new table of contents - iowa state university · 2018. 2. 16. · mingjie sun, iowa state...
TRANSCRIPT
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................. 10
2. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN LINN COUNTY.................................................................................. 13
3. PARKS/OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREAS MANAGED BY LCCB ...................................................... 17
4. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................ 31
5. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ....................................................................................................... 32
6. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE WITH FREQUENCIES ...................................................................................... 39
Research Team:
Nora Ladjahasan, Iowa State University Mingjie Sun, Iowa State University Craig Erickson, Shive Hattery- Architecture Engineering Consulting Firm. Dan Biechler, Linn County Conservation Board Dennis Goemaat, Linn County Conservation Board Randy Burke, Linn County Conservation Board Jessica Rilling, Linn County Conservation Board
Report produced by Iowa State University Community Development Data Information and Analysis Laboratory (CDDIAL)
Nora Ladjahasan, CDCDIAL coordinator, IDRO asst. scientist II Mingjie Sun, IDRO asst. scientist I
If you have questions regarding this study or other services provided by CDDIAL, please contact us 515-294-0734 or [email protected].
1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
The 2014 Linn County Outdoor Recreation and Conservation survey was conducted to help the conservation board develop its long-term plans for increasing the quality of life through programs of conservation and education. The results of the survey reflect residents’ usage and expectations of the existing recreational and conservation facilities and services, as well as their opinions on the availability and accessibility of outdoor recreational areas in the county. The LCCB will use the survey results in its planning, resource allocation, and programming.
Methodology & Response Rate
This conservation and recreational needs assessment in Linn County was assessed using a survey of the Linn residents related to the availability and adequacy of the recreational services available and provided by the county specifically by the Linn County Conservation Board.
The survey or questionnaire was a joint effort between the ISU CDDIAL staff and steering committee composed of 4 members of Linn County Conservation (Dan Biechler, Dennis Goemaat, Randy Burke and Jessica Rilling) and Craig Erickson of Shive Hattery- Architecture Engineering Consulting Firm. Two face-to-face meetings and several email exchanges were made to finalize the survey instruments.
Since the survey was administered by ISU, statement on data gathering procedure was submitted to ISU's Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval. This is approval is being required by the university to comply to a federal regulation in making sure that the rights of the research respondents are protected in terms of beneficence, respect for persons and justice. Final IRB approval for this survey was in 9/19/2014.
Two set of questionnaires with exactly same questions were developed: a) mail survey format, and b) online using Qualtrics.com.
The mail survey was administered to the randomly selected Linn County residents. Stratified random sampling of residents from 20 cities in Linn County was done using a 95% confidence level and confidence interval of 5 (379 required sample size). The distribution of prospective respondents was proportionately selected based on the city's population size. This was done intentionally to make sure that each city in the county was represented. (See the map 1 for the residential location of respondents and Table 1 for the number of respondents for each sampled city). Random samples came from 15 cities, 17 cities for the stakeholders.
2
Names and addresses of the respondents were taken from Salesgenie.com (subscription based database that CDDIAL procured).
A total of 740 surveys were mailed out to the randomly selected respondents on October 10, 2014. The respondents were given two weeks to complete the survey. Telephone follow-ups were made for 3 1/2 weeks to those who did not return the completed surveys. The telephone calls were made by two ISU undergraduate students. The respondents were given the option to complete the survey over the phone, do it online or return back the completed survey to ISU. The prospective respondents were called three times before they were dropped from the list. Follow-up phone calling did not increase the response rate as expected due to timing. State election was going when the follow-up phone calls was done. People were very hesitant in answering their phones.
For those who did not have available telephone numbers, a letter of invitation was mailed out to 175 random samples.
Out of 740 surveys originally sent out, 498 were considered valid. This is due to addresses being unknown, disconnected phone, deceased, moved out, and no answer on the phone calls. The overall response rate was 21%. This group of respondents will be termed "random" in the report.
Those who were not randomly selected to be respondents to this survey were given a chance to express their opinion by filling up online survey. The online survey was advertised at the public open houses, through Linn County Conservation Board email list serve, newsletter, as well as emails to interested groups such as Linn County Trails Association and the Corridor Conservation Coalition. This online survey was exclusively limited to those who were not randomly selected or to those who received the hard copy of the questionnaire. Two hundred fifty seven (257) individuals completed this online survey. This group of respondents will be addressed as "stakeholders" in the report since they were more likely to be already engaged in Linn County Conservation Board programs.
3
Map 1. Location of Respondents
4
Table 1. Number of Respondents by City (Random vs. Stakeholder)
City Random Stakeholder Alburnett 2 1 Bertram 0 1 Cedar Rapids 58 79 Center Points 4 2 Central City 3 8 Coggon 3 5 Ely 1 2 Fairfax 1 3 Hiawatha 2 3 Lisbon 0 2 Marion 12 43 Mount Vernon 5 0 Palo 0 2 Prairieburg 2 0 Robins 3 3 Springville 0 1 Toddville 1 1 Troy Mills 0 0 Viola 4 1 Walker 1 2 Total 102 159
Weighting the responses
The unweighted analyses suggested that the original sample was disproportionately composed of older and highly educated adults, adults with higher household income and from rural areas, relative to the general population in Linn County. For example, 36% of the survey respondents were 65 years old and over. According to the 2011- 2013 American Community Survey (ACS), only 18% of Linn County residents are in that age group. Similarly, 48% of the survey respondents had undergraduate and above education compared to 32% based on the ACS.
To correct for these biases, the survey data was weighted using the RIM weighting process to ensure that the sample was representative of general residents in Linn County. Each respondent was weighted by age, education, household income and type of residence (urban/rural) distributions. Table 2 below shows the demographic distributions of random sample before and after weighting.
5
Table 2. Demographic distribution of random sample before and after weighting
Linn County 2011-2013
ACS Original
Random Sample Survey Distribution
after Weighting Age 18-24 13.1% 2.0% 13.1% 25-44 34.8% 14.8% 38.2% 45-64 34.2% 47.5% 32.4% 65 and over 17.9% 35.6% 16.3% Education
High school and less 32.7% 22.8% 31.9% Some college or associate degree 35.8% 29.7% 32.8% Undergraduate and above 31.6% 47.6% 35.4%
Household income Under $25,000 19.3% 7.5% 16.9% $25,000 to $49,999 23.9% 17.2% 20.7% $50,000 to $74,999 19.6% 25.8% 20.7% $75,000 to $99,999 14.6% 23.7% 16.3% $100,000 and above 22.5% 25.8% 25.3%
Residence Urban 87.2% 81.4% 85.9% Rural 12.8% 18.6% 14.1%
The descriptive and statistical analyses on random sample in this report are based on weighted data, except the open-ended questions.
