Personal benefits for Australian public aquatic & recreation centre customers

Transcription

1 Personal benefits for Australian public aquatic & recreation centre customers Prepared by Dr Gary Howat, CERMPI Research team, Centre for Tourism & Leisure Management (CTLM), UniSA Business School, University of South Australia Other UniSA CERMPI & CTLM researchers who contributed to the research design and data collation for this project include Dr Duncan Murray, Dr Graham Brown, Heather March, Jessica Alikaris, Raylene Jones & Cathie Bloxham. Besides funding and in-kind support from the 16 centres contributing data for the present research, the overall project was significantly supported by CERMPI and UniSA resources. The material included in this report has been derived from academic journal manuscripts prepared by UniSA researchers. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction Community facilities such as public aquatic and recreation centres provide opportunities for wide sectors of the population to engage in sport and recreation activities to achieve personal benefits. In particular, the role of sport and recreation in improving health and well-being benefits is gaining prominence as the population ages and public health costs escalate. Increasing levels of chronic disease linked to relatively low physical activity participation rates and growing obesity require urgent policy decisions to significantly increase government resources directed to preventive health. In , 63% of adult Australians (18 years and over) were overweight or obese compared to 56% in 1995 (ANPHA, 2013, p.5). Participating in physical activity can reduce obesity and chronic health conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression and some cancers (ABS, 2011; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010; Haskell, Blair, & Hill, 2009). However, in Australia government spending (Commonwealth and State) on prevention and public health was lower than most other OECD countries at $1.95 billion or $85 per person (ANPHA, 2013, p.164). An improved understanding of the motivations and benefits for engaging in sport and recreation, and linking these to the influence of constraints, will aid service providers in the design, implementation, promotion and delivery of opportunities at public aquatic and recreation centres. The findings of such research also have implications for public policy, particularly for directing more government resources to preventive health such as opportunities to increase physical activity participation rates (Lee, Jancey, Howat, 2011; Prochaska, Nigg, et al., 2008) by utilising community facilities such as public aquatic and recreation centres. 2. The research The following research conducted by UniSA researchers focusses on benefits data collected in 2013 from surveys of customers of 16 public aquatic and recreation centres located in WA, SA, Victoria, ACT and NSW (quantitative study). Complementing the benefits data, four centres (n = 963 respondents) provided data on (a) constraints to overall physical activity in everyday life, (b) types of motivation influencing exercise participation, and (c) the influence on physical activity of benefits achieved from activities respondents engaged in at public aquatic and recreation centres. Differences will be reported for major activity groups as well as for three age groupings (15-29 years; years; and 50 years and over). Results for the 50 years and over age group will be complemented by interview data from customers (n=12) from one of the centres (qualitative study). 1

2 3. Key findings 3.1 Benefits factors (quantitative study) Respondents were asked to rate 16 benefits items in terms of importance to them and how well they had achieved each of the benefits in respect to activities that they participated in at the centre. The benefits items were combined into six factors (Table 1). Table 1: Benefits factors Benefits achieved factors Health & fitness Enjoyment Skill & self-esteem Relaxation & stress release Social Success in competition 3.2 Benefits means The results place health & fitness benefits as clearly the highest priority benefits for all age groups and most activity groups except for aquatic education respondents whose highest priorities were enjoyment and social benefits. The highest health and fitness benefits were registered by lap swimmers, fitness classes, and gym/health club respondents. Three other health-related benefits, (enjoyment; relaxation & stress release; and skill & self-esteem), were also rated relatively high for both importance as well as achievement. There was a trend by age for all three of these benefits factors to be higher for the under 30 age group and lowest for the 50 years and over group. Relatively low ratings were recorded for social benefits, especially for gym/health club respondents and the 50 years and over age group. However, half of the respondents rated the importance of social benefits as high or very high, especially fitness class and aquatic education respondents. The lowest ratings were recorded for success in competition benefits, with the under 30 age group registering the highest success in competition benefits, compared to the 50 years and over age group. Males registered slightly higher means for success in competition benefits compared to females. In contrast, except for health & fitness benefits, females recorded slightly higher means than males for the other four benefits factors. 3.3 The influence of benefits achieved on overall benefits Health & fitness benefits achieved from participating in activities at aquatic and recreation centres was the strongest predictor of overall benefits, followed by enjoyment benefits and skill & self-esteem benefits. Health & fitness was especially influential on overall benefits for the 50 years and over group. Overall benefits for the under 30 age group was most strongly influenced by enjoyment benefits, followed by health & fitness benefits and improved skill & self-esteem benefits. Health & fitness was the strongest predictor of overall benefits for all activity groups except for aquatic education, which was more strongly influenced by enjoyment and skill & self-esteem benefits. Skill & self-esteem was also a significant predictor of overall benefits for gym /health club and fitness class respondents. Regression analyses for respondents who rated the importance of social benefits as high or very high found that achieving social benefits was a significant predictor of overall benefits for 40% of fitness class respondents and about 70% of aquatic education respondents. 3.4 The Influence of benefits achieved and constraints on overall physical activity Over half of the respondents indicated relatively high levels of moderate or vigorous physical activity participating at least 3-4 days per week, and this was significantly higher for the under 30 age group (70%) compared to the older age groups. When linked to overall levels of physical activity, the key 2

