Sugar Land Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Needs Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
APPENDIX D: SUGAR LAND PARKS, RECREATION, & OPEN SPACE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SURVEY FINDINGS REPORT Sugar Land Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Findings …helping organizations make better decisions since 1982 Report Submitted to Sugar Land, Texas by: ETC Institute 725 W. Frontier Lane, Olathe, Kansas 66061 September 2016 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................... i Charts and Graphs ........................................................................ 1 Priority Investment Rating .......................................................... 22 Benchmarking Analysis ............................................................... 30 Tabular Data ............................................................................... 36 Survey Instrument ...................................................................... 99 The City of Sugar Land Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Needs Assessment Survey Executive Summary Overview ETC Institute administered a needs assessment survey for the City of Sugar Land during the summer of 2016. The survey was administered as part of the City’s efforts to plan the future for parks and recreation opportunities. The survey and its results will guide the City of Sugar Land in making improvements to the City’s existing and future parks, trails, and recreational programs to best serve the needs of residents. The survey will also help the City establish priorities for the future improvement of Parks, Recreation and Forestry facilities, programs and services within the community. Methodology ETC Institute mailed a survey packet to a random sample of households in the City of Sugar Land. Each survey packet contained a cover letter, a copy of the survey, and a postage‐paid return envelope. Residents who received the survey were given the option of returning the survey by mail or completing it on‐line at www.SugarLandParksSurvey.org. Ten days after the surveys were mailed, ETC Institute sent emails and placed phone calls to the households that received the survey to encourage participation. The emails contained a link to the on‐line version of the survey to make it easy for residents to complete the survey. To prevent people who were not residents of the City of Sugar Land from participating, everyone who completed the survey on‐line was required to enter their home address prior to submitting the survey. ETC Institute then matched the addresses that were entered on‐line with the addresses that were originally selected for the random sample. If the address from a survey completed on‐ line did not match one of the addresses selected for the sample, the on‐line survey was not counted. The goal was to obtain completed surveys from at least 400 residents. The goal was exceeded with a total of 402 residents completing the survey. The overall results for the sample of 402 households have a precision of at least +/‐4.9% at the 95% level of confidence. This report contains the following: Charts showing the overall results of the survey (Section 1) Priority Investment Rating (PIR) that identifies priorities for facilities and programs (Section 2) Benchmarking analysis comparing the City’s results to national results (Section 3) Tabular data showing the overall results for all questions on the survey (Section 4) A copy of the survey instrument (Section 5) The major findings of the survey are summarized below and on the following pages. Page i Overall Facility Use Overall Use: Seventy‐seven percent (77%) of households surveyed indicated they had visited any of the City of Sugar Land parks, rented a recreational facility, or attended an evet at a City facility during the past 12 months. The three most visited parks were Town Square Plaza, Sugar Land Memorial Park and Brazos River Corridor, and Oyster Creek Park and Trail. Program Participation and Ratings Overall Participation: Sixteen percent (16%) of households surveyed indicated that they had participated in the City of Sugar Land recreation programs during the past 12 months. Use: When asked how many different recreation programs or activities their household have participated in 41% of respondents who had participated in a program within the past 12 months indicated they participated in at least one program, 51% participated in 2‐3 programs, 5% participated in 4‐6 programs, and 3% participated in 11 or more programs. Over half (65%) of respondents indicated they reason they patriciate is because of the location of the program facility, 50% indicated it was the cost of the program or activity, and 33% indicated it was because of the quality of the program facility. Respondents were then asked to indicate the number of special events they participated in during the past 12 months. Twenty‐seven (27%) of respondents indicated they participated in one event, 35% in two events, 18% in three events, 6% in four events, and 3% in five or more events. Organizations and Facilities Used for Parks and Recreation Programs and Cultural Facilities Over one‐third of respondents (36%) indicated their household uses the City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department for parks and recreation programs and cultural facilities. The top three organizations, not including the City of Sugar Land, households use most often include: homeowners association park and recreation (31%), Fort Bend Independent School District (FBISD) (25%), and the Houston Museum of Natural Science in Sugar Land (22%). Respondents were then asked to indicate, based on four age groups, which two organizations and facilities their household uses the most often. The City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department and private youth sports leagues were the most used organizations for household members ages 11 and younger. The Fort Bend Independent School District (FBISD) and the City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department were the most used organizations for household members ages 12 to 17. The City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department and private clubs were the most used organizations for household members ages 18‐54. The City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department and homeowners association park and recreation were the most used organizations for household members ages 55 and over. When respondents were asked to compare parks in Sugar Land with other cities over half (63%) of respondents indicated they were either “much better” (26%) or “better” (37%). Only 5% said “worse”, and no respondents indicated they were “much worse”. Page ii Barriers to Park, Facility and Program Usage Respondents were asked from a list of 17 potential reasons to identify what prevents them from using outdoor parks, indoor recreation centers and programs offered by the City of Sugar Land Parks and Recreation Department more often. The top four reasons selected were: lack of time (44%), lack of awareness about programs (29%), I’m interested, but have not explored yet (28%), and use services from other providers (11%). Facility Needs and Priorities Facility Needs: Respondents were asked to identify if their household had a need for 32 recreation facilities and amenities and rate how well their needs for each were currently being met. Based on this analysis, ETC Institute was able to estimate the number of households in the community that had the greatest “unmet” need for various facilities. The three recreation facilities with the highest percentage of households that indicated a need for the facility were: paved walking and biking trails within parks (74%), nature trails for walking and biking within parks (65%), and shade elements (61%). When ETC Institute analyzed the needs in the community, only one facility, paved walking and biking trails within parks, had a need that affected more than 20,000 households. ETC Institute estimates a total of 10,823 of the 28,392 households in the City of Sugar Land have unmet needs for shade elements. The estimated number of households that have unmet needs for each of the 32 facilities that were assessed is shown in the table on the following page. Page iii Facility Importance: In addition to assessing the needs for each facility, ETC Institute also assessed the importance that residents placed on each facility. Based on the sum of respondents’ top four choices, the three most important facilities to residents were: paved walking and biking trails within parks (45%), nature trails for walking and biking within parks (38%), and shade elements (26%). The percentage of residents who selected each facility as one of their top four choices is shown in the chart at the top of the following page. Page iv Prioritiesr fo Facility Investments: The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) was developed by ETC Institute to provide organizations with an objective tool for evaluating the priority that should be placed on Parks, Recreation and Forestry investments. The Priority Investment Rating (PIR) equally weights (1) the importance that residents place on facilities and (2) how many residents have unmet needs for the facility. [Details regarding the methodology for this analysis are provided in Section 2 of this report.] Based the Priority Investment Rating (PIR), the following six facilities were rated as high priorities for investment: Nature trails for walking and biking within parks (PIR=159) Paved walking and biking trails within parks (PIR=158) Shade elements (PIR=157) Indoor exercise and fitness facilities (PIR=118) Natural areas and wildlife habitat (PIR=111) Indoor swimming pool/aquatic center (PIR=105)