THE RIVER IN RIVER CITY:

HOW RESIDENTS PERCEIVE THE ST. JOHN’S RIVER AND ITS BENEFITS

by

Graham R. Bowman

Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts & Sciences

Jacksonville University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

April 2020
2
Bowman

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without the tremendous amount of work that took place behind the scenes between both

Dr. Ashley Johnson and Dr. Ray Oldakowski, the following research would otherwise not have

been possible. On that same note, through both patience and guidance was this analysis able to

come into fruition. I cannot emphasize enough the tremendous impact both professors have had

on my life the past four years. It is because of their continuous push for academic excellence and

challenging me to be the best student I could be that has ultimately created the best version of

myself that I know today. Words will never express how much I owe to them and how every one

of the 9568 words mean to me both academically and personally. This has easily been the most

important highlight of my academic career and I can only hope that anyone in the future can

experience the same feelings that I have throughout this entire process.
3
Bowman

ABSTRACT

Jacksonville is a city that truly highlights its physical location, more specifically the way

in which the St. John’s River is emphasized and focused upon. As tourism is a major revenue for

the city, part of the contributing factor is the people that call it home: residents. My measuring

the attitudes and beliefs locals have towards the renowned natural resource, Jacksonville can get

a better insight as to its overall accessibility and public water facilities—bringing to question

whether Jacksonville should really be recognized as a river city or the “River City.”
4
Bowman

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE..............................................................................................................................................................1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................................2

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................................3

LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................................7

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................7
II. THE LARGEST CITY IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES: JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA......................7
III. DEFINING ACCESSIBILITY............................................................................................................................9
IV. WATERFRONT URBANIZATION....................................................................................................................9
V. RIVERFRONT IMPORTANCE............................................................................................................................10
VI. RIVERFRONT ACCESSIBILITY....................................................................................................................11
VII. GIS SURVEY RESEARCH............................................................................................................................12
VIII. CITY PERCEPTIONS................................................................................................................................12

METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................................14

I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................14
II. SAMPLING...................................................................................................................................................14
III. RESPONDENT IDENTITY.............................................................................................................................15
IV. TELEPHONE AND SELF-ADMINISTERED SURVEYS....................................................................................15

RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................................18

CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................................................36

FUTURE RESEARCH...............................................................................................................................................38

BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................................................................................................................................39

APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................................43

I. TELEPHONE SURVEY...................................................................................................................................43

II. SELF-ADMINISTERED (ONLINE) SURVEY..........................................................................................45

5
Bowman

TABLE OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 (ABOVE): GRID MAP USED FOR ONLINE SURVEY RESPONDENTS IN IDENTIFYING AREAS OF DUVAL

COUNTY THAT IS SEEN AS AREAS OF FOCUS FOR SPECIFIC CONCERNS.............................................................17

FIGURE 2 (ABOVE): “HOW FAMILIAR ARE YOU WITH THE CURRENT DEBATE ABOUT DREDGING THE ST. JOHNS

RIVER?”................................................................................................................................................................18

FIGURE 3 (ABOVE): "DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLAN TO DREDGE A PORTION OF THE ST. JOHNS

RIVER?"................................................................................................................................................................19

FIGURE 4 (ABOVE): “WOULD YOU SAY THAT OVER THE PAST YEAR YOU HAVE _____ ON OR ALONG THE ST.

JOHNS RIVER AT LEAST…”..................................................................................................................................20

FIGURE 5 (ABOVE): “WOULD YOU SAY THAT OVER THE PAST YEAR YOU HAVE _____ ON OR ALONG THE ST.

JOHNS RIVER AT LEAST…”..................................................................................................................................20

FIGURE 6 (ABOVE): “WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS DO YOU THINK BEST DESCRIBES THE HEALTH OF

THE ST. JOHNS RIVER?".......................................................................................................................................22

FIGURE 7 (ABOVE): "WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF POLLUTION IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER?"......23

FIGURE 8 (ABOVE): EACH GRAPH REPRESENTS QUESTION #9 AND QUESTION #10 RESPECTIVELY FOR TELEPHONE

RESPONDENTS.......................................................................................................................................................24

FIGURE 9 (ABOVE): “ON A SCALE FROM 1 TO 10, WHERE 1 MEANS "YOU DON'T TRY AT ALL" AND 10 MEANS

"YOU TRY VERY HARD", HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR PERSONAL EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ST. JOHNS

RIVER”..................................................................................................................................................................25

FIGURE 10 (ABOVE): “BELOW IS A LIST OF SOME PUBLIC WATER ACCESS FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN DUVAL COUNTY.

PLEASE STATE IF ANYONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD (INCLUDING YOURSELF) HAS USED ANY OF THESE FACILITIES

IN THE PAST MONTH.”...........................................................................................................................................27

FIGURE 11 (ABOVE): “WHAT IS THE MAIN REASON YOU USE THIS FACILITY?”.......................................................28

FIGURE 12 (ABOVE): “HOW FAR IS THIS FACILITY, THE ONE YOU USE MOST OFTEN, FROM YOUR HOME?”..........29

FIGURE 13 (ABOVE): “WHAT FORM OF TRANSPORTATION DO YOU MOST OFTEN USE TO GET TO THIS WATER ACCESS

FACILITY?”............................................................................................................................................................29
6
Bowman

FIGURE 14 (ABOVE): “DO YOU HAVE THE NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL WATER ACCESS FACILITIES SUCH AS

THOSE LISTED BELOW? USING THE ATTACHED GRID MAP, TELL US WHERE YOU THINK THE FACILITY

SHOULD BE LOCATED?”.......................................................................................................................................31

FIGURE 15 (ABOVE): “ON A SCALE FROM 1 TO 10, WHERE “1” NOT AT ALL VALUABLE AND “10 IS VERY

VALUABLE, PLEASE RATE THE VALUE OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ASSETS TO THE JACKSONVILLE

COMMUNITY?”......................................................................................................................................................33

FIGURE 16 (ABOVE): “PLEASE RATE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES AS VERY IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT, OR

NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL . . .”..............................................................................................................................34

FIGURE 17 (ABOVE): “ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES OR CONCERNS REGARDING DUVAL COUNTY WATERWAYS

(NOT COVERED IN THIS SURVEY) THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO OUR ATTENTION?”.........................35
7
Bowman

LITERATURE REVIEW

I. Introduction

From the year 1910, urban population comprised of a little less than half of the United

States’ population. Over a century’s time that number more than doubled to account for over

80% in 2010 (Census). Within that time period the country had experienced a radical shift in the

way that society operates—especially when it came to our view of urban waterfronts. In the

typical pattern of waterfront development there are four phases: Emergence of Waterfront Cities,

Growth of Waterfronts, Deterioration of Waterfronts, and Rediscovery of Waterfronts (Wrenn).

During these phases, early waterfront settlements are seen over time as developing in congruence

with their ports as commercialization and industry continue to surge. Following the end of WWII

and into the 1960s, new containerization technology enabled an increase in volume and speed of

loading-offloading. As the demand of larger ships required deeper water and greater land area,

port activity shifted beyond city limits (Hein, Timur, Hoyle, Chandran). As old ports lost their

role of transportation, people also became more inclined to use the highway systems over

continental railroads, causing an even greater abandonment of waterfronts. It was during this

major shift in industry that many recognize it as the “decline” or “deterioration” of waterfronts

(Timur).

