks are but one type of leisure setting where man interacts with other men and with the environment for the purpose of engaging in leisure pursuits. In order to understand man-park relationships in a society, we need to understand how outdoor leisure settings are utilized in the society and by whom. Parks may be unique. Yet at the same time, parks appear to be interchangeable as leisure places with many nonpark settings in the manner in which human groups interact with each other and the resource. This paper explores the similarities between parks and nonpark leisure settings as places for people to gather. It is hoped that such an approach will help us generate broader insights into parks and the function they serve in American society.

SOCIAL GROUPS: A BASIS FOR INTERCHANGEABILITY

We indicated previously that the interchangeability of leisure places hinged upon the social group. Groups attach social meanings to leisure places by defining for themselves what a leisure place is and how it is to be utilized. This is not a unique situation for groups engaging in leisure. Human ecologists (Hawley 1950; Theodorson 1961) have demonstrated that the nature of population aggregates (in this case social groups) occupying a given space influences the nature of human activity and social meaning which arises. [1] If we can establish that parks share common-user groups with other leisure places, then a basis upon which interchangeability can occur has been established.

As a resource, parks, like nonpark areas, are devoid of human definition until man applies one (Burch 1971). Parks, like other leisure places, derive their social meaning from the society and from the social groups who engage in outdoor leisure pursuits within their boundaries (Burch 1971:51-108). Consequently, in a sociocultural context, parks as leisure places may have a universal attractiveness, resulting in not one social definition but rather in a multidimensional set of definitions. Some definitions associated with parks include a resource component; others are based solely upon social interaction criteria. Both, however, are articulated within social groups and between social groups.

By the nature of their social origin, parks can share social definition with other leisure places, depending upon the focus of attention for user groups, their culture, and previous experience with parks and other outdoor leisure settings. Cheek alludes to a more general context in which parks might be viewed when he states: "In short, it is unlikely that going to a local park is an empirically unique example of a non-work setting. It shares a common social structural characteristic with several other settings" (Cheek 1971:254). We suggest that one of those structural characteristics to which Cheek refers is the presence of social groups as the primary unit for participation in leisure.

It would appear logical to focus upon the social group as a unit of analysis for an exploration of leisure involvement and social meaning of leisure places in the society. The social group is the theoretical basis upon which sociology rests (Broom and Selznick 1968). The consideration of human groups as an entity within which action originates or is defined by members is not new. The development and refinement of this concept as an operational measure have a long history. Warringer (1956) suggests that in one sense groups are real. They influence individual action and are capable of altering individual action (Davis et al. 1961). In short, groups represent something more than the summation of the individual constituent parts (Burch 1971:51).

Group behavior, over time, develops regularities of action which are observable (Shevky and Bell 1955). Yet, until recently, very few sociologists or recreational researchers have seriously examined the utility of this concept for understanding leisure behavior. Meyersohn (1969) indicates, in a review of leisure research, that the group has been neglected as a unit of analysis, and consequently, understanding human behavior in leisure situations has been limited. Cheek (1971) has, perhaps more than any other person in leisure research, drawn attention to this void through the incorporation of the concept social group in his own research efforts and theoretical concerns. Our research is an expansion of his initial effort.

It is hypothesized that similar groups participate in like activities in various leisure settings. To the extent that parks and nonpark leisure places share similar social groups and human activity, they contribute to a potential basis upon which a similar social definition for leisure places can be articulated.

Therefore, our analysis proceeds in the following manner. First, types of social groups associated with leisure places are examined. Next, leisure activities associated with various leisure places are identified. Finally, an examination is undertaken whereby leisure activities, social groups, and leisure places are considered simultaneously.

DATA AND METHODS

The data for this investigation were gathered as part of a larger effort by the National Park Service in conjunction with the University of Washington. The area for the larger study includes the adult population 18 years of age and older who reside in Western Washington, Western Oregon, and Northern California. Geographically, the study area is bounded by the Cascade Mountains and Sierra Nevadas on the east, the Pacific Ocean on the west, the United States-Canadian border on the north, and the greater San Francisco metropolitan area on the south.

A probability sample of 1504 residents was selected from this area for examination. The method employed for respondent selection involved a series of intermediate sampling steps. Initially, all 58 counties representing the area were arranged in order of descending population size. A sample of counties was selected ensuring geographical and population distribution. Within each county, smaller units were selected. Minor civil divisions as defined by the Bureau of the Census were the basis upon which selection was made. A minor civil division may be a town, township, city, or part of a city. The probability that any particular division would be selected in a county was proportional to the population in the area. [2] Thus the larger a minor civil division, the greater the likelihood for inclusion.

