2018 GIS in Recreation: A Creek Runs Through It

A Creek Runs
Through It
By Shannon McElvaney,
Geodesign Evangelist, WISRD
M.P.S. Geodesign
GIS in the Rockies September 19-20, 2018
30 years in the making and it’s still a
tough decision. This project uses
geodesign to help the City of Manitou
Springs choose the best location for a
Creek Walk.

Mineral Springs The Mansions
Hotels and Boarding Houses Pikes Peak

Fruit Cake Toss
Mardi Gras
Emma Crawford Coffin Races

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/travel/escapes/19american.html?pagewante
d=all&_r=0
http://suitcasestories.com/photo-of-the-day-cliff-dwellings/
http://www.cospringstrails.com/hikes/incline.html
Economy

http://liberalironist.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/the-waldo-canyon-fire/
/http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/us/western-wildfires
Fire Adapted
Ecology

http://csbj.com/2014/04/24/catastrophe-insurance/
http://radiocoloradocollege.org/2011/03/ppld-historic-photo-of-the-day-31811-manitou-springs-flood/
Flash Floods
A constant concern during the monsoon season…

The Contrasting Views of Fountain Creek
The early settlers of Manitou Springs built along Fountain Creek to have easy access to water and to experience the
beauty of the creek. The creek and the mineral springs gave Manitou Springs its identity as a place of healing. Over
the years, the creek has been diverted, built over, and neglected. As a result, the creek has not manifest its potential
as a placemaking resource for the city.
The purpose of this geodesign project is to help stakeholders select a preferred route for the Manitou Springs Creek
Walk that incorporates the values and priorities held by diverse stakeholder groups associated with the city.

Hypothesis
Engaging community stakeholders in a participatory geodesign process can improve site selection options for the
Manitou Springs Creek Walk while maximizing multiple economic, cultural and environmental outcomes improving
connections to community identity in water resources.

Geodesign Framework
• Powerful participatory planning method
• Uses stakeholder input to define criteria and values
• Utilizes a multi-disciplinary geodesign team
• Uses analytics to show the possible impact of design scenarios
• Allows the visualization of the world both as it is, and as it could be
• Supports better, more informed decision-making

Assessment
Intervention
Geodesign Framework

• Plan Manitou
• Hazard Mitigation Plan
• Fountain Creek restoration
• East Manitou Springs
Redevelopment
• Infrastructure Vulnerability
Assessment
• Storm Water Master Plan
• Mobility Plan
• Soda Springs Park Master Plan
• Creek Walk Master Plan
Research Existing Plans…
Educate yourself. Identify plan
synergies or conflict.

Representation Models - Gathering the data
• City Data
• Zoning – parcels – city boundary – businesses
• Parks, open space, easements
• Building foot prints
• Creek
• Roads
• Buildings , bridges, staircases
• Hazards- floodway, floodplain
• Derived Data
• Riparian zone
• Shade – heat map
• Aesthetics – heat map
• Collected Data
• Street art
• Trees
• Amenities – parking, bathrooms, benches
• Erosion
• Large trees
• Low Impact Development (LID) potential
Survey 123

Getting Feedback from the “People of the Place”
Seeking input from stakeholders is an essential part of the participatory
change effort.
The immediate questions at this stage were:
1) Who are the stakeholders and what values
and concerns might they have,
2) What criteria should be used to evaluate
alternative routes,
3) What priority should those criteria be given,
4) And are the criterion equal, or should they
be weighted?

People of the Place
Workshop attendees consisted of:
• A successful businessman and trails
enthusiast who loves art. He also happens
to be physically challenged.
• A former government official who is still active on other committees.
• A local business owner with a love of the outdoors and a newborn child.
• A resident, land owner, and member of the group that deals with parking.
• A representative of Economic Development and the Arts Council for
Manitou Springs.
Local, knowledgeable opinion leaders

Review of Design Constraints and Opportunities
• Competing plans
• New parking
• Flood plain
• Easements
• Multi-modal
• Funding
• Active living
It was important to bring the team up to speed…
…so everyone had a common understanding.

Verifying Stakeholder Groups
These were the stakeholders thought to be most affected by a creek walk.
• Visitors
• Residents
• Businesses (owners or managers)
• Property Owners
• Manitou Springs Government

Clarifying Stakeholder Values and Concerns
Visitors
• Folks who stay at nearby campgrounds and motels like to walk to
town
• They want interesting things to see (e.g., nature, wildlife, history,
science)
• Shade is important
• Proximity, #’s of campers, #’s of moteliers…potential walkers/bikers
• If the route is beautiful, it increases use
• If the route is safe, it increases the likelihood of use
• Make it interesting, educational, use good signage, include native
American history
• Health benefits of walking, biking, etc.
• Add bike share spots
Note: The bullets in black were compiled
from various meetings, interviews, and
plans. The bullets in red italics were
added by workshop participants.
Strawman start. Asked for help.
Collaborative. Seeking input.
The whole group was asked to put
themselves in the shoes of each
stakeholder. This helped put them in an
open mindset, one less identified with
their own point of view.

Residents
• Needs to be accessible, good connectivity
• Need parking at trail heads
• There is a fear that transients will increase use
along the trail
• Fear an increase of trash along the creek
• Desire seating along the trail
• ADA compliant
• Protect nature – love big trees and wildness
• Protect animals/birds/plants
• Should support a modal mix (e.g., bike, walk, run)
• Entertainment (note: goes with interesting)
• Dog friendly - safe
• Social interaction opportunities (a “Third Place”)
• Health benefits
• Some residents do not want the city to grow
• Too many people, costs might go up
• Tie to Midland Trail
• Add kid friendly spots or nodes for different age
groups
• Add meditative, quiet spots to stop
• Safety: Inform folks riding bikes of where they
need to walk or slow down
• Add bike racks, places where it is safe to lock
your bike

Businesses
• It would be a good business attractor – residents
and locals
• Good tourism attractor – people will come, stay
longer
• Will attract those who enjoy walking and biking
• Brand the creek to promote Manitou Springs
• Creek Walk will reduce congestion
• Reduce parking pressure
• Enhance connectivity across town
• Increase customers

Manitou Springs Government
• Attracts new residents
• Increase property value and thus property tax revenue
• Help citizens to live an active lifestyle
• Supports “health” as a city value
• Protect green infrastructure and increase resiliency
• Decrease flood impact
• Safety is paramount
• Add art throughout (involve Arts Council)
• Incorporate events (e.g., duck races, other) to promote
brand

Defining Evaluation Criteria
• ADA capable
• Path already exists
• Easements possible
• Near creek
• Natural setting
• Off-street
This map shows the use of graduated linear symbolization as a technique to show the
value of weighting evaluation criteria.

The post-workshop combined list of evaluation criteria includes:
• ADA Capable
• Easement already in place or possible
• Near Creek
• Hear, see, smell the water
• Shade
• Natural Setting
• Trees, shrubs, grass, open space
• Animals, birds
• Off-street
• Away or separate from traffic
• Limiting the experience of traffic noise and pollution
• Path Already Exists
• Lowers potential construction costs and/or easement acquisition
• Aesthetics/Enjoyable (Added to the list by participants)
• Historic buildings and bridges
• Mineral springs
• Art
• Programmed elements for kids of different ranges – playgrounds, recreation, getting in the creek
• Nature
• Shade

Prioritization of Evaluation Criteria
Priorities
Visitors Residents Businesses
Property
Owners Gov't
Stakeholder
Agreement
Total
Agreement Level/
Importance Level
ADA Capable 3 5 3 3 1 4 High /High
Near Creek 2 1 1 6 6 3 High /High
Natural Setting 5 3 5 5 5 1 High/Low
Off-street 4 2 2 7 4 2 High/Medium
Path Exists 6 6 6 4 3 1 High/Low
Easement/Access
Possible
7 7 7 1 2 2 High/Low
Aesthetics &
Enjoyment
1 4 4 2 7 2 High/Medium
Agreement of Evaluation Criteria Priorities by Stakeholder Group
Stakeholders
Criteria
Priorities
High 1 - 3
Medium 4
Low 5-7

Evaluation Criteria Prioritization Outcome
Given the outcome of the priority setting session, the major guiding
priorities that satisfy the most stakeholders are:
• ADA Capable
• Near the Creek
• Aesthetics and Enjoyable
• Nature
• Culture
Routes with existing easements are preferred, and where possible existing
routes should be leveraged. In addition, routes that are both in Natural
Areas and Off-Street should be given precedence.
This expanded the idea of the
creek walk to include downtown
and business.

