<%BANNER%>

Perceived Benefits, Constraints, and Negotiation Strategies of Skiers and Snowboarders with Disabilities


PAGE 1

PERCEIVED BENEFITS, CONSTRAINTS, AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES OF SKIERS AND SNOWBOARDERS WITH DISABILITIES By LAUREN BRIGHT A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA 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 Lauren Bright

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people in my life have earned my resp ect and gratitude for their patience and encouragement throughout this study. Dr. Robert Burns was an integral part of this study. His research and funding e fforts allowed this study to ta ke place. For that, I will always be grateful. Dr. Ste phen Anderson never gave up on me. He was the reason I had the motivation to see this proj ect through. Dr. Burn s taught me to always keep my head up and gave me the confidence in my abilities as a graduate student. Dr. Cari Autry and Dr. Chris Stopka gave their expertise and always had their doors open for a quick question. I give my deepest appreciation to my mo m and dad for all of their love, support, and endless encouragement. I could never fo rget all that they ha ve done. I am truly thankful for their support throughout my gr aduate program. Without them, it would never have been possible. Sincerest thanks go to all my fellow students, who never failed to lend me a helping hand.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................vi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Benefits of Leisure and Recreation Participation.........................................................2 Benefits to Outdoor Recreation for People with Disabilities.......................................4 Examining Leisure Constraint s and Negotiation Strategies.........................................5 Demographic Issues......................................................................................................6 Related Skiing Literature..............................................................................................7 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................8 Research Questions.......................................................................................................9 Delimitations/Limitations...........................................................................................11 Definitions..................................................................................................................11 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................13 Outdoor Recreation Participation Patter ns of People with Disabilities......................13 Leisure and Recreation Benefits Literature................................................................14 Leisure Benefits for People with Disabilities.............................................................16 Constraints Literature.................................................................................................17 Constraint Negotiation................................................................................................22 Constraints Literature Related to People with Disabilities.........................................25 Related Skiing and Literature.....................................................................................27 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................30 Sampling Procedures..................................................................................................30 Survey Design.............................................................................................................31 Data Collection...........................................................................................................32 Treatment of Data.......................................................................................................33

PAGE 5

v 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................34 Measures of Possible Benefits of Skiing and Snowboarding.....................................43 Measures of Constraints.............................................................................................50 Measures of Constraint Negotiation...........................................................................60 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................70 Summary of Procedures..............................................................................................70 Discussion of Research Questions..............................................................................71 Conclusions.................................................................................................................88 Implications for Professional Practice........................................................................93 Recommendations for Future Research......................................................................95 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT..........................................................................................97 B INTRODUCTION POST CARD.............................................................................105 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................114

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Socio-demographic profile of Ad aptive Recreation Participants.............................36 2 Recreation Profile of Adap tive Recreation Participants...........................................39 3 Self-reported Disability Information of Adaptive Recreation Participants..............40 4 Results of the Frequency Analysis of Disability Types of Adaptive Skiers &Snowboarders........................................................................................................42 5 Results of Frequency Analysis of Po ssible Benefits of Adaptive Recreation Participation.............................................................................................................44 6 Results of independent sample t-test examining the benefits by interest.................45 7 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Education Level.........................................................................................................................4 7 8 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Income Level....49 9 Results of Frequency Analysis of Per ceived Constraints to Adaptive Recreation Participation.............................................................................................................51 10 Perceived constraints of people with di sabilities when participating in skiing & snowboarding between people who participat e as often as desired and those who do not........................................................................................................................5 3 11 Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing & snowboarding between people with children in their hous ehold under the ages of six and those who do not..........................................................................................55 12 Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing & snowboarding between people with children in their hous ehold between the ages of six and 18 and those who do not..........................................................................57 13 Results of Analysis of Variance Examin ing the Perceived Constraints by income level.......................................................................................................................... 59

PAGE 7

vii 14 Results of Frequency Analysis of Constr aint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities Use to Start, Continue, or Increase Participation in Skiing & Snowboarding...........................................................................................................61 15 Results of Analysis of Variance Exam ining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding...............63 16 Results of Analysis of Variance Exam ining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Living Environment.....................................................65 17 Results of Analysis of Variance Exam ining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding...............66 18 Results of Independent Sample t-test Examining Differences of Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabi lities Who Reported their Disabilities Hampered Their Abilities to Ski or Snowboard.......................................................68

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science PERCEIVED BENEFITS, CONSTRAINTS, AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES OF SKIIERS AND SNOWBOARDERS WITH DISABILITIES By Lauren M Bright December 2004 Chair: Steve Anderson Cochair: Robert Burns Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management The purpose of this study was to examine the benefits to recr eation participation, the reasons that constrain people with disabi lities from participating in outdoor recreation activities (i.e., skiing and snow boarding), and the strategies they employ to allow desired participation levels. The hierarchical mode l of constraints proposed by Crawford and Godbey was used as the theoretical framew ork for this study. Adaptive recreation participants’ opinions and beliefs were obtai ned through a mail-back survey. Findings of the study suggest that the benef its of recreation and leisure th at effect one’s self concept were most important to these adaptive skie rs and snowboarders. In addition, the study revealed that people with disabilities expe rienced similar constr aints to recreation participation to those people without disabili ties. Also, constraint negotiation strategies were used frequently by people with disabilitie s in order to maintain or increase their level of participation.

PAGE 9

ix Specifically, the benefits that increase self-efficacy we re found as more important reasons to engage in recreat ion activities. Stru ctural constraints such as time and financial concerns were found to be the majo r reasons people with disabilities could not participate as often as they desired. Lastly, skill acquisition strategies were the constraint negotiation strategies most frequently used to maintain or increase leve ls of participation. Understanding the preferences and strategies of varied recreationi sts especially people with disabilities can assist those in the recreation and le isure service industries in developing more effective management strategi es to create positive leisure experiences for all.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Outdoor recreation and winter sports have long been a part of society’s leisure involvement. However, individuals with disa bilities frequently ha ve less opportunity to participate in outdoor recreation and conseque ntly, do not fully reap the benefits of involvement (Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, & Schuler 1995; Schleien, Germ, & McAvoy 1996). Disability touches many lives. It affects the lives of pe ople who have a disability, and also the lives of their families, friends, and coworkers. It encompasses people of all ages and backgrounds. As of 2002, the US Ce nsus Bureau estimated that the U.S. population of 288 million includes over 63 milli on persons with a disability, or about 22% of the total population (US Bureau of th e Census 2002). Logically, it is important that we know more about the people that comprise such a large percentage of the population. It is equally impor tant that recreation/land mana gers facilitate opportunities for persons with disabilities. Recreation has been an important component of human existence for thousands of years. Participation in outdoor recreation activities by the US population is surprisingly high, with nearly all Americans (94%) reporting that they pa rticipate in some form of outdoor activity (Cordell, McDonald, Teasle y, Bergstrom, Martin, Bason & Leeworthy 1999). Only within the last several years have recreation opportunitie s been formally available to people with disabilities. In 1990, Public Law 101-336, also known as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, en lightened land managers about the special

PAGE 11

2 needs of persons with disabilities. This law caused recreation managers and leisure service providers to assess whether people w ith disabilities are as involved in outdoor recreation as people without disabilities (Smith, Austin & Kennedy 2001; Wachter & McGowan 2002). McAvoy (2000) identified several prevai ling myths about outdoor recreation and people with disabilities. These myths include the ideas that people with disabilities do not prefer the same kinds of outdoor envi ronments, do not participate in outdoor recreation/adventure activities, and cannot attain a full range of benefits from outdoor recreation programs and ac tivities. Contrary to these myth s, previous research shows that people with disabilities tend to participate in outdoor recr eation at rates equal to or greater than people without di sabilities (McCormick 2001). Persons with disabilities are generally pres ented with more challenges than those without disabilities regarding to recreational pursuits and facilities. These challenges include access to facilit ies and equipment, the need for individualized services, and the availability of leisure education. (Bedin i 1991; Coyle & Kinney 1990; Farbman & Ellis 1987; West 1984; Zoerink 1989). This situati on points to the need for more recreation and parks programs designed to facilitate part icipation in physical activity for people with disabilities. Benefits of Leisure and Recreation Participation Almost anyone would agree that recreation and leisure have countless intrinsic and extrinsic benefits. The exam ination of recreation benefits is founded in the study of recreation and leisure. A body of literature concerning recrea tion benefits has recently begun to emerge (Driver, Brown & Peterson 199 1), but this literatur e has been largely

PAGE 12

3 theoretical and conceptual in orientation. Little published work exists that verifies empirically that benefits do indeed accrue from recreati on participation, what these benefits might be, and how they vary among r ecreational pursuits. Here we discuss the nature of recreation benefits. The concept that leisure and recreation are beneficial goes back to Aristotle, who viewed leisure as promoting contemplati on, improved thinking, and excellence of the mind (Driver, Brown & Peterson 1991). More recently, there has been a resurgence of interest and research in the benefits of le isure and recreation. Acco rding to the Surgeon General’s report (1996), physical activ ity has important positive effects on musculoskeletal, cardiovascu lar, respiratory, and endocri ne systems. Other health benefits reported include a reduced risk of premature mortality and reduced risks of coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus. Regular participation in physical activ ity also appears to reduce de pression and anxiety, improve mood, and enhance ability to perform daily tasks throughout the life span. Benefits are perceived and often analy zed as economic and not economic. The early work of researchers focused primarily on economic benefits. For the purposes of the study, benefits focus on the impact s of recreation on humans and society (psychological, physiologi cal, and social) as oppo sed to the economic benefits that are oft cited. Driver, Brown & Peterson (1991) devel oped and discussed a benefits based concept for evaluating, measuring, and promo ting park and recreation services. As a result of this approach to th e provision of recrea tion and leisure services a philosophical paradigm was adopted by several of the gove rning agencies such as NRPA and NTRS.

PAGE 13

4 This benefits movement was a significant factor in therapeutic recreation services as well as park and recreation servi ces. This movement was adopt ed to positively impact the quality and quantity of services the consumers. The benefits approach contributed to the notion that it is time for therapeutic recreation services to be valued as a significant and necessary service that contributes the well be ing of the participan ts and society as a whole. Benefits have been defined as “recreation behaviors that are engaged in voluntarily for their intrinsic rewards during ti mes when one is not committed to meeting basic survival and comfort needs, attaini ng material possessions, or on-going social obligations”(Driver, Brown & Peterson1991). Benefits to Outdoor Recreation for People with Disabilities A small but growing field of research reve als the usefulness of sport and recreation in promoting community integration, physiolo gical benefits, and psychological benefits among people with disabilities. Numerous benefits are reported from therapeutic recreation services and are of ten categorized in various dom ains. Some research has shown that people with disabilities usually desire the same outcomes as anyone else, when participating in physical activities such as outdoor recreation activities. According to the Surgeon General’s repor t (1996), regular physical act ivity can help people with disabilities (including those disabling conditions) improve muscle strength, stamina, psychological well-being, and quality of life. Regular participation in physical activity can help lower blood pressure, improve mood, relieve depression, and increase feelings of well-being. It was reported that physical activity can also help control joint swelling and pain. Perhaps most importantly, particip ation in regular physical activity can help prevent secondary illnesses that can result in people not taking care of themselves.

PAGE 14

5 McAvoy (2001) found that people with disabi lities realize a full range of benefits as a result of participation in outdoor recreation and adventur e activities and programs. A number of studies focused on outdoor recreat ion (including people with disabilities) documented the psychological, social and ment al health benefits that people with disabilities gain from participation. Thes e benefits include e nhanced self-esteem, increased leisure skills, increased social adjustment, enhanced body image, and positive changes in behavior (Robb and Ewert 1987; McAvoy et. al. 1989). Outdoor recreation activities have been used in general with persons with disabilities including those with long-t erm illness (Banka & Young 1985; Berman &Anton 1988; McClung 1984; Stich and Se nior 1984); mental retardation (Dillenschneider 1983); substa nce abuse (Gass & McPhee 19 90; Stich & Gaylord 1983); and hearing impairments (Luckner 1989). In these experiments, which used outdoor recreation activities as a means of creating change, much empirical support resulted. Positive changes occurred in self-concep t, self-esteem, trust, group cohesion, skill development, improved health, and mo re (Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais, & Seligmann 1997). Examining Leisure Constraints and Negotiation Strategies Since the 1980s, recreation and leisure res earchers have examined the reasons why some people did not participate in desired activities. Constraints research has been identified and conceptualized in a variet y of ways. McCarville and Smale (1991) discussed the idea of less part icipation due to constraints. Numerous differences were found across the sociodemographic variables, although no clear patt ern emerged across this set of variables.

PAGE 15

6 In another early study, Jackson (1988) s uggested that the most common internal constraints include personal skills, abili ties, health-related problems, and knowledge; whereas external constraints include lack of tim e, lack of facilities, transportation issues, and financial cost. These constraints were al so called perceived and real constraints. Until recently, most leisure-constraint research examined constraints as insurmountable obstacles to leisure partic ipation. Early work by Crawford and Godbey (1987) described three discrete categories of c onstraints: intrapersona l, interpersonal, and structural. Crawford, Godbey, & Jackson (1991) intr oduced an alterna tive perspective proposing the hierarchical model of constraints and the theory of constraint negotiation. This model suggests that leisure constraints are aligned in a sequential manner such that leisure participation is dependent on the succe ssful confrontation of each constraint level. (Crawford et al. 1991). The process begins with intrapersonal constraints in the development of leisure preferences. Once leis ure preferences are formed and constraints have been negotiated, the process then pr ogresses through the seque ntial negotiation of interpersonal and structural constraints. Demographic Issues Income and education have been shown to exhibit strong relationships with constraints, but is often depe ndent on the type of constr aint. Respondents with higher education and income have the tendency to repo rt the effects of stru ctural constraints. Jackson (1989) proposed that individuals w ith higher education and higher incomes are subject to fewer intrapersonal and interpersona l constraints on participation than their less privileged counter parts because they have more power due to their social position.

PAGE 16

7 In addition to the influence of social class and income, Hende rson (1991) and Shaw (1994) introduced gender as an important factor as it relates to constr aints. Both authors suggest that there are differences between men and women in the way they experience leisure constraints. Henderson stated that while individual constr aints may not be too different between men and women, the contex t of women’s lives could be seen as cumulative. Age has been an important tool in the inve stigation of the perc eption of constraints across the life span. Intrapersonal constraints have been reported to significantly increase with age (Alexandris & Carroll 1997; Jackson 19 93; Searle & Jackson 1985). It has also been suggested that older individuals expe rience more interpersonal constraints more than middle-aged individuals (Jackson 1993). Fi nance related constraints have also been reported to decline with adva ncing age (Jackson 1993). Time-related constraints have shown to exhibit a cyclical relationship. Its importance increased from the youngest to middle-aged groups and decreases among olde r individuals (McGuire, Dottavio, & O’ Leary 1986; Searle & Jackson 1985). In conc lusion, research has shown that there are significant differences in the perceptions of constraints among different demographic groups. Related Skiing Literature Skiing, a popular winter recreation activity attracts millions of people to the slopes and countryside every year. For people w ith disabilities, the use of gravity and accumulated speed to maneuver and traverse th e mountains while skiing are the same for people with or without disabi lities. It is the equipmen t and techniques used by people with disabilities that differ. This classifi cation of equipment and skills are often referred to adaptive skiing.

PAGE 17

8 Adaptive sports such as skiing were intr oduced in the mid twentieth century as a tool for rehabilitation of injuries in war ve terans (Malanga 2002). Over time adaptive skiing has grown in popularity. People with disabilities are able to participate in a diversity of recreation al activities on the recreation al level as well as the competitive level. Snowboarding is another winter recreation activity available at many ski areas. Although snowboarding has only been around for about twenty-five years, it has gained widespread interest and popularity. Today, adaptive skiing and snowboarding instruction is available at many ski areas across the country. Statement of the Problem Recreation and leisure have been recognized as a quality that is important to individuals as well as communities for some time. The goal of many leisure service professionals is to facilitate leisure experien ces for their participants, regardless of their abilities. Many people with disabi lities are limited from participation in various activities. However, research has shown that people w ith disabilities usually desire the same outcomes as anyone else when participating in physical activities. Typically, people with disabilities report that negative attitudes represent the most devastating constraint they experience. Leisure service professionals have both a legal and moral obligation to make reasonable adaptations to include people with disabilities in r ecreation and leisure programs. Purpose of the Study The focus of this study is to examine the influence of a disability on outdoor recreation interests, participation patterns, be nefits to recreation participation, perceived constraints, and negotiation strategies among residents and skiers nationwide.

PAGE 18

9 Specifically, this study examined opinions of skiers and snowboarders who have disabilities. Further, it lo oked at factors distinguishing those who are impacted by the presence of a disability with in their recreation pursuits. Finally, the purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived constrai nts faced by people with disabilities when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing. This study has its theoretical basis in previous research on leisure c onstraints and constraint negotiation. Research Questions R1: What does the sample of recreationists look like? R2: What possible benefits do people with disabilities receive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing and snowboarding? R2A: What are the differences in the percei ved benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport ac tivities such as sk iing & snowboarding between people who show a high level of interest and those who show a low level of interest? R2B: What are the differences in the possibl e benefits to participation of people with disabilities when participating in adaptive winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across the education variable? R2C: What are the differences in the possibl e benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport activ ities such as skiing/snowboarding across the income variable? R3: What constraints do people with disa bilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding?

PAGE 19

10 R3A: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participati ng in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding between people who par ticipate as often as desired and those who do not? R3B: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participati ng in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding between people with ch ildren in their household under the ages of six and those who do not? R3C: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participati ng in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding between people with ch ildren in their household between the ages of six and 18 and those who do not? R3D:What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participati ng in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across the income variable? R4: What constraints do people with disa bilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding? R4A: What are the differences in the cons traint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities w ho are interested in skii ng & snowboarding and those who are not interested? R4B: What are the differences in the cons traint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who are living in different living environments?

PAGE 20

11 R4C: What are the differences in the cons traint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who have different levels of education? R4D: What are the differences in the cons traint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who were hampered by their disability compared to those who reported they were not ha mpered by their disability? Delimitations/Limitations The original methodology of this study was to include face to face interviews with adaptive skiers and snowboarders. The resear ch was going to be collected at a week long winter clinic. The organiza tion sponsoring this winter c linic was to have their own research efforts on-site during the same time period and gracefully declined participation in this study. Other delimitations placed on this study were that the respondents were contacted through cooperative adap tive recreation providers that agreed to participate in this study. Many adaptive recreat ion providers declined this opportunity to participate in the study due to issues related to client conf identiality. Also respondents had to be over the age of eighteen years old. Another delim itation to this study was that respondents of the survey were only skiers and snowboarders with disabilities. The limitations to this study include that the findings of this st udy may not be generalized to the entire population of adaptive recreation participants, as only those w ho were already in contact with an adaptive recreation provider. Many people venture out on their own when recreating in the outdoors and forego services provided by adaptive recreation agencies. Definitions Accessible: Approachable, functional, and usab le by persons with disabilities, independently, safely, and with dignity. The same definition encompasses (physical) accessibility and program accessibility.

PAGE 21

12 Constraints: Factors that are assumed by researchers and perceived or experienced by individuals to inhibit or prohibit participation and full enjoyment of leisure and recreation pursuits. Disability: Best defined by the Americans with Disabilities Ac t; (A) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual, (B) a record of such an im pairment, or (C) being regarded as having an impairment (SEC. 3[2], 1990). Negotiation: Modifications to behavior su ch as scheduling, levels of specialization, and frequency of participation to overcome c onstraints and that positively influence or enhance level of participation. Outdoor recreation: A major category of leisure pursuit that directly involves the outdoors and can be related to environmen tal activities. These activities are closely linked to or dependent on the natural environment. Examples include: skiing, snowboarding, hiking, backpacking.

PAGE 22

13 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Outdoor recreation pursued during leisur e time and by free choice often provides its own satisfaction and has continued to play an increasing role in people’s lives. Recreation and nature-based tourism have been around in this country since its beginnings. After the Great Depression and World War II, recreation became a major component of the American way of life. It has demanded recognition and attention. Today, outdoor recreation still contributes to people's overa ll well-being and good health. Regardless of age, recreation provides a wide array of opportunities for physical fitness, stress reduction, learning new skills and ra ising self-esteem. Involvement in outdoor recreation is a fundamental step in prom oting an active, healthy population. The following section describes a ge neral overview of outdoor recr eation participation and the possible benefits of recreation to those who participate. Outdoor Recreation Participation Patt erns of People with Disabilities The National Survey on Recreation and Envi ronment (NSRE) is the most recent comprehensive study of outdoor recreation includ ing individuals with disabilities. The US Forest Service conducted this study in 1995. A total 1,252 people with disabilities were included in the NSRE, which represente d 7.7% of the total study sample. The most frequent reported disability type overall wa s physical disabilities. The second largest category was identified as “illness” and incl uded impairments such as heart conditions, diabetes, and cancer. Lastly, the other ca tegory included impairments and conditions such as arthritis, asthma, and epilepsy. Th ese three categories accounted for more than

PAGE 23

14 80% of the responses of disabling conditi ons. When questioned about overall outdoor recreation participation rates, a smaller proport ion of people with disa bilities participated than those respondents without disabilities. Also, in the snow and ice activity category, people with disabilities reported lower participa tion rates than those without disabilities. Another aspect of recreati on participation examined by the NSRE study was the number of days spent participating in select ac tivities in the previous twelve months. The findings suggest that in general, people with di sabilities reported levels of participation in outdoor recreation activities equa led to, or greater than, peop le without disabilities. McCormick (2000) examined the recrea tion participation rates of both people with and without disabilities. The study identi fied that people with disabilities under the age of 25 and over the age of 75 participated more in outdoor swi mming than their peers without disabilities. This study also reported that when participation rates in outdoor recreation were examined, it was reported that people with disabilities reported a higher level of participation than those respondents without disabilities. Leisure and Recreation Benefits Literature First, we will consider and discuss the benefits of all t ypes of leisure activities and then attempt to relate those benefits to out door recreation. Prior to that, some concepts and definitions must be established to promote an understanding. Among recreation research, there has been considerable conf usion about what is meant by a benefit of leisure. To attempt to prev ent that confusion, the develope rs of the BBM system defined the three types of leisure benefits. A change in the condition of individual s, groups of individuals (a family, a community, society at large, or the natura l environment) that is viewed as more desirable than the previo usly existing condition. Examples include improved health, a more economically stable local community, and improved habitatfor a species of wildlife.

PAGE 24

15 The maintenance of a desired conditi on and therefore the prevention of an unwanted condition. Examples include main tenance of health, pride in local community, and an erosion-free trail. The realization of a satisfying psychologica l recreation experience, such as mental relaxation, closer family bonds, learning of many types, tranquility, enjoying natural scenery, and testing, applying, and/ or developing one’s skills. (Driver, Douglass, & Loomis 1999) According to Driver, Douglas, and Loomis (1999), benefits can be psychological, physiological, social, economic, or environmen tal. They may be immediate (learning new things about a particular culture or subculture at a particul ar heritage site) or delayed (greater pride in one’s local e, region, or nation because of accumulated increased historical cultural understanding and personal reflection about that knowledge). One type of benefit (relaxation from a demanding job) can lead to another benefit (increased quality or quantity of work performance), which in turn can lead to other benefits (increased job satisfaction a nd maybe increased income). Participation in leisure and recreation activ ities is viewed as a means for optimizing personal beneficial outcomes (Driver 1996). For outdoor recreation, be neficial outcomes of participation includes the following: na ture-based spiritual renewal (Rolston 1996), wellness (Montes 1996), psychological attach ment to special places (Roberts 1996; Greene 1996), appreciation of early American landscapes (Bruns & Stokowski 1996), use of heritage and historic res ources not only for better unders tanding of the evolution of a culture or subculture, but also for mainte nance of particular ethnic identities (Lee & Tainter 1996), leisure services as a social intervention to prevent or help ameliorate particular social problems or to capture a targ eted type of benefit; e.g., help at-risk youth, promote physical health, promote environmen tal awareness, including that of natural

PAGE 25

16 ecological processes, and through tourism help stabilize the economy of a local community (Witt & Crompton 1996). As mentioned above, the physiological approach to the measurements of benefits of recreation provides a readily documented and acce pted research approach that identifies measurable outcomes. Initial research effort s focused on benefits such as cardiovascular improvements, reduction of body fat, and rate of premature death (McLean and Neal 2004). Current recreation re search suggests the followi ng physiological benefits: Habitual physical activity leads to a reduction of heart ra te and lower blood pressure. Regular physical activity in creases muscle strength and improved function of connective tissue s (Paffenbarger, et. al.,1991). Sustained physical activity l eads to decreased body fat mass and an increase lean body, an increase in basal metabolism, and a lower risk of obesity (Bray, 1989; Siscovick,et.al.,1985). Physical activity can prevent the complex condition leading to chronic back pain syndrome and the extensive debility a ssociated with it (Tipton,et. al.,1986). Leisure Benefits for People with Disabilities Fullerton, Brandon, & Adrick (2000) conducted a study of residential summer camp programs that had specialized programs for children with disabilities. The disability types in th eir study included learning disabilities, autism, sensory disabilities, moderate and sever cognitive disabilities, physical disabilities, and traumatic brain disabilities. The results reported were that children with disabilities benefit from an outdoor camp program by demonstrating a greater initiative and self directed independence. The children showed this impr ovement at camp and transferred in various ways back at home and in school, following the camp experience. Another study examined the effects of an outdoor adventure program on selfefficacy, depression and anxiety. Adults with mental illness were involved in a weekly

PAGE 26

17 day-long adventure outings for the duration of nine weeks. The findings suggested that significant increases in self-efficacy were seen in the experimental group compared to the control. Also, significant reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety were reported (Kelly, Coursey, & Selby 1997). Witman and Munson (1992) investigated the outcomes of adventure programming for adolescents in psychiatric treatment. Findings indicated that the majority of participants gained the following: personal skil ls, attitudes relevant to treatment in regard to self-concept and in terpersonal relatedness. Other studies examined integrated outdoor programs that incl uded people with and without disabilities. These studies reported the following re sults: improved attitudes and lifestyle changes in recreation skills and leisure patterns, interpersonal relationships, and social patterns; increased willingness to take risks; increased feelings of self-efficacy; and a number of spiritual benefits (McAvoy, et. al. 1989; ). The research conducted by Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais & Seligman (1997) confirmed many of the benefits listed above, and also reported that integrated programs resulted in outdoor recreation skills, improved sensitivity to the needs of the other group members, and an increased respect for nature. Constraints Literature Within the constraints literature, there have been several theoretical concepts proposed by various researchers. Some of these frameworks have focused on activityspecific constraints (McCarville & Smale 1991); including such activities as hiking (Bialeschki & Henderson 1986); card pl aying (Scott 1991); camping, and golfing (Backman & Crompton 1990). Other investigati ons of constraints have looked at the various leisure market segments such as the elderly (McGuire 1984); persons with

PAGE 27

18 disabilities (Farbman & Ellis, 1987); as well as females (Bialeschki & Henderson, 1986). A more recent examination of constraints s uggests the concept of constraint negotiation (Crawford & Godbey 1987; Crawford, Jacks on, & Godbey 1991). Discussed below are the attempts of prior research l eading to the idea of negotiation. The theme of constraints in leisure emerged in the 1980s. The focus of research, from this time, examined why some people di d not participate in leisure activities in which they might have the desire. Particip ation was thought to be the only aspect of leisure truly affected by constr aints. Another assumption from the literature of this time was that there was only one type of constr aint, which prevented participation. These theories did not examine decreased participati on due to constraints, but instead examined only the idea of no particip ation due to constraints. Jackson (1994) conducted research on ba rriers to non-participation by focusing on factors related to recreation pr eferences, barriers to participation, and participation. This work extended previous research (Boo thby et al. 1981; Franken & Van Raaj 1981; Rosma & Hoffman 1980; and Witt & Goodale 1981). In 1991, McCarville and Smale discusse d perceived constraints to leisure participation within five activity domains ac ross activity groups and sociodemographics. In this study, the idea of less participation due to constraint s emerged. The five activity groups were physical activity and exercise, arts and entertainment, hobbies, social activities, and home-based entertainment. These five domains included a battery of different recreation activities related to solitary and group pursuits, as well as home/community recreation pursuits. In th is study, the participants were asked to respond (yes/no) whether they felt they were pa rticipating less in their chosen activities

PAGE 28

19 for a list of 10 possible reasons The second research question dealt with the specific constraints and sociodemographic variables. The ten reasons included items such as time, nobody to go with, limited access, information, financial constraints, etc. (McCarville & Smale 1991). The findings in this research show that the social activities domain was the most important domain for this sample, followed by the hobbies domain. Much of the present gender research supports this notion of soci al opportunity as a primary motivator for women’s leisure. The authors found a great deal of uniformity in the responses across the five activity domains, although some significan t differences were noted for the lack of time constraint. Respondents did vary re garding the number of constraints reported between the home-based domain, arts and ente rtainment, and the hobbies domains. Also, numerous differences were found across th e sociodemographic variables, although no clear pattern emerged across this set of variables (McCarville & Smale 1991). With this initial examination on the problema tic nature of constraints, the focus was on the factors that prevent or impede partic ipation (Jackson & Scott 1999). In this early research, two types of intervening constraint s were identified: internal and external. Jackson (1988) suggests that the most co mmon internal constraints include personal skills, abilities, health-related problems, and knowledge, whereas external constraints include lack of time, lack of facilities, tran sportation issues and financial cost. These constraints were also referred to as perceived and r eal constraints. Th ese early empirical studies have been criticized for being athe oretical and for making a number of untested assumptions (Jackson 1988; Shaw, Bonen, & Mc Cabe 1991). Several attempts have been

PAGE 29

20 made by various researchers to clarify this conceptual framework, as outlined in the following paragraphs. The hierarchal model of constraints has been the focus of much recreation research. As proposed by Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey (1991), the hierarchal model of leisure constraints states that constraints may be perceived and experienced sequentially rather than simultaneously. A variety of st udies have provided evidence for the multidimensionality of the concept of leisure constraints and many of them have reported similar patterns of constraint dimensi ons (Jackson 1993; Jackson & Henderson 1995). The following is a more indepth look at the theoretical foundations of which the concept of constraints stands. Figure 1. Hierarchical Mode l of Constraint Negotiation Intrapersonal Constraints Interpersonal Constraints Structural Constraint Leisure Preference Interpersonal Compatibility and Coordination Level of Participation Motivations (attractions)

PAGE 30

21 As seen in Figure 1, a clearly defined hierarchy of constraints was a major contribution of this theory (Crawford, G odbey, & Jackson 1991). The first level of constraints was deemed as intrapersonal. These constraints involve psychological states and attributes that interplay with leisur e preferences. Examples include stress, depression, anxiety, and percei ved self-skill. Following th e negotiation or absence of intrapersonal constraints, leis ure preferences are formed. Cr awford et al. (1991) suggest that intrapersonal constraints are the most difficult to overcome and are the most likely to block participation in physical act ivities (Carroll & Alexandris 1997). The next stage of the model involved interpersonl constraints. This type of constraint involves relationshi ps between or interaction of individuals’ characteristics (Crawford & Godbey 1987). For example, a poten tial participant may be unable to find a partner or a friend to partic ipate with. Interpersonal c onstraints interact with both preference and participation in leisure activitie s that require partners or companions. Finally, once interpersonal constraints have been overcome, an individual may face structural constraints. Stru ctural constraints are those in tervening factors that come between personal leisure preferences and actual participation. Examples of this type of constraint are economic barriers, availability of access, fam ily life-cycle stage, season, climate, availability of opportunity, availabil ity of time, and reference group attitudes to the appropriateness of certain activities. This type of constraint has received the most attention in previous constraint research (Hudson 2000). It ha s also been suggested to be the type of constraint least difficu lt to overcome (Jackson & Scott 1999). This theory as a whole re presents a great step towa rds better understanding the phenomenon of constraints, as it exists in the fields of recreation and sport. This concept

PAGE 31

22 and theoretical framework work together to cr eate a cohesive nature to the constraints research. Constraint Negotiation In today’s leisure research, the theory of “constraint negotiation” has been the focus of several constraint studies. This deve lopment represents a shift in the constraints literature to a deeper underst anding of the constraints concept. Proposed by Jackson and others (1993) the theory of nego tiation states that the indivi dual who participated in any given leisure activity might have successfu lly negotiated a hierar chical series of constraints. Such negotiations may modify pa rticipation rather than foreclose it. The individuals who did not participate may not have been able to accomplish successful negotiation of perceived or e xperienced constraints. Scott (1991) conducted qualitative research to understand the role of constraints for bridge players. According to Scott (1991), c onstraints are forces with people’s leisure pursuits that must be successfu lly negotiated if desi red level of involvement is to occur. Nonparticipation represents only one possible outcome of constraints; it may instead modify the desired level of pa rticipation but maintain some sort of involvement within the activity. Scott identified types of group-related constrai nts with naturalistic inquiry (participant-as-observer & formal interviewi ng techniques). The data disclosed three levels of leisure constraints. Intrapersonala diminishing interest fo r bridge participation among younger generations. Interpersonalli nked to the group participation (other players required). Lastly, individual differences among pl ayers (structural). A major conclusion from this study is that constraints at the different levels are inter-related. Another major conclusion is that constrai nts are not “insurmountable” obstacles of participation. Instead, players may develop st rategies to overcome constraints. Scott

PAGE 32

23 suggests that future constraint investigati ons should attempt to uncover how activities within a social realm both encourag e and constrain participation. In 1993, Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey exam ined the concept of “negotiation,” suggesting that participation in leisure activities is depe ndent on how people negotiate through constraints. Thus, it is not the abse nce of constraints that enables people to participate in recreational activities, but their negotiation through those constraints. Categorized into cognitive (reducing cognitive dissonance) or behavioral (change in behavior), these authors postulated that the negotiation strategy would depend on the situation that was encountered. Jackson and Rucks (1995) validated the ear lier work by Jackson et al. (1993) by specifically examining the patterns of c onstraint negotiation. This study, focusing on high-school children, found that pe ople often negotiate throug h a specific constraint by adopting negotiation strategies related to that particular constraint (e.g., changing the use of time for a time-related constraint). The negotiation strategies were classified as cognitive strategies (e.g., push themselves harder, ignore parent s) and behavioral strategies (e.g., better or ganization of their time, take less ons). The behavioral strategies were further subdivided into time manageme nt, skill acquisition, changing interpersonal relations, improving finances, physical ther apy, changing leisure aspirations, and a miscellaneous group. The findings suggest that the behavioral strategies were far more widespread than cognitive st rategies, being adopted by almo st 80% of the subjects who participated in this study. The authors postu lated that this information was valuable in understanding that people rearra nge things in their lives so that they can participate in leisure opportunities.

PAGE 33

24 Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, and Schuler (1995 ) investigated the strategies used by women with disabilities to negotiate through cons traints. In general, the participants of the study felt that they were successful at becoming or staying involved in leisure activities based on the use of negotiation strategies that al lowed them to respond actively rather than passively to constraints. They id entified three groups based on the strategies they adopt when coping with constraints. These groups include passive responders (no participation), achievers (no change in part icipation levels desp ite constraints), and attempters (did participate, but altered partic ipation in leisure activities). Their findings indicated that other environm ental factors (lack of energy, time, safety, etc.) accounted for some degree of non-participation, while th e disability itself was also a contributing factor. More recently, Hubbard and Mannell (2001) ex amined the negotiation strategies of employees in a corporate setting. These au thors examined negotiation models using the three-constraint model (intrape rsonal, interpersonal, and structural), and four scales to measure negotiation (time, skills, interpersonal, and financial). This study also involved studying respondents’ motivation and participat ion levels. The results of this study showed that the original negotiation proce ss identified by Jackson et al. (1993) was the best fit, indicating that the constraints tri gger negotiation efforts, which can then negate the effects of the constraint (Hubbard & Mannell 2001). Understanding of constraints has many importa nt implications. It could allow for insight into other leisure aspects and resear ch areas such as participation, satisfaction, involvement, and motivation. Other avenues of future research among the constraints

PAGE 34

25 literature have been to look at the temporal nature of constraints, group related constraints, as well as methodological changes. Constraints Literature Related to People with Disabilities Although the literature on leisure constraint s has been growing, th ere is still little known about constraints experien ced by those individuals with disabilities. In general, this research suggests that constraints to involvement a nd participation in outdoor recreation and community life activities for people with di sabilities tend to involve resources and attitudes. Resources incl ude transportation, money, leisure partners, knowledge, skills, and functioning. Attitudinal ba rriers for individuals with disabilities are often their own attitudes as well as others (the community, society at larger, or even recreation providers). According to Jackson (1988) reasons for non-participation were similar to the general public, but individuals with disabi lities have some additional problems in overcoming constraints. Problems including perc eived lack of ability, social stigma, poor socialization, and lack of information of oppor tunities were just some reasons why people with disabilities did not particip ate in physical activity programs. Germ and Schleien (1997) examined constr aints to leisure participation for persons with the context of community leisure agen cies. The subjects of the study and the consumers (i.e. persons with disabilities) re ported that transpor tation and programming issues were major constraining factor to th eir participation. Program barriers included a lack of a variety of program times, a l ack of skill development opportunities at the appropriate levels, and a lack of programs designed for teenagers and adult males with disabilities.

PAGE 35

26 In an examination of outdoor recrea tion opportunities, Ross (1993) found that young adults with recent spinal cord injuri es reported several constraints to outdoor recreation pursuits. Lack of leisure partners transportation issues, mobility issues, selfconsciousness, and attitudes of significant othe rs were found to be c onstraining factors of outdoor recreation pursuits. The research efforts of Wilhite and Ke ller (1992) focused on the examination of leisure involvement of older adults with deve lopmental disabilities. Leisure constraints reported in this study were transportation, m oney, physical accessibility, concerns about their behavior, and discomfort in larg e public groups. Some respondents reported constraining factors such as they were not integrated, felt members of the community were not sensitive to their needs, and not willing to allow them to be included in community life and activities. While analyzing the results of the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, McCormick (2000) found that pe ople with disabili ties reported more constraints to involvement and participati on in outdoor recreation on US Forest lands than persons with out disabil ities. The primary barriers to ou tdoor recreation participation involved health and physical functioning. Another interes ting finding of this study was that people with disabilities under 25 y ears old and over 75 years old reported more participation in outdoor recreati on activities than their peer s with out disabilities. People with disabilities have been hindered from participating in outdoor recreation activities for quite some time. With the aging US population and medical and technological advances, the number of persons with disabilities is expected to increase. Understanding the recreation and leisure needs of persons with disabilities is increasingly

PAGE 36

27 important. The information address below exam ines the constraints related to the winter sport industry. Related Skiing and Literature Skiing has been a popular winter recrea tion activity in the US for numerous decades. The ski industry, specifically that of North America, has researched and reported a significant decline in participation rates and profitability since the early 1990s (Williams & Fidgeon 2000). Throughout the present research, studies have examined this phenomenon in a many different ways, in hopes of uncovering the true reasons for the change in participation rates. The focus mo st relevant to this di scussion investigates the real and perceived constrai nts that might pose as barrie rs to current and potential skiers, specifically people with disabilities. An understand ing of these “barriers” or constraints must happen before the industry can expect incremental changes. This is vital to the skiing industry as it relates to su stainable tourism development (Williams & Fidgeon 2000). In the attempt to create this further u nderstanding, researchers have addressed constraints found amongst skiers. This has often been operationaliz ed in a qualitative method; however, Williams & Fidgeon (2000) used a methodology that included both qualitative and quantitative methods. This t ype of study design seems to provide a more inclusive and exhaustive research method for the complex nature of this investigation. The data included specific items related to constraints, and these items were analyzed using cluster analysis. Overal l, the two most important items were that skiing is very physically demanding, and ski hills are very steep. Respondents in this study also perceived that cost was too high, including proper equipment, transportation, and time constraints.

PAGE 37

28 Gilbert & Hudson (2000) conducted a s econd recent examination of skiing participation, also taking place in Canada. This article was particularly pertinent to this research, as one of the objectives of the study was to operationaliz e the negotiation model proposed by Crawford et al. (1991). Gilb ert & Hudson’s work included not only an examination of what constrains people from participating, but also what facilitates peoples’ desire to ski. Another objective of this study was to examine the differences between existing skiers and interested non-sk iers, similar to the effort by Williams & Fidgeon (2000). Another similarity to the Williams & Fidge on (2000) research is that Gilbert & Hudson (2000) used both qualitative and qua litative research methodologies. These authors used focus groups and structured inte rviewers to assist in the development of their quantitative instru ment. The quantitative instrument included likert scales asking respondents to rate their agreement-disagreement with their perceptions of intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints, sim ilar to previous resear ch (Henderson et al. 1991; Jackson 1993; Raymore et al. 1993). Overa ll, the most agreemen t within all three of the domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural) was seen for the cost associated with skiing. The findings of this research effort indi cated that skiers we re typically younger, male, active sport enthusiasts, who are more affluent than the general popul ation (Greer 1990). Major differences in the images a nd perceptions of skiing were found. Skiers reported that skiing was an opportunity for fun physical activity. It was also stated that participants felt that skiing offered the opportunity for improvement of technique,

PAGE 38

29 interactions with others in a pristine environment, escape from daily life, as well as many others.

PAGE 39

30 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter discusses the research methods used in this study. It begins by discussing how the study sample was selecte d. Survey design and instrumentation for this study were discussed in the second s ection. The following section described the collection of the data. Lastly, a secti on on the treatment of data was included. Sampling Procedures The study sample was derived from a bank of names provided to the University of Florida’s Center for Tourism Research and Development. Nearly 60 adaptive recreation providers nationwide were contacted for this study. These adaptive recreation providers were identified through the In ternet. Personal contacts were then made with staff members at each of the agencies to see if they would be intere sted in participating in the study. The study was introduced to the staff member, and the purpose and methods were discussed were discussed with the staff members. Two options for data collection were presen ted to the staff members: the use of a mail-back survey, and the possibility of f ace to face interviews taking place at the ski/snowboarding area. If the staff members demonstrated any degree of interest in participating in the study, they were queried as to which data collection method would best suit the needs of their agency. Disappoi ntingly, very few of the adaptive recreation organizations showed an interest in part icipating in this study. The most common reasons given for not participating were that the staff was too busy or the skiers/snowboarders were considered client s whose information could not be shared.

PAGE 40

31 Three adaptive recreation organizations agreed to participate in the study. Research information including goals of the study a nd the survey instrument was sent to the adaptive recreation providers. All three of these organizations opted for the mail-back survey instead of the personal interview me thod of collection data. Staff members at these three organizations provided their c lients’ names and contact information. Survey Design The design employed in this study was a quantitative, mail-back survey method. The activity-specific survey measured various user characteristics (Appendix A). The survey instrument also measured users’ inte rests, possible benefits to outdoor recreation, perceptions & beliefs of c onstraints, as well as the overall negotiation strategies employed that may have lead to participat ion. Respondents were asked a battery of 15 items representing possible benefits of outdoor recreation such as skiing and snowboarding. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale from ‘Not at all important ’ (1) to ‘Extremely important’ (5). Perceived leisure constraints were measur ed using a battery of 27 items patterned closely after ones developed by Hudson ( 2000) for the use of skiing research. Respondents were asked to rate reasons a thre e-point Likert scale ranging from “Major Reason” to “Not a Reason,” with a neutra l “Not sure/Don’t know” category as well. Constraint negotiation strategies were examined using a battery of 19 items modeled closely after scales used by H ubbard & Mannell (2001). Respondents were asked to rate things they do to start, con tinue, or increase recreation participation on a five-point Likert scale ranging fr om “Never” to “Very Often”.

PAGE 41

32 Data Collection The data collection approach for this st udy was a mail-back survey/questionnaire. Survey research is an excellent method of coll ecting this type of da ta because surveys are good tools for measuring attitudes, orientat ions, and preferences (Dillman 2000). The initial plan of data collect was to be f ace to face interviews w ith adaptive recreation participants on site. The interviews were to be collected during a week-long winter clinic for people with disabilities to receive instruct ion in several recreati on al activities. Due to organizational issues of client confidentiali ty, this plan was altered to include a mailback survey instead. The survey was a self -administered question, distributed by mail to the clients of several adaptive recreation agencies. The surv ey instrument included a note indicating that a caretaker of family member was welcome to fill out the survey for any person who desired that assi stance. The sample was a convenience sample, however, there is no known systematic bias in volved in selecting the respondents. Utilizing the Dillman Total Research Method (Dillman 2000), the research participants received an initial postcard ma iling containing a request for participation (Appendix B) with a brief explanation of the study. About 5-7 days later, the questionnaire along with a cover letter (Appe ndix C) and postage paid, pre-addressed envelope was sent to the participants. Af ter two weeks, a follow up letter on a postcard (Appendix D) was mailed to the entire sample thanking those who had already returned their survey questionnaire and reminding those who had not to return theirs. If clients misplaced their original packet, a number was provided to be able to request another. After two additional weeks, a complete packet containing a new cover letter and the same questionnaire was mailed to everyone who had not responded. The time frame for data collection was February 2004 through July 2004.

PAGE 42

33 Treatment of Data A complete descriptive profile of respondents was conducted (e.g., frequency distribution, mean, median, mode, standard deviat ion, etc.). The next step in the analysis was to determine if the scales used in the survey instrument were valid. Reliability statistics were carried out on the scales rela ted to constraints and negotiation strategies for the overall sample. A series of cross ta bulations and one-way analysis of variance analyses were conducted to examine the differences between the respondents’ perceptions regarding constraint s and the socio-economic status variables (disability type, gender, income, education, family status). The next step in the process was to regr ess the constraints ite ms and the negotiation items on the respondent’s level of particip ation to determine the strength of any relationship that was found. Mu ltiple regressions ar e the statistical method of examining the way a number of independent variables rela ted to one single depe ndent variable. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 11) was used in the data analysis. All analysis was tested for significance at the .05 levels.

PAGE 43

34 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The results of the data analysis are presented in five main sections of this chapter. First, a description of the ad aptive recreation part icipants’ basic demographic profile is provided. The frequency distributions are of pa rticular importance in this thesis because the entire sample consisted of persons with disabilities. Accordi ngly, the frequencies are an accurate description of the constraints pe rceived by persons with disabilities, and the negotiation strategies used by pe rsons with disabilities. The second section discusses what possibl e recreation benefits are sought by people with disabilities when participating in adap tive recreation pursuits The next section answers the question, “What constraints do pe ople with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing or snowboarding?” The following section answers the research question, “W hat types of constraints do people with disabilities perceive to have the most impact on winter sport activiti es such as skiing and snowboarding?” The next section discusses what constraint nego tiation strategies are used by people with disabilities when particip ating in adaptive recreation pursuits. The final section of this chapter focuses on se veral socio-demographic variables, including, gender, age, residence, and income, and te sts whether there are differences in the perceptions of constraints for di fferent socio-demographic groups. The data collected through the use of a mail-back survey incorporating the modified Dillman technique (Dillman 2000). The survey provided many insights into the perceived constraints and negotia tion strategies that the recreationists in this sample have

PAGE 44

35 experienced while engaging in adaptive recreation. Again, although 161 total surveys were collected, the number of r ecreationists varies within the data analysis due to missing responses. R1: What does the sample of adaptiv e recreation partic ipants look like? A total of 161 adaptive recreation particip ants were surveyed during the period of May to July 2004. The sample group consisted of various types of participants with different beliefs and opinions of adaptive recreation opportunities. The respondents in this sample were asked several socio-dem ographic questions, such as the number of people in the household, number of childre n living in household, occupation, ethnicity, gender, income, education, etc. This thes is focuses on the following demographic questions; gender, age, income, disabilit y, education, children in the household, and residence A majority of the adaptive recreation pa rticipants were males (59.0%), while approximately (49.0%) was female. Residen ce type, such as urban, suburban, and rural was another socio-demographic question asked in this thesis. Approximately half of the respondents (47.1%), reported living in a “suburban” area type. The remaining respondents were about evenly proportionate in their responses, with about one-quarter reporting an “rural” residence type (29.0%) and the other qu arter reporting a “suburban” residence type (23.9%). When respondents’ were asked to report their total household income for 2003, the numbers ranged from under $10,000 to over $170 ,000. More specifically, the majority of the respondents (50.0%) reported an income of $50,000 or greater in the year 2003. Approximately one-fifth of th e respondents (20.6%), indicate d their household income to

PAGE 45

36 be $30,001 to 50,000, while less than one-fif th (18.4%) reported less than $10,000 household income in 2003. The remaini ng respondents (11.0%) reported a total household income for the year 2003. Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of Adaptive Recreation Participants FrequencyValid Percent Gender Male 90 59.0 Female 64 41.0 Total 156 100.0 Residence Urban 37 23.9 Suburban 73 47.1 Rural 45 29.0 Total 155 100.0 Income Less than 10,000 25 18.4 $10,001 to 30,000 15 11.0 $30,001 to 50,000 28 20.6 $50,001 or more 68 50.0 Total 136 100.0 Education (recoded) Associate’s degree or below 112 74.7 Bachelor’s degree 18 12.0 Graduate or professional degree 20 13.3 Total 150 100.0 Children under 6 in household? Yes 18 11.6 No 137 88.4 Total 155 100.0 Children between 6 –18 years in household? Yes 63 40.9 No 91 59.1 Total 154 100.0

PAGE 46

37 Education level was examined by asking res pondents to report th e highest level of schooling completed. Approximately threequarters (74.7%) of respondents reported having an Associates degree or less, while over a one-tenth (13.3%) had completed a graduate or professional degree. Also, over one-tenth (12.0%)indicated having completed a Bachelor’s degree. The last two socio-demographic variab les examined were whether or not respondents’ had children under 6 years ol d in the household and whether or not respondents’ had children betw een the ages of 6-18 years in the household. The vast majority of respondents’ (88.4%) indicated no children under six in the household, while the remaining respondents (11.6%) reported that were children under six in the household. When questioned about children 6 to 18 years old living in the household, less than half of the respondent s’ (40.9%) reported having chil dren 6 to 18 years old in the household. A series of additional survey questions were used to further profile adaptive recreation participants (Table 2). The res pondents were asked to indicate their level of interest in skiing or snowboarding. The su rvey instrument allowed the respondent to report their interest in either or both categories (skiing or snowboarding). The results showed that the respondents to this study ha ve an overwhelming level of interest in skiing. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (73.6%) sa id that they were very interested in skiing, and near ly one-quarter (22.0%) stated that they were somewhat interested. A small minority (6%) reported that they were not at all in terested in skiing. There was significantly less interest in snowboarding than skiing. Less than onefifth of the respondents (16.4%) reported that they were very intere sted in snowboarding,

PAGE 47

38 while just under one-quarter of the responde nts (23.9%) said that they were somewhat interested. Just over half of the participants in the study ( 50.9%) said that they were not interested, and 8.8% of the respondent s said that they did not know. The respondents had quite a bit of experience in skiing/ snowboarding. Nearly onehalf of the subjects (45.7%) reported that they had been skiing/snowboarding for more than five years, while about one-quart er of the respondent s (23.6%) had been skiing/snowboarding between 3-4 years. A bout one-quarter of th e respondents (24.2%) had been skiing/snowboarding between 1-2 ye ars, and a small minority (6.5%) reported that they had participated in skiin g/snowboarding for less than one year. The subjects in this study al so reported the number of times that they participated in skiing/snowboarding in the past year. The greatest proportion (37.0%) spent between 4-7 days skiing/snowboarding in the past 12 months. One-fifth of the respondents (20.4%) skied/snowboarded between 8-14 days, while 13.8% of the subjects skied/snowboarded more than 14 times. Nearly one-fifth of the respondents (18.6%) spent 2-3 days participati ng, and 10.0% of the subjects spent one day or less. Lastly, the respondents were asked if they skied competitively or not. Less than one-fifth of the respondents (15.2%) said that the skied/ snowboarded competitively, while the majority (84.8%) did not compete. The respondents were asked to report the formal/medical name of their disability through the use of an open-ended question. As shown in Table 3, the responses were then coded and categorized into five gene ral types of disabilities: physical, sensory, cognitive, multiple disabilities, and other. About half of the respondents (48.3%)

PAGE 48

39 Table 2. Recreation Profile of Ad aptive Recreation Participants Adaptive Recreation Participation Information FrequencyValid Percent Interest in Skiing Very Interested 117 73.6 Somewhat Interested 35 22.0 Not at all 6 3.8 Don’t know 1 0.6 Total 159 100.0 Interest in Snowboarding Very Interested 26 16.4 Somewhat Interested 38 23.9 Not at all 81 50.9 Don’t know 14 8.8 Total 159 100.0 Ski/Snowboard Competitively Yes 24 15.2 No 134 84.8 Total 158 100.0 Total years of skiing/snowboarding Less than 1 10 6.5 1-2 27 24.2 3-4 26 23.6 5-6 16 10.5 7 or more 54 35.2 Total 153 100.0 Days spent skiing/snowboarding within the last 12 months 1 day or less 15 10.0 2-3 days 28 18.6 4-7 days 56 37.0 8-14 days 31 20.4 15 or more 21 13.8 Total 151 100.0

PAGE 49

40 reported having a physical impairment, while a slightly smalle r proportion of the respondents (44.1%) reported having a cogniti ve impairment. A small minority of the respondents (3.5%) reported having multiple disa bilities. Only a few participants (2.1%) reported having sensory impairments and the re maining (2.1%) indicated some other type of disability. Respondents were asked to report in years and/or months how long they had their disability. Over one-third (38.6%) of the re spondents indicated they had their disability between one to 10 years, and about one-third (31.4%) reported having their disability between 11 and 20 years. Less than one-fifth (16.8%) of respondent s had their disability for 21 to 30 years. Lastly, 11.8% of the res pondents reported having had their disability for 31 years or more. Table 3. Self-reported Disability Informa tion of Adaptive Recreation Participants Disability Information FrequencyValid Percent Disability Type Physical Impairments 69 48.3 Sensory Impairments 3 2.1 Cognitive Impairments 63 44.1 Multiple disabilities 5 3.5 Other 3 2.1 Total 143 100.0 Disability Occurrence 1 to 10 years 54 38.6 11 to 20 years 44 31.4 21 to 30 years 23 16.4 31 + years 19 11.8 Total 140 100.0 The self reported disabilities informa tion was categorized under four domains. These domains were physical disabilities, c ognitive disabilities, sensory impairments and

PAGE 50

41 multiple disabilities. Table 4 displays the four domains of disabilities and several of the disabilities under each of the four domains Interestingly, the disabilities under the physical disabilities domains were represente d the largest proportion, almost half of the sample (48.3%). The disabilities most fre quently reported under the physical disabilities domain were the following: paraplegia/quadriple gia/spinal cord injury (14.2%), cerebral palsy (7.1), amputation/limb deficiency (4.3), Multiple sclerosis (2.1) Muscular Dystrophy (2.1), Spina Bifida (2.1). Cognitive disabilities were rated the sec ond most prevalent disa bility type with nearly half (44.1%) of the su rvey participants reporti ng a cognitive disorder. The disabilities found under the cognitive domain were the following: Downs Syndrome (11.3%), Autism (9.9%), learning disabiliti es (6.4%) mental re tardation (5.7%), developmentally delayed (5.7%) and other cognitive disabilities (2.1%). The multiple disabilities or impairments domain represented only a small proportion of the population (3.5%). This dom ain accounted for those participants who reported more than one disability in more than one domain. Lastly, sensory impairments were only report by a small fraction (2.1 %) of the study sample. This domain represented the smallest sector of this sample of adaptive recreation participants. Visual impairments and disabilities were the type of only sensory impairment reported.

