Cultural Diversity of Los Angeles County

Residents Using Undeveloped Natural Areas

Patrick T. Tierney Rene F. Dahl Deborah J. Chavez

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

Research Paper

PSW-RP-236

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Abstract

Tierney, Patrick T.; Dahl, Rene; Chavez, Deborah J. 1998. Cultural diversity of Los Angeles

County residents using undeveloped natural areas. Res. Paper PSW-RP- 236. Albany,

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture; 76 p.

A model of ethnic participation at undeveloped natural areas was developed and tested.

The proposed model included the constructs of socio-economic status, perceived

discrimination, assimilation, and ethnicity. Undeveloped natural areas were defined as

being located outside of cities and primarily natural in composition. A telephone survey

of a stratified random sample of Los Angeles County residents resulted in 894 interviews.

The results demonstrate the multi-dimensional and complex nature of outdoor recreation

participation. Despite close proximity and low entrance fees compared to commercial

recreation facilities, the majority of residents did not spend even a half day at a National

Forest or Park, or other undeveloped natural areas. These data suggest that public

wildland agencies must be proactive by creating new programs and expanding existing

intervention projects, or they risk not being able to show that publicly funded natural

resources are used by most Americans.

Retrieval Terms: barrier, ethnicity, motivation, parks, recreation, tourism

The Authors

Patrick T. Tierney is a professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies at San Francisco State

University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132. Rene Dahl is a professor of

Recreation and Leisure Studies at San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue,

San Francisco, CA 94132. Deborah J. Chavez is a research social scientist with the Pacific

Southwest Research Station’s Wildland Recreation and Urban Cultures Research Unit at

the Forest Fire Laboratory, 4955 Canyon Crest Dr., Riverside, CA 92507-6099.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the contributions of Rufus Browning and Rich DeLeone for their

technical and statistical assistance, David Olson, USDA Forest Service, for his technical

assistance, and Haiganoush Preisler, USDA Forest Service, for her statistical reviews of this

manuscript.

Cover photograph by Art Magill; inset by Deborah Chavez.

Publisher:

Albany, California

Mailing address:

PO Box 245, Berkeley CA

94701-0245

510 559-6300

http://www.psw.fs.fed.us

October 1998

Pacific Southwest Research Station

Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Cultural Diversity of Los Angeles County Residents Using

Undeveloped Natural Areas

Patrick T. Tierney Rene F. Dahl Deborah J. Chavez

Contents

In Brief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Respondent Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Respondent Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Ancestry and Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Use of Undeveloped Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Short Excursion Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Vacation Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Influence of Demographic Characteristics on Leisure Travel Patterns . . . . . . . 15

Influence of Ethnicity and Other Socio-Demographic

 Characterisitics on Leisure Travel Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

African-American Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Latino Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Asian Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

White Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Demographic Characteristics of Vacationers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Differences Within Ethnic Groups Who Traveled in Summer 1994 . . . . . . . . . 25

African-American Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Latino Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Asian Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

White Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Barriers to Leisure Travel and Visiting Natural Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Differences Between Ethnic Group Perceptions of Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Perceived Barriers to Taking a Leisure Trip by

 Those NotTaking a Trip in Summer 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Perceived Barriers to Visiting an Undeveloped Natural Area

 for Those Who Traveled but Not to a Natural Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ethnic Group Perceptions of Barriers Limiting Stay in Undeveloped

 Natural Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Pacific Southwest

Research Station

USDA Forest Service

Research Paper

PSW-RP-236

October 1998
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Differences Within Ethnic Group Perceptions of Barriers to Travel and

 Visiting Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

African-American Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Latino Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Asian Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

White Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Respondent Motives for Vacationing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Differences Between Ethnic Group Motives for Vacationing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Differences Within Ethnic Group Motives for Vacationing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

African-American Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Latino Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Asian Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

White Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Natural Area Ethnic Recreation Participation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Test of the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Conclusions and Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix—A - Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix—B - Survey Respondents and 1990 Census Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 76

ii
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

In Brief

Tierney, Patrick T.; Dahl, Rene; Chavez, Deborah J. 1998. Cultural diversity of Los Angeles

County residents using undeveloped natural areas. Res. Paper PSW-RP -236. Albany,

CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture; 76 p.

Retrieval Terms: barrier, ethnicity, motivation, parks, recreation, tourism

The overall purpose of the study was to determine differences in barriers and

motivations to actual recreational use of undeveloped natural areas, such as

National Forests, by ethnically diverse urban residents. Information for the

study came from a telephone survey of a stratified quota sample of Los Angeles

County residents in which data were gathered from both users and non-users of

undeveloped natural areas. A total of 894 interviews were completed. Data were

collected from four broad ethnic groups: 20.0 percent African-American

respondents, including U.S. (97.8 percent) and non-U.S. (2.2 percent) citizens;

16.2 percent Asian respondents, including Asian and Asian-Americans (U.S.=31.0

percent, non-U.S.=69.0 percent); 30.9 percent Latino respondents of Latin descent,

including U.S. (47.4 percent) and non-U.S. (52.6 percent) citizens; and 30.5 percent

white respondents, including Europeans and European-Americans (U.S.=89.7

percent, non-U.S.=10.3 percent). Respondents tended to be young—49.0 percent

were 18-34 years old; moderately educated—62.1 percent had at least some

college or more; and of low to moderate income—64.9 percent were from

households earning less than $50,000. More than 52 percent of Latino respondents

and 69 percent of Asian respondents were not born in the U.S.

About 1 in 3 survey respondents did not take any leisure trip between May 1 and

August 31, 1994, suggesting a significant number of residents had substantial barriers

to travel. About 4 out of 10 residents of Los Angeles County took a trip in which they

visited an undeveloped natural area. Another 1 in 3 respondents took a leisure trip but

did not visit an undeveloped natural area. This means that less than half of Los Angeles

County residents visited a National Forest, State park, or open space preserve

outside of a city during the height of the travel season for even 1-hour excursions.

When using unadjusted survey data, visitation to wildland areas varied

significantly by ethnic group, with 44 percent of white respondents visiting natural

areas during the study period, 34 percent of Asian respondents, 27 percent of Latino

respondents, and 21 percent of African-American respondents. This natural area

visitation pattern was found, through further analysis, to be influenced by significant

differences in household income, education level, and other factors.

By using unadjusted data, several sub-groups were identified within Los

Angeles County that were significantly less likely to visit undeveloped natural

areas (less than 25 percent visited). These subgroups might warrant special

efforts or programs by wildland management agencies to encourage

participation: African-Americans in general, but especially females and those

with lower education level; younger Latinos and those who are not U.S. citizens

and have lower income and education levels; and Asians with low income. Subgroups with the highest levels of visitation to undeveloped natural areas (more

than 45 percent visited) were white in general, especially young adults, males,

and those with high income levels; Asian citizens in general and those with high

income; and Latinos with high education and income levels.

Another objective of the research was to develop and test a model of visitation to

undeveloped natural areas, incorporating the variables of socio-economic status,

ethnicity, assimilation into American society, and perceived discrimination. Logistic

regression results suggested it was an accurate predictive model, and all four

proposed model constructs showed statistical or substantive significance.

Model results showed that after statistically adjusting for the effects of model

variables as a group, respondents significantly less likely to visit an undeveloped

natural area were those with low levels of socio-economic status, low levels of

assimilation, who had moderate to high perceived discrimination, and who were

of African-American ethnicity. There were no significant differences between

iii
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Asian, white, and Latino respondents in their probability of visiting an

undeveloped natural area if intervening variables remained constant. In other

words, Asian, white, and Latino respondents of similar status, assimilation and

perceived discrimination are equally likely to visit wildlands, compared to

African-American respondents who are less likely.

Another finding from model testing was the importance of perceived

discrimination in undeveloped natural area visitation. All “minority” ethnic groups

were more likely to express the belief that discrimination was an issue, compared to

their white respondent counterparts. In addition, model results showed that

perceived discrimination was a significant predictor of visitation even after

controlling for respondent income and education. The results are unique because

they invalidate the commonly held assumption that discrimination is an urban park

issue that does not impact rural recreation areas. Analysis of barriers to participation

suggests that discrimination is perceived to occur within undeveloped natural areas,

not just en route to them. Further research is needed to ascertain more precisely the

types, sources, and locations of discriminatory behavior.

The survey also asked respondents to agree/disagree with 17 statements

describing barriers that may have affected their travel during the spring and summer

1994. The importance of each barrier was broken down into three types of travelers:

respondents who did not take a leisure trip away from home, persons who traveled

but did not visit a natural area, and respondents who visited a natural area. The

constraint was asked to each of the three groups in a somewhat unique context. For

example, the constraint not safe was phrased as “Travel and vacation areas are not

safe” and asked to persons who did not take any trip. To respondents who took a trip

but not to an undeveloped natural area, the question was phrased as “Undeveloped

natural areas are not safe.” Finally, persons who visited a natural area were asked

“Undeveloped natural areas are not safe and this limited my stay or activities in

them.” The most constraining barriers for all three groups were lack of free time, few

friends travel or recreate in (natural) area, nearby destinations were too crowded, their

financial situation, and don’t know where to go/what to do.

Findings clearly demonstrate the multi-dimensional and complex nature of

outdoor recreation participation. Even though undeveloped natural areas, such as

the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests, are within 60 miles of any Los

Angeles County resident, and there is little or no cost for entrance fees to

undeveloped natural areas (daily per car entrance charges at fee sites on National

Forest normally are under $10), not all residents or ethnic groups visited these public

lands in equal numbers. Model results showed that the decision to visit an

undeveloped natural area is more than just a transportation and income issue. Ethnic

group preferences, assimilation, resident education, and perceived discrimination

all influenced participation in outdoor recreation within undeveloped natural areas.

To encourage visitation by those residents of Los Angeles County that have

very low participation rates, intervention strategies can be developed by wildland

management agencies. A promising strategy is providing leadership and

resources for organizing clubs, special programs or school outings for urban

youths, or developing family programs that encourage friends and family

members to recreate together. Some persons do not come from families that have

historically visited natural areas; thus, there is a need to provide encouragement

to get started and pass on the benefits of wildland recreation.

In summary, substantially less than half of Los Angeles County respondents

visited an undeveloped natural area during the summer 1994. Despite the close

proximity and low entrance fees, compared to commercial recreation facilities, the

vast majority of residents did not spend even a half day at a National Forest or Park,

wildlife refuge, open space preserve, or other undeveloped natural areas located

outside a city. These data suggest that public agencies that manage wildland

resources must be proactive by creating new programs and expanding existing

intervention projects that encourage visitation and communicate to residents about

the opportunities and benefits of outdoor recreation in undeveloped natural areas.

Otherwise, data will show that publicly-funded natural resources are not used by

most residents.

iv
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

1

Introduction

With more than half of the nation’s population projected to be “of color” by

the year 2050 (McLeod 1993), there is a distinct possibility that significant

changes will occur in current outdoor recreation use patterns. A growing

body of literature suggests that “the way in which people engage in outdoor

recreation in wildland settings, the meanings that such experiences have for

people, and the way the land is managed will continue to change because of

the increased ethnic and cultural diversity” (Tierney and Dahl 1994, p.1). This

demographic change provides wildland managers with the challenge and

opportunity to adapt current practices and to develop unique programs and

delivery systems by which to serve the growing ethnic population.

An important challenge raised by changing population composition is to

determine whether differences exist, and if so, the types of differences

between various ethnic groups and current, dominant users in the recreational

use of natural, relatively undeveloped resources in National Forests—

including urban-proximate forests, parks, and open space areas. Theory

development in this area of research has been hindered by data sampling

methods. Almost all research has gathered information only at recreation

sites. This means that data from non-users have been missing. A goal of this

study was to identify and collect information from both users and non-users

of undeveloped natural areas.

Conflicting findings reported in previous research about ethnic group

differences reinforced the need to understand more clearly the motivations,

values, and behaviors of users and non-users from various ethnic groups.

Studies showing between-group differences (Dwyer and Gobster 1992, Dwyer

1994) found that African-Americans had lower participation rates in dispersed

outdoor recreation activities, such as camping and hiking, and were more

likely than whites to participate in urban-oriented activities that were closer

to home. Taylor (1992), who conducted a study of visitors to New Haven

parks, found African-Americans and whites exhibited differences in

resource values and recreation behaviors. However, these studies did not

survey non-users.

Conversely, other studies did not find significant differences in behavior and

values between ethnic groups. Barro and Rodriguez (1989) did not find significant

differences between Hispanic and Anglo persons in their intention to observe

wildlife, while Philipp (1993) found an overall high association between blacks

and whites on attractiveness of various tourist destinations.

Within-group differences have been shown by researchers such as Pfister

(1990), who found large variation in outdoor recreation use within the

Hispanic ethnic group. Edwards (1981) found that African-American leisure

behavior varied between blacks living in predominantly white neighborhoods

from those living in predominately African-American neighborhoods. In

addition, Carr and Williams (1993) found ethnic identity related to ancestral

membership, generational status, and acculturation for Hispanics influenced

outdoor recreation participation. Our study also examined within-group

differences on motivations, barriers, and recreation use with the goal of

understanding more clearly the bases for within-group differences.

One frequently cited theory for differences in ethnic group recreation

participation is socio-economic status or marginality (Washburne 1978).

Studies by West (1989) and Floyd and others (1993) suggested that low

participation of minorities in outdoor recreation is caused by economic

constraints and limited transportation to recreation sites.

In comparing recreational use of Hispanic and Anglo-Americans in

Arizona, Floyd and others (1993) also showed that level of education was
2 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

strongly related to participation patterns. They found that MexicanAmericans with higher levels of education have a greater likelihood of visiting

outdoor recreation areas frequented by their Anglo counterparts. In

comparing French and English-Canadians, Richardson and Crompton (1988)

found level of education and age played a more important role than income

in selection of vacation destinations.

A second factor postulated to influence ethnic differences in wildland

recreation use is discrimination. West (1989) found that blacks were more

likely than whites to feel unwelcome or uneasy in Detroit parks, and this

resulted in lower use. He attributed low use to interracial factors, such as

racism. Chavez (1990) reported that perceived discrimination was more

frequently cited by Hispanic recreation users in southern California National

Forests. However, Floyd and others (1993) did not find any obvious

relationship between perceived discrimination and recreation use patterns in

Arizona outdoor recreation sites. These conflicting results suggest there is a

need for additional research into this factor.

Another causal agent that has been shown to influence outdoor recreation

is an ethnic group member’s level of assimilation. Yinger (1981) defined

assimilation as “a process of boundary reduction that can occur when

members of two or more societies or smaller cultural groups meet” and begin

to adopt similar values or beliefs. The process of assimilation ranges from

isolated brief interactions and exchange to thorough fusion of the groups.

Floyd and others (1993) concluded that as assimilation or the degree of social

intimacy between minority groups and majority group increased, the

differences in recreation patterns decreased. Carr and Williams (1993) found

that ancestry, generational status, and acculturation strongly influenced

Hispanic group recreation behavior.

A final explanation for differences in outdoor recreation is ethnic identity,

defined by Phinney (1990) as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which

derives from his/her knowledge of their membership in a social group together

with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership.” Irwin

and others (1990) and Pfister (1990) found that ethnic identity was an important

factor in both travel and recreation use pattern differences. Tierney (1994) showed

that the trips selected for vacations varied with African-American respondent

level of ethnic identity. This factor seems particularly appropriate in determining

within-ethnic group differences in recreation participation.

The numerous, sometimes conflicting explanations for between-ethnic group

differences in wildland recreation use, as well as the concerns for within-group

differences, suggests there is a need for a comprehensive model incorporating

elements of several theories and past research efforts. Such an ethnic recreation

participation model, combined with robust statistical analysis, would show if

there are differences in ethnic group recreation participation and the most

significant causal factors.

An alternative approach to understanding cultural diversity in outdoor

recreation participation is through the identification of motivations and

barriers associated with the recreation use of natural areas. Driver and

Peterson (1976) synthesized numerous studies on the benefits and motivations

of outdoor recreation for the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Motives for recreation use have been measured through a recreation

experience preference scale, which identified 19 desired psychological

outcomes (Driver and others 1991). These scales have been used to identify

subgroups of users engaged in the same activity, but who participate in it for

different reasons. Such an approach could also help explain differences

between use of undeveloped natural areas.

Another factor affecting use of undeveloped natural areas consists of an
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

3

array of constraints. Norman (1991) identified over 25 common barriers to

outdoor recreation. McLeod (1993) suggested that ethnic “minorities” may be

more willing to visit recreation areas if there were more people of their

ethnicity working at a recreation site. Tierney (1992), in a study of vacation

travel patterns, showed that several barriers, such as lack of traveling

companions and lack of information on where to go for natural area vacations,

varied among ethnic groups. These studies suggest there is a need to include

a comprehensive set of barriers in a study of ethnic recreation participation to

better explain why differences in use occur.

This study determined differences in barriers and motivations to actual

recreational use of undeveloped natural areas, such as National Forests, by

ethnically diverse urban residents in Los Angeles County; and it developed a

model of outdoor recreation participation to test if general demographic and

ethnic group identity/discrimination factors affected use patterns.

Methods

A telephone survey of Los Angeles City and County adult residents was

implemented between November 1994 and January 1995. With a 1990 Census

population of more than 8,863,164 residents, Los Angeles County was selected

because it is the source area for many visitors to forests and parks throughout

the west, because of its proximity to several nearby (within 30 miles of most

residents) National Forests (Angeles, Los Padres and San Bernardino) and

other large undeveloped natural areas, and because of the great ethnic

diversity of its population. Sampling of a source area, instead of interviewing

at a specific forest or park site, was the selected method to obtain information

about both users and non-users of undeveloped natural areas. Previous studies

conducted at recreation areas have excluded interviews of persons who do

not visit these areas. An important goal of this research was to compare nonusers and users.

Another study objective was to determine if there were differences in

recreation use, barriers, and motives between and within different ethnic groups.

The definition of ethnicity used in this study is based on Hutchison (1987) who

stated that ethnicity refers to “common ancestry, language, religion or cultural

traditions” (p.12). Race, in contrast, refers to physical characteristics. Previous

studies at recreation sites have suggested there are differences in the use of

natural areas based on a user’s ethnicity (Carr and Williams 1993, Dwyer and

Gobster 1992, Hutchison 1987), socio-economic status (Floyd and others 1993,

West 1989), and other factors (Philipp 1993). Pfister (1990) found large

differences in outdoor recreation use within the Hispanic ethnic group.

Therefore, a stratified random sample was developed to over-sample and

acquire large enough sample sizes from ethnic groups with relatively smaller

representation in the area’s population, such as Asians. A review of the 1990

Census for Los Angeles County showed that the actual breakdown of ethnic

group population included whites—45.6 percent of the population;

Hispanics—33.1 percent; Asian Pacific Islanders—10.8 percent; and AfricanAmericans—10.8 percent. Because of the established categories, and our

budget constraints, we gathered data from four broad ethnic groups: AfricanAmerican respondents, including U.S. (97.8 percent) and non-U.S. (2.2

percent) citizens; Asian respondents, including Asian and Asian-Americans

(U.S.=31.0 percent, non-U.S.=69.0 percent); Latino respondents of Latin

descent, including U.S. (47.4 percent) and non-U.S. (52.6 percent) citizens;

and white respondents, including Europeans and European-Americans

(U.S.=89.7 percent, non-U.S.=10.3 percent). Completion targets were set for

the four ethnic groups and interviewing stopped for an ethnic group after a
4 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

particular group target was met. The completion targets were: 300 (28.6

percent) white respondents, 300 (28.6 percent) Latino respondents, 225 (21.4

percent) African-American respondents, and 225 (21.4 percent) Asian

respondents.

