The increasing prospects for leisure.

A central assumption of the public recreation and park movement was that free time would increase both in quantity and in importance. During the last decade. the American public appears to seriously question this assumption. More Americans tell survey interviewers they now have less free time. The claim is made in some quarters that North American society is devoted almost exclusively to work. When asked to estimate how much free time they have in surveys, the response of many Americans is "What free time?" and then say they have an average of only 18 hours a week of free time, down reportedly by 50% since the 1970s.

In spite of this, there is increased evidence that a major series of changes has occurred in North American society and, indeed, most other Western countries. These changes include the following:

* The portion of life devoted to work in North America and other modern nations is declining dramatically.

* Free time during the week has increased in the United States by almost one hour per day since 1965 for Americans between the ages of 18 and 65, and may be more than that for those over 65.

* Increased economic well being is a chief cause of gains in free time and, in turn, leisure is increasingly the basis of economic well being.

* About 2/3s of the public rates their leisure as being more important than or equal in importance to their work in both the United States and Canada.

Other changes, however, appear to limit the potential or quality of free time, often in dramatic fashion.

* Large segments of the population always feel rushed, during their leisure as well as during their work.

* The majority of the hours of free time, for many, occur in small segments during weekdays; not on week-ends. Such segments may be less useful for many forms of leisure which people find satisfying.

* Free time is increasingly concentrated in certain age groups over the life span. The vast majority of Americans are not in the labor force from age 60 on, while some younger people with the multiple roles of worker, spouse and parent need more time for their daily routines. The big gains in free time since 1965 have been among older people, a change that needs to be re-thought.

* People spend about 40% of their free time watching television, even though they usually don't rate it as highly satisfying as a free time activity.

* Participation in some forms of leisure activity thought to be desirable, such as civic life and sport, may be declining, although evidence of a decline in "social capital" is not clear.

Increasing Free Time Across the Life Span

Peter Drucker (1989) and others argue that where business has succeeded in the noncommunist world, it has succeeded so well that people can consider satisfying non-economic needs. "[H]alf of the expansion in wealth-producing capacity was used to create leisure time by cutting the hours worked while steadily increasing pay". Drucker further notes that:

An additional third of the increased

wealth-producing capacity has gone into

healthcare, where expenditures have

gone from less than 1 percent of gross

national product to 8-11 percent

(depending on the country) in fifty

years. There has been almost equal

growth--from 2 percent of GNP to

10-11 percent--in the expenditure on

formal schooling; and with more and

more schooling taking place outside the

formal school system, especially in and

by employing institutions, the portion

of GNP that now goes to education is

much higher than the 10 percent

officially reported. Leisure, healthcare

and schooling require goods; they are

not spiritual. Very little of the new

leisure is used for intellectual pursuits

The free hours are more likely to be

spent in front of the television set

watching "Dallas" or sports. Still,

neither leisure nor healthcare nor

education were ever considered

economic satisfactions. They represent

values quite different from those of the

`business society.' they bespeak a

society in which economic satisfactions

are a means rather than a good in

themselves, and in which business

therefore is a tool rather than a way of

life. (pp. 177-8)

This same phenomenon is shown to be taking place in most other modern nations (Ausubel and Grubler, 1994). Table 1 shows that, not only has there been a decline in hours of work per year in the countries shown, but that the American worker is not overworked compared to their counterparts in Germany or Japan.

Table 1. International Comparison of Hours Worked
per Person per Year

YEAR  FRANCE  FRG    UK
1870   2,945  2,941  2,984
1890   2,770  2,765  2,807
1913   2,588  2,584  2,624
1929   2,297  2,284  2,286
1938   1,848  2,316  2,267
1950   1,926  2,316  1,958
1960   1,919  2,081  1,913
1973   1,771  1,804  1,688
1984   1.543  1,620  1,557

YEAR  USA    JAPAN  RATIO OF JAPAN/USA
1870  2,964  2,945  0.99
1890  2,789  2,770  0.99
1913  2,605  2,588  0.99
1929  2,342  2,364  1.01
1938  2,062  2,361  1.15
1950  1,857  2,166  1.16
1960  1,795  2,318  1.29
1973  1,717  2,093  1.22
1984  1,608  2,020  1.26

Source of data. Maddison, 1991

Additionally, work is taking a smaller and smaller fraction of the hours of one's life. An analysis of British citizens, for instance, found that:

Although the average career length has

remained around 40 years, the total life

hours worked shrank from 124,000

hours in 1856 to 69,000 in 1983. The

fraction of disposable lifetime hours

spent working declined from 50 percent

to 20 percent. (Ausubel and Grubler,

1994).

Even if we have not achieved a society of leisure, we have gained free time--not only on a daily basis but as a percentage of our total lives. Free time is increasing in a wide range of countries and the in creases of free time are positively related to increased Gross Domestic Product, in line with Drucker's thinking.

The Causes of New Free Time

A central feature of the declining portion of life spent working is later entry into the labor force and earlier retirement with longer life expectancy. U.S. workers now retire, on average, in their late fifties or early sixties, and American men who reach the age of 65 now have a life expectancy of 80 years, while women's life expectancy is 84 years. On average, about 12 of these years after age 65 will be relatively healthy. The elderly are not only no longer disproportionately poor but, if wealth is measured as financial assets, among the wealthiest groups in society (ages 55 to 64 is the wealthiest). Their potential for free time use has increased dramatically. It is no wonder that the 55 and over age group constitute a huge portion of the traveling public as well as those who dine in upscale restaurants.

Our current society hoards huge amounts of free time to be spent only in the last fifteen to twenty years of life. The Prussian bureaucrat who is reputed to have established 65 as the age of retirement payment, is said to have done so completely arbitrarily. He probably never imagined that the institution of retirement that he helped establish would today consume almost one-fifth of a person's life. Less than one out of five of the 52 million Americans age 55 and over is in the labor force--a stunning indicator of where free time has grown most quickly. Does this retirement policy recognize the vastly differential rate at which people age, or transfer adequate free time or provide more tranquillity for those in earlier life stages who must scramble to fulfill the multiple roles of parent of young children, full time employee and spouse? (Even though an increasingly small portion of young people have all these roles).

Not only retirees but children as well may be considered to have more free time. School-age children attend public school only about 180 days per year in the U.S. (compared to 240 in Japan) and the amount of time they spend doing schoolwork at home is thought to have declined. They may also spend less time helping parents with housework or other chores.

The portion of our lives devoted to both paid work and housework is decreasing and it appears that such declines are predicted by rising economic standards of living within a country. Gershuny (1992), after a meta-analysis of time use in 15 countries drew this conclusion and added: "... there is no basis, theoretical or empirical, for thinking that we are `running out of time'."

The Decreasing Workweek

The total number of hours per week devoted to paid work, the commute to work and total family care declined 6.2 hours a week for women and 6.0 hours a week for men from 1965 to 1985, as shown by nationally representative time diary studies.

Preliminary analysis of 1995 time diaries and other data sources (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) work weeks, Neilson figures) generally show amount of free time has held steady since 1985.

Free time has increased since 1965 by about six hours per week. Both men and women average about forty hours of free time per week. Basically, all sectors of the population have gained free time, although the main gain in free time occurred between 1965 and 1975. While the gain since 1975 has been only one-two hours per week, this six hour average gain per week is of considerable significance. It translates to a gain of more than 6 forty-hour workweeks of additional free time per year, or an additional month and a half of vacation.

Rushing As a Way of Life

While Americans and those in other modern nations generally have gained free time, their subjective perception of time is often one of feeling more rushed and that there is never enough time. The percentage of U.S. and Canadian citizens who say they have less free time than they did five years ago is twice as high as the percentage who say they have more free time (Godbey, Graefe and James, 1992; Roper Starch Worldwide 1995; Harper et al, 1997). For some groups, this trend reflects reality; for example, people aged 25 to 34 do tend to have less free time than in 1992 because they are more likely to be working full-time and to have children. Dairy time-use data bear out that assumption. This does not, however, explain why older people also feel they have less free time, when diary data reveals that weekly leisure among mature Americans has increased.

Other evidence of an increasingly frantic way of life is that, in 1965, only a quarter of Americans under age 65 who were surveyed by the Americans' Use of Time Project said they "always felt rushed." By 1992, however, the share had risen to 38 percent. Those more likely to feel rushed, both now and then, are those who truly have less free time, such as full-time workers and parents.

The result of perpetually feeling rushed is a "time crunch," a concept that the 1991 Hilton Time Values Project measured through a series of attitudinal questions about stress and other time-related factors. See Table 2. Between 21 and 43 percent of respondents agreed with each of ten statements, including: "I just don't have time for fun anymore," and "I consider myself a workaholic."

Table 2. The Time Crunch Scale and Who Feels Crunched: % Agreeing

A. Item

1. I often feel under
stress when I don't
have enough time               43%

2. When I need more time,
I tend to cutback on
my sleep                       40%

3. At the end of the day,
I often feel that I
haven't accomplished
what I set out to do           33%

4. I worry that I don't spend
enough time with my family
or friends                     33%

5. I feel that I'm
constantly under
stress -- trying
to accomplish more
than I can handle              31%

6. I feel trapped in a
daily routine                  28%

7. When I'm working long
hours, I often feel
guilty that I'm not
at home                        27%

8. I consider myself a
workaholic                     26%

9. I just don't have time
for fun anymore                22%

10. Sometimes I feel
that my spouse doesn't
know who I am anymore          21%

Average Total of Statements Agreed With

B. Demographic Differences in the Time Crunch:
(average number of agreements with ten statements)   Women    Men

TOTAL                                                  3.5    2.9
AGE
  18 to 29                                             3.6    2.8
  30 to 49                                             3.8    2.9
  50 to 59                                             2.4    2.8
  60 and older                                         2.7    2.8
EMPLOYMENT
  Full-time                                            3.7    2.8
  Part-time                                            3.3    4.1
  Not employed                                         3.1    2.7
CHILDREN AT HOME
  Under age 6                                          4.0    2.8
  Aged 6 to 11                                         4.1    2.7
  Aged 12to 17                                         4.1    3.2
  No children under 18                                 3.3    2.8
RACE/ETHNIC ORIGIN
  White                                                3.3    2.8
  Black, Hispanic                                      4.4    2.8
MARITAL STATUS
  Single                                               3.2    2.9
  Married                                              3.3    2.9
  Divorced/widowed                                     4.3    2.5

Source: Robinson, 1991. Hilton Time Values Survey.

As may be seen, people scoring highest on the time-crunch scale are the same people who always feel rushed. Women rate significantly higher than men, particularly those in the paid labor force. The peak crunch period is between the ages of 35 and 44, with a marked drop after age 45. Not surprisingly, having children increases the time crunch, as does having higher levels of income and education, which are often associated not only with more demanding work schedules and responsibilities, but with having a more complex agenda for one's free time.

In spite of such overwhelming feelings, time diaries indicate that less than 20% of adults 18-64 in our society have less than 20 hours of free time per week. An explanation for this is that time has many properties, among them apace" and duration." Thus, people can spend a shorter duration of time at work but feel a speedup of "pace" of both work and free time. As measured mechanically, time seems to have become increasingly divorced from meaning. Our internal and external realities diverge in a world which may have become simultaneously more highly ordered and more insane, in which perceptions and behaviors are increasingly out of synch. Increased free time should slow down the pace of life and make us more tranquil and leisurely. The opposite appears to be happening. Even as "free" time increases, many Americans feel they are rushing past life. True leisure is an idea which is not only been abandoned in our society, it is no longer even understood or considered. Many Americans have developed dysfunctional attitudes toward time as an infinitely expandable resource. Almost by definition, that means one can never have enough time--even though we may have all we need.

