park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of ...formation about park usage patterns, the...

Leisure Sciences, 24:199-218, 2002 ,_ _ _

Copyright © 2002 Taylor & Francis ,_O_I'A_0149-0400/02 $12.00+ .00 ___U_

Park Usage, Social Milieu, and Psychosocial Benefitsof Park Use Reported by Older Urban Park Users

from Four Ethnic Groups

¢D-_ HOWARD E. A. TINSLEY® too6t-

_ _ _, DIANE J. TINSLEY

o =_ o_ Department of Psychology_==

o _ .. University of Floridae- o=,_i=o = c_ Gainesville, Florida, USA¢'5 ./,.I

-5 _= ,."_ o CHELSEY E. CROSKEYS• _ _.__.e-- -"O Utl)i_ _ "5 CO Arthur Andersen, Inc.

"" >"_ Atlanta, Georgia, USA

" o o . Structured interviews were conducted with African-American, Hispanic-American,

_. 0 _ _a. Asian-American and Caucasian-American park users (N = 463) during one of their

_'. _c_ _ _) visits to a large urban park. The participants varied from 55 to 93 years of age. MostIXI m _ (77%) of the interviews were conducted by interviewers of the same ethnicity as the_ o interviewe_ and interviews were conducted in Spanish or Chinese when that was the

t_ ._ preferred language of the interviewe_ A stratified quota sampling plan was established

"1-6_. _'6 to ensure that interviews were conducted in all areas of the park, at all times of theday and on both weekdays and weekends. Preliminary analyses indicated that neither

_ _ ,oo gender nor age differences accounted for a meaningful percent of the variance in the

_ _ E0 dependent variables. Consequently, chi-square analyses and analyses of variance were_- I.tJ _._,... performed with ethnicity as the independent variable. Significant differences were found

among the ethnic groups in their use of park facilities_ the social milieu within which

they visit the park, and their ratings of the psychosocial benefits of park use.

Keywords psychosocial benefits, ethnicity, older adults, urban parks, ethnic diversity

American society is becoming increasingly older and more ethnically diverse (Greller &Nee, 1989; London & Greller, 1991; Special Senate Committee Report on Aging, 1991),but much of the park and recreation research in the United States has focused on young,White, middle and upper middle class individuals. These changes in the demographic com-position of American society demand the greater attention be given to the leisure attitudes,values and perceptions of the ethnically diverse cohort of older persons. We investigatedthe use of a large, centrally located urban park (i.e., Lincoln Park in Chicago) by African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and Caucasian-American individuals whowere 55 years of age or older. The major objectives of this research were to provide in-formation about park usage patterns, the social milieu within which park usage occurred,

Received 8 March 2001 ; accepted 16 October 2001.

This research was supported, in part, by a grant from The United States Forest Service (23-98-18 RJVA).

We thank Carrie R. Supancic for her assistance with some of the clerical aspects of this project.

Address correspondence to Howard E. A. Tinsley, Department of Psychology, University of Florida,Gainesville, FL 32611-2250. E-mail: [email protected]

199

200 H. E. A. Tinsley et al.

and the psychosocial benefits of urban park use, and to examine the possibility that thesebenefits vary as a function of ethnic heritage.

"Race" is a lay term used in a variety of ways to refer to morphological variationsamong subgroups of humans. For scientific purposes only three primary racial groups arerecognized (i.e., Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid). In contrast, "ethnic group" refersto a subgroup of persons distinguished by common customs, characteristics, language, andhistory. Individuals of any race can share a common ethnic heritage. In this research, weassessed the ethnic heritage rather than the race of the participants, and we refer to ethnicheritage rather than race in distinguishing among the four groups of participants.

In 1900 the average life expectancy in the United States was 47.3 years and the U.S.population included only 3.1 million people who were 65 years of age or older. By 1999,however, the average life expectancy had increased to 76.5 years and the number of personswho were 65 years of age or older had grown to 34.6 million. The average length of retirementwas 2.5% of the life span (i.e., 1.2 years) in 1900, but today it is estimated that the averageperson will live more than 20% of their life over the traditional retirement age of 65. Fur-thermore, the oldest segment of the population is the most rapidly growing segment. When

compared to 1900, the 65-74 age group was eight times larger in 1997, the 75-84 age groupwas 16 times larger, and the 85+ age group was 31 times larger (AARP, 1998). The numberof centenarians in the U.S. doubled in the 1990s; it is expected to double again by 2010,

and by 2050 it is expected to be 1160% larger than in 2000 (http://www.infoplease.com/).The segment of the population 60 years of age and older is expected to increase from 16%to 25% by 2050 while all other segments of the population will decrease. Since 33% of themen and 66% of the women in the 55 to 64 age range and 90% of the people over age 65do not work (Kieffer, 1986), the net result of these trends will be a dramatic increase in the

number of older Americans having large amounts of discretionary time.Despite these compelling demographic changes, scholars have been slow to investi-

gate the leisure behavior of older persons, and surprisingly little empirical investigationhas examined the psychosocial benefits of leisure in the later years (McPherson, 1991).Furthermore, most of the recent investigations have been atheoretical and qualitative innature. Examples include a case study of a single individual living in a nursing home(Pedlar, Dupuis, & Gilbert, 1996), focus group interviews with small samples of retire-ment community residents that focused on whether they regarded their enjoyable activitiesas "recreation" or "leisure" (Siegenthaler & Vaughan, 1998), and oral histories that high-

lighted opportunities for social contacts (McCormick & McGuire, 1996). Large samplequantitative approaches have been adopted to examine the physical health benefits of anactive lifestyle (Zuzanek, Robinson, & Iwasaki, 1998), the activities people engage in whilein urban parks (Hutchison, 1987, 1994), and the effectiveness of a 12-session interventionin modifying older persons' perceptions of leisure control, competence, satisfaction, andboredom (Searle, Mahon, & Iso-Ahola, 1995).

One issue that has stimulated some theory-based research is the psychosocial bene-fits of leisure experiences (Driver, Brown, & Peterson, 1991). Driver and others define abenefit as "a change that is viewed as advantageous--an improved condition or gaitr--toan individual, a group, [or] to society" (p. 4). Psychosocial benefits are those gains orimprovements that result from the gratification of secondary (i.e., learned) needs of the in-dividual (see Tinsley, 1978). Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, and Kaufman (1985) and Tinsley, Colbs,Teaff, and Kaufman (1987)reported on the psychosocial benefits elderly persons reportedfrom 18 leisure activities. Most of the activities studied were sedentary (e.g., watching

sports, collecting photographs, and watching television) or indoor activities (e.g., playingcards, raising house plants, and attending meetings of religious organizations). When clas-sified according to the Tinsley and Eldredge (1995) leisure activity taxonomy, the activitiesinvestigated were predominantly self-expression and service activities. It seems likely that

Psychosocial Benefits of Leisure 201

the psychosocial benefits of urban park usage would be appreciably different from thosestudied previously.

In addition, the ethnic composition of the U.S. has become increasingly diverse dur-

ing the last decades of the twentieth century. Since 1980, the number of persons of Asianheritage increased 203%, the number of persons of Hispanic heritage more than doubled(115% increase) and persons of Native American (71% increase), and African (31% in-crease) heritage also increased significantly. Direct comparisons of the ethnic compositionof the United States in 2000 to the composition in earlier years is not possible because the2000 Census form instructed multiracial individuals to check more than one race, but there is

generally a consensus that the ethnic diversity of the U.S. population has increased markedlyin the last decade. These changes are noteworthy because much of our understanding ofleisure is based on evidence obtained from Caucasian respondents.

Several studies have reported ethnic differences in leisure attitudes and behaviors. Floydand Shinew (1999) found differences between African-American and Caucasian-American

respondents in their preferences for 14 of the 25 leisure activities they studied. Whiteand Black respondents who reported low levels of interracial contact differed more in theiractivity preferences than White and Black respondents who reported high levels of interracialcontact. Irwin, Gartner, and Phelps (1990) found that Mexican-Americans and Anglosdiffered in their campground preferences. Mexican Americans preferred significantly largerparty sizes (12.8 persons vs. 6.9 persons), to be near to other campers (17% vs. 5%) asopposed to far away from other campers (28% vs. 67%), placed a higher priority on tangiblecampground design features (25% vs. 14%), and in the future intended to decrease their useof dispersed and roadless campground areas.

Some researchers have found that leisure attitudes and behaviors are more stronglyrelated to socioeconomic differences than to racial differences. Floyd, Gramann, and Saenz(1993) operationali zed assimilation in terms of cultural, socioeconomic, and intergroup (i.e.,discrimination) differences and found that socioeconomic differences were most predictiveof the use of outdoor recreation areas. Cultural differences were less useful as a predictor,and they found no support for the hypothesis that perceived discrimination would account fordifferences in the use of outdoor recreation areas. Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, and Noe (1995)investigated the frequency with which individuals differing in race, gender and social classidentified 14 types of activities as personal favorites. Economic class differences accountedfor more of the variance in activity preferences than gender and race. However, race didaccount for some of the variance in activity preferences while gender generally did not.Juniu (2000) found that social class was a more important indicator of behavioral changesin leisure behavior among South American immigrants during their adjustment to the UnitedStates than was ethnicity.

Other research has shown that the leisure preferences and attitudes of African Ameri-cans and Caucasian Americans are not different on a number of dimensions. Philipp (1997)asked African-American and Caucasian respondents to rate seven leisure benefits and foundsubstantial similarity in their ratings (r = .86). In a subsequent study, Philipp (1999) askedhow "welcome" African Americans are in 20 common leisure activities and again foundsubstantial agreement in the ratings of middle-class African- and Caucasian-Americanrespondents (r = .95). Toth and Brown (1997) interviewed 124 African-Amerian and

Caucasian residents of two Mississippi Delta communities about the meanings they as-sociated with fishing and found more similarities than differences. Hutchison (1987) foundAfrican-American and Caucasian activity groups to be more similar to each other in theirchoice of leisure activity, type of leisure activity (e.g., family groups or peer groups), andgender composition of social groups than either was to Hispanic activity groups.

Others have reported qualitative studies of small samples of Chinese-American elderly(Allison & Geiger, 1993), or they have suggested methodological issues that should be

202 H. E. A. 77nsley et al.

considered in researching leisure and physical activity with women of color (Henderson &Ainsworth, 2001) and Native Americans (McDonald & McAvoy, 1997).

Although the benefits of leisure have been among the most vigorously investigatedissues in the leisure sciences (see Driver et al., 1991), basic issues such as whether ben-efits are different for the elderly than for other age groups rarely have been addressed(McPherson, 1991). Older adults share many attitudes and values in common with other

groups, yet they may have unique needs and perceptions of a park system. For example,Manfredo and Zinn (1996) found age-related differences in the value orientations of in-dividuals relating to wildlife management, with older adults having stronger materialisticand utilitarian values than younger adults. Tinsley et al. (1985, 1987) found elderly personsreported primarily self-expression and helping others as the benefits they received fromleisure, but those results may be an artifact of the limited range of leisure activities theystudied. Furthermore, the possibility of ethnic differences in the psychosocial benefits ofleisure requires further investigation. Segments of the ethnically diverse older adult cohortmay be affected differently by the aging process. Gobster and Delgado (1993) found thatracial groups differed in their use of urban parks along continua that represented activeversus passive uses and individual versus group (family) uses. Therefore, the aging processmay diminish some older adults' ability to engage in active pursuits, while it may lessenothers' abilities to visit the park as members of family units because their children havemoved to other parts of the country.

Although older individuals have more discretionary time, "Having more free time doesnot automatically translate into greater happiness" (Zuzanek & Box, 1988, p. 179). Despitethe importance of leisure in later life, there is no systematic body of research on the leisureexperiences of older individuals (McGuire, 2000). There is strong evidence that leisurecontributes to life satisfaction, but it is not yet understood why this relationship prevails nor

why some older individuals seem to voluntarily withdraw from leisure pursuits (McPherson,1991).

In summary, prior research has focused on racial differences in leisure and recre-ational activity preferences (Floyd & Shinew, 1999; Irwin et al., 1990; Philipp, 1997,1999; Shinew et al., 1995) and participation (Floyd et al., 1993; Hutchison, 1987, 1994;Pedlar et al., 1996; Siegenthaler & Vaughan, 1998). The evidence suggests that race hasless affect on activity preference and participation (Floyd et al., 1993; Hutchison, 1987,1994; Irwin et al., 1990; Philipp, 1997, 1999; Toth & Brown, 1997) than economic level(Juniu, 2000; Shinew et al., 1995). We sought to extend knowledge of these issues in threeways. First, rather than focus on the activity or activity preferences of the participants,we investigated the psychosocial benefits they receive from the activities in which theyengage. Second, we investigated differences among groups formed on the basis of ethnicheritage rather than race. Since race refers to morphological variations among subgroupsof humans, there is little reason to expect that race will have a primary effect on activ-

ity preferences or the psychosocial benefits received from leisure. Rather, any differencesare more likely to result from the different experiences of subgroups and the customsthat evolve from those experiences (i.e., their ethnic heritage). Finally, we extended thework of Tinsley et al. (1985, 1987) to a larger and more representative sample of leisureactivities.

Method

Participants

Interviews were conducted with 463 individuals during one of their visits to Lincoln Park

in Chicago. However, 26 of these individuals were younger than the desired minimum


age of 55, leaving 437 interviews for analysis. The sample comprised 100 (50 female and50 male) African-American park users, 108 (50 female and 58 male) Hispanic-Americanpark users, 104 (52 female and 52 male) Asian-American park users and 125 (56 femaleand 69 male) Caucasian-American park users.

Table 1 provides basic descriptive information about the participants, who varied from55 to 93 years of age. The four ethnic groups differed significantly in age (F(3, 433) =28.86, p < .001). The Caucasian participants were older than the park users in the otherthree groups. The Asian park users were older than the African-American and Hispanicpark users. The latter two groups did not differ significantly in mean age.

The ethnic groups also differed significantly in the number of years they had livedin Chicago (F(3, 406) = 18.73, p < .001) and in their present residence (F(3, 414) =6.49, p < .001). The Caucasian park users had lived in Chicago longer than the otherthree groups; the Hispanic- and African-American park users had lived in Chicago longerthan the Asian park users (Table 1). However, a different pattern emerged when the par-ticipants were asked how long they had lived in their present residences. The African-

American and Caucasian park users had lived in their present residences longer than theAsian park users. The African-American park users also had lived in their present residencelonger than the Hispanic park users. Since the average participant had lived in Chicago for20 years or more, it can be inferred that the interviewees were knowledgeable about fac-tors such as the location of the park, means of transportation to the park, the facilities andprograms offered by the park, and various festivals and special events that occur in the park.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Characteristics of In-Park Interview Participants by Ethnic Group

African

American Hispanic Asian Caucasian

Characteristic M SD M SD M SD M SD P-value

Age 61.0 a 6.3 60.9 a 6.9 65.4 b 7.4 69.0 c 9.4 .000Years inChicago 30.7 a 21.2 31.8 a 16.5 19.8 b 16.0 41.5 c 28.0 .000Years inresidence 16.1 a 12.4 10.8b,c 8.1 10.4 c 7.8 14.5a,b 13.8 .003

Percentages

Retired 36a 37a 64 b 70 b .000Work 69a 67a 32b 28b .000Work full time 81a 79a 51a 85b .001

Education completed (X 2 = (12, N = 432) = 53.97, p < .001)

Less than high school 4 30 11 13High school graduate 25 28 20 27Some college or univ. 26 16 28 10College 29 21 31 29Graduate degree 15 6 11 22

Marital status (X2(9, N = 432) = 33.47, p < .001)Married* 66 70 72 50Single 11 7 2 19Separated or divorced 12 15 5 11Widowed 10 14 23 21

*Married or livingwith a companion.Note: Means having the same superscript do not differ significantly.


