how a community uses its parks: a case study of ipswich, queensland, australia

This article was downloaded by: [Laurentian University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 12:20Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure/LoisirPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rloi20

How a community usesits parks: A case studyof Ipswich, Queensland,AustraliaChris J. Cunningham a & Margaret A. Jonesb

a School of Human and EnvironmentalStudies , University of New England ,Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia Phone: 612 6773 2864 E-mail:b Flinders Medical CentrePublished online: 21 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Chris J. Cunningham & Margaret A. Jones (1999) How acommunity uses its parks: A case study of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia,Leisure/Loisir, 24:3-4, 233-253, DOI: 10.1080/14927713.1999.9651267

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14927713.1999.9651267

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rloi20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14927713.1999.9651267

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14927713.1999.9651267

of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation toor arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

How A Community Uses Its Parks: A CaseStudy of Ipswich, Queensland, Australia

Chris J. CunninghamSchool of Human and Environmental StudiesUniversity of New England

Margaret A. JonesFlinders Medical Centre

Abstract. Among the many types of urban parks, neighbourhood parks and sports-grounds have an important place in the thinking of urban planners and designers. Howdoes the community itself regard its neighbourhood parks? Are they truly an asset orare they more like wastelands? If they are used at all, who are the predominant users?This study provides some answers to these questions for an Australian suburban com-munity and confirms that neighbourhood parks are indeed used, though not usually ona daily basis, and mostly only by members of those households who live closest tothem. Children and teenagers are the most important users.

Keywords. neighbourhood parks, park use, urban planning, children

Résumé. Parmi les nombreux types de parcs urbains, les parcs de quartier et les ter-rains de sport ont une place importante dans les pensées des urbanistes. Comment lacommunauté elle-même perçoit ses parcs de quartier? Sont-ils vraiment des atouts ousont-ils considérés comme étant des «terrains vagues»? S'ils sont fréquentés, qui sontles usagers principaux? Cette étude fournit quelques réponses à ces questions pour unecommunauté suburbaine australienne. L'étude confirme que les parcs de quartier sonten effet utilisés, quoique pas de façon quotidienne généralement, et la plupart sontfréquentés seulement par les membres des domiciles situés les plus près de ces parcs.Les enfants et les adolescents sont les usagers les plus importants.

Address correspondence to: Chris J. Cunningham, School of Human and Environmen-tal Studies, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. Telephone:61 2 6773 2864. Email: [email protected]

Leisure/Loisir, 24(3-4): 233-2S3© 1999-2000 Ontario Research Council on Leisure

233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

234 Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 24 (1999-2000)

Mots clefs, pares de quartier; frequentation des pares; urbanisme; enfants

Introduction

Neighbourhood Parks and Urban Planning

In Australia and the United Kingdom, the use of the term "neighbour-hood" in town planning implies a rather smaller and more local areathan the same term used in North America. Neighbourhood parks aretherefore those which are close to homes and intended to be accessibleon foot to most users. In Australia, the term "public reserve," or sim-ply "reserve" is more often used than "park" when describing suchlocal recreation facilities, though the terms are interchangeable."Park" is more commonly used to describe a larger facility that is in-tensively developed and is intended to be accessed by people from thewhole urban area rather than just the local neighbourhood. Regionalparks, for example, are those where most users would be expected toaccess the facility by car.

Neighbourhood parks have evolved as places intended primarilyfor children to play as urban growth encroached upon the natural areasthat are typically the play haunts of children (Barlow, 1995). Theyhave long been a focus of neighbourhood recreation planning (Gold,1973; Pigram, 1983). Urban planners working in British and NorthAmerican disciplinary traditions have tried to evolve appropriate plan-ning "standards" for provision of such space in newly developing ur-ban and suburban communities, usually based on a figure expressed inhectares (or acres) per thousand population.

In Australia, a figure of seven acres (2.9 hectares) per thousandpeople was adopted by the Cumberland County Council, the postwarregional planning authority for Sydney (Cumberland County Council,1948), and was quickly imitated by local planning authorities in otherAustralian states. This figure was purportedly based on a "standard,"of four acres (1.7 hectares) of sports fields (often called "active" openspace) per thousand people used by the British Playing Fields Associ-ation, plus an allowance of an additional three acres (1.2 hectares) forwhat planners rather loosely referred to as "passive" open space in-volving less formal types of recreation.

