This hierarchical conceptualization of leisure constraints thus begins to address the process
of constraint negotiation, a feature that was implicit in Crawford and Godbey's
(1987) earlier models yet never fully realized because each constraint category was
defined and discussed discretely. The revised model now explicitly indicates that eventual
leisure participation depends on the successful confrontation of each constraint level
in turn, whereas nonparticipation can occur because of the operation of constraints at
several stages in the process. Our first proposition, then, is that leisure participation is
heavily dependent on negotiating through an alignment of multiple factors, arranged
sequentially, that must be overcome to maintain an individual's impetus through these
systemic levels. With this in mind, we can then better appreciate (a) why much previous
constraints research, with its emphasis on structural barriers, has provided an incomplete
understanding of leisure nonparticipation; (b) why it may be difficult for an individual to
participate in an activity that he or she desires or expresses a preference for; (c) why,
conversely, it may be comparatively simple to deter an individual from his or her leisure
goals; and (d) why, ultimately, the relationship between leisure preference and participation
has been traditionally tenuous and thus problematic for both leisure and family
scholars.