This publication from Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station
and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived.
Current information: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu.
APRIL 1979
Data Needs of Kansas
Park and Recreation Agency
Administrators 1
Thomas D. Warner'
Introduction
Agricultural Experiment Station,
Kansas State University, Manhattan 66506
Keeping Up With Research 43
April 1979
Publications and public meetings by the Kansas
Agricultural Experiment Station are available and
open to the public regardless of race, color, national
4-79-700
origin, sex, or religion.
The development of park and recreation
agencies in Kansas has been significant over
the last 20 years. Numerous public agencies
have been established to create and administer
park resources and recreation programs for use
by Kansas residents.
As the agencies within the state have
grown, their management has become more
and more complicated. The park and recreation agency administrator today faces increasing demand for park areas, facilities, and recreation programs and a decreasing availability
of tax dollars.
For park and recreation agency administrators to get the most benefits for each tax
dollar spent, information on the demand for
areas, facilities, and programs must be gathered, and so a study of these needs was conducted in the fall of 1978.
1. Contribution 79-204-S, Department of Forestry, Kansas
Agricultural Experiment Station.
2. Park and Recreation Area Management Specialist,
Department of Forestry, Kansas State University.
This publication from Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station
and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived.
Current information: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu.
Research Study
A question naire was devised and mailed
to 70 municip al and county agency administrators in Septemb er, 1978. The 70 administrators surveyed represen ted all known existing municip al and county park and recreation agencies in Kansas. The question naire included the followin g list of possible survey
data needs:*
1. recreatio n activitie s demand
2. park and recreatio n facilities demand
3. park site "carryin g capacity" for highly
used areas (social carrying capacity )
4. fee charges for use of park areas
5. fee charges for recreatio nal activity instruction
6. energy use consider ations for planning
recreatio n activitie s
7. future park visitatio n patterns
8. future trends in recreatio n activity participatio n
9. aesthetic s of park design
10. econom ic value of parks and park facilities
11. econom ic value of recreatio n program s
12. determin ation of " substitu tability" for
recreatio n activitie s
13. determin ation of "substit utability" for
park areas
14. funding sources for park and recreatio n
agencies
15. ways to reduce vandalis m
The agency administrators indicated which
topic areas they felt ' should be investiga ted
within a time-fra me of 1 or 5 years. The following tables summar ize the question naire responses by adminis trative category : all admin-
• The list of topics used in this survey reflects only major
informatio n areas of use to park and recreation agency
administr ators.
istrators , park and recreatio n administ rators,
municip al park administ rators, municip al
recreatio n administ rators, and county park
directors .
(
Eighty-fo ur percent of the 70 question~
naires mailed out were returned .
Discuss ion
A number of trends regardin g research informatio n needs are apparen t from the survey
results. In Table 1 for " all administ rators," the
greatest need for data (70% +)was in facilities
and activitie s demand, fees charged for instructio n in activities , and reductio n of vandalism. Park and recreation administrators were
concern ed with these same issues, plus park
fees a~dtrends in recreatio n participa tion.
Table 1 . Projected survey data needs all agency administrato rs
(59 resp o ndents)
Area
Affirmative
response
{%)
Time-frame
1
(Years)
69
60
42
77
84
31
40
58
(%)
s
1. Activities demand
2. Facilities demand
3. Carrying capacity
4. Park fees
5. Activity fees
71
74
44
47
74
6. Energy use
7. Park visitations
8. Recreatio n trends
9. Park aesthetics
10. Dollar value of
parks
47
40
62
45
58
67
41
50
42
33
55
55
45
62
66
34
47
63
37
33
64
71
55
84
82
45
16
18
11 . Dollar value of recreation programs
12. Recreatio n " substitutability"
13. Park " substituta bility"
14. Funding sources
15. Vandalism control
59
so
23
16
This publication from Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station
and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived.
Current information: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu.
Table 2. Projected survey data needs park and recreation
administrators
Table 3. Projected survey data needs park administrators
(21 respondents)
(!respondents)
(
Area
Affirmative
response
(%)
Time-frame
1
(%)
(Years)
5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Activities demand
Facilities demand
Carrying capacity
Park fees
Activity fees
85
85
57
71
85
29
71
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Energy use
Park visitations
Recreation trends
Park aesthetics
Dollar value of
parks
11. Dollar value of recreation programs
12. Recreation "substitutability"
13. Park "substituability"
14. Funding sources
15. Vandalism control
(
33
33
100
67
67
0
83
17
42
42
71
57
33
33
40
67
67
60
42
33
67
so
50
42
33
67
42
67
33
28
42
85
50
50
100
0
100
0
Municipal park admi'nistrators were concerned with collecting data on the demand for
park facilities: only that topic rated higher
than 70 percent. Municipal recreation administrators showed strong interest in facilities and
activities demand, fee charges for recreation
activity instruction, funding sources and vandalism controL
County park administrators were most interested in fee charges for park facility use and
recreation activity instruction. However, none
of the topics ranked higher than 63 percent for
county park administrators.
The time-frame for which the responding
administrators felt they needed most
management data was overwhelmingly within
1 year.
Area
1. Activities demand
2. Facilities demand
3. Carrying capacity
4. Park Fees
5. Activity fees
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Energy use
Park visitations
Recreation trends
Park aesthetics
Dollarvalueof
parks
11. Dollar value of recreation programs
12. Recreation "substitutability"
13. Park "substitutability"
14. Funding sources
15. Vandalism control
Affirmative
response
Time-frame
1
61
85
(%)
(%)
71
52
42
66
(Years)
5
79
36
67
79
15
21
64
33
21
42
57
61
89
11
52
67
80
33
20
61
77
23
52
70
30
38
63
37
38
57
63
33
80
37
67
66
64
36
20
This publication from Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station
and Cooperative Extension Service has been archived.
Current information: http://www.ksre.ksu.edu.
Table 4. Projected survey data needs recreation administrators
(20 respondents}
Table 5. Projected survey data needs county park administrators
(11 respo ndents}
Affirmative
response
(%)
Time-frame
1
(%)
(Years)
5
Area
Affirmative
response
Time-frame
(%)
1
(Yearp ----,
(%)
1. Activities demand
2. Facilities demand
3. Carrying capacity
4. Park fees
'5. Activity fees
85
85
30
35
85
74
56
60
80
88
26
44
40
20
12
1. Activities demand
2. Facilities demand
3. Carrying capacity
4. Park fees
5. Activity fees
54
54
45
63
63
67
57
40
75
88
33
43
60
25
12
6. Energy use
7. Park visitations
8. Recreation trends
9. Park aesthetics
10. Dollar value of
parks
60
25
65
35
45
25
56
so
55
75
44
·so
36
36
54
45
50
50
67
60
50
50
33
40
55
40
60
6. Energy use.
7. Park Visitations
8. Recreation trends
9. Park aesthetics
10. Dollarvalueof
. parks
54
40
60
85
71
29
54
60
40
60
62
38
45
67
33
30
85
90
40
94
73
60
6
27
36
54
36
60
83
83
40
17
17
11 . Dollar value of recreation programs
12. Recreation "substitutability"
13. Park "substitutability"
14. Funding sources
15. Vandalism control
11 . Dollar value of rec:reation programs
12. Recreation "substitutability"
13. Park "substitutability"
14. Funding sources
15. Vandalism control
( . . ...
Conclusions
Of the 'research topiCs reviewed by Kansas
county and municipal park and recreation administrators, those for which data is· most
highly sought include the prediction of future
demand of facilities and programs, the charging of fees for activities, and the control of
vandalism.
Until the time of this study, the survey
data needs of Kansas municipal and county
park and recreation administrators were unknown. With the completion of this survey,
assistance can be provided to agencies in their
collection and analysis of data for wise public
agency decisions.