Evaluation Models
The next step involved
describing what kind of spatial
and attribute data would be
needed to create the
evaluation models in the GIS
that would support each
criterion.
GIS language
• Suitability
• Capability
• Vulnerability
Table 2
Evaluation Criteria and their Spatial Representation
Criteria Category Description Subcategory Description
ADA Capable
Areas either ADA compliant or capable of
compliance
Sidewalks wide enough for a wheelchair to pass
Cross walks
Curbs cut low for wheelchair access
Near Creek Proximity to Creek. Can hear, see, smell the creek
Areas within 20 ft. of the creek
Natural Setting Areas where nature dominates the landscape
Riparian Zone
Creek
Parks or open space
Trees
Off-street Away from the street and street noise
Areas over 15 ft. from the street
Path Exists Areas with existing infrastructure
Sidewalks
Trails with paved or compact surface
Pedestrian bridges or road bridges with sidewalk
Existing roads
Easement/Access
Possible
Locations where legal access exists or is possible
Parcel already owned by the city
City already has an easement
Landowner open to easement / City in discussion
Route is in an open right-of-way
Aesthetics &
Enjoyment
Places that are beautiful, aesthetically pleasing,
and enjoyable
Historic buildings, bridges, staircases, and stone
walls
Mineral springs Location of mineral springs

List continued.
Criteria Category Description Subcategory Description
Street Art
Locations of statues,
sculptures, tiling, exhibits,
murals
Interesting views
Directional views of buildings,
mountains, open space, the
creek
Outdoor café seating
Locations of restaurants and
cafes with outdoor seating
Amenities
Numbers and frequency of
amenities
Bathrooms
Parking
Benches and informal seating
areas
Trash receptacles
Bike racks
Playgrounds
Picknick benches
Nature Proximity to nature
Access to creek
Trees
Planters and potted plants
Parks, gardens, and fountains
Near business
Proximity to commercial
business
Retail shops
Restaurants
Bars
Shade
Areas to walk or sit in the
shade
Numbers of trees as indicator
North side of tree as area with
most shade after 1:00 pm
Bikeability Location of paths conducive to safe cycling
Low traffic roads
Evaluation Models

Evaluation Models*
• ADA capable
• Path already exists
• Easements possible
• Near creek
• Natural setting
• Off-street
• Near Business
• Bikeability
• Shaded
• Aesthetics and Enjoyment
*Existing conditions

Alternative Route Options
The next stage in the geodesign framework addresses
what Steinitz (2012) refers to as change models (design
alternatives). These encompass the simulation,
visualization and communication of future states.
The three design scenarios examined in this project
included:
1) bicycle friendly routes
2) ADA compliant walkable routes
3) a solution that combines these options.

Impact Models
• The geodesign impact model stage provided an opportunity to
examine the impact of each change model (design alternative) against
the process and evaluation models built during earlier stages.
• The purpose of this process was to examine the impact of each design
alternative using the evaluation criteria refined after the stakeholder
engagement workshop.
• The following tables provide an in-depth analysis of the impacts of
each of the three Creek Walk route alternatives.

