Blue River Trailhead Mapping and Design Recommendations, July 2015 (1)

Mapping and Design Recommendations

July, 2015

Blue River Trailhead

Developed by: Jacqueline Wells

Trailhead Design and Mapping Intern

Public Works Department

The City of Kansas City, Missouri

Cover Page Photo Sources, Top Right: Deb Ridgway, on the Blue River Trail, 2015

Bottom Left: Deb Ridgway, on the Blue River Trail, 2015

Bottom Right: http://mo.water.usgs.gov/indep/wilkison/cso/images/largeblueriveratbannrd.jpg

1 Blue River Trailhead Mapping and Design Recommendations

Introduction

Since the first paved segment of the Blue River Trail, spanning only 2.5 miles just south of Bannister Rd.

to Alex George Lake was opened in 2012, Kansas City residents are reconnecting to the Blue River. This

essential link has allowed residents to rediscover their River which they are otherwise largely

disconnected from by noxious land uses. The relationship the trail allows residents to form with the river

promotes advocacy for its conservation and preservation, two necessary behaviors to ensure Kansas

City’s sustainable future.

Not only does the Blue River Trail connect Kansas City residents to the Blue River, the trail also promotes

physical activity by making bicycling, walking, in-line skating and jogging safe and accessible to residents

of all ages and skill levels.

Now, as the trail expands to the North from 63rd St. to 18th St, and to the South from Bannister Rd.

through Minor Park, imagine the new generations of Kansas City residents who will be introduced to the

river, becoming its next stewards. Once the full corridor is constructed, diverse groups of residents will

have the opportunity to recreate and commute along the 29 miles of urban trail, helping to combat

chronic disease in our city. In order to ensure trail use and to sustain the trail for generations to come,

trailheads must be built to create access and awareness. The following trailhead mapping and design

criteria and recommendations have been made in order to guide Blue River Trailhead location selection

and site design. The trailhead mapping and design recommendations are intended to assist in the

development of sustainable trailheads to support diverse resource users. They were made in

coordination with the following stakeholders.

Richard Allen, Parks and Recreation, City of Kansas City

Angela Eley, City Planning, City of Kansas City

Jill Erickson, Heartland Conservation Alliance

Charlie Gascich, Whatsoever Community Center

Kellie Johnston, City Planning, City of Kansas City

Alecia Kates, Mid America Regional Council (MARC)

Thomas Kimes, Water Services, City of Kansas City

Deb Ridgway, Public Works, City of Kansas City

Daniel Smith, Monnett Battle of Westport Fund

Roberta Vogel-Leutung, Middle Blue Federal Partnership, EPA

Gerald Williams, City Planning, City of Kansas City


Literature Review

The Blue River Trail is an urban trail, a linear feature

designed to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists,

equestrians, joggers and skaters of every age and skill level.

The trail will be paved with concrete and traverses through

one of the most picturesque areas of the city, with

woodlands, scenic bluffs and riverside views (Jax, S., &

Liska, J. 2008). The Blue River Trail also passes through a

variety of land uses, from residential neighborhoods and

industrial centers to vacant or park land. The trail is also

situated in diverse socio-demographic areas of the city, as

shown in Map 1 and Map 2.

The pertinent literature on urban trails and urban parks

finds that trail users are predominantly white, young to

middle-aged and well educated (Reynolds, K., Wolch, J.,

Byrne, J., Chou, C., Feng, G., Weaver, S., & Jerrett, M.

(2006).) and are motivated to use trails by exercise, access

to nature, commuting, relaxation and group recreation

(Shores, K., Scott, D., & Floyd, M. (2006).).

Constraints: In order to broaden the range of users the Blue

River Trail attracts, it is essential to understand constraints

of use. Studies of constraints to leisure activities recognize

geographic variables, park/trail perceptions and marketing

as major forms of constraints to use. Race, ethnicity, gender

and age will be the focus of the following constraints

discussion.

Access: The main constraint to trail use is access. Studies of

urban green space show that minority groups travel farther

distances to reach recreation destinations due to their

residential location (Byrne, J., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2008).).

Additionally, modes of transportation differ between racial

and ethnic groups. In multiple studies of park use, minority

users arrived most often by car, public transit or bicycle, and

white users arrived by foot due to the parks proximity to

respondents residential locations (Byrne, J., Wolch, J., &

Zhang, J. (2008).).

Map 1: BRT and Percent Minority Persons

Map 2: BRT and Average Income


Perception: A resident’s perception of the trail and trailhead is another key constraint to use. Studies

show that perceived safety and facility provisions contribute to a resident’s decision to visit a trail for

the first time or repeat their visit in the future (Reynolds, K., Wolch, J., Byrne, J., Chou, C., Feng, G.,

Weaver, S., & Jerrett, M. (2006).). In a study of the constraints on outdoor recreation, it was found that

women and racial and ethnic minorities, especially black respondents, were concerned about safety and

crime (Shores, K., Scott, D., & Floyd, M. (2006).). Additionally, in studies of park use, it has been found

that different racial/ethnic groups prefer different types of park amenities and travel to parks in varying

group sizes, therefore causing a varying perception of facility amenities by different racial/ethnic park

users (Byrne, J., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2008).). The results of studies differ (Gobster, P. (2001).).

Awareness: Lack of awareness of trail and park facilities is the final constraint to use. A study of urban

national parks shows that racial/minority groups received park information from different sources than

white users. The study does not prove if this decreases park utilization, but begs the question of how

improved information about the trail and trailheads can increase their utilization (Gobster, P. (2001).).

Understanding the constraints faced by recreationists is the first step in ensuring the Blue River Trail

best serves the community of Kansas City. Four principals can be drawn from the motivations and

constraints studied above and will be applied to the mapping and design of trailheads for the Blue River

Trail.

1. Location: increase the diversity of trailhead site locations, increasing the visibility of the

available resource in the area

2. Transportation: ensure ease of access to the trailhead and non-reliance on automobiles

3. Safety: schedule regular maintenance and monitoring of the trailhead and corridor to

increase feelings of safety

4. Engagement: Make trailhead amenities specific to the community they will serve through

public engagement

Trailhead Criteria

In order to maximize access and awareness of the trail system two types of trailhead are recommended,

formal and informal. The criteria for the trailhead types are compared in Chart 1.

Chart 1: Trailhead Criteria Trailhead Type

Parking (vehicle, bicycle)

Restrooms (plumbed/ portable)

Water Connection, On/Off Street

Connection, Residential/ Commercial

Stakeholder Support

Local/ Area Need

Seating Shade Signage

Formal X X X X X X X X X X

Informal X X X X

Parking:

Formal: It is recommended that parking be available for no fewer than twenty vehicles and ten bicycles

at formal trailhead locations.


Informal: It is recommended that parking be available for no fewer than ten vehicles and five bicycles at

informal trailhead locations.

Restrooms:

Formal: It is recommended that plumbed or portable restrooms be made available or be located within

.05 miles of a formal trailhead location.

Water:

Formal: It is recommended that access to potable water by way of water fountains be provided at

formal trailhead locations.

Connection, On/Off Street:

Formal: It is recommended that formal trailhead locations connect with existing or planned pedestrian,

bicycle and transit routes.

Connection, Residential/Commercial:

Formal: It is recommended that formal trailhead locations be located within .25 miles of existing

residential or commercial centers.

Stakeholder Support:

Formal/Informal: It is recommended that formal and informal trailhead locations receive strong

stakeholder support to maximize trailhead utility and ensure ongoing trailhead maintenance and

monitoring.

Local/Area Need:

Formal/Informal: It is recommended that the issues of equity and diversity be considered when

choosing the location of formal and informal trailheads.

Seating:

Formal: It is recommended that seating in the form of benches, seatwalls, etc. be located at formal

trailhead locations.

Shade:

Formal/Informal: It is recommended that shade be provided in the form of shelter or tree canopy at

formal and informal trailhead locations.

Signage:

Formal and Informal: It is recommended that directional, regulatory, objective and interpretive signs be

used at formal and informal trailhead locations. It is recommended that all trailheads include signs that

raise awareness of the trail system’s carry in carry out trash policy. It is recommended that the signs

adhere to the hierarchy of signs recommendations discussed in Design Strategies and Design Elements.

A common design theme should graphically unite the Blue River Trail system.


Trailhead Mapping

In order to promote sustainable, greyfield development and to minimize costs, it is recommended that

formal and informal trailheads be developed in conjunction with existing parks, parking lots or

commercial centers.

