<%BANNER%>

The Understanding of motivations, preferences and constraints of recreation in a rural Costa Rican community: La Zona de...

University of Florida Institutional Repository

PAGE 1

THE UNDERSTANDING OF MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND CONSTRAINTS OF RECREATION IN A RURAL COSTA RICAN COMMUNITY: LA ZONA DE MONTEVERDE By ALLISON MARIE HAYES A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Allison Marie Hayes

PAGE 3

I would like to dedicate this project to my parents, Rich and Debbie Hayes, who have been pillars of constant strength, faith and love throughout the dreams and endeavors of my life.

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are several people without whom this project would never have happened and to them I am forever grateful. Particularly, I would like to thank my mother, Debbie, who has taught me to never doubt myself and has been a role model to me as a strong, beautiful and intelligent woman. I would also like to thank my father, Rich, who has taught me to take life as it comes, be positive and to never give up. Additionally, I would like to thank my best friend, Robert, whose patience, love and support have helped me develop into the woman I am today. I would also very much like to thank my supervisory committee for their guidance, support, patience and friendship. Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray has helped me to harness my enthusiasm for this project and channel it through completion. She has been here for me through tears and laughter. I not only respect her as my mentor, but also consider her my friend. Dr. John Confer has shown me the wonderful world of statistics and helped make chapter 4 one of my favorites. His encouragement, positive attitude and sense of humor helped me immensely; Dr. Heather Gibsons insight and expertise in qualitative research have shaped this project and helped me push my limits and her smile brightens my day; Dr. Rhonda Phillips has introduced me to the field of urban and regional planning. Furthermore, I would like to thank Sherri Nunn for her help with translation and Charlie Lane for his help, support and words of encouragement. iv

PAGE 5

I would also like to thank the people of the Monteverde Zone in Costa Rica. Without their insight, helpfulness and participation, this project would not have come about. v

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 The Case of La Zona de Monteverde...........................................................................2 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................4 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................5 Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................5 Delimitations.................................................................................................................9 Limitations..................................................................................................................10 Definitions..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................12 Motivations for Recreation.........................................................................................12 Preferences for Recreation..........................................................................................17 Preferences for Recreation: Based on Demographics................................................21 Constraints to Recreation............................................................................................23 Gender Constraints to Recreation...............................................................................32 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................37 Introduction.................................................................................................................37 Site Description..........................................................................................................37 Pilot Study..................................................................................................................39 Data Collection...........................................................................................................39 Sampling Procedures..................................................................................................40 Selection of Subjects...................................................................................................41 Operationalization of the Constructs..........................................................................41 Motivations..........................................................................................................41 Preferences..........................................................................................................41 vi

PAGE 7

Constraints...........................................................................................................42 Demographics......................................................................................................42 Analysis......................................................................................................................43 Description of the Sample..........................................................................................44 Gender.................................................................................................................44 Age......................................................................................................................44 Family Life Cycle................................................................................................44 Education Level...................................................................................................45 Residency/Town and How Long.........................................................................45 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION........................................................52 Analysis of Motivations..............................................................................................52 Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for Recreation?............................................................................................................53 Analysis of Motivational Statements...................................................................53 Factor 1Relax.............................................................................................54 Factor 2Nature...........................................................................................54 Factor 3Active............................................................................................54 Factor 4Alone/Away..................................................................................55 What Is the Relationship between Age and Motivations?...................................55 What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Motivation?.............55 What Is the Relationship between Education level and Motivation?..................56 What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Motivation?.............56 What Is the Relationship between Gender and Motivation?...............................57 Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for Recreation?............................................................................................................57 Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to Recreation?............................................................................................................61 Analysis of Constraints........................................................................................62 Intrapersonal (Intra)......................................................................................62 Interpersonal (Inter)......................................................................................62 What Is the Relationship between Age and Constraints?....................................63 What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Constraints?.............64 What Is the Relationship between Education level and Constraints?.................65 What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Constraints?.............66 What Is the Relationship between Gender and Constraints?...............................66 Summary.....................................................................................................................67 Motivation...........................................................................................................67 Preferences..........................................................................................................67 Environmental Preference...................................................................................68 Constraints...........................................................................................................69 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION......................................................................101 Summary of Procedures and Treatment of the Data.................................................101 Discussion of Findings.............................................................................................101 vii

PAGE 8

Research Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for Recreation?..........................................................................102 Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for Recreation?...........................................................................104 Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to Recreation?.............................................................................108 Implications..............................................................................................................110 Recommendations for Future Research....................................................................115 APPENDIX A PHOTOS OF THE SALN, BULLRING AND SOCCER FIELD.........................117 B MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND CONSTRAINTS QUESTIONNAIRE..120 C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL..............................................126 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................135 viii

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Data Collection Schedule.........................................................................................48 3-2 Data Collection Totals..............................................................................................48 3-3 Operationalization of Motivation constructs............................................................49 3-4 Operationalization of Constraints Constructs..........................................................50 3-5 Demographic Profile for the Monteverde Zone.......................................................51 3-6 Age of Respondents.................................................................................................51 4-1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Motivation Items.................................................70 4-2 Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages).....................................................71 4-3 Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements..................................................72 4-4 ANOVA for Motivations by Age.............................................................................73 4-5 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Age Groups....................................................................73 4-6 ANOVA for Motivations by Family Life Cycle......................................................73 4-7 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Family Life Cycle..........................................................74 4-8 ANOVA for Motivations by Education...................................................................74 4-9 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Education........................................................................74 4-10 ANOVA for Motivations by Residency (Town)......................................................75 4-11 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Residency (Town)..........................................................75 ix

PAGE 10

4-12 Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender and Motivations........................................................................................................76 4-13 Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Motivations........................................76 4-14 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 1:What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work?..............................................77 4-15 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 2: If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located?..............................................................................................................78 4-16 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 3: What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community?............................................................................................................79 4-17 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Age Group........................................80 4-18 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Age Group.................................................81 4-19 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Family Life Cycle (FLC) Group......82 4-20 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Family Life Cycle.....................................83 4-21 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Education Level...............................84 4-22 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Education Level........................................85 4-23 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Residency (Town)............................86 4-24 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Residency (Town).....................................87 4-25 T-test for Environment Preferences by Gender........................................................88 4-26 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Gender.......................................................89 4-27 Mean and Standard Deviation for Constraint Items.................................................90 4-28 Frequency of Constraint Items (in Percentages)......................................................91 4-29 Mean and Cronbach Alpha of Constraints Items.....................................................92 4-30 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Age Group..............................................................92 x

PAGE 11

4-31 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Age Groups.....................................................................92 4-32 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Age Group.............................................93 4-33 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Family Life Cycle...................................................93 4-34 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Family Life Cycle............................................................94 4-35 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by FLC........................................................94 4-36 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Education................................................................95 4-37 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Education.........................................................................95 4-38 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Education...............................................96 4-39 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Residency (Town)..................................................96 4-40 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Residency (Town)...........................................................96 4-41 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Residency (Town).................................97 4-42 Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Constraints.........................................97 4-43 Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender and Constraints.........................................................................................................98 4-44 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Gender...................................................98 4-45 Overview of Responses to: What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work?....................................................................................................99 4-46 Overview of Responses to: If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located?...................................99 4-47 Overview of Responses to: What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community?.................................................99 4-48 Overview of Responses for Environmental Preference.........................................100 4-49 Overview of Responses for Intra and Interpersonal Constraints............................100 xi

PAGE 12

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Leisure participation as the product of a balance between constraints and motivations...............................................................................................................11 2-1 The proposed interactions between constraints, motivations, and participation......36 3-1 Map of Costa Rica....................................................................................................46 3-2 The Monteverde Zone: Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Cerro Plano and Monteverde.....47 A-1 The saln in Cerro Plano........................................................................................117 A-2 An outside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano.....................................................118 A-3 An inside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano.......................................................118 A-4 The soccer field in Santa Elena..............................................................................119 xii

PAGE 13

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies THE UNDERSTANDING OF MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND CONSTRAINTS OF RECREATION IN A RURAL COSTA RICAN COMMUNITY: LA ZONA DE MONTEVERDE By Allison Marie Hayes May 2004 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major Department: Recreation, Parks and Tourism This study came about by a voiced concern of the lack of recreation in the Monteverde Zone, by the residents of the community. The lack of safe, healthy and inexpensive recreation, in the opinions of the community members, has been leading the youth of the community to turn to unhealthy alternatives such as experimenting with drugs, alcohol and sex. This study sought to investigate the motivations, activity and environmental preferences as well as the contraints to recreation participation for the residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. In addition, the secondary purpose was to examine whether these motivations, preferences and constraints were related to five demographic variables. The data for this study were collected in the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. A total of 343 survey questionnaires were collected over a three-week period in April 2003. This study found that seventeen items loaded on four factors (or domains) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four motivational factors included relax, nature, active, xiii

PAGE 14

and alone/away. Participants of this study were highly motivated to participate in recreation for socialization. The majority of participants of this study expressed the most importance for relaxation. Results indicated that the education variable was significantly related to the types of motivations for participation. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than respondents with other types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees). The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports across all life cycle groups and in particular for males. The second most popular activity was social activities. Results indicated that women preferred social activities. The majority of the respondents chose the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in Santa Elena as their preferred locations for a recreational center. Based on previous literature, variables were computed to create the three constraint domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural). After computing Cronbach Alphas, only two domains were used for further investigation (intrapersonal and interpersonal). Results of the ANOVA analysis revealed that younger adults with children reported a high degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. While females also reported higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. In conclusion, the community members would prefer to have a recreation center located in the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano that could be used for sports and social activities. It is recommended that the current structures be used to increase recreation opportunities for the citizens of La Zona de Monteverde. Additionally, it is also recommended that further research be conducted on the youth of the Monteverde Zone. xiv

PAGE 15

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Recreation and leisure are activities that are pursued for the attainment of personal and social benefits or for just the experience itself. Dimensions of perceived freedom of choice and intrinsic satisfaction are the central determinants of leisure. Leisure and recreation are pursued during discretionary time when there are fewer obligations to work. Research on recreation has indicated an improvement in the quality of life of individuals who partake in regular recreational activities. Few people would argue the fact that there are benefits to recreation and leisure pursuits. A recreational activity is beneficial to the extent that it helps people to attain one or more of their goals. Lack of recreational opportunities can keep people from participating in recreation activities, however at times, opportunities are available and people still choose not to take part in them. It is thought this may occur when the benefits of leisure and recreation are not realized or when resources are not available. While North Americans spend over 200 billion dollars a year on recreation, residents of other countries may not have the funds to invest as extensively in leisure and recreational activities. One country in particular, which has lacked funding for recreational activities, is Costa Rica. Costa Rica is part of the land bridge between North and South America, just about 10 degrees above the equator; it is Central Americas second smallest nation (Infocostarica, 2003). The entire country is less than 20,000 square miles, roughly the size of West Virginia (Salazar & McEwen, 1996). La Zona de 1

PAGE 16

2 Monteverde, Costa Rica is located in the highlands of northwestern part of the country, La Zona de Monteverde, can only be reached by a 35 kilometer dirt road straight up the mountain. La Zona is made up of four small towns with approximately 2500 residents, with the greatest concentration of people in the village of Santa Elena. Recreation services for Costa Ricans and agencies in local communities are relatively undeveloped (Salazar & McEwen, 1996). Due to the lack of knowledge on the field, recreation and leisure are still seen only as a concern of more developed countries by the Costa Rican administrators, (Molina, 1995). Since the 1970s, a study conducted by the Institute of Municipal Development of Costa Rica (IFAM), revealed that the inhabitants of 860 rural communities identified lack of recreation alternatives as a major problem in these localities, (Molina, 1995). To confirm this finding, residents in La Zona de Monteverde also identified a lack of recreation for the community as a concern in a pilot study conducted in 2002. This pilot study is presented below. The Case of La Zona de Monteverde Hayes, Schmidt, Adkins and Hassan (2002) conducted a study in the Monteverde Zone in 2002 which examined recreation preferences. The pilot study was designed as a follow up to a previous study conducted in 1996. The Sustainable Futures Program at the Monteverde Institute conducted an assessment of youth in the village of Monteverde. Interviews were collected from thirty young people in addition to conducting three focus groups with both youth and adults who provided information on their perceptions of existing recreation activities and sites, and their recreational needs for the future. Part of the Sustainable Futures report focused on recreational issues. The consensus from gathering information from both adults and youth was that recreation was an important issue and the people of the community perceive there are not enough

PAGE 17

3 activities for youth to do in their free time. In the open-ended question, What recreational activities exist for youth here? some of the participants responded, Nothing, There are no activities for youth here. Of particular concern was the lack of activities for young women. Some activities reported by the youth were places to dance or roller skate and access to sports such as soccer or basketball. They also said they would like to have areas to simply hang out and talk with friends. However, while many people wished they could have more activities and felt the lack of access was a problem in the community, no concrete efforts were identified to change the situation. The Sustainable Futures entitled, Youth in the Zone investigated youth recreation, education, and family life in the town of Monteverde. However, the study solely addressed Monteverde, not the surrounding areas of Santa Elena and Cerro Plano. In 2002, Hayes, Schmidt, Adkins and Hassan conducted a follow up study to the Sustainable Futures project, entitled Recreation for the youth of the Monteverde Zone: A Needs Assessment, expanding the research area to be more representative of the entire Zone, rather than just the town of Monteverde (See Map). Qualitative research methods were used in the form of observations, unstructured interviews and conversations. Conversations included questions about present activities available to youth and the physical locations of recreational areas. From the information gained from the unstructured interviews and preliminary investigations, a structured interview was constructed. Two separate interviews were administered, one for youth (ages 10-24) and one for adults (ages 25 and above). From the twenty-five structured interviews, it was confirmed that there is a lack of recreational activities for youth in the Santa Elena and Cerro Plano areas. In fact, in response to the question of what activities are currently

PAGE 18

4 available for youth, nine of the twenty-five interviewees answered that there was nothing for youth to do. In response to the question, Are there activities that you wished that were available for youth, but are not? The following responses were given: Indoor soccer, darts, billiards, track, classes, swimming pool, cancha (field), skating rink, volleyball, dancing, traditional games, movie theatre, gymnasium, aerobics, weight lifting, basketball, theatre group, puppet workshop, park, place to meet friends, youth counseling, recreational center, video games, recreational area, large saln, cancha for women, farmers market, ping pong. The top three most common responses for both youths and adults were a roller skating rink, a sports field (cancha) and a volleyball court. A striking result of this research was the need for anything, something more than what they had. Both the 1996 and 2002 studies on recreation in the Monteverde Zone scratched the surface of an underlying lack of available opportunities. More research is needed to fully understand not only the needs, but also the motivations, preferences and constraints to those living in the Zone. Statement of the Problem Based on the findings from the two previous studies of recreation opportunities for the youth in Costa Rica, it became evident to the researcher that little was known about the recreation needs of the adult community in La Zona de Monteverde. Lack of understanding of recreation motivations, preferences and constraints for adult residents of the Zone make it difficult to plan for recreation. Research (observations, conversations and a needs assessment) has indicated that there is a lack of free and/or inexpensive recreational activities for residents of

PAGE 19

5 Monteverde, Costa Rica. Lack of recreation opportunities is linked to several social problems (e.g. experimenting with drugs, obesity, casual sex). When there are no recreational outlets for stress, energy and emotions such as anger, negative or unhealthy alternatives may be sought in place of recreational and leisure activities. Boredom can lead to the pursuit of stimulation and when there is no legitimate recreation available, alcohol, drugs, sex and vandalism can all become possibilities. Therefore, the focus of this study is to examine motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation faced by residents of La Zona de Monteverde. Purpose of the Study The main purpose of this study was to identify the motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation faced by residents of a rural Costa Rican community. In addition, the secondary purpose is to examine whether these motivations, preferences and constraints were related to five demographic variables. Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework guiding this study combines the constructs of motivations, preferences and constraints. This framework is appropriate for understanding the recreation in a rural community in Costa Rica. In 1993, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey determined that both the negotiation and the outcome of the negotiation process are dependent on the relative strength of, and interaction between, constraints to participating in an activity and motivations for such participation (p. 9). During the early stages of leisure constraints literature, assumptions were made that participation is the only aspect of leisure behavior affected by constraints and there is only one type of leisure constraint that does, in fact, prevent participation. As a way of classifying people who have adopted some form of negotiation strategy and

PAGE 20

6 have exhibited a proactive response to constraints, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey came up with the Balance and Negotiation propositions. These propositions were concerned with the negotiation of leisure constraints, the interactions among categories of constraints, and the interrelationships between constraints and motivations (p. 2). They felt that the outcome of a response to leisure constraints, now measured by the level of participation rather than by participation versus nonparticipation, should be viewed as a function of the interaction, or balance, between constraints and motivations (Figure 1-1). The balance proposition is consistent with a social exchange of the negotiation process as a decision-making confrontation between motivations and constraints (p.9). Leisure constraints negotiation research is still in its seminal stages, but the understanding and maturity of the concept has been developing in three directions (Jackson & Rucks, 1995). Initial thoughts were dominated by the idea that leisure constraints were un-penetrateable barriers that always resulted in nonparticipation. But, researchers such as Scott (1991) on participation in contract bridge, Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, and Shuler (1993) on the experience of constraints by women with disabilities, and Samdahl and Jekubovich (1993) on constraints negotiation in everyday living, have changed this assumption. All of these authors have illustrated in their research that people are able to find ways to participate (Jackson & Rucks, 1995, p. 86). The second area of research on constraints negotiation relates to the fact that constraints are not always considered to be negative. Studies conducted by Kay and Jackson (1991) and by Shaw, Bonen and McCabe (1991) suggest the process of negotiation is understood within oneself and people engage in activities despite the

PAGE 21

7 presence of obstacles. Interestingly, the relationship between constraints and participation may even be positive (p. 2). The third and final area in which constraints negotiation has developed proposes that people encounter and negotiate through the types of constraints defined by Crawford and Godbey (1987) in a hierarchical sequence (Crawford et al., 1991; Jackson et al., 1993). In turn, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey (1993) worked together to challenge their own research of leisure constraints through reviewing the concepts and literature on the subject and suggested a re-interpretation of their hierarchical model (p.2). Participation is dependent, not on the absence of constraints, but rather on negotiation through them. Such negotiation may modify rather than foreclose participation, (Jackson et al., 1993). The strategy used to overcome constraints is dependent partly upon the problem encountered. Jackson suggested that strategies could be either cognitive or behavioral, with behavioral strategies involving modifications to the non-leisure aspects of life in order to accommodate leisure needs, such as re-organization of personal time to accommodate leisure activities. Jackson also suggested that modifications to leisure may occur by becoming more aware of opportunities and increasing ones skill (p. 2). While leisure participation is still possible through the negotiation of constraints, Jackson et al. (1993) proposed that participation as an outcome of constraints negotiation is likely to be different. Preferences for particular activities may change, participation may occur less frequently, and specialization in an activity may increase or decrease. To date, research has supported the validity of the concept of leisure constraints and its relationship to motivations and preferences.

PAGE 22

8 The study examined recreation in a Costa Rican rural community. This community is unique in that it does not have many recreation opportunities. This study attempted to understand the motivations of community members to participate in leisure activities, their preferences for particular types of recreation and recreation environments and the constraints faced with in the pursuit of leisure. Leisure participation as a balance of constraints and motivations is used as the theoretical framework to guide the study of how to best meet the needs of the community. Research Questions This study included the following research questions: 1) What is the relationship between demographics and motivations for recreation? a) What is the relationship between age and motivations? b) What is the relationship between family life cycle and motivations? c) What is the relationship between education and motivations? d) What is the relationship between place of residency and motivations? e) What is the relationship between gender and motivations? 2) What is the relationship between demographics and preferences for recreation? A. What do you do for fun in your free time when you are not working? a. What is the relationship between age and preferences? b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences? c. What is the relationship between education and preferences? d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences? e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences? B. If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? a. What is the relationship between age and environmental preferences? b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and environmental preferences? c. What is the relationship between education and environmental preferences? d. What is the relationship between place of residency and environmental preferences?

PAGE 23

9 e. What is the relationship between gender and environmental preferences? C. What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? a. What is the relationship between age and preferences? b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences? c. What is the relationship between education and preferences? d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences? e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences? D. What environment would you prefer to participate in recreation in? a. What is the relationship between age and preferences? b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences? c. What is the relationship between education and preferences? d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences? e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences? 3) What is the relationship between demographics and constraints to recreation? a) What is the relationship between age and constraints? b) What is the relationship between family life cycle and constraints? c) What is the relationship between education and constraints? d) What is the relationship between place of residency and constraints? e) What is the relationship between gender and constraints? Delimitations Delimitations of this study are as follows: 1. Data were collected in the town center of Santa Elena, the central location of the Monteverde Zone. 2. Respondents were men and women Costa Rican residents aged 18 and up. 3. The study was based on self-reported perceived benefits of leisure, motivations for participation, recreational activity preferences, and constraints keeping respondents from participating. 4. The sample size was 343 respondents and the researcher self-administered the survey over a short period of time.

PAGE 24

10 Limitations Limitations of this study are as follows: 1. The survey was written in English and then translated into Spanish, therefore some words or questions may have been misinterpreted. 2. Interviewee fatigue was a possible limitation. 3. When participants read and responded to questions on their own more answers were left blank. 4. Occasionally, potential female respondents replied that they would, in fact, fill out a survey, but then preceded to hand it to their husbands and asked them to fill it out. Definitions Using interviews, observations, and survey data this cross-sectional study illustrated the motivations, preferences and constraints of adult members of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica and described the differences in their motivations, preferences and constraints based on age, family life cycle, education, place of residency and gender. Recreation is defined as an activity that is organized for the attainment of personal and social benefits, while leisure is chosen primarily for the experience itself (Kelly, 1999). Dimensions of relative freedom of choice and intrinsic satisfaction are the central determinants of leisure. Motivations are defined as internal factors that arouse and direct human behavior. Intrinsic motivation is the pursuit of internal rewards such as self-confidence. Intrinsic behaviors are autonomous and self-determined, facilitate an attempt to pursue and achieve optimum level of sensory arousal, are conducive to feelings of personal competence and result in enjoyment and satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation is the pursuit of external rewards such as money, awards, and fame (Iso-Ahola, 1989).

PAGE 25

11 Constraints are defined as obstacles to leisure participation. They were once considered barriers that directly resulted in non-participation, but current research suggests it is possible to negotiate through constraints. They are believed to be broken down into three levels. The first level of constraints is intrapersonal, and involves individual psychological states and attributes, which interact with leisure preferences rather than intervening between preferences and participation. The second level is interpersonal, those constraints that occur when known co participants themselves are perceived to be prevented from participation because of structural constraints. The third level of constraints is structural, those intervening factors between leisure preference and participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Negotiate means to complete or accomplish, while negotiation is the action or process of negotiating (Samdahl, Hutchinson & Jacobson, 1999). This will not be analyzed in this study, but rather used as a framework for interpreting the data. Intrapersonal Interpersonal Structural Constraints Constraints Constraints Leisure Interpersonal Level of Preferences Compatibility Participation and Coordination Motivations (Attractions) Figure 1-1. Leisure participation as the product of a balance between constraints and motivations.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review will cover the following sections: The area of motivations for recreation Preferences for recreation literature Preferences for recreation based on demographics Constraints to recreation literature Gender constraints to recreation Motivations for Recreation Understanding why people choose to participate in leisure is important in explaining and predicting recreation behaviors. The basic principles of leisure motivation can be applied in practical settings of recreation services. Often, motives are linked to expectations of leisure participation. Measuring the reasons why people do what they do is often a difficult task. This is especially true when determining why people participate in leisure activities, because there is no obvious external force compelling people to do one activity over another. Motivation can be broken down into two categories, intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is pursuing outside rewards or benefits as a reason for choosing o participate in an activity. This may include trophies, acceptance by others, or praise. Intrinsic motivation is doing something for the sake of doing something or just for the fun of it. Intrinsic behaviors are autonomous and self-determined, facilitate an attempt to pursue and achieve optimum level of sensory arousal, are conducive to feelings of personal competence and result in enjoyment and satisfaction. There are no outside influences on the decision to participate. This is especially true for children, who often 12

PAGE 27

13 play just for the sake of having a good time. An optimal level of arousal is sought to find a balance between being over stimulated and stressed, and being under stimulated and bored (Iso-Ahola, 1989). Intrinsic motivation facilitates the pursuit of an optimal level of arousal and these motivations are inherently pleasurable and satisfying. Iso-Ahola found that the freedom of choice at the onset of a behavior and feelings of competence are two main factors when defining leisure. In the pursuit of leisure people often seek intrinsic rewards and attempt to escape from their routine environment. More intrinsic motivators may include self-actualization, self-gratification and self-expression. Subjectivity is necessary when determining the benefits of recreation, because what is beneficial to one may or may not be considered beneficial to another and may not be directly observed. Regular exercise can result in physical benefits that can be observed such as weight loss and cardiovascular health but stress reduction and sense of accomplishment are much more difficult to observe. Because it is difficult to observe all benefits of leisure, the theory of planned behavior was proposed to provide a conceptual framework for the study of leisure benefits. It involves identification of goals; assessment of perceived relations between leisure activities and those goals; assessment of other beliefs as well as attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control; measurement of intentions to engage in leisure activities; and finally, assessment of actual performance of the behavior and of goal attainment. (Ajzen, 1991) Learning in and of itself is also a benefit of leisure. Seven kinds of learning have been identified to be connected with leisure including behavior change and skill learning, direct visual memory, information, attitude and concept learning (Roggenbuck, Loomis & Dagostino, 1991). New behaviors and skills and/or modifying old ones during leisure can lead to self-actualization, another perceived benefit of leisure. Obtained when

PAGE 28

14 individuals use their freedom to explore the limits of their potentialities and to expand the range of their mental, physical and social skills (Csikszentmihalyi & Kleiber, 1991). According to Murray, a need is a stimulus, a force pushing an individual in a certain direction or to behave in a certain way. Needs such as achievement, power, affiliation, esteem, and equity, can serve as motivation for individuals and can be both emotional and physical. A need for physical fitness may motivate an individual to play sports or to work out. Often people participate in physical activity to feel healthy and keep in good shape. Physical activity can be an outlet to reduce physical tension and mental stress. Competition and the need for high self-esteem can be achieved through physical fitness activities like playing basketball against other players at a recreation center. Through direct competition, one can evaluate his or her ability against others and determine his or her skill level. The more success one achieves in various levels of competition the more competent one feels, therefore increasing self-esteem. Leadership skills in a competitive physical activity setting can also lead to higher self-esteem (Soucie, 1994). One study which examined the intrinsic motivation of leisure was Wessinger and Bandalos (1995) 24-item Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Disposition Scale. This scale was created to measure self-determination, competence, commitment, and challenge as motivation for participation. Results using this scale suggested individuals differ in the degree to which they desire intrinsic rewards, and that these differences influence behavioral choices, (p. 3). Differences dictate cognitive interpretations of perceived needs, or motives and it is these motives that energize goal selection and directed

PAGE 29

15 behavior. If individuals have differing motives, then it is also possible for an entire community and culture to have differing motives. When there are no recreational outlets for stress, energy and emotions such as anger, people may have to look elsewhere for a release. Unsupervised free time can be used to participate in negative behaviors. As noted by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1992), time spent alone is not the crucial contributor to high risk. Rather it is what young people do during that time, where they do, and with whom that leads to positive or negative consequences, (p. 1). Negative or unhealthy alternatives may be sought in place of recreational and leisure activities. Boredom can lead to the pursuit of stimulation and when there is no legitimate recreation available, alcohol, drugs, sex and vandalism can all become possibilities. Understanding motivations for leisure and recreation can help practitioners develop programs that have the greatest likelihood of minimizing conflicts between users and of yielding human benefits, because of this, much research has been conducted on determining motivations (Manfredo, Driver & Tarrant, 1996). An experiential approach was created in the late 1960s by Driver and Tocher to suggest that recreation should not be viewed merely as an activity such as swimming, jogging or camping. Instead, it should be conceptualized as a psycho-physiological experience that is self-rewarding, occurs during non-obligated free time, and is the result of free choice (Manfredo, Driver & Tarrant, 1996). The Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale was developed to illustrate the idea that people pursue recreation when a problem state exists, such as stress. Within the context of motivation theory, the REP scale suggests people pursue engagement in

PAGE 30

16 recreation to attain certain psychological and physical goals (Manfredo, Driver, Tarrant, 1996). REP research has been used to describe and compare the experience preferences of participants in specific recreation activities since the 1970s. The scale works to establish relationships among experience, setting and activity preferences and also between non-leisure conditions and experience preferences. The REP scale offer one approach to understanding motivations for leisure by focusing on the desired goal states that are attained through participation. For example stress caused by a busy person might motivate that individual to choose a relaxing leisure pursuit because it may lead to temporary escape. The REP scale is made up of 328 items. However, rarely are all 328 items used in a study. The scales are grouped by domains of conceptually and empirically related scales. The domains are goal states and include but are not limited to achievement/stimulation, autonomy/leadership, risk taking, family togetherness, similar people, learning, enjoying nature, and escape from personal/social pressures (p. 205). The escape from personal/social pressures domain consists of tension release, slow down mentally and escape role overloads, while the risk taking domain consists of only one-scale. When determining which domains and scales to use in an instrument, all items from each scale should be used, because the use of one item from each scale can increase the likelihood of item sampling error and weakens generalizations made to the concepts represented by the scale (p. 208). REP items should be dictated by theoretical concerns, for example, when the interest is on identifying motivations or desired outcomes, the survey should prompt the respondent to indicate the extent to which the items are important in their choice to visit an area or engage in a particular activity.

PAGE 31

17 The purpose of the REP scale is to explain why people engage in recreation, give guidance in understanding what people want from their recreation experience, and offer insight into how it might benefit them. As well, the scale can help managers understand and meet the needs of residents. Preferences for Recreation Motives are linked to expected outcomes of recreation participation and can help explain why people prefer one type of leisure to another. Preferences are not limited to just activity preference but also may include environment selection as well. A study conducted by Cooksey, Dickinson, and Loomis in 1982 looked at psychological attributes and there affect on environment preference. Environments were conceptualized as providing a context within which valued psychological attributes could be experienced. Environmental preferences under this general theory were defined to be a function of evaluative and cognitive assessments of an environments psychological attributes. (p. 19) Their study compared four models for predicting environmental preferences, the optimal, direct-sum, reward-only and reward-cost models. All of the models were designed to allow paired comparisons between alternative environments. The direct-sum model employed cognitive assessments of amount as determinants of environmental preference. This model assumed a direct linear combination of the differences in amount of the psychological attributes in both environments. The reward-only model defined importance as a multiplier for differences in cognitive assessments. The reward-cost model suggested the ratio of total rewards to total costs should provide a good index of an environments psychological quality and preferability. Ratios greater than unity indicate a rewarding environment, while those less than unity indicated a costly

PAGE 32

18 environment. Thus, the reward-cost model became the central model of interest in this particular study. The researchers surveyed 17 female and 14 male college students, and designated ten environments and ten psychological attributes. The environments included roadless wilderness, developed wilderness, park, zoo, museum, theater, nightclub, gymnasium, student center and home. In the questionnaire, each of the environments were paired with every other environment and then the participants were asked to circle which environment they preferred and to rate their degree of preference ranging from 1 (hardly any preference) to 99 (complete preference). Ninety-nine meant they would completely and actively seek to experience the attribute during their leisure experience. Cost evaluations were measured for the ten attributes by rating how important it was for them to exclude that attribute from their leisure. For each participant, environmental preferences were derived based on the four models. The correlations among the direct-sum, reward-only, and reward-cost models were very high (.80 to .95), indicating these models ordered subjects in a similar by not identical manner. However, the correlations between each of the three models and the optimal model were substantially lower (.20 to .36), indicating that the optimal model ordered subjects very differently in terms of their preferences. (p. 29) The researchers found the optimal model had the greatest predictive power for environmental preference, and while one may think of an environment for its physical attributes, it is the persons preference for that environment that is controlled by the psychological aspect of humans. Preference for environment relies upon the outcomes that the person has learned about and expects to experience from the environment. Previous experience plays a role in determining preference for environment choice. Other research has indicated that past experiences in a given recreation activity can affect preference for future recreation participation. In 1989, Hammitt, Knauf and Noe

PAGE 33

19 collaborated on a research study on the measurement of past use-experience and its effect on recreation activity preference. Two measures of past experience were compared: (1) an index value composed of four measures of frequency and years of participation, and (2) a user-declared classification of four experience-skill levels (p. 202). This particular study looked at horseback riders previous experiences riding horses and their desire to choose to go horseback riding again. The researchers created a scale based on the frequency and number of years of experience to determine the individuals skill level, but also allowed each individual to report their perceived skill level as well. A multi-item index of past experience was found to be a more significant indicator of how past experience was related to recreation preference than the self-declared classifications. Ten of seventeen index variables were rated significant while just four of the self-reported variables were considered significant. After reporting experience level the participants then ranked the importance of the 17 variables on a 5-point Likert scale. Variables included horseback riding facilities such as stalls, and corrals, as well as organized recreation. Varying amounts of past activity experience impacted how a recreationist would perceive and evaluate a given activity. Results of this study found that past use-experience was an important variable expressed preferences of recreation users. In 1992, Stewart conducted a study on experience and its affect on experience preference. The primary purpose of this study was to provide an initial examination of onsite experience and experience preference. The study examined preference preand post experience. The sample was limited to women in order to rule out the possibility of gender influencing the results of the study. The women ranged in age from 16-69 and demographic characteristics included age, education and household income. The survey

PAGE 34

20 was administered to the participants before entering and again as they were leaving the Maroon Lake Trailhead on the West River National Forest. Of the 72 women who participated in the pretest, 55 (76%) participated in the onsite posttest. The researcher examined the measurement of experience preference and actual experience. Six experience preference items were listed in a seven-point Likert Scale format listing, how important each of the following experiences are (were) to you for your hike, with three questions each for the domains of physical exercise and escaping civilization.. The results of this study coincided with the predictions of dissonance theory. Participants who achieved a given experience placed more priority for that experience in their post-activity test. The opposite is true for those who did not achieve a given experience. They placed less priority on that experience when given the posttest. Recreationists are particular about the goals they wish to achieve. The participants who achieved the desired experience left feeling fulfilled because they thought they got what they wanted. For those participants who did not achieve a desired level, they were not satisfied. The results of this study suggested that preference may be experience dependent; in other words, preference could be a relic of participation in the recreation experience. In a study conducted in 1996, Confer, Vogelsong, Graefe and Solan, they determined that people who have different activity preferences also have different motivations. Respondents ranked the importance of 22 reasons for visiting a state park and a factor analysis was used to reduce the 22 possibilities into five general motivation factors: Fun/Recreate, Escape/Solitude, Social/Interaction, Nature/Learning, and Nature/Harmony. Cluster analysis was then used to place respondents into activity

