National Forest Use and Outdoor Recreation Constraints

NATIONAL FOREST USE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION CONSTRAINTS

ACROSS FOUR ETHNIC AND MINORITY POPULATIONS IN GEORGIA

SUSAN ELIZABETH PARKER

(Under the Direction of Gary T. Green)

ABSTRACT

The people of the United States enjoy and recreate on public lands including national forests which provide a variety of settings and opportunities for various outdoor recreation activities. Additionally, recent research has shown the overall percentage of participation in outdoor recreation activities is increasing; however, participation rates are shifting within the available activity options. This outdoor recreation activity shift combined with declining budgets and changes in population demographics are resulting in outdoor recreation managers being challenged to meet the demands of their visitors. Therefore, this study examined forest-based outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and constraints across four ethnic and minority populations in northern Georgia. This study collected and examined data from two survey areas: on-site and off-site. On-site data were collected using intercept surveys at three sites within the

Chattahoochee National Forest which represented the range of recreational facilities and recreation areas available in the national forest. Off-site data were collected using intercept surveys at sites within 70 miles of the Chattahoochee National Forest border and included two flea markets in northern Georgia as well as city, county, and state parks. The research protocol was developed and tested during a pilot test in 2010. The resulting self-administered intercept survey was used to obtain a sample of 1,045 respondents on-site at three national forest

recreational sites and 1,005 respondents off-site at various recreational sites in metro Atlanta.

Results suggested Whites and Asian Americans are well represented at some recreation sites in the Chattahoochee National Forest. However, some non-traditional users (i.e., African

Americans and Hispanic/Latinos) are still under-represented at this national forest. Furthermore, results suggest that patterns, preferences, and perceived constraints to outdoor recreation on national forests of northern Georgia across diverse audiences are complex. Overall, this dissertation established the groundwork for identifying issues related to outdoor recreation on national forests in northern Georgia which can be used by outdoor recreation managers to help meet visitor’s changing demands for forest-based outdoor recreation.

INDEX WORDS: Constraints, Ethnicity, Forest-based recreation, Income, Gender, National

Forests, Outdoor Recreation, Race, Survey

NATIONAL FOREST USE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION CONSTRAINTS

ACROSS FOUR ETHNIC AND MINORITY POPULATIONS IN GEORGIA

SUSAN ELIZABETH PARKER

B.S., Georgia State University, 1999

M.F.R., University of Georgia, 2003

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2013

Susan E. Parker

NATIONAL FOREST USE AND OUTDOOR RECREATION CONSTRAINTS

ACROSS FOUR ETHNIC AND MINORITY POPULATIONS IN GEORGIA

SUSAN ELIZABETH PARKER

Major Professor: Gary T. Green

Committee: Sarah Covert Cassandra Johnson-Gaither Robert J. Warren

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support provided by a number of people. I would like to begin by thanking my funding sources, the University of Georgia’s

(UGA) Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, the UGA Graduate School, and the

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). I would also like to thank the managers and personnel at the national forest sites (Anna Ruby Falls, Brasstown

Bald, and Russell Lake) for their kindness and support (and ice cream) during the data collection process.

I would like to offer special recognition to my major advisor, Gary Green. From day one,

Gary has provided exceptional guidance and wisdom. Throughout my time at UGA, he has always been there to provide beneficial instruction, constructive criticism, and supportive advice.

He is one of the busiest yet most accessible people I have ever met. He is an inspiration to students and Gary’s insight to just about everything is amazing and most valuable. Gary is a teacher, mentor, and friend and I am eternally grateful for the time and effort he has supplied during my academic career. I would also like to thank the members of my dissertation committee,

Sarah Covert, Cassandra Johnson-Gaither, and Bob Warren for assisting with study design, instrument development, data analysis, editorial suggestions and other issues during the study.

So many other people have helped to make this study a success. Lincoln Larson should be applauded for taking the time to translation the survey from English to Spanish, for fielding many off the cuff statistical questions, and for his much needed since of humor. Also, I want to thank all of the members of the Green Lab, especially Ami Flowers, Lauren Ward, and Jason

Whiting for their support and assistance throughout the process. Dr. Catherine Terre-Ketter should also be acknowledged for her every ready emotional support. I would also like to offer general, and most grateful, thanks to the other students, staff, and faculty and the Warnell School who have worked with me over the years, providing both encouragement and administrative and technical support.

I am also grateful for the contributions of the people who participated in this study – the national forest users, county, city, and state park users, and flea market visitors across northern

Georgia. The positive and supportive responses provided by research participants were inspiring, and the feedback provided by them will help the USDA Forest Service to better manage national forests and the outdoor recreation resources for the enjoyment of all their patrons in the future.

Finally, I must thank my family for all of the support they have provided throughout graduate school. I am grateful for the much needed vacation time and restorative sessions provided by my brother, John and niece, Lisa. I would especially like to thank my parents, Jane and James (movers and dog sitters extraordinaire), my aunt, Judith (who is still convinced all that is needed are paddle boats), and my ‘sister’, Sheryl (for so many things), who all have been very supportive, motivating, and most importantly patient.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION, DISSERTATION FORMAT AND LITERATURE REVIEW .....1

Introduction ...... 1

Dissertation Format ...... 4

Literature Review...... 6

Problem Statement ...... 17

Statement of Purpose and General Research Objectives ...... 18

References ...... 20

2 RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLE OVERVIEW...... 29

Intercept Survey Protocol and Instrument ...... 29

Data Collection ...... 31

Intercept Survey Response Rates ...... 36

Overall Sample Demographics ...... 37

Limitations and Delimitations ...... 38

References ...... 43

3 OUTDOOR RECREATION AND NONTRADITIONAL USERS: AN

EXAMINATION OF NATIONAL FOREST PREFERENCES AND ACTIVITY

vii

PARTICIPATION ACROSS FOUR POPULATION SUBGROUPS IN NORTHERN

GEORGIA...... 53

Abstract ...... 54

Introduction ...... 54

Theoretical Background ...... 56

Problem Statement ...... 60

Research Objectives ...... 60

Methodology ...... 61

Results ...... 68

Discussion ...... 82

Acknowledgements ...... 91

References ...... 92

4 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF CONSTRAINTS TO NATIONAL FOREST USE

BY ETHNIC GROUPS AND WOMEN IN NORTHERN GEORGIA ...... 117

Abstract ...... 118

Introduction ...... 118

Theoretical Background ...... 121

Problem Statement ...... 125

Research Objectives ...... 125

Methodology ...... 126

Results ...... 133

Discussion ...... 140 Discussion 136

Acknowledgements ...... 148

viii

References ...... 149

5 EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON OUTDOOR RECREATION

CONSTRAINTS CONSTRUCTS ...... 169

Abstract ...... 170

Introduction ...... 170

Theoretical Background ...... 172

Research Objectives ...... 175

Methodology ...... 175

Results ...... 181

Discussion ...... 190 Discussion 136

Acknowledgements ...... 194

References ...... 195

6 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 226

Summary ...... 227

Recommendations ...... 229

Conclusion ...... 232

APPENDICES

A INTERCEPT SURVEY PROTOCOL AND CONSENT SCRIPT ...... 235

B INTERCEPT SURVEY COVER SHEET ...... 237

C ON-SITE SURVEY FORMS ...... 239

D OFF-SITE SURVEY FORMS ...... 254

E INTERCEPT SURVEY SITES ...... 269

F PHOTOGRAPHS OF NATIONAL FOREST SITES AND RESEARCH TEAM ...273

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 2.1: Description of On-site Data Collection Sites ...... 45

Table 2.2: On-site Totals for Data Collection ...... 46

Table 2.3: On-site Respondent Demographic Data ...... 46

Table 2.4: Description of Off-site Data Collection Sites ...... 47

Table 2.5: Off-site Totals for Data Collection ...... 48

Table 2.6: Off-site Respondent Demographic Data ...... 49

Table 2.7: On-site Non-Response Rate Data and Reasons for Not Responding (by Demographic

Group) ...... 50

Table 2.8: Off-site Non-Response Rate Data and Reasons for Not Responding (by Demographic

Group) ...... 51

Table 2.9: Demographic Distribution of Intercept Survey Respondents (% of Total, by Survey

Locations) for On-site and Off-site Respondents ...... 52

Table 3.1: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 99

Table 3.2: Age, Income, and Education Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 100

Table 3.3: Demographic Characteristics of On-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 101

Table 3.4: Demographic Characteristics of Off-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 102

Table 3.5: Visitation Frequency Reported by On-site Respondents by Gender ...... 103

Table 3.6: Visitation Frequency Reported by On-site Respondents by Race/Ethnicity ...... 104

Table 3.7: Visitation Frequency Reported by Off-site Respondents by Gender ...... 105

Table 3.8: Visitation Frequency Reported by Off-site Respondents by Race/Ethnicity ...... 106

Table 3.9: Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by On-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 107

Table 3.10: Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by Off-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 108

Table 3.11: Where Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by On-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 109

Table 3.12: Where Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by Off-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 109

Table 3.13: Overall Percentages and Means of Facility Use in Forested Areas Reported by On-

site Respondents...... 110

Table 3.14: On-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Gender ...... 111

Table 3.15: On-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Age Category...... 111

Table 3.16: On-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Race/Ethnicity ...... 112

Table 3.17: Overall Percentages and Means of Facility Use in Forested Areas Reported by Off-

site Respondents...... 113

Table 3.18: Off-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Gender ...... 114

Table 3.19: Off-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Age Category ...... 115

Table 3.20: Off-site Facility Use in Forested Areas by Race/Ethnicity ...... 116

Table 4.1: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 156

Table 4.2: Age, Income, and Education Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 157

Table 4.3: Demographic Characteristics of On-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 158

Table 4.4: Demographic Characteristics of Off-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 159

Table 4.5: Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by On-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 160

Table 4.6: Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by Off-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 161

Table 4.7: Where Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by On-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 162

Table 4.8: Where Outdoor Recreation Activities Done Most Often by Off-site Respondents by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 162

Table 4.9: Overall Percentages and Means of Constraints Reported by On-site

Respondents ...... 163

Table 4.10: Overall Percentages and Means of Constraints Reported by Off-site

Respondents ...... 164

Table 4.11: On-site Constraints to Outdoor Recreation by Gender ...... 165

Table 4.12: On-site Constraints to Outdoor Recreation by Race/Ethnicity ...... 166

Table 4.13: Off-site Constraints to Outdoor Recreation by Gender ...... 167

Table 4.14: Off-site Constraints to Outdoor Recreation by Race/Ethnicity ...... 168

Table 5.1: Gender and Race/Ethnicity Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 201

Table 5.2: Age, Income, and Education Demographic Distribution of Respondents ...... 202

Table 5.3: Demographic Characteristics of On-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 203

xii

Table 5.4: Demographic Characteristics of Off-site Respondents Reported by

Race/Ethnicity ...... 204

Table 5.5: On-site Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor Solution of

Constraints Items ...... 205

Table 5.6: On-site Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 206

Table 5.7: On-site Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 207

Table 5.8: Off-site Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor Solution of

Constraints Items ...... 208

Table 5.9: Off-site Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 209

Table 5.10: Off-site Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 210

Table 5.11: All Respondents - Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor

Solution of Constraints Items...... 211

Table 5.12: All Respondents - Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin

Rotation ...... 212

Table 5.13: All Respondents - Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 213

Table 5.14: Asian Respondents - Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor

Solution of Constraints Items...... 214

Table 5.15: Asian Respondents - Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin

Rotation ...... 215

Table 5.16: Asian Respondents - Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 216

Table 5.17: Black Respondents - Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor

Solution of Constraints Items...... 217

Table 5.18: Black Respondents - Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin

xiii

Rotation ...... 218

Table 5.19: Black Respondents - Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 219

Table 5.20: Hispanic/Latino Respondents - Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of

Three Factor Solution of Constraints Items ...... 220

Table 5.21: Hispanic/Latino Respondents - Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin

Rotation ...... 221

Table 5.22: Hispanic/Latino Respondents - Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 222

Table 5.23: White Respondents - Pattern Matrix for PCA with Oblimin Rotation of Three Factor

Solution of Constraints Items...... 223

Table 5.24: White Respondents - Unrotated Component Matrix for PCA with Oblimin

Rotation ...... 224

Table 5.25: White Respondents - Screeplot for PCA with Oblimin Rotation ...... 225

Table E.1: Overview of On-site Data Collection Sites ...... 270

Table E.2: Overview of Off-site Data Collection Sites ...... 271

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1: A Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey,

1991)...... 16

Figure 1.2: Refined Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Chick & Dong, 2003)...... 17

Figure 5.1: A Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey,

1991)...... 173

Figure 5.2: Refined Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Chick & Dong, 2003)...... 174

Figure F.1: Photographs of recreation survey sites at (a) Anna Ruby Falls, (b) Brasstown Bald,

and (c) Russell Lake, 2010-2011...... 274

Figure F.2: Research team members: Susan Parker and Janet Dunham, Fall 2010...... 275

Figure F.3: Research team member Susan Parker (far right) with Anna Ruby Falls visitors,

Summer 2010 ...... 275

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION, DISSERTATION FORMAT, AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

In the 1700s and early1800s the citizens of the United States were not concerned about the conservation of natural resources because they appeared limitless (Chiras & Reganold, 2010).

In fact, at that time, the belief was as people moved west they brought civilization to the wild lands or wilderness. However, in the mid-1800s opinions about natural resources began to change. The ever-increasing population, development and industrialization, overuse of natural resources, decreasing availability of wild lands, and loss of wildlife led some people to realize that natural resources were not limitless, and in fact, resources needed protecting (Chiras &

Reganold, 2010). Consequently, fearing the permanent loss of some valuable natural resources the United States government set aside certain natural resources, such as national parks, and national forests for the benefit and enjoyment of all people (Cordell, 2012; & USDA Forest

Service, 2012a). These public lands were, and continue to be, valued for their natural resources, scenic wonder, wildlife, and recreation (Cordell, Betz, & Green, 2008). Over the next few decades, citizens of the United States began to have more leisure time and discretionary funds and sought to spend them enjoying recreation on public lands such as national forest and national parks. As a result in the 1950's, the nature of the problems in outdoor recreation such as crowding and user conflicts had become a concern; therefore, the United States Congress decided an intensive nationwide study should be conducted of outdoor recreation and on June 28,

1958 the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) was established (United

States Park Service, 1994). Furthermore, in the 1960s, interest into issues and concerns related to outdoor recreation by ethnic and minority groups increased when the ORRRC suggested there was a need for a better understanding of minority under-representation in outdoor recreation

(National Recreation and Park Association, 1984; Olson, 2010). Research seeking answers to these questions began; however, research into issues related to outdoor recreation on public lands by ethnic and minority groups increased significantly with the publication of Washburne’s (1978) study on under-representation of Blacks in wildland recreation (Floyd, 1999). Washburne hypnotized under-representation of Blacks in wildland recreation may result from factors such as poverty and discrimination (i.e., marginality theory) or that recreational patterns are based on subcultural leisure norms and value systems (i.e., ethnicity theory).

Outdoor Recreation on National Forests

Today, the people of the United States continue to enjoy and recreate on public lands including national forests and these public lands provide a variety of settings and opportunities for various outdoor recreation activities such as hiking/walking, picnicking, and wildlife viewing, etc. In fact, Cordell (2008) showed the overall percentage of participation in outdoor recreation activities is increasing; however, participation rates in some outdoor activities are declining while others are increasing (Cordell, 2012; Cordell, Betz, & Green, 2008; Pergams & Zaradic,

2008). For example, research by Cordell (2012) noted in time periods 2005-2009 to 2010-2011, backpacking and primitive camping (i.e., not in developed campgrounds) reflected decreases in the percentage of people who participated; however, for activities such as viewing and photographing nature and wildlife participation has increased.

These outdoor recreational opportunities can contribute to the overall quality of people’s lives (Godbey, 2009; Jackson, 2005). In fact, research reveals people using these natural resources have the opportunity to experience and receive a wide range of social, psychological, and health related benefits (Ibrahim & Cordes, 2002; Jackson, 2005; Manning, 1999). However, research also reveals many people do not visit these types of natural resources or take advantage of the benefits they have to offer due to certain barriers or perceived constraints. In particular, certain ethnic and minority groups as well as women are perceived to visit these natural resources much less than other groups (Jackson, 2005; Stanis, Schneider, Chavez, & Shinew,

2009). This information combined with changes in the population demographics of the United

States, with African American and Hispanic segments of the population nearing the majority by

2050 (United States Census, 2007) show the need for more research to examine ethnic and minority groups preferences for and perceived constraints to outdoor recreation. In addition, despite low participation rates, by population percentage, of ethnic and minority groups in nature-based outdoor recreation, according to Murdock, Backman, Hoque, and Ellis (1991) ethnic and minority groups, such as African Americans and Hispanics, participation in outdoor recreation activities will increase nearly 50% by 2025. Therefore, public land managers will need to include ethnic and minority group’s uses and preferences in their outdoor recreation planning.

Hence, this study will seek to discover the preferences and patterns of both users (on-site) and non-users (off-site) and compare these differences to assist national forest managers in northern

Georgia address gaps in the current outdoor recreation use of national forest with potential future demands.

The overall growth of the United States population, changing demographics within the population, and changes in outdoor recreation preferences and uses will have major implications

4 for the management of natural resources, including national forests. Therefore, public land managers must be able to better understand current and potential visitors’ needs and motivations for visiting if they are to meet these requirements (Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, & Noe, 1994;

Gobster, 2002; Shinew et. al., 2006). Hence, this study was designed to examine the outdoor recreation preferences, activity use, and perceived constraints of ethnic and minority groups and women of national forest use in northern Georgia. Information obtained by this study could help public land managers to better evaluate and understand the outdoor recreation preferences and adjust their services and programs to meet the needs of their increasingly diverse clientele.

