Abstract
Numerous studies have indicated a broad-based support for open space preservation and protection. Research also has characterized the public values and rationale that underlie the widespread support for open space. In recognition of the widespread public support for open space, various levels of government have implemented programs to provide public access to open space. There are many different types of open space, ranging from golf courses, ball parks, wildlife areas, and prairies, to name a few. This paper addresses questions related to the types of open space that should be prioritized by planners and natural resource managers. The results of this study are based on a stratified random sample of 5000 households in Illinois that were sent a questionnaire related to their support for various types of open space. Through a comparatively simple action grid analysis, the open space types that should be prioritized for public access include forest areas, stream corridors, wildlife habitat, and lakes/ponds. These were the open space types rated of the highest importance, yet were also the open space types rated the lowest in respondent satisfaction. This kind of analysis does not require the technical expertise of other options for land-use prioritizations (e.g., conjoint analysis, contingent valuation), yet provides important policy directives for planners. Although open space funds often allow for purchase of developed sites such as golf courses, ball parks, and community parks, this study indicates that undeveloped (or nature-based) open space lands are most needed in Illinois.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Literature Cited
N. M. Airola D. Wilson (1982) ArticleTitleRecreational benefits of residual open space: A case study of four communities in Northeastern New Jersey Environmental Management 6 471–484 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01868376
D. Berry (1976) ArticleTitlePreservation of open space and the concept of value The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 35 113–124
B. F. Blake L. F. Schrader W. James (1978) ArticleTitleNew tools for marketing research: The action grid Feedstuff 50 38–39
K. Croke R. Fabian G. Brenniman (1986) ArticleTitleEstimating the value of natural open space preservation in an urban area Journal of Environmental Management 23 317–324
J. Crompton (2001) ArticleTitleThe impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence Journal of Leisure Research 33 1–31
D. A. Dillman (2001) Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method John Wiley and Sons New York
L. deHaven-Smith (1988) ArticleTitleEnvironmental belief systems: Public opinion on land use regulation in Florida Environment and Behavior 20 176–199
J. M. Duke R. Aull-Hyde (2002) ArticleTitleIdentifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process Ecological Economics 42 131–145 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00053-8
C. J. Fausold R. J. Lilieholm (1999) ArticleTitleThe economic value of open space: A review and synthesis Environmental Management 23 307–320 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s002679900188 Occurrence Handle9950694
J. Geoghegan (2002) ArticleTitleThe value of open spaces in residential land use Land Use Policy 19 91–98 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00040-0
W. E. Hammitt R. D. Bixler F. P. Noe (1996) ArticleTitleGoing beyond importance-performance analysis to analyze the observance of park impacts Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 14 45–62
S. Hollenhorst D. Olson R. Olson (1992) ArticleTitleUse of importance-performance analysis to evaluate state park cabins: The case of the West Virginia state park system Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 10 1–11
T. C. Huan J. Beamon L. Shelby (2002) ArticleTitleUsing action-grids in tourism management Tourism Management 23 255–264 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00087-5
J. Kline D. Wichlens (1998) ArticleTitleMeasuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space Ecological Economics 26 211–224 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00115-8
Kreag, G. 2002. Duluth values open space. University of Minnesota Sea Grant Program Publication T14, 17 pp
J. Loomis K. Traynor T. Brown (1999) ArticleTitleTrichotomous choice: a possible solution to dual response objectives in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 24 572–583
L. Lynch W. N. Musser (2001) ArticleTitleA relative efficiency analysis of farmland preservation programs Land Economics 77 577–594
J.A. Martilla J. C. James (1977) ArticleTitleImportance-performance analysis Journal of Marketing 41 77–79
M. McCurdy L. McClure (2002) ArticleTitleLand at risk: Partnerships produce “greenprint” survey for Illinois Illinois Parks and Recreation 33 24–27
McDonald, C.A., C. A. Miller, and W.P. Stewart. 2003. Public perceptions of open space in Illinois. Report to the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. University of Illinois and Illinois Natural History Survey
Mengak, K. K. 1985. Use of importance-performance analysis to evaluate a visitor center. MS thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
H. Oh (2001) ArticleTitleRevisiting importance-performance analysis Tourism Management 22 617–627 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00036-X
T. A. Tannery (1987) ArticleTitlePublic opinion and interest group positions on open-space issues in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA: Implications for resource management Environmental Management 11 369–373 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01867165
The Trust for Public Land. 2002, November 5. Americans approve $2.9 Billion for open space. Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=10925&folder_id=186
The Trust for Public Land, Chesakpeake Bay Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy Action Fund. 2001. Executive Summary of the Statewide Virginia Voter Survey
M. R. Thomas (2003) ArticleTitleThe use of ecologically based screening criteria in a community-sponsored open space preservation programme Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 691–714 Occurrence Handle10.1080/0964056032000138445
United States Census Bureau. 2000. http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/il.htm/
G. Wolfram (1981) ArticleTitleThe sale of development rights and zoning in the preservation of open space: Lindahl equilibrium and a case study Land Economics 57 398–413
Acknowledgments
Funding for this research was provided through the Illinois Natural History Survey by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Illinois Association of Parks Districts. At the time of data collection and analysis, the fourth author was employed by the Illinois Natural History Survey. We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments on this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Backlund, E.A., Stewart, W.P., McDonald, C. et al. Public Evaluation of Open Space in Illinois: Citizen Support for Natural Area Acquisition. Environmental Management 34, 634–641 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0015-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0015-z