REVIEW of PARKS SATISFACTION RESEARCH STUDY 2005 Page 1 of 69

Page 1 of 69

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Agenda Item 5.4 COMMITTEE REPORT

2 August 2005 REVIEW OF PARKS SATISFACTION RESEARCH STUDY 2005

Division Assets & Services

Presenter Graham Porteous, Manager Sport Recreation & Business Support

Purpose

1. To report on the findings of the 2005 Parks Satisfaction Research Study of park users in key City of Melbourne parks and gardens. The Study was undertaken by Roger James and Associates, Research and Communications Consultants during March and April 2005.

Recommendations

2. That the Planning and Environment Committee:

2.1. note the 2005 Parks Satisfaction Research Study findings; and

2.2. commend the proposed improvements to all concerned so that the best outcome possible is achieved through the application of this information.

Key Issues

3. The main goals of the research are to:

3.1 comprehensively measure customer satisfaction with Parks and Gardens managed by the City of Melbourne as they relate to various attributes considered important by users;

3.2 provide comparative and cumulative results with data collected in previous studies and identify any trends or patterns that are emerging; and

3.3 define priorities for improvement (implemented through Capital Works projects and Open Space Maintenance Contracts).

4. Key elements of the Survey for 2005 included:

4.1. approximately 1600 face-to-face interviews with visitors in: Birrarung Marr, Carlton Gardens, Fawkner Park, Fitzroy Gardens, Flagstaff Gardens, Princes Park, Royal Park, Treasury Gardens, and Yarra Park. (King’s Domain, Queen Victoria Gardens and Alexandra Gardens were treated as one site);

4.2. approximately 300 contacts were made with people not in a park or garden (non park users), defined as people interviewed in the city who had not visited any City of Melbourne park in the previous six months;

4.3. interviews were conducted at different times of the day, covering every day of the week through various dates in March and April 2005; and Page 2 of 69

4.4. respondents identified as an almost exact 50/50 split of males and females with a wide spread of age groups.

5. Key findings in relation to the types of visitors to the major parks are as follows:

5.1. the largest group of park users are full time employed workers visiting the parks for relaxation or for lunch, with students comprising the next largest group;

5.2. the total sample surveyed, 62% currently work or study in the City of Melbourne, almost 25% live in the City of Melbourne and 58% live in metropolitan Melbourne;

5.3. just over 40% identified the internet as their primary source of information about parks; and

5.4. more than 50% had walked to the park where they were interviewed, the highest ratio being at Yarra Park where 77% were in this category, followed by 67% at Treasury Gardens and 61% at Fawkner Park.

6. Key findings in relation to park visitor satisfaction included:

6.1. the overall satisfaction with park visitation remains very positive, with a slight increase on last year’s ratings from 66.9% to 70.9%;

6.2. there are four significant areas of improvement when comparing results for 2005 with those from 2004. Those areas are ‘picnics and play’, ‘maintenance’, ‘convenience factors’ and ‘toilets’ e.g. Fitzroy Gardens registered a marked increase in satisfaction with ‘picnics and play’ (probably due to the upgrade of the playground and the installation of the new dragon feature);

6.3. these results can be directly attributed to measures undertaken during the past year addressing park-specific areas of potential improvement in visitor satisfaction through the Capital Works program and the quality assurance process that monitors the performance of the Open Space contractors;

6.4. one question (modified from previous surveys) to assess visitor interest in the on-site provision of information relating to park history and wildlife found that more than 50% of total visitors would welcome more information on park history and wildlife; and

6.5. some specific issues in particular parks were identified with Royal Park having the most negative rating on the availability of toilets, continuing concerns over rubbish on the river bank in Birrarung Marr, and the John F Kennedy memorial water feature in Treasury Gardens criticised for lack of water and perceived lack of maintenance.

7. In its conclusion the survey found that:

“The overall view for 2005 is very positive, with a number of park performance dimensions showing significant increases and others that were strong last year maintaining high level scores. Visitors to the major parks show high levels of appreciation and rate them as performing very well indeed.”

8. From a statistical research perspective, improving the current high levels will be difficult. The focus will be on maintaining or slightly increasing the positive results and addressing those areas of concern. Examples of park-specific issues that will be addressed include:

8.1. assessing the availability of toilet facilities in Royal Park and of signage information advising visitors of toilet locations;

2 Page 3 of 69

8.2. undertaking discussions with Parks Victoria, (who manage the Yarra River), with regard to monitoring the maintenance and waste collection on the river bank alongside Birrarung Marr;

8.3. continuing to develop a suite of on-line and hard copy interpretive information; and

8.4. completing the major renovation of the John F Kennedy Memorial Lake in Treasury Gardens. Severe structural cracking has already been repaired, the original rock work has been rebuilt and the electricity supply is currently being renewed to provide improved lighting and power to the water pumps. The work is expected to be completed by the end of August 2005.

9. The positive results of the 2005 Parks Satisfaction Research Study present a challenging opportunity to:

9.1. maintain park features and attributes at this standard during the expected level of unprecedented park visitation associated with the Commonwealth Games; and

9.2. maintain and improve on the current level of park visitor satisfaction in the next annual research study.

Time Frame

10. The consultant was appointed 4 March 2005 to commence fieldwork 18 March 2005. The Draft Report was submitted 11 June and the Final Report followed on 24 June 2005.

Relation to Council Policy

11. City Plan 2010 includes Strategic Direction 3.2 (Deliver and provide access to facilities and services to support those living in, visiting and working in the City) under Theme 3 of Inclusive and Engaging City.

11.1. City of Melbourne Parks Policy:

11.1.1. ensures that Council’s practices are leading edge by actively participating in benchmarking programs to identify and adopt best practice management,

11.1.2. parks and gardens will be managed to excellent standards, and

11.1.3. the overall park network will be developed to provide excellent facilities for residents, city workers and visitors including the provision of recreation and leisure opportunities.

11.2. Growing Green Policy: Environmental Indicator – Physical standard of open space and recreational facilities; Desired Outcome – Improved asset condition and park user satisfaction over time; Measures – Customer satisfaction survey, perception of City’s parks.

Consultation

12. Consultation with key stakeholders will be undertaken as appropriate for any significant capital works arising from these findings.

3 Page 4 of 69

Government Relations

13. Council has responsibility for the management of all parks and gardens within the municipality (except the Royal Botanic Gardens). Governance of these parks and gardens can be summarised into 3 categories: Council as Joint Trustee; Council appointed as Committee of Management by the State Government; or Council as the land owner.

14. Pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989:

14.1. all services provided by Council must be responsive to the needs of the community;

14.2. a Council must develop a program of regular consultation with its community in relation to the services it provides; and

14.3. a Council must achieve continuous improvement when providing services to the community for whom the service is intended.

Finance

15. Any changes to existing facilities or services will be delivered from the existing Parks & Recreation budget.

Legal

16. The report is for noting only. No legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in the report.

Sustainability

17. Well managed, leading and financially responsible city: While the Parks Satisfaction Research is a discrete project, comparison with previous surveys serves to highlight any decline in user satisfaction and to identify specific areas for improvement.

18. Welcoming and safe public pla ce: The findings of this Study identify toilet, seating and lighting requirements to be addressed in the Capital Works budget and to manage facilities maintenance by open space contractors.

Comments

19. The demonstrated improvement in satisfaction levels of park visitors for 2005 is an endorsement of the Research process and of the implementation of the recommendations of 2004.

Background

20. This is a eighth year a research study has been commissioned to measure the level of satisfaction related to the use of Melbourne’s Parks and Gardens by residents and visitors to the City. Over the previous seven surveys, the requirements of the research have evolved and been refined, with an additional survey of ‘non park users’ being included since 2000.

