United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS-11

Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity

and Outdoor Recreation: A Review

and Synthesis of African-American and

European-American Participation

Cassandra Y. Johnson, J.M. Bowker, 

D.B.K. English, and Dreamal Worthen
____________

The Authors:

____________

Cassandra Y. Johnson, J.M. Bowker, and D.B.K. English are Social 

Scientist and Research Social Scientists, respectively, Outdoor Recreation 

and Wilderness Assessment Group, Southern Research Station, USDA 

Forest Service, Athens, GA 30602. Dreamal Worthen is a faculty member 

in the Agricultural Science Department, Florida A&M University, 

Tallahassee, FL 32307.

Part 1 of a Two-Part Series

July 1997

Southern Research Station

P.O. Box 2680

Asheville, NC 28802
Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity and Outdoor 

Recreation: A Review and Synthesis of AfricanAmerican and European-American Participation

Cassandra Y. Johnson, J.M. Bowker, D.B.K. English, 

and Dreamal Worthen

Abstract

For over three decades, research has shown differences in recreation

participation by ethnic group membership, particularly for African

Americans and European Americans. This paper is the first of a two-part

publication series that examines black/white recreation. In this first part,

the literature and empirical findings on black/white leisure participation are

reviewed. The implications of generalizing region-specific theories and

findings of black/white participation to populations in various parts of the

country are discussed. Finally, implications for forest managers and future

research needs are presented.

Keywords: Ethnicity, marginality, place meaning, race, recreation, rural

residence.

Introduction

Current demographic trends indicate population growth for

racial and ethnic minority groups is increasing faster than

the rate for the U.S. population as a whole. Population

trends predict that 82 percent of the nation's growth over the

next 30 years will come primarily from Hispanic, Asian,

African American, and other ethnic minorities (Dwyer

1994, Murdock and others 1990, USDA Forest Service

1994).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, is

responding to these demographic changes by initiating

research efforts to learn more about the recreation habits

and preferences of minority groups. These new directions

are fostering interest in learning about the different ways in

which some racial and ethnic groups use national forests

and are also raising the question of why some groups have

virtually no representation among forest users. Empirical

studies have already identified some of these differences,

the largest being between African Americans and European

Americans (non-Hispanic whites of primarily European

descent). For example, studies have established that

African Americans are less likely than whites to recreate in

dispersed-setting outdoor areas or to travel to regional

recreation areas (McDonald and Hutchinson 1986).

Minority recreation behavior came to the attention of social

scientists and resource professionals in the 1960's and early

1970's when social upheavals were taking place in America.

Citizen groups charged that the civil unrest occurring in

major U.S. cities was due, in large part, to inequitable

distribution of recreation resources (Kraus and Lewis 1986, 

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders 1968,

Washburne 1978). Policymakers and resource professionals

were forced to acknowledge that recreation and leisure

services were not immune from the discrimination and

prejudices found in other societal institutions (e.g., housing,

education, and industry). Hence, research was initiated at

the Federal, State, and local levels to assess the degree of

black/white differences in leisure participation and to

identify, to the extent possible, other factors correlated with

such differences (Hutchinson 1974).

This paper explores some of the reasons why African

Americans may be less predisposed than European

Americans to take part in certain forms of outdoor

recreation activity or visit certain outdoor recreation places. 

We present our discussion in four sections: (1) an overview

of the most widely discussed theoretical bases that have

guided ethnic recreation research; (2) a chronological

review of empirical work related to these theories; (3) a

synthesis and assessment of these studies, including general

inferences and relevance; and (4) future research needs. 

This review of ethnic leisure and recreation theories is not

exhaustive. We have attempted to account for only the

more widely discussed explanations and the most recent

applications.

A Taxonomy of Ethnic Recreation 

Theories

Two primary theoretical perspectives of black/white

recreation emerged from the early minority recreation

studies of the 1960's and 1970's: race/ethnicity1 and

1 We use race and ethnicity interchangeably although the terms have

distinct meanings in the social science literature. Historically, race was

used to denote differences among groups based on supposed genetic

characteristics (Marger 1991). Cultural traits were assumed to follow

biological traits. Ethnicity, on the other hand, refers to broader identity

elements that include language, customs, religion, and, to a lesser extent,

physical characteristics, e.g., a person of African descent who is also

Hispanic. Because of the ambiguous connotations associated with race,

most scientists and theorists agree that ethnicity is more useful in

describing differences among societal groups.
2

socioeconomic status (income, education). If, in empirical

studies, racial differences between blacks and whites

remained after controlling for socioeconomic variables such

as income and education, these variances were attributed to

some vaguely defined normative/cultural aspect of race or

ethnicity. Alternatively, if findings showed no differences

or diminished differences after controlling for socioeconomic factors, support for socioeconomic causes would

be established (Burdge and Field 1972, Cheek and others

1976, Hartmann and Overdevest 1990, Hauser 1962,

Hutchison 1988, Mueller and others 1962, O'Leary and

Benjamin 1982, Stamps and Stamps 1985). Table 1

provides a summary of the most frequently cited race and

ethnicity studies. It includes the major theoretical

explanations and findings.

Lee (1972) was among the first leisure researchers to move

discussions of ethnic recreation away from merely reporting

correlations of demographic variables and activities to more

comprehensive discussions that linked recreation behavior

to broader theories of social organization. Lee (1972)

focused on an aspect of ethnic subculture theory that

involved looking at the meanings different sociocultural

groups attribute to recreation places or activities. This

perspective of place-meaning is derived from a social

psychological view where leisure behavior is perceived as a

replication of everyday norms and habits. That is, leisure

time is not free time when the norms and dictates of social

order are abandoned, but rather it is a time when normative

constraints may be somewhat relaxed (Szwed and Abrahams

1977). Central to this theory is the idea that the definitions

a group ascribes to leisure behavior are necessarily colored

by the group's experiences in everyday life.

The sociocultural-meaning theory that emerged from Lee's

(1972) work raises questions about what kinds of people

visit recreation places or engage in recreation activities, and,

most importantly, how various groups behave in the

recreational setting. The potential participant must consider

whether or not the real or imagined behavior of visitors is

congruent with his or her own expectations. If potential

users perceive that certain recreation places are defined

primarily by so-called extremist behavior such as

motorcycle gang or hippie activity, such places become

de facto off limits (Williams and Carr 1993).

For the remainder of the 1970's, ethnic recreation research

returned to the dichotomous paradigm of race versus

socioeconomic influences. Two theories more specific to

socioeconomic explanations were more clearly articulated 

during this time: (1) opportunity or demographic theory, and

(2) compensation theory.

Opportunity theory grew out of research on socioeconomic

barriers to participation. The theory is based on the notion

that a group's nonparticipation in outdoor recreation results,

in part, from monetary constraints but stems primarily from

inaccessibility to resources. Opportunity theory is distinct

from the more general socioeconomic explanations because

greater emphasis is placed on human proximity to resources

as the specific cause of nonparticipation.

Opportunity theory has also been referred to as demographic

theory, which is simply another way of stating human/

resource proximity (Cheek and others 1976). If individuals

with certain demographic characteristics lived near

resources, they would be more likely to use nearby facilities

and services. This explanation is relevant to socioeconomic

issues because, traditionally, residence in better-served

districts and neighborhoods has been based primarily on

race and ethnicity, with minority groups restricted to

neighborhoods with poorer facilities and services. The

Kerner Commission Report (National Advisory

Commission on Civil Disorders 1968) on race riots in urban

ghettos during the 1960's cited lack of adequate recreation

facilities and programs as major grievances of rioters. 

Minority groups did not gain equal access to housing until

the 1960's and 1970's, with enactment of civil rights

legislation. Indeed, many minorities have benefitted from

greater opportunities in choice of housing and residential

environment, but for a great many others, such opportunities

remain unrealized (Wilson 1980, 1987).