Dissertation Format

This dissertation highlights several aspects of the National Forest Use and Outdoor

Recreation Constraints Across Four Ethnic and Minority Populations in Georgia which was designed to conduct research pertaining to ethnic and minority subpopulations as well as women and their use of national forests in northern Georgia. This study will identify existing data relevant to this issue and conduct further analyses that may provide more insight on this issue.

The study was guided by several key research questions:

 Who is visiting Georgia national forests? When? How often? Who with?

 Why are people visiting Georgia national forests?

 Why are people not visiting Georgia national forests?

 What outdoor recreation activities are being conducted on Georgia national forests?

 What facilities are being used while recreating on Georgia national forests?

 What is constraining outdoor recreation participation in Georgia national forests?

This dissertation is written in manuscript format. Chapter 1 introduces the study, summarizes past research on public land use and outdoor recreation in demographically diverse

5 populations, and presents the general research objectives that directed the study. Chapter 2 provides a detailed overview of the research methodology for the National Forest Use and

Outdoor Recreation Constraints Across Four Ethnic and Minority Populations in Georgia and a description of the overall sample, including on-site and offsite data collection. Subsequent chapters (Chapters 3-6) focus specifically on recreation-related benefits (e.g., patterns and preferences and constraints) and feature a subset of the larger sample. These sub-samples were obtained through various combinations of the research methods outlined in Chapter 2. Chapters

3, 4, and 5 are manuscripts that will be submitted for publication. Although recommendations and management implications are incorporated throughout the manuscript-style chapters,

Chapter 6 provides a concise summary and recommendations based on results of the overall project. Chapter titles are listed below:

 Chapter 1 – Introduction, Dissertation Format, and Literature Review

 Chapter 2 – Research Methods

 Chapter 3 – Outdoor Recreation and Nontraditional Users: An Examination of National

Forest Usage and Activity Participation Across Four Population Subgroups in Northern

Georgia

 Chapter 4 – A Comparative Study of Constraints to National Forest Use by Ethnic

Groups and Women in Northern Georgia

 Chapter 5 – Exploring the Influences of Culture on Outdoor Recreation Constraints

Constructs

 Chapter 6 – Summary and Recommendations

Literature Review

Demographic Changes in the United States

When examining visitation data to national parks, national forests, etc., the majority of visitors tend to be white, male, with medium to high income, and education levels (Jackson,

2005; Thapa, Graefe, & Absher, 2002). However, this traditional user group of national parks and forests (i.e., white males) represents an ever-shrinking segment of the American population, while African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos currently represent a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population (United States Census, 2012). In fact, according to the 2010 United States

Census, the three major minority groups that compose the U.S. population are African

Americans (13.1%), Hispanic/Latinos (16.7%), and Asian Americans (5.0%) with women composing 50.8% of the overall population. Furthermore, African Americans and

Hispanic/Latinos are predicted to represent the majority of the population by 2060 (United States

Census, 2007) and the Pew Research Center recently reported Asian Americans are the highest- educated, fastest-growing immigrant race group in the country (Taylor, Cohn, Funk, Livingston,

Parker, & Wang, 2012). In addition, research has shown the ethnic and minority populations of the United States are moving from the “frostbelt” states to the “sunbelt” states like Georgia

(Abbott 1981; Beale & Fuguitt 1978; Cebula 1974; DaVanzo & Morrison 1981; Long & Hansen

1975), and recent research conducted by Jaret and Baird (2013) showed the United States internal migration patterns in the mid-2000s resulted in Georgia being ranked as a top migration state for Blacks (1st), Whites (4th), Asian Americans (5th), and Hispanics/Latinos (6th).

Furthermore, when examining visitation to specific natural resources such as national forests in northern Georgia, ethnic and minority groups and women are under-represented when comparing population percentages to visitation percentages (USDA Forest Service, 2009). For

7 example, Atlanta, a large metropolitan city in northern Georgia which is in close geographical proximity to the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest, has a population which is comprised of over 50% African Americans (United States Census, 2012); however, according to the USDA

Forest Service 2009 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) visits to the

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest by African Americans was only 1.6% of the total visits.

In addition, women comprise 50.2% of the population in Atlanta, Georgia (United States Census,

2012) and according to the 2009 NVUM were only 32.1% percent of the visitors to the

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest.

Consequently, there is an apparent under-representation of ethnic and minority groups and women, in terms of visitation and use of natural forests in northern Georgia. This under- representation of these groups is particularly disconcerting when placed in direct contrast to the current and future growth of these segments of the U.S. population (Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell,

2001; Thapa, Graefe, &Absher, 2002; United States Census, 2012). In addition, nation-wide surveys such as the NSRE and the 2009 NVUM have reported the outdoor activity preferences and participation rates for women and ethnic and minority groups; however, despite the important contributions these studies provide, more regionally specific research is needed to examine the outdoor recreation patterns of women and ethnic and minority groups due to varying outdoor recreation patterns by geographical region (Cordell, 2012). Hence, this study was designed to examine outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and issues of ethnic and minority groups and women in northern Georgia with an emphasis on comparing users (on-site) and non- users (off-site).

Race as a Variable in Outdoor Recreation Research

Research into the differences between ethnic and minority populations in the United

States has been the subject of research since the 1960s when the ORRRC first noted the need for a better understanding of minority under-representation in outdoor recreation (National

Recreation and Park Association, 1984). Since that time several researchers have examined recreational differences between genders and between Whites and minority groups (Arnold, &

Shinew, 1998; Floyd, 1999; Stamps & Stamps, 1985; Washburne, 1978) and Gobster (2002) noted one of the most-studied research areas is participation rates between Whites and different user groups. However, according to Shinew et al., (2006) research of ethnic and minority subgroups has “moved beyond a theoretical treatment of ‘black-white’ comparisons” toward “multi- ethnic comparisons” (p. 406) of diverse subgroups (e.g., Asians and Hispanic/Latinos).

In addition, the composition of the United States population is continuing to change with more and more people self-identifying as multi-racial (6.9 million or 2.3%) (United States

Census, 2012); therefore, outdoor recreation researchers will be challenged to find new ways to identify these sub-groups. In addition, research has revealed the internal United States migration patterns of ethnic and minority groups can be regionally specific (Jaret & Baird, 2013); therefore, it will also be important for outdoor recreation researchers to consider regionally specific differences when examining outdoor recreation (Chien-Lu, Zinn, Barro, & Manfredo, 2003;

Sasidharan, Willits, & Godbey, 2005).

The terms “race,” “culture,” and “ethnicity” are frequently used differently in social science research; therefore, it is necessary to define how the terms apply (Schelhas, 2002).

According to Smedley & Smedley (2012), “the scientific record has shown enormous ambiguity on the matter of race, much confusion, and little common agreement among the experts on its

9 meaning” (p.13). Race generally refers to distinctions basis on “genetic variations in physical appearance;” however, “most sociologist (and biologists) dispute the idea that biological race is a meaningful concept,” because the variation in physical characteristics have “blurred” due to

“interbreeding” (Johnson, 2000, p. 249). Therefore, according Johnson and others race has become more of a social construct (Schelhas, 2002). In addition, Johnson defines cultural as including “attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms” and “it is important to note culture does not refer to what people actually do, but to the ideas they share about what they do” (p.73). According to

Sasidharan, Willits, and Godbey (2005) these characteristics are “embedded in the social structure of the respective racial or ethnic groups, thereby contributing to their ethnic identity” (p.

20). Furthermore, Smedley and Smedley asserted “a modern way of expressing the common interests of people who are perceived by others and themselves as having the same culture is speak of them as an ethnic group” (p. 41) and according to Schelhas (2002) ethnicity applies to both majority and minority groups although they may actually be a numerical majority.

Race and Ethnicity in Outdoor Recreation Research

Studies have shown women and ethnic and minority groups do not visit or recreate on public lands as often as White males (Carr, & Chavez, 1993; Dwyer, 1994; Gobster, 2002;

Johnson, Bowker, Green, & Cordell, 2007; Washburne, 1978). For example, Floyd, Outley,

Bixler, and Hammitt (1995) found African Americans ranked wildland activities lower than

Whites and Johnson, Bowker, English, and Worthen (1998) noted the probability of African

Americans participating in wildland recreation to be less than Whites. In addition, research has shown ethnic and minority groups such as African Americans prefer more-developed recreation settings and participate more in organized, team-related activities (i.e., baseball and football) rather than nature-based activities such as backpacking or camping (Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, &

Noe, 1994; Gobster, 2002; Payne, Mowen, & Orsega-Smith, 2002). In addition, research has shown women are hesitant to participate in forest-based activities such as walking or hiking in the woods due to feeling unsafe (Carr, 2000). Furthermore, research has shown ethnic and minority groups such as Asian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic/Latinos exhibit different nature-based outdoor recreation social dynamics (Baas, Ewert, & Chavez, 1993;

Chavez, 2001; Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., & Absher, 2002; Tinsley, Tinsley, & Croskeys, 2002).

Gobster and Delgado (1993) found families and organized groups were the most important social units of participation for minority visitors to urban parks and Pizzini, Latoni, and Rodriguez

(1993) showed Puerto Ricans visited outdoor recreation areas in larger groups consisting of families and friends.

Two major theories have been presented to help explain the under-representation of women and ethnic and minority groups in outdoor recreation: ethnicity and marginality (Carr &

Williams, 1993; Johnson, Bowker, English, & Worthen, 1997; Washburne, 1978). These two theories were first introduced by Washburne (1978) in an attempt to explain the differences among ethnic and minority populations in relation to leisure or recreational behavior and they have been the foundation for many research studies since Washburne first introduced them.

The Ethnicity Hypothesis

The ethnicity theory posits different values, socialization patterns, and expectations of participants are the underlining factors that drive variations in recreation participation and therefore, the under-participation of minority groups (Washburne, 1978). Washburne compared use of wildland areas in California between lower income, urban Blacks and Whites and his results revealed when socioeconomic factors (e.g., income and education) were held constant;

Blacks were significantly less likely than Whites to recreate in undeveloped or primitive areas.

Since Washburne’s pivotal study in 1978, studies have also shown culture is important in explaining differences between Whites, African Americans, and Hispanic/Latinos despite their socioeconomic standing (Chavez, 2001; Johnson, et al., 1998). Results of these studies suggest

African American and Hispanic/Latinos outdoor recreation patterns are influenced by a different set of cultural values than those which influence Whites outdoor recreation patterns, and these values contribute to under-participation in wild land recreation activities among minorities including national forests (Floyd et al., 1994; Johnson et al., 2007; Washburne, 1978). For example, studies show African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos prefer more-developed natural environments than do Whites (Baas, Ewert, & Chavez,1993; Cronan, Shinew, & Stodolska, 2008;

Shinew, Floyd, & Parry, 2004).

Research has also shown African Americans and Hispanics have different preferences for outdoor recreation activities than do Whites (Gobster & Delgado, 1993). For example, Payne,

Mowen, and Orsega-Smith (2002) found African Americans prefer organized recreation activities rather than nature-based ones. Cordell, Betz, and Green (2002) also found walking was popular with all ethnic and minority groups and hiking was preferred by Hispanic/Latinos, while

African Americans ranked walking and hiking lower than other groups. However, according to

Washburne, the ethnicity theory does not explain all of the under-participation in outdoor recreation, and Washburne posited if different values, socialization patterns, and expectations of participants were not the cause of under-participation, then the cause could be socioeconomic factors or marginality.

The Marginality Hypothesis

The marginality theory posits minority under-participation in outdoor recreations results from socioeconomic factors such lack of funds or lack of transportation to recreation sites which

12 are a function of historical patterns of discrimination (Washburne, 1978). In addition, research has suggested racial discrimination is the basis for perceived constraints by African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos (Floyd, 1998; Washburne, 1978) and other studies found minorities chose not to recreate at some locations due to a fear for their personal safety as a result of interracial exchanges (Chavez, 2001; West, 1989).

In addition, “like class and race, gender represents a major dimension of social structure and a focus on this dimension can yield novel insights into many phenomena” (Portes, 1997, p.

816). Research on women and constraints have resulted in linkages to the marginality theory as well as the development of gender relations theories (Aitchison, 2001; Henderson, 1991; Shaw &

Henderson, 2005; Shaw 1994). For example, Shaw (1994) recognized that women face issues that are linked to structured societal gender roles which are consistent with marginality theory.

However, Shinew et al. (2004) also found women’s activities themselves are constraining because they can “reinforce oppressive gender roles and offer opportunities for resistance because of qualities such as free choice and self-determination” (p. 182). These last two ideas suggest “women’s position in society, their lack of access to valued resources, and societal expectation about women’s lives, roles, and responsibilities reduce their freedom and constrain their options (Shaw & Henderson, 2005, p. 24).

One important assumption related to the marginality theory is once barriers or perceived constraints have been overcome, the marginalized groups would then participate in a similar way to non-marginalized groups (Washburne, 1978; Johnson, et al., 1998). However, studies of marginality have met with some disapproval due to the complexity of measuring the construct of marginality (Johnson, et. al, 1998). For example, in a study visitation by residents of Detroit to local and regional parks, West (1989) found Blacks in Detroit visited city parks more often than

Whites despite controlling for socio-demographic variables of gender, income, and education.

However, Blacks noted the lack of transportation, a measurement of marginality, as a reason for not visiting parks outside their neighborhood.

Researchers have also proposed several marginality-related theories to help explain the under-representation of women and ethnic and minority groups in outdoor recreation. These theories include class identification theory (Floyd, et al., 1994); multiple hierarchy stratification theory (Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, & Noe, 1995); and class polarization theory (Shinew, et al.,

1995). The theory of class identification posits Blacks and Whites who see themselves as being in comparable social positions would also have similar leisure preferences (Floyd, et al, 1994).

The multiple hierarchy stratification theory posits race, class, gender, and age are potential characteristics that can limit social access (Shinew et al., 1995). For example, leisure preferences will be different for African American females than African American males. The theory of class polarization posits differences exist within the African American subpopulation and are more divergent between lower-class and higher-class black males than they are for lower-class and higher-class females (Shinew et al., 1995; Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, & Noe, 1996). However, in their 1995 study Shinew et al., found lower class Black women had no significant recreational behavior differences when compared to middle-class Black women and lower-class Black men

(i.e., multiple hierarchy stratification theory) and no significant differences between Black men and Black women of different social classes (i.e., class polarization theory). Furthermore, research has suggested under-representation of ethnic and minority groups and women is a result of barriers or constraints which limit visitation and use of national forests (Green, Bowker, Wang,

Cordell, & Johnson, 2012; Johnson, Bowker, Green, & Cordell, 2007; Shinew, Floyd, & Parry,

2004; Stanis et al., 2009).

Recreational Constraints

Research into constraints endeavors to “investigate factors that are assumed by researchers and/or perceived or experienced by individuals to limit the formation of leisure preferences and/or to inhibit or prohibit participation and enjoyment of leisure” (Jackson, 2000, p.

62). Studies related to constraints research have shown ethnic and minority groups and women encounter barriers or constraints, such as safety concerns, to visitation and use of national forests

(Green, et al., 2012; Johnson, et al., 2007; Shinew, Floyd, & Parry, 2004; Stanis et al., 2009). In addition, studies have suggested some of the challenges ethnic and minority groups face to visitation include communication issues related to language barriers and lack of knowledge

(Johnson et al., 2007; Stanis et al, 2009). Furthermore, much of the research conducted on constraints indicates there is a difference in perceived constraints by ethnic and minority groups versus Whites (Covelli, Burns, & Graefe, 2007; Johnson et al., 2001; Shinew, et al., 2004). For example, a study by Stanis et al. (2009) examining visitor constraints to physical activity found

Asian, Black, and Hispanic/Latino respondents all reported more fear of racial conflict than did

Whites. Additionally, Johnson et al. (2001) found women to be more constrained than men in the areas of “personal safety, inadequate facilities, inadequate information, and outdoor pests” (p

123).

Early constraints research focused on “immovable, static obstacles” which were defined as barriers to a person’s participation in leisure activities (Jackson, 2005, p. 3). Later, research resulted in the grouping of similar types of constraints into three major classifications or theoretical constructs: structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints (Crawford, Jackson,

& Godbey 1991; Godbey, Crawford, & Shen, 2010; Jackson, 2005). Structural constraints are defined as items which prevent an individual’s desired participation that happen as a result of

15 external factors in the environment such as cost or lack of time. Interpersonal constraints involve the interactions and relationships between individuals, social factors, and include issues such as the lack of a friend with whom to participate. Intrapersonal constraints include attitudes, values, or beliefs, individual factors, which hinder involvement in activities such as poor body image preventing a person’s participation in swimming activities or the lack of confidence to go camping overnight (Crawford et al., 1991).