PAGE 35

21 preference groups after reporting their preferences for 18 activities. Someone who preferred picnicking, bird watching, and taking walks could be considered more passive and be motivated to seek solitude. While someone who enjoyed dancing and playing softball could be considered active and be motivated to seek social interaction. Preferences for Recreation: Based on Demographics Leisure and recreation activities are related to culture. For instance, a group of boys from one culture may prefer to play basketball, while a group of boys from another culture may prefer to play soccer. Leisure and recreation choices represent a key part of the social life of subgroups within a given culture. Research has suggested that culture influences recreation participation both positively and negatively. In 1983, McMillen found culture had no influence on recreation participation. He conducted personal interviews with 130 Mexican-American households across 32 activities. Responses were compared to the general population. The list of activities consisted of watching television, listening to records, and reading newspapers, among other activities. Interestingly, the activities did not specify whether or not the television programs, music and reading material were in English or Spanish. In contrast to the results of the McMillen project, Hutchison and Fidel conducted a follow-up study in 1984. They felt there were differences based on the type, size, age and sex composition of Mexican-American and Anglo activity groups. The Chicago based study consisted of over three-thousand observations of thirteen regional and neighborhood parks, recording the size, age, sex and social group of Mexican-Americans and Anglo-Americans. Thirty categories of activities were created consisting of mobile activities (bicycling, walking, jogging) and stationary activities (picnicking, sitting, and lounging

PAGE 36

22 on the grass) and sports activities (basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, and other sports). More than half of all Anglo groups participated in mobile activities, where more than 45 percent of these activities consisting of jogging, walking and bicycling. The Mexican-American group was more involved in stationary and sport activities. A strong association existed between the type of activity, the size of group, and the type of social group. The Mexican-American groups were larger in number of persons, averaging 5.7 persons, while the Anglo group consisted of an average of 2.5 persons. The Anglo population is more likely to participate in individual activities such as jogging and bicycling. The Mexican-American group was more likely to participate in activities involving a larger number of people, often in multiple family groups. Family units would frequently go to the park in groups to watch younger family members participate in activities. The results of the Hutchison and Fidel study vary greatly to those of the McMillen study. Hutchison and Fidel found differences in the size, type, age, and sex composition of recreation groups, showed a strong preference for stationary activities involving families or mixed social groupings requiring extensive use of park facilities by the Mexican-American group. Possibly, one reason for the difference in results may be that Hutchison and Fidel did not include indoor activities (watching television, reading newspapers), but rather focused on urban recreation activities in an outdoor setting. In 1997, a study by Wallace and Smith, also found differences in the recreation activities of people based on ethnicity. In this study, the researchers looked at the motivations, preferred management actions and setting preferences among Costa Rican, North American and European visitors to five National parks in Costa Rica. They found

PAGE 37

23 significant differences between the three visitor types on all 15 motivations, eighteen of twenty-two potential management actions, and preference for settings within a park or protected area. Traditions in Costa Rica differ from those of the United States, while the US has a longer tradition of outdoor recreation and more primitive forms of recreation; Costa Ricas protected areas are much more limited in what types of activities can be offered. Protected areas are limited to day hiking, nature observation, sun bathing/swimming, and picnicking, while camping, and backpacking have not traditionally been as popular. All, North-Americans, Europeans and Costa Ricans, answered similarly to some questions, but significant differences were found in all fifteen-motivation questions. Forty-two percent of Costa Ricans reported that they would like to spend more time in more developed settings than North Americans (19%) and Europeans (18%). Costa Ricans also tended to be more highly motivated by social interactions (to be with friends/family, see/meet other people and support the development of additional infrastructure. Also, they demonstrated a wider array of needs when it came to recreation, wanting more developed areas for things like camping, picnicking, educational activities, socializing and opportunities to observe nature. It is interesting that Costa Ricans assigned more importance than international visitors on all motivations except experiencing solitude or being adventurous. Constraints to Recreation Even if someone is motivated to participate in a recreational activity, they may experience particular constraints that make participation difficult. Three categories of constraints have been identified as intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Intrapersonal barriers interact with leisure preferences rather than

PAGE 38

24 intervene with participation. Anxiety, stress, depression, perceived self-skill, religiosity, and social attitudes are all examples. Early definitions of interpersonal constraints were conceived to be the result of interpersonal interaction or the relationship between individuals characteristics (p. 101). But they are now better understood as occurring when individuals express a barrier to participate because of lack of another person to participate with. An example of an interpersonal constraint is the need for additional people to participate with; this is especially true for team sports such as soccer, baseball, basketball and football. Someone cannot pick up a football and play a game without others to participate with. interpersonal constraints interact with both preference for, and later participation in, leisure activities. Structural barriers intervene between preference and participation. Family constraints such as financial resources, life-cycle stage, and the scheduling of work time effect participation. Also, external factors such as season, climate and availability of opportunity influence participation. While structural barriers can ultimately keep someone from participating in an activity, the elimination or absence of these structural constraints can result in participation. A study by Kay and Jackson in 1990, not only studied the socioeconomic and activity based variations in barriers experienced, but also how people deal with the two most frequently reported constraints, cost and lack of time. Sixty percent of those surveyed said their participation decreased when they experienced financial constraints, while other solutions included saving money to participate, and the pursuit of cheaper opportunities. In regards to lack of time, 71% said they decreased participation, while

PAGE 39

25 others reduced the amount of time they spent doing other activities including work and household chores. There are two types of negotiation strategies: behavioral and cognitive. The above studies are examples of behavioral strategies, where as cognitive may include changing your attitude about a perceived constraint and using that to negotiate. Through the use of the Canada Fitness Survey in 1991 Shaw, Bonen and McCabe studied reported constraints compared to participation and demographics. Demographics include age, gender, marital status and the presence or absence of children, occupational status and household income. The survey included 35 different recreational activities, both team and individual sports and activities, such as soccer, tennis, and walking or cycling. Frequency of participation and length of time of participation formulated an acceptable measure of participation. The average participation time was 3.2 hours per week. To determine constraints to recreation participation, respondents who were looking to increase their level of activity were asked to report the presence of eleven barriers to participation. These barriers include, lack of time, lack of energy, costs too much, and ill health. Because these questions were asked of people who wanted to increase their participation, these barriers were considered intervening constraints. Of the eleven constraints, only two of them, ill-health and low energy, were associated with lower levels of participation for both men and women. Lack of time because of work was the highest rated response of both men and women but those who reported it showed significantly higher levels of participation than those who did not. The three most reported constraints actually showed positive relationships with participation. Some of the other barriers were shown to have almost no relationship to participation at all. This

PAGE 40

26 contradicted previous research that found constraints to directly result in nonparticipation (Shaw, Bonen and McCabe, 1991). Further research suggested that constraints may not be a barrier, but rather an obstacle that one can work through. According to a study conducted by Crawford, Jackson and Godbey in 1991, there is a hierarchical series of constraints that one goes through starting with intra and moving through inter and then structural. One must negotiate the social attitudes of a given activity before concerning themselves with the need for others to participate with them, once finding others to participate with, the need for a location is necessary. This study argues that it is not the lack of constraints, but the negotiation through them that results in participation. Previous studies were used to demonstrate evidence of negotiation through constraints. Additionally Crawford, Jackson and Godbey identified 10 types of barriers and three strategies to adapt to or alleviate them. Those strategies include acquisition of information about limited opportunities; altered scheduling of games to adjust to reduced group membership and individuals time commitments; and skill development to permit participation in advanced play. These are all examples of working through constraints to enable continued participation. The structural constraint of lack of time seems to be a never-ending problem for those who have responsibilities, families, work and other obligations of time. According to a study conducted by Scott in 1993, time scarcity is the feeling that one lacks enough time to do all the things that one would like to do, and it has a significant impact on leisure behavior (p. 52). Free time is thought to be time away from work, in which one can choose what they would like to do and is often limited to the weekend when one does

PAGE 41

27 not have to be at work. We have come to believe that the experience of leisure is limited to specific activities, times, and spaces. This absence of fluidity between work and leisure necessarily creates in us a sense of urgency because we know that leisure time is limited, (p. 53). Across a variety of studies, time constraints are generally the most frequently mentioned reasons for ceasing participation in a leisure activity (Jackson & Dunn, 1991), not participating in leisure activities (McGuire, Dottavio, & OLeary, 1986; Mannell & Zuzanek, 1991) and not using park and recreation services (Godbey, 1985; Howard & Crompton, 1984, Godbey, Graefe, & James, 1992). Scott suggested that leisure service providers have much to lose if they fail to respond to peoples need to save time. By allowing opportunities to make reservations, you minimize the risk of showing up but not being able to participate. Rather than to take this risk, some people would prefer just to stay home. Reservations for tee times for golf, reserving courts for racquetball, tennis and basketball as well as tours of national and state parks are considerations. Leisure service agencies must strive to insure convenience in program offerings by scheduling programs or services at times that are convenient for the visitors. Shorter and more self-directed opportunities may also decrease the amount of time spent during an activity. Some people may not want to spend an entire day recreating, so by providing half-day tickets to theme parks or nine-hole rounds of golf at an adjusted rate, people with less free-time can still enjoy recreation. Park planners may accommodate shorter visits by restructuring their existing trail system by creating looping trails that are shorter in length and provide self-paced interpretive trails or displays rather than only providing ranger-led programs. Visitors can participate at their own pace and

PAGE 42

28 do not have to be confined by specific start and finish dates and times. Also, providing complete information about time requirements in promotional literature can allow visitors to know the required amount of time for a specific activity before ever leaving the house. They can be prepared and plan to make enough time to engage and complete the desired activity, in a park setting, hikers can choose ahead of time the trail length that best suits their needs. The last recommendation Scott made was an improvement of the overall quality of life for the community and break down the boundaries between work and leisure. In general, over time, leisure research has been dominated by the belief that leisure is a positive resource that people strive to pursue; therefore, nonparticipation in leisure is thus thought to be a passive reaction to barriers rather than active flight from problems that leisure itself may invoke. In 1995, Weinblat and Navon questioned this way of thought and looked to reexamine the view that leisure nonparticipation is a problem. Results indicated all participants of the study reported having spent time and special resources in the pursuit of recreation. According to interviews, caregivers of people with disabilities were socially isolated. Time left over was used to run errands, and much of their previous leisure activities were eliminated. While elderly caregivers may be shying away from leisure pursuits, their counterparts, adolescents, tend to view leisure differently and are in pursuit of something new to take part in. In 1999, Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdy asked the question, why are you bored? to 8 th grade students to examine the psychological and social control caused by boredom among adolescents. Because lack of recreation opportunities can lead to excessive amounts of free-time and even destructive behavior such as alcohol

PAGE 43

29 and drug abuse, higher rates of dropping out of school, and vandalism it is important to try to understand the phenomenon of adolescent boredom and free time. The life period of adolescents can be a difficult time because of the development of autonomy, changing cognitive abilities, evolving relationships with parents, and the quality of behavioral demands, making boredom especially salient for youth. Adolescence is a period of life with more free-time and more control over this time compared to childhood. Providing new challenges to adolescences as they take on increasing responsibilities for structuring their own time is an important task for recreation providers. Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdys research project required eighty-two students to complete two questionnaires, a face-to-face interview, and participation in a four-day activity diary over a two-week period of time. The sample was fifty one percent female, with an average age of 13 years old. The study used psychologically based and social control models to extend the understanding of adolescent boredom in leisure and had two levels of analysis, individual difference and situational. At the individual difference level, they examined two variables that reflected differences in responses to boredom across situations. Parental monitoring reflected the social control/resistance model of boredom, while level of intrinsic motivation reflected psychological theories of boredom. At the situational level, they examined factors associated with boredom within an individual by examining three possible reasons for participating in a particular activity: had to, wanted to, and had nothing else to do. The researchers predicted that regardless of level of analysis, when adolescents felt as though they were autonomous and self-determined they would be less bored, and when they felt controlled, they would experience boredom. The had to situation reflected the

PAGE 44

30 feeling that someone exerted influence on the adolescent producing a feeling of obligation. The researchers hypothesized that the had to reason for participation resulted in higher levels of boredom. The wanted to situation reflects self-determination and intrinsic motivation. Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdy hypothesized that the higher the level of intrinsic motivation, the lower the level of boredom. And, the had nothing else to do situation suggests a lack of stimulation, optimal arousal, and/or lack of awareness of leisure opportunities. They were unable to specify a hypothesis for this particular situation. Level of boredom was designated as the dependent variable and was assessed through a single item that asked participants to respond to how bored versus how involved they were in their activity where 1 = very involved and into it and 5 = very bored. The results of the research coincided with the researchers original hypotheses to the following relationships: when adolescents engage in activities because they want to they report lower levels of boredom during the activity. Also, higher levels of intrinsic motivation were reported compared to those adolescents who are participating in activities because they felt they had to or had nothing else to do. Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, and Grouis (2002) conducted one of the most current research studies of constraints on recreation participation. They studied the influence of constraint dimensions on intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation, using the self-determination theory and the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as the theoretical frameworks. According to the self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are the psychological needs that are important in motivating human action. Based on 1993s

PAGE 45

31 Jackson, Crawford and Godbeys negotiation and balance propositions, the researcher felt that constraints research required a greater understanding of how perceived constraints, motives and motivation work in relation to each other, and how constraints can be removed and motivation enhanced, (p. 234). The proposed interactions between constraints, motivations, and participation are presented in Figure 2-1. Two hundred fifty seven adult individuals, who reported participation in some type of sport and physical recreation activity, completed the Sport Motivation Scale and the leisure constraints questionnaire. Participants were given a list of recreational sports to give them a clear idea about which activities should be considered for purposes of the study. Team sports such as basketball, football, soccer and volleyball were included on the list as well as fitness related activities such as aerobics, weight training, dancing, jogging, swimming and hiking were all considered sport activities. Walking for exercise was also designated as a sport activity. Of the 450 total respondents surveyed, 257 individuals reported participating in at least one of the sport activities during the last twelve months, and therefore were the sample of the survey. Participants were asked to evaluate the importance of each of the 29 statements as limiting facets for their sport participation, ranging from very important (7) to not important (1) on a 7-point Likert scale. The Sport Motivation Scale was used to measure motivation. The SMS is composed of three subscales assessing intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation (it is not clear to me anymore; I do not really think my place is in sport, I used to have good reasons for doing sports, but now I am asking myself if I should continue doing it) (p. 241). On a Likert-scale, participants were asked to evaluate each item ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

PAGE 46

32 Three intrapersonal dimensions were identified, individual/psychological, lack of knowledge and lack of interest. The three intrapersonal dimensions and the time dimension contributed significantly to the prediction of amotivation. No significant relationship was found between interpersonal and structural constraints and amotivation, which is explained by the hierarchical model of constraints. The results indicated that intrapersonal constraints predicted (significantly but not strongly) intrinsic motivation. High levels of individual/ psychological and lack of interest-related constraints were associated with lower levels of intrinsic motivation. The results suggested that intrapersonal constraints act as de-motivating forces for individuals. The study also found that extrinsic motivation does have an influence on the frequency of participation. External reasons, such as health and fitness, attractiveness, general appearance, and weight control, are important incentives towards sport and exercise participation, (p. 248). Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, and Grouios reported that individuals who invested a considerable amount of time in physical activity also placed a greater importance on external motives, such as health and fitness, and achievement-related issues, such as recognition and outcome. While constraints had been considered to prevent participation, it is now thought that constraints may make participation more difficult, but they do not necessarily lead to non-participation. It is the negotiation of those constraints that lead to participation. Gender Constraints to Recreation Gender also plays a role in constraints to leisure participation. Kane (1990) found gender roles learned in childhood carry over into adulthood and effect leisure participation. One consistent theme that has emerged from research on gender differences in play is that young girls learn skill, roles and attitudes that encourage

PAGE 47

33 dependency, a lack of exploration and thus result in a deficit in self-expression and sense of mastery (p. 53). Girls are taught to be dependent on adults for help and security, while boys on the other hand, are taught to be independent and competent. This leads to women being physically, socially and psychologically constrained in their opportunities to fully explore physical recreation experiences. Through use of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, Kane found that women with masculine and androgynous personalities perceived fewer barriers to recreation than women with feminine and undifferentiated personalities. Intrapersonal constraints such as lack of self-confidence, not feeling good about oneself, not being physically fit, and lacking the physical skills to participate were significantly greater constraints for women with feminine and undifferentiated personalities. By leisure service providers putting less emphasis on gender appropriate activities, both males and females will have more autonomy in choosing their recreation activity and therefore, get more enjoyment out of the experience. An analysis of womens leisure, conducted by Shaw (1994) found most research on leisure constraints for women does not suggest that women have no leisure, but that they face more constraints than men. Structural constraints such as lower earning power, less time due to household obligations and family commitments and lack of transportation are common barriers to womens leisure participation (Horna, 1989; Searle & Jackson, 1985; Witt & Goodale, 1981), and (Deem, 1986; Hunter & Whitson, 1992; Searle & Jackson, 1985). Low income women, unemployed women, single parents and women of color are more likely to be constrained by economic factors than are white, middle-class women, (Dattilo, Dattilo & Kleiber, 1992; Green, Hebron & Woodward, 1990; Streather, 1989).

PAGE 48

34 In a study conducted by Jackson and Henderson (1995), recreation constraints of men and women and between-gender and within-gender similarities and differences were examined. Jackson and Henderson used gender as a theoretical framework, not just as ones biological sex but the social expectations and cultural definitions associated with ones biological sex, (p. 33). They used theoretical positions of patriarchy, feminism, and psychoanalysis (e.g., Bella, 1989; Glancy, 1991; Scott, 1986) as well as feminist gender perspectives. Using the General Recreation Surveys administered by the Alberta, Canada government, two empirical questions were addressed: (1) What constraints to leisure are experienced by women and men? (2) How does the context pertaining to personal and situational circumstances (e.g., age, income, and family structure) alter, reinforce, and perhaps even alleviate the effects of constraints among women and men? (p. 34). Two separate mailings were conducted to effective random samples in 1988 and again in 1991 combining for a large sample size of 9,642 respondents. The majority of respondents, who disclosed their gender, were women (52.3%) while men made up 47.7% of the sample. Ages ranged from 18 to 91 years old. Five factors were replicated in terms of factor structure for men and six factors resulted for women: Social & Geographical Isolation, Lack of Skills, Facilities and Family & Work Commitments resulted for both men and women. Costs of participating resulted for women, while transportation and costs resulted for men. Results indicated that female respondents were slightly younger, had lower incomes, and the proportion of single parents was higher for women than men. Women reported the presence of all 15 constraints items statistically more than men. Women

PAGE 49

35 reported higher levels of constraints for the intraand interpersonal constraints: difficult to find others, too busy with family, no physical ability, dont know where to participate, dont know where to learn, not at ease in social situations, and physically unable to participate. They also scored significantly higher than men on social isolation and lack of skills dimensions. Men had higher scores on the cost of equipment and being too busy with work. Variables related to age, income, and family structure were also mediating factors that altered, reinforced or alleviated constraints for women, depending on the nature and type of constraint. Gender was not the only factor that created leisure constraints. In this section we discussed the review of the literature on motivations for recreation participation, activity and environment preference, and constraints to participation. The balance and negotiation theory by Jackson, Crawford and Godbey (1993) integrates these concepts. The purpose of this study is to examine the motivations, preferences and constraints for recreation of a rural Costa Rican community and to determine if these factors were related to the demographics.

PAGE 50

36 Constraints Amotivation Constraints Intrinsic Motivation Frequency of Participation Constraints Extrinsic Motivation Figure 2-1. The proposed interactions between constraints, motivations, and participation.

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction The research design is a cross-sectional, exploratory case study. There are several threats to validity in a one-shot case study, but care will be taken to minimize these weaknesses. History is a possible threat to this research design because the community being used is a frequently studied community. If a bad experience was had by any of the participants in the past with researchers, a biased opinion and unwillingness to participate could be the result. While it is possible, it is probably unlikely. This chapter discusses: Site description Pilot study Data collection Sampling procedures Selection of subjects Operationalization of constructs Analysis Description of the sample Site Description In the summer of 2002, the researcher participated in a pilot study in the Monteverde Zone of Costa Rica. The Zone is a rough geographical area that encompasses communities found within about a 15-Km (9 Miles) radius around the village of Monteverde (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Communities within the Zone include Los Llanos, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Santa Elena (the community with the greatest concentration of people). At the time of the study, the population for the Zone was approximately 3,000 residents. The majority of people making up the Zone live in the village of Santa Elena. Many of the residents are dairy farmers and produce milk for the 37

PAGE 52

38 locally run dairy plant, The Monteverde Cheese Factory. The Zone is sometimes referred to as the milk-shed of Costa Rica and it produces and markets several varieties of dairy products including cheese, milk and ice cream throughout the country. Tourism is growing rapidly in Costa Rica and is contributing to a healthy economy throughout the country. Over one million travelers visit Costa Rica each year, with sixty-percent of those travelers coming from the United States. The Zone is a tourist attraction in Costa Rica, famous for the cloud forest. In Spanish, Monteverde means green mountain. Monteverde is world famous for its role in creating the Monteverde Reserve Complex, a collection of private and public preserves protecting more than 100,000 acres of endangered tropical forest. The largest reserve is the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve, which was founded in 1972 due to the efforts of the Quakers, who decided they wanted to preserve one-third of their land in order to protect the watershed above Monteverde (Rachowiecki & Thompson, 2000). The Tropical Science Center, a Costa Rican non-profit association for education and scientific research, administers and manages the Reserve, along with a Monteverde staff. The Reserve rests atop the Cordillera de Tilaran extending down both slopes and including eight different ecological life zones. Currently, the biological reserve includes approximately 10,500 hectares. Lands have been purchased using donations from individuals and organizations worldwide. There is a visitor center and field station that includes simple laboratory facilities and dormitory-style lodging. It is called the Reserva Biolgica Bosque Nuboso Monteverde (Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve), and more land has been acquired over time with the help of organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Monteverde

PAGE 53

39 Reserve is a private enterprise that is not regulated by the government, and it relies on public donations. The second largest forest is the Bosque Eterno de los Nios (Childrens Eternal Forest). This is apart of the larger Monteverde Reserve and is managed by the Monteverde Conservation League, a non-profit association founded in 1986, dedicated to the preservation of the surrounding forest areas through environmental education, reforestation, land purchase, and other forms of protection. The League is a cooperative effort among strongly committed Costa Rican and North American biologists and landowners. Horseback riding and canopy walking tours and zip-line treks of the forest are popular tourist attractions in the area. There are more than thirty hotels available in the Zone, with new ones opening regularly (Rachowiecki & Thompson, 2000). Pilot Study The pilot study was a qualitative research study, in which the researcher conducted 25 structured interviews to determine the perceived recreational opportunities and the preferred recreational activities for the future. Participant observation, unstructured interviews, and structured interviews were all used in the pilot study. Building on that pilot study a follow-up questionnaire was developed to determine whether or not there was a relationship between the motivations, preferences and constraints of residents in the Zone and demographic variables. Data Collection In April of 2003, data were collected by the researcher who administered surveys to people as they entered and exited various locations throughout communities in the Zone in Costa Rica. Research was conducted in the form of intercept interviews or self-administered surveys. A Lecturer on the University of Florida campus translated the

PAGE 54

40 survey into Spanish. It was proof read and reviewed to ensure appropriate language. The option of taking the survey in English or Spanish was made available to participants. The survey consisted of three pages and was divided into four sections including motivations, activity and environment preferences, constraints, and demographics. The survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Before leaving for Costa Rica, the researched intended to allow respondents to read and fill-out surveys on their own to maximize time, but shortly after beginning the surveying process, the researcher found that when individuals were left on their own, they were not filling the surveys out completely. Therefore, the researcher decided to read the survey questions aloud and fill in their response. Over a three-week period, 343 completed surveys were collected. Seven surveys were not completed and were deducted from the total. A total of 350 surveys were handed out. One person refused to participate in the interview and survey process. Sampling Procedures The University of Florida Human Subject Institutional Review Board was used to approve the survey being used before leaving for Costa Rica. Informed consent was used to insure the safety of the individuals involved in the surveying process. The intent for use is in writing at the top of the survey and the researcher also informed the participants verbally aloud before beginning. The Spanish version of the survey was administered to people as they entered and exited various locations throughout the community. Three hundred and forty-three (N=343) completed surveys were collected over a three-week period. The Cheese Factory, Down-town plaza, Soccer Field and Health Clinic were locations that were surveyed more than once during the three-week period, other locations were only

PAGE 55

41 surveyed one time as to not survey the same people more than once. The downtown plaza consists of the Super market, mall and bus stop. Santa Elena is a central location for all four villages and houses the only super market and Catholic Church. This particular area is known as a meeting point for social interaction. On two occasions, the researcher approached people while going on a walk. The data collection schedule is listed in Table 3-1. The total number of surveys collected per location is listed in Table 3-2. A translator was present for some of the surveying. Selection of Subjects The studys population is made up of the residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. It was expected that adults would answer the questionnaire because they are interested in recreation and leisure time. A random sample was used to help eliminate the selection bias, every fifth person was surveyed who walked in or out of the survey venues. Operationalization of the Constructs Motivations Motivations were operationalized on a five-point Likert scale using Manfredo, Driver and Tarrants Recreation Experience Preference Scales (1996). There were 20 items which represented six constructs (Table 3-3). Preferences Preferences were operationalized using four questions. Question one was an open-ended question which read What do you do for fun in your free-time when you are not working. Question two was an also opened ended and read, If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located?

PAGE 56

42 Question three read What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Question four asked about preferences for the environment based on work by Cooksey et. al. (1983). The question was What environment would you prefer to participate in recreation in? Choices for the environment included: wilderness areas, la Cancha, school yard, gymnasium, home, national park, La Plaza and church. Constraints Constraints were operationalized on a five-point likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Constraints were conceptualized using Crawford, Jackson and Godbeys model of constraints. There were four items that represented interpersonal constraints, five items that represented interpersonal constraints and three items that were structural constraints (Table 3-4). Demographics Respondents were asked to indicate their age as an open-ended survey. Then, age was recoded into five groups, (1) 18-25, (2) 26-35, (3) 36-45, (4) 46-55 and (5) others over the age of 56. Gender was measured as a closed ended question with either male or female as the response. Education was a closed ended question that asked the respondent their highest level of education: elementary school, high school, university/college or other. The place of residence was measured by asking which of the following towns the respondent lived in: Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Los Llanos, or Monteverde. Marital status was measured as four groups: single, married, divorced or widowed. The frequency distribution indicated that divorced group represented 9% of the sample

PAGE 57

43 and widowed group represented 4% of the sample. Therefore these two categories were collapsed into one. Number of children in the household was an open-ended question. The range of the number of children was zero to nine, with the mode being zero (32%) followed by two (19%) and one (18%). Therefore, the decision was made to recode the number of children into no children or presence of children. Using the new recoded variables, life cycle was conceptualized as a combination of marital status and number of children. Computing a new variable resulted in five categories: married no children, single no children, married with children, single with children and divorced/widowed with children. Divorced/widowed without children was recoded as missing due to a small sample size (N=4). Analysis In order to describe the population, descriptive statistics of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance were run on the demographics: age, gender and income. A frequency count and percentage was run on the town in which the participant lived. Descriptive statistics in the form of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance were run on the motivations variables in order to identify each of the motivations for the participants. Factor Analysis was used to examine the validity of the motivation domains. After the index was created, internal reliability was determined using Cronbachs Alpha. An independent sample t-test or ANOVA was conducted to compare gender, family life cycle, age, residency and education with motivational domains. Scheffes post-hoc test were used to find where the differences lay along the variables. Descriptive statistics in the form of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance were run on the constraints variables in order to identify each of the constraints

PAGE 58

44 for the participants. Factor analysis was computed to validate the constraint domains. Internal reliability was examined using Cronbachs Alpha to determine if all of the variables in the index made up a valid index. Description of the Sample The demographic variables analyzed included gender, age, family life cycle (consisting of marital status, and number of children); education level and residency. The results are given in Table 3-5. Gender The respondent rate of male to female was fairly close in percentage. Approximately half the sample was male (54%) compared to 46% (157 actual respondents) who were female. One limitation of this study was the fact that often, the potential female respondents replied that they would, in fact, fill out and then preceded to hand it to their husbands and asked them to do it. Age The mean age of respondents was 34 years old with a range from 18 to 75 years of age. Age group categories were created. Over one-fourth of the sample were between the ages of 18 and 26, 109 respondents represented the largest percentage of ages between 25 and 35 years old (32%), 22% were between the ages of 36 and 45. Respondents between the ages of 46 and 55 made up 9% of the sample, and the oldest age group, 56+, represented 8% of respondents. A breakdown of the adults surveyed is shown in Table 3-6. Family Life Cycle Family life cycle consisted of both marital status and the presence of children. Categories consisted of Married without children 4%, Single without children 27%,

PAGE 59

45 Married with children 45%, Single with children 11%, and Divorced/Widow with children 12%. The category of Divorced/Widow without children was removed because it was too small (N=4). Education Level Three hundred forty people reported having some education. Almost thirty percent of respondents had an elementary education, more than half of all respondents reported having a high school education (51%), while 16% of respondents had a college education, and 3% (11 actual responses) had some other degree. Some other degree consisted of technical or professional degrees. Residency/Town and How Long The largest town in the Monteverde Zone is Santa Elena. The majority of respondents were from Santa Elena at 42%, 25% of respondents reside in Cerro Plano, 18% of respondents were from Los Llanos, and 14% of respondents live in Monteverde. The mean amount of time respondents have lived in the Zone was 23 years. Time ranged from a few months to as long as 67 years.

PAGE 60

46 Figure 3-1. Map of Costa Rica. *map courtesy of Costa Rica Travel Network, 2003. Note: The Monteverde Zone is outlined in black box

PAGE 61

47 Figure 3-2. The Monteverde Zone: Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Cerro Plano and Monteverde *Map courtesy of Monteverde Info, 2003.

PAGE 62

48 Table 3-1 Data Collection Schedule Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunda y Total Week 1 Plaza-Mall (10) Conservation League(14) Soccer Field (6) Cheese Factory (16) Butterfly Garden(5) Soccer Field (20) Church (20) 124 PlazaGrocery(15) Post Office (8) CASEM(10) Week 2 Cheese Factory(19) Health Clinic(15) Soccer Field (18) Chunches Bookstore(5) Jungle Groove(5) Plaza-Bus(22) Church (21) 118 Moto Shop (4) Morphos Restaurant (6) Walking(3) Sky Trek (5) Week 3 OFF Paradise Caf(5) Cloud Forest(5) Plaza-Mall(20) Plaza-Bank(19) Soccer Field(15) OFF 101 Art Center(5) CASEM(8) Walking(4) Health Clinic (15) Total 48 50 37 53 54 55 46 343 Table 3-2. Data Collection Totals Location Number of Surveys Collected (N) Soccer Field-La Cancha 59 CASEM 18 Conservation League 14 Health Clinic 30 Moto Shop 4 Cheese Factory 35 PlazaMall 30 PlazaGrocery Store 15 PlazaBus Station 22 PlazaBank 19 Catholic Church 41 Restaurants-Morphos Cafe/Jungle Groove Caf/Paradise Cafe 16 Butterfly Garden/Cloud Forest 10 Walking 7 Post Office 8 Art Center/Chunches Book Store 10 Sky Trek 5 Total 343

PAGE 63

49 Table 3-3. Operationalization of Motivation constructs Label English Version Spanish Version Excitement Excite To experience excitement Para experimentar entusiasmo Fastpace To experience the fast paced nature of things Para experimentar la naturaleza rapidamente medida de cosas Pleasure To experience pleasure Para sentir placer Relax/Escape Tension To relieve my tension Para liberar o reducir alguna tensin Beaway To get away from other people Para estar lejos de otra gente Restmind To rest my mind Para descansar su mente Demands To escape the demands of everyday life Para huir de las demandas de la vida Alone To be alone Nature Scenery To enjoy the scenery Para ver la belleza escenica Beinnature To be in nature Para estar en la naturaleza Smellsoun To smell the sounds of nature Para gozar los olores y los sonidos de la naturaleza People New people To meet new people Para hablar con gente nueva Family To be with my family Para estar con su familia Friends To be with my friends Para estar con sus amigos Learn Develop To develop new skills Para desarrollar mi conocimiento de informacin Learn To learn more about nature Para aprender ms acerca de la naturaleza Newdiff To do new and different things Para tener experiencias nuevas y diferentes Physical Fitness Active To be active Para estar activo Exercise To exercise Para ser ejercicio fsico Feelgood To feel good Para sentirse bien

PAGE 64

50 Table 3-4. Operationalization of Constraints Constructs Label English Version Spanish Version Interpersonal Ability I dont have the ability to participate No tengo las habilidades necesarias para participar Timid I am too timid to participate Soy demasiado/a timido/a para participar en una nueva actividad Newact New activities make me uncomfortable Las nuevas actividades me hacen sentir inquieto/a Interest I am not interested in the recreation available in this community No me interesan las actividades de recreacon de mi comunidad Noimport Recreation is not important El recreo no es importante Intrapersonal Frtime My friends dont have the time Mis amistades no tienen tiempo Frimport My friends dont think it is important Mis amistades no aprecian tomar parte en las actividades de recreacin Nofriend I have no friends to participate with No tengo a nadie que quiera participar conmigo Toofar It is too far away for my friends to participate Mis amistades viven muy lejos para comenzar una actividad nueva conmigo Structural Time I dont have the time No tengo suficiente tiempo Transport I dont have transportation to get there No tengo transporte Cost Recreation is too expensive La recreacon cuesta demasiado

PAGE 65

51 Table 3-5. Demographic Profile for the Monteverde Zone Socio-Demographic Characteristics Frequency Valid Percent Gender (N=341) Male 184 54 Female 157 46 Age Groups (N=341) 18-26 96 28 25-35 109 32 36-45 75 22 46-55 32 9 55+ 29 8 Family Life Cycle (N=336) Married No Children 14 4 Single No Children 92 27 Married With Children 151 45 Single With Children 37 11 Divorced/Widow With Children 42 12 Education Level (N=340) Elementary 99 29 High School 174 51 College 56 16 Other Degree 11 3 Town (N=339) Santa Elena 143 42 Cerro Plano 86 25 Monteverde 37 14 Los Llanos 63 18 Table 3-6. Age of Respondents Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation Minimum Maximum Age of participants surveyed 34 31 18 12.6 18 75 *(N=341)

PAGE 66

CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the recreation motivations, preferences and constraints of the citizens living in the Monteverde Zone, a rural Costa Rican community. The Zone relies heavily on tourism dollars and therefore caters most of its recreation in the area to meeting the needs of travelers. This chapter contains the analysis of the data collected during the study. The chapter has been divided into the following sections: Analysis of Motivations Analysis of Preferences Analysis of Constraints Summary Analysis of Motivations The motivation statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and respondents were asked to rate how the given statements made them feel. The motivational statements which respondents indicated that they agreed were "not at all important" included: "to be away from other people" (M= 2.9), "to be alone (M= 3.1), and to experience excitement (M=3.7). The motivational statements which respondents indicated that they agreed were "extremely important" included: "to feel good" (M= 4.3), "to experience new and different things (M=4.3), and "to be with my friends" (M= 4.4). The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-1. 52

PAGE 67

53 The frequency of the motivational statements rated by the respondents are shown in Table 4-2 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating applied by the respondents. Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for Recreation? Analysis of Motivational Statements The motivation statements were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, v11.5 Factor analysis has been recognized as an accepted and useful test for grouping multiple variables together into factors to identify commonality. Varimax rotation was included because it explained the largest degree of variance among the multiple variables, and also allowed for more even distribution of the variables into the factors that resulted. According to Jeffreys, Massoni and Odonnell (1997), varimax rotation is the best way of determining the appropriate number of common factors to retain based on an analysis of the eigenvalues of the adjusted correlation matrix. The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) was also included to determine if indeed factor analysis was the most appropriate method of analysis for the research questions pertaining to motivations. According to Jeffreys, Massoni and Odonnell (1997), the KMO was an index, which compared the magnitudes of the observed correlation coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial correlation coefficients. A small KMO (less than 0.5) suggests that perhaps a factor analysis is not a suitable approach, whereas a higher value indicates the appropriateness of factor analysis. The KMO found in these questions was 0.9; which proved factor analysis was an appropriate test for these questions.

