­

2018’s Best & Worst Cities for Recreation

2:42 AM

Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Staying active isn’t just good for your health. It’s also good for your wallet. One of the best ways to maintain an active lifestyle is to choose a city that encourages and facilitates recreation. The best cities have a wide range of leisure activities, both indoor and outdoor. Those activities require varying levels of exercise and contribute to a city’s overall well-being and economy.

Consider neighborhood parks, which are instrumental to building a sense of community, boosting property values, improving public health and reducing pollution. In Washington, for instance, close proximity to a park increases a home’s value by 5 percent while the same types of spaces in Sacramento, Calif., result in nearly $20 million in health care savings. “A regular vigorous run can cut medical costs by an average of $250 a year” per individual, according to The Trust for Public Land. Recognizing these benefits, 100 major U.S. cities together invested more than $7 billion in parks and recreation in 2017.

But some cities offer more and cheaper options than others. To determine the places where recreation is a high priority, WalletHub compared the 100 largest U.S. cities across 45 key metrics that speak to the benefits of recreational activities. In each city, we examined basic living costs, the quality of parks, the accessibility of entertainment and recreational facilities and the weather. Read on for our findings, expert commentary and a full description of our methodology.

  1. Main Findings
  2. Ask the Experts
  3. Methodology

Main Findings

Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/5144/geochart-recreation2.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="https://ift.tt/2lNP1uK>  

Best Cities for Recreation

Overall Rank (1=Best)

City

Total Score

‘Entertainment & Recreational Facilities’ Rank

‘Costs’ Rank

‘Quality of Parks’ Rank

‘Weather’ Rank
1 Orlando, FL 60.03 1 18 48 28
2 Las Vegas, NV 57.47 7 31 35 18
3 San Diego, CA 55.15 4 80 14 34
4 Cincinnati, OH 53.68 16 3 17 58
5 Tampa, FL 53.02 15 47 79 13
6 Atlanta, GA 52.32 9 63 28 41
7 Scottsdale, AZ 51.75 27 51 29 3
8 Tucson, AZ 51.11 28 12 67 16
9 Boise, ID 50.10 46 2 62 26
10 Philadelphia, PA 49.62 13 67 27 52
11 Pittsburgh, PA 49.46 18 26 13 84
12 Chicago, IL 49.28 3 89 4 92
13 Los Angeles, CA 49.23 14 95 57 7
14 St. Louis, MO 49.18 22 11 15 94
15 Honolulu, HI 48.86 12 86 23 43
16 Minneapolis, MN 48.60 20 41 6 77
17 Seattle, WA 48.56 8 84 7 70
18 Portland, OR 48.49 10 58 24 78
19 San Francisco, CA 48.26 2 99 12 49
20 Omaha, NE 48.09 35 9 5 75
21 Denver, CO 47.98 17 55 22 64
22 Phoenix, AZ 47.49 49 21 68 17
23 Sacramento, CA 47.44 29 76 38 9
24 New Orleans, LA 46.84 23 70 8 53
25 Albuquerque, NM 46.73 50 43 16 37
26 St. Petersburg, FL 46.37 42 34 44 40
27 Lincoln, NE 45.87 54 37 20 46
28 El Paso, TX 45.83 88 5 49 25
29 New York, NY 45.39 5 100 1 55
30 Reno, NV 45.38 45 24 88 27
31 Birmingham, AL 45.24 61 6 99 59
32 Colorado Springs, CO 45.24 47 30 52 42
33 Chandler, AZ 45.20 85 14 64 14
34 Detroit, MI 45.01 63 19 3 60
35 Columbus, OH 44.84 51 10 58 61
36 Long Beach, CA 44.84 58 74 40 12
37 Milwaukee, WI 44.59 34 8 41 95
38 Kansas City, MO 44.57 59 27 50 44
39 Cleveland, OH 44.35 24 28 43 83
40 Oklahoma City, OK 44.05 74 4 77 35
41 Washington, DC 43.97 6 97 18 93
42 San Antonio, TX 43.96 30 7 82 74
43 Austin, TX 43.96 19 53 73 81
44 Henderson, NV 43.79 78 46 76 4
45 Madison, WI 43.62 33 59 9 73
46 Tulsa, OK 43.14 60 38 75 30
47 Dallas, TX 43.01 32 29 54 72
48 Jacksonville, FL 43.01 40 44 34 67
49 Miami, FL 42.97 11 88 66 68
50 St. Paul, MN 42.89 38 36 31 69
51 Glendale, AZ 42.79 62 64 61 11
52 Irvine, CA 42.65 39 90 33 21
53 Stockton, CA 42.57 93 65 42 10
54 Buffalo, NY 42.08 26 48 30 100
55 Laredo, TX 41.93 100 1 80 31
56 Houston, TX 41.82 25 54 45 86
57 San Bernardino, CA 41.46 96 77 99 8
58 Greensboro, NC 41.45 70 23 39 57
59 North Las Vegas, NV 41.34 79 79 32 5
60 Mesa, AZ 41.25 76 50 78 20
61 Baton Rouge, LA 41.07 44 61 59 54
62 Fort Worth, TX 40.87 67 68 53 32
63 Nashville, TN 40.82 31 32 71 88
64 Virginia Beach, VA 40.76 41 52 26 90
65 Louisville, KY 40.59 43 13 84 91
66 Anaheim, CA 39.77 56 92 95 6
67 Bakersfield, CA 39.73 98 57 93 2
68 Corpus Christi, TX 39.63 65 45 37 66
69 Winston-Salem, NC 39.61 81 56 72 39
70 Indianapolis, IN 39.55 36 17 92 99
71 Garland, TX 39.53 86 60 83 33
72 Lexington-Fayette, KY 39.51 72 15 85 62
73 Raleigh, NC 39.44 52 40 69 79
74 Lubbock, TX 39.36 87 39 65 48
75 San Jose, CA 39.29 64 87 47 23
76 Fresno, CA 39.28 92 42 87 19
77 Boston, MA 39.06 21 98 11 98
78 Chesapeake, VA 38.93 90 69 21 47
79 Santa Ana, CA 38.90 66 85 74 21
80 Toledo, OH 38.73 97 20 56 50
81 Norfolk, VA 38.67 55 81 25 62
82 Plano, TX 38.47 75 75 46 45
83 Baltimore, MD 38.46 37 83 19 89
84 Riverside, CA 38.00 83 82 97 1
85 Arlington, TX 37.88 82 62 91 36
86 Charlotte, NC 37.74 48 49 96 71
87 Newark, NJ 37.65 77 33 36 97
88 Fremont, CA 37.60 99 96 10 24
89 Chula Vista, CA 37.10 95 66 90 29
90 Aurora, CO 36.40 71 71 51 65
91 Memphis, TN 36.39 68 22 94 87
92 Gilbert, AZ 36.38 91 35 98 14
93 Fort Wayne, IN 36.13 69 25 89 96
94 Oakland, CA 35.73 53 94 63 51
95 Durham, NC 35.53 57 73 86 79
96 Wichita, KS 35.44 94 16 81 85
97 Anchorage, AK 35.43 73 91 2 82
98 Hialeah, FL 34.83 80 93 70 38
99 Jersey City, NJ 34.48 89 78 60 55
100 Irving, TX 34.45 84 72 55 76

