lake ontario shoreline survey: uses, attitudes and...

LAKE ONTARIO SHORELINE SURVEY: USES, ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF RESTORATION OPTIONS

SEPTEMBER 2012

Survey Report

Prepared by Lura Consulting

for Credit Valley Conservation Authority

Credit Valley Conservation Authority Technical Report Series

ii

Back of Title Page

ISSN ####-####


iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................... 1

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODS ............................................................................... 2

3.1 THE STUDY AREA ............................................................................................... 2

3.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 3

4.0 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................................... 7

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................. 7

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................................. 9

5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH FOR CVC, LOISS AND ECO-SYSTEM SERVICES .................................................................................................................... 34

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................... 37

7.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX A - IN-PERSON SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX B - ONLINE SURVEY INSTRUMENT APPENDIX C - VISUAL EXAMPLES APPENDIC D - CATEGORES & TERMS FOR OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS APPENDIX E - “OTHER” RESPONSES APPENDIX F - CROSS TABULATION TABLES


iv

ABSTRACT

The Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVC) is conducting a multi-year project to protect and enhance its shoreline ecosystem. The Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy (LOISS), when completed, will provide clear guidance on the steps required to protect the shoreline environment. This report is part of the Shoreline Characterization stage of LOISS and is aimed at acquiring a better understanding of human dimensions of shoreline management. The survey findings offer direction for restoration opportunities and ecological management of waterfront properties. The recommendations are valuable to CVC and other organizations involved in the provision and management of shoreline parks and natural areas. The Shoreline Survey: Uses, Attitudes and Perceptions of Restoration Options was conducted by CVC in July and August of 2011. Surveys were administered both in-person (door-to-door and in parks) and online. Overall, 590 surveys were analyzed. The results of the survey identified which shoreline parks and natural areas were the most popular and which were visited most frequently. Port Credit Harbour, J.C. Saddington Park, Jack Darling Memorial Park and Lakefront Promenade Park were among the most frequently mentioned parks, although there were a variety of parks used. Physical activity was by far the most common reason identified for visiting the shoreline parks (54%). The next most popular reason was to ‘walk the dog’ (9%). Respondents were also asked to list up to 3 major activities they visit the parks for. Hiking/walking was the most popular activity, with 61% of respondents reporting this was one of their top 3 activities. Cycling (29%), enjoying food (e.g. having a picnic) (20%), and using park amenities (14%) were other popular park activities. Water quality was one of the shoreline natural elements that was reported as most important to people and one of the most important potential benefits of shoreline restoration projects. Interestingly, it was also the park element that respondents were least satisfied with. There is an opportunity to leverage the importance that people place on water quality to gain public buy-in to shoreline projects and encourage individual and community participation in restoration. Compared to other shoreline natural elements, respondents were least knowledgeable about quality and quantity of fish, and to some extent about wetlands. Urban development and pollution from industry were the factors that most respondents identified as contributors to their dissatisfaction with shoreline elements. Many respondents reported they didn’t know if invasive species contributed to their dissatisfaction. The majority of respondents (approximately 4 in 5 people) thought there was a need for shoreline restoration projects, with little difference across gender, age, and place of birth. For those who thought there was no need for restoration, the most common


v

reason for being unsupportive of shoreline projects was the belief that “money could be better spent on other issues (such as, maintaining existing facilities, etc.).”


vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A number of CVC staff members put significant time and effort in the survey design and delivery, data entry and analysis of the primary survey data Tatiana Koveshnikova – survey design, preliminary data analysis, report reviews and overall supervision of the project Jamie Robertson and Jacek Tchórzewski – in-person survey delivery, data entry, coding and primary data analysis

Kate Hayes – providing overall guidance and comments Clara Blakelock – editing/reviewing of the final report Other CVC staff, including Victoria Maines, Bob Morris, Aviva Patel, Maureen Pogue, Mike Puddister and Paul Tripodo, who participated in the survey design and review process CVC also wants to acknowledge external reviewers who provided valuable comments on the survey instrument: Emily Huddart-Kennedy, Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Alberta Tracy Patterson, Principal, Freeman Associates Ken Donnelly, Vice President – Eastern Canada, LURA Consulting


1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Lake Ontario shoreline is a vital natural resource, providing a significant portion of the world’s freshwater and providing habitat to hundreds of globally rare species. It is also a place where local residents and visitors participate in physical, recreational and leisure activities, experience nature and spend time with family and friends. Though parts of the landscape are dominated by industrial and urban development, the shoreline teems with nature and human life. Credit Valley Conservation, together with its partners, is conducting a study to acquire a better understanding of ecosystems, processes, connections, functions and stresses that comprise the Lake Ontario shoreline. The Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy (LOISS) is a multi-year project, that when completed, will provide clear guidance on the steps required as a community to protect and enhance our shoreline ecosystem for the future. The study is being conducted in three stages:

1. Background Review and Data Gap Analysis; 2. Shoreline Characterization; and 3. Shoreline Impact Analysis and Restoration Plan.

Each one of the stages involves a number of smaller initiatives, research projects, and plans. This survey is one component of the Lake Ontario Integrated Shoreline Strategy.

2.0 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This survey is part of the Shoreline Characterization and Impact Analysis phases of LOISS and is aimed at getting a better understanding of human dimensions of shoreline management. The objective of the survey was to gain a better understanding of users in the study area, their concerns and attitudes towards various natural features and restoration/management practices. Based on the survey findings, recommendations have been formed in order to provide direction to the CVC for restoration opportunities and ecological management of waterfront properties (parks and conservation areas). More specifically, the results of the survey and associated recommendations:

Provide direction for both communication strategies and further economic analysis of various restoration options;

Help to determine preferences/priorities with respect to the benefits of natural features in the study area; and

Help to determine appropriate valuation techniques and will serve as an input into the future cost-benefit analysis of various shoreline restoration/management options.


2

3.0 APPROACH AND METHODS

3.1 THE STUDY AREA

The LOISS Study Area is largely defined by urban land uses, with natural land uses covering only about 22.7% of the area. Of the entire Study Area, terrestrial forest cover only amounts to 8.7%, and the habitat that exists is often small in size, fragmented and isolated from one another. Similarly, close to 80% of the shoreline is artificially hardened. These habitat losses and degradations translate to significant declines in overall ecosystem integrity within the study area. Additional threats are fairly representative of urbanized areas and include: degraded water quality; stormwater issues; impervious cover; invasive species, etc. The map below outlines the LOISS study area. Figure 1: Map of LOISS Study Area

The LOISS study area includes the area along the Lake Ontario shoreline from Etobicoke Creek on the east (at Dixie Road) to Joshua Creek on the west (at Winston Churchill Boulevard) within the City of Mississauga. It also includes areas several kilometers north of the shoreline, and up the Credit River, past Dundas Street West and south of Burnhamthorpe Road.


3

The area of greatest interest for the LOISS extends from the nearshore of Lake Ontario to 2 km inland within the jurisdiction of Credit Valley Conservation and 5 km inland along the Credit River1. Based on the Canada Post FSA routes data, there are roughly 25,000 dwelling units (both houses and apartments) in the study area. Based on the average household size in the City of Mississauga according to Statistics Canada, 2006 there are approximately 77,500 individuals living in the LOISS study area. For the purpose of the survey on attitudes towards various natural features and restoration/management practices, priority was given to the households located in close proximity to the shoreline (south of Lakeshore road) since these neighbourhoods are both directly affected and have a direct impact on the shoreline natural environment. This area is referred to as the survey study area, as it differs from the LOISS study area.

