The Royal Parks 2004 Research Report:

The Royal Parks 2004 Research Report:1 In-park Visitor Survey 2 Visitor Telephone Survey 3 Non-Visitor Telephone Survey Greenwich Park, Bushy Park, St James’s Park & Green Park Prepared

The Royal Parks 2004 Research Report:

1) In-park Visitor Survey

2) Visitor Telephone Survey

3) Non-Visitor Telephone Survey

Greenwich Park, Bushy Park, St James’s Park & Green Park

Prepared for: The Royal Parks

Prepared by: Synovate UK

JN: 940393(01/02), 941039

– In-park Visitor Survey

– Visitor Telephone Survey

– Non-visitor Telephone Survey

Background & Business Objectives

The Royal Parks wished to put in place a significantly enhanced Visitor Research Programme, starting in 2004, to contribute towards achieving its 2003/4 – 2005/6 Business Objectives, as well as guiding future strategies and Park programmes.

The Business Objectives can be summarised as follows :

To improve the quality and range of visitor services

To protect, conserve and enhance the environment of the Parks

To develop policies and initiatives to encourage wider use of the Parks

To raise the profile, understanding & value of the Parks

To manage the Parks efficiently and effectively

Research Objectives

There are a number of objectives, divided into three tiers of importance:

Primary Objectives

1 To continue measuring against Government KPI targets, as well as establishing new improved

measures and indicators, and benchmarks for them;

2 To gain an understanding of the decision process that visitors go through when considering visiting

the Parks, and how visitors can be influenced to visit the Parks;

3 To investigate barriers to park use and how non- and infrequent users can be encouraged to visit the

Parks;

4 To segment and characterise users, infrequent users and non-users;

5 To provide robust visitor count data, including the number of overseas visitors;

Secondary Objectives

6 To determine the effect of weather and season on Park use and perceptions;

7 To investigate which facilities and services visitors expect or would like that are not currently offered;

Tertiary Objectives

8 To benchmark The Royal Parks against other (Metropolitan) Parks and attractions (esp free ones);

9 To gain feedback on major planned projects;

10 To investigate and, if possible, quantify the contribution of the Parks to the quality of life in the capital.

Methodology

How Research Parts Address Objectives

Telephone Visitor

& Non-Visitor Survey

Focus Groups

Exploratory Qualitative

Research

Visitor Count &

Overseas Visitor Count

In-park Visitors Survey (Exit Interviews)

3 Usage Barriers

4 Segment users/non-users

6 Weather & seasons

8 Benchmark against parks etc.

10 Contribution to quality of life

Will provide insights relevant to all objectives and investigate issues from other research phases

In-Park Visitor Survey

Visitors were interviewed as they left the Parks.

4 Parks were surveyed in 2004, 4 in 2005.

Survey took place in Summer (July and early August) and Autumn (late September to mid October).

‘Next available respondent’ recruitment technique used.

Survey was paper-based, with interviewer reading out questions.

Interview lasted about 10 minutes.

Interviews took place at various times on weekdays, and weekends.

Interviewers rotated around different Park exits.

In 2004 and 2005, c.200 interviews were conducted in each of the 4 Parks

in Summer, and c.140 at each in Autumn.

Telephone Visitor and Non-Visitor Survey

Respondents interviewed on the telephone in their homes.

4 Parks surveyed in 2004, 4 in 2005.

Survey took place in October.

Interviewing took place in areas within an agreed defined radius for each of the parks.

Interviews took place in evenings and weekends to ensure no bias

to non-workers.

150 interviews amongst non-users per park (who have not visited

in the last 12 months).

100 interviews amongst users per park (who have visited in the last 12 months).

Non-users interview lasts 12 mins; users: 6 mins.

