SHORELINE USE AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY REPORT

8/11/2019 SHORELINE USE AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY REPORT

1/35

Shawn Dalton, Ph.D.

Principal and Senior Consultant

Thrive Consulting, Inc.

July 23, 2012

SHORELINE USE AND PERCEPTIONS

SURVEY REPORT


2/35


3/35

Shorelines Use and Perceptions Survey Report for the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................2

Methods And Limitations Of Study .........................................................................................................................2

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................3

Discussion And Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................10

Appendix A: Survey Instrument ...........................................................................................................................12

Appendix B: Photographs Of Shoreline Types ....................................................................................................12

Appendix C: Summary Of Survey Results ............................................................................................................12

Appendix D: Geographic Distribution Of Respondents Recreational Activities...........................................12

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During the summer of 2012 the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project (HRSSP) administered asurvey of Hudson River shoreline users, to determine whether shoreline users prefer a tidy, homogenousshore zone, to one hosting wrack and woody debris; and to learn how river users perceive and value theshoreline. The survey was administered to both a group of anglers and a group of kayakers, and askedquestions about general use of the Hudson River, as well as specific preference and use questions about aset of seven photographs showing different types of shoreline along the Hudson. Findings indicate awide variety of aesthetic preferences among shoreline users. Respondents in general have a strong senseof the ecological value of different types of shorelines, but do not necessarily connect that with opportuni-

ties to allow their own land management practices to improve the health of the river system.


4/35


INTRODUCTION

During the summer of 2012, Thrive Consulting worked with representatives of the Hudson River Sus-tainable Shorelines Project (HRSSP) to design and administer a survey of Hudson River shoreline users.The goals of this exercise were to determine whether shoreline users prefer a tidy, homogenous shore

zone, to one hosting wrack and woody debris; and to learn how river users perceive and value the shore-line.

The purpose of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is to provide science-based informationabout the best shoreline management options for preserving important natural functions of the HudsonRiver Estuarys shore zone, especially as sea level rise accelerates and storms increase in intensity. Theproject is generating new information about engineering performance, economic costs, projected riverconditions, legal and regulatory opportunities, and the needs and priorities of key audiences. To date,project team members have carried out numerous research activities including studies of shoreline treat-ment impact on river ecology, public perception of shorelines, climate change and sea level rise adapta-tion, and ecological costs and benefits of shoreline treatments. All of these, among others, are improvingthe teams ability to disseminate information to decision makers on shoreline changes.

The Project to date has carried out a number of activities and research projects related to this theme, in-cluding a study of the relative ecological costs and benefits of different shoreline management designs,and a series of interviews of experts and consultants to determine whether and how climate change andsea level rise are currently incorporated into their shoreline designs.

Here, we present the results of a survey administered to both a group of anglers and a group of kayakers,which asked questions about general use of the Hudson River, as well as specific questions about a set ofphotographs showing different types of shoreline along the Hudson. The anglers participate in an an-glers diary program through the NYSDEC Hudson River Fisheries Unit. The kayakers have participatedin meet-ups and other paddling events through the Hudson River Greenway. In each case, program par-ticipants were sent emails by the coordinators, to request their participation in this survey.

METHODS AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

A subgroup of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines team worked with Thrive Consulting to bothdevelop and test the survey instrument, and to take photographs of particular types of shoreline to beused as samples in the survey instrument. The survey instrument was developed and tested in late

June/early July, 2012. The survey was developed using SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool (the surveyinstrument is provided in Appendix A). SurveyMonkey does not provide the function of inserting imag-es into the online survey, so a second document was generated, which showed photographs of seven dif-ferent shoreline types (see Appendix B). These were provided on a single cover page, followed by a full-page image of each shoreline type. Thus, respondents were able to quickly review and compare the pho-tos on the single page, and were also able to refer to the full-page images for more detail if necessary,while taking the online survey.

The survey went live on SurveyMonkey on July 6, 2012. An email requesting respondents to fill out thesurvey was sent to 125 anglers and 135 kayakers, for a potential sample size of 260 respondents. The sur-vey was closed on July 20, 2012 at which point 127 people had filled it out, a response rate of 48.8%. Inseveral cases, the respondents skipped one or several questions. In this document, we report on thecounts for each question, not for the overall survey respondent community. For details on the number ofresponses to each question, see Appendix C, the summary of the survey results downloaded from


5/35


SurveyMonkey. This shows how many responses there were to each question. Note that this small sur-vey represents the results provided by a small user community, and the results presented here cannot beconstrued as being statistically representative of either the angling and kayaking communities of theHudson River, nor the larger user community.