In response to three dichotomous questions to which the respondents answered either"yes" or "no," the four ethnic groups differed in the proportion of park users who wereretired (F(3, 431) = 15.42, p < .000), who worked outside the home (F(3, 375) = 22.20,p < .000), and who worked full time (F(3, 200) = 5.67, p < .001). The proportion ofCaucasian (70%) and Asian park users (64%) who were retired was close to twice that of theAfrican-American (36%), and Hispanic (37%) park users. Conversely, twice as many of theAfrican-American (69%) and Hispanic (67%) park users reported that they worked outsidethe home than did the Asian (32%) and Caucasian (28%) park users. Those Caucasian(85%), African-American (81%) and Hispanic (79%) park users who were not retired weremost likely to work full-time, but only 51% of the Asian park users who were not retiredreported working full-time.

The Caucasian, African-American, and Asian park users reported significantly moreeducation (median = 14-15 years) than the Hispanic park users (median = a high schooleducation (X2(12, N = 432) = 53.97, p < .001). However, a bimodal distribution wasevident for the total sample; most participants had completed a college (27.5%) or highschool (25.0%) education. An additional 19.2% had completed some postbaccalaureateeducation and 13.7% had earned a graduate degree. In general, then, the participants in thisstudy were more highly educated than the national average.

The four ethnic groups also differed significantly in marital status (X2(9, N ----432) =33.47, p < .001). The typical park user was married (60.4%) or living with a companion(1.6%), but the proportion ranged from 50% for the Caucasian park users up to 72% for theAsian park users. Close to a third of the African-American, Hispanic and Asian park userswere single, separatd or divorced, or widowed at the time of the interviews as opposed tohalf of the Caucasian park users.

Instrument

A structured interview protocol was developed for the in-park interviews to ensure uni-formity of coverage across the interviewers. The interviewer began by asking, "What yearwere you born?" and "Do you identify with a particular ethnic group?" The responses tothese questions were used to determine if the person was old enough to qualify for the studyand to ascertain whether she or he identified with one of the four ethnic groups included inthe investigation. Next, the interviewer requested information about the person's visits toLincoln Park (e.g., how often the person visited the park). Following that, information wasobtained about the social milieu within which the person was visiting the park, the specificactivities the person was doing in the park on that particular visit, the activities she or hedid on previous visits, and his or her favorite in-park activities. A multiple-choice responseformat that provided the interviewee with specific answers from which to choose was used.Participants then were asked to rate the importance of 11 psychosocial benefits that theymight experience from using Lincoln Park using a 5-point numerical rating scale (1 = notimportant, 2 = slightly important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = very important and 5 =extremely important). The interviewer concluded by requesting additional descriptive in-formation (e.g., marital status) from the participant. All questions were followed by probesthat could be used to clarify ambiguous responses.

Procedure

Interviews were conducted by graduate students enrolled in the counseling psychologyprogram at Loyola University-Chicago or the experimental psychology program at DePaul University. Each interviewer was given a training manual that explained the interviewprocedures, the meaning of each question in the interview protocol, and the information


sought by each question. The interviewers studied the training manual and discussed theinterview procedure and content of the interview with the on-site coordinator or the principalinvestigators. The interviewers were not given permission to begin interviewing until theydemonstrated that they understood the intended procedures and could conduct the interviewsin the standardized manner intended.

Each interviewer interviewed approximately 25 men and 25 women. Early in the data

collection process some interviewers were given permission to interview persons between45 and 54 years of age in case we were unable to secure sufficient interviews with personsin the target age range. As a consequence, complete interviews were conducted with 26persons who were too young to qualify for the study. The data obtained from these personswere discarded prior to the analysis.

To the extent possible, each park user was interviewed by an interviewer of theirsame ethnicity. All but one of the Caucasian participants was interviewed by a Caucasianinterviewer, 77% and 75% of the African-American and Asian park users were interviewed

by an African-American or an Asian interviewer, respectively, and 59% of the Hispanicpark users were interviewed by a Hispanic interviewer. Overall, 77% of the interviewswere conducted by interviewers of the same ethnicity as the interviewee. Interviews were

conducted in Spanish or Chinese if that was the preferred language of the interviewee.A stratified quota sampling plan was established for the in-park interviews to ensure

that interviews were conducted in all areas of the park and at all times of the day. The park

was divided conceptually into north, middle, and south regions, and the day was dividedinto morning (6 a.m. until 10 a.m.), midday (11 a.m. to 3 p.m.), and late afternoon (4 p.m. to8 p.m.) time blocks. Interviewers were instructed to conduct approximately equal numbersof interviews in each of the nine area/time strata. Furthermore, they were asked to conduct

some of their interviews on weekdays and others during the weekend. This stratified quotasampling plan ensured that data would be collected during both peak and nonpeak periodsof park use and that any systematic differences that might be associated with the area of thepark, the time of day, or the day of the week would be reflected in the interview data.

Interviewers approached each potential participant and introduced themselves by recit-ing or reading the following statement which was printed at the top of each structuredinterview form.

Hello, I'm (your name)._from University and we are working withthe United States Forest Service on a study of peoples' uses of Lincoln Park. Thisinformation will be useful in helping us know what adults want in Lincoln Park.May I ask you a few questions about your use of the park? It will only take aboutten minutes.

Persons who agreed to be interviewed were given "informed consent" information,and the interviewer then conducted the structured interview and recorded the participant's

responses on the interview form. The interviewers were instructed to query the intervieweewhenever the response given did not correspond to the available answers, and to write theexact response if the interviewee continued to give a nonstandard reponse.

Analysis

The primary objectives of this research were to examine the possibility that park usagepatterns, the social milieu within which park usage occurs, and the psychosocial benefits ofurban park use vary as a function of ethnic heritage. Nevertheless, we performed three setsof preliminary analyses to investigate the possibility that gender or age differences might


account for significant variance in the outcome measures in addition to that accounted for byethnic heritage. We regressed the 57 dependent variables independently on gender, age andethnic heritage to determine their relative usefulness in accounting for the variance in thedependent variables. Because of the large sample size (N = 437), it was possible for trivialrelations having no theoretical or practical significance to achieve statistical significance.Therefore, we gave greater weight to the percent of variance accounted for in the dependentvariables than to statistical significance. Gender accounted for a significant amount of the

variance in only 6 (10.5%) of the 57 dependent variables while age accounted for a signific antamount of the variance in 21 (36.8%) of the 57 dependent variables. The percent of variance

in the dependent variable accounted for by gender in the significant relations ranged from0.7% to 2.5% with a median of 1.4%, and for age it ranged from 0.7% to 8.2% with a median

of 1.3%. Age accounted for 3.3% or less of the variance in 19 of the dependent variables.Therefore, we concluded that the statistically significant relations for gender and age were

of no practical significance, and were attributable largely to Type I error.In contrast to the results for gender and age, ethnic heritage accounted for a significant

amount of the variance in 44 (77.2%) of the 57 dependent variables. The percent of variance

accounted for by the significant relations ranged from 1.1% to 30.0% with a median of6.6%, and 38 of the significant relations accounted for more than 3% of the variance in the

dependent variable. We concluded that the variance in the dependent variables accountedfor by ethnic heritage was of substantive importance, and therefore, we proceeded with ouroriginal analysis plan.