II. The Largest City in the Continental United States: Jacksonville, Florida

For cities to regain the waterfront that was once lost, they focus on the final phase of

waterfront development: the awareness and rediscovery of waterfronts (Timur). As abandoned

infrastructure of the past dominates the shores of metropolitan areas, many cities are drawn to the

concept of redevelopment and bringing both aesthetics and accessibility back to its neglected
8
Bowman

waterfronts. Jacksonville, Florida is one of them. With nicknames including ‘First Coast’ and

‘River City,’ it is clear that the city wants to be recognized for its waterways for all the right

reasons. In the past year, the City had approved demolition of the Jacksonville Landing, a large

well-known marketplace situated in Downtown Jacksonville, in order to reinvent the surrounding

area and its public space. For Timur, one of the biggest concerns for waterfronts, especially

redevelopments, is public access to the waterfront—more specifically being free and non-

discriminatory. As Jacksonville joins the number of cities that have focused their attention on

remaking their inner-city waterfronts (Hein), the question of overall accessibility to the rest of

the river remains. In order to better address and understand waterfront accessibility for the city as

a whole, one of the most important stakeholders to keep in mind are those who claim residence

there.

Assessing the image residents hold of the place they live is important, as those that hold a

positive city image can support tourism development and affect the overall tourist experience—

not to mention the grand scheme of globalization (Cassia, Gilboa). A city image is important

because attitudes and actions toward a city are often conditioned by the mental picture they

perceive (Gilboa). Just as a city might be perceived differently by the unemployed than by a

business executive, there are also differences between ‘insiders’ (resident, business owners) and

‘outsiders’ (foreign investors, tourists). A factor that might play a major role between the

difference in perceptions is the role place image and attachment have. Place image is defined as

the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions people hold of a place (Stylindis). While both tourists

and residents are able to conceive such a view, residents in particular are found to have a more

comprehensive understanding of the destination’s attributes and uniqueness than tourists

(Stylindis).
9
Bowman

III. Defining Accessibility

The term ‘accessibility’ more often than not isn’t able to be defined by a single definition,

nor by any one specific attribute. While Stamberger found that part of the discrepancy is partially

due to the term being either discipline dependent or not having a universal definition, Geurs and

Wee believe it to be as a term that is poorly defined (Che) and overall a poorly measured

construct. For Stamberger, accessibility is measured through three components: physical, visual,

and equal accessibility. Geurs and Wee measure accessibility through four components: land-

use, transportation, temporal, and individual. For Martin and Dalvi, the word itself is split into

two distinctions: relative and integral. While in the current day accessibility has gotten no easier

in definition, a specific quote from Janelle (2000 cited Gould 1969, p.22) brings forth a certain

significance:

“Accessibility is a slippery notion…one of those common terms that everyone uses until

faced with the problem of defining and measuring it”

Regardless of definition, or lack thereof, one thing is for certain: throughout history

accessibility, in relation to the natural resource known as water, is the reason so many cities and

civilizations emerge and have improved upon their waterfronts for its cultural significance (Hein,

Chandran, Timur, May, Everard and Moggridge).

IV. Waterfront Urbanization

As society and cities both continue to evolve and become even bigger factors in

globalization, it is seen that statistically at least 50% of the global population can be found in
10
Bowman

urban areas (Gilboa, Grimm, Everard, and Taufen). For the United States, these numbers reach

as high as 75% (Taufen). As massive populations continue to reside in these urban areas the

relationship between the city and surrounding area is constantly changing with evolving societal

needs. For cities situated on a river this change is recognized as part of the growing trend known

as ‘waterfront redevelopment’ (Taufen, Giovinazzi, Sairinen). As the drastic industrialization of

urban-ports and its surrounding industry post-WWII had ceased to expand on port developments,

the cities themselves are now having to find a balance between both their historic and modern

identities so as to “reclaim” their waterfronts for appeal for the modern-day stakeholders

(Giovinazzi, Sairinen). River cities are more often than not found having to rely on bridges to

connect various parts of the city—in turn affecting the overall ‘spatial form’ a city creates. In one

study, a combination of both river and non-river European cities are placed on choropleth maps

to better understand differences in size distribution, as well as conducting space syntax analysis.

After the various assessments, it was found that based on the river city’s need for bridges, they

were that much more effective at integration and seen as having better accessibility than their

counterparts (Abshirini).

V. Riverfront Importance

Throughout history urbanization has often found itself to be in areas surrounding river

and waterfronts because of their abundance of natural resources, food, and ease of accessibility

(Francis). From 2000 to 2011 it was found that the number of articles that included the terms

‘urban stream’ or ‘urban river’ multiplied from 30 to over 130 (Francis). As interest around

these words increases, so does the city’s decision over what can or can’t be built there (Sairinen).

For countries, such as Brazil, waterfront is seen as such an importance to the public that
11
Bowman

Brazilian Law actually prohibits exclusive access to the shore, as beachfronts are federal

property—thus making the beaches considered to be one of the most ‘democratic spaces in Rio’

(Redondo). As important as a view of the water is important to people, however, it is even more

important to the surrounding ecosystem. Connectivity, while applicable to bridges and river-

cities, is also used in reference to a river’s flow. For hydrologists, riverbanks are seen as being

the ‘regulators’ that ensure that the ecological integrity of the landscape is maintained, including

biodiversity. It is through all of the functions the waterways hold for the natural environment that

causes areas of concern when adding built environments to the picture (May). For one global

city, a framework was even created so as to recognize and actually quantify the benefits the

‘ecosystem services’ has to society in hopes of becoming a factor in the decision-making

processes (Everard). To better take into consideration the importance of urban waterfronts, a

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was created by Sairinen. As far as main tasks, the SIA is used

to better understand the social aspects and various dimensions that are taken into account when

planning urban waterfronts developments.

VI. Riverfront Accessibility

The term ‘accessibility’ has as many definitions as it does ways of being referenced. To

make matters more complex, dimensions and factors that are used to determine a place’s

accessibility is primarily based on the researchers’ discretion. For Stamberger, accessibility was

broken down into three dimensions: physical, visual, and equal accessibility to determine a city’s

relationship to the Mississippi River. To conduct the study, the Mississippi River Accessibility

Index (MRAI) was created and broken down by a variety of indicators. For Che, ratings are

given for both visual and spatial accessibility of an urban river in China. For New York/New
12
Bowman

Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program, accessibility was based on a ‘Need Index’ with five

indicators: youth population, population growth, communities of color, income (median

household), and population without waterfront access. After each indicator is given a composite

score, a final map was created to understand the areas with the greatest need for accessibility.

Sairinen used a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) comprised of four social dimensions to

determine social impacts of urban waterfront plans: Resources and identity, social status,

waterfront experience, and access and activities.

VII. GIS Survey Research

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be an integral part of survey research. While

most use the program as a method of spatial analysis, Blough also found it useful in the initial

survey design stage as it allows for researchers to understand the populations being represented

and whether or not additional respondents are needed.

VIII. City Perceptions

As globalization continues to increase, cities are now more than ever found branding

themselves as a method to better connect with its various stakeholders, e.g. residents, tourists,

and investors (Gilboa). Certain stakeholders are then able to be in the category of either internal,

residents and stakeholders, or external, tourists (Cassia). By implementing a brand means

creating an image or ‘mental picture’ that people then associate with the city. This is different

than an identity, as an identity is directed more towards how people (stakeholders) experience

the city (Gilboa). Many studies have used scale development among tourists and residents to
13
Bowman

better understand city image so as to, in turn, understand the influence it has over tourism. It is

found that studies conducted by Gilboa on various stakeholders across three cities illustrate

multidimensional capabilities for place image. Cassia found the difference in city image for

other scholars was seen as being caused by the factor of place attachment. Both Cassia and

Gilboa used similar seven-point Likert scales to measure respondents’ attitudes, as well as used

the same four factors: municipal facilities, leisure, security, and public services. While Sairinen’s

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) is intended for planning specific waterfront projects, like

Cassia and Gilboa, it is attempting to identify the various actors or stakeholders involved while

also analyzing social effects of various population groups.

14
Bowman

METHODOLOGY

I. Background/Purpose

As a method of research for developing an up-to-date Duval County Maritime Management

Plan, two surveys were implemented via Duval County residents so as to understand their

behaviors and opinions regarding Duval County waterways and their public water access

facilities.

Prior to initial collection of survey data in 2015, forms were submitted and approved by

Jacksonville University’s Institutional Review Board. All data analyzed and implemented for the

purpose of this dissertation is from a secondary source and is not meant to be measured as a

scientific probability sample. All graphs, tables, and conjecture are original.

II. Sampling

All self-administered data collection occurred between December 2015 to the end of October

2016. The 762 Duval County respondents represent a convenience sample as surveys were

completed after the goal of updating the Maritime Management Plan (MMP) was disclosed. The

two methods of distributing questionnaires is as follows:

 Self-administered: Online (via SurveyMonkey, posted at www.JaxBoatPlan.com) or In-

Person

 Interview: Telephone survey (via allotted sample of phone numbers provided through

IRB)
15
Bowman

Although most surveys were self-administered, an interviewer was available to assist

respondents if necessary. In-person surveys took place at locations deemed relevant to the St.

John’s River and related waterways. These locations included, but weren’t limited to the

Jacksonville Boat Show, City of Jacksonville Environmental Protection Board Water Education

Festival, and the US Coast Guard Auxiliary.

Telephone survey data was conducted in November 2016 with a total of 448 adult

respondents who lived in the Jacksonville Metropolitan Area. The survey was managed by

interviewers at Jacksonville University under the Jacksonville University Social Science

Research Center led by Dr. Ray Oldakowski, Professor of Geography. Random digit dial

samples were used with both landline and cell phone. The error attributed to sampling is within

the 5% range with overall 95% level of confidence.

III. Respondent Identity

In order to maintain anonymity, but still being able to obtain a general location of

residence within Duval County, respondents were asked to provide the two streets that intersect

at the traffic light nearest their house. For phone respondents and self-administered online

respondents this was this was Question #12 and Question #10, respectively.

IV. Telephone and Self-Administered Surveys

Just as there are two separate surveys for two distinct methods for Duval County

respondents, so are the types of questions that each survey asks.

16
Bowman

Based on the telephone survey, the primary method of questioning was multiple-choice with

either a polar range of “Yes, No, Undecided” [Q2/9/10] or a scale of overall public water facility

usage based on various intervals of time (week, month, year) [Q3-Q6]. Question #11 used a

Likert-based scale of 10 to assess how the respondent rates their personal efforts to protect the

St. Johns River from “1 = You don’t try at all” to “10 = “You try very hard.”

While to ensure lack of survey fatigue for phone respondents there was a total of twelve

multiple-choice questions, the nine self-administered survey questions went in a different

direction. Between Questions #1 to #9, a subdivision of inquiries can be found so as to better

understand the respondent’s specific view on the topic discussed. These additional inquiries

appear in descending alphabetical order behind each question, e.g. “1A”, “1B”, “1C”. The largest

range is found in Question #2 with a total of nine parts—recognized as being between “2A” and

“2I”. Within each of the nine questions, online respondents were met with a variety of different

formats in the following order:

 Yes/No followed by specifying [Question 1]

 Open-Ended [Question(s): 1, 2A, 2E, 9]

o Ex: “Name or location of the facility”, “Are there any other issues or

concerns”

 Circling a specified number of applicable answers [Question(s): 2B-D, 2F, 4, 8]

o Ex: “Circle only one”, “Circle up to three”, “Circle all that apply”

 Likert Scales(s) [Question(s): 2G-2I, 6, 7]

o Ex: Rating Issues from 1 (Very Important) to 3 (Not Important at All)

 Grid Map(s) [Question(s): 3, 5]

17
Bowman

As shown in Figure 1 (below), a proportional Duval County is found within a 10x10 grid

system; letters appearing from “A-J” on the top of the x-axis while numbers “1-10” are

illustrated on the left side of the y-axis. The letter “A” and number “1” are seen in the first box

closest to the upper-left corner with both variables descending evenly amongst each

corresponding side. For Questions #3 and #5, respondents were asked to provide coordinates

(x,y) to reflect the areas in which they would prefer to have additional water access facilities or

dredging to occur.

On both the self-administered online and phone surveys one of the last questions that are asked is in

regard to the respondents’ 2014 total household income (Question #11 and #13, respectively). For each survey,

the answer choices given indicated “1” being “Less than $50,000”, “2” being “$50,000-100,000”, and “3”

being “More than $100,000”. Between the total number of respondents (618), the average percent found of was

a relatively distributed ratio of 23, 39, and 38.

A B C D E F G H I J

1 A B C D E F G H I J
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7 Figure 1 (above): Grid Map Used for Online Survey Respondents in Identifying
8 Areas of Duval County That Is Seen as Areas of Focus for Specific Concerns
9
10

1
2
 4
5
6
18 7
Bowman
8
9
10 RESULTS

1 variability between both telephone and self-administered survey questions, each

Based on the
2
3 in sequential order—starting with telephone survey analysis. All percentages
will be presented
4
are rounded to 5the nearest whole percentage from the tenths place.
6
7
Of the twelve
8 questions that were asked over the phone, the first two are the only questions
9
that ask for overall
10 familiarity on a topic, dredging, followed by whether the 163 respondent

supported or opposed the current plan in regard to the St. John’s River.

By the numbers, as seen in Figure 2, respondents are found to overall have at least

“somewhat” familiarity on the topic of dredging the St. John’s River (75%) with the remaining

number of people being unaware or not “at all” familiar. Of the 122 (75%) respondents that

showed familiarity, when asked about their personal opinion, as seen in Figure 3, about the

dredging the total number of definite opinion dropped to 63%. Of that percentage, the total

number of those opposed had a minor advantage over those in favor by 16%. The biggest

indicator of a change between both pie charts is the increasing percentage of those who were

undecided on the outcome. By having a present lack of opinion amongst respondents, concerns

might be raised about overall education and community awareness or involvement. As seen in

Figure 3, the blank 24% indicates those that had no familiarity whatsoever with the subject. It

was important to keep this number as a part of the pie chart as it can be fairly indicative of the

collective consciousness residents have toward the river and its current situation.
19
Bowman

Duval County Residents' Familiarity of Current Plan to

Dredge the St. John's River

25% 27%
Very Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Not Really Familiar (At All)

48%

Figure 2 (above): “How Familiar Are You With the Current Debate About Dredging the St. Johns
River?”

Duval County Residents' Opinion of Current Plan to Dredge

the St. John's River

24% 23%
Support
Oppose
Undecided
Not
13% Familiar

39%

Figure 3 (above): "Do You Support or Oppose the Current Plan to Dredge a Portion of the St.
Johns River?"
20
Bowman

From Question #3 to Question #6, respondents were asked about their participation in various

activities that were associated with the St. John’s River, as well as overall frequency. As shown

in Figure 4 and Figure 5, of the total number of 662 occurrences, the most typical rate of which

respondents utilized public water access facilities fall, aside from “None” at 37 percent, is “Once

a Month” at 29. Within that monthly time frame the most observed activity reported is

“Hunting/Observing Wildlife” at roughly 40%. It is worth highlighting that the highest number

of responses is within the category of “Swimming” with a total of 132 stating “None”. With this

statistic in mind, it can be inferred that the lack of activity spent within the water could possibly

be attributed to the residents’ perceived notion of the St. John’s River and its overall health.

Total Frequency of Various Activities on the St. John’s River by Duval County Residents

Once a Once a Once a Don’t

None
Week Month Year Know
Fishing 34 54 33 38 1
Boating/Canoeing/Kayaking/Jet
26 55 36 45 1
Skiing
Swimming 3 6 4 132 18
Hunting/Observing Wildlife 43 78 20 22 0
Total 106 193 93 297 19
21
Bowman

Duval County Residents' Activity Usage with the St. John's River

Fishing

Swimming

Kayaking/Jet Skiing

Hunting

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Don't Know None Once a Year Once a Month Once a Week

Figure 5 (above): “Would You Say That Over the Past Year You Have _____ on or Along the St. Johns River at Least…”
Figure 4 (above): “Would You Say That Over the Past Year You Have _____ on or Along the St. Johns River at Least…”

As Question #7 is based on classifying the St. John’s River health, Question #8 asks for the

respondent’s view on what is seen as being the biggest source of pollution for the river at large.

Out of the 162 respondents that answered, as shown in Figure 6, 100 found that the health of the

St. John’s is found to be best categorized by the phrase “A degraded river which has value but

needs a major cleanup.” As “A river in good condition in need of improvement in some areas” is

the second chosen at 42 respondents, only 9 answered that the St. John’s is “a polluted river not

worth saving.” This answer choice was the least chosen, falling lower than the 11 who were

undecided and/or didn’t have an opinion. Being that the top choice from respondents emphasizes

the need for rehabilitation, Figure 6 thus directly validate the amount of responses seen in Figure
22
Bowman

5 about “Swimming” or lack thereof. Overall, Duval County residents have some awareness

towards the St. John’s River and how its current condition.

Following the respondents’ conceived notion of the St. John’s River’s health is the question

of what the greatest detriment is. In Question #8, the two major areas that respondents answered

is seen in Figure 7; as the biggest source was “Littering/Dumping,” 79 total, and

“Industrial/Commercial,” 63, falling closely behind. Out of 170 responses, both sources are

found to comprise 84% of the total numbers—the remaining percentage divided closely between

“Storm Water Runoff,” and those who remained “Undecided.”

Duval County Residents' Perception of the Health of the St.

John's River
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Not Worth Saving Has Value but Good Condition Undecided
Needs a Major
Cleanup

Figure 6 (above): “Which of the Following Statements Do You Think Best Describes the Health of
the St. Johns River?"
23
Bowman

Perceived Biggest Source of Pollution in the St. John's River

by Duval County Residents

8%

9%
Littering/Dumping
Industrial/Commercial
Storm Water Runoff
46%
Undecided

37%

Figure 7 (above): "What Do You See as the Biggest Source of Pollution in the St. Johns River?"

The next two questions, Question #9 and Question #10, ask respondents two straightforward

Yes/No questions with no option of being “Undecided” or “Don’t Know”. In Question #9, the

individual is asked if they “feel knowledgeable” about what they can do to improve the health of

the St. John’s while in Question #10 respondents are asked if they believe that there is a “direct

connection” between personal actions and the health of the St. John’s River. As both attribute to

the health of the St. John’s River, a major differentiation can be seen in Figure 8. In Question #9,

close to two-thirds (63%) state “No” for their own personal impact as opposed to the two-thirds

(69%) that state “Yes” in believing there is a direct connection between personal actions and the

St. John’s Rivers’ health. Between these two answers it can be deduced that while personal

responsibility is for the majority of respondents understood, overall impact and education of the
24
Bowman

health of the St. John’s isn’t. It can be noted that the same emphasis of necessary education for

residents was also addressed in regard to dredging the St. John’s River.

Duval County Residents' Personal Actions in Relation to the Health of the

St. John’s River

“Do You Feel You Knowledgeable About

What Knowledge
You Can Do tohow
about Help
oneImprove thehealth of the St. John's River
can improve
Health of the St. Johns River?” Yes
No

“Do You Think There Is a Direct

Connection Between Your Personal
Knowledge
Actionsof connection betweenofpersonal
and the Health the St.actions
Johnsand health of St. John's River
River?”

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Figure 8 (above): Each Graph Represents Question #9 and Question #10 Respectively for Telephone Respondents

In the last telephone survey question, Question #11, it is administered as a Likert scale; with

respondents being asked on a scale between 1 to 10 how they would rate their personal efforts to

protect the St. John’s River. On the scale, “1” represents “You Don’t Try at All” and “10”

represents “You Try Very Hard”, as shown in Figure 9. Out of the total 163 that answered, the

most common was “5” with 42 respondents. On the figure, each side of the median can be seen

as descending respectively with the number of responses. On both extremes of the scale, “1”,

“9”, and “10” each have single digits of respondents—the least value being “9” with only 1

respondent.
25
Bowman

Scale of Respondents' Personal Efforts to Protect the St. John's River

45
40
Number of Respondents

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Scale from 1 (Lack of Effort) to 10 (Most Effort)

Figure 9 (above): “On a Scale From 1 to 10, Where 1 Means "You Don't Try at All" and 10 Means "You Try Very
Hard", How Would You Rate Your Personal Efforts to Protect the St. Johns River”
26
Bowman

After telephone survey results come those that were online and self-administered. As

previously stated, while the total number of questions are less than those within the telephone

survey, the number of sub questions pushes the online survey to a more elaborate degree. All

percentages used are rounded to the nearest whole percentage from the tenths place.

In Question #1, respondents were asked to circle “No” or “Yes” respectively if anyone in

their household (including themselves) had used any of the public water access facilities listed in

Duval County. If respondents were to circle “Yes”, a blank space aligned each item so as to

allow the person to write the “Number of Times Used”. Of the total 477 respondents, as shown

in Figure 10, 416 (87%) had utilized some type of public water access facility within the past

month. Of that number, “Public Boat Ramps” was the highest utilized with 262 responses while

“Waterfront Parks” (241) and “Riverwalk/Boardwalks” (235) fell closely behind. The least-used

public access water facility was “Mooring Bous” with only 10 total responses. Being that

respondents had a variety of different facilities to choose from, the total number of overall

responses was over double the size of the initial 416 people that responded “Yes” (416:1119).

Thus, this variation is not able to be compared to the extent of other questions due to the number

of independent variables. It can, however, be drawn to an understanding of how the St. John’s

River is frequently used and to what capacity. In the case of Figure 10, the most prominent form

of “accessibility” is leaning heavily toward the visual aesthetic (43%) with physical (23%)

trailing behind. In regard to each percentage, visual is totaled from Riverwalk/Boardwalks and

Waterfront Parks while physical is Public Boat Ramps.

27
Bowman

Public Water Access Facilities Utilized in the Past Month by Duval

County Residents
Mooring buoys

Fishing Piers

Kayak Launches

Docks

Riverwalk/Boardwalks

Waterfront Parks

Public Boat Ramps

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Figure 10 (above): “Below is a list of some public water access facilities available in Duval County. Please
state if anyone in your household (including yourself) has used any of these facilities in the past month.”

In Question #2A, respondents were asked to name the water access facility that was most

used by them, as well as the specific type of facility. From that question, #2B through #2I goes at

length to discuss characteristics of said one facility in the following order:

#2B: Particular day of the week and time of the day utilized

#2C: The main reason for utilizing said facility (various activities listed)

#2D: Whether or not the respondent enters the water at said facility

#2E: How far from their home said facility is (in miles)

#2F: Form of transportation most used to access said facility

28
Bowman

Between Question #2G to #2I, three different Likert scales are utilized to assess the levels

of safety, maintenance, and overall satisfaction with the specific facility the respondent had

listed. Of the 417 total responses, shown in Figure 11, it is found that the two most popular

reasons for using said facility is for “Motorized Boating” with 23% of responses and “Fishing”

close behind at 21%. Aside from these, the other three major reasons respondents had for using

the facility was “Scenic Views/Nature Observation” (15%), “Walking/Exercising” (14%), and

“Canoeing/Kayaking” (12%). Of the activities utilized at one’s stated facility, it is found that

65% of the total respondents get in the water.

Purpose for Using Specified Public Water Access Facilities by Duval

County Residents
Picnicking
Paddle Boarding
Shrimping/Crabbing
Swimming
Biking
Sailing
Other
Canoeing/Kayaking
Walking/Exercising
Scenic Views/Nature Observation
Fishing
Motorized Boating
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

As far as distance is concerned, the majority of respondents are found to be from their

designated facility between “2-5 Miles” at 30%, shedding light on just how accessible certain

water access facilities are for Duval County residents. In Figure 12, “2-5 Miles” is illustrated as

well as the other two popular options, “5-10 Miles” and “11 or More”; together both comprising

41% of the total respondents. The respondents that are found to be “1-2 Miles” or “Less than 1

Mile’ from their facilities comprise a little more than one-fourth of the total (29%). This distance
29
Bowman

between facility and home can be further validated by the 80% of respondents that state they use

“Car or Truck” as a means of transportation. In Figure 13, the various modes of transportation

are shown in congruence with the percentage utilized.

Duval County Residents' Distance from Preffered Public

Access Water Facility
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
Figure
Less than 11 (above):
1 mile “What Is the Main
1-2 miles Reason You5-10
2-5 miles Use miles
This Facility?”
11 or more miles

Figure 12 (above): “How Far Is This Facility, the One You Use Most Often, From Your Home?”

Duval County Residents' Most Used Mode of Transportation

to Reach Specified Public Access Water Facility
1%
5%
6% Car or Truck
9% Walk
Bike
Boat
Public Transit

80%

Figure 13 (above): “What form of transportation do you most often use to get to this water access
facility?”
30
Bowman

In Question #3A, respondents were asked to circle if there is any need for additional

public water access facilities from a list of options, such as “Public Boat Ramps” and “Docks”. If

an item was circled, respondents were then asked to list the desired location of said facility in the

adjacent blank space provided. In Question #3B, the same respondent was then provided a grid

map (Figure 1) and asked to provide a letter and number combination from the grid so as to mark

a specific square. In Figure 14, areas of concentration range in color scale with dark yellow being

the least number of responses to bright red being the most. As far as the distribution of colors,

the following number of responses represent each color accordingly:

Dark Yellow: #1-6 Light Red: #43-75

Yellow: #11-20 Red: #115

Orange: #26-34

Grid squares that remained unmarked signify that no responses are applicable. Based on

the 732 total of responses, the most significant portion is seen at the combination F6 (Red, 115

total) with G6, J6, H5 and F7 shortly behind (Light Red, 75-43 respectively). Being that the

locations highlighted are fixated toward the downtown area of Jacksonville, the responses go to

show that it is a central area when it comes to accessibility. Especially with the current

restructuring of downtown through the Landing, what comes next within that area is

exceptionally important to meet the growing needs as addressed through Duval County residents.
31
Bowman

Composite of Desired Locations for Additional Public

Access Water Facilities in Duval County
683 total, 37 grid(s)

Figure 14 (above): “Do You Have the Need for Any Additional
Water Access Facilities Such as Those Listed Below? Using the
Attached Grid Map, Tell Us Where You Think the Facility Should
Be Located?”

In Question #4A, respondents are asked to circle “Yes” or “No” if they own a boat and, if

more than one, are asked to describe the one most used in Duval County waterways. If

respondents do not own a boat, they are asked to skip both the rest of Question #4 as well as

Question #5. For those whom answered yes, the next three parts of Question #4 are in regard to

the type of vessel, its storage, and where it is serviced within Duval County. Overall, out of the

entire 966 respondents approximately 305 were found to have boats; in total being roughly 32%.

Of this percentage, about 95% of boat owners own those within the motorized variety. For the

remaining parts of Question #4, 4D and 4E , the largest fraction on both questions of boat storage
32
Bowman

and boat servicing are seen as being predominantly at one’s home—77% (231 total) and 66%

(217) respectively.

Question #5 is broken into two parts; asking respondents if there are any preferred

dredging areas to “support continued recreational boat use” and, if there are, specifically what

grid combinations and/or waterbody (i.e. Julington Creek, Ortega River). Unfortunately, based

on the current data comprised within Excel, this data is unable to be found.

Questions #6 and #7 asked respondents to circle a value in a series of Likert scales. For

Question #6, a three-point scale was used to gauge how respondents viewed different aspects of

Duval County waterways. In terms of aspects, residents were asked in regard to the waterways as

being a source of: jobs, recreation, food, a visual amenity, and its overall health. The number “1”

represented “Very Important”, “2” as “Somewhat Important”, and “3” being “Not Important at

All”. Of the 477 respondents, the following order illustrates the highest number of “Very

Important” responses in descending order, shown in Figure 15: “Health of Waterways” (453),

“Source of Recreation” (445), “Source of Amenity” (413), “Source of Jobs” (254), and lastly

“Source of Food” (223). This question in particular might be seen as one of the most important in

the entire survey, as each respondents’ personal ranking of the waterways and its factors provide

deeper insight into the collective perspective. Being how close the top two choices are, and what

both entail, it reinforces the focus of respondents as being geared more towards the physical and

biological implications of the ecosystem. On the opposing side of the spectrum, what can be said

for the lack of emphasis on “Jobs” and “Food” is that Duval County residents found there to be a

dissonance between the association of said factors with the waterways as a whole.

