My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Park and Recreation Commission Packet - May, 25, 2006
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
05-25-2006
>
Park and Recreation Commission Packet - May, 25, 2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2023 2:16:39 PM
Creation date
8/21/2024 3:00:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Parks, Recreation & Forestry Commission
Documnet Type
Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
How do park staff in communities with an existing park policy feel about the policy? <br />In the summer of 2004' we interviewed 257 park directors from cities and counties in K4iODgScto.S 200 <br />largest cities. DVens||. 70 communities reported a tobacco -free po||cy. which represents 36% of <br />uo[nrnUO0aa surveyed. Park directors with policies had positive experiences, as most reported that park <br />policies were "not difficult" to pass, and 90% would recommend such a policy to other communities. <br />Changes after implementation <br />When park directors were asked about changes after tobacco -free policy adoptions: <br />0 58% reported )enG litter in park a[B8S. <br />n 74% reported noproblems with policy violators. <br />* 88%reported nOchanges iDpark usage. <br />* For those reporting achange inpark use following the policy, <br />71%reported anincrease inusage. Difficulty inpassing a tobacco -free <br />� <br />Publicity about the policy was reported tobeadequate (8O96). park policy, Minnesota 2004 <br />and few /7%\reported any negative publicity. <br />Enforcement <br />Enforcement was snarea ofworry for nearly all park directors without <br />policy. HovV8vo[, in oo[n[DUOibgS with 8 po|iCy, few park di[8CtOnS (26%) <br />reported compliance problems. Staffing was aO iSoU8, 8G74% reported <br />too few staff tV enforce the policy and/or monitor all park 8rS8S. <br />Park director support <br />Out of the 257park directors interviewed, nearly all personally <br />supported tobacco -free policies. Reasons for their support included: <br />G 98q6wanted toestablish positive role models for youth. <br />89% wanted to pn]OlOte community well-being. <br />92%wanted k]reduce Youth opportunity tOsmoke. <br />92% wanted to avoid litter from cigarette butts. <br />Major Conclusions: <br />o The majority OfMiDOeSOtaDGSUpp0[f[Ob@CCO-rB8D@[k@Od[8O[8GtiOODOiOi8S. <br />o Park staff have experienced few problems and many benefits with the pO|iOiRS. <br />and overwhelmingly recommend tobacco -free policies to other communities. <br />This study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, Schools of Public Health and Kinesiology, in partnership <br />with Tobacco -Free Youth Recreation and the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, and supported by the <br />Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco, For more infonnatinn, contact study coordinator Liz Klein at <br />klein l�[0.eduorcall (612) 626'1799. <br />'140101A RECRF4 <br />'0" VJVtKASS0C14 ho <br />46 <br />0 ME <br />your" UNPEAMN <br />December 2005 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.