FINDINGS

General Summary

The respondents to the survey are very familiar with the Hudson River: 67% of them have spent 20 ormore years recreating along and in it, while 30% have spent between 5 and 19 years along the Hudson.Only 3% of respondents have spent less than 5 years recreating along the river. The geographic distribu-tion of recreational activities along the Hudson River is quite broad, with respondents citing over 50 dif-ferent locations for their activities (see Appendix D for details).

In their opinion, during the generally long time frame of experience of the Hudson, most respondentsthink that its overall health has improved (86.9%), while 11.1% think it has stayed the same, and 2% thinkits health has diminished. A majority (57%) of the respondents think that the Hudson River is somewhathealthy, 35% think it is healthy, 7% think its health is poor and 1% think it is very healthy.

Shoreline Uses

Respondents were asked about their activities and the frequency with which they engage in them alongthe Hudson River. Over 60% of respondents spend time along the river relaxing, viewing the scenery,and picnicking; 53.5% engage in more active pursuits such as hiking, walking their dog or birdwatching;57.5% canoe, kayak, or row along the river; and 68.5% of respondents fish in the river (29.1% from land,and 39.4% from a boat). The activity in which respondents most commonly engage (35.8%) is canoeing,kayaking, or rowing, and those who engage in this activity largely do so quite frequently: 52.8% paddleor row once a week or more. While >42% of respondents do not fish the river 20.8% fish it from land or a

dock and 32.3% from a motor boat (see Figure 1). The most common reason for fishing where they dowas spatial proximity to their residence (30%); other reasons for fishing site selection included abundanceof fish (27.8%), easy access from land (25.6%), or easy access from the water (18.9%).


6/35


Figure 1. Activities

People recreate along the Hudson for a variety of reasons: to have fun (78.2%), to relax (71.8%), to spendtime with friends or family (60.5%), to get away (33.1%), to learn about the river (32.3%), etc. Open-endedresponses to this question included such answers as for exercise, windsurfing, aesthetic enjoyment, creat-ing art, and cultural tourism.


7/35


Figure 2. Prevalent Activity

Figure 3. Frequency


8/35


Shoreline Preferences

Over 90% of respondents indicated that is it very important to them that the Hudson River provide ahealthy place for animals, fish and plants to live and find food and shelter, while 7% said this was mod-erately important, 1% said it was slightly important, and none said that it was not important at all.

When asked which shoreline type improved, diminished, or had no effect on the health of the river, a

substantial proportion of respondents indicated that each type had some benefit to the health of the sys-tem, but 87.5% said wetlands, 69.1% said rocky shore, 63.2% said bedrock, and 44.2% said rip-rap im-prove health. Fewer respondents overall indicated that they thought any of the shoreline types diminishhealth but most prominent among them were the 47.4% who thought that bulkheads, 34.7% cribbing, and33.7% landscaped shorelines diminish the health of the river.

Respondents generally preferred the aesthetics of natural shoreline types 58.8% found wetlands, 58.3%rocky shore, and 60.4% bedrock very attractive. Landscaped shorelines were also considered very attrac-tive by 57.0% of respondents. Bulkhead and cribbing were considered not at all attractive by 57% and35.1% of respondents respectively.

Figure 4. Aesthetic Values of Shoreline Types

Interestingly, however, 67.1% of respondents indicated that they would use a landscaped shoreline fortheir front- or backyard, while 69.8% would relax and enjoy the scenery and 58.1% would canoe, kayak,or row from a landscaped shoreline. The best shoreline type for all activities other than fishing was con-sidered to be a landscaped shore, whereas a rocky shore was considered to be the best shoreline type forfishing from both land and from a boat. Despite these strong opinions about the best sites for differentactivities, there is a wide distribution of what activities people would undertake from all the different


9/35


shoreline types, ranging from a low of 2.2% using a wetland to fish from land, to a high of 69.8% relaxingand viewing scenery or picnicking from a landscaped shoreline.