Artwork-2017-Best-&-Worst-Cities-for-Recreation-v2

Ask the Experts: Green-Saving Green Spaces

Public facilities are known to enhance public health, a city’s economy and the beauty of a community — but only when planned and managed carefully. We therefore turned to a panel of experts for advice on improving municipal parks and recreation options. Click on the experts’ profiles below to read their bios and responses to the following key questions:

  1. What are some cost-effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities?
  2. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities?
  3. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., the elderly or children)?
  4. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity?
  5. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  6. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation?
< > Tania Santiago Instructor of Recreational Therapy in the Department of Leadership and Professional Studies at Florida International University Tania Santiago What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Developing more community support and creating partnerships with organizations that have the common goal of promoting health, wellness, conservation, sustainability, and social equity is key. Parks and Recreation departments need to position themselves as health and wellness resources for the community, and get both private and public funding. With appropriate partnerships, local authorities can expand and better the infrastructure (facilities), services, and programming that parks and recreation departments offer to the community. Funding for local park operations comes from the general fund in most communities. This reliance in subsidized programs and facilities is difficult to maintain, especially in an environment where the general perception is that parks and recreation services are less essential than some other local government services. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Building facilities and programs that are not sustainable, or that do not meet the present and future needs and wants of the community. Local authorities need to put more effort in the development of the master plans for each facility, and update that plan periodically, taking into consideration trends and changes in recreation, and in the community. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? The most important aspect to consider when allocating funds is the need of the community. Need differs from community to community, so funding should go to recreational activities for the groups that a particular community has. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Bigger parks do not always mean better services. Local authorities should do more research into what the residents of a particular community need, so they can provide them with appropriate facilities and programs. It is fundamental to provide programs and services that help the community, that keep the community engaged, and that are sustainable. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? There should be an investment in parks and recreation, because parks are a good investment. However, local citizens need to decide if increasing taxes and/or debt levels is the best way. In my opinion, other viable ways to be considered are grants, partnerships and private funding. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  • Quality of parks and recreation facilities;
  • Access to recreational facilities, and activities;
  • Affordability;
  • Leisure time of the population;
  • Sense of community.
Louis Hodges Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences and Associate Head for Undergraduate Programs at Texas A&M University Louis Hodges What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Effectively using volunteers (Master Gardeners, for example, to maintain ornamental plantings in small spaces or neighborhoods) and looking for non-traditional funding sources. Athletic fields are expensive, but they may be used to attract out-of-town visitors for competitive events (tournaments), and anything that places “heads in beds” may qualify for partial funding through hotel-motel taxes -- we certainly use this in Texas to construct fields with artificial turf (which cost less to maintain than traditional grass fields). What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? There are several mistakes that are made with great regularity, but these two are particularly bad ones: First, inadequate attention to future maintenance costs -- if you don’t have the funds to properly maintain a park or facility, don’t purchase it or build it. If you do build a new facility, then perform a maintenance impact study first to estimate future costs. Also, to minimize those costs, build with ease of maintenance in mind -- that means using safe, durable materials which will minimize the costs of labor, since that is usually the major cost in maintaining a facility. For example, if you have a problem with graffiti in parks, consider building with concrete blocks with the same color throughout and with fluted exterior surfaces. Spray painting such surfaces does not really display the artwork, and, if it is done, sand blasting will still reveal the same exterior color. Second, don’t purchase or accept park land or facilities unless it is in accordance with a master plan for the municipality. And that master plan must include widespread citizen input on what is wanted or needed -- including not only voting-age adults and senior citizens, but teenagers and younger kids as well. You are not building for the past, but for the future, and tastes will change. Also, some gifts of lands, particularly the odds and ends of new developments may not be suitable for development, particularly if they are in the flood plain. Other lands may contain endangered species of plants or animals, and are thus off-limits to use or development. A ten-acre piece of land with the endangered Navasota Ladies’ Tresses (an orchid) is just a maintenance headache of no use. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Moot point, because sometimes it has to be done to maintain political support. However, it is a fallacy in most communities to assume that the elderly are on a fixed income and cannot pay for their recreation, or that recreational activities must be provided free to kids because they cannot pay. A financial reality is that without fees and charges we cannot provide public funding of recreation for everyone. In some places and times, however, there may be a social good resulting from providing funding of recreational activities for disadvantaged groups. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? One could not argue that a large park, such as Central Park in New York City or Memorial Park in Houston, does not provide benefits to the local community. But the size is certainly of less importance than the quality of the development -- the facilities, the natural resources, the landscaping and design must appeal to the citizens in order for them to reap the maximum benefits. The placement of the parks must be such that they are accessible to the intended clientele. Children in a particular neighborhood may be effectively prevented from utilizing a park if they must cross one or more busy streets to get there. You want both quality and quantity, but quantity is not necessarily size-related. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? In my community, we have seen that quality parks definitely attract potential residents. A particularly interesting example occurred when we worked with a developer to place apartment units adjacent to a park, with parking on the other side. He noted subsequently that those apartments adjacent to the park were always the first to be rented (and probably at a higher rate than the other units). If we are to acquire and develop those parks, it is necessary to do so in advance of development, and that means either raising taxes or incurring bonded indebtedness. To come back in and attempt to acquire park land after development has commenced means purchasing land at 10 to 20 times the cost per acre, if it is even available. Taxes or bonds are also needed to construct new athletic fields -- a Little League or Girl’s Softball organization may be able to maintain a field, but they cannot afford to purchase the land or build the fields. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? There are several indicators. Probably one of the best is to see how the community program is rated by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), which has a certification program for cities. If it is certified, then it is a safe bet that it runs a good, balanced program. You can also look at the municipality’s track record on bond issues. If the citizens regularly approve new bond issues, then it is likely that the residents approve of what is being done, because they are voting to tax themselves to provide those programs and facilities. What kind of relationship exists between the politically elected governing body of the city and the park department. Mayors and councilmen try to stay in touch with the voting citizens, and if there is a good relationship between the elected officials and the park and recreation department, then somebody thinks they are doing a good job. Forty years ago, a major indicator was the number of acres of parkland per 100 or 1000 citizens. In this case, quantity equated with quality, but that is really a measure of how far-sighted the city fathers were in acquiring land -- an important antecedent to a quality program, but not a really a good measure. The NRPA certification mentioned in the first point has a lot of other measures which you could consult for other ideas. They look at such measures as citizen input (advisory boards or commissions), volunteer involvement, per capita funding levels, hosting of regional or state-wide competitions or events, and professional levels (education) of staff. M. Jean Keller Professor in the Department of Kinesiology, Health Promotion and Recreation at the University of North Texas M. Jean Keller What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Explore public/private partnerships, seek sponsorships, and use citizen groups to fund raise and support bond issues. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Not ensuring there are adequate operations and maintenance funding over the life of the facility. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Based on needs and opportunities, prioritization is usually effective and efficient in getting new and needed programs started. The sustainability of a program should be considered early in the program planning process. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? The physical size of a park does not always correlate with great benefits. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Parks have good return on investment at multiple levels -- personal, business, education, health, and community. Heather Burket Instructor of Therapeutic Recreation and Internship Co-Coordinator in the College of Public Health, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Temple University Heather Burket What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities?
  • Splash pads instead of community pools;
  • Seasonal pop-up gardens (maintains equipment longer);
  • Solar panels;
  • Volunteer and Volunteen programs;
  • Grant funded programming;
  • Partnerships with businesses in the communities and non-for-profits that serve underprivileged populations.
What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Not utilizing concepts of universal design and accessibility. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Local authorities should absolutely prioritize funding for recreational activities for certain groups, such as any individual with a disability, or at-risk populations. Designing activities for individuals with differing abilities makes activities accessible to all, and helps empower underprivileged populations. Programming for children and youth is definitely a priority. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? No, I do not believe that the size of the park matters so much as the types of services that are provided, and the frequency of program options throughout the week. A variety of offerings during day, evening, and weekend are best. Having indoor and outdoor programming is important. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? I think that raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation would be a positive investment, in comparison to some of the ways that taxes and increased debt are spent currently. Providing positive no/low cost recreation outlets to individuals promotes healthy body, healthy mind, and positive community. It decreases problem behaviors in communities amongst youth. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  • Accessibility;
  • Universal design;
  • Indoor and outdoor space;
  • Variety of programming options;
  • Access to a certified therapeutic recreation specialist to lead programming for special populations.
Connie Edmonston Parks and Recreation Director in the City of Fayetteville Arkansas Connie Edmonston What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? There are several cost effective ways to improve parks and recreation facilities, such as:
  • Participation fees;
  • Rental/use fees;
  • Tax/mileage increase for parks;
  • Establishment of foundation and development practices;
  • Grants, foundations, etc.;
  • Establishment of a foundation or non-profit to support parks and recreation;
  • Various levels of sponsorships -- local and regional;
  • HMR tax dedicated for parks;
  • Development fees and requirements, such as Park Land Dedication Ordinance (Green Space Ordinance), requirement of land or money in lieu to support parks as new homes and businesses come into a city;
  • Development of a robust volunteer program to assist with maintenance, such as Adopt-A-Park or Trail, specialized maintenance projects, recreation coaches, special event assistance;
  • Obtaining grant matches by using volunteer manpower or expertise on projects;
  • Donation or memorial program for different park facilities including benches, art pieces, pavilions, etc.;
  • Park facility naming program, in which donors could name a park or park amenity by giving a donation;
  • Hosting special events, such as runs or bike rides, which have sponsors and entry fees;
  • Hosting various tournaments at your facility that attract visitors and create an economic engine in the city.
What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? A big mistake is to build to meet the existing need, instead of looking for future needs and opportunities. Another huge mistake is not having enough funding for maintenance and operational costs of the new facility, in addition to adding enough staff for maintenance and programming. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? We must provide experiences for all, regardless of their age, skill set, or special needs. Key to successful Parks and Recreation is to provide diversified parks and programs. We try to have something for everyone. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? The size of a park and the benefit it provides to a community are not directly linked. Mini-parks may provide as much benefit as a bigger park. Cities have a hard time balancing quality and quantity. Budgets are a limiting factor. If cities do not take land today to preserve as a park, green space or urban forest, the land will be gone for tomorrow for future generations to enjoy. Safety and risk management must be a priority in determining quality. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Yes, investing in parks and recreation is an investment in your citizens today and tomorrow. Parks and recreation adds to our citizen's quality of life, within our city. Good parks and recreation programs attract new businesses and residences to our city. It reduces crime, keeps citizens of all ages healthy and living an active lifestyle. Parks are community builders, giving citizens opportunity to socialize or engage in community service projects. Parks are a vital part of economic engines that lead to growth in industry and population increases. Participation in recreation programs prepares children for life learning skills, such as being on a team, commitment, leadership, encouragement, playing fair, being kind, obeying the rules, respecting authority (coach) and other developmental traits. It is found that adults who participated in sports as a child will have their fondest memories being on a team, and will in turn coach their child or other children on a team. Parks also educate citizens of all ages on how to protect our natural resources and be sustainable. Parks and Recreation Staff provide the public with leading-edge examples that utilize best practices in caring for our parks, in the areas of maintenance, horticulture, urban forestry and management of recreational programs. We provide programs that enrich the lives of our citizens and visitors. Parks and Recreation is a necessity for the quality of life of a city. The value that parks and recreation programs provide to our citizens is priceless. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  • Parks with unique natural features that are capitalized with sustainable, creative and user-friendly designs.
  • Parks with large water features, whether it be natural (lake or river) or man-made, such as a water park that provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities.
  • Adequate funding that increases to update, renovate, and properly maintain new and existing parks and recreation programs.
  • Balanced park facilities and recreational programs offered that meet the needs of the city's citizens, and obtaining the commitment and endorsement of parks and programs by the citizens.
  • Professional, progressive, creative and dedicated staff that are focused on providing the best parks and programs to the citizens in a city.
Bob Brookover Senior Lecturer in the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management at Clemson University Bob Brookover What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? While some agencies are very successful in using friends groups and fundraising, the most important thing is to build a sustainable funding model that generates and sets aside ongoing funds for operations, maintenance, upgrades, renovations, and replacement of facilities. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? See answer to last question -- elected officials tend to love the groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings, and getting facilities and amenities off the ground, but have unrealistic expectations that facilities will become completely self-supporting. The other big mistake I see local authorities and elected officials make is basing decisions on sunk costs and not being willing to move in a different direction, or holding on to an existing facility or park because of nostalgia, when selling or completely repurposing a piece of property and investing in alternatives is a better and more rational decision. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? In our work, which has included conducting lots of public input processes for municipal recreation agencies, we have found that citizens and stakeholders believe that underserved and at-risk populations (older adults, low socio-economic status, people with disabilities) should be a priority for public funding. That includes programming and providing access. Transportation is a big issue for older adults and lower income children. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Absolutely not. I think having the right size, right mix, in the right locations, with the appropriate quality of parks and recreation facilities is most important. Each municipality should seek stakeholder input to determine how to balance size, mix, and location. Building high quality facilities should always be a priority. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Yes. I think the fear elected officials have about raising taxes at the local level is misplaced when it comes to parks and recreation. When we do a public input process, we collect data on willingness to pay for parks and recreation facilities, program, and amenities. Without fail, the amount of people that are willing to pay for what they currently have is at least 1.5-2 times what is being invested by local government, and when asked how much they would be willing to pay for improved facilities, programs, and amenities, that number typically increases to 2.5-3 or more times than the current public investment. So, if local officials show people what they are getting for those tax increases and provide some guarantee that the money will actually go to parks and recreation, there is certainly room to raise taxes to invest in those amenities. From a debt perspective, there has never been a better time to borrow money, with interest rates being so low. If a city is on solid financial footing and has a good credit rating, it would be hard to argue why you wouldn’t be willing or want to debt finance projects. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? A top-5 indicator list would be tough, but the trend has been that people want trails/greenways and green/open space, so I would definitely say that miles of trails, greenways and bike lanes would be a good indicator, followed by acres of green and open space for informal recreation activities and enjoyment. Obviously, you would do a per-capita calculation to compare one city to another. A third indicator that I would put on the list would be average distance to a park for residents. The final two are on my wish list because the data doesn’t exist on a wide-scale that would allow you to make comparisons (mostly because it would be hard to collect -- but technology is getting to the point where it will be realistic to do so), but if I could wave my magic wand, I would have all cities collect data on program participation and park usage, and compare that data to the demographics of the community. For example, it is great if you have 1,000 kids participating in a program or 100,000 people come to a park, but do those 1,000 kids or 100,000 park users reflect the demographic breakdown of the community? Beth Erickson Associate Professor at California State University Sacramento Beth Erickson What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? Conduct a needs assessment to find out what the immediate population served want and need. Act accordingly. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Often they build the facility, but lack the money for operations. It is critical that organizations understand the amount of capital needed for operations -- otherwise, what is the point? Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? I think this depends on where one lives. For example, if one lives near Sun City, AZ, then the priority needs to be seniors, obviously; in contrast, if this is an area where there are a number of kids present, then afterschool programming might be needed. If the area has a large number of single parents with children, then afterschool programming really needs to be a priority. Oddly, however, there really is an overall lack of programming for adults at this point. My guess is that programmers must feel that the real need is for the groups you mentioned; but really, adults need recreation activities available as much as anyone. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? This is a difficult question. I do believe the more greenspace an area has, the more likely one is to recreate in that area. But with those greenspaces comes the necessity to manage the areas, which can be costly. Greenspaces offer individuals the ability to get outside, enjoy nature, exercise, and learn about their immediate environment -- so yes. The balancing act is difficult but not impossible. There are laws in most communities whereby for every acre of development, there has to be a certain amount of preserved greenspace. Boulder, Colorado and Lexington, Kentucky have done this quite well. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? Yes, I do. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  • The numbers of acreage of greenspace preserved per acreage developed;
  • The amount of space designated for off-leash dog areas;
  • Bike trail development;
  • The amount of money poured into recreation facility infrastructure and operations;
  • Topography and geography of the area (the presence of mountains, rivers, lakes).
