Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Swan Canning Riverpark 2018-19 Report
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Visitor Satisfaction
Survey
Swan Canning Riverpark
2018-19 Report
Yardstick 2018 Swan Canning Riverpark Parks Survey Page 1 of 40
MEASURE - COMPARE - PERFORMContents
Executive 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 ............................................................................... 21
6.1 Demographic Profile ................................................................................................... 21
6.2 Ethnicity....................................................................................................................... 22
6.3 Home Location ............................................................................................................ 22
6.4 Modes of Transport ..................................................................................................... 23
6.5 Travel time .................................................................................................................. 23
6.6 Walking time................................................................................................................ 24
6.7 Visitor Frequency ........................................................................................................ 25
6.8 Visit Duration ............................................................................................................... 26
7.0 Respondent Feedback .................................................................................. 27
Appendix One – Survey Questions....................................................................... 37
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 2 of 40List of Charts Chart 1. Average satisfaction trend 2017 to 2018 ...................................................................... 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 ........................................................................................ 20 Chart 13. Gender of respondents ........................................................................................... 21 Chart 14. Age Groups - All Swan Canning Riverpark parks................................................... 21 Chart 15. Ethnicity ................................................................................................................... 22 Chart 16. Home Location ........................................................................................................ 22 Chart 17. Modes of Transport to get to park ........................................................................... 23 Chart 18. Travel time of respondents ..................................................................................... 23 Chart 19. Walking times of local respondents ........................................................................ 24 Chart 20. Visitor frequency ..................................................................................................... 25 Chart 21. Duration of Visit ....................................................................................................... 26 List of Tables Table 1. Number of surveys 8 Table 2 . Respondent feedback 27 Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 3 of 40
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 2018-19 Budget Statements as an Outcome and Key
Effectiveness Indicator, with a target of 90% average satisfaction.
“Average level of visitor satisfaction in the Swan and
Canning Riverpark is 90 per cent or higher”.
The 2018-19 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 2018-19 survey
was undertaken in December 2018, mostly during the school holidays. Previous surveys were
undertaken entirely during school holidays or at Easter weekend.
The survey collected information from 230 respondents about patterns of use, activities,
expectations, satisfaction and demographics. The questions asked during the 2018-19 survey
are the same as those asked in 2017-18 with a minor amendment to wording of one question.
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 83.1%, below the budget target level of 90%.
• Average satisfaction is slightly lower than in 2017-18 (86.8%).
• Overall satisfaction with the Riverpark and its facilities is 96.5%, slightly below the 2018
Australian median for similar Yardstick parks user surveys.
• Average satisfaction targets were only met at Matilda Bay Reserve, Kent Street Weir, and
Keanes Point The Esplanade.
• Cleanliness, gardens and trees, and shade are the three most important features of the
Riverpark in the locations that were surveyed. This has changed slightly from 2017, when
water quality was in the top three for importance.
• Satisfaction is highest with cleanliness, gardens and trees, and grass maintenance. This is
slightly different to 2017 results when security was in the top three for satisfaction.
• The service gaps for most features are smaller than in 2017, and none are significant.
• Playgrounds, signs and interpretive signage have a positive average service gap across all
parks.
• Most visitors are walking and supervising children. Fewer are undertaking beach or water
based activities than in 2017.
• Most common water based activities are swimming and canoeing/kayaking. Fishing was less
common in 2018 than in 2017.
• 35% of respondents are aged between 35 and 44.
• 48% of respondents indicate that they live locally to the site where they were surveyed, with
17% living within 10 minutes walking time. This is significantly less than in 2017 when 34%
of respondents lived within 10 minutes walk.
• A further 44% of respondents come from the wider Perth region, with only 8% or
respondents visiting from overseas or other parts of Australia.
• Most (58%) of respondents use a private vehicle to get to the Riverpark, with 32% of
respondents walking. This is similar to 2017.
• Only 11% of respondents travelled more than 30 minutes to get to the Riverpark.
• 53% of respondents visit the site they were surveyed at once a week or more often.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 4 of 40• 62% of respondents spend between 30 minutes and 2 hours at the Riverpark. This is lower
than in 2017 when it was 80%.
Conclusions
• Respondents generally scored features lower for both importance and satisfaction in 2018
than in 2017, which produced a smaller service gap i.e. respondents expectations of
individual park features were more likely to be met in 2018 than they were in 2017.
• Despite the smaller service gaps for individual park features in 2018, the results for the
question on overall satisfaction were lower, producing a lower average satisfaction than in
2017. Unfortunately, this coincided with a higher target for 2018-19.
• Consequently, the average satisfaction of 83.1% does not meet the target level of 90%
satisfaction despite overall satisfaction being 96.5%. This is largely due to fewer
respondents being “very satisfied” than “satisfied”.
• The 90% target for average satisfaction is a very ambitious target, and can only be achieved
if at least 50% of respondents are “very satisfied” with the overall features of the park where
they are surveyed.
• The majority of Riverpark visitors are Perth residents, with a strong pattern of local use.
• Perceptions of water quality have improved since 2017.
• Provision and quality of toilet facilities and shade are perceived by visitors to be inadequate
at several locations.
