Marketing Research in Parks and Recreation

By Carl M. Larson

APPROXIMATELY TWENTY-FIVE MILES NORTHWEST of downtown Chicago is Arlington Heights, an affluent suburb of approximately 70,000 people. All of the households in this community are part of the Arlington Heights Park District. In fact, they comprise most of the district. In the summer of 1971 the Arlington Heights Park Board decided to use sophisticated marketing research techniques to obtain vital information needed by the Board to intelligently plan its future development. The purpose of the proposed study was to pinpoint strengths and weaknesses of various park programs and to determine the attitude of the residents towards park facilities, its professional staff, and the programs and activities it sponsored.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

This writer was contacted to conduct the survey and to analyze all the information obtained. First a ten page questionnaire was designed based upon conversations between the Board and the researcher. Each question sought to elicit responses which would shed light on various problems or explain attitudes of the people regarding park programs and activities.

After the questionnaire was designed and approved, the next step was to choose the respondents to be interviewed. In order to insure the proper reliability, precision, and validity, a sequential random sample of 215 households was selected by a mathematical process. Briefly, a sample selected in this manner insures that the sample will be representative of the universe from which it is selected. This enables one to obtain detailed information from a small number of people knowing that the answers will be approximately the same as if all the households in the district had been interviewed. Therefore, this permits the gathering of a great deal of information in a relatively short period of time at a substantial savings.

All of the people chosen to be included in the sample were interviewed in their homes. Each interview lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Volunteers, who had been instructed in interviewing techniques, made the interviews. Every attempt was made to keep the survey objective. No one connected with the park district attempted to influence the results of the survey or the methodology used.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the survey can be summed up as follows:

1. To evaluate the job performance of the Park District Commissioners, the professional staff, and other park district employees.
2. To obtain a critical evaluation about the various programs and activities offered by the Park District.
3. To obtain some feedback as to what types of investment in new facilities the Board should be planning for the future. Furthermore, would the residents be willing to have their real estate taxes increased to pay for them?
4. Does the public believe its parks are properly supervised and are acts of vandalism, rowdy behavior, and improper conduct being curtailed?
5. Is there a communications gap between the Park District and the residents it serves? How best can this gap, if it exists, be closed?
6. What is the overall image of the Park District as seen by the people?
7. To obtain some feedback on the public's attitude towards: 1) federal assistance in financing programs, 2) use of facilities by people not living in the district, and 3) an overview of the entire program.

RESULTS

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

One of the better ways to understand the kinds of households that comprise the Arlington Heights

Carl M. Larson is Professor of Marketing with major interest in field of research, at University of Illinois, Circle Campus.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 12 January/February, 1972

Park District is to examine pertinent demographic data of the people interviewed:

1. SEX

Male respondents only ...................... 11%
Female respondents only .................. 66%
Both male and female interviewed........ 23%
Total ..............................................100%

2. MARITAL STATUS

Married .............................................. 95%
Widowed ............................................ 2%
Single .................................................. 2%
Divorced ............................................ 1%
Total ................................................100%

3. NUMBER OF ADULTS IN HOUSEHOLD

One ...................................................... 1%
Two .................................................... 64%
Three .................................................. 22%
Four .................................................... 10%
Five .................................................... 2%
Six ...................................................... 1%
Total ................................................100%

4. CHILDREN
a. Households with children under 18.. 74%
Households without children under 18 ..... 26%
Total ..............................................100%
b. Number of children under 8
Male	Female
1 child 19%	1 child ............23%
2 children .... 5%	2 children ...... 4%
3 children ....10%
c. Number of children over 8
Male	Female
1 child 24%	1 child ............26%
2 children ......11%	2 children ......13%
3 children ...... 3%	3 children ...... 3%
4 children ...... 1%

5. AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age
	Husbands	Wives
18-24 ..........................	2%	2%
25-34 ..........................	23%	29%
35-49 ..........................	51%	51%
50-64 ..........................	23%	17%
65 and over ....................	1%	1%
	100%	100%

6. EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF RESPONDENTS
	Husband	Wife
Grammar school graduate	.... 10%	....0%
Some high school	...... 2%	....4%
Completed high school	....18%	....36%
Some college	.... 28%	....32%
College degree	.... 51%	....28%
Total	.....100%	.....100%

7. ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME

Percentage of Households

Under $10,000 .................................... 3
$10,000-$14,999 ................................ 16
$15,000-$24,999 ................................ 52
$25,000-$34,999 ................................ 11
Over $35,000 .................................... 4
Would not tell .................................. 14
Total ................................................100%

As one looks through the demographic data presented here, a typical profile emerges. First one notes that the majority of residents are in the 35-49 age category, with the second largest grouping occurring in the 50-64 age group. This fact indicates that these individuals are in a different stage of their life cycle than younger adults. This will show up in attitudes towards parks, its programs, and its financing. Note the high proportion of college graduates among both the husbands and wives. In this case 51% of the husbands and 28% of the wives hold college degrees. When one considers the level of education and the age of the typical resident, it is easy to understand the amount of income each family earns annually. Fully 56% of the households have annual incomes between $15,000 and $24,999.

