Do Park Investments Make a Difference?Results from a park renovation study at

Allentown’s Cedar Creek Parkway

Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D.Benjamin D. Hickerson, Ph.D.

Principal Study Investigators

March 2012

Project Supported by The Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society in cooperation with The City of Allentown and The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Do Park Investments Make a Difference?Results from a park renovation study at

Allentown’s Cedar Creek Parkway

Cedar Creek path – Pre-renovation (2008) Cedar Creek path – Post-renovation (2011)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis project would not have been possible without the funding of the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society (PRPS), support from the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources - Bureau of Recreation and Conservation, and the cooperation and personnel provided by the City of Allentown Parks and Recreation Department. The contribution of several individuals should be acknowledged. Greg A. Weitzel (Director of Parks and Recreation, City of Allentown), Christy Alvord and Mike Kukitz (Interns), City of Allentown seasonal staff, and the Friends of the Allentown Parks were instrumental in developing and administering the survey. Beck Graefe, Tammy Koerte, and Lijun Xu are also to be acknowledged for assisting with data entry and analysis. Finally, the authors would like to thank the numerous Cedar Creek Parkway and Trexler Memorial Park visitors who graciously gave their time to participate in these surveys in 2008 and 2011.

More information about this study may be obtained by contacting principal study author:

Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D.Telephone: (814) 865-2102E-mail: amowen@psu.edu

Executive Summary

Study Background and Purpose:

Park and recreation services play an important role in enhancing quality of life in many of the Commonwealth’s cities and towns. With few exceptions, Pennsylvania’s most livable communities offer high-quality park and recreation opportunities for all of its citizens. Park and recreation services can contribute to reduced youth crime, enhance property values and attract business investments, protect fragile ecosystems and watersheds, increase physical activity levels, enhance community cohesion, and promote mental and physical health (Crompton, 1999).

However, high-quality park and recreation opportunities depend upon public support and the availability of resources to maintain, upgrade, and continually improve park facilities and services. In particular, park managers, policy makers, and elected officials should understand whether the money spent on park and recreation renovations are worth the investment. That is, are such projects valued by constituents and do they enhance park visitor experiences while delivering other, long range benefits for the community-at-large. Unfortunately, few scientific studies have documented the impact of park and recreation renovations upon subsequent citizen attitudes and use of these services. This is rapidly changing, however, as a number of emerging studies point to the potential of park renovations for increased visitation levels and improved health outcomes (Colabianchi, Kinsella, Coulton, & Moore, 2009; Tester & Baker, 2009). However, more studies that explore a broader set of park renovation outcomes would provide additional evidence concerning the value of park investments. With such data, park professionals can better demonstrate the value of specific investments and may be more successful at acquiring resources needed to provide quality park and recreation experiences.

From 2008-2011, the Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society, working in cooperation with the City of Allentown Parks and Recreation Department, commissioned a study to gather baseline (pre-renovation) and follow-up (post-renovation) park visitor data in order to document the changes that occurred or did not occur after a significant park renovation effort at Cedar Creek Parkway. Specifically, this study examined whether park renovations resulted in increased park visitation rates and use characteristics, enhanced perceptions of park quality and satisfaction, and changed attitudes concerning the role of parks and recreation in the City of Allentown. Moreover, the study sought to assess visitors’ awareness of park renovations, which renovations were most noticeable, and how these changes influenced their enjoyment and use of the renovated park. On-site surveys were conducted in summer 2008 and 2011 at Cedar Creek (renovated park) and Trexler (control park). Specific characteristics, behaviors, attitudes, and preferences assessed included:

Park user characteristics (age, sex, race, income, residence) Awareness and perceptions of the park renovations (2011 at Cedar Creek) Park user behaviors (activities, frequency of use, level of physical activity) Perceived quality of specific park features, services, and programs Overall satisfaction of park facilities, amenities, and programs Perceived individual and community benefits provided by parks Visitor comments regarding the impact of the park renovation (2011 at Cedar Creek)

ii

Key Study Findings:

Park Visitor Socio-Demographic Change and Stability:

The demographic profile of survey respondents was remarkably consistent between the two time periods at both Cedar Creek Parkway and Trexler Park. Across both parks, visitors were more likely to be white females with an average age of 47 years and a majority reporting household incomes less than $60,000. Across both time periods, Cedar Creek visitors were more likely than Trexler visitors to represent non-white race/ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic) and were more likely to be younger.

Awareness of Park Renovations:

In terms of renovation awareness, a large majority of Cedar Creek visitors (84%) were aware that the park was recently renovated. The destination playground, LifeTrail®, paved trails, Rose Garden, environmental improvements, and new foot bridges were the most commonly cited park renovations.

Park Activities and Behavioral Changes:

There were few significant changes in short-term park visitation frequency (last 30 days) and length of stay when comparing 2008 to 2011 data. Cedar Creek respondents reported a slightly shorter length of stay in 2011 than in 2008. However, when 2011 Cedar visitors were asked how the renovations influenced their park behaviors in general, a majority agreed that they stayed longer (57%), visited more frequently (54%), and did a wider variety of activities (51%) due to the renovations.

Walking (61%), running (19%), and sedentary park use (17%) were the most commonly cited activities across both parks over the two time periods. The percentage of Cedar survey respondents who reported walking, playground, bicycling, and exercise increased, while the percentage reporting sports, swimming, and special events decreased. Not surprisingly, the most dramatic changes at Cedar Creek were increases in the percentage of walkers (45% to 57%) and playground users (0% to 17%) over the two time periods. These changes were likely an artifact of new activity opportunities (particularly the playground and Life Trail stations) as well as slight differences in the level of survey effort (time spent at each area) across the various Cedar Creek park zones from 2008 to 2011.

A majority of all park users (62% in 2008 and 71% in 2011) engaged in moderate levels of physical activity during their visits. There were no significant changes in vigorous physical activity (participation or minutes) at either park, but participation in moderate physical activity increased at Cedar Creek from 58% in 2008 to 68% in 2011. Minutes in moderate activity were not statistically different between the two time periods for either park. In 2011, children at Cedar Creek (72%) were more likely than children at Trexler (25%) to be physically active during their park visit.

Park visitors at both parks generally traveled by car during the two time periods (83%), but Cedar Creek visitors (18%) were more likely than Trexler visitors (6%) to walk to the park. However, there was no significant change in the percentage of Cedar Creek or Trexler visitors who walked or biked to the park from 2008 to 2011.

Changes in Perceived Park Satisfaction and Quality of Park Features:

Visitors were very satisfied overall with park facilities and services at both Cedar Creek and Trexler Park during both time periods. Overall satisfaction increased significantly from the pre-renovation period at both parks. However, perceived quality ratings of numerous Cedar Creek park features improved significantly in the post-renovation period. Perceptions of specific quality ratings at Trexler

iii

generally did not increase in the post-renovation period. Cedar Creek park features such as “drinking water availability” and “restroom cleanliness” experienced the most dramatic improvements compared to the pre-renovation period. A majority of Cedar Creek visitors (71%) also agreed that they enjoy their park visits more now due to the renovations.

Changes in Perceived Park Benefits:

Visitors at both parks believed that their park provided a variety of benefits to the Greater Allentown community during both study time periods. Health, environment, and youth development were perceived as the primary benefits provided by these parks. There were few significant changes in benefit perceptions over the two study periods. However, the benefit perceptions, “reducing youth crime” and “providing children with a safe place to play,” increased significantly among Cedar Creek visitors from 2008 to 2011. Reducing youth crime increased by 16% and providing children with a safe place to play increased by 10%.

Perceptions of Park Renovations – In their Own Words:

When asked to describe, in their own words, the impact of Cedar Creek park renovations, visitors reported a wide range of positive outcomes. Many of these outcomes were tied to specific features in the park (e.g., playground, LifeTrail®, Rose Garden). More users and use, increased ease of use, winter use, activity variety, increased physical activity, and improved access for visitors with disabilities were common behavioral themes identified as renovation outcomes. Increased beauty/aesthetics, enjoyment, safety, cleanliness, and improved community cohesion and pride were common experiential themes identified as outcomes. Focus groups of emerging adults, parents, and older adults identified three core themes related the Cedar Creek renovations: awareness and evaluation of park renovations, a sense of pride and community togetherness, and rules of the park.

Study Conclusions and Implications:

Park visitor perspectives are valuable in securing future resources, promoting economic and political support at a local and state level, and in justifying/communicating the important contributions of park investments. This park renovation study was a first step in providing evidence of local parks and recreation return on investment within the Commonwealth. Findings from this park renovation study demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of visitor behaviors, perceptions, and park experiences. These outcomes should be considered when deliberating the value of local and state park funding investments. Study results illustrate both gains and gaps in communicating the potential of park renovations in enhancing visitor behaviors and addressing community benefits.

Collectively, results indicate that Cedar Creek renovations were a wise investment with broad-based community support. While this study was a pilot project, it does offer an approach to evaluate the return on investment from local/ state funding sources (a sizable amount of the park renovation, $375,000, was supported through Key 93 funds). Much more could be done to clarify the evidence and provide a more complete picture of local/state funding impacts for Pennsylvania’s cities, towns, and townships. As current economic circumstances continue to challenge the ability of local communities to provide park and recreation services (in maintaining existing facilities/services at an acceptable level), there will be a greater need to critically evaluate the return on investment from scarce public/private funding sources. Park professionals, policy makers, and constituents are asked to consider these study results when pursuing park capital projects and funding for those projects. Future park renovation projects within the Commonwealth should consider incorporating a formal evaluation mechanism as part of their overall project.

iv

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary....................................................................................... iiStudy Background, Purpose, and Methods........................................ 1Study Results......................................................................................... 8

Visitor Profile............................................................................................... 8 Visitor Awareness of Cedar Creek Parkway Renovations............................. 10 Park Visitation Frequency and Duration....................................................... 11 Recreation Activities with the Parks............................................................. 13 Park-based Physical Activity Levels............................................................ 14 Park Travel Mode......................................................................................... 15 Perceived Park Satisfaction and Quality of Park Features............................ 16 Perceived Benefits of the Park for the Greater Community.......................... 20 Visitor Comments Regarding the Impact of Cedar Creek Renovations......... 22 Park User Focus Groups.............................................................................. 26

Discussion and Conclusion................................................................. 31References............................................................................................. 33

Appendix A. On-Site Park Survey Instruments.............................................. 36Appendix B. Data Collection Schedules........................................................ 45Appendix C. Transcript of Park Survey Comments........................................ 53Appendix D. Focus Group Interview Guide.................................................... 70Appendix D. Principal Investigator Bio-sketches........................................... 72

The new destination playground at Cedar Creek featureselectronic play features to encourage physical activity

v

Part One: Study Background, Purpose, and Methods

Background

American cities and towns face significant challenges in providing sustainable quality of life for their residents. Degradation of the natural environment, a decaying infrastructure, youth and gang-related crime, economic instability, and decreased health status all threaten the quality of life in our aging cities and towns. While there is no easy solution to these challenges, a number of approaches to enhance the livability of urban centers are being suggested. One such approach is to increase the capacity and quality of park facilities and services. A number of studies have demonstrated the value of parks and recreation as an essential government function (Godbey, Graefe, & James, 1992) and as a mechanism to reduce youth crime (Witt, 2001), enhance property values (Crompton, 1999), attract business investments (Crompton, 2001), protect fragile ecosystems and watersheds (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999) and enhance physical activity levels and health (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005; Mowen, Kaczynski, & Cohen, 2008; Kaczynski & Henderson, 2007).

Despite the potential to address important societal problems, park and recreation service delivery is often hampered by insufficient fiscal resources, a misunderstanding of the importance of such services, and difficulties in garnering public support for park investments, programming, and maintenance. Pennsylvania’s cities and towns are no stranger to these difficulties, and struggle to acquire and leverage state/local funding to address community needs through park and recreation services. For example, the City of Allentown, Pennsylvania currently enjoys a solid network of parks and trails, a number of quality park programs and special events, and a supportive constituency; both among citizens and elected officials. The 2006 Park and Recreation Master Plan received widespread community support and established a foundation for critical investments and improvements needed at its park system. Through community engagement and local support, Allentown was successful in acquiring state and local funding in order to implement recommended changes contained in the Master Plan.

However, if Commonwealth park and recreation investments are to be defensible in these austere budgetary times, park agencies, legislators, and citizens themselves need to understand whether such investments are recognized and valued by the constituents and whether they increase community economic and social benefits (e.g., improved health, quality of life, improved community cohesion and safety, higher property values, lower crime rates).

1

Evaluating Community Park and Recreation Investments

One approach to document the impact of park investments is by engaging citizens through public meetings and social media as well as conducting carefully designed evaluation studies. However, park investments in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania often are made without a formal evaluation of their outcomes and challenges. While anecdotal evidence and intuitive judgments suggest that park and recreation expenditures are worthwhile, scientific evidence regarding the impact of park renovations is rare. For example, from 1998-2007, a total of 3,603 park, recreation and conservation projects amounting to $386,100,000 were funded to improve and expand the Commonwealth’s park, recreation, trail and open-space capacity (Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 2008). Local government park and recreation development projects accounted for $148,700,000 of this amount. However, there are still unanswered questions regarding the impact of these state grant expenditures (Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 2008). For example, do these investments meet the needs of local populations and what investments have been the most effective?

Historically, there had been minimal anecdotal and empirical evidence describing the impact of park investments before and after park renovations (expenditures) have occurred. A growing number of emerging studies suggest that urban/municipal park improvements can improve the frequency of park visitation and that citizens prefer the modernized features and facilities provided in renovated park facilities and settings (Kerstetter & Mowen, 2008). For example, public health researchers are finding that certain types of park renovations such as playgrounds and ballfields can result in increased visitation and park physical activity levels among youth (Colabianchi et al., 2009; Tester & Baker, 2009). Less known, however, is whether park renovations are associated with changes in visitor behaviors, perceptions of quality, perceived benefits, and other outcomes that result from these investments.

