A Resident Survey Co-Principal
Investigators
Strategy Research
Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS
Listing of Figures A thru U [NOTE: These figures are not currently available in this online document. They are graphical representations of the survey response data which can be seen in tabular form in the Questionnaire section of this page. - Ed.]
Charts H, I, L, M, and N broken down by area Final document: Copy of Instrument Showing Responses by Percentages |
|
The present study (1) was designed to address four specific research questions in order to determine existing awareness levels, preferences, and attitudes among Sonoma County residents that impact policy-level decision-making among those who are charged with the procurement, development, operation, and maintenance of the park and recreation facilities under the domain of the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. The fact that more than 50 figures and tables had to be developed in order to adequately present the findings from the present study is indicative of the level of complexity of the issues inherent to the four research questions addressed herein. While each of the four research questions will be discussed in appropriate detail in the body of the present document, there are specific findings that merit note in summary form at the outset of this discussion.
The above summary of findings will now be discussed in appropriate detail. The purpose of the present study is two fold: (1) to assess the awareness of and attitudes toward the current and future parks and recreation facilities in the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department, and (2) to determine public preferences for future improvements, acquisitions, and funding within the regional parks system. The summary findings of the research project are presented as the answers to four specific research questions that guided the overall design. These include questions about general attitudes and evaluations, current usage levels, funding preferences, perceived needs for new or added recreation facilities, preferences for specific kinds of new facilities, and finally, willingness to pay additional taxes for ongoing maintenance, improvements, and/or parks acquisitions. RESEARCH QUESTION 1
After asking about satisfaction with and use of any of the various parks and recreation facilities generally available in Sonoma County, residents were asked if they had ever heard of the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. Most county residents say they have heard of the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department (78%). Residents were then asked, "In general, how well-informed are you about the various parks and recreation facilities available through the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department?" A majority, 56 percent, are at least "somewhat well-informed" about the parks and facilities available through the Regional Parks Department (14% say they are extremely well informed). Approximately, one fourth say they are "somewhat or completely uninformed" about the available parks and facilities. Thus, most residents believe they are fairly well-informed about the regional parks and recreation facilities in Sonoma County. Respondents were asked about twelve specific regional parks or recreation facilities and whether they knew about the facility, its "location and basically what it offers to visitors." Figure D shows the number of residents who are familiar with the specific park or facility, as well as, the number who believe the park is part of the regional parks system. For example, Spring Lake Park is familiar to 86 percent of county residents, but only about half, 54 percent, know that this park is part of the regional parks system. Other Regional parks known by the majority of county residents are Healdsburg Veterans Memorial Beach (68%), Doran Park (68%), Gualala Regional Park (56%), and Ragle Ranch Regional Park (51%). Less than half of county residents know that these parks are part of the regional parks system (see Figure D). Of the twelve parks tested in the present study, three are known by fewer than 30 percent of county residents. These are Crane Creek (28%), Maxwell Farms (27%), and Joe Rodota Trail (25%). However, most (68-85%) of those residents who are familiar with these two parks and the trail also know that they are part of the regional parks system. Figure D also shows that those parks that are more widely known among county residents (parks listed at the top of the figure) are often not identified with the regional park system by many of those who say they know about the park. Whereas those parks that are not widely known (listed on the lower portion of the figure) are more frequently correctly identified with the regional park system by those residents who say they do know about the park. Regional Park Usage Approximately, two-thirds of residents report that they (or members of their family) visit regional parks in Sonoma County at least 5-10 times each year. Over one-third report using regional parks at least several times each month (see Figure E). Over 80 percent of Sonoma County regional park use is with friends or family not in organized sports activities. Figure P shows that residents report using regional park facilities almost as commonly as they use any public park facility in the County. For example, 19 percent report using any public park or recreation facility in Sonoma County several times each week; 13 percent report visiting a regional park several times each week. Twenty-five percent report using any park several times each month; 21 percent report using regional parks several times each month. This similarity in reported usage suggests that residents may not clearly distinguish between some visits to regional facilities compared to visits to other facilities, such as city parks, etc. The primary reason most residents give for not using the regional parks is that they are "too busy" to use the parks (58%, see Figure F). Over a third, 35 percent say they use other parks and recreation facilities; 32 percent say they don’t use the regional parks because of the location of the parks. (5) Few residents indicate that the costs associated with using regional parks keeps them away (20%). In sum, Sonoma County residents:
For the most part, the reasons given for not using the regional parks suggest that Sonoma County residents are basically satisfied with the regional parks department but are either too busy to use the parks, or they have adequate access to other (non-regional), nearby parks and recreation facilities. The primary reasons for non-use reflect positively on the quality of Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. The findings related to residents’ satisfaction with and evaluations of regional parks and recreation facilities reported in the next section of this report reinforce this interpretation. RESEARCH QUESTION 2 Residents give the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department high marks for on-going maintenance and security (see Figure G). Over 75 percent assign grades of ‘B’ or ‘A’ for the current level of maintenance of regional parks and support facilities. The lowest evaluation scores (although still quite high) are assigned for the "current level of safety patrols, policing, ranger patrols and overall security." Sixty-two percent of county residents give A’s and B’s. Less than 5 percent of Sonoma County residents assign D’s or F’s for any of the specific maintenance areas, including, maintenance of regional trails and parklands, support facilities (parking areas, restrooms, etc.), active recreation facilities (swimming areas, sports fields, etc.), and passive recreation facilities (campgrounds, nature trails, etc.) (see Figure G). A few more, 10 percent, assign D’s or F’s to the level of safety patrols and overall security. Residents were asked about their overall satisfaction with the number and quality of all the parks and recreation facilities within the county. Residents were also asked about their satisfaction with the quality of the Regional Parks and recreation facilities. Figure A shows the high level of satisfaction with both the number and quality of parks generally available to residents in Sonoma County. Only 10 percent are dissatisfied with the number of parks and facilities; 7 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of the parks and facilities in the county. Eighty percent are basically satisfied with the number of parks/facilities; 83 percent say they are satisfied with the quality of the parks. Even more residents, 88 percent, are satisfied with the quality of the Regional parks and recreation facilities available through the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. Very few report dissatisfaction (5%). The perceived differences between regional park facilities and other public recreation facilities is positive for the Regional Parks Department. Residents view the regional parks in a more favorable light compared to city parks in general. In sum, Sonoma County residents give:
RESEARCH QUESTION 3
Preferred Regional Parks Figure H shows that residents are somewhat split in terms of their preferences. Almost half, 48 percent, prefer passive parks; while 20 percent prefer active parks. However, almost one-third, 32 percent say they prefer a combination of the two types of parks. Similarly, 41 percent prefer developed recreation areas; 33 percent prefer undeveloped open space, with 26 percent preferring a combination of these two. As might be expected, residents of households with children are more inclined to prefer active parks and developed recreation areas compared to households without children. Current Priority Needs for Regional Recreation Facilities Residents were asked how they judged the current need for a variety of recreation facilities that could or might be added to the Regional Parks system. The table below shows the number of Sonoma County residents who say the item should be considered a "high priority, added as soon as possible." (Figure I provides additional insight into residents beliefs about the need for the various facilities by including data for those who assigned the item a "medium priority, should be added if and when the budget allows.")