The nominal data were submitted to chi-square analysis with ethnic heritage as the

independent variable. This provides an omnibus test that indicates whether the distributionof responses differs significantly for the four groups. However, it does not indicate whichspecific values within the data being analyzed are significantly different. In simple 2 x 2or 2 x 3 data sets the accepted procedure is to follow a significant omnibus by performingz-tests to compare every pair of percentages (proportions). However, using that procedurewith a larger data set results in an enormous number of analyses. For example, comparingevery possible pair across all five lines of a 4 x 5 table would require 30 analyses. Clearly,a more efficient analysis plan is needed.

When only two values (i.e., means) are to be compared, the z-test, t-test, and 1-wayANOVA are algebraically equivalent. Given this equivalency, we ran 1-way ANOVAs onthe values in each line of the chi-square table. Although that is also an omnibus test whenmore than two values are involved, it does indicate whether the value in the line differs

significantly. When a significant result was obtained, we used Tukey's (1977) HonestlySignificant Difference (HSD) procedure to determine precisely which values differed sig-nificantly. Tukey's HSD procedure provides the best protection against Type II error for afamily of tests.

The ordinal data were submitted to one-way analysis of variance with ethnic heritage

as the independent variable. Again, post hoc tests were performed using Tukey's HSDprocedure.

The .05 level of confidence was used as the critical value in determining the statistical

significance of all results. However, statistical significance is often largely a matter of sam-ple size. When the data from a large sample is analyzed, it is possible to obtain significantresults that are purely a function of the large sample size. The only way to distinguish mean-ingful from trivial results is by examining "effect size" statistics (American PsychologicalAssociation, 2001). Consequently, we report R2 values, which indicate the proportion ofvariance in the dependent variable that is accounted for by the independent variable. R2values lower than .05 (i.e., five percent of the total variance) typically are interpreted ashaving little theoretical or practical significance.


Results

Park Usage

Table 2 provides descriptive information about park usage for the four group s of participants.On average, it took the participants 22.1 minutes to reach Lincoln Park, but the mean traveltime ranged from a low of 18.2 minutes for the Caucasian park users to 22.6, 24.1, and24.3 minutes for the Asian, Hispanic, and African-American park users, respectively. The

Caucasian park users required significantly less travel time to reach the park than Hispanicand African-American park visitors, who did not differ significantly from each other or fromthe Asian respondents (F(3, 421) = 3.88, p < .009). However, analysis of the effect size(R2 = .02) revealed that ethnic group membership accounted for only 2% of the variancein travel time. The Hispanic park visitors planned a 25% longer stay at the park than theCaucasian's (F(3, 420) = 3.23, p < .015; R2 = .02), but again, ethnic heritage accountedfor only 2% of the difference in anticipated length of park visit. The other pair-wise groupcomparisons did not reveal significant differences.

The Caucasian park users visited the park significantly more often than the other groups(F(3,432) = 13.20, p < .000), which did not differ significantly from each other (Table 2).The Caucasian park users visited the park less than three or four times a week and morethan once a week. The Asian park users visited the park, on average, between once a weekand once a month, and the African-American and Hispanic park users reported that they

averaged one visit a month to the park. All four groups of park users reported that they

TABLE 2 Description of Lincoln Park Use by Ethnic Group

African


Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD P-value

Travel time 24.3 a 16.3 24.1 a 12.5 22.6 a,b 13.2 18.2 b 19.1 .009

Length of visit 157.6 _,b 118.3 162.0 _ 89.1 148.1 a,b 100.7 123.6 b 83.9 .015How often...

Visit park 3.9_ 1.99 4.0a 1.74 3.7 a 2.04 2.6b 2.08 .000Like to visit 2.5 1.49 2.4 1.30 2.4 1.46 1.8 1.37 .014

park

PercentagesHow travel to park (X2(12, N = 432) = 66.7, p < .000) Total

Drive 52a 50a 58a 29b 46Walk 22a 20a 15a 56b 30Bus 14a 18a 15a 3b 12

Bicycle 6 8 4 7 6Other 6 5 8 6 5

Days visit Lincoln Park (X2(6, N = 388) = 27.2, p < .000)

Weekdays 9_,b 7 b 16_'b 21_ 14Weekends 37_ 19b'c 34a,b 16c 26Both 54a,b 74a 50b 63a,b 61

Note: Valuesfor travel time and anticipatedlength of visit are in minutes. Frequency of park visitsand frequency would like to visit park: 1 = Almost daily, 2 = 3-4 times a week, 3 = Once a week,4 = Once a month, 5 = 4-8 times a month, 6 -- Once or twice a year, 7 = My first time. Meanshaving the same superscript do not differ significantly.

208 H. E. A. 7insley et al.

would like to be able to visit Lincoln Park more frequently (i.e., approximately three or four

times a week). None of the pair-wise comparisons between groups revealed a significantdifference in their preferred frequency of park use.

Most of the persons interviewed had driven or walked to the park, but significantdifferences were found between the Caucasian park users and the other three groups (X 2(12, N = 432) = 66.7, p < .000; see Table 2). Most of the African-American (52%),

Hispanic (50%), and Asian (58%) park users had driven to the park but only 29% of theCaucasian park users had driven (F(3, 433) = 7.58, p < .000). In contrast, 56% of theCaucasian park users had walked to the park but only 15-22% of the African-American,Hispanic, and Asian park users had walked (F(3, 433) = 22.02, p < .000). From 14% to18% of the African-American, Hispanic, and Asian park users had taken a bus to the park,but only 3% of the Caucasian users had traveled by bus (F(3, 433) = 4.69, p < .003). Thefour groups did not differ in the proportion that had come to the park by bicycle or anothermeans of transportation.

The four ethnic groups differed significantly in the days of the week they used the park(X2(6, N = 388) = 27.23, p < .000). Fourteen percent of the respondents used the parkonly on weekdays (Table 2), with the Caucasian (21%) park visitors being more likely thanthe Hispanic park visitors (7%) to limit their use of the park to weekdays (F(3,433) = 3.68,p < .012). Only a quarter (26%) of the persons interviewed used the park on weekends only;African-American (37%) park users were more likely than Hispanic (19%) and Caucasian(16%) park visitors to use the park only on the weekend (F(3, 433) = 5.29, p < .001).Asian park users also were more likely than Caucasian park users to visit the park only onthe weekend. Sixty-one percent of the park users visited the park on both the weekdays andweekends. Asian park visitors (50%) were less likely than Hispanic park visitors (74%) touse the park on both week days and weekends (F(3, 433) = 5.29, p < .004).

Social Milieu

Significant differences were observed in the social context within which the African-Amercian, Hispanic, Asian and Caucasian respondents visited Lincoln Park (X2(12,N = 344) = 36.1, p < .000; see Table 3). The groups differed significantly in the ex-tent to which they visit the park alone (F(3, 358) = 3.84, p = .010), with an extendedfamily group (F(3, 358) = 4.65, p = .003), and with an organized group (F(3, 358) =3.75, p = .011), but not in the extent to which they visit the park with friends (F(3, 358) =1.83, p = .140), or with immediate family (F(3, 358) = 0.92, p = .432). The Caucasian(47%) park users were more likely than the Asian park users (23%) to use the parkalone, while the Asian park users were more likely than the Caucasian park users to visitLincoln Park with their extended family (19% vs. 2%) and with an organized group (18%vs. 3%). The African-American and Hispanic Park user did not differ significantly fromthe other groups in their tendency to visit the park alone or with an extended familygroup or organized group (see Table 3). Overall, the respondents were most likely tovisit Lincoln Park alone (34%), with friends (25%), or with members of their immediatefamily (19%).

The park users also varied in the number of persons accompanying them to LincolnPark on the day they were interviewed (see Table 3). Asian park users were accompanied bylarger immediate family groups than Caucasian and Hispanic park users (F(3, 104) = 4.58,p < .005, R2 = .09). The effect size indicates that ethnic heritage is of moderate importancein explaining the differences in the size of the group accompanying the interviewees to thepark. Only 15 African-American park users were visiting Lincoln Park with their immediatefamily when interviewed. The Asian park users also were accompanied by larger extended


TABLE 3 Social Milieu Within Which Park Visits Occurred by Ethnic Group

African

American Hispanic Asian Caucasian Total

Percent visiting the park...(X2(12, N = 344) = 36.1, p < .000)

Alone 33a,b 34 a'b 23a 47b 34With friends 32a 18a 26a 23a 25

With immediate family 15a 20a 16a 25a 19With extended family 11a'b 15 a'b 19a 2 b 12With organized group 9a,b 14a,b 18a 3b 11

Number of persons accompanying interviewee to parkAfrican


M SD M SD M SD M SD P-value

Immediate family 2.0a,b 1.4 1.7b 1.8 9.5a 17.3 2.3 b 1.6 .005Extended family 10.7a,b 16.7 2.5a 3.4 14.1b 20.6 .024Friends 1.9a 2.0 1.3a 1.7 12.1b 13.1 1.5a .6 .000

Organized group 39.0 69.7 39.6 14.7 .973

Note: Means having the same superscript do not differ significantly.

family groups than the Hispanic park users. Only one Caucasian park user and nine African-American park users were visiting Lincoln Park as a member of an extended family.

Typically, the African-American, Hispanic, and Caucasian park users were accompa-nied by only one or two friends when they visited Lincoln Park with friends, but the Asianpark users attended the park with significantly larger groups of friends (F(3, 104) = 4.58,p < .005, R2 = .30; see Table 3). The effect size indicates that 30% of the variance insocial milieu is attributable to ethnic heritage, signifying that this is an important variable inexplaining differences in the types of social groups that visit Lincoln Park. So few African-American and Caucasian park users were visiting the park with organized groups that thosedata could not be analyzed. Significant numbers of Hispanic and Asian park users wereattending the park with large organized groups (Table 3).

Park Facilities

Table 4 indicates the Lincoln Park facilities that the visitors reported using on the day theywere interviewed. The natural features of the park (i.e., the trees and the water/lakefront)were cited by about half of the park users while a third of the respondents were enjoyingthe flower gardens and 27% were using the beach. The bicycle and footpaths (43%) and theparking (35%) and restroom (31%) facilities were used by about one-third to 40% of therespondents. Twenty-one percent were visiting the zoo, and smaller numbers were usingthe concession stands, ball fields, driving range, field houses and museums. No significantdifferences were observed among the groups in their use of the zoo, ball fields, drivingrange, field houses, or museum.

The African-American and Caucasian park users were more likely than the Hispanicand Asian park users to report enjoying the natural features of the park, i.e., the trees(F(3, 433) = 12.50, p < .000, R2 = .07), flower gardens (F(3, 433) = 17.76, p < .000,

210 H. E. A. 7_nsley et al.

TABLE 4 Percent of Park Users from Each Ethnic Group Who Were Using Designated

Facilities on the Day Interviewed

African

Facility American Hispanic Asian Caucasian Total P-value

Trees 54a 39_ 44a 74b 54 .000Water/Lakefront 54a,b 47a,b 37a 61b 50 .002

Flower gardens 54a 280 13b 48° 36 .000Beaches 43a 14b 140 34a 27 .000

Bicycle/Foot paths 49a 27b 13b 76c 43 .000Parking 39a,b 42a 38a'b 24b 35 .026Restrooms 18a 45b 15a 43b 31 .000Concession stands 17a,d 31b 3c 15c,d 16 .000Zoo 19 15 19 28 21 .083Ball fields 8 6 6 5 6 .783

Driving range 4 2 2 2 3 .744Fieldhouses 4 1 1 5 3 .164

Museum/Conservatory 4 2 0 5 3 .129

Note: Meanshaving the same superscript do not differ significantly.

R2 = .10) and beaches (F(3, 433) = 12.39, p < .000, R2 = .07). The effect sizes for thesevariables indicate that ethnic heritage is of moderate importance in explaining the differences

in the park facilities used. More than half of the Caucasian and African-American parkusers reported using the water and lakefront, but the only significant difference was that theCaucasian park users were more likely than the Asian park users to use those facilities (F(3,433) = 4.90, p = .002, R2 = .03). The Caucasian park users were significantly more likelythan the other three groups to use the bicycle and footpaths (F(3, 433) = 46.01, p < .000,R2 = .24; see Table 4). Ethnic heritage is of substantial importance in explaining the use ofthese facilities. The African-American park users were more likely to use the bicycle andfootpaths than the Hispanic or Asian park users. The Hispanic park users were the mostfrequent users of the parking facilities (F(3, 433) = 3.29, p < .021, R2 = .02), restrooms(F(3, 433) = 13.99, p < .000, R2 = .08), and concession stands (F(3, 433) = 11.19,

p < .000, R2 = .07). Ethnic heritage is of moderate importance in explaining the usageof the restrooms and concession stands, but of little importance in explaining the usage of

the parking facilities. The African-American and Caucasian park users were more likely touse of the concession stands than the Asian park users, and the Caucasian park users were

more likely than the African-American and Asian park users to use the restrooms.

Psychosocial Benefits

The park users reported that the most salient psychosocial benefits of using Lincoln Parkwere an immediate sense of pleasure or gratification and the opportunity to engage innonchallenging activities without the need for complicated planning or the necessity of along-term commitment (Table 5). Both were rated as moderately to very important. Therespondents also valued the opportunity to be with other people (affiliation) and to getvigorous physical exercise.

Several additional psychosocial benefits were rated as moderately to slightly impor-tant by the park users (Table 5). These included the opportunity to escape from feelings

_ _ _0 '-_ O_ _0 _ ¢"1 _"_ 00_ I"_ '_ ._ o_

o_ _

0 _ _ O_ _" O0 _0 O0 C',l _.- O0 _0 ¢'q _"0

0 O'l_l

_o oo _'_

,_ .__.o._._._._o....

_ _.._ -- _

211


of obligation (escape duty), have experiences that are missing from their typical daily life(compensation), follow a familiar, comfortable routine, gain a sense of aesthetic stimulation(sensibility), and encourage and help others. The psychosocial benefits that were least satis-fied by the participants' visits to Lincoln Park were the opportunities for self-enhancementand status.

Statistically significant differences among the four ethnic groups were observed on allof the psychosocial benefits but the opportunity to encourage and help others (F(3,430) =1.06, p < .368). The most important differences in terms of the amount of variance ac-counted for in the psychosocial benefit occurred for pleasure seeking (F(3, 430) = 20.01,p < .000, R2 = .12) and escaping duty (F(3, 431) = 12.83, p < .000, R2 = .08).The African-American respondents rated pleasure seeking as a more important bene-fit than the other three groups of park users. Hispanics and Caucasians rated pleasure

seeking as a more important benefit than the Asian park users. The African-American,Hispanic, and Asian participants all rated escaping duty significantly higher than theCaucasian respondents.

Salient differences among the ethnic groups also were observed on the benefits foraffiliation (F(3, 429) = 9.90, p < .000, R2 = .06), exercise (F(3, 431) = 10.58, p < .000,R2 = .07), self-enhancement (F(3, 430) = 10.93, p < .000, Rz = .07) and status (F(3,

429) = 9.95, p < .000, R2 = .06). The African-American, Hispanic, and Asian groups allrated affiliation as a more important benefit of park use than the Caucasian respondents. TheAfrican-American and Caucasian respondents rated exercise as a more important benefitthan the Hispanic and Asian participants. The African-American respondents rated self-enhancement as a more important benefit than the other three groups of park users. TheAfrican-American park users rated status as a more important benefit than the Asian andCaucasian respondents. The Hispanic park users did not differ from the African-Americanor Asian interviewees in their rating of status, but they rated it significantly higher than theCaucasian respondents.