Both leisure constraints and outdoor recreation research began with the ORRRC reports of the 1960’s; however, much of the leisure constraints research and resulting concepts, theories, and models have focused on leisure participation in general (Jackson, 2005). Walker and Virden

(2005) suggest despite their common origins, there has been little “conceptual cross-fertilization” between leisure constraints research and outdoor recreation research (p. 201). In addition,

Walker and Virden suggest outdoor recreation researchers should consider attitudes toward the natural environment and motivations for outdoor recreation and how they might influence perceived constraints. For example, Walker and Virden posit motivations toward outdoor recreation activities may complicate the issue of perceived constraints because one’s motivations may influence leisure preferences selection in certain directions; therefore, simultaneously limiting or constraining preferences in other directions (i.e., walking in the neighborhood or hiking in the woods where there are snakes). Additionally, Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey

(1993) suggest a person’s motivation may balance out the effect of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors on constraints. Furthermore, Walker and Virden posit attitudes toward natural environments may influence constraints and several studies have examined users’ attitudes toward the natural environment and how these attitudes might affect preferences for activities (Floyd, et al., 1995; Virden & Walker, 1999; Wallace & Witter, 1992). For example,

Virden and Walker (1999) examined how gender and race/ethnicity affected attitudes of university students toward natural environments and found White respondents found forest environments to be more safe than did Black or Hispanic respondents.

Theoretical Constraints Models

Crawford, Jackson & Godbey, (1991) developed a hierarchical model of constraints which reflects an individual’s perceptions of certain constraining factors as well as how these factors affect their choice to participate or not to participate in certain activities. These factors can be classified within one of three constraint types (i.e., intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural)

(See Figure 1.1).

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Structural Constraints Constraints Constraints (Personal factors, (Interactions with other (Lack of time, attitudes, etc.) people, etc.) money, etc.)

Leisure Interpersonal Participation (or Preferences Compatibility Nonparticipation) and Coordination

Figure 1.1: A Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey, 1991).

However, Chick and Dong (2003) proposed an enhancement to this hierarchical model which included culture. Findings from the study by Chick and Dong (2003) suggest three types of leisure constraints; intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural also exists for societies outside of North America (i.e., Japan and China). However, they also found that personal and interpersonal constraints are also influenced by culture and that both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints should be subordinate to culture in a hierarchical model of constraints

(See Figure 1.2). Hence, culture could also be a factor in constraints to the use of national forests by ethnic and minority groups. However, while the traditional hierarchical model of constraints has been well tested (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1991; Jackson, 2005), the new theory proposed by Chick and Dong have yet to be adequately tested, especially at the site level.

Additionally, although research has examined constraints to outdoor recreation and how culture influences these constructs, little research has examined this relationship for users and non-users at specific sites in the northern Georgia national forests (Chick & Dong, 2003; Jackson, 2005; Li,

Chick, Zinn, Absher, & Graefe, 2007). Furthermore, gaining a greater understanding of how constraints affect ethnic and minority groups’ ability to visit public lands or participate in recreation activities at particular sites could substantially enhance site manager’s abilities to address this issue.

Structural Cultural Constraints Constraints

Constraints on Individual Decisions

Intrapersonal Interpersonal Constraints Constraints

Participation (or Nonparticipation)

Figure 1.2: Refined Hierarchical Model of Leisure Constraints (Chick & Dong, 2003).

Problem Statement

An overview of existing literature reveals several research gaps in the relationship between visitation and use of northern Georgia national forests by ethnic and minority groups and women, especially when comparing users to non-users. In addition, research indicates ethnic

18 and minority groups as well as women are substantially under-represented in terms of their visitation and use of national forests such as the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern

Georgia and the following research gaps are apparent:

1. Limited information regarding outdoor recreation frequency and participation patterns on

forested lands in northern Georgia;

2. Limited information regarding outdoor recreation facility use on forested lands in

northern Georgia;

3. Limited information regarding general outdoor recreation activity participation and

preferences on forested lands in northern Georgia;

4. Limited information regarding perceived constraints associated with outdoor recreation

activity use on forested lands in northern Georgia;

5. Limited information on the differences of outdoor recreational use between users and

non-users of forested lands in northern Georgia;

This study attempted to address each of these issues using a mixed methods approach to explore the patterns, preferences, and constraints associated with general and national forest outdoor recreation in northern Georgia.

Statement of Purpose and General Research Objectives

This study will examine and identify possible factors or constraints affecting ethnic and minority groups and women’s visitation to and preferences for outdoor recreation on a national forest (i.e., Chattahoochee National Forest). Specifically, this study compares differences between users (on-site) and non-users (off-site) in relation to their: race/ethnicity, gender, age, education, and income to examine:

1. Frequency of outdoor recreation use and participation patterns on forested lands in

northern Georgia.

2. General use of outdoor recreation facilities on forested lands in northern Georgia.

3. General outdoor recreation activity participation and patterns on forested lands in

northern Georgia.

4. Perceived constraints to use of outdoor recreation activities on forested lands in northern

Georgia.

5. Differences in outdoor recreational use and constraints between users and non-users of

forested lands in northern Georgia.

References

Abbott, C. (1981). The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities.

Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Aitchison, C. (2001). Gender and Leisure Research: The “Codification of Knowledge.”

Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 1-19.

Arnold, M. L., & Shinew, K. J. (1998). The Role of Gender, Race, and Income on Park Use

Constraints. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16, 39-56.

Baas, J. M., Ewert, A. W., & Chavez, D. J. (1993). Influence of Ethnicity on Recreation and

Natural Environment Use Patterns: Managing Recreation Sites for Ethnic and Racial

Diversity. Environmental Management, 17, 523-529.

Beale, C.L. & Fuguitt, G.V. (1978). The New Pattern of Nonmetropolitan Population Change.

In K.E. Taeuber, L.L. Bumpass & J.A. Sweet (Eds.), Social Demography (pp. 157-177).

NY: Academic Press.

Carr, D. S. (2000). An Exploratory Study of Young Women’s Use of Leisure Spaces and Times:

Constrained, Negotiated, or Unconstrained Behavior? World Leisure, 3, 25-32.

Carr, D. S. & Chavez, D. J. (1993). A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Recreation

Experiences: Central American Recreation on the National Forest in Southern

California, in A. Ewert, D. Chavez, and A. Magill (Eds.) Culture, Conflict, and

Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Boulder, CO, Westview

Press, 181-194.

Carr, D., & Williams, D. (1993). Understanding the Role of Ethnicity in Outdoor Recreation

Experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 22-38.

Cebula, Richard J. (1974). Interstate Migration and the Tiebout Hypothesis: An Analysis

According to Race, Sex, and Age. Journal of the American Statistical

Association, 69, 876-879.

Chavez, D. J. (2001). Managing Outdoor Recreation in California: Visitor contact studies

1989-1998. USDA Forest Service, PSW-GTR-180, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. Albany, CA, 1-100.

Chick, G., & Dong, E. (2003). Possibility of Refining the Hierarchical Model of Leisure

Constraints through Cross-Cultural Research. In J. Murdy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003

Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. Bolton Landing, NY.

Chien-Lu L., Zinn, H. C., Barro, S. C. & Manfredo, M. J. (2003). A Cross-Regional

Comparison of Recreation Pattern of Older Hunters. Leisure Sciences, 25, 1-16.

Chiras, D. D. & Reganold, J. P. (2010). Natural Resource Conservation. (10th ed). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Cordell, K. H. (2012). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document

Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. (Report No. SRS-150). Asheville,

NC. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Athens, GA.

Cordell, K. H. (2008). The Latest on Trends in Nature-Based Outdoor Recreation. Forest History

Today. Spring 2008, 4-10.

Cordell, H. K., Betz, C. J., & Green, G. T. (2008). Nature-based Outdoor Recreation Trends and

Wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness, 14(2), 7-13.

Cordell, K. H., Green, G. T., & Betz, C. J. (2002). Recreation and the Environment as Cultural

Dimension in Contemporary American Society. Leisure Sciences, 24(1), 13-41.

Covelli, E. A., Burns, R. C., & Graefe, A. (2007). Perceived Constraints by Non-traditional

Users on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. In R. Burns; K. Robinson comps.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium; 2006

April 9-11; Bolton Landing, NY. General Technical Report NRS-P-14. Newton Square,

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 422-429.

Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E.L. & Godbey, G. (1991)."A Hierarchical Model of Leisure

Constraints." Leisure Sciences 13:309-20.

Cronan, M. K., Shinew, K. J., & Stodolska, M. (2008). Trail Use Among Latinos:

Recognizing Diverse Uses Among A Specific Population. Journal of Park

and Recreation Administration, 26(1), 62-86.

DaVanzo, J.S. & Morrison, P.A. (1981). Return and Other Sequences of Migration

in the United States. Demography, 18, 85-101.

Floyd, M. F. (1999). Race, Ethnicity, and Use of the National Park System. Social Science

Research Review, 1, 1-23.

Floyd, M. F. (1998). Getting Beyond Marginality and Ethnicity: The Challenge for Race and

Ethnic Studies in Leisure Research. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(1), 3-22.

Floyd, M. F., Outley C. W., Bixler, R. D., & Hammitt, W. E. (1995). Effect of Race,

Environmental Preferences and Negative Affect on Recreation Preferences. Abstracts

from the 1995 National Recreation and Park Association Symposium on Leisure

Research. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association.

Floyd, M. F., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, Class, and Leisure

Activity Preferences: Marginality and Ethnicity Revisited. Journal of Leisure Research,

26(2), 158-173.

Gobster, P. (2002). Managing Urban Parks for a Racially and Ethnically Diverse Clientele.

Leisure Sciences, 24, 143-159.

Gobster, P. H. & Delgado, A. (1993). Ethnicity and recreation use in Chicago’s Lincoln Park: In-

park User Survey Findings. In P. H. Gobster (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use

Recreation Settings (p. 75-81), Chicago: USDS Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station.

Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor Recreation, Health, and Wellness: Understanding and

Enhancing the Relationship. Prepared for the Outdoor Resources Review Group

Resources for the Future Background Study. Washington, DC.

Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W., & Shen, X. S. (2010). Assessing Hierarchical Leisure Constraints

Theory after Two Decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 111-134.

Green, G. T., Bowker, J. M., Wang, X., Cordell, H. K., & Johnson, C. Y. (2012). A National

Study of Constraints to Participation in Outdoor Recreational Activities. In H. Ken

Cordell (Ed.) Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document

Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. (Report No. SRS-150). Asheville,

NC. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Athens, GA.

Henderson, K. A. (1991). The Contribution of Feminism to an Understanding of Leisure

Constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 363-377.

Ibrahim, H., & Cordes, K. A. (2002). Outdoor Recreation: Enrichment for a Lifetime.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

Jackson, E. L. (2005). Leisure Constraints Research: Overview of a Developing Theme in

Leisure Studies. In E.L. Jackson (Ed.) Constraints to Leisure (p. 23-34).

State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will Research on Leisure Constraints Still be Relevant in the

Twenty-first Century? Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 62-68.

Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints.

Leisure Sciences 15(1), 1-11.

Jaret, C. & Baird, J. (2013). Patterns of Interstate Migration in the Mid-2000s: Are Racial

Groups Moving in Different Directions? The Journal of Public and Professional

Sociology: 5(1), Article 3. Available at

http://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol5/iss1/3.

Johnson, A. G. (2000). The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology: A User’s Guide to Sociological

Language. (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publication.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., & Cordell, H. K. (2001). Outdoor Recreation Constraints:

An Examination of Race, Gender, and Rural Dwelling. Southern Rural Sociology, 17,

111-133.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., English, D. B., & Worthen, D. (1998). Wildland Recreation in

the Rural South: An Examination of Marginality and Ethnicity Theory. Journal of

Leisure Research, 30, 101-120.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., English, D. B. K., & Worthen, D. (1997). Theoretical

Perspectives of Ethnicity and Outdoor Recreation: A Review and Synthesis of African-

American and European-American Participation. (Report No. SRS-11). United States

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC.

Johnson, C. Y., Bowker, J. M., Green, G. T., & Cordell, H. K. (2007). Provide It…But Will

They Come? A look at Black and Hispanic visits to Federal Recreation Areas. Journal of

Forestry, 105(5), 257-265.

Li, C., Chick, G. E., Zinn, H. C., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Ethnicity as a Variable

In Leisure Research. Journal of Leisure Research, (39)3, 514-545.

Long, L.H. & Hansen, K.A. (1975). Trends in Return Migration to the South. Demography 12, 601-614. Manning, R. E. (1999). Studies in Outdoor Recreation: Search and Research for Satisfaction.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Murdock, S. H., Backman, K., Hoque, N., & Ellis, D. (1991). The Implications of Change in

Population Size and Composition on Future Participation in Outdoor Recreation

Activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(3), 238-259.

National Recreation and Park Association. (1984). Demand for Recreation in America. Quest for

Quality Series, Volume One. Alexandra, VR: The Association.

Olson, B. A. (2010). Paper trails: The Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission and the

Rationalization of Recreational Resources. Geoforum, 41(3), 447-456.

Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J., & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002). An Examination Park Preferences and

Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age.

Leisure Sciences, 24, 181-198.

Pergams, O.R. & Zaradic, P.A. (2008). Evidence for a Fundamental and Pervasive Shift Away

from Nature-based Recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved October 2, 2009 from

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0709893105.

Pizzini, A., Latoni, A. and Rodriguez, V. (1993). El Yunque or the Caribbean National

Forest? Meaning, Management, and Culture in the Urban-tropical Forest Interface. In A.

Ewert, D. Chavez and A. Magill (Eds), Culture, Conflict, and Communication in the

Wildland-Urban Interface (p. 221–233). Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

Portes, A. (1997). Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities.

International Migration Review, 31, 799-825.

Sasidharan, V., Willits, F., Godbey. G. (2005). Cultural Differences in Urban

Recreation Patterns: An Examination of Park Usage and Activity Participation Across

Six Population Subgroups. Managing Leisure, 10, 19-38.

Schelhas, J. (2002). Race, Ethnicity, and Natural Resources in the United States: A Review.

Natural Resources Journal, 42, 723-763.

Shaw, S. M. (1994). Gender, Leisure and Constraint: Toward a Framework for the Analysis of

Women’s Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 8-22.

Shaw, S. M., & Henderson, K. A. (2005). Gender Analysis and Leisure Constraints: An Uneasy

Alliance. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to Leisure (p. 23-34). State College, PA:

Venture Publishing, Inc.

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1995). Gender, Race,

and Subjective Social Class and Their Association with Leisure Preferences.

Leisure Sciences, 17, 75-89.

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1996). Class Polarization and

Leisure Activity Preferences of African Americans: Intragroup Comparisons.

Journal of Leisure Research, 28 (4), 219-232.

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F. & Parry, D. C. (2004). Understanding the Relationship between

Race and Leisure Activities and Constraints: Exploring an Alternative Framework.

Leisure Sciences, 26, 181-199.

Shinew, K. J., Stodolska, M., Floyd, M., Hibbler, D., Allison, M., & Johnson, C., Santos, C.

(2006). Race and Ethincity in Leisure Behavior: Where Have We Been and Where Do

We Need to Go? Leisure Sciences, 28(4), 403-408.

Smedley, A. & Smedley, B. (2012). Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a

Worldview, (4th ed.) Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stamps, S. M. & Stamps, M. B. (1985). Race, Class, and Leisure Activities of Urban

Residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 17, 75-89.

Stanis, S. A. W., Schneider, I. E., Chavez, D. J., & Shinew, K. J. (2009). Visitor Constraints to

Physical Activity in Park and Recreation Areas: Differences by Race and Ethnicity.

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 27(3), 78-95.

Taylor, P., Cohn, D., Funk, C., Livingston, G. M., Parker, K. & Wang, W. (2012). The Rise of

Asian-Americans. The Pew Research Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved June 19, 2012

from: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans.

Thapa, B., Graefe, A. R., & Absher, J. D. (2002). Information Needs and Search Behaviors: A

Comparative Study of Ethnic Groups in the Angeles and San Bernardino National

Forests, California. Leisure Sciences, 24(1), 89-107.

Tinsley, H. E., Tinsley, D. J., & Croskeys, C. E. (2002) Park Usage, Social Milieu, and

Psychosocial Benefits of Park Uses Reported by Older Urban Park Users from Four

Ethnic Groups. Leisure Sciences, 24, 199-218.

United States Census Bureau. (2007). Current Population Survey, 2006 Annual Social and

Economic Supplement. Retrieved October 14, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/Press-

Release/www/releases/archives/population/010048.html.

United States Census Bureau. (2012). Current Population Survey, 2010 Quick Facts. Retrieved

January18, 2012, from: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (2009). National Visitor Use

Monitoring Survey. Retrieved January 18, 2012, from:

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/Default.aspx.

United States Park Service (2012). America the Beautiful: The National Parks and

Federal Recreational Lands Pass Series. Retrieved September 22, 2012, from:

http://www.nps.gov/findapark/passes.htm.

United States Park Service. (1994). Questions of Resource Management: 1957 – 1963.

In L. M. Dilsaver (Ed.) America's National Park System: The Critical Documents.

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Retrieved March 1, 2013, from:

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/anps/anps_5d.htm.

Virden, R. J. & Walker, G. J. (1999). Ethnic/racial and Gender Variation Among Meanings

Given to, and Preferences for, the Natural Environment. Leisure Science, 21(3), 219-239.

Walker, G. J. & Virden, R. J. (2005). Constraints on Outdoor Recreation. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.),

Constraints to Leisure (p. 201-219). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Wallace, V. K. & Witter, D. J. (1992) Urban nature centers; What do our Constituents Want

and How Can we Give it to Them? Legacy 2(2), 20-24.

Washburne, R. (1978). Black Under-participation in Wildland Recreation: Alternative

Explanations. Leisure Sciences, 1, 175-189.

West, P. C. (1989). Urban Region Parks and Black Minorities: Subculture, Marginality, and

Interracial Relations in Park Use in Detroit Metropolitan Area. Leisure Sciences, 11,

11-28.

