Urban &Regional Planning Department Environmental ServicesDepartment San JoseStateSan University City of San Jose City ofSan December 2013 Prepared for Prepared by

CLEAN CREEKS, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROJECT MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS [this page is left intentionally blank] CLEAN CREEKS, HEALTHY COMMUNITIES PROJECT MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Prepared for City of San Jose Environmental Services Department

Prepared by San Jose State University Urban & Regional Planning Department

December 2013 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY - URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Fall 2013 URBP 280 Course Instructor: Hilary Nixon

Sean Mullin Jacqueline Vance Shila Behzadiaria Paul Landon Project Manager Project Manager Research Assistant Research Assistant

Shannon McDonald Emma Reed Melissa Ruhl Audrey Shiramizu Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

CITY OF SAN JOSE - ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT The following City of San Jose staff provided valuable assistance to San Jose State University faculty and students in the development of this report:

Paul Ledesma, Trash and Litter Reduction Coordinator

Liz Neves, Associate Environmental Services Specialist

5 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page is left intentionally blank]

6 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Table of Contents

...... 11 Project Location...... 11 Introduction ...... 15 Demographic Comparison To Study Area...... 15 SectionAnalysis I: Of Phase Survey Two Responses Survey...... Results 18 Awareness and Knowledge of Coyote Creek...... 18 Recreational and Stewardship Activities Along the Coyote Creek Corridor...... 19 Reasons Why People Aren’t Using the Coyote Creek Corridor and Changes Needed for People to Use the Corridor More...... 20 Beliefs About Coyote Creek...... 21 Opinions Regarding Sources of Trash in Coyote Creek...... 22 Attitudes About Impacts of Illegal Dumping, Litter, and Homeless Encampments...... 23 ...... 27 ...... 28 SectionGoal #2: II: Awareness Progress That Toward Personal Overall Conduct Can Project Result InGoals Litter In Coyote Creek...... 29 Goal #3:#1: ParticipationAwareness And In EnvironmentalRecreation That Significance Involves Coyote Of Coyote Creek Creek...... 30 Goal #4: Sense Of Safety When Visiting Coyote Creek...... 31 ...... 33 Concluding Thoughts On Residents And Their Relationship To The Creek ...... 33 SectionSurvey InstrumentIII: Conclusion Recommendations and Recommendations...... 35 ...... 37

Appendices

7 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

List of Tables Table 1 Respondents’ Awareness and Knowledge of Coyote Creek...... 18 Table 2 Participation in Recreational Activities Along the Coyote Creek Corridor...... 19 Table 3 Participation in Stewardship Activities Along the Coyote Creek Corridor...... 19 Table 4 Reasons Why People Are Not Using the Coyote Creek Corridor...... 20 Table 5 Changes that Need to Happen for People to Start Using the Creek Corridor...... 21 Table 6 Statements Concerning Coyote Creek...... 22 Table 7 Respondents’ Rating of How Much Various Activities Contribute to Trash in Coyote Creek...... 23 Table 8 Attitudes About the Impactsof Illegal Dumping, Litter, and Homeless Encampments...... 24 Table 9 Changes in Participation in Recreation Along the Coyote Creek Corridor...... 30 Table A-1 Demographic Data Sources...... 41 Table A-2 Age Distribution...... 43 Table A-3 Comparison of Housing Units by Occupancy...... 49

8 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location...... 12 Figure 2 Household Income Comparison...... 15 Figure 3 Educational Attainment Comparison...... 16 Figure 4 Age Comparison...... 16 Figure 5 Home Ownership Comparison...... 17 Figure 6 Race and Ethnicity Comparison...... 17 Figure 7 Length of Stay...... 17 Figure A-1 Study and Control Group Areas...... 40 Figure A-2 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics...... 42 Figure A-3 Distribution of Family-Forming and Middle Age Residents...... 44 Figure A-4 Household Income Characteristics...... 45 Figure A-5 Educational Attainment Characteristics...... 46 Figure A-6 Percent of Owner-Occupied and Renter Occupied Units...... 47 Figure A-7 Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units...... 48 Figure A-8 Housing Types by Number of Units...... 50 Figure B-1 Distribution of Hispanic Residents...... 52 Figure B-2 Distribution of Asian Residents (Non-Hispanic)...... 53 Figure B-3 Distribution of White Residents (Non-Hispanic)...... 54 Figure C-1 Median Household Income...... 56 Figure D-1 Residents without a High School Diploma...... 58 Figure D-2 Residents without a Bachelors Degree...... 59

9 [this page is left intentionally blank] Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Introduction The Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities project establishes a set of metrics to quantify The purpose of the Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities (CCHC) project is to improve and illustrate the relationship between community development activities conducted water quality in Coyote Creek by preventing and removing trash that is the result of by the City of San Jose’s Environmental littering, illegal dumping, and homeless encampments along the creek. Services Department in improving Coyote Creek’s water quality. This report provides baseline data for evaluating the City’s efforts. In partnership with the City of San José Environmental Services Department (ESD), San José State University’s Urban and Regional Planning Department has engaged the residents in the neighborhoods surrounding the Coyote Creek Corridor in a series comparedof surveys. to The an identicalfirst survey survey was conducted conducted by in ESD 2011. staff A insecond, a comparable mid-point neighborhood survey was inconducted an attempt in to 2013 isolate and the a finalimpacts survey of the is CCHC planned work. for 2015. Survey results will be

Project Location The study area is in the City of San José and consists of residential neighborhoods within one-half mile of Coyote Creek, between E. Williams Street and Tully Road. This area includes portions of the following neighborhoods: Brookwood Terrace, Spartan- Keyes, and Tully-Senter. As shown in Figure 1, these neighborhoods comprise much of the overall study area, and the control group area is a short distance to the north. San José State University students surveyed neighborhood residents in the study area, while City interns conducted surveys in the control group area in 2011 (2013 data pending).

To verify that the CCHC project is responsible for shifts in people’s awareness of and attitudes towards the creek, the project includes both a study area and a control group area to compare survey responses. The control group for the study is the 13th Street Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) area, which is about a mile north of the study area and is in close proximity to Coyote Creek. If factors other than the City’s efforts through CCHC explain changes in residents’ attitudes and behaviors, one should study area. expect to see them reflected in this neighborhood as well as the neighborhoods in the

INTRODUCTION • 11 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Sonoma Napa Solano Yolo Sacramento Amador

Ø80 Ø5 Marin Calaveras ¤£101 San Joaquin |1 San Rafael ! Ø580 !Walnut Creek

Contra Costa Oakland ! ! San Francisco Ø280

Ø680 Ø580

Ø880 Alameda

Stanislaus |280 Palo Alto !

San Jose Copernicus Peak ! # Ø5 Pacific Ocean San Mateo Santa Clara |17 ¤£101 Merced

Santa Cruz Gilroy |1 Santa Cruz ! ! 20 San Benito Miles Monterey [

FFigureIGURE 1 RRegionalegional L oLocationcation Source: California Spatial Information Library (2009) | Map prepared by Justin Meek, AICP (2012)

12 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

In order to reduce trash in the creek, it is important to engage with local residents to establish community stewardship of the creek corridor. To achieve this goal, the when a baseline was developed of who lives in the community, what their awareness wasproject of the has creek, been anddivided what into their three attitudes phases. were The towards first phase the creek.was completed In 2011, students in 2011 enrolled in the Master of Urban Planning program at San José State University conducted a baseline analysis by collecting U.S. Census Bureau data for the study area, surveying residents in the study area, and conducting a trash assessment in the study area. A copy of this report can be accessed at http://www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/ docs/CCHC_Report_Final.pdf. The second phase, which has recently been completed study and control group areas. The third phase to be completed in the fall of 2015 will and is reflected in this 2013 report, entailed surveying residents once again in the an assessment of observed changes in people’s awareness and attitudes of Coyote Creekinclude over a final the surveyproject’s of fourthe study years. and control group areas and subsequently provide

Throughout the duration of the project, the City of San José Environmental Services Department has and will continue to spearhead efforts to clean Coyote Creek. Through population in removing trash from the creek by supplying incentives, training, and a patha partnership out of homelessness with the non-profit for participating Downtown individuals. Streets Team, The they Downtown engage theStreets homeless Team weekly creeks cleanups and outreach to the homeless population. Going forward forhas theoperated next two during years, the the first ongoing two years maintenance of the four-year of the term cleanliness of the project of the creekproviding and prevention of further trash pollution will be the responsibility of the community and City staff. The success of the project will be ultimately measured by its ability to create a tipping point whereby the community is able to maintain the creek with volunteer efforts and deter trash-generating behaviors through passive and active monitoring.

theThis creek, report but is lack broken of participation into three sections.in recreation The along first sectionthe creek. describes The second the section survey analyzesmethodology the main and key goals findings of the fromCCHC 2013, project, which and indicates which goals an increased have been awareness achieved orof

INTRODUCTION • 13 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

not. The third section provides recommendations for conducting public outreach and revising subsequent in-person survey questions.

13th Street SNI area (i.e., the control group) and the City of San José for comparison, isNote provided that a fullin Appendix demographic A. As profile discussed for the in residentsdetail in thein the 2011 study report, area, the as wellstudy as andthe control group areas are more similar to one another than the city as a whole. It is important that the study and control group areas are similar because it enables City staff to tell if the CHCC project is making a difference (i.e., attitudinal and behavioral change are not simply attributed to change in societal opinion or some other larger factors).

14 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Section I: Phase Two Survey Results

Demographic Comparison To Study Area As was done in 2011, San José State University graduate planning students conducted door-to-door in-person surveys within the portions of Brookwood Terrace, Spartan- Keys, and Tully-Senter neighborhoods that fell inside the study area (i.e., a half mile of Coyote Creek between East Williams Street and Tully Road). These surveys were conducted during the months of September and October 2013, at varying times of day, on both weekdays and weekends with the majority of surveys gathered on weekdays. A total of 245 individuals were surveyed. The survey instrument used in 2013 was slightly revised from the 2011 survey instrument, and has been provided in Appendix E. An additional difference that should be mentioned with regard to the surveying performed in 2013 versus 2011 was the exclusion of the neighborhood trash assessment in 2013. Household Income Comparison We evaluated the 2013 survey responses against the 2011 results. Figure 2 This comparison allows for conclusions to be made that help 100% measure the progress of the CCHC project at the mid-point of the 7% 8% 5% 6% 90% 7% 10% 11% 12% project’s term. The results can aid city staff in revising and adjusting $150,000 or more 80% 12% 12% 12% 70% 17% $100,000 to $149,999 corridor in an effort to reach the project goals. 15% 21% 25% 60% $75,00 to $99,999 actions and programs to elicit more significant change in the creek 19% As was the case in 2011, the survey respondents continue to closely 50% 28% $50,000 to $74,999 40% match the residents who live in the study area. Figure 2 shows the 29% 25% 23% household income brackets for the 2011 control group, the 2011 and 30% $25,000 to $49,999 20% 2013 survey respondents, and study area residents. The household $0 to $24,999 28% 24% income has remained nearly identical and the 2013 respondents 10% 20% 24% 0% continue to have similar levels of education (see Figure 3). While 2010 Census 2011 Control Group 2011 Survey 2013 Survey there is an underrepresentation of individuals who do not have a high school diploma, this is not unexpected, as people with higher levels of education are more likely to take part in surveys.1

1.StatPac. “Non-response Bias” in Designing Surveys and Questionnaires, 2012. Available at: http://www.

SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 15 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 3 Educational Attainment Comparison Of the 2013 respondents who provided the year that they were born, their median age was 39. This is very similar to the 2011 result of 43.2 Their age is well above 35% 33% the median for all residents, which is to be expected 29% 29% 30% as the surveyors were instructed to only survey adults 26% 25% 24% 25% and, therefore, did not survey anyone under the age of 22% 22% 22% 21% 19% 18 (see Figure 4). 20% 17% 16% 15% 15% A greater proportion of 2013 survey respondents own 11% 10% 10% 10% their home compared with the 2011 respondents. 10% 8% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% As shown in Figure 5, 43 percent of residents in the 5% study area own their home in 2013. This is a 7 percent 0% increase over the 36 percent of 2011 respondents. The 12th grade or less High school graduate Some college, no Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or degree professional degree study area continues to have a higher homeownership 2010 Census Data 2011 Control Group Data 2011 Survey Respondents 2013 Survey Respondents rate than the control group. An improving economy may explain the increase in homeownership over the last two years.

Figure 4 Age Comparison to accurately describe. While the survey allowed respondentsThe issue of to raceindicate and all ethnicity racial or isethnic more categories difficult 70% that apply to them, those who identify as Hispanic 59% 60% often did not also select whether they were white, 51% 49% 50% black, or of another race. Therefore, the survey data

40% 34% might have given an overrepresentation of Hispanic 30% respondents. Nevertheless, as shown in , 23% 22% 22% Figure 6 19% 19% 20% 20% 17% 16% the survey appears to be fairly representative, as 14% 9% 9% the proportion of 2011 and 2013 respondents of all 10% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% statpac.com/surveys/nonresponse-bias.htm (accessed January 24, Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 64 65 and over 2012). 2010 Census Data 2011 Control Group Data 2011 Survey Respondents 2013 Survey Respondents 2. Fourteen percent of 2011 and eight percent of 2013 respondents did not provide the year of their birth.

16 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Figure 5 Home Ownership Comparison Figure 6 Race and Ethnicity Comparison

50% 46% 44% 45% 100% 45% 42%

40% 90% 37% 36% 31.5% 80% 36.0% 35% 32% 43.0% 29% 30% 70% 58.5% 25% 60% 20% 18% 16% 16% 50% 15% 11% 9% 40% 10% 7% 6% 6% 68.5% 64.0% 30% 55.0% 5% 20% 41.5% 0% Hispanic popula7on, any race White, non-­‐Hispanic Asian, non-­‐Hispanic Some other race, non-­‐Hispanic 10% 2010 Census Data 2011 Control Group Data 2011 Survey Respondents 2013 Survey Respondents 0% 2010 Census 2011 Control Group 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Respondents Respondents major racial and ethnicRenter-­‐Occupied groups are nearlyOwner-­‐Occupied identical to the proportion of residents in the study area that identify Figure 7 Length of Stay as Hispanic, White (non-Hispanic), and Asian (non- Hispanic). However, the proportion of the 2011 Control 40% More than 10 years 35% groups.Group that identified as White (non-Hispanic), and Asian 14% (non-Hispanic) is significantly different than the other 16% The number of respondents that have children that live 5 to 10 years 23% at home, are dog owners, and are long-term residents 18% has remained consistent from 2011 to 2013. In 2013, 50 31% percent of the survey respondents indicated that they 1 to 4 years 29% have children who live with them (5 percent decrease 25% from 2011). Roughly 40 percent of respondents said 14% they had a dog at home in 2011 and 2013. And almost Less than 1 year 14% no change occurred in the 2011 and 2013 response to 14% the question of how long they have lived in their current location, close to 6 out of every 10 individuals have lived 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Figure 7). 2013 Survey Respondents 2011 Survey Respondents 2011 Control Group Data

in their home for at least five years (see SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 17 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Analysis Of Survey Responses The primary purpose of the 2013 survey was to obtain a progress check at the halfway point of the four-year study regarding residents’ awareness and knowledge, attitudes, and engagement in recreational and/or stewardship activities along the Coyote Creek Corridor. In the following section, survey responses are analyzed. In some instances, respondents did not answer every question. Missing data is excluded from our analysis and all percentages listed in the section below represent valid percentages

basedAwareness on the and number Knowledge of respondents of Coyote Creek who answer the specific question. Long before an individual can show an interest in recreational activities or stewardship projects in the Coyote Creek riparian

general level of awareness about the creek (see Table 1). Seventy-four percent of 2013 respondents stated that they were awarearea, they of a must creek first near be their aware home. of the This creek. is an In increase2011 and of 2013, seven respondents percent over were 2011 asked respondents. two questions Only designedtwenty-eight to assess percent their of

(65%). These results indicate that there is growing awareness of Coyote Creek within the study area, however basic details regardingthe 2013 respondents the creek have knew not theincreased. name of the creek, which was a significant decrease from those that knew the name in 2011

The large decrease in the percentage of those knowing the name of Coyote Creek from 2011 to 2013, despite an increase in

Therespondents second question acknowledging in the 2011a creek survey was nearby(“Do you their know home, the mayname be of explained that creek?”) by a changedid not inask the respondents survey tool. to The demonstrate significant decrease across the 2011 and 2013 responses may be due to an increase in specificitythat they required knew in athe respondent’s name, and answer. they Table 1 Respondents’ Awareness and Knowledge of Coyote Creek may have responded with “yes” even if Response (in %) they didn’t know the name. To address possible misrepresentation in the results, Survey Survey Control 2011 2013 the 2013 survey tool was changed to Survey Questiona Yes respondents could identify the creek as Is there a creek near your home? 67 74 81 “Coyoterecord an Creek.” affirmative response only when Do you know the name of the creek? 65 28 42 (for those who said “yes” to the previous question) Notes: a Only in-person surveys included these questions. Postcard surveys did not, so that the total sample size is 216, not 236. Missing values have been excluded from the analysis and only valid percentages are shown.

18 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Recreational and Stewardship Activities Table 2 Participation in Recreational Activities Along the Coyote Creek Corridor Along the Coyote Creek Corridor Response (in %) The 2011 survey respondents 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Control Group indicated that the majority of Recreational Activity Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often individuals did not use the creek Walking / jogging 58 68 41 12 7 20 13 12 17 8 7 14 9 6 9 corridor for recreation (58 to 95 Bicycling 76 81 63 6 5 12 9 7 14 3 3 7 5 3 5 percent, depending on activity as Nature watching 79 87 71 6 2 7 8 4 5 4 4 8 4 2 9 shown in Table 2. The 2013 survey 81 84 79 4 1 9 7 6 6 3 3 3 6 6 4 data showed little change from 2011 Walk pets with 68 to 87 percent indicating they Other recreational activity 95 82 93 0 2 4 0 4 0 0 7 1 5 4 2 never used the corridor for recreation. Notes: Missing values have been excluded from the analysis and only valid percentages are shown. For those 2013 respondents who did participate in recreational activities, Table 3 Participation in Stewardship Activities Along the Coyote Creek Corridor walking or jogging continued to be Response (in %) most popular, followed by walking 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Control Group pets, bicycling, and nature walking. Some of the “other recreational Stewardship Activity Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very Often activities” listed by respondents Creek Cleanup 86 91 90 6 4 5 4 3 4 2 2 1 2 0 1 include: (visiting a) park, walking to Water monitoring 94 96 95 3 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 Wal-Mart, and playing various sports Creek restoration project 94 99 97 2 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 (volleyball, football, baseball, and Other stewardship activity 93 96 97 1 3 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 golf). Additional analysis indicates Notes: Missing values have been excluded from the analysis and only valid percentages are shown. that roughly 57 percent of respondents never engage in any recreational activity along the creek corridor, a 6 percent increase from 2011. It should be noted, however, that respondents might have listed recreationalAs was found activities in 2011, they the 2013engaged survey in near data the indicate creek (e.g.,very infew nearby of respondents parks), but engage not necessarily in stewardship in the specificactions riparian(see Table zone. 3). In fact, the 2013 survey shows a slight increase across all categories in the respondents that never participate in stewardship. Creek cleanup continues to be the most common stewardship activity in 2013, yet only 9 percent had ever engaged in this activity with 5 percent of respondents participating “sometimes,” “often” or “very often.” The 2013 respondents indicate that fewer individuals engage in creek restoration or water monitoring activities than did in 2011, a 5 and 2 percent decrease respectfully. Other stewardship activities mentioned by respondents included community service, monitoring safety, and casually cleaning

SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 19 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

up trash. Overall, the 2013 survey results show a slight decline in stewardship activities along the creek. With target percent of and education will be needed. Additionally, given the decrease in stewardship activity participation, it may be necessary to investigatethe population more engaging effective in techniques stewardship for activities engaging along the community the creek by on the the end creek. of the project being 33 percent, significant outreach

Reasons Why People Aren’t Using the Coyote Creek Corridor and Changes Needed for People to Use the Corridor More In 2011 and 2013, survey respondents were asked to identify the reasons why they didn’t use the creek corridor. A summary of these responses is shown in Table 4. The two main reasons respondents listed for not using the creek corridor continue to be the “presence of homeless people living there” (42 percent in 2013) and “don’t feel it is a safe environment” (35 percent in 2013). Thirty-seven percent indicated that they were not interested in going down to the creek, and 22 percent explained that trash in and around the creek was a barrier. Access to the creek continued to be a barrier in 2013, with 19 percent of individuals them from using the creek (18 percent). Some of the other reasons listed by respondents include: too busy, did not know the creekexplaining was there, that there criminal is no activity easy access (drugs, to thegangs, creek. and Nearly one respondent one in five mentionedindividuals aindicated homicide that in the a concern creek area for injuryseveral was years keeping ago); and no reason for going to the creek.

In 2011, 29 percent of respondents indicated that the presence of trash Table 4 Reasons Why People Are Not Using the Coyote Creek Corridor in or near the creek explained a why they did not use it; in 2013 Percentage of Respondents this decreased to 22 percent of 2011 2013 Control respondents. However, in response Reason for Not Using Coyote Creek Corridor Area Survey Survey Group to the question of what changes Presence of homeless people living there 37 42 40 along the creek need to happen Don't feel it is a safe environment 37 35 38 for them to start using it, nearly Trash in or near the creek 29 22 37 half indicate that trash needs to There is no easy access to the creek 25 19 26 be cleaned up in both 2011 and Not interested in going down to the creek 24 37 20 2013. As shown in Table 5 reducing Other 15 30 25 the presence of homeless people became the most frequent change Concerned about injuries 13 18 14 needed to start using the creek Notes: Missing values have been excluded from the analysis and only valid percentages are shown. corridor in 2013. The number of a Respondents could select multiple options, so these values do not sum to 100.

20 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

individuals in 2013 indicating Table 5 Changes that Need to Happen for People to Start Using the Creek Corridor that recreational trails along Percentage of Respondentsa the creek should be improved in 2011 2013 Control order for them to use the creek Changes that Need to Occur Survey Survey Group corridor increased slightly to 43 Clean up the trash in the creek 49 49 58 percent from 41 percent in 2011. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area 42 55 50 The number of respondents selecting “I am unlikely ever Improve recreational trails along the creek 41 43 48 to use the creek regardless of Improve access to creek 34 43 40 improvements,” increased 4 Other 15 19 18 percent between 2011 and 2013, I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements 13 17 9 which continues to suggest that Notes: Missing values have been excluded from the analysis and only valid percentages are shown. many residents would likely not a Respondents could select multiple options, so these values do not sum to 100. use the creek corridor regardless of any appreciable change occurring.

Beliefs About Coyote Creek As shown in Table 6, respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements about Coyote Creek. Consistent with previous results that indicate people don’t use the creek area because of trash and that cleanup would be a needed change before people would use the creek, more than two-thirds (71 percent) of respondents in 2013 agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “Trash is a problem along the creek.” This represents an increase of 5 percent from 2011. There is growing consensus among respondents regarding the importance of the creek. In terms of its role as habitat for more than nine out of ten individuals agreed or strongly agreed that the creek’s health and cleanliness is personally important in 2013,fish and an wildlife, increase those of 10 individuals percent from that 2011. agreed In fact, or strongly only 6 percent agree increased of respondents 10 percent disagreed from 2011or strongly (83 percent). disagreed Similarly, with the slightly latter statement.

An important goal for the CCHC project is that respondents recognize that their personal actions can impact the creek. In 2011, only 58 percent of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. However, at the time, the students conducting the survey noted that this question might have been unclear. Some respondents seemed to think the question was asking if they had personally littered along the creek. For the 2013 survey, this statement was revised to include both negative and positive

SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 21 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Table 6 Statements Concerning Coyote Creek Response (in %) 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Control Group Strongly Disagree/ Neither Agree Strongly Agree/ Statement Disagree Nor Disagree Agree Trash is a problem along the creek 16 17 6 17 11 25 66 71 69 16 11 4 11 6 6 73 83 90 The health and cleanliness of the creek is important to me 13 6 1 7 4 5 81 91 95 The creek is an important habitat for fish and wildlife My personal actions can have an impact on trash in the creek 27 11 6 16 12 6 58 76 88 Coyote Creek is a safe place for me and my family to visit 58 53 49 18 13 21 23 34 30 Notes: Values may not sum to 100 due to rounding. impacts as a result of the respondent’s personal actions. The result was that 76 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement.

Not surprisingly, creek safety continues to be a major concern for respondents. In 2011, 58 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “Coyote Creek is a safe place for me and my family to visit.” This number decreased to 53 percent in 2013, indicating a slight improvement in the perception of safety along the creek corridor. However, it remains obvious that localOpinions residents Regarding are notSources comfortable of Trash in theCoyote riparian Creek area and significant work will be needed to change those beliefs. In 2013, more respondents felt that large quantities of trash come from illegal dumping and homeless encampments than in 2011 (see Table 7). In both cases, at least three-quarters of respondents stated that these sources contribute “a lot” of trash to the riparian corridor. In addition, the number of respondents in 2011 indicating that litter from people in the neighborhood contributes “a lot” increased by 19 percent in 2013 to 68 percent. By contrast, as was the case in 2011, one-third or more of not contribute trash at all to Coyote Creek. Interestingly, in an effort to simplify the survey instrument for the respondents, 2013 respondents indicated that yard or construction projects, overflowing trash cans and dumpsters, and litter from cars do the number of categories possible in 2013 was reduced from five to three. After recoding the results from 2011 to allow for comparison, the highest state of agreement (“a lot”) increased significantly across all categories (6 to 19 percent). Perhaps, faced with fewer choices, respondents are more likely to answer in the affirmative rather than remain neutral. For subsequent surveys, 22the • three-categorySan José State University approach • Urbanshould and be Regional retained Planning to allow | City forof San analysis José • thatEnvironmental confirms Services these increases. Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Table 7 Respondents’ Rating of How Much Various Activities Contribute to Trash in Coyote Creek Percentage of Respondents 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Control A Moderate An Excessive None Statement Amount Amount Litter from cars 35 36 20 33 21 48 31 43 32 Litter from people in the neighborhood 17 15 7 34 17 32 49 68 61 36 34 21 32 16 38 33 49 42 Trash from yard or construction projects 44 45 33 35 20 41 21 34 26 Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters Illegal dumping 16 15 7 17 8 21 68 77 72 Homeless encampments 12 10 8 17 13 19 72 77 74 Notes: Values may not sum to 100 due rounding. Attitudes About Impacts of Illegal Dumping, Litter, and Homeless Encampments disagreement with a series of statements designed to gauge their attitude toward the impacts of illegal dumping, litter, and homelessThe final encampments section of the (see survey Table prior 8 to demographic questions asked participants to indicate their level of agreement or respondents’ time. The number of categories was reduced by 25 percent by collapsing statements about property values and neighborhood safety into a single statement). This encompassingsection was modified both ideals: in 2013 “my in neighborhood an effort to simplify or community.” and more effectively use the

Not surprisingly, in 2011 people tended to agree with most statements as they were worded in a manner that focused more on the negative aspects of these activities (i.e., in all cases, the survey inquired about the potential “harm” of each activity). This was the case in 2013 as well. With regard to attitudes about illegal dumping, 2013 respondents were slightly less likely to agree/ habitat (92 percent), although overall, attitudes were relatively consistent across all four statements (79 to 92 percent). The averagestrongly level agree of that agreement it impacts in 2013 the safety regarding of the the neighborhood impacts of litter (85 was percent) very similarcompared compared to the harmfulto illegal impact dumping. on Averagedfish and wildlife across all three statements, 87 percent agreed or strongly agreed with statements about the harmful impacts of litter; this compares to 85 percent for statements about illegal dumping. There are some interesting similarities, however. The highest level of agreement regarding the impacts of illegal dumping and litter on personal well-being, neighborhood or community, and habitat were nearly identical ranging from 79 to 87 percent.

SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 23 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Table 8 Attitudes About the Impactsof Illegal Dumping, Litter, and Homeless Encampments Response (in %) 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Control Group Strongly Disagree / Neither Agree Nor Strongly Agree / Statement Disagree Disagree Agree Illegal dumping is harmful to… My personal well-being 15 12 9 16 9 14 69 79 77 The neighborhood or community 15 9 7 17 6 13 69 85 81 13 5 5 8 3 2 79 92 93 Litter is harmful to… The habitat of fish and wildlife My personal well-being 21 12 11 14 7 13 65 81 77 The neighborhood or community 18 4 9 17 8 11 66 88 80 11 5 4 13 3 6 76 92 90 Homeless encampments are harmful to… The habitat of fish and wildlife My personal well-being 32 33 27 18 21 14 50 47 58 The neighborhood or community 18 21 16 16 18 13 68 60 72 18 14 20 16 19 13 66 66 66 Notes: Values may not sum to 100 due rounding. The habitat of fish and wildlife

Interestingly, the lowest average level of agreement regarding the potential harmful impacts of either illegal dumping, litter, or homeless encampments was found for the latter. In 2011, 63 percent agreed or strongly agreed with statements about the harmful impacts of homeless encampments. This has decreased to 57 percent in 2013.There is also a difference with regard to the individual ranking of the three statements compared to attitudes toward illegal dumping or litter. In 2011, the highest level of agreement was for the statement about the impact of homeless encampments on the neighborhood or community (68 percent). This has decreased in 2013 to 60 percent, with the highest level of agreement being for the statement about the impact of streets,homeless or encampments cleanup efforts on along the habitat the creek of fish corridor. and wildlife (66 percent). This shift could be reflective of several factors, including a growing awareness of the creek as a habitat for fish and wildlife, an increase in outreach to the homeless to transition off the

24 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

A new question on the 2013 survey tool was added to evaluate the proportion of neighborhood residents that are aware of the CCHC project. The question asked residents “in the last two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project?” Only 25% of respondents stated that they were aware of the CCHC project. This question aims to test how effectively the CCHC project has been at permeating the neighborhood. Unfortunately, in the last 2 years only one- quarter of the residents have been made aware. Increasing awareness of the CCHC program should be a priority over the remainder of the project term.

SECTION 1: PHASE TWO SURVEY RESULTS • 25 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

26 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Section II: Progress Toward Overall Project Goals

A set of metrics was developed in order to quantify and illustrate the relationship betweenThe CCHC the project community aims to development reach specific activities goals by conducted the end of by the ESD project as part in Springof the overall 2015. grant project and the environmental impact on Coyote Creek. This section focuses on beginning stages of the CCHC project. The four primary goals that will be addressed arepresenting as follows: the data results and analysis of four of the seven goals identified in the

1. By the end of the project, at least 66 percent of residents surveyed are aware of Coyote Creek and its environmental significance and 50% of residents surveyed report that the health of Coyote Creek is important to them

2. By the end of the project, at least 66 percent of residents surveyed are aware that their personal conduct can result in litter in Coyote Creek, and that litter and illegal dumping is harmful to personal well-being

3. By the end of the project, at least 33 percent of residents surveyed report participating in recreation that directly involves Coyote Creek riparian corridor

4. By the end of the project, at least 66 percent of residents surveyed report that they feel they could safely visit the Coyote Creek corridor Each of these goals will be discussed in this section, and reference the data collected during 2013 in comparison with the 2011 data. By revisiting these goals and tracking the progress of the project at the mid-point check-in, ESD may be able to further focus future community engagement efforts in order reach these goals that were set out.

SECTION 2: PROGRESS TOWARD OVERALL PROJECT GOALS • 27 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Goal #1: Awareness And Environmental Significance Of Coyote Creek

leastThe first 50% goal of residentsis to, by the surveyed end of thereport project, that findthe healththat at ofleast Coyote 66 percent Creek is of important residents tosurveyed them. The are respondents aware of Coyote answered Creek two and questions its environmental pertaining significance to awareness and of Coyotethat at

of their home, and the second asked if they knew the name of that creek. In 2011, 67 percentCreek. The of surveyfirst asked respondents if the respondent recognized knew that if athere creek was was a locatedcreek near within their a ½ home, mile and the 2013 data uncovered a seven percent increase in this measure to 74 percent, which indicates a growing awareness of Coyote Creek over the past two years. Yet, the percentage of respondents who knew the name of the creek decreased between 2011 and 2013, which could be a result of the revised 2013 survey tool. Surveys to be conducted in 2015 should be compared with the 2011 and 2013 results to get a more accurate reading of people’s knowledge of the creek’s name.

With regard to residents’ awareness of the environmental importance of Coyote Creek, there was an observed increase among respondents indicating that the creek is an important resource. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of individuals that

by 10 percent from 73 percent to 83 percent. The percentage of residents surveyed aboutagreed the or stronglyimportance agreed of thethat creek’sthe creek health is important and cleanliness for fish andalso wildlife increased increased by 10 percent during the last two years to 91 percent. These numbers signify that the goal of achieving 50 percent of residents reporting that the health of the creek is important to them has been achieved.

28 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Goal #2: Awareness That Personal Conduct Can Result In Litter In Coyote Creek their personal conduct can result in litter in Coyote Creek, and that litter and illegal dumpingThe second are goal harmful is to find to thatpersonal at least well-being. 66 percent This of residents goal has surveyedbeen realized are aware in 2013, that in which the data indicated that the percentage of survey respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “my personal actions can have a positive or negative impact on trash in the creek” was 76 percent. In 2011, only 58 percent of respondents answered agreed or strongly agreed to this statement, although the 2013 survey instrument was slightly revised to include the “positive or negative” portion survey data over the last two years, but likely was not the only factor that increased thisof the number. statement. This may have influenced the 18 percent increase observed in the

The survey question that asked residents to rate how strongly they agree with the statements “illegal dumping is harmful to my personal well-being” and “litter is harmful to my personal well-being” showed an increase in the percentages of respondents who answered strongly agree/agree. The percentage of people who said that they strongly agree or agree that illegal dumping is harmful to their person well-being increased from 69 to 79 percent over the last two years. And, the percentage of respondents who indicated the same level of agreement with regard to litter increased from 65 to 81 percent. All in all, the second goal has clearly been achieved within two years of the project’s commencement, and will hopefully indicate additional increases in these percentages over the remaining life of the CCHC project.

SECTION 2: PROGRESS TOWARD OVERALL PROJECT GOALS • 29 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Goal #3: Participation In Recreation That Involves Coyote Creek The third goal is to identify that at least 33 percent of residents surveyed report participating in recreation that directly involves the Coyote Creek riparian corridor. Little change was found between the 2011 and 2013 survey responses, although the 2013 data did indicate that percentages are slightly declining, not increasing. The majority of survey respondents (2013: 68 to 87 percent, depending on the activity) indicated that they did not use the creek corridor for recreation. The

respondents identify whether they never, rarely, sometimes, often, or very often engaged in a variety ofspecific activities. survey Table question 9 outlines that themeasured percentages participation of respondents in recreation who answered along the the creek survey corridor question had in a manner that indicated they were involved in some fashion (rarely, sometimes, often, and/or

have combined the various levels of participation (excluding the “never” response, since this would includevery often) respondents in recreation who alongdo not Coyote participate Creek. in The recreation), percentages along in withthis table the averaged reflect numbers percentages that between all types of recreation.

Not only does this data show that this goal has yet to be reached, it also shows that participation in

the need to focus efforts on increasing resident participation in recreational activities along the Coyoterecreation Creek along corridor. the creek has actually declined by 5.4 percent since 2011. These findings suggest

Table 9 Changes in Participation in Recreation Along the Coyote Creek Corridor Response (in %) 2011 2013 Changes that Need to Occur Survey Survey Change Walking / jogging 42 22 -20 Bicycling 23 18 -5 Nature watching 22 12 -10 Walk pets 20 16 -4 Other recreational activity 5 17 +12 AVERAGE 22.4 17 -5.4

30 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Goal #4: Sense Of Safety When Visiting Coyote Creek residents surveyed feel they could safely visit the Coyote Creek corridor. In 2011, 23 percentThe fourth of survey goal is respondents to, by the end strongly of the agreed project, or find agreed that with at least the statement66 percent “Coyote of the Creek is a safe place for me and my family to visit.” In 2013, 34 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement, showing an 11 percent increase. Although the past two years have shown an improvement in resident’s perception of safety when visiting the creek, a major shift in resident attitudes towards safety and the creek must be realized by 2015 if this goal is to be reached. This goal should be focused on in order to achieve the desired result of 66 percent of residents feeling safe when visiting Coyote Creek.

SECTION 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS • 31 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

32 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Section III: Conclusion and Recommendations The work conducted in Fall 2011 provided a baseline understanding to allow the City of San José to assess the effectiveness of the CCHC project. In 2013 at the mid-point check-in of the project, the data has unveiled which goals have already been meet, and those that should be focused on to meet desired outcomes.

This section highlights key recommendations for the City’s consideration to help inform public outreach activities and to reach the goals that have yet to be achieved. A brief conclusion is provided below, followed by recommendations that are divided into two parts: 1) outreach recommendations in order to achieve the goals previously outlined, and 2) ideas for improving the survey instrument for future surveying in 2015.

Concluding Thoughts On Residents And Their Relationship To The Creek A positive change that was observed when comparing the survey responses from 2011 to responses in 2013 was the increased awareness respondents had of the creek. As of 2013, 74 percent of the residents surveyed know that a creek is near their home. Interestingly enough, very few respondents use the creek corridor, and even fewer engage in stewardship activities (this was also observed in 2011). The two main reasons given were the “presence of homeless people living there” and “don’t feel it is a safe environment” (see Table 4). While only 37 percent of respondents indicated that the presence of trash in or near the creek explained why they did not use it, in response to the question of what changes along the creek need to happen for them to start using it, nearly half indicated that trash needs to be cleaned up (see Table 5). The percentage of respondents that recognize that their personal actions can impact the creek (see Table 6 percent in 2011 to 76 percent in 2013. They tended to think that large quantities of trash come from litter) has from significantly people in increased the neighborhood, over the last illegal two years,dumping, from and 58 homeless encampments (see Table 7).

SECTION 2: PROGRESS TOWARD OVERALL PROJECT GOALS • 33 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Outreach Recommendations A primary objective of the CCHC project is to evaluate whether the project itself has an effect on the residents’ attitudes and knowledge of Coyote Creek. As discussed in

aware of the CCHC project. We recommend as a primary goal that measures be take toSection increase 1, the the final awareness question of of the the CCHC survey project indicates itself. that Once only more 25% residents of the residents are aware are of the efforts in the neighborhoods surrounding the creeks, their interest in the creek

such as neighborhood meetings, mailers, emails to neighborhood associations, may helpmay increase,to increase which awareness may be of reflected the CCHC in project. the 2015 survey results. Targeted outreach,

In order to achieve the remaining goals set out at the beginning of the CCHC project, continued public outreach will be needed. In order to meet the third goal of identifying that at least 33 percent of residents participate in recreation along Coyote Creek, the public should be made aware of the many recreational opportunities available along the creek corridor. In 2013, only 17 percent of respondents were found to participate in some way with the creek, just over half of the desired target of 33 percent. One possible way to engage more residents in recreation along the creek could be to hold community events where residents can visit and learn about the creek, as well as provide feedback on what they feel is missing from the creek corridor in order to engage in recreation.

To reach the fourth goal, public outreach will also be necessary. In 2013, only 34 percent of residents surveyed said that they feel safe visiting the creek, a far cry from 66 percent. Major work will be needed in the next two years to improve the perception of safety along the creek. One suggestion is for the City (and perhaps the Police Department) to further engage residents near the creek and address concerns through public education or other actions necessary to boost a sense of safety in the area. Through this open dialogue, the public should also be made aware of the progress made over the past two years through cleanup efforts and the Downtown Street Team’s work.

34 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Survey Instrument Recommendations The in-person surveys were largely successful, but have room for improvement. First quantityand foremost, of litter the infifth their goal neighborhood of the project has(which been has reduced. yet to be Since mentioned) this goal is to,has by been the end of the project, find that at least 66 percent of residents surveyed report that the capture the changes in the amount of litter perceived the neighborhood. Currently, theoutlined survey with does a specificnot include target a question to reach, to the address survey changes should includein quantity questions of litter that in neighborhoods, as observed by residents. A question should be added to subsequent surveys that ask residents to respond to this question, perhaps through marking differing levels of agreement (disagree, somewhat agree, agree, etc.) with a statement about noticing a reduction in litter.

An additional suggestion for the next survey instrument would be for respondents to identify on a map where they are engaging in recreational/stewardship activities. This may aid in understanding what recreational activities are popular and where creek locations that are already being enjoyed. they are occurring, so that public outreach efforts may be concentrated in specific

SECTION 3: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS • 35 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

36 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

AppendicesAppendices Appendix A ...... 39 Appendix B Race and Ethnicity Maps...... 51 Appendix C MedianDemographic Household Profile Income Map...... 55 Appendix D Educational Attainment Maps...... 57 Appendix E 2013 Survey Instrument...... 61 Appendix F 2011 Survey Instrument...... 65

APPENDICES • 37 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

38 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix A

Demographic Profile

Appendix A Demographic Profile

APPENDIX A • 39 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

! ! ! ! Coyote Creek within study area Half mile buffer of creek Blocks within half mile of creek (2010) Tracts within half mile of creek (2000) Tract 5001 k Blocks within 13th Street SNI (2010) oc 1 R 7 lum Tracts within 13th Street SNI (2000) 1 th A s io t on Census blocks (2010) C nt ole r A m ylo an an Ta Tract 5011 S 0 8 8TS lara Tract 5012 C 0 ta 2 8 an 4 6 S th TS

Tract 5010

T h g e n Tract 5013 in lia Tract 5015.02 d A Ju d la e m H e d s a rlo ry Ca to n S Sa

Tract 5016 T1 S0 R 1 a Tract 5031.05 c 80 e 2 TS s ye Ke K Tract 5031.06 in g Tract 5031.12 lly Tu

d

r

i

B a lm M ow A c ill la u W g h li a n ot es Tract 5031.03 L n

n in in

a M i c

d o i

r ln e

M ST 8 7

er tn S ur e C M n o t Tract 5032.13 n e t r l e e to in re pi P y a C 0 0.5 1 Miles [ Figure A-1 Study and Control Group Areas Source: City of San José and U.S. Census | Map prepared by Justic Meek, AICP (2012) FIGURE 2 Study and Control Group Areas Source: City of San Jose and U.S. Census | Map prepared by Justin Meek, AICP (2012)

40 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Data Sources The most recent demographic data were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau at the smallest geographic area available (see Figure A-1). As shown in Table A-1, population and housing information were available at the block-level from the 2010 Census; whereas social and economic information were available at the tract-level from the 2005-09 American Community Survey 5-year estimate.

Data available at the block level could readily provide information that closely corresponds to the study and control group areas. Because census tracts are much larger than census blocks—a typical tract consists of 2 to 4 block groups, which are in turn typically made up of 6 to 15 blocks—data at the track level could not be gathered for geographic areas that exactly correspond to the study and control group boundaries; rather, they followed these boundaries as closely as possible to give a representative sample of these two areas. Figure 8 shows the geographical extent of the census blocks and tracts used for characterizing the study and control group areas.

Table A-1 Demographic Data Sources Demographic 2010 Census 2005-09 ACS Category (block-level data) (tract-level data) Population Race and ethnicity Age Household size Occupancy status / tenure Housing type Educational attainment Household income Median income

APPENDIX A • 41 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Population, Race And Ethnicity In 2010, there were an estimated 38,940 residents in the study area. This area is

(of any race) and close to a third were Asian (see Figure A-2). Together, Hispanics and Asianscomposed account of two for main roughly groups: 78 percentnearly half of the identified area’s total themselves population as Hispanic (see Appendix or Latino B for three maps that show the geographic distribution of Hispanic, Asian and Caucasian residents in the study area).

The study and control group areas both have a higher proportion of minorities as compared with the City as a whole. The control group has a nearly identical percentage of Hispanics and Asians (75 percent), although this area has a greater proportion of residents who identify as Hispanics (59 percent), and smaller proportion of Asians (16 percent). In comparison to the rest of the population in San José, these two

as Hispanics (Hispanics comprise approximately 33 percent of the City’s residents), whileareas the have study a significantly area and the greater city have proportion exactly the of same residents proportion who identify of Asian themselves residents (32 percent).

Figure A-2 Race and Ethnicity Characteristics 70% 59% 60% 50% 46%

40% 33% 32% 32% 29% 30% 20% 20% 16% 15% 10% 6% 6% 6% 0% Hispanic White, non-­‐ Asian, non-­‐ Some other race, popula6on, any Hispanic Hispanic non-­‐Hispanic race Study Area Control Group San José Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Tables P8 & P9

42 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Age Distribution The residents of the study and control group areas are similar in age. As shown in Table A-2, the two areas’ age cohorts differ by only 2 to 5 percent. In comparison to the City as a whole, these two areas have a slightly greater proportion of college age and young adults, and fewer family-forming, middle age and senior populations. The median age for these three areas bears out these age cohort differences: the City’s has the highest median age at 35.2 years; the study area has a median age of nearly a year younger (34.3 years); and the control group area’s median age is slightly lower still (33.7 years).

Table A-2 Age Distribution Age Cohort Age Group/Desription Study Control San Area Group José (%) (%) (%) Under 18 Preschool and school age 23 21 25 18 to 24 College age 19 14 9 25 to 34 Young adults 17 19 15 35 to 64 Family-forming and middle age 34 38 40 65 and over Seniors 7 9 10 TOTAL 100 100 100 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Tables P12 & P13

The distribution of different age groups is not uniformly distributed. Figure A-3 shows the distribution of the largest age cohort—35 to 64 years—in the study and control group areas. As shown here, many of the census blocks within the study area have a relatively small proportion of residents between the age of 35 and 64, as compared to portions of San José further west, such as the Willow Glen area.

APPENDIX A • 43 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Creek Study area Census blocks (2010) Age 35 to 64 / Total Population 0.1% - 25% ock R 1 m 25.1% - 38% 7 lu 1 th A s io t on 38.1% - 50% C nt ole or A m ayl an 50.1% - 73% an T S 0 8 73.1% - 100% 8TS 0 2 8 13th Street SNI 4 6 th TS

a lar C T ta h an g e n S in lia d A d la Ju e m H e d s a rlo ry Ca to n S Sa

ST1 0 R 1 a 0 c 8

e 2 TS es ey K K in g ly ul T

d

r

i

B a lm M ow A cl ill a u W g h l in ta so ne L n n i in

a M

i c

d o i l

r n e

M ST 8 7

er tn S ur e C M n o te n t r l ne e to Pi re i y ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

Distribution of Family-Forming and Middle Age Residents U.S. Census (2010) | Map prepared by Justic Meek, AICP (2012) FFigureIGURE A-3 4 D istribution of Family-Forming and Middle Age Residents Source: Source: U.S. Census (2010) | Map prepared by Justin Meek, AICP (2012)

44 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Income Distribution The study area residents’ median household income is estimated to be $46,869. As shown in Figure A-4, over half the population earns $50,000 or less. In comparison, the control group area has an estimated household income of $54,702, and a little less than half its population earns $50,000 or less. Citywide, a much smaller proportion of residents earn $50,000 or less (32 percent). Correspondingly, the citywide median household income ($78,660) is over $30,000 (or 68 percent) greater than the study area’s (see Appendix C for a map showing median household income by census tract).

Figure A-4 Household Income Characteristics

100% 7.2% 10.9% 19.3% $150,000 or more 90% 9.6% 12.9% 80% 12.3% $100,000 to $149,000 70% 13.9% 19.3% 15.3% 60% $75,000 to $99,999 15.7% 13.6% 50%

40% 27.6% 16.0% $50,000 to $74,000 20.8% 30% 17.1% $25,000 to $49,000 20% 28.0% 25.9% 10% 14.7% Less than $24,999 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate Study Area Control Group San José

APPENDIX A • 45 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Educational Attainment Compared to the City, the study and control group areas have less formal education (see Figure A-5). In the study and control group areas, just over half their residents have a high school diploma or less education. These two areas also have nearly the same proportion of their population with some college or a Bachelor degree (at roughly

have some college or a Bachelor degree (49 percent), and a smaller proportion of hightwo out school of five graduates individuals). or less In (38 comparison, percent) (see a greater Appendix proportion D for two of residentsmaps showing citywide the proportion of residents without a high school diploma and those who have a Bachelor degree).

Figure A-5 Educational Attainment Characteristics

100% 7.2% 10.9% Graduate or professional 19.3% 90% 9.6% degree 12.9% 80% 12.3% Bachelor's degree 70% 13.9% 19.3% 15.3% 60% Associate's degree 15.7% 13.6% 50% Some college, no degree 40% 27.6% 16.0% 20.8% 30% High school graduate 17.1% 20% 28.0% 25.9% 10% 12th grade or less 14.7% 0% Source: U.S. CensusStudy Bureau, 2005-2009 Area Control American Group Community San Survey José 5-Year Estimate

46 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Occupancy Status And Tenure In 2010, the occupancy rates of the study area and City of San José were nearly identical. The 2011 control group area had a slightly greater proportion of vacant units at 7.7 percent, which was roughly twice the rate of the study area (3.8 percent). Given that housing policy analyses usually consider vacancy rates of 3 to 4 percent as reasonable, a rate of 7.7 percent may suggest that the housing supply in the control group modestly outstrips demand.

Of the occupied housing units, the study and control group areas have a preponderance of renters and similar renter occupancy rates. As shown in Figure A-6, a majority of residents in the City own their homes (58.5 percent), which is more than 20 percent greater than in the study area. Figure A-6 Percent of Owner-Occupied and Renter Occupied Units

100% 90% 31.5% 36.0% 80% 43.0% 70% 58.5% 60% 50% 40% 68.5% 64.0% 30% 55.0% 20% 41.5% 10% 0% 2010 Census 2011 Control Group 2011 Survey 2013 Survey Respondents Respondents Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census SummaryRenter-­‐Occupied File 1, Table H11 Owner-­‐Occupied

APPENDIX A • 47 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Household Size The average household sizes for the study area in 2010 were 3.05 and 3.03 for owner-

of the city as a whole, the control group area’s average household size is roughly 10 percentand renter-occupied less (see Figure units, A-7 respectively.). As shown inWhile Table these A-3 ,figures the control are very group similar area has to thosemore non-family and male households, which may explain the smaller overall household size.

Figure A-7 Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units

3.50% 3.30% 3.14% 3.05% 3.03% 3.00% 2.77% 2.72%

2.50%

2.00% Owner-­‐Occupied 1.50% Renter-­‐Occupied

1.00%

0.50%

0.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau,Study 2010 Area Census SummaryControl File Group 1, Table H12 San José

48 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Household Type Household types are similar in the study area and City of San José. As shown in Table A-3, family households make up 76 and 78.8 percent of owner occupied housing units in the study area and City, respectively. In the control group area nonfamily households are more frequent, but still make up only a third of all households. Table A-3 provides the City of San José. detailed figures on different household types for the study area, control group, and Table A-3 Comparison of Housing Units by Occupancy Age Cohort Study Control San Area Group José (%) (%) (%) Family households 76.0 65.4 78.8 Husband-wife family 57.6 47.8 64.4 Male householder, no wife present 7.0 6.4 4.9 Female householder, no husband present 11.3 11.3 9.5 Nonfamily households 24.0 34.6 21.2 Male householder 12.8 19.0 9.7 Female householder 11.3 15.6 11.6 TOTAL Owner-occupied houseing units 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Summary File 1, Tables P12 & P13

APPENDIX A • 49 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Housing Type Housing types vary between the study area, the control group area, and the City of San José. Overall, the City of San José contains a majority of single-family homes (approximately 68 percent), while only 42 percent live in single-family homes in the study area. In comparison, the control group has a lower concentration of single-family houses than the City, but a higher concentration than the study area (51 percent). Not surprisingly the study area has the largest percentage of the housing units that are multi- family dwellings with 10 or more units. Figure A-8 shows a more detailed breakdown of housing units in the study area, control group area, and City of San José.

Figure A-8 Housing Types by Number of Units

50+ Units

20-­‐49 Units

10-­‐19 Units

5-­‐9 Units San José Study Area 3-­‐4 Units Control Group

2 Units

Single Family Attached

Single Family Detached

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate 0% 15% 30% 45% 60%

50 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix B Race and Ethnicity Maps

Appendix B Race and Ethnicity Maps

APPENDIX B • 51 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

1 o 7 ni t o h nt ! ! ! ! 1 A Coyote Creek w/in study area 3 n t a h S 0 Creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Half mile buffer of creek Census blocks (2010) n 4 lia th ry Hispanic / Total Population Ju to S 0% - 25%

ra 25.1% - 50% a ! Cl ! ! K ta i 50.1% - 75% n ! n Sa g M 75.1% - 100% c la u g s h o ! l rl in Ca ! n ! Sa ! am illi W

! ST1 ! ! ! ! 0 ! 1 !

!

! !

!

! ! ! S ! e ! n 0 s te 28 r

ye !

e lly T ! S K u

! T !

!

d ! !

r ! i

!

B ! ! !

a m ! l ! A ! !

e s 1 Jo 0 n t ! a h ! S

a M t o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co l n r e n T rt u u e C r

n s

e

d

a m e l in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

FFigureIGURE B-1 A.1 DistributionDistribution o fof H iHispanicspanic Re Residentssidents Source: City ofSo Sanurce :José City o(2009)f San Jo andse (2 0U.S.09) Censusand U.S. (2010)Census (|2 Map010) prepared| Map prep abyred Justic by Ju sMeek,tin Mee AICPk, AIC P(2012) (2012)

52 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

1 o 7 ni t o h nt ! ! ! ! 1 A Coyote Creek w/in study area 3 n t a h S 0 Creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Half mile buffer of creek Census blocks (2010) n 4 lia th ry Asian (one race) / Total Population Ju to S 0% - 25%

ra 25.1% - 50% a ! Cl ! ! K ta i 50.1% - 75% n ! n Sa g M 75.1% - 100% c la u g s h o ! l rl in Ca ! n ! Sa ! am illi W

! ST1 ! ! ! ! 0 ! 1 !

!

! !

!

! ! ! S ! e ! n 0 s te 28 r

ye !

e lly T ! S K u

! T !

!

d ! !

r ! i

!

B ! ! !

a m ! l ! A ! !

e s 1 Jo 0 n t ! a h ! S

a M t o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co l n r e n T rt u u e C r

n s

e

d

a m e l in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

FFigureIGURE B-2 A.2 DistributionDistribution o fof A sAsianian R eResidentssidents (N on-HispSource:anic) City ofSo Sanurce :José City o(2009)f San Jo andse (2 0U.S.09) Censusand U.S. (2010)Census (|2 Map010) prepared| Map prep abyred Justic by Ju sMeek,tin Mee AICPk, AIC P(2012) (2012) (Non-Hispanic) APPENDIX B • 53 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

1 o 7 ni t o h nt ! ! ! ! 1 A Coyote Creek w/in study area 3 n t a h S 0 Creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Half mile buffer of creek Census blocks (2010) n 4 lia th ry Hispanic / Total Population Ju to S 0% - 25%

ra 25.1% - 50% a ! Cl ! ! K ta i 50.1% - 75% n ! n Sa g M 75.1% - 100% c la u g s h o ! l rl in Ca ! n ! Sa ! am illi W

! ST1 ! ! ! ! 0 ! 1 !

!

! !

!

! ! ! S ! e ! n 0 s te 28 r

ye !

e lly T ! S K u

! T !

!

d ! !

r ! i

!

B ! ! !

a m ! l ! A ! !

e s 1 Jo 0 n t ! a h ! S

a M t o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co l n r e n T rt u u e C r

n s

e

d

a m e l in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

FFigureIGURE B-3 A.1 DistributionDistribution o fof H iWhitespanic ResidentsResidents Source: City ofSo Sanurce :José City o(2009)f San Jo andse (2 0U.S.09) Censusand U.S. (2010)Census (|2 Map010) prepared| Map prep abyred Justic by Ju sMeek,tin Mee AICPk, AIC P(2012) (2012) (Non-Hispanic) 54 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix C Median Household Income Map

Appendix C Median Household Income Map

APPENDIX C • 55 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

1 o 7 ni t o h nt 1 A Creek 3 n t a h S 0 Half mile buffer of creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Census blocks (2010)

n 4 lia th ry Ju to Estimate: $74406 Estimate: $45481 S MOE: $5533 MOE: $14972 a ar Cl a K nt in a g S M c la u g s h o l rl in Ca n Sa Estimate: $35427 am illi W MOE: $5991 ST1 0 1 Estimate: $36081 MOE: $4738

Estimate: $44253 Estimate: $51580 MOE: $17808 S e n MOE: $5424 0 t 28 s e ye r y TS Ke ll Tu

d

r

i

B

a lm A

e s 1 Jo 0 t an h S Estimate: $41319 a M t MOE: $3759 o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co ln T r u e e n r

n rt s e u

C d

a Estimate: $46402 m e l MOE: $12957 in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

FFigureIGURE C-1 B M Medianedian H oHouseholdusehold Inc Incomeome Source: U.S. Census,Source: U ACS.S. C (2005-2009ensus, ACS (2 05-Year05-200 9Estimate) 5-Year Est i|m Mapate) |prepared Map prep abyred Justic by Jus Meek,tin Mee AICPk, AIC P(2012) (2012)

56 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix D Educational Attainment Maps

Appendix D Educational Attainment Maps

APPENDIX D • 57 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

1 o 7 ni t o h nt 1 A Creek 3 n t a h S 0 Half mile buffer of creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Census blocks (2010) 12th grade or less / Total Population* n 4 lia th ry 20.1% - 25% Ju to 24.9% S 25.1% - 30% a 40.4% 30.1% - 35% ar Cl a K 35.1% - 40.4% nt in a g S M c la u * 25 years or older g s h o l rl in Ca n Sa am 33.7% illi W ST1 0 1 30.5% s ye Ke S e 25.7% n 0 30.3% te 28 r TS lly Tu

d

r

i

B

a se lm Jo A an S

1 0 20.4% th

a M t o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co ln T r u e e tn r n ur s

e C 22.2% d

a m e l in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

Residents without a High School U.S. Census, ACS (2005-2009 5-Year Estimate) | Map prepared by Justic Meek, AICP (2012) FFigureIGURE D-1 C.1 Residents without a High School DiplomaSource: Source: U.S. Census, ACS (2005-2009 5-Year Estimate) | Map prepared by Justin Meek, AICP (2012) Diploma 58 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

1 o 7 ni t o h nt 1 A Creek 3 n t a h S 0 Half mile buffer of creek 8 6 13th Street SNI TS Census blocks (2010) Bachelores degree / Total Population* n 4 lia th ry 5.1% - 10% Ju to 24.5% S 10.1% - 15% a 12.3% 15.1% - 20% ar Cl a K 20.1% - 25% nt in a g S M c la u * 25 years or older g s h o l rl in Ca n Sa am 15.8% illi W ST1 0 1 8.2% s ye Ke S e 15.9% n 0 14.1% te 28 r TS lly Tu

d

r

i

B

a lm A

e s 1 Jo 0 t an h S

a 17% M t o eso n n te in r M e ST y 8 L 7 in co ln T r u e e n r n rt s

e u 8.7% d C

a m e l in A l P ito ap C 0 0.5 1 Miles [

FFigureIGURE D-2 C.2 ResidentsResidents wwithoutith a Ba ac hBachelorselors Degr ee Source: U.S. Census,Source: U ACS.S. C (2005-2009ensus, ACS (2 05-Year05-200 9Estimate) 5-Year Est i|m Mapate) prepared| Map prep abyred Justic by Jus Meek,tin Mee AICPk, AIC P(2012) (2012) Degree APPENDIX D • 59 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

60 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix E 2013 Survey Instrument

Appendix E 2013 Survey Instrument

APPENDIX E • 61 Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date: Survey No:

1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly 1. Yes do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek 1 2 3 4 5 2. Do you know the name of that creek? Illegal dumping is harmful to... 1. Yes, Coyote Creek 2. No - if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the my personal well-being county) my neighborhood or community 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open the habitat of fish and wildlife space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? Litter is harmful to... 1 2 3 4 5 DK my personal well-being Walking / jogging my neighborhood or community Bicycling the habitat of fish and wildlife Walk pets Homeless encampments are harmful to... Nature watching (birds, animals) Other (specify) my personal well-being my neighborhood or community 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know the habitat of fish and wildlife 1=strongly agree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you agree participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek?

1 2 3 4 5 DK Creek cleanup I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us better Water monitoring understand the data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only. Creek restoration project Other conservation / creek protection activity (specify) 9. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) 1. Asian-American / Asian 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 2. Caucasian / White 3. Hispanic / Latino/a 5a. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what are the reasons why? 4. African-American / Black (select as many as apply) 5. American Indian / Pacific Islander 1. There is no easy access to the creek 6. Other (specify) ______2. Trash in or near the creek MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS 3. Presence of homeless people living there 10. What year were you born? ______Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date:4. Concerned about injuries Survey No: 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 11. What level of education have you completed? Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date: 6. Not interested in going Survey down No:to the creek 1. Less than HS / no diploma 7. Other (please specify) ______2. High school / GED 3. Some college 1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly 5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to 4. 2-year college degree (Associates) 1. Yes do you agree or disagree with the following statements? happen for you to use it? (select as many as apply) 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek 1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale1. ofImprove 1 to 5, withrecreational 1=strongly trails disagree along the and creek 5=strongly agree, how strongly 6. Professional / graduate degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 1. Yes do you agree 2. Improve or disagree access with to thethe followingcreek statements? 2. Do you know the name of that creek? 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek Illegal 3.dumping Clean up is theharmful trash into... the creek 12. What was your total annual household income last year? 1. Yes, Coyote Creek 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the1 creek2 area3 4 5 1. Less than $24,999 2. No - if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the 2. Do you know the name of that creek? my personal 5. Other well-being (please specify) ______2. $25,000 to $49,999 county) Illegal dumping is harmful to... 1. Yes, Coyote Creek my neighborhood 6. I am unlikely or evercommunity to use the creek regardless of improvements 3. $50,000 to $74,999 2. No - if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the my personal well-being 4. $75,000 to $99,999 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open county) 6.the Onhabitat a scale of of fish 1 to and 5, with wildlife 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly do 5. $100,000 to $149,999 space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? my neighborhood or community Litteryou is agree harmful or disagree to... with the following statements about Coyote Creek? 6. $150,000 to $199,999 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open the habitat of fish and wildlife 7. $200,000 or more 1 2 3 4 5 DK space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? my personal well-being 1 2 3 4 5 DK Litter is harmful to... Walking / jogging 13. Do you rent or own your home? my neighborhoodTrash is a problem or community along the creek 1 2 3 4 5 DK my personal well-being 1. Rent Bicycling The creek is an important habitat for 2. Own Walking / jogging the habitat of fish and wildlife Walk pets my neighborhoodfish and wildlife or community 3. Other (specify) ______Bicycling HomelessThe health encampments and cleanliness are harmful of the to... Nature watching (birds, animals) the habitat of fish and wildlife 14. How long have you lived in this location? Walk pets my personalcreek is importantwell-being to me 1. Less than 1 year Other (specify) Homeless encampments are harmful to... Nature watching (birds, animals) My personal actions can have a 2. 1 to 4 years my neighborhood or community my personalpositive well-beingor negative impact on trash in 3. 5 to 10 years Other (specify) 4. More than 10 years 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know the habitatthe creek of fish and wildlife my neighborhood or community 1=stronglyCoyote agree, Creek 2=disagree, is a safe 3=neither place for agree me nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 15. Do you have a dog? 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know agreethe habitat of fish and wildlife 1. Yes participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek? and my family to visit 1=strongly agree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 2. No 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 1 2 3 4 5 DK agree agree, DK=don’t know participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek? 16. Do any children live in the home? Creek cleanup 7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 1. Yes 1 2 3 4 5 DK I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us better 2. No Water monitoring following activities result in trash in the creek? Creek cleanup understand the data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only. 17. In the last two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy Creek restoration project I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself1 will 2help 3us betterDK Water monitoring Communities Project? understand the data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only. Other conservation / creek protection Litter from cars 1. Yes activityCreek restoration (specify) project Litter from people in the neighborhood 2. No Other conservation / creek protection 9. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) activity (specify) 1. OverflowingAsian-American trash / Asian from cans or dumpsters 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 9. What 2. is TrashCaucasian your fromrace/ethnicity / Whiteyard or ?construction (select all that projects apply) 1.3. Asian-AmericanHispanic / Latino/a / Asian 5a. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what are the reasons why? Illegal dumping 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 2.4. CaucasianAfrican-American / White / Black (select as many as apply) 5. American Indian / Pacific Islander For surveyor to answer only: 3. HomelessHispanic / Latino/a encampments 5a. If you 1. rarelyThere oris nonever easy use access Coyote to the Creek, creek what are the reasons why? 6. Other (specify) ______2. Trash in or near the creek 4. African-American / Black (select as many as apply) Gender: Household Type (circle): SFD or MFD Street Block: 3. Presence of homeless people living there 5. 1=none, American 2=some, Indian 3=a / Pacific lot, DK=don’t Islander know 1. There is no easy access to the creek 10. What 6. yearOther were (specify) you born? ______2.4. TrashConcerned in or nearabout the injuries creek 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 3. Presence of homeless people living there 10.11. What levelyear wereof education you born? have ______you completed? 4.6. ConcernedNot interested about in goinginjuries down to the creek 1. Less than HS / no diploma 7. Other (please specify) ______5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 11. What 2. levelHigh schoolof education / GED have you completed? 6. Not interested in going down to the creek 3. Some college 625b. • SanIf you José rarely State or never University use Coyote Creek, • Urban what changes and Regional along the Planning creek need | toCity of San José 1. •Less Environmental than HS / no diploma Services 7. Other (please specify) ______2.4. High2-year school college / GED degree (Associates) happen for you to use it? (select as many as apply) 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 1. Improve recreational trails along the creek 3. Some college 5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to 4.6. 2-yearProfessional college / graduatedegree (Associates) degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.) happen 2. Improve for you accessto use toit? the (select creek as many as apply) 3. Clean up the trash in the creek 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 1. Improve recreational trails along the creek 12. What 6. wasProfessional your total / graduateannual household degree (JD, income MA, Ph.D., last year? etc.) 2.4. ImproveReduce presence access to of the homeless creek people in the creek area 1. Less than $24,999 3.5. CleanOther up(please the trash specify) in the ______creek 2. $25,000 to $49,999 6. I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements 12. What was your total annual household income last year? 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area 1.3. Less$50,000 than to $24,999 $74,999 5. Other (please specify) ______2.4. $25,000$75,000 to $49,999$99,999 6. On 6.a scale I am of unlikely 1 to 5, everwith to1=strongly use the creek disagree regardless and 5=strongly of improvements agree, how strongly do 5. $100,000 to $149,999 you agree or disagree with the following statements about Coyote Creek? 3. $50,000 to $74,999 4.6. $75,000$150,000 to to $99,999 $199,999 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly do 7. $200,000 or more 1 2 3 4 5 DK 5. $100,000 to $149,999 you agree or disagree with the following statements about Coyote Creek? 6. $150,000 to $199,999 Trash is a problem along the creek 13. Do 7. you $200,000 rent or own or more your home? 1 2 3 4 5 DK 1. Rent The creek is an important habitat for 2. Own Trash is a problem along the creek 13. Do you rent or own your home? fish and wildlife 1.3. RentOther (specify) ______The healthcreek is and an importantcleanliness habitat of the for 2. Own fish and wildlife 14. How 3. long Other have (specify) you lived ______in this location? creek is important to me 1. Less than 1 year The health and cleanliness of the My personal actions can have a 14. How 2. long 1 to have4 years you lived in this location? creekpositive is importantor negative to impact me on trash in 1.3. Less5 to 10than years 1 year 4. More than 10 years Mythe personalcreek actions can have a 2. 1 to 4 years 3. 5 to 10 years Coyotepositive Creek or negative is a safe impact place on for trash me in 15. Do 4. you More have than a dog? 10 years andthe creekmy family to visit 1. Yes 2. No 1=strongly Coyote Creek disagree, is a 2=disagree,safe place for3=neither me agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 15. Do you have a dog? agree,and my DK=don’t family know to visit 1. Yes 16. Do 2. any No children live in the home? 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 1. Yes agree, DK=don’t know following activities result in trash in the creek? 16. Do 2. any No children live in the home? 7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 1. Yes 1 2 3 DK 17. In the2. Nolast two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy following activities result in trash in the creek? Communities Project? Litter from cars 1. Yes 1 2 3 DK 17. In the last two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy Litter from people in the neighborhood Communities 2. No Project? Litter from cars Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters 1. Yes Litter from people in the neighborhood 2. No Trash from yard or construction projects Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters Illegal dumping Trash from yard or construction projects For surveyor to answer only: Homeless encampments Illegal dumping SFD or MFD 1=none, 2=some, 3=a lot, DK=don’t know ForGender: surveyor to answerHousehold only: Type (circle): Street Block: Homeless encampments 1=none, 2=some, 3=a lot, DK=don’t know Gender: Household Type (circle): SFD or MFD Street Block: Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date: Survey No:

1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly 1. Yes do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek 1 2 3 4 5 2. Do you know the name of that creek? Illegal dumping is harmful to... 1. Yes, Coyote Creek 2. No - if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the my personal well-being county) my neighborhood or community 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open the habitat of fish and wildlife space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? Litter is harmful to... 1 2 3 4 5 DK my personal well-being Walking / jogging my neighborhood or community Bicycling the habitat of fish and wildlife Walk pets Homeless encampments are harmful to... Nature watching (birds, animals) Other (specify) my personal well-being my neighborhood or community 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know the habitat of fish and wildlife 1=strongly agree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you agree participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek?

1 2 3 4 5 DK Creek cleanup I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us better Water monitoring understand the data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only. Creek restoration project Other conservation / creek protection activity (specify) 9. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) 1. Asian-American / Asian 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 2. Caucasian / White 3. Hispanic / Latino/a 5a. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what are the reasons why? 4. African-American / Black (select as many as apply) 5. American Indian / PacificClean Islander Creeks Healthy Communities Project Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date: 1. There is no Survey easy access No: to the creek 6. Other (specify) ______2. Trash in or near the creek Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project Community Survey 2013 Date: Survey No: 3. Presence of homeless people living there 10. What year were you born? ______4. Concerned about injuries 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 11. What level of education have you completed? 1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly 6. Not interested in going down to the creek 1. Less than HS / no diploma 1. Yes do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 7. Other (please specify) ______2. High school / GED 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek 1. Is there a creek within a 1/2 mile distance of your home? 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly 1. Yes 1 2 3 4 5 do you agree or disagree 3. Some with college the following statements? 5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to 4. 2-year college degree (Associates) 2. Do you know the name of that creek? 2. No - if no, prompt with information about location of creek Illegal dumping happen is harmful for you toto... use it? (select as many as apply) 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 1. Yes, Coyote Creek 1 2 3 4 5 2. Do you know the name1. Improve of that recreational creek? trails along the creek 6. Professional / graduate degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.) 2. No - if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the my personal well-being 2. Improve access to the creek Illegal dumping is harmful to... county) 1. Yes, Coyote Creek my neighborhood2. No - if no, 3. prompt Clean or community up with the Coyote trash in Creek the creek (it is the longest creek in the my personal12. Whatwell-being was your total annual household income last year? 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area 1. Less than $24,999 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open county) the habitat of fish5. Otherand wildlife (please specify) ______my neighborhood 2. $25,000or community to $49,999 space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? 6. I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements 3. OnLitter a scale is harmfulof 1 to 5, to...with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use the open the habitat of fish 3. $50,000and wildlife to $74,999 4. $75,000 to $99,999 1 2 3 4 5 DK space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? my personal6. On well-being a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly Litterdo is harmful 5. to... $100,000 to $149,999 Walking / jogging you agree or disagree with the following1 2 statements3 4 about5 CoyoteDK Creek? 6. $150,000 to $199,999 my neighborhood or community my personal well-being 7. $200,000 or more Bicycling Walking / jogging 1 2 3 4 5 DK the habitat of fish and wildlife my neighborhood or community Walk pets Bicycling Trash is a problem along the creek 13. Do you rent or own your home? Homeless encampments are harmful to... the habitat of fish 1. Rentand wildlife Nature watching (birds, animals) Walk pets The creek is an important habitat for 2. Own my personal well-being Homeless encampments are harmful to... Other (specify) Nature watchingfish (birds,and wildlife animals) 3. Other (specify) ______The health and cleanliness of the Othermy neighborhood (specify) or community my personal14. Howwell-being long have you lived in this location? creek is important to me 1. Less than 1 year 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know the habitat of fish and wildlife my neighborhood or community My personal actions can have a 2. 1 to 4 years 1=strongly agree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 3. 5 to 10 years 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you 1=never, 2=rarely, positive 3=sometimes, or negative 4=often, impact 5=very on trash often, in DK=don’t know the habitat of fish and wildlife agree 4. More than 10 years participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek? the creek 1=strongly agree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you Coyote Creek is a safe place for me agree 1 2 3 4 5 DK participated in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek? 15. Do you have a dog? and my family to visit 1. Yes Creek cleanup 2. No 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither1 2 agree3 nor4 disagree,5 DK 4=agree, 5=strongly I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us better Water monitoring agree, DK=don’t know understandCreek thecleanup data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only. 16. Do any children live in the home? I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us better Creek restoration project Water monitoring7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 1. Yes understand the data we 2. collect No and will be used for statistical purposes only. Other conservation / creek protection Creek restoration following project activities result in trash in the creek? activity (specify) Other conservation / creek protection 1 2 3 DK 17. In the last two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy 9. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) activity (specify) Communities Project? 1. Asian-AmericanLitter from / Asian cars 1. Yes 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 9. What is your race/ethnicity? (select all that apply) 2. CaucasianLitter / White from people in the neighborhood 2. No 3. Hispanic / Latino/a 1. Asian-American / Asian 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=often, 5=very often, DK=don’t know 5a. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what are the reasons why? 4. African-American Overflowing / Black trash from cans or dumpsters 2. Caucasian / White (select as many as apply) 5. American Indian / Pacific Islander 3. Hispanic / Latino/a 5a. If you rarely or neverTrash usefrom Coyote yard Creek,or construction what are the projects reasons why? 1. There is no easy access to the creek 6. Other (specify) ______4. African-American / Black 2. Trash in or near the creek (select as many Illegalas apply) dumping 5. American Indian / Pacific Islander 1. There is no easy access to the creek 6. Other (specify) ______3. Presence of homeless people living there 10. What year were you born? ______For surveyor to answer only: 4. Concerned about injuries 2. Trash in orHomeless near the creek encampments 3. Presence of homeless people living there 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 11. What level of education have you completed? 10. What year were you born? ______4. Concerned 1=none, about 2=some, injuries 3=a lot, DK=don’t know Gender: Household Type (circle): SFD or MFD Street Block: 6. Not interested in going down to the creek 1. Less than HS / no diploma 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 7. Other (please specify) ______2. High school / GED 11. What level of education have you completed? 6. Not interested in going down to the creek 3. Some college 1. Less than HS / no diploma APPENDIX E • 63 7. Other (please specify) ______5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to 4. 2-year college degree (Associates) 2. High school / GED happen for you to use it? (select as many as apply) 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 3. Some college 5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to 1. Improve recreational trails along the creek 6. Professional / graduate degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.) 4. 2-year college degree (Associates) 2. Improve access to the creek happen for you to use it? (select as many as apply) 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) 1. Improve recreational trails along the creek 3. Clean up the trash in the creek 12. What was your total annual household income last year? 6. Professional / graduate degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.) 2. Improve access to the creek 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area 1. Less than $24,999 3. Clean up the trash in the creek 5. Other (please specify) ______2. $25,000 to $49,999 12. What was your total annual household income last year? 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area 6. I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements 3. $50,000 to $74,999 1. Less than $24,999 5. Other (please specify) ______4. $75,000 to $99,999 2. $25,000 to $49,999 6. I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly do 5. $100,000 to $149,999 3. $50,000 to $74,999 you agree or disagree with the following statements about Coyote Creek? 6. $150,000 to $199,999 4. $75,000 to $99,999 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly do 7. $200,000 or more 5. $100,000 to $149,999 1 2 3 4 5 DK you agree or disagree with the following statements about Coyote Creek? 6. $150,000 to $199,999 7. $200,000 or more Trash is a problem along the creek 13. Do you rent or own your home? 1 2 3 4 5 DK 1. Rent The creek is an important habitat for Trash 2. Own is a problem along the creek 13. Do you rent or own your home? fish and wildlife 3. Other (specify) ______1. Rent The creek is an important habitat for 2. Own The health and cleanliness of the 14. Howfish andlong wildlifehave you lived in this location? 3. Other (specify) ______creek is important to me The 1. health Less than and 1 yearcleanliness of the My personal actions can have a 2. 1 to 4 years 14. How long have you lived in this location? creek is important to me 1. Less than 1 year positive or negative impact on trash in 3. 5 to 10 years My personal actions can have a 2. 1 to 4 years the creek 4. More than 10 years positive or negative impact on trash in 3. 5 to 10 years Coyote Creek is a safe place for me 15. Dothe you creek have a dog? 4. More than 10 years and my family to visit 1. Yes Coyote 2. No Creek is a safe place for me 15. Do you have a dog? 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly and my family to visit 1. Yes agree, DK=don’t know 2. No 16. 1=strongly Do any children disagree, live 2=disagree,in the home? 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree, 1. DK=don’tYes know 7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 16. Do any children live in the home? following activities result in trash in the creek? 2. No 7. On a scale of 1 to 3, with 1=none and 3=a lot, to what degree do you think the 1. Yes 2. No 1 2 3 DK 17. followingIn the last activities two years result have in you trash participated in the creek? in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project? Litter from cars 1. Yes 1 2 3 DK 17. In the last two years have you participated in or heard of the Clean Creeks, Healthy 2. No Communities Project? Litter from people in the neighborhood Litter from cars 1. Yes Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters Litter from people in the neighborhood 2. No Trash from yard or construction projects Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters Illegal dumping Trash from yard or construction projects For surveyor to answer only: Homeless encampments Illegal dumping For surveyor to answer only: 1=none, 2=some, 3=a lot, DK=don’t know Gender:Homeless encampments Household Type (circle): SFD or MFD Street Block: 1=none, 2=some, 3=a lot, DK=don’t know Gender: Household Type (circle): SFD or MFD Street Block: MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

[this page intentionally left blank]

64 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Appendix F 2011 Survey Instrument

Appendix F 2011 Survey Instrument

APPENDIX F • 65 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project | Community Survey 2011 Date: Survey No.:

1. Is there a creek near your home? 5a. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what are the reasons why? 1. Yes (select as many as apply) 2. No -- if no, prompt with information about location of creek 1. There is no easy access to the creek 2. Trash in or near the creek 2. Do you know the name of that creek? 3. Presence of homeless people living there 1. Yes 4. Concerned about injuries 2. No -- if no, prompt with Coyote Creek (it is the longest creek in the county) 5. Don’t feel it is a safe environment 6. Not interested in going down to the creek 3. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often do you use 7. Other (please specify)______the open space around Coyote Creek for the following activities? 5b. If you rarely or never use Coyote Creek, what changes along the creek need to happen for 1 2 3 4 5 DK you to use it (select as many as apply)? Walking / jogging 1. Improve recreational trails along the creek 2. Improve access to the creek Bicycling 3. Clean up the trash in the creek 4. Reduce presence of homeless people in the creek area Walk pets 5. Other (please specify)______6. I am unlikely ever to use the creek regardless of improvements Picnics

Recreational fishing 6. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about Coyote Creek? Nature watching (birds, animals) 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Other (specify) Trash is a problem along the creek

The creek is an important habitat for fish and wildlife 1 = never; 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, DK = don’t know The health and cleanliness of the creek is important to me 4. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=never and 5=very often, how often have you participated My personal actions can have an impact on trash in the creek in any of the following activities on Coyote Creek? Coyote Creek is a safe place for me and my family to visit 1 2 3 4 5 DK 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree, Creek cleanup DK = don’t know

Water monitoring

Creek restoration project

Other conservation / creek protection activity (specify)

1 = never; 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, DK = don’t know

66 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project | Community Survey 2011

7. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=none and 5=an excessive amount, I have a few more questions to ask. These questions about yourself will help us to what degree do you think the following activities result in trash in the creek? better understand the data we collect and will be used for statistical purposes only.

1 2 3 4 5 DK 9. What is your race/ethnicity (select all that apply)? Litter from cars 1. Asian-American/Asian 2. Caucasian/White Litter from people in the neighborhood 3. Hispanic/Latino/a 4. African-American/Black Overflowing trash from cans or dumpsters 5. American Indian/Pacific Islander 6. Other (specify) ______Trash from yard or construction projects 10. What year were you born? ______Illegal dumping 11. What level of education have you completed? Homeless encampments 1. Less than HS / no diploma 2. High school / GED 1 = none, 2 = a little, 3 = a moderate amount, 4 = a lot, 5 = an excessive amount, DK = don’t know 3. Some college 4. 2-year college degree (Associates) 8. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree, 5. 4-year college degree (BA, BS, etc.) how strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements? 6. Professional / graduate degree (JD, MA, Ph.D., etc.)

1 2 3 4 5 12. What was your total annual household income last year? Illegal dumping is harmful to… 1. Less than $24,999 2. $25,000 to $49,999 my personal well-being      3. $50,000 to $74,999 4. $75,000 to $99,999 property values      5. $100,000 to $149,999 the safety of the neighborhood      6. $150,000 to $199,999 the habitat of fish and wildlife      7. $200,000 or more

Litter is harmful to… 13. Do you rent or own your home? 1. Rent my personal well-being      2. Own property values      3. Other (specify) ______

the safety of the neighborhood      14. How long have you lived in this location? the habitat of fish and wildlife      1. Less than 1 year 2. 1 to 4 years Homeless encampments are harmful to… 3. 5 to 10 years 4. more than 10 years my personal well-being     

property values      15. Do you have a dog? 16. Do any children live in the home? the safety of the neighborhood      1. Yes 1. Yes the habitat of fish and wildlife      2. No 2. No 1 = strongly agree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree

G: H type: SFD or MFD SB: APPENDIX F • 67 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Arroyos Limpios, Proyecto de Comunidades Saludables | Encuesta a la Comunidad Survey 2011 Date: Survey No.:

1. ¿Hay un arroyo cerca de su casa? 5a. Si raramente, o nunca ha usado el Arroyo de Coyote, ¿Cuál es la razón? 1. Si (Por favor seleccione todas las que apliquen) 2. No – si su respuesta fue no, proporcione información acerca de la localidad de un arroyo 1. No existe manera fácil de entrar al arroyo 2. Hay basura en el arroyo y sus alrededores 2. ¿Sabe usted el nombre del arroyo? 3. La presencia de gente sin hogar 1. Si 4. Temor a accidentes 2. No – si respondió no, conteste las siguientes preguntas relacionándolas con el Arroyo El 5. No es un ambiente seguro 6. No está interesado en ir al arroyo 7. Otras razones (por favor especifique)______3. En la escala del 1 al 5, 1=nunca y 5=muy frecuente. ¿Qué tanto frecuenta los alrededores del Arroyo El Coyote durante las siguientes actividades? 5b. Si raramente o nunca usa el Arroyo de Coyote, ¿Qué debe cambiar alrededor del Arroyo El Coyote para que usted use el área? (Por favor seleccione todas las que apliquen) 5 No se 1 2 3 4 1. Mejorar los caminos peatonales alrededor del arroyo 2. Mejorar el acceso al arroyo Caminar / correr 3. Limpiar la basura que hay en el arroyo 4. Reducir la presencia de personas sin hogar que habitan las orillas del arroyo Ciclismo 5. Otras razones (por favor especifique)______6. Es probable que nunca use el arroyo no importa las mejoras que se le hagan. Caminar a su mascota

Paseos deCampo 6. En la escala del 1 al 5, donde 1= Totalmente en desacuerdo y 5= Totalmente de acuerdo, ¿Qué Pesca recreativa tan de acuerdo o en desacuerdo está usted con las siguientes declaraciones acerca del Arroyo El Coyote? Observar la naturaleza (Pájaros, animales) 1 2 3 4 5 No se

Otras actividades recreativas (especifique) La basura es un problema alrededor del arroyo

El arroyo es un lugar muy importante para peces y la vida 1 = nunca; 2 = rara vez 3 = a veces, 4 = frecuente, 5 = muy frecuente, No se silvestre

La calidad y limpieza del arroyo es importante para mí. 4. En la escala del 1 al 5, 1=nunca y 5= muy frecuente. ¿Qué tan frecuente ha participado en las siguientes actividades en El Arroyo el Coyote? Mis acciones pueden contribuir en la cantidad de basura en el arroyo. 1 2 3 4 5 No Se El Arroyo El Coyote es un lugar seguro para mí y mi familia. Limpieza de Arroyo 1 = nunca; 2 = rara vez 3 = a veces, 4 = frecuente, 5 = muy frecuente, No se Monitorear la calidad del agua

Proyecto de restauración del arroyo

Otro tipo de actividad de protección de la calidad del arroyo

Especifique: 1 = never; 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often, DK = don’t know

68 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Arroyos Limpios, Proyecto de Comunidades Saludables | Encuesta a la Comunidad Survey 2011

7. En la escala del 1 al 5 en la cual 1= a ninguno y 5=una cantidad excesiva, ¿En qué grado Tengo algunas preguntas para usted las cuales nos ayudarán a comprender piensa usted que las siguientes actividades producen basura en el arroyo? mejor la información que hemos colectado y serán usadas sólo para propósitos 1 2 3 4 5 No se estadísticos.

Basura de los autos 9. ¿Cuál es su raza/origen étnico? 1. Asiático-Americano/ Asiático Basura de residentes del vecindario 2. Caucásico / Blanco 3. Hispano/ Latino Basura derramando de botes de basura 4. Africano-Americano / Negro 5. Indio Americana / Isla del Pacifico Escombros de materiales de construcción y jardinería 6. Otro (especifique) ______

Tirar muebles, llantas y otro tipo de artículos grandes 10. ¿En qué año nació? ______ilegalmente en el arroyo 11. ¿Cuál es su nivel educativo más alto? Campamentos de personas sin hogar 1. Menos de preparatoria 2. Preparatoria / GED 1 = nunca; 2 = rara vez 3 = a veces, 4 = seguido, 5 = muy seguido, No se 3. Atendió Universidad pero no termino

4. 2-años de colegio comunitario carrera técnica 8. En la escala del 1 al 5 donde 1= Totalmente en desacuerdo y 5= Totalmente de acuerdo,. 5. 4-años de Universidad con licenciatura ¿Qué tan de acuerdo o desacuerdo esta con las siguientes declaraciones? 6. Maestría/Doctorado, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 12. ¿Cuál fue su ingreso anual el año pasado? Tirar basura ilegalmente perjudica… 1. Menos de 24, 999 2. $25, 000 a 49, 999 Mi bienestar      3. $50, 000 a $74, 999 4. $75, 000 a $99, 999 El valor de la propiedad      5. $100, 000 a $149, 999 La seguridad del vecindario      6. $150, 000 a $1999, 999 El medioambiente de peces y vida silvestre      7. $2000, 000 o más

Basura perjudica… 13. ¿Usted renta o es dueño de su casa? 1. Renta Mi bienestar      2. Dueño /a El valor de mi propiedad      3. Otro (Especifique) ______La seguridad del vecindario      14. ¿Cuanto tiempo ha vivido en este vecindario? El medioambiente de peces y fauna      1. Menos de 1 año 2. 1 a 4 años Campamentos de personas sin hogar perjudican… 3. 5 a 10 años 4. more than 10 years Mi bienestar     

El valor de mi propiedad      15. ¿Tiene usted un perro? 16. ¿Viven niños en su casa? La seguridad del vecindario      1. Si 1. Yes El medioambiente de peces y vida silvestre      2. No 2. No 1 = nunca; 2 = rara vez 3 = a veces, 4 = seguido, 5 = muy seguido,

G: H type: SFD or MFD SB: APPENDIX F • 69 MID-POINT PROJECT SURVEY RESULTS

Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project | Community Survey 2011 Date: Survey No.:

1. Xin hỏi, gần nhà bạn có con suối không? 5a. Nếu bạn hiếm khi hoặc không bao giờ sử dụng suôi Coyote, xin cho 1. Có những lý do tại sao? 2. Không -- if no, prompt with information about location of creek (Xin chọn những số nào được áp dụng) 1. Không có đường đi dễ dàng đến suối Coyote. 2. Bạn có biết tên con suối không? 2. Rác rưởi xung quanh và trong con suối. 1. Có 3. Có những người vô gia cư ở xung quanh. 2. Không -- if no, prompt with Coyote Creek 4. Lo ngại đi đến sẽ bị thương 5. Không cảm thấy an toàn ở xung quanh con suối. 3. Trong mức đo lường từ 1 đến 5, 1 là không bao giờ và 5 là rất thường xuyên, bạn 6. Không quan tâm đến việc đi xuống con suối. thường xuyên sử dụng ngoài sân xung quanh con suối coyote để làm các hoạt động giải 7. Lý do khác (Xin chỉ định)______trí sau đây? 5b. Nếu bạn không sử dụng con suối, thì những gì cần thực hiện trên và xung quanh con 1 2 3 4 5 DK suối để bạn có thể sử dụng nó ?(xin chọn những số nào đuọc áp dụng)? 1. Nâng cấp đường mòn cạnh con suối. Chạy/ chạy bộ 2. Nâng cấp lối vào con suối 3. Lượm rác và làm sạch sẽ con suối Đi xe đạp 4. Giảm số lượng người vô gia cư ở gần con suối 5. Chuy n khác (Xin ch nh)______Đi bộ với vật nuôi trong nhà ệ ỉ đị 6. Cho dù nâng cấp con suối, tôi cũng sẽ không dùng. Ăn ngoài trời 6. Trong mức đo lường từ 1 đến 5, 1 là không đồng ý và 5 là rất đồng ý, Câu cá giải trí Xin trả lòi mức độ đồng ý hay không đồng ý với các câu sau đây về suôi Coyote?

Đi coi cảnh vật thiên nhiên (chim, động vật) 1 2 3 4 5 DK

Hoạt động giải trí khác (xin chỉ định) Rác là một vấn đề dọc theo con suối 1 = never/ không bao giờ; 2 = rarely/hiếm khi, 3 = sometimes/đôi khi, 4 = often/thường xuyên, 5 = very Con suối là một môi trường sống quan trọng đối với often/rất thường xuyên, DK = don’t know/không biết cá và động vật

4. Trong mức đo lường từ 1 đến 5, 1 là không bao giờ và 5 là rất thường xuyên, bạn Sự sạch sẽ của con suối là quan trọng với tôi thường xuyên tham gia trương trình sau đây ở suối Coyote ? Hành động cá nhân tôi có thể ảnh hưởng đến mức 1 2 3 4 5 DK độ rác rưởi trong con suối

Dọn dẹp và làm sạch con suối Suối Coyote là một nơi an toàn cho tôi và gia đình để đến chơi Giám sát nước 1 = rất không đồng ý, 2 = không đồng ý, 3 = không đồng ý cũng không bất đồng, 4 = đồng ý, 5 = rất đồng ý, DK = không biết Kế hoạch để phục hồi con suối

Những bảo tồn khác/Hoạt động bảo vệ con suôi

1 = không bao giờ; 2 = hiếm khi, 3 = đôi khi, 4 = thường xuyên, 5 = rất thường xuyên, DK = không biết

70 • San José State University • Urban and Regional Planning | City of San José • Environmental Services Clean Creeks Healthy Communities Project

Clean Creeks, Healthy Communities Project | Community Survey 2011

7. Trong m c o l ng t 1 n 5, 1 là không có và 5 là nhi u quá, b n ngh r ng Tôi có vài câu hỏi sau đây. Các câu hỏi về bạn để giúp chúng tôi hiểu các thông ứ đ ườ ừ đế ề ạ ĩ ằ mức độ nào sẽ gây ra rác rưởi cho con suôi trong câu sau đây? rưởi tin đã thu thập và sẽ được sử dụng cho mục đích thống kê.

1 2 3 4 5 DK 9. Bạn thuộc chủng tộc nào? (Xin chọn số nào được áp dụng)? Rác từ trong xe 1. Á Châu Mỹ/Á Châu 2. Trắng Rác rưởi từ hang xóm 3. Mễ Tây Cơ 4. Phi Châu Rác trà ra từ thùng rác 5. Thỏ dân mỹ/Thái binh dương 6. Chủng tộc khác (xin chỉ định) Mảnh vụn từ việc xây cất và sân nhà 10. Bạn sinh ra năm nào?

rác b t h p pháp Đổ ấ ợ 11. Trình độ học vấn cao nhất của bạn đến đâu? 1. Chưa ra trường trung học/ Không có bằng trung học Lều ăn ở của người vô gia cư 2. Ra trường trung học/Có bằng trung học 1 = không có, 2 = rất ít, 3 = có trung bình, 4 = nhiều 5 = nhiều quá, DK = không biết 3. Học đại học 4. Cao đẳng 8. Trong m c o l ng t 1 n 5, 1 là không ng ý và 5 là r t ng ý, ứ đ ườ ừ đế đồ ấ đồ 5. Cử nhân Xin tr lòi m c ng ý hay không ng ý v i các câu sau ây. ả ứ độ đồ đồ ớ đ 6. Cao học 1 2 3 4 5 12.Xin cho biết lợi tức hàng năm của gia đình bạn năm ngoái. Đổ rác bất hợp pháp có hại cho… 1. Ít hơn $24,999 2. từ $25,000 đến $49,999 S c kh e c a b n thân tôi      ứ ỏ ủ ả 3. từ $50,000 đến $74,999 Giá trị đất và tài sản      4. từ $75,000 đến $99,999 Sự an toàn của khu phố và cộng đồng      5. từ $100,000 đến $149,999 Môi trường sống của cá và động vật      6. từ $150,000 đến $199,999 7. $200,000 hay nhiều hơn Rác rưới có hại cho… 13. Bạn mua hay thuê nhà? Sức khỏe của bản thân tôi      1. Thuê 15. Bạn có con chó không? Giá trị đất và tài sản      2. Mua 1. Có Sự an toàn của khu phố và cộng đồng      3. Khác (xin chỉ định) 2. Không Môi trường sống của cá và động vật     

14. Bạn sống ở đây bao lâu? 16. Nhà bạn có trẻ con không? Trại vô gia cư có hại cho… 1. Ít hơn 1 năm 1. Có Sức khỏe của bản thân tôi      2. Từ 1 đến 4 năm 2. Không

Giá trị đất và tài sản      3. Từ 5 đến 10 năm Sự an toàn của khu phố và cộng đồng      4. Hơn 10 năm Môi trường sống của cá và động vật      1 = rất không đồng ý, 2 = không đồng ý, 3 = không đồng ý cũng không bất đồng, 4 = đồng ý, 5 = rất đồng ý. G: H type: SFD or MFD SB:

APPENDIX F • 71