256104 Supplement Letter 1.pdf

CITY OF SALEM

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CONTRACTS & PROCUREMENT DIVISION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION LETTER #1

February 13, 2026

RFP NO. 256104

FOR: Professional and Technical Services for Comprehensive Park

System Planning

CLOSING DATE: February 27, 2026 at 4:00 PM (LOCAL TIME)

The following are questions submitted by Proposers and answers from the City:

1. Q) In Section 2.2, the last sentence says “Proposals shall be limited to 10 pages excluding the one-page cover letter.” Then in Section 3.1, it states “There is a maximum page limit of 20 pages excluding the one-page cover letter, list of references, and resumes of key staff.” Which of the above statements are accurate?

A) Max of 20 pages. Cover letter, list of references, and resumes of key staff do not count towards the page limit.

2. Q) If Section 3.1 is the accurate statement, is Section H removed from the page limit in its entirety and can follow an appendix cover sheet (which will not be included in the page limit)?

A) See 1. Above.

3. Q) Are we able to put full page resumes in an appendix? If so, are they included in the page limit you designate in response to my question #1?

A) Resumes should be found in the appendix.

4. Q) Are cover sheets, dividers, and back covers included in the page limit?

A) Cover sheet, dividers, and back covers do not count towards the page limits.

5. Q) Please provide context regarding City staff’s anticipated areas of interest or skillsets in relation to the roles you envision playing in data collection, plan development, and community outreach. This information will help us tailor our response to Submission Requirement G, Resource Allocation.

A) The project will be led by two subject matter experts within the Parks Planning team, dedicating a significant portion of their time to overall project management, policy alignment, technical oversight, coordination with other departments and agencies, and direct engagement with community stakeholders. Long-range planning staff within the City Planning Division will provide support and consultation as well.

The Parks Planning team also anticipates the possibility of utilizing limited-duration employees or interns to assist with field data collection, inventory documentation, and related technical tasks. This approach will ensure baseline site data and community input are gathered efficiently while maintaining internal oversight. The

City also anticipates that a separate consultant will be asked to prepare, conduct, and report on a statistically valid community-wide survey.

Because the final plan will be published on cityofsalem.net and must meet web accessibility requirements, the City’s desktop publishing and graphic design staff will play a key collaborative role in plan development. Their involvement will ensure the final product meets City standards for formatting, clarity, ADA compliance, and digital publication.

Consultant services will be used strategically to augment staff capacity, particularly in structured engagement planning, outreach strategy, and facilitation support.

Consultants may assist with designing engagement frameworks, supporting targeted outreach, and facilitating certain public processes. Importantly, lead City staff will retain ownership of community relationships throughout the initiative. While consultants may support engagement logistics and facilitation, direct relationships with neighborhood associations, stakeholder groups, and advisory bodies will remain under City leadership.

6. Q) Has the City completed logo development and a brand package for the “Parks for All of Us” process?

A) The City has in-house graphic designers with expertise in logo and brand design. A logo for Parks for All of Us is currently in development and is anticipated to be unveiled at a City Council Work Session (April 20) devoted to this initiative. The

City’s organizational branding will serve as the primary brand for the project, with the new logo functioning as the main identifier for this initiative.

7. Q) What is the current status of the City’s park inventory dataset and GIS? Does it require updates, or are there known gaps in data collection? Additionally, what asset management systems are currently used for maintenance and condition tracking, or is the City seeking new systems to be proposed and implemented?

A) There are two datasets that need to be reconciled, updated, and improved, although the extent of any gaps is not yet fully known. Parks Operations uses Cityworks, a software platform for managing assets, work orders, inspections, and maintenance activities. Separately, Parks Planning maintains a GIS facility inventory, which is available for viewing and download directly from the City’s open data site:

https://data.cityofsalem.net/datasets/salem::parksandrec/explore?filters=eyJQQVJL

X1RZUEUiOlsiTmVpZ2hib3Job29kIFBhcmsiXX0%3D&layer=1. The City is not proposing to replace Cityworks.

The attached student report may be of interest.

https://data.cityofsalem.net/datasets/salem::parksandrec/explore?filters=eyJQQVJLX1RZUEUiOlsiTmVpZ2hib3Job29kIFBhcmsiXX0%3D&layer=1 https://data.cityofsalem.net/datasets/salem::parksandrec/explore?filters=eyJQQVJLX1RZUEUiOlsiTmVpZ2hib3Job29kIFBhcmsiXX0%3D&layer=1

8. Q) Is it acceptable to submit for all three categories within a single, clearly organized PDF, provided each category is distinctly labeled and includes its respective proposal components (e.g., Qualifications and Experience, Work

Product, Resource Allocation, and Support from City Staff)? A consolidated submission would reduce redundancy and clearly convey the interrelated elements of our approach and project delivery. The cover letter and reference projects would remain consistent across categories.

A) Yes, not just acceptable, this approach is preferred.

Shawna Self, CPPB

Purchasing Manager cc: File

Leveling the Playing Field:

Designing Assessment Tools for Equity in Salem’s Parks Nathan Cole Report Author • Department of Landscape Architecture

Ellee Stapleton Visiting Assistant Professor • Department of Landscape Architecture

LA 407/507: EQUITABLE URBAN PARKS | COLLEGE OF DESIGN

SPRING 2024

SALEM

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the individuals whose hard work and dedication allowed this collaboration to be possible. To the staff at City of Salem, thank you for bringing students this opportunity to engage their passions in on-the-ground projects that create a sense of purpose and a rich learning environment.

The author would like to additionally thank the City of Salem Parks Planning and Development staff Rob Romanek and Raymond Joseph for their time and support. Their knowledge and experience was instrumental to this project as the students in Equitable Urban Parks worked with them to understand the scope and potential of the work at hand to contribute to the City’s efforts to improve its parks.

Finally, the author would like to thank Courtney Knox Busch, Chief Strategy Officer, for serving as the primary city contact and SCYP project coordinator.

This report represents original student work and recommendations prepared by students in the University of Oregon’s Sustainable City Year Program for the City of Salem. Text and images contained in this report may not be used without permission from the University of Oregon.

Contents

4 About SCI

4 About SCYP

5 About City of Salem

6 Course Participants

7 Course Description

7 Executive Summary

9 Introduction

11 Overview of Assessment Tools

21 Recommendations

24 Conclustion

25 References

28 Appendix A: Precedent Research

31 Appendix B: Case Study on Data Reliability

35 Appendix C: Tool Protocols, Materials, and Instruments

Spring 2024 Leveling the Playing Field: Designing Assessment Tools for Equity in Salem’s Parks

About SCI

About SCYP

The Sustainable Cities Institute (SCI) is an applied think tank focusing on sustainability and cities through applied research, teaching, and community partnerships. We work across disciplines that match the complexity of cities to address sustainability challenges, from regional planning to building design and from enhancing engagement of diverse communities to understanding the impacts on municipal budgets from disruptive technologies and many issues in between.

SCI focuses on sustainability-based research and teaching opportunities through two primary efforts:

1. Our Sustainable City Year Program (SCYP), a massively scaled university-community partnership program that matches the resources of the University with one Oregon community each year to help advance that community’s sustainability goals; and

2. Our Urbanism Next Center, which focuses on how autonomous vehicles, e-commerce, and the sharing economy will impact the form and function of cities.

In all cases, we share our expertise and experiences with scholars, policymakers, community leaders, and project partners.

We further extend our impact via an annual Expert-in-Residence Program, SCI China visiting scholars program, study abroad course on redesigning cities for people on bicycle, and through our co-leadership of the Educational Partnerships for Innovation in Communities Network (EPIC-N), which is transferring SCYP to universities and communities across the globe. Our work connects student passion, faculty experience, and community needs to produce innovative, tangible solutions for the creation of a sustainable society.

The Sustainable City Year Program (SCYP) is a yearlong partnership between SCI and a partner in Oregon, in which students and faculty in courses from across the university collaborate with a public entity on sustainability and livability projects. SCYP faculty and students work in collaboration with staff from the partner agency through a variety of studio projects and service- learning courses to provide students with real-world projects to investigate. Students bring energy, enthusiasm, and innovative approaches to difficult, persistent problems. SCYP’s primary value derives from collaborations that result in on-the-ground impact and expanded conversations for a community ready to transition to a more sustainable and livable future.

About City of Salem

The City of Salem is Oregon’s second largest city (179,605; 2022) and the State’s capital. A diverse community, Salem has well-established neighborhoods, a family-friendly ambiance, and a small town feel, with easy access to the Willamette riverfront and nearby outdoor recreation, and a variety of cultural opportunities.

The City is known for having one of Oregon’s healthiest historic downtowns, hosts an airport with passenger air service, and is centrally located in the heart of the Willamette Valley, 47 miles south of Portland and an hour from the Cascade Mountains to the east and the ocean beaches to the west.

State government is Salem’s largest employer, followed by the Salem-Keizer School District and Salem Health. The City also serves as a hub for area farming communities and is a major agricultural food processing center. A plethora of higher education institutions are located in Salem, ranging from public Western Oregon University, private Willamette and Corban universities, and Chemeketa Community College.

Salem is in the midst of sustained, steady growth. As a “full-service” city, it provides residents with services such as police and fire protection, emergency services, sewage collection and treatment, and safe drinking water. Salem also provides planning and permitting to help manage growth, as well as economic development to support job creation and downtown development. The City also provides 2,338 acres of parks, libraries and educational programs, housing and social services, public spaces, streetscaping, and public art.

Salem’s vision is a safe, livable, and sustainable capital city, with a thriving economy and a vibrant community that is welcoming to all. The City’s mission is to provide fiscally sustainable and quality services to enrich the lives of present and future residents, protect and enhance the quality of the environment and neighborhoods, and support the vitality of the economy. The City is in the midst of a variety of planning efforts that will shape its future, ranging from climate action planning and implementation, a transportation system plan update, as well as parks master planning.

This SCYP and City of Salem partnership is possible in part due to support from U.S.

Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, as well as former Congressman Peter DeFazio, who secured federal funding for SCYP through Congressionally Directed Spending. With additional funding from the city, the partnership will allow UO students and faculty to study and make recommendations on city-identified projects and issues.

Katie Cassell, Pre-BLA Undergraduate Nathan Cole, BLA Undergraduate Michael Colucci, BARCH Undergraduate Jill Dow, Pre-BLA Undergraduate Lydia Lewis, ENV Undergraduate

Course Participants

Marcus Li, BARCH Undergraduate Madison Merwine, BARCH Undergraduate Juliette Setudeh-Nejad, PPPM Undergraduate Dahill Shelvy, MLA Graduate Marilyn Padilla Zavala, MCRP Graduate

This document describes and contains the work of students in LA 407 / 507 Equitable Urban Parks with Professor Stapleton at the University of Oregon. Students created three assessment tools for the City of Salem to assess the current conditions of their parks. The report covers the purpose of the tools and how they were created. The tools are in Appendix C: Tool Protocols, Materials, and Instruments.

The City of Salem manages 90 parks and is currently updating its citywide park system master plan (master plan), last updated in 2013, that guides development and maintenance of these parks. The master plan is updated about once a decade (City of Salem 2024). Some residents of Salem are concerned that the distribution of parks and funding in the City is inequitable, and the City would like to address this by conducting an equity analysis of their parks system and including an equity component in the new master plan.

The work of Equitable Urban Parks follows Professor Stapleton’s Spatial Justice Seminar, in which students investigated if parks were equitably distributed throughout the City (Cassell and Donnelly 2024). In Equitable Urban Parks, students created assessment tools that can be used to compare conditions and resources across different parks in the City. The findings from these two courses offer complementary explorations of park equity with the Spatial Justice Seminar considering equity through the lens of distribution and Equitable Urban Parks looking in more detail at the qualities of specific park resources.

Executive Summary

Course Description

LA 407/507: EQUITABLE URBAN PARKS

In this course, students explored public park equity through a hands-on partnership with the City of Salem. The City of Salem prepared to update the community’s park system master plan, with a specific focus on need-based equity. This course supported this effort by developing and testing methods for assessing the condition, performance, and user experience of Salem’s parks. In the classroom, students learned about key considerations in park systems including park service, park quality, and park classification, and explored how these factors relate to equity. In the field, students developed, tested, iterated, and implemented data collection methods for evaluating park conditions and performance. Back in the classroom, students learned how to process field data, interpret findings, and critically examined how these findings related to equity.

Students worked in groups to develop three tools: the Conditions Assessment Tool, the Performance Assessment Tool, and the User Experience Assessment Tool, referred to interchangeably in this report as the Conditions Tool, Performance Tool, and User Experience Tool (Colucci, Dow, and Setudeh Nejad 2024; Cassell, Merwine, and Shelvy 2024; Lewis, Li, and Padilla Zavala 2024).

These tools are all designed and used following similar principles but address different qualities of parks. The tools aim to be easily usable by an individual, short, and as wholistic and unbiased as possible.

The tools use a variety of data collection techniques that all rely on an individual surveyor visiting a park to collect the data.

These techniques include observation, digital surveys, and intercept surveys.

The tools were designed using principles of park history and data collection and were informed by an array of precedent tools that have been used for park system surveying by other cities.

Students tested and refined their tools through a variety of case studies at individual parks to meet their functionality and efficiency goals. Notes on tool optimization and contextualization are included in the Recommendations section.

A focus on data collection and analysis will help the City of Salem prepare for the master plan update. The City’s goals to analyze equity in the parks system and include an equity component in the new master plan can be facilitated using the tools contained in this report.

FIG. 1

Site visit Image Credit: Ellee Stapleton

The City of Salem operates 90 parks covering 2,335 acres. The Parks Planning and Development program has a citywide park system master plan (master plan) which guides park operations and development, which was last updated in 2013; the previous major update was in 1999. The City is preparing to update its master plan once more, and as part of that task, the City determined a need to assess the equity of its parks system, one component of which is assessing park conditions.

Introduction

The City’s comprehensive park system master plan update in May 2013 identified four key planning issues: a rapidly aging population, fewer youths learning outdoor skills and reduced outdoor activity among youths, increasing diversity, and a physical activity crisis (Lewis 2024).

To address these problems and the City’s goals, students in LA 407 / 507 Equitable Urban Parks developed three assessment tools to gather data to help the Parks Planning and Development staff understand the current conditions of Salem parks.

Assessment tool/tool: a technique or method for performing an assessment. The tool refers to everything needed to conduct the assessment, including the specific instruments, the protocol, and any supporting materials. It can be thought of like a new board game.

Supporting materials: This is not a technical term, but it often comes up during tool development. Some tools might include something besides instruments and protocols.

Supporting documents can be thought of like the score cards, pencil, or timer provided with the game—they are not part of the game play or the instructions, but they are still necessary.