Ribbon cutting at the new LifeTrail® in Cedar Creek

2

The Case of Allentown’s Cedar Creek Parkway

Cedar Creek Parkway is a 109.6 acre regional park that provides multiple recreation opportunities (e.g., trails, swimming pool, Rose Garden, picnic pavilions, ball courts) and is the primary location for many of the City’s special events. The park is centrally located within the City and is heavily used for special events attracting thousands of visitors annually. Over time, however, this park’s popularity took a toll on its resources and facilities. According to the City of Allentown, Cedar Creek Parkway had a number of deficiencies that warranted attention. For example:

The park infrastructure lacked the capacity to handle current demands. Sewage and electrical systems were particularly challenged during significant storm events and large special events in the Park

Not all park facilities were compliant with ADA accessibility standards Lake Muhlenberg, the reflective ponds at the Rose Garden, and Cedar

Creek’s ecologic health and water quality were suffering from erosion and sediment build-up

Park activity areas were lacking essential support amenities such as restrooms and adequate parking

Park facilities were not meeting the recreation demands of the Allentown community, lacking activities for citizens of all ages, interests, and backgrounds

Renovations at this park required significant monetary investments from local and county sources (Approximately $2.3 million) and from Commonwealth grants using Key 93 funds ($375,000). From 2009-2010, The City of Allentown made a number of facility upgrades and added new park activity and support features to respond to the needs outlined in the Master Plan. Key Cedar Creek Parkway improvements included:

A destination playground with features for children of all abilities, including a new state-of-the-art interactive play structure, a youth fitness trail, and climbing boulders

Expansion and enhancements to the trail system (e.g., paving, new bridges, LifeTrail® exercise stations)

Expansion of picnic opportunities with new pavilions A renovated trellis and new walkway at the Rose and Old Fashioned

Garden Lake, ponds, and stream restorations and enhancements Improvements and renovations of park sculptures (e.g., cleaning)

3

Additional parking and support amenities throughout the park (e.g., water fountains, restrooms)

Illustration of Key Cedar Creek Parkway Renovations

Ponds – Pre-renovation-2008 Ponds – Post-renovation-2011

Foot bridges – Pre-renovation-2008 Foot bridges – Post-renovation-2011

Picnic Area – Pre-renovation-2008 Picnic Area – Post-renovation-2011

4

Ott Street Bridge – Pre-renovation-2008 Ott Street Bridge – Post-renovation-2011

5

Based on pre-existing conditions and the extensiveness of park upgrades that occurred from 2009-2010, Cedar Creek Parkway offered an ideal context to evaluate urban park investments. These renovations afforded the opportunity to examine changes in visitor characteristics, behaviors, and experiences before/after renovations compared to a park that was not renovated. Such data could be helpful in evaluating local/state funding. In other words, this evidence could be used by park professionals to convey the potential as well as the limitations of park capital renovations and the funding tied to those renovations. Project methods and measures used for such an evaluation could be also replicated for other Commonwealth park projects to provide a more representative picture of park renovation investments within Pennsylvania.

The Cedar Creek Parkway Master Plan set the stage for the park’s renovations

Evaluating Park Renovations at Cedar Creek – The Visitor Perspective

The Pennsylvania Recreation and Park Society (working cooperatively with the City of Allentown and DCNR) commissioned a study to gather baseline pre-renovation surveys (2008) and post-renovation follow-up visitor surveys (2011) at Cedar Creek Parkway and at a nearby, control park not slated for significant renovations (Trexler Park). Both pre-renovation and post-renovation surveys were conducted in the summer and early fall (June through September) and included similar sampling schedules, data collection sites, and questions. In addition, a series of focus groups were conducted in the post-renovation period to explore awareness and perceptions of Cedar Creek Parkway renovations in greater detail. Methods and findings from these focus group discussions are provided in Part 3 of this report.

6

Visitor Survey Questionnaire Content

Key survey information collected from Cedar Creek and Trexler visitors in the baseline (pre-renovation) and follow-up (post-renovation) timeframes included:

Visitor characteristics (age, sex, race, income, residence)

Visitor behaviors at the park (recreation activities, frequency/duration of use, level of physical activity, travel mode)

Perceived quality of specific park features (sport fields, trails, restrooms, etc.)

Overall satisfaction of park facilities, amenities, and programs

Perceived social and economic benefits provided by the park

Furthermore, a series of additional questions were asked of Cedar Creek visitors in the post-renovation survey. These questions assessed visitor awareness of renovations and the extent that renovations resulted in increased visitation and improved experiences. Cedar Creek visitors were also asked to convey, in their own words, the impact of renovations for themselves, their family, and/or the greater Allentown community. Questionnaires from both years are provided in Appendix A.

Survey Data Collection and Analysis

A randomized sampling schedule was developed in order to survey park users at different times of the day (e.g., morning to mid day; afternoon to evening) and week (e.g., weekdays and weekend days) and throughout different park areas (e.g., picnic areas, ball courts, swimming pool, trails). Efforts to maintain the same number of sampling days and times were made in order to ensure more consistency across the two study periods.

Despite efforts to maintain consistency, several changes in the post renovation study are worth mentioning. During the post-renovation survey, Cedar Creek data was also collected at the new destination playground. Surveys at this new facility slightly altered the composition of the 2011 Cedar Creek sample (12% were playground users and other activity percentages were lower as a result). Moreover, the weather conditions and their impact on Cedar was a major concern for the researchers. Mean rainfall and days with precipitation were significantly higher for the 2011 data collection period, which may have affected responses at both Cedar Creek and Trexler. Furthermore, as Cedar Creek lies within a flood plain, there were a number of days when the trails and walkways were flooded (Trexler did not experience this flooding). Survey responses to short-term park behaviors as well as quality assessments may have been affected by these conditions. Despite these challenges, the research team was able to gather sufficient user data to draw comparisons between the two time periods. The data collection schedule for both time periods can be found in Appendix B.

7

City of Allentown seasonal staff volunteered to serve as interviewers and were trained in on-site survey methods and procedures. These interviewers approached visitors in each of these two parks and requested 10-15 minutes of their time to complete the survey. In 2008, 492 visitors were approached and invited to participate in the survey and 409 completed the survey (256 at Cedar Creek and 154 at Trexler) for a response rate of 83%. In 2011, 682 visitors were approached and 522 completed the survey (416 at Cedar Creek and 106 at Trexler) for a response rate of 76%.

Park visitors were surveyed on-site regarding their park behaviors and experiences in 2008 and 2011

Collectively, data from pre-renovation and post-renovations surveys were compared and analyzed to assess the extent that renovations correspond with statistical changes in behavioral and perceptual responses. This document reports basic information on park user characteristics, behaviors, and perceptions at both parks, but focuses its discussion on the changes and consistencies at the “treatment” park (Cedar Creek Parkway) between the pre-renovation and post-renovation time periods. Key survey results are presented in Part 2 of this report. In addition to the visitor surveys, stakeholder focus groups were convened to discuss park renovations after they were completed. A summary of these focus group conversations is provided in Part 3 of this report. Finally, Part 4 of this report summarizes key conclusions and implications for not only Allentown, but also other Commonwealth cities and towns that are interested in documenting role and impact of park investments in their communities.

8

Part 2: Visitor Survey ResultsVisitor Profile

The demographic profile of survey respondents was consistent between the two time periods at both Cedar Creek and Trexler.

Across both parks, visitors were more likely to be white females with an average age of 47 years and a majority reporting household incomes less than $60,000.

Across both time periods, Cedar Creek visitors were more likely than Trexler visitors to represent non-white race/ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic) and were more likely to be younger.

To better understand who visited these two Allentown parks across the 2008 and 2011 time periods, survey respondents were asked to provide socio-demographic data such as income, age, race/ethnicity, and sex. The demographic profile of respondents was statistically consistent between two time periods for both parks with no significant differences between 2008 and 2011. For both parks combined, the majority were white females with an average age of 47 years, who reported household incomes of $60,000 or less. However, Cedar Creek visitors were more likely than Trexler visitors to report lower incomes of $40,000 or less. Cedar Creek visitors were also younger (average of 45 years in 2011) than Trexler visitors (average of 52 years in 2011). Furthermore, Cedar Creek visitors were more likely than Trexler visitors to be non-white (30% for Cedar in 2011 vs. 14% for Trexler in 2011). The predominant non-white visitor at Cedar Creek was Hispanic-Latino (17% of users in 2011). Again, these between-park differences were consistent across the two time periods. The demographic profile across the two parks and two time periods is summarized in Table 1.

Cedar Creek was more likely to attract younger and non-white visitors

9

Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of survey respondents*

Demographic characteristic % or Mean Cedar % or Mean Trexler2008 2011 2008 2011

Income

$0 to $40,000 $40,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $80,000 $80,001 to $100,000 Over $100,000

27%29%16%13%15%

32%21%18%13%16%

19%25%16%13%26%

21%23%22%11%23%

Age (Years) 45 45 52 52

18-35 36-50 51-64 65 and older

33%28%23%16%

31%29%27%13%

16%25%32%27%

17%23%38%22%

Race/ethnic background

White Black/African American Hispanic/Latino/Chicano American Indian/AK Native Asian Other

71%7%

17%2%1%2%

69%8%

17%0%2%4%

84%7%5%1%2%1%

85%5%5%0%2%3%

Sex

Male Female

4159

4159

4357

3961

* There were no significant differences in the demographic composition of park visitors surveyed between the pre-renovation (2008) and post-renovation (2011) time periods.

10

Visitor Awareness of Cedar Creek Parkway Renovations

A large majority of Cedar Creek visitors (84%) were aware that the park was recently renovated.

The destination playground, paved trails, LifeTrail® stations, pond-stream improvements, Rose Garden, new foot bridges, and the new crosswalk were the most commonly cited park renovations.

One issue that park agencies face after a park has been upgraded is the extent that the public is aware of the renovations and, if so, what changes are most noticeable. In 2011, Cedar Creek park visitors who visited the park prior to the renovations were directly asked whether they were aware that the park was recently renovated, with several changes and additions. A large majority (84%, N=319) indicated that they were aware of these renovations. Moreover, when asked what changes they had noticed, almost all were able to free list at least one or two of the park’s many renovations. Noticed changes spanned a variety of improvements, but the most common renovations cited were the destination playground (62%), the paved path/trail (47%), the LifeTrail® stations (41%), pond, stream, and environmental improvements (14%), Rose Garden and landscaping (11%), bridges (10%), and the crosswalk (8%). A full transcript of visitor comments to this free-listing question is provided in Appendix C.

PlaygroundPaved Trail/PathLifeTrail® stations

Pond & Stream ImprovementsRose Garden

Bridges Crosswalk

Figure 1. Top 7 renovations noticed after Cedar Creek renovations

Rose Garden Trellis – 2008 Rose Garden Trellis - 2011

11

Park Visitation Frequency and Duration

There were few significant changes in short-term park visitation frequency (last 30 days) and length of stay from 2008 to 2011.

However, when 2011 Cedar Creek visitors were asked how the renovations influenced their park behaviors in general, a majority agreed that they visited more frequently, stayed longer, and did a wider variety of activities due to these changes.

Park visitation behavior was assessed with two types of measurements. One measurement assessed self-reported frequency and duration of park visits at both Cedar Creek and Trexler during the pre-renovation and post-renovation study periods. The other measure asked Cedar Creek visitors (who were aware of and visited the park prior to the renovations), the extent that park renovations changed their behaviors.

For the self-reported frequency measure, respondents were asked how many total days over the last month (e.g., last 30 days) that they visited the park. This time frame was chosen over the traditional 12 month time frame in order to examine more recent/seasonal park use and to maintain consistency with other community park surveys (Walker et al. 2009). Respondents were also asked to estimate the duration of their last park visit in terms of total minutes spent at that particular park.

Results across the two parks and time periods indicate insignificant changes in the frequency of park visitation over the last 30 days. However, at Cedar Creek, park visitors were more likely to report a shorter average length of stay in 2011 (77 minutes) when compared to 2008 (88 minutes; Table 2).

Table 2. Park visitation frequency (last 30 days) and length of stay (last park visit).

Park visitation variable % or Mean Cedar % or Mean Trexler2008 2011 2008 2011

Total days visited during last 30 days 9 9 12 12

Total minutes in park during last visit 88* 77* 61 58

*Significant differences at .05 level between pre-renovation and post-renovation highlighted in bold text

12

Cedar Creek visitors were also asked to indicate whether they perceived changes in their own park behaviors as a result of the renovation. Specifically, they were asked whether park renovations contributed to behaviors such as increased park visitation frequency, longer length of stay, variety of activities, and visiting with children. Only visitors who were aware of the renovations and who had visited Cedar Creek prior to these renovations were asked these questions. Unlike the other behavioral questions in the survey (see Table 2), these particular questions did not specify a defined time period (e.g., last 30 days). Cedar Creek visitors responded to each item by expressing their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree).

Results indicate that a majority of Cedar visitors agreed that they stayed longer (57%), visited the park more often (54%), and did a wider variety of activities (51%) due to the renovations. Visitors were less likely to agree that they brought children with them more often (44%). For each of these items, only a small minority (12% - 21%) disagreed that renovations resulted in these behavioral changes. Because of the differences between these questions and the self-reported frequency and minute questions, the reader is cautioned that findings may seem contradictory. For example, self-reported minutes were less in the post-renovation period, but a majority of Cedar visitors (who had visited prior to the renovation) perceived that they stayed longer at the park because of the renovations. A summary of these findings is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Perceived impact of Cedar Creek renovations on user behaviors*

Change due to the renovation… % Disagree % Neutral % Agree

I stay at this park longer now due to these changes 12 31 57

I visit this park more often now because of these changes 12 34 54

I do a wider variety of park activities now due to these changes 14 35 51

I bring children with me more often due to these changes 21 35 44

*Response were collected in 2011 from Cedar Creek visitors who visited the park prior to the renovation and who were aware of renovations (N = 306).

13

Recreation Activities within the Parks

Walking (61%), running (19%), and sedentary park use (17%) were the most commonly cited activities across both parks over the two time periods.