Figure 5. Activities On Different Shorelines


10/35


Figure 6. Best Shoreline Type for Activity

Respondent Demographics

The vast majority of respondents to this survey were white (>97%), (non-Hispanic (>97%), affluent(>65%), males (>79%), ranging in age from 19 to 79, with an average age of 56.5 years. They were well-educated, virtually all having completed high school and >41% having obtained a graduate degree; andlargely from Ulster (20%), Dutchess (15%), or Albany (14%) County. One respondent lived outside of theUnited States, and 7 respondents lived outside of New York State. Over 50% of the respondents do notsee the Hudson River during their commute to work, while 40.4% see it by car and 8.1% see it by trainduring their commute. Most respondents (83.8%) do not work in a job along the Hudson River that de-pends upon proximity to the water, while 16.2% do.


11/35


12/35


Figure 9. Place of Residence

D I S C U S S I O N A N D C O N C L U S I O N

As stated at the outset of this document, this small sample of particular Hudson River users cannot beconstrued as representative of the general population. However, if this small sample is in any way indic-ative of recreational activity and use value of the Hudson River and its shoreline, we can conclude that itis well-loved, thoroughly explored, and valued for multiple uses. These range from passive recreationalactivities such as relaxing and enjoying the scenery to more active pastimes such as paddling, windsurf-ing and hiking. People engage in these activities quite regularly, in many cases once a week or more, anddo so for a variety of reasons, including spending time with friends and family, or alone; to have fun; tolearn and share information about the river and so on.

However, there may be some disconnection between the values placed on the river, and peoples willing-ness to manage their own property to reflect those values. For example, while 87% of respondents be-lieve that wetlands improve the ecological health of the river, only 24.7% indicated that they would usethis shoreline type as their front- or backyard.

This finding bears further investigation in a place where some 1,000,000 people live within one mile of theHudson River individual landowners may not recognize the contribution, either positive or negative,that their land management practices make to the health of the Hudson River. In addition, it would beworthwhile to administer this survey to a much broader audience, both to begin to generate statisticallysignificant results, and to determine whether there are similarities and differences in terms of uses andpreferences of various demographic, socioeconomic, or ethnic subgroups.

The goals of this study were to determine whether shoreline users prefer a tidy, homogenous shore zone,to one hosting wrack and woody debris; and to learn how river users perceive and value the shoreline.


13/35


We have to some extent met both of these goals, although further research would expand our under-standing of wider user groups preferences, perceptions, and values of the shoreline. We have begun todetect a wide variety of aesthetic preferences: several different types of shorelines were considered to bevery attractive by users bedrock, wetlands, rocky shores, and landscape shorelines were rated as veryattractive by 60.4%, 56.8%, 58.3%, and 57.9% of respondents, respectively. The two small subgroups ofriver users studied here in general have a strong sense of the ecological value of different types of shore-

lines, but do not necessarily connect that with opportunities to allow their own land management prac-tices to improve the health of the river system. More research is required to determine whether this ap-parent disconnect is actually present, and to determine whether these findings would also be apparentamong a broader audience. This would increase our overall understanding of how people in the regionperceive the shoreline and use it and the River, and would improve our ability to inform the activitiesand next steps of the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project in regards to public outreach and en-gagement.


14/35


APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT

APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS OF SHORELINE TYPES

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS

APPENDIX D: GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPOND

ENTS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES


15/35

Page 1

Shorelines User Perception SurveyShorelines User Perception SurveyShorelines User Perception SurveyShorelines User Perception Survey

Dear Hudson River User:

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project wants to know how you use and think about

the Hudson shoreline. Your input will help us with a research project on the Hudson River.

During this survey, you will be asked to examine several photographs. These can be found attached in a separate pdf file, and can also be found at

the following website (PLEASE ATTEMPT TO REFRESH THE SITE ON YOUR BROWSER IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ACCESS):

http://hrnerr.org/public/training/ShorelinesUserSurveyPhotos.pdf

YOU CAN RETURN TO COMPLETE OR REVISE YOUR SURVEY AT ANY TIME, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO USE THE SAME COMPUTER. Your

responses will remain anonymous.