Instead of a three-point scale and having “1” represent the greatest value as in Question

#6, Question #7 had ten points total with “1” being “Not at All Valuable” to “10” being “Very
33
Bowman

Valuable”. Respondents were asked to use said values to rate various assets of the Jacksonville

community, including: “the St. John’s River”, “Jacksonville’s Navy Bases”, and the local NFL

team, the “Jacksonville Jaguars”. Of the total responses, the “St. John’s River” was

overwhelmingly the majority of “Very Valuable” responses with 400 total, as shown in Figure

16. The “Jacksonville Navy Bases” and “Jacksonville Jaguars” trailed behind with 270 and 127

responses, respectively. Looking at the scale of responses for the “St. John’s River”, only a

collective four responses (.08%) were between the median value “5” to 1 “Not at All Valuable”.

For the “Jacksonville Jaguars”, this same fraction amounted to 32%, “Jacksonville Navy Bases”

being 8%. With all of this in mind, it is very clear that while local occupations and franchises are

important to Duval County—nothing is as important and as valuable as the St. John’s River.

Duval County Residents' Value of Different Duval County Community

Assets
450
400
350
300
Duval County Residents' Measured Importance of Various
250
200 Waterway Factors
150 100%
100 90%
50 80%
0
Not At All 70% 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very
Valuable 60% Valuable
50%
40%
St. John's River Jacksonville Navy Bases Jacksonville Jaguars
30%
20%
10%
Figure 15 (above):
0% “On a Scale From 1 to 10, Where “1” Not at All Valuable and “10 Is Very Valuable, Please Rate
the Value ofHealth
Each ofofthe
Waterways
Following Assets Jobs Recreation
to the Jacksonville Community?” Food Amenity

Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important At All

Figure 16 (above): “Please Rate the Following Issues as Very Important, Somewhat Important, or
Not Important at All . . .”
34
Bowman

As the survey reaches its final question for respondents, Question #9, the open-ended

question asks if there are any other issues or concerns regarding Duval County waterways (not

covered in the survey) that should be brought to the surveyor’s knowledge. Being that there was

a total of 205 Duval County residents (43% of the total) that responded, the best way to identify

each answer was to categorize each based on their general focus. With seven categories in all, as

shown in Figure 17, they consist of: “Accessibility”, “Water Quality”, “Maintenance”,

“Dredging”, “Safety”, “Education”, and “Other”. The categories “Maintenance” and “Safety”

specifically were made as some answers were more intent on addressing topics relating to adding

security cameras and additional aquatic signage, whereas others were concerned with poor

lighting quality and the deterioration of current aquatic facilities. The category “Other” was

implemented as some responses addressed, or failed to address, a specific topic, but instead

merely gave a personal statement (i.e., “Fishing is responsible for $600,000 MILLION in

revenues EVERY YEAR to Jacksonville”). Based on the responses noted in the Excel

spreadsheet, each was given a unique color that was associated with the most relevant category:

Red = “Education”, Orange = “Accessibility, Yellow = “Water Quality”,

Green = “Safety”, Blue = Maintenance, Purple = “Dredging, NULL = “Other”

35
Bowman

Percentage by Category of the Total Open-Ended Answers

for Self-Administered Surveys

4% Accessibility
5%
Water quality
8%
Maintenance
33%
Dredging
11% Safety
Other
Education

13%

26%

Figure 17 (above): “Are There Any Other Issues or Concerns Regarding Duval County Waterways
(Not Covered in This Survey) That You Would Like to Bring to Our Attention?”

CONCLUSION

First and foremost, based on both surveys and their overall outcomes, Duval County

residents do in fact utilize the St. John’s River and Duval County waterways at a fairly regular

rate. Although Figure 5 depicts “None” in relation to “Swimming” as a significant portion of

usage at 37 percent, the outlier removed delineates “None” to being 105 total and only 20% of
36
Bowman

the overall total. By recalculating the total, the new mean average equates to 103 responses in

comparison to the previous 130.

Beyond the scope of frequency, the data also brings awareness to what Duval County

residents do, or don’t, know about their local waterways. As illustrated in Figure 2 and Figure 3,

while respondents for the most part held familiarity on the topic (dredging) there was a clear

dissonance of what their familiarity meant when it came to hold a position. While respondents

are found to hold less of an opinion of topics pertaining to waterways, they are, however,

cognizant of the waterways themselves—especially on the notion of health. With 62% of those

who took the survey identify the river as needing a “Major Cleanup” (Figure 7) and 26% of

open-ended responses addressing water quality (Figure 17); a collective understanding can be

seen in regard to the St. John’s current condition. On the topic of understanding Duval County

waterways, it is also worth noting that “Education” (8%) was a topic that was mentioned enough

times in the open-ended question at the end of the self-administered survey to illicit a category of

its own. Two of the answers within this category that shed significant light was “Jacksonville

needs to host more events to highlight the river” and “need more marketing to community on

what we have”.

As downtown is deconstructed to augment potential new opportunity for the city of

Jacksonville and its community, it is important for local government to understand and listen to

the needs of its residents. Based on Figure 14, the downtown area is the major area of concern

and a place where respondents found there to be the most need for public water access facilities.

Coupled with respondents finding “Recreation” and “Amenity” as being “Very Important”

regarding waterways (Figure 16)—not to mention “Accessibility” being the category with the

most responses (33%) in Figure 17—it further goes to show the importance of the word and its
37
Bowman

circumstance to Duval County residents. At this point in time, the city of Jacksonville is

beginning to face the same challenge that most river cities have begun to face within the twenty-

first century: globalization. In order to meet the increasing demand of accessibility and to

continue to grow in both industry and development, the city must be able to find middle ground

in order to foster the ideal city image. Without it, Jacksonville could become stagnant in its

tourism and, in consequence, has the potential to greatly affect the local economy.

FUTURE RESEARCH

One of the biggest limitations of the research conducted was the factor of half of the

respondents being held on the bias of convenience sampling (i.e. going to various local

waterway-related events). While this method was necessary so as to ensure that respondents

would be somewhat familiar with the matters in which the surveys addressed, it is still held on

the notion that it does not accurately represent the entire population of Duval County residents.
38
Bowman

The biggest example of sampling bias can be found in the highest number (94 or 23%) of online

respondents that stated that “Motorized Boating” was their reason for utilizing their listed public

water access facility. Furthermore, out of the total 442 responses that answered Question #4A in

regard to whether the respondent owned a boat, 305 (69%) answered “Yes”. In order to best

represent the typical Duval County resident, further emphasis should be placed on simple

random sampling and could be utilized through a variety of unsystematic ways; whether it be

through a lottery process or other method of chance. Another shortcoming of the survey was the

lack of representation of Duval County residents that were further inland. While a majority of

respondents could be found within either a half-mile or mile buffer of the St. John’s river system,

by having those further north or west could within Duval County could provide different insight

as far as accessibility and what it entails.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abshirini, Ehsan, and Daniel Koch. “Rivers as Integration Devices in Cities.” SpringerOpen,

https://cityterritoryarchitecture.springeropen.com/Articles/10.1186/s40410-016-0030-4,
2016.

Blough, David. “How GIS Enhances Survey Research: Examples from Marketing Higher
Education.” ESRI,
39
Bowman

Https://Proceedings.esri.com/Library/Userconf/proc01/Professional/Papers/pap378/p378.H
tm.

Cassia, Fabio, et al. “Exploring City Image: Residents’ versus Tourists’

Perceptions.” EmeraldInsight, www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TQM-11-
2017-0161/full/pdf?title=exploring-city-image-residents-versus-tourists-perceptions.

Chandran, Ajai, and C. K. “Strategies for Waterfront Development Planning in

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.” Strategies for Waterfront Development Planning in
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, Mysore, shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/62251.

Che, Due, et al. “Assessing a Riverfront Rehabilitation Project Using the Comprehensive Index
of Public Accessibility.” ScienceDirect, Mar. 2012,
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857411003752.

Connecting with Our Waterways: Public Access and Its Stewardship in the New York - New
Jersey Harbor Estuary. 2016,
www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2016/nrs_2016_boicourt_001.pdf.

Dalvi M. Q. and Martin K. M. (1976) The Measurement of Accessibility: Some Preliminary

Results. Transportation, 5, 17-42.

Everard, Mark, and Helen L. Moggridge. “Rediscovering the Value of Urban

Rivers.” ResearchGate,
https://www.researchgate.net/Publication/251089378_Rediscovering_the_Value_of_Urban
_Rivers., May 2012.

Francis, Robert A. “Positioning Urban Rivers Within Urban Ecology.” ResearchGate,

Https://Www.researchgate.net/Publication/236036017_Positioning_urban_rivers_within_u
rban_ecology, May 2012.
40
Bowman

Geurs, Karst T., and Bert van Wee. “Accessibility Evaluation of Land-Use and Transport
Strategies: Review and Research Directions.” Journal of Transport Geography, 2003,
projectwaalbrug.pbworks.com/f/Transp+Accessib+-+Geurs+and+Van+Wee+
%282004%29.pdf.

Gilboa, Shaked, et al. “A Summated Rating Scale for Measuring City Image.” ResearchGate,
Dec. 2014,
www.researchgate.net/publication/274381046_A_Summated_Rating_Scale_for_Measurin
g_City_Image.

Giovinazzi, Oriana, and Marta Moretti. “Port Cities and Urban Waterfront: Transformations and
Opportunities.” ResearchGate, Apr. 2010,
www.researchgate.net/publication/279500940_Port_Cities_and_Urban_Waterfront_Transf
ormations_and_Opportunities.

Grimm, Nancy B. “Global Change and the Ecology of Cities.” ResearchGate, Feb. 2008,
www.researchgate.net/publication/5593131_Global_Change_and_the_Ecology_of_Cities.

Hein, Carola. “Port Cities and Urban Waterfronts: How Localized Planning Ignores Water as a
Connector.” ResearchGate, Feb. 2016,
www.researchgate.net/publication/298897726_Port_cities_and_urban_waterfronts_how_lo
calized_planning_ignores_water_as_a_connector.

Hobbs, Frank, and Nicole Stoops. “Demographic Trends in the 20th Century.” Census 2000
Special Reports, Nov. 2002, www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf.

Hoyle, Brian S. “Cities and Ports: Concepts and Issues.” VEGUETA, 1997,

accedacris.ulpgc.es/bitstream/10553/2363/1/0234500_00003_00016.pdf.

Janelle, Donald G., and David C. Hodge. “Information, Place, and Cyberspace: Issues in
Accessibility.” WorldCat, 2000, www.worldcat.org/title/information-place-and-
cyberspace-issues-in-accessibility/oclc/48013756. Page 22
41
Bowman

May, Rachel. “''Connectivity’ in Urban Rivers: Conflict and Convergence between Ecology and
Design.” Academia.edu, 2006,
www.academia.edu/6258536/_Connectivity_in_urban_rivers_Conflict_and_convergence_
between_ecology_and_design.

Redondo, Andréa Albuquerque G. “Urban Water Fronts.” The Nature of Cities,

Https://Www.thenatureofcities.com/2015/01/06/Urban-Water-Fronts-Have-Typically-
Been-Sites-of-Heavy-Development-and-Often-Are-Sites-of-Pollution-or-Exclusive-
Access-but-They-Have-Enormous-Potential-Benefits-How-Can-We-Unlock-These-
Benefits-for/.

Sairinen, Rauno, and Satu Kumpulainen. “Assessing Social Impacts in Urban Waterfront
Regeneration.” CiteSeerX, May 2005, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.469.6839&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Stamberger, Lorraine. “Reaching the Water’s Edge: Assessing Riverfront Accessibility in the
Quad Cities Area” Augustana Digital Commons, 2016,
digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=geogstudent.

Stylidis, Dimitrios, et al. “An Exploratory Study of Residents' Perception of Place Image: The
Case of Kavala.” Journal of Travel Research, SAGE Publications, May 2016,
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5897881/.

Taufen, Anne, and Raul Lejano. “Urban Waterways and Waterfront Spaces: Social Construction
of a Common Good.” ResearchGate, Dec. 2016,
www.researchgate.net/publication/318458508_Urban_Waterways_and_Waterfront_Spaces
_Social_Construction_ofa_Common_Good.

Timur, Umut Pekin. “Urban Waterfront Regenerations.” IntechOpen, IntechOpen, 1 July 2013,

www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-landscape-architecture/urban-waterfront-
regenerations.
42
Bowman

Wrenn, Douglas M. “Urban Waterfront Development.” HeinOnline,

heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals
%2Fstmlj15&div=33&id=&page=WRENN.

APPENDICES

I. Telephone Survey
(via Random Digit Dial samples; Both Landline and Cell Phone)

S1. Are you a Jacksonville area resident aged 18 or older?

Yes……………………….1 (Start Questionnaire)

No………………………..2

S2. May I please speak with a Jacksonville area resident aged 18 or older?

Yes……………………….1 (Repeat Introduction)

No………………………..2 (Arrange for Callback)
43
Bowman

1. How familiar are you with the current debate about dredging the St. Johns River? Would you say that you
are very familiar, somewhat familiar, or not really familiar with that debate at all?

a. Very familiar
b. Somewhat familiar
c. Not really familiar at all (Skip to Q3)

2. In general, would you say that you support or oppose the current plan to dredge a portion of the St Johns
River?
a. Support
b. Oppose
c. Don’t know/Not sure/Undecided

3. Thinking about the past year, please tell me how often you have enjoyed the following activities on or
along the St. Johns River. How about fishing? Would you say that over the past year you have fished on or
along the St. Johns River at least . . .

a. Once a week,
b. Once a month,
c. Once a year, or
d. Not at all?
e. DK/NA

4. How about boating, canoeing, kayaking, or jet skiing? Would you say that over the past year you have
boated, canoed, kayak, or jet skied on or along the St. Johns River at least . . .

a. Once a week,
b. Once a month,
c. Once a year, or
d. Not at all?
e. DK/NA

5. How about swimming? Would you say that over the past year you have swam on or along the St. Johns
River at least . . .

a. Once a week,
b. Once a month,
c. Once a year, or
d. Not at all?
e. DK/NA

6. How about hunting or observing wildlife? Would you say that over the past year you have hunted or
observe wildlife on or along the St. Johns River at least . . .

a. Once a week,
b. Once a month,
c. Once a year, or
d. Not at all?
e. DK/NA

7. Which of the following statements do you think best describes the health of the St. Johns River? Is it:

a. A polluted river not worth saving,

44
Bowman

b. A degraded river which has value, but needs a major cleanup, or

c. A river in good condition in need of improvements in some areas?
d. DK/NA

8. What do you see as the biggest source of pollution in the St. Johns River? Is it . . .

a. Industrial and commercial activity,

b. Storm water runoff, or
c. littering and dumping?
d. DK/NA

9. Do you feel you knowledgeable about what you can do to help improve the health of the St. Johns River?

a. Yes
b. No

10. Do you think there is a direct connection between your personal actions and the health of the St. Johns
River?

a. Yes
b. No

11. On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means "you don't try at all" and 10 means "you try very hard", how would
you rate your personal efforts to protect the St. Johns River

______________ (RECORD 98 FOR DK/NA)

12. What 2 streets intersect at the traffic light nearest your house? _____________________________

13. Which of the following categories best describes your 2015 total household income before taxes?

a. Less than $50,000

b. $50,000-$100,000
c. More than $100,000

II. Self-Administered (Online) Survey

(via SurveyMonkey; Posted at www.JaxBoatPlan.com or In-Person)

Thank you for participating in the Duval County Maritime Management Plan users and stakeholders survey! Please
circle your answers or write them in the space provided.
1. Here is a list of some public water access facilities available in Duval County. Please tell me if anyone in your
household (including yourself) has used any of these facilities in the past month. If yes, please indicate the number
of times you have used that facility in the past month.
No Yes Number of Times Used In the Past Month
Public boat ramps n y __________________________________
Kayak launches n y __________________________________
Docks n y __________________________________
Mooring buoys n y __________________________________
Fishing piers n y __________________________________
Riverwalk/boardwalks n y __________________________________
45
Bowman

Waterfront parks n y __________________________________

Other (please specify)
___________________________ __________________________________

2a. Please tell us about the water access facility you use most often. What type of facility is it based on the list
above, and what is its name or location?
_________________________________ ________________________________________
Type of Facility Name or location of the facility

2b. Are there any particular days of the week or times of the day that you use this facility most often? (Circle all
that apply)
Weekdays-----------1 Mornings------------1
Weekends-----------2 Afternoons----------2
Evenings------------3
Nights---------------4

2c. What is the main reason you use this facility? (Circle only one)
Motorized boating-----------------------1 Walking/exercising------------------7
Fishing-------------------------------------2 Biking---------------------------------8
Canoeing/kayaking-----------------------3 Swimming----------------------------9
Scenic views/nature observation-------4 Picnicking---------------------------10
Sailing--------------------------------------5 Paddle boarding--------------------11
Shrimping/crabbing----------------------6 Other (please specify)-------------12
____________________________

2d. If you enter the water from this facility, which waterbody is your ultimate destination?
I do not enter the water-----------------1
I do enter the water---------------------2 (Please specify your ultimate destination)

________________________________________________________________________

2e. How far is this facility, the one you use most often, from your home?
_________ miles
2f. What form of transportation do you most often use to get to this water access facility?
Walk-----------------1 Car or Truck---------4
Bike------------------2 Boat-------------------5
Public Transit-------3
2g. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is very dissatisfied and “10” is very satisfied, please tell us how satisfied you
are with this water access facility.
Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2h. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is very unsafe and “10” is very safe, please tell us how safe you feel while
using this water access facility.
Very Safe Very Unsafe
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2g. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is poorly maintained and “10” is well maintained, please tell us the
maintenance level of this water access facility.
46
Bowman

Poorly Maintained Well Maintained

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3a. Do you have the need for any additional water access facilities such as those listed below? (Circle all that apply)

3b. Using the attached grid map, tell us where you think the facility should be located? (Please provide the letter
and number from the grid, and any specific locational information)

Location of additional facility

Public boat ramps-------------------------------1
Kayak launches---------------------------------2
Docks---------------------------------------------3
Mooring buoys----------------------------------4
Fishing piers-------------------------------------5
Riverwalk/boardwalks-------------------------6
Waterfront parks--------------------------------7
Other (please specify)--------------------------8
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________

I have no need for additional facilities-------9

4a. Do you own a boat? (If you own more than one boat, please tell us about the boat you use most often in Duval
County waterways)
Yes----------------------1
No-----------------------2 (Please skip to page 4)

4b. What type of boat do you own?

Motorized boat (under 23 ft)----------1 Sailboat (under 30 ft)----------------------------4
Motorized boat (23 to 30 ft)-----------2 Sailboat (30 ft or over)--------------------------5
Motorized boat (over 30 ft)------------3 Other (please specify)---------------------------6
Personal watercraft (jet ski)-----------4 _____________________________________

4c. Where do you store your boat?

Your home (water)------------------------1
Your home (on land/trailer)--------------2
Other private boat slip--------------------3
Other dry storage--------------------------4
4d. Where do you service your boat?
Your home---------------------------------1
Someone else’s home--------------------2
Private marina or yacht club------------3
5a. Which of the following waterbodies are in need of dredging to support continued recreational boat use?
Public marina-----------------------------------5
Other public storage facility------------------6
Other (please specify)-------------------------7
___________________________________
Public marina------------------------------------4
Boat storage and/or repair facility------------5
Other (please specify)--------------------------6
____________________________________

5b. Using the attached grid map, tell us the specific areas where you think the dredging needs to take place? (Please
provide the letter and number from the grid, and any specific locational information)
Location of Dredging

Julington Creek---------------------------------1 ___________________________________

47
Bowman

Goodbys Creek---------------------------------2 ___________________________________

Ortega river--------------------------------------3
McGirts Creek----------------------------------4
Cedar River--------------------------------------5
Arlington River---------------------------------6
Trout River--------------------------------------7
Ribault River------------------------------------8
Clapboard Creek--------------------------------9
Other (please specify)--------------------------10
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________

I know of no waterbodies currently in need of dredging---------------------------------------------11

6. Please rate the following issues as very important, somewhat important, or not important at all . . .

Very Somewhat Not Important

Important Important Important At All
The health of Duval County waterways 1 2 3
The waterways as a source of jobs 1 2 3
The waterways as a source of recreation 1 2 3
The waterways as a source of food 1 2 3
The waterways as a visual amenity 1 2 3

On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” not at all valuable and “10 is very valuable, please rate the value of each of the
following assets to the Jacksonville community?
7a. The St Johns River? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7b. Jacksonville’s Navy Bases? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7c. The Jacksonville Jaguars? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. Of the issues listed below, which 3 would you like to receive the most attention from the city in terms of funding?
(Please circle up to 3)
Maintaining existing water access facilities--------------------------1
Expanding existing water access facilities----------------------------2
Building new boat ramps------------------------------------------------3
Building new kayak launches-------------------------------------------4
Adding more docking facilities-----------------------------------------5
Developing mooring fields----------------------------------------------6
Dredging water bodies for recreational boating use-----------------7
Building new fishing piers----------------------------------------------8
Building new shoreline walkways-------------------------------------9
Downtown Riverwalks-------------------------------------------------10
Other (please specify)--------------------------------------------------11
_____________________________________________________

9. Are there any other issues or concerns regarding Duval County waterways (not covered in this survey) that you
would like to bring to our attention?
___________________________________________________________________________

10. What 2 streets intersect at the traffic light nearest to your house?
___________________________________________________________________________

11. Which of the following categories best describes your 2014 total household income, before taxes:
48
Bowman

Less than $50,000-----------------------------------1

$50,000-$100,000-----------------------------------2
More than $100,000--------------------------------3