HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-06-15; Parks & Recreation Commission; 698-6; Public Opinions & Attitudes on Recreation in 1997AB# 698-6 TITLE : PUBLIC OPINIONS AND ATTITUDES
MTG. DATE: 6/15/98
DEPT. CSD CALIFORNIA 1997
ON OUTDOOR RECREATION IN IC-
I DIV. REC & PRK PLN ~~ ~ -
STAFF: BEVERLY I I
INFO
[7 ACTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION : I Accept and file results of Public Opinion Survey. Direct staff to return with additional item
information if and when appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION :
Last month, just prior to the May Commission meeting, staff received a copy of a California State
Parks Survey on Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California 1997.
Although staff has requested additional original copies from the State for each of the
Commissioners, they have yet to be received, pending a possible second printing.
Consequently, the attached Xerox copy has been provided within Commissioner’s packets only
and a copy is on file in the Administration office for public review.
c.
At this time, this is an information item only as it contains an abundance of information relative to
Public Opinions and Attitudes on Recreation in California. While the enclosed information is
indicative of statewide attitudes based upon survey questionnaires, it is also important to realize
that the attitudes and opinions presented in this information may not particularly represent the
attitudes and opinions of Carlsbad residents. Nevertheless, the information contained within is
meaningful in terms of identifying recreational trends, demands, funding, demographics,
satisfaction, etc. on a statewide level and in all likelihood is representative to some degree of
local trends as well.
I EXHIBITS:
1. Survey results 1997 - Outdoor Recreation in California
L
PUBLIC
OPINIONS AND
ATTITUDES
ON OUTDOOR
RECREATION
IN CALIFORNIA
1997
An Element of the California
Outdoor Recreation
Planning Program
MARCH 1998
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Public Opinions and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in California 1997 was developed from data
resulting from a focused public opinion survey. It is an element of the California Outdoor
Recreation Planning Program, formulated under the provisions of Chapter 5099 of the California
Public Resources Code. The survey and subsequent report were developed under the leadership
and coordination provided by the Planning and Local Services section of the California
Department of Parks and Recreation.
Ode1 King, Manager
Kenneth E. Martin, Staff Park and Recreation Specialist
Special technical assistance was provided by Keith Demetrak and Bruce Kennedy, former
supervisors of the Planning unit.
The Department wishes to gratefully acknowledge the financial participation of the following
federal agencies. Without their support the survey and report would not have been possible:
Bureau of Land Management -Tim Smith
USDA Forest Service -Trinidad Juarez
National Park Service -Joan Chaplick -
This report was prepared under the provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 196,
(Public Law 88-578, as amended).
Special thanks goes to CIC Research, Inc. under the guidance of Gordon Kubota, president, for
their excellent cooperation and professionalism in conducting the survey. We also wish to thank Dr.
John Baas, president, Timberline Associates, for his special contributions under contract to CIC
Research.
Finally, we wish to thank Department etnployees Nan Smith, Publications unit, and Gail Dudding,
Business Services unit, for the editing, formatting, and artistic presentation. This document would
not have been possible in this form without their assistance.
Inquiries or suggestions regarding this document may be addressed to:
Manager, Planning and Local Services Section
California State Parks
P. 0. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 9426-000 1
8- %$ printed on rccyclcd paper
PUBLIC OPINIONS IIND
ATTITUDES ON
OUTDOOR RECREATION
IN CiRLlFORNlfl
F 1997
An Element of the California Outdoor Recreation
Planning Program
MARCH 1998
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS.
L
@I 998, Califoriiia Stw Parks. All rights reserved. I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I . EXECUTIVE SUMMllRY ............................. ............................................................................... 1
FINDINGS FROM THE SURVEY .................................................................................................... 3
COMPARISON WITH THE 1987 AND 1992 STUDIES ................................................................... 4
COMPARISON WITH HISPANIC AND NON-HISPANIC RESPONDENTS .................................... 4
SECTION II INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 7
PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................... 7
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT ........................................................................................................ 8
SECTION 111 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 9
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF CALIFORNIANS TOWARD RECREATION ............................... 11
Importance ........................................................................................................................... 11
Satisfaction .......................................................................................................................... 12
Types of Areas Visited and Favorite Areas .......................................................................... 12
General Attitudes ................................................................................................................. 13
ACTIVITY/PARTICIPATION .......................................................................................................... 15
Participation ......................................................................................................................... 15
Activity Participation Days .................................................................................................... 15
Participants' Activity Days .................................................................................................... 22
Statewide Participation Days ............................................................................................... 22
LATENT OR UNMET DEMAND AND PUBLIC SUPPORT: A NEEDS ASSESSMENT ................... 22
MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY/WILLINGNESS TO PAY ............................................................. 31
FUNDING'OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES ................................................ 35
PRIORITIES FOR SPENDING ...................................................................................................... 36
MISCELLANEOUS ....................................................................................................................... 38
Private Business Involvement .............................................................................................. 38
Factors Influencing Enjoyment ............................................................................................ 38
/
i
Open Ended Comments ...................................................................................................... 38
HISPANIC RECREATION PATTERNS ......................................................................................... 41
Visits to and Types of Areas Preferred ................................................................................ 42
Attitudes Toward Recreation Lands and Facilities ............................................................... 42
Funding Park and Recreation Areas and Spending Changes ............................................. 45
Changes in Park and Recreation Facilities and Services .................................................... 45
Activity Participation and Latent Demand ............................................................................ 46-
Motives for Participation ...................................................................................................... 50
Compared to Previous Studies ............................................................................................ 50
Implications of Pilot Study of Hispanic Recreation Patterns when
c
\1
r
SECTION IV COMPARISONS . OTHER STUDIES ........................................................................................ 53
COMPARISON OF THE 1997 STUDY WITH THE 1987 AND 1992 STUDIES .............................. 55
Summary of Changes in Responses . 1987. 1992. and 1997 Studies ...................................... 55
Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Outdoor Recreation ..................................................................... 56
Changes in Activity Patterns ...................................................................................................... 62
Changes in Willingness to Pay .................................................................................................. 63
Implications Pertaining to Trends Assessment .......................................................................... 63
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER RECENT NATIONAL OR REGIONAL SURVEYS ...................... 64
National Survey on Recreation and the Environment ............................................................... 64
NSRE Report Highlights ............................................................................................................ 66
Roper Starch 1996 Survey ........................................................................................................ 66
SECTION V FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE RECREATlON USE .................................................................. 67
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AFFECTING FUTURE RECREATION USE ............. 69
Economic Revitalization and lncreased Consumer Spending ................................................... 69
Changes in Employment and Amount of Free Time .................................................................. 69
Aging Population Impacts .......................................................................................................... 70
tncreased Open Space .............................................................................................................. 71
Introduction or Increase in Entrance Fees on Federal Lands ................................................... 71
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TREND ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 72
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A -TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH UNWEIGHTED SUM6ARY STATlSTlCS ....................... AI
APPENDIX B -MAIL SURVEY WITH UNWEIGHTED SUMMARY STATISTICS ................................ 61
APPENDIX C -SURVEY METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... CI
OVERALL METHODS ............................................................................................................. C3
SPECIFIC TASKS .................................................................................................................... C3
Questionnaire Design ......................................................................................................... C3
Sample Frame Development ............................................................................................. C3
Data Collection ................................................................................................................... C4
Code Book Development ................................................................................................... C6
Analysis .............................................................................................................................. C6
.............. C8
RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGICAL CHANGES AND SCOPE
OF WORK CHANGES ..............................
APPENDIX D -DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS AND CROSSTABULATIONS ................................................ DI
GENERAL PROFILE .................. ..................................................................................... D3
Income .......................................... .............................................................................. D6
Education ............................... .......................... ............................................. 06
Type of Household ...... ............................. .............................................
Respondent’s Gender .......................... ................................................... D9
Coastal vs . Non-Coastal ..... ........................................................................................... D11
APPENDIX E - REFERENCES: RECREATION TRENDS nnnirsis ....................................................... EI
..................................................
DEMOGRAPHIC CROSSTABUL .......................................................... D6
9s .- .. ~ . .-
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO . PAGE NO .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 . 19 . 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Outdoor Recreation Importance to Quality of Life .............................................................. 11
Satisfaction ........................................................................................................................ 12
Visits to Outdoor Recreation Areas ................................................................................... 13
Types of Outdoor Recreation Areas Preferred .................................................................. 13
Attitudes Concerning Outdoor Recreation Lands and Facilities ........................................ 14
Average Activity Days Statewide ....................................................................................... 18
Average Activity Days Activity Participants Only ................................................................ 20
Estimated Total Household Participation Days .................................................................. 23
Time Spent Outdoors ........................................................................................................ 12
Participation ....................................................................................................................... 16
Latent Demand .................................................................................................................. 26
Public Support ................................................................................................................... 28
Needs Assessment ........................................................................................................... 30
Most Important Activities ................................................................................................... 32
General Willingness to Pay ............................................................................................... 33
Average Dollars Willing to Pay for a Day's Worth of Five Most
Important Activities ............................................................................................................ 34
Funding Park and Recreation Areas .................................................................................. 35
Spending Changes ............................................................................................................ 36
Attitudes Toward Changes to Park and Recreation Facilities and Services ...................... 37
Privatizinr Public Parks and Recreation Areas ................................................................. 39
Factors Jencing Enjoyment of Most Important Activity ................................................. 39
Comm .... From Mail Survey ............................................................................................ 40
Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Group Visits to Outdoor Recreation Areas ............................ 43
Type of Outdoor pecreation Area Preferred for Hispanics and
Non-Hispanics ................................................................................................................... 43
Attitudes Concerning Outdoor Recreation Lands and
Facilities (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) ..................................................................................... 44
Spending Changes (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) . .............................................................. 47
Attitudes Toward Changes to Park and Recreation Facilities and
Selected Latent Demand Hispanics vs . Non-Hispanics ..................................................... 49
Public Support Hispanics vs . Non-Hispanics ..................................................................... 49
Factors Influencing Enjoyment of Most Important Activity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) ......... 50
Outdoor Recreation Important to Quality of Life (1 987, 1992. 1997) ................................. 53
............ 54
Visits to Outdoor Recreation Areas (1 987, 1992, and 1997) ....... ................................ 55
Type of Outdoor Recreation Area Preferred (1 987, 1992, 1997) ....................................... 56
Funding Park and Recreation Areas (1 987. 1992 and 1997) ........................................... 57
Funding Park and Recreation Areas (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) ......................................... 47
Services (HispanidNon-Hispanic) .................................................................................... 48
Satisfaction (1 987, 1992, 1997) ...............................................................
Spending Changes (1 987, 1992, 1997) .......................................................
TABLE NO. PAGE NO.
c- 1
c-2
D-1
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
0-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
Respondents by County .....................................................................
Telephone Survey Call Result Summary
How Information is Obtained ...............
Type of Household ........................................................................................
Distribution of Number of People in Household
Income Distribution .:: .......................................
Educational Distribution ......................
Distribution of Ethnicity .....
...............
.....................
........................ 03
Selected Characteristics by Income Levels .............
Selected Characteristics by Type of Household ........................................ ...................... D9
Selected Characteristics by Gender of Respondent ...................................................... D10
Selected Characteristics by Coastal vs. Non-Coastal Counties ..................................... D11
............................................... D7
Selected Characteristics by Education .......
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. PAGE NO.
1 Participation ..................................................................................................................... 17
2 Average Activity Days (Statewide) ................................................................................... 19
3
4 Estimated Total Household Participation Days ................................................................ 24
5 Latent Demand ................................................................................................................ 27
6 Public Support .................................................................................................................. 29
Average Activity Days (Activity Participants Only) ............................................................ 21
SECTION I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Broad-level planning for outdoor recreation requires current information about the attitudes and
opinions, the current activities and the desires of the general public. To obtain such information,
current as of 1997, a focused public opinion survey was undertaken that asked respondents their
views on many aspects of those recreation areas and facilities provided by all levels of government-
federal, state, and local. This survey was undertaken by the California Department of Parks and
Recreation, with the participation and strong support of the Federal Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, and United States Forest Service. This survey is a partial replication of previ-
ous surveys taken by the Department in 7987 and 7992.
The 1997 survey of the California population was based on a sample of 2,O 10 California house-
holds selected at random. This sample size provides data that exceeds 95 percent confidence 3 5
percent when the state is considered as a whole. Each respondent was interviewed for an average
of five minutes, and a portion of them also responded to a lengthy mail questionnaire. The mail
questionnaire contained topics and questions that were too detailed or complex to be dealt with or)
the telephone.
Looking at the 1997 data, a few very broad
generalizations can be made, which are similar
to those from the 1992 study:
W
I
Outdoor recreational areas and facilities are
very important to the quality of life of most
Californians;
Californians are fairly well satisfied with the
areas and facilities currently available; .
Californians spent approximately 2.2 billion
days participating in outdoor recreation
activities during 1997;
Simple and inexpensive activities are
engaged in far more than those which
require considerable skill and expense;
Californians do not show a strong willing-
ness to pay for the recreational areas and
facilities they use or desire; and
Californians strongly believe that protection
of the natural environment is an important
aspect of outdoor recreation.
Below are a few of the more detailed high-
lights of the 1997 survey. Tt . ’ull range of
detailed information will be fG!-,ild in the body of
the report and in the Appendices, which follow.
Roughly 70 percent of Californians indicate
that outdoor recreation areas and facilities
are the same or better than five years ago.
Over 80 percent of Californians indicated
that federal and state government should
continue to assist in financing outdoor
recreation.
Based on latent (unmet) demand and public
support, Californians believe that nine
outdoor recreational activities should have
top priority for the expenditure of public
funds: walking, trail hiking, camping in
developed sites, camping in primitive sites,
general nature study, use of open grass
areas, picnicking in devetoped sites, visiting
museums/historic sites, and visiting zoos
and arboretums.
Californians prefer methods of funding
public recreation areas and facilities that do
not directly impact the user or the general
population, i.e., “sin” taxes.
W In terms of public spending priorities, Cali-
fornians appear to focus more on existing
facilities rather than expanded opportunitit;,
for outdoor recreation areas and facilities.
Californians tend to want more local com-
munity parks; more horseback riding, hiking
and/or mountain biking areas where no
motorized vehicles are allowed; more
campgrounds and fewer commercial
businesses within public parks; and fewer
areas for off-road vehicles.
COMPARISON WITH THE 1987 AND 1992 STUDIES
w
COMPARISON WITH HISPANIC AND
NOM-HISPANIC RESPONDENTS
w This year’s survey examined differences in
responses between Hispanics and mem-
bers of all other ethnic groups. For these
groups, differences of 10 percentage points
or more within an aggregated category
(e.g., approve and strongly approve, or
disapprove and strongly disapprove) were
found for the types of outdoor recreational
Generally, there were few major changes in
attitudes or behavior over the last decade.
Some changes are noticeable for prefer-
ences for funding mechanisms, and
changes are apparent in the average
number of days among participants for
walking, general nature study, basketball,
surfing, sailboating and windsurfing,
kayaking and other non-motorized water-
craft use, and freshwater fishing.
Direct comparability for some activities is
not possible due to changes in activity
definition since 1987. For example, in 1987
trail hiking was combined with mountain
climbing. When examining the average
days of participation data for all three
surveys, several activities (walking, camp-
ing-both types, kayaking and related
activities) exhibit an inverted “U” curve,
implying that participation increased in 1992
then decreased to about 1987 levels.
Between 1997 and 1992 “high” latent demand
was basically unchanged for those activities
identified in 1992, but willingness to pay
changed for all of those activities.
Finally, there is growing support for increased
facility maintenance, increased construction
of new facilities, and increased acquisition of
lands for park and recreational purposes.
w
areas visited; the types of outdoor recre-
ational areas preferred; selected attitudes
concerning recreation lands and facilities,
funding park and recreational areas, spend-
ing changes, changes to park and recre-
ation facilities and services; and factors
influencing enjoymenf of the respondents’
most important recreational activity.
Generally, data from the 1997 survey reveal
that Hispanic respondents, as compared to
all other respondents, have more positive
attitudes towards their recreational experi-
ences in California and are more likely to
use and prefer highly developed areas,
excluding historic and cultural sites.
Hispanics also demonstrated more positive
attitudes towards special programs and are
more likely to be concerned with regulation
of behavior at recreational sites, compared
to non-Hispanics.
Hispanics tended to participate less in many
of the outdoor activities examined in this
survey and have a different set of latent
demand priorities than members of other
ethnic groups.
The results from this study are generally
consistent with those of other California
studies of non-Hispanic and Hispanic
recreation patterns, which suggest that
different service delivery approaches are
needed to serve specific ethnic groups.
. SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
.
BACKGROUND
The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for the preparation and
periodic revision of a comprehensive California Outdoor Recreation Plan. This plan provides
policy guidance and basic information of value to all public agencies-state, federal, and
local-engaged in providing outdoor recreational lands and facilities throughout the state.
The information that this public opinion survey provides is an essential ingredient to the
1998 revision of the California Outdoor Recreation Plan. (It serves to update the Open Project
Selection Process, and may also be used to guide various grant programs.)
plans. The present mail and telephone surveys added some statements to the original lists and the
telephone survey added one additional question. All studies were accomplished under contract to
the Department by CIC Research, Inc., of San Diego. Funding for the 1997 study has been pro-
vided by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, with support from the following federal
agencies: The National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the United States
Forest Service. This report presents the detailed findings of the 1997 public opinion survey, as well
as comparisons of this data with relevant portions of the 1987 and 1992 surveys.
Similar surveys were undertaken in 1987 and 1992 to assist in the revision of the 1988 and 1993
PURPOSE OF STUDY
This study focuses on two major areas of
inquiry :
m Public attitudes, opinions, and values with
respect to outdoor recreation in California.
m Demand for and current participation in 43
selected types of outdoor recreation
activities.
Specifically, the study also aims to determine
the:
importance of public outdoor recreation areas
and facilities to the respondent's life-style.
satisfaction with the full range of public
parks and outdoor recreation opportunities
available in California.
frequency of engaging in specific outdoor
recreation activities.
frequency of visiting various significantly
different types of outdoor recreation areas
and preferences for them.
attitudes toward various proposed changes
to existing public parks and recreation
facilities, purposes and services.
attitudes toward private firms being allowed
to provide various services in public parks.
willingness to pay for favorite outdoor
activities at public parks under a variety of
circumstances.
attitudes toward various priorities and
methods for funding public parks and
recreation areas.
reaction toward level of spending by gov-
ernment agencies on various park and
recreation services.
current differences, if any, between the
Hispanic community's attitudes and opin-
ions regarding outdoor recreation participa-
tion and those of the rest of the population.
ORGANIZITIOW OF REPORT Mail questionnaire is presented in a similar
fashion on page 83.
Study methodology is described on page
c3.
The major findings of the study are pre-
sented in the next section of this report. These
participation, latent demand, funding/priorities
for spending, and miscellaneous issues on a
statewide basis for outdoor recreation. The
outdoor recreational activities considered focus
on public facilities owned and managed by all
levels of government, Le., federal, state, and
local. These findings are followed by a number
of appendices, which provide more detail.
Telephone survey’instrument is provided E3. .
narrative findings consider attitudes, activity/
Demographic characteristics of respon-
dents are detailed starting on page D3.
Selected crosstabulations’ are presented to
provide insight into the data set for
decision-making purposes.
A selective bibliography is provided on page
Organizations and individuals who contrib-
lited to this study armcknowledged.
with (unweighted) summary statistics on
page A3.
I
’A crosstabulation is a table showino the ioint values of two or more characteristics.
SECTION 111
FINDINGS
Ill. FINDINGS
In this section, major statewide findings are reported for the survey. Because the character-
istics of survey data do not always match the characteristics of the populations, various charac-
teristics were considered as possible weighting factors. Of the characteristics tested-age,
income, education, and race-significant difference were discovered only in the education
characteristic category. As a result, the survey data has been weighted to reflect the 1990 total
California distribution of education. For example, if a specific education-level group is
underrepresented in the sample, each observation from that education-level group is weighted
upward so that the proper education-level proportions are achieved for the sample as a whole.
Thus, the findings reflect the opinions and attitudes of Californians on a statewide basis.
The unweighted, or raw, survey data are presented in Appendices A and B to this report.
The unweighted data reflect the characteristics of the sample respondents rather than the Cali-
fornia population. The unweighted survey results are presented to permit evaluation of sample
size, nonresponse, and distribution on a question-by-question basis.
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS OF CALIFORNIANS
TOWARD RECREllTlON
lmporlance
Californians were asked to consider any
and all public outdoor areas, parklands, and
facilities operated by any level of government.
As Table 1 indicates, over eight in ten (82.0%)
Generally, Californians may be character-
ized as individuals who think that outdoor
recreation areas
and facilities are
very important to
their quality of life
and who are fairly
satisfied with avail-
able public outdoor
recreational areas
and facilities. Most
indicate that the
conditions of public
outdoor recreation
areas and facilities
in California are the
same as or better
than they were five
years ago.
Californians
believe that out-
Table 1 door recreation
areas and facilities
are “important” or
“very important” to
their quality of life.
Roughly five
percent indicated
that outdoor
recreational areas
and facilities were
“not at all impor-
tan t ” or “ u n i m po r -
tant” to their
quality of life.
OUTDOOR RECREATION IMPORTANCE
TO QUALITY OF LIFE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997
satistaction
Californians were asked the degree of their
satisfaction with California’s public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities currently avail-
able. As Table 2 indicates, 60.0 percent of the
respondents indicated they were “satisfied” or
“very satisfied” with their opportunities.
Roughly 11 percent indicated they were “not at
all satisfied” or “unsatisfied.” In addition,
respondents were asked to compare outdoor
recreation areas and facilities today with those
of five years ago. Almost 71 percent indicated
that current conditions were “the same as“ or
“better than” five years ago. However, as Table
3 indicates, 37.1 percent spend less time in
outdoor recreational activities than they did five
years ago.
Table 2
SATISFACTION
Table 3
TIME SPENT OUTDOORS
Comparison of time spent in outdoor
recreation actiwties now with five years ago.
SAME 1 28.0%
MORE
34.9’10
. LESS
37.1%
Satisfaction with public outdoor recreation areas and facilities
curren tly available.
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1897.
Types of Lreas Visited and
Favorite Lreas
27.3% Very satisfied
Satisfied
29.2% Neutral
Unsatisfied 7.5%
Comparison of outdoor recreation areas and facilities
today with five years ago.
25.8% Not as good
Based on five broad types of
outdoor recreation areas, Califor-
nians were asked to indicate how
often they visited each. Table 4
indicates that “nature-oriented *
parks and recreation areas” are
visited by the largest percentage of
respondents, followed closely by
“natural and undeveloped areas.”
“Highly developed parks and
recreation areas,” however, are
visited with the greatest regularity.
