The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age
Abstract
We examined the relationship between age, race and residential location with respect to four issues salient to public park agencies, (a) citizens' perceived need for additional park land; (b) preferences for the desired function of that park land (e.g., conservation vs. recreation); (c) preferences for the style of recreation (e.g., developed vs. naturebased recreation); and, (d) level of existing visitation to local parks. Data for this study was drawn from a general population of urbanites residing within a seven-mile radius of Cleveland Metroparks' newly opened Ohio & Erie Canal Reservation. Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) was used to collect data from respondents during an 8- to 10-minute interview. Eight hundred telephone interviews were completed in December, 2000, representing an overall response rate of 77% and an overall sampling error of - 3.5 %. Four logistic regression models were generated to test the relationships of interest. Results of the study suggested that while all three variables (race, age, and residential location) contributed significantly to the models, age was the strongest predictor of support/nonsupport for additional park land. Examination of park preferences revealed that older adults and Blacks were more likely to prefer recreation to conservation than younger adults and Whites. Race, however, was the strongest of these characteristics in terms of predictive power. Race had the strongest influence on the preference for type of recreation activity. When examining park visitation, older adults and Blacks were more likely to be nonvisitors.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda
Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J., Levin, P. S., Tandon, P. S., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K. L., et al. (2017) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp1663 · Cited by 1,237
“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).”
BackgroundLandscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-promoting impact of outdoor environments
Abraham, A., Sommerhalder, K., & Abel, T. (2010) · International Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1007/s00038-009-0069-z · Cited by 527
The role of urban green space for human well-being
Bertram, C., & Rehdanz, K. (2015) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.013 · Cited by 503
Kaczynski, A. T., Besenyi, G. M., Stanis, S. A. W., Koohsari, M. J., Oestman, K. B., Bergstrom, R., Potwarka, L. R., & Reis, R. S. (2014) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0146-4 · Cited by 317
Psychosocial Outcomes as Motivations for Visiting Nearby Urban Green Spaces
Home, R., Hunziker, M., & Bauer, N. (2012) · Leisure Sciences · doi:10.1080/01490400.2012.687644 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J., & Orsega-Smith, E.
- Venue
- Leisure Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 181-198
- ISSN
- 0149-0400 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-0588
- OpenAlex
- W2107122597
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01490400252900149
- The paper
- Payne, L. L., Mowen, A. J., & Orsega-Smith, E. (2002). An Examination of Park Preferences and Behaviors Among Urban Residents: The Role of Residential Location, Race, and Age. Leisure Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400252900149
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.