visitor satisfaction survey

Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick May 2021 of 40

MEASURE - COMPARE - PERFORM

Swan Canning Riverpark 2020/2021 Report

Visitor Satisfaction Survey


ContentsExecutive Summary .................................................................................................. 4

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.0 Methodology ..................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Project Background ...................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Questions ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Report features ............................................................................................................ 7 1.4 Survey Confidence and Reliability ............................................................................... 7 1.5 Parks surveyed ............................................................................................................ 8

2.0 Overall Satisfaction .......................................................................................... 9 2.1 Average Satisfaction .................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Overall satisfaction ..................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Average Satisfaction by Park ..................................................................................... 11

3.0 Key Result areas ............................................................................................. 13 3.1 Visitor Expectations .................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Visitor Experiences .................................................................................................... 14

4.0 Service Gap Analysis ..................................................................................... 15 4.1 Overall Service Gap ................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Individual site service gaps ........................................................................................ 16

5.0 Activities Undertaken On Park ...................................................................... 18 5.1 Respondent Activities ................................................................................................. 18 5.2 Child Activities - observed .......................................................................................... 19

6.0 Supplementary Findings ................................................................................ 20 6.1 Demographic Profile ................................................................................................... 20 6.2 Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 21 6.3 Home Location ........................................................................................................... 21 6.4 Modes of Transport .................................................................................................... 22 6.5 Travel time ................................................................................................................. 22 6.6 Walking time ............................................................................................................... 23 6.7 Visitor Frequency ....................................................................................................... 24 6.8 Visit Duration .............................................................................................................. 25 6.9 Weather ...................................................................................................................... 25

7.0 Respondent Feedback ................................................................................... 27 Appendix One – Survey Questions ....................................................................... 37


List of Charts Chart 1. Average satisfaction trend 2017 to 2020 ...................................................................... 9 Chart 2. Average satisfaction compared with other organisations ............................................. 9 Chart 3. Overall satisfaction compared with other organisations ............................................. 10 Chart 4. Overall satisfaction by park ........................................................................................ 11 Chart 5. Average satisfaction by park ...................................................................................... 12 Chart 6. Relative importance of parks features – all parks ...................................................... 13 Chart 7. Relative satisfaction with parks features – all parks ................................................... 14 Chart 8. Overall service level gap – all parks ........................................................................... 15 Chart 9. Results for Individual sites for all features .................................................................. 17 Chart 10. All Parks - General park activities .......................................................................... 18 Chart 11. All Parks - Beach and water based activities ......................................................... 19 Chart 12. Observed Child Activities ....................................................................................... 19 Chart 13. Gender of respondents ........................................................................................... 20 Chart 14. Age Groups - All Swan Canning Riverpark parks .................................................. 20 Chart 15. Ethnicity .................................................................................................................. 21 Chart 16. Home Location ....................................................................................................... 21 Chart 17. Modes of Transport to get to park .......................................................................... 22 Chart 18. Travel time of respondents ..................................................................................... 22 Chart 19. Walking times of local respondents ........................................................................ 23 Chart 20. Visitor frequency ..................................................................................................... 24 Chart 21. Duration of Visit ...................................................................................................... 25 Chart 22. Sunshine, cloud and rain during surveys ............................................................... 25 Chart 23. Wind conditions during surveys .............................................................................. 26 List of Tables Table 1. Number of surveys 8 Table 2 . Respondent feedback 27


Executive Summary This report has been prepared for the Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions, and reports the results of a visitor survey carried out in the Swan and Canning Riverpark to measure the level of visitor satisfaction. This is a requirement for the departmental 2020-21 Budget Statements as an Outcome and Key Effectiveness Indicator, with a target of 85% average satisfaction. For the purpose of this report, the survey undertaken for reporting in the 2020-21 financial year is referred to as the 2020 survey as although it was completed in May 2021, it had been deferred from December 2020 due to Covid. This fits with the naming convention of previous surveys and allows for a further survey to be completed in the 21/22 financial year if required. The 2020 survey was undertaken by Xyst Limited and uses the Yardstick user survey platform. This allows direct comparison with other organisations in Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and the survey can be repeated regularly to allow trend analysis. The 2021 survey was undertaken in April and May 2021 as it was delayed from late 2020 due to Covid-19. Surveying commenced in April but due to a Covid outbreak the survey was completed in May. Neither survey period was during school holidays and a significant long weekend (Anzac Day) was missed due to a lockdown from 24 to 26 April. By comparison;

• The 2017 survey was completed entirely during spring school holidays in September/October 2017

• The 2018 survey was completed in December 2018 with summer school holidays commencing about halfway through the survey period.

• The 2019 survey was completed in December 2019, just prior to the start of the summer school holidays.

The survey collected information from 235 respondents about patterns of use, activities, expectations, satisfaction and demographics. The questions asked during the 2021 survey are the same as those asked in 2019 with the exception of the overall satisfaction question. This has been changed from the five-point Likert scale used for all of the satisfaction questions to a seven point scale that is now worded as follows:

Q7. Overall, how satisfied were you with your visit to this park on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied?

The purpose of the survey is to identify: • Expectations of visitors to the Swan Canning Riverpark; • Levels of satisfaction with features of the Swan Canning Riverpark; • Patterns of recreational use; • Issues and areas for improvement.

Key Findings • Average satisfaction is 82.2%, slightly below the target level of 85% but within the margin of

error for the survey. • Average satisfaction is lower than in 2019 (90.9%). • Overall satisfaction with the Riverpark and its facilities is 94%, equal to the 2019 Australian

median for similar Yardstick parks user surveys. • Average satisfaction targets were met at 8 out of 23 parks, down from 21 in 2019. • Cleanliness, security and river water quality are the three most important features of the

Riverpark in the locations that were surveyed. This is slightly different to 2019 but within the margin of error.

• Satisfaction was highest with gardens and trees, cleanliness, grass maintenance and security and lowest with toilets. Results for the top five in 2020 were very similar, and similar to previous years’ results.


• The service gaps for most features are smaller than in 2019, and none are significant. • Playgrounds, signs, interpretive signage and grass maintenance have a positive average

service gap across all parks. • Most visitors are walking, dog walking, supervising children and doing beach and water

based activities. Fewer were undertaking beach or water based activities than in 2019, probably due to different weather conditions.

• Most common water based activities are fishing and canoeing/kayaking. Swimming was less common in 2020 than in 2019.

• 51% of respondents indicate that they live locally to the site where they were surveyed, with 31% of those living within 10 minutes walking time.

• A further 46% of respondents come from the wider Perth region, with only 3% of respondents visiting from other parts of Australia and no international visitors.

• Most (59%) of respondents use a private vehicle to get to the Riverpark, with 30% of respondents walking. This is similar to 2017, 2018 and 2019.

• 47% of respondents in 2020 travelled less than 15 minutes to get to the Riverpark. This is considerably less than 64% in 2019 and is consistent with less local use in 2020.

• 63% of respondents visit the site they were surveyed at once a week or more often. This is higher than the 53% reported in 2018 and slightly lower than the 71% reported in 2019.

• 30% of respondents were planning to stay for more than an hour in 2020 compared with 36% in 2019 and 44% in 2018.

Conclusions • The average satisfaction of 82.2% does not meet the target level of 85% average

satisfaction in 2020. • Respondents generally scored features lower for both importance and satisfaction in 2020

than in 2019. This produced a smaller service gap i.e. respondents’ expectations of individual park features were more likely to be met in 2020 than they were in 2019. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in 2019 and is likely to be related to different conditions and the slightly different demographic of the sample group.

• This also occured in 2018 when both importance and satisfaction were lower and the service gap was smaller. The 2020 and 2018 results are similar, and somewhat different to both 2019 and 2017.

• Despite the smaller service gaps for individual park features in 2020, the results for the question on overall satisfaction produced a lower average satisfaction than in 2019. This may be due to a combination of the weather, the introduction of a seven point scale, and the slightly different demographic of the survey sample.

• The majority of Riverpark visitors are from the local area or the wider Perth region. The balance between the two varies from year to year with 2020 and 2018 having less local use than in 2019 and 2017.

• The weather conditions during the survey appear to be having an effect on results with a correlation being noted between sunshine, local use and overall average satisfaction. The highest results for average satisfaction have been obtained in 2017 and 2019 when there was more sunshine during the survey and a higher incidence of local use.

• Perceptions of water quality have stayed very similar since 2018 but expectations have changed during this time.

• Provision and quality of toilet facilities, cleanliness, shade, water quality, security and furniture are perceived by visitors to be inadequate at some locations, although in general are better than in 2019.