PAGE 68

54 The final outcomes of the factor analysis resulted in four factors (or domains) with Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained 47.9% of the total variance. Grounded in prior research, items with factor loading scores of at least 0.4 were drawn for each factor, therefore, seventeen motivation statements loaded into one of four factors. The results of this factor analysis are shown in Table 4-3. Factor 1Relax The factor analysis indicated that "Relax" was one factor. The motivation statements included in this factor were "to get away from the demands of life," "to release or reduce built up tension," "to develop my knowledge," "to feel pleasure," "to relax my mind," "to feel good." The researcher took out the statement "to be with my family," (.4) because it was double loaded. Only statements at .4 or higher were kept. The Relax factor had a mean of 4.3 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.7 after removing the above dropped factor. Factor 2Nature The second factor, "Nature," included four motivation statements: "to enjoy the smells and sounds of nature, "to be in nature," "to look at beautiful scenery," and "to learn more about nature." Factor 2 had a factor mean of 3.9 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.72, which showed this factor is also reliable. This factor had an Eigenvalues of 2.4 and accounted for 12.1% of the variance. Factor 3Active The third factor contained many items pertaining to being active including: "to get physical exercise," "to experience the fast paced nature of things," "to experience excitement," "to talk to new people," and "to be active." This factor had a mean of 3.9

PAGE 69

55 and a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.61, which showed okay reliability. The Eigenvalues for this factor was 1.4 and it accounted for 7.3% of variance. Factor 4Alone/Away The fourth factor included: "to be alone," and "to get away from other people." This factor had a mean of 3.0 and a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.69, which showed good reliability. The Eigenvalues for this factor was 1.3 and it accounted for the remaining 6.6% of variance. What Is the Relationship between Age and Motivations? In order to analyze the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and motivations for recreation participation, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was implemented. The results indicated that none of the socio-demographic characteristics other than education were significantly related to the types of motivations for participation by members of the Monteverde Zone. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 report the results of analysis of variance between motivations and age. Age groups were condensed into five categories, representing five different generations. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c) 36-45, (d) 46-55, and (e) 55+. The results suggested there were not significant relationships between age groups and motivations. What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Motivation? Tables 4-6 and 4-7 present the results of the analysis of variance for the family life cycle variable and motivation. Family life cycle included five categories: (a) Married with no children, (b) Single with no children, (c) Married with children, (d) Single with children, (e) Divorced/Widow with children. On the original questionnaire, Divorced or Widowed were individual choices, but were later condensed into one category because

PAGE 70

56 the number of responses were too small. The Divorced/Widow without children was later removed, because of a small response rate. Thirty-one out of 343 (9 %) respondents reported being divorced, while fifteen of all respondents (4 %) reported being a widower. No significant differences were determined between family life cycle and motivation. What Is the Relationship between Education level and Motivation? Tables 4-8 and 4-9 present the results of the ANOVA procedure for motivations and education level. Respondents were asked to report their highest level of education completed. Choices consisted of (a) Elementary, (b) High School, (c) College, or (d) Other degree. The Other choice was made available for those who have more than a College education, or some type of technical/vocational trade school education. There were significantly different perceptions of the importance of Factor 2, Nature, between College educated respondents, and those reporting having an Other degree. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than those indicating they had some other type of education, like technical school. What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Motivation? Tables 4-10 and 4-11 present the results of the analysis of variance for the residency variable and motivation. Residency was indicated by the town in the Monteverde Zone where the respondent lived. Choices consisted of Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Los Llanos. Residents living in Santa Elena represented the largest percentage (42 %) of respondents. No significant differences were determined between residency and motivation.

PAGE 71

57 What Is the Relationship between Gender and Motivation? Tables 4-12 and 4-13present the results of the analysis of variance for the gender socio-demographic variable and motivation. Males represented a slightly larger percent of the sample (54%). No significant differences were determined between gender and motivation. Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for Recreation? The preferences section consisted of three open-ended questions: (1) "What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not have to work?" (2) If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? and (3) What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Open-ended questions were recoded into meaningful categories and frequencies were run on the categories. Any items with a frequency less than 10 were recoded into existing categories or put in the "Other" category. The Other category consisted of items such as: playing computer/video games and using the Internet, playing cards, meditation and arts and crafts. Respondents were asked to list their top three choices. The rankings of choices were the same in all three categories, therefore; only the first response was reported. Frequency counts for the three open-ended questions are described in tables 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16. Table 4-14 presents the results of descriptive statistics frequency counts for Preference question 1: What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work? Participating in sports activities was the highest response, reported by those who were 18-25, 26-35; high school educated respondents; those who were married no

PAGE 72

58 children, single no children, and single with children; and males. The second most frequent response was Other activities. Table 4-15 presents the results of descriptive statistics for Question 2: If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? The Salon/Bullring in Cerro Plano was the most frequently given response for those 18-25, 26-35, 46-55, and 56+. In addition, elementary and high school educated respondents; respondents who were single no children, married with children, and divorced/widowed with children; respondents living in Cerro Plano; and females were more likely to indicate that Saln/Bullring was the preferred location to construct a recreation center. The second most common response was the Sports Field (La Cancha). Table 4-16 presents the results of descriptive statistics for Question 3: What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Sports activities were the most frequently given responses for all age groups except 56+; all education levels (except College educated respondents); all categories of the family life cycle; and males. The response with the second highest frequency was cultural activities these respondents tended to be those living in Monteverde, college educated, and older than 56 years of age. Females chose Other activities, including a farmers market and park. The second highest response for females was cultural activities. The preferences section also included a fourth question: What environment would you prefer to participate in recreation in? The preference choices were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and respondents were asked to rate how the given options made them feel. Environmental

PAGE 73

59 choices included: wilderness areas, la Cancha, school yard, gymnasium, home, national park, La Plaza and church. Table 4-17 shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between environment preferences of the respondents by age group. The results indicated that there were some significant relationships between some of the environment preferences and respondents by age group. Tables 4-17 and 4-18 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance between environment preferences and age groups. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Significant differences were found between some age groups and respondents environment preference. Respondents who were 56 years of age or older were significantly different than 26-35 and 36-45 year olds. Older respondents were less likely to prefer sports fields as their environment choice. The 56+ age group were less likely to indicate sports field as their preferred recreational environment. Respondents who are 18-25 years of age were significantly different from 46-55 and 56+ year olds in their preference for church as their environment choice. The youngest group (18-25) year olds were less likely to prefer church as an environment for recreation. Those in the 56+ age group were also significantly different than 18-25 and 26-35 year olds in their preference for bars and discos. Those respondents in the 26-35 age group were the most likely to chose bars and discos for their recreation environment, while 56+ were less likely to chose bars and discos. Tables 4-19and 4-20 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance between environment preferences and family life cycle. Responses were measured on a

PAGE 74

60 scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Significant differences were found between some family life cycle groups and respondents environment preference. Respondents who were married with no children are significantly different than those who are single no children, married with children, single with children and divorced/widowed with children when preferring the forest as their environment choice. Respondents who were married with no children are also significantly different than those who were single with children and divorced/widowed with children when choosing the sports field as their environment preference. Single respondents with children were most likely to choose the sports field as their recreation environment preference. Respondents who are single with no children are significantly different than those who were married with children and divorced/widowed with children. Divorced/widowed respondents with children were most likely to choose church for their recreation environment. Tables 4-21 and 4-22 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance between environment preferences and education level. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Significant differences were found between some education levels and respondents environment preference. Those with an Elementary, High School and College education indicated more preference for recreation at a sports field, whereas those with an Other degree indicated a lower preference for a sports field. Those with a High school education indicated more preference for the church environment, whereas those with a College degree or Elementary education indicated less preference for recreation in the church.

PAGE 75

61 Tables 4-23 and 4-24 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance between environment preferences and residency (town). Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Significant differences were found between only one town and respondents environment preference. Respondents from Monteverde are significantly different from respondents from Santa Elena and Los Llanos when indicating sports field as their environment preference. Respondents living in Los Llanos were most likely to choose sports field as their recreation environment preference. Tables 4-25 and 4-26 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance between environment preferences and gender. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to Recreation? The constraints statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale ranged from Strongly Agree, to Strongly Disagree, and respondents were asked to rate how the given statements made them feel. The constraint statements which respondents indicated that they agreed most with included: recreation is too expensive, I do not have enough time, and I do not have transportation. The constraints statements which respondents indicated that they least agreed with included: recreation is not important, I do not have enough skill to participate in a new activity, and the people I know live too far away to start a new activity with me. The means and standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-27. The most agreed with

PAGE 76

62 statement was recreation is too expensive, while the least agreed with statement was recreation is not important. A factor analysis was run on the constraints factors, but the results were not clean (no validity to the emerging factors), so reliability was run based on the theoretical domains. After running reliability, Factor 3 (Structural) was omitted because its Cronbach Alpha score was less than .50 The frequency of constraints statements rated by the respondents are shown in Table 4-28 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the most common rating applied by the respondents. Analysis of Constraints The following scales were determined by running reliability analyses in SPSS 11.5 (Table 4-29). Intrapersonal (Intra) The constraints statements included in this factor were "recreation is not important to me," "I am too shy to start a new activity," "I do not have enough skill to start a new activity," "new activities make me feel uncomfortable," and "I am not interested in the recreation activities available in this community." The Intrapersonal constraint scale had a mean of 2.9 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.74. Interpersonal (Inter) The constraints statements included in this factor were "I do not have anyone to participate with me," "the people I know usually do not have time to start a new recreation activity with me," "the people I know live too far away to start a new activity

PAGE 77

63 with me," and "my friends do not like to participate in recreation." The Interpersonal constraint scale had a mean of 3.3 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.77. What Is the Relationship between Age and Constraints? Table 4-30 and 4-31 report the results of one-way analysis of variance between intrapersonal, interpersonal and individual structural constraint statements and age groups. The results suggested there were significant relationships between age groups and constraints. Age groups were condensed into five categories, representing five different age groups. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c) 36-45, (d) 46-55, and (e) 55+. The constraints statements were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Thus, the higher the mean score, the less the respondents agreed with the constraint statement. The 18-25 age group reported higher responses than all other age groups in both constraint factors. The 26-35 age group responded significantly different from age groups 18-25, 36-45, and 55+ in both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Younger people indicated more intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Table 4-32 reports the results of one-way analysis of variance between structural constraint statements and age groups. Age groups were condensed into five categories, representing five different age groups. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c) 36-45, (d) 46-55, and (e) 55+. The constraints statements were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Thus, the higher the mean score, the less the respondents agreed with the constraint statement. With regards to structural constraints, all three individual structural constraints indicated significant differences (time, transportation and cost). With regards to time, younger individuals were less inclined to indicate time, transportation and cost constraints. Whereas, middle

PAGE 78

64 aged (or family baring ages) were more likely to indicate time constraints, older individuals (those 46+ years) were more likely to indicate cost constraints and transportation constraints. What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Constraints? Tables 4-33 and 4-34 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance for the family life cycle variable and constraints. Family life cycle consisted of (a) Married with no children, (b) Single with no children, (c) Married with children, (d) Single with children, (e) Divorced/Widow with children. Table 4-34 presents significant differences between intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints to recreation participation and family life cycle. Significant differences were found between several family life cycle groups and constraints to recreation participation. Respondents who were married with children were significantly different from those who are married with no children, single with no children and single with children when indicating the presence of intrapersonal constraints. Respondents who were married with children were most likely to express intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Respondents who were married with no children were least likely to express intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Also, respondents who were divorced/widowed with children were significantly different than those who were single with children. Divorced/widow with children respondents indicated less intrapersonal constraints than single respondents with no children. With regards to interpersonal constraints, single with children were significantly different than divorced/widow with children. Divorced/widow with children expressed less interpersonal constraints than singles.

PAGE 79

65 Table 4-35 presents the one-way analysis of variance for the family life cycle variable and structural constraints. Results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated significant differences in all three individual structural constraints. Findings suggested that married individuals with no children were less constrained by time, transportation and cost. Whereas, those family life cycle stages where individuals indicated they were single or married with children were more likely to indicate all three types of structural constraints. What Is the Relationship between Education level and Constraints? Tables 4-36 and 4-37 present the results of the analysis of variance for the education level socio-demographic variable and intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints to recreation participation. Respondents were asked to report their highest level of education completed. Choices consisted of (a) Elementary, (b) High School, (c) College, or (d) Other degree. Table 4-37 presents significant differences between constraints to recreation participation and education level. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Respondents with an Elementary education were significantly different than those with a College education. College educated respondents were less likely to report the presence of both intra and interpersonal constraints, while those respondents with an elementary education expressed more intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Table 4-38 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the education level socio-demographic variable and structural constraints to recreation participation. Results indicated only one significant difference between education and structural constraints and

PAGE 80

66 that was with regards to the cost constraint. Individuals with elementary levels of education indicated less cost constraints than those with other types of degrees. What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Constraints? Tables 4-39 and 4-40 present the results of the analysis of variance for the Residency variable and intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Residency consisted of Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Los Llanos. Residents living in Santa Elena represented the largest percentage (42 %) of respondents. Table 4-40 presents significant differences between constraints to recreation participation and education level. Some significant differences were determined between constraints and residency. Respondents from Cerro Plano were significantly different from respondents from Los Llanos when indicating the presence of interpersonal constraints. Cerro Plano residents were more likely to report the presence of interpersonal constraints. Table 4-41 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the Residency variable and structural constraints. With regards to residency, all three structural constraints indicated significant differences. Those living in Los Llanos were more likely to indicate more cost, transportation and time constraints than residents living in any of the other communities. What Is the Relationship between Gender and Constraints? Tables 4-42 and 4-43 present the results of the t-test for the Gender variable and constraints. Significant differences were found between gender and participation constraints, with females reporting slightly higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints than males. Males reported more neutral responses.

PAGE 81

67 Table 4-44 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the gender variable and structural constraints. Only transportation constraints indicated significant differences by gender. Females were more likely to indicate more transportation constraints than males. Summary Through statistical analysis, there were some expected outcomes that are consistent with previous studies in the fields of motivations, preferences and constraints to leisure participation. Motivation The only significant difference found for motivations for recreation participation were of the perceptions of the importance of Factor 2, Nature, between College educated respondents, and those reporting having an Other degree. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than those indicating they had some other type of education, such as a trade or technical school. This is consistent with previous research, which has found that the motivation for nature is related to higher education levels. Preferences When asked, What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work? the majority of people ages 18-35, who have a high school education, who are single with and without children and married without children, and male chose participating in sports as their recreation preference. Whereas, people who were older than 56 years of age prefer to walk in their free time. Women between the ages of 36-55, with an elementary or other degree education prefer social activities. People 46 years of age or older, with

PAGE 82

68 elementary, college or other degree education, who were married or divorced/widowed with children prefer other activities such as computers or meditation (Table 4-45). When asked If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? the salon/bullring was the most popular response for both younger and older females ages 18-35 and 46-56+, with an elementary and high school education, who were single without children, married and divorced/widowed with children, living in Cerro Plano. The sports field was the most popular response for males aged 36-45, with an other degree education, who were single with children and living in either Santa Elena or Los Llanos. The CASEM was a popular response for older females aged 56+, living in Monteverde (Table 4-46). When asked What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Sports activities were the most popular response for all males younger than 56 years of age, elementary, high school or other degree educated living in Santa Elena, Cerro Plano and Los Llanos. Cultural activities were a popular response for females older than 56 years of age, with a college education, living in Monteverde. Other activities, including a farmers market or a park, were most popular for females ages 36-45 and older than 56 years of age (Table 4-47). Environmental Preference Participating in recreational activities in the forest was most likely a response for males between the ages of 25-35 and older than 56 years of age, people who are single with children and/or divorced/widowed with children, people living in Santa Elena and Los Llanos. While recreating at the sports field (la cancha) was important to the majority of respondents. Males and females who were 25-45 years old, single with children, and had a high school education, prefer to participate in recreation at the sports field. Home

PAGE 83

69 is a popular environment for recreation for females older than 45 years of age, divorced/widowed with children, and college educated. While both males and females prefer participating in recreation downtown, those who were single with children, with a high school education and living in Cerro Plano and Los Llanos had more preference for downtown. Church was popular for people ages 45-55. Bars and discos were popular environments for males ages 25-35, and singles with children (Table 4-48). Constraints People who were 18-25 years old, who were married without children, with a college or other degree education, living in Cerro Plano reported the highest responses for the presence of both intra and interpersonal constraints. Females reported more intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints (Table 4-49).

PAGE 84

70 Table 4-1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Motivation Items Motivation Items Mean Standard Deviation To be away from other people 2.9 1.2 To be alone 3.1 1.2 To experience excitement 3.7 .9 To learn more about nature 3.8 .8 To be in nature 3.9 .8 To look at beautiful scenery 4.0 .8 To talk to new people 4.0 .8 To enjoy the smells and sights of nature 4.0 .8 To get physical exercise 4.1 .9 To have pleasure 4.2 .7 To develop my knowledge 4.2 .7 To release or reduce built up tension 4.2 .7 To get away from the demands of life 4.2 .9 To be active 4.3 .7 To be with my family 4.3 .8 To relax my mind 4.3 .7 To feel good 4.3 .7 To experience new and different things 4.3 .7 To be with my friends 4.4 .7 Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses. Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"

PAGE 85

71 Table 4-2. Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages) Motivation Items 1 Not at all Important 2 Somewhat Important 3 No Opinion 4 Very Important 5 Extremely Important To experience excitement 0.3 14.6 11.4 55.7 16.9 To release or reduce built up tension 0.0 3.2 3.2 61.5 31.5 To look at beautiful scenery 0.6 6.1 6.7 64.7 20.7 To talk to new people 0.6 8.5 5.8 59.2 25.1 To develop my knowledge of information 0.3 3.5 5.2 56.3 34.1 To be active 0.6 3.2 3.8 52.5 39.7 To be away from other people 9.6 34.1 19.5 25.4 9.0 To experience the fast paced nature of things 2.0 15.2 26.2 41.7 14.3 To relax my mind 0.3 2.0 4.7 53.6 38.8 To be in nature 0.6 7.6 6.1 68.2 17.2 To be with my family 0.6 4.4 5.0 46.1 43.7 To experience new and different things 0.9 1.7 3.2 52.5 40.8 To get exercise 1.2 5.5 4.7 62.1 26.2 To feel good 0.0 2.6 6.7 47.8 42.0 To feel pleasure 0.3 4.1 6.4 57.1 31.2 To get away from the demands of life 1.5 4.4 5.8 46.9 40.8 To enjoy the smells and sights of nature 0.6 6.7 6.1 62.7 23.6 To be with friends 0.0 2.6 2.9 45.8 48.4 To learn more about nature 0.9 10.8 9.6 64.1 14.3 To be alone 11.7 26.5 12.2 38.2 10.5 Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses. Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group.

PAGE 86

72 Table 4-3. Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements Motivation Statements Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 1-Relax & Enjoy To get away from the demands of life. 0.7 -0.1 0.0 0.2 To release or reduce built up tension 0.7 0.1 0.19 0.1 To develop my knowledge 0.6 0.3 -0.0 -0.0 To feel pleasure 0.5 0.0 0.4 -0.1 To relax my mind 0.5 0.2 -0.1 -0.2 To feel good 0.5 0.0 0.3 -0.3 Factor 2Nature To enjoy the sights and smells of nature 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 To be in nature 0.1 0.7 0.1 -0.0 To look at beautiful scenery 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 To learn more about nature 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 Factor 3Active To get physical exercise 0.1 0.3 0.6 -0.2 To experience the fast paced nature of things -0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3 To experience excitement 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 To talk to new people 0.1 0.4 0.5 -0.1 To be active 0.4 0.1 0.4 -0.3 Factor 4Alone or Away To be alone -0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8 To be away from other people -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 Eigenvalues 4.4 2.4 1.4 1.3 Cronbach Alpha 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 Factor Means 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.0 Percentage of variance explained 21.9 12.1 7.3 6.6 Cumulative variance explained 21.9 34.1 41.3 47.9

PAGE 87

73 Table 4-4. ANOVA for Motivations by Age Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Relax Between SS 4 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5 Within SS 324 56.7 0.2 2. Nature Between SS 4 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.3 Within SS 329 110.8 0.3 3. Active Between SS 4 1.2 0.3 1.0 0.4 Within SS 327 93.8 0.3 4. Alone Between SS 4 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.7 Within SS 327 364.5 1.1 Table 4-5. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Age Groups Factor 1-Relax Factor 2Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4Alone M SD M SD M SD M SD 18-25 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 4.0 0.6 2.9 1.1 26-35 4.2 0.4 4.0 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.19 1.0 36-45 4.2 0.5 3.8 0.6 3.8 0.6 3.0 1.0 46-55 4.2 0.4 4.0 0.4 3.9 0.5 3.0 1.1 56+ 4.3 0.3 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 2.8 1.2 Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important" Table 4-6. ANOVA for Motivations by Family Life Cycle Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Relax Between SS 4 1.1 0.3 1.6 0.2 Within SS 319 55.0 0.2 2. Nature Between SS 4 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 Within SS 324 111.9 0.3 3. Active Between SS 4 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.2 Within SS 323 92.5 0.3 4. Alone Between SS 4 9.3 2.3 2.1 0.1 Within SS 322 351.2 1.1

PAGE 88

74 Table 4-7. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Family Life Cycle Family Life Cycle Factor 1-Relax Factor 2Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4Alone M SD M SD M SD M SD Married No Child 4.0 0.5 3.8 0.9 3.9 0.6 3.2 1.2 Single No Child 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.6 4.0 0.5 3.0 1.0 Married W/ Child 4.3 0.4 4.0 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.1 1.0 Single W/ Child 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 4.1 0.5 2.6 1.1 Divorced/Widowed With Children 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 3.8 0.6 2.9 1.1 Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important" Table 4-8. ANOVA for Motivations by Education Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Relax Between SS 3 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.6 Within SS 324 56.5 0.2 2. Nature Between SS 3 3.1 1.1 3.1 0.0 Within SS 329 110.3 0.3 3. Active Between SS 3 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0 Within SS 327 94.7 0.3 4. Alone Between SS 3 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 Within SS 327 362.9 1.1 Table 4-9. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Education Education Factor 1-Relax Factor 2Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4Alone M SD M SD M SD M SD Elementary 4.2 0.4 3.9 0.4 3.9 0.6 3.0 1.0 High School 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.6 3.9 0.5 2.9 1.0 College 4.2 0.5 4.1 a 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.2 1.1 Other Degree 4.3 0.5 3.5 b 1.0 3.9 0.9 3.2 1.2 Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, with the Nature dimension, those with a "College Degree" significantly differ from those with an "Other Degree."

PAGE 89

75 Table 4-10. ANOVA for Motivations by Residency (Town) Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Relax Between SS 3 0.5 0.2 1.0. 0.4 Within SS 323 56.2 0.2 2. Nature Between SS 3 2.5 0.8 2.5 0.1 Within SS 329 109.8 0.3 3. Active Between SS 3 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.3 Within SS 326 93.0 0.3 4. Alone Between SS 3 7.8 2.6 2.4 0.1 Within SS 326 357.9 1.1 Table 4-11. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Motivations and Residency (Town) Education Factor 1-Relax Factor 2Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4Alone M SD M SD M SD M SD Santa Elena 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.5 4.0 0.5 2.9 1.1 Cerro Plano 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 3.9 0.6 2.9 1.0 Monteverde 4.3 0.4 4.1 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.4 1.0 Los Llanos 4.2 0.4 3.8 0.6 3.8 0.6 3.0 1.1 Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"

PAGE 90

76 Table 4-12. Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender and Motivations Factors Number Mean Standard Deviation Factor 1Social Males 179 4.3 0.0 Females 150 4.4 0.0 Factor 2Nature Males 180 3.9 0.0 Females 154 4.0 0.0 Factor 3Active Males 177 4.0 0.0 Females 155 3.9 0.0 Factor 4Alone Males 178 3.0 0.1 Females 154 3.0 0.1 Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important" Table 4-13. Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Motivations Factors t df Sig. (2 tailed) Factor 1Social -0.0 327 1.0 Factor 2Nature -1.1 332 0.3 Factor 3Active 1.5 330 0.1 Factor 4Alone -0.6 330 0.5 Equal variances assumed.

PAGE 91

77 Table 4-14. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 1:What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work? Group Sports TV/ Music Social Read/ Study Travel Bars/Clubs Drink/Dance % No Answer Walk Leave/ Other % % % % % % % % Age* 18-25 3 46 12 0 6 7 5 8 13 26-35 1 28 6 8 16 10 3 11 17 36-45 1 16 12 9 21 7 1 11 21 46-55 0 6 19 19 22 6 6 0 22 56+ 0 0 10 31 7 7 0 3 41 Education* Elementary 1 16 11 13 17 5 4 7 25 High School 2 35 12 6 14 5 2 7 15 College 0 18 7 13 7 21 7 7 20 Other Degree 0 11 0 0 18 18 0 18 18 FLC* Married No Children 7 43 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 Single No Children 2 35 10 5 8 12 5 11 12 Married With Children 1 20 12 10 19 18 2 5 24 Single With Children 0 43 3 3 14 0 5 16 11 Divorced/Widow With Children 2 10 19 19 12 7 2 12 26 Town Santa Elena 1 27 15 7 10 7 4 13 17 Cerro Plano 1 33 12 8 20 4 2 2 19 Monteverde 2 9 4 19 11 15 2 2 36 Los Llanos 3 27 5 8 19 10 5 11 13 Gender* Male 3 41 10 7 5 9 3 8 17 Female 0 9 11 12 24 7 3 10 10 Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group. *Significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 92

78 Table 4-15. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 2: If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? Group No Answer Saln/ Bullring Sports Field CASEM Downtown/ Center Santa Elena Cerro Plano Other Don't Know Age % % % % % % % % % 18-25 15 20 15 7 9 10 4 13 7 26-35 13 23 22 5 7 9 1 17 3 36-45 13 12 20 8 12 11 3 17 3 46-55 13 25 6 9 6 22 0 9 9 56+ 3 28 0 24 10 7 7 14 7 Education Elementary 14 19 14 8 10 10 4 11 9 High School 12 24 18 6 8 12 2 14 3 College 13 13 11 13 13 11 2 23 4 Other Degree 18 9 27 18 9 0 0 18 0 FLC Married No Children 36 7 7 7 14 7 7 14 0 Single No Children 14 19 13 5 13 13 2 15 5 Married With Children 9 24 19 9 9 9 2 16 5 Single With Children 11 16 32 5 3 11 3 11 8 Divorced/Widow With Children 19 21 5 12 10 14 5 12 2 Town* Santa Elena 17 12 23 0 14 15 0 14 5 Cerro Plano 5 48 8 11 6 2 8 7 6 Monteverde 9 13 0 40 0 0 4 28 6 Los Llanos 16 8 25 0 11 21 0 16 3 Gender* Male 16 6 21 5 7 9 4 15 5 Female 8 24 11 12 12 12 1 15 5 Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group. Significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 93

Table 4-16. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 3: What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? 79 Group No Answer Sports Movie Cultural Theater Swimming Pool Computer/ Internet Library Concerts/ Dances Meeting Place Other Age* % % % % % % % % % % 18-25 7 36 5 12 9 4 1 9 3 14 26-35 3 29 8 19 5 5 7 6 2 17 36-45 1 30 5 11 1 1 8 7 5 29 46-55 0 22 9 13 0 3 6 13 13 22 56+ 0 7 10 24 3 3 3 10 14 24 Education* Elementary 1 29 8 12 4 3 3 7 11 21 High School 4 32 6 12 5 4 4 9 3 21 College 6 15 11 25 5 15 15 6 2 11 Other Degree 0 46 0 18 0 0 0 9 0 27 FLC* Married No Children 21 29 14 0 7 0 0 14 0 14 Single No Children 4 31 8 17 6 7 4 8 3 12 Married With Children 1 27 7 13 4 1 8 7 9 23 Single With Children 3 35 5 19 8 5 0 3 0 22 Divorced/ Widow With Children 5 26 7 14 0 5 5 12 0 26 Town* Santa Elena 2 34 9 12 5 4 6 6 6 16 Cerro Plano 2 29 6 16 5 1 4 13 4 21 Monteverde 4 13 6 32 2 2 9 4 6 21 Los Llanos 5 30 5 8 3 6 5 8 6 25 Gender* Male 4 38 8 10 3 4 5 6 4 18 Female 2 19 6 21 6 3 6 9 7 22 Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group. Significant at the 0.05 level

PAGE 94

80 Table 4-17. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Age Group Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Forest Between SS 4 5.4 1.3 1.4 0.2 Within SS 102 99.5 1.0 2. Sports Field Between SS 4 10.5 2.6 3.3 0.0 Within SS 102 82.0 0.8 3. School Between SS 4 3.9 1.0 0.8 0.6 Within SS 102 131.3 1.3 4. Gym Between SS 4 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.4 Within SS 102 112.7 1.11 5. Home Between SS 4 13.0 3.2 3.8 0.0 Within SS 102 87.6 0.9 6. Nat Park Between SS 4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9 Within SS 102 75.0 0.7 7. Downtown Between SS 4 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.9 Within SS 102 75.3 0.7 8. Church Between SS 4 6.2 1.5 1.3 0.3 Within SS 102 124.8 1.2 9. Bar/Disco Between SS 4 15.5 3.9 2.9 0.0 Within SS 102 137.3 1.3 10. Other Between SS 4 5.1 1.3 1.0 0.4 Within SS 102 122.9 1.2

PAGE 95

81 Table 4-18. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Age Group Forest Sports Field School Gym Home NationalPark Down-town Church Bar/Disco Other Age Group M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) 18-25 2.1 (1.4) 2.0 (.9) 2.8 (1.0) 2.3 (1.0) 2.5 a (1.2) 2.1 (.8) 1.9 (1.1) 2.6 (1.2) 1.9 b (1.2) 2.0 (1.1) 26-35 1.6 (.6) 1.7 b (.8) 3.0 (1.3) 2.7 (1.2) 1.9 (.7) 2.1 (.9) 1.7 (.7) 2.4 (1.1) 1.8 b (.9) 1.8 (.8) 36-45 1.8 (.8) 1.7 b (.7) 2.5 (.9) 2.4 (.8) 1.7 (.6) 1.9 (.9) 1.9 (.6) 2.4 (1.1) 2.4 (1.2) 2.2 (1.3) 46-55 2.0 (1.2) 2.1 (1.0) 2.4 (1.1) 1.2 (.5) 1.7 b (.9) 2.1 (.9) 1.9 (1.1) 1.7 (.8) 2.3 (.9) 2.6 (1.5) 56+ 1.7 (.5) 2.7 a (1.3) 2.8 (1.2) 1.2 (.4) 1.9 b (.7) 2.3 (.9) 2.0 (.8) 2.0 (1.0) 3.1 a (1.5) 1.8 (.7) Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents who are 56 years of age or older are significantly different than 26-35 and 36-45 year olds in their preference for sports field as their environment choice. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 96

82 Table 4-19. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Family Life Cycle (FLC) Group Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Forest Between SS 4 19.8 5.0 6.0 0.0 Within SS 101 83.7 0.8 2. Sports Field Between SS 4 9.8 2.4 3.0 0.0 Within SS 101 82.0 0.8 3. School Between SS 4 3.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 Within SS 101 130.0 1.3 4. Gym Between SS 4 5.7 1.4 1.3 0.3 Within SS 101 108.8 1.1 5. Home Between SS 4 9.6 2.4 2.7 0.1 Within SS 101 91.0 0.9 6. Nat Park Between SS 4 4.1 1.0 1.5 0.2 Within SS 101 124.1 1.2 7. Downtown Between SS 4 5.2 1.3 1.9 0.1 Within SS 101 70.9 0.7 8. Church Between SS 4 6.8 1.7 1.4 0.2 Within SS 101 124.1 1.2 9. Bar/Disco Between SS 4 19.7 4.9 3.7 0.0 Within SS 101 133.2 1.3 10. Other Between SS 4 8.9 2.2 1.9 0.1 Within SS 101 119.1 1.2

PAGE 97

83 Table 4-20. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Family Life Cycle Forest Sports Field School Gym Home NationalPark Down-town Church Bar/Disco Other FLC M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Married No Children 3.2 a (1.6) 2.2 (.7) 3.1 (1.3) 2.1 (.6) 2.7 a (1.6) 2.7 (1.3) 2.2 (1.2) 2.9 (1.7) 2.1 (1.3) 2.2 (1.0) Single No Children 1.9 (1.1) 2.0 (1.0) 2.9 (1.1) 2.2 (1.0) 2.3 (1.1) 2.1 (.7) 1.9 (.9) 2.6 (1.1) 2.0 (1.1) 1.8 (1.0) Married With Children 1.7 (.7) 1.8 (.9) 2.6 (1.1) 2.6 (1.0) 1.8 (.7) 2.0 (.9) 2.0 (.8) 2.2 (1.1) 2.3 (1.2) 2.3 (1.3) Single With Children 1.5 b (.6) 1.5 b (.5) 2.8 (1.1) 2.8 (1.2) 2.2 (.90) 2.0 (.8) 1.4 (.6) 2.1 (.8) 1.5 b (.8) 1.6 (.8) Divorced/ Widowed With Children 1.7 (.5) 2.7 a (1.4) 2.6 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 1.6 b (.5) 1.8 (.4) 1.8 (.4) 2.1 (1.2) 3.2 a (1.3) 1.7 (.7) Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents who are married with no children are significantly different than single no children, married with children, single with children and divorced/widowed with children when preferring the forest as their environment choice. Respondents who are married without children are least likely to choose to participate in recreation in the forest. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 98

84 Table 4-21. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Education Level Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Forest Between SS 3 4.6 1.5 1.6 0.2 Within SS 103 1.0 2. Sports Field Between SS 3 6.7 2.2 2.7 0.0 Within SS 103 85.9 0.8 3. School Between SS 3 4.2 1.4 1.1 0.3 Within SS 103 131.0 1.3 4. Gym Between SS 3 2.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 Within SS 103 114.5 1.1 5. Home Between SS 3 4.7 1.6 1.7 0.2 Within SS 103 95.8 0.9 6. Nat Park Between SS 3 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 Within SS 103 74.1 0.7 7. Downtown Between SS 3 2.3 0.8 1.1 0.4 Within SS 103 73.8 0.7 8. Church Between SS 3 11.7 3.9 3.3 0.0 Within SS 103 119.4 1.2 9. Bar/Disco Between SS 3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 Within SS 103 152.3 1.5 10. Other Between SS 3 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 Within SS 103 126.0 1.2

PAGE 99

Table 4-22. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Education Level 85 Forest Sports Field School Gym Home National Park Downtown Church Bar/ Disco Other Education Level M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Elementary 1.8 (.9) 2.0 b (.9) 2.6 (1.1) 2.5 (.9) 2.0 (1.0) 2.3 (1.0) 1.9 (.9) 2.0 b (.8) 2.2 (1.4) 2.1 (1.2) High School 1.8 (1.0) 1.7 b (.8) 2.9 (1.1) 2.6 (1.0) 2.2 (1.0) 2.0 (.7) 1.7 (.6) 2.7 b (1.2) 2.1 (1.2) 2.0 (1.2) College 1.8 (1.0) 2.3 b (1.1) 2.5 (1.2) 2.4 (1.2) 1.7 (.8) 2.0 (1.0) 2.1 (1.1) 2.0 a (.9) 2.2 (1.1) 1.8 (.9) Other Degree 2.8 (1.3) 1.8 a (.8) 3.0 (1.4) 2.0 (1.2) 2.0 (.7) 2.2 (.8) 1.8 (.4) 2.2 (1.1) 2.0 (.7) 2.2 (.4) Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents reporting they have an other degree are significantly different than elementary, high school and college educated respondents when indicating the sports field as their recreation environment preference. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 100

