DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 



The results of the analysis of the national data lend little support for the mar- 

 ginality or demographic explanations, which posit that (1) Blacks desire to participate 

 in wildland outdoor recreation activities but do not because of their marginal socio- 

 economic status, or that (2) population composition differences cause variations in 

 participation. External constraints (transportation, income or educational deficits) 

 seem to be only part of the cause of the described pattern exhibited by the Black 

 group. 



Similar conclusions have been reported elsevvhere by Washburne (1978) . That analy- 

 sis of Black and White residents in eight urban areas in California indicates only lim- 

 ited effect of socioeconomic factors on leisure differences between the groups. The 

 Black group tended to participate less frequently than the White in most wildland 

 activities. They were as or more active than the White in sport activities, small 

 group activity in local parks, and as spectators at outdoor events. In this same 

 analysis, when the Black and White groups were matched on age, sex, income, education, 

 and place of residence, the degree of difference in participation rates for most wild- 

 land recreation activities remained. The analysis of the California data, however, 

 indicates some reservations; the age of the data (collected in 1969) and the limitation 

 of the sample to depressed urban areas in California made temporal and geographical 

 generality an issue. 



Factors other than socioeconomic ones seem clearly at work, but were not expressed 

 in the rather traditional data bases in the California and national survey analysis. 

 Such data, which often focus on participation in specified activities, general location 

 of activities, and constraints on participation, leave little room for assessing effects 

 of culture or social structure on participation or for tracing how individual participa- 

 tion decisions are made. A new approach, expressed in the ethnicity perspective, would 

 concentrate on the social milieu in which Black leisure activities occur, on how leisure 

 time as a whole is spent, and on how all potential influences (constraints of money, 

 time, or mobility, as well as norms, social pressures, and cultural values) affect 

 leisure choices. Models and field techniques drara from ethnography and cultural an- 

 thropology suggest themselves as potentially productive approaches. 



A concept termed "boundary maintenance" may be one such avenue. Anthropologists 

 have given considerable attention to how cultural differences are maintained by ethnic 

 groups coexisting in pluralistic societies, in spite of pressures toward assimilation. 

 This work may prove a useful means for looking at contrasting minority leisure patterns. 

 For example, Barth (1969) rejects the idea that ethnic differences can only be main- 

 tained in the absence of social interactions across ethnic boundaries. He argues to 

 the contrary: it is in the context of the cross-cultural interactions themselves that 

 socially effective mechanisms are used that permit ethnic boundaries to be maintained. 

 For ethnic groups in contact with each other, boundary maintenance implies "not only 

 criteria and signals for identification but also a structuring of interaction which 

 allows the persistence of cultural differences" (Barth 1969). 



10 