• School holidays don’t appear to have a measurable impact on results with variations between years not appearing to be correlated to whether the survey was undertaken during school holidays or not.

• It is possible that the new seven point scale has reduced overall average satisfaction as respondents may have been less likely to select 7/7 representing extremely satisfied than they would have been likely to select very satisfied as an option on the old five point scale. The impact of the seven point scale will be seen in future years when there is a baseline for comparison.


1.0 Methodology 1.1 Project Background Yardstick User Survey is a survey of park visitors that is carried out annually or as required to meet specific demands for user consultation. The survey is designed to record visitor expectations, satisfaction and behavior. Yardstick user surveys are part of a suite of benchmarking products designed to measure, compare and improve performance. Visitor expectations of levels of service are measured by asking them to rate the importance of various park features. These results are compared with visitor satisfaction for the same features. Measuring satisfaction gives an indication of performance as measured against expectations. The difference, or gap between importance and satisfaction gives a measure of under or over performance in delivering the expected level of service. A total of 235 intercept surveys were undertaken from 21 to 29 April (excluding 24 to 26 April) and from 21 to 23 May 2021 from 23 different foreshore park and reserve locations along the Swan Canning Riverpark. The Riverpark is not managed by a single authority, so the 23 sites represent river foreshore parks managed by different local and other authorities. The survey repeats the Yardstick surveys undertaken in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

1.2 Questions The core questions are designed to collect information about the typical core parks facilities and services, and to ensure that the survey can be completed in a typical timeframe of 5 to 8 minutes. Questions are reviewed annually to ensure relevance and to meet current parks management needs. Questions have been added for the Swan Canning Riverpark survey with input from DBCA staff to ensure that the survey meets specific needs. A full set of questions is provided as Appendix 1. For 2020, an amendment was made to the question about overall satisfaction with the park.

2019 2020 Overall, how satisfied are you with the features of this park?

• Very satisfied • Satisfied • Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied • Dissatisfied • Very dissatisfied

Overall, how satisfied were you with your visit to this park on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied

• 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7

Other survey responses are scored using the following scoring system: Importance scale

totally unimportant

unimportant neither important nor unimportant

important very important

1 2 3 4 5

Satisfaction scale

very dissatisfied

dissatisfied neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

satisfied very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5


“Don’t know” or blank responses are given a score of 3 for importance (neutral) and are not included when calculating satisfaction. This ensures that “don’t know” responses don’t affect final results.

1.3 Report features This report is designed to provide a summary of your specific results for the past year’s survey activity, and a comparison with results from previous years. The full results of the survey are available to members online at www.yardstickglobal.org The on-line report gives results on a park by park basis, as well as the ability to compare your organisation’s results against others participating in the project. It includes filter tools to enable members to custom design report results by selecting park types and organisations. The scoring methodology used for overall satisfaction is currently not compatible with the online reporting so the 2021 online report doesn’t give overall or average satisfaction. Overall and average satisfaction have been calculated manually for this summary report. Online reporting will be developed for the seven point scale during 2021 and will be available for future reports. Overall satisfaction percentage is calculated from the total numbers of respondents that gave a score of five, six or seven (i.e. above the mid-point of four) to the specific question on overall satisfaction with the park in which the survey was conducted. Respondents that scored overall satisfaction with their visit to the park as four or less are excluded as these respondents are considered to be not satisfied. Overall satisfaction is therefore the percentage of satisfied respondents vs not satisfied respondents. The average (mean) satisfaction is calculated by summing the overall satisfaction scores from all respondents (including those that were not satisfied) and dividing by the total number of responses to give an average score between 1 and 7. This score is converted to a percentage to enable comparison with the target of 85%. Average satisfaction is therefore a score (converted to a percentage) calculated from the scores attributed to each response on the satisfaction scale (see section 1.2). Average satisfaction typically produces a satisfaction score that is lower than overall satisfaction. Importance and satisfaction for individual features is calculated from the survey questions for those features. The service gap between importance and satisfaction is an indication of under or over performance. Anything less than a full one point +/- result in any chart should be read as a relatively minor indication of a level of service that is too great or too poor.

1.4 Survey Confidence and Reliability A total of 235 surveys were collected (a minimum of ten per park) and the results aggregated for overall satisfaction to provide a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5%. Standard deviation is used as a measure of the degree to which respondents provided similar or dissimilar responses. Standard deviation is calculated from responses to the question on overall satisfaction for the park. Where the standard deviation of respondents’ satisfaction ratings is less than one indicates that most respondents gave similar ratings that were very close to the mean (average) score.

Number of Surveys Undertaken

Mean Satisfaction

Standard Deviation

Swan Canning Riverpark 235 5.76 0.86


1.5 Parks surveyed Surveys were collected from a total of 23 river foreshore parks as follows:

Table 1. Number of Surveys Park Name Number of Surveys

completed Local Authority

Banks Reserve & Maylands Foreshore

10 City of Bayswater/ City of Vincent

Garvey Park 11 City of Belmont Belmont Water Ski Area 10 City of Belmont Shelley Beach & Prisoners Point

10 City of Canning

Kent Street Weir 10 City of Canning Troy and Tompkins Park 13 City of Melville Point Walter 10 City of Melville Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach

10 City of Melville

Deep Water Point 10 City of Melville Point Fraser and Heirisson Island

10 City of Perth

Perth Foreshore Barrack Square

10 City of Perth

JH Abrahams Reserve 11 City of Perth Matilda Bay Reserve 10 DBCA and City of Perth Sir James Mitchell Park (Between Coode St and Hurlingham Rd only)

10 City of South Perth

Mill Point Reserve and Point Belches

10 City of South Perth

Woodbridge Reserve 10 City of Swan Lilac Hill 10 City of Swan Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill

10 City of Swan/ Town of Bassendean

Keanes Point, The Esplanade 10 Shire of Peppermint Grove Sandy Beach Reserve 10 Town of Bassendean Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East Fremantle

10 Town of East Fremantle

East Fremantle Yacht Club / Toms Reserve

10 Town of East Fremantle

Burswood Park 10 Burswood Parks Board and Victoria Park


2.0 Overall Satisfaction The overall satisfaction of respondents was measured by asking them to rate their overall satisfaction with the park on a scale of totally dissatisfied to very satisfied. From these scores two measures are calculated, mean satisfaction (average) and overall satisfaction.

2.1 Average Satisfaction The average or mean satisfaction of respondents is calculated by adding the total of all scores (from 1 to 7) and dividing by the total number of respondents. This gives an average or mean score of 5.76 or 82.2%. The target level of mean or average satisfaction in the 2020-21 year is 85%. Chart 1 shows the average satisfaction since 2017 with the target satisfaction represented by the black line. Average satisfaction has risen and fallen since 2017, and is now 82.2%, below the target level of 85%. The scoring methodology changed between 2019 and 2020 so results from the 2020 survey may not be directly comparable with previous years.

Chart 1. Average satisfaction trend 2017 to 2020

Chart 2. Average satisfaction compared with other organisations

86.8% 83.1%90.9%

82.2%

85% 90% 85%85%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2017 2018 2019 2020

Swan Canning Riverpark - Parks & Wildlife Service Target satisfaction

84.9%

72.9%

81.7%

82.2%

84.2%

84.9%

90.1%

91.3%

91.5%

97.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aus/NZ Median

Napier City Council

Central Hawkes Bay District Council

Swan Canning Riverpark

Hume City Council

Whanganui District Council

Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council

City of Casey

Rotorua Lakes Council

Palmerston North City Council

Average Satisfaction


Chart 2 shows average satisfaction compared with other organisations in Australia and New Zealand that completed parks visitor surveys in 2020 and 2021. Swan Canning Riverpark was below the median result with the third lowest score out of the 9 organisations. The highest score was 97% average satisfaction at Palmerston North City. It should be taken into consideration that Swan Canning Riverpark is the only organisation that utilised the seven point scale with numbers only, and all others used the five point scale with words to describe each point on the scale.

2.2 Overall satisfaction Overall satisfaction is a measure of the percentage of respondents that were above the midpoint of the scale, or in the case of the other eight organisations, either satisfied or very satisfied. Chart 3 shows the performance of Swan Canning Riverpark compared with the other Australian and New Zealand organisations that undertook Yardstick parks user surveys in 2020 and 2021. Overall satisfaction of Swan Canning Riverpark respondents was scored at 94% indicating that 94% of respondents gave a score for overall satisfaction above the midpoint of four. For comparison purposes, and to demonstrate the relationship between overall satisfaction and average satisfaction, the chart also includes average satisfaction for each organisation in grey alongside overall satisfaction.

Chart 3. Overall satisfaction compared with other organisations

The result of 94% satisfaction was the median result for the organisations listed in Chart 3. This represents a slight decrease from 97.4% in 2019 which is within the margin of error for the survey.

84.9%

72.9%

81.7%

82.2%

84.2%

84.9%

90.1%

91.3%

91.5%

97.0%

94.0%

67.5%

93.3%

94.0%

90.2%

92.2%

98.3%

97.9%

96.2%

97.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aus/NZ Median

Napier City Council

Central Hawkes Bay District Council

Swan Canning Riverpark

Hume City Council

Whanganui District Council

Queanbeyan-Palerang Regional Council

City of Casey

Rotorua Lakes Council

Palmerston North City Council


Chart 4. Overall satisfaction by park

Chart 4 shows the overall satisfaction for each park. The numbers of responses are shown on each bar. In general the level of satisfaction is high, with all but fourteen respondents scoring satisfaction above the midpoint of the scale. No respondents gave a score of one or two.

2.3 Average Satisfaction by Park Average satisfaction varies by park, and ranges from 70% at Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill to 93% at Point Walter. Only eight of the 23 parks achieved the target of 85% average satisfaction, a significant drop from 21 in 2019. Chart 5 shows the average satisfaction for each park from 2018 to 2020. Average satisfaction for most parks increased from 2018 to 2019, then declined again to 2020. Adenia Park was only surveyed in 2018 and 2019, and Burswood Park was introduced in 2020.

14

22

06

00

11

02

54

31

01

35

60

148

75

12

33

46

54

37

45

46

35

43

26

597

24

75

51

644

36

111

34

34

322

32

76

000

12

0000

21

000

10

40000

02

13

000000000000000000000

101

000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Woodbridge Reserve

Troy and Tompkins Park

Sir James Mitchell Park

Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point

Sandy Beach Reserve

Point Walter

Point Fraser and Heirisson Island



Matilda Bay Reserve

Lilac Hill

Kent Street Weir

Keanes Point The Esplanade

Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East Fremantle

JH Abrahams Reserve

Garvey Park

Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill

East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve

Deep Water Point

Burswood Park

Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach

Belmont Water Ski Area

Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore

Total

7 6 5 4 3 2 1


Chart 5. Average satisfaction by park

84%

86%

79%

79%

73%

93%

77%

80%

81%

77%

74%

87%

91%

90%

83%

82%

70%

81%

86%

90%

91%

77%

79%

91%

84%

93%

94%

92%

92%

84%

88%

86%

96%

90%

88%

86%

94%

96%

98%

88%

92%

96%

85%

90%

96%

92%

84%

82%

84%

80%

78%

84%

82%

82%

88%

90%

84%

94%

90%

84%

80%

86%

80%

66%

82%

82%

84%

84%

82%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Woodbridge Reserve

Troy and Tompkins Park

Sir James Mitchell Park

Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point

Sandy Beach Reserve

Point Walter

Point Fraser and Heirisson Island



Matilda Bay Reserve

Lilac Hill

Kent Street Weir

Keanes Point The Esplanade

Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point

JH Abrahams Reserve

Garvey Park

Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill

East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve

Deep Water Point

Burswood Park

Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach

Belmont Water Ski Area

Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore

Adenia Park

2018 2019 2020


3.0 Key Result areas 3.1 Visitor Expectations Respondents were asked to rate the importance of parks features on a scale from totally unimportant to very important. This gives a measure of expected level of service for each feature. The features that respondents were asked to rate are:

1. Gardens and Trees 2. Children's playgrounds and equipment (under 12 years) 3. Seats and tables 4. Toilets 5. Signs in the park 6. Cleanliness/lack of litter/lack of graffiti 7. Grass maintenance 8. Paths and Tracks 9. Provision of shade 10. Security (personal safety while in the park) 11. Water quality 12. Natural vegetation 13. Interpretive signage

The mean importance for each feature across all parks is expressed in Chart 6 as a percentage of the maximum possible score of 5. The results for 2020 are shown in the bright blue bars with the 2018 and 2019 results shown in lighter blue for comparison.

Chart 6. Relative importance of parks features – all parks

73.8%

75.8%

77.0%

82.6%

83.1%

86.1%

86.2%

87.7%

87.9%

88.9%

90.0%

91.3%

94.2%

78.7%

76.7%

79.8%

83.8%

87.1%

87.9%

88.8%

90.1%

92.3%

92.9%

91.5%

90.9%

94.1%

73.9%

73.2%

73.7%

77.5%

83.4%

83.2%

80.9%

81.5%

86.1%

86.5%

83.0%

84.6%

89.5%

Signs

Playgrounds

Interpretive signage

Seats/Tables

Grass Maint

Toilets

Paths/Tracks

Natural vegetation

Shade

Gardens/Trees

Water quality

Security

Cleanliness

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2018 2019 2020


The most important feature overall in 2020 is cleanliness, followed by security and river water quality. Playgrounds, signs and interpretive signage scored the lowest importance overall. The 2020 results are similar to 2019 although the importance of most features is slightly lower than in 2019, but higher than 2018.

3.2 Visitor Experiences Respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the same parks features that they had rated for importance. In this case, the scale used was from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. This gives a measure of user experience in terms of whether or not expectations were met. The mean satisfaction for each feature across all parks is expressed in Chart 7 as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The results for 2020 are shown in the dark green bars with the 2018 and 2019 results shown in lighter green for comparison. Satisfaction in 2020 was highest with gardens and trees, cleanliness, grass maintenance and security and lowest with toilets. Results for the top five were very similar. The 2020 results are generally lower than in 2019 with the exception of river water quality and cleanliness which have increased. Results at the bottom of the chart are very similar to 2018, and at the top of the chart are better than 2018 but generally lower than 2019.

Chart 7. Relative satisfaction with parks features – all parks

71.9%

77.3%

77.6%

77.7%

79.7%

80.0%

80.3%

83.1%

84.5%

84.9%

85.4%

86.2%

87.2%

77.1%

83.1%

82.4%

81.6%

79.4%

80.0%

77.9%

83.9%

88.8%

88.6%

88.1%

83.7%

89.3%

74.4%

76.5%

76.8%

76.7%

78.9%

80.0%

78.7%

76.9%

81.0%

81.2%

82.1%

84.9%

82.3%

Toilets

Playgrounds

Seats/Tables

Signs

Natural vegetation


Water quality

Shade

Paths/Tracks

Security

Grass Maint

Cleanliness

Gardens/Trees

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2018 2019 2020


4.0 Service Gap Analysis The service gap is calculated by subtracting the importance score from the satisfaction score i.e. experience minus expectations. Where respondents have scored satisfaction lower than importance, this indicates that their experience did not meet their expectations for the feature in the park in which they were surveyed. This is represented by a negative service gap. On the other hand, if satisfaction scores higher than performance, this results in a positive service gap, indicating a level of over-performance, or a higher level of service being experienced than expected. Anything less than a full half point (+/-0.5) result in any chart should be read as a relatively minor indication of a level of service that is too great/poor. Anything between +/-0.5 – +/-1.0 should be reviewed and any gap over +/-1.0 requires further examination on why there is a major gap between respondents’ expectations and experience.

4.1 Overall Service Gap Chart 8 shows the difference between importance and satisfaction for all parks combined. The 2020 results are shown in dark red with labels, and previous years in grey and pink for comparison. The current service gap varies from -0.71 for toilets to +0.20 for signs.

Chart 8. Overall service level gap – all parks

Signs


Grass Maint

Playgrounds

Gardens/Trees

Paths/Tracks

Shade

Seats/Tables

Security

Natural vegetation

Cleanliness

Water quality

Toilets

-1 -0.5 0 0.5

0.20

0.15

0.12

0.08

-0.08

-0.09

-0.24

-0.25

-0.32

-0.40

-0.40

-0.49

-0.71

2018 2019 2020


Service gaps have varied over the last three years as ratings for importance and satisfaction vary and are generally smaller than in 2019. The service gap for toilets in contrast has increased from -0.44 to -0.71 over the last three years. When assessed by individual park the service gaps become more significant and can be better targeted for action.

4.2 Individual site service gaps There were a number of individual negative service gaps where satisfaction was more than one point less than importance. Feature Location Seats and tables Troy and Tompkins Park

Toilets Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach

East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve Deep Water Point Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill Troy and Tompkins Park

Cleanliness East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve

Shade East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve

Security Belmont Water Ski Area East Fremantle Yacht Club/Tom’s Reserve Kent Street Weir

Water Quality Garvey Park

The number of service gaps of more than -1.00 has decreased from 2019 results even though average and overall satisfaction have also decreased. It seems that although levels of satisfaction are lower overall in 2020, expectations have decreased more thus decreasing the gap. This is exactly the opposite trend shown in 2019. Chart 9 shows results for service gaps at individual sites for all features. Highlighted cells show major gaps in service level (red) and minor gaps in service level (yellow). Cells highlighted in green show features where the level of satisfaction is more than 0.5 points higher than importance, indicating that there is no unmet demand for these features at these locations. It should be noted however, that due to the small sample sizes at each site, these results should be considered to be indicative only.


Chart 9. Results for Individual sites for all features

Gardens and trees Playgrounds Seats and

tables Toilets Signs Cleanliness Grass maintenance

Paths and tracks Shade Security Water

quality Natural

vegetation Interpretive

signage

Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore -0.3 0.22 0.1 -0.4 0.3 -0.2 0 0.1 0 0 -0.6 -0.7 0

Belmont Water Ski Area 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.2 -0.8 0.3 0.2 0.4 -1.1 -0.6 -0.4 0.6

Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach 0.1 -0.1 -0.5 -1.13 0.1 -0.3 0.2 0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 -0.3 0.4

Burswood Park -0.18 0 0 -0.7 -0.3 -0.1 0.2 -0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 -0.1 -0.3

Deep Water Point 0.1 0.1 -0.8 -1.03 0.6 -0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.7 -0.7 0.1

East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve -0.1 -0.2 -0.7 -1.9 -0.8 -1.1 -0.3 -0.4 -1.2 -1.1 -0.4 -0.6 -0.2

Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill 0.1 0.1 -0.47 -1.7 0.1 -0.6 0 -0.6 0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.5 -0.1

Garvey Park 0.18 -0.09 -0.36 -0.45 0 -0.18 0 -0.55 -0.45 -0.36 -1.18 -0.82 -0.64

JH Abrahams Reserve 0.36 0 0 -0.27 0.73 0.09 0.36 -0.55 -0.09 0.18 -0.36 -0.09 0.82

Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East Fremantle 0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.6 0.2 -0.3 0.4 0.2 -0.4 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 -0.2

Keanes Point The Esplanade -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.7 -1

Kent Street Weir -0.2 0.86 -0.41 -0.6 0.3 -0.5 0.1 -0.1 -0.6 -1.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.1

Lilac Hill -0.3 0.16 0.1 0.08 0.6 -0.3 0.4 -0.11 0 -0.3 -0.1 -0.1 0.3

Matilda Bay Reserve -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -0.72 0.2 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 -0.6 0 -0.6 -0.4 -0.4

Mill Point Reserve and Point Belches -0.2 1 -0.1 -1 0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.7 -0.1 -0.5

Perth Foreshore Barrack Square -0.3 -0.17 0 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 0 0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.2 0 -0.2

Point Fraser and Heirisson Island -0.2 0.5 -0.3 -0.47 0.3 -0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.8 -0.2 0 0.5

Point Walter 0.2 0.3 0.4 -0.62 0.5 -0.7 0.3 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 -0.6 0.2

Sandy Beach Reserve -0.3 0.3 -0.3 -0.4 0.26 -0.4 -0.3 -0.3 -0.1 -0.5 -0.6 -0.2 -0.1

Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point -0.2 -0.63 -0.4 -0.48 0.4 -0.8 0.4 -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 -0.5 -0.4 0.2

Sir James Mitchell Park 0 0.3 -0.4 -0.9 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -1 -0.8 -0.6

Troy and Tompkins Park -0.31 -0.62 -1.23 -1.69 -0.08 -0.23 -0.08 -0.15 -0.62 0.15 -0.85 -0.77 -0.08

Woodbridge Reserve -0.2 0.1 -0.1 -0.4 -0.1 -0.4 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2


Further detailed analysis of results on a park by park basis is available in the online reports at www.yardstickglobal.org

5.0 Activities Undertaken On Park 5.1 Respondent Activities Swan Canning Riverpark respondents undertook a range of foreshore land and water related activities, as shown in the charts below. Chart 10 shows the percentage of respondents across all parks who indicated each activity in response to the question “what are you planning to do (or what have you done) in the park today?” People were able to identify more than one activity that they undertook at the park during their visit (hence the percentages add to more than 100). Most respondents were walking, walking dogs, supervising children, and beach and water based activities. This is somewhat different to 2019 when 30% were taking part in beach and water based activities, and is very similar to 2018 results. This may be a reflection of the weather conditions at the time of the survey, or of the sample demographic. Other activities (10%) included bird watching, fishing, camping, using toilets, running, testing boat engines, visiting café, personal trainer, socializing, meeting for coffee, park run, waiting for a ride, and children’s birthday party.

Chart 10. All Parks - General park activities

The 18% of respondents that indicated they were involved in beach or water based activities were asked what beach or water based activities they were doing. Chart 11 shows the results.

1%

3%

6%

7%

10%

11%

12%

16%

18%

20%

22%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Sporting activity

Watching sport

Play activity

Cycling

Other

Passing through

Picnic/BBQ

Relaxing

Beach and water based activity

Supervise children

Walking dog

Walking


Chart 11. All Parks - Beach and water based activities

Fishing was more popular than in 2019, and swimming less popular. This is likely to be due to weather conditions.

5.2 Child Activities - observed Children under 15 are not surveyed for ethical reasons. For this reason, researchers log the activity of children in the park whenever they complete a survey so that there is information about the activities of children. Chart 12 represents observed children’s activities across all Swan Canning Riverpark foreshore parks and reserves. Children were most commonly observed playing with park facilities or other children. No children were present during 28.1% of surveys. Beach activities were less common amongst children in 2020 than 2019 when they accounted for around 40% of activity.

Chart 12. Observed Child Activities

0%

2%

5%

9%

12%

14%

30%

40%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Rowing

Jet skiing

Stand up paddle board

Power boating

Swimming

Other

Canoeing/kayaking

Fishing

0.0%

3.0%

3.4%

9.4%

9.8%

15.3%

23.0%

25.5%

28.1%

29.4%

44.3%

52.8%

Sporting activity

Other

Watching sport

Walking the dog

Passing through

Cycling

Beach activity

Picnic/BBQ

No children present

Walking

Playing with other children

Play activity using park…

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


6.0 Supplementary Findings 6.1 Demographic Profile The gender of respondent is shown in Chart 13. 52% of respondents were female, and 48% male. This is very similar to the gender profile of the Perth region and is the same as 2019 results.

Chart 13. Gender of respondents

Respondents’ age groups are presented in Chart 14. The age profile of the survey sample is different to 2019 when it was very similar to the age profile of the Greater Perth statistical area. In 2020, there were more respondents in the 30 to 44 age groups, and fewer under 30. The over 45 profile is very similar to the Greater Perth age profile. The age profile in 2020 was more like that seen in 2018.

Chart 14. Age Groups - All Swan Canning Riverpark parks

Male48%Female

52%

Male

Female

1.7%2.6%

6.0%

13.7%

17.1%

13.7%

7.7% 7.3%

13.2%

17.1%

7.3%8.5%

9.2%9.8%

9.2%8.1% 8.4%

7.7%

13.7%

18.1%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–64 65+

% V

isito

rs S

urve

yed

Sample Greater Perth


6.2 Ethnicity As shown in Chart 15, 83% of respondents identified as Australian. The next largest cohort was Asian, then European. This is a less diverse sample of respondents than in 2019 when 71% of respondents identified as Australian, and is more like the 2018 sample. It is unclear whether variations in ethnic diversity from year to year are due to a changing demographic of the survey sample or due to the way in the which the question is interpreted.

Chart 15. Ethnicity

6.3 Home Location Chart 16 shows that 51% of respondents were local, i.e. live in the immediate neighbourhood of the park that they were interviewed in. A further 46% were from the wider Perth region, leaving only 3% from other parts of Australia. Local/regional visitation is quite different to 2019 when 68% were local, and similar to 2018 results where 48% of respondents reported that they were local to the park they were surveyed at and a further 44% were from the wider Perth region. A further change from previous years is that there were no international visitors in 2020 compared with 5% in both 2019 and 2018. Visitation from other parts of Australia has stayed steady at 3% since 2018.