SUMMARY
• Demography o Stakeholders were older, more highly educated, and had higher household
income than the random survey respondents. o There were more stakeholder respondents who live in the rural areas compared
to random samples. • Recreation activities
o In general, stakeholders were more active in participating in recreational activities compared to the random respondents. Activities that were popular to stakeholders but not to random samples were biking, lodge /shelter use, nature photography/study, bird watching/feeding, canoeing/kayaking, and RV camping.
6
Activities that were more common to both groups were hiking/walking, driving/sight-seeing, picnicking, and sledding.
• Venue for recreational activities o Majority of recreational activities in the past 24 months were held in Linn County
or both in and outside Linn County. Activities that were done dominantly in Linn County by both groups were disc golfing, bird watching/feeding, snowshoeing, attending educational programs, sledding, lodge/shelter use, running, picking berries/nuts/mushrooms.
o However, activities done mainly outside Linn County by random respondents were snowmobiling, backpacking, motor boating or water-skiing, and RV camping, and by stakeholder respondents were backpacking, cabin camping, riding all-terrain vehicles, and equestrian camping.
• Favorite activities o The top favorite activities random respondents most enjoy were walking,
followed by biking, nature/sight-seeing/watching wildlife, and hiking. The ranking for stakeholders is quite different, hiking as 1st, followed by biking (2nd) and walking (3rd).
• Activities wished to do in the future o When asked what activities they have not done but would like to try in the
future, both groups indicated canoeing/kayaking/boating, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing. Random respondents would like to try cabin camping, and disc golfing, too.
• Popular activities for visitors o The most popular activity for visitors of random respondents was shopping,
followed by nightlife, and golfing. For stakeholders, the most common activities were hiking/biking and shopping.
• Popular places to visit for visitors o Restaurants and parks were the most popular places for both the random
respondents’ families and friends when they visit Linn County. Trails were the third popular places for stakeholders. Some other places, such as Dog Park, library, theatre, and observation Tower at Pinicon Ridge, were also mentioned
• Awareness of the park o Majority of the respondents were aware of the four parks in Linn County, except
Buffalo Creek Park for the random respondents. Most respondents knew Squaw Creek Park, followed by Pinicon Ridge Park, Morgan Creek Park, and Buffalo Creek Park.
7
• Frequency of visits to the park o Fifty-eight percent of the random respondents and 92% of the stakeholders
visited Squaw Creek Park at least once in the past 24 months. Almost half (48%) of the stakeholder respondents visited the park more than 5 times. Pinicon Ridge Park was the second most visited park and Buffalo Creek Park was least visited park.
• Trails o Among the three trails, Cedar Valley Nature Trail was most known and highly
visited by both the random and stakeholder respondents. However, Grand Wood Trail was the least known and visited trail.
• Historic/ cultural sites o Among the historic/cultural sites, Wickiup Hill Learning Center was the only one
known by majority of the random respondents and highly visited. The other three sites (Estern Iowa Observatory, Abbe Creek School Museum and Jay G. Sigmund Memorial Site) were not very popular places to visit for the two groups of respondents.
• Natural areas o Among the 18 natural areas in Linn County, Palisades-Dows Preserve, Chain
Lakes, Matsell Bridge, Wickiup Hill, and Palo Marsh were the most known and visited places by both groups.
• Activities done at the parks o Squaw Creek Park was the most popular place for biking and using
lodge/shelter. It was also the favorite place for stakeholders to do running and educational program for random respondents. For hiking/walking, all the three parks were popular among the two groups of respondents.
o For hiking/walking, all the three parks were popular among the two groups of respondents.
o For picnicking, Morgan Creek and Pinicon Ridge were the favorite places for random respondents, and Squaw Creek and Pinicon Ridge for stakeholders.
o Morgan Creek Park was the most popular place for random respondents to run, to camp, and to do nature photography/study. Pinicon Ridge was the favorite place for fishing.
o All the three parks were favorite places for stakeholders to participate in nature photography/study, driving for pleasure, and geocaching.
• New activities/facilities would like to see by random respondents o Morgan Creek Park (cross-country ski trails, fishing, disc golf, mountain bike
trails, playground, small vineyard featuring Midwest varietals for education,
8
splash pad would be nice; swing sets, concession stand for kids if they get hungry or thirsty (i.e. ice cream cart))
o Pinicon Ridge Park (campsites on south side, cross-country ski trails; downhill ski slope, deer hunting (bow), full hook ups, hiking/ tower, hunting, more modern bathrooms, mountain bike trails)
o Squaw Creek Park (bike trails, full hook ups, cross country ski trails; downhill ski slope, fall festival with vendors, crafts, hayrides etc. , hand gun shooting range including a classroom and training area, a zoo, lodge, more trees on campsites, more cross country trails, more places to take dog off leash, more mountain bike trails, viewing tower)
• Disability o About 14% of the random respondents and only 6% of the stakeholder
respondents reported to have family member(s) with disability which prevent them from using county parks. They wanted their disabled family members to enjoy the recreational facilities, thus those facilities needed to be handicapped accessible (i.e paved trail, accessible sidewalk, etc.)
• Satisfaction with the services/facilities managed by LCCB o Both groups were satisfied with camping, walking/hiking/jogging/rollerblading,
picnicking, lodge/shelters, fishing/ice fishing, bicycling, boating/canoeing, bird watching, and nature programs. . Both groups of the respondent were uncertain about hunting/trapping, off-road biking, and horseback riding. Please see the full report for specific dissatisfaction reasons for services provided.
• Likeliness to pay extra for services for a night of camping o Both groups were very uncertain about paying extra to stay in a camping cabin,
making advance reservation, and for campsite sewer service. They won’t pay extra for WiFi Internet and Satellite TV services.
• Priority activities/projects of LCCB o LCCB should give high priority to the following issues according to both groups:
Acquiring and protecting more natural areas; Developing more hard-surfaced bicycle/multi-use trails; Acquiring more open space for public recreational use, and for
watershed management/water quality improvement; and Planning/developing a regional trail system/ multi-use trails for
regional linkage. o In addition, the stakeholders suggested that LCCB should give high priority to:
Developing more trails for cross-country skiing; Developing more unsurfaced trails for hiking; and Providing more in-park educational programs for public participation.
9
• Environmental Education o Thirty-five percent of the random respondents and 60% of the stakeholders
visited the Wickiup Hill Learning Center in the past 24 months. The vast majority of those who visited were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with the facilities of Wickiup Hill Learning Center.
o Reasons for dissatisfaction as specified by unsatisfied stakeholder were the cost, exhibits being broken or beat down, little information about invasive species, display not changing, unclean, unkept live animal display and lack of displays.
o Both the random and stakeholder respondents were interested in the following education programs: other recreational (skiing, canoeing, nature crafts, etc.), and natural history and the environment. Stakeholder respondents were also interested in energy conservation program.
o Majority of the respondents indicated that LCCB’s emphasis on environmental education should increase or remain the same.
o It was important that environmental issue such as natural history, the environment (i.e. air, water, recycling, conservation, etc.), outdoor and energy conservations issues be understood by Linn County residents.
o The most popular source of information for LCCB’s programs and activities according to the random samples were local newspaper, followed by television, and radio. For stakeholders, website was the most common source, followed by LCCB e-mail newsletter, local newspaper, and attending programs or visiting parks.