Perhaps not entirely by coincidence, seven acres represented aboutone tenth of the amount of land occupied by 1000 people in the char-acteristic Australian suburban development pattern of detached single

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Cunningham & Jones / How A Community Uses Its Parks 235

storey cottages at four to the acre (or 10 to the hectare). Australianplanning tribunals, such as the New South Wales Land and ValuationCourt, had on several occasions in the 1950s and early 1960s, givenjudgements that a figure of 10% of the subdivided area set aside forpublic reserves as a condition of development consent was "not unrea-sonable." While such court determinations did not of themselvesamount to a mandatory requirement for provision of public parks, bythe late 1960s local authorities were routinely requiring, and develop-ers were providing, 10% of subdivided land to be dedicated as a con-dition of planning consent. Although the statutory rules for provisionof community facilities as a condition of planning consent have sincebecome more sophisticated in Australia, particularly under the provi-sions of Section 94 of the New South Wales Parliament (1979), that10% is still the land developer's general rule.

Changing Perceptions of the Value of Neighbourhood Parks

Quantity of land, as dedicated by developers, was soon recognized asan insufficient criterion. Much land originally provided under the10% rule was that which was unsuitable for urban development. Itwas, often enough, also unsuitable for formal recreation or sportsfields by virtue of terrain, flood liability, or other constraints. There was,in addition, no logical social pattern in the distribution of such land(New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission, 1975).

Planning theorists, such as Keeble (1983), postulated a maximumradius of accessibility of 500 metres for neighbourhood "pocketparks" intended primarily for children's play needs. This maximumsoon became a minimum in practice. Recreation planning theorists, us-ing a concept analogous to Christaller's (1933/1963) central place theoryof the distribution of human settlements, placed such parks at the lowerend of a hierarchy of recreational opportunities, and greater emphasiswas placed in research on high-order central or regional urban parks, na-tional parks, and wilderness areas which catered to newly emerging pref-erences for recreation contingent upon greater adult mobility.

Concern about the cost of maintaining widely scattered neighbour-hood parks in an era of high labour costs and mechanization of main-tenance procedures has prompted questions on the nature and fre-quency of use of neighbourhood parks, and whether they representvalue for the community's parks dollar. Australian municipal councilsare tending to focus their efforts on embellishment of widely spacedand high quality regional facilities, and the neighbourhood park, more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


often than not, is coming to be seen as a liability. Media reporting ofcrime has also led to a perception that parks are unsafe, especially forwomen. While empirical data in Australia (Australian Bureau of Statis-tics, 1997) indicate that most violence against women occurs in thehome, that violence in the street perpetrated by strangers is relativelyrare, and even more so in parks, and that men are more likely to be vic-tims as well as perpetrators of the violence that occurs, this perceptionof danger in parks is nevertheless widely held.

It is commonly asserted that neighbourhood parks are either un-derused or not used at all. There is ample speculation on why this maybe the case. Such hypotheses usually relate to factors such as location,lack of improvements, or poor quality of experience (Corkery & Rior-dan, 1994; Evans, 1987; Gold, 1973; Ozturk, 1987). A number of au-thors (such as Balmer, 1971; Gold, 1973; Kaplan, 1983; Kaplan & Ka-plan, 1989) argue, nevertheless, that actual use should not be the onlycriterion of worth, as the presence of "nearby nature" in parks pro-vides a psychic benefit and the presence of parks also improves theaesthetic quality and land values of the city.

Empirical StudiesDespite such speculation, broad-scale systematic empirical studies onthe actual use of parks are comparatively rare. It is difficult to establishan appropriate methodology of study, as park use is exceptionally dy-namic and varies with a myriad of socio-economic factors, time ofday, week, and year, and especially season. Recreational use of the en-vironment is not confined to parks, but happens in streets, buildings,water bodies, and many kinds of natural areas, even those commonlyviewed as wastelands (Hough, 1995). Isolation of the study of parksfrom other recreation sites may give a misleading impression of thecommunity's recreation habits and needs. Most of the studies that aredone are commissioned as internal reports by municipal authoritiesand rarely emerge in the research literature.

Studies by Dee and Liebman (1970) and Bangs and Mahler (1970)in metropolitan Baltimore found that distance from home, location,and accessibility of the park, and the quality of facilities providedwere the most important variables relating to park use. In Australia,the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works carried out a comprehen-sive study in 1983 which also found that poor location, the presence ofa physical barrier to access, such as a heavily trafficked road, and lim-ited facilities, as well as small size led to low use.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


A comprehensive review of Australian research, also commis-sioned by the Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works, revealed thatmost studies were based on visitor surveys and relatively little re-search was based on households (Hamilton-Smith & Mercer, 1991).Most household surveys were carried out as a result of consultanciesfor local government councils (e.g. FORSITE Tourism & RecreationPlanners, 1990; Manidis Roberts Consultant, 1989; Prosser &Paradice, 1987; Quantum Market Research, 1977). Furthermore, thefocus of such studies generally has included the total recreation sys-tem of the regions concerned and they say relatively little about neigh-bourhood parks and their use.

In Lismore, New South Wales, Cunningham, Jones, and Barlow(1996) systematically observed use of three parks and nearby street sys-tems, between 3:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. on spring afternoons, as part of abroader study of children's use of the urban environment for play. Theyreported that, while certain tiny "pocket handkerchief" parks were littleused, there was very considerable use of most of the local park andstreet system for informal recreation in that time, despite somewhat in-clement weather. They concluded, therefore, that much-reported per-ceptions of lack of use may be a result of judgements made on the ba-sis of fleeting inspections rather than from systematic observation ofuse in times of peak recreation demand, or from household surveys de-signed to elicit use by all members of the household.

The Ipswich Studies and Their ContextThe two studies reported in this paper examined the use of parks in alarge Australian metropolitan community. Among other objectives, thehypothesis that people in suburban communities do not make signifi-cant use of their local park systems was tested.

The studies were part of a larger project which focused on the useof the entire neighbourhood (not just parks) by children aged betweennine and 12 in their after-school leisure time. Five different study tech-niques were used for this project:

Study 1. Children from eight primary schools (n = 78 males, 103 fe-males) were surveyed in their school classrooms to ascertain theirfavourite play activities and play places, and to map the places wherechildren played on the (fine, weekday) afternoon immediately prior tothe day of the survey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Study 2. Parents of the children were surveyed separately to gaugetheir understanding of children's play activities and play needs, andtheir impressions of the neighbourhood as a place to bring up chil-dren.Study 3. Children selected from those surveyed in Study 1 above(n = 32 males and 30 females) carried out a photographic study oftheir after-school play, unsupervised by adults. This study producedmore than 1000 images which were analysed for their location, thetype of setting chosen for play, the nature of activities shown, and theincidence of mixed gender and mixed age play.Study 4. Households in the same neighbourhoods as the schools inStudy 1 were surveyed to ascertain the extent to which neighbour-hood parks were used by all members of the household, especiallychildren.Study 5. Recreation activity in neighbourhood parks, together withtheir adjoining residential streets and in the same suburbs as theschools in Study 1, was systematically observed on four successiveweekday afternoons between 3:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m.

Detailed results from Studies 1 to 3 have been reported elsewhere(Cunningham et al., 1999). Studies 4 and 5, the main foci of this pa-per, are of interest because, although they were intended as auxiliarystudies to provide background information for Studies 1 to 3, they alsogive a more general picture of the way that a large suburban commu-nity uses and regards its neighbourhood parks.

The Study Area

Ipswich is a city of 132,000 people on the western fringe of Brisbane,the capital city of Queensland with a metropolitan population of 1.5million (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1998). The relative locationsof Brisbane and Ipswich are shown in Figure 1. Since the 1970s, localindustries and local employment in Ipswich have been in decline, butthe proximity of Brisbane, only 40 kilometres to the east, has led tosignificant commuting to employment there, and Ipswich has contin-ued to grow in population. Although there are pockets of affluencewithin the city's boundaries, the general socio-economic profile of Ip-swich is that of a community considerably less well off than the peo-ple of the State of Queensland or of Australia as a whole (Ipswich CityCouncil, 1997).

Like all Australian cities, Ipswich is characterized by extensivesuburban development and the main form of housing for all social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

KARANA DOWNS p = ^ 3 :

Urban areas

Metro railway

" Freeways

. Main roads

Schools surveyed

I Areas surveyed inObservation studies

Figure 1Ipswich Children's Leisure ProjectD

ownl

oade

d by

[L

aure

ntia

n U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

20 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

014


groups is the detached bungalow-style cottage on a large allotment.Urban development has mainly occurred by land subdivision, followedby individual building of dwellings on allotments. Many of the exist-ing parks and open space reserves, particularly in more recently devel-oped parts of the city, have been acquired by the Ipswich City Councilfrom land developers as part of the conditions for granting develop-ment consent (Clouston, 1996).