Summary of Findings

Summary of Findings (1 of 9)

OVERALL RATING OF PARKS

All four Parks are rated very highly on the overall rating, with over 90% of visitors in the In-Park

Survey rating each one as either ‘excellent’ or ‘good’

Greenwich and St James’s are rated highest, and Bushy and Green significantly lower in terms of the ‘excellent’ rating.

Amongst those interviewed in the Visitor’s Telephone Survey, all four Parks except Green are

rated very highly (on enjoyment) Greenwich and Bushy are rated highest.

RATING OF PARKS COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES OF INTEREST

Amongst those interviewed in the Telephone Survey, all four Parks except Green are rated as

more enjoyable than The Tate Modern, The Tower of London, Madame Taussaud’s and Hyde Park Greenwich, Bushy and St James’s are also rated equally enjoyable to The Natural History

Museum, but less enjoyable than Kew Gardens.

KPI PERFORMANCE RATINGS (IN-PARK VISITOR SURVEY)

Park Environment (Tidiness & Cleanliness, Upkeep and Peace & Quiet): All four Parks score

highly and highest on these aspects Greenwich scores particularly highly on ‘Tidiness &

Cleanliness’, and (along with Bushy) on ‘Upkeep’ and Greenwich and St James’s score especially highly on ‘Peace & Quiet’.

– A high 13% spontaneously mention they would like Bushy Park to have more dog litter bins/for dog mess to be cleared up

Summary of Findings (2 of 9)

KPI PERFORMANCE RATINGS (IN-PARK VISITOR SURVEY) CONT’D

Ease of Getting Around & Access: All four Parks are rated highly (and equally) on these

areas.

Information (Signposting & Maps, Information on Park Features): Greenwich and St

James’s score relatively highly on Signposting and Information Bushy and Green Park achieve only fair scores for these.

Visibility & Friendliness of Park Staff: Greenwich and St James’s received fair scores for

these, but the scores for Bushy and Green are fair to poor

– The fact that ‘visibility and friendliness of staff’ is rated lower at Bushy Park may be related to lower proportions of visitors rating the Park as ‘very safe’, compared to the other three Parks

Catering (Number of Facilities, Quality of Facilities): Greenwich scores relatively highly on

‘number’ and ‘quality’ St James’s, Bushy and Green all received fair to poor ratings for

‘number’ and ‘quality’

– With respect to Bushy Park, a high 13% spontaneously mentioned that they would like

more/better catering facilities

Toilets (Number of Toilets and Quality of Toilets): The ‘number of toilets’ is rated as fair in

Greenwich and St James’s, but as poor in Green and especially Bushy Park.

– With respect to Bushy Park, a high 18% spontaneously mentioned that they would like

more/better/cleaner toilets

Summary of Findings (3 of 9)

KPI PERFORMANCE RATINGS (IN-PARK VISITOR SURVEY) CONT’D

Facilities for Children: Greenwich and Bushy Park score well in this respect, but St

James’s and Green are rated as fair.

Facilities for Adults: All four parks score well on this area.

Sports Facilities (Number and Quality): Greenwich receives good scores on these areas,

Bushy receives fair scores, and St James’s and Green receive poor scores.

Seating: Greenwich scores highly on this aspect, while the scores for Bushy, St James’s

and Green are satisfactory to good.

– With respect to Green Park, a high 11% spontaneously suggested ‘more seating’ as an

improvement

– The rating is significantly lower in Autumn in Green Park (after the deckchair service ends)

KPI IMPORTANCE RATINGS (IN-PARK VISITOR SURVEY)

Park Environment (Tidiness & Cleanliness, Upkeep and Peace & Quiet): ‘Tidiness and

cleanliness’ and ‘upkeep of the park’ are rated as highly important and the most important areas in all 4 Parks

– ‘Peace and quiet’ is slightly less important in the central parks St James’s and Green

Ease of Getting Around & Access: These aspects are equally rated as very important for all

Parks.