3.2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

In order to gather the information needed to understand how local residents and visitors view and use the shoreline’s natural attributes, a survey instrument was developed and administered from July 2011 to August 2011. Surveys were administered both in-person by CVC staff and though an online questionnaire. The in-person surveys were administered in various parks by approaching park users, as well as by visiting homes within the survey study area. In-person surveys were conducted in the following parks:

Adamson Estate

Ben Machree

Douglas Kennedy Park

Jack Darling Memorial Park

Lakefront Promenade Park

Port Credit Harbour

R.K McMillan Park

Rattray Marsh

Rhododendron Gardens

Richard's Memorial Park

J.C. Saddington Park

St. Lawrence/Tall Oaks

Each of these parks was visited at least once, on varying days of the week and times of the day. In the parks, surveyors approached 597 people and received 305 completed surveys, representing a 51% response rate. Surveyors visited a total of 1388 houses in the survey study area, spoke to 523 people and completed 175 surveys, resulting in a 33.5% response rate. The homes visited were located in the neighbourhoods closest to the shoreline within the study area (south of Lakeshore Rd). The number of homes to be visited in each neighbourhood was

1 These boundaries were generally derived from the Peel-Caledon Significant Woodlands and Significant Wildlife Habitat Study (North-South

Environmental et al 2009), Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guideline (MNR 2000), and from an extension to CVC’s boundaries to include a four mile (6.4 km) offshore limit (Order-in-Council, 1971).


4

defined according to the number of homes/apartments in that neighbourhood (based on FSA Canada Post maps and statistics). There were limitations in terms of being allowed to visit apartment buildings in the survey study area. As a result, all but one of the residences visited were single family homes. The online survey was created in order to include a wider demographic of respondents and provide all residents with the opportunity to complete a survey. A link to the survey was posted on the CVC website as of July 2011. A total of 195 individuals filled out the survey online; however, many of these surveys were incomplete, with respondents answering only a few questions. The following chart provides a summary of the survey collection results:

Table 1: Summary of Survey Collection Results

Homes Visited/Peo

ple Approached

Contacted Refused Completed Response Rate

Parks 597 597 292 305 51%

Homes 1388 523 348 175 33.5 %

Total (in-person) 1985 1120 640 480 43%

Online n/a n/a n/a 110 n/a

Combined Surveys 590

Survey Format The survey consisted of both closed and open-ended questions. A number of questions used Likert-scales to determine the degree of importance of various elements of the shoreline. Responses to open ended questions were placed into one of several categories. These categories and the terms that were recorded under them are included in Appendix D. Several of the survey questions provided respondents with the opportunity to provide other comments or suggestions. These answers were reviewed for key themes and analysed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Key themes and samples of ‘other’ response are included in the body of the report and more detailed responses are included in Appendix E. The in-person survey comprised 22 questions and the online survey had 20 questions. The surveys were similar; however, there were some differences in the way the questions were worded and how the answers were recorded. For example, the in-person survey asked several open-ended questions, whereas the same question in the online survey required respondents to choose from a list of options.


5

The in-person and online survey instruments are included in Appendix A and B respectively. Survey Analysis For identical questions, the results were combined in order to provide a larger survey population and a smaller margin of error (generally speaking, margin of error decreases with increased sample size). For questions that were asked or recorded differently, the responses were kept separate and analysed as two different data sets in order to ensure accuracy and validity of the results. Unless otherwise noted, the combined survey results are used for analysis of the primary survey data, such as the frequency distributions for every close-ended question on the survey. Cross tabulations were conducted for many of the survey questions. The purpose of this analysis was to discover the joint distribution of different variables or, in other words, to show how different survey items inter-relate. For example, ‘park used more often’ and ‘reason for visiting the park’ were used in a cross tabulation to determine whether there was an inter-relationship between which parks people visit most often and their reasons for visiting. When conducting cross-tabulations, the in-person survey results were used as the main data set for analysis. If possible (identical data sets for all questions involved in the cross-tabulation) the data sets for both surveys were combined. These cases are noted specifically within the report. The Pearson Chi-square test was used to determine whether there is a statistically significant relationship between two variables. It is also called a "goodness of fit" statistic, because it measures how well the observed distribution of data fits with the distribution that is expected if the variables are independent. For this survey, there are a number of questions where the Chi-square test could not be used because the question had multiple categories and therefore was not testing a direct relationship. Where the Pearson Chi-square test was appropriate and the subsample size was sufficiently large, this test was used to determine the significance and magnitude of a relationship and the results were reported. When the test was not appropriate or no relationship was found yet the results were interesting or merited further research, the results were discussed. In cases where the Pearson Chi-square test could not be used, it was useful to compare the expected vs. actual results. In this test, the expected frequencies for each cell were computed to be proportional to both the breakdown for the test variable and the breakdown for the group variable. By using this test, when the actual count is significantly different than the statistically expected count, it can be assumed that a relationship is present. However, additional research is needed to determine whether the relationship is statistically significant. Limitations and Sampling Error The confidence interval describes the precision of a sample survey result. It is a range in which the result would fit if one were to ask the same question of the larger


6

population. In other words, the larger the confidence interval, the less sure one can be that the survey results would be the same for the true population. Confidence interval is sometimes described as the margin of error, which is 50% of the interval. For example, if a confidence interval is 4%, the margin of error is 2%, and the accuracy is described as “plus or minus 2%.” The confidence level refers to the likelihood that the true population parameter lies within the range specified by the confidence interval. Generally, the smaller the data set, the greater the margin of error and the less confident one can be about the accuracy of the results. For the purposes of this survey, the confidence level is 95%.

The combined survey results (590 responses) provide a confidence interval of 4.2% with a confidence level of 95%. In other words, if the same survey was repeatedly conducted, the findings would be accurate plus or minus 2.1%, 95% of the time. For the in-person survey (480 responses) the confidence interval is 4.5 and for the online survey (110 responses)2 it is 9.3. When conducting cross tabulations a smaller sub-set of data is used for analysis, therefore there is a greater margin of error. Further, the more categories a question includes, the greater the margin of error will be (see below).

Table 2: Confidence Interval and Confidence Level

Confidence Interval Margin of Error Confidence Level

Combined Survey 4.2% +/- 2.1% 95%

Online Survey Only 9.3% +/- 4.7% 95%

Cross-tab using age (5 categories) 3

approximately 10% approximately +/- 5%

95%

Cross-tab - park used most often (16 categories)4

approximately 17.8% approximately +/- 8.9

95%

The survey results and the results of the cross tabulations should therefore be considered within this context. Despite efforts to improve data accuracy, the survey results have limitations. Understanding these limitations will help the reader make informed decisions when using the survey results and before conducting further research:

The in-person surveys administered door-to-door did not include multi-residential buildings and therefore this sub-population can be underrepresented.

The door-to-door survey was conducted in the residential areas closest to the shoreline. Although these neighbourhoods are both directly affected and have a direct impact on the shoreline natural environment, it is only one part of the LOISS study area.

2 This number (110) is lower than the total number of responses for the online survey (195) because some answers

were removed in order to ensure accuracy of the results. 3 Assuming the cross tabulations is being conducted with the in-person survey with one other variable.

4 Assuming the cross tabulations is being conducted with the in-person survey with one other variable.


7

Certain populations of park users are likely not well represented in the in-person surveys administered in parks. For example, anglers that use the parks during irregular hours of the day are less likely to have completed an in-park survey. Some park users, such as those who participate in water sports (e.g., people who canoe or kayak) are also more difficult to access.

For questions 2a and 2b (in-person survey), many of the respondents provided more than one answer although the survey asked for only one response. As a result many of these answers could not be used for the analysis.

Response bias – those who took the time to respond to the survey questions likely differ from those who decided not to respond to the survey; this applies to both the in-person and online survey.

4.0 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHICS

4.1.1 Sex and Age Characteristics

There were equal percentages (50%) of male and female survey respondents. Survey respondents ranged in age from 18 to 65 years or older, with the greatest number of respondents in the 45-54 age group. This was true for both the in-person and online survey. This is higher than the average age of Mississauga residents, which is 36.7 years5.

4.1.2 Place of Residence and Place of Birth

The door-to-door survey asked respondents how long they lived in the lakeshore area. Similarly, the in-park survey and the online survey asked how long they had lived in their current neighbourhood. The results are summarized below. 5 Source: Statistics Canada, 2006.