CHAPTER 2

RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLE OVERVIEW

The study entitled National Forest Use and Outdoor Recreation Constraints Across Four

Ethnic and Minority Populations in Georgia collected data from two target areas: on-site and off-site. On-site data were collected using intercept surveys at three sites within the

Chattahoochee National Forest which represented the recreational facilities and recreation areas available in the national forest. Off-site data were collected using intercept surveys at sites within

70 miles of the Chattahoochee National Forest border and included two flea markets in northern

Georgia as well as city, county, and state parks with facilities such as ball fields (i.e., baseball, soccer, and football), playgrounds, walking trails, and snack bars. This chapter provides a general overview of the research methods and overall sample obtained in this study. Following chapters contain a more detailed description of the data collection strategies employed to address specific research questions, including demographics related to particular research objectives. All study instruments and protocols were approved by the University of Georgia Institutional

Review Board Human Subjects Office prior to implementation.

Intercept Survey Protocol and Instrument

An intercept survey methodology was selected for data collection on-site for two reasons.

First, a similar survey was being conducted in Georgia State Parks and to facilitate data comparison the survey methods and questions were consistent with those used in a study conducted by Larson, Whiting, & Green (2012). Second, the on-site approach allowed the researcher to explain the purpose of the survey and to answer any questions; therefore,

30 potentially increasing response rates (Groves & McGonagle, 2001). The sampling method was designed as a systematic random selection targeting every third adult or the adult with the latest birthday within a group (Salant & Dillman, 1994) (See Appendices A and B for survey procedures and data coversheet).

Two versions (i.e., A & B) of a self-administered survey were developed for data collection (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Survey A was used for on-site data collection and Survey B for off-site data collection (See Appendices C and D). Questions for the surveys were adapted from existing constraints questions (Arnold & Shinew, 1998; Shinew, Floyd, &

Parry, 2004) and questions from the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE)

(Cordell, 2012). Both survey instruments, on and off-site, were identical except for the additional open-ended question added to the off-site survey as noted above. Section one asked for information on how often respondents visited wooded or forested areas as children and adults.

Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate how they were first introduced to these areas.

The second section examined respondents’ knowledge of national forests in Georgia and requested, via an open-ended question, how managers might increase potential visitors’

“awareness” of national forests in Georgia. The third section examined respondents’ use of facilities in forested areas, by asking them to rate their use of the 11 listed facilities (and one

“other” write-in option), using a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from “never visit” to

“very often.” The fourth section examined how often respondents’ used the Chattahoochee

National Forest per year with respondents’ being asked to indicate how long they like to stay on a visit and with whom they visited. Included in this section were four photographs of outdoor settings incorporating urban to wilderness areas; respondents were asked to rank their preference for the settings from one to four, with one being their “favorite” and four their “least favorite.”

Additionally, this section included an open-ended question asking in what ways Forest Service managers might increase their “visitation” to the Chattahoochee National Forest. In addition, as a result of the pilot study, an open-ended question asking respondents’ to list what other “outdoor places” they like to visit was added to the off-site survey.

The fifth section obtained information on what types of outdoor activities respondents’ participated in by asking them to select all the activities that applied to them from a list of 16 activities (a write-in option was also available) and then indicate the one activity they did “most often.” Additionally, respondents’ were asked to select all the places where they usually went to participate in the activities from a list of five places (a write-in option was also available). Again, the respondents’ were asked to indicate the one place they visited “most often.” The sixth section included 10 factors related to benefits of outdoor recreation participation, which were listed alphabetically and ranked by the respondents using a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from

“very unimportant” to “very important.” Section seven included 23 factors related to perceived constraints which were listed alphabetically and ranked by the respondents using a four-point semantic scale format, ranging from “not a reason” to “major reason” and included “not sure.”

The last section, obtained demographic information on the respondents including gender, age, race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, education level, income range, household size, number of children (under 16 years old) zip code, and time living at this zip code.

Data Collection

Pilot Study

32 methodology. The self-administered intercept surveys were conducted at various locations within the overall survey site and included areas such as beaches, picnic areas, trail heads, and campgrounds. For the pilot study, survey days and times were selected based on high volume visitor use days (e.g., Friday evenings and weekends) and peak recreational use hours (e.g., day use areas such as beaches and picnic areas around lunch and dinner, campgrounds in the evening). During the survey sessions, every third person 18 years or older was approached and asked if they would be willing to participate in a survey about outdoor recreation use. All potential respondents appearing visually to be 18 years old were and as part of the survey introduction they were told the age requirement. A total of 207 surveys were collected and after reviewing the pilot study data, no changes were made; however, one additional open-ended question was added to the off-site survey asking respondents what types of outdoor places they like to visit. The final self-administered on and off-site surveys consisted of seven pages each in a booklet format.

On-site Survey Site and Sampling Protocol

On-site, three recreation areas within the Chattahoochee National Forest were selected for data collection. Overall, these three sites represented the recreational facilities and recreation areas available in the national forest. Additionally, the intercept surveys were conducted at

“recreation hotspots” or areas where recreation demand is highest within each of the three locations (Cordell & Green, 2001). The three sites included a lake (Russell Lake) in close proximity to a small urban town, a popular waterfall (Anna Ruby Falls) with both unpaved and paved trail access, and a scenic location with the highest elevation in Georgia (Brasstown Bald)

(See Table 2.1; Appendices E and F).

Russell Lake is in close proximity to a small town and has both easy and moderate hiking trails, a developed beach area with showers and restrooms, camping areas for both tent and larger recreational vehicles, and fishing including small motorized boats. Anna Ruby Falls is a day use only site located within five miles of Helen, GA, and is a very popular destination for metro

Atlanta residents as well as other visitors. The site includes hiking trails, picnicking areas, an observation deck, a small gift shop, and restroom facilities. Brasstown Bald is the site of the highest point in Georgia and includes a scenic vista, picnicking areas, gift shop, visitors’ center with various historical exhibits, and a steep hiking trail from the parking lot to the top, or the option for a ride in a van for a fee. These hotspots were identified after several site visits and discussions with on-site managers, and were typically campgrounds and popular day use areas near major attractions such as lakes or beaches.

Initially, 21 random sampling dates were scheduled between June, 1, 2010 and October

31, 2010. The sampling dates included all the days of the week (e.g., week days and weekends) during the date range. After the sampling dates were selected, survey sites were then randomly assigned to a date for sampling. In addition, survey time frames of six hours were divided into three groupings: 1) morning survey starts (8am – 2pm), 2) midday start times (10am – 4pm), and

3) afternoon start times (2pm – 8pm), which were then randomly assigned to the survey days.

During these sampling times, every third visitor was approached and asked to complete the survey. However, as this study was particularly interested in obtaining information related to ethnic and minority usage, these groups were purposefully over sampled (i.e., approaching every ethnic or minority visitor). Due to inclement weather on certain days and low ethnic and minority respondent numbers an additional five random sampling dates from July 1 to September 5, 2011

34 at Anna Ruby Falls were added to obtain a more robust and diverse sample size (See Tables 2.2 and 2.3).

During these sampling times, every third visitor age 18 or older was approached and asked if they would be willing to complete the survey. All potential respondents appearing visually to be 18 years old were and as part of the survey introduction they were told the age requirement. In addition, as this study was particularly interested in obtaining information related to ethnic and minority usage, these groups were purposefully over sampled (i.e., approaching every ethnic or minority visitor). If consent was given, a survey was distributed and surveyors remained nearby to respond to questions or concerns. The survey was designed to be completed in 10 – 15 minutes and was offered in English and Spanish. The Spanish versions were developed and reviewed by a native Spanish speaker. Refusal rates and reasons were recorded and used to calculate response rates.

Off-site Survey Site and Sampling Protocol

The intercept survey mythology and protocols used for on-site data collection were retained for use with the off-site data collection. According to Vaske (2008) intercept surveys are not optimal when targeting the general public in large areas; however, the mythology was retained due to budget and time constraints (i.e., costs for a direct mailing). In addition, the off- site protocol was consistent with the on-site data collection to allow for data comparisons (See

Appendices A and B).

The self-administered intercept survey format used in the off-site data collection was identical to the on-site format and the survey instrument was consistent with the on-site survey instrument, with two exceptions (See Appendices C and D). The title and introduction statement of the off-site survey was changed to reflect the survey focus (i.e., Chattahoochee National

Forest or northern Georgia Communities), and as previously mentioned one question was added to the off-site survey to obtain information about the kinds of outdoor places visited. Off-site data collection targeted sites within 70 miles of the Chattahoochee National Forest border and was designed to survey subjects who were non-users of the national forest in northern Georgia

(See Table 2.4; Appendices E and F).

Twenty-one sampling dates between September 6, 2010 and September 5, 2011 were randomly selected for off-site data collection. A list of zip codes within 70 miles of the

Chattahoochee National Forest was created and 21 random zip codes were selected from within this list. Using the 21 randomly selected zip codes; a list of local parks and flea markets was created and data collection sites were then randomly selected from this list. The sites included two flea markets in northern Georgia as well as city and county parks with facilities such as ball fields (i.e., baseball, soccer, and football), playgrounds, walking trails, and snack bars. Local big box stores, libraries, and churches were also survey site options initially explored; however, these sites refused to allow surveying.

Data collection procedures at flea markets targeted both customers and vendors. Vendors age 18 or older were approached in their booth/table and asked if they would be willing to complete the survey and if consent was given; a survey was provided to the vendor. The vendors were concerned about the time needed to complete the survey; therefore, the surveys were left with the vendor and surveyors returned every 15 minutes until the survey was completed and to answer any questions. Customers of flea markets were surveyed at the eating areas of each facility, which allowed them time to complete the survey and a surface to write on. Again, every third person age 18 or older was asked if they would be will to complete the survey and if consent was given a survey was provided. Potential respondents seated at tables were counted by

36 the surveyor and every third person noted in the count was then asked to complete the survey.

Surveyors remained in the area to collect the completed surveys and to answer any questions or concerns. Data collection at the city and county parks also followed the protocol of approaching every third person over the age of 18 years of age. If consent was given then a survey was provided and surveyors remained in the area to address any questions or concerns. Survey areas, or recreational hotspots, within these parks included play grounds, picnic areas or shelters, ball fields, and parking lots (See Tables 2.5 and 2.6). If a person refused to participate, refusal rates and reasons were recorded and used to calculate response rates.

Intercept Survey Response Rates

On-site a total of 2,376 subjects were approached, of which 1,045 agreed to be interviewed with 1331 refusing to take the survey; a response rate of 46.0%. The most common reasons given for not completing the survey across all genders, age, and ethnic groups were lack of interest (44.3%) and lack of time (37.4%). In addition, consistent percentages of non-response rates were identified when looking at differences by gender, age, and ethnicity, with three minor exceptions. Older adults (+60) and Hispanic/Latinos cited a greater lack of interest (51.0% and

53.7%, respectively) in completing the survey and Whites (39.2%) were more incline to complete the survey (See Table 2.7).

Off-site, intercept survey response rates were higher with a total of 1,371 subjects approached, of which 1,005 agreed to be interviewed with 366 refusing to take the survey; a response rate of 73.3%. The disparity in on-site versus off-site response rate is attributed to the

Anna Ruby Falls site. At all of the other collection sites, both on and off-site, potential respondents were gathered largely in groups (i.e., at picnic tables or camp sites). However, at

Anna Ruby Falls potential respondents were approached as they came down a trail after visiting

37 the waterfall. Unfortunately, on this trail there was a lack of gathering places or space, due to limited sitting options, where people could complete the survey, which adversely affected the response rate. Therefore, while there were more potential respondents at Anna Ruby Falls, there was also a lack of gathering places and space to administer the survey which may have contributed to larger refusal rates at this site.

Off-site, as with on-site, the most common reasons given for not completing the survey across all genders, age, and ethnic groups were lack of interest (47.0%) and lack of time (25%); however, there were more differences within the groups. Respondents in the age group 60+ were more likely to display a lack of interest in completing the survey, while 31-59 year olds (39.2%) were more likely to complete the survey. Asians (71.4%) were more likely to state “not interested” as a reason for not completing the survey, while Blacks (33.3%) were least likely to express ”not interested” as a reason for not completing the survey. In addition, Blacks were the only group to cite “watching the game” rather than “no time” as their second most common reason for not completing the survey (See Table 2.8).

Overall Sample Demographics

Respondents for both the on and off-site surveys were asked to report their gender, age, education, income, and race/ethnicity (Table 2.9). The samples used in the separate analyses presented in the rest of this dissertation represent a subset of the overall population surveyed and presented in this chapter. Specific descriptions of these sub-samples are provided in each of the following chapters related to user and non-user preferences and constraints. The on-site results show respondents were more often female (56.7%) with half of the respondents being between

31-50 years of age (50.8%) and three quarters (75.2%) were under the age of 51. Nearly one-half of respondents (47.0%) had graduated college or technical school and over one quarter (27.3%)

38 had advance degrees. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents’ were in the income categories of

$50,000 to $99,999 and a quarter (25.7%) were in the $100,000 or more income category. Over half (61.3%) of the respondents’ reported they were White and 13.8% reported they were Asian.

Both the White and Asian numbers are higher than the population of northern Georgia.

Hispanic/Latinos comprised 10.3% of the respondents which is slightly lower than the population of northern Georgia and 10.0% of the respondents’ reported they were Black compared to 28.9% in northern Georgia.

Off-site results also revealed more female respondents (61.8%) and over half the respondents (62.1%) were between 31-50 years of age and 84.9% under the age of 51. The majority of respondents (42.5%) had graduated college or technical school, and over one quarter

(30.1%) had high school/GED educations. Approximately 45 percent of respondents were in the income categories of $20,000 to $74,999 and 39.4% earned more than $75,000. Just over forty percent of the respondents’ reported they were White (41.4%); slightly lower than the population of northern Georgia. Off-site, Asians (5.3%) and Hispanic/Latinos (21.8%) percentages were in line with the population of northern Georgia. However, Black respondents (27.6%) were nearly double that of the northern Georgia population at 11.9%.

Limitations and Delimitations

This study presents information regarding the outdoor recreation preferences, patterns, and constraints of diverse users and non-users of northern Georgia; however, several limitations affect the ability to infer the results to other populations. The following chapters contain a more detailed description of specific limitations of the methodology and analyses related to the specific subject matter contained within those chapters.

Spatial and Temporal Limitations and Delimitations

This study is geographically limited to respondents in northern Georgia within 70 miles of Chattahoochee National Forest and participants in this study do not represent a random sample of Georgia residents or national forest users. Additionally, this study was restricted to self- reported data for subjects 18 years or over and limited to three on-site recreation areas in

Chattahoochee National Forest. These sites were selected because they provided the majority of recreational activities available within the national forest; however, not all available recreation sites within the national forest were sampled. Furthermore, types of activities participated in were limited to a dichotomous outcome (i.e., did or did not participate). Additionally, while respondents’ were asked to select the activity in which they most participated and where they conducted the activity most often; they were not asked frequency or duration of their participation in these activities.

The delimitation of the study sample to the peak summer and fall seasons also limits generalization because outdoor recreation visitation and recreation preferences may differ during other times of the year. Off-site data collection sites were also delimited to city/county/state parks and flea markets. Flea markets presented a diverse population; however, the population is not representative of the general population of northern Georgia. The delimitation of the study sample to the fall and spring football and baseball seasons also limits generalization because outdoor recreation preferences may differ at other times of the year. Lastly, the reclassification of ethnic groups for analysis, presents a limitation. Respondents were asked to self-identify how they would describe their race/ethnicity: African American (Black), White/Caucasian (White),

Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, or Other. In addition space was provided for respondents to indicate their ethnic origin; however, low response rates for this item prevented

40 further analyses. Furthermore, to prevent too many categories of ethnic groups and therefore reducing meaningful analysis; it was decided to treat all Spanish-speaking as “Hispanic/Latino;” and all Asian ethnic groups including Chinese American, Japanese American, Korean American, and India American were categorized as Asian Americans (Asian). Additionally, the U. S. government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two distinct concepts (United States

Census, 2012). Specifically, a person of Hispanic/Latino origin may be of any race. However, in this study, these were not separate categories. Respondents who answered American Indian,

Other, selected more than one answer, or wrote in another answer were removed due to small sample sizes.

Methodological Limitations

The sampling method utilized in the collection of these data contains limitations. For example, every effort was made to survey visitors in a variety of recreation areas (e.g., beaches, picnic areas, playgrounds, and ball fields); however, the desire to survey ethnic and minority groups limited sampling at more remote sites (e.g., trailheads). The use of a self-administered

(and self-reporting) intercept survey instrument may have introduced method bias. For example, research indicates respondents do not always give honest or careful answers related to monetary compensation such as household income (Smith & Hofma-Brown, 2006). According to

Warnecke et al., (1997), when social or cultural differences (i.e., gender or ethnicity) are present between a surveyor and respondent; the respondent is more like to “over report socially desirable behavior” (p. 336). For example, respondents may exaggerate the number of times they go hiking (i.e., exercise) or often they spend time with their family. To address some of these concerns, research assistants who spoke additional languages were employed and assurances of responses being anonymous and confidential were conveyed to all potential respondents. Lastly,

Likert-type scales present limitations when attempting to collect data related to perceived constraints. For instance, as a result of several informal conversations with respondents during the survey process, it was mentioned that some categorical constraints statements did not fully capture some of the nuances behind people’s lack of participation or visitation. Hence, future research should address the opportunity for in depth responses to some survey questions. This can be done by conducting a “formal qualitative” data collection session via personal interviews.