The majority of Sonoma County residents, 52-58 percent, believe that open space, hiking trails, nature study centers, and regional trails should be added as soon as possible. Each of these represent improvements and facilities that are more "passive" and less intrusive on the natural environment. The other two items mentioned as high priority additions relate less to the natural environment and more to the basic needs of visitors. Over 50 percent of county residents believe there is a current need for additional restrooms in parks (52%) and more playground areas for children (52%). Just over 40 percent say more swimming facilities, more camping areas, and more picnic areas should be high priorities in the Regional Parks Department. The more complete information provided in Figure I should be studied and weighed by Sonoma County Regional Parks Department professionals in order to guide the planning process. These public perceptions of current needs offer insight into what may be real needs for additional facilities within the department. However, these findings may suggest a communication problem, for example, residents may not be fully aware of all the facilities that are currently available within the regional parks system. As noted above, there are a number of regional parks that are unknown to large majorities of Sonoma residents. Careful analysis of this information about public perceptions can enhance strategic planning. In addition, Figures I1 to I6 provide similar graphs of the priority needs partitioned according to the Regional Parks Department’s six service areas. Although in general each area of the county has common perceptions of urgently needed park facilities, there are some important differences in the relative ranking of the items tested (e.g. adding swimming facilities). This information should be used strategically to respond to the unique concerns among residents in each service area. Value of Parks & Recreation Facilities for Youth Two general attitudes were assessed regarding the value of parks and recreation facilities and youth. Figure K shows the extremely strong level of concern for the needs of youth within the county. Almost 75 percent (73%) agree that "public parks and recreation facilities are important community resources that help keep our youth out of trouble." Only 22 percent disagree with this statement. In addition, 73 percent agree that "Recreation programs for youth should be a high priority within the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department;" 22 percent disagree. These strong attitudes should be considered in future planning. Attitudes toward Spending on Open Space & Trails After asking about knowledge of the regional parks system, evaluations of parks and facilities, preferences regarding types of facilities and beliefs about current needs for a variety of park facilities and improvements, residents were asked specifically about two actions the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department might take. Figure L shows very strong support for spending department funds to:
These findings are very consistent with the overall perceptions of needed features within the regional parks system. Recall that the highest priority need mentioned by 58 percent of residents is natural open space. The need for more regional trails is also near the top of the priority list with 52 percent of residents assigning a high priority to this item. Obviously, there is strong support for both of these actions. Sonoma residents support spending for those regional park acquisitions/features that are highly valued and needed. This finding is consistent across all six service areas, although with regard to spending funds on adding open space there are some differences. Figure R shows the level of support for this action in each of the six areas. The highest level of support among residents is 83 percent in Area 5. The lowest level of support is in Area 4 with a 65 percent majority in favor of this spending action. RESEARCH QUESTION 4
Several funding questions were asked of county residents. Each of these questions was predicated on using the additional funds to pay for "park or recreation facility improvements or additions" that residents believe "are definitely needed." The first question asked if residents preferred "a small regional sales tax increase" or a "modest parcel property tax." A majority, 58 percent, prefer a regional sales tax. Only 25 percent favor a parcel tax (see Figure M). A second follow-up question asked directly, "How much in additional taxes would you be willing to pay each year?" This question was predicated on giving voters the final word on a new tax. Nevertheless, the results are encouraging. Almost all county residents are willing to pay at least some small amount in additional taxes to support the regional park system. Figure O shows the specific amounts various segments of the public are willing to pay. Adding together the top four categories shows that over 50 percent (53%) are willing to pay "$20-$30 or more each year" to support improvements and/or additions that are needed in the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department. Including those who are willing to pay "$10-$20 each year" lifts the county wide total to 66 percent. Only 11 percent say they are not willing to pay anything and 9 percent are unsure about how much they are willing to pay in additional taxes. Figure T shows that the level of support for additional taxes varies slightly across the six service areas in the county. In all areas support for the "$10-$20 or more" tax is above 60 percent. The greatest support at this dollar amount is in Area 3 with 68 percent; the least supportive service areas are Area 2 and Area 4 with 61 percent willing to pay this amount. Voter Support and the Specific Use of new Tax Revenues Residents were asked a series of questions about their willingness to support a new tax for the regional parks depending generally on how the funds would be spent (see Figure N). First, residents were asked if they would support a new tax for regional parks if the monies would be spent entirely on maintenance and operation costs. The majority affirmed their willingness to support such a tax (54% yes, 30% no, 16% unsure). However, when residents were asked about their willingness to support a tax if the funds were used for "maintenance, operations and facility development costs, such as adding trails, building restrooms, and parking areas" the level of voter support increased to 66 percent with only 23 percent opposed and 11 percent unsure. This shift represents a net gain in voter support of 12 percent. A third question was asked about using funds "for maintenance, operations, facility develop and acquisition of new parklands." Slightly fewer voters would support this use of funds in a regional parks tax. If acquisition of parklands is included in the added tax, 61 percent would support, 27 percent would oppose and 12 percent remain unsure. Although a majority (54%) are willing to pay simply for maintenance and operations (if truly necessary), these uses of new tax dollars are not sufficient to motivate some residents (about 12%), who are willing to pay more if the money is spent on items they care about. Clearly, the examples offered in the way the survey question was asked, specifically, adding trails, building restrooms, and parking areas, correspond to items that many residents report as currently needed high priority items within regional parks system (see previous discussion and Figure I). Any decision regarding increasing taxes for the regional parks must take these findings in to account. Further, if the findings are considered it is likely that a small tax increase will be supported by a significant majority of Sonoma County residents. Due to the comprehensive and complex nature of the research questions that have driven the present study, few definitive recommendations can be arrived at without in-depth discussions that are based upon the findings reported herein and in the tables and figures that follow the narrative portions of this report. Therefore, the final section of this report is a brief discussion entitled: Summary Conclusions. Through the findings of the recently-completed research effort, Sonoma County residents have provided County officials and other policy-level decision makers important information that clearly and definitively answers the research questions posed in the present study. SRI researchers urge officials to take these findings into account as they work through the often difficult choices in the on-going development and maintenance of Sonoma County Parks and Recreation facilities. Accordingly, this report (expecially the extensive set of figures and tables) should be viewed as a working document for planners and policy makers as they seek to manage and protect a public resource that is highly valued by the residents of Sonoma County. SRI researchers and strategic planners stand ready to assist in the interpretation of the data reported herein, including providing additional analyses on an "as needed" basis. To assist in this process, several sets of Figures are presented for each of the six service areas, separately (see H1 thur H6, I1 thru I6, L1 thru L6, M/O1 thru M/O 6). We want to thank those agencies who commissioned the present study for the opportunity of working with you on this particular project. It has turned out to be very interesting and, we believe, instructive to all concerned. Furthermore, we wish you only the best as you move ahead with your decision-making process. We are confident that the findings from this study will, indeed, help you remain sensitive to the perceived wants and needs of your respective constituencies. NOTES: (1) A discussion of the research methodology appears in Addendum A. Return to reference (1). (2) These findings must be qualified, however, since the population surveyed in the present study was the community-at-large (Sonoma County residents) as opposed to registered voters (a subset of the community-at-large). While it's true that the findings reported herein are an accurate representation of the attitudes of Sonoma County residents as a whole, the fact remains that seldom do the majority of residents actually vote. Historically, members of the electorate are less willing to pay taxes than are the members of the community-at-large. Thus, in all likelihood, there is LESS SUPPORT for paying additional taxes (either in the form of an added sales tax, a new parcel tax, or newly assessed fees) than the present findings suggest. Return to reference (2). (3) Definitive answers to questions involving new and/or added taxes, in whatever form, can be manifested only by surveying the members of the Sonoma County electorate as opposed to the community-at-large. Return to reference (3). (4) Pushing through the maximum tax in a voter-approved measure assumes NO ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN against the proposed tax. Return to reference (4). (5) This finding is consistent with the information provided in Figure J which shows that only 26 percent of county residents report living more than 6-10 miles from the nearest Regional Park facility. Return to reference (5). |