• Comments o Additional comments by both stakeholders and random samples are noted in the
report.
10
DATA ANALYSIS
1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Figures 1 to 5 compare the demographic characteristics of the respondents of the random survey and stakeholder survey, and the general public of Linn County. After weighting, the random sample was largely representative of the general public, based on the 2011-2013 American Community Survey data.
Age
In general, stakeholders tended to be older than those of the random survey respondents. About 54% of stakeholders were in the middle age group of 45-64, compared to 33% for the random survey (Figure 1).
Gender
The gender distribution of stakeholders was almost same as the general public. The random survey was slightly more represented by the male (54%). (Figure 2)
13%
35% 34%
18%
12%
36%33%
18%
1%
27%
54%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
18-24 years old 25-44 45-64 65+
Figure 1. Age Distribution
Linn County
Random
Stakeholders
11
Education
With 59% of them with an undergraduate or above degree, stakeholders were more highly educated than the random sample (35%) and Linn County as a whole (32%).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Linn County Random Stakeholders
49% 54% 50%
51% 46% 50%
Figure 2. Gender
Female
Male
33% 32%
7%
36% 34%
32%
32% 35%
59%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Linn County Random Stakeholders
Figure 3. Education
Other
Undergraduateand above
Some college orassociate degree
High school andless
12
Household Income
Stakeholders had higher household income than the random sample. About 59% of the stakeholders and 41% of the random survey respondents reported their household income to be over $75,000. Only 4% of the stakeholders' household income was below $25,000, compared to 17% for the random respondents.
Ethnicity/Race
According to the 2011-2013 ACS data, residents of Linn County are dominantly white (91%). About 95% of the random sample and 97% of the stakeholders were white. Three percent of Linn County residents are Hispanic or Latino. In the survey, no random respondent and 1% of the stakeholders were of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Rural/Urban Residence
Seventy-eight percent of the stakeholders lived in incorporated city/town (urban area), compared to 87% for Linn County residents.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Linn County Random Stakeholders
19% 17%4%
24%21%
12%
20%21%
25%
15%16%
24%
23% 25%36%
Figure 4. Household Income
$100,000 and above
$75,000 to $99,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$25,000 to $49,999
Under $25,000
13
2. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN LINN COUNTY A. Indicate the activities that you or members of your household have participated in the
last 24 months.
Table 3 indicates that stakeholders were, in general, more active in participating in recreational activities compared to the random respondents. Activities that were more common to both groups are hiking/walking (96% and 85%), driving/sight-seeing (91% and 76%), picnicking (81% and 63%), and sledding (50% and 52%). Activities that were commonly participated by stakeholder samples but were not very popular to random samples are biking (76% vs. 46%), lodge /shelter use (58% vs. 39%), nature photography/study (58% vs. 36%), bird watching/feeding (56% vs. 28%), canoeing/kayaking (55% vs. 32%), and RV camping (51% vs. 34%).
Among the respondents who participated in the 29 recreational activities listed in the questionnaire, for the past 24 months majority of them had done them in Linn County or both in and outside Linn County. Activities that were done dominantly in Linn County both by the random respondents and the stakeholders were disc golfing (91% and 57%, respectively), bird watching/feeding (84% and 60%), snowshoeing (83% and 60%), attending educational programs (82% and 57%), sledding (74% and 79%), lodge/shelter use (71% and 56%), running (71% and 55%), picking berries/nuts/mushrooms (62% and 53%). Activities were done both in and outside Linn County by both groups were driving/sight-seeing (67% and 65%) and hunting (50% and 50%).
87%
13%
86%
14%
78%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Urban Rural
Figure 5. Rural/Urban Distribution
Linn County
Random
Stakeholders
14
Table 3. Participation of recreational activities
Activities
Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Participated Among those participated Participated Among those participated
Yes
In Linn Co.
Only
Both in and
outside Linn Co.
Outside Linn Co. only Yes
In Linn Co.
Only
Both in and
outside Linn Co.
Outside Linn Co.
only % % % % % % % % Hiking/walking 85.4 61.0 37.7 1.3 95.5 34.4 61.9 3.7 Driving/sight-seeing 77.5 21.7 66.7 11.6 91.1 23.8 65.2 11.0 Picnicking 62.9 46.4 47.8 5.8 81.1 40.8 49.3 9.9 Sledding 51.7 73.9 10.9 15.2 49.7 78.8 12.5 8.8 Fishing 49.4 50.0 31.8 18.2 54.7 39.4 36.2 24.5 Bike 46.1 53.7 31.7 14.6 76.4 45.3 51.1 3.6 Motorboating or water-skiing 40.4 33.3 8.3 58.3 36.8 31.6 19.3 49.1 Lodge/shelter use 38.9 71.4 20.0 8.6 57.5 56.3 29.2 14.6 Running 38.2 71.4 25.7 2.9 42.6 55.1 39.1 5.8 Nature photography/study 36.0 59.4 25.0 15.6 57.5 45.0 50.0 5.0 RV camping 33.7 26.7 23.3 50.0 51.4 37.1 48.3 14.6 Canoeing/kayaking 31.5 25.0 32.1 42.9 55.3 31.6 30.5 37.9 Tent camping 31.5 42.9 28.6 28.6 33.5 20.4 38.9 40.7 Riding all-terrain vehicles 31.5 29.6 29.6 40.7 18.4 25.0 17.9 57.1 Picking berries/nuts/mushrooms 29.2 61.5 26.9 11.5 44.3 52.9 35.7 11.4 Bird watching/feeding 28.1 84.0 16.0 <1 56.3 59.6 31.9 8.5 Attending educational programs 25.8 81.8 18.2 <1 54.9 56.7 31.1 12.2 Target or trap shooting 24.7 36.4 40.9 22.7 19.9 54.8 19.4 25.8 Disc golf 23.6 90.5 9.5 23.9 57.9 28.9 13.2 Hunting 22.5 25.0 50.0 25.0 21.5 35.3 50.0 14.7 Volleyball 15.7 36.4 40.9 22.7 15.0 56.5 26.1 17.4 Backpacking 11.2 10.0 30.0 60.0 19.9 12.9 16.1 71.0 Cross-country skiing 7.9 71.4 28.6 <1 23.6 54.1 29.7 16.2 Snowmobiling 7.9 25.0 75.0 5.8 44.4 11.1 44.4 Snowshoeing 7.9 83.3 16.7 <1 19.1 60.0 33.3 6.7 Cabin camping 7.9 57.1 <1 42.9 27.4 20.9 11.6 67.4 Horseback riding 5.6 100.0 <1 <1 11.7 11.1 50.0 38.9 Geocaching 5.6 20.0 40.0 40.0 21.6 42.4 39.4 18.2 Equestrian camping <1 5.9 11.1 33.3 55.6
15
Activities done mainly outside Linn County by random respondents were snowmobiling (75%), backpacking (60%), motor boating or water-skiing (58%), and RV camping (50%), and by stakeholder respondents were backpacking (71%), cabin camping (67%), riding all-terrain vehicles (57%), and equestrian camping (56%).