Chart 16. Home Location

83%

2%9%

4%

1%

Australian

Aborigine/Torres Strait Islander

Pacific Peoples

Asian

European

Middle Eastern/African

North or South American

Other

51%46%

3%0%

Local

City/Shire/Region

Australia

International


6.4 Modes of Transport 30% of respondents across all parks walked to the park that they were interviewed in, with a further 59% travelling by private motor vehicle. Public transport and other forms of transport use were uncommon, at only 1% respectively. Cycling was more common than many other parks user surveys at 7%. These results were virtually identical to 2018 and 2019 modes of transport.

Chart 17. Modes of Transport to get to park

6.5 Travel time All respondents were asked how far they had travelled to get to the park (in time). Responses are shown in Chart 18. Around 38% of respondents spent between 5 and 15 minutes travel time to get to the park they were surveyed at, with a further 37% travelling between 15 and 30 minutes. Only 9% of respondents travelled for less than 5 minutes, and 16% for more than 30 minutes. These results are different to 2019 when well over half of respondents travelled less than 15 minutes, and are very similar to 2018 results.

Chart 18. Travel time of respondents

30%

1%

9%

59%

1%

Walk

Public Transport

Cycle

Private vehicle

Other

8.9%

38.3%

36.6%

13.6%

2.6%

Under 5 minutes

5-15 minutes

15-30 minutes

30 mins to 1 hour

Over 1 hour


6.6 Walking time In addition to the question on travel time, respondents that had indicated that they lived locally were asked how long it would take them to walk home. Of 119 local respondents, 31% live within 10 minutes walk of where they were surveyed, with a further 43% living within 11 to 20 minutes walk. Walking times of local respondents are shown in Chart 19. Results are similar to those seen in 2018.

Chart 19. Walking times of local respondents

Less than 5 minutes

11%

6–10 minutes20%

11–20 minutes43%

21–30 minutes20%

More than 30 minutes

6%

Less than 5 minutes

6–10 minutes

11–20 minutes

21–30 minutes

More than 30 minutes


6.7 Visitor Frequency The majority (63%) of respondents visit the park they were surveyed in at least once a week, with 19% visiting every day, and 83% visiting at least once a month. 8% of visitors to all parks were visiting the park for the first time. These results are very similar to 2019 results. Results for all parks are presented in Chart 20.

Chart 20. Visitor frequency

19% 30% 14% 9% 10% 8% 2% 8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All ParksEvery day 19%Several times a week 30%About once a week 14%About twice per month 9%About once a month 10%About 2-6 times a year 8%About once a year 2%Less than once a year 0%First visit 8%


6.8 Visit Duration Chart 21 shows the duration of respondents’ visits to the park that they were interviewed in. Duration of visit was generally shorter than in 2019 with over a quarter staying for less than 30 minutes (compared with 17% in 2019) and only 6% staying for more than 2 hours (compared with 11% in 2019). 30% of respondents were planning to stay for more than an hour in 2020 compared with 36% in 2019 and 44% in 2018.

Chart 21. Duration of Visit

6.9 Weather At the end of each survey, researchers log the weather conditions (sun/rain and wind). Chart 22 shows the amount of sun, cloud and rain encountered during the survey for the last four survey years. For 2020, 56% of surveys were carried out in sunshine and 33% in overcast conditions. This compares with 100% in sunshine in 2019, and 90% in sunshine in 2017.

Chart 22. Sunshine, cloud and rain during surveys

27% 43% 24% 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

All ParksLess than 30 mins 27%30 to 60 mins 43%1 to 2 hours 24%2 to 4 hours 6%

90

55

100

56

10

38

0

33

0 7 08

0 0 0 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sunshine Overcast Cloudy Rain


Chart 23 shows the wind conditions during the surveys for the last four years. For 2020, still conditions were encountered during 58% of surveys compared with 23% in 2019 and 7% in 2018. Wind appears to have less impact on satisfaction than sunshine, but is likely to have an effect on beach and water based activities e.g. many more respondents swimming in 2019 than in 2020, and more respondents fishing in 2020.

Chart 23. Wind conditions during surveys

Weather conditions during the survey are likely to explain some of the variation between results in different years. The amount of sunshine in particular seems to be directly correlated to local use and overall satisfaction.

8 723

58

6552

63

4126

41

1120 0 3 0

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2017 2018 2019 2020

Still day Light breeze Windy Very Windy


7.0 Respondent Feedback Visitors to the Swan Canning Riverpark parks were asked what they enjoyed most about their visit, and what change they would suggest to the park they were visiting. In some cases respondents did not have a suggestion. They were also asked to comment on the condition of the river foreshore. Results are given in Table 2 along with demographic data and overall satisfaction. Zeros indicate no response.

Table 2. Respondent feedback Park Name Most enjoyed Suggested Improvement Comment on condition of

river foreshore Overall

Satisfaction Gender Age

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

Clean good walking 0 Neat and tidy 6 0 55–64

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

Beautiful environment

shame about the power

station something needs to

be done with it

Cover up the power Look stunning it’s nice to see

the trees along the river

5 Female 50–54

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

The good pathway through 0 0 5 Male 40–44

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

The entry to the river the

beautiful environment

An easier way to find

information out about the

testing of the quality of

the river water, it appears

there only testing for algae

bloom, not for nitrates or

other things

The river water is disgusting it

makes your skin itch. there’s

foam all along the edges of

the river during the last big

rains there was sewerage in

the water it’s difficult to find

test results for the river done

recently on any websites

4 Female 40–44

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

Walking dogs along the

river front and in the park

it’s a beautiful environment

Cafe It’s beautiful to have the

water does smell a bit

4 Female 55–64

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

Open space, the scenic

quality

0 0 6 Male 65+

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

No vehicles Replace mature trees in

mid section

0 6 Male 40–44

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

The bike path 0 It looks good! 6 Female 25–29

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

Being connected to the

river and they chose so

beautiful to walk the dogs

Cafe near where the toilets

are would be fantastic

It appears the access has

been limited but there is a

definite improvement in the

relationship to the river.

7 Female 55–64

Banks Reserve

and Maylands

Foreshore

The view, wildlife More shade 0 6 Male 25–29

Belmont Water

Ski Area

Safe area, clean 0 0 6 Male 45–49

Belmont Water

Ski Area

Birds More litter collection,

better interface with the

road

Needs clean up 3 Male 30–34

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The walkway through the

park

0 0 6 Female 30–34

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The paths and the grassed

area

Upgrade toilets Nice little beach for kids 5 Female 35–39

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The calmness 0 0 5 Female 65+

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The walk 0 0 6 Female 30–34

Belmont Water

Ski Area

Goes to south Perth for

Power point and bbq , but

caught a fish here that he’ll

take there for dinner

Power-points with a solar

powered system, bbq.

More foot path connection

Keep it natural, encourage

the fish

6 Male 55–64

Belmont Water

Ski Area

Close to home A playground Seems fine 6 Male 35–39


Park Name Most enjoyed Suggested Improvement Comment on condition of river foreshore

Overall Satisfaction

Gender Age

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The river outlook A playground for the kids 0 6 Male 65+

Belmont Water

Ski Area

The peace and quiet 0 0 5 0 45–49

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Picnicking and the children

can’t swim

Picnic tables and seating is

needed

0 7 Female 40–44

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Easy access to water, clean,

great views

0 Nice and natural 6 Female 65+

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Close to home, lack of

people

More seats at Blackwall

end

0 7 Female 65+

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

The access to the river for

children

0 0 5 Female 30–34

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Greenery, access to river

good

0 Good 7 Male 0

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

The playground is fenced

and with great equipment

for babies and toddlers

0 It’s beautiful 6 Male 30–34

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Drinking fountain at the top

of the park it’s easy to cycle

to and you can drink while

you’re on your bike

0 0 7 Female 40–44

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Swimming and kayaking The toilet doors are too

close to the toilet and the

cubicles the toilets down

by the water

The water is beautiful 7 Male 35–39

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Peaceful place A few more seats 0 5 Female 65+

Bicton Baths and

Blackwall Reach

Great place to bring the

family many activities

The toilet and changing

rooms could be better

with showers

0 7 Female 30–34

Burswood Park The playground and the

review of the bridge and

the water

0 0 7 Female 35–39

Burswood Park Beautiful walk The sprinkler system was

turned on and went over

the pathway and wet me

The reeds close to the water

gorgeous as it suggests it’s

helping filter the water going

into the river

6 Female 65+

Burswood Park The pathway 0 0 6 Male 25–29

Burswood Park The view More water taps for dogs 0 6 Female 40–44

Burswood Park The bike path Some info about

indigenous people etc in

the area (significance)

