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

Parks & Recreation, Dec, 2004 by Joseph A. Panza, Robert E. Cipriano

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.