Reality and perception: where do we fit in?

Does the American public really think they benefit from local governmental recreation and park services? While the local government's provision of recreation and park services has become a common feature of American life, there has historically been little systematic investigation of what benefits such services provide. More recently, however, perhaps spurred by economic cutbacks and declining federal support, there has been increased interest in determining the benefits associated with local recreation and park services.

Research concerning the benefits of recreation has focused upon "objectively" documenting health, economic, environmental and other benefits. Ks a practical matter, however, the public's "perception" of benefits is all important in terms of community acceptance of and support for such services. Ks Crompton and Lamb pointed out: "People spend their time, money and energy resources with the expectation of receiving benefits, not for the delivery of services themselves. Citizens don't buy programs or services, they buy the expectation of benefits."At the local government level, we have known precious little about what benefits citizens think they are buying or even how they conceive of such "benefits."

It is particularly important to understand the public's perception of such benefits as we enter an era of suburbanization. Today, about one-half of the U,S. population lives in suburbs, up from 25 percent in 1950, Conversely, only about 31 percent of our population now resides in urban areas. Suburban life is characterized by concerns for both economic and physical security and by a "privatization of life and culture." Suburbanites are far more likely to be homeowners with attendant responsibility for property taxes. Use of leisure may also be privatized by home entertainment centers and use of backyards, Suburban life is characterized by anti-government sentiment that manifests itself in resistance to taxes. Programs aimed at change are highly suspect. Special purpose taxes are the suburban ideal. While polls show suburbanites want government to do more about education, health, the environment and other issues, they are thought to be less willing to pay for it and more cynical about government's ability to take effective action.

Understanding what the public believes to be the benefits associated with local governmental recreation and park services, then, is critical for both interpreting such services to decision-makers and for effectively managing in an era in which the public is more suburbanized, more critical of government and has higher expectations, and in which government is increasingly in debt. What follows describes the first nationally representative study of how the American public views the benefits of such services.

The Study

This study was undertaken to determine the benefits of local government park and recreation services perceived by the American public. It was concerned with use of services, types of benefits perceived at the individual, household and community level; comparative importance of such benefits; and relations between the respondent's perception of benefits and his or her socio-economic and demographic status and use of such services. The study was funded by the National Recreation Foundation and carried out through the National Recreation and Park Association in cooperation with Penn State University's Leisure Studies Program.

Data collection consisted of a telephone interview administered to a broadly representative national sample of 1305 households to individuals age 15 and over. Additionally, a follow-up questionnaire dealing with leisure behavior and selected health and wellness variables was administered to all telephone interview respondents who consented to give their name and address during the telephone interview. The telephone interview, which was extensively critiqued by both recreation and park practitioners and university faculty, was conducted during January and Febuary 1992. The completion rates for both the telephone interview and the mail questionnaire were typical of those obtained for such research when national random samples are used.

Leisure and the Pace of Life.

This study, like many others, found that most Americans feel they have less time available for leisure compared to five years ago and that the pace of life is speeding up. More than one-third (35 percent) of respondents said they always felt rushed, while only 18 percent reported never feeling rushed. The largest percentage of respondents said work and leisure were equally important to them, while 38 percent rated work as more important and 26 percent said leisure was more important. Slightly more than one out of five Americans reported beginning a new recreation activity during the last 12 months and the majority of such new activities were sport or exercise related.

Use of Local Recreation and Park Services. This study found a surprisingly high rate of use of local governmental park and recreation services throughout the country. In terms of use of local parks and playgrounds, slightly over seven out of ten respondents reported having a park or playground within walking distance. While some past studies, usually limited to one or two cities, have found parks and playgrounds are used by varying portions of the population, this study, the first national data concerning such use, found that 75 percent of all respondents had used parks and playgrounds during the last 12 months, 51 percent using them occasionally and 24 percent using them frequently.

Respondents were also asked if they had participated "in any recreation activities organized by your local government's recreation and parks department. This would include such things as sports leagues, educational and instructional classes and special artistic or cultural events in your community. During the last 12 months, have you participated in any recreation or leisure activity that was sponsored by or took place on areas or facilities managed by your local government's recreation and parks department?" If the respondent said "yes," he or she was asked to name the activity or activities.

