1 / 26

How Many Parks and Trails are Enough?

How Many Parks and Trails are Enough? Preliminary Thoughts on How to Estimate Need for Active Local Recreation Facilities Our assignment

jana
Download Presentation

How Many Parks and Trails are Enough?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How Many Parks and Trails are Enough? Preliminary Thoughts on How to Estimate Need for Active Local Recreation Facilities

  2. Our assignment • The interagency committee for outdoor recreation shall develop recommendations for a statewide approach to a recreation level of service for local and regional active recreation facilities, including indicators with which to measure progress in achieving level of service objectives.

  3. What We Did • Formed advisory committee • Secured independent assistance • Defined terms • Developed and tested options • Consulted with the public • Narrowed the options • Selected a recommendation

  4. Formed Advisory Committee • Larry Otos, Washington Parks and Recreation Association • Speed Fitzhugh, recreation planner, Avista Utilities • Nancy Craig, recreation planner, Grant County PUD • Grant Griffin, planner, Pierce County Parks • Greg Jones, Wenatchee Park Board • Linda Steinman, Office of Financial Management • Leonard Bauer, CTED

  5. Secured independent assistance • Competitive process • Hired EDAW • Seattle office of an international consulting firm • Extensive recreation planning, GIS and other expertise

  6. Defined terms • Local: division of local government • Regional: purpose built to serve multiple jurisdictions • Active: predominantly human muscle powered

  7. We Did Not Include • “Open space” • School facilities • Activities not predominantly human-muscle powered (e.g., picnics) • Low- or no-data activities (e.g., paddling) • … because of our instructions and our need to narrow our focus

  8. 1. Walking 2. Picnic, cookout 3. Sightseeing 4. Nature: gardening, wildlife viewing 5. Bicycling 6. Sports, play 7. Water: swimming, boating 8. ORV use 9. Fishing 10. Camping 11. Hunting 12. Snow/ice 13. Equestrian 14. Air (ultralight) The Context (Big Picture)

  9. 1. Walking 2. Picnic, cookout 3. Sightseeing 4. Nature: gardening, wildlife viewing 5. Bicycling 6. Sports, play 7. Water: swimming, boating 8. ORV use 9. Fishing 10. Camping 11. Hunting 12. Snow/ice 13. Equestrian 14. Air (ultralight) What is Covered (Big Picture)

  10. Developed Options • Original options developed by staff • Expanded by IAC-EDAW collaboration • Refined by advisory committee

  11. The Options • A. Population ratio (NRPA) • B. Service area (GIS-based) • C. Community-driven (“those who speak up”) • D. Demand-based (“actual play”) • E. Service area/population ratio • F. Community-Driven/demand based • G. Preferred service area

  12. Testing the Options • Selected 6 Washington communities • Collected available data on inventory, participation, population from each • Calculated estimated outcomes

  13. Test Communities Winthrop Snohomish County Spokane County Aberdeen Wenatchee Tacoma

  14. Outcomes from the test… Compared results to reality when possible • Example finding: “Population ratio” says Winthrop should have zero facilities

  15. Consulting with the Public • 8 workshops in 5 communities • Web page made avaiable for those not able to attend

  16. Typical Public Comments • “Population ratio” does not work • “Community driven” favors vocal special interests • “Demand based” has merit • Scale or modify method for different size communities if possible • Consider health benefits in the recommendation

  17. Our Conclusions • There is no simple one-size-fits all formula • It is desirable to offer options for local application • Options should result in measurable outcomes: for example, overall participation, satisfaction

  18. Reviewing Priorities of Government • Recreation is a priority of government • Measured by participation, equity, and volunteer hours • Participation and equity can be addressed by LOS criteria • “Recreation” facilities can contribute to other priorities, such as health and mobility

  19. Pulling the Pieces Together • Old formulas • New approaches • Public input • State priorities • Local resources • Measurable outcomes

  20. Our Approach • A self-assessment guide for local agencies • Respecting approaches already in use • Based on demand, service area, population, and function (how well a park/trail works) • Use of the tool would result in a score of the local system of active facilities, 1 through 5

  21. The Preliminary Guide • Baseline measure: existing participation • Enhanced measures: • Service area • Function

  22. Guide, cont • State and local use of the same tool can help better define “Need” • The tool includes indicators (e.g., demand, service area) that can be measured

  23. Implementation? • Any local agency can use the guide for general planning purposes • The state could use the guide for capital budgeting purposes • Grant programs could adapt the guide to help determine “Need” (e.g., answer evaluation questions)

  24. Outcomes • A better idea locally and (over time) statewide of “where we are” • Better estimates of the need for investment in local active facilities • Ability to better address priorities of government • Ability to track progress (if any)

  25. Inputs • YOUR thoughts

More Related