Trends in Measurement of the Beneficial Consequences

Trends in Measurement of the Beneficial Consequences

of Leisure

Daniel J. Stynes and B.L. Driver

Daniel J. Stynes

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

131 Natural Resources Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing Michigan

48824-1222

B.L. Driver

Rocky Mt. Forest & Range Expmt. Sta,

Fort Collins, CO.

Paper presented at 1990 National Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium,

Indianapolis, IN. March 29-31, 1990.

Trends in Measurement of the Beneficial Consequences

of Leisure

Daniel J. Stynes and B.L. Driver

ABSTRACT

Trends in research to identify and measure the beneficial
consequences of leisure are summarized starting with the ORRRC
studies and culminating in a workshop on the topic at Snowbird Utah in
1989. Current research issues and directions in leisure benefits research are summarized using a systems framework.

The benefits of leisure, recreation, play, and tourism have been espoused by leisure professionals, politicians, academics, and the general public ever since these terms were first used. Research to validate these claims is more recent. While considerable progress has been made in the past 30 years toward understanding leisure benefits, our scientific understanding of the nature, scope, and extent of these benefits is rudimentary in many respects. Particularly lacking is an understanding of the processes for producing benefits through leisure, recreation, play, or tourism.

The types of benefits that are hypothesized to result from leisure activities have not changed significantly over time, although social and environmental changes have elevated the importance of leisure time for generating these benefits. The amount and type of research on leisure benefits, as well as the methods employed have changed dramatically in the past fifty years, and this will be our focus here.

We begin by clarifying the term "leisure benefits" and the scope of studies falling within this theme. We then briefly trace the history of research in this area, drawing mainly from the ORRRC studies, and collections of review papers assembled by Kelly (1981), Driver and Peterson (1986), and Driver, Brown, and Peterson (1989). A simple taxonomy of benefits is presented along with a systems framework for organizing and directing research on the topic. Using this framework, the current state of the art is summarized, along with major outstanding issues and suggested future directions.

HISTORY

ORRRC

While scattered studies were conducted prior to 1960 on the benefits of recreation, we will begin our review with the ORRRC Reports (1962). ORRRC study report #27 includes a category entitled "benefits and values" in its literature review. Benefits are categorized in three areas: (1) physical fitness, (2) therapeutic benefits for special populations ("disabled, crippled children, handicapped, and soldiers" are listed as categories), and (3) leisure. Values are classified as "recreation, U.S. social life and customs, and nature-aesthetics".

The review notes that "the mental health, therapeutic, and juvenile delinquency data are probably inadequate for any positive policy formulation" (p. 24). Materials are found to be deficient relative to current attitudes about recreation, including why people participate, the effects of recreation on character development, and changing concepts and principles of outdoor recreation. The report notes, "The quantification of benefits, aside from scattered articles on cost-benefit relationships, has not been touched in the literature" (ORRRC, 1962, p. 24).

ORRRC Study Report # 22 (Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation) includes several chapters by noted social scientists that acknowledge various benefits of outdoor recreation, while generally noting a lack of hard evidence to support the claims. Perloff and Wingo (1962) discuss the rationale for public provision of recreation in terms of the broad social benefits of physical, mental and spiritual well being with which outdoor recreation is often closely identified. Overall, these papers focus more upon the "problem of leisure", than the benefits of leisure. Urbanization, changing families, and demands for recreation are described along with their implications for policy and planning. Recreation is treated more as responding to social change and problems versus as an integral part of them.

Frank (1962) explicitly addresses the contribution of recreation to physical and mental health in a philosophical approach to the subject. Gans (1962) addresses the topic from a scientific perspective, largely concluding that in 1960, there was no convincing empirical evidence for the implied relationships between recreation and mental health. Gans notes that recreation principles and values largely came out of a narrow group of social reformers, and the purported social and mental health benefits were never seriously questioned.

In summarizing a special 2 day conference for ORRRC on leisure, outdoor recreation and mental health, Melvin Webber (1962) also notes the lack of systematic research on the physical, social, or mental health benefits of outdoor recreation. However, recommendations promoting recreation were made to the ORRRC Commission based upon the widespread professional judgement that

"within the total environmental context, the social and physical environments associated with outdoor recreation have benefical effects on the individual's physical and mental well-being" (p. 24),

and a belief that future research would confirm these judgements. Recognizing the ecological nature of man within the social, physical, and biological environment, Webber notes the complexities of isolating the specific contributions of outdoor recreation to physical and mental health. As Gans notes, recreation may be a necessary component, but it is not sufficient. Many other factors come into play here and isolating the contribution of recreation within this web of relationships is no easy matter.

Post-ORRRC

From 1960 to 1980, research on leisure benefits was dominated by the development and application of economic methods for measuring recreation supply and demand and assigning values to recreation resources and experiences. These approaches directly addressed the prevalent policy questions of how much to provide of what and where in order to meet the expanding outdoor recreation "needs" of the nation.

A number of outdoor recreation research needs studies over this period, directly adopt a supply-demand framework (NAS 1969, BOR 1974, USDI 1981). Research questions about the social, physical, and psychological benefits of recreation were largely lost during this period. The National Academy of Sciences (1969) program of research was divided into "social and behavioral" and "economic" categories, both of which adopted a supply-demand orientation. The social component of this research program focused on measuring recreation preferences and activity across different population subgroups and on barriers to participation. The economists' assumption of consumer sovereignty is implicit in the social research agenda during this period. What consumers want must be worth providing. As Dr. Leonard Duhl (Federal Reporting Co. 1961) states in the transcripts of the ORRRC Conference on Outdoor Recreation and Mental Health, "Why can't we spend Federal funds for recreation just because people like it and the hell with improving people?" (p.9).

The Harper's Ferry Workshop (USDI, 1974) research agenda also reflects a supply-demand orientation, although more from the perspective of a resource manager. Research issues related to carrying capacity and site or visitor management dominate, although further down the research priority list, we find

"Identify and evaluate the relationships of recreational and leisure pursuits with other life domains--such as job and family-- in terms of systems, processes, outputs, benefit, and meanings",

and

"Ascertain those components of recreation activities and/or facilities that seem to be valuable in terms of enhancing participant's self-realization, self-actualization, and self- image" (USDI, 1974,p.8).

Research on the consequences of recreation is also hard to find among the top ten priority research areas identified in a joint NRPA/NPS research agenda published in 1981 (NPS, 1981). Two of the top ten topics involve economic valuation. Further down the list of 28 research priorities, we find a reference to self-image and to therapeutic recreation.

We might advance a number of reasons for the apparent lack of interest among leisure scientists in the physical, social, and psychological consequences of leisure over this period:

1. The research agenda was dictated largely by applied concerns. The applied questions were how much of what to provide where, and how to provide it. Leisure research funding came largely from federal and state resource management agencies to support their management and planning activities.

2. Insiders (leisure professionals) took the benefits of leisure for granted while outsiders (including academics from disciplines, policy makers, and the general public) were content in justifying recreation on the grounds that it is what people want. The fact that people freely choose it and enjoy it was adequate justification.

3. Leisure research has been dominated by outdoor recreation research, which draws more from the environmental movement than the social reform movement. The goal of the former is to protect the environment, while the latter aims more directly at improving individual and social welfare. Only rarely have social concerns and urban problems seriously vied for research attention in outdoor recreation.

4. Research to identify and quantify the benefits of leisure promised to be very difficult relative to questions like measuring leisure preferences and behavior. The research questions raised by the leisure benefits area dictated methods that many leisure scientists were not very experienced with, such as experimental and longitudinal designs.

Within this period of an expanding governmental role, a strong environmental consciousness, and a public policy of trying to meet expressed consumer wants and needs, professional judgements about the benefits of outdoor recreation were adequate to direct public attention and resources to recreation. All of this changed in the 1980's.

The 1980's

The Reagan administration forced a re-examination of the role of government in meeting public needs and wants, while also attempting to reverse many of the gains of the environmental movement. Consumer sovereignty remained a dominant philosophy, but the private sector and the free market system became the primary vehicle for meeting these consumer wants. Most public programs other than national defense now required a justification and simply meeting priority consumer wants and needs was not enough. A clearer rationale was required for a federal role and this philosophy slowly diffused to state and local governments, who increasingly were faced with tax revolts and budget crises.

These changes in policy elevated two lines of research, one to look at the relative efficiency of public or private provision and the other to establish stronger "public goods" arguments for recreation and parks. With economists primarily tackling efficiency issues, other social scientists renewed their interests in justifying public provision on the grounds of the individual and social benefits of leisure. Shrinking funding for applied research also freed leisure scientists to re-examine more basic questions.

Two comprehensive assessments of the benefits of outdoor recreation appeared in the 1980's. The first, edited by Kelly (1981), classifies benefits into three areas: (1) personal- apply to individuals, (2) societal-apply to groups, family interaction, social cohesion, and (3) economic. The distinction between identifying or classifying benefits and placing economic measures of worth or value on them is noted. Nine short papers cover psychological, experiential, mental health, community, child development, family, social, rural, and environmental benefits of outdoor recreation. A final chapter reviews economic valuation methods.

Another collection of 11 papers on "values and benefits" was assembled for the PCAO by Driver and Peterson (1986). Five of these papers cover economic valuation methods and five take social or psychological approaches to the topic of benefits. The economic papers include both economic welfare measures of benefits (willingness to pay) and regional economic effects of recreation. The other papers cover psychological, social, and mental health benefits, as well as spiritual and intrinsic values of natural environments.

Building from these two collections, Driver, Brown and Peterson (1989) organized a workshop at Snowbird, Utah in May of 1989. The purpose of the workshop was to establish the state of our knowledge about the benefits of leisure and to recommend directions and approaches for further research on the topic. Some 40 papers were prepared and discussed by leading scholars representing social science disciplines and various sub-areas of research within recreation on leisure benefits. The papers will be appearing in a forthcoming book (Driver, Brown and Peterson 1990), which is likely to be the key bridge between past and future research on the subject of leisure benefits.

Our effort to summarize what we know about leisure benefits and to provide direction for further work draws heavily from the Snowbird workshop. We first provide a very brief assessment of the conclusions of this workshop. Then we present a systems model for organizing research on the benefits of leisure and within this systems framework discuss what we see as the key current problems and issues .

SNOWBIRD WORKSHOP SUMMARY:

Five primary tasks were identified by Driver, Brown and Peterson (1989) for the Snowbird workshop:

1. Specify the beneficial consequences of leisure.

2. Measure the magnitude of these consequences.

3. Determine the relative importance or worth of these consequences.

4. Identify research needs.

5. Outline alternative research designs.

Leisure benefits were classified into four major areas:

(1) Physiological and psycho-physiological

(2) Psychological

(3) Social

(4) Economic and environmental

In addition to some 40 papers covering these categories of benefits, the workshop included disciplinary perspectives on the subject. We refer the reader to Driver, Brown and Peterson (1990) for the results within specific areas and only draw very broad conclusions here.

While a large volume of research from a wide range of disciplines was documented, our general conclusions about leisure benefits are not very different from those quoted earlier from the ORRRC studies. That is, most scientists believe there are important benefits of outdoor recreation and leisure. However, few would contend that we have adequate empirical evidence to scientifically confirm these hypotheses. In particular, our understanding of how different situational factors and contexts influence the nature and extent of benefits for different population subgroups is weak, as is our understanding of how leisure experiences interact with everything else in contributing to individual, family, and social well being.

Progress since ORRRC has been primarily in four areas:

(1) There has been some broadening of the array of "benefits" or consequences that are hypothesized and some clarification of the nature of these consequences. The exchange of ideas across disciplines and areas of application (leisure, sports, tourism, outdoor recreation, play) provides a more complete array of consequences and perhaps the beginnings of a more consistent taxonomy of leisure benefits.

(2) Extensive progress has been made by economists in measuring the value of recreation resources and experiences in terms of participants willingness to pay and the contribution to employment and income. Progress in the valuation area has been in part at the expense of progress in understanding consequences, as economists have measured value or worth without needing to define the consequences.

(3) Our ability to measure certain consequences of leisure has improved. Advances in measurement have mostly used self-reports of individuals (questionnaires), although physiological (Froehlicher and Froehlicher 1990) and psycho-physiological measures (Ulrich, Dimberg and Driver 1990) are increasingly being applied to leisure benefits.

(4) Our understanding of the nature of the research problems and the methods needed to address them is much clearer. Leisure scientists have a much better understanding of the need for experimental, longitudinal, and qualitative designs to test hypotheses about the consequences of leisure; and more leisure scientists are skilled in the use of these techniques. In the next section we present a systems framework for studying the consequences and benefits of leisure and further discuss research questions and directions within this framework.

A SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK

A systems model of the process of generating beneficial consequences from leisure experiences is presented in Figure 1. The system includes three classes of variables: (1) inputs or stimuli, (2) outputs or consequences, and (3) measures of worth or benefits. Two boxes represent the processes for generating consequences and assigning measures of worth. A production process converts inputs to outputs, and a valuation process assigns measures of worth to these outputs. The model follows Driver, Brown and Peterson (1989) in separating production and valuation processes. Within this framework, the approach to understanding leisure benefits is then to first understand what consequences are likely to result from various leisure experiences. Once the consequences are known, science can also help determine the worth or value of these consequences.

INPUTS Natural Environment ActivityLeisure TimeState of Mind