The next step in sampling design introduces an innovative departure from traditional methods. Rather than relying upon maps for each minor civil division, master telephone directories were generated to determine where, within a given area, interviewing would take place. Within each master directory, all working exchanges were noted. Utilizing telephone area codes and telephone prefixes, telephone numbers were then drawn by systematic random procedures. To correct for un listed numbers, a computer technique generated the remaining four digits of an individual number.

All interviews were completed by telephone during the months of August and September 1971. Sampling criteria ensured that an equal number of interviews were undertaken with male and female heads of household. The average length of time per interview was 20 minutes.

Data were obtained from respondents through leisure information sets. This report is based upon one of those sets. The dependent variable is the leisure setting (place) where the respondent, on his most recent outdoor outing, engaged in some form of leisure activity. A leisure setting is defined as any place which affords the opportunity for people to gather to engage in some leisure activity. A park has an added dimension in that it is defined as any place set aside by governmental or private action for the purposes of allowing groups of people to gather. The major independent variables are (1) the social group within which the respondent shared his leisure experience, [3] and (2) leisure activities engaged in by the respondent and his social group while visiting a leisure place.

GROUP TYPE AND LEISURE PLACE

The commonality of social groups associated with leisure places is considered as a basis for interchangeability. Cheek (1971) noted that the social group is the most common unit of participation for those people going to parks. Burch and Wenger (1967) and Yancey and Britt (1971) reported comparable data for specific recreational activities. When other leisure places are considered, a similar finding emerges. The most common social unit of participation in our investigation regardless of leisure place is the social group (Table 1). Ninety-six percent and 97% of respondents engaged in leisure within a social group at parks and beaches, respectively. Ninety-one percent did so at playgrounds, schools, tracks, stadiums, and ballparks, while 69% participated in leisure within a social group at home or at the home of a friend or relative.

TABLE 1. Proportion of individuals who participated with someone else in a leisure place.

While noting the importance of a social group as the unit of participation in leisure, insights into additional features of groups provide a vehicle by which groups can be distinguished in the manner in which they became involved with specific human activities. Knowledge about group composition is one. [4] With regard to a specific outdoor activity, Burch and Wenger (1967) report that among family groups, compositional variation is associated with leisure setting in which camping takes place.

For purposes of the present investigation, social groups have been subdivided into friendship groups (peer groups), family units, and a combination of family and friends. The most frequent group appearing in parks is the family unit. When the analysis is expanded to include parks and nonpark leisure places, the family unit again emerges as the most common social unit participating in leisure (Table 2). A minimum of 40% of our respondents were with family groups while visiting all leisure settings. Fifty-one percent and 50% were members of a family group visiting parks and beaches, respectively. When family groups and combinations of family and friendship groups are considered, the proportion of family-related groups increases to 73% for parks and 76% for beaches, lakes, and rivers, as well as 60% for playgrounds and 57% at home. There is a slightly higher proportion of friendship groups found at parks than at beaches, but friendship groups as a separate unit were found to be most common at playgrounds, schools, stadiums, and ball parks. Participating in leisure activities alone occurred most often at home or in the neighborhood. Thirty-one percent participated alone (Table 2).

TABLE 2. Group composition by leisure place.

HUMAN ACTIVITY AND LEISURE PLACE

There is an abundance of recreational literature available in which authors have focused upon participation in various types of outdoor activities. A distribution of involvement by various client groups in selected activities has been a common focus of such reports (Owens 1970). Very often estimates of demand for specific activities associated with recreational places have been included. Unfortunately, the predictive capabilities have been less than desired partly because of an underlying assumption that activities are place specific, and/or facilities are conducive to a limited range of human involvement.

Within the present investigation, we extended the scope in which activities are considered; and even in so doing, similarities emerged among leisure places. Respondents identified 30 different activities in which they participated at playgrounds, schools, etc. Twenty-five such activities were identified for parks, beaches, and neighborhoods (Table 3).

Furthermore, activities are not place specific. When we examine the commonality among leisure places, we find that, of the 26 different activities associated with recent visits to parks, 17 activities were pursued in neighborhood areas and 17, at beaches. Social groups participated in 21 of those 26 park activities at playgrounds (Table 4). Similar findings are noted when each leisure place is compared to another. Twelve activities were common to all leisure places. It is interesting to note that the 12 activities were also the most popular outdoor activities as reported in an Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission (ORRRC) (1962).

TABLE 3. Number of different activities.

TABLE 4. Activities shared among leisure places.

ACTIVITY PROFILES OF GROUPS

It was mentioned previously that conclusions drawn from activity research have been incomplete (Burdge and Field 1972). Attempting to draw conclusions regarding human involvement and/or behavior associated with leisure through traditional activity research is tenuous at best. Recreational activities are too encompassing. Additional variables need to be incorporated for discerning behavioral similarities or differences associated with leisure activities. Within an activity or between like activities, extreme variation can occur depending upon the focus of the participating group. Burch (1969) and Bultena and Klessig (1969) illustrate various participation strategies associated with camping.

