Abstract:
This study asked 263 students at The University of Alabama to identify their access to and primary usage of local, state, and national parks and their preferred method to pay for these recreation areas, particularly in times of insufficient revenues to maintain full operational activities. This study was developed from observations of local, state, and federal cutbacks to parks and recreation budgets during the recession of 2008-2010. This research attempts to build upon the body of evidence that points towards continued flat to declining budgets for many parks and recreation departments. Although this study did not identify a preferred method to keep parks operational during times of insufficient revenues, three areas of strong consensus were found among survey respondents. First, more than 90% of respondents identified local, state, and national parks as very important or important. Second, more than 90% of respondents also agreed that taxes should be used to completely or partially subsidize the costs of public parks and recreation areas. Finally, less than 10% of survey respondents found closing parks or selling parklands to be a preferred method to overcome budget shortfalls. In addition, although respondents enjoy parks and believe some taxes should be used to subsidize them, less than 20% of respondents support tax increases to overcome budget shortfalls. In light of the findings of this study, it seems that the fundamental issue between wanting public services and resisting paying taxes for them is evident in funding public parks. Despite this mismatch, several alternatives could be used by parks and recreation managers in the future to ensure a large and diverse system of parks. These include but are not limited to privatizing additional aspects of parks operations, introducing new or additional user fees for facilities maintenance and upkeep, and encouraging local groups and recreational enthusiasts to manage portions of existing parks.