Summary of Findings (4 of 9)

KPI IMPORTANCE RATINGS (IN-PARK VISITOR SURVEY) CONT’D

Toilets (Number of Toilets and Quality of Toilets): The ‘quality of toilets’ is rated as highly important in

all four Parks.

– The ‘number of toilets’ is rated as highly important in Greenwich, and slightly less so in Bushy, St James’s and Green

Visibility & Friendliness of Park Staff: This aspect is rated as very important for Greenwich, and fairly

important for Bushy, St James’s and Green

Information (Signposting & Maps, Information on Park Features): ‘Information on Features’ is rated

very important for Greenwich and important for Bushy, St James’s and Green.

– ‘Signposting and Maps’ is considered slightly less important than ‘Information on Features’

Seating: This is seen as highly important in Greenwich, St James’s and Green, and slightly less so in

Bushy.

Catering (Number of Facilities, Quality of Facilities): The ‘quality’ is seen as more important than the

‘number’ across all four Parks The quality is very important at Greenwich and quite important for Bushy, St James’s and Green

Facilities for Children: These are important at Greenwich and Bushy, but less important for St James’s

and Green.

Facilities for Adults: This aspect is quite important for Greenwich, but not very important for Bushy, St

James’s and Green.

Sports Facilities (Number and Quality): These are quite important for Greenwich , but not very

important for Bushy, St James’s and Green.

Summary of Findings (5 of 9)

AWARENESS OF WHAT THERE IS TO DO IN THE PARKS AMONG NON-VISITORS (TELEPHONE SURVEY)

Awareness (unprompted) of what there is to do among Non-Visitors is not very high.

– Being aware of what the Parks have to offer is the main factor that could motivate people to

visit them (when prompted by a list): between 39% and 50% mention this for each of the Parks

– Greenwich: 41% could not recall anything about the Park and only 22% mention ‘historical

buildings’ and an 13% the observatory None mentioned any of the sports on offer

– Bushy: 47% could not recall anything about it The children’s playground was the highest

mention (25%)

– St James’s: 59% could not recall anything about it Only catering facilities was mentioned by

more than 10% (18%)

– Green: 70% could not recall anything about it It is recalled mainly for its footpaths (8%).

KEY SUGGESTIONS FROM RESPONDENTS FOR IMPROVING THE PARKS

Parking at Greenwich: this was spontaneously mentioned by 10% in the In-Park Survey 25%

also named this as a reason for not visiting Greenwich (when prompted in the Non-Visitors

Telephone Survey).

When prompted with a list, a high proportion of visitors would like to see Events or Activities

in each of the four Parks (between 6 and 9 out of 10), especially at Greenwich (91%), less so

at St James’s (60%) (in the In-Park Survey).

Summary of Findings (6 of 9)

KEY SUGGESTIONS FROM RESPONDENTS FOR IMPROVING THE PARKS CONT’D

Consistent with the KPI ratings, more/better/cleaner toilets at Bushy are spontaneously mentioned by a high 18% (in the In-park Survey).

More seating at Bushy is spontaneously mentioned by 11% (in the In-Park Survey).

Improved Catering Facilities at Bushy are spontaneously mentioned by 8% (in the Visitors Telephone Survey) Improved Safety Whilst only a very small proportion rate the Parks as unsafe, a significant proportion (around

30%) rate the Parks as ‘quite safe’, as opposed to ‘very safe’ (in the Visitors Telephone Survey) Bushy is rated less safe than the other three In the Non-Visitors Telephone Survey, a high 13% state they would not feel safe at

Bushy.

EVENTS AND ACTIVITIES CURRENT VISITORS WOULD LIKE TO SEE (IN-PARK SURVEY)

A significant proportion of visitors at St James’s Park (40%) and at Green Park (24%), do not want to see any

events or activities in the Park.

Music Events and Concerts are the most requested events overall, wanted by a high 48% of those interviewed at Greenwich and about 35% of those at Bushy and Green (36% and 35% respectively), but only 18% at St James’s (Open-air) Theatre Events are wanted by a high 41% for Greenwich, 31% for Bushy and 22% for Green (and only

11% for St James’s).