• Provision and quality of other features is generally acceptable although there are some local
inadequacies.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 5 of 401.0 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 230 intercept surveys were undertaken from 11 to 18 December 2018 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 survey undertaken in 2017.
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.
Additional 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 2018, a minor amendment was made to questions about river water quality.
2017 2018
How important is water quality to you when How important is the condition of the
visiting the river? river water for recreation?
How satisfied are you with the quality of the How satisfied are you with the condition of
river water? the river water for recreation?
Survey responses are scored using the following scoring system:
Importance totally unimportant neither important very
scale unimportant important nor important
unimportant
1 2 3 4 5
Satisfaction very dissatisfied neither satisfied very satisfied
scale dissatisfied satisfied nor
dissatisfied
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.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 6 of 401.3 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 2017-18 results where possible. Future reports will include a
trend analysis of 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.
For both the on-line report and this summary report, the overall satisfaction percentage is
calculated from the total numbers of respondents that gave a “very satisfied” (5) and “satisfied”
(4) response to the specific question on overall satisfaction with the park in which the survey was
conducted. For the overall satisfaction calculation, respondents that indicate they are “neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” are excluded as these respondents
are not satisfied. Overall satisfaction is therefore a count (converted to a 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 number of responses to
give a score between 1 and 5. This score is converted to a percentage to enable comparison
with the target of 90%. Average satisfaction is therefore a rating (converted to a percentage)
calculated from the scores attributed to each response on the satisfaction scale (see section 1.2).
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 230 surveys were collected (10 per park) and the results aggregated for overall
satisfaction to provide a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 6.4%.
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 Mean Standard
Surveys Satisfaction Deviation
Undertaken
Swan Canning Riverpark 230 4.16 0.47
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 7 of 401.5 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 Local Authority
completed
Banks Reserve & Maylands 10 City of Bayswater/ City of Vincent
Foreshore
Garvey Park 10 City of Belmont
Belmont Water Ski Area 10 City of Belmont
Adenia Park, Duff Road 10 City of Canning
Shelley Beach & Prisoners 10 City of Canning
Point
Kent Street Weir 10 City of Canning
Troy and Tompkins Park 10 City of Melville
Point Walter 10 City of Melville
Bicton Baths and Blackwall 10 City of Melville
Reach
Deep Water Point 10 City of Melville
Point Fraser and Heirisson 10 City of Perth
Island
Perth Foreshore Barrack 10 City of Perth
Square
JH Abrahams Reserve and 10 City of Perth
Pelican Point
Matilda Bay Reserve 10 City of Perth
Sir James Mitchell Park 10 City of South Perth
(Between Coode St and
Hurlingham Rd only)
Mill Point Reserve and Point 10 City of South Perth
Belches
Woodbridge Reserve 10 City of Swan
Lilac Hill 10 City of Swan
Fish Market Reserve and 10 City of Swan/ Town of Bassendean
Success Hill
Keanes Point, The Esplanade 10 Shire of Peppemrint Grove
Sandy Beach Reserve 10 Town of Bassendean
John Tonkin Reserve, Preston 10 Town of East Fremantle
Point, East Fremantle
East Fremantle Yacht Club / 10 Town of East Fremantle
Toms Reserve, Jerrat Drive
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 8 of 402.0 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 5) and dividing by the total number of respondents. This gives an average or mean
score of 4.16 or 83.1%. The target level of mean or average satisfaction for 2018-19 is 90%.
Chart 1 shows the average satisfaction for 2017-18 and 2018-19 with the target satisfaction
represented by the black line.
Average satisfaction has dropped 3.7% since 2017-18, and in the same period the target has
increased from 85% to 90%. Average satisfaction now falls below the target level.
Chart 1. Average satisfaction trend 2017 to 2018
100.0%
90%
85%
86.8%
80.0% 83.1%
60.0%
40.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2017-18 2018-19
Swan Canning Riverpark - Parks & Wildlife Service Target satisfaction
Chart 2. Average satisfaction compared with other organisations
Stirling City (WA) 90.6%
North East Link Authority (NELA) 81.2%
Yarra Ranges Council (VIC) 82.4%
Bundaberg Regional Council (QLD) 88.3%
Swan Canning Riverpark - Parks & Wildlife Service 83.1%
Median 83.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 9 of 40Chart 2 shows average satisfaction compared with other organisations in Australia that
completed parks visitor surveys in 2018. Swan Canning Riverpark had the median result out of
the 5 organisations. The highest score was 90.6% average satisfaction at Stirling City.
2.2 Overall satisfaction
Overall satisfaction is a measure of the percentage of respondents that were either satisfied or
very satisfied.
Chart 3 shows the performance of Swan Canning Riverpark compared with the other Australian
organisations that undertook Yardstick parks user surveys in 2018. Overall satisfaction of Swan
Canning Riverpark respondents was scored at 96.5% indicating that 96.5% of respondents gave
a “satisfied” or “very satisfied” result to the question about overall satisfaction.
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. This demonstrates that average satisfaction is always lower than
overall satisfaction, and that even organisations that can achieve 100% overall satisfaction (i.e.
all respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied), can score relatively low in average
satisfaction. This occurs when the majority of respondents are “satisfied” rather than “very
satisfied”.
Chart 3. Overall satisfaction compared with other organisations
100.0%
Stirling City (WA)
90.6%
100.0%
North East Link Authority (NELA)
81.2%
99.4%
Yarra Ranges Council (VIC)
82.4%
98.4%
Bundaberg Regional Council (QLD)
88.3%
96.5%
Swan Canning Riverpark - Parks & Wildlife Service
83.1%
99.4%
Median
83.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
The result of 96.5% satisfaction was slightly lower than the median result of 99.4% for the other
organisations listed in Chart 3. This represents a slight drop from 97.9% in 2017, but is within the
margin of error for the survey.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 10 of 40Chart 4. Overall satisfaction by park
Total 45 177 7
Adenia Park 1 9
Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore 2 8 0
Belmont Water Ski Area 2 8
Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach 9
Deep Water Point 1 9
East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve 0 4 5
Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill 0 10
Garvey Park 3 7
JH Abrahams Reserve 0 10
Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East Fremantle 2 8
Keanes Point The Esplanade 5 5 0
Kent Street Weir 7 3
Lilac Hill 2 8
Matilda Bay Reserve 5 5
Mill Point Reserve and Point Belches 4 6
Perth Foreshore Barrack Square 2 7
Point Fraser and Heirisson Island 1 9
Point Walter 2 8
Sandy Beach Reserve 0 9
Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point 0 10
Sir James Mitchell Park 2 8
Troy and Tompkins Park 1 9 0
Woodbridge Reserve 2 8
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
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 very high, with all but eight respondents being
either very satisfied or satisfied, and only one respondent being dissatisfied.
The highest level of overall satisfaction was at Kent Street Weir, and the lowest level was at East
Fremantle Yacht Club/Tom’s Reserve.
2.3 Average Satisfaction by Park
Average satisfaction varies by park, and ranges from 66% at East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms
Reserve to 94% at Kent Street Weir. Only three parks achieved the target average satisfaction.
Chart 5 shows the average satisfaction for each park for both 2017-18 and 2018-19, with the
2017-18 results being in white. The 2018-19 results are shown in blue, with green bars
representing parks that met the 90% target in 2018-19.
There wasn’t a perfect match between the parks surveyed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 which
explains why there aren’t two bars for each park.
Four parks have increased satisfaction since 2017-18. These are Kent St Weir, Matilda Bay
Reserve, Garvey Park, and Deep Water Point. Of these, only Kent St Weir and Matilda Bay
Reserve met the 90% average satisfaction target. The other 19 parks were either unchanged,
had reduced satisfaction or there were no comparative results from 2017-18.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 11 of 40Chart 5. Average satisfaction by park
2017-18 2018-19
Kent Street Weir 84%
94%
Keanes Point The Esplanade
90%
Matilda Bay Reserve 88%
90%
Mill Point Reserve and Point Belches 90%
88%
Garvey Park 84%
86%
Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore 84%
84%
Belmont Water Ski Area 89%
84%
Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East Fremantle 84%
84%
Lilac Hill 89%
84%
Point Walter 90%
84%
Sir James Mitchell Park 88%
84%
Woodbridge Reserve 93%
84%
Adenia Park
82%
Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach 88%
82%
Deep Water Point 80%
82%
Perth Foreshore Barrack Square 86%
82%
Point Fraser and Heirisson Island 86%
82%
Troy and Tompkins Park 90%
82%
Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill 90%
80%
JH Abrahams Reserve 82%
80%
Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point 86%
80%
Sandy Beach Reserve 86%
78%
East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve
66%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 12 of 403.0 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 2018-19 are shown in the blue bars with the
2017 results shown in white for comparison.
Chart 6. Relative importance of parks features – all parks
Cleanliness 93.2%
89.5%
Gardens/Trees 91.6%
86.5%
Shade 88.0%
86.1%
Security 88.0%
84.6%
Grass Maint 85.0%
83.4%
Toilets 86.4%
83.2%
Water quality 91.0%
83.0%
Natural vegetation 86.4%
81.5%
Paths/Tracks 87.2%
80.9%
Seats/Tables 83.7%
77.5%
Signs 78.3%
73.9%
Interpretive signage 78.9%
73.7%
Playgrounds 76.0%
73.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2017 2018
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 13 of 40The most important feature overall in 2018 is cleanliness, followed by gardens and trees, and
shade. Playgrounds, signs and interpretive signage scored the lowest importance overall. The
2018 results are very similar to 2017, except that water quality has slipped down the importance
rankings since 2017, and scores are consistently lower in 2018 that they were in 2017.
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 2018-19 are shown in the green bars with the
2017 results shown in white for comparison.
Satisfaction in 2018 was highest with cleanliness, gardens and trees, and grass maintenance,
and lowest with toilets, playgrounds, signs, furniture and shade. The 2018 results are very similar
to 2017, except that shade is lower on the satisfaction rankings in 2018 than it was in 2017, and
satisfaction with water quality, furniture and toilets has increased slightly since 2017. Scores for
other features and services are generally slightly lower in 2018 that they were in 2017.