We appreciate your contribution to this effort. If you have questions please contact Emilie Hauser at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project Team

1. Which of the following activities do you undertake in or along the Hudson River? (Check

all that apply)

FISHING FROM LAND

FISHING FROM A BOAT

CANOEING, KAYAKING, ROWING

HIKING/WALKING/DOG-WALKING/BIRD-WATCHING

RELAXING/VIEWING SCENERY/PICNICKING

Other (please specify)


16/35

Page 2


2. Which activity do you undertake most frequently? (Check one only)

3. How often do you do the most frequent activity?

4. For what reasons do you do the most frequent activity? (Check all that apply)

FISHING FROM LAND

FISHING FROM A BOAT

CANOEING, KAYAKING, ROWING

POWER BOATING / SAILING

HIKING/WALKING/DOG-WALKING

BIRD-WATCHING

RELAXING/VIEWING SCENERY/PICNICKING


ONCE A WEEK OR MORE

TWO OR THREE TIMES A MONTH

ABOUT ONCE A MONTH

LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH

TO HAVE FUN

TO RELAX

TO BE ALONE

TO SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS OR FAMILY

TO GET AWAY

TO LEARN ABOUT THE HUDSON RIVER

TO LEARN ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT/WILDLIFE

TO TEACH MY CHILDREN ABOUT THE HUDSON RIVER



17/35


18/35

Page 4


7. Please examine the photographs attached in the survey email or access them online at

http://hrnerr.org/public/training/ShorelinesUserSurveyPhotos.pdf

For each activity that you do, which is the best shoreline type?

8. We would like to know how attractive you think each shoreline type is, regardless of

your use of it.

Please tell us how attractive you find the shoreline type in each photograph.

A. CRIBBING B. WETLAND C. RIP-RAP D. BULKHEADE. ROCKY

SHORE F. BEDROCK

G.

LANDSCAPEDSHORE

I DO NOT DO

THISACTIVITY

FISHING FROM LAND

FISHING FROM A BOAT

CANOEING, KAYAKING,

ROWING

HIKING/WALKING/DOG-

WALKING/BIRD-

WATCHING

RELAXING/VIEWING

SCENERY/PICNICKING

I WOULD USE THIS

SHORELINE TYPE AS MY

FRONT OR BACK YARD

NOT AT ALL ATTRACTIVE SOMEWHAT ATTRACTIVE FAIRLY ATTRACTIVE VERY ATTRACTIVE

A. CRIBBING

B. WETLAND

C. RIP-RAP

D. BULKHEAD

E. ROCKY SHORE

F. BEDROCK

G. LANDSCAPED SHORE


19/35

Page 5


9. Do you think each shoreline type shown in the photos improves, diminishes, or has no

effect on the health of the Hudson River?

10. If you fish along the Hudson River, from where do you access the fishing most often?

11. If you fish along the Hudson River, why do you use the site you go to most often?

(Check all that apply)

12. Do you see the Hudson River along your commute (by car or train)?

IMPROVES HEALTH DIMINISHES HEALTH NO EFFECT ON HEALTH

A. CRIBBING

B. WETLAND

C. RIP-RAP

D. BULKHEAD

E. ROCKY SHORE

F. BEDROCK

G. LANDSCAPED SHORE

FROM LAND/DOCK

FROM A MOTOR BOAT

FROM A CANOE OR KAYAK

I DO NOT FISH ALONG THE HUDSON

THERE ARE LOTS OF FISH AT THE SITE

IT S EASY TO GET THERE FROM THE WATER

IT S EASY TO GET THERE FROM THE LAND

IT S HARD TO GET THERE

IT S CLOSE TO MY HOUSE

I DO NOT FISH ALONG THE HUDSON


YES, BY CAR

YES, BY TRAIN

NO


20/35

Page 6


13. Do you work along the Hudson River in a job that depends on proximity to the water

(e.g. marina, dock, pilot, tourism)?

14. About how long have you been spending time along the Hudson River?

15. How important is it to you that the Hudson provide a healthy place for animals, fish and

plants to live and findfood and shelter?

16. In general, what do you think of the health of the Hudson River?

17. In the time that you've been familiar with the Hudson River, do you think its health has:

The following questions were modified from United States Census questions.