Analytical Delimitations

On-site, the use of only three recreational areas within the Chattahoochee National Forest for data collection presents delimitations related to the characteristics of respondents. For example, more remote sites may result in a more solitary recreationalist (i.e., mountain biker or motorized vehicle user). Offsite, an attempt to survey at both outdoor recreation sites and locations not related to outdoor recreation were planned (e.g., big box stores and libraries); however, management at non recreation locations refused to allow surveying. This resulted in a delimitation related to the characteristics of the respondents (i.e., data collection from people who were participating in outdoor recreation may have different recreation characteristic than would those who were not participating in outdoor recreation). Future studies incorporating a mailed survey or qualitative data collection (interviews) methodology may allow for the capturing of diverse non-users. Lastly, to capture patterns across ethnic and minority groups, data reported for parts of the following chapters of this dissertation was pooled (on-site and off-site respondents) for analytical purposes. This approach was used to help examine and identify potential differences between certain ethnic and minority groups.

Conceptual Limitations

This study examined ethnic and minority preferences, patterns, and constraints; however, the cultural and ethnic variables (i.e., respondents self-identified race/ethnicity) used for this study have been somewhat criticized in previous research. Specifically, Li, et al., (2007) suggested “cultural variability within ethnic groups may be as great or greater, than the variability between ethnic groups” (p. 515). For example, Li et al. found the “Anglo, Hispanic, and Asian subgroups and the subgroups split by nationality were not homogeneous when measuring for cultural values” (p. 527). This study’s survey did seek to discover this information, by asking respondents to provide their ethnic origin; however, the limited number of respondents providing this information prevented within ethnic group analysis. However, this study does contribute to the existing body of knowledge regarding ethnic and minority outdoor recreation preferences and patterns for forest-based recreation in the southeastern United States. A larger and more ethnically diverse group of respondents (i.e., both on and off-site) would allow for additional analysis of differences between and within ethnic subgroups.

References

Arnold, M. L., & Shinew, K. J. (1998). The Role of Gender, Race, and Income on Park Use

Constraints. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16, 39-56.

Cordell, K. H. (2012). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document

Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. (Report No. SRS-150). Asheville,

NC. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station,

Athens, GA.

Cordell, H. K., & Green, G. T. (2001). Sustaining Outdoor Recreation and Forest in the United

States. Regional Forum North America, World Forest Markets and Policies (pp. 395-

406). Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode

Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Groves, R. M., & McGonagle, K. A. (2001). A Theory-guided Interviewer Training Protocol

Regarding Survey Participation. Journal of Official Statistics, 17(2), 249-265.

Larson, L. R., Whiting, J. W., & Green, G. T. (2012). Diversity in State Parks: A

Cross-cultural Examination of Outdoor Recreation and Park use in Georgia. Report

prepared for Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Parks, Recreation, & Historic

Sites Division. Atlanta, GA: GADNR. Retrieved June 11, 2012 from:

http://gtgreen.myweb.uga.edu/GADNRDiversityReport_2012.pdf.

Li, C. L., Chick, G. E., Zinn, H. C., Absher, J. D., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Ethnicity as a

Variable in Leisure Research. Journal of Leisure Research, 39(3), 514-545.

Salant, P. & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York: Wiley Press.

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F. & Parry, D. C. (2004). Understanding the Relationship between

Race and Leisure Activities and Constraints: Exploring an Alternative Framework.

Leisure Sciences, 26, 181-199.

Smith, R., & Hofma-Brown, H. (2006) Comparing Metrics and Assessing Claims. Proceedings

from the ESOMAR World Research Conference, Panel Research 2006: 317 (pp. 9-21).

Amsterdam: ESOMAR.

United States Census Bureau. (2012). State & County QuickFacts: Georgia. Retrieved from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Application in parks, recreation, and human

dimensions. State College, CA: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Warnecke, R. B., Johnson, T. P., Chavez, N., Sudman, S., O'Rourke, D. P., Lacey, L., &

Horm, J. (1997). Improving Question Wording in Surveys of Culturally Diverse

Populations. Annals of Epidemiology, 7(5), 334-342.

Table 2.1

Description of On-site Data Collection Sites.

Survey Site Location Facilities

Anna Ruby Falls Helen, GA Twin water falls 3453 Anna Ruby Falls Road White County Observation Decks (3) Helen, GA 30545 Interpretive Site 5.1 miles of hiking trails 14 picnic sites Gift shop – open year round

Brasstown Bald Blairsville, GA Highest mountain in Georgia 180 Spur Towns County 4,784 feet above sea Blairsville, GA 30512 Gift shop – closed in winter 360 degree observation deck Visitor Center with interpretive exhibits Interpretive video 16.4 miles of hiking trails Picnic sites

Russell Lake Cornelia, GA Open May through October Cornelia, GA 30531 Habersham County 100-acre lake Boat ramp Swimming beach Bath house 15.0 miles of hiking/biking trails 40 campsites Group picnic shelter 27 picnic sites

Table 2.2

On-site Totals for Data Collected.

Site Sampling Days Surveys Collected

Anna Ruby Falls 18 943

Brasstown Bald 2 67

Russell Lake 1 35

TOTAL 21 1,045

Table 2.3

On-site Respondent Demographic Data.

Demographic Variable Count Response Percentage (%)

Gender Female 592 56.7 Male 452 43.3

Age 18-30 year olds 253 24.5 31-59 year olds 669 64.6 60+ years old 113 10.9

Race/Ethnicity Asian 144 13.8 Black/African American 104 10.0 Hispanic/Latino 108 10.3 White/Caucasian 641 61.3 Other 48 4.6 Totals may not add up to overall response numbers due to missing values.

Table 2.4

Description of Off-site Data Collection Sites.

Site Information Georgia County Site Description Allen Creek Park 2500 Allen Creek Rd Hall County Park – Soccer Complex Gainesville, GA 30507 Bethesda Park 225 Bethesda Church Rd Gwinnett County Park – Multi-use Lawrenceville, GA 30044 Brook Run Park 4770 Peachtree Rd DeKalb City Park – Multi-use Dunwoody, GA 30338 Buford Highway Farmers Market 5600 Buford Hwy DeKalb Farmers Market Doraville, GA 30340 Collins Hill Park 2000 Collins Hill Rd Gwinnett County Park – Multi-use Lawrenceville, GA 30043 Dunwoody Park 5343 Roberts Dr DeKalb City Park – Multi-use Dunwoody, GA 30338 Fort Yargo State Park 210 S Broad St Barrow State Park Winder, GA 30680 J & J Flea Market 11661 Commerce Rd Clarke Flea Market Athens, GA 30607 George Pierce Park 55 Buford Hwy Gwinnett County Park – Multi-use Suwanee, GA 30024 Grant Park 840 Cherokee Ave SE Fulton City Park – Multi-use Atlanta, GA 30315 Pendergrass Flea Market 5641 US Hwy 129 N Jackson Flea Market Pendergrass, GA 30567 Wade/Walker Park 5585 Rockbridge Road DeKalb County Park – Multi-use Stone Mountain, GA 30088

Table 2.5

Off-site Totals for Data Collected.

Site Information Sampling Days Surveys Collected Allen Creek Park 1 59 Bethesda Park 1 55 Brook Run Park 1 17 Buford Highway Farmers Market 1 16 Collins Hill Park 1 19 Dunwoody Park 1 34 Fort Yargo State Park 3 141 J & J Flea Market 4 180 George Pierce Park 2 181 Grant Park 1 32 Pendergrass Flea Market 1 51 Wade/Walker Park 4 220 TOTAL 21 1,005

Table 2.6

Off-site Respondent Demographic Data.

Demographic Variable Count Response Percentage (%)

Gender Female 621 61.8 Male 384 38.2

Age 18-30 year olds 229 23.0 31-59 year olds 709 71.2 60+ years old 58 5.8

Race/Ethnicity Asian 53 5.3 Black/African American 277 27.6 Hispanic/Latino 219 21.7 White/Caucasian 416 41.4 Other 40 4.0 Totals may not add up to overall response numbers due to missing values.

Table 2.7

On-site Non-Response Rate Data and Reasons for Not Responding (by Demographic Group).

Response Demographic Percentage Variable (%) Top Reasons for Not Responding

Gender Female 56.0 Not interested (43.6%); No time (39.1%) Male 44.0 Not interested (45.0%); No time (35.2%)

Age 18-30 year olds 31.7 Not interested (43.3%); No time (37.2%) 31-59 year olds 49.7 Not interested (43.1%); No time (39.2%) 60+ years old 18.6 Not interested (51.0%); No time (35.5%)

Race/Ethnicity Asian 23.8 Not interested (47.5%); No time (35.6%) Black/African American 5.9 Not interested (43.6%); No time (37.2%) Hispanic/Latino 18.6 Not interested (53.7%); No time (38.9%) White/Caucasian 51.7 Not interested (39.2%); No time (36.7%)

Table 2.8

Off-site Non-Response Rate Data and Reasons for Not Responding (by Demographic Group).

Response Demographic Percentage Variable (%) Top Reasons for Not Responding

Gender Female 54.6 Not interested (26.2%); No time (12.0%) Male 45.4 Not interested (26.0%); No time (8.2%)

Age 18-30 year olds 23.7 Not interested (47.7%); No time (14.8%) 31-59 year olds 54.8 Not interested (39.2%); No time (29.4%) 60+ years old 21.5 Not interested (62.5%); No time (25.0%)

Race/Ethnicity Asian 13.4 Not interested (71.4%); No time (10.2%) Black/African American 21.4 Not interested (33.3%); Watching game (26.9%) Hispanic/Latino 23.3 Not interested (48.2%); No time (30.6%) White/Caucasian 41.9 Not interested (45.1%); No time (29.4%)

Table 2.9

Demographic Distribution of Intercept Survey Respondents (% of Total, by Survey Location) for

On-site and Off-site Respondents.

On-site Offsite Northern Variable (n=1,045) (n=1,005) Georgia (%) (%) (%) ª Gender Female 56.7 61.8 51.1 Male 43.3 38.2 48.9 *Age 18-24 years old 8.8 10.7 13.5** 25-34 years old 24.6 22.9 12.9 35-44 years old 29.1 37.5 13.7 45-54 years old 20.1 18.3 13.2 55-59 years old 5.9 3.9 5.4 60-64 years old 6.2 2.7 4.6 Over 65 years old 4.5 3.0 9.0 Missing 0.8 0.9 Race/Ethnicity Asian 13.8 5.3 5.5 Black or African American 10.0 27.6 28.9 Hispanic/Latino 10.3 21.8 11.9 White or Caucasian 61.3 41.4 52.9 Other 4.6 3.9 0.8 *Education Some high school 4.0 8.1 16.0*** High school or GED 20.3 30.7 49.9 College/technical school 46.9 42.0 24.3 Advanced degree 27.4 19.1 9.8 Missing 1.4 5.8 *Income $34,999 or less 13.8 23.5 36.0 $35,000 to $49,999 13.1 12.3 14.2 $50,000 to $74,999 20.8 15.6 18.2 $75,000 to $99,999 17.2 11.6 11.8 $100,000 or more 25.7 21.5 19.5 Missing 9.4 15.5 ª Northern Georgians population estimates based on 2010 Census Data (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). * County data unavailable for comparisons – percentages for the state of Georgia as a whole. ** 2010 Census data for 20-24 year olds; percentage not equal to 100 due to 0-19 year olds (26.9%). *** 2010 Census data for education attainment for ages 25 and over.

CHAPTER 3

OUTDOOR RECREATION AND NONTRADITIONAL USERS: AN EXAMINATION OF

NATIONAL FOREST PREFERENCES AND ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION ACROSS FOUR

POPULATION SUBGROUPS IN NORTHERN GEORGIA1

1Parker, S. E. & Green, G. T. (2013). To be submitted to Journal of Forestry.

Abstract

Changing United States population demographics show ethnic and minority population subgroups increasing in number, yet, the majority of visitors to the national forests in the southeast are White Americans. This study examined differences among four population subgroups (African American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and White) in northern

Georgia regarding socio-demographics, outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and activity choices for users (on-site) of the Chattahoochee National Forest in northern Georgia to that of non-users (off-site). Using a self-administered survey of adults (18 years or older), a sample of

1,045 respondents on-site at three national forest recreational sites and 1,005 respondents off-site at various recreational sites in metro Atlanta within 70 miles of the national forest border were obtained. Both T-tests and ANOVA analysis were applied to the data to examine outdoor recreation preferences with respect to age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Results of this study highlighted several similarities and differences in the outdoor recreation patterns and preferences among the four population subgroups.

Introduction

Changing United States population demographics show ethnic and minority population subgroups increasing in number (Frey 2001; Jaret & Baird, 2013; United States Census, 2012); however, the majority of visitors to national forests are white Americans (Chavez, 2001; Dwyer,

1993). Additionally, research shows visits to national forest by ethnic and minority subgroups such as African Americans are very low even in areas such as the Southeastern United States where African Americans are highly concentrated (Cordell, 2012). For example, Atlanta, a large metropolitan city in northern Georgia, has a population which is comprised of over 50% African

Americans (United States Census, 2012), yet according to the USDA Forest Service 2009

National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (NVUM) visits to the Chattahoochee-Oconee National

Forest by African Americans was only 1.6% of the total visits. In addition, women comprise 51.1% of the overall population in Georgia and according to the 2009 NVUM were only 32.1% percent of the visitors to the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest (United States Census, 2010).

2001; Thapa, Graefe, &Absher, 2002; United States Census, 2012).

Nation-wide surveys such as the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment

(NSRE) (Cordell, 2012) and the 2009 NVUM have reported the outdoor activity preferences and participation rates for women and ethnic and minority groups. However, despite the important contributions these studies provide, more regionally specific research is needed to examine the outdoor recreation patterns of women and ethnic and minority groups due to varying outdoor recreation patterns by geographical region (Cordell, 2012). Additionally, few studies have explored women’s and ethnic and minority groups’ outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and activity choices when comparing users and non-users of national forests in northern Georgia.

These demographic changes combined with federal budget cuts resulting in limited available resources make it important for public land managers to understand the preferences of their visitors so they may target their efforts to meet recreation demands (Schelhas, 2002; Winter,

Woo, & Godbey, 2004). Furthermore, a better understanding of the ethnic and minority population subgroups use and preferences for forest-based recreation and how these groups compare to traditional users will provide a basis for more effective management of public lands.

Hence, this study seeks to explore women’s and ethnic and minority groups’ outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and activity choices of users and non-users in close proximity to the

Chattahoochee National Forest.

Theoretical Background

Terminology

The terms “race,” “culture,” and “ethnicity” are frequently used in differently in social science research; therefore, it is necessary to define how the terms apply in this study (Schelhas,

2002). According to Smedley and Smedley (2012), “the scientific record has shown enormous ambiguity on the matter of race, much confusion, and little common agreement among the experts on its meaning” (p.13). Johnson (2000) defines cultural as including “attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms” and “it is important to note that culture does not refer to what people actually do, but to the ideas they share about what they do” (p.73). Furthermore, according to Sasidharan,

Willits, and Godbey (2005) these characteristics are “embedded in the social structure of the respective racial or ethnic groups, thereby contributing to their ethnic identity” (p. 20). Smedley and Smedley also asserted “a modern way of expressing the common interests of people who are perceived by others and themselves as having the same culture is speak of them as an ethnic group” (p. 41) and according to Kew (1979) ethnicity applies to both majority and minority groups. Therefore, for this study “ethnic and minority” groups will refer to the four subpopulations that emerged during the survey process although they may actually be a numerical majority within the geographical areas of the study (Johnson, 2000).

Outdoor Recreation Demand

According to Cordell, Betz, Butler, & Bergstrom (2008) between 2003 and 2007 there was an overall increase of participation in outdoor recreation activities and some activities such

57 as hiking, visiting nature centers and viewing/photographing scenery comprised nearly 75 percent of the “forest-based activity days that occurred on public lands” (p. 3). In addition,

Cordell et al. stated during this same time frame, “forest-based recreation sites and capacities remained about constant or increased slightly” (p. 4). Furthermore, research shows participating in outdoor recreation on forests “tends to build support among participants for protecting and managing those forests” (Cordell, et al., p. 3). These studies indicate public lands play a significant role in providing opportunities for outdoor recreation. Additionally, population demographic changes will likely force outdoor recreation managers to develop new ways to address challenges such as changing demand in recreation use, increased impacts on and demand for natural resources, and the need to develop alternative communication methods (Struglia &

Winter, 2002).

Participation and Use Patterns

Studies have examined outdoor recreation participation and patterns of women and ethnic and minority population subgroups (Aitchison, 2001; Arnold, & Shinew, 1998; Cronan, Shinew,

& Stodolska, 2008; Jeong, & Godbey, 2000; Shaw & Henderson, 2005; Stanis, Schneider,

Chavez, & Shinew, 2009; Gobster, 2002; Stamps & Stamps, 1985; Tinsley, Tinsley, & Croskeys,

2002; Virden, & Walker, 1999; Winter, Jeong, & Godbey, 2004). However, few studies have examined these groups in the southeastern United States (Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell, 2001;

Johnson, Bowker, Cordell, Betz & Green, 2007; Larson, Whiting, & Green, 2012) and little research has examined outdoor recreation participation and patterns of women and ethnic and minority population subgroups at the site level (i.e., Chattahoochee National Forest), especially when comparing on-site and off-site respondents. In addition, as the population demographics in the United States changes, it is likely these changes will result in “recreational site designs that

58 will differ from the standard ways that public sites have been developed in the past” (Schelhas,

2002, p. 753). For example, to accommodate large Hispanic/Latino families picnic sites will need to be larger (Larson, et al., 2012). In addition, although many of the outdoor and forest- based recreation research studies have focused on the under-representation of women and ethnic and minority groups (Floyd, 1999; Gobster, 2002; Schelhas, 2002); a knowledge gap of the outdoor recreation preferences and patterns remains users and non-users of specific national forests (i.e., Chattahoochee National Forest) northern Georgia.