The percentage of Cedar Creek respondents who reported walking, playground, bicycling, and exercise increased, while the percentage reporting sports, swimming, and special events decreased.

The most dramatic changes at Cedar Creek were increases in the percentage of walkers (45% to 57%) and, not surprisingly, playground users (0% to 17%) over the two time periods.

These changes were likely an artifact of new activity opportunities (e.g., new playground and Life Trail® stations) as well as time spent collecting data across Cedar Creek park zones from 2008 to 2011.

Both parks offer opportunities for trail-based recreation such as walking, running, and bicycling. However, Cedar Creek offers a wide variety of additional recreation opportunities such as picnic areas/pavilions, special events, swimming, and sport courts. This diversity or variety only increased in 2011 with the addition of the new destination playground and LifeTrail®. Walking, running, and sedentary park use were the most commonly cited recreation activities across both parks in both time periods. The percentage of Cedar visitors who reported walking (45% vs. 57%), playground use (0% vs. 17%), bicycling (1% vs. 4%), sedentary activities (20% vs. 23%), and use of exercise stations (6% vs. 8%) during their park visit increased between 2008 and 2011, respectively. However, the percentage who reported sports (12% vs. 6%), swimming (7% vs. 1%), special events (8% vs. 4%), and nature viewing (11% vs. 8%) during their park visited decreased between 2008 and 2011, respectively. Not surprisingly, the most dramatic changes at Cedar Creek were increases in the percentage of walkers (45% to 57%) and playground users (0% to 17%). There was no playground at Cedar Creek in 2008, so it was only natural for there to be an increase in this type of activity in 2011.

Changes in these percentages were likely a function of new activity opportunities provided in the Cedar Creek renovations (e.g., playground, LifeTrail®), but may have also been influenced by minor differences in the level of survey effort across the Cedar Creek park activity use zones. That is, the new destination playground required additional sampling at this location in 2011 and the relative percentages of activity choice in the data could have changed as a result.

14

Park-based Physical Activity Levels

A majority of users at both parks (62% in 2008 and 71% in 2011) engaged in moderate levels of physical activity during visits.

There were no significant changes in vigorous physical activity (participation or minutes) at either park, but participation in moderate physical activity increased at Cedar Creek from 58% in 2008 to 68% in 2011. Minutes in moderate activity were not statistically different between the two time periods for either park.

In 2011, Children at Cedar Creek (72%) were more likely than children at Trexler (25%) to be physically active during their park visit.

Parks provide low-cost and accessible opportunities for physical activity across a broad population (Godbey, 2009). In this survey, visitors were asked whether they engaged in moderate and/or vigorous levels of physical activity and how long they engaged in such activity levels. Results from the post-renovation data indicate that, across both parks, a majority of visitors reported being physically active at a moderate level (71%). There were few other differences in physical activity between the two study time periods except that participation in moderate physical activity at Cedar Creek increased from 58% in 2008 to 68% in 2011 (Table 4).

Table 4. Park-based physical activity levels (2008 vs. 2011)

Park physical activity level % or Mean Cedar % or Mean Trexler2008 2011 2008 2011

Any vigorous physical activity? 35% 32% 38% 33%

Minutes of vigorous physical activity 50 45 38 47

Any moderate physical activity? 58%* 68%* 66% 71%

Minutes of moderate physical activity 48 47 49 46

*Significant differences at .05 level between pre-renovation and post-renovation highlighted in bold text

In 2001, visitors at both parks were asked whether there were children under 18 years visiting with them. While a majority (68%) did not report visiting with children, Cedar Creek visitors (37%) were more likely than Trexler visitors (15%) to say that they were visiting with children. A follow-up question asked the adult respondent about the children’s participation in physical activity at the park. Specifically, they were asked in a yes/no format, “Have they or will they participate in any moderate or vigorous activity on this visit?” Results indicate that Cedar Creek children were more likely than Trexler children to be physically active during their park visits (72% vs. 25%, respectively).

15

Park Travel Mode

Park visitors at both parks generally traveled by car during the two time periods (83%), but Cedar Creek visitors (18%) were more likely than Trexler visitors (6%) to walk to the park.

However, there was no significant change in the percentage of Cedar Creek or Trexler visitors who walked or biked to the park between 2008 and 2011.

Community parks are used more frequently when they are within close proximity to neighborhoods and are easily accessible to local residents (Mowen & Confer, 2003; Godbey & Mowen, 2010). In particular, parks that are easy to walk or bike to can experience frequent use and may prompt residents to be more physically active on a daily basis (Hoehner et al., 2005). Cedar Creek renovations called for increased connectivity within the park and to the surrounding neighborhoods. However, not all pedestrian and trail connectors were finalized during the post-renovation study period (e.g., only the cross walk markers and road signage at Ott Street was completed at the time of the post-renovation study).

Nevertheless, visitors were asked across both time periods, how they traveled to the park. A majority (83%) said that they traveled by car, but Cedar Creek visitors were more likely than Trexler visitors to walk to the park (18% vs. 6%, respectively) (Table 5). Cedar Creek Parkway’s existing connections to adjacent neighborhoods could explain the higher prevalence of foot traffic to this park. However, there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of Cedar Creek or Trexler visitors who walked or biked to the park. These findings suggest that there is room to improve walking/bicycling access to these parks.

Table 5. Travel mode to the park (2008 vs. 2011)

Travel mode% Cedar % Trexler

2008 2011 2008 2011Car 79% 80% 90% 93%Bus 1% 2% 0% 0%Foot 20% 17% 6% 7%Bicycle 1% 1% 4% 0%

16

Perceived Park Satisfaction and Quality of Park Features

Visitors were very satisfied overall with park facilities and services at both Cedar Creek and Trexler during both time periods.

Overall satisfaction increased significantly from the pre-renovation period at both parks.

Successful park and recreation operations require an understanding of visitor satisfaction levels and their evaluation of specific park features, services, programs, and policies. In this study, visitors were asked to evaluate their overall satisfaction with the park as well as the perceived quality of park features and services. Results indicate that a large majority of visitors at both parks were satisfied with the overall facilities, amenities, and programs/events offered at each park. There were also statistically significant increases in overall satisfaction levels at both parks from 2008 to 2011. Cedar Creek satisfaction levels increased from a mean score of 4.3 to 4.5 (5 point scale) and Trexler satisfaction levels increased from a mean score of 4.4 to 4.7 (Table 6, on page 18). Much of these gains came from a shift in the percent satisfied to the percent very satisfied between the two time periods (Figure 2).

2008 - Cedar 2011- Cedar 2008 - Trexler 2011 - Trexler0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

55%

40%

48%

27%

40%

57%

47%

69%

SatisfiedVery Satisfied

Figure 2. Satisfied vs. Very Satisfied with Cedar or Trexler (2008-2011)

17

Perceived quality ratings of numerous Cedar Creek park features improved significantly in the post-renovation period. Perceptions of quality at Trexler generally did not increase in this manner.

Cedar Creek park features such as “drinking water availability” and “restroom cleanliness” experienced the most dramatic improvements compared to the pre-renovation period.

In terms of specific park features, amenities, and services, virtually all categories received positive quality scores ranging from good to excellent across the two parks. However, Trexler quality ratings generally did not change between 2008 and 2011 (Table 6). The exceptions were significant improvements in “safety of street crossings” and significant declines in “availability of drinking water” and “restroom cleanliness.”

In contrast, numerous Cedar Creek quality ratings increased significantly between 2008 and 2011. For example, “cleanliness of the park,” “overall maintenance,” “availability of drinking water,” “availability of picnic facilities,” “quality of the creek/lake,” “condition of the trails and paths,” and “restroom cleanliness” received significantly higher quality ratings with a majority of visitors rating them as either good or excellent (Table 6, page 18). The most dramatic improvements were: “availability of drinking water” (49% good to excellent in 2011 vs. 26% good to excellent in 2008) and “restroom cleanliness” (74% good to excellent in 2011 vs. 37% good to excellent in 2008). It should be noted that quality ratings for many Cedar Creek features are now on par with or, in a few instances, exceed those at Trexler.

New trail features and an improved trash collection system was provided at Cedar Creek by 2011

These quality items were also combined into an index of overall park quality. This new quality index was compared across time periods for both parks. Results indicate that the quality index was significantly higher at Cedar Creek in 2011 (4.1) than in 2008 (4.3). There was no significant change in the quality index at Trexler Park from 2008 (4.2) to 2011 (4.3) (Table 6, page 18).

18

Table 6. Perceived quality of park facilities, amenities, and services in the park (by item and overall) and satisfaction*

Quality item

Cedar2008

% Good, Excellent

Cedar2011

% Good, Excellent

Cedar2008 Mean

Cedar 2011 Mean

Trexler2008

% Good, Excellent

Trexler2011

% Good, Excellent

Trexler2008 Mean

Trexler 2011 Mean

Quality of the playground N/A 99 N/A 4.8 N/A N/A N/A N/ACourteousness of park employees 94 96 4.6 4.6 97 95 4.7 4.7Park beauty and aesthetics 95 95 4.6 4.6 98 100 4.7 4.8Condition of trails and paths 85 95 4.3 4.6 91 91 4.5 4.5Overall maintenance of park facilities 82 94 4.2 4.5 95 96 4.6 4.6Quality of sport courts 88 94 4.3 4.5 82 100 4.3 4.8Cleanliness of park 85 92 4.3 4.5 95 96 4.6 4.7Personal safety at this park 92 90 4.5 4.5 91 92 4.5 4.5Availability of parking 85 90 4.4 4.5 96 95 4.7 4.7Quality of the creek and/or lake 80 90 4.2 4.4 57 65 3.5 3.8Quality of special events/festivals 83 88 4.3 4.4 84 75 4.4 4.0Availability of picnic facilities 78 88 4.2 4.4 58 56 3.5 3.6Quality of park programs 82 87 4.2 4.3 80 82 4.3 4.1Variety of park facilities and amenities 79 87 4.2 4.3 79 69 4.1 3.9Park signs 72 78 4.0 4.1 79 79 4.2 4.1Safety of street crossings 71 75 3.9 4.0 79 96 4.2 4.5Restroom cleanliness 36 74 3.0 3.9 70 64 4.0 3.6Availability of drinking water 26 49 2.8 3.4 41 32 3.2 2.9OVERALL PARK QUALITY INDEX 63 80 4.1 4.3 73 83 4.2 4.3

OVERALL PARK SATISFACTION 95 97 4.3 4.5 95 96 4.4 4.7

*Significant differences at the 0.05 level between pre-renovation and post-renovation are highlighted in bold text

19

A majority of Cedar Creek visitors (71%) also agreed that they enjoy their park visits more now due to the renovations.

A separate question asked in 2011 assessed the impact of Cedar Creek renovations upon park user behaviors and experiences (see page 12 of this report). As with the behavioral items from that question, only visitors who were aware of the renovations and who had visited Cedar Creek prior to these renovations were asked these experiential questions. Experiential response items included statements such as “I enjoy my park visits more now due to these changes” and “I feel safer at this park now due to these changes.” Cedar Creek visitors responded to each item by expressing their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree).

Results indicate that a large majority of 2011 Cedar visitors (71%) agreed that they enjoyed their park visits now due to these changes. Furthermore, 41% agreed that they felt safer at the park due to the changes. For both of these items, only a small minority (5-11%) disagreed that park renovations resulted in these experiential changes. A summary of these findings is illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7. Perceived impact of Cedar Creek renovations on user experiences*

Change due to the renovation… % Disagree % Neutral % Agree

I enjoy my park visits more now because of these changes 5 24 71

I feel safer now at this park due to these changes 11 48 41

*Response were collected in 2011 from Cedar Creek visitors who visited the park prior to the renovation and who were aware of renovations (N = 306).

Sculptures within Cedar Creek were also cleaned, repainted, and landscaped by 2011

20

Perceived Park Benefits of the Park for the Greater Community

Visitors at both parks believed that their park provided a variety of benefits to the Greater Allentown community during both study time periods. Health, environment, and youth development were perceived as the primary benefits provided by these parks.

There were few significant changes in these benefit perceptions over the two study time periods.

However, the benefit perceptions, “reducing youth crime” and “providing children with a safe place to play,” increased significantly among Cedar Creek visitors from 2008 to 2011.

Community park visits and experiences can confer a wide number of benefits for both city residents and out-of-town guests. This study asked respondents to indicate the extent that Cedar Creek or Trexler provided a number of environmental, health, social, and economic benefits for the Greater Allentown community. These questions were asked to assess whether renovations at Cedar Creek changed visitor perceptions regarding the benefits of park and recreation services for the greater community.

Visitors perceived that both parks provided a wide range of benefits for the community and these perceptions were generally consistent over the two study time periods. Visitors were most likely to report park benefits such as reducing anxiety and stress, open space preservation, improving physical activity and health, and connecting citizens to the outdoors. Two perceptions changed significantly among Cedar Creek visitors from 2008 to 2011. The extent that Cedar Creek helped to “provide children with a safe place to play,” and “reduced youth crime” increased. However, Trexler visitors were less likely to perceive that their park, “attracted tourists and out-of-town guests.” A summary of perceived benefit scores by item is illustrated in Table 8.

The new destination playground offers active recreation features for children of all backgrounds and abilities

21

Table 8. Perceived extent that the park contributes to individual and community benefits

Benefit of park to the community*Cedar 2008 Mean

Cedar 2011 Mean

Trexler 2008 Mean

Trexler 2011 Mean

Reducing stress and anxiety 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8

Preserving open space 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8

Improving physical activity 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8

Providing children with a safe place to play 4.5** 4.7** 4.2 4.4

Improving health and wellbeing 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8

Connecting citizens with the outdoors 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.8

Improving mental health 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7

Conserving the natural environment 4.4 4.4 4.7 4.6

Enhancing relationships between families/neighbors 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5

Providing a sense of community togetherness 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2

Community and economic development 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0

Reducing youth crime* 3.8** 4.1** 3.7 3.6

Attracting tourists and out of town visitors 4.0 4.1 4.0** 3.6**

OVERALL PARK BENEFIT INDEX 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.5

*Response options ranged from “1 = Not at All” to “5 = A Great Deal”**Significant differences at 0.05 level between pre-renovation and post-renovation are highlighted in bold text

22

Visitor Comments Regarding the Impact of Cedar Creek Renovations

When asked to describe, in their own words, the impact of Cedar Creek park renovations, visitors reported a wide range of positive outcomes. Many of these outcomes were tied to specific features in the park (e.g., playground, LifeTrail®, Rose Garden).

