living cully walks report

Park Access in Cully Portland State University USP 430: Participatory Research Methods of Community Development Methods of Madness Tim Baker Lauren Bruschi Savannah Harris Nick McCarty Kristin Plekan Dr. Nathan McClintock Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning

Living Cully

Living Cully Walks is a coordinated initiative that is working to

bring a diversity of travel options, improve mobility, and reduce

pollution for the residents of the Cully neighborhood. Methods of

Madness were responsible for assembling the surveys into data,

analyzing the findings, and compiling a report to be utilized by

Living Cully to improve the park access for Cully residents.

How do Cully residents access parks and open

spaces in their neighborhood?

pg. 2

Project Summary Portland State University’s USP 430 Participatory Research Methods for Community Development course

teamed up with Living Cully Walks, which is a combination of three organizations: Verde, Hacienda CDC,

and NAYA. Living Cully is a community organization that specializes in culturally specific marketing and

outreach to historically underserved communities. Their goal is to increase travel options, reduce

pollution and improve mobility and environmental amenities that support healthy livability and economic

opportunity. Verde supplies communities with outreach and advocacy, as well as social enterprise to build

environmental wealth amongst Cully residents, specifically low-‐income residents and people of color.

The PSU team, Methods of Madness, analyzed and interpreted survey information that was collected last

year by Living Cully Walks from the Cully neighborhood community. This report was produced to present

the data collected and analyze the findings. The objective for this project was to discover how Cully

residents access parks and open spaces in their neighborhood. The team was responsible for entering data

into spreadsheets, creating graphs, and interpreting the data to compose an analysis of our findings.

Results show that of those who were surveyed, over 2/3 of them were aware of the three parks referenced

in the surveys (Whitaker Ponds, Columbia Slough, and Cully Park). However, the two most preferred parks

were Fernhill Park and Rigler School. The majority of respondents, 54%, used walking as their preferred

mode of transportation to the parks. It was found that security concerns included lack of safety around

traffic and a need for more safety at night. The suggestions for improvement in infrastructure included

sidewalks, bike routes, lighting, signage, and walking routes.

pg. 3

Example of Excel Process

Age Percentage Count # of Respondents Age Group Percentage Count # of Respondents8 0.58% 1 171 < 5 0.00% 0 1719 13.45% 23 171 6-‐10 21.64% 37 17110 7.60% 13 171 11-‐15 3.51% 6 17111 0.58% 1 171 16-‐20 1.17% 2 17112 1.75% 3 171 21-‐25 0.58% 1 17113 0.58% 1 171 26-‐30 9.36% 16 17114 0.58% 1 171 31-‐35 10.53% 18 17118 1.17% 2 171 36-‐40 17.54% 30 17123 0.58% 1 171 41-‐45 10.53% 18 17126 1.17% 2 171 46-‐50 7.02% 12 17128 1.75% 3 171 51-‐55 4.09% 7 17129 2.92% 5 171 56-‐60 3.51% 6 17130 3.51% 6 171 61-‐65 5.26% 9 17131 0.58% 1 171 66-‐70 3.51% 6 17132 1.17% 2 171 71-‐75 0.00% 0 17133 4.09% 7 171 76-‐80 1.75% 3 17134 0.58% 1 171 > 80 0.00% 0 17135 4.09% 7 171 N/A 2.29% 4 175

0

37

6

2 1

1618

30

18

12

7 69

6

03

0

Age Distribution of Respondents

Methods

There were a total of 175 surveys collected for the Living Cully Walks project. Some were collected via email through Survey Monkey. The others were collected at various events held by organizations affiliated with Living Cully. The surveys were issued in both Spanish and English to residents of the Cully neighborhood.

The surveys included questions about park awareness, park preference, vehicle ownership, home addresses, safety, and suggestions for improvement. Once the surveys were completed they were handed from Living Cully Walks to the PSU team. The surveys were then distributed evenly amongst the Methods of Madness team members and funneled into a Google form.

The form was then exported into Excel. In Excel, the data became structured into charts and graphs, which was useful in analyzing the information that was collected in the surveys. The team then concentrated on the parks that respondents were most familiar with, the modes for transportation to these places, and safety issues for traveling to parks in the area.

pg. 4

Park Preference/Awareness The survey asked the respondents’ level of awareness of Whitaker Ponds, Cully Park, and the

Columbia River Slough. Two-‐thirds of the respondents were aware of these parks, while most

preferred to access Fernhill Park and Rigler School. This raises the question as to why Fernhill and

Rigler were preferred by respondents.

Figure 1; The Cully neighborhood in comparison to the five of the most popular parks.

Demographic Information

The majority, 80%, of survey respondents were Caucasian and Latino.

There were a large number of respondents under the age of 16 (the majority of whom were in the 6-‐

10 age group), with the next largest represented age group being 36-‐40. However, there was a lack

of survey respondents between the ages of 15-‐25. This may be an age group to target, as their

responses could be beneficial in answering the question as to how parks can be better accessed by

Cully residents.

pg. 5

Mode of Transportation Around 54% of respondents reported walking to the park they ranked #1 in preference, while

around 25% reported walking to the parks they ranked #2 and #3 (Fig. 9, Fig. 10, Fig. 11). The

reported use of bicycles, vehicles, and public transit was higher for parks ranked #2 and #3,

indicating an increased reliance on those modes of transportation as distance to parks increased.

The graphs do not contain the various other modes of transportation mentioned by respondents,

but rather the most commonly reported ones in each ranking category. A variety of modes were

mentioned by a few of the respondents, including “skate” and “all” and such combinations of

“bike/vehicle” (Appendix).

Vehicle & Bicycle Ownership Both vehicle and bicycle ownership were above 70% for survey respondents.

This shows that many residents do not consider “lack of transportation” as a barrier to accessing

parks and open spaces in the Cully neighborhood (Fig. 12, Fig. 13).

Rating of Infrastructure in Cully As Figure 20 shows, 7% of respondents rated their sense of security during the day as "poor,"

while 62% rated safety during the day as "good" or "excellent." In regards to safety at night,

almost 30% of respondents rated their sense of security as "poor," while 32% rated it as "good" or

"excellent." This tells us that there is a sharp contrast in the degrees of safety residents feel during

the day versus during the night. This could have to do with the lighting in parks being insufficient.

The contrast in the sense of security at night versus the daytime is notable, but it seems

reasonable to assume the parks are being used primarily during the day.

Other infrastructure that could affect safety is both signage and lighting of the parks. Signage

received either a “poor” or “fair” rating by 55% of the respondents, and less than 10% rated them

as “excellent” (Fig. 16). Lighting was rated as either “poor” or “fair” by 58% of the respondents

(Fig. 17).

Sidewalks were rated either “poor” or “fair” by 53% of the respondents and only 12% rated them

as “excellent” (Fig. 14). Crosswalks were rated as “poor” or “fair” by over 60% of the respondents

and less than 12% rated them as “excellent” (Fig. 15).

pg. 6

The ratings of the bicycle routes were split receiving a rating of either “poor” or “fair” by 40% and

a rating of either “good” or “excellent” by 40% (Fig. 18).

As Figure 19 shows, 33% of respondents rated their safety near traffic as being "poor”, while 26%

rated it as being "good" or "excellent”. The majority of respondents rated safety near traffic as

“poor”, which shows that this could be a deterrent in regards to accessing parks.

Suggestions for Improvement in Cully The main areas of concern for survey respondents were connected to infrastructure. It was the top

priority for 72% of all respondents, while safety ranked at a distant second. This implies that

respondents feel that making improvements to sidewalks, bicycle routes, lighting, signage, and

walking routes would have a positive impact on the experience and accessibility of the parks in

the Cully neighborhood (Fig. 22, Fig. 23).

Results The common themes found in the survey data include: top park preferences are located near or

within Cully’s borders, the majority of people are walking in spite of the fact vehicle and bicycle

ownership are high, and the infrastructure people use to access the parks on foot received a

“poor” or “fair” rating by the majority of respondents.

All age groups were represented with the exception of the 16-‐25 age range and senior citizens.

This may reflect flaws in the data collection or possibly raise a question as to why these age

groups are not using the parks (Fig. 2). Over two-‐thirds of the respondents were aware of the

three parks inquired by the survey. However, the two most preferred parks were Fernhill Park

and Rigler School. The majority of respondents, 54%, walked to their preferred park. This might

explain the popularity of Fernhill and Rigler School, as they are located either within Cully or on

its perimeters. Whitaker Ponds was the third most popular and its proximity to the Cully

neighborhood may be negated by the need for residents to cross the Columbia River Blvd and

Route 30. The lack of preference to the Columbia River Slough could be do to its proximity to Cully,

which would require residents to drive. While Cully Park is situated in the neighborhood, it is

lacking amenities. It is interesting to note that both vehicle and bicycle ownership of respondents

were over 70%, and yet 54% were walking to their “preferred” park. The preference of walking

pg. 7

also explains why infrastructure was the key area of concern for suggested improvements. The

majority of respondents gave the sidewalks, signage, lighting, and crosswalks a rating of “poor” or

“fair”.

Conclusion Based on our analysis of the Living Cully Walks survey data, park preference and mode of

transportation seem to be influenced by the proximity of parks to the residential locations that are

assumed to be the point of departure. Mode of transportation may also be influenced by

infrastructure. Poor sidewalks, crosswalks, signage, and lighting reduce the practicality of walking

or biking as an alternative to driving. Given the safety and security concerns, the fact that the

majority of suggestions for improvement focused on infrastructure serves to validate this point.

Problems with the data included whether or not to consider the recommendations made by

people who did not identify themselves as park users. Additionally, in categorizing the

suggestions for the parks there was no way to tell which park the respondents were referring to,

especially in the cases where they mentioned accessing more than one park. Finally, the selection

of respondents could have produced skewed data. There was a large representation of children

respondents, many of who did not fill out the survey in its entirety. This created large gaps of

information in some areas, especially in the areas where they questions may have been confusing

to that demographic. In conjunction with this, as mentioned before, we were missing other age

demographics.

Bibliography Central Northeast Neighbors. 25 Aug. 2009. City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Map. PDF. Web. Cully Neighborhood Association. 21 Mar. 2012. City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Map. PDF. Web. DeFalco, T., Fry, D., Teske, N. Jun. 2013. Not in Cully: Anti-‐Displacement Strategies for the Cully Neighborhood. Living Cully: A Cully EcoDistrict. PDF. Web. North Portland Neighborhood Services. 12 Feb. 2009. City of Portland, Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. Map. PDF. Web.

pg. 8

Appendix

Figure 2

Figure 3

45.34%

36.02%

8.07%

4.97%

2.48%

2.48%

0.62%

Caucasian

Latino

Biracial

Asian

Native American

African American

Other

Race/Ethnicity of Respondents (By Percentage)

64.96%

29.20%

5.84%

Yes

No

Maybe

Awareness of Whitaker Ponds (By Percentage)

pg. 9

Figure 4

Figure 5

65.99%

23.81%

10.20%

Yes

No

Maybe

Awareness of Cully Park (By Percentage)

64.03%

25.18%

10.79%

Yes

No

Maybe

Awareness of Columbia Slough (By Percentage)

pg. 10

Figure 6

Figure 7

27.85%

13.29%

12.66%

5.70%

4.43%

3.80%

3.80%

3.80%

Fernhill Park

Rigler School

Sacajawea Dog Park

Harvey Scott School

Whitaker Ponds

Peninsula Park

Wellington Park

Wilshire Park

#1 Park Preference (By Percentage)

20.17%

10.92%

8.40%

6.72%

4.20%

4.20%

4.20%

4.20%

Fernhill Park

Rigler School

Whitaker Ponds

Alberta Park

Columbia Slough

Harvey Scott School

Sacajawea Dog Park

Wilshire Park


pg. 11

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

12.16%

9.46%

6.76%

5.41%

5.41%

5.41%

4.05%

4.05%

Fernhill Park

Rigler School

Whitaker Ponds

Forest Park

Harvey Scott School

Wilshire Park

Columbia Slough

Sacajawea Dog Park


54.43%

29.75%

6.33%

5.70%

On Foot

Vehicle

Bike

Bus

Mode of Transportation to #1 Park (By Percentage)

40.52%

28.45%

18.97%

9.48%

Vehicle

On Foot

Bike

Bus

Mode of Transportation to Park #2 (By Percentage)

pg. 12

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

43.42%

22.37%

17.11%

10.53%

Vehicle

On Foot

Bike

Bus

Mode of Transportation to #3 Park (By Percentage)

71.23%

28.77%

Yes

No

Vehicle Ownership

71.72%

28.28%

Yes

No

Bicycle Ownership

pg. 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

39.16%

28.67%

13.99%

11.89%

6.29%

Poor

Good

Fair

Excellent

Don't Know

Rating of Sidewalks (By Percentage)

30.07%

30.07%

20.98%

10.49%

8.39%

Fair

Poor

Good

Excellent

Don't Know

Rating of Crosswalks (By Percentage)

38.57%

23.57%

16.43%

12.14%

9.29%

Poor

Good

Fair

Don't Know

Excellent

Rating of Signage (By Percentage)

pg. 14

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

37.41%

20.86%

16.55%

15.83%

9.35%

Poor

Fair

Good

Don't Know

Excellent

Rating of Lighting (By Percentage)

28.87%

27.46%

19.01%

12.68%

11.97%

Fair

Good

Don't Know

Excellent

Poor

Rating of Bicycle Routes (By Percentage)

33.80%

32.39%

19.01%

7.75%

7.04%

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

Don't Know

Rating of Safety Near Trafkic (By Percentage)

pg. 15

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

28.17%

24.65%

21.13%

14.79%

11.27%

Poor

Fair

Good

Don't Know

Excellent

Rating of Security at Night (By Percentage)

72.43%

11.11%

7.82%

3.29%

2.88%

1.23%

1.23%

Infrastructure

Safety & Security

Landscape

Community Character

Amenities

Maintenance

Policy

Categorization of Suggestions (By Percentage)

46.43%

23.57%

16.43%

7.14%

6.43%

Good

Fair

Excellent

Poor

Don't Know

Rating of Security During the Day (By Percentage)

pg. 16

Figure 23

Figure 24; Home addresses of survey respondents

18.52% 11.93%

11.11% 9.88% 9.47%

3.29% 2.06% 1.65% 1.23% 0.82% 0.82% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41% 0.41%

Sidewalks Bicycle Routes

Lighting Signage

Walking Routes Streets

Crosswalks Parking Transit

Bicycle Parking Infrastructure

Parks/Open Spaces Street Signs

Access to Parks/Open Spaces Connectivity of Parks/Open Spaces

Suggestions Contained in Infrastructure Category (By Percentage)

pg. 17

Figure 25; Home addresses of surveys respondents

Figure 26; Home addresses of survey respondents plotted in Google Maps

living cully walks report

Documents

theteamwasr intospreadsheets