-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathsurvey-data.html
77 lines (49 loc) · 6.21 KB
/
survey-data.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<title>River's 8</title>
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/styles.css" />
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>River's 8</h1>
</header>
<nav>
<ul>
<li><a href="index.html">Home</a></li>
<li><a href="survey-data.html">Survey Data</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<main>
<h1>Survey Data</h1>
<h2>Existing Survey Analysis</h2>
<p>As previously mentioned, our team wanted to get an understanding of what current community outreach efforts have been done and what did they find. Our methods included researching project plans, studies, and papers published online that included some component of community outreach. Some surveys were found via recommendation from our client and other academics. This included work conducted by a variety of government agencies, universities, non-profits, and consulting firms. From there we refined our findings to include only surveys that were conducted for the sole purpose of gaining public input. Some were excluded on the basis that they were out of the scope of our project (e.g., ecological surveys), had no published results, or were still being conducted. </p>
<p>Figure 1 depicts all of the approximate locations where surveys in the existing surveys deliverable about the Revitalization have taken place. The points were made using Google Maps, exported as KML data, and edited in ArcMap. Some of the surveys have exact locations, but many listed entire cities as their study site. It is important to note that this map does not represent every survey since some did not list locations or were online. </p>
<h2>Methodology & Results</h2>
<p>The most common types of questions that appeared in existing social surveys on the River are as follows: ratings, open-ended, closed-ended, check all that apply, multiple choice, poster distribution, tabling, online, and affiliate organizations. The majority of these methods allow respondents to select from a few options, but do not have much room to include personal experience or divergent viewpoints. As a result, surveyed participants are unable to expand on why they made their selections.</p>
<p>The surveys we analyzed were conducted by a broad range of government agencies, NGOs, universities, and cooperatives between the years of 2002-2018. Most surveys were conducted online; some were distributed in public spaces or at public events.</p>
<h2>Themes & Results</h2>
<p>All surveys were found online, other surveys that were completed but not published were not a part of our analysis. As such this may skew our results. But the purpose of our research is not necessarily to generalize what previous outreach has done; rather it is a critique of existing planning efforts, which rely heavily on survey methods. A majority of the surveys focused mainly on access and uses of the LA River. Six of the nine surveys analyzed, contained questions that focused on gauging how residents interacted and used the river. Some example questions include: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>What are some barriers of use to the river?</p>
<p>In what ways have you used the river? </p>
<p>How do you hope to use it in the future?</p>
<p>Do any of the following prevent you from using the current LA River Bike Path? </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Six surveys focused on how to increase access to the river. This includes asking questions like: How long do you travel to visit the river, what keeps you from visiting the river? A large portion of surveys did not ask specifically about access. But survey responses show that access is a motivating factor for many residents. Four surveys, all conducted by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), centered on completing the LA River bike path. Surveys included input on possible designs, locations, and entry points. To this extent, these were the transportation related surveys. Other themes that were found, but not in large proportion, included safety, homelessness, recreation, education/programming, gentrification, and public health.</p>
<p>The following paragraph elaborates on results from six of the collected surveys (which include Los Angeles River Master Plan Community Meeting-Cudahy, Taylor Yard-River Park Project Community Survey, Los Angeles River Ranger Plan Survey, Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization: An Inclusive Approach to Planning, Implementation, and Community Engagement, Compton Creek Trails Community Assessment, Northeast LA River Riverfront Collaborative (NELA RC) Resident and Small Business Surveys). Other surveys were excluded from analysis as they are currently ongoing, have not released results, or results were unable to find at the time of writing. Although excluded, a complete list of surveys and survey results that informed our research may be found in Appendix C.</p>
<p>The results of existing surveys expressed that most residents use the River to walk, bike, and horseback ride. Most residents also expressed that if the river was safer, cleaner, and well-maintained they are more inclined to use it more. Only the NELA RC survey specifically mentioned safety from gang activity. The Taylor Yard survey was the only survey that included responses from residents that wanted more native planting and biofiltration elements. It was also the only survey where education on the River’s history was an important feature. An interesting survey to note is the LA River Ranger Plan. The survey consisted of both an online survey and in-person poster activity. Concerning the role of a river ranger, it is interesting to note that online survey results showed that the rangers’ highest priority should be care for natural resources. In-person poster results showed that safety and maintenance should be prioritized. This further underscored the importance of our research as public opinions can vary based on engagement methodology.</p>
</main>
<footer>
<img src="img/ucla-ioes-logo.svg" alt="">
<nav>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.ioes.ucla.edu">UCLA IoES</a></li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/uclaioes/rivers-8">GitHub</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</footer>
</body>
</html>