Respondents were asked to self-identify which of these four primary ethnic

study groups, as well as Indian or Native American, other ethnic groups, or a

mixture of ethnic groups, best described their ethnic background. Respondents

citing other or mixed ethnic groups were asked to describe their ethnic

background in more detail. Persons of mixed ethnicity were asked to list their

primary background. Interviewers then placed respondents into the available

ethnic categories based on the first mentioned or primary ethnic group. If the

respondent was of an ethnic background other than one of the four study groups,

then he/she was thanked and the interview stopped.

An important survey concern with sampling diverse cultures is the language

of the interview. We minimized bias against non-English speakers by translating

the survey into, and making interviews available, in English, Spanish, and

Mandarin. If there appeared to be a problem with the respondent not

understanding English upon the initial contact, interviewers were instructed

either to provide the survey in Spanish or Mandarin (if bilingual), or end the call

after recording the respondent’s name and general language family for later call

back. Respondents with Latino or Asian language preferences were called back

by a trained interviewer fluent in English and either Spanish or Mandarin. An

attempt was always made to recall the original respondent, rather than another

English speaker in their household.

Respondents were selected from a random sample of all listed telephone

numbers in Los Angeles County. The random sample was provided by Survey

Sampling Inc., a national database management company. Interviews were

conducted by the staff of the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State

University. Three call backs were attempted before a selected number was

dropped. To ensure accuracy, between 10 and 15 percent of all respondents were

verified by supervisor call back.

At the beginning of the interview respondents were asked if they took a

recreational or leisure trip away from their home from May through August

1994. If they took a trip, respondents were asked if they visited an “undeveloped

natural” area. An undeveloped natural area was described to respondents by the

following statements:

We are NOT interested in trips to a city where there were

highly developed recreation sites, such as city parks and

beaches, zoos, festivals, and theme parks. We are interested in

trips to areas located outside cities where you visited

undeveloped natural areas, such as National and State forests,

open space areas, protected areas or nature preserves. These

areas could have campgrounds, lakes, access roads, visitors

centers, and trails.

The intent was to allow for a relatively broad definition of what constituted

an undeveloped natural area.

Visitation, as defined in this study, was simply taking a trip to an

undeveloped natural area of any length. Visitation is further disaggregated into

two types of trips. First, excursions or non-vacation outings were described as

being of less than 4 consecutive days. Second, vacations were described as “work

free periods of 4 or more consecutive days where most time was spent in leisure

activities.” Survey questions asked respondents if they took a summer vacation,

its length, the vacation type (among eight options), if they visited an undeveloped

natural area, if their vacation involved travel of more than 100 miles from home,
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

5

how important vacations were, and the number of vacations they took in the last

2 years.

Respondents who visited a natural area were also asked about their most

recent trip. They named the two primary activities in which they participated

when at natural areas, number of days in natural areas, the natural area

name, and the nearest city/town. Similar information was gathered for

persons who did not visit natural areas. Identical data were gathered for

short outings of less than 4 consecutive days. This approach allowed us to

gather data from three key groups:

• Persons who did not take any leisure trip during the summer;

• Persons who traveled but did not visit an undeveloped natural area in

the summer;

• Persons who visited an undeveloped natural area on a vacation or

shorter excursion.

Each of these groups was asked to identify barriers or constraints to travel. A

consistent set of 18 barriers statements, developed from past research (Norman

1991, Tierney 1992) and the pre-test, was asked of each group but in a slightly

different context. For example, the group that did not take a leisure trip away

from home was asked if any of the barriers “prevented them from traveling away

from home” during the summer. The group that took a leisure trip but did not

visit a natural area was asked if the barrier “prevented them from taking a trip to

an undeveloped natural area.” Finally, the group of persons who did visit a

natural area was asked if any of the barriers “limited their stay or activities

within the natural area.” Respondents were read a barrier statement and then

asked if they strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed,

or strongly disagreed with the statement.

One barrier question directly related to the achievement of study objectives

was perceived discrimination in travel. Respondents were asked to agree or

disagree with two statements: “Persons of your ethnic background are

discriminated against when they travel,” and “You often do not feel welcome

when traveling on vacation.” Responses to these statements were combined to

create a discrimination scale.

Another barrier question related to ethnicity asked respondents about the

composition of the workforce at travel destinations and if this influenced their

plans to visit. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement,

“You’d be much more likely to travel if more persons of your ethnic background

worked in or visited travel destinations.”

A similar approach to that used for constraints was also used for the

identification of motivations for vacation travel, except that no information on

motives was garnered from the group that did not take any leisure trip during

the summer. A consistent set of 16 motive questions derived from previous

research (Driver and others 1991) was asked, as well as an open-ended

question about other important reasons for travel. Respondents were asked

to rate the importance of each motive on a five point scale, ranging from

extremely important, very important, important, somewhat important, or not

at all important.

A particularly relevant motive for this study was the concept of travel to

retain a person’s cultural heritage. Floyd and others (1993) suggest that

“leisure may play a critical role in maintaining subcultural identity in a

multicultural society” (p. 9). This construct was measured in this study by

asking respondents who vacationed the importance of “maintaining ties with

your cultural roots.”
6 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

The value and significance attached to membership in an ethnic group has

been defined as a person’s ethnic identity (Phinney 1990). Ethnic identity was

determined for each respondent by asking them to agree or disagree with the

statements: “Do you feel a great sense of attachment to your ethnic group?” and

“Do you take great pride in your ethnic group?” Responses to these two

questions were combined to develop an ethnic identity scale.

Two other constructs that are relevant to this study are acculturation and

assimilation. Assimilation and acculturation constructs were operationalized by

respondent citizenship and ancestry. The collection of these data was particularly

sensitive during the survey because Proposition 187, an initiative to limit

California State government services to illegal immigrants, had just received

voter approval. Respondents were promised that responses to the survey were

confidential. Respondent citizenship was not asked directly because of the

uneasiness related to Proposition 187. Instead, they were asked their country of

birth and that of their father, mother, grandparents, and spouse. These data were

used to identify citizenship and ancestry. Citizens of the U.S. were defined as

respondents who were born in the U.S. or whose parents or spouse were born in

this country. Ancestry was identified as either native (both of respondent’s

parents born in the U.S.), mixed (born in U.S. with at least one parent born in the

U.S.), or non-native (neither respondent or his/her parents born in U.S.).

Demographic data collected included respondent age, education, gender,

and household income in 1993. The survey questionnaire was pre-tested in

November 1994. Changes in the wording of some questions, the addition of two

new barrier responses, and overall shortening of the survey were made based on

pre-test results (appendix A).

Reliability analysis was used to determine the internal consistency and

validity of derived scales for ethnic identity and perceived discrimination. Alpha

level for the perceived discrimination scale was 0.6577, while it was 0.7582 for

ethnic identity. These statistics suggest that the scales are reliable. The statistical

analysis used two broad approaches. The first used chi-square and one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess between- and within-group comparisons,

such as differences between the four ethnic groups in the important time

commitments barrier. This approach was exploratory and provided insights for

interpreting the second approach. The second approach was logistic regression,

a multi-variate procedure that studies the effects of all independent variables

simultaneously. The latter process is a more accurate estimate of the influence of

variables, such as income and education.

Chi-square and one-way ANOVA were used to assess the relationship

between independent variables and leisure travel patterns and visitation to

undeveloped natural areas. Significant differences were defined as a probability

of 0.05 or less.

To acquire an accurate estimate of the actual population characteristics of

Los Angeles County residents it was necessary to adjust for the over-sampling of

some ethnic groups and under-sampling of others. For example, the population

of European-Americans or whites in the 1990 Census of Population (U.S. Bureau

of Census 1993) was 46 percent, while they made up 31 percent of the sample.

Adjustments were made by weighting cases for analysis based on ethnicity.

Weighting was accomplished by drawing a sub-sample (n=390) from the total

data in proportion to the actual ethnic group population in the study area. Cases

were randomly selected for inclusion in the sub-sample until the percentage of

each of the four ethnic groups was equal to their proportion in the 1990 Census

for Los Angeles County. Weighted data were only used for descriptive statistics

of these variables: taking a leisure trip, visitation to natural areas, taking an

excursion, and taking a vacation. Results for these specific variables are presented
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

7

for both weighted and unweighted samples. Unweighted data were used for all

between and within-group comparisons.

The model of factors that influence participation in leisure travel and use

of undeveloped natural areas was analyzed by using logistic regression. This

method was selected because the dependent variables were categorical and

had only two values, participation or no participation. Logistic regression

directly estimates the probability of an event occurring by using a maximumlikelihood method.

Results

A total of 7,775 calls were attempted, with 39.7 percent eligible respondents.

Ineligible respondents included calls where there was no answer, to persons who

were contacted and scheduled a call back but later could not be reached, to

businesses or disconnected numbers, or to people who were of an ethnic group

whose completion target had already been met. A total of 894 interviews were

completed, for a response rate of 29 percent.

This level of response was primarily a result of the unanticipated high

numbers of persons who refused to be interviewed. Factors that may have

influenced refusals included the length of the interview (respondents were told it

would take 12 minutes and it actually averaged 13 minutes), some of the

interview period coincided with the Christmas holiday season, and there was a

high refusal rate by members of some ethnic groups, especially Asian-Americans.

An additional factor may have been a reluctance to participate by non-citizens

after the passage of Proposition 187, a new California initiative that limits public

services to non-citizens.

The lower than anticipated response rate raises an important question: Is the

sample representative of Los Angeles County residents? Because we do not have

information on non-respondents, we addressed this issue by determining if

survey respondents are similar to the adult population of Los Angeles County.

U.S. Census Bureau databases were used to identify educational achievement,

age, and household income characteristics of Los Angeles County residents,

broken out by four racial/ethnic groups in this study. Findings demonstrate that

the sample is quite similar to the actual population education, age, and income

characteristics (appendix B). Therefore, we believe the sample is representative of

the Los Angeles County population, and survey results can be extrapolated to

the county as a whole.

Respondent Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity

The ethnic breakdown of respondents illustrates that the sample represented a

wide cross section of ethnic groups (fig. 1). Out of a total sample size of 894

persons, 30.9 percent identified themselves as Mexican-American, Hispanic,

Chicano, Latino or Spanish descent; 30.5 percent were white or EuropeanAmerican; 20.0 percent were black or African-American; 16.2 percent Asian or

Pacific Islander; 0.7 percent were other ethnic groups; and 1.7 percent stated they

were a mixture of ethnic groups.

The ethnic identity of respondents was determined from the sum of the

variables of ethnic pride and attachment. Eighty-six percent of AfricanAmerican respondents, 78.6 percent of Latino respondents and 69.9 percent

of Asian respondents reported a high level of ethnic identity, while this

figure was 45.6 percent of white respondents (fig. 2). There were significant

differences in ethnicity identity between the four ethnic groups (chisquare=121.55, sig.=0.000, n=890).
8 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Respondent Demographic Characteristics

Almost half (49.0 percent) of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 34

years (table 1). This suggests a relatively young group of residents were

interviewed. However, there were significant differences in age between the

ethnic groups (chi-square=55.13, sig.=0.000). Over 62 percent of Latino

respondents and 53.8 percent of Asian respondents were between 18-34 years

old, compared to 35.9 percent of white respondents. White respondents had the

largest percentage of respondents (23.8 percent) in the senior age group, while

the Latino respondent group had the lowest (8.0 percent).

Highest education attainment for all respondents varied from some college

(25.7 percent), college graduates (22.7 percent), to high school graduates (22.3

percent). These data suggest a wide range of educational attainment among

respondents. Again, there were significant differences between the ethnic groups

(chi-square=183.52, sig.=0.000). About 31 percent of Latino respondents were

high school graduates compared to Asian (15.9 percent) and white (16.1 percent)

respondents. More than 37 percent of Asian respondents and 27 percent of white

respondents were college graduates, compared to 12.3 percent of Latino and 20.1

percent of African-American respondents.

Figure 2 — Respondent ethnic

identification level by ethnic group.

Figure 1 — Respondent ethnicity

(percent) (n=894).

30.9

20

16.2

30.5 2.4 White 

respondent

African-American 

respondent

Asian 

respondent

Latino respondent

Mixture and

Other

High Medium Low

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

86.0

2.8 1.1

78.6

17.0

4.3

African-American Latino

69.9

29.4

0.7

Asian White

45.6

39.6

4.8

P E R C E N T

Ethnic group

Respondent ethnic identification level
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 9

Household income for all respondents tended to range from low and lower

middle class levels, with 32.7 percent of respondents from households earning

less than $25,000 in 1993, 32.1 percent had incomes between $25-$50,000, while

15.9 percent had incomes of $50-$75,000. There were significant differences in

household income between the ethnic groups (chi-square=130.80, sig.=0.000).

Table 1—Respondent demographic characteristics.

African- Latino Asian White Total

American

Characteristic

-------------------------------- percent ----------------------------

Age (n=873)

18-34 years 44.7 62.3 53.8 35.9 49.0

35-44 26.3 20.6 22.8 24.9 23.4

45-55 10.1 8.7 11.7 15.4 11.5

55 or older 18.3 8.0 11.0 23.8 15.8

Refused 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.3

Education Level (n=873)

Grade school or less 2.2 13.0 0.7 0.0 4.6

Some high school 6.1 14.5 5.5 3.7 7.8

High school graduate 24.0 31.2 15.9 16.1 22.3

Trade or technical school graduate 5.0 7.6 2.8 3.3 4.9

Some college 31.8 17.0 20.7 32.2 25.7

College graduate 20.1 12.3 37.2 27.1 22.7

Some graduate/professional school 2.8 1.4 4.8 7.0 3.9

Completed graduate school 7.3 2.5 11.7 10.6 7.7

Refused 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.0 0.3

Household income in 1994 (n=810)

Under $25,000 31.3 53.3 29.0 15.0 32.7

$25,000-$49,999 39.1 26.8 29.7 34.1 32.1

$50,000-$74,999 16.8 8.3 17.2 22.3 15.9

$75,000-$99,999 3.9 3.6 4.8 12.1 6.6

Over $100,00 5.0 1.4 6.2 9.5 5.7

Refused 3.9 6.5 13.1 7.0 7.0

Gender (n=873)

Male 44.7 41.3 42.8 47.6 44.6

Female 55.3 58.7 57.2 52.4 55.4

Marital status (n=869)

Single 48.6 38.8 48.3 38.1 42.2

Married 30.7 51.4 44.1 49.1 45.4

Divorced 9.5 5.1 6.2 7.3 6.7

Separated 3.9 2.9 0.0 1.1 2.0

Widowed 6.7 1.4 1.4 3.7 3.2

Refused 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.4
10 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Over half of Latino respondents reported incomes of less than $25,000, compared

to 15.0 percent of white and 29.0 percent of Asian respondents. More than 12

percent of white respondents showed incomes of between $75-$99,000, compared

to 3.6 percent of Latino, 3.9 percent of African-American and 4.8 percent of Asian

respondents.

More than 55 percent of all respondents were females, while 44.2 percent

were males. There were no significant differences in gender between the four

ethnic groups (chi-square=2.37, sig.=0.498).

Most respondents were either married (45.4 percent) or single (42.2 percent).

Few were divorced, separated or widowed. However, there were significant

differences in marital status between the ethnic groups (chi-square=40.25,

sig.=0.000). Latino respondents were most likely to be married (51.4 percent),

compared to African-American respondents (30.7 percent). African-American

and Asian respondents were most likely to be single (48.6 and 48.3 percent,

respectively). There was an average of 3.2 persons per household. Many of the

households (43 percent) did not have any children under age 18 living at home.

Ancestry and Citizenship

Almost half of all respondents were native to the U.S., while 41.6 percent were

non-native and 10.8 percent had parents of mixed nationality. There are

significant differences in ancestry among different ethnic groups (chisquare=417.3, sig=0.000, n=862). For example, over 90 percent of

African-American respondents were native, while 81.4 percent of Asian

respondents were non-native (fig. 3).

Citizens of the U.S. were defined as respondents who were born in the U.S.

or whose parents or spouse were born in this country. Over 68 percent of all

respondents were U.S. citizens. There were significant differences in citizenship

status between the ethnic groups (chi-square=277.2, sig.=0.000, n=869). Nearly

70 percent of Asian respondents were not citizens, while 52.6 percent of Latino

respondents, 10.3 percent of white respondents, and only 2.2 percent of AfricanAmerican respondents were not citizens (fig. 4).

Figure 3 — Ancestry of respondent

by ethnic group.

Native Mixed Non-native

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

90.3

4.5

12.3

70.6

African-American Latino

12.4

Asian White

70.0

14.6

P E R C E N T

Ethnic group

Ancestry of respondent

81.4

5.1 6.2

15.4 16.5
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 11

Use of Undeveloped Natural Areas

Respondents were asked to state if they traveled away from home primarily for

recreation or leisure purposes between May and August 1994. If they did

undertake leisure travel, then they were asked if they visited an undeveloped

natural area during either a short excursion (less than 4 days in length) or during

a vacation (4 or more continuous days). An undeveloped natural area was

described as “We are NOT interested in trips to a city where there were highly

developed sites, such as city parks and beaches, zoos, festivals, or theme parks.

We are interested in trips to areas located outside cities where you visited

undeveloped natural areas or nature preserves. These areas could have

campgrounds, lakes, access roads, visitor centers, and trails.”

These responses were then divided into statistics for both weighted and

unweighted samples, and the use of natural areas was disaggregated by

demographic categories and ethnic groups. The weighted sample results were

adjusted for over-sampling and more accurately reflect the actual characteristics

of Los Angeles County residents. Unweighted data reflect the characteristics of

the survey sample, which includes a higher proportion of Asian and AfricanAmerican respondents, than those found in the 1990 Census of Population for

Los Angeles County.

The data for the weighted sample showed an estimated 31.0 percent of Los

Angeles County residents did NOT take a leisure trip during the summer 1994

(fig. 5). About 38.5 percent of county residents were estimated to have visited a

natural area, while the remainder (30.5 percent) traveled away from home but

did not visit an undeveloped natural area either on a vacation or a short

excursion. This suggests that about 4 in 10 county residents visited an

undeveloped natural area on either a short excursion or vacation during the

summer 1994. Surprisingly, about one-third of respondents did not take any

leisure trip at all.

A much higher proportion of respondents did not take any leisure trip. The

weighted percentage for visiting natural areas is higher than the unweighted

percentage because white respondents were under-represented in the survey,

and they were much more likely to travel and visit natural areas than were other

ethnic groups that were over-sampled.

Figure 4 — U.S. citizenship of

respondents by ethnic group.

