Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Planning with Parks and Trails in Mind: Overview and Implications from Minnesota’s Network of Parks & Trails . September 29 th , 2011 – Minnesota APA Conference. Mae Davenport, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Forest Resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Mae Davenport, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Forest ResourcesCindy Zerger, MURP/MLA, Research Fellow & Center Coordinator
Planning with Parks and Trails in Mind: Overview and Implications from
Minnesota’s Network of Parks & Trails September 29th, 2011 – Minnesota APA Conference
inventory
framework partner efforts network of parks & trails
Project Process
Project Overview
Legacy AmendmentLegislative Charge
• Responds to Needs• Recreational Trends• A Growing & Diversifying Populace • Identifies Efficiencies & Leverages Resources• Suggests Linkages Within & Between Systems
GoalAn Integrated, Synergistic Statewide Parks & Trails Network
Project Overview
Social Science: Regional ProfilesRecreation Experience Inventory
• Region Profiles• Sociodemographics• Participation in Recreation Activities• Recreation Experiences and Conflict•Nature-Based Tourism
Davenport, M.A., Schneider, I.E., Date, A. & Filter, L. (2011)
Project Overview
Geodatabase: Useful Decision Making Tool•Officials: State, Federal, Regional, Local• Advocacy Groups •Citizens
Project Overview
Inventory: What IsPhysical & Social Dimensions
• Physical Settings: Local to Federal
•On the Ground• Planned• Proposed
• Recreation Experiences• Activities• Experiences sought• Conflict reported
• Identifying Gaps
Project Overview
Tool to Support Decision-making at State & Local Levels
Parks & Trails Framework: What Could Be
Integrated Network Guidelines• Adaptive management• Linked & complementary settings• Accessible•High quality recreation experiences•Mindful of population dynamics•Monitor / assess across three aspects:
•Natural environment• Social environment• Built & managed environment
Project Overview
Physical Setting Inventory Process• Going beyond the legislative charge• Development of an agreed upon data model by project partners• Collecting and creating information
Federal Lands and Trails State Lands and Trails Regionally Significant Lands and Trails
Methods & Analysis
Physical Setting Inventory Process
Methods & Analysis
Methods & Analysis
27 trail attributes & 34 park attributes
Methods & Analysis
• In-holdings in State Parks• Authorized State Trails• Underserved Areas• Potential connections and coordination in parks and trail systems
AnalysisPhysical Facilities: Gaps & Opportunities
Methods & Analysis
Recreation Experience Inventory Process• Sociodemographic conditions and trends• Recreation opportunities including activities, experiences sought and conflict• Existing data (recreation research, monitoring efforts, planning documents)
Federal Lands and Trails State Lands and Trails Regionally Significant Lands and Trails
Methods & Analysis
AnalysisRecreation Location Quotient (RLQ)• Snapshot of outdoor recreation resources (federal, state and regionally significant)• Area-based or population-based accounting for interregional demand• Comparison of regions/ecosections to the state standardized score (Minnesota = 1)
Methods & Analysis
(Marcouiller & Prey 2005, 2009)
318 sites with selected facilities
34,298 trail miles
11.3 M acres
Regional FindingsRecreation Location Quotient (RLQ)• Outdoor Recreation Resource (ORR) areas • ORR trails (summer and winter)• Northeast and Northwest highest scores; South, Central and Metro lowest scores
Area-based RLQ for trails
Methods & Analysis
Population-based RLQ for trails adjusted for interregional demand
Findings
Eco-section FindingsRecreation Location Quotient (RLQ)• ORR areas and trails• For areas, Northland Superior Uplands had highest score, Red River Valley had lowest score• For summer trails, Southern Superior Highlands had highest score, North Central Glaciated Plains had lowest score
Winter TrailsSummer Trails
Future ApplicationsGoing beyond the buffer• Focal-sum analysis of recreation areas: determines how many of each destination type (i.e. regional park) exists within a defined radius around each cell, and assigns that value to the cell.
Future Applications
Future ApplicationsGoing beyond the buffer • Networked or street access for parks or trail access points• Access points on trail system (normalized by mile)
Physical (in)activity, disease, safe routes to school, active living strategies Future Applications
Potential Use of Data & Project InformationTransportation & Recreation Planning
Future road / trail (re)developmentCross-jurisdiction coordination
Future Applications
Potential Use of Data & Project InformationEnd users
• Interactive mapping• Wiki• Apps
source: http://a2d.umn.edu/ source: http://magic.cyclopath.org/#
Future Applications
Project Contributors
Mary Vogel, Principal Investigator: [email protected] Davenport, Co-Investigator: [email protected] Schneider, Co-Investigator: [email protected] Zerger, Research Fellow & Project Manager: [email protected] Schreurs, GIS AnalystAndrew Oftedal, Research AssistantEgle Vanagaite, Research FellowAlex Smith, Research AssistantLisa Filter, Research AssistantAndrea Date, Research AssistantLisa Picone, Report Editor
Minnesota’s Network of Parks & Trails
All project reports / maps are available at:http://ccl.design.umn.edu/mnpat.html