Table 3: Years living in Current Neighbourhood

In-Person Online

Less than 1 year 8% 4% 1-5 years 22% 18% 6-10 years 17% 10% 11-15 years 11% 9% More than 15 years 40% 33%

Graph 1: Age of Respondents


8

More than half (54%) of those who completed the survey had a view of a park or natural area and one-quarter (25%) had a view of Lake Ontario (see Table 4). These ratios differ slightly if the results of the two surveys are compared. Surprisingly, more people who took the online survey had a view of a park or natural area or a view of the Lake. These differences (6% and 12% respectively) are outside the margin of error, meaning that the variation between the two surveys is greater than what would be expected due to chance. This might be the result of those having a view of the park/natural area or Lake being more interested in filling-out the online survey.

Table 4: View of a Park/Lake

In-person Online

View of a Park/Natural Area 53% 59%

View of the Lake 23% 35%

Overall, 57% of survey respondents were born in Canada and 42% were born outside of Canada. This ratio is comparable, yet slightly different to the population of Mississauga as a whole, in which 48% of residents were born in Canada, and 52% are immigrants6. For this question, the results of the two surveys were different. More of the online respondents were born in Canada (70%) compared to the in-person survey respondents (55%).

Table 5: Place of Birth

In-Person Online City of Mississauga

Born in Canada 55% 70% 48%

Born Outside of Canada

45% 30% 52%

More than three quarters (78%) of those who took the survey owned their property, while only 21% reported that they rent. In the city of Mississauga, 75% of people own their home and 25% rent. This variation lies within the margin of error. Approximately 50% of the respondents have 1-2 people living in households, while 40% have 3-4 people. Significantly fewer households (8%) have 4-5 or more people living in their household.

4.1.3 Level of Education and Income

Majority of respondents had reported completing post-secondary education (53%) or graduate/post-graduate work (28%). These results differ from the population of Mississauga as a whole, in which a significantly lower percentage of people completed college or university.

6 Source: Statistics Canada, 2006.


9

Table 6: Level of Education

Combined Survey Results

City of Mississauga

Without High School Graduation Certificate

2% 17%

High School 15% 24% Trades Certificate or Diploma n/a 9.5% College or University 81% 49%

The online survey asked respondents to report their annual household income before taxes for 2010. Most respondents earned between $60,000 and $149,000 (39%). The median income also fell within this category. These results are comparable to Mississauga as a whole, in which there is an average annual household income of $88,162 in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2006).

4.2 SURVEY RESULTS

4.2.1 Park Use

Survey respondents were asked to identify which parks they had visited over the past year. The following table shows the percent of respondents who visited each park, listed from most to least popular. Approximately one-third (34%) of the respondents indicated other parks they had visited in the past year.

Table 7: Parks Visited in the Past Year

Park Visited % of Respondents who reported visiting the park in the last year

Port Credit Harbour 78%

Waterfront Trail 70%

Jack Darling Memorial Park 65%

Lakefront Promenade 61%

J.C. Saddington Park 58%

Rattray Marsh 50%

Rhododendron Gardens 46%

Adamson Estate 42%

Richard’s Memorial Park 37%

Marie Curtis Park 35%

R.K. McMillan Park 35%

Douglas Kennedy Park 29%


10

Lakeside Park 23%

Other Parks (% of total):

St. Lawrence/Tall Oaks 26%

Hiawatha 12%

Meadow Wood 5%

Erindale 5%

A.E Crookes 5%

Ben Machree 5%

For the most part, having a view of the Lake or of a park did not affect which parks people use. Some differences can be noted however for Jack Darling Memorial Park, where the number of respondents who had a view of the Lake or a view of a park was significantly less than the expected count (based on the expected frequencies for each cell proportional to that actual results of each variable). A similar, but less marked difference was found for Rattray Marsh. This suggests that people are willing to travel further to visit these parks compared to other shoreline parks and those who use these parks are slightly less likely to live in the shoreline area.

Table 9: Cross Tab – View of the Lake/Park vs. Park Visited in the Past Year

View of Lake Ontario from your home?

Yes No Total


Count 9 74 83

Expected Count 19.3 63.9 83.3

View of a park or natural area from your home?

Yes No Total


Count 36 48 84

Expected Count 44.3 39.0 84.0

4.2.2 Parks Used Most Often

Respondents also identified which of the parks in the study area they used most often. Respondents were asked to choose one park only. The results of the online and in-person surveys vary. Port Credit Harbour, J.C. Saddington Park, Jack Darling Memorial Park and Lakefront Promenade Park were identified as most frequently visited parks by the large number of respondents in both surveys. Table 8 shows which parks were visited most often for the two surveys.7

7 The totals do not add up to 100% due to rounding.


11

Table 8: Frequency of Park Use

% of Respondents

Park Used Most Often In-Person Online

Port Credit Harbour 12% 18%

J.C. Saddington Park 9% 16%

Jack Darling Memorial Park 18% 6%

Lakefront Promenade Park 8% 13%

Rattray Marsh 12% 5%

Waterfront trail 6% 10%

Rhododendron Gardens 2% 9%

Adamson Estate 3% 8%

Marie Curtis Park 3% 3%

Lakeside Park 0% 2%

Other waterfront park 8% 5%

Richard's Memorial Park 1% 3%

R.K. McMillan Park 4% 1%

Douglas Kennedy Park 1% 0%

More than one park8 15% n/a

Cross-tabulations were conducted to determine whether certain demographic characteristics or other preferences had an impact on which park people use most often. Generally, the ratio of males to females was similar for each of the parks in the study area. The most notable differences were for Saddington Park and Rattray Marsh; 41% and 42%, respectively, of those who used this park most often were males compared to 59% and 58% females. This suggests that these two parks may be used more often by females. Based on the Chi-square test, this is not a statistically significant finding (0.391); however, it is worth noting and could be a point of interest for further research.

4.2.3 Reasons for Visiting

By far, the most common reason for visiting the parks within the shoreline study area was ‘physical exercise/activity’. More than half (54%) of respondents chose this as one of their top reason for visiting the parks. Other common reasons for visiting the parks were: to ‘walk the dog’ (9%), and ‘enjoy food or drink’ (8%).

8 For the in-person survey some of the respondents provided more than one answer. These answers

were placed into a category called ‘more than one park’.


12

Graph 2: Reason for Visiting Shoreline Park9

Shoreline strategies and communication efforts associated with LOISS should incorporate the importance of physical exercise and activities and the related opportunities that parks provide. For example, communication and outreach could help the community to connect the importance of protecting the shoreline with having opportunities for physical exercise and maintaining good health. Further, the prominence of physical exercise and activity should be considered and promoted within the context of ecological goods and services. Having a natural shoreline that provides space for physical activity has significant value for residents, offering opportunities for improving health and well-being. Access to areas for physical exercise may also be associated with higher property values. It is also important to consider the popularity of dog walking and seek to accommodate the needs of this sub-population when conducting shoreline restoration and naturalization projects. The prominence of enjoying food and beverages in the parks demonstrates the need for picnic facilities, as well as waste disposal containers in order to minimize littering. Demographic factors did not have a significant effect on respondents’ reason for visiting the shoreline parks.

As part of the survey analysis, an examination of the relationship between the reasons why people use shoreline parks and which parks they use most frequently was conducted. Although these results are based on small sub-sets of the population,

9 Graph 2 depicts the results from the in-person survey only.


13

resulting in a fairly large margin of error (e.g. +/- 3 for physical exercise and +/- 8 for ‘enjoy food or beverages’), they provide some insight into the common activities conducted at each of the parks. This information is valuable for determining which areas require more environmental management, restoration as well as provides direction on how to effectively use resources.

Rattray Marsh and Waterfront Trail were commonly used for physical activity, making up 83% and 81%, respectively, of the reasons why people visited this park. Physical activity was also common among those who visited ‘Port Credit Harbour’ (55%). The most common park for dog walking was R.K. McMillan and Jack Darling Parks: 38% and 11% respectively of those who use these parks use them for dog walking. Rattray Marsh (7%) and Waterfront Trail (6%) were also popular for dog walking.