YES

NO

OVER 30 YEARS

20-29 YEARS

10-19 YEARS

5-9 YEARS

LESS THAN 5 YEARS

NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL

SLIGHTLY IMPORTANT

MODERATELY IMPORTANT

VERY IMPORTANT

VERY HEALTHY

HEALTHY

SOMEWHAT HEALTHY

POOR HEALTH

IMPROVED

STAYED THE SAME

DIMINSHED


21/35

Page 7


18. Are you male or female?

19. In what year were you born?

20. What is the highest level of school you have completed or the highest degree you have

received?

21. What is your current household income?

22. Please specify your ethnicity.

Male

Female

NO FORMAL EDUCATION

SOME GRADE SCHOOL

COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL

SOME HIGH SCHOOL

COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL

SOME COLLEGE

COMPLETED COLLEGE

SOME GRADUATE WORK

A GRADUATE DEGREE

Less than $10,000

$10,000-$19,999

$20,000-$39,999

$40,000-$59,999

$60,000-$79,999

$80,000-$99,999

$100,000 or more

HISPANIC OR LATINO

NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO


22/35

Page 8


23. Please specify your race.

24. Where do you live?

AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE

ASIAN

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER

WHITE

ALBANY COUNTY

COLUMBIA COUNTY

DUTCHESS COUNTY

GREENE COUNTY

ORANGE COUNTY

PUTNAM COUNTY

RENSSENAER COUNTY

ROCKLAND COUNTY

ULSTER COUNTY

WESTCHESTER COUNTY

NEW YORK CITY

OTHER COUNTY IN NEW YORK

STATE OTHER THAN NEW YORK STATE

OTHER COUNTRY


23/35

A. Cribbing B. Wetland

C. Riprap D. Bulkhead

E. Rocky shore F. Bedrock

For more detail, see fullsize images on

the following pages.

G.

Landscaped shore


24/35

Appendix C:Summary of Survey Results


25/35


26/35


27/35


28/35


29/35


30/35


31/35


32/35


33/35


34/35


35/35

Appendix D GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

ounty or Region Municipality

Location

Number

HudsonREstuary-All 5

Northernstretch 6

Albany Bethlehem BethlehemTownPark 1

Albany Albany CorningPreserve 2

Albany Bethlehem HenryHudsonPark 13Albany Albany 1

Albany,Rensselaer

Capitaldistrictboat

launches 1

Rensselaer Rensselaer

SchodackIslandState

Park 1

Rensselaer Castleton 1

Greene NewBaltimore 1

Greene Coxsackie 1

Columbia Germantown 1

Columbia,Greene Hudson,Athens 1

Middlestretch 9

Ulster Saugerties Arrowfield 2

Ulster Ulster CharlesRiderPark 2Ulster Highland CSXProperty 1

Ulster Saugerties

EsopusCkandHudson

River 3

Ulster PortEwen GeorgeFreerPark 2

Ulster Kingston KingstonLighthouse 1

Ulster Kingston KingstonPointPark 1

Ulster Saugerties MaldenMiniPark 1

Ulster Kingston

PortEwenBeach,

LighthousePark,Ryder

Park 1

Ulster Connelly RondoutCreek 1

Ulster Kingston RondoutCreek 2

Ulster Saugerties SaugertiesLighthouse 4

Ulster Kingston 2

Dutchess Beacon LongDockBeacon 1

Dutchess Staatsburg NorriePointStatePark 1

Dutchess Poughkeepsie QuietCovePark 2

Dutchess Tivoli 2

Dutchess Rhinecliff 1

Dutchess WappingersFalls 1Middletosouth 7

Orange NewWindsor PlumPoint 2

Orange CornwallonHudson 1

Orange Newburgh 7

Putnam ColdSpring 3

Putnam ManitouMarsh 1

Rockland BearMountatin BearMountain 2

Rockland Piermont 1

Westchester Peekskill AnnsvilleCreek 3

Westchester Croton CrotonPointPark 3

Westchester Nyack NyackBeachStatePark 1

Westchester Peekskill PeekskillLanding 1

Westchester Ossining WesterlyMarina 1

Westchester Verplanck 1Croton Bay Haverstraw

SHORELINE USE AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY REPORT

Documents

Transcript of SHORELINE USE AND PERCEPTIONS SURVEY REPORT