At the end of the survey, visitors at Cedar Creek (who had visited the park prior to the renovation) were asked the question, “In your own words, what has been the impact of Cedar Creek Parkway renovations for yourself, your family, or the greater Allentown community?” Visitor comments were written down by the interviewer and then reviewed by the research team to identify/code key response themes.

A majority of the 313 comments expressed positive outcomes, although there were a few comments that implied no impact, negative impacts, or suggested further park improvements. These open-ended responses touched on a variety of behavioral and experiential outcomes as a result of the park renovations. Each of these identified themes are briefly introduced and illustrated with some comments that were associated with that theme. Several comments covered multiple themes in their responses. A list of visitor comments to this open-ended question is provided in Appendix C.

More users and use, activity variety, increased ease of use, more winter use, increased health, and improved access for visitors with disabilities were common behavioral themes identified as renovation outcomes.

More Users and More Use

A major theme that visitors expressed when discussing the impact of the park’s renovation was the appearance of more people in the park. The majority of comments implied that more users and use was a positive phenomenon. For example, comments such as, “it attracts more people out in the community,” “more people coming and enjoying the renovated areas,” “people are coming more regularly,” and “more people are now coming out… kids and families are making use of the park” are reflective of this theme. This increased use was not always perceived favorably by some park users. For example, one visitor said that the renovations “created more traffic in the park, especially bikers” and another commented, “… more crowded, more bikes, hazardous.”

Other comments referred to the renovation’s impact on frequency of park use. For example, one visitor noted that the renovations “brings repeat users and encourages regular use.” Another visitor stated that the renovations “make people want to come more, families, safer for kids, community feels more invested in the park.”

23

Visitors also reflected on how the renovations changed their own park use. For example one visitor said that the park was “a nicer place to come, I come more often now while” while another visitor said that it gave them, “the courage to use the park more often.” Renovations were also discussed in terms of time spent outdoors at the park. For example, one visitor said that the renovations helped them to “spend more time outside, walking the dog.”

Activity Variety

New facilities and features were developed at Cedar Creek and it appears that these renovations added variety to the park experience and provided more things to do. Comments such as, “wider variety of activities,” “able to do a greater variety of activities,” “more attractive and varied,” “more stuff for people to do,” and “more variety for people to exercise and be healthy” were reflective of this theme. One visitor said that renovations were “a positive change, people use the park more in different ways” and another said that they were “spending more time with the kids because there are more things for the kids to do.” Some visitors felt that this variety made the park more attractive to children and adults. For example, one visitor said, “I can get my exercise in and there’s things to keep my kids entertained.”

Increased Ease of Use

Visitors reported that park renovations made their park visits (and their use of specific features such as the path) easier. For example, one respondent noted that it was, “easier to use stroller on paths…” and another said, “paved trails are easier to walk on, safer because of bridges.”

More Winter Use of the Park

A few comments suggested that park renovations made it more appealing for use during inclement days and/or seasons such as winter. For example, one visitor stated that they could, “jog or walk in winter because of paving.” Others said that the renovations, “enhances the park, can run after bad weather in the winter” and “in winter we are able to use park more.”

Increased Physical Activity and Health

A number of visitors said that park renovations improved physical activity, fitness, exercise, and other health outcomes. For example, one visitor noted that park renovations, “gets more people here to do physical activity.” Other visitors commented, “great getaway from stress,” “healthier lifestyle,” “kids more involved in physical activities,” and “park looks better so people are more inclined to visit and be active.” These comments were also tied to new park features such as the LifeTrail® and the paved path. For example, one visitor said that, “the LifeTrail® is like an outdoor gym” and another said, “it (LifeTrail®) encourages a healthy lifestyle.”

24

Better Access for Persons with Disabilities

Improved park access for persons with disabilities and children/older adults was another change perceived by park visitors. Visitors recognized that park improvements (e.g., playground with universal design, paved trail) helped other visitors use the park, even if it did not affect them directly. For example, one visitor commented that the renovations “made it better for handicapped, but doesn’t affect me.” One, visitor however, described how the renovations increased access for her family and said, “I can bring mother in wheelchair, she gets out more and does the LifeTrail® and meets people.” Another visitor referenced the playground and said, “it’s a great thing, a place for children to play… children with disabilities and without can interact.”

Increased beauty/aesthetics, cleanliness, enjoyment, safety, and improved community cohesion & pride were common experiential themes identified as renovation outcomes.

In addition to behavioral outcomes, visitors commented on a variety of ways that park renovations enhanced experiences for themselves and the community at-large.

Increased Beauty/Aesthetics

There were numerous comments which suggested that renovations enhanced the beauty and overall aesthetics of the park. The words, “beauty” and “aesthetics” were mentioned briefly several times, but there were also more detailed responses. For example, one visitor said, “It’s a beautiful place, renovations make it more beautiful.” Another said that renovations, “makes it look nicer, more attractive and varied.” One visitor mentioned specific aspects of the park that was more beautiful and said, “the new flowers are absolutely beautiful, my favorite.”

Better Cleanliness (Condition & Maintenance)

Beyond beauty/aesthetics, the cleanliness and condition of parks can correspond to park visitation levels, physical activity, and can make them more appealing places for recreation activities (Rung, Mowen, Broyles, & Gustat, 2011). Visitors recognized improvements in the condition of Cedar Creek with comments such as, “cleaner water,” “clean and nice place to play,” “well-kept,” “better environmental quality,” and “very well kept for its visitors.” One visitor said that these renovations, “made the park more open for everyone, creek is cleaner, path is cleaner” and another said, “the park looks cleaner and better kept and therefore more welcoming.”

Increased Enjoyment

Visitors felt that the renovations increased their own as well as others’ enjoyment of their park visitors. These comments supported the quantitative data from the survey (page 19 of this report). For example, one visitor noted, “The garden is more beautiful,

25

the ponds are renovated, making the park more enjoyable.” Others used language such as “increased positive experience,” “more enjoyable for the children…,” “more pleasure…,” “…feel good here,” and “more pleasant place to visit” to convey how park renovations have added to the enjoyment of their park visits.

Improved Safety Perceptions

Improved safety was a major theme identified in the content analysis. Visitor comments regarding the impact of park renovations upon their own safety and in providing children with a safe place to play were numerous. For example, one visitor said that the renovations, “gives kids the opportunity to play outside in a safe environment.” Another said that the park renovation “increased the number of people so I feel safer, especially as a lone runner.”

Enhanced Community Cohesion & Pride

Neighborhood parks are a popular venue for social interaction and can contribute to a perceived sense of community and togetherness (Glover, Shinew, & Parry, 2005). Parks with high levels of social cohesion are also characterized by higher visitation and physical activity (Broyles et al. 2011). Several comments suggested that the park renovations increased the cohesion between park user groups and increased an overall sense of community. Some visitors also said that the renovations increased community pride for Allentown. For example, visitors noted that the renovations, “brings more sense of community” and “…helps people get together.” The playground, in particular, played a part in visitor perceptions of community cohesion. One visitor said that, “the playground probably has the biggest impact in bringing the community together,” while another said that the playground, “increased safety and togetherness, watching the kids get along with each other and having someone to contact when there’s a problem.”

Related to the theme of cohesion is community pride and how the renovation increased pride for the citizens of Allentown. For example, one visitor said that the renovations influenced the “sense of pride in the Allentown community” and another suggested that changes provided, “a positive image for Allentown.”

General Comments and Suggestions

Beyond specific themes, a number of comments and perceptions were more general in nature such as, “wonderful benefit,” “better place for community,” “overall win for everyone,” “park in general is a blessing to the community,” and “positive impact.” One visitor said that “they made renovations that affected people of all ages, they were all important.” It should be noted that a number of comments perceived “no big change” or “no impact for me.” Furthermore, there were several suggestions for additional park improvements and these included comments to provide a “bike lane,” “flashing yellow sign at crosswalk,” “police needed,” and “more bathrooms, water fountains, and lights.”

26

Part 3: Park User Focus Groups In addition to the on-site surveys collected in this study, researchers also collected focus group data. The purpose of these focus groups was to ask users of Cedar Creek about their attitudes and perceptions of the park renovations. Therefore, focus group data were not collected in the 2008 pre-study or from Trexler users. To capture the impacts of the renovations on multiple user groups, the researchers purposively sampled: 1) emerging adults under 30 years old, 2) parents of school-aged children, and 3) older adults over 55 years old.

Focus Group Methods

Focus group participants in the study were recruited based upon the following criteria: 1) they must have belonged to one of the three intended groups of study including emerging adults, parents of school aged-children, and older adults and 2) they must have been generally aware that Cedar Creek was recently renovated.

A variety of methods were used to recruit focus group participants. Invitation letters were sent to local universities and community groups with an interest in the local parks. Signs were also posted throughout Cedar Creek, primarily at the destination playground for parents of school-aged children. When interested participants contacted the researchers, they were briefed about the study purpose, informed of the participation incentive (i.e., a gift card to a recreation-related retailer), and assigned a time to participate in one of the three researcher-led focus groups. All participants voluntarily consented to take part in the study.

Focus group recruitment occurred in the park andthrough park agency communication outlets

27

Focus groups were held for approximately two hours each on three nights at the City of Allentown Parks and Recreation office in late September and early October, 2011. Each group was divided by their user group: emerging adults, parents of school-aged children, and older adults. Upon arrival the participants were greeted, asked to sign a consent form, notified of the incentive for participation, and introduced to the researchers and fellow focus group members. Participants were led through a researcher-moderated session, which was guided by a consistent list of 13 semi-structured questions (see Appendix D). The session moderator adhered to the semi-structured question guide, but allowed all participants to provide additional feedback.

These focus group sessions were recorded with a digital sound recorder and later transcribed using Audacity Sound Editor and Microsoft Word. Two individuals, one who was present at the focus group at one who was not, reviewed the transcripts and created codes for the messages within the data. The individuals met following their independent review of the data and reached consensus on core thematic areas emerging from the voices of the participants. These broad themes included awareness and evaluation of park renovations, a sense of pride and togetherness, and rules of the park.

Focus Group Results

Focus group sizes and demographics varied by user group. Four emerging adults participated; all white females between the ages of 20 and 27 years old, and pursuing a college degree. Thirteen adults with school-aged children participated; 8 female and 5 male, between the ages of 36 and 52 years old, primarily white with some black and Hispanic representation. Nine older adults participated; between the ages of 56 and 79 years old; 6 female and 3 male, all white.

Awareness and Evaluation of Park Renovations

The participants in each focus group were highly aware of the specific renovations at the park. Paved pathways on the fitness trail and rose garden, the destination playground, the addition of LifeTrail® exercise stations, and the riparian buffers surrounding the stream were the most commonly noticed changes.

The paving of the fitness and rose garden trails had a great impact on the satisfaction of all park users. Even users who preferred the older, non-blacktopped style reconciled that they could always walk or run alongside the macadam and that the new paving was of great benefit to many users. Benefits discussed included increased accessibility for all users, including those in wheelchairs and strollers, as well as a safer place to bicycle for beginners. One participant described that the paving opened new opportunities for her to take her son into the rose garden.

“I like the pave-way because my son, he’s in a wheelchair, and so it’s easier for him to maneuver around. I had a hard time at the Rose Garden when I went there and now it’s easier because of the pavement.”

28

Older adults were most likely to use the new LifeTrail® exercise equipment adjacent to the trail on the west side of the park, but many participants recognized the worth of this new feature. One older adult described that the new equipment encouraged older adults to visit the park and be physically active.

“It did, in my opinion, bring in our age group, not that all of us were walking before, but from my experience with senior citizens, there’s people coming that weren’t coming before.”

The destination playground was primarily used by children who were represented by their parents in the focus group. However, participants from all three focus groups felt that the playground was a positive improvement to the park and the community as a whole. One participant described an experience where others who found out about or saw the playground were impressed by the scale and quality of this new feature.

“I posted a video of my daughter in the spider web on YouTube and got comments from my friends all over the world going, that’s a public playground? That’s free?”

The riparian buffer zones, or wild growth directly surrounding the creek and lake, were also noticed, but feelings were more divided about this environmental change. Some focus group participants felt that the vegetative growth could help limit flooding and trash throughout the park, but others thought that the growth was an eyesore. An older adult participant stated “I hate those eight-foot weeds along the park. The lower growth I can deal with, but those really tall ones, I think they’re ugly and decreased my enjoyment.” One participant disagreed and noted that, “I like the growth okay… its less work for the guys in the parks department to have to cut… plus it helps our water table.”

A Sense of Pride and Togetherness

One of the most commonly mentioned benefits was the increase of visitors and sense of togetherness fostered by the park renovations. In studies of park experiences, visitors will often describe a concept known as crowding. Crowding can occur when a large number of visitors results in a diminished sense of enjoyment. However, the users of Cedar Creek Parkway described their crowding experience differently, which is a concept known as functional density (Eroglu & Harrel, 1986). Functional density is when a larger number of users results in improvement to the overall park experience. Focus group participants felt that the increased number of visitors at Cedar Creek actually enhanced their experience. For example, all of the emerging adult participants felt that more park users resulted in a safer experience.

29

“…I definitely appreciate the improvements and I think I’ve noticed that it attracted more people to the park, which I appreciate because when I run, I usually run in the morning and, a lot of times, there were no people in the park. So sometimes I kind of felt like hmm… is that safe to be in the park by yourself? but I feel safer being in the park when there are more people around.”