Hauser (1962) first mentioned the issue of resource access

and cost in the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission (ORRRC) report when describing lack of black

participation in outdoor recreation activities. (The ORRRC

was established by congressional mandate in 1958 to

estimate current and expected demand for outdoor

recreation resources in the United States.) Hauser states

"non-white (all black) participation in these activities is

relatively low apparently by reason of their high cost or the

unavailability to the individual of suitable facilities" (pp. 56-

57). Lindsey and Ogle (1972) formalized this explanation

by proposing the opportunity theory to help explain

differences in outdoor recreation that did not vary with

income. The authors argued that low participation in

outdoor recreation might be better explained by lack of

available opportunities or resources for less affluent

populations.
3

Table 1—Ethnic recreation research and proposed theoriesa

 Racial group(s) Theories

Researcher(s) studied tested Supported

 Craig 1972 Blacks Residence Residence

Antunes and Gaitz 1975 Hispanics, Compensation Blacks:

blacks, and and isolation compensation,

whites Hispanics:

ethnicity

Cheek and others 1976 Blacks and Marginality Marginality

whites

Klobus-Edwards and others 1978 Blacks and Isolation, No results

whites compensation, projected

and ethnicity

Washburne 1978 Blacks and Marginality Ethnicity,

whites partial 

marginality

Washburne and Wall 1980 Blacks and Ethnicity and Ethnicity

whites marginality

Klobus-Edwards 1981 Blacks and Ethnicity and Ethnicity and

whites marginality residence

O'Leary and Benjamin 1982 Blacks and Ethnicity Opportunity/

whites ethnicity

Stamps and Stamps 1985 Blacks and Marginality Ethnicity

whites

Hutchison 1987 Blacks, whites, Demographic, Blacks:

and Hispanics ethnicity, and marginality,

marginality demographic;

Hispanics:

ethnicity,

marginality, and

demographic

Woodard 1988 Blacks Marginality Marginality

and region

West 1989 Blacks and Marginality Partial 

whites and ethnicity marginality

Carr and Williams 1993 Hispanics and Ethnicity Ethnicity

whites

Floyd and others 1994 Blacks and Class Class

whites identification identification

Shinew and others 1995 Blacks and Multiple Multiple

whites hierarchy hierarchy

stratification stratification

and class

polarization

a

 Not all empirical studies reviewed relate specifically to outdoor recreation.
4

Compensation theory2 is also related to socioeconomic

explanations in that African-American leisure participation

is considered a reflection of societal inequities. In contrast

to the perspectives presented thus far, however, this theory

posits that blacks tend to overparticipate rather than not

participate in outdoor recreation activities. Antunes and

Gaitz (1975) borrowed compensation theory from the

broader sociological literature on social and political

participation and applied it to recreation and leisure

behavior. In terms of leisure, the theory postulates that

because racial and ethnic minorities tend to have relatively

marginal status (less well-off in terms of income, education,

wealth, access to information) in society, they participate in

recreation at higher levels than whites of similar socioeconomic status. According to compensation theory, blacks

are "exaggerated Americans" (Klobus-Edwards and others

1978) who overzealously engage in social and political

activities, organized and supported by fellow blacks, in an

attempt to lessen the effects of institutionalized racism.

Myrdal and others (1944) first presented compensation

theory more than 50 years ago when both de jure and de

facto segregation of social activities existed. It may be

argued that many of the conditions that led to the

formulation of this theory have been substantially reduced. 

Given greater freedom of choice, today's middle-class

African American may be less likely than the Negro of the

1940's to feel compelled to personally compensate for

societal inequities.

Towards a Formalized Theory

In the late 1970's, Washburne (1978) proposed a formal

theoretical framework that grounded the contrasting

perspectives of race versus socioeconomic factors in

sociological theory. He applied a very broad interpretation

of the two ideas and classified the various socioeconomic

factors or causes of underparticipation or nonparticipation

as marginality and racial/ethnic/subcultural explanations as

ethnicity.

The marginality perspective attributes minority (particularly

black) differences in recreation behavior to social structural

barriers such as lack of discretionary funds, lack of

transportation, and inadequate information about facilities. 

This perspective charges that the twin traditions of relative

poverty and ignorance experienced by blacks in American

society are largely responsible for the differences in

black/white leisure participation.

While not ignoring the impact of socioeconomic factors,

ethnicity theory maintains that minority underparticipation

in outdoor recreation is better explained by distinct

subcultural leisure values. According to this view,

subcultures or ethnic minorities possess unique cultural

value systems that determine their recreation behavior. 

Some researchers have even challenged the term

underparticipation because it assumes that African

Americans should have the same recreation aspirations as

European Americans. Woodard (1988) and Carr and

Williams (1993) argue that subgroup recreation should be

considered in terms of the respective ethnic group standards

rather than in relation to a normalized ideal.

During the 1980's, a number of empirical examinations of

ethnicity and marginality theory were conducted (KlobusEdwards 1981, Stamps and Stamps 1985, Washburne and

Wall 1980, West 1989). Typically, these investigations

used race as an indicator of ethnicity and defined

marginality in terms of either education or income or an

index of social position. Few, if any, studies examined

deeper ramifications of these constructs. 

As the ethnicity/marginality paradigm gained prominence, a

limited amount of research began to focus on more refined

interpretations of ethnicity such as geographical and

residential differentiations within ethnic subcultures. 

Woodard (1988) proposed an interactive examination of

recreation participation that included both race and place-ofresidence variables.3

 With respect to outdoor recreation

participation, it was argued that it is also important to

consider that intraracial leisure variations may exist, for

example, between rural and nonrural African Americans. 

Glenn and Hill (1977) and Riley (1992) would argue that

these differences are influenced by more than simple

demographic proximity (resource access and residence

explanations). Rather, the rural environment itself—the

particular combination of geography, rural economics,

politics, culture, and socialization—influences leisure

decisions and other life choices.

More recently, ethnic recreation research has begun to apply

2 more sophisticated techniques and broader applications of A related explanation is the ethnic community hypothesis. The

hypothesis states that ethnic minorities engage more in social activities

than whites of comparable socioeconomic status because the relatively

smaller, more cohesive ethnic group is able to exert pressure on the

individual member to conform to the norms of the respective ethnic

affiliation (Antunes and Gaitz 1975).

3 Before the 1980's, at least one researcher, Craig (1972), had considered

place of residence as a factor in recreation participation.
5

social theory to research problems. Along these lines, Floyd

and others (1994) proposed a theory of class identification

to explain leisure behavior. This explanation is related to

marginality in that it views social class status rather than

ethnicity as the better explicator of black/white differences

in leisure behavior. The theory postulates that blacks and

whites who view themselves as occupying similar social

positions would express similar leisure preferences.

The same group of researchers (Shinew and others 1995)

also applied the multiple hierarchy stratification and class

polarization theories to leisure behavior. These theories,

taken from the general literature on societal inequalities,

also build on marginality explanations of leisure behavior. 

The multiple hierarchy theory holds that race, class, gender,4

and age are all potential characteristics that can inhibit

social access and goal realization. In other words, the

recreation behavior of persons who occupy marginalized

societal positions—for example, older, less affluent,

minority, females—would be distinct from other racial and

socioeconomic groups.

Class polarization theory posits that class differences also

exist within the African-American population and are more

distinct between lower-class black males and higher-class

black males than between upper- and lower-class black

females. Wilson (1980) charges that the widening gap

among black males is due in large part to two labor related

trends: (1) the decline in jobs for unskilled, physical labor

typically performed by males; and (2) the growing

availability of professional occupations for educated black

males. Applied to leisure research, class polarization

predicts that upper-middle-class black males would exhibit

leisure behavior different from that displayed by lower-class

black males. Class distinctions between different classes of

black females are not expected to be as pronounced because

occupations for black women have not become so

dichotomized. Because social class is believed to be less

polarized among different classes of black women, leisure

preferences are also thought to be less distinct.

Theory development in ethnic recreation research continues

to emerge, drawing on more comprehensive explanations

which combine suppositions of different disciplines such as

sociology, social psychology, economics, and history. 

These innovative approaches are replacing the

unidimensional explanations of past decades that viewed

theories as distinct and competing. Recent theories offer

more integrative paradigms which, we believe, have the

potential to greatly enhance our understanding of factors

that influence leisure choices.

