{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Focus Groups of Park Administrators and Residents Regarding Dog Park Development and Success: A Case Study in Norfolk, Virginia
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.