Marginality and Ethnicity Theory

Two major theories have been presented to help explain the under-representation of women and ethnic and minority groups in outdoor recreation: marginality and ethnicity (Carr &

Williams, 1993; Johnson, Bowker, English, & Worthen, 1997; Washburne, 1978). The marginality theory posits under-participation results from socioeconomic factors such lack of funds or lack of access to recreation sites. For example, West (1989) found Blacks in Detroit visited city parks more often did Whites; however, Blacks noted their lack of transportation as a reason for not visiting parks outside their neighborhood. In addition, studies women and outdoor recreation participation has been linked to marginality theory (Aitchison, 2001; Shaw 1994).

Shaw (1994) found women face issues linked to structured societal gender roles such as caring for children which are consistent with marginality theory.

The ethnicity theory posits different values and expectations of participants are what drive variations in recreation participation (Washburne, 1978). Essentially, “ethnic and racial minorities often have preferences and make choices for different forms of recreation than majority groups” (Schelhas, 2002, p 751). For example, studies show African Americans and

Hispanic/Latinos prefer more developed natural environments than do Whites (Baas, Ewert, &

Chavez,1993; Cronan et al., 2008; Shinew, Floyd, & Parry, 2004).

Class Polarization, Multiple Hierarchy Stratification, and Class Polarization Theory

Outdoor recreation researchers have proposed several additional theories to help explain the under-representation of women and ethnic and minority groups in outdoor recreation. These theories include class identification theory (Floyd, Shinew, McGuire, & Noe, 1994); multiple hierarchy stratification theory (Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, & Noe, 1995); and class polarization theory (Shinew, et al., 1995; Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, & Noe, 1996). The theory of class identification posits Blacks and Whites who see themselves as being in comparable social positions would also have similar leisure preferences (Floyd, et al, 1994). The multiple hierarchy stratification theory posits race, class, gender, and age are potential characteristics that can limit social access (Shinew et al., 1995). For example, leisure preferences will be different for African

American females than African American males. The theory of class polarization posits differences exist within the African American subpopulation and are more divergent between lower-class and higher-class black males than they are for lower-class and higher-class females

(Shinew et al., 1995; Shinew et al., 1996).

Federal budget cuts and the resulting limited available resources make it important for public land managers to understand the preferences of their visitors so they may target their efforts to meet recreation demands. Therefore, this study sought to enhance the body of knowledge of forest-based recreation patterns and preferences of women and ethnic and minority groups. Specifically, the study targeted the gap in knowledge of outdoor recreation patterns and preferences of residents for northern Georgia who reside in close proximity to the Chattahoochee

National Forest. Additionally, the study sought to examine the differences of these residents related to socio-demographic characteristics, including age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Problem Statement

Research indicates ethnic and minority groups as well as women are substantially under- represented in terms of their visitation and outdoor recreational of national forests such as the

Chattahoochee National Forest. Furthermore, federal budget cuts and the resulting limited available resources make it important for public land managers to understand the preferences and patterns of their visitors so they may target their efforts to meet recreation demands. However, limited research has explored the relationship between visitation and use of northern Georgia national forests by ethnic and minority groups and women, especially when comparing outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and activity choices of users to non-users.

Research Objectives

This study examines the outdoor recreation patterns, preferences, and activity choices of users (on-site) of the Chattahoochee National Forest to non-users (off-site) across demographic groups: age, gender, and race/ethnicity. Three research objectives were used to direct this study:

Research Objective One

Examine user preferences and patterns for visitation and recreational use of the

Chattahoochee National Forest with respect to their age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Research Objective Two

Examine non-users preferences and patterns for visitation and recreational use of the

Chattahoochee National Forest with respect to their age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Research Objective Three

Compare users and non-users preferences and patterns for visitation and recreational use of the Chattahoochee National Forest with respect to their age, gender, and race/ethnicity.

Methodology

Survey Design

Two versions (i.e., A & B) of a self-administered intercept survey were developed for data collection (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Survey A was used for on-site data collection and Survey B for off-site data collection (See Appendices C and D). Questions for the surveys were adapted from existing constraints questions (Arnold & Shinew, 1998; Shinew,

Floyd, & Parry, 2004) and questions from the National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment (NSRE) (Cordell, 2012). Survey questions were also consistent with those used by

Larson, Whiting, & Green (2012) in a study of Georgia state park visitors. The surveys were designed to be completed in 10 – 15 minutes and were offered in English and Spanish. The

Spanish versions were developed and reviewed by a native Spanish speaker.

The first section of the surveys, focused on how often respondents visited wooded or forested areas as children and adults. Additionally, respondents were asked to indicate how they were first introduced to these areas. The second section examined respondents’ knowledge of national forests in Georgia and requested, via an open-ended question, how managers might increase potential visitors’ “awareness” of the national forest. The third section examined respondents’ use of facilities in forested areas, by asking them to rate their use of the 11 listed facilities (and one “other” write-in option), using a five-point Likert scale format, ranging from

“never visit” to “very often.” The fourth section examined how often respondents’ used the national forests in Georgia per year with respondents’ being asked to indicate how long they like to stay on a visit and with whom they visited. Included in this section were four photographs of outdoor settings incorporating urban to wilderness areas; respondents were asked to rank their preference for the settings from one to four, with one being their “favorite” and four their “least

62 favorite.” Additionally, this section included an open-ended question asking in what ways managers might increase their “visitation” to the national forest. The off-site survey also included an open-ended question asking respondents’ to list what other “outdoor places” they like to visit.

The fifth section obtained information on what types of outdoor activities respondents’ participated in by asking them to select all the activities that applied to them from a list of 16 activities (a write-in option was also available) and then indicate the one activity they did “most often.” Additionally, respondents’ were asked to select all the places where they usually went to participate in the activities from a list of five places (a write-in option was also available). Again, the respondents’ were asked to indicate the one place they visited “most often.” The sixth section included ten factors related to benefits of outdoor recreation participation, which were listed alphabetically and ranked by the respondents using a five-point semantic scale format, ranging from “very unimportant” to “very important.” Section seven included 23 factors related to perceived constraints which were listed alphabetically and ranked by the respondents using a four-point semantic scale format, ranging from “not a reason” to “major reason” and included

“not sure.” The last section, obtained demographic information on the respondents including gender, age, race/ethnicity, language spoken at home, education level, income range, household size, number of children (under 16 years old) zip code, and time living at this zip code.

On-site Survey Site Selection

63 with the highest elevation in Georgia. Russell Lake is in close proximity to a small town and has both easy and moderate hiking trails, a developed beach area with showers and restrooms, camping areas for both tent and larger recreational vehicles, and fishing including small motorized boats. Anna Ruby Falls is a day use only site located within five miles of Helen, GA, a very popular destination for metro Atlanta residents. The site includes hiking trails, picnicking areas, an observation deck, a small gift shop, and restroom facilities. Brasstown Ball is the site of the highest point in Georgia and includes a scenic vista, picnicking areas, gift shop, visitors’ center with various historical exhibits, and a steep hiking trail from the parking lot to the top, or the option for a ride in a van for a fee.

Pilot Test

A pilot study using the on-site intercept survey was conducted at each of the three national forest sites during the spring of 2010. The purpose of the pilot study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the survey instrument and to evaluate the proposed research sampling methodology. The self-administered intercept surveys were conducted at various locations within the overall survey site and included areas such as beaches, picnic areas, trail heads, and campgrounds. For the pilot study, survey days and times were selected based on high volume visitor use days (e.g., Friday evenings and weekends) and peak recreational use hours (e.g., day use areas such as beaches and picnic areas around lunch and dinner, campgrounds in the evening). During the survey sessions, every third person 18 years or older was approached and asked if they would be willing to participate in a survey about outdoor recreation use. A total of

207 surveys were collected and after reviewing the pilot study data, no changes were made; however, one additional open-ended question was added to the off-site survey asking

64 respondents what types of outdoor places they like to visit. The final self-administered on and off-site surveys consisted of seven pages each in a booklet format.

On-site Survey Sample

Initially, 21 random sampling dates were scheduled between June, 1, 2010 and October

31, 2010. The sampling dates included all the days of the week (e.g., week days and weekends) during the date range. After the sampling dates were selected, survey sites were then randomly assigned to a date for sampling. In addition, survey time frames of six hours were divided into three groupings: 11) morning survey starts (8am – 2pm), 2) midday start times (10am – 4pm), and 3) afternoon start times (2pm – 8pm), which were then randomly assigned to the survey days.

Off-site Survey Sample

Twenty-one sampling dates between September 6, 2010 and September 5, 2011 were randomly selected for off-site data collection. The sampling dates included all the days of the week (e.g., week days and weekends). A list of zip codes within 70 miles of the Chattahoochee

National Forest was created and 21 random zip codes were selected from within this list. Using the 21 randomly selected zip codes; a list of local parks and flea markets was created and the data collection sites were then randomly selected from this list and randomly assigned to the previously selected survey dates. In addition, survey time frames of six hours were divided into

65 three groupings: 1) morning starts (8am – 2pm), 2) midday starts (10am – 4pm), and 3) afternoon starts (2pm – 8pm), which were then randomly assigned to the selected survey sites. The sites included two northern Georgia flea markets, city and county parks, and one state park with facilities such as ball fields (i.e., baseball, soccer, and football), playgrounds, walking trails, and snack bars. Local big box stores, libraries, and churches were also survey site options initially explored; however, these sites refused to allow surveying.

Survey Response Rates

For both the on-site and off-site study areas the sampling plan was designed to target every third adult or the adult with the latest birthday within a group (Salant & Dillman, 1994).

On-site a total of 2,376 subjects were approached, of which 1,045 agreed to be interviewed with

1331 refusing to take the survey; a response rate of 46.0%. Off-site, a total of 1,371 subjects were approached, of which 1,005 agreed to be interviewed with 366 refusing to take the survey; a response rate of 73.3%. The disparity in on-site response rate is attributed to the Anna Ruby

Falls site. At all of the other collection sites, both on and off-site, potential respondents were gathered largely in groups (i.e., at picnic tables or camp sites). However, while there were more potential respondents at Anna Ruby Falls there was also a lack of gathering places and space to administer the survey which may have contributed to larger refusal rates at this site.

African Americans and Hispanic/Latinos were the two major ethnic groups originally selected for this study; however, Asian Americans proved to be another noteworthy group present. To prevent too many categories of ethnic groups and therefore reducing meaningful analysis; it was decided to treat all Spanish-speaking as “Hispanic/Latino.” Additionally, all

Asian ethnic groups including Chinese American, Japanese American, Korean American, and

India American were categorized as Asian Americans (Asian). Subjects were asked to self-

66 identify how they would describe their race/ethnicity: African American (Black),

White/Caucasian (White), Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, or Other. Hispanic/Latinos and Asians were also asked to indicate their ethnic origin; however, due to low response rates for this question these data were not used in further analyses. Additionally, the U. S. government considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two distinct concepts (United States Census,

2012). Specifically, a person of Hispanic/Latino origin may be of any race. However, in this study, these were not separate categories. Respondents who answered American Indian, Other, selected more than one answer, or wrote in another answer were removed due to small sample sizes. This action resulted in a total of 48 on-site cases and 40 off-site cases being removed from further analyses.

Measuring the Independent Variables

For this study the demographic information solicited from the respondents included gender, race/ethnicity, age, income, and education. Respondents were asked to specify how they would describe their gender (male and female) and their race/ethnicity (Asian, African American,

Hispanic/Latino, or White/Caucasian). In addition, space was provided for respondents to specify ethnic origin if they desired. Respondents were asked to provide their specific age; however, for analysis these data were collapsed into four categories: 1) 18-30 years old; 2) 31-40 years old; 3)

41-50 years old; and 4) 51 years or older. Education was categorized into the following: 1) some high school; 2) graduated high school/GED; 3) graduated college or technical school; and 4) post graduate degree. Household income was assessed using six categories: 1) $19,000 or less; 2)

$20,000 to 34,999; 3) $35,000 to 49,999; 4) $50,000 to 74,999; 5) $75,000 to 99,999; and 6)

$100,000 or more.

Measuring the Dependent Variables

The use of national forests in Georgia was assessed in terms of the frequency of visits; how long a visit would last, and with whom they would visit. For the frequency of visits respondents were asked to select from a list of five options: 1) never; 2) 1-2 times a year; 3) 3-5 times a year; 4) 6-10 times a year; and 5) 11 or more times a year. Length of visit selection options included: 1) half a day; 2) the day; 3) overnight; and 4) several days and nights.

Preference for with whom they visited included: 1) alone; 2) friends/family; 3) organized group; and 4) other. Respondents were asked to indicate how often they used facilities while visiting forested areas from a list and to rank how often those facilities were used on a scale from ‘never’

(1) to ‘very often’ (5). Lastly, respondents were asked to provide information on what types of outdoor activities they participated in, indicate the one activity they did ‘most often,’ select the places where they usually went to participate in these activities, and indicate the one place they visited ‘most often.’

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 20.0. Descriptive statistics such as means, standard deviations, and frequencies are reported with 95% confidence intervals. Data were checked for normality, linearity, univariate outliers, and homogeneity of covariance matrices, with serious violations only noted for homogeneity of variance. Activity participation was compared for demographic categories using Pearson’s Chi-Square tests. Separate analyses of variance (ANOVA) and t tests were used to compare forested area use and facility use frequency among demographic groups (gender, age, and race/ethnicity). Bonferroni adjustments (α / number of comparisons) were employed for multiple univariate ANOVA comparisons and post hoc tests to maintain the family-wise error rate at α = 0.05.

Limitations and Delimitations

This study is geographically limited to respondents of northern Georgia within 70 miles of the Chattahoochee National Forest. Participants in this study do not represent a random sample of Georgia residents or national forest users. Additionally, the study is restricted to data which were self-reported for subjects 18 years or over. The on-site data collection was limited to three recreation sites in this national forest. These sites were selected because they provided the majority of recreational activities available within the Chattahoochee National Forest. However, not all available recreation sites were sampled. Additionally, data were collected in the peak summer and fall seasons and could be expanded to explore the winter and spring times of the year. Furthermore, types of activities participated in was limited to a dichotomous outcome (did or did not participate). Additionally, while the respondents’ were asked to select the activity in which they most participated and where they conducted the activity most often; they were not asked frequency or duration of their participation in these activities. Off-site data collection sites were limited to city/county parks, state parks, and flea markets. Flea markets presented a diverse population; however, the population is not representative of the general population of northern

Georgia. Lastly, the reclassification of ethnic groups for analysis, presents a limitation.

Results

On-site Respondent Characteristics

Respondents for both the on and off-site surveys were asked to identify their gender, age, education, income, and race/ethnicity (See Tables 3.1 and 3.2). The on-site results show respondents were more often female (57.2%) with half of the respondents being between 31-50 years of age (50.7%) and nearly 75% under the age of 51. Nearly one-half of respondents (46.9%) had graduated college or technical school and over one quarter (27.4%) had advance degrees.

Thirty-eight percent of the respondents’ were in the income categories of $50,000 to $99,999 and a quarter (25.6%) were in the $100,000 or more income category. Over half (64.4%) of the respondents’ reported they were White and 14.4% reported they were Asian. Both the White and

Asian numbers are higher than the population of northern Georgia. Hispanic/Latinos comprised

10.4 % of the respondents which is lower than the population of northern Georgia and 10.8% of the respondents’ reported they were Black compared to 28.9% in northern Georgia.

With the on-site data, ANOVA’s were conducted to explore any impacts of gender, age, income, and education on race/ethnicity. Gender produced no significant differences (See Table

3.3). Results for the respondents age showed there was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level with both White and Black respondents being slightly older than Asians and

Hispanics [F (3,985) = 44.0, p ≤ 0.001]. Additionally, Hispanic/Latinos had significantly lower incomes than all the other groups [F (3,902) = 21.1, p ≤ 0.001] and Asians and Whites reported a higher level of educational degrees than did Black and Hispanic respondents [F (3,979) = 38.4,

p ≤ 0.001]. In addition, post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that there was no significant difference between Blacks and Whites; however, there was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level between Asians (M = 3.48, SD = 0.627) and Blacks (M

= 2.89, SD = 0.827), Hispanic/Latinos (M = 2.41, SD = 0.848) and Whites (M = 2.99, SD = 0.761) and between Blacks (M = 2.89, SD = 0.827) and Hispanic/Latinos (M = 2.41, SD = 0.848).

Off-site Respondent Characteristics

Off-site results also revealed more female respondents (61.6%) with over half the respondents (62.4%) between 31-50 years of age and 85.1% under the age of 51. The majority of respondents (39.6%) had graduated college or technical school, and over one quarter (28.9%) had high school/GED educations. Thirty nine percent of respondents were in the income

70 categories of $20,000 to $74,999 and 32.7% earned more than $75,000. A little over 40 percent of the respondents’ reported they were White (43.1%); slightly lower than the population of northern Georgia. Asian (5.5%) and Hispanic (28.7%) percentages were more in line with the population of northern Georgia. However, the Black (22.7%) respondent numbers were nearly double the population of northern Georgia at 11.9%.

Examination of the impact of gender, age, income, and education on race/ethnicity for the off-site data also produced significant differences with the exception of gender (See Table 3.4).

