[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
2EPORT.' STAL ZOM. Tf 4@; GV 6 -C55 1979 V 21 - VA 0, jp CA 2N 3- maVor 1.4M IjLv- en C H "I C AG A Ef -N T. ^WSW REVIEMW D]R'AFT 15056 CZIC COLLECTION CHICAGO LAKEFRONT STUDY VOLUME I: A STUDY PLAN* COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER by James E. Christensen Assistant Professor, Department of Leisure Studies (217) 333-0105 Rabel J. Burdge Associate Professor, Institute for Environmental Studies (217) 333-2916 Jacquelin P. Buchanan Research Assistant Institute for Environmental Studies (217) 333-6228 This report is a preliminary review draft. A number of changes will be included in the final report, and this copy should be reviewed for general direction and content only. CONTENTS Chapter Page I. Introduction ......... ..................... Ii. Selection of Research Topics ................... 4 III. Constructing the Questionnaire ................. 10 IV. Sample Selection ............................. *.- 23 V. Mailing the Questionnaire ...................... 27 Vi. Coding the Questionnaire ........................ 31 vii. Tabulating the Responses ....................... 34 VIII. Summary of Recomnendations ..................... 37 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A ............................ Letters and Forms used in in Issue 'Generating Appendix B ............................ Survey Instrument Appendix C ............................ Working Codebook Appendix D ............................ Itemized Postage and Printing Costs uraft veoruary iv@ Chapter I INTRODUCTION This report is one of two final products resulting from a contract be- tween the University of Illinois and the City of Chicago. As the scope of services in that contract states, "the diverse nature of Chicago's peoples, their needs for recreational facilities and programs, and the limited nature of the resources available to satisfy their needs, are all facets of a dif--: ficult problem." In an effort to begin solving that problem, the City of Chicago, Department of Planning, City and Community Development initiated a general contract with the University of Illinois, Department of Leisure Stud- ies and Institute for Environmental Studies to begin the process.of assessing future use of recreation programs and facilities in Chicago with special atten- tion directed toward the potential use and expansion of the Lakefront Park System. The specific objective of the project was to formulate and test a survey instrument to use in determining the recreation preferences of the residents of Chicago and further to determine their perception of how the lakefront parks relate to other Chicago parks as a recreational resource. (The results of the final research are intended to assist decision-makers in determining the need for additional recreation opportu"nities along the lakefront.) The products of this project were twofold. First,'this report describes the process of developing, administering.- and anal-yzing a test sur,,,ey instrument. 2 T-@ is a chronolooical reporting of the process and problems encountered in the study, and includes a recomi-,iended survey instrument, sampling procedure and analysis plan. In addition, soii,,e chances are suggested should the survey instrument be administered on a larger scale. The second report from this study is titled, "A Preliminary Analysis of the Results of a Lakefront Recreation Survey" and presents an analysis of the responses obtained during the extensive four-community test of the survey instrument. In addition to presenting a model for analysis of the information gathered with the survey instrument, the report outlines needed recreational opportunities identified by the residents of the four test communities. This report outlines a study plan for determining the need for recreation facilities and programs in Chicago, with special emphasis on the lakefront parks. It must be pointed out that in the original scope of work the emphasis was almost exclusively on lakefront parks and recreation. As the study progress- ed, it became obvious that adding items relevant to all parks and recreation in Chicago would make the study useful to a wider variety of decision-makers, and could be done without altering the format or budget of the project. Planning Phase Meetings were held in Chicago with an advisory committee composed of repre- sentatives of the Chicago Department of Planning, City and Community Development and the Chicago Park District to begin the process of developing an original survey instrument that would address the specific recreation resources that are .@vaflable in Chicaco. A number of important decisions were made in consultation with the advisory committee regarding the format of the st udy. 3 it was determined that the only methods of administering the survey that would fit into the budget of the study were telephone interviews and mail questionnaires. Teleph.one interviews proved to be too costly and could not provide enough information; therefore the decision was made to develop a mail questionnaire-type survey. Recent research and innovations in mail questionnaire methods have substantially eliminated the response-rate problem (Dillman, 1978 and Burdge,,et al., 1978). Further, it was felt that detailed information on present recreation activity and future recreational preferences could only be supplied by respondents if they were given time to reflect and carefully consider their answers. The second decision made during the initial meeting with the advisory committee was to test the survey instrument in four adjacent northern Chicago communities: Rogers Park, West Ridge, Uptown and Lincoln Square. Although residents in these communities do not share population characteristics with the city, it was felt that these neighborhoods would provide an adequate pre- test should a city-wide survey be undertaken. In addition, if no further studies were conducted, the four contiguous communities would provide a substan- tial block of information regarding north shore development. Finally, the advisory committee meetings helped clarify the issues and con- cerns to be addressed by the study. Although this set of issues was greatly enlarged by the time the pre-test questionnaire was completed, local input assured that the relevant topics were included. In addition, the research team was better able to understand the operations of the park syster, within the 4 City of Chi 4 Chapter II SELECTION OF RESEARCH TOPICS Introduction There were three major sources used in the development of issues that the study would deal with. First, the advisory committee, with its expertise and knowledge of specific Chicago problems, provided a good basic list of issues to begin with. A thorough review of the literature and examination of numerous previously administered questionnaires provided additional issues. In order to ensure that all issues@,,,ere considered, a process was then devised to allow representatives of both government and civic organizations to comment on or add to the list of issues t@at needed to be addressed. Procedure The issues from the advisory committee were generated in a day-long infor- mal meeting. Additional issues were added from individual committee members as the study progressed. Again, these additions were discussed and added informally. It was the consensus of the committee that the study should address primarily facility issues. An attempt should be made to determine not only what and how many facilities are needed, but also where they should be located. Special emphasis was placed on the importance of determining facility needs for increased park land. Further, the committee concluded that the study should try to ascertain how the lakefront parks fit into th e total park system in Chi.cag@, and to tr\.,,to 5 determine the use of the lakefront parks relative to use of other Chicago parks. The committee also indicated that any problems regarding the lakefront .. I park system should be included in the study, but it was decided that develop- ment of problem issues should be left to the civic and interest group interview- ing process. It was the participation of representatives of various groups, then, that was particularly useful in this portion of the study. DPCCD provided a list of leaders of twenty-seven civic organizations, interest groups and government agencies throughout Chicago that had an interest in recreation or parks in the city. These leaders were contacted by letter to request their assistance in developing a list of issues relevent to the development of lakefront recreation. A form was sent with the letter on which respondents were asked to indicate their willingness to participate in the issue development process, and to schedule a time during which a twenty minute telephone interview could be conducted. Sixteen interviews were conducted and a comprehensive set of issues was developed from the responses. A Compilation of the serious issues was sent to the original interview respondents so that they could rank the issues and sub- issues in order of importance to their groups. It was felt that this process might generate a consensus among groups regarding the relative importance of the issues. The ranking process understandably revealed, however, that each group felt its own issues were the most important- (All.letters and forms de- scribed in this section can be found in Appendix A.) 6 14hile the broad issues developed by the advisory coi-milittee ei,,iphasized future development plans and needs, the interviewing of government, civic and interest group leaders produced an issue list dealing prii-.11arily @%Iith current problems regarding the use and management of the parks. In fact, nearly seventy separate items were mentioned during the interviewing process that the group leaders felt should be considered in the study. The first and most often mentioned issue area regarding the lakefront parks was the system's administration. While the general maintenance of the parks was the most frequently discussed item, leaders were also.concerned with issues such as adequacy of communications and information, coordination with other government agencies, and quality and quantity of citizen input into management decision-making. Fee systems, ordinance enforcement, and scheduling of facilities' use were also ofteii* mentioned in the context of administrative issues. It is important to note that while most leaders citing administrati;e issues also cited the part district as the responsible agency, most leaders also volunteered that budgetary constraints are a problem for the park district as they are for many government entities. Many of the interviewers felt that a public relations effort by the park district could help minimize the problems and issues encountered in administering the lakefront parks. A second issue area was comprised of concerns about the accessibility of the lakefront parks. Access to the parks from a transportation viewpoint, i.e., public transportation adequacy, automobile access and parking adequacy, made up part of the accessibility issue. The other important component of this issue area was in regard to facilities and special populations,'i.e., access to handi- capped persons, senior citizens and children. The special problems of these 7 grOUDS raised concerns lot only about transportation to, from and within tile L parks, but also about design accessibility of existing and future facilities. Concerns related to the physical use of the lakefront parks comprised another issue area. Congestion, for example, was an issue that was often @en- tioned by interviewers, especially congestion in northsidb communities on week- ends. This concern %,,,as often related directly to the fact that out-of-area visitors converge on the lakefront communities on weekends in the summer months. To residents of the northside communities, then, the problems caused by this- influx of visitors was an important use issue. Commercial developinent within the parks was another area of concern regard- ing use. Type of development, quantity and quality were all mentioned 'as impor- tant issues in the development of @ew areas, as well as in improving older ar eas of the lakefront park system. Concerns pertaining to anti-social behavior made up another often mentioned issue area. It was felt that crime and/or perception of crimewere major problems in the lakefront parks. The distinction between actual crime and perception of crime was important; many interviewees felt that crime was well controlled in the parks, but that residents felt the parks were dangerous anyway. The result was the same as if crime were common: people were avoiding the parks because of fear. Those individuals who felt crime was a problem often indicated that lack of security was also a problem. Vandalism, drug use and drunkenness were also often mentioned problems, and teenage groups were cited as being responsible for most of this type of behavior. Litter, on the other hand, was mentioned as a problem caused by nea*rly all groups using.the parks. 8 Recreation programming in the lakefront parks was raised as an issue area in two respects: first, issues regarding the program themselves and second, issues regarding who the. present prograi,,,,ming serves. In the first area, type, number, variety, schedul ing and availability of programs were all mentioned as problems or issues that needed to be addressed in the study. Further, some interviewees felt that ethnic groups, senior citizens and women were not served sufficiently by the existing programs offered in the lakefront parks. When asked to define issues pertaining to the adequacy of current lakefront development and services, concerns were raised about specific adequacy of ser- vice to senior citizens, han dicapped persons, women, men, ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged groups, northside residents and southside residents. Realistically, then, nearly each interviewee expressed concern regarding current service to his or her particular civic or interest group. There was, however, a consensus that special attention is needed on the issue of service to senior citizens and handicapped persons. Regarding current lakefront development, it was felt that the quality of recreation facilities in general, the quality of the natural environment and the quality of the built environment were all im- portant issues that need attention'. In addition, some concern was raised about the number of recreation facilities as well as about the lack of land available for new development in.the lakefront park system. The final issue that was deemed important in the study was that of new facility needs. Opinions regarding new.facility development were as numerous and diverse as there were persons interviewed. The overall consensus was that the issue rests in determining what people actually want in the way of facilities, and then in providing those facilities in an environmentally sound way that is equitable to all groups using the parks. 