The most common park associated with ‘using park facilities’ was Jack Darling Memorial Park. 39% of all people who reported using park facilities used Jack Darling Memorial Park. Port Credit Harbour was the next most popular, with 15% of all park facility use. Port Credit Harbour contains marina and boat launch facilities, which may account for the reported facilities being used. Similarly, Jack Darling Memorial Park (51%) and JC Saddington (18%) were found to be popular for enjoying food and beverages. CVC may recommend to the City of Mississauga that these parks are likely to require more garbage facilities, picnic tables, shelters and maintenance. CVC should also be aware that these parks are being used more intensely than others. The table below shows the cross tabulation results for a select number of parks and reasons for visiting. Some of the less popular parks were omitted from this table, which is the reason that they do not total 100%.

Table 10: Cross Tab – Reason for Visiting vs. Park Used Most Often

Waterfront Trail

Rattray Marsh



Port Credit Harbour

R.K. McMillan Park

Total

Physical Exercise/ Activity

Count 13 47 28 21 31 10 259

% within Reason for Visiting

5.0% 18.1% 10.8% 8.1% 12.0% 3.9% 100.0%

% within Park Visited Most Often

81.3% 82.5% 33.3% 47.7% 55.4% 47.6% 54.0%

% of Total 2.7% 9.8% 5.8% 4.4% 6.5% 2.1% 54.0%

Use Park Facilities

Count 0 0 13 2 5 0 33


.0% .0% 39.4% 6.1% 15.2% .0% 100.0%


.0% .0% 15.5% 4.5% 8.9% .0% 6.9%

% of Total .0% .0% 2.7% .4% 1.0% .0% 6.9%

Enjoy Food or

Beverages

Count 0 0 20 7 3 1 39


.0% .0% 51.3% 17.9% 7.7% 2.6% 100.0%


14

Table 10: Cross Tab – Reason for Visiting vs. Park Used Most Often

Waterfront Trail

Rattray Marsh



Port Credit Harbour

R.K. McMillan Park

Total


.0% .0% 23.8% 15.9% 5.4% 4.8% 8.1%

% of Total .0% .0% 4.2% 1.5% .6% .2% 8.1%

Walk the dog

Count 1 4 9 2 0 8 41


2.4% 9.8% 22.0% 4.9% .0% 19.5% 100.0%


6.3% 7.0% 10.7% 4.5% .0% 38.1% 8.5%

% of Total .2% .8% 1.9% .4% .0% 1.7% 8.5%

Total

Count 16 57 84 44 56 21 480


3.3% 11.9% 17.5% 9.2% 11.7% 4.4% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 3.3% 11.9% 17.5% 9.2% 11.7% 4.4% 100.0%

The survey results suggest that cultural differences can play a role in how people use the shoreline parks. Differences were found in the survey results between those born in and outside of Canada for the following two reasons:

‘Spending time with family/friends or being out in the community’

‘Enjoying food or beverages’

Whereas the actual ratio (survey overall) of those born inside vs. outside of Canada is 55% vs. 45%, these categories show a higher percentage of non-Canadian born respondents. The table also shows that there is less of a relationship for physical exercise. These findings are not significant and have a high margin of error, however are worth noting.

Table 11: Cross Tab – Reason for Visiting vs. Born in Canada

Were you born in Canada?

Total Yes No Refused

Physical Exercise/Activity

Count 149 106 4 259

% within Reason for Visiting 57.5% 40.9% 1.5% 100.0%

% within Born in Canada 31.0% 22.1% .8% 54.0%

Spend Time With Family/Friends or Be Out in

the Community

Count 3 7 1 11

% within Reason for Visiting 27.3% 63.6% 9.1% 100.0%

% within Born in Canada .6% 1.5% .2% 2.3%

Enjoy Food or Beverages

Count 12 27 0 39

% within Reason for Visiting 30.8% 69.2% .0% 100.0%

% within Born in Canada 2.5% 5.6% .0% 8.1%


15

Enjoying food and beverages’ and ‘use park facilities’ were most common among the 35-44 age group. For the 65 and older age category, the most common reason for visiting the parks was ’physical exercise/activity’. These differences are small and the margin of error is high; they would require further investigation before making any final conclusions.

Graph 3: Reason for Visiting vs. Age

4.2.4 Park Activities

Survey respondents were asked to list up to 3 major activities they do when they visit the parks and how often they engage in that activity. For this question, the in-person and online survey used different categories for recording responses. The in-person survey respondents generated their own answers, whereas the online respondents choose from a list of options. Because of the differences in the way the data was recorded10, the results are difficult to compare and the data sets have to be examined separately. Table 12 shows the percentage of people from both surveys who listed each activity as one of their top three.

10

The online and in-person surveys used different formats. In-person survey had a few open-ended questions; and the responses to those questions were assigned to different categories. Please refer to Appendix C for a detailed description of each category for the in-person survey.


16

The in-person survey results show that ‘hiking/walking’ was by far the most popular activity: 61% of respondents reported this as one of their top 3 activities. ‘Cycling’ (28%), ‘enjoying food’ (20%), ‘using park amenities’ (14%) and ‘dog walking’ (14%) were other popular activities. The least popular activities were winter sports (2%), ‘canoe, kayaking and windsurfing’ (3%) and fishing (3%). Possible biases may be present here, because the survey was conducted during the summer and therefore people are less likely to think about winter sports. It is also harder to reach people who are doing water sports as they are on the water, meaning they would be less likely to answer the in-person survey. Similar to the in-person survey, ‘hiking and walking’ was the most popular activity among online survey respondents (69%). ‘Scenery viewing/photography’ was then second most popular activity (48%). This statistic is most likely showing that many people use the parks for viewing and experiencing nature. The difference between the

11

Respondents were asked to provide their top three answers and therefore the total percentages do not add up to

100%.

Table 12: Most Common Park Activities11

On-line Survey In-Person Survey

Hiking/ walking/ running 69% Hiking/Walking 61%

Scenery viewing/ photography 48% Cycling 28%

Dog walking 22% Enjoying Food 20%

Cycling/ rollerblading 22% Using Park Amenities 14%

Bird/ wildlife watching 19% Dog Walking 14% Attending community or educational events

14% Scenery Viewing/Photography 11%

Swimming/ using beach 5% Family/Friends/Commu

nity 11%

Canoeing/ kayaking/ windsurfing 5% Swimming and Shore 11%

Playing sports 3% Relaxation 10%

Power boating 3% Run/Jog 9%

On-shore fishing 2% Sports and Fitness 7%

Skiing/ snowboarding 0%

Bird and Wildlife Viewing 6%

Hobbies 5%

Other (than bike) Wheeled Modes of Recreation 4%

Boat/Sail 3%

Fishing 3%

Canoe, Kayak, Windsurf 3%

Winter Sports 2%


17

two surveys for this category is likely because the in-person survey included more categories such as ‘relaxation’ and ‘bird and wildlife viewing’ which would be combined/included under ‘scenery viewing/photography’ in the on-line survey. More research could be conducted to determine how people use the parks for scenery viewing, relaxation and wildlife viewing and what would help them to enjoy these activities more; for example, focus groups or subsequent surveys could determine whether platforms for viewing wildlife or benches for relaxation be useful. The popularity of hiking, walking and cycling demonstrates the importance of having a good trail system throughout the shoreline area. The trails should be built, maintained and managed in a way that accommodates frequent use by people doing a variety of activities. The small percentage of people who reported fishing was their most common activity shows that a small sub-set of the population uses the shoreline parks for fishing as their main activity. It may also demonstrate that the views of those who fish are not well represented in the survey results. Winter sports, canoeing, kayaking and windsurfing – were reported to be enjoyed by a very small percentage of respondents. Marketing and communications strategies for the shoreline parks might focus on promoting these types of activities. As noted above, this may be the result of biases that occurred from conducting the survey in the parks during the summer months and not being able to reach those who participate in water sports as easily. The most common park activities from the online survey12 were compared across various demographic factors. ‘Hiking/walking/running’ was more popular among females (63%), than males (37%). Similarly, ‘scenery viewing and photography’ was more popular among females (67%) than males (33%). The margin of error for this question depends on the number of responses in each category; for ‘hiking/walking/running’ it is +/- 5.8%.

Table 13: Cross Tab – Activity vs. Gender

Gender

Total Male Female

Hiking/walking /running

Count 26 45 71

% within Hiking/ walking/ running

36.6% 63.4% 100.0%

Scenery viewing and photography

Count 16 33 49

% within Scenery viewing/ photography

32.7% 67.3% 100.0%

Dog Walking Count 11 10 21

% within Dog walking 52.4% 47.6% 100.0%

12

This question uses the online survey results because the in-person data could not be converted into cross

tabulation information.


18

Age also played a factor in what activities people reported doing when they visit the shoreline parks. It is best to interpret the chart below by looking at each age group separately and compare to the age demographics of the survey overall (see graph 1, page 7). ‘Hiking/walking/running’ was most commonly reported by the 45 to 54 age group. The margin of error for ‘hiking/walking/running’ is +/-5. Dog walking was most commonly reported by the 55-64 age group. The margin of error for this finding is +/- 11, meaning that the results may not be a true reflection of the entire population and that further research would be required before making any conclusions.

The fact that hiking, walking and running’ were popular among the older age groups, suggests the need to accommodate the aging population in the way trails are built and maintained.

Graph 4: Most Common Park Activities vs. Age

Table 14: Cross Tab – Most Common Pak Activity vs. Age

Age Group

Total

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older

Hiking/Walking/Running

Count 3 6 8 24 16 14 71

% within Hiking/ walking/ running

4.2% 8.5% 11.3% 33.8% 22.5% 19.7% 100.0%

Scenery viewing/ Photography

Count 2 2 8 14 13 11 50

% within Scenery viewing/ photography

4.0% 4.0% 16.0% 28.0% 26.0% 22.0% 100.0%

Dog Walking Count 1 2 2 6 8 1 20

% within Dog walking 5.0% 10.0% 10.0% 30.0% 40.0% 5.0% 100.0%

%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older

% o

f R

esp

on

de

nts

Most Common Park Activities vs. Age

Hiking, Walking, Running Scenery viewing/photography Dog Walking

Table 15: Frequency of Park Activities


19

4.2.5 Frequency of Park Activities

Respondents were also asked to report on how often they took part in each of the activities they listed, choosing from a list of options. Table 15 shows the activities most commonly performed ‘more than once a week’ and ‘less than once a month’. The results show that dog walkers, as well as runners and joggers use the parks more often. Those who take part in winter sports or sports and fitness (other than running and hiking) used the parks the least often (for these activities).

4.2.6 Most Important Shoreline Elements

The in-person survey asked respondents what shoreline elements were most important for their use and enjoyment. The answers were placed into 1 of 19 categories13. Most respondents said the ‘lake and water’ were important for their use and enjoyment. This is interesting, considering that very few people identified participating in water-based activities such as fishing, swimming, kayaking or canoeing. The lake and water are therefore likely more closely linked with ‘scenery viewing’ and other activities involved with appreciation of natural elements. Many people also answered ‘forest and trees’ and ‘herbaceous green spaces’. This is likely showing that people appreciate general features of a green, natural environment. In other words it is the ability to escape from urban concrete that is important to people. In gaining support for LOISS, it is important that the

13

Please refer to Appendix C for details on the categories and terms that were recorded under each.

Activities Most Commonly Performed

More than Once a Week

Dog Walking 72%

Running/Jogging 68%

Hiking/Walking 51%

Birds and Wildlife 50%

Hobbies 50%

Activities Most Commonly Performed

Less than Once a Month

Enjoying Food 41%

Family/friends/community 33%

Using Park Amenities 26%

Sports and Fitness (sport activities other than running and hiking)

25%

Winter Sports 25%

Table 16: Importance of Shoreline Elements

Most Important Shoreline Elements For Use and Enjoyment – Most Common Answers

Lake and Water 21%

Forests and Trees 19%

Wildlife 16%

Herbaceous Green Spaces 12%

Most Important Shoreline Elements For Use and Enjoyment – Least Common Answers

Waterfront Amenities 1%

Wetlands 2%

General Landscape Features 2%

Environmental Quality 2%


20

public is made to understand how the shoreline projects are connected to the health of trees and green areas. The importance placed on ‘wildlife’ is also important to note. Sixteen percent (16%) of respondents stated that wildlife was an important shoreline element. More often mentioned wildlife categories included birds (e.g. ducks, swans, and migrating birds) and wildlife in general (e.g., respondents mentioned “animals”, “fauna", etc.). Insects, reptiles and amphibians were mentioned only by a few respondents. Protecting wildlife and maintaining healthy wildlife populations are aspects of the shoreline that can be used to communicate its value and the value of restoration and environmental protection. Making the connection between wildlife and habitat loss would also likely be an effective approach. Social research could be conducted to gain a clearer understanding of what aspects of the ‘lake and water’, ‘herbaceous green spaces’ ‘and other important shoreline elements are important for use and enjoyment of the shoreline. In other words, what is it about the lake and water is the important for people’s use and enjoyment. For most survey respondents, ‘wetlands’ were not identified as an important element for use and enjoyment. This does not suggest that wetlands are not important to people but that they are not important for use and enjoyment of the shoreline. It may also be a result of there being few wetlands in the study area.

4.2.7 Importance of Natural Elements

Respondents were asked to rate the importance of various pre-determined natural element categories on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing ‘not important at all’ and 5 representing ‘very important’. The chart below compares the elements rated as important (4 and 5) and the least important elements (1 and 2). The results show that most natural elements are important to the survey respondents. For 7 out of the 9 natural elements, over 70% of respondents answered either ‘important’ or ‘very important’. One of most important natural elements identified was ‘trees and meadows’ (94%). This suggests that people put a high value on green space and trees. ‘Water quality’ was also an important natural element; 91% reported it was important and less than 2% said that it was not important. ‘Hiking and walking trails’ (91%) and ‘presence of wildlife’ (90%) were also ranked as important shoreline elements.

Table 17: Most commonly mentioned wildlife Categories (% of total)

Birds 50%

Wildlife in general

38%

Fish 6%

Mammals 4%

Reptiles & Amphibians

2%

Insects 1%


21

Graph 5: Importance of Natural Elements

Trees and meadows, water quality, trails, and presence of wildlife should be used in key messaging associated with LOISS and other CVC initiatives. Communication using these elements would be especially useful when working with the general public and engaging new audiences, given that most people (i.e. the general public) have a baseline understanding of their importance. Further social research, such as focus groups, would help to better understand why people feel these are important natural elements: are trees important because they provide shade, because they are aesthetically pleasing or for their historic value. Fewer respondents rated wetlands as important (70%). This may be an indication that some people are not aware of the ecological value of wetlands and how they are connected to the shoreline ecosystem. More education on the value of wetlands for the health of the shoreline is recommended. The fact that there is less of an understanding of wetlands should be considered when educating people about them. Although it is important to raise awareness about the importance of wetlands, it is also valuable to consider that they are not necessarily something that grabs the attention of the general public. ‘Availability of fish’ and a ‘variety of fish’ were rated as the least important natural elements, with less than 30% saying they were important (4 and 5) and approximately 50% stating that they were not important (1 and 2). It is known from previous studies that many people use the shoreline for fishing. It is possible that this sub-population was not well represented in this survey. It may also indicate that those who fish only make up a small population of all park users and have a different set of values and preferences than most other people. With regards to the importance of natural elements, very small differences exist between genders. The most notable difference between genders was for the importance of a ‘variety of fish’ and ‘availability of fish’ – which were ‘very important’ to


22

more males than females. This is consistent with real demographics of those who fish, which is significantly more male than female14. Reason for visiting the parks also did not have a significant effect on what people care about, meaning that particular groups of park users (i.e. hikers/walkers or dog walkers) don’t necessarily care about the same park elements.

4.2.8 Satisfaction with Shoreline Natural Elements

Overall, respondents were satisfied with the condition of shoreline natural elements. For 6 out of the 9 park elements listed, three quarters (75%) of the respondents answered ‘yes’, they were satisfied. The table below shows the park elements that respondents most commonly said they were satisfied with (Yes) and not satisfied with (No).

Table 18: Level of Satisfaction of Shoreline Natural Elements

Satisfied with Shoreline Natural Elements (Yes)

Trees and meadows 90%

Walking and hiking trails 88%

Areas left in natural condition (non-manicured green space)

80%

The presence of wildlife 79%

Not Satisfied with Shoreline Natural Elements (No)

Water quality 40%

Natural shoreline (sand, cobble, bluffs) 21%

Areas left in natural condition (non-manicured green space)

16%

Water quality was by far the shoreline natural element that people were least satisfied with. The responses to the final question of this survey (see Appendix E) provide some indication as to why people are unsatisfied with water quality. For example, many people expressed dissatisfaction with the cleanliness and smell of lake water, problems with algae, and being unable to swim in the lake. More qualitative research could be conducted to gain a better understanding of the elements of water quality with which people are unsatisfied. Water quality should also be used as a key component of public outreach materials seeking to communicate the importance of the LOISS and its value to quality of life and property values. Also, public outreach associated with LOISS should focus on improving water quality, especially through community based-projects and stewardship.

14

Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada (2005)


23

Respondents who answered ‘don’t know’ to this question provided an indication of how knowledgeable they were about the status of various shoreline natural elements. The highest number of respondents said they didn’t know how satisfied they are with ‘variety of fish’, ‘availability of fish’, as well as ‘wetlands’. Interestingly these are also the natural elements least frequently mentioned as important in the previous question, suggesting that the less people know about natural elements, the less likely they find them important for their use and enjoyment.

Table 19: Level of Satisfaction of Shoreline Natural Elements

Shoreline Natural Elements - Least Knowledgeable (Don’t Know)

A variety of fish 67%

Availability of fish 62%

Wetlands 19%

Cross-tabulations were conducted with several variables to determine if certain sub-sets of the population were more likely to be satisfied with particular natural elements. Slightly fewer females (43%) than males (57%) answered that they were satisfied with ‘water quality’. This finding is statistically significant (0.014) according to the Pearson Chi-square test. The Pearson Chi-square test also shows that there is a significant relationship between gender and being satisfied with a ‘variety of different type of fish’; more males said they were satisfied. Further analysis of the cross tab data is required to determine the nature of this relationship. Reasons for Being Unsatisfied Respondents who reported being unsatisfied with the natural elements were asked to indicate what they thought contributed to this condition. There was a fairly even distribution between many of the potential answers, suggesting that there are a variety of reasons why people are unsatisfied with shoreline natural elements. Urban development (73%) and pollution from industry (72%) were the most common responses. When working with the public and raising awareness of the LOISS project, these issues should be addressed so that the public is made aware of the facts surrounding them and what is being done to counteract them. This will help to ease public concerns about the issues and build support for CVC. Overuse (48%), invasive species (47%), and breakwalls (31%) were less common answers. Communication strategies and outreach programs should consider that the public may have less knowledge of these shoreline issues.


24

Graph 6: Reasons for Being Unsatisfied with Shoreline Elements

The largest number of people answered that they didn’t know if ‘invasive species’ contributed to their dissatisfaction (22%). It is important that CVC continues to raise awareness about invasive species, understanding that much of the population is still likely unaware of how it affects the shoreline. Cross tabulations were conducted with several demographic factors to determine if they had an effect on what contributed to respondent’s dissatisfaction with shoreline elements. Gender, education, having a view of the Lake or having a view of a park did not have an effect on what contributed to respondents’ dissatisfaction with shoreline issues. The graph below demonstrates that, for the most part, respondents’ perceptions about shoreline issues were consistent within each age group. Some differences do exist however. For example, the older age groups were more likely to answer ‘invasive species’ than the younger age groups. ‘Pollution from industry’ was an answer given more often by younger age groups. The margin of error for this question differs depending on how many people from each age group answered the question. For the youngest age groups, which had the least number of respondents (14 for most categories) the margin of error is +/- 13.1% and for the 34-54 age group (84 respondents) the margin of error is +/- 5.4%.


25

Graph 7: Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction vs. Age

According to the survey results, some issues were more likely perceived as contributing

to dissatisfaction by ‘born in Canada’ respondents, and the others by ‘born outside

Canada’ respondents. For example, 76% of those who were born in Canada said

‘urban development’ contributed to their dissatisfaction, whereas 68% of those born

outside of Canada reported the same. However, a slightly higher percentage of ‘born

outside Canada’ respondents reported the issues of pollution from industry and waste

from homes contributed to their dissatisfaction. For ‘invasive species’, 20.3% of those

‘born in Canada’ said they didn’t know whether this factor contributed to their

dissatisfaction, compared to 25.8% of those ‘born outside Canada’. The differences

between demographic groups are fairly low; however, they suggest some potential

educational and awareness raising opportunities.

Table 20: Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction Urban Development vs. Born in Canada

Were you born in Canada? Total

Yes No No Answer

Factor Contributing to Dissatisfaction - Urban Development

Yes Count 108 82 1 191

% within Urban Dev 56.5% 42.9% .5% 100.0%

% within Were you Born in Canada?

75.5% 68.3% 33.3% 71.8%

% of Total 40.6% 30.8% .4% 71.8%

No

Count 25 25 2 52

% within Q8: Urban Dev

48.1% 48.1% 3.8% 100.0%

% within Q20: Were you born in Canada?

17.5% 20.8% 66.7% 19.5%


26

% of Total 9.4% 9.4% .8% 19.5%

Don't Know Count 10 13 0 23


43.5% 56.5% .0% 100.0%


7.0% 10.8% .0% 8.6%

% of Total 3.8% 4.9% .0% 8.6%

Total Count 143 120 3 266


53.8% 45.1% 1.1% 100.0%


100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total 53.8% 45.1% 1.1% 100.0%

Table 21: Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction

Invasive Species vs. Born in Canada

Were you born in Canada?

Total Yes No No Answer

Factor Contributing to Dissatisfaction - Invasive Species

Yes

Count 68 48 1 117

% within Invasive Species

58.10% 41.00% 0.90% 100.00%

% within Were you born in Canada?

47.60% 40.00% 33.30% 44.00%

% of Total 25.60% 18.00% 0.40% 44.00%

No Count 46 41 1 88


52.30% 46.60% 1.10% 100.00%


32.20% 34.20% 33.30% 33.10%

% of Total 17.30% 15.40% 0.40% 33.10%

Don't Know

Count 29 31 1 61


47.50% 50.80% 1.60% 100.00%


20.30% 25.80% 33.30% 22.90%

% of Total 10.90% 11.70% 0.40% 22.90%



53.80% 45.10% 1.10% 100.00%


100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

% of Total 53.80% 45.10% 1.10% 100.00%

A possible subject for further research would be to determine whether postal codes (i.e. where people live) had an effect on what factors they thought contributed to their dissatisfaction with certain shoreline elements.


27

Many respondents provided other answers for what they though contributed to their dissatisfaction with aspects of the natural shoreline. Common themes identified in the other answers were: (1) overpopulation/population density and (2) maintenance issues. Comments related to overpopulation included:

“So little shoreline, so many residents, parks are packed and people can't enjoy them as a result.”

“Too many people trying to make use of too little green space.”

“Natural problem of living in a highly populated area.” Comments related to maintenance included:

“Need to keep beaches clean.”

“Private owners should clean their beaches.”

“We need more maintained parks; natural spaces aren't maintained enough.” The chart on the following page provides a summary of the ‘other’ responses, by category: Graph 9: Factors Contributing to Dissatisfaction with Shoreline (Other)

4.2.9 Support for Shoreline Projects

Approximately 4 out of 5 people (79%) think there is a need for projects that would create a more natural shoreline. This is a promising statistic showing that there is


28

general support for LOISS in the community. When these results are examined more closely, some differences can be found in the demographic characteristics of those who are supportive and unsupportive of shoreline projects. Males were more likely than females to say that they didn’t think there was a need for shoreline projects (64% vs. 36%). Females were more likely to say that they didn’t know. These are statically significant findings according to the Chi-square test (0.040), however the sample size is small (73 respondents). In gaining support for LOISS and encouraging communities to get involved, it may be helpful to focus outreach efforts on the female population, as they are more likely than males to support shoreline projects. There are also a higher percentage of females who are unsure whether there is a need and perhaps could be convinced more easily than males.

In terms of age, 88% of respondents in the 25-34 age group were supportive of shoreline projects, whereas support from other age groups ranged from 69% to 83%. The lowest percentage of respondents who were supportive of the project fell into the 18-24 age group. It noted that this group is the least represented in the survey. These findings are displayed in the table below. These are not statistically significant findings according to the Chi-square test, however are worth noting. The margin of error for the youngest age group (23 respondents) is +/-10.2% and for the oldest (103 respondents) it is +/-4.8%.

Table 22: Cross Tab – Need for Shoreline Project vs. Gender

Gender

Total Male Female

Need for Shoreline Projects

Yes Count 194 184 378

% Need for Projects 51.3% 48.7% 100.0%

No Count 47 26 73


Don’t Know Count 11 18 29


Total

252 228 480

52.5% 47.5% 100.0%

Table 23: Cross Tab - Do you think there is a need for shoreline projects vs. Age

Age group:

Total

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 or older Refused

Need for Shoreline Projects

Yes Count 16 45 69 88 78 76 6 378

% Need for Projects

4.2% 11.9% 18.3% 23.3% 20.6% 20.1% 1.6% 100.0%

% Age Group

69.6% 88.2% 77.5% 78.6% 83.0% 73.8% 75.0% 78.8%

No Count 4 2 15 18 13 20 1 73

% Need for Projects

5.5% 2.7% 20.5% 24.7% 17.8% 27.4% 1.4% 100.0%


29

Which park people visited most often had some effect on whether respondents thought there was a need for shoreline projects. As shown in the chart below, the highest percentage of respondents that answered ‘yes, there was a need for shoreline projects’ were those who visited Douglas Kennedy, R.K McMillan and Lakefront Promenade Park. These parks are all essentially part of same system and have mostly hardened shoreline, manicured lawn, little natural cover, and a focus on recreation. The lowest percentages of respondents were those who visited J.C. Saddington Park, Adamson Estate and Richard's Memorial Park most often. These parks are more natural than those mentioned above and have more mature tree growth. This suggests that there is slightly a stronger desire for shoreline projects in the slightly less naturalized parks where there is likely a higher degree of recreational use. CVC could consider focusing their restoration and management projects in these less natural areas.

It is important to note the number of people who answered each question, because some parks (i.e. Douglas Kennedy Park) had only a few respondents, making the level of confidence very low. For example, the margin of error for R.K. McMillan Park is 10.7, but for Jack Darling Memorial Park it is 5.3.

Table 24: Need for Shoreline Projects vs. Park Visited Most Often

Need for shoreline projects

Total

Yes No Don't Know

Park Visited Most Often

Douglas Kennedy Park

Count 3 0 0 3

% within Park Visited Most Often 100.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

R.K. McMillan Park

Count 20 1 0 21

% within Park Visited Most Often 95.2% 4.8% .0% 100.0%

Lakefront Promenade

Park

Count 31 3 2 36

% within Park Visited Most Often 86.1% 8.3% 5.6% 100.0%

Other Count 31 5 0 36


Marie Curtis Park

Count 10 2 0 12


Waterfront Trail

Count 13 2 1 16


% Age Group

17.4% 3.9% 16.9% 16.1% 13.8% 19.4% 12.5% 15.2%

Don't Know

Count 3 4 5 6 3 7 1 29

% Need for Projects

10.3% 13.8% 17.2% 20.7% 10.3% 24.1% 3.4% 100.0%

% Age Group

13.0% 7.8% 5.6% 5.4% 3.2% 6.8% 12.5% 6.0%

Total 23 51 89 112 94 103 8 480

4.8% 10.6% 18.5% 23.3% 19.6% 21.5% 1.7% 100.0%


30


Count 66 9 9 84


Rattray Marsh Count 44 11 2 57


Port Credit Harbour

Count 45 6 5 56


Rhododendron Gardens

Count 6 2 0 8


J.C. Saddington

Park

Count 33 7 4 44


Adamson Estate

Count 8 4 0 12


Richard's Memorial Park

Count 2 2 0 4




4.2.10 Reason for Not Supporting Shoreline Projects

Those who said they did not think there was a need for natural shoreline projects were asked to indicate why. The following list shows the percentage of respondents who chose each of the provided options:

Money could be better spent on other issues (such as, maintaining existing facilities, etc.) (10%)

I need more information about management/restoration projects to answer this question (3%)

I am not interested in shoreline natural areas (2%)

I do not believe that this will benefit shoreline residents/visitors (1%). Given that the most common answer was regarding the allocation of financial resources, it will be important to communicate that the shoreline projects will be a valuable use of resources. CVC’s work on ecological goods and services can be leveraged in order to communicate this point, helping the public to see the financial value of LOISS. Males were more likely than females to answer ‘money could be better spent on other issues’; 81% of the people who gave this response were males and 19% were females. It should be noted that there was only a small number of responses to this question (58 in total), meaning that the margin of error is +/-12.9. Given that so few people answered this question, it is not valuable to test other demographic characteristics for relationships.


31

Several respondents (3%) took the opportunity to provide their own answers, such as:

“Likely not possible unless CVC were to buy more property”

“More naturalized areas will prevent access to the shoreline”

“More parks could lead to too much overuse of area; could be more erosion if hard structures are improperly pulled out”

“Even if the CVC could change it, would need money to make areas, but would eventually converted to "commercial use"

4.2.11 Benefits of Shoreline Projects

Respondents were asked to prioritize the benefits of shoreline projects by choosing their first, second and third choice from a list of potential outcomes. The following table shows how often each answer was rated as the respondent’s top choice for each survey category.

Table 25: Top Rated Benefits of Shoreline Projects

Perceived Benefit of Shoreline Project 1st choice 2nd choice 3rd choice

More habitat for wildlife, such as birds and butterflies 28% 21% 16%

Improved water quality 26% 14% 11%

More opportunities for recreational activities that have little impact on the environment, such as bird

watching and hiking 11% 17% 13%

More natural areas for relaxation and spiritual enjoyment

11% 12% 18%

More natural areas that will be available for your children and grandchildren

10% 12% 16%

Reduced flooding and erosion 6% 9% 6%

Preserved unique and historical elements 4% 8% 10%

Greater educational opportunities 2% 4% 5%

Improved fish habitat 2% 3% 6%

‘Habitat for wildlife’ and ‘water quality’ were the most popular first choices. Projects that improve water quality and provide more habitat for wildlife are likely to motivate individuals and communities to support, as well as participate, in shoreline projects. Communication strategies should promote these benefits of shoreline strategies. Interestingly, ‘opportunities for recreation’ was a common second choice. ‘More natural areas for relaxation and spiritual enjoyment’ and ‘more natural areas that will be available for your children and grandchildren’ were popular third choices. It can be concluded that the health of natural environment is the main benefit for most people. Without these elements, other benefits, such as having places for recreation and spiritual enjoyment would not be as valuable to people.


32

More males than females answered that reduced flooding was a benefit of shoreline projects. Of all the people who answered this question, 61% are males and 39% are females, where as the survey population as a whole is 50% female and 50% male. More research would be needed before making conclusions about the role of gender and perceived benefits of reduced flooding. Each of the perceived benefits was also cross referenced with question 9 – “Do you think there is a need for projects that would create a more natural shoreline?” The highest percentage of respondents who thought there was a need for shoreline projects were those who answered ‘more natural areas that will be available for your children and grandchildren’; 98% of the people who chose this as their top priority thought there was a need for shoreline projects. This finding suggests that there is a connection between caring about the future of the shoreline and being supportive of shoreline projects. This may suggest that shoreline outreach should help people understand the long-term implications of shoreline projects. The least number of respondents that thought there was a need for shoreline projects were those who answered ‘preserved unique historical features’ (78% of those who rated this as their top priority).