No Yes

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0 97.8

African-American Latino

69.0

Asian White

10.3

89.7

P E R C E N T

Ethnic group

U.S. citizenship of respondent

2.2

31.0

52.6

47.4
12 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Short Excursion Characteristics

Persons who took a leisure trip were asked if any of these visits were less than 4

days long. The weighted and unweighted percent of county residents who

visited an undeveloped natural area on a short excursion were estimated along

with several key characteristics of respondents’ most recent short excursion to an

undeveloped natural area (table 2). Respondents who did not visit a natural area

were asked if they visited a developed area during an excursion. The

characteristics of respondents (unweighted sample) most recent excursion to a

developed site were also determined (table 2). Short natural area excursions were

most commonly 2-3 days away from home, with 1-2 days spent in natural areas.

Trips to developed areas were longer and were more frequently to out-of-state

and international destinations. Over 77 percent of natural areas visited were in

California, while 45.5 percent of developed trips were in California. The most

popular activities in natural areas were hiking, walking, and fishing; in developed

areas, they were sight-seeing, gambling, and swimming.

Vacation Characteristics

All respondents were asked about the importance of vacations (4 or more

consecutive days) away from home to their lifestyle. In the unweighted sample,

about 23 percent stated they were extremely important, 26.0 percent very

important, 24.9 percent important, 16.8 percent somewhat important, and 8.4

percent not at all important. This suggests that about 5 in 10 respondents believed

that vacations were very important to their lifestyle, while 1 in 10 said they were

unimportant.

Next, respondents were asked how many vacations they had taken in the last

2 years. For the weighted sample, 21.9 percent had not taken any vacations in the

past 2 years, 42.6 percent had taken one or two trips, while 25.9 percent took

three to five vacations and 9.6 percent took six or more vacations (fig. 6). There is

little difference in the distribution of vacations between the weighted and

unweighted sample. Results suggest that two vacations a year are still most

common.

The characteristics of vacations taken by persons who visited natural areas

and those who did not were compared (table 3). In the weighted sample, 59.0

percent of respondents visited a natural area on a vacation, while 41.0 percent

did not. Again, a higher percentage of respondents in the weighted sample

visited natural areas than in the unweighted sample.

Figure 5 — Summer 1994 travel of

respondents from home and visiting

undeveloped natural areas (NA):

weighted (n=894) and unweighted

(n=390) samples.

Weighted Unweighted

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Visited NA Did not visit NA

21.6

No trip at all

46.1

P E R C E N T

Summer 1994 travel

Response sample

2.2

31.0 32.3 30.5

38.5
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 13

For the unweighted sample, there was little overall difference in the length of

vacations—1 week was the most common length. One week was also the most

common number of days spent in natural areas. Natural areas visited were more

likely to be found in California, while other sites were usually in other states.

Hiking, walking, sightseeing and fishing were most the most popular activities

in natural areas, while sightseeing, visiting friends and relatives, walking and

swimming/beach were most commonly undertaken outside natural areas.

Overall, the most popular vacation type was visiting friends and relatives

(fig. 7). However, those visiting undeveloped natural areas were much more

likely to be on a natural area vacation (42.6 percent) or a touring vacation (14.8

percent). Compared to natural areas visitors, respondents who did not visit

natural areas were more likely to be visiting friends or relatives (41.4 percent), on

a city vacation (23.1 percent), or on a theme park vacation (5.5 percent). Almost

half of all respondents who visited a natural area were on vacation to view parks,

forests, or other natural areas.

Table 2—Short excursion characteristics.

Visited natural Did not visit

area natural area

---------------- percent ----------------

Took a short excursion

Weighted sample (n=212) 57.5 42.5

Unweighted sample (n=312) 58.6 41.4

For those who took a short excursion

Total number of days away from home

(unweighted sample only)

1/2 or less 9.4 8.2

1/2 –1 20.6 10.3

1/2 28.8 22.6

2-3 41.2 59.0

Number of days in natural area (unweighted sample only)

1/2 or less 15.9 N/A

1/2 –1 27.6 N/A

1 31.2 N/A

2-3 25.3 N/A

Location of area visited (unweighted sample only)

California 77.1 45.5

Other state 21.2 45.9

International 1.8 8.8

Five top recreation activities (unweighted sample only)

1 Hiking Sightseeing

2 Walking Gambling

3 Fishing Swimming

4 Sightseeing Hiking

5 Camping Shopping
14 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Figure 6 — Number of vacations by

respondents in past 2 years: weighted

and unweighted samples (n=391).

Table 3—Vacation characteristics.

Visited natural Did not visit

area natural area

------------------- percent ----------------

Took a vacation

Weighted sample (n=283) 59.0 41.0

Unweighted sample (n=391) 53.4 46.5

For those who took a vacation

Total number of days away from home (unweighted sample only)

4-7 70.0 61.5

8-14 19.6 23.7

15-21 3.9 8.2

22 or more 6.1 6.6

Number of days in natural area (unweighted sample only)

1 or less 12.3 N/A

2-3 26.4 N/A

4-7 46.2 N/A

8-14 10.4 N/A

15 or more 4.7 N/A

Location of area visited (unweighted sample only)

California 52.2 38.5

Other state 35.9 49.5

International 12.0 12.1

Five top recreation activities (unweighted sample only)

1 Hiking Sightseeing

2 Walking Visiting Friends

3 Sightseeing Walking

4 Fishing Swim/beach

5 Camping Gambling

Weighted Unweighted

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

21.9

None 1 or 2

25.9

3, 4, or 5 6 +

9.6

P E R C E N T

Number of Vacations

Response sample

2.2

26.4

22.5

42.6 42.4

8.6
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 15

Influence of Demographic

Characteristics on Leisure Travel Patterns

There were significant differences (chi-square=16.24, sig.=0.039, n=868) between

age groups in the use of undeveloped natural areas and leisure travel behavior

(fig. 8); only unweighted data are used in these analyses. Visitors to natural areas

were relatively evenly distributed among three age groups, with about one-third

visiting from the 18-34, 35-44 and 45-55 age groups. However, the 55 or older age

group was the least likely to visit a natural area, with 26.2 percent visiting in the

summer 1994. Thus, natural area visitors are equally likely to be from any adult

age group, except for the senior cohort.

The youngest group was the least likely to take any leisure trip (49.5 percent),

while the 35-44 cohort was the most likely to take a trip (40.7 percent did not take

a trip). This finding suggests that youths have more constraints or less of a desire

for leisure travel than older groups, including seniors.

Leisure travel to destinations other than natural areas was most frequently

undertaken by the senior (29.1 percent) and the 35-44 (25.8 percent) age

groups. Again, the youngest age group was least likely to visit other

destinations (16.7 percent).

There were significant differences in respondent leisure travel patterns and

education levels (chi-square=73.07, sig.=0.000, n=868). The data show that

Figure 7 — Respondent visitation

to natural areas by other types of

vacations (n=390).

Figure 8 — Respondent leisure

patterns by age group.

Yes No

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

22.0

4.3

Natural

area

Visit

friend/relative

14.8

City Touring

6.0

P E R C E N T

Type of vacation

Visited natural area

8.1

0.0

7.1 5.5

41.4

Resort Theme

park

Special

event

Cruise

42.6

4.4

2.4 3.3 3.3 1.9

23.1

No trip No Yes

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

49.5

25.8

18-34 35-44 45-54 55 +

44.7

29.1

P E R C E N T

Age group

Visited natural area

32.0

16.7

24.3 26.2

40.7

33.8 33.5

43.7
16 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

respondents with the highest education attainment were the most likely to visit a

natural area, while those with the lowest education were least likely to visit

(fig. 9). For example, over 52 percent of persons with a high school degree or less

did not take a pleasure trip, compared to 20 percent of those with graduate

degrees. The trend is clear: those least likely to travel for pleasure were those

with the least educational achievement.

Household income also influenced leisure travel patterns (chi-square=94.25,

sig.=0.000, n=851). Over 55 percent of respondents with a household income

level of $75-$99,999 per year visited a natural area, compared to 17.1 percent of

those with an income level of under $25,000. There appears to be an almost linear

relationship between income and visitation: the higher the income the greater

likelihood of visiting a natural area (fig. 10).

Respondents least likely to take any leisure trip were also those with the

lowest household income. More than 45 percent of those with household incomes

of less than $49,999 did not travel for pleasure. However, about one-third of

respondents from the top income level of $100,000 or more per year did not take

a leisure trip. It appears that factors other than household income limited

participation at the highest income level.

There were significant differences (chi-square=16.28, sig.=0.000, n=869) in

leisure travel patterns by respondent citizenship. Respondents who were not

Figure 10 — Respondent visitation

leisure patterns by income level.

Figure 9 — Respondent leisure

patterns by education level.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Grade

school

Some

high

school

High

school grad

Some

college

P E R C E N T

Education level

Visited natural area

No trip No Low

60.0

70.0

College

grad

Some

grad

school

Grad

degree

68.3

19.5

12.2

68.6

20.0

11.4

55.8

19.6

24.6

43.5

22.6

33.9

37.4

23.2

39.4

31.4

14.3

54.3

46.4

33.3

20.3

34.1

64.4

20.2

45.6 44.4

25.4

30.3

55.9

25.4

18.6

51.0

5.7

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Under $25,000 $25-49,000 $50-74,999 $75-99,999

P E R C E N T

Income level

Visited natural area

No trip No Yes

60.0

70.0

Over $100.000

33.3

18.517.1
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 17

citizens were the most likely (55.5 percent) not to take a leisure trip, compared to

citizens (41.6 percent). U.S. citizens were more likely to visit a natural area (35.9

percent) than were non-citizens (24.6 percent) (fig. 11).

There were significant differences (chi-square=6.82, sig.=0.032, n=864) in

leisure travel patterns by gender. Compared to males (43.7 percent), females

were more likely (56.3 percent) not to take any leisure trip or visit non-natural

areas (61.7 percent versus 38.3 percent) (fig. 12). However, about an equal percent

of male (50.2 percent) and female respondents (49.8 percent) visited a natural

area. These data suggest that there is no large gender difference in overall

visitation to natural areas.

Demographic characteristics of the ethnic groups varied considerably, and

these demographic factors have been shown to significantly influence leisure

travel patterns (chi-square=51.33, sig.=0.000, n=868). Only unweighted data were

used to show differences in visitation to undeveloped natural areas between the

four ethnic groups. A simple cross-tabulation did not adjust for socio-economic

differences; but a multivariate analysis was used to adjust for differences in the

remaining demographic variables. Given these considerations, the data suggest

that white respondents were the most likely to visit undeveloped natural areas

(43.6 percent), followed by Asian respondents (33.8 percent), Latino respondents

(27.2 percent), and African-American respondents (20.7 percent) (fig. 13).

Figure 11— Respondent leisure

patterns by U.S. citizenship.

Figure 12 — Respondent leisure

patterns by gender.

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

60.0

Yes No

24.6

19.9

P E R C E N T

U.S. citizenship

Visited natural area

22.5

55.5

35.9

41.6

No trip No Yes

50.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

70.0

Yes No

49.8

P E R C E N T

Gender

Visited natural area

50.2

No trip No Yes

50.0

60.0

43.7

38.3

56.3

61.7
18 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Latino respondents were the ethnic group least likely to take any leisure trip

(57.2 percent), followed by African-American respondents (54.7 percent), Asian

respondents (38.6 percent), and white respondents (33.7 percent). These data

suggest that a respondent’s ethnic background could play an important role in

the likelihood of visitation to undeveloped natural areas.

Influence of Ethnicity and Other Socio-Demographic

Characteristics on Leisure Travel Patterns

Differences within ethnic groups in leisure travel patterns were analyzed. Each

ethnic group was studied individually to determine if leisure travel pattern

characteristics varied with respondent demographic characteristics of age,

education and household income level, gender, and citizenship.

African-American Respondents

Leisure travel patterns by African-American respondents were examined

(differences were not significant, chi-square=4.74, sig.=0.784). The 18-34 year old

group were somewhat more likely to visit a natural area (25.0 percent) versus

those 55 and older (15.2 percent) (table 4).

The education level of African-American respondents had an influence on

leisure travel patterns (chi-square=10.49, sig.=0.105). Those with the least

education were also the least likely to take any leisure trip (62.7 percent) and

least likely to visit a natural area (11.9 percent), compared to those with graduate

or professional schooling (27.8 and 38.9 percent, respectively).

The influence of household income on leisure travel patterns was examined

(chi-square=8.56, sig.=0.199). Visitation to natural areas was highest (28.3 percent)

among those with household income levels of $50,000 or more, and least likely

with respondents from households with $25,000 or less (12.5 percent). A similar

pattern was found for respondents who did not take any leisure trip. More than

66 percent of the persons from households earning less than $25,000 did not take

any trip, while 43.5 percent of upper income African-American respondents did

not take any trip.

Only 4 percent of African-American respondents were not U.S. citizens, so

the cell sizes for non-citizens were too small to allow for within-group analysis.

The influence of gender on leisure travel patterns was examined (chisquare=4.24, sig.=0.120). There were also high, but not significant, differences in

visitation to natural areas between males and females. More than 27 percent of

Figure 13—Respondent leisure

patterns by ethnic group.

No trip No Yes

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

60.0

15.6

Black Hispanic Asian White

P E R C E N T

Ethnic group

Visited natural area

24.6

57.2

20.7

27.2

38.6

50.0

27.6

33.8 33.7

22.7

43.6

54.7
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 19

African-American respondent males visited a natural area, compared to only 15.2

percent of females. The percentage of males and females taking trips who did not

visit natural areas and those who did not take any leisure trip was similar.

In summary, it appears that African-American respondents more likely to

visit natural areas were males with high education levels and who came from

households with high income (more than $50,000 per year). The youngest age

group tended to visit natural areas most frequently.

Latino Respondents

Differences by age for leisure travel patterns were not significant (chisquare=11.17, sig.=0.192). Visitation to natural areas by Latino respondents

followed a different pattern than African-American respondents in that visitation

to natural areas was lowest among the younger age cohorts and greatest among

the oldest groups (table 5). Less than 24 percent of the 18-34 year old group

visited a natural area, versus 36.4 percent of those respondents 55 and older.

Differences in leisure travel patterns were found by education level (chisquare=32.7, sig.=0.000). Those with the least education were the least likely to

visit natural areas. Only about 18 percent of respondents with the least education

took a leisure trip to a natural area, compared to 43.2 percent of those with at

least some college education.

Visitation to natural areas was also significantly influenced by household

income level (chi-square=41.76, sig.=0.000). Latino respondents with the income

level of $50,000 were more likely (51.4 percent) to visit natural areas than were

Table 4—Demographic and leisure characteristics of African-American respondents.

No trip No visit to Visited

taken natural area natural area

-------------------------- percent ----------------------

Age (n=178)

18-34 years 56.3 18.8 25.0

35-44 53.2 27.7 19.1

45-55 55.6 27.8 16.7

55 or older 51.5 33.3 15.2

Education level (n=178)

High/trade school graduate or less 62.7 25.4 11.9

College graduate or some college 53.8 22.6 23.6

Graduate/professional school 27.8 33.3 38.9

Household income (n=172)

Under $25,000 66.1 21.4 12.5

$25,000-$49,999 55.7 24.3 20.0

$50,000 or more 43.5 28.3 28.3

U.S. citizenship (n=178)

Yes 55.2 25.3 19.5

No N/A1 N/A N/A

Gender (n=179)

Male 51.3 21.3 27.3

Female 57.6 27.3 15.2

1 Data not available due to small number of cases in cells.
20 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

respondents from households with $25,000 or less (14.3 percent). The pattern was

reversed for respondents who did not take any leisure trips, with those of the

lowest income more likely (72.8 percent) not to take any trip, compared to those

with the highest income category (24.3 percent).

U.S. citizenship also had a significant impact on visitation to natural areas,

although this may simply reflect the overall lower income and education levels

of recent immigrants (chi-square=17.15, sig.=0.000). About 36.9 percent of Latino

respondents who were U.S. citizens visited natural areas, compared to 18.1

percent of respondents lacking citizenship (table 5). More than 68 percent of noncitizens did not take any leisure trip in the summer 1994.

There was very little difference in use of natural areas based on respondent

gender (chi-square=0.189, sig.=0.909). More than 27 percent of both male and

female Latino respondents visited natural areas, while about 56 percent did not

take any leisure trip.

These within-group findings for Latino respondents suggest that the most

likely respondents to visit a natural area were U.S. citizens who had higher

education and income levels. The youngest age cohort (18-34 years) was the least

likely to take a leisure trip or visit a natural area, while the most senior group

(55+ years) was the most likely to visit a natural area.

Asian Respondents

Leisure travel pattern differences based on age were non-significant (chisquare=5.56, sig.=0.969). Visitation to natural areas by Asian respondents was

Table 5—Demographic and leisure characteristics of Latino respondents.

No trip No visit to Visited

taken natural area natural area

------------------------- percent ---------------------

Age (n=275)

18-34 years 62.8 13.4 23.8

35-44 45.6 24.6 29.8

45-55 50.0 16.7 33.3

55 or older 54.5 9.1 36.4

Education level (n=276)

High/trade school graduate or less 67.8 14.2 18.0

College graduate or some college 35.8 21.0 43.2

Graduate/professional school 45.5 0.0 54.5

Household income (n=276)

Under $25,000 72.8 12.9 14.3

$25,000-$49,999 43.2 14.9 41.9

$50,000 or more 24.3 24.3 51.4

U.S. citizenship (n=274)

Yes 44.6 18.5 36.9

No 68.8 13.2 18.1

Gender (n=276)

Male 56.1 16.7 27.2

Female 58.0 14.8 27.2
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 21

lowest among the senior age cohort, and there were relatively small differences

between other age groupings Table 6—Demographic and leisure characteristics

of Asian respondents (table 6). For example, 42.4 percent of the 35-44 age group

visited a natural area, while 18.8 percent of the 55 or older group visited. There

was almost no difference between any age cohorts in their rates for taking a

leisure trip. More than 43 percent of 55 or older seniors took a trip but did not

visit a natural area. Caution should be used interpreting these numbers because

the sample has only 16 respondents in the 55 or older cohort, so some cell sizes

are small. The chi-square value of 5.56 was not significant (sig.=0.696).

Like age, education level of Asian respondents had a large but not statistically

significant influence on leisure travel patterns (chi-square=9.90, sig.=0.128). The

trend was clear that those with the least education were the least likely to take a

leisure trip and visit natural areas. Only 25.0 percent of those with the least

education visited a natural area, compared to 45.8 percent with the highest level

of educational attainment.

Asian respondents with a household income level of $50,000 were much

more likely (53.7 percent) to visit natural areas than were respondents from

households with $25,000 or less (21.4 percent). The pattern was reversed for

respondents who did not take any leisure trips, with those of the lowest income

being much more likely (50.0 percent) not to take any trip, compared to those

with the highest income category (19.5 percent). The chi-square value for leisure

travel patterns by household income was 18.92, with a significance of 0.004.

U.S. citizenship also had a significant impact on visitation to natural areas,

although this may simply reflect the overall lower income and education levels

Table 6—Demographic and leisure characteristics of Asian respondents.

