Who Uses Our Parks?| an Evaluation of the Application of Standards-Based Recreation Planning Methods for Assessing Neighborhood Park Needs in Urban Missoula, Montana
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1984 Who uses our parks?| An evaluation of the application of standards-based recreation planning methods for assessing neighborhood park needs in urban Missoula, Montana Barbara K. Ten Broeck The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Ten Broeck, Barbara K., "Who uses our parks?| An evaluation of the application of standards-based recreation planning methods for assessing neighborhood park needs in urban Missoula, Montana" (1984). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4088. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4088 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUB SISTS, ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR. MANSFIELD LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE : 1Q Q WHO USES OUR PARKS?: An Evaluation of the Application of Standards-based Recreation Planning Methods for Assessing Neighborhood Park Needs in Urban Missoula, Montana. by Barbara K. Ten Broeck B.A., Kenyon College, 1979 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Recreation Management UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1984 Approved by: Or{ Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School t /5~ '-7 ^ Date UMI Number: EP35035 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI OlsMrtation Publishing UMI EP35035 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest* ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Ten Broeck,Barbara K.,M.S.,May 1984 Recreation Management Who uses our parks?: an evaluation of standards-based recreation planning methods for assessing neighborhood park needs in urban Missoula, Montana. (165 pp.) Director: Dr. Stephen F. McCool This study is an examination of the nonuse of neighborhood parks. The study theorizes that most neighborhood park nonuse is because neighborhood parks do not provide the recreational opportunities people seek when they recreate close to home in a limited time frame. It postulates that neighborhood park nonuse is symptomatic of the fact that neighborhood parks are the product of deficient community recreation planning methods. The study analyzes data collected from 167 residents, or a 55% response, of two urban areas in Missoula, Montana. Each area surrounded a neighborhood park representing a similar level of development. Respondents answered questions identifying those areas close to home, including the neighborhood park, where they preferred to recreate. Applying a procedure developed and tested by Driver (1977), the study first characterized and then compared the recreational opportunities provided in the neighborhood park with those provided in the nonpark settings. Additionally the study explored the degree to which two factors contributed to the explanation of neighborhood park nonuse: socio-demographic and economic characteristics and recreational opportunity needs. Results indicated that neighborhood parks do provide characteristic recreational opportunities. However, neighborhood park users and nonusers do not seek mutually exclusive recreational opportunities. Differences in socio-demographic and economic characteristics contribute most significantly to the identification of neighborhood park users or nonusers. Page iii Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to all the individuals who contributed to the completion of this project. Thanks to Joel Meier for smoothing my initiation to graduate research and for starting me on the right track. Special thanks to Steve McCool for helping me crystallize the conceptual and methodological bases of the study. Thanks for his arrangements for financial assistance from the School of Forestry, University of Montana. His guidance was instrumental to the completion of the project. The technical assistance of the City of Missoula, Montana is acknowledged with thanks. I am indebted to Dan Obermeyer of the Missoula Planning Department and Jim Van Fossen of the Missoula City Parks Department for their assistance in study site selection and their input into the formulation of the project's objectives and the development of the questionnaire. Thanks to Mark Clark and Adrienne Corti for their invaluable reviews of the evolving manuscript. Thanks to Margaret Hillhouse, Emily Chesick, Brian Donner and Bill Aney for their friendship, encouragement and their help in keeping me abreast of the computer's idiosyncrasies. Page iv Finally, thanks to my family — Jeanine and Hunter — for their patience, their flexibility and their love. Page v TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Page ii Acknowledgments iii Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures x Chapter One Overview of the Problem 1 Introduction 1 Definition of the Problem 6 Statement of the Problem 9 Study Purpose 12 Chapter Two Literature Review 15 Evolution of Urban Recreation Planning Strategies: 1900-1971 15 Problems with the Traditional Standards Planning Process 28 Criticisms of Traditional Standards 29 Contemporary Standards Planning Process 39 Three Contemporary Standards Planning Methods 41 Nonuse of Neighborhood Parks 47 Chapter Three .... Conceptual Framework 50 The Outdoor Recreation Program Evaluation Framework 53 A Model of Recreation Demand 55 Study Hypotheses 62 Page vi Chapter Four The Study 67 Study Design and Method 67 Study Population 67 Study Design 75 Data Collection Instrument 78 Sampling Procedures 80 Sampled Population 85 Chapter Five Results 89 Hypothesis 1 89 Hypothesis 2 98 Hypothesis 3 Ill Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5 115 Hypothesis 6 117 Hypothesis 7 122 Summary of the Results 125 Neighborhood Park User/Nonuser Profiles 127 Chapter Six Conclusion 128 Introduction 128 Implications for Standards Planning 128 Considerations for Future Research 133 Methodological Considerations 135 Recreational aspirations are influenced by many factors 135 Sample sizes must be sufficient 137 Account for sources of error in survey instruments 138 Page vii Choose samples that more broadly represent park users/nonusers 139 Theoretical Considerations 139 Conclusion and Recommendations 142 Appendix A: Community Recreation Survey 144 Appendix B: Survey Cover Letter 156 Appendix C: Second Followup Postcard 157 Appendix D: Third Followup Letter 158 Literature Cited 159 Page viii LIST OF TABLES 1. Illustration of space standards by government level and region Page 32 2. A summary of recommended space standards 35 3. A comparison of neighborhood park developments and needs in urban Missoula, Montana 70 4. Respondent selection key 84 5. Response rate summary 87 6a. Percent of neighborhood park users and nonusers in Areas A and B 87 6b. Socio-demographic characteristics of the sample 88 7. Cluster analysis of preferred site outcomes. ... 90 8. Relationship between preferred residential recreational settings and the scale Escape Pressures 93 9. Relationship between preferred residential recreational settings and the scale Family Togetherness 94 10. Relationship between preferred residential recreational settings and the scale Change of Routine 95 11. Relationship between preferred residential recreational settings and the scale Enjoy People 96 12. Relationship between preferred residential recreational settings and the scale Skill Practice 97 13. Cluster analysis of neighborhood park outcomes . 100 14. Comparison of preferred site and neighborhood park outcome domain scales 102 Page ix 15. Comparison of neighborhood park user/nonuser subgroups on the basis of mean scale scores on preferred site outcome domain scales 106 16. Comparison of neighborhood park user/nonuser subgroups on the basis of scores on neighborhood park outcome domain scales 106 17. Crosstabulation of neighborhood park users and nonusers on the basis of high and low scores on preferred site and neighborhood park outcome domain scales 109 18. Comparison of the means scale scores of users and nonusers who stated they did not use the park because there was nothing to do there 110 19a. Percent of neighborhood park users in families with children 113 19b. Percent of neighborhood park users and nonusers in families with children under 16 years, or 16 years and older 114 20. Comparison of neighborhood park users and nonusers across significant socio-economic and demographic variables 114 21. Barriers to neighborhood park use 116 22. Cluster analysis of leisure attitude scales. 119 23. High and low leisure attitude scale scorers that significantly differed among high and low scorers on preferred site and neighborhood park experience expectation