Current research in areas and facilities.

This review of the research on areas and facilities from 1988 to the present summarizes a doctoral dissertation and research articles from the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. Although the current research has been highly diverse in focus, the studies add to an understanding of how best to plan and design parks and other recreation areas and facilities.

Expected Spatial Relationships

The doctoral dissertation on expected spatial relationships was completed at Texas A&M University by HongKyu Kim (1989). The purpose of the study was to examine the expected spatial relationships between recreational facilities in community parks by comparing the views of professionals with those of the general public. Professionals included architects, landscape architects and park and recreation administrators. More than half of the respondents reported that spatial distance between recreational facilities in urban community parks was important. One third of the respondents indicated being dissatisfied with the existing spatial arrangement they found in urban parks.

Professionals tended to prefer inclusion of certain facilities when planning urban recreation areas, e.g., ponds, swimming pools, running trails, softball fields and indoor recreation centers. Among these, running trails, swimming pools and softball fields each had a moderately high correlation between frequency of use by the general public and the degree of preference for the facility by professionals. The study identified three shells of spatial arrangement, i.e., the center shell containing open space, pond and picnic area; a supporting shell around the center shell containing restrooms and indoor recreation areas; and a shell along the boundaries of the park which contains active sports facilities.

Park Planning Process

The park planning and design process is complex and involves the work and input of many types of planning and design professionals, citizen board members, and the general public. Winchell (1991) examined the complexities of the process, especially the often neglected component which he referred to as the "design context, design concepts study." Winchell contends that parks designed "out of context" fail to be meaningful in providing recreation experiences.

Winchell describes a seven-step park planning process: identify the need for a park; select and acquire the park site; conduct a design context, design concepts study; prepare a facility design and site plan; locate funding sources and prepare a budget for park development; construct the park; and operate the facility. The design context, design concepts study is explained as a four-phase research effort involving data gathering (two phases), data analysis, and generation of design concept drawings. Winchell concluded that these steps are important because they offer greater information for planners, greater opportunity for citizen parricipation and a more effective park design.

Design of a Softball Complex

When managing facilities, it is necessary to determine if user needs and interests are being met. Little research has been done on evaluating the physical design of existing sports and recreation facilities.

Bartlett and Einert (1992) adapted the marketing-based Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) tool to obtain input from the users of a softball complex. The analysis measured 30 physical features of the softball complex for importance and performance. After plotting the measures of importance and performance on an IPA four-quadrant grid format, it was found that 23 of the 30 design features fell into the "keep up the good work" quadrant, including such aspects as night lighting for fields and backstop fencing. Three design features usually emphasized by park planners fell into the "low priority" quadrant-orientation of the diamonds with the sun, landscaping and aesthetics. Survey respondents felt that designers should concentrate on the design attributes of night lighting for sidewalks, surface water drainage of the diamonds, comfort of the stands and warm up areas.

Introducing an Innovative Facility

Two researchers from the University of Oregon recently compared the strategies used by two recreation agencies to introduce an innovative recreation facility. One strategy was determined to be successful and the other was not. As most public park and recreation administrators know, it is not easy to predict how well the public will accept a new facility project, especially if it is targeted to a relatively small segment of the community. Sherman and Havitz (1991) analyzed the success of a western Oregon park agency in introducing a wavepool aquatics facility and compared their case to that of a Texas park agency which did not experience public approval with a similar project.

The researchers concluded that Oregon project officials were successful because they sought to educate the community more thoroughly than the Texas officials. They conducted an extensive public information campaign, using a slide and video presentation on wave pools which explained safety issues, showed people of all ages using the wave pool and explained the benefits of a wave pool over a conventional pool facility.

Following voter approval of the bond issue, the agency devised an implementation strategy to introduce the community to the facility once it was built. The strategy involved inviting selected community groups to the facility at different times, free of charge, prior to the official opening of the facility.

Importance of Facilities to Older Visitors

Park planners must never lose sight of the essential reason for planning parks, which is to provide services, facilities, and programs for the people who will use the parks. Planners must constantly adjust their perceptions of park users as new data are made available. A segment of the population currently receiving greater attention in park planning is that of older visitors.