“Private outdoor recreation areas
and facilities” are visited the least.
Table 5 lists Californians’
preferences for the five broad types
of outdoor recreation areas. “Natu-
ral and undeveloped areas” were
preferred by the largest proportion
of respondents (39.4%). Thus,
Californians visit and prefer natural
and undeveloped areas in the
largest proportion but visit “highly
developed parks and recreation
Table 4
VISITS TO OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS
Private, not public, outdoor recreation areas ’
and facilities ~ 25.8 ~ 28.0
Once AtLeast
Not At Twice Times Per Per 2-3Times
All Per Year Per Year Month Week ,Perweek
Once or Several Once Twice or
~ 22.7 10.6 7.4 j 5.5
Natural and undeveloped areas 9 7% 28.7% 36.8% 13.0% 5.9% 5.8%
Nature-oriented parks and recreation areas 88 22.1 43.3 16.0 5.6 4.1
Table 5
TYPES OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS PREFERRED
Natural and undeveloped areas
Nature-oriented parks and
recreation areas
Highly developed parks and
recreation areas
Historical or cultural buildings, sites or areas
Private, outdoor recreation
areasand facilities
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
areas” with the greatest regularity. “Historical/
cultural areas,” “highly developed parks and
recreational areas,” and “private recreation areas”
do not appear to have the level of preference
found for the other broad types of outdoor recre-
ation areas.
General llttitudes
Californians were asked a sequence of
questions to identify their general attitudes re-
garding outdoor recreation lands and facilities in
California. First, respondents were asked for their
level of agreemenudisagreement to a 3eries of 18
statements. Second, Californians were queried
about changes to park and recreation facilities.
Third, respondents were asked to determine
activity levels and desired spending levels. Finally,
a series of questions dealing with funding alterna-
tives were asked. Highlights of the attitudes of
Californians are presented below.
Preservation and A vailability : C a I if orn i an s
generally support statements regarding preserva-
tion and availability. As Table 6 indicates, Califor-
nians overwnelmingly agree (92.5% moderately
or strongly agree) that protection of the natural
environment is an important aspect of outdoor
recreation areas. Further, Californians believe the
Table 6
Attitudes Concerning Outdoor
Recreation Lands and Faciliites
Neither
Strongly Moderately Agree Statern ent I Disagree I Disagree I Nor
D isao ree
a. There are enough outdoor recreation areas and
b. More outdoor recreation areas and facilities are
c. Protection of the natural environment is an
d. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities in California are often too crowded when I want to 2.6 11.1 26.7
use them.
e. Recreational facilities and programs for special populations such as the elderly, the very poor or 4.5 9.2 26.5
disabled people should be increased.
Outdoor recreation areas and programs help to reduce crime and juvenile delinquency in my 3.2 8.8 26.3
facilities available that are convenient for me. 6. 5O-c 18 6% 13. 7%
needed in or near large cities. 3 .O a .a 20.2
important aspect of outdoor recreation areas. 12 1 .9 4.5
f.
community. I I
g. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities improve a comm unity's "quality of life." 1 .o 1.9 6.9
h. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities attract undesirable people and activities. .19.0 31 .2 27.9
i. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities can create jobs and spending in the community, helping its 1 .o 3.8 17.9
economy.
j. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities should be used to promote tounsm. 4.1 9.6 20.4
k. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities increase
property.
There should be better regulation of behavior.
rules and laws in parks and outdoor recreation 4.4 8.9 22.8
areas, which would make my expenence more
comfortable and safe.
m. The federal government should continue to give
financial assistance to local and state 3.1 4.1 10.8
governments for parks and outdoor recreation
areas.
n. The &&government should continue to glve
financial aid to local governments for outdoor 2.1 2.3 6.9
recreation.
0. The quality of the natural setting is an important
factor in m y enjoyment of outdoor recreation 0.7 1 .o 4.2
the value of nearby residential and comm ercial 1 .4 5.2 28.9
I.
p Wetlands, such as estuaries and marshes, are of
substantial ecological and recreational importance 2 9 42 16 6
and should be protected by the government
Additional campgrounds should be constructed
that are more developed and have hot showers, 81 10.6 20.5
including campsites for which there would be an
extra fee with hook-ups for electricity and water
Increased tounsm at parks, wildlife and recreation
generate additional funds for the operation and
m ain tenance of those areas
q
r
areas should be encouraged if it is a means to 43 $0 21 9
* I,-$Z
30.3 29.2
27.6 1 32.3
' 29.4 ' I 32.2
45.4 31 .9
27.7 66.5
27.6 48.7
27.3 33.4
34.2 30.6
quality of the natural setting (line 0,94.2% moder-
ately or strongly agree) is important to their
outdoor experience and that wetlands. because of
their ecological emportance (line p, 76.3% moder-
ately or strongly agree) should be protected by
the government.
While the majority (61 2%) moderately or
strongly believe that there are enough facilities
available for their own use (line a), 68.0 percent
indicated that more outdoor recreation areas
and facilities are needed in or near large cities
(line b). Further, almost 60 percent strongly or
moderately agree that recreational facilities and
programs for the elderly, poor or disabled
should be increased (line e).
Problems: Californians appear to be
concerned about crowded conditions and
safety. Almost 60 percent indicated that
outdoor recreation areas and facilities in
California are often too crowded when they
wish to use them (line d). Roughly 64 percent
agreed that better regulation of behavior, rules
and laws in parks and outdoor recreation areas
would make their experience more comfortable
and safe (line e). However, only 21.9 percent
moderately .or strongly agreed that outdoor
recreation areas and facilities attract
undesirable people and activities (line h).
Spillover values: In the eyes of Californians,
outdoor recreation areas and facilities have value
beyond simple use. Californians moderately or
strongly agreed that outdoor recreation areas,
programs, and facilities tended to reduce crime
and juvenile delinquency (line f, 61.6%), created
jobs and spending (line i, 77.3%), and increased
the value of nearby commercial and residential
property (line k, 64.4%). Roughly two-thirds of
the respondents indicated that outdoor recreation
areas and facilities should be used to promote
tourism (line j).
Californians indicate that federal and state
government should continue to assist in financ-
ing outdoor recreation. An identified 82 percent
moderately or strongly agreed that the federal
government should continue to give financial
assistance to local and state governments for
Financing Attitude: A strong majority of
parks and outdoor recreation areas (line m).
Slightly more Californians (88.7%) agreed that
sfate government should continue to give
financial aid to local governments for outdoor
recreation. Almost 65.0 percent moderately or
strongly agreed that increased tourism at recre-
ation areas should be encouraged if it generates
additional funds for operation and maintenance
of those areas (line r).
ACTIVITY /PARTICIPATION
Californians are very active in outdoor recre-
ation and participate in a number of activities. In
this survey, 43 outdoor activities were considered.
Respondents were asked to note their participation
in each of the 43 activities and note the number of
days per year of participation.
Participation
The percentage of respondents that indicated
one or more days of participation in each of the 43
activities is provided in Table 7. As the table
indicates, walking was undertaken by the largest
percentage of respondents (84.8%) while
snowmobiling was undertaken by the lowest
percentage of respondents (2.5%). Fifty percent
or more of the respondents participated in 13 of
the 43 activities noted. Alternatively, only seven
activities reflected participation rates less than 10
percent. In general, participation rates appear to be
higher for activities that are less expensive, require
less equipment, and need fewer technical skills.
Activity Participation Days
Table 8 indicates the average number of
activity days per year for a// respondents in the
survey (Le., nonparticipants in the activity are
included in calculating the mean). As the table
indicates, average activity days vary significantly
from activity to activity. Walking recorded by far
the largest average number of days (74.3 days).
Other activities with high activity rates included
driving for pleasure (32.8 days), use of open
grass areas (21.1 days), bicycling (19.7 days),
and nature study wildlife viewing (1 9.3 days). In
essence, Table 8 represents the average num-
ber of days in 1997 for each activity per adult
California resident.
Table 7
PARTlCl PATlON
Activity
Number
Percentage of
Participation Rank
I
O1 I
02 I I
03 I
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Walking (Recreational)
Trail hiking
Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
Mountain biking (not on paved
surfaces)
Jogging and running
Driving for pleasuye
Horseback riding
Hunting
Camping in developed sites with
tent or vehicle
Camping in primitive areas and
backpacking
Mountain climbing
General nature study, wildlife viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas for
casual and unstructured activities,
like games, sitting, sunning
lJse of play equipment, tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistol
and skeet)
84.8% ' 1
58.0 1 8
42.8 I 15
I
1
I
I
I
17.7 27
28.6 I 18
68.3 I 4
14.2 I 32
8.7 1 38
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
51.8 13
25.8 I 20
10.1 I 36
54.0 I 11
68.4 I 3
40.0 I 16
65.0 I 7
26.4 ' 19
18.1 I 25
8.5 1 39
13.8 I 33
17.9 1 26
12.6 1 35
17.0 I 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
Activity Percentage of
Number Participation Rank
I I 23 '
I
24 I I 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 I
I I I 38
I
39 I
40
41
42
43
Beach activities, including sunning I
and games 67.8% 1 5
Swimming (in outdoor pools)
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and the
ocean (not in pools)
Surfing
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing,
and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing - saltwater
Fishing -freshwater
Downhill (Alpine) skiing
Cross-country skiing
Other non-mechanized winter
sports activities - sledding,
snow play, ice skating
Snowmobiling
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs,
dune buggies used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
paved roads
Attending outdoor cultural events,
like concerts, theater, etc., in
outdoor settings
Visiting museums, historic sites
Visiting zoos and arboretums
Skateboarding and rollerblading
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
events, professional or amateur
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
48.0 1 14
57.2 ' 9
5.3 1 42
6.7 I 41
18.3 1 24
21.1 I 23
12.8 34
22.7 I 22 I 37.3 1 17
15.6 I 30
7.2
23.0
2.5
40
21
43
I
I
I I
9.9 I 37
14.6 I 31
56.0
74.6
66.3
16.0
10
2
6
29
51.9 I 12
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1997
Activity
Figure 1
Participation
~ ~
Walking (Recreational 1 1 84 8
74 6 ‘r Visiting museums, historic sites
Use of open grass or turf areas 68 4
Driving for pleasure 68 3
Beach activities m, 67 8
Visiting zoos and arboretums
Picnicking in developed sites 50
66 3
Trail hiking 58 0
Swimming in lakes. rivers, ocean
General nature wildlife study
57 2
Attending outdoor cultural events 56 0
54 0
Attending outdoor sports 51 9
Camping in developed sites 1- 51 8
Swimming (in outdoor pools) 48 0
Bicycling (on paved surfaces) 42 8
Use of play equipment. tot-lots 1- 40 0
Fishing -freshwater 1- 3 7 3
Jogging and running 1- 28 6
Softball and baseball
Camping in primitive areas
Other (N-M) winter sports
Fishing - saltwater
Power boating
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing
Basketball
Golf
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces)
Target shooting (pistol 8 skeet)
Skateboarding and rollerblading - 1 6 0
Downhill (Alptne) skiing - 1 5 6
4-Wheel drive off paved roads - 1 4 6
Horseback riding - 1 4 2
Soccer 1 3
Water skiing 12 s
Tennis 12 6
Mountain climbing 1
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, dune 9 9
Hunting 87
Football 85
Cross-country skiing 7 2
Sailboating and windsurfing E?] 6 -
surfing rn 5 3
Snowmobiling 2 5
0 15 0 30 0 45.0 60.0 75.0 90.0
n Percent
Table 8
AVERAGE ACTIVITY DAYS STATEWIDE
(All Survey Respondents)
Activity Number
Number of Days Rank
I I 01 1 Walking (Recreational) =I1
02 1 Trail hiking 111 9 I 03 i Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
04 I Mountain biking (not on paved
05 Jogging and running
19.7
I surfaces) I I
06 I Driving for pleasure a
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4
25
6
2
Horseback riding 3-9 I 24
Hunting u 1 34
Camping in developed sites with I
I
I
tent or vehicle 64 I 15
Camping in primitive areas and
28 I 29 backpacking
Mountain climbing - 1.1 I 39
General nature study, wildlife I
viewing 1931 5 ,I I Use of open grass or turf areas
casual and unstructured activities,
like games, sitting, sunning
Use of play equipment, tot-lots 11.2 I 10
Picnicking in developed sites Ls 12
211: 3
Softball and baseball 64 I 16
Basketball 53 I 19 I Football M I 40
Soccer - 4.2 I 22 I Golf 5.2 I 20
Tennis 31 I 28
Target shooting (including pistol 2.7 I 31 and skeet)
I
I
Beach activities, including sunning I I andgames 14.21 8
I I
Activity
Number
Number
of Days Rank
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Swimming (in outdoor pools) 7
ocean (not in pools) 92 11
Surfing Jl5 j 35
I Swimming in lakes, rivers, and the
I Sailboating and windsurfing Mi I 41
Kayaking , rowboating , canoeing,
and rafting l-2 38
Power boating - U I 27
Water skiing j-5 I 36
Fishing - saltwater 2-6 1 32
Fishing -freshwater 61 I 17 I
I
Downhill (Alpine) skiing 1.4 I 37
Cross-country skiing Q§ 35
I I
I
I
Other non-mechanized winter
sports activities - sledding, snow
play, ice skating UI
Snowmobiling 02 I 43
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, dune
buggies used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
paved roads 3-5 I 26
like concerts, theater, etc., in
Visiting museums, historic sites L2.i 13
Visiting zoos and arboretums 4.2 I 23
Skateboarding and rollerblading 58 I 18
events, professional or amateur 7.2 I 14
I 1 30 I I
Attending outdoor cultural events, I
outdoor settings - 4.7 I 21
I
I
I
I
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997
Figure 2
AVERAGE ACTIVITY DAYS
(Statewide)
__ - Walking (Recreational1 74 3
Driving tor pleasure -1 328
Use of open grass or turf areas 1- 21.1
Bicycling (on paved surfaces - 19 7
19 3 General nature wildllte study
Swimming (in outdoor pools) - 15.1
Beach activities 14.2
Jogging and running - lh8
Trail hiking - 11.9
Use of play equipment, tot-lots - 11.2
Swimming in lakes, rivers, ocean '7 9.2
Picnicking in developed sites
Attending outdoor cultural events E..
Visiting museums, historic sites 7.2
Softball and baseball 6.4
Camping in developed sites 6.4
Fishing - fresiwater 6.1
Skateboarding and rollerblading 5.8
Basketball 'w 5.3
Attending outdoor sports '1 4.7
Visiting zoos and arboretums 4.2
Soccer 4.2
Horseback riding lhg 3.9
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces) 'm 3.8
4-Wheel drive off paved roads 'm 3.5
Power boating = 3.3
Tennis 'm 31
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs 'm 28
Camping in primitive areas 'm 28
Target shoaling (pistol & skeet) 'D 27
Fishing - saltwater 'a 26
Golf 5.2
Other (N-M) winter sports 1.9
Hunting 1.8
Surfing 1.6
Water skiing I 1.5
Downhill (Alpine) skiing 1.4
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing 1 1.2
Mountain climbing 1.1
Football 0.8
Cross-country skiing 1 0.6
Sailboating and windsurfing i 0.6
Snowmobiling 10.2
..
._
0 20 40 60 8
Number d Days m
Table 9
AVERAGE ACTIVITY DAYS
ACTIVITY PARTICIPANTS ONLY
(Respondents who participated in a particular activity)
Activity
Number
Number
ofDavs Rank
01 i
02 1 I
O3 I
! I
O5 I
04
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
22 I
Walking (Recreational)
Trail hiking
Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
Mountain biking (not on paved
surfaces)
Jogging and running
Driving for pleasure
Horseback riding
Hunting
Camping in developed sites
with tent or vehicle
Camping in primitive areas and
backpacking
Mountain climbing
General nature study, wildlife
viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas
for casual and unstructured
activities, like games, sitting,
sunning
Use of play equipment, tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistol
and skeet)
87.6 i 1
20.5
46.0
21.5
58.7
48.1
22
4
19
2
3 I. 27.8 1 15
20.9 I 20 I I
I
12.4 I 28
10.9
11.2
35.8
30.8
28.1
12.0
24.2
29.5
9.5
30.4
29.1
24.9
33
32
6
8
14
30
17
11
37
8
12
16
I
15.7 I 25 I
Activity Number
Number ofDays Rank
I 1
23 ' I
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 I I
33 I
34 I I I 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
I
43 I
Beach activities, including I
sunning and games 20.9 21
Swimming (in outdoor pools)
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and
the ocean (not in pools)
Surfing
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing,
and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing -saltwater
Fishing -freshwater
-
31.5
16.1
29.3
9.7
6.6
15.6
12.1
11.5
7
24
10
35
42
26
29
31
16.3 1 23
I I Downhill (Alpine) skiing 9.2 1 38
Cross-country skiing 8.4 I 40 I
I Other non-mechanized winter
sports activities - sledding,
snow play, ice skating 8.3 41
Snowmobiling 9.9
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, dune
buggies used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
paved roads 23.8
28.5
34
13
18
I
I
Attending outdoor cultural events,
like concerts, theater, etc., in
outdoor settings 8.4 I 39
Visiting museums, historic sites 9.7 I 36
Visiting zoos and arboretums 6.3 I 43
Skateboarding and rollerblading 36.2 1 5
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
events, professional or amateur 13.9 I 27
I
I
Source: CIC Research, Inc.; 7997 -
Figure 3
AVERAGE ACTIVITY DAYS
(Activity Participants Only)
Walking (Recreational) 87 6
Jogging and running - 58 7
Driving for pleasure 48 1
Bicycling (on paved surfaces) 46 0
Skateboarding and rollerblading 1.1 36 2
General nature wildlife study 1- 35 8
Swimming (in outdoor pools) 1-1 31 5
Use of open grass or turf areas 1-1 30.8
Soccer 1- 30.4
Basketball
Surf i ng
Golf
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs
Use of play equipment, tot-lots
Tennis
Softball and baseball
4-Wheel drive off paved roads
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces)
Hunting
Beach activities (sunning, games) ~FR.~ 20 9
IF::.: 1-i;
Horseback riding - 27.8 I
Trail hiking =,-2 20 5
Fishing - freshwater bL2-W 16 3
Swimming in lakes, rivers, ocean Mr;m 16 1
Target shooting (pistol & skeet) mmbm 15 7
Power boating 15.6
I Attending outdoor sports p'- 13.9
Camping in developed sites 12.4
Water skiing 12 1
Fishing - saltwater 11 5
Mountain climbing 11.2
1 o 9
I Picnicking in developed sites - -*. 12.0
I
Camping in primitive areas 'm
Snowmobiling 9.9
Sailboating and windsurfing 9.7
P= 9.7 F 9.5 Downhill (Alpine) skiing pg?igq 9.2
Visiting museums, historic sites
Cross-country skiing p- 8.4
Attending outdoor cultural events 'm 8.4
Other non-mechanized winter sports a.3
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing i.c,a 6.6
Visiting zoos and arboretums 'E:?! 6 3
. ..
0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 - Number of Days
Participants' Activity Days
Average activity days for only those Califor-
nians who participated in that activity is shown
in Table 9. For example, while only 1.8 hunting
days were recorded overall (Table 8), those
Californians who do hunt spent an average of
20.9 days hunting.
(58.7 days) had the highest number of activity
days among users. Many of the activities with
low participation rates appear to have fairly avid
participants. As an illustration, only 5.3 percent
surf (Table 7), but those who do, surf an aver-
age of 29.3 days per year.
Walking (87.6 days) and jogginghunning
Statewide Participation Days
Table 10 estimates the magnitude of Califor-
nians' participation in the 43 outdoor activities
listed. Not too surprisingly, walking leads the
list with 724.9 million household participation
days in 1997, while snowmobiling was the
lowest. In a sense, Table 10 represents a
conservative estimate since more than one
adult household member may have participated
in a given activity. However, the general magni-
tude of outdoor activity in California is clear.
Based on Table 10, 2.2 billion household partici-
pation days occurred in 1997. Total outdoor
activity days (Table 9) appear to have remained
the same between 1992 and 1997.
lLTENT OR UWMET DEMLWD LND PUBLIC
SUPPORT: A NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Californians were asked a series of ques-
tions to determine their unmet outdoor recre-
ational demands and their support for public
funding to provide additional public facilities for
' such activities. As a result, a needs assessment
on a statewide basis was accomplished. This
section of the study summarizes those findings.
First, unmet demand was determined by
asking respondents to identify and rank those
activities for which they would most probably
increase their own participation if good opportu-
nities were available. Respondents were asked
to list their top 10 activit$s from a total of 43
possible activities. From these 10, respondents
were asked to rank five activities beginning with
their most important. These rankings were
weighted such that a first place ranking re-
ceived a weight of 10; second, a weight of 6.67;
third, a weight of 4.45; fourth, a weight of 2.96;
and fifth, a weight of 1.98. The weighting is
such that a higher rank is weighted 1.5 times
the previous rank. Unranked activities received
a zero weight. The process follows the metGod
used in the Tennessee Statewide Recre-
ational Study (1 983) and Public Opinions
and Attitudes on Outdoor Recreation in
California (1 987 and 1992).
categorized into high, moderate, and low latent
demand. For an activity to be ranked in the
high unmet demand category, it must have a
score equivalent to a fifth place ranking by one-
half the respondents (e.g., 1.98 x .SO x 10 =
9.9, the formula for deriving an Index Number).
A moderate unmet demand rating is a score
equivalent to being ranked fifth by one-quarter
of the respondents (Le., between 4.95 and 9.9).
Below 4.95, the unmet demand is considered
low. Admittedly, these break points are
arbitrary, but the classifications are consistent
over activities. In addition, comparisons are
possible.
The weighted rankings were then
b. IrC
Table 10
ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION DAYS
(in Millions)
Activity Number of
Number Household
Days Rank
I I 01 ' Walking (Recreational)
02 I Trail hiking
03 I Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
04 I Mountain biking (not on paved
05 I Jogging and running
06 I Driving for pleasure
07 I Horseback riding
08 I Hunting
09 I Camping in developed sites with I tent or vehicle
10 I Camping in primitive areas and I backpacking
11 I Mountain climbing
I
I
I surfaces)
I
I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
General nature study, wildlife
viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas
for casual and unstructured
activities, like games, sitting,
sunning
Use of play equipment, tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistal
and skeet)
724.9 ' 1
79.4 1 8
97.0 I 6
I
7.7
55.3
257.8
6.4
1.8
38.1
8.3
1.3
25
12
2
28
37
15
23
38
I
I I I
119.9 I 4
166.1 I 3
51.5
58.3
19.4
11.0
0.8
6.7
10.7
4.5
5.3
13
11
19
20
40
27
21
32
30
Activity Number of
Number . Household
Days Rank
I 3 I Beach activities, including I sunning and games I
24 I Swimming (in outdoor pools)
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and
the ocean (not in pools)
Surfing
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing,
and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing -saltwater
Fishing -freshwater
Downhill (Alpine) skiing
34 I Cross-country skiing
35 Other non-mechanized winter I
sports activities -sledding, snow
play, ice skating
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Snowmobiling
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs,
110.8 5
83.4 I 7 I
I
60.5
1 .o
0.5
2.5
10
39
41
35
8.0 I 24
2.2 I 36
6.8 1 26
26.2 I 18 I 2.5 34 I
0.5 I 42
I I
I
I
I
5.0 I 31
0.1 1 43
dune buggies used off paved roads 3.2 I 33
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
5.9 I 29 paved roads
Attending outdoor cultural events,
like concerts, theater, etc., in
Visiting museums, historic sites 61.8 I 9
32.0 16 Visiting zoos and arboretums
Skateboarding and rollerblading 10.7 I 22
Attending outdoor sports or
athletic events, professional or
I
I I I outdoor setting 30.3 I 17
I I
I I
43.0 I 1s 1
I amateur .
Figure 4
ESTIMATED TOTAL HOUSEHOLD PARTICIPATION DAYS
Water skiing
Hunting
Mountain climbing
Walking (Recreational! 724.9
2.2
1.8
1.3
0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 800
M il li o n s
m
Table 11 provides the study’sestimate of
latent demand in California. Thirteen activities
have high latent demand, 5 have moderate
latent demand, and 25 have low latent demand.
Over half the activities have low unmet de-
mand, which indicates that Californians appear
satisfied with opportunities for these activities.
The activities with high latent demand are
camping in developed sites; walking, trail
hiking; general nature study; use of open grass
areas; freshwater fishing; beach activities;
visiting museums/historic sites; attending
outdoor cultural events; visiting zoos and
arboretums; camping in primitive areas; swim-
ming in lakes, rivers, and the ocean; and
picnicking in developed sites.
Next, public support for funding outdoor
recreational needs was determined by asking
respondents to identify and rank those activities
that government should give the highest priority
when spending public money. Again, respon-
dents were asked to list their top 10 activities
from a total of 43 possible activities. From
these 10, respondents were asked to rank their
top five activities for public support. These
rankings were weighted exactly as the unmet
demand rankings were weighted. The high,
moderate, and low categories were also deter-
mined exactly as noted previously for unmet
demand.
Table 12 provides estimates of public
support for public funding of the 43 activities in
question. As the table indicates, 10 activities
have high support, six have moderate support,
and the remaining 27 have low support. Camp-
ing in developed sites had the highest support
follow€ by trail hiking. Activities such as
snowm ding, water skiing, surfing, and foot-
ball had almost no public support for funding
(less than 0.5).
As in the Tennessee study, the needs
assessment was performed by classifying
activities into categories useful for decision
making. Each activity addressed by the study
j scored both in terms of unmet demand
j the extent to which the public supports
,Unding to improve opportunities for that activ-
ity. The classification scheme is given below:
Priority Classification Scheme
Public Support
Unmet Demand High Moderate Low
High 1 3 6
Moderate 2 4 8
Low 5 7 9
In this scheme, “unmet demand” and
“public support” are simultaneously considered.
However. public support is given priority over
unmet demand. For example, moderate unmet
demand and high public support is given a
priority level 2 while high unmet demand and
moderate public support is given a priority level
3. Based on this scheme, the highest priority
level is given to activities with 1 s and the lowest
priority level to activities with 9s. While the
scheme is simple, it does provide a rational
method to evaluate projects that provide activi-
ties with high unmet demand and high public
support.
Table 13 summarizes the results of the
needs assessment for the 43 activities consid-
ered in the study. Nine activities were in the
top priority level (1): walking, trail hiking,
camping in developed sites, camping in primi-
tive sites, general nature study, use of open
grass areas, picnicking in developed sites,
visiting museums/historic sites, and visiting
zoos and arboretums. One activity was in the
second priority level, four activities were in the
third priority level, and two activities were in the
fourth priority level. The remaining~activtties
exhibited very low priority levels. Thus, Table 13
summarizes California’s needs based on unmet
demand and support for public funding of appro-
priate outdoor recreation activities.
C m Q, 0 0
Q,
N -?
m c
m 0 9
.- -
zl 3
a 0
v) Q, 0 m
3 v) U a, > m Q c 0
0, c
0 x 0
- L
v
.- -
.- a
n v) Q, 0 m
u)
U Q, > m
(1
C 0
0 C
0, C
I) c m c 3
- 5
c
Y
.- &
.- -
0, c
C c
U C m cn C
0, m 0 T
.-
2
.- m C
C 3
.- -..
I
m
- - m
0 0 LL
s z V 0 8
v) c c
.-
e
Figure 5
Latent Demand __ Walking (Recreational) qfi 4
Camping in developed sites 15
Trail hiking 15 7
Attending outdoor cultural events
Visiting museums historic sites
14 2
13 9
Swimming in lakes rivers ocean
General nature wildlife study
Camping in primitive areas
Use of open grass or turf areas
Picnicking in developed sites
10 9
10 8
Visiting zoos and arboretums 10 6
10 3
Beach activities 10 2
Fishing - freshwater 10 1
10 1
10 0
Use of play equipment, tot-lots 1- 7 9
Horseback riding 1- 7 8
Bicycling (on paved surfaces) 1-1 7 7
Swimming (in outdoor pools) 1- 6 7
Driving for pleasure 59
Attending outdoor sports
Golf
Kayaking. rowboating, canoeing
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces) a ..t ~ P ” I 14 5
Hunting I I - ..,; 14 2
Fishing - saltwater 1 -u 14 0
Joggingandrunnmg I,, -I .. , j 38
Target shooting (pistol & skeet) 38
Downhill (Alpine) skiing I , It?. - . 5 3
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs
4-Wheel drive off paved roads
Power boating
Other (N-M) winter sports
Skateboarding and rollerblading
&’ il. ‘3% -A 2 8
Soccer 1 9
Softball and baseball 19
Waterskiing r-4 1 9
Tennls Fq 1 8
Sailboating and windsurfing -1 1 8
Cross-country skiing L-1 1 5
Mountain climbing r7 1 J
Snowmobiling n 1 G
Basketball 0 0 6
Footb3) 3 5
Surfing &-J o 7
0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 rn Index Number
m 7
Q,
Q, T)
- E
r"
2 m
h v) E m cn U C m cn c
C C 3 v)
v) 0,
>
V m c V m Q,
.-
Y
.- I .- .- I
m
m cu
cn C .- - I z
13, C
3 v) U C
-0 c m cn C
m 0
m cn
.- .c I
.- 3
.- -
P .-
b
3
L
I m
A= v)
cn C E v)
.-
ii
cn C
c 13
.- -
I
P 2 V m Q Y V m
v) m
m
e
2
.- !!2 e .- E h .-
c
cn C
.-
.- E" m 0
b V 0 0 v)
v) C C
.-
e
-cum*mwbam 000000000 0 ,723
Figure 6
Public Support Activity
t Camping in developed sites 33 7
Trail hiking 19 02
General nature wildlife study 17 67
Visiting museums historic sites
Use of play equipment. tot-lots -1 15 87
16 50
Walking (Recreationall 1-l 14 70
Picnicking in developed sites 1-1 14 53
Camping in primitive areas 1- 13 35
I i
Use of open grass or turf areas i- 1 3 0 4
Visiting zoos and arboretums 1-1 1 1 39
Attending outdoor cultural events -1 9 56
Bicycling (on paved surfaces) 1- 9 16
Beach activities 1-1 B 75
Swimming in lakes, rivers, Ocean L-1 8 50
Fishing - freshwater - 7 17
Swimming (in outdoor pools) - 5 8 1
Motorcycles, dirt bikes. ATVsT - 3 65
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces) 3 4 1
Driving for pleasure - 3 2 3
Horseback riding 3 04
Jogging and running - 3 o 1
Fishing - saltwater = 2 88
Skateboarding and rollerblading = 2 80
Softball and baseball = 2 74
Hunting - 2 68
Attending outdoor sports = 2 46
Golf m 2 35
Target shooting (pistol 8 skeet) = 2 20
4-Wheel drive off paved roads = i 95
Other (N-M) winter sports m 1 55
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing 1 46
Soccer 1 31
Powerboating i 22
Downhill (Alpine) skiing o 8 i
Sailboating and windsurfing 1 o 78
Basketball 1 o 73
Cross-country skiing o 58
Mountain climbing o 58
Tennis o 52
Water skiing 1 o 4 -
Snowmobiling o 43
Football o 35
Surfing I o I o .
0 > ^3 13 00 15 00 20.00 25 00 30.00
Index Number
Table 13
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Activity Number Rank
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Walking (Recreational)
Trail hi king
Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
Mountain biking (not on paved
surfaces)
Jogging and running
Driving for pleasure
Horseback riding
Hunting
Camping in developed sites with
tent or vehicle
Camping in primitive areas and
backpacking
Mountain climbing
General nature study, wildlife
viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas
casual and unstructured activities,
like games, sitting, sunning
Use of play equipment, tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistol
and skeet)
Beach activities, including sunning
and games
1
1
4
9
9
8
8
9.
1
1
9
1
1
2
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
Activity
Number Rank
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Swimming (in outdoor pools)
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and the
ocean (not in pools)
Surfing,
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing,
and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing -saltwater
Fishing -freshwater
Downhill (Alpine) skiing
Cross-country skiing
Other non-mechanized winter
sports activities -sledding, snow
play, ice skating
Snowmobiling
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, dune
buggies used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
paved roads
Attending outdoor cultural events,
like concerts, theater, etc., in
outdoor settings
Visiting museums, historic sites
Visiting zoos and arboretums
Skateboarding and rollerblading
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
events, professional or amateur
I
4
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
3
1
1
9
9
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997
1.1 _:
MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITV/WIlLINGNESS
TO Par
Californians were also asked which activi-
ties that take place in government-operated
park and outdoor recreation areas and facilities
were most important to them, rather than which
activities had unmet demand. Table 14 sum-
marizes their responses when scored in a
fashion similar to the previous section. High
importance generally followed latent demand.
However, use of play equipment represented
high importance but only moderate latent
demand. Alternatively, picnicking in developed
sites represented moderate importance but
high latent demand. Rankings differ at lower
levels as well. For example, jogginghnning
exhibited low latent demand but moderate
importance to the respondent.
their willingness to pay for activities they would
most like to participate in more often. Table 15
summarizes the results. In general, Califor-
nians tended to be most willing to pay for
activities for which latent demand existed.
However, their willingness to pay does not
always match the activities for which Califor-
Respondents were also asked to indicate
nians believe public support should be rendered.
support for use of grass areas and play equip-
ment should be high but are only moderately
willing to pay for these activities. Alternatively,
public support of horseback riding is low but
respondents are moderately willing to pay for
this activity. In short, there is only a moderate
correlation between what Californians think
should be supported by government and what
they are willing to support.
Respondents were not only asked to list the
fiv. 7ost important activities in order of their
pr. *ence but were also asked how much they
WE willing to pay for a high quality, uncrowded
day. Table 16 summarizes the results. As the'
table indicates, activities for which charges are
normal tend to have average willingness to pay
that mirrors those charges. For example, what
respondents are willing to pay for downhill
skiing appears to reflect lift ticket costs. How-
ever, there are a number of activities noted in
Table 16 that do not normally require charges
but for which Californians appear willing to pay,
such as walking (recreational), bicycling (on
paved surfaces), mountain biking (not on paved
surfaces), jogging, and running.
For example, Californians think that public \
'E em
% V 0 0 v)
v)
C C
.-
e
1 7
33 00 JJ
2:
333 000 JJ-I
d C .- v) Q,
v) o
- .-
.- ii e v) E .-
6 E 3 3 z
0 C
In
.- .- e
5
22
a W Z W c3
omm
V)FW u-?o!c\!
- m 3 m In e- z 0 m Q Y 8 e
E
In m
m
Q, > .- c. .- E h .-
C
cl) C
(I
.-
.-
5 0
P, C
C C 3
-0 C m m C
0 (J, 0 7
.-
L
.-
P, C .- 0 L Y 0 m n (2, 2 0 I
- - m
Q, Y In m
s
m
0, C
C 3
.- c
I
Table 16
AVERAGE DOLLARS WILLING TO PAY FOR A DAY’S WORTH
OF FIVE MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITIES
Activity Average
Number DollarslDay
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Walking (Recreational)
Trail hiking
Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
Mountain biking (not on paved
surfaces)
Jogging and running
Driving for pleasure
Horseback riding
Hunting
Camping in developed sites with
tent or vehicle
Camping in primitive areas and
backpacking
Mountain climbing
General nature study, wildlife
viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas
casual and unstructured activities,
like games, sitting, sunning
Use of play equipment, tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistol
and skeet)
4.51
5.02
4.56
5.60
4.19
9.69
17.53
12.55
13.41
9.82
13.39
8.19
6.31
5.50
5.93
6.81
5.83
3.00
3.07
24.10
7.459
8.90
Beach activities, including sunning
and games 7.29
Activity Average
Number DollarslDay
24
25
26
27
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Swimming (in outdoor pools)
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and the
ocean (not in pools)
Surfing
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing,
and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing -saltwater
Fishing -freshwater
Downhill (Alpine) skiing
Cross-country skiing
Other non-mechanized winter
sports activities - sledding, snow
play, ice skating
Snowmobiling
Motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATVs, dune
buggies used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off
paved roads
Attending outdoor cultural events,
like concerts, theater, etc., in
outdoor settings
Visiting museums, historic sites
Visiting zoos and arboretums
Skateboarding and rollerbladin,g
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
events, professional or amateur
I
4.70
6.20
16.25
18.27
12.1 6
12.90
19.39
8.50
34.09
12.39
9.58
21 .oo
9.46
8.46
12.96
8.81
0.38
5.78
7.63
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1997
Table 17
FUNDING PARK AND RECREATION AREAS
Funding Methods Strongly Strongly
Oppose support
1 2 3 4 5
a. Having a state and/or federal income tax check-off
b. Using money from the State lottery 17.7 5.2 12.6 13.9 50.7
c. Having a state and/or federal tax on the extraction of
natural resources such as oil, gravel, and timber 24.5 9.3 18.9 15.6 31.8
d. Increasing the tax on tobacco products 21 .l 4.4 8.5 7.1 58.9
e. Increasing the tax on alcoholic beverages 19.0 4.5 12.4 9.2 54.8
f. Having a modest (no more than 20%) increase in user
fees at park and outdoor recreation areas 28.5 11.0 26.1 14.4 20.0
g. Dedicating a portion of the existing sales tax 19.5 9.3 23.0 19.8 28.4
h. Passing a voter approved park bond act 18.2 8.3 22.8 17.9 32.7
I. Adding a vehicle registration tax 56.3 12.5 13.8 6.2 11.2
for parks, and recreation purposes 15.6% 5.6% 16.9% 16.7% 45.2%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
FUNDING'OUTDOOR RECREATION !RE AS AND FACILITIES
Californians were asked to express their
support or opposition to a number of methods
for funding public outdoor recreation areas and
facilities. Table 17 summarizes their re-
sponses. Over half of the respondents support
or strongly support increased taxes on tobacco
(58.9%) and alcoholic beverages (54.8%) and
using money from the State lottery (50.7%).
Having a state or era1 income tax check-off
also received sur rt or strong support
(45.2%). Passing .I voter-approved park bond
act received modest support (32.7%). Having
a tax on the extraction of natural resources
received support from 31.8 percent. The
strongest opposition was for adding a vehiclc
registration tax. Apparently, Californians prefer
methods for funding public recreation areas
and facilities that do not directly impact the user
or the general population.
..
Table 18
SPENDING CHANGES
Category Increased Remain the Decreased # of
Spending Same Spending Respondent:
a. Acquire additional land for recreation purposes 57.1 '/o 33.5'10 9.4% 1,951
b. Basic maintenance of existing facilities (painting, small repairs, etc.) 64.8 32.8 2.4 1.974
c. Providing educational and activity programs
for visitors 53.2 40.2 6.6 1,936
d. Building new facilities 57.5 34.7 7.8 1,944
e. Rehabilitating and modernizing existing facilities 68.4 28.4 3.2 1,964
f. Protection and management of the area's
natural and cultural resources 67.6 28.1 4.2 1,955 *
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997.
PRIORITIES FOR SPENDING
A set of questions was asked to determine
priorities for public spending changes for
outdoor recreation in light of acknowledged
tight, public agency budgets. Table 18 summa-
rizes the findings. As the table indicates,
Californians want increased spending for
rehabilitation and modernizing existing facilities
(68.3%), for protection and management of the
area's natural and cultural resources (67.6%)
and for basic maintenance of existing facilities
(64.8%). Building new facilities (57.5%),
acquiring additional land for recreation pur-
poses (57.1 %), and providing educational and
activity programs for visitors (53.2%) received
support for increased spending from over 50
percent of Californians. Californians' priorities
appear to focus more on existing facilities than
expanded opportunities for outdoor recreation
areas and facilities.
In addition, Californians were asked a
series of questions to determine their attitudes
concerning changes to park and recreation
facilities and services. Table 19 provides the
results for the thirteen statements that are
expressed as increases or expansions of
current opportunities. The strongest approval
was found for developing more local commu-
nity parks (78.1 o/o approved or strongly ap-
proved). Californians also approve of develop-
ing more horseback riding, hiking and/or moun-
tain biking areas where no motorized vehicles
are allowed (76.0%) and constructing more
simple campgrounds (76.9%). However,
providing more commercial businesses within
public parks was disapproved by 48.5 percent.
a
Table 19
ATTITUDES TOWARD CHANGES
TO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Stongly Strongly
Disapprove Disapprove Neutral Approve Approve Respondents Statement
I a. Providing more educational programs .l .2% 3.9% 26.3% 34.0% 34.6% 799
and services in park and outdoor
recreation areas.
grounds with picnic tables, cold water,
and restrooms.
are intensely developed and have hot
showers, including some campsites (for
.which there is an extra fee) with hook-
ups for electricity and water.
parks.
motels, restaurants, shops, gas stations
within public park and outdoor recre-
ation areas.
and regulations which deal with public
use and behavior in parks and recre-
ation areas.
of off-road vehicles such as motor-
~ ___
b. Construction of more simple camp- 1.7 4.7 16 F 41.8 35.1 800
c. Construction of more campgrounds that 7.9 10.6 21 26.9 32.9 798
d. Developing more local community 1.4 4.0 16.5 37.9 40.2 79 1
e. Providing more commercial hotels, 25.1 23.4 26.5 13.5 11.4 800
~~
1. Providing stronger enforcement of laws 3.1 4.9 23.2 28.3 40.5 799
--
g. Providing more areas for the legal use 25.2 15.9 22.1 19.0 17.8 796
I cycles, dune buggies, 4-wheel drive
vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles.
797 I h. Developing more horseback riding, 2.8 4.1 17.2 31.8 44.2
hiking, and/or mountain biking areas
where no motorized vehicles are
allowed.
~~ ~ ~~
i. An increase in the number of wilderness 4.8 5.3 20.2 27.1 42.6 799
type areas where no vehicles or devel-
opments are allowed.
areas.
stations.
handle large groups.
use picnic sites.
j. Providing more open space in urban 2.0 4.6 27.2 32.5 33.7 795
k. Construction of more RV sewage dump 10.8 12.4 39.3 17.1 20.5 797
I. Providing more picnic sites that can 4.9 8.8 39.0 27.2 20.2 798
m. Providing more parking areas at day- 5.1 7.5 35.6 28.6 23.3 799
-~
__- - ___- - __
--
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997
MISCELLIWEOUS
In addition to the major subjects discussed
above, Californians were asked to provide their
opinions on subjects that are important to
public park and recreation administrators and
decision makers. The subjects that respon-
dents were asked to consider focused on the
privatizing of public park and recreation areas,
factors influencing enjoyment of the outdoors,
and open-ended comments.
Private Business Involvement
Table 20 summarizes the public's opinion
about the role of the private sector in providing
services in public park and recreation areas.
As the table indicates, a majority of Californians
approve of privatization in terms of sale of
ready-to-eat food and beverages (69.2%);
maintenance of facilities and grounds (62.0%);
and the sponsorship of contests, races, and
special events (59.1 Yo). Respondents were
less definitive about private firms providing
patrol/law enforcement activities (44.8'34, yes;
and 43.1 O/& no). However, the majority of
Californians do not believe that a private firm
should undertake the total operation and
management of public park or recreation areas
(59.4%).
Factors lntluencing Enjoyment
Californians were asked to consider what
activity was the most important to them from
the list of 43 activities. Then they were asked
to determine the degree of importance, while
considering 15 factors, for the last time they
participated in that activity. Table 21 summa-
rizes the results. The factor considered very
important by the largest number of respondents
(86.9% of the respondents) was being in the
outdoors. Relaxing, releasing and reducing
tension, beauty and quality of the natural setting
were also very important for enjoyment. Meet-
ing new.people appears to be the least impor-
tant factor for Californians for enjoyment of their
most important activity.
Open Ended Comments
In the mail survey, respondents were asked
for any additional comments about the public
parks and outdoor recreation areas and facili-
ties which exist today in California. Of the
2,010 households responding to the survey, 404
comments were clear enough to be catego-
rized. The comments may not reflect the
attitude and opinions of Californians as a whole.
However, the purpose of asking for com-
ments was to determine or identify issues that
might not have been directly addressed formally
in the telephone and/or mail survey. Based on
a codebook developed by the California Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation for the past
survey, comments were categorized into six
major categories: (1 ) environment and recre-
ational values; (2) acquisition and development
of park and recreation areas; (3) maintenance
of park and recreation areas and facilities; (4)
operation and maintenance of park and recre-
ation areas; (5) funding and financing; and (6)
off-highway motor vehicle recreation. The
codebook also categorized comments as
positive or negative ones.
Table 22 identifies the results of the com-
ment summary effort. More comments were
positive than negative. As one can see from
the table, most issues had essentially been
covered in the telephone or mail questionnaire.
Table 22 should be viewed cautiously since it
may not reflect the opinions and attitudes of all
Californians.
Table 20
PRIVATIZING PUBLIC PARKS
AND RECREATION AREAS
I
I
No # of Category Yes No Opionion Respondents
a. Sale of ready-to-eat food and beverages 69.2% 17.1% 13.7% 784
b. Sponsorship of contests, races and special events 59.1 18.1 22.8 782
.- __ __ . _- - __
c. Maintenance of facilities and grounds 62.0 27.2 10.8 779
-- -_ ~ . - . __ -. - . - -- ____---
d. Patrol and law enforcement duties 44.8 43.1 12.1 784
e. Providing guided nature walks, educational activities 55.4 30.8 13.8 784
1. Undertaking the total operation and management 23.6 59.4 17.0 782
- ______-_- _-
of the park or recreation area
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table 21
FACTORS INFLUENCING ENJOYMENT
OF MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY
Factor Not Somewhat very
- Being - in the outdoors - . ___ __
Important Important Important
1.8% 11 .3% 86.9%
Relaxing I 3.6 18.3 78.1
~ -__
2.2 19.9 77.0
2.8 19.7 77.5
- _- - -_ Beauty of __ the area -
Quality ._ of - ______ the natural setting __
Releasing or reducing tension 3.7 20.8 75.5
4.9 20.6 74.4 ___ Having a change from daily routine
70.6 9.0 20.5 Being with family ________. and friends
69.3 5.8 24.8 Getting away from crowded situations
9.0 24.9 66.1 Feeling in harmony with nature
21.6 15.4 63.0 Doing something your youth enjoyed
Availabilitv of facilities 7.7 29.5 62.7
__~ -
~ -___
__- ___
____ - __ ~ - -_
__ - ___-_ -__--_- __ ___ __
-
~
61.4 10.4 28.2 Keeping fit and healthy
22.0 35.1 42.9 Achieving spiritual fulfillment
42.8 20.5 36.7 Experiencing challenge and excitement
Meeting new people 45.5 34.2 20.4
____ __ __ __ - - -_ ___
___ .- - -_ - - __ ._ - ~___ ___
_____-. ._ ____I_ - - -. -- - - - - - - - __ _- ___~
Source: CIC Research. Inc., 1997.
m
...
Table 22
COMMENTS FROM MAIL SURVEY
(A Total of 404 Comments were Utilized from Item 13 - Mail Survey)
(Percent of all Comments
O/' Positive Ol0 Negative Individual Comment Categories
A. Environmental and Recreational Values
1. Preservation and protection of natural areas, open space. scenery, and
wild plants and animals 16.3 0.2
2. Park and recreation areas and programs and opportunities 21.6 0.2
-.
3 Wilderness
Acquisition and Development of Park and Recreation Areas B
- 0.4
- 1. Acquire more, new parks near urban areas, close to home 1.7
2. Acauire more Darks near coast 1.2 -
3. Acquire more parks in all other areas 2.6 0.7 - 4. Acauire. oreserve more wild land 2.9
5. Develop more facilities near urban areas, close to home
6. Develop more facilities near the coast
7. Develop more facilities for handicapped people
8. Develop more facilities for camping
9. Develop more facilities for recreational vehicle (RV) camping
10. Develop more facilities with low density development
11 , Develop more facilities in general or not specified above
- 2.8
0.2 0.4 -
1.1
0.5
0.2 0.2
10.4 1 .o
-
- - ..
- 12. Develop more facilities at historic sites 0.7
C. Maintenance of Park and Recreation Areas and Facilities
1. Maintenance/condition of restrooms
2.
3.
4. Maintenancekondition in general
5. Litter
6. Vandalism
Maintenance of Park and Recreation Areas
1 Personal safety-fear of crime
2. Personal safety - other safety problems
3. Crowding of parufacilities
4. Noise, commotion
5. Reservation system
6.
7. lnterpretationleducation
8.
9. Recreation programs
10. Quality of staff people
11. Size of park staff
12. Encourage minorities' usage
13. Accommodate handicapped
14. Encourage use by poor
15. Presence of dogs and pets
16. Conflicts between different recreation activities
17. Other
Maintenancekondition of other developed facilities
Maintenancekondition of grounds, lawn and plantings
~. . ~ ~- .- ~ _.-~ -~
D.
Enforcement of rules and regulations
Information on areas and opportunities
0.7
0.5
0.4
6.0
1.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
7.5
3.2
1.8
1.3
2.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.4
0.6
-
-
E. Funding and Financing
1. Use of volunteers 1.9
2. Reduced fees for seniors 0.2
3. Reduced fees for the poor 0.3
4. Payment of existing or increased user fees for park use 3.0
5. 1.5
6. 1.1
F. Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation (OHV) 0.8
Payment of existing or higher taxes for the support of parks
Private business involvement in public park and recreation areas
. .- - - ~ ~- ~ ~ ________
1. OHV areas and facilities - 2. General or nonspecific . . t- -
a- L
4.9
0.6
0.9
6.9
0.2
0.5
8.7
2.2
4.5
2.2
1 .o
1.1
0.2
1.6
0.2
0.5
0.7 - - -
0.1
0.9
4.7 - --
- - -
11.0
1 .o
2.5
1.6
1.6
_-
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997. m
A
HISPANIC RECREllTlON PATTERNS
In California, changing ethnicity pa tterns are changing the character of outdoor recreation.
Much of this change is attributed to rapid growth in the Hispanic population (see chart below).
In California in 1990, there were about 6 million Hispanics, and by 1995 this figure had in-
creased to about 8 million, while the state’s general population had increased from approxi-
mately 29.8 million to about 32 million people. The trend toward changing ethnicity palterns
will continue in the next century. According to the Census Bureau 1995 Population Profile
report (Campbell, 1997), California will add 10 million international immigrants during the next
25 years. This represents about 60 percent of the estimated population increase in this state.
Another relevant projection is that the state’s Hispanic population will double, from 8 to 17
million people. If these projections are correct, then in 20-25 years, about 30-35 percent of
California’s population will be Hispanic.
Growth in the Hispanic population is impor-
tant because this ethnic group will heavily
influence recreation participation in the next
century. Dwyer (1 994) summarized the results
of several population projection/recreation
demand projection studies with respect to
changing ethnicity. One of his conclusions was
that minority participants are projected to
comprise 75 percent of the growth in participa-
t ion in backpacking , birdwatchi ng , hunting , day
hiking, tent camping, walking for pleasure, and
picnicking. Given what is currently known
about Hispanic recreation patterns, some
departures from traditional service delivery
strategies will be needed. Research conducted
at the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Re-
search Station found that many public recre-
ation sites in southern California are dispropor-
tionately used by
Hispanics (Simcox
and Pfister, 1990;
Baas et at., 1993;
Chavez and Win-
ter, 1993) with up
to 80 percent of
the visitors identify-
ing themselves as
of Hispanic origin.
The above re-
searchers and
others have found
that Hispanics differ in recreation preferences,
types of areas visited, and types of activities
engaged in when compared to predominantly
Anglo populations. A thorough, national level
review of research on ethnic influences on
recreation is found in Gramann (1996).
To address the effect of growth in the
Hispanic population on outdoor recreation in
California, the 1997 survey compared and
examined results of Hispanic and non-Hispanic
respondents. For this study, Hispanics were
considered those respondents who identified
themselves as Mexican-American or Other
Hispanic (e.g., Central American). Respon-
dents who selected one of the remaining seven
ethnic categories were aggregated to form the
non-Hispanic group. (Additional details on
creating the Hispanic
ESTIMATED GROWTH OF HISPANIC
POPULATION IN CALIFORNIA BY THE YEAR 2020
2020 c
I
1995 <kg 8 !
.1 1 Hispanic Population I Estimated in Millions] I
1990 1
7 -- T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
and non-Hispanic
categories, and how
data were analyzed to
compare these two
groups, is found in
Appendix C.)
compare Hispanic and
non-Hispanic re-
sponses at the state
level is unique in
California. The major-
This pilot study to
POI
ity of studies in California on Hispanic recreation
patterns over the last decade has been site
specific. The only exception is a household
survey conducted by Shaull and Gramann (in
press, 1997) which surveyed Hispanic and non-
Hispanic households in southern California and
the Central Valley.
For the 1997 data, only differences of.. 10
percentage points or more within an aggre- ..
gated category (i.e., approve and strongly
approve, or disapprove and strongly disap-
prove) between Hispanics and non-Hispanics
are discussed. Differences of this magnitude
were found for the types of outdoor recreation
areas visited; the types of outdoor recreation
areas preferred; selected attitudes concerning
recreation lands and facilities; funding park and
recreation areas; spending changes; changes
to park and recreation facilities and services;
and factors influencing enjoyment of the re-
spondents’ most important recreational activity.
Generally, data from the 1997 survey reveal
that Hispanic respondents as compared to all
other respondents have more positive attitudes
towards their recreational experiences in
California, and they are more likely to use and
prefer highly developed areas, excluding
historic and cultural sites. Hispanics also
demonstrate more positive attitudes toward
special programs and are more likely to be
concerned with regulation of behavior at recre-
ation sites when compared to non-Hispanics. A
fuller discussion and interpretation of these
results in the context of previous studies of
Hispanic recreation patterns is detailed on the
following pages.
Visits to and Types of keas Preferred
Substantially fewer Hispanics stated they
visited natural, undeveloped areas than did
members of other ethnic groups (Table 23).
Slightly more than one-fifth (20.6%) of Hispanic
respondents stated they had not visited natural,
undeveloped areas, as compared to 7.7 per-
cent of respondents of all other ethnic groups.
Hispanic respondents were less likely to regu-
larly visit historic or cultural buildings than other
respondents. About one quarter of Hispanics
(24.7%) said they visited this type of recreation
area “not at all,” as compared to 10.7 percent
of members of all other ethnic groups.
Another substantial difference in types of
areas visited pertained to private recreation
areas. About half of the Hispanic respondents
(46.4%) stated they did not visit these areas,
whereas only about one-fifth of respondents
from other ethnic groups (22%) gave this
answer. Finally, when asked, “which area do
you most enjoy visiting?”, about one-fourth of
Hispanic respondents (U.4%) responded
“highly developed,” as compared to 7.7 percent
of those individuals of all other ethnic groups
(Table 24).
Altitudes toward Recreation lands and
Facilities
Table 25 displays Hispanic and non-His-
panic attitudes towards recreation lands and
facilities. Numerous differences were found.
Almost 90 percent of Hispanics moderately
agreed or strongly agreed that more outdoor
recreation areas are needed near large cities,
whereas only 64.5 percent of respondents of
other ethnic groups moderately or strongly
agreed with this statement. An unexpected
difference was found regarding crowding of
recreation areas. Almost 70 percent of Hispan-
ics agreed or strongly agreed that “recreation
areas and facilities in California are too
crowded when I want to use them,” whereas
about 57 percent of those in other ethnic
groups responded positively to this statement.
Substantial differences were found in
attitudes toward increasing recreation pro-
grams for special populations, with the majority
of Hispanic respondents (85.9OL) supporting
this idea as compared to slightly more than half
(54.9%) .. of respondents for all other ethnic
&. d;;
Table 23
I
HISPANIC AND NON-HISPANIC GROUP VISITS
TO OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS
I 1 Once or 1 Several I Once or I I ~t Least 2- I Not I Twice Per I Times Per I Twice Per 1 Once Per 13 Times Per 1 AtAll 1 Year 1 Year 1 Month I Week 1 Week I HIS NON I HIS NON 1 HIS NON. 1 HIS NON 1 HIS NON( HIS NON HIS HIS HIS I HIS I HIS HIS ! Yo Yo Ol.0 Yo ! Yo Yo , yo yo , % o/o O!O %
I I I I I I I 1 I
Naturalandundevelopedareas 1 20.6 7.7 142.0 26.4 126.7 38.8 I 4.2 14.5 1 2.6 6.5 I 3.9 6.1
1 16.8 7.3 127.2 21.7 133.3 44.4 I 9.2 17.3 I 6.6 5.6 1 6.8 3.6 Nature-oriented parks and
-----------~---~----t---i----+---
recreation areas I I I I I
*---7---- t ---I----+---
I I
I I I I I
I
I
I
7.8 rl.0 6.7
Highlydevelopedparksand 1 5.2 12.0 I 19.0 20.6 IS 3 27.8 112.2 20.6 118.0 10.8 1 10.7 8.2
recreation areas
Historical or cultural buildings, 1 24.710.7 49.4 36.6 I 17.3 40.7 I 6.2 9.8 I 0.8 1.6 I 1.6 0.5
sites or areas
?rivate, not public, outdoor
recreation areas and facilities , I
__-- -------
I I I +---7--'1---- r---r---T---- __-- - ----- -
I
t---i---- +-------- I --- _------_--- ---
56.422.0 29.2 28.0 14.7 23.7 4.9 11.6 I 4.9 I I I I
I I
I
I
-~ ~ ~~ ~
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
His = Hispanic
Non His = Non-Hispanic
Table 24
TYPE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PREFERRED
FOR HISPANICS AND NON-HISPANICS
Non- I I I Category 1 Hispanics , Hispanics
I I
Nature oriented parks and recreation areas. I 26.8 I 31.1 ...................................
Highly developed parks and recreation areas. 1 23.4 I 7.7
1 - - s.7-
- - - - - ---------_----___-------
9.8 Historical or cultural buildings, sites or areas.
Private, not public, outdoor recreation areas and facilities. I 15.4 I 10.6
I ...................................
I I I I I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table 25 (HispaniclNon-Hispanic)
I Strongly 1 Moderately I Neither Agrd Moderately I Strongly 1 Disagree I Disagree 1 NorDisagreeI Agree I Agree
ATTITUDES CONCERNING OUTDOOR RECREATION LANDS AND FACILITIES
Statement
a. There are enough outdoor recreation areas and facilities available that are convenient for me.
b. More outdoor recreation areas and facilities are needed in or near large cities.
c. Protection of the natural environment is an important aspect of outdoor recreation areas.
HIS NON I HIS NON HIS , HIS
% Yo I Yo %
I 17.2 4.3 I 12.8 19.4
0.9 3.1 i 2.1 10.0
0.0 1.4 1 0.0 2.2
I
HIS NON I HIS NON HIS HIS
14.3 13.6 I 40.7 43.0
%%I%%
I
9.0 22.4 I 23.7 36.0 I
' HIS NON HIS Yo %
15.2 19.8
64.3 28.5
5.4 4.1 I 14.0 22.1 80.6 70.1
d. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities in 1 5.2 2.2 11.2 11.2 I 13.8 29.4 I 25.3 30.8 I 44.4 26.3
0.0 5.4 I 1.7 10.6 I 12.4 29.2 I 12.1 31.3 I 73.8 23.6
I
I I I I
populations such as the elderly, the very poor or 1 I I I I
disabled people should be increased. I I I I I
California are often too crowded when I want to
use them.
e. Recreational facilities and programs for special
1. Outdoor recreation areas and programs help to 1 2.9 3.2 I 4.8 9.4 I 9.7 29.8 I 18.8 32.1 163.9 25.5
reduce crime and juvenile delinquency in my i I I- I. I I I I I I
a community's "quality of life." I I
undesirable people and activities. I I I I
create jobs and spending in the community, I I I I I
helping its economy. I I I I I
I I I I I
i I I I I
rules and laws in parks and outdoor recreation 1 I I I I
areas, which would make my experience more I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I
financial aid to local governments for outdoor I I I I I
recreation. I I I I I
community.
g. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities improve 1 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.0 5.7 6.9 I 22.3 33.8 I 69.5 56.2
h. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities attract ! 18.0 18.9 I 25.2 32.6 I 26.0 28.5 I 18.5 16.5 12.4 3.5
1 0.5 1.0 I 0.7 4.3 I 16.3 18.1 I 22.1 49.9 160.4 26.6 i. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities can
j. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities should I 2.4 4.4 I 4.8 10.4 I 15.1 21.5 I 26.0 40.2 I 51.6 23.5
k. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities increase 1 0.9 1.6 1 6.5 4.4 I 15.0 31.8 I 26.6 38.2 I 51 .O 24.0
0.9 5.1 I 2.1 10.3 I 10.8 24.7 I 14.9 33.4 I71.2 26.5
be used to promote tourism.
the value of nearby residential and commercial
property.
I. There should be better regulation of behavior.
comfortable and safe.
financial assistance to local and state govern-
ments for parks and outdoor recreation areas.
m.Thefederalgovernment should continue to give I 0.0 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 I 8.1 11.0 I 9.7 28.0 182.2 52.0
n. The SIalQgovernment should continue to give 2.3 2.2 I 2.3 2.3 I 3.0 7.4 13.7 33.6 I 78.6 54.5
0. The quality of the natural setting is an important I 0.0 0.8 I 0.0 1.1 I 4.5 4.0 I 18.7 29.5 I 76.8 64.7
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I
government. I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
factor in my enjoyment of outdoor recreation areas.
of substantial ecological and recreational importance and should be protected by the
I
p. Wetlands, such as estuaries and marshes, are 1 4.8 2.3 I 1.7 4.8 I 26.2 15.0 I 22.7 28.9 I 44.6 49.C
q. Additional campgrounds should be constructed 1 2.2 9.1 I 3.3 12.1 I 11.4 22.4 I 18.7 28.9 I 64.4 27.E
that are more developed and have hot showers, I including some campsites for which there would 1
be an extra fee with hook-ups for electricity and water.
r. Increased tourism at parks, wildlife and recre- ation areas should be encouraged if it is a
means to generate additional funds for the
operation and maintenance of those areas.
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
I I I I
I I I I I I I I
1-
0.6 4.7 I 0.6 10.3 '1 16.8 22.7 I 22.5 36.9 I 60.1
HIS = Hispanic
Non HIS = Non-Hispanic -
-
. cial recreational programs are effective at
reducing crime and delinquency, with more
Funding Park and Recreation llreas and
Spending Changes
Hispanics are generally more supportive
than non-Hispanics of using a variety of fund-
ing options to provide monies for park and
recreation areas. Hispanics are also more
supportive of using money from the State
lottery, having a tax on natural resource’extrac-
tion, dedicating a portion of the existing sales
tax, passing a voter approved park bond act,
and adding a vehicle registration tax to fund
park and recreation areas (Table 26). The
greatest difference in the level of support was
“passing a voter approved park bond act,” with
about 67 percent of Hispanic respondents
supporting this idea, as compared to 46 per-
cent of non-Hispanic respondents. In terms of
spending changes, Hispanics were consider-
ably more supportive of increasing spending for
educational and activity programs for visitors
and for building new facilities (Table 27).
-.
Changes in Park and Recreation Facilities and
Services
Generally, Hispanics were more supportive
of changes that involved development of
recreation services and facilities than members
of other ethnic groups (Table 28). Support
among Hispanics and non-Hispanics was
basically the same for additional wilderness-
type areas, non-motorized recreation areas,
and open space in urban areas. The largest
differences in support were found for “providing
more picnic sites for large groups” and “more
parking at picnic sites,” with Hispanic respon-
dents demonstrating much higher support.
ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION AND
LATENT DEMAND
Caution is urged with respect to average
activity participation days for Hispanics; many
of these averages are based on sample sizes
of less than 10 respondents.
Additional sampling efforts would be
needed for this question to obtain an accept-
able level of statistical confidence with a
relatively low (+5 percentage points) error.
For those activities with reasonable sample
sizes, Hispanics consistently displayed a
lower rate of participation than members of
other ethnic groups. Visiting museums and
zoos are the two activities Hispanics indi-
cated they would have done more often.
Latent demand for selected activities
revealed several differences between Hispan-
ics and non-Hispanics (Table 29). (For dis-
cussion on how an index and ratings are
derived, refer to page 22). Hispanic re-
sponses indicated “high“ latent demand for
use of open space areas, use of play equip-
ment, and visiting zoos and arboretums,
whereas members of other ethnic groups ’
recorded “moderate” latent demand ratings
for these activities. Alternatively. Hispanics
responded with “moderate” ratings for trail
hiking, camping (both types), and general
nature study, whereas the members of other
ethnic groups recorded “high” ratings for
these activities.
Hispanics and non-Hispanics differed in
terms of public support for trail hiking, with
non-Hispanics responding with a “high”
rating and Hispanics recording a “low” rating
(Table 30). For the following activities,
public support received the same category
rating for Hispanics and all others: walking,
camping in developed areas, camping in
primitive areas, general nature study, use of
open areas or turf areas, use of play equip-
ment, picnicking at developed sites, visiting
museums and historic sites, and visiting
zoos and arboretums. Among these activi-
ties, however, there were differences in the
index number computed for “use of open
grass” and “visiting zoos.” For use of open
grass or turf areas, Hispanics’ index score
was 27.1 5, while non-Hispanics’ score was
10.63. Similarly, for “visiting zoos and arbo-
retums,” Hispanics’ score was 18.42, while
all others received a score of 9.96.
It is important to remember that
9.9 is the cutoff score between a
“high” and “moderate” index. The
highest index score computed for
Hispanics was a.30.25 for “use of
play equipment.” In contrast, the
highest score received by mem-
bers of all other ethnic groups was
a 35.43, for “camping in developed
sites.” This suggests that different
strategies are needed to meet the
recreational activity needs of
Hispanics versus others.
I
HIS NON HIS
% Yo
62.9 55.1
70.5 62.8
63.6 29.9
68.8 53.5
68.1 68.7
73.2 66.2
Table 26
FUNDING PARK AND RECREATION AREAS (HlSPANIC/NON-HISPANIC)
HIS NON HIS
Yo %
28.7 35.6
26.2 35.3
30.9 43.5
27.5 37.5
27.6 28.8 -
24.9 29.1
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
f.
9.
h.
I.
Having a state and/or federal income tax
check-off for parks and recreation
purposes
Using money from the State lottery
Having a state and/or federal tax on the
extraction of natural resources such as
oil, gravel, and timber
Increasing the tax on tobacco products
Increasing the tax on alcoholic bever-
ages
Having a modest (no more than 20%)
increase in user fees at park and
outdoor recreation areas
Dedicating a portion of the existing sales
tax
Passing a voter approved park bond act
Adding a vehicle registration tax
Strongly
Oppose
1
HIS NON HIS
'/a '10
10.8 16.8
10.9 19.4
14.7 26.7
20.0 21.5
18.0 18.9
26.8 28.6
16.4 20.0
7.2 20.7
6.7 59.4
2
HIS NON HIS
'/a Yo
3.1 6.6
1.1 6.3
6.4 10.3
-. 5.2
1.4 5.7
6.4 12.2
5.8 10.0
6.2 8.9
8.9 13.7
3
HIS NON HIS
'/a %
18.6 16.8
13.9 12.4
15.5 20.3
7.3 8.9
8.2 14.0
28.9 25.6
22.0 23.8
19.1 24.3
14.6 13.8
~ ~ ~ ~~
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997.
Table 27
SPENDING CHANGES (HISPANICINON-HISPANIC)
a. Acquire additional land for recreation purposes
b. Basic maintenance of existing facilities (painting,
small repairs, etc.)
c. Providing educational and activity programs for
visitors
d. Building new facilities
e. Rehabilitating and modernizing existing facilities
f. Protection and management of the area's natural
and cultural resources
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1997.
