People's perceptions of parks and recreation: an efficient and effective research application strategy.

Little argument remains in the profession about the health, fitness, social and recreational benefits of leisure, parks and play. Park and recreation services are in a unique position of importance in the overall well-being of communities as their role continues to be vital to citizens receiving the many health benefits associated with parks and recreation such as the Hearts N' Parks program (Dolesh, 2003). Numerous authors have emphasized the value and benefits of recreation regardless of epoch, age group, ethnicity or setting.

As far back as ancient Egypt and Greece, the significance of leisure places and open space was considered essential to good health and enjoyment (Killingsworth, James, & Morris, 2003). Current research shows that stress levels decrease, blood pressure improves, depression eases and perceived general health benefits occur simply by using parks on a periodic basis. Interaction with natural environments increases, and moods improve, adding zest and pleasure to the lives of those using parks and playgrounds (Hull & Michael, 1995; Iso-Ahola & Park, 1996).

Creating and supporting active lifestyles is an opportunity to continue building quality environments where people of all ages can thrive and become physically and emotionally healthier. This renewed emphasis on active lifestyles is fast becoming a matter of public health policy to meet evolving social and cultural shifts, shaping the future of viable, desirable communities (Killingsworth et al; Witt & Campbell, 2002). Despite the fact that parks help build social capital and improve the quality of life, there are disturbing trends afoot (DeGraaf & Jordan, 2003).

The value of parks in other ways has been identified as a factor in determining the quality of life. Some researchers have concluded that the property values of residences have increased by proximity to parks (Godbey & Blazey, 1983; Godbey, Roy, Payne, & Orsega-Smith, 1998; Ho, Payne, Orsega-Smith & Godbey 2003; Iwasaki, Zuzanek, & Mannell, 2001; Crespo, Smit, Anderson, Carter-Pokras & Ainsworth, 2000). And yet, the fate and future of parks is still very unsettled as we move forward into 21 st century America.

The meaning of parks and the value placed on them are likely to be challenged as wealthier communities become more isolated from less-wealthy communities (Machlis, 2003). Funding losses due to shrinking taxes, and funding decisions affected by unstable economics and finances, may result in additional parks being closed and/or services being cut (Chase & Shannahan, 2003). Nonetheless, managers of recreation systems need to find effective ways to make their case to, and on behalf of, the citizens they serve. This is extremely germane in the aftermath of Sept. 11, and the way in which the public views police and fire services. Competition for funds will likely continue to increase, possibly leaving parks and recreation in a vulnerable position vis-a-vis these other essential services, which deal with increased security. Yet, parks are no less an important component in the vitality and health of a secure community.

While little argument can be made denying the benefits of recreation and leisure, ascertaining and understanding the attitudes and opinions of those who use the parks and playgrounds may help shed light on how to direct future advocacy efforts for the retention, upkeep and maintenance of these parks and playgrounds. This advocacy may be especially urgent as economic and political constraints press on the ability of parks and playgrounds to remain viable in a world where competing areas of security and protection take precedence in the discussion of the quality of our lives. It is, after all, those citizens who will be the decision makers in any campaign for resources.

Whether the prevailing social policy of communities permits parks to continue performing the vital role of ensuring the quality of life in those communities, is an important challenge facing managers. This may be especially true in light of the growing concern over the obesity in children and adults, and related health concerns of this disease and associated illnesses such as juvenile onset diabetes, heart disease, etc.

Today's difficult political realities faced by managers in public recreation will need to be driven by discussion of the attitudes of those who use parks and playgrounds. Meaningful dialogue will be focused on the value that citizens place on those areas as a measure of the quality of life in their communities.

Having the public as full partners can only aid in the broadening of support needed to ensure that parks and playgrounds remain a vital element in the quality of our communities. Taxpayers' perspectives will be valuable in securing resources, economic and political support, as managers consider ways to market and sustain the important contributions to the general well-being of an aging and more diverse population.

The outcome of elections could indeed be another derived benefit. If recreation and leisure agencies can garner the support of elected officials who have a predisposition toward fully appreciating and adequately funding public recreation services, then perhaps the effort to obtain resources will be somewhat more balanced in favor of recreation services. Recreation and outdoor services, if perceived as highly valued by the public and important to the quality of their lives and communities, will be better able to secure needed resources to continue. The overall effect would be an improved quality of life of each community. Perhaps then recreation services will be able to take their rightful place in the public arena as an essential service on a par with police, fire and sanitation services rather than as an afterthought.

A transformation is underway in most social service organizations. This transformation is spearheaded by proactive recipients of the services provided. This lends credibility and objectivity to ascertaining the viability of the organization. It is far more convincing for the citizens in a given community to articulate the capabilities of an organization, than to have people employed within the organization indicate its efficacy. The field of municipal recreation is no exception.

NRPA has recently started a national awareness campaign concerning the correlation of participation in recreation experiences and enhanced quality of life. Our professional field can contribute significantly to exigencies besieging our country: teenage pregnancy, youth violence and the current state of obesity, to name just a few. It is germane for professionals in municipal recreation to obtain the necessary resources to provide a wealth and variety of needed services. It is also vitally important for the future of municipal recreation that the citizenry have a positive viewpoint regarding the viability of the field, especially compared with other services in the community.

One important source of information is the citizens of the community. If data on public support can be gathered, measured and evaluated, and people's voices are heard, coalitions can be formed that will assist management in ensuring that parks, services and the quality of community life are minimally affected--or not at all--by funding cuts. O'Brien & Manross (2002) found the level of satisfaction of customers indicated broad agreement that recreation resources improve the quality of life.

They also found that citizens will support modest tax increases to ensure adequate maintenance and operations. This is a corollary idea that if the public was favorably disposed toward parks, its citizens will see the need for increased financial support as a way to keep the quality of life in an area at the level they so desire. Further, O'Brien & Manross recommend that staying in touch with customers is one of 10 steps to ensure loyalty, ensure that customers feel safe and have a sense that they are being heard. A well-informed and highly satisfied citizen-customer can be useful in the never-ending battle of competing budget interests if the contributions of recreation are presented in their most favorable light.

The authors conducted a pilot study in May 2003 in a medium-sized, upper middle class community of 35,000 people in southern Connecticut to determine whether a sample of residents believed that the parks and city-owned recreational facilities contributed positively to their quality of life. The responses of the town will serve as a case study to illuminate the connection between the town's community recreation department and the respondents' perception of the connectivity to their quality of life. It is also instructive to examine how the recreation department is viewed in comparison to police and fire service. Finally, political implications are discussed by the authors. See additional information including survey questions and results in Survey Development and Design on NRPA's Web site, www.nrpa.org:

The results of this study indicate that when people perceive that the parks and playgrounds in their communities contribute to their health and well being, and when they are perceived as making a positive contribution to their quality of life, those citizens are willing to pay increases in taxes to maintain that quality of life.

The data, although based on a small sample, suggests that such a survey would be of importance to administrators and managers in community recreation and parks in ascertaining whether they have the citizenry's support. Moreover, they can determine the level and type of citizen support. If high levels of support are found, managers might be able to leverage that support in their efforts to secure improved levels funding. If low levels of support are found, this might prove to be instrumental in reviewing and perhaps revising and improving the quality of services that would better meet the citizens' needs or desires. As a result, this could begin to change the perception of the park and recreation services currently being offered. The level of support can then be galvanized, mobilized and activated to affect influence on matters important to the future of planning and operating services that appeal to the tax-paying public. Such support is vital to the long-term health and well-being of the services and facilities of any town or community. Without taxpayer support, management would be unable to obtain the level of resources that are needed to maintain the quality of life for the communities they purport to serve.

Some relevant questions were raised by delving into some of the significant findings of this study.

* Are community recreation directors comfortable enough to mobilize citizen groups (i.e., taxpayers and users) who will forcefully articulate their beliefs to town government?

* Do they know how to conduct cost-effective surveys that can address thorny issues without feeling threatened by the results?

* Are they comfortable doing this type of advocacy and engaging in proactive strategic planning that pits them against other government services?

* Do community recreation professionals have the job security to take on what may be politically charged issues?

* Do providers of public recreation programs regularly conduct surveys to demonstrate the efficacy of their programs or to determine the citizenry's level of support for recreation?

* Is there a working relationship with university faculty who are trained in evaluation research and community recreation practitioners that can be used to "make their case"?

Further, do community recreation agencies use surveys to determine the citizenry's level of support for recreation and leisure services? It seems logical that practitioners' educational skills need to be upgraded regularly so that they are in a position to clearly and articulately advocate proactively for their programs. The techniques described in this report do not require extensive staff or agency time and can be done without much, if any, expense. Even in the event that data isn't flattering, at least a proactive approach by leadership in community recreation agencies can help frame the issues expressed by the citizens concerning their feelings and opinions about services. It can also lead to dialogue about improving them so that the quality of life of a community can be addressed through recreation services. Such activity might also help to avert simmering problems lying beneath the surface that would be better dealt with directly.

RESEARCH INTO ACTION: HELPING MANAGEMENT MEASURE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

What emerges from the current research is the need for management of parks and recreation to be proactive in assessing what, and how, citizens think about parks, recreation and leisure services; and their contribution to the quality of a community's life. Measuring quality of life, although somewhat subjective, can be made more objective and more reliable if it becomes part of a concerted effort to stay in touch with those we serve.

As previous research has indicated, management needs to be aware of users of parks, recreation and leisure services as "customers." In that way, customers' perceptions, opinions and willingness to support the parks and recreation services they use become a vital statistic to measure. In doing so, management can take into consideration what the customer wants and apply strategies that work mutually for both customers and management of those parks and services. Measuring satisfaction about the role parks play in the quality of life can be one example.

* Decide that measuring satisfaction is a desirable activity that will reflect management's intent to meet service satisfaction and needs by asking people what they consider important and what they desire. Management can use existing scientific systems such as Visitor Experience and Resource Protection or Visitor Impact Management. If those are not suitable for your purposes, you can design your own, less formal but nonetheless informative ways to gather data.

* Consider using your local university with an interest in parks, recreation, leisure, natural resources, urban design, or any of a myriad of related sciences that may be willing to assist you in such work.

* Plan, design and manage the system of services and the maintenance of park areas to advance improvement efforts based on what customers and visitors say are important to the qualities they perceive as important. Use the results for self-examination, for self-preservation and to seek support from constituencies.

* Communicate your findings to all stakeholders who need to know the results.

* Use whatever you find in your research on perceptions of quality to base decisions about resources, budget development and special projects.

* Institutionalize this type of measurement on a regular or periodic basis and make this a part of your strategic planning and your public relations efforts.

Web sites of interest:

columbus.gov/2002%/20citizen/2002_Col_satisfact_rpt_pt6.pdf

www.lin.ca/resource/html/bencat.htm

www.lees-summit.mo.us/content/survey6.cfm

www.lees-summit.mo.us/content/survey.cfm

www.compukiss.com/populartopics/sportsoutdoorshtm/article570.htm

References

Chase M. & Shannahan, R. (2003). Tax woes wipe out parks department. Parks & Recreation, 38, 48-53.

Crocker, L. Algina, J. (1986) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Crespo, C., Smit, E., Anderson, R., Carter-Pokras, O. & Ainsworth, B. (2000). Race/ethnicity, social class and their relation to physical inactivity during leisure time: Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 18, 46-53.

DeGraaf, D. & Jordan, D. (2003) Social Capita: How Parks and Recreation Help to Build Community, Parks & Recreation, 38, 20-27.

Dolesh, R. (2004). Follow the Trail Toward Improved Health, Parks & Recreation, 39, 40-46.

Dunn J., Bouffard, M. & Rogers, W. (1999). Assessing item content-relevance in sport psychology scale construction research: Issues and recommendations, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 3, 15-36.

Godbey, G., Blazey, M. (1983). Old people in urban parks: An exploratory investigation, Journal of Leisure Research, 15, 229-244

Godbey, G, Roy, M., Payne, L. & Orsega-Smith, E. (1998). The Relation Between Health and Use of Local Parks, National Recreation Foundation.

Ho, C., Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., Godbey, G., (2003). Parks, Recreation and Public Health, Parks & Recreation, 38, 18-25.

Hull, R, & Michael, S, (1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change, and stress restoration. Leisure Sciences, 17, 1-4.

Iso-Ahola, S. & Park, C. (1996). Leisure-related social support and self-determination as buffers of stress-illness relationship. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 169-187.

Iwasaki, Y., Zuzanek, J. & Mannell, R. (2001). The effects of physically active leisure on stress-health relationships. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 92, 214-218.

Killingsworth, R., James, K. & Morris. H. (2003) Promoting Active Living, Why Public Health Needs Parks and Recreation, Parks & Recreation, 38, 48-52.

Machlis, G. (2003) The fates of parks in America, Parks & Recreation, 38, 64-70.

O'Brien P. & Manross, G. (2002) Building customer loyalty, Parks & Recreation, 37, 50-53.

Witt, P. & Campbell, J. (2002) Programming for the future. Parks & Recreation, 37, 64-68.

Yun, J. & Ulrich D. (2002) Estimating measurement validity: A tutorial, Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19, 32-47.

RELATED ARTICLE: Survey development and design.

The authors used the four steps identified by Crocker and Algina (1986) to provide content-related evidence (defining the domain of interest, selecting a panel of judges, having the judges evaluate the instrument based on specific criteria, and summarizing the information and/or selecting appropriate items) in the pilot study. Literature in outdoor recreation facilities, public services found in the community, quality-of-life issues and political concerns was reviewed to ascertain questions that would comprise the survey instrument. This resulted in the selection of 30 questions designed to determine where recreation and parks fit into the hierarchy of services in the community.

Content-relevance refers to the degree to which the content contained within a survey questionnaire (i.e., each individual question) represents the primary construct for which the items were specifically designed to measure (Dunn, Bouffard & Rogers, 1999).

Yun and Ulrich (2002) indicated the importance of choosing the right experts to evaluate the content selected for inclusion in a survey instrument. In the current study, judges included university professors with an area of expertise in community recreation (N=2), community recreation directors, (N=2) and a member of an elected board (N=1). The two university professors each had published and taught classes in the field of community recreation, had supervised students completing their internships in community recreation agencies and had taught classes in research and evaluation. Each of the directors of community recreation had a master's degree with an area of specialization in community recreation, and at least 20 years of full-time experience in community recreation. The member of the elected board currently serves as a liaison to the community recreation department in a community similar to the one in which the pilot study was conducted.

The five content experts examined the 30 previously identified items that resulted from the literature search. They were asked to comment on the appropriateness of each of the items for a survey to determine the perceptions of life quality. Experts were asked (yes, no, not sure) whether each item was relevant to the current study. Based on expert comment, three (3) items were eliminated. The experts indicated that the three items were not relevant to the town in which the study was to be conducted. Therefore, a 27-item survey questionnaire was used to obtain information from the respondents.

In addition to the 27-items indicated above, nine demographic factors were assessed in order to identify the sector of the community from which the data were gathered and to better understand from where support was likely to come. This was deemed important to the external validity of further studies. The typical respondent in this pilot survey was a white, middle-aged, college educated, married person with 2.5 children, who was an Independent, registered to vote, and lived comfortably on a salary well above the median income for Connecticut.

The analysis of the salient findings of the respondents is indicated below. The format for recording the information will consist of the wording of the question and the percentages/numbers of responses. To conceal the town where the study was done we have substituted the name, Anytown.

Question 1. During the summer and on warm days in the spring and fall, how often do you or members of your family typically use the following?

12 of 16 respondents (63 percent) use the neighborhood parks almost daily or several times a week. 11 of 15 respondents (58 percent) use the playgrounds almost daily or several times a week.

Question 2. How important to the quality of your life in Anytown in being able to do things you enjoy in city parks (check only one answer).

18 of 19 (95 percent) responded somewhat or very important.

Question 3. How important in general do you consider parks and playgrounds to be in making Anytown a more livable place (check 1 answer only).

19 of 19 (100 percent) reported that parks and playgrounds are very important or somewhat important; (18 of 19 people expressed their attitude as very important, (94.7 percent); 1 person found them somewhat important (5.3 percent).

Question 4. If the parks and playgrounds near where you live were closed down due to lack of maintenance and funding, would you consider it to be a big loss, a small loss, or no loss for you and your family personally? For your community?

19 if 19 (100 percent) reported it would be a Big Loss both for them and their family and for the community.

Question 5. How would you rate the overall maintenance of the park and playgrounds nearest to where you live: Would you say that are maintained in excellent condition, good condition, only fair condition, or in poor condition (check only 1 answer).

13 of 19 people (68.4 percent) responded the maintenance of the park and playgrounds were excellent; 5 of 19 people (26.3 percent) responded that they were maintained good; and 1 person (5.3 percent) responded they were maintained only fair, Further analysis reveals that fully 18 of 19 people (94.7 percent) thought the parks and playgrounds were maintained in good or excellent condition.

Question 6. Now please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statements:

--Parks give relief from concrete by providing space, air, greenery, and trees.

19 of 19 people (100 percent) agreed with this statement.

--Parks and playgrounds are an important part of growing up in Anytown.

19 of 19 people (100 percent) agreed with this statement.

--Young children use parks to get fresh air, run free, and play in clean, safe, open space.

17 of 19 people (89.5 percent) agreed with this statement; 2 of 19 people (10.5 percent) disagreed with this statement.

--The parks and playgrounds cost the city too much and some should be eliminated to save money for more important needs.

16 of 19 people (84.2 percent) disagreed with this statement; 1 person (5.3 percent) agreed with this statement; 2 people (10.5 percent) were not sure of this statement.

--The teenagers who play basketball on city courts would be a lot more likely to get into trouble if they did not have this outlet for their energy.

17 of 19 people (89.5 percent) agreed with this statement; 2 of 19 people (10.5 percent) disagreed with this statement.

--Swimming pools give kids a real break from summer heat and help keep kids off the streets.

19 of 19 people (100 percent) agreed with this statement.

--Parks give you a sense of civic pride and a good feeling about being with other Anytown residents.

19 of 19 people (100 percent) agreed with this statement.

Question 7. As you may know, there is an election for selectmen of Anytown shortly. If one of the candidates made a strong commitment to restoring and improving the maintenance and safety of the city's parks and playgrounds, would you be much more likely, somewhat more likely, or no more likely to vote for that candidate?

1 person responded not sure (5.32 percent); 9 people responded much more likely (47.4 percent); 9 people responded somewhat more likely (47.4 percent). Of significance is the fact that all people having a definitive response indicated that they were either somewhat more likely or much more likely that they would support a political candidate in Anytown if s/he supports (i.e., has a strong commitment to parks and playgrounds) the city's parks and playgrounds. It is clear that this statement could be applied to politicians who support the Anytown Recreation Department.

Question 8. Bees living near a park increase, decrease, or have no impact on the property value of your home? (check only 1 answer).

3 people responded not sure (15.8 percent); 4 people (21.1 percent) indicated that it has no effect; 12 people responded that living near a park increases property value (63.2 percent).

Question 9. Do you agree or disagree that parks should be right up there with police, fire, and sanitation as an essential service?

2 people (10.5 percent) disagreed with this statement; 13 people (68.4 percent) agreed with this statement; 3 people (15.8 percent) were not sure. It is noted and emphasized that 13 of 15 people agreed that parks should be considered as an essential service equal to police, fire, and sanitation.

Question 10. Another possibility being considered is asking Anytown residents to pay a small additional voluntary tax by check inn off a box on their local income tax form. If you were sure that the regular budget of parks would not be reduced and that the small voluntary tax would go only for improving parks, would you be willing to pay the voluntary tax, or not?

One (1) person (5.3 percent) responded that they would not pay an additional tax; 7 people (36.8 percent) indicated that they were not sure if they would pay an additional tax; 11 people (57.9 percent of the total responses) indicated that they would pay an additional tax to be used only for improving the parks in Anytown. This is important to note in view of the large number (36.8 percent) of people who responded that they were not sure.

Question 11. How important to enhancing Anytown's quality of life are areas around town called "public space", where people can sit outdoors, eat lunch, read a book, talk with friends, or just sit by themselves and observe life in the town-would you say these public spaces are very important, somewhat important, not too important, important, or not at all important to enhancing the city's quality of lie?

Nineteen (19) of 19 people responded that this was either somewhat important or very important. One (1) of 19 people (5.3 percent) indicated that it was very important for Anytown's quality of life. Fully 18 of 19 people (94.7 percent) indicated that this was important for Anytown's quality of life.

Additional questions were asked about privatization and corporate alliances. Citizens who used the public parks were asked how they might feel about the parks being run by an entity other than government. The respondents were also asked about an upcoming election and whether a candidate with a pro-recreation viewpoint might win voters' support over a candidate not showing the same level of commitment to recreation services.

Joseph A. Panza, associate professor, Recreation Leisure Studies Department, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Conn. Robert E. Cipriano, Ed.D., professor and chair, Recreation & Leisure Studies Department, Southern Connecticut State University, New Haven, Conn.