Empirical Assessment of Competing 

Theories

This section presents some of the most frequently cited

investigations of black/white differences in outdoor

recreation. We present a chronological review of findings

related to each of the theories previously discussed.

Ethnicity

Using chi-square analyses, Washburne (1978) examined the

ethnicity/marginality paradigm of wildland recreation

participation. He compared use of wildland areas for a

sample of black (N = 1,193) and white (N = 838) urban

Californians. The secondary data were from a 1969

multistage, stratified sample of low-income residents in the

State. Results provided partial support for the ethnicity

explanation. Blacks were significantly less likely than

whites to participate in undeveloped, primitive areas, even

when socioeconomic factors were held constant. In support

of marginality, however, blacks were more likely than

whites to report that lack of transportation prevented them

from traveling to recreation areas outside of their

neighborhoods. Overall, Washburne (1978) concluded that

socioeconomic factors alone provided a poor explanation of

wildland recreation participation and recommended more

indepth investigations that explored the influence of ethnic

norms and values on recreation choices.

Washburne's (1978) study is viewed as a classic in the

ethnic recreation literature, a benchmark against which

virtually all subsequent marginality-ethnicity-type studies

have been compared. He was the first investigator to clearly

articulate a theoretical basis for the race-versussocioeconomics debate. However, findings from

Washburne (1978) may be restricted by limitations in the

sampling time frame (1969); but even more suspect is the

population from which the data were drawn. The sample

consisted of individuals with "unusually low incomes and

other disadvantages." As a result, findings may represent

only individuals in the lowest socioeconomic strata, rather

than working-class, middle-income, and upper-income

populations. This caveat would seem to limit extrapolation

to lower income groups.

4 Both Floyd and others (1994) and Shinew and others (1995) refer to

gender rather than sex. It is not clear whether they make the sociological

distinction between the terms. Sociologists define gender (masculine,

feminine) as a socially and culturally constructed concept (Abercrombie

and others 1988); while sex (male, female) is biologically determined.
6

Washburne and Wall (1980) reported results similar to those

found by Washburne (1978) using data from the U.S.

Department of Interior's 1977 Heritage Conservation and

Recreation Service's national study (U.S. Department of

Interior 1979). The study consisted of a stratified

probability sample of 4,029 households throughout the

country. Age and sex quotas were used to select actual

household respondents. Analyses were conducted on both

the actual sample and on a subsample of 170 black and 170

white respondents from the larger data set. The black and

white subsamples were matched on sex, age, income,

education, and place of residence. Washburne and Wall

(1980) avoided the sampling limitations of Washburne

(1978) by using a broader sampling frame. This study

tested marginality theory. The sample represented a cross

section of the population in terms of income, education, and

other sociodemographic variables.

Washburne and Wall's (1980) chi-square analyses showed

significant differences in participation rates between blacks

and whites for certain forest-type activities (developed

camping, primitive camping, boating, and sightseeing) for

both the larger sample and the matched subsamples. 

However, differences either before or after matching for

socioeconomic characteristics were not significant for

fishing, off-road vehicle use, picnicking, and driving for

pleasure. These findings are similar to subsequent studies

which show that blacks and whites are least similar with

respect to camping, hiking, and backpacking activities

(Dwyer 1994).

To further assess the impact of marginality, Washburne and

Wall (1980) asked respondents to indicate those factors that

restricted participation in outdoor recreation. Marginality

factors included money, time, transportation, and

information about outdoor recreation areas. A larger

percentage of blacks reported that lack of transportation was

a barrier, but no significant differences appeared for any of

the other marginality factors. The only ethnicity factor was

lack of interest, and in this no significant black/white

difference was found. This single finding seems to lend

support for marginality; however, the authors did not

discuss implications of this finding.

The authors also examined marginality theory by assessing

latent demand for activities. According to marginality,

minorities would express greater demand for activities they

have been denied. Results showed that blacks were no more

likely than whites to express a desire to engage in activities

other than those in which they were currently engaged.

Washburne and Wall (1980) concluded that differences in

recreation behavior resulted from differences in subcultural

values and norms associated with leisure behavior rather

than socioeconomic factors. The authors based their

conclusions primarily on the findings that racial differences

for camping, boating, and sightseeing remained or changed

only slightly after the samples were matched on

demographic characteristics. Washburne and Wall also

recommended further studies to explore ethnicity from an

ethnographic standpoint. Such investigations would involve

focusing on the social environment of black leisure and how

overall leisure time is used.

Klobus-Edwards (1981) used data from a recreational-needs

study of residents in Lynchburg, VA, to assess the strength

of relationships among race, residence, and leisure style. 

The study examined black (N = 193) and white (N = 492)

household participation in two categories of outdoor

recreational involvement: (1) outdoor recreation (camping,

picnicking, boating or canoeing, walking, hiking, and

jogging); and (2) wildland activity (backpacking,

orienteering, fishing). Respondents reported actual

participation in outdoor recreation activities but preferences

for wildland activities rather than actual involvement. She

also compared blacks living in racially diverse communities

and those living in predominantly black neighborhoods to

determine the extent of within-race leisure differences.

The analyses consisted of means difference tests (multiple

analysis of variance), both zero-order comparisons and

comparisons holding constant age, sex, income, education,

and household size. Results showed blacks had

significantly greater involvement than whites in outdoor

recreation activities, while whites indicated significantly

higher preferences for wildland activities. When residential

comparisons were made for blacks, results showed blacks in

predominantly black neighborhoods had significantly higher

participation in outdoor recreation activities, but blacks in

racially mixed communities showed significantly higher

preferences for wildland activities.

The study further compared involvement in leisure

participation by both race and sex, for example, black males

and white males. (At the time of publication, this study was

one of only a few ethnic recreation studies that had

examined within-sex differences by race or within-race

differences by residence.) The race/sex subgroups were

compared on reasons for participation (competition,

relaxation, physical condition, enjoyment, and personal

contact) and reasons prohibiting participation (no available

time, lack of interesting programs, inadequate information,

and transportation problems). After controlling for
7

socioeconomic variables, male participation differed for

only one reason—physical conditioning. Female

participation differed for two reasons—physical

conditioning and relaxation. Among the reasons prohibiting

participation, black males were nearly twice as likely as

white males to indicate lack of time. White females were

more likely than black females to say they did not

participate because of lack of interesting programs. 

Results of general race comparisons showed some support

for ethnicity theory in terms of activity preference (blacks

having greater preference for outdoor recreation and whites

showing more preference for wildland activities). Race/sex

comparisons partially supported ethnicity (greater black

male and female preference for physical conditioning). The

subgroup analyses also showed no significant differences

for inadequate information or transportation problems. This

latter finding contrasts with Washburne (1978) and

Washburne and Wall's (1980) finding of significant racial

differences in access to transportation.

Klobus-Edwards (1981) concluded that little support was

established for marginality because the inclusion of

socioeconomic variables into the analyses did not lessen

general black/white differences. Though significant

differences were found for blacks by residence, KlobusEdwards (1981) minimizes the marginality implications of

these results. Instead, she suggests that blacks living among

whites may try to emulate white behavior to connect with

the "alien environment." Our review found evidence to

support both ethnicity and marginality. These mixed results

are similar to those reported earlier by Washburne (1978)

and Washburne and Wall (1980).

The Stamps and Stamps (1985) study of 750 Syracuse, NY,

residents examined the effects of race and class

(marginality) on leisure participation. The authors used the

Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position to

represent socioeconomic status or social class. The index,

developed by Hollingshead (1971), includes weighted

measures of occupation and years of schooling as indicators

of social position. This measure was an improvement over

methods used in previous studies to operationalize 

marginality. Earlier studies relied solely on separate,

census-type variables, such as education or income, to

represent this very complex construct (Washburne 1978,

Washburne and Wall 1980).

Holding social class constant, Stamps and Stamps (1985)

used chi-square analyses to test for black/white differences 

in a selected number of leisure activities, including sports

participation and outdoor recreation (camping, fishing, and

cultural activities). The authors hypothesized that

differences in leisure activities for blacks and whites would

not be significant when social class was controlled. 