B. Indicate the three favorite activities you or members of your household most enjoy.
The top favorite activities random respondents most enjoy were walking (36%), followed by biking (30%), nature/sight-seeing/watching wildlife (26%), and hiking (26%). For stakeholders, their favorite activities were almost the same except that the ranking was slightly different. Hiking (51%) was the most favorite activities for stakeholders, followed by biking (34%) and walking (29%). (Table 4)
Table 4. Three favorite activities most enjoyed Activities Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Ranking % Ranking % Walking 1 36.1% 3 29.3% Biking 2 29.9% 2 34.3% Nature/sight-seeing/ watching wildlife 3 25.7%
Hiking 3 25.7% 1 50.8%
C. Indicate the three activities you have not done, but would like to try.
The two groups of respondent, again, had some common activities that they have not done but would like to try, though in different orders. The random respondents would like to try canoeing/kayaking/boating (34%), cabin camping (19%), cross-country skiing (19%), disc golfing (19%), and snowshoeing (18%). The top three activities that stakeholders would like to try were cross-country skiing (24%), snowshoeing (24%), and canoeing/kayaking/boating (18%). (Table 5)
Table 5. Three activities not done yet, but would like to try Activities Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Ranking % Ranking % Canoeing/kayaking/boating 1 34.2% 3 17.6% Cabin camping 2 19.2% Cross-country skiing 2 19.2% 1 24.4% Disc golfing 2 19.2% Snowshoeing 3 17.8% 2 23.7%
16
D. Activities to do and places to visit when families or friends visit Linn County
Figures 6 shows the activities respondents’ families or friends do when they visit Linn County. The most popular activity for random respondents’ families or friends was shopping (81%), followed by nightlife (68%), golfing (51%), and the ones for stakeholder respondents’ families and friends were hiking/biking (68%) and shopping (61%). Some other activities mentioned were bird watching, camping, fencing, fishing, geocaching, kids’ activities (games, recitals, etc.), live animal exhibits, sight-seeing and skiing. (Figure 6)
Figure 7 depicts the places that respondents’ families or friends go when they visit Linn County. Restaurants and parks were the most popular places for both the random respondents’ families and friends (96% and 66%) and those of stakeholders (82% and 66%). Trails were the third popular place for stakeholders (73%). Some other places, such as Dog Park, library, theatre, and observation Tower at Pinicon Ridge, were also mentioned.
81%
68%
51%44%
28%19%
61%
35%
16%
68%
28%
11%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Figure 6. Activities do when families or friends visit
Random
Stakeholders
17
3. PARKS/OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL AREAS MANAGED BY LCCB A. Awareness of the 29 LBBC parks and recreation areas and times of visit to these places in
the past 24 months.
Parks
Majority of the respondents were aware of the four parks in Linn County, except Buffalo Creek Park for the random respondents (35%, Figure 8). More stakeholders than random respondents were aware of these parks, but the trend was the same for the two groups of respondent. Most respondents knew Squaw Creek Park, followed by Pinicon Ridge Park, Morgan Creek Park, and Buffalo Creek Park.
96%
66%
36%30%
25%
82%77%
73%
46%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Restaurants Parks Trails Museum/historicsites
Nature Center
Figure 7. Places go when families or friends visit
Random
Stakeholders
18
Similarly, Squaw Creek Park was the most popular park that both the random and stakeholder respondents visited in the past 24 months. Fifty-eight percent of the random respondents and 92% of the stakeholders visited Squaw Creek Park at least once in the past 24 months. Almost half (48%) of the stakeholder respondents visited the park more than 5 times. Pinicon Ridge Park was the second most visited park and Buffalo Creek Park was least visited park. (Table 6) Random respondents, who were younger (ages of 64 and below), with higher education (undergraduate and above) and with income less than $50,000 or %75,000 and above, tended to not know Buffalo Creek Park.
Table 6. Times of visit to parks in the past 24 months (%) Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Squaw Creek Park 41.7 42.9 7.1 8.3 7.7 29.6 14.8 47.9 Pinicon Ridge Park 44.2 40.7 5.8 9.3 12.3 40.5 22.1 25.2 Morgan Creek Park 58.8 23.5 15.3 2.4 29.6 23.5 18.5 28.4 Buffalo Creek Park 79.8 15.7 1.1 2.2 64.8 24.8 4.1 6.2
Linear Trails
Among the three trails, Cedar Valley Nature Trail was most known and highly visited by both the random and stakeholder respondents (Figure 9 and Table 7). About nine out of ten random respondents knew this trail and about half (49%) visited it at least once in the past 24 months. Ninety-six percent of the stakeholder respondents were aware of this trail and 41% of them visited it more than 5 times. In contrast, Grand Wood Trail was the least known and visited trail. Only one-third of the random respondents knew it and 5% of them visited it in the past 24
35%
66%
81%
87%
62%
93%
98%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Buffalo Creek Park
Morgan Creek Park
Pinicon Ridge Park
Squaw Creek Park
Figure 8. Awareness of the parks
Stakeholders
Random
19
months. Female random respondents were less likely to know Grand Wood Trail than their male counterparts.
Table 7. Frequency of visits to linear trails in the past 24 months (%) Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Cedar Valley Nature Trail 51.2 26.8 9.8 12.2 24.8 18.5 15.9 40.8
Hoover Nature Trail 77.5 19.1 1.1 2.2 54.3 21.0 5.1 19.6 Grant Wood Trail 95.2 4.8 <1% 69.4 16.7 7.6 6.3
Historic/Cultural Sites
Compared with the parks and trails, respondents’ awareness of the four historic/cultural sites was lower, especially among the random respondents (Figure 10). Wickiup Hill Learning Center was the only one known by majority of the random respondents and 40% of them visited Wickiup Hill Learning Center at least once (63% for the stakeholders). The other three sites were not very popular places to visit for the two groups of respondent. (Table 8)
34%
51%
89%
65%
69%
96%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Grant Wood Trail
Hoover Nature Trail
Cedar Valley Nature Trail
Figure 9. Awareness of the linear trails
Stakeholders
Random
20
Table 8. Frequency of visits to historic/cultural sites in the past 24 months (%) Random Survey Stakeholder Survey Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Never 1-2 times 3-4 times 5+ times Wickiup Hill Learning Center 59.6 23.6 13.5 3.4 37.3 24.2 13.1 25.5 Eastern Iowa Observatory 87.6 11.2 1.1 <1% 74.5 20.7 2.1 2.8 Abbe Creek School Museum 95.6 4.4 87.1 11.4 1.4 Jay G. Sigmund Memorial Site 96.6 3.4 <1% 88.2 11.0 0.8
Natural Areas
Figure 11 shows respondents’ awareness of the 18 natural areas in Linn County. Places most respondents knew were Palisades-Dows Preserve, Chain Lakes, Matsell Bridge, Wickiup Hill, and Palo Marsh natural areas.
The most popular places to visit were Palisades-Dows Preserve (56% for random respondents and 62% for stakeholder respondents), Matsell Bridge (40% and 56%), and Chain Lakes (40% and 49%) natural areas. Wickiup Hill natural was a popular place for stakeholder respondents (60%), but not for the random respondents (30%). (Table 9)
17%
27%
35%
65%
31%
67%
69%
89%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Jay G. Sigmund Memorial Site
Abbe Creek School Museum
Eastern Iowa Observatory
Wickiup Hill Learning Center
Figure 10. Awareness of the historic/cultural sites
Stakeholders
Random
21
6%
7%
7%
8%
10%
11%
13%
18%
23%
23%
25%
43%
46%
51%
53%
55%
60%
75%
28%
23%
16%
18%
17%
27%
20%
26%
41%
42%
34%
53%
45%
69%
83%
77%
76%
87%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
J. Harold Ennis Preserve
South Cedar Natural Area
Millard Preserve
Blue Creek Natural Area
Harold & Ruth Rehrauer Natural Area
Goose Pond Natural Area
North Cedar Natural Area
Hitaga Sand Ridge Prairie Preserve
Paris Bridge Natural Area
Troy Mills River Access
Wakpicada Natural Area
Rock Island Preserve
Otter Creek Natural Area
Palo Marsh Natural Area
Wickiup Hill Natural Area
Matsell Bridge Natural Area
Chain Lakes Natural Area
Palisades-Dows Preserve
Figure 11. Awareness of the natural areas
Stakeholders
Random
22
Table 9. Frequency of visit to natural areas in the past 24 months (%) Random Survey Stakeholder Survey
Never 1-2
times 3-4
times 5+
times Never 1-2
times 3-4
times 5+
times Palisades-Dows Preserve 43.8 37.1 18.0 1.1 37.6 38.3 11.4 12.8 Matsell Bridge Natural Area 59.6 28.1 7.9 4.5 44.0 33.3 10.7 12.0 Chain Lakes Natural Area 60.0 29.4 8.2 2.4 51.0 29.8 11.9 7.3 Otter Creek Natural Area 66.3 23.6 9.0 1.1 77.2 19.9 2.2 0.7 Wickiup Hill Natural Area 69.7 13.5 13.5 3.4 40.0 25.3 13.3 21.3 Rock Island Preserve 81.2 17.6 1.2 69.8 18.7 8.6 2.9 Palo Marsh Natural Area 84.3 13.5 1.1 1.1 71.1 25.4 2.8 0.7 Wakpicada Natural Area 89.9 3.4 5.6 1.1 77.4 10.5 7.5 4.5 Paris Bridge Natural Area 92.1 2.2 5.6 77.9 15.3 3.1 3.8 Troy Mills River Access 92.1 2.2 5.6 <1 80.6 14.9 2.2 2.2 North Cedar Natural Area 92.2 7.8 89.1 8.5 1.6 0.8 Harold & Ruth Rehrauer Natural Area 96.6 3.4 <1 87.4 9.4 0.8 2.4 Goose Pond Natural Area 96.6 2.2 1.1 89.0 7.9 2.4 0.8 Hitaga Sand Ridge Prairie Preserve 97.8 2.2 <1 88.4 10.1 0.8 0.8 Millard Preserve 98.9 1.1 <1 94.4 4.0 0.0 1.6 J. Harold Ennis Preserve 98.9 <1 1.1 85.5 9.2 4.6 0.8 South Cedar Natural Area 98.9 <1 1.1 87.6 9.3 1.6 1.6
B. Activities done at the parks in the past 24 months
Figures 12 to 15 indicate the places that the respondents went when they participated in the 12 activities listed in the questionnaire. For both the random and stakeholder respondents, Squaw Creek Park was the most popular place for biking (57% and 72%, respectively) and using lodge/shelter (57% and 68%, see Figures 12 and 13). It was also the favorite place for stakeholders to do running (71%) and for random respondents to attend educational programs (100%).
23
For hiking/walking, all the three parks were popular among the two groups of respondent. The most popular place was Squaw Creek Park, followed by Pinicon Ridge Park and Morgan Creek Park (Figure 12). For picnicking, Morgan Creek (54%) and Pinicon Ridge (50%) were the favorite places for random respondents, and Squaw Creek (60%) and Pinicon Ridge (57%) for stakeholder respondents.
21%31%
46%
58% 56%
40%
21%
37%
57%
68%
22%29%
57%
72%
59%
77%
33%
71%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders
Biking Hiking/walking Running
Figure 12. Actitivities done at the parks_1
Morgan Creek Park Pinicon Ridge Park Squaw Creek Park
54%
40%47%
43%
5%
17%
50%57%
29%
65%
43%37%
41%
60%
41%
52%57%
68%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders
Picnicking Camping Lodge/shelter
Figure 13. Activities done at the parks_2
Morgan Creek Park Pinicon Ridge Park Squaw Creek Park
24
Morgan Creek Park was the most popular place for random respondents to run (56%), to camp (47%), and to do nature photography/study (64%). Pinicon Ridge was the favorite place for fishing.
All the three parks were favorite places for stakeholder respondents to participate in nature photography/study, driving for pleasure, and geocaching (Figure 14).
9%
54%
37%
54%63%64%
59%50%
74%
100%
63%
36%
61% 63% 63%
88%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders
Nature photography/study Driving for pleasure Geocaching
Figure 14. Activities done at the parks_3
Morgan Creek Park Pinicon Ridge Park Squaw Creek Park
33%
18%10%
53%
100%90%
100%
47%
3%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Random Stakeholders Random Stakeholders
Educational program Fishing
Figure 15. Activities done at the parks_4
Morgan Creek Park Pinicon Ridge Park Squaw Creek Park
25
C. New activities or facilities would like to see in Linn County parks
Responses from the random survey were listed below.
Morgan Creek Park
– Cross-country ski trails – Fishing, Disc golf – Mountain bike trails – Playground – Small vineyard featuring Midwest varietals for education – Splash pad would be nice; swing sets, concession stand for kids if they get hungry or
thirsty (i.e. ice cream cart)
Pinicon Ridge Park
– Campsites on south side – Cross-country ski trails; downhill ski slope – Deer hunting (bow) – Full hook ups – Hiking/ tower – Hunting – More modern bathrooms – Mountain bike trails
Squaw Creek Park
– Bike trails, full hook ups – Cross country ski trails; Downhill ski slope – Fall festival with vendors, crafts, hayrides etc. – Hand gun shooting range including a classroom and training area – Linn. Co. needs a zoo. Not a casino. Something family friendly for children. – Lodge – More trees on campsites – More cross country trails, more places to take dog off leash – More mountain bike trails – Viewing tower
The three most desired activities/facilities that stakeholders wanted to see in Morgan Creek Park were issues related to campsites, trails and education. They wanted to have more
26
campsites, bigger campsites, full RV hookups in the campsite and camping cabins. For trails, they wanted more paved trails, more walking/biking trails throughout the park, and mountain bike trails. In terms of education, stakeholders wished that there will be nature and education center, classes on rentals, cross country ski workshops, snowshoe workshops and even programs for scouting.