86 Table 4-23. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Residency (Town) Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Forest Between SS 3 5.7 1.9 2.0 0.1 Within SS 101 98.4 1.0 2. Sports Field Between SS 3 16.9 5.6 7.6 0.0 Within SS 101 74.8 0.7 3. School Between SS 3 6.3 2.1 1.7 0.2 Within SS 101 125.6 1.2 4. Gym Between SS 3 4.7 1.6 1.5 0.2 Within SS 101 107.4 1.1 5. Home Between SS 3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.0 Within SS 101 99.3 1.0 6. Nat Park Between SS 3 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.4 Within SS 101 73.9 0.7 7. Downtown Between SS 3 2.6 0.9 1.2 0.3 Within SS 101 72.2 0.72 8. Church Between SS 3 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 Within SS 101 144.9 1.3 9. Bar/Disco Between SS 3 7.9 2.6 1.8 0.1 Within SS 101 144.9 1.4 10. Other Between SS 3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9 Within SS 101 125.4 1.2

PAGE 101

Table 4-24. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Residency (Town) 87 Forest Sports Field School Gym Home National Park Downtown Church Bar/ Disco Other Town M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Santa Elena 1.7 (.6) 1.9 b (.8) 2.7 (1.1) 2.4 (1.0) 2.1 (1.0) 2.1 (.8) 2.0 (.9) 2.4 (1.1) 2.0 (1.1) 2.1 (1.1) Cerro Plano 2.1 (1.3) 1.9 (.9) 3.1 (1.2) 2.9 (1.1) 2.1 (1.2) 1.9 (.7) 1.7 (.5) 2.5 (1.2) 2.1 (1.3) 2.0 (1.0) Monteverde 2.2 (1.3) 2.7 a (1.2) 2.4 (.9) 2.5 (1.1) 1.9 (.7) 2.3 (.9) 1.9 (1.0) 2.2 (1.2) 2.8 (1.3) 1.9 (1.2) Los Llanos 1.7 (.8) 1.3 b (.5) 2.7 (1.3) 2.3 (1.0) 2.0 (.7) 2.1 (1.1) 1.7 (.9) 2.2 (1.0) 2.0 (1.2) 2.0 (1.2) Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents from Monteverde are significantly different from respondents from Santa Elena and Los Llanos when indicating sports field as their environment preference. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 102

88 Table 4-25. T-test for Environment Preferences by Gender Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Forest Between SS 1 4.1 4.1 4.3 0.0 Within SS 337 323.6 1.0 2. Sports Field Between SS 1 8.6 8.6 12.2 0.0 Within SS 337 239.9 0.7 3. School Between SS 1 1.6 1.6 1.3 0.2 Within SS 337 401.1 1.2 4. Gym Between SS 1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 Within SS 337 311.8 0.9 5. Home Between SS 1 1.0 1.0 1.3 0.3 Within SS 337 267.8 0.8 6. Nat Park Between SS 1 1.9 1.9 2.2 0.1 Within SS 337 288.9 0.9 7. Downtown Between SS 1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 Within SS 337 212.4 0.6 8. Church Between SS 1 28.6 28.6 23.4 0.0 Within SS 337 409.6 1.2 9. Bar/Disco Between SS 1 14.2 14.2 10.7 0.0 Within SS 337 444.3 1.3 10. Other Between SS 1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 Within SS 337 130.8 1.2

PAGE 103

Table 4-26. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Gender 89 Forest Sports Field School Gym Home National Park Downtown Church Bar/ Disco Other Gender M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Male 1.8 (.9) 1.7 (.8) 2.8 (1.1) 2.5 (.9) 2.1 (.9) 2.3 (.9) 1.8 (.8) 2.8 (1.2) 1.9 (1.0) 2.0 (1.2) Female 2.1 (1.1) 2.0 (.9) 2.7 (1.0) 2.5 (1.0) 2.0 (.8) 2.4 (.9) 1.7 (.8) 2.2 (1.0) 2.3 (1.3) 1.9 (1.0) Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 104

90 Table 4-27. Mean and Standard Deviation for Constraint Items Constraint Items Mean Standard Deviation Recreation is too expensive 2.1 1.1 I do not have enough time 2.1 1.2 I am not interested in the recreational activities available in this community 2.4 1.2 The people I know usually do not have time to start a new activity with me 2.7 1.2 I do not have transportation 2.7 1.2 I am too shy (timid) to start a new activity 2.9 1.3 New activities make me feel uncomfortable 2.9 1.2 My friends do not like to participate in recreation 3.1 1.2 I do not have anyone to participate with me 3.2 1.2 The people I know live too far away to start a new activity with me 3.3 1.2 I do not have enough skill to start a new activity 3.4 1.2 Recreation is not important to me 4.0 0.9 Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses. Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 105

91 Table 4-28. Frequency of Constraint Items (in Percentages) Constraint Items 1 Stron g l y Agree 2 Agree 3 No Opinion 4 Disagree 5 Strongly Disagree % % % % % I do not have transportation 16 40 9 30 5 I do not have enough time 32 44 6 15 3 Recreation is not important to me 2 5 16 50 27 Recreation is too expensive 29 53 5 8 5 I am too shy to start a new activity 12 41 8 25 13 I do not have anyone to participate with me 11 24 12 42 11 I do not have enough skill to start a new activity 7 25 9 42 16 The people I know usually do not have time to start a new activity with me 16 43 6 27 8 New activities make me feel uncomfortable 7 46 8 31 9 The people I know live too far away to start a new activity with me 7 24 11 46 11 I am not interested in the recreation available in this community 21 48 5 17 8 My friends do not like to participate in recreation 8 29 11 43 8 Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses. Bold numbers are indicative of the most common rating (in percentages) applied by the respondents.

PAGE 106

92 Table 4-29. Mean and Cronbach Alpha of Constraints Items Constraints Items Mean Cronbach Alpha Structural --Transpor 2.7 Time 2.1 Cost 2.1 Intrapersonal 2.9 .74 Timid 2.8 Interest 2.4 Ability 3.3 Newact 2.9 Interpersonal 3.3 .77 Nofriend 4.0 Nomport 3.2 Frtime 2.7 Toofar 3.3 Frinfo 3.1 Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Table 4-30. ONE-WAY for Constraints by Age Group Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Intra Between SS 4 36.5 9.1 12.4 0.0 Within SS 323 238.6 0.7 Between SS 2. Inter 4 28.4 7.1 11.9 0.0 Within SS 323 192.0 0.6 Table 4-31. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Age Groups Age Groups Intra Inter Time Cost Transportation M SD M SD M SD M SD M 2.3 a 1.3 3.0 a 1.2 26-35 2.9 bc 3.2 a 0.8 1.9 b 1.0 1.9 0.9 2.7 1.2 36-45 2.5bc 3.0 a 0.7 1.9 b 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.2 46-55 2.7 b 0.9 3.1 a 0.8 1.0 1.7 b 0.7 2.6 1.2 56+ 2.4 bc 2.9 a 0.7 2.5 1.4 2.1 1.1 2.3 b 1.0 SD 18-25 3.3a 1.0 3.7a 0.8 2.5a 1.2 0.8 0.9 2.6 2.0 0.6 Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, with the age group dimension, the 18-25 group significantly differ in their response from those representing all other age groups for both Factor 1 and Factor 2. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 107

93 Table 4-32. ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Age Group Item Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between SS 4 27.5 6.9 5.9 0.0 Within SS 334 470.5 1.4 COST 0.0 Within SS 334 387.7 1.2 TRANSPOR Between SS 4 17.5 4.4 3.1 Between SS 4 12.3 3.1 2.8 0.0 Within SS 334 362.0 1.1 TIME Table 4-33. ONE-WAY for Constraints by Family Life Cycle Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Intra Between SS 4 39.5 9.9 13.4 0.0 Within SS 318 233.9 0.7 2. Inter 0.6 Between SS 4 24.1 6.0 10.0 0.0 Within SS 318 191.8

PAGE 108

94 Table 4-34. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Family Life Cycle Family Life Cycle Intra Inter Time Cost Transportation M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Married No Child 3.7 b 1.0 4.0 b 0.5 2.93.23.4b 0.8 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1 2.8 b 1.2 1.1 1.3 a 1.5 3.1 a 1.6 3.4 a 1.3 Single No Child b, d 0.9 Married W/ Child 2.6 a 0.8 3.0 a 0.7 2.0b 0.9 1.9 b 0.8 2.5 b 1.1 Single W/ Child 3.3 b, a 1.0 3.6 b, d 0.9 2.2 1.2 2.3 1.4 3.1 1.3 Divorced/Widowed With Children 2.7 c 0.7 3.1 c 0.7 2.1 1.3 2.0 2.6 Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents who are married with children are significantly different from those who are married with no children, single with no children and single with children when indicating the presence of intrapersonal constraints. Also, divorced/widowed with children is significantly different than single with children and single with no children when indicating the presence of intrapersonal constraints. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Table 4-35 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by FLC Item Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. TIME Between SS 4 5.6 14.3 3.6 2.9 0.0 Within SS 329 404.4 1.2 TRANSPOR Between SS 4 15.9 4.0 2.8 0.0 Within SS 329 461.3 1.4 COST Between SS 4 23.9 6.0 0.0 Within SS 329 354.1 1.1

PAGE 109

95 Table 4-36. ONE-WAY for Constraints by Education Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. 1. Intra Between SS 3 12.2 4.0 4.9 >0.0* Within SS 323 267.2 0.8 3 2. Inter Between SS 8.9 3.0 4.5 >0.0* Within SS 323 214.1 0.7 *>0.01= .001 Table 4-37. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Education Education Intra Inter Time Cost Transportation M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Elementary 2.71.1 1.2 1.0 1.3 Other Degree 3.4 1.3 3.6 0.8 2.5 1.4 3.0b 1.5 a 0.8 3.0 a 0.8 2.1 1.1 1.9 a 0.9 2.5 High School 2.9 0.9 3.3 0.8 2.1 1.1 2.0 1.1 2.7 College 3.2 b 1.1 3.5 b 0.9 2.2 1.2 2.3 2.8 3.0 1.0 Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents with an elementary education are significantly different than those with a college education when indicating the presence of intrapersonal constraints. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 110

96 Table 4-38 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Education Item Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. TIME Between SS 4 1.4 .5 Within SS 4 14.2 4.4 4.0 0.0 Within SS 334 368.4 1.1 0.4 0.8 Within SS 334 416.1 1.2 TRANSPOR Between SS 4 4.2 1.4 1.0 0.4 334 483.4 1.4 COST Between SS Table 4-39. ONE-WAY for Constraints by Residency (Town) Factors Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between SS 3 4.6 1.5 1.8 0.1 322 0.7 Within SS 322 267.5 0.8 2. Inter Between SS 3 6.1 2.0 3.1 0.0 Within SS 211.9 1. Intra Table 4-40. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Constraints and Residency (Town) Education Intra Inter Cost Time Transportation M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Santa Elena 2.9 0.9 3.3 0.8 2.1 1.1 1.9 1.0 2.8 1.3 2.6 0.7 3.0 b 0.7 1.7 b 1.8a 2.9a 1.2 Cerro Plano 2.9 1.0 3.4a 0.9 2.1 1.2 2.4b 1.2 2.7 1.3 Monteverde 2.9 1.0 3.2 0.9 2.3 a 1.0 2.4b 1.2 Los Llanos 0.7 0.9 2.5b 1.0 Matching superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents from Cerro Plano were significantly different from respondents from Los Llanos when indicating the presence of interpersonal constraints. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."

PAGE 111

97 Table 4-41 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Residency (Town) Item Degrees of Freedom Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob. TIME 0.0 Within SS 333 398.0 1.2 TRANSPOR 0.5 Within SS 333 480.4 1.4 COST 0.0 Within SS 333 365.0 1.1 Between SS 4 18.7 6.2 5.22 Between SS 4 3.1 1.0 .72 Between SS 4 9.2 3.1 2.8 Table 4-42. Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Constraints Factors t df Sig. (2 tailed) Factor 2Inter 2.7 332 >0.0* Factor 1Intra 4.9 333 0.0 Equal variances assumed *>0.01= .001

PAGE 112

98 Table 4-43. Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender and Constraints Factors Number Mean Standard Deviation Intrapersonal Males 182 3.1 0.9 Females 153 2.6 0.8 Interpersonal Males 182 3.4 0.8 Females 152 3.1 0.8 Cost Males 183 2.1 1.1 Females 156 2.1 1.1 Time Males 183 2.2 1.2 Females 156 2.1 1.1 Transportation Males 183 3.0 1.3 Females 156 2.4 1.1 Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio Table 4-44 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Gender Item Degrees of Freedom F Prob. Between SS 1 1.0 1.0 0.9 414.2 1.2 27.3 337 0.4 Within SS 337 TRANSPOR Between SS 1 27.3 19.9 0.0 Within SS 337 463.2 1.4 COST Between SS 1 0.0 .0 0.0 0.9 Within SS 382.8 1.1 TIME

PAGE 113

99 Table 4-45. Overview of Responses to: What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work? Sports Walk Social Other 18-35 year olds Older than 56 years of age 36-55 year olds Older adults 46-56+ High School educated Elementary and Other educated Elementary, College and Other educated Single with and without children Females Married Married without children Divorced/Widow with children Males Salon/Bullring Sports Field CASEM Table 4-46. Overview of Responses to: If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? Younger and older adults: 18-35 & 46-56+ Middle age group: 36-45 Oldest age group: 56+ Elementary and High School education Other degree education People from Monteverde Single without children Single with children Females Married People from Santa Elena and Los Llanos Divorced/Widow with children Males People from Cerro Plano Females Table 4-47. Overview of Responses to: What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Sports Cultural Activities Other Activities All age groups younger than 56 years of age: 18-55 Older than 56 years of age 36-45 year olds (2nd highest response) and older than 56 years of age Elementary, High School and Other degree education College education Females People living in Santa Elena, Cerro Plano and Los Llanos People living in Monteverde Males Females

PAGE 114

100 Table 4-48. Overview of Responses for Environmental Preference. Forest Sports Field Home Downtown Church Bar/Disco People ages 25-35 and older than 56 People in the 25-45 age groups Older people ages 4556+ People ages 18-25 People ages 45-55 People ages 26-35 Single with Children Single with Children Divorced/Widow with Children Single with Children Single with Children Divorced/Widow with Children High School educated College educated High School educated Males People living in Santa Elena and Los Llanos People living in Los Llanos Females People living in Cerro Plano and Los Llanos Males Males and Females Males and Females Table 4-49. Overview of Responses for Intra and Interpersonal Constraints. Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints Youngest age group: 18-25 years old Youngest age group: 18-25 years old Married without children Married without children College and Other degree education College and Other degree education People living in Cerro Plano Females People living in Cerro Plano Females

PAGE 115

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to identify the motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation participation of the community members of the Monteverde Zone. This chapter sought to discuss the results and their relevance regarding motivations, preferences and constraints and their implications on the members of the Zone. The organization of this chapter is as follows: Summary of Procedures and Treatment of the Data Discussion of Findings Implications Recommendations for Future Research Summary of Procedures and Treatment of the Data A sample of 343 members of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica was randomly selected for this study. The instrument used for this study was a self-administered questionnaire comprised of four sections: (a) Motivations; (b) Preferences; (c) Constraints: and (d) Demographic variables. Research was conducted in the form of intercept interviews and self-administered surveys. Data collection began on April 13, 2003 and surveys were collected over a three-week period. Discussion of Findings The following section summarizes the original research questions followed by test results. Areas discussed include: motivations, activity preference, environment preference, participation constraints and the relationships between demographics and 101 each of these factors. Participants of this study were highly motivated to participate in

PAGE 116

102 recreation for socialization. The majority of participants of this study expressed the most importance for relaxation. When examining the relationship between demographics and motivations for recreation, results indicated that the education variable was significantly related to the types of motivations for participation. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than respondents with other types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees). The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports. Across all life cycle groups and in particular for males, sports were an expressed need. The second most popular activity was social activities. Results indicated that women preferred social activities. When asked about the environment for recreation participation, the majority of the respondents chose the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in Santa Elena as their preferred locations for a recreational center. With regards to gender, females reported higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Community members would prefer to have a recreation center located in the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano that could be used for sports and social activities. It is recommended that the current structures be used to increase recreation opportunities for the citizens of La Zona de Monteverde. Research Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for Recreation? Results indicated that seventeen items loaded on four factors (or domains) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four motivational factors included: relax, nature, active, and alone/away. Reliability coefficients (Cronbach Alpha) and mean scores were calculated for items in each factor. This is different than what was hypothesized (six factors); however, perhaps may make sense. One explanation of why this may have

PAGE 117

103 occurred is in regards to translation issues. With regards to the item to experience the fast paced nature of things, the researcher found that Costa Ricans were interpreting this differently than was intended. The literal Spanish translation was confusing. Therefore, the researcher had to use different words to explain this phrase. As a result, the hypothesized domain labeled nature loaded on items related to relax. In addition, the resultant factors all included a social element rather than falling out as a separate domain. This may indicate that socializing is at the core of the domains, not something thought of as a separate motivation. Perhaps this makes sense given that research has indicated Latin Americans express a greater motivation to socialize (c.f. McMillen, 1983; Hutchinson & Fidel, 1984; Molina, 1995; Wallace & Smith, 1997). When examining the relationship between demographics and motivations for recreation, results indicated that only the education variable was significantly related to the types of motivations for participation. This study documented that college educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than respondents with other types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees). Perhaps it is not surprising that ones education level is related to the motivation to participate in recreation. In fact, significant research in the past has documented the relationship between education level and participation in nature (c.f., Jones & Dunlap; 1992; Lucas, 1990). According to Lucas (1990), the most distinguishing characteristic of wilderness visitors is high education levels, where between 60-85% of visitors to wilderness areas have attended college and 20% to 30% have a graduate degree.

PAGE 118

104 Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for Recreation? Preferences for recreation were measured two ways. The first way used three open ended questions and asked questions related to what and where one would prefer to participate. The second way that preference was measured in this study was by examining preference for the location (based on work by Cooksey et. al). In the first measure of preference, respondents were asked to list their top three choices. The rankings of choices were the same in all three categories, therefore; only the first response was reported. Results indicated that sports was the greatest preference for recreation activities. Those who were more likely to report wanting to participate in sports were male, younger (18-35 years), high school educated, either married or single with no children or single with children. This is consistent with Hutchinson and Fidels (1984) study of Mexican Americans recreation trends. In their study, Mexican-Americans were more involved in-group sport activities, such as soccer than individual sports. Moreover, the finding that people older than 56 years of age indicated that they preferred to walk in their free time is also consistent with American recreation research. Kelly and Warnick (1999) indicated that walking is the primary recreation activity for Americans over the age of 45 and that the fastest growth market is the boomers. In addition, Robinson and Godbey (1997) found that sports and hobbies represent 12% of Americans free time, where walking is the primary activity. Women between the ages of 36-55, with an elementary or other degree indicated that they preferred social activities. Similar to findings in Hutchinson and Fidels (1984) study on Mexican-Americans, Mexican-Americans were more likely to participate in

PAGE 119

105 activities involving a larger number of people, often in multiple family groups. Family units would frequently go to the park in groups to watch younger family members participate in activities. In a study conducted by Wallace and Smith (1997), Costa Ricans tended to prefer to participating in social interactions (to be with friends/family, see/meet other people) during their leisure and expressed a need for more socializing opportunities. Relative to other international visitors, Costa Ricans assigned less importance to the motivation of solitude or adventure (Wallace & Smith, 1997). Anecdotal evidence indicates that both the soccer field (la cancha) and downtown areas were social meeting places. Typically, families would meet at the soccer field to watch the games, and hang out with friends and family. In addition to the soccer field, trips downtown to the supermarket by females were much more than a necessity, they served as a time to visit and chat with friends. Another study conducted by Stodolska and Yi (2003) also found that Mexican-Americans possess strong family values and can be characterized by warm interpersonal relations, valuing the role of the community in their lives. This is also true in other cultures as well, as indicated in a study conducted by Martin and Mason (2003) that found socializing and sharing food with family and friends as well as participating in traditional, often religious, festivals and events are also important in Middle Eastern cultures. Findings from the environmental questions related to preference indicated that females older than 45 years of age, with children expressed the preference to participate in recreation in their home. It is very common in the Zone for friends and family to drop by and visit with each other in the home. This drop by philosophy serves as a

PAGE 120

106 form of home-based recreation. During these social times, it is not uncommon that women prepare meals, snacks, coffee, talk about friends, family and life, and perhaps even listen to music and play cards or other activities together. Family ties are very strong in Costa Rican households. Traditions revolve around the family from the moment of birth to that of death. Some immensely important family traditions are: baptisms, first communions, engagement parties, weddings and funerals (www.infocostarica.com/culture/traditions.html). Therefore, one opportunity for recreation in the home might be to have a grassroots movement organize rotating recreational programs. For example, perhaps a Card group or a Cooking group could be organized. These groups would rotate from one persons home to the next each week. The social component as well as the environmental component would be addressed by minimal cost and effort. In regards to the preference for the location of a recreation center, the saln /bullring was the most frequently given response for all age groups except for those who were 35-45 years of age. Those who expressed that the recreation center should be located in the saln/bullring were most likely to be females with children, with lower education levels. The saln and bullring are owned by the local elementary school and are used primarily once a year for a festival. The rest of the year both facilities virtually go unused. The bullring is an open stadium structure with a dirt floor and arena seating. There is about fifty yards of land surrounding the structure. The saln is a large one room building about ten yards from the bullring. Given that these areas go unused most of the time, it is not surprising that residents noticed the potential for their recreation use.

PAGE 121

107 Perhaps, this is one inexpensive solution for a location for future recreation activities in the Zone. Moreover, single people with children expressed the need to participate in recreation activities downtown. One of the expressed locations or environments for recreation was in the bars and discos. Similar to most cultures, this particular life stage is looking to interact with other single people. In addition, women older than 56, living in Monteverde proposed the CASEM as a location for recreation activities. CASEM is a store that is located in Monteverde, it houses artwork and crafts by area women and is run by older women. The CASEM has open space around it and houses picnic tables, a seesaw (playground equipment) and is often used by children to play pick up sports and games. Therefore, in combination with the finding that women expressed more preference for a place to do social activities, the CASEM provides this opportunity. When asked about residents preference for activities, sports were the most reported activity. Typically, males younger than 56 years of age, at a variety of education levels, living in the majority of communities expressed this preference. Similar to other findings of Latin American cultures, men under 55 are likely to want to participate in sports for social as well as physical fitness reasons (Hutchinson and Fidel, 1984). In addition to sports, males also expressed an interest in participating in recreation activities in the forest. This may provide an opportunity for recreation planners to meet the needs of this group. The Zone is surrounded by over 100,000 acres of forest. Creating programs such

PAGE 122

108 as field trips, scavenger hunts and perhaps even sporting events in the forest could address both sets of preferences. Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to Recreation? A factor analysis was run on the constraints factors, but the results were not clean (no validity to the emerging factors), so reliability was run based on the theoretical domains. In order to make the data more manageable, after running reliability the researcher found that three items loaded into two factors. The researcher reduced the number of items from three down to two (based on work by Crawford, Jackson & Godbey), because its Cronbach Alpha score was less than .50. Respondents reported the highest levels of constraints as being structural (too expensive and lack of time). These items were analyzed individually. One reason the structural constraint domain may not have emerged might have been because respondents did not conceptually link the items together as one dimension of constraints. One explanation for this might be that the conceptualization of the domain might have been lost in the translation, particularly with the item related to transportation, since most people do not use vehicles but rather walk as a form of transportation, this item may have been confusing. In addition, this finding is consistent with more recent literature on constraints, which indicated that structural constraints might not hold together well (Thapa, Pennington-Gray, & Holland, 2002; Pennington-Gray, Thapa, & Holland, 2002). Time scarcity is the feeling that one lacks enough time to do all the things that one would like to do (Scott, 1993). Therefore, the finding that time was the greatest constraint for Costa Ricans is consistent with findings around the world (Finn, K.L. &

PAGE 123

109 Loomis, D.K., 1997; Oh, S., Caldwell, L. & Sei-Yi, O., 2001; Stodolska, M. & Yi, J., 2003.) Moreover, this study found that the cost of participation was the second greatest constraint to participation. Previous research has also documented that time and money are the two top constraints to leisure (Howard & Crompton, 1984; Godbey, 1985; McGuire, Dottavio, & OLeary, 1986; Jackson & Dunn, 1991). An additional interesting finding was that younger adults with children reported a high degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints, while those who were married with children expressed fewer constraints. This is interesting and perhaps may be explained because mothers are reflecting on their childrens involvement in recreation rather than their own. This is related to what Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw and Freysinger (1989) refer to as the ethic of care. The ethic of care evolves from the belief that taking care of others is always first in a womans life, this focus on relationships often becomes a constraint to leisure fulfillment. Women have to negotiate through and balance their family responsibilities while in pursuit of their own leisure activities. With regards to gender, females reported high levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Jackson and Henderson (1995) reported that women indeed reported higher levels of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Main constraints for women mentioned in that study were: difficultly in finding others to recreate with, too busy with family, not having the physical ability, not knowing where to participate, not knowing how to get the skills necessary to participate, not feeling comfortable in social situations and physically unable to participate. Likewise, Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997), found women were most likely to report the presence of interpersonal constraints then men.

PAGE 124

110 Implications Considerable research has studied the motivations, preferences and constraints as separate entities. This study sought to find and understand the recreational needs of the members of La Zona de Monteverde, through determining their motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation participation. Understanding the needs of the community is important because the members of the community have expressed a lack of recreation as a problem in the Zone. The lack of safe, healthy and inexpensive recreation, in the opinions of the community members, has lead to unhealthy alternatives such as experimenting with drugs, alcohol and sex (Witt & Crompton, 1996). Finding a way to meet the recreational needs of the community is the objective of this study. Results of this study support the Balance/Negotiation theory proposed by Jackson, Crawford and Godbey. Most of the findings suggest that although constraints are present, most individuals participate in some form of recreation and indicate the desire to participate in different types of recreation. Females indicated the highest levels of constraints, however, they still indicated preferences for recreation, mainly recreation that is centered on the home and church. In addition, females indicated more preferences for social activities. The majority of their day-to-day activities include some form of socialization. The perception that they are working (going to the supermarket or cooking in the home) is balanced by the desire to interact with others. One of the first findings of this study indicated that participants were highly motivated to participate in recreation for socialization. This corresponds with previous research of the Hispanic culture (c.f. McMillen, 1983; Hutchinson & Fidel, 1984; Molina, 1995; Wallace & Smith, 1997). Based on observations made by the researcher, most activities throughout daily life were social. Walking to the supermarket consisted of

PAGE 125

111 chatting with friends, family members and tourists along the way. Being at the supermarket itself was also social. Rather than doing all of the grocery shopping at one time, single trips to the market would be made several times in one week. Once at the supermarket, again this was social time to talk and hang out with friends and meet new people, as well as looking and admiring merchandise. The majority of participants of this study indicated relaxation was most important for recreation participation. Given the pace of life in the 21st century, it is not surprising that residents of a developing country are also indicating that the motivation for relaxation is tremendous. In conjunction with the preference for social activities, La Zone de Monteverde government officials need to consider the preference for relaxing in addition to providing opportunities to socialize during recreation. The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports. Across all life cycle groups and in particular for males, sports were an expressed need. Soccer is the most popular sport in the country. According ton in the newspaper La Repblica in Costa Rica: "Soccer is not the sport of Costa Ricans. It is the motor of their existence. Soccer in Costa Rica is escape, pastime, purification, ecstasy, mania, bread, and necessary illusion. And since ours is a people frustrated in many areas, it seeks in soccer the consummation of its longings, the kingdom of happiness, success" (Zona Latina, 2003). When asked where a recreational center could be constructed, the majority of the respondents chose the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in Santa Elena. The saln and bullring are structures that are owned by the nearby elementary school and are used, for the most part, one time a year for a festival. The rest a colum

PAGE 126

112 of the year, they go unused. The sports field is also a preexisting area that is used frequently by members of the community for soccer, basketball and as a hang out. The outside area surrounding the bullring could be used for more sports, a farmers market, and/or a park to just sit and relax. The saln is an enclosed structure that can be used for indoor activities such as a social gathering place for parents and their children to play games, listen to music, use the Internet, play ping-pong, and participate in arts and crafts. The presence of this facility provides a perfect opportunity for government officials or special interest groups to work with the elementary school officials to accommodate recreation activities for the community throughout the year. It is recommended that at first a few activities be planned to take advantage of the available space. Perhaps these activities could be family-oriented activities, focused directly on the needs of the locals of the Zone. A few tables and decks of cards would allow groups of people to play card games together. In addition, festivals might be planned for the open area, these festivals could occur during Easter Week, Semana Santa Christmas Week or during the celebration of the Virgin of the Angels. Another recreation activity for residents might include a picnic event where everyone brings their own food. Entertainment could be provided by the locals for the locals. In addition, the existing sports field (la cancha) could be improved by reconstructing the basketball rims and maintaining the soccer field. This area can be used for more than just soccer, but needs community members and/or officials to plan for activities and events. The area surrounding the sports field could also be used as a park. By utilizing these two areas, the saln and bullring in Cerro Plano and the sports field in Santa Elena, a great deal of money would not be needed to construct a facility. Some of

PAGE 127

113 the activities might include a baseball diamond, basketball games/competitions or picnics. Obviously, the cost of construction for some of these ideas is more expensive than others. It is recommended that the lower cost ideas be implemented first with plans on how to secure funding for the more expensive plans (perhaps through grants and/or sponsorships). One possible idea is that currently in the United States there is a movement by the National Recreation and Parks Association to build parks in developing countries. One example of this is a group of volunteer American recreation professionals are traveling to South Africa to build a park for the children. A similar arrangement could be made to build a park in Costa Rica. Similar to people in the United States, people in the Monteverde Zone are also constrained when it comes to recreation participation. This also shadows previous research (c.f. Howard & Crompton, 1984; Godbey, 1985; McGuire, Dottavio, & OLeary, 1986; Jackson & Dunn, 1991; Mannell & Zuzanek, 1991; Shaw, Bonen and McCabe, 1991 and Godbey, Graefe, & James, 1992). While the constraints of lack of time, expenses, and transportation were the most reported constraints, they were not conceptualized as one dimension of constraints. What is interesting is that they independently counted for the top two constraints to participation. Given this finding, recreation or government officials need to be considerate of time and money constraints when providing new recreation opportunities for the locals. After examining the preferences relative to these constraints, it is recommended that the scheduling of events or activities consider time constraints. In addition, the cost of the event is critical to participation. If people are going to participate the cost needs to be minimal.

PAGE 128

114 The other interesting finding relative to constraints was that women indicated more constraints in general. Given that intrapersonal constraints consisted of lack of skills and feeling too shy to start a new activity and interpersonal constraints consist of relying on other people to participate with, it is recommended that future recreation opportunities consider who can participate and how to participate in the overall provision of the activity. For example, if the goal is to increase recreation opportunities for men and women, activities geared towards women need to involve other people (this addresses the social motivation) as well as lessons on how to participate if necessary (this addresses the intrapersonal constraint). Therefore, it is recommended that activities for women focus on a broad base of activities ranging from sports to leisure pursuits (such as quilting and cards). This study came about due to an expressed concern by community members for the lack of recreation and the unhealthy alternatives the youth of the Zone were turning to. Research has shown that providing youth with recreational activities results in positive outcomes among youth (Baker & Witt, 1996; Posner & Vandell, 1994). It has also been found that developing protective factors such as intelligence, confidence, and value on achievement and health help youth to avoid negative behaviors such as drug and alcohol use, violence and sex (Jessor, 1992; Masten & Garmezy, 1985). Furthermore, benefits identified from participating in an after-school arts center where children were involved in activities including dance, painting, drawing, singing and playing musical instruments included: (a) creativity, (b) self-confidence, (c) enjoyment, (d) knowledge and appreciation of art, (e) a place to shine, (f) learning to get along, and (g) development of friendships (Scott, Witt & Foss, 1996). These life skills lead to the development of the

PAGE 129

115 protective factors and the activities help to structure the free time that is being used to participate in the negative activities. Implementing a recreation center that children and youth can attend after school can be instrumental in alleviating some of the concerns the community members of the Monteverde Zone have. Recommendations for Future Research The following recommendations are made in regard to the need for more recreation based studies to be conducted in Costa Rica. The recommendations are based on the assumption that the travel and tourism market will continue to grow in Costa Rica and this growth will continue to widen the gap between recreation available to tourists and to the members of the Monteverde Zone. It is recommended that research be conducted to thoroughly examine the needs of the youth in the Zone. This study came about by a voiced need for recreation by the community due to a concern about the alternatives the youth were choosing to participate in, such as drugs, alcohol and sexual activities. By understanding the needs of the youth themselves, recreation providers can cater to them, giving them healthy alternatives to the undesired behavior. Further research is necessary to explore the extent by which people of the Zone are constrained by structural factors. It would be beneficial to know how people perceive these structural constraints. Are they all considered structural constraints? or Are they independent dimensions of constraints? Further research with more items would allow us to answer this question. In addition, it is recommended that research be conducted on the community members of the Monteverde Zone willingness to pay for recreation. What do they

PAGE 130

116 consider to be too expensive? What is a reasonable amount to charge, so a recreation center can provide as many activities as possible, along with a properly trained staff. Investigation into whether income level effects the motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation participation. Also, investigation into whether employment status effects the motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation participation. And, based on observations made by the researcher, perhaps future research should consider including homemaker as a category when asking about employment status. Additional research should be done to determine how much money is coming into community businesses from tourism, and how much of those tourism dollars are in turn going back into the community. Perhaps a tourism tax could be implemented, where a percentage of the money generated by tourism could be used to facilitate a recreation center. More research is needed in Costa Rica and other Latin American countries. It is difficult to represent an entire culture while using previous research that was conducted on Hispanics living in the United States. In addition, it is recommended that additional qualitative research be conducted to thoroughly examine the motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation participation. Although many of the expected dimensions fell out in this study, it would be invaluable to give the members of the community the opportunity to openly discuss what they are looking for in their pursuit of leisure and recreation. Many of the participants of this study wanted to sit and talk after completing the survey, because this is an important issue to them.

PAGE 131

APPENDIX A PHOTOS OF THE SALN, BULLRING AND SOCCER FIELD Figure A-1. The saln in Cerro Plano 117

PAGE 132

118 Figure A-2. An outside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano. Figure A-3. An inside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano.

