1.
Park
Access
in
Cully
Portland
State
University
USP
430:
Participatory
Research
Methods
of
Community
Development
Methods
of
Madness
Tim
Baker
Lauren
Bruschi
Savannah
Harris
Nick
McCarty
Kristin
Plekan
Dr.
Nathan
McClintock
Toulan
School
of
Urban
Studies
and
Planning
Living
Cully
Living
Cully
Walks
is
a
coordinated
initiative
that
is
working
to
bring
a
diversity
of
travel
options,
improve
mobility,
and
reduce
pollution
for
the
residents
of
the
Cully
neighborhood.
Methods
of
Madness
were
responsible
for
assembling
the
surveys
into
data,
analyzing
the
findings,
and
compiling
a
report
to
be
utilized
by
Living
Cully
to
improve
the
park
access
for
Cully
residents.
How
do
Cully
residents
access
parks
and
open
spaces
in
their
neighborhood?

2. pg.
2
Project
Summary
Portland
State
University’s
USP
430
Participatory
Research
Methods
for
Community
Development
course
teamed
up
with
Living
Cully
Walks,
which
is
a
combination
of
three
organizations:
Verde,
Hacienda
CDC,
and
NAYA.
Living
Cully
is
a
community
organization
that
specializes
in
culturally
specific
marketing
and
outreach
to
historically
underserved
communities.
Their
goal
is
to
increase
travel
options,
reduce
pollution
and
improve
mobility
and
environmental
amenities
that
support
healthy
livability
and
economic
opportunity.
Verde
supplies
communities
with
outreach
and
advocacy,
as
well
as
social
enterprise
to
build
environmental
wealth
amongst
Cully
residents,
specifically
low-­‐income
residents
and
people
of
color.
The
PSU
team,
Methods
of
Madness,
analyzed
and
interpreted
survey
information
that
was
collected
last
year
by
Living
Cully
Walks
from
the
Cully
neighborhood
community.
This
report
was
produced
to
present
the
data
collected
and
analyze
the
findings.
The
objective
for
this
project
was
to
discover
how
Cully
residents
access
parks
and
open
spaces
in
their
neighborhood.
The
team
was
responsible
for
entering
data
into
spreadsheets,
creating
graphs,
and
interpreting
the
data
to
compose
an
analysis
of
our
findings.
Results
show
that
of
those
who
were
surveyed,
over
2/3
of
them
were
aware
of
the
three
parks
referenced
in
the
surveys
(Whitaker
Ponds,
Columbia
Slough,
and
Cully
Park).
However,
the
two
most
preferred
parks
were
Fernhill
Park
and
Rigler
School.
The
majority
of
respondents,
54%,
used
walking
as
their
preferred
mode
of
transportation
to
the
parks.
It
was
found
that
security
concerns
included
lack
of
safety
around
traffic
and
a
need
for
more
safety
at
night.
The
suggestions
for
improvement
in
infrastructure
included
sidewalks,
bike
routes,
lighting,
signage,
and
walking
routes.