9 In suii@iiary, then, there @-.,ere seven main issue areas identti flied during the interviewing process: (1) tile administration of the parks, (2) the accessibility of the parks, (3) the physical use of tile parks, (4) anti-social behavior in the parks, (5) recreation programming offered in the parks, (6) the adequacy of existing lakefront development and services, and (7) new facility needs in the parks. These seven issues and the many sub-issues pro- vided the base upon which the survey instrument was to be built. Recommendations If a city-wide study is conducted, it would be helpful to repeat this pro- cess and to seek input from as broad a spectrum of community interests as possible. Even though few new research questions may be generated, a variety of input must be obtained if support for a final plan is expected. If such a study is scheduled to begin more than.five or six years in the future, it would be best to begin again the issue selection process. 10 Chapter III CONSTRUCTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE Introduction A review of recreation use studies and survey research instruments designed to measure recreation activity showed that of the many done in the last fifteen years, few were urban-centered, and none could be directly applied to the lake- front park system iln Chicago. Determining recreation needs and preferences in Chicago could not be solved by simply adapting and administering previously developed and tested survey instruments. However, these studies were valuable in formulating and formating the final survey instrument. The selection and design of questions used in the survey was based on the list of issues described in the preceding chapter. Forced choice or "closed" questions were used for questions about recreation behaviors and preferences. "Open-ended," or "fill-in-the-blank" type questions were used when information of an attitudinal nature was needed. Background information, which helped in evaluating answers, was collected in a checklist fashion. Finally, based on previous.research on mail questionnaires, it was decided to limit the number of pages to twelve (Dillman, 1978). Procedure The survey instrument was divided into three areas: 1. Questions about the respondent's use and opinions of Chicago parks. 2. 0!,,e-stions about the respondent's recreation behavior. 3. Questions about the respondent's social and economic situation. What follows is a description of the rationale behind each question or set of questions included in the survey inStl-ument. A copy of the survey instru- ment is included in Appendix B. Section One The first question (Figure 1) asked -for the respondent's opinion about the quality of the lakefront parks. While responses to the question were very general in nature, the question was necessary to give the respondent a chance at the very beginning of the questionnaire to express his/her opinion. Further, it was important to make the first question very easy to understand and answer. The test of the instrument did not reveal any problem with this question, since almost all respondents did answer this question. I IN GENERAL, DO YOU THINK THE QUALITY OF THE IAKEFRO,1j PARKS IS: (check Only one) VERY Hir-M H I G" F--1 AVERACE ED LOW VERY LOW Figure I. The second question was designed to separate out those respondents who did not use the lakefront parks during the past year (Figure 2). The non-users were given an opportunity to say why they did not use the lakefront parks and then were asked to skip to a question regarding non-lakefront parks-. Again, there appeared to be no problem with the content or format of the question, al- though some negative respondents did not specify a reason for not using the lakefront parks. 12 2 IN ME PAST YEAR, HAVE YOU USED ANY OF THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? YES NO WILL YOU WRITE BRIEFLY WHY NOT: Figure 2. Those who did use the lakefront parks during the past year were asked in question three (Figure 3) how they most often got to those parks. This ques- tion was included because transportation to, from and within the lakefront parks surfaced as a relatively large issue in the study. Responses to this question could be tabulated with later opinion questions regarding public trans- portation, accessibility of the parks and parking problems in the parks to develop a clear picture of transportation preferences and problems. It is recom- mended that the "(check one only)" stipulation on question three be eliminated, since many respondents check two and even three methods of getting to the parks. This problem was handled with a coding adjustment, and the codebook used in the questionnaire analysis allows for more than one response to this question. 3. HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN GET TO THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? (check only one) WALK RIDE A BICYCLE DRIVE A CAR RIDE A BUS ON THE "L" OTHER (specify) Figure 3. 13 Question four (Figure 4) requested a ranked listing of the tree most often used lakefront parks, as well as the approximate number of times each was used during the previous summer and winter. This question was included to not only provide specific park use data, but coulds also be tabulated with re- creation participation information from Section 2 to provide a profile of facility pressure and needs in the various lakefront parks. Although respon- dents had no apparent problem filling out this question, it is recommended that a "never" category be added to each use list, since it is likely that many persons use certain parks in the summer and not in the winter, and vice versa. In addition, adding the "never" catergory would make question four easier to tabulate with question five. 4. PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE COVER OF THE BOOKLET AND LIST THE TREE LAKEFRONT PARKS YOU USED MOST OFTEN DURING THIS PAST YEAR. THEN CHECK HOW OFTEN YOU USED EACH PARK THIS PAST SUMMER AND THIS PAST WINTER. NAME OF LAKEFRONT PARK (list) ABOUT HOW OFTEN DID YOU USE THIS PARK DURING THIS PAST: SUMMER WINTER check one for each park check one for each park ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK MOST OFTEN USED: _____________________________ ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK SECOND MOST OFTEN USED:______________________ ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK THIRD MOST OFTEN USED:________________________ ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER Figure 4. 14 Question five, which all respondents were asked to answer, inquires about use of non-lakefront parks in Chicago (Figure 5). The question was included for two reasons. First, it was important to find out if persons who did not use the lakefront parks simply did not use parks at all, or if they used other parks. In addiotion, responses to this question would allow for comparison of the relative use of lakefront and non-lakefront parks. 5. ABOUT HOW OFTEN DID YOU USE CHICAGO PARKS OTHER THAN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS THIS PAST SUMMER AND WINTER? SUMMER WINTER (check one) (check one) ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY 0NCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER NEVER NEVER Figure 5. An important issue that was raised by many individuals during the plan- ning phase of the study was the adequacy of facilities. It was important, then, to address the facilities issue directly. Question six (Figure 6) provided an opportunity for respondents to list facilities they felt were needed in all Chicago parks. There were no serious problems with this question during the pre-test, although this page of the questionnaire did appear a little "cluttered" compared to other pages. It is possible that moving the "Facilities List" (Figure 7) that is used as reference on this page and the next would remedy the cluttered appearance. 15 WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU THINK ADDITIONAL FACILITIES ARE NEEDED IN CHICAGO PARKS. ON THE LINES UNDER "NEEDED FACILITIES", LIST UP TO SIX ITEMS YOU THINK ARE NEEDED. AFTER YOU LIST A FACILITY, PLEASE CHECK ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THE LAKEFRONT PARK(S) IN WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FACILITY LOCATED, AND/OR WRITE IN ANY OTHER CHICAGO PARK ON THE LINES PROVIDED. (The list of facilities on this page might help you in answering this question, but feel free to list any facility you think is needed. The map on the front cover of the booklet shows where each of the Lakefront Parks is located.) NORTH SIDE STREET END LOYOLA LINCOLN GRANT BURNHAM JACKSON RAINBOW CALUMET OTHER CHICAGO NEEDED FACILITIES BEACHES PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK PARKS (specify) Figure 6. FACILITIES LIST Archery Ranges Casting Pools Putting Greene Outdoor Theatres Softball Diamond Art Gaileries Club Rooms Handball Courts Parking Lots Spray Pools Assembly Halla Craft or Hobby Shops Harbor Facilities Picnic Areas Stadium Athletic Fields Cross-Country Ski Trails Launching Ramps Playgounds Swimming Pools Baseball Diamonds Day Camp Areas Horseshoe Courts Restaurants Tennis Courts Basketball Courts Flower Gardens Boccic Courts Restrooms Trap Ranges Bathing Beaches Fieldhouses/Gymnasiums Lagoons Running Tracks/Trails Volleyball Court Beach Houses Fishing Areas Model Yacht Basins Rifle Ranges Walking Paths Bicycle Paths Football/Soccer Fields Obstacle Fitness Course Senior Citizens Centers Wildlife Areas Bowling Greene Golf Courses Open Lawn Areas Shuffleboard Courts Youth Centers Bridle Paths Driving Ranges Open Paved Areas Skating Facilities Figure 7 Question seven (Figure 8) asked for suggestions to improve present facili- ties in the lakefront parks. The format was open-ended to avoid "leading" respondents, and to allow them to list any ideas they felt were important. Like all open-ended questions, the responses to question seven were difficut to code for computer analysis. On the other hand, some of the most useful and specific information gathered during the test was in response to this question. 16 It is recommended that this question remain in its present format, but that time be taken during analysis to transcribe the responses so that decision- makers may benefit from the many valuable remarks and suggestions included in the responses. 7. PLEASE WRITE ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE THE FACILITIES THAT ARE NOW AVAILABLE IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS: Figure 8. In the 1972 Chicago Lakefront Plan, the possibility of creating increased shoreline, peninsulas or islands for recreation use was discussed. In order to obtain some public opinion about the various possible configurations, question eight (Figure 9) presented simple diagrams of the three landfill shapes dis- cussed in the plan. Respondents were asked to indicate which, if any, of the configurations would be acceptable if the city were to add land to the lake- front park system. 8 IF THE CITY WERE TO ADD LAND TO THE LAKEFRONT PARK SYSTEM, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE IT ADDED? (Look at the diagrams below, and check "YES" or "NO" for each one) YES YES YES AS NEW SHORELINE LAND NO AS PENISULAS NO AS ISLANDS NO NEW SHORELINE PENINSULA ISLAND Figure 9. 17 Using the same rationale, question nine (Figure 10) requested that respondents list in order of importance up to eight facilities they would most like to have developed on new shorelines, peninsulas, and islands. Respondents had.no problem answering questions eight and nine, and it is recommended that they remain in the same format. 9 IF THE CITY WERE TO ADD LAND TO THE LAKEFRONT PARK SYSTEM IN ANY OF THE WAYS SHOWN ABOVE, LIST UP TO EIGHT FACILITIC! YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DEVELOPED ON THAT LAND. of I -it I A-in All fir': PININSI'Ll', 0!J 11r,11 111"W 13 Figure 10. Question ten (Figure 11) was made up of thirteen neutral statements with which respondents were asked to agree, disagree, or state they didn't know if they agreed or not. A space was also provided for a comment about each state- ment. This question addressed nearly all of the major issues raised during the planning stages of the study. The only modification recommended is that the example "amusement parks" in statement nine regarding the desirability of private businesses operating in the lakefront parks be changed to "bicycle rental" or some other small-scale business. Many respondents in the test were in favor of !'restaurants" but adamantly against "amusement parks" or other large scale businesses. The exai*Jp1iE_s, then, made the question impossible for some respondents to answer. There were no problems with the other twelve state- ments, and no changes are recommended. 10 PLEASE READ EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AND CHECK THE BOX UNDER "YES" IF YOU AGREE , UNDER "NO" IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, AND UNDER "DON'T KNOW" IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU AGREE OR NOT. THEN FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THE STATEMENTS ON THE "COMMENT" LINES. YES NO DON'T KNOW COMMENT THE LAKEFRONT PARKS ARE GENERALLY CLEAN......... ____________________ THERE SHOULD BE MORE OPEN GREEN SPACE IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS................................. _____________________ THERE IS ADEQUATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICE OFFERED IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS...... _____________________ THE LAKEFRONT PARKS ARE EASY TO GET TO.......... _____________________ THERE IS ADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE LAKEFRONT PARKS........................ _____________________ THERE ARE ENOUGH BOATING FACILITIES IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS................................. _____________________ I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A NEW PARK DEVELOPED NEAR MY HOME......................................... _____________________ I WOULD PAY A REASONABLE FEE TO USE LAKEFRONT PARK FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS, SUCH AS TENNIS COURTS AND SAILING CLASSES...................... _____________________ PRIVATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE CERTAIN FACILITIES IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS, SUCH AS RESTAURANTS AND AMUSMENT PARKS.......... ______________________ THE LAKEFRONT PARKS ARE A SAFE PLACE TO GO...... ______________________ VISITORS TO THE LAKEFRONT PARKS CAUSE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN MY COMMUNITY........................ ______________________ LOCAL HARBORS ADD TO MY ENJOYMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT PARKS........................................... ______________________ Figure 11 . Section Two The next four-and-a-half pages of the questionnaire included questions re- garding the respondent's recreation behavior (Figure 12). This section of the questionnaire is fairly straightforward. The first question asks respondents how often they participate in specific activities in the summer and winter and whether or not they participate in the lakefront parks. It was decided that IT WOULD BE MORE MEANINGFUL TO COLLECT THIS DIRECT PARTICIPATION DATA RATHER THAN ASKING ABOUT RECREATION PREFERENCES, SINCE STUDIES SHOW THAT RESPONDENTS TENT TO BE INACCURATE WHEN ASKED ABOUT ACTIVITIES IN WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO PARTICIPATE. RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION SET PROVIDED A GREAT DEAL OF FACILITY PRESSURE INFORMATION INCLUDING SPECIFIC DATA ABOUT THE USE OF THE LAKEFRONT PARKS. THE TEST SHOWED THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES USED FOR THE QUESTION SET TO BE QUITE COMPREHENSIVE, AND NO CHANGES ARE RECOMMENDED. 11 PLEASE LOOK AT THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES BELOW. IF YOU DO AN ACTIVITY, CHECK THE BOX ON THE RIGHT THAT BEST TELLS HOW OFTEN YOU DO IT. THEN CHECK "YES" IF YOU DO THE ACTIVITY IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS AND "NO" IF YOU DO NOT. IF YOU DO NOT DO THE ACTIVITY , JUST SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE. THE FIRST PART OF THIS QUESTION IS FOR SUMMER ACTIVITIES, AND THE SECOND PART IS FOR WINTER ACTIVITIES. ( For example " Play tennis" shows that the activity is done " once or twice a month" in the summer, and that it is done in the Lakefront Parks.) HOW OFTEN DO YOU PARTICIPATE? DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? SUMMER ACTIVITES ALMOST A WEEK A MONTH THIS SEASON YES NO EVERY DAY EXAMPLE: PLAY TENNIS ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ PLAY GOLF ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ PLAY HORSESHOES ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ PLAY SOCCER ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ PLAY TENNIS ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ PLAY BASEBALL OR SOFTBALL ______ ______ _______ __________ ____ ____ Figure 12. Question set twelve (Figure 13) was again an activity-related inquiry. Respondents were asked to indicate, if they would like to do any of the activi- ties on the list more, why they do not. If, for example, "not enough time" was checked as a reason for not playing tennis more, there is no management responsibility indicated. If, however, the reason for not playing more tennis was that "facilities [were] not available" or "facilities [were] too far away," some unsatisfied demand was expressed, and some management action might be appropriate. 12. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU DO NOT DO MORE OF THE THINGS YOU LIKE TO DO. FOR ANY ACTIVITY ON THE LIST BELOW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO MORE, CHECK THE ONE REASON THAT BEST DESCRIBES WHY YOU DO NOT DO IT MORE. (The example shows that the main reason for not playing tennis now is that there is "no one to go with". CHECK ONLY ONE!) NOT ENOUGH COSTS TOO FACILITIES NOT FACILITIES TOO FEAR OF BAD HEALTH NO WAY TO GET THERE DON'T KNOW WHERE NO ONE TO GO ACTIVITIES TIME MUCH AVAILABLE FAR AWAY CRIME TO GO WITH EXAMPLE: PLAY TENNIS PLAY GOLF PLAY BOCCIE OR HORSESHOES PLAY TENNIS PLAY BASEBALL OR SOFTBALL PLAY VOLLYBALL PLAY FOOTBALL, RUGBY OR SOCCER BICYCLE Figure 13. A cross-tabulation of the responses to questions eleven and twelve could be used to represent a fairly straightforward expression of demand for recrea. tion facilities and programs in Chicago. Few respondents had difficulty with the format of the questions, and it is recommended that both question eleven and question twelve remain unchanged. Section Three The last section of the questionnaire included information on the back- ground and social history of the respondent. The information gathered with these questions could be tabulated with U. S. census projections, and when com- bined with the other responses in the questionnaire could provide very valuable long-term management guidelines. Again, the wording, sequence, and format of these questions have been used in other mail questionnaire studies, and there- fore should remain in the present form. 21 The last space on the qUestionnaire k,,tas left open 'for any coi-iiments the respondents wished to make. It is recommended that they be carefully examined by and planners, in that r,-mch valuable detail can be found about individual's experiences as they visited (or why they did not visit) the lake- front parks. Formating the Questionnaire As shown in Appendix B, the front page of the questionnaire includes both the cover letter for the questionnaire and a map of the lakefront park system. The cover letter was printed on the questionnaire because previous studies have not conclusively shown that personalizing the cover letter increases re- sponse rates. The cover letter had several important elements. First, it was explained that the University of Illinois was conducting the study @or the City of Chicago. It was felt that this would appeal to Illinois citizens' pride i@'n their university, and would reduce any threat they might feel if the city had conducted the survey. Next, an attempt was made to convey how important each individual's responses would be to the study. The survey was further described as an opportunity for the respondent to express his/her opinion, and confiden- tiality of responses was assured. The respondent was further offered the opportuni*ty to receive.a summary of the study results, and the importance of individual respondents was reiterated. Care was taken to write the letter in a simple, straightfoniard st le. No changes are recommended for the cover letter y except that a bolder typeface should be used. Although no comments or problems were evident after the test regarding readability, it was felt that after the slight type reduction used in printing the questionnaire, the cover letter should have been slightly darker. A map of the lakefront park systeiii was designed for the cover page after DPCCO personnel indicated that many Chicago residents were not aware of the names and/or boundaries of the individual parks. Since several questions re- ferred directly to the lakefront parks, a map ,.@as considered a necessary refer- ence.- This map was reduced in printing and was.also used as a logo on the, follow-up postcard as well as on both the mail-out and the return envelopes. Once a first draft of the questionnaire was produced, many individuals, including members of the advisory committee and DPCCD staff, were asked for corrections, suggestions and revisions. Wording of questions was carefully reviewed and simplified and several format changes were made. The final test product was the result of five revisions. Once the substance of the survey instrument was finialized, the next several decisions were cosmetic. Many previous studies had shown that individuals re- act to a total package with mailed questionnaires, so it was necessary to make the questionnaire "package" as attractive as possible. Three separate typefaces were used in producing the final draft of the questionnaire, and the whole pro- duct was slightly reduced before printing in order to end up with an 8 1/2 x 11 inch booklet. Dark blue ink on ivory paper was selected for the questionnaire, and the logo and return addresses were printed in the same dark blue ink on white mailing and return envelopes. The postcard reminder was also white with dark blue logo and return address. The total package was seen by respondents as simple and attractive. Therefore, with modifications in wording aAnd type, the printed materials can be used as presented (see Appendix B). 23 Chapter IV SAMPLE SELECTION Procedure The search for a representative source of names to select a sample involved examination of the following alternative sources: 1. telephone directories 2. utility service lists 3. licensed drivers 4. random digit phone dialing 5. voter registration lists After comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of each, the list of current registered voters was selected as the source for obtaining names in the four test communities. The voter registration lists are up-to-date in that the study took place shortly after the November elections. In addition, the available computer facilities allowed the research team to not only make the random selection, but also to print the three sets of address labels for mail- ing. This last advantage eliminated the costly and time-consuming necessity of hand-typing the mailing labels. The advantaaes of the voter registration lists were considered against the few biases that might be present if the lists were used. For example, persons under 18, an important group to.consider in recreation planning, would not be s@mpled. Furthermore, registered voters are permanent residents of the area. Younger persons and transients do not always register to vote. 24, The researchers concluded -that the other sources of nam@es had more dis- advantages than did the voter reaistration lists. For example, telephone directories were eli!--,iinated ,-:11--n it @.,-as found that over 65 percent of the resi- dential phones in Chicago were unlisted. Utility service lists were eliminated because of the number of utility companies operating in the city, the difficulty and expense involved in acquiring and colating the lists, and the fact that 50 percent of the city dwellers live in multi-family units with utilities listed in the landlords' name. Licensed driver lists were not used because a high proportion of the people in Chicago do not drive, especially older persons.. Random digit dialing was not used because each telephone interview costs ten times that of a mail questionnaire. Recommendations The advantage cited of getting very current addresses from the voter regis- tration lists did indeed hold true. Only three percent of the total number ;f questionnaires mailed were returned undeliverable; as compared with an expec- tation of 15 percent with other sources (Burdge, et al., 1978). For this reason, as well as the very small expense incurred in using the lists, this source of names should be used if a city-wide study is conducted. In addition, the age, sex, and location within the city is included on the lists. Thereby, the sample can be easily compared with census profiles to make sure they are representative of the city populations. Sampling Procedures The project sponsors asked the research team to gather 400 useable responses from each of the four test communities. This'number would allow for generaliz- ing and projecting the responses to the adult population of each community as a whole. At an optimistic 50 percent expected response rate coupled with up-to-date 25 addresses with a sample size of 3200 @%,as selected. Although a 50 percent response rate is never obtained in mail surveys with only postcard follow-ups (as was the case w,ith this pre-test), procedures developed by sociologists at the University of Illinois have increased the response rate to near 70 percent, as described in the recommendations in Chapter E. Thephysical process of drawing the sample from voter registration lists was done by DPCCD personnel and specialists at the city computer center. The four communities were delineated by geographical boundaries and the computer was programmed to make a random selection of approximately 800 persons from each community. Since the random number selection procedure does not allow for precise totals, 3286 persons made up thp,,final sample. The sample printout included uach person's name, address, ward, precinct, community, census tract, geo-code, and three computer typed address labels. - Although registration lists, of course, are stored alphabetically, an additional programming routine presented the first name fi.rst and the last name last. The first label was used for the mailing of the questionnaire instrument, the second label was used for the postcard follow-up and the third label will be used to mail a summary of the study results to respo ndents that requested it. Recommendations If a city-wide survey were undertaken, it would be unreasonable to aim at 400 useable responses for each of Chicago's 75 community areas (as was the case The City of Chicago has developed a computer procedure called geo-coding, which allo,...,s each person on the voter list to be identified by his exact street address. 2 F in the pre-test). Even k%,ith an expected response rate of near 70 percent, the total sai,,iple size required i%,ould be over 44,000 persons. Outside of the postage and coding costsi the simple logistics of handling that many question- naires would be prohibitive. One hundred (100) useable responses for each community would provide ade- quate information at a reasonable cost. Again using a 70 percent expected response rate, the total sample for the city would be about 10,900 persons. This number should yield at least 7,600 useable responses, which would provide excellent city-wide coverage. On the community level, one hundred useable responses for each would allow for useful comparisons of percentages between communities and would provide good information about the recreation and park needs and preferences of each individual community. 27 Chapter V MAILING THE QUES-T'10,!.@,NAIRE Data Collection Procedure On November 15, 1978, 3,2S6 questionnaire packages were mailed. Each package consisted on a numbered questionnaire, a mailing envelope with $.41 hand-applied postage, and an enclosed return envelope with $.28 hand-applied postage (see Appendix B). Stamps were used rather than metering because studies have shown better response to mail studies that use the former. Further, there was some concern that the large mailing envelope would be mistaken for "junk" mail; especially during the pre-holiday season. In addition, the words "first class" were stamped in large letters on each envelope. Stamps were also hand-applied to the return envelope to further emphasize the personal nature of the study. Five days after the initial mailing, on November 20, 1978, a postcard follow-up with $.10 hand-applied postage was sent to all persons in the sample to thank them either for completing the questionnaire or, for taking time in the future to do so (see Appendix B). The single mailing and the postcard follow-uP resulted in 1,166 completed useable questionnaires for a response rate of 36.60 percent (Table 1). Most mail questionnaire surveys with a postcard follow-up produce a response rate of less than 20 percent. The 1,166 responses were not only an adequate number to 'J@ui6j,,h1v t_-st tn!