ATTITUDES OF RESIDENTS ABOUT JOB PERFORMANCE

A key objective was to evaluate the job performance of the members of the Board, the professional staff and other employees. Implicitly throughout the survey, information was received that indicated the performance of all was outstanding. For example:

1. The Board's performance was rated excellent by 21% and good by an additional 68%. No one scored their performance as poor, and only 11% rated fair.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 13 January/February, 1972

2. 83% of the respondents rated the behavior of the various Park District employees as courteous and considerate.
3. 88% of the respondents said the Park District facilities are well maintained, clean and attractive.
4. 89% of the households said the park grounds are well maintained, that is, grass is cut, shrubs are trimmed, and the grounds are pleasing to the eye.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS PROGRAMS

One of the principal objectives of the survey was to ascertain an evaluation of the Park District's programs in its efforts to satisfy the needs of children, teenagers, young adults, mature adults and senior citizens. The information, when analyzed, suggested:

1. Adults, in general, are uncertain as to whether programs aimed at adults fit all age categories. That is to say, people who are 25-34 are uncertain as to whether those in the age group 35-49 have sufficient programs or not, etc. In short, people within a specific age group are the best judges of programs for themselves.
2. It is difficult to attract a high percentage of teens to a central meeting place even though the facilities are excellent and the programs are flexible. It is this author's opinion that teenagers as a whole like an unstructured program. Many teens are homogeneous only in age and like to "hang around" with others who are similar to themselves. This by no means indicates that a formal program beamed for teenagers should be abandoned. There are sufficient numbers of these people who like a structured program and will attend teen centers.
3. For a more successful teen program, activities should be segmented by age categories. That is, separate meeting places and times should be held for the 13 and 14 aged children, the 15, 16 and 17 and the 18 and 19.
4. Young adults of 18-24 are especially difficult to attract to park programs.
5. Children, of course, are the biggest users of park facilities, programs and activities. In fact, many adults view the park programs as essentially for children.

ACTIVITIES

By far the most important physical activity engaged in by adults and children is swimming. The survey indicated that 78% of the husbands, 76% of the wives and 89% of the children swim at least once a year. Where the family swam was divided as follows:

1. Backyard pools ...................................... 20%
2. Park District pools .............................. 31%
3. Pools in other suburbs ........................ 4%
4. Pools at apartment sites ...................... 6%
5. Pools in friend's backyard .................. 10%
6. Other places such as lakes, motels,
YMCA pools, school pools, and country clubs .......... 47%
Total ....................................................100%

The survey also elicited a response to participation in other activities, even though some are not sponsored by the Park Board.* For example:

Participates

                                   Adults Children

1. Horseback riding ............ 28% 20%
2. Tennis ........................ 41% 31%
3. Golf ............................ 53% 14%
4. Ice skating .................. 53% 50%
5. Archery ......................... 6% 5%
6. Horseshoe pitching .........22% 4%

*13% of the adults who do not participate say it is because they do not know how.

COMMUNICATIONS

The Park District communicates to the residents in two major ways. One is through stories appearing in the Arlington Heights Herald, a newspaper that is published Monday through Friday. The Herald is widely read and reaches approximately 80% of the homes. The coverage of all Park activities in this newspaper is excellent.

A second method of communications is through specially printed brochures by the Park District which announce seasonal programs and activities. The Board was anxious to find out how effective this medium is. In the survey, these statistics were generated.

1. Received brochure titled Super Summer 1971 .................................. 89%
2. Claimed to have read brochure ....................................................... 86%
3. Were familiar with mailing registration that is included in brochure ........ 63%

The above percentages indicate that the Park Board has an effective method of reaching Park District residents. Better usage of both the newspaper and the brochure should eliminate any communication gap that exists.

PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE PARKS

Public safety is one of the great concerns of the day. People are apprehensive about acts of violence, promiscuous conduct, and the use of drugs. How does a community cope with problems in these areas? As far as the Arlington Heights Park District survey is concerned, these conclusions seem to be evident:

1. Residents are concerned with the supervision of its parks and its programs and activities. There is almost unanimous belief (99.5% of the respondents) that individuals

Illinois Parks and Recreation 14 January/February, 1972

who commit acts of nuisances should be evicted from the park. The following list of nuisances were identified:

Times Cited in Percentage

a. Disrupting activities .............. 24%
b. Destroying property .............. 18%
c. Bothering other people .......... 13%
d. Obscene language .................. 9%
e. Annoying small children .............. 7%
f. Fighting .................................. 5%
g. Adolescent drinking ..................... 5%
h. Littering .................................. 4%
i. Loitering .................................. 4%
j. Use of drugs ............................ 2%
k. All others ................................ 9%
Total .......................................100%

2. The residents in Arlington Heights were somewhat uncertain as to how parks can be better patroled. Some think more police protection is needed while others believe park employees should be more forceful.

3. The information generated by the report does not imply a lack of public safety in the parks. Rather the Park District scores very high on its overall supervisory activities. Parks in Arlington Heights are more of an intellectual concern with the public at this time rather than one of overt acts of misbehavior. People want to inhibit acts of nuisances before any major problems develop.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

This brief report does not purport to cover all the pertinent information generated by the survey. Rather this article only details a sample of the kinds of information and its interpretation that is covered. The purpose of this article, in part, is to suggest a methodology of obtaining data from those who are most concerned — the people of the community.

The data is useful in stimulating discussions among interested people and the basis by which intelligent plans can be made for the future. It is also a report card for past performance records. It is the opinion of this writer that Arlington Heights Park District households have given their Board and the professional staff high marks.

It also seems evident to me that a professional staff employed by a capable Board is the best method of achieving excellence in its facilities, programs and activities. The Arlington Heights Park District is fortunate in having both a distinguished Board and a highly competent staff that is professional in every sense of the word. Charles Cronin, the President of the Board, should be congratulated for assembling a staff headed by Tom Thornton, Ron Dodd and Angelo Capulli.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 15 January/February, 1972