PAGE 51

42 Table 4. Results of the Frequency Analysis of Disability Types of Adaptive Skiers &Snowboarders DISABILITIES OF ADVAPTIVE SKIERS & SNOWBOARDERS Frequency Percent PHYSICAL Paraplegia / Quadriplegia/ Spinal Cord Injury 20 14.2 Cerebral Palsy 10 7.1 Other 9 6.3 Amputation/Limb deficiency 6 4.3 Spina Bifida 3 2.1 MD 3 2.1 Multiple Sclerosis 3 2.1 Traumatic Brain Injury 2 1.4 Polio 2 1.4 Spasticity 2 1.4 Neurological Impairments 2 1.4 Stroke seizure 2 1.2 Burn 1 .7 Heart disease 1 .7 SENORY Visual Impairments 3 2.1 COGNITIVE Downs Syndrome 16 11.3 Autism 14 9.9 Learning Disabilities 9 6.4 Mental Retardation 8 5.7 Developmentally Delayed 8 5.7 Other 3 2.1 MULITIPLE 5 3.5 TOTAL 142 100.0

PAGE 52

43 Measures of Possible Benefits of Skiing and Snowboarding Respondents were asked a battery of 15 items representing possible benefit of outdoor recreation such as skii ng and snowboarding. The item s were measured on a fivepoint Likert scale from ‘Not at all important ’ (1) to ‘Extre mely important’ (5). Table 5 depicts the mean responses of the participants. R2: What benefits do people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing? The benefits items were categorized unde r four domains. These domains were health, social, efficacy, and nature. Intere stingly, the four items under the efficacy domains were some of the highest rated bene fits items. These included increased selfconfidence (3.85), increased se nse of competence (3.77), opport unity for lifelong learning (3.76), and provides a challenge th at tests my abilities (3.70). The item with the overall highest mean response was increased self-confidence, which fell under the health domain (3.85). Th is indicated that re spondents felt that “increased self-confidence” was an important benefit of skiing and snowboarding. The item provides a sense of adventure also rate d high (3.81), also under the health domain. The remaining items all fell below the mean of 3.50, indicating that these items were of less importance to the respondents. The next several important benefits to participation in skiing and snowboarding are as follows: improved physical health (3.58), improved mental health (3.48), and to enhance family relationships (3.36). The item with the lowest mean score (2.52) was “provides opportunity for solitude, falling under the nature domain.”

PAGE 53

44 Table 5. Results of Frequency Analysis of Possible Benefits of Adaptive Recreation Participation Possible benefits to skiing & snowboarding Not at all important Somewhat important Moderately important Very important Extremely important Mean HEALTH Improved physical health 4.6 12.526.333.6 23.0 3.58 Reduced stress 13.215.821.731.6 17.8 3.25 Improved mental health 9.9 7.9 28.531.8 21.9 3.48 Provides a sense of adventure 5.3 7.3 21.332.7 33.3 3.81 SOCIAL Strengthened relationships with my companions13.713.124.830.1 18.3 3.26 Enhanced family relationships 15.611.018.232.5 22.7 3.36 Provides opportunities to meet people 8.7 17.323.331.3 19.3 3.35 EFFICACY Increased self-confidence 7.1 7.1 15.633.8 36.4 3.85 Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 7.9 11.914.633.8 31.8 3.70 Increased sense of competence 6.0 9.3 20.530.5 33.8 3.77 Opportunity for lifelong learning 6.6 9.9 14.538.8 30.3 3.76 NATURE Greater connection with nature 12.517.827.631.6 10.5 3.10 Provides opportunity for solitude 36.813.221.119.1 9.9 2.52 Greater connection with wilderness 20.417.123.723.7 15.1 2.96 Provides opportunities to view wildlife 21.226.523.814.6 13.9 2.74 Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2= Somewhat important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important R2A: What are the differences in the percei ved benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport activi ties such as skiing & snowboarding between people who show a high level of interest a nd those who show a lo w level of interest? An independent sample t-test was used to determine the differences in the mean differences in the benefit items based desired pa rticipation level. The test illustrated three items having a significant difference at th e .05 level between respondents who have

PAGE 54

45 participated as often as desire d and those who have not. An in teresting finding is that all three of these items fall under the health dom ain. Table 6 depicts the findings that respondents who were more in terested in skiing and snow boarding rated the possible benefit of improved physical fitness higher th an respondents that were less interested (t=2.165*). Another significant di fference found was participants not interested in skiing Table 6. Results of independent sample ttest examining the benefits by interest Possible Benefits To Skiing & Snowboarding YES NO df T HEALTH Improved physical health 3.67 3.15 150 2.165* Reduced stress 3.35 3.77 150 2.114* Improved mental health 3.51 3.31 149 .786 Provides a sense of adventure 3.90 3.42 148 1.942* SOCIAL Strengthened relationships with my companions 3.34 2.88 151 1.649 Enhanced family relationships 3.40 3.15 152 .878 Provides opportunities to meet people 3.39 3.19 148 .738 EFFICACY Increased self-confidence 3.92 3.52 152 1.594 Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 3.78 3.31 149 1.744 Increased sense of competence 3.79 3.68 149 .406 Opportunity for lifelong learning 3.80 3.58 150 .885 NATURE Greater connection with nature 3.13 2.96 150 .645 Provides opportunity for solitude 2.52 2.50 150 .078 Greater connection with wilderness 2.98 2.85 150 .471 Provides opportunities to view wildlife 2.74 2.69 149 .180 Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2=Some what important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important and snowboarding, rated the possible benefit “red uced stress” as a more important benefit to outdoor recreation particip ation (t=2.114*. Lastly, inte rested respondents rated

PAGE 55

46 “provided sense of adventure” as a more im portant benefit to sk iing and snowboarding participation (t=1.942*) R2B: What are the differences in the possible benefits to participation of people with disabilities when participating in adap tive winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across the education variable? Analysis of variance was utilized to investigate the relationship between the participants’ education level a nd their perception of possible benefits to participation. Table 6 depicts the relationships found betw een education level and perceptions of benefits. A total of five significant differe nces were noted across the four benefits domains. Three of these significant differences were noted within the health domain. Respondents with a Baccalaureate degree we re less likely to s eek the benefit item provides a sense of adventure (F=11. 454***) and the item improved mental health(F=3.520*) than people with an Asso ciates degree or less and people with graduate/professional degrees. Respondents in the lowest education category were less likely to state that reducing stress was important to them than the respondents with either less than an Associates degree or those with graduate/professi onal degrees (F=7.693***). One significant difference was noted with in the social domain. As education increased, so did the importance of the bene fit item provides opportunities to meet people (F=7.610***). Lastly, one significant item was seen in the nature domain. Respondents with a Baccalaureate degree were more likely to express importance for the item greater connection with wilderness than people in either the lowest or highest education categories (F=3.280).

PAGE 56

47 Respondents who reported having less than an Associate’s degree rated the benefit of reduced stress less important than those responde nts with higher levels of education (F=7.693***). The participants w ith the highest level of education ( Table 7. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Education Level Possible benefits to skiing & snowboarding YESNO df T HEALTH Improved physical health 3.492.614.052.064 Reduced stress 3.064.003.957.693*** Improved mental health 3.342.894.003.520* Provides a sense of adventure 3.572.564.5311.454*** SOCIAL Strengthened relationships with my companions3.233.563.26.474 Enhanced family relationships 3.343.723.26.675 Provides opportunities to meet people 3.474.224.477.610*** EFFICACY Increased self-confidence 3.853.834.113.79 Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 3.474.224.471.984 Increased sense of competence 3.723.724.322.092 Opportunity for lifelong learning 3.733.614.00.554 NATURE Greater connection with nature 2.983.393.471.984 Provides opportunity for solitude 2.353.172.843.280* Greater connection with wilderness 2.803.443.372.846 Provides opportunities to view wildlife 2.712.503.00.662 Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2=Some what important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important graduate/professional degree) rated the item be nefit provides an opportunity to test my abilities as significantly more important (F =7.693***) than those re spondents with the lowest education level (AA or less). Also, respondents with a graduate or professional

PAGE 57

48 degree rated the benefit of provi des a sense of adventure as mo re important than the rest of the respondents in other income levels. The benefit of improved mental health was rated the more important by those respondents in the highest income level than the other respondents. Lastly, providing an opport unity for solitude was reported as more important to those respondents who had received a Bachelor’s degree than respondents in any other income level. R2C: What are the differences in the possibl e benefits of people with disabilities when participating in winter sport activi ties such as skiing/snowboarding across the income variable? To examine the differences in respondent s’ perceptions about benefits sought across the income groupings, an alysis of variance was once again used. Table 8 depicts the relationships found between income leve l and perceptions of benefits. Four significant differences were noted across three of the benefits domain s (health, social, and efficacy). The findings with regards to income were more complex than those seen previously. As depicted in Table 8, two of the four differences were found within the efficacy domain. In both cases, the respondents in the $10,001 30,000 and respondents whose income was $50,000 or more reported similar leve ls of importance for the self efficacy items. The respondents in the lowest income bracket ($10,000 or less) and those in the $30,000 – group reported different importance levels Respondents in the lowest income bracket were least likely to report that im proving their self -confidence was important (F=2.606*). Subjects in the $10,000 -$30,000 and $50,000 or more income groupings

PAGE 58

49 were more likely to associate a high level of importance with an increased sense of competence (F=4.979***). Within the social domain, only one item s howed a significant difference. Similar to the findings in the efficacy domain, respondents in the $10,000 -$30,000 and $50,000 Table 8. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Income Level Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2= Somewhat important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important Possible benefits to skiing & snowboarding Less than 10,000 10,00030,000 30,00050,000 50,000 + F HEALTH Improved physical health 3.35 3.62 3.71 3.58 .457 Reduced stress 2.96 3.69 3.25 3.34 1.016 Improved mental health 3.13 3.77 3.57 3.56 1.016 Provides a sense of adventure 3.30 4.46 3.71 3.86 2.994* SOCIAL Strengthened relationships with my companions 3.71 3.54 3.21 3.45 2.203 Enhanced family relationshi ps 2.88 3.62 2.89 3.65 3.460* Provides opportunities to meet people 3.52 3.69 3.36 3.30 .481 EFFICACY Increased self-confidence 3.25 4.15 3.86 4.00 2.606* Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 3.65 3.54 3.61 3.73 .114 Increased sense of competence 3.09 4.08 3.48 4.06 4.979* Opportunity for lifelong learning 3.52 4.42 3.54 3.79 1.948 NATURE Greater connection with nature 3.04 3.00 3.18 3.09 .090 Provides opportunity for solitude 2.61 2.85 2.50 2.45 .319 Greater connection with wilderness 3.00 3.08 2.93 2.93 .054 Provides opportunities to view wildlife 2.77 3.23 2.82 2.57 1.000

PAGE 59

50 or more income groupings showed a higher importance level with enhanced family relationships (F=3.460*). One item within the health domain showed significant differences. The item provides a sense of adve nture was significantly more important to respondents in the $10,000 -$30,000 category No significant differenc es were seen for the nature domain. Measures of Constraints Respondents’ perceived leisure constraint s were measured using a battery of 27 items patterned closely after ones devel oped by Hudson (2000) for the use of skiing research. Respondents were asked to rate r easons they did not participate as much as desired using a three-point Likert scale rang ing from “Major Reason” to “Not a Reason.” A neutral “Not sure/Don’t know” category was included as well. Table 9 illustrates the simple frequency distributions and means run to determine the perception of constraints within the sample. R3: What constraints do people with disabi lities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing? For ease in understanding and properly interpre ting the data, the constraints items were placed under their respect ive categories. Seven of th e items fell under the category of “Intrapersonal Constraints, ” four items were in the “Intrapersonal Constraints” category, and fourteen fell under the “S tructural Constraints” domain. Table 9 shows the item with the lowest mean score (1.99) was don’t have enough time. This indicated that the respondents te nd to believe a reason they were constrained from skiing and snowboarding was because th ey didn’t have enough time. The next item with the lowest mean score (2.03) was slopes are too far. This revealed that most

PAGE 60

51 Table 9. Results of Frequency Analysis of Perceived Constraints to Adaptive Recreation Participation Constraints Major Reason Minor Reason Not A Reason Mean Intrapersonal Constraints Fear of the outdoors 2.0 3.4 94.6 2.93 Fear of injury 9.5 19.6 70.9 2.61 Poor health 6.0 10.7 83.3 2.77 Like to do other things for recreation more 10.7 16.8 72.5 2.62 Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 5.3 9.3 85.3 2.80 Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 3.3 19.9 76.8 2.74 Skiing is too physically challenging 8.6 13.2 78.1 2.70 Interpersonal Constraints Don’t have anyone to go with 13.3 26.7 60.0 2.47 Others can’t afford to go 18.0 24.7 57.3 2.39 Do not have a partner of the same ability 11.3 20.0 68.7 2.57 Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 2.0 5.3 92.7 2.91 Structural Constraints Don’t have enough time 30.5 40.4 29.1 1.99 Have no way to get to the slopes 17.3 24.0 58.7 2.41 Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 8.0 12.0 80.0 2.72 Too busy with other recreation activities 10.7 28.0 61.3 2.51 Slopes are too far away 31.0 34.8 34.2 2.03 Slopes are too crowded 6.6 28.5 64.9 2.58 Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 8.8 14.2 77.0 2.68 Can’t afford to go skiing 30.1 26.8 43.1 2.13 Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 13.3 19.3 67.3 2.54 Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 10.0 14.0 76.0 2.66 Not aware of skiing opportunities 12.1 12.1 75.8 2.64 Adaptive programs not available in this area 16.9 8.1 75.0 2.58 Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 2.1 3.4 94.5 2.92 Areas are closed when I want to visit 6.3 0.7 93.0 2.87 Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

PAGE 61

52 respondents also felt this to be a significant reason they were constrained from skiing or snowboarding. The next three most important items were can’t afford to go skiing (2.13), others can’t afford to go skiing (2.39), and ha ve no way to get to the slopes (2.41). The item that scored the highest mean score (2.93) was fear of the outdoor s. This indicated that respondents reported that the fear of the outdoor was not a major constraining factor on skiing and snowboard ing participation. R3A: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those who do not? To examine how different respondents of this study perceived constraints to recreation participation, several socio-demographic variables were examined (Table 10). An independent sample t-test was used to determine whether there were any differences in the mean scores of constraint items based desired participation level. The test illustrated six items having a significan t difference of constraint levels between respondents who have participated as often as desired and those who have not. Five items showing significant differences were under the structural domain and one under the intrapersonal domain. There were no signifi cant differences found in the interpersonal domain. The strongest relationship was found for three of the items in the structural constraint domain. The strongest item was not aware of skiing opportunities (t=4.048***), followed by slopes are too far away (t=3.671***), and adaptive programs not available in this area (3.499***). The four th constraints item within the structural domain have no way to get to the slopes (t=2.468*), followed by not aware of adaptive

PAGE 62

53 ski programs in this area (t=2.079*). The single constraint item falling under the intrapersonal constraint domain was like to other thing for recreation (t=-3.244**). Table 10. Perceived constraints of people with disabilities when part icipating in skiing & snowboarding between people who particip ate as often as desired and those who do not Constraint Items YesNo Df t-statstic Intrapersonal Constraints Fear of the outdoors 2.882.94 145 -.964 Fear of injury 2.442.67 47.359 -1.605 Poor health 2.562.84 40.469 -2.058 Like to do other things for recreation more 2.212.74 39.809 -3.244** Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.682.84 44.225 -1.354 Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.742.74 149 .003 Skiing is too physically challenging 2.532.74 43.123 -1.481 Interpersonal Constraints Don’t have anyone to go with 2.642.42 148 1.539 Others can’t afford to go 2.262.43 148 -1.099 Do not have a partner of th e same ability 2.612.56 148 .308 Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 2.822.93 39.038 -1.154 Structural Constraints Don’t have enough time 2.181.93 149 1.646 Have no way to get to the slopes 2.682.34 60.396 2.468* Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.712.72 148 -1.55 Too busy with other recreation activities 2.352.55 148 -1.499 Slopes are too far away 2.461.91 153 3.671*** Slopes are too crowded 2.622.57 149 .375 Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.742.67 146 .557 Can’t afford to go to skiing 2.292.08 151 1.276 Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipmen t too expensive 2.352.59 45.808 -1.528 Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.822.61 81.743 2.079* Not aware of skiing opportuniti es 2.912.56 133.690 4.048*** Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.882.49 93.993 3.499*** Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees2.882.94 143 -.830 Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.882.86 140 .166 Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

PAGE 63

54 R3B: What are the differences in the perceive d constraints of peopl e with disabilities perceive when participating in winter s port activities such as skiing/snowboarding between people with children in their house hold under the ages of six and those who do not? In order to understand the im pact of having the presence of small children in the household, an analysis of the differences in perceived constraint s by respondents with and without children below the age of six y ears was conducted. An independent sample t-test was used to determine whether there we re any differences in the mean scores of constraint items based on households the pres ence of children under si x years old or not. The analysis illustrated eight items having significant differences of constraint levels (Table 11). Five of the eight items s howing significant differences fell under the intrapersonal domain, two items were under th e interpersonal domain, and one item fell under the structural domain. The intrapersonal domain included not only the most constraints items, but these items were the strongest reporte d constraints in this analysis The results illustrated the finding that respondents with children under six years living in th e household were less likely to report that they we re constrained from skiing/s nowboarding than people without young children in the household. The two mo st important constraining factors to participating in skiing/snowboa rding were fear of heights/ scared of lifts (t=4.648***) and like to do other things for recreation mo re (t=4.275***). Also, respondents who had children under six in the household were less li kely to say that skiing was too physically challenging than those who did not childre n under six in the household (t=3.276**). Lastly, this analysis of the intrapersonal constraints showed that respondents living in a

PAGE 64

55 household with children under six years perceive d that poor health (t =2.337*) and fear of the outdoors (t=.928*) were less likely to be constraining items th an those who did not. Under the interpersonal doma in, two significant differen ces were noted. In both cases, people with young childre n reported that they were le ss constrained than those without young children. The items not ha ving anyone to go w ith (t=3.500**) and negative attitudes from other pa rticipants (t=3.077**) were more likely to be reported as a reasons by those respondents who did not live with children under six. Lastly, only one significa nt difference at the .05 level was reported under the structural domain. Respondent s that did not report living with children under six years were more likely to report that they felt constrained by skiing f acilities that are inaccessible due to thei r disability (t=2.171*). Table 11. Differences in perceived constraint s of people with disa bilities when skiing & snowboarding between people with child ren in their household under the ages of six and those who do not Constraint items x Kids under 6 YesNo df t Intrapersonal Constraints Fear of the outdoors 3.002.92143 .928* Fear of injury 2.652.63144 -.115 Poor health 2.942.7642.423 2.337* Like to do other things for recreation more 2.942.5861.277 4.275*** Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 3.002.79130 4.648*** Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.882.7227.792 1.753 Skiing is too physically challenging 2.942.6753.415 3.276** Interpersonal Constraints Don’t have anyone to go with 2.822.4234.444 3.500** Others can’t afford to go 2.412.40146 .074 Do not have a partner of the same ability 2.762.5423.065 1.489 Negative attitudes from other recrea tion participants3.002.90130 3.077**

PAGE 65

56 Continued Table 11. Constraint items x Kids under 6 YesNo df t Structural Constraints Don’t have enough time 1.762.02 146 -1.290 Have no way to get to the slopes 2.532.40 146 -.663 Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.592.76 146 -1.107 Too busy with other recreation activities 2.412.52 146 -.686 Slopes are too far away 2.122.04 150 .386 Slopes are too crowded 2.592.58 147 .078 Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.882.67 34.286 2.171* Can’t afford to go to skiing 1.882.18 149 -1.370 Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 2.472.56 146 -.470 Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.532.69 147 -.968 Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.592.66 146 -.389 Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.532.60 145 -.361 Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 3.002.93 141 .902 Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.942.89 138 .477 Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level R3C: What are the differences in the perceive d constraints of peopl e with disabilities perceive when participating in winter s port activities such as skiing/snowboarding between people with children in their house hold between the ages of six and 18 and those who do not? To determine whether there were any differe nces in the mean scores of constraint items based on households having children si x to eighteen years old, an independent samples t-test was conducted. Table 12 s hows that three items showing significant differences were found. There were two items under the structural domain, and one item fell under the intrapersonal domai n. The analysis showed that people with children

PAGE 66

57 Table 12. Differences in percei ved constraints of people with disabilities when skiing & snowboarding between people with child ren in their household between the ages of six and 18 and those who do not Constraint items x Kids 6-18 YesNo df t Intrapersonal Constraints Fear of the outdoors 2.872.98 142 -1.959 Fear of injury 2.572.68 143 -.968 Poor health 2.822.76 145 .651 Like to do other things for recreation more 2.632.60 144 .251 Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.802.81 145 -.127 Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.612.83 96.774 -2.457* Skiing is too physically challenging 2.662.74 146 -.768 Interpersonal Constraints Don’t have anyone to go with 2.572.39 145 1.453 Others can’t afford to go 2.352.44 145 -.667 Do not have a partner of th e same ability 2.522.60 145 -.695 Negative attitudes from other recreati on participants 2.892.93 145 -.768 Structural Constraints Don’t have enough time 1.822.11 145 -2.310* Have no way to get to the slopes 2.412.41 145 .022 Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.782.72 145 .616 Too busy with other recreation activities 2.382.60 109.429 -1.808 Slopes are too far away 2.062.03 149 -.229 Slopes are too crowded 2.482.64 146 -1.639 Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.642.73 144 -.870 Can’t afford to go to skiing 2.072.20 148 -.971 Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipm ent too expensive 2.432.63 145 -1.670 Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.582.73 108.637 -1.288 Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.622.67 145 -.437 Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.732.49 142.499 2.029* Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees2.912.95 140 -.760 Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.952.85 131.865 .1343 Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

PAGE 67

58 between the ages of six and 18 were more c onstrained for two of the items, while one of the analysis showed that respondents with older children in the household were less constrained for one item. Under the structural domain, respondents w ith children ages six to eighteen living in the household were more likely to report not having enough time (t= -2.310). Respondents who indicated having no children betw een the ages six to 18 present in their household were more likely consider adaptiv e programs not available in this area (t=2.029) a constraint than thos e respondent that did not. The lone significant difference found under the intrapersonal domain was that participants who reported not liv ing with children ages six to eighteen were more likely to report that skiing is harder to learn than other sports (t= -2.457). R3D: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participati ng in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across the income variable? Another analysis of the impacts of the so cio-demographic characteristics was the examination of the income variable. An analys is of variance was u tilized to investigate the relationship between the participants’ income level and th eir perception of constraints. Table 13 depicts the relati onships found between total household income levels and perceptions of constraints. The strongest finding was that of not having enough time, falling under the structural domain. The results show that respondents with the lowest level of income (less than $10,000) were most likely to report lack of time (f=8.534) as a constraint to participation, followed by respondents in the 30,001-$50,000 category. Subjects in the

PAGE 68

59 highest income bracket showed the least imp act of the time constraint, followed by the participants in the $10,001$30,000 category. Under the intrapersonal doma in, there were two significant relationships noted. Respondents in the lowest income level (less than $10,000) were the least likely to report poor health (f=2.749) as a constraint, where as the respondents in next income level ($10,001$30,000) were the most likely. The ne xt constraint item in the intrapersonal domain was skiing is harder to learn than other sports (f=2.653). The respondents’ income level that reported this constrai nt the highest was $30,001-$50,000 and the lowest income group (less than $10,000) were the least likely to it as a constraint. Table 13. Results of Analysis of Varian ce Examining the Perceived Constraints by income level. Constraint Items Less than 10,000 10,00030,000 30,00050,000 50,000 + F Intrapersonal Constraints Fear of the outdoors 3.00 2.86 2.88 2.94 .677 Fear of injury 2.52 2.50 2.48 2.77 1.119 Poor health 2.71 2.86 2.57 2.89 2.749* Like to do other things for recreation more 2.55 2.46 2.48 2.73 2.262 Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.90 2.64 2.68 2.85 1.418 Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.90 2.86 2.54 2.76 2.653* Skiing is too physically challenging 2.57 2.93 2.46 2.77 2.545 Interpersonal Constraints Don’t have anyone to go with 2.41 2.21 2.25 2.62 2.401 Others can’t afford to go 2.18 2.43 2.14 2.55 2.422 Do not have a partner of the same ability 2.43 2.64 2.32 2.62 1.452

PAGE 69

60 Continued Table 13. Constraint Items Less than 10,000 10,00030,000 30,00050,000 50,000 + F Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 2.86 2.86 2.85 2.94 .550 Structural Constraints Don’t have enough time 2.50 2.00 2.26 1.70 8.534*** Have no way to get to the slopes 2.64 2.21 2.30 2.46 1.275 Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.73 2.92 2.61 2.72 .860 Too busy with other recreation activities 2.64 2.54 2.59 2.51 2.52 Slopes are too far away 2.30 2.36 2.11 1.96 1.690 Slopes are too crowded 2.71 2.43 2.43 2.61 1.173 Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.50 2.69 2.64 2.71 .544 Can’t afford to go to skiing 2.00 1.93 1.86 2.30 2.390 Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 2.36 2.46 2.39 2.69 1.889 Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.68 2.79 2.54 2.61 .484 Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.59 2.79 2.56 2.68 .439 Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.43 2.79 2.67 2.56 .755 Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 2.95 2.77 2.88 2.97 1.696 Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.80 3.00 2.76 2.94 1.330 Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level Measures of Constraint Negotiation Respondents’ constraint nego tiation strategies were exam ined using a battery of 19 items modeled closely after scales used by Hubbard & Mannell (2001). Respondents were asked to rate things they do to start, continue, or increase recreation participation on a five-point Likert s cale ranging from “Never” to “Very Often.” R4: What constraint negotiation strategies do people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activ ities such as skiing/snowboarding?

PAGE 70

61 As seen in Table 14, the highest mean scor e was for the negotiation item “I try to improve my skills” (3.89), followed by the item I ask for help with the required skills (3.70). Other important negotia tion strategies were as foll ows: I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home (3.65), I just swallow my pride and try my best (3.60), I set aside time for fitness and recreation act ivities (6.59), and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other comm itments (3.58). The item with the lowest mean score (2.33) was I arrang e rides with friends. Table 14. Results of Frequency Analysis of Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities Use to Start, Continue or Increase Participation in Skiing & Snowboarding Negotiation Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Very Often Mean Time Management Strategies I try to plan ahead for things 10.710.715.4 36.2 26.83.58 I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 4.8 6.8 32.0 37.4 19.03.59 I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 6.8 8.8 35.4 31.3 17.03.47 I sometimes substitute anothe r more convenient activity for a preferred one 16.620.742.8 13.1 6.9 2.73 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 10.917.734.0 25.9 10.93.15 Skill Acquisition Strategies I try to improve my skills 5.4 4.0 20.1 37.6 32.93.89 I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 18.89.7 27.1 23.6 20.83.18 I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 13.110.329.7 26.9 20.03.30 I just swallow my pride and try my best 9.9 7.0 21.8 35.9 25.43.60 I ask for help with the required skills 4.8 5.5 27.4 39.7 22.63.70 Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 18.810.136.9 20.8 13.43.00

PAGE 71

62 Continued Table 14. Negotiation Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Very Often Mean I arrange rides with friends 36.119.426.4 11.1 6.9 2.33 I participate in activities with people in my age group 8.1 14.227.7 33.8 16.23.36 I participate in activities with people of the same gender 10.718.149.0 14.1 8.1 2.91 I try to meet people with similar interests 8.2 15.036.1 28.6 12.23.22 Financial Resource and Strategies I try to budget my money 21.610.119.6 33.1 15.53.11 I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 20.513.024.7 32.2 9.6 2.97 I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 6.9 7.6 21.5 41.7 22.23.65 I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 16.317.732.7 24.5 8.8 2.92 Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often R4A: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who are interested in skiing & snowboarding and those who are not interested? An independent samples t-test was used to understand the negotiation strategies that the respondents with rega rds to their interest in pa rticipating in skiing and snowboarding. Overall, six of the 19 ne gotiation strategies showed significant differences based on the responde nts’ interest levels. Fo r all but one of the items showing significant differences, the responde nt who reported a highe r level of interest reported a higher mean score. Two significant differences were noted under the skill acquisition strategy domain. I try to improve my skills showed a significant difference (t = 2.80*) was higher for those interested than thos e not. However, respondents who were less interested reported a higher mean score for the item I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an

PAGE 72

63 injury or physical/health condition (t = 2.020*). Regardi ng the financial resource strategies domain, two significant differences were noted between those interested and those not interested. I try to budget my money (t = 2.659**) and I do more fitness and recreation activities closer to home (t = 2.334*) showed significantly higher mean scores for those with higher interest levels. Two additional items were significantly different between those interested and those not. I set time for fitness and recr eation activity (t = 2.574*), under the time management strategy domain, and I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with (t = 2.831*), under the interpersonal c oordination strategy domain. Table 15. Results of Analysis of Variance Ex amining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding Negotiation Strategies X Interest Yes No df t Time Management Strategies I try to plan ahead for things 3.65 3.20 147 1.618 I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.69 3.12 145 2.574* I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 3.50 3.12 144 1.580 I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for a preferred one 2.74 2.68 143 .254 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 3.21 2.84 145 1.211 Skill Acquisition Strategies I try to improve my skills 3.97 3.48 147 2.80* I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 3.29 2.68 142 2.020* I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.36 3.04 143 1.140 I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.65 3.36 140 1.077 I ask for help with the required skills 3.74 3.48 144 1.164 Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 3.13 2.36 147 2.831**

PAGE 73

64 Continued Table 15. Negotiation Strategies X Interest Yes No df t I arrange rides with friends 2.34 2.28 142 .232 I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.41 3.08 146 1.324 I participate in activities with people of the same gender 2.93 2.80 147 .560 I try to meet people with similar interests 3.29 2.88 145 1.694 Financial Resource and Strategies I try to budget my money 3.20 2.64 146 1.868 I save up money to do fitness and r ecreation activities 3.10 2.36 144 2.659** I do more fitness and recreation activiti es close to home 3.74 3.17 142 2.334* I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 2.89 3.08 145 -.740 Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level R4B: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who are living in different living environments? A one-way ANOVA was used to inves tigate the relationships between a respondents’ living environment (urban, subur ban, or rural) and the perceptions of constraint negotiation strategies. Table 16 illu strated that three significant relationships were discovered were noted across two domains. Under the skill acquisition strategy domain, suburban respondents were most likely to select the item I take skiing/snowboarding lessons, while rural res pondents were least likely (F = 7.412***). Suburban respondents were also most likely to agree that th ey ask for help with the required skills than either urban or rural respondents (t = 3.358*). Under the time management strategy domain, urban re spondents were less likely to place high importance on the item I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments (t = 3.444**).

PAGE 74

65 R4C: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who have di fferent levels of education? To further investigate the constraints negotiation strategies used, a one-way ANOVA was ran between the respondents’ inco me level and the individual negotiation items. Table 17 shows the three significant relationships were found; two in the time management strategy domain and one in the skill acquisition strategy domain. In all three cases, as education increased, so did th e propensity for selecting that particular item. Table 16. Results of Analysis of Variance Ex amining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Living Environment Negotiation Strategies X living environment urban suburban rural F Time Management Strategies I try to plan ahead for things 3.64 3.61 3.57 .107 I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.56 3.65 2.54 .188 I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 3.06 3.64 3.42 3.444** I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for a preferred one 2.63 2.81 2.68 .361 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 2.92 3.30 3.11 .899 Skill Acquisition Strategies I try to improve my skills 4.14 3.87 3.74 1.363 I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 3.46 3.10 3.18 .785 I take skiing/snowboarding l essons 3.37 3.64 2.70 7.412*** I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.48 3.70 3.62 .332 I ask for help with the required skills 3.44 3.93 3.54 3.358* Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 2.75 3.03 3.20 1.209

PAGE 75

66 Continued Table 16. I arrange rides with friends .241 2.32 2.37 .057 I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.06 3.58 3.28 2.644 I participate in activities with people of the same gender 2.86 3.01 2.75 .862 I try to meet people with similar interests 3.14 3.37 3.05 1.178 Financial Resource and Strategies I try to budget my money 3.06 3.06 3.28 .359 I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 2.86 3.00 3.05 .224 I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.34 3.85 3.61 2.510 I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 3.17 2.79 2.95 1.147 Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level Under the time management strategy doma in, the items I try to plan ahead for things (F = 5.353**) and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other Table 17. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding Negotiation Strategies X Interest AA or less BA/BS Grad./ prof F Time Management Strategies I try to plan ahead for things 3.40 3.67 4.42 5.353** I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.52 3.53 4.00 1.769 I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 3.27 3.47 4.11 4.627* I sometimes substitute anothe r more convenient activity for a preferred one 2.69 2.56 3.17 1.725 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 3.10 3.00 3.42 .482 Skill Acquisition Strategies I try to improve my skills 3.77 4.00 4.37 2.573 I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 3.03 3.44 3.95 4.021* I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.22 3.75 3.39 1.263

PAGE 76

67 Continued Table 17. Negotiation Strategies X Interest AA or less BA/BS Grad./ prof F I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.58 3.06 4.06 2.745 I ask for help with the required skills 3.63 3.56 4.05 1.465 Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 2.98 2.78 3.42 1.2191 I arrange rides with friends 2.26 2.61 2.58 .955 I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.41 3.12 3.50 .550 I participate in activities with people of the same gender 2.97 2.88 2.68 .628 I try to meet people with similar interests 3.26 3.35 2.89 1.000 Financial Resource and Strategies I try to budget my money 3.04 3.50 3.16 .856 I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 2.92 3.35 3.00 .815 I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.59 3.47 3.95 .967 I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 3.00 2.53 2.71 1.454 Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level commitments (F = 4.627*) showed significant differences. Under the skill acquisition strategy domain, the item I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition (F = 4.021*) showed a significant difference. As stated above, respondents with a gra duate/professional degree agreed more with the statements showing significant differences than responde nts with a baccalaur eate degree, or those respondents with an Associate’s degree or less. R4D: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who were hampered by their disability compared to those who reported they were not hampered by their disability? An independent sample t-test was used to determine the differences in the mean scores of constraint negotiation items based whether or not the res pondents felt that their

PAGE 77

68 disability hampered their abilities to ski or snowboard. Results show six significant mean differences across three of the negotiation st rategy domains. Three of the significant items were found in the sill ac quisition strategy domain, two in the interpersonal strategy domain, and one in the financial resources and strategy domain. The single item that showed the greatest difference was I participate in activities with people in my own age group (t = -2.644*** ), in the interpersonal strategy domain. The other item within this domain was the it em I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with (t = -2.133*). The skill acquisition domain included three significant items, including I just swallow my pr ide and try my best (t = -2.540*), I try to Table 18. Results of Independent Sample t-te st Examining Differences of Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities Who Reported their Disabilities Hampered Their Ab ilities to Ski or Snowboard Negotiation Strategies X Does your disability hamper ability to ski/snowboard Yes No df t Time Management Strategies I try to plan ahead for things 3.49 3.69 140 -.926 I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.46 3.77 138 -1.769 I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 3.37 3.53 137 -.886 I sometimes substitute anothe r more convenient activity for a preferred one 2.74 2.75 136 -.038 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 3.10 3.22 108.638-.490 Skill Acquisition Strategies I try to improve my skills 3.68 4.10 140 -2.368* I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 3.34 3.08 135 1.126 I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.57 3.14 136 1.980* I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.35 3.87 133 -2.540*

PAGE 78

69 Continued Table 18. Negotiation Strategies X Does your disability hamper ability to ski/snowboard Yes No df t I ask for help with the required skills 3.68 3.79 137 .729 Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 2.81 3.26 140 -2.133* I arrange rides with friends 2.16 2.49 135 -1.523 I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.14 3.64 139 2.644** I participate in activities with people of the same gender 3.74 3.13 140 -2.307 I try to meet people with similar interests 3.00 3.42 138 -2.303 Financial Resource and Strategies I try to budget my money 2.92 3.26 139 -1.464 I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 2.73 3.26 137 -2.470* I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.66 3.69 135 -.154 I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 2.85 3.00 138 -.759 Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often *** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level improve my skills (t = -2.368*), I take skiing/ snowboarding lessons (t = 1.980*). Within the financial resources strategy domain, only th e item I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities (t = -2.470*) showed a significant difference.

PAGE 79

70 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to investig ate the nature of the constraints and negotiation strategies that wi nter sport recreationists with disabilities experience and utilize in order to pa rticipate in recreation activities. In additio n, this study sought to understand the benefits sought by persons with disabilities who part icipate in winter sports activities, particul arly skiing and snowboarding. It should be noted that this study focuse d only on recreationists who reported that they have a disability. This study does not compare the two di stinctly different populations of able-bodied persons and pers ons with disabilities. Accordingly, the frequency distributions of the responses are the primary result of this study. However, to better understand the specific c onstraints that persons with disabilities incur, the negotiation strategies th at they use to overcome those c onstraints and the benefits that they seek, additional analyses were conducted. This study contributes to the current literature regarding the recreation patterns and perceptions of persons with disabilities. This chapter reviews and discusses the four research questions. At the e nd of the chapter, recommendati ons for future research are discussed. Summary of Procedures The primary purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of skiers/snowboarders with disabilities with rega rds to benefits sought constraints and the negotiation strategies that they utilize in overcoming their constr aints. A mail-back

PAGE 80

71 survey instrument was used to collect the data from the respondents. The survey instruments were mailed out in the month of May, 2004, and the data were analyzed during the month of July, 2004. A total of 161 completed surveys were returned, from the 650 total households contacted. This th esis explored four proposed research questions, with the overall purpose of discoveri ng the constraints, negotiation strategies, and benefits sought by persons with disabi lities who participate in outdoor recreation activities of skiing and snowboard ing in the US. The data analysis utilized SPSS v. 12 to uncover the results of the pr oposed research questions. Discussion of Research Questions R1: What does the sample of recreationists look like? The profile of the sample labeled as “recreationists” was found through running frequencies in SPSS v. 12. Again, it is param ount to recognize the importance of the frequency distribution of the responses from th e persons who participated in this study, as the sample consists of all persons with disabilities who participate in the outdoor recreation activities of sk iing and snowboarding. Nearly two-thirds (59.0%) of the participants were males, while 41.0% were females. The respondents were asked which residence type (urba n, suburban, or rural) best describes the area in which their permanen t residence resides. The analysis showed that about half of the recreationists in the sa mple (47.0%), live in rural areas. Over onequarter of the respondents (29.0%) live in urban areas and the remainder of the respondents (23.9%), live in suburban areas. The respondents were also asked their tota l annual household income. Half of the respondents (50.0%) reported their house hold income to be $50,001 or more, while 20.6% reported between $30,001 and $50,000. A la rge proportion of the respondents

PAGE 81

72 indicated that their household income was less than $10,000, and just 11% reported this amount to be between $10,001 and $30,000. The education levels of the respondents were examined as well. Nearly threequarters (74%) of the respondents said that they had less than a Bachelor’s degree. Just 12.0% of the recreationists said that they had a Bachelor’s degr ee, and 13.3% reported that their education level was that of a Graduate or profe ssional degree. The respondents were queried as to whet her their household included children. The vast majority of the respondents (88.4%) indi cated that they did not have children under the age of six years in their household, while a nearly two-thirds of the recreationists (59.1%)reported that they had children between the ages of six years and 18 years in the household. Overall, the respondents in this sample have a very typical socio-demographic profile. Regarding the first research ques tion, the greatest propor tion of the respondents was male, lived in a suburban area and re ported an annual house hold income of $50,001 or more. The respondents were most likely to have as Associate’ s degree or less, and were likely to have a child between th e ages of six and 18 in their household. When asked about their interest level in skiing or snowboarding, the results of the analysis showed that there were more people interested in skiing ( 93.0% very interestedsomewhat interested) than in snowboarding ( 40.3% very interested-somewhat interested). The vast majority (84.8%) of the respondents did not ski or snowboard competitively. The level of skiing/snowboarding experi ence of the respondents ranged from a low degree of experience (6.5% with less than one year experience) to a great deal of experience (35.6% with seven or more year s experience). The number of days spent

PAGE 82

73 skiing/snowboarding in the past 12 months s howed a very normal distribution, with 10% saying 1 day or less, 37% stating 47 days, and 13.8% reporting that they skied/snowboarded 15 or more days. The respondents were asked to report the formal or medical name of their disability. The most common type of disa bilities reported were physical impairments (48.3%). The most frequently re ported physical disabilities were Paraplegia/Quadriplegia/Spinal Cord Injury (14.2%) and Cerebral Palsy (7.1%) This is noteworthy in the sense that these types of di sabilities would require the most adaptations and equipment to enable partic ipation. This highlights the notion that individuals with these types of physical disabili ties are able to participate in winter recrea tion activities such as skiing and snowboarding with the assistance of adaptive recreation providers. This finding also makes note that par ticipants with thes e types of physical disabilities are able to negotiate through the barriers to participation. Much of the needed equipment (e.g., mono-skis and outriggers) is often available at adaptive recreation centers as well as instruction on the use of this equipment. As mentioned in previous literature, people with physical disabilities such as spinal cord injuries reported several constraints to outdoor recreatio n pursuits. Lack of leisure partners, transportation issues, mobility issues, self-consciousness, and attitudes of significant others were found to be constr aining factors of outdoor recreation pursuits Ross (1993). These constraints listed above were similar a nd consistent to those found important to this study except attitudes. A ttitudes from significant others was not found to be highly constraining factor in this study. Overal l, the use of recreation and

PAGE 83

74 therapeutic recreation services can be utilized to treat and prevent primary and secondary disabilities related to disabilities. A significant proportion of the sample reported having cognitive impairments (44.1%). The most frequently reported cognitive disorders were Downs Syndrome (11.3%), Autism (9.9%), and learning disabili ties (6.4%). Previous research has also examined the constraints to recreation participation for people with cognitive impairments. The findings suggest that le isure involvement of older adults with cognitive disabilities is of ten constrained by factors su ch as transportation, money, physical accessibility, concerns about their behavior, and discomfort in large public groups. Another study states that people with cognitive disabilities including learning disabilities, autism, and moderate and sever cognitive disabilities, reported benefit from outdoor activities by demonstrat ing a greater initiative and self directed independence (Wilhite and Keller 1992). In general, research suggests that constr aints to involvement and participation in outdoor recreation and community life activit ies for people with disabilities tend to involve resources and attit udes. Resources include transportation, money, leisure partners, knowledge, skills, a nd functioning. Attitudinal barr iers for individuals with disabilities are often their ow n attitudes as well as others (the community, society at larger, or even recreation provi ders). Although attitudinal ba rriers were not found to be a strong constraining factor in this study, this topic of research should not be overlooked in future recreation research. People with disabilities have been hindered from participating in outdoor recreation activities for quite some time. With the aging US population and medical and

PAGE 84

75 technological advances, the number of persons with disabilities is expected to increase. Understanding the recreation and leisure needs of persons with disabilities is increasingly important. Most of the respondents reported that th eir disability had occurred relatively recently, with nearly three-quarters of the re spondents (69.0%) saying that their disability had occurred within the past 10 years, and 31.4% stating between 11-20 years. A noteworthy proportion of the res pondents (11.8%) said that th eir disability had occurred over 30 years ago. R2: What benefits do people with disabiliti es seek when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding? The 15 possible benefits items were categor ized in four domains. These domains included health, social, efficacy, and nature. Table 4 lists the four domains, the percents for each item, and the mean for each item. The frequency distribut ion of the benefits items was analyzed for each individual item and each set of items with their respective domains for greater clarity. Overall, the respondents showed that the items in the efficacy domain were the most sought after benefits. Each of the items in the efficacy domain was rated at a mean of 3.70 or higher (on a 5-point Likert scale). One of the items in the health domain was rated very high (3.81), while the remaining items in the health domain were rated in the middle. The lowest mean scores were seen for the nature domain, where each mean score fell between 2.52 and 3.10.

PAGE 85

76 R2A: What are the differences in the percei ved benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport activi ties such as skiing & snowboarding between people who show a high level of interest a nd those who show a lo w level of interest? This examination made use of an independent samples t-test to determine the differences (if any) between the benefits sought and whether they showed a higher or lower level of interest in participating. The results showed that three of the items were significant, and that all three items were in the health domain. People who were more interested in particip ating felt that improved physical f itness and being provided with a sense of adventure were more important. Al so, respondents who were less interested in participating felt that reducing stress was more important than those who were interested. R2B: What are the differences in the percei ved benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport activ ities such as skiing & snowboarding across education levels? Five significant differences were noted acr oss the education levels with respect to the benefits perceived by these recreationist s. Similar to the finding in the previous research question, the majority of the significa nt differences (three of five) were found in the health domain. No real pattern was f ound that showed that people who had either higher or lower education levels were like ly to perceive things differently. However, some interesting findings were noted. People with Bachelor’s degrees were less likely to seek a sense of advent ure, improved mental health, and greater connection with nature than the other responde nts. Respondents in the lowest education were least likely to seek the benefit item of reducing stress. Also, as income increased, so did the importance of the ite m opportunities to meet people.

PAGE 86

77 R2C: What are the differences in the percei ved benefits of peopl e with disabilities when participating in winter sport activ ities such as skiing & snowboarding across income levels? Similar to what was noted in the previ ous research question, four significant differences were seen across the benefits by in come analysis. Similar results were noted for respondents in the $10,000--$30,000 categor y across three of the items (enhanced family relationships, increases self-confidence, and increases sense of competence). As income increased, so did the propensity to seek a sense of adventure. The lowest income respondents reported the lowest level of importa nce for three of the f our items (provides a sense of adventure, increase d self-confidence, and increa sed sense of competence), and tied with respondents in the middle income group ($30,001--$50,000) for the fourth item (enhanced family relationships). Once agai n, the nature domain showed no significant difference across the income groupings. R3: What constraints do people with disabi lities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding? The 25 constraints items were categori zed into three domains; intrapersonal constraints (7 items), interpersonal constraint s (4 items); and struct ural constraints (14 items). The frequency distribution of the c onstraints items was analyzed for the items, and each set of items within their respective domains for greater clarity. Overall, the respondents showed that th e structural constr aints presented the greatest barrier to them. Nearly a third of the resp ondents said that thr ee of the structural items were a major reason for not partic ipating. These items were don’t have enough time, slopes are too far away, and can’t affo rd to go skiing. This finding corresponds to

PAGE 87

78 the findings of Gilbert and Hudson (2000) Hudson (2000), and Williams and Fidgeon (2000). The items that the respondents were mo st likely to report as not being a reason or constraint were negative attitudes from ski area employees, areas are closed when I want to visit, and lack of information about skiing. This is a finding that shows a positive light on the management of the skiing/snowboarding facilities, as these possible structural constraints seem to be alleviated by management. Few items within the intrapersonal and in terpersonal domains showed that they were major reasons for not participati ng in skiing/snowboarding. Within the interpersonal category, the major reasons we re others can’t afford to go, don’t have anyone to go with,, while in the intrapers onal domain, I like to do other things for recreation and fear of injury were the major reasons. Within the interpersonal domain, the least important constraint item was negative attitudes from other recreation participants, and within the intrapersonal cate gory the least important items were fear of the outdoors, fear of he ights/scared of lifts, and poor health. These findings are similar to the findings of a great deal of other constraints literature (Gilbert & Hudson 2000; Hudson 2000; Jackson & Rucks 1995;and Williams & Fidgeon 2000;), showing that the lack of time or being too busy is an important reason for not participating as often as desired. In terestingly, this is true of persons with disabilities as well as able-bodied persons. R3A: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those who do not?

PAGE 88

79 In order to understand the im pact of the constraints on recreation participation, or the constraints perceived by r ecreation participants, the resp ondents were asked if they ski/snowboard as often as they desired. A series of t-tests were used to determine if the respondents in the “yes” category recorded a different response than those in the “no” category. In order to analy ze the data, the three-point scale was transformed into a dichotomous “yes/no” variable. This variab le was created by selecting the respondents who said that the item was a major or mi nor reason for not participating. These respondents fell into the “yes” category. The respondents who said that the constraint was not at all a reason fell in to the “no” category. The results of the analysis showed that five of the constraint items were significantly different for those saying yes or no. Interestingly, four of the five significant variables fell into the structural c onstraints domain. Respondents who said that they did not participate as often as they liked were more likely to report that they were constrained in each case. These items were, in order of strength, not aware of skiing opportunities, slopes are too far away, adaptive programs not available in this area, and have no way to get to the slopes. This finding clearly shows th at not being able to get to the slopes, for whatever reason, is a major reason for a lack of participation by the people in this sample. This finding is in c oncert with the research done by Alexandris & Carrol (1997), Jackson &Rucks (1 995), and Simon & Fidgeon (2000). One of the intrapersonal constraints item s was significant. Respondents who said that they did not participate as often as they desired were significantly more likely to report that they liked to do other things for recreation. This was an expected finding, as those people who like to do ot her things for recreation woul d most likely participate in

PAGE 89

80 those activities rather than an activity that they enjoy less. No significant findings were noted within the interpers onal constraints domain. R3B: What are the differences in the perceive d constraints of peopl e with disabilities perceive when participating in winter s port activities such as skiing & snowboarding between people with children in their house hold under the ages of six and those who do not? An analysis was conducted to understand th e difference in the perceptions about constraints on perceived by recr eation participants with rega rds to whether a child under the age of six resided in the household. A series of t-tests were used to determine if the respondents in the “yes” category recorded a different response than those in the “no” category. A total of eight signi ficant differences were noted, showing the impact of this socio-demographic variable on perceived cons traints by persons with disabilities. Unlike the previous test of significance, the intrapersonal constraints domain showed the most significant differences, and th e structural constraints domain showed the least. Within the intrapersonal domain, five constraints items showed significant differences. For each of these items, the person without young children in the household reported a higher degree of constraints. The significant items were, in order of strength, fear of heights/scared of lifts, like to do other things for r ecreation, skiing is too physically challenging, poor healt h, and fear of the outdoors. Two of the interpersonal constraints item s were found to be significant; don’t have anyone to go with and negative attitudes fr om other participants. Interestingly, the structural constraints domain included only one significant differe nce with regards to having small children in the household; skiing facilities are inaccessibl e to me due to my

PAGE 90

81 disability. This finding may be related to the positive impact of having young children in the household. The issue of recreation and families with disa bilities has received little attention in the recreation and leisure literature until very recently. However, in the past few years there have been some exceptional efforts to add to this lacking body of knowledge (Ashton-Shaffer, Shelton, & Johnson (1995) Bullock & Johnson (1997), and Mactavish, Schleien, & Tabourne (1997). From this research it was st rongly suggested that family involvement in the leisure process has been a key concern for family members. Ashton-Schaffer et. al (1995) reported that families and parents of people w ith disabilities indicat ed that they have always had to facilitate recreation experiences and in some ways this could be more work for them. These findings suggest that this in itself may present additional perceived constraints for families that have to be negotiated in various ways. Mactavish (1997) studied the nature of family recreation of people with developmental disabilities. Families in this study identified a number of benefits to family recreation including the opportunity suggested that past experience and in particular – past benefits, tended to influe nce the degree to which families and negotiated from constraints. Another possibility for this finding could be the amount of ch ild care facilities available at these recreation areas. Child care areas are typically inspected by state agencies, and child care facilities are often a relatively new development at ski areas. The simple fact that the child care areas are newer than the ski areas may bode well for persons with disabilities, as they would have more likely to have been built within the

PAGE 91

82 parameters set forth by ADA. This is an in teresting finding because it highlights the need for managers to focus not just on providi ng outdoor recreation opportunities for persons with disabilities, but also the periphe ral issues such as childcare. R3C: What are the differences in the perceive d constraints of peopl e with disabilities perceive when participating in winter s port activities such as skiing & snowboarding between people with children in their house hold between the ages of six and 18 and those who do not? Respondents in this sample who had ch ildren between the ages of six and 18 showed three significant differences with rega rds to recreation constraints. Two of the three differences were in the structur al domain, and just one was found in the intrapersonal domain. No significant differe nces were noted for the interpersonal constraints domain. Respondents who said that they did have children in the household between the ages of six and eighteen reported a higher degr ee of constraint than those without for two of the three items. These items were skiing is harder to learn than other sports, and don’t have enough time. Only one item, adaptive pr ograms not available in this area, showed a higher degree of constraint for persons w ith disabilities without a child in their household. It is interesting to examine the findings of this sub-research question in concert with the findings of the previous sub-rese arch question regarding small children in the household. Whereas the presence of small ch ildren (younger than six years) resulted in the participant reporting fewer constraints, the presence of an older child (six-18) in the household had little effect on the perception of c onstraints. The lack of differences noted

PAGE 92

83 for this sub-research question may have to do more with the soci al bonding of children with other children, and th e loosening of the parent s’ “apron strings.” R3D: What are the differences in the pe rceived constraints of people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding across th e income variable? An examination of the constraints vari able across the income groupings was conducted to see if there was a relationshi p between income and the perception of constraints by persons with disabilities w ho participated in skiing/snowboarding. Three significant differences were found across the constraints variables; two within the intrapersonal constraints domain and one with in the structural cons traints domain. No significant differences were found for the interpersonal domain. Within the intrapersonal constraints doma in, poor health and skiing is harder to learn were listed as the major constr aining factors for people in the $30,001-$50,000 category. For the poor health item, the lowe st income group reported the second highest level of constraint, while the respondents in the highest inco me group reported the lowest level of constraint. The item skiing is harder to learn than other sports was shown as a greater constraint for higher income respondent s than lower income respondents. This is a similar finding to that of the item don’t have enough time, where respondents in the highest income group reported that this was more of a constr aint than respondents in the lowest income group. R4: What constraint negotiation strategies do people with disabilities use when they start, continue, or increase participation in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding?