MethodologyThree districts in the City were selected for study. These also were thelocations of the schools used in Studies 1 to 3. The districts, indicatedin Figure 1, are:1. Leichhardt, an area of relatively low socio-economic status, with a

relatively high proportion of population drawn from many ethnicgroups, including urban Aboriginal people, and a relatively highproportion of single-family households;

2. Booval, an area developed in the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies and characterized by a lower middle-class populationwith a relatively high proportion of elderly people; and,

3. Karana Downs, a newly developed area, characterized by a youngerand relatively affluent population, mainly Australians of Anglo-Celtic descent.Household surveys for Study 4 were carried out using a mail-back

questionnaire. It was recognized that this technique has a number ofproblems. Low response rates are characteristic. In general, in com-munity or market research where there is no apparent incentive to re-spond, nor any apparent sanction for not responding, response ratescan be as low as 5% (Fowler, 1989), and expectation of a response rateabove 20% can be considered optimistic (Frankfort-Nachmias &Nachmias, 1996). There is little control over who fills in the question-naire, and if the questionnaire is complex, householders may have dif-ficulty in understanding it or its purpose (Lindsay, 1997). The lan-guage used in the questionnaire, therefore, was made as direct aspossible to minimize this latter problem, though complexity could notbe entirely avoided because of the need for responses on behalf of allmembers of the household.

Notwithstanding the problems inherent in mail-back surveys, itwas considered that this method was the most cost-effective means forgetting a reasonable number of responses. We wished to canvass suffi-cient households to generate an accurate picture of park use in the areas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


being considered. A response from a total of at least 30 households fromeach of the three districts was aimed for, 15 close to neighbourhoodparks, and 15 relatively distant from such parks (i.e., remote house-holds). Assuming a response rate of 15%, this required distribution ofthe questionnaire to a minimum of 200 households in each district, and600 households overall. It was recognized that the return data couldrelate only to households who responded, and could not be interpretedas reflecting the attitudes of the entire community.

The survey was answered by a single adult, but was designed toelicit information on park use by the entire household. The respondentwas asked to nominate the nearest park or reserve; whether each mem-ber of the household had used the park on the day of survey, within theprevious week, or within the previous month; whether members of thehousehold had used other parks on the day of survey, week, or month.There were also open questions which allowed respondents to com-ment on aspects of both neighbourhood and regional parks that theyliked and disliked. Responses to the open questions were, of course,only the opinion of the individual who responded for the household.

One hundred households in each district were the closestdwellings to the selected neighbourhood park, and all were within 200metres of the park. The sample households in this case were in twoclusters each of 50 dwellings. In addition, the 30 households closest toQueens Park, a highly developed regional park drawing visitors from thewhole of Ipswich, were included in the survey to ascertain whether prox-imate households used this park in a similar way to that of householdsclose to neighbourhood parks. Survey forms were delivered personallyto householders in the 630 selected dwellings. Respondents completedthem without prompting or assistance. Pre-paid mail-back envelopeswere provided.

In Study 5, recreational activity within the same neighbourhoodparks and also adjacent residential streets was observed over four suc-cessive weekdays between the hours of 3:00 and 5:30 pm. This timewindow was selected as it was potentially a peak time for after-schoolactivity by the children who were the main focus of the research, butall persons using the parks and nearby residential streets for recreationwere recorded by the observers. Queens Park was similarly observed.Observers were set a fixed circuit which could be covered at a very ca-sual strolling speed in 20 minutes. About 20% of the area patrolledcould be observed from any given part of the circuit. Observers were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


university students who had attended a training session at the begin-ning of the project. They worked in male-female couples (less likely toappear intimidating to children) and were instructed to maintain a dis-tance from subjects that would not affect subject activity or behaviour.Subjects were recorded by apparent age, sex, time of observation, ac-tivity, and whether activity was solo or in groups. They were not ap-proached or interviewed. Observers were rotated to a different siteeach day to minimize observer bias.

Results

Use of Neighbourhood and Regional ParksOverall response to the mail-back surveys was 21.5%. This is withinthe normal expectation of return for surveys of this type (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996), and slightly exceeded our expectations.In only one instance (Leichhard, households remote from neighbour-hood parks, with 10 returns) did the return fall below the planned 15households. As the sample comprised specific clusters of householdsclose to and remote from parks rather than a random selection fromthe whole community, the data from responses and the comments andinferences drawn therefrom, refer only to those responding house-holds. In particular, no inference can be drawn from households whodid not respond, though, as shown later in this paper, the geographicpattern of responses did suggest that responders were more likely touse parks than non-responders. Two thirds of respondents werewomen, a result that was consistent across all districts, and for house-holds close to and remote from neighbourhood parks.

There were interesting variations in the rate of return between theareas surveyed. One third (n = 10) of the 30 households close toQueens Park returned a survey. The 300 households close to neigh-bourhood parks returned 83 surveys (a return rate of 28%), describingthe park use or non-use of 253 individuals. The rate of return fromeach of the three districts was reasonably consistent: 26% in Leich-hardt, 28% in Booval, and 29% in Karana Downs.