Attachment: 1. Research Study ‘Park Satisfaction 2005’ Overview and Overall Report (DRAFT) 4 Page 5 of 69 Attachment 1 Roger James & Associates Agenda Item 5.4 Research & Communications Consultants Planning and Environment Committee 2 August 2005 3 Glen Court, Templestowe, Victoria 3106 z Voice: +61 3 9846 6800 z E-Mail: [email protected]

Research Study

Parks Satisfaction 2005

Overview and Overall Report

[Draft]

June 2005

Hillcroft Services Pty. Ltd. [ABN 70 730 568 413] trading as Roger James & Associates Page 6 of 69 Roger James & Associates Research & Communications Consultants

3 Glen Court, Templestowe, Victoria 3106 z Voice: +61 3 9846 6800 z E-Mail: [email protected]

Table of Contents

Overview and Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary – Overview of Park Performance in 2005 1 Executive Summary – Conclusions and recommendations 12 Introduction 13 Methods 14 Detailed Results – Characteristics of the sample 16 Detailed Results – Behaviour, attitude, knowledge and satisfaction 23 Non-visitor Survey Report 30 Tabulation of non-visitor open-ended responses 46 Appendix 1 – Visitor Survey 52 Appendix 2 – Non-visitor Survey 59

Hillcroft Services Pty. Ltd. [ABN 70 730 568 413] trading as Roger James & Associates Page 7 of 69 Roger James & Associates Research & Communications Consultants

3 Glen Court, Templestowe, Victoria 3106, Australia z Voice: +61 3 9846 6800 z E-Mail: [email protected]

Measuring Satisfaction with the City of Melbourne Parks and Gardens Overview and Executive Summary Overview of Park performance in 2005 – comparisons with 2004 This overview brings together all the measures of satisfaction, performance and importance for all respondents. A summary view:

• Overall satisfaction with park visitation remains strongly positive … The mean score [average] for overall satisfaction is close to 6.0 on a seven point scale, as it was in 2004. It has not changed significantly since last year and remains very positive.

• Satisfaction with a number of the dimensions of park performance has risen for 2005 … As well as showing strong overall satisfaction ratings, there have been four significant improvements in dimensions of park performance comparing 2005 with 2004. The dimensions that have rise are picnics and play, maintenance, convenience factors and toilets, as part of a very positive picture overall for the 10 major parks surveyed.

• There is only one decreases in major parks measures … The only major measure that has decreased significantly this year is people’s ratings of the importance of the presence of parks in Melbourne. However this remains at a very high level [6.62 on a seven point scale].

These results present a very strong picture of the performance of the major City of Melbourne parks. While there are some issues in individual parks that might be addressed, it is difficult to see where any further major improvements could be made, given the current levels of satisfaction and ratings of performance. Further, as with 2004, the dimensions of park performance which are most important in contributing to overall satisfaction [special park qualities and maintenance] remain very strong.

Hillcroft Services Pty. Ltd. [ABN 70 730 568 413] trading as Roger James & Associates Page 8 of 69 Roger James & Associates 2

Park Satisfaction Indices In this overview, in detailed results and in individual park reports, a measure is used that has been described as a Parks Performance Index or Park Satisfaction Index. This measure has been used in earlier studies and has been requested for the current study.

This index has been likened to a ‘total satisfaction’ percentage; and is a figure expressed as a proportion of 100. It is derived by assigning weights to the proportions of respondents choosing scores on a seven point satisfaction scale as follows:

Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Satisfied Weighting: 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.67 0.67 1.00 Ï Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

This ‘total satisfaction’ measure or Index effectively eliminates scores of 1 and 2. Next it adds a proportion of the dissatisfied score 3 and the neutral score 4 to the total satisfaction [or positive] measures, at the same weighting, despite the scores being different and one being a negative rating. Then it treats scores of 5 and 6 as being the same [giving the same weighting for both], and finally gives a higher weighting [1.00] to scores of 7. For these reasons it is recommended that these measures be treated with caution.

Page 9 of 69 Roger James & Associates 3

Overall performance rating for all parks Using the seven point satisfaction scale: Overall Mean Score rating for all parks – 5.01

Overall Mean Score rating for all parks for 2004 – 4.96

Using the allocation of percentage scores to ratings: Overall Park Performance index [or Customer Satisfaction Index] score – 60.0

Overall Park Performance index score for 2004 – 56.8

The Overall Mean Score is derived by combining all Park Performance Ratings for all parks and calculating an overall mean.

The Overall Park Performance index is derived by assigning percentage rankings to the score distributions.

Statistical testing of the data distributions thus applies to both measures. This test shows no significant change from 2004 to 2005.

Page 10 of 69 Roger James & Associates 4

Park Performance – Performance Indices – Strategic Focus Window Next we consider the other measures of overall performance that may be applied across all parks, satisfaction with the management of parks, judgements of the importance of the presence of parks and overall satisfaction with park visitation.

5.80 Satisfaction with the Management of Parks 5.76

Importance of the 6.62 presence of Parks in Melbourne 6.74

5.76 Overall Satisfaction with the Park visited 5.67

Mean 2005 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Mean 2004

There has been a small, but statistically significant decline in feelings about the importance of the presence of Parks in Melbourne, though the mean score is still strongly positive on a seven point scale. Overall satisfaction is very slightly higher but not significantly so.

Total Total Satisfied Satisfied PSI -2005 PSI -2004 Percent Satisfied Overall 70.9 66.9

The computation of ‘total satisfied’, which is the aggregate of all positive scores in all park satisfaction dimensions, has also increased slightly.

Page 11 of 69 Roger James & Associates 5

Overall Park Performance – Time Series

80.3 80 80.7

76.6 76.3 71.2 70.9 70 % Satisfied 66.9

50 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

After declining for three years, this figure shows an increase for 2005.

Page 12 of 69 Roger James & Associates 6

Dimensions of Park Performance

7.00

5.97 6.00 5.91

5.49 5.36 5.11 5.02 4.99 4.98 5.00 4.85 4.85 4.66 4.56 4.40 4.32 4.41 4.18 4.00

3.00 Picnics MaintenanceSpecial Park Park External Internal Convenience Toilets and Play Qualities Features Access and Access and Factors Information Information Mean 2005

Mean 2004

Dimensions of Park Performance Overall Overall Mean 2005 Mean 2004 ? Picnics and Play 4.66 4.40 Ï Maintenance 5.49 5.36 Ï Special Park Qualities 5.91 5.97 - Park Features 5.02 4.99 - External Access and Information 5.11 4.85 - Internal Access and Information 4.98 4.85 - Convenience Factors 4.56 4.32 Ï Toilets 4.41 4.33 Ï

Dimensions of Park Performance - Mean Scores 2004, 2005 Four dimensions of park performance overall show significant increases from 2004 to 2005, with no statistically significant decreases. In company with a number increases seen in individual parks this is very encouraging, though we do need to note that this year there are no scores from Holland Park, which was not surveyed for 2005, and that this might influence results. However, we examined last year’s results and found that that in two of the four dimensions which have improved this year Holland Park was slightly above the overall averages for 2004, though it was below in the other two. Given

Page 13 of 69 Roger James & Associates 7

that it also contributed less than 10% of the total numbers, it is reasonable to judge this year’s changes as they appear.

Park Performance by PSI Scores

Dimensions of Park Performance Total Total Change Satisfied Satisfied PSI -2005 PSI -2004 Picnics and Play 51.9 50.1 1.8 Maintenance 65.7 79.3 -13.6 Special Park Qualities 73.8 91.7 -17.9 Park Features 57.6 64.4 -6.8 External Access and Information 60.2 60.0 0.2 Internal Access and Information 57.9 70.2 -12.3 Convenience Factors 49.1 50.8 -1.7 Toilets 47.4 51.2 -3.8

The measures of detailed park performance based on total satisfied scores show some slight increases and a number of decreases. Some results are considerably at odds with the mean scores for these items. For example, in the case of picnics and play, the PSI scores are very similar, yet there has been a significant increase in this dimension of performance when measured by the mean scores. Perhaps more concerning, the PSI scores for maintenance, convenience factors and toilets have all declined, substantially so in the case of maintenance, when according to the computation of means, there have been significant increases in all three dimensions. This highlights the methodological difficulties in using this method.

Strategic focus issues for parks In terms of strategic focus issues for parks, the key satisfaction ratings are contrasted with our relative importance measures which were collected in a separate short questionnaire conducted in conjunction with the main survey in 2004. These values show the relative importance of each park dimension in terms of contributing to visitor satisfaction, and are a break-up of 100 points, derived from a conjoint analysis exercise carried out last year [see 2004 report for details].

The conjoint analysis determines relative importance by asking respondents to make judgements about their satisfaction when visiting imaginary parks in which the level at which each dimension is delivered varies. The relative importance values are shown in the next table, together with the mean scores for each dimension for all parks.