Andrew J. Bobilya Associate Professor and Director of the Parks and Recreation Management Program at Western Carolina University Andrew J. Bobilya What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? With regards to local municipal budget and priority procedures, each city and county is very different and their unique situation must be taken into account. Some general suggestions might include: grant and foundation support for specific projects, targeting areas of regional or national concern (e.g., concern about physical activity among youth); partnering with other community agencies to share resources (e.g., a pool that is used to support the county recreation programs, the YMCA and other agencies); closing or eliminating ineffective programs and facilities and prioritizing programs and facilities that can meet current interests, needs and wants of community members. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? Not planning for the long-term costs associated with the physical plant and staffing needed to provide quality programming. In addition, those facilities that can be designed for mixed-use and expansion from the beginning are a huge help. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Again, the local and regional needs vary, but in general, local authorities should consider the demographics of the population(s) they are trying to serve, and ensure that their facilities and programs are meeting their needs. For example, if a recreation center is located in an area where a majority of the citizens do not have personal transportation, then a priority becomes providing transportation and/or mobile programming. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? Not necessarily. Bigger is not necessarily better. The priority should be the “best use” of the artificial and natural resources available. In other words, a smaller park could provide a greater impact because of how it was designed and is used more efficiently, and to maximize potential of reaching the intended benefits. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? There is a balance that needs to be reached, but certainly parks and recreation in the United States seems to be needed more now than in previous generations because of the decline of direct contact with nature among young people, the rise in obesity, the overstructured lives and lack of “play time” among children, and other compelling reasons. Parks and recreation is a long term investment in meeting the current and future needs of an increasingly diverse U.S. population. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators?
  • Access to facilities and natural spaces to engage in formal programs and informal personal recreation;
  • Appropriate planning for current and future bike and walking corridors;
  • Green space proximal to population centers;
  • Variety of recreation providers offering free and low cost options, in addition to more typical recreation programs;
  • Recreation is clearly a priority when considering the city’s marketing efforts and budget priorities.
Amy R. Hurd Director of Graduate School at Illinois State University Amy R. Hurd What are some cost effective ways for local authorities to improve parks and recreation facilities? There is never enough funding for parks and recreation in a community. So, it can be difficult to continually improve facilities. However, there are several things communities can do. First, set priorities for parks and recreation facilities, and fund what you can. If the city can’t fund it, don’t build it. It is better to have fewer services than to have poor services. Next, look at community partnerships. How can multiple agencies work together? Instead of building new facilities or maintaining deteriorating facilities at subpar levels, maybe it is beneficial for recreation departments and school districts to share facilities, and both help maintain them. After all, they are being funded by tax payers. Neighborhood groups can be used to take “ownership” of their park through adopt-a-park programs, where the community helps with such things as park beautification, fundraising, and programming. Lastly, developing alternative funding sources, such as sponsorships, grants, Friends Groups, or planned giving campaigns can help infuse resources to help maintain facilities. What is the biggest mistake local authorities make in building and maintaining parks and recreation facilities? One of the biggest mistakes I see is not planning for the administrative costs and future maintenance of the facilities and parks. After the ribbons are cut, the photos are taken, and the media goes home, the agency is left with financing the park or facility for the rest of its life. It looks great to see a community expanding by adding parks and recreation facilities, but agencies need a solid financial plan to make sure there is enough staff to operate the facility, resources to maintain and repair the facility, as well as a capital improvement plan for when facilities and equipment become obsolete or need to be replaced. Should local authorities prioritize funding recreational activities for certain groups (e.g., elderly or children)? Yes. However, it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberate way. Priorities should not be set based on which group is the loudest in making its demands known. Agencies are best served if they develop a strategic plan to outline growth areas based on community needs. These plans should involve the community and other stakeholders. Agencies should also review what services are available to the community, regardless of who provides the service. Recreation agencies do not have to be all things to all people. Share the responsibilities with other service provides. For example, in Champaign-Urbana (adjoining cities in Illinois), the two park districts work off of each other’s strengths. Champaign has more of a focus on the arts and Urbana on nature and environmental programming. This allows resources to be better targeted to the appropriate priority, and the community members have the benefits of more well rounded programming. Do you believe that there is a direct link between the size of a park and the benefits it provides to the local community? How should local authorities consider balancing quality and quantity? I don’t see there being a direct link between size and benefits. First, benefits come in many different forms. Some in the community will see that parks benefit only the individual and others will see the impact to themselves and the greater community as a whole. For example, if I live near a park, I benefit physically from being able to walk to that park and exercise in it. Furthermore, if it is well maintained, my property values go up, and crime levels go down. There are also the social aspects of a local gathering place. Parks increase social capital within a community, by neighbors getting to know each other. The benefits to the community are that as the value of my house increases, the property taxes paid back to the city increase, as does the quality of life for the residents. Quality parks and recreation are seen as a means to entice new businesses to come to the community or people to move in from out of town. If a park is large enough, there is the potential to draw tourists to the area. These tourists spend money in the community, supporting local businesses though purchases and sales taxes. Lastly, the environmental benefits of parks mean lower levels of pollution absorbed by vegetation, rainwater retention by trees and bushes, and many other environmental impacts from parks. Balancing quality and quantity is difficult. While it is easy to say that quality should always win, there is also a need to provide accessible services to the entire community. So if a majority of resources are put towards just a few programs and facilities, and they are all in the same area of town, this quality philosophy is flawed. Agencies need to develop a plan that allows them to set priorities for quality, quantity and equity. A very difficult task at best. Do you think cities should consider raising new taxes or increasing debt levels in order to invest in parks and recreation? This is a tough question. Each community will be different, as will their debt levels and tax rates. Before considering raising taxes, agencies should look at how resources are used to ensure they are good stewards of these resources. It isn’t always necessary to raise taxes or debt to invest in local parks and recreation. There are a number of ways to fund services, depending on what those services are. Agencies should have a good cost recovery model in place that outlines which (and by how much) services will be subsidized with tax dollars, which will break even, and which will make a profit. This profit can help fund programs that need to be subsidized. Also before raising taxes or debt levels, agencies should consider whether the services they currently provide are the ones they should provide to fulfill their mission. If they should not be providing the service or if someone can provide the service better, get out of that business and redirect the resources to where they are needed. Both of these tasks can be quite arduous, but a good exercise in effectively managing resources. When evaluating the best cities for recreation, what are the top five indicators? First, I feel a good park system will focus on quality of programs, facilities and parks over quantity. Second, these services should be equitably distributed among the community. Place the services where they are needed. Third, services should be accessible. For example, that may mean that there is a park within a half mile of every house, or within a 10 minute walk. People have to be able to get to the service to use it. Fourth, the best cities for recreation adequately fund the departments and hire a professional staff trained in parks and recreation to manage the system. Lastly, great parks systems have a plan for the future that guides growth to best meet the needs of the community. Linda Levine-Madori Professor and International Lecturer at St. Thomas Aquinas College and Author of "Therapeutic Thematic Arts Programming" Linda Levine-Madori Recreation and leisure have been questioned since the very beginning of time. The Egyptians actually had “play areas” around the dig sites which created the temples. The Greeks had Aristotle, who contemplated that leisure time was only for the very rich and elite, because the working class had none. In the 21st century, we have sought out the monks and sages, who spend all of their lives on earth asking questions on how to find peace within and leisure. You ask a number of questions above regarding the parks and recreation, but I believe there is a greater question looming in our society in 2017. In our world today, we are working morning, noon and night, due in large part to the physical and emotional strains the internet and modern technology places on us. We are as a society suffering from a severe lack of leisure, and it is my personal belief that regardless of the amounts of Park and Recreation space in each state, the ability for man to actually get into his or her car and drive there is the real issue. This holds true for the single person, the family or modern family of 2.5, and the single families which now make up over 60% of all families surveyed in 2015. Leisure, recreation and play are each reliant on one element -- time. To enjoy a leisure experience, as I teach at St. Thomas Aquinas College, in New York, students learn that they need time away from all obligations and constraints. Recreation is the activity you decide to do within that designated time frame, and play is the outcome. Becoming totally absorbed, not thinking about bills, appointments, or family matters. Leisure time in 2017 has been greatly destroyed by the modern man’s need to hold on tight to the iPhone, and text as many people on as many Apps as quickly as possible. When was the last time you went into a restaurant and saw four people sitting at a table and not speaking, but gazing into their own palm and not their family’s eyes? Often, actually, it has become a strange oddity for a company to be sitting around a table and actually speaking to each other. Personally, I have researched exactly what affects the mind and body in young college students as well as the elderly. Want to know what it is? Meditation and self-expression. The ability to relax, shut off all the stimulus in our environment, and be at one with yourself. With college students, their grades go up and they become more focused and self-assured, they socialize more, and have documented even enhanced relationships with their parents. For us Baby- Boomers, leisure, meditation and self-expression might be the next fountain of youth. Science has now confirmed that the actual activity of “doing” meditation stimulates all regions of the brain. This, in turn, creates new connections between the cells in the brain called dendrites. The more dendrites we have, the less likely we are to get cognitive impairments such as MCI or Alzheimer’s disease. Not having leisure is dangerous to your health. The National Alzheimer’s Association estimates that one out of every seven Baby-Boomers will get affected by Alzheimer’s disease by the age of 70. Lose it or use in is the new motto for enhanced cognition, and that can be achieved by taking our leisure time and using it to enhance self-expression, by picking up a paint brush, dancing, exercise, and sports. Methodology