Chart 7. Relative satisfaction with parks features – all parks
Cleanliness 85.7%
84.9%
Gardens/Trees 86.9%
82.3%
Grass Maint 83.8%
82.1%
Security 85.0%
81.2%
Paths/Tracks 84.9%
81.0%
Interpretive signage 80.0%
80.0%
Natural vegetation 81.5%
78.9%
Water quality 77.3%
78.7%
Shade 82.0%
76.9%
Seats/Tables 76.0%
76.8%
Signs 78.4%
76.7%
Playgrounds 78.0%
76.5%
Toilets 69.5%
74.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2017 2018
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 14 of 404.0 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
service gap varies from -0.46 for shade to +0.32 for interpretive signage. Overall, the service
gaps are insignificant, and in most cases are lower than in 2017.
Chart 8. Overall service level gap – all parks
Shade -0.46
Toilets -0.44
Cleanliness -0.23
Water quality -0.21
Gardens/Trees -0.21
Security -0.17
Natural vegetation -0.13
Grass Maint -0.07
Seats/Tables -0.03
Paths/Tracks 0.00
Signs 0.14
Playgrounds 0.17
Interpretive signage 0.32
-1 -0.5 0 0.5
2017 2018
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 15 of 40When assessed by individual park the service gaps become more significant and can be better targeted for action. 4.2 Individual site service gaps The only significant service gap (between -1.1) for provision and quality of toilets was found at Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill. This is a major improvement over 2017. The only other significant service gaps were for shade at East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve, Perth Foreshore Barrack Square, and Troy and Tompkins Park (-1.8, -1.6 and -1.1 respectively). There were no significant service gaps for water quality in 2018, a significant improvement over 2017. 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. Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 16 of 40
Chart 9. Results for Individual sites for all features
Gardens and Playgrounds Seats and Toilets Signs Cleanliness Grass Paths and Shade Security Water quality Natural Interpretive
trees tables maintenance tracks vegetation signage
Adenia Park -0.4 0.4 0.2 0 0.4 0 -0.3 0 -0.4 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4
Banks Reserve and Maylands Foreshore -0.5 0.3 0.4 -0.2 0.2 -0.3 0 -0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0 0.1
Belmont Water Ski Area -0.6 0.9 0.2 -0.2 0.3 -0.6 0.2 0.2 -0.5 -0.1 -0.6 -0.3 0.4
Bicton Baths and Blackwall Reach -0.1 0.6 0.1 -0.42 0 -0.1 0 -0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0 -0.1 0.3
Deep Water Point -0.1 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 0.2 -0.3 0 0.2 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 0.3
East Fremantle Yacht Club/Toms Reserve -0.3 0.2 -0.8 -0.8 0.3 -0.4 0 -0.4 -1.8 -0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Fish Market Reserve and Success Hill -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -1.1 0.1 -0.8 -0.8 -0.1 -0.7 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Garvey Park -0.2 0.4 0 -0.3 0.1 -0.3 -0.1 0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.3 -0.3 0
JH Abrahams Reserve 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.64 -0.4 -0.3 0.1 0 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5
Jon Tonkin Reserve, Preston Point, East
-0.1 0 0 -0.2 0.1 0.3 0 0.2 -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 -0.2 0.1
Fremantle
Keanes Point The Esplanade 0.2 0.2 0.3 -0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.3 -0.1 0.1 -0.5 -0.4 0
Kent Street Weir -0.5 0 -0.4 -0.82 0 0 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.2 -0.9 -0.2 -0.1
Lilac Hill 0 -0.05 -0.3 -0.09 0.3 -0.5 -0.4 0 -0.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1
Matilda Bay Reserve 0.1 0.43 0.4 -0.5 -0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 -0.1 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.1
Mill Point Reserve and Point Belches -0.3 0.19 0.4 -0.2 0.5 -0.2 0 0.2 0 0 -0.1 -0.1 0.4
Perth Foreshore Barrack Square -0.6 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 0.3 0 -1.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0
Point Fraser and Heirisson Island -0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 -0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.2
Point Walter 0 0.6 0.3 -0.3 0.1 0.1 -0.1 0 -0.4 -0.1 -0.2 0 0
Sandy Beach Reserve 0.1 -0.8 -0.3 -0.6 0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.1 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 -0.1 0
Shelley Beach and Prisoners Point -0.6 -0.1 -0.3 -0.3 0 -0.3 -0.3 0.1 -0.7 -0.2 -0.7 -0.6 0
Sir James Mitchell Park -0.1 -0.2 -0.4 -0.93 0.2 -0.4 -0.2 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0
Troy and Tompkins Park -0.1 0.5 -0.4 -0.9 0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.5 -1.1 -0.3 0.1 0 0.3
Woodbridge Reserve -0.4 0.3 0.2 -0.7 0.7 -0.1 -0.1 0 -0.5 0 0.1 0.5 0.4
Yardstick 2018 Swan Canning Riverpark Parks Survey Page 17 of 40Further 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, and supervising children. Around 18% were taking part in beach
and water based activities. Other activities (12%) included running, scootering, exercising using
equipment, fitness activities, Christmas party, socializing, getting a coffee or a meal, taking
photos, or waiting between buses.
Chart 10. All Parks - General park activities
Walking 27%
Supervise children 25%
Walking dog 19%
Beach and water based activity 18%
Relaxing 17%
Passing through 14%
Play activity 14%
Picnic/BBQ 12%
Other 12%
Cycling 8%
Watching sport 5%
Sporting activity 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Yardstick 2018 Swan Canning Riverpark Parks Survey Page 18 of 40The 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.
Chart 11. All Parks - Beach and water based activities
Swimming 38%
Canoeing/kayaking 24%
Other 14%
Power boating 12%
Stand up paddle board 12%
Fishing 10%
Jet skiing 2%
Rowing 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
22% of respondents indicated “Other” activities, which included wake boarding, kite surfing,
sailing, boogie boarding and water skiing.
5.2 Child Activities - observed
Children under 15 are not sampled 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 other children, or playing with park facilities. No children were present during 26.1%
of surveys.
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 19 of 40Chart 12. Observed Child Activities
Playing with other children 55.7%
Play activity using park
facilities 47.8%
Picnic/BBQ 34.8%
Beach activity 33.5%
No children present 26.1%
Cycling 16.5%
Walking 13.5%
Passing through 11.7%
Watching sport 10.0%
Sporting activity 7.4%
Walking the dog 5.2%
Other 2.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 20 of 406.0 Supplementary Findings
6.1 Demographic Profile
The gender of respondent is shown in Chart 13. 57% of respondents were female, and 43%
male. Although this doesn’t match the gender profile of the Perth region, it is not uncommon to
find more women than men in parks.
Chart 13. Gender of respondents
Male
Male
43%
Female
Female
57%
Respondents’ age groups are presented in Chart 14. The age profile of the survey sample is
quite different to the age profile of the Greater Perth statistical area, with a higher number of
respondents aged 30 to 49, and 55 to 64. This result is similar to 2017, although in 2018 there
were more respondents in the 35 to 44 yr range, and less over 65.
Chart 14. Age Groups - All Swan Canning Riverpark parks
17.9%
17.0%
% Visitors Surveyed
13.9%
13.5%
11.4% 10.9% 11.4%
9.2%
7.7% 8.0%
6.9% 7.1% 6.9% 6.9%
6.2% 6.6% 6.6%6.4%
4.4%
2.2%
15–19 20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–64 65+
Sample Greater Perth
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 21 of 406.2 Ethnicity
As shown in Chart 15, 85% of respondents identified as Australian. The next largest cohort was
Asian, then European.
Chart 15. Ethnicity
1% 1% 1%
4%
7%
1% Australian
Aborigine/Torres Strait Islander
Pacific Peoples
Asian
European
Middle Eastern/African
North or South American
Other
85%
6.3 Home Location
Chart 16 shows that 48% of respondents were local, i.e. live in the immediate neighbourhood of
the park that they were interviewed in. A further 44% were from the wider Perth region, leaving
only 3% from other parts of Australia, and 5% international visitors. This is significantly different
to 2017 results where 67% of respondents reported that they were local to the park they were
surveyed at.
Chart 16. Home Location
5%
3%
Local
City/Shire/Region
48%
Australia
44% International
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 22 of 406.4 Modes of Transport
32% of respondents across all parks walked to the park that they were interviewed in, with a
further 58% travelling by private motor vehicle. Public transport and other forms of transport use
were uncommon, with only 2% in each category. Cycling was more common than many other
parks user surveys at 6%. These results were very similar to 2017 modes of transport.
Chart 17. Modes of Transport to get to park
2%
32% Walk
Public Transport
Cycle
Private vehicle
58%
2% Other
6%
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 half of respondents (49.6%) spent less than 15 minutes travel time to
get to the park they were surveyed at, with a further 39% travelling between 15 and 30 minutes.
Only 11% of respondents travelled for more than 30 minutes. These results are very similar to
2017 results.
Chart 18. Travel time of respondents
0.4%
10.9% 7.0%
Under 5 minutes
5-15 minutes
15-30 minutes
42.6% 30 mins to 1 hour
39.1%
Over 1 hour
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 23 of 406.6 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 109 local respondents, 39
respondents (17% of the total sample) live within 10 minutes walk of where they were surveyed.
Walking times of local respondents are shown in Chart 19.
Results from 2017 showed a much higher incidence of local use and more respondents living
within 10 minutes walk of the park than in 2018, when there seem to be more respondents from
the wider community.
Chart 19. Walking times of local respondents
Less than 5
minutes
5%
21–30 minutes
More than 30
19%
minutes
2%
Less than 5 minutes
6–10 minutes
31% 6–10 minutes
11–20 minutes
21–30 minutes
More than 30 minutes
11–20 minutes
43%
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 24 of 406.7 Visitor Frequency
The majority (53%) of respondents visit the park they were surveyed in at least once a week, with 8% visiting every day, and 74% visiting at least once
a month. 8% of visitors to all parks were visiting the park for the first time. These results are similar to 2017, so do not appear to be affected by timing.
There were less daily visitors than in 2017 however, with 16% in 2017 reporting that they visit the park daily. Results for all parks are presented in
Chart 20.
Chart 20. Visitor frequency
2%
8% 25% 19% 5% 13% 18% 8%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Parks
Every day 8%
Several times a week 25%
About once a week 19%
About twice per month 5%
About once a month 13%
About 2-6 times a year 18%
About once a year 1%
Less than once a year 2%
First visit 8%
Yardstick 2018 Swan Canning Riverpark Parks Survey Page 25 of 406.8 Visit Duration
Chart 21 shows the duration of respondents’ visits to the park that they were interviewed in.
Durations are more evenly spread than in 2017, with nearly a quarter of respondents staying less
than 30 minutes compared with only 9% in 2017. Similarly, more respondents stayed for more
than 2 hours in 2018 than they did in 2017. There is still a fairly even split however between the
numbers staying more than an hour and less than an hour, with most of the difference being in
the short and long duration visits.
Chart 21. Duration of Visit
23% 33% 29% 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Parks
Less than 30 mins 23%
30 to 60 mins 33%
1 to 2 hours 29%
2 to 4 hours 15%
Yardstick 2018 Swan Canning Riverpark Parks Survey Page 26 of 407.0 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
Suggested Comment on condition Overall
Park Name Most enjoyed Gender Age
Improvement of river foreshore Satisfaction
Adenia Park Dog off lead plus area Undulating area near 0 Very 0 40–44
for kids to run playground - level it out satisfied
Adenia Park The natural 0 0 Satisfied Female 40–44
surroundings
Adenia Park Dog off lead 0 0 Satisfied Male 55–64
Adenia Park The cycleway through A toilet would be good 0 Satisfied Female 35–39
Adenia Park Relatively shaded A toilet 0 Satisfied Female 65+
Adenia Park The kids like the big pile 0 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
of sand
Adenia Park Close to my home 0 0 Satisfied Male 45–49
Adenia Park Not too busy Toilets cafe 0 Satisfied Female 55–64
Adenia Park The lengthy walkway 0 0 Satisfied Female 40–44
Adenia Park Open areas bushland More weed Some areas have been Satisfied Male 45–49
dog friendly good trails maintenance of wetland trampled not sure what
the condition
Banks Reserve The trees 0 Lovely to have a park so Satisfied Male 25–29
and Maylands close to the river
Foreshore
Banks Reserve The natural 0 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
and Maylands environment
Foreshore
Banks Reserve Always clean social 0 0 Very Female 30–34
and Maylands place to gather satisfied
Foreshore
Banks Reserve Close to home no roads Concrete on path near 0 Very Female 65+
and Maylands to cross bridge needs work satisfied
Foreshore
Banks Reserve Fresh air peace and A little more 0 Satisfied Female 55–64
and Maylands quiet maintenance beside the
Foreshore paths
Banks Reserve The cycleway through 0 0 Satisfied Female 25–29
and Maylands
Foreshore
Banks Reserve It’s a social place to walk 0 Om glad they are working Satisfied Male 40–44
and Maylands the dog on it
Foreshore
Banks Reserve The natural 0 It is a lovely outlook from Satisfied Male 55–64
and Maylands surroundings near the here
Foreshore river
Banks Reserve The nature Slow bikes down 0 Satisfied Male 45–49
and Maylands
Foreshore
Banks Reserve So close to home Pick up grass clippings 0 Satisfied 0 45–49
and Maylands when mow. More dog
Foreshore bags
Belmont Water Fishing off the jetty 0 0 Satisfied Female 35–39
Ski Area
Belmont Water Wildlife 0 0 Satisfied Female 30–34
Ski Area
Belmont Water Shaded cycle way is 0 0 Satisfied Female 65+
Ski Area great
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 27 of 40Suggested Comment on condition Overall
Park Name Most enjoyed Gender Age
Improvement of river foreshore Satisfaction
Belmont Water Lovely walkway along 0 I’m pleased it is being Very Female 50–54
Ski Area the water, plenty of paid attention to- its satisfied
trees along it precious
Belmont Water The walk among the 0 0 Satisfied Male 30–34
Ski Area trees with river view
Belmont Water The green grass! Maybe a couple of bins There is a lot of birdlife so Satisfied Male 25–29
Ski Area along the walkway that must be a good sign
Belmont Water The beach area 0 Quite good here it gets Very Female 40–44
Ski Area flushed a bit more than satisfied
other areas
Belmont Water Grass close to the water More trees for shade 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
Ski Area
Belmont Water The greenery 0 Looks lovely Satisfied Female 40–44
Ski Area
Belmont Water The water ski area 0 Its fine Satisfied Female 45–49
Ski Area
Bicton Baths Quiet close to river 0 Mostly its ok Satisfied Female 40–44
and Blackwall
Reach
Bicton Baths Good walking paths 0 0 Satisfied Female 65+
and Blackwall
Reach
Bicton Baths The beach area Maybe upgrade toilets Great place to bring the Satisfied Male 30–34
and Blackwall kids
Reach
Bicton Baths Naturally beautiful, Food trucks, coffee van, 0 Satisfied Female 35–39
and Blackwall shallow water
Reach
Bicton Baths Tranquil place to walk 0 Seems clean Satisfied Male 45–49
and Blackwall
Reach
Bicton Baths Local shade grass Coffee van, smooth the 0 Satisfied Male 25–29
and Blackwall terrain (remove bumps)
Reach
Bicton Baths Car park is close - quiet More car parks 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
and Blackwall area
Reach
Bicton Baths Walking along the river 0 There are some nice Satisfied Female 40–44
and Blackwall shaded areas for kids in
Reach shallow water
Bicton Baths Offers a variety of 0 0 Very Female 65+
and Blackwall facilities for the end of satisfied
Reach year school picnic
Bicton Baths Stunningly beautiful Divide cycles from Sand needs a top up Satisfied Female 55–64
and Blackwall pedestrians
Reach
Deep Water The bbq facilities Have toilets on other 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
Point side of carpark
Deep Water Having lots of possible 0 0 Very Female 35–39
Point activities in one area satisfied
Deep Water 0 0 0 Satisfied Female 35–39
Point
Deep Water The walk by the river 0 Good to see new plants Satisfied Male 45–49
Point
Deep Water A walk with lovely views A few more rubbish bins 0 Satisfied Female 50–54
Point of the water
Deep Water The walk along the river 0 I wonder how the water Satisfied Female 55–64
Point activity will impact on it
Deep Water The outlook onto the 0 Looks good Satisfied Male 65+
Point river
Deep Water Grassed area by the 0 0 Satisfied Male 30–34
Point river
Deep Water Good part of the river 0 It will be good when the Satisfied Female 45–49
Point for jet skiing new approach road is
finished and all the
fencing is gone
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 28 of 40Suggested Comment on condition Overall
Park Name Most enjoyed Gender Age
Improvement of river foreshore Satisfaction
Deep Water The shaded area with Maybe some seating 0 Satisfied Female 25–29
Point tables near the water looking over the water
East Fremantle 0 Separate path for 0 Neither Female 55–64
Yacht cyclists/ pedestrians satisfied
Club/Toms nor
Reserve dissatisfied
East Fremantle The tennis facilities Seating near courts, 0 Dissatisfied Male 35–39
Yacht more shade
Club/Toms
Reserve
East Fremantle The views of the water 0 0 Satisfied Male 45–49
Yacht
Club/Toms
Reserve
East Fremantle Open, good for sport Shaded areas tables and 0 Neither Female 45–49
Yacht toilets satisfied
Club/Toms nor
Reserve dissatisfied
East Fremantle The elevation and view The pathway needs to Not really accessible here Satisfied Female 50–54
Yacht be widened there are so
Club/Toms many cyclists it can be
Reserve dangerous for walkers
East Fremantle Watching the tennis More shaded areas to sit 0 Neither Female 40–44
Yacht in satisfied
Club/Toms nor
Reserve dissatisfied
East Fremantle Sporting facilities More seating 0 Satisfied Female 40–44
Yacht
Club/Toms
Reserve
East Fremantle The tennis facilities More seating, more 0 Neither Female 35–39
Yacht shade satisfied
Club/Toms nor
Reserve dissatisfied
East Fremantle The grassed oval More trees for shade 0 Neither Female 15–19
Yacht satisfied
Club/Toms nor
Reserve dissatisfied
East Fremantle The sporting facilities More shade for 0 Satisfied Male 40–44
Yacht spectators
Club/Toms
Reserve
Fish Market Good part of the river to Toilets Good access Satisfied Male 0
Reserve and swim in
Success Hill
Fish Market Kayaking with my Toilets would be helpful Good place to get in/ out Satisfied Male 15–19
Reserve and friends of water
Success Hill
Fish Market Shallow water for kids More seats, gas bbqs 0 Satisfied Male 40–44
Reserve and
Success Hill
Fish Market The space and the quiet Doggie bins 0 Satisfied Female 30–34
Reserve and
Success Hill
Fish Market The trees and the view 0 0 Satisfied Female 35–39
Reserve and of the water
Success Hill
Fish Market Close to river Access to river under 0 Satisfied Female 65+
Reserve and bridge not good for
Success Hill pedestrians
Fish Market Mix of things to do - 0 The jetty is a good place Satisfied Female 40–44
Reserve and playground, paths for to watch river activity
Success Hill cycling, view of the river
Fish Market The naturalness of the 0 Looks very good for Satisfied Female 55–64
Reserve and area access and very tranquil
Success Hill
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 29 of 40Suggested Comment on condition Overall
Park Name Most enjoyed Gender Age
Improvement of river foreshore Satisfaction
Fish Market The birdlife A toilet block 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
Reserve and
Success Hill
Fish Market Close to my house, nice Upgrade toilets 0 Satisfied Male 45–49
Reserve and outlook
Success Hill
Garvey Park Easy access to the river 0 I like the new plantings Satisfied Male 30–34
along it
Garvey Park Good place to bring the More parking close to Seems good Satisfied Male 35–39
kids the river
Garvey Park Getting together with Refreshments Good swimming for kids Satisfied Female 40–44
family
Garvey Park Food tracks, good 0 0 Satisfied Female 40–44
playground, good toilets
Garvey Park Proximity to home Enforce dog rules Well used Very Male 45–49
satisfied
Garvey Park Lots of facilities for a 0 Quite useable with the Very Male 45–49
group beach area satisfied
Garvey Park The outlook to the river 0 0 Satisfied Male 50–54
Garvey Park Seeing the kids run 0 0 Satisfied Male 35–39
around
Garvey Park Paths are good for Have one toilet that is 0 Very Male 30–34
wheelchairs bigger satisfied
Garvey Park The playground There seems to be a Safe beach for the kids Satisfied Female 40–44
drainage issue, puddles
around
JH Abrahams Close to home and the Paint toilet block a zip 0 Satisfied Male 40–44
Reserve water good variety of line in playground
play equipment
JH Abrahams Shallow water for kite Get rid of paid parking No problems for us Satisfied Female 30–34
Reserve surfing
JH Abrahams Pathway to cycle on More seats in the shade 0 Satisfied 0 35–39
Reserve
JH Abrahams It is very peaceful here 0 0 Satisfied Female 25–29
Reserve
JH Abrahams It caters for everyone 0 Respondent has concerns Satisfied Female 65+
Reserve and provides facilities that as the swan river
for many activities and society has been
sports especially for absorbed by a larger
young people group there is not an
adequate amount of
attention being given to
maintaining the river
foreshore and water
health
JH Abrahams There is something for Clearer signs with 0 Satisfied Female 20–24
Reserve everyone, its peaceful important information
and scenic
JH Abrahams Being by the river, the 0 The water smells in Satisfied Female 55–64
Reserve scenery certain places along the
river
JH Abrahams Good conditions for Toilets are a bit old Looks good Satisfied Male 30–34
Reserve paddle boarding
JH Abrahams Looking out on the Bigger rubbish bins Its a bit smelly Satisfied Female 30–34
Reserve water
JH Abrahams Location looking onto Drink taps more doggie Looks good Satisfied Female 35–39
Reserve water bags
Jon Tonkin On the water 0 At the moment there is a Very Male 55–64
Reserve, lot of weed satisfied
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin View Nature play area 0 Very Male 30–34
Reserve, somewhere satisfied
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin The ambience of the Maybe some more bins Its very accessible now Satisfied Male 65+
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 30 of 40Suggested Comment on condition Overall
Park Name Most enjoyed Gender Age
Improvement of river foreshore Satisfaction
Reserve, place and a good place for kids
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin The new developed area 0 Like what they have done Satisfied Female 35–39
Reserve, is great with the beach access
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin Enjoys being by the Parking 0 Satisfied Female 65+
Reserve, water
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin Close proximity to cafe, Parking, more shade 0 Satisfied Female 25–29
Reserve, play equipment for all
Preston Point, ages, nice scenery,
East Fremantle peaceful on weekday
mornings
Jon Tonkin The peace and quiet 0 The revegetation is a Satisfied Male 50–54
Reserve, good idea but parts are
Preston Point, struggling
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin Access to the water At the west end (near There seems a build up of Satisfied Male 45–49
Reserve, cafe) need to put some weed since development
Preston Point, sort of barrier to stop
East Fremantle people walking on the
sand and eroding it
Jon Tonkin Easily accessible, play More shade, more Likes the addition native Satisfied Male 65+
Reserve, equipment for public water fountains flora and fauna
Preston Point, grandchild and showers
East Fremantle
Jon Tonkin Convenient, beautiful Open toilets longer 0 Satisfied Male 50–54
Reserve, river walk hours
Preston Point,
East Fremantle
Keanes Point Cleanliness 0 0 Satisfied Female 65+
The Esplanade
Keanes Point The access to the river Some nature play Lovely Very Female 40–44
The Esplanade very good place to bring satisfied
kids
Keanes Point Looking forward to 0 0 Satisfied Female 45–49
The Esplanade getting on the water
Keanes Point The outlook 0 It’s good here, not so Very Female 45–49
The Esplanade great just a bit further satisfied
down
Keanes Point Proximity to cafe Make drinking fountains 0 Satisfied Female 55–64
The Esplanade useable for kids
Keanes Point Shade and tranquillity 0 0 Very Female 50–54
The Esplanade satisfied
Keanes Point The trees More trees, less grass Use the river a lot Satisfied Female 40–44
The Esplanade
Keanes Point How clean it is 0 0 Satisfied Male 30–34
The Esplanade
Keanes Point Lovely outlook to the 0 It’s fine Very Female 15–19
The Esplanade river satisfied
Keanes Point Close to river 0 0 Very Male 55–64
The Esplanade satisfied
Kent Street The dog off lead area 0 Improved Very Female 30–34
Weir satisfied
Kent Street The dog area 0 0 Very Male 40–44
Weir satisfied
Kent Street The wildlife and tracks 0 It has definitely improved Very Female 65+
Weir satisfied
Kent Street Extensive track areas Maybe some more 0 Satisfied Female 40–44
Weir doggie bins
Kent Street The river riding by water Id signs for plants and 0 Very Female 55–64
Weir trees remove invasive satisfied
species
Swan Canning Riverpark Visitor Satisfaction Survey - Yardstick 2018-19 Page 31 of 40You can also read