However, findings showed that race rather than social class

was the greater predictor of leisure behavior, particularly

among middle-class respondents. Fewer differences were

found between lower-class blacks and whites. Activities

that showed the greatest differences for middle-class blacks

and whites were outdoor recreation, yardwork/gardening,

socializing/partying, and resting/relaxation.

The ethnicity studies reviewed in this section are typically

cited as part of a homogenous body of research supporting

the ethnicity perspective of recreation and leisure. This is

generally true; however, as our review has shown, the

studies contain both similarities and differences. In terms of

similarities, most investigations reported black/white

differences for wildland-type activities such as camping,

hiking, and backpacking. These results suggest that for

certain kinds of wildland activities, racial differences may

be consistently strong. The underlying reason for finding 

differences in these particular activities is a matter of more

indepth, empirical inquiry.

Differences among the studies were also noted. For

example, Washburne (1978) found support for racial

differences between lower-class blacks and whites; whereas

Stamps and Stamps (1985) found that racial differences

were most evident for middle-class rather than lower-class

groups. The methods used to test for marginality also

differed. The earlier studies (Klobus-Edwards 1981,

Washburne 1978, Washburne and Wall 1980) used income

and education as indicators of the construct. Later, Stamps

and Stamps (1985) used a somewhat more sophisticated

index of social position that included both education and

occupation. Thus, a closer examination of these studies

reveals that seemingly congruent findings also contain

differences and that both methods and results should be

carefully scrutinized.

Socioeconomic Status, Marginality, and 

Related Theories

Socioeconomic status—Cheek and others (1976) compared

leisure participation for a representative sample of blacks 

(N = 144) and whites (N = 1,383) living in "Coaltown," a

large manufacturing city in the Eastern United States. Mean

difference tests compared leisure preferences and rates for
8

various categories of activities5

— outdoor recreation, urban

activities, social participation, sports, and hobbies. This

was done for both the entire sample and for a matched

subset (N=144) of blacks and whites. The black and white

subsamples were matched for sex, age, education, residence,

and income. The authors hypothesized that leisure

differences would diminish when these factors were

controlled.

Bivariate results for the overall sample showed significant

differences between the races on all activities except

hobbies, but when the samples were matched on the

socioeconomic characteristics, differences disappeared for

all activities except number of sports played. The authors

concluded that socioeconomic factors, rather than race,

provided a better explanation of recreation behavior.

The models used in this study were similar to models used

later by Washburne (1978) [except that Cheek and others

(1976) included neighborhood residence as a control

variable], yet the two studies revealed dissimilar findings. 

The variant findings could be attributed to geographic 

and/or socioeconomic differences and to differences in how

the investigators categorized recreation activities. The

Cheek and others (1976) sample was restricted to a

northeastern manufacturing city that included respondents

with varying levels of socioeconomic status, whereas

Washburne's (1978) sample involved a State-wide sample of

low-income, urban Californians. Moreover, race may be

more salient an issue for recreation participation in some

regions of the country than in others. As Klobus-Edwards'

(1981) study subsequently showed, even within a single

city, race was not as important a variable in determining

leisure preferences for blacks in racially mixed communities

as it was for blacks in primarily black communities.

Marginality—West (1989) tested the marginality theory for

a sample of Detroit residents, where visitation to city and

surrounding regional parks was compared for black and

white samples using chi-square analyses. Initial results

showed that blacks used city parks more often than whites, 

while whites visited regional parks more often than blacks. 

After controlling for income, education, and sex, significant

differences between blacks and whites remained. However,

some support for marginality was found in terms of access

to transportation. Blacks indicated lack of transportation

often prevented them from visiting regional parks outside

the city. This finding was similar to results reported earlier

(Washburne 1978, Washburne and Wall 1980). West

(1989), however, emphasized racial discrimination as

reasons for differences between black and white visitation.

Class identification—Floyd and others (1994) used data

from a national telephone probability sample of 1,607

respondents to explore the relationships among race, leisure

preferences, and social class using class-identification

theory. Investigators hypothesized that respondents of

similar social class would indicate similar leisure

preferences. Survey respondents classified themselves into

the researcher-defined class categories of either middle class

or working/poor class. Spearman's Coefficient of Rank

Correlation (SAS 1988) was used to test for associations

between race and leisure preferences and class and leisure

preferences.

Few significant racial or social class differences were found

for activities such as games, fine art, and camping/hiking. 

Racial comparisons of rank order were then conducted,

controlling for social class differences. Blacks and whites

who defined themselves as middle class showed similar

rankings for activity preferences. Contrary to expectations,

however, working-class/poor subgroups of blacks and

whites showed less correspondence in preferred activities. 

This was particularly evident for females of the lower

classes. These results contrast with those found by Stamps

and Stamps (1985), where recreation preferences of the

lower classes tended to be more similar than those of the

middle class. Further analyses of race, social class, and

gender effects showed that middle-class black and white

males were most similar in terms of favorite activities, and

lower-class black and white females were least similar.

The authors explain the incongruence between these studies,

suggesting that the different results may be attributed in part

to their use of subjective social class designations rather

than researcher-imposed categorizations. Floyd and others

(1994) propose that subjective social class designations

provide a better representation of social class than

previously used objective measures and, hence, a more

accurate reflection of the impact of socioeconomic factors

on recreation choices.

5

 Leisure indices were constructed for activity types. For example, outdoor

recreation activities included picnicking, swimming, camping, fishing,

hunting, and snow skiing. Urban activities included gardening, driving for

pleasure, bowling, dancing, and golfing. The social participation index

was based on degree of involvement in social activities, ranging from one

(low involvement) to three (high involvement). Sports included attending

or playing football games, playing or attending basketball games, attending

wrestling matches, and playing golf, softball, baseball, and badminton. 

Hobbies included woodworking, decorating, painting, cooking, music,

sewing, and reading books.
9

To explain the different racial impacts on leisure choices

among middle and lower classes, Floyd and others (1994)

postulate that the influence of race on recreation decisions

may depend on social class level. The authors suggest

further that the multiple effects of class, race, and gender on

leisure choices should be investigated simultaneously

because these factors serve as indicators of societal

inequalities. Overall, the study concluded that

overwhelming evidence supporting marginality (class

identification) or ethnicity (indicated by race) was not found

because responses differed between lower- and middle-class

subjects.

Multiple hierarchy and class polarization—Using a

methodology similar to Floyd and others (1994), Shinew

and others (1995) analyzed the multiple hierarchy

stratification and class polarization theories. Multiple

hierarchy theory was proposed in response to findings

reported by Floyd and others (1994). Shinew and others

(1995) examined secondary data from a national telephone

sample (N = 138 black, N = 1,374 white). Findings

partially supported the hypothesis that the middle classes of

both races shared similar leisure preferences. Like Floyd

and others (1994), middle-class black and white men

expressed similar preferences, but less congruency was

found for middle-class black and white women. Moreover,

the leisure preferences of lower-class black women were

different from those of whites and middle-class black men

but similar to middle-class black women and lower-class

black men. The authors found no support for the hypothesis

that leisure preferences differed more among black men

than among black women of different social classes.

Results from both Floyd and others (1994) and Shinew and

others (1995) indicate that leisure choices of middle-class

black and white men may be more similar than those of

middle-class black and white women. However, the

multiple hierarchy perspective may not explain leisure

choices of lower-class black women because they did not

differ significantly from those of other black women and

from black males of similar socioeconomic standing. Also,

class polarization theory does not appear to hold for the

black population with respect to leisure choices identified in

this study. Results suggest that other mitigating factors not

considered by the authors are involved in black leisure

behavior.

Opportunity/demographic—The opportunity theory of

outdoor recreation participation was addressed in a study of

the recreational use of a nearby national forest by residents

of a county in Utah (Lindsay and Ogle 1972). Though the

study made no mention of minority groups within the

sample, the results have implications for the present

discussion because they offer empirical support for the

opportunity theory. Researchers used bivariate analysis of

variance (means difference) to test for differences in use of

a recreation area on the forest. Means for forest users and

nonusers on several demographic variables were compared:

education level, age, age of children, number of children,

sex, urban versus rural upbringing, income, and transiency

(frequency of moves). 

