ORI GIN AL PA PER

Looking Beyond Traditional Volunteer Management:A Case Study of an Alternative Approach to VolunteerEngagement in Parks and Recreation

Martha L. Barnes Æ Erin K. Sharpe

Published online: 10 March 2009

� International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John’s Hopkins University 2009

Abstract In an era of declining volunteerism it is critical to examine alternative

approaches to volunteer management that may better promote engagement and

address common barriers to volunteering. Using a ‘‘best practices’’ Canadian case

study approach, this research describes an alternative approach to volunteer

engagement that emphasizes lifestyle integration, organizational informality and

flexibility, and volunteer–agency collaboration. We suggest that traditional volun-

teer management structures may actually be hindering engagement and call instead

for a more vocation-based, networked, and collaborative approach which affords

greater autonomy to the volunteer and sees power being shared between agencies

and volunteers.

Resume Dans une ere de declin du benevolat, il est imperatif d’examiner des

approches alternatives propres a mieux promouvoir sa gestion et resoudre ce qui fait

lui fait obstacle. En ce referent aux «meilleures pratiques» d’une etude de cas

canadienne, cette recherche decrit une alternative de facon a ce que l’engagement

benevole mette l’accent sur l’integration du style de vie, l’absence de formalite

organisationnelle garante de souplesse, et en collaboration avec des agences se

consacrant au benevolat. Nous suggerons que les structures de gestion du benevolat

traditionnelles peuvent en fait entraver leur engagement mais emmener dans son

sillage un element permettant une plus grande autonomie et partager equitablement

l’action conjointe des agences et des benevoles.

Zusammenfassung In einer Ara von rucklaufiger ehrenamtlicher Tatigkeit ist es

entscheidend, alternative Ansatze zum Management von ehrenamtlichen Helfern zu

prufen, die moglicherweise besser das Engagement fordern und auf verbreitete

M. L. Barnes (&) � E. K. Sharpe

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, Brock University,

St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada

e-mail: mbarnes@brocku.ca

123

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

DOI 10.1007/s11266-009-9080-5

Barrieren zum Volontieren eingehen. Die ‘‘best practices’’ einer kanadischen Fall-

studienmethode nutzend beschreibt diese Untersuchung einen alternativen Ansatz

zum Management von Ehrenamtlichen, der Integration des Lebensstils, organisa-

torische Zwanglosigkeit und Flexibilitat und Zusammenarbeit von Ehrenamtlichen

und Agentur betont. Wir behaupten, dass traditionelle Strukturen des Managements

von Ehrenamtlichen sogar Engagement behindern kann und fordern stattdessen eine

mehr berufsbasierte, vernetzte und gemeinschaftliche Herangehensweise, die dem

ehrenamtlichen Helfer großere Autonomie bietet und die Macht zwischen

Agenturen und Ehrenamtlichen teilt.

Resumen En una epoca de declive del voluntariado, es esencial examinar los

enfoques alternativos a la gestion de los voluntarios que mejor fomentarıan el

compromiso y derribarıan las barreras comunes al voluntariado. Enfocandonos en

un estudio de caso canadiense para las mejores practicas, este estudio describe un

metodo alternativo al compromiso de los voluntarios que hace hincapie en la in-

tegracion en el estilo de vida, la informalidad y la flexibilidad organizativa y la

colaboracion en organismos de voluntarios. Sugerimos que las estructuras tradi-

cionales de gestion voluntaria pueden ser un obstaculo al compromiso y exigimos

un enfoque mas colaborador, organizado en red y basado en la vocacion que permita

una mayor autonomıa a los voluntarios y busque un reparto de poder entre los

organismos y los voluntarios.

Keywords Volunteer management � Collaboration � Networking � Engagement �Volunteering � Parks and recreation � Canada

Introduction

Within the human services, the field of parks and recreation has long been heavily

dependent on voluntary support. The formative years of park and recreation services

in North America were greatly influenced by the voluntary efforts of individuals, in

particular affluent individuals (Andrew et al. 1994; Markham 1991; Stormann

1991). As Brightbill (1960, p. 17) observed, ‘‘people with money in their pockets

and time on their hands can give tremendous direction to society.’’ Sweeping

historical examples of voluntary support include ‘‘rational recreation’’ (Cross 1990)

and the playground movement (McFarland 1970), while currently volunteer support

is more localized, such as community gardens (Glover et al. 2005) and tourism sites

(Wearing 2002). The impact of these efforts on individuals as well as communities

is substantial, because volunteering can translate to higher levels of involvement,

commitment, and sacrifice for the community (Kelly 1997).

Current research that suggests volunteerism in North America is declining

(Putnam 2000; Hall et al. 2006) is alarming, particularly for recreation and sport

organizations. To address this reported decline, much has been developed to help

organize the work of volunteers. Scholars in various disciplines have studied

strategies related to organizing volunteers and managing the volunteer relationship

including recruitment, training, and retention (Barman 2007; Brudney and Nezhina

170 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

2005; Helmig et al. 2004; Howe 1991; Leiter 2008; Kim et al. 2007). Further, there

has been a substantial amount of work that has examined motivations and

satisfaction related to volunteer involvement (Finkelstein 2007; Goblin Conn and

Barr 2006; Mayer et al. 2007; Rehberg 2005; Silverberg et al. 2001; Stebbins 1996;

Zweigenhaft et al. 1996). However, few studies have examined volunteer

involvement, organization, and management in a way that allows for the

relationships between these elements to be explored. As suggested by Allen

(2006, p. 41), perhaps the problem of volunteer decline is not in a lack of interest,

but in the management practices used by agencies that work with volunteers; that

there actually are enough people if ‘‘we figure out how to mobilize them’’ and there

is enough work for volunteers ‘‘if we let them do it.’’ As such, it is critical to

examine best practices of volunteer engagement to understand how volunteers are

organized and managed, in order to determine if alternative approaches to current

volunteer management practices may exist.