For Pinicon Ridge Park, the three activities/facilities stakeholder wanted to see in this park were related to trails, camping and shower. They wanted to see more biking, specifically mountain bike trails, more hiking areas and single track trails. There was also a mention of equestrian trail. For camping, they wanted to see more cabins, bigger cabins, and full RV hook-ups. More showers in the plains and campsites were also warranted.
Activities and/or facilities related to trails, campsites and cross country skiing were the three most wanted features to see at Squaw Creek Park in the future. More or expanded hiking/biking trails (i.e. mountain biking trails), equestrian trails, and single track trails were mentioned by the stakeholders. For campsite, they wanted to see more campsites, expanded full RV hook-ups, and cabin camping were warranted. Cross country skiing was third in the list.
D. Disability
About 14% of the random respondents and 6% of the stakeholder respondents reported that their family member(s) had a disability preventing them from using county parks. When asked what changes are needed to make the parks more accessible for them, the respondents mentioned the following.
– Being able to ride a device on trails, to enjoy nature. – Better ramp accessible sidewalks, sidewalks within the park for wheel chairs that get to
lodges, restrooms, etc. Very difficult to push wheel chairs through the grass, particularly up any slight hills.
– Clean up Pinicon Ridge and do the maintenance. It’s been going downhill for a long time. trails not maintained, wash outs not filled in, trails not mowed, brush, down trees and garbage, bridges are missing or broken.
– Easier access to the ranges in Matsell Bridge – More handicap fishing locations – More parking/ handicap parking/ access – Paved trail on flat land or wooden walkways.
– Wheelchair accessible trails – Paved trail on flat land or wooden walkways.
27
E. Satisfaction with the services/facilities at conservation parks and outdoor recreation areas managed by LCCB
On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with the services/facilities at Linn County conservation parks and outdoor recreation areas. With the mean value ranging between 3.58 and 4.36, both the random and stakeholder respondents were satisfied with camping, walking/hiking/jogging/rollerblading, picnicking, lodge/shelters, fishing/ice fishing, bicycling, boating/canoeing, bird watching, and nature programs. Both groups of the respondent were uncertain (3 to 3.5) about hunting/trapping, off-road biking, and horseback riding. While the stakeholders were satisfied with cross-country skiing (3.68) and geocaching (3.84), the random respondents were uncertain (2.98 and 2.91, respectively).
Notes: 1: Very dissatisfied, 2: somewhat dissatisfied, 3: uncertain, 4: satisfied, and 5: very satisfied.
Tables 10 and 11 report the reasons why random samples and stakeholders, respectively, were not satisfied with the specified activities.
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Figure 16. Satisfaction on Rec Services/Facilities Managed by LCCB
Random Stakeholders
28
Table 10. Reasons for dissatisfaction, random survey
Areas Reason for Dissatisfaction Boating/ canoeing Lack of rentals Canoeing
Need more places locally, wish we could canoe on Cedar River through town. Not easy access in and out of river for canoeing
Camping Not a fan of booking camping reservations weeks or months ahead of your camping date
Trails
Need more groomed trails Trails were washed out Need more trails
Cross-country skiing Not enough groomed trails. Maps are hard to follow.
Lodges/ shelters Prices seem prohibitive for large families and also for seniors. $70 makes you want to stay home in your own yard
Off-road biking Haven't found it in one of these parks. Primarily use trail along Indian Creek
Rollerblading Not enough facilities for rollerblading or anything for young people
Table 11. Reasons for dissatisfaction, stakeholder survey
Areas Reason for Dissatisfaction
Arboretum at Morgan Creek Need more trapping offered ATV Riding Currently there are no places to ride off highway vehicles in Linn
County Bike trail
Bike trails linked to parks & other locations Off road/mountain biking: would like to see trails at Pinicon Ridge and increase trails at Squaw Creek (2) Squaw Creek needs bike trails A few (not many) of the equestrian folks ride the mountain bike/hiking trails which tears them up. Need to post a few more signs. Would like to see more mountain biking trails. There is a great start to Squaw Creek, but, could be so much more. Bicycling: Very limited connectivity to surrounding communities, few amenities for cyclists (bike wash, bike racks) Biking quantity and quality
Boating not enough lakes or ponds to boat Buffalo creek Buffalo Creek needs flush toilets and a shower house Camping
Camping... would like to see more primitive camping (i.e. walk in / backpacking) sites / areas available Limited camping space
Canoeing would like canoeing available closer to Cedar Rapids
29
Areas Reason for Dissatisfaction
Cross country skiing
While the county does an excellent job grooming trails for cross country skiing, especially at Morgan Creek, more needs to be done to educate hikers to stay to the side of the trails so that they don't mess up the skiing ( both classic and skating). Would like more options for groomed cross country skiing courses
Fishing
Fishing is extremely limited Not enough areas to fish
Horseback riding Would love to see horseback riding for those of us without horses. Horseback riding trails Although Linn Co has a few horseback riding trails, I would like to see
more in the way of camping with horses opportunities. Those would include flushing toilets and showers, appropriate hitching rails, manure disposal sites and water.
Hunting Not enough hunting area Live animal exhibit Live animal exhibit-pretty much nonexistent in Lynn County Morgan Creek Morgan Creek does not have a sufficient path for biking Mountain bike trail Mountain bike trails... only that I wish there were more, very
encouraged to see Linn Co. Mountain biking Mountain biking is relatively non-existent in Linn co parks. Squaw
creek is limited and need more support to improve. Mowing Too much mowing, too much noise Off road mountain biking
Off-road (mountain) biking: very limited trail mileage and no single-track mountain bike trails in Pinicon Ridge. Few amenities for mountain bikers. Off-Road biking, there is not a lot of variety. Beverly park has ok trails, Squaw Creek trails are not really what i consider mountain bike trails. This leaves going to Sugar Bottom when the weather is good for mountain biking.
Picnicking This is large areas of the park that are unusable and an eye sore. Pinicon ridge river Pinicon ridge river side fishing. the banks that we used for ages are
over grown with weeds , small trees/brush and garbage. Please fix it at Pinicon ridge. The only area that is clean is the group camp.