@ survey instrlj,@,ent, but also provided a considerable amount Z; J 29 of substantive inforiiiation about I-M'eation demand in the four test communities (see "A Preliminary Analysis of the Results of a Lakefront Recreation Survey"). Recommendations If a larger study is conducted, it is recommended that budget allowan@e be made for more extensive follow-up procedures. A study called, ILLINOIS: Today and Tomorrow, utilizing techniques after which this mailing procedure was designed, yielded a response rate of 69 percent. That study used these additional procedures: - Approximately three weeks after the postcard reminder, a replacement questionnaire and a letter urging a prompt response to those individuals who had not yet responded w.as mailed. Again, a postage paid return envelope and personalized letter wa; included. - About three weeks after the second mailing, another com- plete package was sent by certified mail to non-respondents, emphasizing in the accompanying letter the importance of the individual respondent. This mailing, increased the response rate to near 70 percent. An alternative to the certified mail follow-up would be a phone call follow-up, if phone numbers are available. It is important that all postage be in the form of hand-applied stamps. All correspondence involved in the previously outline procedures should be Der- sonalized. If a computer is used to print mailing labels, five sets should be, printed: four for the mailing and follow-ups and one for a summary of results, should it be requested. All correspondence should carry the map logo in order to generate identification of the study. 30 At least fifty studies had been conducted at the time of the present effort using the follot,,-up procedure recof-iviended above. -The return rates for these studies have consistently been near 70 percent (Dillman, 1978). It is possible, then, that with careful and effective design and presentation of materials a large-scale lakefront recreation study could yield a high response rate. Although the return rate of 36.60- percent experienced in the question- naire test was considered excellent, it is recommended that a larger study not be conducted during the holiday season. Had the budget allowed, the test would have taken place in late September and early October; thereby allowing better recall of summer recreation activity. 31 Chapter VI CODING THE QUESTIONNAIRE Procedures Because of the large number of completed questionnaires involved in this type of study, the material was coded and key punched for machine tabulation directly from the completed questionnaire. When each completed questionnaire was returned it was stamped with the date received and was edited in preparation for coding. Editing consisted first of coding all information already available about the respondent onto the front and back pages of the questionnaire, i.e., respondent's status, community, census tract, ward, precinct, and geo-code among others. The second step_ in editing was to thoroughly read each questionnaire and assign codes for the open-ended questions. Responses, of course, had to be generalized to accomplish this task, so it is again recommended that the original responses be transcribed and distributed to decision makers. Other editing con- sisted of assigning census and Duncan codes to occupations listed, and filling in missinq answers when possible. For example, if the respondent placed a "/" in the space after "How many children ... live in your home?," it was assumed that "/" meant "none" so the response was coded as "0." If the respondent indicated that he/she was "retired" or a "student" on the next-to-last page and left the "!4hat is.your occupation?" question blank, it was filled in and coded to the same answer. 32 After editinq and coding the open-ended questions, coders processed each questionnaire by sii,,iply putting the appropriate code numbers on corresponding column blanks (Appendix C). It is eleii,--ntary to state that a larger study of the size projected will be only as good as its raw-data file, and if too many coders are hired there could be a resulting lack of consistency and/or quality. Once the questionnaires were coded, the codes were keypunched directly onto magnetic tape and verified using the same procedure. The tape itself could then be used as a raw-data file and in addition, sets of computer cards could be produced from the tape to use in building system files and to backup and pro- tect the data file. It was decided early in the planning stages of the study to use the Statis- tical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) system to analyze the data. SPSS is a computer software package used by both the University of Illinois and the City of Chicago-computer centers. In addition to having extensive and sophis- ticated analysis capabilities, the SPSS package is also extremely easy to access and use. While the coding was being accomplished, then, a SPSS "systems file" was being developed. This file consists, among other things, of assigning names to variables and values, which makes it possible for persons not well- versed in computer procedures and jargon to easily understand the analyses and results that are produced by the SPSS package. Once the systems file and the raw data file were completed they were com- bined and placed on tape for easy access and use. The data was examined and "cleaned" or corrected, and the results of the questionnaire test were ready to analyze. Recommendations This portion of the study plan was quite routine. The working codebook is satisfactory, and the systems file can be used as it is to accommodate a larger study. The only change would be to replace the test data file with the data file produced by the larger study. Again it should be emphasized that the study results are only as good as the data preparation (i.e., coding and key- punching) so the effort to hire experienced high- quality help is critical. Quality control is extremely important during this phase of the study. 34 Chapter VII TABULATING THE RESPONSES Procedures Since the main objective of the study was to develop and test the survey instrument, little time and budget was allocated to the analysis of the data. Frequencies, adjusted frequencies and some cross-tabulations were among the procedures selected for the preliminary analysis of the responses that came from the residents of the four community test area. "A Preliminary Analysis of the Results of a Lakefront Recreation Survey," the second product of this study, describes the rationale behind the procedures that were performed. The reader is advised to study that rebort for details and recommendations regard- ing data analysis. That report also related the preliminary results of the analyses that were performed. Recommendations It is recommended that the procedures discussed in the Preliminary Analysis Report be replicated for a larger study. It is important to note that a con- siderable amount of time be allocated for more detailed analysis. The survey instrument is constructed to gather a wealth of detailed information about respondents' attitudes, behavior, and socio-economic status. Much useful infor- mation could be generated by cross-tabulating the three types of information on an item-by-item basis, and then applying U. S. census or other population study projections to the results. Again, this type of analysis requires a great deal \of time and effort. If a study of the size anticipated in Chapter IV is under- taken, at least 15 months should be budgeted for analysis after the raw data 35 has been cleaned and taped. In this a!-,lount of time, a fairly col,'1prehensive library of cross-tabulations and frequences could be de'veloped. Additional analysis tii-,,.e ,,:ould be nec2ssary for r.ore corPlex land sophisticated procedures such as regression analysis. In summary, the type and level of sophistication of a*nalyses in a larger study would be-limited only by time and budget. The type of information re- quired must be specified at the management level; statistical expertise should then be called on to develop the appropriate procedures and tests. In other words, it would be relatively easy to generate a library of statistics such as that described in the "Preliminary Analysis," in a short period of time. The complexity of the larger study would come in determining what set of policy issues must be addressed, and then in applying the appro- Is priate statistical procedures to address those issues. In addition, there should be a determination and specification of the type and number of publica- tions.to be generated from the study. These procedures could best be accomplish- ed in an academic setting where the resources and expertise to get the job done are both abundant and inexpensive. C@viously, however, if policy issues are to be adequately addressed, it would be necessary for the academicians working on the study to cooperate with and encourage input from policy makers and im7,limenters from the city at all stages of the study. Further, once the results of the study have been analyzed, it is critical that the information developed be viidely distributed throughout the city to qn-vernm,_nt. anencies and civic croups that micht use that information in their -decision-making processes. All too often, s tudies generate a wealth oil valuable 36 data, only to end up on a shelf without any effort at dissiminating the infor- mation available. This, of course, leads to repetitive studies when repetition 4- is not called for, and i-t also imposes on the public @o repeat responses to similar questions year after year. The proposed budget at the end of the next chapter, therefore, allows tfi-iie not only for sophisticated analysis of the data generated, but also for some information dissimination effort. 37 Chapter VIII SUHNARY OF RECO11ii"IENDATIONS 1. If the four community test described in the proceding portions of this report is replicated on a city-wide basis, the results will describe both the public's perception of the lakefront as a recreational resource and the needs for recreation facilities and programs on a city-wide basis. 2. The survey instrument found in Appendix B could be used for the repli- cation after incorporation of new questions and modification of others to best tap information on a city-wide basis. 3. The sampling framework described in Chapter IV is not only satisfact6ry, but due to the coverage of the registered voter list it is accurate and allows comparison with other information maintained byDPCCD- Further, it has the ad- vantage of being very inexpensive to use. The high response rates obtained by means of mail questionnaires coupled with the unique advantage of allowing respondents time to complete their answers makes this data gathering technique ideal for the City of Chicago. 4. The information described in "A Preliminary Analysis of the Results of a Lakefront Recreation Survey" is just that ... preliminary. Detailed analyses and interpretations would be part of a larger study. In addition, considerable time is needed to review the results with City of Chicago decision makers. 38 5. The existing SPSS slystems file should be adequate, as should a modification of the vtorking codebook found in Appendix C.. The systems file used in this study is on the tape that accoi-.ipanies these reports. 6. If a larger study is funded, the following budget might be conside@ed a minimum projected cost. It is critical. that, in addition to adequate money, enough time be budgeted to allow for analysis of the information. The recom- mended study is quite large, and will require more time for processing the questionnaire. The pre-test study did not include time for analysis and in- terpretation of the results, which is presumably why such a study would be done. 39 24-,MONTH .1,11NIHUM BUDGET FOR A CITY-WIDE STUDY Item A. PERSONNEL: 1. Project Leaders $24,000.00 2. Project Coordinator 20,000.00 3. Data coders (200 hrs at $3/hour) 3,600.00 4. Secretarial Help (320 hrs @ $4/hour) 1,230.00 5. Graduate Assistant 10,400.00 $59,280.00 B. PRINTING: 1. Questionnaires, envelopes, letters (see Appendix D for items) $ 7,728.00 2. Reports l'-300.00 3. Copying 1,000.00 $10,228.00 C. DATA COLLECTION COSTS: 1. Travel $ 2X0.00 2. Postage (see Appendix D for items) 22,000.00 3. Telephone (8 mos. @ $100/mo-) 800.00 4. Supplies 1,000.00 $25,800.00 D. ANALYSIS COSTS: 1. Keypunching (3000 responses @ 5 cards per response, 16@/card verified) $ 6,400.00 2. Computer tapes and supplies 100.00 3. Computer time 2,000.00 $ 8,500.00 E. OVERHEAD (assuming.Federal funding): 20% of Contract $20,762.00 F. FRINGE BENEFITS: 1. Worknen's compensation @ .002 x '09,230 $ 118.56 2. Health Insurance @ .037 x 59,280 2,194.36 3. Retirement @ .1183 x 59,280 7,042.46 $ 9,354.38 TOTAL CONTRACT COST ............ $145,564.38 0 Appendix A ISSUE DEVELONIIENT FORN5 AND LETTERS I . L- 0 I 0 INSTITUTE FOR 408 South Goodwin Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urbana, Illinois 61801 (217) 333-4178 The Department of Leisure Studies and the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Illinois are conducting a study of the Chicago lakefront. The study is being conducted in conjunction with the City of Chicago Department of Planning, City and Community Development and the Chicago Park District. The study objectives are to examine how the lakefront parks should be related to other elements of the park system, and to determine what sets of facilities, proarams and act- ivities the residents of Chicago would like to have located within an expanded lakefront park system. As a first step in the study, we are enlisting the aid of individuals and groups with a special interest in lakefront development and/or recreation programs in Chicago. You were suggested to us as a source of relevant ideas concerning potential lakefront development for recr- eation. We would very much like to discuss some of your ideas with you, and to that end we would like to conduct a telephone interview with you at your convenience. We would like to schedule the interview, which should last about twenty minutes, on or before July 14, 1978. We have enclosed a form on which we would like you to indicate whether or not you are willing,to talk with us about your ideas, and, if you are, to schedule a date and time for us to telephone. Please return the form in the enclosed stamped envelope whether you can or cannot talk with us. If you have any questions about the study, please call Jacquelin Buchanan collect at (217) 3336228. We appreciate your cooperation in this effort to properly develop the Chicago lakefront. Sincerely, James E. Christensen Principal Investioato- Jacquelin P. Buchanan Project Coordinator INSTITUTE FOR 408 South Goodwin Avenue ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urbono, 111;nois 61801 (217) 333-4178 I would like'@to thank you for taking the time to talk to.me about lake- front park issues. We feel that with your help and the help of many other government agencies and civic groups, we have compiled a fairly compre- hensive list of issues regarding recreation use and needs in the parks. Your