An increase in total park use also resulted in a more diverse set of park users. Although this increase in diversity seemed to be occurring predominantly on the east side of the park where the destination playground was installed, many focus group participants indicated that there were people of different races and people with disabilities now using the park.

“But now since the playground is there, there are more people from the city coming in and playing on the playground than before. So you see different cultures in the playground playing side by side, having fun, and enjoying the playground that you didn’t see before.”

The increased diversity may have been noticed primarily on the east side of the park, but there was some indication that users are beginning to do more exploration of the entire park. Focus group participants thought that signs indicating what types of activities are available on each side of the park may be useful in the future. They also discussed whether signs in Spanish language would bridge the two areas divided by Ott Street. Jokingly, one participant suggested that the signs were a good idea, but she should take initiative to visit the east side of the park first.

“I want to be the only one on that side… I want to be the first Latina on that side, and then you can put the signs up!”

Participating side by side with “black, white, colored, disabled, not disabled” people had a harmonizing effect for park users. Parents felt that the park served as a gathering place for them and their children to meet and play with all different types of people. This was commonly interpreted as one of the chief sources of pride from the park renovations and that it reflected in the wider Allentown community.

“I also think the park has really become a unifying force in the community. I see lots of people talk to each other in the parks that if they were passing each other on the street, they wouldn’t or if they were neighbors popping in and out of their houses, they wouldn’t. But in a park setting, it’s somehow, we’re all one. It is really nice to see because Allentown needs unifying forces and the way it is now is going to be the way it is going to be for the foreseeable future and it’s really nice we can mix in a peaceful, friendly and safe environment and maybe get to know each other a little better.”

Diversity from people of different races and disability statuses was not the only type of diversity mentioned. Focus group participants felt that renovations offered new opportunities for different park use and gathering places for clubs. Artists were

30

observed in the rose garden, exercise classes were seen on the main lawn, and these activities were intriguing to visitors who were not participating.

“The other day when I was walking there was a group, and I don’t know their affiliation, but they were doing tai chi over by the pond. It was lovely. And so, it has many uses and available to all.”

Rules of the Park

Focus group participants also indicated that behaviors in the park were improving after the park renovations. That is, the pride in the increased quality of the facilities caused them to take better care of their surroundings.

“…and I think it encourages good behavior. If you have a place to go and do these kinds of things, like a place for people to recreate, then I would hope that it would diminish any criminal activity...”

However, this opinion was not consensus. Comments from the participants about the need for rules and regulations highlighted that a park renovation must be an iterative process that improves park user experiences through follow-up feedback and subsequent improvement. Prior to the renovations at Cedar Creek Parkway, community users were given the opportunity to comment on the changes they would like to see implemented as part of the Park Master Plan. Renovations were made based upon the comments and recommendations from the Plan. However, post-renovation focus group sessions highlighted that a follow-up forum could be offered after major park changes. Many participants felt that new signs expressly stating the rules of the park would be useful. For example, they felt that while many dog walkers cleaned up their messes, there were still too many who did not. Users also suggested that there should be safety guidelines for walkers and bicyclers on the fitness path, designated areas for picnicking, and a maximum age for using the destination playground without the accompaniment of children.

Conclusion

Each of the three focus groups conducted for emerging adults, adults of school-age children, and older adults yielded similar results. The participants were highly aware of the changes made to the park and mostly had positive feelings about the renovations. Although it was not quantitatively measured, the park renovations helped increase social cohesion between users and helped them meet new people with diverse backgrounds. Users also provided accounts of trying and observing new park activities. These changes left users wanting additional improvements to make Cedar Creek Parkway an even better place. Users felt that more special events, concession stands, and greater maintenance/policing will continue to increase the use and benefits reaped from the park. Nonetheless, users felt that the completed renovations increased their opportunities and satisfaction at the park.

31

Part 4: Discussion and Conclusion

This study identified a number of positive behavioral and experiential outcomes that resulted from park renovations.

Findings from this park renovation study demonstrate favorable outcomes in terms of behaviors, perceptions, and park experiences. These outcomes should be considered when deliberating the value of local and state park funding investments. Throughout both study time periods, a majority of Allentown park visitors were satisfied with these parks and felt they provided a wide range of social and economic benefits for the community-at-large. The renovation at Cedar Creek did not appear to change the demographic composition of adult (18+ years) park visitors over the short post-renovation study time frame (key renovations were completed in late 2010, and the surveys were conducted in summer 2011). Visitor and focus group comments, however, suggest that such a shift may be taking place at Cedar Creek. Several individuals expressed a perception that children are more likely to be attracted to the playground at Cedar Creek and that older adults find the paved trail and the LifeTrail® stations appealing.

Awareness of the park renovations was surprisingly high (84%) among Cedar visitors and this may have to do with the scope and magnitude of the changes. Some park renovations typically include an additional facility with few other changes, but Cedar Creek benefited from new activity features, support features, beautification efforts, and environmental restoration efforts. All of these major changes plus a few “little things” were recognized by park users without additional prompting.

This study also yielded some mixed results in terms of user frequency and park visit duration at Cedar Creek. On one hand, there were few significant changes in the 30 day frequency of park use or the number of minutes spent at the park during the last visit. It is difficult to tell whether these consistencies were a function of poor weather conditions in 2011 or were due to the renovation. The city experienced one of the wettest summers on record and Cedar Creek, in particular, was flooded on several occasions due to tropical storms that passed through. Visitor perceptions of more long term behaviors suggest that the renovations did influence individual park user behaviors at Cedar Creek. For example, a majority felt that the renovations resulted in them visiting the park more often, staying longer at the park, and doing more activities at the park. There were minor shifts in the activity composition of park visitors over the two time periods. These shifts may have been a result of changes in the sampling time spent at various Cedar Creek locations (survey work had to occur at the playground as well as the other activity zones) and changes in activity opportunities (playground, LifeTrail®). For example, walking and playground use experienced the most dramatic increases at Cedar Creek during the post-renovation period.

32

In both time periods, a majority of users engaged in moderate physical activity during their park visit. However, after the renovations, Cedar Creek experienced a significant 10% increase in the percentage of adult visitors who were moderately active. Moreover, 75% of adults with children in their group reported that the children participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity during their Cedar Creek park visit in 2011.

One effort being made by the City is to encourage non-motorized travel to parks (e.g., walking, bicycling) through improved and safer trail/sidewalk connectors between parks and area neighborhoods. Improvements made to the crosswalk at Ott Street (road markers, signage) seemed to enhance intra-park connectively within Cedar Creek. Focus group participants cited a willingness to explore the west side of the park due to this crossing improvement (as well as other west side park improvements). However, use of non-motorized travel to get to Cedar Creek did not increase significantly over the two time periods. This finding is not surprising, given that efforts to link neighborhoods to this park were incomplete at the time of the post renovation study. Future neighborhood connectors might enhance the attractiveness of walking/ bicycling to get to the park.

Perhaps the most dramatic change observed in the study is the increased perception of quality and satisfaction at Cedar Creek in 2011. Practically all quality items experienced raw increases in the post-renovation period, with statistically significant increases in the condition of the creek/lake, trails, and sport courts. The overall cleanliness of the park and maintenance of park facilities also increased significantly. The most dramatic improvements were in perception of restroom cleanliness (an increase from 37% to 74%) and availability of drinking water (an increase from 26% to 49%). All of these items were intentionally addressed by the City as part of the renovation. Moreover, data suggests that quality at Cedar Creek is now on-par with perceived quality at the neighboring Trexler Park. Survey comments corroborated these changes as well. Collectively, these results demonstrate that park infrastructure investments do change visitor perceptions and enhance user experiences.

Across both time periods, visitors strongly believed that their park provided a wide range of social and economic benefits to the Greater Allentown community. Because of these strong perceptions in the pre-renovation period, there may have been “less room” to see improvement in these relatively stable attitudes. However, Cedar Creek visitors were significantly more likely to perceive that their park provided “a safe place to play” and “reduced youth crime.” These increases may be attributed to improvement of youth sport and play opportunities such as new destination playground. Finally, survey comments and focus group discussions suggest that there was a range of positive outcomes that were directly related to the park renovations. These comments focused on behavioral and social outcomes such as increased use levels at the park, a higher level of community cohesion/pride, and enhanced access for persons with disabilities.

33

Park renovations and investments could benefit from more systematic evaluations. There are a number of gaps and opportunities, which can be addressed in future renovation studies.

The title of this study report is, “Do park investments make a difference?” Collectively, study results indicate that Cedar Creek renovations were indeed a wise investment with broad-based public support. While this research was a pilot evaluation study, it does offer one approach to evaluate the return on investment from local and state park and recreation funding sources. Much more could be done to clarify this evidence and provide a more complete picture of local/state funding impacts for Pennsylvania’s cities, towns, and townships. A number of questions and issues were outside the scope of this demonstration project and should be considered in the immediate future. For example, this study did not assess overall visitation levels at the parks, but instead focused on individual park behavioral patterns. Future assessments could examine use levels prior to and during several time periods after a major park renovation.

Furthermore, this study only ascertained the behaviors and perceptions of park visitors. Future renovation assessments could examine how park investments can influence park use among non-users/infrequent users as well as their impact on residents living adjacent to the parks. This evaluation focused on changes to the physical infrastructure at the park (City policies, programs, events, and promotions were relatively consistent across the study time periods). However, capital investments are only one kind of change. Park policies, programs, and promotions may also enhance user behaviors and experiences, and these are important topics for future park intervention studies. Finally, the economic return on local park and recreation expenditures is another important issue, which merits consideration. For example, how do significant park renovations stimulate recreation spending and attract out-of-town visitors?

The current study had several strengths, which should be retained in future park renovation evaluations. First, efforts were made to identify and measure baseline data before the renovation (as well as follow-up data) and compare a renovated park to an un-renovated park. In contrast to existing park renovation research, this study did not focus solely on demographics, behaviors, and physical activity. Perceptions of park quality and the role of park renovations in shaping broad community benefits were also ascertained.

As current economic circumstances continue to challenge the ability of local communities to provide quality park and recreation services (e.g., maintaining existing facilities/services at an acceptable level), there will be a greater need to critically evaluate the return on investment from scarce public and private funding sources. Park professionals, policy makers, and constituents are asked to consider the results of this study when pursuing park capital projects and funding sources for those projects. This study represents a first step in providing this needed evidence. Future park renovation projects within the Commonwealth should consider incorporating a formal evaluation mechanism as part of their overall project.

34

ReferencesBedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to physical

activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, S159-168.

Bolund, P., & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293-301.

Broyles, S.T., Mowen, A.J., Theall, K.P., Gustat, J., & Rung, A.L. (2011). Integrating social capital into a park-use and active-living framework. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(5), 522-529.

Center for Rural Pennsylvania (2008). Review and analysis of the DCNR, Bureau of Recreation and Conservation grant database. Unpublished report.

City of Allentown (2008). Adventure Allentown: Your Greater Allentown community directory to parks, recreation, and special events, Fall 2008/Winter 2009.

Colabianchi, N., Kinsella, A. E., Coulton, C. J., & Moore, S.M. (2009). Utilization and physical activity levels at renovated and unrenovated school playgrounds. Preventive Medicine, 48, 140-143.

Crompton, J. L. (2001). The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 1-31.

Crompton, J. L. (1999). Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Eroglu, S., & Harrel, G. (1986). Retail crowding: Theoretical and strategic implications. Journal of Retailing, 62(4), 346-364.

Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences, 27(1), 75-92.

Godbey, G., & Mowen, A. J. (2010). The benefits of physical activity provided by park and recreation services: The scientific evidence. Ashburn, VA: The National Recreation and Park Association.

Godbey, G. (2009). Outdoor Recreation and Health: Enhancing the Relationship. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Godbey, G. C., Graefe, A. R., & James, S.W. (1992). The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the American Public. The National Recreation and Park Association.

Hoehner, C.M., Brennan Ramirez, L.K., Elliott, M.B. et al. (2005). Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activity among urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl 2),105-116.

35

Kaczynski, A. T., & Henderson, K. A. (2007). Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences, 29, 315-354.

Kerstetter, D. L., & Mowen, A. J., (2008). The best park around: Visitors’ response to the Lewisburg Area Recreation Authority Park. Unpublished report to Playworld Systems, Inc.

Mowen, A. J. & Confer, J. J. (2003). The relationship between perceptions, distance, and socio-demographic characteristics upon public use of an urban park “in-fill.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 21(3), 58-74.

Mowen, A. J., Kaczynski, A. T., & Cohen, D. A. (2008). The potential of parks and recreation in addressing physical activity and fitness. President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Research Digest, 9(1), 1-7.

Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., Broyles, S. T., & Gustat, J. (2011). The role of park conditions and features on park visitation and physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(Suppl 2): S178-S187.

Tester, J., & Baker, R. (2009). Making the playfields even: Evaluating the impact of an environmental intervention on park use and physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 48, 316-320.

Walker, J. T., Mowen, A. J., Hendricks, W. W., Kruger, J., Morrow, J. R., & Bricker, K. (2009). Physical activity in the park setting (PA-PS) questionnaire: Reliability in a California statewide sample. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(Suppl 1), S97-S104.

Witt, P. A. (2001) Re-examining the role of recreation and parks in after-school programs. Parks and Recreation, 36(7), 20-28.

36

Appendix A.

On-Site Park Survey Instruments 2008 and 2011

37

2008 CEDAR CREEK PARKWAY/TREXLER PARK SURVEY

Date, Time, & Weather _____________________________________________________________INT ___________________________ Location?... (Check One) _____ Cedar Creek Parkway ____ Trexler Park

Hello, my name is _________, I’m from The City of Allentown, Parks and Recreation which is doing a survey of park visitors. The City is committed to providing the highest quality facilities and programs and would like to understand the needs of park visitors. May I have about ten minutes of your time to complete this survey? ___ No (Refused) – Thank you for your time, enjoy your park visit.

RECORD GENDER… (check one – do this with both refusals and completions) __ Male __ Female

The first series of questions are about your recreation activities in this park...

1. What specific park activities have you done or do you plan to do during today’s visit? (Prompt respondent for answer, ask is there any other activity that you’ll be doing during this visit? As each answer is given, circle appropriate category)

1 Sports (baseball, soccer, football, basketball) 2 Walking (including dog walking)3 Eating/picnicking4 In-line skating5 Tennis6 Swimming7 Jogging/running8.Exercise Stations9 Bicycling10 Viewing nature (including birding)11 Special Events/Festivals

12 Fishing13 Playing (Playing catch/frisbee, flying a kite, playing with kids)14 Sedentary activities (sitting, reading, relaxing, supervising children) 15.People watching16 Other (please list) _________________________________777 Don’t know/Not sure999 Refused

2. What primary activity drew you to the park today? ______________________________ (Again, let the respondent answer and use numeric codes provided above to enter)

3. Including today, how many total days over the LAST MONTH (i.e., last 30 days) have you visited this park? ____ Number of days 777 Don’t know/Not sure 999 This is my first visit (skip to Q9)

4. Please estimate how many TOTAL MINUTES you spent at this park during your last visit? ____ Number of minutes 777 Don’t know/Not sure

5. During your last park visit, did you participate in any form of vigorous physical activity (for example jogging, playing sports, walking or bicycling at a vigorous pace, breaking a sweat, with your heart beating rapidly)? ____ Yes (Go to Q5a.) ____ No (Go to Q6.)

5a. How many total minutes did you spend participating in vigorous physical activity during your last park visit? ____ Minutes (Note: minutes must be > 0 and must not exceed total minutes spent at the park during the last visit)

6. During your last park visit, did you participate in any form of moderate physical activity (for example, playing, walking, swimming or bicycling at an easy pace, but not exhausting)? ____ Yes (Go to Q6a.) ____ No (Go to Q7.)

6a. How many total minutes did you spend participating in moderate physical activity during your last park visit? ____ Minutes (Note: minutes must be > 0 and must not exceed total minutes spent at the park during the last visit)

38

7. How did you travel to get to this park today? (check one)___ by car ___ by bus ____ on foot ___ bicycled

8. Overall, would you say that both this visit and your last visit to this park is similar to other visits you’ve made?___ Yes ___ No (How was it different? Different Activities, Group, Length of Stay, Season, Other?-circle one)

9. Over the last 30 days, have you visited any other City of Allentown Parks (besides this park)? ____ Yes, What other City of Allentown Parks did you visit? (open-ended, list up to four parks)

________________________________________________________________________________ No

In the next series of questions I will ask you to evaluate the quality of existing park features and services as well as what improvements, if any, should be made to improve City of Allentown parks…

10. Please rate this park on the following from excellent, good, fair, poor, to extremely poor. If you haven’t experienced or aren’t familiar with a facility or service, just say so. - Interviewer: mark as N/A

Extremely Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A

Park beauty and aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5 9Courteousness of park employees 1 2 3 4 5 9Ease of connecting to Trexler or Cedar Creek Park 1 2 3 4 5 9Cleanliness of this park 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of park programs 1 2 3 4 5 9Personal safety at this park 1 2 3 4 5 9Park signs 1 2 3 4 5 9Overall maintenance of park facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of special events/festivals 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of picnic facilities (pavilions, tables) 1 2 3 4 5 9Safety of street crossings 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of pool facilities (don’t ask at Trexler) 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of the creek and/or lake 1 2 3 4 5 9Condition of trails and paths 1 2 3 4 5 9Variety of park facilities and amenities 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of sport courts (basketball, volleyball, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 9Restroom cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 9

11. Thinking about all of the facilities, amenities and programs/events offered in this park, please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with this park (Circle One)…

Extremely Unsatisfied Unsatisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Unsatisfied Satisfied

ExtremelySatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

39

12. Neighborhood parks have the potential to provide a number of individual and community benefits. I’m going to read you a list of potential benefits and I want you to indicate the extent you feel that this particular park achieves these benefits for the Greater Allentown community (from a 1 “Not at all” to 5 “A great deal”)…

Potential Benefit of this Park Not at All Somewhat A Great Deal

DK

Attracting tourists 1 2 3 4 5 9Conserving the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 9

Providing a sense of community togetherness 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving health and well-being 1 2 3 4 5 9

Enhancing the communities’ quality of life 1 2 3 4 5 9

Reducing anxiety and stress 1 2 3 4 5 9

Enhancing relationships between families/neighbors 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving mental health 1 2 3 4 5 9

Reducing youth crime 1 2 3 4 5 9

Preserving open space 1 2 3 4 5 9

Increasing nearby property values 1 2 3 4 5 9

Connecting citizens with the outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 9

Providing children with a safe place to play 1 2 3 4 5 9

Community and economic development 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving physical activity 1 2 3 4 5 9

12a. In your own words, what is the single most important benefit of this park? ___________________________

13. Now, I would like to ask you about some things that the City of Allentown could do system-wide to improve parks, facilities, services, and overall visitor experiences. Please indicate the importance of the following strategies to improve the City’s park system…

Park Improvement Strategy or Action…Lowest Priority

Highest Priority

DK

Upgrade and modernize park facilities/amenities 1 2 3 4 5 9

Make the parks more pet friendly 1 2 3 4 5 9

Build trails and paths that connect to neighborhoods 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improve the condition of existing trails and paths 1 2 3 4 5 9

Build trails and paths that connect to nearby parks 1 2 3 4 5 9

Create additional park opportunities for youth activity 1 2 3 4 5 9

Increase the number of facilities that provide more active use of this park (e.g., trails, sport facilities, playgrounds, skate parks)

1 2 3 4 5 9

Improve the quality of park lakes and streams 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improve the natural aesthetics of parks 1 2 3 4 5 9

Enhance public transit services to parks 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improve the condition of the sport facilities 1 2 3 4 5 9

Create additional opportunities for older adult to use parks 1 2 3 4 5 9

40

This last series of questions are about you, the park visitor. All of your responses are voluntary and will be held in strict confidentiality. Your answers will be extremely important in ensuring that the City provides recreation opportunities for all of it citizens.

First, we are interested in understanding how far people travel to get to this park and what neighborhoods are now using this park.

14. What is your street address (if respondent refuses, ask for nearest intersection, if still refuses ask for zipcode)

Street Address _____________________________________________ (Do not take the individual’s name)

City ____________________________________ Zipcode ____________

15. In what year were you born? ___________

16. Which of the following categories best describes your race and/or ethnic background? (check all that apply)

__ White __American Indian or Alaskan Native ____ Asian__ Black or African American __Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Refused__ Hispanic/Chicano/Latino __Other, specify ____________________

17. Into which income group would you say your household fell in 2007? (circle one)

__ $10,000 or less __ $40,001 to $60,000 __ $100,001 to $120,000__ $10,001 to $20,000 __ $60,001 to $80,000 __ $120,001 to $140,000__ $20,001 to $40,000 __ $80,001 to $100,000 __ Over $140,000

__ Refused/Don’t Know

18. Our last question, in your own words, is there anything else that the City of Allentown could or should do to improve this park? (Interviewer – have respondent write down his/her response in the space below & make sure you can read it before respondent leaves)

That is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your participation!

41

2011 CEDAR CREEK PARKWAY/TREXLER PARK SURVEY

Date, Time, & Weather _________________________________ Interviewer Name: ______________________________Survey Location: ___ Trexler Park ___ Playground ___ Rose Garden ___ Picnic Area ___ Trails ___ Other CC Location

Hello, my name is _________, I’m from The City of Allentown, Parks and Recreation and we are doing a survey of park visitors. We want to better understand visitor behaviors as well as their evaluation of this park. May I have about 15 minutes of your time to complete this survey? ___ Yes (go to Q1) ___ No (Fill out refusal sheet) – Thank you for your time, enjoy your park visit.RECORD GENDER… (check one – do this with both refusals and completions) __ Male __ Female

The first series of questions are about your recreation activities in this park...

1. Is this your first visit to this particular park (e.g., Cedar Creek or Trexler)? ___ Yes ___ No

2. What specific park activities have you done or do you plan to do during today’s visit? (Prompt respondent for answer, ask is there any other activity that you’ll be doing during this visit? As each answer is given, circle appropriate category)

1 Sports (baseball, soccer, football, basketball) 2 Walking (including dog walking)3 Picnicking/eating4 In-line skating5 Using the playground6 Swimming7 Jogging/running8 Exercise stations (including Life Trail)9 Bicycling10 Viewing nature (including birding, plants, flowers)

11 Special Events/Festivals 12 Fishing13 General play (Playing catch/frisbee, flying a kite, etc.)14 Sedentary park activities (sitting, reading, relaxing, supervising children) 15.People watching16 Other (please list) ____________________________________777 Don’t know/Not sure999 Refused

3. What primary activity drew you to the park today? ______________________________ (Again, let the respondent answer and use numeric codes provided above to enter)

4. Including today, how many total days over the LAST MONTH (i.e., last 30 days) have you visited this park? ____ Number of days ___ Don’t know/Not sure ___ This is my first visit (skip to Q10; next page)

The next few questions are about your physical activity levels on your last visit to this park…

5. Please estimate how many TOTAL MINUTES you spent at this park during your last visit? ____ Number of minutes 777 Don’t know/Not sure

6. During your last park visit, did you participate in any form of vigorous physical activity (for example jogging, playing sports, walking or bicycling at a vigorous pace, breaking a sweat, with your heart beating rapidly)? ____ Yes (Go to Q6a.) ____ No (Go to Q7)

6a. How many total minutes did you spend participating in vigorous physical activity during your last park visit? ____ Minutes (Note: minutes must be > 0 and must not exceed total minutes spent at the park during the last visit)

7. During your last park visit, did you participate in any form of moderate physical activity (for example, playing, walking, swimming or bicycling at an easy pace, but not exhausting)? ____ Yes (Go to Q7a.) ____ No (Go to Q8.)

7a. How many total minutes did you spend participating in moderate physical activity during your last park visit? ____ Minutes (Note: minutes must be > 0 and must not exceed total minutes spent at the park during the last visit)

8. Are there children under 18 visiting with you today? ___ Yes (Complete Q8a) ___ No (Skip to Q9)

8a. Have they or will they participate in any moderate or vigorous physical activity on this visit?___ Yes

42

___ No

9. Overall, would you say that your current visit and your last visit are similar to other visits you’ve made to this park?___ Yes ___ No (How was it different? Different Activities, Group Size, Length of Stay, Season, Other?-circle one)

In the next series of questions I’ll ask you to evaluate the quality of park features & services…

10. Please rate this park on the following scale from Extremely Poor to Excellent. If you haven’t experienced or aren’t familiar with a facility or service, just say so. - Interviewer: mark as N/A

Extremely Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent N/A

Park beauty and aesthetics 1 2 3 4 5 9Courteousness of park employees 1 2 3 4 5 9Cleanliness of this park 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of park programs 1 2 3 4 5 9Personal safety at this park 1 2 3 4 5 9Park signs 1 2 3 4 5 9Overall maintenance of park facilities

1 2 3 4 5 9

Quality of special events/festivals 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of drinking water 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 9Availability of picnic facilities (pavilions, tables)

1 2 3 4 5 9

Safety of street crossings 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of the playground 1 2 3 4 5 9Quality of the creek and/or lake 1 2 3 4 5 9Condition of trails and paths 1 2 3 4 5 9Variety of park facilities and amenities

1 2 3 4 5 9

Quality of sport courts (basketball, volleyball, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5 9

Restroom cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 9

11. Thinking about all of the facilities, amenities and programs/events offered in this park, please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with this park (Circle One)…

Extremely Unsatisfied Unsatisfied

Neither Satisfied Nor Unsatisfied Satisfied

ExtremelySatisfied

1 2 3 4 5

43

12. Neighborhood parks have the potential to provide a number of individual and community benefits. I’m going to read you a list of potential benefits and I want you to indicate the extent you feel that this particular park achieves these benefits for the Greater Allentown community (from a 1 “Not at all” to 5 “A great deal”)…

Potential Benefit of this Park Not at All

Somewhat A Great Deal

DK

Attracting tourists and out-of-town visitors 1 2 3 4 5 9Conserving the natural environment 1 2 3 4 5 9

Providing a sense of community togetherness 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving health and well-being 1 2 3 4 5 9

Reducing anxiety and stress 1 2 3 4 5 9

Enhancing relationships between families/neighbors

1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving mental health 1 2 3 4 5 9

Reducing youth crime 1 2 3 4 5 9

Preserving open space 1 2 3 4 5 9

Connecting citizens with the outdoors 1 2 3 4 5 9

Providing children with a safe place to play 1 2 3 4 5 9

Community and economic development 1 2 3 4 5 9

Improving physical activity 1 2 3 4 5 9

12a. In your own words, what is the single most important benefit of this park?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Questions 13 – 16 for Cedar Creek Visitors Only. For Trexler Park Visitors, Skip to Question 17

13. Were you aware that Cedar Creek Parkway was recently renovated, with several changes and additions?

___ Yes (What changes have you noticed? ____________________________________________________________

___ No

14. Did you visit Cedar Creek Parkway prior to 2009? ___ Yes (Go to Q15 below) ___ No (Skip to Q17)

15. To what extent have these renovations contributed to the following? Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statements.

Potential Change due to the Renovations…

Stro

ngly

D

isag

ree

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Agr

ee

Stro

ngly

A

gree

I visit this park more often now because of these changes 1 2 3 4 5

I bring children with me more often due to these changes 1 2 3 4 5

I stay at this park longer now due to these changes 1 2 3 4 5

I enjoy my park visits more now due to these changes 1 2 3 4 5

I do a wider variety of park activities now due to these changes 1 2 3 4 5

I feel safer at this park now due to these changes 1 2 3 4 5

44

16. In your own words, what has been the impact of Cedar Creek Parkway renovations for yourself, your family, or the greater Allentown community?

We are almost done with the survey now, thank you for your patience and cooperation!

These last questions are about you, the park visitor. All of your responses are anonymous and will be held in strict confidentiality. Your answers will be extremely important in ensuring that the City provides recreation opportunities for all of its citizens.

17. In what year were you born? ___________

18. Which of the following categories best describes your race and/or ethnic background? (check all that apply)

__ White __ American Indian or Alaskan Native ____ Asian__ Black or African American __ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ____ Refused__ Hispanic/Chicano/Latino __ Other, specify ____________________

19. Into which income category would you say your household fell in 2010? (check one)

__ $10,000 or less __ $40,001 to $60,000 __ $100,001 to $120,000__ $10,001 to $20,000 __ $60,001 to $80,000 __ $120,001 to $140,000__ $20,001 to $40,000 __ $80,001 to $100,000 __ Over $140,000

__ Refused/Don’t Know

20. How did you travel to get to this park today? (check one)___ by car ___ by bus ____ on foot ___ bicycled

21. What is your street address?

Street Address _____________________________________________ (Do not take the individual’s name)

City ____________________________________ Zipcode ____________

That is the end of the survey. Thank you very much for your participation!

45

Appendix B.

Data Collection Schedules2008 and 2011

46

July 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 2 3 4 5Independence

Day

6 7 8 9 10 11 12Survey Training8:30A-11:30A

13 14 15 16 17 18 19AM AM AM AM PM

20 21 22 23 24 25 26AM PM AM & PM PM PM AM

27 28 29 30 31PM AM & PM PM AM & PM AM

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

47

August 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9PM PM AM & PM AM AM & PM

10 11 12 13 14 15 16AM & PM AM & PM AM & PM AM & PM AM & PM AM

17 18 19 20 21 22 23AM AM AM AM & PM

24 25 26 27 28 29 30AM & PM PM PM

31 1

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

48

September 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6Labor Day

PM PM

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

49

June 2011Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24

AM

25

26 27 28

PM

29

AM

30

PM

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

50

July 2011Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

AM

2

3

AM

4 5 6

AM

7

PM

8

AM

9

PM

10

PM

11

AM

12 13

PM

14

AM

15

PM (2)

16

AM

17

AM & PM

18 19 20

PM

21

AM

22

AM (1 hour)

23

24 25

AM

26

PM (2)

27

AM

28 29

AM

30

AM

31

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

51

August 2011Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

PM

2

AM & PM

3

PM

4

AM & PM

5 6

AM & PM (1 hour)

7

AM & PM

8

AM

9

AM

10

PM

11

AM & PM

12

PM

13

AM (2)

14

PM

15 16 17

AM

18 19 20

21 22

PM

23 24 25 26 27

28 29

AM (1 hour)

30

AM

31

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

52

September 2011Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1

PM (1.5 hours)

2

PM

3

4

AM

5 6 7 8 9 10

PM (1.5 hours)

11 12 13

PM

14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30

TIME SHIFT KEY: AM = 8A -12P, PM = 4 - 8P

53

Appendix C.

Transcript of Park Survey Comments:

Renovations Identified by Visitors

and

Perceived Impact of Renovations

54

Response to the Survey Question:

If aware of changes, what changes have you noticed?

Workout machine, paved trail Lifetrail, path Lifetrail, paved road and trail Lifetrail, paved trail Path Playground, crossing street, cleaning Playground Playground Lifetrail Playground, lifetrail, rose garden Paved trail and brick wall Playground, bathrooms Playground Exercise Lifetrail, paved path, new bridges More flowers and clean pond Playground Playground Playground, lifetrail Walkway, bridges, playground, stream banks, stations, pavilion Playground, path, natural areas along creek Playground Path, growth zones along creek Playground Lifetrail, paved path, ponds/creek Bridge crossing, paths, ponds Lifetrail paved, cleaner Playground Playground Scenery, cleaner Lifetrail, pavement, ponds, creek Playground, flowers Playground Playground Playground Playground safer, crosswalk Lifetrail, paved pathways, playground Lifetrail, paved trail, walkway Playground, maintenance Playground, Lifetrail, paved path Lifetrail and paved paths

55

Playground, lifetrail Playground, paved paths Street crossing, bridge, Life fitness trail Pathway and exercise equipment Basketball courts, volleyball, lights, playground, life fitness stations Path, lifetrail, accommodation of wildlife, manner in which grounds are kept Playground, paving, exercise equipment, barrier Playground Playground, rose garden, etc. Bridges, paving, walkways, playground Lifetrail, paved walkway, playground, gardens Playground Playground Playground, paved Playground, fields Paving, lifetrail, riparian buffer zone, ponds, house cafe, bridge Asphalt path, cobblestone, playground Playground, more people at pool Path paved, signs Path Playground Paved walkway, lifetrail, trellisses, ponds Pavement, lifetrail, playground, bridge, crosswalk Path, bridges, crossing, bathroom, playground Lifetrail, paving Paving, buffer zones, bridges, sculptures, playground Playground, picnic tables Lifetrail, rose garden, trees planted Playground Lifetrail additions, paving of trails Physical improvement of park facilities, promotion of activities Playground, maintenance of walking paths The park/playground Upgrade lifetrail Playground Fitness trails Bridges, walking path Bridges, playground, paving, trails, lake bank Playground, walkways paved Streamside improvement Paved trail, exercise, playground Lifetrail and paved path Life trail, paved paths, playground Playground, new pavilion The playground Playground, trail

56

Paved path, newer flowers Paved trail Playground Playground, cleaner Playground, paved trail Life trail Playground Pavement, life trail Bridges, life trail, pavement, crossing, ponds Lifetrail, pavement, creek/pond Bridges, path Paths, lifetrail, ponds Lifetrail, cleaner Lifetrail Playground and new crosswalk Playground Playground Playground, crosswalk, life trail Playground Playground, crosswalk Life trail, paved path, playground Lifetrail, playground New flowers, lifetrail, playground Life trail, paved path Paved path, playground, cleaner Markers, cleaning and expanding Paths resurfaced, new equipment, and playground Paths are nicer, new equipment, better upkeep The paving, physical fitness equipment, garden The playground, more artwork and paths Playground, lake bank Paved trail, playground Playground and lifetrail Playground, crosswalk, paved trail Playground and lifetrail Playground Playground Crosswalk, playground Playground Playground, paved trail Playground, lifetrail Lifetrail, playground, mulched, new trees Playground is cleaner Paved trail, playground Paved walkway, trellises, improvements to rose garden, ponds Playground, lifetrail, picnic tables, bridges

57

Playground, picnic table, bridges, mulch crossings, lifetrails, paving Lifetrail, ponds Path paved, dredging ponds, bridges, lifetrail Playground Lifetrail, growth zones, cleaner Bridges, paved Creek cleaner, landscaping along ponds, playground, paved path Playgrounds, paths Paved walkways, rose garden has paths, playground Playground Sidewalks, crosswalk, exercise equipment Just heard is was renovated, didn't notice changes New exercise equipment, painting park building Paved paths, playground Playground, paths, cleaner Playground Boxing/basketball tournament Playground Lifetrail, pavement, ponds Pavement, finger ponds, lifetrail, rose garden, painting offices, pavilion, playground Lifetrail, pavement Lifetrail, pavement, pavilion Pavement, bridges, lifetrail Playground, barbeque pits, paddleboats Playground Playground and bridges Playground, lifetrail, paddleboats Paths, trees trimmed, playground looks nicer Pavement, playground, rose garden Lifetrails, pavement, playground, pavilions, ponds Playground, bridges Playground Paved paths, fitness stations, playground Paved, playground, fitness stations Playground, paved walkways, ball courts Playground and trail Playground New playground, some other things Exercise stations Playground, paved trail, lifetrail Playground Paved trail, playground, flowers Paved trail, lifetrail Lifetrail, playground, crosswalk Lifetrail, playground Pavilion, playground

58

Pathways, playground, artwork Playground, bridge Lifetrail, paved, playgrounds, crosswalk, rose gardens, growth zones Pavement, lifetrail Pavement, lifetrail stations, rose garden, ponds, playground Lifetrail, Rose Garden fountain, painted buildings, green zone around creek Lifetrail, growth zone, paved walkway, rose garden, ditch from construction Lifetrail, growth zones, playground Playground, paved trail Better upkeep Playground, flowers, crosswalk Paved path Paved path, playground Playground, crosswalk Playground Pavement, Lifetrail, grow zones, bridges Lifetrail Pavement, playground Playground, rose garden Ponds are nicer, playground, improved courts All of them, more activity since completion Playground, crosswalk Playground, paved path, lifetrail Playground, crosswalk Pavement, grow zones, lifetrail Playground Lifetrail, playground, bridges, crosswalk Pond, playground, trellisses, paved, lifetrail Playground Fitness courts, pavements Life trails, pathways Lifetrail, playground, fountains, sitting area Park and pavilions, lifetrails New bridges, playground, pathway Playground The playground, improvement on grounds The playground The fitness equipment, more plant, improved walking trails Path, more environment creek, bridges, more doggy poop stations Black top, life stations, new picnic, playground, bridges Pathway and lifetrail Lifetrail stations, playground, pathways Playground, walkway, growth, Lifetrail stations, rose garden fountain, pathways Playground Playground, Lifetrail stations, pathway

59

Playground Park in general, playground, rose garden, Lifetrail stations Playground, new flowers, paved paths Life trail, path Flowers, path, upkeep Playground, life trail, crosswalk Life trail, paved path Playground, life trail, crosswalk Pavilions, crosswalk, playground Playground Playground, cleaner Playground, crosswalk Paths, workout stations, and pavilions Playground Walking path paved, pond Path paved, Lifetrail Paved, grow zones, Lifetrail, pavilions, playground, restoration efforts Lifetrail, playground Lifetrail, pavement, rose garden, playground, crosswalk Playground, restrooms Playground, rose garden, paths, bridge Curb in parking lot, playground Playground, ponds, paths Life trail, playground, crosswalk Life trail, paved trail Playground, life trail Playground, pavilion, crosswalk Life trail, paved path, playground The playground, lifetrail Playground, bridges, crosswalk New playground, everything is beautiful Life walk New hard-scaping, updated pavilion Playground Cleaner, pathway, exercise station Lifetrail stations, pathways Paved pathways, lifestations, ponds, playgrounds, bridges, crosswalk The playground Playground Tracks, rose garden, bridge, playground, restroom, parking Lifetrail stations, playground Pathways, growth by lake Gardens are changed, playground The playground Lifetrail, paths redone Ponds and redone walkways

60

The playground and new walking pathways Paved path, fitness stations Fitness stations, paved walkways, playground, fountain in rose garden Paved walkways, new trellises in rose garden Fitness stations, paved pathways Lifetrail Lifetown Pavement, rose garden, lifetrail, ponds, playground Lifetrail, grow zones, dog bags, trees planted, playground Pavement, lifetrail, ponds Lifetrail Grow zones, playground, walkways, lifetrail, bridges Playground, rose garden, bridges, pavement Pavement, trellises, playground Playground Playground Playground, picnic tables No specifics Path, lifetrail, playground, rose garden Rose garden, bridge, playground, ponds, paving, paint buildings Playground, lifetrail Playground, general beauty Path, lifetrail, playground, rose garden paved walkways, fitness stations, ponds, bridge at Ott St Trails Paved walkway, playground Grow zones, pavement, better maintenance, rose garden, ponds Paths, exercise stations, playground Playground, paddleboats Playground, rose garden, bridges, trails, arbors, ponds, fountains Rose garden Playground Playground Fitness center, playground Playground Playground Playground Lifetrail Lifetrail, pavement, rose garden, picnic tables Pavement Playground, lifetrail, pavement Playground Pavement, lifetrail, playground, rose garden

61

Response to the Survey Question:

In your own words, what has been the impact of Cedar Creek Parkway renovations for yourself, your family, or the greater Allentown Community?

Hope they keep up with technology and use money to invest in parks. Helped bring more people out here Lifetrail equipment - gets people to visit Can bring mother in wheelchair, she gets out more and does lifetrail, meets people More welcoming place to come jog Came with family and church picnic Out of town grandchildren - place for play. Nicest playground ever experienced.