Playground
Larger pond at Squaw Creek Playground for Pinicon Ridge
Poison ivy Poison ivy is out of control at some parks Restrooms / water access Restrooms / water access... improved / updated restrooms and access
to water for drinking / rinsing would be great. RV camping We used to RV camp at Morgan Creek A LOT until it changed and
created designated spots to camp which took away extra space and the cost to camp there getting too expensive so we purchased our own lots in Vinton, IA which we've been doing for the past 10 years
30
Areas Reason for Dissatisfaction Trails
Doesn't seem to be much to do around here. The trails in Linn County are not currently very long. I typically go to Sugar Bottom or somewhere else that has more to offer. Not enough trails. Running: Need more dirt/grass/crushed limestone trails as opposed to paved trails. The trails lack of proper maintenance/ care and excuses. Tired of being kept from areas or activities due to one ranger’s personal opinion. Told you don’t need to use it, we can’t afford it. Not his job. There are not enough trails for biking and hiking. Especially when compared to other counties and metropolitan areas.
F. Likeliness to pay extra for services for a night of camping
Respondents were asked how likely they are to pay extra for the five services listed for a night of camping using a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 as very likely to 1 as very unlikely). Both the random and stakeholder respondents were uncertain about paying extra to stay in a camping cabin (3.3 and 3.1, respectively), being able to reserve sites in advance (3.3 and 3.3) and campsite sewer service (2.9 and 2.8, Figure 17). They won’t pay extra for Wifi Internet and Satellite TV services.
Notes: 1: Very unlikely, 2: unlikely, 3: uncertain, 4: likely, and 5: very likely.
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0
Staying in acamping cabin
Ability toreserve sitesin advance
Campsitesewer hookup
WiFi Internetservice
Satellite TV
Figure 17. Likeliness to pay extra for a night of camping
Random
Stakeholders
31
4. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES A. Priority activities/projects of LCCB
Respondents were asked to indicate how LCCB should place its priorities on the 14 listed activities and projects. Responses of the random and stakeholder respondents are illustrated in Figure 18. One a scale of 1 to 3 (1 being low, 2 being medium and 3 being high), both the random and stakeholder respondents believed that LCCB should give high priority to:
1) Acquiring and protecting more natural areas;
2) Developing more hard-surfaced bicycle/multi-use trails;
3) Acquiring more open space for public recreational use, and for watershed management/water quality improvement; and
4) Planning/developing a regional trail system/ multi-use trails for regional linkage.
In addition, the stakeholder respondents thought LCCB should give high priority to:
1) Developing more trails for cross-country skiing;
2) Developing more unsurfaced trails for hiking; and
3) Providing more in-park educational programs for public participation.
Notes: 1: Low, 2: medium, and 3: high.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Develop more trails for cross-country skiing
Provide more sites for tent camping
Provide an add'l all-weather enclosed park…
Provide more cabins for camping
Organize outdoor outings to impt…
Provide more in-park educational…
Develop more unsurfaced trails for hiking
Provide an add'l all-weather enclosed park…
Provide more sites for modern camping…
Plan/develop a regional trail system/multi-…
Acquire more open space for watershed…
Acquire more open space for public rec use
Develop more hard-surfaced bicycle/multi-…
Acquire/protect more natural areas
Figure 18. Priority levels for LCCB activities/projects
Stakeholders
Random
32
5. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION A. Satisfaction with the Wickiup Hill Learning Center
Thirty-five percent of the random respondents and 60% of the stakeholders visited the Wickiup Hill Learning Center in the past 24 months. The vast majority of those who visited were somewhat satisfied or very satisfied (Figure 20). On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very dissatisfied and 5 being very satisfied, the mean values were 4.6 and 4.5 for the random and stakeholder respondents respectively.
The respondents were also asked to state the reasons for dissatisfaction with their visit to Wickiup Hill Learning Center. Random respondents did not give any comment but the stakeholders stated the following reasons:
– A couple of the exhibits already look beat down/ broken – Costly for Linn County families – Displays don't change. Should have a monthly or quarterly topic to encourage return
trips to the nature center. Would like to see more programs for young kids and change in programs. Seems to be the same programs year after year.
– I have heard rumblings about a campsite at Wickiup. I feel that would take away from the area's natural beauty & learning. If the campground comes, we would probably go to Wickiup much less frequently.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Random (mean=4.6) Stakeholders(mean=4.5)
20%41%
12%
16%
3%
3%65%
40%
Figure 19. Satisfaction with Wickiup Hill Learning Center
Did not visit the Wichiup HillLearning Center
Very dissatified
Somewhat disatisfied
Uncertain
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
33
– I would like to see more opportunities for adult education on improving and preserving our environment.
– Little information about invasive plant species – The water table was not fully working when we were there with our grandchildren. It
would be nice to have a way to turn it on when staff is not present. – Unclean, unkept live animal display – Would like to see more displays about natural resource practices in Iowa and Iowa
wildlife – Would like to visit. Not sure how to find it. Programs sound interesting. Would
encourage having programs on weekend days and nights and not on weekday nights.
B. Level of interest in educational programs
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being not at all interested and 5 being very interested), respondents’ levels of interest in various educational programs are shown in Figure 21. With mean values greater than 3.5, both the random and stakeholder respondents were interested in other recreational (skiing, canoeing, nature crafts, etc.), natural history and the environment. Stakeholder respondents were also interested in energy conservation (3.72).
Notes: 1: not at all interested, 2: not interested, 3: uncertain, 4: interested, and 5: very interested.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Other recreational(skiing, canoeing,
nature crafts, etc.)
Natural history(wildlife, plants,
stars, geology, etc.)
The environment(air, water,
recycling, soilconservation, etc.)
Hunting and fishing Energyconservation
Figure 20. Level of Interest in Educational Programs
Random
Stakeholders
34
C. Emphasis on environmental education
Majority of the respondents indicated that LCCB’s emphasis on environmental education should increase or remain the same. Fifty percent of the random respondents and 35% of the stakeholder respondents said it should increase, and none of the former and only 4% of the latter said it should decrease. (Figure 22)
Figure 21. LCCB’s emphasis on environmental education
D. Level of importance of understanding recreation/conservation topics
Respondents were asked how important it is that Linn County residents understand the listed educational topics. Figure 23 shows that all the environmental issues such as natural history, the environment (i.e. air, water, recycling, conservation, etc.), outdoor recreation and energy conservations are important to be understood by Linn County residents.
50%
32%
0% 18%
Random
Increase
Remain thesameDecrease
Don’t Know
35%
38%
4%24%
Stakeholders
35
Notes: 1: not at all important, 2: not important, 3: uncertain, 4: important, and 5: very important.
