Survey Design

Site Selection

In accordance with assessment and inventory standards, the survey design process began by drafting a list of places to consider for inclusion in the prioritization study. The map to the right shows an orthographic image of Charlestown. Green dots show all of the initial sites, identified by the town planner, for consideration in the study. From her professional expertise, and experience with the community, a town planner can provide the necessary guidance and direction to begin the inventory process. Initial sites included areas that were already protected as openspace, along with sites that have potential for future protection.

At this point, It is important to recall the purpose of the study. To identify a site for an openspace prioritization inventory does not necessarily mean that it is a target for acquisition. While the survey seeks to gather public input on valuation of places throughout the community, it is not a comprehensive evaluation of all the factors that planning commissioners must consider before deciding to pursue strategic management options. Furthermore, because openspace preservation can manifest itself in a variety of management policies and practices, beyond and apart from fee simple acquisition, site identification facilitates more precise and progressive preservation planning.

The initial list of potential inventory sites was then presented for review at the Planning Commission's openspace workshop. Residents and commissioners were asked to comment on the existing list of sites, and to suggest more sites for inclusion in the inventory. A large orthographic map was presented to workshop attendees. Everyone received site identification forms and stickie dots to identify additional sites for inclusion in the study.

This is an example Site Identification form that was used to expand the initial site list for the prioritization study (see right). Nine residents, the Planning Commission and town planner participated in this process. It was at this public workshop that a decision was made to only include sites in areas of interest that were not already protected as openspace. Considering that the Openspace Plan seeks to address future increases in openspace preservation, it did not seem practical to focus public comment on currently protected land.

Survey Components

To address the primary goals of the prioritization project, the survey was divided into four phases:

1. Demographic Information and General Questions - This section gathers important demographic information for longitudinal analyses. Because the Planning Commission lacked a unified vision or definition of community objectives for preserving openspace, this phase asks residents to provide their positions and objectives for openspace acquisition.
   
   
2. Randomized Site Specific Pages - Because the inventory included 23 sites, it would be unreasonable to expect respondents to comment on all sites in a single survey. Therefore, the survey was designed to present respondents with 6 sites, randomly selected from the group to ensure equal distribution of comments per site. This phase includes questions to gauge resident valuation of potential openspace sites. It also includes questions to address the final goal of understanding what kinds of land use residents think are appropriate for identified areas.
   
   
3. Self-Guided Site Specific Pages - So as not to limit one's ability to comment on only 6 sites, this phase provides respondents with an opportunity to comment all remaining inventory sites.
   
   
4. Site Suggestion - Because openspace planning is an iterative process, respondents are encouraged to suggest additional sites for further considerations and inventory.

Click here to view actual survey

Website Design

Special care was taken to design the survey as a low-barrier website. The following are some key features to ensure ease of navigation and optimized technical compatibility:

• 800 x 600 design - Many monitors render at 800 x 600 resolution. Although resolution is increasing among most user systems, the site was designed to fit optimally on screens with low resolution.
  
  
• No navigational scrolling required - Studies show that sites requiring users to scroll unnecessarily to access navigation options present barriers to usability.
  
  
• Fast loading time - Websites that require long loading times present significant barriers for users with slower modem connections.
  
  
• Redundant links - Providing redundant links allows for alternative navigational routes and increases ease of navigation.
  
  
• Optimizing design for most popular browsers - Click here to see how designing websites for Internet Explorer will result in optimal website usability.