3 findings were that health & fitness benefits achieved from participating in activities at public aquatic and recreation centres were influential for all age groups, but constraints to physical activity varied by age years age group: The overall level of physical activity participation for the years age group was strongly influenced by health & fitness benefits, as well as success in competition benefits achieved from activities at the centre. The younger age respondents appear to value the importance of improved health & fitness as a reason for physical activity, and for many of them success in sport provides an added incentive. Conversely, fear & lack of confidence was the most significant constraint to overall physical activity for the age group This finding indicates that younger age groups often feel constrained by a lack of knowledge and self-confidence such as when trying new activities or new ways of doing things year age group: Overall levels of physical activity for the years age group were also strongly influenced by health & fitness benefits achieved from their activities at the centre. This age group coincides with career commitments and raising families and consequently time tends to be a major constraint for their physical activity participation which may be compounded for parents and carers transporting families to multiple facilities for their sport, recreation and education years and over group: Overall levels of physical activity for the 50 years and over group were also strongly influenced by health & fitness benefits. Conversely, injury/illness was the most influential constraint to physical activity for this group. The interview data for the over 50 age group also strongly supported health and fitness benefits as a key reason for participating in physical activity, especially to help reduce chronic health ailments. Therefore, there was a circular relationship whereby injury/illness constraints to physical activity also became motivators for participation. 3.5 The Influence of types of motivation for exercise on overall physical activity Higher levels of physical activity for the years group were linked to exercising for fun and enjoyment (intrinsic motivation) as well as exercising to reduce feelings of guilt and anxiety. Higher overall physical activity for the years group was strongly influenced by enjoyment followed by reducing feelings of guilt and anxiety, additional to valuing the benefits of exercise. Valuing the benefits of exercise was the main motivator influencing overall physical activity for the 50 years and over group. Higher levels of physical activity for all groups were linked to lower levels of pressure from others to exercise (extrinsic motivation), which tends to have only a short-term influence on adherence to exercise participation. In contrast, enjoyment (intrinsic motivation) and valuing the benefits of exercise are considered as desirable types of motivation as they have an enduring impact on sustaining exercise participation, compared to the shorter-term influence guilt and anxiety (introjected regulation) or pressure from others (extrinsic motivation). 3.6 Influence of motives (benefits) and constraints on physical activity for 50 years and over participants (qualitative study) Health and fitness motives and benefits: The most frequently reported motives for and benefits achieved by interviewees from participating in activities at aquatic and recreation centres were related to health and fitness including: to increase physical fitness, to overcome mental health issues including anxiety and depression, and to manage chronic health disorders. A number of participants reported improved health and fitness benefits from their centre activities that could be linked to observable improvements such as weight loss, improved physical fitness, reducing weight and improving body image or appearance. 3

4 3.5.2 Social motives & benefits: All of the interviewees who had become involved in regular physical activity post 50 years of age reported social benefits as important outcomes of their visits to aquatic and recreation centres. For example, social support for those participants new to an activity appeared to be especially important to improve their retention in rehabilitation activities. Once established with a social group and its focus on physical activity and rehabilitation, social interaction then became important in its own right, such as social events additional to the physical activity. However, six married participants who had maintained active participation in exercise and physical activity from childhood did not refer to social benefits, other than indicating they encouraged other family members to participate in activities at the centre mainly for health and well-being benefits Intrapersonal (individual) constraints: Constraints to physical activity discussed by interviewees focussed on health-related issues. Negotiating or overcoming constraints such as those related to personal chronic health issues included taking ownership of one s own health by consulting with experts such as a GP to understand benefits of physical activity and how to manage limitations of one s own health when exercising. Intrapersonal constraints also included self-consciousness and anxiety, and feeling unwelcome or awkward when joining a new social group or program, and this was exacerbated for obese participants Interpersonal constraints: Interpersonal constraints include interactions with other people. While social support benefits were discussed by a number of respondents, for other people social interaction tended to be an interpersonal constraint when the participant clearly wanted to focus on the activity or in other cases to have some space for themselves Structural constraints: Structural constraints include environmental, structural and policy factors which also encompass time constraints. Time constraints were an issue for the interviewees holding full-time employment. As most of the interviewees children were now independent adults, family commitments were not a major time constraint. 3.6 Conclusions and practical implications of the research: The findings from the present research provide a number of important implications for aquatic and recreation centre operators based on the identification of key factors that influence participants likely decision making in respect to overall benefits and physical activity levels: 1. Aquatic and recreation centre operators should more overtly promote the health and fitness benefits of activities at their centres. 2. Centre operators should provide participants with positive experiences that enhance their ability to achieve desired benefits tailored by activity and age groupings. 3. Benefits factors having the greatest impact on specific activity groups (fitness classes, gym/health club, and lap swimming) include health & fitness, self-esteem & skill, and enjoyment benefits. 4. Aquatic education participants were influenced most by enjoyment followed by self-esteem & skill, and then health & fitness benefits. 5. Only a half (52%) of the respondents rated the importance of social benefits as high or very high, especially fitness class and aquatic education respondents. 6. Achieving social benefits was a significant predictor of overall benefits for 40% of fitness class respondents and about 70% of aquatic education respondents. 7. Achieving health & fitness benefits was also an important driver of physical activity levels. 8. Higher levels of physical activity were more likely when respondents felt their motivation to exercise was mainly due to their own choice because they enjoyed the activity (intrinsic motivation), and /or they valued the benefits of the activity (identified regulation). 9. Older age groups (50 years and over) placed a high priority on achieving health and fitness benefits as well as managing pain and illness as constraints to physical activity. 4

