This study of attitudes of voting-age residents of the City of Boulder, Colorado, is centered on open space public policy issues. It was commissioned by the City of Boulder Open Space Department and was conducted by The Public Information Corporation of Littleton, Colorado.

A total of 410 interviews were conducted between July 27 and August 4, 1999. Demographic balancing assured that the respondents, collectively, closely resembled the voting age population of the city in terms of age, gender and political party affiliation.

The confidence factor in a 410-interview representative sampling is 4.7 percent, plus or minus.

Respondents were randomly selected from voter registration lists provided by the Boulder County Elections staff. All interviews were conducted by telephone from The Public Information Corporation’s offices in Littleton.

The Analysis book presents the complete city-wide results in text and tabular form. Sometimes the results of several related questions are presented in consolidated tables for comparison purposes. Tables dealing with single questions also present breakouts of responses according to how long respondents have lived in Boulder.

"Demographic anomalies" are instances in which individual demographic grouping responses to particular questions deviated from the city-wide results by 9 percent or more, and we feel that cumulatively they provide a good focus on how those groupings’ perceptions vary from those of the 410-respondent totals. These anomalies are mentioned in the analysis unless we felt that they did not seem to be useful.

"Emergent open-ended categories" refers to very similar responses that we group for data processing purposes. We seldom try to guess what responses will turn up with a survey’s open-ended questions before the interviews begin. Rather we initially scan about 50 completed questionnaires, observe what issues seem to be turning up most frequently, and group them in related categories that haven’t "emerged." We are able to add categories if they begin to form in the later interviewing phases of the project.

"Collapse" refers to instances in which similar open-ended categories are combined, usually to allow comparisons with previous surveys that were coded a bit differently, or if we feel that the combined result will provide a more understandable focus on issues.

"Collapses" are denoted by brackets, which show the individual categories that are included.

Dashes in tables (--) indicate categories where responses are less than half of one percent but not zero.

The Executive Summary presents results that would seem to be of greatest interest to the City of Boulder.

The Public Information Corporation of Littleton, Colorado, conducted a telephone survey of voting-age residents of the City of Boulder, Colorado, in August, 1999, centering on open space public policy issues. The study was commissioned by the city’s Open Space Department.

A total of 410 interviews were conducted. Demographic balancing was utilized to assure that the sampling was representative of the full universe. Confidence factor with a 410-interview sampling is 4.7 percent, plus or minus.

This Executive Summary presents highlights of responses to a questionnaire that contained 37 issue questions. Copies of the full analysis are available at the offices of the Open Space Department.

The first question asked: "What do you think is the primary purpose for having Open Space?" Identical questions were asked in similar surveys in 1992 and 1994. The following table provides comparisons, and indicates that there have been fluctuations but no major trends.

In 1999 and 1994 respondents were asked to describe specific purposes for which they personally use open space. Both times hiking, walking and running responses dominated. The only substantial difference was with responses called "general recreation" in 1994 and "miscellaneous" in 1999, but such questions don’t lend themselves to trends analysis. In both surveys multiple responses were accepted, and accordingly both columns total more than 100 percent.

Quality of Current Open Space Experiences

Asked to describe the quality of their experiences when visiting open space areas, 93 percent indicated satisfaction. Fifty-eight gave "excellent" marks and another 35 percent said "good." Four percent responded "fair" and fewer than one-half of one percent described their experiences as "poor."

The statement was made: "Sometimes different recreational activities in an open space area conflict and result in unpleasant encounters." Then respondents were asked "what specific recreational activities would you say are in conflict with other specific activities?"

Twenty-seven percent said the conflict centers on bicyclists, and usually hikers, walkers or joggers were mentioned as the other side of the conflict. Twenty-six percent said it was Dogs, or their droppings, on one side and the full array of open space visitors on the other.

Receiving mention in single-digit percentages were horseback riders versus other kinds of visitors, rollerbladers versus other kinds of visitors, and anything motorized versus other kinds of visitors. Thirteen percent indicated that conflicts are minimal or rare.

Nine methods that have been suggested to deal with conflict or crowding were described to respondents, and they were asked if they feel that each is extremely appropriate, somewhat appropriate, not very appropriate or not appropriate at all.

Leading in "extremely appropriate" responses were buying additional open space for passive recreational use," at 67 percent, and more public education on trail etiquette," at 57 percent. Enforcing existing regulations more vigorously" was ranked third, with a 41 percent "extremely appropriate" rating.

Respondents were asked how appropriate six possible management actions would be if plants and wildlife habitat definitely are being impacted from recreational use.

All but one of the possible actions were viewed as appropriate by 90 percent or more of all respondents. Highest ranked were public education about how to cause less environmental impact, which received 95 percent appropriate marks, 70 percent of which was "extremely appropriate," and closing areas to recreational use during time periods when impacts are greatest, at 93 percent, with 65 percent "extremely appropriate."

Respondents were asked if they believe that conditions in Boulder’s open space areas will be better, about the same or worse than they are today. Forty-two percent responded "about the same," but almost as many -- 37 percent -- said conditions would be worse. Only 15 percent believe conditions will be better.

The main reason given for "better" responses was a belief that Boulder attracts the kind of people who care about the environment. The main reason given for "worse" responses was that there will be a lot more people than there are today and consequently open space areas will be overused.

Two questions dealt with balances between environmental preservation values and recreation values in open space management decisions and policies.

One question asked how important consideration of recreation-related impacts on plants and wildlife in open space areas should be in management decision making. Sixty-two percent said it should be very important, and another 31 percent responded "somewhat important." Four percent responded "not very important" and only 1 percent chose the "not important at all" response category.

The other question asked whether management balance is (l) about right, (2) if there is too much emphasis on preserving the natural environment and not enough on providing recreation, or (3) if there is too much emphasis on providing recreation and not enough on preserving the natural environment.

The following table presents the results:

The largest single-subject category to emerge was preserving the natural environment, at 22 percent. Stopping development was next at 19 percent.

Four related emergent response categories that have to do with growth management and providing buffer zones between urban growth areas account for a "collapsed" total of 39 percent of all responses.

Collapsing also resulted in two groups totaling 23 percent.

One involved the perception that the primary purpose is either passive or physical outdoor recreation. The other centers on preserving wildlife and the habitat that supports wildlife.

The thought that open space is an integral part of Boulder’s quality of life was volunteered by 7 percent, and another 5 percent saw aesthetic values as the primary purpose.

Two anomalous groupings are considerably more likely than the 410 respondents as a whole to consider preserving the natural environment as the primary purpose. Whereas the citywide response was 22 percent, the response was 31 percent in a grouping made up of persons who have lived in Boulder between 6 and 10 years, and in a grouping made up of persons who are 18 to 24 years of age.

Persons who have lived in Boulder for less than a year were considerably more likely to see the primary purpose as recreation than were those in any other grouping -- 24 percent compared with 10 percent citywide.

The identical question was asked in similar surveys of Boulder residents in 1992 and 1994, and all three involved about 400 telephone interviews. As the table above indicates there have been fluctuations but no significant shifts in perceptions of the primary purposes of open space over the years.

Multiple responses were accepted from respondents with this question, and thus the "Total" column comes to 154 percent.

Two-thirds of all respondents mentioned hiking or walking as a way they personally use City of Boulder open space areas. Twenty-two percent of respondents enjoy it for scenic beauty, bird watching or nature studies, with bicycling close behind at 20 percent.

Two other substantial categories that emerged were walking dogs, 10 percent; and miscellaneous, made up of general statements but including a few who said skiing and climbing, 8 percent.

Another 8 percent said they seldom or never visit the city’s open space areas.

Open space uses that resulted in significant positive demographic anomalies, with citywide percentages listed in parentheses, were:

Hiking/walking (67%): Visit 21 or more times per month, 76%; visit 4 or 5 times per month, 82%.

Running (11%): 25 to 34 years of age, 22%; visit 6 to 10 times per month, 35%.

Biking (18%): Resident less than a year, 28%; visit 6 to 10 times per month, 35%.

Walk dog (10%): Visit 21 or more times per month, 29%.

Also, we noticed that two groupings that had especially low frequency in several of the "how do you use" categories.

Persons 65 and older were particularly less likely than other age groupings to take part in hiking/walking, in running and in biking, although hiking/walking still was mentioned by 55%. And, persons who visit open space areas fewer than once per month are comparatively low in frequency of hiking/walking, running, biking, enjoying beauty and walking dogs.

A similar question was asked in the 1994 survey, but not in 1992. Both times hiking, walking and running responses dominated, totaling 84 and 78 percent respectively.

There was only one major difference in the results over the five-year period, and it is not instructive inasmuch as it is a category called "general recreation" in 1994 and "miscellaneous" in 1999. We believe that one reason for the difference is that the 1994 survey was conducted during ski season, and the 1999 project was not.

More than one-third of the Boulder respondents believe that, in about 25 years, open space areas conditions will tend to be worse than they are today, which is more than twice as many as believe that conditions will tend to become better.

Only one important demographic anomaly was observed. Fifty-four percent of persons 18 to 24 feel conditions will be worse. It is 37 percent citywide.

Question 4: What is the main reason you feel that those open space areas will be _________ than they are today? (Read choice from q. 3. Open end. Probe)

Persons who answered either "better" or "worse" to question 3 were asked to explain why, and their responses together total 100 percent.

"Better" response comments resulted in only one significant emergent response category. Eighteen percent made comments to the effect that Boulder has a strong ethic of caring for the environment, and that will result in improving conditions over the years.

"Worse" response comments resulted in two significant categories, both of which were greater than 18 percent. Forty-two percent believe that pressure of ever-increasing population will result in overuse and, with it, deteriorating conditions in open space. Another 21 percent feel that some of the current open space areas will be consumed by development -- in other words, it isn’t really set aside in perpetuity.

Boulder people care about the environment (18%): 55 to 64 years of age, 29%.

There will be more people and overuse (42%): Resident 6 to 20 years, 51%; 45 to 54 years of age, 51%; visit 11 to 20 times per month, 56%.

The City Charter lists "passive recreation" as one of the purposes of Boulder’s open space areas. The Charter gives several examples, and in question 6 they are listed. Project officials wanted to determine what the term means to Boulder residents without prompting, and question 5 was the result.

Half of respondents made comments that fall into six related categories describing activities that require little or no effort, such leisurely walks, sleeping and reading, picnics and park benches, and uses that are "not structured or organized."

Another 20 percent mentioned visual and other aesthetic values, such as "nice views" and "bird watching."

Aesthetic values etc. (20%): Resident 6 to 10 years, 35%; visit 11 to 20 times per month, 37%.
Quiet, leisurely walks (18%): Visit 21 to 29 times per month, 27%.
No structured uses (16%): Resident less than a year, 28%; visit less than once per month, 25%.
Sleeping, reading (4%): 18 to 24 years of age, 13%.

As I just indicated, a purpose of Boulder’s Open Space is preservation of land for passive recreational use, and examples are hiking, photography, and nature study in open space areas and, if specifically designated, bicycling, horseback riding or fishing. What should be used as criteria when deciding what other activities are appropriate? Should the following criteria for evaluating be considered extremely appropriate, somewhat appropriate, not very appropriate, or not appropriate at all? What about: (Rotate q. 6 through 10. Re-read response choices as necessary.)

All five of the criteria that were presented to respondents as possible determinants as to whether open space activities not mentioned in the charter would be appropriate to some degree received positive support from at least two-thirds of the respondents. However, three of the criteria received "extremely appropriate" ratings from more than half of the respondents, and two did not.

The strongest support was consideration of negative impacts on vegetation and wildlife, with a 68 percent "extremely appropriate" response.

Next came a positive criterion -- that an activity could increase peoples’ appreciation of nature, with 57 percent responding "extremely appropriate."

Close behind was whether there would be negative impacts to views or other aesthetic values, 56 percent.

Least-supported was whether an activity would increase conflicts among visitors, with only a 22 percent "extremely appropriate" response. This criterion also received the highest negative ratings of the five questions -- although it evoked relatively modest 15 percent "not very appropriate" and 9 percent "not appropriate at all" comments.

The fifth criterion, a positive one that would weigh benefit of the activity to the community, received relatively lukewarm 35 percent "extremely appropriate" responses. However, it also received a very high "somewhat appropriate" rating of 50 percent.

Q6. Community benefit:  Extremely appropriate (35%): 65 or older, 45%.

Q7. Wildlife/vegetation:  Extremely appropriate (68%): Women, 77%; resident less than year, 80%; resident 6 to 10 years, 79%; 18 to 24 years of age, 82%.

Q8. Increased conflicts:  Not very appropriate (15%): Visit 21 times or more per month, 37%.

Q10. Impacts on views:  Extremely appropriate (58%): 25 to 34 years of age, 65%; visit 11 to 29 times per month, 67%.

"Excellent" and "good" descriptions of the quality of experiences in open space areas totaled 93 percent. The Boulder residents were forthright about it, with fewer than one-half of one percent of the 410 respondents rating the quality of experiences as "poor," and a very low 3 percent unresponsive factor.

Excellent (58%): Visit 6 to 10 times per month, 73%; resident less than a year, 68%.

Whereas the previous question dealt in rating generalized experiences in open space, question 12 focused on specifics -- various kinds of facilities.

While there was a substantial shift from "excellent" to "good," comments, compared with question 11 results, still a very solid 89 percent offered distinctly positive responses, and fewer than one-half of one percent gave "poor" ratings.

Again only 3 percent were unresponsive.

Excellent (39%): Resident less than a year, 52%; 25 to 34 years of age, 54%.

Question 13, which asked respondents what one thing among open space area facilities "is in most need of improvement," resulted in the most diffuse comments of any open-ended question in this project. Only eight percentage points separated the nine top emergent categories. The top suggestion was for more and better trails, at 12 percent. Interestingly, the second-largest emergent category, at 10 percent, consisted of remarks

indicating that the facilities aren’t particularly in need of improvement. Calls for more parking facilities, more trash receptacles and better pick-up service, better signage, more and better-maintained rest rooms, and doing something about dirty trails also received mention.

It’s worth noting, particularly in view of the prominence of complaints about dogs later in the interviews that the fifth most-mentioned "facilities" suggestion wasn’t about facilities at all. It was a call for enforcement of leash rules, and while it accounted for just 7 percent we feel that the fact that it is so clearly out of context underlines just how volatile the issue of dogs in open space areas is.

With many questions in our surveys high "no response" factors are negatives. With question 13 we don’t feel that way. As noted 10 percent of respondents commented that things are in good shape -- that they see little or no need for improvement. Our interviewers reported that most of the 33 percent who had no response did not do so because of lack of information, but rather because nothing specific came to mind. In other words, they are not dissatisfied.

Dirty trails (4%): Visit 21 or more times per month, 13%.
Parking inadequate (9%): Visit 6 to 10 times per month, 20%.
No response (33%): Resident less than a year, 64%; visit less than once per month, 66%.

Perceptions of the adequacy and quality of open space visitor services are not nearly as well-focused as was the case with the facilities question, with 21 percent not responding, compared with 3 percent for question 12. Some said they did not see much distinction between facilities and services and did not respond to question 14.

Still, it is a very positive picture, with 65 percent offering "excellent" or "good" ratings versus 14 percent "only fair" or "poor."

No important demographic anomalies were observed.

Question 15: If there is any one thing among Open Space services that is in need of improvement, what would it be? (Open end. Probe)

There are even fewer specific suggestions for open space services than there were with the facilities question, but again we regard that as positive. Forty-seven percent did not offer suggestions, and 12 percent made "everything’s fine" types of comments.

Even so, we believe that question 15 is quite instructive, because of 41 percent who did make suggestions about services that are in need of improvement, 20 percent mentioned public information issues, including perceived needs for more educational material, better maps, more and better signs, etc.

Also emerging as an important category, at 11 percent, was a call for enhancement of law enforcement, mostly in the form of more patrolling, more rangers and guides, and better enforcement of dog regulations.

Law enforcement (11%): Visit 21 times or more per month, 27%
No response (47%): Resident less than a year, 64%.

Question 16: Are you using a particular Boulder Open Space area less often, or even stopped using it entirely?

There isn’t much attrition in patronage of particular Boulder open space areas, with 80 percent indicating that such usage hasn’t changed. Only 10 percent indicated that they have stopped using an area entirely.

Stopped entirely (10%): Resident 21 years or more, 19%; visit less than once per month, 25%.

Crowding, and the perception that there are too many people using a particular open space area, account for 36 percent of reasons given for using a particular open space area.

Next largest category was what we call "outside factors," and it’s made up of reasons that are not connected with open space. Most of such responses had to do with age and health problems, having moved to another part of Boulder, or employment-related time conflicts.

We also noted that dog issues surfaced once again, with 19 percent blaming unleashed and/or menacing animals, and dog droppings on trails and in other facilities.

Outside factors (age etc.) (21%): 65 and older, 71%.

Bicyclists versus other trail users, and dogs and/or their droppings versus a variety of other open space users, were volunteered by a total of more than 50 percent of all survey respondents as being in conflict and resulting in unpleasant encounters.

Those two dominant issue categories were nearly tied, with conflicts involving bicyclists at 27 percent and conflicts involving dogs at 26 percent.

A quarter of all respondents either had no response or stated that conflicts are minimal.

Dogs/dog droppings (26%): 65 and older, 36%; visit 21 times or more per month, 35%.
Horseback riders (6%): Resident less than a year, 16%.
Conflicts minimal (13%): Resident less than a year, 24%

Most respondents don’t regard the Boulder open space areas that they visit as being particularly crowded, and nearly one-fourth said those areas are not crowded at all. Of equal interest is the fact that only one percent selected the "extremely crowded" response category.

Not crowded at all (23%): 36 or older, 34%.
Moderately crowded (56%): Visit 21 times or more per month, 65%.
Crowded (15%): Resident less than a year, 28%; visit 6 to 10 times per month, 25%.

As was the case with question 4, two series of emergent categories -- one made up of reasons given for "not crowded" responses and the other of "crowded" responses -- are on a single table totaling 100 percent. This is done in order to make side-by-side amplitude comparisons of both kinds of responses valid.

We need to note that as the interviewing progressed it was obvious that some respondents clearly regarded "moderately crowded" as being a degree of "not crowded" and others clearly regarded it as being a degree of "crowded." The sub-headings of the response categories in the table above acknowledge that fact.

On the "not crowded" side of the table uncomplicated statements to the effect that there aren’t all that many people, or that there is plenty of room, make up the top response category, at 20 percent.

Perhaps the most interesting category (at least to us) came in at 13 percent, and it consisted of statements that respondents don’t perceive much crowding because they avoided areas that they know to be busy or they use open space during hours they know that particular areas will be only lightly used.

The top "crowded" response category also was uncomplicated and consisted of observations that "the number of people is increasing," "more people are using open space," etc. Thirty-four percent made such comments.

The second most important "crowded" category was one that pertained only to trails. It included comments such as "crowded with runners," "there are people every 20 feet," etc., and it was mentioned by 11 percent of respondents.

"Crowded" responses
More people using it (34%): 45 to 54 years of age, 44%; visit every day, 50%.

"Not crowded" responses
No significant demographic anomalies were observed.

Several methods have been suggested to deal with conflict or crowding. I will describe them. Please tell me if you feel that each is extremely appropriate, somewhat appropriate, not very appropriate, or not appropriate at all. What about: (Rotate q. 21 through 29. Re-read introductions or response choices as necessary.)