Participants in a recent Opt In survey strongly prefer maintaining habitat in the region's natural areas rather than opening them up to more access to people.
The survey was part of an ongoing effort by Metro to craft a possible operating levy for the 11,000 acres of regional natural areas, purchased in the last two decades after two successful bond measures. Money from the bond measures can't be used to operate nor maintain the preserves.
Nearly 3,500 people took the online survey last month, and they clearly said they want to see Metro clean up the natural areas.
For example, 70 percent of the panelists placed a high importance on controlling weeds and invasive species and maintaining habitat areas; 76 percent prioritized ensuring water quality in streams.
By comparison, only 29 percent of participants stressed the importance of making it easier for people to access natural areas by adding parking, restrooms and basic visitor information.
"It's clear these areas are highly valued, and voters/panel members prioritize preservation of these areas over recreation at this time," said Rebecca Ball, an associate at DHM Research, which manages Opt In. "If they're not preserved, they can't be used."
Jim Desmond, director of Metro's Sustainability Center and the manager of the natural areas program, said the economy is a factor in that prioritization.
"We're living in a time of tough choices, and I think people separate in their minds taking care of what you have… as opposed to investing in new buildings or new structures that could wait," he said.
The issue of weeds particularly seemed to resonate with participants. Seventy-one percent of panelists said priority should be given to controlling invasive weeds that can smother and kill trees. Of the four "priority" questions asked in the survey, it was the only one to garner majority support (58 percent) from Republicans.
Heather Kent, supervisor of Metro's Nature in Neighborhoods program, said the support for weed removal is a sign that the region's residents are developing a better understanding of the natural areas program. She compared it to recycling efforts in the early 1990s, when people first started viewing recycling as part of every day life.
"You know people care about clean air and water, and we know habitat is important," she said. "But weeds? We've made it! We've arrived!"
In the early days of the natural areas program, Desmond said, there was a notion that land managers should snatch up as much land as they could and then leave nature alone.
"What we've learned, and what the public understands, is that natural areas need ongoing maintenance," he said. "It's not nearly at the cost of maintenance that your neighborhood park needs, but it does need some active management or, in this case, the weeds will take over."
The plight of Forest Park has certainly helped Metro's cause. While Metro doesn't run Forest Park, it is probably the region's signature natural area, and it's faced an ongoing battle with tree-killing ivy.
"Get rid of the ivy that's choking the trees all over Forest Park! The ivy WILL kill the trees, and then there will be horrible erosion problems – the trees need to be helped SOON!" wrote a 35-to-54-year-old politically independent woman in one of the 2,582 open-ended responses about natural areas management. About 25 comments specifically mentioned Forest Park.
If Metro moves forward with a levy, Desmond said he thinks it will probably have some sort of grant program to help areas like Forest Park and other open spaces not owned by Metro.
While panelists from across the region were caught in the weeds, so to speak, panelists from Multnomah County were much more likely to support preservation of habitat compared to their suburban counterparts. Multnomah County panelists were also more likely to support education programs at the natural areas.
Ball said that's got more to do with the make-up of the electorate in Clackamas and Washington counties.
"Self-identified Democrats rated these issues with higher importance than Republicans, and there are significantly more Democrat panel members in Multnomah County than in Washington or Clackamas," she said.
Earlier this year, Metro commissioned a statistically valid poll of likely voters to get their thoughts on the natural areas program.
The results from the Opt In survey, taken two months later, would indicate that Opt In panelists are more likely to be engaged in the subject matter than a truly random sample. (Metro has maintained that Opt In is not meant to be a poll as much as a way to get people to participate, a digital substitute to open houses.)
"For example, about 60 percent in the telephone survey used parks and natural areas on a monthly basis or more; in the panel, it was about 70 percent," Ball said.
Metro chief operating officer Martha Bennett is convening a 15-member citizens advisory panel, which will spend the next two months developing recommendations to her and the Metro Council on whether to pursue an operating levy for the natural areas in 2013.
Staffers have said any levy sent to the voters would be no more than 10 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or $22 a year for the median Portland region home.