5 10. The highest priority for the under 50 years groups was achieving health and fitness benefits followed by feelings of personal accomplishment including improved skill levels and selfesteem especially for aquatic education and gym/health club respondents. 11. The ability to achieve success in competition benefits was linked to higher levels of physical activity, especially for the under 50 years groups. 12. Physical activity levels for the under 50 years groups were constrained by fear and lack of confidence (e.g. fear of participation in physical activity, lack of knowledge and lack of selfconfidence). 13. Time was the most influential constraint to physical activity for the years group. 5

6 Personal benefits for Australian public aquatic & recreation centre customers Prepared by Dr Gary Howat, CERMPI Research team, Centre for Tourism & Leisure Management (CTLM), UniSA Business School, University of South Australia Other UniSA CERMPI & CTLM researchers who contributed to the research design and data collation for this project include Dr Duncan Murray, Dr Graham Brown, Heather March, Jessica Alikaris, Raylene Jones & Cathie Bloxham. Besides funding and in-kind support from the 16 centres contributing data for the present research, the overall project was significantly supported by CERMPI and UniSA resources. The material included in this report has been derived from academic journal manuscripts prepared by UniSA researchers. TECHNICAL REPORT 1. Introduction Public aquatic and recreation centres provide significant opportunities for sport and recreation. Most urban local government populations live within five kilometres of a public aquatic and recreation centre, many of which represent major flagship investments for councils, and which collectively cater for tens of millions of visits a year across Australia. Access to many centres is subsidised, providing a safe environment for a wide range of activity, age, ethnic and disability groups. Trained specialist staff are employed at most centres providing a diversity and variety of programs and activities that are transferable across the life cycle, including low impact activities. Increasing levels of chronic disease linked to relatively low physical activity participation rates and growing obesity require urgent policy decisions to significantly increase government resources directed to preventive health. In , 63% of adult Australians (18 years and over) were overweight or obese compared to 56% in 1995 (ANPHA, 2013, p.5), contributing to the growing chronic disease placing an increasing burden on the public health system. However, in Australia government spending (Commonwealth and State) on prevention and public health was lower than most other OECD countries at $1.95 billion or $85 per person (ANPHA, 2013, p.164). Supporting the argument for increased government spending on prevention and public health is Australian government Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Baggoley s observation that recent literature on chronic diseases indicates that prevention policies, such as increased physical activity, are effective in reducing mortality in both the long term as well as in the short and medium term (ANPHA, 2013, p.12). Participating in physical activity can reduce obesity and chronic health conditions including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression and some cancers, in particular for older age groups (ABS, 2011; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010; Haskell, Blair, & Hill, 2009). The Australian population aged 65 years and over is predicted to grow to 25% by 2042 compared to 13% in 2002 (Australian Government, The Treasury 2011). However, 2008 data indicates that the majority of adult Australians (72%) did not meet the recommended guidelines for regular physical activity, with even lower participation rates for older age groups (ABS, 2011). Henderson (2009) in acknowledging the declining rates of physical activity in developed countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA, highlighted the challenge to improve physical activity levels to gain health benefits. However, encouraging more people, to become more active is a major challenge for public health professionals across the developed world. An important step in this process is to clarify what factors motivate, or conversely constrain peoples adherence to regular physical activity. A considerable amount of mainly cross sectional and quantitative research has examined how factors such as motives (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997a; Ingledew, Markland, & Ferguson, 2009), benefits (Howat, Alikaris, March, & Howat, 2012), self-efficacy (Warner et al., 2011a, 2011b), barriers (Booth, Bauman, & Owen, 2002; Mathews, Laditka, et al., 2010; Schutzer & Graves, 2004), constraints (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1991; Godbey, Crawford, & Shen, 2010) and behaviour change (Wiedemann, Lippke, Reuter, Ziegelmann, & Schüz, 2011) influence adherence to physical activity. 6

7 Henderson (2009) identified a gap in research examining strategies that facilitate people becoming and remaining physically active, which she described as being in its infancy. Henderson (2009) in a review of Sports Management Review (SMR) articles between 1998 and 2007 highlighted the imbalance in research between elite and professional sport, compared to community sport and physical activity participation. A similar trend was found in more recent sport management journals thus highlighting a research gap addressing such topics as community sport and physical activity interventions to provide wider health benefits as confirmed by Rowe, Shilbury, Ferkins, and Hinckson (2013) in their review of SMR articles published between 2008 and Consequently, Rowe et al. (2013, p.364) recommended more qualitative and quantitative sport management research to...promote participation in sport, recreation and physically active leisure domains..., to enhance community well-being especially health and social benefits. Accordingly, the present research utilises the Crawford et al. (1991) hierarchical constraints model and adaptations of it (e.g. Alexandris & Carroll, 1997b; Alexandris, Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouious, 2003) in tandem with motives (Dillard & Bates, 2011; Ingledew et al., 2009; Theodorakis et al., 2004) and benefits (Howat et al., 2012) that influence adherence to physical activity. 2. Conceptual framework The focus of the present research was to examine the relative influence of benefits achieved from using public aquatic and recreation centres, constraints to physical activity, and types of motivation for exercising as the independent variables. Overall benefits from participating in activities at aquatic and recreation centres and overall physical activity were the dependent variables. This quantitative data was complemented by qualitative data from interviews of 50 years and over participants. Accordingly the following section aims to clarify the constructs used in this research: physical activity, benefits, and constraints. 2.1 Physical activity: Sport, exercise and physical recreation Physical activity is defined as bodily movements mainly produced by skeletal muscles resulting in energy expenditure (ABS, 2008; Rowe, et al., 2103, p. 367). Sport, exercise and physical recreation tend to be considered as discretionary leisure time activities and thus are sub-sets of physical activity. Exercise is defined as "planned, structured and repetitive bodily movement performed to improve or maintain physical fitness" (Corbin & Dowell, 1980, cited in ABS, 2008). Henderson (2009) noted the declining rates of physical activity in countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the USA took into account sport and physical recreation and activities of daily living such as transport, activity at work and around the home, included walking, gardening and yard work. 2.2 Benefits (motives) for physical activity and leisure Ingledew et al. (2009, p.337) referred to participatory motives as...what individuals aim to attain or avoid through participating in (an activity), which equate to benefits (Howat et al., 2012) or reasons for and outcomes of participating in recreation (Henderson, Casper, Wilson, & Dern, 2012). There appears to be a core group of motives dimensions relevant for physical activity as well as for leisure research (e.g., Beard & Ragheb, 1983; Dillard & Bates, 2011), even though the exercise psychology research tends to focus on physical activity and ignores passive leisure pursuits (e.g. Havitz, Kaczynski, & Mannell, 2013; Ingledew et al., 2009). The exercise/physical activity motivations research also encompasses active leisure time physical activity or physical activity by choice as described by Henderson (2009, p.58) focusing on moderately intense physical exertion, and freely chosen and enjoyable activities. In reviewing leisure participation research which considers physical activity as well as passive leisure pursuits, Dillard and Bates (2011) identified several consistently acknowledged dimensions of motivational needs for participation in leisure. For example, Beard and Ragheb (1983) described their leisure motivation scale with four dimensions: escapism, social, mastery, and intellectual. Dillard and 7

8 Bates (2011) also identified four dimensions of motivations for leisure: escape, enhancing relationships, personal mastery, and winning. Escape included escaping pressures of daily life, enhancing relationships focused on socialising with family and friends, winning involved pushing oneself in competition, and personal mastery included becoming more accomplished at an activity. Several of the core dimensions identified in leisure research were also in the Ingledew et al. (2009) study of exercise participation motives that included: stress management; affiliation; challenge; appearance/weight; health/fitness; and social recognition. Compared to motives for leisure, motives for exercise/physical activity also tend to include more explicit health-related dimensions such as appearance/weight and health/fitness (Ingledew et al., 2009). A limitation of the Ingledew et al. (2009) sample drawn from student residences of a British university represented a skewed research population (e.g., age, education level, socio-economic status) thus limiting the generalisability of the results to other populations. Accordingly, it is relevant to heed the caution of Schutzer and Graves (2004) that the predictors of physical activity adherence found in research on younger adults are often different for older age cohorts, and that age specific barriers and motivators should be examined. For example, Havitz et al. (2013) adapted the Ryan et al. (1997) scales to assess motives or reasons for engaging in physical activity in a study involving a community-based sample of adult Canadians that included many non-participants. The five motives dimensions were: enjoyment, fitness, appearance, social, and competence. Henderson et al. (2012) targeted older adults (55 years and over) to examine reasons for and outcomes of participating in community recreation programs. The reasons in order of importance were: fun, health, social, and competition, while perceived outcomes were highest for a single-item improved self-esteem and a 6-item general health factor. Also targeting older age groups (50 years and over) Son, Kerstetter, and Mowen (2008) included only two motivations items in their overall motivation for physically active leisure scale, one of which focussed on enjoyment or pleasure and the other on health. This same two-item scale was used by Hubbard and Mannell (2001) in their examination of leisure constraints negotiation in a corporate employee recreation setting. Consistent with the Henderson et al. (2012) outcomes from participating in sport and recreation, service quality research tends to focus on outcome quality or perceived benefits achieved by participants. For example, the Ko and Pastore (2005) outcome quality dimensions for university recreational sport participants included: physical change, sociability, and valence. The Alexandris, Zahariadis, Tsorbatzoudis, and Grouios (2004) service quality model for fitness clubs included an outcome quality dimension with five health-related outcomes: increased energy, improved health, improved mood, improved psychological well-being, and improved fitness. In the Howat et al. (2012) study of public aquatic and recreation centres the most important benefits dimensions were improved health & fitness and relaxation & stress release, followed by improved skill & self-esteem, with much lower ratings for time with family or friends and success in competition. While the Howat et al. (2012) research linked attainment of benefits to overall satisfaction and loyalty, they did not include any measures of overall physical activity levels. However, they recommended more in-depth research to clarify the influence of health benefits on adherence to physical activity at public aquatic and recreation centres. Consequently, the present study includes measures of satisfaction with overall benefits achieved, overall physical activity, and constraints to activity. National surveys of the Australian population 15 years and over examined motives as well as constraints to participation in sports and physical recreation (ABS, 2007). The major motives for all participation groups included health/fitness and enjoyment. Other important motives included: wellbeing, social/family, weight loss, and competition/challenge. In this research, rather than responding to a pre-set list of options, respondents were asked open questions to identify their motives and constraints to participation in sports and physical recreation during the past 12-month period. 8

