COMMUNITY USE AND APPRECIATION OF PARKLANDS Working on different perspectives: community organisation and academia

Nora Morocza1, Claire Henderson-Wilson2, Aparna Sethu Nath2 and Rebecca Patrick2 1: School of Sport Studies, Leisure and Nutrition, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom; 2: School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Health Nature and Sustainability Research The project Group, Deakin  Focus: health implications of the links between Deakin’s existing humans and the natural environment. MPH partnership with Parks dissertation Principles and Living proposal Links  Strategic partnership

 Research

Request from Living Links/PPWCMA to  Education (university and wider community carry out the project level)

My visit to Deakin (LJMU Mobility Fund)- Living Links and Port Phillip & Westernport CMA extra researcher Research  Goals

 A web of green Academic Report for Living dissemination Links  People are connected to nature  Urban nature is valued and resourced Evaluation and planning changes PPWCMA: Coordinates Living Links Research questions and objectives Community organisation and academic focus

Living Links main interests Original research questions/academic focus  Park visit frequency  What are the factors that influence the community use of the Dandenong creek  Travel mode and duration to park catchment area?  Predictors of visit frequency and length  Use of another park more (reason)  Park characteristics’, activities’ and companion’s effect on park choice.  Companion in the park  Factors that would encourage more  Activity in the park frequent and longer visits to parks.  Overall impression of parks  What are the barriers to community use  Reasons that would encourage and appreciation of Dandenong creek more frequent and/or longer catchment area visits Research location: KOOMBA PARK • Bad reputation-crime the Dandenong • Few visitors Creek catchment • Few facilities: sport, walking-cycling trails • Information about barriers area- green corridor • Approx. 900.000 visitors/year • Very good reputation • Varied and numerous facilities: sport, trails, BBQ/picnic, playground • Used for various activities • Information re community use- park quality relationship

TIRHATUAN PARK • Habitat for the native flora and fauna • Used for a few activities: BBQ, walking/running, playground • The only enclosed, spacious dog park in the area  77 participants from three parks Methods

 Cross sectional design: data collected in three parks along the Dandenong Creek Corridor (2 occasions/park) Survey co-developed by HNSRG and Living Links  38 males, 38 females, 1 other (multiple choice and open ended questions)focusing on:  Median age group:30-39 years old  Frequency of park visit and duration, activities, companion AGE DISTRIBUTION  Travel mode and time 2.60% 18 - 29  Satisfaction with features and facilities 11.50%  Community involvement 30 - 39 9%  Motivators and barriers of park use 37.20% 40 - 49  Notes from data collection 50 - 59 14.10%  Analysis: 60 - 74  Quantitative: SPSS25 24.40% 75+  Qualitative: thematical approach Results - Frequency of park visits Academic focus • No variables were found to predict Living Links focus: • Significant difference between parks and visit the frequency of visits. frequency profiles (p=0.002) • Koomba and Tirhatuan Parks: more regular visits • No association with overall • Jells Park: more occasional visits impression and satisfaction

VISIT FREQUENCY IN EACH PARKS • No association with

Less than once a month Less than once a week but more than once a month At least once a week accessibility and facilities 75%

Associations: 53.80%

47.90% • Visiting the park alone (r=0.352; 30.80%

29.20% p=0.002)

22.90% 18.80%

15.40% • Visiting the park with adults 6.20% (r=-0.267; p=0.020) KOOMBA PARK JELLS PARK TIRHATUAN PARK Travel to parks

Travel mode Travel time

Mode of transport to each park Travel time to each parks 14 50 12 40 10 8 30 6 20 4 10 2 0 0 Koomba Park Jells Park Tirhatuan Park Koomba Park Jells Park Tirhatuan Park Less than 5 minutes 5-10 minutes 10-15 minutes Walk Bicycle Car Bus 15-20 minutes 20-30 minutes more than 30 minutes Significant association between parks and car use Significant association between parks and travel (Fisher’s Exact: 17.516; p=0.000) time (Fisher Exact: 18.900; p=0.018)

Academic focus - Sample characteristics? - Park choice → travel decision? • No association between travel time/mode and park activity - Free time → park visit? • No association between travel time/mode and visiting frequency - Parks visited by Koomba Park participants Other parks visited – data for - Parks visited by Jells Park participants Living Links - Parks visited by Tirhatuan Park participants Other parks visited- exploring the reasons REASONS FOR PEOPLE VISITING OTHER PARKS

 Based on qualitative data Proximity  Only a segment of the participants 7.69% answered this question 7.69% Physical activity  Proximity – primary reason 34.61% 11.53% Dog walking/off leash

Scenery wildlife  No relationship between travel time 15.38% and park visit frequency in the Facilities quantitative data 19.23%

 Data collection site visit might have Children been occasional

 Further research on most frequently visited parks would be beneficial Activity types

 No statistical difference between parks in the activities that are carried out by participants

ACTIVITIES IN EACH PARK Relaxation Unstructured exercise Organised sport Academic focus Oranised walk Informal social gathering Organised social activity Shortcut Other  Recoded variables by

activity types:

76.90%

75% 75%

 Physical activity (PA) 58.30%

46.20%  Social activity

31.30%  Relaxation

25%

20%

16.70%

15.40% 15.40% 12.50%

12.50%  Only associations with

8.30%

7.70%

6.30% 6.30% 6.30%

4.30%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00% companion KOOMBA PARK JELLS PARK TIRHATUAN PARK Companion while visiting parks Academic focus Relationship between companion WHO COMES WITH YOU NORMALLY? BREAKDOWN IN PARKS (%) and activity: - Visiting with adult companion Alone Adult Child Grandchild and relaxation (Phi=0.241, Friends Organised group Dog School group p=0.041)

62.50% - Social activity was associated

53.80% with visiting with

51.00%

46.70% 46.70%

46.20% - child (r=0.289; p=0.011) 38.50%

37.50% - grandchild (r=0.320; p=0.005) 33.30%

29.20% - friends (r=0.423; p=0.000)

26.70%

20.80% 18.80%

15.40% - Physical activity was associated

13.30%

8.30%

7.70% 7.70%

6.70% with visiting with

4.20% 4.20%

0% 0% 0.00% - child (r=0.241; p=0.036) KOOMBA PARK JELLS PARK TIRHATUAN PARK - dog (r=0.295; p=0.010) Overall impressions and satisfaction

Design Getting around Range of facilities  Significant differences between Flora maintanence Toilet facilities parks in the satisfaction

questions

4.6

4.54 4.5 

4.19 Overall satisfaction with Jells

4.13

4 4 4 4 4

3.87 Park was the highest and

3.46 Koomba Park the lowest. 3.23

2.979 Academic focus  Overall impression and overall

1.885 satisfaction was not associated with any other variables  Satisfaction with the design of the park - social activity

KOOMBA PARK JELLS PARK TIRHATUAN PARK (r=0.253; p=0.026) What would encourage people to use the space more often? Open ended questions – thematical analysis What encourages people to use the space more • Mostly facilities (and associated often Facilities- essentials activity) related • Few replies regarding programmes 8 Cleanliness

7 Café What essential facilities encourage people to 1 use the space more often 34 BBQ/picnic 4 3 Seats 1 8 Playground-children Toilets 5 facilities General Dog area 8 9 Lights PA opportunities 7 Shader and shelter 1 1 7 Proximity Bins

4 2 Drinking water Research notes

Information for Living Links Academic interest

 Observational notes

 Visitors

 Activities Generalisability and bias  Groups underrepresented in the sample Rigour  Informal conversations with Communication of Planning further participants results to Living Links research  Additional information: attitudes, things to improve

 Researchers’ personal experience Data interpretation

 Facilities

 Accessibility: e.g. lack of sufficient public transport option Conclusions

Results Research process

 Significant differences between parks in visitor Different focus from community organisational and academic numbers, satisfaction and travel accessibility perspective

 In line with previous statistics and park Living Links reputation  Summaries and statistics → base for infrastructural and  No conclusive result of predictors of park visit programme development frequency  Knowledge of parks and their history- evaluation  Satisfaction with parks and motivation to use them more: primarily related to satisfaction with facilities and design Academia  Focus on more complex relationship between factors  Activities and related facilities were important reasons for park choice  Relationship between green space characteristics and use (frequency, activities, visitor demographics)  Few participants reported barriers  Facilitators and barriers of park use  Limitations:

 Sample characteristics-short data collection period Resulted in further questions  Survey- revision needed worth exploring Contacts [email protected] [email protected]

Thank you.

Links  Health, Nature and Sustainability Research Group, Deakin University, Australia  Healthy Parks, Healthy People (2015)  Living Links  Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority