Liverpool Parks and Open Spaces Project 2006

Pilot Survey Report User Questionnaire

1

Contents

Page No. Part One: Introduction 3

Part Two: Survey 4 I Methodology 4 i. Selection of the site ii. Questionnaire model iii. Circulation and collection

II Reponses and Results 7

III Conclusion 16 i. Question breakdown ii. Recurrent issues/themes/concerns iii. Potential future research

Part Three: Viability Assessment 19 i. Circulation, accessibility and collection ii. Identification iii. Other

2

Part One: Introduction

Liverpool’s Parks The history of parks and open spaces in Liverpool, to a large extent mirrors the national ,picture. In 1833, the Select Committee on Public Walks emphasised the need to provide accessible space for recreation to improve the health of the urban population, to diffuse social tensions, and to create meeting places where 'the classes could learn from each other' (Conway, 1991, pp.3, 5). This challenge was taken up initially by the Commissioners for the Improvement of Birkenhead, with the opening of the first fully municipal park in 1847 designed by Joseph Paxton. An ambitious plan for a ring of nine separate parks around Liverpool was drawn up by H.P. Homer in 1850, but cost considerations restricted development to Wavertree (1856) and Shiel Park (1862). Only after the Liverpool Improvement Act of 1865 were key elements of the original plan finally realised with the opening of Newsham (1868), Stanley (1870) and Sefton (1872) parks, which represented truly public access to open space. Both the range and nature of open space provision changed significantly in the course of the twentieth century. Initially, new park facilities were created through the acquisition of former estates, as at (1902) and Norris Green (1930), or as a result of private bequests (Clarke Gardens, 1923). Land was acquired and developed for the provision of sports facilities, in particular municipal golf courses during the 1920s at Allerton (1921) and Arrowe Park, Birkenhead (1927). As a result, the provision of parks and open spaces on has evolved through distinct development phases, which has led to a diverse range of heritage, park estate and semi-natural landscapes which represent an important environmental, recreational, educational and health resource for local communities.

The Project In January 2006, the University of Liverpool launched a year-long project to research the historical and contemporary significance of the city’s parks and green spaces. The aim of the project was to develop a detailed understanding of this neglected aspect of Liverpool’s historic townscape. Over twelve months the project has identified key phases of development in Liverpool’s green space provision and made significant progress in researching the social, cultural and environmental impact of the city’s parks.

The Pilot Survey The University of Liverpool pilot project incorporated a number of research strands that included the historical and contemporary design, use and perception of the city’s parks. One of the greatest challenges facing the project was how to access contemporary public opinion regarding parks, their maintenance and future. Rather than relying upon existing reports that look at the national picture, a small-scale pilot survey was devised through which future research themes could be identified.

3

Part Two: Survey I Methodology

i. Selection of the site One of the central objectives of the University of Liverpool pilot project was to evaluate the viability of a number of research methodologies for a subsequent three-year research project. Therefore, the scope and scale of each of the research strand was necessarily limited to that which could be accomplished within the initial twelve-month time frame. Rather than conducting a city-wide survey, covering all of the parks attended to by the pilot project, it was decided to select one site that would potentially generate a substantial number of responses and test the viability of this method of data collection. Of the five sites addressed in the pilot project, only three were large enough to enable a local survey of the desired size: Newsham Park, Prince’s Park and . Of these three, Sefton Park had already undergone a local consultation process in connection with recent lottery funding bids and Prince’s Park was so close to the Sefton site as to ensure that any local survey would incorporate the same households that had been involved in the Sefton Park consultation. It was therefore resolved that Newsham Park, located in an area of high deprivation to the east of the city, presented the most promising site for such a survey. ii. Questionnaire model The survey took the form of a brief questionnaire, which identified a responder’s demographic group and their current level of engagement with the park. In addition to a number of closed questions, the questionnaire was designed to enable responders to raise issues that were of particular concern to them. This flexibility was important as the responses were to be used to identify potential future lines of research. The questionnaire was anonymous and did not require responders to indicate their address or declare any previous involvement in park management or campaigns. Responders were invited to indicate their involvement with any groups or societies that use the park if they wished, but this was optional and the decision to leave this section blank did not invalidate the completed questionnaire. iii. Circulation and collection The original intention was to circulate questionnaires and collect responses in the following ways: A) Through door-to-door mailing in the immediate vicinity of the park to be returned by post or via the drop-off box at the nearby Newsham Park Adult Education Centre. B) Through questionnaires left at the central library along with a drop-off box C) Through direct, on-site questionnaire interviews with park users D) Online

Door-to-door mailing Over the first weekend of October 2006, 350 questionnaires were distributed to households on the direct periphery of Newsham Park. Where single properties had been divided into a number of separate units, a questionnaire was left for each unit. Although not every

4 property in the area received a questionnaire, every household on the direct periphery of the park received one, including a representative mix of social housing and private flats and houses. The map below indicates the extent of the questionnaire’s distribution. Roads within the immediate vicinity of the park that are not marked in red either contain no properties or the properties are not currently inhabited, e.g. garages or derelict housing.