This paradox also means that our society has progressed, in spite of people's perceptions of time. The United States and many other modern nations collectively have more time freed to do as one wishes. The "leisure potential" has increased. The dream of more leisure-time freed from the necessity of labor--is happening under our very noses. Individuals suffer from a cultural lag, however, in which they continue to rush, consume and stay perpetually busy, even when there is no production goal in sight.

While we have gained almost an hour a day from 1965 of "free time," the qualitative aspects of such minutes may be as harried as our minutes devoted to obligation. Indeed, in a culture which is materially privileged at historically unprecedented levels, obligation has become a notion which is potentially without limit, since notions of what is "necessary" seem to find few limits. Rushing represents an extension of what a person defines as "necessary," such as a workout at the gym or a four wheel drive vehicle. In reality, such necessities are a privilege in a privileged society. The mistaken belief of the 80's that "you can have it all" may have produced an endless rushing after both things and experience.

This perception of the need to rush may foster many feelings which time dairy research find to be false, such as being more tired from a day's work now than a few decades ago. We aren't (See Table 3). Are we sleeping fewer hours than a few decades ago because we are so busy? We aren't, we sleep about the same number of hours as in 1965.

Table 3. How Tired Employees Are After A Day Of Work

                       1975       1995
Very Tired             24%         23%
Somewhat Tired         54%         54%
Not Tired              22%         23%
TOTAL                 100%        100%

Source: Robinson, J. and G. Godbey. Time for Life--The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time. University Park, PA: Penn State Press, 1997.

It is telling that sizable portions of the public report feeling rushed due to what they undertake in their leisure rather than work (Robinson and Godbey, 1997). Thus rushing is not due only to work. Indeed, many retired people report high levels of "time crunch" even though theoretically there is almost nothing they have to do.

Is A Slowdown Beginning?

In 1995, the Americans' Use of Time Project replicated much of the previous research on people's perceptions of time and found that Americans are feeling slightly less stressed than they were a few years ago. They are also somewhat less likely to say that their free time has declined.

The proportion of people aged 18 to 64 who say that they always feel rushed fell from 38 percent to 34 percent in 1995. For those aged 65 and over, the drop is more dramatic. The proportion of people who say they have experienced at least some stress in the past two weeks was 54 percent in 1995, hardly changed from 56 percent in 1993. The share who would rather have an extra day off than an extra day's pay is also declining, from 49 percent in 1991 to 47 percent in 1995. Perhaps the most interesting reversal of all is that 45 percent say they have less free time than in the past, down from the 54 percent obtained by the Roper poll in 199?. Thus, while it is too early to tell, people may be starting to slow down.

The Distribution of Free Time

Most free time occurs during weekdays, not the weekend. Free time increases from 5 hours a day on weekdays, to 6 hours on Saturdays, to 7.5 hours on Sundays. Across the week, thee, 25 of the 40 weekly hours of free time occur on weekdays. Free time during the week may have more limited value in terms of its possibility for leisure. That is, with a whole day of free time, a broader range of activities is possible, such as taking a trip, sailing a boat or perusing books in your local library. These activities would be very difficult to squeeze into 45 minutes per day gains during workdays.

This distribution may be a problem, since free time in larger segments has expanded potential for leisure purposes. For instance, the nature of free time differs dramatically on vacation. Even though the 7.4 hours of free time on vacation days are barely more than a typical Sunday, there is a dramatic decline in television viewing to less than 20 minutes a day (Hill, 1985). In its place, reading time more than doubles and communication time almost doubles (although visiting time is cut in hall). The biggest increase is in sports, walking and other outdoor activity--nearly two hours. The increases in sleep and meal time, and the decrease in grooming time, also suggest a more leisurely pace.

Survey respondents generally report they would rather have their increases in free time in the form of three-day weekends or larger blocks of time. In spite of this, the chores of weekdays appear to be expanding into the weekend, even as free time expands during weekdays. The expansion of free time on the weekday may help explain the greater amount of time devoted to television viewing during the last few decades (Robinson and Godbey, 1997).

Increased Importance of Leisure

In regard to relative importance of work and leisure, one national survey found that 41 percent of the public thought leisure was more important than work, while only 36 percent thought work was more important than leisure and 23 percent thought they were equally important (Roper, 1990). This question had been asked by the Roper organization since 1975 and, from 1975 to 1985, more people thought work was important but leisure slowly rose in importance. Another study, using a national sample of 1,300 households, found 38 percent said work and leisure were equally important, 36 percent said work was more important and 26 percent said leisure was more important (Godbey, Graefe and James, 1992).

Use of Leisure

Almost all the gains in free time since 1965 have been used for more television viewing! Such TV viewing overwhelms all other uses of free time, accounting for about 40% of all free time. As the scholar of architecture James Kunstler (1993) observed:

The American house has been TV-centered

for three generations. It is the focus

of family life, and the life of the house correspondingly

turns inward, away from

whatever occurs beyond its four walls. (TV

rooms are celled `family rooms, in

builders' lingo. A friend who is an architect

explained to me: `People don't want to

admit that what the family does together is

watch TV.') At the same time, the television

is the family's chief connection with

the outside world. The physical envelope

of the house itself no longer connects

their lives to the outside in any active way;

rather, it seals them off from it. The outside

world has become an abstraction filtered

through television, just as the weather

is an abstraction filtered through air

conditioning."

Thus, television has become the pivotal use of free time, and most of its content is based around both escapism and consumption. The cultural historian Lasch (1979) describes how,

The appearance in history of an escapist

conception of `leisure' coincides with the

organization of leisure as an extension of

commodity production. The same forces

that have organized the factory and the

office have organized leisure as well,

reducing it to an appendage of industry."

Leisure, then, is organized by large corporations rather than the people in local communities. Any thoughts of re-ordering leisure in society will have to start by considering TV.

If TV viewing has grown, participation in sport and fitness may be declining. About 10% of free time goes into sports and exercise activities. While participation in sports and exercise activities more than doubled between 1965 and 1985, the gain was somewhat higher for women. Participation in sport and fitness activity declined by 10 percent between 1985 and 1990. (Robinson and Godbey, 1995). Perhaps contrary to expectations, such declines were greater among females than males, thus increasing the gender gap in sport and fitness. Young women showed greater rates of decline than did older women, and the largest declines, amounting to an average of 33.8 occasions of sport and fitness participation per year, were among the youngest group of females in the sample. In spite of this, females participated about five times in a sport or exercise activity for every seven times males did.

TV viewing may also have replaced other forms of free time use, among them community activities which produce "social capital." Recent research by Robert Putnam documents the decline of "social capital." By social capital "I mean features of social life--networks, norms and trust--that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives" (Putnam, 1995). Putnam uses time-diary data to strengthen his case, citing a roughly 25% decline in time spent in informal socializing and visiting since 1965 and the nearly 50% decline in the time we spend in clubs and organizations. Other documentation of the decline in social capital includes greatly decreased membership in voluntary organizations such as the Boy Scouts, League of Women Voters, Parent Teacher Associations, The Red Cross, volunteers in many organizations and even league bowling. Since the governance of a democracy is dependent upon voluntary participation, these declines are ominous. While the reasons for this decline are not completely understood, Putnam attributes the decline in social capital largely to the influence of television. The progression by which television is causing this problem may be conceived as follows:

Not all social critics agree with Putnam that social capital has declined. It has been argued that Putnam has ignored grassroots political groups, religious organizations and soccer leagues. It is also contended that such "social capital" organizations may be more interested in excluding other people than including them (Perlstein, 1997). Such groups may also now be using home computers to do their work. It may be that Americans are redefining the forms and nature of their engagement with the community (Stengel, placing other uses of free time. Time devoted to social life has declined--as have time spent in voluntary organizations and in religion. While in survey research Americans report that religion is of central importance in their lives, they spend an average of 42 minutes per week in religious activity.

Increasing Economic Significance of Free Time

Free time increases as countries become more affluent and leisure and its use become a more important engine driving the economy. While "leisure studies" is not often taken very seriously within universities, the well-being of the economy is increasingly tied to use of leisure. Gershuny (1992) and others have recently argued that leisure, in modern societies, creates the jobs which most people have, allowing for consumption of an ever-expanding variety of goods and services.

When consumption is the main activity of

a day or a life, most work in restaurants,

hotels, schools, media, fitness centers,

banks and healthcare organizations. Service

dominates employment and over the

long run may especially favor medicine

and work less, people can worry more

about youth, beauty, and health.

To the extent that leisure is the generator of jobs, it will have to be more systematically understood.

While a comprehensive count of leisure industry jobs is hard to find, there are some leisure-related jobs in every industry, including defense. Crandall (Academy of Leisure Sciences, 1993) claimed that travel and tourism employs nine million people in the U.S. There are about 250,000 public sector jobs in federal, state, county and local recreation, park and other leisure agencies. There are nearly two million writers, artists, entertainers and professional athletes. No one has completely sorted out all of the jobs that are linked to leisure and converted these to full time equivalents. The simplest way to get a total leisure job estimate is to convert leisure spending to jobs.

If about $40,000 in consumer spending 

generates a job (full time equivalent), a

trillion dollars in leisure spending translates

into 25 million jobs--about a quarter

of all jobs in 1990. If this isn't enough, figure

that every leisure job generates another

job in a supporting industry. This ties

nearly half of all jobs to leisure (Stynes,

Academy of Leisure Sciences, 1993).

Thus, free time has increased and leisure has become of central importance in our lives and the economy.

Implications for Parks and Recreation

From the previous, it seems clear that many of the assumptions upon which public recreation and park services were founded are warranted. Free time is increasing both as a portion of all our life hours and as a fraction of the week which is not devoted to work. Also, people believe that their leisure is important--most usually as important as their work.

It is not surprising that public recreation and park services serve older people more than the public generally recognizes--older people are not only likely to have more free time but also to have it in larger segments necessary to travel to parks, beaches, festivals, and other recreation destinations.

Among some younger people, the increased free time has come in small segments on weekdays which may make use of leisure services rushed or inconvenient. Sport and exercise may be declining, as may voluntary participation in the community (although there is debate about the social capital hypothesis) but such declines may represent choices people make, such as to watch television, rather than lack of time. Another factor important to such declines may be the greater distance we live from each other.

Because much of the public feels more rushed than previously, stress reduction is a critical function of recreation and park services--contact with nature, slowing things down, leisurely experience with friends and family. The positive future of public leisure services is tied to a combination of factors:

* the increasing amount of free time across the life cycle and work week

* leisure's parallel importance with work in the mind's of the public

* the lack of satisfaction with the pace of life and the ability of public leisure services to help slow things down

* the increasingly destructive consequences of market-sector leisure

Government is going to re-involve itself in recreation and park issues--for very practical reasons. The cost of investing in public recreation and park services is a tiny fraction of the cost of trying to mop up the damage done by free time use which is escapist and consumption-oriented.

To help this process, recreation and park professionals must become a force for change in the organization of free time. Issues such as longer vacations, changes in the Fair Labor Standards Act, the four day workweek, day care, promoting TV free days or TV diets, are ones where NRPA and other professional organizations should be involved, not only in reacting to legislation, but proposing it.

A final implication is that, while many in public recreation and park services have thought that their "competition" was the YMCA, a private campground or the Girl Scouts, the real competition is--television. Not only does TV consume 40% of our free time, it is associated with many negative changes in those who depend on it as a primary means of leisure activity, such as obesity and decreased fitness. What is our collective stand on TV? Do we, as NRPA members and professionals, understand that:

Television is not vulgar because people

are vulgar; it is vulgar because people are

similar in their prurient interests and

sharply differentiated in their civilized 

concerns. All of world history is moving

increasingly toward more segmented markets.

But in a broadcast medium, such a

move would be a commercial disaster. In a

broadcast medium, artists and writers cannot

appeal to the highest aspirations and

sensibilities of individuals, manipulative 

masters rule over huge masses of people.

(Gilder, 1994. R 49).

The recreation and parks movement has answers to this problem. Leisure requires learning skills--becoming educated about the possibilities of using free time in ways which are not only satisfying, but meaningful and central in importance. The choices made during free time are more critical than ever--and there is more free time. There is time for life.

Table 4. World Future Society Model--Consequences
of Television (1991)

Possible
Consequences    Television

1st Order       people have new source of entertainment
                or information in their home

2nd Order       people stay home, less socializing

3rd Order       residents of communities do not meet
                as often, therefore do not know
                each other

4th Order       community residents are strangers,
                find it difficult to deal with common
                problems, isolation and alienation

5th Order       isolation from neighbors, members of
                a family depend on each other for
                satisfaction of psychological needs

6th Order       when spouses are unable to meet
                heavy psychological demands that
                each makes on each other, frustration,
                possible breakdown

Source: World Future Society (1991). "the Art of Forecasting A brief Introduction to Thinking About the Future." Washington, D. C.: World Future Society.

References

Ausubel, J. and A. Grubler. 1994. "Working Less and Living Longer: Long-Term Trends in Working Time and Time Budgets," Working Paper 94-99. Laxenburg, Austria: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Crandall, D. quoted in Stynes, 1995.

Cutler, B. 1990, November. Where Does the Free Time Go? American Demographics.

Drucker, Peter. 1993. Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Business.

Gershuny, J. 1992. "Are We Running Out of Time?" Futures. January/February, 1-18.

Godbey, G., A. Graefe and S. James. July, 1992. The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the American Public. Arlington, VA. National Recreation and Park Association.

Godbey, G. and A. Graefe. Rushin Americans. American Demographics. April, 1993. pp. 26-27.

Hill, Daniel, "Implications of Home Production and Inventory Adjustment Processes for Time-of-Day Demand for Electricity" in F. Thomas Juster and Frank Stafford, Time, Goods, and Well-Being, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1985.

Harper, D., D. Neider, and G. Godbey.1997. The Use and Benefits of Local Government Recreation and Park Services in Canada. Manitoba: University of Winnipeg.

Lasch, C. 1979. The Culture of Narcissism--American Life In An Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W.W. Norton.

Kunstler, James. 1993. The Geography of Nowhere--The Rise and Fall of America's Man-Made Landscape. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Perlstein, R. "Blind Alley. Lingua Franca. December/January, 1997. pp. 12-13.

Putnam, R. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 6, No. 1, January, 1995. pp. 65-78.

Robinson, J. 1990, November. The Leisure Pie. American Demographics. pp. 39-40.

Robinson, J. and G. Godbey. 1993. "Sport, Fitness and the Gender Gap." Leisure Sciences. vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 291-308

Robinson, J. and G. Godbey. 1993. "Has Fitness Peaked?" American Demographics. September, pp. 36-43.

Robinson, J. and G. Godbey. 1995. "Are American Really Overworked?" American Enterprise. September/October, p. 43. Robinson, J. and G. Godbey. "The Great American Slowdown. American Demographics.

Robinson, John and Geoffrey Godbey. 1997. Time For Life--The Surprising Ways Americans use Their Time. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

Roper Reports. 1995. No. 95-10. New York: Roper Starch Worldwide.

Stengel, R. Bowling Together. The Nation. July 22, 1996. pp. 35-6.

Stynes, D. for Academy of Leisure Sciences. 1995. Leisure--The New Center of the Economy. Denton, TX: Academy of Leisure Sciences.