Ethnic group membership accounted for less than five percent of the variance on thescales measuring escape challenge (F(3, 430) = 6.01, p < .001, R2 = .04), compensation(F(3, 431) = 6.40, p < .000, R2 = .04), familiar routine (F(3, 431) = 2.80, p = .040,R2 = .02), and sensibility (F(3, 430) = 6.86, p < .000, R2 = .04).

Although most of the park users visited Lincoln Park on both weekdays and weekends,we performed additional analyses of variance to determine whether the day of the week therespondent s used the park (i.e., weekdays, weekends, or both) was related to the psychosocialbenefits they obtained from their park use (see Table 6). Those who use the park only onweekdays reported significantly less satisfaction of their needs to have experiences that aremissing from their job or typical daily life (compensation; F(2, 384) = 7.30, p < .000) andto engage in simple, non-challenging activities (F(2, 384) = 13.79, p < .000) without theneed for complicated planning or the necessity of a long-term commitment. Those who visitthe park only on weekends reported significantly less satisfaction of their needs for vigorousexercise (F(2, 384) = 15.03, p < .000) and to be able to follow a familiar, comfortableroutine (F(2, 384) = 13.79, p < .000), but significantly greater satisfaction of their needfor affiliation (F(2, 382) = 5.08, p = .007).

Park users who visit the park on both weekdays and weekends reported significantlygreater satisfaction of their needs to experience an immediate sense of pleasure or grati-fication (F(2, 383) = 5.10, p = .007), to encourage and help others (F(2, 383) = 3.36,

p = .036), and to use their talents and develop their skills (self-enhancement; F(2, 383) =3.68, p = .026). No differences were found as a function of day of park use in the opportu-nity to escape from feelings of obligation (escape duty), gain a sense of aesthetic stimulation(sensibility), or get attention and achieve a feeling of importance (status).


TABLE 6 Means, Standard Deviations and P-Values for Ratings of PsychosocialBenefits That Park Users Receive from Their Use of Lincoln Park on Weekday, Weekend,

and Both Weekday and Weekend Visits

Weekdays Weekends Both weekdaysonly only and weekends

Constraint M SD M SD M SD P-value

Weekdays significantly lower

Compensation 1.60a 1.10 2.33 b 1.28 2.37 b 1.41 .001Escape challenge 2.28 a 1.49 3.09 b 1.20 3.25 b 1.29 .000

Weekends significantly lower

Exercise 2.77 a 1.14 2.04 b 1.33 2.91 a 1.37 .000Familiar routine 2.43 a 1.31 1.65 b 1.05 2.40 a 1.31 .000

Weekends significantly higher

Affiliation 2.60 a 1.32 3.210 1.24 2.81 a 1.27 .007

Both weekdays and weekends significantly higher

Self-enhancement 1.66a 1.21 1.58a 0.96 1.920 1.19 .026

Helping others 1.85a 1.26 1.68_ 1.05 2.05 b 1.25 .036Pleasure seeking 3.36 a 1.53 3.49 a 1.24 3.86 b 1.18 .007

No significant differences

Escape duty 1.98 1.33 2.32 1.28 2.40 1.50 .161Sensibility 1.75 1.34 1.83 1.13 2.11 1.29 .061Status 1.38 1.00 1.54 0.93 1.62 1.07 .291

Note: Three interviewees who indicated that they visit LincolnPark only onholidays were excludedfrom this analysis. Rating of psychosocial benefits: 1 = not important, 2 = slightly important, 3 =moderately important, 4 = very important, and 5 = extremely important. Means having the samesuperscript do not differ significantly.

Discussion

Two potential limitations of this research should he considered when interpreting our re-suits. First, the four groups of park users differed on some personal variables that mayinfluence their park use. The Caucasian and Asian park users were older than the African-American and Hispanic park users. Only a third of the African-American, Hispanic andAsian park users were single, but half of the Caucasian park users were single. Thesedifferences may influence the social milieu within which these constituents use LincolnPark, the activities they pursue, and the benefits they obtain. However, supplemental anal-yses using age and gender as independent variables revealed that these personal factorstypically accounted for less than 2% of the variance in the dependent variables. Thelack of gender differences in the psychosocial benefits the respondents reported fromtheir park use, in particular, is consistent with previous research findings. Tinsley andKass (1978) studied this issue extensively and found no gender differences on 45 psy-chosocial benefits. More recent research continues to confirm that women and men en-

gaged in the same activity report the same benefits (Philipp, 1997; Tinsley & Eldredge,1995; Toth & Brown, 1997). Consequently, the effects of these factors appear to be quitesmall.

214 H. E. A. 11nsley et al.

Second, the in-park interviews were useful in obtaining the parkusers' current per-

spectives while they were actively using the park, but arranging to interview older parkusers who were engaged in highly mobile activities such as running and bicycling wasdifficult. Some runners were interviewed at the conclusion of their run and some cyclists

were interviewed while they were taking a break, but it is possible these park users are un-derrepresented in our sample. If that is so, our data may understate the extent to which olderpersons obtain benefits such as vigorous exercise from their use of urban parks. However,Hutchison (1987, 1994) observed the activities of park users in Chicago and reported that

older persons were less likely than teens and younger adults to engage in mobile activities(e.g., bicycling and jogging) and more likely to engage in stationary acts (e.g., sitting onbenches, and playing board games). Moreover, the participants in this research rated exerciseas the fourth most important psychosocial benefit. Therefore, the importance of vigorousexercise as a benefit of park use may be underestimated to some extent in this research, butwhen interpreted in the context of previous research it seems unlikely that a substantial biasexists.

Travel Time and Preferred Park Use

It seems unlikely that the total travel time per se is a significant barrier to park use. Nev-ertheless, it is possible that the need to drive creates more of a psychological barrier whencontemplating a visit to the park than the perception that the park is within walking dis-tance of home. Although the Caucasian park users took significantly less time to reachLincoln Park than the other three groups, the difference was only six minutes. Typically,the Caucasian park users lived in the area and walked to the park while the other three usergroups were more likely to drive to the park. We calculated two Pearson product momentcorrelations to investigate this issue further. The amount of time it took to reach the parkcorrelated negatively (r = -.47) with the frequency of park visits, and it correlated posi-tively (r = .26) with how long the park users anticipated staying in the park. The findingsthat individuals who require longer to reach Lincoln Park visit the park less frequently andstay longer once they reach the park are consistent with the interpretation that travel timeto Lincoln Park has a meaningful effect on park use.

All four ethnic groups indicated that they would like to visit Lincoln Park more fre-

quently, and none of the pair-wise comparisons between groups revealed a significant dif-ference in their preferred frequency of park use. We calculated the Pearson product momentcorrelation between the frequency of visits to Lincoln Park and how often the participantswould like to visit the park to investigate this issue further, and we found a very strongrelation (r = .83). The more the respondents visit Lincoln Park, the stronger their desire tovisit the park even more frequently.

Facility Use

Previous research has shown that racial differences in activity preferences and participation

are less important than differences in economic level (Floyd et al., 1993; Juniu, 2000;Shinew et al., 1995). In this research, we investigated the possibility that differences in

ethnic heritage would be associated with important aspects of leisure behavior. We foundsignificant differences among the four ethnic groups in their use of eight of the 13 parkfacilities we studied. However, the differences in their use of the water and lake front

(R2 = .03) and parking facilities (R2 = .02) were relatively unimportant; the former wasuniformly popular while the differences in the latter are attributable more to residentialpatterns and mode of transportation than to ethnic differences per se.