PAGE 133

119 Figure A-4. The soccer field in Santa Elena.

PAGE 134

120 APPENDIX B MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND CONSTRAINTS QUESTIONNAIRE Do you live in La Zona de Monteverde? You are a part of a select group of residents chosen to participate in a research study. The purpose of this study is to examine the motivations for participation in recreation, preferences for recreation, and the constraints keeping you from participating in recreational activities. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and confidential. You have the right not to answer any specific questions. Thank you for participating in this study! Motivations for participation in recreation. How important are the following statements to you when it comes to recreation? Please circle the number that corresponds to the statement that best describes your opinion. Para nada importante Poco importante No tengo opinin Muy importante Sumamente importante To experience excitement 1 2 3 4 5 To relieve or reduce tension 1 2 3 4 5 To look at the beautiful scenery 1 2 3 4 5 To meet new people 1 2 3 4 5 To develop my knowledge of information 1 2 3 4 5 To be active 1 2 3 4 5 To be away from other people 1 2 3 4 5 To experience the fast paced nature of things 1 2 3 4 5 To relax my mind 1 2 3 4 5 To be in nature 1 2 3 4 5 To be with my family 1 2 3 4 5 To have new and different experiences 1 2 3 4 5 To physical exercise 1 2 3 4 5 To feel good 1 2 3 4 5 To feel pleasure 1 2 3 4 5 To get away from the demands of life 1 2 3 4 5 To enjoy the sights and smells of nature 1 2 3 4 5 To be with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 To learn more about nature 1 2 3 4 5 To be alone 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 135

121 Explain in your own words why recreation is important to you. Preference for Activities What do you do for fun in your free-time when you are not working? If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located? (Exact town or location) What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community? Environment Preferences for Participation. What environment would you prefer to participate in recreation in? Please circle the number that corresponds to the statement that best describes your opinion. Strongly AgreeAgree N eutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree 1. Wilderness areas (forest) 1 2 3 4 5 2. La Cancha 1 2 3 4 5 3. School yard 1 2 3 4 5 4. Gymnasium 1 2 3 4 5 5. Home 1 2 3 4 5 6. National Park 1 2 3 4 5 7. La Plaza 1 2 3 4 5 8. Church 1 2 3 4 5 9. Other 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 136

122 Constraints to recreation participation. Please circle the number that corresponds to the statement that best describes the reasons you do not participate in recreation In your own words, please describe why you do not participate in recreational activities. Demographics Please check one Male_____ Female____ How old are you? Age______ Please indicate with a circle: Single Married Divorced Widowed How many children do you have? ________ What is the highest level of education you have completed? Please indicate with a circle: Elementary High School College Other Degree Please indicate with a circle which town you live in: Santa Elena Cerro Plano Monteverde Los Llanos For how long have you lived here? Strongly Agree AgreeNeither Agree nor Disagree DisagreeStrongly Disagree 1. I do not have transportation. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I do not have enough time 1 2 3 4 5 3. Recreation is not important to me 1 2 3 4 5 4. Recreation is too expensive 1 2 3 4 5 5. I am too shy to start a new activity 1 2 3 4 5 6. I do not have anyone to participate with me 1 2 3 4 5 7. I do not have enough skill to start a new activity 1 2 3 4 5 8. The people I know usually dont have time to start a new recreation activity with me1 2 3 4 5 9. New activities make me feel uncomfortable available in this community 1 2 3 4 5 10. The people I know live too far away to start a new activity with me 1 2 3 4 5 11. I am not interested in the recreation activities available in this community 1 2 3 4 5 12. My friends dont like to participate in recreation 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 137

123 Vive usted en la zona de Monteverde? Ud. ser parte de un grupo de residentes escogidos para participar en un proyecto de investigacin. El propsito de este proyecto es explorar los motivos para la participacin en actividades de recreacon, las preferencias para actividades de recreacon, y los factores que prohiben que Ud. participe en actividades de recreacon. Su participacion en este proyecto es completamente voluntario y confidencial. Ud. tiene el derecho de no contestar algunas preguntas. Gracias por su participacin en este proyecto. Las ventajas de participar en actividades de recreo. Cunta importancia le da Ud. a los siguientes factores en cuanto a actividades de recreacin? Por favor indique con un crculo el nmero de la frase que mejor describe su opinin. Para nada importante Poco importante No tengo opinin Muy importante Sumamente importante Para experimentar entusiasmo 1 2 3 4 5 Para liberar o reducir alguna tensin 1 2 3 4 5 Para ver la belleza escenica 1 2 3 4 5 Para hablar con gente nueva 1 2 3 4 5 Para desarrollar mi conocimiento de informacin 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar activo 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar lejos de otra gente 1 2 3 4 5 Para experimentar la naturaleza rapidamente medida de cosas 1 2 3 4 5 Para descansar su mente 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar en la naturaleza 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar con su familia 1 2 3 4 5 Para tener experiencias nuevas y diferentes 1 2 3 4 5 Para ser ejercicio fsico 1 2 3 4 5 Para sentirse bien 1 2 3 4 5 Para sentir placer 1 2 3 4 5 Para huir de las demandas de la vida 1 2 3 4 5 Para gozar los olores y los sonidos de la naturaleza 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar con sus amigos 1 2 3 4 5 Para aprender ms acerca de la naturaleza 1 2 3 4 5 Para estar solo 1 2 3 4 5 2. En sus propias palabras, explique porqu a Ud. le es importante las actividades de recreacon.

PAGE 138

124 Preferencias para Actividades Qu hace Ud. en su tiempo libre para divertirse? (Cundo Ud. no trabaja) 1, 2. 3. Si hubiera una area de recreo, donde prefera Ud. que se encontraria? El pueblo y/o ubicacin exacta. Por favor, haga una lista de las tres actividades que a Ud. ms le gustara tener en un centro de recreacon. 1. 2. 3. Preferencias para Actividades. En qu ambiente preferira usted tomar parte en la recreacin? Por favor circule el nmero que corresponde a la declaracin que describe mejor su opinin. Completamente de Acuerdo De AcuerdoNo Tengo Opinin No Estoy de Acuerdo Para Nada de Acuerdo 1. El rea del desierto (el bosque) 1 2 3 4 5 2. La Cancha 1 2 3 4 5 3. La Escuela 1 2 3 4 5 4. El Gimnasio 1 2 3 4 5 5. Su Casa 1 2 3 4 5 6. Parque Nacional 1 2 3 4 5 7. La Plaza 1 2 3 4 5 8. La Iglesia 1 2 3 4 5 9. El Bar o La Discoteca 1 2 3 4 5 10. Otra actividad: Especifque 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 139

125 Los factores que prohiben que Ud. participe en actividades de recreacin. Para las siguientes frases, por favor indique con un crculo el nmero de la categora que mejor indica su opinin. Completamente de Acuerdo De Acuerdo N o Tengo Opinin No Estoy de Acuerdo Para Nada de Acuerdo 1. No tengo transporte 1 2 3 4 5 2. No tengo suficiente tiempo 1 2 3 4 5 3. El recreo no es importante 1 2 3 4 5 4. La recreacon cuesta demasiado 1 2 3 4 5 5. Soy demasiado/a timido/a para participar en una nueva actividad 1 2 3 4 5 6. No tengo a nadie que quiera participar conmigo 1 2 3 4 5 7. No tengo las habilidades necesarias para participar 1 2 3 4 5 8. Mis amistades no tienen tiempo de comenzar una actividad de recreacin nueva conmigo. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Las nuevas actividades me hacen sentir inquieto/a 1 2 3 4 5 10. Mis amistades viven muy lejos para comenzar una actividad nueva conmigo 1 2 3 4 5 11. No me interesan las actividades de recreacon de mi comunidad 1 2 3 4 5 12. Mis amistades no aprecian tomar parte en las actividades de recreacin 1 2 3 4 5 Si Ud. no participa en actividades de recreacin, por favor explique porqu no. Dators Demogrficos Por favor indique con un crculo. Sexo: Varn Hembra Cuantos aos tiene? Edad______ Por favor indique con un crculo: Casado/a Soltero/a Divorciado/a Viudo/a Cuantos hijos tiene Ud.?________ Cul es su nivel de educacin? Primaria Secundaria Universidad Otro grado Por favor indique con un crculo el pueblo en qu Ud. vive: Santa Elena Cerro Plano Monteverde Los Llanos Hace cuantos aos vive Ud. aqu?

PAGE 140

APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

PAGE 141

127

PAGE 142

LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). Benefits of leisure: A social psychological perspective. In B. Driver, P. Brown, & G. Patterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.: 91-101. Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., Grouios, G. (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(3), 233-252. Baker, D., & Witt, P. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of two after-school recreation programs for at-risk youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 23-44. Beard, J.G., & Raghed,M.G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 219-228. Bella, L. (1989). Women and leisure: Beyond androcentricism. In E. Jackson & T. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future (pp. 151-180). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Caldwell, L. L, Darling, N., Payne, L.L., & Dowdy, B. (1999). Why are you bored?: An examination of psychological and social control causes of boredom among adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 31(2), 103-121. Confer, J., Vogelsong, H.G., Graefe, A.R., & Sloan, D.S. (1996). Relationships between motivations and recreation activity preferences among Delaware state park visitors: An exploratory study. In W.F. Kuentzel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp. 146-153). Bolton Landing: New York Cooksey, R. W., Dickinson, T. L., & Loomis, R. J. (1982). Preferences for recreational environments: Theoretical considerations and a comparison of models. Leisure Sciences, 5(1), 19-34. Costa Rica Travel Network, (2003). Costa Rica Map. Found at URL: http://www.orbitcostarica.com, last accessed on March 1, 2003. Carnegie Corporation of New York. (1992). A matter of time: Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. 128

PAGE 143

129 Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 119127. Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Klieber, D.A. (1991). Leisure and self actualization. In B. Driver, P. Brown & G. Patterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 91-101). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Dattilo, J., Dattilo, A.M., & Kleiber, D.A. (1993, October). Perception of leisure by women with low incomes who are overweight: Relationship to self-esteem. Paper presented at the SPRE Leisure Research Symposium, Cincinnati, Ohio. Deci, L., & Ryan, M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. Deem, R. (1986). All work and no play? The study of women and leisure. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. Finn, K.L., & Loomis, D.K. (1997). Minority group participation in recreational fishing: The role of demographics and constraints. In H. Vogelsong (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, (pp. 64-69). Bolton Landing: New York Glancy, M. (1991). The androcentrism complex. In T.L. Goodale & P.A. Witt (Eds.), Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of change (3rd ed., pp. 413-428). State College, PA: Venture. Godbey, G. (1985). Nonuse of public leisure services: A model. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 3(2), 1-12. Godbey, G., Graefe, A., & James, S.W. (1992). The benefits of local recreation and park services: A nationwide study of the American public. Unpublished manuscript. Green, E., Hebron, S., & Woodward, D. (1990). Womens leisure, what leisure? Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan. Howard, D.R., & Crompton, J.L. (1984). Who are the consumers of public park and recreation services? An analysis of the users and nonusers of three municipal leisure service organizations. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2(3), 33-48. Hammitt,W., E., Knauf, L.,R., & Noe, F.P. (1989). A comparison of user vs. researcher determined level of past experience on recreation preference. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, (2), 202-213.

PAGE 144

130 Hayes, A., Schmidt, L., Adkins, S., & Hassan, N. (2002). Recreation for the youth of the Monteverde Zone: A needs assement. Unpublished manuscript, Monteverde Institute, Costa Rica. they changed over time? Rural Sociology, 57(1), 28-47. Henderson, K.A., Bialeschki, M.D., Shaw, M.S., & Freysinger, J.V. (1989). A leisure of ones own: A feminist perspective on womens leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Henderson, K.A., Bedini, L.A., Hecht, L., & Shuler, R. (1993). The negotiation of leisure constraints by women with disabilities. Paper presented at the Seventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Horna, J. (1989). The leisure component of the parental role. Journal of Leisure research, 21, 228-241. Hunter, P.L., & Whitson, D.J. (1992). Womens leisure in a resource industry town: Problems and issues. Loisir et Societe, 15(1), 223-244. Hutchison, R., & Fidel, K. (1984). Mexican-American recreation activities: A reply to McMillen. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(4), 344-349. Infocostarica, 2003. Traditions. Found at URL: http://www.infocostarica.com/culture/traditions.html, last accessed on March 1, 2003. Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1989). Motivation for leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past charting the future (pp. 247-279). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Jackson, E.L., Crawford,D.W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 15,1-11. Jackson, E.L., & Dunn, E. (1991). Is constrained leisure an internally homogenous concept? Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 167-184. Jackson, E.L., & Henderson, K.A. (1995). Gender-based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17, 31-51. Jackson, E.L., & Rucks, V. C. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior-high and high-school students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 85-94. Jessor, R. (1992). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychological framework for understanding and action. In D.E. Rogers & E. Ginzberg (Eds.), Adolescents at risk : Medical and social perspectives (pp. 19-33). Boulder, CO : Westview Press. Jones, J.E., & Dunlap, R.E. (1992). The social bases of environmental concern: Have

PAGE 145

131 Jordan, C. (1991). Parks and recreation: More than fun and games." In: Driver, B., Brown, P., Patterson, G., (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 365-368). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. prohibitors, 538-544. Kane, M.J. (1990). Female involvement in physical recreationGender role as a constraint. JOPERD,1, 52-56. Kay, T., & Jackson, O. (1990). The operation of leisure constraints. In B.A. Smale (Ed.), Leisure challenges: Bringing people, resources, and policy into playProceedings, Sixth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research (pp. 352-356). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Research Council on Leisure. Kay, T., & Jackson, O. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 301-313. Kelly, J.R., & Warnick, R.B. (Eds.) (1999). Recreation trends and markets. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, Inc. Lucas, R.C. (1990). Wilderness use and users: Trends and projections. In J.C. Hendee, G.H. Stankey, & R.C. Lucas (Eds.), Wilderness management (pp. 355-398). Golden, CO: North American Press. Manfredo, M., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation: A meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(3), 188-213. Mannell, R.G., & Zuzaneck, J. (1991). The nature and variability of leisure constraints in daily life : The case of the physically active leisure of older adults. Leisure Sciences, 13(4), 337-351. Marans, R., & Mohai, P. (1991). Leisure resources, recreation activity, and the quality of life. In B. Driver, P. Brown & G. Patterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 351-363). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Martin, W.H., & Mason, S. (2003). Leisure in three Middle Eastern countries. World Leisure Journal, 45(1), 35-44. Masten, A.S., & Garmezy, N. (1985). Risk, vulnerability and protective factors in developmental psychopathology. In B.B. Lahey & A.E. Kazkin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1-52). New York: Plenum Press. McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational factors for evaluating spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100-110. McGuire, F.A., Dottavio, D., & OLeary, 3.T. (1986). Constraints to participation in outdoor recreation across the life span: A nationwide study of limiters and The Gerontologist, 26

PAGE 146

132 McMillen, J.B. (1983). The social organization of leisure among Mexican-Americans. Journal of Leisure Research, 15, 164-173. Molina, G. (1995). Factors impacting leisure in middle aged adults throughout the world: Leisure Research, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Costa Rica, World Leisure and Recreation, 37(1), 31-32. Monteverde Info (2003). Monteverde Costa Rica. Found at URL: http://www.monteverdeinfo.com, last accessed on March 1, 2003. Monteverde Institute (1996). Sustainable futures: youth in the zone. Unpublished manuscript, Monteverde Institute, Costa Rica. Nunes, C.M., & Baker, R.E. (2002). A blueprint for effective recreational sport leadership. Recreational Sports Journal, 26, 65-72. Pennington-Gray, L., Holland, S., & Thapa, B. (2003). Florida residents' constraints to parks and public lands visitation: An assessment of the validity of an interpersonal, interpersonal and structural model. World Leisure Journal, 44(4), 51-60. Posner, J.K., & Vandell, D.L. (1994). Low-income childrens after-school care: Are there beneficial effects of after-school programs? Child Development, 65, 440-456. Oh, Sae-Sook., Caldwell, L., & Sei-Yi, Oh. (2001). An examination of leisure constraints, participation in creative activities and hobbies, and leisure boredom in a sample of Korean adults. World Leisure Journal, 43(2), 30-38. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constraints: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15, 99-113. Rachowiecki, R., & Thompson, J. (Eds.) (2000). Lonely planet: Costa Rica. 4. Melbourne, Australia: Lonely Planet Publications, PTY LTD. Robinson, J.P., & Godbey, G. (Eds.) (1997). Time for life : The surprising ways Americans use their time. University Park, PA : The Pennsylvania State University Press. Roggenbuck, J. W., Loomis, R. J., & Dagostino, J. V. (1991). The learning benefits of leisure. In B. Driver, P. Brown & G. Patterson (Eds.), Benefits of leisure (pp. 195-213). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Salazar, C.G., & McEwen, D.N. (1996). Perceptions of Costa Rican professionals and students on the importance of the United States undergraduate recreation curriculum competencies for Costa Rica. Schole: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation, 73-83. Samdahl, D.M., & Jekubovich, N. (1993). Constraints and constraint negotiation in common daily living. Paper presented at the Seventh Canadian Congress on

PAGE 147

133 Samdahl, D.M., & Jekubovich, N.J. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: Comparative analyses and understandings. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4), 430-452. Samdahl, D.M., Hutchinson, S.L., & Jacobson, S. (1999). Navigating constraints? A critical commentary on negotiation in leisure studies. Paper presented at the 9th Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Scott, J.W. (1986). Gender: A useful category of historical analysis. American Historical Review, 91, 1053-1075. Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in constract bridge: A qualitative study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 1, 321-336. Scott, D. (1993). Time scarcity and its implications for leisure behavior and leisure delivery. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11(3), 51-60. Scott, D., Witt, A.P., & Foss, G.M. (1996). Evaluation of the impact of Doughertys Arts Centers creativity club on children at-risk. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 41-59. Searle, M., & Jackson, E.L. (1985). Socioeconomic variations in perceived barriers to recreation participation among would-be participants. Leisure Sciences, 7(2), 227-250. Shaw, S. (1994). Gender, leisure, and constraint: Towards a framework for the analysis of womens leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26, 8-22. Shaw, S.M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J.F. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 2, 286-300. Soucie, D. (1994). Effective managerial leadership in sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 8, 1-13. Stewart, W.P. (1992). Influence of the onsite experience on recreation experience preference judgments. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(2), 185-198. Stodolska, M., & Yi, J. (2003). Impacts of immigration on ethnic identity and leisure behavior of adolescent immigrants from Korea, Mexico and Poland. Journal of Leisure Research, 35(1), 49-79. Streather, J. (1989). One-parent families and leisure. In F. Coalter (Ed.), Freedom and constraint: The paradoxes of leisure, (pp. 175-186). London: Routledge.

PAGE 148

134 Thapa, B., Pennington-Gray, L., & Holland, S. (2002). Assessing the validity of an outdoor recreation constraints model for tourists to Florida. Proceedings for the 33rd Annual Travel and Tourism Research Association Conference, Arlington, VA. 1-9. Wallace, G.N., & Smith, M.D. 1997. A comparison of motivations, preferred management actions, and setting preferences among Costa Rican, North American and European visitors to five protected areas in Costa Rica. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 15 (1), 59-82. Weinblatt, N., & Navon, L. (1995). Flight from leisure: A neglected phenomenon in leisure studies. Leisure Sciences, 17, 309-325. Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D.L. (1995). Development, reliability, validity of a scale to measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4), 379-400. Witt, P.A., & Goodale, T.L. (1981). The relationships between barriers to leisure enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences, 4(1), 29-49. Witt, P.A., & Crompton, J. L. (1996). The at-risk youth recreation project. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 14(3), 1-9. Unold, G. (1999). Inside looking out. Parks and Recreation, 34, 52-55. Zona Latina (2003). Latin American children and sports activities. Found at URL: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata27.html, last accessed on March 1, 2003.

PAGE 149

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Allison Hayes was born in Niles, Michigan, in 1978, and after graduating from high school, moved to Florida in 1996. In 2000, she graduated with a bachelors degree in telecomunication news with a concentration in sports management from the University of Florida. After graduation she worked for Major League Baseballs Cleveland Indians, and took a sabbatical in Europe to improve her language skills and develop an appreciation for foreign culture. While working on her masters degree, Allison participated in a study abroad program in Monteverde, Costa Rica, where this project evolved. She worked as a graduate research and teaching assistant in the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism. She also worked as a reporter at WCJB TV 20 in Gainesville, working on stories exploring sports and recreation in North Central Florida. Allison is now graduating with her Master of Science in Recreational Studies from the Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism. 135


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0003302/00001

Material Information

Title: The Understanding of motivations, preferences and constraints of recreation in a rural Costa Rican community: La Zona de Monteverde
Physical Description: xiv, 135 p.
Language: English
Creator: Hayes, Allison Marie ( Dissertant )
Pennington-Gray, Lori ( Thesis advisor )
Confer, John ( Reviewer )
Gibson, Heather ( Reviewer )
Phillips, Rhonda ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Recreation, Parks and Tourism thesis, M.S.R.S   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Recreation, Parks and Tourism   ( local )
Recreation -- Costa Rica   ( lcsh )

Notes

Abstract: This study came about by a voiced concern of the lack of recreation in the Monteverde Zone, by the residents of the community. This study sought to investigate the motivations, activity and environmental preferences as well as the constraints to recreation participation for the residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. The secondary purpose was to examine whether these motivations, preferences and constraints were related to five demographic variables. A total of 343 survey questionnaires were collected over a three-week period in the Zone in April 2003. This study found that seventeen items loaded on four factors (or domains) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four motivational factors included relax, nature, active, and alone/away. Participants in this study were highly motivated to participate in recreation for socialization. The majority of participants in this study indicated that relaxation was the greatest motivational factor. Results indicated that the education variable was significantly related to the types of motivations for participation. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than respondents with "other" types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees). The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports across all life cycle groups and in particular for males. The second most popular activity was social activities. Results indicated that women preferred social activities. The majority of the respondents chose the salón and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in Santa Elena as their preferred locations for a recreational center. Based on previous literature, variables were computed to create the three constraint domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural). After computing Cronbach Alphas, only two domains were used for further investigation (intrapersonal and interpersonal). Results of the ANOVA analysis revealed that younger adults with children reported a high degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Females also reported higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. In conclusion, the community members would prefer to have a recreation center located in the salón and bullring in Cerro Plano that could be used for sports and social activities. It is recommended that the current structures be used to increase recreation opportunities for the citizens of La Zona de Monteverde. Additionally, it is also recommended that further research be conducted on the youth of the Monteverde Zone.
Subject: constraints, Costa, motivations, preferences, recreation, Rica
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 149 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.R.S.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0003302:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0003302/00001

Material Information

Title: The Understanding of motivations, preferences and constraints of recreation in a rural Costa Rican community: La Zona de Monteverde
Physical Description: xiv, 135 p.
Language: English
Creator: Hayes, Allison Marie ( Dissertant )
Pennington-Gray, Lori ( Thesis advisor )
Confer, John ( Reviewer )
Gibson, Heather ( Reviewer )
Phillips, Rhonda ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2004
Copyright Date: 2004

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Recreation, Parks and Tourism thesis, M.S.R.S   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Recreation, Parks and Tourism   ( local )
Recreation -- Costa Rica   ( lcsh )

Notes

Abstract: This study came about by a voiced concern of the lack of recreation in the Monteverde Zone, by the residents of the community. This study sought to investigate the motivations, activity and environmental preferences as well as the constraints to recreation participation for the residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. The secondary purpose was to examine whether these motivations, preferences and constraints were related to five demographic variables. A total of 343 survey questionnaires were collected over a three-week period in the Zone in April 2003. This study found that seventeen items loaded on four factors (or domains) with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four motivational factors included relax, nature, active, and alone/away. Participants in this study were highly motivated to participate in recreation for socialization. The majority of participants in this study indicated that relaxation was the greatest motivational factor. Results indicated that the education variable was significantly related to the types of motivations for participation. College educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than respondents with "other" types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees). The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports across all life cycle groups and in particular for males. The second most popular activity was social activities. Results indicated that women preferred social activities. The majority of the respondents chose the salón and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in Santa Elena as their preferred locations for a recreational center. Based on previous literature, variables were computed to create the three constraint domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural). After computing Cronbach Alphas, only two domains were used for further investigation (intrapersonal and interpersonal). Results of the ANOVA analysis revealed that younger adults with children reported a high degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Females also reported higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. In conclusion, the community members would prefer to have a recreation center located in the salón and bullring in Cerro Plano that could be used for sports and social activities. It is recommended that the current structures be used to increase recreation opportunities for the citizens of La Zona de Monteverde. Additionally, it is also recommended that further research be conducted on the youth of the Monteverde Zone.
Subject: constraints, Costa, motivations, preferences, recreation, Rica
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 149 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.R.S.)--University of Florida, 2004.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0003302:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE UNDERSTANDING OF MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND
CONSTRAINTS OF RECREATION IN A RURAL COSTA RICAN COMMUNITY:
LA ZONA DE MONTEVERDE

















By

ALLISON MARIE HAYES


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Allison Marie Hayes


































I would like to dedicate this project to my parents, Rich and Debbie Hayes, who have
been pillars of constant strength, faith and love throughout the dreams and endeavors of
my life.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are several people without whom this project would never have happened

and to them I am forever grateful. Particularly, I would like to thank my mother, Debbie,

who has taught me to never doubt myself and has been a role model to me as a strong,

beautiful and intelligent woman. I would also like to thank my father, Rich, who has

taught me to take life as it comes, be positive and to never give up. Additionally, I would

like to thank my best friend, Robert, whose patience, love and support have helped me

develop into the woman I am today.

I would also very much like to thank my supervisory committee for their

guidance, support, patience and friendship. Dr. Lori Pennington-Gray has helped me to

harness my enthusiasm for this project and channel it through completion. She has been

here for me through tears and laughter. I not only respect her as my mentor, but also

consider her my friend. Dr. John Confer has shown me the wonderful world of statistics

and helped make chapter 4 one of my favorites. His encouragement, positive attitude and

sense of humor helped me immensely; Dr. Heather Gibson's insight and expertise in

qualitative research have shaped this project and helped me push my limits and her smile

brightens my day; Dr. Rhonda Phillips has introduced me to the field of urban and

regional planning. Furthermore, I would like to thank Sherri Nunn for her help with

translation and Charlie Lane for his help, support and words of encouragement.









I would also like to thank the people of the Monteverde Zone in Costa Rica.

Without their insight, helpfulness and participation, this project would not have come

about.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ............................. .. .......... .................................. xii

A B S T R A C T .................................................................................................... ........ .. x iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ........ .. ......................................... ..........................................1.

The Case of La Zona de Monteverde .....................................................................2...
Statem ent of the P problem ...................................................................... ...............4...
Purpose of the Study .......................... .. ........... .........................................5
T heoretical F ram ew ork ... ...................................................................... .............. .5...
D elim itatio n s........................................................................................................ ... 9
L im itatio n s ............................................................................................................... .. 1 0
D e fin itio n s ................................................................................................................. 1 0

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 12

M otivations for R recreation ......................................... ........................ ............... 12
Preferences for Recreation........................ ..................................... 17
Preferences for Recreation: Based on Demographics ...........................................21
C onstraints to R recreation ........................................... ......................... ................ 23
Gender Constraints to Recreation......................................................................32

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................... ............................................ 37

In tro d u ctio n ................................................................................................................ 3 7
S ite D e scrip tio n .......................................................................................................... 3 7
P ilo t S tu d y .............................................................................................................. . 3 9
D ata C o llectio n ........................................................................................................... 3 9
Sam pling Procedures ............... ................ .............................................. 40
Selection of Subjects ................ ................ .................................. 41
Operationalization of the Constructs .................................................................41
M o tiv atio n s .......................................................................................................... 4 1
P re fe ren c e s .......................................................................................................... 4 1









C constraints ..................................................................................................... 42
D e m o g rap h ic s ......................................................................................................4 2
A n a ly sis ......................................................................................................................4 3
D description of the Sam ple ................. .............................................................. 44
G ender .............. ....................................................................... . ......44
A g e ......................................................................................................................4 4
F am ily L ife C ycle ... ................................................................... .. ............. 44
E du catio n L ev el .... ................................................................... .... ............... 4 5
R esidency/Tow n and H ow Long.................................................... ................ 45

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION...................................................52

A naly sis of M otiv ation s...............5.......... ................. ... ................................... 52
Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for
R e cre atio n ? .................. ................................... .... ................................................ 5 3
A analysis of M otivational Statem ents.............................................. ............... 53
F actor 1- R elax .................................................................. .. ........... 54
F actor 2- N ature .............. .. ............ ............................................. 54
F actor 3- A ctiv e.............................................. ....................... ... .......... 54
F actor 4- A lone/A w ay ............................................................. ............... 55
What Is the Relationship between Age and Motivations?................................55
What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Motivation? .............55
What Is the Relationship between Education level and Motivation?............... 56
What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Motivation? .............56
What Is the Relationship between Gender and Motivation? .............................57
Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for
Recreation? ............................ .. ...... ......... .. ...................... 57
Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to
R e cre atio n ? ............ ............................................................................................... 6 1
A naly sis of C onstraints........................................ ........................ ................ 62
Intrapersonal (Intra) ..................................... .. .......... .......... ................. 62
Interpersonal (Inter) ........................................ ................... .. .. ............ 62
What Is the Relationship between Age and Constraints?.................................63
What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Constraints? .............64
What Is the Relationship between Education level and Constraints? ..............65
What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Constraints?............. 66
What Is the Relationship between Gender and Constraints?.............................66
S u m m a ry .................................................................................................................. ... 6 7
M o tiv atio n ........................................................................................................... 6 7
P referen c e s .......................................................................................................... 6 7
Environm mental Preference ........................................................ 68
C o n stra in ts ........................................................................................................... 6 9

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .......... ..........................101

Summary of Procedures and Treatment of the Data...................... ...................101
D discussion of Findings ............. ................ .............................................. 101









Research Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and
M otivations for R recreation? .................................................... ................ 102
Research Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and
Preferences for R recreation? ..................................................... ................ 104
Research Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and
Constraints to Recreation? ....... .......... ........... ...................... 108
Im p licatio n s .............. ....... ... ............................................................................ 1 10
Recommendations for Future Research...... .... ........................ 115

APPENDIX

A PHOTOS OF THE SALON, BULLRING AND SOCCER FIELD.......................117

B MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND CONSTRAINTS QUESTIONNAIRE.. 120

C INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ................... ..................... 126

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ................................................................................................. 128

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................. ............................................................... 135















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 D ata C collection Schedule ......................................... ........................ ................ 48

3-2 D ata C collection T otals ...................................................................... ................ 48

3-3 Operationalization of Motivation constructs.......................................................49

3-4 Operationalization of Constraints Constructs .............. .....................................50

3-5 Demographic Profile for the Monteverde Zone..................................................51

3-6 A ge of R respondents .............................. ............................................ 51

4-1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Motivation Items............................................70

4-2 Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages)................................................71

4-3 Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements .............................................72

4-4 AN O V A for M otivations by A ge........................................................ ................ 73

4-5 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Betw een M otivations and Age Groups ............................................... ................ 73

4-6 ANOVA for Motivations by Family Life Cycle .................................................73

4-7 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Family Life Cycle .............. .....................................74

4-8 ANOVA for Motivations by Education ............................................................. 74

4-9 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
B etw een M otivations and Education................................................... ................ 74

4-10 ANOVA for Motivations by Residency (Town).................................................75

4-11 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Residency (Town) .....................................................75









4-12 Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender
an d M otiv action s ........................................................................................................ 7 6

4-13 Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Motivations ..................................76

4-14 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 1 :"What do you
do for fun in your free time when you do not work?".........................................77

4-15 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 2: "If a recreational
center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should
b e lo c ate d ? ............................................................................................................. 7 8

4-16 Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 3: "What three
activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your
co m m u n ity ?" ........................................................................................................... 7 9

4-17 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Age Group ..................................... 80

4-18 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Age Group...........................................81

4-19 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Family Life Cycle (FLC) Group ...... 82

4-20 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Family Life Cycle ................................83

4-21 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Education Level ............................... 84

4-22 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Education Level ...................................85

4-23 ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Residency (Town)......................... 86

4-24 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Residency (Town)...............................87

4-25 T-test for Environment Preferences by Gender................................... ................ 88

4-26 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Gender.................................. ................ 89

4-27 Mean and Standard Deviation for Constraint Items...........................................90

4-28 Frequency of Constraint Items (in Percentages) ................................. ................ 91

4-29 M ean and Cronbach Alpha of Constraints Items ................................ ................ 92

4-30 ONE-W AY for Constraints by Age Group......................................... ................ 92









4-31 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Betw een Constraints and A ge Groups ................................................ ................ 92

4-32 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Age Group ........................................93

4-33 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Family Life Cycle..............................................93

4-34 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Constraints and Family Life Cycle....................................... ................ 94

4-35 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by FLC...................................................94

4-36 ONE-W AY for Constraints by Education........................................... ................ 95

4-37 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
B etw een Constraints and Education.................................................... ................ 95

4-38 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Education..........................................96

4-39 ONE-WAY for Constraints by Residency (Town) .............................................96

4-40 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Constraints and Residency (Town) ...................................... ................ 96

4-41 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Residency (Town) ...............................97

4-42 Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Constraints ....................................97

4-43 Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between Gender
an d C o n strain ts ......................................................................................................... 9 8

4-44 ONE-WAY for Structural Constraints by Gender ..............................................98

4-45 Overview of Responses to: "What do you do for fun in your free time when
you do not work?" ........... ......................................99

4-46 Overview of Responses to: "If a recreational center could be constructed in
your community, where do you think it should be located?"...............................99

4-47 Overview of Responses to: "What three activities would you MOST like to
have available for recreation in your community?"........................................99

4-48 Overview of Responses for Environmental Preference. .............. ...................100

4-49 Overview of Responses for Intra and Interpersonal Constraints......................... 100















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1 Leisure participation as the product of a balance between constraints and
m o tiv atio n s .............................................................................................................. 1 1

2-1 The proposed interactions between constraints, motivations, and participation......36

3-1 Map of Costa Rica .......................... .......... ........................ 46

3-2 The Monteverde Zone: Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Cerro Plano and Monteverde.....47

A -i The sal6n in C erro Plano ..................................... ........................ ............... 117

A-2 An outside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano. .................................118

A-3 An inside view of the bullring in Cerro Plano. ................................... 118

A-4 The soccer field in Santa Elena. ...... ........ ....... .....................1... 19















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies

THE UNDERSTANDING OF MOTIVATIONS, PREFERENCES AND
CONSTRAINTS OF RECREATION IN A RURAL COSTA RICAN COMMUNITY:
LA ZONA DE MONTEVERDE

By

Allison Marie Hayes

May 2004

Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray
Major Department: Recreation, Parks and Tourism

This study came about by a voiced concern of the lack of recreation in the

Monteverde Zone, by the residents of the community. The lack of safe, healthy and

inexpensive recreation, in the opinions of the community members, has been leading the

youth of the community to turn to unhealthy alternatives such as experimenting with

drugs, alcohol and sex. This study sought to investigate the motivations, activity and

environmental preferences as well as the contraints to recreation participation for the

residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica. In addition, the secondary purpose was to

examine whether these motivations, preferences and constraints were related to five

demographic variables. The data for this study were collected in the Monteverde Zone,

Costa Rica. A total of 343 survey questionnaires were collected over a three-week period

in April 2003.

This study found that seventeen items loaded on four factors (or domains) with

eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The four motivational factors included relax, nature, active,









and alone/away. Participants of this study were highly motivated to participate in

recreation for socialization. The majority of participants of this study expressed the most

importance for relaxation. Results indicated that the education variable was significantly

related to the types of motivations for participation. College educated respondents were

more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation than

respondents with "other" types of degrees (i.e., technical degrees).

The greatest preference for recreation activities was for sports across all life cycle

groups and in particular for males. The second most popular activity was social

activities. Results indicated that women preferred social activities. The majority of the

respondents chose the sal6n and bullring in Cerro Plano or the sports field (la cancha) in

Santa Elena as their preferred locations for a recreational center.

Based on previous literature, variables were computed to create the three constraint

domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural). After computing Cronbach Alphas,

only two domains were used for further investigation (intrapersonal and interpersonal).

Results of the ANOVA analysis revealed that younger adults with children reported a

high degree of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. While females also reported

higher levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints.

In conclusion, the community members would prefer to have a recreation center

located in the sal6n and bullring in Cerro Plano that could be used for sports and social

activities. It is recommended that the current structures be used to increase recreation

opportunities for the citizens of La Zona de Monteverde. Additionally, it is also

recommended that further research be conducted on the youth of the Monteverde Zone.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Recreation and leisure are activities that are pursued for the attainment of personal

and social benefits or for just the experience itself. Dimensions of perceived freedom of

choice and intrinsic satisfaction are the central determinants of leisure. Leisure and

recreation are pursued during discretionary time when there are fewer obligations to

work.

Research on recreation has indicated an improvement in the quality of life of

individuals who partake in regular recreational activities. Few people would argue the

fact that there are benefits to recreation and leisure pursuits. A recreational activity is

beneficial to the extent that it helps people to attain one or more of their goals. Lack of

recreational opportunities can keep people from participating in recreation activities,

however at times, opportunities are available and people still choose not to take part in

them. It is thought this may occur when the benefits of leisure and recreation are not

realized or when resources are not available.

While North Americans spend over 200 billion dollars a year on recreation,

residents of other countries may not have the funds to invest as extensively in leisure and

recreational activities. One country in particular, which has lacked funding for

recreational activities, is Costa Rica. Costa Rica is part of the land bridge between North

and South America, just about 10 degrees above the equator; it is Central America's

second smallest nation (Infocostarica, 2003). The entire country is less than 20,000

square miles, roughly the size of West Virginia (Salazar & McEwen, 1996). La Zona de









Monteverde, Costa Rica is located in the highlands of northwestern part of the country,

La Zona de Monteverde, can only be reached by a 35 kilometer dirt road straight up the

mountain. La Zona is made up of four small towns with approximately 2500 residents,

with the greatest concentration of people in the village of Santa Elena.

Recreation services for Costa Ricans and agencies in local communities are

relatively undeveloped (Salazar & McEwen, 1996). "Due to the lack of knowledge on

the field, recreation and leisure are still seen only as a concern of more developed

countries by the Costa Rican administrators," (Molina, 1995). "Since the 1970's, a study

conducted by the Institute of Municipal Development of Costa Rica (IFAM), revealed

that the inhabitants of 860 rural communities identified lack of recreation alternatives as a

major problem in these localities," (Molina, 1995). To confirm this finding, residents in

La Zona de Monteverde also identified a lack of recreation for the community as a

concern in a pilot study conducted in 2002. This pilot study is presented below.

The Case of La Zona de Monteverde

Hayes, Schmidt, Adkins and Hassan (2002) conducted a study in the Monteverde

Zone in 2002 which examined recreation preferences. The pilot study was designed as a

follow up to a previous study conducted in 1996. The Sustainable Futures Program at the

Monteverde Institute conducted an assessment of youth in the village of Monteverde.

Interviews were collected from thirty young people in addition to conducting three focus

groups with both youth and adults who provided information on their perceptions of

existing recreation activities and sites, and their recreational needs for the future.

Part of the Sustainable Futures report focused on recreational issues. The

consensus from gathering information from both adults and youth was that recreation was

an important issue and the people of the community perceive there are not enough









activities for youth to do in their free time. In the open-ended question, "What

recreational activities exist for youth here?" some of the participants responded,

"Nothing," "There are no activities for youth here." Of particular concern was the lack of

activities for young women. Some activities reported by the youth were places to dance

or roller skate and access to sports such as soccer or basketball. They also said they

would like to have areas to simply hang out and talk with friends. However, while many

people wished they could have more activities and felt the lack of access was a problem

in the community, no concrete efforts were identified to change the situation. The

Sustainable Futures entitled, "Youth in the Zone" investigated youth recreation,

education, and family life in the town of Monteverde. However, the study solely

addressed Monteverde, not the surrounding areas of Santa Elena and Cerro Plano.

In 2002, Hayes, Schmidt, Adkins and Hassan conducted a follow up study to the

Sustainable Futures project, entitled "Recreation for the youth of the Monteverde Zone:

A Needs Assessment," expanding the research area to be more representative of the entire

Zone, rather than just the town of Monteverde (See Map). Qualitative research methods

were used in the form of observations, unstructured interviews and conversations.

Conversations included questions about present activities available to youth and the

physical locations of recreational areas. From the information gained from the

unstructured interviews and preliminary investigations, a structured interview was

constructed. Two separate interviews were administered, one for youth (ages 10-24) and

one for adults (ages 25 and above). From the twenty-five structured interviews, it was

confirmed that there is a lack of recreational activities for youth in the Santa Elena and

Cerro Plano areas. In fact, in response to the question of what activities are currently









available for youth, nine of the twenty-five interviewees answered that there was nothing

for youth to do.

In response to the question, "Are there activities that you wished that were

available for youth, but are not?" The following responses were given: Indoor soccer,

darts, billiards, track, classes, swimming pool, cancha (field), skating rink, volleyball,

dancing, traditional games, movie theatre, gymnasium, aerobics, weight lifting,

basketball, theatre group, puppet workshop, park, place to meet friends, youth

counseling, recreational center, video games, recreational area, large sal6n, cancha for

women, farmers market, ping pong. The top three most common responses for both

youths and adults were a roller skating rink, a sports field (cancha) and a volleyball court.

A striking result of this research was the need for anything, something more than what

they had.

Both the 1996 and 2002 studies on recreation in the Monteverde Zone scratched

the surface of an underlying lack of available opportunities. More research is needed to

fully understand not only the needs, but also the motivations, preferences and constraints

to those living in the Zone.

Statement of the Problem

Based on the findings from the two previous studies of recreation opportunities for

the youth in Costa Rica, it became evident to the researcher that little was known about

the recreation needs of the adult community in La Zona de Monteverde. Lack of

understanding of recreation motivations, preferences and constraints for adult residents of

the Zone make it difficult to plan for recreation.

Research (observations, conversations and a needs assessment) has indicated that

there is a lack of free and/or inexpensive recreational activities for residents of









Monteverde, Costa Rica. Lack of recreation opportunities is linked to several social

problems (e.g. experimenting with drugs, obesity, casual sex). When there are no

recreational outlets for stress, energy and emotions such as anger, negative or unhealthy

alternatives may be sought in place of recreational and leisure activities. Boredom can

lead to the pursuit of stimulation and when there is no legitimate recreation available,

alcohol, drugs, sex and vandalism can all become possibilities. Therefore, the focus of

this study is to examine motivations, preferences and constraints to recreation faced by

residents of La Zona de Monteverde.

Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to identify the motivations, preferences and

constraints to recreation faced by residents of a rural Costa Rican community. In

addition, the secondary purpose is to examine whether these motivations, preferences and

constraints were related to five demographic variables.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework guiding this study combines the constructs of

motivations, preferences and constraints. This framework is appropriate for

understanding the recreation in a rural community in Costa Rica.

In 1993, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey determined that "both the negotiation and

the outcome of the negotiation process are dependent on the relative strength of, and

interaction between, constraints to participating in an activity and motivations for such

participation" (p. 9). During the early stages of leisure constraints literature, assumptions

were made that participation is the only aspect of leisure behavior affected by constraints

and there is only one type of leisure constraint that does, in fact, prevent participation.

As a way of classifying people who have adopted some form of negotiation strategy and









have exhibited a proactive response to constraints, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey came

up with the "Balance" and "Negotiation" propositions. These propositions were

concerned with the negotiation of leisure constraints, the interactions among categories of

constraints, and the interrelationships between constraints and motivations (p. 2). They

felt that the outcome of a response to leisure constraints, now measured by the level of

participation rather than by participation versus nonparticipation, should be viewed as a

function of the interaction, or balance, between constraints and motivations (Figure 1-1).

The balance proposition is consistent with a social exchange of the negotiation process as

a decision-making confrontation between motivations and constraints (p.9).

Leisure constraints negotiation research is still in its seminal stages, but the

understanding and maturity of the concept has been developing in three directions

(Jackson & Rucks, 1995). Initial thoughts were dominated by the idea that leisure

constraints were un-penetrateable barriers that always resulted in nonparticipation. But,

researchers such as Scott (1991) on participation in contract bridge, Henderson, Bedini,

Hecht, and Shuler (1993) on the experience of constraints by women with disabilities,

and Samdahl and Jekubovich (1993) on constraints negotiation in everyday living, have

changed this assumption. All of these authors have illustrated in their research that

people are able to find ways to participate (Jackson & Rucks, 1995, p. 86).

The second area of research on constraints negotiation relates to the fact that

constraints are not always considered to be negative. Studies conducted by Kay and

Jackson (1991) and by Shaw, Bonen and McCabe (1991) suggest the process of

negotiation is understood within oneself and people engage in activities despite the









presence of obstacles. Interestingly, the relationship between constraints and participation

may even be positive (p. 2).

The third and final area in which constraints negotiation has developed proposes

that people encounter and negotiate through the types of constraints defined by Crawford

and Godbey (1987) in a hierarchical sequence (Crawford et al., 1991; Jackson et al.,

1993). In turn, Jackson, Crawford and Godbey (1993) worked together to challenge their

own research of leisure constraints through reviewing the concepts and literature on the

subject and suggested a re-interpretation of their hierarchical model (p.2). "Participation

is dependent, not on the absence of constraints, but rather on negotiation through them.

Such negotiation may modify rather than foreclose participation, (Jackson et al., 1993).

The strategy used to overcome constraints is dependent partly upon the problem

encountered. Jackson suggested that strategies could be either cognitive or behavioral,

with behavioral strategies involving modifications to the non-leisure aspects of life in

order to accommodate leisure needs, such as re-organization of personal time to

accommodate leisure activities. Jackson also suggested that modifications to leisure may

occur by becoming more aware of opportunities and increasing one's skill (p. 2).

While leisure participation is still possible through the negotiation of constraints,

Jackson et al. (1993) proposed that participation as an outcome of constraints negotiation

is likely to be different. Preferences for particular activities may change, participation

may occur less frequently, and specialization in an activity may increase or decrease. To

date, research has supported the validity of the concept of leisure constraints and its

relationship to motivations and preferences.









The study examined recreation in a Costa Rican rural community. This community

is unique in that it does not have many recreation opportunities. This study attempted to

understand the motivations of community members to participate in leisure activities,

their preferences for particular types of recreation and recreation environments and the

constraints faced with in the pursuit of leisure. Leisure participation as a balance of

constraints and motivations is used as the theoretical framework to guide the study of

how to best meet the needs of the community.

Research Questions

This study included the following research questions:

1) What is the relationship between demographics and motivations for recreation?

a) What is the relationship between age and motivations?
b) What is the relationship between family life cycle and motivations?
c) What is the relationship between education and motivations?
d) What is the relationship between place of residency and motivations?
e) What is the relationship between gender and motivations?

2) What is the relationship between demographics and preferences for recreation?

A. What do you do for fun in your free time when you are not working?

a. What is the relationship between age and preferences?
b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences?
c. What is the relationship between education and preferences?
d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences?
e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences?

B. If a recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do
you think it should be located?

a. What is the relationship between age and environmental preferences?
b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and environmental
preferences?
c. What is the relationship between education and environmental
preferences?
d. What is the relationship between place of residency and environmental
preferences?









e. What is the relationship between gender and environmental preferences?

C. What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation
in your community?

a. What is the relationship between age and preferences?
b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences?
c. What is the relationship between education and preferences?
d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences?
e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences?

D. What environment would you prefer to participate in recreation in?

a. What is the relationship between age and preferences?
b. What is the relationship between family life cycle and preferences?
c. What is the relationship between education and preferences?
d. What is the relationship between place of residency and preferences?
e. What is the relationship between gender and preferences?

3) What is the relationship between demographics and constraints to recreation?

a) What is the relationship between age and constraints?
b) What is the relationship between family life cycle and constraints?
c) What is the relationship between education and constraints?
d) What is the relationship between place of residency and constraints?
e) What is the relationship between gender and constraints?

Delimitations

Delimitations of this study are as follows:

1. Data were collected in the town center of Santa Elena, the central location of the
Monteverde Zone.

2. Respondents were men and women Costa Rican residents aged 18 and up.

3. The study was based on self-reported perceived benefits of leisure, motivations
for participation, recreational activity preferences, and constraints keeping
respondents from participating.

4. The sample size was 343 respondents and the researcher self-administered the
survey over a short period of time.









Limitations

Limitations of this study are as follows:

1. The survey was written in English and then translated into Spanish, therefore
some words or questions may have been misinterpreted.

2. Interviewee fatigue was a possible limitation.

3. When participants read and responded to questions on their own more answers
were left blank.

4. Occasionally, potential female respondents replied that they would, in fact, fill out
a survey, but then preceded to hand it to their husbands and asked them to fill it
out.

Definitions

Using interviews, observations, and survey data this cross-sectional study

illustrated the motivations, preferences and constraints of adult members of the

Monteverde Zone, Costa Rica and described the differences in their motivations,

preferences and constraints based on age, family life cycle, education, place of residency

and gender.

Recreation is defined as an activity that is organized for the attainment of personal

and social benefits, while leisure is chosen primarily for the experience itself (Kelly,

1999). Dimensions of relative freedom of choice and intrinsic satisfaction are the central

determinants of leisure.

Motivations are defined as internal factors that arouse and direct human behavior.

Intrinsic motivation is the pursuit of internal rewards such as self-confidence. Intrinsic

behaviors are autonomous and self-determined, facilitate an attempt to pursue and

achieve optimum level of sensory arousal, are conducive to feelings of personal

competence and result in enjoyment and satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation is the pursuit

of external rewards such as money, awards, and fame (Iso-Ahola, 1989).









Constraints are defined as obstacles to leisure participation. They were once

considered barriers that directly resulted in non-participation, but current research

suggests it is possible to negotiate through constraints. They are believed to be broken

down into three levels. The first level of constraints is intrapersonal, and involves

individual psychological states and attributes, which interact with leisure preferences

rather than intervening between preferences and participation. The second level is

interpersonal, those constraints that occur when known co participants themselves are

perceived to be prevented from participation because of structural constraints. The third

level of constraints is structural, those intervening factors between leisure preference and

participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987).

Negotiate means to complete or accomplish, while negotiation is the action or

process of negotiating (Samdahl, Hutchinson & Jacobson, 1999). This will not be

analyzed in this study, but rather used as a framework for interpreting the data.



Intrapersonal Interpersonal _Structural
Constraints Constraints Constraints



Leisure Interpersonal Level of
Preferences Compatibility Participation
and
Coordination

Motivations
(Attractions)

Figure 1-1. Leisure participation as the product of a balance between constraints and
motivations.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review will cover the following sections:

* The area of motivations for recreation
* Preferences for recreation literature
* Preferences for recreation based on demographics
* Constraints to recreation literature
* Gender constraints to recreation

Motivations for Recreation

Understanding why people choose to participate in leisure is important in

explaining and predicting recreation behaviors. The basic principles of leisure motivation

can be applied in practical settings of recreation services. Often, motives are linked to

expectations of leisure participation. Measuring the reasons why people do what they do

is often a difficult task. This is especially true when determining why people participate

in leisure activities, because there is no obvious external force compelling people to do

one activity over another.

Motivation can be broken down into two categories, intrinsic and extrinsic.

Extrinsic motivation is pursuing outside rewards or benefits as a reason for choosing o

participate in an activity. This may include trophies, acceptance by others, or praise.

Intrinsic motivation is doing something for the sake of doing something or just "for the

fun of it." Intrinsic behaviors are autonomous and self-determined, facilitate an attempt to

pursue and achieve optimum level of sensory arousal, are conducive to feelings of

personal competence and result in enjoyment and satisfaction. There are no outside

influences on the decision to participate. This is especially true for children, who often









play just for the sake of having a good time. An optimal level of arousal is sought to find

a balance between being over stimulated and stressed, and being under stimulated and

bored (Iso-Ahola, 1989). Intrinsic motivation facilitates the pursuit of an optimal level

of arousal and these motivations are inherently pleasurable and satisfying. Iso-Ahola

found that the freedom of choice at the onset of a behavior and feelings of competence

are two main factors when defining leisure. In the pursuit of leisure people often seek

intrinsic rewards and attempt to escape from their routine environment. More intrinsic

motivators may include self-actualization, self-gratification and self-expression.

Subjectivity is necessary when determining the benefits of recreation, because what

is beneficial to one may or may not be considered beneficial to another and may not be

directly observed. Regular exercise can result in physical benefits that can be observed

such as weight loss and cardiovascular health but stress reduction and sense of

accomplishment are much more difficult to observe. Because it is difficult to observe all

benefits of leisure, the theory of planned behavior was proposed to provide a conceptual

framework for the study of leisure benefits.

It involves identification of goals; assessment of perceived relations between
leisure activities and those goals; assessment of other beliefs as well as attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control; measurement of intentions to
engage in leisure activities; and finally, assessment of actual performance of the
behavior and of goal attainment. (Ajzen, 1991)


Learning in and of itself is also a benefit of leisure. Seven kinds of learning have

been identified to be connected with leisure including behavior change and skill learning,

direct visual memory, information, attitude and concept learning (Roggenbuck, Loomis

& Dagostino, 1991). New behaviors and skills and/or modifying old ones during leisure

can lead to self-actualization, another perceived benefit of leisure. Obtained when









individuals use their freedom to explore the limits of their potentialities and to expand the

range of their mental, physical and social skills (Csikszentmihalyi & Kleiber, 1991).

According to Murray, a need is a stimulus, a force pushing an individual in a

certain direction or to behave in a certain way. Needs such as achievement, power,

affiliation, esteem, and equity, can serve as motivation for individuals and can be both

emotional and physical. A need for physical fitness may motivate an individual to play

sports or to work out. Often people participate in physical activity to feel healthy and

keep in good shape. Physical activity can be an outlet to reduce physical tension and

mental stress. Competition and the need for high self-esteem can be achieved through

physical fitness activities like playing basketball against other players at a recreation

center. Through direct competition, one can evaluate his or her ability against others and

determine his or her skill level. The more success one achieves in various levels of

competition the more competent one feels, therefore increasing self-esteem. Leadership

skills in a competitive physical activity setting can also lead to higher self-esteem

(Soucie, 1994).

One study which examined the intrinsic motivation of leisure was Wessinger and

Bandalos (1995) 24-item Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Disposition Scale. This scale was

created to measure self-determination, competence, commitment, and challenge as

motivation for participation. Results using this scale suggested "individuals differ in the

degree to which they desire intrinsic rewards, and that these differences influence

behavioral choices," (p. 3). Differences dictate cognitive interpretations of perceived

needs, or motives and it is these motives that energize goal selection and directed









behavior. If individuals have differing motives, then it is also possible for an entire

community and culture to have differing motives.

When there are no recreational outlets for stress, energy and emotions such as

anger, people may have to look elsewhere for a release. Unsupervised free time can be

used to participate in negative behaviors. As noted by the Carnegie Council on

Adolescent Development (1992), "time spent alone is not the crucial contributor to high

risk. Rather it is what young people do during that time, where they do, and with whom

that leads to positive or negative consequences," (p. 1). Negative or unhealthy

alternatives may be sought in place of recreational and leisure activities. Boredom can

lead to the pursuit of stimulation and when there is no legitimate recreation available,

alcohol, drugs, sex and vandalism can all become possibilities.

Understanding motivations for leisure and recreation can help practitioners develop

programs that have the greatest likelihood of minimizing conflicts between users and of

yielding human benefits, because of this, much research has been conducted on

determining motivations (Manfredo, Driver & Tarrant, 1996). An "experiential

approach" was created in the late 1960s by Driver and Tocher to suggest that recreation

should not be viewed merely as an activity such as swimming, jogging or camping.

"Instead, it should be conceptualized as a psycho-physiological experience that is self-

rewarding, occurs during non-obligated free time, and is the result of free choice"

(Manfredo, Driver & Tarrant, 1996).

The Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale was developed to illustrate the

idea that people pursue recreation when a problem state exists, such as stress. Within the

context of motivation theory, the REP scale suggests people pursue engagement in









recreation to attain certain psychological and physical goals (Manfredo, Driver, Tarrant,

1996). REP research has been used to describe and compare the experience preferences

of participants in specific recreation activities since the 1970's. The scale works to

establish relationships among experience, setting and activity preferences and also

between non-leisure conditions and experience preferences. The REP scale offer one

approach to understanding motivations for leisure by focusing on the desired goal states

that are attained through participation. For example stress caused by a busy person might

motivate that individual to choose a relaxing leisure pursuit because it may lead to

temporary escape.

The REP scale is made up of 328 items. However, rarely are all 328 items used in

a study. The scales are grouped by domains of conceptually and empirically related

scales. The domains are goal states and include but are not limited to

achievement/stimulation, autonomy/leadership, risk taking, family togetherness, similar

people, learning, enjoying nature, and escape from personal/social pressures (p. 205).

The escape from personal/social pressures domain consists of tension release, slow down

mentally and escape role overloads, while the risk taking domain consists of only one-

scale. When determining which domains and scales to use in an instrument, all items

from each scale should be used, because the use of one item from each scale can increase

the likelihood of item sampling error and weakens generalizations made to the concepts

represented by the scale (p. 208). REP items should be dictated by theoretical concerns,

for example, when the interest is on identifying motivations or desired outcomes, the

survey should prompt the respondent to indicate the extent to which the items are

important in their choice to visit an area or engage in a particular activity.









The purpose of the REP scale is to explain why people engage in recreation, give

guidance in understanding what people want from their recreation experience, and offer

insight into how it might benefit them. As well, the scale can help managers understand

and meet the needs of residents.

Preferences for Recreation

Motives are linked to expected outcomes of recreation participation and can help

explain why people prefer one type of leisure to another. Preferences are not limited to

just activity preference but also may include environment selection as well. A study

conducted by Cooksey, Dickinson, and Loomis in 1982 looked at psychological attributes

and there affect on environment preference.

Environments were conceptualized as providing a context within which valued
psychological attributes could be experienced. Environmental preferences under
this general theory were defined to be a function of evaluative and cognitive
assessments of an environment's psychological attributes. (p. 19)

Their study compared four models for predicting environmental preferences, the

optimal, direct-sum, reward-only and reward-cost models. All of the models were

designed to allow paired comparisons between alternative environments. The direct-sum

model employed cognitive assessments of amount as determinants of environmental

preference. This model assumed a direct linear combination of the differences in amount

of the psychological attributes in both environments. The reward-only model defined

importance as a multiplier for differences in cognitive assessments. The reward-cost

model suggested the "ratio of total rewards to total costs should provide a good index of

an environment's psychological quality and preferability. Ratios greater than unity

indicate a rewarding environment, while those less than unity indicated a costly









environment." Thus, the reward-cost model became the central model of interest in this

particular study.

The researchers surveyed 17 female and 14 male college students, and designated

ten environments and ten psychological attributes. The environments included roadless

wilderness, developed wilderness, park, zoo, museum, theater, nightclub, gymnasium,

student center and home. In the questionnaire, each of the environments were paired with

every other environment and then the participants were asked to circle which

environment they preferred and to rate their degree of preference ranging from 1 (hardly

any preference) to 99 (complete preference). Ninety-nine meant they would completely

and actively seek to experience the attribute during their leisure experience. Cost

evaluations were measured for the ten attributes by rating how important it was for them

to exclude that attribute from their leisure. For each participant, environmental

preferences were derived based on the four models.

The correlations among the direct-sum, reward-only, and reward-cost models were
very high (.80 to .95), indicating these models ordered subjects in a similar by not
identical manner. However, the correlations between each of the three models and
the optimal model were substantially lower (.20 to .36), indicating that the optimal
model ordered subjects very differently in terms of their preferences. (p. 29)

The researchers found the "optimal" model had the greatest predictive power for

environmental preference, and while one may think of an environment for it's physical

attributes, it is the person's preference for that environment that is controlled by the

psychological aspect of humans. Preference for environment relies upon the outcomes

that the person has learned about and expects to experience from the environment.

Previous experience plays a role in determining preference for environment choice.

Other research has indicated that past experiences in a given recreation activity can

affect preference for future recreation participation. In 1989, Hammitt, Knauf and Noe









collaborated on a research study on the measurement of past use-experience and its effect

on recreation activity preference. Two measures of past experience were compared: "(1)

an index value composed of four measures of frequency and years of participation, and

(2) a user-declared classification of four experience-skill levels" (p. 202). This particular

study looked at horseback riders previous experiences riding horses and their desire to

choose to go horseback riding again. The researchers created a scale based on the

frequency and number of years of experience to determine the individual's skill level, but

also allowed each individual to report their perceived skill level as well. A multi-item

index of past experience was found to be a more significant indicator of how past

experience was related to recreation preference than the self-declared classifications. Ten

of seventeen index variables were rated significant while just four of the self-reported

variables were considered significant. After reporting experience level the participants

then ranked the importance of the 17 variables on a 5-point Likert scale. Variables

included horseback riding facilities such as stalls, and corrals, as well as organized

recreation. Varying amounts of past activity experience impacted how a recreationist

would perceive and evaluate a given activity. Results of this study found that past use-

experience was an important variable expressed preferences of recreation users.

In 1992, Stewart conducted a study on experience and it's affect on experience

preference. The primary purpose of this study was to provide an initial examination of

onsite experience and experience preference. The study examined preference pre- and

post experience. The sample was limited to women in order to rule out the possibility of

gender influencing the results of the study. The women ranged in age from 16-69 and

demographic characteristics included age, education and household income. The survey









was administered to the participants before entering and again as they were leaving the

Maroon Lake Trailhead on the West River National Forest. Of the 72 women who

participated in the pretest, 55 (76%) participated in the onsite posttest. The researcher

examined the measurement of experience preference and actual experience. Six

experience preference items were listed in a seven-point Likert Scale format listing, "how

important each of the following experiences are (were) to you for your hike," with three

questions each for the domains of "physical exercise" and "escaping civilization.".

The results of this study coincided with the predictions of dissonance theory.

Participants who achieved a given experience placed more priority for that experience in

their post-activity test. The opposite is true for those who did not achieve a given

experience. They placed less priority on that experience when given the posttest.

Recreationists are particular about the goals they wish to achieve. The participants who

achieved the desired experience left feeling fulfilled because they thought they got what

they wanted. For those participants who did not achieve a desired level, they were not

satisfied. The results of this study suggested that preference may be experience

dependent; in other words, preference could be a relic of participation in the recreation

experience.

In a study conducted in 1996, Confer, Vogelsong, Graefe and Solan, they

determined that people who have different activity preferences also have different

motivations. Respondents ranked the importance of 22 reasons for visiting a state park

and a factor analysis was used to reduce the 22 possibilities into five general motivation

factors: Fun/Recreate, Escape/Solitude, Social/Interaction, Nature/Learning, and

Nature/Harmony. Cluster analysis was then used to place respondents into activity









preference groups after reporting their preferences for 18 activities. Someone who

preferred picnicking, bird watching, and taking walks could be considered more passive

and be motivated to seek solitude. While someone who enjoyed dancing and playing

softball could be considered active and be motivated to seek social interaction.

Preferences for Recreation: Based on Demographics

Leisure and recreation activities are related to culture. For instance, a group of

boys from one culture may prefer to play basketball, while a group of boys from another

culture may prefer to play soccer. Leisure and recreation choices represent a key part of

the social life of subgroups within a given culture. Research has suggested that culture

influences recreation participation both positively and negatively. In 1983, McMillen

found culture had no influence on recreation participation. He conducted personal

interviews with 130 Mexican-American households across 32 activities. Responses were

compared to the "general" population. The list of activities consisted of watching

television, listening to records, and reading newspapers, among other activities.

Interestingly, the activities did not specify whether or not the television programs, music

and reading material were in English or Spanish.

In contrast to the results of the McMillen project, Hutchison and Fidel conducted a

follow-up study in 1984. They felt there were differences based on the type, size, age

and sex composition of Mexican-American and Anglo activity groups. The Chicago

based study consisted of over three-thousand observations of thirteen regional and

neighborhood parks, recording the size, age, sex and social group of Mexican-Americans

and Anglo-Americans.

Thirty categories of activities were created consisting of mobile activities

(bicycling, walking, jogging) and stationary activities (picnicking, sitting, and lounging









on the grass) and sports activities (basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, and other sports).

More than half of all Anglo groups participated in mobile activities, where more than 45

percent of these activities consisting of jogging, walking and bicycling. The Mexican-

American group was more involved in stationary and sport activities. A strong

association existed between the type of activity, the size of group, and the type of social

group. The Mexican-American groups were larger in number of persons, averaging 5.7

persons, while the Anglo group consisted of an average of 2.5 persons. The Anglo

population is more likely to participate in individual activities such as jogging and

bicycling. The Mexican-American group was more likely to participate in activities

involving a larger number of people, often in multiple family groups. Family units would

frequently go to the park in groups to watch younger family members participate in

activities.

The results of the Hutchison and Fidel study vary greatly to those of the McMillen

study. Hutchison and Fidel found differences in the size, type, age, and sex composition

of recreation groups, showed a strong preference for stationary activities involving

families or mixed social groupings requiring extensive use of park facilities by the

Mexican-American group. Possibly, one reason for the difference in results may be that

Hutchison and Fidel did not include indoor activities (watching television, reading

newspapers), but rather focused on urban recreation activities in an outdoor setting.

In 1997, a study by Wallace and Smith, also found differences in the recreation

activities of people based on ethnicity. In this study, the researchers looked at the

motivations, preferred management actions and setting preferences among Costa Rican,

North American and European visitors to five National parks in Costa Rica. They found









significant differences between the three visitor types on all 15 motivations, eighteen of

twenty-two potential management actions, and preference for settings within a park or

protected area. Traditions in Costa Rica differ from those of the United States, while the

US has a longer tradition of outdoor recreation and more primitive forms of recreation;

Costa Rica's protected areas are much more limited in what types of activities can be

offered. Protected areas are limited to day hiking, nature observation, sun

bathing/swimming, and picnicking, while camping, and backpacking have not

traditionally been as popular.

All, North-Americans, Europeans and Costa Ricans, answered similarly to some

questions, but significant differences were found in all fifteen-motivation questions.

Forty-two percent of Costa Ricans reported that they would like to spend more time in

more developed settings than North Americans (19%) and Europeans (18%). Costa

Ricans also tended to be more highly motivated by social interactions (to be with

friends/family, see/meet other people and support the development of additional

infrastructure. Also, they demonstrated a wider array of needs when it came to

recreation, wanting more developed areas for things like camping, picnicking,

educational activities, socializing and opportunities to observe nature. It is interesting

that Costa Ricans assigned more importance than international visitors on all motivations

except "experiencing solitude" or "being adventurous."

Constraints to Recreation

Even if someone is motivated to participate in a recreational activity, they may

experience particular constraints that make participation difficult. Three categories of

constraints have been identified as intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural (Crawford

& Godbey, 1987). Intrapersonal barriers interact with leisure preferences rather than









intervene with participation. Anxiety, stress, depression, perceived self-skill, religiosity,

and social attitudes are all examples.

Early definitions of interpersonal constraints were conceived to be "the result of

interpersonal interaction or the relationship between individuals' characteristics" (p. 101).

But they are now better understood as occurring when individuals express a barrier to

participate because of lack of another person to participate with. An example of an

interpersonal constraint is the need for additional people to participate with; this is

especially true for team sports such as soccer, baseball, basketball and football. Someone

cannot pick up a football and play a game without others to participate with.

interpersonal constraints interact with both preference for, and later participation in,

leisure activities.

Structural barriers intervene between preference and participation. Family

constraints such as financial resources, life-cycle stage, and the scheduling of work time

effect participation. Also, external factors such as season, climate and availability of

opportunity influence participation. While structural barriers can ultimately keep

someone from participating in an activity, the elimination or absence of these structural

constraints can result in participation.

A study by Kay and Jackson in 1990, not only studied the socioeconomic and

activity based variations in barriers experienced, but also how people deal with the two

most frequently reported constraints, cost and lack of time. Sixty percent of those

surveyed said their participation decreased when they experienced financial constraints,

while other solutions included saving money to participate, and the pursuit of cheaper

opportunities. In regards to lack of time, 71% said they decreased participation, while









others reduced the amount of time they spent doing other activities including work and

household chores. There are two types of negotiation strategies: behavioral and

cognitive. The above studies are examples of behavioral strategies, where as cognitive

may include changing your attitude about a perceived constraint and using that to

negotiate.

Through the use of the Canada Fitness Survey in 1991 Shaw, Bonen and McCabe

studied reported constraints compared to participation and demographics. Demographics

include age, gender, marital status and the presence or absence of children, occupational

status and household income. The survey included 35 different recreational activities,

both team and individual sports and activities, such as soccer, tennis, and walking or

cycling. Frequency of participation and length of time of participation formulated an

acceptable measure of participation. The average participation time was 3.2 hours per

week. To determine constraints to recreation participation, respondents who were

looking to increase their level of activity were asked to report the presence of eleven

barriers to participation. These barriers include, "lack of time," "lack of energy," "costs

too much," and "ill health." Because these questions were asked of people who wanted

to increase their participation, these barriers were considered intervening constraints. Of

the eleven constraints, only two of them, ill-health and low energy, were associated with

lower levels of participation for both men and women. Lack of time because of work

was the highest rated response of both men and women but those who reported it showed

significantly higher levels of participation than those who did not. The three most

reported constraints actually showed positive relationships with participation. Some of

the other barriers were shown to have almost no relationship to participation at all. This









contradicted previous research that found constraints to directly result in nonparticipation

(Shaw, Bonen and McCabe, 1991).

Further research suggested that constraints may not be a barrier, but rather an

obstacle that one can work through. According to a study conducted by Crawford,

Jackson and Godbey in 1991, there is a hierarchical series of constraints that one goes

through starting with intra and moving through inter and then structural. One must

negotiate the social attitudes of a given activity before concerning themselves with the

need for others to participate with them, once finding others to participate with, the need

for a location is necessary. This study argues that it is not the lack of constraints, but the

negotiation through them that results in participation. Previous studies were used to

demonstrate evidence of negotiation through constraints.

Additionally Crawford, Jackson and Godbey identified 10 types of barriers and

three strategies to adapt to or alleviate them. Those strategies include acquisition of

information about limited opportunities; altered scheduling of games to adjust to reduced

group membership and individuals' time commitments; and skill development to permit

participation in advanced play. These are all examples of working through constraints to

enable continued participation.

The structural constraint of lack of time seems to be a never-ending problem for

those who have responsibilities, families, work and other obligations of time. According

to a study conducted by Scott in 1993, time scarcity is the feeling that one lacks enough

time to do all the things that one would like to do, and it has a significant impact on

leisure behavior (p. 52). Free time is thought to be time away from work, in which one

can choose what they would like to do and is often limited to the weekend when one does









not have to be at work. "We have come to believe that the experience of leisure is

limited to specific activities, times, and spaces. This absence of fluidity between work

and leisure necessarily creates in us a sense of urgency because we know that leisure time

is limited," (p. 53).

Across a variety of studies, time constraints are generally the most frequently

mentioned reasons for ceasing participation in a leisure activity (Jackson & Dunn, 1991),

not participating in leisure activities (McGuire, Dottavio, & O'Leary, 1986; Mannell &

Zuzanek, 1991) and not using park and recreation services (Godbey, 1985; Howard &

Crompton, 1984, Godbey, Graefe, & James, 1992). Scott suggested that leisure service

providers have much to lose if they fail to respond to people's need to save time.

By allowing opportunities to make reservations, you minimize the risk of showing up but

not being able to participate. Rather than to take this risk, some people would prefer just

to stay home. Reservations for tee times for golf, reserving courts for racquetball, tennis

and basketball as well as tours of national and state parks are considerations. Leisure

service agencies must strive to insure convenience in program offerings by scheduling

programs or services at times that are convenient for the visitors.