4
HIS NON HIS
% 010
19.2 16.1
17.6 13.0
22.8 13.6
7.4 6.9
8.6 9.6
13.6 14.8
22.2 19.3
21.7 17:O
8.0 5.7
Increased I Re;:;? Spending
Strongly
support
5
HIS NON HIS
% Yo
49.0 43.7
56.5 48.8
40.6 29.1
63.1 57.5
63.8 51.8
24.3 18.9
33.7 26.7
45.8 21.8 29.0 7.4 I
I Decreased Spending
HIS NON
8.4 9.4 I 3.3 1.9
5.4 6.6
3.7 9.0 I
4.3 ' 2.6
2.0 4.6 I
Table 28
ATTITUDES TOWARD CHANGES
TO PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES (HlSPANIC/NON-HISPANIC)
Statement
a.
b.
C.
d.
e.
1.
9.
h.
I.
I.
k.
I.
m.
Providing more educational programs and
services in park and outdoor recreation
areas.
Construction of more simple campgrounds
with picnic tables, cold water, and
restrooms.
Construction of more campgrounds that
are intensely developed and have hot
showers, including some campsites (for
which there is an extra fee) with hook-ups
for electricity and water.
Developing more local community parks.
Providing more commercial hotels, motels,
restaurants, shops, gas stations within
public park and outdoor recreation areas.
Providing stronger enforcement of laws
and regulations which deal with public use
and behavior in parks and recreation
areas.
Providing more areas for the legal use of
off-road vehicles such as motorcycles,
dune buggies, 4-wheel drive vehicles, and
all-terrain vehicles.
Developing more horseback riding, hiking,
and/or mountain biking areas where no
motorized vehicles are allowed.
An increase in the number of wilderness
type areas where no vehicles or develop-
ments are allowed.
Providing more open space in urban areas.
Construct more RV sewage dump stations.
Provide more picnic sites for large groups.
Provide more parking at picnic sties.
Strongly Strongly
0.9 3.0 1.5 1 4.3 ' 10.9 29.2 ' 28.2 35.1 I 60.0 29.8 I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
3.9 1.9 I 0.0 0.0 I 6.3 18.1 I 29.9 44.9 I 62.9 30.1
3.2 8.9 I 2.9 11.7 I 9.8 23.9 124.7 27.5 I 59.4 28.0
1.0 1.5 I 0.6 4.6 I 8.8 18.5 I 26.0 39.6 I 63.6 35.E
6.7 28.8 14.8 24.9 22.3 27.6 17.2 13.0 38.9 5.8
0/0 3.4 I 1.5 5.5 I 14.6 24.9 I 21.0 29.9 I 62.8 36.4
16.0 26.8 I 9.3 17.1 129.2 26.9 I 13.9 20.4 I 33.7 14.1
3.3 2.8 I 3.7 4.0 120.8 16.2 I 13.9 35.4 I 58.4 41.!
0.9 5.6 I 4.3 5.7 I 20.8 20.1 I 23.4 28.0 I 50.6 40.(
2.4 2.0 I 1.4 5.1
5.5 12.0 I 4.2 14.0
3.9 5.2 1.3 10.3
3.9 5.2 I 1.9 8.3
I
I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.520.128.0
m
23.6 28.1
15.9 43.5
18.0 42.0
10.2 40.4
33.0 32.1
21.0 16.0
30.1 27.1
23.2 30.1
39.6 32.
53.4 19.1
46.7 15.:
60.7 16.1
Table 29
SELECTED LATENT DEMAND HISPANICS VS. NON-HISPANICS
Activity #
01 Walking (recreational)
02 Trail hiking
09
1c
12
13
14
15
40
41
'amping in developed sites
.mping in primitive areadbackpacking
.,enera1 nature study
Use of open grass or turf areas
Use of play equipment
Picnicking in developed sites
Visiting museums, historic sites
Visiting zoos and arboretums
HISPANIC
lndex I High/ Number 1 ModeratelLow
~ I
18.72 I High
Moderate 5.48
9.19 I Moderate ' Moderate 6.09
9.13 I Moderate
I I
I
I High 20.64
15.93 1 High
I Moderate
I
I 9.77
20.63 I High
24.87 I I High
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997
Table 30
NON-HISPANIC
Index I High/
Number I ModeratelLow I
I I
20.32 I High
High 17.97
22.11
11.09
11 .oo.
7.97
6.43
High
High
High
Moderate
Moderate ' High 10.22
12.30 I High I
7.50 I I Moderate
------l High demand = >9.E
Moderate = 4.95-9.9
Low = e4.95
PUBLIC SUPPORT HISPANICS VS. NON-HISPANICS ' I
01 Walking (recreational)
02 Trail hiking
09 Camping in developed sites
10 Camping in primitive areadbackpacking
12 General nature study
13
14 Use of play equipment
15 Picnicking in developed sites
40 Visiting museums, historic sites
41 Visiting zoos and arboretums
Use of open grass or turf areas
~~ ~
Index 1- High/
Number 1 ModeratelLow I
I
15.65 I High
I Low 3.83
21.26 I High ' High 10.01
14.36 I High
High
30.25 I High
High
19.24 I High
18.42 1 High
I
I 27.15 I
I 22.24 1
I
NON-HISPANIC
Index I High/
Number 1 ModeratelLow
1
14.26 1 High
21.67 I High
35.43 I High
.I
14.38
18.53
10.63
13.20
13.17
High
High
High
High
High
15.82 I High
9.96 \ High I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997
Motives for Participation ’
Several differences were found between
Hispanics and non-Hispanics regarding factors
influencing enjoyment of respondents’ most
important activity (Table 31). The largest
difference was found for the item “meeting
new people,” with 45.7 percent of the Hispanic
portion stating this was very important versus
15.8 percent for members of other ethnic
groups. Similarly, a greater proportion of
Hispanics stated being with family and friends
was very important (83% versus 68.9% for all
others). Other differences were found for the
items “feeling in harmony with nature” and
“achieving spiritual fulfillment.” For both of
these items, a higher proportion of Hispanics
stated this factor was very important.
Implications of Pilot Study of Hispanic Recreation
Patterns when Compared to Previous Studies
Data on recreation participation and prefer-
ences of Hispanics do not reveal any major
differences when compared to previous studies
of Hispanics conducted in California. However,
there are major differences in Hispanic recre-
ational preferences and activity participation
relative to the other ethnic groups in California.
It is interesting to note that in a household
survey of Hispanic and non-Hispanics in the
Phoenix, Arizona area, Gramann and Floyd
(1 991 ) found statistically significant differences
in activity participation for only 5 of 23 activities.
However, other studies of Hispanic recreation
patterns in California support the results of this
1997 study. An important follow-up action is to
determine why Hispanic participation is low,
Table 31
FACTORS INFLUENCING ENJOYMENT OF MOST IMPORTANT ACTIVITY (HlSPANIC/NON-HISPANIC)
Being in the outdoors
Getting away from crowded situations
Relaxing
Releasing or reducing tension
Quality of the natural setting
Being with family and friends
Beauty of the area
Having a change from daily routine
Doing something your youth enjoyed
Feeling in harmony with nature
Keeping fit and healthy
Availability of facilities
Experiencing challenge and excitement
Achieving spiritual fulfillment
Meeting new people
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1997.
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT
I 3.2 1.5 1.9
7.0 5.7 1 29.4
I 13.3 0.0 4.0
1.5 4.1 I 18.7
I 17.2 1.5 3.1
I
I
I 0.0 9.9 I 17.0
I 14.3 I 1.7 2.4
2.2 5.1
8.9 23.7
4.8 9.9
5.6 11.2
21.3
1.5
14.1
15.8
0.7 9.1 I 34.9
I 42.7
7.5 24.8 I 37.4
18.1 50.3 ‘ , 36.1
I 12.8 21.6
12.7 I 95.3 85.4
23.6 I 63.6 70.7
19.2 86.7 76.8
21.1 I 79.8 74.8
I
I
20.0
21.2
20.7
20.4
18.5
26.9
31 .O
29.0
35.6
35.0
81.3 76.9
83.0 68.9
84.0 76.9
76.5 74.5
89.7 57.7
81.1 63.1
78.6 57.8
64.4 62.0
44.4 42.8
55.1 40.1
particularly among those activities for which
there is high latent demand. The 1997 results
consistently showed less Hispanic participation
for the activities surveyed. Are recreation
planners and policy makers overlooking some
of the outdoor recreation activities participated
in by Hispanics? One possible overlooked
activity in the 1997 survey might be religious
celebrations. Chavez et ai. (1 993) found that
religious holidays were related to high use of
the Mecca Hills Bureau of Land Management
site by Hispanics.
The one element of the Hispanic recreation
experience common to nearly all the conducted
studies is the emphasis on recreational oppor-
tunities that promote family affiliation. A recent
study conducted by Shaull and Gramann
(1 997, in press) indicated that even among
Hispanics who are highly assimilated into the
dominant U.S culture, the family-related ben-
efits of recreational participation are relatively
resistant to changes associated with cultural
I
I
assimilation.
Additional facility
development to accom-
modate Hispanic recre-
ational demand should
consider other factors.
Previous studies have
demonstrated the
importance expressed
by Hispanics about
having adequate law
enforcement at recre-
ation sites. A study of
visitors to a BLM area
in southern California
(Chavez et al., 1993)
found that a safe area
was given the highest
rating (4.7 on a scale of
1 to 5) by Hispanics,
but "I aw enforce m e n t , "
and "friendly, informative rangers" also were
tively). These findings suggest that park im-
provement actions targeted towards Hispanics
should also consider having a law enforcement
presence which would contribute to a safe
recreation site.
rated high in importance (4.4 and 4.2, respec- \
For Hispanics, the highest latent demand
among the activities investigated in 1997 was
for visiting zoos. As with other follow-up efforts
suggested for activities with high latent de-
mand, there is a need to more accurately
specify the constraints to visiting zoos and
arboretums. If the constraints are supply
oriented, then planners and policymakers need
to determine to what extent they can address '
this issue. (This might be an issue more
appropriately addressed by local governments
and non-profit organizations.) Even so, it is
possible that the state and federal agencies
could have some role in addressing a need that
relates to environmental education and conser-
vation. An example of a federal-local govern-
ment partnership is
the National Park
Service Rivers and
Trails Program. This
program focuses on
providing local entities
with support and
advice for acquisition
of federal properties
for trail development
by local entities.
Perhaps a similar
program could be
devised to deal with
local recreation needs
in those locations
where latent demand
is higher than the
statewide averages
obtained in this study.
SECTION Ill
COMPARISONS -
OTHER STUDIES
7
i I
I
Ill. COMPARISONS -OTHER STUDIES
COMPlRlSON OF THE 1997 STUDY WITH
THE 1987 AND 1992 STUDIES
Trends assessment relative to outdoor
recreation attitudes and activity participation
can provide meaningful information to recre-
ation planners and policymakers. Accurate
information on recreation trends can help
practitioners to:
prioritize funding allocation for various
recreation programs and facilities,
reallocate funds based on shifting recre-
ation preferences and activity participation
patterns,
confirm those programs for which recre-
ation service delivery is working well,
identify recurring problems or issues, and
identify new problems or issues.
However, very few federal or state agencies
regularly collect comprehensive, accurate, and
quantitative data on the public’s recreational
preferences and activity patterns that can be
compared over time. Studies done in this context
of regional or statewide trends are often changed
when they are repeated in terms of sampling
methods, questions asked, and analyses con-
ducted, thus limiting their comparability.
The California Parks and Recreation Public
Opinion survey is a notable exception. Over the
last decade, this statewide outdoor recreation
study has been conducted three times by the
same consulting firm, CIC Research, Inc. For
each study, the sampling plan has been basically
the same, and the data collection format-a
telephone and mail survey-has remained
constant. Although there have been some
modifications of and additions to questions asked,
many have remained the same as those on the
1987 survey, thus affording direct comparability.
Eighteen of the questions on the 1997
telephone survey were also on the 1987 and
1992 telephone surveys; on the 1997 mail
survey, 14 of the questions were also on the
two previous surveys.
The following sections compare changes in
recreation participation and attitudes over the
last decade. These sections are followed by a
discussion of factors that have changed in
California since 1987 that may be responsible
for changes, and a summary of results of two
national recreation trends studies. These other
studies are not directly comparable to the
results of the 1997, 1992, and 1987 California
household studies, but they do provide some
context for results interpretation.
Summary of Changes in Responses - 1987,
1992. and 1997 studies
Generally, there were few major changes in
attitudes or behavior over the last decade.
Some changes are noticeable for preferences
for funding mechanisms, and changes are
apparent in the average number of days among
participants for walking, general nature study,
basketball, surfing, sailboating and windsurfing,
kayaking and other non-motorized watercraft
use, and freshwater fishing. Direct comparabil-
ity for some activities is not possible due to
changes in activity definition since 1987. For
example, in 1987 trail hiking was combined with
mountain climbing. When examining the
average days of participation data for all three
surveys, several activities (walking, camping-
both types, kayaking and related activities)
exhibit an “inverted U” curve, implying that
participation increased in 1992, then de-
creased.to about 1987 levels. Between 1997
and 1992, “high” latent demand was basically
unchanged for those activities identified in
1992, but willingness to pay changed for all
those activities. Finally, there is growing sup-
port for increased facility maintenance, in-
creased construction of new facilities, and
increased acquisition of lands for park and
recreation purposes.
Attitudes and Beliels toward Outdoor
Recreation
Attitudes indicative of respondents' satisfac-
tion with and the importance of recreation in
California have remained unchanged since
1987 (Tables 32 and 33). The types of outdoor
recreation areas preferred has changed
slightly; there may be a possible increase in the
use of undeveloped areas since 1987 (Table
34). Around 30 percent (27.6%) in 1987 indi-
cated they preferred natural and undeveloped
areas; by 1992 this figure had increased to
about 40 percent and has remained relatively
unchanged in 1997.
Similarly, the proportion of respondents
that indicated they preferred highly developed
parks and recreation areas decreased from
21.1 percent in 1987, to 14.2 percent in 1992
and 10.2 percent in 1997 (Table 35). This
possible shift in use to more undeveloped
areas is consistent with a review of wilderness
use by Cole (1 996), who reported that
backcountry and wilderness use was increasing
on a national level.
Attitudes toward funding park and recre-
ation areas and on spending changes have
shifted. Support for a state and/or federal
income tax checkoff for parks and recreation
purposes has decreased from about 62 percent
in 1992 to 54 percent in 1997; in 1987, support
was at 47 percent (Table 36). More noticeable
changes are found in the responses to the
spending changes question. Support for
acquiring more land for recreational purposes
increased to 57.1 percent in 1997 from 45
percent (1 992, 1987). Similarly, support for
basic maintenance increased to 64.8 percent in
1997 from 52.1 percent in 1992. Finally, sup-
port for building new facilities increased to 57.5
percent in 1997 from 41.3 percent in 1992.
These changes only pertain to the 1997 data
when compared to the previous two surveys.
Between 1987 and 1992, the responses to
these three items only varied by a few percent-
age points (Table 37).
Table 32
OUTDOOR RECREATION IMPORTANCE TO QUALITY OF LIFE
(1 987,1992, and 1997) (by percent) * 61 9
Very important ~ ~ - 436 %6 1
25 7 Important
21 9 Neutral
Unimportant
Not at all important 5 .s
.2
0 1997
0 1992
1987
20 30 40 50 60 70 0 '0
q l-2 & :d rJ Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table 33
SATISFACTION
(1987,1992, and 1997)
Satisfaction with public outdoor recreation areas and facilities
currentlv available.
Category 1907 1992 1997
Very satisfied 28.7 21.4 27.3
Satisfied 34.0 28.2 32.7
Neutral 27.7 34.8 29.2
Unsatisfied 6.4 9.8 7.5
Not at all satisfied 3.1 5.8 3.4
Comparison of outdoor recreation areas and facilities today with
five years ago.
Category 1987 1992 1997
. Better 37.8% 28.7% 34.6%
Same 36.2 32.1 35.9
Not as good 18.2 32.9 25.8
Not here 5 years ago 7.7 6.4 3.7
I
Source: CIC Research, Inc.. 1997.
v)
ul p: a
a
v) m
m
C 0
m
0
-0 C m
VJ
m a D a, Q 0 a, > a, -0 x c 0,
L
.- -
I
s!
E
-
-
.- I
.a p, .--' p; .(L'
Table 35
TYPE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PREFERRED
(1 987,1992, and 1997)
areas
Category 1987 1992 1997
-6.5
Natural and undeveloped areas 26.5% 41 .8% 39.4%
Nature oriented parks and recreation areas 29.2 26.3 30.0
Highly developed parks and recreation areas 21.1 14.2 10.2
Historical or cultural buildings, sites or areas 9.3 7.1 9.3
Private, not public, outdoor recreation areas and facilities 9.8 10.6 11.1
I I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
TYPE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PREFERRED
(1 987,1992, and 1997)
Q 30.0 26.3
29.2
Nature oriented parks and
recreation areas
1987 Highly developed parks and
recreation areas
Historical or cultural build- ings, sites or areas
Private, not public, outdoor
0 1992
c] 1997
__ recreation areas and facilities -9.8 .. __ __
1
0) C
0 E 3 LA
.-
v)
0 3 U
-
s! a 8 0 m a 0
C 0 x m
al
(5, C
u) m
c
f
.-
$ t -
u
C .- m El- = %# -
a! m d
7 c\i In
Y Lo d
e
7 d R m
09 0 (D
(4
F
909 cub a! b (4 d m In d In d wm b
cd d c
Changes in Activity Patterns
Activity patterns have changed since 1987.
These changes are most evident when review-
ing the results on “average activity participation
days” for participants only. General nature
study and cross-country skiing have steadily
increased. Off-highway use of 4-wheel drive
vehicles dropped in 1992, and then climbed
back to the 1987 level. Use of motorcycles and
ATVs was about the same between 1987 and
1992, but increased by about 30 percent in
1997. Bicycling has increased about 10 per-
cent since 1992, but mountain biking off paved
surfaces decreased from an average of about
28 to 21 days per year.
Several activities exhibited growth in 1992
and then declined to about their 1987 levels.
Activities in this category include walking;
camping in developed sites; camping in primi-
tive areas; picnicking in developed sites;
kayaking, rowboating, canoeing, and rafting;
saltwater and freshwater fishing. Among
participants, slight decreases are evident in the
number of days camped, both for developed
and primitive camping. For both types of ’
camping, the average number of participation
days dropped about 20 percent between 1992
and 1997.
At an overall level, several explanations of
the inverted “U” curve are possible. One
explanation is the shifting demographic struc-
ture of California’s population. Owyer (1 994)
and English et at. (1 983) have demonstrated
that age has a major impact on recreation
participation. An analysis of the 1987, 1992,
and 1997 data with respect to age and income
showed statistically significant differences for
age, suggesting the distribution of ages did
differ between the five-year time periods be-
tween data collection. The proportion of
respondents in the less than 25-year category
has steadily declined over the decade, while
the proportion of respondents in the 41 -50
year-old age group has steadily increased.
The age shift found in the respondent
sample coincides with changes occurring at the
state and national levels. In 1900, only about 3
million Americans, or 1 in 25, were over age 65,
whereas in 1994 this figure had increased to 1
in 8, or about 33 million (U.S. Census Bureau,
1995). Due to the aging of the baby boomer
cohort, the proportion of the US. population
that is elderly will continue to increase during
the next 50 years. Most of the elderly are and
will be women who live alone. In 1993, Califor-
nia had the highest number of elderly, at 3.3
million individuals, and by 2020, the number of
elderly in California should double (Campbell,
1995).
A change in income is another possible
explanation for the inverted “U” curve. The
distribution of incomes over the three data
collection times differed only between 1987 and
1997, with a tripling in the proportion of respon-
dents reporting household incomes of $50,000
a year or greater. This difference also was
statistically significant and is important because
some recreation researchers hypothesize that
outdoor recreation participation drops drasti-
cally at very low and high incomes.
Changing ethnicity patterns may be reduc-
ing overall rates of participation. Results of the
1997 survey show that Hispanics consistently
showed underparticipation in the majority of
outdoor recreation activities for which the 1997
data were collected. Census Bureau data
confirm that the number of Hispanics in Califor-
nia has steadily increased in the last five years.
Another general explanation is that there may
be displacement occurring, people may be tired
of crowded conditions, difficult access, or other
unmentioned constraints, and as a result have
reduced their level of participation. Among the
activities that demonstrate an inverted “U”
curve since 1987, five have shown high latent
demand in 1992 and 1997, indicating some
persistent, unmet needs. These activities
include walking, both types of camping, picnick-
ing, and freshwater fishing.
Another explanation concerns the nature of
the 1992 sample. Despite use of a random
sampling approach, an unusual sample may
have been obtained in 1992. For any given
sampling event, there is always a low probabil-
ity-usually 5 percent or less-that the sample
estimates of population parameters may not
accurately reflect the population’s true charac-
teristics. The 1992 survey data were sampled
with a 95 percent confidence level with an error
for parameter estimates of f 5 percent. There
is a small chance that the sample may not
reflect the true values of the California
population’s recreation preferences and partici-
pation patterns.
Finally, given the time constraints of the
new California economy, people may have
reduced their recreation participation since
1992. A national recreation survey conducted
by Roper Starch and the American Recreation
Coalition (1 996) reported “streamlining” of
recreation activities as a national occurrence.
Whereas people participated in an average of
four activities two years ago, last year their
mean participation had decreased to 3.3 activi-
ties. Despite a revitalized California economy
and more disposable income, people may not
have the necessary time to spend on outdoor
recreation activities. Harvard economist Juliet
Schorr (1 989) predicted that Americans would
have less free time as we move to the next
century.
Activity specific explanations are more
speculative. Regarding the reduction in walk-
ing, it is possible that people have shifted their
interests to other similar activities. Letscher
(1 997) reports that the use of both home
fitness equipment and rollerblading have
increased dramatically from 1992 to 1995 on a
national level. He also speculates that these
changes are not simply fads, but are long-term
trends. Regarding the change in camping, it is
possible that dissatisfaction with crowded
conditions is motivating people to reduce their
frequency of participation. It is not unusual to
.
be required to book reservations at certain
California State Parks campgrounds and
national parks campgrounds several months in
advance. Those individuals not inclined to
practice advanced planning may find them-
selves prevented from using public camp-
grounds when they want.
Changes in Willingness to Pay
For camping in developed and primitive
areas, latent demand remained high in 1997,
but general willingness to pay decreased. For
developed camping ..!illingness to pay
decreased from abc $24 to $22 per day over
the last five years, wriile for primitive camping,
it decreased from about $12 per day to $10 per
day. Willingness to pay also decreased for
walking and freshwater fishing. However,
willingness to pay increased for trail hiking, use
of open grass or turf areas, visiting museums
and historic sites, and visiting zoos and
arboretums.
Implications Pertaining to Trends
Assessment
Activities that have.consistently received
high latent demand scores for 1992 and 1997
should be priority considerations for recreation
planners and policymakers. Clearly, more
effort will be needed to meet the needs of
those interested in developed camping. To
develop an effective service delivery strategy,
more targeted visitor surveys, conducted at a
regional or local level, are advised to
determine more specifically the reasons for
latent demand. It will be important to
determine why people are not using existing
areas, making sure to include questions about
crowding, awareness of opportunities, and
awareness of reservation systems. Obtaining
some of this information might best be
accomplished using focus groups. A related
area of inquiry would be to determine how and
where people want to see newly generated
federal fee revenues spent as funding becomes
more readily available through increased
federal fees returned to where the revenues
were generated. Increased involvement from
local recreationists where the fees were
generated should help to determine how this
money should be spent.
Given the high cost of capital
improvement projects, the need to build
additional facilities and trails to meet latent
demand s hou Id be prudent I y deter mined.
Recreation demand projections are often
more closely related to social and
demographic variables than to the supply of
facilities (English et al., 1993). Similarly,
latent demand may be most strongly
influenced by other factors, such as lack of
transportation, age, lack of income, or lack of
awareness about recreation sites and
facilities.
Other areas needing improved service
delivery are historic sites, cultural sites, and
zoos and arboretums. As a first step it would
be helpful to determine the location of existing
opportunities and facilities to meet these latent
demands and overlay them with residential
locations of those demonstrating high latent
demand. If opportunities seem relatively close
(Le., less than a one-hour drive), a useful
follow-up study would be to determine why
people aren't using these facilities.
COMPARISONS WITH OTHER RECENT
NATIONAL OR REGIONAL SURVEYS
Discussion of trends assessment addresses
two questions. How do these study results (from
the 1987,1992, and 1997 surveys) compare with
other trends assessment type studies? And,
when considered along with major social and
demographic changes, what do these study
results tell us about the future of outdoor recre-
ation participation in California?
Two national recreation surveys focus on
trends in recreational activity participation that
are relevant to the 1997 California Parks and
Recreation'DepartmentlCIC study. Because of
different sampling protocols and survey ques-
tionnaire design, direct c;mparisons are not
possible. However, these surveys do provide a
context for interpretation of study results.
National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment
The National Survey on Recreation and the
Environment was conducted as a cooperative
effort between the US Forest Service, University
of Georgia, and several other federal agencies
(Cordell et al., 1997). This survey, conducted in
1982 and 1994, focused on trends in recreation
activities at a national level, and it reports data on
.a regional basis as well. Data were collected for
two separate studies from 17,000 respondents, 16
years or older, on activity patterns, recreation site
attributes, and preferred sources of financing for
different public recreational services and facilities.
Sample results were then projected to determine
regional and national trends in recreation activity
participation. Sampling of respondents was
stratified to ensure representation across four
broadly defined areas: the North, South, Rocky
Mountains, and Pacific Coast regions. Results
were reported for the national and the regional
samples. The Pacific Coast results were the most
relevant to the California study and include re-
sponses of those sampled in Oregon, Washing-
ton, California, Alaska, and Hawaii. Attitudinal
measures were only taken for the 1994-95 study.
,-. .-.
1, *. dL c
HSRE Report Highlights participation. Some examples include trail
hiking (34.8% Pacific Coast, 58% California),
mountain climbing (6.9% Pacific Coast, 10.1 o/o
California), picnicking (Pacific Coast 50.4%,
California 65%), and freshwater fishing (1 8.4%
Pacific Coast, 37.3% California).
Similar to the results of the California
survey, walking was found to be the most
popular activity, estimated to.include 134 million
Americans. Several activities had numbers of
participants ranging from 60 to 99 million
participants nationwide. These include picnick-
ing; visiting a nature center; visiting an historic
site; playing yard games; attending outdoor
sporting events and concerts; pool swimming;
swimming in lakes, streams, and rivers; visiting
a visitor center; and wildlife viewing. Since
1982, the nation’s population has increased
about 13 percent, and participation in nearly all
the 81 activities surveyed increased as well.
For most activities participation is lower for
people with family incomes less than $25,000
and for people with incomes above $1 00,000,
as compared to the rest of the sample.
In terms of the proportion of the population
that participates, about two-thirds of the na-
tional sample engaged in walking. For the
California study, 84 percent reported walking as
an activity. About a third of the national
sample reported engaging in wildlife viewing,
while for the California study, 54 percent
engaged in general nature study or wildlife
viewing. Differences in fees. Using fees as a fund-
question wording may . ing mechanism was most
account for the wide dis- i preferred (63.6%) for boat
crepancy in participation ramps, followed by special
rates. Nearly three-fourths exhibits and presentations
(44.9%). For campgrounds,
40 percent preferred user
of Californians queried in
the 1997 survey indicated
they visited historic sites or fees; for visitor centers, 29
museums as compared to percent; and only 25 percent
44 percent f.rom the NSRE preferred funding trails with
national sample. When user fees. These results, and
comparing California study those of the California study,
results with the NSRE suggest the federal agency
“Pacific Coast” region, fee demonstration projects
some of the discrepancies . may have some public rela-
tions work to do before enjoy-
ing widespread public support.
diminish, but California still
shows higher rates of
Among the Pacific Coast subsample, the
responses for general attitudes toward
recreation sites were more consistent with the
1997 Parks and Recreation/CIC study.
Cleanliness of restrooms, facilities, and
grounds at the areas received the highest level
of support, with 77 percent of respondents
indicating this item was very or extremely
important. Safety and security of the area was
mentioned as being very or extremely
important by almost 75 percent of the
respondents, and the scenery of the area was
considered very or extremely important by
almost 77 percent of the respondents.
Another set of questions concerned atti-
tudes towards financing. Respondents were
asked to indicate if they preferred to provide
financing for a particular item with taxes, fees,
or both, or not to fund that item. Similar to the
results of the California study, the Pacific Coast
sample did not offer strong support for user
Roper Starch 1996 Survey
A more recent s;rvey effort was conducted
by Roper Starch Worldwide with the American
Recreation Coalition. Their survey was con-
ducted among 2,000 adults. 18 years or older.
Key findings regarding activity participation
revealed recreational walking to be the most
popular activity.with 39 percent of Americans
participating (down 6% from 1995), followed by
pleasure driving, 33 percent; swimming, 28
percent; picnicking, 24 percent; fishing, 22
percent, bicycling, 16 percent; running or
jogging, 13 percent; and hiking, 12 percent. For
all these activities, Roper Starch reported
decreases in participation from 1995. The
author of the report suggests Americans are
“streamlining” their activities, and their results
show a drop in mean number of activities
participated in from 4.0 to 3.3 from 1995 to 1996.
Overall satisfaction is comparable to that
reported in the California survey: 59 percent of
the respondents in the Roper Starch survey
said they were “extremely” or “quite” satisfied
with the quality of their outdoor recreation
experiences. Again, Californians on the 1997
survey scored a little higher, with about 65
percent indicating they were “satisfied” or “very
satisfied” with public outdoor recreation areas
currently available. Differences in the question
wording and scaling may be responsible for the
differences in
response. An
interesting
finding from the
Roper Starch
survey concerns
satisfaction with
local recreation
versus vacation
recreation. For
three catego-
ries-‘‘amount of
act ivi t ies/i ns t ru c-
ti o n av a i I a bl e, ”
“quality of service from park management/
employees,” and, “value received for admis-
si o n/u se r fees “-s a t i s f ac t i on was consist en t I y
at least 10 percentage points higher for vaca-
tion recreation. The Roper Starch survey also
found that recreation satisfaction varied with
income, and that more affluent respondents
reported higher levels of satisfaction. For those
with annual incomes less than $1 5,000, 39
percent reported being satisfied with their
recreation experiences, as compared to 71
percent being satisfied for those earning more
than $50,000 per year.
Another finding of interest in the Roper
Starch study is that there were two groups for
whom a composite measye otrecreation
quality had dropped: African Americans and
women. This composite variable, the “Recre-
ation Quality Index” (RQI), was created by
combining responses to questions on actual
and expected participation, satisfaction levels
with recent recreation experiences, and percep-
tions of the opportunities for recreation. The
1996 national average RQI was 109. In 1997,
the RQI dropped 8 points for all females and
12 points for employed females. For African
Americans, the RQI declined 13 points, in-
creasing the substantial gap between this racial
group when compared to the American public
overall. It is possible that women and African
Americans in
California show
similar declines.
Investigating
latent demand,
recreation
participation,
and satisfaction
among these
groups is an
area of inquiry
that should be
considered in
future California
studies.
SECTION Y
FACTORS AFFECTING
FUTURE REGREITION USE
Y. FACTORS AFFECTING
FUTURE RECREATION USE
SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS
AFFECTING FUTURE RECREATION USE
Since 1987, California has experienced
several changes that can affect participation in
outdoor recreation activities. These changes
include a revitalized, more service-oriented
economy; increased immigration; introduction
of user fees at national forest sites and
increased fees at selected national parks;
increased lands dedicated for open space or
recreational uses; and growth in the elderly
sector of the population.
Economic Revitalization and Increased Consumer Spending
During the 199Os, the California economy
stagnated and then rebounded in dramatic
fashion. The economic recession of the early
1990s was influenced to a large extent by the
loss of jobs in the Department of Defense and
related industries. The recession persisted for
about three years; then, in 1994, it began to
recover. Job growth stagnated in 1991 -1 994
(job loss ranged from 0.9-2.0 percent annually).
In 1995, new job growth in California increased
steadily each month, and this trend persists in
area, especially in San Jose. Personal income
rose 6 percent from 1995 to 1996, and retail
sales grew by 4.9 percent from 1995 to 1996.
Adjusting for inflation, real income should rise
4.5 percent this year (1997). Current job
growth outpaced the national economy, and
projections for 1998 indicate this trend will
continue (1997 Economic Report io the Gover-
nor). It is possible that increases in income and
retail sales involve the purchase of more recre-
ation products and services.
Data reported at the national level from the
Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America (1 996)
showed substantial increases in recreation
equipment purchases. Wholesale purchases of
tents, backpacks, and sleeping bags increased
to about 320 million from about $270 million
from 1992 to 1993. From 1993 to 1994, retail
mountain bike sales increased to $4.2 billion
from $3.8 billion. It is likely that some of this
increased purchase activity is occurring in
California, and, if this is true, Californians at
least have the intent to engage in outdoor
recreation activities.
Changes in Employment and ilmount of
Free Time
1 997 (1 997 Economic Report to the Governor).
The revitalized economy is being driven by job
growth in high skills industries such as elec-
tronics manufacturing, software and hardware
development, multimedia software, and bio-
technology. Although there were 380,000 jobs
added in 1997, and 350,000 new jobs added in
1996, there have been continued job losses in
the communications and utilities industries and
from the closure of military bases. Job growth
The new economy has created several
subgroups of workers that have implications for
recreation service delivery. Crispell (1 997)
j i
!
Despite having the intent to participate in
outdoor recreation activities, people may not have
the necessary time to spend on outdoor recre-
ation activities. Harvard economist Juliet Schor
(1 989) predicted that Americans would have less
free time as we move to the next century.
was most robust in the San Francisco Bay reported that 6 percent of working Americans
,-. 1.-
WW
~~~ ~
hold more than one job. Among multiple job
holders, men work an average of 52 hours a
week, women work an average of 43 hours.
Money is the obvious reason for moonlighting,
but some people, such as musicians, consider
their “second” job their true vocation. Yet
another subset of people are working part time
simply because they cannot find full-time work.
In California, this group numbered 609,000’in
1994. Another group includes the number of
people voluntarily working part time (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1997). In California, this
figure increased to 2 million workers in 1994
from about 1.8 million workers in 1987. What
is unknown is what percentage of the voluntary
part-time workers are stay at home parents;
they too may not have much leisure time,
choosing to occupy their non-work time with
child rearing responsibilities.
As people shift to alternative work sched-
ules, recreation providers will have to shift to
accommodate the free time that recreationists
have available. In a talk given at the National
Association of Resource Recreation Planners,
Dr. Joseph O’Leary stated that some providers
are offering opportunities for midnight basket-
ball. Similarly, health clubs now boast of 24-
hour service to their clients.
Another group of workers may not have
disposable income for recreation. These
individuals are known as the “working poor“
(O’Hare and Schwartz, 1997). In 1973, 13
percent of working men earned poverty level
wages, but in 1993 this figure had increased to
21 percent. In 1995, a person working full-
time, year-round at minimum wage had an
income 30 percent below the poverty line,
defined as $1 5,569 for a family of four. At this
low level of income it is likely that income does
negatively affect an individual or family’s
participation level in outdoor recreation activi-
ties. Previous studies have shown that income
levels positively influence recreation activity
participation (Roper Starch, 1996).
Aging Population Impacts
Aging trends have implications for recre-
ation planning and service delivery, some of
which are unexpected. One obvious implica-
tion is that a large group of individuals will have
more free time on their hands. However, less
obvious implications pertain to adult education
and high risk activities. One group of interest is
the “lifelong learners” (Miller, 1997). These are
elderly individuals enrolled in sdme form of
adult education. Most of‘these 5 million indi-
viduals take classes for personal and social
reasons. The number of elderly American
students grew by 55 percent between 1990 and
1995, as compared to a 33 percent growth rate
for the total student body during the same time
period. Furthermore, Census Bureau projec-
tions indicate the elderly of the future will be
more well educated than previous cohorts. It is
conceivable that this group may have a strong’
desire to engage in learning about nature,
wildlife viewing, visiting museums, etc.
Another atypical segment among older
Americans could be the “high risk”
recreationists. Heath (1 997) indicated that
many people over age 40 are starting to en-
gage in activities such as skydiving and rock
climbing. The U.S. Parachute Association
(cited in Heath, 1997) reported that 22 percent
of their members were age 40 or older, 7
percent were 50 or older, and another 7 percent
were 60 or older. As growth in the elderly
population in Califmia continues over the next
20 years, this wit. nave several different impli-
cations for recreational service delivery.
Introduction or Increase in Entrance Fees on Federal lands
In 1997, the U.S. Forest Service embarked
on a recreation fee demonstration project at
selected sites throughout California. The
program is in its first year and has been imple-
mented at selected sites at eight national
forests. At the four national forests in southern
California, visitors can purchase an Adventure
Pass for $5 per day or $30/season. In northern
California, a fee is required for entry into the
Desolation Wilderness, a high use area in the
El Dorado National Forest. For the first time, a
climbing fee is required for ascending Mt.
Shasta in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
Anecdotal evidence suggests people are
skeptical about paying fees but are supportive
when they understand the rationale for the fee
and the return of 80 percent of the fee increase
to the units where they were collected (Owe,
1997, personal communication).
Opponents of fee programs have argued
that fees are discriminatory and could have the
effect of reducing or displacing use. Prelimi-
nary research conducted in California has
shown mixed results. A study conducted by
Chavez (1 997) at fee demonstration sites at
national forests in southern California, showed
that many visitors stated a fee would not influ-
ence the types of activities in which they partici-
pated or the number of times they visited a site.
Another study conducted to assess recre-
ation constituency group perceptions of fees
(Winter et al., 1997) revealed some skepticism
about the necessity of fee collection, the effects
on family recreation, and the spontaneity of
recreation outings previously available at non-
fee sites.
A fee demonstration program is in place in
many national parks in California. These units
include Death Valley National Park, Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, Joshua Tree
National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore,
Redwood National Park, Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Park, Whiskeytown National
Recreation Area, and Yosemite National Park.
These fee increases have immense implications
for additional funding for recreation amenities
and environmental protection. Anecdotal evi-
dence suggests good public support for these
fee increases (Finley, 1997, personal communi-
cation), but formal evaluations have not yet
been conducted. While the effects on recreation
use are unknown, there are some positive
effects on agency funding with increased au-
tonomy in determining how these new funds
shall be spent. This clearly has implications for
service delivery for the Forest Service and
National Park Service fee units in California.
Once recreationists realize their money is
remaining at the unit where it was collected, it is
possible their expectations for service delivery
will increase, along with their involvement in
local recreation scoping and planning.
Increased Open Space
There are some indications that in California
more land is becoming available for outdoor
recreational pursuits. This is the result of clo-
sures and reuse of military bases, such as those
at Long Beach, Treasure Island, and Alameda.
Open space districts and local park and recre-
ation departments are acquiring new lands
throughout the San Francisco Bay area (Look,
1997, personal communication). The Mid-
Peninsula Open Space District in San Mateo
and Santa Clara counties, has been actively
pursuing land acquisitions in the last year. Much
of the funding for these acquisitions is the result
of a portion of property taxes reserved specifi-
cally for this activity. Increased open space may
help address some of the persistent latent
demand issues identified in this and in the 1992
and 1987 studies. If people feel their needs are
going unmet for various recreation opportunities,
they may be more supportive of local initiatives
to raise money to acquire open space.
RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON TRENDS
ASSESSMENT
Several recommendations are made relative
to trends assessment and in learning more about
socially or economically disadvantaged groups.
1. Obtain, compile, and update comprehen-
sive data on recreation trails and facili-
ties. There is not a comprehensive data-
base of recreation trails and facilities for
this state. Determining what trails and
facilities are available and where they are
located is a crucial step in addressing those
recreation activities for which there has
been high latent demand identified in the
1997 and previous studies.
2.
3.
4.
Conduct a geographically based break-
down of latent demand. This could be done
with the existing data sets for 1987, 1992, ana
1997 This will allow more localized studies to
be initiated in areas of California where latent
demand is the highest.
Cross-tabulate the results of recommenda-
tion #2 with ethnic group composition.
This would enable planners to target areas
and underserved populations where addi-
tional, locally focused studies could be con-
ducted.
Using the 1997 data, compute latent de-
mand and public support scores for
females and African Americans. Given the
results of the Roper Starch survey, these
groups are likely to have the lowest activity
participation levels and highest latent demand.
APPENDIX A
TELEPHONE SURVEY WITH
*UNWEIGHTED SUMMARY STATISTICS
___ * Reflects characteristics of the survey sample but not necessardy the
characterrstics of the Cahforma population as a whole
CALIFORNIA OUTDOOR RECREATION TELEPHONE SURVEY
Hello. My name is and I'm conducting a short survey for the California Dept. of Parks and Recreation
regarding outdoor recreation areas and facilities. I'm not selling anything. This survey is being conducted to obtain
input on how to improve service to the public. Are you the maniwoman of the house?(lF YES, CONTINUE. IF NO,
ASK TO SPEAK TO ONE AND REPEAT INTRO, ARRANGE CB IF NECESSARY.)
This survey will take approximately 5 minutes. When answering the following questions, please remember we are
talking about anv and all public outdoo r recreation areas, parklands, and facilities. These public areas that we are
concerned with can be large or small, located anywhere within California. They can be operated by any city,
county, state or federal government. They may be highly developed urban and suburban sites or undeveloped rural
areas such as forest lands or deserts. Now, with all this in mind, let me start with a few basic questions.
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
Q4.
Q5.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all important and 5 means very important, how
important are publicoutdoor recreation areas and facilities to you and the quality of your life?
Not at a I1 lmporta nt Verv ImDortant DK
1.9% 3.0% 12.8% 22.3% 59.9% n = 2003
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means not at all satisfied and 5 means very satisfied, how would
you rate your satisfaction with the public outdoor recreation areas and facilities currently avail-
able to you in California?
Not at a I1 Satisfied Verv Sat isfied DK
3.1% 7.8% 31 .O% 34.9% 23.2% n = 1972
If you have lived in California for five years or more, how would you compare the condition and
operation of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities in California today with five years
ago? Would you say that today they are ..... ? (READ CHOICES)
31.2% Better than, DK (DO NOT READ)
37.9% The same as, or
26.8% Not as good as they were five years ago?
Do you spend more time, about the same amount of time or less time in outdoor recreation
activities now than you did 5 years ago?
34.8% More time
28.7% About the same n = 1991
Do you think that spending by public government agencies that provide outdoor recreation
areas and facilities should be increased, remain the same, or be decreased for each of the
following: (READ LIST, ROTATE)
4.1 o/o Haven't lived here for five years (DO NOT READ)
n=l883
36.5% Less time
DK (DO NOT READ)
Remain
Increased the Decreased
Spending Same Spending
a. Acquire additional land for recreation
purposes n=
b. Basic maintenance of existing facilities
(painting, small repairs, etc.) n=
c. Providing educational and activity
programs for visitors n=
d. Building new facilities n=
e. Rehabilitating and modernizing
95 1 56.3% 34.6% 9.1 O/O
974 63.7 34.3 2.0
936 51.5 42.1 6.4
944 56.1 35.5 8.4
existing f aci Ii t ies . n=l964 68.6 28.4 3.0
Protection and management of the area's
natural and cultural reso,Irez.s n=l955 67.2 28.4 4.4
f.
Q6 With government agencies facing more restricted budgets, Some new sources of money have
been suggested for funding the acquisition, development, and day-to-day operation of public rec-
reation areas and facilities. Once again using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means strongly oppose
and 5 means strongly support, how would you rate the following suggestions for obtaining new
funding for public park and recreation areas? (READ LIST. ROTATE)
Strong I y ODDose Strongly
SuDDortDK
a. Having a state and/or federal income
tax check-off for parks, and
recreation purposes. n=l948 16.0% 5.9% 16.4% 16.5% 45.2%
b. Using money from the State
lottery n=l977 18.8 5.8 11.7 13.4 50.3
c. Having a state and/or federal tax on the
extraction of natural resources such as
oil, gravel, and timber. n=l914 25.7%- 9.2 19.4 14.3 31.3
d. Increasing the tax on tobacco
products n=l994 20.6 4.4 8.8 7.2 59.1
e. Increasing the tax on alcoholic
beverages n= 1 996 19.0 5.0 13.2 9.8 53.1
f. Modest increase in user fees n=1914 27.9 11.8 25.5 14.7 20.1
g. Dedicating a portion of the existing
sales tax. n=l915 19.8 9.1 23.3 19.7 28.1
h. Passing a voter approved park
bond act n=l853 20.2 8.2 23.3 17.2 31.1
1. Adding a vehicle registration tax n=l987 57.4 13.2 13.7 6.1 9.6
.
Q7. These last few questions will help us group your ans wers with those of others. What is the
highest grade or level of education you have completed? (READ IF NECESSARY)
8.4% Less than high school graduate 25.9% College graduate
13.9% Graduate degree 19.9% High school graduate
31.8% Some college/technical training 9 (DKIREFUSED-DO NOT READ) n=l991
Q8. Which of the following best describes your household?
1.2% Single person(s), no children under 18 at home
21.2% Couple, no children under 18 at home
7.8% Single persons@), with children under 18 at home DK n=1991
Q9. Including yourself, how many persons live in your household?