4.2.12 Other Comments

The final question of both surveys asked respondents if they had any further comments about the Lake Ontario shoreline area, its natural elements or the issues it is facing. Four hundred and eighty (480) respondents provided additional comments. The comments were grouped in several categories in order to summarize the general themes and topics of the comments. Key themes include: ‘garbage and littering’, ‘trails’, ‘public access and accessibility’ and ‘park amenities’. Refer to Appendix E for a more comprehensive summary of the ‘other’ comments. These comments provide valuable insight into the key areas of concern and interest among the survey respondents. These are also topics that should be integrated into the survey questions in the future. Comments regarding ‘garbage and littering’ were common among respondents. Specific comments included:

“Litter prevents use and enjoyment of parks”

“Consider enforcing penalties for littering”

“Need more garbage cans in parks and trail areas - they are overflowing”

Table 26: Cross Tab Reduced Flooding vs. Gender

Gender

Male Female Total

Reduced Flooding (1

st

Priority)

Count 17 11 28

% within Reduced Flooding

60.7% 39.3% 100.0%


33

“CVC should continue efforts to clean up the garbage- so far a good job!”

Comments regarding ‘trails’ included:

“Park linkages could be improved; need more connections between parks.”

“Trails should be more natural and not be paved.”

“Sometimes trail linkages infringe on private residents; People don't always stay

on trails.”

“There can be too much non-pedestrian traffic (i.e. biking) along trails - should

have separate sections”

Comments regarding ‘public access and accessibility; included:

“Shoreline should be more accessible; more access to the lake is important.”

“It is very important that new development does not prevent public access to the

shoreline.”

“Accessibility needs to be improved for seniors and those with disabilities.”

“Fortunate to have access to shoreline in Port Credit compared to Oakville.”

Comments regarding ‘park amenities’ included:

“Need more covered picnic areas and picnic tables.”

“Need more bathrooms in parks.”

“Consider putting port-a-pottie where there is no washrooms or in the winters.”

“The parks need water fountains.”

“Need more shade along boardwalk at Lakefront.”

The graph below shows responses for each category. The results are based on text analysis and presented as the ‘approximate number of responses’.

Graph 9: Other Comments by Category


34

5.0 IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH FOR CVC, LOISS AND ECO-SYSTEM SERVICES

The LOISS - Shoreline Uses, Attitudes and Perceptions of Restoration Options Survey successfully met the project’s objectives. The results provided valuable information about the people who use the parks, their concerns and attitudes towards various natural features and restoration/management practices. Organized by theme, the following points provide an overview of the report’s key findings and their implications for CVC’s initiatives, such as LOISS and Ecological Goods and Services research. 1) Management of shoreline parks and accommodating user preferences

A good trail system is essential for accommodating park-users; trails should be managed and maintained in a way that accommodates various user-types and frequent use of trails.

Winter sports as well as canoeing/kayaking are less popular than other activities and therefore could be promoted.

Physical activity, particularly walking, hiking and cycling are very popular activities in the shoreline parks. The parks should provide ample opportunities for these activities.


35

Dog walkers are frequent users of shoreline parks, especially R.K. McMillan Park

and Jack Darling Memorial Park. Environmental management strategies should

consider the size of the population that use the parks for this reason.

The needs of the aging population should be considered in the management of shoreline parks and trails, as hiking and walking are popular among older age groups.

2) Direction for CVC’s communication strategies and restoration options, particularly those associated with LOISS

Because of the popularity of physical exercise and activities, communication strategies should help people to make the connection between shoreline health and opportunities for exercise and maintaining good health.

The most important natural elements, including water quality, trees and meadows and wildlife are a good place to start when conducting outreach with the public, as most people have a general appreciation and understanding of their importance.

Community-based projects and stewardship programs should give people opportunities to improve water quality, trees and meadows, and wildlife as these are important shoreline elements. Projects that improve these shoreline elements are likely to motivate individuals to participate.

Water quality, trees and meadows, and hiking and walking trails and presence of wildlife were the most important natural elements according to survey respondents. These are concepts that people understand and feel connected to. CVC should leverage the importance of these concepts to encourage individuals and communities to participate in shoreline projects and restoration programs. It should be noted that some types of wildlife and habitat are perceived as more important than others (see pages 19-20 for details).

Education and awareness is needed regarding fish availability and fish variety and to a certain extent about wetlands, realizing that many people are not aware of why they are important. Outreach materials and programs for LOISS targeted at the general public may not want to focus on these elements until there is better understanding and appreciation of them.

In gaining support for LOISS, helping the public to understand how shoreline projects are connected to the health of trees and green areas would likely be effective, as these were some of the most important shoreline elements for use and enjoyment.

The financial outcomes and benefits of shoreline projects should be clearly communicated to the public and used as a way to gain public-buy in, as cost was a concern for some people.

Communication strategies should consider the connection found to exist between caring about the state of the shoreline for future generations and being supportive of shoreline projects. Shoreline outreach could help people understand the long-term implications of shoreline projects.

Concerns about urban development and pollution from industry should be addressed in CVC’s communication materials, to help ease public concerns and


36

showcase what CVC does to address the issues. More education may be needed about the other issues, such as pollution from homes and invasive species.

In gaining support for LOISS and encouraging communities to get involved in shoreline projects, it may be more effective to start with females, as they are more likely to support shoreline projects.

When determining the location of specific shoreline projects, CVC should consider focusing their efforts in less naturalized parks (i.e. Douglas Kennedy, R.K McMillan and Lakefront Promenade Park), as there is a slightly stronger desire for restoration projects among those who use these parks most often.

3) CVC’s ecological goods and services research and associated communications

Physical exercise and activity, as it relates to the shoreline, should be considered a key component of the ecological services. Providing space for physical exercise and activity is a key aspect of the shoreline that brings significant benefits to both local residents and visitors, in terms of health, leisure and enjoyment.

Ecological goods and services research should be leveraged to show the public the value of shoreline restoration projects and help to ease fears that money would be better spent in other ways.


37

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

In some cases, further research is needed to determine the validity of the report’s findings, such as when the sample size is low and margin of error is high. In other cases, additional research is recommended in order to expand on and delve deeper into certain findings. The following points describe key areas where future research would be valuable to the CVC, particularly as part of the LOISS initiative:

More qualitative research to determine why people value water quality, trees and meadows and other natural shoreline elements that were reported as being important. For example, do people value water quality for health reasons, or for its recreational value? Do people value trees because they are aesthetically pleasing, for their historical value or because they provide protection from the sun?

Cross tabulation analysis using the existing data to determine whether there is a relationship between:

o Satisfaction with shoreline elements and park visited most often; o Outcomes of shoreline projects perceived as most important and park

visited most often; o Importance of natural elements and satisfaction with shoreline elements.

Research to better understand issues with public access to the shoreline and accessibility – issues that were very prevalent in the final open ended question.

Further investigation of the differences in demographics among those who are knowledgeable about invasive species, so that subsequent education and awareness campaigns can focus on these sub-populations.

Comparing park users vs. non-users to determine if there are differences in how they perceive shoreline and restoration options.

Determining whether postal codes (i.e. where people live) had an effect on what factors contribute to their dissatisfaction with certain shoreline elements.


38

7.0 CONCLUSION

The Shoreline Survey: Uses, Attitudes and Perceptions of Restoration Options was an important step in the development of CVC’s Shoreline Strategy (LOISS). Understanding the behaviours, attitudes and values of those who use the shoreline parks and live in the surrounding areas has provided valuable information on how to best engage, educate and mobilize the community around this initiative. The respondents of survey have indicated that they value the natural elements of the shoreline and most of them support the need for shoreline projects. Integrating and promoting the survey’s findings into communication strategies, materials and outreach activities will greatly benefit the CVC and its partners in protecting and enhancing our shoreline ecosystem for the future.

lake ontario shoreline survey: uses, attitudes and...

Documents