3. pg.
3
Example
of
Excel
Process
Age Percentage Count #
of
Respondents Age Group Percentage Count #
of
Respondents
8 0.58% 1 171 < 5 0.00% 0 171
9 13.45% 23 171 6-­‐10 21.64% 37 171
10 7.60% 13 171 11-­‐15 3.51% 6 171
11 0.58% 1 171 16-­‐20 1.17% 2 171
12 1.75% 3 171 21-­‐25 0.58% 1 171
13 0.58% 1 171 26-­‐30 9.36% 16 171
14 0.58% 1 171 31-­‐35 10.53% 18 171
18 1.17% 2 171 36-­‐40 17.54% 30 171
23 0.58% 1 171 41-­‐45 10.53% 18 171
26 1.17% 2 171 46-­‐50 7.02% 12 171
28 1.75% 3 171 51-­‐55 4.09% 7 171
29 2.92% 5 171 56-­‐60 3.51% 6 171
30 3.51% 6 171 61-­‐65 5.26% 9 171
31 0.58% 1 171 66-­‐70 3.51% 6 171
32 1.17% 2 171 71-­‐75 0.00% 0 171
33 4.09% 7 171 76-­‐80 1.75% 3 171
34 0.58% 1 171 >
80 0.00% 0 171
35 4.09% 7 171 N/A 2.29% 4 175
0
37
6
2 1
16
18
30
18
12
7 6
9
6
0
3
0
Age
Distribution
of
Respondents
Methods
There
were
a
total
of
175
surveys
collected
for
the
Living
Cully
Walks
project.
Some
were
collected
via
email
through
Survey
Monkey.
The
others
were
collected
at
various
events
held
by
organizations
affiliated
with
Living
Cully.
The
surveys
were
issued
in
both
Spanish
and
English
to
residents
of
the
Cully
neighborhood.
The
surveys
included
questions
about
park
awareness,
park
preference,
vehicle
ownership,
home
addresses,
safety,
and
suggestions
for
improvement.
Once
the
surveys
were
completed
they
were
handed
from
Living
Cully
Walks
to
the
PSU
team.
The
surveys
were
then
distributed
evenly
amongst
the
Methods
of
Madness
team
members
and
funneled
into
a
Google
form.
The
form
was
then
exported
into
Excel.
In
Excel,
the
data
became
structured
into
charts
and
graphs,
which
was
useful
in
analyzing
the
information
that
was
collected
in
the
surveys.
The
team
then
concentrated
on
the
parks
that
respondents
were
most
familiar
with,
the
modes
for
transportation
to
these
places,
and
safety
issues
for
traveling
to
parks
in
the
area.

4. pg.
4
Park
Preference/Awareness
The
survey
asked
the
respondents’
level
of
awareness
of
Whitaker
Ponds,
Cully
Park,
and
the
Columbia
River
Slough.
Two-­‐thirds
of
the
respondents
were
aware
of
these
parks,
while
most
preferred
to
access
Fernhill
Park
and
Rigler
School.
This
raises
the
question
as
to
why
Fernhill
and
Rigler
were
preferred
by
respondents.
Figure
1;
The
Cully
neighborhood
in
comparison
to
the
five
of
the
most
popular
parks.
Demographic
Information
The
majority,
80%,
of
survey
respondents
were
Caucasian
and
Latino.
There
were
a
large
number
of
respondents
under
the
age
of
16
(the
majority
of
whom
were
in
the
6-­‐
10
age
group),
with
the
next
largest
represented
age
group
being
36-­‐40.
However,
there
was
a
lack
of
survey
respondents
between
the
ages
of
15-­‐25.
This
may
be
an
age
group
to
target,
as
their
responses
could
be
beneficial
in
answering
the
question
as
to
how
parks
can
be
better
accessed
by
Cully
residents.