Key: ——— Streets that received questionnaire

Newsham Drive Adult Education Centre

The following roads on the periphery of the park received questionnaires as part of the direct mail shot: Newsham Drive; Gardner’s Drive; Newsham Drive; Judges Drive; Judges Way; Strathmore Road; Denman Drive; Denman Way; Balmoral Road; Carstairs Road; Hampstead Road; Elm Vale; Hendon Road; Callander Road; Elstree Road; Prescot Drive. Residents of these properties were invited to either return the completed questionnaire via post at their own expense, or else to use the drop-off facility located at the Newsham Park Adult Education Centre (indicated on the map above). A deadline of one month (1st November 2006) was given for the completion and return of the questionnaires.

Liverpool Central Library At the same time as questionnaires were delivered to households around Newsham Park, a number of copies were left in two locations at Liverpool Central Library. One stack was left in the local studies section and one was left in the main entrance to the library. Each were located next to a sealed drop-off box where completed questionnaires could be left for collection. The same deadline of 1st November 2006 was given for the completion of the survey. Although the content of all the questionnaires was the same, the library questionnaires did not have a cover sheet like those distributed to households as information and instructions were contained within a poster displayed above the questionnaires. As well as saving on printing costs, this enabled the easy identification of ‘local’ responses and ‘city’ responses.

5 Direct, on-site questionnaire interviews In addition to these remote forms of data collection, it was originally intended that the survey should be brought to park users via on-site interviews. However, despite fine weather on the days selected for this purpose and the decision to take this sample during the weekend, there were little to no potential interviewees in the park on these dates. Therefore, it was decided to abandon this form of data collection.

Online From the start it was recognised that the more widely-disseminated the questionnaire could be, the more diverse and valuable the potential responses and findings. Therefore, it was desirable to make the questionnaire accessible online. Various attempts were made to enable the questionnaire to be made interactive so that results could be collected automatically online. However, the technical requirements for such a facility exceeded the timeframe and budget available for the project. As a result, the questionnaire was available online in standard Word format only. Any responders were required to print out their completed questionnaire and return it by post.

6

II Responses and Results

Responses In total 61 completed questionnaires were received. 29 were completed in the library and returned via the drop-off boxes at that location and 32 were completed by Newsham Park residents and returned via the drop-off box at Newsham Park Adult Education Centre or by post. Despite responders having to bear the cost of postage themselves, the majority of questionnaires received from residents were returned through Royal Mail. No responses were generated from the online questionnaire. In general, the most detailed and enthusiastic responses were those received from local residents who often conveyed personal thanks in ‘unofficial’ comments in the margin. Statements such as ‘we love this area and will help in any way we can’ recur throughout the responses.

Results The results have been collated and translated into the following charts. In the case of open questions, where the responders could cite a number of issues/themes/concerns, every issue has been recorded and every citation counted. Where responders list more than one issue/theme/concern, each one has been registered and attributed equal significance.

Question 1.

Do you visit Newsham Park?

60 56

50

40 29 Yes 30 27 No 20

10 224 0 Local ResidentsLibrary responses Total

7 Question 2.

How do you travel to Newsham Park? by bus 10%

car 13%

bicycle 12% on foot 65%

How do you travel to Newsham Park? Resident/library response breakdown

30 25 20 resident responses 15 library responses 10 5 0 on foot by by car by train by bus other bicycle

8 Question 3.

Why do you go to the park? The majority of responses to this question fell into the following categories: *transit (a route to another location); * family recreation; *solitary recreation (incl. peace and quiet); *dog walking; *sport and exercise; *the lakes.

What do you presently like there? *general environment; *fresh air; *social interaction; *specific historic or horticultural features; *wildlife.

Why do you go to the park?

