Race, Rural Residence, and Wildland Visitation: Examining the Influence of Sociocultural Meaning¹

Abstract

A BSTRACTPrevious studies have shown that African Americans have less favorable impressions about wildlands and recreate on wildland areas less frequently than do whites. However, most of these investigations have been conducted on non-rural populations. Rural perceptions of wildlands and visitation to such areas have received relatively little attention. In this exploratory study, we propose that race operates on wildland recreation visitation through the different meanings rural blacks and whites attribute to wildlands. We examine this hypothesis with a structural model which specifies wildland meaning as an intervening factor between race and visitation. Single equation results show blacks visit wildlands less, and have less favorable definitions of wildlands, compared to whites. However, when wildland meaning is included in the structural model, racial differences become insignificant. This suggests that the meanings different racial groups attach to wildlands help explain visitation. Both sex and age are also significant predictors of both wildland meaning and visitation.

No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences

“…From research conducted in the Unites States, which focused on racial and ethnic differences in landscape perception and outdoor recreation, we know that immigrants and African Americans are less likely than U.S.-born whites to visit nature reserves (Johnson et al, 2004) and that such differences may be related to different landscape preferences and different meanings attached to nature (Johnson et al, 1997). Research also shows that Anglo-Americans generally favor a more natural and less managed environment, whereas groups such as Afro-Americans and Latin-Americans favor a more developed and managed environment (Zube and Pitt, 1981;Kaplan and Talbot, 1988;Virden and Walker, 1999).…”

Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda

“…There is also evidence that nature preferences vary across ethnic, cultural, and racial backgrounds. Tragically, the legacy of forced labor, lynchings, and other violence may evoke deeply disturbing associations with trees, fields, and forests among some African Americans ( Johnson et al 1997 ; Johnson and Bowker 2004 ). Diverse populations also express diverse preferences with respect to greenspace: a baseball diamond for some, a soccer field for others, picnic facilities for still others ( Gobster 2002 ; Ho et al 2005 ; Payne et al 2002 ; Smiley et al 2016 ).…”

Race and Wildfire Risk Perceptions among Rural Forestland Owners in North-Central Florida

“…Place attachment applies to places that gain meaning and definition through the individual experiences that occur within those places (Tuan 1980) and describes the emotional bonds between people and places (e.g., Davenport and Anderson 2005;Williams and Vaske 2003). Place attachment has been used to assess Black participation in Southern, rural yard designs and gardening practices (Westmacott 1992) and wildland recreation (e.g., Johnson et al 1997;Williams and Carr 1993). Other research has examined the different wildland meaning between Southern rural Blacks and Whites.…”

“…Other research has examined the different wildland meaning between Southern rural Blacks and Whites. For example, research by Johnson et al (1997) suggests that the labels, words, or meanings that rural African Americans assign to wildlands are different from the meanings rural Whites give these places, and that the meanings different racial groups attach to wildlands help explain visitation to these areas. Additionally, findings by Philipp (1993) support previous research that Blacks and Whites are significantly different in ranking of wildland recreation among different natural resource-based tourist destinations.…”