August 2017 - Parks & Recreation - 55

Table 2. Comparing the Importance of Various Park and
Recreation Priorities for Funding
as team sports facilities (Mean=2.95) and
especially swimming pools (M=1.94), received lower levels of priority. When we
compared facility investment priorities
based on type of official, we found elected officials prioritized investment in nearly
all of these facilities at a higher level than
appointed officials (except community or
regional trail systems). In particular, elected officials placed much more priority on
community recreation areas such as team
sports facilities and swimming pools.
Implications
This is one of few studies that not only assessed local officials' views on parks and recreation, but also compared and contrasted
the views of elected and appointed officials.
What we found was that local officials believe
that park and recreation services provide a
moderately high level of benefit for their local communities. Local officials agreed these
benefits were numerous, including positive
youth development, a sense of community,
promoting health, economic prosperity, resource conservation and social equity. Our
findings suggest that local officials do not
merely view park and recreation services as
" fun and games, " but believe they offer a
high level of benefit for their communities.
The survey also highlights the central importance or priority that both elected and
appointed officials placed on maintaining
existing park and recreation areas (taking
care of what they have). Large capital investments may grab headlines, but officials
preferred funding to be directed toward
maintaining facilities their local government already operate. Playgrounds, emblematic of local parks and recreation, were
also prioritized by officials over and above
other specific facility investments. This prioritization corresponds with the previously
identified perception that parks provided a
high level of benefit for local youth.
Other than providing a snapshot of
how local officials view and prioritize
investment in parks and recreation, a
major finding from this survey was the
differences that existed between elected

Appointed
Officials

Elected Officials

All Officials

Funding Initiatives

Mean

Maintain existing park and
recreation areas - NS

4.26

1.22

4.36

0.98

4.30

1.11

Provide recreation programs**

3.27

1.43

3.59

1.30

3.42

1.38

Acquire/protect open space (as
undeveloped conserved land) - NS

2.79

1.40

2.82

1.44

2.80

1.42

Acquire additional land/water for
developed recreation**

2.23

1.23

2.52

1.42

2.37

1.33

t-value: *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001; NS = Not Significant, SD = Standard Deviation.
Scaled from: 1=Not at all important to 5=Extremely important

Table 3. Comparing Specific Facility Investment Priorities
Appointed
Officials

Elected Officials

All Officials

Facility Investment Priorities

Mean

Playgrounds*

3.45

1.35

3.66

1.14

3.55

1.26

Neighborhood parks*

3.09

1.43

3.30

1.29

3.19

1.37

Community or regional parks*

2.91

1.40

3.11

1.31

3.00

1.36

Community or regional trail systems
- NS

2.75

1.50

2.96

1.45

2.85

1.48

Team sports facilities***

2.73

1.47

3.20

1.35

2.95

1.43

Swimming pools***

1.76

1.31

2.14

1.46

1.94

1.39

t-value: *<.05, **<.01, ***<.001; NS = Not Significant, SD = Standard Deviation.
Scaled from: 1=Lowest Priority to 5=Highest Priority

and appointed officials. For nearly every
question, elected officials responded significantly more positively than appointed
officials toward park and recreation services. Why would this be? One explanation is elected officials may be more apt
to paint a rosier picture than appointed
officials. While elected officials can readily espouse the benefits of a widely valued
public service and advocate noble intentions to invest in these services, appointed
officials are directly faced with the difficult realities of providing a variety of public services on tight municipal budgets.
Another explanation could be that elected
officials are more in tune with the values
of their community than appointed officials. Therefore, they may hold park and
recreation services in a higher regard because they recognize how their community is enhanced by these services.
As Crompton has pointed out, communicating the value of local park and recreation services to elected officials should
continue to be a priority for the profes-

sion. These findings, however, suggest
that park and recreation advocates should
also focus their education and advocacy
efforts on appointed officials.
As a public service, dependent on the
support of local officials, parks and recreation should devote more resources toward understanding and engaging local
officials. NRPA has done just that, and in
a future issue of Parks & Recreation, will
convey the results of a national study of
local government officials' view on park
and recreation services.
Note: Detailed references for this article
can be found at www.parksandrecreation.
org/2017/August/local-officials-opinionsabout-local-park-and-recreation-services.
Austin G. Barrett, M.S., is a Ph.D. candidate at
Pennsylvania State University Department of
Recreation, Park and Tourism management
(austin@psu.edu). Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D., is a
professor at Pennsylvania State University
Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism
management (amowen@psu.edu).

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | A U G U S T 2 0 1 7 |

Parks & Recreation

August 2017 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2017 - Parks & Recreation