NANAIMO'S MUNICIPAL PARKS: A USERS' STUDY OF NATURE TRAILS by Susan Bullock B.A. , Eastern Washington University, 1994 RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES © Susan Bullock, 2001 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2001 All rights reserved . This work may not be reprodu ced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other mea ns, without the permission of the author. ABSTRACT The purpose of th1s research 1s to measure the perceptions and demands placed on Nana1mo's municipal park trails The present tra1l users' attitudes, use patterns , v1ews on present and future development, and op1n1ons on dog use and other multiple use 1ssues were analyzed Three different survey methods - observational stud1es , person to person 1nterv1ews, and focus groups - were ut1l1zed to help reduce bu1lt m respondent and 1nterv1ewer b1as and mcrease the val1d1ty and rel1ab1l1ty of the results These three survey types were undertaken 1n combmat1on w1th a recreat1on mventory of the e1ght nature trail s1tes 1ncluded m the study Bas1c results suggest that trail users are happy w1th the present level of park mamtenance and the number of cyclists , but are concerned w1th safety 1ssues such as vandalism and the large number of uncontrolled dogs m the parks Recommendations for the future use and development of the nature trails were generated from the data collected and was submitted to the Nana1mo Parks Plann1ng Department. ll TABLE OF CONTE NTS ABSTRACT . ... ... ... ... ... ... . .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. II TABLE OF CONTENTS . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Ill LIST OF TABLES . v LIST OF FIGURES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••• 0 000 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v CHAPTER 1 -I NTRODUCTION Background and Rat1onal ...... .. . . . . .... .... .. ... ...... .. ........................ .. Purpose and ObJeCtives .... . ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. .... . Organ1zat1on of the Report ... .. .. . .. .. ... ... .. .... .. . .. . ................................. .. 6 6 CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW S1gn1ficance of Parks for Le1sure .. .. .. ... .. ............................. .. Canad1an Mun 1c1pal Parks H1story .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. ...... .. .. ........... .. Benefits of Parks and Recreat1on . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ...... .. Factors that Influence Part1C1pat1on 1n Recrea 1on ........................... . ......................... . PubliC Park Plann1ng Process Community Development. . .... .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . .. . ............................... . .......................................... . Soc1al Plannmg .. .................................. .. Trail Plann1ng , Development and Standards .. . S1te Plann1ng ..................................... . S1te Des1gn .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . ........................................ . Trail Construction .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . . ................................. .. Hik1ng Tra1ls . .. ..... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .... . .. .. .......... .. B1cycle Tra1ls . . . ... .... ...... .... ........ ..... .. .... ...... ... . . .... ..... .. . .. .. Equestnan Tra1ls ... .. . . .. .... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. . .... . ... .. .. . ....... . A TV and Motor Bike Tra1ls ........................................................ . Multi- Use Trails .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . ................................................. .. Park Signage and Interpretation .................................................... . 10 10 10 15 ••••••••••••••••••••••• 00 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• • • ••••••••••••••••••••••••• CHAPTER 3- STUDY AREA ............................................................................... . City of Nanaimo Park History ................................................................... . Nanaimo's Urban Nature Trails .................................................................. . Westvvood Lake ............................................................................ . Colliery Dam ................................................................................ . Cable Bay .................................................................................... . Biggs/Jack Point ........................................................................... . Pipers Lagoon .............................................................................. . Morrell Sanctuary .......................................................................... . Buttertubs Marsh ........................................................................... . Divers Lake .................................................................................. . CHAPTER 4- RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................. . Recreation Inventories ............................................................................. .. Observational Studies .............................................................................. .. Interview s ............................................................................................... . Focus Groups ......................................................................................... . Delimitations ........................................................................................... . lll 7 8 17 19 19 21 23 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 31 32 35 35 36 38 42 44 46 47 50 53 56 61 61 61 63 65 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .·········································································........................... II TABLE OF CO NTENTS ... . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ill LIST OF TABLES ......................................... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . . .. ... ... ... ... ... v LIST OF FIGURES v ..... . •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION Background and Rattonal . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. ................ . Purpose and ObJecttves ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ..... ....... ... ... ... .. . .. ... ... . . ...... . Organtzat1on of the Report. ..... . . . . . .... . .... .. ... . .. .. . .................................. . 6 6 CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW Stgn1ficance of Parks for Letsure .. .. . . .. . . ................................. . Canadtan Muntctpal Parks Htstory . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. ... . ............. . Benefits of Parks and Recreatton .. . .................... . Factors that Influence Parttctpatton tn Recreat1on . .. .. ... .. . .. .... .. ...... . PubliC Park Planntng Process . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . Community Development ....................................................... . Soctal Plann1ng .......................................... .. Tra1l Plann1ng , Development and Standards . . . ..................................... . S1te Plann1ng . .. . ..................................... . Site Destgn . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . ....................... . Trail Constructton .. . .... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . .................................. . H1king Tratls . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . .. .. . .. .. ............... . B1cycle Tratls . . . . . . ......................................................... . Equestnan Trails .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ....................... .. ATV and Motor Bike Tratls ...................................................... .. Multi-Use Tratls . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ................................................ .. Park Sign age and lnterpretatton ................................................... . 10 10 10 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 0 •••••••••••••••• CHAPTER 3- STUDY AREA .............................................................................. . City of Nanaimo Park History .................................................................... .. Nanaimo's Urban Nature Trails .................................................................. . Westvvood Lake ............................................................................ . Colliery Dam ............................................................................... . Cable Bay .................................................................................... . Biggs/Jack Point ........................................................................... . Pipers Lagoon .............................................................................. . Morrell Sanctuary ......................................................................... .. Buttertubs Marsh ........................................................................... . Divers Lake .................................................................................. . CHAPTER 4- RESEARCH METHODS .................................................................. . Recreation Inventories .............................................................................. . Observational Studies ............................................................................... . Interviews ............................................................................................... . Focus Groups ......................................................................................... . Delimitations ........................................................................................... . Ill 7 8 15 17 19 19 21 23 23 25 26 28 29 30 31 31 32 35 35 36 38 42 44 46 47 50 53 56 61 61 61 63 65 66 CHAPTER 5- RESULTS ... Observational Stud1es . ... I nterv1ews . Focus Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 0 •• 0. 0 0 0 0 0. 0 ••••• 0 ••• 0 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• CHAPTER 6- DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Recommendations Site Spec1f1c Recommendations Westwood Lake Colliery Dam Cable Bay B1ggs/Jack Pomt . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ....... P1pers Lagoon Morrell Sanctuary Buttertubs Marsh D1vers Lake .0. 0 68 68 0 ••••••••••• 0 •••••••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 78 89 96 97 97 97 98 0 •••••• 100 100 100 101 101 101 CHAPTER 7 - BIBLIOGRAPHY 103 APPENDIX 1 Observation Stud1es Form 111 APPENDIX 2 lnterv1ew Quest1onna1re 112 APPENDIX 3 Focus Group Questions 116 APPENDIX 4 Areas for Future Park Development 118 APPENDIX 5 Suggested Improvements for IndiVIdual Parks 120 APPENDIX 6 lndiv1dual Park Concerns and Suggest1ons 122 APPENDIX 7 Complaints Regarding Other Trail Users.. .. .. . .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ...... 125 lV LIST OF TABLES Table #1 Use Patterns of P1pers Lagoon Park 70 Table #2 Use Patterns of Westwood Lake Park 72 Table #3 Use Patterns of Colliery Dam Park 73 Table #4 Use Patterns of D1vers Lake Park 74 Table #5 Use Patterns of B1ggs/Jack Po1nt Park 75 Table #6 Use Patterns of Cable Bay Trail 76 Table #7 Use Patterns of Buttertubs Marsh Sanctuary 77 Table #8 Use Patterns of Morrell Nature Sanctuary 78 Table #9 Total Types of Act1v1t1es 80 Table #10 Reasons for Choos1ng Park Trail 81 Table #11 Park V1S1tat1on Rates 85 LIST OF FIGURES Figure #1 Social Plann1ng Process 23 Figure #2 Tra11 Types 26 Figure #3 Nanaimo's Municipal Nature Trails 37 Figure #4 Average Amount of Park Users Per Day 68 Figure #5 Park Users Preferences for Time of Day 69 Figure #6 Park Users by Age Categories 79 Figure #7 Satisfaction Levels of Park Users 83 Figure #8 Park Use by Age and Time of Day 85 v NANAIMO'S MUNICIPAL PARKS : A USERS ' STUDY OF NAT UR TRAI S INTRODUCT ION Background and Ration al The C1ty of Nana1mo , along w1th most mun1c1pal parks and recreat1on departments, have long s1nce recogn1zed the benefits of outdoor recreat1on . urban parks , and green space to both the community and the Individual Urban par s ma1ntam green spaces and areas for recreation , prov1de hab1tat for nat1ve plants and an1mals preserve w1ldl1fe corndors , prov1de shade , offer aesthetic benefits and clean he a1r They also have a healing effect by rel1evmg mental stress . 1ncreasmg JOb sat1sfact1on . prov1dmg an opportunity o release hostility and aggress1on . promotmg a concern for he env1ronment ennch1ng cultural l1fe , prov1d1ng fac111t1es for the disadvantaged and promo mg ac 1ve l1v1ng (Kraus 1978, Herzog , 1989, Hull , 1989, Schroeder & Gobster, 1991 Dearden & Roll1ns 1993, Kaplan , 1993, Sa ndborn , 1996) Nana1mo's Parks , Recreation and Culture Department have attempted to take mto accoun t th1s diverse array of community and indiVIdual benefits by 1nvolvmg the1r c1 t1ze ns 1n the developm ent of the1r master parks plan T he Ctty of Nanatmo. Parks, Recreatton and Culture Master Plan (1994) provides a framework of recom m endation s for the develo pment of urban parks and recreational tra1ls w ith in the City. The fou r reco mme ndati ons 1n th e Ma ster Plan that w 111 be directly addressed by th is research are : 1) In itiate a comprehens ive inventory of en vi ronm ental features and s1 gn1 ficant areas in Nana imo ; 2) Determ ine the types of use to be supported by tra1ls or rou tes accordmg to the following cnteria: topograp hy and carrying capac1ty; need to protect sens1t1ve environments or other special features ; ro le of the tra 1l/route w1thi n the tra1l system (e.g .. recreationa l, commuter); des1res of the commun ity being served ; 3) Classify trails as to the uses they support and signpost them according ly, and 4) Ensure that hig h standards of publ ic safety are in place in the develop ment and operation of public trails and routes (PERC , 1994, pp . 65 ). 6 Since the Master Plannmg process has taken place m 1994 there has been very little publ1c Involvement m the park plannmg process Due to lim1ted staff and fund1ng resources the C1ty of Nana1mo has tended to deal w1th parks 1ssues on a f1rst come f1rst serve bas1s Wh1le the Parks , Recreation and Culture Department has attempted to stay w1th 1n the gu1del1nes of the Master Plan they have found 1t d1ff1cult due to the lack of a detailed parks mventory and lim1ted 1nformat1on on present park users att1tudes and use patterns Purpose and Objectives The purpose of th1s research 1s to com plete several of the reco mmendations developed m the City of Nanatmo Parks. Recreatton, and Culture Master Plan Although Nana1mo's Plannmg Department and Parks , Recreation and Culture Department have recogn1zed the need for research , little has been done 1n terms of data collection Th1s research will measure the perceptions and demands placed on Nana1mo's nature tra1ls . Nana1mo's present tra1l users' attitudes, use patterns , v1ews on present and future development, and opm1ons on dog use and other multiple use 1ssues w111 be analyzed A recreat1on mventory of the e1ght nature tra1l s1tes Included m th1s research --Westwood Lake Park , P1pers Lagoon Park , Diver Lake Park , Buttertubs Marsh , Colliery Dam Park, Morrell Nature Sanctuary, Cable Bay Trail and Biggs/Jack Po1nt Park--w1ll be completed as well. Due to the different strengths and weaknesses of vanous survey methods three different survey types-observational stud1es , interv1ews, and focus groups--will be completed . The outcome of th1s project will include a Final Report for the Parks , Recreation and Culture Department that will make recommendations for the future use and development of nature tra1ls . The data collected from this report w1ll be used to develop a Master Tra1l Plan for the C1ty. The purpose of th1s research project can be summarized into four mtended outcomes 1) A recreation inventory of the eight trails 1ncluded in this research to gam a greater understanding of the physical aspects of each park 2) Gain a greater understanding of the present trail users Discover the patron's use patterns and the reason1ng behind them . 3) Develop recommendations on areas for future development and upgrading . 7 4) Recommend solutions to rectify some of the possible multiple use conflicts . Th1s research 1s necessary to ensure effective and effic1ent park planning and development. The public must be mvolved 1n every planning stage. Public Involvement 1n local plann1ng empowers the community and leads to more insightful and responsible plann1ng . Fa1lure to do so may have adverse impacts on the community , local government and the parks themselves. Organization of the Report The followmg report 1s d1v1ded 1nto f1ve sect1ons the Literature Rev1ew, Study Arena , Research Methods, Results and D1scuss1on and Recommendations The Literature Rev1ew d1scusses the Importance and s1gn1ficance of publ1c parks for le1sure and recreat1on 1ncluding some histoncal Information It also takes a look at the publ1c parks planning process including community development and plannmg Tra1l plannmg , development and standards are discussed in length as well. The section dedicated to the Study Area prov1des background information on the City of Nanaimo and the eight urban nature trail sites included in this research Research Methods describes the methodology that was used for the recreation inventories, observational studies , interviews and focus groups. It discusses how and why each method was chosen and implemented . The Results section analyzes use patterns , user profiles and attitudes and user conflicts. Some of the more detailed results are included in the appendixes . 8 In the final Discussion and Recommendations section there is a summary of key observations and issues. The bulk of this section provides general and site specific recommendations to the City of Nanaimo's Parks, Recreation and Culture Department. 