In this context, the focus of this study is to examine a best practice of volunteer

engagement by describing the volunteer management approach of Dufferin Grove

Park (DGP), a 14.2 acre urban park in an economically diverse neighbourhood of

Toronto, Canada. Although managed by the city’s parks and recreation department

in a similar fashion to other neighbourhood parks, over the past 15 years

volunteers have worked to create a space in which the productive contribution

made by volunteers is extensive. Within the park, volunteers take active and lead

roles in park programming and administration; provide countless hours of service

ranging from producing summer theatre and managing a weekly market, to less

comprehensive yet still significant contributions such as tending to community

gardens, managing websites, leading dance lessons, or serving food at park events.

As a result of these efforts, the park has been recognized nationally and

internationally for its community engagement. Thus, when an urban park wins

awards for community engagement and has countless numbers of volunteers, it is

worthy of further examination to understand what has contributed to its success.

Specifically, we examined: (1) How was volunteer involvement initiated and

maintained? (2) As a group, how were volunteers organized and structured? (3)

What was the approach of the host agency in managing and sustaining voluntary

involvement?

The methodology used for this study was a case study approach. Case studies

emphasize detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions

and their relationships (Soy 1997). They are the preferred research strategy when

the investigator has little control over events and the focus is on a contemporary

phenomenon within some real-life context (Yin 1994). By offering a detailed

account of a specific case, the value of case studies is found in their ability to

illustrate issues, generate broad understandings, and encourage insight (Stake 1995).

Based on its high success at attracting and retaining volunteers, the case of Dufferin

Grove Park is best understood as an exemplary or a unique case—or as we term it, a

‘‘best practice’’ case study. Also, although this case is unique, it should be viewed as

an instrumental case study, as its findings can be generalized to other settings with

similar issues, in the form of practical implications.

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 171

123

Volunteering and Volunteer Engagement

Within the volunteering literature, there is significant variation in the definitions and

conceptualizations of volunteer activity. Definitions of volunteering range from the

straightforward ‘‘doing unpaid activities as part of a group or an organization’’ (Hall

et al. 2006, p. 11) to more complex classification schemes with four commonly

agreed upon dimensions: free choice, remuneration, structure, and intended

beneficiaries (Cnaan et al. 1996). Within each of these dimensions are categories

intended to add depth and understanding to understanding volunteers. For instance,

within the free choice dimension, categories range from free will to obligation.

Within the remuneration dimension, categories range from no remuneration to

stipend/low pay. Structure can be either formal or informal, and intended

beneficiaries range from others to oneself. As such, the dimensions and accompa-

nying categories provide various conceptualizations of volunteers wherein an

individual who volunteers freely, with low pay, in an informal setting with multiple

beneficiaries is defined as a volunteer.

Conceptualizations of voluntary activity also range from more narrow definitions

of volunteering as strictly altruistic and non-remunerated activity, whereas others

involve a broader and more inclusive definition that include the possibilities of self-

interest and rewards. In an effort to integrate definitions, Handy et al. (2000)

developed a continuum of volunteering activity that ranged from ‘‘pure’’ to

‘‘broad,’’ and suggested that public perception associated pure volunteering with

‘‘net cost,’’ whereby the greater net cost to the individual, the more pure the

volunteer. While many definitions of volunteering exclude work conducted for low

pay or stipend benefits, Ellis and Noyes (1990, p. 3) suggested that ‘‘it is possible to

receive some money and still be considered a volunteer… stipends and reimburse-

ments do not equal the real value of their services.’’ Thus, for the purposes of this

paper, we conceptualize volunteers broadly, based on the framework put forth by

Cnaan et al. (1996).

Researchers have examined aspects of volunteer engagement in a variety of

ways. One way has been to focus on volunteer motives, with the rationale that by

understanding motives, agencies will be better able to satisfy the needs of

volunteers and thus foster engagement. There are widely accepted motives that

appear across many settings including contributing to the community, using skills

and experiences, and the opportunity to connect with other people (Hall et al.

2006). However, all individuals are motivated by different motives, some being

altruistic and others being self-interested (Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen 1991) at

different times (Goblin Conn and Barr 2006). This recognition has led researchers

to develop scales such as the ‘‘Motivation to volunteer’’ scale (Cnaan and

Goldberg-Glen 1991) and ‘‘Volunteer functions inventory’’ (Clary and Synder

1999) to take these different aspects into consideration. Caldwell and Andereck

(1994) adapted earlier work by Clark and Wilson (1961) and differentiated

the reasons for joining and maintaining involvement in a voluntary association

based on three categories: material (i.e., tangible gifts); solidarity (sense of

belonging); and purposive (greater purpose). Similarly, specific to park and

recreation agencies, Parker (1997) classified volunteer motives as being altruistic

172 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

(i.e., unselfish), market-based (expectation of future rewards), cause-serving (the

advancement of a religious, political, moral cause), and leisure-based (meeting

leisure needs), the last of which has been addressed in more depth by Stebbins

(1996) with his concept of serious leisure.

Another approach has been to examine the structure of voluntary organizations.

For instance, a large literature exists around formalizing the entire practice of

volunteerism including forming voluntary boards and committees, developing job

descriptions and evaluation measures, and requiring training and orientation

sessions (Barman 2007; Brudney and Nezhina 2005; Helmig et al. 2004; Howe

1991; Leiter 2008; Kim et al. 2007). Many organizations adhere to this approach

because it is believed that thorough selection, screening, training, and orientation

are linked with a job well done by volunteers (Crompton 1999). Much of this

literature borrows heavily from practices developed in the private sector where the

emphasis is on measuring activities and demonstrating competencies in hopes of

overcoming a common challenge—an approach that has been expressed as ‘‘the

amateur administration’’ of nonprofit organizations (Helmig et al. 2004). The

similarity among organizations or isomorphism in the voluntary sector is becoming

evident, revealing that nonprofit organizations share many structural characteristics

(i.e., departmentalization, hierarchical levels, formalizations, autonomy, work

intensity, organizational age) (Leiter 2008). A study by Brudney and Nezhina

(2005) strengthens this argument because they essentially studied whether a

formalized volunteer program was related to program effectiveness outside of the

West, and concluded that written policies to govern the volunteer program, job

descriptions for volunteers, basic/on-going training, and resources to manage

volunteers, held up in Kazakhstan.