No trip No visit to Visited

taken natural area natural area

------------------------- percent ---------------------

Age (n=145)

18-34 years 39.7 26.9 33.3

35-44 36.4 21.2 42.4

45-55 35.3 29.4 35.3

55 or older 37.5 43.8 18.8

Education level (n=144)

High/trade school graduate or less 52.8 22.2 25.0

College graduate or some college 39.3 27.4 33.3

Graduate/professional school 16.7 37.5 45.8

Household income (n=126)

Under $25,000 50.0 28.6 21.4

$25,000-$49,999 51.2 18.6 30.2

$50,000 or more 19.5 26.8 53.7

U.S. citizenship (n=145)

Yes 33.3 17.8 48.9

No 41.0 32.0 27.0

Gender (n=145)

Male 48.4 16.1 35.5

Female 31.3 36.1 32.5
22 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

of recent immigrants. Almost half (48.9 percent) of Asian respondents who were

U.S. citizens visited natural areas, compared to 27.0 percent of respondents

lacking citizenship (table 6). More than 41 percent of non-citizens did not take

any leisure trip in the summer 1994. The chi-square value for leisure travel

patterns by U.S. citizenship was 7.14, with a significance of 0.028.

There was a significant difference in leisure travel patterns by gender (chisquare=7.92, sig.=0.019). Males were more likely not to take any leisure trip (48.4

percent) compared to females (31.3 percent). Female Asian respondents took more

leisure trips that did not visit natural areas (36.1 percent) than males (16.1 percent). It

is interesting to note there was very little difference in visitation to natural areas,

with males slightly more likely (35.5 percent) than females (32.5 percent).

In summary, the data suggest that Asian respondents more likely to visit

natural areas were respondents who were U.S. citizens with high education and

income levels. However, females were much likely to take a leisure trip than

were Asian respondent males.

White Respondents

Visitation to natural areas by white respondents was lowest among the senior

age cohort, with younger respondents more likely to visit natural areas (table 7).

For example, 30.8 percent of the 55 or older age group visited a natural area,

while 55.1 percent of the 18-34 group visited. The 35-44 cohort had the lowest

likelihood of not taking any trip (29.4 percent), while the 45-55 and 55 or older

groups were more likely (38 percent). The chi-square value for leisure travel

patterns by age was 13.56 with a significance of 0.039.

Education level of white respondents does not appear to be a significant

influence on leisure travel patterns (chi-square=4.53, sig.=0.337). Respondents

with the highest education level were most likely to visit a natural area (52.1

percent) compared to those with the least education (41.3 percent).

White respondents with a household income level of $50,000 were the most

likely (53.3 percent) to visit natural areas, compared to respondents from

households with $25,000 or less (29.3 percent). The pattern was reversed but

consistent for respondents who did not take any leisure trips, with those of the

lowest income more likely (48.8 percent) not to take any trip, compared to those

with the highest income category (25.8 percent). The chi-square value for leisure

travel patterns by household income was 13.08, with a significance of 0.041.

U.S. citizenship also had a significant impact on leisure travel patterns (chisquare=1.23, sig.=0.028), although this may simply reflect the overall lower

income and education levels of recent immigrants. More than 44 percent of white

respondents who were U.S. citizens visited natural areas, compared to 39.3

percent of respondents lacking citizenship. More than 42 percent of non-citizens

did not take any leisure trip in the summer 1994 (table 7).

Leisure travel patterns by gender were not statistically different (chisquare=1.90, sig.=0.385). Male respondents were slightly more likely to visit

natural areas (47.7 percent) than were females (39.9 percent). The percentage of

females (35.0 percent) and males (32.3 percent) who did not take any leisure trip

were quite similar.

In summary, it appears that white respondents much more likely to visit

natural areas were those who were young (18-34 years), who come from

households with high income (more than $50,000 per year).

Demographic Characteristics of Vacationers

Age differences for those who traveled to natural areas or other areas were nonsignificant (chi-square=2.43, sig.=0.657, n=417). Overall, visitors to natural

areas were relatively evenly distributed among age groups (fig. 14). More
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 23

than one-half of the 18-34, 35-44 and 45-55 age groups, visited a natural area, while

slightly less than 50 percent of the 55 or older age group visited a natural area.

Differences between education level groups were significant (chisquare=12.56, sig=0.019). More than 46 percent of respondents who were in or

graduated from graduate/professional schools visited a natural area, compared

to 11.4 percent who graduated from high school (fig. 15). The data suggest that

respondents with the highest educational achievement were the most likely to

visit a natural area.

Traveler household incomes differed significantly (chi-square=13.53,

sig.=0.018, n=412). Those respondents in the $25,000 or less group for household

income were significantly less likely (58.2 percent or higher) to visit a natural

area, compared to the $50,000+ group (59.3 percent) (fig. 16).

There were no significant differences between U.S. citizens and non-citizens

in their visitation patterns to undeveloped natural areas. About 55 percent of

citizens and 53 percent of non-citizens visited a natural area during their summer

vacation.

Statistically significant differences were found for vacationers by gender

(chi-square=14.31, sig.=0.002). Males were much more likely to take a natural

area vacation (63.4 percent) than were females (48.7 percent) (fig. 17). This

finding contrasts with gender differences found for short excursions to natural

areas, which showed no significant differences.

Differences by ethnic group for vacation places were large but not significant

(chi-square=9.87, sig.=0.078, n=482). African-American respondents were least

Table 7—Demographic and leisure characteristics of white respondents.

No trip No visit to Visited

taken natural area natural area

------------------------- percent ---------------------

Age (n=273)

18-34 years 31.6 13.3 55.1

35-44 29.4 26.5 44.1

45-55 38.1 26.2 35.7

55 or older 38.5 30.8 30.8

Education level (n=273)

High/trade school graduate or less 34.9 23.8 41.3

College graduate or some college 37.0 21.0 42.0

Graduate/professional school 20.8 27.1 52.1

Household income (n=254)

Under $25,000 48.8 22.0 29.3

$25,000-$49,999 38.7 22.6 38.7

$50,000 or more 25.8 20.8 53.3

U.S. citizenship (n=273)

Yes 32.7 23.3 44.1

No 42.9 17.9 39.3

Gender (n=273)

Male 32.3 20.0 47.7

Female 35.0 25.2 39.9
24 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

likely to visit a natural area (41.6 percent) during a vacation compared to white

respondents (62.2 percent) (fig. 18). More than 52 percent of Latino and Asian

respondent groups visited a natural area.

Figure 16 — Respondent vacations

by income level.

Figure 14 — Respondent vacations

by age group.

Figure 15 — Respondent vacations

by education level.

Yes No

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

60.0

18 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 +

P E R C E N T

Age group

Vacationed in natural area

2.2

50.0

57.0

45.5

56.5

43.0 43.4

54.4

48.5

51.4

Completed

graduate

No Yes

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Grade

school

P E R C E N T

Education level

Vacationed in natural area

Some

high

school

High

school

graduate

Trade or

technical

Some

college

College

graduate

Some

graduate

51.4

60.4

75.0

39.6

50.0 50.0 52.9

81.0

25.0

47.1

54.5

45.5 48.6

19.0

66.7

33.3

Yes No

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

70.0

Under $25,000 $25 - 49,999 $50 - 74,999 $75 - 99,999

P E R C E N T

Income level

Vacationed in natural area

50.0

Over $100,000

60.0

41.9 40.7

70.0

41.8

58.2 58.1 59.3

30.0

61.8

38.2
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 25

Differences Within Ethnic

Groups Who Traveled in Summer 1994

African-American Respondents

Differences were not significant for African-American traveling groups of

respondents by age (chi-square=2.55, sig.=0.465, n=77). Visiting natural areas by

African-American respondents varied only slightly according to respondent age,

with the 18-34-year-old group somewhat more likely to vacation there (50.0

percent) versus those 55 and older (35.3 percent) (table 8). This is consistent with

earlier findings on visitation to natural areas.

In contrast to age, education level of African-American respondents had a

significant influence on the likelihood of vacation choice (chi-square=14.13,

sig.=0.028, n=77). Only about 1 in 4 respondents with a high or trade school

education visited a natural area on vacation. In contrast, about 2 out of 3 AfricanAmerican respondents who vacationed and had at least some graduate or

professional education visited a natural area.

Differences in vacation site choices by household income were nonsignificant (chi-square value=8.56, sig.=0.199, n=73). Vacations in natural areas

was highest among those with household income levels of $50,000 or more (48.1

percent), and least likely with respondents from households with $25,000 or less

Figure 18 — Respondent vacations

by ethnic group.

Figure 17 — Respondent vacations

by gender.

Yes No

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

70.0

Male Female

P E R C E N T

Gender

Vacationed in natural area

50.0

60.0

63.4

36.6

48.7

51.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

70.0

Black Hispanic Asian White

P E R C E N T

Ethnic group

Vacationed in natural area

2.2

Yes No

60.0

50.0

43.4 41.6

58.4 56.6

52.7

47.3

62.2

37.8
26 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

(18.8 percent). These trends are consistent with earlier reported household

income characteristics for the entire sample.

African-American male respondents were slightly more likely to vacation in

natural areas (51.4 percent) than were females (33.8 percent). Only 4 percent of

African-American respondents were not U.S. citizens, so the sample size was too

small to analyze this factor.

In summary, African-American respondents significantly more likely to take

a vacation in a natural area were those with higher levels of education.

Latino Respondents

Age differences for vacation site choices were non-significant (chi-square=3.78,

sig.=0.435, n=98). Vacationing in natural areas was lowest among the younger

age cohorts and greatest among the oldest groups (table 9). More than 49 percent

of the 18-34 year old group visited a natural area, versus 72.7 percent of those

respondents 55 and older.

Education level of Latino respondents had an influence on the likelihood of

site choice, although non-significant (chi-square=12.14, sig.=0.144, n=96). Those

with the least education were the least likely to visit natural areas. More than 3

out of 4 Latino respondents with some graduate education visited a natural area,

compared to 1 in 2 with high or trade school education.

There were non-significant differences on site choice by household income

(chi-square=3.80, sig.=0.283, n=96). Latino respondents with a household income

level of $50,000 were more likely (72.7 percent) to vacation in natural areas, than

were respondents from households with $25,000 or less (47.6 percent).

Table 8—Demographic characteristics of African-American respondents who vacationed in summer 1994.1

Vacation in No vacation in

natural area natural area

------------------------ percent ----------------------

Age (n=77)

18-34 years 50.0 50.0

35-44 42.9 57.1

45-55 22.2 77.8

55 or older 35.3 64.7

Education level (n=77)

High/trade school graduate or less 26.1 73.9

College graduate or some college 42.5 57.5

Graduate/professional school 64.2 35.8

Household income (n=73)

Under $25,000 18.8 81.3

$25,000-$49,999 43.3 56.7

$50,000 or more 48.1 51.9

Gender (n=77)

Male 51.4 48.6

Female 33.3 66.7

1

Small number of cases in cells. No information is provided on citizenship due to small cell counts.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 27

Latino males (56.8 percent) and females (56.4 percent) were nearly equally

likely to vacation in a natural area. There was no difference between rates for

vacationing in a natural area and U.S. citizenship. About 56 percent of each of

these groups visited a natural area.

In summary, there were not significant differences in natural area vacation

activity among Latino respondents.

Asian Respondents

Different age groups of Asian respondents had varying natural area vacation

participation rates (table 10), though findings were statistically non-significant

(chi-square=3.32, sig.=0.343, n=74). Vacationing in natural areas was lowest

among the senior and youngest age cohorts and greatest among the middle age

groups. About 28 percent of the 55 or older group visited a natural area, versus

66.7 percent of those respondents 45-55 years old.

In contrast to age, education level of Asian respondents had a much greater

influence on the likelihood of natural area visitation (chi-square=13.75, sig.=0.088,

n=73). Those with the least education were the least likely to visit natural areas.

About 3 out of 4 Asian respondent vacationers with some graduate education

visited a natural area, while about half of those with high or trade school visited.

Asian respondents with a household income level of $50,000 were more

likely (67.7 percent) to vacation in natural areas, than were respondents from

Table 9—Demographic characteristics of Latino respondents who vacationed in summer 1994.1

Vacation in No vacation in

natural area natural area

------------------------ percent ----------------------

Age (n=98)

18-34 years 49.1 50.9

35-44 63.6 36.4

45-55 62.5 37.5

55 or older 72.7 27.3

Education level (n=96)

High/trade school graduate or less 45.5 54.5

College graduate or some college 68.4 31.6

Graduate/professional school 80.0 20.0

Household income (n=96)

Under $25,000 47.6 52.4

$25,000-$49,999 58.1 41.9

$50,000 or more 72.7 27.3

U.S. citizenship (n=96)

Yes 56.3 43.8

No 55.9 44.1

Gender (n=99)

Male 56.8 43.2

Female 56.4 43.6

1

 Small number of cases in cells.
28 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

households with $25,000 or less (42.9 percent). Although the trends are consistent

with earlier findings on income, in that the greater a household income level the

increasing likelihood of vacationing in a natural area, the chi-square test indicated

that differences were not significant (chi-square=5.64, sig.=0.130, n=64).

There was a significant difference between rates for vacationing in a natural

area and U.S. citizenship among Asian respondents. About 42 percent of noncitizens vacationed in a natural area, while 69 percent of U.S. citizens vacationed

at a natural area (chi-square=5.05, sig.=0.024, n=74).

More Asian respondent males (67.9 percent) than females (43.5 percent)

vacationed in natural areas (chi-square=4.14, sig.=0.042, n=74).

In summary, Asian respondent vacationers significantly more likely to visit a

natural area were males with higher education, who were U.S. citizens.

White Respondents

Differences by age for site choices were non-significant (chi-square=4.87,

sig.=0.181, n=156). Almost 3 out of 4 respondents between 18 and 34 years visited

a natural area (table 11). The over 35 age groups all had visitation rates of

between 52 and 59 percent.

Education level of white respondents did not seem to influence vacation site

choice (chi-square=3.38, sig.=0.759, n=156). In contrast to other ethnic groups,

white respondent vacationers with the least amount of education (high school or

trade school) or the most education (graduate or professional school) more

Table 10—Demographic characteristics of Asian respondents who vacationed in summer 1994.1

Vacation in No vacation in

natural area natural area

------------------------ percent ----------------------

Age (n=74)

18-34 years 48.6 51.4

35-44 61.1 38.9

45-55 66.7 33.3

55 or older 28.6 71.4

Education level (n=73)

High/trade school graduate or less 50.0 50.0

College graduate or some college 47.7 52.2

Graduate/professional school 69.2 30.8

Household income (n=64)

Under $25,000 42.9 57.1

$25,000-$49,999 47.4 52.6

$50,000 or more 67.7 32.3

U.S. citizenship (n=74)

Yes 69.0 31.0

No 42.2 57.8

Gender (n=74)

Male 67.9 32.1

Female 43.5 56.5

1 Small number of cases in cells.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 29

frequently visited natural areas than did those with some formal education

(some college or college graduate). This anomaly may be the result of high usage

by seniors, who generally have less formal education but more free time.

Differences by household income for site choices were non-significant (chisquare=6.13, sig.=0.105, n=144). White respondent vacationers with a household

income level of $25-50,000 were the most likely (72.5 percent) to visit natural

areas, compared to respondents from households with $25,000 or less (47.1

percent).

Citizenship had a substantial influence (chi-square=3.03, sig.=0.081, n=156)

on vacation choice for white respondents. Respondents who were not U.S.

citizens were more likely to visit a natural area (84.6 percent) than were U.S.

citizens (60.1 percent). The European tradition of non-citizens to hike and visit

natural areas may be the cause of higher participation by non-citizens.

Respondent gender also significantly influenced vacation choices (chisquare=3.62, sig.=0.057, n=156). Males were much more likely to visit a natural

area (70.6 percent) compared to females (55.7 percent).

In summary, white respondent vacationers significantly more likely to visit a

natural area were young males who were not U.S. citizens.

Barriers to Leisure Travel and Visiting Natural Areas

The survey asked respondents to agree/disagree with 17 statements describing

barriers that may have affected their travel during the spring and summer 1994.

Table 11—Demographic characteristics of white respondents who vacationed in summer 1994.1

Vacation in No vacation in

natural area natural area

------------------------ percent ----------------------

Age (n=156)

18-34 years 73.2 26.8

35-44 59.5 40.5

45-55 55.6 44.4

55 or older 52.8 47.2

Education level (n=156)

High/trade school graduate or less 77.8 22.2

College graduate or some college 58.6 41.3

Graduate/professional school 71.4 28.6

Household income (n=144)

Under $25,000 47.1 52.9

$25,000-$49,999 72.5 27.5

$50,000 or more 61.8 38.2

U.S. citizenship (n=156)

Yes 60.1 39.9

No 84.6 15.4

Gender (n=156)

Male 70.6 29.4

Female 55.7 44.3

1 Small number of cases in cells.
30 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

A scale of 1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree, is the basis for the responses.

Only unweighted data are presented. The importance of each barrier is broken

down into three types of travelers identified earlier in this study: respondents

who did not take a leisure trip away from home, persons who traveled but did

not visit a natural area, and respondents who visited a natural area. The

constraint was asked to each of the three groups in a somewhat unique context.

For example, the constraint “not safe” was asked as “travel and vacation areas

are not safe” to persons who did not take any trip. To respondents who took a trip

but not to a natural area, the question was phrased as “undeveloped natural areas

are not safe.” Finally, persons who visited a natural area were asked “undeveloped

natural areas are not safe and this limited my stay or activities in them.”

The top three barriers mentioned by those who had not taken a leisure trip in

the summer 1994 were time commitments (59.1 percent), financial situation (54.4

percent), and nearby destinations are too crowded (49.2 percent) (table 12). Those

who took a trip but not to a natural area agreed that nearby destinations are too

crowded (45.6 percent), and also said that few friends travel or recreate in natural

areas (47.4 percent), and they don’t know where to go or what to do (46.7 percent).

Table 12—Respondent perceptions of barriers to taking a trip, visiting natural areas, and limiting stay within

natural areas, by percents.1

Barrier to taking Barrier to visiting Barrier limiting

a trip2 natural areas3 natural area stay4

Barrier (n=412) (n=193) (n=289)

--------------------------------- percent ---------------------------------

Time commitments 59.1 41.6 45.1

Financial situation 54.4 27.3 29.7

Nearby destinations are too crowded 49.2 45.6 46.4

Few of my friends travel or recreate in

natural areas 44.0 47.4 37.4

Would travel/rec in natural area if more

workers of my ethnicity were employed there 42.1 26.8 39.0

Want more luxury accommodations 40.3 31.6 43.4

Don’t know where to go/what to do 36.2 46.7 N/A

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 34.8 14.8 23.6

Lacked transportation 33.7 22.5 48.4

Not safe 27.2 16.7 27.5

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in natural area 25.6 16.3 23.6

No nearby natural areas 22.8 14.4 10.4

No companions to go with 22.0 21.5 30.8

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 21.4 10.0 19.8

Travel/rec in natural area is too much trouble 19.0 12.4 23.1

Outdoors are uncomfortable 18.7 12.9 15.4

No interest vacations 15.3 14.3 N/A

Not healthy enough 12.7 4.8 11.5

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree; number represents respondents who agreed or strongly

agreed.

2 Respondents who did not take a leisure trip.

3 Respondents who took a trip but did not visit a natural area.

4 Respondents who visited an undeveloped natural area.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 31

Those traveling to natural areas said that barriers limiting their stay included the

lack of transportation (48.4 percent), nearby destinations are too crowded (46.7 percent),

and time constraints (45.1 percent). Other noteworthy barriers for all three groups

included the lack of luxury accommodations, the lack of workers of their ethnicity

employed there, and the lack of companions to go with.