Q10. How many of those are .... (READ CATEGORIES, PUT NUMBER IN BLANKS)
36.7°/QCouple, with children under 18 at home
13.1 o/Q More than two adults
Mean = 3.4 Persons
n=1997
Number Number
n=2010 22.3% Under 6 years (21)
n=2009 25.4O4 6 to 12 years (22)
n=2009 18.6%13 to 17 years (23)
n=2007 22.2%18 to 25 years (24) n=2005 9.7% 65 to 74 years (30) .,
n=2005 16.3% 26 to 30 years (25)
n=2005 19.5% 31 to 35 years (26)
n=2005 21 .7OIQ 36 to 40 years (27)
n=2005 30.2% 41 to 50 years (28)
n=2005 22.6O/, 51 to 64 years (29)
n=2005 5.2% 75 years or over (31)
4 P --
A-- -.,._.a . -.-..f
011. (IF RESPONDENT’S AGE IS NOT OBVIOUS, ASK:) Which one of those includes your age?
(212. Which of the following categories includes your total annual income for all members of your
(CIRCLE CATEGORY ABOVE)
household before taxes? Is it .... (READ CHOICES)
7.0°/Q Under $1 0,000
12.9% $1 0,000 10 $1 9,999
12.2% $40,000 to $49,999
20.9% $50,000 to $74,999,
13.8”/~ $20,000 to $29,999
13.6% $30,000 to $39,999
10.8% $75,000 to $99,999, or
8.8°/Q $1 00,000 or more
3 (REFUSED - DO NOT READ) n=l618
Q13. Which of the following racial or ethnic backgrounds best describes your household? Is it ....
(READ CHOICES)
Mexican-American 1.t% American Indian
3.0 Ither Hispanic, e.g., Central America Other
3 .6°/Q BlacWAfro-American (REFUSED - DO NOT READ) n=1935
3.3% Asian (including Pacific Islanders)
Q14. How long have you lived in the State of California?
Q15. Last question. What is your ZIP Code?
We’d like to send you a brief follow-up questionnaire with more questions concerning outdoor recre-
ation issues, which you can fill out and mail back to us. In return for your doing this, we’ll send you a
map called “The Official Guide to California State Parks” and a 100 page booklet entitled California
Escapes listing state park activities and opportunities. These materials can help you plan your future
weekend and vacation trips. Would you be willing to participate in this follow-up survey? (IF YES,
WRITE NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW. IF NO, WRITE “REFUSED” BELOW)
S5.1 OIG CaucasianANhite 8.5% (MIXED - DO NOT READ) .
years p~ months n=l993
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation!
(INTERVIEWER - RECORD SEX OF RESPONDENT)
0 40 2O/ Male 59.8% Female
Address
City
ZIP
APPENDIX B
MAIL SURVEY WITH
'UNWEIGHTED SUMMARY STATISTICS
* Reflects characteristics of the survey sample bu! not necessarily the '
characteristics of the California population as a whole.
c ._ T"I?
OUTDOOR RECREATION QUESTIONNAIRE
1. The following is a list of statements concerning outdoor recreation lands and facilities in California.
For each statement, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with it.
Neither
Slrongly Mcderalely Agree Nw Moderately Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree wee
a. There are enough outdoor recreation areas and facilities
available that are convenient for me.
b. More outdoor recreation areas and facilities are needed
in or near large cities.
c. Protection of the natural environment is an important
aspect of outdoor recreation areas.
d. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities in California are
often too crowded when I want to use them.
e. Recreational facilities and programs for special populations such as the elderly, the very poor or disabled
people should be increased. n=801
f. Outdoor recreation areas and programs help to reduce
n-799
g. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities improve a community’s quality of life.” n=795
h. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities attract undesirable
people and activities. n-786
i. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities can create jobs
and spending in the community, helping its economy. n=801
j. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities should be used
to promote tourism. n=793
k. Outdoor recreation areas and facilities increase the value
of nearby residential and commercial property. n=794
I. There should be better regulation of behavior, rules and
laws in parks and outdoor recreation areas, which would
make my experience more comfortable and safe.
m. The federal government should continue to give financial assistance to local and state governments for parks and
outdoor recreation areas. n=800
n. The state government should continue to give financial
aid to local governments for outdoor recreation. n=798
0. The quality of the natural setting is an important factor
in my enjoyment of outdoor recreation areas. n=796
p. Wetlands, such as estuaries and marshes, are of substantial ecological and recreational importance and should be
protected by the government. n=797
n=799
n=797
n=797
n=796
crime and juvenile delinquency in my community.
n=799
5.0%
3.3
1.4
2.3
4.2
3.6
0.9
19.0
1.2
4.3
1.5
4.5
3.3
2.0
0.8
2.6
q. Additional campgrounds should be constructed that are more developed and have hot showers, including some campsites for which there would be an
r. Increased tourism at parks, wildlife and recreation areas should be
encouraged if it is a means to generate additional funds for the operation
and maintenance of those areas. n=800 4.5
extra fee with hook-ups for electricity and water. n=802 9.1
19.3%
9.5
2.0
11.4
9.9
9.5
2.1
32.1
3.9
10.2
5.7
9.4
4.6
2.3
1 .o
4.8
12.0
10.0
12.9%
22.1
4.6
27.4
27.8
28.3
6.8
28.8
19.2
21.7
29.2
24.0
11.3
7.6
4.3
15.3
21.6
23.4
42.3%
34.6
21.3
31.2
30.3
30.3
33.1
15.9
47.9
40.1
37.9
33.2
27.5
32.7
29.6
27.2
28.2
36.3
20.50,
30.5
70.6
27.8
27.7
28.3
c;’
4.3
27.7
23.7
25.7
28.9
53.4
55.4
64.3
50.1
2
25.9
2. On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate your attitude toward the following possible changes to park and recreation facilities
and services?
Sirongly Sirongly
Disapprove Approve
1 i3. 4 306 2- 20~ 35 70, 31 8% a. Providing more educational programs and services in park and Outdoor recreation areas. n=799
b. Construction of more basic campgrounds with picnic tables, cold water, and restrooms. n=800 z o 5 4 18 3 43 1 31 3
C. Construction of more developed campgrounds with hot showers, including some
campsites (for which there is an extra fee) with hook-ups for electricity and water. n=798 85 122 2: 276 291 d. Developing more local community parks. n=791 15 46 163 410 367
e. Providing more commercial hotels, motels. restaurants. shops. gas stations within public park and outdoor recreation areas. n=800 x8 256 265 128 84
f. Providing stronger enforcement of laws and regulations which deal with public use
and behavior in parks and recreation areas. n=799 30 53 n7 305 377
g. Providing more areas for the legal use of off-road vehicles such as motorcycles, dune buggies, 4-wheel drive vehicles. and all-terrain vehicles. n=796 26.0 172 207 210 1st
h. Developing more trails for horseback riding, hiking, and/or mountain biking where no
i. An increase in the number of wilderness type areas where no vehicles or
developments are allowed. n-799 5.3 54 19.8 272 424
j. Providing more open spacejn urban areas. n=795 2.0 so x.8 3.2 30
k Construction of more RV sewage dump stations. n=797 112 134 42.8 169 157
rn Providing more parking areas at day use picnic sites. n=799 5.0 a5 38.5 304 17.5
motorized vehicles are allowed. n=797 2.6 43 164 344 423
I. Providing more picnic sites that can handle large groups. n=798 4.6 9.9 42.6 278 150
I In the box below, we have listed 43 outdoor recreation activities .that are most commonly enjoyed by Californians. Please
read through this list and then answer Questions 3-8 by referring to this list.
3. For each activity, please give us your best estimate of the total number of days during which you participated in that activity
during the last 12 months. Include even those days when you did the activity for only a short period of time. Write your
estimates on the line to the right of each activity. If you did not do an activity at all, leave the line blank.
For this question only, please count ALL of your outdoor recreation activities, including those which take place at
PRIVATE facilities as well as at PUBLIC facilities.
Activily Number Number of Days
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Walking (Recreational)
Trail hiking
Bicycling (on paved surfaces)
Mountain biking (not on paved surfaces)
Jogging and running
Driving for pleasure
Horseback riding
Hunting
Camping in developed sites with
tent or vehicle
Camping in primitive areas and backpacking
Mountain climbing
General nature study, wildlife viewing
Use of open grass or turf areas for casual and
unstructured activities. like games, sitting.
sunning
Use of play equipment. tot-lots
Picnicking in developed sites
Softball and baseball
Basketball
Football
Soccer
Golf
Tennis
Target shooting (including pistol and skeet)
Aclivity Number
Number of Days
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Beach activities, including sunning and games
Swimming (in outdoor pools)
Swimming in lakes, rivers, and the
ocean (not in pools)
Surfing
Sailboating and windsurfing
Kayaking, rowboating, canoeing, and rafting
Power boating
Water skiing
Fishing - saltwater
Fishing - freshwater
Downhill (Alpine) skiing
Cross-country skiing
Other non-mechanized winter sports activities
sledding, snow play, ice skating
Snowmobiling
Motorcycles. dirt bikes, ATVs. dune buggies
used off paved roads
4-Wheel drive vehicles used off paved roads
Attending outdoor cultural events, like
concerts, theater, etc., in outdoor settings
Visiting museums, historic sites
Visiting zoos and arboretums
Skateboarding and rollerblading
Attending outdoor sports or athletic
events, professional or amature.
Top Ten 40 39 09 02 12 01 41 23 25
Second most important (#-): I would pay $- per day's worth
Third most impodant (#-: I would pay $ per day's worth
Fourth most important (#-: I would pay $- per day's worth
Fifth most important (#-: I would pay $- per day's worth
6. It would help us to plan for your outdoor recreation needs if we knew how you thought government agencies sholB'cl
spend public money to improve recreation opportunities. Please review once again the 43 activities listed in
activities box. Then, in the boxes below, place the numbers of up to 10 activities which you think public agencies
should do the most to provide for and to improve.
15
TopTen 9 40 12 2 15 41 10 13 39 23
The most imoortant is: #
The 2nd most important is: #
The 3rd most important is: #
The 4th most important is: #
The 5th most important is: #
TopTen 1 40 9 2 12 23 41 15 13 25
8. The last time you participated in your most imDortant activity '*(most important". Question 7 above), how important
were the following factors to your enjoyment?
Relaxing
Keeping fit and healthy
Experiencing challenge and excitement
Meeting new people
Being with family and friends
Doing something your children enjoyed
Releasing or reducing tension
Having a change from daily routine
Getting away from crowded situations
Being in the outdoors
Feeling in harmony with nature
Achieving spiritual fulfillment
Beauty of the area
Availability of facilities
Quality of the natural setting
n=757
n=755
n=736
n=744
n=753
n=720
n=757
n=758
17x753
n=761
n=754
n=758
n-754
n=757
n=752
Not Somewhat Very
Important Important Important
.8% 18.9% 77.3%
10.2 29.8 60.0
21.7 35.9 42.4
' 48.5 33.5 18.0
10.0 21.5 68.5
24.7 16.0 59.3
3..8 21 .o 75.2
5.5 21.9 72.6
6.0 24.0 70.0
2.0 11.6 86.5
9.5 25.9 64.6
23.7 34.2 42.2
2.5 20.3 77.2
8.5 264 62.1
3.0 19.9 77.0
9. During the past year, how often did you visit each of the following types of outdoor recreational areas?
Area Type
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Natural and undevelooed a reas. that is, large areas in a natural or nearly natural condition, with few
developments; for example, forests, deserts, mountains, wetlands and seashores. ' n=789
DeveloDed nature-oriented Da rks and recreation areas,
located outside of or on the fringe of urban areas,
including developments like campgrounds, picnic
areas, trails, and information centers. Generally,
they're national, state, or large county and regional parks or beaches. n=785
Hiahlv develoDed Da rks and recreation areas, in or near urban areas. They receive heavy visitor
use. They may include playgrounds, sports facilities, and highly developed beaches.
City parks and county parks are examples.
Historical or cultural buildinas. sites. o r areas,
n=788
regardless of their location. n=788
Private. n 01 Dub li c. outdoor recreation areas and facilities,
such as private campgrounds, hunting preserves,
amusement parks, golf clubs, tennis or swimming
facilities at clubs or in apartment complexes. 1-1-787
Not at
All
8.5%
7.3
10.8
9.9
22.9
3nce or Twice/ Year
26.9%
20.9
22.1
36.9
22.8
Several rimes/ Year
38.1 Yo
43.9'
28.3
40.4
23.8
Once o Twice/ Month
13.9%
18.2
18.8
10.3
10.9
3ncel
Week
6.5%
5.7
11.9
1.6
7.9
it Leas1
Times! Week
2-3
6.1 '/o
3.9
8.1
0.9
5.7
10. Of the five types of areas listed in Question 9 above, which one do you most enioy visiting? This may not
necessarily be the one you visit most often.
Area Type # 1 40.7% n=76
11. How do you generally get information about public parks, recreation areas and facilities? (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
33.2’1~ Friends and family 10.3’/~ TV
11.4% Government agency brochures 21.6’/~ Maps
8.1 O/* Any private organization’s newsletter 4.Oo/p Radio
11 .4°/n Other (PLEASE SPECIFY)
n= 791 6
12. Many government outdoor recreation agenciescontract out some of their work to private, profit-making firms.
Which of the following activities do you think a private firm should be allowed to provide in public park and
recreation areas?
Provided by Private Firm
No YeS Noopionion
a. Sale of ready-to-eat food and beverages n=784 69.7Vo 17.3% 12.9%
b. Sponsorship of contests, races and special events n=782 59.6 18.5 21.9
c. Maintenance of facilities and grounds n=779 61.2 28.2 10.5
d. Patrol and law enforcement duties n=784 42.6 45.4 12.0
e. Guided nature walks, educational activities n=784 53.2 32.8 14.0
f. Total operation and management of the park or
recreation area n=782 23.7 61 .O 15.3
13. Finally, please use the space below for any additional comments you may have about the public parks and
outdoor recreation areas and facilities which exist today in California. You may include complaints, sugges-
tions, observations, praise, etc. Use the back of this page if you need more space. Thanks again for your
assistance.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION. PLEASE RETURN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE IN
THE ENCLOSED RETURN ENVELOPE. YOU CAN EXPECTTO RECEIVE YOUR FREE “OFFICIAL
GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS” AND “CALIFORNIA ESCAPES” IN 2 - 3 WEEKS.
APPENDIX C
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The research study design consisted of a
telephone survey with a follow-up mail survey.
First, adult respondents were interviewed using
randomly chosen telephone sample points. A
total of 2,010 telephone interviews were con-
ducted throughout California. After a short
telephone interview, respondents were asked if
they would be willing to complete a follow-up
mail questionnaire in return for a state or federal
publication. A total of 1,506 respondents were
each mailed a questionnaire with a follow-up
postcard for mail non-respondents. A total of
47 Spanish questionnaires were sent to Span-
ish-speaking households. Non-responding
Spanish-speaking households were sent a
second questionnaire with a cover letter. A total
of 805 mail questionnaires were returned. The
collected data was analyzed on a personal
computer using the Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS/PC).
SPECIFIC TASKS
’ The survey meth dol isted of a
number of specific tasks: (1) Questionnaire
design, (2) Sample frame development, (3)
Data collection, (4) Code book development,
and (5) Analysis.
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire design was conducted
with extensive input from previous studies as
well as Parks and Recreation staff. Parks and
Recreation staff provided additional areas of
inquiry that were important in the decision
making process. These subjects had been
discussed and reviewed by recreation profes-
sionals, academicians, and agency managers
throughout California and elsewhere in the
nation. The 1987 and 1992 questionnaires
were reviewed and integrated. Meetings were
held to discuss both the subjects and questions
to assure that the contents of the designed
questionnaire would meet the needs of the
Department.
effort. First, one questionnaire was designed
that was suitable for administering to respon-
dents over the telephone. This questionnaire
was used in conjunction with a random-digit-
dialing sampling plan. The questionnaire was
designed to be compieted in a maximum of 5
minutes of a respondent’s time to alleviate
interviewee fatigue and maintain response
rates. Second, a mail questionnaire was
designed for self-administration. Since the
Department needed more information than
could reasonably be obtained in the telephone.
survey, CIC recruited telephone survey respon-
dents for the mail survey. Both questionnaires
make heavy use of the Likert scale to determine
the strength of response and both contain open-
ended questions. Each of the questionnaires
was translated into Spanish for the Spanish-
speaking respondents.
After circulating questionnaires among
Department staff, the telephone survey was
pretested with 25 randomly chosen households.
The mail questionnaire was pretested among
CIC staff. The pretest revealed that no changes
to the questionnaires were necessary. Ex-
amples of each of the questionnaires may be
found in Appendices A and B.
Two questionnaires emerged from this
Sample Frame Development
To diminish the impact of southern
California’s relatively large population, the
sampling plan for this study involved geographic
stratification of the sample points. The square
root approach was utilized, which involves
taking the square root of the most up-to-date
population figure (California Department of
Finance, 1995) for each county in California.
This figure was then divided out as a percent-
age of the total. These percentage figures werc
used to calculate the number of sample points
to be interviewed in each county, the total
amounting to approximately 2,002. The square
root approach was used as a means of provid-
ing the desired statewide coverage; it penalizes
large counties and assists small counties.
Proportional sampling, on the other hand, would
have allocated an excessively large number of
sample points to the large counties and possi-
bly excluded the small counties.
Once the number of sample points per '
county was determined, CIC utilized its ran-
dom-digit dialing software program. This
program creates random-digit telephone num-
bers in proportion to the issuance of prefixes
that are designated for specific geographic
locations. Designated prefixes are weighted
according to each one's issuance, thus ensur-
ing a random sample, including those with new
or unlisted numbers. A total of 2,012 telephone
interviews was conducted with respondents in
California. Every county in the state was
represented (Table C-1). A sample frame for
the mail survey could not be predetermined as
it was dependent upon the willingness of
telephone survey respondents to accept and
complete this survey.
Data Colleclion
Data collection involved a telephone
survey followed by a mail survey. Prior to
commencing the telephone survey, interviewers
attended a briefing session where they were
given a short description of the project, its
purposes and objectives, and the question-
naire was explained in detail. Telephone call
records were then prepared, which allowed for
documentation of attempted calls and of
prearranged callbacks, when necessary.
Most interviews were conducted from CIC
Research's central telephone room facility
located in San Diego, California. However, due
to a contractual requirement, 21 0 interviews
were conducted by Taylor Research, from its
central telephone room facilities. Completed
surveys from Taylor Research were later
entered into CIC's CAT1 system. Interviewing
commenced on April 29 and ended on July 7,
1997. During this period, interviews were
conducted on weekdays, between 12:15 p.m.
and 8:45 p.m., as well as on weekends be-
tween 1O:OO a.m. and 6:30 p.m. A CIC staff
supervisor was on duty at all times to monitor
approximately 10 percent of each interviewer's
work, to assure quality control, and to answer
any questions that may have arisen. Bilingual
interviewers were always available to complete
the interviews with respondents who spoke
only Spanish.
The survey was controlled, on a county
basis, so that the number of completed inter-
views per county approximated the number
specified as per the sample frame (Table C-1).
Disposition of the calls is given in Table C-2.
Before concluding the telephone survey, re-
spondents were asked to participate in a mail
follow-up survey, in return for which'they were
told they would receive a state or federal out-
door publication. A total of 2,010 telephone
interviews were conducted; 1,506 respondents
agreed to complete the mail survey. The 2,010-
telephone survey respondents were made up of
308 Hispanics (Mexican-American and Other
Hispanic groups), 1,622 respondents from other
ethnic groups, and 75 respondents who refused
to give their ethnic background.
The first mailing to all English-speaking
respondents (1,459) was sent out by the Cali-
fornia Department of Parks and Recreation.
This mailing included a color insert showing
what the incentive would look like (page C-7).
Spanish questionnaires for Spanish-speaking
respondents (47) were mailed from CIC's
offices. All reply envelopes were stamped with
a number that identified each respondent; this
enabled CIC to determine those respondents
who had returned their questionnaires versus
those who had not.
Table C-1
RESPONDENTS BY COUNTY
County Frequency Percent
Alameda .
Alpine
Amador
Butte
Calaveras
Colusa
Contra Costa
Del Norte
El Dorado
Fresno
Glenn
Humboldt
Imperial
lnyo
Kern
Kings
Lake
Lassen
Los Angeles
Madera
Marin
Mariposa
Mendocino
Merced
Modoc
Mono
Monterey
Napa
Nevada
73
3
11
29
12
8
60
10
25
55
12
23
23
9
50
20
15
10
192
21
31
8
19
29
6
7
38
22
19
3.6%
0.1
0.5
1.4
0.6
0.4
3.0
0.5
1.2
2.7
0.6
1.1
1.1
0.4
2.5
1 .o
0.7
0.5
9.6
1 .o
1.5
0.4
0.9
1.4
0.3
0.3
1.9
1.1
0.9
Source: ClC Research, lnc., 1997.
County Frequency Percent
Orange
Placer
Plumas
Riverside
Sacramento
San Benito
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Joaquin
San Luis Obispo
San Mateo
Santa Barbara
Santa Clara
Santa Cruz
Shasta
Sierra
Siski you
Solano
Sonoma
Stanislaus
Sutter
Tehama
Trinity
Tulare
Tuolumne
Ventura
Yolo
Yuba -
103
29
9
75
68
14
80
104
55
46
30
53
39
80
31
26
4
14
39
42
41
17
16
7
38
14
54
25
16
5.1 yo
1.4
0.4
3.7
3.4
0.7
4.0
5.2
2.7
2.3
1.5
2.6
1.9
4.0
1.5
1.3
0.2
0.7
1.9
2.1
2.0
0.8
0.8
0.3
1.9
0.7
2.7
1.2
0.8
2,010 100.09
Table C-2
TELEPHONE SURVEY CALL RESULT SUMMARY
Number Percent
Not in service
Business
No good (language, etc.)
No answer
Refusal
Answering Machine
Call Backs
Terminates
Busy
Completes
Total
______._ - -- -
3,056
1,712
754
10,562
2,500
6,174
2,301
268
1,781
2,010
9.8%
5.5
2.4
33.9
8.0
19.8
7.4
1 .o.
5.7
6.5
__~
31,118 100.0%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
A follow-up postcard (for English-speaking
respondents) and a follow-up questionnaire (for
Spanish-speaking respondents) was thus sent
to those who had not returned their question-
naires by the two week cutoff date. Four weeks
after the follow-up postcard/questionnaire, the
final cutoff date was made. A total of 803
questionnaires were returned by the cut-off
date reflecting a 53.3 percent response rate for
the mail survey, up from 40.0 percent for the
1992 study. These respondents were made up
of 81 Hispanics (Mexican-American and other
Hispanic groups), 696 respondents from other
ethnic groups, and 26 respondents who re-
fused to give their ethnic background.