9 In the present study benefits for activity at the centre were operationalised as six factors. Four of the factors have a strong health orientation (health & fitness, enjoyment, relaxation & stress release, and skill & self-esteem) while the other two factors were: social, and success in competition. 2.3 Constraints Leisure constraints research tends to focus on factors that are assumed by researchers and/ or perceived or experienced by individuals to limit the formation of leisure preferences and/or to inhibit or prohibit participation and enjoyment in leisure (Jackson, 2000, p. 62). The leisure constraints movement was led by Crawford, Jackson, Godbey and colleagues from the 1980s (e.g. Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Jackson, 1988). The underlying theme of such research was to clarify how leisure participation is influenced by constraints and their negotiation (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1991; Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). With earlier research referring mainly to barriers, Crawford & Godbey (1987) focussed leisure constraints onto three main dimensions: intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural constraints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Jackson, 1988; Crawford et al., 1991). Structural constraints (e.g. time, money, transportation, and access to suitable facilities) are generally preceded by antecedent intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints that affect the formation of leisure preferences (Crawford et al., 1991). Intrapersonal constraints are individual psychological attributes that include anxiety and lack of confidence such as perceived lack of skill to take on a new activity or self-consciousness due to poor body image or obesity. Other intrapersonal constraints include health problems, lack of knowledge and lack of interest (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997b; Alexandris et al., 2003). Interpersonal constraints are social factors involving interactions with other people ranging from social isolation and lack of social support from friends and family that may limit participation in leisure activities (Wilhelm Stanis, et al., 2010). Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey (1991) highlighted the hierarchical nature of constraints in that the most important constraints were generally intrapersonal while the least important were structural constraints. Consequently, they proposed a tendency for intrapersonal constraints having the strongest influence on participation in leisure activities. In a review of leisure constraints research Jackson (2000) expressed concern that most of the research had focussed on structural constraints with less research on the other two main dimensions of intrapersonal and interpersonal constraints. At this time the main methods for constraints research had been quantitative with Jackson calling for more qualitative research (Jackson, 2000). Jackson (2000) also noted that there was some emerging research linking motivations for leisure and anticipated benefits to encourage people (in the) negotiation of constraints (p. 65). Jackson (2000) also recommended more research in such areas as viewing constraints as opportunities for new leisure pursuits and more research to integrate constraints and benefits research. A decade later Godbey et al. (2010) reaffirmed their confidence in the hierarchical constraints model and its relevance to behaviours additional to leisure. More recent research has linked constraints and their negotiation with other constructs such as involvement for recreational tennis players (Alexandris, 2013), identity for recreational golfers (Jinhee & Kyle, 2011) and benefits of leisure time physical activity on public lands (Wilhelm Stanis et al., 2010). Based on the Crawford and Godbey (1987) categorisation of leisure constraints, the Alexandris et al. (2003) study of older adults (over 60 years of age) in Greece identified four constraints dimensions. The two structural dimensions were access to facilities and time, and transportation and cost; the intrapersonal dimension consisted of individual psychological attributes; while the interpersonal dimension related to the influence that friends have on participation in physical activity programs. The major constraints to participation in sports and physical recreation identified in a national survey of Australian adults (ABS, 2007) included: age/too old, injury/illness, not interested and insufficient time. Son et al. (2008) adapted the Hubbard and Mannell Leisure Constraint Scale (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001) concluding that overall constraints to physically active leisure did not vary by age or gender in their sample of year old respondents. 9