Addendum "A" The present study is based upon information collected from a random sample of Sonoma County residents drawn via random digit dialing procedures. A total of 600 telephone interviews were conducted during late August 1995. Respondents were asked a series of questions about their attitudes, beliefs, and preferences in connection with parks and recreation facilities and funding in Sonoma County. The final questionnaire was designed and prepared after consultation with Sonoma County Regional Parks Department officials and representatives in order to gather accurate data necessary to accomplish the goals of the study. After the questionnaire was approved, the telephone interviews were conducted. The sample was stratified according to Parks Department service area such that 100 residents were interview from each of the six service areas, for a total of 600. A random sample of 600 generally results in sampling error rates of approximately +3.0 to 4.0 percent (sampling error depends on the sample size and the distribution of responses). Thus, on the basis of the random selection procedures and the sample size of 600, a high level of confidence may be placed in the findings from the present study. After the data were collected, a series of descriptive and advanced statistical procedures were conducted using the computer program SPSS. Results were interpreted, conclusions drawn, tables and figures created, and the final report was prepared for presentation to the client. |
Sonoma County Hello. My name is _____________________ and I am with the Survey Research Institute. We are conducting a local survey for on behalf of several local public agencies, including Parks and Recreation in Sonoma County. These public agencies would like to learn more about your concerns, needs, and interests regarding the issue of parks and recreation in Sonoma County.
1.0 Overall, how satisfied are you with the present number of public parks and recreation facilities, available in Sonoma County? (clarify if necessary, Are there enough parks and facilities?) Would you say you are...?
1.1 Overall, how satisfied are you with the present quality of public parks and recreation facilities, available in Sonoma County? Would you say you are...?
1.2 Approximately, how often during the past year, did you, or members of your household use or visit any public park or recreation facility located in Sonoma County?
2.0 "Have you ever heard of the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department?"
2.1 In general, how well-informed are you about the various parks & recreation facilities available through the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department? Would you say you are...?
3.0 I am going to read a list of parks and recreation facilities in Sonoma County. For each item please tell me first if you know about the park or facility, it’s approximate location, and basically what that park or facility offers to visitors. Second, please tell me if you believe that the park or facility is part of the Sonoma County Regional Parks system?
4.0 As you may have guessed the parks and facilities I just asked you about are all part of the Sonoma County Regional Parks System. Approximately, how
often during the past year, did you, or members of
your household use or visit these or any of
the other Sonoma County Regional Parks
or recreation facilities?
4.1 Generally speaking, when you (or members of your household) use the Regional Park facilities, do you do so as part of an organized sports league or recreation group, such as Little League, or Youth Soccer, etc.? Or do you generally use the regional parks as an an individual, perhaps with friends or family members?
5.0 How satisfied are you with the present quality of parks and recreation facilities available through the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department? Would you say you are...?
6.0 I will now read a list of some of the reasons people have for NOT using Sonoma County Regional Parks and recreational facilities. Please tell me, in order of priority, which two or three of these reasons apply to you most often? (indicate 1st, 2nd, and 3rd)
7.0 Is there any other important reason you do not use the Regional Parks? What is it?
8.0 Using a traditional grading scale with "A" for excellent, "B" for good, "C" for average or adequate, "D" for below average or poor and "F" for very poor or Failure, how would you grade the following aspects of the Sonoma County Regional Parks and recreation facilities? 8.1 the ongoing Maintenance of regional trails and parklands?
8.2 the ongoing Maintenance of regional support facilities, such as, the parking areas, restroom facilities, barbeque pits, picnic tables, trash receptacles, trash pickup and removal?
8.3 the ongoing Maintenance of regional "active" recreation facilities, such as, swimming areas, sports fields, and playgrounds?
8.4 the ongoing Maintenance of regional "passive" recreation facilities, such as, campgrounds, nature trails, nature centers, benches, open grassy areas, garden areas, picnic areas? etc.