Adapted from LA 407 / 507 taught by Professor Stapleton.

These assessment tools are referred to as the Conditions Assessment Tool, Performance Assessment Tool, and User Experience Assessment Tool, and interchangeably as the Conditions Tool, Performance Tool, and User Experience Tool. These tools are the first step towards creating a data-driven and equity focused process for allocating park resources.

Parks and Recreation staff Rob Romanek and Raymond Joseph facilitated the tool development process by meeting virtually with students at the beginning of the project, before development began, and then in person in Salem to give a tour of some of the parks and discuss how they see the park system benefiting from these tools. Finally, another virtual meeting with students after tool development and testing, allowed students to go further in the development process.

FIG. 2

Anticipated development timeline for the tools during the course of LA 407 / 507. Some of the tools turned out to require more time than others to develop. While all tools completed all ten steps of the development process, some are still in need of more refinement before they would be ready-to-use. See Recommendations.

Credit: Ellee Stapleton

This report discusses the Tools as they were originally intended to be used in a hypothetical, completed form. The Recommendations section discusses some practical ways to adapt the tools in their current state for imminent use.

To address the City’s need to analyze the conditions and performance of its parks, students began developing three assessment tools. When finalized, the tools are intended to be a complete and comprehensive set of instruments and protocols. Volunteers or City employees should be able to use final versions of the tools to perform an assessment with reasonable accuracy with little to no training. The goal of the project was to begin creating a framework for objective and subjective data to be efficiently collected to inform the City’s development of its equity analysis and equity guidelines in its new citywide parks master plan. This report compiles the work completed thus far. Completion and deployment of these tools could ultimately facilitate data-driven decision-making for the operations and development of Salem’s parks.

Overview of Assessment Tools

FIG. 3

Example of a tool protocol from the Performance Tool.

Image Credit: Cassell, Merwine, Shelvy

The tool can be used independently with its own knowledge base without relying on institutional knowledge. Additionally, a packaged tool will be more useful for the long term, should it come to be used by people other than the original users, for the same reasons.

To develop the tools, students began by studying precedents, which included tools created by other parks departments, such as the City of Los Angeles. This research also included tools developed by researchers, such as the SOPARNA tool, a result of a collaboration between post-graduate students at San Diego State University and the USDA Forest Service.

Highlights of the precedent studies are described in Appendix A.

Students created three tools in varying levels of completion that were tested on sites in Eugene and Salem. The tests students conducted using the tools generated objective data through observation, such as quantities and five-point condition scales, as well subjective data, through face-to-face and online surveys. The synthesis of this objective and subjective data is highly productive for exploring challenges facing the park system. Concerns, perspectives, and experiences are well identified through the subjective data collection channels and can be confirmed or denied using objective data. In other words, the subjective data can suggest areas to collect objective data. Both types of data are necessary, and they are more useful when viewed in tandem.

Instrument: the specific device used for the assessment. An instrument is a major part of a tool and sometimes less precise publications may even refer to it as a tool, but this report will delineate between the two. It can be thought of like the board and game pieces of a board game.

Protocol: The protocol explains how the assessment is conducted, including how the instrument should be used. It can be thought of like the instructions for the game.

Adapted from LA 407 / 507 taught by Professor Stapleton.

PARK CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT TOOL

Tool Authors: Michael Colucci, Jill Dow, Juliette Setudeh Nejad

Overview The Conditions Assessment Tool aims to understand what objects, equipment, and amenities are in a park and what condition they are in. This tool uses observation to record objective quantitative and qualitative measurements such as quantity, five-point condition scales, and yes/no questions.

The data from the Conditions Tool will be helpful for comparing how resources are currently distributed among parks, helping to identify parks that need more funding.

The data from the Conditions Tool also could be richer if integrated into spatial analysis.

This is because the other tools provide insight that the condition of an object alone cannot. The condition of a park bench, for example, will influence the performance of the bench and the user experience of the bench, although it is not the only factor in those other areas.

In this report, an assessor shall refer to the person operating the tool, or in other words, the person performing the assessment.

The data from the Conditions Tool will be richer when considered in conjunction with the data from the Performance and User Experience Tools.

Because of these blurry boundaries between, for example, the condition of a park bench and the performance of the bench, it is important to define what was considered to be within the scope of the Conditions Tool during its development. The Conditions Tool considers everything in the park that is permanent and inanimate, such as trees, paths, restrooms, play equipment, etc.

Goals and Purpose By collecting this data, the Parks Planning and Development staff will be able to make informed decisions about the allotment of finite resources. These data could allow for the prioritization of parks with fewer amenities, for example, to receive more attention, or to identify opportunities for partnerships that support widespread needs in parks, or to form partnerships for future anticipated needs identified through the data collected.

Methods The Conditions Assessment Tool is designed to be a user-friendly tool that is useful for quickly evaluating a large target area. With 29 questions spread over approximately seven pages, the tool should take about 15-30 minutes to complete for an average, midsize park, however, the time required to record quantitative measurements will scale linearly. Additionally, no training is required for effective use of the tool, which only requires a single assessor, so long as the instructions are followed completely.