Cyclists Rule
• Each design’s impact was evaluated
against the decision criteria
• A green-red scale for criteria
• A green-yellow-orange-red scale
for cost
• And linear feet or miles per
segment
Section Route Narrative Cost
ADA
Compliant
Near
Creek
Aesthetic
Enjoyment Shade
Distance
(feet)
Distance
(miles)
1 Preferred
Build single track
bike path
Low Yes No No No 853 0.1616
2 Preferred Use Existing Road None No No No No 1,486 0.2814
3 Preferred
Path requires design
and construction
High Yes Yes Yes Yes 300 0.0568
4 Preferred Path exists None Yes Yes Yes Yes 449 0.0850
5 Preferred Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
6 Preferred
Path surface requires
design and
construction
Medium to
High
Yes Yes Yes Yes 1,128 0.2136
6a Alternate Path exists None Yes Yes Yes Yes 551 0.1044
6b Alternate
Sidewalk over historic
bridge too narrow.
Road too narrow too
expand sidewalk
Very High No Yes Yes Yes 64 0.0121
7 Preferred Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes No No 24 0.0045
8 Preferred
and construction
High Yes Yes No Yes 423 0.0801
9 Preferred
Pedestrian & cyclist
bridge requires
design and
construction
Very High Yes Yes No Yes 234 0.0443
10 Access Exists None No No No Yes 177 0.0335
10a Access
Existing pedestrian
bridge
None No Yes Yes Yes 165 0.0313
11 Preferred
and construction
High Yes Yes No Yes 1,425 0.2699
12 Preferred Uses existing road None No Yes No Yes 141 0.0267
13 Preferred Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 2,224 0.4212
14 Access Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 844 0.1598
7,938 4,323 2,076 7,286 10,522
1.50 0.82 0.39 1.38 1.99
75% 41% 20% 69%
Cyclists Rule Impact Calculations
Preferred Route Distance (feet) Totals
Percentage of Route Covered
Preferred Route Distance (miles) Totals
Table 3

Nature Walk to Shop Section Route Narrative Cost
ADA
Compliant
Near
Creek
Aesthetic
Enjoyment Shade
Distance
(feet)
Distance
(miles)
1 Preferred Sidewalk exists None Yes Yes Yes No 676 0.1280
1a Preferred
To be built as part
of Park Master Plan
Medium Yes Yes Yes Yes 660 0.1250
2 Preferred
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes No Yes No 2,875 0.5445
2a Preferred Requires crosswalk Low Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
2b Alternate
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes No Yes Yes 101 0.0191
3 Preferred
Path requires
design and
construction
4 Preferred
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes Yes No No 307 0.0581
4a Alternate Path exists None Yes Yes No Yes 500 0.0947
4b Alternate
Retaining wall
repair & ped bridge
needed
5 Preferred Crosswalk exists None Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
5a Alternate Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
6 Preferred
Path surface
requires design
and construction
Medium to
High
6a Alternate Path exists None Yes Yes Yes Yes 551 0.1044
6b Alternate
Sidewalk over
historic bridge too
narrow. Road too
narrow too expand
sidewalk
Very High No Yes Yes Yes 64 0.0121
7 Preferred Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes No No 24 0.0045
8 Preferred
Path requires
design and
construction
9 Preferred
bridge requires
design and
construction
10 Access Path exists None No No No Yes 177 0.0335
10a Access
Existing pedestrian
bridge
11 Preferred
Path requires
design and
construction
12 Preferred Use existing road None No Yes No Yes 141 0.0267
13 Preferred Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 2,224 0.4212
14 Access Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 844 0.1598
11,289 5,386 6,179 7,721 13,131
2.14 1.02 1.17 1.46 2.49
86% 41% 47% 59%
Table 4
Nature Walk to Shop Impact Calculations
for cost
segment

Combo Walk and Bike Section Route Type Narrative Cost
ADA
Compliant
Near
Creek
Aesthetic
Enjoyment Shade
Distance
(feet))
Distance
(miles)
1 Preferred Walk Sidewalk exists None Yes Yes Yes No 676 0.1280
1a Preferred Walk
To be built as part of
Park Master Plan
1b Preferred Walk
To be built as part of
Park Master Plan
1c Preferred Bike
Proposed single cycle
track
Low Yes No No No 853 0.1616
2 Preferred Walk
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes No Yes No 2,875 0.5445
2a Preferred Walk Requires crosswalk Low Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
2b Alternate Walk
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes No Yes Yes 101 0.0191
2c Preferred Bike Uses existing road None No No No No 1,486 0.2814
3 Preferred Walk-Bike
and construction
4 Preferred Walk
Uses existing
sidewalk
None Yes Yes No No 307 0.0581
4a Preferred Bike Path exists None Yes Yes No Yes 500 0.0947
5 Preferred Walk Crosswalk exists None Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
5a Alternate Walk-Bike Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes Yes No 34 0.0064
Path surface requires
design and
construction
Medium to
High
7 Preferred Walk-Bike Crosswalk required Very Low Yes Yes No No 24 0.0045
and construction
bridge requires design
and construction
10 Access Walk Path exists None No No No Yes 177 0.0335
10a Access Walk
Existing pedestrian
bridge
and construction
12 Preferred Walk-Bike Crosswalk required Low Yes No No 48 0.0091
12a Preferred Walk-Bike
Move parking, add
sidewalk & trees
Medium Yes No No Yes 121 0.0229
12b Preferred Walk-Bike
Pedestrian bridge
exists,to be made ADA
compliant
13 Preferred Walk-Bike Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 2,224 0.4212
14 Access Walk-Bike Uses existing trail None Yes No No Yes 844 0.1598
12,919 6,296 6,081 8,458 14,882
2.45 1.19 1.15 1.60 2.82
87% 42% 41% 57%
Table 5
Combo Walk and Bike Impact Calculations
for cost
segment

