Date:                      

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Tuesday 14 April 2015

6.00 pm

Grey Lynn Community Centre

510 Richmond Road

Grey Lynn

 

Waitematā Local Board

 

OPEN ATTACHMENTS

 

Attachments Under Separate Cover

 

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

   

16        Point Resolution Taurarua Development Plan

A.      Point Resolution Taurarua Development Plan                                                       3

B.      Public Feedback Analysis                                                                                    51

17        Grey Lynn Park Development Plan

A.      Grey Lynn Park Development Plan                                                                     61

B.      Analysis of public feedback                                                                                 91    




Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 



Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 

 

Full Colour; Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Feedback from Local Residents on Proposed Developments around Resolution Point.

January 2015

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for Local and Sports Parks Central

By:       Tony Stones-Havas

Social Researcher

Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit

Auckland Council

 


 

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Waitematā Local Board has consulted with local residents on the Point Resolution Taurarua development plan. The purpose of this plan is to provide a framework for improvements to, and connections between Point Resolution Reserve, Hobson Bay Walkway, and Judges Bay, including the area around Parnell Baths. Local residents were sent copies of a summary of the draft development plan with options for development, and reasons behind the options. An illustrated history of the area was also included to provide a historical context for the development plan from pre-European times. The purpose of the survey was to give residents the opportunity to state their preferences and comment on the draft plan.

The main information requirements were:

1.   To gauge relative levels of support for five principles to guide development;

2.   To assess preference for one of two options for developing the Hobson Bay Walkway, with reasons for preferences;

3.   To assess how much residents favour, with reasons, the installation of one of the Point Resolution historic cannons onto Point Resolution reserve; and

4.   To provide residents with an opportunity to offer suggestions and add any comments on the proposed development.

Questionnaires were received from forty-five respondents.  The survey results will be taken into account by the Waitematā Local Board in finalising the plan.

 

MAIN FINDINGS

1. Guiding principles

The most strongly supported principle was enhance ecology and the natural environment (80% “strongly support”), followed by increase connectivity (63%), and improve cliff stability (61%). Enable recreation opportunities was less strongly supported (46% “strongly support”), and least strongly supported was celebrate history (26%) (Figure 1).


 

 

Figure 1: Levels of support for the five guiding principles

 

 

Taking together ratings of “strongly support” and “support”, all principles received approximately the same level of overall support. The differences are not statistically significant (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2: Levels of overall support for the five guiding principles

2. Hobson Bay walkway preferences

Respondent were asked whether they preferred a boardwalk connection offset from the foreshore, or a connection to a staircase up the reserve headland. Of 41 respondents, 23 (56%) preferred a boardwalk connection around the headland, and 15 (37%) preferred the staircase. The remainder had no preference.

Those preferring the boardwalk cited the following reasons. No single reason stood out. Better accessibility and usability by a variety of people, and aesthetic value were the most prominent mentions.

 

Frequency of mention

Easier use by variety of  people: Good for walking/ don't have to use stairs/ can use wheelchair or pushchairs/ easy grade

7

Better accessibility: extends existing walkway/ better flow/ more direct connection with waterfront overbridge/ don't have to get access through swimming pool complex

7

Aesthetic value: Nice to walk/ enjoy nature/ explore coastline

7

Less dependent on tides than other option

2

Cycle-friendly

1

 

Those preferring the staircase option cited the following reasons.

 

Frequency of mention

Less damage to environment/ encourages native vegetation and bird life

4

Less visual impact/ boardwalk option far more intrusive

4

Presumably less costly/ easier to construct

3

Not subject to tides

3

Stairs will not obstruct channel

2

Staircase is necessary irrespective of boardwalk option

1

Stairs are good exercise

1

 

No single reason or theme dominated.


 

3. Support for placement of historic cannon on Point Resolution Reserve

The majority of respondents (31, being 69 per cent of all respondents) supported locating the cannon on Point Resolution Reserve. Eight respondents (18%) disagreed.

The reasons for supporting placement of the cannon were as follows. The link to history predominates.

 

Frequency of mention

Link to history/ heritage/ original setting

17

Appropriate/ point of interest/ adds character

3

For children to play on/ have fun

3

Needs interpretive signage/ plaque

3

 

Reasons for not supporting placement of the cannon are varied, with no one theme dominating.

I don't know enough about the history to give a definitive answer.

The question is more why put it there. 

Seems expensive and of no visible benefit

Not important to me to celebrate war.  I prefer to celebrate our native/natural world.  I would prefer to see a reference to our Māori ancestry.  This is more appealing to tourists as well - they come to NZ to see our culture - and our culture is Māori

Items such as guns tend to look sad and neglected over time. Also they tend to only become something young children climb over.

I would like to see the emphasis on planting and enhancement of green spaces rather than military past.

(All single mentions)


 

4. Suggestions for changes to the draft development plan

Respondents were asked if there were any changes they would like to see in the draft plan. Responses were varied. Highest mention was for the use of a more durable material than mudcrete. All responses are summarised as follows.

 

Frequency of mention

Not mudcrete/ slippery/ unsafe/ washes away in storm/ not durable/ easily eroded by tides

6

Link up coastal walking tracks/ include cycleways

4

Preserve natural appearance/ use mudcrete/ improve natural landscape

2

Need costings

1

Not needed - cheaper alternative access is available

1

Avoid something dependent on tides

1

make signage vandal-proof

1

Encourage residents to look after plantings

1

Should have kept the old retaining wall

1

Boardwalk could encroach on private property, block access to boatshed

1

Build a lookout

1

More recreation

1

Seating as artwork

1

Rubbish bins only attract rubbish

1

Good not to extend track - worried about vandals getting near to the Pool

1

 


 

Finally, respondents were asked if there was anything from the draft plan they were especially pleased to see included.  The proposed Hobson Bay walkway (option1) received most mention. There were a variety of other mentions.

 

Frequency of mention

Proposed Hobson Bay Walkway (Option 1)/ connect Hobson Bay and Judges Bay/ Access to shoreline and Pool/ currently path is a dead end

6

Stabilise cliffs and pedestrian walkway

2

Connecting the walks so don't have to walk on road

1

Surface of walkway upgrade

1

Walkway and cycleway to circumnavigate Hobson Bay

1

New stormwater outlet

1

Good signage

1

Improved lighting/ security at night

1

Bring out the cannon

1

Celebrating the history

1

 

Respondents also took the opportunity to make other suggestions. These are as follows.

 

Frequency of mention

Restore the trees which were poisoned/ more plantings

2

Any proposal to put a walkway around Parnell Baths is unnecessary - can use the road

1

Need security camera at Resolution Point

1

Would like access to Elam St. restored

1

The new pedestrian overbridge really needs to be connected to the walkway - open access to St Stevens Ave and the Pool

1

Access to bay via Bloodworth Park for canoes, paddle boards

1

Remove mangroves - keeps birds away

1

No need for planting or tall bushes. Need to discourage people selling drugs in Resolution Point. This is a growing problem.

1

 


 

Summary

1.   All five guiding principles are supported. Strongest support was for enhance ecology and the natural environment (80% “strongly support”), followed by increase connectivity (63%).

2.   The boardwalk connection received higher support (56%) than the staircase option (37%). The main reasons for preferring the boardwalk connection centre on its utility for a wider range of people, improved accessibility, and aesthetic value.

3.   There is higher support for placing the historic cannon in Resolution Point Reserve than opposition. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents supported this move, and 18 per cent opposed. The main reason for support is its link to history.

4.   There were many different suggestions for changes to the draft plan. Several respondents expressed concern that mudcrete was not robust enough for construction of the pathway. Several respondents suggested linking coastal walking tracks, including cycleways.


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 

Full Colour; Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of Feedback from Local Residents on Proposed Developments for Grey Lynn Park.

February 2015

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prepared for Local and Sports Parks Central

By:       Tony Stones-Havas

Social Researcher

Research Investigations and Monitoring Unit

Auckland Council

 


 

 

 


Waitematā Local Board

14 April 2015

 

 

BACKGROUND

The Waitematā Local Board has consulted with local residents on the Grey Lynn Park development plan. The purpose of this plan is to update previous park development plans and provide a long term vision for the development of Grey Lynn Park. The main design aspirations of the plan are:

·    Improved location of buildings and carparks;

·    Better play experiences for a greater range of ages and types of play;

·    Reinforce the character and history of the park;

·    Integrate and consolidate Te Aranga Māori Design Principles;

·    Create a sustainable and environmentally friendly park;

·    Create a safe place for parks users.

Residents in surrounding streets were sent a flyer detailing the main provisions of the development plan and were invited to respond to an online questionnaire. Further opportunities to participate using hard copy questionnaires were provided via libraries and community centres and to those attending the Grey Lynn Festival.

The main information requirements from the consultation were:

1.   To gauge relative levels of support for the design aspirations above (with the exception of Te Aranga Māori Design Principles);

2.   To assess level of support for the creation of a greenway through the park, with reasons;

3.   To assess level of support for upgrading the playground and increasing the play area for greater age ranges, with reasons;

4.   To provide opportunity to suggest changes to the plan;

5.   To clarify the things that were most liked about the plan.

Respondents using the online option were also asked to rate on a scale of involvement how much they used the park for the following purposes:

·    Sit and relax;

·    Play;

·    Exercise;

·    Walk their dog;

·    Picnic;

·    Attend an event.

The consultation was conducted during November to mid-December 2014.

Questionnaires were received from 60 respondents. Forty-three completed the online questionnaire, and 17 returned the hard-copy questionnaire. The survey results will be taken into account by the Waitematā Local Board in finalising the plan.

 

MAIN FINDINGS

1. Design Aspirations

Residents were asked which of a list of goals (termed “aspirations” in the guide) were most important to them to guide the development of Grey Lynn Park.

The most strongly supported aspirations were create a safer place for users (49 per cent “very important”[1]), followed by create a sustainable and environmentally friendly park (48%), and better play experience (46%). Reinforce the character and history of the park (34%) was less supported, and least supported was improved location of buildings and carparks (21%) (Figure 1). It appears that respondents were evenly divided for and against this last item.

Figure 1: Levels of importance of Design Aspirations

 

 

Taking together the ratings of 1 or 2 on the importance scale, the design aspirations ranked very similarly, with create a sustainable and environmentally friendly park (74%) coming just ahead of create a safer place for users (69%) (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Overall importance of each of the Design Aspirations

 

2. Support for the greenway

Residents were asked how much they supported or opposed creating a greenway through the park.[2]  Those in support outnumbered those opposed by three to one. Nearly half of respondents (49%) were in strong support, compared with 16 per cent who strongly opposed (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Support for creating a greenway

 

The main reasons given (some with reservations) for supporting the greenway proposal were:

Number of responses

Great through-route for active transport (walking, cycling, scooters, skateboards)/ encourages cycling/ easy and safe for pedestrians

18

Would be good to link up greenways/ extend along streets to Cox's Bay

6

Way of the future

5

Fully shared paths can be dangerous, e.g. for young children, elderly and blind people/ needs to be separated from kids on bikes/ must be useful for all Grey Lynn residents

2

Green oasis is an asset in a densely populated area

2

Must be safe (unspecified)

2

Will improve parks usage/ encourage people to use the park

1

Has health benefits

1

Tree planting is too haphazard/ need shade

1

 

Very few of those opposed to the greenway gave reasons explaining their opposition. One respondent urged preferential treatment for long-term users:

The park is been used by many people who have a long history with Grey Lynn. We should be looking at ways to cater to those needs, we should be looking at the amenities that would better serve the various community sporting groups who have associated with Grey Lynn Park for the last century first.

 


 

Those who were neutral or stated no preference gave a variety of comments, as follows:

 

Number of responses

Structures, etc. should not take up too much of the park - need plenty of free space/ not one use at the expense of others/ cater for a wide range of users

2

Must be useful for all Grey Lynn residents

1

Isn't there already a cycle track through the park that bikes are using all the time?

1

Will amount of use justify the cost?

1

 

 

3. Support for upgraded playgrounds

Residents were asked to rate how strongly they supported or opposed the upgrade of playgrounds to increase the play value for a wider age range.[3] Support for this proposal outweighed opposition, with 49 per cent of respondents strongly in support, and 19 per cent strongly opposed. Overall support, based on those scoring 4 or 5 was 60 per cent, whereas overall opposition, based on those scoring 1 or 2 was 23 per cent (Figure 4).

Figure 4: levels of support for playground upgrade

 

Reasons given for supporting the proposal centre on the following:

 

Number of responses

Caters for a wide range of ages of children

6

Nice place to take kids/ needed

6

Equipment there now is very poor/ upgrade needed/ children don't use existing equipment at north end/ unsuitable/ outgrown

5

Specific suggestions: climbing wall/ shade sails on paddling pool/ baby and toddler-friendly equipment e.g. bucket swings/ flying fox/ bike play area

5

Good focal point for the community

2

Children enjoy the play area

1

 


 

Those giving reasons for opposing the upgrade cite the following:

 

Number of responses

New equipment is no improvement over the old

1

Equipment there now is very poor/ unsuitable

1

Playground is fine as it is

1

Noise problem especially in summer, e.g. banging, boom boxes (basketball court)

1

 

Those who were neutral (scored 3) or non-committal made the following comments:

 

Number of responses

Equipment there now is very poor/ unsuitable

1

Playground is fine as it is

1

 


 

4. Suggestions for changes to the draft development plan

Respondents were asked if there were any changes they would like to see in the draft plan. Responses were very varied, with no one issue predominating. The following themes emerged:

Suggested variations to the plan (19 mentions)

Number of responses

Don't move clubhouse to Elgin St - will cause congestion/ traffic chaos - current clubhouse is less intrusive/ better located now/ improve existing club rooms

5

The park has had replantings in the past. Why keep changing?/ Why top trees that look really attractive?/ Why redo areas that have been done before?/ don't move drinking fountains

3

Cutting foliage and trees to give view into the park and then obscuring the view with a new building doesn't make sense

2

Designing a skateboard area for mixed ability likely to cause problems and risk injury/ leave as is/ Were skateboard users consulted?

2

Swales are a bad idea - the area is a ball run-out area. Planting would hinder ball retrieval and transit. Subject to flooding.

1

Keep bollards at 18 (map reference). Much less costly to maintain.

1

Existing bleachers are sufficient - hardly used now. If clubhouse is moved they will be used even less.

1

Locate multi-facility complex more centrally to the playing fields

1

Widen the path to enable use by a variety of users

1

Move greenway further away from kid's playing area.

1

Avoid having fixed BBQ areas - attracts litter and food waste. People should be able to picnic anywhere.

1

 


 

Catering for cycling (9 mentions)

 

Number of responses

Install practice biking area for kids, like Onepoto/ Need mountain bike track in hilly areas

3

Put in more bike stands, all in plain view

2

Learn to ride area totally unnecessary/ wasteful

1

More water fountains needed/ for cyclists

1

Make path between #2 and #3 fields for cyclists as well as pedestrians- better access

1

Provide Rose Rd entry for cyclists

1

 

 

Car parks and traffic congestion (7 mentions)

Number of responses

Don't increase car parks - encourage others forms of transport/ need fewer carparks/ convert to children's play areas

5

Too much of the park taken up by car parking/ traffic congestion if clubhouse moved

2

 

Dog issues (4 mentions)

Number of responses

Stop dogs interfering with parks users: Keep off-leash dog area as it is, perhaps in an enclosure - avoid tangling with other users/ Don't have off-leash area for dogs - rules are disregarded. Dogs don't keep within boundaries.

2

Current dog area too small

1

Drinking bowl for dogs

1

 


 

Existing facilities poorly maintained (2 mentions)

Number of responses

Maintain  and improve existing sculpture park - presently neglected

1

Toilets in poor condition - needs improvement

1

 

Other- miscellaneous comments (7 mentions)

Number of responses

Consult more widely to include casual users/ Keep open for all users, e.g. congestion from people watching games limits park access for other users

1

Changes are a waste of money/ poorly thought out

1

Needs connecting path between #1 and #2 fields

1

Should ask where people want benches

1

Need more trees - planting plan

1

Need separate tennis court.

1

Cultural motifs are tokenism and clutter

1

 

 

5. Things liked most about the draft plan

Residents were asked if there was anything in the proposed plan that they were especially pleased to see included. The main likes related to the proposed infrastructure features, and the upgraded playgrounds. Comments are summarised as follows:

Infrastructure and features: paving/ drainage/ relocating clubrooms/ getting rid of inner car park/ new seating/ bleachers/ BBQs/ toilets/ greenway

13

Enlarged playgrounds/ better designed/ better playing facilities/ skate area/ flying fox

12

Provision for bikes/ learn to ride

8

Community orchard/ plantings/ lower shrubs - better visibility, hence safe

5

Retaining the pool

4

Designated off-leash area

1

Retaining Richmond Rovers Club

1

 


 

6. Purposes for visiting Grey Lynn Park (online version only)

Respondents using the online version of the questionnaire were asked what their preferred activities in the park are. The most frequently mentioned purpose of visit was exercise (59 per cent always doing this), followed by attending an event (48%), sitting and relaxing (48%), play (48%) walking their dog (45%). Going on a picnic was less common (25%) (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Purposes of visit

 




 

Direct submissions

Four submissions were made directly, without reference to the questionnaire. These are summarised as follows:

·    Lighting

With the new greenways path, usage is expected to increase. As well as by day, usage could extend into the first two hours of darkness, particularly in winter.  Installation of lights will improve safety.