Findings indicated no significant income differences

between forest users and nonusers. Income groups were

fairly evenly distributed among users and nonusers. 

Contrary to findings from previous studies, users also

tended to have less education rather than more, while males

were associated with higher use patterns. Because these

results (with respect to income and education) were

inconsistent with those reported earlier by Hauser (1962),

Lindsay and Ogle (1972) concluded that nonparticipation

may be more a reflection of lack of opportunity or access to

resources rather than lack of money. However, study

findings may be biased because analyses were limited to

bivariate analyses. The study did not specify a model that

controlled for income and education along with the other

socioeconomic variables.

Hutchison (1987) found support for the demographic

explanation in a study conducted as a field survey of 18,000

black, white, and Hispanic visitor groups to neighborhood

and regional parks in Chicago from 1980 to 1981. The

purpose of this study was to assess the ethnic, racial, and

social group composition of park visitors and to observe

primary group activities. Field surveyors recorded

information on the number of people in each group and the

social composition of the groups, for example, age, sex, and

race. Chi-square analysis showed statistically significant

differences in activity types (mobile, stationary, and sports)

for the three groups. Results also showed that a large

number of park visitors were older whites who lived near

the parks. Hutchison noted that overall differences in

demographic composition of the black, white, and Hispanic

groups, particularly with respect to age, reflected residence

more than some inherent ethnic or social class factor. Older

individuals were more predominant in white groups because

they had greater access to the parks.

Results from Lindsay and Ogle (1972) and Hutchison

(1987) are not directly comparable because they used

different methods to collect and analyze data. The former

study involved a random sample of households; the latter

involved a convenience sample of actual participants, and

the results may not be applicable to the general population. 
10

In addition, the overall goals of the two studies were

different. Lindsay and Ogle correlated usage with a number

of demographic variables, while Hutchison conducted a

comprehensive assessment of recreation styles.

Compensation—Antunes and Gaitz (1975) conducted an

empirical investigation of compensation theory by

examining social and political activities of 1,441 Houston,

TX residents. The data were from a larger study conducted

during 1969-70 that included general information on social

and political behavior, leisure, and mental health. The

larger study related to general nonwork time activities more

than to leisure or recreation in particular. Antunes and

Gaitz (1975) used this secondary data to test the hypothesis

of no difference in nonwork activities between whites and

blacks and whites and Mexican Americans.

Differences in participation for 11 activities6 were assessed

by analysis of variance, holding constant ethnicity, age, and

socioeconomic status.7

 Black involvement was significantly

higher than white involvement for two of the three leisure

related activities: enjoyment of clubs and interaction with

friends. Black involvement in club activities exceeded

white participation across all socioeconomic status levels. 

In addition, both upper- and lower-class blacks reported

more recreational interaction with friends than whites;

however, black middle-class interaction with friends was

slightly less than white middle-class interaction.

This study's findings of higher involvement among blacks

for leisure activities contrasts with those of other

investigations which report lower participation by blacks

(O'Leary and Benjamin 1982). Perhaps the types of leisure

activities investigated (e.g., interaction with friends and

membership in clubs) were more relevant to black interests. 

Subsequent research has shown that black leisure tends to

be more group oriented than white leisure (Dwyer 1994,

Dwyer and Gobster 1991, Gobster and Delgado 1993). In a

national report on the status of African Americans, Jaynes

and Williams (1989) also support this contention, stressing

that historical patterns of discrimination and segregation

have effected "a heightened sense of group consciousness

[within the black community] and a stronger orientation

toward collective values and behavior than exists generally

among Americans."

Sociocultural meaning—Sociocultural-meaning theory has

not been subjected to many empirical investigations. 

Conceptually, sociocultural meaning is similar to ethnicity

but broader because sociocultural meaning can derive from

sources other than ethnic or racial identity, for example,

peer group affiliation (Cheek and others 1976). The extent

to which a group, ethnic or otherwise, maintains distinct

sociocultural definitions of leisure is the extent to which

leisure differences between that group and other groups will

be observed.

In testing sociocultural-meaning theory, Lee (1972)

conducted a qualitative study of park use by Hispanic,

Asian, African-American, and European-American ethnic

groups in a major metropolitan area in California. Lee used

a combination of conversational interviews, observation,

and documentary analyses to collect data in neighborhoods

and city and regional parks. The purpose of this exploratory

study was to obtain an overall sense of the meaning

neighborhood residents attributed to their residential

environments, including neighborhood and district parks

and recreation facilities.

Lee (1972) observed that park activities of various

sociocultural groups seemed to be representative of visitors'

broader lifestyles in nonleisure settings. For example, in the

early morning hours, one section of a park in a Chinese

district was used by Chinese Americans to engage in martial

arts exercises. Later in the day, white office and

construction workers sat on benches throughout the park

and ate lunch. The sections of the park frequented by white

collar and construction workers took on a more typically

European-American atmosphere because martial arts

activities had ceased, and fewer visitors of Asian descent

interacted freely in these areas.

In another area of the city, Lee (1972) observed how a

playground and recreation center were defined by racial

groups who lived in the community. White, middle-income

residents in one part of the neighborhood felt the recreation

facilities existed for lower-income blacks who lived in the

opposite end of the neighborhood. The white residents,

many of whom owned property, viewed the presence of

blacks without property in the neighborhood as a threat to

public safety and property values. Consequently, white

residents tended to discourage their children from

participating in activities promoted by the recreation center. 

Lee described the phenomena he observed in these parks

6

 Three of these activities related to leisure and recreation: (1) attendance at

cultural events (plays, concerts, museums); (2) recreational interaction with

friends; and (3) enjoyment of clubs and organizations.

7

 Socioeconomic status was measured by occupation, coded by Duncan

Index Numbers (Reiss and others 1961) into high, medium, and low

categories. The study did not control for gender differences, hence, the

analyses do not address potential sex differences for either the overall

sample or the respective subgroups.
11

and communities as boundary regulation, a process by

which social and cultural groups partition off sections of

outdoor recreation places and make either formal or

informal claims to these territories.

West (1989, 1993) also refers to boundary maintenance,

calling it interracial relations. However, he views the issue

primarily in terms of racial conflict. He accuses researchers

of using euphemisms to describe racial conflict in park

settings and charges that studies focusing on underrepresentation among minority groups have blatantly

ignored social aspects of usage.

Buchanan and others (1981) examined the meanings of

recreation activities for three social groups8 (family,

friendship, and family/friendship) using discriminant

analyses. They hypothesized that meanings assigned to

selected recreation activities would differ by social group

affiliation. Data for the study came from a proportional

sample of visitors to an Army Corps of Engineers reservoir

in Illinois. Sample size consisted of 649 respondents

engaging in boat fishing (N = 315), powerboating 

(N = 219), and swimming (N = 115). These activities were

the dependent variables. The independent variable was the

range of meanings attributed to these activities,

operationalized by recreation experience preference scales. 

These scales measured the specific satisfying experiences of

recreation activities. Scale items included experiences such

as achievement, being with friends, creativity, escape from

personal and social problems, and temperature change.

Results showed no variation by social group in meaning

assigned to powerboating. Variation in activity meaning

was found for boat fishing (chi-square differences

significant at p <.01). These meanings included being with

friends, reflecting on values, seeking security, escaping

family, and changing temperature. Family/friendship

groups were more likely than other groups to say boat

fishing afforded them the opportunity to be with friends and

escape family. Family groups most often mentioned

reflecting on values, seeking security, and changing

temperature.

The greatest amount of variation in activity meaning was

attributed to swimming (chi-square differences significant at

p <.05). Meaning assigned to this activity included risktaking, nostalgia, learning/discovery, exercise/fitness,

security, and temperature change. Another meaning of

swimming included social contact, escaping family,

creativity, and catching fish. Family groups were more

likely than the other two groups to mention security as one

of the reasons they engaged in swimming; friends were

more likely to mention risk-taking, learning/discovery, and

creativity; and family/friends mentioned nostalgia,

exercise/fitness, and temperature change most often.

Carr and Williams (1993) examined recreation meaning for

broader classes of social groups. This research focused on

Hispanic (Mexican American, Central American) and Anglo

(European American) recreation in the San Bernardino and

Angeles National Forests in California. A self-administered

survey collected demographic data and information about

the meaning of the recreation experience. The meaning of

the recreation setting was measured with open-ended

questions: What does respecting the forest mean to you? 

What was your primary reason for visiting the forest? The

meaning of the recreation activity was explored through a

series of Likert-scaled items relating to various facets of the

recreation experience. Surveyors also collected data on

group behavior and on-site activities by observing

respondents and recording observations. Data collection

yielded a sample of 732 Hispanic and Anglo visitors.

Carr and Williams (1993) performed chi-square analyses to

examine the relationship between ethnicity and meaning. 

They used a complex measure of ethnicity that included

ancestry, generational status, and acculturation level as

indicators of the construct. Ancestral groups (Mexican

American, Central American, or Anglo American) differed

significantly in responses related to respecting the forest and

also for reason for visit. Generation was also significantly

related to respecting the forest. Anglos and secondgeneration Hispanics were more likely to report that

respecting the forest meant acting in an appropriate and

decent manner. Immigrant and first-generation Hispanics

were more likely to say respecting the forest meant

experiencing the place in a positive manner. Further, more

acculturated Mexican Americans were more likely to

interpret the respect question in behavioral terms such as

acting in appropriate ways while visiting. Less acculturated

Mexican Americans were more likely to say respecting the

forest meant respecting oneself.

Race and place—A few studies have considered the

influence of residence or region on recreation participation

(Craig 1972, Klobus-Edwards 1981, O'Leary and Benjamin

1982, Philipp 1986, Woodard 1988). Craig (1972)

examined the recreation patterns of a sample of 3,400 rural

blacks recently migrated to a black, urban community

8

 This research referred to social groups rather than sociocultural groups. 

Social groups were defined as any group of people who view themselves as

members of a group and who are also defined by others as belonging to a

particular group.
12

adjacent to Baton Rouge, LA. It was hypothesized that

rural upbringing was more influential in shaping migrants'

recreational pursuits than a change in residence or an

immediate improvement in education. Respondents were

queried about their leisure time activities before and after

moving to the city. Simple comparisons of data from the

two time periods showed many recreational pursuits carried

over from the rural milieu, suggesting that rural upbringing

has some effect on recreation choices for recently migrated

residents. Craig (1972) does not mention using any

statistical analysis. It can only be inferred that he used some

type of descriptive analysis to compare the data.

In their study of ethnic leisure preferences, O'Leary and

Benjamin (1982) also reported that rural blacks apparently

have distinct reasons for engaging in activities, when

compared to either urban blacks or rural or urban whites. 

Using data from the 1976 Indiana Outdoor Recreation

Participation Survey (U.S. Department of Interior 1979),

(N = 782 black; N = 29,093 white), they found substantive

differences (>0.5)9 between rural blacks and other groups in

mean ratings of reasons given for recreation participation. 

Larger proportions of rural blacks chose activities based on

cost. Rural blacks were also more likely to view their

participation as a way to meet new people, be with family

and friends, and teach others about recreation.

Woodard (1988) examined the influence of both social class

and region on urban leisure choices of African Americans in

Chicago. Like Craig (1972), he restricted his sample to

African Americans (N = 311). Woodard (1988)

hypothesized that middle-class individuals would be more

likely to engage in metropolitan activities such as attending

the theater, ballets, and symphonic concerts. No class

differences were expected for informal, domestic activities

(card playing, visiting family) requiring fewer financial

outlays. Blacks reared in the rural South were expected to

participate more in domestic activities; city-reared

respondents were expected to engage more in night-life

activities (going to bars, clubs, partying).

Woodard (1988) used the Hollingshead Two Factor Index

of Social Position as a proxy for social class, and region of

origin (urban North versus rural South) represented region. 

Controlling for social class, region, and other sociodemographic factors, discriminant analyses identified those

variables that best distinguished participants from

nonparticipants for specific activities. Unlike Craig's (1972)

findings, his results showed that regionality was somewhat

less important than social class in predicting leisure

behavior. Nevertheless, Woodard concluded that both

region and education were important factors in

understanding how African-American leisure preferences

vary.

Differences in findings between Craig (1972) and Woodard

(1988) may be attributed to methodological differences. 

Craig used no statistical analyses, while Woodard employed

fairly elaborate techniques. These differences may also be

attributed to more general differences in the social and

political climates of early 1970's Louisiana and mid-to-late

1980's Chicago. Access to recreational facilities and

nontraditional activities had only recently become available

to the majority of blacks in the 1970's; and even then, de

facto social restrictions remained for activities that were

considered "white" (Kraus and Lewis 1986, Meeker 1973). 

Woodard recognized this temporal difference, as the aim of

his study was to assess regional differences for African

Americans in the post civil rights era.

Synthesis and Knowledge Gaps

No one factor—ethnicity, marginality, attributed meaning,

or place of residence—offers a definitive explanation of

racial differences in recreation behavior. No unambiguous

evidence supports any of these theses. Some investigators

attribute the lack of definitive findings to the general

difficulty involved in independently operationalizing the

concepts in empirical studies (Carr and Williams 1992,

1993; Floyd and Gramann 1993; Pfister 1993). For

example, no standard definition exists for what constitutes

marginality nor is there a consistent measure across studies

of factors to represent the construct. Socioeconomic

status,10 resource access, and knowledge of recreation

resources have all been used to represent marginality

factors, but none has been used consistently.

Philipp (1995) also charges that a deeper understanding of

marginality indicators such as socioeconomic status and

access to resources is needed. He argues that marginality is

more complex than annual income, and indicators such as

socioeconomic status and resource access should be viewed

both temporally and cross sectionally. For example, ethnic

minorities who are first-generation middle class may

9 The rating scale ranged from 1 to 4, so half the distance between ratings

or half the interval was considered substantive. No statistical tests were

conducted for these responses.

10 Income, education, occupation, or some combined index such as the

Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead 1971).
13

express different leisure preferences than members of the

same ethnic group who have been middle class for several

generations. Philipp (1995) argues that acquiring the tastes,

habits, mannerisms, spending patterns, time allocation

patterns, and leisure preferences of the middle class may

take more than one generation.

Measurement of ethnicity has also been criticized because

race is usually the sole indicator of this very complex

construct. For example, in multivariate analyses,

differences that persist after accounting for marginality

factors are usually assumed to be associated with

subcultural norms associated with racial groups or ethnic

identity. Few attempts have been made to determine more

precisely how race affects recreation behavior. According

to O'Leary and Benjamin (1982), ethnicity is a social

psychological phenomenon and must be treated as such if it

is to provide a meaningful explanation of leisure behavior. 

Such an examination would include an assessment of how

ethnic leisure values, attitudes, and preferences influence

the formation of leisure meanings.

Along similar lines, the opportunity/demographic theory

merits additional empirical investigation. It follows

logically that people would participate in recreation

opportunities most convenient to them. However, rigid

application of the theory becomes somewhat difficult when

populations begin to diversify along racial, religious, and

economic and social lines. In these instances, recreation

decisions may become more laden with considerations of

normative behavior and group identity.

Findings from the sociocultural-meaning studies are also

difficult to synthesize because meaning is often a relative

concept and cannot always be easily communicated,

particularly when the object of meaning is nebulous (e.g., a

recreation experience or environment). Neither Lee (1972),

Buchanan and others (1981), nor Carr and Williams (1993)

directly asked respondents what meaning recreation places

and experiences conveyed. Rather, they used indirect

methods from which they could, at best, only infer meaning. 

For example, the Carr and Williams question: "What does

respecting the forest mean to you?" may not have been

relevant to the meanings people assigned to recreational

settings. 