5. pg.
5
Mode
of
Transportation
Around
54%
of
respondents
reported
walking
to
the
park
they
ranked
#1
in
preference,
while
around
25%
reported
walking
to
the
parks
they
ranked
#2
and
#3
(Fig.
9,
Fig.
10,
Fig.
11).
The
reported
use
of
bicycles,
vehicles,
and
public
transit
was
higher
for
parks
ranked
#2
and
#3,
indicating
an
increased
reliance
on
those
modes
of
transportation
as
distance
to
parks
increased.
The
graphs
do
not
contain
the
various
other
modes
of
transportation
mentioned
by
respondents,
but
rather
the
most
commonly
reported
ones
in
each
ranking
category.
A
variety
of
modes
were
mentioned
by
a
few
of
the
respondents,
including
“skate”
and
“all”
and
such
combinations
of
“bike/vehicle”
(Appendix).
Vehicle
&
Bicycle
Ownership
Both
vehicle
and
bicycle
ownership
were
above
70%
for
survey
respondents.
This
shows
that
many
residents
do
not
consider
“lack
of
transportation”
as
a
barrier
to
accessing
parks
and
open
spaces
in
the
Cully
neighborhood
(Fig.
12,
Fig.
13).
Rating
of
Infrastructure
in
Cully
As
Figure
20
shows,
7%
of
respondents
rated
their
sense
of
security
during
the
day
as
"poor,"
while
62%
rated
safety
during
the
day
as
"good"
or
"excellent."
In
regards
to
safety
at
night,
almost
30%
of
respondents
rated
their
sense
of
security
as
"poor,"
while
32%
rated
it
as
"good"
or
"excellent."
This
tells
us
that
there
is
a
sharp
contrast
in
the
degrees
of
safety
residents
feel
during
the
day
versus
during
the
night.
This
could
have
to
do
with
the
lighting
in
parks
being
insufficient.
The
contrast
in
the
sense
of
security
at
night
versus
the
daytime
is
notable,
but
it
seems
reasonable
to
assume
the
parks
are
being
used
primarily
during
the
day.
Other
infrastructure
that
could
affect
safety
is
both
signage
and
lighting
of
the
parks.
Signage
received
either
a
“poor”
or
“fair”
rating
by
55%
of
the
respondents,
and
less
than
10%
rated
them
as
“excellent”
(Fig.
16).
Lighting
was
rated
as
either
“poor”
or
“fair”
by
58%
of
the
respondents
(Fig.
17).
Sidewalks
were
rated
either
“poor”
or
“fair”
by
53%
of
the
respondents
and
only
12%
rated
them
as
“excellent”
(Fig.
14).
Crosswalks
were
rated
as
“poor”
or
“fair”
by
over
60%
of
the
respondents
and
less
than
12%
rated
them
as
“excellent”
(Fig.
15).

6. pg.
6
The
ratings
of
the
bicycle
routes
were
split
receiving
a
rating
of
either
“poor”
or
“fair”
by
40%
and
a
rating
of
either
“good”
or
“excellent”
by
40%
(Fig.
18).
As
Figure
19
shows,
33%
of
respondents
rated
their
safety
near
traffic
as
being
"poor”,
while
26%
rated
it
as
being
"good"
or
"excellent”.
The
majority
of
respondents
rated
safety
near
traffic
as
“poor”,
which
shows
that
this
could
be
a
deterrent
in
regards
to
accessing
parks.
Suggestions
for
Improvement
in
Cully
The
main
areas
of
concern
for
survey
respondents
were
connected
to
infrastructure.
It
was
the
top
priority
for
72%
of
all
respondents,
while
safety
ranked
at
a
distant
second.
This
implies
that
respondents
feel
that
making
improvements
to
sidewalks,
bicycle
routes,
lighting,
signage,
and
walking
routes
would
have
a
positive
impact
on
the
experience
and
accessibility
of
the
parks
in
the
Cully
neighborhood
(Fig.
22,
Fig.
23).
Results
The
common
themes
found
in
the
survey
data
include:
top
park
preferences
are
located
near
or
within
Cully’s
borders,
the
majority
of
people
are
walking
in
spite
of
the
fact
vehicle
and
bicycle
ownership
are
high,
and
the
infrastructure
people
use
to
access
the
parks
on
foot
received
a
“poor”
or
“fair”
rating
by
the
majority
of
respondents.
All
age
groups
were
represented
with
the
exception
of
the
16-­‐25
age
range
and
senior
citizens.
This
may
reflect
flaws
in
the
data
collection
or
possibly
raise
a
question
as
to
why
these
age
groups
are
not
using
the
parks
(Fig.
2).
Over
two-­‐thirds
of
the
respondents
were
aware
of
the
three
parks
inquired
by
the
survey.
However,
the
two
most
preferred
parks
were
Fernhill
Park
and
Rigler
School.
The
majority
of
respondents,
54%,
walked
to
their
preferred
park.
This
might
explain
the
popularity
of
Fernhill
and
Rigler
School,
as
they
are
located
either
within
Cully
or
on
its
perimeters.
Whitaker
Ponds
was
the
third
most
popular
and
its
proximity
to
the
Cully
neighborhood
may
be
negated
by
the
need
for
residents
to
cross
the
Columbia
River
Blvd
and
Route
30.
The
lack
of
preference
to
the
Columbia
River
Slough
could
be
do
to
its
proximity
to
Cully,
which
would
require
residents
to
drive.
While
Cully
Park
is
situated
in
the
neighborhood,
it
is
lacking
amenities.
It
is
interesting
to
note
that
both
vehicle
and
bicycle
ownership
of
respondents
were
over
70%,
and
yet
54%
were
walking
to
their
“preferred”
park.
The
preference
of
walking