Shorter and more self-directed opportunities may also decrease the amount of time

spent during an activity. Some people may not want to spend an entire day recreating, so

by providing half-day tickets to theme parks or nine-hole rounds of golf at an adjusted

rate, people with less free-time can still enjoy recreation. Park planners may

accommodate shorter visits by restructuring their existing trail system by creating looping

trails that are shorter in length and provide self-paced interpretive trails or displays rather

than only providing ranger-led programs. Visitors can participate at their own pace and









do not have to be confined by specific start and finish dates and times. Also, providing

complete information about time requirements in promotional literature can allow visitors

to know the required amount of time for a specific activity before ever leaving the house.

They can be prepared and plan to make enough time to engage and complete the desired

activity, in a park setting, hikers can choose ahead of time the trail length that best suits

their needs. The last recommendation Scott made was an improvement of the overall

quality of life for the community and break down the boundaries between work and

leisure.

In general, over time, leisure research has been dominated by the belief that leisure

is a positive resource that people strive to pursue; therefore, nonparticipation in leisure is

thus thought to be a passive reaction to barriers rather than active flight from problems

that leisure itself may invoke. In 1995, Weinblat and Navon questioned this way of

thought and looked to reexamine the view that leisure nonparticipation is a problem.

Results indicated all participants of the study reported having spent time and

special resources in the pursuit of recreation. According to interviews, caregivers of

people with disabilities were socially isolated. Time left over was used to run errands,

and much of their previous leisure activities were eliminated.

While elderly caregivers may be shying away from leisure pursuits, their

counterparts, adolescents, tend to view leisure differently and are in pursuit of something

new to take part in. In 1999, Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdy asked the question,

"why are you bored?" to 8th grade students to examine the psychological and social

control caused by boredom among adolescents. Because lack of recreation opportunities

can lead to excessive amounts of free-time and even destructive behavior such as alcohol









and drug abuse, higher rates of dropping out of school, and vandalism it is important to

try to understand the phenomenon of adolescent boredom and free time. The life period

of adolescents can be a difficult time because of the development of autonomy, changing

cognitive abilities, evolving relationships with parents, and the quality of behavioral

demands, making boredom especially salient for youth. Adolescence is a period of life

with more free-time and more control over this time compared to childhood. Providing

new challenges to adolescence as they take on increasing responsibilities for structuring

their own time is an important task for recreation providers.

Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdy's research project required eighty-two

students to complete two questionnaires, a face-to-face interview, and participation in a

four-day activity diary over a two-week period of time. The sample was fifty one percent

female, with an average age of 13 years old. The study used psychologically based and

social control models to extend the understanding of adolescent boredom in leisure and

had two levels of analysis, individual difference and situational. At the individual

difference level, they examined two variables that reflected differences in responses to

boredom across situations. Parental monitoring reflected the social control/resistance

model of boredom, while level of intrinsic motivation reflected psychological theories of

boredom. At the situational level, they examined factors associated with boredom within

an individual by examining three possible reasons for participating in a particular

activity: had to, wanted to, and had nothing else to do.

The researchers predicted that regardless of level of analysis, when adolescents felt

as though they were autonomous and self-determined they would be less bored, and when

they felt controlled, they would experience boredom. The "had to" situation reflected the









feeling that someone exerted influence on the adolescent producing a feeling of

obligation. The researchers hypothesized that the "had to" reason for participation

resulted in higher levels of boredom. The "wanted to" situation reflects self-

determination and intrinsic motivation. Caldwell, Darling, Payne and Dowdy

hypothesized that the higher the level of intrinsic motivation, the lower the level of

boredom. And, the "had nothing else to do" situation suggests a lack of stimulation,

optimal arousal, and/or lack of awareness of leisure opportunities. They were unable to

specify a hypothesis for this particular situation. Level of boredom was designated as the

dependent variable and was assessed through a single item that asked participants to

respond to how bored versus how involved they were in their activity where 1 = very

involved and into it and 5 = very bored.

The results of the research coincided with the researchers original hypotheses to the

following relationships: when adolescents engage in activities because they want to they

report lower levels of boredom during the activity. Also, higher levels of intrinsic

motivation were reported compared to those adolescents who are participating in

activities because they felt they had to or had nothing else to do.

Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, and Grouis (2002) conducted one of the most current

research studies of constraints on recreation participation. They studied the influence of

constraint dimensions on intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and motivation,

using the self-determination theory and the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation as the theoretical frameworks. According to the self-determination theory

(Deci & Ryan, 1985), the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are the

psychological needs that are important in motivating human action. Based on 1993's









Jackson, Crawford and Godbey's negotiation and balance propositions, the researcher felt

that constraints research "required a greater understanding of how perceived constraints,

motives and motivation work in relation to each other, and how constraints can be

removed and motivation enhanced," (p. 234). The proposed interactions between

constraints, motivations, and participation are presented in Figure 2-1.

Two hundred fifty seven adult individuals, who reported participation in some type

of sport and physical recreation activity, completed the Sport Motivation Scale and the

leisure constraints questionnaire. Participants were given a list of recreational sports to

give them a clear idea about which activities should be considered for purposes of the

study. Team sports such as basketball, football, soccer and volleyball were included on

the list as well as fitness related activities such as aerobics, weight training, dancing,

jogging, swimming and hiking were all considered sport activities. Walking for exercise

was also designated as a sport activity. Of the 450 total respondents surveyed, 257

individuals reported participating in at least one of the sport activities during the last

twelve months, and therefore were the sample of the survey. Participants were asked to

evaluate the importance of each of the 29 statements as limiting facets for their sport

participation, ranging from very important (7) to not important (1) on a 7-point Likert

scale. The Sport Motivation Scale was used to measure motivation. The SMS is

composed of three subscales assessing intrinsic, extrinsic and motivation ("it is not clear

to me anymore"; "I do not really think my place is in sport", "I used to have good reasons

for doing sports, but now I am asking myself if I should continue doing it") (p. 241). On

a Likert-scale, participants were asked to evaluate each item ranging from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).









Three intrapersonal dimensions were identified, individual/psychological, lack of

knowledge and lack of interest. The three intrapersonal dimensions and the time

dimension contributed significantly to the prediction of motivation. No significant

relationship was found between interpersonal and structural constraints and motivation,

which is explained by the hierarchical model of constraints. The results indicated that

intrapersonal constraints predicted (significantly but not strongly) intrinsic motivation.

High levels of individual/ psychological and lack of interest-related constraints were

associated with lower levels of intrinsic motivation. The results suggested that

intrapersonal constraints act as de-motivating forces for individuals. The study also

found that extrinsic motivation does have an influence on the frequency of participation.

"External reasons, such as health and fitness, attractiveness, general appearance, and

weight control, are important incentives towards sport and exercise participation," (p.

248). Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, and Grouios reported that individuals who invested a

considerable amount of time in physical activity also placed a greater importance on

external motives, such as health and fitness, and achievement-related issues, such as

recognition and outcome.

While constraints had been considered to prevent participation, it is now thought

that constraints may make participation more difficult, but they do not necessarily lead to

non-participation. It is the negotiation of those constraints that lead to participation.

Gender Constraints to Recreation

Gender also plays a role in constraints to leisure participation. Kane (1990) found

gender roles learned in childhood carry over into adulthood and effect leisure

participation. "One consistent theme that has emerged from research on gender

differences in play is that young girls learn skill, roles and attitudes that encourage









dependency, a lack of exploration and thus result in a deficit in self-expression and sense

of mastery" (p. 53). Girls are taught to be dependent on adults for help and security,

while boys on the other hand, are taught to be independent and competent. This leads to

women being physically, socially and psychologically constrained in their opportunities

to fully explore physical recreation experiences. Through use of the Bem Sex Role

Inventory, Kane found that women with masculine and androgynous personalities

perceived fewer barriers to recreation than women with feminine and undifferentiated

personalities. Intrapersonal constraints such as lack of self-confidence, not feeling good

about oneself, not being physically fit, and lacking the physical skills to participate were

significantly greater constraints for women with feminine and undifferentiated

personalities. By leisure service providers putting less emphasis on gender appropriate

activities, both males and females will have more autonomy in choosing their recreation

activity and therefore, get more enjoyment out of the experience.

An analysis of women's leisure, conducted by Shaw (1994) found most research on

leisure constraints for women does not suggest that women have no leisure, but that they

face more constraints than men. Structural constraints such as lower earning power, less

time due to household obligations and family commitments and lack of transportation are

common barriers to women's leisure participation (Horna, 1989; Searle & Jackson, 1985;

Witt & Goodale, 1981), and (Deem, 1986; Hunter & Whitson, 1992; Searle & Jackson,

1985). Low income women, unemployed women, single parents and women of color are

more likely to be constrained by economic factors than are white, middle-class women,

(Dattilo, Dattilo & Kleiber, 1992; Green, Hebron & Woodward, 1990; Streather, 1989).









In a study conducted by Jackson and Henderson (1995), recreation constraints of

men and women and between-gender and within-gender similarities and differences were

examined. Jackson and Henderson used gender as a theoretical framework, not just as

one's biological sex but the "social expectations and cultural definitions associated with

one's biological sex," (p. 33). They used theoretical positions of patriarchy, feminism,

and psychoanalysis (e.g., Bella, 1989; Glancy, 1991; Scott, 1986) as well as feminist

gender perspectives.

Using the General Recreation Surveys administered by the Alberta, Canada

government, two empirical questions were addressed: (1) "What constraints to leisure

are experienced by women and men?" (2) "How does the context pertaining to personal

and situational circumstances (e.g., age, income, and family structure) alter, reinforce,

and perhaps even alleviate the effects of constraints among women and men?" (p. 34).

Two separate mailings were conducted to effective random samples in 1988 and again in

1991 combining for a large sample size of 9,642 respondents. The majority of

respondents, who disclosed their gender, were women (52.3%) while men made up

47.7% of the sample. Ages ranged from 18 to 91 years old. Five factors were replicated

in terms of factor structure for men and six factors resulted for women: 'Social &

Geographical Isolation', 'Lack of Skills', 'Facilities and Family & Work Commitments'

resulted for both men and women. 'Costs of participating' resulted for women, while

'transportation and costs' resulted for men.

Results indicated that female respondents were slightly younger, had lower

incomes, and the proportion of single parents was higher for women than men. Women

reported the presence of all 15 constraints items statistically more than men. Women









reported higher levels of constraints for the intra- and interpersonal constraints: difficult

to find others, too busy with family, no physical ability, don't know where to participate,

don't know where to learn, not at ease in social situations, and physically unable to

participate. They also scored significantly higher than men on social isolation and lack of

skills dimensions. Men had higher scores on the cost of equipment and being too busy

with work. Variables related to age, income, and family structure were also mediating

factors that altered, reinforced or alleviated constraints for women, depending on the

nature and type of constraint. Gender was not the only factor that created leisure

constraints.

In this section we discussed the review of the literature on motivations for

recreation participation, activity and environment preference, and constraints to

participation. The "balance and negotiation" theory by Jackson, Crawford and Godbey

(1993) integrates these concepts. The purpose of this study is to examine the

motivations, preferences and constraints for recreation of a rural Costa Rican community

and to determine if these factors were related to the demographics.




















Intrinsic
-i Frequency of
Constraints Motivation Participation
Participation




Extrinsic
Constraints Extrinsic
Motivation


Figure 2-1. The proposed interactions between constraints, motivations, and participation.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The research design is a cross-sectional, exploratory case study. There are several

threats to validity in a one-shot case study, but care will be taken to minimize these

weaknesses. History is a possible threat to this research design because the community

being used is a frequently studied community. If a bad experience was had by any of the

participants in the past with researchers, a biased opinion and unwillingness to participate

could be the result. While it is possible, it is probably unlikely. This chapter discusses:

* Site description
* Pilot study
* Data collection
* Sampling procedures
* Selection of subjects
* Operationalization of constructs
* Analysis
* Description of the sample
Site Description

In the summer of 2002, the researcher participated in a pilot study in the

Monteverde Zone of Costa Rica. The Zone is a rough geographical area that

encompasses communities found within about a 15-Km (9 Miles) radius around the

village of Monteverde (Figures 3-1 and 3-2). Communities within the Zone include Los

Llanos, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Santa Elena (the community with the greatest

concentration of people). At the time of the study, the population for the Zone was

approximately 3,000 residents. The majority of people making up the Zone live in the

village of Santa Elena. Many of the residents are dairy farmers and produce milk for the









locally run dairy plant, The Monteverde Cheese Factory. The Zone is sometimes referred

to as the milk-shed of Costa Rica and it produces and markets several varieties of dairy

products including cheese, milk and ice cream throughout the country.

Tourism is growing rapidly in Costa Rica and is contributing to a healthy economy

throughout the country. Over one million travelers visit Costa Rica each year, with sixty-

percent of those travelers coming from the United States. The Zone is a tourist attraction

in Costa Rica, famous for the cloud forest. In Spanish, Monteverde means "green

mountain". Monteverde is world famous for its role in creating the Monteverde Reserve

Complex, a collection of private and public preserves protecting more than 100,000 acres

of endangered tropical forest. The largest reserve is the Monteverde Cloud Forest

Reserve, which was founded in 1972 due to the efforts of the Quakers, who decided they

wanted to preserve one-third of their land in order to protect the watershed above

Monteverde (Rachowiecki & Thompson, 2000). The Tropical Science Center, a Costa

Rican non-profit association for education and scientific research, administers and

manages the Reserve, along with a Monteverde staff. The Reserve rests atop the

Cordillera de Tilaran extending down both slopes and including eight different ecological

life zones. Currently, the biological reserve includes approximately 10,500 hectares.

Lands have been purchased using donations from individuals and organizations

worldwide. There is a visitor center and field station that includes simple laboratory

facilities and dormitory-style lodging. It is called the Reserva Biol6gica Bosque Nuboso

Monteverde (Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve), and more land has been acquired over

time with the help of organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Monteverde









Reserve is a private enterprise that is not regulated by the government, and it relies on

public donations.

The second largest forest is the Bosque Eterno de los Nihos (Children's Eternal

Forest). This is apart of the larger Monteverde Reserve and is managed by the

Monteverde Conservation League, a non-profit association founded in 1986, dedicated to

the preservation of the surrounding forest areas through environmental education,

reforestation, land purchase, and other forms of protection. The League is a cooperative

effort among strongly committed Costa Rican and North American biologists and

landowners. Horseback riding and canopy walking tours and zip-line treks of the forest

are popular tourist attractions in the area. There are more than thirty hotels available in

the Zone, with new ones opening regularly (Rachowiecki & Thompson, 2000).

Pilot Study

The pilot study was a qualitative research study, in which the researcher conducted

25 structured interviews to determine the perceived recreational opportunities and the

preferred recreational activities for the future. Participant observation, unstructured

interviews, and structured interviews were all used in the pilot study.

Building on that pilot study a follow-up questionnaire was developed to determine

whether or not there was a relationship between the motivations, preferences and

constraints of residents in the Zone and demographic variables.

Data Collection

In April of 2003, data were collected by the researcher who administered surveys to

people as they entered and exited various locations throughout communities in the Zone

in Costa Rica. Research was conducted in the form of intercept interviews or self-

administered surveys. A Lecturer on the University of Florida campus translated the









survey into Spanish. It was proof read and reviewed to ensure appropriate language. The

option of taking the survey in English or Spanish was made available to participants. The

survey consisted of three pages and was divided into four sections including motivations,

activity and environment preferences, constraints, and demographics. The survey took

approximately 15 minutes to complete. Before leaving for Costa Rica, the researched

intended to allow respondents to read and fill-out surveys on their own to maximize time,

but shortly after beginning the surveying process, the researcher found that when

individuals were left on their own, they were not filling the surveys out completely.

Therefore, the researcher decided to read the survey questions aloud and fill in their

response. Over a three-week period, 343 completed surveys were collected. Seven

surveys were not completed and were deducted from the total. A total of 350 surveys

were handed out. One person refused to participate in the interview and survey process.



Sampling Procedures

The University of Florida Human Subject Institutional Review Board was used to

approve the survey being used before leaving for Costa Rica. Informed consent was used

to insure the safety of the individuals involved in the surveying process. The intent for

use is in writing at the top of the survey and the researcher also informed the participants

verbally aloud before beginning.

The Spanish version of the survey was administered to people as they entered and

exited various locations throughout the community. Three hundred and forty-three

(N=343) completed surveys were collected over a three-week period. The Cheese

Factory, Down-town plaza, Soccer Field and Health Clinic were locations that were

surveyed more than once during the three-week period, other locations were only









surveyed one time as to not survey the same people more than once. The downtown

plaza consists of the Super market, mall and bus stop. Santa Elena is a central location for

all four villages and houses the only super market and Catholic Church. This particular

area is known as a meeting point for social interaction. On two occasions, the researcher

approached people while going on a walk. The data collection schedule is listed in Table

3-1. The total number of surveys collected per location is listed in Table 3-2. A

translator was present for some of the surveying.

Selection of Subjects

The study's population is made up of the residents of the Monteverde Zone, Costa

Rica. It was expected that adults would answer the questionnaire because they are

interested in recreation and leisure time. A random sample was used to help eliminate the

selection bias, every fifth person was surveyed who walked in or out of the survey

venues.

Operationalization of the Constructs

Motivations

Motivations were operationalized on a five-point Likert scale using Manfredo,

Driver and Tarrant's Recreation Experience Preference Scales (1996). There were 20

items which represented six constructs (Table 3-3).

Preferences

Preferences were operationalized using four questions. Question one was an open-

ended question which read "What do you do for fun in your free-time when you are not

working." Question two was an also opened ended and read, "If a recreational center

could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located?"









Question three read "What three activities would you MOST like to have available for

recreation in your community?"

Question four asked about preferences for the environment based on work by

Cooksey et. al. (1983). The question was "What environment would you prefer to

participate in recreation in?" Choices for the environment included: wilderness areas, la

Cancha, school yard, gymnasium, home, national park, La Plaza and church.

Constraints

Constraints were operationalized on a five-point likert scale ranging from strongly

agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Constraints were conceptualized using Crawford,

Jackson and Godbey's model of constraints. There were four items that represented

interpersonal constraints, five items that represented interpersonal constraints and three

items that were structural constraints (Table 3-4).

Demographics

Respondents were asked to indicate their age as an open-ended survey. Then, age

was recorded into five groups, (1) 18-25, (2) 26-35, (3) 36-45, (4) 46-55 and (5) others

over the age of 56. Gender was measured as a closed ended question with either male or

female as the response.

Education was a closed ended question that asked the respondent their highest level

of education: elementary school, high school, university/college or other.

The place of residence was measured by asking which of the following town's the

respondent lived in: Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Los Llanos, or Monteverde.

Marital status was measured as four groups: single, married, divorced or widowed.

The frequency distribution indicated that divorced group represented 9% of the sample









and widowed group represented 4% of the sample. Therefore these two categories were

collapsed into one.

Number of children in the household was an open-ended question. The range of the

number of children was zero to nine, with the mode being zero (32%) followed by two

(19%) and one (18%). Therefore, the decision was made to recode the number of children

into no children or presence of children.

Using the new recorded variables, life cycle was conceptualized as a combination of

marital status and number of children. Computing a new variable resulted in five

categories: married no children, single no children, married with children, single with

children and divorced/widowed with children. Divorced/widowed without children was

recorded as 'missing' due to a small sample size (N=4).

Analysis

In order to describe the population, descriptive statistics of mean, median, mode,

standard deviation and variance were run on the demographics: age, gender and income.

A frequency count and percentage was run on the town in which the participant lived.

Descriptive statistics in the form of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance

were run on the motivations variables in order to identify each of the motivations for the

participants. Factor Analysis was used to examine the validity of the motivation

domains. After the index was created, internal reliability was determined using

Cronbach's Alpha. An independent sample t-test or ANOVA was conducted to compare

gender, family life cycle, age, residency and education with motivational domains.

Scheffe's post-hoc test were used to find where the differences lay along the variables.

Descriptive statistics in the form of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and

variance were run on the constraints variables in order to identify each of the constraints









for the participants. Factor analysis was computed to validate the constraint domains.

Internal reliability was examined using Cronbach's Alpha to determine if all of the

variables in the index made up a valid index.

Description of the Sample

The demographic variables analyzed included gender, age, family life cycle

(consisting of marital status, and number of children); education level and residency. The

results are given in Table 3-5.

Gender

The respondent rate of male to female was fairly close in percentage.

Approximately half the sample was male (54%) compared to 46% (157 actual

respondents) who were female. One limitation of this study was the fact that often, the

potential female respondents replied that they would, in fact, fill out and then preceded to

hand it to their husbands and asked them to do it.

Age

The mean age of respondents was 34 years old with a range from 18 to 75 years of

age. Age group categories were created. Over one-fourth of the sample were between

the ages of 18 and 26, 109 respondents represented the largest percentage of ages

between 25 and 35 years old (32%), 22% were between the ages of 36 and 45.

Respondents between the ages of 46 and 55 made up 9% of the sample, and the oldest

age group, 56+, represented 8% of respondents. A breakdown of the adults surveyed is

shown in Table 3-6.

Family Life Cycle

Family life cycle consisted of both marital status and the presence of children.

Categories consisted of Married without children 4%, Single without children 27%,









Married with children 45%, Single with children 11%, and Divorced/Widow with

children 12%. The category of Divorced/Widow without children was removed because

it was too small (N=4).

Education Level

Three hundred forty people reported having some education. Almost thirty percent

of respondents had an elementary education, more than half of all respondents reported

having a high school education (51%), while 16% of respondents had a college

education, and 3% (11 actual responses) had some other degree. Some other degree

consisted of technical or professional degrees.

Residency/Town and How Long

The largest town in the Monteverde Zone is Santa Elena. The majority of

respondents were from Santa Elena at 42%, 25% of respondents reside in Cerro Plano,

18% of respondents were from Los Llanos, and 14% of respondents live in Monteverde.

The mean amount of time respondents have lived in the Zone was 23 years. Time ranged

from a few months to as long as 67 years.








46











PammW
Hermasea
CamI
Figure31oaao Costa Rica.
O"Aak
Flamkngo
Gran"ide
AveTheMo
Junpulils

Nosiamre
Sam
quera
T^^ aTnborw ^^^^^
M.l Pais rMoanlazu
R Jac6
A Hermose wo
Manuel Antonma
Malhepa
Pacific Ocean Doo




Cocma Island









Figure 3-1. Map of Costa Rica.


*map courtesy of Costa Rica Travel Network, 2003.
Note: The Monteverde Zone is outlined in black box


Barra del Colorado


Lrh I>m
UwS 0


Sixaola


Pakna

drake Ba
and r .


anones


r







47


Miramontes unset Hotel Mirador Lodge: 10KM end of this road Mo everde Cloud Fores
0 *7Monteverde Cloud Forest
S j To: 0 Santa Elena Reserve 7.3 KM clickable map
os Cipreces Selvatura Canopy & VWalkways: 7.2 KM ck.on be p
To Tilaran s Sky Trek Canopy & Sky Walk: 5 KM click on the green inks for activities
35 KM / blue links for Hotels & services
To Are al
136 KM. I Biological atio Cero Amigos 1842 m
CLINIIC e of Santa Elena Original Canopy Tour e a

Lo montevereiNFO.com so Village of Santa Elena
Clarm L inca Valverde El Sapo Dorado a Hice of
de Eana ql High school + ofiice of
Reserve Santa Elena
Po Ban coIris
PTo nd De Lucia Inn tie!iconia *EBIake nk Queirl I
Monteverde Lodge El-- Establo aer .*. fBank + nQeta
1 K KMI Los Pinos Belmar granr Office + Intemrnet CafT
Ecological Farm Resto nonteveweinfo.com
SMontan barDiquEn Pension Santa Elena
Butterfly Garden GAS STATION Amigos t Sabine' mailing Horses
Monteverde o edi.D AtChurh
Conservation League scada I Super Chune,,
i To Interamerican book store
highway: 35 KM (Lagarto) 2KM'
to San Jose: 225 KM H a 's1bkar Police Tucan a a Valverde
,,, _________ CASEM HandicraftB g
I Moon Shiva Finca
oCale: 1 KM = 2/3 mile Childrens Cloud Fres y Valverde
4O 0o meters Bajo del Tigre Post
7 f 1 Bcale I-------------- .= 100 m1300f Toffice
1,000 feet KM from Bank La Colina Lodge
...................... 1 Quaker Friend M onteverde R reserve "
C monteverdeinfo.com 1998/2003 WARNING: a few "info centers 3K .meeung hose 4 KM. Hming tird gary 5 KM
opened recently copying our name to confuse he ravevle. W are not ow o 4 r
responsWe for misinfonnaton or reservadons made by dese people. Our ONLY Trapp Family Lodge
office Is Pension Santa Elena, 30 m downhill from he fSank: 845-7070 or 5051 Villa Verde
Fonda Vela ee road to San Luis Valley
Figure 3-2. The Monteverde Zone: Santa Elena, Los Llanos, Cerro Piano and
Monteverde


*Map courtesy of Monteverde Info, 2003.










Table 3-1 Data Collection Schedule
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Total
Week Plaza-Mall Conservation Soccer Field Cheese Butterfly Soccer Church 124
1 (10) League(14) (6) Factory (16) Garden(5) Field (20) (20)
Plaza- Post Office CASEM(10)
Grocery(15) (8)

Week Cheese Health Soccer Field Chunches Jungle Plaza- Church 118
2 Factory(19) Clinic(15) (18) Bookstore(5) Groove(5) Bus(22) (21)
Moto Shop Morphos Walking(3)
(4) Restaurant
(6)
Sky Trek (5)

Week OFF Paradise Cloud Plaza- Plaza- Soccer OFF 101
3 Caf6(5) Forest(5) Mall(20) Bank(19) Field(15)

Art Center(5) CASEM(8) Walking(4) Health
Clinic (15)

Total 48 50 37 53 54 55 46 343

Table 3-2. Data Collection Totals
Location Number of Surveys Collected (N)
Soccer Field-La Cancha 59
CASEM 18
Conservation League 14
Health Clinic 30
Moto Shop 4
Cheese Factory 35
Plaza- Mall 30
Plaza- Grocery Store 15
Plaza- Bus Station 22
Plaza- Bank 19
Catholic Church 41
Restaurants-Morphos Cafe/Jungle Groove 16
Caf6/Paradise Cafe
Butterfly Garden/Cloud Forest 10
Walking 7
Post Office 8
Art Center/Chunches Book Store 10
Sky Trek 5
Total 343











Table 3-3. Operationalization of Motivation constructs
Label English Version
Excitement
Excite To experience excitement
Fastpace To experience the fast paced nature of things


Pleasure
Relax/Escape
Tension
Beaway
Restmind
Demands
Alone
Nature
Scenery
Beinnature
Smellsoun

People
New people
Family
Friends
Learn
Develop

Learn

Newdiff

Physical Fitness
Active
Exercise
Feeleood


To experience pleasure

To relieve my tension
To get away from other people
To rest my mind
To escape the demands of everyday life
To be alone

To enjoy the scenery
To be in nature
To smell the sounds of nature


To meet new people
To be with my family
To be with my friends

To develop new skills

To learn more about nature

To do new and different things


To be active
To exercise
To feel good


Para estar active
Para ser ejercicio fisico
Para sentirse bien


Spanish Version

Para experimental entusiasmo
Para experimentar la naturaleza
rapidamente media de cosas
Para sentir placer

Para liberar o reducir alguna tension
Para estar lejos de otra gente
Para descansar su mente
Para huir de las demands de la vida


Para ver la belleza escenica
Para estar en la naturaleza
Para gozar los olores y los sonidos
de la naturaleza

Para hablar con gente nueva
Para estar con su familiar
Para estar con sus amigos

Para desarrollar mi conocimiento de
informaci6n
Para aprender mis acerca de la
naturaleza
Para tener experiencias nuevas y
diferentes










Table 3-4. Operationalization of Constraints Constructs


Label
Interpersonal
Ability


Timid


English Version


Snanish Version


I don't have the ability to participate


I am too timid to participate


Newact

Interest

Noimport


Intrapersonal


Frtime
Frimport

Nofriend

Toofar

Structural
Time
Transport
Cost


New activities make me uncomfortable

I am not interested in the recreation
available in this community
Recreation is not important


My friends don't have the time
My friends don't think it is important

I have no friends to participate with

It is too far away for my friends to
participate

I don't have the time
I don't have transportation to get there
Recreation is too expensive


No tengo las habilidades necesarias para
participar
Soy demasiado/a timido/a para participar en
una nueva actividad
Las nuevas actividades me hacen sentir
inquieto/a
No me interesan las actividades de recreation
de mi comunidad
El recreo no es important


Mis amistades no tienen tiempo
Mis amistades no aprecian tomar parte en las
actividades de recreaci6n
No tengo a nadie que quiera participar
conmigo
Mis amistades viven muy lejos para comenzar
una actividad nueva conmigo

No tengo suficiente tiempo
No tengo transport
La recreation cuesta demasiado





Valid Percent


Table 3-6. Age of Respondents
Mean Median Mode Standard Minimum Maximum
Deviation
Age of 34 31 18 12.6 18 75
participants
surveyed
*(N=341)


Table 3-5. Demographic Profile for the Monteverde Zone
Socio-Demographic Frequency
Characteristics
Gender (N=341)
Male 184
Female 157
Age Groups (N=341)
18-26 96
25-35 109
36-45 75
46-55 32
55+ 29
Family Life Cycle (N=336)
Married No Children 14
Single No Children 92
Married With Children 151
Single With Children 37
Divorced/Widow With Children 42
Education Level (N=340)
Elementary 99
High School 174
College 56
Other Degree 11
Town (N=339)
Santa Elena 143
Cerro Plano 86
Monteverde 37
Los Llanos 63














CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the recreation motivations,

preferences and constraints of the citizens living in the Monteverde Zone, a rural Costa

Rican community. The Zone relies heavily on tourism dollars and therefore caters most

of its recreation in the area to meeting the needs of travelers. This chapter contains the

analysis of the data collected during the study. The chapter has been divided into the

following sections:

* Analysis of Motivations
* Analysis of Preferences
* Analysis of Constraints
* Summary

Analysis of Motivations

The motivation statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale

ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and respondents were asked to rate

how the given statements made them feel. The motivational statements which

respondents indicated that they agreed were "not at all important" included: "to be away

from other people" (M= 2.9), "to be alone" (M= 3.1), and "to experience excitement"

(M=3.7). The motivational statements which respondents indicated that they agreed were

"extremely important" included: "to feel good" (M= 4.3), "to experience new and

different things" (M=4.3), and "to be with my friends" (M= 4.4). The means and

standard deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-1.









The frequency of the motivational statements rated by the respondents are shown in

Table 4-2 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the

most common rating applied by the respondents.

Question 1: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Motivations for
Recreation?

Analysis of Motivational Statements

The motivation statements were analyzed using Factor analysis in SPSS, vl 1.5

Factor analysis has been recognized as an accepted and useful test for grouping multiple

variables together into factors to identify commonality. Varimax rotation was included

because it explained the largest degree of variance among the multiple variables, and also

allowed for more even distribution of the variables into the factors that resulted.

According to Jeffreys, Massoni and Odonnell (1997), varimax rotation is the best way of

determining the appropriate number of common factors to retain based on an analysis of

the eigenvalues of the adjusted correlation matrix.

The Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) was also included to determine if indeed factor

analysis was the most appropriate method of analysis for the research questions

pertaining to motivations. According to Jeffreys, Massoni and Odonnell (1997), the

KMO was an index, which compared the magnitudes of the observed correlation

coefficients to the magnitudes of the partial correlation coefficients. A small KMO (less

than 0.5) suggests that perhaps a factor analysis is not a suitable approach, whereas a

higher value indicates the appropriateness of factor analysis. The KMO found in these

questions was 0.9; which proved factor analysis was an appropriate test for these

questions.









The final outcomes of the factor analysis resulted in four factors (or domains) with

Eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and explained 47.9% of the total variance. Grounded in

prior research, items with factor loading scores of at least 0.4 were drawn for each factor,

therefore, seventeen motivation statements loaded into one of four factors. The results of

this factor analysis are shown in Table 4-3.

Factor 1- Relax

The factor analysis indicated that "Relax" was one factor. The motivation

statements included in this factor were "to get away from the demands of life," "to release

or reduce built up tension," "to develop my knowledge," "to feel pleasure," "to relax my

mind," "to feel good." The researcher took out the statement "to be with my family," (.4)

because it was double loaded. Only statements at .4 or higher were kept. The "Relax"

factor had a mean of 4.3 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.7 after removing the above dropped

factor.

Factor 2- Nature

The second factor, "Nature," included four motivation statements: "to enjoy the

smells and sounds of nature, "to be in nature," "to look at beautiful scenery," and "to

learn more about nature." Factor 2 had a factor mean of 3.9 and a Cronbach Alpha of

0.72, which showed this factor is also reliable. This factor had an Eigenvalues of 2.4 and

accounted for 12.1% of the variance.

Factor 3- Active

The third factor contained many items pertaining to being active including: "to get

physical exercise," "to experience the fast paced nature of things," "to experience

excitement," "to talk to new people," and "to be active." This factor had a mean of 3.9









and a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.61, which showed okay reliability. The Eigenvalues for

this factor was 1.4 and it accounted for 7.3% of variance.

Factor 4- Alone/Away

The fourth factor included: "to be alone," and "to get away from other people."

This factor had a mean of 3.0 and a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.69, which showed good

reliability. The Eigenvalues for this factor was 1.3 and it accounted for the remaining

6.6% of variance.

What Is the Relationship between Age and Motivations?

In order to analyze the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and

motivations for recreation participation, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was

implemented. The results indicated that none of the socio-demographic characteristics

other than education were significantly related to the types of motivations for

participation by members of the Monteverde Zone.

Tables 4-4 and 4-5 report the results of analysis of variance between motivations

and age. Age groups were condensed into five categories, representing five different

generations. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c) 36-45, (d) 46-55, and (e)

55+. The results suggested there were not significant relationships between age groups

and motivations.

What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Motivation?

Tables 4-6 and 4-7 present the results of the analysis of variance for the family life

cycle variable and motivation. Family life cycle included five categories: (a) Married

with no children, (b) Single with no children, (c) Married with children, (d) Single with

children, (e) Divorced/Widow with children. On the original questionnaire, Divorced or

Widowed were individual choices, but were later condensed into one category because









the number of responses were too small. The Divorced/Widow without children was

later removed, because of a small response rate. Thirty-one out of 343 (9 %) respondents

reported being divorced, while fifteen of all respondents (4 %) reported being a widower.

No significant differences were determined between family life cycle and motivation.

What Is the Relationship between Education level and Motivation?

Tables 4-8 and 4-9 present the results of the ANOVA procedure for motivations

and education level. Respondents were asked to report their highest level of education

completed. Choices consisted of (a) Elementary, (b) High School, (c) College, or (d)

Other degree. The "Other" choice was made available for those who have more than a

College education, or some type of technical/vocational trade school education. There

were significantly different perceptions of the importance of Factor 2, Nature, between

College educated respondents, and those reporting having an 'Other' degree. College

educated respondents were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for

participating in recreation than those indicating they had some other type of education,

like technical school.

What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Motivation?

Tables 4-10 and 4-11 present the results of the analysis of variance for the

residency variable and motivation. Residency was indicated by the town in the

Monteverde Zone where the respondent lived. Choices consisted of Santa Elena, Cerro

Plano, Monteverde, and Los Llanos. Residents living in Santa Elena represented the

largest percentage (42 %) of respondents. No significant differences were determined

between residency and motivation.









What Is the Relationship between Gender and Motivation?

Tables 4-12 and 4-13present the results of the analysis of variance for the gender

socio-demographic variable and motivation. Males represented a slightly larger percent

of the sample (54%). No significant differences were determined between gender and

motivation.

Question 2: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Preferences for
Recreation?

The preferences section consisted of three open-ended questions: (1) "What do you

do for fun in your free time when you do not have to work?" (2) "If a recreational center

could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should be located?" and

(3) "What three activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your

community?" Open-ended questions were recorded into meaningful categories and

frequencies were run on the categories. Any items with a frequency less than 10 were

recorded into existing categories or put in the "Other" category. The "Other" category

consisted of items such as: playing computer/video games and using the Internet, playing

cards, meditation and arts and crafts. Respondents were asked to list their top three

choices. The rankings of choices were the same in all three categories, therefore; only

the first response was reported. Frequency counts for the three open-ended questions are

described in tables 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16.

Table 4-14 presents the results of descriptive statistics frequency counts for

Preference question 1: "What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not

work?" Participating in sports activities was the highest response, reported by those who

were 18-25, 26-35; high school educated respondents; those who were married no









children, single no children, and single with children; and males. The second most

frequent response was "Other" activities.

Table 4-15 presents the results of descriptive statistics for Question 2: "If a

recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you think it should

be located?" The Salon/Bullring in Cerro Plano was the most frequently given response

for those 18-25, 26-35, 46-55, and 56+. In addition, elementary and high school educated

respondents; respondents who were single no children, married with children, and

divorced/widowed with children; respondents living in Cerro Plano; and females were

more likely to indicate that Sal6n/Bullring was the preferred location to construct a

recreation center. The second most common response was the Sports Field (La Cancha).

Table 4-16 presents the results of descriptive statistics for Question 3: "What three

activities would you MOST like to have available for recreation in your community?"

Sports activities were the most frequently given responses for all age groups except 56+;

all education levels (except College educated respondents); all categories of the family

life cycle; and males. The response with the second highest frequency was cultural

activities these respondents tended to be those living in Monteverde, college educated,

and older than 56 years of age. Females chose "Other" activities, including a farmers

market and park. The second highest response for females was cultural activities.

The preferences section also included a fourth question: "What environment would

you prefer to participate in recreation in?" The preference choices were given on a five-

point Likert scale. This scale ranged from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree," and

respondents were asked to rate how the given options made them feel. Environmental









choices included: wilderness areas, la Cancha, school yard, gymnasium, home, national

park, La Plaza and church.

Table 4-17 shows the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) between

environment preferences of the respondents by age group. The results indicated that

there were some significant relationships between some of the environment preferences

and respondents by age group.

Tables 4-17 and 4-18 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance

between environment preferences and age groups. Responses were measured on a scale

ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly

disagree." Significant differences were found between some age groups and respondents'

environment preference. Respondents who were 56 years of age or older were

significantly different than 26-35 and 36-45 year olds. Older respondents were less likely

to prefer sports fields as their environment choice. The 56+ age group were less likely to

indicate sports field as their preferred recreational environment. Respondents who are

18-25 years of age were significantly different from 46-55 and 56+ year olds in their

preference for church as their environment choice. The youngest group (18-25) year olds

were less likely to prefer church as an environment for recreation. Those in the 56+ age

group were also significantly different than 18-25 and 26-35 year olds in their preference

for bars and discos. Those respondents in the 26-35 age group were the most likely to

chose bars and discos for their recreation environment, while 56+ were less likely to

chose bars and discos.

Tables 4-19and 4-20 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance

between environment preferences and family life cycle. Responses were measured on a









scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly

disagree." Significant differences were found between some family life cycle groups and

respondents environment preference. Respondents who were married with no children

are significantly different than those who are single no children, married with children,

single with children and divorced/widowed with children when preferring the forest as

their environment choice. Respondents who were married with no children are also

significantly different than those who were single with children and divorced/widowed

with children when choosing the sports field as their environment preference. Single

respondents with children were most likely to choose the sports field as their recreation

environment preference. Respondents who are single with no children are significantly

different than those who were married with children and divorced/widowed with

children. Divorced/widowed respondents with children were most likely to choose

church for their recreation environment.

Tables 4-21 and 4-22 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance

between environment preferences and education level. Responses were measured on a

scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly

disagree." Significant differences were found between some education levels and

respondents environment preference. Those with an Elementary, High School and

College education indicated more preference for recreation at a sports field, whereas

those with an "Other" degree indicated a lower preference for a sports field. Those with

a High school education indicated more preference for the church environment, whereas

those with a College degree or Elementary education indicated less preference for

recreation in the church.









Tables 4-23 and 4-24 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance

between environment preferences and residency (town). Responses were measured on a

scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly

disagree." Significant differences were found between only one town and respondents

environment preference. Respondents from Monteverde are significantly different from

respondents from Santa Elena and Los Llanos when indicating sports field as their

environment preference. Respondents living in Los Llanos were most likely to choose

sports field as their recreation environment preference.

Tables 4-25 and 4-26 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance

between environment preferences and gender. Responses were measured on a scale

ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly

disagree."

Question 3: What Is the Relationship between Demographics and Constraints to
Recreation?

The constraints statements were given on a five-point Likert scale. This scale

ranged from "Strongly Agree," to "Strongly Disagree," and respondents were asked to

rate how the given statements made them feel. The constraint statements which

respondents indicated that they agreed most with included: "recreation is too expensive,"

"I do not have enough time," and "I do not have transportation." The constraints

statements which respondents indicated that they least agreed with included: "recreation

is not important," "I do not have enough skill to participate in a new activity," and "the

people I know live too far away to start a new activity with me." The means and standard

deviations for each of the statements are listed in Table 4-27. The most agreed with









statement was "recreation is too expensive," while the least agreed with statement was

"recreation is not important."

A factor analysis was run on the constraints factors, but the results were not clean

(no validity to the emerging factors), so reliability was run based on the theoretical

domains. After running reliability, Factor 3 (Structural) was omitted because its

Cronbach Alpha score was less than .50

The frequency of constraints statements rated by the respondents are shown in

Table 4-28 in percentages. The bold numbers are indicative of the highest percent, or the

most common rating applied by the respondents.

Analysis of Constraints

The following scales were determined by running reliability analyses in SPSS 11.5

(Table 4-29).

Intrapersonal (Intra)

The constraints statements included in this factor were "recreation is not important

to me," "I am too shy to start a new activity," "I do not have enough skill to start a new

activity," "new activities make me feel uncomfortable," and "I am not interested in the

recreation activities available in this community." The Intrapersonal constraint scale had

a mean of 2.9 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.74.

Interpersonal (Inter)

The constraints statements included in this factor were "I do not have anyone to

participate with me," "the people I know usually do not have time to start a new

recreation activity with me," "the people I know live too far away to start a new activity









with me," and "my friends do not like to participate in recreation." The Interpersonal

constraint scale had a mean of 3.3 and a Cronbach Alpha of 0.77.

What Is the Relationship between Age and Constraints?

Table 4-30 and 4-31 report the results of one-way analysis of variance between

intrapersonal, interpersonal and individual structural constraint statements and age

groups. The results suggested there were significant relationships between age groups

and constraints. Age groups were condensed into five categories, representing five

different age groups. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c) 36-45, (d) 46-55,

and (e) 55+. The constraints statements were on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1

(Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Thus, the higher the mean score, the less the

respondents agreed with the constraint statement.

The 18-25 age group reported higher responses than all other age groups in both

constraint factors. The 26-35 age group responded significantly different from age

groups 18-25, 36-45, and 55+ in both intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints.

Younger people indicated more intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints.

Table 4-32 reports the results of one-way analysis of variance between structural

constraint statements and age groups. Age groups were condensed into five categories,

representing five different age groups. The five categories were: (a) 18-25, (b) 26-35, (c)

36-45, (d) 46-55, and (e) 55+. The constraints statements were on a five-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Agree) to 5 (Strongly Disagree). Thus, the higher the

mean score, the less the respondents agreed with the constraint statement. With regards

to structural constraints, all three individual structural constraints indicated significant

differences (time, transportation and cost). With regards to time, younger individuals

were less inclined to indicate time, transportation and cost constraints. Whereas, middle









aged (or family baring ages) were more likely to indicate time constraints, older

individuals (those 46+ years) were more likely to indicate cost constraints and

transportation constraints.

What Is the Relationship between Family Life Cycle and Constraints?

Tables 4-33 and 4-34 present the results of the one-way analysis of variance for the

family life cycle variable and constraints. Family life cycle consisted of (a) Married with

no children, (b) Single with no children, (c) Married with children, (d) Single with

children, (e) Divorced/Widow with children.

Table 4-34 presents significant differences between intrapersonal and interpersonal

constraints to recreation participation and family life cycle. Significant differences were

found between several family life cycle groups and constraints to recreation participation.

Respondents who were married with children were significantly different from those who

are married with no children, single with no children and single with children when

indicating the presence of intrapersonal constraints. Respondents who were married with

children were most likely to express intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints.

Respondents who were married with no children were least likely to express intrapersonal

and interpersonal constraints. Also, respondents who were divorced/widowed with

children were significantly different than those who were single with children.

Divorced/widow with children respondents indicated less intrapersonal constraints than

single respondents with no children.

With regards to interpersonal constraints, single with children were significantly

different than divorced/widow with children. Divorced/widow with children expressed

less interpersonal constraints than singles.









Table 4-35 presents the one-way analysis of variance for the family life cycle

variable and structural constraints. Results of the one-way analysis of variance indicated

significant differences in all three individual structural constraints. Findings suggested

that married individuals with no children were less constrained by time, transportation

and cost. Whereas, those family life cycle stages where individuals indicated they were

single or married with children were more likely to indicate all three types of structural

constraints.

What Is the Relationship between Education level and Constraints?

Tables 4-36 and 4-37 present the results of the analysis of variance for the

education level socio-demographic variable and intrapersonal and interpersonal

constraints to recreation participation. Respondents were asked to report their highest

level of education completed. Choices consisted of (a) Elementary, (b) High School, (c)

College, or (d) Other degree.

Table 4-37 presents significant differences between constraints to recreation

participation and education level. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1"

to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree." Respondents

with an Elementary education were significantly different than those with a College

education. College educated respondents were less likely to report the presence of both

intra and interpersonal constraints, while those respondents with an elementary education

expressed more intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints.

Table 4-38 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the education level

socio-demographic variable and structural constraints to recreation participation. Results

indicated only one significant difference between education and structural constraints and









that was with regards to the cost constraint. Individuals with elementary levels of

education indicated less cost constraints than those with "other" types of degrees.

What Is the Relationship between Residency (Town) and Constraints?

Tables 4-39 and 4-40 present the results of the analysis of variance for the

Residency variable and intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. Residency consisted

of Santa Elena, Cerro Plano, Monteverde, and Los Llanos. Residents living in Santa

Elena represented the largest percentage (42 %) of respondents.

Table 4-40 presents significant differences between constraints to recreation

participation and education level. Some significant differences were determined between

constraints and residency. Respondents from Cerro Plano were significantly different

from respondents from Los Llanos when indicating the presence of interpersonal

constraints. Cerro Plano residents were more likely to report the presence of

interpersonal constraints.

Table 4-41 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the Residency

variable and structural constraints. With regards to residency, all three structural

constraints indicated significant differences. Those living in Los Llanos were more likely

to indicate more cost, transportation and time constraints than residents living in any of

the other communities.

What Is the Relationship between Gender and Constraints?

Tables 4-42 and 4-43 present the results of the t-test for the Gender variable and

constraints. Significant differences were found between gender and participation

constraints, with females reporting slightly higher levels of both intrapersonal and

interpersonal constraints than males. Males reported more neutral responses.









Table 4-44 presents the results of the analysis of variance for the gender variable

and structural constraints. Only transportation constraints indicated significant

differences by gender. Females were more likely to indicate more transportation

constraints than males.

Summary

Through statistical analysis, there were some expected outcomes that are consistent

with previous studies in the fields of motivations, preferences and constraints to leisure

participation.

Motivation

The only significant difference found for motivations for recreation participation

were of the perceptions of the importance of Factor 2, Nature, between College educated

respondents, and those reporting having an Other degree. College educated respondents

were more likely to indicate that nature was a motivation for participating in recreation

than those indicating they had some other type of education, such as a trade or technical

school. This is consistent with previous research, which has found that the motivation

for nature is related to higher education levels.

Preferences

When asked, "What do you do for fun in your free time when you do not work?"

the majority of people ages 18-35, who have a high school education, who are single with

and without children and married without children, and male chose participating in sports

as their recreation preference. Whereas, people who were older than 56 years of age

prefer to walk in their free time. Women between the ages of 36-55, with an elementary

or "other" degree education prefer social activities. People 46 years of age or older, with









elementary, college or "other" degree education, who were married or divorced/widowed

with children prefer other activities such as computers or meditation (Table 4-45).

When asked "If a recreational center could be constructed in your community,

where do you think it should be located?" the salon/bullring was the most popular

response for both younger and older females ages 18-35 and 46-56+, with an elementary

and high school education, who were single without children, married and

divorced/widowed with children, living in Cerro Plano. The sports field was the most

popular response for males aged 36-45, with an "other" degree education, who were

single with children and living in either Santa Elena or Los Llanos. The CASEM was a

popular response for older females aged 56+, living in Monteverde (Table 4-46).

When asked "What three activities would you MOST like to have available for

recreation in your community?" Sports activities were the most popular response for all

males younger than 56 years of age, elementary, high school or "other" degree educated

living in Santa Elena, Cerro Plano and Los Llanos. Cultural activities were a popular

response for females older than 56 years of age, with a college education, living in

Monteverde. Other activities, including a farmers market or a park, were most popular

for females ages 36-45 and older than 56 years of age (Table 4-47).

Environmental Preference

Participating in recreational activities in the forest was most likely a response for

males between the ages of 25-35 and older than 56 years of age, people who are single

with children and/or divorced/widowed with children, people living in Santa Elena and

Los Llanos. While recreating at the sports field (la cancha) was important to the majority

of respondents. Males and females who were 25-45 years old, single with children, and

had a high school education, prefer to participate in recreation at the sports field. Home









is a popular environment for recreation for females older than 45 years of age,

divorced/widowed with children, and college educated. While both males and females

prefer participating in recreation downtown, those who were single with children, with a

high school education and living in Cerro Plano and Los Llanos had more preference for

downtown. Church was popular for people ages 45-55. Bars and discos were popular

environments for males ages 25-35, and singles with children (Table 4-48).

Constraints

People who were 18-25 years old, who were married without children, with a

college or "other" degree education, living in Cerro Plano reported the highest responses

for the presence of both intra and interpersonal constraints. Females reported more

intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints (Table 4-49).





Table 4-1. Mean and Standard Deviation of Motivation Items
Motivation Items Mean
To be away from other people 2.9
To be alone 3.1
To experience excitement 3.7
To learn more about nature 3.8
To be in nature 3.9
To look at beautiful scenery 4.0
To talk to new people 4.0
To enjoy the smells and sights of 4.0
nature
To get physical exercise 4.1
To have pleasure 4.2
To develop my knowledge 4.2
To release or reduce built up 4.2
tension
To get away from the demands of 4.2
life
To be active 4.3
To be with my family 4.3
To relax my mind 4.3
To feel good 4.3
To experience new and different 4.3
things
To be with my friends 4.4
Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses. Means ranged
"not important" and "5" being "extremely important"


Standard Deviation
1.2
1.2
.9
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8

.9
.7
.7
.7

.9

.7
.8
.7
.7
.7


.7
from "1" to "5", "1" indicating











Table 4-2. Frequency of Motivation Items (in Percentages)
1 2 3 4 5

Motivation Items Not at all Somewhat No Opinion Very Extremely
Important Important Important Important


55.7 16.9


31.5


To experience 0.3 14.6 11.4
excitement
To release or 0.0 3.2 3.2
reduce built up
tension
To look at beautiful 0.6 6.1 6.7
scenery
To talk to new 0.6 8.5 5.8
people
To develop my 0.3 3.5 5.2
knowledge of
information
To be active 0.6 3.2 3.8
To be away from 9.6 34.1 19.5
other people
To experience the 2.0 15.2 26.2
fast paced nature of
things
To relax my mind 0.3 2.0 4.7
To be in nature 0.6 7.6 6.1
To be with my 0.6 4.4 5.0
family
To experience new 0.9 1.7 3.2
and different things
To get exercise 1.2 5.5 4.7
To feel good 0.0 2.6 6.7
To feel pleasure 0.3 4.1 6.4
To get away from 1.5 4.4 5.8
the demands of life
To enjoy the smells 0.6 6.7 6.1
and sights of nature
To be with friends 0.0 2.6 2.9
To learn more 0.9 10.8 9.6
about nature
To be alone 11.7 26.5 12.2

Number (N) may vary due to missing values or responses.
Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group.


38.8
17.2
43.7


40.8


26.2
42.0
31.2
40.8


23.6


48.4
14.3


10.5











Table 4-3. Factor Analysis Results of Motivation Statements
Motivation Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Statements
Factor 1-Relax &
Enjoy
To get away from 0.7 -0.1 0.0 0.2
the demands of life.
To release or reduce 0.7 0.1 0.19 0.1
built up tension
To develop my 0.6 0.3 -0.0 -0.0
knowledge
To feel pleasure 0.5 0.0 0.4 -0.1
To relax my mind 0.5 0.2 -0.1 -0.2
To feel good 0.5 0.0 0.3 -0.3
Factor 2- Nature
To enjoy the sights 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1
and smells of nature
To be in nature 0.1 0.7 0.1 -0.0
To look at beautiful 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0
scenery
To learn more about 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.1
nature
Factor 3- Active
To get physical 0.1 0.3 0.6 -0.2
exercise
To experience the -0.1 0.0 0.6 0.3
fast paced nature of
things
To experience 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1
excitement
To talk to new 0.1 0.4 0.5 -0.1
people
To be active 0.4 0.1 0.4 -0.3
Factor 4-
Alone or Away
To be alone -0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8
To be away from -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8
other people

Eigenvalues 4.4 2.4 1.4 1.3
Cronbach Alpha 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7
Factor Means 4.3 3.9 3.9 3.0
Percentage of 21.9 12.1 7.3 6.6
variance explained
Cumulative 21.9 34.1 41.3 47.9
variance explained










Table 4-4. ANOVA for Motivations by Age
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Relax
Between SS 4 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.5
Within SS 324 56.7 0.2
2. Nature
Between SS 4 1.5 0.4 1.1 0.3
Within SS 329 110.8 0.3
3. Active
Between SS 4 1.2 0.3 1.0 0.4
Within SS 327 93.8 0.3
4. Alone
Between SS 4 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.7
Within SS 327 364.5 1.1

Table 4-5. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Age Groups
Factor 1-Relax Factor 2- Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4- Alone
M SD M SD M SD M SD
18-25 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 4.0 0.6 2.9 1.1
26-35 4.2 0.4 4.0 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.19 1.0
36-45 4.2 0.5 3.8 0.6 3.8 0.6 3.0 1.0
46-55 4.2 0.4 4.0 0.4 3.9 0.5 3.0 1.1
56+ 4.3 0.3 4.0 0.4 4.0 0.4 2.8 1.2
Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"

Table 4-6. ANOVA for Motivations by Family Life Cycle
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Relax
Between SS 4 1.1 0.3 1.6 0.2
Within SS 319 55.0 0.2
2. Nature
Between SS 4 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1
Within SS 324 111.9 0.3
3. Active
Between SS 4 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.2
Within SS 323 92.5 0.3
4. Alone
Between SS 4 9.3 2.3 2.1 0.1
Within SS 322 351.2 1.1










Table 4-7. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Family Life Cycle
Family Life Cycle Factor 1-Relax Factor 2- Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4- Alone
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Married No Child 4.0 0.5 3.8 0.9 3.9 0.6 3.2 1.2
Single No Child 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.6 4.0 0.5 3.0 1.0
Married W/ Child 4.3 0.4 4.0 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.1 1.0
Single W/ Child 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 4.1 0.5 2.6 1.1
Divorced/Widowed
Divorced/Widowed 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 3.8 0.6 2.9 1.1
With Children
Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"


Table 4-8. ANOVA for Motivations by Education
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Relax
Between SS 3 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.6
Within SS 324 56.5 0.2
2. Nature
Between SS 3 3.1 1.1 3.1 0.0
Within SS 329 110.3 0.3
3. Active
Between SS 3 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0
Within SS 327 94.7 0.3
4. Alone
Between SS 3 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.5
Within SS 327 362.9 1.1

Table 4-9. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Education
Education Factor 1-Relax Factor 2- Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4- Alone

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Elementary 4.2 0.4 3.9 0.4 3.9 0.6 3.0 1.0
High School 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.6 3.9 0.5 2.9 1.0
College 4.2 0.5 4.1a 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.2 1.1
Other Degree 4.3 0.5 3.5b 1.0 3.9 0.9 3.2 1.2
Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, with the Nature dimension, those
with a "College Degree" significantly differ from those with an "Other Degree."










ANOVA for Motivations by Residency (Town)


Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Relax
Between SS 3 0.5 0.2 1.0. 0.4
Within SS 323 56.2 0.2
2. Nature
Between SS 3 2.5 0.8 2.5 0.1
Within SS 329 109.8 0.3
3. Active
Between SS 3 1.0 0.3 1.2 0.3
Within SS 326 93.0 0.3
4. Alone
Between SS 3 7.8 2.6 2.4 0.1
Within SS 326 357.9 1.1

Table 4-11. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Motivations and Residency (Town)
Education Factor 1-Relax Factor 2- Nature Factor 3-Active Factor 4- Alone
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Santa Elena 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.5 4.0 0.5 2.9 1.1
Cerro Plano 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.7 3.9 0.6 2.9 1.0
Monteverde 4.3 0.4 4.1 0.5 3.9 0.4 3.4 1.0
Los Llanos 4.2 0.4 3.8 0.6 3.8 0.6 3.0 1.1
Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"


Table 4-10.










Table 4-12. Means and Standard Deviations for Significant Relationships between
Gender and Motivations
Factors Number Mean Standard Deviation
Factor 1- Social
Males 179 4.3 0.0
Females 150 4.4 0.0
Factor 2- Nature
Males 180 3.9 0.0
Females 154 4.0 0.0
Factor 3- Active
Males 177 4.0 0.0
Females 155 3.9 0.0
Factor 4- Alone
Males 178 3.0 0.1
Females 154 3.0 0.1
Means ranged from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "not important" and "5" being "extremely important"


Table 4-13. Independent T-Test Results for Gender and Motivations
Factors t df Sig. (2 tailed)
Factor 1- Social -0.0 327 1.0
Factor 2- Nature -1.1 332 0.3
Factor 3- Active 1.5 330 0.1
Factor 4- Alone -0.6 330 0.5
Equal variances assumed.










Table 4-14. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 1 :"What do you
do for fun in your free time when you do not work?"
Group No Sports TV/ Walk Social Read/ Leave/ Bars/Clubs Other
Answer Music Study Travel Drink/Dance
% % % % % % % % %
Age*
18-25 3 46 12 0 6 7 5 8 13
26-35 1 28 6 8 16 10 3 11 17
36-45 1 16 12 9 21 7 1 11 21
46-55 0 6 19 19 22 6 6 0 22
56+ 0 0 10 31 7 7 0 3 41
Education*
Elementary 1 16 11 13 17 5 4 7 25
High School 2 35 12 6 14 5 2 7 15
College 0 18 7 13 7 21 7 7 20
Other Degree 0 11 0 0 18 18 0 18 18
FLC*
Married No 7 43 14 0 14 0 0 0 0
Children
Single No 2 35 10 5 8 12 5 11 12
Children
Married With 1 20 12 10 19 18 2 5 24
Children
Single With 0 43 3 3 14 0 5 16 11
Children
Divorced/Widow 2 10 19 19 12 7 2 12 26
With Children
Town
Santa Elena 1 27 15 7 10 7 4 13 17
Cerro Plano 1 33 12 8 20 4 2 2 19
Monteverde 2 9 4 19 11 15 2 2 36
Los Llanos 3 27 5 8 19 10 5 11 13
Gender*
Male 3 41 10 7 5 9 3 8 17
Female 0 9 11 12 24 7 3 10 10
Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group.
*Significant at the 0.05 level










Table 4-15. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 2: "If a
recreational center could be constructed in your community, where do you
think it should be located?"
Group No Sal6n/ Sports CASEM Downtown/ Santa Cerro Other Don't
Answer Bullring Field Center Elena Plano Know
Age % % % % % % % % %
18-25 15 20 15 7 9 10 4 13 7
26-35 13 23 22 5 7 9 1 17 3
36-45 13 12 20 8 12 11 3 17 3
46-55 13 25 6 9 6 22 0 9 9
56+ 3 28 0 24 10 7 7 14 7
Education
Elementary 14 19 14 8 10 10 4 11 9
High School 12 24 18 6 8 12 2 14 3
College 13 13 11 13 13 11 2 23 4
Other Degree 18 9 27 18 9 0 0 18 0
FLC
Married No 36 7 7 7 14 7 7 14 0
Children
Single No 14 19 13 5 13 13 2 15 5
Children
Married With 9 24 19 9 9 9 2 16 5
Children
Single With 11 16 32 5 3 11 3 11 8
Children
Divorced/Widow 19 21 5 12 10 14 5 12 2
With Children
Town*
Santa Elena 17 12 23 0 14 15 0 14 5
Cerro Plano 5 48 8 11 6 2 8 7 6
Monteverde 9 13 0 40 0 0 4 28 6
Los Llanos 16 8 25 0 11 21 0 16 3
Gender*
Male 16 6 21 5 7 9 4 15 5
Female 8 24 11 12 12 12 1 15 5
Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group.
* Significant at the 0.05 level















Table 4-16. Frequency Counts (in Percentages) for Preference Question 3: "What three activities would you MOST like to have
available for recreation in your community?"

Group No Answer Sports Movie Cultural Swimming Computer/ Library Concerts/ Meeting Other
Theater Pool Internet Dances Place
Age* % % % % % % % % % %
18-25 7 36 5 12 9 4 1 9 3 14
26-35 3 29 8 19 5 5 7 6 2 17
36-45 1 30 5 11 1 1 8 7 5 29
46-55 0 22 9 13 0 3 6 13 13 22
56+ 0 7 10 24 3 3 3 10 14 24
Education*
Elementary 1 29 8 12 4 3 3 7 11 21
High School 4 32 6 12 5 4 4 9 3 21
College 6 15 11 25 5 15 15 6 2 11
Other Degree 0 46 0 18 0 0 0 9 0 27
FLC*
Married No Children 21 29 14 0 7 0 0 14 0 14
Single No Children 4 31 8 17 6 7 4 8 3 12
Married With Children 1 27 7 13 4 1 8 7 9 23
Single 3 35 5 19 8 5 0 3 0 22
With Children
Divorced/ 5 26 7 14 0 5 5 12 0 26
Widow With Children
Town*
Santa Elena 2 34 9 12 5 4 6 6 6 16
Cerro Plano 2 29 6 16 5 1 4 13 4 21
Monteverde 4 13 6 32 2 2 9 4 6 21
Los Llanos 5 30 5 8 3 6 5 8 6 25
Gender*
Male 4 38 8 10 3 4 5 6 4 18
Female 2 19 6 21 6 3 6 9 7 22


Bold numbers indicate the highest response (in percentages) for each group.
* Significant at the 0.05 level











Table 4-17. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Age Group
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Forest
Between SS 4 5.4 1.3 1.4 0.2
Within SS 102 99.5 1.0
2. Sports Field
Between SS 4 10.5 2.6 3.3 0.0
Within SS 102 82.0 0.8
3. School
Between SS 4 3.9 1.0 0.8 0.6
Within SS 102 131.3 1.3
4. Gym
Between SS 4 4.1 1.0 0.9 0.4
Within SS 102 112.7 1.11
5. Home
Between SS 4 13.0 3.2 3.8 0.0
Within SS 102 87.6 0.9
6. Nat Park
Between SS 4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.9
Within SS 102 75.0 0.7
7. Downtown
Between SS 4 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.9
Within SS 102 75.3 0.7
8. Church
Between SS 4 6.2 1.5 1.3 0.3
Within SS 102 124.8 1.2
9. Bar/Disco
Between SS 4 15.5 3.9 2.9 0.0
Within SS 102 137.3 1.3
10. Other
Between SS 4 5.1 1.3 1.0 0.4
Within SS 102 122.9 1.2










Table 4-18. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Age Group

Forest Sports School Gym Home National Down- Church Bar/ Other
Field Park town Disco
Age M M M M M M M M M M
Group (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
2.1 2.0 2.8 2.3 2.5a 2.1 1.9 2.6 1.9b 2.0
(1.4) (.9) (1.0) (1.0) (1.2) (.8) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) (1.1)
1.6 1.7b 3.0 2.7 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.4 1.8b 1.8
(.6) (.8) (1.3) (1.2) (.7) (.9) (.7) (1.1) (.9) (.8)
1.8 1.7b 2.5 2.4 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.4 2.4 2.2
(.8) (.7) (.9) (.8) (.6) (.9) (.6) (1.1) (1.2) (1.3)
2.0 2.1 2.4 1.2 1.7b 2.1 1.9 1.7 2.3 2.6
(1.2) (1.0) (1.1) (.5) (.9) (.9) (1.1) (.8) (.9) (1.5)
1.7 2.7a 2.8 1.2 1.9b 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.1a 1.8
(.5) (1.3) (1.2) (.4) (.7) (.9) (.8) (1.0) (1.5) (.7)


Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents who are 56 years of age
or older are significantly different than 26-35 and 36-45 year olds in their preference for sports field as their
environment choice. Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly
agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."











Table 4-19. ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Family Life Cycle (FLC) Group
Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Forest
Between SS 4 19.8 5.0 6.0 0.0
Within SS 101 83.7 0.8
2. Sports Field
Between SS 4 9.8 2.4 3.0 0.0
Within SS 101 82.0 0.8
3. School
Between SS 4 3.6 0.9 0.7 0.6
Within SS 101 130.0 1.3
4. Gym
Between SS 4 5.7 1.4 1.3 0.3
Within SS 101 108.8 1.1
5. Home
Between SS 4 9.6 2.4 2.7 0.1
Within SS 101 91.0 0.9
6. Nat Park
Between SS 4 4.1 1.0 1.5 0.2
Within SS 101 124.1 1.2
7. Downtown
Between SS 4 5.2 1.3 1.9 0.1
Within SS 101 70.9 0.7
8. Church
Between SS 4 6.8 1.7 1.4 0.2
Within SS 101 124.1 1.2
9. Bar/Disco
Between SS 4 19.7 4.9 3.7 0.0
Within SS 101 133.2 1.3
10. Other
Between SS 4 8.9 2.2 1.9 0.1
Within SS 101 119.1 1.2










Table 4-20. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships
Between Environment Preferences and Family Life Cycle
Sports National Down- Bar/
Forest Field School Gym Home Park town Church Disco Other
M M M M M M M M M M
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)


Married No 3.2a 2.2 3.1 2.1 2.7a 2.7
Children (1.6) (.7) (1.3) (.6) (1.6) (1.3)
Single No 1.9 2.0 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.1
Children (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (.7)
Married
Maed 1.7 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8 2.0
With
Children (.7) (.9) (1.1) (1.0) (.7) (.9)
Single 1.5b 1.5b 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.0

Children (.6) (.5) (1.1) (1.2) (.90) (.8)
Divorced/
Widowed 1.7 2.7a 2.6 2.8 1.6b 1.8
With (.5) (1.4) (1.2) (1.2) (.5) (.4)
Children


2.2 2.9 2.1 2.2
(1.2) (1.7) (1.3) (1.0)
1.9 2.6 2.0 1.8
(.9) (1.1) (1.1) (1.0)

2.0 2.2 2.3 2.3
(.8) (1.1) (1.2) (1.3)


1.4 2.1
(.6) (.8)


1.5b 1.6
(.8) (.8)


1.8 2.1 3.2a 1.7
(.4) (1.2) (1.3) (.7)


Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents who are married with
no children are significantly different than single no children, married with children, single with children
and divorced/widowed with children when preferring the forest as their environment choice. Respondents
who are married without children are least likely to choose to participate in recreation in the forest.
Responses were measured on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being
"strongly disagree."











ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Education Level


Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Forest
Between SS 3 4.6 1.5 1.6 0.2
Within SS 103 1.0
2. Sports Field
Between SS 3 6.7 2.2 2.7 0.0
Within SS 103 85.9 0.8
3. School
Between SS 3 4.2 1.4 1.1 0.3
Within SS 103 131.0 1.3
4. Gym
Between SS 3 2.3 0.8 0.7 0.6
Within SS 103 114.5 1.1
5. Home
Between SS 3 4.7 1.6 1.7 0.2
Within SS 103 95.8 0.9
6. Nat Park
Between SS 3 1.8 0.6 0.8 0.5
Within SS 103 74.1 0.7
7. Downtown
Between SS 3 2.3 0.8 1.1 0.4
Within SS 103 73.8 0.7
8. Church
Between SS 3 11.7 3.9 3.3 0.0
Within SS 103 119.4 1.2
9. Bar/Disco
Between SS 3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9
Within SS 103 152.3 1.5
10. Other
Between SS 3 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.6
Within SS 103 126.0 1.2


Table 4-21.













Table 4-22. Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships Between Environment Preferences and Education
Level
Sports National Down- Bar/
Forest Field School Gym Home Park town Church Disco Other
Education M M M M M M M M M M
Level (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
1.8 2.0b 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.0b 2.2 2.1
(.9) (.9) (1.1) (.9) (1.0) (1.0) (.9) (.8) (1.4) (1.2)
High School 1.8 1.7b 2.9 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.7 2.7b 2.1 2.0
(1.0) (.8) (1.1) (1.0) (1.0) (.7) (.6) (1.2) (1.2) (1.2)
1.8 2.3b 2.5 2.4 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.0a 2.2 1.8
College(1.0) (1.1) (1.2) (1.2) (.8) (1.0) (1.1) (.9) (1.1) (.9)

2.8 1.8a 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.2
(1.3) (.8) (1.4) (1.2) (.7) (.8) (.4) (1.1) (.7) (.4)
Superscripts indicate where significant differences exist. For example, respondents reporting they have an "other degree" are significantly different than
elementary, high school and college educated respondents when indicating the sports field as their recreation environment preference. Responses were measured
on a scale ranging from "1" to "5", "1" indicating "strongly agree" and "5" being "strongly disagree."











ONE-WAY for Environment Preferences by Residency (Town)


Factors Degrees of Sum of Mean Squares F Ratio F Prob.
Freedom Squares
1. Forest
Between SS 3 5.7 1.9 2.0 0.1
Within SS 101 98.4 1.0
2. Sports Field
Between SS 3 16.9 5.6 7.6 0.0
Within SS 101 74.8 0.7
3. School
Between SS 3 6.3 2.1 1.7 0.2
Within SS 101 125.6 1.2
4. Gym
Between SS 3 4.7 1.6 1.5 0.2
Within SS 101 107.4 1.1
5. Home
Between SS 3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.0
Within SS 101 99.3 1.0
6. Nat Park
Between SS 3 1.9 0.6 0.9 0.4
Within SS 101 73.9 0.7
7. Downtown
Between SS 3 2.6 0.9 1.2 0.3
Within SS 101 72.2 0.72
8. Church
Between SS 3 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.8
Within SS 101 144.9 1.3
9. Bar/Disco
Between SS 3 7.9 2.6 1.8 0.1
Within SS 101 144.9 1.4
10. Other
Between SS 3 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.9
Within SS 101 125.4 1.2


Table 4-23.