University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A study of diversification In the outdoor recreation industry and its connection to the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) urban health equity gap

(USC Thesis Other)

A study of diversification In the outdoor recreation industry and its connection to the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) urban health equity gap

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A Study of Diversification In the Outdoor Recreation Industry and Its Connection to the
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) Urban Health Equity Gap
by
Alexandra L. Swanson
A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2023

© Copyright by Alexandra Lawton Swanson 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Alexandra L. Swanson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Helen Seli
Patrick Crispen
Jennifer Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of California
2023

iv
Abstract
With the United States population growing toward a Black Indigenous, and People of Color
(BIPOC) majority by 2045 (Gress & Hall, 2017), Outdoor Recreation (O.R.) businesses in the
Private-Sector are trying to find opportunities to expand their consumer base. At the same time,
their Public-Sector counterparts in city government find themselves wanting to improve BIPOC
accessibility for a very different reason–to combat the global urban city health crisis that is
disproportionately impacting nonWhite U.S. citizens (Foster et al., 2021). Parks & Recreation
departments are being tasked to combat low BIPOC participation rates within their cities, not
only to support their own department’s goals of recreational service, but also to support the urban
health agendas of their local governments. This study explored the perspective of Public-Sector
O.R. leaders on the role of Private-Sector O.R. institutions in initiatives to improve BIPOC
access to and participation in O.R. within their communities. Seven cities across the United
States were evaluated through interviews with their Parks & Recreation Directors, as well as an
artifact analysis of their Parks & Recreation Instagram accounts to observe BIPOC Outdoor
Recreation representation. The study was designed through a conceptual framework based on the
Social Ecological model by Bronfenbrenner (n.d., 1979, 2005) and utilizing the interpersonal
connection of two Social Ecological models as proposed by Vargas et al. (2020) to explore the
relationship between Private-Sector and Public Sector Outdoor Recreation. These models were
informed by, and the collected data evaluated by, the principles of Critical Race Theory
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2017; Landson-Billings, 1998) and Social Capital Theory (Coleman,
1990). The result of this study is a means for private-sector O.R. organizations to find a way to
support the growth of BIPOC accessibility at their storefront locations, whilst supporting urban
health improvements within the communities they find themselves.

v
Dedication
To the original Dr. Swanson. Dad - you are the inspiration behind me taking my
educational career as far as I have. I still remember walking the halls of middle school on the
days the Superintendent was in town and I could only get a head turn when “Dr. Swanson” was
yelled down the hall. You were so immersed in the mindset of your work that me saying ‘Dad’
went right over your head! As an educator, you cared about those kids so much that you learned
to speak Spanish fluently for them and their families. Your passion for education showed when
you’d bear crawl on the playground in your suit and tie just to bond with the pre-K kids. Yet,
even despite those absent-minded moments in the middle school hallway, you never let the more
demanding rigors of the job prevent you from being a great father and being present when it
counted. I could never ask for a better principal to suspend me in fifth grade for the kid that I
never punched (that TA was lied to), and I could never ask for a better man to shake my hand
and give me my high school diploma. You educated thousands, but you started with me. Thank
you for being my example. I love you.
Mom, Becca and Amber, Andrew and Lena, and my Academy Girls. You know I love
you all. I could never have done this without your support, the hours of me venting on the phone
I ponder or lament how I could possibly pull this achievement off in the midst of life as we know
it. But I think you all also know…this one’s for him.

vi
Acknowledgements
I’d like to first thank the most vital person in this endeavor, Dr. Jennifer Phillips. Without
her unwavering dedication to excellence and demanding nothing but my best, this dissertation
exists. She has been with me through every step of the way, supporting me in my wild idea to
take on not just an organization to which I'm third party, but an entire industry. She supported
my passion and truly took the time to understand its importance to me. Dr. Phillips never once
made me feel this project was impossible, and was a guiding light when it felt just a smidge too
hard. I’m so proud to get to serve alongside others like you, ma’am.
Thank you to Dr. Helena Seli and Dr. Patrick Crispen who didn’t hesitate to take on the
role of my dissertation committee. Your enthusiasm in my topic, your assistance through
developing my methodology, and your easy nature in accommodating my proposal and defense
were the encouragement I needed when quitting felt almost a possibility. I’d also like to thank
Dr. Eric Canny and Dr. Derisa Grant who unknowingly challenged me in a way that formed the
exact topic of this dissertation. Dr. Grant - you enlightened me so much on a topic I cared about
and realized through your teachings that I barely scratched the surface. Now I’ve written over
130 pages about Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and I don’t think I’ll ever see the world the
same again. Dr. Canny - you gave me the freedom of choice and to look beyond the bounds of
what I knew in leadership and industry, and take the brave step beyond it. Lastly, but definitely
not least, to the friends and peers of Cohort 14. Never did I think I could bond with people over
Zoom through a Pandemic in a way that builds lasting friendships and camaraderie. Together, we
made it through, and that weekly opportunity to connect through our shared experience helped
bring light on the darker, more difficult days of this journey. Most especially Mike (and Kay) -
thank you for always being the one phone call away.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iv
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………………v
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….vi
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………...vii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….xii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………...xiii
List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………xiv
Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………….2
Field Context and Mission………………………………………………………………...4
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions…………………………………………….6
Importance of the Study…………………………………………………………………...8
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology………………………………...10
Definitions………………………………………………………………………………..12
Organization of the Dissertation…………………………………………………………17
Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………...……………19
Outdoor Recreation Accessibility within the Urban Environment……………………....19
Physical Accessibility ……………………………………………………………20
Social Accessibility………………………………………………………………21
Economic Accessibility………………………………………………………….23
Diversity of Participation in O.R. Industry Activities…………………………………...24
O.R. History of BIPOC Discrimination………………………………………….25

x
Systemic BIPOC Discrimination in early 21st Century O.R. ……………………27
Media and Publicity Representation……………………………………..27
Public Figure Representation…………………………………………….29
How Diversification is Prioritized within the O.R. Industry…………………….30
Integrating O.R. and Public-Sector Interests using Urban Health……………………….32
Physical Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence……...34
Mental Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence……….36
Social Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence………..38
The Role of Parks & Recreation Directors in Community O.R…………………………40
A Potential New Market Point of Entry for the O.R. Industry…………………………..42
Foregrounding the Problem of Practice: Critical Race Theory and Social
Capital Theory…………………………………………………………………………...44

Theoretical Frameworks Informing This Study………………………………………….45
Development of the Social-Ecological Model…………………………………...46
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………..47
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………51
Chapter Three: Methodology…………………………………………………………………….53
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………53
Overview of Methodology……………………………………………………………….54
The Researcher…………………………………….……………………………………..55
Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………..58
Method 1: Interviews…………………………………………………………….58
Participants………………………………………………………………58
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………..60

x
Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………61
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….63
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………….64
Method 2: Artifact Analysis……………………………………………………...66
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………..68
Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………68
Data Analysis…………………………………………………………….69
Credibility and Trustworthiness………………………………………….70
Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………..72
Chapter Four: Findings…………………………………………………………………………..75
Participant Final Composition…………………………………………………………...75
Distinguishing Between Traditional and Non-traditional Outdoor Recreation………….80
Artifact Analysis…………………………………………………………………………84
Research Question 1: How Do Local Governments View the Role of O.R. in
Improving Urban Health for BIPOC? ……………………………………………………90

Theme 1: Generalization of BIPOC Communities Lacks Substance
for Some Demographics…………………………………………………………91

Theme 2: Growing Relationship Between BIPOC Public Health and
Parks & Recreation………………………………………………………………93

Theme 3: Emphasis on Physical Safety Over Fitness, Designed
Toward Youth……………………………………………………...…………….95

Research Question 2: What Are the Factors, as Perceived by Local Parks &
Recreation Officials, That Contribute to Low O.R. Participation Among
BIPOC Within Their Communities?..................................................................................97

Research Question 3: In What Ways, if at All, Are Local Governments
Trying to Improve O.R. Participation Among BIPOC
Within Their Communities?............................................................................................102

x
Research Question 4: How Do Local Parks & Recreation Officials Perceive
the Value of Private-Sector Involvement in O.R. Within Their Communities?..............107

Theme 1: Private-Sector Perceived as an Opportunity for Growth…………….107

Existing Relationships to Expand Between Small Business
and Corporation………………………………………………………..108

Potential Private-Sector Points of Market Entry Include,
but Not Dominated By, Urban Health………………...………………..110

Theme 2: Private-Sector O.R. Businesses Currently Have a
Conflicting Reputation………………………………………………………….113

Summary………………………………………………………………………..115

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion………………………………………………117

Discussion of Findings and Results…………………………………………………….117

This Research Study Sustains That the Literature Remains Current…………...118

The Research Validates the Need for Interpersonal Connection……….………120

Recommendations for Practice…………………………………………………………124

Recommendation 1: Conduct Racial Demographic-specific Market
Analysis in Target Cities………………………………………………………..124

Recommendation 2: Emphasize Building No-to-Low Cost Youth
Programs In Communities……………………………………………………...126

Recommendation 3: Engage Intentional Outreach with Local
Private and Public Institutions……………….…………………………………128

Recommendation 4: Utilize the Results of this Study’s Artefact Analysis to
Develop a Starting Point for Targeting Marketing for New Audience
Development……………………………………………………………………130

Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………………..131

Recommendations for Future Research………………………………………………...135

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...136

xi
References………………………………………………………………………………………135
Appendix A: Letter & Email for Volunteer Recruitment…………………………...………….155
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research…………………………………………156
Appendix C: Candidate Cities for Participant Sample Based Upon Participant Criteria………158
Appendix D: Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………..162
Appendix E: A Priori Coding Adapted from Charmaz (2003) for Artifact Analysis…………..169
Appendix F: Artifact Analysis Racial Representation in Instagram Social Media Posts of
Participants’ Department Sites……………………………………………………….…………170

Appendix G: Revised Artifact Analysis Racial Representation in Instagram Social Media
Posts of Participants’ Department Sites………………………………………………………...172

Appendix H: Artifact Analysis Racial Representation Findings for Participant 1 Through 7…176

xii

List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources……………………………………………………………………………55
Table 2: Participant Details………………………………………………………………………77
Table 3: Participant City and Total Sample Demographics……………………………………...78
Table 4: Artifact Analysis Recreational Activity Classification…………………………………82
Table 5: Tally of Total Representation in Artifact Analysis by Race……………………………85
Table 6: Visibility Ratios………………………………………………………………………...89
Table 7: Barriers Contributing to Lower O.R. BIPOC Participation According to Participants...99
Table 8: Government Actions to Improve O.R. BIPOC Participation…………………………104
Table 9: Points of Market Entry Various Organizations Have Used within the Participants’
Cities……………………………………………………………………………………………111

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Adapting the O.R. Participation Distribution Map to Five Regions of Research………7
Figure 2: The Bronfenbrenner Social-Ecological Theoretical Model…………………………...11
Figure 3: O.R. Social-Ecological Framework for this Study…………………………………….50
Figure 4: Visual Trends of Parks & Recreation Social Media Instagram Before and After
the Death of George Floyd………………………………………………………………………87

xiv
Abbreviations
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
CDC Center of Disease Control and Prevention
CEO Chief Executive Officer
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease of 2019
CRT Critical Race Theory
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DEI Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
GDP Gross Domestic Product
NHIS National Health Interview Survey
NOLS National Outdoor Leadership School
NPS National Parks Service
O.R. Outdoor Recreation
PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
RDI Relevancy, Diversity and Inclusion
RQ Research Questions
SCT Social Capital Theory
SES Socioeconomic Status
WHO World Health Organization

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Outdoor recreation is the interaction of a person and a natural environment, with the
primary focus of the interaction being the experience of the activity itself (Jensen & Guthrie,
2006). Dr. Clayne Jensen and Dr. Steven Guthrie, authors of Outdoor Recreation in America,
elaborated that the “recreation experience” must include elements such as anticipation of the
activity’s pursuit, participation of the activity, and the recollection of the experience via
memorabilia or storytelling (2006, p. 10). However, there is a fourth element Jensen and Guthrie
(2006) discuss: planning. Whether U.S. consumers are looking for equipment purchase or rentals
to accomplish their activity, expertise in local guides or experienced sportsman, or travel
arrangements through free community resources or private tour companies, the need for this
support to bring more U.S. citizens into the outdoors has led to a multi-billion dollar leisure
industry (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018).
However, in recent years, Private-Sector leadership within the O.R. Industry has noted
the planning support they provide has not been equitable toward all U.S. citizens. Outdoor
recreation has historically been a White consumer dominated industry (Hutchinson, 1987;
Martin, 2004). As of 2018, this disparity still exists; only 26% O.R. participants are nonWhite, in
contrast to the U.S. population of 39.9% nonWhite individuals (U.S. Department of Commerce,
2019; The Outdoor Foundation, 2018). As the U.S. nonWhite population continues to grow
toward 50% of the U.S. population by 2044, many within the O.R. Industry pragmatically
recognize a need to drive toward diversifying their consumer audience to support continued
industry growth (Camber Outdoors, 2019; Gress & Hall, 2017; Medina & Armstrong, 2020).
Private-Sector industry leaders have struggled to close the gap, a consequence of underlying
historical and systemic discrimination within the O.R. Industry. (Finney, 2014; Gress & Hall,
2

2017; Martin, 2004). A new strategy should be considered, one that develops outreach
opportunities to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) entrants with limited exposure
to O.R.
Outdoor recreation organizations can find one such opportunity within U.S. urban cities.
U.S. city officials are struggling to address equity for BIPOC in another, peripheral issue–urban
health (Blackwell et al., 2012; Brittin et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2021; Roth, 2020). Some city
Parks & Recreation departments have championed urban health initiatives, but funding is often
limited and their activities often utilize what Jensen and Guthrie (2006) labeled “user-oriented
recreation” (p. 11), which is recreation within developed and nonnatural landscapes (Barrett et
al., 2017; Jensen & Guthrie, 2006; Pitas et al., 2018). As an alternative, enhanced fiscal and
physical integration of Private-Sector O.R. to alleviate public health concerns for urban BIPOC
communities may be worth investigating (Erickson, 2011). This study explored the perspective
of Public-Sector O.R. leaders on the role of Private-Sector O.R. institutions in initiatives to
improve BIPOC access to and participation in O.R. within their communities. This evaluation
identified opportunities to promote BIPOC participation in O.R. and BIPOC urban health,
achieving both the corporate social responsibility initiatives of Private-Sector O.R. organizations
and local public official interests (Erickson, 2011; Jennings et al., 2017; Mchale et al., 2018;
Nordh et al., 2017).
Background of the Problem
As of 2018, over 50% of the world’s entire population lived in urban settings with the
United Nations speculating this number could rise to as much as 68% by 2050 (Mchale et al.,
2018; United Nations, 2018; World Health Organization, 2013). This increasing shift from rural
settlement has produced great interest amongst researchers and public officials regarding the
3

growth of mental, social, and physical health issues within urban communities, correlated to the
reduction of outdoor exposure and the increase of sedentary life (Abelt & McLafferty, 2017;
Ihlebæk et al., 2018; Mchale et al., 2018; Nordh et al., 2017; Peen et al., 2010). These health
concerns are of particular consequence to BIPOC, wherein certain racial groups that have
historically developed large communities within U.S. city centers where often lower
socioeconomic conditions aggravate the communal health condition (Ananat, 2011; Gilbert,
2016; Lee & Sharp, 2017; Park & Iceland, 2011; Sharp & Iceland, 2013).
Extensive research in Western Europe and the South Pacific have revealed that O.R. is a
powerful tool to alleviate urban health degradation within communities when made available
(Gilhepsy, 2013; Nordh et al., 2017; Nutsford et al., 2013). U.S. policymakers and city officials
are beginning to understand the value of this tool, integrating more outdoor space and
recreational activity into their regions of responsibility (Jennings et al., 2017; McHale et al.,
2018; Parry & Gollob, 2018). Yet, there is a gap in current academic research within the U.S.
For the literature reviewed for this study, only one research publication was found
specifically evaluating the connection between BIPOC communities and O.R. specific city
initiatives in the United States (Jennings et al., 2017). However, there are numerous studies that
focus on public health specific to a BIPOC population (Acosta, 2020; Blackwell et al., 2012;
Foster et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2017). Other studies discussed O.R relatable topics, such as the
impacts of greening and vegetative design in urban environments on the general populace and
BIPOC communities (Casey et al., 2017; Foster et al., 2021; Gilbert, 2016). Studies targeted on
the O.R. Industry itself reveal the struggle of BIPOC communities connecting to O.R. due to
historical and systemic implications, but often keep the studies generalized and do not specify
4

urban-residing BIPOC study participants (Martin, 2004; Gress & Hall, 2017; The Outdoor
Foundation, 2019).
Field Context and Mission
Outdoor Recreation is one of the fastest and most popular luxury industries in the U.S.
today, however the industry remains disproportionate in BIPOC representation in contrast to the
U.S. demographic (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018; The Outdoor Foundation, n.d., 2018,
2019). In 2016, the O.R. Industry grew faster than the general economy at 2.6% GDP and has
continued productive growth in the following years (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018). Yet,
with the approaching 2044 population shift toward a nonWhite majority, O.R. leaders recognize
a need to diversify their consumer audience and find means to tailor to that audience in order to
stay relevant and ensure productivity beyond the early 21st century (Finney, 214; Flores & Kuhn,
2018; Gress & Hall, 2017; In Solidarity Project, 2020; The Outdoor Foundation, n.d., 2018,
2019).
Though money is often the driving factor in successful business, not all diversification
discussions within O.R. are so pragmatic. Many larger and more influential corporations within
the industry have altruistic reasons, tied into a common mission to emulate corporate social
responsibility (C.S.R), or the policy of placing the wellbeing of society into the decision making
process for profitable business actions (Hirschland, 2006). C.S.R. within the industry has
included protection of public lands, accessibility of O.R. to the disabled, sustainable product
development practices, provision of clean water to the underprivileged, and climate change and
environmental practices (Chen, 2019; Chhabra, 2017; Mulqueen, 2019; O'Reilly, 2018). C.S.R.,
in part, drove O.R. businesses to pursue stronger engagement within the BIPOC populace, even
5

before the 2020 escalation of the Black Lives Matter and Stop Asian Hate movements (Adams,
2020; Martin, 2018; Nelson, 2021; Shabad & Gregorian, 2021).
Diversify Outdoors, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting allyship for
underrepresented groups within the outdoor industry, introduced the Outdoor Industry CEO
Diversity Pledge at the 2018 Outdoor Retailer Expo & Conference; by March 2021, 177 O.R.
businesses had signed the pledge, committing to stronger BIPOC engagement in workforce,
media, and professional athlete representation (Diversify Outdoors, 2017; In Solidarity Project,
2020; Salabert, 2019). However, while making the public, and marketed, image of O.R. more
diverse helps create a sense of belonging for O.R. consumers, it is just one of several steps that
could be taken to increase BIPOC consumer interest.
As this research will discuss, O.R. companies could find an opportunity to expand
BIPOC accessibility efforts through cooperation within their cities of residence. Expansion of
BIPOC O.R. accessibility via a focus on urban areas may not be equitable across all nonWhite
populations. One consideration is the American Indigenous population. Native Americans do not
generally congregate within metropolitan cities, unlike the Black, Hispanic, and Asian
metropolitan communities that have developed in cities across the United States (Lee et al.,
2017; Danko & Hanink, 2018; Franklin, 2019). Thus, Native populations would be less exposed
to the residual benefits of inner-city, O.R. inspired initiatives. However, if Public-Sector city
officials are receptive to the idea of joint efforts with Private-Sector companies to provide O.R.
opportunities within their cities’ communities, there could be advantages for a majority of urban
BIPOC residents that also support the interests of both Private-Sector and Public-Sector leaders.
6

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
This study explored the perspective of Public-Sector O.R. leaders on the role of Private-
Sector O.R. institutions in initiatives to improve BIPOC access to and participation in O.R.
within their communities. Seven U.S. cities were analyzed and interviews were conducted with
public officials in each respective city. The interviews focused on Park & Recreation Directors’
experiences and perspectives on BIPOC O.R. accessibility and BIPOC urban health within the
public officials’ communities; an artifact analysis was conducted to substantiate their
perspectives through the lens of their community’s citizens interacting with their respective
Parks & Recreation department via social media. This research helped determine if Public-Sector
officials recognized an equity gap in their communities which their organizations struggle or fail
to address. Their perspectives presented points of market entry for Private-Sector O.R.
organizations to help alleviate that equity gap. The seven U.S. cities targeted for the study,
known within the O.R. Industry as popular O.R. destinations, were selected across five regions
based on the 2018 national O.R. participation rates as shown in Figure 1. Given the diversity of
the environments and state cultures within each region, the data collected for each city was not
able to produce generalizable findings for each region. Rather, the regions were utilized to ensure
that data collected would provide a national overview, and prevent consolidation of city selection
to one specific region of the country. This was necessary given that many of the most popular
O.R. centric cities in the country are located in California, Oregon, Washington, and Colorado;
the regions prevent Region 1’s popularity from defining an entire nation’s O.R. culture and
diversifies the data.

7
Figure 1
Adapting the O.R. Participation Distribution Map to Five Regions of Research

Note. The Five Regions of Research were formed based on two criteria. First, based on geographical location, where the
predominance of particular sports may provide commonality between those interviewed within a region (i.e., skiing is more likely to
be a presence in Region 1 than Region 2 or 3). Second, based on participation density within the region, as represented above. Map on
the left adopted from “2018 Outdoor Participation Report” by The Outdoor Foundation (https://outdoorindustry.org/ resource/2018-
outdoor-participation-report/). Copyright 2018 by The Outdoor Foundation.

8
In alignment with the given purpose of the study, four questions have been established to direct
the research. These questions are as follows:
1. How do local governments view the role of O.R. in improving urban health for BIPOC?
2. What are the factors, as perceived by local Parks & Recreation officials, that contribute to
low O.R. participation among BIPOC within their communities?
3. In what ways, if at all, are local governments trying to improve O.R. participation among
BIPOC within their communities?
4. How do local Parks & Recreation officials perceive the value of Private-Sector
involvement in O.R. within their communities?
Importance of the Study
Improvement in O.R. accessibility drives opportunity for BIPOC participation rates to
rise, and can help ensure the O.R. Industry’s relevancy as it continues into the 21st century. Still,
a lack of peer-reviewed academic research aiming to evaluate BIPOC presence within the O.R.
Industry forms a conflicting message about its importance. This study is one of the few O.R.
Industry studies that expands beyond O.R. education institutions without private sponsorship.
Industry specific research often is sponsored by private institutions and does not garner academic
scrutiny prior to publication (Camber Outdoors, 2019; The Outdoor Foundation, n.d., 2018,
2019) Existing academic research seems to be limited fields that are somehow correlated to O.R.,
such as outdoor education, environmental public policy, and public health (Advincula, 2016;
Beasley, 2016; Gress & Hall, 2017; Taylor, 2011).
However, the attention these adjacent topics receive–specifically urban health– is what
makes tying the issue of O.R. accessibility to another agenda so critical. Health in U.S. urban
communities has taken on severe importance since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in

9
2020, but it was already facing issues of urbanicity propagating sedentary life and mental health
concerns amongst urban citizens (Foster et al., 2021; Nordh et al., 2017; Wei-Lun et al., 2018;
Peen et al., 2010; United Nations, 2018; World Health Organization, 2013). In regards to the
BIPOC community, they often suffer worse health issues than other White urban residents
(Acosta, 2020; Blackwell et al., 2014; Brittan et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2021). There is
significant academic evidence that urban health is a valuable topic of concern, yet in
consequence, city government funding decisions to support public health initiatives have come at
a cost for Public-Sector O.R, particularly city Parks & Recreation departments (National
Recreation and Park Association, 2003; Pitas et al., 2017; Roth, 2020; Wisby, 2011).
This research sought to accomplish three things. First, the research gave voice to the
Directors of city Parks & Recreation departments on the challenges they face to support their
community–whether that is providing accessibility to their own BIPOC communities,
augmenting urban health agendas that their elected officials ascertain as more significant, or both
(National Recreation and Park Association, 2003; Pitas et al., 2018). Second, it helped establish
the value of O.R. within cities to improve both BIPOC urban health and BIPOC accessibility
simultaneously (Erickson, 2011). Third, the research identified value in coupling private O.R.
organizations with public Parks & Recreation departments for the expansion of resources and, in
turn, expansion of O.R. nationally (Barrett et al., 2017; Pitas et al., 2018; Erickson, 2011).
Without this research, Parks & Recreation departments will likely continue to struggle under lack
of funding. Without this research, private O.R. organizations will continue pursuing participant
growth within their already existing communities, missing a valuable opportunity to market to
new entrants. Without this research, the BIPOC community will continue to be harmed by
accessibility inequity in both urban health and O.R.

10
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study was framed by the principles of Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological System
Model (n.d. 1979, 2005). The model’s analysis process centers around an individual, which
could represent a single individual or a collective entity, such as an organizational team
(Bronfenbrenner, n.d., 1979, 2005; Gardner, 2008). Five additional layers surround the
individual (Bronfenbrenner, n.d., 1979, 2005; Gardner, 2008). The microsystem is the second
layer and includes social figures closest to the individual such as parents or bosses. The
exosystem represents indirect social figures, such as neighbors or coworkers from another
department. The microsystem and exosystem are separated by the mesosystem, which represents
the exchange of influence between the direct and indirect social circles of the individual. The
fifth layer is called a macrosystem. This layer includes all agencies that establish the rules of the
inner layers, such as federal governments, industries with specific codes of ethics, or cultural
norms protected by tradition or an authority figure. Finally, the chronosystem is the final layer of
influence and represents how time, and its life and world events, are a constant influence on
decision making and behavioral development (Bronfenbrenner, n.d., 1979, 2005; Gardiner,
2008). A pictorial representation of this theoretical framework is depicted in Figure 2.

11
Figure 2
The Bronfenbrenner Social-Ecological Theoretical Model

Note. The model presented is a re-creation of Bronfenbrenner’s Social-Ecological Model as he
described in his 2005 publication, based on his original 1979 model. Adapted from The Ecology
of Human Development Experiments by Nature and Design, by U. Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
Harvard University Press. In Lives Across Cultures (4th ed.) by H. Gardiner & C. Kosmitzki,
2008, Allyn & Bacon.

12
The design of this research study used a qualitative approach as outlined by Merriam and
Tisdell (2015). The study broached the model from the lens of the most likely city official to be
informed on Outdoor Recreation within a specific urban community, Parks & Recreation
Directors. By emphasizing the Parks & Recreation Director as the individual at the center of the
Bronfenbrenner model, the study focused on the socioecological perspective via the Public-
Sector–how they perceive their role in urban health, their perspective on BIPOC issues, and their
stance on Private-Sector involvement.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, several definitions must be defined in order to establish the
criteria that are being investigated. These definitions are as follows:
Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) will be the acronym used to address the
nonWhite community as discussed in this study. BIPOC replaced People of Color (POC) in order
to acknowledge that systemic racism has had much greater impact on some racial demographics
than others within the United States, specifically Black and Indigenous (Clarke, 2020). Though
the Indigenous community within urban cities is not predicted to be as greatly affected by the
research topic as Blacks or other People of Color due to the low Indigenous populations within
urban centers (Lee et al., 2017; Danko & Hanink, 2018; Franklin, 2019), the narrative of
Indigenous discrimination in Outdoor Recreation was prevalent in the Literature Review leading
to the study. Further, BIPOC has evolved into the cultural norm to discuss all non-White issues
that captures more than one demographic (Clarke, 2020), and–at the behest of the researcher–
will be used to ensure that bi- and multi-racial urban community members are not remiss from
the dialogue of the study either. Though the American Psychological Association has
discontinued use of the term “BIPOC” since the inception of this study, the researcher and peer

13
board have agreed that in the procedural development, as well as context of this study, it makes
sense to maintain the current verbiage. As expertly phrased by Taylor et al. (2021):
In this paper we will use the term BIPOC in reference to a common non-White
appellation. While the intent is to honor inclusivity, we recognize there is still current
debate on its use and no fully agreed upon term. We also recognize the importance and
need of specificity in reference to particular communities, as well as when a term is
codified in policy, which is part of the debate on the use of “BIPOC. (pg. 31)
COVID-19 will be defined as the Coronavirus Disease Outbreak that began in 2019
(Center of Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). COVID-19 became the shorthand to discuss
the pandemic itself in order to better enable dialogue, and was used by many news outlets in the
following years when discussing the pandemic rather than stating “Pandemic.” COVID-19, in the
context of this study, will be used to describe the time period of the pandemic and the effects of
the disease during that time from 2019 ongoing into the date of this study’s publication.
Corporate Social Responsibility (C.S.R.): As Hirchland (2006) explains C.S.R: as the
following:
“ A business role in providing some “good” to society in the forms of jobs, growth,
philanthropy, law abidance, environmental stewardship, rights protections, and other
expectations… the expectations of businesses by nonstate stakeholder groups, and the
strategic management of these demands by businesses that help to assure profits and
enterprise sustainability” (p. 5).
Critical Race Theory (CRT) is defined utilizing the definition of Delgado and Stefancic
(2017). By their definition, CRT is the exploration of race as a social construct within society,
where racism is normalized into the daily lives of people of color and is difficult to address

14
because racism is not recognized, in its current form, by the White majority. This lack of
recognition. This lack of acknowledgement is rooted either in three categories: “colorblindness”,
where the assumption is made that oneself ignoring color means racism is not in action; “interest
convergence” where the White majorities interests are placed at risk with changes that benefit
people of color and thus those interests are protected on account of self-preservation; or “social
construction,” where the concept of race is fluid to a current social environment such as how
Irish and Italian were once perceived as immigrants and yet are now considered White (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2017, pp. 8-9).
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is an acronym commonly used in business to label
a practice, program or initiative to drive better understanding of the differences within the
organization or the society in which that organization resides, and to alleviate systematic
discrimination in order to drive better productivity within the organization (Houston, 2021). The
health industry has defined diversity, equity and inclusion as such: diversity is the “different
facets or parts of ourselves that may or may not be known to others” (Sanchez, 2021, p.16);
equity is “the active recognition that we're all different individuals who face different challenges
and opportunities based on our starting point [and that] individuals may need different
accommodations'' (Sanchez, 2021, p.16); and inclusion is the act of “creating a space where
everyone is welcome to be who they want to be without fear of judgment or retribution”
(Sanchez, 2021, p.16).
NonWhite is defined as all members of U.S. society who identify with at least one race
that is not White; one who would be identified in the U.S. Census as other than White (U.S.
Department of Commerce, n.d. 2018, 2019) As described by Delgado and Stefancic (2017),
“Other groups, such as American Indians, Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, are

15
described as nonWhite. That is, they are defined in relation or opposition to whiteness—that
which they are not.” (p. 86)
Private-Sector is defined as “the part of an economy which is not controlled or owned by
the government” (Merriam Webster, 2021, “Private-Sector” Dictionary section). In the context of
this research, this definition would include any U.S. corporation, franchise, or business, whose
business model is built on the premise of private funding and profit without government
contribution. Specific emphasis will be placed on those that associate with the O.R. Industry.
Public-Sector is defined as “the part of an economy which is controlled or owned by the
government” (Merriam-Webster, 2021, “Public-Sector'' Dictionary section). In the context of this
research, this definition would include any U.S. federal, state, or city organizations that are
primarily funded by U.S. tax funds. Specific emphasis will be placed on those that associate with
O.R., such as the National Park Service, or Parks & Recreation departments within the
government structure.
Outdoor recreation (O.R.) is defined as was established at the beginning of this chapter.
To reiterate, O.R. is the interaction of a person and a natural environment, with the primary focus
of the interaction being the experience of the activity itself and involves four stages–anticipation,
planning, participation and recollection (Jensen & Guthrie, 2006). O.R. can be resource-oriented
(e.g., solely dependent on natural resources), user-oriented (e.g., facility based and nonnatural) or
intermediate which combines natural and nonnatural resources such as in ski resorts, mountain
biking trail parks, or rock climbing gyms .This study will define O.R. as resource-oriented and
intermediate only. Meaning, this study will not emphasize recreational activities limited to
“playgrounds, municipal parks, zoos, amusement parks, golf courses, athletic fields, swimming
pools, and picnic areas” (Jensen & Guthrie, 2006, p.11). The study will emphasize activities that

16
take place within “national and state recreation areas, state and county parks, and readily
accessible fishing and hunting areas, as well as lakes and streams” (Jensen & Guthrie, 2006, p.
11). Notably, some O.R. activities–such as trail running that is possible in both municipal and
national parks, or rock climbing that takes place indoors and outdoors–will overlap with user-
oriented environments at times. In these circumstances, since such activities have the ability to
be translated to a resource-oriented environment, they will be included in the definition of O.R.
for the purpose of this research.
Outdoor recreation (O.R.) Industry comprises both Public-Sector elements, such as
National Public Park systems and city Parks & Recreation departments, as well as Private-Sector
elements, such as equipment companies and travel guide companies. These organizations have
capitalized on the planning needs of a recreation experience to bring more people into the
outdoors ever since the Industrial Era expanded discretionary time for U.S. citizens. By 2018, 11
state departments had recognized the importance of this industry on their own economic growth,
developing their own “offices of outdoor recreation” (Sausser et al., 2019, p. 1).
Social Capital Theory is defined as the theory that social capital plays a role alongside
human and physical capital in constructing one’s ability to “facilitate productive activity” as an
individual within society, and that the social capital one develops might positively or negatively
affect one’s development as a contributing member (Coleman, 1990, p. 304). Social capital is
developed through the obligations to, or expectations from, one person to the society itself that
the member associates (Coleman, 1990). This problem will specifically explore the social capital
of a member within a city BIPOC community in context of societal expectations, or lack thereof,
for O.R. involvement as well as expectations of urban health standards.