10 In contrast to leisure research and a focus on constraints (e.g., ABS, 2007b; Jackson et al., 1993; Jackson, 2000; Wilhelm Stanis et al., 2010) the sport and exercise psychology research tends to focus on barriers rather than constraints (e.g., Booth et al., 2002; Brinthaupt, Kang, & Anshel, 2010; Cohen- Mansfield et al., 2003; Cohen-Mansfield, Shmotkin, & Goldberg, 2010; Mathews et al., 2010; Moschny, Platen, et al., 2011; Patel, Schofield, Kolt, & Keogh, 2013; Schutzer & Graves, 2004). Cohen-Mansfield et al. (2003) concluded that health problems was the most common barrier to physical activity for older adults, and in later research Cohen-Mansfield et al. (2010) reported that a decline in health was a major reason for reducing or stopping participation in physical activity in a longitudinal study of older adults that found participation in physical activity declined with age. Health issues also featured in research reported by Booth et al. (2002) in a sample of older Australians (60 years and over) who ranked the three most important barriers (from a list of 18) for not being more physically active. Most frequently reported barriers were already active enough, have an injury or disability and poor health. Decreasing with age was do not have enough time (27% of year olds compared to only 7% of the over 70 year old respondents). Barriers reported by fewer than 10% of the respondents included: cost, too lazy/not motivated, no one to do it with, might get injured or damage my health and no suitable facility. Chinn, White, Harland, Drinkwater, and Raybould (1999) reported that respondents who self-identified that they did not participate in enough exercise for their age listed intrapersonal constraints as the major barriers to their participation such as illness/disability for older age groups; with decreasing influences with age for structural constraints such as lack of time and lack of money. A national survey of the Australian population 15 years and over found that the major constraints to participation in sports and physical recreation included: age/too old, injury/illness, not interested and insufficient time (ABS, 2007). Informed by the literature, in the present study constraints to physical activity were operationalised as five factors covering intrapersonal constraints (two factors), interpersonal constraints (one factor) and structural constraints (two factors). The research literature indicates that constraints can have a negative, direct impact on participation in physical activity (Alexandris et al., 2003; Booth et al., 2002; Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2003, 2010; Haley & Andel, 2010; Mathews et al., 2010; Patel et al., 2013; Schutzer & Graves, 2004: Son et al., 2008). 2.4 Types of motivation (Self-determination theory) Ingledew et al. (2009) differentiated between participatory motives which equate to benefits in the present study and regulatory motives or types of motivation. Ingledew and Markland (2008, p.810) explained that participatory motives are the what or goal contents while regulatory motives are the why as reflected in the different types of motivation in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determination theory (SDT) organises types of motivation into a continuum from extreme extrinsic motivation (external regulation) where our behaviours are driven by demands from other people, to the other extreme (intrinsic motivation) where we chose to do things because we enjoy them. Introjected regulation is a form of extrinsic motivation where behaviours such as exercising are motivated by a desire to avoid anxiety or guilt. In contrast, identified regulation is closer to intrinsic motivation where we choose to do things because we value or recognise benefits of behaviours such as exercise, even though we may not necessarily enjoy the activity. External regulation is the least self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, and is completely external and controlled by others, including participating in an activity for external rewards such as pay or to avoid punishment; not for personal enjoyment. External regulation includes social sanction where pressure from others is the main reason for behaviours such as exercising (Ingledew, et al., 2009) or training to improve performance in a sporting activity (Pelletier, Frontier et al., 1995). 10

11 Introjected regulation is largely driven by internalised fears of anxiety, guilt or failure (Resnicow & McMaster, 2012). People may exercise because they may feel guilty if they miss a training session (Ingledew et al., 2009), or participating in sports training to avoid feeling bad (Pelletier et al., 1995). A leisure example is teenagers accompanying a younger sibling to aquatic education sessions to avoid parents accusing them of being selfish. Identified regulation involves choosing to participate in an activity because the expected outcome is personally important, such as anticipated longer-term health and fitness benefits from jogging or lap swimming (Ingledew et al., 2009). The longer-term health benefits are personally important even though the training sessions may be hard work and lacking in enjoyment. Because of the benefits that are personally valued, this type of motivation tends to be more stable and enduring than the more controlled types of extrinsic motivation (Resnicow & McMaster, 2012). Self-determined intrinsic motivation results in behaviours chosen primarily for their inherent enjoyment, satisfaction and positive feelings. Positive feelings of personal accomplishment include those associated with developing knowledge or skills and feeling competent (Pelletier et al., 1995). Ingledew and Markland (2008) concluded that motives such as enjoyment and well-being benefits tend to be intrinsically motivated and have an enduring impact on sustaining exercise participation (sustained engagement in the behaviour). In contrast, motives such as weight management tend to be extrinsically motivated (controlled by others) and thus have only a short-term influence on adherence to exercise participation. 3. Method (quantitative study) 3.1 Participants Respondents were customers of 16 multi-purpose Australian public aquatic and recreation centres located in WA, SA, Victoria, ACT and NSW. Data were collected from each centre using online versions of the questionnaire, while data collectors also distributed questionnaires for respondents to complete onsite if they did not have access to an online computer. After managing missing data, completed responses from 4,316 respondents were analysed for this report. All respondents were over 15 years of age, over half (56%) were in the years age group, almost a third (31%) were 50 years and over, and 15% were under 30 years of age (overall M = 39 years). A majority (65%) were female and less than a half (47%) attended the centre alone. The main activities respondents participated in at the centre were: aquatic education (26%), gym/health club (22%), lap swimming (18%), group fitness classes (14%), and leisure swimming (9%). The largest group were frequent visitors, attending the centre three or more times per week (40%) followed by once a week (28%) and twice a week (23%). Few (10%) travelled more than 10 km to attend the centre with a majority (66%) travelling less than 5 km. 3.2 Data Analyses Descriptive statistics were used to delineate the key demographic and centre usage characteristics of the sample; EFA (& reliability analyses) identified the factors used in the regression analyses. ANOVA and independent samples t-tests were used to confirm significant differences between groups of respondents. Multiple regression analysis was employed to measure the relationships between the independent variables (IVs) and the dependent variables (DVs). The IVs were benefits achieved, constraints, and types of motivation; and the DVs were overall benefits and overall physical activity. 3.3 Measures Overall physical activity: Based on other research (e.g., Haley & Andel, 2010) as well as national surveys of participation in physical activity (ABS, 2008) the overall physical activity scale in the present study included only two items with a relatively high Cronbach s alpha (.82). The items were: How often do you typically engage in moderate or vigorous exercise other than walking (e.g. jogging, active sports, activities at a gym or aquatic or leisure centre, use of home gym, etc.), and How often do you typically take part in moderate or vigorous physical activity overall? While the first of these two items 11

12 was likely to reflect respondents moderate or vigorous physical activity at the aquatic and recreation centre as well as other exercise participation other than walking, the second item was intended to capture all forms of moderate or vigorous physical activity as part of their daily living. The two items were combined to form the overall physical activity scale used in subsequent analyses. The five-point scale ranged from 1 (never), 2 (more than once /month but less than weekly), 3 (1-2 days/week), 4 (3-4 days/week), to 5 (5-7 days/week). Benefits achieved: In the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rate In regard to activities that you participate in at this centre, how important are the following benefits to you; and how well have you achieved them at this centre? The benefits items were rated for importance as well as achievement on separate interval scales, ranging from 1 (not at all), to 5 (very high). The benefit importance measures were combined into factors, as were the benefit achievement measures, with good internal consistency (Cronbach s α =.86 to.98) (Table 2). The benefits items were derived from other research (e.g., ABS, 2007; Alexandris et al., 2004; Dillard & Bates, 2011; Havitz et al., 2013; Howat et al., 2012; Ingledew et al. 2009; Theodorakis et al., 2004). Several other benefits items were included in earlier versions of the questionnaire (To improve physical appearance; To meet new people; To socialise with others; and Time for self). However, each of these items loaded relatively low on any factors and thus were excluded from further analysis. Table 2: Benefits achieved factors and items Benefits factors (α) Items Health & fitness Improved health & well-being (.93) Improved physical fitness Enjoyment Having fun (.93) Enjoyment Experiencing pleasure Skill & self-esteem A sense of personal accomplishment & success (.86) Improved skill level Improved self-esteem Relaxation & stress release Relaxation (.91) Escaping the pressures of daily life Reducing stress levels Social Spending time with family & or friends (.98) Enjoying time with family & or friends Success in competition Success in competition (.97) Improved performance in competitive sport Pushing myself in competition Overall benefits: A three-item overall benefits scale (Cronbach s alpha =.93) asked respondents to consider How do you feel overall about the benefits you achieved from participating in activities at this centre? An example of the three items was I am satisfied with the personal benefits I achieve from the activities at this centre, with five response options ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree), to 5 (very strongly agree). Constraints: Respondents were asked to rate To what extent does each of the following constraints generally limit your physical activity? on interval scales, ranging from 1 (not at all), to 5 (extremely). The constraints measures were combined into factors, with satisfactory to good internal consistency (Cronbach s α =.75 to.85) (Table 3). The constraints items were adapted from other research (e.g., Alexandris et al., 2003; Booth et al., 2002; Cohen-Mansfield et al., 2003, 2010; Haley & Andel, 2010; Mathews et al., 2010; Patel et al., 2013; Schutzer & Graves, 2004; Wilhelm Stanis, et al., 2010). Three items were not included in the factors because they cross-loaded on more than one factor or whose loadings were relatively low on any factor (Too expensive, Not enough time - study, Lack of motivation). 12

