Community Recreation Opportunity Planning Process: An alternative planning and management tool

Spittle, T. H.

Lincoln University

2008

Lincoln University

Roger Dawson, Research Collections Librarian, Lincoln University: roger.dawson@lincoln.ac.nz  

Rural communities often have different community recreation opportunities than urban areas. The aim of this research is to examine one rural community’s recreation opportunities and develop an alternative model for planning and managing these in the future. A qualitative methodology was adopted and key informant interviews were conducted. The key aspects identified as important for the success of, and resulting from, the community recreation opportunities in Tuapeka / Lawrence are: funding; decision-making; volunteering and community participation; social capital; land ownership and propinquity. These themes, alongside community-development and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum principles, led to the development of a model of community recreation processes which highlights the vital links between the community and the local government. By understanding the process that occurs for the planning and provision of community recreation opportunities, integrated and informed decisions can be made. The aim of the model’s development is for use by communities and local governments alike to improve understanding of community recreation provision. This includes ensuring that community recreation is inclusive, accessible to all, affordable and meeting the needs of the community. The combination of community development principles and the ROS (Recreation Opportunity Spectrum) into the Community Recreation Opportunity Planning Process (CROPP) offers a tool for use by local governments, and communities when planning and managing community recreation activities and opportunities.

Keywords:

Community recreation, opportunities, rural, planning, management, community development, recreation opportunity spectrum, Tuapeka, Lawrence, community, local government, funding, decision-making, volunteer, participation, land ownership, social capital, propinquity.

For information on how to access the full text of this article, go to http://hdl.handle.net/10182/834 or contact your local or organisational library for assistance

Case study

Otago

Facilities, Outdoor Recreation, Recreation

Clubs, Community, Other setting, Outdoors, Schools

Accomodation and facilities, Events, Facilities (indoor), Facilities (outdoor), Non-organised, Organised, Parks - rural, Sportsvilles/Multisport centres

Barriers, Delivery, Impacts - economic, Impacts - environmental, Impacts- social, Participation, Performance

1449

June 25, 2012