In a study of older visitors to national parks, McGuire, O'Leary and Dottavio (1989) surveyed holders of Golden Age Passports who visited at least two National Park Service areas in 1987. The researcher concluded that the park attributes of more importance to older visitors related to the physical condition of the park, comfort, accessibility, upkeep of facilities and grounds, information signs and maps. Specific facilities of most importance were restrooms, parking areas, visitor centers, scenic overlooks and exhibits. Park facilities of least importance to older visitors included snowmobile trails, cross-country ski trails, and off-road vehicle areas.

Safety: The Intersection of Legal and Design Standards

The 1980s was a decade of increased personal injury lawsuits and all recreation professionals scrambled to understand the legal concepts of "liability" and "standard of care." Design professionals as well realized the need to develop a greater understanding of safety requirements in recreation facility design and the inclusion of safety considerations throughout the design process.

Kaiser and Mertes (1991) discussed legal and professional standards for safety in the design process. Since legal standards are often lower than professional standards, the thesis of these professors is that professional standards should be the guidelines used in the design process. Their artide described designer liability with an emphasis on safety as a prime consideration in recreation facility design. They suggest that no design professional can guarantee a facility to be absolutely hazard free and that safety must be a primary consideration when making decisions on equipment, signs and materials.

The authors provide general guidelines for designers for professional conduct to reduce exposure to liability, such as including a liability waiver clause in personal service contracts and keeping records that show safety was a primary consideration during the design process.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

The technology of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allows the park planner and administrator to manipulate complex data sets in ways not feasible prior to GIS. It is one of the latest tools being used by professionals to plan and manage recreation areas and facilities. GIS is a computer system which captures, stores, edits, manipulates and displays geographically referenced information which describes the attributes of natural and built environments. It enables users to visually manipulate and analyze quantitative and qualitative features of the environment. Until recently, GIS has been used primarily for large-scale natural resource planning and management due to the cost. But as more affordable systems are becoming available, small agencies are acquiring them.

An explanation of GIS as a tool for marketing, managing and planning municipal park systems has been provided by Wicks, Backman, Allen and Blancom (1993). They described how GIS and other computer-aided design (CAD) programs are becoming highly useful for planners and designers in their efforts to provide the best possible recreation areas and facilities.

Conclusions

The studies reviewed indicate important trends in planning and designing recreation areas and facilities. Visitors have definite expectations concerning parks and other facilities, and it is important that planners and designers understand these expectations. Parks today should be designed within the context of the surrounding community, taking into consideration the needs and desires of nearby residents. Innovative facilities cannot be simply pushed onto a community; the community must be educated about the benefits of the new facility.

Design professionals today must have a greater understanding of both legal and professional standards relating to the safety of recreation facilities. The development of new technology such as GIS is aiding the park planner and manager of the '90s in ways not feasible in the past. Planners, managers and citizens who are aware of these trends are able to participate more effectively in the planning and design process.

References

Bartlett, P. & Einert, A.E. (1992). Analysis of the design function of an adult softball complex in a new public recreational park. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 10 (1), 71-81.

Kaiser, R.A. & Mertes, J,D. (1991). Safety in the design of recreation facilities: the intersection of legal and design standards. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (2), 34-47.

Kim, H, (1989), The determination of the expected spatial relationships of recreational facilities for site planning: a comparison between architects, landscape architects, recreation administrators and the general public (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50/10-A, 3089.

McGuire, EA., O'Leary, J.T. & Dottavio, ED. (1989). The importance of selected facilities, programs, and services to older visitors to national parks. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 7 (3), 1-9.

Sherman, J.S. & Havitz, M.E. (1991). Introducing an innovative recreational facility: lessons from a success. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (3), 29-40.

Wicks, B.E., Backman, K.E, Allen, J. & Baricom, D.V. (1993). Geographic information systems (GIS): a tool for marketing, managing and planning municipal park systems. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 11 (1), 9-23.

Winchell, D.G. (1991). Design context, design concepts: critical components of park planning. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9 (1), 65-74.

S. Elaine Rogers, CLIP, D. Ed., is professor and department chair in the Department of Recreation and Leisure Services Management, East Stroudsburg (PA) University. Since 1978, she has taught the undergraduate majors course "Planning and Designing Recreation Areas and Facilities."