Impact Comparison
Preferred
RouteDistance
Totals(miles) Cost
ChangeModels
Distance
(miles)
PecentageofTotal
Length
Distance
(miles)
PecentageofTotal
Length
Distance
(miles)
PecentageofTotal
Length
Distance
(miles)
PecentageofTotal
Length
CyclistsRule 1.99 Medium 1.50 75% 0.82 41% 0.39 20% 1.38 69%
NatureWalktoShop 2.49 Medium 2.14 86% 1.02 41% 1.17 47% 1.46 59%
ComboWalkandBike 2.82 Higher 2.45 87% 1.19 42% 1.15 41% 1.60 57%
Table6
AlternativeChangeModelImpactComparison
ADACapable NearCreek AestheticEnjoyment Shade
ImpactperCriterion

Combo Walk and Bike – best of both worlds
• Serves both cyclists AND those
with disabilities
• Allows cyclists to bike to or go
around town
• Allows walkers to walk to town in
a safe and enjoyable manner
• Adds little extra cost and actually
solves some engineering/design
issues

Dot Mapping Exercise
ADA capable 2
Path already exists 13
Easements possible 10
Near creek 18
Natural setting 9
Off-street 15
Aesthetics and Enjoyment 20
Validated the findings of the
smaller group session.

Mapping Exercise – armed with information

Common Themes
• Desire to separate cyclists from walkers
• There can be more than one creek walk
• Connectivity to other trails and downtown
• Desire for loops
• Desire to leave natural areas and turf in the parks alone

Lessons Learned
• Involve citizens early – don’t be afraid
• The “people of the place” have knowledge you don’t
• Hard to get people’s time - work asynchronously - short one-on-ones invaluable
• Geodesign provides valuable information on context
• Be prepared for set backs
• Staff turn over, funding delays, conflicting projects
• Go with the flow – incorporate new info as it comes
• Geodesign (and planning for that matter) is not a linear process
• With the geodesign framework, you always know where you are in the process
• Move the ball forward – capture values – those will live on in the next plan
• A multi-disciplinary, systems approach is what the world needs now

Benefits of the Geodesign Process
“Due to a number of factors, communities are demanding transparency from their city
leaders. Geodesign enables project managers, administrators and officials to clearly and
succinctly explain the process and build confidence in city-wide projects. This is a
necessary, and often missing, part of so many community efforts.”
“The Creek Walk Project enjoys incredible popularity. That being said, we all have a
different idea of what a finished Creek Walk experience will be. Using the Geodesign
process, we were able to preserve the passion and popularity of the project without
turning it into a divisive issue. Geodesign is a benefit to all communities and community
projects.”
Natalie Johnson, Director of Economic Development
City of Manitou Springs

Special thanks to:
• The City of Manitou Springs
• THK Associates, Inc.
• Nancy Fortuin, Natalie Johnson, Barb Cole, Karen Berchtold,
Kevin Shanks, Shanti and Coreen Toll, Danu, Lucas, Lisa
McElvaney, Becky Elder
• Penn State University
Stukeman School of Landscape Architecture, Geodesign Program
Kelleann Foster, Dan Meehan, and many others.
• Capstone Advisor, Eric Bernard, Texas Tech University
For more information on graduate programs in Geodesign check
out https://geodesign.psu.edu/

2018 GIS in Recreation: A Creek Runs Through It

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to 2018 GIS in Recreation: A Creek Runs Through It

Similar to 2018 GIS in Recreation: A Creek Runs Through It (20)

More from GIS in the Rockies

More from GIS in the Rockies (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2018 GIS in Recreation: A Creek Runs Through It