comments which were not used as actual issues will be of great use.in the con- struction of the survey instrument we are working on. -As we discussed at the end of our interview, I am enclosing a list of issues for you to rank in order of importance to your group or agency. Please remember to consider the issues in regard to the lakefront park sys- tem. You will find that there are seven large "main" issues (i.e., ADMINISTRATION). Under each main issue you will find a list of issues or items that make U *D the overall compiled issue (i.e., under ADMINISTRATION, you will find adequacy of communications, adequacy of information, etc.). First, I would like you to look at the lists under the main issues, and rank the most important five items in each list according to order of importance to your group. On lists where there are more than five items, please rank at least the top five. You will find a space at the right of each item on which to place your number. For example, under ADMINISTRATION, if you feel adequacy of communications is the most important item, place a "I" on the line to the right of "Adequacy of Communications." Next, rank the seven 11main" issues in order of importance to your group. You will find a list of the main issues compiled on the last page of the enclosure, with a blank to the left of each issue. Please rank all of these issues in order of importance to your group, so that when you are finished you have rankings of from I to 7 There are also spaces at the bottom of the item lists and the main issue list for you to use to write in any issues you feel are not cov- ered in the lists, but should be covered in our survey. -I realize that this ranking process is not an easy task, but it will be an invaluable part of our effort to develop a survey instrument that will cov- er all of the lakefront park issues important to the residents of Chicago. We would appreciate a quick response, so that we can send you a com- pilation of the rankings within the next week or so. I thank you in ad- vance for your help. Sincerely, Jacauelin Buchanan ProJect Coordinator Enclosure CHICAGO LAKEFRONT DEMAND STUDY TELEPHONE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PLEASE CHECK ONE RESPONCE, AND FILL IN THE INFORMATION BLANKS: _____ YES, I will be available for a 20 minute telephone interview on or before July 14th, 1978: NAME:________________________________ ORGANIZATION:________________________ DAY TO CALL: (month)___________(day)_______ TIME TO CALL: _____________________________ NUMBER TO CALL: (217)______________________ ______ YES, I will be available for a 20 minute telephone interview, but not on or before July 14th, 1978. See below for date: NAME:____________________________________ ORGANIZATION:____________________________ DATE TO CALL:(month)_____________(day)_______________ TIME TO CALL:____________________________ NUMBER TO CALL: (217)____________________ ______ NO, I will not be available for a 20 minute telephone interview regarding the Chicago Lakefront development because:___________ _______________________________________________________________ NAME:__________________________________________________________ ORGANIZATION:__________________________________________________ PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM IN THE STAMPED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE ENCLOSED. AGENCY/GROUP INTERVIE114 FORMI GROUP NAME: 1NTE'1'RVIE',--'LEE INTEREST: INTERVIEW NUMBER: DATE: TIME: PHONE NUMBER: Hello (name) This is Jacque Buchanan calling from the University of Illinois Institute for Environmental Studies about the Lakefront Recreation Study we are conducting. You indicated that you would help us develop a list of issues and indicated that this would be a good time to call. Is this still a convenient time for us to talk? YES NO Call Back: I'd like to explain in a little more detail what we are doing. The Department of Planning, City, and Comh@,unity Development has contracted us to determine the demand or need for additional re6reational opportunities along the lakefront. Thi@ part of the study involves the preparation and testing of a questionnaire @o use in determining the interests and concerns of potential lakefront users. We need to cover all issues relevant to lakefront recreation in the questionnaires, and that is why we've contacted you. I'll ask you a few questions to give you an idea of the kind of information we would like to get from you. Please feel free to elaborate on your answers, or to point out additional issues, considerations or problems as you think of them. If any question does not apply to your group (population), do not feel you have to answer it. Your answers will be compiled with those of about thirty other groups and agencies, and your individual replies will be held in the strictest confidence. First, I would like to find out a little about you and (name of orqanization) 1. What is your organization's service area? PAGE 1 PAGE 2 2. Classification of organization: Club or group @,.,ith restricted Neighborhood group or organization Public agency Voluntary organization suD,-orted by fees and charges, open to the public Religious or church organization Other (specify): 3. What is your position in the organization: 4. Does your organization have a special area of interest in the development of new lakefront recreation areas (for example the environment, special activities, special groups to serve): I would 1 i ke to ask you some questions about the Lakefront Parks in general , and then we will move on to recreation facilities, and your group's(population's) specific interests. 5. Do the lakefront parks offer enough variety in recreation opportunities to serve both immediately adjacent communities and the rest of the city? YES NO 6. Do the lakefront parks offer enough variety in recreation opportunities to serve all groups that might have an interest in using the parks (for example, the aged, ethnic groups, young people)? YES NO if NO, what should be added: 7. Some areas of the Lakefront Parks are designed for passive recreation and scenic values, and other parts are designed for more active recreation such as soft- ball, basketball, running, etc. -is y6ur group satisfied @,Jth thr-, rJx of passive to active recreation areas, or would you like to see more of one and less of the other: MORE SCENIC, LESS ACTIVE MORE ACTIVE, LESS SCENIC PAGE 2A 7B. Should some recreational oQportunities be offered in the Lakefront Parks b.V Drivate enterprise? YES Nhich ones? NO If YES, should they be operated as Concessions, controlled by the Park District Lono term leases From Whom? Should the land be sold to the private operator? .Other PAGE 3 8. Are the Lakefront Park's large enough? I would like to get a little rilore specific about Lakefront Pa-k facilities: 1 9. W'hat Lakefront Park recreation facilities does your organization (population) use? 10. Have there been any problems for your group (population) in using lakefront facilities, for example, availability of facilities, location of facilities, quality of facilities: 11. Have you any suggestions to alleviate these facility problems? 12. Has your group (population) had other problems implementing your interests in Lakefront recreation that have to do with support facilities or services, for example, transportation, crime control, restriction of any kind: 13. Have you any suggestions to alleviate these support facility or service problems? PAGE 4 14. Would your group (PO'Pulati0n) like to see new recreational faci ties devel- oped @Iithin the La'Kefront Park sys-Cepi? YES What Facilities: Where located: NO Why Not: 15. Has your organization tried to have new facilities developed along the Lake- front? YES Were you successful YES What kinds of development: NO What were the constraints: NO 16. Do you feel yourgroup (population) uses the Lakefront Parks as much as they would like? YES NO Why not? 17. Do you feel people are aware of the opportunities currently available in the Lakefront Parks; in other words, is there an adequate information system? YES, system is adequate, pEople are a,;.,are NO, system is inadequate, people are not aware PAGE 5 18. Is there adequate prograil-niing for recreation in the Lakefront Parks? YES NO Where is it lacking? 19. Are fees a problem in the Lakefront Parks? YES In what way? NO 20. Does your group feel that fees should be charged for some programs within the Lakefront Parks? YES Which Programs/facilities: NO 21. Would a fee system influence use by special groups in the Lakefront Parks significantly, for example, young people, ethnic groups, the aged, etc., YES NO 22. Can you think of any issues or concerns that you think should be covered in the recreation demand survey that we have not already discussed? PAGE 6 We will be contacting about thirty interest groups and government agencies in the course of the issue development part of this study. We would like to complie and issue list and have you examine it and rank the issues is order of importance to you group (population). We would then like to have you look at a complied ranking of issues, and get you comments on why you agree or disagree with the majority of interest group or agency rankings. This will give you an opportunity to comment or respond to issues that did not surface in the course of this interview. All of this would have to be done in a matter of a few weeks after the 15th of July. Would you be willing to help us? ______YES ______NO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOU COOPERATION. CHICAGO LAIKEFRONT PARKS ISSUES LIST Issue: ADMINISTRATJON RANK Items: Adequacy ,f Coi-,uunications Adequacy of Information Coordination with other Govern- ment Agencies Citizen input Fees Ordinance Enforcement Contact with Citizens Amount of Open Time for Facilities Maintenance of Parks Issue: ACCESSIBILITY Items: Pedestrian Access Auto Access Access to Handicapped persons Access to Senior Citizens Access to Populations Living Adjacent to the Parks Access to Populations Living Outside the Parks Area Public Transportation to and from the Parks Parking PAGE 2 1,; s ue: AINITI-SOCIAL BE-H1!-",V10R R A NK I temS Actual Crime Pe-rception of Crimie Li tter Lack of Security- Use of Drugs and/or Alcohol Vandalism Issue: USE Items: Permit System Congestion in General Congestion on Weekends Out-of-Area Visitors (i.e., from the Northern Suburbs) Commercial Development Issue: PROGRAMMING Items: For Ethnic Groups For Senior Citizens For Women Cultural Programs Number of Programs Variety of Programs Scheduling of Programs Availability of Programs PAGE 3 Issue: ADEQUACY OF CURRENT LAKEFRONT DEVELOPMENT RANK AND SERVICES Items: Service to Senior Citizens Service to the Handicapped Service to Women Service to Men Service to Ethnic groups Service to Poor People Service to North Side Service to South Side Quality of Recreational Facilities in General Quantity of the Natural Environ- ment Quality of the Built Environment Issue: NEW FACILITY NEEDS Items: Swimming pools Boating Facilities Jogging Paths Gym Space (for women) Gym space (on general) Walking paths South side Facilities in General Open space Facilities for Senior Citizens Tennis courts Cultural Activity Facilities Playgrounds Hardball Diamonds Harbor Space/Facilities Cross-country Skiing Trails Restaurants I PAGE 4 t'-" NX OVERALL RANKING OF MIAIN ISSUES: A DM I N I S T RAT 10 N ACCESSIBILITY ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOR USE P RO G RAMitl I N G ADEQUACY OF CURRENT LAKEFRONT DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES NEW FACILITY NEEDS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT! 0 Appendix B I I rl SUIRVEY INSTMIENT PACKAGE . . I 0 1 a 0 CHICAGO LAKEFRONT STUDY Dear Chicago Resident, As Chicago grows and changes, so does the need for park facilities and recreation. To help find out what the resi- dents of Chicago want in the way of recreation and park facilities, and especially to find out how the residents feel the Lakefront Parks fit into the total Chicago recrea- tion picture, the University of Illinois is conducting this survey for the City of Chicago. You are one of the 3,000 residents of Chicago selected to let your city planners know what you think and what you want in the way of parks and recreation opportunities, and most important, what you think abou the Lakefront Parks. It is very important that you answer the questions in this booklet, so that we may use your opinion to represent the opinions of other adults in you community. Your answers will be groupe together with those of other Chicago resi- dents so that you individual answers will be completely confidential. The map on this page will be helpful when you answer the questions about the Lakefront Parks. When you have finished answering the questions, please put the booklet in the stamp- ed return envelope and drop it in the mail. If you would like a summary of the results of the study, just print your name and address on the outside of the return envelope. The lakefront is one of your city's greatest resources, so it is very important that we have your answers about the present and future development of park and recreation facili- ties in Chicago. Thank you in advance for your help; Sincerely, James E. Christensen Project Director 408 South Goodwin Urbana, Illinois 61801 This first section asks questions about parks in Chicago and especially about the Lakefront Parks. We would like to know how you use the parks and what you think about them. When you answer these questions, please think about this past year. When a question asks about the Lakefront Parks, it might be helpful to look at the map printed on the cover of this booklet. The small lines and members to the right are for office use. Please ignore them. 1. IN GENERAL , DO YOU THINK THE QUALITY OF THE LAKEFRONT PARKS IS: (Check only one) VERY HIGH HIGH AVERAGE LOW VERY LOW 2. IN THE PAST YEAR, HAVE YOU USED ANY OF THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? YES NO WILL YOU WRITE BRIEFLY WHY NOT: 3. HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN GET TO THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? ( check only one) WALK RIDE A BICYCLE DRIVE A CAR RIDE A BUS ON THE "L" OTHER (specify) 4. PLEASE LOOK AT THE MAP ON THE COVER OF THE BOOKLET AND LIST THE THREE LAKEERMU PARKS YOU USED MOST OFTEN DURING THIS PAST YEAR. THEN CHECK HOW OFTEN YOU USED EACH PARK THIS PAST SUMMER AND THIS PAST WINTER. NAME OF LAKEFRONT PARK (list) ABOUT NOW OFTEN DID YOU USE-THIS PARK DURING THIS PAST: SUMMER WINTER check one for each park check one for each park C] ALMOST EVERY DAY [Z] ALMOST EVERY DAY MOST OFTEN USED: ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER. ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY SECOND MOST OFTEN USED: ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK r7 ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY THIRD MOST OFTEN USED: ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE AWEEK ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH r7 ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER 5. ABOUT HOW OFTEN DID YOU USE CHICAGO PARKS OTHER THAN -TEE L&KEER-OU EAR.KS THIS PAST SUMMER AND WINTER? SUMMER WINTER (check one) (check one) ALMOST EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY DAY ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE A MONTH ONCE OR TWICE THIS SUMMER ONCE OR TWICE THIS WINTER NEVER NEVER 6. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU THINK ADDITIONAL FACILITIES ARE NEEDED IN CHICAGO PARKS. ON THE LINES UNDER .NEEDED FACILITIES", LIST UP TO SIX ITEMS YOU THINK ARE NEEDED. AFTER YOU LIST A FACILITY, PLEASE CHECK ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE THE LAKEFRONT PARK(S) IN WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FACILITY LOCATED, AND/OR WRITE IN ANY OTHER CHICAGO PARK ON THi LINES PROVIDED. (The list of fa ailities on this page might help you in answering this question, but feet frog to list any facility you think is needed. The map on-the front cover of the booklet shows where each of the Lakefront Parke is located.) NORTH SIDE STREET END LOYOLA LI NCOLN GRANT BURNHAM JACKSON RAINBOW CALUMET OTHER CHICAGO NEEDED FACILITIES BEACHES PARK F" PARK PARK PARK PARK PARK PARKS (specify) r7 0 @ I r7 F-1 0 1= =1 ED M M M ED r_1 FACILITIES LIS? Archery Ranges Casting Poole Putting Greens Outdoor Theatres Softball Diamond Art Galleries Club Rooms Handball Courts Parking Lots Spray Pools AosembZy Halls Craft or Hobby Shope Harbor Facilities Picnic Areas Stadium Athletic Fields Croes-Country Ski Trails Launching Ramps Playgrounds Swimming Poole Baseball Diamonds Day Camp Areas Horseshoe Courts Restaurants Tennis Court8, Basketball Cburts Flower Gardens Bocoie Courts Ro8troome Trap Ranges Bathing Beaches FietdhouseeIGymnasiume Lagoons Running TrackolTraiZe Volleyball Court Beach Houses Fishing Areas Model Yacht Basins Rifle Ranges Walking Paths Bicycle Paths FootbaZZISocoor Fields Obstacle Fitness Course Senior Citizens Centers Wildlife Areas BowZing Greens Golf Courses Open Lawn Areas Shuffleboard Courts Youth Centers Bridle Paths Driving Ranges Open Paved Areas Skating Facilities 7, PLEASE WRITE ANY SUGGESTIONS YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE THE FACILITIES THAT ARE fift AVAILABLE IN THE LAKFFRONT PARKS: to, 8. IF THE CITY WERE TO ADD LAND TO THE LAKEFRONT PARK SYSTEM, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE IT ADDED? (Look at the diagruma bulow, and haok 11Y@,'S- Or "NO" for each O,jo) AS NEW SHORELINE LAND Y E 5 M YES -To NO AS PLNINSULAS AS ISLANDS Y E S NO NO 92 NEW SHORELINE PENINSUL ISLAND 9. IF THE CITY WERE TO ADD LAND TO THE LAKEFRONT PARK SYSTEM IN ANY OF THE WAYS SHOWN ABOVE, LIST UP TO EIGHT FACILITIES YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DEVELOPED ON THAT D@ND. -(Please list in order of importanoe tn yclu. Aga-.,-, the liat Of facilities will be helpful) ON NEW SHORELINE LAND ON NEW PENINSULAS ON NEW ISLANnS (liat facilities) (list faci Z. (list fa,ilities) 10. PLEASE READ EACH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS AND CHECK TFiE BOX UNDER "YES* IF YOU AGREE, UNDER "NO" IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, AND UNDER 'DON'T KNOW" IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU AGREE OR NOT, THEN FEEL FREE TO COMMENT ON ANY OF THE STATEMENTS .ON THE "COMMENT' LINES. DON'T YES NO KNOW COMMENT THE LAKEFRONT PARKS ARE GENERALLY CLEAN . . . . . . . . THERE SHOULD BE MORE OPEN GREEN SPACE IN THE -.4 LAKEFRONT PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE RE I S ADEQUA TE I N FORMAT I ON A BOU T THE P _ IAMS AND SERVICE OFFERED IN THE LAKFFRONT' 'iKS . . . . THE LAKFFRONT PARKS ARE EASY TO GET TO . . . . . . . . . THERE IS ADEQUATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM THE LAKEFRONT PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . THERE ARE ENOUGH BOATING FACILITIES IN THE LAKFFRONT PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A NEW PARK DEVELOPED NEAR My HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I WOULD PAY A REASONABLE FEE TO USE LAKEFRONT PARK FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS, SUCH AS TENNIS COURTS AND SAILING CLASSES . . . . . . . . . . . . PRIVATE BUSI NESSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE CERTAIN FACILITIES IN THE LAKFrRONT PARXS , SUCH AS RESTAURANTS AND AMUSEMENT PARKS . . . . . . THE LAKEFRONT PARKS ARE A SAFE PLACE TO no . . . . . . . THERE SHOULD RF MORF PARKING SPACE IN THE LAKrfPONT PARKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VISITORS TO THE LAKrFRONT PARKS, CAUSE TRAFr ic PRORLEMr; IN MY COMMON I TY . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOAT HARBORS ADD TO MY I NJOYMI NT or THE I,AVrrPONT PARK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jew wd would like to know something about what you do In your *par# time. 11. PLEASE LOOK AT THE LIST OF ACTIVITIES BELOW- IF YOU DO AN ACTIVITYj CHECK-TNE BOX ON THE RIGHT THAT BEST TELLS HOW OFTEN YOU DO IT, THEN CHECK "YES' IF YOU DO THE ACTIVITY IN THE LAKEFRONT PARKS AND 'NO" IF YOU DO NOT. If YOU DO NOT DO THE ACTIVITY, JUST SKIP TO THE NEXT ONE. THE FIRST PART OF THIS QUESTION IS FOR SMMM ACTIVITIES. AND THE SECOND PART IS FOR KIM= ACTIVITIES, (Tha example -Play Tennis" shows that th. activity is dome "ones or twice a monthO in the summer. and that it is done in the Lakafront Parke.) DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN HOW OFTEN 00 YOU PARTICIPATE? THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? ALMOST ONCE OR TWICE" EVERY A A THIS (_S(7MFErrCfW_1f1"5S DAY WEEK MONTH SEASON YES NO E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ff---bz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = - - - -- - - - - - - 7 _LrY T jNVI =------------ V!9___L:J ------ PLAY GOLF PLAY HORSESHOES PLAY BOCCIE PLAY TENNIS PLAY BASEBALL OR SOFTBALL PLAY VOLLEYBALL PLAY FOOTBALL, RUGBY OR SOCCER BICYCLE ED FISH SAIL OR MOTOR BOAT CANOE OR ROW SW:M :N A.POO1 SW M N T E LAKE OR LAGOONS WALK FOR PLEASURE RUN OR JOG PICNIC SUNBATHE DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN HOW OFTEN DO YOU PARTICIPATE? THE LAKEFRONT PARKS? ALMOST ONCE O@ TWICE EVERY A A THIS UPACR- Tc TiViTiTsl DAY WEEK MONTH SEASON YES NO L -- - - - - - - - WATCH PARK ACTIVITIES r7 4Y GO TO THE ZOO PLAY CARDS OR TABLE GAMES DRIVE FOR PLEASURE TARGET/TRAP SHOOT OR ARCHERY WATER SKI GO TID CONCERTS OR SPORTS EVENTS PARTY F-1 DO CRAFTS OR HOBBIES GO TO MUSEUMS OR DISPLAYS ED DO INDOOR SPORTS F-1 OTHER (specify) r7 X FWI@ @E4 A @TCfTKE7S' PLAY HOCKEY ICE SKATE r7 ,LED OR TOBOGGAN SWIM IN A POOL WALK FOR PLEASURE F-1 RUN OR JOG CROSS-COUNTRY SKI DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN NOW OFTEN DO YOU PARTICIPATE? THE LAKEPRONT PARXS7 ALMOST __ ONCE OR TWICE EVERY A A @l iflE @_iEi; -IZ7'1 E S71 TH I DAY WEEK MONTH SlAl.N YES NO GO TO THE ZOO CD M GO TO MUSEUMS OR DISPLAYS F-1 PLAY CARDS OR TABLE GAMES C3 1= Fl DRIVE FOR PLEASURE ED 0 ED ICE FISH ED ICE BOAT GO TO CONCERTS OR SPORTS EVENTS C3 PARTY r-1 =1 00 CRAFTS OR HOBBIES ED 00 INDOOR SPORTS WATCH PARK ACTIVITIES Fl OTHER (specify) M Fl 12. WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WM YOU DO NOT Do MORE OF THE THINGS OU LIKE TO DO. FOR ANY ACTIVITY ON THE LIST BELOW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO MORE, CHECK THE QM REASON THAT BEST DESCRIBES WHY YOU DO 01 DO IT MORE. (The exampZe shows that the main reason for not playing tennis more is that there is -no one to go with". CHECK ONLY ONE!) X At. @t xx "rp ACTIVITIES c@ ,, -r' ZMT"7 -7, TY -T E-N N-1 ------ -- --- -- --- -- --- --- -- --------------------- --- PLAY GOLF PLAY BOCCIE OR HORSESHOES PLAY TENNIS 7_1 F-1 PLAY BASEBALL OR SOFTBALL PLAY VOLLEYBALL E-1 PLAY FOOTBALL, RUGBY OR SOCCER c:3 -------------- BICYCLE FISH OR ICE FISH SAIL OR MOTOR BOAT CANOE OR ROW CD r7 M Cl RUN OR JOG F-1 C-3 WALK FOR PLEASURE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- PICNIC swim SUNBATHE GO TO THE ZOO, MUSEUMS OR DISPLAYS PLAY CARDS OR TABLE GAMES DRIVE FOR PLEASURE ED --------------- TRAP SHOOT OR ARCHERY M ED WATER SKI = GO TO CONCERTS OR SPORTS EVENTS r-1 r-1 PARTY "I '@o 4@. + 41 @ / ACTIVITIES 00 CRAFTS OR HOBBIES 00 INDOOR SPORTS PLAY HOCKEY OR ICE SKATE SLED OR TOBOGGAN r7 = r7 CROSS-COUNTRY SKI r7 = = ICE BOAT F-1 --------------- @TMER topecif;j F-I r I r-1 Next we mood to know some thing. about you. This information is completely confidential, and it will be used onZq to determine what groups You represent. We would aPPraciate it if You would answer all of these questions, but if you feel you cannot, Please answer as many as Possible. DO YOU OWN OR RENT YOUR HOME? (check only onei ARE YOU PRESENTLY: (check only onei M OWN EMPLOYED FULL TIME RENT EMPLOYED PART TIME LIVE WITH PARENTS FULL TIME HOMEMAKER OTHER (specify) FULL TIME STUDENT RETIRED NOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU LIVED IN YOUR COMMUNITY? UNEMPLOYED YEARS WHAT IS YOUR SEX? WHAT IS YOUR AGE? MALE FEMALE YEARS (Continued on back cover) WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? (If you are retired or not WHAT IS YOUR ETHNIC BACKGROUND? (check only one) presently working, describe your ueuuaZ job. if WHITE you have two, describe your main job.) BLACK HISPANIC AMERICAN INDIAN ORIENTAL OTHER (specify) WHAT WAS YOUR APPROXIMATE TOTAL HOUSEHOLD 1:. -ME BEFORE TAXES LAST YEAR (1977)? (check only c' WHAT IS YOUR MARITAL STATUS? rcheck only one) UNDER $5,000 $15,000 to $19,999 NEVER MARRIED $5,000 to $6,999 $20,000 to $24,999 MARRIED $7,000 to $8,999 $25,000 to $39,999 F___J SEPARATED $9,000 to $11,999 $40,000 and OVER = DIVORCED $12,000 to $14,999 r7 WIDOWED HOW MANY CHILDREN UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE LIVE IN YOUR HOME? CHILDREN WHAT IS THE HIGHEST GRADE THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL? (circle one number) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL/TRADE SCHOOL COLLEGE/TRADE SCHOOL GRADUATE SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 33 ----------------------------------------------------------------- IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE, PLEASE USE THIS SPACE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Than Vau for taking the time to fill out the booklet. Please return it to u,p "n the stamped return envelope. If you would like to have a summary of the results of the study, Please wr@ts Your name and address on the return envelope. 0 Appendix C I-IORKING CODEBOOK 0 ft 0 CHICAGO LAKEFRONT STUDY WORKING CODEBOOK SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN(S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE Cover 1-4 Schedule number (actual number) VAR001 0000 No response Cover 5 1 Card number (actual number) VAR002 Response Status 6 0 No response VAR003 1 Completed useable response 2 Unuseable response 3 Too old to respond 4 Moved, no forwarding address 5 Moved out of town 6 Forwarding time expired 7 Deceased 8 Mailed back blank questionnaire/ notified by respondent or refusal to participate Community 7 0 No response VAR004 1 Rogers Park 2 West Ridge 3 Uptown 4 Lincoln Square Should a summary be sent? 8 0 No, do not send summary VAR005 1 Yes, do send a summary 1. Quality of the lake- front parks 9 0 No response VAR006 1 Very high 2 High 3 Average 4 Low 5 Very low 2a. Used lakefront parks this year? 10 0 No response VAR007 1 Yes 2 No 2b. If not, why not? (answer #1 11-12 00 No response VAR008 01-99 See Reference List 2b 2b. If not, why not? (answer #2) 13-14 00 No response VAR009 01-99 See Reference List 2b 2 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN(S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 3. How do you get to the Lakefront Parks? 15-16 00 No response VAR010 01-99 See Reference List 3a 4a. Most often used park: 17 0 No response VAR011 1 Loyola Park 2 Street end beaches 3 Lincoln Park/Montrose Harbor 4 Grant Park 5 Burnham Park 6 Jackson Park 7 Rainbow Park 8 Calumet Park How often used-summer: 18 0 No response VAR012 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season How often used-winter: 19 0 No response VAR013 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season 4b. Second most often used park: 20 0 No response VAR014 1 Loyola Park 2 Street end beaches 3 Lincoln Park/Montrose Harbor 4 Grant Park 5 Burnham Park 6 Jackson Park 7 Rainbow Park 8 Calumet Park How often used-summer: 21 0 No response VAR015 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season How often used-winter: 22 0 No response VAR016 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once of twice this season 3 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN(S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 4c. Third most often used park: 23 0 No response VAR017 1 Loyola Park 2 Street end beaches 3 Lincoln Park/Montrose Harbor 4 Grant Park 5 Burnham Park 6 Jackson Park 7 Rainbow Park 8 Calumet Park How often used-summer: 24 0 No response VAR018 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season How often used-winter: 25 0 No response VAR019 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season How often were other non-lakefront parks used this summer: 26 0 No response VAR020 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season 5 Never 5b. How often were other non-lakefront parks used this winter: 27 0 No response VAR021 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season 5 Never 6a. Needed facility #1: 28-29 00 No response VAR022 01-99 See Facility List #1 is needed in these lakefront parks. 30-31 00 No response VAR023 01-99 See Reference List 6b #1 is needed in other non-lakefront parks. 32-33 00 No response VAR024 01-99 See Reference List 6c 4 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE b. Needed facility #2: 34-35 00 No response VAR025 01-99 See Facility List #2 is needed in these lakefront parks. 36-37 00 No response VAR026 01-99 See Reference List 6b #2 is needed in other non-lakefront parks, 38-39 00 No response VAR027 01-99 See Reference List 6c 6c. Needed facility #3: 40-41 00 No response VAR028 01-99 See Facility List #3 is needed in these lakefront parks. 42-43 00 No response VAR029 01-99 See Reference List 6b #3 is needed in other non-lakefront parks. 44-45 00 No response VAR030 01-99 See Reference List 6c 6d. Needed facility #4: 46-47 00 No response VAR031 01-99 See Facility List #4 is needed in these lakefront parks. 48-49 00 No response VAR032 01-99 See Reference List 6b #4 is needed in other non-lakefront parks. 50-51 00 No response VAR033 01-99 See Reference List 6c 6e. Needed facility #5: 52-53 00 No response VAR034 01-99 See Facility List #5 is needed in these lakefront parks. 54-55 00 No response VAR035 01-99 See Reference List 6b #5 is needed in other non-lakefront parks. 56-57 00 No response VAR036 01-99 See Reference List 6c 6f. Needed facility #6: 58-59 00 No response VAR037 01-99 See Facility List #6 is needed in these lakefront parks. 60-61 00 No response VARO38 01-99 See Reference List 6b #6 is needed in other non-lakefront parks. 62-63 00 No response VAR039 01-99 See Reference List 6c 5 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 7a. First suggestion for improving parks: 64-65 00 No response VAR040 01-99 See Referemce List 7 7b. Second suggestion for improving parks: 66-67 00 No response VAR041 01-99 See Reference List 7 7c. Third suggestion for improving parks: 68-69 00 No response VAR042 00-99 See Reference List 7 8a. Should there be new shoreline: 70 0 No response VAR043 1 Yes 2 No 8b. Should there be new peninsulas: 71 0 No response VAR044 1 Yes 2 No 8c. Should there be new islands: 72 0 No response VAR045 1 Yes 2 No 9a. Preferred facilities on NEW SHORELINE: #1 73-74 00 No response VAR046 01-99 See Facility List #2 75-76 00 No response VAR047 01-99 See Facility List #3 77-78 00 No response VAR048 01-99 See Facility List #4 79780 00 No response VAR049 01-99 See Facility List Cover 1-4 #### Schdule number (actual number) VVARO50 0000 No response Cover 5 2 Card number (actual number) VAR051 6 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE a. Preferred facilities on NEW SHORELINE(contd) 6-7 00 No response VAR052 #5 01-99 See Facility List #6 8-9 00 No response VAR053 01-99 See Facility List #7 10-11 00 No response VAR054 01-99 See Facility List #8 12-13 00 No response VAR055 01-99 See Facility List 9b. Preferred facilities on NEW PENINSULAS #1 14-15 00 No response VAR056 01-99 See Facility List #2 16-17 00 No response VAR057 01-99 See Facility List #3 18-19 00 No response VAR058 01-99 See Facility List #4 20-21 00 No response VAR059 01-99 See Facility List #5 22-23 00 No response VAR060 01-99 See Facility List #6 24-25 00 No response VAR061 01-99 See Facility List #7 26-27 00 No response VAR062 01-99 See Facility List #8 28-29 00 No response VAR063 01-99 See Facility List 9c. Preferred facilities on NEW ISLANDS #1 30-31 00 No response VAR064 01-99 See Facility List #2 32-33 00 No response VAR065 01-99 See Facility List #3 34-35 00 No response VAR066 01-99 See Facility List #4 36-37 00 No response VAR067 01-99 See Facility List 7 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARTABLE Preferred facilities on NEW ISLAND (contd) #5 3S-39 00 No response VAR068 01-99 See Facility List #6 40-41 00 No response VAR069 01-99 See Facility List #7 42-43 00 No response VAR070 01-99 See Facility List #8 44-45 00 No response VAR071 01-99 See Facility List 10a. The lakefront parks are clean: 46 0 No response VAR072 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 47-48 00 No response VAR073 01-99 See Reference List 10 10b. More open green 49 0 No response VAR074 space: 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 50-51 00 No response VAR075 01-99 See Reference List 10 10c. Adequate information about programs: 52 0 No response VAR076 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 53-54 00 No response VAR077 01-99 See Reference List 10 10d. Easy to get to lakefront parks: 55 0 No response VAR078 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 56-57 00 No response VARo79 01-99 See Reference List 10 8 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 10e. Adequate transporta- tion to and from lakefront parks: 58 0 No response VARO80 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 59-60 00 No response VAR081 01-99 See Reference List 10 10f. Enough boating facili- ties in lakefront parks: 61 0 No response VAR082 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 62-63 00 No response VAR083 01-99 See Reference List 10 10g. New park near home: 64 0 No response VAR084 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 65-66 00 No response VAR085 01-99 See Reference List 10 10h. Pay reasonable fee: 67 0 No response VAR086 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 68-69 00 No response VAR087 01-99 See Reference List 10 10i. Private businesses in lakefront parks: 70 0 No response VAR088. 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 71-72 00 No response VAR089 01-99 See Reference List 10 10j. Lakefront parks are a safe place to go: 73 0 No response VAR090 I Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 74-75 00 No response VAR091 01-99 See Reference List 10 9 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE VARLE 19k. More parking space in lakefront parks: 76 O No response VAR092 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 77-78 00 No response VARO93 01-99 See Reference List 10 Cover 1-4 Schedule number (actual number) VAR094 0000 No response Cover 5 3 Card number (actual number) VAR095 10L. Visitors cause traffic problems: 6 0 No response VAR096 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 7-8 00 No response VAR097 01-99 See Reference List 10 10m. Boat harbors add to enjoyment: 9 0 No response VAR098 1 Agree 2 Disagree 3 Don't know Comment 10-11 00 No response VAR099 01-99 See Reference List 10 11. How often do you participate in: Golf, a 12 0 No response VAR100 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Golf, b 13 0 No response VAR101 1 Yes 2 No Horseshoes, a 14 0 No response VAR102 I Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season 10 S C1 1 E, D U I -. E 0 " 7 E@ S-T 10 N COI,U--\(S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 01. flow often do you participate in:(contd) Horseshoes, b 15 0 No response VAR103 1 Yes 2 No Boccie, a 16 0 No response VAR104 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Boccie, b 17 0 No response VAR105 1 Yes 2 No Tennis, a 18 0 No response VAR106 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Tennis, b 19 0 No response VAR107 1 Yes 2 No vp Baseball, a 20 0 No response VAR108 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Baseball, b 21 0 No response VAR109 1 Yes 2 No Volleyball, a 22 0 No response VAR110 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Volleyball, b 23 0 No response VAR111 1 Yes 2 No Football, a 24 0 No response 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE ll. How often do you participate in (contd) Football, b 25 0 No response VAR113 1 Yes 2 No Bicycle, a 26 0 No response VAR114 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Bicycle, b 27 0 No response VAR115 1 Yes 2 No Fish, a 28 0 No response VAR116 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Fish, b 29 0 No response VAR117 1 Yes 2 No Sail/Motor boat, a 30 0 No response VAR118 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Sail/Motor boat, b 31 0 No response VAR119 1 Yes 2 No Canoe or row, a 32 0 No response VAR120 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Canoe or row, b 33 0 No response VAR121 1 Yes 2 No 12 SCIIIFDULE COLUMN (S) CODE ilrEill VARIABLE W111. IIuw often do you pai:ticip,.-ite in: (contd) Swim in pool, a 34 0 No response VAR122 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Swim in pool, b 35 0 No response VAR123 I Yes 2 No Swim in lake, a 36 0 No response VAR124 I Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Swim in lake, b 37 0 No response VAR125 1 Yes 2 No Walk, a 38 0 No response VAR126 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Walk, b 39 0 No response VAR127 1 Yes 2 No Run or jog, a 40 0 - No response VAR128 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Run or job, b 41 0 No response VAR129 1 Yes 2 No Picnic, a 42 0 No response VAR130 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season b 43 0 No response VAI,131 1 Yes 2 No 13 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 11. How often do you participate in: (contd) Sunbathe, a 44 0 No response VAR132 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Sunbathe, b 45 0 No response VAR133 1 Yes 2 No Watch activities, a 46 0 No response VAR134 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Watch activities, b 47 0 No response VAR135 1 yes 2 No Go to zoo, a 48 0 No response VAR136 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Go to zoo, b 49 0 No response VAR137 1 Yes 2 No Play cards, a 50 0 No response VAR138 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Play cards, b 51 0 No response VAR139 1 Yes 2 No Drive, a 52 0 No response VAR140 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Drive, b 53 0 No ressponse VAR141 1 Yes 2 No 14 E, ST 1014 COLU@I'N'(S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE How often do you participate in:(contd) Target shoot, a 54 0 No response VAR142 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Target shoot, b 55 0 No response VAR143 1 Yes 2 No Water ski, a 56 0 No response VAR144 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once of twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Water ski, b 57 0 No response VAR145 1 Yes 2 No 0 Go to concerts, a 58 0 - No response VAR146 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Go to concerts, It 59 0 No response VAR147 1 Yes 2 No Party, a 60 0 No response VAR148 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Party, b 61 0 No response VAR149 1 Yes 2 140 Do crafts, a 62 0 No response VAR150 I Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season b 63 0 No response 1. 5 1 1 Yes 2 No 15 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 1. How often do you participate in:(contd) Go to museums, a 64 0 No response VAR152 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Go to museums, b 65 0 No response VAR153 1 Yes 2 No Do indoor sports, a 66 0 No response VAR154 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Do indoor sports, b 67 0 No response VAR155 1 Yes 2 No Other: #1 68-69 See Activity List VAR156 How often: 70 0 No response VAR157 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season At lakefront parks: 71 0 No response VAR158 1 Yes 2 No Other: #2 72-73 See Activity List VAR159 How often: 74 0 No response VAR160 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season At lakefront parks: 75 0 No response VAR161 1 Yes 2 No Other #3 76-77 See Activity List VAR162 How often: 78 0 No response VAR163 Almost every day 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season 16 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 11. How often do you participate in: (contd) Other #3 At lakefront parks: 79 0 No response VAR164 1 Yes 2 No Cover 1-4 #### Schedule number (actual number) VAR165 0000 No response Cover 5 4 Card number (actual number) VAR166 Play hockey, a 6 0 No response VAR167 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Play hockey, b 7 0 No response VAR168 1 Yes 2 No Ice skate, a 8 0 No response VAR169 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Ice skate, b 9 0 No response VAR170 1 Yes 2 No Sled, a 10 0 No response VAR171 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Sled, b 11 0 No response VAR172 1 Yes 2 No Swim in pool, a 12 0 No response VAR173 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once of twice this season Swim in pool, b 13 0 No response VAR174 1 Yes 2 No 17 MILE I'l ON COLUTNI(S) CODE ITEM VARTAB-LE W--often do Vou participate in:(contd) Wa I k, a 14 0 No response VAR175 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Walk, b 15 0 No response VAR176 1 Yes 2 No Run or jog, a 16 0 No response VAR177 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Run or jog, b 17 0 No response VAR178 1 Yes 2 No X-country ski, a 18 0 No response VAR179 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 On4@e or twice this season X-country ski, b 19 0 No response VAR180 I Yes 2 No Go to zoo, a 20 0 No response VAR181 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Go to zoo, b 21 0 No response VAR182 1 Yes 2 No Go to museum, a 22 0 No response VAR183 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Go to museum, b 23 0 ;o rcsponse 1 Yes 2 No 18 DUIEST WN COLELN (S) CODE ITEM VARTABLE I'low often do you pz;rt i c i-pate in: (coritd) Play cards, a 24 0 No response VAR185 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Play cards, b 25 0 No response VAR136 1 Yes 2 No Drive, a 26 0 No response VAR187 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Drive, b 27 0 No response VAR188 1 Yes 2 No Ice fish, a 28 0 No response VAR189 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Ice fish, b 29 0 No response VAR190 1 Yes 2 No Ice boat, a 30 0 No response VAR191 I Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Ice boat, b 31 0 No response VAR192 1 Yes 2 No Go to concerts, a 32 0 No response VAR193 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a mont 4 Once or twice this season Go to concerts, b 33 0 No response I Yes 2 No 19 ,jj;Li2 L s r 10 Nz, COLL-@iN (S) C 0 D IT EM VARTABLE, How often do you participate in:(contd) Party, a 34 0 No response VAR195 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Party, b 35 0 No response VAR196 I Yes 2 No Do crafts, a 36 0 No response VAR197 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Do crafts, b 37 0 No response VAR198 1 Yes 2 No Do indoor sports, a 38 0 No response VAR199 0 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 once or twice this season Do indoor sports, b 39 0 No response VAR200 1 Yes 2 No Watch activities, a 40 0 No response VAR201 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season Watch activities, b 41 0 No response VAR202 I Yes 2 No Other: #1 42-43 See "Other" Activity List VAR203 How often: 44 0 No response VAR204 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Onc e or twice a month 4 Once-or twice this season At lakefront parks: 45 0 No response VAR205 1 Yes 2 No 20 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 11. How often do you participate in: (contd) Other: #2 46-47 See "Other" Activity List VAR206 How often: 48 0 No response VAR207 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season At lakefront parks: 49 0 No response VAR208 1 Yes 2 No Other #3 50-51 See "Other" Activity List VAR209 How often: 52 0 No response VAR210 1 Almost every day 2 Once or twice a week 3 Once or twice a month 4 Once or twice this season At lakefront parks: 53 0 No response VAR211 1 Yes 2 No 12. Why don't you do more: Golf 54 0 No response (don't want to do more) VAR212 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Boccie 55 0 No response (don't want to do more) VAR-213 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 21 1. ON C 0 LUI LN-( SCODE ITEI-I VARIABLE 12. 