A comparison of average scores (table 13) shows that other barriers exist.

Importantly, those who traveled to a natural area that summer were least likely

to agree that having more workers of their ethnicity employed there was a barrier

(3.63). They were also least likely to agree that safety was a barrier (3.66) or that

lack of nearby areas (3.66) was a barrier. Not surprisingly, those who traveled to a

natural area were those least likely to agree that they would feel unwelcome in a

natural area (3.9), that a natural area is too much trouble (3.84), outdoors are

uncomfortable (3.89), that they have no interest in vacations (4.18), or that they are not

healthy enough (4.29).

Table 13—Respondent perceptions of barriers to taking a trip, visiting natural areas, and limiting stay within

natural areas, by the means.1

Barrier Barrier Barrier

to taking to visiting limiting

a trip2 natural natural

 areas3 area stay4

Barrier (n=412) (n=193) (n=289)

------------------------- mean -------------------- Sig.5

Time commitments 2.69 2.86 2.91 0.036

Financial situation 2.69 3.17 3.37 0.000

Nearby destinations are too crowded 2.89 3.03 2.98 0.015

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 2.90 3.04 2.97 0.190

Would travel/rec in natural area if more

workers of my ethnicity were employed there 2.94 3.25 3.63 0.000

Want more luxury accommodations 2.99 3.16 3.56 0.000

Don’t know where to go/what to do 3.04 3.18 3.32 0.018

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 3.18 3.00 3.02 0.574

Lacked transportation 3.20 3.60 3.75 0.000

Not safe 3.24 3.41 3.66 0.000

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in natural area 3.41 3.83 3.90 0.000

No nearby natural areas 3.42 3.48 3.66 0.062

No companions to go with 3.43 3.57 3.78 0.001

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 3.55 3.89 3.90 0.000

Travel/rec in natural area is too much trouble 3.55 3.57 3.84 0.000

Outdoors are uncomfortable 3.58 3.61 3.89 0.002

No interest vacations 3.81 3.84 4.18 0.000

Not healthy enough 3.92 4.04 4.29 0.000

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 Respondents who did not take a leisure trip.

3 Respondents who took a trip but did not visit a natural area.

4 Respondents who visited an undeveloped natural area.

5 The significance that differences between groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from a

two-way chi-square test.
32 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Differences Between Ethnic Group Perceptions of Barriers

The mean importance score for barriers to taking a leisure trip among the four

ethnic groups were divided into three segments: 1) barriers to taking a leisure

trip reported by respondents who did not take a leisure trip in the summer 1994;

2) barriers to visiting a natural area reported by respondents who took a leisure

trip but did not visit a natural area; and 3) barriers limiting the length of stay in

natural areas reported by respondents who visited a natural area during the

summer 1994. This between-group comparison can be highly influenced by any

significant differences in the demographic characteristics of each group. A

multivariate statistical analysis was subsequently used to control for

demographic differences.

Perceived Barriers to Taking a Leisure

Trip by Those Not Taking a Trip in Summer 1994

The percent and mean scores were derived only from respondents who stated

they did not take a leisure trip in the summer 1994. The most important barrier

for each ethnic group was that they normally travel or recreate but they did

something different the summer 1994 (table 14). More than half of each ethnic

group (except white respondents) also said that financial situation was an

Table 14—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers to taking a leisure trip for those who did not take a trip in summer

1994, by percents.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=106) (n=188) (n=74) (n=125)

-------------------------------- percent ------------------------------

Time commitments 56.7 50.7 68.9 68.0

Financial situation 56.6 64.4 56.7 37.6

Nearby destinations are too crowded 36.8 53.7 37.9 40.8

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 59.3 53.1 62.2 22.4

Would travel/rec in natural area if more

workers of my ethnicity were

employed there 47.2 61.1 37.8 15.7

Want more luxury accommodations 41.5 39.9 28.4 18.4

Don’t know where to go/what to do 46.2 51.6 33.8 24.0

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 62.0 77.1 77.8 69.3

Lacked transportation 36.8 46.3 28.4 19.3

Not safe 22.8 36.2 12.2 20.9

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in natural area 33.9 32.4 10.8 8.0

No nearby natural areas 26.4 22.8 28.4 15.2

No companions to go with 26.5 33.0 21.6 24.8

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 23.6 28.7 5.5 8.0

Travel/rec in natural area is too much trouble 20.7 23.9 31.1 13.6

Outdoors are uncomfortable 28.3 18.1 20.8 13.6

No interest in vacations 13.2 21.8 10.9 10.4

Not healthy enough 15.1 12.2 8.9 15.2

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree; number represents

respondents who agreed or strongly agreed.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 33

important barrier. Other barriers for at least half of the African-American

respondents who did not travel included that few friends travel or recreate in

natural areas (59.3 percent) and time commitments (56.7 percent). Other barriers for

at least half of the Latino respondents who did not travel that summer included

that few workers of their ethnicity were employed in natural areas (61.1 percent),

nearby destinations are crowded (53.7 percent), few friends travel to natural areas (53.1

percent), don’t know where to go or what to do (51.6 percent), and time commitments

(50.7 percent). Additional constraints to doing something different and financial

situation for over half the Asian respondents was a shorter list than for Latino

respondents, and included time commitments (68.9 percent) and few friends travel

or recreate in natural areas (62.2 percent). The white respondents who didn’t travel

that summer said that they did something different (69.3 percent) or had time

commitments (68.0 percent).

Table 15 shows that Latino respondents were the most likely to agree that

financial situation (2.47) and the lack of Latino workers (2.46) were barriers to their

Table 15—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers to taking a leisure trip for those who did not take a trip in summer

1994, by the means.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=106) (n=188) (n=74) (n=125)

-------------------------------------- mean ---------------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.63 2.77 2.41 2.26 0.000

Financial situation 2.65 2.47 2.72 3.16 0.001

Nearby destinations are too crowded 3.06 2.68 3.07 3.17 0.004

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 2.83 2.81 2.63 3.36 0.000

Would travel/rec in natural area if

more workers of my ethnicity

were employed there 2.94 2.46 3.14 3.96 0.000

Want more luxury accommodations 3.00 3.12 3.45 3.70 0.001

Don’t know where to go/what to do 2.99 2.81 3.27 3.65 0.000

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 3.11 3.07 3.14 3.52 0.036

Lacked transportation 3.22 3.00 3.44 3.79 0.000

Not safe 3.44 3.02 3.68 3.64 0.000

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in

natural area 3.22 3.21 3.72 4.23 0.000

No nearby natural areas 3.39 3.52 3.44 3.92 0.000

No companions to go with 3.55 3.37 3.54 3.62 0.014

Don’t feel welcome traveling or

in natural area 3.47 3.37 3.94 4.21 0.000

Travel/rec in natural area is too

much trouble 3.56 3.47 3.39 4.00 0.000

Outdoors are uncomfortable 3.40 3.72 3.62 3.93 0.031

No interest in vacations 3.92 3.68 3.91 4.21 0.001

Not healthy enough 3.89 3.96 4.17 4.02 0.000

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a chi-square test.
34 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

travel. The Asian respondents (2.41) and white (2.26) respondents were the most

likely to agree that time commitments were barriers to travel. None of the groups

agreed that they lacked an interest in vacations or that their health was a barrier

to taking trips.

Perceived Barriers to Visiting an Undeveloped

Natural Area For Those Who Traveled but Not to a Natural Area

For this section the percent and mean scores were derived only for respondents

who took a trip but not to a natural area (tables 16, 17). There are several

interesting and important barriers for groups who traveled but did not go to a

natural area. First, there are several issues that more than 20 percent of each

minority group agreed with, but were agreed with by 20 percent or fewer white

respondents, including that minorities would travel or recreate in a natural area

if workers of ethnic minority background were employed there, minorities don’t know

where to go or what to do, minorities lack transportation, and minorities perceive the

area as not safe.

Table 16—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers to visiting an undeveloped natural area for those who traveled but

not to a natural area, by percents.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=44) (n=40) (n=35) (n=58)

-------------------------------- percent ------------------------------

Time commitments 43.2 45.0 51.4 41.3

Financial situation 31.8 37.5 37.1 20.7

Nearby destinations are too crowded 20.5 37.5 31.4 50.0

Few of my friends travel or recreate in

natural areas 45.5 37.5 37.1 56.9

Would travel/rec in natural area if

more workers of my ethnicity

were employed there 50.0 52.5 42.9 17.3

Want more luxury accommodations 54.6 50.0 54.3 39.7

Don’t know where to go/what to do 50.0 52.5 42.9 17.2

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 32.8 60.0 48.5 69.0

Lacked transportation 38.6 22.5 25.7 12.0

Not safe 25.0 32.5 25.7 15.5

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in natural area 9.1 15.0 20.0 3.4

No nearby natural areas 31.8 42.5 34.3 22.4

No companions to go with 36.3 22.5 31.4 20.7

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 18.2 20.0 21.2 8.6

Travel/rec in natural area is too much trouble 20.5 20.0 22.8 17.2

Outdoors are uncomfortable 15.9 20.0 40.1 28.6

No interest vacations 13.6 17.5 5.7 19.0

Not healthy enough 13.7 10.0 17.2 8.6

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree; number represents

respondents who agreed or strongly agreed.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 35

More than half of each ethnic minority group mentioned another barrier to

natural area travel is the lack of luxury accommodations. Half of the AfricanAmerican respondents also cited few minority workers in natural areas (50.0 percent)

and not knowing where to go or what to do (50.0 percent) as barriers. In addition to

the lack of luxury accommodations, more than half the Latino respondents who

traveled but not to a natural area said that lack of minority employees (52.5 percent)

and a lack of knowledge about where to go or what to do (52.5 percent) were barriers.

Additionally, they said that they normally travel or recreate but did something

different that summer (60 percent). In addition to luxury accommodations, more

than half the Asian respondents said they traveled but not to a natural area due

to time commitments (51.4 percent). Barriers to natural area travel for white

respondents who went on a trip included doing something different that summer

(69.0 percent), few friends travel or recreate in natural areas (56.9 percent), and

nearby destinations were too crowded (50.0 percent).

Table 17—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers to visiting an undeveloped natural area for those who traveled but

not to a natural area, by the means.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=44) (n=40) (n=35) (n=58)

-------------------------------------- mean ---------------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.95 2.97 2.85 3.20 0.348

Financial situation 3.36 3.12 3.14 3.63 0.587

Nearby destinations are too crowded 3.29 3.15 3.17 2.84 0.007

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 3.02 3.12 3.28 2.79 0.069

Would travel/rec in natural area

if more workers of my ethnicity

were employed there 2.90 2.90 3.00 3.91 0.002

Want more luxury accommodations 2.63 2.95 2.82 3.20 0.077

Don’t know where to go/what to do 2.95 2.97 2.97 3.29 0.695

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer 2.97 2.70 2.91 3.20 0.136

Lacked transportation 3.20 3.55 3.48 3.98 0.027

Not safe 3.47 3.77 3.38 3.74 0.226

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec.

in natural area 3.65 3.70 3.54 4.29 0.002

No nearby natural areas 3.13 3.02 3.25 3.60 0.077

No companions to go with 3.20 3.37 3.40 3.77 0.369

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in

natural area 3.72 3.50 3.60 4.10 0.093

Travel/rec in natural area is too

much trouble 3.47 3.45 3.45 3.68 0.465

Outdoors are uncomfortable 3.70 3.62 3.17 3.63 0.093

No interest vacations 3.70 3.70 4.00 3.94 0.126

Not healthy enough 4.00 3.97 3.80 4.27 0.551

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a chi-square test.
36 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

The white respondents were the least likely to agree that they were

discriminated against while traveling or recreating in a natural area (4.29).

Ethnic Group Perceptions of

Barriers Limiting Stay in Undeveloped Natural Area

The percent and mean scores were derived only from respondents who stated

they took a leisure trip in the summer 1994 and visited a natural area (tables 18,

19). All the groups said that having few friends who travel or recreate in natural areas

is a barrier limiting their stay. In fact this was the barrier getting the most

agreement from African-American respondents (51.7 percent) and Latino

respondents (58.4 percent). These two groups both agreed that another barrier

was that nearby destinations were too crowded. Table 18 shows that for AfricanAmerican respondents a third barrier was that they didn’t know where to go or what

to do (44.8 percent), while a third barrier for Latino respondents was time

commitments (35.4 percent). For the Asian respondents who traveled to a natural

area, the top three barriers were time commitments (47.2 percent), few friends travel

Table 18—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers limiting stay in undeveloped natural areas, by percents.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=29) (n=48) (n=36) (n=91)

-------------------------------- percent ------------------------------

Time commitments 41.0 35.4 47.2 46.2

Financial situation 17.2 33.4 36.2 23.1

Nearby destinations are too crowded 44.8 45.8 36.1 53.9

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 51.7 58.4 41.7 38.5

Would travel/rec in natural area if more

workers of my ethnicity were

employed there 41.3 27.1 19.4 5.5

Want more luxury accommodations 27.5 31.3 22.3 37.6

Don’t know where to go/what to do 44.8 25.0 33.3 30.8

Normally travel/rec, but did something

different this summer N/.A2 N/.A N/.A N/.A

Lacked transportation 23.1 16.7 13.9 12.1

Not safe 24.1 12.5 19.4 15.4

People of my ethnicity are discriminated

against traveling/or rec. in natural area 41.4 18.9 11.1 4.4

No nearby natural areas 20.6 25.1 22.2 18.7

No companions to go with 10.3 18.9 16.7 17.6

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 14.2 18.8 8.3 2.2

Travel/rec in natural area is too much trouble 13.7 8.4 11.1 9.9

Outdoors are uncomfortable 17.2 12.5 16.7 8.9

No interest vacations N/.A N/.A N/.A N/.A

Not healthy enough 3.4 14.6 5.6 0.0

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree; number represents

respondents who agreed or strongly agreed.

2 Data not available or appropriate for this variable.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 37

to natural areas (41.7 percent), and their financial situation (36.2 percent). For white

respondents two other barriers were that nearby destinations were too crowded (53.9

percent), followed by time commitments (46.2 percent).

More minorities than white respondents said that the lack of minority workers

was a barrier. Importantly, 41.4 percent of African-American respondents

mentioned that people of their ethnicity are discriminated against while traveling to or

recreating in natural areas.

The white respondents were the least likely to agree that the following were

barriers limiting their stay in undeveloped natural areas: health issues (4.41),

feeling unwelcome traveling to or recreating in natural areas (4.23), discriminatory

actions while traveling to or recreating in natural areas (4.21), and would travel to a

natural area if more workers of their ethnicity were employed there (4.05).

Table 19—Ethnic group perceptions of barriers limiting stay in undeveloped natural areas, by the means.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=29) (n=48) (n=36) (n=91)

-------------------------------------- mean ---------------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 3.17 3.16 2.83 3.00 0.372

Financial situation 3.62 3.37 3.19 3.57 0.452

Nearby destinations are too crowded 2.82 3.04 3.22 2.76 0.263

Few of my friends travel or recreate

in natural areas 2.93 2.91 3.36 3.15 0.197

Would travel/rec in natural area

if more workers of my ethnicity

were employed there 3.06 3.58 3.72 4.05 0.008

Want more luxury accommodations 3.41 3.39 3.36 3.84 0.058

Don’t know where to go/what to do 3.06 3.54 3.38 3.38 0.299

Normally travel/rec, but did

something different this summer N/.A3 N/.A N/.A N/.A N/.A

Lacked transportation 3.55 3.75 3.77 3.88 0.290

Not safe 3.44 3.68 3.58 3.64 0.698

People of my ethnicity are

discriminated against

traveling/or rec. in

natural area 2.93 3.81 3.91 4.21 0.000

No nearby natural areas 3.48 3.37 3.66 3.71 0.558

No companions to go with 3.96 3.62 3.91 3.87 0.682

Don’t feel welcome traveling or

in natural area 3.13 3.66 3.94 4.23 0.000

Travel/rec in natural area is

too much trouble 3.86 3.87 3.83 3.92 0.937

Outdoors are uncomfortable 3.65 3.93 3.83 3.94 0.375

No interest vacations N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Not healthy enough 4.37 4.08 4.33 4.41 0.015

1 Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a chi-square test.

3 Data not available or appropriate for this variable.
38 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Differences Within Ethnic Group Perceptions

of Barriers to Travel and Visiting Natural Areas

Respondents from each ethnic group were divided into those who did not take

any trip, those who did not visit a natural area, and those who visited a natural

area. Eight barrier questions shown in earlier analysis to be important or

influenced by ethnic background were selected for analysis in this section.

African-American Respondents

Two barriers were significantly different within this group (table 20). AfricanAmerican respondents who traveled but not to a natural area were the least

likely to agree that they would feel unwelcome (3.86) in a natural area or that people

of their ethnicity were discriminated against while traveling to or recreating in a natural

area (3.61).

Latino Respondents

Several barriers to leisure travel among Latino respondents were statistically

significant (table 21). Latino respondents who had not taken a trip in summer

1994 were the most likely to agree that they would travel to natural areas if more

workers of their ethnicity were employed there (2.41) or if their financial situation (2.47)

were not an issue. Latino respondents who traveled to an undeveloped natural

area were least likely to agree that they felt unwelcome in a natural area (3.68) or

that people of their ethnicity were discriminated against while traveling to or recreating

in a natural area (3.62).

Asian Respondents

None of the differences for the constraints examined were statistically significant

for Asian respondent groups (table 22). Though statistically non-significant, the

groups who did not travel in summer 1994 were most likely to agree that time

commitments were an issue (2.41), while all the groups disagreed that people of

their ethnicity were discriminated against while traveling to or recreating in a natural

area and disagreed that they feel unwelcome traveling to or while in a natural area.

Table 20—African-American respondent perceptions of selected barriers for any travel, travel to natural areas, and

travel within natural area.1

No trip Didn’t Visited

visit natural

Barrier area

---------------------- mean ------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.65 2.98 2.97 0.496

Financial situation 2.80 3.38 2.97 0.238

Nearby destinations are too crowded 3.01 3.31 3.00 0.421

Few of my friends travel or recreate in natural areas 2.83 3.06 2.67 0.113

Would travel/rec in natural area if more workers

of my ethnicity were employed there 2.84 2.97 3.05 0.477

Don’t know where to go/what to do 2.95 3.04 3.02 0.916

People of my ethnicity are discriminated against

traveling or rec. in natural area 3.01 3.61 3.29 0.020

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 3.35 3.86 3.24 0.057

Want more luxury accommodations 2.90 2.77 3.41 0.111

1 n=179. Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a two-way chi-square test.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 39

Table 21—Latino respondent perceptions of selected barriers for any travel, travel to natural areas, and travel

within natural area.1

No trip Didn’t Visited

visit natural

Barrier area

---------------------- mean ------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.86 2.83 2.89 0.954

Financial situation 2.47 2.93 3.13 0.000

Nearby destinations are too crowded 2.62 3.06 2.98 0.016

Few of my friends travel or recreate in natural areas 2.81 2.95 2.89 0.588

Would travel/rec in natural area if more workers

of my ethnicity were employed there 2.41 2.95 3.17 0.002

Don’t know where to go/what to do 2.75 3.02 3.29 0.030

People of my ethnicity are discriminated against

traveling or rec. in natural area 3.22 3.48 3.62 0.038

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 3.25 3.55 3.68 0.043

Want more luxury accommodations 3.09 2.76 3.40 0.068

1 n=276. Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a two-way chi-square test.