Page 14 of 69 Roger James & Associates 8

Dimensions of Park Performance Mean Relative Score Importance Picnics and Play 4.66 13.85 Maintenance 5.49 15.78 Special Park Qualities 5.91 17.41 Park Features 5.02 13.18 External Access and Information 5.11 8.51 Internal Access and Information 4.98 9.20 Convenience Factors 4.56 9.80 Toilets 4.41 12.46

These values can be plotted on a grid diagram to evaluate strategic performance. The quadrants of the grid and the analysis it offers are illustrated in the next diagram.

Low/High High/High Park Park Vulnerability Strengths

Grey Zone RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

Relative Irrelevant Indifference? Superiority?

Low/Low High/Low

PERFORMANCE SATISFACTION

Where a performance score is high and its relative importance is also high, it will fall into the top right quadrant. This indicates the park is performing well on a dimension of importance [Park Strengths].

If the value is in the bottom right quadrant, performance is rated highly, but possibly ahead of its relative importance [Irrelevant Superiority?]. This indicates the opportunity to maintain or even cut back resource allocation, if necessary, on dimensions that fall into this quadrant.

If the value is in the bottom left quadrant performance is not rated highly, but the relative importance is also low [Relative Indifference?]. Performance dimensions in this quadrant are unlikely to justify action, since even though satisfaction is not high, the dimension’s overall contribution to park satisfaction is relatively low.

Page 15 of 69 Roger James & Associates 9

If a value is in the top left quadrant, performance is not rated well, in an area of high relative importance [‘Park Vulnerability’]. Values that fall into this quadrant represent challenges to park managers and indicate a need for change if possible.

The axes for the grid are set at the mid-point of the satisfaction scale, and at the ‘neutral’ level on the relative importance scale [that is, the value that each dimension would show if all were equal, [100 divided by the number of dimensions].

The grey zone, around the intersection of the axes, is a zone of uncertainty where the strategic impact of a value is uncertain. The plot for the total sample of all parks is shown in the next diagram.

2005 TOTAL

20 PARK VULNERABILITY PARK STRENGTHS 18 Special Park Qualities 16 Maintenance Picnics & Play 14 Park Features

12 Toilets CE AN 10 RT Convenience Internal Access PO M I 8 External Access and Information

2 RELATIVE INDIFFERENCE IRRELEVANT SUPERIORITY 0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 PERFORMANCE

• The plot shows a very strong situation, with the factors that are most important in delivering satisfaction occupying notably strong positions in the top right quadrant.

• Also, the lower importance dimensions, [internal access and information and external access and information] which would not be a problem if they were in the bottom left, are also on the right hand side of the grid, indicating that they are appreciated, even though their contribution to total satisfaction is not great. Note also that internal access and information, which includes the item information signs about park features, is part of the information areas considered in the special issues for 2005, and where about half our sample say their visit would be improved with additional information.

Page 16 of 69 Roger James & Associates 10

• Picnics and play is close to the grey zone and thus in an uncertain position. However the position is still moderately positive for this dimension.

• As we have found in other surveys, toilets is an uncertain dimension and lies near the intersection of the grid. As noted in other reports, it is fairly clear that toilets operates as a hygiene factor, that is a poor view of toilets may sour people’s overall satisfaction [thought not to a great degree] but a positive view is unlikely to contribute to satisfaction. However, we should also remember that the score is positive and has shown a significant increase this year.

What can we conclude from the Strategic Focus Contrasts in combination with other results? As with last year, the ranging of key factors in the top right quadrant of our grid clearly shows that in critically important factors that are under management control – Maintenance - the City of Melbourne is giving appropriate emphasis to an important area. This in turn, no doubt contributes to the very strong position of Special Park Qualities. Other dimensions that may fall somewhat into the lower right quadrant also tend to confirm present approaches rather than considering any reduction in resource allocation. Overall the grid, together with the significant rise in a number of the Parks Dimensions mean scores, paints a very positive picture for 2005.

Page 17 of 69 Roger James & Associates 11

Understanding perceived benefits As part of the Overview it is useful to consider the key benefits people see in the presence of Melbourne’s Parks.

Good for relaxation 39.9% Open spaces 23.9%

Tr ees/pl ants/greenery 16.7%

Somewhere to get away from the city 15.2%

Fresh air 13.1%

Good for recreation 12.0%

Good for kids/children's playground 10.9%

Tranquility and quiet 10.2% Conserve/preserve natural environment 9.7%

Good for exercise/keep fit 9.0%

Area for pets/pet walking 8.2%

Good place for families to get together 7.9%

Ni ce to look at/appearance/aestheti cs 6.4%

Bring tourists to Melbourne 1.1% 0.1% Nothi ng/None Don't Know 0.4%

Other 15.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

These results are very similar to those from the last two years, showing a very consistent set of values among park visitors as to the perceived benefits of City of Melbourne parks.

Special management issues The possible impact of more detailed information on perceptions of the visit In relation to information about the park, this year we asked people if they felt that their visit would be ‘the same, a little better or a lot better’ if there was more information in the park about some aspects of the park. The table following shows the percentages of respondents choosing each alternative for three different areas of information.

Page 18 of 69 Roger James & Associates 12

Same Little Lot The history of this area before the park was established 48.8 30.9 20.3 The history and heritage of the park 43.7 35.0 21.4 Plants and wildlife in the park 44.2 33.1 22.7

These results show there is some interest in additional information about these three areas, with a little over half our sample saying their visit would be ‘a little’ or ‘a lot improved’ with additional information. This could be grounds for considering some additions in this area, but it also needs to be remembered that this type of information ‘resides’ in a dimension of park performance which has low relative importance and this may not contribute a great deal to overall satisfaction.

Conclusions and Recommendations The overall view for 2005 is very positive, with a number of park performance dimensions showing significant increases and others that were also strong last year, maintaining high level scores. The clear recommendation in general terms would be to continue current strategies. Visitors to the major parks show high levels of appreciation and rate them as performing very well indeed. In fact the sorts of results we are seeing in 2005 will make it difficult for any major improvements in the future given the current very strong performance.

However there are some issues in particular parks that may be addressed to improve satisfaction. Park-specific recommendations are contained in each individual park report.

Page 19 of 69 Roger James & Associates 13

Introduction to the study This study of visitors to City of Melbourne Parks and Gardens is part of a continuing cycle of research and evaluation to track the sources of satisfaction and any changes in them over time.

The study reported here largely replicates similar studies over the past several years, in which the key aims are to provide comparative data to track year to year changes as well as absolute levels of satisfaction. The study comprises a sample of 150 visitor interviews at 10 major City of Melbourne parks, together with a sample of 300 ‘non-visitors’, defined as people who have not visited any park in the City of Melbourne in the last six months.

The key tasks to be undertaken were

• Review of previous research and questionnaires, with small adaptations to suit some changed circumstances from 2004 to 2005

• Administration of the main satisfaction survey in the 10 nominated different Parks and Gardens

• Administration of the non-visitor survey in defined places in the City of Melbourne

• Analysis and report on the visitors’ survey, with comparisons made with 2004 results, as well as contrasts across parks and across visitor groups

• Analysis and report on the non-visitors’ survey, with comparisons made with 2004 results, as appropriate

Page 20 of 69 Roger James & Associates 14

Methods Visitor Survey The park visitor’s questionnaire was largely the same as that used in 2004 with the exception of some minor changes as decided in consultation with City of Melbourne staff.

• A new set of questions was included for 2005 in relation to additional information that might enhance the visitor experience. Three items were added, covering; history of the area before the park was established; history and heritage of the park and plants and wild life in the park.

Survey sites The survey was administered by face to face interview to samples of visitors in each of 10 sites. In past years there were 11 parks included. However, for 2005, because of major site works at Holland Park [Park 6] near the main playground and recreation area, interviews were not conducted at this park. Accordingly the sites for 2005 are as follows:

1. Birrarung Marr 2. Carlton Gardens 3. Fawkner Park 4. Fitzroy Gardens 5. Flagstaff Gardens 7. King’s Domain, Queen Victoria Gardens, Alexandra Gardens [treated as one site] 8. Princes Park 9. Royal Park 10. Treasury Gardens 11. Yarra Park

[We have retained the standard numbering for 2005; accordingly there is no Park 6 this year - Holland Park.]

Page 21 of 69 Roger James & Associates 15

The questionnaire used for this task is attached as Appendix 1. Interviews were conducted on all days of the week and also at different times of day.

Total numbers of interviews at each park - Characteristics of the Sample We first consider the characteristics of the sample of interviews. A total of 1565 interviews were conducted at the 10 parks with numbers for each park as shown in the following table.