Code Book Development
The 1992 survey effort along'with the first
responses to each questionnaire provided the
foundation for the 1997 codebook. The devel-
oped codebooks defined numerical codes for all
questions in each survey including open-ended
responses. Questionnaires were marked with
an identification code; once they had been
computerized, mail surveys could be matched
up with the corresponding telephone survey
(i.e., the same respondent). This enabled
various analyses and crosstabulations to be
performed.
Lnalysis
Once the data had been quality assured,
descriptive statistics were computed using
SPSS/PC for the entire telephone and mail
questionnaire responses. The survey design
permitted complete control over
nonrespondents to the mail portion of the
survey. Essentially, the survey characteristics
of those individuals who only responded to the
telephone survey (Le., declined to participate in
the mail survey or agreed to participate but did
not respond) were compared to individuals
who responded to both the telephone and the
mail surveys. In general, the characteristics of
the two groups were fairly similar.
In addition, survey responses were
compared to published information. Two major
discrepancies were found between survey
respondents and. the published figures: the
survey’s distribution of education and of
ethnicity differed from published sources.2 As
a consequence, SPSS/PC was used to weight
the survey dataset to .reflect California’s
distribution of education. By weighting the
data by this variable, ethnicity variations were
accounted for. In this sense, the weighted
survey dataset reflects the opinions of adult
Californians on a statewide basis.
The survey data was analyzed in
unweighted and weighted configurations. The
unweighted data may be found in Appendices A
and 6. The weighted findings may be found in
the Findings, page 22, 23, and 24. In addition,
a number of crosstabulations of the data were
run. Crosstabulation categories included sex
of respondent, coastal vs. noncoastal county,
educational levels, income categories, and
family ‘type. These crosstabulations are
submitted separately along with a floppy
diskette containing the data in a DBF file format.
RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGICAL
CHANGES AND SCOPE OF WORK CHANGES
A number of methodological changes are
recommended should a similar study be
conducted in the future.
questionnaire may have been too burdensome.
A four-page legal-size document with relatively
small print may have deterred response. The
length of the mail questionnaire appears
formidable.
mail survey from a second mailing of the
questionnaire (1 992) to a reminder postcard
(1 997) improved the respqnse rate to the mail
survey. It is recommended that this means of
follow-up be continued in the future.
include a color insert with the mail survey that
visually shows incentive.
Fourth, all surveys were conducted in a
relatively brief period of time. As a
consequence, seasonal variations in responses
cannot be identified. Future studies might
consider conducting the survey over time to
determine if seasonal response variability
exists. It should be noted that the 1992 study
was conducted in spring, whereas the 1997
study was conducted in summer. This may
have had some impact on results.
First, the respondent burden for the mail
Second, the change in the follow-up to the
Third, future studies should continue to
U. S. Census, Surnmarv of Population and Housing Characteristics. 1990 (education data) and Estimated
1997 (ethnicitv data).
APPENDIX D
DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
(Type of household, number of people in the household,
income, education, ethnicity)
AND CROSSTABULATIONS3
(Selected characteristics by income, education,
type of household, gender, coastal vs. non-coastal counties)
A crosstabulation is a table showing ;: : +:f value of two or more characteristics.
This Appendix summarizes'the demo-
graphics of the survey respondents after the
data has been weighted for education. In
addition, selected crosstabulations are provided
for demographic variables. Specifically,
crosstabulations are tables that show the joint
distribution of two or more variables that have
distinct values. For example, the average
number of days for each outdoor activity could
be tabulated by gender.
GENERIL PROFILE
Respondents were asked how they gener-
ally get information about public parks, recre-
ation areas and facilities. Table D-1 summa-
rizes the responses similar to results from the
1992 study. The most prevalent sources of
information noted for the 1997 study were
friends and family (34.0°/o), followed by maps
(21.2%). Government agency brochures
increased three-fold from 3.2 percent in 1992 to
10.7 percent in 1997.
Table D-2 and Table 0-3 provide insight to
the composition of the households in the sur-
vey. The proportion of couples without children
under 18 at home dropped from 25.0 percent in
the 1992 study to 18.7 percent in 1997. The
average number of individuals per household
remained at 3.2 for both the 1992 and 1997
studies.
Table 0-1
HOW INFORMATION IS OBTAINED
1. Category Percent
Friends and family 34.0%
Maps 21.2
TV 11.3
Government agency brochures 10.7
Other 10.4
Any private organization's newsletter 7.5
Radio 4.9
TOTAL 100.0%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table D-2
TYPE OF HOUSEHOLD
Category Percent
Single person(s), no children under 18 at home
Couple, no children under 18 at home
18.9%
18.7
7.9
41.7
12.8
Single person(s), with children under 18 at home
Couple with children under 18 at home
More than two adults
_.____ - - -___- ~____
Total 100.0%
Lv Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997.
Tables 0-4, 0-5, and D-6 present the
survey's distribution of income, education,
and ethnicity. The median income for the
actual 1997 survey respondents
Table 0-3
DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF PEOPLE
IN HOUSEHOLD
Number of People Percent
1 12.9%
2 28.8
3 16.6
4 19.3
5 12.1
6 5.8
7 or more 4.5
~ __ . .- .
Total loo.oo/o
(unweighted) was calculated at $42,172,
which is similar to the median calculated
from the 1997 Estimated Census data
($45,515). The survey education catego-
ries were weighted to match the 1990
Census, Population and Housing Charac-
teristics. Once weighted by education,
the ethnic distribution of households fell
in line with that of the Census.
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
-- Table 0-4
INCOME DISTRIBUTION
Category Percent
Under $1 0,000 1 o.ao/o
$1 0,000 to $1 9,999 17.0
$20,000 to $29,999 15.8
$30,000 to $39,999 12.9
$40,000 to $49,999 10.3
$50,000 to $74,999 17.9
$75,000 or over 15.3
Total 100.0%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table 0-5
EDUCATIONAL DISTRIBUTION
Category Percent
Less than high school graduate 23.7%
High school graduate 22.3
Some college/technical training 22.6
College graduates 23.3
8.1 Graduate degree
_.
Total 100.0%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table 0-6
DISTRIBUTION OF ETHNlClTY
Category Percent
MexicanIAmerican and other Hispanic 26.3%
Caucasianwhite 56.2
Black 3.1
Asian 2.7
American Indian 1.2
10.5 Other
-. . _I___. -- . ____
Total 100.0%
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997.
I
7 -2-j e-
m
Crosstabulations of the survey dataset
were performed by key demographic variables
such as income, education, type of household,
respondent gender and coastal vs. noncoastal
counties. The value of crosstabulation is to
determine if a systematic difference exists by
different demographic characteristics. For
example, a crosstabulation by income permits
one to determine if the behavior and opinion of
higher income households differs from lower
income households. The following tables
highlights were significant differences were
found in demographic crosstabulations. The
size of these tables indicate that there are not
that many differences that can be associated
with demographics. On the whole, Californians
appear to be very homogeneous in their opin-
ions and attitudes regardless of demographics
when parks and recreation are considered.
Income
Table D-7 provides selected characteris-
tics related to income levels. As for the 1992
study, the 1997 table indicates the proportion of
single individuals with no youth diminish as
incomes rise. The proportion of Mexican-
Americans and other Hispanics also tend to fall
with increasing income levels. The strong
connection between income and education, is
also evident. Average days of jogging and
running tends to increase with income levels.
Not too surprisingly, activities such as horse-
back riding, golf and skiing also rise with in-
come. Apparently, the lower income levels are
spending less time outdoors compared to five
years ago and vis’iting fewer outdoor recreation
areas, than are the higher income categories.
Higher income categories tend to be less in
agreement than lower income categories that
recreational programs and facilities should be
increased for special populations (elderly, poor,
disabled, etc ...), and that there should be better
regulations of behavior in parks and recreation
areas, and that there should be more hotels/
restaurants/shops in public parks and recre-
ation areas.
Education
A number of characteristics vary by educa-
tional levels. As Table D-8 indicates consistent
with results from the income crosstabulation,
the portion of Mexican-Americans and Other
Hispanics tend to fall as the level of education
increases. In addition, the proportion of indi- ’
viduals who believe that recreational areas and
facilities today are better than five years ago
falls as education rises. The same is true for
satisfaction with outdoor areas. In addition, a
smaller proportion of more educated individuals
than lower educated individuals, strongly
approve of many of the changes suggested for
park and recreation facilities and services. A
number of activities tend to increase with
educational levels including walking, jobbing,
soccer, and swimming in outdoor pools.
The proportion of individuals to whom
meeting new people, being with family and
friends and doing things the children enjoy, is
very important to the enjoyment of the activity,
decreases with education. This is true also for
the proportion of individuals who do not visit
natural undeveloped areas, historical/cultural
buildings and private outdoor recreation areas.
Similarly, the more educated the individual, the
less they agree with the statement that “recre-
ation areas and facilities attract undesirable
people”.
.-
I 4.8 I -
35.3 I 47.0
14.5 1 32.3
2.0 I 3.0
7.1 I 8.0
8.3 I 9.6
I
I
I
5.2 21.6 9.9 I 13.7
I-
14.9 I 20.1
28.3
16.7
11.5
6.4
9.8
College graduate ("A)
Average number of days jogging and running
Average number of days horseback riding
Average number of days playing softball
3.5
0.2
1.4
10.7
2.3
7.4
2.8 I I 2.2
3.6 I 4.0
I I
I I
I 0.3 I 3.4 I 2.6 I I I I 0.2 0.6 i 1.0 i 1.1 i 2.5 1 3.0
I I I I I 39.1 I 30.3 I 36.4 I 28.8 I 30.6
36.0 I 30.0 I 17.1 I 15.8 1 22.1
41.7
Very satisfied with outdoor areas (Yo) I 41.5 I 40.0
Moderately or strongly agree that recreational
programs or facilities for special populations
should be increased (Oh).
Moderately or strongly agree that there should
be better regulation of behavior in parks and
recreation areas ("/.).
Strongly approve in providing more hotels /
restaurants/shops in public parks and
recreation areas ("Io).
I 62.5 I 87.1 I I I I
I I 'I I I
I I
I 76.9 75.9
I 20.5 I 20.0
74.8 I 60.2 1 56.9 1 49.0 I 40:8 I I I I I I I t
62.0 I 55.6
I I
I
12.7 I 4.8
54.8
3.9
I
I I
I
77.9 I 69.2
2.6 I 9.0
I I I I I I
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
..
Table 0-8
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS BY EDUCATION ' Less Than ' High School I Some College: College ' Graduate I HighSchool 1 Graduate 1 Technical I Graduate I Degree
3.3 I 64.4
Other Hispanic ('10) . I 10.4 I 4.6 I 2.1 1 1.1 1 1.3 I I 10.0 I 4.9 ' I
Compare public recreation areas and facilities I I I I I
today with 5 years ago ("/.) I I I i I
I I 12.7 I .I Mexican-American ('10)
Better than 1 48.1 1 36.2 1 31.4 1 24.4 I 22.4
Same as 1 27.6 I 35.0 I 40.0 I 40.5 I 38.8
Not as good as I 21.9 I 25.1 I 26.7 I 27.8 I 29.9
Very satisfied with outdoor areas (To) 1 44.4 I 28.3 19.9 j 20.9 16.4
I 61.9 ' 40.5 ' I 26.9 I 27.6 ' I 27.4 I
I
Strongly approve of: I I I I I
More simple campgrounds with tables (O/.)
More developed campgrounds (O/.) I 57.4
More local community parks (O/.) I 67.6
I 34.6 More commercial hotels/ restaurantskhops
Stronger enforcement of laws dealing with use I
and behavior in parks and recreation areas ("/.)I
I
57.4
More areas for use of off-road vehicles ("/.)
More RV sewage dump stations (O/.)
More picnic sites for large groups ("/.)
More parking areas at picnic sites ("/.)
Average number of days walking
Average number of days jogging
I
34.3
39.9 I 24.6
42.9 I 30.1
I 6.3 12.0 I I 46.2 I 34.9
22.8 1 15.9
.. enjoyment of activity
Doing things the children enjoy - very important to
enjoyment of activity ("/.)
Do not visit natural undeveloped areas ("1.)
Do not visit historical/cultural buildings ("1.)
Do not visit private outdoor recreation areas ("/.)
25.7 I 24.7
34.4 1 38.9
I 5.5 I I
5.5
35.2 1 32.4
12.0 I 4.2
I 7.8 I I 10.8
65.7 I 25.3 I 14.2 I 12.8 I 11.0
34.9 I 65.4 I 83.9 I 85.3 I 91.1
I I 15.9 I 22.8 I 57.4
57.9 I 23.4 I 13.1 I 9.6 I 6.8
I I I I
15.4 I 10.6 I 9.9 I 25.0 1 23.9 ' 3.6 I I 3.8 I Average number of days of soccer
Average number of days swimming in outdoor pools( 13.3 I 12.7
Meeting new people -very important to enjoyment ' 36.6 23.6 of activity ("io) I I I I Being with family and friends -very important to the I 75.5
88.5
17.2
33.3
50.0
81.4
71.1
11.1
13.0
27.7
I 5.0
15.1 1 19.6 I 18.6 ' 14.8 7.2 21.1
I I 5.7 I 2.8
I I I I I
72.3
63.1
6.4
9.9
24.6
66.4 I 50.7
I 52.3
8.3 I 5.4
1.4
16.6 I 17.6
I
I
I
48.7
8.7 I
I I , I
15.1 I I I I I I I
17.8 ' I ' 25.5 1 20.3 ' I Moderately or strongly agree that recreation areas '
and facilities attract undesirable people (O/.)
32.4
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
m
Type of Household
Table D-9 identified differences associated
with the type of households. In essence,
households with youth appear to be more alike
than non-youth households. . The proportion of
Mexican-American households with children is
higher than that without. The opposite is true
for white households. While households with
youth average fewer days of trail hiking, and
downhill skiing, they average a greater number
of days for softbaWbaseball, basketball, moun-
tain climbing and use of play equipment. Need-
less to say, doing things for youth in the out-
doors tends to be very high. Households with
children are less likely to agree, than house-
holds without children, that there are sufficient
convenient outdoor recreation areas.
Respondent’s Gender
Table D-10 identifies areas where gender
may be an important consideration. Activity
levels and opinions of men and women in
California are much more alike than different.
Men tend to average more days of bicycling and
target shooting. Woman are more likely than
men to agree that recreational facilities and
programs for special populations should be
increased. They are also more likely than men
to rank meeting new people “very important” to
the enjoyment of an activity, and to strongly
support increasing the tax on alcoholic
beverages.
!
Table D-9
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS BYTYPE OF HOUSEHOLD
Average days of softball and baseball I 2.4 I 1.7 I 8.7
I 12.1 I 1.6 I 1.8 I I
I Average days of basketball
Average days of mountain climbing I 0.4 I 0.3 I 1.1
Average days of use of play equipment I 3.5 I 3.4 I 23.4 I I I I
I 9.3 I 10.1
7.9 I 6.4
2.2 I 0.6
I 18.4 1 9.5
Source: CIC Research, Inc., 1997.
Table D-10
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS BY GENDER OF RESPONDENT
I I Category I Male 1 Female
r I I I I Average number of days bicycling 1 55.0 1 39.2 1
I I I Average number of days target shooting i 20.6 ’ I 9.3 1
I I
I 16.8 1 I I
I I
Moderately or strongly agree that recreational facilities
and programs for special populations should be increased (‘10) 1 52.8 I 64.3
22.5
Strongly support increasing the tax on alcoholic beverages (“10) I 46.1 I 59.9
Meeting new people very important to enjoyment of activity (YO)
I I , J
I Source: CIC Research, Inc., 7997.
i
Coastal vs. Non-Coastal
Table D-11 compares Californians living in
coastal counties vs. non-coastal counties. In
general, individuals in coastal counties make
greater use of coastal activities such as beach
activities and surfing, whereas individuals in
non-coastal counties tend to average more
days of bicycling, horseback riding and soccer.
However, most of the geographical differences
between Californians appear to be somewhat
minor. Individuals in coastal counties are more
likely to agree, than those in non-coastal coun-
ties that move outdoor recreation areas/facilities
are needed in or near large cities. They are
also more likely to approve of developing more
local community parks, an increase in the
number of wilderness type areas and providing
more open space in urban areas. Not surpris-
ingly, individuals in non-coastal counties are
more likely than those in coastal counties, to
approve of providing more areas for legal use of
off-road vehicles.
Table D-11
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS BY COASTAL VS. NON-COASTAL COUNTIES
Category
I I I Coastal I Non-Coastal I County I County
Average days of bicycling
Average days of horseback riding
Average days of playing soccer
Average days of beach activities
Average days of surfing
I I I 39.1 I 52.3
I 39.3
I 7.4
I I 17.7
1 38.3 I 19.5
I 24.7 I 16.3
I 35.6
I
I I
Moderately or strongly agree that more outdoor recreation
areas/facilities are needed in or near large cities (O/.)
Moderately or strongly approve of developing more
local community parks (Yo)
Moderate or strongly approve of providing more areas for
73.4
82.9
32.2 I I
legal use of off-road vehicles ("/.I
Moderately or strongly approve of an increase in the
Moderately or strongly approve of providing more open
space in urban areas ("/.) I 74.6
number of wilderness type areas (O/.) I 74.5
I
I I
63.3
73.8
41:O
65.4
58.4
Source: CIC Besearch, Inc., 1997.
APPENDIX E
REFERENCES:
RECREATION TRENDS ANIllYSlS
References: Recreation trends analysis
Baas, J, M. 1992. Identifying Service Delivery Strategies for Ethnically Diverse Users of a Wildland-
Urban Recreation Site. pp. 40-41 IN: Proceedings of the Symposium on Social Aspects and
Recreation Research, Ontario, CA.
Baas, J.M., A. Ewert, and D. J. Chavez. 1993. Influence of Ethnicity on Recreation and Natural Envi-
ronment Use Patterns: Managing recreation sites for ethnic and racial diversity. Environmental
Management 17,523-529.
Bureau of the Census. 1997. 65 Plus in the United States, Statistical Brief. Obtained from website
http://www. bls.census.gov
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1997. Current Population Survey 1995. Changes in Employment in
California. Obtained from website http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/overmain.htm.
Campbell, P. 1995. State Population Projections. Bureau of Labor Statistics publication. Obtained
from website http://www.census.gov/prod/l /pop/profile/95.
Carr, D., and D. Williams. 1993. Understanding the role of ethnicity in outdoor recreation experiences,
Journal of Leisure Research 25,22-38.
Chavez, D., and P. Winter. 1993. Report for Applewhite Picnic Area, Cajon Ranger District, San
Bernadino National Forest. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, River-
side, CA.
Chavez., D., J.M. Baas, and P. Winter. 1993. Mecca Hills Visitor Research Case Study, Report BLM/
CA/ST-93-005-9560, Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA.
Chavez, -D. 1997. Visitor Perceptions of Fees. Recreation Research Update No. 25.
Cole, D.N. 1996. Wilderness Recreation Use Trends, 1965 through 1994. USDA Forest Service
Intermountain Research Station Research Paper INT-RP-488. Ogden, UT.
Cordell, K.H., J. Teasley, and G. Super. 1997. Outdoor Recreation in the United States: Results from
the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. USDA Forest Service/Dept. of Agricul-
tural and Applied Economics, University of Georgia publication. 152 pp.
Crispell, Diane. 1997. Moonlighting for Moola. American Demographics 19 (9): 41.
Dwyer, John F. 1994. Customer Diversity and the Future Demand for Outdoor Recreation. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report RM-252, Ft. Collins, CO.
Economic Report to the Governor, 1997. State of California, Dept. of Finance.
English, D. B. K., C. J. Betz, J. M. Young, J. C. Bergstrom, H.K. Cordell. 1993. Regional Demand
Supply Projections for Outdoor Recreation. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-
230, Athens, GA.
Finley, Marlene. 1997. Personal Communication regarding NPS fee demonstration program in Cali-
fornia.
Floyd, M.F., and J.H. Gramann. 1993. Effects of Acculturation and Structural Assimilation in Re-
source based Recreation: The Case of Mexican Americans. Journal of Leisure Research 25(1):
6-21.
Gramann, J.H. and M. F. Floyd. 1991. Ethnic Assimilation and Recreational Use of the Tonto Na-
tional Forest. Technical Report, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,
Riverside, CA.
Gramann, J.H. 1996. Ethnicity, Race, and Outdoor Recreation: A Review of Trends, Policy, and
Research. Miscellaneous Paper R-96-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Heath, Rebecca Piirto. 1997. You Can Buy a Thrill. American Demographics 19 (6): 47-51.
Hutchison, R. 1987. Ethnicity and Urban Recreation: Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in Chicago's
Irwin, P.N., W.G. Gartner, and C.C. Phelps. 1990. Mexican American/Anglo cultural differences as
public parks, Journal of Leisure Research 19, 205-222.
recreation style determinants, Leisure Sciences 12,335-348.
Laidlaw, R. 1991. Diversity and Changing Land Use in California, California Parks and Recreation,
Spring Edition.
Letscher, Martin, G. 1997. Sports Fads and Trends. American Demographics 19 (6): 53-56.
Look, Tony. 1997. Personal Communication regarding open space purchases in California.
Miller, B. 1997. Exceptional Americans: The Quest for Lifelong Learning. American Demographics
1 9(3): 19-20.
Murdock, S.H., K. Backman, M.N. Hoque, and D. Ellis. 1991. The Implications of Change in Popu-
lation Size and Composition on Future Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities. Journal of
Leisure Research 23(3): 238-259.
O'Hare, W. , and J. Schwartz. 1997. One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. American Demographics
19 (9): 53-58. .
Outdoor Recreation Coalition of America. 1996. State of Industry Report 1995.
Selected Product Sales.
Owe, Gary. 1997. Personal Communication regarding the Forest Service fee demonstration pro-
gram in California.
Roper Starch. 1996. Outdoor Recreation in America, 1996. Executive Summary. Recreation
Roundtable/USDI publication, Washington, D.C. 40 pp.
Shaull, S.L., and J.H. Gramann. 1997. The Effect of Cultural Assimilation on the Importance of
Family-Related and Nature-Related necreation among Hispanic Americans. in press.
Simcox, D. E., and R.E. Pfister. 1990. Hispanic values and behavior related to outdoor recreation
and the environment, USDA Forest Service Contract Report, USDA Forest service PSW Re-
search Station, Riverside, CA.
Winter, P. 1997. Assessing Commurity !mpressions of a Fee Pilot Program. Recreation Research
Update No. 25.
CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS MISSION
The mission of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation is to provide for the health, inspiration, and
education of the people of California by helping to preserve
the state’s extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most
valuable natural and cultural resources, and creating
opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.
State of California -The Resources Agency
Department of Parks and Recreation
P.O. Box 942396
Sacramento, CA 94295-000 1
hIARCH 1998