Differences in sampling, research focus, and analyses have

produced a body of ethnic recreation literature that is

somewhat difficult to compare. Because approaches vary,

attributing recreation differences to a single dominant

perspective is nearly impossible. As Carr and Williams

(1993) and Floyd and Gramann (1993) surmised, a number

of influences probably work together to determine

recreation behavior. In the absence of overwhelming

evidence of a single explicator, it may be that so-called

opposing theories (e.g., marginality/ethnicity) work jointly

to explain recreation preferences and behavior. For

example, ethnicity may be less important to African

Americans exposed to certain activities as youths or to those

living among whites (Klobus-Edwards 1981). And as Floyd

and others (1994) concluded, race may affect the leisure

decisions of individuals differently, depending on social

class level.

Future Research

Social science theorists and investigators studying racial and

ethnic recreation must develop theories and methods that

include a wider range of social science disciplines within an

integrated framework. We should ask to what degree

theories x, y, and z interact to explain behavior, not whether

behavior is determined by x, y, or z. Examining behavior

from a variety of perspectives helps establish a more holistic

impression of both the issue under consideration and the

groups or individuals being studied.

Many of the studies that spawned the various ethnic

recreation theories came from investigations of primarily

urban populations (Hutchison 1987, Kraus and Lewis 1986,

Stamps and Stamps 1985, Washburne 1978). Researchers

tend to generalize findings from geographically specific

studies (e.g., Chicago, Detroit) to the entire black

population regardless of region or residence (Carr and

Williams 1993). However, regional or other variations may

exist within subcultural groups. The few studies in the

1980's that examined the influence of residence on leisure

participation suggest that structural effects of place (the

interplay of political and social ideologies, labor markets,

culture, and economics) influence leisure behavior and

should be examined more carefully (Klobus-Edwards 1981,

O'Leary and Benjamin 1982).

Along these lines, we recommend that more research focus

on regional and geographic differences within racial and

ethnic groups. This line of inquiry would add the dimension

of place, which may be as strong a socialization agent as are

culture and economics (Proshansky 1978).

Information on the recreation behavior and interaction of

rural blacks with the natural environment is scarce. The

general lack of research on rural, black involvement in

resource-based outdoor recreation could be caused by the

relatively small numbers of rural blacks in most parts of the
14

country. In the Southern States, however, substantial

proportions of African Americans reside in rural areas,

especially in Black Belt11 counties. Moreover, American

Indians compose a notable percentage of North Carolina,

Mississippi, and Louisiana's nonmetropolitan populations

(U.S. Department of Commerce 1992).

Planners and policymakers should obtain a better

understanding of rural black and other minority use of, and

perspectives on forested lands. The environmental attitudes,

use patterns, and beliefs of this substantial segment of

southern, rural populations need to be recognized by

resource managers and incorporated into land management

decisions. Information from these local constituents is vital

to understanding the relationships between people and

natural resources in rural areas.

More survey data would better document local population

perceptions of supply and demand for outdoor recreation

facilities and resources in rural, southern regions. On the

supply side, many rural areas in the South lack organized,

comprehensive recreation programs, due in large part to lack

of funds.12 On the demand side, any rural recreation

assessment should examine both participation and perceived

barriers to participation.

Future research should also incorporate some examination

of social definitions of resources (Lee 1972). Recreation

managers could benefit from studies that use qualitative

methods to examine how recreation resources are socially

defined. This topic may be especially pertinent to managers

on southern forests adjacent to rural communities because

of longstanding traditions associated with different types of

places and sociocultural groups. For example, the

availability of a fishing locale on a national forest may be

less important to local users than who fishes at the resource. 

The fishing locale may not exist de facto for a person who

considers him/herself to be excluded from the society of

those who frequent the spot.

Social definition is an often overlooked, yet important,

aspect of the outdoor recreation experience. Qualitative

research methods could aid such investigations. Qualitative

methods are more indepth data-gathering techniques that

involve small-group or one-on-one interaction with research

respondents. If survey data show residents are generally

dissatisfied with recreation services, a researcher might use

qualitative methods to better ascertain specific causes for

the dissatisfaction. For example, the researcher might ask a

subset of respondents exactly what they like or dislike about

current offerings.

The theories and issues raised in this paper all point to the

need to consider issues of equity and inclusion, to the extent

possible, when formulating recreation policy. This exercise

in democracy is necessary if we, as Federal land stewards,

are to become more responsive to both current and potential

recreation users; for it is the right, rather than the privilege,

of law-abiding, taxpaying citizens to have equitable access

to public outdoor recreation opportunities. The provision of

such opportunities may be said to be a reflection of the

regard with which a society holds its citizens.

Acknowledgment

We thank Deborah Carr, Al Hall, Christine Overdevest, and

Julia Parker for their helpful comments and suggestions.

11 Rankin and Falk (1991) define the Black Belt as a continuous group of

rural, southern counties extending from Virginia through the Carolinas to

Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In these counties, at least

33 percent of the population is African American, and many have black

populations in excess of 50 percent.

12 Harwell, Rick; Larson, Tommy. 1996. South Carolina rural recreation

project: assessing the impact of rural recreation. In: 1996 Program and

Abstracts of the Southern Rural Sociological Assn. Meeting, 1996

February 3-6, Greensboro, NC. On file with Dr. Dreamal Worthen, Florida

A&M University, Perry Paige Bldg., Room 116, Tallahassee, FL 32307.
15

Literature Cited

Abercrombie, Nicholas; Hill, Stephen; Turner, Bryan S. 1988. The

Penguin dictionary of sociology. 2d ed. London: Penguin Books. 320 p.

Antunes, George; Gaitz, Charles M. 1975. Ethnicity and participation: a

study of Mexican-Americans, blacks, and whites. American Journal of

Sociology. 80(5): 1192-1211.

Buchanan, Thomas; Christensen, James E.; Burdge, Rabel J. 1981.

Social groups and the meanings of outdoor recreation activities. Journal

of Leisure Research. 13(3): 254-266.

Burdge, Rabel J.; Field, Donald R. 1972. Methodological perspectives

for the study of outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research. 4(1):

63-72.

Carr, Deborah S.; Williams, Daniel R. 1992. Understanding diverse

recreationists: beyond quantitative analysis. In: Gobster, Paul H., ed.

Managing urban and high-use recreation settings. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC163. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

North Central Forest Experiment Station: 101-106.

Carr, Deborah S.; Williams, Daniel R. 1993. Understanding the role of

ethnicity in outdoor recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure

Research. 25(1): 22-38.

Cheek, Neil H., Jr.; Field, Donald R.; Burdge, Rabel J. 1976. Leisure

and recreation places. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science: 172.

Craig, William. 1972. Recreational activity patterns in a small Negrourban community: the role of the cultural base. Economic Geography.

48: 107-115.

Dwyer, John F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for

outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-252. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station. 58 p.

Dwyer, John F.; Gobster, Paul H. 1991. Black/white outdoor recreation

preferences and participation: Illinois state parks. In: VanderStoep, Gail

A., ed. Proceedings of the 1991 Northeastern Recreation Research

Symposium. 1991 April 7-9; Saratoga Springs, NY. Gen. Tech. Rep.

NE-160. Radnor, PA: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 20-24.

Floyd, Myron F.; Gramann, James H. 1993. Effects of acculturation and

structural assimilation in resource-based recreation: the case of

Mexican-Americans. Journal of Leisure Research. 25(1): 6-21.

Floyd, Myron F.; Shinew, Kimberly J.; McGuire, Francis A.; Noe,

Francis P. 1994. Race, class, and leisure activity preferences:

marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research. 26(2):

158-173.

Glenn, Norval D.; Hill, Lester, Jr. 1977. Rural-urban differences in

attitudes and behavior in the United States. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science. 429: 36-50.

Gobster, Paul H.; Delgado, Antonio. 1993. Ethnicity and recreation use

in Chicago's Lincoln Park: in-park user survey findings. In: Gobster,

Paul H., ed. Managing urban and high-use recreation settings. Gen.