When considering human activities with social groups and leisure places simultaneously, a clustering occurs (Table 5). To illustrate clustering, 12 of the 14 most popular outdoor activities as presented in the ORRRC (1962) report were analyzed. In rank order of occurrence, swimming and walking were the major activities for respondents participating alone, regardless of leisure place. When friends as a group participated in leisure, the following activities were found to occur in all places: cooking-out, visiting with friends, sightseeing. picnicking, playing football and baseball, swimming, golf, and hiking or walking. Similar activities were found to occur in all leisure places for families with the exception that fishing, boating, and camping replaced golf, football, baseball, and swimming. Participation in leisure activity by a combination of friends and family centered on the same activities in all leisure places as noted for family groups.

TABLE 5. Activities by social groups occurring in various leisure places.

The focus of attention for the future will be to extend our analysis to include social characteristics of particular social groups with activities and leisure places. Analysis of variance and a variation of multiple correlation are two statistical techniques currently being employed to generate group-activity profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have considered the interchangeability of parks with nonpark leisure settings by examining the type of social groups and leisure activities associated with leisure places. Social groups are the predominant unit of participation for park and nonpark areas. Family units are the most common type of social group participating, and similar groups do participate in similar activities regardless of leisure place. Thus, a context within which the potential for ascertaining a common social definition associated with leisure places exists. Finally, a further delineation of group properties, especially a consideration of social organization, will help identify the social dimensions of parks as leisure places in the society. Populations respond to various conditions of the environment through social organization. We have initiated an exploration of group compositional features as a beginning step. In this sense our analysis is partial and suggestive rather than definitive.

FOOTNOTES

¹Other dimensions are social organization. technology, and environmental influences. We are assuming that while the total of human activity occurring in leisure space is much more inclusive than specific recreational activities, we can obtain initial insights to group interaction with a leisure environment by examining leisure activities.

²Elaborate sampling procedures were employed to ensure that population area units were selected which represented the total population as it appears in reality. Residential income, educational, and occupational criteria were built into the sampling procedures.

³A social group is defined as a plurality of individuals (2 or more) who are in contact with one another, who take one another into account, and who are aware of some significant reason for being together (Olmsted 1959:21).

⁴Derived through observation techniques, compositional features might include relationship of group members to one another, social roles of group members, stage in life cycle, social age of members, and size of group. Taken together, a compositional profile of a group can be generated and its association with specific human activities measured.

REFERENCES

BROOM, L., and P. SELZNICK, 1968. Sociology: A text with adapted readings. Harper and Row, New York.

BULTENA, G. L. and L. L. KLESSIG. 1969. Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social research. J. Leisure Res. 1 (Autumn): 348-354.

BURCH, W. R., Jr., and W. D. WENGER, Jr. 1967. The social characteristics of participants in three styles of family camping. Portland USDA Forest Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-48.

BURCH, W. R., Jr. 1969. The social circles of leisure: competing explanations. J. Leisure Res. 1 (Spring):125-147.

______. 1971. Daydreams and nightmares: A sociological essay on the American environment. Harper and Row. New York.

BURDGE, R. J., and D. R. FIELD. 1972. Methodological perspectives for the study of outdoor recreation. J. Leisure Res. 4 (Winter):63-72.

CHEEK, N. H., Jr. 1971. Toward a sociology of not-work. Pac. Social. Rev. 14 (July):245-258.

DAVIS, J. A., J. L. SPAETH, and C. HUSON. 1961. A technique for analyzing the effects of group composition. Am. Social. Rev. 26:215-225.

HAWLEY, A. H. 1950. Human ecology. The Ronald Press; New York.

KLAUSNER, S. 1971. On man in his environment. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco.

MEYERSOHN, R. 1969. The sociology of leisure in the United States: Introduction and bibliography, 1945-1965. J. Leisure Res. 1 (Winter):53-68.

OLMSTED, M. S. 1959. The small group. Random House, New York.

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESOURCES REVIEW COMMISSION. 1962. Outdoor recreation for America. Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office Study Rep. 19.

OWENS, G. P. 1970. Outdoor recreation: Participation, characteristics of users, distances traveled, and expenditures. Ohio Agri. Res. Bull. 1033.

SHEVKY, E., and W. BELL. 1955. Social area analysis. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto.

THEODORSON, G. A. 1961. Studies in human ecology. Harper and Row, New York.

WARRINGER C. K. 1956. Groups are real: A reaffirmation. Am. Social. Rev. 21:549-554.

YANCEY, W. L., and D. BRITT. 1971. Patterns of leisure in the inner-city. Rep., to the National Park Service.