Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T23:06:30.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: Opinions of Latino Outdoor Recreation Visitors at Four Urban National Forests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2009

Deborah J. Chavez  and
David D. Olson
Deborah J. Chavez*
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, California
David D. Olson
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside, California
*
Address correspondence to: Deborah J. Chavez, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 4955 Canyon Crest Drive, Riverside, CA 92507; (phone) 951-680-1558; (fax) 951-680-1501; (email) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

It is important to evaluate use of urban-proximate outdoor recreation sites by diverse groups and obtain visitor viewpoints about those sites. Of particular importance are day-use sites, which receive a large amount of use but little research emphasis. Managers of urban-proximate day-use sites can better manage with detailed specific information about participation patterns, site preferences, and visitor perceptions. Results are offered from visitor contact surveys conducted at day-use sites on four urban national forests in Southern California between 2001 and 2004, with a focus on areas where Latinos recreate. These data indicate many similarities among the Latino visitors to specific sites in four Southern California forests. There were commonalities in participation in outdoor recreation activities, the relative importance of site attributes, and perceptions reported about their recreation experiences. The results suggest that management decisions about serving these groups consider the range of activity options identified, that there is a consistent desire for facilities and amenities, and that the Latino visitors are likely to continue to recreate in these places and will tell others about it, probably leading to increased use by these respondent groups in the future.

Environmental Practice 11:263–269 (2009)

Type
FEATURES
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 263 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnberger, A., and Brandenburg, C.. 2007. Past On-site Experience, Crowding Perceptions, and Use Displacement of Visitor Groups to a Peri-urban National Park. Environmental Management 40(1):34–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baas, J.M., Ewert, A.E., and Chavez, D.J.. 1993. Influence of Ethnicity on Recreation and Natural Environment Use Patterns: Managing Recreation Sites for Ethnic and Racial Diversity. Environmental Management 17(4):523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, J., Wolch, J., and Zhang, J.. 2009. Planning for Environmental Justice in an Urban National Park. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52(3):365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, D.J. 2001. Managing Outdoor Recreation in California: Visitor Contact Studies 1989–1998. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-180.US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, 100 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, D.J. 2002. Adaptive Management in Outdoor Recreation: Serving Hispanics in Southern California. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 17(3):129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., and Absher, J.D., eds. 2008. Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-210.US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, 216 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, J.F., and Chavez, D.J.. 2005. The Challenges of Managing Public Lands in the Wildland-Urban Interface. In Forests at the Wildland-Urban Interface, Vince, S.W., Duryea, M.L., Macie, E.A. and Mernansen, L.A., eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 269–283.Google Scholar
Gangloff, D. 2003. Welcome and Challenge for the Future. In Proceedings of the 2003 Urban National Forest Coalition. Mt. Hood National Forest, Mt. Hood, OR, 2–3.Google Scholar
Gobster, P.H. 2002. Managing Urban Parks for Racially and Ethnically Diverse Clientele. Leisure Sciences 24(2):143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gobster, P.H. 2005. Recreation and Leisure Research from an Active Living Perspective: Taking a Second Look at Urban Trail Use Data. Leisure Sciences 27(5):367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartley, M.S. 1986. An Analysis of Recreation Management of Southern California National Forests. Unpublished report, 76 pp. On file with Deborah Chavez.Google Scholar
Landy, J. 2008. The Value of Parks: Inspire, Refresh, Conserve, Protect, Play. Parks Forum, 25 pp. Available at http://www.parksforum.org (accessed January 12, 2009).Google Scholar
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and Stieglitz, O.. 2002. Children in Los Angeles' Parks: A Study of Equity, Quality and Children's Satisfaction with Neighborhood Parks. Town Planning Review 73(4):467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, R., and More, T.. 2002. Recreational Values of Public Parks. George Wright Forum 19(2):21–30.Google Scholar
Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF). 2006. The Active Outdoor Recreation Economy. Boulder, CO, OIF. Available at http://www.outdoorindustryfoundation.org (accessed May 29, 2009).Google Scholar
Partners Outdoors. 2008. Interest Groups Present Rec Commission Recommendations. Federal Parks & Recreation 26(4):2–4. Available at http://www.parkpartners.org/view/324/20304/Fed-Parks-Rec-Feb22.html.Google Scholar
Saenz, R. 2004. Latinos and the Changing Face of America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 28 pp.Google Scholar
Sasidharan, V., Willits, F., and Godbey, G.. 2005. Cultural Differences in Urban Recreation Patterns: An Examination of Park Usage and Activity Participation across Six Population Subgroups. Managing Leisure 10(1):19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shinew, K.J., Stodolska, M., Floyd, M., Hibbler, D., Allison, M., Johnson, C., and Santos, C.. 2006. Race and Ethnicity in Leisure Behavior: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Need to Go? Leisure Sciences 28(4):403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS. 2006. SPSS v. 15.0 for Windows. SPSS, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tierney, P.T., Dahl, R.F., and Chavez, D.J.. 1998. Cultural Diversity of Los Angeles County Residents Using Undeveloped Natural Areas. Research Paper PSW-RP-236.US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA, 76 pp.Google Scholar
West, P.C. 1989. Urban Region Parks and Black Minorities: Subculture, Marginality, and Interracial Relations in Park Uses in the Detroit Metropolitan Area. Leisure Sciences 11(1):11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. 2006. The Paradox of Parks. Global Identities in Culture and Power 13(1):139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolch, J., Wilson, J.P., and Fehrenbach, J.. 2005. Parks and Park Funding in Los Angeles: An Equity-Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography 26, no. 1:4–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar