從19世紀末以來，美國將近百年的遊憩與公園之發展，以達皆臻健全，堪爲世界之楷模。然而他們仍努力不懈地改善其休閒與遊憩服務之提供。過去幾年來，由於(1)與休閒有關之機構所面臨的財務、政治、與立法環境呈現劇烈的變化，和(2)學術界在公平性理論之研究有極大的進展；使得公平性的問題在美國的休閒與遊憩服務界逐漸受到注意與重視。本研究之目的乃在於探索不同公平性之偏好和三類與經營有關的變項之間關係。所謂公平性，是被認爲公正地分派有關公園與遊憩的資源，而這三類變項包括有：六種經費使用方式之優先順序，五種類型的遊憩區與公園之使用情形，與經費籌募來源（由22種可能來源所組成之量表）。研究之資料是源自於以加州居民爲主的機率樣本，樣本數總共971個。資料之收集方式是先以電話訪談方式進行，之後被訪樣本若願意再接受更進一步的訪談，則依照Dillman的郵寄問卷調查方式進行搜集有關本研究的資料。八種分派公園與遊憩區之資源的公平性概念以非常同意，同意、同意與不同意兩者皆非，不同意，非常不同意方式測量樣本對公平性原則之偏好。由於本研究探討救個依變數與數個獨立變項之間的關係，因此正準相關分析被應用來探討組間變項的可能相關性。研究結果顯示六種經費使用方式中的五種與補助經濟上屬於弱勢團體之公平原則有正面相關，而與付稅之多寡的公平性原則有負面的相關。五種不同的遊憩區之使用與八種公平性原則之關係似乎反應使用者對不同種類遊憩區之預期價值。使用頻率低者和非使用者偏愛使用者付費和最低成本等公平性原則，而使用頻率較高者偏愛平等性原則。至於經費來源方面，受訪樣本之反應經過分析之後顯示贊成平等、績效、與需求性公平原則者比較偏愛以增加銷售稅、課徵酒精性飲料稅、提撥部份現有之銷售稅做爲可能之經費來源。本研究之結果提供機會探討一個特定時段（調查期）美國加州居民對於公園與遊憩有關之資源分派決策的態度，及與居民所持之立場的關係。由於財務與政治之環境時時在改變，遊憩偏好亦會轉移，因此使用者對於遊憩資源分派所應用之公平性原則的態度亦會改變，諸如此類均有待有關單位繼續地調查與研究。

Equity has emerged in recent years as a concern in leisure service delivery in the United States primarily as a result of two factors. First, the external financial, political and legal environments to which leisure agencies have to respond has changed (Wicks 1987). Second, substantial theoretical contributions have been made by academics in conceptualizing equity (Crompton and Lamb 1986).Equity is concerned with fairness in the allocation of park and recreation resources. Rawls' (1971) classic treatise on what constitutes equity, stimulated a substantial literature on the subject and many definitions of what constitutes fair allocation have been suggested. These definitions have been conceptualized and categorized into a taxonomy by Crompton and Wicks (1988). The taxonomy consists of four generic types of equity models (equality, compensatory, demand, and market) which can be operationalized in one, two or three different ways, giving a total of eight different operationalizations of equity:Equality:1) Equal Inputs: Equally to each individual or unit of analysis2) Equal Benefits: where fewest services now existCompensatory:3) Economically Disadvantaged: To those with the greatest need (based on economic factors)Demand:4) Vociferous Advocacy: Where citizen advocacy is greatest5) Demonstrated Use: where services are most usedMarket:6) Direct Price Paid: where fees cover costs7) Amount of Taxes Paid: To those who pay the most taxes8) Least Cost Alternative: Where the cost of service provision is lowest.The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between these preferred equity models and spending priorities, use of alternative recreation and park settings, and funding sources.Wicks and Crompton (1987), working in an urban context, investigated the equity models preferred by residents, administrators, and decision makers for seven different types of recreation and park services: pools, neighborhood parks, community education programs, metropolitan parks, athletics, maintenance, and senior citizen programs. The selection of these services was guided by a set of criteria in an effort to ensure that they were representative of those ypica11y delivered by park and recreation agencies.Their study was conducted in Austin, Texas, and they emphasized that the particular findings could not be generalized to other contexts. They reported that equity model preferences varied according to the type of recreation or park service being offered and concluded, "The equity model appropriate to one service in one city may be inappropriate for a different service in that city or the same service in another city. Administrators who adhere to a single model will inevitably generate conflict" (wicks and Crompton 1987: p. 203).The study reported here extends the Wicks and Crompton (1987) work in two ways. First, this study was concerned with a statewide population and with statewide equity issues, rather than a city context. Second, a wider array of concerns was addressed. Rather than being confined to the relationship between preferred equity models and the delivery of specific types of services, this study explored their relationship to a broader array of managerial concerns and issues.