Number of interviews at each park No. % Fawkner Park 162 10.4 Princes Park 150 9.6 Royal Park 182 11.6 Yarra Park 150 9.6 Carlton Gardens 150 9.6 Fitzroy Gardens 158 10.1 Flagstaff Gardens 151 9.6 K. D. Q Vic., Alex. Gardens 150 9.6 Treasury Gardens 152 9.7 Birrarung Marr 160 10.2 TOTAL 1565 100.0

Interviews by day of week % Saturday 18.8 Sunday 22.0 Monday 10.7 Tuesday 11.6 Wednesday 17.1 Thursday 15.0 Friday 4.7

Page 22 of 69 Roger James & Associates 16

Detailed Results Characteristics of the Sample

Male 49.4%

Female 50.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Interviews were collected with the aim of a 50/50 split of males and females, and this target was almost exactly achieved. Next we consider the distribution of age and occupational status of those interviewed.

Page 23 of 69 Roger James & Associates 17

65 years or older 3.7%

55-64 6.1%

45-54 9.6%

35-44 21.9%

25-34 29.5%

20-24 19.6%

15-19 9.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

Across all parks there is a spread of age groups, but with emphasis on the age ranges from 20 to 45 years.

Page 24 of 69 Roger James & Associates 18

Occupational Status

Student 24.4%

Unemployed 4.9%

Full-time employed 41.6%

Part-time employed 11.4%

Own Business 7.9%

Home Duties 3.7%

Retired 6.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

The large proportion of full-time employed reflects workers visiting the parks for relaxation or for lunch. Students comprise the next largest group.

Work or study in the City of Melbourne? 62.0% of the total sample answered yes to this question, no doubt influenced by the dominant groups identified in the previous table.

Page 25 of 69 Roger James & Associates 19

Lifestyle Category

Yo ung single 38.9%

Young couple no children 18.4%

Young family - youngest under 6 years 13.4%

Middle family - youngest 6-15 7.6%

Mature family - youngest [at home] 15+ 5.2%

Mature couple, no children at home 7.6%

Mature couple no children 2.2%

Mature single 6.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

Students and workers will also contribute to the preponderance of young singles as they will affect the party size, shown in the next table.

Page 26 of 69 Roger James & Associates 20

Party Size

None, came alone 50.4%

One other person 27.4%

2-5 other people 19.1%

6-10 other people 2.0%

11-20 0.9%

21-50 0.1%

More than 50 0.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Most park visitors come alone or with one other person, a very similar result to last year.

Page 27 of 69 Roger James & Associates 21

Home Address of Respondents

City of Melbourne 22.9%

Melbourne Metropolitan 58.1%

Country Victoria 4.7%

Other states 3.3%

Overseas 11.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Just under a quarter of all park visitors interviewed live in the City of Melbourne, a percentage which varies markedly across parks. These results are similar to 2004 with the exception of overseas visitors which is higher than last year [6.5%].

Page 28 of 69 Roger James & Associates 22

For the country of birth of our total sample we consider those cases with proportions of 1.0% or more, that is countries with more than 17 respondents

Country of birth of Respondents- [Top 8]

Australia 61.3%

10.0% UK/Ireland

New Zealand 3.0%

USA/Canada 2.4%

China 2.4%

India 2.4%

Germany 2.2%

Italy 1.5%

Malaysia 1.0%

Other 8.9%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Page 29 of 69 Roger James & Associates 23

Full sample behaviour, attitude, knowledge and satisfaction scores Next we consider items from the survey that apply to the full sample.

Main reason for visiting the park

Relaxation 23.4% To eat lunch 13.4% Walking the dog 9.5% Just passing through 8.7% Taking children to play 7.4% Walking 6.3% Jogging, casual sport, games 3.5%

Picnics 3.5% Socialising 2.9% Recreation 1.8% Sightseeing [ tourist visit] 1.7% Organised sport 1.4% Event in the park [specify] 1.3%

Other 13.5%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

This set of results is very much similar to 2004, with the exception that ‘to eat lunch’ was the most frequent reason in 2004, followed by ‘relaxation’. This is likely to be related to the fact that more weekend interviews were collected in 2005 than in 2004. This difference impacts on this result and on ‘other activities’ [see below]. Previous research, conducted in 2004 showed that no other results are affected by the weekend/weekday split

Visiting the Park the main reason for % the outing? YES 47.8

Over 50% of park visitors have another main purpose for their outing. This is shown in the next table.

Page 30 of 69 Roger James & Associates 24

Other activities

Work 16.8% Shopping/Browsing 15.5% Socialising, dining out 14.8% Study 5.4% Attraction [ Museum, etc.] 3.8% Visiting other city parks 3.3% Sporting Event 2.7% Movies 2.1% Concert/ live theatre, etc. 1.1%

Business 1.0%

Casino 0.8%

Special Melbourne event 0.8%

Conference 0.3%

Nothing else 32.3%

Other 11.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

For 2005 we have found fewer people in the parks whose other activity was work and more shopping and browsing or socialising and dining out. As noted above, this is likely to be a result of a higher proportion of weekend interviews this year than in 2004.

Page 31 of 69 Roger James & Associates 25

Awareness and Overall Attitudes to City of Melbourne Parks Awareness of Melbourne’s city Parks among visitors to that park

Fawkner Park 83.4%

Princes Park 77.3%

Royal Park 65.4%

Yarra Park 64.0%

Carlton Gardens 80.5%

Fitzroy Gardens 91.1%

Flagstaff Gardens 69.5%

K.D. Q Vic., Alex. Gardens 51.3%

Treasury Gardens 70.4%

Birrarung Marr 46.9%

0.0% 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 % % % % % % % % %

These results are similar to 2004, though some results are a little higher and some a little lower. No clear trend emerges from this material, except to note that Fitzroy, Carlton and Princes all show continuing high levels of recall. And that awareness of the name of the park the person is interviewed in is considerably higher than for overall awareness of the names of parks.

Page 32 of 69 Roger James & Associates 26

Awareness of Melbourne’s city Parks

Fawkner Park 13.4%

Princes Park 14.6%

Royal Park 16.2%

Yarra Park 9.8%

Carlton Gardens 27.0%

Fitzroy Gardens 59.1% Flagstaff Gardens 26.2% K.D. Q Vic., Alex. Gardens 19.7% Treasury Gardens 26.0%

Holland Park 0.6% Birrarung Marr 11.4%

Botanic Gardens 55.0%

Other 17.6%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

In relation to awareness of the park the respondent was visiting when interviewed, there is good knowledge of the names, with the exception of Birrarung Marr, King’s Domain, Queen Victoria and Alexandra Gardens and Holland Park, though levels of awareness of both Birrarung Marr and King’s Domain, Queen Victoria and Alexandra Gardens have risen somewhat since last year.

Page 33 of 69 Roger James & Associates 27

Information about Parks – Promoting City of Melbourne Parks Sources of information about City of Melbourne Parks

Internet 40.8%

City of Melbourne/Melbourne City Council Offices 12.7%

Visitor's Centre 9.6%

Tourist Office/Travel Office/Hotel concierge 8.3% Entrance[s] to the park/signs in the park 5.9%

Brochures 3.0%

Street directoru 2.9%

Friend/Word of mouth 2.5%

Tourist magazine 1.5%

Telephone enquiry service 0.9%

Newspaper 0.8% Look in telephone directory 0.4% Other 5.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%

The internet is again the most popular source of information about City of Melbourne parks at much the same level as last year [which was 42.6%].

Page 34 of 69 Roger James & Associates 28

How to encourage increased visitation to Melbourne’s Parks

Promote and advertise parks more 19.0%

Put on other events 13.4%

Put on live entertainment in the parks 8.4%

Visitor to Melbourne 8.3%

Improve parking around parks 3.5%

Make Melbourne's parks safer 3.5%

Provide kiosks and cafes in parks 3.3%

Have better directional signage in parks 3.1%

Nothing 25.2%

Don't Know 0.0%

Other 22.9%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0%

Promotion and other events are the most frequent suggestions for encouraging visitation, the response nothing is the most common of all responses.

Page 35 of 69 Roger James & Associates 29

Overall Satisfaction and Importance Ratings

Overall Satisfaction with the Park visited Mean 2005 Mean 2004 ? Very Dissatisfied [1] – Very Satisfied [7] 5.80 5.76 -

Importance of the presence of Parks in Melbourne Mean 2005 Mean 2004 ? Very Unimportant [1] – Very Important [7] 6.63 6.74 Ð

Satisfaction with the Management of Parks Mean 2005 Mean 2004 ? Very Dissatisfied [1] – Very Satisfied [7] 5.67 5.60 -

Overall satisfaction with the park visited and satisfaction with management of the parks have not changed statistically, but, importance of the presence of parks in Melbourne while still strongly positive has declined on a statistical basis.

Page 36 of 69 Roger James & Associates 30

Non-visitor Survey Questionnaire at Appendix 2 Characteristics of the sample

Male 50.3%

Female 49.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

The survey sample is almost equally divided between males and females.

65 years or older 3.0%

55-64 5.7%

45-54 11.0%

35-44 14.0%

25-34 29.3%

20-24 25.3%

15-19 11.7%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

Page 37 of 69 Roger James & Associates 31

There is a reasonable range of age groups in the sample, though with about half the sample aged between 20 and 34.

Student 33.3%

Unemployed 5.0%

Full-time employed 33.3%

Part-time employed 12.0%

Own Business 6.0%

Home Duties 4.7%

Retired 5.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

People in full-time employment and students are largest groups in our sample.

Page 38 of 69 Roger James & Associates 32

Work or study in the City of Melbourne? 56.5% of the sample for this park answered YES to this question.

Young single 47.7%

Young couple no children 17.1%

Young family - youngest under 6 years 10.4%

Middle family - youngest 6-15 5.7%

Mature family - youngest [at home] 15+ 7.4%

Mature couple, no children at home 4.4%

Mature couple no children 3.0%

Mature single 4.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Young singles and young couples account for almost two-thirds of the sample.

Page 39 of 69 Roger James & Associates 33

Place of residence

City of Melbourne 16.0%

Melbourne Metropolitan 76.7%

Country Victoria 4.7%

Other states 1.3%

Overseas 1.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

The great majority of the people interviewed live in greater Melbourne. This should be taken into account when considering factors like awareness and visitation of City of Melbourne parks.

Page 40 of 69 Roger James & Associates 34

Country of birth

Australia 59.3%

India 6.0% UK/Ireland 4.7%

China 2.3%

Vietnam 2.0%

Germany 1.7% Italy 1.7%

USA/Canada 1.3%

Greece 1.3%

Malaysia 1.3%

Other 12.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

Q18. OTHER COUNTRY OF BIRTH No. Thailand 5 Singapore 4 Indonesia 4 UAE 2 Japan 2

As with the 2004 survey, the great majority of respondents were born in Australia.

Page 41 of 69 Roger James & Associates 35

Main reason for being in the City

Shopping/Browsing 32.3%

Work 20.3%

Study 11.7%

Socialising, dining out 10.3%

Business 4.3%

Concert/live theatre, etc. 2.7%

Movies 1.7%

Conference 1.3%

Other 13.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

People interviewed show a broad range of reasons for being in Melbourne, though shopping and work dominate, which is likely to be representative.

Page 42 of 69 Roger James & Associates 36

Awareness, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in relation to Parks

60% 58.3% 53.3%

50%

41.7% 40% 35.3%

30%

23.7%

20.0% 19.0% 20% 16.3% 16.3% 16.0% 16.0% 12.0% 13.7% 12.0% 9.3% 9.0% 10% 7.7% 6.3% 6.0% 5.0% 5.3% 4.3% 4.3% 3.0% 1.7% 2.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0% Fitzroy Flagstaff Carlton Treasury K.D. Q Royal Fawkner Princes Birrarung Yarra Holland Botanic Other No Gardens Gardens Gardens Garden Vic., Park Park Park Marr Park Park Gardens awareness Alex. of parks Gardens 2005 2004

Q2.PARKS [OTHER] Albert Park 13 Exhibition Gardens 10 Lincoln Square 5 Yarra Bend 3 Federation Square, Federation Gardens 2 Melbourne Park 2

Quite similar levels of awareness of City of Melbourne Parks this year compared to last year.

Page 43 of 69 Roger James & Associates 37

Ever visited a park or garden in the City of Melbourne?

21.7% No 19.3%

78.3%

Ye s

80.7%

0.0%

2005 2004

About the same proportion of our sample this year have ever visited a City of Melbourne Park as last year.

Page 44 of 69 Roger James & Associates 38

If YES, how long ago was the last visit?

35.9% 6-9 months ago 41.1%

19.7% 9-12 months ago 18.6%

23.1% 1-2 years ago 19.5%

21.4% More than 2 years 20.8%

0.0% 2005 2004

The visitation history for 2004 and 2005 are very similar, with over half having visited a park in the past 12 months or more recently.

Page 45 of 69 Roger James & Associates 39

Any particular reason you have not visited a City of Melbourne park or garden in the past six months? People give a variety of reasons for not visiting a City of Melbourne park or garden recently, as can be seen from the following table which shows aggregated answers to this open-ended question. Note for people who gave reasons related to distance from the parks, we have included the respondent’s postcode, which, in the majority of cases are suburbs of Melbourne.

PARTICULAR REASONS FOR NOT VISITING A COM PARK IN LAST 6 No. % MONTHS No time [work], not much time – working a lot overseas, too busy, no time 94 because I live in the country and work in the City of Melbourne [postcode 3660], too busy with studies and work, sometimes work until 2200 hours, busy with life – don’t have the time, working Monday to Friday and the weekends are just rest days for me, busy with school projects, heavy study load, I work at the market all the time – if I’m not there I’m at home watching TV 31.3 Parks are too far away [postcode 3011, 3124, 3175], live too far away 24 [3111, 3221, 3938, 3207, 3134, 3166], we live in outer suburbs and only come in occasionally [3196], live out of the city [3151], don’t live in CBD [3184, 3121, 3018, 3182, 3090, 3032], don’t live or work in area [3083, 3805], never/don’t often visit the city [3130, 3147, 3126, 3163, 3040] 8.0 Just moved here 6 months ago, just moved here, just arrived to study in 18 Melbourne, just arrived in Melbourne 2 days ago and a lack of information about parks, a visitor in Melbourne for one day, been living overseas, just here on holiday for a few weeks to visit National Parks, been travelling, just here [from interstate] visiting friends and relatives 6.0 No reason to visit, there needs to be something good about going to the 17 parks, not a lot of interest, nothing to do in the park 5.7 Did not think of going there – forgot there are parks, haven’t felt the need, 12 4.0 haven’t thought of parks as a location to go to Don’t know where they are, don’t know about them, don’t notice them 10 3.3 Don’t visit parks at all, don’t enjoy them, not into gardens/parks, I don’t like 5 to visit parks 1.7 There are parks closer to where I live [postcode 3065], visit local parks 3 [3073, 3204] 1.0 I have a big backyard, nice garden at home 3 1.0 Other things to do, other interests 3 1.0 Inconvenience [public transport] and weather 3 1.0 Cost – parking, no free parking 2 0.7 More play equipment, not enough children’s facilities 2 0.7 Too difficult to get to and parking is a nightmare in the city 2 0.7 Prefer to visit parks out of the city because it’s quieter, too much traffic in 2 the city 0.7 Don’t think parks are safe, a feeling that they are unsafe - concerned with 2 newspaper articles pointing out crimes 0.7 It’s too far to walk there and the transport system is really bad, I can’t walk 2 long distances 0.7 Ill health 2 0.7

Page 46 of 69 Roger James & Associates 40

Prefer beaches to parks 1 0.3 No parks in the CBD 1 0.3 Children too old 1 0.3 Busy going to hospitals 1 0.3 No, I work on weekends 1 0.3 Allergic to trees [gets skin irritation] 1 0.3 Been injured [on crutches] 1 0.3 Just not part of daily routine 1 0.3 Used to studying in university, so want to be out of the city 1 0.3

Page 47 of 69 Roger James & Associates 41

Visited any park or garden in the past six months?

61.0%

37.9%

39.0%

Ye s

61.7%

0.0% 2005 2004

Very different proportions of our sample say they have visited any park in the past six months this year when compared with last year. This finding is surprising since the proportion who have ever visited a park in the City of Melbourne is virtually identical to last year, as is the time since the last visit [among those who have ever visited a City of Melbourne park].

Page 48 of 69 Roger James & Associates 42

Is there anything the City of Melbourne could do to encourage you to visit its parks and gardens?

Q3 ENCOURAGE VISITS? No. More recreational activities, games, more festivals and attractions, spring carnival, put 51 on live entertainment on nice [weather] nights and weekends, more sporting events, free family events at night, family fun days, Shakespeare in park, markets, fairs, concerts, open-air cinema [moonlight cinema], Indian/cultural festivals, activities for children [farm animals], offer free food and drinks, free concerts at the Myer Bowl, organise events for university people, community events, continue flower exhibition Promote them more, advertise by putting maps of parks in newspapers, more signs, 46 advertise them so people know where they are, more accessible information on the Internet and more publicity of parks’ website, brochures, educate the public, advertise them on TV and radio, promote the benefits of going there [good for environment, fresh air], promote [events in parks] outside of CoM, advertise special features or something worthwhile about the parks and show people where parks are located near shopping malls, send me brochures in the mail letting me know about them Improve transport, provide free parking or public transport on weekends, free parking, 13 improve trams for wheelchairs, designated trams/transport to parks, have the city circle tram go to all the CoM parks More BBQ facilities, free BBQs 6 Provide family friendly environments – children’s play equipment, need playground in 6 Fitzroy Gardens More cafes, refreshments, Halal food outlet 5 Parking is a problem – inadequate parking, more parking close to parks 4 Proper jogging tracks, more bike trails and walking tracks, make them more bike friendly 4 More information centres, more info, better information for new visitors 3 More benches 3 Need safer parks [patrol – not too much to overcrowd but a presence to feel safe] 3 We just don’t come to the city, prefer to leave the city during free time 2 Better directions, signposting 2 Toilet facilities, clean toilets 2 More holidays 2 They remember to promote but no improvements 1 Shelter from the sun 1 More sculptures, monuments 1 More accessibility to parks 1 Garden show in Fitzroy Gardens 1 More flower displays 1 Provide a place to relax with special study benches and lighting 1 More water features, water ponds, waterways 1 More wildlife in the parks 1 Longer lunch breaks 1 Easier Access 1 Nice weather 1 Grass 1 Sterilise the trees – maybe they have plant disease 1 Lights at night 1 Make them more central – place them in more secure and populated areas 1 Improve the image of parks – get rid of homeless people, junkies, etc 1 Have parks closer to entertainment venues, eg casino or have entertainment in the 1

Page 49 of 69 Roger James & Associates 43

parks More features/attractions in parks – but do not overdo 1 Make them clean – more bins 1 Trees 1

Page 50 of 69 Roger James & Associates 44

Non-visitors’ source of information about Parks

Internet 34.8% Visitor's Centre 14.0%

City of Melbourne/Melbourne City Council Offices 8.0% Street Directory 6.4%

Tourist Office/Travel Office/Hotel Concierge 6.0% Brochures 5.7%

Friend/Word of mouth 5.4%

Telephone enquiry service 3.0% Entrance[s] to the park/signs in the park 2.3%

Newspaper 2.3% Look in telephone directory 0.3%

Tourist Magazine 0.0% Other 3.3%

Don't know 8.4%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

As with visitors, this group would most frequently use the Internet to find information about City of Melbourne parks and at about the same level as in 2004 [35.0%].

Page 51 of 69 Roger James & Associates 45

Attitudes to Parks in the City of Melbourne Respondents were asked to rate some statements about City of Melbourne parks using a seven point agree/disagree scale as shown below.

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

Parks are an important asset for people who 5.45

work in the City of Melbourne 5.72

Parks are an important asset for people who 6.06 live in the City of Melbourne 6.26

Parks are an important asset for people who 4.95 live in greater Melbourne [the whole Melbourne metropolis] 5.26

One of the key benefits of a park in the City of 4.92 Melbourne is being able to enjoy it simply by 5.69 walking past it

The presence of parks in Melbourne 5.24 significantly improves the City of Melbourne for me 5.81

Mean 2005 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Mean 2004

Non-visitors believe that City of Melbourne parks represent a greater asset for people who live within the City’s boundaries than for those who work in the City, which in turn is judged to be more important than for those who live in greater Melbourne. They also show quite strong positive support for the notion that the presence of parks improves their perception of the City and are moderately positive about the notion that there is an inferred benefit in simply being able to walk past the parks, even if they do not actually visit. All measures for 2005 are significantly lower than for 2004. This would appear to be related to the lower proportion of recent park visitors this year.

Page 52 of 69 Roger James & Associates 46

Complete tabulation of non-visitor open-ended responses

Page 53 of 69 Roger James & Associates 47

Used to studying in university, so want to be out of the city 1 0.3

Q2.PARKS [OTHER] Albert Park 13 Exhibition Gardens 10 Lincoln Square 5 Yarra Bend 3 Federation Square, Federation Gardens 2 Melbourne Park 2 Studley Park 1 Darling Gardens 1 The Tan 1 Essendon Park 1 Shrine of Remembrance Gardens 1 Errol Park 1 Dandenong Mountains 1 St Kilda Park 1 Edinburgh Gardens 1 Montgomery Park [Essendon] 1 Luna Park 1 Batman Park 1

Page 54 of 69 Roger James & Associates 48

Better directions, signposting 2 Toilet facilities, clean toilets 2 More holidays 2 They remember to promote but no improvements 1 Shelter from the sun 1 More sculptures, monuments 1 More accessibility to parks 1 Garden show in Fitzroy Gardens 1 More flower displays 1 Provide a place to relax with special study benches and lighting 1 More water features, water ponds, waterways 1 More wildlife in the parks 1 Longer lunch breaks 1 Easier Access 1 Nice weather 1 Grass 1 Sterilise the trees – maybe they have plant disease 1 Lights at night 1 Make them more central – place them in more secure and populated areas 1 Improve the image of parks – get rid of homeless people, junkies, etc 1 Have parks closer to entertainment venues, eg casino or have entertainment in the 1 parks More features/attractions in parks – but do not overdo 1 Make them clean – more bins 1 Trees 1

[Nothing or no idea responses not included]

Page 55 of 69 Roger James & Associates 49

Q 7 MAIN REASON FOR BEING IN THE CITY TODAY Passing through using public transport, in transit 6 Job interview, looking for work 4 Live in city 4 Training seminar, Training day 2 Relaxing, hanging around for a little while before going home 2 Sightseeing, having a look around 2 Walking/exercise 2 Showing friends around, taking grandchildren out for the day 2 Medical career expo/ postgraduate studies at RMIT 2 Visit my employer 1 Visit the clinic for medication 1 Had to return a hire car 1 City retreat 1 Protest KFC 1 Reading 1 Exam 1 Radio interview at Fed Square 1 [Respondent] didn’t want to answer 1 Church 1

Page 56 of 69 Roger James & Associates 50

Q8. INTERNET SITES No. Google, Google Parks, Google Parks & Gardens 27 Melbourne site, City of Melbourne, Com website, Melbourne City, Melbourne City 15 Council, Melbourne, CoM.com.au Parks Victoria 9 Search 6 Parks and garden website, Victorian parks and gardens, Parks.gov.au 6 That’s Melbourne.com 3 Yahoo 3 General internet pages 1 Parks Melbourne 1 Citysearch 1

Q8. – OTHER No. Call Parks Victoria 2 Magazines, Parks and Gardens magazine 2 Ring Council 1 Town Hall 1 Ask Melbourne “Ambassadors” 1 At the university 1 At my residence’s reception 1 State Library 1

Q18. OTHER COUNTRY OF BIRTH No. Thailand 5 Singapore 4 Indonesia 4 UAE 2 Japan 2 Macedonia 1 Finland 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Oman 1 Tanzania 1 Eritrea 1 Nepal 1 Fiji 1 Japan 1 Turkey 1 Brazil 1 Burma 1 Romania 1 Maldives 1 Switzerland 1 Algeria 1 Pakistan 1 Bangladesh 1 Egypt 1

Page 57 of 69 Roger James & Associates 51

Yugoslavia 1

Q19. HOME COUNTRY No. Germany 1 Singapore 1 Japan 1

Page 58 of 69 Roger James & Associates 52

Appendix 1 PARKS SATISFACTION SURVEY 2005 Location: Fawkner Park 1 Carlton Gardens 5 Treasury Gardens 9 Princes Park 2 Fitzroy Gardens 6 Holland Park 10 Royal Park 3 Flagstaff Gardens 7 Birrarung Marr 11 Yarra Park 4 K. D. Q Vic., Alex. Gardens 8

S S M T W T F Morning Lunchtime Afternoon Evening 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4

INTERVIEWER: ______

Good Morning/Afternoon. My name is … from Roger James & Associates, a market research company. At the moment we’re talking to people who visit Parks and Gardens within the City of Melbourne about their satisfaction with them. Are you aged 15 years or over? [IF NO THANK AND CONCLUDE] Have you just arrived in the Park today and have never visited it before? [IF YES THANK AND CONCLUDE] Could I take a few minutes of your time to ask you some questions? Your answers will be completely confidential and the information from this study will be used to help the City of Melbourne improve its parks and gardens to better suit people’s needs.

Q1 What do you see as the key benefit to the community of Melbourne’s city parks? [DO NOT READ OUT; ACCEPT MULTIPLES] Good for relaxation 1.1 Trees/plants/greenery 1.9 Conserve/preserve natural environment 1.2 Area for pets/pet walking 1.10 Good for kids/children’s playground 1.3 Fresh air 1.11 Good place for families to get together 1.4 Good for exercise/keep fit 1.12 Somewhere to get away from the city 1.5 Bring tourists to Melbourne 1.13 Open spaces 1.6 Good for recreation 1.14 Tranquillity and quiet 1.7 Nothing/none 1.15 Nice to look at/appearance/aesthetics 1.8 Don’t know 1.16

Other [Specify] ______1.17

Q2 And what parks in the City of Melbourne can you name? [DO NOT READ OUT; ACCEPT MULTIPLES] Fawkner Park 2.1 Carlton Gardens 2.5 Treasury Gardens 2.9 Princes Park 2.2 Fitzroy Gardens 2.6 Holland Park 2.10 Royal Park 2.3 Flagstaff Gardens 2.7 Birrarung Marr 2.11 Yarra Park 2.4 K. D. Q Vic., Alex. Gardens 2.8 Botanic Gardens 2.12

Other [specify] ______2.13

Q3 How often do you come to this park/these gardens? Would you say it is: [READ OUT CHOICES] Every day 1 Once a month 6 Five times a week 2 Less than once a month 7 2-3 times a week 3 Less than once every 6 months 8 Once a week 4 Never visited before 9 Once a fortnight 5

Q4 And what was your MAIN reason for visiting this park/these gardens today? [DO NOT READ OUT - FIRST RESPONSE]

Page 59 of 69 Roger James & Associates 53

Relaxation 1 To eat lunch 9 Walking 2 Sightseeing [tourist visit] 10 Just passing through 3 Visiting a particular attraction 11 Cycling/skating, etc. 4 Educational visit 12 Jogging, casual sport, games 5 Event in the park [specify] 13 Organised sport 6 Socialising 14 Picnics 7 Walking the dog 15 Taking children to play 8 Recreation 16 Other [specify] 17

Q5 And how would you rate this park in terms of providing for your main activity here today [SHOW CARD – CIRCLE ONE NUMBER]

Very Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Good

Q6 Using this satisfaction scale [SHOW CARD], which number would you choose to describe your satisfaction with the appearance of this park. [CIRCLE ONE NUMBER]

Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Satisfied

Q7 Was visiting this park your main reason for coming out today?

YES 1 NO 2

Q8 What other activities will you be doing on your outing today [DO NOT READ OUT; ACCEPT MULTIPLES] Visiting other city parks 8.1 Casino 8.6 Attraction [museum, etc.] 8.10 Shopping/browsing 8.2 Movies 8.7 Conference 8.11 Business 8.3 Concert/ live theatre, etc. 8.8 Special Melbourne event 8.12 Work 8.4 Sporting event 8.9 Socialising, dining out 8.13 Study 8.5 Nothing else 8.14 Other [specify] ______8.15

Page 60 of 69 Roger James & Associates 54

Q9 Could you tell me what you think is the ONE BEST thing about this park? [DO NOT READ OUT. RECORD FIRST RESPONSE]

Q10 And what would you say is the ONE thing about this park that you would like Council to improve? [DO NOT READ OUT. RECORD FIRST RESPONSE]

BEST IMPROVE Well maintained/ clean 1 Litter, rubbish 1 Peace and quiet/ opportunity for privacy 2 Badly maintained - grass length, etc. 2 Plants, flowers, trees, etc. 3 No/not enough toilets 3 Size, space in the park 4 Not enough lighting 4 Wildlife, birds and animals 5 Not enough facilities [shelters, bins etc.] 5 Sports grounds, facilities 6 Not enough sports grounds, etc. 6 Special sights [e.g. Cook’s Cottage] 7 Too artificial 7 Kiosk, restaurant 8 Not enough car parking 8 Water, ponds, fountains 9 Noise of traffic, etc. 9 Access, close by 10 Too many people around 10 Place to have lunch, picnic 11 No Dogs 11 Good for children 12 Off-leash area for dogs 12 Greenery, green 13 Nothing 13 Nothing 14

BEST 15 IMPROVE 14 Other [specify] Other [specify ]

Q11 Now I’d like to ask you about a range of features that you find in typical parks and gardens. They are grouped in eight different categories as shown on this card. [HAND CATEGORIES CARD TO RESPONDENT] I’d like to ask you how satisfied you are with each of these features in this park. To show how you feel I would like you to pick a number on the scale on the card for each feature. If you don’t know, or the feature is not available in this park choose 0 [zero]. DO NOT ASK BARBECUE QUESTIONS FOR TREASURY, CARLTON, KD/Q. VIC./ALEX, FITZROY.

1. Picnics and Play Score 2. Maintenance Score Number of BBQ facilities Maintenance of park facilities to ensure safety Quality of BBQ facilities Appearance of grass Number of picnic facilities/furniture Adequate litter control Quality of picnic facilities/furniture Availability of lighting Children’s playground/ play areas General maintenance standards Shelter from the rain Shelter from the sun

Page 61 of 69 Roger James & Associates 55

3. Special Park Qualities Score 4. Park Features DO NOT ASK FOR BM Score Opportunity for quiet reflection Number of garden beds, flower displays The feeling of escape provided by this park Quality of garden beds The feeling of comfort and safety provided by Number of special features [e.g. this park [during your visit today] Conservatory] The feeling of comfort and safety provided by Presence of water features [e.g. fountains] this park [if you were to visit it at night] IF NIGHT RATING 3 0R LOWER, ASK Q11.1 Number of special events IF O, 5 OR ABOVE SKIP Q11.1 Number of trees

Q11.1 Thinking about your rating of comfort and safety of this park at night, are there any changes that would make you feel more positive?

5. External Access and Information Score 6. Internal Access and Information Score [Before you visit] [When you are at the park] Availability of information about the Park Number of tracks, trails and paths Sign posting and directions on how to get to the Suitable surface for tracks, trails and paths park Direction signs in the park Availability of public transport Information signs about park features Availability of Park Ranger

7. Convenience Factors Score 8. Toilets – NOT FOR YARRA Score Adequate refreshment facilities Toilets open when required Adequate car parking Adequate number of toilet facilities Availability of drinking fountains Cleanliness of toilets Availability of seating or benches

12. And using the same scale what is your OVERALL SATISFACTION with this park? OVERALL SATISFACTION

13. If you were not satisfied [SCORE 3,2,1], what would need to change to make you satisfied with this park overall.

Q14. NOT FOR YARRA. In your rating of toilet facilities in this park was your rating based on [READ OUT CHOICES - SINGLE RESPONSE] A general impression 1 Usage of the facilities on this visit 2 Usage of the facilities in the past six months 3 Usage of the facilities in the past 12 months 4

Page 62 of 69 Roger James & Associates 56

Q15 How likely is that you would recommend this park to friends and family as a place to visit? [SHOW CARD, CIRCLE NUMBER]

Very Unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Likely

Q16.1 And compared to other inner city parks you have visited how would you rate this park? [SHOW CARD, CIRCLE NUMBER]

Very Poor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Good

Not visited other parks 16.2 Don’t know 16.3

Q 17. We talked earlier about the information provided inside this park. Do you think your visit to the park would be THE SAME, A LITTLE BETTER or A LOT BETTER if there was more information in this park about:

Same Little Lot 17.1The history of this area before the park was established 1 2 3 17.2 The history and heritage of the park 1 2 3 17.3 Plants and wildlife in the park 1 2 3