P sychosocial Benefits of Leisure 215

Greater differences among the ethnic groups were observed in the use of the restrooms(R2 = .08) and concession stands (R2 = .07). It is possible that these differences alsoreflect differences in the distance the participants must travel to reach the park, and in

the length of their anticipated visit. However, Irwin et al. (1990) found that Mexican-American campground users placed a higher value on tangible campground features thandid Caucasian campground users, and that Mexican Americans planned to decrease theiruse of unimproved areas in the future. Given this, it seems premature to draw definiteconclusions about the meaning or underlying causes of these ethnic group differences.For example, many recreational facilities seem to have been designed without consideringgender differences in the use of restroom facilities. In our view, it would be unfortunate todismiss these ethnic group differences as artifacts; additional research is needed to furtherinvestigate the generalizability and underlying causes of these differences.

Comparable differences were observed among the ethnic groups in their reported en-joyment of the natural features of Lincoln Park such as the flower gardens (R2 =. 10), trees(R2 = .07) and beaches (R2 = .07). A consistent pattern emerged with Caucasian andAfrican-American participants reporting heavier usage than Hispanic and Asian park users.

The same pattern emerged with the use of the bicycle and foot paths, but the variance ac-counted for by ethnic group membership (R2 = .24) was much greater, and Caucasian parkusers made much heavier use of these facilities than did the other groups. One possibilityis that these differences are attributable to residential patterns in Chicago; the Caucasian

park users were more likely to use the bicycle and foot paths because they were more likelyto walk to the park. However, that explanation cannot account for the finding that African-American park users made heavier use of these facilities than Hispanic and Asian parkusers. These three groups experienced the same travel time and used the same modes oftransportation. Another possibility is that enjoyment of these facilities is most convenientfor persons visiting the park alone or with a small group. Hispanic and Asian partici-pants visited the park as members of large groups much more frequently than Caucasianand African Amerian park users. Still another possibility is that some features of the cul-tural heritage of these groups contribute to the differences observed. Additional researchis needed to illuminate the meanings of these findings and to determine their managerial

implications.

Psychosocial Benefits

All four groups of interviewees reported that their park visits provide a variety of psy-chosocial benefits. The most important benefits gained from using Lincoln Park were an

immediate sense of pleasure and an opportunity to engage in simple, nonchallenging ac-tivities without extensive planning or the necessity of a long-term commitment. This wastrue whether the interviewee used the park on weekdays, weekends, or both weekdays andweekends. The park users also valued the opportunity to be with other people, get vigorousphysical exercise, escape feelings of obligation, follow a familiar routine, have experiencesthat are missing from their typical daily life, experience cognitive or aesthetic stimulation,and encourage/help others.

These findings stand in contrast to those of Tinsley and colleagues (1985, 1987), whofound that self-expression and service to others were the primary psychosocial benefitsreported by their participants. We believe these differences are attributable to differences inthe sample of activities included in these investigations. Tinsley and colleagues surveyedindividuals 55 years of age and older who participated in 18 leisure activities selected toreflect each of the nine major divisions of Overs, Taylor, Cassell, and Chernov's (1977)taxonomy. The activities studied by Tinsley and others are primarily sedentary, indoor

216 H. E. A. linsley et al.

activities, and they provide a somewhat stereotypic view of older adults and the benefits theyseek in leisure. The activities investigated in the present study primarily occur outdoors and

require physical mobility. As such, they extend the information on the psychosocial benefitsolder adults seek in their leisure pursuits. In particular, the finding that vigorous exerciseis a salient benefit of the activities these participants pursued during their visits to LincolnPark provides a different perspective than that available from prior research. Together thefindings from this investigation and the prior research provide a more comprehensive viewof the psychosocial benefits older adults seek from their leisure activities.

Significant differences were observed in the social milieu within which the four ethnicgroups visited the park; these differences may be partially responsible for the differencesin usage patterns and psychosocial benefits reported by these groups of park users. Forexample, persons who visit the park alone do not need to match their schedules with thoseof other family members or friends, but they also are less likely to report interpersonalcontacts as a psychosocial benefit of their park use. Given these differences, it is instructiveto examine the ways in which these groups differ.

Although differences were noted in the park use patterns and benefits reported byAfrican-American and Caucasian park users, both reported heavier use of park facilities

than Hispanic and Asian park users. In contrast, Hutchison (1987) noted more intensiveuse of neighborhood parks by Hispanic residents of Chicago than by African-American orCaucasian residents. Although the Caucasians interviewed in this research tended to livecloser to Lincoln Park, the African-American respondents drove to the park from a greaterdistance. The heavier use of Lincoln Park facilities by the African-American and Caucasian

users may be attributable, in part, to their use of Lincoln Park as their primary park, whilethe Hispanic and Asian participants use a closer neighborhood park as their primary park.

Distinctive cultural differences among the four groups may be responsible, in part,for some of the results obtained in this research. North American culture emphasizes in-

dividuality and mobility. African-American culture expresses this individualism throughan emphasis on the development and maintenance of small groups of close friends, whileCaucasian culture emphasizes "the rugged individual." This pattern of expressing individ-ualism is reflected quite clearly in the results of this research. African-American park userswere more likely to visit the park with their friends while Caucasian park users were morelikely to use the park alone or with a member of their immediate family. Neither group vis-ited the park with an extended family group or with an organized group. African-Americanrespondents rated pleasure seeking, personal self-enhancement, and exercise as more im-portant psychosocial benefits than Hispanic and Asian park users while the Caucasians ratedexercise as a more important benefit than did these groups. These benefits reflect a focuson the individual rather than a larger group.

Hispanic and Asian culture are regarded as collectivist, because of the greater emphasisgiven to the family unit in Hispanic culture and the importance of larger social organizationsin Asian culture. Hispanic park users were likely to visit the park with their extended familyor with an organization. This is consistent with the finding of'Irwin and others (1990)that Mexican-American users of a U.S. Forest Service-managed campground preferred

significantly larger party sizes (M = 12.8 persons) than Anglo campground users (M =6.9 persons). Asian park users tended to visit the park with much larger immediate andextended family groups, and with much larger groups of friends than African-Americanand Caucasian park users; they were least likely to visit the park alone. It is not surprising,therefore, that satisfaction of the need for affiliation was the highest rated psychosocialbenefit for Asian park users and the second highest rated benefit for Hispanic park users.Furthermore, Hispanic and Asian park users rated exercise and self-enhancement, benefitsexperienced primarily by individuals rather than social groups, as less important than other


activities, and they provide a somewhat stereotypic view of older adults and the benefits theyseek in leisure. The activities investigated in the present study primarily occur outdoors andrequire physical mobility. As such, they extend the information on the psychosocial benefitsolder adults seek in their leisure pursuits. In particular, the finding that vigorous exerciseis a salient benefit of the activities these participants pursued during their visits to Lincoln

Park provides a different perspective than that available from prior research. Together thefindings from this investigation and the prior research provide a more comprehensive viewof the psychosocial benefits older adults seek from their leisure activities.

Significant differences were observed in the social milieu within which the four ethnicgroups visited the park; these differences may be partially responsible for the differencesin usage patterns and psychosocial benefits reported by these groups of park users. Forexample, persons who visit the park alone do not need to match their schedules with thoseof other family members or friends, but they also are less likely to report interpersonalcontacts as a psychosocial benefit of their park use. Given these differences, it is instructiveto examine the ways in which these groups differ.

Although differences were noted in the park use patterns and benefits reported byAfrican-American and Caucasian park users, both reported heavier use of park facilitiesthan Hispanic and Asian park users. In contrast, Hutchison (1987) noted more intensiveuse of neighborhood parks by Hispanic residents of Chicago than by African-American orCaucasian residents. Although the Caucasians interviewed in this research tended to livecloser to Lincoln Park, the African-American respondents drove to the park from a greaterdistance. The heavier use of Lincoln Park facilities by the African-American and Caucasian

users may be attributable, in part, to their use of Lincoln Park as their primary park, whilethe Hispanic and Asian participants use a closer neighborhood park as their primary park.