17
Urban is any area circuitous to a city, to include the city itself, that (a) provide non-
agricultural jobs, and (b) are developed by connecting infrastructure to support the human
density; the adjective “Greater” might be used to capture the region connected to particular city,
such as the Greater Chicago area (National Geographic, 2021). Based on the USDA’s Economic
Research Service standard, the term “urban” cannot be applied until a population density of a
county is at least 2,500 people (Lee & Sharp, 2017). The focus of this research will concentrate
on county urban populations that are adjacent to cities with population centers no greater than
500,000.
Urbanicity is defined by Vlahov and Galea (2002) as “the presence of conditions that are
particular to urban areas or present to a much greater extent than in nonurban areas” (p. 55). This
definition is used in this study.
Urban Health is defined as the indicated measure of health within an urban center (Lee &
Sharp, 2017; Rothenberg et al., 2015). At times during the literature review of this study, the
term “public health” was used interchangeably when speaking about the particular health
condition of a city. However, public health can also be applied to the indicated measure of health
within any society–such as a rural community–and will therefore not be used in this dissertation.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is broken into five parts. The five parts are as follows: Chapter 1,
Introduction; Chapter 2, Literature Review; Chapter 3, Methodology; Chapter 4, Findings; and
Chapter 5, Recommendations. Each chapter frames the research in a manner that further
establishes the importance of the study and presents the information in a way that future
researchers might replicate the study to further expand academic research on the organizational
psychology and sociology of outdoor recreation.

18
Chapter 2, Literature Review, will further explore the history and research surrounding
the problem as well as provide a conceptual framework on how his theory can be applied within
the O.R. Industry in the context of this BIPOC and urban health focused research. Chapter 3,
Methodology, will expound on the qualitative research method utilized to explore and respond to
the problem of practice. This will include the data collection strategies employed - interviews
and artifact analysis. Further detail will be provided on the sampling approach used to determine
study participants.
Chapter 4, Findings, presents the data collected through the established methodology, and
Chapter 5, Recommendations, explores and analyzes the data. These chapters together present
new research to the field of Outdoor Recreation. A response to the problem of practice is
established, along with recommendations for future topics of research based on the data analysis.

19
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In order to better understand the context of this study, an in-depth review of existing
literature of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) considerations within Outdoor
Recreation (O.R.) and urban health will be conducted. The chapter will explore how these two
topics are integrated in the literature, and the literature review will provide a discussion on the
present contribution and fiscal condition of one particular Public-Sector O.R institution, the city
Parks & Recreation department. An introduction of the conceptual framework is also provided in
this chapter. Developed on the conceptual design of the Bronfenbrenner ecological model, this
particular framework provides greater context toward the research development, and reveals how
both CRT and SCT play roles in the theoretical framework construct.
Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Within the Urban Environment
The first step in resolving how private corporations can support accessibility for the
BIPOC community into outdoor recreation is to first understand the environment in which this
community lives and recreates. The U.S. BIPOC population is proportionally more present in
U.S. urban cities than in more rural regions, with a diversity magnitude difference of 11.6
between rural areas and county regions of over 250,000 people (Lee et al., 2017). Super
metropolitans, or counties of 3+ million people, are the least likely to be White dominant region
in any population center (Lee et al., 2017). The percentage growth of non-Black minority groups
in urban areas has been a common U.S. historical trend (Danko & Hanink, 2018; Franklin,
2019). A twenty-year U.S. census evaluation from 1990 to 2010 revealed Black non-Hispanic
percentages grew at faster rates than the White non-Hispanic population across nine out of 10
evaluated cities (Danko & Hanink, 2018).

20
Access to O.R. resources and physical space for execution within urban communities
directly impacts resident participation rates, which includes their BIPOC constituents (Jennings
et al., 2017; Mowen et al., 2018; Wolch et al., 2014). Yet, O.R. accessibility is an often
overlooked issue within city governments; a pattern has been established of the underfunding of
urban Parks & Recreation programs in exchange for the funding of other higher profile political
initiatives (Barrett et al., 2017; Pitas et al., 2018). Further research on U.S. cities promoting
outdoor recreation is thus far limited, signifying the extent of this problem. However, outdoor
recreation is one of the fastest growing industries in the United States today, accounting for 2.2%
of the U.S. GDP in 2016 and with a growth percentage faster than the general economy (Bureau
of Economic Analysis, 2018); this given popularity suggests an opportunity to be explored on
instituting more O.R. presence within U.S. cityscapes. The following subsections will define
O.R. accessibility within the urban environment and how its impact has physical, social, and
economic implications on urban BIPOC citizens.
Physical Accessibility
Physical accessibility is key to encouraging urban citizen participation in outdoor activity
because the activities, and its participants, are flexible to both undeveloped land – such as nearby
National or State parks outside city boundaries - and O.R. viable land within cityscapes, coined
“green space” (Wolch et al., 2014, p. 234). Parry and Gollob (2018) of the Social and Behavioral
Science Department at Colorado Mesa University stated the setting matters very little to existing
outdoor recreationists. Outdoor recreation participants will utilize the land available regardless of
setting – urban or otherwise – and still find both satisfaction and improved health in the activity
(Parry & Gollob, 2018). Other studies suggested that proximity to city green space can impact
the participation rate of the general urban citizen who, can perhaps, not identify as an “outdoor

21
recreationalist.” A case study of Plymouth, England showed a significant drop-off in town
members using green space if it was more than a five minute walk away (Gilhespy, 2013).
Washington D.C. is one of the best examples of a U.S. city integrating parkland into
urban living with the goal of improving O.R. participation, and one of few examples
academically studied on the topic (Jennings et al., 2017). The city allocated 22% of the land to
preserved parkland that is designated to protect historically significant landmarks. In 2011, the
Washington D.C.’s Department of Parks & Recreation and the Department of Health saw an
opportunity to use the parkland to promote outdoor activity events to improve urban health
(Jennings et al., 2017). Based on Jenning et al.’s (2017) evaluation of data collected by the
Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the researchers determined that by 2013 the
population of D.C. city dwellers exercising over 150 min a week had increased, most notably
11% among the Hispanic population. A review of the data collected by the CDC in 2013 showed
that general participation in physical activity increased for Hispanics by 6.5% and among non-
Hispanics who are multi-racial by 19%; though Black participation reduced, the loss was
minimal enough, 1.3%, that other factors could also be responsible for the loss, such as the
migration of Blacks to the suburbs taking place in U.S. cities (Center of Disease Control and
Prevention, 2021; Danko & Hannick, 2017). Proximity to available land resources is needed for
outdoor recreation to have an impact on urban citizens, but, as this example alludes, city
policymaker interest and involvement is the ultimate source of promoting the change.
Social Accessibility
Another important factor of O.R. accessibility is the social implication of the interactions
of existing outdoor recreationalists and their shared experience with new participants
encouraging involvement. The more one’s social group participates or shows interest in an

22
activity, the greater chances of that community member also participating; in fact, the 2018
Outdoor Participation Report revealed that 54% of young adults, aged 18-24, that participate in
O.R. do so to spend time with family and friends (The Outdoor Foundation, 2018). However, for
a member of an urban BIPOC community, or even just a member of the general U.S. BIPOC
population, interactions with peers or personal relations that are also current O.R. participants are
lacking in magnitude (Winter et al., 2019). Further, the social resources most available to
nonWhites to introduce new members to existing outdoor recreationalists are not serving the
promotion of O.R. efficiently (Rushing et al., 2019; Winter et al., 2019).
Potential new BIPOC participants are not generally exposed to O.R through their daily
activities (Winter et al., 2019). A study conducted on visitation to U.S. National Forest lands of
four “large metropolitan statistical areas in California” explored the reason for disproportionate
nonWhite attendance (Winter et al., 2019, p. 1). The study determined that the internet 57.1%
has become the greatest source of information as of 2019 (Winter et al., 2019). Friends, 27.4%,
Family, 24.6%, Magazines, 17.9%, and Park Visitor Centers, 15.3%, remained in the top five
most trusted and most utilized resources for O.R. information. Television barely made the top 10
of O.R. information resources, and yet television was the number one most available information
source to nonWhites (Winter et al., 2019). An issue develops where possible BIPOC O.R.
entrants must be driven by their own interests or curiosity to actively search out O.R. information
via the internet, park center visits, and the like. If the curiosity does not exist, a member is less
likely to research how to participate in O.R. Further, these data suggest that lack of communal
information consequently contributes to the stifling of BIPOC participation growth.
Translating this information to the U.S. urban environment, Rushing et al. (2019)
conducted a similar study the same year analyzing the urban population of Portland, Oregon.

23
Their study also explored barriers reducing visitation, this time within urban parks of the city.
One of the most prevalent constraints they found was “limited knowledge about these areas” (p.
10). Further, their research validated that the conclusion of multiple studies from 1978 through
2015 still is prevalent today, that “underserved residents are more likely to experience constraints
related to their recreation preferences and racial, ethnic, and cultural identities,” referencing the
BIPOC residents of Portland, Oregon (p. 10).
Economic Accessibility
Just as inadequacies of physical and social infrastructure can and have impacted O.R.
accessibility, economic disparities within the urban environment play a similar role. A study of
59,483 urban U.S. census tracts appraised how urban green space was allocated, redistributed, or
eliminated from 2001 to 2011 (Casey et al., 2017). The analysis revealed more green space
tended to be allocated to White communities and more taken from nonWhite communities. In the
study, allocation of green space was also correlated to the socioeconomic status (SES) of the
neighborhoods receiving, and losing, the allocations. The research further discovered that the
lower SES communities evaluated often held higher proportions of nonWhite residents.
Economic disparity impacts the accessibility of land resources for BIPOC O.R.
participation, but so too does opportunity cost and activity expense. Powers et al. (2019)
conducted 1,250 interviews of U.S. citizens to determine the implications of age, race, and
income on park usage and recreation program participation. The results concluded that BIPOC
were less likely to utilize parks, and members of lower income were less likely to participate in
recreation programs provided by Parks & Recreation agencies (Powers et al., 2019). This point is
in alignment with conclusions by Winter et al. (2019) who determined money as the number two

24
reason for lack of O.R. participation amongst Latinx, Black, and Indigenous populations, second
only to time constraints.
Diversity of Participation in O.R. Industry Activities
Outdoor recreation accessibility proves to be impacted by one’s residence within the
urban environment, which in turn impacts BIPOC participation in O.R. activities. However, there
are several larger issues within the O.R. Industry itself that have created entry barriers for the
U.S. BIPOC community. Expanding the O.R. Industry’s consumer base beyond the boundaries
of the White male persona has been acknowledged as a means for the industry to grow in
profitability, a potential multi-billion dollar growth (Frey, 2014; McCombs, 2016; Schultz et al.,
2019). However, until the 2018 Outdoor Industry CEO Diversity Pledge, the public conversation
has predominantly focused on the topic of gender rather than race or ethnicity (Camber
Outdoors, 2019; In Solidarity Project, 2020; Salabert, 2019).
Female representation changed the industry dramatically through the 2010s. Gear
companies were once notorious for selling gear, designed for males, to the female-identifying
consumer base by simply making smaller sizes and feminine colors to rebrand, otherwise known
as “Pink It & Shrink It” (Navas & Brown, 2015; Tilburg et al., 2015, p. 422). However, by 2016,
sales of female-specific products expanded from $400 Million in sales in 2001, to $4.6 Billion
(McCombs, 2016). Companies began to design hiking shoes, climbing harnesses, and multi-day
packs to meet the physical needs of women, such as different foot structures or hip-to-shoulder
ratios. Product availability changed in response to more women joining industry leadership and
public outcry from female participants (Jewell, 2004; New for women: Outdoor gear that fits,
1990; Tilburg et al., 2015; Walzer, 2001).

25
Like female recreationalists, BIPOC face barriers limiting O.R. accessibility, though with
barriers of greater consequence. The barriers have included limitations of economic support to
sustain the expense of O.R. sports, White-dominated field expertise and public representation,
and implications of historical alienation due to government agency actions creating carryover
cultural norms (Flores & Kuhn, 2018). The circumstances leading to these discriminations
extend to both the private and Public-Sectors of the O.R industry; discussion on these issues
highlights why the industry today places such emphasis on diversity development. Further, the
2020 ascent of Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. has intensified the attention on BIPOC-
specific issues throughout U.S. culture and economy, making accessibility even more pertinent
for the O.R. Industry to address.
O.R. History of BIPOC Discrimination
Outdoor recreation underrepresentation of the U.S. BIPOC populous within the industry
has roots in historically significant events. The Black community first experienced O.R.
segregation during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. He removed former Black Civil War soldiers
from the rural lands promised for their military service, land which would later be confiscated for
Roosevelt’s National Parks System, or NPS (Finney, 2014). Rural discrimination escalated with
the Jim Crow segregation laws of 1862. The rise of legal lynching that followed, as well as
illegal acts of violence, including murder, meant America’s wilderness became a threatening
place where Blacks succumbed to White violence. (Finney, 2014). This reality later affected
cultural norms. Blacks today still feel discomfort traveling through rural regions because of these
associations with Black identity (Finney, 2014).
The development of outdoor recreation and environmental policy within the United
States was dominated by “Eurocentrism and the linkage of wilderness to whiteness” (Allen,

26
2016; Finney, 2014, p. 28). Just as occurred with the confiscation of NPS lands and the
implications of Jim Crow amongst the Black community, the removal of nonWhites for the sake
of European immigrant possession impacted other entities of the larger BIPOC community. For
instance, the Cherokees were evacuated from their lands via the Trail of Tears in 1831 (Denson,
2017; Finney, 2014). This formed a precedent for the treatment of all Native Americans that still
resonates in U.S. politics today (Carswell, 2017; Denson, 2017; Obama administration evicting
Native Americans from treaty lands near pipeline, 2016; Romo, 2018). Hispanos, assured
continued land ownership during the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, faced anti-Mexican
sentiments and threat of physical force to surrender land rights well into the 1930s; campaigns
were even established to remove Mexican families from the new U.S. territory, rather than
naturalizing them upon the Treaty’s transaction, in order to prevent the “browning of America''
(Calderón-Zaks, 2011, p. 352; Finney, 2014). These historical land conflicts established a tone of
White American Imperialism that is reflected in nonWhite recreational land usage today. As of
2019, Blacks, Natives, and Hispanics/Latinx show lower than precedent numbers of O.R
participation that are out of alignment with their population sizes and geographic distribution
(Bustam et al., 2011; The Outdoor Foundation, 2019).
The attitude of these Public-Sector actions carried over into the establishment of private
O.R. organizations early in modern American history. Environmental groups, as they began in
the 1910s and proceeded to grow through the 1970s, were predominantly White and middle class
(Finney, 2014). Formed on the ideals of men like John Muir, a man who openly spoke ill of
nonWhite communities in his interpretations and opinions of environmental practice, these
groups grew under the teaching and ideologies of such leaders. By 1975, the over 1.5 million

27
participants in the eight major environmental agencies in the U.S. were 98% White (Finney,
2014).
Systemic BIPOC Discrimination in Early 21st Century O.R.
Though history has caused systemic issues for people of color in the outdoors, each race
faces additional, unique challenges. Hispanics and Asians communities, where displays of family
unity are often practiced, associate O.R. activities with large, extended family events (Pease,
2015). As such, they struggle with the economic cost of O.R. to support such events, as well as
the limitations of infrastructure on public lands (Pease, 2015). Native Americans, though one of
the most heavily involved O.R. ethnic groups per capita, face entry barriers driven by an almost
institutionalized inertia; decades of land disputes, between public land managers, political
leaders, and tribal leaders have often boded ill for tribal land protection (Bustam et al., 2011;
Carswall, 2017; Denson, 2017; Finney, 2014; Romo, 2018).
Research identifies several influences upon O.R. participation from the perspective of
different races and ethnicities to include historical experience, culture norms, and current
political environment. However, recent research has found institutional discrimination plays a
shared role across all ethnic populations. Institutions, such as media outlets, could encourage
people of color to perceive themselves in the outdoors. Instead, it, too, is dominated by the White
male image (Frazer & Anderson, 2018; Martin, 2004; Zink & Kane, 2015).
Media and Publicity Representation
Media has played a role in O.R. discrimination before, such as with gender and family
dynamic. Research in New Zealand, often considered the outdoor capital of the world, revealed
how the young, single male image dominates outdoor-centric media. Researchers Robyn Zink
and Maurice Kane evaluated eleven popular O.R. magazines in New Zealand, utilizing each

28
issue of the magazines from 2001 and 2011, totaling in 150 publications (2015). Though women
make up 26-47% of New Zealand Outdoor recreationalists, depending on the sport, they
comprise only 18% of the photo models found in 8729 media images (Zink & Kane, 2015). The
study also revealed discrimination toward family units, affecting populations such as the
Hispanic and Asian communities; families represented only 1.7% of the photo images (Zink &
Kane, 2015).
U.S. specific studies report the same effect amongst national O.R. publications. A similar
study was conducted regarding people of color and suggested the “Apartheid” of the U.S.
outdoors (Martin, 2004, p. 531). This keystone study analyzed one of the most popular O.R.
media outlets in the country, the aptly named Outside Magazine (Martin, 2004). Between 1984
and 2000, Outside Magazine had only 5.8% nonWhite models, with an additional 5.3% of
indeterminate race (Martin, 2004). The study showed discrimination affects the perception of
acceptable outdoor environments for races as well. The largest minority, Blacks, had only 11.6%
representative models in the “Great Outdoors,” or wilderness, versus the urban outdoors, as
opposed to 46.7% of White models (Martin, 2004, p.524). A similar 2018 study confirms the
persistence of this issue. 2,192 observed images from three popular O.R. magazines—
Backpacker, Climbing, and Rock & Ice—contained a mere 1.43 to 3.85% people of color (Frazer
& Anderson, 2018).
Media outlets are very capable of promoting a certain image, purpose, and vision of the
O.R. Industry (Martin, 2004). Instead, these same media outlets have historically done a poor job
representing parties other than the White male image (Frazer & Anderson, 2018; Martin, 2004).
Change has been slow or nonexistent dependent on the media source and despite accountability
reports within industry highlighting a need to refocus on the forgotten parties (Frazer &

29
Anderson, 2018; Martin, 2004; The Outdoor Foundation, n.d., 2018, 2019). In consequence, lack
of public representation creates a barrier for new industry entrants; if one cannot see like
individuals participating in the sport, how would one visualize themselves? The crux of this
question is only amplified by the lack of professional and leadership representation within the
O.R. Industry (Gress & Hall, 2017; U.S. Department of Commerce, 2019). The current absence
of BIPOC public figureheads within the industry, people whose stories are potential source
material for O.R. media outlets could be a contributing factor to the dilemma revealed within the
media representation studies (Granada, 2018; Hurford, 2015; U.S. Department of Commerce,
2018).
Public Figure Representation
Public figureheads that are also people of color are very limited in O.R.. In turn, this
provides very few leaders to set the example for potential participants. Peer-reviewed research on
outdoor leadership is thus far restricted to the academic environment, but begins to paint this
picture. Sara Gress and Troy Hall (2017) of Oregon State University conducted a mixed-methods
study on the privately-owned National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) in order to study the
success of the Gateway program, which provided scholarships to promote Outdoor Education
and Leadership to students that come from low incomes. Though scholarship recipients are not
limited on account of race, applicants tend to be nonWhite which creates two populations of
study at NOLS—scholarship recipients and full tuition students. The survey portion of the study
requested the experiences of 152 students who participated in 2014. Sixty-four surveyed
identified their race in their responses. Thirty-six of those 64 survey respondents had not
received a scholarship. Without a scholarship, an opportunity which was not available until 2011,
only 11% of the non-scholarship participants were nonWhite. With the scholarship, the number

30
of total participants that were also nonWhite increased to 48%! This suggests that, before the
scholarship, NOLS were producing outdoor leaders disproportionately to the demographics of
O.R. nonWhite participation. Non-academically reviewed sources regarding people of color who
hold leadership positions in O.R. organizations reflect similar conclusions to the NOLS study.
A lack of research of minority O.R. also frames a conflicting message–the pool of
nonWhite O.R. leaders is too small to build research upon, and, therefore, too small to hold sway
in the industry. Existing research is so limited that one must utilize studies from other fields to
find applicable research. This includes outdoor leadership education, such as the aforementioned
NOLS, or leadership representation in environmental public policy organizations, the advocates
and actualizers of O.R.. These programs suggest minority leadership representation between 8 to
16 percent in outdoor-like career fields (Advincula, 2016; Beasley, 2016; Gress & Hall, 2017;
Taylor, 2011).
A 2012 census of U.S. businesses revealed only 28% of all U.S. businesses are owned by
people of color. Additionally, 2.24% of business owners are people of color and in retail, which
would include outdoor gear companies (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2018). Camber
Outdoors, an organization dedicated to promoting gender diversity in the outdoors, successfully
garnered 59 major outdoor companies to take their Diversity Equity Pledge between 2015 to
2018 (Camber Outdoors, 2019). In 2021, the companies’ websites and social media accounts
revealed only 11 of them to be presently directed by people of color, three of whom co-direct
with a White counterpart.
How Diversification is Prioritized Within the O.R. Industry
Leadership within the O.R. Industry has trended toward placing consumer diversification
as a top priority amongst both private and public organizations. The importance placed on

31
consumer diversification is not all altruistic; there is an understanding across the industry that the
“diversity explosion” the U.S. presently faces in 2020/2021 will turn the nation’s consumer
market into a dominant nonWhite populous by 2044 (Flores & Kuhn, 2018; Frey, 2018, p. 5;
Schultz et al., 2019). Camber Outdoors has provided an opportunity for commercial companies
to show their interest in the initiative (2019). In 2021, an independent overlook at several of the
pledged companies’ websites would reveal their own public stance on the diversity issue, and, at
times, their publicized efforts to actively pursue greater diversity. The problem begins when
diversity initiatives are publicized by a company amongst their already loyal consumer base. The
influenced consumer is already vested in the company and likely not a new entrant to O.R.
Further, the consumer is likely reflective of the same racial demographics as the industry in
whole; they are likely White (The Outside Foundation, 2019). While the public message these
private organizations release and represent bring diversity awareness to the existing O.R.
consumer population, direct outreach to the greater BIPOC population is limited. Several
Nonprofit organizations, such as Latino Outdoors and Diversify Outdoors, have materialized
over the last decade, utilizing tools such as social media to help bridge this gap of industry-to-
entrant across a national audience (Diversify Outdoors, 2017; Flores & Kuhn, 2018; Schultz et
al., 2019).
Public-Sector organizations, too, have also made strides in recent years to encourage
greater BIPOC involvement in O.R (Flores & Kuhn, 2018; Schultz et al., 2019). The institution
of the Relevancy, Diversity and Inclusion (RDI) programs within National organizations such as
the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
exhibited some, albeit limited, success in the promotion of greater employment diversity and
greater diversity-focused strategic visions and outreach programs that “honor, examine, and

32
interpret America’s complex heritage,” as Schultz et al. highlighted (National Park Service,
2011, p. 5; Schultz et al., 2019, p. 54). While these BIPOC-oriented initiatives have impacted
federal institution actions, the research is limited as to how diversity considerations extend to the
city level.
Within city governments, O.R. accessibility is an often-overlooked issue, particularly
amongst officials residing over the budgetary requirements for Parks & Recreation departments,
which in turn impacts the drive for O.R. diversity at the city level as well as the drive to research
and evaluate the discrepancy (Barrett et al., 2017; Pitas et al., 2018). In fact, Parks & Recreation
is one of the top targets of budget cuts by city elected officials (National Recreation and Parks
Association, 2017; Roth, 2020). However, where the subject of urban O.R. has been
academically evaluated, the research is often in response to a subject of greater scientific and
political significance–urban health improvement (Frumkin et al., 2017; Jennings et al., 2017).
Integrating O.R. and Public-Sector Interests Using Urban Health
As insinuated by the limited existing research on Parks & Recreation fiscal support, O.R.
for-profit gain itself cannot be the agenda to garner city government support to promote O.R. in
urban areas and increase BIPOC participation (Barrett et al., 2017; Pitas et al., 2018). How
might, then, a private corporation elicit city official cooperation to advance O.R accessibility?
The strategy could be focused on the political agenda that matters more to Public-Sector elected
officials and directly impacts the urban BIPOC community–urban health.
Urban health is a strong, potential avenue to build profitable, political relationships
between O.R. and the Public-Sector. Parks & Recreation research has cited consistent budget
cuts from tax funds since 2003 (National Recreation and Park Association, 2003; Pitas et al.,
2018). Urban health, on the other hand, has drawn expanding social–and fiscal–attention with the

33
onset of the Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, and city officials are desperate to tackle
these very visible problems to the appeasement of their constituents (Foster et al., 2021; Roth,
2020). The impact of living in an urban area, coined urbanicity by Vlahov and Galea (2002),
reaches across physiology, psychology, and sociology. Each of these health sciences face
different struggles on account of urbanicity that city public health agencies have to address for its
respective citizens.
Research suggests physical, mental, and social health can all find preventative and
remedial support from O.R. (Gilhespy, 2016; Gladwell et al., 2013; Greer & Vin-Raviv, 2019).
This is a particularly important issue for city officials to attack in support of their BIPOC
constituents. The U.S. Census estimated that 44% of U.S. citizens are nonWhite (U.S. Census,
2019). Research has also identified urban cities trend toward denser nonWhite populations than
is reflective of the nation’s demographic breakdown (Lee et al., 2017; U.S. Department of
Commerce, 2019). In consequence, there are specific urban health considerations that city
officials must address for the BIPOC community.
For one, the impacts of COVID-19 in the United States, from 2020 to 2021, brought to
light a pre-existing disparity in public health conditions between the White and nonWhite
communities, highlighted by the higher infection and mortality rates the virus has caused
amongst BIPOC community members (Acosta, 2020; Foster et al., 2021). Years of evidence
prior to COVID-19 show this systemic disparity has existed for some time (Blackwell et al.,
2012; Brittin et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2021). Another concern for the BIPOC community is the
safety and social health of these constituents. Violence is considered an important public health
issue and is more likely to breed within communities where crime is already prevalent and part
of daily life (Bauchner et al., 2017; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016).

34
The urban BIPOC community faces disproportionate crime and incarceration rates compared to
their White counterparts (Acosta, 2020; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
2016). Outdoor recreation provides various physical, mental, and social benefits to White and
nonWhite city citizens alike, but O.R. can specifically play a role in addressing BIPOC specific
disparities, to include the two situations just provided (Eigenschenk et al., 2019; Gilbert, 2016).
Physical Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence
One of the most easily associated benefits of O.R. is the ability to enhance physical
health, and the data suggests there is a significant need for any resource that might develop
physical activity within society. In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported over
one-third of the global population was sedentary; WHO estimates about 50% of the population
lives in urban cities as of 2018 and that percentage will increase to 60% before 2050, potentially
as high as 68% (Nordh et al., 2017; United Nations, 2018; Wei-Lun et al., 2018; World Health
Organization, 2013). The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research and the Department of Public
Health Science at The Norwegian University of Life Sciences conducted a study connecting
sedentary lifestyle to physical health within urban communities (Nordh et al., 2017) . The
research identified that lack of available and safe land resources for outdoor activity within urban
communities is directly correlated to the poor physical health of the aforementioned 50% of the
world’s population living within urban environments (Nordh et al., 2017; Wei-Lun et al., 2018;
World Health Organization, 2013).
The 2012 National Health Interview Survey conducted by the Center of Disease Control
did note that most members living within or near a metropolitan area experienced less health
issues than those in rural areas, attributing this to accessibility to public health resources
(Blackwell et al., 2012). This trend has continued into the 2020 results of the National Health

35
Interview Survey (NHIS), with the exception of mental health where citizens within a
metropolitan area are up to 1.6% less likely to receive needed mental health care due to cost
(Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). However, the study also concluded BIPOC
often experience more health complications. Though percentages varied across each racial
demographic, the entire nonWhite population interviewed proved to be more likely to experience
depression, diabetes, hypertension, loss of physical functionality, and obesity (Blackwell et al.,
2012). The 2020 data does reveal that this may no longer be consistent across Black, Hispanic,
and other nonWhite communities, and the White community has overtaken the nonWhite
demographics in mental health diagnosis, it is plausible that this differentiation is due to a lack of
medical and mental health accessibility to BIPOC citizens (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2021).
In the 2012 Blackwell et al. study, the researchers recognized nonWhites of a single race
were less likely than Whites to have visited a doctor within the last 12 months. Of those who
associated with two or more races, only those who associated as Native and White were apt to go
to the doctor in the last 12 months. This convolutes the assumption that accessibility to
healthcare within city limits improves the physical health of BIPOC population consolidating
within these cities. Looking into the 2020 NHIS results from the Center of Disease Control and
Prevention, nonWhite citizens were less likely than the White demographic to seek a mental
health professional, a dental exam, or an influenza vaccination. Only the Black demographic
scored higher than the White community in blood pressure checks, 2.2% higher, and doctor
visits, 0.2% higher. However, Blacks also were 7.8% more likely to end up in the emergency
room than all other demographics; after emergency follow-up visits could perhaps skew the data
and explain the 0.2% higher percent of doctor visits.