7. pg.
7
also
explains
why
infrastructure
was
the
key
area
of
concern
for
suggested
improvements.
The
majority
of
respondents
gave
the
sidewalks,
signage,
lighting,
and
crosswalks
a
rating
of
“poor”
or
“fair”.
Conclusion
Based
on
our
analysis
of
the
Living
Cully
Walks
survey
data,
park
preference
and
mode
of
transportation
seem
to
be
influenced
by
the
proximity
of
parks
to
the
residential
locations
that
are
assumed
to
be
the
point
of
departure.
Mode
of
transportation
may
also
be
influenced
by
infrastructure.
Poor
sidewalks,
crosswalks,
signage,
and
lighting
reduce
the
practicality
of
walking
or
biking
as
an
alternative
to
driving.
Given
the
safety
and
security
concerns,
the
fact
that
the
majority
of
suggestions
for
improvement
focused
on
infrastructure
serves
to
validate
this
point.
Problems
with
the
data
included
whether
or
not
to
consider
the
recommendations
made
by
people
who
did
not
identify
themselves
as
park
users.
Additionally,
in
categorizing
the
suggestions
for
the
parks
there
was
no
way
to
tell
which
park
the
respondents
were
referring
to,
especially
in
the
cases
where
they
mentioned
accessing
more
than
one
park.
Finally,
the
selection
of
respondents
could
have
produced
skewed
data.
There
was
a
large
representation
of
children
respondents,
many
of
who
did
not
fill
out
the
survey
in
its
entirety.
This
created
large
gaps
of
information
in
some
areas,
especially
in
the
areas
where
they
questions
may
have
been
confusing
to
that
demographic.
In
conjunction
with
this,
as
mentioned
before,
we
were
missing
other
age
demographics.
Bibliography
Central
Northeast
Neighbors.
25
Aug.
2009.
City
of
Portland,
Office
of
Neighborhood
Involvement
and
Bureau
of
Planning
and
Sustainability.
Map.
PDF.
Web.
Cully
Neighborhood
Association.
21
Mar.
2012.
City
of
Portland,
Office
of
Neighborhood
Involvement
and
Bureau
of
Planning
and
Sustainability.
Map.
PDF.
Web.
DeFalco,
T.,
Fry,
D.,
Teske,
N.
Jun.
2013.
Not
in
Cully:
Anti-­‐Displacement
Strategies
for
the
Cully
Neighborhood.
Living
Cully:
A
Cully
EcoDistrict.
PDF.
Web.
North
Portland
Neighborhood
Services.
12
Feb.
2009.
City
of
Portland,
Office
of
Neighborhood
Involvement
and
Bureau
of
Planning
and
Sustainability.
Map.
PDF.
Web.

8. pg.
8
Appendix
Figure
2
Figure
3
45.34%
36.02%
8.07%
4.97%
2.48%
2.48%
0.62%
Caucasian
Latino
Biracial
Asian
Native
American
African
American
Other
Race/Ethnicity
of
Respondents
(By
Percentage)
64.96%
29.20%
5.84%
Yes
No
Maybe
Awareness
of
Whitaker
Ponds
(By
Percentage)

9. pg.
9
Figure
4
Figure
5
65.99%
23.81%
10.20%
Yes
No
Maybe
Awareness
of
Cully
Park
(By
Percentage)
64.03%
25.18%
10.79%
Yes
No
Maybe
Awareness
of
Columbia
Slough
(By
Percentage)

10. pg.
10
Figure
6
Figure
7
27.85%
13.29%
12.66%
5.70%
4.43%
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
Fernhill
Park
Rigler
School
Sacajawea
Dog
Park
Harvey
Scott
School
Whitaker
Ponds
Peninsula
Park
Wellington
Park
Wilshire
Park
#1
Park
Preference
(By
Percentage)
20.17%
10.92%
8.40%
6.72%
4.20%
4.20%
4.20%
4.20%
Fernhill
Park
Rigler
School
Whitaker
Ponds
Alberta
Park
Columbia
Slough
Harvey
Scott
School
Sacajawea
Dog
Park
Wilshire
Park
#2
Park
Preference
(By
Percentage)

11. pg.
11
Figure
8
Figure
9
Figure
10
12.16%
9.46%
6.76%
5.41%
5.41%
5.41%
4.05%
4.05%
Fernhill
Park
Rigler
School
Whitaker
Ponds
Forest
Park
Harvey
Scott
School
Wilshire
Park
Columbia
Slough
Sacajawea
Dog
Park
#3
Park
Preference
(By
Percentage)
54.43%
29.75%
6.33%
5.70%
On
Foot
Vehicle
Bike
Bus
Mode
of
Transportation
to
#1
Park
(By
Percentage)
40.52%
28.45%
18.97%
9.48%
Vehicle
On
Foot
Bike
Bus
Mode
of
Transportation
to
Park
#2
(By
Percentage)

12. pg.
12
Figure
11
Figure
12
Figure
13
43.42%
22.37%
17.11%
10.53%
Vehicle
On
Foot
Bike
Bus
Mode
of
Transportation
to
#3
Park
(By
Percentage)
71.23%
28.77%
Yes
No
Vehicle
Ownership
71.72%
28.28%
Yes
No
Bicycle
Ownership

13. pg.
13
Figure
14
Figure
15
Figure
16
39.16%
28.67%
13.99%
11.89%
6.29%
Poor
Good
Fair
Excellent
Don't
Know
Rating
of
Sidewalks
(By
Percentage)
30.07%
30.07%
20.98%
10.49%
8.39%
Fair
Poor
Good
Excellent
Don't
Know
Rating
of
Crosswalks
(By
Percentage)
38.57%
23.57%
16.43%
12.14%
9.29%
Poor
Good
Fair
Don't
Know
Excellent
Rating
of
Signage
(By
Percentage)

14. pg.
14
Figure
17
Figure
18
Figure
19
37.41%
20.86%
16.55%
15.83%
9.35%
Poor
Fair
Good
Don't
Know
Excellent
Rating
of
Lighting
(By
Percentage)
28.87%
27.46%
19.01%
12.68%
11.97%
Fair
Good
Don't
Know
Excellent
Poor
Rating
of
Bicycle
Routes
(By
Percentage)
33.80%
32.39%
19.01%
7.75%
7.04%
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Don't
Know
Rating
of
Safety
Near
Trafkic
(By
Percentage)

15. pg.
15
Figure
20
Figure
21
Figure
22
28.17%
24.65%
21.13%
14.79%
11.27%
Poor
Fair
Good
Don't
Know
Excellent
Rating
of
Security
at
Night
(By
Percentage)
72.43%
11.11%
7.82%
3.29%
2.88%
1.23%
1.23%
Infrastructure
Safety
&
Security
Landscape
Community
Character
Amenities
Maintenance
Policy
Categorization
of
Suggestions
(By
Percentage)
46.43%
23.57%
16.43%
7.14%
6.43%
Good
Fair
Excellent
Poor
Don't
Know
Rating
of
Security
During
the
Day
(By
Percentage)

16. pg.
16
Figure
23
Figure
24;
Home
addresses
of
survey
respondents
18.52%
11.93%
11.11%
9.88%
9.47%
3.29%
2.06%
1.65%
1.23%
0.82%
0.82%
0.41%
0.41%
0.41%
0.41%
Sidewalks
Bicycle
Routes
Lighting
Signage
Walking
Routes
Streets
Crosswalks
Parking
Transit
Bicycle
Parking
Infrastructure
Parks/Open
Spaces
Street
Signs
Access
to
Parks/Open
Spaces
Connectivity
of
Parks/Open
Spaces
Suggestions
Contained
in
Infrastructure
Category
(By
Percentage)

17. pg.
17
Figure
25;
Home
addresses
of
surveys
respondents
Figure
26;
Home
addresses
of
survey
respondents
plotted
in
Google
Maps