PAGE 93

84 The 19 constraint negotiation items were categorized into four domains; time management strategies (5 items), skill acqui sition strategies (5 items), interpersonal coordination (5 items), and financial resource s and strategies (4 items). The frequency distribution was analyzed for the individual it ems and each set of items are within their respective domain for greater clarity. Overall, the respondents showed that the sk ill acquisition strategies were employed the most often to start, continue, or increas e, participation of th eir winter recreation pursuits. Nearly two thirds of respondents said that three sk ill acquisition strategies were used “regularly” or “very ofte n” when trying to start, con tinue, or increase participation in winter sport activities. These items were I try to improve my skills, I ask for help with the required skills, and I just swal low my pride and try my best. Another domain of constraint negotiation st rategy that was frequently used to start, continue, or increase participation of th eir winter recreation pursuits was the time management domain. Approximately half of the respondents or more reported that three time management strategies were used “regul arly” or very often” in winter recreation participation. These items were I set aside time for fitness and recreation activities, I try to plan ahead for things, and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments. The negotiation strategies items that were used the least to st art, continue, or increase participation of sk iing and snowboarding were I ar range rides with friends, I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for a preferred one, and I participate in activities with people of the same gender.

PAGE 94

85 R4A: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who are interested in skiing & snowboarding and those who are not interested? To fully understand the impact of constraint s and the strategies used to negotiated through these constraints, the respondents were first asked how interested in skiing and snowboarding they were. The four points scale was transformed into a dichotomous variable. The variable was created by select ed all the respondents that indicated to be very or somewhat interested in skiing and snowboarding. These res pondents fell into the “yes” category. The respondent s that indicated no t at all interested or don’t know fell under the category of “no.” In order to examine the effect of the respondents’ interest in skiing and snowboarding on the us e of constraint negotiation strategies, an independent sample t-test was conducted. The results of this analysis show that si x negotiation strategies were significantly different for those saying yes or no to wh ether they were interested in skiing & snowboarding or not. Interestingly, the re spondents who indicated that they were interested in skiing and snow boarding reported more frequent use of all the negotiation items than those who were not intereste d. Another noteworthy finding was that the domains of financial resource strategies and the skill acquisition strategies had the most significant differences. However, each domai n had at least one significant difference. Respondents who said that they were intere sted in skiing and snowboarding were more likely to report they frequently used the cons traint negotiation strate gy in each case. The items within each domain are presented in order of strength.

PAGE 95

86 Surprisingly, only one of the time mana gement domain items was found to be significant. Despite the fact that not having enough time wa s perceived as the strongest perceived constraint, respondent s’ who were interested in skiing and snowboarding only reported setting aside time for fitness and recreation activities more frequently than those respondents who were not interested. Within the financial resource strategies the items were I save up money to do fitness and recreation activiti es and I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home. These findings may relate to the fact that a large portion of the respondents of this study reported that their household inco me was less than $10,000. It may also demonstrate that fact that about half of th e respondents of this study live in a suburban area. Also, most environments suitable fo r winter recreation activ ities do not occur in this type of area. Two skill acquisition domain items were found significant; I try to improve my skills and I participant in skiing and snowboard ing activities despite an injury or physical or health condition. Interestingly, the responde nts’ from this study as earlier discussed felt that poor health was a constraining to thei r participation in wint er recreation. This finding illustrates the notion of participation despite constr aints through the process of negotiation. Although only one significant differen ce was found in the interpersonal coordination domain, the item I try to find people to do recreation activities with was worth mentioning. R4B: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who are living in different living environments?

PAGE 96

87 To better understand the imp act of a respondents’ living area on how they negotiate perceived constraints, respondent s’ were ask to indicate whethe r they lived in an urban, suburban, or rural environment. A series of analysis of variances were used to determine the differences of responses. The results show ed that only items in the time management skill acquisition domains were found to have significant differences. Two significant differences were found in the skill acquisition domain; I take skiing/snowboarding lessons and I ask for help with required skills. Within the time management domain, one negotiation strate gy item was significant. Respondents’ who said they lived in a suburban area reported most frequently that they try to work fitness and recreation in around my other commitments. R4C: What are the differences in the constr aint negotiation strategies used by people with disabilities who have diffe rent levels of education? In order to examine the impact of educa tion on the uses of constraint negotiation strategies, respondents were asked to repor t the highest level of schooling that had completed. A seven-point scale was transfor med into a three-point scale. The three categories were AA degree or less, BA/BS, or graduate or professional degree. The results of this analysis illustrated significan t differences within two of the domains. Two items were found to be significant in the time management domain; I try to plan ahead for things and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments. Those respondents with a grad uate or professional degree reported more frequently that they employed these strate gies to negotiate th rough their perceived constraints.

PAGE 97

88 One of the skill acquisition strategy items wa s significant. Those respondents with higher education reported more frequently that they partic ipate in skiing & snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition. This finding clearly showed that respondents who had a graduate or professiona l degree indicated that more frequent use of this negotiation strategy than responde nts with lower levels of education Conclusions Findings showed that more than half of the sample was males, living in a suburban residence, and making total household annual income of $50,000 or more. The majority of the sample had an Associates’ degree or less. Also the majority of respondents did not live in a household with ch ildren under six or children between 6 to 18 years old. The results of the study suggest that the majority of the adaptive recreation participants surveyed were more interested in skiing than in snow boarding. Most of the respondents reported that they did not ski or snowboard competitively. The respondents of this study were mo re likely to report having a physical disability than other types of disabilities. The most prevalen t type of physical impairment report was spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia or quadriplegia. The second most prevalent type of disability was cognitive impairments. Respondents reported having Downs syndrome more than other types of cognitive disabilities. The frequency distributions revealed this sample was r eally composed of two subgroups: respondents with physical disabilities and respondents w ith cognitive disorders. A small percentage of the sample reported other types of disa bilities including sensory impairments. Many adaptive winter sports programs have progr amming specially desi gned for individuals with disabilities. There are disability speci fic programs such as skiing for people with visual impairments and there are inclusive prog rams for people of all abilities. If more

PAGE 98

89 data was able to be collected from several different organizations, the distinction of the programs may be more obvious. As previously mentioned, recreation pur suits have many different meanings to many different people. The res pondents in this study sought be nefits from recreation that improved one’s self-concept. This sample found that improving self-confidence was a major reason to engage in recreation and leisure activities. Therapeutic recreation services and recreation activities reinforce positive self-image. Enhancing self-concepts, promoting a healthy, positive sense of self -esteem, and enhancing confidence have all been documented as benefits of therapeutic recreation services. It is a response to achievements of personal goals and positive feedback from others. It can be characterized as feelings of mastery, achievements, exhilaration, acceptance, success, and personal worth. This clearly de fines the therapeutic value of a recreation experience. Other benefits rated as im portant reasons to engage in recreation and leisure were related to improving of physical condition or health. Much literature and anecdotal evidence points to the importance of therapeu tic recreation in helping the participants improve, maintain, and gain physical strength and endurance. More recently, society has begun to take a more holistic approach of understanding health and physical well-being. With this change in thinking, one can onl y hope that society truly comprehends the connection of healthy leisure and recr eation to overall quality of life. Constraints to leisure and recreation pu rsuits are constant threats to peoples’ interest levels and participation rates in any given activity. Previous literature suggests that the nature of skiing and snowboardi ng provides for more than normal barriers (Simon 2000). Also, previous literature s uggests that people with disabilities may

PAGE 99

90 experience additional constraints due to conditions related to their disabilities. In this study, many interesting findings surfaced with th e examination of perceived constraints. Time constraints were reported most frequen tly as a major reason affecting participation and interest in skiing and snowboarding. Ot her major reasons or constraints reported were transportation issues, financial concerns and accessibility. Recreation participants, regardless of abilities or experiences, w ill encounter many of these barriers. Understanding these constraints can only help recreation and leisure service providers to provide more attainable and enjoyable opportunities for all. Constraint negotiation was examined in four domains. Respondents rated the negotiation items on terms of frequency of use to start, continue, or increase level of participation. Overall, skill acquisition st rategies were most frequently used. The negotiation strategy item rated as most freque ntly used was I try to improve my skills. Other strategy items that were frequently used were I ask for help with the required skills and I swallow my pride and try my best. These findings suggest that skiers and snowboarders with disabilities are quite in terested in improving their abilities to participate winter recreation activities in or der to participate at desired levels. As reported, respondents feel improving their ski lls will allow them to overcome barriers impeding participation. Another interesting finding under the fina ncial resources and strategies domain was respondents report more frequently doing fitness and recreation activities close to home. Keeping in mind most of the responde nts reported feeling c onstrained by lack of money and transportation issues, many res pondents chose to participate in skiing and

PAGE 100

91 snowboarding closer to home. This limits th eir ability to go on a typical skiing vacation unless participants live relative ly close to a ski area. In general, this study contributes valuab le knowledge and confirms the notion that therapeutic recreation, or th e use of recreation to help heal the mind and body, is important to persons with disabilities. Th erapeutic recreation seems to be part of a growing trend that will su rge with the aging of the baby-boomer generation. This study can also contribute to the advocacy of adaptive recreation program establishment in winter sport environments The results support the position that recreation participation is be neficial for all. As prev iously mentioned, many myths suggest that people with di sabilities do not prefer the same kinds of outdoor environments, do not participate in outdoor recreation/adventure activities, and cannot attain a full range of benefits from outdoor recreation programs and activities. This study is a great example to see the true contrast in the above statement and the reality that people with disabilities do tend to participate in out door recreation opportunities. This study has provided data that furthe rs the work of Jackson et. al (1993) indicating that particip ation is dependent not on the abse nce of constraints, but rather upon the negotiation through them. The data showed how participants with disabilities often modified their leisure experiences related to time management and skill acquisition. The data also suggested that the ability and frequency of c onstraint negotiation was tied to other aspects of life circumstances (e.g., in come levels and living environment). Still further, the findings illustrate d that participants with diffe rent education levels employed different negotiation strategies.

PAGE 101

92 Several conclusions can be drawn from our knowledge of recreation and exercise for people with disabilities. The potential be nefit of recreation participation has been documented. However, many recreation benefi ts are difficult to objectively measure. First, based on the benefits research in this study, the meanings of recreation and leisure vary among individuals with disa bilities. This is particular ly true of this sample of respondents, given the range of disabilities from physical to c ognitive to social. Also, the needs and interests of people with disabi lities may vary depending on other sociodemographic variables besides disability. Objective measurements are needed to exam ine not only the effect of participation on the individual, but also on the family me mbers or others involved. Family studies have identified a number of benefits to fam ily recreation, including the notion that past experience and in particular, past benefits, tended to influence the degree to which families and negotiated from constraints. In general, family involvement in the leisure process for people with disabili ties needs further examination. The data for this study were collected from a group of people with primarily physical and cognitive disabilities. Acco rdingly, the results cannot be generalized directly to all people with disabilities (e.g. sensory impairments) or to people without disabilities. We cannot universal ize constraints or the negotiati on of constraints. Just as there is no universally accepted definition of disability because of the various biological and social components present, we recognize th at the experience of leisure constraints is unique and highly variable. The values of the data lie in how they can provide additional avenues for the investigation of constraints for individuals in varying life circumstances. The study also raised a number of questions unanswerable in th is study, such as how

PAGE 102

93 differences in constraints and negotiation stra tegies might exist between groups of people with and without disabilities. This study has provided a further explanat ion of the influence of constraints on leisure behavior and recreation patterns. It i lluminates some of the issues of how people with disabilities address their le isure choices and constraints. Perhaps this study will help to better understand constraints as well as make visible the lives of people with disabilities. A further inve stigation between the opportunitie s for physical recreation and individual’s interest and be nefits sought by participati on should be considered. Addressing values, attitudes, and conditions may be a way to increase positive meanings associated with leisure and outdoor recreation. Also, specific attention needs to be given to the way in which people with disabilities can be active in their leisur e pursuits. Although many individuals may know what they need in order to maintain incr ease participation, they often don’t know how to meet those needs. The ADA is a tool for so cial change, and has th e ability to improve settings and conditions in which people with disabilities recreate. It is a mandate to create equal opportunity and access for people with disabilities in all facets of work and play. While guidelines and principles are esse ntial for action, the st udy also speaks to the importance of inclusion itself. Hopefully, this “work in progress” offers a further step of the on-going process and analysis of leisure studies and therapeutic recreation services. Implications for Professional Practice It was stated in previous chapters, that many recreation and leisure service professions strive to create equal access for all and to enhance the quality of life of individuals who utilize their serv ices regardless of ability. As such, this study has several implications for the practice of recreation a nd therapeutic recreati on. First, this study

PAGE 103

94 once again suggests that individu als are unique but also similar; therefore, it is important to assess the unique needs, interests and pr eferences of each individual within recreation and leisure programming. In this study, it was evident that the participants had preferences regardi ng specific activity involvement and social interaction. Many participants enjoy recreation programs that offered opportunities to improve aspects of their self concept. Adaptive ski programs therefore could greatly benefits by having certified therapeutic recreation specialists on staff. These professionals having the appropriate education and tr aining, are able to assess, design and implement programs targeting these types of goals Secondly, this study purposes th at individuals with disabil ities may prefer activities that involve opportunities for social interaction. Therefore, when programming, it is suggested that recreation prof essionals provide opportunities for this population to meet other people of all abilities. When cons idering adaptive programming options, recreation planners should accommodate inclusive recreat ion opportunities as well as segregated programs. Also, this study helps to define a clear picture of the factors that constrain individuals with disabilities for skiing and snowboarding as often as they desire. As mentioned above, financial constraints and tr ansportation issues we re major constraining factors. A discount lift pass or discount s eason pass for individuals with disabilities and their accompanying partner may be a wise decision for ski area operators. This may increase the interest of those that already participate and t hose who may have interest and feel that skiing may be too expensive. Addr essing the transportation issue may be a more difficult challenge for recreation and leisure service providers. Many ski towns offer a

PAGE 104

95 bus or van system that picks up at various lo cations. Making sure th ese already existent transportation options are truly accessible to people with disabilities would be a great starting point. Recommendations for Future Research The scope of this study can be expanded in various ways. Additional studies could enhance our understanding of the leisure a nd recreation experiences and quality of adaptive recreation services from the perspe ctives of individual s with disabilities. Within the adaptive recreation sector, furt her exploration of these ideas from the perspectives of other individuals (e.g. staff, instructors, family members) could provide further insight into the unique nature of th is community. By examining similarities and differences from the different perspectives we would have a better understanding of how these individuals are per ceived by their community. The scales and instrument that emerged fr om this study could be tested with other populations. For example, are these tools re flective of the leisure experiences of individuals without disabili ties? When examining these phenomena further, it is suggested that other types of recreation interests be studied. Also, the impact of different types of disabilities should be examined in order to determine the generalizability of the study and to determine whether these factors influence the pe rceptions of the leisure and recreation experiences. Another suggestion would be to attempt this study with a more accommodating methodology. Much of the information requested was of a personal nature. Face to face interviews with individuals with disabiliti es may break down any false perceptions and inhibitions about partic ipation in the study. Attending a wi nter clinic or a seasonal event where attendance numbers would be higher than normal is an important consideration.

PAGE 105

96 Also, family members and others from the re spondent’s community may be available to participate in a similar study. In conclusion, leisure and recreati on experiences are complex phenomenons worthwhile of further study. There are still endless aspect s of these experiences that remain unclear or unknown. The population of persons with disabili ties in the recreation research realm deserves further consideration.

PAGE 106

97 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT The following survey instrument was deve loped specifically for this study the author and the thesis advisor to examine the leisure constraints and negotiation strategies of people with disabilities w ho participate in skiing or snow boarding. For the purpose of this study, the following variables are outline d. First the recreati on profile information on page one of the survey instrument. S econd, the 27 constraints items on page two of the survey instrument. Next, the recreation benefits items and the 19 negotiation strategy items on page three of the survey instrume nt. The socio-demographic variables and respondents’ disability information on the la st two pages of the survey instrument.

PAGE 107

98 2004 Winter Recreation: Skiing and Snowboarding Study University of Florida Department of Recreation, Parks & Tourism Thank you taking the time to complete this surv ey! A small sample of skier and snowboarders will be used, so your input is very important. Your responses will be completely anonymous and confidential. The findings of this study will neve r discuss individual responses. This survey will take about 10 minutes to complete. Your r esponses will help leisure and recreation service managers meet your future recreation and skiing/ snowboarding needs. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other benefits to you as be ing part of this study. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to. You are free to discontinue your participation at anytime without consequence. If you have any questions about his survey, you may contact Dr. Robert Burns at the University of Florida at 352-392-4042 or at PO Box 11820 8, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611 Thank you for participating in this study 1. How interested are you in skiing? Are you ve ry interested, somewhat in terested, or not at all interested in skiing? ______ Very Interested ______ Somewhat Interested ______ Not at all Interested ______ Don’t Know 2. How interested are you in snowboarding? Ar e you very interested, somewhat interested, or not at all interested in snowboarding? ______ Very Interested ______ Somewhat Interested ______ Not at all Interested ______ Don’t Know 3. During the last twelve months how many days have you spent skiing/snowboarding? __________ 4. How many years have you been skiing/snowboarding? __________ (total years) 5. Do you ski/snowboard competitivel y? ____ Yes ____ No 6. Do you ski/ snowboard as often as you like? ____ Yes ____ No

PAGE 108

99 7. Please rate your level of skiing/snowboarding experience on the following scale (circle one) Novice Intermediate Expert _________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 8. Listed below are some reasons why people ma y not ski/snowboard as often as they would like. Please look at this list and tell us if each item is a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason why you ski or snowboard as often as you would like to? (Please respond to each of these items) Reason Major Reason Minor Reason Not a Reason Not Sure/ Don’t Know Fear of the outdoors 1 2 3 N/S Don’t have enough time 1 2 3 N/S Have no way to get to the slopes 1 2 3 N/S Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 1 2 3 N/S Fear of injury 1 2 3 N/S Too busy with other recreation activities 1 2 3 N/S Poor health 1 2 3 N/S Don’t have anyone to go with 1 2 3 N/S Slopes are too far away 1 2 3 N/S Slopes are too crowded 1 2 3 N/S Like to do other things for recreation more 1 2 3 N/S Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 1 2 3 N/S Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 1 2 3 N/S Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 1 2 3 N/S Can’t afford to go to skiing 1 2 3 N/S Skiing is too physically challenging 1 2 3 N/S Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 1 2 3 N/S Others can’t afford to go 1 2 3 N/S Do not have a partner of the same ability 1 2 3 N/S Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 1 2 3 N/S Not aware of skiing opportunities 1 2 3 N/S Adaptive programs not available in this area 1 2 3 N/S Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 1 2 3 N/S Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 1 2 3 N/S Areas are closed when I want to visit 1 2 3 N/S Are there any other reasons you haven’t gone skiing/snowboarding this past year?

PAGE 109

100 9. Here is a list of some benefits people have told us they seek through outdoor recreation. Please tell me how important each of the following benef its is to you when you participate in skiing or snowboarding. [One is not at all importa nt and five is extremely important] (Please respond to each of these items) Possible Benefits of Skiing/Snowboarding Not at all important Somewha t im p ortan t Moderatel y im p ortan t Very important Extremel y im p ortan t Improved physical health 1 2 3 4 5 Strengthened relationships with my companions 1 2 3 4 5 Increased self-confidence 1 2 3 4 5 Reduced stress 1 2 3 4 5 Enhanced family relationships 1 2 3 4 5 Improved mental health 1 2 3 4 5 Greater connection with nature 1 2 3 4 5 Provides opportunity for solitude 1 2 3 4 5 Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 1 2 3 4 5 Provides a sense of adventure 1 2 3 4 5 Provides opportunities to meet people 1 2 3 4 5 Greater connection with wilderness 1 2 3 4 5 Increased sense of competence 1 2 3 4 5 Provides opportunities to view wildlife 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunity for lifelong learning 1 2 3 4 5 10. The following are some of the things people have told us they do to get around the obstacles that they face in starting, continuing, or increasing their involvement in skiing activities Please tell us how frequently you do the following things to try to star t, continue, or increase your participation in skiing activities (Please respond to each of these items) Negotiation Strategies Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Very Often I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities with 1 2 3 4 5 I try to budget my money 1 2 3 4 5 I arrange rides with friends 1 2 3 4 5 I try to plan ahead for things 1 2 3 4 5 I try to improve my skills 1 2 3 4 5 I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 1 2 3 4 5 I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 1 2 3 4 5 I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 1 2 3 4 5 I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical/health condition 1 2 3 4 5 I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 110

101 I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other commitments 1 2 3 4 5 I just swallow my pride and try my best 1 2 3 4 5 I ask for help with the required skills 1 2 3 4 5 I participate in activities with people in my age group 1 2 3 4 5 I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for a preferred one 1 2 3 4 5 I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 1 2 3 4 5 I try to meet people with similar interests 1 2 3 4 5 I participate in activities with people of the same gender 1 2 3 4 5 I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less busy 1 2 3 4 5 FINALLY, PLEASE TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF. 11. What is your age? ___________ 12. Including yourself and your dependents, how many people live in your household? Number of people : _______ 12a. Do you have children under six years old living with you? _____ No _____ Yes 12b. Do you have children between 6 and 18 years old living with you? _____ No _____ Yes 13. Which of the following best describes your occupation in the past year? ___Full time student ___Part time student ___Employed full time ___Employed part time ___Unemployed ___Retired ___Homemaker/Caregiver ___Other__________________________________ 14. Which racial group(s) do you identify with? Check all that apply. a. African American/Black d. American Indian/ Alaska Native b. Asian American e. White c. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander f. Other (please specify): ____________________ 15. Are you Hispanic or Latino(a)? _____ No ____ Yes 16. Which of the following reflects your total hou sehold income before taxes, for the last year? ___Under $10,000 ___$50,001-70,000 ___$110,001-130,000 ___Over $170,000 ___$10,001-30,000 ___$70,001-90,000 ___$130,001-150,000 ___$30,001-50,000 ___$90,001110,000 ___$150,001-170,000

PAGE 111

102 17. What is the highest level of schooling you have completed? a. Less than 9th grade e. Associates degree b. 9th grade to 12th grade, no diploma f. Bachelor’s degree c. High school graduate g. Gr aduate or professional degree d. Some college, no degree Disability Questions: 18a. How long have you (or the person in ho usehold w/ the disability) had the disability? _______ number of years _______ number of months 18b. What is the formal/medical name of the disability? ______________________________________________________________________________ 18c. Please provide a general description of the disability: ______________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 112

103 19. Do you feel that your disability hampers your ability to ski? ____ Yes ____ No 19a IF YES what types of barriers have you experienced as a skier/snowboarder that are related to the disability ? Barrier Check all that apply a. Facility accessibility ___ Please describe: b. Trail accessibility ___ Please describe: c. Program accessibility ___ Please describe: d. Equipment accessibility ___ Please describe: e. Attitudinalfrom employees ___ Please describe: f. Attitudinalfrom other visitors ___ Please describe: g. Other ___ Please describe: 19b. Is there a person or something internal that motivates you to ski as a person with a disability? ____ Yes ____ No 19c. If yes, please tell us who/what this is and describe how you are motivated to participate: _____________________________________________________________________ 19d. Are there accommodations or is there assistance we could offer that would be helpful to you or anyone in your household to improve your skiing/snowboarding experience as a person with a disability? ____ Yes ____ No 19e. If yes, please provide your suggestions: ______________________________________________________ 20. What is your zip code? __________ 21. Do you consider yourself to be currently living in an urban, suburban or rural area? ____ Urban ____ Suburban ____ Rural 22. Please tell us your gender. ____ Male ____ Female

PAGE 113

104 23. Please tell us who filled out this survey _____ You _____ Your parent/guardian _____ Other: Please specify __ __________________ ___________________ Thank You for Your Participation in This Study!

PAGE 114

105 APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION POST CARD This document was printed on postcards and se nt to the survey participants prior to the delivery of the survey instrument. Th is research technique suggested by Dillman (2000) allows the survey participant be introduced to the con cept of the study and anticipate the arrival of the actua l survey instrument. This te chnique has been used in the past ot increase the response rate of mail back survey research.

PAGE 115

106 SKIING & SNOWBOARDING STUDY!!! In a few days from now you will receive in the mail a request to fill out a brief questionnaire for an importan t research project being c onducted by the University of Florida. This study is important because it will help adaptive r ecreation agencies and providers understand the needs and expecta tions of skiers and snowboarders with disabilities. Thanks you for your time and consideration. It’s only with the generous help of people like you that our research can be successful! Sincerely, Robert Burns, Ph.D. Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism

PAGE 116

107 LIST OF REFERENCES Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997). Dem ographic differences in the perception of constraints on recreational sport participat ion: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Studies ,16, 107-125. Anderson, L., Schleien, S., McAvoy, L., & Lais G. (1997). Creating change through an integrated outdoor adventure program. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 31, 215229. Ashton-Schaeffer, C., Shelton, M. & Johnson, D. (1995). The social caterpillar and the wallflower: Two case studies of adolescen ts with disabilities in transition. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 29, 324-336. Backman, S. & Crompton, J. (1990). Di fferentiating between active and passive discontinuers of two leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research 23, 154-161. Banka, W., & Young, D. (1985). Community c oping skills enhanced by an adventure camp for adult chronic psychiatric patients. Hospital and Community Psychiatry 36, 746-748. Bedini, L.A. (1991). Modern day “freaks”?: Th e exploitation of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 25, 61-70. Berman, D., & Anton, M. (1988). A wilderne ss therapy program as an alternative to adolescent psychiatric hospitalization. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 5(3), 41-53. Bialeschki, M. & Henderson, K. (1986). Leisure in the common world. Leisure Studies 5, 299-308. Boothby, J., Tungatt, M.F., & Townsend, A.R. (1981). Ceasing partic ipation in sports activity: Reported reasons and their implications. Journal of Leisure Research 13, 1-14. Bray, G. (1989). Exercise and obesity. In Bourchard, C., Shephard, R., Stephens, et. al., (Eds.). Exercise, fitness and health Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, Inc. Bruns, D., & Stokowski, P. (1996). Sustaini ng opportunities to experience early American landscapes. In R. Driver, D. Du stin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Nature and the human spirit: Toward unexpanded land management ethic (pp.17-24). State College, PA : Venture Publishing, Inc.

PAGE 117

108 Bullock, C. & Johnson, D. (1997). Recreation as a related service. In F. M. Brasile (Ed.) Recreation therapy: Perspecti ve of a dynamic profession. Raven Sword, WA: Idyll Arbor. Burns, R.C., Graefe, A.R., & Robinson, K.F. (2002). An examination of the Pacific Northwest region recreation fee program Report submitted to the USDA Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, OR. Carroll, B., & Alexandirs, K. (1997). Per ception of constraints and strength of motivation: Their relation to re creational sport participation. Journal of Leisure Research 29, 279-299. Cordell, H. K., McDonald, B.L., Teasley, R.J ., Bergstrom, J.C., Martin, J., Bason, J., & Leeworthy, V.R. (1999). Outdoor recreation participation trends. In H.K. Cordell, C. Betz, J.M. Bowker, D.B. English, S.H. Mou, J.C. Bergstrom, R.J. Teasley, & M.A. Tarrant (Eds.), Outdoor recreation in American life: A national assessment of demand and supply trends (pp 219-321). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing Coyle, C.P. & Kinney, W.B. (1990). Leisur e characteristics of adults with physical disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 24,64-73). Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconc eptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences 9, 119-127. Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E.L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 13, 309-320. Dillenschneider, C. (1983). Wilderne ss adventure programming for the mentally retarded: A rationale and therapeutic basi s for program development. ERIC ED 238 216. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Driver, B. (1996). Benefits-driven management of natural areas. Natural Area Journal, 16(2), 94-99 Driver, B., Brown, P., & Pete rson, G. (Eds.). (1991). Benefits of Leisure State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Driver, B., Douglas, R., & Loomis, J. (1999) Outdoor recreation and wilderness in America: Benefits and history. In: Cordel l, H. Ken; Betz, Carter ; Bowker, J.M.; and others. Outdoor recreation in American life : a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 183-218 Farbman, A.H. & Ellis, Kay, K. (1987). Acces sibility and outdoor recreation for persons with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 21, 70-76.

PAGE 118

109 Franken, D.A., & Van Raaj, M.F. (1981). Satisfaction with leisure time activities. Journal of Leisure Research 13, 337-352. Fullerton, A., Brandon, S., & Adrick, J. ( 2000). The impact of camp programs on children with disabilities: Opportunities fo r independence. In L.A. Stringer, L. McAvoy, & A. Young (Eds.). Coalition for Education in the Outdoors Fifth Biennial Research Symposium Proceedings (pp.88-99). Cortland, NY: Coalition for Education in the Outdoors, State Un iversity of New York at Cortland. Gass, M., & McPhee, P. (1990). Emerging for recovery: A descriptive data analysis of adventure therapy for substance abusers. The Journal of Experiential Education. 13, 29-35. Germ, P. A., & Schleien, S. J. (1997). Incl usive community services : Responsibilities of key players. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31(1) 22-37 Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints. Annals of Tourism Research 27, 4, 906-925. Greene, T. (1996). Cognition and the management of place. In R. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Nature and the human spirit: Toward unexpanded land management ethic. (pp.17-24). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc Greer, S. (1990). Snow Business. Leisure Management 10, 34-35. Henderson, K.A. (1991). The contribution of feminist to an understanding of leisure constraints. Journal of Leisure Research 23(4), 363-377. Henderson, K.A., Bedini, L.A., Hecht, L., & Sc huler, R. (1995). Women with physical disabilities and the negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Studies 14, 17-31. Henderson, K.A., & Bialeschki, M.D. ( 1991). Girls' and women's recreation programming--Constraints and opportunities. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 62(1), 55-58. Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R.C. (2001). Te sting competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a co rporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences 23, 145-163. Hudson, S. (2000). The segmentation of pot ential tourist: Constraint differences between men and women. Journal of Travel Research, 38, 363-368. Jackson, E.L. (1994). Activity-sp ecific constraints on leisure. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 12(2), 33-49. Jackson, E.L. (1993). Rec ognizing patterns of leisure constraints: Results from alternative analyses. Journal of Leisure Research 25, 129-149.

PAGE 119

110 Jackson, E.L. (1989). Barriers to participati on in desired leisure ac tivities: Analysis of data from the 1988 General Recreation Survey. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Recreation and Parks Jackson, E.L. (1988). Le isure constraints: A surv ey of past research. Leisure Sciences 10, 203-215. Jackson, E.L., Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences 15, 1-11. Jackson, E.L., & Henderson, K.A. (1995). Gender-b ased analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17, 31-51. Jackson, E.L., & Rucks, V.C. (1995). Ne gotiation of constraints by junior-high and high-school students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research 27, 85105. Jackson, E. L., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraint s to leisure. In E. Jackson & T. Burton (Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp.299-317). State College, PA: Venture. Kelly, M., Coursey, R., & Selby, P. (1997) Therapeutic adventures outdoors: A demonstration of benefits for people with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal 20(4), 61-73. Lee, M., & Tainter, J. (1996). Managing for di versity in heritage values. In R. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsn er, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Nature and the human spirit: Toward unexpanded land management ethic (pp.17-24). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Luckner, J. (1989). Altering the locus of control of individuals with hearing impairments by outdoor adventure courses. The Journal of Rehabilitation 55(2), 62-67. Mactavish, J., Schleien, S., & Tabourne, C. (1997). Exploring family recreation activities in families that include childr en with developmental disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 132-153. Malanga, G. (2002). Athletes with disabili ties. Retrieved November 11, 2004 from the World Wide Web: http://www.emedicine.com/sports/topic144.htm McAvoy, L. (2001). Outdoors for everyone: Opportunities that include people with disabilities. Parks & Recreation, August 2001, pp. 24-36. McAvoy, L., Schatz, E., Stutz, M., Schleien, S ., & Lais, G. (1989) Integrated wilderness adventure: Effect on personal and lifestyl e traits of persons with and without disability. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 23(3), 50-64.

PAGE 120

111 McCarville, R.E., & Smale, B.J.A. (1991). Pe rceived constraints to leisure within five activity domains. Paper presented at the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, Baltimore, Maryland McCormick, B. (2001). People with disabilities: Nati onal survey of recreation and the environment Unpublished research report (ava ilable from National Center on Accessibility, Bloomington, IN). McCormick, B. (2000). Outdoor recreation pursuits of people with disabilities : A research report. Recreation and Park Administration, Indian a University. McClung, S. (1984). A rock climbing program as therapy for the chronically ill. Dissertation Abstracts Inte rnational 45(4B) 1292. (Uni versity Microfilms, AAD8416170). McGuire, F. (1984). A factor analytic study of leisure constraints in advanced adulthood. Leisure Sciences, 6, 313-326. McGuire, F., Dottavio, D., & O’Leary, L. (1986). Constraints to part icipation in outdoor recreation across the life span: A nation-wi de study of limitors and prohibitors. Gerontologist, 26, 538-544. McLean, D.D. & Neal, L.L. (2004) Benefits of recreation in a winter environment. Retreived November 11, 2004 fr om the World Wide Web: http://www.indiana.edu/~n aspd/values/iwcbenefits.html Montes, S. (1996). Uses of natural setti ngs to promote, maintain, and restore human health. In R. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Ba ltic, G. Elsner, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Nature and the human spirit: Toward unexpanded land management ethic (pp.17-24). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc Paffenarger, R., Hyde. R., & Dow, A. (1991). Health benefits of physical activity. In Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (Eds) Benefits of Leisure State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., (49-57). Raymore, L.A., Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W., & von Eye, A. (1993). Nature and process of leisure constrai nts: An empirical test. Leisure Sciences 15, 99-113. Robb, G., & Ewert, A. (1987). Risk r ecreation and persons with disability. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 21(1), 58-69. Rolston, H. (1996). Nature, spirit, and lands cape management. In R. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner, & G. Peterson (Eds.), Nature and the human spirit: Toward unexpanded land management ethic (pp.17-24). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc

PAGE 121

112 Romsa, G., & Hoffman, W. (1980). An application of non-participation data in recreation research: Testi ng the opportunity theory. Journal of Leisure Research 12, 321-328. Ross, J. (1993). Young adults with recen t spinal cord injuri es: Transaction from rehabilitation hospital to community living. Dissertation Abstracts. Schleien, S. J., Germ, PA., & McAvoy, L. H. (1996). Inclusive community leisure: Recommended professional practi ces and barriers encountered. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30(4), 260-273. Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative study of group -related constraints. Leisure Sciences 13, 321-336. Searle, M. & Jackson, E. (1985). Recreat ion non-participation and barriers to participation: Consideration for the mana gement of recreation delivery systems. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 3, 23-25. Shaw, S.M. (1994). Gender, leisure, a nd constraint: Towards a framework for the analysis of women’s 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 23, 286-300. Sisovick, D., Laporte, R., & Newman, J. (1985) The disease specific benefits and risks of physical activity and exercise. Public Health Reports, 100, 195-202. Smith, R.W., Austin, D.R., & Kennedy, D.W. (2001). Inclusive and Special Recreation (4th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Stitch, T., & Gaylord, M. (1983). Outwar d Bound: An innovative patients education program. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology Stitch, T., & Senior, N. (1984). Adventur e therapy: An innovative treatment for psychiatric patients In B. Pe pper & H. Ryglewicz (Eds.), Chronic patients: New directions for ment al health services San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. Stringer, L., & McAvoy, L. (1992). The need for something different: Spirituality and the wilderness adventure. Journal of Experiential Education 15, 13-20. Tipton, C., Vailas, A., & Matthes, R. (1986). Experimental studies on the influences of physical activity on ligaments, te ndons and joints: a brief review. Acta Medica Scandinavia Supplement 711 : 157-168. US Bureau of the Census. (2002). Disability status http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability.html

PAGE 122

113 Wachter, C.J & McGowan, A.L. (2002). In clusion practices of special recreation agencies in Illinois. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 36, 172--185. West, P.C. (1984). Social stigma and co mmunity recreation part icipation by mentally and physically handicapped. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 18, 40-49. Wilhite, B., & Keller, M. J. (1992). The ro le of therapeutic r ecreation in community involvement: Patterns and perceptions of older adults with developmental disabilities. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation 3, 18-32. Williams, P. & Fidgeon, P.R. (2000). Addressi ng participation constraint: A case study of potential skiers. Tourism Management 21, 379-393. Witman, J., & Muson, W. (1992). Outcomes of adventure programs for adolescents in psychiatric treatment. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation 3, 44-57. Witt, P., & Crompton, J. (Eds.). (1996). Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc. Witt, P.A., & Goodale, T.L. (1981). The relationship between barriers to leisure enjoyment and family stages. Leisure Sciences 4, 29-49. Zoerink, D.A. (1989). Activity choices: Expl oring perceptions of persons with physical disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 23, 17-23.

