Use the following information gathered by the KEC Working Group to inform your own comments (Public Involvement section) here: PROS Plan Public Comment Form

Public Involvement Survey Data Presentation and Analysis

The Public Involvement section (p. 46-84) has data presentation and analysis problems. The survey data has been inadequately analyzed and data from multiple data collection methods has not been integrated into meaningful presentations and interpretations.

The lack of adequate analysis is evident in the separate Appendix document that provides the survey responses. It is simply a listing of responses with the most minimal analysis. Take for example the questions that ask respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement with certain statements. Look at Question 15 of one survey (appendix p. 174 or 34 depending on what numbering systems is being used at the bottom of the page). It asks “Do you agree or disagree that Kitsap County needs more of the following?” The table shows for each item the percent of response for each category from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” but no analysis is done to show the order from high to low of the options in regard to those rated agree or strongly agree. It appears that some such analysis was done because p. 60 lists the four top choices (activities needed in Kitsap County). One would expect that the four choices would be reported in terms of percent who agreed/strongly agreed not  the number of respondents. Also, our analysis of the data in the appendix for this question puts the four top items in a different order than that given on p. 60. The analysis on p. 60 had waterfront (1197 respondents ), parking (1173) , habitat (1090), and picnic areas (1064) whereas our analysis from the table for question 15 in the appendix has: parking 71.3%; waterfront 70.6%; picnic tables 65.3%; and habitat 64.7%. For statistically correct analyses, percents rather than absolute number of respondents needs to be used. Also, the number of respondents the Plan show on p. 60 isn’t the same as what is given in the appendix for this question. Is there an error here? This is just one minor example of the overall issue.

The appendix of survey responses of the type provided is simply little more than a listing or responses. No significant analysis has been done. Among other things, there are no analyses by demographics of any type. 

This lack of meaningful analysis is seen in the tables presented on p. 54-57. First of all , far too much information is presented in these tables. Only the percent of responses is needed, not the number of people. That should remain in the Appendix if given at all in the published documents. 

The data needs to be summarized in a more meaningful way with more clustering of responses (for example, possibly grouping “daily, weekly, and monthly” as one group, “semi-annually and annually” as another group and “rarely and never” as a group) and then giving “percent of responses” for each group. 

The one paragraph analysis statement on pp. 54-57 for each table does not present meaningful information. Why is the focus on whether the majority of respondents rarely or never used a given park? These data would also need to be analyzed by different parts of the county to make much sense of it.

Also note the confusing info on p. 71 about new facilities. It’s not clear how the bullets on this page align with Figure 3-24. Also, the relative importance of new amenities (e.g., restrooms, picnic areas) versus new facilities seems confused. This also brings us to the issue of who were the respondent groups that provided the data for this plan.

Use this information gathered by the KEC Working Group to inform your own comments (Public Involvement section) here: PROS Plan Public Comment Form

> Return to PROS Plan 2025 – Overview of KEC Comments Listing