No positives 3%

Transit 13% Wildlife 11%

Features 5% Family recreation 8% Social contact 3%

Fresh air 4% Solitary recreation 13%

General landscape 17% Dog w alking 6%

Sport 5% Lakes 12%

9 Question 4.

How well is the park maintained?

very poorly 9% very well 7%

well 21% poorly 24%

adequately 39%

How well is the park maintained? Resident/Library response breakdown

14 12 10 8 residents responses 6 library responses 4 2 0 ll ell ly w te ry we ua oorly q p ve de a very poorly

10 Question 5. gangs intimidation and litter/vandalism personal safety 32% landscape and maintenance maintenance 12% quad bikesquad dog fouling perceptions dangerous dogs number of citations of number drug and alchohol use vehicles 14% using theusing park? criminal activity25% poor lighting no police/security dog-related 17% traffic noise congestionand prostitution Breakdown of most recurrent negative negative recurrent most of Breakdown other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 What least? anything Does prevent do you like you from

11 Question 6. security presence security improved horticultural maintenance number of citations of number refreshment facility improve housing stock improved lighting dog-control Could anything be improved? litter or recycling bins more benches improved facilities play reinstate sports pitches/ greens toilets more events more rowing boats on the lake pedestrianise the park public consultation information boards/ maps What would like see in to you the park? other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

12 Question 7.

residents responses residents responses library total

Association

Residents

Elm Park Elm

Home

Estate

Beatles

Partnership

Citysafe

Boating Park Model Park

involved in the park?

Newsham

Park Forum Park

Newsham

Park Newsham

Are you aware of any of the groups/bodies/clubs groups/bodies/clubs of the any of aware you Are Friends of Friends 5 0 40 35 30 25 20 15 10

13 Question 8.

Would any events attract you to the park?

45 40 35 30 residents responses 25 library responses 20 15 total 10 5 0

d s r tre n rs e a a u ort h certs b p days ot n y l to s y o the a ia il c d c n e p fam Su s music

Question 9.

Would any events deter you from using the park?

12 10 8 residents responses 6 library responses 4 2 total 0

s e s s r rt nd rt ys e atr a o a e b tour d othe nc h l sp o t y a ly c da ci mi n e ic u fa s S sp mu

14 Question 10.

There were no specific responses to this question.

Question 11.

To which age group do you belong?

under 15 years 5%

65 years or over 19% 15-24 years 8%

25-34 years 14%

55-64 years 26% 35-44 years 14%

45-54 years 14%

15

III Conclusions

Question 1. Do you visit Newsham Park? A high proportion of those who responded indicated that they do visit the park. Although this does not reveal whether the park is generally well-used, it does suggest that the responses to subsequent questions are informed by a good familiarity with the park, its history and facilities.

Question 2. How do you travel to Newsham Park? A massive 65% of those who responded cited ‘on foot’. This may not be representative of all users of the park as there was a high response rate from local residents (for whom the park is within easy walking distance). However, a similar pattern is evident in the library responses, which suggests that public transport in the form of buses or trains does not serve to attract substantial numbers of visitors from further a field. Although only slightly more popular than buses or bicycles, cars are the second most popular form of transport to Newsham Park, placing potential pressure upon local roads and parking facilities—an issue that surfaces as a perceived problem in later questions.

Question 3. Where do you go in the park? What do you presently like there? Despite the government’s current emphasis upon sport, by far the most commonly cited positives were those relating to the general environment. Trees, grass and planting dominated the responses in this section. It is the landscape that draws people to the park, with the lakes comprising 12% of the cited positives and wildlife constituting, a perhaps surprising, 11%. Complementing these environmental qualities, solitary recreation is cited as the joint most common reason for visiting the park, alongside ‘transit’, when locals choose to use the park as a route to another destination. The popularity of ‘transit’ as a perceived benefit of the park, suggests that this role might be enhanced and promoted as it inhibits the use of cars and promotes cycling and walking in their stead. Despite the clear concerns that arise in response to later questions, only 3% of responders cited no positives in relation to Newsham Park.

Question 4. How well is the park maintained? The responses to this question are at odds with some of those given to later questions. 67% of responses fitted into the positive categories of ‘adequately’, ‘well’ and ‘very well’. However, the majority of these positive responses (39% of the entire responses) selected ‘adequately’. Only 33% of responders deemed the poor to be ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’ maintained. Rather than interpreting these results to be an endorsement of the current management strategy for Newsham, they might be understood as reflecting the relatively low significance placed upon maintenance, as opposed to other issues, which are currently viewed to be more urgent and therefore, important (see Question 5).

