Laserfiche WebLink
submitted with the report and no compilation of data that could relate to a state or <br />community is being provided. <br />Assumptions and Limitations ' <br />Our primary assumption is that the impact of trails in Prior Lake will be similar to the <br />experiences of communities in the five state area. We had hoped to have approximately <br />one hundred responses and as of this report we had one hundred and one, but only eighty <br />three had existing trail systems. We do believe; however, that the results .are valid <br />primarily because there is so much agreement in the responses. The communities that did <br />not respond by March 10, 1992, were sent reminders and if they respond by April 6, <br />1992, we will be able to include them in the final report. <br />The only question that presented some difficulty to the respondents had to do with trail <br />utilization. The .question was ambiguous in that it could have been interpreted several <br />ways. The respondent was asked to select a percentage of utilization for four usage <br />categories. Briefly, the categories were Access, I+7itness, Nature, or Other. Eighty five <br />per cent of respondents chose answers that equaled one hundred per cent; however., some <br />interpreted the question in other perfectly valid ways. They either assumed that people <br />could be doing two of these functions at once, or that the question pertained to <br />percentages of the system, rather than the users. The responses on these questionnaires <br />were prorated to total one-hundred per cent and included with the others. This <br />information is included in the descriptive part of the survey. <br />The first six questions, offered the respondents three choices. Question .one asked if the <br />community had a trail system. the selections were Yes, No, and Planned. When <br />' respondents answered with Yes and Planned, the totals were accumulated as Yes. If <br />they chose No and Planned, the response was included in the Planned category. <br />Another apparent conflict is that their were only eighty three communities with trails, but <br />r <br />there aze over ninety responses in evaluating trail areas versus non-trail areas. Several <br />respondents either explained they had prior experience in communities with trails or had <br />,.. <br />county or state trails in their areas and that the trails were not duectly under their <br />purview, but they were aware of the conditions in those areas. <br />5 <br />