To determine the best and worst cities for recreation, WalletHub compared a sample of the 100 most populated U.S. cities across four key dimensions: 1) Entertainment & Recreational Facilities, 2) Costs, 3) Quality of Parks and 4) Weather. Our sample considers only the city proper in each case and excludes cities in the surrounding metro area.

We evaluated the four dimensions using 45 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the highest level of recreation-friendliness. For metrics marked with an asterisk (*), the square root of the population was used to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for minor differences across cities.

Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Entertainment & Recreational Facilities – Total Points: 40
  • Number of Attractions: Double Weight (~2.81 Points)
  • Music Venues per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Coffee & Tea Shops per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Public Beaches per Capita*: Half Weight (~0.70 Points)
  • Tennis Courts per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Public Golf Courses per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Public Swimming Pools per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Baseball & Softball Diamonds per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Basketball Hoops per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Bike Rental Facilities per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Fishing Spots per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Hiking Trails per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Running Trails per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Walking Trails per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Amusement Parks per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Presence on TripAdvisor’s “Top 25 Amusement Parks” List: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Boat Tours & Water Sports per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Water Parks per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Zoos & Aquariums per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Motion Picture Theaters and Drive-Ins per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Bowling Centers per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Restaurants per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Food Festivals per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Ice Cream & Frozen Yogurt Shops per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Sports Fan-Friendliness: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)Note: This metric is based on WalletHub’s “Best Sports Cities” ranking. Sports include football, basketball, baseball, hockey and soccer.
  • Intramural Leagues per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Sport Venues per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
  • Recreational Centers per Capita*: Full Weight (~1.40 Points)
Costs – Total Points: 30
  • Spending on Parks and Recreation per Capita: Half Weight (~1.43 Points)
  • Average Fitness Club Fee: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Movie Costs: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Bowling Costs: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Grooming Costs: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Average Price per Massage Treatment: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)Note: Massage treatment refers to both deep tissue and Swedish massage.
  • Average Alcoholic Beverage Price: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)Note: “Alcoholic Beverage” refers to both beer and wine. “Beer” refers to a six-pack of 12-ounce Heineken containers, excluding any deposit. “Wine” refers to a 1.5-liter bottle of Chablis, Chenin Blanc or any white table wine.
  • Average Food Price: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)Note: “Food” refers to both hamburger and pizza. “Hamburger” refers to a ¼-pound patty with cheese, pickle, onion, mustard, and catsup. “Pizza” refers to a 11"-12" thin crust cheese pizza.
  • Prevalence of Affordable 4.5+ Star Restaurants: Full Weight (~2.86 Points)
  • Restaurant Meal Costs: Double Weight (~5.71 Points)
Quality of Parks – Total Points: 20
  • Share of Population with Walkable Park Access: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Share of Designed Parkland Areas: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Presence on TripAdvisor’s “Top 25 Parks” List: Half Weight (~1.82 Points)
  • Park Playgrounds per Capita*: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Parkland as Share of City Area: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
  • Acres of Parkland per 1,000 Residents: Full Weight (~3.64 Points)
Weather – Total Points: 10

 Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Council for Community and Economic Research, The Trust for Public Land, Public Courses, Yelp.com, TripAdvisor, Numbeo.com, Under Armour, IMLeagues, 2Book and WalletHub research.



from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress

Share This Story

Tags: ,

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor Aenean massa.

You Might Also Like

2019 Citi Diamond Preferred Review ...

What Is a Car Insurance Deductible ...

Why We Keep Spending Even When We K...

0 comments

Popular Posts

Like us on Facebook

Flickr Images