Always looks pretty good 5 Male 50–54

Burswood Park Clean 0 0 5 Male 35–39

Burswood Park Walking along next to the

river and nature

A few moseys There’s a strange smell in the

water down by the bridge or

near the bridge

7 Male 30–34

Burswood Park Beautiful walk Pathway just for walker’s Looks nice 7 Female 65+

Burswood Park The green grass and the

river beautiful place to take

More information about

the surround

No 7 Female 65+

Burswood Park Open, flat space for

running

0 0 7 Female 65+

Deep Water

Point

Access to water, good for

families

Parking- cars in trailer

parks

0 6 Male 25–29

Deep Water

Point

Bbqs are good, cafe here is

good, sandy beach is great

0 0 5 Female 30–34

Deep Water

Point

Near to home Better drainage on paths It is beautiful 7 Female 65+

Deep Water

Point

Down here and enjoy your

lunch

We bring our own seats

because sometimes

there’s not enough

Looks good 5 Male 65+

Deep Water

Point

Brilliant to walk along for

exercise

Cyclists and walkers have

their own parts

Looks lovely 6 Female 35–39

Deep Water

Point

Cafe More tables there appears

to be enough seats but just

not enough cables to eat

0 6 Female 65+




Gender Age

from

Deep Water

Point

The boat ramp is a good

one

Police the parking more 0 5 Male 40–44

Deep Water

Point

River views Confusion about parking- Continually improving it 7 Male 65+

Deep Water

Point

Nice place to sit and eat

your lunch

More planting around the

foreshore

0 7 Female 30–34

Deep Water

Point

The view Shade cloth over the

children’s playground and

it’s dangerous to walk

through the car park to the

toilets

Looks nice I would not let my

children and there

6 Female 30–34

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

Dog off lead area, grass cut

regularly scenic

Repair stairs to foreshore 0 6 Female 50–54

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

Open space to run Adult exercise

equipment... toilets

0 5 Male 30–34

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

Cleanliness More seating and more

shade

There are lots of dead trees

to get rid of

6 Male 65+

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

The walk along the river 0 0 5 Female 40–44

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

The stairs going down to

the river

More water fountain

picking up litter

Lovely 7 Female 40–44

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

That you can run down the

steps to the river

Making the road at the top

of the steps safer for

crossing

The river is beautiful 6 Female 40–44

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

The outlook 0 0 5 Female 45–49

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

Lots of space Some more trees around

perimeter

0 6 Female 15–19

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

Nice place to walk Better road crossing on

Preston Road signs to say

where the water fountains

are

The river is beautiful do not

develop down the steps to

the vegetation

5 Female 55–64

East Fremantle

Yacht Club/Toms

Reserve

The views to the river Not allowing the dogs near

the foreshore arm as

people cannot clean up

after them and they run up

into the bushes where

there maybe wildlife

The river is forever changing

sometimes it’s dark brown

sometimes it has froth other

times it’s perfect

6 Male 55–64

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Peaceful place Widen tracks along the

river

0 4 Male 35–39

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Peaceful place 0 0 6 Male 55–64

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Trees Public toilet 0 6 Male 30–34

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Access to the river 0 It is badly eroding in places 4 Female 45–49

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Watching the kids have fun Proper toilets 0 4 Female 50–54

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Good launching place for

boat

0 0 6 Female 50–54

Fish Market

Reserve and

Close to home, trees Toilet facilities, dedicated

footpath along river, half

Lots of erosion, maintain it

better

5 Female 45–49




Gender Age

Success Hill court

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

Family atmosphere at

event

Better tracks 0 5 Female 35–39

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

The naturalness of the

place

Proper paths 0 4 Male 25–29

Fish Market

Reserve and

Success Hill

The cyclocross event Toilets 0 5 Male 40–44

Garvey Park No people Chaos needs to have more

regular hours I’m off lead

dog area over by the far

away tree

Years ago she would ride her

horses into the water down

here she doesn’t use the river

herself sometimes her dog

will have a wee swim

6 Male 55–64

Garvey Park Peaceful walk along the

river

Improve paths at northern

end of park

There are some fallen trees

that should be removed

5 Male 30–34

Garvey Park Underrated location- it's

beautiful, not too

developed

Better access for all

abilities - extra planting on

foreshore

It's a bit in disrepair 6 Female 50–54

Garvey Park Beautiful bike ride quiet The mosquitoes are bad

down here it would be

nice if there was

something that attracted

them and killed them

The river is lovely he catches

a fish but it also let some go

because this sign saying

about the algae bloom

5 Female 40–44

Garvey Park The scenery nature

enjoying feeling the river

and the environment and

then being able to go back

to the concrete jungle for

the rest of the day

The cafe could be open

more and some of the

pathways further down by

the bridge just starting to

crack

Years ago used to be able to

swim here but it looks like no

one swims it just looks like

kayakers and boaties use it

which is a shame

5 Male 50–54

Garvey Park Lovely place to walk and sit

near the river

People stop smashing glass

and dirtying the benches

close to the river

It’s beautiful there’s a lot of

wildlife pelicans darks

6 Male 45–49

Garvey Park Close to my house, good

place for biking

0 0 6 Male 65+

Garvey Park No through traffic- peaceful Get rid of fallen trees on

foreshore

0 7 Male 65+

Garvey Park Close to home 0 Don't spray 6 Male 65+

Garvey Park Being by river- good

meeting point

Parking can be limited 0 6 Female 65+

Garvey Park Wonderful walking along

the river with the dog in

the mornings before work

A few more things along

the way

Looks very dark 5 Male 40–44

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Can walk through the park

on her way to work

It will be great when the

waterfront is finished

0 6 Female 40–44

JH Abrahams

Reserve

The walkway.... River views 0 0 5 0 50–54

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Part of a cycleway route for

me

Maybe wider paths I like the seats and signs here 5 Female 35–39

JH Abrahams

Reserve

The information signs

about the area

More drinking fountains

along the path

I like the redeveloped areas 6 Female 35–39

JH Abrahams

Reserve

It’s a lovely walk the dog

really enjoys it also

Improve the toilets more

drinking fountains along

the way

0 6 Female 40–44

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Being able to teach his

daughter to ride a bike and

of course the dolphins

chasing fish

Where the pathway is

finished at will make this

part better

Set must be in good condition

saying dolphins and fish

7 Female 40–44

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Close to work 0 0 4 Male 35–39

JH Abrahams

Reserve

I lovely area to bring lunch

and the children can play

Don’t like the cut out

shapes of people

0 7 Female 35–39

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Great place to eat lunch There’s a strong smell of

sewage here when the

wind blows load of the

0 7 Female 35–39




Gender Age

palm trees that I’ve been

planted no to them

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Sitting in the shade under

all the trees with the

beautiful birds

0 It’s beautiful 6 Male 35–39

JH Abrahams

Reserve

Children’s playground The toilets have had a coat

of paint but they’re still

very old looking car park

should be free

0 5 Male 35–39

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Being able to walk down

with the children

People picking up the dog

poo on the beach

Thinks it it’s in great

condition she lets her

children play in the water

7 Male 30–34

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

The dog area on the

foreshore

Maybe a bench on the

foreshore ( in dog area)

0 7 Female 45–49

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Proximity to the river that

you can bring the dog and

the children and have

coffee at the same time yes

Better cafe with more

whole foods

Swim in the water in the

summertime the children and

the dog also enjoy the water

7 Female 35–39

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

River activities available,

well controlled by

authorities

Review the groynes -

rubbish build

0 5 Female 65+

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Meeting her grandchildren

here having coffee and a

play

Slowly replacing the plastic

playground with natural

play materials

0 6 Male 55–64

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Close to river 0 0 6 Male 55–64

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Minimal man made

structures, ample parking

Possibly a pump track

drinking fountain

Done a good job 7 Male 40–44

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Trees and the playground 0 Done a good job 6 Male 40–44

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

Being able to have

breakfast and bring the dog

Don’t plant any more palm

trees more native trees

Looks beautiful and clear 6 Female 35–39

Jon Tonkin

Reserve, Preston

Point, East

Fremantle

The clean water and easy

access

0 Love what has been done

here

6 Female 50–54

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Beautiful body to paddle in Today is great but

normally park and can be

an issue

Picking up the trash in the

bay

6 Female 40–44

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

It’s a beautiful part of

Western Australia to bring

clients.... not many people

know about this location

More car parking car

parking

Since Covid looks like the

river has improved however

there is a scum on the water

today

7 Female 45–49

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

The cleanliness Continue walkway further

around the water

0 6 Female 65+

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Close to home, good play

area, nice grass

Fencing along the road to

stop kids running out

0 6 Female 35–39

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Walking the dog and

getting coffee

Not a thing keep working

on the quality of the river

water

It’s very beautiful 7 Female 15–19

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

I can use my boat and road

to get coffee

0 Since Covid the river appears

to have improved

7 Male 45–49

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Closest place to home to

launch boat

0 0 5 Female 55–64




Gender Age

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Cafe here- playground and

a place to fish

0 0 6 Male 40–44

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Good place for families 0 Allow dogs off lead along the

beach

7 Female 55–64

Keanes Point

The Esplanade

Morning walk and to get

coffee the view is beautiful

Wouldn’t change a thing The river is lovely 7 Male 65+

Kent Street Weir Company, coffee shop Canoe club closer to the

river, blue stone in the

river near the new weir is

rough on kids feet when

they swim,

Very narrow beach front and

water access point for canoes

etc

6 Female 65+

Kent Street Weir Condition of the trail 0 0 7 Female 45–49

Kent Street Weir Friendship Shade over the

playground, don’t change

anything that takes away

from the natural

experience

0 6 Female 65+

Kent Street Weir Peace and quiet 0 Beautiful 7 Male 65+

Kent Street Weir Landscape is beautiful,

picnic gazebos

Dog poop left is not great

but hard to manage

Looks nice, the ducks look

happy

6 Male 25–29

Kent Street Weir Relaxing atmosphere Parking 0 6 Male 45–49

Kent Street Weir The space, river close 0 0 6 Male 40–44

Kent Street Weir Good place to relax 0 0 6 Male 65+

Kent Street Weir The birdlife Upgrade playground 0 5 Female 50–54

Kent Street Weir Good fishing Skate park 0 6 Female 30–34

Lilac Hill Dog loved going for a swim Dog bags/bins 0 6 Female 35–39

Lilac Hill Good large area for dog

walking

0 0 5 Female 45–49

Lilac Hill Nice playing fields 0 0 6 Male 35–39

Lilac Hill Well maintained turf, lots

of parking

Cricket fence is a bit much,

very ugly and over done

0 5 Female 40–44

Lilac Hill Big open space area A bench seat at the

playground, another

swing, shade over play

area

0 6 Female 30–34

Lilac Hill Fishing close to home Fishing line bins 0 5 Male 25–29

Lilac Hill Not too far from home, has

the river and a playground

Upgrade playground It is eroding a bit 4 Male 25–29

Lilac Hill Watching the hockey 0 0 5 Male 55–64

Lilac Hill Large area More rubbish bins 0 5 Male 20–24

Lilac Hill Seeing the birds More bins for dog waste

and free bags

Quite grassy which could be

improved

5 Male 35–39

Matilda Bay

Reserve

Proximity to river, having a

cafe

Some more rubbish bins Fantastic 7 Female 65+

Matilda Bay

Reserve

The space 0 0 6 Female 40–44

Matilda Bay

Reserve

The view Playground, more colour in

gardens

0 6 Female 35–39

Matilda Bay

Reserve

The river access Some play equipment-

nature play

Lovely spacious area here 5 Female 30–34

Matilda Bay

Reserve

Close to my workplace 0 I love coming here 6 Female 45–49

Matilda Bay

Reserve

Association with river More tables and chairs,

playground

0 5 Female 65+

Matilda Bay

Reserve

Close to home, nice outlook 0 0 4 Male 55–64

Matilda Bay

Reserve

The great views Widen the footpath (or

have separate cycle path)

0 6 Male 25–29

Matilda Bay

Reserve

Easy access for dingy to

water

0 0 4 Male 50–54




Gender Age

Matilda Bay

Reserve

The tranquillity 0 Glad we can use it 5 Female 20–24

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

Beautiful views Do not plant trees in front

of the buildings for houses

Looks great 6 Male 50–54

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

The jetski area 0 0 5 Female 30–34

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

Accessibility More shade in grassed

area and more picnic

tables

0 7 Female 30–34

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

The scenery and location Toilet at the jet ski area,

more shade over tables

0 5 Female 40–44

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

The river and the views Toilets nearby 0 6 Female 30–34

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

Nature and the city Toilets closer by 0 5 Male 30–34

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

The dolphins swimming by

and my persona

Collect the bottles and

cans of been thrown into

the waterfront... bins more

bins along the waterfront

As we are interviewing there

as a dolphin and her baby

and there’s also jetskis going

quite quickly around the

corner

6 Male 55–64

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

The fiver views 0 0 6 Female 50–54

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

A beautiful place to do a

workout

Less watercraft on the

water when the dolphins

are around

Looks beautiful 6 Male 25–29

Mill Point

Reserve and

Point Belches

Oh easy to get into the

water

Toilet and washroom

down the right side of the

bridge facing the city

No it’s beautiful it’s good 5 Female 65+

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Clean place Maybe signs in different

languages

0 6 Female 55–64

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Good seating and clean Parking signs 0 6 Male 55–64

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Close to the water 0 0 6 Female 35–39

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

The river 0 Safer entry points to river 6 Female 15–19

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Scenic place for a chat More info about

indigenous history

0 5 Female 30–34

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

The fresh air More direction signs

(toilets, parking etc)

0 5 Female 35–39

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Easy place to walk to for a

break from work

Some events here I like the seats by the water 5 Male 25–29

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

Clean area 0 0 5 Male 35–39

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

It has a real buzz about it 0 0 6 Male 65+

Perth Foreshore

Barrack Square

The clean, open space No cyclists! They go too

fast in a built up area

0 6 Male 50–54

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

Good place to exercise Pedestrian overpass 0 6 Male 50–54

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

The trees nature fishing

wonderful place to come

Corlina toilets It’s very nice people do leave

broken glass and rubbish

which is upsetting

5 Male 45–49

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

Nice way to walk home 0 Love seeing the island from

here

6 Female 35–39

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

The pathways are great for

cycling

0 0 5 Female 40–44

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

The paths 0 0 5 Female 55–64

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

It feels different to walking

in the city

0 0 6 Male 25–29




Gender Age

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

The trees and nature Don’t make it to

manicured keep it natural

looking

0 5 Male 35–39

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

It’s great to bring the dogs

over here off leash and it

feels like the wilderness

People need to pick up

after themselves dog poo

Really like it 5 Male 30–34

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

The gardens 0 0 6 Female 40–44

Point Fraser and

Heirisson Island

I love coming here in the

evening for a fish

0 It is very natural here 5 Male 40–44

Point Walter Being able to play on the

beach and build

sandcastles with the

children

0 0 7 Male 65+

Point Walter Great place to launch your

boat

The toilets at the end near

the boat ramp I have

sometimes been blocked

and very dirty

Keep making the river a

priority to return it to a

healthy state

7 Female 45–49

Point Walter Quiet areas for water

activity

0 0 6 Female 35–39

Point Walter The great situation for

views

0 Spectacular 6 Female 65+

Point Walter The variety of things in the

park (something for

everyone)

0 0 6 Male 20–24

Point Walter Getting an ice cream and

having a play

0 She would never go in but

she lets her children in

7 Male 55–64

Point Walter Being able to sit and take

and nature

Fishing lines rubbish and

cigarette butts on the JD is

upsetting

Keep planting 7 Male 65+

Point Walter Safe area to kayak children

can swim nice place to have

a picnic

0 Love seeing the wildlife the

birds the marine life around

the river

7 Female 35–39

Point Walter River access Allow dogs here Very nice 5 Female 55–64

Point Walter Peaceful today A few more seats 0 7 Female 55–64

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Walk watching the river

environment

Bins along the trail.