Although volunteering has evolved from the early ideals of noblesse oblige

(McCarthy 1982) the current dominant discourse on volunteering appears to be one

that draws on business practices and stresses a formalized and rationalized approach

to ‘‘managing’’ volunteers. It has even been suggested that some individuals holding

leadership roles within the field pay more attention to operational management than

the impact of the work being done (Allen 2006). However, there have also been

some critiques of this approach. Allen argued that few organizations are ‘‘volunteer

friendly,’’ which may be in part due to the formalized approach taken by so many.

Leiter (2008) also questioned the extent to which isomorphism reduced the local

responsiveness of voluntary organizations.

Building on these critiques, some alternative approaches have been noted. For

example, Evers (2005) introduced the idea of ‘‘hybridization,’’ to encourage

nonprofit organizations to combine ideas from all three sectors in an effort to better

meet their needs, rather than relying on one dominant perspective. Likewise, it has

been suggested that ‘‘one size does not fit all’’ in the third sector but rather a need

for compatibility should exist (Hustinx and Lammertyn 2003). In terms of specific

examples of alternatives approaches, Shaw and Allen (2006) proposed an alternative

funding relationship model between funders and nonprofits which emphasized

greater control and autonomy for nonprofit organizations. In relation to volunteer

organizing, Meijs and Karr (2004) contrasted the ‘‘service provision’’ approach with

a ‘‘membership’’ approach, the latter being more dominant in European countries.

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 173

123

In the service provision approach, organizations identify the necessary tasks that

need to be completed and from there, proceed to find volunteers to do the pre-

determined work. Contrary to this approach is a membership approach where the

starting point is membership with the work being identified and directed by the

members themselves. Because the membership approach focused more heavily on

process versus end result, the authors contended that it was more democratic and

conducive to community building. Beyond these, examples of alternative practices

in the literature are limited and as a result, many organizations are unsure as to how

to operate when they do not adopt the dominant methods of involving, organizing,

and managing volunteers.

Research Methods

Following the case study approach, multiple sources of data were collected. At the

onset of this project, informal observations were conducted at the park. The purpose

of these early observations was to expand our understanding of park activities and

use, build rapport with stakeholders, and inform in-depth interviews. To capture a

representative picture of park use, systematic observations of park activity were

conducted across a 1-month period in the summer of 2006. In total, 96 observations

were collected at different times of the day and days of the week. Documents,

including newspaper stories, city-prepared policy documents and reports, and

volunteer-prepared web pages and newsletters, were collected to gather a historical

record of events, issues, and strategies associated with managing volunteers in a

community space. Finally, in-depth interviews were conducted with ten informants

representing four key stakeholder groups: park volunteers (4 of many), park staff

(4 of 12), city supervisors (1 of 1), and Ward councilor (1 of 1). The purpose of

these interviews was to develop an understanding of the involvement of volunteers,

the structure guiding volunteer engagement, and the relationship between the

volunteer organization and the agency responsible for the provision of the park.

Because of the study’s focus on park management, informants representing the

volunteers who had experience interacting with staff and had confronted manage-

ment policies were selected. As such, the volunteer informants tended to be

individuals who had more extensive and long-term involvement in the park.

Interviews lasted approximately 1 h. With the exception of the Ward councillor, all

interviews were held in the park, and the repeated visits created opportunities for

observational triangulation, follow-up, and clarification. Pseudonyms are used

throughout this paper for purposes of confidentiality.

Although the different data sources were valuable for triangulation purposes, data

collection was limited in two ways. One was that the experiences of casual park

volunteers, an important group, were not captured directly. (Staff members, who

interacted with all volunteers, were able to provide some insight into these

volunteers.) A second limitation was that no attempt was made to contact volunteers

or staff members who were no longer involved in the park and may have provided a

different perspective on the relationship between personal experience and the

volunteer management practices used in the park.

174 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

Data analysis followed the qualitative process of familiarization, open coding,

categorization, and refinement (Maykut and Morehouse 1994). All interviews were

audio recorded, transcribed, and read multiple times by each researcher. Familiar-

ization was also fostered by both researchers being present for each in-depth

interview. The transcripts of interviews were coded by each researcher indepen-

dently and then discussed and aligned. The codes were then grouped into sub-

categories and memoed. These sub-categories were then grouped into broader

categories related to the research questions of this paper. The involvement of two

researchers in the analysis process provided opportunities for interpretative

triangulation, which increases the confidence of the findings (Denzin 1984).

Research Findings

Description of Volunteer Engagement at Dufferin Grove Park

DGP is a neighbourhood park located in a densely populated area of Toronto,

Canada. Within its 14.2 acres, DGP contained a number of city-maintained facilities

including a children’s playground and wading pool, a soccer field and basketball

court, a small field house, and an ice rink area and rink house changeroom. Along

with a budget for facility maintenance, the city also provided a budget to the park

for two seasonal ‘‘building attendant’’ positions, a position with the responsibility of

overseeing the safe operation of park facilities, primarily the wading pool in the

summer and ice rink in the winter. This staffing budget was managed by the area

recreation supervisor, who hired staff within a set budgeting formula yet had some

flexibility to supplement staffing budgets if additional funds became available. For

example, the staff park budget was $81,000 in 2004, yet jumped to $181,440 in

2005. In 2005, the park had twelve part-time staff in the summer and six part-time

staff in the winter. On average, two staff members were in the park each day in

summer and winter, for 12 h of operation. In spring and fall, the park had one staff

member on duty for a reduced number of hours.

Over the last 15 years, the city-provided facilities and services have increasingly

been augmented with a wide range of additional facilities and services that

developed through the initiative of local park users who are loosely organized and

self-identify as ‘‘Park Friends.’’ Some of these ‘‘value-added’’ facilities include a

wood-fired bake oven, three community gardens, a campfire circle, and a ‘‘cob’’

house and food cart. Also offered in the park was an extensive range of programs

and events that developed through the initiative of these volunteers. Some of the

more established and regular volunteer-initiated programs included a summer

theatre program, a farmer’s market, workshops in dance, art, and storytelling, and a

weekly potluck supper. In addition, an average of 37 special events such as festivals,

music concerts, movie nights, garage sales, cricket games, and cooking fire events

took place in the park in the summer months of 2006 (an average of four special

events in the winter months of 2007). Along with programming, volunteers also

produced a monthly newsletter, maintained an extensive website, attended staff

meetings, and increasingly, counseled neighborhood groups in other city parks. Park

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 175

123

users actively supported these value-added initiatives in a variety of ways—through

patronage, in-kind service, donations, and food purchases that in 2005 amounted to

a dollar amount of $147,000.

As a result, the level of use and engagement of residents in the park was, by many

accounts, extremely high. In contrast to the reputation of city parks as empty and

underused (DeVita 2004), observations found that the average number of people in

the park, across all observations, was 85. The number of users in the park ranged

from a low of zero (a rainy morning) to a high of 686 (a sunny weekend afternoon).

Estimates of attendance at park events were also high, with attendance at summer

theatre events at 500, and 300 for Friday-night suppers. The park has also received

local, national, and international attention for its community engagement. In 2001,

for example, DGP was selected as the winner of the ‘‘Great Community Place’’

award by an internationally recognized organization, the Project for Public Spaces

(www.pps.org).

Although park staff members were officially hired as building attendants, they

took a proactive role in supporting and collaborating with users on the various

Friend-driven initiatives. Beyond park supervision and upkeep, staff duties also

included liasoning with community groups and event organizers, assisting with

volunteer-led special projects (providing permits, support, child care), as well as

running their own staff-initiated programs. Further, the contribution of volunteers to

these initiatives also varied, from short-term or casual volunteering at an event or

program, to a more extensive commitment in which a volunteer was the lead driver

of an initiative in the park. Although records on volunteer contributions were not

regularly kept, records of one project, a cob building project that ran for the summer

of 2006, reported that over 500 different volunteers participated in this project.

Volunteer Involvement: An Integrated Approach

Among the volunteers we spoke to, it was clear that their decision to become and

remain volunteers was tied to the ability of the volunteer to integrate the work in the

park with their personal lives, interests, and vocations. In terms of personal life

integration, most volunteers had already been connected to the park, mainly as a

visitor or user, prior to becoming more actively involved as a volunteer. For

example, Samantha described how she had been coming to the park with her kids

for years, before she decided to construct the cob structure in the park:

I have been a casual park user of this park for over a decade, but very casual.

But once I had kids, this is where we ended up every day. So we’ve been

hanging out, having picnics, hanging out in the pool… Because there are so

many activities we just kept getting more and more involved and ended up at

the Farmer’s Market when it first started here. Kept being drawn back, there’s

always something to be here for. And for adults too, not just kids.

For these individuals, volunteering was an extension of an activity that was

already integrated into their personal lives, rather than involving the introduction of

a commitment that stood outside and possibly in competition to their personal lives.

176 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

Although residents volunteered in a wide range of capacities, it was clear that for

volunteers, particularly the highly committed volunteers, their involvement in the

park was also strongly tied to their individual interests, passions, and values. For

example, Lynn’s involvement in establishing the organic farmer’s market began,

‘‘because I’m a gardener and I started gardening projects.’’ Similarly, Michael came

to his summer park theatre work from years in street performance and a continued

passion for public theatre:

I fell into doing theatre because it was theatre in public space back in 1969 in

Vancouver. And having done that once I really liked the idea… But the thing

that really hooked me was the fact that no one was restricted from coming to

this theatre. That it was available to absolutely everyone, there was no one

kept out from seeing it for lack of being in the right class, or in the right group

or whatever… And for us that means, and for me [as a] theatre worker and

someone who thinks theatre has a way of thinking in public it gives me a

whole population to speak to. And I don’t know anywhere else I would find

that, so that’s what kind of drew me to the park.

Along with providing a forum to do work related to their interests, the park also

gave volunteers the opportunity to further develop and expand their skills and

competencies in these areas, through the projects they were involved in. For

instance, Samantha who built the cob structure was interested in honing her skills:

I had been researching buildings techniques. My dad was carpenter and I love

to build, but I’m not very good with measurements and that restrictiveness of

wood. And so I just assumed that was not my sort of thing. So I sewed instead.

And then I found out about straw building, for some reason a decade ago. So

through that research I heard of more elements of a building and I came across

cob and I thought, Oh My God that is for me. So I discovered cob, I did a

couple of projects. I did one at my mom’s house in Saskatchewan. I did one in

my backyard. I was really excited about it, it was really fun and then Joe said

why don’t you do something in the park?

Samantha, as a result of her volunteer experience, was beginning to think about

ways in which her cob structure building could evolve into a business venture at

other parks in the city. For the volunteers, the opportunity to develop skills and test

out ideas was seen as a significant benefit to their involvement, and rather than

viewing the park as a place that they were only giving of their abilities, they saw

themselves as also benefiting from the opportunity to try out new ideas and develop

skills that they saw as useful to them in ways that extended beyond the volunteer

context.

A third aspect of integration, and one that helped to support sustained, long-term

involvement of volunteers, were efforts to reduce the net cost of volunteering to the

volunteer, such that their contributions did not result in personal hardship to

themselves or their families. For the volunteers we spoke to, they weighed their

decision to work in the park based on broader factors related to their financial status,

family and lifestyle goals, and personal values and interests. Thus, a third part of

integration was finding ways to reduce the costs of volunteering on the other

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 177

123

important aspects of their lives. For volunteers who were financially stable or had no

children, such as Helen and Michael, volunteering was not a significant financial

cost. However for both Samantha and Lynn, their decision to continue volunteering

was weighed against the hardship it created for their families in terms of lost

income, and their continued involvement depended on the ability for the benefits to

outweigh the costs. It was dilemma which caused Lynn to reflect: ‘‘I only earn just a

bit under $6,000 for doing this last year. And I’ll earn a bit more this year because it

has mushroomed into many more hours but that doesn’t reflect the wages I could

earn at something else. So it may not be something I can do forever.’’

For the volunteers we spoke to, one way that the costs of volunteering were

reduced was through the provision of some form of economic remuneration for their

work. For example, Lynn was paid the equivalent of 10 h a week through the

summer months with money that was generated from table fees paid by farmers.

Similarly for Samantha, costs were also reduced through the free on-site child care

she received from park staff while working on the project. While the volunteers we

talked with did receive financial compensation for their efforts, many of the park

volunteers did not, or had not in the past. Lynn, who was currently being

compensated, had in previous years run the market without monetary reward. As

well, Samantha had led the cob-building initiative without financial compensation,

but to complete a second project in the park (i.e., composting toilet building) she

successfully applied for an artist’s grant ($10,000) through an independent arts

organization in the community.

While this monetary amount did not come close to equaling the amount of

time and effort put forth, the financial compensation did make a difference for

some volunteers in terms of allowing for greater levels of commitment and

sustaining their involvement over the long term. For example, Samantha talked

about how the money she received from the grant, as well as the child minding

she received while at the park, made it financially possible for her family to

continue in the arrangement where only one adult worked full-time out of the

home: ‘‘I sure don’t mind being paid, it will really help our family out. The thing

is at this point we have chosen for me to be this stay at home parent and we

seem to think we can afford it, just barely… It will make a huge difference for

me to be actually paid.’’

Organizational Structure: Informal and Network-Based

Although local residents had as a collective named themselves the ‘‘Friends of the

Park,’’ as an ‘‘organization’’ they have remained highly informal in terms of their

structure and loosely defined in terms of their purpose and mission. While the

Friends of the Park were certainly an entity, it was a group that had no formal

organizational structure such as set positions, meetings, or charter. As one

described, ‘‘People have a perception that it’s quite an organized activist group.

But in fact, it’s very very loose. There are no regular kinds of meetings. There’s

really no organizational structure.’’ Instead of an organization or even an

association, the Friends of the Park were best characterized as a network. As

Helen described:

178 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

It’s a group like your group of friends. [In terms of members] I guess you

would have to say it was the neighbourhood. Only it’s sort of park based. You

don’t have a charter or anything… and the informal structure is more

substantial than it appears. And it’s substantial here.

Connections between members were maintained through a variety of network-

based approaches such as face-to-face contact, newsletters, and a park website. As

one friend described, ‘‘the website is used really actively. And the newsletter is

available all over the park. And there are often posters put up in the park. So it’s not

hard to find out about those things.’’ Further, much of the organizational work

happened through informal face-to-face communication, particularly at the numer-

ous social events held in the park on a regular basis throughout the year. For

example, weekly park suppers, the organic market, pizza days in the summer while

skating parties and tobogganing groups in the winter provided residents with an

opportunity to socialize as well as mobilize for future events and projects.

Volunteers saw this as not only productive but fun, which Michael emphasized, was

an important aspect of his involvement in the park. As he noted, ‘‘You get people

together in a friendly and convivial way. So our Friday Night Suppers are a big

contributor to that. That’s the kind of meeting that I can really get behind.’’

In line with this network-based structure, the work of the park also was not

directed by a formalized body such as a board of directors or management team.

Instead, as hinted at in the previous section, projects began with the volunteers

themselves bringing their ideas for projects to the collective. After an informal

vetting process involving discussions with users and staff, if support was shown,

projects went forward with volunteers often acting as champions and coordinators

of the work. Samantha described this process in relation to her cob building project:

I did a movie night in the rink house in April. So I spent a lot of time spreading

the word, just in the immediate area pretty much and there’s where I mostly

got my names. I pretty soon had an email list of two hundred people who

wanted to find out more information or were interested, that kind of thing.

[Two hundred park users?] Pretty much, some people from elsewhere, but

mostly people from meetings to people walking by.

The informal and networked approach contributed to volunteer engagement in a

number of ways. First, it facilitated information flow, and in turn generated high

levels of volunteer involvement. Further, it shifted the focus to the actual doing of

the initiative, which meant that more things just got done. As Michael described:

One of the things that happens here is that people don’t spend a lot of time

dotting I’s and crossing T’s. I think the astonishing thing is how effective and

fast things get done just by one or two people bumping into somebody in the

park and someone says, ‘oh, this is a good idea,’ then things begin to happen.

Additionally, this approach created opportunities for residents to become

involved in the park in variety of ways, ranging from involvement in one project

or many, or even ranging in their commitment in one project from a very minimal to

a very high level. Indeed, as Samantha described, project champions looked for

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 179

123

ways to keep participation informal and thus support a varying level of involvement

in their initiatives:

I was really adamant that it be totally free, that it be drop in, that there be no

attendance, no writing down of people’s name, that it be completely voluntary,

you could be involved for ten minutes or you could be there all summer and

that very thing happened. And people were comforted by the fact that they had

no commitment, they didn’t have to phone ahead, they didn’t say they were

going to be here next week, and they could just be walking through park. And

by doing that, it became much more accessible to everybody and anybody.

Volunteer Management: Collaboration and Shared Power

Because DGP was a municipal property managed by the city’s parks and recreation

department, the Friends of DGP were not an autonomous group but instead were

accountable to the city and worked with and through the local recreation and park

staff for their various projects. Thus, although they had organized into their own

networked group, the volunteers at DGP were also ‘‘park volunteers,’’ and in this

sense they were positioned similarly to volunteers in many nonprofit or public sector

human service agencies whereby their volunteer work was set out according to the

rules, procedures, and practices of the host organization. However, in contrast to

many volunteer–agency relationships in which the agency takes on a ‘‘manage-

ment’’ responsibility for the volunteers, the relationship between the agency and

volunteers at DGP was instead highly collaborative and viewed as a partnership,

with power being shared between the two groups. The recreation supervisor

described:

It’s quite unique in the sense that without community input and community

involvement and actually being here, a lot of this stuff wouldn’t be able to be

carried out with the city’s funds alone. The city does provide a lot of funds to

the park, but you know the partnership is definitely a strong one.

This collaborative approach could be seen in the work of the volunteers in the

park. As described in earlier sections, volunteers exerted independence and over

time had established a pattern of volunteering that afforded them a great deal of

autonomy and control over their initiatives. Further, the work in the park was highly

collaborative, with very few distinctions between the tasks and identity of staff and

that of volunteers. Some of the lack of distinction related to symbolic elements, such

as in the lack of visible distinctions made between staff members and volunteers

with designated labels, shirts, or buttons—emphasizing, as one volunteer described,

‘‘the whole idea that being a park worker is no different from being somebody who

lives around here. We’re all the same.’’

While park friends did engage in typical volunteer support tasks such as site

clean-up, they were also involved in many traditional ‘‘staff’’ functions such as

planning, hiring, supervising, and operations. In hiring, volunteers helped recruit

potential staff members and advised the city on whom to hire. Volunteers, and in

particular Helen, took on park operations and staff supervision responsibilities.

180 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

Helen regularly opened and closed facilities, called and ran staff meetings, and

coordinated staff scheduling. Among staff, Helen was viewed by staff as a

‘‘community supervisor,’’ as one staff member described:

I see Helen as being equivalent [to staff], but she also has experience over all

of us. She’s been here for 13 years. She knows. And she comes to our staff

meetings. She regularly comes, she’s regularly involved, she always comes

every day… she’s a community supervisor. If the staff needs to know

something that is not necessarily a city issue, they can always bounce it off

Helen or anyone who comes to the park or the suppers.

Conversely, many of the less glamorous tasks, such as set-up or clean-up for

events, or child minding and supervision, often fell to the official park staff, who

took on these tasks to support park friends in their initiatives. For example,

Samantha described the role of staff in her cob building project: ‘‘They were

integral to the whole process. I was the project leader and the main designer and the

main person who got stuff, but they were a huge help and a huge support to me.’’

The main push toward collaboration came from the volunteers themselves, who

rejected the traditional power differential between agencies and their volunteers, in

which the agency is viewed as the entity setting the agenda and the volunteers as

filling in where asked. In fact, some friends had rejected the term ‘‘volunteer’’ based

on their association of volunteering with this arrangement. Helen described:

‘‘‘Volunteer’ is a word I mostly stay away from. I feel like you volunteer for the

army. And volunteers are very much you come and work for us for free and we’ll tell

you what to do and then at the end of the year we’ll give you a big appreciation night.’’

Instead, park friends exerted independence from the organizing agency and in the

process they established a pattern for volunteering that met their needs. They

reinforced this pattern through their active involvement in the administration of the

park. For example, by participating in hiring, volunteers were able to influence the

city to hire staff that would be more open to collaborating with volunteers. Again,

Helen described:

[The goal is to] have the staff looking at this as not just some plain old park

job, but looking at it as an extension of their lives and their vocation too. So

they would advocate for the place, they don’t just go home at night. Their

input is valued, it’s crucial to the functioning of the park. Jessica, who you’ve

probably met, is really integral to keeping the vision going.

While the role of city staff was not to manage park friends, the city did play a key

role in terms of park governance and monitoring. In contrast to autonomous

volunteer groups that are free to drive their own agenda and in the process at times

become susceptible to self-interested motivations, the activities of the park friends

were closely monitored by city staff. Along with the informal vetting process, the

city carried out a more formalized public participation process that involved regular

meetings with park users and neighbourhood residents. As the recreation director

described, these meetings were important for ensuring that the activities of the park

friends remained in accordance with the broader public role that the park was

required to play:

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 181

123

We did have an open meeting last November. We sent flyers around the

neighbourhood and it was well attended, 150 people. [The volunteers] were

there, just as anyone else. They weren’t running the meeting. At the end of the

meeting people liked what was going on, there were some people that had

issues with certain things, but you are talking about one person or two people

amongst 150… By the end of the meeting no one was saying, away with the

bake oven, we want to tear it down, there’s too much stuff happening on the

ice rink, there’s too many fires. No, everyone was happy. So that will be our

means of governing the park.

Discussion and Implications

Although the individuals studied in this project were volunteers, in the sense that

they were engaged citizens who contributed to the park yet were not agency

employees, their volunteering experiences were different from what one is likely to

find in many human service organizations that work with volunteers. Rather than

doing work solely for the benefit of the providing agency, park volunteers were

engaged in initiatives that were driven by their own interests, skill-based, and

offered personal and professional benefits that extended beyond the voluntary

context. Park friends managed the farmer’s market, ran building projects, produced

theatre events, taught dancing lessons, and more. Similar to what has been reported

in other studies on motives, the voluntary engagement of the individuals in this

study was a blend of altruism and self-interest (Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen 1991;

Stebbins 2004). Further, while most volunteers were not generating a livable

income, they were receiving some form of financial remuneration for their work.

Clearly, the work of the friends of the park sits outside the more ‘‘pure’’ and

economic-based definition of volunteering as ‘‘unpaid work.’’ However, the friends

do fit within broader definitions of volunteering that allow room for personal

benefits within a volunteering context (e.g., Cnaan et al. 1996; Ellis and Noyes

1990).

While more ‘‘pure’’ definitions of volunteering may be valuable for assessing

volunteering in terms of economic indicators such as ‘‘net cost’’ to the individual or

economic contribution of volunteers, when assessing volunteering in terms of

citizen participation, employing a broader definition of volunteering appears to have

greater relevance. When citizen participation is used as the measure, defining who is

responsible for the work or the relative contribution of volunteers versus staff is not

of primary concern. Instead, the goal is to foster pathways and create opportunities

for individuals to engage in a wide range of volunteer roles, and to support these

opportunities with inclusive policies and approaches.

As seen in the case of DGP, a broad definition and inclusive approach to

volunteering did translate into citizen engagement. For the volunteers themselves,

this approach created greater compatibility with life needs, and addressed in a

significant way some of the main constraints to volunteering acknowledged in

recent surveys including lack of time, the inability to commit long-term, and the

financial cost of volunteering (Hall et al. 2006). Further, it aligned with some of the

182 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

recent discussions of volunteer retention that have noted that individuals are looking

for personal benefits (Hustinx and Lammertyn 2003), and also of studies that have

reported different groups needing different arrangements because of their lifestyle,

such as students needing short-term experiences compatible with school breaks or

retired ‘‘snowbirds’’ preferring seasonal commitments (McClinktok 2004). The fact

that the volunteers in this study weighed the benefits of their contribution against its

personal costs, suggests that for agencies, finding ways to develop experiences

beyond the ‘‘traditional’’ or prescribed approach and instead create experiences that

are integrated and compatible with lifestyle is a key strategy for recruitment and

retention. At the very least, it serves to remind the agencies of the potential

unconsidered costs that may be placed on volunteers, including child care,

transportation, or lost income, and can encourage them to look for ways to rebalance

the cost-benefit scale for their volunteers. When economic costs can be buffered,

volunteering and citizen engagement are opened up to a wider range of people,

particularly those who are not fully financially secure.

Given this, a critical questioning of the continued framing of volunteering as

strictly non-remunerated activity may be warranted. The notion of volunteering as

strictly non-paid activity is one that has grown out of a high class, Victorian-era

ideal of philanthropy and noblesse oblige (McCarthy 1982). Alternatively and in

contrast to this more exclusionary approach, when agencies choose an approach that

intentionally provides economic opportunities to the community, agencies then

become avenues for building the economic capacity of its constituents, and thus

pathways for community economic development. As Boothryod and David (1993,

p. 236) described, a community economic development approach, when it

emphasizes ‘‘community,’’ has as its purpose ‘‘to increase community solidarity,

distributive justice, and broadly defined quality of life,’’ in addition to creating a

more equal distribution of income.

In terms of its organization, DGP was characterized by informality and a

networked structure—a structure it had developed and continued to reinforce over a

period of 15 years. The informality of engagement fostered multiple pathways for

engagement and placed the emphasis on action. By having a structure built around

social networking, opportunities for ‘‘the ask’’ were plentiful and ongoing. As a

result, there was less of a tendency to see only a few individuals doing most of the

work—a challenge faced by many nonprofit organizations (Hall et al. 2006). Further,

the informal approach helped to maintain the qualities of fun and sociability, which

has been noted in the literature as key features to help mobilize and retain volunteers

in local community initiatives (e.g., Glover et al. 2005; Sharpe 2004).

Although the third sector literature acknowledges this more ‘‘grassroots’’

approach to organizing, it tends to be measured against a more formalized

organizational structure with clearly defined roles, a hierarchy, and rules for

membership (Smith 2000). Based on the success of DGP at generating volunteer

involvement, we wish to suggest that informal and networked organizational

approaches have their own inherent value. We encourage the field to consider

informal networks as a viable and advantageous organizing approach for volunteer

and community engagement. Indeed, as Traynor (2008, p. 222) described, networks

represent a new way of organizing that is ‘‘value-driven and self-generating… with

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 183

123

only as much infrastructure as is needed to create effective connectivity.’’ In

network organizations, ‘‘positional leadership titles are de-emphasized, leaders

change often, and the group is decidedly next-step focused’’ (Traynor 2008, p. 223).

Traynor argued that network organizations are welcoming and friendly, as well as

being accommodating to members’ other life interests—two qualities exhibited in

the case of Dufferin Grove Park.

Perhaps most relevant to agencies that work with volunteers, are the implications

of this study to volunteer management. This research highlights an alternative

approach to attracting and retaining volunteers which emphasizes informality, and

flexibility in a creative environment. Traditional recruitment and retention strategies

have tended to emphasize screening, interviewing, training, supervision, evaluation,

and recognition (Crompton 1999), and follow what Meijs and Karr (2004)

described, as a ‘‘programme management’’ approach. In the traditional approach,

the host agency sets the agenda, volunteers are recruited to fill pre-determined roles,

control is maintained by the agency, and volunteers maintain a supportive role with

a focus on service delivery. In contrast, the collaborative approach followed at DGP

followed a different process and pathway. Agency-led managerial practices and

controlling mechanisms, such as requisite forms, interviews, and training, and pre-

set roles, were minimal if not nonexistent. Rather, individuals were encouraged to

bring ideas forward to the park which allowed for more inclusion because ‘‘all park

users’’ were potential volunteers. While this study is about one park in particular,

the lessons learned from the way the staff and volunteers work together can be used

to create policies that can be adopted in other agencies that work with volunteers.

Furthermore, the fact that what is evidently a major success in terms of

community engagement was actually accomplished through a struggle against the

policies and practices of the agency—an agency that also claims to want greater

citizen engagement—brings up questions about autonomy and control and where an

agency actually stands on these issues. The desire to maintain control over

volunteers however at the same time lamenting the lack of citizen engagement

suggests that there is a tension in the field in terms of what institutions and agencies

say they want and what they are actually willing to allow happen. This is mirrored in

the ‘‘volunteer management’’ literature (a term that in and of itself connotes control)

where citizen engagement is often couched in language like ‘‘having a say,’’

‘‘input,’’ ‘‘opportunities for influence,’’ ‘‘representation,’’ and ‘‘empowerment’’—all

of which continue to suggest that the control remains not with the citizens but the

institution. Future work could begin to ask questions about possible tensions

between volunteer management and its practices, and the citizen engagement

agenda. As a field, we need to explore, to what extent are agencies willing to give

control over to the community? And, what is the role of volunteer management

when the community does become the driver?

Conclusion

The alternative volunteer management approach demonstrated at Dufferin Grove

Park has been successful at addressing some of the well-known limiting factors to

184 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

volunteering such as most work comes from the few, a lack of time as major

constraint, and the continued desire for personal growth. When considering declines

in volunteer engagement, often the literature explores the constraints and barriers to

individuals such as lack of time or work and family pressures. Less often examined

are the ways the volunteer engagement is structured by the host agency. Closer

examination may reveal that the ‘‘received’’ idea of volunteering and volunteer

management, while perhaps efficient and built upon the legitimacy of a business

approach, may actually be the element that is alienating volunteers in itself. For

example, overly formalizing and controlling the volunteer experience reduces

pathways for engagement and opportunities for volunteers to flourish in their work.

Also of note, is that the residents engaged with DGP had the acumen and social

power to structure an alternative arrangement—two qualities that may not exist in

other environments. Thus, the onus is on the host agency to engage in a critical

reflection of their own practices, to see how autonomy and engagement of

volunteers might be fostered. Part of this process may involve ‘‘turning down the

volume’’ of the dominant rational-managerial discourse in the third sector and

exploring what volunteer practices might look like, with community engagement as

the starting point and then developing policies to reflect this shift.

Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the work of our research assistant, Stephanie

Schope, whose hard work and interest in this project were invaluable.

References

Allen, K. (2006). From motivation to action through volunteer-friendly organizations. The InternationalJournal of Volunteer Administration, 24(1), 41–44.

Andrew, C., Harvey, J., & Dawson, D. (1994). Evolution of local state activity: Recreation policy in

Toronto. Leisure Studies, 13, 1–16.

Barman, E. (2007). What is the bottom line for nonprofit organizations? A history of measurement in the

British Voluntary Sector. Voluntas, 18, 110–115.

Boothryod, P., & David, C. (1993). Community economic development: Three approaches. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 12, 230–240.

Brightbill, C. (1960). The challenge of leisure. New Jersey, NY: Prentice Hall.

Brudney, J., & Nezhina, T. (2005). What is old is new again: Achieving effectiveness with volunteer

programs in Kazakhstan. Voluntas, 16(3), 293–308.

Caldwell, L., & Andereck, K. (1994). Motives for initiating and continuing membership in a recreation-

related voluntary association. Leisure Sciences, 16, 33–44.

Clark, P., & Wilson, V. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organization. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 6, 129–166.

Clary, E., & Synder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156–159.

Cnaan, R., & Goldberg-Glen, R. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284.

Cnaan, R., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical

considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364–383.

Crompton, J. (1999). Financing and acquiring park and recreation resources. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Cross, G. (1990). A social history of leisure since 1600. State College, PA: Venture.

Denzin, N. (1984). The research act. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

DeVita, M. C. (2004). Places for people: A white paper from the Project for Public Spaces.

www.pps.org/upo/info/whyneed/socbenefits/DeVita.TPL

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 185

123

Ellis, S., & Noyes, K. (1990). By the people: A history of Americans as volunteers. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and

provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 737–748.

Finkelstein, M. (2007). Correlates of satisfaction in older volunteers: A motivational perspective. TheInternational Journal of Volunteer Administration, 24(5), 6–11.

Glover, T., Parry, D., & Shinew, K. (2005). Building relationships, accessing resources: Mobilizing social

capital in community garden contexts. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(4), 450–474.

Goblin Conn, L., & Barr, C. (2006). Core volunteers: Exploring the values, attitudes and behavioursunderlying sustained volunteerism in Canada. Toronto, ON: Imagine Canada.

Hall, M., Lasby, D., Gummulka, G., & Tyron, C. (2006). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians:Highlights from the 2004 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa, ON:

Minister of Industry (Statistics Canada).

Handy, F., Cnaan, R., Brudney, J., Ascoli, U., Meijs, L., & Ranade, S. (2000). Public perception of ‘‘who

is a volunteer’’: An examination of the net-cost approach from a cross-cultural perspective.

Voluntas, 11(1), 45–65.

Helmig, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research

overview. Voluntas, 15(2), 101–116.

Howe, F. (1991). The board member’s guide to fundraising. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering: A sociological

modernization perspective. Voluntas, 14(2), 167–187.

Kelly, D. (1997). Communities of the heart: A new way of looking at philanthropy. National CivicReview, 86(4), 325–329.

Kim, M., Chelladurai, P., & Trail, G. (2007). A model of volunteer retention in youth sport. Journal ofSport Management, 21, 151–171.

Leiter, J. (2008). Nonprofit isomorphism: An Australia–United States comparison. Voluntas, 19, 67–91.

Markham, S. (1991). The impact of Prairie and Maritime reformers and boosters on the development of

parks and playgrounds, 1880–1930. Loisir et societe/Society and Leisure, 14(1), 219–233.

Mayer, B., Fraccastoto, K., & McNary, L. (2007). The relationship among organizational-based self-

esteem and various factors motivating volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2),

327–340.

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide.

London: Falmer Press.

McCarthy, K. (1982). Noblesse oblige: Charity and cultural philanthropy in Chicago, 1849–1929.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McClinktok, N. (2004). Understanding Canadian volunteers: Using the national survey of giving,volunteering, and participating to build your volunteer program. Toronto, ON: Canadian Centre for

Philanthropy.

McFarland, E. M. (1970). The development of public recreation in Canada. Canada: Canadian Parks/

Recreation Association.

Meijs, L., & Karr, L. B. (2004). Managing volunteers in different settings: Membership and programme

management. In R. Stebbins & M. Graham (Eds.), Volunteering as leisure/Leisure as volunteering:An international assessment (pp. 177–193). Cambridge, MA: CABI.

Parker, S. (1997). Volunteering-altruism, markets, causes and leisure. World Leisure, 39(3), 4–5.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Rehberg, W. (2005). Altruistic individualists: Motivations for international volunteering among young

adults in Switzerland. Voluntas, 16(2), 109–122.

Sharpe, E. K. (2004). ‘‘It’s not fun any more’’: A case study of organizing a contemporary grassroots

recreation association. Society and Leisure/Loisir et Societe, 26(2), 431–452.

Shaw, S., & Allen, J. (2006). ‘‘We actually trust the community’’: Examining the dynamics of a nonprofit

funding relationship in New Zealand. Voluntas, 17, 211–220.

Silverberg, K., Marshall, E., & Ellis, G. (2001). Measuring job satisfaction of volunteers in public parks

and recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19, 79–92.

Smith, D. H. (2000). Grassroots associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Soy, S. K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at

Austin. www.ischool.utexas.edu/*ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

186 Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187

123

Stebbins, R. (1996). Volunteering: A serious leisure perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 25(2), 211–224.

Stebbins, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Stebbins & M. Graham (Eds.), Volunteering as leisure/Leisure asvolunteering: An international assessment (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, MA: CABI.

Stormann, W. (1991). The ideology of the American urban parks and recreation movement: Past and

future. Leisure Sciences, 13(2), 137–151.

Traynor, B. (2008). Community building: Limitations and promise. In J. deFilippis & S. Saegert (Eds.),

The community development reader (pp. 214–224). New York: Routledge.

Wearing, S. (2002). Volunteer tourism: Experiences that make a difference. Cambridge, MA: CABI.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zweigenhaft, R., Armstrong, J., Quintis, F., & Riddick, A. (1996). The motivations and effectiveness of

hospital volunteers. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(1), 25–34.

Voluntas (2009) 20:169–187 187

123