Not only did 30 percent of respondents say they had participated in such activities during the last 12 months, but as Figure 1 shows, 26 percent of the public used both recreation services and parks during the last twelve months, 49 percent used only parks, and 4 percent used only local recreation services. Almost four out of five Americans used local government recreation and park services during the last 12 months.

It should be noted that, when those who didn't participate in activities sponsored by local recreation and park agencies during the last 12 months were asked if they had ever used them, another 25 percent said they had done so. Thus, 55 percent of respondents had participated in such activities at some time.

Use of both parks and other recreation services increased with educational and income level but there was no relation between them and one's gender--women were as likely to report using both parks and other recreation services as were men. While older people used such services somewhat less than younger ones, decline of use with age was gradual and those aged 65 to 74 were more likely to use local parks frequently than any other age group. (see Figure 2). Local parks were used more by Hispanics than whites and more by whites than African-Americans but those of different ethnic statuses were equally likely to use other recreation services.

Non-Use of Services. While the vast majority of respondents used local recreation and park services, those who did not were asked to agree or disagree with several statements concerning the reasons for their non-use. Only 14 percent of non-users said they were not interested in recreation and park services. Lack of time was the most frequently agreed to reason for lack of participation, with 52 percent of non-respondents citing it. Fees and charges were not a significant deterrent to participation, since only six percent of non-users cited local recreation and park services being too expensive as a reason for non-participation. Lack of information, however, appears to be a bigger problem, since fully one-third of all non-users said they didn't have enough information about such services. Additionally, 23 percent of non-users agreed that "local park and recreation services aren't planned for people like me" and 15 percent concurred that "there aren't other people for me to participate With."

Benefits from Such Services.

Respondents to the telephone survey were asked about benefits received from local parks at an individual, household and community level. Next they were asked about benefits to other members of the household and finally the community as a whole.

Perhaps what is most startling about these results is that the vast majority of respondents perceived benefits at all levels and the strongest level of perceived benefit was the community level, where more than six out of ten respondents said their community received "a great deal" of benefit from local parks. Only six percent of respondents said there was no community benefit derived from local parks.

In terms of specific benefits, Figure 3 shows the ten most frequently mentioned benefits of local park and playground use at the individual, household and community level. These benefits show that individuals go to local parks both for recreation and as recreation. That is, one may realize a benefit because they go there for a specific purpose, such as to exercise, or one may view the simple act of going there as a benefit in and of itself.

While the most frequently mentioned benefits are exercise-related, the second most frequent at the individual level is relaxation and peace. Thus, individuals change their level of stimulation while in parks both by becoming more active and narrowing their field of attention, such as by playing a sport, or becoming less active and broadening their field of attention, such as by relaxing or contemplating.

In terms of both household and community benefits, children are mentioned in three out of ten responses. While our study documented that large segments of the 65 and older population use local parks, our respondents don't associate local park benefits with older people. Parks are, however, identified as gathering places which help foster community awareness.' Our sample rarely mentioned increasing "cultural awareness"as a benefit of parks and exercising pets was mentioned only once, even though many people use parks to do so.

In terms of participation in activities sponsored by recreation and park departments, respondents were asked what specific activities they had participated in during the last 12 months and then asked what was the most important benefit they received from such participation and if there were other benefits. These answers, in the respondents own words, were then coded into categories. Figure 4 shows the frequency and percentage of all respondents at the personal, household and community level. Personal benefits was composed of the following major benefits: exercise, fitness and conditioning (mentioned 134 times); fun and entertainment (86); learning and education (28); relaxation (25); and health (24). Personal benefits clearly have a strong health and wellness orientation. They accounted for the highest percentage of benefits identified by respondents at the personal and household level. Social benefits had the following components: getting to know people (34); group participation (23); interaction of adults and kids (25); community awareness (22) and team spirit (20). These benefits also reflect wellness ideals. They constituted almost one-half of all benefits cited at the community level. Recreation and park benefits, then, are primarily "people" benefits and they are strongly related to health and wellness.

Facility/activity benefits included: having instructional classes (10), the joy of playing (8), place to go (8), place for recreation, (7), exposure to arts (7) and crafts (8), and watching organized sports (7). Such benefits constituted just under 12 percent of benefits identified at the personal level but increased to 17 percent at the community level. Environmental benefits included: fresh air (12), nature (9), and a place to be outdoors (7). Perhaps surprisingly, less than ten percent of the benefits identified at any of the three levels were environmental. Finally, under economic benefits the major benefit listed was affordability, and economic benefits of any kind were also less than ten percent of the identified benefits at any level.

What people did not mention is also important. While respondents clearly saw local recreation and park services as benefitting the entire community, not one of 1305 respondents mentioned service to the poor, the disadvantaged or ethnic minorities. While a recent Canadian study of benefits found that recreation and parks professionals identified "basic services to poorer residents"as the number one ranked benefit, our respondents saw community benefits in inclusive terms and did not associate such agencies with service to the poor. Similarly, while the Canadian park and recreation professionals rated "protection of the natural environment" second highest, our study found environmental benefits were mentioned far less frequently than personal and social benefits.

Those who don't use local government recreation and park services also perceived substantial benefits from recreation and park services. While those who used such services perceived a higher level or benefits, 53 percent of those who never used local parks said their community received a great deal of benefit from such resources.

In terms of the benefits of participating in specific activities sponsored by local government recreation and park services, Figure 5 shows the number of times respondents identified a category of benefits with various kinds of activities. As may be seen, the vast majority of benefits identified were personal and social. Also, the. majority of benefits are clearly from sport and exercise. They account for more than one-third of all benefits identified by respondents. Perhaps of equal importance, however, is the extent to which cultural and educational activities are prominent. Cultural activities were the second most frequently mentioned source of benefits and classes were mentioned fifth most frequently.

In terms of services to specific populations, however, such as senior citizens and special populations, our sample attributed a relatively smaller number of benefits. With regard to the elderly, as we have previously seen, this does not mean such services don't reach the elderly, since those 65 to 74 are slightly more likely to use local parks "frequently" than any other age group represented in the sample (age 15 and over). Rather it means that age-segregated programs, such as senior citizen centers, are not a significant source of benefits. This should not be surprising since, according to Kelly, such centers serve only about one out of ten of those 65 and over.

Evaluation of Local Recreation and Park Services. When our sample rated their own local government services, the results, as seen in Figure 6 were as follows:

Parks and open space was ranked very high among local governmental services, with four out of five respondents rating them good or very good. Those with higher incomes and education levels rated parks and open space higher than others. While 81 percent of whites rated parks and open space in their community as good or very good, only 65 percent of Hispanics and 58 percent of blacks did so.

Recreational programs rated comparatively highly with 71 percent rating them good or very good. Again, whites were more likely to rate such programs highly than were blacks or Hispanics.

Indoor recreation facilities were rated lower, with 17 percent rating them poor or very poor. Such ratings may reflect part of the much discussed "infrastructure" problem with our towns and cities. The demise of the land and Water Conservation Fund may be critical in this rating.

Economic Value of Local Recreation and Park Services.

Rather than ask respondents an abstract "willingness to pay" question, our study asked the following: "On the average, people in the United States pay about $45 per person per year in local taxes for recreation and park services. The amount you pay may be more or less, but $45 is the national average. Do you feel that your local recreation and park services are worth $45 per member of your household each year?"

Those respondents who said "yes," were then asked if such services were worth higher amounts expressed in $10 increments or, if they said "no" they were asked if such services were worth lesser amounts in $10 increments. Results showed over three-fourths of the entire sample thought that park and recreation services were worth $45 per person per year or more. More than 20 percent thought the), were worth from $60 to $150 per person per year and only 16 percent thought they were worth $2 5 or less.

After this question, respondents were asked how such services should be paid for and were given the option of choosing the following categories: mainly through taxes, mainly through user fees or equally through taxes and user fees. The vast majority, 69 percent, said such support should come equally from taxes and user fees while 20 percent said mainly through taxes and ten percent chose mainly through user fees. Stated another way, the predominate belief is that local recreation and park services are worth $45 or more per person per year in taxes and that their local department should generate equal amounts of revenue through user fees.

Wellness and Use of Recreation and Park Services. Our study found several relations between use of local recreational and park services and wellness indicators. Respondents who used local parks, for example, were more likely to report good personal health than those who did not. Among those who used parks frequently, for instance, 33 percent reported their health as excellent while only 20 percent of those who didn't use parks at all did so. Those who didn't use local parks at all were also more likely to report fair or poor health.

Personal happiness was also positively related to use of parks, beginning a new recreational activity and perceiving a high level of benefit from local parks. Individuals with high stress levels were more likely to make no use of local parks (30 percent) than others and to say that their household received no benefits from local parks (27 percent) than average (16 percent).

Finally, individuals with disabilities were somewhat less likely to have a park within walking distance (63 percent) than others (72 percent) and to use parks frequently. Although 17 percent of those with disabilities used local parks frequently they were somewhat less likely to do so than those reporting no disabilities (25 percent).

While there is no previous study to serve as a real basis for comparison, it appears that local park and recreation services directly touch the lives of the majority of the public, who have directly used them. While such use is somewhat concentrated among families, use of such services continues across the life cycle. In particular, park use rates by the elderly remain quite high.

The public, while it perceives a huge range of benefits from such services, does not associate them with older citizens but primarily with "kids." In particular, non-users associate the benefits of such services with youth. Additionally, in the mind of the public, there is no association of such services with the poor, ethnic minorities or the disadvantaged. Nor is there much with the disabled. Additionally, these services are generally not viewed in terms of economic benefits. In sum, there may be a gap between what the practitioner views as the benefits of such services and what the public thinks. This is particularly evident from the Canadian study cited earlier where professionals viewed service to the poor as the number one benefit, while not one of 1305 respondents mentioned it in our open-ended questioning of them concerning benefits. The strong level of endorsement for community benefits would seem to indicate that the public definitely perceives such services as providing benefits to many others in the community.

In terms of types of benefits, exercise and health-related benefits are overwhelmingly first. In addition, many other benefit categories which were prominent in the public's mind, such as socialization with one's family, relaxation and contact with the natural environment, may contribute to health benefits. While local recreation and park agencies are sometimes only beginning to think of themselves as health or wellness organizations, perhaps the public already does so.

It is evident from our research that local recreation and park services provide places where people go as recreation in addition to going for recreation. In other words, the act of being in a park or other local recreation setting, in and of itself, is consistently viewed as a benefit. It provides a meeting place for the public, a place for families, and a place for kids to go. Similarly, many non-users perceive a benefit from such services and areas just because they are there. The high level of benefits perceived by non-users may imply that attendance itself is an incomplete measure for documenting such benefits.

Finally, the results of this study must be interpreted within the context of increased suburbanization. Ks mentioned previously, the one-half of the U.S. population which now resides in suburbs are thought to be increasingly anti-government, anti-taxes, increasingly critical consumers and more highly privatized in their uses of leisure. This study showed almost opposite attitudes and behaviors concerning local government's provision of recreation and park services. The public generally rate these services highly, make extensive use of them, are willing to pay for them and associate them with a high level of benefits, particularly at the community level. Perhaps in an era of the privatization of American life, local parks and recreation services are valued in that they provide an exception or alternative to this trend.

The health consciousness of Americans and their longing for more sense of community may mean that support for local recreation and park services will continue or increase since health and exercise benefits as well as community benefits are associated with such services. In a society which is rapidly aging, however, the fact that many of the benefits of local recreation and park services are associated with youth and are not specifically associated with those in later life may mean that support for such services will decrease unless there is a broadening in the age groups with whom such benefits are associated.

The public views local recreation and park benefits, primarily, to be "people" benefits. These people benefits occur at the individual, household and community level. To a surprising extent, the perception of such benefits transcends age, race, gender and political affiliation. In this lies the strength of local recreation and park services in the future.

EDITOR'S NOTE: References to accompany this article are available from the authors at Penn State University, Leisure Studies Program, School of Hotel, Restaurant and Recreation Management, 203 Henderson Bldg. South, University Park, PA 16802-6505.