Wildlife Events are requested by a high 45% of those interviewed at Bushy (the most requested event for this

Park) and 31% at Greenwich.

Children’s Events, Historical Events and Guided Walks/Talks are requested by around 25% of those in the

Greenwich and Bushy surveys.

Summary of Findings (7 of 9)

HOW NON-VISITORS COULD BE ENCOURAGED TO VISIT PARKS

Around 75% of those interviewed spontaneously named at least one reason that could

motivate them to visit the Parks Moreover, between a 32% (Green) and 52% (Bushy) say they

are extremely or fairly likely to visit the Park in the next year

– Events and Activities are the most frequently mentioned reason (spontaneously) overall that

could motivate people to visit the Parks, named by between 9% (Bushy) and 19% (Green) of

non-visitors The highest specific (spontaneous) Events and Activities mentioned are:

– Bushy and Green: Catering Facilities (around 10%)

– Greenwich: Activities for Children (13%)

– Green, Greenwich and St James’s: Music events/concerts (around 8%)

When prompted with a list of ways of encouraging people to visit the Parks, many reasons

receive high mentions:

– As previously mentioned, Knowing what there is to do in the Parks is the main mention (by

between 39% and 50%) that could motivate people to visit the Parks

– Parking is named as a key issue by between a 31% and 42%.

– If it were easier to get to/not so far is named by between 23% and 43% for each of the Parks – Improved toilets is mentioned by between 23% and 39% for each of the Parks.

– If I felt safe there is mentioned by between 19% and 26% (highest for Bushy).

Summary of Findings (8 of 9)

EXTENT TO WHICH ROYAL PARKS IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE

Both visitors and non-visitors agree strongly overall that the Parks improve the quality of life in

their areas and in London as a whole Only between 5% (Bushy and Green) and 11% (Greenwich) of

Non-visitors disagree.

DECISION TO VISIT PARKS

When Decide to Visit Parks: Visits to the Parks are largely made on the day of the visit (by around

75%).

The weather is an important factor for visits, especially for current non-visitors It is less important for Greenwich and Bushy

Main reasons for visiting Parks:

– For fresh air, a walk and peace and quiet are the main reasons (in the In-park survey) for visiting

the Parks, named by between 22% and 48% for the Parks

– Going with friends/family is mentioned by around 20% at both Greenwich and St James’s (in the

Visitor Telephone Survey).

– Bushy: To bring the children, walk the dog and exercise are key reasons, named by about

between 21% and 33% (in the In-park Survey).

– St James’s and Green: As part of sightseeing, on way to visitor attraction are named by

between 10% and 20%

– Green and St James’s: As a shortcut is named by 37% for Green and 20% for St James’s.

– St James’s: To see the wildlife is named by 17%.

Summary of Findings (9 of 9)

TIME AND LENGTH OF VISITS

Seasons Parks are Visited: Around 50% of visitors interviewed (in Visitor

Telephone Survey) claim to visit the Parks all year round and between 31%

(Bushy) and 51% (St James’s) visit in Summer.

Days, Times and Length of Visits

– Days: Bushy and Greenwich attract more visitors at weekends,while visits to

St James’s and Green are more evenly spread across weekends and

weekdays.

– Times: Most visits are made between 1pm and 6pm.

– Length of Visits: Stays are generally longer in Summer than Autumn Visits

to Green and St James’s are around 40 minutes to an hour Visits to

Greenwich and Bushy are around an hour and a half.

PROFILE OF VISITORS AND NON-VISITORS

Non-visitors of Bushy tend to be from a household with no children, which is

consistent with the importance of visitors taking children there (especially for children’s playground).

