To better meet the educational needs of local officials charged with land use planning, a statewide survey of Ohio township trustees was conducted in fall 2005 to identify: gaps in knowledge; continuing education participation habits; preferences for training and training providers and; familiarity with Extension programs in the area of land use planning. On average, 50% of trustees indicated more knowledge was needed. Nearly 80% had not attended land use planning related training in the past 2 years. As a training provider, Extension was ranked third, and two in 10 respondents were familiar with Extension programs

Civittolo, David

Davis, Gregory A

English

Clemson University: TigerPrints

The Journal of Extension Volume 46 Number 5 Article 16 10-1-2008 Ohio Township Trustees' Land Use Planning Knowledge and Practices: A Statewide Survey to Better Target Programmatic Resources David Civittolo Ohio State University Extension, civittolo.1@osu.edu Gregory A. Davis The Ohio State University, davis.1081@osu.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Civittolo, D., & Davis, G. A. (2008). Ohio Township Trustees' Land Use Planning Knowledge and Practices: A Statewide Survey to Better Target Programmatic Resources. The Journal of Extension, 46(5), Article 16. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/joe/vol46/iss5/16 This Research in Brief is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Journal of Extension by an authorized editor of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu. 	 JOEHOME JOURNAL GUIDELINES ABOUT	JOE CONTACT NATIONAL	JOB	BANKCurrent	Issues Back	IssuesOctober	2008	//	Volume	46	//	Number	5	//	Research	in	Brief	//	5RIB60Ohio	Township	Trustees'	Land	Use	Planning	Knowledge	andPractices:	A	Statewide	Survey	to	Better	Target	ProgrammaticResourcesAbstractTo	better	meet	the	educational	needs	of	local	officials	charged	with	land	use	planning,	astatewide	survey	of	Ohio	township	trustees	was	conducted	in	fall	2005	to	identify:	gaps	inknowledge;	continuing	education	participation	habits;	preferences	for	training	and	trainingproviders	and;	familiarity	with	Extension	programs	in	the	area	of	land	use	planning.	On	average,50%	of	trustees	indicated	more	knowledge	was	needed.	Nearly	80%	had	not	attended	land	useplanning	related	training	in	the	past	2	years.	As	a	training	provider,	Extension	was	ranked	third,and	two	in	10	respondents	were	familiar	with	Extension	programs.	IntroductionExtension	programming	in	land	use	planning	has	been	conducted	with	elected	and	appointedofficials	throughout	Ohio	since	the	rural	population	began	to	increase	in	the	1960s.	Whilepopulation	growth	in	the	state	has	been	relatively	modest	over	the	past	two	decades,	the	outeredges	of	Ohio's	metropolitan	areas	have	experienced	explosive	population	growth.	Furthermore,as	the	average	daily	commute	time	continues	to	increase,	formerly	rural	areas	of	the	state	havebegun	to	experience	population	growth	as	well	(Perry	&	Mackun,	2001).To	help	local	officials	manage	this	change,	land	use	planning	education	focusing	on	the	use	ofzoning,	subdivision	regulations,	and	comprehensive	land	use	planning	has	been	offered	to	localofficials	and	township	trustees	in	particular,	for	about	the	past	9	years.	Roughly	25	educationalworkshops	have	been	conducted	involving	over	250	elected	and	appointed	officials	throughout	thestate	of	Ohio.	Educational	efforts	have	not	only	included	formal	instruction,	but	also	informalfacilitation	of	land	use	planning,	creation	of	subdivision	regulations,	and	zoning	ordinances	for	localclientele.To	date,	most	of	these	programming	efforts	were	offered	as	a	result	of	specific	requests,	afterconsultation	with	the	clientele	to	identify	specific	programmatic	needs.	Most	of	these	offeringshave	been	fairly	well	received.	However,	a	potential	exists	to	develop	programming	of	relevance	toa	much	larger	audience	because	this	particular	clientele	group	is	comprised	of	nearly	4,000township	trustees.	(Ohio's	88	counties	contain	1,309	townships,	each	of	which	has	a	board	oftrustees	containing	three	members.)One	of	the	critical	first	steps	in	program	development	entails	understanding	clientele	needs(Birkenholz,	1999;	Boleman	&	Cummings,	2005;	Hudkins	&	Blaine,	1999;	Nieto,	Schaffner,	&David	CivittoloExtension	EducatorOhio	State	University	ExtensionMedina	CountyMedina,	Ohiocivittolo.1@osu.eduGregory	A.	DavisExtension	SpecialistThe	Ohio	State	UniversityColumbus,	Ohiodavis.1081@osu.eduHenderson,	1997).	It	was	the	desire	to	better	meet	the	educational	needs	of	this	clientele	groupthat	led	to	the	development	of	a	statewide	study	and	the	results	presented	in	this	article.Purpose	and	ObjectivesUsing	formal	survey	methodology	to	better	understand	community	officials	charged	with	land	useplanning	is	one	way	to	measure	existing	program	quality	as	well	as	determine	future	programdirection	(Haines,	2002;	Seidl,	2001).	In	order	to	better	target	programmatic	resources,	objectivesof	the	study	reported	here	were	to:1.	 Gain	an	understanding	of	existing	knowledge	levels	with	respect	to	zoning,	subdivisionregulations,	and	comprehensive	land	use	planning.2.	 Determine	the	extent	to	which	this	clientele	group	participates	in	continuing	educationrelated	to	these	land	use	planning	tools.3.	 Describe	the	preferred	training	provider.4.	 Identify	the	level	of	familiarity	with	Extension	Land	Use	Programs.In	short,	we	wanted	to	identify	gaps	in	knowledge,	continuing	education	habits,	preferences	fortraining	and	training	providers,	and	familiarity	with	Extension	programs	in	the	area	of	land	useplanning.Methodology/Survey	DesignData	were	collected	in	fall	2005	using	a	survey	instrument	mailed	to	500	randomly	selected	Ohiotownship	trustees.	A	four-wave	mailing	was	used	following	the	Tailored	Design	Method	(Dillman,2000).	A	total	of	309	questionnaires	were	completed	and	returned,	resulting	in	a	62%	responserate.Respondents	were	provided	a	25-item	instrument	that	was	pilot-tested	for	face	validity	with	aconvenience	sample	of	Ohio	township	trustees.	A	panel	of	experts	reviewed	the	instrument	forcontent	validity.	All	but	two	of	the	25	items	were	of	a	fixed-choice	design.	The	following	items	arethe	focus	of	this	article:1.	 What	is	your	knowledge	level	of	zoning,	comprehensive	planning,	and	subdivisionregulations?2.	 Have	you	had	any	land	use	planning	training	in	the	last	two	years?3.	 From	what	source(s)	do	you	prefer	to	learn	about	land	use	planning?4.	 Are	you	familiar	with	OSU	Extension	Land	Use	Education	programs?Results/DiscussionRespondent	gender,	age,	educational	attainment,	political	orientation,	and	township	location	datawere	acquired.	Township	location	data	enabled	us	to	sort	responses	by	region	and	MetropolitanStatistical	Area	(MSA)	status.Respondents	were	predominantly	politically	conservative,	white,	males,	and	over	50	years	of	age.Most	had	obtained	a	high	school	diploma.	A	higher	portion	of	MSA	respondents	were	women.	Inaddition,	MSA	respondents	tended	to	be	older	and	more	educated.	There	were	15%	more	MSArespondents	with	education	beyond	high	school	than	non-MSA	respondents	(Table	1).Table	1.Educational	Attainment--MSA/Non-MSAMSA Non-MSAHS	Diploma 63% HS	Diploma 78%Beyond	HS 37% Beyond	HS 22%We	used	question	one	to	examine	respondents'	understanding	of	zoning,	subdivision	regulations,and	comprehensive	land	use	planning.	A	five-point	Likert-type	scale	was	used	(5	being	"veryknowledgeable"	and	1	"not	at	all	knowledgeable").Zoning	appeared	to	be	the	best	understood	tool.	More	than	half	(57%)	of	respondents	indicatedthat	zoning	was	in	place	in	their	township.	Because	township	zoning	is	the	land	use	planning	toolmost	readily	available	to	trustees,	it	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	their	understanding	of	this	tool	isassociated	with	its	level	of	use.Data	also	indicated	the	presence	of	an	association	between	trustees'	understanding	of	land	useplanning	tools	and	trustee	location.	