13 Table 3: Constraints factors and items Constraints factors (Α) Items Fear & lack of confidence Lack of knowledge (.85) Find physical activity unpleasant Lack of confidence Fear of participation in physical activity Too shy or embarrassed Injury/illness Fear of injury (.85) Injury Illness or symptoms of illness Pain Social support No physical activity partner (.78) Lack of support partner /others Time Not enough time - work (.79) Not enough time - family Too busy Access Access to facilities nearby (.75) Transport to facilities Self-determination theory (types of motivation) factors: Respondents rated To what extent do you agree that the following are reasons for your participation in exercise? on interval scales, ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree), to 5 (very strongly agree). Fourteen of the 16 items were included in four motivation factors (Table 4), each with high reliability (α =.84 to.95). Table 4: Self-determination theory (types of motivation) SDT factors (α) Items External Regulation Other people say I should (.92) Friends family partner say I should Others will not be pleased with me I feel under pressure from friends and family Introjected Regulation I feel guilty when I don t exercise (.84) I feel ashamed when I miss a session I feel like a failure when I haven t exercised Identified Regulation I value the benefits of exercise (.91) It s important to me to exercise regularly It s important to make the effort to exercise regularly Intrinsic Motivation My exercise sessions are fun (.95) I enjoy my exercise sessions I find exercise a pleasurable activity I get pleasure and satisfaction from participating in exercise 4. Results and discussion (quantitative study) 4.1 Benefits means: Health and fitness was the highest rated benefit factor for both importance (M I = 4.3) and achievement of benefits (M A = 4.0) from activities at the aquatic and recreation centre (Table 5). The highest health & fitness benefits were registered by lap swimmers, fitness classes, and gym/health club respondents (M I = 4.5, M A = 4.1), compared to lower health & fitness benefits for aquatic education (M I = 4.0, M A = 3.7). Significantly higher means for health & fitness benefits were recorded by the years age group (M I = 4.5, M A = 4.1),and 50 year and over age groups (M I = 4.4, M A = 4.1), compared to lower health & fitness benefits for the years age group (M I = 4.3, M A = 3.9). High means for health & fitness benefits were recorded also by respondents attending the centre alone (M I = 4.5, M A = 4.1), compared to groups attending with family and/or friends (M I = 4.2, M A = 3.8).These results place health & fitness benefits as the clear highest priority benefits for all age groups and most activity groups except for aquatic education respondents whose highest priorities were enjoyment and social 13

14 benefits. Results of the Henderson et al. (2012) study of reasons for participating in community recreation programs were: fun, health, social, and competition a similar order to the importance ratings of benefits attributes in the present study, except fun and health change places. Three other health-related benefits also rated relatively high: (enjoyment; relaxation & stress release; & skill & self-esteem) with importance means of 4.0, 3.8 and 3.9 and achievement means of 3.8, 3.7, and 3.7 respectively. There was a trend for all three of these benefits factors to be highest for the under 30 age group and lowest for the 50 years and over group. Table 5: Benefits means Benefits factors (n=4,609) Mean (importance) SD Mean (achievement) SD Mean (A-I gap) Health & fitness Enjoyment Relaxation & stress release Skill & self-esteem Social Success in competition Note: Scale 1 (not at all)) to 5 (very high) Relatively low ratings were recorded for social benefits (M I = 3.4, M A = 3.3), especially by gym/health club respondents (M I = 3.1, M A = 3.0), respondents attending the centre alone (M I = 2.9, M A = 2.8), and the 50 years and over age group (M I = 3.1, M A = 3.0). However, social benefits were rated relatively high for specific activity groups including: aquatic education (M I = 3.9, M A = 3.8), leisure swimmers (M I = 3.7, M A = 3.6), and visiting groups that included children under five years of age (M I = 4.0, M A = 4.0). Over half (51%) of the respondents (Table 6) rated the importance of social benefits as high (4) or very high (5), especially fitness class respondents (M I = 4.4, M A = 4.1) and aquatic education respondents (M I = 4.4, M A = 4.2). The 40% of fitness class respondents who rated the importance of social benefits as high or very high were mainly female (88%); and years of age (43%) or 50 years & over (39%). The 71% of aquatic education respondents who rated the importance of social benefits as high or very high were also mainly female (76%) and years of age (87%). Table 6: Benefits means: Social factor Benefits factors Mean (importance) Mean (achievement) Mean (A-I gap) Social: All respondents (n = 4,238) Social: Respondents rating social importance 4 or 5 (n = 2,160) Social: Fitness classes rating social importance 4 or 5 (n = 246) Social: Aquatic education rating social importance 4 or 5 (n = 789) Note: Scale 1 (not at all)) to 5 (very high) The lowest ratings were recorded for success in competition benefits (M I = 2.7, M A = 2.7). The under 30 age group registered the highest success in competition benefits (M I = 3.3, M A = 3.2), compared to the 50 years and over age group (M I = 2.3, M A = 2.3). Less than a quarter (22%) of the respondents (Table 7) rated the importance of success in competition benefits as high (4) or very high (5), especially lap swimming respondents (M I = 4.4, M A = 4.1), fitness class respondents (M I = 4.4, M A = 4.0) and gym/health club respondents (M I = 4.5, M A = 4.0). 14