Home About Us Calendar Blog Resources Donate
Read More...
Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan - Parks and Recreation (see Appendix 2.A. for Parkland Acreage Standards)
Reston Association - Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan Update
July 20, 2005

Information includes citizen survey results on needs and current uses.
Back to Parks and Open Space Planning
 

Accountability Reports - Prince William County Parks & Open Space

The Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) report is a key part of the accountability component of the Prince William County System. This report is intended to provide the community with information how money is spent on government services as well as how well those services are performed. Click here to read the 2005 Prince William County SEA Report.

According to the County's 2005 Service Efforts and Accomplishments Report for Parks:

  • Citizen satisfaction with open space protection was at 57.4% in FY 2000 compared to 45.1% in FY 2005, a statistically significant difference of 21% over the six year period. The two geographic areas with the lowest levels of satisfaction were Brentsville (31.9%), and Dale City (36.2%).
Prince William County Citizen Satisfaction Surveys 1999 through 2006
Responses to the Question: How satisfied are you with the County's efforts to preserve open space?
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
% Satisfied
63.3%
57.4%
54.7%
Not
Included
58.3%
Not
Included
45.1%
Not
Included
  • Developed park acreage per thousand residents decreased by 15 and 27 percent respectively
    from 2000 to 2005. During the same period undeveloped acreage per 1,000 residents increased 27 percent. (p. 114) Some of the land that is not developed is not developable. It is in small parcels or locations that are not practical to develop. (p. 129)


  • Prince William had less total park acreage per 1,000 residents than the comparison jurisdictions. (p. 114)


  • Compared to Other Jurisdictions: Prince William had the lowest operating and total expenditures per visit of the comparison jurisdictions, except Loudoun had the same operating expenditure per
    visit. (p. 142)


Home
| Upcoming Events | About Us |Join | Resource Issues | News | Local Contacts

Maps | Photos | Publications | Youth Education |FAQ's | Links | Membership