36
Exercise is generally associated with improved health, but there is substantial evidence to
suggest exposure to the outdoors while recreating contains additional benefits. Researchers from
the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom identified
specific physiological benefits that occur in outdoor environments that indoor exercise cannot
provide. When matched to activities conducted in city settings, outdoor exercise has proven to
induce lower blood pressures, faster recovery to baseline blood pressure, a reduction to overall
heart rate, and improvement in heart rate variability and the overall health of the autonomic
nervous system. (Gladwell et al., 2013). This result has been validated through forty-five other
empirical, peer-reviewed studies focusing on the relationship between O.R. and physical health,
with a focus on either one or several of the benefits discussed by Gladwell et al. (Thomsen et al.,
2018).
Other studies have shown further advantages with exposure to urban greenness. Increased
vegetation has been correlated with a reduction of preterm births and increased baby weights, as
well as a reduction of COVID-19 cases within communities (Hystad et al., 2014; You & Pan,
2020). However, it is imperative to acknowledge that these studies do not necessarily prove
causation; both of these studies (Hystad et al., 2014; You & Pan, 2020) did not consider the
socioeconomic status (SES) of their test sample, a point which will be explored further on the
topic of social health within the urban landscape.
Mental Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence
The 2012 NHIS revealed that BIPOC were more likely to experience symptoms of
depression (Blackwell et al., 2012). Though that trend is unverifiable in the 2020 data due to
accessibility issues that are not deconflicted in the NHIS report, it is clear mental health is
consistently an issue for citizens within an urban environment (Center for Disease Control and

37
Prevention). The mental health of citizens exposed daily to the conditions of urbanicity is
negatively impacted. Peen et al. (2010) conducted an analysis of mental wellbeing in rural
community citizens in comparison to urban community citizens. The study proved mood and
anxiety disorders were more common in urban communities and were directly caused by the
environmental conditions of urbanization. Some data are contradictory to this message; one
research team discovered that conflicting definitions of urbanicity have led to the contrary
research (Piccirillo et al., 2019). Other research teams have suggested the contradiction is due to
greater opportunity and communal support to treat mental illness in urban centers, or, in the case
of the COVID-19 quarantines, better broadband technology for remote mental healthcare
(Blackwell et al., 2012; Summers-Gabr and Kendall-Tackett, 2020; Townley et al., 2017).
However, much current research still aligns with Peen et al. (2010) correlating urbanicity in the
U.S. with increased depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, and even Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
or PTSD (Sampson et al., 2012; Ventimiglia & Seedat, 2019; Wright et al., 2020).
Just as with physiology, participation in O.R. has proven psychological health benefits.
Researchers Michael Greer of the College of Health and Human Sciences at Colorado State
University and Neomi Vin-Raviv of the School of Sport and Exercise Science at the University
of Northern Colorado co-partnered on an evaluation of existing mental health research in
connection to the outdoors. Greer and Vin-Raviv (2019) reviewed 14 completed studies
investigating the effectiveness of outdoor recreation, used as therapy, on U.S. veterans diagnosed
with mental health disorders. Thirteen of the 14 studies proved the veterans experienced some
level of improvement to their mental health.
Other studies that emphasized general health also discovered significant psychological
benefits in O.R. participation. One 2018 literature analysis aimed to systematically disclose how

38
what they called “wildland recreation” definitively contributes to overall health, rather than
benefits motivated by individual interests (Thomson et al., 2018, p. 123). The researchers did
disclose that their focus is toward activities occur outside of non-wildland settings, however most
of the activities reviewed can take place in or near urban environments with proper supporting
infrastructure to include hiking (38% of reviewed articles), camping (16%), paddle sports (11%),
and mountain biking (5%). The team selected 113 published, peer-reviewed articles published
between 1990 to 2016; each article had to empirically evaluate one or several health benefits of
O.R. Sixty-eight of the 113 articles they found showed proven benefits toward mental health,
physical health being the priority of the remaining forty-five. The study revealed substantial
mental health benefits from O.R.:
While self-esteem (20%) and emotional well-being (17%) were the most frequently
investigated mental health outcomes, reduction in perceived stress and anxiety (14%),
family and friend functioning (12%), and coping with illness or a disorder (11%) were
comparably addressed. Other mental health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, hopelessness
and depression, flourishing and happiness and joy, delinquency and conduct,
mindfulness) were addressed in less than 10% of mental health studies linked to wildland
recreation. (Thomsen et al., 2018, p. 132)
Social Health of the Urban BIPOC Community and the O.R. Influence
Social conditions play a consequential role in health, and who would obtain the greatest
advantage from urban health institutions in place. Though living within an urban setting
increases one’s ability to seek healthcare opportunities, U.S. citizens overall with lower
socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to struggle with health and utilizing or upholding
proper medical care (Blackwell et al., 2014; Brittin et al., 2015). For instance, in the 2012 NHIS,

39
data were collected on 30,576 adults below the poverty line labeled “Poor,” 38,167 adults with
income no more than double the poverty threshold labeled “Near Poor”, and 147,021 “Not Poor”
adults (Blackwell et al., 2014, p. 116). Each adult was surveyed on five major cardiovascular
diseases. The percentage of “Poor” and “Near Poor” was higher than the “Not Poor” population
in every category to include stroke, hypertension, and coronary heart disease. SES also impacts
the quality of the neighborhood where one lives. Urban greenness initiatives in U.S. urban cities
have trended toward supporting more affluent neighborhoods as opposed to impoverished
communities that would benefit from free recreational activity space (Casey et al., 2017).
It should never be generalized that SES is directly correlated to every concern within the
BIPOC community. For example, returning to the 2012 NHIS, non-Hispanic Whites are the most
likely demographic to experience heart disease and cancer than any race, regardless of SES
(Blackwell et al., 2012). However, as previously discussed, the U.S. BIPOC population is more
concentrated in U.S. cities in contrast to the rest of the country, and are more likely to hold a
lower SES than their White counterparts (Lee et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2020). This suggests
some overlap exists between SES and BIPOC communities within city boundaries (Wi et al.,
2016). The impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. further highlighted the
discrepancy between White and BIPOC citizens. By January 2021, Black Americans had “the
greatest mortality rate from COVID-19 at 2.4 times that of White Americans” (Foster et al.,
2021, p. 67). Indigenous had the highest infection rate in the U.S., and – widening the
socioeconomic gap for BIPOC further–57% of the jobs lost in the first March and April
quarantine lockdowns were of the Latinx community (Acosta, 2020; Foster et al., 2021).
Much of the research integrating urban health concerns with O.R. solutions target the
conversation surrounding SES; lower SES members of society rely on more accessible solutions

40
than the expense of health care (Eigenschenk et al., 2019; Gilbert, 2016). The Nature
International Journal of Science suggested green space might be able to help balance health
issues between the rich and poor members of a community. The journal proposed “Green
Prescriptions”, or outdoor time and activity prescribed by doctors as a means of treatment, which
could be given to those who can’t afford medicinal drug treatments for physical or mental health
issues (Gilbert, 2016, p. S57). Increased participation in park activities, advised through such
“Green Prescriptions,” promotes social interactions, physical activity, and mental reflection. In
turn, such treatment would improve the health of urban citizens, reducing the need for future
doctor visits, and medical expenses (Gilbert, 2016).
Beyond the impact of the natural experience, outdoor sports, themselves, have long
lasting benefits on the social health of communities that actively participate in lifetime sports
such as hiking or calm water kayaking. The International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health published a European study on the topic. The authors discovered communities
with active outdoor programs experienced lower crime rates, and more active citizenship from
their younger population, though this is mostly identified in qualitative reports the researchers
reviewed (Eigenschenk et al., 2019). Ultimately, outdoor recreation is an identified asset for
communities to utilize for their members to address urban environment health implications
whether it be physically, mentally, or socially. However, in order for urban citizens to participate
in outdoor recreation, they require accessible opportunities to carry out recreational activity.
The Role of Parks & Recreation Directors in Community O.R.
Managing the communal needs of outdoor recreation requires a team of subject matter
experts, administration support, event and activity managers, facility managers, season staff and
a leadership structure to support the team (NYC Parks, 2021; Goldsboro Parks & Recreation,

41
2021). In large cities, such as New York City, commissioners are used to manage large park
systems or individual recreational programs, such as aquatics or borough management (NYC
Parks, 2021). In smaller cities–or at times counties that capture multiple municipalities–all park
systems and recreational programs often fall under a single Parks & Recreation department
within the city government. This department is led by an individual that is usually titled the
Parks & Recreation Director (Goldsboro Parks & Recreation, 2021; Roberts, 2019). At times,
depending on the size of the department and the needs of the community, the position is also
supported by a second official in the role of Vice, Assistant, or Deputy Directors (City of
Charlottesville, 2021; Glassdoor, 2021).
The Parks & Recreation Director’s primary responsibilities can be expansive and can
change depending on how much of a support staff is available, which can vary by program and
city size (Careers In Government, 2021; City of Charlottesville, 2021; LinkedIn, 2021). For a
starting point of reference, a city of 146,000 members can have up to a staff of 50 full time and
seasonal employees (LinkedIn, 2021). The Director’s responsibilities include, but are not limited
to:
● Supervising and directing all operations within the department;
● establish Department goals and objectives, and work plans to achieve those objectives;
● Oversee budget execution and budget planning, annual and long term planning;
● Review and evaluate all department procedures;
● Oversee Human Relations within the department;
● Conferring and collaborate with other city agencies, key stakeholders, public officials,
and general public;
● Adhering and enforcing City Charter requirements;

42
● Oversees strategic planning and development of parks, greenways, trail systems, and any
additional facilities tied to Parks & Recreation for their city, and possibly adjoining
communities where affected;
● Oversees strategic planning, development, marketing, scheduling, coordination and
execution of city-supported recreational activities and events, as well as events within
facilities under Parks & Recreation department ownership, and;
● Reporting to city council and board members on department activities (Careers In
Government, 2021; City of Charlottesville, 2021; LinkedIn, 2021; Roberts, 2019)
A Potential New Market Point of Entry for the O.R. Industry
Health of urban city dwellers is a systemic, global issue that city policymakers need a
means to address. There is enough substantial evidence to suggest that reintegrating O.R into
daily human interactions may be able to alleviate some of the health concerns plaguing officials
and harming their constituents (Eigenschenk et al., 2019; Gilbert, 2006; Gladwell et al., 2013;
Hystad et al., 2014; Jennings et al., 2017; Thomsen et al., 2018; You & Pan, 2020). City officials
that accept opportunities to promote O.R. within their communities would find a new avenue to
tackle the urban health dilemma, just as other international cities around the globe have
accomplished (Eigenschenk et al., 2019; Gladwell et al., 2013). This could be most advantageous
to BIPOC constituents, as the advantages of O.R. presented in the prior literature review identify
very specific issues that are more prevalent amongst nonWhite urban residents.
City, state, and national Parks & Recreation organizations have consistently faced
funding reductions in the past several decades (National Recreation and Park Association, 2003;
Roth, 2020; Wisby, 2011). In contrast, the O.R. Industry at large has continued to grow in GDP
and economic success (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018). This suggests Private-Sector O.R.

43
organizations may have some fiscal freedom to provide O.R. support to a community where
public-funded organizations may fiscally struggle to do so. If Private-Sector O.R. companies
were to team with city governments to support the urban health agenda, they would also open the
opportunity to enhance O.R. accessibility within those cities that are facing funding
complications. In consequence, Private-Sector O.R. companies can directly influence their
corporate interests in the expansion of O.R. accessibility to the BIPOC demographics that
substantiates much of an urban population (Erickson, 2011; Pitas et al., 2017). Present data
suggest that such a marriage of agendas would be supported; the general public is open to
privatization of Public O.R. resources in this post-Recession era where funding is being limited
by city budgetary decisions (Pitas et al., 2017).
Interest in the topic of O.R. has grown in recent years within the U.S. First, Thomsen et
al. (2018) discovered a sharp uptick in academic interest evaluating the positive health benefits
of outdoor activities; of the 113 peer-reviewed research publications they found and evaluated,
86% were published between 2006 and 2016. Second, the economy further indicates O.R.’s
growing popularity. As of 2013, O.R. provided “over six million jobs and $88 billion in federal
and state tax revenues” (Southwick Associates, 2013; Thomsen, Powell & Monz, 2018, p. 123).
As of 2018, O.R. was deemed one of the fastest growing luxury industries in the U.S (Bureau of
Economic Analysis, 2018). By 2021, the Biden Administration publicly recognized the economic
role of the outdoor industry by inviting industry leaders to the White House to participate in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill development (Harper, 2021). The economic significance of O.R.,
its potential to create a positive economic impact on a community, and the security of popular
interest, would further support any argument toward developing relationships between city
governments and private O.R. corporations.

44
A redirection strategy – of selling one agenda to inadvertently promote another – has
worked before; recreational activism inadvertently promoted environmental political agendas
during a 2008 O.R. campaign in Canada where O.R. company Patagonia aligned with a non-
governmental organization named Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) (Erickson,
2011). In doing so, the two private organizations built a relationship with the Canadian
Government to promote land preservation, CPAWS’ goal, via outdoor activity participation,
Patagonia’s goal (Erickson, 2011). As Erickson (2011) stated, “At its heart, recreational activism
is an attempt to harness enjoyment into the service of public mobilisation; recreational activities
are redefined as being about specific political issues and one’s participation signals a particular
ethical relationship to the public sphere” (p. 478). Like environmental policy in Erickson’s
research, urban health is a current, crucial agenda that O.R. organizations can target while
expanding their own agenda of recreational activism.
Foregrounding the Problem of Practice: Critical Race Theory and Social Capital Theory
Since this study focuses on an issue of BIPOC equity, Critical Race Theory is heavily
considered. Critical Race Theory, or CRT, postulates how race and the definition of White plays
within societal and cultural developments (Landson-Billings, 1998). While CRT does include
explicit racism, recent years of studies on CRT evaluate systemic racism, which are defined as
pervasive practices or policies that continue inequity regardless of intention (Rocco et al., 2014).
CRT also encompasses colorblind racism. Also called colorblindness, colorblind racism is the
practice of being imperceptive of color in order to be or be perceived anti-racist, whether
willfully or through ignorance (Mueller, 2017). Colorblindness in organizations and social
environments detrimentally ignores the needs of the BIPOC community in order to overcome
inequity when a disparity exists (Rocco et al., 2014; Mueller, 2017).

45
The literature revealed that social capital is a concern for BIPOC within urban cities.
Social Capital Theory (SCT) postulates that every individual obtains a level of social resources,
or connections and relations within their localized community structure, that will positively or
negatively contribute to one’s development within a society (Coleman, 1990). As Coleman
(1990) stated, social capital is unlike human or physical capital because it embodies “the
relations among persons” (p. 304). Further, Coleman theorized that physical, human, and social
capital work interconnectedly to “facilitate productive activity” for an individual within society
(p.304).
SCT is not a topic restricted to BIPOC individuals. However, in the context of this
research, the literature has shown lack of social capital for the BIPOC community appears to be a
great detriment to BIPOC O.R. accessibility from the Private-Sector perspective (Frazer &
Anderson, 2018; Gress & Hall, 2017; Martin, 2004; The Outdoor Foundation, n.d., 2018, 2019).
It is important to discover if Public-Sector organizations see that social capital plays a role in
urban health and, indeed, O.R. accessibility for their respective BIPOC constituents (Blackwell
et al., 2014; Brittin et al., 2015; Eigenschenk et al., 2019; Gilbert, 2016). If Public-Sector
organizations, specifically Parks & Recreation officials for the purpose of this study, focus more
on human and physical capital, the research must address how Public-Sector concerns might
connect with the social capital considerations of the Private-Sector.
Theoretical Frameworks Informing This Study
As introduced in Chapter 1, this study is structured upon the principles of the
Bronfenbrenner Social-Ecological System Model (Adu & Oudshoorn, 2020; Bronfenbrenner,
n.d., 1979, 2005; Gardner, 2008; Johnson, 2008) and informed by both Social Capital Theory
and Critical Race Theory. However, a theory Vargas et al. (2020) called Interpersonal

46
Connection will play a prominent role in integrating two unique Bronfenbrenner models of the
Public Sector O.R. and Private Sector O.R. throughout the study’s design. Urie Bronfenbrenner
designed his original model as a means to express his theory on how children develop within a
society based on influences from different proximities within their environments
(Bronfenbrenner, n.d., 1979, 2005; Gardner, 2008). Later iterations of the model have been
developed to express how any person or persons, such as an organizational team, is influenced in
their behavior and development based on their unique social ecology (Adu & Oudshoorn, 2020;
Johnson, 2008). Vargas et al (2020) later designed a means to connect the socio-ecologies of two
different persons, organizations, or other like entities to illustrate how Bronfenbrenner’s system
levels can overlap and, thus, integrate the two different entities through shared elements of their
socio-ecologies.
Development of the Social-Ecological Model
There are five original layers of the Bronfenbrenner Model. The original framework
contained just the individual level, the microsystem level, the mesosystem level, the exosystem
level, and the macrosystem level (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Immediately upon the first publication
of–what Bronfenbrenner called at the time–the Ecological Systems model, Bronfenbrenner
began to update it based upon the reviews and critiques of his peers. By 1989, he had included
the chronosystem, a layer first proposed by behavioral scientist Glen Elder to account for the
impact of aging and life stages (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). By 2005, Bronfenbrenner had adapted the
chronosystem to also include life events and historically significant events, relabeling the revised
version as the Bioecological Model (Rosa & Tudge, 2013).
Bronfenbrenner passed in 2005, but his final iteration of the model is what researchers
have adapted to capture the social spheres of organizations. Such researchers identified a

47
correlation between how social environments influence the development of an institution's
members and leaders, in the same manner as general human development (Adu & Oudshoorn,
2020; Johnson, 2008). This final adaption of the model, the Social-Ecological Model, will be
used for the purpose of this study.
Conceptual Framework
The interpretation of the Social-Ecological model for this research identifies two different
individuals that have overlapping layers within the same ecosystem, and have shared interests
regarding the same city location. The two individuals are the Private-Sector O.R. leader as the
research audience, and the Public-Sector O.R. leader as the research participants in the study.
The individual representing the O.R. Private-Sector adjusts according to the size, internal
operations, and agendas of the leaders of that particular Private-Sector organization. Therefore,
this layer could represent a local business owner, a store or regional manager of a particular city
location, or a corporate leader interested in a particular city dynamic. The O.R. Public-Sector
individual layer is the Parks & Recreation Director, or Vice Director, within that city’s
government. The Parks & Recreation Director, as the city official responsible for oversight of
O.R. programs within a city, is assumed to be the public representative most informed on a city’s
narrative on how its government integrates O.R. to address issues on community involvement or
public health. Figure 3 provides a complete picture of the Social-Ecological model for this
research, as well as the agencies at each level impacting the defined individual.
A traditional Social-Ecological Model can easily frame an O.R. leader’s social economy.
However, this research will also consider three theoretical frames, not represented in the
traditional model, that can heavily influence several or all levels and their respective agencies.
These topics include: critical race theory, social capital theory, and urban health. To maintain

48
focus and succinct discussion, these three topics will be evaluated in lieu of the mesosystem and
every linkage it may represent. Figure 3 provides a visualization of these overlapping concerns,
which are discussed below.
Understanding how agencies within the Social-Ecological model interact with historical
events and the history of racism as it influence the industry will help drive the discussion on
alleviating BIPOC inequity within O.R. Therefore, in the conceptual framework, institutions
whose influences have contributed to this dialogue have been annotated in the Social-Ecological
model, particularly within the Macrosystem that captures both public and Private-Sector
individuals. Though no agency exists within the Chronosystem, recent events surrounding Black
Lives Matter and Stop Asian Hate at the time of the research exert influence within the system.
Social Capital Theory is the interconnection this research study explored: How might
addressing social, human, or physical capital elements allow for both BIPOC urban health and
O.R. accessibility to improve? Given such an impact, both Private-Sector and Public-Sector
organizations within the boundaries of a single urban area may have an interest in the available
social capital for the same citizens. This connects these organizations via social capital due to
their similar, localized concerns. However, such localized concerns are unlikely to influence the
interests of the O.R. Industry at large (i.e., the macrosystem).
The connection between the Private-Sector and Public-Sector also builds upon the
context of Erickson (2011). Erickson’s study identified a past relationship between the O.R.
company Patagonia, a charity Non-Governmental Organization, and the Canadian Government.
The differing agendas of these public and Private-Sector organizations were all successfully
achieved through shared cooperation, led by recreational activism on the part of the Private-
Sector in order to build social capital amongst previously nonparticipating Canadian citizens,

49
driving more public official interest. The qualitative nature of this research, which focuses on the
perceptions and experience of city Parks & Recreation officials, will determine if connection is a
viable approach for Private-Sector O.R. organizations to pursue in the future with more tangible
solutions. At the time of this research, urban health is not yet deemed a critical issue by the
Private-Sector component of the O.R. Industry; this research will determine if urban health is
worth more careful consideration by the research audience. Figure 3 depicts the conceptual
framework, informed by Bronfenbrenner and Vargas et al., interconnects these elements through
the topic of urban health and O.R. collectively. Critical Race Theory and Social Capital Theory
provided a contextual backdrop that informed the framing of this study and exploration of the
literature in Chapter 2, but they are not employed in analyzing the data collected in the study.

50
Figure 3
O.R. Social-Ecological Framework for This Study

Note. For the purpose of this research study, the city Parks & Recreation Directors (or Vice Directors) are the participants who will be
interviewed. However, the conceptual framework depicts the relationship between the study participants and Private-Sector O.R.
leaders. The arrow titled “The Interpersonal Connection” is adapted from Vargas et al. (2020). Though Vargas et al. did not study
O.R., their work informs the depiction and overlapping relationship between individuals and their corollary system layers from an
ecological perspective. Adapted from The Ecology of Human Development Experiments by Nature and Design, by U.
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Harvard University Press.
51

Summary
This literature review has identified a multitude of accessibility issues to O.R. within the
urban environment, with many of these limitations specifically imparting BIPOC community
members (Center of Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; Danko & Hannick, 2017; Lee et al.,
2017; Jennings et al., 2017; Parry & Gollob, 2018; Powers et al., 2019; Winter et al., 2019).
Further research revealed that an O.R. accessibility gap between white and nonWhite U.S.
populations has been an issue throughout the entire O.R. Industry: historically, currently, and
systemically (Advincula, 2016; Beasley, 2016; Bustam et al., 2011; Calderón-Zaks, 2011;
Finney, 2014; Frazer & Anderson, 2018; Gress & Hall, 2017; Martin, 2004; Zink & Kane, 2015).
However, there is an opportunity for both Private-Sector and Public-Sector O.R. Industry
organizations to work together to alleviate this accessibility gap (Erickson, 2011; Pitas et al.,
2017). This opportunity could be made plausible by redirecting focus away from O.R., and
toward a more Public-Sector focused issue of urban health which similarly faces accessibility
issues for BIPOC urban community members (Acosta, 2020; Blackwell et al., 2012; Brittin et al.,
2015; Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; Foster et al., 2021; Gilbert, 2016;
Gilhespy, 2016; Gladwell et al., 2013; Greer &Vin-Raviv, 2019; Nordh et al., 2017; Peen et al.,
2010; Sampson et al., 2012; Ventimiglia & Seedat, 2019; Wright et al., 2020).
Given the community interaction emphasis of the topic, and the revelations of the
literature review, a Bronfenbrenner Social-Ecological model was determined most efficient to
evaluate the research problem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Rosa & Tudge, 2013). Elements of both
Critical Race Theory and Social Capital Theory were applied to inform the development of a
conceptual framework that may best interpret the study purpose and data collected (Coleman,
1990; Landson-Billings, 1998; Mueller, 2017; Rocco et al., 2014). Using the qualitative
52

techniques of Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the next step is to explore new avenues to address
these problems–both BIPOC urban health accessibility and BIPOC O.R. accessibility–and
discover new theories for future researchers to evaluate. As such, the following chapter will
discuss how this conceptual framework positions this research as a qualitative study, and the
methodology that will be henceforth applied.

53

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study explores the perspective of Public-Sector O.R. leaders on the role of Private-
Sector O.R. institutions in initiatives to improve BIPOC access to and participation in O.R.
within their communities. This study expanded upon the conceptual approach employed by
Erickson (2011) where the goals of both the private and public organizations evaluated were
found to have progressed forward through recreational activism. This study contrasted with
Erickson’s study in that this study focuses on BIPOC accessibility to and participation in O.R.
initiatives. This chapter will present two methods, both qualitative, that were utilized to explore
the research questions. Further, an evaluation of my positionality is provided to contextualize the
perception of the data, and a discussion on the ethical practices applied to the study is given to
address the responsibilities and expectations I upheld throughout the course of the study. The
study design was highly influenced by the qualitative research strategies outlined by Merriam
and Tisdell (2016).
Research Questions
There were four Research Questions (RQs) which guided this study:
1. How do local governments view the role of O.R. in improving urban health for BIPOC?
2. What are the factors, as perceived by local Parks & Recreation officials, that contribute to
low O.R. participation among BIPOC within their communities?
3. In what ways, if at all, are local governments trying to improve O.R. participation among
BIPOC within their communities?
4. How do local Parks & Recreation officials perceive the value of Private-Sector
involvement in O.R. within their communities?

54

Overview of Methodology
Due to the social context of the research, qualitative methods as delineated by Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) were utilized for this study. A qualitative study allowed for an inductive
analysis of the social interactions, as perceived by city public officials, of an urban BIPOC
community to O.R. and urban health within the respective cities of study. The study was focused
through the lens of Department of Parks & Recreation Directors or Vice Directors. The
qualitative research was accomplished as field study as it was an industry-wide evaluation and
not tied to one specific organization.
Two qualitative study methods were utilized: interviews and artifact analysis. The
interviews were utilized to collect data on the research topic from a source within the Public-
Sector that is in direct contact with O.R. entities, city government, and public health
considerations within a city community. These interviews provided information that could
address each of the four research questions. However, a second method of study–artifact analysis
–was conducted as well to develop greater context for RQ1 and RQ3 on the perceptions
projected toward the community by the local governments. Interviews were conducted first so
that the city locations of study will have been established; the artifact analysis was only
conducted after a participant had been interviewed so the city of origin to be analyzed is known.
Table 1 identifies which method addressed each respective RQ.