The 300 households remote from neighbourhood parks returnedonly 43 surveys, (a return rate of only 14.3%), involving park use ornon-use by 126 individuals. Only 10% of "remote" households in Le-ichhardt responded as against 16% in Booval and 17% in KaranaDowns.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


This pattern of returns itself suggested a higher level of interest inmatters related to parks by those living close to them. The return datafrom individual suburbs also appear to suggest that the higher the socio-economic status of the suburb, and the higher the quality of the neigh-bourhood park, the more likely people were to respond. The numbers ofreturns in this disaggregated form, however, are too small to demon-strate a statistically significant trend. The socio-economic characteris-tics of households in groups close to and remote from neighbourhoodparks were reasonably similar in each district, though those remotefrom local parks had slightly higher proportions of households withyoung children, elderly people, and single person households.

There was a clear tendency for people from households close toneighbourhood parks to use them more than people who lived furtheraway, as Table 1 indicates. Indeed, more than 50% of respondinghouseholds living remote from the local park could not even identifytheir closest park. Most nominated instead one of the major regionalparks in the city.

Table 1Persons Using Neighbourhood Parks

by Number and Percentage

Frequency of use

Day of surveyWithin the weekWithin the monthNon-user

Total

Householdsclose to local

park

3596

141112

253

%

14385644

100

Householdsremote fromlocal park

21020

106

126

%

28

1684

100

Total

37106161218

379

%

10284258

100

On the other hand, those remote from neighbourhood parks had apropensity to use higher-order district, regional, and central parksmore often than households who lived close to a neighbourhood park,shown by Table 2. Use of those parks on the day of survey, or withinthe week, by households from either group, however, was very lim-ited. For most households, the regional parks were places for specialoccasions rather than everyday use.

There was little variation in use of neighbourhood parks by malesand females: data from households close to neighbourhood parks indi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


cated that 55% of the users were female, while 56% were male. Use ofthe parks by male and females in remote households were also compara-ble (i.e., 17% of males, 15% female). This apparently near-equal usewas in contrast to the results of the observation studies carried out in theearly evenings.

Table 2Persons Using Regional Parks in Ipswich and Brisbane

Frequency of use

Day of surveyWithin the weekWithin the monthNon-user

Total

Householdsclose to local

park

35

51202

253

%

12

2080

100

Householdsremote from

local park

29

7254

126

%

27

5743

100

Total

514

123256

379

%

14

3466

100

Results of observation of actual activity in parks and streets be-tween 3:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. on the four days of the survey areshown in Table 3. There is an obvious difference in record of male andfemale use between the observations and the household surveys de-scribed above. In both parks and streets, male users at the time of ob-servation were considerably more numerous than female users, with areasonably consistent ratio around 60:40. These figures are strikinglysimilar to the results of similar observations of park use in the City ofLismore, New South Wales (Cunningham et al., 1996), and of use ofCentennial Park in Sydney (Roberts, 1985) suggesting that it may be atypical weekday evening recreation pattern in Australian cities. Thisdoes not necessarily contradict the findings of more or less equal useby the sexes from the household surveys. It may simply mean that menand women use parks at different times, rather than that males domi-nate park use at all times.

Householder Impressions of Positives and Negatives of ParksGenerally, in response to open questions on what respondents liked ordisliked about their neighbourhood parks, the things most liked werethe "openness" and the aesthetic quality of the park. Other things fre-quently mentioned were the suitability of the parks for children, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 3Observations of Recreational Activity in Parks and Streets

Place

LeichhardtNo.%

BoovalNo.%

Karana DownsNo.%

All SuburbsNo.%

Queens Park(Ipswich Central)No.%

StreetsMales

3057

4863

5563

13362

—

Females

2343

2837

3237

8338

—

Total

53100

76100

87100

216100

—

Males

4541

13163

7777

25361

—

ParksFemales

6459

7837

2323

16539

—

Total

109100

209100

100100

418100

—

Males

7545

17963

13271

38661

21766

TotalFemales

8754

10637

5529

24839

11334

Total

162100

285100

187100

634100

330100

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


the barbecue and picnic facilities provided. Those living close to parkswere more enthusiastic about them than those remote from them.

Among things most disliked about neighbourhood parks were lackof maintenance, and lack of facilities such as playground equipmentand toilets, which between them accounted for 32% of all negativecomments. While 11% of all negative responses mentioned threaten-ing people, fear of strangers did not seem to prompt the majority of re-sponses notwithstanding the fact that two thirds of respondents werewomen. Overall, there were fewer negative comments than positive,and more people made "no comment" on negative qualities than re-sponded "no comment" to positive qualities.

Households remote from neighbourhood parks made fewer com-ments (both relatively and absolutely), either negative or positive, onthe qualities of neighbourhood parks than those living close to them.As reported above, less than 50% of respondents remote from neigh-bourhood parks could actually identify their nearest neighbourhoodpark, even though that park was no more than one kilometre away.Their responses, therefore, are consistent with this lack of knowledgeabout their neighbourhood parks

Relatively few households responded to similar questions aboutthe positives and negatives of regional parks in Ipswich. Overall, neg-ative comments slightly outweighed the positive, possibly indicatingthat users expected higher standards from these "special occasion"parks. As expected, because of their higher propensity to visit regionalparks, households remote from neighbourhood parks were more likelyto comment on such parks, both positively and negatively (75 com-ments in all as against 51). Again, the aesthetic and open qualities ofthe parks, and the way they were designed, their suitability for chil-dren and facilities provided were most mentioned as positives.

On the negative side, lack of maintenance, lack of facilities, andthreatening people in the park, in that order, were the least liked as-pects of the regional park system. Once again, fear of strangers, whileaccounting for 7% of negative comments, did not dominate percep-tions of negative attributes of regional parks. More mundane matterssuch as lack of facilities or maintenance were of more concern.

Park Use by Different Age Groups

Another question considered in Studies 4 and 5 dealt with the agegroups most likely to be users of neighbourhood parks. Table 4 in-cludes the responses from households, where "users" were defined as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Infants 0-8Children 9-12Teenagers 13-18Adults 19-59Seniors 60+

8581474712


people who had used the reserve within the previous month. For house-holds close to reserves, infants and children were by far the most impor-tant users, with more than four fifths using local reserves. Nearly half ofteenagers and adults living close to a neighbourhood park used it, butonly a little more than one tenth of seniors (persons over 60) did so.

Table 4Household Survey: Use of Local Parks

Age Group Households close to Households remoteneighbourhood parks from neighbourhood

22200

1511

Note. Park users within the past month as a percentage of the respond-ing populations

For households remote from local reserves, no teenage users wererecorded at all, but the pattern of use by age otherwise reflected that ofproximate households. Users of neighbourhood parks, however, were amuch smaller proportion of total population than were park users wholived close to neighbourhood parks, and the numbers of reported usersare really too small for this disaggregated pattern to be seen as signifi-cant.

Table 5Index of Observed Park Use in After-School Hours:

Leichhardt, Booval, and Karana Downs

Age group Index

Children 9-12 4.0All people under 19 1.7Teenagers 13-18 1.3Infants 0-8 0.8Adults 19-59 0.7Seniors 60+ 0.5

All people 1.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


The observation studies confirmed this pattern. Overall, in thethree suburban neighbourhood parks observed, adults were the mostnumerous users (38% of respondents who used parks), followed bychildren 9-12 (28%), teenagers 13-18 (18%), infants 0-8 (12%), andseniors 60+ (4%). An index relating the proportion of observed users tothe equivalent proportion of the Ipswich population, however, suggeststhat children in middle childhood are the most frequent park users.Teenagers also were observed to use parks out of proportion to theirshare of the population, though household surveys reported no teenageuse of neighbourhood parks in households remote from such parks.Table 5 shows this index.

A similar index was constructed for observed use of Queens Park.The pattern of use is essentially similar, though children in middlechildhood were slightly less frequent users of this regional facilitythan of local parks. Teenagers were a little more so, and all other agegroups used the regional park to much the same extent as the observeduse of local parks. Table 6 gives the details.

Table 6Index of Observed Park Use in After-School

Hours: Queens Park, Ipswich

Age group Index

Children 9-12 2.5All people under 19 1.3Teenagers 13-18 1.8Infants 0-8 0.8Adults 19-59 0.8Seniors 60+ 0.5

All people 1.0

Children are clearly the most important users of local and regionalparks in the Ipswich park system. The importance of such places tochildren themselves also was confirmed by studying the children'sphotographs (Study 3). Images of parks, or of open and natural areas(not necessarily formally gazetted public reserves) constituted 42% ofthe usable photographic images taken by children in their after schoolplay, versus 35% of their home back yards. There was no significantdifference between the choices of girls and boys in the location of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


their photographs. The study of parents (Study 2) showed that parentsalso valued nearby parks as attributes of the neighbourhood favourablefor raising children (Cunningham et al., 1999). Children valuing theirparks as play spaces also came out clearly in their responses to openquestions in the classroom survey (Study 1) which asked about theirfavourite places to play, and what town planners in Ipswich could doto make the city a better place for children. Parks and naturalplayspaces away from home constituted 45% of children's nomina-tions as their favourite play spaces. More than 70% of their 316 sug-gestions for improvement of the play environment related to parks,and simple suggestions such as better provision of trees or landscapeimprovements topped the list of desired improvements (Cunninghamet al., 1999). The children's suggestions were indeed modest, practi-cal, and appropriate. They also reflected the concerns of adults re-ported in the household survey.

