CORP Commentary on the Public Opinion Survey Commissioned by Sonoma County Regional Parks in August 1995 The Coalition for the Outdoor Recreation Plan (CORP) views the survey commissioned by the Sonoma County Regional Parks Department in August/September of 1995 as very solid empirical evidence that Sonoma County residents strongly support the positions we advocate. That being said, we also feel compelled to point out a few weaknesses in the formulation of specific survey questions which cloud the results somewhat, in our view. The survey speaks very loudly in support of two of CORP's central precepts: (1) that the public strongly favors more trails and accessible natural parklands over other kinds of park facilities; and (2) that Open Space District funds should be used toward that goal. We examine each point in turn. "Passive" Uses of Parklands The survey makes it clear that the public's highest priority for parklands is what park administrators call "passive" uses, including hiking and other trail use, nature study, etc. Administrators contrast this with what they call "active" uses, meaning the ballfields, rec centers, swim centers and the like, which we typically associate with urban parks. NOTE: CORP doesn't care for this terminology, as hiking, biking and riding can be vigorously active, rather than passive. We prefer the term "low impact" for the so-called passive uses, referring to their minimal impact on the environment, and the term "natural parkland" or "natural open space" to describe the minimally developed natural landscape which best supports these activities. The survey's executive summary's point #2 (first bullet-point) reads as follows:
This conclusion is drawn from the survey's question 9.0, which asks the "passive" vs. "active" question directly (but see "Quibbles," below), and from question 11.0, which asks the respondent to prioritize a list of possible parkland uses. In this latter question, the divergence is dramatic. The highest priorities are given to the "passive" activities of
In contrast, such "active" uses as ballfields, tennis courts, and boating facilities rank quite low. Because the context of this survey is parks and recreation (as opposed to, say, land use), CORP feels justified in interpreting the highest priority as "more unimproved natural open space with public access" (more on this point later). OSD Funding for Additional Parklands The survey's executive summary's point #3 (second bullet-point) reads as follows:
The source for this conclusion is question 14.0. Even though the question was not asked as crisply as we would have liked, the 75% figure can only be seen as a resounding vote of support for acquiring new natural parklands, trails, and accessible open space through OSD funds, supplemented if necessary with Regional Park funds. Taken less than five years after the vote to create the SCAPOSD, we believe this survey represents solid evidence as to the will of the voters regarding District acquisition priorities. Quibbles: A Few Fuzzy Questions and Shaky Conclusions As noted above, question 14.0 did not quite ask how OSD should spend its money, but rather how Regional Parks' funds should be spent should the OSD purchase parklands. Still, in combination with other questions the public will is clear, and SRI (the consultants who conducted the survey and presented the results) drew what we feel is the inescapable conclusion that residents strongly desire more trails and natural parklands. More problematic is question 10.0:
The problem is the definition and examples given for "developed" vs. "undeveloped natural" parklands, and in particular the implication that undeveloped land might not be accessible to the public ("not indended for visitors"). The Open Space Districts in several Bay Area counties, including neighboring Marin, manage tens of thousands of acres which are almost completely undeveloped but very much open to the public. If, as CORP believes and other survey responses strongly suggest (especially question 11.0), this kind of undeveloped but accessible natural open space is what people want most, how are they to answer this question? CORP believes this confusion resulted in the following rather inconclusive responses:
We therefore suggest that SRI's conclusion that the public prefers developed parklands (executive summary's point #2) is unwarranted and should be disregarded. On the other hand, if the definition of "developed" is limited to the examples given in the question (campgrounds, parking, restrooms, benches, trails and walkways), it is probably not too far off the mark. It should be noted that a similar fuzziness infects question 9.0, which defines "passive" parks as facilities with "a few picnic tables and open grassy areas." By including picnic tables in the definition, the question again seems to exclude undeveloped but accessible open space as in Marin. The question also seems to denigrate the varied and scenic landscapes of our county, which include but are not limited to "open grassy areas." Another problematic question, which makes the mistake of raising an important issue too narrowly, is question 14.1.
The obvious question would have been simply "do you favor or oppose spending public funds to open and develop trails...". Instead, the survey narrowed the question to ask about trails alongside flood control channels, which many (most?) nature-loving trail users would say is not the best place for them. Sentiment was still quite strong in favor of this idea (64%). Based on the very high ratings given for additional trail-oriented recreation in question 11.0, CORP believes the responses in favor would have been even higher if the question had been asked about more trails generally. |