8.5 the current level of safety patrols, policing, ranger patrols, and overall security for visitors?
9.0 The Sonoma County Regional Parks Department is working on long-range planning and is interested in knowing what types of facilities residents prefer. As a resident of Sonoma County do you prefer "active" parks that include athletic fields for organized sports programs? Or do you prefer "passive" parks with such facilities as a few picnic tables and open grass areas?
10.0 Would you prefer more developed park areas and facilities to encourage recreation visitors and activities (i.e. campgrounds, parking, restrooms, benches, trails and walkways) or do you prefer more undeveloped natural areas of open space not intended for visitors, mainly for viewing from a distance, for example as people drive by or through an area in their cars. Do you prefer?
11.0 Now I am going to read a list of Recreation and Park facilities that might be added to the Sonoma Regional Parks system in the future. I would like ask your opinion about the current need to add the type of facility mentioned. If you were an advisor to the County, how would you rate the importance of adding each of the following park and recreation facilities to the Regional Parks Department? Would you say adding the facility should be considered:
The first item on the list is "more athletic fields." Does the regional park system need more athletic fields? More specifically, should adding more athletic fields be considered a high, medium, or low priority within the park system?
12.0 How close is the closest Sonoma County Regional Park or recreation facility to your residence?
13.0 Now I would like to ask whether you agree or disagree with several statements related to parks and recreation in Sonoma County. Please use the following scale:
13.1 Public parks and recreation facilities are important community resources that help keep our youth out of trouble.
13.2 Recreation programs for youth should be a high priority within the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department.
14.0 The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District is considering the purchase of land which could become part of the Sonoma County Regional Parks system. These parklands would be reserved as regional "open-space" for passive recreation use including trails and nature study areas. These additional "open space" parklands would require some improvements as well as ongoing maintenance. Do you favor or oppose spending additional Regional Park Department funds to improve and maintain new regional parklands if they are acquired by the Open Space District and given to the Regional Park Department?
14.1 One way to increase the number of regional trails available to Sonoma County residents is to open the existing maintenance roads that run alongside flood control channels such as Santa Rosa Creek and Sonoma Creek and make them part of the Sonoma Regional trails system. Do you favor or oppose spending public funds to open and develop the roads as trails to extend the Sonoma County Regional trails system?
14.2 If it became necessary to generate revenues in order to add or improve, parks and facilities in the regional parks system would you prefer a small regional sales tax increase or would you prefer a modest parcel property tax to pay for the new or improved parks and recreation facilities?
14.3 If a tax measure was placed before Sonoma County voters in order to add or improve some of the parks and recreation facilities that you think are definitely needed, how much in additional taxes would you be willing to pay each year to add or improve the parks and facilities in the Sonoma County Regional Parks system?
14.4 Would you be willing to pay additional taxes for Sonoma County Regional Parks if the funds were used entirely for maintenance and operation costs?
4.5 Would you be willing to pay additional taxes for Sonoma County Regional Parks if the funds were used for maintenance, operations and facility development costs, such as adding trails, building restrooms and parking areas?
14.6 Would you be willing to pay additional taxes for Sonoma County Regional Parks if the funds were used for maintenance, operations, facility development, and acquisition of new parklands?
Now I have a few final questions about you. 15.0 How long have you lived in or near Sonoma County?
16.0 How many children do you have living at home under the age of 18?
16.1 Are any of these children "teenagers"?
17.0 Do you own or rent your home?
18.0 Do you live in one of the cities in Sonoma County or do you live in one of the unicorporated areas of the county?
19.0 How many years of school have you completed?
20.0 Into what range does your annual household income fall?
21.0 What is your age?
22.0 How would you describe your ethnic background?
DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS; Simply record the information. 23.0 Gender of respondent?
24.0 Supervisor District?
25.0 Zip Code? 26.0 Service Area?
August 1995 |
