Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Primary and middle school students reported that they saw both positive and negative things on their way to school. Built elements were more prevalent than social or natural elements. While most students reported seeing trees, houses, and neighbors, an alarming number also saw strangers, crime, gas stations, parking lots, and empty houses. Surprisingly, walkers did not report higher levels of parks, trees, and farmlands along their routes than did nonwalkers. On a social thread, more walkers than nonwalkers reported seeing neighbors. In this analysis, distance did not appear to moderate the relationship between environmental observations and transportation modes. Students who lived close to school had similar patterns of observations as their peers. More advanced statistical analysis of the data may uncover more nuanced fi ndings. If community planners, educators, and parents work together to develop safe routes to school, students may experience and observe more of the natural and social elements of their environment. Th is opportunity for observation could lead to a greater awareness of nature and may begin to help combat “nature defi cit disorder.” Th is study shows that less than half of the students who walk or bike to school observe natural elements such as parks en route (Table 6). Creating safe routes to school that connect with parks would enable students to observe more natural elements on the way to school. Th is study also showed that negative social structures such as strangers and crime (Table 7) and negative built structures such as empty houses, gas stations, and parking areas (Table 5) are prevalent on the school routes of Michigan students who walk or bike to school. Th ese fi ndings should be validated with walking audits of the neighborhoods surrounding schools; audits are another element of the larger Safe Routes program. By eliminating negative environmental elements on students’ routes to school, parents, students, and school administrators may have an easier job promoting walking or biking to school. 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Th is research is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the Michigan Department of Transportation. Th e authors greatly appreciate guidance from the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Michigan Fitness Foundation in conducting this research. 6.0 CITATIONS Ebbeling, C.B.; Pawlak, D.B.; Ludwig, D.S. 2002. Childhood obesity: Public health crisis, common sense cure. Th e Lancet. 360(9331): 473-82. Kuo, F.E.; Taylor, A.F. 2004. A potential natural treatment for attention-defi cit/hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health. 94(9): 1580-1586. Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-defi cit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Sallis, J.F.; Cervero, R.B.; Ascher, W.; Henderson, K.A.; Kraft, M.K.; Kerr, J. 2006. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of Public Health. 27: 297-322. Sirkin, R.M. 1995. Statistics for the Social Sciences. Th ousand Oak, CA: Sage. The content of this paper refl ects the views of the authors(s), who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 41
“I’M TOO OLD TO GO OUTSIDE!” EXAMINING AGE-RELATED DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATIONS Lincoln R. Larson Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia LarsonL@warnell.uga.edu Gary T. Green University of Georgia Steven B. Castleberry University of Georgia Abstract.—Studies of the recent decline in nature-based recreation participation have identifi ed the growing disconnect between children and the natural world as a persistent problem. Limited childhood exposure to nature may infl uence preferences and propensities to engage in future environmental behavior, but studies have not indicated when and how these eff ects are manifested during the maturation process. Th is study addressed these questions with surveys and interviews designed to assess age-related shifts in three important components of children’s environmental orientations: eco-affi nity, eco-awareness, and environmental knowledge. Data were collected from 407 6- to 13-year-olds across northern Georgia and analyzed using nonparametric procedures. Children of all ages displayed relatively high levels of eco-awareness and environmental knowledge. However, Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed a signifi cant decline in eco-affi nity and environmental knowledge scores among children in older age groups. Future environmental education programs may benefi t from an increased emphasis on building and maintaining eco-affi nity in 10- to 13-year-old children. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Th e growing disconnect between children and nature is a major concern with profound implications for the environmental, social, and physical well-being of children (Kahn and Kellert 2002, Louv 2005). An absence of authentic outdoor experiences (i.e., “nature deprivation”) may help to explain recent reports of declining health, diminishing environmental literacy, and waning interest in nature-based recreation among younger populations (Coyle 2005, Kellert 2005, Pergams and Zaradic 2006). Environmental education (EE) has been hailed as one potential solution to nature deprivation. Legislative initiatives such as the No Child Left Inside Act are also gaining momentum, and implementation of EE programs and curricula is expected to increase. With limited resources and budget constraints, critical decisions regarding when and how EE programs will be most eff ective are imminent. In this context, defi ning the ideal target age group for EE delivery has been a subject of substantial debate. An overall increase in environmental concern and emotional attachment to nature has been observed in middle childhood (Eagles and Demare 1999, Kahn 1999, Kahn and Kellert 2002). Other studies have found evidence that specifi c indicators of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions are typically higher for younger individuals (Hines et al. 1986, Leeming et al. 1995). Although researchers concur that the development of environmental attitudes and awareness may help children build environmental stewardship values from an early age (Evans et al. 2007), few can agree on the ideal target age group. As part of a larger eff ort to evaluate EE program impacts on environmental attitudes and awareness, this research used a mixed-methods approach to focus on agerelated diff erences in environmental orientations. Th e purpose of this study was to compare the environmental orientations of children from diff erent age groups and to detect critical points in childhood development where age-related diff erences in environmental attitudes were most evident. Identifying optimal age ranges for EE interventions could aff ect the design, scope, and implementation of future EE programs. 2.0 METHODS Th is study involved 407 children participating in EE summer camps, after-school science clubs, and general after-school programs in Athens-Clarke County, Georgia. All data were collected prior to the EE instruction. Data for children in the summer camps were collected from 18 Proceedings of the 2009 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium GTR-NRS-P-66 42
Page 1 and 2: United States Department of Agricul
Page 3 and 4: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2009 NORTHEASTER
Page 5 and 6: OUTDOOR RECREATION—TRAILS Experie
Page 7 and 8: GIS APPLICATIONS AND RECREATION RES
Page 9 and 10: diff erent points along the spectru
Page 11 and 12: Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 13 and 14: amount of bare rock. Camel’s Hump
Page 15 and 16: Larson, M. 2004. A Passive Approach
Page 17 and 18: THE ROLE OF IMAGINATION IN EXPERIEN
Page 19 and 20: Table 1.—Special places surveys L
Page 21 and 22: For some people, being in their spe
Page 23 and 24: CLIMATE CHANGE AND RESOURCE PLANNIN
Page 25 and 26: large geographical area (Fig. 1). T
Page 27 and 28: Divers seen = 4.4 Figure 2.—Norm
Page 29 and 30: Table 4.—Most-specialized divers
Page 31 and 32: Sarah Young Human Dimensions of Mar
Page 33 and 34: 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Th e FRR
Page 35 and 36: Table 4.—Divers’ perception of
Page 37 and 38: YOUTH AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Page 39 and 40: A qualitative research design was u
Page 41 and 42: containers, instead of plastic bags
Page 43 and 44: WALK, RIDE AND LEARN: STUDENTS’ D
Page 45 and 46: school. Because of the large sample
Page 47: Table 8.—Observation of built str
Page 51 and 52: Mean Eco-Affinity Score 5.0 4.5 4.0
Page 53 and 54: children. In: Klenosky, David B., F
Page 55 and 56: Cherie LeBlanc Fisher U.S Forest Se
Page 57 and 58: Table 1.—Comparative statistics f
Page 59 and 60: did some fi shing himself at each s
Page 61 and 62: On the other hand, some personal kn
Page 63 and 64: Illinois Department of Natural Reso
Page 65 and 66: Consumer behavior researchers have
Page 67 and 68: 50 percent of the households were d
Page 69 and 70: y respondents indicated that these
Page 71 and 72: a bivariate approach (instead of th
Page 73 and 74: HERITAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT IN RUR
Page 75 and 76: Short cruise season. Th e river fre
Page 77 and 78: Lynda J. Sperazza, Ph.D. Recreation
Page 79 and 80: 2.3 Leisure Participation Values Re
Page 81 and 82: Dychtwald, K. 1999. Age power: How
Page 83 and 84: With all research, the research que
Page 85 and 86: comprehensive. Cross (2005) even ar
Page 87 and 88: Stillwater, OK: Oklahoma State Univ
Page 89 and 90: EXPERIENCE USE HISTORY AND ITS RELA
Page 91 and 92: Table 1.—Comparison of experience
Page 93 and 94: 5.0 DISCUSSION As mentioned previou
Page 95 and 96: HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
Page 97 and 98: 2.0 METHODS Data were collected at
Page 99 and 100:
0 buses 4 buses 8 buses 12 buses Fi
Page 101 and 102:
4.0 DISCUSSION Visitor surveys and
Page 103 and 104:
LEISURE AND HEALTH
Page 105 and 106:
Second, in a world where clean drin
Page 107 and 108:
Table 1.—Importance of different
Page 109 and 110:
Countries also need to be careful a
Page 111 and 112:
Proceedings of the 2009 Northeaster
Page 113 and 114:
Table 1.—Informant profi les Info
Page 115 and 116:
do something and we might think it
Page 117 and 118:
Th ese relational interactions enab
Page 119 and 120:
EXPLORING ELEMENTS THAT INFLUENCE S
Page 121 and 122:
trails, and asking others to stay o
Page 123 and 124:
time/fi nances” in dune protectio
Page 125 and 126:
In summary, this study explored the
Page 127 and 128:
Jinhee Jun Texas A&M University jju
Page 129 and 130:
Table 1.—Sample demographics Indi
Page 131 and 132:
Grayson 1995). Th e fi t of this mo
Page 133 and 134:
Stets, J.E.; Burke, P.J. 2003. A so
Page 135 and 136:
Jiaying Lu Texas A& M University Ji
Page 137 and 138:
Table 1.—Demographic and particip
Page 139 and 140:
Table 3.—Factor analysis of motiv
Page 141 and 142:
species sought, satisfaction, and r
Page 143 and 144:
social nature within sense of place
Page 145 and 146:
Table 1.—Descriptions of key info
Page 147 and 148:
sharing the place with others and a
Page 149 and 150:
Manzo, L.C. 2005. For better or wor
Page 151 and 152:
NORMATIVE TOLERANCES FOR SCUBA DIVE
Page 153 and 154:
neutral point. Bubbles at the top o
Page 155 and 156:
Table 1.—Snorkeler evaluations of
Page 157 and 158:
Davis, D.; Tisdell, C. 1995. Recrea
Page 159 and 160:
William Valliere University of Verm
Page 161 and 162:
��
Page 163 and 164:
Manning, R. 2007. Parks and carryin
Page 165 and 166:
mission is “...to promote and reg
Page 167 and 168:
Figure 1.—Pedestrian walkway LOS
Page 169 and 170:
Acceptability 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Page 171 and 172:
TOURISM TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Page 173 and 174:
the rankings of 12 attendance motiv
Page 175 and 176:
Table 3.—Comparison of socio-econ
Page 177 and 178:
Table 6.—Entertainment Seekers’
Page 179 and 180:
PLACE MEANINGS
Page 181 and 182:
Stedman (1999) posited that sense o
Page 183 and 184:
points in a focus group session, Ne
Page 185 and 186:
are not shared by current residents
Page 187 and 188:
Ishwar Dhami Division of Forestry a
Page 189 and 190:
Figure 2.—Model for the calculati
Page 191 and 192:
Table 1.—Viewshed results for all
Page 193 and 194:
land implies that planting vegetati
Page 195 and 196:
Shafer, E.L.; Hamilton, J.F.; Schmi
Page 197 and 198:
a setting’s ability to facilitate
Page 199 and 200:
EUH Place Satisfaction Figure 1.—
Page 201 and 202:
Table 4.—Regression coefficients
Page 203 and 204:
Jőreskog, K.G.; Sőrbom, D. 2004.
Page 205 and 206:
OUTDOOR RECREATION II
Page 207 and 208:
Th e primary objective of the propo
Page 209 and 210:
Question 10. Do you believe that SU
Page 211 and 212:
Rodney B. Warnick Tom Stevens Unive
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1.—Estimated visitation to
Page 215 and 216:
Table 2.—Estimated national park
Page 217 and 218:
For this section of the trend analy
Page 219 and 220:
5.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IM
Page 221 and 222:
RECREATION TRAILS IN MAINE AND NEW
Page 223 and 224:
Table 2.—Average cross-sectional
Page 225 and 226:
Table 5.—The percentage of stream
Page 227 and 228:
Demrow, C.C. 2002. Maine trails man
Page 229 and 230:
Turner, J.M. 2002. From woodcraft t
Page 231 and 232:
Chad P. Dawson, Professor State Uni
Page 233 and 234:
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very diss
Page 235 and 236:
Table 4.—The number of campers in
Page 237 and 238:
Fuller, C.; Dawson, C. 1999. A comp
Page 239 and 240:
Table 1.—Modal response rates Ini
Page 241 and 242:
Smee, A.; Brennan, M. 2000. Electro
Page 243 and 244:
Table 1.—Characteristics of parti
Page 245 and 246:
Table 3.—Results of discriminant
Page 247 and 248:
5.0 CITATIONS Babbie, E. 2001. Th e
Page 249 and 250:
Bernardita Silva Graduate Assistant
Page 251 and 252:
Table 1.—Expenditures by 2008 Ame
Page 253 and 254:
6.0 CITATIONS Della Bitta, A.; Lond
Page 255 and 256:
the economic impact of travel, and
Page 257 and 258:
the air show. Th e second most popu
Page 259 and 260:
not displace other local spending.
Page 261 and 262:
6.0 CITATIONS Adams, P.D.; Parmente
Page 263 and 264:
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF PARK, RECREAT
Page 265 and 266:
which suggests that diff erent type
Page 267 and 268:
Table 2.—Between-groups ANOVA to
Page 269 and 270:
forest settings (means = 4.4 and 4.
Page 271 and 272:
LEISURE RESEARCH
Page 273 and 274:
communities together, and a decline
Page 275 and 276:
Table 2.—Life satisfaction scale
Page 277 and 278:
onds within a social group is a mec
Page 279 and 280:
“I JUST WANTED TO GET AWAY”: AN
Page 281 and 282:
Th e importance of “getting away
Page 283 and 284:
Gerlach, J. 1989. Spring Break at P
Page 285:
www.nrs.fs.fed.us The U.S. Departme
show all

Proceedings of the 2009 northeastern recreation research symposium

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?