Q18 If you wanted to find out practical information about this or another park where would you expect to find it or what would you do to find out? [DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE, RECORD FIRST COMMENT] Entrance[s] to the 1 Look in telephone directory 5 Tourist magazine 9 park/signs in the park Brochures 2 Telephone enquiry service 6 Newspaper 10 City of Melb./ Melbourne City Internet [SITE?] Friend/Word of mouth 3 Council Offices 7 ______11 Street Directory 4 Tourist Office/Travel 8 Visitors’ Centre 12 Office/Hotel concierge Other [specify] ______13 Don’t know 14

Q19 What could the City of Melbourne do to encourage you to visit parks within the City’s boundaries more often? [DO NOT READ OUT RECORD MULTIPLES] Promote and advertise parks more 19.1 Make Melbourne’s parks safer 19.6 Put on live entertainment in the parks 19.2 DNA – visitor to Melbourne 19.7 Have better directional signage in parks 19.3 Put on other events 19.8 Improve parking around parks 19.4 Nothing 19.9 Provide kiosks and cafes in parks 19.5 Don’t know 19.10 Other[ specify]______19.11

Q20 [SHOW CARD] Using this scale please tell me how important the presence of Parks in the City of Melbourne is to you? [RECORD 0 FOR DON’T KNOW] Very Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Important

Q21 [SHOW CARD] The City of Melbourne has responsibility for the maintenance, design, development and public use of 500 hectares of gardens, boulevards and open spaces within the City’s boundaries. It is also responsible for the care and protection of parks. Thinking of this park, how satisfied are you with the City of Melbourne’s management? [CIRCLE NUMBER. RECORD 0 FOR DON’T KNOW]

Page 63 of 69 Roger James & Associates 57

Very Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Satisfied

Q22 How many other people came to the park with you today? Q24 And how did you travel to the park today None, came alone 1 On foot 1 One other person 2 By tram 2 2-5 other people 3 By train 3 6-10 other people 4 By bus 4 11-20 5 By car 5 21-50 6 By bicycle 6 More than 50 7 Other [specify] ______7

Finally a few questions about yourself. [SHOW CARD]. On this card could you please tell me the number that matches:

Q 23 Your age group? 15-19 years 1 45-54 years 5 20-24 years 2 55-64 years 6 25-34 years 3 Over 65 years 7 35-44 years 4

Q24 Your lifestyle category? Young single 1 Mature family – youngest [at home] 15+ 5 Young couple no children 2 Mature couple, no children at home 6 Young family – youngest under 6 years 3 Mature couple no children 7 Middle family - youngest 6-15 4 Mature single 8

Page 64 of 69 Roger James & Associates 58

Q 25 Your occupational status? Student 1 Own business 5 Unemployed 2 Home Duties 6 Full-time employed 3 Retired 7 Part-time employed 4

Q26 [IF STUDENT, EMPLOYED, BUSINESS] Do you work or study in the City of Melbourne? YES 1 NO 2

Q27 In which country were you born? Australia 1 China 6 India 11 Netherlands 16 Viet Nam 21 UK/Ireland 2 Croatia 7 Italy 12 Philippines 17 Other [specify USA/Canada 3 Germany 8 Lebanon 13 Poland 18 22 New Zealand 4 Greece 9 Malaysia 14 Russia 19 South Africa 5 Hong Kong 10 Malta 15 Serbia 20

Q 28 Could you please tell me your home postcode if you live in Australia or your home country if you are a visitor.

Postcode Country

29 .Record Gender – Name and contact number for validation

Male 1 Female 2 Name: Tel:

Appendix 2 PARKS SATISFACTION 2005 NON-VISITORS SURVEY Location: QV Market 1 Bourke St Mall 2 Princes Bridge 3 Swanston Walk 4

S S M T W T F Morning Afternoon Evening 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3

INTERVIEWER: ______

Good Morning/Afternoon. My name is … from Roger James & Associates, a market research company. At the moment we’re talking to people on behalf of the City of Melbourne. The information we collect will be used to help the Council better understand the needs and interests of people in the City. We need to talk to people aged 15 years [IF NECESSARY CONFIRM AGE]

Could I take a few minutes of your time to ask you some questions? Your answers will be completely confidential. Have you visited a park or garden in the City of Melbourne in the last six months? [IF YES, THANK AND TERMINATE.]

Q1 Are there particular reasons you haven’t visited a City of Melbourne park or garden in the last six months?

Page 65 of 69 Roger James & Associates 59

Other [specify] ______2.13

Q3 Is there anything the City of Melbourne could do to encourage you to visit its Parks and Gardens?

Q4 Have you ever visited a park or garden in the City of Melbourne? YES 1 NO 2 GO TO Q 6.

Q5 And how long ago was your last visit? 6-9 months ago 1 9-12 months ago 2 1-2 years ago 3 More than 2 years 4

Q6 In the past six months have you ever visited a park or garden at all? YES 1 NO 2

Q7 What was your main reason for being in the City today? [DO NOT READ OUT; RECORD FIRST RESPONSE ONLY] Shopping/browsing 1 Casino 5 Attraction [museum, etc.] 9 Business 2 Movies 6 Conference 10 Work 3 Concert/ live theatre, etc. 7 Special Melbourne event 11 Study 4 Sporting event 8 Socialising, dining out 12 ______[Specify] 13

Q8 If you wanted to find out practical information about a city park where would you expect to find it or what would you do to find out? [DO NOT READ OUT. SINGLE RESPONSE, RECORD FIRST COMMENT] Entrance[s] to the Look in telephone directory 5 Tourist magazine 9 park/signs in the park 1 Brochures 2 Telephone enquiry service 6 Newspaper 10 3 City of Melb./ Melbourne City Internet [SITE?] 11 Friend/Word of mouth Council Offices 7 ______Street Directory 4 Tourist Office/Travel Visitors’ Centre 12 Office/Hotel concierge 8

Other [specify] ______13 Don’t know 14

Now I would like your response to some statements about parks and the City of Melbourne [SHOW CARD, READ OUT]. Please use the scale to tell me how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. If you don’t know I will enter a zero.

Page 66 of 69 Roger James & Associates 60

Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

Q9 Parks are an important asset for people who work in the City of Melbourne. Q10 Parks are an important asset for people who live in the City of Melbourne. Q11 Parks are an important asset for people who live in greater Melbourne [the whole Melbourne metropolis]. Q12 One of the key benefits of a park in the City of Melbourne is being able to enjoy it simply by walking past it. Q13 The presence of parks significantly improves the City of Melbourne for me.

Finally a few questions about yourself. [SHOW CARD]. On this card could you please tell me the number that matches:

Q14 Your age group? 15-19 years 1 45-54 years 5 20-24 years 2 55-64 years 6 25-34 years 3 Over 65 years 7 35-44 years 4

Q15 Your lifestyle category? Young single 1 Mature family – youngest [at home] 15+ 5 Young couple no children 2 Mature couple, no children at home 6 Young family – youngest under 6 years 3 Mature couple no children 7 Middle family - youngest 6-15 4 Mature single 8

Q16 Your occupational status? Student 1 Own business 5 Unemployed 2 Home Duties 6 Full-time employed 3 Retired 7 Part-time employed 4

Q17 [IF STUDENT, EMPLOYED, BUSINESS] Do you work or study in the City of Melbourne? YES 1 NO 2

Q18 In which country were you born? Australia 1 China 6 India 11 Netherlands 16 Viet Nam 21 UK/Ireland 2 Croatia 7 Italy 12 Philippines 17 Other [specify USA/Canada 3 Germany 8 Lebanon 13 Poland 18 22 New Zealand 4 Greece 9 Malaysia 14 Russia 19 South Africa 5 Hong Kong 10 Malta 15 Serbia 20

Q19 Could you please tell me your home postcode if you live in Australia or your home country if you are a visitor.

Postcode Country

20 Record Gender

Male 1 Female 2

Page 67 of 69 Roger James & Associates 61

Thank you very much for your help. If you have any questions or queries about this research or our company, please call Roger James & Associates on 03 9846 6800, all hours.

Page 68 of 69 Agenda Item 5.4 Planning and Environment Committee 2 August 2005

FINANCE ATTACHMENT

REVIEW OF PARKS SATISFACTION RESEARCH STUDY 2005

There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report.

Joe Groher Manager Financial Services

Page 69 of 69 Agenda Item 5.4 Planning and Environment Committee 2 August 2005

LEGAL ATTACHMENT

REVIEW OF PARKS SATISFACTION RESEARCH STUDY 2005

The report is for information only. No legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in the report

Kim Wood Acting Manager Legal & Governance