FIG. 4

Site visit Image Credit: Ellee Stapleton

Overview of Assessment Tools

PARK PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Tool Authors: Katie Cassell, Madison Merwine, Dahill Shelvy

Case Study: The Conditions Assessment Tool was tested on one site in Eugene and five sites in Salem. On each site, the tool authors tested their tool and made notes for revisions. See Appendix A for details on the reliability of the data produced by the Conditions Tool.

Since the condition of a park is relatively independent of time of day and usage patterns, the tool is flexible in when it is used. It may even be advantageous for the assessor to use the tool in off-peak times when equipment and facilities are not in use, thus allowing closer inspection, although personnel safety may be a challenge during off-peak times.

There is no special equipment needed to perform the assessment in its entirety.

Overview The Performance Assessment Tool bridges the gap between the Conditions Assessment Tool and the User Experience Assessment Tool. It has overlap with the Conditions Tool because the performance of a bench, for example, is closely tied with the condition of the bench as described by the Conditions Tool.

The Performance Tool overlaps with the User Experience Tool as well. For example, the User Experience Tool asks people subjective, scale-based questions like “rank your satisfaction with the cleanliness of the park on a five-point scale.” On the other hand, the Performance Tool defines “excessive litter” and asks if it is present, making its data objective. They both are assessing litter in parks, but from different perspectives, thus generating different types of data. In this case, different perspectives could mean a trained official observer versus a random park user.

The Performance Tool captures more than the condition of park assets—it considers how the condition and use of assets combine to influence the user experience.

However, the Performance Tool captures more than simply the condition of park assets—it considers how the condition and use of assets combine to influence the user experience. While the Conditions Tool may note the presence or absence of things like lighting and sports facilities, the Performance Tool looks at how well these amenities are performing relative to their potential, asking if these amenities are efficient, optimal, and adequate. Thus, the Performance Tool is highly concerned with context, as the adequacy of a quantitative measurement can only be determined relative to some benchmark or other data.

Goals and Purpose The Performance Tool considers the presence of park amenities, the design of the park, and the activities occurring in the park.

By analyzing these data, the Parks Planning and Development program will be able to understand not only the current resource distribution, i.e., which parks have which amenities, but also the way the parks are being used. This will allow for informed decisions about which parks need attention and in which areas.

Additionally, it will help to see which parks could be significantly improved without significant expenditure, increasing the efficiency of park resource distribution. The Conditions Tool may determine there are two parks with equally deteriorated basketball courts, but the Performance Tool may reveal that one park’s courts are used more frequently, suggesting funding would be better spent on repairing that basketball court first.

Methods The Performance Tool instrument is a physical document eight pages long (some pages are filled out multiple times), consisting of 263 to 563+ questions for typical parks, depending on how many Target Areas are assessed, as each Target Area assessment asks the assessor 50 of the same questions. Despite the large number of questions, the team found that in their tests of the tool, it took about 30 minutes to an hour to complete per park, with only a single assessor assessing each park. Although the authors of the Performance Tool recommend a group of assessors use the tool to assess a park simultaneously, they note that it can be done by an individual assessor.

Target Area: a term specific to the Performance tool, a Target Area is a subsection of a park, i.e. sports facilities, playgrounds, or picnicking areas that is assessed using the Target Area assessment sheets.

FIG. 5

Performance Tool assessment time estimates.

Image credit: Cassell, Merwine, Shelvy

Additionally, the authors note it is important to assess all parks at the same time of day and during the same time of week, as some of the data the Performance Tool collects will be influenced by the park occupancy level. Multiple assessment periods would lead to the most robust data. No special equipment is needed to use the tool.

Case Study: The authors of the Performance Tool report their tool was tested on three different days in Salem and one day in Eugene on a variety of parks.

FIG. 6

The performance assessment team tested their tools on a diverse array of Salem’s parks.

Image credit: Cassell, Merwine, Shelvy

PARK USER EXPERIENCE ASSESSMENT TOOL

Tool Authors: Lydia Lewis, Marcus Li, Marilyn Padilla Zavala

Overview The User Experience Assessment Tool aims to capture the subjective, qualitative feelings of park users from as representative a group as possible. To achieve this representation, the tool calls for two survey methods: a digital QR-code with a link to a survey that park users can fill out on their own and intercept surveys, where an assessor talks to a park user and records their responses. This multimodal format aims to overcome technological barriers and afford the variety of ways people like to engage.

By collecting user responses to questions like “rank your satisfaction with this park’s [cleanliness, safety, accessibility, etc],” the Parks Planning and Development program will be able to understand needs that could not be identified through the Conditions and Performance Tools alone. For example, the Conditions Tool may report that all parks have benches but in one park they are really uncomfortable or are all in a really sunny place where no one wants to sit.

For example, the Conditions Tool may report that all parks have benches but in one park they are really uncomfortable or are all in a really sunny place where no one wants to sit.

“User experience” encompasses everything that users feel, think, or believe about a park, regardless of the reality of the park.