Emergency signage might

be good

0 5 Female 50–54

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Walking along the river Grass gets long, paths get

muddy

0 4 Female 20–24

Sandy Beach

Reserve

The trees and birds 0 Maybe some more plantings 5 Male 35–39

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Peacefulness Mozzies Access for kayaks could be

improved

5 Male 40–44

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Close to home 0 Keep the t natural 6 Female 65+

Sandy Beach

Reserve

The space Better paths around the

park

0 4 Male 30–34

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Close to home, natural area Bright light on the other

side of the river - too

bright

0 6 Female 40–44

Sandy Beach

Reserve

The tranquillity Better toilets Some issues with erosion 5 Male 30–34

Sandy Beach

Reserve

The peace and quiet 0 0 6 Female 15–19

Sandy Beach

Reserve

Beach for the grandkids Coffee van 0 5 Male 55–64

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Relaxing place More playground

equipment

Lots of birds, looks healthy 5 Male 30–34

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

The space 0 0 5 Female 45–49

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Calm water, wildlife Improve the grass cover Nice 5 Female 55–64




Gender Age

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Scenery, relaxing

environment

Upgrade the playground,

cafe would be nice even

coffee cart

0 5 Female 40–44

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Scenery, calm, beautiful Coffee shop 0 7 Female 30–34

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Peace calm, looped walking

trail

Cafe, dog off leash trail 0 6 Female 30–34

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

View peaceful natural More trees 0 6 Female 30–34

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

Wildlife and the river Age appropriate play area,

shade over playground,

more shade structures

0 4 Male 55–64

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

The outlook of the river 0 0 7 Male 50–54

Shelley Beach

and Prisoners

Point

The fishing in the river More toilets more benches 0 5 0 30–34

Sir James

Mitchell Park

Well maintained, safe, not

too crowded, plenty of

space

0 0 7 Female 65+

Sir James

Mitchell Park

The children’s playground

is shaded the kids love the

playground, then we can go

and look at the Swans so

it’s playground and a bit of

nature

0 0 5 Male 35–39

Sir James

Mitchell Park

The view Lighting along the path 0 5 Female 20–24

Sir James

Mitchell Park

Having a picnic under a tree

looking at the city

Car parking was easier and

you didn’t have to pay for

it

It is what it is 6 Male 35–39

Sir James

Mitchell Park

The sculpture garden A water feature at the

sculpture herb garden

Public board with information

about condition of the water,

7 Male 55–64

Sir James

Mitchell Park

The space 0 0 5 Male 35–39

Sir James

Mitchell Park

Safe for kids, clean, view Ramp at the toilet 0 5 Male 35–39

Sir James

Mitchell Park

Quiet, nice view 0 0 5 Male 20–24

Sir James

Mitchell Park

Nice place for a bbq lunch 0 Looks lovely today 5 Female 35–39

Sir James

Mitchell Park

The park and the gardens 0 Would love for it to be

healthy

5 Female 55–64

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Walking from one end of

the park down to the cafe

Low lighting so walking

home from the restaurant

and the park would be

safer

More seating along the river

front that is on the other side

of the cycleway so you can

have the experience of being

in nature

6 Female 55–64

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Wide open spaces 0 0 6 Female 45–49

Troy and

Tompkins Park

You can get coffee bring

the dog and the children

0 She swims in the room 7 Male 35–39

Troy and

Tompkins Park

The river More exercising

equipment for adults

Has completed a survey

recently with regards to the

river

5 Female 55–64

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Ambience is good Address off lead/ on lead

dog situation

0 5 Male 65+

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Cycling with the children to

school

They do plant a lot of

vegetation but it seems to

die because there is a lack

of watering

0 6 Female 35–39

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Tranquillity and safe Slow cyclists down 0 6 Male 65+




Gender Age

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Walking along the river A few more tables 0 5 Male 65+

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Walking along looking at

the river and the

vegetation

More seats along the

walkway so you can enjoy

the environment

0 7 Male 55–64

Troy and

Tompkins Park

Morning tea with the

grandchildren then a play

in the park

Slowly integrate more

nature play areas deleting

the plastic play equipment

over time

Slowly integrate more nature

play areas deleting the plastic

play equipment over time

7 Male 55–64

Troy and

Tompkins Park

The pathway for biking 0 0 5 Female 35–39

Troy and

Tompkins Park

The open space 0 0 6 Female 25–29

Troy and

Tompkins Park

The playground is relaxing

and lots of things to do

A ferry to stop at the park Play equipment near the

water for the children

7 Female 40–44

Woodbridge

Reserve

Fenced playground More dog ranger visits 0 6 Female 25–29

Woodbridge

Reserve

The playground 0 0 6 Male 35–39

Woodbridge

Reserve

Long trail by the river 0 0 6 Female 35–39

Woodbridge

Reserve

Peaceful, lots of space,

close to home

0 0 6 Male 65+

Woodbridge

Reserve

The long walk along the

river

0 0 7 Male 30–34

Woodbridge

Reserve

Peaceful on the river 0 0 5 Female 40–44

Woodbridge

Reserve

Being able to cycle with our

dog here

Toilets somewhere at

other end of the trail

Lots of wildlife there 6 Female 65+

Woodbridge

Reserve

The peace and quiet along

the river

0 It has improved over the

years

6 Female 55–64

Woodbridge

Reserve

The fact that we can go for

a long walk along the river

and play in a good

playground

0 Very natural - I like it 6 Male 30–34

Woodbridge

Reserve

The peacefulness on the

river bank

0 0 5 Male 45–49


Appendix One – Survey Questions Yardstick Park Survey Questions Hello, my name is xxxx from Swan Canning Riverpark, how are you? Today we are conducting a brief survey of park users and would like to ask you a few questions about the park to help us plan for the future. Are you happy to answer a few questions to assist? If yes, continue survey: Q1. How often do you visit this park?

• Every day • Several times a week • About once a week • About once a fortnight • About once a month • About 2–6 times a year • About once a year • Less than once a year • First visit • Not sure/don't know/irregular

Q2. How long are you think you will spend at this park today?

• Less than 30 mins • 30 to 60 mins • 1 to 2 hours • 2 to 4 hours

Q3. What are you planning to do while you are here?

• Passing Through • Walking • Walking the dog • Cycling • Beach or water based activity (if yes – Q4 is asked) • Supervision of Children • Picnic/BBQ • Sporting Activity • Watching Sport • Play activity • Relaxing • Other (free text response to record activity)

Q4. If undertaking beach or water based activity: What activity are you here for today? Fishing

• Canoeing/kayaking • Power boating • Jet skiing • Swimming • Stand up paddle board • Rowing


• Other (free text response to record activity) Q5. Importance 5 Very important 4 Important 3 Neither important nor not important 2 Unimportant 1 Totally unimportant Don't know How important is it to you that gardens, landscape features and trees are provided in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that a children's playground (under 12 years) is provided in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that seats and tables are provided in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that public conveniences are provided in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that signs are provided in this park for direction, information and regulation?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that this park is clean and free of litter?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that the grass in this park is in good condition and well maintained?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that footpaths, tracks and trails are provided in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that there is enough shade in this park (both trees and structures)?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is it to you that you feel safe when you are visiting this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is the condition of the river water for recreation?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important is natural vegetation to you when visiting the river foreshore?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How important to you is interpretive information about the cultural, Aboriginal and natural values when visiting the river foreshore?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

Q6. Satisfaction 5 Very satisfied 4 Satisfied 3 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 2 Dissatisfied 1 Totally dissatisfied Don't know How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of gardens, landscape features and trees in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of children's playground equipment in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of benches, seats and tables in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of public conveniences (toilets or washrooms) in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of the signs in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the overall cleanliness and lack of litter in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the standard of grass maintenance in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision and quality of the footpaths, tracks and trails in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the provision of shade in this park, including trees and shade structures?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K


How satisfied are you that you feel safe when you are in this park?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with the condition of the river water for recreation?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

How satisfied are you with natural vegetation? 1 2 3 4 5 D/K How satisfied are you with interpretive information about cultural, Aboriginal and natural values?

1 2 3 4 5 D/K

Q7. Overall, how satisfied were you with your visit to this park on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being extremely dissatisfied and 7 being extremely satisfied? Q8. What did you enjoy most about your visit to this park today? (free text response) Q9. If there was one change you could make what would it be? (free text response) Q10. Do you have any comment on the condition of the river foreshore? (free text response) Q11. What modes of transport did you use to get here today?

• Walk • Public transport • Cycle • Private motor vehicle • Other

Q12. How long have you travelled to get here today?

• Under 5 minutes • 5-15 minutes • 15-30 minutes • 30 mins to 1 hour • Over 1 hour

Q13. Where are you from?

• Local (neighbour) • City/ Shire/ Region • Out of region (Australia) • Out of region (International)

Q14. What age group do you fit in to?

15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+ Q15. Which ethnic group best describes you?

• Australian • Aborigine/Torres Strait Islander • Pacific peoples (including NZ) • Asian • European • Middle Eastern/African • North or South American • Other

Q14. Gender

• Male • Female


• Other All these questions completed by surveyor after respondent has finished Q15. Weather

Weather 1 2 3 4 Wind factor Still

Day 1

Light Breeze 2 3 4

Q16. What were children in the park doing at the time you completed this survey? Q17. Researcher comments.

visitor satisfaction survey

Documents