In order to assess a location for the development of a formal or informal trailhead, guidelines are

available in Chart 2, and are listed in priority order.

Chart 2: Trailhead Criteria Priority Guidelines

Existing Parking Lot

•Developing a formal/informal trailhead in conjunction with an existing parking lot is top priority in order to reduce impermeable pavement and costs.

Existing RR/Water

•Developing a formal trailhead in conjuction with an existing restroom and/or waterfountain is the next priority in order to reduce construction and maintenance costs.

Connection On/Off Street

•Developing a formal trailhead with connection to existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian and/or public transit routes is the next priority in order to ensure access and utilization.

Connection Res/Comm

•Developing a formal trailhead with connection to residential/commercial centers is the next priority in order to ensure access and awareness.

Stakeholder Support

•After securing the above priorities, it is then essential to secure stakeholder support for formal/informal trailhead design and maintenance purposes.

Local/Area Need

•Determining local/area need is the next priority in developing formal trailhead location and design. Area stakeholders will assist in this determination.

Seating and Shade

•Seating and shade are a low priority due to the lower level of investment required in developing these amenities for formal/informal trailheads.

Signage

•Signage is the lowest priority because it is unlikely that potential trailhead locations will have preexisting signs, but its an essential design element.


A preliminary list of formal and informal trailhead locations has been compiled and is available in Chart 3. The list reflects trail development

plans made available in July, 2015.

Chart 3: Preliminary Trailhead Location

Preliminary Trailhead Location

Trailhead Type

Parking (vehicle, bicycle)

Shade Water Signage Connection, On/Off Street

Connection, Residential/ Commercial

Restrooms (plumbed, portable)

Seating Stakeholder Support

Local/ Area Need

Blue Valley Formal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Corrington Park & Sheffield Park

Formal No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Swope Pool / Soccer Complex

Formal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minor Park Formal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Municipal Farm

Informal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Blue Banks Park

Informal No No No No No No No No Yes No

Blue Parkway

Informal Proposed Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes

Blue River Park and Athletic Fields

Informal Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes


Preliminary Trailhead Location Analysis

Blue Valley Park, East 23rd St. and Topping Ave.

Formal Trailhead: Blue Valley Park was identified as a potential formal trailhead site location due to its

location near the northern segment of the Blue River Trail. The size, 238.5 acres, and amenities,

including: baseball diamond, disc golf course, playground, spray ground and three shelters, also make

Blue Valley Park a viable formal trailhead location. After the site was identified, it was analyzed against

the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. It was found that Blue Valley Park

meets with every formal trailhead criteria aside from trailhead signage, the lowest priority matter.

Stakeholder support was found from Jill Erickson the executive director of the Heartland Conservation

Alliance with their partnership with East High School and the Monnett Battle of Westport Fund with

their connection to the area through Douglas’ Battery. Additionally, the park is located in a majority

racial/ethnic minority area, potentially allowing for an increase of access to the trails system by

underserved groups. Please refer to the appendix for additional demographic analysis.

Corrington and Sheffield Park, E. 18th St. and Corrington Ave and E. 12th St. and Winchester Ave.

Formal Trailhead: Corrington Park and Sheffield Park were identified as a potential formal trailhead

system due to their location near the northern segment of the Blue River Trail. Corrington Park is

designated as a neighborhood park and is 9.85 acres in size. Sheffield Park is also designated as a

neighborhood park and is 11.24 acres in size. After the sites were identified, they were analyzed against

the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. It was found that together Corrington

Park and Sheffield Park meet all the formal trailhead criteria when considered in conjunction with the

Whatsoever Community Center, where parking, water and restrooms would be accessible. Stakeholder

support was found from Charlie Gascich, executive director of the Whatsoever Community Center

located approximately 0.1 miles from Sheffield Park. Gascich expressed the communities need and

desire for improvements to park resources and access to the trail and willingness to monitor and

maintain a trailhead. Additionally, the parks are located in a majority racial/ethnic minority area,

potentially allowing for an increase of access to the trails system by underserved groups. It is

recommended that Corrington and Sheffield Parks act as a community trailhead system. It is

recommended that bikeways connect the parks in order to increase access and awareness of the trails

system within the community. Please refer to the appendix for additional demographic analysis.

Swope Pool/Soccer Complex, 63rd St. and Swope Park

Formal Trailhead: The Swope Pool/Soccer Complex was identified as a potential formal trailhead site

due to its location near the midpoint of the Blue River Trail. After the sites were identified, they were

analyzed against the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. It was found that

both the Swope Pool and the Soccer Complex meet all the formal trailhead criteria aside from trailhead

signage, the lowest priority matter. Stakeholder support was found in the Monnett Battle of Westport

Fund due to their connection to the nearby Big Blue Battlefield. Additionally, the park is located in a

majority racial/ethnic minority area and light industrial area potentially allowing for an increase of

access to the trails system by underserved groups. Please refer to the appendix for additional

demographic analysis.


Minor Park, Red Bridge Rd. and Holmes Rd.

Formal Trailhead: Minor Park was identified as a potential formal trailhead site due its location near the

southern segment of the Blue River Trail. The size of the park, 235.09 acres, and amenities, including:

golf course, playground, rugby field, tennis court and shelter also make Minor Park a viable formal

trailhead location. After the site was identified, it was analyzed against the trailhead criteria using geo-

spatial technology and field study. It was found that Minor Park meets with every formal trailhead

criteria aside from trailhead signage, the lowest priority matter. Stakeholder support has not yet been

identified. Additionally, the park is located in a majority white neighborhood, potentially perpetuating

constraints to trail access, potentially demanding increased accommodation for transit, bicycle and

vehicle transportation. Please refer to the appendix for additional demographic analysis.

Municipal Farm, Coal Mine Rd. and Winchester Ave.

Informal Trailhead: The Municipal Farm was identified as a potential informal trailhead site due to the

complimentary development plans in the Municipal Farms Sustainable Reuse Plan. After the site was

identified, it was analyzed against the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. It

was found that Area 5 of the Municipal Farm meets with every informal trailhead criteria aside from

trailhead signage, the lowest priority matter. Additionally the Sustainable Reuse Plan has identified Area

5 as a recreation destination. Municipal Farm planners support an informal trailhead within the site.

Blue Banks Park, Blue Banks Ave. and Colorado Ave.

Informal Trailhead: Blue Banks Park was identified as a potential informal trailhead site due its location

at the confluence of Brush Creek and the Blue River and the proposed bridge development by the Parks

and Recreation department. After the site was identified, it was analyzed against the informal trailhead

criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. Additionally, stakeholder support has yet to be

identified. It was found that Blue Banks Park meets with every trailhead criteria aside from trailhead

signage, the lowest priority matter. The trailhead would connect industrial employees to the resource

and increase access to the bridge and both the Blue River and Brush Creek Trails.

Blue Parkway, Blue Parkway and Blue Banks Ave.

Informal Trailhead: Blue Parkway was identified as a potential informal trailhead site due to the riparian

restoration improvement projects and trailhead proposal developed by Thomas Kimes with Water

Services. After the site was identified, it was analyzed against the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial

technology and field study. It was found that Blue Parkway meets with every informal trailhead criteria

aside from trailhead signage, the lowest priority matter. The trailhead is accessible underneath the Blue

Parkway overpass, and would connect surrounding residents and employees to the resource.

Blue River Park and Athletic Fields, Blue River Rd. and I-435

Informal Trailhead: The Blue River Park and Athletic Fields was identified as a potential informal

trailhead site due its proximity to the southern segment of the Blue River Trail. After the site was

identified, it was analyzed against the trailhead criteria using geo-spatial technology and field study. It

was found that Blue River Park and Athletic Fields meets with every informal trailhead criteria including

trailhead signage, which currently exists at the site. The trailhead would connect recreationists to the

resource and create another use for the preexisting parking lot.


Trailhead Design

In order to form a new generation of trail users and river stewards, trailheads should entice and invite a

diverse group of residents to the trail. The literature suggests that in order to engage new resource

users, a trailhead should simultaneously spark interest, make the trail resource available and create a

good experience (Dobrowolski, A. (2010).). In order to accomplish this goal, the following design

strategies have been suggested and are available in Chart 4.

Chart 4: Trailhead Design Strategies

Design Strategy Trailhead Type Explanation Implementation Expected Outcome Plan Community Trailheads

Formal Informal

It is recommended that existing community spaces such as parks, parking lots or shopping centers be used for trailhead locations to increase connection and use.

Engagement of stakeholders is necessary for the identification of appropriate locations and the implementation of management plans

+Community ownership +Increased use

Cluster Site Amenities Formal Informal

It is recommended that site amenities such as sign kiosks, seating, ground markers, be clustered to make the BRT a major site attraction.

Design of site should suggest a sense of enclosure, visual contact and spatial proximity

+Organized and intentional site puts users at ease +Encourages use

Build for Low Maintenance

Formal Informal

It is recommended that materials and design of site amenities require low maintenance. Site users are discouraged from using resources when they look badly maintained, citing safety concerns.

During design, all amenities chosen for the site should have a sense of permanence and purpose. Engagement of community stakeholders is necessary to implement a management plan.

+Community ownership +Increased use +Decreased costs

Support Multiple Modes of Transportation

Formal

It is recommended that the BRT be accessible by bike, foot, public transit and car whenever possible, in order to maximize connection and accessibility.

During site mapping, trailhead locations should be connected to existing or planned bicycle and transit routes. Bicycle facilities, such as bike racks and bike fix it stations should be included in site design.

+Broader range of users utilize the trail +BRT lowers carbon emissions

Hierarchy of Signs Formal Informal

It is recommended that a hierarchy of signs be utilized throughout the BRT system, ranging from directional to interpretive signs.

A common design theme should unite all signs used throughout the trail. Signs are ranked from directional, regulatory, objective to interpretive in terms of hierarchy.

+Increased use +Increased knowledge about site

Plan Open Space Formal Informal

It is recommended that open space be included in every BRT trailhead to provide gathering space for trail users as they prepare to enter the trail.

Open space should provide a buffer between the trail and the parking lot, amenities such as play equipment, a shelter a bench may be included and should be decided upon based on public engagement.

+Broader range of users utilize the trailhead +Increased sense of safety

Source: Dobrowolski, A. (2010).


Design Elements

Sources: 1: Limpy Botanical Trail. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2015. 2: Photo by Deb Ridgway on the Blue River Trail, 2015 3: Photo by Deb Ridgway on the Line Creek Trail, 2011

This image shows how clustering site amenities, has

made this trail the site’s major attraction. The picnic table acts

as open space, allowing resource users to rest, tie

shoes, fix a bike, before passing through the signs that act as a gateway to the trail beyond.

Cluster Site Amenities

This image shows an example of a low maintenance sign

preexisting on the Blue River Trail. The locally sourced materials of the sign will

withstand the local climate and provide resource users with directional, regulatory and

objective signage.

Build for Low Maintenance

This image shows a bike fix it station along the Line Creek

Trail. Locating bike fix it stations at trailheads

encourages resource users to travel by bicycle, decreasing road congestion and carbon

emissions.

Support Multiple Modes


Sources: 1: Kansas City, Missouri Parks and Recreation Department 2: Lac du Flambeau Stormwater Improvement and Restoration Interpretive Signage. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2015. 3: Gjhikes.com: Sunset to Sunrise. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2015.

This image is an example of a directional, objective and

regulatory sign. The directional sign addresses distance, direction

and destination. The objective sign provides actual information

about trail conditions. The regulatory sign prohibits certain uses on the trail. The directional

sign is the highest on the hierarchy of signs because it

increases awareness and use of the trail. The directional sign

should be placed both within and without the trail system. The

objective and regulatory signs are next on the hierarchy because

they ensure the safety of resource users. The three types of sign are most efficient when

combined into a single sign, within the trail.

Hierarchy of Signs

This image is an example of an interpretive sign. The interpretive

sign offers educational information to resource users about the trail environment or historical characteristics of the area. The interpretive sign is at the bottom of the hierarchy of

signs . It is recommended that it not be included at a formal or informal trailhead site without the presence of signs higher on

the hierarchy.

Hierarchy of Signs

This image is an example of planned open space at a

trailhead. The shelter area with ample seating allows large

groups and families to prepare and assemble their parties before

heading out on the trail.

Plan for Open Space


Next Steps Further Study: Portage Access: Public interest has been expressed in canoeing and kayaking on the Blue River. Therefore further study is necessary to understand which trailheads would be most appropriate for portage access.

Maintenance and Monitoring: In order to ensure trailhead maintenance and monitoring, it is recommended that community and/or stakeholder groups interested in developing a trailhead in their community be required to adhere to a maintenance and monitoring agreement. Further study is necessary to develop the agreement and implementation process. Additionally, the Parks and Recreation Department has a preexisting, voluntary, Friends of the Trail program. The program could be expanded to include trailheads which have not been directly requested by community or stakeholder groups. Further study is necessary to understand how the program could be expanded and implemented.

Stadium Dr. Trailhead Location: Stadium Dr. is the terminus of phase two of the Blue River trail expansion plan. Additionally, it is the location where the trail passes from the West side of the river to the East. It is a natural place for a formal or informal trailhead location. Further geo-spatial and field study is necessary to better understand what type of trailhead would be appropriate at the location. Public Engagement: It is recommended that the community surrounding trailhead locations be engaged in the design process through surveys, charrettes and/or public forums. Public engagement will ensure increased use of the trailhead through focused facility amenities and will create community ownership of the site.

Conclusion As the City of Kansas City, Missouri invests in its trails system it has the opportunity to create a new generation of residents who are physically active and connected to our rivers. In order to ensure that all of our City’s residents have the opportunity to enjoy our trails, it is necessary to understand the constraints to trail and park use, and to plan for them. The trailhead mapping and design recommendations above are made in consideration with these constraints and are intended to assist in the development of sustainable trailheads to support diverse resource users.


Appendix:

Blue Valley Park, On/Off-Street Connections

N


Blue Valley Park, Percent Minority Persons

N


Blue Valley Park, Median Household Income

N


Corrington Park and Sheffield Park, On/Off-Street Connection

N


Corrington Park and Sheffield Park, Percent Minority Persons

N


Corrington Park and Sheffield Park, Median Household Income

N


Swope Park, On/Off-Street Connections

N


Swope Park, Percent Minority Persons

N


Swope Park, Median Household Income

N


Minor Park, On/Off-Street Connections

N


Minor Park, Percent Minority Persons

N


Minor Park, Median Household Income

N


References

Byrne, J., Wolch, J., & Zhang, J. (2008). Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(3), 365-392. Retrieved July 15, 2015,

from Taylor and Francis Group.

Coyle, T., Williams, G., Hurst, R., Smith, D., DeBauche, J., Liska, J., & Johnston, K. (2007). Hickman Mills

Area Plan.

Coyle, T., Liska, J., Dunn, R., Johnston, K., Foster, B., Lebofsky, S., . . . Wolf, B. (2012). Truman Plaza Area

Plan.

Dobrowolski, A. (2010). Designing trailheads to support diverse users: A case study on the Florida

national scenic trail. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5363480.pdf

Gobster, P. (2001). Managing Urban Parks For A Racially And Ethnically Diverse Clientele. Leisure

Sciences, 24, 143-159. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Taylor and Francis Group.

Jax, S., & Liska, J. (2008). Trails KC Plan: A Comprehensive Citywide Trail System for Kansas City, Missouri.

Langenkamp, R., Williams, J., & Williams, G. (n.d.). Swope Area Plan.

Reynolds, K., Wolch, J., Byrne, J., Chou, C., Feng, G., Weaver, S., & Jerrett, M. (2006). Trail Characteristics

as Correlates of Urban Trail Use. American Journal of Health Promotion, 21(4), 335-345.

Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Healthpromotionjournal.com.

Shaw, S. (1994). Gender, leisure, and constraint: Towards a framework for the analysis of women's

leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 8-8. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Proquest.com.

Shores, K., Scott, D., & Floyd, M. (2006). Constraints To Outdoor Recreation: A Multiple Hierarchy

Stratification Perspective. Leisure Sciences, 29, 227-246. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from Taylor

and Francis Group.

Williams, G., & Dunn, R. (2011). Heart of the City Area Plan.


Williams, G., Bracker, A., Langenkamp, B., Winbush, T., Hoffman, L., & Kiefer, T. (2012). The Municipal

Farm Sustainable Reuse Plan. APA formatting by BibMe.org.

Documents

Blue River Trailhead Mapping and Design Recommendations, July 2015 (1)