PAGE 123

114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lauren M. Bright was born in Las Vegas, Nevada. She was raised in Tampa, Florida, by her parents, Don and Alison, a nd with her brothers, Mark and Todd. She graduated high school with honors in 1998 and attended the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. She graduated from th e University of Florida, in December 2001 with a Bachelor of Science in psychology from the Depart ment of Psychology, within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. She continued her education and pursued a master’s degree in the Department of Touris m, Recreation, and Sport Management within the College of Human Health and Performance. Lauren worked with Dr. Robert C. Burns on numerous projects in Florida, Or egon, and Washington for over two years. These projects included various research st udies conducted for the USDA Forest Service with regard to visitor use, customer satisfac tion, and impacts of a di sability of recreation service satisfaction, as well as ADA facility accessibility complia nce for the National Forests in Oregon and Washington. Lauren is currently working the field of therapeutic recreation and continues to develop and research her academic interest s in adventure therapy interventions.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110115_AAAAET INGEST_TIME 2011-01-16T01:38:52Z PACKAGE UFE0008968_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 69206 DFID F20110115_AADFNT ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bright_l_Page_063.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
5edf238a924f0ae4047e1172d62d00d3
SHA-1
0172474ee2ce306228f7e8c9b5d062b747e617c2
82759 F20110115_AADFOH bright_l_Page_064.jpg
32366e12ed07ec105ad229a5425ac087
3ab504b8c977cc322c16682069fdbdd1e72b7795
99916 F20110115_AADFNU bright_l_Page_059.jp2
c7fa6017f0b875801f189bbba58895b1
cfa5b55333b3ad994ed921021064e623c8bc716f
23223 F20110115_AADFOI bright_l_Page_027.QC.jpg
6b09d08866efbd68dd6e41ff07b26890
6bc534d70f6448d22167a2eb7c3dbd5176f810f5
74091 F20110115_AADFOJ bright_l_Page_097.jpg
704e18e53e546476cf80f27afd958bd0
d0aea481d78aede8a7ed5fb749565ecbb445e111
47830 F20110115_AADFNV bright_l_Page_083.pro
0a7481544a373d2431a01d8e3404e993
8bac8a3de60a3569af46a48ee97af28f96694aaa
2460 F20110115_AADFOK bright_l_Page_110.txt
9a9d42144126511fb45d90825d0491a9
507b4ab8496ab918370dae329f2f4f7a753010de
108341 F20110115_AADFNW bright_l_Page_026.jp2
229bb784860f1d3afb237dd2e89ff503
cf46f6111de44cc411bc0063aec506119e3259f2
1976 F20110115_AADFOL bright_l_Page_027.txt
32ab98c39ea601f3e3cf2a3797b8ec94
1a1cef94b831cbdfd22fd277dcb1784f1c5583ec
111257 F20110115_AADFNX bright_l_Page_013.jp2
179ff0e5b0c56b3a3c3f012a27fc63cb
ab40653d35eaf7926eb24fbad19e3ec3138119f3
46373 F20110115_AADFPA bright_l_Page_092.pro
fda54c7c400b47cca9482861722d7dcd
b9992d34e4ea80121e3633a46b7ea76cd9d97426
24615 F20110115_AADFOM bright_l_Page_023.QC.jpg
14d7ab363cffd92e63e6ecb8e65cc961
2e233b1f6218f3144e40dfa7990be756d126e237
2044 F20110115_AADFNY bright_l_Page_031.txt
9073d8386b9e033b0ca3d342a3f46db1
043bda471862fea921c94a6335b18c6087efb0ec
48582 F20110115_AADFPB bright_l_Page_028.pro
73537e1473fe4b952042917d8b0ac48a
f3b5506f4b38be40a07549baff8741cece264655
1927 F20110115_AADFON bright_l_Page_015.txt
0c6c29945909858c58b928222fb36993
36c2b5e2f328afd671819af9d3ed3dfcdde9a2ca
48869 F20110115_AADFNZ bright_l_Page_056.pro
694a7e9440ace676dbdcae49f1f449ed
6174dcba18d27030fb5c62c95519d48a4c993b03
99539 F20110115_AADFPC bright_l_Page_096.jp2
e9cdf109c57e63b55cb1fff3e966d7dc
45f737da7db920296e957be663b7e319cb36ec00
22677 F20110115_AADFOO bright_l_Page_016.QC.jpg
8d591f43dd8afdd5f02c345394093da9
449e40ce65af2b09da343ededb12254155f403a7
62076 F20110115_AADFPD bright_l_Page_121.pro
fceb535b48026f02d39076fff465b486
15cce5a27e63f7cfecd79b7f463ddd938c4be7af
24952 F20110115_AADFOP bright_l_Page_117.QC.jpg
439bcf27b755e5be5448a33aa67bed63
fc86dbe35a9b40ee61a452e9e68e6c2df5af21fd
5665 F20110115_AADFPE bright_l_Page_079thm.jpg
d3372ec259900da93a056aae5779079b
ff9ad1d1787c6ba1763ba72f7baf4da6911bdf2c
1053954 F20110115_AADFOQ bright_l_Page_037.tif
194d6d7eb79aec8f7dbe9b6b8fa3a584
d1fc4c94c64c6ecc27be4bb1bc1afa85d7d36424
46620 F20110115_AADFPF bright_l_Page_037.pro
42956f1fe71391e956bb1845603425e2
f78f24176e3e8e933ad93fa670d21866eb70016a
22963 F20110115_AADFOR bright_l_Page_080.QC.jpg
6e0210b6bc5d653ce7f4da2394b4e279
652c466bd782ce3dd43ba5a8170702bf26a7dcb1
17752 F20110115_AADFPG bright_l_Page_008.QC.jpg
a5005d41349c357b415f347fdfc57045
321e4c2e5c74017e93d51445c9be76de2ebc3932
21611 F20110115_AADFOS bright_l_Page_082.QC.jpg
47e4425aec4d995db0f5a2792241cfe8
56aa9d87125106f72e82b409f3f2ef64232a3f0a
697389 F20110115_AADFPH bright_l_Page_045.jp2
6ce84f1735bd8b05b75c4504537bf515
cdb350f7efd56e44c65d24eeb0dd0d9e55b0c224
22505 F20110115_AADFOT bright_l_Page_032.QC.jpg
afe066fff383b6bc6e7664d292ac0b34
66a9ccbd0ec0185e2410ba4886d139cdfeb95591
46931 F20110115_AADFPI bright_l_Page_034.pro
36c0d365e4bdfdb0537063d507a5da6c
43e9712f64d9d02fa95d671470e4077ab04d381a
65247 F20110115_AADFOU bright_l_Page_049.jpg
58ea4dc898da0ed4a3050603def4e0c2
54d73f0a85a03fc8385534c56498339e00ddb714
3020 F20110115_AADFPJ bright_l_Page_062.txt
59ae618d0ae6e9d7d648aa56634117d3
51fbe1193feb4ded07530c68db20e537371ae950
10832 F20110115_AADFOV bright_l_Page_005.QC.jpg
15147b0eaa503c7bef998d16a46f3ce0
ff90e957758606505fb2fcbac8eabe29931e6dc8
49135 F20110115_AADFPK bright_l_Page_122.jpg
254f2c4d80c42dc3107eb415e4375761
7366d54215863ae8ddac3960c710929401c40855
71744 F20110115_AADFPL bright_l_Page_031.jpg
4803cbaa7704b3c947af0164bedb624d
db1941fbc459e2a12fc318e4a557d45a1e489cf5
25841 F20110115_AADFOW bright_l_Page_058.QC.jpg
fc0c146cb5ab8fba5ab8ef25774daf12
dd584dfbfe0170304c3c3c59fe93ab03593ce816
21287 F20110115_AADFQA bright_l_Page_022.QC.jpg
abe5756e7d4229423fa6ae97a4abcf86
181880aeb684e980e9f3438cb607735af6d30ee8
6926 F20110115_AADFPM bright_l_Page_117thm.jpg
bf6b88ece3628951f83d1ebd39dd3fea
45cf12f1a298ffbec74765bc593d5cf2a6e97fcd
68087 F20110115_AADFOX bright_l_Page_099.jpg
7411b3bc89f8e3be104e14ff8dfdfaed
0e5eb0a3393bde7a055186cedcde4a05bbdb3109
6855 F20110115_AADFQB bright_l_Page_075thm.jpg
5ce759eb810f78644aa25f519a86f9df
d0588c7081b2001e6e7894df15d68da5f44feaa2
20338 F20110115_AADFPN bright_l_Page_108.QC.jpg
b73f697fb2653ad0f76a4e3bed1762cc
fc738c324c49008a34a6679edd69591ce9ef46bf
58960 F20110115_AADFOY bright_l_Page_084.jpg
a3034e767ac1904bb19fb4ae48594b1e
497d87f26591f2e0ad98acbd042b1633398261f9
97350 F20110115_AADFQC bright_l_Page_052.jp2
8b0be3c7ca6049f7072878829a848f4d
22df2595134ddc0c277e58c15834124059b8c635
45139 F20110115_AADFPO bright_l_Page_055.pro
874db6f238270db8a99047a098733dcf
6f75dc0c6037c2434cd5ff2edf2645e4e964d587
2249 F20110115_AADFOZ bright_l_Page_051.txt
eef39cf720d33defd5220bff1ffd1718
e010c92974336728c729cb2cf5d799f61d4f6f1c
23858 F20110115_AADFQD bright_l_Page_073.QC.jpg
1d5b32083bb2419c037b9dbba414ed5c
6c70f2ba6fd973b5e911accb24e9e82f73e8bffd
2040 F20110115_AADFPP bright_l_Page_088.txt
32112e1ffdd2f75182cab4b4aabe0e67
d1ef15309be339ccae279251341d01e5598ef153
71229 F20110115_AADFQE bright_l_Page_098.jpg
ead5b72389ee49a609eb5c2158597206
5b06e3c59f0ad094f59ae794eac05b19888a938e
762 F20110115_AADFPQ bright_l_Page_009.txt
23dddda83a3890d9492fddd6e1cde850
beac75c85f3f56e5613bc8a39b04681b7aa34c82
51403 F20110115_AADFQF bright_l_Page_013.pro
e58dd15cbce2b11631e27f54f20b2609
1e7a70770296704dbaccfabd4ac91f9f4e30734c
32839 F20110115_AADFPR bright_l_Page_112.pro
0a2ea2e42769ccec2f9649b9331198a4
1385e77d3d2d58be8cc689e0daca96d17e2643a1
1857 F20110115_AADFQG bright_l_Page_091.txt
d3755f5251590c2866b38aeb4aac40ce
2b4f63600923c76d720b4271420aaeae6fe20c41
49404 F20110115_AADFPS bright_l_Page_035.pro
1e3805e8eff5411d5e9cf80c28c45715
c1fb68c0a9737b5609025d75743f7bc4677bc40a
48699 F20110115_AADFQH bright_l_Page_081.pro
2ea8c92e5843b316b816198a21ada1c7
3e2e9abe4f12731d50a8f56161eeb60251464418
52327 F20110115_AADFPT bright_l_Page_097.pro
d4fc91ff137f27ad2d2b9cfec1e318d4
c3e8dfbeab3d12678021b2daee837f6e8f501e4d
76829 F20110115_AADFQI bright_l_Page_068.jpg
28ef72187cbd6f3dd853e1a87e69fa14
0dfb9d9c34bbeae2ba87e6ab1d7d6a4fbb7f1448
100502 F20110115_AADFPU bright_l_Page_067.jp2
05b353d9f054f94043971bbe886196eb
96027f0102235b1b9ae85389cdab6cf10c241c5e
8423998 F20110115_AADFQJ bright_l_Page_077.tif
cb3c6ee9a0986476684dd8040913adb8
2dd5460be14a8115c149ba4cef0d6f599eb9211d
F20110115_AADFPV bright_l_Page_087.tif
9b1ddaf5e92c97096a652928e8ca2681
16e9a5b34de9c3bfd3a7661a06152bd9627fff1f
48932 F20110115_AADFQK bright_l_Page_071.pro
72306b1ec3886cb12b8c7b598933a957
9810f0888ba7667caee64cf361177b325622be26
6313 F20110115_AADFPW bright_l_Page_085thm.jpg
db462b133e9a581578e613d95b00dd87
723dc93e6b5446ebff2937a0ff508e6bfb98a53f
2232 F20110115_AADFQL bright_l_Page_058.txt
8c17364808152e051bc8d0ff05bd1ac6
491a7cd7d595ec792ba5d4576e077312b697dda5
184558 F20110115_AADFQM UFE0008968_00001.xml FULL
9b27e3493f6d25c26bcb91c0da1d20c6
689ad394e434c54d48cae2da14d191d6eb1d2936
2166 F20110115_AADFPX bright_l_Page_116.txt
d03b33c8b9c0bbbf189ff0d13165b4dd
401a1de497caafcfc5c4677a2229156ea34b6e31
76332 F20110115_AADFRA bright_l_Page_023.jpg
1e633a8333d0772324ef7572e6edbd08
9a967c101aaca6174e006a2934bdd680df1cad29
F20110115_AADFPY bright_l_Page_047.tif
f4c646aed61cc0bee43f9c1b2c38099e
64f433c2013be5086e2dcf26712702c595c2ba13
69317 F20110115_AADFRB bright_l_Page_028.jpg
05595bb95e8c4144cc7c1774d3f33b57
9f73cdaf62380c3decf937d7bad37c5224b1b682
26389 F20110115_AADFPZ bright_l_Page_072.QC.jpg
655281b3942d5fd2de9509b352602ae3
351ca83e900123b28daac7206aef161703bd2666
70515 F20110115_AADFRC bright_l_Page_035.jpg
56216ca78c76661859629f9414eeca0c
4e6ec6a66891bbb8e9394708b2f20594e572ab12
66634 F20110115_AADFRD bright_l_Page_037.jpg
1c6e6fecf7ee9faa0af5a2bb9de20d67
0f41cd2a0c839289d9ca39be9a212f7a043a1fe9
24477 F20110115_AADFQP bright_l_Page_001.jpg
ce5bfe083aeaa1fe1769d736deb449b7
e0419cba31ab1b5673bcb4224415d8065f11437d
11671 F20110115_AADFRE bright_l_Page_038.jpg
f84d706cc418ad4b5af5abcea95353d0
51590705efd2178bc9c35bba36f20c64fc56870f
10207 F20110115_AADFQQ bright_l_Page_002.jpg
c722943777391f22cdb56c6f767230a0
0ce56f8612dfe90e66b1c2af5653b119236b177c
62556 F20110115_AADFRF bright_l_Page_039.jpg
b71087e9973a2a15e202bb75b7508365
bd6d2d2631bcdf215e4f7eb3a84893b268bf04c1
42908 F20110115_AADFQR bright_l_Page_003.jpg
23da1e867397db4bce6b8d1438c67c48
56a1413f5d052c89db4c1819334a46b8872f4907
64386 F20110115_AADFRG bright_l_Page_040.jpg
8478178ec92cb8bf0f745239b8850b7a
8241a311ac6d7ef1a9ba25c4774ca872856eb3c9
80031 F20110115_AADFQS bright_l_Page_006.jpg
7dfad63dff11d96faf3d4bfbba602e56
37a8589c7e90f917bbbf012794eab5b21461bc8b
48138 F20110115_AADFRH bright_l_Page_042.jpg
1c45318fc7c85f589c46ebee79ef5e04
c6e1d769b036e5b6637ab7934744a06d79a2af30
46612 F20110115_AADFQT bright_l_Page_007.jpg
5fe26733f2af8ba2696daa6fd1396f4c
b87e93272391e52c688a208fcf1a386751d1c394
67603 F20110115_AADFRI bright_l_Page_044.jpg
76a93c4dcf548571252429ea3d38b76e
bbf9cf775a682c2625b7fbb1510ca548820e7c29
31473 F20110115_AADFQU bright_l_Page_009.jpg
912fdc3ca599e729ae42e797b50b8e16
a1082af3a65845fb323b5866a8a3be476e12d60d
69148 F20110115_AADFRJ bright_l_Page_046.jpg
0d21c36732300dad190a29d9c8498e38
ecae228196b637604695478bf328ee7cc8d598af
62504 F20110115_AADFQV bright_l_Page_010.jpg
e369145299e9d0b832f3d5e55c6193a7
f5aae4058c52af2d41753e23d0f9c42e7e1f736e
55990 F20110115_AADFRK bright_l_Page_048.jpg
465968286a0f732077bd115c9ee31c9d
19a8d0d409fb24b2fd06ff35a420a58caad9fe83
67829 F20110115_AADFQW bright_l_Page_011.jpg
fcabf165e313e5c2f35dc6240a7bb9c9
6d88128a3c30594dd6437e45e0dad53292e8ee9f
88845 F20110115_AADFRL bright_l_Page_054.jpg
5395ab9df92258aa2b61e5e7d6901709
ba5fa1e1d4cdbe1060720293e08f3c8cfb7d6078
67199 F20110115_AADFQX bright_l_Page_014.jpg
04a990aa8533d050cac9c835bab6176d
9414e2f92e5ea16a0ae7c5c000aab5d20c95bbf9
67274 F20110115_AADFSA bright_l_Page_100.jpg
9ee3c2d2fea8bb243155810195a726fa
1f22728b3a6df78a2e66345637dea67677f119f3
64217 F20110115_AADFRM bright_l_Page_057.jpg
0e9f3f3d1a5f83bd0285300cc0ad7559
37490a92290cf7d3db5418f130bd4eed7f53cfc8
21549 F20110115_AADFSB bright_l_Page_105.jpg
3e3f5e3e438ce7e7f0088d0f0138c7ac
cb70050e0c44395d0bb13a28f52691542eb567d4
86985 F20110115_AADFRN bright_l_Page_058.jpg
e2830eb903be29c778d36254d41848da
0d6b8b01b92145c75605cd9758d19764d22a551f
67667 F20110115_AADFQY bright_l_Page_016.jpg
9fd9d86f13aea152289811497d374c23
c7c3a9ef95fe6e676b71098ec73361c1215925ee
32601 F20110115_AADFSC bright_l_Page_106.jpg
1e095c62b18d373866823820eb1de72e
37b3792e05106f588153c99d0f93f6fa9c3127b3
65100 F20110115_AADFRO bright_l_Page_059.jpg
5d609b2b09368127fbb7a333441e2d68
e19b48df034c47d3c3e72b227a954460fe610aef
60374 F20110115_AADFQZ bright_l_Page_018.jpg
c74b45a3a85c581bb1cefab23ab052ac
d1a11ff4147a06e71c3a71d43ae50f9732a4279b
63619 F20110115_AADFSD bright_l_Page_110.jpg
c363427cc0960581b52634c360654914
934149e7ec912ac46a3e5bce112956766b7e479d
69266 F20110115_AADFRP bright_l_Page_061.jpg
155089aa13f43d0606bcaf75fd8d4a60
bbe2445fc15d91842a68e7b66f80ca63301ef3f2
25728 F20110115_AADFSE bright_l_Page_111.jpg
e8394247f0f02d17eb3f76fa56e14477
a34fa055ac971be9934d0edb9bdd13525c23e876
66688 F20110115_AADFRQ bright_l_Page_067.jpg
f2b9941d3ba83b1db98f4a5de8b25c0b
e6c7268268709be6f1d1970fa8980fd5cea4bf2f
29097 F20110115_AADFSF bright_l_Page_115.jpg
1f8e439640a8a3e1d8db4e574a56695c
02d5d4bb4f369dd06dd8f3b428f9416bbd21ccf5
78878 F20110115_AADFRR bright_l_Page_071.jpg
7800033b10d6e053b9c865119dc5b9c9
e5d024b713cfff469a6f055dec350cbb46e223ea
84387 F20110115_AADFSG bright_l_Page_117.jpg
313766dcbfd0fa98d389624dc65de9fc
945f5f5ad0e0d03375eacd6929ab9d9636b119e1
78970 F20110115_AADFRS bright_l_Page_073.jpg
99e325c994706303258854e1cbb2d45e
4787df27607c04cd754aab737b504f0e150c2f03
92035 F20110115_AADFSH bright_l_Page_119.jpg
226c0c26bf989836114f6d8180e38b83
ce848fc8eb09b06e5ccfa14f37d5839043e0bc05
92559 F20110115_AADFRT bright_l_Page_075.jpg
2acc7148f9c91a94792fbb1f01b261da
22d25089405af0230e3509e4c8dde4189bc11fdd
97582 F20110115_AADFSI bright_l_Page_120.jpg
d5596f360fae9d5de5d0a49ae953885f
910f4e26de5fa26b1014201c90e283bf6f2d9427
87113 F20110115_AADFRU bright_l_Page_076.jpg
dd27e8808363105dd23b44516b350602
93c5f48fee9e749070a6453359dd154f02691104
26205 F20110115_AADFSJ bright_l_Page_001.jp2
3f46e1ddf9c2ffc703e24d614c5e7f92
917a703b221deac5c39251d33ab7b209c52804ec
82887 F20110115_AADFRV bright_l_Page_077.jpg
be178393f4a861a0db4400e0a2a7b77a
e7bdd79c947922a9f2bdf0d0739308c11952674d
5399 F20110115_AADFSK bright_l_Page_002.jp2
c6fcc9e4db71afc747144b27c2717259
40ff063b0acc0ec64f71594f3fbd6af428533441
70073 F20110115_AADFRW bright_l_Page_080.jpg
a8d3ddb89c5b6f6edde233c80dc77cc5
5be12e7a3e7692386108afb9e28640363b5e8461
997023 F20110115_AADFSL bright_l_Page_005.jp2
491e2c60eb6bf06df0b54aa3b0e3a698
a50ce6c3bc9246704dc47cd1ccf2c550b4d4c3bd
68396 F20110115_AADFRX bright_l_Page_082.jpg
e94194bcc7752198a50658855cc37eb5
baa28a3f0fdb1584d6ce0d22e61003db1c2a8939
1051961 F20110115_AADFSM bright_l_Page_007.jp2
ea7b0bc88db42b48056be9dd6935004a
01a10e571659ff3ad3a783b94908ec0fd3780583
67369 F20110115_AADFRY bright_l_Page_091.jpg
097487a76e1a58e613f7a93568651cc4
36199a2e81346787560676e039916fdf02ae1932
112155 F20110115_AADFTA bright_l_Page_041.jp2
b08b8437327fdf0b13a3fc526b3a4c8e
53a521a39127b18ff275c5beae020ae1da15c5f2
82690 F20110115_AADFSN bright_l_Page_008.jp2
8458969982a0a2f21e8c395f3a2ea52d
1cee8c49715044bf55e1b4bb8cc50fe9784f708b
69004 F20110115_AADFTB bright_l_Page_042.jp2
7aa4461f6e1d46c0fb26af9c79606bee
326c75af38e48b3912dac209b48bc68e16a20401
103683 F20110115_AADFSO bright_l_Page_011.jp2
9fcdfbb88aa4c711e5605b75e1d40ae0
4305bdbfe646874fac53c8c3cdaccb62534859e0
65359 F20110115_AADFRZ bright_l_Page_095.jpg
a037f6ed6c92bdc5a9a1afc3fb457c2f
0e986b806d9f129b74fc06d7d556a27c9bd46de0
104766 F20110115_AADFTC bright_l_Page_047.jp2
fd26777bd4bc72382dc564a10777239d
31a8ac42f3baed1bda19b91fa161e48d42cab062
104774 F20110115_AADFSP bright_l_Page_012.jp2
51611941a355c172be57ed9bc019fa2b
33eb1f19907163e1daba491947622bae06c56236
644623 F20110115_AADFTD bright_l_Page_048.jp2
0a8668e7e4d42fe3e24254d926faf9c0
f26f4bccf6be16a4fc463690db6caf240a54253c
105010 F20110115_AADFSQ bright_l_Page_016.jp2
8f2b7ceb095c76a0fdd2aab7fdeddffd
c3dbd5df4c2d36897428950816c775ffcc044099
905557 F20110115_AADFTE bright_l_Page_049.jp2
e2f6cec97489e5176656e5d8ae9ef73c
6e4fda9211264541fbee29fa39508d704f39d072
88707 F20110115_AADFSR bright_l_Page_018.jp2
12c391b593a5004ea02772105ba864cc
964ff49873dd4836947a2be1219959bd2683182f
85685 F20110115_AADFTF bright_l_Page_050.jp2
87df16baa4ec6a2ee142264000b16a43
d57df92b1b478c7e3e9b2107f8c0f3740595ef5a
113111 F20110115_AADFSS bright_l_Page_025.jp2
2d70b3b9ab691c93f602f29eca41888a
fa38afc1a969749b19922f19e42d07309f000c6f
646982 F20110115_AADFTG bright_l_Page_051.jp2
5ca450f8d4dbacdd68551e308fa4f4d4
c0373301cadf5a01fb0af6314003e5b20ba95c8e
108978 F20110115_AADFST bright_l_Page_027.jp2
f6ef7a46a4308690f4d1d31ebe8f5836
9121ac7abbe46a3262f86b93e7c035f7291d4f8b
1051982 F20110115_AADFTH bright_l_Page_053.jp2
9d52281543213bf39847c5f606d55625
cd3bc75c1009242cc4749288b718fb4e0e994f0f
105750 F20110115_AADFSU bright_l_Page_028.jp2
4b14fa23d719fa433f3298676a6d23e6
dce06072c522fa0691a15f9bc2fc8d87bc503e40
99747 F20110115_AADFTI bright_l_Page_055.jp2
6dfa7cbe1c3ba918937e40f9286f77e6
941940eb9a69837ff5099f5658587f7a1a34b7aa
111549 F20110115_AADFSV bright_l_Page_030.jp2
e23b0a792170887b3c2c9c830414e165
8d0ac90e9a260e74973ec0c0b485dcf62ebb1025
1051962 F20110115_AADFTJ bright_l_Page_056.jp2
7213a37834cf6f98566ad2a0826b0d8b
11506d7482a3c47b3fe511338140f58a5c236998
109361 F20110115_AADFSW bright_l_Page_031.jp2
20825d092323511ef3e19a8caf800883
d6bf200ad708c58700a3a92adbea302fedd08327
1051958 F20110115_AADFTK bright_l_Page_058.jp2
806603661cb5cf388c883547ed605199
e00e60e2cd15e9d93f1294ec402cf3f459b56884
104568 F20110115_AADFSX bright_l_Page_033.jp2
4b3d56cb3b6765bc3ffe5e502ed15d0b
675a7e337bcba30b50e2ca4fb4fdf9bd63d88a8e
1051887 F20110115_AADFTL bright_l_Page_062.jp2
2f6c760f85716e5536727ff415035596
4af9117800eacc8dafc5b86896e22168dcd66437
106018 F20110115_AADFSY bright_l_Page_035.jp2
25f33549e33ed438470dc9f9f509e0ce
56a32ec54baca883d1e8f6a978cdcf7608dad3b8
108980 F20110115_AADFUA bright_l_Page_098.jp2
fbd3dc8e460c407f0c3a9c32e6594a20
90ed7fc42741af2d3a97ef0f1819e0d74a057e63
105848 F20110115_AADFTM bright_l_Page_063.jp2
159a4203ab0abf220257da72cff4351f
67f4811b2f76760cc789ae9c25f194c5fd25f395
93670 F20110115_AADFSZ bright_l_Page_039.jp2
77b49553793e522313931d3d52f8eadd
fe605e98214600fae16527174e45da5b56ccc8b9
103859 F20110115_AADFUB bright_l_Page_099.jp2
adc7d60821dcdbe00d8a45b9a086ba9f
c6379f5c16ee36adb927077a8bdbb83caa6e8478
F20110115_AADFTN bright_l_Page_066.jp2
d98360b0314dcc905458471b526b8f10
edaeb0491a61e4219fbb7b043ecb8d6b20114fc9
101933 F20110115_AADFUC bright_l_Page_100.jp2
8d392e20165128b3045d6177a6eb57c7
6840d32a54780b98d9c78e6e65aa080c161d5fc7
1051984 F20110115_AADFTO bright_l_Page_073.jp2
f54a3e6a46671d1fe04fd33f8709a3df
2f20c254faad707405735d0fefac81d8ce6427f8
110136 F20110115_AADFUD bright_l_Page_102.jp2
81e81914aeeb4474bf50a546a055709c
230c73790ce4861b16d2c115293b4f59077af319
1051949 F20110115_AADFTP bright_l_Page_074.jp2
7ee9d33fbc2867b2c9d77e19052f93b2
ccbaa139fa89355d60fe91d1ff6cad8bd57612ff
108453 F20110115_AADFUE bright_l_Page_103.jp2
b930bbfbba9f9c8b5614866c28b452d7
2b3dd34655bfeea42332eff271243ae83c86892d
1051811 F20110115_AADFTQ bright_l_Page_075.jp2
1cb2e196eee45bed457f9d4f353b812a
047ac5c16164a0668a31689f0aac1937f16454aa
27252 F20110115_AADFUF bright_l_Page_105.jp2
e4f452b6393583a4549c3ccb37d0e1d0
7a3707892bd3487134ae219da90272db71403bb7
1051975 F20110115_AADFTR bright_l_Page_076.jp2
07f5cc8cec01344d0308f6f82674411c
f9711424cb006a56790d01ec919f8f8dfb0420b8
845 F20110115_AADGAA bright_l_Page_106.txt
295fae02ff000dd722eaa394d01fda7c
e059e64d95a4fb09e6d213dd693ae453b6286e49
F20110115_AADFUG bright_l_Page_109.jp2
46a64125496aa3ae4365ecede5e7b1a9
23cc5da984704b4fab967eabbdc0ca2568d59319
1051915 F20110115_AADFTS bright_l_Page_077.jp2
776296e1bca88a52061c172481a3621f
41489c51d199743130b3c6458a08486f89c3a55d
2263 F20110115_AADGAB bright_l_Page_109.txt
02ed6e908bfe115acfeb1304898e30bf
238da657492e953b00982e8cb3fba1e2ab07812e
909165 F20110115_AADFUH bright_l_Page_110.jp2
0b3d83dcd60f73f6a0b516f0dde97c9a
fcfd8facc2d5c581aa8e2cbd38cec21ef05ce0fa
826008 F20110115_AADFTT bright_l_Page_078.jp2
11efd88c18298021af372253a5263d99
e69e0e14cf7b49606ec87aa3379edf6e37a8c5e4
699 F20110115_AADGAC bright_l_Page_111.txt
26b723dffd6a99136abe463350143ed3
e00513b908d3a3da32da091fb8d4fe78f018d47b
31203 F20110115_AADFUI bright_l_Page_111.jp2
bbfb765f608145d45e8034e00b3e62d8
d16faf81c5f221800c51b6458ab82fd193910d79
88508 F20110115_AADFTU bright_l_Page_079.jp2
7421d8ccac974c9528cddad87fccf360
1d9e0275bf260f5eb663786ed4e69ccc9092a05a
275 F20110115_AADGAD bright_l_Page_113.txt
ee8d81cfa12665dbd9c644446f11f3dd
eae83ab9be99d3a280b2e2da12eb1c6ea7b65fd1
38130 F20110115_AADFUJ bright_l_Page_115.jp2
e6073033ca966b7829a9bf9271fc21d5
27a34e8b3dcc72a267bc42eb10c6b24b2c65ebdb
103713 F20110115_AADFTV bright_l_Page_083.jp2
5c65d4e4cfc532a24c0ab8b3b0e0052a
6fd56ffefe36876d6ee92a2aa8617ed6043b8473
2483 F20110115_AADGAE bright_l_Page_117.txt
575161a856012290ccf176e18b0f299e
5d9bc0a68c5b9ca2d085da12eca8fac2eb14d6bb
133555 F20110115_AADFUK bright_l_Page_118.jp2
736c5c000dba3fa6014a1135fda7cd12
1f7fc111da83548611481c008fab4f8a7d00a661
101649 F20110115_AADFTW bright_l_Page_090.jp2
f3f48e2709c4b9ae2dbb5b0f915448c7
98cb754e7ce31f535e73e731e613fe12faa5e304
2418 F20110115_AADGAF bright_l_Page_119.txt
913cb8f1534a684c321390c0ba95276b
41d871f705757707d4a2ee018d5f75ce78424669
132613 F20110115_AADFUL bright_l_Page_121.jp2
1f873d15edac2aa34b77f59163a9f6c5
858198bb8e5bd5549b17384be2b2aced42e49641
101131 F20110115_AADFTX bright_l_Page_091.jp2
a37218d240b711361e6ef28fa26f6e53
87ec1be6f9871361abb54a2a0d7c6ce544a91061
2441 F20110115_AADGAG bright_l_Page_120.txt
ce042ac6240d7ef341725d793cc7b95a
228a0ba0749a7af1d6d74b017c7972d7ef61eba9
F20110115_AADFVA bright_l_Page_021.tif
35ddb5a689cc89b2a8d2a3575c1b83f8
396f073a4b8d77949318f722febc81f4d7d9545e
74432 F20110115_AADFUM bright_l_Page_122.jp2
e07d56cbf4202ef91e070b763aa895c3
5a09c98623cea4ea1c188ec555388800cd1f2a11
98970 F20110115_AADFTY bright_l_Page_093.jp2
3bfc06777b5bf07d382cc36130379d8e
46e698eb68abcc7a913ef797215b1a11ba86cd19
F20110115_AADFVB bright_l_Page_022.tif
10158c4efb9a6e110ecffe729c5c00de
d284be61fbf71fe53932aa51bff3ed220eb791d3
F20110115_AADFUN bright_l_Page_001.tif
00fc09968c6288535f9d1c91b16b516e
08408bf310da4d8bef2dd3923f0a75b992a1458e
101287 F20110115_AADFTZ bright_l_Page_094.jp2
6abab26528a4c15df370a87be4e431d0
ccfcded1bd2900e3adc66a866bf127e247109c4b
2526 F20110115_AADGAH bright_l_Page_121.txt
d1b1c51a7097e75e6955de8271518fc0
564b07b1fb77b4a0e2ccfdec0079097c20e5a74a
F20110115_AADFVC bright_l_Page_023.tif
c78dd561ace5f955e6b2a0adc6a64e50
9738509d4ce6e2276795b6d314d8befd7754545b
F20110115_AADFUO bright_l_Page_002.tif
f25feb2f4457d7cacdebff398a7cf8da
c6696feef0a902beea1d9a883b37ff5e8a430992
7439 F20110115_AADGAI bright_l_Page_001.QC.jpg
f6900483b5c8214e1b4242d39e823845
cb456b8bf45f0b22fdfd064b1840284a2caba4d8
F20110115_AADFVD bright_l_Page_026.tif
239cd9fea21195c86795e201d1c01d8b
821e7e253dc7d8b427ef1eb8d257e5b0f6b29acd
F20110115_AADFUP bright_l_Page_003.tif
11b13af9e982db0a9c6db5cf77b11c95
19d521cc2953a1e3d243d6672167a0dc844e5624
13771 F20110115_AADGAJ bright_l_Page_003.QC.jpg
dff9ddedfd8f3fbceb4565a196d5a62c
c20816d7153e0c8b3f5dd396a2ff2cc59e3694ac
F20110115_AADFVE bright_l_Page_027.tif
65db4ceb6927e5e376e6e670f8cc4f3f
16fbbf4f51804d36f0cf5a74011f6d04764e7f91
25271604 F20110115_AADFUQ bright_l_Page_005.tif
1a9c87e3cc4693fde39f245ab02dc809
ee68a18a8b92dc9f1a1800ec0c111ecd44d319e1
4049 F20110115_AADGAK bright_l_Page_003thm.jpg
f44a1f27316e23363c4a83b4e5f1f2fd
70c90aef63e59b1d46d9015444607a10bdbc59be
F20110115_AADFVF bright_l_Page_031.tif
3544e87bf8f314468dc6817ad5a9843e
91825cfd4e8ca9e4314ae20ea73764a76d74b053
F20110115_AADFUR bright_l_Page_008.tif
a7830c8d4daa63d938c6eace2204c9b9
46f2e619023e5a087271f4d4e08e19bf99e7f21c
6540 F20110115_AADGBA bright_l_Page_027thm.jpg
7acbf6e8a8ed6a15fd7c59d5f8bb2879
bd072ab78ad199d1604f69362a66d72ca9e2759d
18078 F20110115_AADGAL bright_l_Page_004.QC.jpg
2a6869ac586640c78051d6953849b091
1fecedae095b0f4b97d6c3556b3502374268a6bf
F20110115_AADFVG bright_l_Page_032.tif
f40c5ffb3c4ae7e62df68823861c02ef
9e751999ef380309f84ac9f976d77c5c3b92b285
F20110115_AADFUS bright_l_Page_009.tif
a1c5f14c5fcf77b1f629148b1ea2fb53
285fff731d87aa89ef26777c0ea3bbe56c78c370
22600 F20110115_AADGBB bright_l_Page_028.QC.jpg
f923b6c853f16321217b9f5f0c275d6d
0557fbc8469ffb46c4198f38085096dfb7551c43
4608 F20110115_AADGAM bright_l_Page_004thm.jpg
0ee4482cebf6301a43fe14c8a84e6fde
4684f18389c6d6427371d645b089d995bd6fed48
6474 F20110115_AADGBC bright_l_Page_028thm.jpg
b68e74a1c0f18949ada5694c164b7c10
9236e63aef2941c1c06d985172e6aba83e822ea0
F20110115_AADFVH bright_l_Page_033.tif
a1747f04e8f3527c37493f039fc5e241
a6b7c7ef1aece2589f67f1841425997f03f462de
F20110115_AADFUT bright_l_Page_010.tif
518b182becc1a9b887ad4a81da332b04
04446926b2b23a53a9a3bfaab9cb3e9743845012
21849 F20110115_AADGAN bright_l_Page_006.QC.jpg
ad0bce0b491e86043299e2c391fc8215
716e18ce0182bfe476cc85fd75cd4b7a5499c9b3
4641 F20110115_AADGBD bright_l_Page_029thm.jpg
07d0414a40acc9b692f5e02352b47b37
ac7986ea5487d4dfa1f1eb6f0540b5266e811e80
F20110115_AADFVI bright_l_Page_034.tif
5e330fcff94942d692526957044060db
4ce34f28c763cfe0d81f5eba2e1dd185b5e992c8
F20110115_AADFUU bright_l_Page_011.tif
561e0457e4c3e88c0ed515ee4eccb38e
1281efc99fe5abc18783aa409d49945ea93148ca
5891 F20110115_AADGAO bright_l_Page_010thm.jpg
1f5501efd09f67d6a82d34ad42d38e8a
96be927a315a4feaadc2d416a199bf1e8246be30
23745 F20110115_AADGBE bright_l_Page_030.QC.jpg
b6b56fc1a0fc06fbe691248e4561fbe6
55b65d53997c8abbb103348380d0523b8dd52628
F20110115_AADFVJ bright_l_Page_038.tif
2c221a4da148042f9de6401bbc48e20b
ae211b956b5e196fde13a75e1a8644f3e21b7215
F20110115_AADFUV bright_l_Page_012.tif
3e90b2eb806ed2f888ff7db2b8385662
1b580eb7929bdfa4c03c3a59ddae57d3f77677ac
22164 F20110115_AADGAP bright_l_Page_012.QC.jpg
49f6670ebf61ac8fcfb6a2d61899fd4f
a421c099c8d48e7e7f62983b018b90c196f7a9bc
23384 F20110115_AADGBF bright_l_Page_031.QC.jpg
46e5290977b5cc52eed387e12dc6cdd8
e2b5cd901adac215615d54ef498a781e75cff935
F20110115_AADFUW bright_l_Page_013.tif
c84fb5ae37142ec21e9c413d4e0e24ea
9c7c799d9b60c2c1444383c3b71a428a33c3c59b
6624 F20110115_AADGAQ bright_l_Page_013thm.jpg
64ae5d502e58e0188b47678d2836ce5f
41be8305ecf33d45b960b805748b6e461df380dd
F20110115_AADFVK bright_l_Page_039.tif
a3ce061bd289e86660f725d8b94016d8
1e6942a78f51f40e4c6d6d87a1f276b5374731f1
21726 F20110115_AADGBG bright_l_Page_033.QC.jpg
27336d0d4e5e96bd614886618e956380
7672e719769c32be31687d5f0055dc9c0197eddc
F20110115_AADFUX bright_l_Page_014.tif
2205d1e7a2d7f667183feaa6e21db0dc
fa5a6fa202bba8af7f51632019211555f1d4aef1
22342 F20110115_AADGAR bright_l_Page_014.QC.jpg
2e6a8db9207bfcfaf6fb83f2cc74fb58
7c10f5aac62110920337ad46c0629508008e1a98
F20110115_AADFVL bright_l_Page_042.tif
458ebfce2ef676b2847f74baf9a3986f
9c4f8f560a94e3d058037b2c2976cf7c7d369798
6318 F20110115_AADGBH bright_l_Page_033thm.jpg
5b99434ab0cd8d2fb773eecef41a1474
185d49fe5dc1bf9df80ee42db2aa2ad62878d564
F20110115_AADFUY bright_l_Page_015.tif
65bf6f8a4b3dd7d00f2ae4577f053949
6f028b2c432e01296c902208b4178c532077afb3
F20110115_AADFWA bright_l_Page_080.tif
82f1b95b05afe3ca42e24d48dea2bab3
e6905f6bef10a1efdbeedb3f88c4e186cf803866
22596 F20110115_AADGAS bright_l_Page_015.QC.jpg
5f5dc8cb235200b29f332e9a757a06c7
a4d89f14abe8e9d5a97a254dce0319e4e48a495d
F20110115_AADFVM bright_l_Page_044.tif
3850623e3d6a4c820d1e4d8c152216a1
55ce8b23ffeff955d563464d6fcb9094e37df2c0
F20110115_AADFUZ bright_l_Page_019.tif
2cc37ec02b9ab3d5fc67dcae2b54ebac
3c58addd99b3785e0fbc975940263debbabdd662
F20110115_AADFWB bright_l_Page_082.tif
aba208ab14766ec03eebc8dc2b5ae2bf
4637523c732d83f5bff498a515a0d52ed43167c5
6179 F20110115_AADGAT bright_l_Page_015thm.jpg
ce3ade1f6818b5ccb92e945d5f340df5
021c75bf5340c9b2667934f65893c6cb18584bab
F20110115_AADFVN bright_l_Page_048.tif
ce2e3f19cd4be0223957a923455c0b6f
ce47c7324b4eb99665a911f0d9448eb8268a707d
22757 F20110115_AADGBI bright_l_Page_035.QC.jpg
1aac6fbcdd1ab779ecad80ab423b3435
b16d0a4c74921b7cc2960b2250eb2d6f9c2cff6e
F20110115_AADFWC bright_l_Page_088.tif
c930c90a1123360807ed52c3670643aa
ca310ecad2aa0f5749c56bfe3028676eaf6df13e
19963 F20110115_AADGAU bright_l_Page_018.QC.jpg
92902a005efa28aeac157f6ad140d9cf
b72ff607b87a2a596e79acd6e5d0cf5ac70e6be8
F20110115_AADFVO bright_l_Page_049.tif
2fc1c87c18a2bac15cdd25adf703ea53
27202e2634dae959d039e6a470aaa2be11103de5
6248 F20110115_AADGBJ bright_l_Page_035thm.jpg
05385a6b0b17c03f33ef70f1f2548136
37144c8663aed76bc364e648ecf273ef58e647aa
F20110115_AADFWD bright_l_Page_090.tif
8fb2c71798e129acf6f470cd2a4e7ff0
dd2e4eb25b2cced12e123e9b265a3a300705f0f3
23034 F20110115_AADGAV bright_l_Page_020.QC.jpg
283c6e980ac9919a71f3823a8f53628c
de01262fac11b685848e6b7c4cb0ca0767d020ce
F20110115_AADFVP bright_l_Page_053.tif
b4676c522ab9112d7d7a32ddab70a62c
07ed5ea7c88b79422667a44155049475f8e40793
22109 F20110115_AADGBK bright_l_Page_036.QC.jpg
a85e97c5095873dc026218c8d601cf3c
84a16e7acbc8644ebdd6578450d6b00b480b6428
F20110115_AADFWE bright_l_Page_091.tif
ce645bd24580b057c834aade08b5b16f
dbf6114631eb634a2ac72d3b8d7d157c1aa52c21
5997 F20110115_AADGAW bright_l_Page_022thm.jpg
331f8472212e1bde8113590cb2b205f9
e8c62ccc9d17f0c92c6e54d10d82a4c95f322268
F20110115_AADFVQ bright_l_Page_058.tif
dd3d154d0e3e03b69d423f428f202d80
d233584f8068ef610fdd3ca0b5a04611e1bc3603
20653 F20110115_AADGCA bright_l_Page_055.QC.jpg
3ff7d16901e21e696dba73164c07cd33
e37e4a4571d67d82bcb07a93a6268748d98ae76c
15475 F20110115_AADGBL bright_l_Page_042.QC.jpg
00a270d9091c9b687def9d5c760197db
89519b83a1189bf54cb299ae270e0e080feb2fd7
F20110115_AADFWF bright_l_Page_100.tif
99ee048d00d89e52e7fcd63163628e74
87c65c296ebe4dce7463f356c4f06a0c603dab01
6733 F20110115_AADGAX bright_l_Page_023thm.jpg
a3b96c8afc0b93967b9fc077525ca670
a2ba408247952c7bdbdb8b6b3c7438af4391840e
F20110115_AADFVR bright_l_Page_059.tif
c5df8024ed4d364fe15a2fa4655380c3
645059d6c04618769f548bbd3fe3d167861b0e20
5936 F20110115_AADGCB bright_l_Page_056thm.jpg
ca8de1e1073d542186640c93de5ea804
1f2c40a68163a5f3a4670210a5d4ca234327429e
4574 F20110115_AADGBM bright_l_Page_042thm.jpg
8f9e1ab07179237a6d22120451d803cc
8b74ece6ba94457f402f8baa2123f84bf42b88ba
F20110115_AADFWG bright_l_Page_102.tif
2ef54b394aa5e8738ae14053fdb6b28c
69f6e6264eba8c75aa29a7cf3d7f920a753e69d0
6509 F20110115_AADGAY bright_l_Page_025thm.jpg
639d7be2bb171d61281bd27e4f361f3c
209971c311d96208f1572330b057473fb5b25d44
F20110115_AADFVS bright_l_Page_061.tif
d5ce9362b403a96a0c4000e2db77ca71
dba34108c400462b33ee9fc32c5e6a6afd47f16d
6638 F20110115_AADGCC bright_l_Page_058thm.jpg
962922467a045b7c354e0122426f421b
5593d8a8b72f80a6020f740825c2ca0855766e5f
5991 F20110115_AADGBN bright_l_Page_043thm.jpg
c8e5a4997a4b4abee67ee2f43d0256cd
3f72f7b0abf43cd5545bc9ee5c59a63e7fa0c377
F20110115_AADFWH bright_l_Page_103.tif
f0b3315f7dd484c47151e177e03cc475
b913dcaae8f269acb2102448600c4778c9a5f600
6444 F20110115_AADGAZ bright_l_Page_026thm.jpg
b19a3b2fb99b618d35466002b47d22f6
08d35d639205823962e1b6e1e144f13c5aea3be6
F20110115_AADFVT bright_l_Page_064.tif
08dbb6f69162cc21f39b1a14bf718fad
7509b5472c6f0f4e6c846cbea178e1ba0db0910b
21317 F20110115_AADGCD bright_l_Page_059.QC.jpg
2c26ce072ed4bbc569cce72ed08a1208
b866965476c4576cc78d1b7e63433b72ae271c49
21882 F20110115_AADGBO bright_l_Page_044.QC.jpg
84bcb77658ae335e8fbfb1b198881b34
ef2fbdbb57f02f56a45d01c8de1611c985fd46b0
F20110115_AADFWI bright_l_Page_105.tif
f318105b41175b6da064b4f0f5839f83
e0bf380d85f8e97084aa1e2117326099dfe6f001
F20110115_AADFVU bright_l_Page_065.tif
03e094d3571e3183894376ceb9842be7
499fb12a9f6c069e866e8bf95b339219df8367b4
6172 F20110115_AADGCE bright_l_Page_059thm.jpg
c253564e45974a534e6e4bc00ad06b2b
416eeea944783acb613b1b6e90645f7c885872c8
22538 F20110115_AADGBP bright_l_Page_046.QC.jpg
4299bd4c5e5698b7d13d5b8d87dbb70d
649f4c34aecd0570c4fd18110cb6a8920773414e
F20110115_AADFWJ bright_l_Page_106.tif
cecdada87782fc19e42a7d53e1bd42e9
4887a2adde12d65d765f77586ff69acd5eafdb4b
F20110115_AADFVV bright_l_Page_066.tif
003ab54e78c367dbafad1428bf5e312c
c40560c084eeed41d1bd50778918765757cd0506
28153 F20110115_AADGCF bright_l_Page_060.QC.jpg
c3efa0abc91cc9b931d18a11d600734c
2a4753627a5171945bd0105421d92b1ba0de79c8
6204 F20110115_AADGBQ bright_l_Page_046thm.jpg
950ca800e353a883bb2f99e36d90f838
73ee8cf2c4c62d5171a6723f490e51e46ec662f0
F20110115_AADFWK bright_l_Page_107.tif
e15790e818bf30f6bdadbf935be9523c
966f5ac201bc390f7957ef94d8b23212b243a1c7
F20110115_AADFVW bright_l_Page_067.tif
2c7a71a6437d766ff62f5d87ba1b0d87
d8c05d23ee0b777f33ebf8a3784c4f187bdbebc7
22453 F20110115_AADGCG bright_l_Page_061.QC.jpg
cf0b9b0642ebdd8e148974d1994e507b
7eaf19dba04433ecdbc4e811753c726ebd56eb49
6289 F20110115_AADGBR bright_l_Page_047thm.jpg
1f2f6f0571a4a86c74079cbf661911b0
34ece3685fd2e1eb6f6c01c3b2a3373e8a18c063
F20110115_AADFWL bright_l_Page_109.tif
f2cf225f8a0bd25795c1d3daaacb8eed
b4dfdc668f9f0bd8046b53844841b19ba57b0823
F20110115_AADFVX bright_l_Page_069.tif
7155f2445f329c6dc7acfd5e15deeea5
d7cc7524c4931b28bc0df8553da79a5377c6c00f
6143 F20110115_AADGCH bright_l_Page_061thm.jpg
678915772364ce3847c2c73d3b9e13a2
bb653e06301c31dee9af0571e3a53980689b6352
4783 F20110115_AADGBS bright_l_Page_048thm.jpg
6d630706e451a24fc67388117b90af3b
697eb1fa4e35190085664d393928354f569fb673
47738 F20110115_AADFXA bright_l_Page_012.pro
5b203e15d52ce82d7d0ffc678f649338
040f2cdbcc41f15f97d7794ffe878ef160d9214f
F20110115_AADFWM bright_l_Page_110.tif
fa8fae9bfbbe79aaea9217bd37308eea
51cefcd298f0ecf999cd58281c2dae6e10eb32d4
F20110115_AADFVY bright_l_Page_075.tif
a9565d3bf8ad29eae7ff07c66a5b7d0b
68984d9721b037a6604b732fbba99c64f88fff0e
29528 F20110115_AADGCI bright_l_Page_062.QC.jpg
a5cb2246966edbb6089e97f1b5693f10
7154f2bf98e0087afb74a71ed3ec341854f33f88
20474 F20110115_AADGBT bright_l_Page_049.QC.jpg
a419d53de9dbd923609b713860690c3e
61a8bfe050033003569a48c60635abf1ad3e6c8b
46089 F20110115_AADFXB bright_l_Page_014.pro
373cb89a863c75404ef090699d962140
fd5c41fb121f5489fdd16c4eb6ef39e3b8cb7171
F20110115_AADFWN bright_l_Page_111.tif
473037155d402846ca9e676a93bfc64d
2377d00af98ab387f47f2bd21e3f3e34be5a7ffb
F20110115_AADFVZ bright_l_Page_078.tif
1ca18f85c313015dbc17e992c1b835b5
b79c14ef403cbbfce245ea11b4418b4b597c910c
5671 F20110115_AADGBU bright_l_Page_049thm.jpg
e8e9d9d06f8014cb51ef90b38fb842c4
5e42054f5885db708971feb93505633d55e0414f
47755 F20110115_AADFXC bright_l_Page_015.pro
a93fefc41761a7851bbd6aed1f2bb879
67b5332419ebfd60134366d72b65c8ffcb4a1b69
F20110115_AADFWO bright_l_Page_112.tif
06af9e310563a43da5d6a310db5bdcef
eaef41a987d877cf756722689c0628963f24dc57
6947 F20110115_AADGCJ bright_l_Page_062thm.jpg
ad82eb3ccfdaca3eda8534d506f81885
485dd6a39b9c2532cc3ed51f57c1b71d0ef9ae8f
5240 F20110115_AADGBV bright_l_Page_050thm.jpg
e15769bbb9b0269d3b6db11a837cab3a
228868b799fc026d641fb20a78bf4d2c10df6171
46777 F20110115_AADFXD bright_l_Page_017.pro
0c4e7b04817497b76567f302c6777352
1a05f9d0124140fdb7159a67ae7d239380d07ada
F20110115_AADFWP bright_l_Page_115.tif
79d9a09d073b25ef7fc3e8f4ab3f0f24
a0dd9415495954a2ce36712e4402e46cf21a02e1
6192 F20110115_AADGCK bright_l_Page_064thm.jpg
a232ed035676460c2878bbd6dfa88ae6
8b59f00e0767b20503ff17cdd45db3df3f436e51
5513 F20110115_AADGBW bright_l_Page_051thm.jpg
37a5dbd2976e27d791885f31ce3f4168
748479f982425bfd1d5797b1cb608a610e939cea
40400 F20110115_AADFXE bright_l_Page_018.pro
6760f701910a3a465f210c3faf4b6bb3
c0e56309afce2c66ae732ba792ec9c193ed19a5d
F20110115_AADFWQ bright_l_Page_117.tif
4b6e7082bc31f58db3df20cf573c51e9
23f01779eea825015516bec046714e517ffb4611
F20110115_AADGDA bright_l_Page_086.QC.jpg
8a28911751fe280457a99b61d38083b0
8fdc04c24384a195e3d5138b09459c374fc4ee7e
6325 F20110115_AADGCL bright_l_Page_065thm.jpg
8cfde0221103bb38a69768a5967502ec
94f2875a1fca2526d52c79a07cee61723daf3ec3
20986 F20110115_AADGBX bright_l_Page_052.QC.jpg
998c6f31593f60ee1180371d6034828b
0d81f0b991e08fa39b864d74fc0618cae4196ace
38753 F20110115_AADFXF bright_l_Page_019.pro
b03406a90b52d1970bb820a61f04d10c
8d5198dd7c76c966b8096e3eda0ee976e775e15c
F20110115_AADFWR bright_l_Page_119.tif
1e4577cf4415ee9ed559c0f8d5e2ea84
e83e01e2631acc297f63e92ef8536a92cd656110
6295 F20110115_AADGDB bright_l_Page_086thm.jpg
a5da2dc40259dc812759bf349ef7def9
2e4411bcd008e4bda9a99b0232696425f5a51bd8
6423 F20110115_AADGCM bright_l_Page_066thm.jpg
1e23f2a1d78f34cda1cf9ccebb0554e0
105958db7ca2184addecdecf06cc095e731f96bd
27189 F20110115_AADGBY bright_l_Page_053.QC.jpg
eafdd9d7d5bd0a113b900e99b0f5cdd2
b8d30f7748739a921f9e7dfd759246124cfd54fc
25520 F20110115_AADFXG bright_l_Page_021.pro
af3e8cb60b6786aa0d3fbe3d8435d8cd
de48c2f1edb54b7973338dacd6e6cbc89b70c648
F20110115_AADFWS bright_l_Page_120.tif
c66f448acec0335700d96c4ce278b58c
b6ebd47a5d900ab31ff6a0f829353be58344a4ce
6090 F20110115_AADGDC bright_l_Page_087thm.jpg
7eff27ff632182b00639fc0ef972ac49
e973957be1dc28301772c8c643ad72e4b740fe25
6044 F20110115_AADGCN bright_l_Page_068thm.jpg
af4b7d9fda445d039a9aeafc44010905
22da1f9c89f6eb58cbbfd43864ea75aa1d9f875e
6514 F20110115_AADGBZ bright_l_Page_053thm.jpg
dc3f981ecb15a8491d066dff7e12095c
387e56e33768cd86e6ebd8cc0e4dfe4849a78175
55150 F20110115_AADFXH bright_l_Page_023.pro
9f2a530abca8c17ea40917ef1d304dd7
0d9fe422332bbf8a77cf1dcfb0aaa5175ccb2e66
F20110115_AADFWT bright_l_Page_121.tif
727f8d784d650a7f6069abb63028c4e2
cae33f2b96d966c6bdf7f2ee84697dc6a4c9bf74
68731 F20110115_AADFAA bright_l_Page_033.jpg
56ea219605d2bb473c41336435b7bff9
e7ff9458517c80035e4f126b3baf6217758a61f2
23284 F20110115_AADGDD bright_l_Page_088.QC.jpg
d0b2201211f9589c99c95c5347e5ae02
280add4063c8d0dd333069225f9bc8f784becc45
6462 F20110115_AADGCO bright_l_Page_070thm.jpg
1e0d199c2bbec1f35017ae780a13d530
4de7f2288b130d923ebf5d2a0bcac604d45d335b
52952 F20110115_AADFXI bright_l_Page_024.pro
821e947b9602ce440558ad241d4cea22
b8222805341a6efa7eca683030a9a4223c459369
F20110115_AADFWU bright_l_Page_123.tif
7f3345bedcb840d38ee187a37c68c7a5
dc52b3f0b0801873478e85e45335911f44c3c88f
1929 F20110115_AADFAB bright_l_Page_107.txt
ce1b281f881c2a35bfa39a2cc90cb077
f299ace34b683dd20d4a4fce6757b93cfd0c41df
22144 F20110115_AADGDE bright_l_Page_089.QC.jpg
11a19d8c2cf686e1c7ef76e54f3a2552
c2f717c073103d05109dde30822b8cef6f6dc461
6705 F20110115_AADGCP bright_l_Page_071thm.jpg
ad23381bc4b50903b6d194760e69256e
854d43c2aed0228c0a6f4aef902f75b48276f77d
49064 F20110115_AADFXJ bright_l_Page_026.pro
d74078bd9fb344edabd15a187effb24d
6530c0d4bbaea765decb63e1a62f7d4cb786bde6
9261 F20110115_AADFWV bright_l_Page_001.pro
b8a8704c2fee03caa15c46624b0301dd
c80a6241d97a410146cae4968ddfcc9b67514035
F20110115_AADFAC bright_l_Page_024.tif
d811cfd6a7a7e69175d6ab8ea4057f4b
acfe880a85f4101cb43e4df56e7ddbbf3064c38e
6132 F20110115_AADGDF bright_l_Page_089thm.jpg
9419b3e32feef019fec4dd520984eef9
6e35df2ab90e72642b59aa8175147d172dee3aae
6173 F20110115_AADGCQ bright_l_Page_073thm.jpg
3d8b71bec0b125682bc9ee98cf6b5dc1
b41b6ed93f3c83b61d36f3e1cc2c064dddb87f19
49504 F20110115_AADFXK bright_l_Page_032.pro
caf20192f24741f01e6a6de7ed694991
e08dac92bf86dcf4cce8d48872ae7e27a8b867b5
26196 F20110115_AADFWW bright_l_Page_003.pro
4b1084533f9d0eb8ce011cd091d5f112
57b23f75e3566e6d2395080acf46dae7fdddc72b
1981 F20110115_AADFAD bright_l_Page_085.txt
b7008c22b8c79e442e88c9b8021fdaac
9656cd4612e05d8d922c72cdb4f1161070663c8c
21743 F20110115_AADGDG bright_l_Page_090.QC.jpg
c8f59ac135f716f76c55572e7e819b61
2825148703d5c624e35c0db401bec74caf2d9e9f
25126 F20110115_AADGCR bright_l_Page_074.QC.jpg
99efccf8c096ef14e3d509d1d958c79a
b4ccf9a2d0f18bf7fa4010c57ed82ff3a84eced1
47805 F20110115_AADFXL bright_l_Page_036.pro
edd607988ae4b6a581c82645f26e5e8c
0919df5f751b947682e36280354d1cb75f364d6b
58832 F20110115_AADFWX bright_l_Page_006.pro
6bb7d729feed2c670708ce79223f7bdb
a96eb8dd50355b2766a57a6518a8f4163270dd65
1673 F20110115_AADFAE bright_l_Page_078.txt
05d76934181726291a6dd56ed89ff1c0
b56eb8f494362cf4b86615cc04c21324eec7a8da
20962 F20110115_AADGDH bright_l_Page_093.QC.jpg
c2f64d1394fa2128c4b867c973b31557
8710628197eaf3488c5d98bd3f88976fd5fe4c37
6879 F20110115_AADGCS bright_l_Page_076thm.jpg
88b516deb47a947f9e6b1f1f842a20ba
ac19676081685e1d43c85577b5bd5b734e716035
45667 F20110115_AADFXM bright_l_Page_043.pro
38c87895905232e33a588564719a2b81
44da50de4da62b7cbf6cefc98f15a73f5a08c3a4
26906 F20110115_AADFWY bright_l_Page_007.pro
854b520123938b8a0361b6109e947dbb
da983070d45663f6ba80da306d664bd3c932e7b9
18883 F20110115_AADFAF bright_l_Page_048.QC.jpg
2417be01b4f7743213d83d3940d01af6
1e56e2d198dcd0b17ae374d63f32ef158c8710da
53078 F20110115_AADFYA bright_l_Page_072.pro
29c5d5fc40e85c934327eaaa10626216
dde660c547ab0553840abfc815a0c6ff66227732
21215 F20110115_AADGDI bright_l_Page_096.QC.jpg
68a7f302657fe1d1b1c17101f5639202
3a3fa51bd8c0060666ac97292d84c9ce81619369
6309 F20110115_AADGCT bright_l_Page_077thm.jpg
6d7578ac03c2d22f5aec9bdb93651b82
c5db6792f40c4d001258bd35131b3d516c09b5db
46176 F20110115_AADFXN bright_l_Page_044.pro
03a3030348eed50f5407e04318f1b4f2
87a14d1011dafab4e60b80219bff38ec93be0e75
42712 F20110115_AADFWZ bright_l_Page_010.pro
0f8b14e083727c2ffbeb7e1de878a554
8417aa218c5055fa1a7bdac92070ccacec872956
30631 F20110115_AADFAG bright_l_Page_042.pro
41c92fce5eef5ddc5b71592d46a789d3
dde26cda5bddf3ffbc75a29804b274fff2961ec2
50601 F20110115_AADFYB bright_l_Page_073.pro
7aad610e1bf8c6b390397ad8015089bb
552c45f24e017c07a19709ade32bbd1c5fd99f22
21798 F20110115_AADGDJ bright_l_Page_099.QC.jpg
aa09912361036e538e4b7d848cdf77b6
2155881a9327a96337f9e5b5728a596aa3263de9
18935 F20110115_AADGCU bright_l_Page_079.QC.jpg
4010a961a0435452224988c726f3c824
d09da2852da8a24a7ab3f127c48b6d59d6751fe5
33702 F20110115_AADFXO bright_l_Page_048.pro
6f88cd8d82935e38e6822c9d2e0d3177
62fe8951ef3dbf0d42c67113a53236f936acfea2
49851 F20110115_AADFAH bright_l_Page_103.pro
7df204f518a0e7142a4e309b89bcf5c4
214d338752da4f2a878a4826570c5c9f903cf11a
50101 F20110115_AADFYC bright_l_Page_074.pro
89c883579e9b6892f2bbd8c9aa6aa5db
7711e4544b10839cb5ce81f451b7a36b98511fb0
6554 F20110115_AADGCV bright_l_Page_080thm.jpg
2e4243ebcfcd52293617a99833976016
0fa3dd70693ff707b0dea2845acb61bf4e3bdb82
44167 F20110115_AADFXP bright_l_Page_052.pro
0c6fedd3d069d30b16b0b4ee3fb81425
871b8e231fe7988684065ad2d86b08af9a4a1018
56227 F20110115_AADFYD bright_l_Page_075.pro
84b43527c3218e60ade47cfd1fbd229d
9a1a7940208bb41c56fd4b0024cae532bb9c529a
6066 F20110115_AADGDK bright_l_Page_099thm.jpg
9b1dd336575f11fcfa46d3a23a4454f2
a6603c367b9c533286fd251ba6677743c9b28cf3
6416 F20110115_AADGCW bright_l_Page_081thm.jpg
00835f809980e94fdbe1af4de7c0455c
8e3b855799761ae25b4b6c7dc79d4e7c9308bbb0
52550 F20110115_AADFXQ bright_l_Page_053.pro
241fd58099a94de5be82c12981361ee8
2c87039be1d395f8b21673b59634249cbd29902b
F20110115_AADFAI bright_l_Page_040.tif
ad5b72ef39989b9b369cb5fe5055950d
424eb6bac3b315c9173a7d0a45ada47aac5213c1
56209 F20110115_AADFYE bright_l_Page_076.pro
45cacc24880ec5e238672368258db3cc
7e212ca22e8c6c60e60814013502ed9d8f728236
6905 F20110115_AADGEA bright_l_Page_120thm.jpg
d20f17583c307d2b4404514afab83dc4
293138582932fd939095ccf73ebb8bb831aed575
6187 F20110115_AADGDL bright_l_Page_100thm.jpg
87779629daade27458cf152528961b0a
c8e626955bc77252e414c1108193da8bcba364cc
6100 F20110115_AADGCX bright_l_Page_083thm.jpg
0e035c3437975db6cfe93c1587a67a1a
5f5a24d00c433f968dcc5ae9cf5de8c87bf1b5c1
44463 F20110115_AADFXR bright_l_Page_057.pro
b5268f170e3fd6cdb54426d451a7e461
9108b2e5bb84684a6ba3da4be13a1f3810e8358d
71507 F20110115_AADFAJ bright_l_Page_088.jpg
f202fa31ac76e9957d917c415686f333
77bd3389e6775936a86acd4e0a52b319f12b9d0e
52850 F20110115_AADFYF bright_l_Page_077.pro
8863d9f721276f1cbad1b6d548e9d8d0
9f5a2b0da8193f425cef9e49405fa0dc0401da98
25732 F20110115_AADGEB bright_l_Page_121.QC.jpg
ec93696dd9f0f470584aa2e368d9d064
c5a197ba6ac6a44741549de87a7988714248610b
23692 F20110115_AADGDM bright_l_Page_101.QC.jpg
3136cc7d232c0dbaf125b38da64ffccb
d0e2d0a47bf07f2d885c896d9d48f12338422f12
19267 F20110115_AADGCY bright_l_Page_084.QC.jpg
6a532ea3dd0132426ef5e3960adef289
a26179dabf98698f10c3f3e1f91e599ebc436b4b
49191 F20110115_AADFXS bright_l_Page_058.pro
25d56c4cf5df73bf0b1e2e0af99c3479
14fb483afae7fa9e67759481b61001e6193477ce
2927 F20110115_AADFAK bright_l_Page_115thm.jpg
57ac166f520e00644b7c889f30ffcdaf
cdeb4487f398208455d6beb7c9664e22c3c40bf3
37108 F20110115_AADFYG bright_l_Page_078.pro
3a08631877053402abbf40e0322dcfc4
5b0cd19d310609484e0733975b490bd56565c1a7
6664 F20110115_AADGEC bright_l_Page_121thm.jpg
efeadfa54e68bd6c5b2879c2c5218b6a
444e3b9cb8000f6a9ed35ff5d48e9dc2b1553509
F20110115_AADGDN bright_l_Page_101thm.jpg
51cf92d706fc450832438713dc893a42
0072afd6c469b4e5886a905c167451e604d03be5
5742 F20110115_AADGCZ bright_l_Page_084thm.jpg
889cb6e0107d45869517dc8d46f94fd0
7487f1dad48a218608c7cf2e73a3c44e23cd2a8c
61479 F20110115_AADFXT bright_l_Page_060.pro
aa43208440bb8d8f27f4c52e91692790
74546eebf28834bd3597aa430a34d1df0e0c5b51
106499 F20110115_AADFBA bright_l_Page_089.jp2
c05b802fd376a4d0f797653860890546
7774442ac958edb21439cb73a250aa771876b0f6
21046 F20110115_AADFAL bright_l_Page_043.QC.jpg
a16e235d6a85390cddb5f79b4f996d5b
03d06bfdd60e99a4c75fba98b390b350341374e6
49130 F20110115_AADFYH bright_l_Page_080.pro
575fdb1d7247042193385c4717c2d8e1
1dc15868463ea4ade96bedf8b0cc107af9d88114
142422 F20110115_AADGED UFE0008968_00001.mets
27c10f32a270c703ba3b7f50ea9521a0
c196eace21a2edd5e80c4f4ad25379adec8ebd02
23430 F20110115_AADGDO bright_l_Page_102.QC.jpg
a7f810444f251c8d8b152ccbc018566d
c1c9cb56e08599a1c93436ef493db5a3dc2dbe5b
48936 F20110115_AADFXU bright_l_Page_061.pro
fb39f4f8b91f49f8e1aea600d7d47c19
6fd77fe1efffc71a8b7a6e1d6a4f1a5ab5056403
6320 F20110115_AADFBB bright_l_Page_032thm.jpg
544ded1438cab155a51ec399fe9f6ae2
daedf9652f3dffc4ea713b7f3992b2a2e6b2456d
6098 F20110115_AADFAM bright_l_Page_055thm.jpg
ec1938ffdee76c15dfa98d3b5f3d1893
1ebbf10fe4c08e78b118a101403e006f28723475
46989 F20110115_AADFYI bright_l_Page_087.pro
afa2fe2dc10315505bb179b9c7d59bc8
de9eb974d936b3d908fb4a7af911b8e67c8a697e
6475 F20110115_AADGDP bright_l_Page_102thm.jpg
21400c3880749f0aa821c74f15b74f29
ab68fc0428de181a0f589865aa570f3777b5c168
49420 F20110115_AADFXV bright_l_Page_063.pro
42c55494ae81de2ed7ac52b03ce4aff3
8b0ccfda57c5c167ccfcd818f6b9b610e6692a7c
66779 F20110115_AADFBC bright_l_Page_022.jpg
9a9d6ba77108379d82d6d4c50e078e2b
3dd467c53bbef9ae6bb131f38582e30ae2ce7cd0
F20110115_AADFAN bright_l_Page_043.tif
85ceeb771a3e633bd68aaf13fb673c22
30b8d388aa3f153fbd5f4e6981a7ccb3d2a0c496
47091 F20110115_AADFYJ bright_l_Page_090.pro
af3084b593c0e7a5fc7acaba55370696
dc1db2d43a63a446a004dac00123c33a8f1487c7
22570 F20110115_AADGDQ bright_l_Page_103.QC.jpg
6a7ce2abfecc519e45309cd15473eca8
76cb96a543598ba94d865e29a232b958270a00a5
51081 F20110115_AADFXW bright_l_Page_064.pro
d61707065a6d976a83bb588e3d29a020
2476e1cd37841413445f72935055dedecb7b840c
F20110115_AADFBD bright_l_Page_072.tif
b43eda7baefd52af8d434d955d5372a0
1275e45bbc782c2c89f835446a7004b90177a4e9
1263 F20110115_AADFAO bright_l_Page_042.txt
1ab40fc92289abb80118fde3fe8f02bb
74156b8402f1edc3957c13cc12757df3e4f79cbd
46374 F20110115_AADFYK bright_l_Page_093.pro
5d9ff0f5767cacbefbcf751fd7e07478
c7d8d24b388eb0fb62d9e7ccb5992336d52ebaf1
7186 F20110115_AADGDR bright_l_Page_105.QC.jpg
d85b503c15287ef0afdadc4b8463e8da
6ab13033ea994fd982fd029cd591e2a67e4af5d8
61504 F20110115_AADFXX bright_l_Page_066.pro
0a3b4bf86b64b6bd844a36e44e592a16
bed1b948eea8336bc625d15d7a5f87387a504f04
101915 F20110115_AADFBE bright_l_Page_066.jpg
82b4c3e9359d7a2af9c0cb303cfc2611
98b56b5d4bea5b7178314156731e3dfbb6131acd
9459 F20110115_AADFAP bright_l_Page_038.jp2
c38bb70324392c2166f819d0d14bb7ec
7959f71f662b6d8bd129744eb8540a2614c2f8fc
1954 F20110115_AADFZA bright_l_Page_032.txt
fcb71054f1e87dc6c57014e0007a9a0f
34f44331ed5f954487f6846e7fbd2cc2b27f7141
45592 F20110115_AADFYL bright_l_Page_096.pro
03ad43444c36c5915d056e86f8e8eb38
d1ea189ded10b65aa630325c0c1971bfe89c13c4
3286 F20110115_AADGDS bright_l_Page_106thm.jpg
6c68bbcd6061c9618afd13476de076ab
344d59dcc7899b36f7db88d430f30df32be577d3
46408 F20110115_AADFXY bright_l_Page_067.pro
cd05fe18e2a8e8514f604fbf0654e2f1
2e6b7f6dc9cd52d2c63ba3c448a8fb3f7727d463
4110 F20110115_AADFBF bright_l_Page_021thm.jpg
468928b9f9a0a3b50f2743d095c725eb
b8f7be73672fca964785c0c576bfaa05badde281
3348 F20110115_AADFAQ bright_l_Page_005thm.jpg
d47ff0bc0612742428049e1dd4aa0eb0
56bb49a32bad84a3e2474b7bcec4754e57ccb429
49505 F20110115_AADFYM bright_l_Page_104.pro
80b50cb03ecb6dce0004d77bbed71b53
21fbc7a0b0ca8dd0516f0b31633531039f01135b
5831 F20110115_AADGDT bright_l_Page_108thm.jpg
8f50c46ced09e3e545e8496b852bdbd0
d26d5c9a7fc0698f8639125f2a7ed58b179c9fe9
47415 F20110115_AADFXZ bright_l_Page_068.pro
69892954a5ca93643ad0abb00948f6a9
e569d93706cf2565467a150829db1ca817489701
1586 F20110115_AADFBG bright_l_Page_038thm.jpg
e4ffe22af2f1b96909a614dc30db5c12
a1a0c4ce99000a5be5e66064da231ed2ba34a63b
F20110115_AADFAR bright_l_Page_045.tif
cf36c8e6ff9ab6189c18df3490fe2985
915f20a7545971d8dea82a377744ddc2204186ef
1958 F20110115_AADFZB bright_l_Page_035.txt
04ab123f29f8002b0ff5f9ef34898603
778ca99f2553a85a5723c5b3022160f0ed0c4842
11159 F20110115_AADFYN bright_l_Page_105.pro
64cfb9b6a561076af9b9c783f4cf4ac5
b447c8987dedbfe941f38b4900a7c7dc04719b43
6167 F20110115_AADGDU bright_l_Page_109thm.jpg
e761372ebe7c7208eacc18dcc54fdadf
6c503365a75b7dceabeeaa5a1bc7f6374d0f1906
1695 F20110115_AADFBH bright_l_Page_018.txt
12a2d87231f36e4c968de1c119c73d2c
1a3c3e7b73ba4bbdf23854c8ff1b307a30921ebc
6408 F20110115_AADFAS bright_l_Page_020thm.jpg
26d15a9301fb6349053cea5e28dae269
fa889042f7924a0a8bbc21c02a5096a67dc933cb
165 F20110115_AADFZC bright_l_Page_038.txt
bb989107cd286440fa537715381d4eac
05423f75d72b46131d3b937fa1ef0658df77c99a
15673 F20110115_AADFYO bright_l_Page_115.pro
1fd38594bb7f6168d8ff8ca697e8674d
aed9b3fe50fa1f9fa1eabce2d3896725a36f152c
2557 F20110115_AADGDV bright_l_Page_111thm.jpg
510a8de97d312e089dcdd63875d195dd
e9ff07a6efb4b011cafa6d3bde552aff51b3f952
F20110115_AADFBI bright_l_Page_007.tif
be280b64e72b9db22ec0bb0bd3db50d2
b3995cea29ea57f551421138180498df7fce8df8
1051972 F20110115_AADFAT bright_l_Page_054.jp2
337448c667886a73abf5c1cca6eeaa65
8323b8536b59973bd042c84ac19e6d4f294c2767
1842 F20110115_AADFZD bright_l_Page_040.txt
82174b6b947e0f8bcb6b1573f898c15c
7c186d26949fa50c02c45faaba481eb3610fb84c
52868 F20110115_AADFYP bright_l_Page_116.pro
ee7585948c47432ce71dca33b21a7451
5858e6f3a846600e83bd67c5fa91db74daa89a99
6116 F20110115_AADGDW bright_l_Page_116thm.jpg
53e17ce4e565f2299622616b7f8e5b87
f6098a230a8541c58ff61a7dc814c6cd639fbb11
1890 F20110115_AADFAU bright_l_Page_048.txt
99dbe9f16b35e37ffb5476cc0e1e00aa
f0b34b9eeec4dbcff140433b37c1ad9326df4768
2089 F20110115_AADFZE bright_l_Page_041.txt
fc767408f330488fe624b13fce284e6c
df9aea7db730d3a6b236bb01e5e0e0a0f838da7f
33302 F20110115_AADFYQ bright_l_Page_122.pro
91f6cee8f5cafb503ddb49d1dde6066f
c128fe7bba7380c76411a4c3275320c3b3b61cde
24654 F20110115_AADGDX bright_l_Page_118.QC.jpg
7b53993c5faaa4bac513b59fe27b7e0c
657ed470c97e8735c667f08490003d6983943287
6161 F20110115_AADFBJ bright_l_Page_092thm.jpg
e39234030247d4b88d273aa4e942fa97
830cd06493b3412eef3281f9c430584ab24fb339
23373 F20110115_AADFAV bright_l_Page_025.QC.jpg
3bfda8eea9ba7c3980ae5fa4fd29c1ce
f390ca2eda2d3f45fca391f44cd9a70a5c1bfae0
1907 F20110115_AADFZF bright_l_Page_046.txt
8ebf1c17b4f54422eeef3e61aaf38d9d
1754e73699960580d7ae5e310e6a7ad189ecda72
1095 F20110115_AADFYR bright_l_Page_003.txt
81cc3d514c44855e74fe47fb8494ff97
7ea36b2a0493d48c7053683cbd4693d7d4c3cadb
7190 F20110115_AADGDY bright_l_Page_119thm.jpg
a572eb05954ab00d32f8727c4aef6db5
d0d5555c5cfe7c6f5a68a2f0c3ed3bb6c4341e02
58409 F20110115_AADFBK bright_l_Page_079.jpg
eb091c166ad0f751b5df4117d25d36c4
00c0979f9e5ad32b3fe513b866f144d07c9a5bf3
2306 F20110115_AADFAW bright_l_Page_077.txt
b806bbb1af6d56a36494acc549b8e8e0
a6b5d52272fe39b8f0e0ef0fd0e903e4e1106034
1746 F20110115_AADFZG bright_l_Page_049.txt
88eccfd81164b33c475cbb7d9a79297c
2e5384bace0e1dcfba847e7bef2d9382fd92b841
1730 F20110115_AADFYS bright_l_Page_005.txt
d39b4ef3da43afd31f9a3262f28dd0bf
f8799b0df199dff6fe5f5f451b32d81f96d5dfe9
26587 F20110115_AADGDZ bright_l_Page_120.QC.jpg
b39a1da75115a379526037aab4b63869
e84b99386371e9232ff5228413a93c77f0badafb
59437 F20110115_AADFBL bright_l_Page_003.jp2
4f9fe3478e72c9df64d63beede92d9b7
48086834d05a0b05d6f2326768ad83cdc3abf51f
6458 F20110115_AADFAX bright_l_Page_103thm.jpg
114e197fd0d33448277fbf42fff9119c
58607ee0fe63177cb135050fda052627913d1e73
1537 F20110115_AADFZH bright_l_Page_050.txt
acb0798329f6586f3d94d832eaeb9a96
7b53a82cf659d2e366576fe8e71bac0f9225bcce
2407 F20110115_AADFYT bright_l_Page_006.txt
23c18e6152b4d8b52e8485ab098fdabf
a582ee6ced9031e02ea39a3795b09d2278818cce
2722 F20110115_AADFCA bright_l_Page_069.txt
269a98149c7d3ac6eb59eb48fdb29f1c
85536a82423f81670ae486a01c8ab1168445161d
2323 F20110115_AADFBM bright_l_Page_072.txt
5a86c0f0b86201a496f10e5a135d75e8
8df7e0755f14fc994afde02a2909974e7cbf3f81
6753 F20110115_AADFAY bright_l_Page_072thm.jpg
e77186c047945821876fe132a79d3cb7
38429c92512528cca93236fcce1e93498e4623d9
1783 F20110115_AADFZI bright_l_Page_052.txt
b5dbfd70273a554a0628d008c20e01a6
f99afb1b0c23401b6cffef2bb4be2dd835315e1e
1093 F20110115_AADFYU bright_l_Page_007.txt
5b5c8cb1c8a50e5a2a16f26853a40af9
d79a07a312a70ea9dca417321d9610abd731e561
490 F20110115_AADFCB bright_l_Page_001.txt
e093f013a2661c7a58971c11561d0be2
26af8789923f75bcf1e79cffbf0c4c82c3546bda
6199 F20110115_AADFBN bright_l_Page_082thm.jpg
aa223722dd21a2ad1b3da9228912738f
b8885cb8eae8f66d63043d9239678b59953cc7db
6370 F20110115_AADFAZ bright_l_Page_104thm.jpg
37854cb8861e22c34b5bbed2a900effc
45280573be4254712a52d86b60ac5b964ad15405
F20110115_AADFZJ bright_l_Page_056.txt
f6ce5d174b154a704c9cd7ae4915dc24
18da7fa6526c56527b2cda0b5e43b64ee7594b05
1664 F20110115_AADFYV bright_l_Page_008.txt
76ea64b6a9a78ab6809816cb4db758be
ec03f2834026d2e7bd3dbf9991f462fc9d83853e
F20110115_AADFCC bright_l_Page_116.tif
af2617f9318eadfa4d49f2b08d3009f1
25249f3f1137a149b6680c584d32ffa8069c3499
6107 F20110115_AADFBO bright_l_Page_057thm.jpg
886893cee7887b45978f0d14565589c0
79b9f8c180294f0b507691c3234ff1e627c916ae
2255 F20110115_AADFZK bright_l_Page_064.txt
c8d37a18add842dc2506758bad1ac7b9
1fa32f0a9af991d8f79ecfce40106f330d3be2a5
1899 F20110115_AADFYW bright_l_Page_011.txt
7d2b812d512a9daa944ee24e5099f771
bc7f7d54b33169a59bbd516e3667bfe789a2f3e3
21818 F20110115_AADFCD bright_l_Page_037.QC.jpg
ed61a184ff5f7869722d76c8431c1617
8ec86d85f2a134d3cb78ac912b466b5eb835f154
5102 F20110115_AADFBP bright_l_Page_008thm.jpg
747498a5cba95a23829836c72b32e089
0618816e20ffa81c704445ebf2312cdd752dec78
2415 F20110115_AADFZL bright_l_Page_070.txt
f208c194d3c1c41761b5be4aba082183
de0da2ad57814eed2e12dc7ac5121423d6ade516
1843 F20110115_AADFYX bright_l_Page_014.txt
c70d11213ea4d1adf93a9eaa04726c47
2baa14ae54832507ec3ead2dd77b9d2046403f4f
45150 F20110115_AADFCE bright_l_Page_059.pro
d008c6d88f4a54d7e02ca7ab79b21479
bc5ae3e7fbc410ca377b56de1ca1c1726272aab7
68865 F20110115_AADFBQ bright_l_Page_086.jpg
aa762b2ebfb117b5acd53d161e8ba58a
6f82a068e34f0a1572d427e5a79c4a072022dc6a
2157 F20110115_AADFZM bright_l_Page_073.txt
c6d79a2a9e08d780b35f7ca26621f236
2f8a33fc80e8a820741b94fe7ef5ad2193f9ae62
2212 F20110115_AADFYY bright_l_Page_023.txt
1683bb0011b5a80716f98a77f93e000e
e2a3c42a2c56825d6d40f98791b0654864f776fe
21613 F20110115_AADFCF bright_l_Page_094.QC.jpg
1b726054d447cfe47181430fe29d0416
eab37f0fed48482709c985b8837dbd5fe29feb86
20660 F20110115_AADFBR bright_l_Page_057.QC.jpg
d3e7333447b69446e0b215f014fbd52b
c772fdfa3e9842ffc14c9fa05d7fedf0f1a374bc
2470 F20110115_AADFZN bright_l_Page_076.txt
dc2c76cf1d80b2b35246fafbc0da5b4f
b7bfb40941e8971a20338095799f92fa1097a766
2117 F20110115_AADFYZ bright_l_Page_024.txt
72a20aa576e0d5abe70cb1b869aad920
a5702aae069774b0eebd0742c15d7a0cce8fe13f
49496 F20110115_AADFCG bright_l_Page_089.pro
ea4000c549dfb108b8a75ff0510151fe
00f40154001ddf9b8f5f71ac757d0d69ab5879bd
5973 F20110115_AADFBS bright_l_Page_040thm.jpg
e20511da89d0950ba890335fbc8c054f
cf3c585751445ca4604e8c92d96b116e0e6b6ff1
1932 F20110115_AADFZO bright_l_Page_081.txt
e74883f4b6664e299cdf8fb9e2265bfc
e806ac5f3f76523c1cac7146870a5f342c0a5008
14940 F20110115_AADFCH bright_l_Page_122.QC.jpg
182f2ba78c9e59c4f71a2c1092d404d2
72a448da0cf0f455b66003965831d31045f178eb
87656 F20110115_AADEXA bright_l_Page_070.jpg
401fa7b6753eb7737278b072f108bcb4
2b373383a42d10a74bfe52d86793bad3e562e1bb
2028 F20110115_AADFBT bright_l_Page_020.txt
b8fb9e000bdb63405c6ac33d8314144b
684b73e54d4b65ea742f3696c5e1605cb95349f7
1885 F20110115_AADFZP bright_l_Page_082.txt
adf56c4569181dbaf47d1fd6b7293235
cc5ae19bed4ea652b403b9b968831d4a3d02500d
47561 F20110115_AADFCI bright_l_Page_082.pro
45da3adbabb41e5699be9f000be0610f
396bfd7d10612208e9356c1d9e0deb0414123873
23876 F20110115_AADEXB bright_l_Page_041.QC.jpg
1dc534bb21b44126c1dc89c4f07f9821
c7092c95afd4bf63fe79a0b463bb8ae5507ad68e
51714 F20110115_AADFBU bright_l_Page_088.pro
21d8bd69da2c0a3a2cba44460f2e75d5
d3b109dbfdfbe7e896482fc268e1c7de531f208d
1896 F20110115_AADFZQ bright_l_Page_083.txt
3e87cfa5dfa2a1b5286ea75ae7e38137
36c1bcc71dc51df6c160e5b7ef121b8e05e2b1da
65348 F20110115_AADFCJ bright_l_Page_052.jpg
8d4314461d128247c26c7027f7c2dab4
0514dd3e853c2939e07d3f4db8b5109bb7b66edc
F20110115_AADEXC bright_l_Page_085.tif
0612de2c41e6c18499731f330db94f97
e2836824001e999030ea2cf944965e5c5cce0050
1613 F20110115_AADFZR bright_l_Page_084.txt
a9ff9d9d810bd1b1a49f626b28dc9f14
7323276171c0f20d39841112b7e98ab0cb7e7b04
F20110115_AADEXD bright_l_Page_060.tif
466eea2a10e76261b79691c6aca967e3
b6c7b191a72586c3d2b6506f35e6b60652450349
2014 F20110115_AADFBV bright_l_Page_071.txt
7ed78e81c49965c00df691d60b21f10f
b1fdef6147b59a6048d08d20a2a5c407dd30d4f7
1925 F20110115_AADFZS bright_l_Page_086.txt
a7f09a332cda96e39ea69841ba14eece
764eae44c8bd8b03351a86ee6ef5a05ddb10cfba
1848 F20110115_AADFCK bright_l_Page_093.txt
de16b862e641e1e5610da9d34a83dc17
5c442a264df64185aa8126b3519ba03ffd5d3ad8
2088 F20110115_AADEXE bright_l_Page_102.txt
5979dd76d8697a5fa46a26bc3357a42d
166ed1efa03d5569d89f57f63466ab55eb5da7b6
38690 F20110115_AADFBW bright_l_Page_051.pro
a749eb5ba4dd0c80be82d6b65e5f8e9d
f9958659092f3123259af2426d0fbb8b506d7a98
1851 F20110115_AADFZT bright_l_Page_092.txt
23cb37d7fbf1c9c6e2c2973ba077b0bf
782b1e220fc1f7cfae37fcebdac1dadc00e352b5
1849 F20110115_AADFDA bright_l_Page_037.txt
5c2ea0dc49ceb3ce3853ca3eea5d6ab2
4813a08aaf68693c9cd7bf26751c3c96367cd21d
22987 F20110115_AADFCL bright_l_Page_104.QC.jpg
69f2415df3d607563dd85fdba2af5a90
492a6183753453306e1d90ecd21225a42fdd1211
24080 F20110115_AADEXF bright_l_Page_097.QC.jpg
3f979de3867db96f3df9032ff1ed29d1
dd11580393e49b0b25cc0a912796afff437bb820
65583 F20110115_AADFBX bright_l_Page_093.jpg
aa8a921c62282e85543b9028d742d466
8e4f78d41296d1f3eaa73dd773e85fca325aeae7
1818 F20110115_AADFZU bright_l_Page_095.txt
88f8895b16e7619946fd956c1822be3e
ba0c01c763d2b2b6bd6ffa107a7c1b1c5914e094
22431 F20110115_AADFDB bright_l_Page_081.QC.jpg
cac05cd24169fb0bba9ed741819d3f7b
3eed61be0a16a067bf6f8801b856869c49efb4c3
71543 F20110115_AADFCM bright_l_Page_027.jpg
8082cd6dd304b59d2906954a8229c70f
6503cb574fef5bb86b2a7f5c0731aefaadac6b0c
52335 F20110115_AADEXG bright_l_Page_030.pro
4d61393fd78d63fe2e64973eae06dd93
d59ac4f2d71beb81a5eac7abb9c86e8ca1b7e631
41066 F20110115_AADFBY bright_l_Page_021.jpg
cd797a7155122fc0a547172dfc5228e7
b16cb58d50086ccaf86855f5c58739244b2bb2f0
2098 F20110115_AADFZV bright_l_Page_097.txt
068b7fa902c38109686051a539466889
27d97dd031176959d2a93adae081d272729e9919
47859 F20110115_AADFDC bright_l_Page_016.pro
2bbf82c305dd9ad9e2b7d9fa1ee0ac6d
dcaf3d0f4934343ae3d75b8bef6f75cd666619a7
20890 F20110115_AADFCN bright_l_Page_040.QC.jpg
493b6ab1ef765a5853c6e798ef20bdfa
1f0d295a93d09b345093331da71ce822e0ecc954
61485 F20110115_AADEXH bright_l_Page_078.jpg
bbe655caec8295be1917e03f283c1e6c
350fb010dda53feb3d662888e60ec75e77b17c02
106812 F20110115_AADFBZ bright_l_Page_104.jp2
d2e506c4d9d153db1cac4373612c76de
562f761214a7bd1db177654b1ff27f8a68ea43e4
1998 F20110115_AADFZW bright_l_Page_098.txt
0eabd18e000d86381fa6e257434c0098
f76c4c242b9256010388143c4f23f274bfdccda9
105332 F20110115_AADFDD bright_l_Page_046.jp2
fa0a003a5c2cfc5f6be84aa949226668
ce281b0f4dc8af0f7f6107421ad849c26c57178c
1764 F20110115_AADFCO bright_l_Page_010.txt
b78f9635d0def7c94f5ea9cc786f347c
3c2d2b723364081b6635a03e7bf27291616ddf01
11201 F20110115_AADEXI bright_l_Page_113.jp2
be95b1aeb4ca647981d031daf987f3da
77b303c4477a6d3c7db9d992b95ba90666d06c67
F20110115_AADFZX bright_l_Page_099.txt
bb0c330d62b137b4adcf01760b31787f
17425e99da2e4dd11d19856d9dd5e38f78e3c1d5
69441 F20110115_AADFDE bright_l_Page_081.jpg
d440b8c1d1a06a243c99eb393bb85dff
1b77dc44236a6d48ff44493d1ce4c2e749de3630
67398 F20110115_AADFCP bright_l_Page_083.jpg
dfdd990c8218f00eb0155c28030005a2
418615ccc581c3616abf774e3c73080afb9b1328
2071 F20110115_AADEXJ bright_l_Page_030.txt
302ece4ad494918387143c0adfd8f9bf
adb03b2e442de768a62cae20bc8e648c3cb61504
F20110115_AADEWW bright_l_Page_050.tif
247024900ae47c132125ba859a46dc8e
b8074da7e6521e682506dfefa0f61fe8d714348f
2032 F20110115_AADFZY bright_l_Page_101.txt
5e4a8f6ae4aa076758d01744203ce1a7
212f8ee61b9ed2f05fc3892c47e1276ed7514d95
2420 F20110115_AADFDF bright_l_Page_001thm.jpg
46bc4a8517ab42a5e3b91366b46936b9
aef88aad76f1d49708d048eacae9941edb20116e
11842 F20110115_AADFCQ bright_l_Page_114.pro
d5236a4b0cbf858693e406f2701e7b38
6e5d78bd4a87ad25acdbd826770040ea195db888
70284 F20110115_AADEXK bright_l_Page_032.jpg
7d99b1915a2ada80dcadba76b7f0ff70
c1cd98e7ea49f9c05b113d119dbbcffae7d55617
47880 F20110115_AADEWX bright_l_Page_112.jpg
e26cd8404c2b5bf30fa003d3621b3850
024431b26c8c2bd4644e19808875754e378a5f16
1982 F20110115_AADFZZ bright_l_Page_104.txt
ba39e1f0f8044b727f08ec6eafdba801
22070daf79b61332cd2933d739656edca449a2a6
61434 F20110115_AADFDG bright_l_Page_117.pro
19a10669aa2c0742c753375c7b5e9f84
81b9be9605438c83503e9170971dfdda71c964bd
F20110115_AADEYA bright_l_Page_086.tif
82e44e4fca1a7fa931a67edd6813f656
74b8b65f1ff78d5cf336886b742ef2a37aa23577
F20110115_AADFCR bright_l_Page_036.tif
88e210f6f91c89eef7d2ea015f6aa977
b03f8c6021f9a424c2aed66353b205613605ca32
F20110115_AADEXL bright_l_Page_020.tif
a8d8d518e8dcf62ac97b3907bbe08886
4bc79bfe1b9a224c60e9bb1fee3fbb9f34486056
6508 F20110115_AADEWY bright_l_Page_030thm.jpg
3120d4d3c1c99bb71d9e1e100f731c2d
59029a1d56fac55fc9628cdce4897f1d72ad778c
1961 F20110115_AADFDH bright_l_Page_089.txt
ae196a8483776c35b596d37ae3280bbc
6f4e5622143992ff367d1674d7be0bc68622e256
20814 F20110115_AADFCS bright_l_Page_029.pro
f928498e8a112d9da7a4f39924aa1977
b973b3ba4002d985d7eb718b6486453f988348d4
97803 F20110115_AADEXM bright_l_Page_095.jp2
470967286f2541a2d482051d4d19ba08
d332662ba582000621895271d8bdced531fc685b
F20110115_AADEWZ bright_l_Page_073.tif
5a99d12a8d4847297738d5bb5a23f1c1
8ae822c87af589411cac459e57a6fdb8f1bebf8b
22504 F20110115_AADFDI bright_l_Page_116.QC.jpg
6ce4b1ba1425a9a02179ab9ad3f521cb
abaa58d245c054e8280916994e31fa6ff9eac635
67354 F20110115_AADEYB bright_l_Page_087.jpg
4cc310a78cad25dc2de074e0c7bda5d7
fa0859b7cc2c1236895e5e638d6c9bbee49d4376
89569 F20110115_AADFCT bright_l_Page_072.jpg
dc58451def8b1308e2b3e4997d2f39be
edf8cd239f786615576bd959cdf30e891d78938a
57881 F20110115_AADEXN bright_l_Page_050.jpg
1740f69db4df93300c1628e5e8412c0e
34ab4b739652d3847af3ba580dcca84a02b2e57c
105870 F20110115_AADFDJ bright_l_Page_020.jp2
b1bb5f0c2798e16dcaad6f7580c80479
d5b49e40f9ff9d077dffdecd0719ba030df34961
25878 F20110115_AADEYC bright_l_Page_119.QC.jpg
8f6271c3631197b906634e0f7032aa80
07cc506796aad36765fa8d315405e4395f6a1786
F20110115_AADFCU bright_l_Page_054.tif
e9b511230dacd1db45f4ca5e46d1c0d0
97d2cc9a73192647d54066c17681802360e02023
F20110115_AADEXO bright_l_Page_088thm.jpg
b7a43654f00b26b8fcb8fed65fc09321
70aed84b8eb71b15933b37f2e268a64f82866e99
F20110115_AADFDK bright_l_Page_052.tif
0cf04f7cfa238f31da1e907e0f9e75f4
90031b217354b151029d39739696c6f88c4a03bc
6226 F20110115_AADEYD bright_l_Page_011thm.jpg
ce595ac68efd91096ee1dc79956a745e
fa915a0b0be9f89908da39472fabfe7bb531d02b
70241 F20110115_AADFCV bright_l_Page_004.jpg
98352105bcdaa80b88071a3a85ab354d
e95527dc1391e7c424dd4795b71bc82bf367ce05
107597 F20110115_AADEXP bright_l_Page_081.jp2
33edcdd8113c576f8ad9bb933c85d9ea
e00c8412b8d8b09c820946d13129ca779af8741e
42665 F20110115_AADEYE bright_l_Page_039.pro
ff69270af3c7abaa60da8f52e5137c27
a629e80cfd9b168f6c92a74fcb0a9e2ba0cc390f
1051985 F20110115_AADFCW bright_l_Page_071.jp2
74d174ff0c861ac9d6dadfb0083be8f1
373071c54c3b1f58fc6c59f72a78e29fd95d753c
78929 F20110115_AADEXQ bright_l_Page_004.pro
476b435ef39eeed504b8089b3a763f87
a94b65853eea7b115af705a9451f1cd8f0d3b5df
24281 F20110115_AADFDL bright_l_Page_064.QC.jpg
ffffbfda670124a8fd5090eecbc4cea6
12e0651177afbca6f6f7221de0332c05b09dcfaa
1802 F20110115_AADEYF bright_l_Page_055.txt
375271da5009cec681f4f7417b26cbaa
6197dc299897f8433d63b115e0c1f86c114da929
832 F20110115_AADFCX bright_l_Page_029.txt
a3f42809f1b879e053595825d7796781
480faf60fe06254411051032c672a702b1e9485e
1051981 F20110115_AADEXR bright_l_Page_006.jp2
8429012f245c85fe63073526f14b7b1f
394bbe91adc897ab37c41945fc24ef92f06cb1ee
101704 F20110115_AADFEA bright_l_Page_037.jp2
51d52e45fe5adc0c014cc40ee1d06812
5f318c87bd70e2531d57ac07c22070dbfecbfec5
1864 F20110115_AADFDM bright_l_Page_087.txt
671625a57759623c924ddd66376e50e0
3cc4d6e52761c085132679f22bf49ff9ac172241
66543 F20110115_AADEYG bright_l_Page_017.jpg
b03dcadee8f3dae7807ab130399575f6
5800865cc878c7a1640c44d182eeb19d503ad4f4
6180 F20110115_AADFCY bright_l_Page_016thm.jpg
96c0f6485edb6f68d39d2e2dff4835ba
0ecde96bdacd07ebff158dcfb1aa1eaff6bfbefb
97283 F20110115_AADEXS bright_l_Page_060.jpg
b516bbef334935e8885c48ad0d086f99
265320de72124a5f594b86472fc01d53359b39df
F20110115_AADFEB bright_l_Page_055.tif
263340db46e58c4bde5cfb702b6c5b6d
5778d159603ca545899d790ef17eedb18808f549
54814 F20110115_AADFDN bright_l_Page_070.pro
c28808be18ca219760fa1e542bc7d055
346fc70350e052f3bcb57aa329cf54ed20bfd9d0
51521 F20110115_AADEYH bright_l_Page_101.pro
ec14671c0c66888ada43da596d1af3cf
18df854a44d3b0d9e4cd5e38a6ba681b21e93539
16734 F20110115_AADFCZ bright_l_Page_123.QC.jpg
150a034e2dc0bcacf8db07bbf5ab02ee
4bb43007e95ee69de4e7de3322148b6bcb38c57a
10076 F20110115_AADEXT bright_l_Page_009.QC.jpg
1831062ea2ed9d85e0a111076ffa3ef5
ca8033582b0b0e7e82106122fcf934d531230888
4630 F20110115_AADFEC bright_l_Page_113.QC.jpg
f114be94231f0b2a485e1da784b210a6
15a1bc14bf245ab3135323081ffc8eca6ba77cf5
34640 F20110115_AADFDO bright_l_Page_045.pro
245eccf802d5fef2db1c2a7729e0a213
97fab20e0c02c99c45f169fc04cd4bd6961bc336
52279 F20110115_AADEYI bright_l_Page_102.pro
d229a1299765691f0f17af206dc0efe7
a8d376ae1ca5573879b7a40fd91cb6812fa1aeb4
21489 F20110115_AADEXU bright_l_Page_100.QC.jpg
0869d4164d7599a57e49ca9d795167d4
1ea929088237f2df5edf5b800331c41f701086c6
45310 F20110115_AADFED bright_l_Page_040.pro
123300de29d01553f1e1c38e4072e20b
edf841ec2b142a74263016cde4c27cb89cdbc6f3
1051980 F20110115_AADFDP bright_l_Page_064.jp2
cfeb830941e65373ea4af91d6b43d5bd
4654b6d43f602352aa904120ce515641d233179d
67897 F20110115_AADEYJ bright_l_Page_036.jpg
04d1e8e5a914fec7e4835e0b180e3f28
3c1a2b6454f73d8c5d4ee686acffa59e055e7dcd
21913 F20110115_AADEXV bright_l_Page_083.QC.jpg
fbc7ebaac8a9a5c809fa24698232a98d
32b733731f999fcc60dc11da69d815d159751a69
3241 F20110115_AADFEE bright_l_Page_002.QC.jpg
ecdfd522c5f94e5e5f4a0671ac365086
f79d584d92e3ca5c9b5aadcec823bbac0f4b39df
F20110115_AADFDQ bright_l_Page_043.txt
2074b836bfa1e42da21cc6289b30dfc4
f47741cc432c4511ed4701f23b85871c4ed2de7c
2536 F20110115_AADEYK bright_l_Page_118.txt
c2c0b1b8c5e2665139c059900b00feb4
812a7fbc7787abb6a48449b8bf3eaada8ee1aef9
66862 F20110115_AADEXW bright_l_Page_090.jpg
3d9fe5aa536f2e257372e9a731b3d0ee
42a21b261d1ed3f3cb90c8b8a8a26e8362d36a68
23072 F20110115_AADFEF bright_l_Page_098.QC.jpg
bf94309ac0144543a139a9347cc73d2e
af86e6dc334cab20fa1266974c88418da21f0dfe
1916 F20110115_AADEZA bright_l_Page_033.txt
781d1230bc20cfeb12361c430a9e1b52
56be8bcdc7871334f4803c582d0bb57c13d6e910
46809 F20110115_AADFDR bright_l_Page_091.pro
94b223451574da967fd98656bb8cabdd
02b18d729f926ef69a8e1c76813147aed898565e
40114 F20110115_AADEYL bright_l_Page_084.pro
9201900abe986cbfc9c652b718b01f3e
d1df05f63136d86ee2c1d74c00602603fe0ecb5d
19969 F20110115_AADEXX bright_l_Page_010.QC.jpg
736275e37dd5116877d5da6b85ce5833
15d541d9c8cbfdf3c05ec83977eedf34a8cabd1a
6274 F20110115_AADFEG bright_l_Page_014thm.jpg
4acadfaa0a1494f9366cfb1e7a28b998
8855a20e44861dea014fd2b9363e356f380dce0e
88573 F20110115_AADEZB bright_l_Page_107.jp2
a444fe589800a322472815945420e585
e42987f3a301a7c9bf6a151b86baee344337106b
21919 F20110115_AADFDS bright_l_Page_034.QC.jpg
61e4c68513f39f32ab212ad4b02f7d7c
c03b7fc493c2a92f4b897804614b92bc1ba76509
43974 F20110115_AADEYM bright_l_Page_009.jp2
39ab25aec9d25054d5aae3abde02a2cc
d31492fe44ed6098f46f4ec092e899a1ce634012
65980 F20110115_AADEXY bright_l_Page_096.jpg
4b8d725775351165c3e999b34845b65f
f6352ea6f652ced70afde2bc086da1c8ee248e5b
3914 F20110115_AADFEH bright_l_Page_038.QC.jpg
566e39e0db4cf49a3f3a023f4fa7401b
2e0e4375331719c72202d2af234b83d489e29e10
1866 F20110115_AADFDT bright_l_Page_022.txt
74e62f3242bba539baf3da6129f0d649
a1bd66579de378a336c2b7cd9cd09a19da1bb0ad
7889 F20110115_AADEYN bright_l_Page_114.QC.jpg
4f88d99834c1c8f440139b9c72d74b07
d8b7c5c4099b127634f547de0673661d8df74dcb
23464 F20110115_AADEXZ bright_l_Page_024.QC.jpg
5163a65f810e914291d2d68d7ecb6718
14563bd9f3ab1f1e40b0505e9850e0db14df8dbe
72326 F20110115_AADFEI bright_l_Page_101.jpg
30c7dc2a6b0551a8bbedc7c90656de24
7427a4b3660ca0054ddb3c2e12e391becc63b9a2
89777 F20110115_AADEZC bright_l_Page_069.jpg
35021ff47680adf7ba55d1cb9bd44e5c
b79f349a778cd938083b4c7feedb068781507fc4
3224 F20110115_AADFDU bright_l_Page_004.txt
8f9599427cbf01f15452c31de5fa1868
1de8e3c8e40b92d930251da0e7d6ed068850322c
F20110115_AADEYO bright_l_Page_089.tif
3c0f1a08a1136839c1071f22e217844a
0dc4e0f8801436e46ace1c00920d11723ef1282b
6927 F20110115_AADFEJ bright_l_Page_118thm.jpg
67e1f3947602cbc769edce8f6e1d1e9b
cb820a4ed0453d4b29dd84c0fba9f331564bc55d
1768 F20110115_AADEZD bright_l_Page_057.txt
5e3091c5c5099d8b3f7f291640e226dd
f99856a7054d2b20f133b6fd52e2a574ea3b833d
1940 F20110115_AADFDV bright_l_Page_061.txt
27e8c9ff50435292920eae1fdfe41271
b51da9f9b003a01de4271cb85fb90bc69d00d5f0
F20110115_AADEYP bright_l_Page_097.tif
3e958b41f7e284a08ef1bbc5f77567e6
70d742d52b63e3cabe474c3e6ef4786b2d042fa7
F20110115_AADFEK bright_l_Page_025.tif
70e9304ba4b1be856607855d4d01c170
5f5241ae65a01f357bfdfa5637dd8d4457202486
5886 F20110115_AADEZE bright_l_Page_090thm.jpg
989bec74568699789b59ae48ac2fa261
9a89824529e17a1a2aafda6eca50201c012f4ee9
3476 F20110115_AADFDW bright_l_Page_007thm.jpg
406197264eae061422da3bfa1576800d
84136131e09067fa3b4660fb7e53063d51a0a5c8
2191 F20110115_AADEYQ bright_l_Page_068.txt
ac1dcab01b78bb2518be21a4b82cb5fb
a4984a20c2184d061032ba30f9359a833aaf1d3a
53103 F20110115_AADFEL bright_l_Page_054.pro
493390e2397b32d4673e1eefe6340c0f
a0116fb87a68140c7625c251aae0a7966795f0ed
130461 F20110115_AADEZF bright_l_Page_117.jp2
65f33097be471ef2a13cdbae0e2e3d74
a69544deb3fbc13a64ccfc67c11176d0cc6c14b9
55556 F20110115_AADFDX bright_l_Page_065.pro
a6a70ca5ad1aa53d17ddb6270e77911e
14f572e543d4fa57c7f6f0d0232867a7c068e5d3
67913 F20110115_AADEYR bright_l_Page_012.jpg
96464e14211e3f14c3358706d1d04688
7d452f0f484110bfb7a583e844e899e97c3cf44a
F20110115_AADFFA bright_l_Page_016.tif
245a017fb3d3f855ce267902c8983f4c
03af2bfb1634fe1697731b2df21947660b629e1a
6072 F20110115_AADEZG bright_l_Page_096thm.jpg
615fdad8c7fd278725192b0b67bbb39f
ad3b7d51448394d282cf375527db7a91dffb69d9
5199 F20110115_AADFDY bright_l_Page_110thm.jpg
334a43065541dd73ed7416abcb9a0c12
58996c7db671dc63ab7dfafafa06eb8bac8f4f04
66647 F20110115_AADEYS bright_l_Page_092.jpg
7cde3e377572178bf68a33ffd7cdea17
a35d8f5fc761588749432e1136a68d0185f3f0b0
F20110115_AADFFB bright_l_Page_074.tif
5ae1f3d1ea7052483827245a160e78fd
95490893124596583412aef671d90142365da513
1868 F20110115_AADFEM bright_l_Page_090.txt
7ed2ee1d83ea8dfc8fdbc35d06a1492c
b2b27fdbbc8520af4813ae91224d6608c8743315
72776 F20110115_AADEZH bright_l_Page_102.jpg
1a490077e3a4737eb8d13205ae2bb2e8
72930ebd3ec438f3ddd8a697371ecb2e7dae871b
1003879 F20110115_AADFDZ bright_l_Page_068.jp2
d59a84bf1c68a364cdea6473b827a11c
908057d3f6d92626b2380519ad8846bdaadd2b16
F20110115_AADEYT bright_l_Page_118.tif
d11bc6d52d91f9bcf9164a78fa0769c8
4c3352c9dcdc0dab0e8a47608a51b32623281315
F20110115_AADFFC bright_l_Page_071.tif
cc713409552d494ff20df7dc8a3564aa
45d67f88967927d1acf24b6fa8fa70ce534d50cf
113578 F20110115_AADFEN bright_l_Page_097.jp2
e1681fbd60f41b658eb939d0e0b8b12b
a4471f0de30885d88880ab681e8acf27db818a07
7053 F20110115_AADEZI bright_l_Page_060thm.jpg
36d85b489abafe2f4cee19b70b814ce2
bac3ec4d682384fc79214ecaedc98e9fe6973f81
23190 F20110115_AADEYU bright_l_Page_085.QC.jpg
de6a05b877ec5294be5eb6f480ca3106
0a9d4cfb6fe054af0558c5ea82005968f1cc33a8
F20110115_AADFFD bright_l_Page_095.tif
df6bcaf32727abcb4317e5bbb9823743
2eea0f5e74c9f653d1336875241c47fec6886450
24083 F20110115_AADFEO bright_l_Page_056.QC.jpg
00f61301eb87e18780a93777e4431c0c
21582468f25110b355392722d05a1ca705d8f053
642143 F20110115_AADEZJ bright_l_Page_112.jp2
3c6bd916b746e5eed5e29751ee7468b8
fc196649f3b44e044f444bce9748ff24bafffc8e
45444 F20110115_AADEYV bright_l_Page_095.pro
a7cb4b5729e4dca7ee7783c848ac57cd
e066dcaf5a6ac58dbeab87933bc2551a79113cb0
F20110115_AADFFE bright_l_Page_081.tif
c75c495199a96ec63352fe9b7d91b528
74168a88ec2c4fe366e9eb9c577dfbe1003cd297
21342 F20110115_AADFEP bright_l_Page_092.QC.jpg
5166930936fdc9ba3af098fbc5db3b59
d0a478ef14d14cd30db83d80ae2880bef7fd54cb
4096 F20110115_AADEZK bright_l_Page_113.pro
499c9a4b98d0486e904ab33fd6102e59
937e697ad2d87d79fb67f1235c64dc5b0e13546f
72062 F20110115_AADEYW bright_l_Page_013.jpg
976951364fa6da6b979429b1ed9654f2
f5945fd56538c7a1084970d6e6fde491359df446
F20110115_AADFFF bright_l_Page_122.tif
4e5516b8f3cd8135bb2694c637399177
263f4ea131044564914f7256fbdee30de98bb818
F20110115_AADFEQ bright_l_Page_028.tif
5482ae69a107e77e34bede24b9203ed0
e50f9a7d62af152410ff5c5cb4eae33a066269b4
55533 F20110115_AADEZL bright_l_Page_069.pro
f0cd09137caa0f106136382ff0904c56
0c55724bcdfee16b00607e8886e4a8c9d256d492
2863 F20110115_AADEYX bright_l_Page_066.txt
9cc1b36b4614e66194b5fb8709380681
7d52d3b297ace04fbd71222521c29b395997d609
23413 F20110115_AADFFG bright_l_Page_026.QC.jpg
871f9247678ae02f35032d8c15afd2ba
0bac14bc7d588af1a115969932510c67199a8fbe
26659 F20110115_AADFER bright_l_Page_066.QC.jpg
a3dc348ebc4136a17e4ef89e870aac2a
33bb5cdafc63dcf781002c4c401389dabf777c40
23267 F20110115_AADEZM bright_l_Page_068.QC.jpg
2204878e395f7702b8b58687c94a565e
2c04692306a48eecae509f3cc114b5e721417ca2
44821 F20110115_AADEYY bright_l_Page_107.pro
4073fd535ed47317a8306e48a3f0cdaf
605e9e70ca8ecf9ade0d9932ee242eaf226e8703
69767 F20110115_AADFFH bright_l_Page_103.jpg
71291edd3b020089b0483a1b4a62fb46
cde52239d439ccc47fbdd7b7545b511d1009398e
1523 F20110115_AADFES bright_l_Page_112.txt
73d16b489620aa9b0c4495e343738cd8
26440824b40e7962f8b693364dd862323e7f1fd7
5946 F20110115_AADEZN bright_l_Page_052thm.jpg
d71ea1df23277fc0105d2feb49d12c72
c961a3ae7ed88747cee48cce6432b0278efe1b3e
72691 F20110115_AADEYZ bright_l_Page_030.jpg
6fcc834e69be7b3b7e152efd2598ec66
fa10508b600da90dcffb82cc473d82760669f02d
101102 F20110115_AADFFI bright_l_Page_034.jp2
9ed7b9112ef829d3f933fb99514ba0d7
3a014f09c35879183831b27d6628cf6031c26715
80173 F20110115_AADFET bright_l_Page_074.jpg
a687275ec37ee0b7d0a5b91895075c7b
52bb6905d8b530c59e24ee6dfe9621989c2e8784
46271 F20110115_AADEZO bright_l_Page_094.pro
533434839bba08e87820d728c8e74ca9
956a9a52ddfe95929a560f878df559dda192d23e
102696 F20110115_AADFFJ bright_l_Page_087.jp2
444557ff8a49b2f43d0cef1ffacb86a4
2c3474c9c34965118c6b9f7a481a0d5a4a3ca72f
958104 F20110115_AADFEU bright_l_Page_108.jp2
757e1fd8b4366380bf23b0382d061eb5
41802a83cc2fca2120412a2efbcdb94b5f770b5c
18440 F20110115_AADEZP bright_l_Page_107.QC.jpg
77113c202eeec04795dc37763a13678b
70eea074d5a3c3ef5c6833028b0d031781cfe23b
106882 F20110115_AADFFK bright_l_Page_061.jp2
a79ad484832f329de8622da2d77fafef
cf4d9b75bdc74e6c737c0d959b5bb510cc7b8509
4298 F20110115_AADFEV bright_l_Page_112thm.jpg
b9410cb6f2bc2d7898deb66667a33bdc
85443a3dfe1b20acc016f38d77593829db271685
2029 F20110115_AADEZQ bright_l_Page_013.txt
48aff192f8c0859cf901a203ece27037
41b73f94e2beda1c47dbd5843ea2f35bcc79a22a
F20110115_AADFFL bright_l_Page_006.tif
a9d63e91b9a67ba1c7aa3f9c5890e8f8
7b8bfd4ef030f1c3d6fdc062772561ea198d2408
2311 F20110115_AADFEW bright_l_Page_053.txt
150b7b74d6e274002007fbe19ad5a013
edff5064f5e3e82f3adde00a5316cc6e622fb65e
44837 F20110115_AADEZR bright_l_Page_106.jp2
4e26932a2350989d99239eb417365d36
a064c381bf27172efaf1400e9664be402b148696
6210 F20110115_AADFGA bright_l_Page_012thm.jpg
56959149aee49bf50446a45fd62681a7
fbe1959934f571170fc8bbd3611b230f991b111e
1973 F20110115_AADFFM bright_l_Page_080.txt
317aeb893bc6850de700780bfec0d3c3
7fcdb934b5b8f83f674a4f89ca4cd33f1ee9e47c
13924 F20110115_AADFEX bright_l_Page_113.jpg
e33a1e243fd96fa70640e85b768868f6
dfce7921e3396849e82ba84376f985b6ed296572
F20110115_AADEZS bright_l_Page_096.tif
f5b2f080188bd3d46a720fe360ac27ab
c64b5a0874a9a64980642dcc0bb0ea049e8de73d
113646 F20110115_AADFGB bright_l_Page_024.jp2
9b75e5497175b4355843adec9e8bc513
af637cf4ee040f8fa9651d16cf45f7dbc8fad5d0
F20110115_AADFEY bright_l_Page_018.tif
29121eacd6726e55001561202fbdf00f
28b221f6bc9dde89c8e54fc2634efcdac5ac7e62
1051977 F20110115_AADEZT bright_l_Page_060.jp2
2d47e346a1e0726e95d6f8762519c52d
0250cfb989794026fa111845b5b0dfdd689276eb
6033 F20110115_AADFGC bright_l_Page_067thm.jpg
42daf9708ff96b5424ed431caca3dc35
fc0ac9c14e56f26f2bcda8c776b19d07698fe40e
45376 F20110115_AADFFN bright_l_Page_029.jpg
6d01276f0a60dec6fbfeb9e9768836de
6572494aa4e19f5d05e3961c3c377a339ce82b26
85258 F20110115_AADFEZ bright_l_Page_118.jpg
ef89a4f561ea5c0abaf9b49ccaa66780
7feb4395b8861a5597fc85623ae626603297e793
24563 F20110115_AADEZU bright_l_Page_065.QC.jpg
dd9d35d92eedf80be86f78d03b9a9e7a
d6db1317a0a4465d55b946c5e7ca60d43bcbe67a
F20110115_AADFGD bright_l_Page_051.tif
380af1881f9dcbe2c64a36ff156630e9
2800ce1a396ab16102e5385f64d47e9f4585e367
F20110115_AADFFO bright_l_Page_084.tif
5c445224a357666e0f0a28c7a7c5790b
06edce6babe13405e1ad2270ba6844bbd4ac6b82
48363 F20110115_AADFGE bright_l_Page_033.pro
ee676f251b71875d76fda206d16e3c04
ad861cd3dab81342a477593bd6989d6dce05ec81
F20110115_AADFFP bright_l_Page_101.tif
62dec694a62d4ea23b8aa5ef69918d96
46bd4a3574dc0b3ea679e863b973402bbf53e75c
5916 F20110115_AADEZV bright_l_Page_095thm.jpg
911e4e4de6dd06419062b6ca204cb3ab
93537084796a9758eb4d076939081b945de977ec
72967 F20110115_AADFGF bright_l_Page_123.jp2
21801e7805d212472298d73e1962e1d9
12ae1771cc1168553315df956497af0c9bec7c44
F20110115_AADFFQ bright_l_Page_030.tif
8721185c43d7aa7f0143d7dec6e08149
b837d5ef346465d744e013da6c6ac8bfffad65c5
F20110115_AADEZW bright_l_Page_108.tif
5a374e57dff6dc76da4ec79a35efd14f
d3de09adba69b9db467ec4f9443d42d6942c56ce
F20110115_AADFGG bright_l_Page_114.tif
0d5d94477131184d4ee762182c612f5f
fa97bfbf8b36e006e297d55cc5b1d4a4044bc136
1876 F20110115_AADFFR bright_l_Page_034.txt
a537b2f7bce067c6bf75ce660a883ea8
5a425ed6fd618385aad0ad0d0f752f04ae97bbac
1850 F20110115_AADEZX bright_l_Page_067.txt
5d4f4156395204a2fb886aee4e734e97
a8f492f5a588a4f4411d856fee8dd17d335d3f1c
5272 F20110115_AADFGH bright_l_Page_045thm.jpg
f5c2c785c39a844b6ec1a194c0ac8399
1b2c65f9e6e7a1edb1025d3e0d13cd395bc0a77b
F20110115_AADFFS bright_l_Page_099.tif
2911f6bca94c3ed64d1455184ca94884
13c4d98c2eb0b62d06f73c9b43f561bf4979c4ed
494 F20110115_AADEZY bright_l_Page_105.txt
b5df7188bef5e5183c846a47bea61921
980ddc9100c81dc193eac6288d425d4e06d2d80c
21062 F20110115_AADFGI bright_l_Page_095.QC.jpg
8aeb504ea91c3c1703fb63ad6aa64a85
0bc91853ad15a34761a23813dfd05e6029650f6d
2328 F20110115_AADFFT bright_l_Page_105thm.jpg
ea98c7a1557af0ca0b274b31536610aa
d5326f58fac8d8e21af800a5e514c70e9368772d
1926 F20110115_AADEZZ bright_l_Page_017.txt
f7cd4043bb4ff024a7c2f48a845a4f3a
6f5d5cccee6bc5e21cf2e3fab56178d5f564714a
74847 F20110115_AADFGJ bright_l_Page_116.jpg
8821ad8e6b439c4ef765561c9209717b
7eea728b793ae840bdb5b93f303c51ac5f3091ec
6237 F20110115_AADFFU bright_l_Page_037thm.jpg
e8ae8825925b854736f983d275f8bb41
ba323f11c63db17eb492064def3113a674bf53e1
2621 F20110115_AADFGK bright_l_Page_065.txt
c3f9865d78105e56570896313e9d9d31
ec81404d254974cca3ee61c59255584174676ddc
85511 F20110115_AADFFV bright_l_Page_019.jp2
edaf890af6677d3e0ac24cb23cb40736
4af6201998081e69f2ec0bb91b5ced218783f33a
67165 F20110115_AADFGL bright_l_Page_094.jpg
13ad1b9ce8cce666aba13c1cae7fa45a
2fd4fdbb7e922a88022f6be2c34407af582cb9e8
681 F20110115_AADFFW bright_l_Page_115.txt
55a5409a79a0a739994e96b5718e3e26
cea58987479cda8d536e829e5ebd27d40aefca9b
F20110115_AADFGM bright_l_Page_070.tif
891c36ad75f33d0d670cb66125b2ea15
ec6c1326f87727d67bd76f2e12008432be4758df
40981 F20110115_AADFFX bright_l_Page_005.pro
ce89d50a2332370907241e5de0de08f7
c4453a8416506a0a29f41dbe6b9cf6dbb393d226
101546 F20110115_AADFHA bright_l_Page_017.jp2
e90e73765061334b86c3f65d3d6a3521
0956babaa03509810407178dc35602d9660022b4
19462 F20110115_AADFGN bright_l_Page_019.QC.jpg
789e4b496ab584fb6af716983abb6c4e
ab8bf848de28ec581013289b80695b234e81bb89
62622 F20110115_AADFFY bright_l_Page_118.pro
45f2970a0c0b1a0c9dc43819da263851
3adbe71c12355d8a96042689039bbd35c0622d7f
3234 F20110115_AADFHB bright_l_Page_060.txt
c9ec81867e3d682ca902c2af56fe7f86
3bca42761ec0d43fda422aff8a0f9caaf1a15295
9296 F20110115_AADFFZ bright_l_Page_115.QC.jpg
588652080a654f71a99e2ee98c01ea70
dfdb3c4735dd48528973a5adb857b6a291e1cc06
1834 F20110115_AADFHC bright_l_Page_044.txt
6f5bee0303701912a3b2905734f17da4
030064f50a49dc2d1f9f4f42818cd64e1a26bd4a
2123 F20110115_AADFGO bright_l_Page_025.txt
01a7684ca7df9a48320c647e3287c72c
cd396cee0da22fcfaa53f4cafa9e1c66685f04b7
5960 F20110115_AADFHD bright_l_Page_091thm.jpg
7f926568510b223b2b893a7474e33c74
87e6a55eb3713a4e9f90b00fe0584ec735c0a159
F20110115_AADFGP bright_l_Page_057.tif
18f5e165963a5785c9b54723271b0baf
0c8e48868edc7f3e91210b4328cf583f050e6d50
81242 F20110115_AADFHE bright_l_Page_109.jpg
644e1d72320dcd643eafd746db0f1a9b
494f2eb12630a3a3899c3070c7e64677b1bcfa99
F20110115_AADFGQ bright_l_Page_062.tif
e003561615f4b91523773faf429cbf46
99e4c1ec077f56a532884ad0291b2fbe3d4a8143
F20110115_AADFHF bright_l_Page_017.tif
3602231a60e705c93daf3e9303ccaff6
b2d5a978a532fd58b7f15000c99fe813cd4090ca
21981 F20110115_AADFGR bright_l_Page_011.QC.jpg
1c640dbfaca5ea7ccb93a598bea09a5b
acaac6f7d93ec35cbf6325236ddbf194ad83b538
5629 F20110115_AADFHG bright_l_Page_018thm.jpg
8a4a15789eb71edd03bf023809c20c6d
9dfc0e33420b1c103686a2612bc0971602dc86bd
109 F20110115_AADFHH bright_l_Page_002.txt
60d59f32bc97a86cb8f14c20e196a8ac
4503ebba9ed49ab62960c6b5f47a2658df7cd982
48846 F20110115_AADFGS bright_l_Page_020.pro
ebf88301f718a57fab51459d8af4687d
16ae795f17e2380e1096a17579ac0786d94ff270
1829 F20110115_AADFHI bright_l_Page_059.txt
ef570619a3352164f779bd447b4e27d3
177cb961cacc1e0bfd9b02201d9d40afadceb776
40884 F20110115_AADFGT bright_l_Page_005.jpg
06556f24f9563bfc1908ccdcdb1f0ab8
4d7e2b6ae626886964a60734bc83384bcb90737c
1741 F20110115_AADFHJ bright_l_Page_079.txt
165fb39d3814663b692a846aa1f3e02e
6b6738632e8033740f75c21a3e71a3a2f5bef2e2
435415 F20110115_AADFGU bright_l.pdf
4710c76d1ba2765eae21b5b9e66630b8
1d26194b60301550bc44df883d7f0564f01710b0
65351 F20110115_AADFHK bright_l_Page_043.jpg
07b90b402860f833d592580ca64ef4ac
62bcc495c7704441f93aec69da5806d151733d6b
14721 F20110115_AADFGV bright_l_Page_112.QC.jpg
fd2e60506872197c8daeebfd0d22f2c8
fe17da77feaa754145298565c534770c2f1f4396
2961 F20110115_AADFHL bright_l_Page_038.pro
d20cd0d69c2c766d2d568856fa52f870
f2045af08ad322ba900bd3f560eb794c46758f9d
F20110115_AADFGW bright_l_Page_092.tif
937506a2c99b8049f3957692447ebd6b
364fa3290149f03045ef4836143d17a95c83d930
74372 F20110115_AADFIA bright_l_Page_025.jpg
afe25030a8d1854383b0ba5d0ed4893a
18560ccf0f24093ceb86a5dbe640743da19dc756
6076 F20110115_AADFHM bright_l_Page_044thm.jpg
4a355eaf48adcafe2f788f6265c93c5b
1a562795fc559e257c164c94468686706b713c4a
1051941 F20110115_AADFGX bright_l_Page_120.jp2
9ca25a3ff112f09b8ecb548dbe33e0f7
c6166c7568726dd5e599e4ee2402adece9b77f9e
1923 F20110115_AADFIB bright_l_Page_016.txt
46e4c39f0af58da8bd66d41094ae2f81
b95b5b60c82e975e982fd197cca0d25b0b6dda7a
59079 F20110115_AADFHN bright_l_Page_119.pro
d94b7a031598f26ba9f15fe6b9a2fa16
cb3c8aca97110f5e7119a693a6f0a8c7c3b72341
19895 F20110115_AADFGY bright_l_Page_039.QC.jpg
c17b7a7b2812a4f26e7c1017eef1e526
43557d7c242da07c0b97591db40d7c35fa9e26e4
25812 F20110115_AADFIC bright_l_Page_070.QC.jpg
65741a3ff2719c503124e8814a7ae7ea
b404ea4220601033829ae540b13d427fa220bc3f
18952 F20110115_AADFHO bright_l_Page_050.QC.jpg
6482f74accb9015f2cbb7fc2be910c69
3c34e39724a7f19804265ba74af6998e11679e72
5807 F20110115_AADFGZ bright_l_Page_039thm.jpg
bcbc97b6a7837b1174a99a60468d1ab5
d7ba839f4b37cb59757df282a835f2ded0148fa8
103754 F20110115_AADFID bright_l_Page_015.jp2
0517750d6eba61f684f803d02aa8f1ce
8c020adbf46c101b47dde992d9355803bbdd8969
4859 F20110115_AADFIE bright_l_Page_078thm.jpg
6ebcd3bd8f30f1a410561979ea83ff20
f5df6907630c01eea4b40d3ec31d2d2a380e4fb2
47959 F20110115_AADFHP bright_l_Page_099.pro
6dc5fd986dff2abc592709b119d3a2ff
90cae784b19a90044644e9e7acbe943616633a13
51231 F20110115_AADFIF bright_l_Page_031.pro
dca379f71af6332da9cb0c92e6a43abb
7b0f3800fdbf65a19c9de8bf19a90a3d0d526525
1657 F20110115_AADFHQ bright_l_Page_019.txt
b66fad5e352f0ccd1150d915cff073e0
9f71e97132f418fdef5f8663c97a2413c64f393c
70812 F20110115_AADFIG bright_l_Page_045.jpg
0f01db209a7ef53450748f801ef08cb8
f78baf2b8164605b775ec699393d67d66eb9bcb2
1962 F20110115_AADFHR bright_l_Page_103.txt
5b61d0d515e176157d70f383e05c44f4
e289ce63ddadb74b8640567c4199dc7d2e764ca6
107896 F20110115_AADFIH bright_l_Page_032.jp2
4f2b6c56c1de84ae725955d7f4c16f97
104dcf76cbe5fe6b11752650676f8a1fe2f34028
103979 F20110115_AADFHS bright_l_Page_036.jp2
2b0245f016a66f45868bee7411d106f8
e21a0286018af45765a26f0020655bbdc9849cf0
50023 F20110115_AADFII bright_l_Page_027.pro
da8979ecc909d3a00a997248971b31d0
9b1382a391a3bc356fc82b358273e3e2d207bc8b
1904 F20110115_AADFHT bright_l_Page_045.txt
99ebb3f446ab1153d5bf5d4ed6f201f3
2a8b1796ee79121a0141504322cb31d0c59b8478
26208 F20110115_AADFIJ bright_l_Page_069.QC.jpg
6e66cf349a1be3803c8eb20182ce34e4
de6cfbdf7f8978abea1616d3cffc0f128436537b
6641 F20110115_AADFHU bright_l_Page_097thm.jpg
3fcfb16ca4b1da8f763fa75f121d69bc
642505d54b12ce8c9d3c06bb393cd8ff24d6c3f9
52401 F20110115_AADFIK bright_l_Page_025.pro
d3e952cea920252421ebaaa6151083ad
28295b291701a7e119623ac12275952223ab0f1a
F20110115_AADFHV bright_l_Page_046.tif
f0eb8cc470fd16860aac7b7ef1f5270c
eab1f45d43a3399a1803e44d129dbea40f640a31
18996 F20110115_AADFIL bright_l_Page_009.pro
72a55b0b6709be14528abbb0f15b667f
f67a8a3ccae740c5b56680e0f57ca0a3f02698d9
1725 F20110115_AADFHW bright_l_Page_113thm.jpg
de75352e02ef7d8a0ca2ebc7816a2e90
707d404cd6d5a764a0c2a5438cfedd13b1e34a25
65251 F20110115_AADFIM bright_l_Page_055.jpg
f932e9890107190e83d27d8c42c53fc3
073a49f878c49a22fc6b057a2b73696feebea339
48091 F20110115_AADFHX bright_l_Page_046.pro
b91f3fc6d32ca8d1d1ff76557f2159a3
139868215ce68a9ff2cb3f4f46b9d503f84f4fe8
1122 F20110115_AADFJA bright_l_Page_002.pro
0cc28348f7808f40e67e98c9ced69919
dd09395fd3255373d2fd8e1edd486070cc19030a
24439 F20110115_AADFIN bright_l_Page_071.QC.jpg
7b7728e14c8718f5dc4c357c504e1e9a
788e0182471b47737b89aaaae4322b86ea4248a9
57910 F20110115_AADFHY bright_l_Page_019.jpg
134ec5f738563576e94b5ad7cc99e0b4
cc12f346a03f8fc22e37676e300398653203847f
550 F20110115_AADFJB bright_l_Page_114.txt
26366f6957b8584c7ebdb529169610a8
7c0b2a53bf1179b4263f0634ddd2e1ee99ccfdd0
103468 F20110115_AADFIO bright_l_Page_014.jp2
7207cd1b187953f91e320a12af8ad147
cbea5e7bcd85d32cec63c5a7d7d4fe8c08c09140
109832 F20110115_AADFHZ bright_l_Page_088.jp2
517f29ed897205dd77dee69e9d7c8a4b
3b50c119c7d0ef19cbfa509b7635a331bba7a9cb
F20110115_AADFJC bright_l_Page_093.tif
d1bdbd6f1cf6df1b9c3a70881360064a
9166fd354852e361de414576710524689f6aab14
1913 F20110115_AADFIP bright_l_Page_036.txt
0bac2e7662587854f77c07625f2f2cb7
27bb70bc8201bc5f7abc317059daac9ecf2fa881
19194 F20110115_AADFJD bright_l_Page_106.pro
404253e1d7b36f95ce7c5ad5dd7f5276
e1b327548422109bf593c654ea140d0053a33589
48406 F20110115_AADFJE bright_l_Page_086.pro
f80ea4c77284f8dbef6bcca79ef5a34a
86fb8fc62440c70a379eece9746bb561015ff50a
21932 F20110115_AADFIQ bright_l_Page_017.QC.jpg
90ab90a61acf927ebc8304eae5b22c18
131f2ab9ff1a0da617885accd4ad03438c83be6f
6548 F20110115_AADFJF bright_l_Page_069thm.jpg
f0d2897b8ec31e1eff8af519bf21c423
6b97b2b6ba2b20373b989600525f286d7170d3fc
F20110115_AADFIR bright_l_Page_029.tif
91b7404f877485b6921c02f57e6b6cd9
2c582882a19de63107c5cd45d4dd8ca238d61164
4816 F20110115_AADFJG bright_l_Page_123thm.jpg
b3111f5c4c7e6782e762fdc74fa106cd
2a8786f7b2b0e8e419a7dc549b8e631b08b3f1d9
105576 F20110115_AADFIS bright_l_Page_086.jp2
5c1982b691ca56c3385d5a4cc4ff01da
8eb6e16226bb30aca3ad790b3d0b97e3aecd218e
1889 F20110115_AADFJH bright_l_Page_012.txt
c8a2f0c24c9518b8bd3175c8a600f63a
d226bc63da7c9624c4ab94e79ee40c755ea9a059
22976 F20110115_AADFIT bright_l_Page_109.QC.jpg
8e9987fbf00726f517a8e8f04e783352
14ecdb07340ac4d33a8ca5b2c288df07335704d1
F20110115_AADFJI bright_l_Page_083.tif
36b3fddd774d6e7fda265195758ca687
684306ad5730ef543df5f715bde21dc326a9f001
37356 F20110115_AADFIU bright_l_Page_008.pro
1201088852ac628fc059fdd993da4bd7
7c31c95396847700c1ccfae3a4811dbeb75edd5e
1967 F20110115_AADFJJ bright_l_Page_026.txt
e2a92d6bb77157587d0e84118d2c0540
6bc136315badb3e1ba890a790ede4c3a9273d6d3
22056 F20110115_AADFIV bright_l_Page_047.QC.jpg
cb1234848acab1254973e42e5220d95f
24d1893e1917aa07fd865b3f53d143c4232a3390
21989 F20110115_AADFJK bright_l_Page_091.QC.jpg
220b3bb5f885e435299fc83cf34888a2
153e6f2fad1f4f2c9662ee4a7cbacbb4525002ff
21290 F20110115_AADFIW bright_l_Page_051.QC.jpg
7cdfba408b56bbf66f2c5074da5ca28e
c446dc68a16adec4eefee901a1daae43e72c84f8
62708 F20110115_AADFJL bright_l_Page_029.jp2
d0b2f8af663808840266dcb20f6f5bb3
70fe696317be1ce6a4c09cc29693694759f6b04b
26048 F20110115_AADFIX bright_l_Page_054.QC.jpg
217f879b7bf6e2ad6aac576c2a992327
7662cefd52857ba15d1267919c36a7e92050040b
F20110115_AADFKA bright_l_Page_094.tif
22fc5f90fa5153b8794eb066d26d6711
730b7300ea339915bf856b8b2e908d2671a32758
6236 F20110115_AADFJM bright_l_Page_034thm.jpg
f396c9761ee6af516ce6040046f6501e
8ca3599af8cd2e38be80eed416cd3572405e0fcf
6367 F20110115_AADFIY bright_l_Page_098thm.jpg
b31cf87f3baedb94816e2216a4049f1c
20e90a80577db4b1f9ad5f401d906c3cd9352059
98418 F20110115_AADFKB bright_l_Page_022.jp2
2ec9cd1968571444449d77719048bb39
11812022fafb0852b0aa656257a980930d8efd02
6473 F20110115_AADFJN bright_l_Page_031thm.jpg
6d54bfa139ec84b75b04d343374e2fd8
aa43f9fe450101285b8f30dfc54a1215a788ce42
52243 F20110115_AADFIZ bright_l_Page_041.pro
af063c5331f5a9a3e32acca4c560c6e7
e143966c2f8e479e19e0f7c034aa308e58d44aa0
65861 F20110115_AADFKC bright_l_Page_062.pro
3d00a7f685a8d01daa6560bedf8132df
89a327c96d23309e8cd27b8899b99a54001ddd51
25070 F20110115_AADFJO bright_l_Page_077.QC.jpg
a93474f01bf53324e499b273d7c56513
9d2cd48db93a00b1d75b8f2b6b58630f69e49cda
1898 F20110115_AADFKD bright_l_Page_100.txt
dd8dd265a8ffc366bb6abbd5c307900b
1847d0fc0387a6d8ffe7fc60c60fbb50885e4035
2917 F20110115_AADFJP bright_l_Page_108.txt
506f7f2b531233c39cab5f403b30c4d4
6d232fc707ad353be4de527ce37f955969bff2a2
69804 F20110115_AADFKE bright_l_Page_020.jpg
14d0fcbd6fb8bbc833f5bf229a529ab6
043f5ccb5dc83ed4bcbaca85a21f0ecd6b3c4b4c
2412 F20110115_AADFJQ bright_l_Page_054.txt
477df18d610924990fa7ad13b34cdc7f
e3c3aa05d089872e475afa609ba34d9345978a4e
38372 F20110115_AADFKF bright_l_Page_050.pro
039e9ce61b1a7bdcc98e4bb885975510
1a8dbc3def4b3494c939757285c3f85a2d5e81ce
F20110115_AADFKG bright_l_Page_104.tif
db45bb5a503d0ebb1b317987b8096d14
8c9399041f3b224475e8316a6e0d77f9a8cfc718
2238 F20110115_AADFJR bright_l_Page_074.txt
4985da9614672da4457309bca843fa53
2b0586ecfc6ef1d08e3b503b3f23c20576820568
F20110115_AADFKH bright_l_Page_035.tif
f76769c72edbee7c9763ec330674b2c0
69dd54d6c914f44feb61f3ea02d2d95ac592b4e9
12449 F20110115_AADFJS bright_l_Page_007.QC.jpg
723ffac2e073bace6c542d7676f6d203
074178dbf84361fa57ae33500970a13245ba80cc
70476 F20110115_AADFKI bright_l_Page_085.jpg
7bdf5746cbe3da10d7d747cafe345f70
654ae77cc1d6721c509cd49350e9999eb3ec3984
14390 F20110115_AADFJT bright_l_Page_029.QC.jpg
29e6dbfcf4b2e5d84c422b2acd1ca80e
10d8618ac25e3dc6d038db45ed100a0ffc1604c2
1827 F20110115_AADFKJ bright_l_Page_096.txt
c0a9bd0a783f7be4459e3141f7c33649
00d2921fec78d2a6b09b2d96380aff35d1734300
100886 F20110115_AADFJU bright_l_Page_092.jp2
84c8a03db9060d7df694edbed9b6d609
bb848d3e49e84340c2ad2cce118a1b65586c14f9
67006 F20110115_AADFKK bright_l_Page_034.jpg
b9c2e262c5ccb8d946d56aa048e571aa
25d840645659bf14c8cb09d5073bcda3210bf163
5895 F20110115_AADFJV bright_l_Page_006thm.jpg
4c5142f269ac6226b06c6dc2dc3cedab
1afa2ab52489b01e412ea4215fe2cb80c01d3ccf
21567 F20110115_AADFKL bright_l_Page_067.QC.jpg
817dcbecc98a15a654a29944e7110538
9314f71e6737284a8f73a804707f6ee2e17e20dd
F20110115_AADFJW bright_l_Page_047.txt
dce0202f3c723ca963309f8adb075001
079fd540b493551cc1d652daef06732f1871116e
2622 F20110115_AADFLA bright_l_Page_114thm.jpg
b64a0fdebc911e4ce3e76759ead1940a
1a79e4951bcad90b9c8a3a761db237d8b4c654dc
103026 F20110115_AADFKM bright_l_Page_082.jp2
c11457683a55b6ad4bf0e1e63cb3a34f
ffac48815c017e467ff87950d2daaab40f8c04c9
6165 F20110115_AADFJX bright_l_Page_094thm.jpg
b011266ea089c6dc23607953202d6034
187dd83cebf64c6639895ce0aa916ce141a3697b
F20110115_AADFLB bright_l_Page_068.tif
4a198d83559caf0870b4ba19f57e2207
81e4b11fbcb630ed6251c149df4175c84b6dced5
59682 F20110115_AADFKN bright_l_Page_120.pro
0c293e41f21c7fc193eb0517e5fed63c
d3335409d08fb9e544bb34a9cef92bade8c009b2
46903 F20110115_AADFJY bright_l_Page_047.pro
4d8a8e39ae4d50205dd2dd7585d1af15
a03b80891bd693b1d84938421a4c8e91efa5f135
21382 F20110115_AADFLC bright_l_Page_087.QC.jpg
88d1a4e7c11f32d1eedc113a3f0511f2
14a4a4631c605a681bc974170d0e5957586ec1d6
50525 F20110115_AADFKO bright_l_Page_098.pro
9b75d2cd487dacc45c2a95163e965755
70e48621ed280b63d4ba998195cd875be154f359
F20110115_AADFJZ bright_l_Page_098.tif
d13e62a3cf15d1404645644a1cfc272a
c31013959d7cd02588943e3149ba5c5defe86800
27415 F20110115_AADFLD bright_l_Page_075.QC.jpg
c24766cba5079e2791e6443872c0dd46
ddec60a3b2775b0b825710098d7b21c1aa246766
F20110115_AADFKP bright_l_Page_070.jp2
4fec1ff1338c64cfa9b89785dd426348
e6062251a41af7aaede7b5c95e76e286225a295d
102629 F20110115_AADFLE bright_l_Page_044.jp2
f227731d04374c8ba71da51bf2077b88
a548b5ed46eb654796ba30ec7de6c8831422523b
18565 F20110115_AADFKQ bright_l_Page_110.QC.jpg
28fa1c954b0e7558a21308776e8862aa
b65fbeb58f3e5ffb9102c46c9b45a91ea1edfb6e
1051979 F20110115_AADFLF bright_l_Page_119.jp2
41d840eb4a5feac7596223b3f3c6a6c3
69ae4c3f7871f7f681753e61c0bf75749144187d
6353 F20110115_AADFKR bright_l_Page_017thm.jpg
7d190285e1c63249fd424f58571d2a35
1f4dfdf7018e68834929e9016784efbd697051be
93507 F20110115_AADFLG bright_l_Page_121.jpg
5c27574f658af9d23b47097065ef178a
445a2e37ea825040654f1f341a2bcbfdc41e0174
70222 F20110115_AADFLH bright_l_Page_108.jpg
a75289f075ac67a32c50388508e63f76
685e77325bd35298541c18e1d7ac0fa648a2b23a
40780 F20110115_AADFKS bright_l_Page_079.pro
fe00d04c2ea70a38b4b574f1642724fd
96ade66062ca8513ca5970b6ffcee78126a28a84
52869 F20110115_AADFLI bright_l_Page_109.pro
fa049af21846dec189fbc8dbdfd4fe25
87bca99242af0cd94e595e7dda43ec620ef6ca44
96465 F20110115_AADFKT bright_l_Page_062.jpg
0e86457c28598889cdcc744588ed67c8
de7c4ee526dc6121788f4ad9b574b4698510d71b
13471 F20110115_AADFLJ bright_l_Page_021.QC.jpg
904c6375090bf047d9cfdcabcb99d849
e85ff1edbbb179ca0d1dca18e786d52e00b4057b
1918 F20110115_AADFKU bright_l_Page_028.txt
fb9ff1720431264f5971f4d707d325d1
f1a2b7b9394c4d78c1bf0bdf33e49f6316ef1476
75724 F20110115_AADFLK bright_l_Page_056.jpg
0a19de84c334f3d3d57415c3415c0fc6
27deec729c23dd968f9dfcb85e5926df3672f31b
23492 F20110115_AADFKV bright_l_Page_013.QC.jpg
0822fd12a4085f98d5c02234028843ba
9a1ff4692f9db1e88fbdb7afb4a813a988b95d19
1837 F20110115_AADFLL bright_l_Page_094.txt
8ab41861207a40c000bdb9e86bc0788f
c95af5b3ae794f8357296165e7377107d864dc3f
4332 F20110115_AADFKW bright_l_Page_122thm.jpg
d45ba89b3586e445fdb79730a3076b9e
b1d77cac45abfc5588922a5940a202572a316499
26899 F20110115_AADFLM bright_l_Page_076.QC.jpg
616cf9e2197ca50dcb9d91a382c7958a
0e22861a7e26a8521719d9930956910e28ce0326
74709 F20110115_AADFKX bright_l_Page_024.jpg
c807978bcb5498bc07d4b2450dc299c5
a4d8b0d6fdab877fc78cd3dc9fe5e365c6aa53d7
1366 F20110115_AADFMA bright_l_Page_122.txt
6766b144ce5ab61521be4e912a93014f
1d579eb829b3abf111a7205b3832b97ea562d1fe
50166 F20110115_AADFLN bright_l_Page_110.pro
c59cc20c296411f47470424c48f8f98a
7d12e92321e67b38acc946816cf5ea0267d4f9e7
5465 F20110115_AADFKY bright_l_Page_019thm.jpg
d495c55a9718c86f75eea33e6b897093
203a88d5a765a7b4677faecb003144b5448d2f69
2654 F20110115_AADFMB bright_l_Page_075.txt
b8239908eb892f75b8dc079b7859987b
1fc36e1218212da64e762e46ed4e17fce9deea22
6453 F20110115_AADFLO bright_l_Page_054thm.jpg
f598abd25840903c52260ad3e70855d0
b9c47f9de1de612d110f4a7f2e2cf0d3f7e12ade
F20110115_AADFKZ bright_l_Page_024thm.jpg
930acb47c30069d211bfbd8f5383497c
7cfde8bf4b41193c55254d0be32249cd9b564d98
F20110115_AADFMC bright_l_Page_123.jpg
07e6462482dbd1b049f308316be6f0ed
5d1fb6eb7bcde5bcb92eb8b7789bb42fea55de79
59729 F20110115_AADFLP bright_l_Page_107.jpg
b1ae042d3bc8bc624c1e7ba4da3ab1e3
b37f6de121f222a24d7c5b5c43c3b8542a48349d
40376 F20110115_AADFMD bright_l_Page_049.pro
eccf2f3dd2b8733f5d3591182a582520
1b474bc39f720fca7fbbcaf98b14b3c8363cb1cb
1374 F20110115_AADFME bright_l_Page_002thm.jpg
b216b840b6fb2fde6618a227d23ffd82
07bbf54d5ab0fdc7fe12aa108d6bed2d577927c6
F20110115_AADFLQ bright_l_Page_074thm.jpg
6038cbcd191fed6f3df59388a68d181d
1eddc3003da9035c2c7cbb93544c79b928f270bd
18748 F20110115_AADFMF bright_l_Page_078.QC.jpg
b07b827a01242e8863d15789e57d863c
e77eeeccfb16b195dac7cfda4bd96f884e9c960a
88438 F20110115_AADFLR bright_l_Page_053.jpg
8f10651bf757a128f244b3e48dbe8bc2
df5f754d32ff69d89b689c7190c7587bbd1d1290
99117 F20110115_AADFMG bright_l_Page_043.jp2
f85bac2de616fa2ead73da9589698e2d
95809827f59d0e4d5ad1d6c238d2c35dd3c7563a
F20110115_AADFLS bright_l_Page_113.tif
edda978d3d9c023463e2106d54133f47
8c0ba7ed02e96aa3ef520dcae7b009bf263b970c
57949 F20110115_AADFMH bright_l_Page_021.jp2
60705c17dacfc83eec7e3dc10825f29f
d431e29b0d5ab2bdcd669a1d881b0e04b87d8d1a
47491 F20110115_AADFMI bright_l_Page_011.pro
a18f1b7b7d133cc24b6306f427c99719
79acabc3e924b7fd9078540ac49e16144b14e3c1
1051968 F20110115_AADFLT bright_l_Page_004.jp2
e70b865412cec69b0d5ae1b78241566a
ab4b93666a25ec6e21cf845064906bfb0defe0df
69812 F20110115_AADFMJ bright_l_Page_026.jpg
d99f3d4c9d9cc57f0a3a2602b75f42f0
07a6397889f1d1b7ddc9ccd5f2dc0a1ac2a3e7d5
49810 F20110115_AADFLU bright_l_Page_085.pro
6e75cc076d12eda8104b9bcd6306c1f3
a06b209c1286dc1f86855874a1dc7cfc2e238b1f
6426 F20110115_AADFMK bright_l_Page_063thm.jpg
b51080e312c0ca213948d5de88ffabc1
5fd40ba9bf44d75f88d0cac695cdd2deeef8c8b2
98772 F20110115_AADFLV bright_l_Page_057.jp2
bc4db546cec7e23554387ae46e1dc77f
ba0c693d1d383d78e745d303504f66a58b2fa950
F20110115_AADFML bright_l_Page_004.tif
678d99594fef862032caa3ba14254a56
eef493d787fc259e59811273231eec9bd5f54695
23099 F20110115_AADFLW bright_l_Page_063.QC.jpg
838546ca5b150cc05d263f714c72783a
34ef2b6fcb74b6fe7c00684c99001a47ff6acdc3
F20110115_AADFNA bright_l_Page_076.tif
1792da43b805cf20647c2d3d02dc4e3b
f63050e37b9895c7efb4e04ce59847fa1c37c18d
109740 F20110115_AADFMM bright_l_Page_101.jp2
64bda9ea5e4f5224412d1883e84b9379
3054f1d06ffdad739ae4884fda365ba0b9cda8e2
6531 F20110115_AADFLX bright_l_Page_041thm.jpg
6e3cce34cae0406a7dc1fac82478a8c1
195fc64dd77edc5fd4afd4df0816ac9e35bf7179
116063 F20110115_AADFNB bright_l_Page_023.jp2
3b289dca1d63447b36e5e18474a0d565
afaa5b5c96c026d080d6f78ac044d444753da410
19133 F20110115_AADFMN bright_l_Page_045.QC.jpg
6a9a56b74ff641a8372bd654ab40fc07
9a683bd7e5266f972b08faf986c32f6dbc5e5cf2
45351 F20110115_AADFLY bright_l_Page_022.pro
6f77a8dd90ae30c392d34c012fff63fc
e821d8044f8e7ddc7c1c35fc725364be72946ba5
7822 F20110115_AADFNC bright_l_Page_111.QC.jpg
35663ab7bf5c5a1752c0c8a993c24716
bf4be274c4cd0093cd9060630619158a0d0734f5
24111 F20110115_AADFMO bright_l_Page_114.jpg
4933cca5641c4312852d7fda13e69490
84025ce1646201c82eac30b9cb24f706b821305b
1051939 F20110115_AADFLZ bright_l_Page_065.jp2
61f06d337e2d231b73ace94d18fe1fb1
f67f3b23bf5d6e2eb6a2fdf563f53ff250d1c93d
107472 F20110115_AADFND bright_l_Page_085.jp2
ea4e6320732e5c39e3534a5acf1d265d
26b4b019cb21bf977caffe4b58b5fb106d321792
70030 F20110115_AADFMP bright_l_Page_104.jpg
b0281cc48ba9b9060ea35ca25ddf11de
d937b2f144200396b2022bbbbaad068f7aa8d010
82538 F20110115_AADFNE bright_l_Page_065.jpg
9ba3cc6e74516ba7f88faa4c177d0593
e239cbeb20efc181268692ab912021778167e7b8
1051976 F20110115_AADFMQ bright_l_Page_072.jp2
3feca6751fc0e032436eac4a8ac5d4f4
cf73aaa4f4801c0d5b44b0c57a8662881a0e7db9
113648 F20110115_AADFNF bright_l_Page_116.jp2
db418983dd582bd3972ef05ebad5caad
c1b2f3252e4fd6c532ede0be20c006512d6150a6
6135 F20110115_AADFMR bright_l_Page_093thm.jpg
f4b4458fb2c703cd117c93510fd106a0
2dc387205bed5b24d9f0847b7251a5352d264826
32232 F20110115_AADFNG bright_l_Page_123.pro
8070a3c7ec65ea09489083ce8d848840
fc76e1ab38f6402687e47068d5878fe372afc51d
F20110115_AADFMS bright_l_Page_036thm.jpg
923650384956300fba5289e9a300a8a9
d0fdff7ad44b9cbdbf691e880dfc57252019c3f1
1334 F20110115_AADFNH bright_l_Page_123.txt
73549dddd8ba82c8a11c0021a84ecec7
777a8804c0a959e6472097badb19d2b06665b6f8
F20110115_AADFMT bright_l_Page_079.tif
a144b0da022b2abdbe1d6d0d19ff22e2
b43654e5a8f471e9e0334d2cbf880b964fcd4993
1800 F20110115_AADFNI bright_l_Page_039.txt
e2540504806a4f11b7f1faef5eb75c5d
46ef81f08abdc89b0d94ca283afb6547ab8fe1d3
10722 F20110115_AADFNJ bright_l_Page_106.QC.jpg
de7538489fc412d87e2f0b3dea4674f0
1fd452865448b6381f51ef95332ed6be3db0feda
47817 F20110115_AADFMU bright_l_Page_100.pro
53df30fb4d98230749290444c752f34b
21c31162b0d89ba751f32b0f5050af7ca24edc1e
29252 F20110115_AADFNK bright_l_Page_114.jp2
1fb6c0d31fa9e68fd06a0ad5fcef04cd
fe5d5196c7f418a92ff944ce7779542ef084f6db
F20110115_AADFMV bright_l_Page_056.tif
2adad38c1b0aff66dd3a1a6726e07151
a902726a97103a2f954bd730db1001ef618bc436
F20110115_AADFNL bright_l_Page_041.tif
cf7b49adc0770e6776ba157c6bee2bba
17553592ed2aba2d39ec1e9cbdf3cbaec5f99bfa
1051935 F20110115_AADFMW bright_l_Page_069.jp2
1883f0014e43cf20c7bfd476fe37003f
5112aad5b24b6afc526d2e26cbd3637bbfc414a3
69029 F20110115_AADFNM bright_l_Page_089.jpg
e19df5a5b7e9526d5bf23b252de7a2ea
1dcfbff7e9c92eadd1eb27b9fa86f92af4cdb7f3
93252 F20110115_AADFMX bright_l_Page_010.jp2
3f8a51049f49e2c5dee896830ec24db2
da769756458896959ea85c03e6f8b61f19f09c78
57512 F20110115_AADFOA bright_l_Page_008.jpg
b29f5c8bcfdcbd7ecfa7357d800168d8
59a92f2a8abf5970b08aa885bcc5da3509be3e26
74514 F20110115_AADFNN bright_l_Page_051.jpg
be43a6d2ef497d8be9398b75a68ba786
387d908a8668e75ba5b0e51c7b7832b5138df39d
14553 F20110115_AADFMY bright_l_Page_111.pro
d390969df3f798af4e97ab935b0d8f01
2202351a3239b71aa1d3c05f6cd1d8c93dce5678
68844 F20110115_AADFOB bright_l_Page_047.jpg
b0af4f2e41fc0f28b9913389204f1338
63712867313c34ea6378253688bcf5cf0787e90b
66405 F20110115_AADFNO bright_l_Page_015.jpg
e271c33a101cd6c3437167fa69131c7d
8d152dd9e9163320ed5bfe78bfcc43c7d2348919
99983 F20110115_AADFMZ bright_l_Page_040.jp2
a6b5cae86fbf8b0531c7256697331ffa
3753410e5ec75bc2c7714e587805979c36db1af6
1047 F20110115_AADFOC bright_l_Page_021.txt
878125ce2b765d2b249580340a808208
909e8009eb9ec0a2d37dde031541aeeb900af7bb
F20110115_AADFNP bright_l_Page_063.tif
61289228ca0a4db96ed581c797604b4e
48464399fc33427240c0b3b5b69e1d7cac289b8d
1953 F20110115_AADFOD bright_l_Page_063.txt
744dce2ad83912257a0b5f6f6243d37d
041e27ec77b06bfe6cedc62bb3e2c73ffaf1b732
73811 F20110115_AADFNQ bright_l_Page_041.jpg
16ad9f73deb1d0d0c4037ebcf7bcc1a3
f44e906fdd8bea5d0c306cbc696ec5b898030441
3140 F20110115_AADFOE bright_l_Page_009thm.jpg
7c417f75b38d5803024e7a47acd2c911
bee6612ee33ec776781a38fb1eb4e13fbb5dd415
107221 F20110115_AADFNR bright_l_Page_080.jp2
41c15bbef529ca2d56d1be84e68ef6d4
dd50d05507af80a1f57c4417fd52f125932d1eab
5212 F20110115_AADFOF bright_l_Page_107thm.jpg
400cb09943cc7cc8e000ef67c439d4c4
e1243d951f8b83daaced00bba7e578f57f71a70b
88857 F20110115_AADFNS bright_l_Page_084.jp2
2dde275f42bbe8d0eea2f6d341cf3c19
b6691c1315b33de40c54931ffdecfc4176781ee1
59605 F20110115_AADFOG bright_l_Page_108.pro
901bbd9ba575d8d77c8f9a1a5ddb8244
83f675a47b2588975eeebb2ad9054e402b6d3f0f


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008968/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Benefits, Constraints, and Negotiation Strategies of Skiers and Snowboarders with Disabilities
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

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: UFE0008968:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0008968/00001

Material Information

Title: Perceived Benefits, Constraints, and Negotiation Strategies of Skiers and Snowboarders with Disabilities
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

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: UFE0008968:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












PERCEIVED BENEFITS, CONSTRAINTS, AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES
OF SKIERS AND SNOWBOARDERS WITH DISABILITIES

















By

LAUREN BRIGHT


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

Lauren Bright















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people in my life have earned my respect and gratitude for their patience and

encouragement throughout this study. Dr. Robert Burns was an integral part of this

study. His research and funding efforts allowed this study to take place. For that, I will

always be grateful. Dr. Stephen Anderson never gave up on me. He was the reason I had

the motivation to see this project through. Dr. Burns taught me to always keep my head

up and gave me the confidence in my abilities as a graduate student. Dr. Cari Autry and

Dr. Chris Stopka gave their expertise and always had their doors open for a quick

question.

I give my deepest appreciation to my mom and dad for all of their love, support,

and endless encouragement. I could never forget all that they have done. I am truly

thankful for their support throughout my graduate program. Without them, it would

never have been possible. Sincerest thanks go to all my fellow students, who never failed

to lend me a helping hand.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

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

LIST OF TABLES ......... .... ........ .... .... ...... ........... ..... ..... vi

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

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Benefits of Leisure and Recreation Participation.......................................................2
Benefits to Outdoor Recreation for People with Disabilities .....................................4
Examining Leisure Constraints and Negotiation Strategies ......................................5
Dem graphic Issues .................. ............................ .. ...... ................ .6
R elated Skiing L literature ................................................................... .....................7
State ent of the P problem ............................................................................. ........ 8
Purpose of the Study ............... ...................................................8
R research Q uestions........... .................................................................... ........ .. .. ...
D elim itations/Lim stations ............................................................ ............... 11
D definitions ............................................................... .... ..... ........ 11

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................ ..............13

Outdoor Recreation Participation Patterns of People with Disabilities...................13
Leisure and Recreation Benefits Literature .... .......... ......................................14
Leisure Benefits for People with Disabilities..........................................................16
C constraints L literature ....................... ............................................ .. ........... ..17
Constraint Negotiation..................................... ................ ............22
Constraints Literature Related to People with Disabilities.......................................25
R elated Skiing and Literature ............................................. ............................ 27

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 3 0

Sam pling Procedures ...................................... ............. ................ 30
S u rv e y D e sig n ....................................................................................................... 3 1
D ata C o lle ctio n ..................................................................................................... 3 2
Treatm ent of D ata .............................................................. .... ..... 33










4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................................................. 3 4

Measures of Possible Benefits of Skiing and Snowboarding ...................................43
M measures of C on strains ...................................................................... ..................50
Measures of Constraint Negotiation ....................................................................60

5 D IS C U S S IO N .............. ..... ............ ................. ............................................7 0

Sum m ary of P rocedures....................................................................... ..................70
Discussion of Research Questions........ ........... .............................................71
Conclusions................... ......................... .........88
Implications for Professional Practice...... ..................... ...............93
Recommendations for Future Research..............................................................95

APPENDIX

A SU R V E Y IN STR U M EN T ........................................... ..........................................97

B INTRODUCTION POST CARD ................................... ............................. ....... 105

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......................................................................... ................... 107

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ........................................................................114































v
















LIST OF TABLES


Table pge

1 Socio-demographic profile of Adaptive Recreation Participants.............................36

2 Recreation Profile of Adaptive Recreation Participants................ ..................39

3 Self-reported Disability Information of Adaptive Recreation Participants..............40

4 Results of the Frequency Analysis of Disability Types of Adaptive Skiers
& Snow boarders ................. ................................................. 42

5 Results of Frequency Analysis of Possible Benefits of Adaptive Recreation
P articip atio n ....................................................... ................ 4 4

6 Results of independent sample t-test examining the benefits by interest ................45

7 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Education
L ev el ................. ..................................... ...........................4 7

8 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Income Level....49

9 Results of Frequency Analysis of Perceived Constraints to Adaptive Recreation
P artic ip atio n ....................................................... ................ 5 1

10 Perceived constraints of people with disabilities when participating in skiing &
snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those who
d o n o t ..............................................................................5 3

11 Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing &
snowboarding between people with children in their household under the ages of
six and those w ho do not ............................ ........... ....................... ............... 55

12 Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing &
snowboarding between people with children in their household between the ages
of six and 18 and those who do not................... ....... ........................ ............... 57

13 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining the Perceived Constraints by income
lev el. ........................................ ..................... ................ 5 9









14 Results of Frequency Analysis of Constraint Negotiation Strategies People with
Disabilities Use to Start, Continue, or Increase Participation in Skiing &
Snowboarding.................................... ............................... .......... 61

15 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding ..............63

16 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Living Environment.............. ........ ............... 65

17 Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding ...............66

18 Results of Independent Sample t-test Examining Differences of Constraint
Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities Who Reported their Disabilities
Hampered Their Abilities to Ski or Snowboard .............. ......................................68















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

PERCEIVED BENEFITS, CONSTRAINTS, AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES
OF SKIIERS AND SNOWBOARDERS WITH DISABILITIES

By

Lauren M Bright

December 2004

Chair: Steve Anderson
Cochair: Robert Burns
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management

The purpose of this study was to examine the benefits to recreation participation,

the reasons that constrain people with disabilities from participating in outdoor recreation

activities (i.e., skiing and snowboarding), and the strategies they employ to allow desired

participation levels. The hierarchical model of constraints proposed by Crawford and

Godbey was used as the theoretical framework for this study. Adaptive recreation

participants' opinions and beliefs were obtained through a mail-back survey. Findings of

the study suggest that the benefits of recreation and leisure that effect one's self concept

were most important to these adaptive skiers and snowboarders. In addition, the study

revealed that people with disabilities experienced similar constraints to recreation

participation to those people without disabilities. Also, constraint negotiation strategies

were used frequently by people with disabilities in order to maintain or increase their

level of participation.









Specifically, the benefits that increase self-efficacy were found as more important

reasons to engage in recreation activities. Structural constraints such as time and

financial concerns were found to be the major reasons people with disabilities could not

participate as often as they desired. Lastly, skill acquisition strategies were the constraint

negotiation strategies most frequently used to maintain or increase levels of participation.

Understanding the preferences and strategies of varied recreationists especially people

with disabilities can assist those in the recreation and leisure service industries in

developing more effective management strategies to create positive leisure experiences

for all.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Outdoor recreation and winter sports have long been a part of society's leisure

involvement. However, individuals with disabilities frequently have less opportunity to

participate in outdoor recreation and consequently, do not fully reap the benefits of

involvement (Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, & Schuler 1995; Schleien, Germ, & McAvoy

1996).

Disability touches many lives. It affects the lives of people who have a disability,

and also the lives of their families, friends, and coworkers. It encompasses people of all

ages and backgrounds. As of 2002, the US Census Bureau estimated that the U.S.

population of 288 million includes over 63 million persons with a disability, or about

22% of the total population (US Bureau of the Census 2002). Logically, it is important

that we know more about the people that comprise such a large percentage of the

population. It is equally important that recreation/land managers facilitate opportunities

for persons with disabilities.

Recreation has been an important component of human existence for thousands of

years. Participation in outdoor recreation activities by the US population is surprisingly

high, with nearly all Americans (94%) reporting that they participate in some form of

outdoor activity (Cordell, McDonald, Teasley, Bergstrom, Martin, Bason & Leeworthy

1999). Only within the last several years have recreation opportunities been formally

available to people with disabilities. In 1990, Public Law 101-336, also known as the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, enlightened land managers about the special









needs of persons with disabilities. This law caused recreation managers and leisure

service providers to assess whether people with disabilities are as involved in outdoor

recreation as people without disabilities (Smith, Austin & Kennedy 2001; Wachter &

McGowan 2002).

McAvoy (2000) identified several prevailing myths about outdoor recreation and

people with disabilities. These myths include the ideas that people with disabilities do

not prefer the same kinds of outdoor environments, do not participate in outdoor

recreation/adventure activities, and cannot attain a full range of benefits from outdoor

recreation programs and activities. Contrary to these myths, previous research shows that

people with disabilities tend to participate in outdoor recreation at rates equal to or

greater than people without disabilities (McCormick 2001).

Persons with disabilities are generally presented with more challenges than those

without disabilities regarding to recreational pursuits and facilities. These challenges

include access to facilities and equipment, the need for individualized services, and the

availability of leisure education. (Bedini 1991; Coyle & Kinney 1990; Farbman & Ellis

1987; West 1984; Zoerink 1989). This situation points to the need for more recreation

and parks programs designed to facilitate participation in physical activity for people with

disabilities.

Benefits of Leisure and Recreation Participation

Almost anyone would agree that recreation and leisure have countless intrinsic and

extrinsic benefits. The examination of recreation benefits is founded in the study of

recreation and leisure. A body of literature concerning recreation benefits has recently

begun to emerge (Driver, Brown & Peterson 1991), but this literature has been largely









theoretical and conceptual in orientation. Little published work exists that verifies

empirically that benefits do indeed accrue from recreation participation, what these

benefits might be, and how they vary among recreational pursuits. Here we discuss the

nature of recreation benefits.

The concept that leisure and recreation are beneficial goes back to Aristotle, who

viewed leisure as promoting contemplation, improved thinking, and excellence of the

mind (Driver, Brown & Peterson 1991). More recently, there has been a resurgence of

interest and research in the benefits of leisure and recreation. According to the Surgeon

General's report (1996), physical activity has important positive effects on

musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, and endocrine systems. Other health

benefits reported include a reduced risk of premature mortality and reduced risks of

coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus. Regular

participation in physical activity also appears to reduce depression and anxiety, improve

mood, and enhance ability to perform daily tasks throughout the life span.

Benefits are perceived and often analyzed as economic and not economic. The

early work of researchers focused primarily on economic benefits. For the purposes of

the study, benefits focus on the impacts of recreation on humans and society

(psychological, physiological, and social) as opposed to the economic benefits that are oft

cited.

Driver, Brown & Peterson (1991) developed and discussed a benefits based

concept for evaluating, measuring, and promoting park and recreation services. As a

result of this approach to the provision of recreation and leisure services a philosophical

paradigm was adopted by several of the governing agencies such as NRPA and NTRS.









This benefits movement was a significant factor in therapeutic recreation services as well

as park and recreation services. This movement was adopted to positively impact the

quality and quantity of services the consumers. The benefits approach contributed to the

notion that it is time for therapeutic recreation services to be valued as a significant and

necessary service that contributes the well being of the participants and society as a

whole. Benefits have been defined as "recreation behaviors that are engaged in

voluntarily for their intrinsic rewards during times when one is not committed to meeting

basic survival and comfort needs, attaining material possessions, or on-going social

obligations"(Driver, Brown & Petersonl991).

Benefits to Outdoor Recreation for People with Disabilities

A small but growing field of research reveals the usefulness of sport and recreation

in promoting community integration, physiological benefits, and psychological benefits

among people with disabilities. Numerous benefits are reported from therapeutic

recreation services and are often categorized in various domains. Some research has

shown that people with disabilities usually desire the same outcomes as anyone else,

when participating in physical activities such as outdoor recreation activities. According

to the Surgeon General's report (1996), regular physical activity can help people with

disabilities (including those disabling conditions) improve muscle strength, stamina,

psychological well-being, and quality of life. Regular participation in physical activity

can help lower blood pressure, improve mood, relieve depression, and increase feelings

of well-being. It was reported that physical activity can also help control joint swelling

and pain. Perhaps most importantly, participation in regular physical activity can help

prevent secondary illnesses that can result in people not taking care of themselves.









McAvoy (2001) found that people with disabilities realize a full range of benefits

as a result of participation in outdoor recreation and adventure activities and programs. A

number of studies focused on outdoor recreation (including people with disabilities)

documented the psychological, social and mental health benefits that people with

disabilities gain from participation. These benefits include enhanced self-esteem,

increased leisure skills, increased social adjustment, enhanced body image, and positive

changes in behavior (Robb and Ewert 1987; McAvoy et. al. 1989).

Outdoor recreation activities have been used in general with persons with

disabilities including those with long-term illness (Banka & Young 1985; Berman

&Anton 1988; McClung 1984; Stich and Senior 1984); mental retardation

(Dillenschneider 1983); substance abuse (Gass & McPhee 1990; Stich & Gaylord 1983);

and hearing impairments (Luckner 1989). In these experiments, which used outdoor

recreation activities as a means of creating change, much empirical support resulted.

Positive changes occurred in self-concept, self-esteem, trust, group cohesion, skill

development, improved health, and more (Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais, &

Seligmann 1997).

Examining Leisure Constraints and Negotiation Strategies

Since the 1980s, recreation and leisure researchers have examined the reasons why

some people did not participate in desired activities. Constraints research has been

identified and conceptualized in a variety of ways. McCarville and Smale (1991)

discussed the idea of less participation due to constraints. Numerous differences were

found across the sociodemographic variables, although no clear pattern emerged across

this set of variables.









In another early study, Jackson (1988) suggested that the most common internal

constraints include personal skills, abilities, health-related problems, and knowledge;

whereas external constraints include lack of time, lack of facilities, transportation issues,

and financial cost. These constraints were also called perceived and real constraints.

Until recently, most leisure-constraint research examined constraints as

insurmountable obstacles to leisure participation. Early work by Crawford and Godbey

(1987) described three discrete categories of constraints: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and

structural.

Crawford, Godbey, & Jackson (1991) introduced an alternative perspective

proposing the hierarchical model of constraints and the theory of constraint negotiation.

This model suggests that leisure constraints are aligned in a sequential manner such that

leisure participation is dependent on the successful confrontation of each constraint level.

(Crawford et al. 1991). The process begins with intrapersonal constraints in the

development of leisure preferences. Once leisure preferences are formed and constraints

have been negotiated, the process then progresses through the sequential negotiation of

interpersonal and structural constraints.

Demographic Issues

Income and education have been shown to exhibit strong relationships with

constraints, but is often dependent on the type of constraint. Respondents with higher

education and income have the tendency to report the effects of structural constraints.

Jackson (1989) proposed that individuals with higher education and higher incomes are

subject to fewer intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints on participation than their less

privileged counter parts because they have more power due to their social position.









In addition to the influence of social class and income, Henderson (1991) and Shaw

(1994) introduced gender as an important factor as it relates to constraints. Both authors

suggest that there are differences between men and women in the way they experience

leisure constraints. Henderson stated that while individual constraints may not be too

different between men and women, the context of women's lives could be seen as

cumulative.

Age has been an important tool in the investigation of the perception of constraints

across the life span. Intrapersonal constraints have been reported to significantly increase

with age (Alexandris & Carroll 1997; Jackson 1993; Searle & Jackson 1985). It has also

been suggested that older individuals experience more interpersonal constraints more

than middle-aged individuals (Jackson 1993). Finance related constraints have also been

reported to decline with advancing age (Jackson 1993). Time-related constraints have

shown to exhibit a cyclical relationship. Its importance increased from the youngest to

middle-aged groups and decreases among older individuals (McGuire, Dottavio, & 0'

Leary 1986; Searle & Jackson 1985). In conclusion, research has shown that there are

significant differences in the perceptions of constraints among different demographic

groups.

Related Skiing Literature

Skiing, a popular winter recreation activity attracts millions of people to the slopes

and countryside every year. For people with disabilities, the use of gravity and

accumulated speed to maneuver and traverse the mountains while skiing are the same for

people with or without disabilities. It is the equipment and techniques used by people

with disabilities that differ. This classification of equipment and skills are often referred

to adaptive skiing.









Adaptive sports such as skiing were introduced in the mid twentieth century as a

tool for rehabilitation of injuries in war veterans (Malanga 2002). Over time adaptive

skiing has grown in popularity. People with disabilities are able to participate in a

diversity of recreation al activities on the recreation al level as well as the competitive

level.

Snowboarding is another winter recreation activity available at many ski areas.

Although snowboarding has only been around for about twenty-five years, it has gained

widespread interest and popularity. Today, adaptive skiing and snowboarding instruction

is available at many ski areas across the country.

Statement of the Problem

Recreation and leisure have been recognized as a quality that is important to

individuals as well as communities for some time. The goal of many leisure service

professionals is to facilitate leisure experiences for their participants, regardless of their

abilities. Many people with disabilities are limited from participation in various activities.

However, research has shown that people with disabilities usually desire the same

outcomes as anyone else when participating in physical activities. Typically, people with

disabilities report that negative attitudes represent the most devastating constraint they

experience. Leisure service professionals have both a legal and moral obligation to make

reasonable adaptations to include people with disabilities in recreation and leisure

programs.

Purpose of the Study

The focus of this study is to examine the influence of a disability on outdoor

recreation interests, participation patterns, benefits to recreation participation, perceived

constraints, and negotiation strategies among residents and skiers nationwide.









Specifically, this study examined opinions of skiers and snowboarders who have

disabilities. Further, it looked at factors distinguishing those who are impacted by the

presence of a disability within their recreation pursuits. Finally, the purpose of this study

was to investigate the perceived constraints faced by people with disabilities when

participating in winter sport activities such as skiing. This study has its theoretical basis

in previous research on leisure constraints and constraint negotiation.

Research Questions

R1: What does the sample of recreationists look like?

R2: What possible benefits do people with disabilities receive when participating in

winter sport activities such as skiing and snowboarding?

R2A: What are the differences in the perceived benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding

between people who show a high level of interest and those who show a low level

of interest?

R2B: What are the differences in the possible benefits to participation of people

with disabilities when participating in adaptive winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding across the education variable?

R2c: What are the differences in the possible benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across

the income variable?

R3: What constraints do people with disabilities perceive when participating in

winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding?









R3A: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those

who do not?

R3B: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding between people with children in their household under the

ages of six and those who do not?

R3C: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding between people with children in their household between the

ages of six and 18 and those who do not?

R3D:What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding across the income variable?

R4: What constraints do people with disabilities perceive when participating in

winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding?

R4A: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by

people with disabilities who are interested in skiing & snowboarding and those

who are not interested?

R4B: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by

people with disabilities who are living in different living environments?









R4C: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by

people with disabilities who have different levels of education?

R4D: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by

people with disabilities who were hampered by their disability compared to those

who reported they were not hampered by their disability?

Delimitations/Limitations

The original methodology of this study was to include face to face interviews with

adaptive skiers and snowboarders. The research was going to be collected at a week long

winter clinic. The organization sponsoring this winter clinic was to have their own

research efforts on-site during the same time period and gracefully declined participation

in this study. Other delimitations placed on this study were that the respondents were

contacted through cooperative adaptive recreation providers that agreed to participate in

this study. Many adaptive recreation providers declined this opportunity to participate in

the study due to issues related to client confidentiality. Also respondents had to be over

the age of eighteen years old. Another delimitation to this study was that respondents of

the survey were only skiers and snowboarders with disabilities. The limitations to this

study include that the findings of this study may not be generalized to the entire

population of adaptive recreation participants, as only those who were already in contact

with an adaptive recreation provider. Many people venture out on their own when

recreating in the outdoors and forego services provided by adaptive recreation agencies.

Definitions

Accessible: Approachable, functional, and usable by persons with disabilities,

independently, safely, and with dignity. The same definition encompasses (physical)

accessibility and program accessibility.









Constraints: Factors that are assumed by researchers and perceived or

experienced by individuals to inhibit or prohibit participation and full enjoyment of

leisure and recreation pursuits.

Disability: Best defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act; (A) A physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of

such individual, (B) a record of such an impairment, or (C) being regarded as having an

impairment (SEC. 3[2], 1990).

Negotiation: Modifications to behavior such as scheduling, levels of

specialization, and frequency of participation to overcome constraints and that positively

influence or enhance level of participation.

Outdoor recreation: A major category of leisure pursuit that directly involves

the outdoors and can be related to environmental activities. These activities are closely

linked to or dependent on the natural environment. Examples include: skiing,

snowboarding, hiking, backpacking.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Outdoor recreation pursued during leisure time and by free choice often provides

its own satisfaction and has continued to play an increasing role in people's lives.

Recreation and nature-based tourism have been around in this country since its

beginnings. After the Great Depression and World War II, recreation became a major

component of the American way of life. It has demanded recognition and attention.

Today, outdoor recreation still contributes to people's overall well-being and good health.

Regardless of age, recreation provides a wide array of opportunities for physical fitness,

stress reduction, learning new skills and raising self-esteem. Involvement in outdoor

recreation is a fundamental step in promoting an active, healthy population. The

following section describes a general overview of outdoor recreation participation and the

possible benefits of recreation to those who participate.

Outdoor Recreation Participation Patterns of People with Disabilities

The National Survey on Recreation and Environment (NSRE) is the most recent

comprehensive study of outdoor recreation including individuals with disabilities. The

US Forest Service conducted this study in 1995. A total 1,252 people with disabilities

were included in the NSRE, which represented 7.7% of the total study sample. The most

frequent reported disability type overall was physical disabilities. The second largest

category was identified as "illness" and included impairments such as heart conditions,

diabetes, and cancer. Lastly, the other category included impairments and conditions

such as arthritis, asthma, and epilepsy. These three categories accounted for more than









80% of the responses of disabling conditions. When questioned about overall outdoor

recreation participation rates, a smaller proportion of people with disabilities participated

than those respondents without disabilities. Also, in the snow and ice activity category,

people with disabilities reported lower participation rates than those without disabilities.

Another aspect of recreation participation examined by the NSRE study was the

number of days spent participating in select activities in the previous twelve months. The

findings suggest that in general, people with disabilities reported levels of participation in

outdoor recreation activities equaled to, or greater than, people without disabilities.

McCormick (2000) examined the recreation participation rates of both people

with and without disabilities. The study identified that people with disabilities under the

age of 25 and over the age of 75 participated more in outdoor swimming than their peers

without disabilities. This study also reported that when participation rates in outdoor

recreation were examined, it was reported that people with disabilities reported a higher

level of participation than those respondents without disabilities.

Leisure and Recreation Benefits Literature

First, we will consider and discuss the benefits of all types of leisure activities and

then attempt to relate those benefits to outdoor recreation. Prior to that, some concepts

and definitions must be established to promote an understanding. Among recreation

research, there has been considerable confusion about what is meant by a benefit of

leisure. To attempt to prevent that confusion, the developers of the BBM system defined

the three types of leisure benefits.

* A change in the condition of individuals, groups of individuals (a family, a
community, society at large, or the natural environment) that is viewed as more
desirable than the previously existing condition. Examples include improved
health, a more economically stable local community, and improved habitatfor a
species of wildlife.









* The maintenance of a desired condition and therefore the prevention of an
unwanted condition. Examples include maintenance of health, pride in local
community, and an erosion-free trail.

* The realization of a satisfying psychological recreation experience, such as mental
relaxation, closer family bonds, learning of many types, tranquility, enjoying
natural scenery, and testing, applying, and/or developing one's skills. (Driver,
Douglass, & Loomis 1999)

According to Driver, Douglas, and Loomis (1999), benefits can be psychological,

physiological, social, economic, or environmental. They may be immediate (learning new

things about a particular culture or subculture at a particular heritage site) or delayed

(greater pride in one's locale, region, or nation because of accumulated increased

historical cultural understanding and personal reflection about that knowledge). One type

of benefit (relaxation from a demanding job) can lead to another benefit (increased

quality or quantity of work performance), which in turn can lead to other benefits

(increased job satisfaction and maybe increased income).

Participation in leisure and recreation activities is viewed as a means for optimizing

personal beneficial outcomes (Driver 1996). For outdoor recreation, beneficial outcomes

of participation includes the following: nature-based spiritual renewal (Rolston 1996),

wellness (Montes 1996), psychological attachment to special places (Roberts 1996;

Greene 1996), appreciation of early American landscapes (Bruns & Stokowski 1996), use

of heritage and historic resources not only for better understanding of the evolution of a

culture or subculture, but also for maintenance of particular ethnic identities (Lee &

Tainter 1996), leisure services as a social intervention to prevent or help ameliorate

particular social problems or to capture a targeted type of benefit; e.g., help at-risk youth,

promote physical health, promote environmental awareness, including that of natural









ecological processes, and through tourism help stabilize the economy of a local

community (Witt & Crompton 1996).

As mentioned above, the physiological approach to the measurements of benefits of

recreation provides a readily documented and accepted research approach that identifies

measurable outcomes. Initial research efforts focused on benefits such as cardiovascular

improvements, reduction of body fat, and rate of premature death (McLean and Neal

2004). Current recreation research suggests the following physiological benefits:

* Habitual physical activity leads to a reduction of heart rate and lower blood
pressure. Regular physical activity increases muscle strength and improved
function of connective tissues (Paffenbarger, et. al.,1991).

* Sustained physical activity leads to decreased body fat mass and an increase lean
body, an increase in basal metabolism, and a lower risk of obesity (Bray, 1989;
Siscovick,et.al.,1985).

* Physical activity can prevent the complex condition leading to chronic back pain
syndrome and the extensive debility associated with it (Tipton,et. al.,1986).

Leisure Benefits for People with Disabilities

Fullerton, Brandon, & Adrick (2000) conducted a study of residential summer

camp programs that had specialized programs for children with disabilities. The

disability types in their study included learning disabilities, autism, sensory disabilities,

moderate and sever cognitive disabilities, physical disabilities, and traumatic brain

disabilities. The results reported were that children with disabilities benefit from an

outdoor camp program by demonstrating a greater initiative and self directed

independence. The children showed this improvement at camp and transferred in various

ways back at home and in school, following the camp experience.

Another study examined the effects of an outdoor adventure program on self-

efficacy, depression and anxiety. Adults with mental illness were involved in a weekly









day-long adventure outings for the duration of nine weeks. The findings suggested that

significant increases in self-efficacy were seen in the experimental group compared to the

control. Also, significant reductions in symptoms of depression and anxiety were

reported (Kelly, Coursey, & Selby 1997).

Witman and Munson (1992) investigated the outcomes of adventure programming

for adolescents in psychiatric treatment. Findings indicated that the majority of

participants gained the following: personal skills, attitudes relevant to treatment in regard

to self-concept and interpersonal relatedness.

Other studies examined integrated outdoor programs that included people with and

without disabilities. These studies reported the following results: improved attitudes and

lifestyle changes in recreation skills and leisure patterns, interpersonal relationships, and

social patterns; increased willingness to take risks; increased feelings of self-efficacy; and

a number of spiritual benefits (McAvoy, et. al. 1989; ). The research conducted by

Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais & Seligman (1997) confirmed many of the benefits

listed above, and also reported that integrated programs resulted in outdoor recreation

skills, improved sensitivity to the needs of the other group members, and an increased

respect for nature.

Constraints Literature

Within the constraints literature, there have been several theoretical concepts

proposed by various researchers. Some of these frameworks have focused on activity-

specific constraints (McCarville & Smale 1991); including such activities as hiking

(Bialeschki & Henderson 1986); card playing (Scott 1991); camping, and golfing

(Backman & Crompton 1990). Other investigations of constraints have looked at the

various leisure market segments such as the elderly (McGuire 1984); persons with









disabilities (Farbman & Ellis, 1987); as well as females (Bialeschki & Henderson, 1986).

A more recent examination of constraints suggests the concept of constraint negotiation

(Crawford & Godbey 1987; Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey 1991). Discussed below are

the attempts of prior research leading to the idea of negotiation.

The theme of constraints in leisure emerged in the 1980s. The focus of research,

from this time, examined why some people did not participate in leisure activities in

which they might have the desire. Participation was thought to be the only aspect of

leisure truly affected by constraints. Another assumption from the literature of this time

was that there was only one type of constraint, which prevented participation. These

theories did not examine decreased participation due to constraints, but instead examined

only the idea of no participation due to constraints.

Jackson (1994) conducted research on barriers to non-participation by focusing on

factors related to recreation preferences, barriers to participation, and participation. This

work extended previous research (Boothby et al. 1981; Franken & Van Raaj 1981;

Rosma & Hoffman 1980; and Witt & Goodale 1981).

In 1991, McCarville and Smale discussed perceived constraints to leisure

participation within five activity domains across activity groups and sociodemographics.

In this study, the idea of less participation due to constraints emerged. The five activity

groups were physical activity and exercise, arts and entertainment, hobbies, social

activities, and home-based entertainment. These five domains included a battery of

different recreation activities related to solitary and group pursuits, as well as

home/community recreation pursuits. In this study, the participants were asked to

respond (yes/no) whether they felt they were participating less in their chosen activities









for a list of 10 possible reasons. The second research question dealt with the specific

constraints and sociodemographic variables. The ten reasons included items such as

time, nobody to go with, limited access, information, financial constraints, etc.

(McCarville & Smale 1991).

The findings in this research show that the social activities domain was the most

important domain for this sample, followed by the hobbies domain. Much of the present

gender research supports this notion of social opportunity as a primary motivator for

women's leisure. The authors found a great deal of uniformity in the responses across the

five activity domains, although some significant differences were noted for the lack of

time constraint. Respondents did vary regarding the number of constraints reported

between the home-based domain, arts and entertainment, and the hobbies domains. Also,

numerous differences were found across the sociodemographic variables, although no

clear pattern emerged across this set of variables (McCarville & Smale 1991).

With this initial examination on the problematic nature of constraints, the focus was

on the factors that prevent or impede participation (Jackson & Scott 1999). In this early

research, two types of intervening constraints were identified: internal and external.

Jackson (1988) suggests that the most common internal constraints include personal

skills, abilities, health-related problems, and knowledge, whereas external constraints

include lack of time, lack of facilities, transportation issues and financial cost. These

constraints were also referred to as perceived and real constraints. These early empirical

studies have been criticized for being theoretical and for making a number of untested

assumptions (Jackson 1988; Shaw, Bonen, & McCabe 1991). Several attempts have been









made by various researchers to clarify this conceptual framework, as outlined in the

following paragraphs.

The hierarchal model of constraints has been the focus of much recreation research.

As proposed by Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey (1991), the hierarchal model of leisure

constraints states that constraints may be perceived and experienced sequentially rather

than simultaneously. A variety of studies have provided evidence for the

multidimensionality of the concept of leisure constraints and many of them have reported

similar patterns of constraint dimensions (Jackson 1993; Jackson & Henderson 1995).

The following is a more indepth look at the theoretical foundations of which the concept

of constraints stands.


Figure 1. Hierarchical Model of Constraint Negotiation









As seen in Figure 1, a clearly defined hierarchy of constraints was a major

contribution of this theory (Crawford, Godbey, & Jackson 1991). The first level of

constraints was deemed as intrapersonal. These constraints involve psychological states

and attributes that interplay with leisure preferences. Examples include stress,

depression, anxiety, and perceived self-skill. Following the negotiation or absence of

intrapersonal constraints, leisure preferences are formed. Crawford et al. (1991) suggest

that intrapersonal constraints are the most difficult to overcome and are the most likely to

block participation in physical activities (Carroll & Alexandris 1997).

The next stage of the model involved interpersonal constraints. This type of

constraint involves relationships between or interaction of individuals' characteristics

(Crawford & Godbey 1987). For example, a potential participant may be unable to find a

partner or a friend to participate with. Interpersonal constraints interact with both

preference and participation in leisure activities that require partners or companions.

Finally, once interpersonal constraints have been overcome, an individual may face

structural constraints. Structural constraints are those intervening factors that come

between personal leisure preferences and actual participation. Examples of this type of

constraint are economic barriers, availability of access, family life-cycle stage, season,

climate, availability of opportunity, availability of time, and reference group attitudes to

the appropriateness of certain activities. This type of constraint has received the most

attention in previous constraint research (Hudson 2000). It has also been suggested to be

the type of constraint least difficult to overcome (Jackson & Scott 1999).

This theory as a whole represents a great step towards better understanding the

phenomenon of constraints, as it exists in the fields of recreation and sport. This concept









and theoretical framework work together to create a cohesive nature to the constraints

research.

Constraint Negotiation

In today's leisure research, the theory of "constraint negotiation" has been the

focus of several constraint studies. This development represents a shift in the constraints

literature to a deeper understanding of the constraints concept. Proposed by Jackson and

others (1993) the theory of negotiation states that the individual who participated in any

given leisure activity might have successfully negotiated a hierarchical series of

constraints. Such negotiations may modify participation rather than foreclose it. The

individuals who did not participate may not have been able to accomplish successful

negotiation of perceived or experienced constraints.

Scott (1991) conducted qualitative research to understand the role of constraints for

bridge players. According to Scott (1991), constraints are forces with people's leisure

pursuits that must be successfully negotiated if desired level of involvement is to occur.

Nonparticipation represents only one possible outcome of constraints; it may instead

modify the desired level of participation but maintain some sort of involvement within

the activity. Scott identified types of group-related constraints with naturalistic inquiry

(participant-as-observer & formal interviewing techniques). The data disclosed three

levels of leisure constraints. Intrapersonal- a diminishing interest for bridge participation

among younger generations. Interpersonal- linked to the group participation (other

players required). Lastly, individual differences among players (structural). A major

conclusion from this study is that constraints at the different levels are inter-related.

Another major conclusion is that constraints are not "insurmountable" obstacles of

participation. Instead, players may develop strategies to overcome constraints. Scott









suggests that future constraint investigations should attempt to uncover how activities

within a social realm both encourage and constrain participation.

In 1993, Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey examined the concept of "negotiation,"

suggesting that participation in leisure activities is dependent on how people negotiate

through constraints. Thus, it is not the absence of constraints that enables people to

participate in recreational activities, but their negotiation through those constraints.

Categorized into cognitive (reducing cognitive dissonance) or behavioral (change in

behavior), these authors postulated that the negotiation strategy would depend on the

situation that was encountered.

Jackson and Rucks (1995) validated the earlier work by Jackson et al. (1993) by

specifically examining the patterns of constraint negotiation. This study, focusing on

high-school children, found that people often negotiate through a specific constraint by

adopting negotiation strategies related to that particular constraint (e.g., changing the use

of time for a time-related constraint). The negotiation strategies were classified as

cognitive strategies (e.g., push themselves harder, ignore parents) and behavioral

strategies (e.g., better organization of their time, take lessons). The behavioral strategies

were further subdivided into time management, skill acquisition, changing interpersonal

relations, improving finances, physical therapy, changing leisure aspirations, and a

miscellaneous group. The findings suggest that the behavioral strategies were far more

widespread than cognitive strategies, being adopted by almost 80% of the subjects who

participated in this study. The authors postulated that this information was valuable in

understanding that people rearrange things in their lives so that they can participate in

leisure opportunities.









Henderson, Bedini, Hecht, and Schuler (1995) investigated the strategies used by

women with disabilities to negotiate through constraints. In general, the participants of

the study felt that they were successful at becoming or staying involved in leisure

activities based on the use of negotiation strategies that allowed them to respond actively

rather than passively to constraints. They identified three groups based on the strategies

they adopt when coping with constraints. These groups include passive responders (no

participation), achievers (no change in participation levels despite constraints), and

attempters (did participate, but altered participation in leisure activities). Their findings

indicated that other environmental factors (lack of energy, time, safety, etc.) accounted

for some degree of non-participation, while the disability itself was also a contributing

factor.

More recently, Hubbard and Mannell (2001) examined the negotiation strategies of

employees in a corporate setting. These authors examined negotiation models using the

three-constraint model (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural), and four scales to

measure negotiation (time, skills, interpersonal, and financial). This study also involved

studying respondents' motivation and participation levels. The results of this study

showed that the original negotiation process identified by Jackson et al. (1993) was the

best fit, indicating that the constraints trigger negotiation efforts, which can then negate

the effects of the constraint (Hubbard & Mannell 2001).

Understanding of constraints has many important implications. It could allow for

insight into other leisure aspects and research areas such as participation, satisfaction,

involvement, and motivation. Other avenues of future research among the constraints









literature have been to look at the temporal nature of constraints, group related

constraints, as well as methodological changes.

Constraints Literature Related to People with Disabilities

Although the literature on leisure constraints has been growing, there is still little

known about constraints experienced by those individuals with disabilities. In general,

this research suggests that constraints to involvement and participation in outdoor

recreation and community life activities for people with disabilities tend to involve

resources and attitudes. Resources include transportation, money, leisure partners,

knowledge, skills, and functioning. Attitudinal barriers for individuals with disabilities

are often their own attitudes as well as others (the community, society at larger, or even

recreation providers).

According to Jackson (1988) reasons for non-participation were similar to the

general public, but individuals with disabilities have some additional problems in

overcoming constraints. Problems including perceived lack of ability, social stigma, poor

socialization, and lack of information of opportunities were just some reasons why people

with disabilities did not participate in physical activity programs.

Germ and Schleien (1997) examined constraints to leisure participation for persons

with the context of community leisure agencies. The subjects of the study and the

consumers (i.e. persons with disabilities) reported that transportation and programming

issues were major constraining factor to their participation. Program barriers included a

lack of a variety of program times, a lack of skill development opportunities at the

appropriate levels, and a lack of programs designed for teenagers and adult males with

disabilities.









In an examination of outdoor recreation opportunities, Ross (1993) found that

young adults with recent spinal cord injuries reported several constraints to outdoor

recreation pursuits. Lack of leisure partners, transportation issues, mobility issues, self-

consciousness, and attitudes of significant others were found to be constraining factors of

outdoor recreation pursuits.

The research efforts of Wilhite and Keller (1992) focused on the examination of

leisure involvement of older adults with developmental disabilities. Leisure constraints

reported in this study were transportation, money, physical accessibility, concerns about

their behavior, and discomfort in large public groups. Some respondents reported

constraining factors such as they were not integrated, felt members of the community

were not sensitive to their needs, and not willing to allow them to be included in

community life and activities.

While analyzing the results of the National Survey on Recreation and the

Environment, McCormick (2000) found that people with disabilities reported more

constraints to involvement and participation in outdoor recreation on US Forest lands

than persons with out disabilities. The primary barriers to outdoor recreation participation

involved health and physical functioning. Another interesting finding of this study was

that people with disabilities under 25 years old and over 75 years old reported more

participation in outdoor recreation activities than their peers with out disabilities.

People with disabilities have been hindered from participating in outdoor recreation

activities for quite some time. With the aging US population and medical and

technological advances, the number of persons with disabilities is expected to increase.

Understanding the recreation and leisure needs of persons with disabilities is increasingly









important. The information address below examines the constraints related to the winter

sport industry.

Related Skiing and Literature

Skiing has been a popular winter recreation activity in the US for numerous

decades. The ski industry, specifically that of North America, has researched and

reported a significant decline in participation rates and profitability since the early 1990s

(Williams & Fidgeon 2000). Throughout the present research, studies have examined

this phenomenon in a many different ways, in hopes of uncovering the true reasons for

the change in participation rates. The focus most relevant to this discussion investigates

the real and perceived constraints that might pose as barriers to current and potential

skiers, specifically people with disabilities. An understanding of these "barriers" or

constraints must happen before the industry can expect incremental changes. This is vital

to the skiing industry as it relates to sustainable tourism development (Williams &

Fidgeon 2000).

In the attempt to create this further understanding, researchers have addressed

constraints found amongst skiers. This has often been operationalized in a qualitative

method; however, Williams & Fidgeon (2000) used a methodology that included both

qualitative and quantitative methods. This type of study design seems to provide a more

inclusive and exhaustive research method for the complex nature of this investigation.

The data included specific items related to constraints, and these items were analyzed

using cluster analysis. Overall, the two most important items were that skiing is very

physically demanding, and ski hills are very steep. Respondents in this study also

perceived that cost was too high, including proper equipment, transportation, and time

constraints.









Gilbert & Hudson (2000) conducted a second recent examination of skiing

participation, also taking place in Canada. This article was particularly pertinent to this

research, as one of the objectives of the study was to operationalize the negotiation model

proposed by Crawford et al. (1991). Gilbert & Hudson's work included not only an

examination of what constrains people from participating, but also what facilitates

peoples' desire to ski. Another objective of this study was to examine the differences

between existing skiers and interested non-skiers, similar to the effort by Williams &

Fidgeon (2000).

Another similarity to the Williams & Fidgeon (2000) research is that Gilbert &

Hudson (2000) used both qualitative and qualitative research methodologies. These

authors used focus groups and structured interviewers to assist in the development of

their quantitative instrument. The quantitative instrument included likert scales asking

respondents to rate their agreement-disagreement with their perceptions of intrapersonal,

interpersonal and structural constraints, similar to previous research (Henderson et al.

1991; Jackson 1993; Raymore et al. 1993). Overall, the most agreement within all three

of the domains (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural) was seen for the cost

associated with skiing.

The findings of this research effort indicated that skiers were typically younger,

male, active sport enthusiasts, who are more affluent than the general population (Greer

1990). Major differences in the images and perceptions of skiing were found. Skiers

reported that skiing was an opportunity for fun physical activity. It was also stated that

participants felt that skiing offered the opportunity for improvement of technique,







29


interactions with others in a pristine environment, escape from daily life, as well as many

others.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This chapter discusses the research methods used in this study. It begins by

discussing how the study sample was selected. Survey design and instrumentation for

this study were discussed in the second section. The following section described the

collection of the data. Lastly, a section on the treatment of data was included.

Sampling Procedures

The study sample was derived from a bank of names provided to the University of

Florida's Center for Tourism Research and Development. Nearly 60 adaptive recreation

providers nationwide were contacted for this study. These adaptive recreation providers

were identified through the Internet. Personal contacts were then made with staff

members at each of the agencies to see if they would be interested in participating in the

study. The study was introduced to the staff member, and the purpose and methods were

discussed were discussed with the staff members.

Two options for data collection were presented to the staff members: the use of a

mail-back survey, and the possibility of face to face interviews taking place at the

ski/snowboarding area. If the staff members demonstrated any degree of interest in

participating in the study, they were queried as to which data collection method would

best suit the needs of their agency. Disappointingly, very few of the adaptive recreation

organizations showed an interest in participating in this study. The most common

reasons given for not participating were that the staff was too busy or the

skiers/snowboarders were considered clients whose information could not be shared.









Three adaptive recreation organizations agreed to participate in the study. Research

information including goals of the study and the survey instrument was sent to the

adaptive recreation providers. All three of these organizations opted for the mail-back

survey instead of the personal interview method of collection data. Staff members at

these three organizations provided their clients' names and contact information.

Survey Design

The design employed in this study was a quantitative, mail-back survey method.

The activity-specific survey measured various user characteristics (Appendix A). The

survey instrument also measured users' interests, possible benefits to outdoor recreation,

perceptions & beliefs of constraints, as well as the overall negotiation strategies

employed that may have lead to participation. Respondents were asked a battery of 15

items representing possible benefits of outdoor recreation such as skiing and

snowboarding. The items were measured on a five-point Likert scale from 'Not at all

important' (1) to 'Extremely important' (5).

Perceived leisure constraints were measured using a battery of 27 items patterned

closely after ones developed by Hudson (2000) for the use of skiing research.

Respondents were asked to rate reasons a three-point Likert scale ranging from "Major

Reason" to "Not a Reason," with a neutral "Not sure/Don't know" category as well.

Constraint negotiation strategies were examined using a battery of 19 items

modeled closely after scales used by Hubbard & Mannell (2001). Respondents were

asked to rate things they do to start, continue, or increase recreation participation on a

five-point Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "Very Often".









Data Collection

The data collection approach for this study was a mail-back survey/questionnaire.

Survey research is an excellent method of collecting this type of data because surveys are

good tools for measuring attitudes, orientations, and preferences (Dillman 2000). The

initial plan of data collect was to be face to face interviews with adaptive recreation

participants on site. The interviews were to be collected during a week-long winter clinic

for people with disabilities to receive instruction in several recreation al activities. Due

to organizational issues of client confidentiality, this plan was altered to include a mail-

back survey instead. The survey was a self-administered question, distributed by mail to

the clients of several adaptive recreation agencies. The survey instrument included a note

indicating that a caretaker of family member was welcome to fill out the survey for any

person who desired that assistance. The sample was a convenience sample, however,

there is no known systematic bias involved in selecting the respondents.

Utilizing the Dillman Total Research Method (Dillman 2000), the research

participants received an initial postcard mailing containing a request for participation

(Appendix B) with a brief explanation of the study. About 5-7 days later, the

questionnaire along with a cover letter (Appendix C) and postage paid, pre-addressed

envelope was sent to the participants. After two weeks, a follow up letter on a postcard

(Appendix D) was mailed to the entire sample thanking those who had already returned

their survey questionnaire and reminding those who had not to return theirs. If clients

misplaced their original packet, a number was provided to be able to request another.

After two additional weeks, a complete packet containing a new cover letter and the same

questionnaire was mailed to everyone who had not responded. The time frame for data

collection was February 2004 through July 2004.









Treatment of Data

A complete descriptive profile of respondents was conducted (e.g., frequency

distribution, mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc.). The next step in the analysis

was to determine if the scales used in the survey instrument were valid. Reliability

statistics were carried out on the scales related to constraints and negotiation strategies

for the overall sample. A series of cross tabulations and one-way analysis of variance

analyses were conducted to examine the differences between the respondents'

perceptions regarding constraints and the socio-economic status variables (disability type,

gender, income, education, family status).

The next step in the process was to regress the constraints items and the negotiation

items on the respondent's level of participation to determine the strength of any

relationship that was found. Multiple regressions are the statistical method of examining

the way a number of independent variables related to one single dependent variable. The

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Version 11) was used in the data

analysis. All analysis was tested for significance at the .05 levels.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The results of the data analysis are presented in five main sections of this chapter.

First, a description of the adaptive recreation participants' basic demographic profile is

provided. The frequency distributions are of particular importance in this thesis because

the entire sample consisted of persons with disabilities. Accordingly, the frequencies are

an accurate description of the constraints perceived by persons with disabilities, and the

negotiation strategies used by persons with disabilities.

The second section discusses what possible recreation benefits are sought by people

with disabilities when participating in adaptive recreation pursuits. The next section

answers the question, "What constraints do people with disabilities perceive when

participating in winter sport activities such as skiing or snowboarding?" The following

section answers the research question, "What types of constraints do people with

disabilities perceive to have the most impact on winter sport activities such as skiing and

snowboarding?" The next section discusses what constraint negotiation strategies are

used by people with disabilities when participating in adaptive recreation pursuits. The

final section of this chapter focuses on several socio-demographic variables, including,

gender, age, residence, and income, and tests whether there are differences in the

perceptions of constraints for different socio-demographic groups.

The data collected through the use of a mail-back survey incorporating the

modified Dillman technique (Dillman 2000). The survey provided many insights into the

perceived constraints and negotiation strategies that the recreationists in this sample have









experienced while engaging in adaptive recreation. Again, although 161 total surveys

were collected, the number of recreationists varies within the data analysis due to missing

responses.

RI: What does the sample of adaptive recreation participants look like?

A total of 161 adaptive recreation participants were surveyed during the period of

May to July 2004. The sample group consisted of various types of participants with

different beliefs and opinions of adaptive recreation opportunities. The respondents in

this sample were asked several socio-demographic questions, such as the number of

people in the household, number of children living in household, occupation, ethnicity,

gender, income, education, etc. This thesis focuses on the following demographic

questions; gender, age, income, disability, education, children in the household, and

residence

A majority of the adaptive recreation participants were males (59.0%), while

approximately (49.0%) was female. Residence type, such as urban, suburban, and rural

was another socio-demographic question asked in this thesis. Approximately half of the

respondents (47.1%), reported living in a "suburban" area type. The remaining

respondents were about evenly proportionate in their responses, with about one-quarter

reporting an "rural" residence type (29.0%) and the other quarter reporting a "suburban"

residence type (23.9%).

When respondents' were asked to report their total household income for 2003, the

numbers ranged from under $10,000 to over $170,000. More specifically, the majority of

the respondents (50.0%) reported an income of $50,000 or greater in the year 2003.

Approximately one-fifth of the respondents (20.6%), indicated their household income to










be $30,001 to 50,000, while less than one-fifth (18.4%) reported less than $10,000

household income in 2003. The remaining respondents (11.0%) reported a total

household income for the year 2003.

Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of Ada tive Recreation Participants
SFrequency Valid Percent
Gender
Male 90 59.0
Female 64 41.0
Total 156 100.0

Residence
Urban 37 23.9
Suburban 73 47.1
Rural 45 29.0
Total 155 100.0

Income
Less than 10,000 25 18.4
$10,001 to 30,000 15 11.0
$30,001 to 50,000 28 20.6
$50,001 or more 68 50.0
Total 136 100.0

Education recorded )
Associate's degree or below 112 74.7
Bachelor's degree 18 12.0
Graduate or professional degree 20 13.3
Total 150 100.0

Children under 6 in household?
Yes 18 11.6
No 137 88.4
Total 155 100.0

Children between 6 -18 years in household?
Yes 63 40.9
No 91 59.1
Total 154 100.0









Education level was examined by asking respondents to report the highest level of

schooling completed. Approximately three-quarters (74.7%) of respondents reported

having an Associates degree or less, while over a one-tenth (13.3%) had completed a

graduate or professional degree. Also, over one-tenth (12.0%)indicated having

completed a Bachelor's degree.

The last two socio-demographic variables examined were whether or not

respondents' had children under 6 years old in the household and whether or not

respondents' had children between the ages of 6-18 years in the household. The vast

majority of respondents' (88.4%) indicated no children under six in the household, while

the remaining respondents (11.6%) reported that were children under six in the

household. When questioned about children 6 to 18 years old living in the household,

less than half of the respondents' (40.9%) reported having children 6 to 18 years old in

the household.

A series of additional survey questions were used to further profile adaptive

recreation participants (Table 2). The respondents were asked to indicate their level of

interest in skiing or snowboarding. The survey instrument allowed the respondent to

report their interest in either or both categories (skiing or snowboarding). The results

showed that the respondents to this study have an overwhelming level of interest in

skiing. Nearly three-quarters of the respondents (73.6%) said that they were very

interested in skiing, and nearly one-quarter (22.0%) stated that they were somewhat

interested. A small minority (6%) reported that they were not at all interested in skiing.

There was significantly less interest in snowboarding than skiing. Less than one-

fifth of the respondents (16.4%) reported that they were very interested in snowboarding,









while just under one-quarter of the respondents (23.9%) said that they were somewhat

interested. Just over half of the participants in the study (50.9%) said that they were not

interested, and 8.8% of the respondents said that they did not know.

The respondents had quite a bit of experience in skiing/snowboarding. Nearly one-

half of the subjects (45.7%) reported that they had been skiing/snowboarding for more

than five years, while about one-quarter of the respondents (23.6%) had been

skiing/snowboarding between 3-4 years. About one-quarter of the respondents (24.2%)

had been skiing/snowboarding between 1-2 years, and a small minority (6.5%) reported

that they had participated in skiing/snowboarding for less than one year.

The subjects in this study also reported the number of times that they participated

in skiing/snowboarding in the past year. The greatest proportion (37.0%) spent between

4-7 days skiing/snowboarding in the past 12 months. One-fifth of the respondents

(20.4%) skied/snowboarded between 8-14 days, while 13.8% of the subjects

skied/snowboarded more than 14 times. Nearly one-fifth of the respondents (18.6%)

spent 2-3 days participating, and 10.0% of the subjects spent one day or less.

Lastly, the respondents were asked if they skied competitively or not. Less than

one-fifth of the respondents (15.2%) said that the skied/snowboarded competitively,

while the majority (84.8%) did not compete.

The respondents were asked to report the formal/medical name of their disability

through the use of an open-ended question. As shown in Table 3, the responses were

then coded and categorized into five general types of disabilities: physical, sensory,

cognitive, multiple disabilities, and other. About half of the respondents (48.3%)









Table 2. Recreation Profile of Adaptive Recreation Participants
Frequency Valid Percent
Adaptive Recreation
Participation Information

Interest in Skiing __
Very Interested 117 73.6
Somewhat Interested 35 22.0
Not at all 6 3.8
Don't know 1 0.6
Total 159 100.0

Interest in Snowboarding __
Very Interested 26 16.4
Somewhat Interested 38 23.9
Not at all 81 50.9
Don't know 14 8.8
Total 159 100.0

Ski/Snowboard Competitively I[
Yes 24 15.2
No 134 84.8
Total 158 100.0

Total years of skiing/snowboarding II
Less than 1 10 6.5
1-2 27 24.2
3-4 26 23.6
5-6 16 10.5
7 or more 54 35.2
Total 153 100.0

Days spent skiing/snowboarding
within the last 12 months
1 day orless 15 10.0
2-3 days 28 18.6
4-7 days 56 37.0
8-14 days 31 20.4
15 or more 21 13.8
Total 151 100.0
I EZ II









reported having a physical impairment, while a slightly smaller proportion of the

respondents (44.1%) reported having a cognitive impairment. A small minority of the

respondents (3.5%) reported having multiple disabilities. Only a few participants (2.1%)

reported having sensory impairments and the remaining (2.1%) indicated some other type

of disability.

Respondents were asked to report in years and/or months how long they had their

disability. Over one-third (38.6%) of the respondents indicated they had their disability

between one to 10 years, and about one-third (31.4%) reported having their disability

between 11 and 20 years. Less than one-fifth (16.8%) of respondents had their disability

for 21 to 30 years. Lastly, 11.8% of the respondents reported having had their disability

for 31 years or more.

Table 3. Self-reported Disability Information of Adaptive Recreation Participants
Disability Information Frequency Valid Percent

Disability Type I
Physical Impairments 69 48.3
Sensory Impairments 3 2.1
Cognitive Impairments 63 44.1
Multiple disabilities 5 3.5
Other 3 2.1
Total 143 100.0

Disability Occurrence ]
Ito 10years 54 38.6
11 to 20 years 44 31.4
21 to 30 years 23 16.4
31+ years 19 11.8
Total 140 100.0

The self reported disabilities information was categorized under four domains.

These domains were physical disabilities, cognitive disabilities, sensory impairments and









multiple disabilities. Table 4 displays the four domains of disabilities and several of the

disabilities under each of the four domains. Interestingly, the disabilities under the

physical disabilities domains were represented the largest proportion, almost half of the

sample (48.3%). The disabilities most frequently reported under the physical disabilities

domain were the following: paraplegia/quadriplegia/spinal cord injury (14.2%), cerebral

palsy (7.1), amputation/limb deficiency (4.3), Multiple sclerosis (2.1) Muscular

Dystrophy (2.1), Spina Bifida (2.1).

Cognitive disabilities were rated the second most prevalent disability type with

nearly half (44.1%) of the survey participants reporting a cognitive disorder. The

disabilities found under the cognitive domain were the following: Downs Syndrome

(11.3%), Autism (9.9%), learning disabilities (6.4%) mental retardation (5.7%),

developmentally delayed (5.7%) and other cognitive disabilities (2.1%).

The multiple disabilities or impairments domain represented only a small

proportion of the population (3.5%). This domain accounted for those participants who

reported more than one disability in more than one domain. Lastly, sensory impairments

were only report by a small fraction (2.1%) of the study sample. This domain

represented the smallest sector of this sample of adaptive recreation participants. Visual

impairments and disabilities were the type of only sensory impairment reported.









Table 4. Results of the Frequency Analysis of Disability Types of Adaptive Skiers
&Snowboarders


DISABILITIES OF ADVAPTIVE SKIERS &
SNOWBOARDERS Frequency Percent


PHYSICAL
Paraplegia / Quadriplegia/ Spinal Cord Injury 20 14.2
Cerebral Palsy 10 7.1
Other 9 6.3
Amputation/Limb deficiency 6 4.3
Spina Bifida 3 2.1
MD 3 2.1
Multiple Sclerosis 3 2.1
Traumatic Brain Injury 2 1.4
Polio 2 1.4
Spasticity 2 1.4
Neurological Impairments 2 1.4
Stroke seizure 2 1.2
Bumrn 1 .7
Heart disease 1 .7

SENORY I
Visual Impairments 3 2.1

COGNITIVE
Downs Syndrome 16 11.3
Autism 14 9.9
Learning Disabilities 9 6.4
Mental Retardation 8 5.7
Developmentally Delayed 8 5.7
Other 3 2.1

MULTIPLE 5 3.5

TOTAL 142 100.0
[ I___









Measures of Possible Benefits of Skiing and Snowboarding

Respondents were asked a battery of 15 items representing possible benefit of

outdoor recreation such as skiing and snowboarding. The items were measured on a five-

point Likert scale from 'Not at all important' (1) to 'Extremely important' (5). Table 5

depicts the mean responses of the participants.

R2: What benefits do people with disabilities perceive when participating in winter

sport activities such as skiing?

The benefits items were categorized under four domains. These domains were

health, social, efficacy, and nature. Interestingly, the four items under the efficacy

domains were some of the highest rated benefits items. These included increased self-

confidence (3.85), increased sense of competence (3.77), opportunity for lifelong learning

(3.76), and provides a challenge that tests my abilities (3.70).

The item with the overall highest mean response was increased self-confidence,

which fell under the health domain (3.85). This indicated that respondents felt that

"increased self-confidence" was an important benefit of skiing and snowboarding. The

item provides a sense of adventure also rated high (3.81), also under the health domain.

The remaining items all fell below the mean of 3.50, indicating that these items were of

less importance to the respondents. The next several important benefits to participation

in skiing and snowboarding are as follows: improved physical health (3.58), improved

mental health (3.48), and to enhance family relationships (3.36). The item with the

lowest mean score (2.52) was "provides opportunity for solitude, falling under the nature

domain."








Table 5. Results of Frequency Analysis of Possible Benefits of Adaptive Recreation
Participation

Possible benefits to skiing & snowboarding -j .



HEALTH ] -II II
Improved physical health 4.6 12.5 26.3 33.6 23.0 3.58
Reduced stress 13.2 15.8 21.7 31.6 17.8 3.25
Improved mental health 9.9 7.9 28.5 31.8 21.9 3.48
Provides a sense of adventure 5.3 7.3 21.3 32.7 33.3 3.81

SOCIAL II I I
Strengthened relationships with my companions 13.7 13.1 24.8 30.1 18.3 3.26
Enhanced family relationships 15.6 11.0 18.2 32.5 22.7 3.36
Provides opportunities to meet people 8.7 17.3 23.3 31.3 19.3 3.35

EFFICACY I I
Increased self-confidence 7.1 7.1 15.6 33.8 36.4 3.85
Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 7.9 11.9 14.6 33.8 31.8 3.70
Increased sense of competence 6.0 9.3 20.5 30.5 33.8 3.77
Opportunity for lifelong learning 6.6 9.9 14.5 38.8 30.3 3.76

NATURE I I
Greater connection with nature 12.5 17.8 27.6 31.6 10.5 3.10
Provides opportunity for solitude 36.8 13.2 21.1 19.1 9.9 2.52
Greater connection with wilderness I 20.4 17.1 23.7 23.7 15.1 2.96
Provides opportunities to view wildlife 21.2 26.5 23.8 14.6 13.9 2.74
Response scale is l=Not at all important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Moderately important,
4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important

R2A: What are the differences in the perceived benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding between

people who show a high level of interest and those who show a low level of interest?

An independent sample t-test was used to determine the differences in the mean

differences in the benefit items based desired participation level. The test illustrated three

items having a significant difference at the .05 level between respondents who have









participated as often as desired and those who have not. An interesting finding is that all

three of these items fall under the health domain. Table 6 depicts the findings that

respondents who were more interested in skiing and snowboarding rated the possible

benefit of improved physical fitness higher than respondents that were less interested

(t=2.165*). Another significant difference found was participants not interested in skiing

Table 6. Results of independent sample t-test examining the benefits by interest
Possible Benefits To Skiing & Snowboarding
YES NO df T

HEALTH II
Improved physical health 3.67 3.15 150 2.165*
Reduced stress 3.35 3.77 150 2.114*
Improved mental health 3.51 3.31 149 .786
Provides a sense of adventure 3.90 3.42 148 1.942*

SOCIAL Z I
Strengthened relationships with my 334 2.88 151 1.649
companions
Enhanced family relationships 3.40 3.15 152 .878
Provides opportunities to meet eole 3.39 3.19 148 .738

EFFICACY I
Increased self-confidence 3.92 3.52 152 1.594
Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 3.78 3.31 149 1.744
Increased sense of competence 3.79 3.68 149 .406
Opportunity for lifelong learning 3.80 3.58 150 .885

NATURE I
Greater connection with nature 3.13 2.96 150 .645
Provides opportunity for solitude 2.52 2.50 150 .078
Greater connection with wilderness 2.98 2.85 150 .471
Provides opportunities to view wildlife 2.74 2.69 149 .180
Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very
Important, 5=Extremely Important

and snowboarding, rated the possible benefit "reduced stress" as a more important benefit

to outdoor recreation participation (t=2.114*. Lastly, interested respondents rated









"provided sense of adventure" as a more important benefit to skiing and snowboarding

participation (t=1.942*).

R2B: What are the differences in the possible benefits to participation of people with

disabilities when participating in adaptive winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding across the education variable?

Analysis of variance was utilized to investigate the relationship between the

participants' education level and their perception of possible benefits to participation.

Table 6 depicts the relationships found between education level and perceptions of

benefits. A total of five significant differences were noted across the four benefits

domains.

Three of these significant differences were noted within the health domain.

Respondents with a Baccalaureate degree were less likely to seek the benefit item

provides a sense of adventure (F=l 1.454***) and the item improved mental

health(F=3.520*) than people with an Associates degree or less and people with

graduate/professional degrees. Respondents in the lowest education category were less

likely to state that reducing stress was important to them than the respondents with either

less than an Associates degree or those with graduate/professional degrees (F=7.693***).

One significant difference was noted within the social domain. As education

increased, so did the importance of the benefit item provides opportunities to meet people

(F=7.610***). Lastly, one significant item was seen in the nature domain. Respondents

with a Baccalaureate degree were more likely to express importance for the item greater

connection with wilderness than people in either the lowest or highest education

categories (F=3.280).









Respondents who reported having less than an Associate's degree rated the

benefit of reduced stress less important than those respondents with higher levels of

education (F=7.693***). The participants with the highest level of education (

Table 7. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Education
Level

Possible benefits to skiing & snowboarding
YES NO df T


HEALTH I
Improved physical health 3.49 2.61 4.05 2.064
Reduced stress 3.06 4.00 3.95 7.693***
Improved mental health 3.34 2.89 4.00] 3.520*
Provides a sense of adventure 3.57 2.56 4.53 11.454***

SOCIAL I
Strengthened relationships with my companions 3.23 3.56 3.26 .474
Enhanced family relationships 3.34 3.72 3.26 .675
Provides opportunities to meet people 3.47 4.22 4.47 7.610***

EFFICACY I
Increased self-confidence 3.85 3.83 4.11 3.79
Provides a challenge that tests my abilities 3.47 4.22 4.47 1.984
Increased sense of competence 3.72 3.72 4.32 2.092
Opportunity for lifelong learningI 3.73 3.61 4.00 .554

NATURE ] I ]
Greater connection with nature 2.98 3.39 3.47 1.984
Provides opportunity for solitude 2.35 3.17 2.84 3.280*
Greater connection with wilderness 2.80 3.44 3.37 2.846
Provides opportunities to view wildlife I2.71 2.50 3.00 .662
Response scale is 1=Not at all important, 2=Somewhat important, 3=Moderately important, 4=Very
Important, 5=Extremely Important

graduate/professional degree) rated the item benefit provides an opportunity to test my

abilities as significantly more important (F=7.693***) than those respondents with the

lowest education level (AA or less). Also, respondents with a graduate or professional









degree rated the benefit of provides a sense of adventure as more important than the rest

of the respondents in other income levels. The benefit of improved mental health was

rated the more important by those respondents in the highest income level than the other

respondents. Lastly, providing an opportunity for solitude was reported as more

important to those respondents who had received a Bachelor's degree than respondents in

any other income level.

R2c: What are the differences in the possible benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding across the

income variable?

To examine the differences in respondents' perceptions about benefits sought

across the income groupings, analysis of variance was once again used. Table 8 depicts

the relationships found between income level and perceptions of benefits. Four

significant differences were noted across three of the benefits domains (health, social, and

efficacy). The findings with regards to income were more complex than those seen

previously.

As depicted in Table 8, two of the four differences were found within the efficacy

domain. In both cases, the respondents in the $10,001 30,000 and respondents whose

income was $50,000 or more reported similar levels of importance for the self efficacy

items. The respondents in the lowest income bracket ($10,000 or less) and those in the

$30,000 group reported different importance levels. Respondents in the lowest income

bracket were least likely to report that improving their self -confidence was important

(F=2.606*). Subjects in the $10,000 -$30,000 and $50,000 or more income groupings









were more likely to associate a high level of importance with an increased sense of

competence (F=4.979***).

Within the social domain, only one item showed a significant difference. Similar

to the findings in the efficacy domain, respondents in the $10,000 -$30,000 and $50,000

Table 8. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Possible Benefits by Income Level

Possible benefits to skiing & Less than 10,000- 30,000- 50,000
snowboarding 10,000 30,000 50,000 +

HEALTH 1 I 1I
Improved physical health 3.35 3.62 3.71 3.58 .457
Reduced stress 2.96 3.69 3.25 3.34 1.016
Improved mental health 3.13 3.77 3.57 3.56 1.016
Provides a sense of adventure 3.30 4.46 3.71 3.86 2.994*

SOCIAL I
Strengthened relationships with 3.71 3.54 3.21 3.45 2.203
my companions
Enhanced family relationships 2.88 3.62 2.89 3.65 3.460*
Provides opportunities to meet 3.52 3.69 3.36 30 .481
people

EFFICACY I
Increased self-confidence 3.25 4.15 3.86 4.00 2.606*
Provides a challenge that tests my 3.65 3.54 3.61 3.73 .114
abilities_
Increased sense of competence 3.09 4.08 3.48 4.06 4.979*
Opportunity for lifelong learning 3.52 4.42 3.54 3.79 1.948

NATURE ~ 1 I
Greater connection with nature 3.04 3.00 3.18 3.09 .090
Provides opportunity for solitude 2.61 2.85 2.50 2.45 .319
Greater connection with 3.08 2.93 2.93 .054
wilderness__
Provides opportunities to view 7 3.23 2.82 2.57 1.000
wildlife __


Response scale is l=Not at all important, 2=Somewhat important,
4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important


3=Moderately important,









or more income groupings showed a higher importance level with enhanced family

relationships (F=3.460*). One item within the health domain showed significant

differences. The item provides a sense of adventure was significantly more important to

respondents in the $10,000 -$30,000 category No significant differences were seen for

the nature domain.

Measures of Constraints

Respondents' perceived leisure constraints were measured using a battery of 27

items patterned closely after ones developed by Hudson (2000) for the use of skiing

research. Respondents were asked to rate reasons they did not participate as much as

desired using a three-point Likert scale ranging from "Major Reason" to "Not a Reason."

A neutral "Not sure/Don't know" category was included as well. Table 9 illustrates the

simple frequency distributions and means run to determine the perception of constraints

within the sample.

R3: What constraints do people with disabilities perceive when participating in

winter sport activities such as skiing?


For ease in understanding and properly interpreting the data, the constraints items

were placed under their respective categories. Seven of the items fell under the category

of "Intrapersonal Constraints," four items were in the "Intrapersonal Constraints"

category, and fourteen fell under the "Structural Constraints" domain.

Table 9 shows the item with the lowest mean score (1.99) was don't have enough

time. This indicated that the respondents tend to believe a reason they were constrained

from skiing and snowboarding was because they didn't have enough time. The next item

with the lowest mean score (2.03) was slopes are too far. This revealed that most









Table 9. Results of Frequency Analysis of Perceived Constraints to Adaptive Recreation
Participation

Major Minor Not A
Constraints Major Minor Mean
Reason Reason Reason

Intrapersonal Constraints
Fear of the outdoors 2.0 3.4 94.6 2.93
Fear of injury 9.5 19.6 70.9 2.61
Poor health 6.0 10.7 83.3 2.77
Like to do other things for recreation more 10.7 16.8 72.5 2.62
Fearofheights/ scared of lifts 5.3 9.3 85.3 2.80
Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 3.3 19.9 76.8 2.74
Skiing is too physically challenging 8.6 13.2 78.1 2.70

Interpersonal Constraints
Don't have anyone to go with 13.3 26.7 60.0 2.47
Others can't afford to go 18.0 24.7 57.3 2.39
Do not have a partner of the same ability 11.3 20.0 68.7 2.57
Negative attitudes from other recreation
p 2.0 5.3 92.7 2.91
participants____ ___ ___ ____

Structural Constraints
Don't have enough time 30.5 40.4 29.1 1.99
Have no way to gettothe slopes 17.3 24.0 58.7 2.41
Lack of information about skiing or other 1
8.0 12.0 80.0 2.72
winter sports
Too busy with other recreation activities 10.7 28.0 61.3 2.51
Slopes are too far away 31.0 34.8 34.2 2.03
Slopes are too crowded 6.6 28.5 64.9 2.58
Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to 14.2 2
my disability_ 8.8 14.2 77.0 2.68
my disability
Can't affordto go skiing 30.1 26.8 43.1 2.13
Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too 13 19.3 673 2.54
expensive
Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the 10.0 14.0 76.0 2.66
area_
Not aware of skiing opportunities 12.1 12.1 75.8 2.64
Adaptive programs not available in this area 16.9 8.1 75.0 2.58
SNegative attitudes from ski area employees or 2 3.4 94. 2.92
FS employees_
Areas are closed when I want to visit 6.3 0.7 93.0 2.87
Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level









respondents also felt this to be a significant reason they were constrained from skiing or

snowboarding. The next three most important items were can't afford to go skiing (2.13),

others can't afford to go skiing (2.39), and have no way to get to the slopes (2.41). The

item that scored the highest mean score (2.93) was fear of the outdoors. This indicated

that respondents reported that the fear of the outdoor was not a major constraining factor

on skiing and snowboarding participation.

R3A: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing &

snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those who do not?

To examine how different respondents of this study perceived constraints to

recreation participation, several socio-demographic variables were examined (Table 10).

An independent sample t-test was used to determine whether there were any

differences in the mean scores of constraint items based desired participation level. The

test illustrated six items having a significant difference of constraint levels between

respondents who have participated as often as desired and those who have not. Five

items showing significant differences were under the structural domain and one under the

intrapersonal domain. There were no significant differences found in the interpersonal

domain.

The strongest relationship was found for three of the items in the structural

constraint domain. The strongest item was not aware of skiing opportunities

(t=4.048***), followed by slopes are too far away (t=3.671***), and adaptive programs

not available in this area (3.499***). The fourth constraints item within the structural

domain have no way to get to the slopes (t=2.468*), followed by not aware of adaptive









ski programs in this area (t=2.079*). The single constraint item falling under the

intrapersonal constraint domain was like to other thing for recreation (t=-3.244**).

Table 10. Perceived constraints of people with disabilities when participating in skiing &
snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those
who do not

Constraint Items Yes No Df t-statstic

Intrapersonal Constraints ____
Fear of the outdoors 2.88 2.94 145 -.964
Fear of injury 2.44 2.67 47.359 -1.605
Poor health 2.56 2.84 40.469 -2.058
Like to do other things for recreation more 2.21 2.74 39.809 -3.244**
Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.68 2.84 44.225 -1.354
Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.74 2.74 149 .003
Skiing is too physically challenging 2.53 2.74 43.123 -1.481

Interpersonal Constraints ___
Don't have anyone to go with 12.64 2.42 148 1.539
Others can't afford to go 2.26 2.43 148 -1.099
Do not have a partner of the same ability 2.61 2.56 148 .308
Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 2.82 2.93 39.038 -1.154

Structural Constraints_____
Don't have enough time 2.18 1.93 149 1.646
Have no way to get to the slopes 2.68 2.34 60.396 2.468*
Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.71 2.72 148 -1.55
Too busy with other recreation activities 2.35 2.55 148 -1.499
Slopes are too far away 2.46 1.91 153 3.671***
Slopes are too crowded 2.62 2.57 149 .375
Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.74 2.67 146 .557
Can't afford to go to skiing 2.29 2.08 151 1.276
Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 2.35 2.59 45.808 -1.528
Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area I 2.82 2.61 81.743 2.079*
Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.91 2.56 133.690 4.048***
Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.88 2.49 93.993 3.499***
Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 2.88 2.94 143 -.830
Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.88 2.86 140 .166
Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level









R3B: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with disabilities

perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding

between people with children in their household under the ages of six and those who do

not?

In order to understand the impact of having the presence of small children in the

household, an analysis of the differences in perceived constraints by respondents with

and without children below the age of six years was conducted. An independent sample

t-test was used to determine whether there were any differences in the mean scores of

constraint items based on households the presence of children under six years old or not.

The analysis illustrated eight items having significant differences of constraint levels

(Table 11). Five of the eight items showing significant differences fell under the

intrapersonal domain, two items were under the interpersonal domain, and one item fell

under the structural domain.

The intrapersonal domain included not only the most constraints items, but these

items were the strongest reported constraints in this analysis. The results illustrated the

finding that respondents with children under six years living in the household were less

likely to report that they were constrained from skiing/snowboarding than people without

young children in the household. The two most important constraining factors to

participating in skiing/snowboarding were fear of heights/scared of lifts (t=4.648***) and

like to do other things for recreation more (t=4.275***). Also, respondents who had

children under six in the household were less likely to say that skiing was too physically

challenging than those who did not children under six in the household (t=3.276**).

Lastly, this analysis of the intrapersonal constraints showed that respondents living in a









household with children under six years perceived that poor health (t=2.337*) and fear of

the outdoors (t=.928*) were less likely to be constraining items than those who did not.

Under the interpersonal domain, two significant differences were noted. In both

cases, people with young children reported that they were less constrained than those

without young children. The items not having anyone to go with (t=3.500**) and

negative attitudes from other participants (t=3.077**) were more likely to be reported as

a reasons by those respondents who did not live with children under six.

Lastly, only one significant difference at the .05 level was reported under the

structural domain. Respondents that did not report living with children under six years

were more likely to report that they felt constrained by skiing facilities that are

inaccessible due to their disability (t=2.171*).

Table 11. Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing &
snowboarding between people with children in their household under the ages
of six and those who do not

Constraint items x Kids under 6 Yes No df t

Intrapersonal Constraints [ IIII
Fear of the outdoors 3.00 2.92 143 .928*
Fear of injury 2.65 2.63 144 -.115
Poor health 2.94 2.76 42.423 2.337*
Like to do other things for recreation more 2.94 2.58 61.277 4.275***
Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 3.00 2.79 130 4.648***
Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.88 2.72 27.792 1.753
Skiing is too physically challenging 2.94 2.67 53.415 3.276**

Interpersonal Constraints II I
Don't have anyone to go with 2.82 2.42 34.444 3.500**
Others can't afford to go 2.41 2.40 146 .074
Do not have a partner of the same ability 2.76 2.54 23.065 1.489
Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 3.00 2.90 130 3.077**









Continued Table 11.

Constraint items x Kids under 6 Yes No df t

Structural Constraints _____
Don't have enough time 1.76 2.02 146 -1.290
Have no way to get to the slopes 2.53 2.40 146 -.663
Lack of information about skiing or other winter L 1 1
2.59 2.76 146 -1.107
sports
Too busy with other recreation activities 2.41 2.52 146 -.686
Slopes are too far away 2.12 2.04 150 .386
Slopes are too crowded 2.59 2.58 147 .078
Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my 21 1
diabliy2.88 2.67 34.286 2.171*
disability
Can't afford to go to skiing 1.88 2.18 149 -1.370
Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too 2.47 256 146 -.470
expensive i I_
Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.53 2.69 147 -.968
Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.59 2.66 146 -.389
Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.53 2.60 145 -.361
Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS
3.00 2.93 141 .902
employees L 0
Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.94 2.89 138 .477
Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

R3C: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with disabilities

perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding

between people with children in their household between the ages of six and 18 and those

who do not?

To determine whether there were any differences in the mean scores of constraint

items based on households having children six to eighteen years old, an independent

samples t-test was conducted. Table 12 shows that three items showing significant

differences were found. There were two items under the structural domain, and one item

fell under the intrapersonal domain. The analysis showed that people with children









Table 12. Differences in perceived constraints of people with disabilities when skiing &
snowboarding between people with children in their household between the
ages of six and 18 and those who do not

Constraint items x Kids 6-18 Yes No df
Yes No df t


Intrapersonal Constraints _
Fear of the outdoors 2.87 2.98 142 -1.959
Fear of injury 2.57 2.68 143 -.968
Poor health 2.82 2.76 145 .651
Like to do other things for recreation more 2.63 2.60 144 .251
Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.80 2.81 145 -.127
Skiing is harder to learn than other sports 2.61 2.83 96.774 -2.457*
Skiing is too physically challenging 2.66 2.74 146 -.768

Interpersonal Constraints
Don't have anyone to go with 2.57 2.39 145 1.453
Others can't afford to goI 2.35 2.44 145 -.667
Do not have a partner of the same ability 2.52 2.60 145 -.695
Negative attitudes from other recreation participants 2.89 2.93 145 -.768

Structural Constraints ___
Don't have enough time 1.82 2.11 145 -2.310*
Have no way to get to the slopes 2.41 2.41 145 .022
Lack of information about skiing or other winter sports 2.78 2.72 145 .616
Too busy with other recreation activities 2.38 2.60 109.429 -1.808
Slopes are too far away 2.06 2.03 149 -.229
Slopes are too crowded 2.48 2.64 146 -1.639
Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my disability 2.64 2.73 144 -.870
Can't afford to go to skiing 2.07 2.20 148 -.971
Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment too expensive 2.43 2.63 145 -1.670
Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the area 2.58 2.73 108.637 -1.288
Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.62 2.67 145 -.437
Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.73 2.49 142.499 2.029*
Negative attitudes from ski area employees or FS employees 2.91 2.95 140 -.760
Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.95 2.85 131.865 .1343
Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level









between the ages of six and 18 were more constrained for two of the items, while one of

the analysis showed that respondents with older children in the household were less

constrained for one item.

Under the structural domain, respondents with children ages six to eighteen living

in the household were more likely to report not having enough time (t= -2.310).

Respondents who indicated having no children between the ages six to 18 present in their

household were more likely consider adaptive programs not available in this area

(t=2.029) a constraint than those respondent that did not.

The lone significant difference found under the intrapersonal domain was that

participants who reported not living with children ages six to eighteen were more likely

to report that skiing is harder to learn than other sports (t= -2.457).

R3D: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as

skiing/snowboarding across the income variable?

Another analysis of the impacts of the socio-demographic characteristics was the

examination of the income variable. An analysis of variance was utilized to investigate

the relationship between the participants' income level and their perception of

constraints. Table 13 depicts the relationships found between total household income

levels and perceptions of constraints.

The strongest finding was that of not having enough time, falling under the

structural domain. The results show that respondents with the lowest level of income

(less than $10,000) were most likely to report lack of time (f=8.534) as a constraint to

participation, followed by respondents in the 30,001-$50,000 category. Subjects in the









highest income bracket showed the least impact of the time constraint, followed by the

participants in the $10,001- $30,000 category.

Under the intrapersonal domain, there were two significant relationships noted.

Respondents in the lowest income level (less than $10,000) were the least likely to report

poor health (f=2.749) as a constraint, where as the respondents in next income level

($10,001- $30,000) were the most likely. The next constraint item in the intrapersonal

domain was skiing is harder to learn than other sports (f=2.653). The respondents'

income level that reported this constraint the highest was $30,001-$50,000 and the lowest

income group (less than $10,000) were the least likely to it as a constraint.

Table 13. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining the Perceived Constraints by
income level.

Constraint Items Less than 10,000- 30,000- 50,000
Constraint Items F
10,000 30,000 50,000 +
Intrapersonal Constraints II II I
Fear of the outdoors 3.00 ] 2.86 2.88 2.94 .677
Fear of injury 2.52 2.50 2.48 2.77 1.119
Poor health 2.71 2.86 2.57 2.89 2.749*
Like to do other things for 2.55 2.46 2.48 273 262
recreation more
Fear of heights/ scared of lifts 2.90 2.64 2.68 2.85 1.418
Skiing is harder to learn than 90 86 254 276 653*
other sports ___
Skiing is too physically 2.57 2.93 2.46 2.77 2.545
challenging 2

Interpersonal Constraints_ _
Don't have anyone to go with 2.41 2.21 2.25 2.62 2.401
Others can't afford to go 2.18 2.43 2.14 2.55 2.422
Do not have a partner of the 2.43 264 22 2 21 1452
same ability










Continued Table 13.
Constraint Items Less 30,000-
10,000- 50,000
than 50,000 F
10,000
Negative attitudes from other recreation 2.85
participan2.86 2.86 2.94 .550
participants

Structural Constraints II
Don't have enough time 2.50 2.00 2.26 1.70 8.534***
Have no way to get to the slopes 2.64 2.21 2.30 2.46 1.275
Lack of information about skiing or other 73 92 261 22
2.73 2.92 2.61 2.72 .860
winter sports
Too busy with other recreation activities 2.64 2.54 2.59 2.51 2.52
Slopes are too far away 2.30 2.36 2.11 1.96 1.690
Slopes are too crowded 2.71 2.43 2.43 2.61 1.173
Skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due .54
2.50 2.69 2.64 2.71 .544
to my disability
Can't afford to go to skiing 2.00 1.93 1.86 2.30 2.390
Appropriate clothing/ adaptive equipment 6 46 23 2 1
too expensive
Not aware of adaptive ski programs in the 2.68 2.79 254 2.61 484
area
Not aware of skiing opportunities 2.59 2.79 2.56 2.68 .439
Adaptive programs not available in this area 2.43 2.79 2.67 2.56 .755
Negative attitudes from ski area employees 2.88
or FS employees ____
Areas are closed when I want to visit 2.80 3.00 2.76 2.94 1.330
Response scale is 1=Major reason, 2= Minor reason, 3=Not a reason
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

Measures of Constraint Negotiation

Respondents' constraint negotiation strategies were examined using a battery of 19

items modeled closely after scales used by Hubbard & Mannell (2001). Respondents

were asked to rate things they do to start, continue, or increase recreation participation on

a five-point Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "Very Often."

R4: What constraint negotiation strategies do people with disabilities perceive when

participating in winter sport activities such as skiing/snowboarding?









As seen in Table 14, the highest mean score was for the negotiation item "I try to

improve my skills" (3.89), followed by the item I ask for help with the required skills

(3.70). Other important negotiation strategies were as follows: I do more fitness and

recreation activities close to home (3.65), I just swallow my pride and try my best (3.60),

I set aside time for fitness and recreation activities (6.59), and I just try to work my

fitness and recreation in around my other commitments (3.58). The item with the lowest

mean score (2.33) was I arrange rides with friends.

Table 14. Results of Frequency Analysis of Constraint Negotiation Strategies People
with Disabilities Use to Start, Continue, or Increase Participation in Skiing &
Snowboarding

Negotiation Strategies 8 & i



Time Management Strategies II II
I tryto plan ahead for things 10.7 10.7 15.4 36.2 26.8 3.58
I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity ] 4.8 6.8 32.0 37.4 19.0 3.59
I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around 6.8 8.8 35.4 31.3 17.0 3.47
my other commitments ___ _
I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity 166 20.7 428 13.1 69 2.73
for a preferred one j _
I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are 10.9 17.7 34.0 25.9 10.9 3.15
less busy

Skill Acquisition Strategies II II
I try to improve my skills 5.4 4.0 20.1 37.6 32.9 3.89
I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite 18.8 9.7 27.1 23.6 20.8 3.18
an injury or physical/health condition _
I take skiing/snowboarding lessons I 13.1 10.3 29.7 26.9 20.0 3.30
I just swallow my pride and try my best 9.9 7.0 21.8 35.9 25.4 3.60
I ask for help with the required skills 4.8 5.5 27.4 39.7 22.6 3.70

Interpersonal Coordination Strategies ___ I
I try to find people to do fitness and recreation 18.8 10.1 369 20.8 13.4 3.00
activities with____ _









Continued Table 14.

Negotiation Strategies *


I arrange rides with friends 1136.1 19.4 26.4 11.1 6.9 2.33
I participate in activities with people in my age group 8.1 14.2 27.7 33.8 16.2 3.36

I participate in activities with people of the same gender 10.7 18.1 49.0 14.1 8.1 2.91

I try to meet people with similar interests 8.2 15.0 36.1 28.6 12.2 3.22
Financial Resource and Strategies ___ ___ I_
I tryto budget my money 21.6 10.1 19.6 33.1 15.5 3.11
I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 20.5 13.0 24.7 322 9.6 2.97

I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 6.9 7.6 21.5 41.7 22.2 3.65

I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 16.3 17.7 32.7 24.5 8.8 2.92
Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often

R4A: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who are interested in skiing & snowboarding and those who are not

interested?

An independent samples t-test was used to understand the negotiation strategies

that the respondents with regards to their interest in participating in skiing and

snowboarding. Overall, six of the 19 negotiation strategies showed significant

differences based on the respondents' interest levels. For all but one of the items

showing significant differences, the respondent who reported a higher level of interest

reported a higher mean score.

Two significant differences were noted under the skill acquisition strategy domain.

I try to improve my skills showed a significant difference (t = 2.80*) was higher for those

interested than those not. However, respondents who were less interested reported a

higher mean score for the item I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an









injury or physical/health condition (t = 2.020*). Regarding the financial resource

strategies domain, two significant differences were noted between those interested and

those not interested. I try to budget my money (t = 2.659**) and I do more fitness and

recreation activities closer to home (t = 2.334*) showed significantly higher mean scores

for those with higher interest levels.

Two additional items were significantly different between those interested and

those not. I set time for fitness and recreation activity (t = 2.574*), under the time

management strategy domain, and I try to find people to do fitness and recreation

activities with (t = 2.831*), under the interpersonal coordination strategy domain.

Table 15. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding

Negotiation Strategies X Interest Yes No df t

Time Management Strategies I I
I try to plan ahead for things 3.65 3.20 147 1.618
I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.69 3.12 1451 2.574*
I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my 350 144 1
other commitments
I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for 274 143 2
a preferred one
I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less 3.21 2.84 145 1.211
busy

Skill Acquisition Strategies _____7
I try to improve my skills 3.97 3.48 147 2.80*
I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an
injury or physical/health condition 142
I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.36 3.04 143 1.140
I just swallow my pride andtry my best 3.65 3.36 140 1.077
I ask for help with the required skills 3.74 3.48 144 1.164

Interpersonal Coordination Strategies I II
I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities 3.13 2.36 147 2.831**
with









Continued Table 15.

Negotiation Strategies X Interest Yes No df t

I arrange rides with friends 2.34 2.28 142 .232
I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.41 3.08 146 1.324
I participate in activities with people of the same gender 2.93 2.80 147 .560
I try to meet people with similar interests 3.29 2.88 145 1.694

Financial Resource and Strategies I I
I try to budget my money 3.20 2.64 146 1.868
I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 3.10 2.36 144 2.659**
I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.74 3.17 142 2.334*
I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 2.89 3.08 145 -.740
Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level


R4B: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who are living in different living environments?

A one-way ANOVA was used to investigate the relationships between a

respondents' living environment (urban, suburban, or rural) and the perceptions of

constraint negotiation strategies. Table 16 illustrated that three significant relationships

were discovered were noted across two domains. Under the skill acquisition strategy

domain, suburban respondents were most likely to select the item I take

skiing/snowboarding lessons, while rural respondents were least likely (F = 7.412***).

Suburban respondents were also most likely to agree that they ask for help with the

required skills than either urban or rural respondents (t = 3.358*). Under the time

management strategy domain, urban respondents were less likely to place high

importance on the item I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other

commitments (t = 3.444**).









R4c: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who have different levels of education?

To further investigate the constraints negotiation strategies used, a one-way

ANOVA was ran between the respondents' income level and the individual negotiation

items. Table 17 shows the three significant relationships were found; two in the time

management strategy domain and one in the skill acquisition strategy domain. In all

three cases, as education increased, so did the propensity for selecting that particular

item.

Table 16. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Living Environment

Negotiation Strategies X living environment urban suburban rural F

Time Management Strategies__
I tryto plan ahead for things 3.64 3.61 3.57 .107
I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.56 3.65 2.54 .188
I just try to work my fitness and recreation in 3.4
around my other commitments ____ ___
I sometimes substitute another more convenient 2
2.63 2.81 2.68 .361
activity for a preferred one
SI try to participate in off-peak times when 2.92 330 311 899
facilities are less busy

Skill Acquisition Strategies I
I tryto improve my skills 4.14 3.87 3.74 1.363
I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities 3.46 3.10 3.18 .785
despite an injury or physical/health condition .
Itake skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.37 3.64 2.70 7.412***
I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.48 3.70 3.62 .332
I ask for help with the required skills 3.44 3.93 3.54 3.358*

Interpersonal Coordination Strategies _
I try to find people to do fitness and recreation 2.75 3.03 3.20 1.209
activities with_____










Continued Table 16.
I arrange rides with friends .241 2.32 2.37 .057
I participate in activities with people in my age 3.06 3.58 3.28 2.644
group___
I participate in activities with people of the same 2.86 3.01 2.75 .862
gender
I try to meet people with similar interests 3.14 3.37 3.05 1.178

Financial Resource and Strategies _
I try to budget my money 3.06 3.06 3.28 .359
I save up money to do fitness and recreation 3.05 .224
activities 2.86 3.00
I do more fitness and recreation activities close to 3.61 2.510
home 3.34 3.85
I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I 3.17 2.79 2.95 1.147
have____ _
Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level


Under the time management strategy domain, the items I try to plan ahead for

things (F = 5.353**) and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other

Table 17. Results of Analysis of Variance Examining Constraint Negotiation Strategies
People with Disabilities by Level of Interest in Skiing & Snowboarding

AA or Grad./
Negotiation Strategies X Interest BA/BS pro F
less prof

Time Management Strategies II I
I try to plan ahead for things 3.40 3.67 4.42 5.353**
I set aside time for fitness and recreation activityI 3.52 3.53 4.00 1.769
I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my 27 I 37 11
other commitments
I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity 1
for a preferred one
I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are less 3.10 3.00 3.42 .482
busy

Skill Acquisition Strategies II I
I try to improve my skills 3.77 4.00 4.37 2.573
I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an 33 3.44 421
injury or physical/health condition _______
I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.22 3.75 3.39 1.263









Continued Table 17.

AA or Grad./
Negotiation Strategies X Interest ess BA/BS pro F
less prof

I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.58 3.06 4.06 2.745
I ask for help with the required skills 3.63 3.56 4.05 1.465

Interpersonal Coordination Strategies __ _
I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities 2.98 2.78 3.42 1.2191
with
I arrange rides with friends 2.26 2.61 2.58 .955
I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.41 3.12 3.50 .550
I participate in activities with people of the same gender 2.97 2.88 2.68 .628
I try to meet people with similar interests 3.26 3.35 2.89 1.000

Financial Resource and Strategies II I
I try to budget my money 3.04 3.50 3.16 .856
I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 2.92 3.35 3.00 .815
I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.59 3.47 3.95 .967
I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 3.00 2.53 2.71 1.454
Response scale is 1=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

commitments (F = 4.627*) showed significant differences. Under the skill acquisition

strategy domain, the item I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an injury

or physical/health condition (F = 4.021*) showed a significant difference. As stated

above, respondents with a graduate/professional degree agreed more with the statements

showing significant differences than respondents with a baccalaureate degree, or those

respondents with an Associate's degree or less.

R4D: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who were hampered by their disability compared to those who reported

they were not hampered by their disability?

An independent sample t-test was used to determine the differences in the mean

scores of constraint negotiation items based whether or not the respondents felt that their









disability hampered their abilities to ski or snowboard. Results show six significant mean

differences across three of the negotiation strategy domains. Three of the significant

items were found in the sill acquisition strategy domain, two in the interpersonal strategy

domain, and one in the financial resources and strategy domain.

The single item that showed the greatest difference was I participate in activities

with people in my own age group (t = -2.644***), in the interpersonal strategy domain.

The other item within this domain was the item I try to find people to do fitness and

recreation activities with (t = -2.133*). The skill acquisition domain included three

significant items, including I just swallow my pride and try my best (t = -2.540*), I try to

Table 18. Results of Independent Sample t-test Examining Differences of Constraint
Negotiation Strategies People with Disabilities Who Reported their
Disabilities Hampered Their Abilities to Ski or Snowboard

Negotiation Strategies X Does your disability Yes No df t
hamper ability to ski/snowboard

Time Management Strategies
I try to plan ahead for things 3.49 3.69 140 -.926
I set aside time for fitness and recreation activity 3.46 3.77 138 -1.769
I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my 3.37 3.53 137 -.886
other commitments
I sometimes substitute another more convenient activity 74 136 -
for a preferred one ____ ___
I try to participate in off-peak times when facilities are 3.10 3.22 108.638 -.490
less busy

Skill Acquisition Strategies _
I tryto improve my skills 3.68 4.10 140 -2.368*
I participate in skiing/snowboarding activities despite an
S. 3.34 3.08 135 1.126
injury or physical/health condition 30 1
I take skiing/snowboarding lessons 3.57 3.14 136 1.980*
I just swallow my pride and try my best 3.35 3.87 133 -2.540*









Continued Table 18.

Negotiation Strategies X Does your disability Yes No df t
hamper ability to ski/snowboard

I ask for help with the required skills 3.68 3.79 137 .729

Interpersonal Coordination Strategies _
I try to find people to do fitness and recreation activities 2.81 3.26 140 -2.133*
with
I arrange rides with friends 2.16 2.49 135 -1.523
I participate in activities with people in my age group 3.14 3.64 139
2.644**
I participate in activities with people of the same gender 3.74 3.13 140 -2.307
I try to meet people with similar interests 3.00 3.42 138 -2.303

Financial Resource and Strategies _
I tryto budget my money 2.92 3.26 139 -1.464
I save up money to do fitness and recreation activities 2.73 3.26 137 -2.470*
I do more fitness and recreation activities close to home 3.66 3.69 135 -.154
I improvise with the equipment and/or clothes I have 2.85 3.00 138 -.759
Response scale is l=Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Regularly, 5=Very Often
*** significant at .001 level, ** significant at the .01 level, significant at the .05 level

improve my skills (t = -2.368*), I take skiing/snowboarding lessons (t = 1.980*). Within

the financial resources strategy domain, only the item I save up money to do fitness and


recreation activities (t = -2.470*) showed a significant difference.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of the constraints and

negotiation strategies that winter sport recreationists with disabilities experience and

utilize in order to participate in recreation activities. In addition, this study sought to

understand the benefits sought by persons with disabilities who participate in winter

sports activities, particularly skiing and snowboarding.

It should be noted that this study focused only on recreationists who reported that

they have a disability. This study does not compare the two distinctly different

populations of able-bodied persons and persons with disabilities. Accordingly, the

frequency distributions of the responses are the primary result of this study. However, to

better understand the specific constraints that persons with disabilities incur, the

negotiation strategies that they use to overcome those constraints and the benefits that

they seek, additional analyses were conducted.

This study contributes to the current literature regarding the recreation patterns and

perceptions of persons with disabilities. This chapter reviews and discusses the four

research questions. At the end of the chapter, recommendations for future research are

discussed.

Summary of Procedures

The primary purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of

skiers/snowboarders with disabilities with regards to benefits sought, constraints and the

negotiation strategies that they utilize in overcoming their constraints. A mail-back









survey instrument was used to collect the data from the respondents. The survey

instruments were mailed out in the month of May, 2004, and the data were analyzed

during the month of July, 2004. A total of 161 completed surveys were returned, from

the 650 total households contacted. This thesis explored four proposed research

questions, with the overall purpose of discovering the constraints, negotiation strategies,

and benefits sought by persons with disabilities who participate in outdoor recreation

activities of skiing and snowboarding in the US. The data analysis utilized SPSS v. 12 to

uncover the results of the proposed research questions.

Discussion of Research Questions

RI: What does the sample of recreationists look like?

The profile of the sample labeled as recreationistss" was found through running

frequencies in SPSS v. 12. Again, it is paramount to recognize the importance of the

frequency distribution of the responses from the persons who participated in this study, as

the sample consists of all persons with disabilities who participate in the outdoor

recreation activities of skiing and snowboarding.

Nearly two-thirds (59.0%) of the participants were males, while 41.0% were

females. The respondents were asked which residence type (urban, suburban, or rural)

best describes the area in which their permanent residence resides. The analysis showed

that about half of the recreationists in the sample (47.0%), live in rural areas. Over one-

quarter of the respondents (29.0%) live in urban areas and the remainder of the

respondents (23.9%), live in suburban areas.

The respondents were also asked their total annual household income. Half of the

respondents (50.0%) reported their household income to be $50,001 or more, while

20.6% reported between $30,001 and $50,000. A large proportion of the respondents









indicated that their household income was less than $10,000, and just 11% reported this

amount to be between $10,001 and $30,000.

The education levels of the respondents were examined as well. Nearly three-

quarters (74%) of the respondents said that they had less than a Bachelor's degree. Just

12.0% of the recreationists said that they had a Bachelor's degree, and 13.3% reported

that their education level was that of a Graduate or professional degree.

The respondents were queried as to whether their household included children. The

vast majority of the respondents (88.4%) indicated that they did not have children under

the age of six years in their household, while a nearly two-thirds of the recreationists

(59. l%)reported that they had children between the ages of six years and 18 years in the

household.

Overall, the respondents in this sample have a very typical socio-demographic

profile. Regarding the first research question, the greatest proportion of the respondents

was male, lived in a suburban area and reported an annual household income of $50,001

or more. The respondents were most likely to have as Associate's degree or less, and

were likely to have a child between the ages of six and 18 in their household.

When asked about their interest level in skiing or snowboarding, the results of the

analysis showed that there were more people interested in skiing (93.0% very interested-

somewhat interested) than in snowboarding (40.3% very interested-somewhat interested).

The vast majority (84.8%) of the respondents did not ski or snowboard competitively.

The level of skiing/snowboarding experience of the respondents ranged from a low

degree of experience (6.5% with less than one year experience) to a great deal of

experience (35.6% with seven or more years experience). The number of days spent









skiing/snowboarding in the past 12 months showed a very normal distribution, with 10%

saying 1 day or less, 37% stating 4-7 days, and 13.8% reporting that they

skied/snowboarded 15 or more days.

The respondents were asked to report the formal or medical name of their

disability. The most common type of disabilities reported were physical impairments

(48.3%). The most frequently reported physical disabilities were

Paraplegia/Quadriplegia/Spinal Cord Injury (14.2%) and Cerebral Palsy (7.1%) This is

noteworthy in the sense that these types of disabilities would require the most adaptations

and equipment to enable participation. This highlights the notion that individuals with

these types of physical disabilities are able to participate in winter recreation activities

such as skiing and snowboarding with the assistance of adaptive recreation providers.

This finding also makes note that participants with these types of physical

disabilities are able to negotiate through the barriers to participation. Much of the needed

equipment (e.g., mono-skis and outriggers) is often available at adaptive recreation

centers as well as instruction on the use of this equipment.

As mentioned in previous literature, people with physical disabilities such as spinal

cord injuries reported several constraints to outdoor recreation pursuits. Lack of leisure

partners, transportation issues, mobility issues, self-consciousness, and attitudes of

significant others were found to be constraining factors of outdoor recreation pursuits

Ross (1993). These constraints listed above were similar and consistent to those found

important to this study except attitudes. Attitudes from significant others was not found

to be highly constraining factor in this study. Overall, the use of recreation and









therapeutic recreation services can be utilized to treat and prevent primary and secondary

disabilities related to disabilities.

A significant proportion of the sample reported having cognitive impairments

(44.1%). The most frequently reported cognitive disorders were Downs Syndrome

(11.3%), Autism (9.9%), and learning disabilities (6.4%). Previous research has also

examined the constraints to recreation participation for people with cognitive

impairments. The findings suggest that leisure involvement of older adults with

cognitive disabilities is often constrained by factors such as transportation, money,

physical accessibility, concerns about their behavior, and discomfort in large public

groups. Another study states that people with cognitive disabilities including learning

disabilities, autism, and moderate and sever cognitive disabilities, reported benefit from

outdoor activities by demonstrating a greater initiative and self directed independence

(Wilhite and Keller 1992).

In general, research suggests that constraints to involvement and participation in

outdoor recreation and community life activities for people with disabilities tend to

involve resources and attitudes. Resources include transportation, money, leisure

partners, knowledge, skills, and functioning. Attitudinal barriers for individuals with

disabilities are often their own attitudes as well as others (the community, society at

larger, or even recreation providers). Although attitudinal barriers were not found to be a

strong constraining factor in this study, this topic of research should not be overlooked in

future recreation research.

People with disabilities have been hindered from participating in outdoor recreation

activities for quite some time. With the aging US population and medical and









technological advances, the number of persons with disabilities is expected to increase.

Understanding the recreation and leisure needs of persons with disabilities is increasingly

important.

Most of the respondents reported that their disability had occurred relatively

recently, with nearly three-quarters of the respondents (69.0%) saying that their disability

had occurred within the past 10 years, and 31.4% stating between 11-20 years. A

noteworthy proportion of the respondents (11.8%) said that their disability had occurred

over 30 years ago.

R2: What benefits do people with disabilities seek when participating in winter

sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding?

The 15 possible benefits items were categorized in four domains. These domains

included health, social, efficacy, and nature. Table 4 lists the four domains, the percent

for each item, and the mean for each item. The frequency distribution of the benefits

items was analyzed for each individual item and each set of items with their respective

domains for greater clarity.

Overall, the respondents showed that the items in the efficacy domain were the

most sought after benefits. Each of the items in the efficacy domain was rated at a mean

of 3.70 or higher (on a 5-point Likert scale). One of the items in the health domain was

rated very high (3.81), while the remaining items in the health domain were rated in the

middle. The lowest mean scores were seen for the nature domain, where each mean

score fell between 2.52 and 3.10.









R2A: What are the differences in the perceived benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding between

people who show a high level of interest and those who show a low level of interest?

This examination made use of an independent samples t-test to determine the

differences (if any) between the benefits sought and whether they showed a higher or

lower level of interest in participating. The results showed that three of the items were

significant, and that all three items were in the health domain. People who were more

interested in participating felt that improved physical fitness and being provided with a

sense of adventure were more important. Also, respondents who were less interested in

participating felt that reducing stress was more important than those who were interested.

R2B: What are the differences in the perceived benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding across

education levels?

Five significant differences were noted across the education levels with respect to

the benefits perceived by these recreationists. Similar to the finding in the previous

research question, the majority of the significant differences (three of five) were found in

the health domain. No real pattern was found that showed that people who had either

higher or lower education levels were likely to perceive things differently.

However, some interesting findings were noted. People with Bachelor's degrees

were less likely to seek a sense of adventure, improved mental health, and greater

connection with nature than the other respondents. Respondents in the lowest education

were least likely to seek the benefit item of reducing stress. Also, as income increased,

so did the importance of the item opportunities to meet people.









R2c: What are the differences in the perceived benefits of people with disabilities

when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding across

income levels?

Similar to what was noted in the previous research question, four significant

differences were seen across the benefits by income analysis. Similar results were noted

for respondents in the $10,000--$30,000 category across three of the items (enhanced

family relationships, increases self-confidence, and increases sense of competence). As

income increased, so did the propensity to seek a sense of adventure. The lowest income

respondents reported the lowest level of importance for three of the four items (provides a

sense of adventure, increased self-confidence, and increased sense of competence), and

tied with respondents in the middle income group ($30,001--$50,000) for the fourth item

(enhanced family relationships). Once again, the nature domain showed no significant

difference across the income groupings.

R3: What constraints do people with disabilities perceive when participating in

winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding?

The 25 constraints items were categorized into three domains; intrapersonal

constraints (7 items), interpersonal constraints (4 items); and structural constraints (14

items). The frequency distribution of the constraints items was analyzed for the items,

and each set of items within their respective domains for greater clarity.

Overall, the respondents showed that the structural constraints presented the

greatest barrier to them. Nearly a third of the respondents said that three of the structural

items were a major reason for not participating. These items were don't have enough

time, slopes are too far away, and can't afford to go skiing. This finding corresponds to









the findings of Gilbert and Hudson (2000), Hudson (2000), and Williams and Fidgeon

(2000). The items that the respondents were most likely to report as not being a reason or

constraint were negative attitudes from ski area employees, areas are closed when I want

to visit, and lack of information about skiing. This is a finding that shows a positive light

on the management of the skiing/snowboarding facilities, as these possible structural

constraints seem to be alleviated by management.

Few items within the intrapersonal and interpersonal domains showed that they

were major reasons for not participating in skiing/snowboarding. Within the

interpersonal category, the major reasons were others can't afford to go, don't have

anyone to go with,, while in the intrapersonal domain, I like to do other things for

recreation and fear of injury were the major reasons. Within the interpersonal domain,

the least important constraint item was negative attitudes from other recreation

participants, and within the intrapersonal category the least important items were fear of

the outdoors, fear of heights/scared of lifts, and poor health.

These findings are similar to the findings of a great deal of other constraints

literature (Gilbert & Hudson 2000; Hudson 2000; Jackson & Rucks 1995;and Williams &

Fidgeon 2000;), showing that the lack of time or being too busy is an important reason

for not participating as often as desired. Interestingly, this is true of persons with

disabilities as well as able-bodied persons.

R3A: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing &

snowboarding between people who participate as often as desired and those who do not?









In order to understand the impact of the constraints on recreation participation, or

the constraints perceived by recreation participants, the respondents were asked if they

ski/snowboard as often as they desired. A series oft-tests were used to determine if the

respondents in the "yes" category recorded a different response than those in the "no"

category. In order to analyze the data, the three-point scale was transformed into a

dichotomous "yes/no" variable. This variable was created by selecting the respondents

who said that the item was a major or minor reason for not participating. These

respondents fell into the "yes" category. The respondents who said that the constraint

was not at all a reason fell into the "no" category.

The results of the analysis showed that five of the constraint items were

significantly different for those saying yes or no. Interestingly, four of the five

significant variables fell into the structural constraints domain. Respondents who said

that they did not participate as often as they liked were more likely to report that they

were constrained in each case. These items were, in order of strength, not aware of

skiing opportunities, slopes are too far away, adaptive programs not available in this area,

and have no way to get to the slopes. This finding clearly shows that not being able to

get to the slopes, for whatever reason, is a major reason for a lack of participation by the

people in this sample. This finding is in concert with the research done by Alexandris &

Carrol (1997), Jackson &Rucks (1995), and Simon & Fidgeon (2000).

One of the intrapersonal constraints items was significant. Respondents who said

that they did not participate as often as they desired were significantly more likely to

report that they liked to do other things for recreation. This was an expected finding, as

those people who like to do other things for recreation would most likely participate in









those activities rather than an activity that they enjoy less. No significant findings were

noted within the interpersonal constraints domain.

R3B: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with disabilities

perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding

between people with children in their household under the ages of six and those who do

not?

An analysis was conducted to understand the difference in the perceptions about

constraints on perceived by recreation participants with regards to whether a child under

the age of six resided in the household. A series of t-tests were used to determine if the

respondents in the "yes" category recorded a different response than those in the "no"

category. A total of eight significant differences were noted, showing the impact of this

socio-demographic variable on perceived constraints by persons with disabilities.

Unlike the previous test of significance, the intrapersonal constraints domain

showed the most significant differences, and the structural constraints domain showed the

least. Within the intrapersonal domain, five constraints items showed significant

differences. For each of these items, the person without young children in the household

reported a higher degree of constraints. The significant items were, in order of strength,

fear of heights/scared of lifts, like to do other things for recreation, skiing is too

physically challenging, poor health, and fear of the outdoors.

Two of the interpersonal constraints items were found to be significant; don't have

anyone to go with and negative attitudes from other participants. Interestingly, the

structural constraints domain included only one significant difference with regards to

having small children in the household; skiing facilities are inaccessible to me due to my









disability. This finding may be related to the positive impact of having young children in

the household.

The issue of recreation and families with disabilities has received little attention in

the recreation and leisure literature until very recently. However, in the past few years

there have been some exceptional efforts to add to this lacking body of knowledge

(Ashton-Shaffer, Shelton, & Johnson (1995), Bullock & Johnson (1997), and Mactavish,

Schleien, & Tabourne (1997).

From this research it was strongly suggested that family involvement in the leisure

process has been a key concern for family members. Ashton-Schaffer et. al (1995)

reported that families and parents of people with disabilities indicated that they have

always had to facilitate recreation experiences and in some ways this could be more work

for them. These findings suggest that this in itself may present additional perceived

constraints for families that have to be negotiated in various ways.

Mactavish (1997) studied the nature of family recreation of people with

developmental disabilities. Families in this study identified a number of benefits to

family recreation including the opportunity suggested that past experience and in

particular past benefits, tended to influence the degree to which families and negotiated

from constraints.

Another possibility for this finding could be the amount of child care facilities

available at these recreation areas. Child care areas are typically inspected by state

agencies, and child care facilities are often a relatively new development at ski areas.

The simple fact that the child care areas are newer than the ski areas may bode well for

persons with disabilities, as they would have more likely to have been built within the









parameters set forth by ADA. This is an interesting finding because it highlights the need

for managers to focus not just on providing outdoor recreation opportunities for persons

with disabilities, but also the peripheral issues such as childcare.

R3c: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with disabilities

perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing & snowboarding

between people with children in their household between the ages of six and 18 and those

who do not?

Respondents in this sample who had children between the ages of six and 18

showed three significant differences with regards to recreation constraints. Two of the

three differences were in the structural domain, and just one was found in the

intrapersonal domain. No significant differences were noted for the interpersonal

constraints domain.

Respondents who said that they did have children in the household between the

ages of six and eighteen reported a higher degree of constraint than those without for two

of the three items. These items were skiing is harder to learn than other sports, and don't

have enough time. Only one item, adaptive programs not available in this area, showed a

higher degree of constraint for persons with disabilities without a child in their

household.

It is interesting to examine the findings of this sub-research question in concert

with the findings of the previous sub-research question regarding small children in the

household. Whereas the presence of small children (younger than six years) resulted in

the participant reporting fewer constraints, the presence of an older child (six-18) in the

household had little effect on the perception of constraints. The lack of differences noted









for this sub-research question may have to do more with the social bonding of children

with other children, and the loosening of the parents' "apron strings."

R3D: What are the differences in the perceived constraints of people with

disabilities perceive when participating in winter sport activities such as skiing &

snowboarding across the income variable?

An examination of the constraints variable across the income groupings was

conducted to see if there was a relationship between income and the perception of

constraints by persons with disabilities who participated in skiing/snowboarding. Three

significant differences were found across the constraints variables; two within the

intrapersonal constraints domain and one within the structural constraints domain. No

significant differences were found for the interpersonal domain.

Within the intrapersonal constraints domain, poor health and skiing is harder to

learn were listed as the major constraining factors for people in the $30,001-$50,000

category. For the poor health item, the lowest income group reported the second highest

level of constraint, while the respondents in the highest income group reported the lowest

level of constraint. The item skiing is harder to learn than other sports was shown as a

greater constraint for higher income respondents than lower income respondents. This is

a similar finding to that of the item don't have enough time, where respondents in the

highest income group reported that this was more of a constraint than respondents in the

lowest income group.

R4: What constraint negotiation strategies do people with disabilities use when they

start, continue, or increase participation in winter sport activities such as skiing &

snowboarding?









The 19 constraint negotiation items were categorized into four domains; time

management strategies (5 items), skill acquisition strategies (5 items), interpersonal

coordination (5 items), and financial resources and strategies (4 items). The frequency

distribution was analyzed for the individual items and each set of items are within their

respective domain for greater clarity.

Overall, the respondents showed that the skill acquisition strategies were employed

the most often to start, continue, or increase, participation of their winter recreation

pursuits. Nearly two thirds of respondents said that three skill acquisition strategies were

used "regularly" or "very often" when trying to start, continue, or increase participation

in winter sport activities. These items were I try to improve my skills, I ask for help with

the required skills, and I just swallow my pride and try my best.

Another domain of constraint negotiation strategy that was frequently used to start,

continue, or increase participation of their winter recreation pursuits was the time

management domain. Approximately half of the respondents or more reported that three

time management strategies were used "regularly" or very often" in winter recreation

participation. These items were I set aside time for fitness and recreation activities, I try

to plan ahead for things, and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my

other commitments.

The negotiation strategies items that were used the least to start, continue, or

increase participation of skiing and snowboarding were I arrange rides with friends, I

sometimes substitute another more convenient activity for a preferred one, and I

participate in activities with people of the same gender.









R4A: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who are interested in skiing & snowboarding and those who are not

interested?

To fully understand the impact of constraints and the strategies used to negotiated

through these constraints, the respondents were first asked how interested in skiing and

snowboarding they were. The four points scale was transformed into a dichotomous

variable. The variable was created by selected all the respondents that indicated to be

very or somewhat interested in skiing and snowboarding. These respondents fell into the

"yes" category. The respondents that indicated not at all interested or don't know fell

under the category of "no." In order to examine the effect of the respondents' interest in

skiing and snowboarding on the use of constraint negotiation strategies, an independent

sample t-test was conducted.

The results of this analysis show that six negotiation strategies were significantly

different for those saying yes or no to whether they were interested in skiing &

snowboarding or not. Interestingly, the respondents who indicated that they were

interested in skiing and snowboarding reported more frequent use of all the negotiation

items than those who were not interested. Another noteworthy finding was that the

domains of financial resource strategies and the skill acquisition strategies had the most

significant differences. However, each domain had at least one significant difference.

Respondents who said that they were interested in skiing and snowboarding were more

likely to report they frequently used the constraint negotiation strategy in each case. The

items within each domain are presented in order of strength.









Surprisingly, only one of the time management domain items was found to be

significant. Despite the fact that not having enough time was perceived as the strongest

perceived constraint, respondents' who were interested in skiing and snowboarding only

reported setting aside time for fitness and recreation activities more frequently than those

respondents who were not interested.

Within the financial resource strategies, the items were I save up money to do

fitness and recreation activities and I do more fitness and recreation activities close to

home. These findings may relate to the fact that a large portion of the respondents of this

study reported that their household income was less than $10,000. It may also

demonstrate that fact that about half of the respondents of this study live in a suburban

area. Also, most environments suitable for winter recreation activities do not occur in

this type of area.

Two skill acquisition domain items were found significant; I try to improve my

skills and I participant in skiing and snowboarding activities despite an injury or physical

or health condition. Interestingly, the respondents' from this study as earlier discussed

felt that poor health was a constraining to their participation in winter recreation. This

finding illustrates the notion of participation despite constraints through the process of

negotiation.

Although only one significant difference was found in the interpersonal

coordination domain, the item I try to find people to do recreation activities with was

worth mentioning.

R4B: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who are living in different living environments?









To better understand the impact of a respondents' living area on how they negotiate

perceived constraints, respondents' were ask to indicate whether they lived in an urban,

suburban, or rural environment. A series of analysis of variances were used to determine

the differences of responses. The results showed that only items in the time management

skill acquisition domains were found to have significant differences.

Two significant differences were found in the skill acquisition domain; I take

skiing/snowboarding lessons and I ask for help with required skills. Within the time

management domain, one negotiation strategy item was significant. Respondents' who

said they lived in a suburban area reported most frequently that they try to work fitness

and recreation in around my other commitments.

R4c: What are the differences in the constraint negotiation strategies used by people

with disabilities who have different levels of education?

In order to examine the impact of education on the uses of constraint negotiation

strategies, respondents were asked to report the highest level of schooling that had

completed. A seven-point scale was transformed into a three-point scale. The three

categories were AA degree or less, BA/BS, or graduate or professional degree. The

results of this analysis illustrated significant differences within two of the domains.

Two items were found to be significant in the time management domain; I try to

plan ahead for things and I just try to work my fitness and recreation in around my other

commitments. Those respondents with a graduate or professional degree reported more

frequently that they employed these strategies to negotiate through their perceived

constraints.









One of the skill acquisition strategy items was significant. Those respondents with

higher education reported more frequently that they participate in skiing & snowboarding

activities despite an injury or physical/health condition. This finding clearly showed that

respondents who had a graduate or professional degree indicated that more frequent use

of this negotiation strategy than respondents with lower levels of education

Conclusions

Findings showed that more than half of the sample was males, living in a

suburban residence, and making total household annual income of $50,000 or more. The

majority of the sample had an Associates' degree or less. Also the majority of

respondents did not live in a household with children under six or children between 6 to

18 years old. The results of the study suggest that the majority of the adaptive recreation

participants surveyed were more interested in skiing than in snowboarding. Most of the

respondents reported that they did not ski or snowboard competitively.

The respondents of this study were more likely to report having a physical

disability than other types of disabilities. The most prevalent type of physical impairment

report was spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia or quadriplegia. The second most

prevalent type of disability was cognitive impairments. Respondents reported having

Downs syndrome more than other types of cognitive disabilities. The frequency

distributions revealed this sample was really composed of two subgroups: respondents

with physical disabilities and respondents with cognitive disorders. A small percentage

of the sample reported other types of disabilities including sensory impairments. Many

adaptive winter sports programs have programming specially designed for individuals

with disabilities. There are disability specific programs such as skiing for people with

visual impairments and there are inclusive programs for people of all abilities. If more









data was able to be collected from several different organizations, the distinction of the

programs may be more obvious.

As previously mentioned, recreation pursuits have many different meanings to

many different people. The respondents in this study sought benefits from recreation that

improved one's self-concept. This sample found that improving self-confidence was a

major reason to engage in recreation and leisure activities. Therapeutic recreation

services and recreation activities reinforce positive self-image. Enhancing self-concepts,

promoting a healthy, positive sense of self-esteem, and enhancing confidence have all

been documented as benefits of therapeutic recreation services. It is a response to

achievements of personal goals and positive feedback from others. It can be

characterized as feelings of mastery, achievements, exhilaration, acceptance, success, and

personal worth. This clearly defines the therapeutic value of a recreation experience.

Other benefits rated as important reasons to engage in recreation and leisure were

related to improving of physical condition or health. Much literature and anecdotal

evidence points to the importance of therapeutic recreation in helping the participants

improve, maintain, and gain physical strength and endurance. More recently, society has

begun to take a more holistic approach of understanding health and physical well-being.

With this change in thinking, one can only hope that society truly comprehends the

connection of healthy leisure and recreation to overall quality of life.

Constraints to leisure and recreation pursuits are constant threats to peoples'

interest levels and participation rates in any given activity. Previous literature suggests

that the nature of skiing and snowboarding provides for more than normal barriers

(Simon 2000). Also, previous literature suggests that people with disabilities may









experience additional constraints due to conditions related to their disabilities. In this

study, many interesting findings surfaced with the examination of perceived constraints.

Time constraints were reported most frequently as a major reason affecting participation

and interest in skiing and snowboarding. Other major reasons or constraints reported

were transportation issues, financial concerns, and accessibility. Recreation participants,

regardless of abilities or experiences, will encounter many of these barriers.

Understanding these constraints can only help recreation and leisure service providers to

provide more attainable and enjoyable opportunities for all.

Constraint negotiation was examined in four domains. Respondents rated the

negotiation items on terms of frequency of use to start, continue, or increase level of

participation. Overall, skill acquisition strategies were most frequently used. The

negotiation strategy item rated as most frequently used was I try to improve my skills.

Other strategy items that were frequently used were I ask for help with the required skills

and I swallow my pride and try my best. These findings suggest that skiers and

snowboarders with disabilities are quite interested in improving their abilities to

participate winter recreation activities in order to participate at desired levels. As

reported, respondents feel improving their skills will allow them to overcome barriers

impeding participation.

Another interesting finding under the financial resources and strategies domain

was respondents report more frequently doing fitness and recreation activities close to

home. Keeping in mind most of the respondents reported feeling constrained by lack of

money and transportation issues, many respondents chose to participate in skiing and









snowboarding closer to home. This limits their ability to go on a typical skiing vacation

unless participants live relatively close to a ski area.

In general, this study contributes valuable knowledge and confirms the notion that

therapeutic recreation, or the use of recreation to help heal the mind and body, is

important to persons with disabilities. Therapeutic recreation seems to be part of a

growing trend that will surge with the aging of the baby-boomer generation.

This study can also contribute to the advocacy of adaptive recreation program

establishment in winter sport environments. The results support the position that

recreation participation is beneficial for all. As previously mentioned, many myths

suggest that people with disabilities do not prefer the same kinds of outdoor

environments, do not participate in outdoor recreation/adventure activities, and cannot

attain a full range of benefits from outdoor recreation programs and activities. This study

is a great example to see the true contrast in the above statement and the reality that

people with disabilities do tend to participate in outdoor recreation opportunities.

This study has provided data that furthers the work of Jackson et. al (1993)

indicating that participation is dependent not on the absence of constraints, but rather

upon the negotiation through them. The data showed how participants with disabilities

often modified their leisure experiences related to time management and skill acquisition.

The data also suggested that the ability and frequency of constraint negotiation was tied

to other aspects of life circumstances (e.g., income levels and living environment). Still

further, the findings illustrated that participants with different education levels employed

different negotiation strategies.