For the age groups, there was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level with

Whites respondents being older than all other groups and Blacks slightly older than Asian and

Hispanic/Latinos [F(3,952) = 22.3, p ≤ 0.001]. Whites reported higher income levels than Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos had significantly lower incomes than all the other groups [F (3,814) = 32.6, p ≤ 0.001]. Lastly, Asians, Blacks, and Whites groups all reported a higher level of educational degrees than did Hispanic respondents [F (3,905) = 31.5, p ≤ 0.001].

On-site Visitation Frequency to National Forests in Georgia

Results for on-site visitation frequency showed over half the respondents (56.0%) indicated they had visited a national forest in Georgia at least once in the last year and over 90 percent of the respondents preferred to visit with family or friends (See Tables 3.5 and 3.6). In addition, nearly one third (31.6%) preferred to visit for the day and over one quarter (27%) stayed several days and nights. Overall, the results by gender and race/ethnicity were very similar; however, there were a few differences among race/ethnic groups. As with the overall results, nearly half (47.5%) of the Black respondents indicated they had visited a Georgia national forest at least once in the last year; however, the same amount said they had never visited a Georgia national forest. These respondents were surveyed during an actual visit on the

Chattahoochee National Forest, so it is possible this was their first visit or they did not realize they were in a national forest. Additionally, a higher percentage of Blacks would stay overnight

(39.8%) when compared to Asians (22.4%) and Hispanic/Latinos (20.8%). Most

Hispanic/Latinos visited for the day (39.6%) and the majority of Whites (33.5%) preferred to visit for several days and nights.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare constraints scores for females and males. A one-way, between-groups, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore the impact of age and race/ethnicity on visitation frequency to the national forests in

Georgia. On-site, no significant differences were found for age and the only significant difference by gender was for the preference of length of a visit. An independent groups t-test with equal variances assumed revealed a statistically significant difference with t (988) = -2.30, p ≤ 0.05, two-tailed. The magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference =-0.166 95%

CI -0.308 to -0.024) was very small (eta squared = 0.01).

Within the on-site data differences by race/ethnicity for visitation to national forest in

Georgia were significant for the questions how often visited and length of stay. How often visited revealed a significant difference with equal variances F (977) = 14.32; p ≤ 0.001, (two- tailed) and the magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared = 0.04).

Bonferroni-adjusted, comparisons revealed Blacks visited less than Hispanic/Latinos and Whites with mean differences of -0.454, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.14; p ≤ 0.001 and -0.574, 95% CI -0.33 to -

0.82; p ≤ 0.001 for Whites. Additionally, Whites visited more often than Asians with a mean difference of 0.241, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.45; p ≤ 0.016. Length of stay showed significant difference with unequal variances F (989) = 9.51; p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed) between Asians and Whites. The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared = 0.03). Bonferroni-

72 adjusted, comparisons showed Asians length of stay was shorter than that of Whites with mean differences of -0.378, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.00; p ≤ 0.05 and -0.528, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.26;

p ≤ 0.001, respectively.

Off-site Visitation Frequency to National Forests in Georgia

Off-site visitation frequency to national forests in Georgia showed over half (51.5%) of the respondents had never visited a Georgia national forest and one third (32.3%) had visited at least once in the past year. Similar to the on-site results, and over ninety percent of the respondents preferred to visit with family or friends and nearly half (46.1%) stayed for the day

(See Tables 3.7 and 3.8). Overall the results by gender and race/ethnicity were very similar; however, there was one difference among race/ethnic groups for visits per year. Blacks and

Hispanic/Latinos had higher percentages when it came to never visiting a national forest (69.7% and 48.4%, respectively) when compared to Asians (47.1%) and Whites (41.6%).

Off-site, one-way between-groups analysis of variance tests revealed no significant differences between groups for age or gender. Within the off-site data differences by race/ethnicity for visitation to national forest in northern Georgia were significant for the questions how often visited and length of stay. How often visited showed a significant difference with unequal variances F (951) = 29.77; p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed) and the magnitude of the differences in the means was moderately high (eta squared = 0.06). Bonferroni-adjusted, comparisons revealed Blacks visited less often than did Hispanic/Latinos and Whites with mean differences of -0.445, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.22; p ≤ 0.001 and -0.559, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.37; p ≤

0.001, respectively. Duration of stay showed significant difference with unequal variances F

(946) = 7.24; p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means was moderate (eta squared = 0.02). Bonferroni-adjusted, comparisons showed Whites duration of stay

73 was longer than that of Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos with mean differences of 0.264, 95% CI

0.05 to 0.48; p ≤ 0.006 and 0.325, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.55; p ≤ 0.001, respectively.

On-site Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation

Respondents for both the on and off-site surveys were asked to identify any outdoor recreation activities they participated in and the one activity they participated in most often (See

Tables 3.9 and 3.10). Respondents were then asked to identify the places where they participated in the listed outdoor activities and the one place where they recreated most often (See Tables

3.11 and 3.12). An ANOVA was conducted to explore significant differences by race/ethnicity for the outdoor recreation activities done most often and for which location these activities were conducted in.

Within the on-site data, the top five outdoor activities done most often accounted for 81.3% and included hiking/walking, family time, camping, relaxing, and swimming and with the exception of Asians these five were also the top five most popular activities for all race/ethnic groups. The top two activities, hiking/walking and family time were same for all race/ethnic groups; however, Whites ranked camping, relaxing, and swimming as their third, fourth, and fifth most popular activities, respectively. Asians, ranked picnicking as third with relaxing and camping fourth and fifth. Blacks ranked relaxing third and camping and swimming equally for fourth and fifth. Hispanic/Latinos ranked swimming third and camping and relaxing fourth and fifth, respectively. Furthermore, for outdoor recreation activities, there were no significant differences between the race/ethnic groups [F (3,618) = 1.5, p = 0.20].

74 for all groups except Blacks, who ranked state parks and city/county parks equally as their top picks. Hispanic/Latinos ranked neighborhood parks their third choice, and Whites and Asian ranked home/backyard third. National forests (11.1%) were ranked fifth overall. There were no significant differences between race/ethnic groups [F (3,522) = 0.6, p = 0.6] as it related to which location the five most popular outdoor activities were conducted in.

Off-site Outdoor Recreation Activity Participation

Within the off-site data, the top five outdoor activities done most often accounted for 71.1% and included family time, hiking/walking, swimming, picnicking, and camping. Blacks and

Hispanic/Latinos ranked family time as the highest with Asians and Whites ranking it second.

Asians and Whites ranked hiking/walking as their top pick with Blacks ranking it second and

Hispanic/Latinos placed it third. Hispanics/Latinos ranked swimming second with Asians and

Whites ranking it fourth. Blacks ranked swimming and picnicking equally and in third place.

There were significant difference for outdoor recreation activities between Whites and Blacks as well as Whites and Hispanic/Latinos [F (3,514) = 4.1, p = 0.007].

Off-site data also revealed all race/ethnic groups ranked city/county parks (30.0%) as the most popular place to conduct outdoor recreation activities. Neighborhood parks were the second most popular site for all groups except Whites who ranked state parks as their second choice.

Blacks and Whites ranked home/backyard third and Asians and Hispanic/Latinos ranked state parks third. National forest (4.9%) ranked sixth overall. There was a significant difference between Blacks and Whites as it related to which location the five most popular outdoor activities were conducted in [F(3,430) = 3.2, p = 0.025].

On-site Facility Use in Forested Areas

Onsite, respondents reported somewhat moderate levels of facility use with means ranging from a low of 1.5 to 3.3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (See Table 3.13). ‘Horse trail’ use had the lowest mean score (1.5) with ‘historic rock wall’ and most interestingly ‘biking trails’ having only slightly higher means (both 1.9). The most often used facilities were ‘lake/stream’ and

‘hiking trails’ with mean scores of 3.3, and ‘picnic area/pavilions’ and ‘visitor center,’ were also very popular, both with mean scores of 3.2.

Gender Differences in Facility Use

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare facility use in forested areas scores for females and males (See Table 3.14). One item, ‘biking trail,’ revealed a significant difference with equal variances, F (921) = 0.42, p = 0.005 (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean differences = 0.199, 95% CI 0.060 to 0.338) was small (eta squared = 0.01). Levene’s tests indicated the variances between females and males were unequal for the facility use items ‘beach,’ ‘picnic areas/pavilions,’ and ‘playgrounds.’ Independent groups t-test with equal variances not assumed revealed t (926) = -2.08, p ≤ 0.038 (two-tailed), t

(936) = -3.33, p ≤ 0.001, and t (929) = -1.97, p ≤ 0.047, respectively. The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean differences = -0.162, 95% CI -0.315 to -0.009, -0.241, 95% CI -

0.383 to -0.099, and -0.168, 95% CI -0.333 to -0.002, respectively) was small (eta squared =

0.01).

Age Differences in Facility Use

A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of age on facility use in forested areas. For this analysis the respondents were divided into four groups

76 according to their age (group 1: 18-30 years old; group 2: 31-40 years old; group 3: 41-50 years old; and group 4: 51 years and older). There was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level in facility use for the four age groups for ‘beach,’ ‘biking trails,’ ‘historic rock wall,’ ‘horse trail,’ ‘playgrounds,’ and ‘visitor center’ (See Table 3.15).

Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons indicated three of the six items had significant differences with equal variances. ‘Biking trails’ were used less often by respondents 51 years or older than two age groups (18-30 and 31-40) [F (3, 917) = 4.36, p ≤ 0.005 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.324, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06 and = -0.281, 95%

CI -0.54 to -0.03, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.01). ‘Historical rock walls’ were more often by respondents 18-30 years older than were respondents 51 or older [F (3, 900) = 3.51, p ≤

0.015 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.299, 95% CI 0.02 to

0.58) was small (eta squared = 0.01). Lastly, ‘visitors centers’ were used less often by respondents 18-30 years old than were age groups 41-50 and over 51 years old [F (3, 923) = 5.81, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.344, 95% CI -

0.65 to -0.04 and = -0.435, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.14, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.02).

Levene’s tests indicated there were three items with significant differences with unequal variances. The results show ‘beaches’ were used more often by respondents 18-30 years older than two age groups (31-40 and 51 years or older) [F (3, 889) = 9.18, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)], with mean differences = 0.356, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.66 and = 0.485, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.78, respectively. In addition, ‘beaches’ were used more often by respondents age 31-40 years old than age groups 41-50 and over 51years old (mean differences = 0.307, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.60 and

= 0.436, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.72, respectively). The magnitude of the differences was small (eta squared = 0.03). ‘Horse trails’ were more often by respondents 18-30 years older than were

77 respondents 41-50 and 51 years or older [F (3, 841) = 5.00, p ≤ 0.002 ,(two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.269, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.50 and = 0.290, 95%

CI 0.07 to 0.51, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.02).

Lastly, ‘playgrounds,’ reflected several differences between age groups. ‘Playgrounds’ were used more often by 18-30 year olds than respondents 51 years or older [F (3, 890) = 23.86, p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed)] with mean differences = 0.738, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05. The age group 31-

40 years old used ‘playgrounds’ more often than did age groups 41-50 and 51 years or older

(mean differences = 0.116, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71 and = 0.915, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.22, respectively) and 41-50 year old respondents used ‘playgrounds’ more often than 51 years or older respondents (mean differences = 0.511, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.83). The magnitude of the differences was quite large (eta squared = 0.07).

Race/Ethnicity Differences in Facility Use

A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore the impact of race/ethnicity on facility use in forested areas. There was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level in facility use for the four race/ethnic groups in nine out of the eleven items including ‘beach,’ ‘boat/canoe rental,’ ‘biking trails,’ ‘camping/cabin rental;’ ‘hiking trails,’

‘horse trail,’ ‘lakes/stream,’ ‘picnic areas/pavilions,’ ‘playgrounds,’ and ‘visitor center’ (See

Table 3.16).

Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons indicated seven of the nine items had significant differences with equal variances. ‘Beaches’ were used less often by Asian respondents than

White respondents [F (3, 927) = 3.92, p ≤ 0.009 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences

(mean difference = -0.327, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.03) was small (eta squared = 0.01). ‘Boat and canoes’ were rented less often by Blacks than both Asian and Whites [F (3, 917) = 6.23,

78 p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences (= -0.450, 95% CI -

0.75 to -0.15 and = -0.534, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.17, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.02).

Whites rented ‘campsites/cottages’ more than Black and Hispanic/Latino respondents [F (3, 934)

= 12.14, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean difference = 0.607, 95%

CI 0.25 to 0.96 and 0.589, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95, respectively) was moderate (eta squared = 0.04).

Whites also used hiking trails more than Asians, Blacks, and Hispanic/Latino [F (3, 948) = 24.21, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences (= 0.772, 95% CI

0.44 to 1.10, = 0.817, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.16, = 0.395, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.69, respectively) was high

(eta squared = 0.07). In addition, Asians used ‘hiking trails’ more than Hispanic/Latino respondents (mean differences = 0.421, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.83).

Black respondent used ‘lakes/streams’ less than Asians, Hispanic/Latino, and Whites [F

(3, 947) = 14.23, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean difference = -

0.775, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.45, -0.550, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.45, and -0.555, 95% CI -0.95 to -0.16, respectively) was moderate (eta squared = 0.04). Black respondents also used ‘picnic areas/pavilions’ less often than Asians or Whites [F (3, 937) = 3.69, p ≤ 0.012 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.356, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.04 and = -0.465, 95%

CI -0.85 to -0.08, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.01). Lastly, ‘visitors centers’ were used more often by White respondents than by Black or Hispanic/Latino respondents [F (3, 941)

= 11.33, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.577, 95%

CI 0.24 to 0.91 and = 0.534, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.88, respectively) was somewhat moderate (eta squared = 0.03). Asians respondents also took advantage of ‘visitor centers’ more than Black or

Hispanic/Latino respondents (mean differences = 0.581, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.99 and = 0.538, 95%

CI 0.12 to 0.96, respectively).

Levene’s tests indicated there were two items with significant differences with unequal variances. The results showed ‘horse trails’ were used more often by Hispanic/Latino respondents than were Black or White respondents [F (3, 917) = 4.24, p ≤ 0.006 (two-tailed)].

The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.299, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.56 and = 0.398,

95% CI 0.06 to 0.74, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.01). ‘Playgrounds’ were also used more often by Hispanic/Latino respondents than were Black or White respondents [F (3, 941) =

8.49, p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (= 0.645, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.02 and = 0.627, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.11, respectively) was somewhat moderate (eta squared = 0.03).

Off-site Facility Use in Forested Areas

Offsite, respondents also reported somewhat moderate levels of facility use with means ranging from a low of 1.6 to 3.3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (See Table 3.17). In addition, the overall mean reported for on-site facility use was similar to the off-site mean, 2.54 and 2.47, respectively.

As with the on-site results, off-site facilities with the lowest means were ‘horse trail’ and

‘historic rock wall’ with means of 1.6 and 1.7, respectively. ‘Picnic area/pavilion’ ranked highest

(mean of 3.3), with ‘playgrounds’ and ‘lake/stream’ being second and third highest (means of 3.2 and 3.0 respectively). One interesting difference between on-site and off-site includes a slightly higher mean for ‘biking trail’ use off-site (1.9 versus 2.1).

Gender Differences in Facility Use

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare facility use in forested areas scores for females and males (See 3.18). Two items, ‘beach’ and ‘playgrounds’ revealed a significant difference with equal variances, F (869) = -2.17, p = 0.002 (two-tailed) and F (886) =

-3.06, p = 0.002 (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean differences -

0.193, 95% CI -0.357 to -0.30 and -0.265, 95% CI -0.435 to -0.95, respectively) was small (eta

80 squared = 0.01). Levene’s tests indicated the variances between females and males were unequal for the facility use item ‘historic rock wall.’ Independent groups t-test with equal variances not assumed revealed t (857) = 2.89, p ≤ 0.004 (two-tailed). The magnitude of the differences in the means (mean differences 0.208, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.346) was small (eta squared = 0.01).

Age Differences in Facility Use

The results of the one-way between-groups ANOVA showed there was a statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level in facility use for the four age groups for

‘campsites/cottage rental,’ ‘hiking trails,’ ‘playgrounds,’ and ‘visitor center’ (See Table 3.19).

Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons indicated all four items had significant differences with equal variances. ‘Campsites/cottage rental’ were used less often by respondents 51 years or older than by 31-40 year old respondents [F (3, 848) = 3.44, p ≤ 0.017 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.374, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01) was small (eta squared = 0.01).

‘Hiking trails’ were used less often by respondents 18-30 years older than were respondents 31-

40 and 41-50 years old [F (3, 853) = 4.25, p ≤ 0.005 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.320, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.01and = -0.416, 95% CI -0.74 to -

0.09, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.01).

‘Playgrounds’ were used more often by 31-40 year old respondents than did respondents from 18-30, 41-50, and 51 years or older [F (3, 878) = 6.29, p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.349, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.65, 0.409, 95% CI

0.13 to 0.69, and = 0.358, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.71, respectively) was small (eta squared = 0.02).

‘Visitor centers’ were used less often by 18-30 year olds than respondents from all other age groups (31-40, 41-50, and 51 years or older) [F (3, 844) = 8.87, p ≤ 0.001, (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = -0.321, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.05, = -0.387, 95%

CI -0.69 to -0.08, and = -0.689, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.32, respectively) was moderate (eta squared =

0.03). In addition, a significant difference revealed respondents from the age group 51 years and older used ‘visitor centers’ more often than did respondents 31-40 years old (mean differences =

0.358, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.70).