Seven grandchildren here - all love it. Clean and nice place to play No impact More people coming and enjoying renovated areas Relaxing atmosphere and exercise equipment Paved and nicer, no more mud Playground Playground Lifetrail Playground and safety Safe place for recreation Community cohesiveness Makes it look nicer, more attractive and varied Improved desirability of being at park and accessibility, bike crossing, etc. Pleasant, nice surroundings. Feels safe Improved walking ability for myself and dogs Can take son to playground, like picnic, trails, walkways altogether Gets more people out to use the lifetrail Much needed, more pleasant place to visit, walks are nicer Nice place to go. Safe, clean, beautiful More time in the playground, all have families that bring other kids from daycare Provides track team a place to work out, brings the team together in a safe place Playground, more for kids to do, pavilions Playground Playground Kids have a safe place to have fun and play Playground for my kids Providing a nice clean outdoor space for physical activity for people of all ages I come to enjoy its beauty and relax It's very well kept for its visitors The paved pathways The lifetrail is like an outdoor gym. It's great Playground The nicer pathway, no more dirt

62

Wonderful benefit Aesthetics More family exercise, health benefits Provides wonderful opportunity for exercise and open space, healthy social activities,

family engagement, aesthetically valuable Great for grandson, we can spend more time together, and use exercise equipment Attracts more people Very great, playground is a little rough when it is extremely packed, less rocks in

pavilions Trash cans, shade, seating, water/vending machines Cleaner water, more adventurous trails, more fun and difficult There’s more variety in flowers, roses not bloomed, good place to get away Rollerblading, advertisements, shuttle services Scummy pond Attacked by dog in previous visit, dogs need leash enforcement, should investigate

who is booking pavilions, more water, more dog signs, big, two languages More water, more signs to promote bikes, love it! More shade to run in, harder exercise stations More people Increased positive experience, more enjoyable It's easier to bring kids, stay longer, greater variety of activities for people of all ages New place for kids to play Makes people aware of special needs people Playground gets kids doing something constructive, good exercise, family bonding Pride to community, place to go surrounded by beauty Community benefits… playground brings in more people, asphalt increases

accessibility for elderly and young mothers. No change for me personally, not a fan of asphalt

More comfortable when the playground was not there, behavioral issues and noisy at playground

People come more regularly, feel good here More time outside, walking the dog Community comes to park more often Easier to use stroller on paths, looks nicer Increasing number of people in the park so I feel safer, especially as a lone runner More pleasure, better kept Safe place to take dogs Brings more people to the park, more accessibility for different groups of people,

addresses many different ages More sense of community, safe place for kids to be Playground was an excellent addition, I like increased trees and equipment Spending more time with the kids because there are more things for the kids to do Keeps me healthy, a nice peaceful place to be Bringing communities, families, children together for activities, picnics, etc... No opinion Gave children more of an opportunity to play Doesn't remember much of park before 2009 More people are now coming out. Kids and families making use of the park People like it, exercise more It has impacted my family and the greater Allentown community Inviting for the community to come, gives kids place to play

63

Nice place to take daughter in stroller, feel safe, enjoy paved walkways Park in general is a blessing to the community The fact that it's well kept No comment The new playground for kids Definitely the playground The cleanliness and playground Life trail The beauty, lovely place to walk It's beauty and relaxing atmosphere The playground for the kids The cleanliness and upkeep, playground The playground Better physical fitness; more garbage cans, doggie bags, and bathrooms More family oriented Better for handicapped, doesn't matter to me Good for everything Gets more people here to do physical activity. Place a sign at crosswalk please. Provides more activities, etc.; Suggestions: bike lane, more water fountains, more

activities for youth and disabled (mental disabilities), kids peace, etc. Paved walkways are nice in bad weather No impact for me Increasing health and wellness The playground for my kids Probably the playground Playground The playground The atmosphere Don't know Playground The better upkeep Its beauty has increased and the playground for the kids The life trail The playground Bathrooms are gross, be courteous to people when cutting grass, more trash cans Peaceful and great environment Provides a safe place to relax, exercise, and cool off Park looks better so people are more inclined to visit and be active The garden is more beautiful, the ponds are renovated, making the park more

enjoyable. The pavement makes things like bike riding easier Increased safety and togetherness, watching the kids get along with each other and

having someone to contact when there's a problem Able to feel safe, children more active The playground and better maintenance The lifetrail The playground Lifetrail to encourage better/healthier lifestyle Not sure The playground Playground The playground

64

The playground Playground, it is very popular The paved pathway and beautiful flowers Makes people want to come more, families, safer for kids. The community feels more

invested in the park No change; clean up better - dogs, trash, kids More activities that you can do closer to home; Comment - pool needs update Better appearance, close, free Nicer place to visit, increases activity stations and playground; Comment -

destruction of park after events, algae in ponds Playground, gives families a place to visit, entertains children; Comments - soccer

leagues, more bleachers, more benches, need water fountains near swimming pool, water fountains near swimming pool broken, clean restrooms!, need toilet paper/paper towels

Positive impact, a playground for families Stay longer; Comments - Signs at crosswalk, dogs on leash! Come more often for playground Place to come and feel at peace Park - better kept and beautiful Nicer place to come - I come more often now Loose baskets on basketball hoops More benches, more restrooms Sometimes weird people in park, police needed For the community, the playground is a big thing, for myself no impact More receptive, can like it more Visit more often, more people utilize it Nicer walking Overall win for everyone No big change for us More family quality time Gives kids place to play, bridges are safer Sense of pride in Allentown community; it looks nicer - get out in open Can jog/walk in winter because of paving Too much non-natural additions, lifetrail waste of money, bikers are dangerous - no

rules, trashed on weekends - no rules or supervision More trash - no regulations, good to increase access for handicapped children Dislike pavement, good playground - increased access for kids More walking and activities Nice for kids Seems more progressive, better for kids It's easier to bring kids here. We have no yard so it is nice to have play time outside Nicer to look at, playground teaches tolerance for kids Brings more sense of community Aesthetics are better, makes it a park to be used, not just looked at Provides a safe environment for kids Benefits the community, creates more traffic (personally, I liked it better before) Wider variety of activities, kids can be safe Community focus, health benefits, more opportunities for families to enjoy a day

together, able to do a greater variety of activities Increased excitement for the parks, improved quality of life Very accessible, great addition

65

A great place for families Just a fun place now to bring kids and let them run around Makes people want to come to the park more The new renovations bring more people out to enjoy what the park has to offer The playground for little kids The new flowers are beautiful to see The lifetrail to encourage healthy lifestyle Better place for community to take advantage of The playground for the kids Playground, nicer for my family, more activities, enjoy coming more Meeting new people Nice place to go with children More people in park More people in park, promotes physical activity More people in park, looks nicer Excellent for community, to use lifetrail stations to improve health Brings more people to park, more bikers Weeds along stream are depressing, inhibits view/access to stream Positive change, people use park more in different ways The playground for the younger kids It attracts more people out in the community There's lots of things for kids to do The paved trail is so much better for biking It is a beautiful place, renovations make it more beautiful The playground is great for kids, Allentown needed this The playground Easier to walk, better environmental qualities for stream Paved trails are easier to walk on, safer because of bridges Pavement - harder for running, better for biking Great getaway from stress; to relax Made the park system more family oriented The playground for the little kids to get exercise Playground was a great addition for building the community Quiet, safe environment Created more traffic in park (especially bicyclists) Safer environment, playground is beautiful – a positive image for Allentown Makes me want to bring family to park without hesitation Now bring grandson, great that city advances/improves park system Can come more often Playground is a tremendous asset. Pavement through rose garden is attractive but

around course doesn't make a difference – it is hotter. Place for people to come. Clean, safe, fun. Provides somewhere to go close to home. Wide range of activities to do Good place to meet up with family. De-stress after a long day Good job on bridges, nice place to come, exercise, picnic, release, stress and anxiety Beautiful playground for grandkids Park for the children helps create a good atmosphere and helps people get together It's more enjoyable for the children now that they have a playground to play on The renovations had no personal effect Come here in rain now, nicer, cleaner, updated More pathways, water, beauty of scenery, allow sightseeing

66

Enhance value for people who live here Playground for grandkids Suggestion: Flashing yellow signs at crosswalk, drainage after rain, picnic Togetherness. Suggestions: add vending machines Playground - for grandchildren and out of town guests, walkway to exercise, there is

more here for everybody Suggestions/comments: More bathrooms, more water fountains, more lights.

Favorite park, great playground, traveling far is worth it The park looks cleaner and better kept and therefore more welcoming They made renovations that affected people of all ages. They were all important The new flowers are absolutely beautiful - my favorite I can get my exercise in and there's things to keep my kids entertained For me, the new life trail. More advanced things to do now Great place for the family to spend time - lots to do The playground probably has the biggest impact in bringing the community together The playground Renovations encourage families to get outside The playground Enhanced community Looks nicer, more family friendly Positive changes, aesthetics Made the park more open for everyone, creek is cleaner and path is cleaner Hopeful that environment can be restored and have a park that respects its natural

roots Playground is great for the community More enjoyable place to come More family-oriented, more activities besides swimming Brings more families to parks, creates connections between families, good for

younger children No change for me, more people at park and pool Love the playground - good support for children Good for swimming, eating, picnicking, playing, exercising The life trail, the updates and additions have improved the trails The better upkeep and beautiful flowers The life trail improvements The paved trail is better than the gravel Gives kids the opportunity to play outside in a safe environment It makes the community look more beautiful and brings more people outside The playground gets the little ones running around and exercising Courage to use the park more often It's an area worthy of preservation and improvement to better serve the community Stress reducer Don't like exercise ones, trying too hard, life stations. i.e. just get pull up bars Perfect to encounter nature in an urban environment It's a great thing, a place for children to play. Suggestions - intersection - safety

issue. Really, really happy the playground is cared after. Children with disabilities and without can interact

Suggestions: Long time for park to recover from activities, It's a mess. Bikers etiquette, like Trexler park

In winter, we are able to use park more No comment

67

It's a good park to work No comment Renovations had a positive impact. Gratitude It gets the kids outside for some exercise and fresh air. Gets the kids to play with

their parents Playground brought in lots of people, big attraction Kids more involved in physical activities Keep park well maintained, new things to enjoy, truly a treasure Serenity and peacefulness Brings repeat users - encourages regular use Good for the community, especially children Helped me come out and do more physical activity, easier to walk Gets more people down in park Enhances park, can run after bad weather in winter More people using park, more cyclists Brings inner city kids out, nice place to play There’s been an uproar about pavement - runoff into creek Offers more to do for families, probably perturbs neighbors/locals because of outside

visitors More family friendly, go more often More family oriented, come more often Lifetrail improves ability for different people to come out (handicapped) Bike riding – increases this use, encourages exercise - makes it easier Overall aesthetics are better More variety for people to exercise and be healthy More bikes, makes it easier to exercise Do more walking, it is more crowded, more bikes - hazardous No impact Safer place to play for kids Less convenient - less of park to use, no impact on me, weed growth obstructs use of

stream, poison ivy in grow zones Looks better Gives grandchildren a nicer playground than at schools for play Increased variety of activities, can do more activities because of trails Beauty, aesthetic value More stuff for people to do Good for fitness/keeping active Brings in people of all ages, free Playground is a good place to bring children Brings family together More people here now, more people exercising Beneficial for youth and adults, bridge repair - definitely needed it, pavement -

preserves grass Healthier lifestyle, safer for kids More usage, especially kids (handicapped too) Better for kids to bike, playground is fantastic - all sorts of people Bikers make me nervous - dangerous, playground is great - but crowded, good place

to bring my grandchildren

68

Appendix D.

Focus Group Interview Guide

69

Cedar Creek Parkway Focus Group Question GuideIntroductory Questions

1. Please briefly introduce yourself (names and any other information they want to share; will be transformed into pseudonyms later to ensure anonymity).

2. How long have you been living in the Allentown area? Any new residents, long term residents?

3. How long have you been visiting Cedar Creek Parkway (CCP)?

4. Which features or activities within CCP are your favorites?

5. What is your main reason for using CCP (physical activity, relaxation, spirituality, being outdoors)? Why do you choose CCP as your destination of choice for this activity?

Park Renovation Questions

Some of you may be aware that Cedar Creek Parkway was recently renovated with a number of upgrades and new facilities… (We have a number of discussion questions related to those renovations)

6. Have you personally noticed any physical or structural changes at this park over the last year? If so, what changes have you noticed? – If playground comes up, table the topic for more detailed discussion in Q8

7. Do you feel that these changes have had an impact on either the overall quality of the park? Have these changes affected your own use and enjoyment of the park?

8. Do you feel that the renovations at CCP catered to your (or your family’s) specific age and lifestyle group? If so, what renovations worked well and why?

9. In your opinion, have these renovations changed the characteristics of the users (who are now coming to the park), of safety levels (while in the park or traveling to the park), or physical activity levels (how active visitors are within this park)? – Potential probing question if response to earlier questions is limited.

10. In your own words, what do you feel are the primary benefits of the CCP renovation for yourself, your family/friends, and/or the greater Allentown community?

11. Have any of these changes decreased your own enjoyment at this park? Has there been any “down-side” or negative aspects from these renovations?

12. How do you feel parks could be designed to maximize health (either physical or mental health) benefits in your community?

13. How do you feel that CCP or the Allentown parks system in general, could be improved (for your own age/lifestyle group or for people of Allentown in general)?

70

Appendix E.

Principal Investigators’ Bio-Sketches:

71

Andrew J. Mowen, Ph.D.

Dr. Mowen is an Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at The Pennsylvania State University. He has evaluated park and recreation policies and practices for over twenty years. Dr. Mowen was formerly the Research Manager for Cleveland Metroparks, a three-time National Gold Medal Award® winning agency. There, he conducted over twenty studies which evaluated the impact of park programs and policies on the leisure preferences and behaviors of Cleveland area residents. He has experience in conducting longitudinal assessments of leisure behavior and management practices. Dr. Mowen also helped to develop a model trail and visitor monitoring system for Cleveland Metroparks, which provided objective recreation and trail counts covering the Park District’s entire 20,000 acres and 100+ entrances. This monitoring system has earned him the 1999 Vision Award of Excellence for Management Processes and was highlighted at both national and international recreation use monitoring conferences.

Since his appointment at Penn State in 2002, Dr. Mowen has focused on understanding the linkages between park services and social/economic benefits. He was Co-Investigator for the 2008-2013 Pennsylvania Outdoor Recreation Plan and Principal Investigator for two economic impact studies at Pennsylvania State Parks. Dr. Mowen’s research and viewpoints can be found in over 50 publications representing journals such as the Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Leisure Sciences, Journal of Leisure Research, Parks & Recreation, Park and Rec Business, Pennsylvania Recreation and Parks, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Preventive Medicine, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Disasters, and the Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector Marketing. Andrew is a member of the Pennsylvania Recreation and Parks Society, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, and the National Recreation and Parks Association Research Advisory Committee. He also serves as a board member for the Pennsylvania Parks and Forests Foundation.

Benjamin D. Hickerson, Ph.D.

Dr. Hickerson is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management at The Pennsylvania State University. He teaches courses in community recreation including Legal Aspects of Recreation Services, Nonprofit Management, and Recreation for People with Disabilities. His research is focused on positive health behaviors for adolescents and emerging adults in natural, built, and virtual environments. Much of this research has occurred in youth summer camps, where he has examined the camp-based social ecological correlates of youth development. Dr. Hickerson has written scientific publications for Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Journal of Youth Development, Journal of Outdoor Recreation Education, Journal of Leisure Research, and Society & Leisure.. He is currently a Faculty Senator at Penn State and serves as an invited reviewer for numerous leisure-based scientific journals. Dr. Hickerson’s leisure interests include ice hockey, video games, and visiting state and local parks.

72