E. Sources of information on LCCB’s programs and activities
Sources of information on LCCB’s programs and activities for the random and stakeholder respondents are quite different. For random respondents, the most popular source of information was local newspaper (49%), followed by television (48%), radio (41%), attending programs or visiting parks (26%), and posters (21%). For stakeholder respondents, website was the most common source, followed by LCCB e-mail newsletter (51%), local newspaper (48%), attending programs or visiting parks (43%), LCCB Oak/Hickory Newsletter (30%), and radio (26%). (Table 12)
Table 12. Sources of information on LCCB’s program and activities
Random Stakeholder Local newspaper 49.4% 48.2% Television 48.2% 18.9% Radio 41.2% 25.6% By attending programs or visiting parks 25.9% 43.3% Website 23.5% 53.0% Posters 21.2% 13.4% Facebook 12.9% 17.7% I am not aware of any LCCB program or activities 12.9% 4.3% LCCB Oak/ Hickory Newsletter 5.9% 29.9% LCCB e-mail newsletter 4.7% 51.2% Pinterest 0.0% 0.0%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Natural history (wildlife,plants, stars, geology,
etc.)
The environment (air,water, recycling, soilconservation, etc.)
Outdoor recreation(hunting, fishing, skiing,
etc.)
Energy conservation
Figure 22. Importance of Understanding Recreation/Conservation topics
Random
Stakeholders
36
6. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Fourteen random respondents provided additional comments (see below).
• Respect & honor proper personal rights. • Comprehensive & special survey before starting new projects, especially on old
established areas and getting across permission & opinions of all owners adjacent or nearby, or dump the idea!
• For what little I know - satisfied. • I fully endorse any bicycle related project that helps navigate around the city safely. I find
myself going from the New Bo / Check Village area to Ely often because of the nice trail that is sheltered from car traffic. I'd have ridden my bicycle to work if there was a safe way to cross 1st Ave without getting run over. I know it's probably not a parks department problem as much as a city issue.
• Linn County Conservation folks I have associated with are very dedicated to their profession and great folks to visit with.
• Living on fixed income; property taxes are a real concern. • Need to or maybe reduce price of camping. The economy is not all that great. A lot of
people can't enjoy it because they can't afford it. • Pinicon Ridge Park is my main interest. As a child, I went there, many years before it
became a park. I know most of the owners of the park.
• Really love the city bike trails! • Several years ago I took the Hunters Safety Course with my youngest son. It was very
informative and fun to attend. Keep up the good work! • Stop adding fluoride to our water. It causes cancer. Stop spraying/fogging for mosquitoes. • Thanks for the survey. • This survey isn't of any help to you with our physical limitations. • Would like to see a dog off-leash park on the Ellis area (where houses were removed from
flood) • Would like to see a ski resort. Maybe where old city dump is. Water Park. Winter activities
outdoor emphasis!
Several stakeholders took the effort to make some comments about the services/facilities operated by LCCB. Most of them are positive and some suggestions for improvements.
Positive Comments:
• All the parks are well kept and bathrooms/showers are always clean. • Have used lodges at Squaw and Pinicon for family affairs and been very satisfied. • LCCB serves a diverse rural/urban population mix, and I think that expansion of your trails
network and improving connections with new and existing trails serves everyone in Linn County
• Thanks for the opportunity for respond to this survey.
37
• Expectation is you will continue to operate with community partnerships and be open for business and open for use. Expectation is you will continue to be thorough stewards of the parks for the 21st Century and beyond.
• Have not been able to attend classes due to time constraints but appreciate all. Love Wickiup, pleasant creek, paved trail system. Appreciate operation releaf.
• I know mountain bike trail expansion is in the talks. It would be nice to see focused efforts in one of the parks to try and make it truly a destination with enough miles of trails to attract people from outside the community and allow those within the community to enjoy.
• I live in Forest City, IA and camp at Pinicon Ridge a couple times a year, as schedule permits.
• I think the county conservation does a fine job of keeping up the 3 parks highlighted by the survey. We enjoy using all three often.
• Linn County Conservation rocks!!!! • Love the county parks, especially Buffalo Creek. Do not change it. Love that it is quiet. • Recently camped at Pinicon Ridge. Some very nice improvements have been made in the
last couple of years. Thanks. • Thank you for creating this survey. Will we see results? • Thank you for doing all you do to preserve open space in Linn County. Please keep up
efforts at land acquisition. • Thank you for offering the survey! • Thank you for supporting and working with the off road mountain bike trails at Squaw
Creek park • Thank you for the opportunity to complete this survey and your attention to it. Please
keep up the good with local mountain bikers (LAMBA), in my opinion there is tremendous opportunity for all parties involved in accessing these sorts of trails.
• Thank you for the outdoor toilets at Morgan Creek. They are important for my winter usage at the park. They ALWAYS have toilet paper -- thanks! With Hwy 100 swathe of destruction on the horizon, I suggest you plant a berm of tall trees, several rows of trees
• Thanks for your efforts to improve our parks! • Very comprehensive survey, appreciated opportunity to provide input. • Very excited to hear about the grant for LAMBA and the development of Squaw Creek! • We are too old to do much now, but our family still uses LC parks and I place great value
on their experiences growing up to make them value the outdoors even though they have moved to other places. Mostly, they have been able to carry-on the family tradition.
• We have a nice trail system, but not a lot of trails that are looped. We really enjoy picking a 1-2 mile trail and ending up back at our car.
• Without fail, I have been impressed with my encounters with Linn County Conservation Park employees. My wife and I love to camp but usually do this on our travels outside Linn County. We tent camp and have very often observed that the tent sites are okay.
• I have been pleased to discover the groomed cross country ski trails at Matsell Bridge. Although not a large problem, I have trouble finding my way around and choosing trails.
38
Suggestions for Improvements:
• Do more cooperative things with Indian Creek Nature Center. Not completion. • Found this through LAMBA, in association with their new project for adding more single
track bike trails to Squaw Creek Park. • Free Wi-Fi, more RV camper sites • I have an idea for an event the conservation should look into to increase camping use:
vintage trailer rallies are gaining in popularity. Most states that have them are sold out in advance. But they have a schedule. That means that some people book them in advance.
• I wish it was easier to navigate online to find specifics about the parks, renting watercraft and a calendar of upcoming programs. It needs to be really easy and clear cut.
• Not too much development, need more wild space/more nature • Please do NOT make the camping sites reserveable. • Please do not put in a "bike park" in Pinicon Ridge Park. We found a very lengthy plan on
the web with the County Conservation logo on it yet have heard nothing seeking input from the public.
• Security increase at campground 24 hrs. a day. Host at campground more available. I have never had one just come by and offer their services or introduce themselves.
• The Conservation Board needs to do more to promote hunting, trapping and fishing as well as acquiring more land to do those types of opportunities. Environmental education for young people today is key as they will be the ones in charge of protecting our n
• Working in conjunction with organizations like CVRA for trail runs, LAMBA and HBA for bike events etc. is a GREAT way to bring new folks to these facilities and to introduce youth to healthy activity while driving home the importance of conservation.
• Regarding the question of an advance registration system for campers: We camp for two weeks at a time. The advance registration system has made it much more difficult (if not impossible) for the regular campers to stay in the spots for two weeks.
39
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE WITH FREQUENCIES