Table 22—Asian respondent perceptions of selected barriers for any travel, travel to natural areas, and travel within

natural area.1

No trip Didn’t Visited

visit natural

Barrier area

---------------------- mean ------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.41 2.87 2.67 0.452

Financial situation 2.71 2.90 3.24 0.146

Nearby destinations are too crowded 3.16 3.02 3.18 0.676

Few of my friends travel or recreate in natural areas 2.78 2.92 3.10 0.179

Would travel/rec in natural area if more workers

of my ethnicity were employed there 3.32 2.87 3.48 0.104

Don’t know where to go/what to do 3.25 3.22 3.20 0.918

People of my ethnicity are discriminated against

traveling or rec. in natural area 3.58 3.90 3.75 0.166

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 3.78 3.85 3.86 0.532

Want more luxury accommodations 3.20 3.00 3.41 0.284

1 n=144. Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a two-way chi-square test.
40 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Respondent Motives for Vacationing

Respondents who took a vacation during the study period were read a list of

16 statements describing potential reasons why they decided to take a vacation.

Survey respondents who visited a natural area at some time during their vacation

were asked how important this motive was in their decision to go to the natural

area. Persons who did not visit a natural area were asked how important this

motive was in their decision to take their most recent vacation. Responses were

on a scale ranging from 1=extremely important to 5=not at all important.

The five most important motives were escape from daily routine, viewing

scenery, being with family, seeing something different and going to a safe area. The least

important motives were meeting new people, challenging yourself, maintaining ties

with my cultural roots, teaching others, and developing new skills (table 24).

Several motives were significantly more important for respondents who

vacationed in natural areas, which were distinguished from those who did not

visit a natural area. Viewing scenery was much more important to natural area

visitors (82.3 percent; mean=1.74) versus non-visitors (59.9 percent; mean=2.33).

Another distinguishing motive was experiencing quiet, with a mean score of 2.10

for visitors to a natural area, compared to 2.48 for non-visitors. There were large

differences between the two groups in the importance of getting exercise. A final

factor was the motive of developing spiritual values, with a mean score for natural

area visitors of 2.91 versus a value of 2.88 for non-visitors.

Two motives were significantly more important to persons who did not visit

a natural area compared to those who did visit: maintaining my culture and

meeting new people.

White Respondents

Those white respondents who did not travel in summer 1994 were most likely to

agree that time commitments were an issue (table 23). Those white respondents

who traveled to an undeveloped natural area in summer 1994 were the least

likely to agree with the following barriers: people of their ethnicity are discriminated

against while traveling to or recreating in a natural area (4.33), they would travel to a

natural area if more workers of their ethnicity were employed there (4.15), want more

luxury accommodations (3.79), and financial situation (3.69).

Table 23—White respondent perceptions of selected barriers for any travel, travel to natural areas, and travel within

natural area.1

No trip Didn’t Visited

visit natural

Barrier area

---------------------- mean ------------------- Sig.2

Time commitments 2.27 2.95 2.87 0.005

Financial situation 2.98 3.34 3.69 0.001

Nearby destinations are too crowded 2.90 2.77 2.92 0.838

Few of my friends travel or recreate in natural areas 3.21 3.09 3.08 0.400

Would travel/rec in natural area if more workers

of my ethnicity were employed there 3.65 3.88 4.15 0.034

Don’t know where to go/what to do 3.44 3.41 3.50 0.700

People of my ethnicity are discriminated against

traveling or rec. in natural area 4.03 4.13 4.33 0.032

Don’t feel welcome traveling or in natural area 4.09 4.16 4.25 0.413

Want more luxury accommodations 3.58 3.26 3.79 0.037

1 n=271. Scale: 1=strongly agree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 5=strongly disagree.

2 The significance that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

a two-way chi-square test.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 41

Differences Between Ethnic Group Motives for Vacationing

The mean score for each motive is the average for all respondents within that

ethnic group, regardless if they visited a natural area or not (table 25). Several of

the motives for vacations differed significantly between the ethnic groups. The

following motives were of more importance to African-American respondents:

going to safe area (1.89), physically resting (1.93), and challenging yourself (2.98). The

following motives were of more importance to Latino respondents than other

groups: being with my family (1.68), learn about new culture or area (2.38), develop

new skills (2.45), teach others (2.52), maintain ties with cultural roots (2.53), and

meeting new people (2.82). African-American and Latino respondents also thought

it was more important to escape from the daily routine, be with friends, and experience

quiet as compared to the Asian and white respondents.

Differences Within Ethnic Group Motives for Vacationing

Differences in the importance of selected motives within each of the four ethnic

groups were disaggregated into those who did not vacation in a natural area and

those who visited a natural area on vacation.

African-American Respondents

The most important motivation from this list for these African-American

vacationers was escape from daily routine. Other top motivations for vacationers

were seeing something different and experiencing quiet (table 26). There was one

statistically significant within-group difference. Vacationers who visited a natural

area were much more likely to cite getting exercise (2.20) as a motive versus

persons who did not visit a natural area (2.97).

Table 24—Respondent motives for vacationing in natural areas.1

Did not vacation in Vacation in natural

natural area (n=209) area (n=182)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Motive Percent Mean Percent Mean F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 74.2 1.95 80.9 1.74 0.072

Viewing scenery 59.9 2.33 82.3 1.74 0.000

Being with my family 70.9 2.02 72.3 2.03 0.936

Seeing something different 64.3 2.24 71.3 2.04 0.093

Going to a safe area 66.5 2.20 66.0 2.24 0.719

Being with friends 67.6 2.15 59.8 2.35 0.126

Physically resting 59.3 2.30 67.0 2.25 0.724

Experiencing quiet 53.3 2.48 66.0 2.10 0.001

Getting exercise 48.3 2.75 62.2 2.26 0.000

Learning about new culture or area 45.6 2.73 49.7 2.65 0.540

Develop spiritual values 46.2 2.88 52.6 2.58 0.039

Develop new skills 43.3 3.04 41.2 2.90 0.316

Teach others 36.2 3.12 40.6 3.00 0.418

Maintain ties with cultural roots 44.5 2.91 29.7 3.42 0.000

Challenging yourself 31.8 3.39 36.9 3.18 0.159

Meeting new people 37.3 3.12 25.5 3.45 0.021

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5=not at all important; percent represents extremely and very important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.
42 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Latino Respondents

The most important motivation from this list for the vacationers was escape from

daily routine (table 27). Another important motivation was viewing scenery. There

was one statistically significant within-group difference among Latino

respondents. Vacationers who visited a natural area were much more likely to

cite experiencing quiet (1.81) as a motive versus persons who did not visit a natural

area (2.47) (table 27).

Asian Respondents

The most important motivations from this list (table 28) for Asian respondent

vacationers were viewing scenery, escape from daily routine, and seeing something

different. There are three significant within-group differences that distinguish

natural area visitors from non-visitors. Asian respondent vacationers who visited

a natural area were much more likely to cite seeing something different (1.94) and

viewing scenery (1.83) as motives, versus persons who did not visit a natural area.

And vacationers to other areas were more likely to rate maintain ties with cultural

roots (2.94) as more important than those who vacation at natural areas (3.61).

White Respondents

The most important motivations from this list (table 29) for white respondent

vacationers were escape from daily routine, seeing something different, and viewing

scenery. There are four significant within-group differences that distinguish white

respondent natural area visitors from non-visitors. White respondent vacationers

who visited a natural area were much more likely to cite viewing scenery (1.61),

experiencing quiet (2.13 ), getting exercise (2.16 ) and developing spiritual values (2.63)

Table 25—Ethnic group motives for visiting natural areas.1

African- Latino Asian White

American respondent respondent respondent

Barrier (n=73) (n=88) (n=71) (n=149)

-------------------------------------- mean ---------------------------- F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 1.67 1.68 2.21 1.86 0.013

Viewing scenery 2.15 1.88 2.12 1.96 0.324

Being with my family 1.80 1.68 2.49 2.14 0.000

Seeing something different 2.06 2.10 2.25 2.14 0.778

Going to a safe area 1.89 1.94 2.50 2.42 0.000

Being with friends 2.08 2.06 2.67 2.33 0.011

Physically resting 1.93 2.13 2.50 2.46 0.004

Experiencing quiet 2.10 2.11 2.56 2.37 0.046

Getting exercise 2.67 2.20 2.65 2.49 0.064

Learning about new culture or area 2.58 2.35 2.87 2.85 0.015

Develop spiritual values 2.52 2.59 2.72 2.87 0.285

Develop new skills 2.84 2.45 3.05 3.35 0.000

Teach others 3.00 2.52 3.28 3.34 0.000

Maintain ties with cultural roots 2.69 2.53 3.28 3.76 0.000

Challenging yourself 2.98 3.12 3.32 3.55 0.023

Meeting new people 2.90 2.82 3.43 3.74 0.000

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5= not at all important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 43

as motives, compared to persons who did not visit a natural area (2.51, 2.75, 3.01,

and 3.24, respectively).

Natural Area Ethnic Recreation Participation Model

The final objective of the research was to develop and test a model of outdoor

recreation participation in undeveloped natural areas, incorporating the variables

of socio-economic status, ethnicity, assimilation, and perceived discrimination.

This process began with the development of an a priori model based on a review

of the literature (see “Methods”). Next, variables in the model were tested by

using the logistic regression procedure in the SPSS® for Windows version 6.0.1

Logistic regression was selected because it is a multivariate procedure that

controls for differences in independent variables, and because the dependent

variable of visiting natural areas is categorical (either yes, visited; or no, did not

visit). A multivariate analysis is extremely important because earlier descriptive

Table 27—Selected motives among Latino respondents for vacationing in natural areas.1

Did not vacation in Vacation in natural

natural area (n=48) area (n=40)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Motive

---------------------------- Mean ------------------------ F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 1.85 1.54 0.178

Viewing scenery 2.07 1.72 0.122

Seeing something different 2.35 1.89 0.070

Experiencing quiet 2.47 1.81 0.010

Getting exercise 2.27 2.14 0.619

Develop spiritual values 2.82 2.39 0.177

Maintain ties with cultural roots 2.40 2.64 0.430

Meeting new people 2.67 2.98 0.344

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5= not at all important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.

Table 26—Selected motives among African-American respondents for vacationing in natural areas.1

Did not vacation in Vacation in natural

natural area (n=44) area (n=29)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Motive

---------------------------- Mean ------------------------ F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 1.63 1.72 0.716

Viewing scenery 2.25 2.00 0.340

Seeing something different 2.00 2.17 0.519

Experiencing quiet 2.06 2.17 0.701

Getting exercise 2.97 2.20 0.026

Develop spiritual values 2.38 2.72 0.347

Maintain ties with cultural roots 2.47 3.03 0.101

Meeting new people 2.84 3.00 0.639

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5= not at all important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.

1 Mention of trade names or

products is for information only

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.
44 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

statistics showed that there are significant differences in demographic

characteristics of the four ethnic groups, and these differences alone could affect

the differences in average natural area visitation found between groups.

The logistic regression procedure assumes a non-linear, “S-shaped”

relationship between the dependent and independent variables and employs a

goodness of fit analysis. The results of running this procedure include: 1) a

goodness of fit chi-square value and significance level for the entire model; 2) a

percent correct value showing the percentage of cases that were predicted and

observed accurately for the entire model; and 3) for each independent variable

the estimated slope coefficient, significance, the probability (odds) of an event

occurring compared to the reference category, referred to as the odds-ratio. The

odds-ratio is particularly illustrative because it gives a numeric estimate of how

likely a respondent at a certain level of the independent variable, educational

Table 29—Selected motives among white respondents for vacationing in natural areas.1

Did not vacation in Vacation in natural

natural area (n=58) area (n=91)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Motive

---------------------------- Mean ------------------------ F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 1.96 1.80 0.420

Viewing scenery 2.51 1.61 0.000

Seeing something different 2.20 2.10 0.631

Experiencing quiet 2.75 2.13 0.003

Getting exercise 3.01 2.16 0.000

Develop spiritual values 3.24 2.63 0.010

Maintain ties with cultural roots 3.62 3.85 0.296

Meeting new people 3.65 3.80 0.509

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5= not at all important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.

Table 28—Selected motives among Asian respondents for vacationing in natural areas.1

Did not vacation in Vacation in natural

natural area (n=35) area (n=36)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Motive

---------------------------- Mean ------------------------ F prob.2

Escape from daily routine 2.45 1.97 0.100

Viewing scenery 2.42 1.83 0.014

Seeing something different 2.57 1.94 0.006

Experiencing quiet 2.65 2.47 0.457

Getting exercise 2.61 2.69 0.793

Develop spiritual values 2.91 2.55 0.269

Maintain ties with cultural roots 2.94 3.61 0.032

Meeting new people 3.28 3.58 0.344

1 Scale: 1=extremely important, 5= not at all important.

2 The F probability that differences between the groups were due to chance. Statistics were derived from

one-way ANOVA.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 45

attainment for example, is to visit a natural area, compared to the reference

group. The reference group is either the lowest or highest level of a particular

independent variable, and is defined as 1. An example of interpretation of an

odds-ratio of 1.567 for the highest level of educational attainment (independent

variable) compared to a reference group of the lowest level of education would

be: respondents with the highest level are 1.567 times more likely to take an

action than the reference group (odds ratio= 1).

The logistic regression equation was built by using proposed independent

variables. A forced entry method was employed with all variables entered in a

single step. Casewise listing of residuals included outliers outside of two

standard deviations. Probability for stepwise entry was 0.05 and removal 0.10.

Model Development

After a review of the literature, a natural area recreation participation model was

developed to identify the primary factors that influence visitation to undeveloped

natural areas on a trip of any length, and to meet study objectives (fig. 19). The

dependent variable, visitation to undeveloped natural areas, is categorical: all

respondents visited a natural area on an excursion or vacation, did not take

any leisure trip, or did take a leisure trip but did not visit an undeveloped

natural area.

The independent variables were assimilation, ethnicity, socio-economic

status, and perceived discrimination. The construct of assimilation (Yinger 1981)

is considered the process of interaction between two or more groups towards a

greater cultural similarity. It is operationalized in this model by the variable

citizenship, with citizenship defined as respondents who were born in the U.S. or

whose spouse or parents were born in this country. We hypothesize that the

more respondents are assimilated into the U.S. culture, the more similar they will

be to white respondents in terms of visitation to undeveloped natural areas.

Ethnicity refers to the four ethnic groups analyzed in this study: AfricanAmerican respondents, Latino respondents, Asian respondents, and white

respondents. The literature suggests that white respondents visit more frequently

than other ethnic groups, but these studies often do not control for demographic

differences in groups. We hypothesize that there will be significant differences in

visitation to natural areas.

Figure 19 — Proposed natural area

Assimilation recreation participation model.

Ethnicity

Socio-Economic Status

Perceived Discrimination

Visitation to Natural Areas

( - )
46 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Socio-economic status refers to respondent economic and social standing in

society. The literature suggests that previously documented low participation in

outdoor recreation by some ethnic groups is a result of socio-economic barriers:

if these are removed then minorities would participate as much as their white

counterparts (West 1989). We operationalized socio-economic status by two

variables: household income and respondent educational attainment level. The

model hypothesizes that respondents with high socio-economic status will be

significantly more likely to visit natural areas than those with low status.

Perceived discrimination generally refers to feelings of being unwelcome,

taken advantage of, or uneasy. Not being able to speak English and encountering

only English speaking staff and materials/signs at recreation sites is another part

of the discrimination construct. This study contained a unique opportunity to

determine if language is a primary component of discrimination because we

interviewed Asian and Latino respondents who might speak their native

language, as well as African and white respondents who most commonly speak

English. The literature (Philipp 1993, West 1989) suggests that minority groups,

especially African-Americans, feel more discriminated against in outdoor

recreation settings than do white or European-Americans. Perceived

discrimination is operationalized by the scale variable of discrimination.

Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with two statements: “Persons of

your ethnic background are discriminated against when they travel or visit

undeveloped natural areas,” and “You often do not feel welcome when traveling

in undeveloped natural areas.” Responses to these statements were combined to

create the discrimination scale. We hypothesize that respondents with high

perceived discrimination levels will be significantly less likely to visit natural

areas, compared to those with low levels.

Test of the Model

The respondent base for testing the model is all respondents (N=894) in this

study. The overall model had a goodness of fit chi-square value of 101.47 and a

significance of 0.0000 (table 30). Model validity was indicated by a total of 70.19

percent of model-predicted values by the SPSS procedure shown in the data.

Results for household income showed that the low income group was

significantly less likely to visit a natural area than the two other income

categories. Initially, there were five levels of income entered into the regression

equation, but preliminary results showed no significant differences between

respondents from households with $50,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,000, or incomes

over $100,000. Therefore, the third income category in the final model was

aggregated to incomes over $50,000. The odds-ratio showed that respondents

from households earning $25,000-$49,999 were 1.8 times more likely to visit, and

those from households with incomes of $50,000 or more were 2.8 times more

likely to visit a natural area, compared to respondents from households earning

less than $25,000.

Table 30—Overall model results of logistic regression (n=894).

Final log likelihood 911.69

Model goodness of fit chi-square 101.47

Degrees freedom 10

Significance 0.0000

Percent correct predictions

No visit to natural area 88.81

Visited natural area 31.15

Overall 70.19
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 47

The construct of perceived discrimination was also found to significantly (0.0366)

influence visitation to natural areas. Initially, there were three more levels of

discrimination entered into the regression equation, but preliminary results showed

no significant differences between respondents with high, moderate, or even slight

levels of perceived discrimination. Therefore, in the final model these three levels

were combined into one category, High and Moderate (table 31). The final analysis

showed that respondents with even moderate levels of perceived discrimination

were about two-thirds (0.6) as likely to visit a natural area, compared to respondents

with no perceived discrimination.

Ethnicity was also found to have a significant influence on visitation to natural

areas. However, only one ethnic group, African-American respondents, were

significantly less likely (0.0009) to visit. Asian respondents (0.9531) and Latino

respondents (0.5626) visitation probability was not significantly different than the

white respondent reference group. African-American respondents were less than

half as likely (0.4) to visit a natural area as were white respondents. Visitation

probability for Asian respondents (0.9) was very similar to white respondents, while

Latino respondents were slightly more likely to visit (1.1) a natural area than white

respondents, if all other independent variables were held constant.

Table 31—Independent variable results of logistic regression (n=894).

Slope OddsIndependent variable coefficient S.E. Signif. ratio

Socio-economic status

Household income

Under $24,999 (ref. group) N/A1 N/A N/A 1.000

$25,000-$49,999 0.6241 0.2213 0.0048 1.866

$50,000 or more 1.052 0.2373 0.0000 2.864

Education

Some high sch. (ref. group) N/A N/A N/A 1.000

High/trade school graduate 0.7475 0.3572 0.0362 2.113

Some or college graduate 1.045 0.3529 0.0030 2.845

Professional/graduate sch. 1.344 0.4079 0.0010 3.837

Perceived discrimination

High and moderate -0.414 0.1982 0.0366 0.6608

Low (ref. group) N/A N/A N/A 1.000

Assimilation

U.S. Citizenship

Yes (ref. group) N/A N/A N/A 1.000

No -0.3533 0.2200 0.1083 0.7024

Ethnicity

African-American respondent -0.8261 0.2494 0.0009 0.4378

Asian respondent -0.0157 0.2663 0.9531 0.9844

Latino respondent 0.1311 0.2268 0.5626 1.140

White respondent (ref. group) N/A N/A N/A 1.000

Constant2 (derived) -1.538 0.4863 0.0016 N/A

1 Reference groups were not directly entered into the regression model, therefore no data were available

for coefficient, S.E., or significance.

2 Not determined.
48 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Conclusions and Recommendations

About 1 in 3 survey respondents did not take any leisure trip during the late

spring and summer 1994, suggesting a substantial number of residents had

significant barriers to or limited interest in leisure travel. About 4 out of 10

residents of Los Angeles County took a trip in which they visited an undeveloped

natural area. The remainder (30.5 percent) took a leisure trip but did not visit a

natural area. This suggests that less than half of Los Angeles County residents

visited a National Forest, State park, or open space preserve during the height of

the travel season for even a 1-hour excursion.

About 57 percent of the respondents who made a short leisure trip of to 3

days in length (excursion) visited a natural area. About 60 percent of respondents

who took a vacation (4 days or longer) actually visited a natural area on the trip.

Visitors to natural areas were relatively evenly distributed among age

groups. However, there were significant differences in visitation to natural areas

according to education levels, with respondents who had acquired a college or

graduate diploma nearly twice as likely to visit as were those with or without a

high school diploma. There were also significant differences in natural area

visitation according to income level, with 55 percent of respondents from

households earning $75,000 or more visiting a natural area, compared to 17.1

percent of those from households earning less than $25,000. There was little

difference in natural area visitation between males and females. U.S. citizens

were more likely to visit a natural area (35.9 percent) compared to non-citizens

(24.6 percent).

There were significant within-group differences in visitation to a natural

area. African-American respondents much more likely to visit a natural area

were young males with high education and high income. Latino and Asian

respondents who most frequently visited a natural area were U.S. citizens, with

high education and income levels. However, Asian respondent females were

more likely to take a leisure trip, compared to males. White respondents much

more likely to visit a natural area were young persons with moderate to high

income levels.

Respondents who took a vacation that visited a natural area were

significantly more likely to be males with higher education and income levels.

More than 63 percent of males took a natural area vacation, compared to 49

percent of females.

Significant within-group differences in taking a vacation that visited a natural

area were found for all ethnic groups except Latino respondents. AfricanAmerican respondents much more likely to visit a natural area were those with

graduate or professional education. Asian respondents most likely to visit a

natural area on vacation were males who were U.S. citizens and had high

education levels. White respondent males were most likely to visit a natural area

on vacation, compared to females.

The survey asked respondents to agree/disagree with 17 statements

describing barriers that may have affected their travel during the spring and

summer 1994. The importance of each barrier was broken down into three types

of travelers identified earlier in this study: respondents who did not take a

leisure trip away from home, persons who traveled but did not visit a natural

area, and respondents who visited a natural area. The constraint was asked to

each of the three groups in a somewhat unique context. The most constraining

barriers for all three groups were lack of free time, few friends travel or recreate in

(natural) area, nearby destinations were too crowded, their financial situation, and don’t

know where to go/what to do.

There were significant differences in barriers between those who did not

take a leisure trip, those who visited a natural area, and those who took a trip but
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 49

did not visit a natural area. Time commitments, financial constraints, want more

luxury accommodations, and more workers of my ethnicity were significantly more

important to respondents who did not take a leisure trip, compared to those who

took a leisure trip. There were also significant differences between respondents

who visited and did not visit a natural area in terms of perceived discrimination

and feeling welcome traveling en route or within a natural area.

Respondents who took a vacation during the study period choose one of 16

statements describing potential reasons why they decided to take a vacation. The

top five motives for all respondents who took a vacation were escape from daily

routine, viewing scenery, being with family or friends, seeing something different, and

going to a safe area. Significant differences in motive for vacationing in a natural

area and taking a vacation that did not visit a natural area were viewing scenery,

experiencing quiet, getting exercise, developing spiritual values, and (not) maintaining

cultural roots. There were significant differences in the importance of motives

between the four ethnic groups.

The final objective of the research was to develop and test a model of outdoor

recreation participation in undeveloped natural areas incorporating the variables

of socio-economic status, ethnicity, assimilation, and perceived discrimination.

Logistic regression results suggested it was an adequate predictive model. All

four proposed model constructs showed statistical or substantive significance.

Logistic regression results showed that respondents significantly less likely

to visit an undeveloped natural area were those with low levels of socio-economic

status, low levels of assimilation, who had moderate to high perceived

discrimination, and who were of African-American ethnicity. There were no

significant differences between Asian, Latino, and white respondents in their

probability of visiting a natural area, if intervening variables were held constant.

Another finding was the importance of perceived discrimination in natural

area visitation. All “minority” ethnic groups were more likely to express the

belief that discrimination was an issue, compared to their white respondent

counterparts. In addition, model results showed that perceived discrimination

was a significant predictor of visitation even after controlling for respondent

income and education, a finding supported by previous research (Dwyer and

Gobster 1992, Philipp 1993, West 1989). Analysis of barriers to participation and

6) lack transportation options. Many possible alternative strategies for reducing

these five barriers could be developed, and local professionals are already

working on some of these. However, other strategies could be useful, such as

organizing clubs, special programs or school outings for urban youths, or

developing family camping programs that encourage friends and family

members to recreate together. Some persons do not come from families that have

historically visited natural areas; thus, there is a need to provide encouragement

to get started and pass on the benefits of wildland recreation.

Agencies could provide information about less crowded alternative sites or

how to cope with neighbors. They could also change the management of popular

sites to reduce the adverse effects of crowds, including reservation systems,

parking capacity increases, site hardening or screening. Crowding identified by

respondents may have been perceived, rather than what they have experienced

in the past. Compared to Disneyland on a summer weekend, for example, many

recreation sites are not crowded. It may be helpful to communicate that not all

sites are over booked and it can still be an enjoyable experience. We are not

suggesting that wildland areas become amusement parks, rather that it may be

possible to increase the actual and/or the perceived carrying capacity of certain

sites, while at the same time staying within the guidelines and limits of acceptable

change contained in existing management plans.

Hiring more ethnic “minority” workers in natural areas could help mitigate

barriers, particularly to African and Latino residents. This might also reduce
50 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

language concerns and feelings of being discriminated against. In addition, this

strategy might also improve the “psychological safety” and reduce the feeling of

being unwelcome or in “white’s territory” (West 1989) while at a recreation site.

Agencies could review, with the assistance of ethnic staff, their visitor

management, concessions contracts and law enforcement policies with a keen

eye towards reducing perceived discrimination.

About one-third of respondents who took a leisure trip but did not visit a

natural area had inadequate information about where to go or what to do. One in

four felt there were no nearby natural areas. These data suggest that a large scale

information campaign would be effective. A cooperative campaign with State

and Federal park and resource agencies could show the types, locations, and

benefits of wildland recreation areas. Past Forest Service campaigns to prevent

fire and reduce pollution, for example, have reached many urban residents, and

this type of approach could be used to convey information on the locations and

benefits of nearby wildland recreation. Unique psychological outcomes or

benefits of visiting undeveloped natural areas that were cited by study

respondents that could be used as themes in a media campaign include: escape

from the daily routine, viewing scenery, experiencing quiet, getting exercise, being with

friends and family, and developing spiritual values. Such a media campaign could

target groups that were identified with low use of wildlands. It could use specific

media (such as Spanish speaking TV stations or Korean newspapers) and

programming whose audience are the target subgroups. In addition, it is well

known from marketing literature that attractions that do not constantly

remind potential visitors that they are open and unique, are surpassed by

others and attendance substantially drops. If many intercity urban residents

do not have friends or family that recreate in wildland areas, and they never

hear or see messages about what nearby wildland areas offer, it is not

surprising they never visit them.

Agencies could also undertake more local grass-roots outreach efforts, such

as developing partnerships with ethnic clubs, churches, and other organizations.

Our experiences with urban fishing in Los Angeles and San Francisco and other

intercity recreation programs suggest that there would be many intercity and

urban organizations very willing to become partners with land management

agencies in an effort to encourage wildland recreation use and provide a unique

opportunity for their members or clients.

Lack of transportation was identified as a barrier, especially by those who

did not take any leisure trip during the spring or summer. This situation coupled

with time constraints and low income made it difficult for a substantial number

of residents to recreate in undeveloped natural areas. Providing transportation

only to natural areas does not appear to solve the problem of low visitation;

rather a complete program or package is needed that includes transportation.

Agencies could work with urban organizations to provide complete low cost

wildland camping or recreation programs with transportation to and from their

community. Examples of similar programs include ski busses, fishing programs,

and church camps. It is possible that somewhat similar programs could be

developed for camping or recreational excursions. A particularly strong motive

for all ethnic groups, but especially Latino and African-American respondents

who visited natural areas, was being with their family. This suggests that complete

programs for families to travel, camp, and recreate together in undeveloped

natural areas would be very beneficial.

Survey results extrapolated to the county population suggest that only

slightly more than one-third of Los Angeles County residents visited an

undeveloped natural area during the summer 1994. Despite the close proximity

and low entrance fees, compared to commercial recreation facilities, the vast

majority of residents did not spend even a half day at a National Forest or Park,
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 51

wildlife refuge, open space preserve, or other undeveloped natural areas located

outside a city. These data suggest that public agencies that manage wildland

resources must be proactive by creating new programs and expanding existing

intervention projects that encourage visitation and communicate to residents

about the opportunities and benefits of outdoor recreation in undeveloped

natural areas. Otherwise, data will show that publicly funded natural resources

are not used by most residents.

References

Barro, Susan S.; Rodriguez, Don A. 1991. An evaluation of value-attitude-behavior hierarchy in

explaining leisure involvement of different ethnic groups. In: Sylvester, C.; Caldwell, L., eds.

Proceedings of research symposium; October 1991; Baltimore, MD: National Parks and Recreation

Association; 1.

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

recreation experiences. Journal of Leisure Research 25(1): 22-38.

Chavez, Deborah J. 1990. Perceptions about crowding, activities, and discrimination in the

southern California National Forests. Recreation Research Update; 1.

Driver, Bev L.; Peterson, George. 1986. The values and benefits of outdoor recreation. In: Szwak,

Laura B., manager. A literature review, Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors.

Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office; 1-11.

Driver, Bev L.; Tinsley, H.; Manfredo, Michael. 1991. The paragraphs about leisure and recreation

experience preference scales: results from two inventories designed to assess the breadth of

the perceived psychological benefits of leisure. In: Driver, B.L; Brown, Perry J.; Peterson,

George L., ed. Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.; 263-286

Dwyer, John F. 1994. Customer diversity and the future demand for outdoor recreation. Gen. Tech.

Rep. RM-252. Fort Collins, Colorado: North Central Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture; 58 p.

Dwyer, John F.; Gobster, Paul H. 1992. Recreation opportunity and cultural diversity. Park and

Recreation: 22-29.

Edwards, Patricia K. 1981. Race, residence and leisure styles: some policy implications. Leisure

Sciences 4(2): 95-112.

Floyd, Myron F.; Gramann, James H.; Saenz, Rogelio. 1993. Ethnic factors and the use of public

outdoor recreation areas: the case of Mexican Americans. Leisure Sciences 15(2): 83-89.

Hutchison, Ray. 1987. Ethnicity and urban recreation: whites, blacks, and Hispanics in Chicago’s

public parks. Journal of Leisure Research 19(3): 205-222.

Irwin, Patricia N.; Gartner, William C.; Phelps, Carolyn C. 1990. Mexican-American/Anglo cultural

differences as recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences 12(4): 335-348.

McLeod, Ramon G. 1993. U.S. Population in 2050 will be half minorities. San Francisco Chronicle,

28 April 1993; A1.

Norman, W.C. 1991. The influence of constraints on the generic decision of whether or not to take

a summer vacation. In: Sylvester, C.; Caldwell, L., eds. Proceedings of research symposium.

October 1991.Baltimore, MD: National Parks and Recreation Association; 59.

Philipp, S.F. 1993. Racial differences in the perceived attractiveness of tourism destination,

interests, and cultural resources. Journal of Leisure Research 25(3): 290-304.

Phinney, J.S. 1990. Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: review of research. Psychological

Bulletin 108(3): 499-514.

Pfister, Robert. 1990. Ethnicity in outdoor recreation: Observations of Hispanic forest visitors. In:

Gramman, J.H. ed. Proceedings of third research symposium on social science in resource

management. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University; 34.

Richardson, Sarah L.; Crompton, John L. 1988. Latent demand for vacation travel: a crosscultural analysis of French- and English-speaking residents of Ontario and Quebec.

Leisure Sciences 10: 17-26.

Taylor, Dorceta E. 1992. Urban park users among Jamaicans, African-Americans, Italians and

other whites in New Haven. Presentation at the fourth North American symposium on society

and resource management; 17-20 May 1992; Madison, WI.

Tierney, Patrick. 1992. Cultural diversity in vacation participation: differences in use patterns,

motivations and barriers. Visions in Leisure and Business. 10(3): 12-17.
52 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Tierney, Patrick. 1994. Development and testing of a cultural identity construct for recreation

and tourism studies. In: Chavez, Deborah J., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the

second symposium on social aspects and recreation research; 1994 February 23-25; San

Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-156. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station,

USDA Forest Service; 41-44.

Tierney, Patrick.; Dahl, Rene. 1994. Cultural diversity in vacation and outdoor recreation trip

participation. Proposal to the U.S. Forest Service.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. Demographic state of the nation: 1993. Current Population

Reports, Special Studies. Series P-23, No. 184. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

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

explanations. Leisure Sciences 1(2): 175-188.

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

interracial relations in park use in the Detroit Metropolitan area. Leisure Sciences 11: 11-28.

Yinger, J.M. 1981. Toward a theory of assimilation and dissimulation. Ethnic and Racial Studies

4(3): 249-264.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 53

Appendix A - Survey Instrument

Ethnic Outdoor Recreation Study 12/5/94

Hello, I’m (INTERVIEWER NAME) with the Public Research Institute at San Francisco State University. We are

conducting a survey of people 18 years and older on recreation activities and we would like your opinions included. It

will take just a few minutes and all responses are completely confidential.

1a. Are you 18 years or older? If NO: Can you bring to the telephone a member of your household who is 18

years or older?

1b. Since we want to learn about recreational activities, would you briefly tell me the ONE leisure time activity

you enjoy the most.

(LIST ONLY THE GENERAL TYPE OF ACTIVITY...HIKING, READING. ETC.)

1c. We are interested in learning about the different types of people who visit outdoor recreation areas, the

activities enjoyed by various groups, and where people usually go for these recreation activities. All responses

are confidential. To help us understand ethnic differences better, please tell me which of the following do you

feel BEST describes your ethnic background?

A. Black or African American.

B. Mexican American, Hispanic, Chicano, Latino, or Spanish decent.

C. Asian or Pacific Islander.

D. White or European American.

E. Indian or Native American. If YES. THANK THEM AND STOP.

F. Other ethnic group. If YES. Please tell us which specific ethnic group you consider yourself a

member _____________________. CHECK TO SEE

IF GROUP FALLS WITHIN PRIOR CATEGORY. IF NECESSARY RECODE.

IF STILL OTHER CATEGORY, STOP INTERVIEW.

- IF REFUSE TO GIVE ETHNIC GROUP, THANK THEM AND STOP INTERVIEW.

- IF THEY LIST A RELIGION, ASK WHAT IS THEIR PRIMARY RACIAL ORIGIN.

- IF MIXTURE, ASK THEM TO CHOOSE FROM SIX PRIOR ETHNIC CATEGORIES WHICH GROUPS THEY ARE

A MEMBER.

G. Mixture. DO NOT RECITE! If mixture, SELECT ANY OF THE FOLLOWING.

<1> African Am

<2> Hispanic

<3> Asian

<4> White

<5> Native Am

<6> Other

IF MIXTURE IS AT LEAST PARTIALLY FROM A TARGET GROUP (African, Asian, Hispanic or White) THEN

CONTINUE. IF NEITHER GROUP IS FROM TARGET, THEN STOP INTERVIEW AND THANK THEM.

1d. For each of the following statements I read please tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, NEITHER

AGREE OR DISAGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE with it. Do you feel a great sense of

ATTACHMENT to your ethnic group.

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree
54 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<9>Refused/Don’t know

1da. Do you take great PRIDE in your ethnic group

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<9>Refused/Don’t know

2. For the purposes of this survey, we are only interested in recreation trips where you traveled AWAY FROM

YOUR HOME and which took place during this SUMMER, MAY through AUGUST OF 1994. Did you take any

trips primarily for recreation or leisure where you traveled away from your home during the summer of

1994?

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, Q-12a

3. Now think about the places where you traveled for recreation this summer. We are NOT interested in trips

to a city where there were highly developed recreation sites, like city parks and beaches, zoos, festivals or

theme parks. We are interested in trips to areas located OUTSIDE CITIES where you visited undeveloped

NATURAL areas, such as national or state parks and forests, open space areas, protected areas or nature

preserves? These areas could have campgrounds, lakes, access roads, visitors centers or trails. Did you take

any trips where you visited undeveloped natural areas for recreation during the summer of 1994?

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, GO TO Q-9

4. Were any of these recreation trips to undeveloped natural areas, 3 or less days in length?

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, GO TO Q-9

5a. Now think about your MOST RECENT short trip of 3 or less days to an undeveloped area. How many DAYS

did you spend away from home? (1-4 HOURS= 1/2 DAY; 4-24 HRS=1 DAY; 1 AND 1/2 DAYS=2 DAYS;

ETC.)

<1>1/2 day; 1 - 4 hours = 1/2 day

<2>1 day; 4 - 24 hours = 1 day

<3>2 days 1 and 1/2 days = 2 days, etc.

<4>3 days

5b. How many days of this trip were spent entirely in undeveloped natural areas?

<1>1/2 day; 1 - 4 hours = 1/2 day

<2>1 day; 4 - 24 hours = 1 day

<3>2 days 1 and 1/2 days = 2 days, etc.

<4>3 days

6a. On this trip, what were the two main recreation activities you did while in the undeveloped natural areas?

6b. MAKE SURE YOU TYPE “2” ACTIVITIES. YOU CAN PROMPT WITH: “Can you tell me another main

recreation activity...”
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 55

7. What was the name of the natural area, forest or park you visited the most?

IF CAN NOT RECALL COMPLETELY, WRITE ALL THEY CAN REMEMBER

8a. What state or country is it located in?

<1>CA

<2>Other U.S. (specify) ___________

<3>International Country (specify) ______________

8b. What is the name of the closest city? ____________________ GO TO Q 12a

9. Did you take a recreation trip of 3 days or less in length to a DEVELOPED area last summer?

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, Q-12a

10. For your most recent short recreation trip to a DEVELOPED area, how many DAYS were you away from

home?

<1>1/2 day; 1 - 4 hours = 1/2 day

<2>1 day; 4 - 24 hours = 1 day

<3>2 days 1 and 1/2 days = 2 days, etc.

<4>3 days

11a. On this trip, what were the two main recreation activities you did

11b. MAKE SURE YOU TYPE “2” ACTIVITIES. YOU CAN PROMPT WITH: “Can you tell me another main

recreation activity...”

11c. What State or Country was this area located in?

<1>CA

<2>Other U.S. (specify) ___________

<3>International Country (specify) ______________

12. We are also interested in vacations you’ve taken. By vacations we mean work-free periods of FOUR(4) or

more consecutive days where most time is spent on leisure activities, and you traveled away from home for

at least some of the time.

12a. How important are vacations that involve travel away from your home to your lifestyle? Would you say

vacations are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, VERY IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT

OR NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know
56 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

12b. How many vacations, of four or more consecutive days, have you taken in the last two years?

<0>If respondent didn’t go on a vacation [GO TO 21a]

<1 - 20> Enter the number of vacations

<21> 21 or more vacations in 2 years

12c. Did you take a vacation of at least 4 days during the summer of 1994? “BY VACATIONS WE MEAN WORKFREE PERIODS OF 4 OR MORE CONSECUTIVE DAYS”

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, Q-21a

13. During any vacation in the summer of 1994, did you visit an undeveloped natural area OUTSIDE OF A CITY?

YES ____

NO ____ IF NO, Q19a

14a. During your only or most recent vacation where you visited a natural area, how many days were you away

from home? IF NUMBER OF DAYS IS LESS THAN 4, SAY-” BY VACATIONS WE MEAN WORK-FREE

PERIODS OF 4 OR MORE CONSECUTIVE DAYS”

<1 - 3> DAYS [go to 12b]

If answer remains less than 4 days enter 1-3 and the computer will take you back to question 12b, change answer for

questions that follow.

<4 - 365> Enter the NUMBER of Vacation Days

<999> ONE YEAR or MORE

14b. How many days did you spend in undeveloped natural areas?

<1 - 365> Days

<999> ONE YEAR or MORE

15a. What were the two main recreation activities you did while in undeveloped natural areas?

15b. MAKE SURE YOU TYPE “2” ACTIVITIES. YOU CAN PROMPT WITH: “Can you tell me another main

recreation activity...”

16. What was the name of the undeveloped area, forest or park you visited the most?

IF CAN NOT RECALL COMPLETELY, WRITE ALL THEY CAN REMEMBER.

17a. What state or country was that area located in?

<1>CA

<2>Other U.S. State (specify) ___________

<3>International Country (specify) ______________

17b. What is the name of the closest city? ________________________
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 57

17c. Which ONE (1) of the following statements BEST describes the TYPE OF VACATION you were on? Select

only one. Was it.....

<1>A vacation primarily to a large THEME PARK.

<2>A vacation taken primarily to visit a SPECIAL EVENT, FESTIVAL or exhibition.

<3>A vacation on a CRUISE SHIP.

<4>A vacation whose primary purpose was to VISIT WITH FRIENDS and/or RELATIVES

<5>A vacation to a CITY where you can shop, enjoy entertainment, dine, attend concerts, or just

stroll around and enjoy the city.

<6>A vacation to primarily ONE RESORT, LODGE OR RESORT AREA, where a wide variety of

activities, such as golf, tennis, beach activities and horseback riding, are available close by or on the

premises.

<7>A vacation by car, train or bus through MANY AREAS of SCENIC BEAUTY, cultural or historic

interest.

<8>A vacation to a NATURAL AREA where you can engage in outdoor activities, such as hiking,

boating, mountain biking or fishing.

FORCED CHOICE QUESTION. IF RESPONDENT HAS DIFFICULTY WITH ?, REPEAT CATEGORIES UNTIL THEY

SELECT THE ONE THAT BEST FITS THEIR TRIP.

<9>Refused/don’t know (DO NOT READ)

18. People often have different REASONS for vacationing in an undeveloped natural area. Please indicate how

important each of the following factors were in your decision to visit the undeveloped natural area. Indicate

importance by using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, and 5 being NOT AT ALL

IMPORTANT?

How important was meeting new people?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18a. How important was viewing beautiful scenery?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18b. Getting exercise

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know
58 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

18c. How important was physically resting?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18d. Developing your spiritual values

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18e. Being with friends

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18f. How important was challenging yourself by taking risks?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18g. Learning about a new culture or area

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18h. How important was going to a safe area?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 59

18I. Being with your family

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18j. Developing new skills

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18k. How important was seeing something different?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18l. How important was experiencing quiet?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18m. Maintaining ties with your cultural roots

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18n. Escaping from your daily routine

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know
60 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

18o. How important was teaching others?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

18p. Is there any other important reason for taking your most recent vacation?

<1>YES, IF YES, DESCRIBE ________________________

<2>NO [go to 21c]

18q. How important was this reason?

<1>EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

<2>SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT

GO TO Q21c

[DID NOT VACATION IN NATURAL AREA]

19a. For your most recent vacation this summer, how many days did you spend away from home?

IF NUMBER OF DAYS IS LESS THAN 4, SAY-” BY VACATIONS WE MEAN WORK-FREE PERIODS OF 4

OR MORE CONSECUTIVE DAYS”

<1 - 3> DAYS [go to 12b]

If answer remains less than 4 days enter 1-3 and the computer will take you back to question 12b, change answer for

questions that follow.

<4 - 365> Enter the NUMBER of Vacation Days

<999> ONE YEAR or MORE

19ba. What were the two main recreation activities you did while in the developed area?

19bb. MAKE SURE YOU TYPE “2” ACTIVITIES YOU CAN PROMPT WITH: “Can you tell me another main

recreation activity...”

19c. What state or country was that area located in?

<1>CA

<2>Other U.S. State (specify) ___________

<3>International Country (specify) ______________

20. Which ONE (1) of the following statements BEST describes the TYPE OF VACATION you were on? Select

only one. Was it.....

<1>A vacation primarily to a large THEME PARK.

<2>A vacation taken primarily to visit a SPECIAL EVENT, FESTIVAL or exhibition.

<3>A vacation on a CRUISE SHIP.

<4>A vacation whose primary purpose was to VISIT WITH FRIENDS and/or RELATIVES

<5>A vacation to a CITY where you can shop, enjoy entertainment, dine, attend concerts, or just

stroll around and enjoy the city.
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 61

<6>A vacation to primarily ONE RESORT, LODGE OR RESORT AREA, where a wide variety of

activities, such as golf, tennis, beach activities and horseback riding, are available close by or on the

premises.

<7>A vacation by car, train or bus through MANY AREAS of SCENIC BEAUTY, cultural or historic

interest.

<8>A vacation to a NATURAL AREA where you can engage in outdoor activities, such as hiking,

boating, mountain biking or fishing.

FORCED CHOICE QUESTION. IF RESPONDENT HAS DIFFICULTY WITH ?, REPEAT CATEGORIES UNTIL THEY

SELECT THE ONE THAT BEST FITS THEIR TRIP.

<9>Refused/don’t know (DO NOT READ)

20b. People often have different REASONS for taking a vacation. Please indicate how important each of the

following factors were in your decision to take your most recent vacation this summer. Indicate importance

by using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, and 5 being NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT.

How important was meeting new people?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20ba. How important was viewing beautiful scenery?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bb. Getting exercise

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bc. How important was physically resting?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bd. Developing your spiritual values

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important
62 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20be. Being with friends

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bf. How important was challenging yourself by taking risks?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bg. Learning about a new culture or area

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bh. How important was going to a safe area?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bI. Being with your family

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bj. Developing new skills

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 63

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bk. How important was seeing something different?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bl. How important was experiencing quiet?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bm. Maintaining ties with your cultural roots

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bn. Escaping from your daily routine

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bo. How important was teaching others?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Very Important

<3>Important

<4>Somewhat Important

<5>Not At All Important

<9>Refused/Don’t Know

20bp. Is there any other important reason for taking your most recent vacation?

<1>YES, IF YES, DESCRIBE ________________________

<2>NO [go to 21b]

20bq. How important was this reason?

<1>EXTREMELY IMPORTANT

<2>SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
64 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

GO TO Q21b

[PERSONS WHO DID NOT TAKE A TRIP AWAY FROM HOME OR NO VACATION]

21a. When people think about taking a recreation trip away from home or a vacation, a number of things may

prevent them from doing so. Think about your situation in the summer of 1994, and for each of the following

items I read please tell me if you strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree or strongly

agree with the statement.

You had NO companions to vacation with you last summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know.

21aa. There were no suitable travel destinations nearby

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know.

21ab. Time commitments to work, family or friends interfered with a leisure trip or vacation this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know.

21ac. Leisure travel and vacations are too much trouble

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know.

21ad. You want more luxurious accommodations and meals than those usually available when traveling

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know.

21ae. You are not healthy enough to travel

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 65

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21af. People of your ethnic background are discriminated against when they vacation

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ag. You’ve no interest in vacations

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ah. You often do not feel welcome when traveling away from your home on vacation

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ai. Nearby travel destinations are too crowded

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21aj. Your financial situation prevented you from traveling for pleasure this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ak. You lack information about where to go and what to do for leisure travel

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree
66 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21al. Few of your friends or family members normally travel for pleasure or take a vacation

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21am. Outdoors are uncomfortable for leisure travel

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21an. You lacked transportation options to travel or go to areas for a vacation this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ao. You’d be much more likely to travel if more persons of your ethnic background worked in or visited travel

destinations

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ap. Travel and vacation areas are not safe

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21aq. Normally you travel for pleasure and vacation but this year you wanted variety and just decided to do

something else this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 67

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ar. Is there any other important reason why you did not travel or vacation this summer?

<1>YES Please specify _________________________________

<2>NO [go to 22a]

21as. Was this reason EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, OR SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Somewhat Important

[go to 22a]

[PERSONS WHO DID NOT TAKE A TRIP TO AN NATURAL AREA]

21b. When people think about taking a recreation trip away from home or a vacation to an undeveloped natural

area, a number of things may prevent them from doing so. Think about your situation in the summer of 1994,

and for each of the following items I read please tell me if you strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or

disagree, agree or strongly agree with the statement.

You had NO companions to vacation with you last summer in undeveloped natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ba. There were no suitable natural areas nearby

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bb. Time commitments to work, family or friends interfered with a trip to a natural area this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bc. Trips to natural areas are too much trouble

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree
68 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bd. You want more luxurious accommodations and meals than those usually available in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21be. You are not healthy enough to travel to natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bf. People of your ethnic background are discriminated against when they recreate outdoors in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bg. You have no interest in natural area recreation

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bh. You often do not feel welcome when traveling away from your home enroute to or from natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bi. Nearby natural areas are too crowded

<1> Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 69

21bj. Your financial situation prevented you from recreating in undeveloped natural areas this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bk. You lack information about where to go and what to do for recreation in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bl. Few of your friends or family members normally recreate in undeveloped natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bm. Outdoors are uncomfortable

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bn. You lacked transportation options to natural areas this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bo. You’d be much more likely to travel to natural areas if more persons of your ethnic background worked in or

visited these areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know
70 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

21bp. Undeveloped natural areas are not safe

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21bq. Normally you travel natural areas, but this year you wanted variety and just decided to do something different

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21br. Is there any other important reason why you did not travel or vacation this summer?

<1> YES Please specify _________________________________

<2>NO [go to 22a]

21bs. Was this reason EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, OR SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Somewhat Important

[go to 22a]

[PERSONS WHO DID TAKE A VACATION TO NATURAL AREA]

21c. Even though you took a trip to an undeveloped natural area this summer, a number of things may have limited

your stay or activities. Think about your situation in the summer of 1994, and for each of the following items I

read please tell me if you strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree or disagree, agree or strongly agree with

the statement.

You had NO companions for trips to undeveloped natural areas this last summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ca. There are no suitable natural areas nearby

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cb. Time commitments to work, family or friends interfered with a trip to a natural area this summer

<1>Strongly Agree
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 71

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cc. Trips to natural areas are too much trouble

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cd. You want more luxurious accommodations and meals than those usually available in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ce. You are not healthy enough to travel to natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cf. People of your ethnic background are discriminated against when they recreate outdoors in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cg. You often do not feel welcome when traveling away from your home enroute to or from natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ch. Nearby natural areas are too crowded

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree
72 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ci. Your financial situation limited your recreation in undeveloped natural areas this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cj. You lack information about where to go and what to do for recreation in natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21ck. Few of your friends or family members normally recreate in undeveloped natural areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cl. Outdoors are uncomfortable

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cm. You lacked transportation options to natural areas this summer

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cn. You’d be much more likely to travel to natural areas if more persons of your ethnic background worked in or

visited these areas

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 73

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21co. Undeveloped natural areas are not safe

<1>Strongly Agree

<2>Agree

<3>Neither Agree or Disagree

<4>Disagree

<5>Strongly Disagree

<6>Refused/Don’t Know

21cp. Is there any other important reason why you did not travel or vacation this summer?

<1>YES Please specify _________________________________

<2>NO [go to 22a]

21cq. Was this reason EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, OR SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT?

<1>Extremely Important

<2>Somewhat Important

[go to 22a]

[ALL RESPONDENTS ANSWER]

22a. We are almost finished, I just have several short questions about your background

What is your current marital status?

<1>Single

<2>Married

<3>Divorced

<4>Separated

<5>Widowed

<9>Refused

23a. How many persons reside in your household?

<1>One Person [go to 24]

<2 - 20> Total number of residents

<21> 21 or more residents

23b. How many of these residents are children under age 18?

<0 - 20> Number of children under 18

<21> 21 or more children

24. What is the highest grade of formal education you have completed?

<1>Grade school or less

<2>Some high school

<3>High school graduate

<4>Trade or technical school

<5>Some college

<6>College graduate
74 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

<7>Some graduate/professional school

<8>Completed graduate school

<9>Refused

25. Which of the following ranges does your age fall into?

<1>18-34 years

<2>35-44

<3>45-54

<4>55 or more

<9>Refused

26. Which of the following categories does your 1993 household income fall into?

<1>Under $25,000

<2>$25,000 - $49,999

<3>$50,000- $74,999

<4>$75,000 - $99,999

<5>$100,000 and over

<9>Refused

27a. People may have different recreational preferences depending on their country of origin. To help us learn

about recreation use please tell me what country was your father born in?

<1>the United States [go to 27b]

<2>Another Country [go to 27a1]

<9>Refused

27a1. Which specific country was your father born in?

Specify ____________________________

27b. And your mother, was she born in the United States or another country?

<1>the United States [go to 27c]

<2>Another Country [go to 27b1]

<9>Refused

27b1. Which specific country was she born in?

Specify ____________________________

27c. Were any of your grandparents born outside the US?

<1>YES

<2>NO

<9>Refused

IF NOT MARRIED, GO TO Q27E

27d. And your spouse, what country was he/she born in the United States or another country?

<1>the United States [go to 27e]

<2>Another Country [go to 27d1]

<9>Refused

27d1. Which specific country was he/she born in?
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998. 75

Specify ____________________________

27e. What country were you born in, the United States or another country?

<1>the United States [go to ifAH]

<2>Another Country [go to 27e1]

<9>Refused

27e1. Which country specifically were you born in?

Specify ____________________________

27f. What year did you permanently move to the U.S.?

<1900 - 1994> TYPE EXACT YEAR, FOUR DIGITS

<9999> Refused

ifAH. IF ASIAN ON Q1ca, then go to 28.

[go to 29]

28. You mentioned that you were of Asian; please tell me which specific Asian ethnic group you consider yourself

a member

<specify. _______________________

29. THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY!

30. Total time of interview _________________

INTERVIEWER RECORD RESPONDENT GENDER:

<1> Male

<2> Female
76 USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.

Appendix B - Survey Respondent and

1990 Census Characteristics

A concern with any survey research is if the sample is representative of the population. To address this issue,

information is presented in this appendix (table 32) showing two key socio-economic characteristics for the

survey respondents, and this is compared with the results of the 1990 Census of Los Angeles County (U.S.

Bureau of the Census 1993). All census data is for adults over 18 years, which is the same criteria used for

eligibility in the survey. Data is presented for adults in each of the four ethnic groups used in this study, as

defined in the census. Education and household income categories were defined the same way in both the survey

and in the census. Census data was derived through computer analysis of existing Census Bureau databases.

The data listed suggest that the sample achieved is reasonably representative of Los Angeles County

residents. The sample also reflects the response rate of a telephone survey versus a house-by-house survey. The

telephone survey normally gets a smaller percentage of households of lower socio-economic status. The large

scale immigration into the Los Angeles area between 1990 and 1994 may also help explain some of the differences

in census data and the survey respondents. However, we believe that the sample is representative of and can be

extrapolated to the larger County population.

In addition, the information below suggests that non-respondents were mainly from a group that is less likely

to visit undeveloped natural areas (e.g., lower education and income). This reduces the likelihood that the study

underestimated visitation to natural areas.

Table 32—Educational and household income characteristics of survey respondents and 1990 Los Angeles County U.S. Census data.

Black Hispanic Asian White

Resp.1 LA2 Resp. LA Resp. LA Resp. LA

Education level

Some high school or less 8.3 11 27.5 60 6.2 26 3.7 23

High school graduate 29.0 29 31.2 17 18.7 22 19.4 22

Some college 31.8 31 17.0 11 20.7 21 32.2 22

College graduate 20.1 23 12.3 9 37.2 17 27.1 23

Graduate or prof. Degree 7.3 6 2.5 2 11.7 14 10.6 10

Age

18-34 years 44.7 43 62.3 51 53.8 42 35.9 38

35-44 26.3 21 20.7 23 22.8 24 24.9 20

45-55 10.1 15 8.7 12 11.7 24 15.4 14

55 and older 18.4 22 8.0 14 11.0 20 23.8 28

Income level

Under $25,000 31.3 48 53.3 44 29.0 32 15.0 32

$25,000 - $49,999 39.1 30 26.8 23 29.7 31 34.1 32

$50,000 - $74,999 16.8 14 8.3 16 17.2 20 22.3 19

$75,000 - $99,999 3.9 5 3.6 5 4.8 9 12.1 9

Over $100,000 5.0 3 1.4 3 6.2 8 9.5 10

1 Survey respondents.

2 Adult (18+) residents of Los Angeles County (1990 Census).

percent
USDA Forest Service Res. Paper PSW-RP-236. 1998.
PSW-RP-236

Research PaperResearch StationPacific SouthwestForest Serviceof AgricultureDepartmentUnited States

Using Undeveloped Natural AreasCultural Diversity of Los Angeles County Residents
Federal Recycling Program

Printed on Recycled Paper

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, is responsible for Federal

Leadership in forestry.

It carries out this role through four main activities:

• Protection and management of resources on 191 million acres of National Forest System

lands

• Cooperation with State and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners

to help protect and manage non-Federal forest and associated range and watershed

lands

• Participation with other agencies in human resource and community assistance programs

to improve living conditions in rural areas

• Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest resources

utilization.

The Pacific Southwest Research Station

• Represents the research branch of the Forest Service in California, Hawaii, American

Samoa, and the western Pacific.

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 (voice) or

202-720-1127 (TDD). USDA

is an equal employment

opportunity employer.