Race/Ethnicity Differences in Facility Use

The results of the one-way between-groups ANOVA showed there were statistically significant difference at the p ≤ 0.05 level in facility use for ‘campsites/cottages rental,’ ‘hiking trails,’ ‘lakes/stream,’ and ‘playgrounds’ (See Table 3.20). Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons indicated there were three items with significant differences with equal variances. White respondents used ‘hiking trails’ more often than Blacks and Hispanic/Latino [F (3, 862) = 22.50, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences (= 0.779, 95% CI

0.51 to 1.04 and = 0.557, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87, respectively) was high (eta squared = 0.07).

Black respondents used ‘lakes/streams’ less often than did Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and

Whites respondents [F (3, 893) = 22.78, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean difference = -0.788, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.54, = -0.455, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.16, and = -0.541, 95% CI -1.03 to -0.15, respectively) was high (eta squared = 0.07). In addition,

White respondents used ‘lakes/streams’ more than Hispanic/Latino respondents (mean differences = 0.333, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60). ‘Playgrounds’ were used less often by Blacks than

Whites [F (3, 887) = 6.09, p ≤ 0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences (= -0.390, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.12) was small (eta squared = 0.02).

Levene’s tests indicated there was one item with significant differences with unequal variances. The ANOVA results showed ‘campsites/cottages rentals’ were used more often by

White respondents than were Black or Hispanic/Latino respondents [F (3, 855) = 15.92, p ≤

0.001 (two-tailed)]. The magnitude of the differences (mean differences = 0.556, 95% CI 0.30 to

0.82 and = 0.854, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87, respectively) was moderate (eta squared = 0.05).

Discussion

Despite the substantial research conducted on under-representation of women and minority and ethnic groups in outdoor recreation (Arnold, & Shinew, 1998; Chavez, 2001;

Cronan, Shinew, & Stodolska, 2008; Shaw & Henderson, 2005; Stanis, Schneider, Chavez, &

Shinew, 2009; Gobster, 2002), little research has focused on national forests in northern Georgia, particularly when comparing on-site and off-site respondents of national forests. Understanding the patterns of preferences of people participating in outdoor recreation in northern Georgia national forests across genders and race/ethnic groups and could help public land managers improve visitors’ experiences and attract new visitors. Therefore, this study examined differences in outdoor visitation patterns, preferences, and activity participation across four ethnic and minority groups using two social-demographic variables including age and gender.

Demographics

On-site results showed the female respondent percentage (57.2%) was similar to that of northern Georgia (51.1%). Hispanic/Latino respondents, by percentage, represented less than half of their estimated population in northern Georgia. Conversely, Asian respondents, by percentage, were nearly three times higher than their estimated population in northern Georgia.

The lower Hispanic/Latino percentage representation could possibly be due to a preference for larger family gathering sites such as picnic areas with playgrounds and soccer fields found at

Georgia state parks (Larson, Whiting, & Green 2012). The explanation for Asian respondents representing nearly triple their estimated population in northern Georgia is unclear; however, researcher observations noted Asians were the largest race/ethnic group after Whites and Asian

83 group sizes were much larger than any other race/ethnic groups. Additionally, personal discussions with visitors revealed a larger portion of Asians who spoke English compared to

Hispanic/Latinos and a willingness to complete surveys when asked.

Results also showed Whites, by percentage, represented the majority of visitors to the national forest sites which is consistent with results of previous studies examining under- representation of race/ethnic groups on public lands (Floyd et al., 1995, Johnson et al., 2007;

Washburne, 1978). Off-site, results reflected a slightly higher percentage (61.6%) of female respondents’ versus the northern Georgia population (51.1%). Additionally, Black respondents were double that of the northern Georgia population, possibly due to the high percentage (54.0%) of Blacks residing in the nearby city of Atlanta, Georgia (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Previous studies have shown ethnic and minority groups are under-represented in outdoor recreation on national forests in the United States, and the results of this study somewhat agree with these previous studies. Although, previous studies have reported women and ethnic and minority under-representation in national forests in the United States, this study suggested White women and Asians are well represented at some recreation sites in the Chattahoochee National

Forest. However, non-traditional users (i.e., Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos) are still under- represented at this forest.

Visitation Frequency to National Forests in Georgia

Overall, the on-site frequency of visits, duration of stay, and preferred people with whom people recreate were similar. Specifically, across all age groups, genders, and race/ethnic groups the majority of visitors came with family or friends at least once a year. In addition, all population subgroups demonstrated preferences for staying the day or several days and nights.

Off-site, results were also consistent across age groups, genders, and race/ethnic groups. Not

84 surprising, respondents off-site had higher response rates for never visiting a national forest in

Georgia; however, with nearly a quarter of the on-site respondents also reporting they had never visited a national forest in Georgia it is possible respondents were unaware they had been to a national forest in Georgia. With this exception, the comparison of respondents’ visitation patterns (on-site to off-site) revealed consistent response rates for the three survey questions related to visitation patterns.

Results related to visitation are somewhat consistent with previous research (Sasidharan,

Willits & Godbey, 2005; Yu & Berryman, 1996). For example, in a study examining urban park visitation of six ethnic groups (i.e., Hispanic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, African American, and

White) conducted by Sasidharan et. al., (2005) results showed over half of respondents had visited a park or forest at least once in the last 12 months and were recreating with friends or family. However, unlike Carr and Chavez (1993) who reported Hispanic/Latinos of Central

American descents often visited recreational areas as part of a church group, responses for recreating with an organized group was low. This result was surprising given the observation of a high number of church vans in the parking facilities of the survey sites noted by the researchers.

It is possible respondents considered their companions as family or friends rather than an organized group.

Future research should seek to be more specific regarding group sizes and what relationship the group members have to one another (i.e., family or friends). In addition, future research should seek to examine the specific duration of shorter visits. Lastly, future research should seek to better link the visit duration and group composition with the outdoor activity being undertaken. This linkage will assist public land managers and planners on national forest lands to better understand and accommodate their public.

Outdoor Activity Preference

The results for both on-site and off-site respondents when examining outdoor activities participated in most often showed the top two outdoor activities (hiking/walking and family time) were similar among the four race/ethnic groups. Additionally, picnicking and relaxing were also popular activities for all groups both on and off-site. These results suggest national forest managers’ in northern Georgia should provide more family oriented places conducive to outdoor activities. For example, large picnicking areas which are closer to shorter, looping hiking trails, open green spaces, and playgrounds. These results could also reflect the current economic recession, where people are looking for less expensive activities to participate in, while also spending time with their families.

Activity and Place Preference

On and off-site activity and place preferences showed race/ethnic groups were similar in their selection of activities and places to recreate when evaluating the results independently.

However, when comparing between on-site and off-site results, on-site respondents preferred state parks and off-site respondents preferred city/county parks as the place to participate in outdoor activities most often. Furthermore, both on and off-site respondents, ranked national forests last as a place to participate in outdoor recreation activities. These results suggest the need to advertise/market the available recreation opportunities in the northern Georgia national forest or examine the activities, services, and programs that state and city/county parks provide to see how their services compare. Additionally, despite the low ranking of the national forest as by these respondents, the National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) survey showed that national forests in northern Georgia had over 1.2 million day use visitors in 2009 (USDA Forest Service,

2009), which suggests the national forest is connecting with some audiences; however, managers

86 could possibly increase visitation numbers by targeting underserved audiences. For example, written comments by African Americans respondents in this study suggested the need for more educational and historical programs; therefore, national forest managers should develop educational programs focusing on the history of the area. However, in addition to the development of these programs, advertising/marketing of these programs should target diverse audiences by focusing the marketing toward African American audiences in metro Atlanta.

Facility Use

Overall, on-site the most often used facilities were ‘lakes and streams,’ and ‘hiking trails,’

‘picnic areas,’ and ‘visitor centers’ and these results are consistent with the most popular activity uses of ‘family time,’ ‘hiking/walking,’ and ‘picnicking.’ Differences by gender were not surprising with women using ‘playgrounds’ more than men and men using ‘biking trails’ more than women. These results somewhat support the marginality theory as it relates to gender (Shaw

1994; Washburne, 1978). That is, women are caring for children; therefore, spend more time at playgrounds rather than biking on trails. On-site, differences between age groups as it relates to the use of facilities were seen between the two younger age groups (18-30 and 31-40 year olds) and the two older age groups (41-50 and over 51 years old). Respondents from ages 18 to 40 years old used ‘beaches,’ ‘biking trails,’ and ‘playgrounds’ more than respondents over 41 years old. The opposite is true when it came to the use of ‘visitor centers,’ with the young respondents visiting less than the older respondents. It is possible younger respondents perceive visitor centers as time consuming and somewhat boring especially for children; therefore, national forest managers should attempt to attract this underserved age group by promoting the educational and historical aspects of visitors centers.

On-site differences by race/ethnicity revealed the greatest variances with differences in nine of the eleven facility uses. The most notable difference was that Blacks with two exceptions

(‘beaches’ and ‘picnic area/pavilion’) use of facilities was lower than all other race/ethnic groups.

The overall response rate of Blacks on-site was low (10.8%); however, this result could also be related to the theory of ethnicity, which posits racial minorities often choose different forms of recreation. Interestingly, Blacks did use ‘picnic areas and pavilion’ more often than

Hispanic/Latinos. Previous research has shown when visiting parks and outdoor recreation areas,

Hispanic/Latino groups sizes are large and contain many children (Carr & Chavez, 1993) and results of this study showed Hispanic/Latinos used ‘playgrounds’ more often which could be where most of their outdoor recreation activities are centered.

Additionally, the majority of the significant differences showed White respondents using the facilities more than the other race/ethnic groups, which is not surprising as over sixty percent

(64.4%) of the on-site respondents self-identified as White. However, there were other some interesting differences. For example, Asians used beaches less often than Whites. The researchers observed this specific difference firsthand during surveying. Fairly large groups of

Asian Americans (self-identified as Asian-Indian) used picnic pavilions next to a beach area; however, very few of these participants went to the beach. For example, some of the young children came to the beach and played in the water while older children watched them from the beach; however, the adults only watched from inside the pavilion.

Overall, off-site ‘picnic area/pavilions’ were the most popular facilities used with

‘playgrounds’ and ‘lakes/streams’ being ranked second and third highest which also matches with the most popular activity uses of ‘family time,’ ‘hiking/walking,’ ‘swimming,’ and

‘picnicking.’ As with the on-site results, differences by gender off-site were not surprising with

88 women using ‘beaches’ and ‘playgrounds’ more than men. Off-site, respondents over the age of

51 years used ‘campsites/cottages’ less and ‘visitors centers’ more than other age groups. This result could be related to more discretionary funds and more free time available to older adults

(Sasidharan, Willits, & Godbey, 2005). For example, more discretionary funds would allow for money to be spent on hotel rooms and more time would allow the opportunity to visit more facilities such as ‘visitor centers.’

Off-site differences by race/ethnicity did not result in as many significant differences as did the on-site results; however, there were a few notable differences. Black respondents used

‘playgrounds’ less than White respondents and ‘lakes and streams,’ less often than respondents from all other race/ethnic groups. In addition, Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos used ‘campsite and cottages,’ and ‘hiking trails’ less often than Asians or Whites. Results indicated Blacks visited national forests in northern Georgia less than any other race/ethnic group. Previous research has also shown that Blacks prefer developed areas more than natural settings (Chavez, 2001; Gobster,

2002; Johnson, et al., 1998; Payne, Mowen, & Orsega-Smith, 2002) and are more likely to participate in team sports and fitness activities than nature-based activities such as hiking and camping (Floyd et al., 1994; Johnson & Bowker, 1999). However, responses to two open-ended questions: 1) kinds of outdoor places you like to visit most often; and 2) what could managers do to help increase your visitation to the Chattahoochee National Forest revealed additional information. Answers to the first question agreed with previous research with Blacks stating the top two places they preferred to recreate were local parks and beaches, respectively, while amusement parks and sports fields were listed third and fourth. In answer to the question asking how to increase their visitation to national forests, after advertising (top answer for both on and off-site), Blacks wanted to see more promotions, programs, and activities including festivals,

89 concerts, outdoor movies, and fireworks. Furthermore, Blacks stated a need for guided tours, hikes, and information on the history of the national forest. Results suggest national forest recreation managers could attract more ethnic and minority visitors by hosting more special events and programs.

Comparing the on-site to the off-site results for facility use on forested lands resulted in both similarities and differences. Similarly, the least popular facilities used by both on and off- site respondents were ‘horse trails’ and ‘historic rock walls.’ The differences in facility use between on-site and off-site respondents were of interest. It is not surprising the use of

‘playgrounds’ was higher off-site than on-site or the use of ‘visitor centers’ was higher on-site than was off-site; however, it was somewhat surprising to see ‘biking trail’ use higher off-site than on-site. Interestingly, results showed a slightly higher overall mean for ‘biking trail’ use off- site than for on-site. The survey question asked about facility use in forested areas, but metro

Atlanta is a highly forested urban city; therefore, it is possible the respondents’ interpretation of a biking trail varied (i.e., mountain bike trails opposed to developed or even paved trails). Future research should explore interactions between age, gender, race/ethnicity, and income; however, this will require a larger and more diverse respondent sample size.

Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study highlighted several similarities and differences in the outdoor recreation patterns and preferences among women and four minority and ethnic subpopulations

(i.e., Asians, Blacks, Hispanic/Latinos, and Whites). All respondents reported high incidences of family oriented activities (i.e., family time and picnicking); however, to address concerns regarding the lack of things to do in the national forest, national forest managers should consider the importance of social events and celebrations including birthdays and family reunions. These

90 comments suggest a need for more places to accommodate large social activities areas including larger picnicking areas, covered pavilions, and open spaces for games and other activities.

Additionally, Blacks and Hispanic/Latinos desire to participate in team sporting events suggest national forest managers’ in northern Georgia should provide open green spaces near picnic areas where visitors could participate in soccer, softball/baseball, or badminton/volleyball games. Furthermore, with over half of respondents, both on and off-site, being women, national forest managers need to address the preferences and outdoor recreational needs of this majority group. To attract women with children to the national forest, managers should provide more playground areas with picnic facilities. However, to further enhance the attraction for women managers could develop these sites with short walking trails nearby or even surrounding the area where women can walk while still being able to watch the children. In addition, providing fun and educational interpretive programs in these areas would provide the opportunity to entertain and educate both the parent and child. Furthermore, research has shown women do not visit outdoor natural areas due to safety concerns (Carr, 2000; Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell, 2001); therefore, national forest managers should work to address this concern. Managers could assist women by providing guided hikes or by assisting with the development of women’s outdoor recreation groups where women can find others to recreate with thereby elevating some of their fear and encouraging more participation.

In addition, results of this study suggest off-site respondents participated in outdoor activities that could be undertaken on national forests in Georgia; however, the lack of information about available activities was a concern for all respondents. In addition, written comments provided by respondent in response to what managers could do to improve visitation to national forests in Georgia suggested the need for more information about what is available in

91 national forests, a more user friendly website, lower rates for seniors and locals, and free weekend days. Currently, some sites within the Chattahoochee National Forest already offer free days for visitors and seniors can purchase a discounted park pass (United States Park Service,

2012; USDA Forest Service, 2012b). This lack of awareness by the public about the current services provided by the Chattahoochee National Forest suggests the need for better advertising/marketing and specific targeting of audiences within different areas and socio- demographic groups. This marketing should focus on the recreation opportunities and special activities and rates presently available to each group. For example, one respondent suggested advertising in metro Atlanta community bulletins and online social networks, both of which can be done at very low cost. These results also suggest the USDA Forest needs to re-examine how it is branding itself to the public, and more importantly how may it make itself more relevant to new or potential users.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service for its financial support and assistance with this project.

References

Aitchison, C. (2001). Gender and Leisure Research: The “Codification of Knowledge.”

Leisure Sciences, 23(1), 1-19.

Arnold, M. L., & Shinew, K. J. (1998). The Role of Gender, Race, and Income on Park Use

Constraints. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16, 39-56.

Baas, J. M., Ewert, A. W., & Chavez, D. J. (1993). Influence of Ethnicity on Recreation and

Natural Environment Use Patterns: Managing Recreation Sites for Ethnic and Racial

Diversity. Environmental Management, 17(4), 523-529.

Carr, N. (2000). An Exploratory Study of Young Women’s Use of Leisure Spaces and

Times: Constrained, Negotiated, or Unconstrained Behavior? World Leisure, 3, 25-32.

Carr, D. S. & Chavez, D. J. (1993) A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Recreation

Experiences: Central American Recreation on the National Forest in Southern

California, in A. Ewert, D. Chavez, and A. Magill (Eds.) Culture, Conflict, and

Communication in the Wildland-Urban Interface. Boulder, CO, Westview

Press, 181-194.

Carr, D. S. & Williams, D. R. (1993). Understanding the Role of Ethnicity in Outdoor Recreation

Experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 22-23.

Chavez, D. J. (2001). Managing Outdoor Recreation in California: Visitor contact studies

1989-1998. USDA Forest Service, PSW-GTR-180, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. Albany, CA, 1-100.

Cordell, K. H. (2012). Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document

Supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. (Report No. SRS-150). Asheville,

NC. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Athens, GA.

Cordell, K. H. (2008). The Latest on Trends in Nature-Based Outdoor Recreation. Forest History

Today. Spring 2008, 4-10.

Cordell, K. N., Betz, C. J., Butler, B. J., & Bergstrom, J. C. (2008). Trends in Forest-Based

Recreation: Reports for the 2010 Montreal Process Indicators for the U.S. The Internet

Research Information Series. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from:

http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/nrrt/nsre/IrisReports.html.