Goals and Purpose “User experience” encompasses everything that users feel, think, or believe about a park, regardless of the reality of the park. The highly subjective and qualitative data that this tool produces is valuable when analyzed in contrast with the more objective, quantitative data collected from the conditions and Performance Tools, as it can provide information about concerns the City has, such as the validity of perceived inequities in certain regions.

Methods The User Experience Tool will require the most training of the tools to use successfully, as it requires interacting with people, and the way those interactions occur could influence user responses. Additionally, due to the high variability of responses to open ended questions on the survey, some training would be helpful to assure consistency in the interpretation of such responses. Assessors will also need to be prepared for people who do not want to be bothered, and people who need help opening the QR code on their phone. The tool is designed to require as little training as possible to maximize accessibility and versatility.

FIG. 7

Parks Planning Manager Rob Romanek (far right) talks to students at their site visit to Salem Image Credit: Ellee Stapleton

Spring 2024 Leveling the Playing Field: Designing Assessment Tools for Equity in Salem’s Parks

At just one-and-a-half pages long with 16 questions, the user experience survey is relatively quick to complete, taking about five minutes on average. This was an intentional design choice by the tool authors to increase participation and lower the time commitment to complete the survey, thereby capturing a broader range of users, as opposed to capturing responses only from people who are willing to take a long survey.

The survey can be administered by individuals, and consideration may be given to the time of day that the surveys are being administered, since that will strongly influence results—people in the park at night will likely feel better about park safety than people who avoid the park at night, for example. Additionally, safety training could be important for assessors given the nature of using this tool—see the Recommendations section for more details on safety considerations. No special equipment is needed to use this tool.

Case Study: Over the course of their tests of the tool in Eugene and Salem across six different parks, the authors found that it was harder to get engagement at the larger parks, and that the response rate varied from <50% to 71%. They found that at one park, there were no users they felt they could approach, which suggests that multiple site visits may be necessary, especially for smaller parks.

One challenge that emerged during the case study was the difficulty of gathering a representative sample. Certain groups of park users, for example, cyclists or runners, could not be questioned during the intercept survey.

Additionally, the team had difficulty getting responses from people who are unhoused.

Gathering responses from unhoused populations can be difficult for several reasons, including distrust, personnel safety, communication disorders, and general distrust of government and anyone with a clipboard. Although people who are unhoused pose challenges for parks and public policy, they are nonetheless legitimate park users, and some of the most vulnerable. Their perspectives are critical to equitable park design.

TOOL OPTIMIZATION

Some common themes that emerged from this project came from testing the tools.

Testing offered rich feedback to refine tools that could not be obtained by any other means.

The Performance Tool is the most complete and ready-to-use of the three tools. To deploy these tools imminently, it would likely be best to merge the Conditions Tool with the Performance Tool, keeping the Performance Tool’s protocols and instrument and simply adding the questions from the Conditions Tool. The User Experience Tool would require more refinement to be ready-to-use.

One area users of these tools may want to heed is the definitions of criteria in the tools. Some questions could produce more accurate results if their criteria were differently defined. For example, the Conditions Tool asks, “How many grassy areas are there?” a question whose answer will depend largely on what the assessor defines as a single grassy area. For example, is a single grassy area that which is bounded by trees or other amenities?

What if there are a few trees in between grass patches—is that one or two grassy areas? Everyone will have their own, often differing answers to these questions, from which arises the problem of how to accurately compare grassy area quantities between parks.

The best way to overcome this issue would be to more rigorously and clearly define terms like ‘grassy area’.” In cases where even a clear definition is not sufficient to eliminate subjectivity, the role of the assessor becomes especially critical. Assuring that all assessors receive identical training and conduct practice assessments to confirm their results align with one another are important strategies for minimizing bias. Limiting the number of individuals involved with assessment could be another strategy for assuring internal consistency within the dataset.

Redundant questions between tools increases certainty in the data collected when results for the same questions are compared. However, this redundancy could be removed for more efficient tools, at the expense of some certainty in the data produced.

Another area that users of these tools may want to consider is redundancy. The tools have significant overlap between questions, often asking the same questions, which increases the accuracy of the data collected when results for the same questions are compared. However, this redundancy could be removed for more efficient tools, at the expense of some certainty in the data produced.

The authors believe the tools are still adequately reliable when this redundancy is removed. See Appendix B: Case Studies for details on data reliability.

Recommendations

TOOL CUSTOMIZATION

Another theme that emerged from tool development is the challenge of balancing tool length with thoroughness. These tools can be viewed as a suggestion of what is possible. Part of the intent of making these tools flexible is to allow for this challenge. Depending on how many staff are available to perform assessments, for example, it may be feasible to lengthen the tools, or conversely, necessary to shorten them.

In most cases, questions can be added, deleted, or modified to suit the tool user’s needs without jeopardizing the integrity of the tool. The only case where this is not true is for any algorithmic indices for interpretation of data. Should such indices be created or used, their algorithms would need to be modified appropriately to reflect any modifications to the questions in the tool to prevent inaccurate index values.