Respondents	in	MSAs,	central,	southwestern,	and	northeasternregions	of	the	state	indicated	higher	levels	of	understanding	than	respondents	from	non-MSAs,	andsoutheastern	and	northwestern	regions.	This	may	be	explained	by	the	regional	differences	indevelopment	pressure.	That	is,	respondents	indicating	higher	levels	of	understanding	were	locatedin	areas	of	the	state	that	have	recently	experienced	the	greatest	degree	of	development	pressure.We	used	question	two	to	understand	the	extent	to	which	this	clientele	group	participates	incontinuing	education	related	to	these	land	use	planning	tools.Only	22%	of	respondents	had	participated	in	continuing	education	some	time	in	the	previous	2years.	When	intense	or	moderate	development	pressure	was	perceived,	respondents	were	morelikely	to	have	attended	training	in	the	past	2	years.	This	finding	appears	to	be	intuitive.	That	is,	theneed	to	better	understand	development	pressure	and	ways	to	reduce	development	pressureprovides	the	impetus	for	seeking	out	land	use	planning	training.We	used	question	three	to	better	understand	respondents'	training	provider	preferences.Perhaps	due	to	familiarity	with	the	organization,	roughly	60%	of	respondents	indicated	theypreferred	to	learn	about	these	land	use	tools	from	the	Ohio	Township	Association	(OTA).	Fortypercent	of	respondents	indicated	they	preferred	to	learn	from	a	regional	planning	commission.Twenty-five	percent	indicated	a	preference	for	OSU	Extension	educational	programming.	Extensionprogramming	has	been	part	of	the	OTA	meetings,	hosted	by	regional	planning	commissions,	andsponsored	by	boards	of	township	trustees.	Extension	has	also	hosted	land	use	planningconferences	and	programs.OSU	Extension	as	a	source	for	learning	was	preferred	by	respondents	from	the	northeastern	regionof	Ohio	more	than	from	any	other	region.	This	may	be	explained	by	the	presence	of	a	number	ofExtension	educators	in	the	region	who	have	made	land	use	planning	education	a	focus	of	theircounty	programming.We	used	question	four	to	gauge	the	level	of	familiarity	with	Extension's	Land	Use	Programs.Twenty	percent	of	respondents	indicated	they	were	familiar	with	OSU	Extension's	Land	UsePrograms.	Respondents	in	MSAs	were	more	familiar	than	non-MSA	respondents.	At	first	glance,	thisfinding	seemed	curious.	That	is,	historically	our	programming	efforts	have	received	the	mostattention	from	rural	township	trustees.	However,	upon	further	consideration,	we	recognized	thatMSA	respondents	have	been	experiencing	the	greatest	growth	pressure	and	are	more	likely	tohave	participated	in	training.	Many	of	the	trainings	have	been	conducted	in	cooperation	with	theOhio	Township	Association's	(OTA)	bi-annual	conferences	and	regional	planning	commissionprograms.ImplicationsRespondents	who	perceived	higher	levels	of	development	pressure	appeared	to	possess	a	betterunderstanding	of	zoning,	subdivision	regulations,	and	comprehensive	land	use	planning	thanrespondents	who	indicated	a	perceived	lower	level	of	development	pressure.	By	and	large,respondents	indicating	higher	levels	of	development	pressure	were	located	in	areas	of	the	statethat	have	been	experiencing	increased	growth	pressure.Higher	level	educational	programming	and	more	advanced	training	with	respect	to	the	use	ofzoning,	subdivision	regulations,	and	comprehensive	land	use	planning	should	be	developed	andtargeted	to	trustees	in	such	areas	that	are	experiencing	the	effects	of	increased	development.Moreover,	such	programming	could	be	targeted	to	areas	of	the	state	that	are	on	the	cusp	of	suchincreased	development	pressure.	Communities	that	will	most	likely	begin	to	experience	suchpressure	in	the	near	future	could	stand	to	gain	much	from	becoming	more	familiar	with	land	usetools	such	as	zoning,	subdivision	regulations,	and	comprehensive	land	use	planning	prior	to	theonset	of	increased	development	pressure.Training	participation	was	highest	in	MSAs	and	the	southwestern	region	(a	region	of	the	stateexperiencing	unprecedented	development	pressure).	Efforts	should	continue	to	target	audiences	insuch	areas.	Furthermore,	an	opportunity	to	provide	Extension	education	exists	when	one	considersthat	less	than	22%	of	respondents	statewide	indicated	they	had	participated	in	such	training	in	thepast	2	years.	In	response	to	the	finding,	questions	arise	such	as:1.	 Is	programming	offered	in	an	instructional	format	that	is	conducive	to	trustee	participation?2.	 Is	cost	of	programming	an	issue?3.	 Are	programs	offered	at	times	that	are	convenient	to	potential	participants?Respondents'	preferred	training	providers	were	the	OTA	and	their	local	regional	planningcommission.	This	is	not	surprising	considering	many	township	trustees	are	members	of	suchorganizations	(many	of	which	meet	on	a	monthly	basis).	Not	only	do	such	organizations	offertraining,	they	also	provide	a	local	context	in	which	the	training	is	framed	in	an	atmosphere	offamiliarity	to	township	trustees.Extension	has	provided	training	in	conjunction	with	both	organizations	in	the	past.	Efforts	shouldbe	made	to	strengthen	the	partnership	with	both	organizations	to	develop	collaborativeeducational	efforts	that	reach	a	broader	range	of	township	officials.	Enhancing	such	partnershipscan	better	enable	a	concerted	effort	to	reach	a	greater	number	of	township	trustees	in	Ohio.Central	region	respondents	were	most	familiar	with	OSU	Extension's	Land	Use	Programs	and	weremore	likely	to	have	requested	additional	information	than	respondents	in	other	regions.	This	maybe	explained	by	the	intense	development	activity	that	central	Ohio	has	experienced	in	the	past	10years	and	proximity	to	the	OSU	campus	based	in	Columbus,	Ohio.	Statewide,	one	in	fiverespondents	indicated	they	were	familiar	with	OSU	Extension's	Land	Use	Programs.	A	coordinatedmarketing	strategy	to	develop	awareness	amongst	township	trustees	as	well	as	the	agencies	thatserve	them	would	be	helpful.ReferencesBirkenholz,	R.	J.	(1999).	Effective	adult	learning.	Danville,	Illinois:	Interstate.Boleman	C.	T.,	&	Cummings,	S.	R.	(2005).	Listening	to	the	people:	A	strategic	planning	model	forcooperative	extension.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-Line].	43(3)	Article	3TOT3.	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/2005june/tt3.shtmlClark,	J.,	Sharp,	J.,	Irwin,	E.,	&	Libby,	L.	(2003).	Growth	and	change	at	the	rural	urban	interface:	Anoverview	of	Ohio's	population	change	and	land	use.	Retrieved	October	13,	2008	from:http://aede.osu.edu/programs/exurbs/growthandchange/growth%20change%20section%20I.pdfDillman,	D.	A.	(2000).	Mail	and	internet	surveys:	The	tailored	design	method	(2nd	Ed.)	New	York:John	Wiley	&	Sons.Nieto,	R.	D.,	Schaffner,	D.,	&	Henderson,	J.	L.	(1997).	Examining	community	needs	through	acapacity	assessment.	Journal	of	Extension	[On-Line].	35(3)	Available	at:http://www.joe.org/joe/1997june/a1.htmlPerry,	M.	J.,	&	Mackun,	P.	J.	(2001).	U.S.	Census	2000	population	change	and	distribution	1990-2000.	Retrieved	October	13,	2008	from:	http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdfCopyright	©	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Articles	appearing	in	the	Journal	become	the	property	of	theJournal.	 Single	 copies	 of	 articles	may	 be	 reproduced	 in	 electronic	 or	 print	 form	 for	 use	 in	 educational	 or	 trainingactivities.	Inclusion	of	articles	in	other	publications,	electronic	sources,	or	systematic	large-scale	distribution	may	bedone	only	with	prior	electronic	or	written	permission	of	the	Journal	Editorial	Office,	joe-ed@joe.org.If	you	have	difficulties	viewing	or	printing	this	page,	please	contact	JOE	Technical	Support©	Copyright	by	Extension	Journal,	Inc.	ISSN	1077-5315.	Copyright	Policy

Ohio Township Trustees\u27 Land Use Planning Knowledge and Practices: A Statewide Survey to Better Target Programmatic Resources

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4079&context=joe

Ohio Township Trustees\u27 Land Use Planning Knowledge and Practices: A Statewide Survey to Better Target Programmatic Resources

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Clemson University: TigerPrints