ConclusionsIn Ipswich, neighbourhood parks are clearly appreciated and regularlyused by at least some people in all age groups, as are the more sophisti-cated regional parks. Responses from households show, however, thatrelatively few people, even from proximate households, use their parkson a daily basis. The pattern of responses to Study 4 indicated that parkusers were more likely to respond to the survey, and on the clues pro-vided by this pattern it is probable that the 80% of non-responders areless frequent users of neighbourhood parks than the responders. Never-theless, the observation survey (Study 5) still demonstrated neighbour-hood park use on spring weekday afternoons by reasonable numbers ofpeople.

The same observations also recorded considerable recreation ac-tivity in residential streets close to parks. This suggests that streetsthemselves are an important recreational resource and likely to bemore so in areas remote from neighbourhood parks. Neighbourhoodstreets should be considered as an extension of the city's park andrecreation system—more so than simply as part of the city's system oftraffic sewers. Such consideration would have major implications forurban designers and traffic managers.

Children, particularly those in middle childhood, were the mostimportant users of both local and regional parks observed. Urban de-sign issues such as the size, location, and frequency of spacing ofparks in the city are of vital importance to this group. Their indepen-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


dent mobility is greatly limited by motor traffic, yet their need forproximate play spaces within their neighbourhood is often overlookedby city planners. Children, especially those under age 13, are rarelyconsulted when urban plans are under discussion. Through their pho-tographs and their responses to surveys in Studies 1 and 3, childrendemonstrated an ability to understand their play needs and to articulatethem (Cunningham et al., 1999). Their suggestions were both modestand pertinent, and their voices deserve to be heard.

There appears to be a dramatic distance-decay effect in the use ofneighbourhood parks; users appear to come predominantly fromhouseholds living very close to them, a conclusion also of the Balti-more studies mentioned above (Bangs & Mahler, 1970; Dee & Lieb-man, 1970). This suggests that such parks should be more closelyspaced—perhaps 200 or 300 metres rather than the 1000 metres whichcurrent planning prescriptions and theories indicate.

Aesthetic quality of the park experience is salient in the perceptionof local residents, and openness, trees, and standard of maintenance,or lack of same, were most numerous in responses to open questionson both positive and negative attributes of parks. It is noteworthy thatthese were also the concerns of children in their own responses to theclassroom surveys (Cunningham et al., 1999). Clearly, the most valuedattributes of parks by adults and children are these natural qualities.Good landscape design and management, it appears, will be well-appre-ciated by the community.

Facilities in parks, such as location of barbecues and provision ofpublic toilets were also shown in responses to open questions to be im-portant to householders. As toilets were also the focus of comments onvandalism and the perceived haunts of persons of nefarious intent, thispresents parks managers with a dilemma: a valued facility which al-lows greater park use can also be a cause of anxiety for users. The is-sue of greater security and more frequent patrols by rangers is raised.This in turn contributes to the pressure for greater centralization ratherthan the localization of parks. Other findings of these studies indicatethat the latter is important to households.

The observation studies demonstrated fairly consistently thatmales used Ipswich parks and nearby streets for recreation more thanfemales in the time window of those studies (i.e., 3:00 p.m. to 5:30p.m.). However, the almost equal use of parks by males and females,as reported in household studies (where 66% of the respondents were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


women) and observed (approximately 40% of observations were fe-male) does not suggest that women feel inhibited in their use of parksin the city. Nevertheless, fear of threatening individuals or groups inparks, while not the most common response to negative attributes, wascommon enough to flag this as an important issue for park designersand managers to address. Such fear, while it did not appear to domi-nate' negative perceptions in these studies, is known from other re-search (e.g., Little, 1994) to inhibit women's freedom to use parks.

AcknowledgementsFirst, we acknowledge the children from Bethany Lutheran School,Raceview; Ipswich Central State School; Goodna State School; Im-maculate Heart School, Leichhardt; Karalee State School; MountCrosby State School; and Sacred Heart School, Booval, for their en-thusiastic participation in this research, and for the excellent data theyprovided. We also thank their parents who contributed willingly to thestudy.

To the school Principals and staff who provided helpful assistanceand enthusiastic co-operation we are especially grateful. We thank allthe householders of Ipswich who responded to our survey.

We recognize the important role played by Lucas Batton, DavidEisentrager, Kate King, Angus McGuchian, Sharon Moller, KatrinaStuetzel, Stephen Thompson, and Charmaine Williams, students ofGriffith University, Brisbane, who provided us with the necessary sys-tematic data from observations.

