Journal of Arboriculture 31(6): November 2005 319 Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Committee and overseen by the USDA Forest Service (Sasidharan 2001), sought to explore inter-ethnic differences in the use of, preference for, and attitudes about metropolitan parks, with the goal of providing information to urban foresters and arborists to better manage and maintain parks and land- scapes used by multiple racial groups. This analysis exam- ined frequency of visitation, perceived benefits, types of participation (solitary vs. group), landscape preferences, and expressed willingness to volunteer in park maintenance of Black and White residents in two metropolitan areas in the eastern United States. METHODS Data were obtained from self-administered questionnaires mailed to samples of residents in the metropolitan areas of Atlanta, Georgia; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. These two urban locales were selected as study sites because both have numerous park and urban forest settings and both have sizable historic Black populations, particularly in the central cities where 61% of the Atlanta residents and 43% of those in Philadelphia were Black/African Americans at the time of the 2000 U.S. Census. Moreover, by selecting both a northeastern and a southeastern city, the study allowed for limited assessment of regional differences in racial differ- ences in park usage and perceptions. The Survey The survey instrument was developed drawing upon previous literature (e.g., Floyd 1998, 1999; Virden and Walker 1999) dealing with park participation, preferences, and attitudes, and reviewed by researchers and by Black and White group members. Names and addresses of 750 Black and 500 White households in both the Atlanta and Philadelphia metropoli- tan areas were obtained from a commercial sampling organization, Survey Sampling, Inc. Pre-notice letters were sent to these persons 2 weeks prior to mailing the question- naires, informing subjects that they had been selected for participation in the survey. Mailing of the questionnaire 2 weeks after the pre-notice letter was followed by a reminder postcard the following week, and two subsequent follow-up letters, both including duplicate survey forms. A substantial proportion (20%) of the addresses proved to be inaccurate, and the letters were returned as undeliver- able. Of those that were not returned by the postal service, response rates for the samples were 25% and 20% for the African American samples in Atlanta and Philadelphia, respectively, with 40%, and 32% response rates for the Atlanta and Philadelphia White households. To confirm the race of the individual sample members, subjects were asked to specify their race and ethnicity. A total of 427 reported that they were “White or Caucasian,” and 232 indicated they were “African American.” The total samples available for analysis were as follows: Atlanta Blacks, n = 125; Philadelphia Blacks, n = 107; Atlanta Whites, n =234; Philadelphia Whites, n =193. Measuring the Variables Differences between Blacks and Whites in their frequency of park visitation, the extent to which they viewed parks as beneficial to their communities, the types of activities (solitary or group), their preferences in park landscapes and facilities, and their expressed willingness to participate in park maintenance were assessed. Frequency of Park Visitation. Frequency of park usage was measured by directing subjects’ attention to a page containing 12 color photographs of undeveloped and developed parks and open spaces included with the survey form. Respondents were asked how often in the last 12 months they had visited parks similar to those in the photos. Seven answer categories were included on the question- naire: almost daily, weekly, three or more times a month, once or twice a month, three or more times in the last twelve months, once or twice in the last 12 months and never visited in the last 12 months. These categories were scored from 6 to 0, respectively for the analysis. Perceived Benefits. Perceived benefits from parks were assessed by asking respondents whether they “agreed,” were “neutral,” or “disagreed” with each of the following descrip- tions of park-effects: (1) improve overall health, (2) improve social well being, (3) unnecessary tax burdens, (4) attract crime and create unsafe conditions, (5) increase littering, (6) improve the economy, (7) improve environmental quality, (8) attract undesirable animals, (9) improve spiritual well being, and (10) attract desirable animals and birds. Responses were scored from 1 to 3, with 3 representing the most positive perception. Principal components analysis supported the existence of a single factor. Compo99site mean scores for the ten items were calculated for each subject to measure the extent to which the individual held positive attitudes about the benefits provided by parks. Cronbach’s Alpha, measuring the internal reliability of the scale, was an acceptable 0.785. Participation. To assess the nature of their participation in urban parks and forests, respondents were asked, “How many times have you done the following activities during your visits to park areas in the last 12 months?” (1= none, 2 = once or twice, 3 = three or more times). The list of eight activities included solitary activities, social activities, food- related activities, team activities, outdoor land activities, outdoor activities, physical exercise, and community activities. In addition, separate items asked how many of these visits were undertaken alone and how many were with three or more people; responses were 1 = none, 2 = some, and 3 = almost all. A principal components analysis of responses to these ten items supported the existence of two ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture
November 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