·    Safer access

Dryden Street carries heavier than normal traffic because it is a through-route between Richmond Road and Williamson Avenue. This increases risks to those having to cross Dryden Street to enter the park. It also creates a barrier to wider greenway connections. Traffic calming measures such as kerb extensions (chicanes) or raised pedestrian crossings are suggested. Measures like these could also provide for a safer greenway connection to Cox’s Bay. Planting in the kerb extension could improve a ‘park-like feel’. Another suggestion is to close the intersection of Cockburn, Hakanoa and Dryden Streets.

·    Extend access to sports field to multiple codes/ multiple uses

The playing fields are currently used for rugby league (winter) and touch rugby (summer). Permit usage to extend to cricket and soccer. At the moment children cannot practice soccer and have to be transported elsewhere.

The learn-to-ride area prevents conduct of other activities. The existing paths are suitable for cycling practice.

·    Infrastructure

Provide seating at the Williamson Avenue entrance.

The greenway would encourage greater use of the park and also of the extended greenway routes. Greater usage will increase safety.

Moving the clubrooms is positive as it would free up green space and provide for better connections in the park.

It is important to avoid conflict between young and more experienced skateboarders by providing separate areas for them.

Volleyball is popular and it is good to provide for this.

The Richmond Rovers Rugby League Club, longstanding users of the park, wishes to remain in the same space, being well-located to changing rooms and storage. Moving to the #2 field creates logistical problems. If retention is not possible, then relocation closer to the middle of the park would work, but is less desirable. This submission lists further advantages of this alternative location. Further opportunity to discuss the proposal was requested.

·    Ecology

Plant native trees. Restore and daylight the stream, making use of working bees.

·    Dogs

Dogs are a nuisance to other users.  Moving the off-leash area to Prime Road is supported, though dog owners may not be content with this.

 

Summary

1. Three design aspirations stand out in their ratings as “very important”. These are: create a safer place for users, create a sustainable and environmentally friendly park, and better play experience. Around half of respondents rated these as “very important”.  Improved location of buildings and carparks received lowest ratings for “very important” and highest corresponding rating for “not at all important”, both at 21 per cent.

2. Three times as many respondents expressed support for the greenway as were opposed to it. The most favoured reason for support is that the greenway enables a connection through the park and beyond for people using active transport, i.e. walking, cycling, using a skateboard, etc. Reasons for opposing the greenway were mixed, and none stood out in particular.

3. Sixty per cent of respondents supported the proposal to upgrade the playgrounds for a wider age range, compared to around a quarter who opposed it. Support for the proposal included reference to having a good place to take children and catering for a wide age range, and the need for upgrading currently poor and unsuitable equipment. Few reasons were given for opposing the playground upgrades.

4. There was a wide variety of suggestions for making changes to the draft development plan. These included suggested variations to the plan, accommodating cycling, car parks and traffic congestion, accommodating dogs, as well as more general suggestions.

5. The most liked features of the plan included the proposed changes to infrastructure, improved playgrounds, and provision for cycling.


 

Sample description

Respondents on the online version of the questionnaire were asked to provide demographic information which is useful to describe the sample. This data was not available from the hard copy questionnaires. The online sample comprises the following:

GENDER

Male:

15

Female:

16

31

 

AGE

25-39:

9

40-49:

7

50+:

13

29

 

FREQUENCY OF VISIT

weekly:

27

monthly:

4

31

 

DISTANCE FROM PARK

Nearby /Walking distance

27

Not that far / driving distance

4

31

  



[1] Ratings were on a five-point scale where 1=very important and 5=not at all important.

[2] The main scale used ranged from 1=strongly oppose to 5=strongly support. The hard copy questionnaire used a scale of importance. The latter scale was adjusted to align with the support scale to enable the results to be combined.

[3] The scale ranged from 1=strongly oppose to 5=strongly support. As with the previous question, the hardcopy and online scales were aligned to enable the results to be combined.