55

Table 1
Data Sources
Research
questions
Description Method 1,
interview
Method 2,
artifact analysis
RQ1 How do local governments view the role of
O.R. in improving urban health for
BIPOC?
X X
RQ2 What are the factors, as perceived by local
Parks & Recreation officials, that
contribute to low O.R. participation
among BIPOC within their communities?
X
RQ3 In what ways are local governments trying
to improve O.R. participation among
BIPOC within their communities?
X X
RQ4 How do local Parks & Recreation officials
perceive the value of Private-Sector
involvement in O.R. within their
communities?
X

The Researcher
I am a White woman and an active participant within the outdoor industry. I was an
independent, unpaid O.R. and travel blogger for three years. I conducted my own research and
journalism on the topic, which piqued my interest in pursuit of a more academic analysis of the
industry’s environment. I also have participated in several large O.R. athletic endeavors with a
cumulative 2000+ hours of outdoor experience. Many of these opportunities were made available
and accessible to me due to my single/no dependent status as well as my military career, which
both took me to strategic locations to execute these activities (e.g. Guam, Greenland, Colorado,
etc.) and provided financial security. After my time in Active Duty service, my Disability
Compensation earned through service created a similar security that could fund me
56

independently through self-selected unemployment. These endeavors include backpacking
nonstop the entirety of an 1,800-mile trail, completing two half marathons to include one via an
obstacle course race, snowboarding in seven states over nine winter seasons, achieving a
Divemaster rating in SCUBA, and climbing Mount Kilimanjaro–the highest freestanding
mountain in the world, along with novice educations in rock climbing and paddleboarding. My
depth of participant knowledge about various elements of the O.R Industry gives me a personal
understanding of the current climate of the industry, to include its visible demographic disparity
and its organization’s publicized interest toward change.
My understanding from a professional perspective, however, is lacking. During this
study’s development, I tried for six months to enter the O.R. Industry for employment after a
successful active duty military and management career, but to no avail. As a result, I have no
income dependency to the O.R. Industry or any organizations therein. While this does help
alleviate some concern of the ethical implications of my research, to be discussed in further
detail within this chapter, being a third-party observer with no professional role in industry
creates a blind spot in my understanding of current industry progression toward interpersonal
relationships that might already exist within U.S. urban environments. Therefore, my research
direction is heavily influenced on the narrative developed through the thorough literature review.
As a White consumer, I have not faced most of the entry barriers of nonWhite O.R.
participants. In consequence, I have relied heavily on the literature to comprehend and iterate the
narrative surrounding BIPOC citizens in relation to O.R within the United States. Though I
cannot relate to the nonWhite experience from my own life, I have experienced the struggle of
not being a White male in O.R., particularly in my search for employment as an aspiring female
O.R. professional. My personal observation of job entrance into O.R. is that connections are
57

critical to augment entry into the field. There is a level of exclusivity and loyalty within Private-
Sector organizations to those already within the sphere of the organization, regardless of the
experience you might bring as an outsider. I have also found it difficult to find female O.R.
Industry mentors who might help me navigate my career goals. Through the lens of my own
experience, the exclusivity of the Industry is apparent.
My research design heavily relied on the interview process to address all four RQ’s.
These interviews were dedicated toward uncovering the perspective of Public-Sector O.R.
leaders, specifically city Department of Parks & Recreation Directors. As a consequence of their
position, their own perspective of O.R. and urban health agendas within their cities were driven
heavily by the values, positionality, bias, and identity of the members interviewed. During the
interview process, the participants were to speak on their organization’s position on Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Given their role as department leads, it was anticipated the emphasis
of the department’s actions toward DEI was a direct result of this interviewer’s guidance and
direction within the organization, as well as influenced by their personal opinions or agendas.
My strategy to mitigate this potential bias was to have several interview questions that required
the member to discuss the topic of DEI to the greatest extent of the participants’ knowledge.
However, as the researcher, it is also critical to evaluate what dynamics are impacting my
analysis of the interviews (Steinberg & Cannella, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). First, there is
a position of power that all these interviewees had over me as subject matter experts in a field to
which I do not professionally belong. To work through the power dynamic, I followed my
interview script so that the information collected stays on the path required for the research.
Second, the pretense that I have formulated my research around Critical Race Theory, or CRT,
(Landson-Billings, 1998) and Social Capital Theory, or SCT, (Coleman, 1990) meant I would
58

have an established bias to search out and listen for these particular issues in the interviewee’s
responses. As such, I risked ignoring other issues the participants might bring up that are critical
to the inductive process of the study and future theory development. To work through my
established bias, I reviewed the transcripts and watched the recorded interviews to capture any
items I might have missed or overlooked that were significant, but not related to CRT or SCT.
Data Sources
Interviews and artifact analysis made up the entirety of this study. Subjects for the both
interviews and artifact analysis were determined via purposeful sampling, a qualitative technique
described by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), where each participant was selected based upon
specific criteria. Convenience sampling also played a role as I was limited in resources to expand
beyond 15 unique samples anticipated. Furthermore, the samples were also determinant on the
willingness of volunteers to participate. The following subsections will discuss the interview and
artifact analysis in further detail.
Method 1: Interviews
The overall approach of the interview protocol was to use a semi-structured interview
approach. Semi-structured was chosen for its flexibility, to ensure (a) the respondents all provide
specific data that may require probes to extract, and (b) provide opportunity for additional
information and insights that I might not have thought to review prior to the beginning of the
interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Eighteen questions were provided in total, with each
having approximately two to three probing questions that are used as required.
Participants
A total of 15 participants were anticipated for this study. A stratified sampling technique
was used to select participants. As articulated in Figure 1 of Chapter 1, the 15 participants were
59

to be divided across the contiguous United States with three participants from each of the five
major regions of outdoor recreational sport (The Outdoor Foundation, 2018). These regions were
adapted from the 2018 Outdoor Industry Association Participation Report. These five regions
were labeled West Coast & Mountain, Central West, Central East, Noreast, and South. The
participants volunteered to participate and met the following criteria:
1. Be a Parks & Recreation Director or Vice Director of a U.S. city, except when the city
government uses a different, but equivalent, title for their highest ranking official in this
department including superintendent, commissioner, or manager.
2. Be located in a city that has high interest levels in O.R. with a dedicated O.R.
Community. Identification of this criterion was based on 2014-2021 industry-related
literature and journalism. Appendix C presents identification of candidate cities based on
this criterion and criterion 3.
3. Their department has an Instagram account for the purpose of artifact analysis following
the interviews or, alternately, they coordinate with a primary city account for use of their
department’s marketing.
4. Must be located in an urban area based on the USDA’s Economic Research Service (Lee
& Sharp, 2017). Urban is academically defined as any county population greater than
2,500 citizens (Lee & Sharp, 2017), but this study is focused on cities between 100,000
and 500,000 citizens within the city limits. Recruitment of interview participants began
with prospective participants in cities identified in Appendix C with 100,000 to 500,000
citizens except when the following conditions exist:
(a) When such a selection helps decentralize the cities within a research
region,
60

(b) Larger options within a state that also satisfy Appendix C criteria are
not readily available, such as with Vermont and Maine, or
(c) The larger cities within a research region are found unavailable in the
process of participant recruitment.
5. Must have their name and office contact information made publicly available via their
city government’s website(s).
6. Must be willing to utilize video conferencing technology, known as Zoom, in the
interview process in order to conduct the interviews remotely due to my travel
constraints.
If more than three individuals per each of the five regions met the criteria and accepted an
invitation to interview, the first three individuals who responded to the invitation were to be
interviewed. No more than three individuals per region would be interviewed. If not enough
individuals volunteered to meet the desired goal of three participants per region, additional cities
were identified based upon the established criteria to ensure either the goal of 15 total
participants (three each per region) is reached or data saturation is attained. Conclusively, only
seven volunteers were located to participate in the study, but the established process created the
regional differentiation necessary to get a national perspective of the contiguous United States.
Instrumentation
An interview protocol developed and administered, as presented in Appendix D was a
semi-structured approach. I created each question, and each question aligned with one or several
of the RQs, with one to three probes drafted to help promote further dialogue toward each RQ as
needed. The probe questions adjusted based on the direction of the responses provided by the
participants. The original protocol helped guide the interview process, but was open to edit as
61

questions proved obsolete or necessary to adjust as trends were established; in such
circumstances, new probes were allowed to be introduced.
The content of the questions explored several levels of the social ecology of the
interviewee within their social sphere, as well as how their social environment interacted with
the interpersonal connection defined in the theoretical framework (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The
questions were written via a worldview paradigm of inquiry known as transformative
interviewing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions of a transformative interview must
directly address issues of “power, privilege, and oppression [being] made visible” (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 112). The questions for this study were written to explore these issues and were
informed by both Critical Race Theory, or CRT, and Social Capital Theory, or SCT .
Data Collection Procedures
The interviews were conducted following approval by the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board during the timeframe of October 2021–March 2022. This
timing helped reduce the chance of new timely events–elements of the Chronosystem–from
influencing the responses of one participant to another (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). Only individual
interviews were conducted, one interview block for each city.
To solicit volunteers, recruitment requests were sent via letter mail, then email, to
individuals using the identified criteria; an example of the letter is provided in Appendix A. Each
letter was followed up with a phone call to each Parks & Recreation Director or Vice Director
explaining the purpose of the interview and providing opportunity for discussion. All possible
participants were contacted via the information they make releasable on public domain, such as
their city government websites. Upon receiving agreement from the participant to continue with
62

the study, an information sheet for exempt research was provided to each volunteer, as shown in
Appendix B.
Due to the location variations of each participant, no interviews were conducted in-
person. Rather, each interview took place over Zoom. Video interviews were ideal as video
allowed for observation of the participant in response to each question, adding further to the
observations that might be made through the data collection process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Question burnout of the interviewed participants was a concern (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
Therefore, a seventy-minute time block for each interview has been set in order to avoid any
participant reaching that state. This 70 minutes started with up to 10 minutes of Zoom set-up and
introductions, 50 minutes of interview time, and up to 10 minutes of space to allow follow up
questions from the participant. In order to maintain the integrity of this time block, preliminary
e-mails were sent to ensure each participant was familiar with the interviewer beforehand, were
offered an opportunity to ask preliminary questions, and all technology concerns and questions in
relation to the interview platform were addressed.
I was the interviewer. I took notes of the responses from each participant to annotate
responses that are unique or correspond to responses from other interviews. I also took notes of
the participants’ reactions and presentation to each response they provided. Written transcripts of
each interview were produced utilizing the autoscript feature in Zoom that I reviewed and edited
for accuracy in order to best maintain confidentiality of the participants (Gibbs, 2018). Review of
these transcripts allowed for an in-depth evaluation of relationships between each participant’s
responses that might not have been captured during my notetaking throughout each interview.
Scheduling of each interview was dependent on both my availability and that of the
participants. I have no business relationships within the O.R. community and, therefore, no
63

personal connections existed between the participants and myself. In consequence, I anticipated
the rate of response and level of active engagement from each participant may have been slow
and could have delay the data collection process. As such, the time period leading to each
interview required more involvement from me to maintain active engagement and uphold the
scheduled interview time. Ultimately, seven participants were located after a 60-day period of
contacting potential volunteers at the locations listed in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
Analysis of the interview data was driven by the conceptual framework described in
Chapter 2, which is based on the research of Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Vargas et al. (2020).
The research questions that drove the interview protocol, Appendix D, were designed to explore
any potential Interpersonal Connections–a Vargas et al. (2020) concept–that might exist between
the individuals of the Public-Sector social ecology and the Private-Sector social ecology.
Specifically, elements of the Exosystem that are shared by both socioecologies were to be
analyzed for potential connections that could be exploited, or developed in order to drive Private-
Sector relationships with the public, also referred to as the point of market entry in the literature
review. Known exosystem similarities include city citizens, elected officials, and city law and
ordinances; further data analysis was anticipated to find more. I evaluated the data collected
through this frame of reference. Additionally, the collection and analysis did place additional
emphasis on the entire social ecology of the Public-Sector for the benefit of the Private-Sector
stakeholder who may not have the Public-Sector perspective.
Additional theories beyond the conceptual framework have also played a role in
informing the data collection and analysis process. The iterative nature of qualitative research
allowed for an inductive process where data collection builds upon itself, informing all preceding
64

data and presumptions until a workable theory was produced for future research and
development in a more quantitative context (Charmaz, 2015; Glaser & Straus, 1967). This
technique, also known as Grounded Theory, meant that comparative methods had to be used
throughout the data analysis process to develop ideas, identify trends, discover edits and
omissions throughout the process of data collection, and apply those corrections to each iterative
data collection sample taken (Charmaz, 2015; Glaser & Straus, 1967). Therefore, data analysis
began with the conclusion of the first interview, where any potential discoveries and
improvements to the data collection process was included in future interviews, maintaining the
researcher’s constant trajectory toward theory development as their final result.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
All interview locations took place over Zoom. This is in part due to the variations in
COVID-19 policies in differing states and communities. However, Zoom was necessary
regardless of COVID-19 due to (a) limited accessibility of a participant sample dispersed across
the U.S.A., and (b) my own fiscal limitations to conduct in-person visits. Zoom interviews made
triangulation to ensure credibility nearly impossible (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher
was not able to make in-person general observations of the individual Parks & Recreation
departments and was heavily dependent on the findings of the interviews. To mitigate some of
this concern, an artifact analysis on the social media outlet, Instagram, was conducted to cross
compare the information received from the interview participants to the messaging their
organizations published and marketed to the local communities they serve; this specifically
helped with the validity of RQ1 and RQ3.
One further advantage of Zoom was it automatically created video recordings of each
interview. This allowed confirmation that the interview process, and utilization of the pre-
65

established interview protocol, were used consistently throughout and ensured the data were
consistently collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each interview was able to be viewed again
for additional data collection and confirmation, making it easier to review original data
collection, confirm reliability of my original notes, and validate the consistency between
interviews. I utilized all Zoom video and transcript features to validate the transcript without
third party assistance. Being the transcript reviewer and validator familiarized me with the data
prior to coding and concurrently provided an opportunity to confirm and correct the Zoom auto-
populated transcript. The verified transcripts confirmed exact verbiage of the interviewee and
enhanced identification of trends between interviews. Further confirmation of the study was
established via “respondent validation” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246). All participants were
provided a copy of the transcripts and given seven days to respond with any clarifications they
wished to make. If the participants did not provide a response within the time period, I
incorporated the transcript as-is into the research. If the participant did make clarifications, the
appropriate corrections were made and coding was finalized with these new corrections.
Several pilot interviews, via a peer review process, had been applied to further credibility
and trustworthiness. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested regarding the use of pilot
interviews, conducting pilot interviews also ensured the effectiveness of questions in this study,
identifying which questions did not produce useful information or could cause confusion for the
interviewee thus negatively affecting the data’s reliability. Two peer reviews were also
accomplished before the protocol was submitted for institutional review. One of these was with a
city Parks & Recreation Director for a city that does not fit the established sampling criteria
above and, thus, was not a participant of the study. Further, a dissertation committee reviewed
66

the interview protocol crosswalk prior to execution to ensure any biases that might exist in the
protocol were diminished and to ensure alignment with the research questions.
This dissertation provides a summation of the researcher’s positionality, while the
findings provide an evaluation of my reflexivity through the research process. As Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) stated about all qualitative research, it “ is a dialectical process that affects and
changes both the participants and the researcher, at least to some extent” (p. 64). Details of my
positionality helped orient study participants to the researcher’s agenda and establish
trustworthiness, and also gave me, the researcher, a tool to be reflexive as I reflected back on
where I began throughout the research process. Positionality and reflexivity might lead a
researcher to draw particular conclusions from a study’s results or findings; an understanding of
both helps the audience of that research evaluate how they might interpret the results or findings
differently (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, I attempted to reach data saturation. Data saturation helped ensure that there were
enough interviews conducted to establish trends and determine no additional or unique
information pertinent to the study topic could be discovered with the methodology applied. The
study aimed for 15 interview participants with the intent to expand if necessary and plausible,
dependent on my limitations as will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 5.
Method Two: Artifact Analysis
In order to better establish the credibility of a qualitative study within social sciences, it is
highly advised to develop a second method of inquiry to better understand the narrative
surrounding the topic of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the purpose of this study,
artifact analysis was also accomplished. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) observed regarding
participants in qualitative research, “discrepancy between real and online personalities occurs
67

even when people are trying to be themselves–or at least an idealized version of themselves” (p.
177). The application of this research method intended to uncover that discrepancy, establishing
where the messaging from Public-Sector O.R. was, or was not, projected to a wider BIPOC
audience through available online social media.
The public marketing websites developed on behalf of the interviewees’ cities identified
in Method 1 were analyzed for this study. With being limited to a single researcher, and given
the expanse of social media with Facebook, Periscope, LinkedIn, SnapChat, and the like,
boundaries had to be established that aligned best with the research already conducted within
O.R. As the literature review revealed, photographic imagery within magazines has been
evaluated numerous times (Frazer & Anderson, 2018; Martin, 2004; Zink & Kane, 2015). In
each study, an enumeration count was conducted over a multitude of Outdoor Industry
magazines publications to identify the visual representation of demographic variation. In this
study, an enumeration count was conducted on each Instagram page tied to each Parks &
Recreation department in lieu of magazines. Given the structure of the Instagram platform and its
heavy dependence on visuals, as well as the existing literature's emphasis on the lack of BIPOC
visibility within media, Instagram was a logical choice for applying these previous paper
publication studies about O.R. magazines to the digital sphere of O.R. representation given social
media propensity in 2021 (Granada, 2018; Hurford, 2015; U.S. Department of Commerce, n.d.
2018, 2019). Each sample selected for analysis adhered to the following:
● A Parks & Recreation Director or Vice Director from the city participated in Method 1;
● Have an Instagram page that is publicly accessible, without permissions to view, to align
with the ethical requirements regarding public record as outlined in Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) and Waldron (2013);
68

● The Instagram page must be developed for the purpose of marketing;
● The Instagram page reviewed should be tied to the Parks & Recreation department that
volunteered in Method 1. If not available, either the city’s tourism Instagram page or general
city Instagram page may be utilized in its absence; this did not become necessary in the
course of data collection for the available sample.
Instrumentation
This artifact analysis focused on one specific social media marketing tool, Instagram, and
the perceptions that this social media marketing might portray to a wider BIPOC audience,
establishing further data in support of analyzing RQ1 and RQ3. The utilization of visual
documents to conduct research is derived from the works of Pink (n.d., 2007, 2012). These
studies have evolved to the social media sphere as these internet platforms have grown in stature
(Paulus et al., 2014). Visuals within social media, however, are identified as artifacts–as opposed
to a document–due to social media’s fluidity to change in real time based on how a social media
user wishes to shape the perceptions of their viewers at any given time (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I utilized only what was publicized by the Instagram page owner for imagery and captions
to those images, not the comments and interaction of the witnessing audience. A data collection
and analysis tool was adapted for the purpose of this study from Martin (2004) and Frazer and
Andersen (2018). The artifact analysis protocol is located in Appendix F.
Data Collection Procedures
I was solely responsible for the collection of these artifacts. This was an intentional
choice. This strategy alluded to the “complete participant” technique used in observation studies
discussed by Merriam and Tisdell (2016, p. 144); the researcher was witnessing the social media
marketing experience projected by each city in the same manner as those targeted by the
69

marketing experience. However, unlike observation studies, the focus was not on the interactions
of the marketed audience, but focused on each individual city’s artifacts alone–that is, the images
and applicable captions published by the city. In order to standardize the review of each account,
all photography and videos reviewed were taken from no earlier than 29 July 2018 through the
end of interview data collection, and no later than 23 March 2022 to eliminate any influence that
may have occurred after the participant was interviewed and informed; 23 March 2022 was the
date of the first interview in the study and both 29 July 2018 and 23 March 2022 are 665 days
away from the events of George Floyd’s death on 25 May 2020. The cutoff of 29 July 2018 was
also established during the data collection process; the cutoff date had to be adjusted based on
the magnitude of data available in each participant Instagram page. When the adjustment was
made, it was standardized across all participants in order to ensure the assessment reflects the
same aspects of the conceptual framework’s chronosystem influences (Bronfenbrenner, n.d.
1979, 2005). The original date chosen was 1 January 2018 in order to observe any changes to the
public narrative that the participants provide through their social media accounts prior to the
events of the death of George Floyd on 25 May 2020, which drove media attention toward Black
Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate, and other social justice agendas (British Broadcasting
Corporation, 2020). However, 29 July 2018 was able to produce the same effect.
Data Analysis
Coding was invaluable to evaluating information on the written narrative associated with
each social media post. Due to the nature of qualitative data analysis, it was anticipated a coding
system would be developed as the researcher began to establish patterns and themes throughout
the analysis; particularly as this was a social media review, it was best to apply an “open coding
strategy” (Gibbs, 2018, p. 62). However, as Charmaz (2003) suggested about the coding process
70

in qualitative research, a basic list of questions that identify what a researcher might initially look
for helped begin the coding development process. The initial questions utilized for this study are
highlighted in Appendix E.
For the imagery collected from each Instagram feed, an additional process was also
utilized in order to evaluate the overall presentation of BIPOC representation of the account page
owner during the prescribed years defined in Data Collection Procedures sub-section. As
previously stated, an enumeration count was conducted on each Instagram page in line with the
research practices of Martin (2004) and Frazer and Anderson (2018). The count focused on race
only, rather than issues of sex, class, or familial status as the other researchers accomplished. As
race is not always clear based on appearances alone, and captions of each social media image
might not provide an answer, the determination of the “race” of each person within each
Instagram feed was heavily dependent on my judgment. Therefore, a category for “nonWhite
indeterminate” was also used to capture any image in the count that appeared to present someone
of racial origins leaning toward nonWhite, but was not distinctly aligned with the five categories
counted: White, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latin, or Indigenous.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The greatest importance of the artifact analysis was to create a dynamic where
triangulation is possible for the interview protocol. However, a second form of triangulation was
important for the artifacts themselves: The development of multiple theories (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Unlike the interviews, the artifact analysis depended on the relative interpretation of the
researcher alone; there was no additional input from a second party to provide clarity to
information or data collected during the moment of evaluation. The application of what Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) called “multiple theories to confirm emerging findings” allowed for
71

triangulation to occur and limited the influence of the researcher’s relativity to the data (p. 244).
Articulating this process, and how it occurred during the data analysis process, helped establish
the trustworthiness of the researcher’s translation of the data.
Data saturation was sought to ensure that no new information could be obtained from
existing study procedures (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The specific date of 1 January 2018 was
initially chosen for the purpose of data collection; no artifact prior to that date was utilized as a
data point. This ensured that data saturation was possible, but also that the data was fairly current
and data collection was standardized across all participants to ensure the consistency. A
dissertation committee provided a peer examination to ensure the reliability of the research
conclusions prior to publication. Transparency of the coding process throughout the analysis, and
any adjustments made from the a priori coding in Appendix E that initiated the coding
development, advanced credibility of the research findings. Lastly, an audit trail of data
evaluation practices and execution were recorded via a research journal to ensure the credibility
and trustworthiness of the data.
Due to the fairly observational nature of a social media artifact analysis, the researcher
took on a memo approach, utilizing a research journal to annotate findings, as well maintain a
continuous dialogue regarding the coding development. Memos were developed for each day of
conducted analysis over the artifacts. This was particularly important as there was no video
recording to return to, as was available in the interview protocol. As the fluidity of social media
does not ensure the presence, or record, of that artifact in the future, memos in a research journal
maintained a record of what the researcher observed or concluded regarding a particular artifact
in real time. Just as with the interview protocol, reflexivity played a continuous role in ensuring
the trustworthiness of the researcher; a research journal allowed opportunity for the researcher to
72

reflect on how positionality impacts interpretation of this particular dataset. Further, it allowed
the researcher to evaluate how the responses of the interviews might impact the researcher’s
perception of the artifacts.
Ethics
Ethical considerations were pertinent to the study not only to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness of the results, but attention to these ethical considerations also established the
responsibility of the researcher as an academic and a professional (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics were also vital in protecting the participants from any retribution to include, but not
limited to, the individual’s personal or professional reputation, public perception of the
participant’s organization, or the participant’s relationship to those within their organization to
include bosses, peers, and subordinates (Cresswell, 2018). A few strategies were applied to the
interview protocol to ensure the protection of the participants. First an information sheet for
exempt research was provided to each participant, as presented in Appendix B. This information
sheet provided the following:
● the study purpose;
● a statement regarding the artifact analysis that would be conducted if they chose to
participate;
● a promise of the confidentiality of all participants;
● assured access to the final dissertation publication.
If an individual was unwilling to agree to the terms of the consent form, the confidentiality of the
aforementioned individual has been respected regardless of their decision.
Given the public nature of Instagram as a communication source, it was treated as public
record under the pretense that the organization released all imagery for the purpose of public
73

consumption (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Pink, 2012). Therefore, the researcher did not request
consent from the city officials or departments that managed the social media pages selected for
artifact analysis. However, in order to ensure the volunteering of information by the chosen
participants, the researcher respected the terms of usage by Instagram itself (Instagram, 2020).
Further, no artifact utilized in the study has a restriction to its audience; if a viewer of the social
media page must have an Instagram account or must be a follower of the social media page, the
social media post was deemed inappropriate for data analysis. Only the Instagram sites of the
interview participants’ cities were reviewed in the artifact analysis, not the participants personal
accounts, and permission was requested from the organization if an image is requested to be re-
published in this dissertation for Chapter 4: Findings (Pink, 2007). The usernames, URLs, and
any other identifying information on the Instagram pages evaluated remain anonymous in order
to maintain an ethical research practice and to protect the participating Parks & Recreation
Directors in the interview portion of the study. The interview participants were reminded at the
conclusion of their respective interviews that this artifact analysis would take place in order to
maintain transparency between researcher and participant, and to eliminate any uncomfortable
surprises that may arise during the “respondent validation” process (Merriam & Tisdell 2016, p.
246).
The analysis, reporting, sharing and storing of data follow the guidelines outlined by
Creswell (2018) and American Psychological Association (2020). Raw data will be kept five
years after publication, unless otherwise designated by the researching review institution,
University of Southern California. Unbiased language has been utilized throughout the
dissertation, with a specific focus on language that is best suited for the targeted audience–
leaders within the Private-Sector of the O.R. Industry (Creswell, 2018, p. 90). The study upon
74

publication will be provided to all participants, and will be released in the University of Southern
California library database.

75

Chapter Four: Findings
Data collection took place between March and July 2022 in accordance with the
methodologies established in Chapter 3. The following section provides the findings and analysis
of this data based on the participants that volunteered for the study. However, before continuing
into the data, it is worth mentioning two unique developments that occurred throughout the
research that will frame this apex of the dissertation.
Throughout discussions with the participants, it became clear that the Public-Sector
participants view recreation as two versions of outdoor recreation: traditional and nontraditional.
A portion of this chapter will delve into that division and how it translates to the segment of the
Private-Sector Outdoor Industry that is the focus audience of this research. Another unique topic
to be addressed is an analysis regarding how each participant understands and perceives racial
issues, which racial groups are garnering their attention, and which racial groups are not. A
proper understanding of these varying opinions could change the course of how the data should
be read and understood.
Participant Final Composition
Fifteen potential candidates were selected based on the criteria given in Chapter 3. Eight
candidates responded. Ultimately seven cities participated in the study: three from Region 1, zero
from Region 2, two from Region 3, one from Region 4, and one from Region 5. The participant
sample was composed of two women and five men with a 100% White representation. The
participants have an average of 5.5 years as head of their city’s Parks & Recreation department
and an average 22.3 years of industry experience. The shortest time any participant held the
Parks & Recreation lead in their city was 6 months; the longest was 10 years. The participants
represent a total 1,685,844 city constituents with a BIPOC population of 34.8%. The BIPOC
76

population varied in each city from as low as 12.0% to as high as 59.6%. Per the 1 April 2020
census, the average population of each city was 240,835 with the lowest population listed at
44,743 and the largest at 498,715. Though the smallest Further details regarding the seven
participants and their city constituents is provided in Table 2; a complete demographic
breakdown of the population sample captured in this study is provided in Table 3.

77

Table 2
Participant Details

Years in position Years in
industry
Percent BIPOC of
city population
Region 1
Participant 1 (R1/P1) 10.0 30.0 22.7
Participant 2 (R1/P2) 2.5 27.5 17.4
Participant 3 (R1/P3) 9.0 20.0 12.0
Region 3
Participant 4 (R3/P4) 7.5 13.5 34.5
Participant 5 (R3/P5) 0.5 12.0 39.3
Region 4
Participant 6 (R4/P6) 4.5 26.0 59.6
Region 5
Participant 7 (R5/P7) 4.5 27.0 15.2
Average 5.5 22.3 34.8
a

Note. City population demographics was adapted from “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts” by
The United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/). Copyright
2020 by The U.S. Census Bureau.
a
The average BIPOC population is calculated based on the total BIPOC constituents represented
in the study over the total constituents represented in the study; it may not reflect the average of
the participants’ city percentages given here.

78

Table 3
Participant City and Total Sample Demographics

Lowest
percentage of a
participating
city
Highest
percentage of a
participating
city
Percent of
study’s total
population
sample
Percent of
national
population
White
40.40 88.00 66.80 75.80
Black/African American
1.60 49.80 23.02 13.60
Indigenous
0.10 0.90 0.56 1.30
Asian and Pacific
Islander
2.60 5.10 3.75 6.40
Two or More
Races/Indeterminate
3.20 7.90 5.53 2.90
Hispanic/Latinx
a
3.80 18.80 11.41 18.90

Note. The city and national population demographic charts were adapted from “U.S. Census
Bureau QuickFacts” by The United States Census Bureau (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts
/fact/table/). Copyright 2020 by The U.S. Census Bureau.
a
Per the U.S. Census Bureau, “Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable
race categories.” As a result, the U.S. population in the U.S. Census Bureau data is categorized
by White, Black/African American, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander to include Hawaiian, and
“Two or More Races”; the Hispanic/Latinx national percentage reflects a secondary count of
citizens already included in the previous categories.

In alignment with the considerations regarding the BIPOC populations as established by
Lee et al. (2017), Danko and Hanink (2018), and Franklin (2019), four observations were made
on the participation sample. The Indigenous population was the lowest represented in each city
79

and was below the national percentage in all seven locations. Further, the demographics of the
sample cities was disproportionately higher than the U.S. population in the Black racial category,
which aligns with inter-city versus rural demographic alignment (Danko & Hanink, 2018;
Franklin, 2019; Lee & Sharp, 2017). Though the Hispanic/Latinx reflected lower than the
national average, this is potentially a result of the differentiation within the U.S. census of race
versus ethnicity (e.g., someone who identifies as Black can still identify as Hispanic in the U.S.
Census, but would only be coded as “Black” in this study). The Asian community within the
sample cities also was lower than the national average and contrasted the expectations for inner
city populations as identified in Chapter 1 and 2.
Three anomalies existed that may affect the national representation of these cities in this
study. The first applies to the demographics; the highest BIPOC populations were located in the
midwest and south of the country, encapsulated by Region 3 and Region 4. As a result, there is a
potential that the study could lean toward needs of demographic populations that are more
consolidated in these regions (e.g., the preponderance of Black communities are in these regions,
but the preponderance of Hispanic/Latinx communities are in the western regions of the
country). The remaining anomalies correspond with the location and distance between the cities.
The average shortest distance of separation between the seven cities was 604 miles
(AirMilesCalculator.com, 2022). However, two cities—in Regions 4 and 5, respectively—held a
separation of less than 106 miles, which may create a leaning in the data toward the southern
direction of the country. Second, there were no volunteers from Region 2, which eliminates West
Central representation from the study.
80

Distinguishing Between Traditional and Non-traditional Outdoor Recreation
Throughout the interview process, one point emerged in all seven of the participants that
ultimately informed the artifact analysis–a distinction between traditional and nontraditional
outdoor recreation. This distinction within the industry was alluded to in Chapter 1 under the
definition of outdoor recreation as established by Jensen and Guthrie (2006). Chapter 1
emphasized this study was designed with a focus on resource oriented (e.g., dependent on natural
resources) and intermediate activities (e.g., combining natural and non-natural resources) (Jensen
& Guthrie, 2006, pp. 10-13) as defined in the Definitions section under Outdoor Recreation
(O.R.). Four participants collectively considered these activities as “nontraditional outdoor
recreation,” which it will be henceforth called in the study findings, due to the activities being
outside the traditional bounds of U.S. city Parks & Recreation departments whom customarily
focus on the user-oriented, facility-based and urbanized structure of recreation (Jenson &
Guthrie, 2006, pg. 11). All cities chosen for the study were considered outdoor destinations by
Private-Sector entities, cities that focus on what Jensen and Guthrie (2006) defined as, resource
oriented or intermediate outdoor recreation (p. 11). However, the same four out of seven
participants emphasized that their internal operations are more heavily oriented toward
“traditional outdoor recreation,” or user-oriented activities that focus on facility based and
nonnatural resources for execution (Jensen & Guthrie, 2006).
In response to this differentiation described by the participants, the artifact analysis was
adjusted prior to data collection to support the scope of “traditional” versus “nontraditional” to
provide a more accurate picture of how the Public-Sector perceives and markets the different
forms of recreation. The initial artifact analysis data collection device presented in Appendix F
during proposal defense was re-ordered to support this new information and provide better
81

representation of the information provided by the Parks & Recreation department leaders; the
final data collection tool can be observed in the current Appendix F. Table 4 provides a list of
what activities were represented in the artifacts collected during this study and how each activity
was categorized as traditional outdoor recreation, nontraditional outdoor recreation, or not
considered as an outdoor recreation activity.

81
Table 4
Artifact Analysis Recreational Activity Classification Approach
Recorded as non-traditional O.R. Recorded as traditional O.R. Not recorded as O.R.
Yoga
a
Skateboarding and skating on manmade/park
built equipment
Any game/event/recreations presented
indoors in the image, with the
exceptions of those given on this
chart
Rock climbing
a
Playground, shown using Park/playground, only posing and not
utilizing
Trail running, dirt Trail running, paved Fountains, to include splash pads
Land navigation Golf or disc golf Zoo or aquarium
c
Biking, paved, open road or
public land
Biking, paved, bike path/parks/greenways Sports when indoors, designed for
indoor arenas to include basketball,
ice or roller-skating
Bike riding, dirt path or obstacle
track emulating mountain
biking
Sports games/events being played outdoors Post where the image provides specific
language annotated an event of a
BIPOC demographic but no imagery
of an activity
Volunteer work, in support of
or while member participates
in nontraditional sport
Volunteer work, coaching organized sport, or
city park cleanup
Remote motor boat use
Outdoor education programs (to
include gardening/
planting/forestry projects)
Manmade in-park pond use (pedal boats, catch
and release ponds in Park)
Pictures of gear issue offices apart
from location where gear-designed
activity would take place
Swimming, lake or ocean or
river or pond
Swimming, Pool Dancing/music events

82
Recorded as non-traditional O.R. Recorded as traditional O.R. Not recorded as O.R.
Picnicking or touring, protected
or undeveloped land
b

Picnicking, urban built park Park construction/maintenance paid
workers (exception: trail builders as
this requires hiking in)

Walking, dirt (hiking)

Walking, paved Professional search and rescue

Sailing and crew Parkour Dog Park
Long distance racing to include
Triathlon, obstacle course,
and races not restricted to
urban park infrastructure
Outdoor gyms/fitness parks, to include pop-up
fitness classes
Published media such as books/book
readings or movie posters that show
representation regardless of the
activities of the characters
(exception: in-house department
advertising)
Surfing and beach activity
Archery
a

Fishing
Wilderness first aid
a

Note. English was not counted as a culturally unique language and, therefore, was not added to the artifact post count for any
particular demographic.
a.
Indoor or outdoor, as activity is designed or marketed as an outdoor activity and still commonly practiced as an outdoor activity.
b.
Includes National Forestry, State or National Park Service, Department of Land Bureau Management
c.
Was not a Standardized Parks & Recreation resource for all interviewed participants
84

Artifact Analysis
A total of 5,614 Instagram photos were evaluated between the dates of July 29, 2018 and
March 23, 2022, providing 665 days before and 665 days after the George Floyd shooting on
May 25, 2020. The photos were evaluated using the approach originated by Martin (2004) and
Frazer and Anderson (2018), as shown in Appendix F, and further tailored to accommodate this
data sample utilizing the chart given in Appendix G. From this review, 2,135 of these photos
were deemed viable samples for the analysis. To be considered a viable sample, the photo had to
contain some form of either a non-English White representation or distinguishable White or
BIPOC representation (e.g., if people were present, the lighting and distance made the person or
persons visible enough for categorization). Further, all viable artifacts could be listed under one
of the three columns provided in Table 4.
The seven Parks & Recreation departments, before their representatives were asked to
participate, were confirmed to have an Instagram account dedicated to their department and
showing continued use since July 29, 2018. Six of the participants had an account dedicated to
their department, and one participant had two accounts. In this unique case, the participant
department had an account for the whole department with publications that did not extend to July
29, 2018 and a second page strictly dedicated to their outdoor recreation division that did meet
the July 29, 2018 requirement; the second account was utilized for the purpose of the study. A
tally was done separately for each participant department, which can be seen in Appendix H;
Table 5 provides the cumulative data.

85

Table 5
Tally of Total Representation in Artifact Analysis by Race

Non-
traditional
outdoor
recreation
Traditional
outdoor
recreation
Not
partici-
pating in
outdoor
recreation
Total
posts
Percent
of total
posts
National
percent of
population
White 466 494 644 1604 75.13 75.80
Black/African
American
92 194 316 602 28.20 13.60
Indigenous 2 2 6 10 0.47 1.30
Asian and
Pacific
Islander
45 57 102 204 9.56 6.40
Hispanic/Latinx 35 96 146 277 12.97 18.90
Two or More
Races/Indeter-
minate
52 64 137 253 11.85 2.90

Note. Per the U.S. Census Bureau, “Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in
applicable race categories.” As a result, the U.S. population in the U.S. Census Bureau data is
categorized by White, Black/African American, Indigenous, Asian, Pacific Islander to include
Hawaiian, and “Two or More Races”. The city and national population demographic charts were
adapted from “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts” by The United States Census Bureau
(https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/). Copyright 2020 by The U.S. Census Bureau.

As a collective, the seven participant cities were fairly aligned with the national average
within their media representation, with the exception of the Indigenous population as explained
in the previous section. Six of the seven participants showed posts with BIPOC representation
with greater frequency than their own populations. However, for three of these participants, it
86

was noted that most of their group images had a singular BIPOC representative within a group of
White members. Due to the design of the artifact analysis, such photos were coded as both a
White and BIPOC photo, though the representation within the photo did not reflect even
distribution, creating a new, unforeseen limitation.
Figure 4 presents evidence of a trend before and after the death of George Floyd on 25
May, 2020. There was an 8% increase in BIPOC representation across the participant sample.
However, contrary to the burgeoning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion agendas that all seven
participants highlighted as part of their city’s newest master plans and initiatives, two
participants had an over 12% drop in BIPOC representation in the artifact analysis. Participant 1
and 5, from May 26, 2020 to March 23, 2022 are showing BIPOC media at a percentage rate
lower than the BIPOC percentage of their respective city’s populations. This data, and its
contradiction to their departments’ current outreach objectives, suggests there may be a
misalignment or lack of awareness on their departments’ visually projected messaging.

87
Figure 4
Visual Trends of Parks & Recreation Social Media Instagram Before and After the Death of George Floyd

88

The discrepancies of BIPOC representation extend to the remaining five participant
departments once Outdoor Recreation representation is brought into consideration. Among the
2135 viable posts, a White person shown participating in outdoor recreation was 15% more
likely than a BIPOC person. While this discrepancy could be attributed to the demographic
population represented in the sample, further analysis showed 59.85% of all photos with White
representation showed White participation in Outdoor Recreation; the next highest percentage of
representation-to-participation was the Asian and Pacific Islander communities at 50.00%. A
complete breakdown of the remaining codes is listed on Table 6.

87
Table 6
Visibility Ratios
Artifact Code Ratio of posts
representing race in O.R.
Ratio of posts representing
race in traditional O.R.
Ratio of posts representing
race in non-traditional O.R.
…over total viable posts
White .4496 .2314 .2183
Black/African American .1340 .0909 .0431
Indigenous .0019 .0009 .0009
Asian and Pacific Islander .0478 .0267 .0211
Hispanic/Latinx .0614 .0450 .0164
Two or More Races/Indeterminate .0543 .0300 .0244
…over total race specific coded posts
White .5985 .2905 .3080
Black/African American .4751 .1528 .3223
Indigenous .4000 .2000 .2000
Asian and Pacific Islander .5000 .2206 .2794
Hispanic/Latinx .4729 .1264 .3466
Two or More Races/Indeterminate .4585 .2055 .2530

Note. Total viable posts = 2135. Total Race Specific Coded Posts can be located in Table 5 under the column “Total posts. “Total race
specific posts” references all posts that had a person classified within that race-code within the artifact.

90

Table 6 also reinforces and yet reframes the conclusions of Martin (2004) and Frazer and
Anderson (2018) regarding BIPOC representation in outdoor recreation media. At first look, this
study’s data coincided with the aforementioned studies. In viable posts where the subject was
participating in a nontraditional O.R. activity, the post was 17.5-21.7% less likely to be
categorized in one of the five BIPOC artifact codes opposed to the White code. However, the
Black and Hispanic/Latinx communities were most likely to have a photo representing their
participation in nontraditional O.R. among posts within their code. This suggests there might be
community engagement in these activities within the population sample and perhaps that the
Park & Recreation Departments are trying to highlight this participation, but ultimately BIPOC
visibility is lost within the marketing due to the significant presence and prevalence of the White
population. Further evaluation of and contributions from the artifact analysis will be captured
under RQ1 and RQ3, as assigned in Chapter 3’s Methodology Table 1.
Research Question 1: How Do Local Governments View the Role of O.R. in Improving
Urban Health for BIPOC?
The Chapter 2 literature review established urban health as a focal point of local
government initiatives toward recreational development within their communities. It was
important to establish that trend was accurate and relevant amongst communities where Outdoor
Recreation holds significant influence over community member interest, such as the participants’
cities. This research question was explored through both the artifact analysis and six interview
questions presented to the participants. Three themes emerged through the data analysis: The de-
categorization of “NonWhite” and the misrepresentation of underrepresented groups continuing
to prevail within some communities in a post-Floyd era, a trend of burgeoning relationships

91

between Public Health and Parks & Recreation departments, and an emphasis on both
community safety and youth health education.
Theme 1: Generalization of BIPOC Communities Lacks Substance for Some Demographics
The first theme identified during my exploration of Research Question 1 expands beyond
the discussion of urban health but is one of the most important themes to understand the
remaining findings of this study. All seven participants were willing participants to this study,
knowing the topic addressed the improvement of BIPOC representation in urban health and
outdoor recreation and wanted to be positive contributions to the discussion. Four of the seven
even expressed their city had taken explicit action toward DEI training or hiring DEI-specific
managers, showing an open commitment to the topic. What was telling of the participants’
positionality was how they verbally avoided discussing or leaned toward discussing only certain
groups and terms when communicating on communities of color within their respective cities,
which alludes that their cities’ focus on BIPOC initiatives may lean toward the favor of some
racial demographics, and not others.
Five out of seven locations discussed Asian and Pacific Islander communities only in
passing, not treating them as the significant entity within their discussions around BIPOC
communities within their jurisdiction. Participants 1, 3 and 6 specifically stated that their Asian
communities were their lowest participants when asked, but did not mention them again or
provide initiatives that targeted these communities, intentionally focusing their attention on
larger populations within their BIPOC demographics. For example, when Participant 1 discussed
a planning event, they stated “Who we are as a city, who we are as citizens in our Community
and tried to represent anybody and everybody from our native American Communities to our
African American Communities to our Latin and Hispanic communities” but did not mention the

92

Asian population they had identified as their least engaged demographic. Participant 4 and 7
were the exceptions; both expressed a particular interest in refugee communities that were
heavily from the Southwest and Southeast Asia regions.
The Indigenous community was treated in a similar manner. Five out of seven
participants did not mention Indigenous communities at all. Participant 4 was once again the
exception, discussing specific initiatives toward that demographic; Participant 1 only mentioned
“Indigenous” once in passing. Both these observations align with the population statistics of each
city. On average, all seven participants had a 3.75% Asian and Pacific Islander population and a
0.56% Indigenous population, with another 5.53% of citizens that identify with two or more
races that could fall into either of these categories. The artifact analysis provides supporting
evidence: 0.47% of photos appeared Indigenous and 9.56% appeared Asian and Pacific Islander,
the two lowest racial categories in the artifact analysis. This reveals a potential gap in support
from government officials toward some communities of color that reside within their jurisdiction
by generalizing the BIPOC community.
This trend of generalization showed in smaller ways throughout some of the interviews.
When Participant 5 was asked which demographic engaged the least in outdoor recreation in
their city, “I would say people of color, black-brown, are primarily the least engaged and
utilizing our spaces in this Community.” Participant 7 also utilized the term “black-brown” to
describe their audience of interest which could include extreme variations of cultures from
Indian to Latin to Arabic to African. In another example, Participants 1, 3 and 4 leaned on the
term “African American” as opposed to “Black,” which mislabels other ethnicities that would
fall under the categorization of Black but face similar cultural issues in American society. When
further pressured on this topic by myself using the term “Black” throughout the interview

93

process, Participants 1 and 4 avoided the term and continued to use “African American.” It was
unclear whether this word choice was due to community proliferation of particular racial groups.
Overall, the Directors demonstrated a growing understanding of the communication
around BIPOC communities and reception to the matter, but how they articulated the topic
varied widely. Further, as a collective their focus was on Black communities and
Hispanic/Latinx communities, though the occasional use of “Brown” made that distinction
unclear at times. How the participants articulated themselves alludes to how they may articulate
themselves elsewhere, such as when presenting plans to their department and city. Consequently,
this could form BIPOC initiatives as generalized solutions, unintentionally leaving out key
populations.
Theme 2: Growing Relationship Between BIPOC Public Health and Parks & Recreation
The seven interviewed Parks & Recreation Directors perceived themselves as the original
advocates of health within their communities. As anticipated, the COVID-19 pandemic shifted
the focus of all seven participants to take precautions regarding public health interests oriented to
the general public. However, four out of seven participants acknowledged a healthy disparity in
their BIPOC community members that their departments wanted to help address. This public
health disparity also was noted as a growing topic of interest amongst the participant’s city
leadership, as well. Only one participant, Participant 2, noted that city officials focused primarily
on new outdoor recreation funding over public health while the remaining six participants
reported either an equal or heavier interest in urban health over Parks & Recreation as of Spring
2022.
Four out of seven participants noted an increase in city council or elected official
involvement in improving BIPOC urban health conditions via engagement with either Parks &

94

Recreation directly, or encouraging Public Health department integration with Parks &
Recreation initiatives. As Participant 7 mentioned her city’s handling of COVID-19, “I think
they actually added a position related to public health, because they realized [going through
COVID] that not having one was something they realized that we need to have” providing the
most drastic example of inter-agency relationship building between Public Health and Parks &
Recreation in consequence of the pandemic. However, the public health disparity was also
recognized as not just a COVID issue, but a broader idea of urban health as it applies to BIPOC
community members. In one city, the newly elected mayor required easier access to health
resources in underserved communities via bike paths to eliminate the need for personal vehicles
to reach a doctor “The pathways plan, that I've mentioned to you earlier, is part of the overall
transportation initiative that the mayor has,” imparted Participant 3. “The mayor has actually
said ‘I want all our departments to have something that affects some of our urban health
initiatives that I have set forth as Mayor for our charter territory moving forward.’” Other cities,
like those of Participant 1 and 6, had larger plans to provide greater green space. As Participant 1
explains regarding their most recent project:
It's about 13 acres and we have brought just about everybody in the Community to that to
encourage that outdoors, to improve the tree canopy in this park for the health and
wellness of that. We see that that portion of our Community is a lot warmer. We also see
a large portion of that Community has a lot of food insecurities, and so Community
gardening has been a big piece of that.
These changes allowed for healthy activity and engagement in their underserved communities
that, in both cases, were a majority BIPOC population.

95

Theme 3: Emphasis on Physical Safety Over Fitness, Designed Toward Youth
Due to the timing of this study in a post-pandemic era, COVID was the largest subject of
discussion that the participants discussed in regards to urban health. However, and surprisingly,
fitness was not the second largest health topic despite its inherent place in recreational activities.
The most dominant urban health topic was instead physical safety within their communities, as
addressed by five participants. Four specifically focused on physical safety toward children and
young adults.
Two topics dominated the topic of physical safety: crime prevention and water safety.
Three of seven participants discussed their greatest concern to be providing youth other means of
entertainment to diminish criminal activity, which they saw as threatening the physical safety of
the community-at-large. For example, according to Participant 6, the demographics committing
the most crime in their city are “between the ages of 18 and 25 year-olds, so we've focused
heavily on getting kids off the streets and into our programs and recreation centers.” To combat
this, Participant 6’s organization has tried to keep the kids gainfully employed while developing
transferable skills. “We’re trying to get teens more involved in doing our programs through
internships and/or counselors-in-training, or lifeguards-in-training. [Also] environmental
education or stewardship has been a priority to help build the next generation of environmental
stewards,” recalled Participant 6.“[We have] nonprofits that work with these kids to not only be
there as a school tutor, but a life coach,” discussed Participant 5 about their department’s own
prison prevention program. “It's consistently scheduled, so they get to try and go canoeing. They
get to go rock climbing. Then those activities are utilized as that therapeutic piece to open up for
counseling.” Participant 1 had an internship program to keep kids engaged as well, but did not
provide a specific intent of crime prevention over just generic wellbeing.

96

Participants 3 and 5 focused on water safety. Participant 5 offered open water swim
courses to address the concern. Participant 3 began a free life jacket giveaway for their
frequented waterways:
There is a local outdoor water sport business that we partner with to provide life jackets
to our community to those that might not, otherwise, be able to afford a life jacket. Those
life jackets then are used in our waterways. We have about 45 acres of ponds on the
[local] river that are open swim areas and we've had two refugee drownings in the last
five years in those ponds. They were teenagers. They had never learned to swim and they
didn't have life jackets, so that's what precipitated.
Participant 1 had the most unique youth safety program. They discussed how their department
had been working with one of their outdoor program sponsors–a digital company–to also offer
free classes in the local community centers to educate children on cybersecurity. They found this
partnership as an opportunity to expand their department’s safety agenda for the sake of the
community rather than its relevance to recreational programming. Participant 2 was the fifth
participant to discuss physical safety. They did establish a need for providing “a safe space, a
safe connection, safe area for again our traditionally underrepresented Community Members to
have a place of belonging,” but they did not elaborate on what explicitly were safety concerns or
actions within their community.
Two respondents did not focus on physical safety, However, per these participants, these
issues were their departments’ main urban health focus following COVID-19 as their first.
Participant 4 focused on smoke-free areas. “Our local officials helped to advocate for, and then
ultimately adopt, a smoke free parks policy that we adopted and passed in 2020,” provided
Participant 4. “I think it might be one of the greatest examples of the way in which they used

97

their influence to impact public health.” Participant 7 highlighted homelessness as the primary
urban health concern to which their department contributes; Participant 6 also spoke to the issue
of homelessness, but physical safety remained their city’s primary concern. Participant 7
elaborated,
For the homeless health, for those that are un-housed, we just get involved because there
are many times in our parks… Our campground was used as a sanctioned homeless set-
up site, so we didn't run a campground that summer, but it was managed. We provided it,
but it was managed by a nonprofit.
While pertinent to the health conversation, the connection to the O.R. Industry beyond Parks &
Recreation department leadership involvement remains unclear. Still, the engagement of these
departments on these issues underscores the interconnectedness of urban health agendas with
Public-Sector O.R. as expounded in the literature.
Research Question 2: What Are the Factors, as Perceived by Local Parks & Recreation
Officials, That Contribute to Low O.R. Participation Among BIPOC Within Their
Communities?
All seven participants stated that nontraditional outdoor recreation was heavily utilized
by the White population within their cities. Six out of seven respondents expressed that they had
a lower proportion of BIPOC participation in their programs in contrast to the size of the BIPOC
population within their respective cities. The only exception was the interviewee who
represented a city with an over 60% BIPOC population. Six factors were identified as themes to
the causation of this low O.R. participation among the BIPOC community as expressed by the
participants: a) cost of activities and equipment; b) transportation or physical access, education,
or experience; c) lack of government awareness; d) communication of opportunities; and e)

98

safety concerns of the participants. Description and examples of these themes are illustrated in
Table 7. All seven participants identified that their lower socioeconomic communities
disproportionately held a greater percentage of BIPOC associated citizens. As a result, they
discussed money playing a factor in BIPOC barrier development, even though socioeconomic
issues are not synonymous with race-oriented concerns.

97
Table 7
Barriers Contributing to Lower O.R. BIPOC Participation According to Participants
Theme # of participants
identifying
theme
Example participant quotes
Cost of Activities
and Equipment
7 Participant 2: "I definitely would say we're more in that, unfortunately, traditional side where it's the nonWhite is a
lower socioeconomic category. "

Participant 4: “We've got a new division that we're standing up this year… it is a component of our recreation
division that is intended to serve populations that don't have as much as others. So we've got gear that we're
making available at no cost to residents within these neighborhoods of focus.

Participant 7: "The percentage of nonWhite youth in our Community does not match the percentage in the
participants in our fee based programs."
Transportation or
Physical
Access
6 Participant 2: “we were trying, again, a free activity targeting the neighborhood, so they can just walk out their
front doors and not have to go anywhere special or utilize any public transportation.”

Participant 5:“We have identified that most of our outdoor trail heads or recreational spaces do not have public
transportation that gets near it.”

Participant 6: "We're about 49% of less park space that are available in the community communities or
neighborhoods that are identified as Black, Hispanic, or LatinX and Native Americans as compared to the rest of
the city. And residents of low income neighborhoods in (R4P1) have access to 32% less park space than
residents of high income neighborhoods."
Education or
Experience
with Outdoor
Activities
5 Participant 1: “They don't know the ethics, they don't know the rules, they don’t how fun is [fly fishing]”

Participant 5: with the identification of kind of missed populations in our Community, yes, proactive programming
is something that we are working on. We're creating partnerships very intentionally with different groups where
we can gain the rapport and trust to introduce and enable access to some of these Greater outdoor spaces”

98
Theme # of participants
identifying
theme
Example participant quotes
Communication
of
Opportunities
5 Participant 1: "We’ll see a family of like six or eight that are coming, and they want to go and do the (hike name
redacted) and they only speak Spanish.”

Participant 3: “A lot of our nonWhite community, which would be a lot of refugee population, don't have access
to some of those tools”

Participant 5: “There's not a comprehensive sign, wayfinding system to get to these locations."

Participant 2: "It's the outreach and the marketing... if we're not able to do the proper outreach and connect to
certain demographics, they are not able to register on time, or have a barrier of just a knowledge base."
Lack of
Government
Awareness
4 Participant 2: "If I went back five or six years ago, though, I'd say we did not have the support from that current
administration of city leaders as much as we do now"

Participant 4: "That's hard to answer, because we don't track. We haven't historically tracked. We're just getting
ready to do that. Of course that will be not anything that's required when people register, but something that we
will begin to ask. But we have not done so, we don't have good data on that."

Safety Concerns
of the
Participant
4 Participant 1: “Some people may be fearful to go hike on their own”

Participant 3: “We have about 45 acres of ponds on the (R1P3) river that are open swim areas and we've had two
refugee drownings in the last five years in those ponds. They were teenagers. They had never learned to swim
and they didn't have life jackets”

Participant 7: “And for some of the families that have come to (R5P1) like the Somali families, dogs are unclean.
And so when we have unleashed dogs in parks, that is an impediment to people feeling safe in that park.”

101

One additional item of interest came about during the study pertaining to research
question 2 that was not characterized as a theme. The visibility of BIPOC participants and the
stereotype of O.R. as a White-specific activity was discussed in the Chapter 2 literature review as
a potential barrier. During the interviews, three participants reported this issue still does exist in
parts of the United States as of 2022. In discussing BIPOC participation, Participant 4 stated, "It
is Zero. It's almost zero. I mean, it's almost nonexistent. There'a a few, but that needs
improvement,” and later added “I hear over and over again ‘yeah we don't do that.’” Participant
2 provided an explicit example tied to their city’s largest traditional O.R. programs: "When you
think of golf, it's an elitist sport–it might be more of a White, privileged activity." Finally,
Participant 7 expressed difficulty in trying to implement a change in mentality through their
BIPOC communities,
We have another group called [name redacted] program that's run through the city. When
we met with that group they talked about how sometimes they don't come to our events,
because they don't feel necessarily welcome at the events and it's just because they look
and they don't see anybody that looks like themselves. And we're still trying to figure out
how to crack that nut.
Though the participants did not collectively identify visibility of BIPOC participation as a
majority issue through the interviews, the experience of these three participants suggests the
concern highlighted in the literature review may still exist. The artifact analysis further supports
this suggestion; to reiterate Table 7, only 29.9% of viable posts captured a BIPOC-specific code
participating in O.R. activities, with 13% belonging to the Black community and all others
classifications capturing 6% or less.

102

Research Question 3: In What Ways, if at all, Are Local Governments Trying to Improve
O.R. Participation Among BIPOC Within Their Communities?
An internal drive to better support the underserved communities within the city seemed to
be the greatest focus as reported by all seven participants. However, prior to the murder of
George Floyd on 25 May, 2020, they indicated their focus was not necessarily targeted on
BIPOC demographics. In the interviews, Participant 4 stated that focus was on the “homeless”,
and Participant 7 reported they extensively focused on just their refugee community instead of
BIPOC in total. Participants 1 and 6 emphasized their event programming focused on events that
had the greatest reach rather than specific community needs with assumptions that reach would
target all groups equally. By Spring 2022, when the interviews of this study took place and in the
post-Floyd era, all seven participants reported that attention on BIPOC specific concerns and
how to address them had been refashioned or evolved in their cities. According to Participant 2,
Over the past 2 1/2 years, we've seen a lot more focus on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
within our community and our city leadership's focus on that, really, from June of 2020
kind of woke up the city leadership within our community to focus on that.
Despite this growing consideration for racial equity concerns, the participants
consistently returned their focus toward socioeconomic concerns. With the exception of
Participants 2 and 6, the responses of the participants regarding O.R. accessibility actions were
generally either rephrased or initially presented in interviews as an action more specifically
addressing socioeconomic disparities. Participant 7, for example, corrected my understanding
during the interview that their initiatives toward enhancing O.R. accessibility would help support
the BIPOC communities. According to Participant 7, the intention was to support the entire
community rather than specifically focus on racial equity, an intention to communicate openness

103

for all racial demographics and promote inclusivity. However, all participants confirmed that the
lower SES populations of their cities were generally recognized as sustaining a disproportionally
higher number of BIPOC citizens amongst its ranks in contrast to higher SES populations. This
suggests that, while the participants are starting to look at the needs of doing something to
support BIPOC specifically, some are not necessarily well equipped to discuss racial issues or
navigate the nuances of promoting inclusivity amongst racially underrepresented communities.
Five themes arose in analysis of the data in response to this research question: a) The
development of free gear access programs, b) the expansion of youth education programs, as
alluded to Research Question 1, c) the redevelopment of city Parks & Recreation master plans to
incorporate more community member input as well as BIPOC driven initiatives, d) transitional
marketing that would bring in larger BIPOC audiences, which was verified for five of the seven
cities via the artifact analysis, and e) internal restructuring of city or department leadership to
include DEI positions and expanding staff diversity. The themes and key quotes associated with
each are provided in Table 8.

104
Table 8
Government Actions to Improve O.R. BIPOC Participation
Theme # of participants Example
Free Gear
Accessibility
6 Participant 1: “We've had others where our friends at [a state park] have purchased the backpacks for the kids to
take out. They kind of check them in and check them out kind of thing.”

Participant 6: “The Thrive Outside program is a [national] Trust for Public Lands program, providing non-
traditional services or programs, like mountain biking. It's engaging our Community to get out and enjoy the
outdoors.”

Participant 7: “We receive money for outdoor equipment, with a focus on ensuring that those that are underserved
in outdoor recreation have access to bikes and winter equipment…They could sign the trailer out, we bring it to
their site, then the bikes are right there and available and accessible to them.”
Youth Education 5 Participant 1: "They learned about backpacking, hiking. They learn how to set up a hammock…and they can live
just a few blocks down the road and not have to get in a car or get on a bus to travel to those spaces."

Participant 5: “We're intentionally engaging youth because then, sometimes, they can engage their
Families…[Also] to connect with that workforce development, identifying the youth that are in these programs
that may have the propensity to want to learn more...”
Master Plans 5
Participant 2: “We have a master plan–we call it the “blueprint for the future”–that was recently passed that helps
give us some more guidance on facility upgrades, but also programming..”

Participant 3: "When we started the engagement on the two [swimming] pools, to engage the Community on what
they wanted to see happen, we made a concerted effort to include somebody from the nonWhite Community as a
stakeholder… to then use them to be our voices out in the Community to pull others in.”

Participant 4: “I can say from the survey that we did as a part of our master planning process. What we saw from
the data that we collected from [nonWhite] residents’ surveys was a trend away from normal historic and
traditional outdoor recreation.”

105
Theme # of participants Example

Transitional
Marketing

5
Participant 2: “we call them “Monday Meetups” and it's a neighborhood act activation. So we would actually bring
free games, like a trailer of games. And we bring food trucks that were, again, no cost to the city, but we would
organize food trucks to pull up. And we'd have a music like a DJ or some local artists that could plug in. And it
was all free… At the same time, we would have booths out there to help promote what programs we have….Our
goal is to do weekly from May through August and that way every community, every housing area and
development will have an opportunity to participate.”

Participant 5: "We have found direct marketing going to the different churches, going to the different organizations,
and bringing the whole gamut of what can be offered in creating that partnership is our biggest key to
connection"

See Chapter 4, Artifact Analysis section and Appendix G for further data validation and trends
Internal
Restructuring
4 Participant 2: “[DEI manager] is a citywide full time position that's brand new….[we’re] utilizing their expertise on
how to connect with the nonWhite population in our Community and also make them feel like it's comfortable.”

Participant 6: “We're still getting better at that as far as cross promoting activities, either through other departments
or with our friends and conservancy groups, or with third party vendors…Also, working closely with the mayor's
office of equity, diversity, and inclusion as well.”

Participant 7: “We've taken a role in providing shelter for homeless and using a multi-department approach in
tackling that issue of homelessness… tackling some of the issues of public safety, working with our police
department to ensure that we have sufficient cameras, lighting, and landscaping to provide a safe, clean and
accessible system.”

106

The preponderance of the actions presented took place within the last 2 years. With the
exception of “Youth Education” which cannot be verified from the interview transcripts, the
quotes identified with the four other themes all captured changes to department programs or
strategies in a post-George Floyd era. In part, this could be attributed to the recent tenure of some
department heads overlapping with the recent social rise of racial equity in the United States.
However, from newly hired DEI managers to the sponsored gear libraries to the refocus on DEI
during the decennial master plan review, funding as well as a burgeoning community interest in
change has underscored each of the actions these Parks & Recreation Directors have endorsed or
organized. Lastly, these actions align with the primary BIPOC barriers highlighted in Research
Question 2, with funding, education, and communication (e.g., marketing) being highlighted as
direct actions, and the master plan redesigns capturing the discussion around transportation
concerns.
According to the respondents, resource access to both funding and staffing continues to
be a limitation of expansion on the endeavors that the Parks & Recreation departments desire to
pursue to improve BIPOC participation in O.R.. Specifically, five of the seven participants
addressed resource concerns as an issue hindering expansion of their department programs.
“They love us. They love parks, but they don't fund us. That is a challenge across my industry
my entire career," stated Participant 1 when talking about their senior city leadership. "I think it
really comes down to we don't quite have the resources to be able to do the outreach in the most
equitable way," said Participant 2 in reference to manpower. Addressing this resource limitation
can be a potential opportunity for private organizations to increase their perceived value within
communities.

107

Research Question 4: How Do Local Parks & Recreation Officials Perceive the Value of
Private-Sector Involvement in O.R. Within Their Communities?
The participant cities have each provided evidence of their efforts to make a concerted
effort in driving greater interest in O.R. among their BIPOC citizens. Each had at least one
example of a developed partnership with third parties such as small businesses, NGOs, federal
government programs, and community interest groups to expand. All seven participants
expressed amiability to continued growth of Private-Sector relationships; one participant even
has a mayor that said explicitly meets with corporate executives to help drive the Parks &
Recreation department’s BIPOC initiatives. This section will delve into two themes that emerged
during data analysis: a) how the Private-Sector is seen as an opportunity and b) what barriers
exist that will inhibit private business owners or corporate agencies from being a dominant
contributor in their communities
Theme 1: Private-Sector Perceived as an Opportunity for Growth
Despite these cities being labeled as some of the top O.R. destinations in the country for
nontraditional O.R. (Baynham & Michelson, 2017; Dickman, 2013; Moran, 2018; Outdoor
Industry Association, 2017; Outside Magazine, 2014-2017, 2019; Trust for Public Land, 2021),
which is how they were selected for this study, each participant’s emphasis on nontraditional
sports as an organization varied immensely. Six out of seven connected with NGOs and state or
federal programs to expand their internal nontraditional sport programs. Participant 7 highlighted
their own state’s grant program:
It's designed to build smaller towns, but for us, our angle on it was that [my city] does
have sic strong outdoor recreation economy, but that some of our historically underserved

108

individuals for outdoor recreation live in our community and they don't necessarily
access all this great outdoor recreation that everyone has.
Additionally, two of the seven participants reported they tailored their department activities
toward more traditional sports with a reliance on third parties to provide nontraditional O.R.
expertise.
Both funding and expanding interests in nontraditional O.R. were seen by all seven
participants as growth opportunities where they believe that private organizations can be of
greater assistance. According to several participants, some businesses are already engaging in
this idea. Participant 6 elaborated on their own city’s circumstances, “We're looking to increase
our budget by a million dollars and [the mayor’s] always been behind the investments in
leveraging public funding with philanthropic or corporate funding, as well, not only within our
programs, but also our capital investments.” Participant 2 added, “We have more partnerships. I
think that they're not necessarily financial support; they're more collaborative partners. So it's
more in kind, either through staffing and volunteers or providing products.” While it was clear
all the department heads shared a positive outlook on Private-Sector support, the circumstances
in which each participant saw Private-Sector fitting into their community varied in two manners:
how did businesses interact and cooperate with the existing community, and in what way could a
Private-Sector institution specifically support each community. The sub-themes will be further
elaborated in the sub-sections below.
Existing Relationships to Expand Between Small Business and Corporation
Three of the seven Directors interviewed in this study reported they have city economies
that have historically been heavily protective of their small businesses, and six of the seven
Directors identified that their city leadership held a vested interest in ensuring the wellbeing of

109

their small businesses’ success. Yet, corporate businesses were viewed by all seven participants,
one begrudgingly, as the most likely partner to have the needed funding and growth opportunity
for their organizations.
One strategy that can be used by larger corporations to show solidarity with their smaller
community partners, as reported by study participants, is to be the initiator to build cooperative
relationships, so that both small and large businesses alike can jointly support their city’s needs.
By being the initiator, the participants believed that the corporation builds community buy-in.
Participant 2 highlighted one such example that allowed their Parks & Recreation department to
work more openly and effectively with a larger brand in a small business centric city:
Two and a half years ago [a big brand Outdoor company] moved in and, for their credit,
they reached out to our local outdoor equipment company… [our local business does]
clothing and ski rentals in winter and climbing gear and all that. And [the big brand
company] reached out and they actually were meeting together to say like “look we're all
in the same, we have the same population of business; How do we work together?” I
thought that showed a lot of integrity on [the big brand’s] part to do that versus coming in
and trying to be the big corporation and squash a small business. So I think the cultural
shift is happening. It's unavoidable.
According to Participant 2, this interaction has resulted in both the small businesses and the
corporation profiting from the expansion of their customer bases. Further, both party’s fiscal
profit was protected through this interaction. As a result, the Parks & Recreation department has
been able to use both the small businesses and the corporate business to help drive BIPOC
initiatives of low cost gear access to their constituents without resistance from their community
or local officials. Such a symbiotic cooperation could help establish the growth of BIPOC

110

initiatives in communities that emphasize the protection of their local economies at the detriment
of funding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals.
Potential Private-Sector Points of Market Entry Include, but Not Dominated By, Urban
Health
One way Private-Sector organizations can bring value to their communities is to identify
a specific need within that community to serve, or a point of market entry. The participants
provided examples of various ways third party organizations have found a means to insert
themselves into their communities and drive their organizational interests. These means included
activities from volunteer efforts to altruistic funding actions to intentional relationship building
directed at the Public-Sector. Table 9 provides a summary of some of the best Private-Sector
market entry actions that the participants reported witnessing during their tenure at their current
location. With the exception of low-cost gear and course accessibility, all the ideas presented
were fairly unique with only one, two, or three participants witnessing these strategies of Private-
Sector integration.

111
Table 9
Points of Market Entry Various Organizations Have Used within the Participants’ Cities
Point of market entry # of
participants
For/non profit in
example
Example (and urban health highlights)
Providing Low Cost
Course or Gear
Alternatives
6

Both Participant 2: "I think our department, especially Parks & Recreation, will rely on support from
our businesses to help keep the pricing and costs down for our community to participate."

Participant 3: “There is a local outdoor water sport business that we partner with to
provide life jackets to our community to those that might not, otherwise, be able to afford
a life jacket.”
Offer Internships 3

Both Participant 5: So there's workforce development utilizing our parks and outdoors… that
leadership program is that we can build outdoor leaders who are black or brown, so that they
can reach their hand out to others and the new outdoor users see something of themselves in
there and the leader, besides the rest of us.
Vendor Fairs 3

For Profit Participant 5: The [events] county health department are hosting within our community are
limited, but are targeted at more Partner events. For example, there are Rock the Block events
here in [the city] that are held in some of those neighborhoods with the nonWhite population.”
Community Recreation
Days
2

Both Participant 1: "We have an upcoming Great Outdoors Day that's in June. So that [event] is
anybody that has any type of affiliation in the outdoors. It's a free event for our Community...
the amount of folks that come out to learn about fishing and hiking and water and ecology and
Generation Wild… There's also, like I said, children's hospitals usually present and
providing information. Our public health officials are coming out and sharing news and
information or providing programs that may be available within the Community that
would help them. "
Scholarships
Provisions
2

For Profit Participant 2: "There's a business. It's called [the local O.R. store]. It's kinda like a local version
of [a corporate O.R. store] and they do fundraising at the local school...for scholarships. For
every item that’s sold, there's a matching contribution… then use [the scholarships] to register
for Parks & Recreation."
“Train the Trainer”
Events
1

Non Profit Participant 5: We also work with those [nonprofit] groups, specifically, to enable and help and
even worked to be the "train the trainer" if that's needed. You know, "hey do you want to do a
water safety, open water safety course? We'll certify you."

112
Point of market entry # of
participants
For/Non profit in
example
Example (and urban health highlights)
Introducing Company
via Traditional
Sports
1

For Profit Participant 2: "I don't see why we wouldn't [work with a business] if their philosophy meets
what our program is…it could be supporting by providing pickup pickleball paddles to those
who can’t afford them"
Approach the Public-
Sector on Your
Own, Using a
Health Agenda
1

Non Profit Participant 1: "[One of the city's outdoor-oriented nonprofits] has really changed their strategy
and their strategic efforts and such, and are looking more for these type of collaboration
partnerships to really improve the health and wellness of our youth, to improve the
health and wellness of our neighborhoods and bringing folks together in ways that maybe
they wouldn't have had before"
Employee
Volunteering
1

For Profit Participant 2: “We have more partnerships. I think that they're not necessarily financial
support; they're more collaborative partners. So it's more in kind, either through staffing and
volunteers or providing products.“

113

Urban health does play a supporting role in the execution of several points of market
entry identified by participants. The examples from Participant 1 and Participant 4 in Table 9
show that developing relationships with other Public-Sector departments, such as Public Health,
is something they have encouraged in their own department. Similarly, Participant 6 and
Participant 7 stated during their interviews that new initiatives or programs supported by more
than one public office gained more traction toward execution within their city government,
supporting the idea of relationships with other departments. The observations of these four
participants suggest an alternative point of market entry to consider may be building
relationships beyond just the Parks & Recreation department. However, zero participants stated
this directly focusing only on relationship building within their own department’s jurisdiction.
Other examples presented by participants and captured in Table 9 had a direct impact
only within Parks & Recreation department jurisdiction. The for-profit health sector played a
significant role in the cities and participated in several of the examples given by participants,
particularly scholarship provisions, community recreation days, providing low cost alternatives,
and building joint collaborations with Public-Sector departments. This last discovery will be
further discussed in Theme 2.
Theme 2: Private-Sector O.R. Businesses Currently Have a Conflicting Reputation
All seven participants expressed a desire for increased relationships with O.R. business
partners. However, five out of seven of the participants expressed stronger relationships with
other industry partners, or O.R. related nonprofit organizations, and were able to specifically
provide examples as the weak points within those relationships. When asked what industry takes
the most interest in outdoor recreation, only one participant mentioned a large O.R. corporation
and only two mentioned small O.R. businesses as their top sponsor. Participant 3 stated, “ We

114

have a number of partnerships with just different healthcare based organizations, both in terms of
insurance as well as both hospitals that are in [my city]. They seem to have taken more of a
stronger interest in and what we do with our outdoor programming.” This sentiment was shared
by four other participants who noted that the most common large for-profit sponsors were in
some form of healthcare or medical provision; food industry sponsors were second with three out
of seven participants.
O.R. businesses, on the other hand, were cited by three participants for having negative
interactions within their communities. Participant 7 noted O.R. businesses had a focus on tourists
over community interests. When discussing the importance of tourism to their city’s small
businesses, Participant 7 noted, "We're working with local bike shops to see what interests they
have in being involved with our waterfront. They were upset, because we have a bike share
program in the city. They think it's stealing their business.” Participant 2, on the opposite side of
the country from Participant 7, stated that their city’s Travel and Tourism division associates
more with the nontraditional O.R. businesses than they do. This fear that O.R. businesses are
more for gain than community interests created anxiety in the citizens as well. Participant 1
stated,
We've got anglers that want to come up and do their private fishing. A lot of folks are
not, have not been real supportive of that. “That’s not been/it's not about commercial.
That's not what this is about.” But if you could guide or even take people who have never
experienced fly fishing and reduce the barriers to be able to do that with someone who
knows how to do it, has the equipment, can train you, teach you and you can have a good
experience, I think that's much better than sending someone out with a fly rod by
themselves that’ve never done this. They don't know the ethics, they don't know the rules,

115

they don't know how fun it is. So trying to balance the business aspect where people are
feeling “that's too much commercial” business versus really creating potentially a new
park user.
For the larger Public-Sector O.R. business specifically, approachability of corporate
agencies was a hindrance for two of the three smallest city participants within the study. "I think
sometimes those big corporate ones that you don't even know how to reach them….Some of
them, it seems like they say “well, you know, but we have a foundation. Go to our foundation,”
stated Participant 7. Participant 5 added that corporations tend to only approach the city’s Events
department for heavily publicized events (e.g., Ironman), and they highlighted that nonprofits
and small local businesses were the only entities showing an open willingness to engage with the
Parks & Recreation department. Though the experiences of Participant 5 and 7 were unique to
the experience of the whole participant sample, this feeling of alienation toward big business is
analogous to the trepidation Participants 1, 2 and 7 experienced within their own communities
toward cooperation relationships.
Summary
"Sometimes there's a lack of trust in government. And we are Parks & Recreation. We
don't want that. We were like 'we're the ones they should be able to come to and feel safe, feel a
sense of belonging,'" recalled Participant 2. All seven participants have taken on at least two
initiatives within their communities to tackle this mentality and expand their support toward the
communities of color within their city borders despite the numerous barriers that exist for their
BIPOC citizens. The expansion of urban health considerations after the beginning of the
COVID-19 pandemic has not taken away from Parks & Recreation departments. Instead,
pandemic precautions elevated their mission to provide more open outdoor opportunities for their

116

communities. This was particularly important for those communities that were most impacted by
the pandemic and underserved in O.R. opportunities. Private-Sector organizations have a chance
to be a part of continuing to help these cities grow in their support toward communities of color.
However, Private-Sector organizations must be cognizant of how they integrate themselves into
these communities based on the specific interests of existing parties within those communities.
This can include large corporations building cooperative relationships with small businesses in
some cities with a “support local” mindset, or businesses establishing connections with for-profit
health organizations that already have well-established relationships with other city
governments. The next chapter will explore how these findings align with existing literature as
informed by the conceptual framework of this study, and the chapter will expand
recommendations that are expected to elevate the Private-Sector agenda to enhance BIPOC
initiatives within the communities of their brick and mortar locations.

117

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
This study explored the perspective of Public-Sector O.R. leaders on the role of Private-
Sector O.R. institutions in initiatives to improve BIPOC access to and participation in O.R.
within their communities. This chapter will highlight what the study discovered, and how its
findings equated to the literature and conceptual framework established in Chapters 1 through 3.
Three recommendations for practice are provided for use to the targeted audience: Private-Sector
O.R. owners and organizational leaders. Lastly, an explanation of the delimitations and
limitations of this study and two ideas for future research are provided to help guide the direction
for this problem of practice and discussion surrounding it so that future leaders may find greater
solutions to continue harboring the growth of the O.R. Industry into a more dynamic, more
diverse community.
Discussion of Findings
One intention of this study was to reveal if active engagement from Private-Sector O.R.
is, or is capable of, alleviating the health equity gap within urban BIPOC communities. The
literature revealed urban health equity as a significant consideration for Public-Sector officials
(Blackwell et al., 2012; Brittin et al., 2015; Foster et al., 2021; Roth, 2020). This research study
also showed that city government Parks & Recreation department leaders did see O.R. itself
playing a role in their own urban health agendas, but they primarily saw this as territory that
either they were driving internally to aid their BIPOC communities or that other Private-Sector
industries had already inserted themselves as leading agents. However, the findings also revealed
that, while there is not a driving force toward Private-Sector O.R. inserting itself into the urban
health discussion, the opportunity is there and that, overall, Private-Sector contributions to
enhancing O.R. programming to target further BIPOC access is welcomed.

118

This Research Study Sustains That the Literature Remains Current
In 2021, four researchers conducted a study on a population group in Seattle,
Washington, observing how members of different racial groups interacted with urban nature
during the COVID-19 pandemic; that study revealed that “Blacks and Latinos” had a significant
decrease in urban nature use from Fall 2019 to 2020 because of a lost sense of belong in these
areas of urban nature (Nay et al., 2022). “It may be the case that COVID-19 exacerbated the
exclusion of Black and Latino residents from public spaces,” found Nay et al. (2022), as they
explored this potential reason COVID-19 hit communities of color harder in the United States.
Another peer journal review from the University of California, San Francisco identified that
racism, and the subsequent violence conducted on behalf of racism in outdoor spaces, had a
significant impact on both the increase of toxic stress and the continued state of “physical
inactivity [as] one of the factors contributing to disproportionate disease rates in BIPOC
communities” (Taylor et al., 2021, p. 29). These two studies, both published during the
development of my own study, both align with my findings and show that the BIPOC
accessibility–and barriers in relation to–remains a concern across the country, outside the seven
destinations observed in this study.
Reviewing the literature discussed in Chapter 2, there are key studies whose insights were
keenly relatable to the experience of the study’s seven participants. Barrett et al. (2017) and Pitas
et al. (2018) had both addressed that O.R. accessibility was an overlooked issue in city
governments. The past experiences of the participants in this study seem to support this idea;
four interviewees stated a noticed increased funding from city government in the fallout after the
COVID-19 pandemic shutdowns of 2020. Additionally, five participants described new master
plans designed in either their own departments’ or mayor’s office that would further address

119

BIPOC accessibility specifically in their Parks & Recreation programs. These new developments
show that city governments have begun to view O.R. as part of the solution resolution toward
urban health improvement. More specifically, urban health concerns for BIPOC citizens drove a
portion of the seven participants’ actions, as reported by them, as health disparities in the BIPOC
communities became more apparent throughout 2020. These disparities were the same ones that
were recognized by Blackwell et al. (2012), The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(2021), and Foster et al. (2021).
Onto the topic of O.R. participation itself, the concern around building interest among
BIPOC citizens alone was a consideration of five participants. However, all seven related it to a
much larger topic of socioeconomic status; SES reportedly encaptured the preponderance of their
BIPOC communities. This was foreseen as a potential find. SES concerns have been closely
related to urban health issues, as identified by Blackwell et al. (2014), Casey et al. (2017), and
Peen et al. (2010). U.S. BIPOC populations are more centralized to these urban areas, as
identified by Lee et al. (2017), Wi et al. (2016), and Wright et al. (2020). In consequence of this
interconnection, economic barriers played a large role in influencing BIPOC citizens, as
ascertained by the seven participants. In response, the seven participants’ departments drove
agendas for free gear access, public transportation initiatives, free education offerings, and
changes in communication tactics as reported by the Parks & Recreation Directors, their
departments, and their cities.
Social barriers played a part as well, but were mostly addressed indirectly by the
participants. The research identified in the literature review spoke more toward the BIPOC
community lacking communal O.R. knowledge that would hinder new entrant access (Winter et
al., 2019). The participants of the study conducted here, on the other hand, focused on social

120

issues of safety and crime as the social disparities to reduce. The participants generally did not
relay these disparities as specific O.R. entrant barriers for their department to address and own
the solution. Rather, they addressed safety and crime more often as urban health issues primarily
managed by other agencies who Parks & Recreation would partner with to resolve, rather. One
exception to this was water sport safety which was specifically identified as an O.R. entrant
barrier and directly managed by the Parks & Recreation departments that identified this concern.
One issue to which both the participants and the literature aligned, and that the
participants addressed directly, was the discussion around public racial representation. Advincula
(2016), Beasley (2016), Gress and Hall (2017) and Taylor (2011) unveiled how the O.R. Industry
lacks significant representation in its leadership and public figures. Martin (2004) and Frazer and
Anderson (2018) identified the same issue in visual media. The artifact analysis found this to still
be a concern, and five of the participants have recognized public representation as a concern they
should address internally as they look at their own leadership structure and marketing techniques.
Finally, physical barriers was the third concern for BIPOC barriers in the literature. Jennings et
al. (2017) and Parry and Gollob (2018) specifically spoke of green space concerns. Four of the
five participants in the process of redeveloping their master plans were aligned in this concern.
They discussed seeing a disproportionate spread of park space among their communities, with
less in BIPOC and SES neighborhoods; all four master plans are being rewritten to more
explicitly target either BIPOC communities or lower SES neighborhoods to help alleviate this
issue.
The Research Validates the Need for Interpersonal Connection
In the conceptualization of this research, a framework was built based on the Social-
Ecological model of Bronfenbrenner (1979), which integrated an Interpersonal Connection of

121

two socioecological models as developed by Vargas et al. (2020). This concept was developed as
a means to explore the relationship of Private-Sector and Public-Sector O.R. in relation to one
another and simultaneously in relation to the communities in which they belong. The study’s
findings not only corroborated the various levels illustrated in the conceptualized socioecological
model, but also confirmed that a connection certainly exists between both sectors of industry.
Further, the study’s findings stressed that the interpersonal connection varies in magnitude, is not
strictly between O.R.-only organizations, and finally that Private-Sector O.R. can do more to
encourage the growth of an interpersonal relationship with their Public-Sector O.R. counterparts
within city Parks & Recreation.
According to this study’s conceptual framework, Parks & Recreation Directors and in-
city Private-Sector O.R. businesses share the same exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem.
The findings of this study revealed specific elements of these systems driving the seven
participants to improve BIPOC O.R. participation in their cities. All seven participants made it
very clear that the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the race-related movements of 2020,
as identified in the chronosystem chart in Figure 3, were drivers among city elected officials to
put greater focus on Parks & Recreation in relation to BIPOC community and urban health
interests. As the national dialogue grew around these conversations through media coverage and
political agenda (both elements of the macrosystem), the five Parks & Recreation Directors that
were not previously looking into BIPOC disparities reported that they evolved alongside the
conversation. Their cities adopted new policies, new strategic alignments, and new master plans;
these policies align with the exosystem level of the conceptual framework. Though the
conceptual framework specifically identified policy as an macrosystem element impacted by

122

CRT, CRT–as the theory suggests– underlines all levels of the socioecological framework and
examples were specifically highlighted by the participants within their own microsystem.
As these exterior systems developed, according to the participants, it impacted Public-
Sector organizations within each of the cities. Within their own microsystem, they reported
driving additional initiatives to improve BIPOC participation and, in consequence, BIPOC urban
health. Some of these initiatives were formulated based on urban health agendas the participants
perceived as significant, specifically noted as water safety and crime prevention. It should be
considered, and open to future research, that the unvaried demographic compilation of the
participant sample could press a cultural bias or positionality conflict that influenced the
sample’s perception of what urban health agendas were most significant to their respective
BIPOC communities. However, these agendas still drove an intent by the Public Sector to initiate
actions that would improve O.R. access to BIPOC citizens they represented. These initiatives
included free gear access, youth education, internal restructuring, transitional marketing, and
being contributors or even the initiators of the master plan rewrites. Public-Sector O.R.
participants voiced an openness to working with Private-Sector organizations to advance these
actions. However, Private-Sector O.R. organizations specifically were never the leading Private-
Sector agency to provide such support to these initiatives.
Examining the data through the lens of the Interpersonal Connection element adapted
from Vargas et al. (2020) for the conceptual framework showed a connection between Private-
Sector and Public-Sector through the enhancement of urban health and O.R. accessibility via
Social Capital Theory, building social resources through that community structure. This study’s
participants showed that “community structure” between private and public is truly based on (a)
who is the dominant private industry in the area, (b) if NGOs are more dominant a player than

123

private industry in their city, or (c) what businesses are actually approaching them or
approachable. Though Private-Sector O.R. may be the logical choice in terms or relatability to
the Parks & Recreation departments, relationships with other private agencies were much more
pronounced as discussed by this study’s participants. Yet, all seven participants showed a
willingness to work with Private-Sector O.R.; Private-Sector O.R. was just not the most available
to them in most circumstances. This shows that the market entry opportunity for Private-Sector
O.R. is there; Parks & Recreation Directors did not show personal bias against such a
relationship. Private O.R. businesses may need to make the effort to build that interpersonal
connection themselves based on the needs and perspectives of their own communities.
Taylor et al. (2021) wrote a call to action for health organizations in their study
evaluating the relationship of racism, health, and nature. They stated,
In addition to adopting a moral position against racism, health organizations should take
active measures to eradicate the impacts of racism on health: in other words, to heal.
Being in nature can be part of the solution. (p. 27)
Though not a health organization, Public-Sector O.R. has attempted to do just this as they have
been asked by their governments to develop solutions in urban health and BIPOC initiatives
within their respective cities. Private-Sector O.R. organizations should consider how they need to
expand their role within their communities, rather than being eclipsed by private health
organizations, NGOs, even food suppliers and airline companies with no conspicuous O.R.
agendas. Private-Sector O.R. should become a greater part of the conversation, secure their
visibility within their communities, and make Taylor et al.’s call to action their own call.

124

Recommendations for Practice
Despite an acknowledged disparity of racial integration in the outdoors, the participants
of this study have demonstrated that U.S. urban cities and their Parks & Recreation programs are
still struggling to find ways to close the equity gap for their own citizens. Parks & Recreation
Directors are looking outward for an assist, on a mission to develop O.R. a more safe and
welcoming space. NGOs and non-O.R. Private-Sector organizations have flocked to the aide of
these cities. The research validated an opportunity to create a connection between Public-Sector
O.R. and Private-Sector O.R. exists. However, Private-Sector O.R. businesses are not currently
the most visible or notable ally within this study’s participant cities despite an unmistakable
interest in outdoor focused activities.
Private-Sector O.R. has an opportunity to grow alongside these inter-city initiatives and
play a larger role in supporting BIPOC urban health initiatives via O.R. diversification. Based on
this study’s research’s findings, three proposed recommendations have been developed to give
O.R. Private-Sector organizations some possible next steps to integrate into their own business
models. These three proposals are established with recent literature on the cultural and consumer
market environment. They may help interested O.R. business leaders to forge a new path for
their organization to better integrate within their cities and communities in hopes of a brighter
outlook for racial diversity in the outdoors.
Recommendation 1: Conduct Racial Demographic-specific Market Analysis
This study showed that the composition of BIPOC communities can vary vastly within
O.R. centric cities, and assumptions based on a city’s regional location can misconstrue a city’s
actual populations of interest. Thus, businesses should conduct their own market analysis at their
pertinent city locations to determine what will work best to improve O.R. participation,

125

particularly for new entrant demographic groups. In general, a market analysis can help an
organization to determine its appeal (profitability and feasibility), reach (demand), and potential
entry points (opportunity) within a specific population of interest (Winston et al., 1993). The
exosystem of this study’s conceptual model is where these “populations of interests'” are
identified for each city and will vary greatly based on the city in question. Examining a city’s
unique demographical needs may provide an understanding of what is required to entice new
O.R. participants within that specific location.
However, the recommendation of a market analysis should be taken with caution. Recent
literature suggests organizations must look beyond population percentages. A market study
focused on surface-level data, such as census statistics, risks racial biases and marginalization
(Poole et al., 2021). As Sobande et al. (2020) warn, a focus on “staying woke” can lead an
organization into the trap of superficial brand promotion and undermine long-lasting change and
effective action. However, Poole et al. (2021) suggest that the need for race-specific market
studies is still necessary, even speaking on social elements captured in this studies conceptual
model:
Despite the continuing significance of race in the marketplace, there is a dearth of
critically oriented race-related research in marketing. This exists despite mobilization of
consumer culture theory and critical investigations of the sociocultural and sociopolitical
aspects of marketplaces. (p. 127)
They elaborate that an effective market analysis should incorporate Critical Race Theory. CRT
integration should be done by the analysis’ researchers directly, through the evaluation process
rather than outsourcing the collected data to social science experts (Poole et al., 2020; Sobande et
al., 2020). To ensure a proper reflection of the market, the primary researchers must incorporate

126

the lived experiences of those within the market being evaluated and an examination of social
media and other digital content practices, in addition to procedural modifications of the market
analysis itself (Poole et al., 2020; Sobande et al., 2020). As Poole et al. (2021) deduced “...a
paradigm shift must occur in how research examining race in the marketplace is understood and
practiced as a first step to leveraging CRT to support racial equity and consumer well-being” (p.
134). In doing so, private O.R. businesses can help grow their consumer base based on the
unique needs of each local BIPOC community without marginalizing these potential customers
and risk the company’s diversity agendas being perceived as “woke” marketing ploys.
Recommendation 2: Emphasize Building No-to-Low-Cost Youth Programs in Communities
Youth water safety and crime prevention were the two most common urban health
concerns for this study’s seven participants, which often resulted in some type of educational
opportunity that would target the audience of interest in order to reduce risk concerns.
Halgunseth et al. (2022) identified this as a “developmental-contextual” theory. Developmental
contextual theory suggests that BIPOC adolescents can be negatively impacted by the
implications of racism and disparities in their social and educational development (Chen &
Rubin, 2011; Halgunseth et al., 2022). The disparities grow out of cultural mistrust, and
systematic and institutional oppression in the context of their environment. As a result, greater
disparities lead to negative impacts of physical, mental, and emotional health within BIPOC
youth populations (Halgunseth et al., 2022). As Halgunseth et al. concluded, “To dismantle
oppression, the field of developmental science must attend more to the study and deconstruction
of whiteness” (p. 395). Separate from the conversation around engagement and education,
literature has also shown that there are individualized health benefits for BIPOC youth to be
engaged in more activity. BIPOC youth populations face the similar disparities in personal health

127

as their adult counterparts; Assari et al. (2018), for example, validated that Black teenage
populations tend to have higher Body Mass Index than their White peers in the same
socioeconomic status.
Building programs for youth in the outdoors achieves two agendas in one for the private
O.R. business owner. First, it provides an inlet to a consumer need already identified within the
context of this study by providing business owner’s further access to the consumer base within
their city of interest. Second, building youth-specific programming advances intergenerational
engagement to promote the diversification of O.R. (Thomas & Thomas Jr., 2022). The consumer
market in the U.S. is on track to be over 50% nonWhite by 2044 (Camber Outdoors, 2019; Gress
& Hall, 2017; Medina & Armstrong, 2020), which means that the adolescents of today will be
the adults determining the market of the future. One of the barriers to engaging BIPOC urban
youth is gaining the trust of their caregivers to place their charge in an outdoor, wilderness-type
opportunity that has been historically and systemically unsafe for the BIPOC community
(Martin, 2004; Thomas & Thomas Jr, 2022). Thomas and Thomas Jr. (2022) encourage building
youth programs that have a diverse instructor base, targeting kids who are not actively engaged
in outdoor activity already, by creating “Forced Opportunity.” Forcing opportunities outside, in
turn, would break down barriers such as the fear of leaving civilized home commodities or the
trepidation of today’s current caregivers. As Thomas and Thomas Jr. (2022) elaborate,
Forced Opportunity requires that instructors engage in a sensitive fact-finding dialog with
the youth so they can begin to unpack their fears and fallacies about the outdoors and
address the personal concerns or stresses they have. This allows them to feel heard and
validated in their fears. (p. 5)

128

Providing opportunities to break down these barriers now, to build allies for the future
through the future’s adult consumer, and finding means to engage with adolescents who are
explicit nonusers of the O.R. Industry could successfully secure the long-term growth of the
industry and the businesses that depend on it. Maintaining no- to low-cost incentive programs
will help cultivate those audiences in the urban environment, as suggested by the experiences of
the seven participants of this study. Moreover, these programs would facilitate improvements to
the physical, mental, and social health of these young urban populations (Asari, 2018; Center for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; Gilbert, 2016; Halgunseth et al., 2022; Peen et al., 2010)
Recommendation 3: Engage Intentional Outreach with Local Private and Public
Institutions
The study participants regularly mentioned private organizations are often the instigators
in developing joint partnerships with their respective Parks & Recreation department. These
private-sector companies had already established relationships with their local O.R. industry, and
have, at times for years, been working on building those relationships. This has placed their
organizations in a position to observe how community members engaging with O.R. interact
with both their own businesses, and with the Public-Sector O.R. Further, these Private-Sector
businesses are making these observations from a perspective that is cognizant of concerns shared
with any other private business including marketability, profitability, and corporate social
responsibility (CSR), and tailored to the local market of concern.
Recommendation 3 is suggested as an opportunity for Private-Sector O.R. organizations
to initiate immediate impact in their associated communities in a manner where implementation
may not be as dependent on fiscal resources as the other two recommendations. As Dyer et al.
(2011) found, one of those most disruptive ways to create innovation in an organization is to

129

look outside of that organization: “Innovators go out of their way to meet people with different
backgrounds and perspectives to extend their own knowledge” (p. 113). This strategy of
intentional outreach is more formally known as idea networking.
Idea networking is one of the strategies that can be used when establishing outreach
initiatives for one’s employees (Dyer et al., 2011). It involves developing a practice of tapping
“into new ideas and insights by talking with people who have diverse ideas and perspectives”
(Dyer et al., 2011, p. 115). Idea networking has been utilized to combat BIPOC equity issues in
other communal interests. For example, in Springfield, Massachusetts, the city’s arts programs
and community development teams outreached to hundreds of BIPOC artists to collaborate on a
project they called “inclusive creative placemaking” to help with expose the importance of the
BIPOC community within their city and their city’s culture (Furtado & Payne, 2022, p. 1).
O.R. businesses can apply a similar strategy through idea networking with private local
businesses and NGOs that interact with the local O.R. Industry, regardless of their own
enterprise’s purpose. If a private sector O.R. business conducts intentional outreach to
organizations already engaged in successful BIPOC initiatives within a community, it could
accomplish three things. First, it will inform that business on how to similarly contribute in the
manner other local organizations do. An organization—private or public—that is already
implementing BIPOC accessibility strategies within the community will have prior insight as to
what has worked and what hasn’t through their own process development. Second, opening
dialogue with any of these agencies can reveal where initiatives have resource or manpower gaps
that the private O.R. company might be able to easily fulfill, and reveal how important the topic
of urban health is to that city’s prioritization of new initiatives. Third, it could build business
relationships with BIPOC business owners who have personal knowledge of local BIPOC

130

consumers and, as iterated by Mirza (2022), are looking for their own business ventures toward
greater exposure and growth. More pragmatically, intentional outreach can inform new BIPOC
initiatives at the O.R. storefronts of larger Private-Sector businesses without waiting for
“corporate” assistance that may take years to come to fruition. For smaller localized O.R.
businesses, it can provide them insights where they may never have the resources to implement
more formal market research.
Recommendation 4: Utilize the Results of this Study’s Artefact Analysis to Develop a
Starting Point for Targeting Marketing for New Audience Development
One of the advantages this study has provided is an in-depth look into the popular social
media platform, Instagram, providing a thorough artefact analysis of BIPOC imagery throughout
a recent 4-year period. Under peer evaluation and scrutiny at the University of Southern
California, the artefact analysis was deemed quite extensive and substantial as a marketing
evaluation that any reader might utilize this data immediately to apply to their own social media
campaigns. Though Recommendation 1 still emphasizes the need for an organization or
company to determine the specific and unique needs of the racial communities most prominent in
their regions of interest, such a study takes time and resources that may not be available for
immediate execution of change when conversations of racial equity still captivate so much
interest amongst U.S. citizens as of this study’s publication in Spring 2023. This artefact analysis
eliminates the need to wait.
Recommendation 4 encourages companies to use of the data given in this study as the
introduction to necessary marketing strategy shifts, and the launching point for hyper-target
social media advertising with a focus in racial diversification. The artefact analysis specifically
identified how all BIPOC racial demographics are underrepresented in visuals – both video and

131

photos – when compared to their percent representation in the national population. It also
provides an idea as to which groups are seen the least and in what regions of the country.
Companies can use this information to create immediate changes to their visuals across a slew of
platforms, to include TikTok, Telegram, LinkedIn, Google (e.g. Youtube and Gmail), and Meta
(e.g. Instagram and Facebook). Further, they can use this information to specifically target their
online marketing to members of those different racial communities, gaining first access to
potential new consumers that aren’t receiving at this time social media stimulus that would
encourage O.R. participation.
Limitations and Delimitations
In every study, there are elements that must be conceded as issues, whether within or
beyond the control of the research, that could influence the findings; responsible research
dictates that these issues be identified. They can be recognized as either a limitation or
delimitation. A limitation is an issue that is beyond the control of the researcher, but is
recognized as an influence that must be considered when evaluating data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2015; Simon, 2011). Delimitations, rather, are constraints accepted by the researcher to ensure
the efficacy, timeliness, and executability of the research; delimitations also identify areas where
other studies could improve in replicated studies to revalidate findings (Creswell, 2018; Simon,
2011).
There are several limitations within this study that I could not control. Given I am an
independent researcher and not tied to any organization within O.R, there was no financial aid to
conduct this project. Given the lack of fiscal resources, all data were independently collected,
analyzed, and self-reported. Ultimately, the data analysis and findings were heavily influenced
by how effective or ineffective I was at transposing my internal bias and positionality to the

132

research, particularly in the artifact analysis where there was no additional party involvement to
verify interpretation. However, an added benefit is that the agenda of no particular O.R. agency
influenced the findings.
An additional limitation driven by my outsider status is that I had limited contacts to
possible participants within the industry. Limited finances resulted in a restricted participant
corps to a size that could be supported by a lone researcher. Also, with no connections within the
O.R. Industry or to any of the organizations from which the participants come, I was dependent
on public domain information to find contact information in order to recruit volunteers. Also, I
was heavily dependent on the goodwill of all volunteers and their willingness to work with an
outsider. While this was a concern in collecting willing participants, it may have reduced the
impact of another possible limitation: The truthfulness of the participants within their interviews
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Since I had no influence in their day-to-day lives, the participants
might have given more truthful and more transparent responses without fear of repercussion, but
this cannot be confirmed.
Multiple delimitations were chosen in order to sustain the project within the scope of a
single researcher. First, 15 participants were chosen as the desired sample in order to ensure
variance that would reflect the United States and its diverse regions (The Outdoor Foundation,
2018), but this number is also within the limitations of one researcher without risking interview
exhaustion and oversaturation of the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When only seven
participants ultimately agreed to participate, I made the intentional choice to continue the study.
This decision was made as the seven participants alone represented a regionally widespread
national sample; and time constraints to ensure the study’s results as current/applicable at time of
publication would have made finding and evaluating another eight participants unreasonable.