Question 5. What do you like least? Does anything prevent you from using the park? This is perhaps the most important section of the questionnaire and it was answered in the greatest detail by the majority of the responders. Reponses were dominated by concerns relating to criminal behaviour and personal safety. Issues relating to ‘Gangs and

16 intimidation’ were cited 31 times, while factors that fall within the category of crime, safety and anti-social behaviour constituted 71% of all negative issues relating to the park. A number of specific complaints were repeated across the majority of responses to this question. Dangerous dogs and the use of quad bikes and mini-motorcycles are identified as areas of concern that are especially specific to Newsham Park. Although prostitution is cited by 7 responders, it is perceived to be less negative than the use of drugs, alcohol and threatening behaviour in the park. The majority of concerns are related to activities that take place in the park during the evening and night and many responders described the park as a no-go area after dark. This potentially curtails more positive uses of the park, such as a transit route for pedestrians. Interestingly, it is not only those responsible for crime and damage that are perceived to be the problem. The lack of engagement with the issue by the authorities, both LCC and the Police, is identified by many responders as an active negative. ‘Poor lighting’ and ‘no police’ are cited a total of 17 times as a factor that prevents people from using the park. It seems clear that a security presence in the form of Police or park rangers is perceived as an essential component of a good park, not merely a response to anti- social behaviour. It is perhaps significant to note factors that do not feature in any of the responses. The lack of security cameras is not identified by any responder as a negative factor and no existing facility is perceived to be undesirable.

Question 6. What would you like to see in the park? Could anything be improved? The responses to this question reflect those given in Question 5. The desire for a security presence in the park is immense and is cited by 37 responders (over half of the total). Despite apparently fair satisfaction levels regarding general maintenance, horticultural maintenance is perceived as a potential area for massive improvement. The remaining recommendations are relatively evenly represented. However, adequate toilet and refreshment facilities are cited by some responders as necessary additions to enable a greater range of activities and events in the park.

Question 7. Are you aware of any of the groups/bodies/cubs involved in the park? Overwhelmingly, the most widely-recognised group was the Friends of Newsham Park, followed by Elm Park Residents Association. This pattern was reflected across both local resident responses and library responses and indicates the potential audience for Friends groups.

Question 8. Would any events attract you to the park? The two post popular potential events were identified as music concerts and family days. However, the overall spread of interest was relatively even. Most of the suggested events received a significant level of interest. However, the popularity of such events was tempered by negative responses to the same events in Question 9.

Question 9. Would any events deter you from using the park? Ironically, the most popular attractions identified in Question 8 were also identified as the most contentious in Question 9. Music concerts were cited as undesirable by ten responders, followed closely by a Sunday band and sports. Noise is clearly a concern for local residents. However, the number of negative responses given to suggested events were far lower than the positive responses given in Question 8.

Question 10. Are there any specific amenities that would encourage your club/ association to utilise the Park more often than at present? There were no specific responses given to Question 10. All responses were of general improvements indicated in earlier questions.

17 Question 11. To which age group do you belong? The majority of responses were received from people over the age of 45. 45% of responders identified themselves as being aged 55 or over. This may suggest that the responses are not representative of the local population. However, the area surrounding Newsham Park is inhabited by a large number of elderly people. Many of these people have resided in the vicinity all their lives and feel a deep commitment to the park and its future. Therefore, the large proportion of responses from this demographic group could be deemed to be an accurate reflection of the local community. Notwithstanding this observation, younger age groups were represented in the survey, with 35-44 year olds and 25-34 year olds, each accounting for 14% of responses.

Recurrent issues/themes/concerns • Criminal behaviour—particularly drugs, theft, intimidation, dangerous dogs and vandalism • A sense of abandonment by the authorities—both security and maintenance • A prevalent desire to improve the park and its immediate vicinity • A nostalgia for the park’s former days. Although Newsham Park was never as grand as some of the city’s other sites, it was valued as a safe place for family recreation and sport. • The exclusion of certain vulnerable groups such as OAPs, lone women and children from the park, especially from dusk onwards.

Potential future research • A number of responders indicated that they had lived near Newsham Park all their lives and intimated that they had an extensive knowledge of the park, its history and evolution. A few have provided addresses and these routes of enquiry might be pursued. • The prevalence of criminal behaviour within Newsham Park and the manner in which this affects the use of the park, day and night, has emerged as a clear and important subject for further study. In connection with this problem is the perception that Newsham Park has been abandoned by and by the Police in favour of parks located in more prosperous areas. This indicates that Newsham Park may be a good case study through which to evaluate the relationship between public perceptions and realities regarding park management policies. • The initial intention to include the nearby city academy school in the questionnaire process was not realised. Attempts to contact and meet with the headmaster failed and the time constraints meant that the survey process had to proceed without their involvement. The attitudes and perceptions of the pupils, teachers and parents from the academy might provide some interesting comparisons and contrasts with the findings of the pilot survey. • Further detailed study of the public transport network serving Newsham Park, and the potential impact of such facilities upon park usage, may prove a fruitful line of enquiry. This might include a comparative study with a different location where the provision of public transport has made a positive impact upon visitor numbers and park usage. • The role of urban green space as a transit route emerged as an important factor in the daily use of Newsham Park. The ESRC proposal currently under development highlights the ‘green infrastructure’ as an important research theme and this is certainly supported by the findings of the Newsham Park survey.

18

Part Three: Viability Assessment

Alongside identifying future research themes and informing current research, one of the central objectives of the Newsham Park questionnaire was to test the viability of extending such a public survey across Liverpool, incorporating a range of parks and gardens. i. Circulation, accessibility and collection • The most significant and recurrent problem encountered during the pilot survey was that of circulation and access. Although the area targeted in the household survey was relatively small, budget constraints dictated that the project could provide pre-paid envelopes for the return of the questionnaires. Although a number of residents were prepared to pay the cost of postage themselves, it must be assumed that the lack of a postage-paid facility deterred some residents from returning their forms. In addition, the dependence upon responders funding the return of questionnaires themselves creates a methodological weakness as those individuals who feel most passionately about the park or who have a particular grievance are more likely to pro-actively invest in the process in this way. One solution would be to make the questionnaire available online. This would reduce the reprographic and postage costs. However, this would only be acceptable if initiated alongside a traditional hard-copy questionnaire as some of Liverpool’s parks are located in economically deprived areas, where internet access is not universal. • The second problem in the circulation and distribution of the questionnaires was that of accessing the various institutions and commercial investors in the vicinity of the park. The inclusion and engagement of large institutions such as local schools, employers and societies is crucial if large numbers of responses are to be received at relatively low cost. ii. Identification • In order to maintain anonymity and enable responders to express their concerns and grievances freely, it was decided to allow responders to remain anonymous. With such an emotive issue as public green space it is important to enable members of the public to enter into the debate. However, it is possible that interest groups with a particular political or economic objective may make multiple responses in an attempt to skew the findings of the survey. Therefore, it may be advisable to request that responders to future surveys enter their postcode—or the first section of the same—to provide a clearer picture of where the responses originate. Although this would not prevent the abuse of the survey process by determined individuals, it may highlight which parks or locations are more prone to this form of abuse and therefore, inform the interpretation of data collected in those locations. This will be particularly important if questionnaires are made available online, and therefore become more easy and cheap to respond to.

19 iv. Other • During the pilot project the Research Associate has been in regular contact with the various members of the steering group. These include: academics within the University of Liverpool, professionals from CabeSpace and English Heritage and officers from Liverpool City Council. Information about the project and its research methods, including the pilot survey, were relayed to various councillors and interested groups as a matter of courtesy and to promote public awareness of the project and its objectives. Nevertheless, a councillor from the Newsham Park area expressed anger that the survey had been initiated without his personal authority. If such methods of data collection are to be pursued in the future, it must be made clear to all interested parties that the University of Liverpool project is first and foremost an academic research project, and as such must maintain academic objectivity throughout. To surrender control of the project, its methodology or output to another authority would jeopardise the objectivity of the research and, therefore, the reliability and validity of its findings.

• From the beginning of the research project, the intention has been to circulate the findings of the survey to as wide an audience as possible. This audience should include: academics, heritage and public space professionals and the general public. Therefore, before any other survey is undertaken, it is essential that the machinery and funds be organised for the public dissemination of the findings. Over the next eight months a webpage will be launched for the project and this might represent the most affordable and quickest way in which to publish the findings of any future survey.

Overall, the Newsham Park pilot survey has proved a valuable and important exercise in accessing the attitudes, perceptions and concerns of residents about their local park. Despite issues of funding and identification, the process has proved relatively successful and has raised a number of issues relating to the park that would not have arisen through library or archive-based research. In particular, the greatest concerns expressed referred to activities that take place after dark, and which, due to their criminal nature, would be dangerous to investigate in person. It is hoped that the findings of this survey will inform future management and policing strategies for Newsham Park and encourage similar processes of public engagement across the city.

Dr. Katy Jones School of History University of Liverpool

Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank the following individuals and organisation whose cooperation enabled the completion of the pilot survey: Colum Giles, Prof. Robert Lee, David Massey, Sue Kidd, John Stonard, Paul Scragg, Nigel Sharp, the staff of Liverpool Central Library and Liverpool Record Office, the staff of Newsham Park Adult Education Centre, and the Historic Environment of Liverpool Project.

20