9 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of th1s literature rev1ew IS to prov1de an overv1ew of the Importance and s1gn1f1cance of public parks for recreat1on and le1sure and to descnbe the mun1c1pal parks plann1ng process A bnef d1scuss1on on community plann1ng and parks development 1n Canada IS requ1red to understand the rat1onal for creat1ng urban parks To be able to measure park users percept1ons and demands 1t IS Important to know what factors Influence them and what benef1ts they rece1ve It 1s equally 1mportant to understand how park and tra1l s1tes are selected , evaluated , des1gned and ma1nta1ned These subJects are touched on below SIGNIFICANCE OF PARKS FOR LEISUR E Canadian Munic ipal Parks History There are four levels to Canada's park system nat1onal , prov1nc1al , reg1onal , and mun1c1pal Canada has a large number of mun1c1pal parks mclud1ng neighborhood playgrounds , tot lots , commun1ty playf1elds and parks , and vanous recreat1on fac11it1es Just as each urban park IS un1que , each community has 1ts own un1que park system V1ews on parks and recreat1on have changed drastically over t1me , although parks and open spaces are an old 1dea (Welch , 1991 ). The public open spaces of anc1ent Greece and Rome were a v1tal part of the1r way of life as were the hunting grounds of Henry the VIII 's England (Whitaker & Browne , 1971 ; Welch , 1991) Urban centers often developed the1r parks on completely different found1ng philosophies and principals. In fact, parks can even be said to shape , and reflect the soc1al values of the time (Cranz, 1982). The factors influencing leisure have also changed over t1me . Ong1nally logging , hunting and other extractive resources were permitted 1n nat1onal , prov1nc1al and reg1onal parks w1th a secondary emphasis on commercial tounsm . Park managers' pnmary purpose was to make the most econom1cal use of park resources . Even the earl1er c1ty parks were affected by this view poin t and were designed to prov1de structured events and to make a profit through the creation of carnivals and zoos . Bylaw s proh1b1ted games 1n some of the early parks 1n Montrea l 10 and Toronto, and in 1763 an area called the Hal1fax Common (240 acres of land) was des1gnated for use of the residents of Halifax, but was in1t1ally only used as a tra1n1ng ground for the m1l1t1a and for pasturage (McFarland , 1982) The phys1cal des1gn of these parks was even structured George Burnap , a Landscape Arch1tect, who wrote Parks. The1r Des1gn, Eqwpment and Use 1n 1916, thought that parks should be des1gned for beauty and ut1l1ty To meet th1s obJeCtive Burnap requ1red SIX components to ex1st 1n each park 1) land , wh1ch 1ncluded lawns , dnves and walks , 2) water, wh1ch Includes founta1ns , pools and lakes , 3) fol1age , wh1ch 1s e1ther shade or ornamental , 4) floral display , wh1ch can be e1ther garden or flower beds , 5) sculpture , wh1ch must have a recurnng theme, and 6) architecture, wh1ch mcluded embellishments , settmgs , and bu1ld1ngs (Burnap, 1916) Th1s park des1gn and philosophy 1s very different then our present day unstructured parks that emphas1ze natural beauty , Wilderness , green spaces and w1ldl1fe corndors (Dearden & Rollms , 1993) Cranz (1982) has classified urban parks 1nto four h1stoncal eras by the1r 1ntended usage The first was the "pleasure ground " wh1ch IS charactenzed by unstructured act1v1ty and naturalistiC des1gn Th1s era represented an attempt to rega1n the rural countryside 1n the middle of the c1ty (Goodale & Godbey, 1988). The second era is called the "reform park" that had organ1zed act1v1ties and was exemplified by the playground (Rosenzwe1g , 1984). Th1s was followed by the "recreation facility" and then by the present era , the "open space system " wh1ch started after 1965. England and the United States had a major influence on Canadian park development (McFarland , 1982; Ibrahim , 1991 ). Canadian parks had strong ties to the ornamental English gardens (Bailey, 1978). The "father of the urban parks movement" (Stormann , 1991 , p. 137), was an Amencan landscape architect, Frederick Law Olmsted . Dunng the nineteenth century Canadian c1t1es were relatively small and of recent origin so the proxim1ty of the rural countryside prompted a preference for the ornamental passive parks (McFarland , 1982) over the present day 1nterest 1n open space (Cranz, 1982; Rosenzweig, 1984 ). "Due to the grow1ng number of urban Amencans , L1 the need for open space as env1s1oned by Olmsted 1s ne1ther needed nor des1red today " (Phillips, 1996, p 3) Canadian City Parks as we know them today began to emerge 1n the latter part of the n1neteenth century Some c1t1es d1d not establish parks unt1l after the turn of the century because of the1r s1ze or lack of f1nanc1al resources (Martm & Segrave , 1983) C1ty parks developed throughout the world for relatively the same reason dunng the nmeteenth century The mdustnal revolution led to a drast1c 1ncrease 1n urban l1v1ng , and w1th l1m1ted access to transportation , the only way to escape the c1ty and expenence nature was through the creat1on of c1ty parks Dunng the nmeteenth century the Amencan urban parks and recreation movement (AUPRM) emerged and attempted to address soc1al 1ssues result1ng from urban 1ndustnal1sm 1n wh1ch the "upper-class , educated men and women saw 1t as the1r anstocrat1c duty to ra1se the masses to the level of m1ddle class standards" (Stormann , 1991 , p 137) Th1s feel1ng was reciprocated 1n Canada (Ibrahim , 1991) In fact , the trend of establ1sh1ng large mun1c1pal parks started 1n Canada before the Un1ted States (Ibrahim, 1991) Mun1c1pal parks and open spaces were developed not only to sat1sfy the demands created by urban populations but those l1v1ng 1n rural areas outs1de urban centers (Burton , 1976) "In 1883 the prov1nce of Ontario passed the first Canad1an leg1slat1on affect1ng the general development of municipal parks. The province's 'Public Park Act' prov1ded for the establishment of parks and park systems in cities and towns upon consent or pet1t1on of the electors" (McFarland , 1982, p. 263) . In 1890, Vancouver was the first c1ty 1n Bnt1sh Columbia to have an elected Board of Parks Commissioners (McFarland , 1982). The glory years of urban Canad1an parks are considered to be from the 1890's to 1915 before the econom1c hardships of World War I and II and the Depression (Mart1n & Segrave, 1983). "The depression years of the 1930's had a mixed effect on the development of municipal recreation 1n Canada . Federal rel1ef programs resulted in the improvement and further development of municipal parks but at the same t1me budgets for recreation programm1ng were so seriously curtailed as to force some programs out of 12 existence" (McFarland , 1970, p. 48) . The level of park development and expansion during the glory years has not been seen aga1n , even during the make work schemes of the 1970's and early 80's when many park proJects were revitalized (Welch , 1991 ) During the 1960's when the economy flounshed some c1t1es establ ished what is now the1r maJor park (Martin & Segrave , 1983) It 1s here the 1mportance of urban park susta1nability and development became an 1ssue for commun ity planners Although urban parks d1d ex1st before this time , little emphas1s and Importance was placed on them Now 1t was believed that "open space should be planned as an 1ntegral part of the urban env1ronment rather than be1ng an afterthought. " (Whitaker & Browne , 1971, p. 132) Present day urban parks serve soc1al functions , act as places for mass recreat1on , and create green space s that attempt to meet environmental and conservation goals under stnct pub l1c scrut1ny (Dearden & Rollms , 1993) An excerpt from a Research Report ent1tled Ecolog ical Bas1s for Land Use Planning (Hills, 1961 ) prov1des evidence of the philosophical change in the way in wh1ch Canadian 's v1ew le1sure and parks : Rural Land -Based Recreation : For plann1ng the optimum use of the renewable natural resources , the defin1t1on of recreation must be narrowed to those activities which are dependent upon the physiological , geographic and ecological characteristics of land . These are the same charactenstics which produce crops of agricultural , forestry , wildl ife and fish products . However, the recreational act1vity does not necessanly involve the harvesting of a crop but merely the obta1ning of sensory impressions (pp . 119). Even the title "Rural Land-Based Recreation " emphasizes the fact that in 1961 the focus was on land and the economic value attached to it. The more current term "outdoor recreation " implies more of focus of recreation and people rather than on the land itself. The use of the word "optimum" insinuates that there was a strong economic thinking in the development of th1s document. Public land used solely for economic gain is a philosophy that has been outdated . Nanaimo's 1987 Official Community Plan and the Parks , Recreation , and Culture 1994 Master 13 Plan stressed the need to provide recreation opportunities and natural areas for their residents. Recreation was the Master Plans' pnmary mandate , not economics . The economic focus of this 1961 report was replaced with more of a concern for the env1ronment in the 1970's The followmg is an excerpt from an Ecolog1cal (Biophysical) Land Classification Workshop 1n 1977 Canada's urban trees and forests lack comprehensive protect1on under contemporary leg1slat1on and regulat1on As an example , the Ontano Mun1c1pal Act enables any mun1c1pal1ty to compose and enforce tree bylaws , but only the larger mun1c1pal governments have enacted tree protect1on leg1slat1on In general , mun1c1pal trees are more subJect to removal than conservat1on (Anderson , 1977, pp 99) . In the 1970's there was more of an awareness of the env1ronment and conservation linkages that urban parks provided "The concern w1th greenery, parks and recreat1on areas , open spaces , ... and 1mprov1ng the aesthetic appearance played an Important part m the 1n1t1al town planning Ideology." (Kaplan , 1982, pp 252) . Unfortunately, due to lack of pol1t1cal w1ll , park improvements and additional parkland acqu1S1t1ons d1d not occur Parks st1ll suffer for s1m1lar reasons , although not to the same extent. It was not until the 1980's that the 1mportance of urban parks was more fully realized . In March of 1996 the Comm1Ss1on on Resources and Environment, Wildlife Hab1tat Canada , Fisheries and Oceans Canada , and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Hous1ng sponsored and jointly funded a research paper prepared by Calvin Sandborn entitled : Green Space and Growth: Conserving Natural Areas in BC Communities. This paper calls for the conservation of natural areas in communities believing that urban areas should be as important as provincial protected areas. Natural areas provide benefits whether in the form of municipal parks, riparian and treed areas in subd1v1sions , privately owned nature reserves , greenways that prov1de a cont1nuous corndor of green space many miles in length , or sustainable farms and forests . Such natural areas provide aesthetic satisfaction and places for recreation ; and they prov1de habitat for native plants and animals ... Whatever its impact, ongoing urban growth will remain a basic fact of life in British Columbia . A necessary part of the challenge in developing growth strategies in coming years will be developing ways to most effectively plan for, maintain and manage natural areas 1n BC's communities (Sandborn , 1996, p. iv) . 14 The importance of urban parks and natural areas have contmually become more realized at the federal , provincial and municipal level. "There 1s conceptual and empirical support for recreation and leisure areas , services, and opportunities as contnbutors to community l1fe sat1sfact1on" (Allen , 1991 , p 345) . Politic1ans and planners are now aware of the numerous benefits that municipal parks and recreat1on serv1ces provide to commun1t1es as a whole as well as to its' individual members Benefits of Parks and Recreation Le1sure prov1des a holistic approach to health and wellness , wh1ch looks at the whole person , body, m1nd and spmt (Ballantyne , 1989) According to Man nell & Stynes (1991 ) there are f1ve mam le1sure benefits wh1ch 1nclude the phys1olog1cal benefits , psychological , soc1al , econom1c and environmental Phys1olog1cal benef1ts refer to those ans1ng from phys1cal exerc1se wh1ch can include good cardiovascular health , stress reduction and we1ght control (Kraus , 1978). Recreation can even be seen as a therapy (Hutch1son & Lord , 1979) Psychological benefits can be d1v1ded into three categories (1) development of the self - including self actualization , Interpersonal and leadership skills , cognitive , social , and emot1onal development m children , and spmtual development; (2) experientiallearnmg -skill and knowledge acquisition , and environmental attitude change ; and , (3) short-term , transient experiential outcomes - flow expenences , mood , and fun (Man nell & Stynes , 1991 ). Flow provides an intrinsic reward for partiCipation in an activity (Mannell , Zuzanek & Larson , 1988) and it is the feeling that everything is going just right when the individual involved experiences an altered sense of time (Furlong , 1976). The Study of Satisfaction and Substitutability in Recreation A vailable to Residents of Urban British Columbia also found that the number one recreational satisfactions being sought by urban British Columbian 's was fun , followed by physical health , exercise and close contact with nature (Meyer, 1978). Family bonding , organizational wellness and community satisfaction are examples of sociological benefits. The economic and environmental benefits of leisure can include financial benefits to partici pants and non-participants from improved health , job creat1on (John son & Brown , 1991 ), ecological preservation , aesthetic benefits , scientific benefits through research , 1 endangered spec1es preservation and histoncal benef1ts wh1ch can lead to religious/philosophical benefits and intnnsic values (Holmes , 1991 ). Recreation , also satisf1es our bas1c need for sensory st1mulat1on and motor act1v1ty , it prov1des a veh1cle for our express1on of 1mag1nat1on , 1t frees us of our inhibitions and above all , it 1s fun (Malkm , 1985). In general , recreat1on can prov1de the opportunity to "enhance the quality of life for all people" (Kraus , 1978, p 3) Research has also been completed on the benef1ts denved from urban parks and open space. There is some overlap w1th the benef1ts assoc1ated w1th outdoor recreat1on and le1sure but the value of parks and open space can stand alone . Urban outdoor recreat1on areas are almost always act1v1ty oriented , verses resource based , and are usually managed by c1ty governments and commercial operators (Bammel & Burrus-Bammel , 1982) Urban forests , natural areas and parks prov1de benef1ts by prov1ding aesthetic sat1sfact1on that emphas1zes natural beauty and wilderness , creat1ng green spaces and areas for recreat1on , prov1dmg hab1tat for nat1ve plants and animals and preservmg w1ldl1fe corndors (Dearden & Rollins , 1993, Sandborn , 1996). Dryer, Schroeder and Gobster (1991) state that "urban trees are l1v1ng , breath1ng organisms with wh1ch people feel a strong relationship and should not be thought as a1r cond1t1oners , providers of shade , and ornaments in the urban system (Dryer, Schroeder & Gobster, 1991 , p. 283) . Urban forested areas can also relieve mental fat1gue wh1ch causes 1mpat1ence, distractibility and irritability, and they have been said to have a healing effect (Kaplan , 1993). Urban forests can include those trees along residential roads and freeways , commercial areas , neighborhood parks , natural and ravine parks , institutional properties (i.e. colleges) , regional parks and private property (Kraus & Curtis , 1990). Urban parks also help reduce stress and other ailments , lead to higher job satisfaction , enhance contemplativeness , and are therapeutic in general (Herzog , 1989; Hull , 1989; Kaplan , 1993). They also "rejuvenate the city dweller, and prov1de a sense of peacefulness and tranquillity" (Hull , 1989, p. 326) . There is a set of diverse environmental , economic, soc1al , historic, psychological , physical, mental, emotional and even spiritual benefits associated with urban parks and forests . Community parks and recreation services can also strengthen neighborhood and community life by providing an opportunity to release hostility and aggression , 16 promoting a concern for nature , enriching cultural life, providing facilities for the disadvantaged and promot1ng active living (Kraus, 1978). This full array of benefits and community values need to be taken mto consideration by planners and park managers 1n order to effectively manage and mamta1n parks and green spaces ((Dryer, Schroeder & Gobster, 1991) The Canadian Parks and Recreat1on Association prov1ded the most complete llst1ng of all the benefits derived from parks and recreat1on 1n the1r 200 page Benefits Catalogue (1997) It summarized 141 benefits of parks , recreation , sports , fitness , arts and culture mto e1ght statements : 1 Recreation and act1ve l1v1ng are ESSENTIAL TO PERSONAL HEALTH -a key determinant of health status 2 Recreation IS a key to balanced HUMAN DEVELOPMENT - helpmg Canad1ans reach for the1r potential. 3 Recreat1on and parks are essent1al to QUALITY OF LIFE. 4. Recreat1on reduces self-destructive and ANTI -SOCIAL BEHAVIOR 5 Recreation and parks build STRO NG FAMILIES and HEALTH COMMUNITIES. 6. PAY NOW or PAY MORE LATER ! Recreation reduces health care , soc1al service , and pollee/justice costs l 7 Recreat1on and parks are significant ECONOMIC GENERATORS in your commun1ty! 8. Parks , open spaces and natural areas are essent1al to ECOLOGICAL SURVIVAL. (Canadian Parks and Recreation Association , 1997, p ix) Park users are not usually cognitively aware of the benefits that they receive from walking or hikmg along a trail. They may gain pleasure from the activity but are not consciously thmking "right now I am reducing my anti-social behaviour". So what does Influence people's participation in recreation? It is a variety of factors including everything from mobility to age , income levels and time restrictions . Factors that Influence Participation in Recreation There are two countervailing factors that have led to the increase in present day urban le1sure. The first one is the rise in the standard of living and the increase in the number of home owners . The second reason is mobility; these home owners were now also car owners (Spink , 1994) An increase in the standard of living means that individuals now have extra t1me to recreate and they want access to their leisure to be conveniently located close to home (Burgess , Hamson & Limb , 17 1988). An increase in mobility implies that those liv1ng in rural areas now have the ability to get to the parks and recreation facilities 1n the urban centers . There are five basic factors that Influence outdoor recreation part1c1pat1on . The first factor IS people this refers to population size , livmg areas (urban , suburban , ex-urban , rural) , age , and education levels. The second factor 1s money , th1s takes 1nto account res1dents' affluence and amount of disposable 1ncome. The third factor 1s t1me. Th1s refers to an 1nd1V1duals' occupation and mob1l1ty The fourth factor 1s commun1cat1on wh1ch refers to personal contacts 1n the commun1ty and mass med1a . The f1nal factor Influencing part1c1pat1on 1n outdoor recreation is supply wh1ch 1s effected by the ava1lab11ity and access1b1l1ty of recreat1on areas and fac11it1es (Douglas , 1993) "Access to le1sure facil1t1es and opportun1t1es is determmed by a number of factors : availability, investment, suitability, mob1l1ty, awareness , etc --but for most people the cnt1cal Influence IS that of income" (Spink, 1994, pp . 11 ). In contrast, Ibrahim (1991 ) believes that gender and urban-rural differences are the greatest contnbutors to the uneven distnbution of le1sure. Other factors such as econom1cs and the dominant value system of the commun1ty play a role as well. Barners to participation in outdoor recreation have changed over time. In a 1962 study completed for the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission , the number one barner was lack of time (52%) followed by financial cost (17%) (Mueller & Gurin , 1962). Dual job families and commuting have also created logistic and time constraints on leisure (Cross , 1990). Jackson and Searle (1985) studied barriers to recreation participation and concluded that nonparticipation in leisure activities is rather a complex phenomenon . "Earlier authors identified five main reasons for non participation : lack of interest, lack of time , lack of money, lack of fac11it1es , and lack of required skills . Jackson and Searle suggest that barriers to leisure should be looked upon as basically of two types: blocking and inhibiting . The status of each is not absolute , but rather relative to the individual and his or her circumstances " (Ibrahim , 1991 . p. 241 ). In 18 . . com parison , Goodale and Godbey (1988) believe that there are three types of barriers to leisure . The first barrier is 1ntrapersonal. Th1s 1ncludes psychological and spiritual Influences that can effect activ1ty preference through such th1ngs as religious beliefs , stresses and percept1on of skill levels. The second type involves relat1onsh1ps w1th other people and is called mtrapersonal. Goodale and Godbey's ( 1988) th1rd bamer to le1sure 1s structural Th1s 1s anyth1ng that creates obstacles between leisure preference and part1c1pat1on such as cl1mate , work schedules and availability of resources A Study of SatisfactiOn and Substitutability m Recreation Available to Res1dents of Urban Bnt1sh Columbia was completed 1n June of 1978 1n the Vancouver, V1ctona and Campbell R1ver areas. The study concluded that "sat1sfact1ons sought, as well as act1v1t1es pursued , may be affected by age , mcome , former commun1ty s1ze and former commun1ty locat1on " (Meyer, 1978, p. 46) . The1r findmgs are fa1rly cons1stent w1th the factors and barners to le1sure ment1oned previously PUBLIC PARK PLANNING PROCESS Community Development To understand the concept of community development, one needs to first have a working definition of community. Th1s is more difficult than it first seems because the word community IS quite a broad concept (Allen , 1991 ). In fact , it has been described in sociological terms as being omnibus (Poplin , 1972). Webster's Dictionary (McKechnie, 1972) defines a community as: a society of people having common rights , privileges and interests; society at large; the public; or people in general. Besides being more local than global in nature, what else defines a community? Firstly it has people , but it also has an element of place in terms of a specific geographic area . There also has to be some form of community identity where a local spirit forms a common bond (Rubin , 1985). It must also have a common culture in which the people of the geographic area generally share a body of knowledge , beliefs, customs, morals and laws. And finally , a community must encompass a social system where a number of people living in a certain area possess a sense of group identity and share a common culture (Bannon , 1985). "One of the 19 first th1ngs that we not1ce m a community 1s that 1ts people display a number of patterns in their social relationships as they live and work together" (Connor, 1987, p. 5) . The Harmony Foundation of Canada believes that "community is more than where we live people. community is all encompass1ng It 1s more than people , their cultural and soc1al attitudes and activities , the land , water, air and all resident spec1es. More specifically , commun1ty IS about relationships , the Interactions between and amongst all of these ent1t1es" (Harmony Foundat1on , 1994, p 3) . For the purposes of th1s research the commun1ty that w1ll be stud1ed IS Nana1mo's present urban natural tra1ls users. Although the theory beh1nd commun1ty development 1s a relatively new one , 1t 1s v1tal to contemporary commun1ty plannmg The theoretical bas1s for commun1ty development is derived from all of the soc1al sc1ences In the 1950's and 1960's commun1ty development had a soc1al focus . In the 1980's 1t had an econom1c focus and now in the 1990's 1t appears to have added an environmental focus . Some researchers bel1eve that "commun ity development occurs when people form the1r own organizations to provide long-term capac1ty for problem solving" (Rubm , 1985, pp. 1; Harmony Foundation , 1994 ), where as others th1nk 1t 1s up to government and community planners to create these organ1zat1ons (Connor, 1968, AAHPERD , 1985). Either way it is key to involve the publ1c in every stage of the plann1ng process and mamtam strong public relations at all times (Bannon , 1985). There are four assumptions which underlie the study of commun ity development 1n terms of municipal parks and urban trails . The first assumption is that recreation services and community development are interrelated . The second is that recreation services and commun1ty development can benefit each other. Thirdly, recreation services and community development are but means to an end and not ends in themselves. Finally, recreation serv1ces and commun1ty development are effected by a range of global and local forces such as the value of the Canadian dollar (Rubin , 1985). 20 Social Planning "Soc1al plannmg is d1st1nct from other forms of planning wh1ch have a focus on land , buildings and streets . Soc1al plann1ng focuses on people . [lt] ... involves the assessment of commun1ty needs , building community co-operation , providing support to c1tizen part1cipat1on , and encouraging the community to become act1ve 1n soc1al 1ssues" (Nana1mo Planning and Development, 1990, p. 2) . The Province of BC defines soc1al plannmg as "an open and accessible process wh1ch can be used to help government, community organ1zat1ons , and c1t1zens to plan for the1r present and future well-be1ng " (Prov1nce of BC , 1996, p 5) Th1s def1n1t1on 1s similar to the one produced by the Soc1al Plann1ng and Research Council of BC but w1th a commun1ty focus 1nstead of governmental "Community soc1al plann1ng 1s a local , democratiC system of planning and tak1ng action toward community soc1al needs and Interests 1n support of commun1ty well-being " (Curry , 1993, p. 4) The term 's soc1al plann~ng , commun1ty plann1ng and community social plannmg are used interchangeably for the purpose of th1s literature rev1ew "For commun1ty plann1ng is not JUSt planning for a community , 1t 1s equally concerned w1th planning by a community" (Hodge , 1991 , p 324) . The terms soc1al planning and community social plann1ng tends to be favored by government agenc1es whereas researchers use the term commun1ty plann1ng "There are two basic reasons for community planning : one pragmatic (the need to deal with problems in the environment) and one ideal (the need to strive for a better environment) . These approaches are not mutually exclusive . Those who participate in community planningprofessionals or citizens, politicians or developers-seek to reconcile the pragmatic need to solve a problem and the human need to seek a more fitting environment" (Hodge , 1991 , p. 11 ). The current roles and functions of social planning in BC include (Curry , 1993): • • • • • • • • 21 Assessing Social Needs Policy Analysis and Development Community Planning Community Development Coordinating Services Monitoring and Evaluating Advocacy Collaboration The level of public participation can vary in social planning processes , 1t can be reactive , preactive , proact1ve or conversational in nature. "While react1ve plannmg IS bas1cally passive 1n nature, conversational planning engages participants 1n a d1alog1cal process Preactive and proact1ve planning fall somewhere between the two polar positions" (Drover and Hulchanski, 1987, p.1) "Public Part1c1pat1on means formal , read1ly accessible channels whereby dec1s1on makers s1ncerely consult Interested 1nd1viduals and groups before makmg a dec1sion that might significantly affect them (Elder, 1987, p 303) The important th1ng to remember about commun1ty plannmg IS that "there 1s no smgle dec1sion-mak1ng ent1ty 1n control of the process" (Hodge, 1991 , p. 339) "Twenty years ago the 1dea that the c1t1zens could be 1n charge of the1r l1ves , was considered a very rad1cal one We clearly have come along way from that" (Longo , 1990, p. 1) Three groups are usually Involved 1n soc1al plann1ng : (1) a Soc1al Plann1ng Comm1ttee (or Soc1al Plann1ng Adv1sory Comm1ttee [City of Nana1mo], Community Soc1al Development Board [Prince George] or Advisory Comm1ssion on Community [District of North Vancouver]) ; (2) Adv1sory Groups ; and (3) Soc1al Planners from the Plann1ng and Development Department. Together they work with the community to "co-ordinate and Identify commun1ty serv1ce needs and 1ssues; promote cultural development; and initiate strategies and propose actions" (Nanaimo Planning and Development, 1990, p. 2) . Although public planning discriminates among different interest groups in society (Knight, 1991) the social planning committee and advisory groups work together in attempt to balance out the differences. A social planning department has to be flexible , efficient, and be able to adapt to change quickly because otherwise they will not be able to take full advantage of new and innovative ideas as they develop. The Province of BC also believes that it is important that social planning does not become static because it is important that it responds to ongoing changes and growth within the community. In response to this concern they developed a process for social planning but note that periodic reviews of the processes and approaches of social planning are necessary to help best serve the needs of the community (Province of BC, 1996): 22 Social Planning Process Figure 1: Policy Development ' 1 Defme soc1al plann1ng pnnc1ples and goals 2 Defme soc1al plann1ng scope and types of act1v1ty 3 Define soc1al plannmg m1ss1on statement, policy , or const1tut1on (as requ1red) Ongomg Development 7 Rev1s1t, rev1ew. and rev1se as requ1red Operational Development 4 Develop soc1al plannmg strategy by 1dent1fymg • approach , • process . and • act1on plan 5 Identify structure , responsibilities . and roles 6 Mon1tor. evaluate and adapt Dunng the 1990 International Making Cit1es Livable Conference 1n Cal1forn1a two presenters attempted to summanze the pnnc1pals Involved 1n designing urban spaces that promoted social life and well-bemg (Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard , 1990) • • • • • • • • • To provide all members of the commun1ty, especially children , the elderly and the handicapped , safe and easy access To facilitate frequent and regular use by local res1dents To make persons feel s1gn1ficant and support the1r self-esteem To re1nforce a sense of belong1ng to an Identifiable community To encourage cunos1ty and exploration To frame meaningful and memorable expenences To onent people and facilities differentiated actiVIties To make 1t possible for a vanety of persons to feel at home m the space To amplify channels for Interpersonal commun1cat1ons (eye contact, vo1ce and facial recognition) . They generally believed that "what is needed is a more ecolog1cal approach to c1ty design-one that respects the historic function of cities, the systemic connection between urban forms and social processes, and the need to involve all city dwellers , from experts to commun1ty members 1n decision making" (Crowhurst-Lennard and Lennard , 1990, p. 15): TRAIL PLANNING , DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDS Site Plann ing The site planning process has two phases . Phase one is the resource suitability study that looks at a number of factors at several sites and determines which site would be most suitable. The second phase involves completing a feasibility study that analyzes all aspects of the proposed s1te location . 23 The resource su1tab1l1ty study can be used m almost any s1tuat1on Once 1t 1s dec1ded that a mun1c1pal park or tra1l1s to be bu1lt, a list of proposed s1tes must be drafted or resource su1tab11ity survey on all of the proposed areas 1s comp1led spec1fic to your needs Next a s1te selection Th1s survey should be D1stance to water may not be a concern 1f your trail w1ll not perm1t horses but proximately to a stream may be 1f you 1ntend on pav1ng the tra1l The purpose of th1s survey 1s to narrow down the l1st of proposed s1tes to the most su1table The follow1ng 1s an example of a s1te select1on survey wh1ch would evaluate three factors on a pomt system (Jubenville, 1976) Recreational Factors • Ava11ab111ty , seasonabll1ty and d1vers1ty of outdoor recreat1on act1v1t1es • D1stance from the closest c1ty center • Number of commun1t1es w1th access to the area • Pos1t1ve or negat1ve effects on the commun1t1es mvolved • Amount of damage to the surround1ng ecosystems? Aesthetic Factors • D1stance from the tra1l head or road access to the aesthetic s1te (example canyon or v1ew pomt) • Number of aesthetiC s1tes • Carrymg capac1ty of s1tes • Rate scale of aesthet1cs Environmental Factors • Ava1lab11ity of water • Could water access be created? • Suitability of dnnkmg water and p1t toilets 1n the area . • Floodmg probab1l1ty. • D1vers1ty of b1olog1cal zones. • Amount of vegetation and wildlife inhab1tmg the area • Diversity of wildlife . Amount of protected (endangered or rare) an1mals 1n the area . • Potential for damage to a nearby water shed . • Potent1al damage from proposed road access. Another example of a site selection survey is the eighteen po1nt system developed by the Outdoor Recreat1on Council of British Columbia (1981 ). They recogn1ze a senes of nme factors and n1ne suggested features that should be taken 1nto consideration when develop1ng a recreat1on s1te . These n1ne factors (suitability, availability, diversity , safety, cost, accessib1l1ty, number of natural aspects of the site, privacy, and generally is the site well liked by all relevant personnel and adm1n1strators) and features (open space , natural area , outlook . trails . exploratory area , campfire area , protected area and special features) are very similar to Jubenville's (1978) recreational , 24 aesthetic and environmental resource suitability factors . Since park design and park users needs have changed drastically over time it is 1mportant to look at a more current example of a site selection survey Phillip's (1996) landscape survey 1s not only more current but it IS also municipal park specific unlike Jubenville (1978) and the Outdoor Recreat1on Counc1l of Bntish Columbia (1981 ). His landscape survey analyzes two features : (1) the natural - th1s 1ncludes vegetat1on , geology , geomorphology, hydrology, climate and wildlife , (2) and the cultural - transportation , community facil ities , utilities, controlling agenc1es , uses, pollution , econom1cs, required needs (preservation , restoration , etc.), and other stud1es (population , recreat1on etc ) Although these three s1te selection surveys are all functional examples 1t 1s 1mperat1ve that the survey des1gn addresses all of the needs of the proposed s1te After complet1ng a resource su1tab1l1ty survey and dec1d1ng on one particular s1te to develop, the next step is to complete a feas1b1l1ty survey It IS here that planners cons1der what user groups the trail is being designed for, whether users needs can be met and whether the s1te is economically and environmentally affordable (Douglass , 1993). Site Design Planning the design of a recreation area involves a s1milar process as solv1ng any land use issue (Rutledge , 1971 ). The site planning process incorporates some of the information gained from the site selection studies and puts the information in a tangible site des1gn framework . "Site plann ing may be thought of as a compromise between the adaptation of the site to fit the program and the adaptation of the program on account of the site" (Laurie , 1975, p. 120). One site design planning framework involves a systematic three phase process that includes survey , analysis and synthesis (Rutledge , 1971 ). The survey involves three steps: (1) program development, (2) in ventory of on-site factors , and (3) inventory of off-s1te factors (Rutledge , 1971 ). The next phase , analysis , takes into account program relationships , relationsh ip diagrams and site analysis. This is the phase that considers social and psychological factors (Laurie , 1977) 25 The final phase Involves creat1ng a design concept, refin1ng the plan and then creat1ng the fmal approved plan for development. Th1s 1s the phase were creativity comes into play It IS here planners use contrast of form to create mounds and valleys and make use of levels , create 1llus1on by curvmg tra1ls , h1d1ng unattractive necess1t1es l1ke road ways and power lines , develop 1nterest1ng and vary1ng types of paths and textures , and create a feel1ng of suspense and lure for the park user by constructing arches , tunnels and v1stas (Whitaker & Browne , 1971) Trail Construction A tra11 1s des1gned based on 1ts' mtended usage , canng capaci ty , user types and preferences , and aesthetic and environmental cond1t1ons These factors along w1th budget constramts must be taken 1nto cons1derat1on before dec1d1ng what type and class1f1cat1on of tra1l to develop Figure #2: \11 Trail Types \11 \11 X \11 P x· a) loop (Buttertub Marsh) b) Horseshoe (West Coast Trail) c) line (Cable Bay Trail) LEGEND X Trailhead Trailway X d) Stacked loop (Colliery Dam) P Parking Lot Road e) Maze (Morrell Nature Sanctuary) There are five main types of trails: (1) the loop ; (2) the horseshoe , (3) the lme, (4 ) the stacked loop ; and (5) the maze (Refer to figure #2) (Proud man & Rajala , 1981 ) The loop tra1l1s the most 26 advantageous because v1sitors never see the same port1on of the trail tw1ce and their sense of solitude is enhanced . The loop is also economical s1nce there is only one trailhead and the cost of ma1ntenance 1s lower. While there are five types of tra1ls there are also several class1ficat1ons of tra1ls. A loop trail can be designed as a 0.5 km wheelchair accessible trail or a 35 km Wilderness trail. There are numerous manuals on tra1l standards and classifications includ1ng those developed by BC Parks , Parks Canada , the M1n1stry of Forests and the Canadian Institute of Planners. The followmg trail classifications are prov1ded by BC Parks (BC Parks , 1991) Type 1 Des1gned for group traff1c, such as scen1c walks , m maJor developments and nature tra1ls for gu1ded walks . The tread w1dth IS to be SIX feet to e1ght feet and the maximum grade to be 8% These tra1ls are usually des1gned to support h1king as well as horseback nd1ng , cycling and cross-county sk1mg Th1s tra1l should be wheelchair accessible and take between 5 to 30 m1nutes to walk Loop or stacked loop tra1ls are preferred . Type 2 These type of tra1ls are s1m11ar to type (1) but they usually have some form of barriers and the tread in narrower The trail should be approximately 1 to 6 km (1 0 m1n to 2 hours) m length and the max1mum grade is to be 10%. Type 3 These type of trails are similar to type (2) . The trail should be approximately 3 to 20 km (1 to 7 hours) 1n length and the max1mum grade 1s to be 15%. These trails can also be used for multi-day use. Type 4 These trails can not support horse use and they would be impractical for interpretation . There is a maximum tread of 0.50 meter and are considered h1gh wilderness use. Type 5 These trails are only used for hiking and snowshoeing . This is a wilderness hiking route only and there are no support facilities (campsites , etc.). The 1991 provincial parks standards are also similar to Fogg 's ( 1990) and Trapp, Gross and Zimmerman 's (1994) suggested trail standards. Parks Canada (1978) recognizes two types of footpaths : day-use hiking trails and urban trails which are similar to type (1) and (2) of the BC Parks standards . In comparison the Ministry of Forests (1991) uses rural , loaded resources and semi-primitive as their three classification of hiking trails . Their three divisions of trail types are closely linked to the BC Parks standard types (2) , (3), and (4) . Phillips (1996) categorizes trails by their construction : woodland paths, gravel trails , paved trails , sidewalks and stairs ; while other government agencies categorize trails by their width : main trails (2 to 3 meters in width) , 27 connecting trails (1 meter in width ) and limited access trails (0 .75 to 1 meter in width) (Env1ronment Canada , 1997). Significant relationships have been found between the use patterns of park vis1tors and the accessibility of the s1te (Heckock, 1971 ). Th1s does not 1m ply that park planners should only focus on factors like access1bll1ty, durab1l1ty and maintenance 1ssues when developmg park trails . Tra1ls should be des1gned to promote beauty, mystery and vanety "Enticing trail names , stories and artifacts , tra1ls that curve out of view, v1stas partially screened by vegetation , and sunny openings in canopy 's" (Trapp , Gross & Zimmerman , 1994, pp 78) prov1de an a1r of mystery for park users By des1gn1ng a tra11 that mcludes d1verse landforms, landscapes , vegetation and w1ldl1fe hab1tats like Garry Oak Meadows, Douglas Fir old growth stands, sandy beaches , or swamps , a unique and varied atmosphere can be created If a tra1l1s des1gned to promote mystery and vanety 1t can create a heightened interest for the park user. User types and requirements must be kept in mmd when design1ng trails. Deciding what trail users will and will not be allowed on the trail w1ll probably have the greatest impact on the tra1l design and construction . Trail width and height will vary depending on the amount of traffic, visibility, terram and most importantly users mode of transportation Hiking/Walking/Interpretive Trails Short hiking or pleasure walking trails are usually 1.5 to 5 km long (Parks Canada , 1978) and long trails are 10 to 20 km in length and usually are considered to be equivalent to a one day hike (Fogg , 1990). Pedestrian trails in more urban settings need to be at least seven feet high and can be as little as five feet wide depending on the amount of intended use. Rural hiking trails are generally cleared well enough so that a hiker with a large pack on can walk erect and have the1r path unobstructed . This is usually four to six feet in width (Type 2 trail) with a one-foot clearance on either side. However, if underbrush is thick , or has few users it can be as little as three feet wide (Type 3 or 4) which will give the trail an aesthetic tunneling effect. Narrower tra ils are also 28 more stable due to the number of roots and low-lying shrubs. The average he1ght of a h1king trail is about seven to ten feet or as high as one can reach . If poss1ble a canopy should by left to keep the vegetat1on as natural as possible (Proud man & Rajala , 1981) and to protect the hikers from the elements It is important to keep your spec1fic site and user preferences m mind when select1ng tra11 construction matenals. An asphalt or so1l cement surface w1th a grade of less than one foot rise to every 18 ft 1s requ1red to make tra1ls wheelchair accessible (Trapp , Gross & Zimmerman , 1994) Joggers, hikers and walkers on the other hand prefer softer surfaces such as crushed rock or wood ch1ps For trails near aquat1c areas they must cons1st of permeable non-toxic material. "Crushed aggregate w1th lightly compacted aggregate sub base 1s the preferred tra11 surface for high use or ma1n tra1ls [along water ways] Bark mulch or hog fuel should not be used on tra11 surfaces near water as they produce leachate which causes senous water qual1ty problems . Asphalt is not des1rable [near aquatic areas] as 1t 1s Impermeable and accelerates run -off' (Environment Canada , 1997, p. 10) . Grass or natural surfaces are not recommended except in wilderness or low seasonal use areas. But generally surfacing should be done 1n such a manor to discourage erosion and encourage natural cover. Bicycle Trails Mountain biking is a relatively new activity that is popular with a wide range of age groups with varying skill level. "Given its relative infancy, trail standards to meet these needs continue to evolve" (Mertes & Hall , 1995, pp . 118). It is for this reason that there are limited industry standards available for mountain bike trails. There has however been extensive research in the area of trails designed for touring/road bikes. The Canadian Institute of Planners have broken down bicycle trails into three classifications-bikepath (class 1), bikelane (class 2) and bike routes (class 3) (Fogg, 1990; Hope & Yachuk , 1990)--however they are not particularly relevant to off-road cycling . BC Parks on the other hand 29 has developed a classification system similar to their hik1ng trail classifications. Type (1) IS paved and has a three meter right-of-way. Type (2) is constructed from crushed l1mestone and has a one meter tread for one directional riding and a 2 meter tread for two directional cycling . Both of these types of tra1ls can support use from other users as well as mounta1n bikes . Type (3) tra1ls are unsurfaced and are 10 to 20 km in length . Obstacles such as roots should only be 1Ocm h1gh . Type (4) trails are 30 to 80 km long w1th obstacles up to 30 em h1gh . On level terram b1kers can average 16 kmp/h and can cycle up to 60 to 80 km per day (BC Parks , 1991) so they need a mm1mum of 5 to 8 km of trail Ideally b1ke trails should be between 10 to 30 km 1n length (Fogg , 1990) and should have a loop des1gn 1f poss1ble (BC Park , 1991) When des1gnmg b1cycle routes the follow1ng cntena should be considered access , attractiveness , cont1nu1ty, delays, destmat1on , directness, fundmg , surface quality , topography, traffic type , volume and speed , user conflict and w1dth of the b1keway (Hope & Yachuk, 1990). The City of Nana1mo hired PERC to produce a cycling strategy after the Imagine Nana1mo process . They noted four design criteria that should by considered in the development of future bikepaths in munic1pal parks: 1. Keep multi-use pathways a minimum of 4 meter wide and encourage users to stay to the right. 2. Provide signage which designates multi-use , speed limits, pedestrian nghts-of-way and pathway exits onto the street. 3. Establish natural barriers to fast cycling (e .g. bark mulch or gravel pathway surfaces , access gates, bridges or tunnels , stairs , planer boxes) . 4. Enforce the Bicycle Bylaw, requiring cyclists to have a bell on their bike. (PERC , 1995) Equestrian Trails The trail requirements for equestrian use are quite demanding . The American National Recreation and Parks Association believes that horseback riders and bikers can not share tra1ls due to horse excrement, accelerated erosion , horse spooking and the different tra1l length requirements . However, the 10 to 15 km of trails (ideally a loop) required for equestnan use 0 would be compatible with winter activities such as cross country skiing and snowmobiling (Fogg , 1990; BC Parks , 1991 ; Mertes & Hall , 1995). If trail planners are considering equestrian use , the trail needs to have a min1mum height clearance of ten feet (Ryan , 1993). If the trail is for horseback riding only the trail 1s only required to be a mm1mum of 1 meter wide for one directional riding and 1.8 and 2.5 meters wide for a two way path (Fogg , 1990). The surfacing for equestnan trails should be des1gned to elim1nate as much eros1on as possible A grass or wood chip surface would be preferable (Fogg , 1990) but even crushed stone can be used for intensely used paths (Parks Canada , 1978, BC Parks , 1991 ). Site selection for equestnan tra1ls 1s 1mportant so horses have access to water along the tra il, and the tra1ls can be of adequate length and w1dth and be able to with stand eros1on ATV and Motor Bike Trail s When considenng whether or not to allow motor bikes and A TV's into urban park areas it 1s important to have a large buffer zone to help decrease potent1al no1se pollution to other park users (Hultsman , Cottrell & Hultsman , 1987) and local residents . The M1n1stry of Forests (1991) has broken down A TV and Motor Bike Trails into three classifications : novice , mtermediate and difficult. All terrain vehicles require at least 30 km of trail or equivalent to 3 to 6 hours of riding . Trails should be at least 2 meters wide for one way routes and 3 meters w1de for two way routes . In comparison trail bikes or off-road motor bikes require 80 to 160 km of trail and should be at least 1 meter wide and 2.5 meters high (Fogg , 1990). It is preferable to have single loop tra1ls rather than two way routes . Multiple Use Trails Multi-use recreation trails can provide a multitude of benefits which can include the development of recreation and transportation routes , open space and ecological preservation , historic preservation , and neighborhood development (Ryan , 1993). However, even if the proposed trail can physically support multi-user groups , there is always the possibility of recreation conflicts that 1 can anse from differences 1n recreation activ1ty style , resource specificity, mode of experience and tolerance for lifestyle diversity (Schneider & Hammitt, 1995). Factors that Influence park users response to recreat1on conflict are (1) personal - th1s mcludes commitments , activity style, and resource specificity; (2) beliefs related - th1s Includes novelty, tolerance for lifestyle diversity, values and locus of control , and (3) situational - this can include novelty, distance , durat1on , number in party and type of party (Schneider & Hamm1tt, 1995) Since multi-use tra1ls requ1re very prec1se structure and des1gn they are often extremely costly to build from scratch Therefore , developing a mun1c1pal tra1l network from ex1stmg pathways would save money, t1me and resources for the commun1ty For that reason , "abandoned rail lines hold unparalleled opportun1t1es as mult1-use recreational tra1ls" (Osborn & Marys-Edge , 1992) This also holds true for converting BC Hydro nght-of-ways , gas l1nes, and water lines because they are already the recommended min1mum w1dth for a mult1-use tra1l - four meters (Hope & Yuchuk , 1990). Park Signage and Interpretation Park interpretation serves three central objectives (Sharpe , 1976). The first one relates to the site , the second one to the agency and the third one to the visitor (Regnier, Gross & Zimmerman , 1994). Interpretation assists the visitor in developing a keener awareness , appreciation , and understanding of the area they are visiting . It fosters the proper use of the site and develops advocates . It also accomplishes management goals such as guiding patrons away from fragile areas . Interpretation can promote public understanding of an agency and it programs as well as promoting outdoor recreation . "All types of areas and situations should be interpreted too increase our understanding of the urban environment" (Wallin , 1976, p. 332) . The BC Parks (1991) trail standards guide recognizes three types of interpretation : (1) h1gh profile that discusses frequently visited features and are approximately 100 m to 2km in length ; (2) post and pamphlet which is used to identify unique features of a park and is 1 to 3 km in length ; and (3) 2 .. 1nterpret1ve walk1ng tra1ls that interpret w1ldl1fe and vegetat1on BC Parks mterpretat1on class1ficat1ons are more narrowly defined and expanded upon by Trapp, Gross , & Z1mmerman ( 1994) They d1fferent1ate among s1x alternatives for tra1l 1nterpretat1on (Trapp , Gross , & Zimmerman 1994) all w1th vary1ng degrees of effectiveness and appeal1ng to different types of park users The f1rst two types are personal and spontaneous alternatives walks , and (2) rov1ng mterpreter(s) on trail ( 1) mterpret1ve led Wh1le the rov1ng Interpreter prov1des the "most 1nd1V1duallzed form of 1nterpretat1on [because there are no large groups where] some members may not tune 1n" (Trapp , Gross , & Zimmerman , 1994, pp 96) , 1t 1s the Interpreter-led walks that lead to more effective themes and stones "Interpreters can work w1th the recreat1on department staff 1n many ways A fish1ng derby, for example , can lead to a d1scuss1on on the feedmg hab1tats of fish " (Wallin , 1976, p 342 ) The 1dea of hav1ng a park Interpreter 1s a relatively new one , many people are unfam1l1ar w1th the concept of a nature mterpreter (Bowen , 1984) The other four alternatives are less personal and 1nflex1ble (3) pamphlet or booklets that can be read before or after the h1ke , but do not prov1de 1mmed1ate feedback , (4 ) leaflets or markers at tra1l s1tes , (5) trail s1gns wh1ch can Interpret the s1te directly but requ1res v1s1tors to read wh1le standmg , and (6) aud1o tra1ls that can human1ze the story but often detract from the nature expenence and can be extremely costly S1gnage is an intncate part of all parks and it can play a key role 1n the type of expenence park visitors will have. Over the years there has been vanous theones and trends regarding the type and construction of park s1gnage . There are presently four gu1ding pnnc1ples that park managers use when developmg signage and interpretation areas. The first principal is that the best interpretation is short and concise (Fogg , 1990, Trapp, Gross , & Zimmerman , 1994 ). The present trend is to shy away from lengthy signs and replace them w1th graphic symbols . Symbols can be posted in multiple areas and 1t will distract less from the rust1c expenence than larger, more detailed signs . They are also cheaper to reproduce and can be understood by those who cannot read . If symbols are not used the readab1l1ty of the s1gn must be measured using either the Flesch Readability Scale or the Write Formula . These scales w1ll help determme if the read1ng level of the sign is appropnate. The second guiding philosophy 1n present day sign mak1ng IS that of compat1bil1ty (Trapp, Gross, & Zimmerman , 1994). S1gns should enhance the expenence that the park IS attempt1ng to promote. The material chosen for park signage should be constructed for durability, functionality and aesthetic appeal. A wood s1gn would be appropnate when a rustic , natural appearance is 1mportant whereas a fiberglass embedded s1gn would be useful when a lot of detailed graph1cs are requ1red The th1rd and fourth pnnc1ples for successful s1gnage are that 1nterpretat1on should always be based on a unified theme and 1t should be closely associated w1th the expenence (Trapp , Gross , & Zimmerman , 1994 ). Interpretive and educational s1gnage should be located where the mtense experience 1s tak1ng place wh1le the users' mterest level 1s st1ll h1gh 34 STUDY AREA CITY OF NANAIMO PARK HISTORY Nanaimo is one of the most rapidly developing communities m Canada (City of Nanaimo, 1992). In response to this rap1d growth , the c1ty has developed vanous planning initiatives that emphas1zed the Importance of natural areas and community needs assessments . One of the first documents that emphas1zed the Importance of the natural env1ronment and the susta1nability and development of urban parks and green spaces is the City of Nanaimo Official Commumty Plan (adopted mto Bylaw 1n 1987) It discussed key plann1ng 1ssues 1n Nana1mo 1ncludmg growth management, des1gn quality, natural env1ronment, housmg , commercial areas , parks and recreat1on and roads and transportation The C1ty of Nana1mo later adopted a soc1al plannmg process called lmagme Nana1mo wh 1ch also had some effect on urban parks plann1ng and development. It eventually Influenced Plan Nana1mo wh1ch was adopted 1nto Bylaw and became the city's new Official Commumty Plan 1n 1996 Imagine Nanaimo 1nvited all the residents of Nana1mo to become Involved , and develop a community v1s ion to be realized over the next twenty years (Imagine Nana imo Steenng Committee , 1993). Throughout this participatory plann1ng process , the local government and city residents recogn ized two important goals relating to urban trails : 1) to preserve and protect Nanaimo's natural areas including parks , open space , trees , river and streams; and 2) to preserve and protect Nanaimo's natural areas and access to mounta ins and water (Imagine Nanaimo Steering Committee , 1993). In 1993 the city developed a Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan . The plan was "meant to provide a framework for orderly and consistent planning ; acquisition ; development; and administration of the parks and recreation resources , programs , and facilities" (American Alliance for Health , Physical Education , Recreation and Oance ,1985, pp . 1) (AAHPERD) . The terms of reference for this project included three objectives : 5 1) To guide the orderly development of all types of parks, greenways and open space , 1nclud1ng needs for land acquisition . 2) To develop a comprehensive recreat1on and cultural facility development plan . 3) To develop a plan wh1ch addresses current and future program needs (PERC , 1994, pp . 1). These objectives were contamed 1n a seventy-one page document that is meant to gu1de plann1ng and development of Nanaimo's park and recreation resources for the next ten years . The plan contains over 112 recommendations for future developments and areas for potent1al study The most current document the City of Nana1mo has produced IS relat1on to parks and open space 1s Plan Nanatmo City of Nanatmo Offictal Communtty Plan Th1s was developed as a blueprint from the lmagme Nanatmo process 1n 1993. It was adopted 1nto Bylaw on July 8, 1996 It has five ObJectives relevant to parks and open space 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To prov1de adequate parks and open space. To 1mprove access to parks and open space To meet the needs for open space 1n Growth Centers To conserve Nana1mo's natural and cultural hentage . To create partnerships. (City of Nana1mo , 1996) NANAIMO 'S URBAN NATURE TRAILS Eight of Nanaimo's urban nature park trails were chosen to be included in the study- Westwood Lake Park , Pipers Lagoon Park, Diver Lake Park , Buttertubs Marsh , Colliery Dam Park , Morrell Nature Sanctuary , Cable Bay Trail and Biggs/Jack Point Park . These parks are all Within the City on Nanaimo's jurisdiction and are representative of the City's various districts. See the map in Figure #3 for more information . Detailed information on each of the sites was gathered during the recreation inventories. Each of the parks legal description , access points, park and trail facilities , signage , vegetation , wildlife , recreation opportunities , trail construction and safety issues and suggestions are listed on the following pages . 6 "TI .......:] Nanaimo's Municipal Nature Trails (C ..,(t)c:: lt (,..,) ~ s: Q.) - "0 0 ·'Y~ ~n z Q.) ::::s ~~ Q.) ~~~ 5:>.;::,~ ~ ~.$' -~ . .... '. ~ 3 0 -~ (/) • J 'u.- / Q.) z \~ c..,:: (t) -i .., Q.) Bowen Ad ' (/) '0 a: ) ~(}, § ~ //_,~k_- --~- -:~~~~e~,/--r "":/ :c "' ,---f", , {t~ ,~ - ~ ' v/ Nature Trails Included in the Study: 1) Pipers Lagoon 2) Diver Lake 3) Westwood Lake 4) Buttertu bs Marsh 5) Morrell Sanctuary 6) Colliery Dam 7) Biggs/Jack Point 8) Cable Bay ~~ 5 A ,-- , / 'v / ~ ' ' /"v,-.__ ~/ / ~~<::)~/ '\ ' ' -, ~ ( tY4.qj ""' / -~-~~ 0 OS I " "' '\ e Waterfront Acce ssNi ewp 01nt ' '' • WESTWOOD LAKE PARK Legal Description : City owned 20 year prov1nc1allease to December 30 , 1995 Found 1n W estwood Lake plannmg d1stnct (162 84 acres) Ded1cated 1n 1946 Access: Th1s tra1l can be accessed from the ma1n po1nt of entry , Westwood Road , as well as from the Morrell Nature Sanctuary tra1l and the BC Hydro R 0 W Park and Trail Facilities : There are 8 garbage cans 1n the park1ng lot, p1cn1c area and along the trailhead , but there are none a~ong the tra1l1tself There are also 7 p1cn1c tables , 6 park benches , 2 floatmg rafts and 2 lifeguard towers at th1s s1te Th1s park also has a concess1on stand , lifeguard room , and changerooms wh1ch 1nclude washroom fac1l1t1es These are only open seasonally Signage : The number and types of s1gns around Westwood Lake are as follows • C1ty Park Regulations • Park 1s open from dawn to 11 PM • Overn1ght camp1ng 1s not allowed • F1res are not allowed • Vehicles of any k1nd and horses are not allowed beyond designated roadways or parking lots. • Dogs or any other animals are not allowed on beaches from May 1st to Sep 30th • Bylaw #2121 - Dogs must be on a leash • Liquor is prohibited in park areas. • Please co-operate and follow beach and park regulations • Parks , Recreation and Culture Department. (1) 8 • Notice· No horses or motor vehicles allowed in park . (1) • No gas motors . (1) • No parkmg fire entrance. (1) • Danger skate at your own nsk. (1) • City of Nana1mo. No dogs allowed on beach- May 1st to Sep 30th inclusive (1) • Anglers 3,000 Stocked Ra1nbow Trou t on Oct. 4/95 • Park opens at 6 AM - Closed at 11 PM ( 1) • Be sun smart. • Seek out Shade • Sl1p on a Sh1rt • Slap on a hat • Slop on sunscreen (1) • Not1ce Tra1l around Westwood Lake IS now open , neces sary repa1rs have been made. Boardwalks have been constru cted rn wet areas Please enJOY your walk and help us keep your park clean by pack1ng out you r l1tter (1) • The trailhead has a map of the h1 k1ng route along w1th the followrng 6 statements • The hiking tra il beg1ns at the park1ng lot entrance to Westwood Lake • The trail does travel around the perrmeter of the lake However, on the north s1de of the lake the tra1l 1s flooded at t1mes of high water leve ls on the lake. A) the length of the h1k1ng trail around the lakes perrmeter 1s approximately 5 7 km (3.5 m1les). • There 1s no telephone or toilet fac1l1t1es on the tra1l • The tra1l does have natural obstacles on 1t: lakes , cl iffs , marshes, brrdges . • Fires are not permitted in the park. • Please carry out your garbage. (1) • The park also has various posts along the tra il with distances , trail names and caution signs . Vegetation : Westwood Lake has a large variety of trees, shrubs and plants. A summarized l1st is as follows : Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, Lodgepole pine , Broadleaf Maple, Grand Fir, Douglas Fir, Red Alder, Arbutus trees , ferns , blackberry, honeysuckle bushes and wild flowers including tri ll iums. Many aquatic plants are also located in the 152 acre artificial lake. 39 Wildlife : Numerous birds , mammals and rept1les can be found here Red Squ1rrels , Blackta1l Deer, Blue Heron , loons , beaver, bear, raccoon , chatty b1rds , sna1ls and slugs , woodpeckers , tree frogs , toads , Canad1an Geese , Mallard Ducks , Amencan Coot and other waterfowl Westwood Lake 1s also stocked w1th Ra1nbow and Cutthroat Trout Recreation Opportunities : Th1s park can fac1l1tate a vanety recreat1on act1v1t1es Some of the act1v1t1es presently tak1ng place 1n the park 1nclude h1k1ng , Joggmg , kayakmg , canoe1ng , w1ndsurfmg , mounta1n b1kmg , sw1mm1ng , fish1ng , Wildlife v1ewmg , b1rd watch1ng , feed1ng geese and ducks , and nature 1nterpretat1on The park also has a large grass area that 1s excellent for Fnsbee and other unstructured act1v1t1es Users can also rent aqua b1kes , kayaks and small boats 1n the summer from lakes1de venders Trail Construction : Th1s tra1l would be class1f1ed by BC Parks standards as a Type 3 tra1l There 1s one ma1n loop tra1l that goes around the lake wh1ch has small footpaths lead1ng to the waters edge and vanous look outs. It starts by the first park1ng lot and 1s a relatively flat tra11 The f1rst 0.5 km is even wheelchair accessible w1th the except1on of a few muddy spots The f1rst 125 m of the tra11 cons1sts of a l1ght gravel covenng w1th a 13 ft w1de packed gravel/dirt base w1th no overhang or cleanng on the Sides . Th1s leads to the start of the tra1l wh1ch vanes between 8 to 14 ft wide and has mostly a forest bed cover w1th small pockets of large gravel and wood ch1ps . There is the occasional rocky outcrop or exposed root sect1on The maJonty of the tra1l has plenty of tree canopy but there are sections without any cover. Large sect1ons of the tra1l have very little wood chips left on the forest floor and are beginning to have dramage problems Throughout the ent1re trail there are muddy sections with run off that are gomg to requ1re e1ther some gravel or wood chips before the trail continues to widen as hikers attempt to walk around the mucky sect1ons. Near the BC Hydro R.O .W . access the tra1l narrows to as little as 4 ft w1de w1th no clearing on the sides , with the same basic forest floor covering . There has been maJor eros1on at the culvert's by this access point. There are also 2 gates w1th b1ke caut1on s1gns that would 40 preven t motor b1kes , A TV's and horseback nders from us1ng th1s port1on of the tra1l The sta1rs further down the trail would also act as a deterrent Safety Issues and Suggestions : • Bes1des some of the m1nor tra1l1mprovements the only other concern w1th the Westwood Lake tra1l1s s1gnage The trailhead 1s worn and needs replac1ng sl1de off the board and 1t 1s d1ff1cult to read The lettenng 1s beg1nn1ng to It says the walk around the lake 1s 5 7 km , however 1f you added all the sect1ons of tra11 around the lake on the same trailhead 1t adds up to more than that One the vanous trail markers around the lake reads that 1t 1s 7 1 km away from the start of the tra1l Maybe the trailhead 1s supposed to read that 1t 1s a 7 5 km h1ke around the lake The trailhead also contradicts the small s1gn at the start of the tra1l Smce the trailhead ment1ons that there are no to1let fac11it1es on the tra1l , they m1ght also want to ment1on that there are no garbage cans as well • In general the trailhead needs upgrad1ng A large number of the tra1l markers are e1ther m1ss1ng the d1rect1on s1gns off the posts or the lettering has worn off The replacement s1gns should use engraved lettenng so they are readable even when they start to fade There 1s also some tra1l d1vers1ons that are not presently marked • Another suggest1on 1s to el1m1nate some of the s1gns at the trailhead by amalgamat1ng them Some of the s1gns are repetitive and the number of s1gns 1s overwhelm mg . Most of the s1gns should e1ther be Incorporated on the regulation s1gn or on the trailhead . There IS also no s1gn that says "sw1m at your own nsk" This sign should be comb1ned w1th e1ther the "be sun smart" sign or the "skate at your own nsk" sign . The regulation s1gn states that the park IS open from dawn to 11 PM. This is contradicted by the s1gn on the gate that says the park opens at 6 AM and closes at 11 PM. • If a hiker starts from the other end of the tra1l , there 1s no trailhead or list of park regulations One should be installed • T he wash room doors are m1ssing the male and female symbols COLLIERY DAM PARK Legal Description : City owned dedicated through bylaw 2255 . Found m Harewood plannmg distnct (27 .67 acres) . Dedicated 1n 1967. Access : Th1s park can be accessed from three different roads (1) from the corner of 6th St. and Wakesiah , (2) Nana1mo Lakes Rd , and (3) Harewood M1nes Rd . Park and Trail Facilities· Th1s park has 1 beach access and 1 floating dock. It has 4 garbage cans , 8 park benches and 4 bndges There IS also a changeroom facility that 1ncludes washrooms. It 1s closed dunng the off season Signage : The number and types of s1gns around Coll1ery Dam are as follows . • Skate at your own nsk ( 1) • Park regulations (2) • No L1feguard Supervision - Sw1m with Caution . (1) • City of Nana1mo· No animals on beach from May 1 to Sep. 30 1nclus1ve. (1) • Trailhead w1th map. (1) • No Diving ( 1) • Warning- do not swim underneath dock (1) • Anglers - Lake is stocked with Rainbow Trout - May 26 to Oct. 2/95 . (2) Vegetation : Diverse vegetation can be found in this area: Arbutus trees ; Broad Leaf Maple; Red Cedar; Western Hemlock; Douglas Fir; Dogwood , Grand Fir, Engl ish Holly; Scotch Broom , ferns and other low lying shrubs as well as aquatic plants. Wildlife: There is a bounty of aquatic life in the park including frogs , minnows and the stocked Rainbow Trout. There is also a large collection of mammals and birds in the area such as: 42 ro bins; Mal lard ducks; slugs, deer, Canad1an Geese, woodpeckers , eagles , songbirds , Eastern Cottontail and squirrels . Recreation Opportunities : There is an extens1ve vanety of outdoor recreation opportunities ava1lable in th1s small but well s1tuated park. This list includes: sw1mm1ng ; fishing ; bik1ng ; h1kmg ; horse back nding , and canoe1ng . Trail Construction : Th1s tra il would be classified by BC Parks standards as a Type 2 trail. Th1s trail 1s a stacked loop w1th multiple access po1nts For the most part the trail has a ch1p cover over a forest bed base and 1s 4 to 6 ft w1de w1th a d1verse canopy cover There 1s some m1nor erosion happen1ng due to the lack of ch1p cover by the cu lvert's, exposed roots , and stairs Near one of the bndges the trail 1s start1ng to get pretty muddy and has poor dra1nage Some gravel as well as wood ch1ps will be requ1red to correct these problems. If the muddy spots were fixed a large sect1on of the trail near the cement bndge would even be wheelchair accessible The trail narrows in some areas and is only 2.5 ft. w1de with some muddy spots and exposed roots . Safety Issues and Suggestions : • Minor trail improvements are required as described above . • The trails diverge on many occasions and there needs to be sign posts or maps to indicate where each trail leads. • There is no sign at the Harewood Mines Rd access indicating the regulations of the park or where the trail will take you . • Trail degradation is happening along the lower lake where little trails are developing off the main trail from individuals trying to access the lake to go fishing . Perhaps one of these accesses should be turned in to an official trail and have a landing put in . Th is would help to preserve the trail integrity so that the main trail will not be eroded . • Another concern is the old abandoned trail that used to have a bridge that crossed the gully between the Harewood Mines Rd . and the 6th St. access. Now that the bndge is no longer 43 there the tra1l comes to an abrupt end without any s1gns No one will fall down the embankment, however individuals are beg1nn1ng to walk down the steep banks or create new trails instead of using the ma1n trail This IS start1ng to cause some erosion , run off and safety concerns This particular port1on of the trail should be covered up • One of the bridges has a set of sta1rs leading to the rav1ne There 1s noth1ng down there to see and 1t has wet rocks that are dangerous. There 1s no po1nt m hav1ng sta1rs at th1s s1te and they should be blocked off or removed • Park Benches need pa1nt1ng • Washroom hours should be posted • The No D1v1ng s1gn and the Warn1ng s1gn on the dock are extremely worn and need replacmg . CABLE BAY PARK Legal Description : City owned and ma1nta1ned , donated by MacMillan Bloedel. C1ty only owns the nght of way the surrounding land owned by MacMillan Bloedel. Found 1n Chase R1ver planning district. Dedicated 1n 1995. Access : This trail can be accessed by five pomts without the use of a boat, they are: 1) Nicola Rd ., 2) Leaky Road (v1a a public beach access trail) , 3) Harmac m1ll site , 4) Wh1te Road , and 5) from a service off Maughan Rd ., near the Jack Point Water Reserve (between Giant Ainiscough Improvement Park and Jackson Rd) . Park and Trail Facilities : 1 garbage can at the bridge . Signage: There are presently two signs in the park: • Maximum 20 people on bridge. (2) 44 Vegetation : Diverse vegetation can be found m this area : Arbutus trees ; Red Alder; Broad Leaf Maple; Red Cedar; W estern Hemlock; Douglas Fir; Grand Fir; Scotch Broom ; wildflowers , ferns and other low ly1ng shrubs as well as a vast array of aquatic l1fe. Wildlife : Extensive aquat1c life such as starfish , sea l1ons, crabs , and f1sh can be found here as well as a large collect1on of mammals and birds such as woodpeckers , deer, rabb1ts , blue heron , raccoons , song birds and red squ1rrels Recreation Opportunities : h1k1ng , nature v1ewmg , b1rd watch1ng and f1sh1ng Trail Construction : Th1s tra11 would be class1f1ed by BC Parks standards as a Type 2 trail This 1s a line tra11 w1th one tra1l head . The official Cable Bay Tra1l 1s, or will be , constructed of wood chip approximately 6 ft 1n w1dth , w1th 1 ft cleanngs on e1ther s1de The trailleadmg to Cable Bay from the Leaky Road access IS often steep , and has loose rock The tra1l1s only 2 ft w1de maximum and has steep side slopes where major erosion 1s tak1ng place . Safety Issues and Suggestions : • The Leaky Road access only has the one sign : Public Beach Access . It should state the length of the trail and have other park signage as well as a garbage can . • The Nicola Road and White Road access points needs signs as well. Several people get lost every week and end up walking along Holden Corso Road back to their car. • MacMillan Bloedel is doing some tree thinning in the area and there should be warning s1gns so hikers do not wander on to the logging roads . • There is presently a sign on along the official Cable Bay trail that says No Trespassing by order of MacMillan Bloedel. This sig n needs to be removed . 45 BIGGS PARK AND JACK POINT PARK Legal Description : Both parks are city ow ned and were acquired as greenbelt to be dedicated as park from BC Hydro R.O .W . #697 . Found in Chase River planning district. Biggs Park is 22.46 acres and was acquired in 1979 Jack Point Park 1s 32 acres and was acquired 1n 1985 Access: There are only two po1nts of entry for th is tra1l except v1a water. They are: (1) the parking lot in B1ggs Park , and (2) the Jack Point Tra1l park1ng lot Both of them are located on Maughan Rd . and the two trails connect. Park and Trail Facilities: There are 3 garbage cans , 1 park bench , and several b1rd houses Signage: The signs 1n B1ggs Park and Jack Point Park are as follows • No Shoot1ng - City of Nana1mo Bylaw. (3) • Park Regulat1ons (1) • Public Notice from Fishenes and Oceans - Information on crab fish ing and toxic shellfish . (2) Vegetation : These parks have Garry Oak trees , Arbutus trees , Douglas F1r, Red Cedar, Broad Leaf Maple , Poplar trees , nursing logs , wildflowers , and extensive aquat1c vegetation . Wildlife: Biggs and Jack Point Parks provides homes for sea gulls , heron and other sea birds , extensive aquatic sea life including crabs, shell fish and starfish as well as rabbits , red squ irrels , deer, woodpeckers and the occasional bald eagle . Recreation Opportunities: This site offers beach activities such as crabb ing , fish ing , VIsiting tidal pools , and collecting shells and driftwood as well as hiking , nature and scenery v1ewing , b1rd watching and picnicking . 46 ' ' Trail Construction : This trail would be classified by BC Parks standards as a Type 2 trail. Th1s is a li ne trail w1th multiple access points. The tra1lleading from Biggs Park to Jack Point trail is (8 ft) w1de and is constructed of packed rock . It has no canopy cover and 1t runs between Maughan Rd. to the nght and the ocean on the left for the f1rst 0 5 km . After th1s po1nt you enter Jack Point Tra11 and then there is a large set of sta1rs. Jack Point trail has the same bas1c construction with no drainage problems unt1l the last 300 ft of trail Bes1des th1s small sect1on the trail 1s in excellent cond1t1on , as well as the sta1rs and boardwalk over the bog Safety Issues and Suggestions : • There 1s little work requ1red on the trail1tself, however, there are several areas of concern w1th both parks . The f1rst 1s the overwhelming amount of l1tter B1ggs and Jack Pomt Park have the most litter of all the parks 1ncluded 1n th1s study People are also dump1ng grass cuttmgs and other refuge along the roadway and 1n the park1ng lot. The access pomts are especially bad for litter. Perhaps a s1gn w1th "no dumpmg " and the amount an md1v1dual can be fined for littering should be posted . This m1ght even be useful to add to the bylaw signs. • Another concern even with the (3) No Shoot1ng s1gns is the number of shells (from a 12 gage shotgun) can be found along the pathway. • A regulation sign needs to be posted in Biggs Park. • Another area of concern is the undeveloped trail leading from Biggs Park. Since the trail IS unmaintained its' use should be discouraged . A sign should be erected for this purpose . • Sign posts should also be erected to let hikers starting at Biggs Park know when they have entered Jack Point Trail. The other option is to have a map at both parks so hikers do not walk past their parking area . PIPERS LAGOON PARK Legal Description : City owned purchased through crown grant. Found in Hammond Bay planning district (7 .81 acres) . Dedicated in 1970. 47 Access : There is only one access to Pi per Park except from other public beach accesses , private property or the ocean . Th1s access 1s off Place Dnve Rd . near Hammond Bay Rd . Park and Trail Facilities : 2 port-a-pott1es , 6 park benches , 4 p1cnic tables , 4 garbage cans, 1 feces station and 1t also has a portable concess1on stand open weekends during the summer. Signage : The number and types of s1gns around P1pers Lagoon Park are as follows . • Public Beach · No an1mals allowed . (2) • Please be aware · Lagoon 1s subJect to strong wmds blow1ng out from the shorelme. Caut1on should be used to prevent dnft1ng out to George Stra1ght. (2) • Park Regu lations (1) • Max1mum Penalty $500 00. All pet owners are responsible for removal of the1r pets feces from public parks . (1) • EnJOY the flowers , but do not p1ck them ( 1) • Recreation Shellfish Reserve ( 1) • Shellfish Closed Paralytic Poison (1) • Trailhead and map (1) • Dog owners are required to remove feces left by the ir dogs. Use the bags prov1ded . Deposit waste in garbage container. (1) Vegetation : Pipers Lagoon has Garry oak trees , arbutus trees , Douglas fir, Red cedar, Broad Leaf maple , Red alder, Western hemlock, red currant, blackberry bushes , beautiful yellow and purple wildflowers , and aquatic vegetation . Wildlife : There is a vast array of aquatic sea life in the area including many types of fish , crab and other shellfish . Pi per's Lagoon is also home to the Blue Heron , Eastern cottontail , hummingbirds, woodpeckers , seagulls , bald eagles , deer, squirrels , robins and other songbirds . 48 Recreation Opportunities : This park offers a large vanety of outdoor recreation activities . beach combing , scen1c viewing , kite fly~ng ; rock climbing ; windsurfing , sea or surf kayaking ; hiking ; swimming ; scuba d1ving ; snorkeling ; collecting rocks , shells , and dnftwood ; as well as biking along some sections of the trail Trail Constru ction : Th1s tra1l would be classified by BC Parks standards as a Type 1 trail. This is a modified loop trail w1th a ma1n line tra1l for the first 100 meters The tra1l around the lagoon starts off 1n the park~ng lot. It has an ocean v1ew on e1ther s1de of the tra1l w1th no canopy cover It is approximately 8 ft w1de, flat, packed , and covered w1th large gravel After this first 100 meters , users have the1r cho1ce of hiking to the top of the rock climbing cl1ff or scrambling over a rock mound to another beach tra1l Th is trail is between 1 5 to 3ft w1de w1th varying degrees of canopy protection and floor covenngs . Some sect1ons of th1s trail have ch1p or gravel , but for the most part the trail is made up of rock outcrops with poor dra~nage There 1s the beginn1ng of many "short cuts" and some sect1ons of the main tra1l are almost completely blocked by brush . Exposed roots are being damaged quite extensively along this trail Safety Issues and Suggestions : • There are a couple of areas along the trail where safety is becom1ng an issue. The sections of trail that have steep side slopes or exposed roots need to be better mainta~ned . With continued wear on the exposed roots a big gust of wind could blow a large number of the trees over. • Another area of concern is the short hike to the top of the rock climbing cliff There is no designated trail and users are beginning to tramples the flowers and damage some of the smaller trees. • The front gates that get locked every evening are an excellent safety measure but it is presently attracting large teen groups later in the evening . They are scaring away some of the other park users and leaving behind cigarette butts and beer cans . 49 • With the large number of dogs that v1s1t Piper Lagoon Park , it m1ght be worth considenng erecting a no leash zone for dog owners . MORRELL NATURE SANCTUARY Legal Description: Owned by the Nature Trust of BC and donated by Willam Morrell1n 1984 Managed tn conJunction w1th the Nature Trust of BC and an adv1sory board . Found 1n the Westwood Lake plann1ng d1stnct (89 acres) Access : The only road access to th1s park 1s Nana1mo Lakes Road However 1t can also be accessed from Westwood Lake tra1l and the BC Hydro R 0 W Park and Tra il Fa ci lities: 4 outhouses , 1nterpret1ve center (Woods Room ) w1th a refngerator, sink, and m1crowave ; wheelchair access1ble tra1l - Yew loop , squ1rrel and b1rd feeders , dry erase board by the trailhead , 2 garbage cans, 2 p1cn1c tables, 13 park benches , 2 covered shelter areas and turnstiles to stop b1kers from ustng the trail Signage : Morrell Nature Sanctuary has a collection of 1nterpret1ve signage and they also provide extensive trail markers with maps . Th1s is the only park 1n the study that used tra1l names. Although they do have some rule and regulation s1gns located at the entrance of the park most of Morrell's signage is for interpretive purposes: • Morrel l Nature Sanctuary. Society office 1050 Nanaimo Lakes Rd . (1) • Open Dawn to Dusk . 787 Nana imo Lakes Rd . 5 kph (1) • Entrance (1) • Welcome to Morrell Nature Sanctuary. (1) • This is a Wildlife Sanctuary . All dogs must be on a leash . City of Nana1mo Bylaw #2121 . Morrell Sanctuary Society. (1) • Trail head and map: Welcome to Morrell Nature Sanctuary. A special message to visitors . Please help protect this sanctuary by observing the followmg rules : no fires , 50 shoot1ng , horseback nd1ng , motor b1kes , and no f1sh1ng (symbols) appreciated Your co-operat1on 1s (1) • Beaver pond bolls w1th act1v1ty msects , mosqu1toes, swallows , wood ducks, and beaver (1) • To park1ng (arrow) (2) • Yew Loop tra1l (2) • Information board Art1cles Welcome to Morrell Nature Sanctuary Journal and Newspaper ( 1) • Wheelchair accessible tra1l (symbol) (1) • All tra1ls (arrow ) (1) • Please take valuables w1th you • Please no bicycles (1) ( 1) • Keep nght (Yew loop tra1l also has every 0 1 km marked along the tra1l) (1) • Tsuga Way (1) • Bears have been s1ghted recently Take these precautions you walk Keep pets leashed Keep your distance , but never run from a bear (1) • F1re Lane (arrow). Hydro L1ne (arrow) (1) • Look out trail (2) • Lower Maple Tra1l (1) • Red Wood Meadow (1) • Maple Trail (1) • This is a wildlife sanctuary, foot traffic only. (1) • Alder trail (3) • Beaver Pond tra1l (2) • To hydro line (arrow) (1) • Morrell Lake (1) • Lake trail. Upper (arrow), Lower (arrow) . (1) • Upper lake tra1l (1) 51 Wh1stle or make no1se as • You are entering Morrell Nature Sanctuary. Please treat out plants and Wildlife w1th respect. ( 1) • Tranqu1ll1ty (3) • Beaver Pond trail (1) • Rocky Knoll trail (3) • Rocky knoll (arrow) (1) • Signposts w1th maps are at most of the tra1lheads Vegetation : Morrell Nature Sanctuary was logged m the late 20's and early 30 's. It cons1sts of 278 acres of second growth forest w1th m1xed spec1es and ecosystems conta1n1ng a large vanety of trees , shrubs , flowenng plants , and non-flowenng plants such as moss and fung1 The tree varieties are as follows Arbutus , Douglas fir, red alder, broadleaf maple , Northern Black Cottonwood , Pac1fic Dogwood , Grand fir, Western Hemlock, Lodgepole P1ne , Western Red Cedar and Pacific Yew Some of the many shrub varieties are as follows Blackberry , flowenng red currant, red elderberry , English holly, orange honeysuckle , red huckleberry , ocean spray , Oregon grape , salmon berry , scotch broom , th1mbleberry , common w1ld rose , and catta1ls. Wildlife : The sanctuary also contains a large number of birds , mammals , 1nsects, invertebrates , reptiles and amphibians , such as tree frogs , garter snakes , and banana slugs. Some of the mammals th at can frequently be found in the sanctuary are: beaver, blackta1l deer, eastern cottontail rabbit, red squirrel , raccoons , and the occasional bear. Birds living in the Morrell area consist of: swallows , various ducks , Canadian geese, Steller's jay, Pileated woodpeckers , Blue Heron , Bald Eagle , Red Breasted Huthatch , Red Tailed hawk, owls and flinchers . Recreation Opportunities : Morrell offers excellent hiking , nature viewmg , interpretive & educational walks , and joggi ng opportunities. Sanctuary users are also permitted to use the fire roads for mountain biking or horseback riding . Morrell Nature Sanctuary is the only park in 52 Nanai mo that offers fullmterpretive serv1ces . They have markers , pamphlets , nature boards , an mterpret1ve cen tre and interpreter lead walks for community and school groups. Trail Construction : Most of the tra1ls 1n Morrell Nature Sanctuary would be class1f1ed by BC Parks standards as Type 3 tra1ls . It 1s a maze tra1l system wh1ch also has several smaller loop tra1ls Included 1n 1ts' system Bas1c trail construction cons1sts of packed forest ground cover w1th a light wood ch1p covenng that IS approximately 2 5 ft w1de w1th lots of canopy protection . The fire access roads are constructed of packed gravel Yew loop 1s constructed w1th a cmder cover and would be class1f1ed as a Type 1 tra1l. Safety Issues and Suggestions : • Stairs on Upper Lake trail are detenorat1ng • Alder Lane connector 1s overgrown and there IS not adequate s1gnage or a s1gnpost map. • No s1gn to Indicate where Westwood Lake tra11 begms or how to get to the BC Hydro R 0 W from the top of the Alder Lane connector BUTTERTUBS MARSH SANCTUARY Legal Description : Owned by the Nature Trust of BC and managed by the M1nistry of Environment and the Buttertubs Marsh Adv1sory Board . The marsh was donated 1n 1975 and the walkways were built in 1982. Found in the Westwood Lake planning distnct (22 .02 acres) . Access: There are 7 different access points to the marsh ; 4 of them are located along Bird Sanctuary Drive , 1 on Buttertubs Drive (this is the main access point with the largest park1ng area) , 1 off Jingle Pot Road , and 1 from a 55+ mobile home park. Park and Trail Facilities : 9 park benches, 0 garbage cans , and 1 look out tower 53 Signage : This park has various posts along the trail that re-emphaSIS the park regulations and state the distances to the trailhead . The remainder of the s1gnage is a follows : • Trailhead : The Nature Trust of BC purchased th1s 17 hectare marsh in 1975 for the purpose of preserv1ng and developing 1mportant hab1tat for wlldl1fe Improvements include dikes to control water levels , ditching and cleanng to prov1de hab1tat diversity , resting Islands and boxes for waterfowl and other b1rds. Trail and an observation tower are prov1ded for publiC use (1) • Nest1ng Area - Do Not D1sturb from Apnl to June • Hazard - Enter at own nsk (1) (1) • Wildlife Area - Do Not D1sturb Wildlife , F1sh , or Vegetation (1) • Pedestnan Access Only (7) • Interpretive s1gn w1th p1cture of ducks . read1ng Healthy Ducks , Healthy Food • Warnmg fast water at control structure - enter at your own nsk (1) (1) • This 1s your Buttertubs Wildlife Sanctuary - Please help protect th1s sanctuary by observing the following rules · • Leash your dog . • Keep1ng to the footpaths . • Motorbikes not permitted . (3) • Maximum Penalty $500 .00 . All pet owners are responsible for removal of their pets feces from public parks . ( 1) • Animal Control By-law- 1987 #3230 . The owner of a dog shall not permit, suffer or allow their dog : • to be at large. • to harasses or molest a person , animal or poultry. • to be on a public beach during the months of May - Sept. • to be on the deck of any wading or spray pool . (4) • Animal Control Bylaw - Maximum penalty $500 .00 . The owner of a dog shall not perm1t, suffer or allow their dog : 54 • to be at large. • to harasses or molest a person , an1mal or poultry . A ll pet owners are responsible for removal of the1r pets feces from public parks. (1) Vegetation: This park has arbutus trees , red alder; Garry oak ; bull rushes , skunk cabbage; blackberry bushes , Scots broom and many other vanet1es low ly1ng shrubs Wildlife : Th1s marsh has a vanety of aquat1c l1fe 1ncludmg an amaz1ng water fowl collection . Pigeons , Scaup , Amencan W1geon , Amencan Coot, Canad1an Geese , and Mallard Ducks Other wildlife found 1n the park 1s as follows robms , blue Jays and numerous songb1rds , beaver, rabbits , woodpeckers , deer's and red squ1rrels Recreation Opportunities : Bes1des enJOying the natural surroundmgs marsh users can also . feed the ducks and geese , h1ke , b1ke (m sect1ons), JOg , and stroll around the marsh Dogs are perm1tted as well . Trail Construction : This tra1l would be classified by BC Parks standards as a Type 1 trail. The trail is 2.4 km long loop trail. The beginning of the trail is about 10 ft. wide and 1s constructed of small to medium packed gravel , large stones and dirt. This eventually narrows to 4 ft . in w1dth and is constructed of packed dirt and gravel. There is a minimum of a 7ft clearing , but for the most part there is no canopy cover. This dirt trail eventually leads to a 26 ft wide and 100 ft long paved section . From here the trail becomes chip and about 4.5 ft wide. It is extremely well drained and maintained except for a short section near the end of the trail by the last access point off Bird Sanctuary Drive . Safety Issues and Suggestions : • Since all of the parks access points (except for the last one off Bird Sanctuary Drive ) have signs emphasizing the importance of keeping dogs on a leash and picking up after them 1t 55 might be worth while placing garbage cans (or even a feces disposal stat1ons) m strategic locations to encourage the public to p1ck up after their dogs. • A dog by-law s1gn should be Installed at the Bird Sanctuary Dnve access . • The tra1l posts should also name the street access • Another area of concern 1s the t1re swing over the creek There 1s fast mov1ng water below and it is not very deep There also 1s no warnmg or use at your own nsk s1gn and it IS a liability The t1re swmg should be taken down • The length of the tra11 should be posted at the trailhead and the pedestnan only s1gn 1s not posted early enough . A b1ker could be half way down the tra1l before they real1ze the1r b1ke w1ll not fit through the turnstiles • The latch on the gate 1s broken • Weeds around some of the park benches need to be cut DIVER LAKE PARK Legal Description : This park is c1ty owned and is a comp1lat1on of four parcels of land acquired at different times. Found in the Green Lake/Diver Lake plannmg district (7 27 acres) Dedicated in 1970 and contains a sewer R.O .W . through the park Access : There are two non-connecting sections of trail around the park . The longer portion of the trail that starts in the tennis courts can be assessed from Labieux Road , Oriole Drive , Shenton Road and Black Franks Drive. The other section of the trail can be accessed from Shenton Road (different access point) and Ardoon Place. Park and Trail Facilities : 5 garbage cans , 5 park bench and 2 floating docks - 1 is wheelchair accessible , joggers circuit, tennis cou rts, BMX track, and field . 56 Signage : The joggers circuit conta1ns a number of stretching and exerc1se stations which includes signage . Not 1ncludmg those there IS st1ll a number of s1gns around D1ver Lake Park. They are as follows . • Skate at own nsk (2) • No owner of a dog shall not perm1t, suffer or allow the1r dog to be at large. (2) • Hand1cap access1ble fish1ng float1ng dock. (1) • 81cycle MotoCross Track s1gn and regulat1ons (1) • Motor vehicles are proh1b1ted , BMX b1cycle use only • Th1s track 1s a recreational track for casual le1sure use and cannot be used for rac1ng or compet1t1on Without the wntten consent of the c1ty • BMX safety equipment, such as helmets , gloves , knee pads , elbow pads must be worn and BMX standard b1cycles used on the track by everyone usmg the track • 81cycles must be restncted to the track and kept mov1ng from start to fin1sh • Track can only be used with consent and knowledge of parent or guardian . • The track 1s used at your own risk . The track 1s not superv1sed • Spectators must remam outside log rails . • No one may use the track unless experienced 1n nding a BMX bicycle on a b1cycle moto cross track . • The City of Nanaimo is not liable for any damage or injury resulting from any persons use of this track in any way whatsoever. • Do not ride bicycles on jogging circuit. (1) • Tennis courts. • When others are waiting for the courts please limit games to 30 m1nutes , and play doubles if possible . • When courts are reserved for department lessons , your cooperation is requested in vacating the courts . • Proper footwear is essential for your safety and playing enjoyment as well as to preserve the quality of the playing surface. Please wear runn1ng shoes only. 57 • Thank you for your cooperation . (1) • No golfing . (1) • Trailhead - Fitness C1rcu1t and Map (1) • No Dump1ng (1) • Park Regulations (1) • Park opens at 6 AM - Closes at Dusk • No gas motors (1) ( 1) • Public Beach Access ( 1) • Boats - Stop the spread of Euras1an Water Mlifo1l Rem ove all lake weeds from boat and tra1ler before entenng and after leav1ng the water (1) • Anglers - Lake 1s stocked w1th Ra 1nbow Trout Ca cheable - 73 0 3/7/96 (1) Vegetation : D1verse vegetat1on that can be found 1n D1vers Lake Park. Red alder, broad leaf maple, oak , Douglas fir, red cedar, vme maple , Lodgepole p1ne , low lymg shrubs , wild roses , bull rushes , holly , Lilly pads and other aquat1c plants. Wildlife : There is a bounty of aquat1c life 1n the park 1nclud1ng frogs , m 1nnows and the stocked Rainbow Trout. There is also a large collection of mammals and b1rds in the area : rob1ns ; Scaup , American Wigeon , American Coot, Mallard ducks ; slugs, deer, Canadian Geese , woodpeckers , Eastern cottontail and squirrels. Recreation Opportunities : Besides going for a jog or using the fitness circu1t , park VISitors can also walk , hike , bike , play tennis or baseball , use the BMX racing track or playground , go fish1ng or feed the ducks . Boats with electric motors are also perm1tted on the lake . Trail Construction : Shenton/Ardoon access: This trail would be classified by BC Parks standards as a Type 1 tra 1l. It begins as a 5 ft wide line tra1l with a 1 ft clearing on either side with some small gravel and wood 58 chip cover that has mostly worn away. The trail quickly narrows to 2 ft in w1dth w1th a 1 ft cleanng on e1ther s1de after the dock. It appears that the tra1l has had little use--weeds have grown up 1n the m1ddle. There 1s also a 0.5 km of paved access from Ardoon Place to the mam trail Labieux/Biack Franks Dnve access : Th1s tra11 would be class1f1ed by BC Parks standards as a Type 2 tra1l. This area 1s a network of 1nterconnect1ng maze tra1ls and other park facll1t1es . From the park1ng lot the tra1l starts off as a packed gravel base that 1s 4 ft 1n w1dth w1th a cleanng rang1ng from 1 to 6 ft. Some sect1ons need more gravel , but for the most part 1t has good drainage From here to the hand1cap floatmg dock (200 ft) 1s paved After th1s pomt the tra1l detenorates and 1s only about 3 ft w1de w1th a forest cover base that has muddy sect1ons The sect1on that cuts through the marsh 1s about 7 ft w1de w1th 1 ft cleanng on e1ther s1de There are many exposed roots and because the tra1l1s so muddy people are walking closer and closer to the edge . Th1s 1s caus1ng eros1on and the trees are no longer effectively absorbing water and act1ng as a barrier to the marsh . In effect the trail 1s disappeanng Safety Issues and Suggestions: • Shenton/Ardoon access: There is some grass cutt1ngs and tree branches that have recently been dumped in the area . Perhaps a sign indicating the max1mum fine for dumping m1ght discourage refuge being dumped in the park . • This section of trail would have increased use if it was either connected 1t to the other network of trails , or signs were put up along the roadway . Presently the only signs in th1s sect1on of the park are "Public Beach Access" and "Skate at your own risk ". Ne1ther of these are visible from the main access off Shenton . A garbage can in this area would also be necessary 1f there was an increase in use. • Labieux/Biack Franks Drive access : Brush need to be cleared from some of the c1rcuJts stations. • 59 The fence that has fallen over on the pathway needs to be repaired . • When the trail diverges it would be conven1ent to have distance and locat1ons of the various access points . • 60 The interpretive sign from around the lake is m1ssing . , RESEARCH METHODS RECREATION INVENTORIES Inventories are a type of closed -ended quest1onna1re that IS 1deal 1n s1tuat1ons where information 1s needed on non-human subjects (Ontano Research Counc1l on Leisure , 1977) In the case of th1s research , background 1nformat1on was needed on the tra1ls before an observational survey could be des1gned E1ght urban nature tra11 s1tes were evaluated Piper's Lagoon , Westwood Lake , D1vers Lake , Colliery Dam , B1ggs/Jack Po1nt, Cable Bay, Buttertubs Marsh and Morrell Nature Sanctuary These s1tes were analyzed 1n terms of (1) access , (2) park and tra1l fac111t1es, (3) s1gnage , (4) vegetation and wildlife , (5) recreat1on opportunities , (6) tra11 construction , and (7) safety 1ssues and suggest1ons Each of the eight 1nventones also co nta1n a bnef park h1story and lega l descnpt1on The recreat1on mventories prov1ded the background information for the observational studies , questionnaires, and focus groups. The mventones allowed the researcher to discover what recreation act1v1ties are tak1ng place 1n each park and what access pomts to observe . It also provided data on signage and trail construction This data may also play a role in use patterns and park users attitudes to multiple use 1ssues and park development. An example of this is a sign from Westwood Lake that reads , "Notice : Trail around Westwood Lake is now open , necessary repairs have been made. Boardwalks have been constructed in wet areas." This sign may have changed use patterns and park users attitudes towards development. OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES Observational studies are a form of survey research which have been called unobtrusive observation (Mitchell & Jolley, 1988), scientific observation (Chadwick , Bahr & Albrecht , 1984 ), observation method (Sproull , 1988), or field research (Babbie, 1992). Either way, the methodology is fairly similar. This method of research can be defined as "a data collection 61 method in which a person observes subJects or phenomena and records information about charactenst1cs of the phenomena" (Sproull , 1988, pp . 166). The observation method IS an effective way of study1ng social organ1zat1ons like Informal groups such as park users (Poplin , 1972). Due to time constramts and eth1cal concerns the observational stud1es were not 1n-depth behavioral analys1s or complete stud1es 1n terms of seasonal vanab1l1ty Th1s survey was merely a sample study of Nana1mo's present tra1l users The purpose of the observat1ons was to obtam a sample of the e1ght nature tra1l s1tes 1nclud1ng th e1r use patterns , number of users and the1r charactenst1cs , and to observe some poss1ble user conflicts These observations also helped serve 1n the development and des1gn of the mterv1ew quest1ons By observ1ng the amount and different types of park v1s1tors that use the tra1ls , questions on use patterns and confl1cts can be formulated If 50% of the tra1l users had dogs and the other 50% of the users b1ked , the emphasis of the quest1onna1re would be quite different than 1f 95% of the trail users h1ked and d1d not have any dogs. Information on how often park directional s1gnage , trailheads and garbage cans were used can also be translated into appropriate questions. It is also Important to find out how many people arrive without a vehicle to help determine if the trail users are mostly local res1dents or 1f they come from other districts to use the park . If large amounts of park users are commg from different areas to use this trail it is important to find out why , and if there are similar trails in their district not being used . This will be done in the questionnaire stage of the research and will help determine if more trails need to be built, or if the promotion of certain park trails is necessary. The site observational studies involved visiting all eight trails at random times , days of the week , and weather conditions to evaluate users preference for location and activities , as well as to gain visitor attendance rates . Other data was also recorded during the 62 observational stud1es including . the number of dogs, bylaw violations , patrons reading trailheads or other s1gnage , garbage can use, and the number of VISitors arnv1ng w1thout the use of a veh1cle . For further 1nformat1on please refer to appendiX 1 for a sample of the observational stud1es form . The eight study s1tes were observed in systematic three hour t1me slots 6 00 to 9.00 AM , 9"45 to 12 45 PM , 1.30 to 4 30 PM , and 5 15 to 8 15 PM ; and were put on a rotatmg schedule so that each s1te was observed for the equ1valent of 12 hours per day on both a weekday and e1ther a Saturday or Sunday The s1tes--Westwood Lake , Morrell Wildlife Sanctuary, Buttertubs Marsh , Colder Dam , P1pers Lagoon , Jack Po1nt Tra1l , D1vers Lake , Cable Bay Park--were observed from May 25 to June 17, 1996 All access po1nts to the tra1ls were rev1ewed and those rece1vmg the most users were the ones chosen for the observation studies By only us1ng the access po1nt that rece1ved max1mum use, a b1as was developed . However, th1s was kept to a mm1mum because for the most part all trail users can be seen from the pnmary access po1nts Th1s observational survey 1s Intended to balance out some of the respondent b1as 1mpl1cit in all other forms of surveys (AbbeyLivingston & Livingston , 1982). INTERVIEWS There are two forms of questionnaires: self administered surveys where ind1v1duals hand back or mail back their responses ; and in-person or telephone interviews where the interviewees physically or verbally respond to the interviewer's questions. This research used the in-person structured survey format where respondents were asked a standard list of questions in a set order. This method was chosen because of the number of advantages it provided . 6 ' ' The first real advantage 1s that 1t "elicits information directly from people" (Sproull , 1988, pp 161) and personal interv1ews also tend to arouse the respondent's interest and a h1gher probability of part1c1pat1on 1s then incurred (Rea & Parker, 1992, Babble , 1992). If respondents had to drop off the survey the next day or ma1l 1t 1n the response rate would have been quite low. In-person 1nterv1ews also allowed for more complete and accurate answers and 1t helped avo1d circumstances where respondents may have skipped quest1ons or been turned away when they had to do large amounts of wnt1ng (AbbeyLivingston & Abbey , 1982) Th1s was a concern because of the large number of open ended quest1ons that were 1ncluded 1n the survey It also allowed the mterv1ewer to clanfy 1nformat1on as quest1ons were ra1sed (pnmanly about no leash zones), expla1n more complex Information , and educate at the same t1me (other park tra1ls 1n the area ) (Sproull , 1988; Rea & Parker, 1992) It el 1mmated the "don 't know" and "no answers" responses (Babble , 1992) It also allowed for the use of v1sual a1ds li ke the D1stnct and park maps (Dandekar, 1988; Rea & Parker, 1992). Respondents for the 1n-person interv1ews were selected randomly , every second person , or group that walked , JOgged , biked or wheeled past the mterv1ewer was asked to participate in the questionnaire. Providing that the respondent had not previously been questioned , the group member w ith the birth date closest to the interview day was selected . The interview schedule was similar to the observational studies in that s1x of the eight trails were surveyed at random times , days of the week , and weather conditions to gain an understanding of the trail users use patterns , their perceptions and demands , and views on multiple use issues and future development. The six study sites were observed in systematic three hour time slots : 6:00 to 9:00AM , 9:45 to 12:45 PM , 1:30 to 4:30 PM , and 5:15 to 8:15 PM ; and were put on a rotating schedule so that each site was observed for the equivalent of 12 hours per day on both a week day and either a Saturday or Sunday. The sites--Westwood Lake , Morrell Wildlife Sanctuary, Buttertubs Marsh , Colliery Dam , Pipers 64 Lagoon and D1vers Lake Park--were observed from August 1 to August 31 , 1996 Due to the lack of attendance at Jack Po1nt Park and the temporary closure of B1ggs Park they were dropped from the research schedule These 1nterv1ews surveyed a broader spectrum of users and obta1ned general data on use patterns and trail users attitudes on the present level of development and mamtenance of park tra1ls Along w1th quest1ons that probed for mformat1on on tra1l users comfort levels w1th certa1n user groups such as cycl1sts and dog owners , 1t also prov1ded an understanding of the1r present and poss1bly future use patterns Th1s mformat1on was then used to help formulate quest1ons for the focus groups See appendiX #2 for more 1nformat1on FOCUS GROUPS The f1nal survey method mvolved 1mplement1ng focus groups w1th commun1ty organ1zat1ons that were presently us1ng the park tra1ls Th1s Included the Tuesday H1kers , Thursday H1kers , and Bast1on Cycle Th1s research used focus groups pnmanly for 1dea generat1on and att1tude assessment S1nce "there 1s a world of difference between mak1ng a dec1s1on alone and mak1ng a group dec1s1on ," (Poole & H1rokawa , 1986, p 15) 1t was Important to f1nd out how commun1ty organizations , like the Tuesday Hikers , v1ew some of the maJor 1ssues surrounding the regulation , ma1ntenance and development of Nana1mo's parks How the Tuesday H1kers view dogs and the number of washrooms along the tra1l could be dramatically different than the findings of individual respondents . Due to synergy, the focus groups could also generate solutions to some of the user conflicts and suggest changes that should be made to e1ther 1ndiv1dual parks or to the park system as a whole . These particular groups were chosen for several reasons . All of the partiCipants were actively Involved with a commun1ty organ1zat1on that was presently us1ng Nana1mo's park 65 trails. Therefore they were interested tn the topic and would be will1ng participants . They were also generally a homogeneous group because of the large amount of t1me they spend together each week (4 to 8 hours) participating in s1milar act1v1t1es throughout the year. These groups were also the largest user groups that regularly used the park trails 1ncluded in this study. To ensure that the focus groups were successful the atmosphere was kept relaxed and the groups were kept small The meet1ng places were chosen by the group leaders and were conven1ent for all of the part1c1pants . The focus groups met the follow1ng five obJectives I) Supply the background 1nformat1on , h1story, and the park use pattern of each group, 2) Determ1ne what factors play a role m the1r use patterns , 3) Discover and Interpret the1r perceptions on the present level of park maintenance, safety 1ssues and the quality and quantity of ex1st1ng facilities and resources ; 4) Determine if they have had any conflicts w1th other trail users; and 5) Recommend changes and raise concerns about any of the above 1ssues. The focus group with the Tuesday Hikers took place on December 10, 1996. The interviewer jo1ned the participants at 9:00am for their morning hike and facilitated the focus group during their lunch break from 12:30 to 1:30pm in the field . The meeting with Bastion Cycle took place at their bike store at 6:30pm on December 9. 1996. The focus group with the Thursday Hikers occurred at 8:00am at the Bowen Park Recreation Center on December 19, 1996. DELIMITATIONS Due to time constraints and the potential magnitude of this research there were a number of delimitation 's placed upon it. The number of parks included in the study , number and 66 duration of observational studies , interviews and focus groups are all delimitation 's that affected the research . The City of Nanaimo has over 240 hundred parks in the1r JUriSdiCtion There was not the t1me nor the resources to mclude all of the parks 1n th1s study . The e1ght parks - Westwood Lake Park, Pipers Lagoon Park , Diver Lake Park , Buttertubs Marsh , Coll1ery Dam Park , Morrell Nature Sanctuary, Cable Bay Tra1l and Biggs/Jack Po1nt Park - were chosen for several reasons First, they are w1th1n the c1ty boundanes Although not all of the parks are managed by the City's Parks , Recreation and Culture Department (two of them are owned by the Nature Trust of BC and co-managed by other agenc1es) they are st1ll considered mun1cipal parks in pnnc1pal due to the1r locat1on and t1es to the c1ty's parks department. The rust1c sett1ng of the parks was the second maJor reason for choosmg the e1ght s1tes . The sites prov1ded a vanety of natural resources and outdoor recreat1on opportun1t1es and for the most part were less developed , had lim1ted facil1t1es , unpaved tra1ls and were well treed . All of the parks s1tes also contain unpaved tra1ls at least 1 kilometer 1n length with l1m1ted access points in which the researcher would be able to observe the maJonty of tra1l users. Time and resource constraints were factors in regards to the number and duration of observational studies , interviews and focus groups. A maximum of 48 hours was spent at each site including both the observational studies and interview surveys . There was also only enough time to complete three focus groups which lasted between 45 minutes to 1.5 hours each . 67 RESULTS SITE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES The results for the follow1ng observational stud1es were completed from May 25 to June 17 of 1996 and represent the est1mated pre-summer use of e1ght urban park tra1ls The results are based solely on the 24 hours each s1te was observed Figure 4 : Average Amount of Parks Users Per Day Average Amount of Park Users Per Day ! • week~ Buttertubs ~Week~ Cable ~ Biggs/Jack 01vers Colliery I Morrel I I Westwood I ! Pipers I 0 100 200 300 400 500 Number of users After the completion of the e1ght site observational studies some trends were not1ced in park users preferences and use patterns . Westwood Lake Park is the most frequently used park averag1ng about 500 people a day, followed by Colliery Dam and Pipers Lagoon Park w1th about 300 people utilizing the park daily. The other five parks studied : Morrell Nature Sanctuary, Divers Lake , Biggs/Jack Point Park , Cable Bay Park , and Buttertubs Marsh also received varying levels of use depending on time of day and weather conditions . With the exception of Morrell , weekend use was higher than weekday use in all the parks. With a few exceptions due to weather conditions or large organized user groups, the amount of park use increased throughout the day. The 6:00 to 9:00AM shift had the lowest number of users and the 5:15 to 8:15 PM shift had the greatest amount of park users. The amount of park users reading signage or using the garbage cans was 68 calculated to be less than 1% Refer to f1gures 4 and 5 for general 1nformat1on on all the parks and to tables 1 to 8 for s1te spec1fic 1nformat1on Figure 5: Park Users Preferences for Time of Day Park Users Preferences for Time of Day • 6 00 - 9 00 AM Number of Use rs 4 0 9 45 - 12 45 PM 300 0 1 30 - 4 30 PM CJ 5 15 - 8 15 PM _j Weekend Weekday Ti me of Day Pipers Lagoon Park On a typ1cal weekday there would be approximately 255 park VISitors compared to the weekend wh1ch would have about 330 v1s1tors a day veh1cle 13% of these users arnved at the park w1thout a On 1n1t1al observation th1s park , dunng the 1 30 to 4 30 PM sh1ft, only rece1ved 20 v1s1ts due to poor weather cond1t1ons. The park was later observed 1n excellent weather cond1t1ons and there were 239 people. S1nce the second observation was done later m the summer, July 11/96, 1t was not Included in the results , but it does prov1de ev1dence for the trend of mcreasmg use throughout the day. The evenmg weekend sh1ft was also re-evaluated (July 13/96) and 1t went from 100 park users to 437 users. On weekdays the maJonty of dog users come m the early mornmg or later 1n the even1ng About 45 dogs came to the park weekdays and about 40% of then were on a leash Approximately 10% used the feces stat1on . About the same number of dogs come to the park on a weekend but approximately 60% of the dogs were on a leash and about 30% used the feces stat1on . Dog use 6 on the weekends 1s fa1rly cons1stent throughout the day, but rece1ves max1mum use dunng the afternoon . About 77% of the total park users use the tra11 and about 70% of these users h1ke Less than 2% of park users b1ke , JOg , sw1m , fish , rock climb or boat at P1per Lagoon Park Th1s leaves approximately 23% of users that do not use the tra1l and rema1n 1n the1r vehicles , or only use the f1eld or beach Table 1: Use Patterns of Pipers Lagoon Park Pipers Lagoo n Pa rk Weekday 6:00 - 9:00AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total W eekend 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total Total Park No Car Dogs 23 47 20 163 253 6 8 4 13 31 15 11 5 13 44 Total Park No Car Dogs 11 73 147 100 331 5 9 17 15 46 7 10 17 11 45 No Feces Use Leas h Bag Trai l 7 6 2 3 18 Hike 23 42 23 97 185 17 28 23 93 161 No Feces Use Leash Bag Trail Hike 10 45 130 79 264 10 40 125 5 8 10 3 26 3 1 0 0 4 6 6 1 0 13 77 252 Jog 3 0 0 2 5 Bike Boat 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 Bike Jog 0 3 0 1 4 0 2 5 0 7 Sw im Rock Climb Fish 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Boat Sw im Rock Climb Fish 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 Westwood Lake Park There was poor weather cond1t1ons on the 5 15 to 8.15 PM sh1ft on the weekend th1s survey was completed . Had the weather been better during th1s sh1ft the number of park users would probably have been more cons1stent With the other parks m regards to weekend use be1ng h1gher than weekday use and the evening shift being the bus1est of the day On average about 500 people can be expected in this park on a typical weekday 650 to 700 v1s1tors can be expected on a weekend . About 12% of these park users arnve w1thout a vehicle As ment1oned , there was poor weather conditions on the weekend 5:15 to 8:15 PM sh1ft so the number of park users was low The evening weekend sh1ft was later re-evaluated on July 13/96 and the number of park users went from 101 to 211 . 70 Approximately 60 dogs use th1s park on a weekday verses about 70 dogs on the weekend On a weekday about 56% of dogs are not on a leash and about 36% of them are on the beach On a weekend about 59% of dogs are not on a leash and about 56% of them are on the beach On a weekday about 38% of the total park users use the trail around Westwood Lake--about 80% of these are h1k1ng , 8% are Jogg1ng and about 12% are b1k1ng Of the non-tra1l users , approximately 8% go f1sh1ng , 8% go sw1mm1ng and about 5% go boat1ng (75% have no motors) On a weekend about 44 % of the total park users use the Westwood tra1I--60% of these are h1kmg , 12% are Jogg1ng , and 16% are b1kmg Of the non-tra1l users approximately 5% go f1sh1ng , 6% go sw1mmmg , and 6% go boat1ng (80% have no motors) Other Observations • lnd1v1duals l1vmg by the lake play the1r mus1c so loud that 1t can be heard 1n the far park1ng lot There 1s often mus1c wars between the vehicles of the park users and the res1dents • Later 1n the even1ng after 7 00 PM Westwood Lake becomes a maJor teen hangout. Large amounts of alcohol are consumed by teen groups and 1nd1v1duals f1sh1ng • Park1ng lots are almost at max1mum capac1ty 1n the evenmgs and traff1c 1n the park 1s qUite congested from the large amount of cars that dnve 1n and turn around and dnve out • Another observation 1s that there appears to be a large number of pollee patrols early 1n the mornmg when there are few users. However, there seems to be next to no patrols later 1n the day when the large teen groups are usmg the park 71 Table 2: Use Patterns of Westwood Lake Park Westwood Lake Park Weekday 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45- 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15-8 :15 PM Daily Total Weekend 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1 :30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Daily Total Total Park No Car Dogs 26 162 132 173 493 4 22 20 13 59 7 7 24 21 59 Total Park No Car Dogs 42 102 251 101 496 4 15 38 7 64 13 24 20 12 69 Use Trail Hike 0 2 5 14 21 25 47 50 64 186 24 35 37 54 150 No On Leash Beac h Use Trail H1ke 7 17 8 7 39 31 58 71 56 216 7 50 43 29 129 On No Leash Beac h 4 3 9 17 33 9 14 7 11 41 Jog 1 5 1 8 15 Jog 19 6 0 1 26 Bike Fish Swim 0 6 9 7 22 0 0 9 28 37 0 22 11 4 37 Bike Fish Swim 1 3 23 8 35 1 10 10 5 26 0 0 31 1 32 Boat Boat Motor Non 0 0 0 6 6 0 3 7 8 18 Boat Boat Motor Non 0 5 1 0 6 0 5 15 2 22 Colliery Dam Park There was poor weather cond 1t1ons on the 5 15 to 8 15 PM sh1ft on th e weekend th1 s survey was completed . Had the weather been better dunng th1s sh1ft the numbers of th1s park survey would have been more consistent w1th the other parks w1th regards to weekend use be1ng h1gher than weekday use and the evenmg sh1ft be1ng the bus1est of the day On average about 300 people can be expected 1n th 1s park on a typ1cal weekday Closer to 350 to 400 can probably be expected on a day dunng the weekend . About 37 % of these park users arnve Without a vehicle on the weekend and approximately 75% arrive w1thout a vehicle on a weekday On the days data was collected an average of 50 dogs v1sited the park a day. About 63% of the dogs are not leashed and about 25 to 30% could be found on the beach . Approximately 90% of the park users use the trail and 50% hike, 10 to 20% JOQ , and about 20 to 30% b1ke Of the nontrail users an est1mated 10% fish , 7% sw1m and less than 2% of the park users use boats Other Observations: • There are some major conflicts between people fish1ng and sw1mmmg f1shing or swimming area 1n the lower lake would help 72 Perhaps a des1gnated Use Patterns of Colliery Dam Park Table 3: Colliery Dam Park Weekday 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total W eekend 6:00 - 9:00AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total Total Park No Car Dogs 28 73 76 105 282 22 53 62 74 211 18 10 7 10 45 Total Pa rk No Car Dogs 30 72 122 55 279 9 37 40 18 104 11 12 14 12 49 Use Trai l Hike 2 2 2 5 11 28 71 60 88 247 21 27 39 48 135 On No Leash Beac h Use Trail Hike 22 69 112 51 254 13 16 52 28 109 No On Leas h Beac h 15 3 4 6 28 9 7 7 8 31 2 0 7 5 14 Jog 5 40 2 7 54 Jog 1 25 0 0 26 Bike Fish Sw im Boat Non 2 2 21 26 51 0 2 9 15 26 0 0 12 7 19 0 0 1 4 5 Bike Fish Sw im Boat Non 7 18 34 12 71 10 3 13 6 32 0 3 16 0 19 0 0 1 0 1 Divers Lake Park On a weekday about 140 people use D1vers Lake Park and approximately 37% of them arnve w1thout a veh1cle There are about 25 dogs 1n the park a day and about 36% are not on leashes Of the total park users about 12% fish , less than 1% boat (non -motor), feed ducks or use the BMX track , 4% use the field or playground , and about 6% use the tenn1s courts Of the tra1l users (67% of overall weekday park users), approximately 69% h1ke , 3% JOg , and 20% b1ke Dunng the weekend approximately 180 people v1s1t the park da1ly and about 60% use the tra1l Approximately 25% arnve w1thout a vehicle. An est1mated 22 dogs use the park w1th about 45% off them are off leash . 76% of the tra1l users hike, 3% JOg , and 20% bike About 16% of the overall park users fish , 3% use non-motorized boats , 7% feed the ducks, 8% use the BMX track , 6% use the tennis courts and playground , and about 3% use the field . 73 Table 4: Use Patterns of Divers Lake Park Divers Lake Weekday 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1 :30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Daily Total Weekend 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15-8:15 PM Daily Total Total Park No Car Dogs 17 38 42 42 139 9 7 14 22 52 4 5 6 10 25 Total Park No Car Dogs 6 37 51 84 178 3 14 12 15 44 4 10 1 7 22 No Use Leash Trail Hike 14 17 35 27 93 9 14 24 17 64 No Use Leash Trail Hike 2 3 4 0 9 1 3 1 5 10 5 25 25 52 107 5 15 17 44 81 Jog 0 1 2 0 3 Jog 0 1 0 2 3 Bike Fish 1 2 5 11 19 6 2 2 7 17 Bike Fish 0 9 7 6 22 1 4 6 17 28 BMX Ball Court Play Area Field 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 0 8 0 0 3 3 6 1 2 3 0 6 Boat Feed Non Duck s BMX Play Ball Court Area Field Boat Feed Non Duck s 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 6 0 1 5 6 12 0 7 4 4 15 0 2 6 3 11 0 2 3 6 11 Biggs/Jack Point Park The total number of people that use B1ggs Park and/or Jack Po1nt Park on a weekday 1s approximately 60 as compared to a weekend where about 140 people v1s1t the two parks a day Approximately 25% of the users e1ther h1ke or p1cn1c 1n B1ggs Park (approximately 15 to 25% of the B1ggs park users h1ke the undeveloped tra1l ) The remainder of the users start at Jack Po1nt Park and do not use the path to B1ggs Very few park users arnve w1thout a vehicle On the days that B1ggs/Jack Po1nt Park was observed only person cycled to the park On a weekend there 1s approximately 20 dogs us1ng the park a day and about 70% of them were not on a leash . On a weekday about 10 dogs use the park and only 35% of them were not on a leash . In the early morn1ng (6 :00 to 9:00AM) there were more dogs than people us~ng the park On a weekday about 75% of the park users use the tra1l The reason th1s number 1s low 1s because of the large number of m1ll workers that dnve across the street to eat lunch 1n the park The tra1l users can be broken down to 98% hikers and 2% Joggers 3% of the total park users are also crabb1ng . 74 0 0 5 1 6 .' N1nety percent of the weekend users use the parks tra1ls Approximately 95% of them h1ke , 1% b1ke and 4% of the total park users go crabb1ng Other Observations • There 1s a large number of Jack Pomt Park users that end up h1k1ng out to the pomt and walk1ng back along the ferry constru ction Perhaps the tra1l they are access1 ng th e construction s1te from should be blocked off • Large numbers of people are also collectmg dnftwood and oth er beach art1fa cts Table 5: Use Patterns of Biggs/Jack Point Park B iggs/Jack Point Park Weekday Total Biggs Parks Park 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total Weekend 1 13 22 25 61 0 10 0 6 16 Total Biggs Parks Park 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15 - 8:1 5PM Daily Total 1 41 33 63 138 No Car 1 12 7 10 30 Dogs 0 0 0 0 0 No Car 1 1 4 5 11 Dogs 0 0 0 1 1 3 9 5 4 21 No Use Leash Tra1l 0 1 2 1 4 UN Trail 1 Hike 19 21 46 0 0 0 4 4 No Use Leash Trail UN Trail Hike 1 35 33 56 125 0 2 1 1 4 1 35 27 55 118 3 7 2 3 15 5 Jog 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 19 21 45 Jog 0 0 0 0 0 Bike Crab 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Bike Crab 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 0 5 Cable Bay Trail Out of the total t1me th1s park was observed , people were only seen us1ng th1s park from 1 30 to 4·30 PM and 5:15 to 8.15 PM on a weekend . A total of five people used the tra1l They were all hiking , had no pets , and drove to the trailhead . The figures are extremely low because the last portion of the trail has not been completed yet. 75 Table 6: Use Patterns for Cable Bay Trail Cable Bay Park Weekday 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Daily Total Weekend 6:00 - 9:00AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15 - 8:15PM Daily Total Total Parks No Car 0 0 0 0 0 Total Parks Dogs 0 0 0 0 0 No Car 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 Dog s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Use No Leash Trail Hike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No Use Leas h Trai l Hike 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 3 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Buttertubs Marsh Sanctuary : Dunng the week approximately 156 people a day v1s1t the park as compared to the weekend where about 240 1nd1V1duals v1s1t the park a day On a weekday about 37 % of the park users arnve at the s1te without a vehicle There are approximately 19 dogs 1n the park and about 32 % of them are not on a leash 97% of the park users use the trail and 66% hike, 6% JOg , 21 % b1ke and 14% of th e total users feed the ducks On th e weekend approximately 20% of the park users arnve Without a vehicle There are about 19 dogs in the park and they are all on a lea sh Of the 93% of the park users that use the tra1ls , 75% hi ke, 5% JOg, 11% bike and 19% of th e total users feed the ducks. 76 Table 7: Use Patterns of Buttertubs Marsh Sanctuary Buttertubs Marsh Weekday Total Park No Car Dogs 21 28 40 67 156 11 8 11 27 57 7 3 3 6 19 Total Park No Car Dogs 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15PM Daily Total Weekend 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Daily Total 11 46 106 77 240 2 10 18 17 47 2 5 6 6 19 No Use Leash Trail Hike 20 26 35 65 146 15 16 18 48 97 No Use Leash Trai l Hike 0 0 0 0 0 6 35 66 60 167 2 1 1 2 6 9 43 95 75 222 Bike Feed Duck s 5 3 8 15 31 1 2 14 5 22 Jog Bike Feed Duck s 3 0 3 5 11 0 7 12 5 24 2 12 19 12 45 Jog 0 3 4 2 9 Morrell Nature Sanctuary On a weekday approximately 133 people v1s1t the sanctuary compared to the weekend where about 105 people use the park a day The larger weekday use can be explamed by the number of groups (1e schools) that book tours and educational packages About 18% of park users arnve Without a veh1cle There 1s an average of 17 dogs 1n the park a day w1th about 35% of them not on a leash early morn1ngs there are as many dogs as people In the Depending on the number of dnvers that JUSt drop students off for the environmental programs/h1k1ng day tnps the amount of people that use the tra1l 1s between 90 to 100%. Between 85 to 90% of the tra1l users h1ke, less than 2% JOg and about 10% of the users b1ke . Only about 7% of the hikers use Yew Loop tra1l 77 .. Table 8: Use Patterns of Morrell Nature Sanctuary Morrell Nature Sanctuary Weekday 6:00 - 9:00AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4 :30 PM 5:15 - 8:15 PM Da ily Total Weekend 6:00 - 9:00 AM 9:45 - 12:45 PM 1:30 - 4:30 PM 5:15 - 8:15PM Da ily Total Tota l Park No Ca r 1 8 9 6 24 5 47 58 23 133 Total Park No Car 10 37 32 24 105 6 4 6 2 18 Dogs 5 5 4 2 16 Dogs 6 4 4 4 18 Yew No Use Leas h Tra ils Loop 1 1 1 2 5 Hi ke 5 43 54 21 123 0 2 3 0 5 5 38 46 18 107 No Use Leash Tra1 l Yew Loop Hi ke 0 2 2 7 11 4 35 27 24 90 4 1 2 0 7 10 37 32 26 105 Jog Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 3 15 Bike Jog 1 1 0 0 2 5 0 4 2 11 INTERVIEW RESULTS Dunng the month of August 1996 a senes of person to person 1nterv1ews were co mpleted 1n 6 of Nana1mo's mun1c1 pal nature parks 1nvolv1ng 269 part1c1 pants Th e su rveys were co mpleted at P1pers Lagoon , D1vers Lake , Morrell Nature Sanctuary , Westwood Lake , Buttertubs Marsh and Coll1ery Dam parks 40 to 50 quest1onna1res were comp leted at each park and all t1me penods (6:00 to 9·oo AM, 9 45 to 12 45 PM , 1 30 to 4·30 PM , and 5 15 to 8 15 PM ) were eq ually re presented 54 % of the surveys were completed on weekdays (46% on weekends ) and 52% of the respondents were male (48% were female). These results only Included tra 1l users dunng the month of August and do not represent Nana1mo park users as a whole When respondents were asked what the1r ma1n reason was for choos1ng a particu lar park trail , convenience was the most frequent response . The relat1onsh1p of relative distance from a park to home seems to be relevant to park usage. Although some of the parks almost border on two distncts it appears that the shorter tra1ls have more "local" use At D1vers Lake 63% of the park users were from the corresponding distnct. In comparison , Colliery Dam had 58% from the local distnct; Pipers Lagoon had 45% ; Bu ttertubs Marsh had 38%, Westwood had 35% and Morrell only had 30% of local use. Protection Island district had no respondents. The class1ficat1on of "other" 78 park users 1nclude those that JUSt live outs1de of c1ty lim1ts such as Lantzv1lle or Cedar, as well as those who travel through Nana1mo on a regular bas1s and may be f1rst t1me v1s1tors Figure 6: Park Users by Age Categories Park Users by Age Categories 66 and up 16 to 25 13% 56 to 65 9% 26 to 35 22% 36 to 45 23% Age categones diVISions (f1gure #6 ) and groups s1ze resu lts we re fa 1rly con s1stent throughout out the s1x parks , but the number of dogs and respondents v1ews on no lea sh zones change substantially It was discovered that 50% of the respondents we re us1 ng the tra 1ls by themselves , wh1le 32% came 1n groups of two , 7% came 1n groups of three , 7% came 1n groups of four and 4% came 1n groups larger than four. Overall , there 1s approximately one dog 1n a park for every two people . On the days the data was be1ng collected 55% of the park users d1d not have dogs, 35 % brought one dog , 8% had two dogs and 1% had more than two dogs Overall , 55% of the respondents did not have dogs while ind1v1dually the parks vaned from 46 to 57% w1th the exception of Buttertubs Marsh in which 71 % of the v1s1tors did not have a dog Th1s could probably be explained by the large number of geese , ducks and p1geons 1n the area Buttertubs Marsh trail boarders entirely along a giant pond that 1s a b1rd sanctuary It wou ld be next to 1mposs1ble to control any dog , especially 1f it is off a leash , w1th so many "temptations " near by The concept of a no leash zone was supported by 76% of those surveyed overall (17% were opposed and 7% were 1nd1fferent) but there was only 60% support 1n Buttertubs as compared to 79 Westwood wh1ch had 88% of the respondents support. When participants were asked if they would support a no leash zone in the park they were surveyed at, only 50% responded in the affirmative (39% were opposed and 11 % were indifferent). When these results were analyzed by individual parks the response rate vaned by up to 55%. Only 22% of the respondents would support a no leash zone m Buttertubs Marsh , 40% m Morrell , 40% m Divers Lake , 55 % m P1pers , 62% in Colliery Dam and 78 % in Westwood Lake Park Table 9: Total Types of Activities Total Types of Activities Hiking/Walking Walking Dog Swimming Jogging Cycling Fishing Feeding Ducks Nature Appreciation Bird Watching Picnic Beach Combing Tennis Playground Picking Berries Boating Photography Skating/Skiing Meditation/Relaxation Scenic Viewing Wind Surfing Rock Climbing Baseball Open Field 242 117 39 33 31 24 23 14 11 10 8 8 7 6 4 4 2 2 The above table demonstrates how varied the participants responses were when asked to list all the activities they do at this trail. The most consistent reply was walk ing/hiking (90 %) , followed by walking the dog(s) (43%), swimming (15%), jogging (12%), and cycl ing (12%) . Respondents were also asked which activity they took part in most frequently . The results of th is quest1on were similar to the above table: walking the dog(s) (40%) , walking /hiking (36%) , jogg ing (7%) , cyc li ng (4%) , and feeding the ducks (4%) . 80 Table 10: Reasons for Choosing Park Trail Reasons for Choosi ng a Park Trai l Co nven ience Lack of other users Design of tra il Aesthetics/beauty One of many Natural/Rusti c Dogs can run free Vegetation/trees Cool /Shade Duc ks/b irds Acc ess to water View On Park Map Clean Safety Beach Short cut Un iqueness Rem ote Fish Variety of tra ils Nature Center Rock Climb Drive By Volunteer w ork 164 35 34 17 15 13 13 7 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 Respondents were asked to list all the reasons why they choose th1s trail over other park tra1ls on the day in question . Th1s was an open-ended quest1on and all of the respondent responses are listed in table #1 0. The five most common responses are as follows : conven1ence (61 %), lack of other users (13%) , design of trail (13%) , aesthetics/beauty (6%) and that it is just one of the many trails they use (6%) . In comparison , when the participants were asked what the1r main reason was for choosing this trail over other park trails they responded : convenience (52%) , design of trail (9%) , natural/rustic setting (6%) , lack of other users (5%) , and that it is one of the many trail they use (4%) . The sixth ranked influencing factor is also noteworthy- 4% of the park users surveyed said that the main reason they choose this particular park trail is so that their dog(s) can run free . Overall , when the participants were asked if th ere were any other areas they felt should become a priority for future park development, 39% of them had some suggestions. This figure ranged from 17% at Pipers Lagoon to 65% of Morrell users. There are over 80 different areas that they felt 81 • should be developed into parks , preserved or expanded . The complete list can be found 1n the Appendices , but the top fourteen areas are listed below • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (16) Westwood Ridges (15) more in the North End (Hammond Bay, Rutherford Area) (14) Colliery Dam protected from highway and expanded on other s1de (expanded/protected m general) (14) Mt. Benson (includes Benson Creek) (1 0) Linley Valley (5) Green Lake (5) BC Hydro ROW (1nclude bike tra1l) (4) more bike paths/tra1ls through the city of Nana1mo (on and off road) (4) m1l1tary base (4) Duke Pomt (can mclude expanding Cable Bay) (2) expand waterfront and have rollerblade and cycli ng area along Sea Wall (at least one lane) (2) Tra11 through Rutherford where creek 1s near Quilted Duck (2) Brannen Lake , develop tra1l and expand beach (2) Park fac1lit1es are under utll1zed , have larger parks (not m1n1 parks or tot lots) The sat1sfact1on levels of the park users were measured by ask1ng the part1c1pants to rate how they felt about different aspects of the park. A response of one would mean they were very dissatisfied and a response of five would mean they were very sat1sfied . Part1c1pants could also respond not applicable 1f they did not know or did not want to answer that particular quest1on . 82 Figure 7: Satisfaction Levels of Park Users 0 N/A Satisfaction Levels of Park Us ers Dll very Sat1sf1ed ::J. Cond1 t1ons of w ashrooms Number of benches • Somewhat SatiSfied 0 Nellher I 0 Somewhat D1ssat1sfle d Level of secunty • very 01ssai1Sfled umber of dogs ~ II) u umber of cyclists Ql 0. II)