Tech. Rep. NC-163. St Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 75-81.

Hartmann, Lawrence A.; Overdevest, Christine. 1990. Race, ethnicity,

and outdoor recreation participation: a state-of-the-knowledge review

and theoretical perspective. In: Zera, Karen R., ed. Proceedings, 1989

Southeastern Recreation Research Conference. 1989 February 15-17;

Asheville, NC. Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Institute for

Behavioral Research; 11: 53-63.

Hauser, Philip M. 1962. Demographic and ecological changes as factors

in outdoor recreation. In: Trends in American living and outdoor

recreation; report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission 22. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office:

27-59.

Hollingshead, August B. 1971. Commentary on the indiscriminate state

of social class measurement. Social Forces. 49(4): 563-567.

Hutchinson, Ira J. 1974. Recreation and racial minorities. In: Stein,

Thomas A.; Douglas, H., eds. Recreation and special populations

sessions. Boston: Holbrook Press: 323-353.

Hutchison, Ray. 1987. Ethnicity and urban recreation: whites, blacks, and

Hispanics in Chicago's public parks. Journal of Leisure Research.

19(3): 205-222.

Hutchison, Ray. 1988. A critique of race, ethnicity, and social class in

recent leisure and recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research.

20(1): 10-30.

Jaynes, Gerald David; Williams, Robin M., Jr. 1989. A common

destiny: blacks and American society. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press. 13.

Klobus-Edwards, Patricia. 1981. Race, residence, and leisure style: some

policy implications. Leisure Sciences. 4(2): 95-112.

Klobus-Edwards, Patricia; Edwards, John N.; Klemmack, David L.

1978. Differences in social participation: blacks and whites. Social

Forces. 56(4): 1035-1052.

Kraus, Richard; Lewis, Charles. 1986. Ethnic and racial minorities in

urban recreation. In: A literature review: President's Commission on

Americans Outdoors. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office: 19-30.

Lee, Robert G. 1972. The social definition of outdoor recreational places.

In: Burch, W.; Cheek, N. Jr.; Taylor, L., eds. Social behavior, natural

resources, and the environment. New York: Harper and Row: 68-84.

Lindsey, John J.; Ogle, Richard A. 1972. Socioeconomic patterns of

outdoor recreation use near urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research.

4(l): 19-24.

Marger, Martin N. 1991. Race and ethnic relations: American and global

perspectives. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.: 17-36.
16

McDonald, Jessyna; Hutchinson, Ira J. 1986. Minority and ethnic

variations in outdoor recreation participation: trends and issues. In: A

literature review: President's Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: 41-51.

Meeker, Joseph W. 1973. Red, white, and black in the national parks. In:

Machlis, Gary E.; Field, Donald R., eds. On interpretation: sociology

for interpreters of natural resource and cultural history: 195-205.

Mueller, Eva; Gurin, Gerald; Wood, Marie. 1962. Participation in

outdoor recreation: factors affecting demand among American adults.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission Study Report 20.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 93 p.

Murdock, Steve. H.; Backmann, Kenneth; Colberg, Edli [and others].

1990. Modeling demographic change and characteristics in the analysis

of future demand for leisure services. Leisure Sciences. 12(12): 79-102.

Myrdal, Gunnar; Sterner, Richard; Rose, Arnold. 1944. An American

dilemma: the Negro problem and modern democracy. New York:

Harper & Brothers Publishers.

National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders: Kerner

Commission Report: Grievances. 1968. In: Recreation and leisure

services for the disadvantaged: 41-48.

O'Leary, Joseph T.; Benjamin, Patricia J. 1982. Ethnic variation in

leisure behavior: the Indiana case. Station Bull. 349. West Lafayette,

IN: Purdue University, Department of Forestry and Natural Resources.

45 p.

Pfister, Robert E. 1993. Ethnic identity: a new avenue for understanding

leisure and recreation preferences. In: Ewert, Alan; Chavez, Deborah J.;

Magill, Arthur W., eds. Culture, conflict and communication in the

wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 53-68.

Philipp, Steven F. 1986. Race and rurality: the issue of outdoor leisure

participation. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences. 32(2): 85-91.

Philipp, Steven F. 1995. Race and leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences.

17: 109-120.

Proshansky, Harold M. 1978. The city and self-identity. Environment

and Behavior. 10(2): 147-169.

Rankin, Bruce H.; Falk, William W. 1991. Race, region, and earnings:

blacks and whites in the South. Rural Sociology. 56(2): 224-237.

Reiss, Albert; Duncan, Otis; Hatt, Paul K.; North, Cecil C. 1961.

Occupations and social status. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 305 p.

Riley, Robert B. 1992. Attachment to the ordinary landscape. In: Altman,

Irwin; Low, Setha M., eds. Place attachment. New York: Plenum Press:

13-32.

SAS Institute. 1988. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Release 6.03 ed. Cary,

NC: 533.

Shinew, Kimberly J.; Floyd, Myron F.; McGuire, Francis A.; Noe,

Francis P. 1995. Gender, race, and subjective social class and their

association with leisure preferences. Leisure Sciences. 17: 75-89.

Stamps, Spurgeon M., Jr.; Stamps, Miriam B. 1985. Race, class and

leisure activities of urban residents. Journal of Leisure Research. 17(1):

40-56.

Szwed, John F.; Abrahams, Roger D. 1977. After the myth: studying

Afro-American cultural patterns in the plantation literature. In:

Crowley, Daniel J., ed. African folklore in the New World. Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press: 65-86.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. RPA assessment

of the forest and rangeland situation in the United States-1993 update

(For. Resour. Rep. 27). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service. 75 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. 1990

Census of population and housing summary tape file 3a-CD ROM

(Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office. CD-ROM.

U.S. Department of Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation

Service. 1979. The third nationwide outdoor recreation plan: the

assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 264 p.

Washburne, Randel F. 1978. Black under-participation in wildland

recreation: alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences. 1(2): 175-189.

Washburne, Randel F.; Wall, Paul. 1980. Black-white ethnic differences

in outdoor recreation. Res. Pap. INT-249. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. 13 p.

West, Patrick C. 1989. Urban region parks and black minorities:

subculture, marginality, and interracial relations in park use in the

Detroit metropolitan area. Leisure Sciences. 11: 11-28.

West, Patrick C. 1993. The tyranny of metaphor: interracial relations,

minority recreation, and the wildland-urban interface. In: Ewert, Alan;

Chavez, Deborah J.; Magill, Arthur W., eds. Culture, conflict and

communication in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press: 109-115.

Williams, Daniel R.; Carr, Deborah S. 1993. The sociocultural

meanings of outdoor recreation places. In: Ewert, Alan; Chavez,

Deborah J.; Magill, Arthur W., eds. Culture, conflict and

communication in the wildland-urban interface. Boulder, CO:

Westview Press: 209-219.

Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The declining significance of race: blacks

and changing American institutions. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press. 243 p.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the

underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

254 p.
17

Woodard, Michael D. 1988. Class, regionality, and leisure among urban

black Americans: the post civil rights era. Journal of Leisure Research.

20(2): 87-10.
Johnson, Cassandra Y., Bowker, J.M., English, D.B.K., and Worthen, Dreamal.

1997. Theoretical perspectives of ethnicity and outdoor recreation: a review and

synthesis of African-American and European-American participation. Gen. Tech.

Rep. SRS-11. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station. 16 p.

For over three decades, research has shown differences in recreation participation by

ethnic group membership, particularly for African Americans and European

Americans. This paper is the first of a two-part publication series that examines

black/white recreation. In this first part, the literature and empirical findings on

black/white leisure participation are reviewed. The implications of generalizing

region-specific theories and findings of black/white participation to populations in

various parts of the country are also discussed. Finally, implications for forest

managers and future research needs are presented.

Keywords: Ethnicity, marginality, place meaning, race, recreation, rural residence.
The Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, is dedicated to the principle of multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States

and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests

and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to

provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or

familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs).

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-

720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint, write the

Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, DC 20250, or call 1-800-245-6340. USDA is an

equal employment opportunity employer.