Summary
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
February 10, 2000
I.
Introduction
On Thursday, February 10,
Brunswick’s Open Space and Recreation Task Force sponsored a community forum.The forum had three goals.First, the Task Force updated the public on
the progress of its Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.Second, the
Task Force wanted to initiate a community-wide dialogue on open space and
recreation issues in Brunswick.Third, the Task Force wanted the
public’s input on important elements of a successful Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan.
The Task Force aggressively
advertised the forum; notifications, phone calls, and a newspaper insert were
designed to attract as many members of the public as possible.To
encourage representation from a wide range of stakeholders, the Task Force
identified and then made special efforts to personally invite those who have a
large stake in a Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.The hard work
paid off and 119 people attended.In addition, about 20 facilitators and
support personnel were present.
The Task Force structured the
forum to both inform the attendees of their progress with the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Plan and to solicit the public’s ideas and concerns.Upon entering the meeting hall, forum participants were randomly assigned
to a group.Sixteen groups were formed, each with one facilitator and
about eight participants.These groups were given three exercises to
complete.Exercise I was designed to identify special places in
Brunswick that exist or that have been lost.Exercise II was designed to
identify general priorities that should be addressed in the Plan.Exercise
III was designed to identify elements for a successful Parks, Recreation, and
Open Space Plan (detailed explanations of these exercises are below).
II.
Forum Participants
Forum participants were asked
to complete a survey.A participant profile was constructed from the
survey results.This profile provides a context from which a more
accurate interpretation of the forum results can be deduced.For
example, if most of the participants were from one section of Town, it would be
natural to expect that region of Town to have a more prominent position in the
forum results.Or if most of the participants have children in school,
it would be natural to expect a heavier emphasis on youth and recreation
facilities.
Of the 119 attendees, 110
completed a participant survey.In addition, 27 other people who were
not present at the forum completed this survey and mailed it to the Town Hall.From these 137 surveys, a profile of the participants was constructed. As
is expected, the vast majority of the respondents lived within the Town of
Brunswick.Over 97% of the respondents reported living within Brunswick.Almost one-half (65 respondents) lived In-Town.One of every five
(29 respondents) lived in the region between Interstate 95 and Harpswell Road,
while residents of East Brunswick (14%) and Northwest Brunswick (11%) were well
represented.
Although there was a wide age
distribution, the majority of the respondents were middle-aged.Nearly
46% of the survey respondents, 63 out of 137, were between 35 and 54 years old.Only six of the participants were younger than 25 years old, and only nine
were between 25 and 34.Sixteen respondents were between 55 and 64 years
old, and 22 respondents were over 65.Twenty-one respondents chose to
not indicate their age.
Most of the survey
respondents live in a two-person household.Fifty-five respondents (or
40%) live in two-person households.The majority of these two-person
households were older, as six of these respondents were under 35 years old; 13
were between 35 and 55 years old; and 26 were over 55 years old.Another
40% of the respondents were from three or four-person households.Of
these 54 households, 35 had respondents between 35 and 54 years old.In
addition, all 14 of the respondents from households with more than four people
were between the ages of 35 and 54– which suggests that there was a strong
representation from younger families.Only 11 of the respondents lived
alone.
Close to one-half of the
respondents had children of some age within their household.Of these,
four had only preschool-aged children, nine had preschool and school-aged
children, and 51 had only school-aged children present.Almost as many
(61 respondents) had no children under the age of 18 in their household.Eight
of these respondents were under 35 years old and 27 were over 55 years old.Twelve
respondents chose to not mention the number of children present in their
household.
The respondent’s households
tended to be very active. Ninety-eight of the respondents (72%) had a family
member who regularly walked or ran. In addition, 66% of the households (91
respondents) were involved with hiking, 58% participated in recreational
biking, 55% in cross country skiing, and 52% in canoeing or kayaking. Between
one-quarter and one-half of all the respondent’s households were regularly
involved in bird watching, youth sports, adult sports, and sailing. Only 8% of
the respondent’s households were involved in game hunting, 6% in bird hunting,
4% in off-road, and 1% in snowmobiling.
The respondent’s households
were also active in their community. Sixty-four (or 47%) were currently
involved in the Brunswick-Topsham Land Trust. Almost one-quarter (31
respondents) were currently involved in a youth sports organization.
Fifty-eight of the respondents (42%) had at one time been involved with a
municipal board or commission. The largest representation came from the
Brunswick Conservation Commission, where eight of the respondents had at one
time been active.
The majority of the
respondents own the house in which they live. Almost 90% (122 respondents)
lived in a house that they owned. Only five respondents lived in a house or
apartment that they rented. Not one of these renters had children. Five
respondents lived in either a dormitory or some other type of student housing.
Of the 137 people responding
to the survey, 20 (or 15%) owned more than 10 acres of undeveloped land. Seven of
the 20 were between 35 and 55 years old, and nine were over 55 years old. The
remaining five respondents that own more than 10 acres of undeveloped land did
not indicate their age. Nine of the 20 reported having children under the age
of 18 in their household. Seven of these larger landowners live between
Interstate 95 and Harpswell Road, while another six live in Northwest
Brunswick. Six of the 20 large landowners owned between 10 and 20 acres, nine
owned between 20 and 50 acres, and five owned more than 50 acres. Note–
extra care must be used when interpreting statistics from such a small
population (in this case, 20).
III.
Exercise I - Special Places
Exercise I had two parts. The
first part of this exercise sought to identify special places in Brunswick.
Each group facilitator defined special place as a publicly or
privately-owned park, open space, or an outdoor recreational area that is
essential to the character of Brunswick and which should be preserved for the
future. The facilitator asked each participant to create a list of special
places. The group combined these individual lists into a group list and
concurrently identified each special place on a Town map. Once the group list
was complete, participants voted on their top three special places. The group
results were then tallied into a master list.
Table 1
Top Ten Special Places
|
Special Place
|
Votes
|
% Participants
|
Groups
|
% Groups
|
|
Mall
(Upper and Lower)
|
38
|
31.9%
|
16
|
100.0%
|
|
Town
Commons
|
38
|
31.9%
|
12
|
75.0%
|
|
Crystal
Springs Farm
|
24
|
20.2%
|
11
|
68.8%
|
|
Pennellville/
Simpson’s Point
|
22
|
18.5%
|
8
|
50.0%
|
|
Bowdoin
Campus
|
15
|
12.6%
|
7
|
43.8%
|
|
Androscoggin
River
|
14
|
11.8%
|
8
|
50.0%
|
|
Bike
Path
|
13
|
10.9%
|
8
|
50.0%
|
|
Wharton’s
Point
|
13
|
10.9%
|
5
|
31.2%
|
|
Coleman
Farm
|
12
|
10.1%
|
8
|
50.0%
|
|
Dionne
Farm
|
12
|
10.1%
|
4
|
25.0%
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
Table 1 shows the special
places that received the most votes and Figure 1 displays the spatial range of
the locations of these places. The Town Commons and the Mall received by far
the most votes, with each garnering a vote from 31.9% of the participants. The
Crystal Springs Farm and the Pennellville/Simpson’s Point area were solidly in
third and fourth place, with votes from 20.2% and 18.5% of the participants,
respectively. Also, note that the Mall received at least one vote in each of
the 16 groups, which suggests that special place has a very broad appeal to the
participants. Other special places that received at least one vote from half of
the groups are the Town Commons (75%), Crystal Springs Farm (69%),
Pennellville/Simpson’s Point (50.0%), Androscoggin River Area (50%), Bike path
(50%), and Coleman Farm (50%).
Other special places didn’t
receive enough votes to be included in the top ten, but they did receive votes
from at least two separate groups. These are listed in Table 2 and their
locations are shown on Figure 1. The most notable is Maquoit Bay, which
received only 11 votes from the participants, but was listed as a special place
by nine of the 16 groups (56.3%). New Meadows Lake (10 votes) and Bowdoin Pines
(7 votes) were each mentioned by six of the 16 groups.
Table 2
Other Special Places
|
Special Place
|
Number of Votes
|
Number of Groups
|
|
Maquoit
Bay
|
11
|
9
|
|
New
Meadows Lake
|
10
|
6
|
|
Pickard
Field
|
9
|
5
|
|
Trail
from College - Commons - Middle Bay
|
8
|
2
|
|
Pleasant
Hill Road fields
|
7.5
|
4
|
|
Bowdoin
Pines
|
7
|
6
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
The second part of Exercise I
was designed to identify special places in the Town of Brunswick that have been
lost or altered over time. Participants listed these places, and again the
group facilitator combined the individual lists into a group list. The most
often mentioned lost special places are listed in Table 3 and shown graphically
in Figure 2.
Of the 16 groups, 12
identified the Town Common Land lost to the Brunswick Naval Air Station as a
lost or altered special place. Merrymeeting Park was mentioned by one-half of
the groups as a lost special place, and the trail from Pennellville to Pickard
Field was mentioned by seven groups. Maine Street Station and Cook’s Corner
were each mentioned by five of the 16 groups as lost special places.
Table 3
Popular Lost Special Places
|
Rank
|
|
Number of Groups
|
Percent
|
|
1
|
Town
Common Land lost to Naval Air Station
|
12
|
75.0%
|
|
2
|
Merrymeeting
Park
|
8
|
50.0%
|
|
3
|
Trail
from Pickard Field to Pennellville
|
7
|
43.8%
|
|
4
|
Maine
Street Station
|
5
|
31.3%
|
|
4
|
Cooks
Corner
|
5
|
31.3%
|
|
6
|
Old
Town Hall
|
4
|
25.0%
|
|
7
|
Rossmore
Road Extension
|
3
|
18.8%
|
|
7
|
Access
to end of Mere Point
|
3
|
18.8%
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
IV.
Exercise II - General Priorities
Exercise II identified the
participant’s priorities for open space and outdoor recreation. The Task Force
identified 13 areas of concern and then asked participants, “If you could spend
$10 however you prefer in each of the following 13 areas of concern, how would
you do it?” For example, a participant could choose to spend all $10 in one
area of concern, split it up and place $5 in each of two areas of concern,
spend $1 on each of ten areas of concern, or any mutation of this concept. The
group facilitator then added up the total for each group, and these results
were then totaled for the entire forum. The results are summarized in Table
4.
These results can be
misleading. Some concerns resonated rather consistently from one group to the
next, while other issues scored many dollars from a few groups and therefore
had a high overall score. Table 5 displays the total number of dollars
spent in each area of concern by each group. For example, the number of dollars
spent on expanding trails for walking, biking, snowmobiling, etc. was
relatively consistent from group to group with the lowest being $6.25 and the
highest being $18.00. Most of the groups spent at least $10 for this area of
concern. On the other end of the spectrum, protecting wetlands and other
environmentally sensitive areas had a low value of $1.00 and a high of $18.00.
Most of the groups spent less than $9.00 on this area of concern.
Table 4
General Priorities
|
Rank
|
General Priorities
|
Dollars invested by participants
|
|
1
|
Expand
trails for walking, biking, snowmobiling, etc.
|
$189.75
|
|
2
|
Retain
farms and farmland
|
$121.75
|
|
3
|
Protect
wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas
|
$112.00
|
|
4
|
Protect
important wildlife habitat
|
$100.25
|
|
5
|
Preserve
scenic views and scenic areas
|
$99.00
|
|
6
|
Create
links between recreation and open space areas
|
$96.50
|
|
7
|
Develop
in-town neighborhood parks
|
$94.75
|
|
8
|
Protect
woodlands
|
$88.75
|
|
9
|
Develop
additional sports/athletic fields
|
$88.50
|
|
10
|
Develop
additional indoor recreation facilities
|
$66.75
|
|
11
|
Improve
access to River for boaters and other users
|
$50.00
|
|
12
|
Improve
beach access
|
$39.00
|
|
13
|
Improve
deepwater boat access
|
$33.50
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
Table 5
General Priorities by Group
| Group Number |
16 |
15 |
14 |
13 |
12 |
11 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
| Develop additional sports/athletic fields |
7 |
2 |
7 |
- |
7 |
8 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
- |
11 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
12 |
4.50 |
| Improve deepwater boat access |
- |
1.5 |
- |
1 |
6 |
- |
5 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
- |
3 |
- |
1 |
3 |
| Improve beach access |
3 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
- |
3 |
4 |
- |
7 |
| Expand trails for walking, biking, snowmobiling, etc. |
11 |
18 |
13 |
14 |
17 |
12.5 |
10 |
13 |
13 |
9 |
8 |
12 |
15 |
7 |
11 |
6.25 |
| Develop in-town neighborhood parks |
4 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
1 |
2.5 |
10 |
4 |
6 |
5 |
15 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
15 |
6.75 |
| Create links between recreation space and open space |
6 |
7.5 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
6.5 |
6 |
4 |
14 |
7 |
9 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
4 |
2.5 |
| Improve access to River for boaters and other users |
3 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
- |
5 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
- |
2 |
1 |
| Preserve scenic views and scenic areas |
3 |
10 |
11 |
5 |
2 |
3.75 |
5 |
8 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
11.25 |
| Protect important wildlife habitat |
8 |
11.5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
6.25 |
3 |
8 |
4 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
6 |
5.5 |
| Retain farms and farmland |
12 |
11.5 |
7 |
9 |
11 |
12.5 |
2 |
9 |
6 |
13 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
3.75 |
| Protect woodlands |
4 |
8 |
6 |
8 |
3 |
7.5 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
11 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
6.25 |
| Protect wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas |
18 |
10.5 |
4 |
8 |
7 |
10.5 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
8 |
10 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
5 |
| Develop additional indoor recreation facilities |
1 |
8.5 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
8 |
7 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
- |
3 |
5 |
1 |
7.25 |
| Total |
80 |
100 |
80 |
70 |
70 |
79 |
69 |
70 |
79 |
79 |
79 |
60 |
68 |
60 |
70 |
70 |
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
V.
Exercise III - Elements of Success
Exercise III asked
participants to identify the key elements that are necessary for a successful
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Each participant was asked to list what
they felt are necessary elements for success. The groups then created a group
list from the individual lists, and the participants were asked to vote on
their three top elements. The important elements are listed in Table 6.
Table 6
Important Elements
|
Elements
|
Votes
|
Groups
|
|
Address
money concerns
|
22
|
7
|
|
Create
a long-range vision
|
21
|
6
|
|
Address
age, ethnic, and spatial discrepancies
|
19
|
4
|
|
Explore
public/private partnerships
|
13
|
4
|
|
Maintain
long-term commitment
|
13
|
3
|
|
Fund
maintenance and caretaking
|
12
|
9
|
|
Apply
effective growth management techniques
|
11
|
5
|
|
Use
an incremental, step-by-step approach
|
11
|
5
|
|
Explore
creative programs to raise money
|
10
|
3
|
|
Educate
public
|
9
|
2
|
|
Allow
for public participation
|
9
|
3
|
|
Address
property rights concerns
|
9
|
3
|
|
Address
the myth of Lost Taxes
|
9
|
2
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
In
addition to these important elements of success are others that received votes
in more than one group. These are listed in Table 7.
Table 7
Other Key Elements
|
Elements
|
Votes
|
Groups
|
|
Use
impact fees
|
8
|
2
|
|
Use
effective communication
|
7
|
4
|
|
Work
with key landowners
|
7
|
5
|
|
Consider
pedestrian safety and ease of access
|
7
|
2
|
|
Create
habitat links
|
6
|
3
|
|
Balance
protection with development
|
5
|
2
|
|
Ensure
that developers commit to public access
|
4
|
3
|
|
Research
the economic value of land protection
|
4
|
2
|
|
Stay
in parallel with Comprehensive Plan
|
3
|
2
|
|
Search
nationwide for other examples
|
2
|
2
|
Source: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Forum
VI.
Care in the Use of Forum Results
Care must be taken to remember that these results are not
definitive. Although 119 people participated in the forum, they are only a
small portion of Brunswick’s population. As forum participants were willing to
invest the time and energy to participate, they tend to have stronger feelings
about the outcome of such a forum than does the general public. In addition,
many participants have a vested interest in the topic. In addition, the Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space Forum was structured to ensure each attendee would
be able to participate, and this structure can influence the manner in which
people participate. Therefore, the forum results should not be interpreted to
be an accurate representation of the public’s wishes.
