Liverpool Parks and Open Spaces Project 2006 Pilot Survey Report Newsham Park 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 Calderstones Park (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 Merseyside 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 Sefton Park. 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.