Perceived benefits and investment priorities associated with local park

and recreation services (PRS)

What do elected and appointed officials think?

Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D. - RPTM, Penn State

Acknowledgements • Co-Investigators/Colleagues

– Austin Barrett, Recreation, Park and Tourism Mgt. – Alan Graefe, Recreation, Park and Tourism Mgt. – William Elmendorf, Ecosystem Sciences

• PA Dept. of Conservation & Natural Resources

• Cooperating Associations – PSAT, PSAB, CCAP, PML, and PRPS

Local Parks and Outdoor Recreation Local/county park and recreation systems are an important venue for outdoor recreation

Location of Recreation Activities Based on Reported Number of Days of Participation

Local-County,

50%

State, 13%

Federal, 5%

Private, 19%

Other, 13%

Source: 2014 Pennsylvania Outdoor Recreation Resident Survey

Park and Recreation Benefits • Local park and recreation services (PRS) are

purported to provide a range of individual and community-wide benefits*…

– Attracting/retaining business – Attracting/retaining retirees – Attracting/retaining tourists – Enhancing real estate values – Stimulating urban rejuvenation – Preventing youth crime – Addressing needs of unemployed – Improve community health – Environmental stewardship

*Kaczynski & Crompton (2004)

Challenges Faced

Despite evidence linking parks to individual and community benefits, we struggle to… a). convince decision-makers of our central role in addressing important community problems and, thus: b). compete with other public services to secure public funding and investment for PRS

Positioning Some have argued that we need to “position” ourselves based on (one or two) key benefits to wider audiences (Crompton, 2008) •

– Who? - Elected Officials, Non-Users

– What? - Broader Economic and Social Benefits

Real Psychological Competitive Positioning*

*Kotler, Haider, & Rein (1993)

Prior Benefits Literature

• Research has developed tools to assess a range of benefits (importance/performance) associated with PRS (i.e. PARRS*)

• Numerous state/local studies have assessed public attitudes toward PRS benefits. These surveys have typically focused on the perspectives of users.

* Kaczynski & Crompton (2004)

Expanding the Constituency

However, it’s important to compare benefit perceptions and

investment priorities across a broader range of stakeholders

Particularly those who make policy/funding decisions!

Gaps • Few studies document the extent to which local

officials perceive PRS as delivering important benefits and whether they value PRS investment.

• Elected officials might have the final say on budgets, but appointed officials are important “gatekeepers”

• If we are to position PRS as an essential service to community decision-makers, we need to first know where both elected and appointed officials stand.

Study Assumptions • Can we reach a range of elected/appointed officials

and convince them to participate in such a study?

• Can we be relatively sure they are being truthful in their responses (issue of social desirability)?

BUT… it has been done before!

California Leaders’ Opinions of Parks & Recreation (2002) http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/795/files/4leadersopinions.pdf

California Study – Key Findings

• Leaders (providers) felt that residents placed less value on the concept that “parks create jobs and generate income for local businesses.”

• State legislators more likely than local leaders to agree with the positive value of parks and recreation

• However, that study did not compare providers’ benefit perceptions with their investment and funding priorities

Current Study - Purpose 1. Assess/compare how a range of stakeholders

perceive the benefits of local PRS (performance) and the extent they prioritize investment in PRS

Pennsylvania stakeholders assessed/compared…

– Appointed Officials (i.e., managers, administrators) – Elected Officials – Park and Recreation Directors – Residents – Users – Residents – Non-Users

Study Purpose (cont.) 2. Examine whether benefit perceptions are related

to support for PRS investment priorities

– What types of benefits are most salient in driving investment support among elected/appointed?

Significance/Application

Knowledge of existing PRS perceptions and priorities among public officials can help to focus

positioning strategies targeted to these audiences.

METHODS

Data Collection–Provider Survey • A brief 10 minute, online survey submitted to local

PA association membership lists in April 2014

• DCNR and association representatives provided input into the survey design – Consistency in data collection approach, questions used

• Final sample size (N=1,037) excluding audiences

(e.g., roles/position) beyond the scope of this project

PA Association List

PA State Association of Township Supervisors (PSAT) PA State Association of Boroughs (PSAB) PA County Commissioners Association (CCAP) PA Municipal League (PML) PA Recreation and Park Society (PRPS)

Provider Survey Measures • Provider Survey Questionnaire Content…

– Contextual Variables (Type Govt., Staffing, Budgets, etc.) – Benefits Provided by PRS (in their local area) – Future PRS Facility Investment Priorities – Outdoor Recreation/Conservation Funding Strategies – Challenges Faced by their Local Govt./Agency

• This presentation focuses on the perceived benefits

and facility investment/funding priorities of key PRS constituencies; particularly appointed/elected

Data Collection–Resident Survey • A longer, mail questionnaire sent to a random

sample of Pennsylvania households (January 2014)

• Focused on outdoor recreation participation, activities, future demand/needs, attitudes toward recreation strategies/policies – Included resident perceptions of benefits (performance) – Included outdoor rec./conservation funding strategies

• Final sample size (N = 2,187)

Measures - Benefits • Twelve items assessing the perceived performance

of local PRS in achieving a range of individual and community benefits:

• The extent to which their agency/local govt. delivers or provides for each of the types of benefits (1=Not at all; 3=Somewhat; 5=A great deal)

Health (Physical, Mental) Youth Development

Environmental/Resource Protection Community Cohesion

Economic Development

Measures – Facility Investment Priority

Summative index based on response to 15 facilities

• “Please rate the level of priority your agency/local govt. places on investing in each of the following facilities over the next five years (1=lowest priority for investment to 5=highest priority for investment)

• Examples: trails, bike lanes, pools, sport facilities, playgrounds, parks, community gardens, etc.

Measures – Funding Priorities A battery of nine conservation/outdoor recreation activities that are priorities for future funding …

• “How important are each of the following priorities for funding outdoor recreation and conservation efforts in your community?” (1=not at all important to 5=extremely important)

• Examples: maintain areas, provide environmental programs, acquire open space, build connective paths, restore damaged rivers/streams, etc.

Analyses Perceived Benefits Delivered by PRS

– Comparisons across providers (elected, appointed, director) and residents (users, non-users)

– Comparisons across type of elected official (borough, township, city/county)

Facility Investment and Recreation Funding Priorities – Comparisons across providers (elected, appointed, director) – Comparisons across type of elected official (borough,

township, city/county)

Relationship between specific benefit perceptions and investment/funding priorities (by provider type)

Sample Description

Sample Composition (Residents)

Resident Classification N %

User 1994 91

Non-User (outdoor recreation) 193 9

TOTAL (Full Sample) 2187 100

• During the past year, how often did you participate in any outdoor recreation activities in Pennsylvania?

• Non-users = “I never participate in outdoor recreation”

Sample Composition (Providers) Position N % Township, City or Borough Manager/Secretary 475 97 County Chief Clerk/Administrator 14 3

Total Appointed Officials 489 100 Borough Council Member 227 55 Township Supervisor/Commissioner 89 21 Mayor 46 11 City Council Member 27 7 County Commissioner 25 6

Total Elected Officials 414 100 Total Park and Recreation Directors 134 100 TOTAL (Full Provider Sample) 1037 100

Type of Local Government (Appointed & Elected Officials*)

Type N % Borough 439 49 Township 378 42 City 43 5 County 37 4 TOTAL 897 100

*Excludes park and recreation directors

Population your Agency/Local Govt. Serves

55%

34%

11%

Less than 5,000

5,000 to 24,999

25,000 or More

KEY RESULTS

Benefit Performance Perceptions

• Comparing providers to residents (both users and non-users)

• Comparing across types of elected officials (township, borough, city)

Benefit Items Survey Item (Benefit Domain) Improves physical health/fitness (Health) Reduces stress, improves mental health (Health) Enhances a sense of community (Community) Makes community a more desirable place to live (Community) Provides for social interaction (Community) Promotes tourism/economic development (Economic) Increases property values (Economic) Attracts new residents and businesses (Economic) Promotes positive youth development (Youth Development) Provides children with a safe place to play (Youth Development) Protects the natural environment (Protects Resources) Protects historical/cultural resources (Protects Resources) Helps reduce crime (Crime Reduction)

Benefit Domains* Director User Non-User

Elected Appointed

Health** 4.1a 4.1a 3.9ab 3.7b 3.3c

Community** 4.4a 3.9bc 3.8bc 3.9b 3.6c

Economic** 3.8a 3.6b 3.6b 3.3c 2.9d

Protects Resources** 3.7a 3.8a 3.8a 3.4b 3.1c

Youth Development 4.5a N/A N/A 4.0b 3.7c

Helps Reduce Crime** 3.6a 3.0b 2.9b 3.0b 2.5c

AGGREGATE BENEFIT PERF. INDEX**

4.1a 3.8b 3.7b 3.6b 3.3c

* 1= Not at all to 5 = A great deal; ** Sig < .001

Perceptions by Type of Elected Official… Benefit Domain*

Mayor, City Council,

Commissioner

Township Supervisor

Borough Council Member

Health** 3.9a 3.7a 3.5a

Community 4.1 3.9 3.8

Economic** 3.5a 3.4ab 3.1b

Protects Resources*** 3.7a 3.5a 3.2b

Youth Development 4.1 4.0 3.9

Helps Reduce Crime 3.1 2.9 2.9

AGGREGATE BENEFIT PERF. INDEX*

3.8a 3.7ab 3.5b

* 1= Not at all to 5 = A great deal; ** Sig < .05, *** Sig <.01

Priority Placed on Investing in Park and Recreation Facilities

• Comparisons across specific providers (directors, appointed, elected)

• Comparisons across type of elected official (borough, township, city/county)

Facility Investment Priority

(Aggregate Index) by Type of Provider*

2.38 2.41

2.16

Director Elected Appointed

* 1 = Lowest Priority to 5 = Highest Priority

Facility Investment Priority (Aggregate

Index) by Type of Elected Official*

2.64 2.45

2.28

Mayor/CityCouncil

Twp. Sup. Borough Council

* 1 = Lowest Priority to 5 = Highest Priority

Outdoor Recreation/Conservation Funding Priorities (Importance)

• Comparisons across specific providers (directors, appointed, elected)

• Comparisons across type of elected official (borough, township, city/county)

Importance of Funding the Following Outdoor Recreation/Conservation Priorities

Priority Action* Director Elected Appointed

Maintain existing park and recreation areas** 4.7a 4.4b 4.3b

Provide recreation programs at park and recreation areas***

4.1a 3.6b 3.3c

Build more greenways and trails** 3.4a 2.9b 2.8b

Provide environmental and conservation programs** 3.3a 3.0b 2.8b

Build paths between places of work, parks, schools, shopping**

3.2a 2.9ab 2.7b

Acquire/protect open space (as undeveloped conserved land)

3.1a

2.8ab 2.8b

Protect wildlife and fish habitat 3.1a 2.8b 2.8b

Acquire additional land/water for developed recreation*** 2.8a 2.5ab 2.2b

Restore damaged rivers and streams 2.7a 2.7a 2.6a

AGGREGATE FUNDING PRIORITY INDEX*** 3.4a 3.1b 2.9b

* 1= Not at all Important to 5 = Extremely Important; ** Sig < .01, *** Sig < .001

Importance of Funding Outdoor Recreation/Conservation Priorities

Priority Action*

Mayor, City Council,

Commissioner

Township Supervisor

Borough Council Member

Maintain existing park and recreation areas* 4.6a 4.2b 4.3ab

Provide recreation programs at park and recreation areas**

4.0a 3.5b 3.5b

Build more greenways and trails*** 3.4a 3.2a 2.7b

Provide environmental and conservation programs**

3.3a 3.3a 2.7b

Build paths between places of work, parks, schools, shopping***

3.4a 3.2a 2.6b

Acquire/protect open space (as undeveloped conserved land)***

2.9b 3.5a 2.5b

Protect wildlife and fish habitat*** 3.3a 3.2a 2.4b

Acquire additional land/water for developed recreation**

2.8a 2.9a 2.3b

Restore damaged rivers and streams** 3.1a 2.9a 2.4b

AGGREGATE FUNDING PRIORITY INDEX*** 3.4a 3.3a 2.8b

* 1=Not at all Important to 5=Extremely Important; *Sig < .05, **Sig <.01, ***Sig <.001

Connecting Benefit Perceptions with Facility Investment/Funding Priorities

Among Elected/Appointed Officials…

Higher perception of PRS benefits = Higher support for funding and facility investment

Perceptions of economic benefits were robust predictors of facility investment and conservation funding support for these officials… - Increases property values (strongest predictor) - Tourism and economic development - Attracts new residents/businesses

Study Takeaways

• Park directors were the most positive; committed to facility investment/funding

• Residents (users, non-users) valued both individual and community benefits; and at similar levels; same with funding priorities

• Providers keyed in on community-level rather than individual benefits (e.g., health/wellness)

Study Takeaways (cont.) • Appointed officials perceived PRS the lowest

in terms of perceived benefits as well as facility investment and conservation funding priorities

• However, perceived benefits were correlated with investment/funding priorities; particularly economic benefits

• Unfortunately, economic benefits were the lowest rated among elected/appointed officials

Strategies to Consider • Focus positioning efforts on appointed officials;

as well as elected borough council members

• Focus on economic arguments that “make sense” to these audiences (e.g., property values)

• Address providers’ disconnect with their constituents regarding perceived health/wellness benefits; tying health to an economic argument

Limitations/Future Research

• Sample (response driven by rural areas)

• Measurement (benefits, funding priorities)

• Lack of forced choice response; ranking PRS investment relative to other services

Thank You!

Contact information: Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D.; amowen@psu.edu

Supplemental Slides

Pennsylvanians “Get” the Health Connection

“Parks, trails, and open space are an essential component of our health care system”

77% agreed/strongly agreed

Even among non-users…

61% agreed/strongly agreed

Mowen 2014 PA Outdoor Recreation Resident Survey

To what extent do park and outdoor recreation services deliver specific outcomes in your local area?

OUTCOME/BENEFIT Mean (5 pt. scale)

Improves physical health and fitness 4.18 Makes my community a more desirable place to live 4.15 Reduces stress/improves mental health 4.13 Provides children with a safe place to play 4.10 Protects the natural environment 3.96 Enhances a sense of community 3.82 Increases property values in the community 3.82 Preserves historical and cultural heritage 3.82 Provides opportunities for social interaction 3.80 Helps attract new residents and businesses 3.59 Promotes tourism 3.43 Helps reduce crime 3.05

Do Local Park Providers Feel the Same Way?

Extent that park services provide various outcomes/benefits in their local area

Park Directors

% (Mean)

Appointed Officials

% (Mean)

Elected Officials

% (Mean)

PA Residents

% (Mean)

Improves physical health and fitness 80 (4.18) 55 (3.43) 61 (3.72) 73 (4.18)

Reduces stress/improves mental health 75 (3.95) 44 (3.19) 57 (3.59) 74 (4.13)

Provides children with a safe place to play 99 (4.67) 74 (3.96) 81 (4.18) 73 (4.11)

Makes community a more desirable place to live 93 (4.60) 67 (3.75) 77 (4.09) 74 (4.15)

Scale (1 = Not at all, 3 = Somewhat, 5 = A Great Deal) - % 4, 5 listed above with mean score

Mowen 2014 Pennsylvania Park and Recreation Provider Survey

Perceived Challenges • We wanted respondents to rate the extent various issues

were a challenge or concern to their agency or local government when providing park and recreation services

• 31 challenges were grouped into five basic categories: – Partnerships, Collaboration, and Staffing – Advocacy – Fiscal and Funding Issues – Maintenance/Management Issues – Emerging Trends

• This question was modeled after the 2009 Resources for the Future study: Parks and Recreation in the United States – Local Park Systems (Walls, 2009)

Perceived Challenges In general, fiscal/funding issues were identified as the most significant or major challenges faced by providers.

Fiscal/Funding Issues % Significant or

Major Challenge

Developing alternative/non-traditional revenue sources for parks and recreation

78

Insufficient funds to rehabilitate existing facilities 68

Insufficient funds for land acquisition 60

Insufficient funds for programs/activities at parks 57

Insufficient funds for operation & maintenance at parks 57

Retaining allocated local government funds for parks and recreation

57

Perceived Challenges (cont.) But, management/maintenance issues were also mentioned as significant/major challenges by a sizable percentage…

Management/Maintenance Issues % Significant or Major Challenge

Creating new park and recreation facilities 75

Creating and enhancing trail access and connectivity

57

Lack of acreage or suitable sites for new parks and recreation facilities

48

Maintaining existing local parks in the community

47

Perceived Challenges (cont.) Providers also felt emerging trends were a challenge, but less so than funding and maintenance/management issues

Emerging Trends % Significant or Major Challenge

Responding to emerging or new types of outdoor recreation activities (e.g., dog parks, paddleboarding, pickleball)

46

Addressing the lack of youth engagement in outdoor recreation

45

Providing park and recreation facilities/services that meet the needs of individuals with disabilities

43

Promoting green infrastructure at parks (e.g., native landscaping, grow zones, tree plantings, sustainable design)

40

Key Challenge Comparisons • Park and recreation directors were more likely to cite

“addressing the lack of youth engagement in outdoor recreation” as a significant or major challenge

• Borough respondents were more likely than others to report the following challenges as significant/major… – Lack of acreage or suitable sites for new parks, recreation facilities – Promoting green infrastructure at parks

• Township managers were the least likely of all provider stakeholders to perceive a range of issues as challenging for their local government.

What is your single biggest challenge?

An open-ended question for Park Directors...

• Funding (General and Specific Needs) (n=33)

• Maintaining Existing Facilities (n=12)

• Staffing (n=6)

• Educating Elected Officials (n=5)

• Keeping Up with Emerging Trends (n=3)

• Cooperating with other Partners/Municipalities (n=2)

To Summarize… • Local elected officials responded more favorably to

parks and recreation than appointed officials

• Funding and fiscal capacity is a challenge

• Maintenance is also a concern and priority

• Capacity levels correspond with priorities and strategies

• These findings are influenced by the rural character of the sample (most were from small govt. units)