DATA INTERPRETATION

The Performance team noted that the data their tool produces is designed to be easily aggregated into a single score for each category their tool assesses, such as safety, environmental performance, and usability. These scores can be further synthesized into a single performance index value for each park.

From a decision-making standpoint the use of a single index or score value has substantial utility. The performance index offers a strong initial concept but would require additional refinement in how it is calculated to assure it appropriately reflects desired criteria.

PERSONNEL SAFETY

Having multiple assessors assess the same park simultaneously by divvying up the assessment questions would increase assessment speed and increase the personal safety of the assessors.

Personnel safety is something that may be particularly critical to consider for the intercept surveys and assessments taking place at times when parks have few or no users. It may also depend on how comfortable and experienced the assessor is with such situations. Training for assessors covering interacting with the public, de-escalation, and staying safe in public could mitigate these risks. Special training and/or consideration of how to gather input from unhoused park users could also provide critical insight into how to improve park equity.

LOOKING AHEAD

Students in the course suggest that the City of Salem consider merging and finalizing the three tools as outlined in the Tool Optimization subsection of the Recommendations section for imminent use. The City can then use the tools as thoroughly as possible and use that data to inform the equity analysis and equity component of the new citywide parks master plan. While collecting data from just one of these tools would be helpful, the amalgamation of data from all three will bring insights that are greater than the sum of their parts. Students propose this considering the limited resources that the parks system is facing at this current time, and the imminent revision of the park system master plan.

Indices may be a valuable method to quickly interpret the large amount of data these tools produce.

FIG. 8

Salem Chief Strategy Officer Courtney Knox Busch (middle) talks about Salem parks with students at their site visit Image Credit: Ellee Stapleton

Recommendations

Additionally, to ensure a sound and equitable future for the City’s parks, it could be beneficial to include measures in the new master plan that outline how often these tools should be used to assess the status of parks, how the data should be analyzed, and how the results should be used to inform how funding is distributed among parks.

Making these tools and the data they produce publicly available may be beneficial to the City of Salem. Doing so could build rapport with the public through creating transparency on internal progress to address concerns about inequities in the parks system. Interpretive signage in parks about these tools and Salem’s equity goals could also educate users of more developed parks about why their parks may be a lower priority for funding in the future.

Transparency and public outreach would further demonstrate the City’s dedication to being at the service of its residents, and make Salem known as a leader in park equity. This could open opportunities for other cities to follow in Salem’s footsteps by using these tools to improve equity in their park systems as well.

Assessment tools are a powerful way to navigate systems that span many people. Properly configured tools allow the efficient collection of reliable data that is often more accurate and useful than what can simply be perceived by an individual alone. Data allow analysis and interpretation, ultimately mitigating challenges like bias and time constraints.

For the City of Salem, these tools represent an opportunity to gather data that can help address the needs of a growing population and parks system that

Conclusion has limited resources and seeks to serve its citizens equitably.

This is a critical point for data collection and analysis, as the new citywide parks master plan will likely guide park development for the next decade.

Collecting, analyzing, and applying data now to the new master plan will allow for the creation of a robust, equitable park management plan that will help the City meet its goals for the next decade and beyond.

References

SALEM PARK RESOURCE

“City of Salem Parks.” n.d. https://www.

cityofsalem.net/community/things-to-do/ parks.

ASSESSMENT TOOLS:

Cassell, Katie, Madison Merwine, and Dahill Shelvy. 2024. “Performance Assessment Tool,” June.

Colucci, Michael, Jill Dow, and Juliette Setudeh Nejad. 2024. “Conditions Assessment Tool.”

Lewis, Lydia, Marcus Li, and Marilyn Padilla Zavala. 2024. “User Experience Assessment Tool,” June.

PRECEDENT TOOLS:

BRAT Direct Observation

Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005 Feb;28(2 Suppl 2):159-68. doi: 10.1016/j.

amepre.2004.10.024. PMID: 15694524.

Bedimo-Rung AL, Gustat J, Tompkins BJ, Rice J, Thomson J. Development of a Direct Observation Instrument to Measure Environmental Characteristics of Parks for Physical Activity. J Phys Act Health.

2006 Feb;3(s1):S176-S189. doi: 10.1123/ jpah.3.s1.s176. PMID: 28834515.

Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces

Saelens, B.E. et al. Measuring Physical Environments of Parks and Playgrounds:

EAPRS Instrument Development and Inter- Rater Reliability (2006). Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, Suppl 1, S190-S207

Geremia, C.M., Cain, K.L., Conway, T.L., Sallis, J.F., and Saelens, B.E.

(2019). Validating and shortening the Environmental Assessment of Public Recreation Spaces observational measure.

Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 16, 68-75.

Complete Parks Indicators

Nguyen, Jessica, Benita Tsao, Erik Calloway, Saneta deVuono-powell, and Gregory Miao. 2018. “Complete Parks Indicators: A Systems Approach to Assessing Parks.” ChangeLab Solutions.

https://www.changelabsolutions.org/ product/how-complete-parks.