133

Regarding time, another delimitation was my time constraints to accomplish further
interviews due to both my full-time employment and additional responsibilities as a military
Reserve member. This, in particular, impacted my ability to find new candidates in Region 2
when I exhausted my initial requests for participation; I did not have the capacity to find further
agents without delaying my research’s timely publication. However, the time limitation could
have been a benefit in ensuring the data’s consistency. Interviewing all participants within a
similar time frame reduced the opportunity for new, highly impactful current events–such as the
9/11 attacks or the COVID pandemic–from occurring and influencing the responses of one
participant to the next. The suggestion that significant current events can significantly alter
social dialogues around race is reaffirmed in Acosta (2020), Foster et al. (2021), and Rodriguez
(2008). In the context of this study’s conceptual framework, the chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner,
n.d., 1979, 2005) for each participant will share more consistencies.
The minimum population size of one hundred thousand for each participant’s city of
responsibility was chosen to ensure the “urban” nature (Lee & Sharp, 2017) of the study’s focus.
The maximum population size of five hundred thousand was chosen in hopes of establishing a
participation group where all participants managed a similarly sized Parks & Recreation program
and department. Furthermore, an assumption was made that Parks & Recreation Directors within
cities of five hundred thousand or less would be more accessible to contact and accommodating
to participate compared to their counterparts in mega metropolises of five hundred thousand or
more, such as Los Angeles, California, or New York City, New York (Lee & Sharp, 2017).
This delimitation of selecting cities with a population of 100,000 to 500,000 ran the risk
of capturing a large number of “college towns,” where younger adult age groups are the
predominant population within the urban area. The average age of a self-proclaimed outdoor

134

participant is 36.2 to 37 and the 18-24 age bracket is one of the less participating age groups
(Outdoor Industry Association, n.d., 2019, 2020). For those cities that were “college towns”, this
could have benefited the research in that it focused on an age group not as invested in O.R.
already, despite their city’s apparent popularity within the O.R. community, and thus requires
additional encouragement to develop an interest in O.R. However, young adults are also twice as
likely to claim themselves “outdoor fanatics” than other adult groups, and 61% of outdoor
participants claim some level of college education (Outdoor Industry Association, 2020). This
suggested that college towns considered outdoor destinations could attract a specific type of
young adult that is interested, or at least curious, about O.R. already, which could skew the data
and make it less effective in finding ways to attract more O.R. participation.
Some delimitations were chosen to make the artifact analysis executable within the
limitations of the study’s execution resources. First, I made the choice to only evaluate
Instagram, regardless of any further social media presence of the participating city Parks &
Recreation programs that were evaluated. This was further explained in Chapter 2. Under the
design developed for the study, the artifacts that qualified for being coded both under the
“White” codes and under one of the “BIPOC” related codes were counted as “one” toward each
of those respective categories. However, during the study, it became apparent this created an
additional, unanticipated consequence that I had to accept through the process to maintain
consistency for each participant. When only giving a “one” count for each photo representing a
White person and a BIPOC person, resulting in two tallies, this didn’t account for how many
people were in the photo. To illustrate one example, a single photo was counted as 1 and 1 in
each category, but the models in that photo reflected eight White people and one Latinx person.
Such additional data could have revealed even greater disparities of how few BIPOC members

135

were represented in the artifacts, with Participant 6’s department Instagram account being the
only obvious exception I annotated throughout my observations.
Lastly, the regions intentionally defined for this study produce consequences for the
study, as well. As mentioned previously in Chapter 1, the data collected for each city were not
able to produce generalizable findings for each region due to the diversity of the environments
and state cultures within each region. This delimitation was still accepted to ensure that the data
would show a national view of the O.R. Industry and ensure the popularity of Western state cities
within the O.R. community would not skew the data to the four states with a disproportionately
high number of O.R. destinations.
Recommendations for Future Research
One item of interest that hangs without a defined Recommendation for Practice is the
problem of developing support among small business owners that view corporate or city agendas
as a threat to their own profit and survivability. Participants 2 and 7 both expressed apprehension
from small businesses in their communities that felt city diversification initiatives were actually
hindering their business’ revenue. These were the two smallest communities interviewed in this
study, which could allude to a concern in the smaller U.S. cities. As stated in Chapter 1, the
United Nations speculates the world’s entire population living in urban settings could rise to as
much as 68% by 2050 (Mchale et al., 2018; United Nations, 2018; World Health Organization,
2013). Even now, small American cities are growing across the United States (Licter et al.,
2019), burgeoning into larger consumer bases and potentially new storefront opportunities for
bigger O.R. businesses. This study focused on today’s key outdoor destinations, but as the future
reveals new exciting destinations as the popular options in O.R., the findings of this research
may adjust in order to accommodate new concerns more appropriate to those locations. Further

136

research that explores this study’s problem in smaller, growing cities could also help address the
delimitation discussed around “college town” selections.
Another opportunity for additional research that this study highlights is an expansion of
the artifact analysis. This study was designed around the Private-Sector as the target audience.
However, the artifact analysis revealed that there are potentially some concerns in the Public-
Sector regarding a disconnect between a professed desire to recruit more BIPOC users and the
lack of BIPOC community representation in their social media messaging. Building a
quantitative analysis specifically directed on social media for Parks & Recreation programs
could provide a more thorough assessment of Public-Sector O.R. representation as projected to
the public eye, even beyond Instagram as other social media platforms gain favor with young
audiences of new O.R. potential entrants. A study focused on just artifact analysis would also
allow for a more detailed numerical account of model representation within each image, as
discussed as one of the limitations of this study.
Conclusion
As humanity continues to grow into an urban society more and more every year, it
becomes almost necessary for avenues to exist as a reminder of the natural world in which we
belong. Outdoor recreation is that conduit. It is vital in sustaining that bond when all other
elements of our lives are designed around the infrastructure in which we’ve built. O.R. allows us
to play, to learn, to reconnect with nature in a way that benefits us physically, mentally, and
emotionally. Yet, not everyone in the United States is predisposed of the same social, and at
times fiscal opportunities, that grant accessibility to O.R., particularly those belonging to
BIPOC-associated racial demographics. In consequence, both their relationships to the outdoors,
as well as their health, are at risk of deterioration.

137

Private-Sector O.R. shows a drive to resolve this as their general messaging to the
industry, but their Public-Sector counterparts around the country have yet to witness a real drive
within their communities supporting that dialogue. Yet, Parks & Recreation departments still
have a need for Private-Sector O.R. to become larger actors in building O.R. BIPOC accessibility
within their communities, to lean into communal health and wellbeing as the goal, just as NGOs
and other private institutions have proven successful. Through this research, and through its
recommendations of expansion and opportunity, private O.R. businesses have a chance to impart
significant dedication and investment not only to the future of their consumer base, but also to
achieve broader gains toward racial equity at large.

138

References
Abelt, K., & McLafferty, S. (2017). Green streets: Urban green and birth outcomes. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(7), 771-791.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14070771
Abu, J., & Oudshoorn, A. (2020). The deinstitutionalization of psychiatric hospitals in Ghana:
An application of Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological model. Issues in Mental Health
Nursing, 41(4), 306-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2019.1666327
Acosta, K. (2020). Racism: A public health crisis. City & Community, 19(3), 506–515.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12518
Adams, C. (2020, Dec 29). A movement, a slogan, a rallying cry: how Black Lives Matter
changed America’s view on race. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/
movement-slogan-rallying-cry-how-black-lives-matter-changed-america-n1252434
Advincula, A. (2016). Bias hinders diversity in hiring for environmental organizations. The
Louisiana Weekly, 91(14), 9.
AirMilesCalculator.com (2022, 10 July). Air Miles Calculator. https://www.airmiles
calculator.com/.
Allen, D. (2016). Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African Americans
to the great outdoors by Carolyn Finney (review). Southeastern Geographer, 56(4), 473–
476. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2016.0047
Ananat, E. (2011). The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on
urban poverty and inequality. American Economic Journal, 3(2), 34–66.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.3.2.34

139

Assari, Thomas, A., Caldwell, C. H., & Mincy, R. B. (2018). Blacks’ Diminished Health Return
of Family Structure and Socioeconomic Status; 15 Years of Follow-up of a National
Urban Sample of Youth. Journal of Urban Health, 95(1), 21–35.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-017-0217-3
Barrett, P, Pitas, N. & Mowen, A. (2017). First in our hearts but not in our pocket books: Trends
in local governmental financing for parks and recreation from 2004 to 2014. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 35(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA -2017-
V35-I3-7674
Bauchner, H., Rivara, F., Bonow, R., Bressler, N., Disis, M., Heckers, S., Josephson, S., Kibbe,
M., Piccirillo, J., Redberg, R., Rhee, J., & Robinson, J. (2017). Death by gun violence—a
public health crisis. JAMA Dermatology (Chicago, Ill.), 153(12), 1223–1224.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4972
Baynham, J. & Michelson, M. (2017, June 15). The 25 best towns of 2017. Outside Magazine.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2193631/best-towns-2017
Beasley PhD., M. A. (2016). Diversity derailed: Limited demand, effort and results in
environmental c-suite searches. Green Diversity Initiative. https://www.diversegreen.org/
wp-content/ uploads/2016/12/RG-002_Report-A_5a_120516_Singles_CMYK.pdf
Blackwell, D.L., Lucas, J.W., & Clarke, T.C. (2012). Summary health statistics for U.S. adults:
National health interview survey, 2012. Vital and Health Statistics
10(260).https://permanent.fdlp.gov/lps63437/2012/sr10_260-2012.pdf
British Broadcasting Corporation (2020, June 13). George Floyd: 10 things that have changed
since his death. BBC.com. https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53007952

140

Brittin, J., Elijah-Barnwell, S., Nam, Y., Araz, O., Friedow, B., Jameton, A., Drummond, W., &
Huang, T. (2015). Community-engaged public health research to inform hospital campus
planning in a low socioeconomic status urban neighborhood. HERD, 8(4), 12–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715575908
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development experiments by nature and
design . Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human
development. Sage Publications.
Bustam, T., Thapa, B., & Buta, N. (2011). Demographic differences within race/ethnicity group
constraints to outdoor recreation participation. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 29(4).
Calderón-Zaks, Michael. (2011). Debated whiteness amid world events: Mexican and Mexican
American subjectivity and the U.S.’ relationship with the americas, 1924–1936. Mexican
Studies, 27(2), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.1525/msem.2011.27.2.325
Camber Outdoors (2019). CEO outdoor equity pledge – Camber Outdoors. https://camber
outdoors .org/ceo-outdoor-equity-pledge/
Carswell, C. (2017). Archaeologists uneasy as Trump shrinks Bears Ears monument lands.
Nature (London), 552(7683), 13–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-07794-5
Casey, J., James, P, Cushing, L., Jesdale, B., & Morello-Frosch, R. (2017). Race, ethnicity,
income concentration and 10-year change in urban greenness in the United States.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 1546–1562.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14121546

141

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). BRFSS Prevalence & Trends Data.
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/brfssprevalence/
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). National Center for Health Statistics
Interactive Biannual Early Release Estimates, Jan 2019- Jun 2020. https://wwwn.cdc.
gov/NHISDataQueryTool/ER_Biannual/index_biannual.html
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2021). Basics of COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/
coronavirus/ 2019-ncov/your-health/about-covid-19/basics-covid-19.html
City of Charlottesville (2021). The City of Charlottesville, Virginia is Seek a Dynamic,
Innovative and Progressive Leader to Serve as Director of Parks and Recreation.
https://www.charlottesville.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6338/Charlottesville-director-of-
Parks-and-Recreation---Brochure-2021-PDF?bidId=
Charmaz, K. (2015). Grounded Theory: Methodology and Theory Construction. In International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 10, pp. 402–407).
Charmaz, K. (2017). Constructivist grounded theory. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3),
299–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262612
Chen, C. (2019, July 9). 7 socially responsible outdoor companies that give back to the
environment. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/outdoor-brands- that-
give-back-to-the-environment
Chen, X., & Rubin, K. H. (2011). Socioemotional Development in Cultural Context. Guilford
Publications.
Chhabra, E. (2017, May 29). Why This Outdoor Brand Is Hiring Individuals With Disabilities.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/eshachhabra/2017/05/29/why-this-outdoor- brand-
is-hiring-individuals-with-disabilities/

142

Clarke (2020, July 2). BIPOC: What Does it Mean and Where Does it Come From?. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bipoc-meaning-where-does-it-come-from-2020-04-02/
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Fifth edition. SAGE
Danko, H., & Hanink D. (2018). Beyond the obvious: A comparison of some demographic
changes across selected shrinking and growing cities in the United States from 1990 to
2010. Population Space and Place, 24(6), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2136
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction. NYU
Press.
Denson, A. (2017). The National Trail. In Monuments to Absence. University of North Carolina
Press. https://doi.org/10.5149/northcarolina/9781469630830.003.0008
Dickman, K. (2013, August 12). Outside’s best towns 2013. Outside Magazine. https://www.
outsideonline.com/1929121/outsides-best-towns-2013
Diversify Outdoors (2017). Retrieved from https://www.diversifyoutdoors.com
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's dna : Mastering the five
skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Review Press.
Erickson, B. (2011). Recreational activism: politics, nature, and the rise of neoliberalism. Leisure
Studies, 30(4), 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.594078
Finney, C. (2014). Black faces, white spaces: Reimagining the relationship of African Americans
to the great outdoors. In Black faces, white spaces. The University of North Carolina
Press.

143

Foster, K., Johnson, C., Carvajal, D., Piggott, C., Reavis, K., Edgoose, J., Elliott, T., Gold, M.,
Rodriguez, J., & Washington, J. (2021). Dear white people. Annals of Family Medicine,
19(1), 66–69. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2634
Flores, D., & Kuhn, K. (2018). Latino outdoors: Using storytelling and social media to increase
diversity on public lands. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 36(3), 47-62.
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I3-7868
Franklin, R. (2019). The demographic burden of population loss in U.S. cities, 2000–2010.
Journal of Geographical Systems, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-019-00303-4
Frazer, R. L., & Anderson, K. (2018). Media representations of race, ability, and gender in three
outdoor magazines: A content analysis of photographic images. Journal of Outdoor
Recreation, Education and Leadership, 10(3), 270. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-
2018-V10-I3-9051
Frey, W. H. (2018). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America.
Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.7864/j.ctt6wpc40
Frumkin, B., Bratman, G., Breslow, S., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr., P, Lawler, J, Levin, P., Tandon,
P., Varanasi, U., Wolf, K., & Wood, S. (2017). Nature Contact and Human Health: A
Research Agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001–075001.
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663
Furtado, & Payne, J. M. (2022). Inclusive Creative Placemaking Through Participatory Mural
Design in Springfield (MA). Journal of the American Planning Association, ahead-of-
print(ahead-of-print), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2022.2083008
Gardiner, H., & Kosmitzki, C. (2008). Lives Across Cultures (4th ed.) Allyn & Bacon.

144

Gilbert N. (2016). A natural high. Nature, 531(7594), S56-S57. https://www-proquest-com.lib
proxy1.usc.edu/scholarly-journals/natural-high/docview/1774749088/se-
2?accountid=14749
Gilhespy, I. (2013). Beyond the fringe: The role of recreation in multi-functional urban fringe
landscapes. Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, 5(2), 143-152.
Gladwell, V. F., Brown, D. K., Wood, C., Sandercock, G. R., & Barton, J. L. (2013). The great
outdoors: How a green exercise environment can benefit all. Extreme Physiology &
Medicine, 2(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-3
Glaser, B. L. & Strauss, A. G. (2017). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Glassdoor (2021). City of Childersburg Parks and Recreation Assistant Director - Childersburg,
AL. https://www.glassdoor.com/job-listing/parks-and-recreation-assistant-director-city-
of-childersburg-
JV_IC1127741_KO0,39_KE40,60.htm?jl=1007324501884&utm_campaign=google_jobs
_apply&utm_source=google_jobs_apply&utm_medium=organic
Granada, S. (2018, March 9). There are no female african-american pro cyclists—Yet. Outside
Magazine. https://www.outsideonline.com/2269306/there-are-no-female-african-
american-pro-cyclists
Gress, S., & Hall, T. (2017). Diversity in the outdoors: National outdoor leadership school
students’ attitudes about wilderness. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(2), 114-134.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916689267
Goldsboro Parks & Recreation (2021). Staff. https://goldsboroparksandrec.com/staff/

145

Harper, R (2021). OIA notes from the hill: August 2021. Outdoor Industry Association News.
https://outdoorindustry.org/article/oia-notes-hill-august-2021/
Halgunseth, Witherspoon, D. P., & Wray-Lake, L. (2022). Dismantling Systems and Improving
Contexts to Support the Development of BIPOC Youth. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 32(2), 386–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12773
Hirschland, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and the shaping of global public policy
(1st ed.). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230601772
Houston, T. S. (2021). Focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion to promote business success.
Journal - American Water Works Association, 113(2), 82–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/
awwa.1676
Hurford, M. (2015). She wants to be the first african american female pro. Bicycling, 56(8), 040.
https://go-gale-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA43378375 4&v
=2.1&u=usocal_main&it=r&p=PPTH&sw=w
Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, blacks, and hispanics in Chicago's
public parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(3), 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1080
/00222216.1987.11969688
Hystad, P., Davies, H., Frank, L., Loon, J., Gehring, U., Tamburic, L., & Brauer, M. (2014).
Residential greenness and birth outcomes : Evaluating the influence of spatially
correlated built-environment factors. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(10), 1095–
1102. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1308049
Iceland, G., Sharp, G., & O’Hare, W. P. (2013). White residential segregation in U.S.
metropolitan areas: Conceptual issues, patterns, and trends from the U.S. census, 1980 to

146

2010. Population Research and Policy Review, 32(5), 663–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11113-013-9277-6
Ihlebæk, C., Aamodt, G., Aradi, R., Claussen, B., & Thorén, K. H. (2018). Association between
urban green space and self-reported lifestyle-related disorders in Oslo, Norway.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46(6), 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1403494817730998
In Solidarity Project (2020). The Outdoor CEO Diversity Pledge. https://www.insolidarity
project.com/ the-pledge
Instagram (2020, 20 Dec). Terms of Use. https://help.instagram.com/1215086795543252
Jennings, V., Baptiste, A. K., Osborne Jelks, N., & Skeete, R. (2017). Urban green space and the
pursuit of health equity in parts of the United States. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11) https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph14111432
Jensen, C.R., & Guthrie, S.P. (2006). Outdoor Recreation in America (6th ed.). Burgess
Publishing Company.
Jewell, S. (2004). Women want female-specific outdoor gear. Marketing to women: Addressing
Women and Women’s Sensibilities. 17(5), 12.
Johnson, E.S. (2008). Ecological systems and complexity theory: Toward an alternative model of
accountability in education. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and
Education. 5(1), 1-10.
Landson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field
like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863

147

Lee, S., Sharp, G., Zilak, J.P., & Licther D. (2017). Ethnoracial diversity across the rural-urban
continuum. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1),
26–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217708560
Lichter, Brown, D. L., & Parisi, D. (2021). The rural–urban interface: Rural and small town
growth at the metropolitan fringe. Population Space and Place, 27(3).
https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2415
LinkedIn (2021). Jobs - Parks and Recreation Director - Peckman & McKenney - Palm Springs,
CA. https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/2747156697/?eBP=NotAvailableFromMidTier
&recommendedFlavor=JOB_SEEKER_QUALIFIED&refId=HUzBFhPo64D3c%2FCya
TSqxw%3D%3D&trackingId=ysyUsAiuUDQqAU%2FLTjVN0w%3D%3D&trk=flagshi
p3_search_srp_jobs
Martin, D. C. (2004). Apartheid in the great outdoors: American advertising and the reproduction
of a racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 513-535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950034
Martin, C. (2018, July 23). Is diversity just a marketing strategy for gear brands? Outside
Magazine. https://www.outsideonline.com/2328831/outdoor-industry-getting- more-
diverse-slowly
McCombs, R. (2016, August 8). Adventuresome women a target for retailers; sales of women-
specific outdoor gear and clothing reached $4.6 billion this year. Chronicle-Herald.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 2, 2021, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed). Wiley.

148

Mirza. (2022). ShopBIPOC Connects Consumers With BIPOC-Owned Local Small Businesses.
Westword (Online).
Moran, C. (2018, November 13). New analysis reveals top 50 cities for access to the outdoors.
REI Co-Op Journal. https://www.rei.com/blog/news/new-analysis-reveals-top-50-cities-
for-access-to-the-outdoors
Mowen, A., Barrett, A., Pitas, N., Graefe, A.R., Taff, B.D., & Godbey, G. (2018). Americans’
use and perceptions of local park and recreation services: Results from an updated study.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 36(4), 128–148.
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I4-8861
Mueller, J.C. (2017). Producing colorblindness: Everyday mechanisms of White ignorance.
Social Problems, 64(2), 219–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spw061
Mulqueen, T. (2019). What retailers can learn about social responsibility from Toms and
Patagonia. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tinamulqueen/2019/01/24/what-
retailers-can-learn-about-social-responsibility-from-toms-and-patagonia/
National Conference of State Legislatures (2020). President Trump declares state of emergency
for COVID-19. https://www.ncsl.org/ncsl-in-dc/publications-and-resources/president-
trump-declares-state-of-emergency-for-covid-19.aspx
National Recreation and Park Association. (2003). National Recreation and Parks Association
fighting for park and recreation funding: state conservation, urban park funds at risk
without your help. Parks & Recreation (Arlington, Va.), 38(7), 12.
National Park Service. (2011). A call to action preparing for a second century of stewardship
and engagement. https://www.nps.gov/calltoaction/pdf/
directors_call_to_action_report.pdf

149

Navas, A., & Brown, M. (2015, March 13). No more barbie gear - hey, outdoor-equipment
companies: Please stop ignoring women who rip. Outside Magazine.
https://www.outsideonline.com/1959886/no-more-barbie-gear
Nay, A., Kahn Jr, P.H., Lawler, J.J. & Bratman, G.N.. (2022). Inequitable Changes to Time
Spent in Urban Nature during COVID-19: A Case Study of Seattle, WA with Asian,
Black, Latino, and White Residents. Land (Basel), 11(8), 1277–.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081277
Nelson, G (2021, March 2). Waking up: Will the outdoor industry ever get DEI right? Outside
Business Journal. https://www.outsidebusinessjournal.com/the-magazine/waking-up/
New for women: outdoor gear that fits. (outdoor equipment manufacturers design products for
women). (1990, September 1). Vogue, 180(9), 382.
Nordh, H., Vistad, O. I., Skår, M., Wold, L. C., & Magnus Bærum, K. (2017). Walking as urban
outdoor recreation: Public health for everyone. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, 20, 60-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2017.09.005
Nutsford, D., Pearson, A. L., & Kingham, S. (2013). An ecological study investigating the
association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health,
127(11), 1005-1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.08.016
NYC Parks (2021) About Parks - People. https://nycgovparks.org/about/people
O'Reilly, K. (2018, April 17). REI rolls out tough sustainability standards for all its brands.
Sierra Club. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/rei-rolls-out-tough-sustainability-
standards-for-all-its-brands
Outdoor Industry Association. (2017). The Outdoor Recreation Economy Report. https://outdoor
industry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf

150

Outside Magazine. (2014, August 12). The 16 best places to live in the U.S: 2014. https://www.
outsideonline.com/1928016/16-best-places-live-us-2014
Outside Magazine. (2015, August 18). The 16 best places to live in the U.S: 2015. https://www.
outsideonline.com/2006426/americas-best-towns-2015
Outside Magazine. (2016, August 14). The 16 best places to live in the U.S: 2016. https://www.
outsideonline.com/2105956/best-places-live-us-2016
Outside Magazine. (2019, July 11). The 12 best places to live in 2019. https://www.outside
online.com/2398647/outside-best-towns-2019
Outside Magazine. (2019, September 25). The cities that will be the next dream outdoor hubs.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2401824/best-adventure-cities-2020
Park, J., & Iceland, J. (2011). Residential segregation in metropolitan established immigrant
gateways and new destinations, 1990–2000. Social Science Research, 40(3), 811–821.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.10.009
Parry, B., & Gollob, J. (2018). The flexible recreationist: The adaptability of outdoor recreation
benefits to non-ideal outdoor recreation settings. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism; Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 21, 61-68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jort.2018.01.005
Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N. & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Generating data. In Digital tools for
qualitative research (pp. 69-92). SAGE Publications Ltd, https://www-doi-org.libproxy1.
usc.edu/10.4135/9781473957671
Peen, J., Schoevers, R. A., Beekman, A. T., & Dekker, J. (2010). The current status of urban-
rural differences in psychiatric disorders. Acta psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121(2), 84-93.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01438.x

151

Piccirillo, M., Levinson, C., & Rodebaugh, T. (2019). The effect of urbanicity on internalizing
disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 75(6), 1129–1139.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22766
Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography (Second Edition ed.). SAGE Publications, Ltd
https://www-doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4135/9780857025029
Pink, S. (Ed.) (2012). Advances in visual methodology. SAGE Publications Ltd https://www-
doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4135/9781446250921
Pitas, M., Mowen, A. J., Taff, D., Hickerson, B., Radhakrishna, R., & Graefe, A. (2018).
Attitude Strength and Structure Regarding Privatization of Local Public Park and
Recreation Services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 36(3), 141–159.
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I3-8442
Poole, Grier, S. A., Thomas, K. D., Sobande, F., Ekpo, A. E., Torres, L. T., Addington, L. A.,
Weekes-Laidlow, M., & Henderson, G. R. (2021). Operationalizing Critical Race Theory
in the Marketplace. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40(2), 126–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915620964114
Powers, S. L., Lee, K., Pitas, N., Graefe, A., & Mowen, A. J. (2019). Understanding access and
use of municipal parks and recreation through an intersectionality perspective. Journal of
Leisure Research, 51(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2019.1701965
Roberts, M. (2019). What Does a Director of Parks and Recreation Do? The Balance Careers -
Government Careers. https://thebalancecareers.com/government-job-profile-parks- and-
recreation-director-1669693

152

Rocco, T., Bernier, J., & Bowman, L. (2014). Critical race theory and HRD: Moving race front
and center. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(4), 457–470.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314544294
Rodriguez, R. M. (2008). (Dis)unity and diversity in post-9/11 America. Sociological Forum
(Randolph, N.J.), 23(2), 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2008.00068.x
Romo, V. (2018). Native American tribes file lawsuit seeking to invalidate Keystone XL pipeline
permit. NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american -tribes-
file-lawsuit-seeking-to-invalidate-keystone-xl-pipeline-p
Rosa, E., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development: Its evolution
from ecology to bioecology: The evolution of Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022
Roth, K. (2020). How COVID-19 impacts park and recreation funding. (National Recreation and
Park Association’s economic impact of parks report). Parks & Recreation, 55(5), 18–19.
Rothenberg, R., Stauber, C., Weaver, S., Dai, D., Prasad, A., & Kano, M. (2015). Urban health
indicators and indices - Current status. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 494–494.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1827-x
Rushing, J. R., Needham, M. D., D'Antonio, A., & Metcalf, E. C. (2019). Barriers to attachment?
Relationships among constraints, attachment, and visitation to urban parks. Journal of
Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 27, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100228
Salabert, S. (2019, March 8). What we can learn from the Camber Outdoors fiasco. Outdoor
Magazine Online. https://www.outsideonline.com/2391024/what-we-can-learn-camber-
outdoors-fiasco

153

Sampson, L., Ettman, C., & Galea, S. (2020). Urbanization, urbanicity, and depression: a review
of the recent global literature. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 33(3), 233–244.
https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000588
Sanchez, M. (2021). Equity, diversity, and inclusion: Intersection with quality improvement.
Nursing Management, 52(5), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000743408.
29021.85
Sausser, B., Monz, C., Dorsch, T. E., & Smith, J. W. (2019). The formation of state offices of
outdoor recreation and an analysis of their ability to partner with federal land
management agencies. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 27, 100232–.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2019.100232
Schultz, C. L., Bocarro, J. N., KangJae, J., Sene-Harper, A., Fearn, M., & Floyd, M. F. (2019).
Whose national park service? An examination of relevancy, diversity, and inclusion
programs from 2005–2016. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 37(4)
https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2019-9052
Shabad, R, & Gregorian, D (2020, May 18). House Passes Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Bill. NBC
News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-expected-pass-anti-asian-hate-
crimes-bill-n1267732
Simon, M. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: recipes for success (2011 Ed.).
Sobande, F., Fearfull, A., & Brownlie, D. (2020). Resisting media marginalisation: Black
women’s digital content and collectivity. Consumption, Markets and Culture, 23(5), 413–
428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2019.1571491
Steinberg, S., & Cannella, G. (2012). Critical qualitative research reader . Peter Lang.

154

Summers-Gabr, N. & Kendall-Tackett, K. (2020). Rural-Urban Mental Health Disparities in the
United States During COVID-19. Psychological Trauma, 12(S1), S222–S224.
https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000871
Taylor, D. E. (2011). Research article: Racial and gender differences in job mobility and wages
of employees in environmental organizations. Environmental Practice, 13(4), 370-385.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S146604661100038X
Taylor, González, J. G., & Razani, N. (2021). Justice in access to the outdoors. Parks
Stewardship Forum, 37(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.5070/P537151705
The Trust for Public Land. (2021). ParkServe ParkEvaluator [Data Set] https://parkserve.tpl.
org/mapping/index.html
The Outdoor Foundation. (2018). 2018 Outdoor participation report. https://outdoorindustry.org/
resource/2018-outdoor-participation-report/
The Outdoor Foundation. (2019). 2019 Outdoor participation report. https://outdoorindustry.org/
resource/2019-outdoor-participation-report/
Thomas, M. O. & Thomas, C. H. (2021). From Urban Places to Outdoor Spaces: Field-Tested
Practices for Engaging BIPOC Youth and Diversifying Outdoor Recreation. Frontiers in
Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.736252
Thomsen, J., Powell, R., & Monz, C. (2018). A Systematic Review of the Physical and Mental
Health Benefits of Wildland Recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
36(1), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.18666/JPRA-2018-V36-I1-8095
Tilburg, M., Lieven, T., Herrmann, A., & Townsend, C. (2015). Beyond “pink it and shrink it”
perceived product gender, aesthetics, and product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing,
32(4), 422-437. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20789

155

Townley, G., Brusilovskiy, E., & Salzer, M. (2017). Urban and non-urban differences in
community living and participation among individuals with serious mental illnesses.
Social Science & Medicine (1982), 177, 223–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.socscimed.2017.01.058
United Nations. (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050,
says UN. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.
org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision -of-world-urbanization-
prospects.html
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2018). Outdoor recreation satellite account: Updated
statistics for 2012-2016. https://www.bea.gov/data/special-topics/outdoor-recreation
U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Explore Census Data [Database record] https://https://data.
census.gov/cedsci/
U.S. Department of Commerce (2018). U.S. census bureau quickfacts: United States. https://
www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218
U.S. Department of Commerce (2019). U.S. census bureau quickfacts: United States. https://
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development &
Research, 2016. Evidence Matters – Neighborhoods and Violent Crimes.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/summer16/highlight2.html
Vargas, J., Saetermoe, C., & Chavira, G. (2020). Using critical race theory to reframe mentor
training: theoretical considerations regarding the ecological systems of mentorship.
Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00598-z

156

Vassos, E., Pedersen, C., Murray, R., Collier, D., & Lewis, C. (2012). Meta-Analysis of the
Association of Urbanicity With Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 38(6), 1118–
1123. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs096
Ventimiglia, I., & Seedat, S. (2019). Current evidence on urbanicity and the impact of
neighbourhoods on anxiety and stress-related disorders. Current Opinion in Psychiatry,
32(3), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000496
Vespa, J., Medina, L., & Armstrong, D. (2020). Demographic Turning Point for the United
States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060. U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.html
Vlahov, D., & Galea, S. (2002). Urbanization, urbanicity, and health. Journal of Urban Health,
79(S1), S1–S12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/79.suppl_1.S1
Walzer, E. (2001). Outdoor gear fit for female athletes. Sporting Goods Business, 34(3), 44.
Wei-Lun, T., McHale, M., Jennings, V., Marquet, O., Hipp, J., & Floyd, M. (2018).
Relationships between characteristics of urban green land cover and mental health in U.S.
metropolitan areas. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
15(2), 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15020340
Wi, C., St. Sauver, J., Jacobson, D., Pendegraft, R., Lahr, B., Ryu, E., Beebe, T., Sloan, J., Rand-
Weaver, J., Krusemark, E., Choi, Y., & Juhn, Y. (2016). Ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and health disparities in a mixed rural-urban U.S. community—Olmsted County,
Minnesota. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 91(5), 612–622.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.02.011

157

Winston, W., Stevens, R.E., Sherwood, P.K., & Dunn, J.P. (1993). Market Analysis: Assessing
Your Business Opportunities (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi-
org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.4324/9781315801308
Winter, P., Crano, W, Basáñez, T, & Lamb, C. (2019). Equity in access to outdoor recreation—
informing a sustainable future. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 12(1), 124–140.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12010124
Wisbey, J. (2011). Rallying support for parks and recreation funding: meet the allies of parks and
recreation in the 112th Congress.(advocacy update). Parks & Recreation (Arlington, Va.)
National Parks and Recreation Association, 46(6), 31
Wolch, B., Byrne, J., Newell, J.P., & Elsevier, B.V. (2014). Urban green space, public health,
and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.”
Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.landurbplan.2014.01.017
Wright, J., Jarvis, J., Pachter, L., & Walker-Harding, L. (2020). “Racism as a public health
issue” APS racism series: at the intersection of equity, science, and social justice.
Pediatric Research, 88(5), 696–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-01141-7
You, Y., & Pan, S. (2020). Urban Vegetation Slows Down the Spread of Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) in the United States. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(18).
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089286
Zink, R., & Kane, M. (2015). Not in the picture: images of participation in New Zealand’s
outdoor recreation media. Annals of Leisure Research, 18(1), 65–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 11745398.2014.974066

158

Appendix A: Letter and Email for Volunteer Recruitment

[Mr./Mrs] [insert name],

Good [morning/afternoon],

My name is Alexandra Swanson. and I am a Doctoral Candidate and researcher at the University
of Southern California, with an emphasis in Organizational Change & Leadership. At present, I
am working toward a dissertation exploring within the Outdoor Recreation industry - my hopeful
future career path as I transition from military service. If you would allow, I would love to
interview you as a Subject Matter Expert and as a participant in my research.

My chosen topic is to explore if and how Private-Sector Outdoor Recreation businesses can help
improve participation amongst nonWhite citizens in their local urban communities by partnering
with Public-Sector Outdoor Recreation organizations such as your own and emphasizing urban
health - a detrimental issue for nonWhite urban citizens to many U.S. cities as opposed to
recreational participation. I am presently looking for volunteers - specifically Parks & Recreation
Directors like yourself - within U.S. cities that are recognized as Outdoor Recreation
destinations. Your city, specifically, was listed in *insert Outdoor Magazine/Outdoor Industry
Economy Report/The Trust for Public Land as applicable from my Chap 3 research* as one of
the top U.S. cities for outdoor enthusiasts.

Yours and your city’s and department’s anonymity would be assured and I would be happy to
share free access to my publication, and provide a summary of my findings, once my report is
completed as a thank you for your assistance.

Please let me know your thoughts if you have any further questions. I am available at
swansona@usc.edu, or 661-599-8694. I look forward to speaking with you and will follow this
e-mail with a printed letter and phone call in the next several days as well, for your convenience.

Sincerely,
Alexandra Swanson

159

Appendix B: Information Sheet for Exempt Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089

STUDY TITLE: A Study of Diversification in the Outdoor Recreation Industry And its
Connection to the BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) Urban Health Equity Gap

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Doctoral Candidate Alexandra Swanson

FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Jennifer Phillips

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to explore if Private-Sector Outdoor Recreation organizations could
build relationships with Public-Sector Outdoor Recreation institutions via urban health initiatives
in order to build more equitable access to Outdoor Recreation for nonWhite community
members within their local urban communities.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a one-on-one
interview with the researcher, which will last approximately 70 minutes. You do not have to
answer any questions you do not want to.

For accuracy in the data collection and analysis process, you will be asked to be video recorded.
Your full identity (name and specific title) will NOT be disclosed in the recorded dialogue, and
your video recording will not be shared with anyone except the principal investigator and, if
required, the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB). Your city of
origin will also be masked. If you choose not to be video recorded using Zoom, you will be
replaced by another participant. A full transcript of the interview can be provided to you if you
wish to review it for clarity and feedback.

CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. When the findings of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used, to include your
city of origin. Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained
separately. Data will be stored on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s office for
two years after the study has been completed and then removed.

160

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Alexandra L. Swanson at
swansona@usc.edu or 661-599-8694.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

161

Appendix C: Candidate Cities for Participant Sample Based Upon Participant Criteria

Reference
Region Candidate city name Pop. size
(as of 2019 census)
Outside Magazine Best
Cities 2013-2019
Outdoor Industry
Economy Report - Top
Sport Specific
Destinations, 2017
The Trust for Public
Land (partnered with
REI Co-Op) Top 50
Cities with Access to the
Outdoors 2018
1 Bend, Oregon 93,917 2016 & 2017
1 Billings, Montana 109,595 2016
1 Boise, Idaho 226,115 2016 & 2017 X
1 Colorado Springs,
Colorado
464,871 2019
1 Flagstaff, Arizona 72,402 2017
1 Olympia, Washington 85,915 2019
1 Provo, Utah 116,403 2014
1 Reno, Nevada 246,500 2017 & 2019
1 Salt Lake City, Utah 197,756 X
1 San Luis Obispo,
California
47,302 2017
1 Santa Fe, New Mexico 83,922 2017
1 Spokane, Washington 217,353 2013 X
2 Bentonville, Arkansas 49,467 2017 X

162
2 Duluth, Minnesota 85,915 2014 & 2019
2 Iowa City, Iowa 74,950 2015
2 Kansas City Missouri 486,404 2017
2 Little Rock, Arkansas 197,958 2013 & 2019
2 Minneapolis, Minnesota 304,547 2013, 2014, 2017 &
2019
X
2 Rochester, Minnesota 115,557 2015
2 St Louis, Missouri 308,174 X
3 Birmingham, Alabama 212,297 2017
3 Chattanooga, Tennessee 179,690 2015 X
3 Dayton, Ohio 140,569 2017
3 Grand Rapids,
Michigan
198,401 2017
3 La Crosse, Wisconsin 51,666 2014
3 Phenix City, Alabama 36,516 X
4 Atlanta, Georgia 488,800 2019
4 Alexandria, Virginia 157,613 X
4 Asheville, North
Carolina
91,560 2014
4 Charleston, South
Carolina
139,906 2014, 2017 & 2019
4 Columbus, Georgia 197,485 X

163

4 Miami, Florida 454,279 2019 X
4 Richmond, Virginia 226,622 X
4 Saint Petersburg,
Florida
261,338 2017
5 Annapolis, Maryland 39,278 2015
5 Burlington, Vermont 42,545 2014
5 Ithaca, New York 30,569 2014
5 Jersey City, New Jersey 261,940 X
5 Newark, New Jersey 281,054 X
5 Portland, Maine 66,595 2014 & 2017
5 Providence, Rhode
Island
179,494 X
5 Springfield,
Massachusetts
154,139 X

Note. The population data are from Census. The data for Outside Magazine 2013 are from Dickman, K. (2013, August 12). Outside’s
best towns 2013. Outside Magazine. https://www.outsideonline.com/1929121/outsides-best-towns-2013. The data from Outside
Magazine 2014 are from Outside Magazine. (2014, August 12). The 16 best places to live in the U.S: 2014.
https://www.outsideonline.com/1928016/16-best-places-live-us-2014. The data from Outside Magazine 2015 are from Outside
Magazine. (2015, August 18). The 16 best places to live in the U.S: 2015. https://www.outsideonline.com/2006426/americas- best-
towns-2015. The data from Outside Magazine 2016 are from Outside Magazine. (2016, August 14). The 16 best places to live in the

164
U.S: 2016. https://www.outsideonline.com/2105956/best-places-live-us-2016. The data for Outside Magazine 2017 are from
Baynham, J. and Michelson, M. (2017, June 15). The 25 best towns of 2017. Outside Magazine. https://www.outsideonline.com/
2193631/ best-towns-2017. The data from Outside Magazine 2019 are from Outside Magazine. (2019, July 11). The 12 best places to
live in 2019. https://www.outsideonline.com/2398647/outside-best-towns-2019 and from Outside Magazine. (2019, September 25).
The cities that will be the next dream outdoor hubs. https://www.outsideonline.com/2401824/best-adventure-cities-2020. The data
from The Trust for Public Land are from The Trust for Public Land. (2021). ParkServe ParkEvaluator [Data Set]
https://parkserve.tpl. org/mapping/index.html and from Moran, C. (2018, November 13). New analysis reveals top 50 cities for access
to the outdoors. REI Co-Op Journal. https://www.rei.com/blog/news/new-analysis-reveals-top-50-cities- for-access-to-the-outdoors.
The data from the Outdoor Industry Association are from Outdoor Industry Association. (2017). The Outdoor Recreation Economy
Report. https://outdoor industry.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OIA_RecEconomy_FINAL_Single.pdf

165
Appendix D: Interview Protocol

Interview Questions Potential Probes
RQ
Addressed Key Concept Addressed
1. Before we begin, I would like to
ensure you are comfortable with the
proceedings. Your confidentiality and
anonymity are assured by the protocol
of this study, as indicated in the
Information Sheet for Exempt Research
I provided previously. Do I have your
permission to record this proceeding
interview?

2. Please tell me a bit about your
position and Department and how long
have you been in the job.

3. (SHORT ANSWER) From across
your community, what racial category
engages most in outdoor recreation,
And what racial category do you see
the least engagement in outdoor
recreation? (RQ2)

2 BIPOC Participation

De-categorization of
“nonWhite” to define all
BIPOC members (e.g.,
identify the main race of
interest per city)

166
4. (SHORT ANSWER, NO PROBES)
The group least engaged...are they the
most predominant audience in the area
for the nonWhite community? If No,
which group is?

2 BIPOC Participation

De-categorization of
“nonWhite” to define all
BIPOC members (e.g.,
identify the main race of
interest per city)

5. (SHORT ANSWER, NO PROBES)
A part of this research explores a
relationship between urban health and
outdoor rec. U.S. cities have
consistently cut back Parks &
Recreation budgets in the last 20 years,
but maintained a steady or increasing
budget toward urban health, even prior
to COVID. Yet, there’s an abundance
of research showing how outdoor
environments and green space are
beneficial to public health, let alone the
obvious exercise benefits that Outdoor
rec can provide. To build on this, the
next few questions will be focused on
urban health issues and how that might
tie-in to your space of influence.

Which was provided more attentiveness
by your local political leaders, before
COVID: urban health or Parks &
Recreation issues? After COVID?
(RQ1)

1 Current Perception of
Value

Point of Market Entry

167
6. (SHORT ANSWER, NO PROBES)
In terms of racial demographics, has
your local government identified a race
or racial groups in which urban health
is a great concern? (RQ1)
Which? 1 Current Perception

Point of Market Entry
7. Please tell me about your local
government’s perspective on urban
health issues as it pertains to your
nonWhite community members. (RQ1)

How have urban health concerns in your local
area impacted activity within *your Parks and
Rec jurisdiction*, if at all?

How have local officials beyond your
department tried to use Outdoor Recreation to
help promote improvement in urban health, if
at all?

How about local officials beyond just your
department?
1 Current Perception
8. When your city government holds
public events focused on urban health,
how is the nonWhite community
reception and involvement in contrast
to their reception of Parks & Recreation
events? (RQ1)

Do you see this as a perception issue of the
events themselves or an issue of interest in
the topic?

1, 3, 4 Potential Factors

Market point of entry

168
9. How have local officials utilized
Outdoor Recreation to help promote
improvement in urban health to the
nonWhite community in your city, if
at all? (RQ1)

Could you tell me to what degree it was
helpful? OR In what way did it help, if at all?

Have these efforts continued?

How often does this occur?

How common are such *events/adjustments*?

Is this a new or common practice?

Do you have any other examples you could
elaborate?

1, 3 Potential for existing
relationship between
Urban Health & O.R.

Civic Action
10. How is funding allocation for
outdoor recreation programs
determined by your Parks &
Recreation Department in contrast to
public/urban health? (RQ1, RQ2,
RQ3) *keep skewing this question*
Do you feel the funding is enough, or is more
needed?

In what ways, if at all, are local businesses
(small and corporate) part of the funding plan?
1, 2, 3 Civic Action

Perception of Support

Factor toward
participation
11. Can you describe the current state
of outdoor recreation participation
from the nonWhite community within
your city? (RQ2)

Is there a preference you see in activities
among different racial and ethnic groups within
your city?

What reasons do you think are causing their
lack of engagement, if present?

[if not provided already] Can you give any
examples of events, if any, that are held by
your organization to promote engagement?
2 BIPOC participation

169
12. What impediments, if any, exist
that are creating this dynamic? (RQ2,
RQ3)
Has there been any action by Your department
or the city itself to try and rectify these
impediments?
2, 3 BIPOC Participation
BIPOC Reception &
Involvement
13. Can you share more regarding
your elected officials’ stance on the
support of Outdoor Recreation
initiatives focused toward your
nonWhite community and
encouraging their participation?
(RQ3)

Do you have any examples?

-----

How have diversity, equity, and inclusion
concerns in your city impacted activity within
*your Parks and Rec jurisdiction*, if at all?

OR

How have the last few years impacted the
support toward your work, if at all? (if further
elaboration required) How did BLM change
elected officials’ interest in your work?

3, 4 Current Reception to
Executable Change

Civic Action

170
14. In what way are elected public
officials encouraging the involvement
of local businesses, specifically outdoor
recreation businesses, to participate in
programs or events provided by your
department OR public/urban health
events that involve your department?
(RQ1, RQ3, RQ4)

Has their involvement changed community
participation?

Could you provide an example of when this
was done in the past?

Is that support enough, or do the businesses
require enticement? In what way?

3, 4 Existing Relationship with
Private Industry

Civic Promotion of
Private-Sector
15. How has your department engaged
with local businesses, if at all, as part of
promoting nonWhite participation in
outdoor recreation activity within your
area? (RQ4)

[anticipating they state ‘events funding’]
Could you provide a few more examples.

4 Perception of Private-
Sector
16. (SHORT ANSWER) Is there a
preference in the types of businesses
utilized: small, local, minority owned,
corporate, franchised?

4 Existing Relationship with
Private Industry

171
17. In what ways, if at all, is heavier
involvement from outdoor recreation
businesses encouraged or desired from
your department compared to their
current level of involvement? (RQ4)

Do you have any example of a collaboration
between *your Public-Sector organization*
and Private-Sector businesses in your area?

How often do such collaborations occur?
OR
Why hasn’t a collaboration happened since?
OR
How come collaborations don’t occur?
4 Current Perception of
Private-Sector
18. What policies/restrictions does your
city and your department have in place,
if any, about Private-Sector business
relationships in order to drive city
agendas, such as Urban Health and
Outdoor Recreation? (RQ4)

Do you have any example of a collaboration
between *your Public-Sector organization*
and Private-Sector businesses in your area?

How often do such collaborations occur?
OR
Why hasn’t a collaboration happened since?
OR
How come collaborations don’t occur?
4 Barriers. Perception of
private Sector

A portion of my research will be an, also anonymous, review of visual media representing Parks & Recreation departments. What Instagram
account does your organization most closely associate with? If not Instagram, is there a Facebook account?

That is all of my questions, do you have any questions for me?

Okay great! Thank you so much for your time

172

Appendix E: A Priori Coding Adapted from Charmaz (2003) for Artifact Analysis

Question Applied
RQ
Conceptual Framework system influenced; system organization
1. How much visible presence is there of
BIPOC O.R. participation?
RQ 1 Exosystem; City Citizens

Macrosystem; Media
2. How much discussion in the text
content discusses BIPOC issues?
RQ1/RQ3 Macrosystem; Media
3. Is there a Parks & Recreation
Instagram page at all, or is the only O.R.
presence on other city Instagram pages?
RQ3 Individual; City Parks & Recreation

Microsystem; Community Participants
4. Has the conversation escalated with
Black Lives Matter, Stop Asian Hate,
etc.?
RQ1/ RQ3 Chronosystem
5. Does the narrative of the Instagram
Page analyzed for this city reflect the
interview narrative from the Parks &
Recreation Director?
RQ2/ RQ4 Public-Sector Microsystem and Individual

Private-Sector Microsystem and Individual

Exosystem; City Citizens

173
Appendix F: Artifact Analysis Racial Representation in Instagram Social Media Posts of Participants’ Department Sites

Region X
City Location 1 Location 2 Location 3
Post Circulation
Total Nonwhite Racial Representation in Posts
Post Circulation Specific to O.R.
Total Nonwhite Racial Representation in Posts Specific to O.R.
Percentage of O.R. models coded Black
Percentage of O.R. models coded Indigenous
Percentage of O.R. models coded Asian/Pacific Islander
Percentage of O.R. models coded Hispanic/Latinx
Percentage O.R. models coded “Race Indeterminate”
Total Posts with Text Content Specifically Referencing Nonwhite/BIPOC Community Interests
Total O.R. Posts with Text Content Specifically Referencing Nonwhite/BIPOC Community Interests
Total Posts with Text Content Specifically Referencing Nonwhite/BIPOC Community Interests after 25 May, 2020
Total O.R. Posts with Text Content Specifically Referencing Nonwhite/BIPOC Community Interests after 25 May, 2020.

Note. The Chart amalgamates the data collection coding techniques from Martin (2004) and Frazer and Anderson (2018). The differentiation
of “Posts” and “Posts Specific to O.R.” is annotated in case a participant does not have a Parks & Recreation social media presence. The
significance of 25 May, 2020 is the date of the murder of George Floyd. Chart adapted From: Martin, D. C. (2004). Apartheid in the great

174
outdoors: American advertising and the reproduction of a racialized outdoor leisure identity. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(4), 520.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2004.11950034. Copyright 2004 by Derek Christopher Martin and the Journal of Leisure Research.

175
Appendix G: Revised Artifact Analysis Racial Representation in Instagram Social Media Posts of Participants’ Department Sites

PARTICIPANT X/Region X
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation
Total Posts with White Representation
Total White Representation Participating in
O.R.
Non-Trad

Trad

Non-Trad

Trad

Non-Trad

Trad
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial
Representation

Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial
Representation Participating in O.R.
Non-Trad

Trad

Non-Trad
4
Trad
39
Non-Trad

Trad
Non-Trad Trad Not in O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not in O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not in O.R.
Number of posts, O.R. subjects coded Black
Number of posts, O.R. subjects coded
Indigenous

Number of posts, O.R. subjects coded
Asian/PacIslander

Number of posts, O.R. subjects coded
Hispanic/Latinx

Number posts, O.R. subjects coded “Race
Indeterminate”

Notes on observations in material and Text
Content Specifically Referencing
Nonwhite/BIPOC Community Interests

N/A (to subtract from post circulation for %’s)

176
Appendix H: Artifact Analysis Racial Representation Findings for Participant 1 Through 7

PARTICIPANT 1 - REGION 1 (INTERVIEW 2)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 1157 651 506
Viable Posts 350 138 212
Total Posts with White Representation 217 114 103
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
60
Trad
27
Non-Trad
43
Trad
17
Non-Trad
47
Trad
10
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 98 60 38
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
18
Trad
18
Non-Trad
10
Trad
8
Non-Trad
8
Trad
10
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 4 6 20 2 4 10 2 2 10
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 1 1 3 1 1 3 0 0 0
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 7 7 9 4 4 2 3 3 7
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 5 5 21 4 3 15 1 2 6
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 5 2 25 3 2 16 2 0 9

177
PARTICIPANT 2 - REGION 1 (INTERVIEW 3)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 1069 450 619
Viable Posts 495 238 257
Total Posts with White Representation 405 192 213
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
96
Trad
190
Non-Trad
67
Trad
67
Non-Trad
29
Trad
123
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 254 101 153
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
40
Trad
110
Non-Trad
25
Trad
37
Non-Trad
15
Trad
73
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 3 20 47 1 6 5 2 14 42
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 24 16 38 15 6 14 9 10 24
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 12 71 44 7 23 23 5 48 21
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 13 24 21 6 5 5 7 19 16

178
PARTICIPANT 3 - REGION 1 (INTERVIEW 5)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 1,122 701 421
Viable Posts 201 150 61
Total Posts with White Representation 194 133 61
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
71
Trad
46
Non-Trad
44
Trad
33
Non-Trad
27
Trad
13
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 60 42 18
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
11
Trad
18
Non-Trad
7
Trad
15
Non-Trad
4
Trad
3
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 1 3 7 1 3 4 0 0 3
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 2 7 11 2 7 6 0 0 5
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 2 5 7 1 4 5 1 1 2
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 8 7 9 5 5 6 3 2 3

179
PARTICIPANT 4 - REGION 3 (INTERVIEW 6)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 439 72 367
Viable Posts 194 35 159
Total Posts with White Representation 152 33 22+97=119
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
38
Trad
63
Non-Trad
7
Trad
17
Non-Trad
31
Trad
46
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 130 20 110
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
23
Trad
48
Non-Trad
4
Trad
9
Non-Trad
19
Trad
39
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 19 26 27 3 5 5 16 21 22
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 4 13 11 1 4 1 3 9 10
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 3 8 27 1 3 3 2 5 24
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 9 13 15 3 2 3 6 11 12

180
PARTICIPANT 5 - REGION 3 (INTERVIEW 1)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 575 282 293
Viable Posts 330 177 153
Total Posts with White Representation 292 153 139
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
178
Trad
72
Non-Trad
90
Trad
32
Non-Trad
88
Trad
40
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 114 71 43
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
67
Trad
22
Non-Trad
40
Trad
13
Non-Trad
27
Trad
9
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 45 10 13 27 5 10 18 5 3
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 8 9 3 7 7 2 1 2 1
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 11 1 10 5 1 9 6 0 1
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 14 6 6 7 3 5 7 3 1

181
PARTICIPANT 6 - REGION 4 (INTERVIEW 7)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 726 178 548
Viable Posts 373 116 257
Total Posts with White Representation 179 68 111
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
12
Trad
83
Non-Trad
2
Trad
33
Non-Trad
10
Trad
50
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 315 92 223
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
20
Trad
139
Non-Trad
4
Trad
39
Non-Trad
16
Trad
95
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 20 121 147 4 36 49 16 85 98
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 0 4 17 0 1 10 0 3 7
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 1 6 18 0 1 3 1 5 15
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 1 10 28 0 3 11 1 7 17

182
PARTICIPANT 7 - REGION 5 (INTERVIEW 4)
Total Pre Floyd: 29 July 2018 - 25 May 2020 Post Floyd: 26 May 2020 - 23 March 2022
Post Circulation 526 208 318
Viable Posts 182 76 106
Total Posts with White Representation 165 71 94
Total Posts with White O.R. Participation Non-Trad
11
Trad
13
Non-Trad
2
Trad
3
Non-Trad
9
Trad
10
Total Posts with Nonwhite Racial Representation 85 32 53
Total Posts with Nonwhite O.R. Participation Non-Trad
2
Trad
9
Non-Trad
0
Trad
4
Non-Trad
2
Trad
5
Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R. Non-Trad Trad Not O.R.
Number of posts, subjects coded Black 0 8 55 0 3 19 0 5 36
Number of posts, subjects coded Indigenous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of posts, subjects coded Asian/PacIsland 0 1 13 0 1 4 0 0 9
Number of posts, subjects coded Hispanic/Latinx 1 0 19 0 1 8 1 0 11
Number posts, subjects coded “Race Indeterminate” 2 2 33 0 0 12 2 2 11

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The importance of Black and Latino teachers in BIPOC student achievement and the importance of continuous teacher professional development for BIPOC student achievement

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black, indigenous, and people of color in executive-level information technology positions

PDF

Addressing the challenges of employee retention: a qualitative analysis of job satisfaction and perceptions of advancement by marginalized women in the insurance industry

PDF

Implementing an equity-based multi-tiered system of support in a large urban school district: the grows and glows

PDF

Novice Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) school administrators' professional development and adult learning

PDF

A case study on African American parents' perceptions of Mandarin Dual Language Immersion Programs and the role social capital plays in student enrollment

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

Changemakers of Color: a model for racial equity in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Exhaustion of Black women in corporate settings: a study to identify helpful interventions

PDF

Canaries in the mine: centering the voices of Black women DEI practitioners in a period of DEI resistance

PDF

An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Unlocking the potential: improving persistence and graduation of Black female students at select historically Black colleges and universities: a case study

PDF

Toward equity and inclusion for developmentally disabled persons: a study of electoral engagement

PDF

Stress and burnout: a qualitative study of the influences on female leaders' decision to leave

PDF

Biophilia: a study of how nature-focused environments influence Black student wellbeing through an ecological systems theory

PDF

Understanding normative influence of neighborhoods: a multilevel approach to promoting Latinas’ cervical cancer prevention behaviors in urban ethnic communities

PDF

AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform

Asset Metadata

Creator Swanson, Alexandra Lawton (author)

Core Title A study of diversification In the outdoor recreation industry and its connection to the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) urban health equity gap

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/24/2023

Defense Date 02/15/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag and inclusion,artifact analysis,BIPOC,Black,Bronfenbrenner,cities,Coleman,critical race theory,DEI,Delgado & Stefancic,diversity,equity,indigenous,Instagram,marketing,North America,O.R. Industry,OAI-PMH Harvest,Outdoor recreation,outdoor recreation industry,Parks & Recreation,Parks & Recreation Director,people of color,Private Sector,Private-Sector,public sector,Public-Sector,quantitative,social capital theory,Swanson,urban health

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer (committee chair), Crispen, Patrick (committee member), Seli, Helen (committee member)

Creator Email alexandralswanson@yahoo.com,swansona@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113077793

Unique identifier UC113077793

Identifier etd-SwansonAle-11694.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SwansonAle-11694

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Swanson, Alexandra Lawton

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230424-usctheses-batch-1029 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu