See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288846385

Evaluating the quality of recreation facilities: Development of an assessment

tool

Article · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

35 4,917

7 authors, including:

Marlo M Vernon Karen A Kirtland

Augusta University U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
23 PUBLICATIONS   510 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   2,053 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dawn Wilson Karla A Henderson

University of South Carolina North Carolina State University
192 PUBLICATIONS   4,890 CITATIONS    210 PUBLICATIONS   10,218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Creating Eating and Activity Environments by New Mothers View project

Families Improving Together (FIT) for Weight Loss View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marlo M Vernon on 11 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 5zJournal of Park and Recreation Administration
96 Volume 22, Number 1
Spring 2004 pp. 96-114

Evaluating the Quality of Recreation

Facilities: Development of an
Assessment Tool
Marlo M. Cavnar
Karen A. Kirtland
Martin H. Evans
Dawn K. Wilson
Joel E. Williams
Gary M. Mixon
Karla A. Henderson

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to develop a tool for assessing
the quality of public recreation facilities’ amenities. Knowing the location,
distribution, and quality of recreation facilities can assist administrators in
developing more effective programs for encouraging physical activity
across city, county, and state systems. Based on a literature review, expert
opinions, and professional standards, a tool was developed for assessing the
safety, condition, and maintenance of recreation facilities. A Geographic
Information System (GIS) database was developed to locate public recre-
ation facilities in a southeastern county of the United States. Objective
ratings of recreation facility quality were computed from the tool. Items on
the tool were tested for inter-rater reliability among three independent
raters. The findings demonstrated that overall the items in the tool were
reliable and effective in evaluating objective physical features of the
recreation facilities. Total Quality Management systems would benefit
from the addition of an objective component to the evaluation of facility
quality. The tool also provides a means of evaluating park quality over time,
and can be modified to focus on users of particular ages, or for families
versus individual users. Parks and recreation agencies have an important
role to play in developing environmental supports for physical activity that
may aid in reducing the national epidemic of obesity and related chronic
diseases.

KEY WORDS: Recreation facility, evaluation tool, park condition,

Geographic Information System (GIS), Total Quality Management (TQM)

AUTHORS: Karen A. Kirtland, Ph.D., is with the Prevention Research

Center, Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South
Carolina. kirtland@gwm.sc.edu. Cavnar, Evans, Wilson, and Williams are
with the same unit. Mixon is with the Sumter County Parks and Recreation
Department, Sumter, SC; Henderson is with the Department of Recre-
ation and Leisure Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
NC. This study was funded by the Cardiovascular Health Branch, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cooperative agreement U48/
CCU409664-06 (Prevention Research Centers Program), with adminis-
trative support provided by the CDC Division of Nutrition and Physical
Activity. Additional support was provided by the Office of Minority Health
of the Department of Health and Human Services. The authors wish to
acknowledge Barbara Ainsworth, PhD as the principal investigator of this
 97

project and for her constructive comments on the manuscript. Apprecia-

tion to Matthew Neet and Sumter County Active Lifestyles Committee
who helped with the data collection and to the project co-investigators
Cheryl Addy, PhD, Dwayne Porter, PhD, Patricia Sharpe, PhD, Linda
Neff, PhD, C. Dexter Kimsey, Jr., PhD and Brent Hutto, MSPH for their
intellectual input on the development of the survey, data collection process
and analyses. We also wish to thank the University of South Carolina Survey
Research Laboratory for sampling and administering the community
survey.

Introduction
Recreation and park professionals evaluate their programs and facilities
in a number of ways. Traditionally the focus has been on assessing the
number of facilities or the number of participants in a program. Ultimately,
professionals want to know whether or not their programs and facilities
have been successful. Assessing the quality of facilities and the outcomes for
those who participate is necessary for the attainment of managerial goals
and objectives, ascertaining the benefits of recreation facilities and pro-
grams, and for evaluation purposes relative to accountability. The primary
purpose of the present study was to develop a tool for assessing the quality
of recreation facility amenities.
A Total Quality Management (TQM) system incorporates numerous
approaches to creating and maintaining a superior quality of service.
According to Jaten and Driver (1998), a Total Quality Management
(TQM) system is made up of three important aspects. One is the need to
develop a customer approach to management, focusing on the needs of the
consumers, which in this case are the recreation facility users. This sort of
approach however, also takes into account the needs and wants of all
potential users. In promoting physical activity through recreation depart-
ments and parks, a TQM approach is feasible and useful. A second aspect
of a TQM system is that “high quality recreation opportunities should be
provided for all types of customers” (Jaten & Driver, 1998). Developing
and measuring clear quality objectives, is a third aspect important for
developing an effective TQM system, according to Jaten and Driver
(1998). Use of the developed tool as part of a system-wide TQM approach
to management enhances the ability of recreation managers and adminis-
trators to reach the needs of all their users, including adults, children,
seniors, and families. The tool encompasses the condition, safety, and
maintenance of the various features of recreation facilities which might be
utilized by participants for physical activity.
The influence of the physical environment on physical activity is an area
of increasing public health interest. A variety of environmental factors such
as the absence of affordable recreational facilities and/or the lack of parks
or sidewalks may be associated with physical inactivity. Sallis, Bauman, and
Pratt proposed the explicit study of the physical environment as a key factor
98

in explaining physical activity behaviors at the individual and community

levels. Focus groups have also reported that access to recreation facilities
positively influences physical activity behavior (Henderson et al., 2001).
Investigators have found that low satisfaction ratings of recreation facilities
were associated with greater inactivity among adult men (MacDougall,
Cooke, Owen, Wilson, & Bauman, 1997). Previous studies indicate that
key environmental barriers to physical activity include a lack of available
facilities and structured exercise programs and unsafe environmental fea-
tures. Overall, little research has focused on measuring the associations of
overall physical quality, condition, maintenance, or safety of facilities with
physical activity.
To evaluate the physical quality of recreation facilities, a tool was
developed. The tool was developed based on a literature review, pilot
tested, and then used on the recreation facilities in a medium sized county
located in the Southeast United States to determine the objective quality
of the facilities.
Methods

Literature Review
A literature review was conducted to locate evaluation tools and
established industry standards for the evaluation of recreation facilities.
Recreation professionals were also contacted concerning how they evalu-
ated their facilities and whether they had standards for the physical
condition of their facility. Most of the information found utilized evalua-
tion methods based on user perceptions rather than objective data, which
was the goal of this study .
Several resources were identified that provided guidelines for measur-
ing the objective physical environment of recreation facilities. Guidelines
for assessment included evaluating frequency of equipment maintenance,
sports field layout and maintenance, cleanliness, lighting, safety, and
adequacy of playground equipment (National Association for Sport and
Physical Education; National Program for Playground Safety). Several
position papers and general standards provided suggestions for evaluating
the aquatic-related aspects of the recreational facilities such as the availabil-
ity and adequacy of lifeguards and safety equipment. Results from the
literature review suggested three specific categories of recreation facilities
that were incorporated into the evaluation tool: condition, safety, and
maintenance.
Quality of Recreation Facility Tool Items
Based on the literature review, expert opinions, and accepted profes-
sional standards, the main aspects of facilities identified and included in the
tool were Parks, Playgrounds, Sports Fields, Aquatic Facilities/Pools, and
Recreation Centers. Each park and recreation center was rated with respect
to safety, condition, and maintenance of the facility (Table 1). The
evaluation tool was developed for facilities in a medium-sized county
99
100
 101

(population 104,237) located in the southeastern United States (US

Census Bureau, 2000). The tool has a total of 61 items: 29 condition items,
12 maintenance items, and 20 safety items (see http://prevention.sph.sc.edu
to view the tool). These items are described in detail below.
Condition Items. Condition questions examined the current condition
of features and facilities. General facility questions measured the accessibil-
ity to restrooms and drinking fountains and cleanliness. Accessibility was
defined by adequate number of restrooms and drinking fountains for the
facility size (e.g., for large facilities the restroom had to accommodate at
least three individuals and had to have more than one drinking fountain),
that they were in good working condition, and available for use. Cleanliness
was evaluated as high if the facility was without litter and if restrooms were
unsoiled.
Overall park condition was highly rated if benches and tables were free
from broken pieces or protruding bolts or screws. Recreation center
condition items measured indoor basketball courts (presence of baskets and
of adequate size), gyms (adequate lighting characterized by a lack of
shadows, and of an adequate size to service users), and weight rooms (free
weights and machines were in good working condition, moving parts move
easily, and all the components are present). These questions were devel-
oped based on standards created by the American College of Sports
Medicine (ACSM) . Sports field items included football fields, soccer fields,
baseball/softball diamonds, tennis courts, and outdoor basketball courts.
The condition questions included assessment of aspects relating to field
markings and requirements for play according to the rules of the sport. For
example, the presence/absence of field goals and yardage markers were
examined in evaluating football fields. Because tennis and basketball are
typically played on concrete or asphalt courts, condition was assessed by
good/fair/poor rating of the court surface. “Good” was determined by the
study investigators to be no more than 5% of the court surface was cracked;
“fair,” was no more than 30% of the surface area was cracked; and “poor,”
was more than 30% of the court surface was cracked.
Maintenance Items. In the maintenance section, questions relating to
parks, sports fields, outdoor tennis courts, and outdoor basketball courts
were also based on standards created by ACSM . These items included litter
free areas, facility cleanliness and landscape maintenance. The criteria for
maintenance included good irrigation of vegetation and an aesthetically
pleasing landscape (e.g., grassy areas were mowed consistently, and trees
and bushes were pruned away from walkways).
Safety Items. The safety of a facility’s equipment and features are
important. Based on checklists and resources provided by the National
Program for Playground Safety (NPPS), and the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (USPSC), park safety items assessed included
adequate playground fill and the presence/absence of visible park hazards,
such as rundown benches, tables, and broken glass. For aquatic facilities and
pools, safety was assessed by evaluating the presence of pool rules, adequate
102

first aid supplies, and use of emergency protocol, known as an emergency

action plan (EAP) or system (EAS).
Evaluation Procedure and Inter-rater Training
The tool was independently tested at three parks to determine its
usability and to establish criteria for assessing the features of recreation
facilities. The pilot parks were chosen based on similarities to the proposed
research sites, but located geographically outside of the research area. After
the three initial assessments, discussion occurred regarding the items’
plausibility and straightforwardness. Slight changes to the tool items were
then made to accommodate ease of use such as rewording and reordering
the sequence of the questions. For example, the original question, “Is the
size of the park adequate (8-10 acres)?” was rephrased to state, “Is the size
of the park adequate for its intended purpose?”
Three graduate assistants were instructed in the purpose and use of the
tool. Each independently evaluated the public access parks and recreation
centers in the study area. Training in the use of the tool included developing
consistent agreement on decision rules for assessing the condition, safety,
and maintenance of the facility. For cleanliness, tennis court surface, and
outdoor basketball surface, the rating scale included good/fair/poor
ratings rather than presence/absence. The remaining items on the tool
were assessed by presence/absence with “yes” always being positive, and
“no” always being negative. The tool took approximately 20 minutes to
complete per facility. A total of 27 parks and 8 recreation centers were
assessed using the evaluation tool.
Scoring of Tool
To assign each facility a score for condition, maintenance, and safety,
each question related to the three categories was assigned a point value. All
the “yes” answers were worth 2 points, and all the “no” answers were worth
1 point. For the good/fair/poor choices, “good” equaled 3 points, “fair”
was worth 2 points, and “poor” was given 1 point. Once the point values
were summed, each section was divided by the number of items relating to
a particular aspect, such as “sports field.” All scores relating to a particular
category were averaged, resulting in a rating of “excellent” (≥ 1.750),
“good” (1.450 - 1.749), “fair” (1.150 - 1.449), or “poor” (≤ 1.149). The
range of scores, divided into quartiles, determined these cutoffs. An overall
facility score was then determined by averaging the three category scores
together. The result of the overall average was then interpreted as excellent,
good, fair, or poor. The ranges for the overall scores were the same as those
listed above for the category scores.
Locations of Recreation Facilities
A Geographic Information System (GIS) database of parks and recre-
ation centers was developed to locate public facilities. A Global Positioning
System (GPS) unit and GIS address-matching techniques were used to map
recreation facilities based on information gathered from the City Public
Services, Parks Services Department, and the Parks and Recreation Depart-
 103

ment. Every public facility in the county (n = 27) was assessed and stored
in a GIS database. Information (e.g., overall scores) collected with the tool
was later added to the GIS database as attributes of each facility.
Data Analyses
Kappas were computed in Statistical Analysis System (SAS) version
8.02 to determine inter-rater reliability of the facility assessment tool by
individual items, items by categories (condition, maintenance, and safety),
and for all items. A kappa value of at least 0.61 was required for substantial
agreement between the three raters. A Spearman correlation was run on the
average condition, maintenance, and safety scores to determine if a
relationship existed among the three categories.
Results
Evaluations of these facilities indicated substantial agreement among
the three raters for condition (kappa=0.77), maintenance (kappa = 0.68),
and safety (kappa = 0.77) categories. An overall kappa computed for the
combined condition, maintenance, and safety categories was high (kappa
= 0.80). For individual items on the tool, kappa values ranged from –0.02
to 1.00 (Table 1). Many facilities did not have sports fields and the lower
kappa values for individual items were from sports fields. No public aquatic
facilities were identified in the county. Maintenance and safety items on the
tool were correlated (r = 0.403, p = 0.02), but overlapping categories were
not correlated. The condition items on the tool measured features indepen-
dent from the maintenance or safety items, as condition items were not
significantly associated with either the maintenance or safety category.
Utilizing the GIS data, geographic distributions of facility quality did
not vary for the county. A map of the city located within the county,
however, revealed geographical regions that varied in the quality of the
recreation facilities with the highest ratings located in the western part of
the city and the lowest ratings located in the eastern part of the city (Fig.
1).
Discussion
The results of this study demonstrate that the evaluation tool is reliable
in assessing the quality of recreation facilities. The items with a significant
inter-rater reliability (kappa > 0.6) included the restroom facilities and
cleanliness, drinking fountains, park equipment and amenities, landscape
maintenance, playground equipment and safety, presence of litter, tennis
and basketball court maintenance, baseball fields, and other features
associated with safety. Most items in the recreation facility evaluation tool
were observed to be easy to use and effective for evaluating the major
physical features in a recreation facility. Some items were correlated, such
as safety and maintenance items. This correlation was to be expected since
the safety of specific features was somewhat dependent on the level of
maintenance. The items related to the condition of the facilities were useful
and evaluated different aspects of the facilities, such as cracks in the concrete
of outdoor sports courts and unevenness of playing fields.
104

Figure 1
Map of city located in southeast United States represents east and west
location of public recreation facilities and overall scores for combined
condition, maintenance, and safety ratings assessed with the evaluation
tool.
 105

Recreation Facility Evaluation Tool

Name of Facility: ____________ Date of Review: __________

Location: __________________ Reviewed by (initials): _____

Place a check mark beside the items below found at/adjacent to

this recreation site.

❑ Park (size) ____ acres

❑ Playground Equipment ❑ Swimming Pool
❑ Sports Field(s) #____ ❑ Recreation Center
❑ Basketball Court(s) ❑ Walking/Biking Trail
❑ Tennis Court(s) ❑ Other: _______________

GENERAL QUESTIONS For the Entire Facility

No Yes

Are restroom facilities accessible? ❑ ❑

Number of restroom facilities accessible: _____
If so, are the restroom facilities clean? ❑ ❑
Are drinking fountains available? ❑ ❑
Number of drinking fountains available: _____

PARKS
No Yes
Safety
Is the park of adequate size and space for its
intended purpose? ❑ ❑
Is the park free of any detectable safety hazards? ❑ ❑

Attractiveness
Is the park clean and free of litter, debris, graffiti, etc? Poor FairGood
_____________________________________ ❑ ❑ ❑
No Yes
Does the park equipment appear to be well maintained
and in good condition? ❑ ❑
Does the park landscape appear to be well maintained
and in good condition? ❑ ❑
106

No Yes
Does the park have landscape features that make it a
more enjoyable place to be? (Variety of trees,
flowers, plants. Some grassy areas. Some shaded areas.) ❑ ❑

PLAYGROUNDS
No Yes
Safety
Is there adequate fill under the equipment?
• Fill should be 12-inches deep and extend six feet in all directions
• Slides should be no taller than 10-feet.
• For slides taller than 4-feet, fill should extend 4-feet beyond the
height of the slide. ❑ ❑
(Ex. A 7-foot slide should have fill extending out 11-feet in all
directions.)

For swingsets
Are there no more than 2 swings per bay area? ❑ ❑
Are the swings at least 24” apart? ❑ ❑
Are the swings at least 30” from side supports? ❑ ❑

Condition
Is the playground area free of litter or dangerous debris?
(Broken glass, sharp objects, chemicals, etc.) ❑ ❑
Is the equipment free of damage?
(Is not broken or missing any parts) ❑ ❑
Is the playground equipment free of any protruding
bolts, screws, nails, or fixtures? ❑ ❑

SPORTS FIELDS
Football Fields No Yes
Number of football fields at this location: ________
Does the field appear level? ❑ ❑
Is the field adequately maintained (mowed, watered, etc.)? ❑ ❑
The field is free of places where the turf appears thin
or worn? ❑ ❑
There is no evidence of puddles or muddy areas in the
field following a rain? ❑ ❑
 107

No Yes
Are the yardage lines and goal lines clearly marked? ❑ ❑
Are there goal posts at each end of the field? ❑ ❑
Is the field lighted? ❑ ❑

Soccer Fields No Yes

Number of soccer fields at this location: _________
Are the yardage/zone lines clearly marked? ❑ ❑
Does the field appear level? ❑ ❑
Is the field adequately maintained (mowed, watered, etc.)? ❑ ❑
The field is free of places where the turf appears thin
or worn? ❑ ❑
There is no evidence of puddles or muddy areas in the
field following a rain? ❑ ❑
Are there rectangular goals at each end? ❑ ❑
Is the field lighted? ❑ ❑

Baseball/Softball Diamonds No Yes

Number of baseball/softball diamonds
at this location: _____________
Does the field appear level? ❑ ❑
Is the field adequately maintained (mowed, watered, etc.)? ❑ ❑
The field is free of places where the turf appears thin
or worn? ❑ ❑
There is no evidence of puddles or muddy areas in the
field following a rain? ❑ ❑
Does the diamond have a backstop behind home plate? ❑ ❑
Is there a chain link fence along the first- and third-base
lines separating the field of play from the spectator
and dugout areas? ❑ ❑
Is the field lighted? ❑ ❑

Tennis Courts
Number of tennis courts at this location: ________
Is the court surface smooth and free of cracks? Poor Fair Good
❑ ❑ ❑
108

No Yes
If the surface has cracks, are the cracks repaired well? ❑ ❑
The court is free of weeds and grass shoots choking
through the surface? ❑ ❑
The court is free of obvious low spots?
(No evidence of water pooling after a rain?) ❑ ❑
Is the court sufficiently maintained for use? ❑ ❑
Is the court lighted? ❑ ❑

Basketball Courts (Rate Outdoor Courts Only)

Number of (outdoor) basketball courts at this location: ____
Is the surface smooth and free of cracks? Poor Fair Good
❑ ❑ ❑
No Yes
If the surface has cracks, are the cracks repaired well? ❑ ❑
The court is free of weeds and grass shoots choking
through the surface? ❑ ❑
The court is free of obvious low spots?
(No evidence of water pooling after a rain?) ❑ ❑
Is the court lighted? ❑ ❑

AQUATIC FACILITIES/POOLS

General No Yes
Is the facility clean? ❑ ❑
Is the concrete hosed off and swept? ❑ ❑
Are restrooms available? ❑ ❑
Are drinking fountains available? ❑ ❑

Safety
Are lifeguards present? ❑ ❑
Is safety and first aid equipment in good condition
and easily accessible? ❑ ❑
Are the pool rules posted conspicuously? ❑ ❑
Is an Emergency Action System plan posted and/or
readily available? ❑ ❑
 109

No Yes
Is there an accessible and visible phone for calling EMS? ❑ ❑
Is there a fence around the edge of the facility that is
at least 6’ high, continuous, and unobstructed? ❑ ❑

RECREATION CENTERS
No Yes
General
Are restrooms available? ❑ ❑
Is the rec center, including the restrooms, clean? ❑ ❑
Is a drinking fountain available? ❑ ❑

Safety
Are the recreation center staff visible and available? ❑ ❑
Does the rec center have first aid station(s)
and/or supplies? ❑ ❑
Are the rec center staff certified in CPR/First Aid? ❑ ❑

Indoor Facility/Gym
Is the gym floor clean? ❑ ❑
Is the gym well lit? ❑ ❑

Weight Room
Are weight room rules and guidelines conspicuously
posted? ❑ ❑
Is the weight room clean and neat? ❑ ❑

WALKING/BIKING TRAIL
What is the distance of this trail? __________ miles
What is the surface of the trail?
❑ Concrete/Asphalt ❑ Dirt
❑ Crushed granite/rock ❑ Composite
❑ Mulch or Wood Chips ❑ Other

No Yes
Does the trail include interpretive signs? ❑ ❑
110

Not all items were assessed reliably. These included cleanliness of parks,
adequate park size, equipment damage at playgrounds, and evaluation of
swing set safety. For example, items relative to sports fields and cracks in
outdoor basketball courts and tennis courts revealed minimal agreement
among raters. Reasons for the lower reliability in assessing these features
may be due to small sample size surveyed and/or inadequate rater training.
The findings of the tool were not associated with physical activity levels
in a sub-sample of community residents that were surveyed in the larger
ongoing study. The questions asked regarding recreation facility condition,
however, were not designed to assess physical activity specifically in
relationship to recreation facility quality (Kirtland et al., 2003). It may also
be that the geographical area was too small to demonstrate a direct
association between recreation facility quality and physical activity levels. In
addition, residents may be engaging in physical activities that do not involve
recreational facilities. Further research is needed to better understand how
improvements in recreational amenities will specifically impact physical
activity in communities.
Professional Implications
Total Quality Management. The implications of this study are impor-
tant for recreation professionals, public health providers, and community
leaders who are committed to the development of effective programs for
health promotion and disease prevention by increasing the use of recreation
facilities for physical activity. Use of the tool within a total quality
management system (TQM) is an appropriate application of the tool.
The steps to using this tool in a TQM approach begin with the
identification of the recreation facilities in a particular management system,
and the statement of the department’s goals and objectives. In this study,
the objective was to evaluate physical condition of recreation facilities
important to physical activity. Once the features and facilities have been
identified and possibly mapped into a GIS system, the tool could then be
applied and the results compiled. After prioritizing the results to the
management’s goals and objectives, a budget would then be developed to
support the appropriate actions to renovate the facilities or change proce-
dures to better meet those goals and objectives. Once the changes have
taken place, the tool could then be used to monitor, measure, and report
on ongoing facility quality on an individual basis and a system-wide basis.
A system-wide use of this tool allows recreation administrators and
facility managers the opportunity to pinpoint strengths or weaknesses
across the department or on an individual facility basis. If a facility has an
excellent playground, but poor outdoor basketball facilities, managers may
need to examine why the discrepancy remains and discuss ways to improve
the quality of the features and thus the facility. This improvement would
encourage families to use this facility, by having an area for older children
or adults to play basketball while younger children are on the playground.
The tool may also reveal that many of the lower quality facilities are in a
certain region, rather than being evenly distributed. This could be due to
 111

poor management or a lack of funds for this region. In either case, to reach
all potential users effectively and consistently across the entire department,
plans to improve the quality of such regions should be undertaken. Should
an area of high quality facilities be located, investigation into management
practices or funding issues within that region would also be appropriate to
use as a model for improving the overall system quality.
Using this tool in tandem with a perception survey of users and non-
users is necessary for a complete evaluation. By surveying both users and
possible users of recreation facilities, a more comprehensive public percep-
tion of recreation facility presence and quality is attained. Wright, Duray,
and Goodale (1992) developed a perception survey that focused on service
quality with a section on “tangibles,” or physical qualities. This section
could be adopted, or the entire survey used to substantiate the objective
evaluations. Knowing the public perception of the invested stakeholders in
the community would be useful in determining a priority of quality issues.
For instance, perhaps most users perceive a poor quality of the recreation
centers in the system, while at the same time the tool reveals changes in the
quality of tennis courts and recreation centers is justified. Since the public
perception focuses more heavily on recreation centers, measures to improve
their quality over that of the tennis courts could then be justifiably
prioritized. Once changes have occurred, continually surveying users
would be a necessary step to ensure that public perception has changed. If
it has not, reasons why should be investigated. Parks and recreation
professionals seek to improve the quality of their facilities for current users
and to attract new users. Thus, surveying all potential users and combining
the objective measures of the tool allows for a prioritizing of actions to
improve quality.
Evaluation of facility quality over time is another application of the tool
within a TQM system. By having a standard evaluation tool, changes to
quality over time can be identified. This evaluation includes documenting
changes before and after the removal or addition of features. If changes
were made to improve the quality, the results should indicate better
features. If no changes were made, but a negative decline in quality is
observed, steps could then be taken to improve the quality to prevent
similar declines.
By using the tool to evaluate the quality of features and facilities, the
current user base satisfaction with facility quality is maintained. Increasing
the user base is likely with adequate promotion and communication.
Recognizing deficiencies in quality data also allows managers and admin-
istrators to adapt the facilities to meet the needs of various user types.
Accountability. Accountability is important to the overall success of
recreation facilities and programs. Various stakeholders deserve to be
informed regarding the quality of the recreation facilities they both fund
and frequent. Presenting the results of this tool to a Parks and Recreation
Board regarding the quality of the physical features within the department
is one way of maintaining that accountability. Another way is to present to
112

the public, via recreation publications, the current quality of facilities in

conjunction with plans for future expansion or renovation. Knowledge of
the quality and quantity of recreation opportunities is important to the
success of recreation facilities and programs.
Use of GIS. Utilizing a GIS system allows for relationships between
location and quality to be analyzed, rather than simply mapped. Knowing
the distribution of parks and their overall score for condition, safety, and
maintenance can show geographic or administrative regions that are in
need of additional funding and attention to increase access and use. The
density of certain features could also be determined in a GIS and compared
to the locations of potential users of those features. This information would
provide administrators with input useful for planning and evaluation by
matching user needs with facility location. By knowing this information,
future sites are able to be chosen based on a greater number of important
factors such as potential users and the lack of certain facilities in the
department area.
Promoting Healthy Behaviors. Another important implication of this
tool reflects a goal of the National Recreation and Parks Association to
understand what amenities are available so inactive individuals might be
encouraged to become more active. According to previous studies, the
number of amenities available at a facility may influence family or group
involvement in physical activities. Because facilities are available for children’s
play, parents may be more inclined to be physically active along with their
children, or parents may take advantage of additional features catering to
their needs and interests, such as a walking trail. Furthermore, facilities that
are neither safe nor conducive to physical activity may inhibit community
members’ efforts to be physically active. This physical inactivity may
contribute to negative long-term physical consequences, such as obesity
and chronic disease. Providing facilities that are of high quality not only
attracts new users, but encourages the continued use by current partici-
pants.
The results of this study provide further support for use of this
instrument or a similar tool in assessing the physical condition of recre-
ational facilities beyond simply identifying the presence or absence of
affordable recreational facilities or recording the number of users. This
research demonstrated that the condition, maintenance, and safety of
recreational facilities were reliable categories to assess. This tool has
important applications for administrators who want more detailed informa-
tion on the various aspects of their facilities that could be improved to meet
specific needs of the communities in their geographic regions. Additional
studies are needed to examine the directional relationship between physical
activity and actual or perceived environmental characteristics specific to the
quality of recreation facilities.
 113

References
Aquatic Council (2002a). Professional standards for management of aquatic
facilities: A position paper of the Aquatic Council, American Association for Active
Lifestyles and Fitness, and American Alliance for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation, and Dance (Position Paper). Reston, VA: Aquatic Council, AAALF/
AAHPERD.
Aquatic Council (2002b). Professionalism for the aquatics practitioner: A
position paper of the Aquatic Council, American Association for Active Lifestyles and
Fitness, American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance
(Position Paper). Reston, VA: Aquatic Council, AALF/AAHPERD.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (1999). Neighborhood
safety and the prevalence of physical activity—selected states, 1996. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 47, 143-146.
Cohen, A. (2000, July). Feet first. Retrieved October 15, 2001, from the
World Wide Web: www.athleticbusiness.com.
Fisk, D. M., & United States Department of the Interior (1973). How effective
are your community recreation services? Washington, D.C.: US Government Print-
ing Offices.
Henderson, K., Neff, L., Sharpe, P., Greaney, M., Royce, S., Ainsworth, B.
(2001). "It takes a village" to promote physical activity: The potential for public
park and recreation departments. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
19(1), 23-41.
Jaten, A., & Driver, B. L. (1998). Meaningful measures for quality recreation
management. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(3), 43-57.
Kirtland, K. A, Porter, D. E, Addy, C. L, Neet, M. J, Williams, J. E, Sharpe P.
A, et al. (2003). Environmental measures of physical activity supports, perception
versus reality. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24(4), 323-331.
Landis, J., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement
for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
MacDougall, C., Cooke, R., Owen, N., Wilson, K., & Bauman, A. (1997).
Relating physical activity to health status, social connections, and community
facilities. Australian New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 21, 631-637.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education (July 2001). Guidelines
for Facilities, Equipment and Instructional Materials in Elementary Education. A
Position Paper from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Retrieved October 15,
2001, from the World Wide Web: www.aapherd.org/NASPE/pdf_files/
pos_papers/instructional_mat.PDF.
National Program for Playground Safety (1999). America's Playgrounds
Safety Report Card: National Program for Playground Safety.
National Program for Playground Safety (2001). Equipment should be safe:
maintenance suggestions for keeping your children safer on public playgrounds
(brochure). Cedar Falls, Iowa: National Program for Playground Safety.
O'Sullivan, E. (1996). The four E's: Changing roles for parks and recreation.
Parks and Recreation, 10, 60-67.
Peterson, J. A., & Tharret, S. J. (1997). American College of Sports Medicine's
Health/Fitness Facility Standards and Guidelines (2 ed.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Sallis, J., Bauman, A., & Pratt, M. (1998). Environmental and policy interven-
tions to promote physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 15,
379-397.
114

Sallis, J., Johnson, M., Calfas, K., Caparosa, S., & Nichols, J. (1997). Assessing
perceived physical environment variables that may influence physical activity.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68(4),345(347).
Scott, D., & Munson, W. (1994). Perceived constraints to park usage among
individuals with low incomes. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,
12(4), 79-96.
Solecki, W. D., & Welch, J. M. (1995). Urban parks: Green spaces or green
walls? Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 93-106.
South Carolina, State of. (2000). South Carolina code of regulations, chapter
61 Department of Health and Environmental Control, public swimming pools.
(Code of Regulations). Columbia, SC: State of South Carolina, Department of
Health and Environmental Control.
Stephens, T., & Caspersen, C. (1994). The demography of physical activity.
In C. Bouchard, & R.J. Shephard, & T. Stephens (Eds.), Physical activity, fitness,
and health (pp. 204-213). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (2001). Tips for Play-
ground Safety (Publication #324). Washington, DC: United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission.
United States Census Bureau (2000). Summary File 4 (SF 4) - Sample Data.
Census 2000 Retrieved April 15, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://
factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet.
Van der Smissen, B. (1972). Evaluation and self-study of public recreation and
parks agencies. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Parks Association.
Wright, B., Duray, N, & Goodale, T. (1992). Assessing the perceptions of
recreation center service quality: An application of recent advancements in service
quality research. Journal of Parks and Recreation Administration, 10(3), 33-47.
Yuen, B. (1996). Use and experience of neighborhood parks in Singapore.
Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 293-311.
View publication stats