Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Research Findings <br />There were one hundred and one responses <br />included in the analysis. Eighty three of these <br />had existing trail systems, nine are planning a <br />system in the near future, and nine did not have <br />trail systems. Some of the respondents that did <br />not have trails systems either had worked in an <br />environment that did have trails or they had <br />trails in the community that were not part of the <br />park system. The graph depicts the summary <br />data from the first six questions on the survey. <br />Status of 'Nail. <br />Yes ® No ® Planned <br />go <br />~o <br />60 <br />so <br />ao <br />30 <br />20 <br />10~ <br />Based on the results, Prior Lake is clearly not a o <br />pioneer in trail development. We believed that H ~ ~ •~ <br />to be true, but had no quantifiable data on which ~ . ~ y ;..a <br />to base that assumption. When the eighty-three <br />existing systems are combined with the nine planned systems there will be almost two- <br />thirds of the communities in this area that have trail systems. <br />The graph bebw attempts to relate summarized responses >n the major issaes asked about on the sarvey b the various types of trails asked <br />about, eg Iightod Bails, Arterial Rooting, eta . Fach bar graph bebw is segmented iab five areas. The left end is the Significmrtly <br />wWorse total, folbwed by SIiRl+tly Worse. Same. S7irhtly Reur_ nnri .ca.,:s..,,-.x. a~.~ <br />7 <br />_--~ ~ur~..a....,,uyaaLx,it atx~ve is another view of the relationship between those <br />communities with trails and the ratings given to the various problems mentioned on page <br />