Focus Groups of Park Administrators and Residents Regarding Dog Park Development and Success: A Case Study in Norfolk, Virginia

IF 0.7 Q4 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM Journal of Park and Recreation Administration Pub Date : 2023-06-05 DOI:10.18666/jpra-2022-11260
E. Gómez, L. Usher, K. T. Centers
{"title":"Focus Groups of Park Administrators and Residents Regarding Dog Park Development and Success: A Case Study in Norfolk, Virginia","authors":"E. Gómez, L. Usher, K. T. Centers","doi":"10.18666/jpra-2022-11260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two focus groups were conducted as part of a case study to reflect on dog park success in Norfolk, Virginia. One focus group included administrators from Norfolk Parks and Recreation dog park staff. The second focus group included member residents from neighborhood civic leagues or dog park associations. Two general guiding questions for the focus groups were: (a) What are the essential aspects of successful dog parks? and (b) What policies and procedures were developed for dog parks? Topical areas reflecting the first question included essential aspects of successful dog parks and the general benefits of dog parks. Topical areas reflecting the second question included the reasons why dog parks were established in Norfolk and the policies and procedures for establishing dog parks. City administrators and residents participating in the focus groups agreed overall about why dog parks were established in Norfolk—in response to a community need due to dense population, small yards, and apartment buildings. There was agreement between both groups regarding amenities that make dog parks successful—fencing, water, and shade; however, other amenities for success varied according to structural or functional aspects. Despite the similarities in the two focus group discussions about reasons for dog park establishment, the discussions diverged once researchers asked about policies related to the establishment and maintenance of dog parks. Residents expressed frustration with being charged with half of the establishment and upkeep of the dog park. The discussion followed frameworks of public engagement, power dynamics, and co-production/co-governance. Management implications include revisiting or adjusting policies related to dog park development (including fundraising), taking into consideration a highly transient population and its implications for dog park association leadership, consideration of a dog park liaison, and problems associated with unfenced dog parks. Norfolk dog parks were found to be highly successful and civic leaders noted Norfolk park administrators have been responsive to resident needs, and they were given an opportunity for feedback on the process.","PeriodicalId":46684,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Park and Recreation Administration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Park and Recreation Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18666/jpra-2022-11260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Two focus groups were conducted as part of a case study to reflect on dog park success in Norfolk, Virginia. One focus group included administrators from Norfolk Parks and Recreation dog park staff. The second focus group included member residents from neighborhood civic leagues or dog park associations. Two general guiding questions for the focus groups were: (a) What are the essential aspects of successful dog parks? and (b) What policies and procedures were developed for dog parks? Topical areas reflecting the first question included essential aspects of successful dog parks and the general benefits of dog parks. Topical areas reflecting the second question included the reasons why dog parks were established in Norfolk and the policies and procedures for establishing dog parks. City administrators and residents participating in the focus groups agreed overall about why dog parks were established in Norfolk—in response to a community need due to dense population, small yards, and apartment buildings. There was agreement between both groups regarding amenities that make dog parks successful—fencing, water, and shade; however, other amenities for success varied according to structural or functional aspects. Despite the similarities in the two focus group discussions about reasons for dog park establishment, the discussions diverged once researchers asked about policies related to the establishment and maintenance of dog parks. Residents expressed frustration with being charged with half of the establishment and upkeep of the dog park. The discussion followed frameworks of public engagement, power dynamics, and co-production/co-governance. Management implications include revisiting or adjusting policies related to dog park development (including fundraising), taking into consideration a highly transient population and its implications for dog park association leadership, consideration of a dog park liaison, and problems associated with unfenced dog parks. Norfolk dog parks were found to be highly successful and civic leaders noted Norfolk park administrators have been responsive to resident needs, and they were given an opportunity for feedback on the process.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公园管理者和居民关注狗公园的发展和成功:弗吉尼亚州诺福克的案例研究
作为一个案例研究的一部分,两个焦点小组进行了调查,以反映弗吉尼亚州诺福克市狗狗公园的成功。一个焦点小组包括诺福克公园的管理人员和休闲狗公园的工作人员。第二个焦点小组包括来自社区公民联盟或狗公园协会的居民成员。针对焦点小组提出的两个一般性指导问题是:(a)成功的狗狗公园的基本要素是什么?(二)当局为狗只公园制订了甚么政策及程序?反映第一个问题的主题领域包括成功的狗公园的基本方面和狗公园的一般好处。反映第二个问题的主题领域包括在诺福克建立狗公园的原因以及建立狗公园的政策和程序。参与焦点小组的城市管理者和居民对为什么在诺福克建立狗公园达成了总体共识——这是为了应对人口密集、院子小、公寓楼多的社区需求。两组人在狗狗公园成功的设施上达成了一致——围栏、水和树荫;然而,成功的其他便利条件根据结构或功能方面而有所不同。尽管两个焦点小组在讨论建立狗公园的原因时有相似之处,但当研究人员问到与狗公园的建立和维护相关的政策时,讨论出现了分歧。居民们对狗狗公园的一半建设和维护费用被收取感到沮丧。讨论遵循了公众参与、权力动态和共同生产/共同治理的框架。管理方面的影响包括重新审视或调整与狗公园发展相关的政策(包括筹款),考虑到大量流动人口及其对狗公园协会领导的影响,考虑狗公园的联络,以及与无围栏的狗公园相关的问题。诺福克狗狗公园被认为非常成功,市政领导人指出,诺福克公园的管理人员对居民的需求做出了回应,他们有机会就这一过程获得反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
23.10%
发文量
40
期刊最新文献
The Management of Parks and Public Spaces in the Context of Unsheltered Homelessness: Perspectives from Three Key Stakeholder Groups Classifying Rural Parks: A Case Study in Iowa A Study of Parents’ Perceived Constraints on Participating in Outdoor Leisure Activities with Their Children in Japan Community-University Partnerships: The Benefits of Collaboration in Measuring Public Support for a Community Recreation Center s Recreation Part of the Story? Stakeholders’ Narratives about Youth Retention in a Rural State
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1