INTRODUCTION 



Recreation research literature has demonstrated that minority populations, espe- 

 cially Blacks, participate less frequently than the White majority population in many 

 outdoor recreation activities in both urban and wildland settings (ORRRC 1962; Nieves 

 and Burdge 1971). Observations o£ outdoor recreation managers in most wildland settings 

 support such findings. Explanations for these ethnic variations in utilizing outdoor 

 recreation opportunities, however, are less clear; interpretations of such observations 

 commonly make use of one of three competing explanations. 



The "demographic explanation" suggests that participation differences between pop- 

 ulations are simply the result of statistical differences in population composition for 

 characteristics related to participation in certain recreational activities. For in- 

 stance, if age affects propensity to engage in an activity, populations with varying 

 age structures would manifest different overall participation rates for that activity, 

 though all other factors might be identical. 



The "marginality explanation" interprets the underutilization of both city and 

 wildland recreation resources by Blacks as less a reflection of choice than as a con- 

 sequence of the cumulative effects of social, economic, and education discrimination 

 and segregation practices. Underlying this perspective is the assumption that all 

 recreational resources are equally attractive for both ethnic populations. Conse- 

 quently, if both population groups had the same opportunity, their participation rates 

 would be nearly identical. From the marginality perspective. Blacks are described 

 typically as having less leisure time, less exposure to the amenities of the out of 

 doors, less adequate means of transportation, and less money available to purchase 

 recreation equipment. 



By contrast, the "ethnicity perspective" assumes the existence of minority sub- 

 cultures with unique value and normative systems that are distinct from those of the 

 American mass-culture. If leisure patterns are viewed as integral elements of subcul- 

 tural systems, then the observed minority leisure pattern of underutilization becomes, 

 from this perspective, an expression of conformity to these subcultural norms and 

 values . 



While the ethnicity perspective has not been established empirically, some efforts 

 have been made to substantiate the validity of the marginality perspective. By and 

 large, the results of these efforts are inconclusive due essentially to methodological 

 problems (Mueller and Gurin 1962; Nieves and Burdge 1971; Cheek, Field, and Burdge 

 1976). Another problem is the inability to generalize from most recreation studies 

 reporting participation rates. For example, many of these studies have been conducted 

 at specific recreation sites or at the state and regional levels. Few national studies 

 reporting outdoor recreation participation rates have been done against which the 

 results of these more geographically circumscribed studies can be compared. 



In 1977, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recreation 

 Service (HCRS) , sponsored a national outdoor recreation survey that included "ethnic 

 background" as a demographic variable. The data from this survey present a rare oppor- 

 tunity to examine ethnic differences in participation rates on a national scale; more- 

 over, local, state, and regional patterns can now be compared with the national patterns 

 derived from those recent data. 



The purpose of this paper is to clarify theoretically the nature of ethnic differ- 

 ences in participation rates using the HCRS national sample. To assess the applicabil- 

 ity of the marginality, demographic, and ethnicity perspectives, the former two are 

 tested together empirically and the latter explored through substantiating sociological 

 and anthropological theory. 



1 



