Master Planning Committee

North Campus Planning Subcommittee Scoping Meetings
April 5 to April 7, 2003
Results & Summary

Results

Content Analysis of Written Comments

There were 338 comments written on the Post-it notes and attached to the posters at one of the meeting locations, written on the survey posters and returned to the committee, or written on the survey and returned to a committee member (Table 1).

Table 1. Where the Written Comments were Obtained
	Frequency	Percent
Comments on poster handout	32	9.5
Globe	73	21.6
Survey	121	35.8
Wien	50	14.8
Wood Ctr	62	18.3
Total	338	100.0

These comments were distributed across various locations on the posters, poster handouts, or surveys (Table 2). The Specific Issues 1 poster prompted the most comments, followed by Specific Issues 2 and 3.

Table 2. Area on Poster or Survey that Prompted Written Comment
Comment Location	# comments	%	Comment Location	# comments	%
SI-1^a	58	17.2	VS-1	9	2.7
SI-2	38	11.2	Scenario 4	7	2.1
SI-3	36	10.7	T-Field	7	2.1
General	33	9.8	Permafrost	6	1.8
VS-2^b	27	8.0	Scenario 3	6	1.8
PSH Oral	16	4.7	Ski Trails	6	1.8
Skiers / Walkers	14	4.1	Box	4	1.2
VS - 2.1	14	4.1	Erosion	4	1.2
VS-3	13	3.8	Scenario 1	4	1.2
Dogs on Trails	11	3.3	Scenario 2	3	.9
Lights	10	3.0	Comments	1	.3
Winter / Summer	10	3.0	PF Oral	1	.3
			Total	338	100.0

SI refers to specific issues, of which there were three posters related to specific issues (e.g., 1, 2, & 3). Refer to Appendix A to see the content of the specific issues posters.
VS refers to Value Statements, of which there were three value statements with four posters (there were 2 posters for Value Statement 2). Refer Appendix A to see the content of the value statement posters.

The specific issues posters prompted 39% of the comments

It is also possible to examine the area on the poster or survey that prompted the written comment and how the written comment was obtained (Table 3).

Specific Issues 1, which was concerned with conflicts within and between broad categories of activities, prompted the most comments at the Globe Room.
The comments at Noel Wien Library were prompted by Specific Issues 1 & 2.
Comments at the Wood Center were prompted by all three Specific Issues posters and the Value Statement Posters.
Lights and skiers / walkers generated a several comments on the survey.

Table 3. Comparison of area that Prompted Comment and how Comment was Obtained
	How Written Comment was Obtained
	Comments on poster handout	Globe	Survey	Wien	Wood Ctr	Total
Box	0	0	0	0	4	4
Comments	0	0	0	0	1	1
Dogs on trails	0	0	11	0	0	11
Erosion	0	0	4	0	0	4
General	0	0	33	0	0	33
Lights	0	0	10	0	0	10
Permafrost	0	0	6	0	0	6
PF Oral	0	1	0	0	0	1
PSH oral	0	7	0	9	0	16
Scenario 1	0	0	4	0	0	4
Scenario 2	0	0	3	0	0	3
Scenario 3	0	0	6	0	0	6
Scenario 4	0	0	7	0	0	7
SI-1	0	32	0	11	15	58
SI-2	2	10	0	16	10	38
SI-3	10	14	0	0	12	36
Ski trails	0	0	6	0	0	6
Skiers / walkers	0	0	14	0	0	14
T-field	0	0	7	0	0	7
VS - 2 rel	14	0	0	0	0	14
VS-1	0	0	0	1	8	9
VS-2	0	9	0	9	9	27
VS-3	6	0	0	4	3	13
Winter / summer	0	0	10	0	0	10
Total	32	73	121	50	62	338

The 338 written comments could be placed in 733 categories with different topic areas (i.e., some comments could be placed in more than one topic area) (Table 4).

Comments related to trails made up the largest category (24% of comments) followed by comments related to skiing, research, trees, access, walkers, dogs, parking and lights.

Table 4. Category of Written Comments
Category	Count	Percent	Category	Count	Percent
Trails	175	23.9	Wildlife	5	.7
Ski	74	10.1	Fire Management	4	.5
Research	50	6.8	Permits	4	.5
Trees	36	4.9	Runners	4	.5
Access	33	4.5	Ski Hut	4	.5
Walkers	29	4.0	Volunteers	4	.5
Dogs	28	3.8	Buildings	3	.4
Parking	28	3.8	Erosion	3	.4
Lights	24	3.3	Skijor	3	.4
Vehicles	21	2.9	Events	2	.3
Smith Lake	19	2.6	Races	2	.3
Loop Road	15	2.0	Road	2	.3
Outreach	14	1.9	T-Field	2	.3
Signs	12	1.6	Thermokarst	2	.3
Trails Maintenance	12	1.6	Trail Maintenance	2	.3
Ballaine Lake	11	1.5	Tree Plantation	2	.3
Education	11	1.5	Shooting Range	2	.3
Boardwalk	9	1.2	Arboretum	1	.1
Campground	8	1.1	Bike Path	1	.1
Wood Chips	8	1.1	Gates	1	.1
Bikes	7	1.0	Historic Preservation	1	.1
Fence	7	1.0	Maps	1	.1
Recreation	7	1.0	Permafrost	1	.1
Trash	7	1.0	Security	1	.1
Entire Area	6	.8	Thanks	1	.1
Planning	6	.8	Vandalism	1	.1
Power Lines	6	.8	Viewing Platform	1	.1
Fishing	5	.7	Total	733	100
Trailhead	5	.7

The comments were also analyzed by placing each comment into a non-redundant category and including a subcategory and the direction – stating a favorable or unfavorable position – of each comment. The results for the categories that had an n > 10 are presented below (Tables 5 - 13).

Table 5. Subcategories of Comments Regarding Access
Subcategory	n	Unfavorable¹	Favorable
Development	12	7	5
Motorized vehicles	4	4	0
Permits	4	0	4
Well marked trailheads	2	1	1