Ipswich City Council funded the study. We thank the Council, andparticularly Craig Maudsley, Debbie Soule and Rob Sewell who pro-vided a helpful steering committee.

Finally, we thank our families, and colleagues at the University ofNew England for their support and helpful suggestions.

ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics. (1997). Recorded crime: Australia. Canberra,

ACT: The Bureau.Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1998). Census of population and households,

Australia, 1996. Canberra, ACT: The Bureau.Balmer, K. (1971). Urban open space and outdoor recreation. In P. Lavery

(Ed.), Recreational geography. Vancouver, BC: Douglas, David &Charles.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Bangs, H.P. Jr., & Mahler, S. (1970). Users of local parks. Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, 36(5), 330-334.

Barlow, M.K. (1995). The death and life of urban flowerpots. Unpublishedhonours thesis, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Aus-tralia.

Christaller, W. (1963). Central places in southern Germany (C.W. Baskin,Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (Original work pub-lished in 1933).

Clouston, Landscape Architects. (1996). Ipswich open space and recreationdevelopment plan. Brisbane, QLD: Ipswich City Council and theQueensland Department of Tourism Sport and Youth.

Corkery, L., & Riordan, K. (1994). Local government playground safety is-sues. Sydney: NSW Department of Health.

Cumberland County Council. (1948). The planning scheme for the County ofCumberland, New South Wales: The report of the CumberlandCounty Council to the Hon. J.J. Cahill M.L.A. Minister for LocalGovernment. Sydney, NSW: The Council.

Cunningham, C.J., Jones, M.A., & Barlow, M.K. (1996). Town planning andchildren: A case study of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.Armidale, NSW: University of New England, Department of Geog-raphy and Planning.

Cunningham, C.J., Jones, M.A., & children from eight primary schools in Ip-swich. (1999). Ipswich playspace: A study of children's use ofleisure time and space. Ipswich, QLD: Ipswich City Council.

Dee, N., & Liebman, J.C. (1970). A statistical study of attendance at urbanplaygrounds. Journal of Leisure Research, 2(3), 145-159.

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Section 94, New SouthWales Parliament, Australia (amended July 1998).

Evans, J. (1987, May). Playgrounds: Monuments to misunderstanding. In Thechild at play—Safety first? (pp. 111-121). Melbourne, VIC: ChildAccident Prevention Foundation of Australia.

FORSITE Tourism and Recreation Planners. (1990). Wyong open space com-munity and tourist preferences survey. Wyong, NSW: Wyong ShireCouncil.

Fowler, F.J. (1989). Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (1996). Research methods in the

social sciences. London: Arnold.Gold, S.M. (1973). Urban recreation planning. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Hamilton-Smith, E., & Mercer, D. (1991). Urban parks and their visitors.

Melbourne, VIC: Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works.Hough, M. (1995). Cities and natural process. London: Routledge.Ipswich City Council. (1997). Social profile. Ipswich, QLD: The Council.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4


Kaplan, R. (1983). The role of nature in the urban context. In I. Altman &J.F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behaviour and the natural environment. NewYork: Plenum.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature. London: Cam-bridge University Press.

Keeble, L. (1983). Town planning made plain. London: Construction Press.Lindsay, J.M. (1997). Techniques in human geography. London: Routledge.Little, J. (1994). Gender, planning and the policy process. London: Perg-

amon.Manidis Roberts Consultants. (1989). Kuringai Recreation Needs Survey. Syd-

ney, NSW: Kuringai Municipal Council.Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works. (1983). Melbourne parks: A survey

of the use of selected sites. Melbourne, VIC: The Board.New South Wales Planning and Environment Commission. (1975). Sydney

region open space survey. Sydney, NSW: The Commission.Ozturk, C. (1987). The non-use of parks: Why it happens and how to avoid it.

In The child at play—Safety first? (pp. 105-109). Melbourne, VIC:Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia.

Pigram, J.J.J. (1983). Outdoor recreation and resource management. London:Croom Helm.

Prosser, G., & Paradice, W. (1987). National capital open space systemrecreation study: Pilot needs surveys and classification system. Can-berra, ACT: National Capital Development Commission.

Qantum Market Research. (1977). Yarra Valley Metropolitan Park residents'priorities: A qualitative pilot survey. Melbourne, VIC: MelbourneMetropolitan Board of Works.

Roberts, G. (1985). Centennial Park user survey, 1984-1985. Sydney, NSW:Centennial Park Trust.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lau

rent

ian

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:20

05

Oct

ober

201

4

how a community uses its parks: a case study of ipswich, queensland, australia

Documents