Distinctive cultural differences among the four groups may be responsible, in part,for some of the results obtained in this research. North American culture emphasizes in-

dividuality and mobility. African-American culture expresses this individualism throughan emphasis on the development and maintenance of small groups of close friends, whileCaucasian culture emphasizes "the rugged individual." This pattern of expressing individ-ualism is reflected quite clearly in the results of this research. African-American park userswere more likely to visit the park with their friends while Caucasian park users were morelikely to use the park alone or with a member of their immediate family. Neither group vis-ited the park with an extended family group or with an organized group. African-Americanrespondents rated pleasure seeking, personal self-enhancement, and exercise as more im-portant psychosocial benefits than Hispanic and Asian park users while the Caucasians ratedexercise as a more important benefit than did these groups. These benefits reflect a focuson the individual rather than a larger group.

Hispanic and Asian culture are regarded as collectivist, because of the greater emphasisgiven to the family unit in Hispanic culture and the importance of larger social organizationsin Asian culture. Hispanic park users were likely to visit the park with their extended familyor with an organization. This is consistent with the finding of Irwin and others (1990)that Mexican-American users of a U.S. Forest Service-managed campground preferredsignificantly larger party sizes (M = 12.8 persons) than Anglo campground users (M =6.9 persons). Asian park users tended to visit the park with much larger immediate andextended family groups, and with much larger groups of friends than African-Americanand Caucasian park users; they were least likely to visit the park alone. It is not surprising,therefore, that satisfaction of the need for affiliation was the highest rated psychosocial

benefit for Asian park users and the second highest rated benefit for Hispanic park users.Furthermore, Hispanic and Asian park users rated exercise and self-enhancement, benefitsexperienced primarily by individuals rather than social groups, as less important than other


user groups. These preferences for psychosocial benefits are consistent with the collectivist

emphasis of Hispanic and Asian cultures.

Conclusion

The purposes of this research were to investigate the psychosocial benefits of urban park

use for persons 55 years of age and older, to determine whether these benefits differ asa function of the ethnic heritage of the user, and to extend the range of leisure activities

beyond the sample of sedentary, indoor activities studied by Tinsley and others (1985, 1987).The results of this research document the value of well-administered parks in large cities.

All four ethnic groups reported that Lincoln Park provides a wide variety of psychosocial

benefits to older Chicago dwellers. As a consequence, all indicated a desire to use the park

more frequently. The most important benefits gained from using Lincoln Park were a sense

of immediate pleasure and the opportunity to engage in simple, nonchallenging activitieswithout the need for complicated planning or the necessity of a long-term commitment. In

addition, the participants reported that their park use satisfied their need for affiliation andexercise. The results indicate that Lincoln Park provides opportunities to experience these

benefits in social settings that accommodate a wide variety of individual preferences, andthat are consistent with both individualist and collectivist cultural orientations.

References

AARP. ( 1998 ). A profile of older Americans. [Brochure]. Washington, DC: Author.Allison, M. T., & Geiger, C. W. (1993). Nature of leisure activities among the Chinese-American

elderly. Leisure Sciences, 15, 309- 319.American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture

Publishing.Floyd, M. E, Gramann, J. H., & Saenz, R. (1993). Ethnic factors and the use of public outdoor

recreation areas: The case of Mexican Americans. Leisure Sciences, 15, 83-98.

Floyd, M. E, & Shinew, K. J. (1999). Convergence and divergence in leisure style among Whites andAfrican Americans: Toward an interracial contact hypothesis. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,359-384.

Gobster, P. H., & Delgado, A. (1993). Ethnicity and recreation use in Chicago's Lincoln Park: In-parkuser survey findings. In Managing urban and high-use recreation settings. St. Paul, MN: NorthCentral Forest Experiment Station.

Greller, M. M., & Nee, D. M. (1989). From baby boom to baby bust: How business can meet thedemographic challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Henderson, K. A., & Ainsworth, B. E. (2001). Researching leisure and physical activity with womenof color: Issues and emerging questions. Leisure Sciences, 23, 21-34.

Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in Chicago'spublic parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 205-222.

Hutchison, R. (1994). Women and the elderly in Chicago's public parks. Leisure Sciences, 16, 229-247.

Irwin, P. N., Gartner, W. C., & Phelps, C. C. (1990). Mexican-American/Anglo cultural differencesas recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences, 12, 335-348.

Infoplease.com. Projected number of Centenarians in the U.S., 2000-2050. Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778380.html.

Juniu, S. (2000). The impact of immigration: Leisure experiences in the lives of South Americanimmigrants. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 358-381.

Kieffer, J. A. (1986). Kicking the premature retireme_ habit. Journal of Career Development, 13(2),39-51.

218 11. E. A. Tinsley et al.

London, M., & Greller, M. M. (1991). Demographic trends and vocational behavior: A twenty-yearretrospective and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38, 125-164.

Manfredo, M. J., & Zinn, H. C. (1996). Population change and its implications for wildlife managementin the new west: A case study of Colorado. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 62-74.

McCormick, B. P., & McGuire, E (1996). Leisure in community life of older rural residents. LeisureSciences, 18, 77-93.

McDonald, D., & McAvoy, L. (1997). Native Americans and leisure: State of the research and futuredirections. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 145-166.

McGuire, E (2000). What do we know? Not much: The state of leisure and aging research. Journal

of Leisure Research, 32, 97-100.McPherson, B. D. (1991). In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, & G. L. Peterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure

(pp. 423-430). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.Overs, R. P., Taylor, S., Cassell, E., & Chernov, M. (1977). Avocational counseling for the elderly.

Sussex, WI: Avocational Counseling Research.

Pedlar, A., Dupuis, S., & Gilbert, A. (1996). Resumption of role status through leisure in later life.Leisure Sciences, 18, 259-276.

Philipp, S. E (1997). Race, gender and leisure benefits. Leisure Sciences, 19, 191-207.Philipp, S. F. (1999). Are we welcome? African American racial acceptance in leisure activities and

the importance given to children's leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,385-403.Searle, M. S., Mahon, M. J., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1995). Enhancing a sense of independence and

psychological well-being among the elderly: A field experiment. Journal of Leisure Research,27, 107-124.

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. E, McGuire, F. A., & Noe, E P. (1995). Gender, race and subjective socialclass and their association with leisure preferences. Leisure Sciences, 17, 75-89.

Siegenthaler, K. L., & Vaughan, J. (1998). Older women in retirement and communities: Perceptionsof recreation and leisure. Leisure Sciences, 20, 53-66.

Special Senate Committee Report on Aging (1991). www.aoa.dhhs.gov.Tinsley, H. E. A. (1978). The ubiquitous question of why. In D. J. Brademas (Ed.), New thoughts on

leisure (pp. 86-99). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Tinsley, H. E. A., Colbs, S. L., Teaff, J. D., & Kaufman, N. (1987). The relationship of age, gender,

health and economic status to the psychological benefits older persons report from participationin leisure activities. Leisure Sciences, 9, 53-65.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Eldredge, B. D. (1995 ). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A taxonomyof leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. Journal of Counseling Psychology,42, 123-132.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Kass, R. A. (1978). Leisure activities and need satisfaction: A replication andextension. Journal of Leisure Research, 10, 191-202.

Tinsley, H. E. A., Teaff, J. D., Colbs, S. L., & Kaufman, N. (1985). A system for classifying leisureactivities in terms of the psychological benefits of participation reported by older persons. Journalof Gerontology, 40, 172-178.

Toth, Jr., J. E, & Brown, R. B. (1997). Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in

recreational fishing. Leisure Sciences, 19, 129-146.Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Zuzanek, J., & Box, S. (1988). Life course and the daily lives of older adults in Canada. In K. Altergott

(Ed.), Daily life in later life (pp. 147-185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Zuzanek, J., Robinson, J. P., & Iwasaki, Y. (1998). The relationships between stress, health and

physically active leisure as a function of life-cycle. Leisure Sciences, 20, 253-275.

park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of ...formation about park usage patterns, the...

Documents