Neighborhood Park Surveys

Smith, Jason, Debi Elliot, Amber Johnson, Cameron Mulder, and Jessica Devries.

2012. “Neighborhood Park Surveys Outer Southeast Portland.” City of Portland.

https://www.portland.gov/parks/projects.

A reliability assessment of a direct-observation park evaluation tool: the Parks, activity and recreation among kids (PARK) tool.

Bird, M.E., Datta, G.D., van Hulst, A. et

al. A reliability assessment of a direct-observation park evaluation tool: the Parks, activity and recreation among kids (PARK) tool. BMC Public Health 15, 906 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889- 015-2209-0

Grand Rapids Park Condition Assessment

“Park Condition Assessment.” n.d.

Friends of Grand Rapids Parks. https:// secure.lglforms.com/form_engine/s/ baFHbf4xMC9CiQbi8Wn4Kg.

Los Angeles Park Use and Physical Activity

Cohen, Deborah A., Amber Sehgal, Stephanie Williamson, Roland Sturm, Thomas L. McKenzie, Rosa Lara, and Nicole Lurie, Park Use and Physical Activity in a Sample of Public Parks in the City of Los Angeles. Santa Monica, CA:

RAND Corporation, 2006. https://www.

rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR357.

html.

Recreation Facility Evaluation

Cavnar MM, Kirtland KA, Evans MH, Wilson DK, Williams JE, Mixon GM, Henderson KA. (2003, August). Recreation Facility Evaluation Instrument. Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina.

Retrieved [date] from the World Wide Web: http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/ RecFacilityTool.pdf.

Trail Assessment and Condition Surveys

“Trail Assessment and Conditions Survey.”

n.d. USDA Forest Service. https://www.

fs.usda.gov/managing-land/trails/trail-management-tools/tracs.

Community Park Audit Tool

Kaczynski, Andrew T., Sonja A.

Wilhelm Stanis, and Gina M. Besenyi.

2012. “Development and Testing of a Community Stakeholder Park Audit Tool.”

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42 (3): 242–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

amepre.2011.10.018.

System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities

McKenzie, T. L., Cohen, D. A., Sehgal, A., Williamson, S., & Golinelli, D. (2006).

System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC): Reliability and Feasibility Measures. Journal of physical activity & health, 3 Suppl 1, S208–S222.

System for Observing Physical Activity and Recreation in Natural Areas

Sasidharan, Vinod & McKenzie, Thomas.

(2011). Observing Physical Activity and Recreation in Natural Areas (SOPARNA).

Research quarterly for exercise and sport.

82. A6-A6.

Measurement Properties of a Park Use Questionnaire

Evenson, K. R., Wen, F., Golinelli, D., Rodríguez, D. A., & Cohen, D. A. (2013).

Measurement Properties of a Park Use Questionnaire. Environment and behavior, 45(4), 526–547. https://doi.

org/10.1177/0013916512436421

References

Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity

Joseph RP, Maddock JE. Comparative Analysis of Five Observational Audit Tools to Assess the Physical Environment of Parks for Physical Activity, 2016. Prev Chronic Dis 2016;13:160176. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.160176.

Recommended Measures to Evaluate Park Use and Quality

Deutsch, Kat, J. Aaron Hipp, and Will Beam. n.d. “Recommended Measures to Evaluate Park Use and Quality.” National Recreation and Park Association. https:// www.nrpa.org/publications-research/ evaluation-resource-hub/recommended-measures-to-evaluate-park-use-and-quality/.

Understanding Park Usership

Walker, Chris. “A Broader View of Urban Parks BEYOND RECREATION.” (2004).

Appendix A

Appendix A:

Precedent Research

Precedent Research

Tool 1 Tool 2 Tool 3 Tool 4 Tool 5 Tool name

Complete Parks Indicators

Neighborhood Park Surveys Outer Southeast Portland

Park Condition Assessment

Recreation Facility Evaluation Tool

Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT)

Tool author

ChangeLab Solutions Portland Parks and Recreation and Portland State University

Friends of Grand Rapids Parks

Cavnar MM, Kirtland KA, Evans MH, Wilson DK, Williams JE, Mixon GM, Henderson KA.

(2003, August).

Recreation Facility Evaluation Instrument.

Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina. R

Kansas State University, University of Missouri

Purpose of the tool

Complete Parks is a way of thinking about a parks system as a comprehensive whole

— its strengths, issues, and inequities

— and considers communities’ needs in relation to parks or the lack of parks, the context of various neighborhoods, and other interconnected systems and institutions.

Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) contracted with PSU’s Survey Research Lab (SRL) to conduct park intercept surveys at Ed Benedict and Raymond Parks.

The purpose of the surveys was to better understand preferences, motivations, frequency of use, and satisfaction of park users.

This tool is meant to survey resident about their experience with the local park by assessing the condition of the neighborhood park.

It is meant to evaluate Parks, Playgrounds, Sports Fields, Aquatic Facilities/Pools, and Recreation Centers where each park and recreation center is rated with respect to safety,…