The Huckleberry Trail
Heritage Park & Trail System

2000 Users Survey: Methodology

Survey Methods (Daliah Macon)

The Montgomery County Planning Department gave me the job of investigating these matters in order to communicate the users' voices to these government bodies. First, I consulted with Joe Powers and Meghan Dorsett from the Montgomery County Planning Department, Tom Bain from the Montgomery County Parks and Recreation Department, Dean Crain and Darren Coffey from the Blacksburg Parks and Recreation Department, and Officer Cole of the Blacksburg Police. One of the main concerns when formatting the survey (see Appendix A) was to make sure that the questions were open-ended, meaning that they did not lead the user to answer in a certain way. The consultants' ideas were incorporated as much as possible by using this method while not allowing the survey to become tedious. A trial survey was developed to test the response rate of the users. There was concern that the open-ended questions might be too vague. The trial surveys were given out at two different sites, the mall and the gazebo that is one mile in from Blacksburg. The users' answers indicated that the questions were easy to respond to and the trial survey was adjusted only slightly to polish the wording and to add a couple of new questions. There were three questions that were changed or added to that make the trial different from the final. The trial survey did not: (1) ask how the user had learned about the Huckleberry Trail; (2) differentiate between the "town" of Blacksburg and the "county" of Blacksburg. In the survey, I called used the term "city" which I know now is incorrect. These areas were split into two because I had previously heard people make that distinction when describing where they live.

I received a range of reactions while surveying. Some people ignored me altogether, while some walked past me mumbling in order to avoid the survey. It seemed that some felt that I was imposing on their time on the trail, even in my attempts to be as considerate as possible. One group that was difficult to survey was the runners, who did not want to break up their momentum. I soon learned that the best way to get their input was to be prepared with prepackaged envelopes and surveys. This way, I could hand off a survey to them without having to interrupt their run. Other users felt obligated to fill the survey out, some answered it halfheartedly, and others felt that answering the survey would be a way of "giving back" to the trail. When the users learned that Montgomery County was sponsoring the survey, they were pleasantly surprised. Many in Blacksburg assumed that the Town of Blacksburg was responsible for the event. In any case, the users seemed pleased that a government agency was interested in hearing from them. Also, users were appreciative of the "lemonade stand" supplied by Montgomery County.

The study areas were divided based on where the surveys were collected: Blacksburg, Christiansburg, Montgomery County, and a fourth category consisting of surveys returned in the mail. The number of completed surveys based on each jurisdiction is as follows: Blacksburg 79, Christiansburg 14 and Montgomery County 27. The response rate to the mail-in survey was quite high: at least two-thirds were returned. I distributed between 27 and 32 surveys to be taken home; 22 were returned. This distribution number is not exact because some couples were given two surveys per envelope, based on whether they wanted to fill it out jointly or separately. Those who were given two surveys may have changed their minds and only sent in one that they had completed together. One piece of missing data from the mail-in survey is where it was distributed. Only by some of their comments can one get an idea of what part of the trail they use most or live close to. I kept a tally of those users that were not surveyed. These are 99.9% accurate except for one site in Blacksburg, of which I have an incomplete list, because there were too many people on the trail. I was busy getting users off the trail to fill out the survey and answering their questions.

There are a few variables to explain the variation in the results. All survey sites in Christiansburg and Montgomery County were in the sun, making responses short and few. All Blacksburg sites were in the shade, therefore the survey was more complete and a greater amount of variation in answers was prevalent. The surveys returned via mail had the most detail.

During the time that I was surveying, it was very sunny and hot or after a rain. There was one occasion at the gazebo in the early morning where users were on the trail in light rain. The sample size of Christiansburg was very small. Users on that side of the trail go for long distances and there are fewer people. More than likely, I surveyed those starting in Christiansburg while on other parts of the trail. I spent about four hours of survey time on that portion of the trail. Montgomery County had a medium survey size for some of the same reasons as Christiansburg. I spent about six hours of survey time there. I spent the most time on the Blacksburg part of the trail due to the time I spent at the portion of the trail near Warm Hearth. Even though this stretch is considered to be Blacksburg, I knew that I would get a portion of users from the Montgomery County side. The advantage of this is that I was about to survey in the shade, a more conducive environment for surveying. In total, I spent about nine hours on this part of the trail.

In order to give interested parties quick and easy to see results, the bulk of the information is given through charts. When looking at the charts, it is important to remember that reasons for variation (sun or shade, mail or in-person) within the surveys which had an effect on the percentages shown. The questions that required user input were: what they enjoyed about the trail, safety concerns and changes, trail rules, and trail additions and changes. Sometimes questions were left blank. If I could revise the survey again, I would take away the examples of trail rules listed at the question about signs along the trail. Users independently mentioned these as problems on the front of the surveys, but could have been a lead while answering the back of the survey. Also, I asked them what trail rules they feel are important. I realize that the question should have asked for what rules they did not feel were being followed on the trail. While I was reading the surveys, it was easy to decipher what were complaints and what rules were "listed". The question would have been more effective had it been written differently. (DM)

Statistical Methods

The statistics for this study were generated using SPSS, although very few of the statistics involved complex analysis. The majority of the statistical information included in this study is in the form of percentage of population. The choice of statistical methods was a function of time constraints and ease of understanding. For researchers interested in more complex analysis, the raw data is available through the Montgomery County Planning Department.

Limitations

Specific limitations exist within this study, most notably connected to time constraints and the choice of time of year in which the study was undertaken. The survey was designed by Daliah Macon, an intern with the Montgomery County Planning Department during the summer of 2000, and was based on suggestions made by the parks and recreation, planning, and police/sheriff departments in the three affected jurisdictions. While the survey form covered a broad range of topics and concerns, it left out others (most notably in terms of the impact of the trail on property and economic development). In addition, the study was performed during the final two weeks of June, 2000. As such, the study population does not include the substantial portion of Virginia Tech students and others connected to either Tech or Radford University who are on nine-month rather than twelve month contracts. The timing of the study may, in fact, have skewed the participation numbers for those connected to the university communities. Because the study was initially conducted by a student intern, Dahlia Macon, the timing of the study was connected to the period in which the intern worked, precluding any expansion of the study’s timeframe. Ideally, the study should be re-administered during the fall, winter, and spring in order to see whether use and users vary based on conditions and time of year. To correct this, the department will revamp and rerun the survey during spring, 2001 in order to see whether significant variations exist between the two time-frames and between the user populations.

A second limitation to the study is connected to the overall user population for the Huckleberry Trail. While the study engendered 143 responses, it does not provide a user total, limiting the ability of the study to establish what percentage of the user population is represented by the survey respondents. Again, ideally, a method of counting the number of overall users needs to be established and implemented in the three jurisdictions. It is the recommendation of the study’s authors that the second round of surveys take place during the third and fourth weeks of April and involve multiple surveyors positioned concurrently in seven locations in the three jurisdictions: Blacksburg Library, Blacksburg Trail Gazebo, Warm Hearth, Coal Mining Heritage Park front entrance, Tipple, Railroad Bridge, and New River Valley Mall Trail Entrance, mirroring the schedule from the summer survey (Figure 2.1).

		Planning and GIS Services
		Special Projects Department Work Program Coal Mining Heritage Park Huckleberry Trail Enviromental Planning Forms, Publications and News Sign on to the MontVa.com E-mail Lists.

2000 Users Survey

Overview     Map of the Huckleberry Trail Copy of Survey Form Study Methodology and Limitations     Survey Methods Statistical Methods Limitations Survey Locations Trail Users: Demographics     Gender Age Student Status Geographic Distribution Huckleberry Trail     Sources of Information Trail Usage: Frequency Quality of Life Attributes Activities Safety Concerns Rules of the Road: Other Concerns Conclusion Addendum: Additional Trail Studies and Information from Other Locations