1-@Iiy don't you do -Piore: (contd) Tennis 56 0 'No response (don't want to do more) VAR214 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Baseball 57 0 No response (don't want to do more) VAR215 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Volleyball 58 0 No response (don'twant to do more) VAR216 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Football 59 0 No response (don't wat to do more) VAR217 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 22 SCHEDULE OU F ST i ON COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARTABLE WMy don't you do more: (contd) Bicycle 60 0 ',,'o response (don't want to do more) VAR218 1 Not enouoh time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Fish or ice fish 61 0 No response (don't want to do more) VAR219 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Sail or motor boat 62 0 No response(donit want to do more) VAR220 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Canoe or row 63 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR221 I Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to co with C, Run or jog 64 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR222 1 Not enough time 2 Cos-ts too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 23 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 12. Why don't you do more: (contd) Walk for pleasure 65 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR223 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Picnic 66 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR224 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Swim 67 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR225 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Sunbathe 68 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR226 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Go to zoo 69 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR227 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with S(-, ii, FD I JLE OU 1S F 10 COLUM" (S) CODE I EM VARIABLE Why donit you do more: (contd) Play cards 70 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR228 1 Not onouoh time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Faciliti(--s too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 go way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Drive for pleasure 71 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR229 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Trap shoot 72 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR230 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Water ski 73 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR231 I Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Go to concerts 74 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR232 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not avail-i@,!-e 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime @6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 25 SCIIFDULE 0,(, 1: ST I ON COLU"IN(S) CODE TT EM VARIABLE you do more: (contd) part-Y 75 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR233 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Do crafts 76 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR234 I Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 0 Indoor sports 77 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR235 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Play hockey or skate 78 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR236 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Sled or toboggan 79 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR237 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 0 3 Facilities I)OL available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to Ro with 26 VARTABI-E (S) CODE ITEM Vhy dontt you do more: (contd) 30 No 1-c-qi,,onse(elon't @--,ant to do more) VAR-938 ski 0 1 Not enouch tine 2 costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Cover 1-4 Schedule number (actual number) VAR239 0000 No response Cover 5 5 Card number (actual number) VAR240 Ice boat 6 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR241 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Other: #1 7-8 See Activity List VAR242 Why not more? 8 0 No response(don It want to do more) VAR243 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with Other #2 10-11 See Activity List VAR244 Why not more? 12 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR245 1 Not enough tine 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not available 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 27 S C I 11r," D U 1, E U 1-1 S T I ON COLU-IN (S) CODE ITFM VARTABLE 02 Ti-Ni,y don't you do more: (contd) Other: 1# 3 13-14 See --lctivity List VA R 02116 Why not more? 15 0 No response(don't want to do more) VAR247 1 Not enough time 2 Costs too much 3 Facilities not avialable 4 Facilities too far away 5 Fear of crime 6 Bad health 7 No way to get there 8 Don't know where to go 9 No one to go with 13a. Do you own or rent your home: 16 0 No response VAR248 1 Own 2 Rent 3 Live with parents 4 Other Other: 17 0 No response VAR249 1 Live in retirement home 2 Hospital/nursing home 3 Dormitory b. Are you presently: 18 0 No response VAR250 1 Employed full time 2 Employed part time 3 Full time homemaker 4 Full time student 5 Retired 6 Unemployed c. How many years lived in you community? 19-20 ACTUAL NU11BER OF YEARS LISTED VAR251 00 No response d. What is your sex? 21 0 No response VAR252 1 Male 2 Female e. What is your age? 22-23 ACTUAL NUMBER OF YEARS LISTED VAR253 00 No response f. What is your occupa- tion? 24-25 00 No response VAR254 03-98 Duncan SES 01 Housewife 02 Student 99 Retired 28 SCHEDULE QUESTION COLUMN (S) CODE ITEM VARIABLE 13. (contd) g. What is your ethnic background: 26-27 00 No response VAR255 01 White 02 Black 03 Hispanic 04 American Indian 05 Oriental 06 Other REFER',7NCE LIST 3a I-lay To Get To The Lakefront Parks' Code ILci-,i or Combination of ILe-,is Code Item or Combination of Ttems 01 Walk 28 Drive car/Ride bus 02 Ride a bicycle 29 Drive car/Ride "Ll' 03 Drive a car 30 Drive car/Ride with friend 04 Ride a bus 31 Drive car/Motorcycle 05 On the "L" 32 Drive car/Drive boat 06 Other #1: Ride with friend 33 Drive car/Other #4 07 Other #2: Motorcycle 34 Drive car/Other #5 08 Other #3: Boat 35 Ride bus/Ride "L" 09 Other #4: 36 Ride bus/Ride with friend 10 Other #5: 37 Ride bus/Motorcycle 11 Walk/Ride bicycle 38 Ride bus/Drive boat 12 Walk/Drive car 39 Ride bus/Other #4 13 Walk/Ride bus 40 Ride bus/Other #5 0 4 Walk/Ride "L" 41 Ride "L"/Ride with friend 5 Walk/Ride with friend 42 Ride "L"/Motorcycle 16 Walk/Motorcycle 43 Ride "L"/Drive boat 17 Walk/Boat 44 Ride "L"/Other #4 18 Walk/Other #4 45 Ride 'I'Vother #5 19 Walk/Other #5 46 Ride with friend/Motorcycle 20 Ride bicycle/Drive car 47 Ride with friend/Drive boat 21 Ride bicycle/Ride bus 48 Ride with friend/Other #4 22 Ride bicycle/Ride "L" 49 Ride with friend/Other #5 23 Ride bicycle/Ride with friend 50 Motorcycle/Drive boat 24 Ride bicycle/Ride m'otorcycle 51 Motorcycle/Other #4 25 Ride bicycle/Drive boat 52 Motorcycle/Other #5 26 Ride bicycle/Other #4 53 Boat/Other #4 27 Ride bicycle/Other #5 54 Boat/Other #5 55 Other #4/Other #5 REFERE.NCE LIST 6a Park Combinations Code Combinations Code Combinations 01 No-rthside Street End Beaches 29 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln 02 Loyola 30 Lincoln/Grant/Burnliari M @3 Lincoln 31 Northside/Loyla/Lincoln/Grant/Jacks( 04 Grant 32 Lincoln/Grant/Jackson 05 Burnham 33 All but Grant 06 Jackson 34 Loyla/Lincoln/Burnhan,/Jackson 07 Rainbow 35 Loyla/Lincoln/Burnham 08 Calumet 36 All but Northside 09 Northside/Loyola 37 All but Northside/Loyola 10 Northside/Lincoln 38 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln/Jackson 11 Northside/Grant 39 Loyola/Lincoln/Rainbow 12 Northside/Burnham 40 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln/Burnham 13 Northside/Jackson 41 Lincoln/Burnham/Jackson/Rairibow/Cali 04 Loyola/Lincoln 42 Northside/Loyola/Burnham 15 Loyola/Grant 43 Lincoln./Grant/Jackson/Calumet 16 Loyola/Burnham 44 Lincoln/Burnham/Calumet 17 Loyola/Jackson 45 Loyola/Lincoln/Grant/Jackson/Rainbo@ 18 Lincoln/Grant 46 Loyola/Lincoln/Jackson Calumet 19 Lincoln/Burnham 47 Lincoln/Jackson/Rainbow 20 Lincoln/Jackson 48 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln/Jackson/Ca' 21 Grant/Burnham 49 Loyola/Lincoln/Grant/Burnham/Jacksoi Calumet 22 Grant/Jackson 50 Northside/Grant/Burnahm 23 Burnham/Jackson - 51 Loyola/Grant/Lincoln/Burnham 24 Loyola/Lincoln/Grant 52 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln/Grant/BurnI 25 Northside/Lincoln/Grant 53 Northside/Lincoln/Burnham 26 Lincoln/Rainbow 54 Lovola/Jackson/Rainbow/Calumet 27 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln/Grant 55 liorthside/Loyola/Burnham/Jackson/ Rainbow/Ca 28 Northside/Loyola/Lincoln 56 Burnham/Jackson/Rainbow/Calumet REFFREN-CE LTST 6c Other Ctiicaz-,o Park Facility is Needed IN: Code Name of Park 01 Horner Park 02 Wells Park 03 Senn Park 04 Indian Boundary 05 Warren 06 Pottawatamie 07 River 08 Chase 09 Mather 10 Green Briar 11 Margak 12 Winnemac 13 Rogers 14 Garfield 15 Lerner 16 Schriber Park 17 Olive 18 Waveland 19 Gross 20 Peterson 21 Toughy 22 Foster 23 Portage 24 Pratt 25 Oz 26 Belmont 27 Jensen 28 Pottawatamie/Rogers 29 Emmerson 30 Shabona 31 Lunt 32 N. Branch Chicago River Development REFERENCE LIST 7 Sugg',ostions for li-,-.provemont Code I t cm 01 Coneral r,.nilnten@,,nce (i.e., clean up general litter) 02 Broken glass 03 Clean the restrooms 04 Have more restrooms/keep open year round 05 Parks are generally unsafe 06 Fear of juvenile deliquents/problem with kids 07 Fear of crime generally 08 Increase security 09 Too expensive 10 More liabting 11 Improve food service 12 Improve transportation 13 More shade, trees, etc. 14 Parking is a problem 15 Lack of information on facilities, programs, etc. 16 Beaches too rocky, better sand needed, etc. 17 Dog/pet problem 18 Improve programming generally C@ 19 Develop more/better boating facilities 20 More/better facilities developed, NOT boating, but other 21 Improve/increase present parks 22 Limit private facilities 23 Limit development 24 Keep politics out of it 25 Repair roads/paths 26 Dissatisfaction with personnel 27 Fix the breakwater/improve fishing areas 28 More benches, tables, shelters 29 More restaurants/concessions 30 Improve present facilities and equipment 31 Control ethnic problem 32 Have programs/facilities available more or better hours 33 %fore natural areas 34 Have fees for services, zoo, etc. 35 Enf6rce rules/fines R1--1FFR'E'NCE LIST 10 Co m- ents Code Comments 01 General emphasis 02 Very Specific qualifer 03 Limit development generally 04 Incerase public transportation services 05 Serve low income people better 06 Serve senior citizens better 07 Park district should economize on personnel 08 Parks are not safe at night 09 Violence 10 Expand or improve existing parks/beaches 11 Cost/money/tax concerns 12 Does not own a boat 13 Negative on,boating 14 Limit parking to patrons/parking problems 15 Varies from park to park 16 Already have a park nearby 17 Maintenance problems in general (litter) 18 Make information more readily available 19 Keep politics out of it 20 City owned/operated 21 More trees, vegetation 22 Negative on cars 23 Public transportation unsafe 24 People don't take care of parks/just don't care 25 More trash containers/garbage facilities 26 No more additional boating or boating facilities 27 Have free parking 28 Have more boating facilities Other List for "DO YOU OWNT OR RENT YOUR HOME" Code Item 1 Nursing home 2 Retirement home 3 Dormitory 4 Convent 5 Church rectory 6 Room in hotelbrotel "OTHER" ACTIVITIES LITS Code Activity 01 Clubs (any kind) 02 Racquetball 03 Exercise class 04 Basketball 05 Children's day camp 06 Frisbee 07 Horseback Riding 08 Bird watching 09 Yoga class 10 Tobagganing 11 Photography 12 Indoor swimming 13 Weight lifting 14 Square dance and dance 15 Dram@ 16 Obstacle fitness course 17 Concerts 99 Miscelleneous REFERENCE LIST 2b Reasons for NOT Using Lakefront Parks Code Reason for NOT Using Lakefront Parks 01 No enough time 02 Too busy 03 Generally not interested 04 Use other areas (i.e., other parks, yards, etc.) 05 Too old and age related infirmities 06 Physically unable, infirmities not specifically related to age 07 Parks are dirty with litter 08 Facilities (especially restrooms) are dirty 09 Parks are generally dirty 10 Fear of crime 11 Lack of protection 12 Parks are generally unsafe 13 Parks are too far aw@y 14 Lack of transportation 15 Out of town 16 No specific reason 17 Parks are too crowded 18 No one to go with 19 Public transportation is unsafe 20 Too much anti-social behavior 21 No handicapped access (curbs) 22 Lack of parking FACILITIES LIST Code Facility Code Facility 01 Archery r;inges 57 Shade 02 Art galleries 58 Bike parking 03 Assembly halls 59 Concerts 04 Athletic fields 60 Piers 05 Baseball di.:@:-.1,),Ids' 61 Boat rental.s/classes facilitic 62 Dog or pet areas 06 Basketball courts 0 07 Bathing beaches 63 Tables for games 08 Beach house-. 64 Drinking fountains 09 Bicycle paths 65 Under water studies 10 Bowling greens 66 Viewing area 11 Bridle paths 67 Phones 12 Casting pools 68 Bus service 13 Club rooms 69 Beaches 14 Craft/hobby shops 70 Nature centers 15 Cross-country ski trails 71 Skateboard/rollerland 16 Day camp areas 72 B-B-Q grills 17 Flower gardens 73 Garbage cans 18 Fieldhouses/gymasiums 74 Trees, vegetation 19 Fishing areas 75 Bridge 20 Football/soccer fields 76 Horse stables 21 Golf courses 77 Trails 22 Driving ranges 78 Amusement park 0 79 Special handicapped facilities 23 Putting greens 80 Bicycle rental Handball courts/racquetball 81 Campsites 25 Harbor facilities 82 Frisbee/golf course 26 Launching ramps C. 83 Transportation to island (ferr 27 Horseshoe courts 84 First aid station 28 Boccie courts 85 Horse and carriages 29 Lagoons 86 Information signs 30 Model yacht basins 87 Locker rooms 31 Obstacle fitness course 88 Arboretum 32 Open lawn areas 89 Culture center-dance and drama 33 Open paved areas 90 Sledding run 34 Outdoor theatres 91 Puppet shows 35 Parking losts 36 Picnic areas 99 Miscellaneous 37 Playgrounds 38 Restaurants/food service 39 Restrooms 40 Runningtracks/trails 41 Rifle ranges --pistol 42 Senior citizens centers 43 Shuffleboard courts 44 Skating facilities 45 Softball diamond 46 Spray pool 47 Stadium 48 Swimming pools 49 Tennis courts 50 Trap ranges courts -12 1-.'alking parhs 53 Wildlife areas 54 Youth centers 55 Lighted area 56* Benches-shelters 0 Appendix D POSTAGE AND PRINTING COSTS ITEMIZED f I 0 6 I 0 Appendix D POSTAGE COSTS 1TE1'.11ZED January, 1979 First mailing of 10,900 pieces @ $.41 each $4,469.00 10,900 return envelopes @ $.28 each 3,052.00 Postcard follow-up of 10,980 pieces @ $.10 each 1,090.00 Second mailing (assuming 35% already returned) of 7,085 @ $.41 each 2,905.00 7,0305 return envelopes @ $.23 each 1,984.00 Third mailing (assuming 50% already returned) of 53,450 @ $.41 each plus $.80 for certification 6,595.00 5,450 return envelopes @ $.28 each 1,526.00 SUB TOTAL $21,621.00 Plus miscellaneous postage 379.00 TOTAL ........................... $22,000.00 If a summary of results is offered, there might be an additional cost of up to $2,500.00. Appendix D PRINTING COST ITEMIZED Questionnaire, 25,000 @ $.13 each $4,500.00 10 x 13" envelopes, 25,000 @ $.06 each 1,500.00 9 x 12" envelopes, 25,000 @ $.05 each 1,250.00 Postcard, 10,900 @ $.02 each 218.00 Follow-up letters, 13,000 @ $.02 each 260.00 TOTAL: 0,728.00 . , 5 @R,@Jjj@ lll@ @@ @1111@ 3 6668 14103 7459 I