Conclusions & Recommendations

Conclusions and Recommendations (1 of 3)

PARK-WIDE PRIORITY AREAS

Park Environment (Tidiness & Cleanliness, Upkeep and Peace & Quiet) is of paramount importance, and

therefore it is important that the emphasis on these aspects is continued in order to maintain the high

satisfaction scores.

Toilets: Firstly, providing more toilets and improving condition of toilets is the highest priority for all four

Parks At Bushy and Greenwich, where length of visit is longest of all four Parks, this aspect emerges as

particularly important.

Higher Quality Catering Facilities are, after toilets, the next highest priority in all four Parks, but particularly

so in Bushy and, to a lesser extent at St James’s An increase in the standard of catering facilities (and

advertising them) would probably increase use and therefore represent an opportunity/need to provide more facilities/ greater capacity.

Increase Awareness of What There is to do in Parks: Given the low awareness of what the Parks have to

offer amongst local (and presumably more distant) non-visitors, it seems clear that advertising the Park offerings could encourage current non-visitors, and frequency of visits.

– For Greenwich, the observatory and sports facilities could be advertised given low recall of these features; – For Bushy, its ‘wildness’ and ‘wildlife’ features/events Advertising any increase in safety in campaign would

Conclusions and Recommendations (2 of 3)

PARK-WIDE PRIORITY AREAS CONT’D

Other Advertising Ideas:

– Exploiting the ‘Royal’ status of the Parks could be particularly attractive to overseas visitors;

– Given the very positive perception of the role of The Parks, advertising as ‘the lungs of London and for being tranquil/oases could be motivating.;

– The enjoyment of a fun, relaxed day outside with friends/ family;

Offering and Advertising (More) Activities and Events could stimulate non-visitors to visit

and greater frequency of visiting.

– Music events, concerts and theatre, particularly in Greenwich, Bushy and Green;

– Wildlife events at Bushy and Greenwich;

– Children's events, historical events and guided walks & talks at Greenwich and Bushy; – Community focussed events at the provincial Parks, such as firework displays and Easter

Egg hunts;

– Health benefits of walking.

Increased Seating is an aspect that may result in higher visit satisfaction at all Parks, with

the exception of Greenwich

Conclusions and Recommendations (3 of 3)

PARK-WIDE PRIORITY AREAS CONT’D

Information on Park Features: These are priorities for improvement for Green and

Greenwich, in particular But we suggest improving these in all Parks to stimulate greater

interest and repeat visits We believe that providing information in key foreign languages (in the Central Parks) would also be important, as would a focus on the key places of

interest within the vicinity of Parks.

Improving Safety, especially at Bushy, and advertising this could attract more visitors Increasing the visibility of staff would probably be the best way of addressing this issue

CCTV could be another option.

PARK-SPECIFIC PRIORITY AREAS

Greenwich: Increasing Parking capacity, and developing different tiers of tariffs depending

on day of week/ season.

Bushy Park: more dog litter bins and cleaning-up of dog mess on paths.

St James’s and Green: Shops/Merchandising Given the high proportion of overseas

visitors to these Parks, and the importance of the Royal Parks to life in/ a visit to London, there is potential for a shop selling Royal Parks merchandise Information on Park features and associations would help to stimulate interest We would suggest conducting further research on this aspect.

In-park Visitor Survey

Overall Rating of Parks

Overall Rating – Summer & Autumn Combined

4.5

4.6

4.4

Base: All expressing an opinion at Greenwich (343), Bushy (330), St James’s (327); Green (342)

Overall satisfaction levels at all four Parks is very high

KPI Performance Ratings

Comparison of Parks on KPI Performance Ratings (1 of 2)

Peace and quiet Visibility and

friendliness ofpark staff

Signposting andmaps

Information onpark features

Number ofcateringfacilities

Quality ofcateringfacilitiesGreenwich Bushy St James's Green

Park Environment Information & Staff Catering

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion: Greenwich (min: 157, max:

341), Bushy (min: 148, max: 332), St James’s (min: 60, max: 324), Green (min: 41, max: 339)

KPI Ratings – Summer and Autumn Combined (1 of 2)

Facilities forchildren

Activities foradults

Number ofsportsfacilities

Quality ofsportsfacilities

Seating Ease of

access bychosenmethod

Ease ofgetting aroundthe parkGreenwich Bushy St James's Green

Other Facilities Ease of Getting Around Toilets

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion: Greenwich (min: 157, max:

341), Bushy (min: 148, max: 332), St James’s (min: 60, max: 324), Green (min: 41, max: 339)

Comparison of Parks on KPI Performance Ratings (2 of 2)

KPI Performance Ratings: Greenwich Park (1 of 2)

Tidiness & cleanliness

Peace & quiet

Ease of getting around

Ease of access

Seating

Children's facilities

Information on features

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 157, max: 341)

All aspects of Park Environment are rated very highly and highest of all aspects Accessibility is also rated very highly.

KPI Performance Ratings: Greenwich Park (2 of 2)

7% 9%

3% 10%

Adults activities Quality of toilets Quality of sports facilities

Number sports facilities

Number of toilets

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 157, max: 341)

Toilets and Sports Facilities are rated lowest of all, although these still achieve fair ratings Visibility of staff receives a fair amount of criticism.

KPI Performance Ratings: Bushy Park (1 of 2)

10% 25%

30%

25%

1% 2% 5% 1% 10% 18%

33%

1% 1%

Ease of getting around

Children's facilities

Adults activities Visibility of staff

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 148, max: 332)

Peace & Quiet is particularly highly rated Ease of access and park maintenance is also very highly rated Visibility of staff receives

substantial criticism.

KPI Performance Ratings: Bushy Park (2 of 2)

Signposting & maps

Seating Quality of sports facilities

Information on features

Number catering facilities

Quality catering facilities

Number of toilets

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 148, max: 332)

The Number of Toilets receives the most criticism by far Catering

Facilities, Sports and Information also attract significant negativity

KPI Performance Ratings: St James’s Park (1 of 2)

Tidiness & cleanliness

Peace & quiet

Seating Signposting & maps

Information on features

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 60, max: 324)

Upkeep is particularly highly rated Accessibility and Tidiness are also highly rated

KPI Performance Ratings: St James’s Park (2 of 2)

22%

21%

15% 45%

47%

2% 1%

2% 2%

17% 16%

Number catering facilities

Quality of sports facilities

Number sports facilities

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 60, max: 324)

Sports Facilities attract most negative attention receives the most

criticism by far Quality of Catering and Number of Toilets are also

criticised (but much less so)

KPI Performance Ratings: Green Park (1 of 2)

7%

32%

1% 1%

Upkeep of park Tidiness & cleanliness

Peace & quiet

Seating Signposting & maps

Information on features

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 41, max: 339)

Accessibility is particularly highly rated All aspects of Park

Environment also attract very good scores Info on Park Features

receives some criticism.

KPI Performance Ratings: Green Park (2 of 2)

9%

13%

5%18%

Number of toilets Quality catering facilities

Number catering facilities

Number sports facilities

Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor Very poor

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion (min: 41, max: 339)

Number of Sports Facilities attract most negative attention, followed by Number of Toilets and Quality of Sports Facilities

KPI Importance Ratings

Comparison of Parks on KPI Importance Ratings (1 of 2)

Peace and quiet Visibility and

friendliness ofpark staff

Signposting andmaps

Information onpark features

Number ofcateringfacilities

Quality ofcateringfacilitiesGreenwich Bushy St James Green

Park Environment Information & Staff Catering

Base: All respondents in Summer and Autumn surveys combined expressing an opinion: Greenwich (min: 262, max:

340), Bushy (min: 309, max: 331), St James’s (min: 224, max: 323), Green (min: 270, max: 342)