Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frequency and Rates of Outdoor Activities, and Perceptions of Places to Perform these Activities by Native Americans and Caucasians Interviewed in Tennessee

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
EcoHealth Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Activity patterns and perceptions play a key role in human health risk, management, and planning. A sample of 233 people attending a Native American festival in Cookeville, Tennessee was interviewed to determine the types, percent participation, and outdoor activities rates, and their perceptions of the importance of characteristics of nuclear sites. Results indicate that: (1) a high percentage of respondents used outdoor environments, (2) they used them for consumptive (hunting, fishing), non-consumptive (hiking, walking, bird-watching), and religious/sacred activities, (3) a higher percentage of respondents engaged in non-consumptive than consumptive activities, (4) praying or meditating, communing with nature, and bird-watching had the highest uses rates (5) the environmental characteristics rated the highest were lack of radionuclides that presented a health risk, no visible smog, clean air, and unpolluted water, (6) the presence of people, buildings and roads were rated the lowest, and (7) Native Americans had higher outdoor participation rates, participated more frequently, and evaluated environmental characteristics higher than did Caucasians. This information can be used by managers to create and maintain outdoor habitats that fit the needs of local people. Planning and management require information on public policy, human needs and requirements, and human perceptions and evaluations of environmental characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansolabehere S (2007) Public attitudes toward America’s energy options: insights for nuclear energy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisconti Research (2007a) Public Opinion about Nuclear Energy. Report for Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC, 5–9 May 2005.

  • Bisconti Research (2007b) National Survey of Nuclear Power Plant Communities. Report for Nuclear Energy Institute. www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreseases/nuclearpowerplantneighborsaccept.html.

  • Burger J (1999) American Indians, hunting and fishing rates, risk, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Environmental Research 80:317–329.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2003) Consistency among methods of assessing concerns about the Los Alamos national laboratory. Journal of Toxocology and Environmental Health 66:199–210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2004) Recreational rates and future land-use preferences for four Department of Energy sites: consistency despite demographic differences. Environmental Research 95:215–223.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2008) Environmental management: integrating ecological evaluation, remediation, restoration, natural resource damage assessment and long-term stewardship on contaminated lands. Science of the Total Environment 400:6–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J (2012) Perceptions of goods, services and eco-cultural attributes of Native mericans and Caucasians in Idaho. Remediation 2012:105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M (2010) Gender differences in resource use and evaluation of attributes of places of resource use by Native Americans and Caucasians from Western Idaho. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 73:1655–1664.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Rousch DD Jr, Ramos R, Gochfeld M (2000) Risk perception, land use, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: attitudes of the Shoshone-Bannock and other American Indians. Environmental Research 83:298–310.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Carletta MA, Lowrie K, Miller KT, Greenberg M (2004) Assessing ecological resources for remediation and future land uses on contaminated lands. Environmental Management 34:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M, Pletnikoff K, Snigaroff R, Snigaroff D, Stamm T (2008) Ecocultural attributes: evaluating ecological degradation: ecological goods and services vs subsistence and tribal values. Risk Analysis 28:1261–1271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burger J, Gochfeld M, Jeitner C, Donio M, Pittfield T (2012) Activity patterns and perceptions of goods, services, and eco‐cultural attributes by ethnicity and gender for Native Americans and Caucasians. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation and Tourism 9:eprint

  • Chambers C, Whitehead J (2009) A contingent valuation estimate of the value of wolves in Minnesota. Environmental Research in Economics 9:225–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, deGroot RS, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo, J, Raskjing RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson EA (2000) You can’t eat GNP: economics as if ecology mattered. Cambridge, Mass: Perserus Publ

    Google Scholar 

  • DeGroot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ. 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods, and services. Ecological Economics 41:393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond P, Hausman J (1994) Contingent valuation: is some number better than no number? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8:45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efroymson RA, Peterson MJ, Welsh CJ, Druckenbrod DL, Ryon MG, Smith JG, Hargrove WW, Griffen NR, Roy WK, Quarles HD (2008). Investigating habitat value to inform contaminant remediation options: approach. Journal of Environmental Management 88:1436–1451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Floyd MF, Shinew KJ, McGuire FA, Noe FP (1994) Race, class, and leisure activity preferences: marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of leisure Research 26:158–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyn J, Slovic P, Mertz C (1994) Decidedly different: expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis 6:643–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C (2006) The economic perspective: conservation against development versus conservation for development. Conservation Biology 20:686–688.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frewer LJ, Howard C, Shepherd R (1998) Understanding public attitudes to technology. Journal of Risk Research 1:221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch M. et al. (1998) Regional economic benefits of environmental management at the US Department of Energy’s major nuclear weapon sites. Journal of Environmental Management 54:23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M R (2009a) How much do people who live near major nuclear facilities worry about those facilities? Analysis of national and site-specific data. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52:919–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M R (2009b) NIMBY, CLAMP, and the location of new nuclear-related facilities: U.S. national and 11 site specific surveys. Risk Analysis 29:1242–1245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, et al. (2002) The US Department of Energy’s regional economic legacy: spatial dimensions of a half century of dependency. Socio-economic planning sciences 36:109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Burger J, Powers C, Mayer H (2007) Preferences for alternative risk management policies at the Unites States major nuclear weapons legacy sites. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50:187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper BL, Harding AD, Waterhous T, Harris SG (2008) Traditional Tribal Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Risk Assessment Guidance Manual. US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-STAR-J1-R831-46. http://www.hhs.oregonstate.edu/ph/sites/default/files/xposure_Scenario_and_Risk_Guidance_Manual_v2.pdf. Accessed on 7-15-109

  • Harris SG, Harper BL (1997) A Native American exposure scenario. Risk Analysis 17:789–795.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Landeen D, Pinkham AS (1999) Salmon and his people: fish and fishing in Nez Perce culture. Lewiston, ID: Confluence Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitao AB, Ahern J (2002) Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59:65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Espineira R (2006) A box-cox double-hurdle model of wildlife valuation: the citizen’s perspective. Ecological Economics 58:192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MIT (2003) The future of nuclear power. Cambridge, MA: MIT. http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower,2003.

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods. Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University for Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nez Perce (2003) Treaties: Nez Perce perspectives. Lewiston, ID. USDOE and Confluence Press

  • Nielsen AB, Olsen SB, Lundherde T (2007) An economic valuation of the recreational benefits associated with nature-based forest management practices. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2004) Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process. Washington, DC. NRC. NUREG/BR-0298.

  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2006) Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP site. NRC, Office of Reactor Regulation, Washington, DC. NUREG-1815, vol. 1.

  • Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2009) NRC regulatory guides—power reactors. NRC. http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/regs-guides/power-reactors/active/.

  • Nuclear News (2009) Nuclear Policies: Polls Show Growing Support for Nuclear. Nuclear News 2009, 17.

  • SAS (1995) User’s guide to SAS, Cary, NC

  • Shrestha RK, Seidl AF, Moraes AS (2002) Value of recreational fishing in the Brazilian Pantanal: a travel cost analysis using count data models. Ecological Economics 42:289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha RK, Stein TV, Clark J (2007) Valuing nature-based recreation in public natural areas of the Apalachicola River region, Florida. Journal of Environmental Management 10:1016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G, Roth C (2000) Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 20:353–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P (1987) Perceptions of risk. Science 236:280–285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1993) Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis 13:675–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suneetha MS, Chandrakanth MG (2006) Establishing a multi-stakeholder value index in medicinal plants – an economic study on selected plants in Kerala and Tamilnadu States of India. Ecological Economics 60, 36–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth JF, Brown RB (1997) Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing. Leisure Science 19:129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We particularly thank M. Greenberg, C. W. Powers, and J. Clarke for helpful information and discussions about the complexities of environmental planning and management, environmental evaluation in relation to resource use, and future land use, and R. Ramos, C. Dixon, M. Marchioni and S. Shukla for help with the interviews. We particularly thank Mary Cox and Carol Cash for permission to conduct these interviews at the “Pow Wow on the Mountain” festival. This research was funded by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) through the Department of Energy (AI # DE-FG 26-00NT 40938 and DE-FC01-06EW07053), NIEHS (P30ES005022), and EOHSI. The conclusions and interpretations reported herein are the sole responsibility of the authors, and should not in any way be interpreted as representing the views of the funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, 604 Allison Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854-8082, USA

    Joanna Burger

  2. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation and Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ, 08854-8082, USA

    Joanna Burger, Michael Gochfeld, Christian Jeitner & Taryn Pittfield

  3. Environmental and Community Medicine, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA

    Michael Gochfeld

  4. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, AK, 99518, USA

    Meredith Marchioni

Authors
  1. Joanna Burger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Gochfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Jeitner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Taryn Pittfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meredith Marchioni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joanna Burger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Jeitner, C. et al. Frequency and Rates of Outdoor Activities, and Perceptions of Places to Perform these Activities by Native Americans and Caucasians Interviewed in Tennessee. EcoHealth 9, 399–410 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0804-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0804-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation