The Business Plan of Parks in Western Australia - Case Study Example

Table of Contents Findings 2 Objective 1 2 Objective 2 5 Objective 3 6 Objective 4 9 Conclusion 9 References 10 Bibliography 11 Findings In this section the researcher will endeavor to conduct a thorough analysis of the survey feedbacks provided by park users in order to examine their attitudes and perceptions towards the outdoor exercise equipment positioned along the walk paths within parks situated within the jurisdiction of Western Australia (WA) local council. In order to conduct this research in an appropriate manner walkers and joggers availing the parks’ facilities were randomly approached with survey leaflets. Leaflets were distributed to 500 park users out of which 450 participants agreed be a part. However, upon completion of the survey process and subsequent data screening, responses provided by 438 participants were considered and the rest were omitted. The reason behind the omission was particularly because some of the surveys were incomplete, some responses were biased and error existed in the rest (Mukherji & Albon, 2009; Saunders, Lewis & Thornhil, 2009). The data has been presented both in the form of descriptive. Application of these methodologies enabled the researcher to describe the major aspects of a set of data quantitatively (Somekh & Lewin, 2004; Spradley, 1979). The ultimate aim was to abridge a sample of data quantitatively with the application of any probabilistic model (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). The research findings have been reported in the subsequent sections according to the objectives that they fulfill. Objective 1 The first and foremost objective is to determine who are using the park and what the purposes behind that are. In order to achieve this objective, the researcher had to analyze question 1 through to question 4. The first question involved investigation of the main reasons that prompted people to visit the park. It is evident from figure 1 given below that 31.28% of the respondents visit the parks in order to exercise. According to 20.32% of the respondents, walking the dog is the major reason behind their visit to the park. 17.35% of the respondents visited the park in order to accompany their children to the playground. 7.99 % of the respondents visit the park in order to engage themselves in organized sports activities. Sitting/relaxing/socializing is the reason behind visiting parks for 12.79% of the respondents. Among the other major reasons that prompt people to visit their nearby park is to organize family barbecue parties or to fly aero plane models. Given the fact that, majority of the sample population visits the park in order to exercise, it provides an excellent premise for the researcher to conduct an in-depth analysis of their attitudes and perceptions towards outdoor exercise equipment positioned along the walk paths. Figure 1 As far as the second question is concerned, it requires respondents to provide feedback on whether their reason for visiting the park (as mentioned in question 1) is the usual activity that they engage in after visiting the park. To this question, 84.25% of the respondents stated that their reasons for visiting the park (mentioned in question 1) is the usual activity that they primarily engage in while visiting the park. Therefore, this feedback also serves as a robust foundation for the researcher to research on the importance of the exercise equipments in the lives of the fitness concerned people (refer to figure 2). Figure 2 As far as the frequency of visits is concerned (posited by the third question), majority of the respondents visit the park more than once a week. 21.43% of the respondents visit the park daily, 17.05% of the respondents pays a visit to the park once a week, 13.36% coded in favor of visiting the park more than once a month but less than once a week. 5.53% of the respondents stated that they visit the park only once a month and the rest visited the park less than once a month (refer to figure 3). Figure 3 Question 4 concerns the satisfaction index of people in terms of using the park for usual activity. To this question, majority of the people stated that they are somewhat satisfied. 25.98% of the respondents were satisfied whereas 2.07% of the people were dissatisfied, 11.72% of the people were complete satisfied and 10.34% of the people were somewhat dissatisfied. 16.32% of the people took a neutral standpoint (refer to figure 4). Figure 4 Objective 2 The second objective is to learn about people’s perceptions towards the public exercise stations in the park. When asked about their awareness about the installation of gym equipments in the park, 62.1% said that there were already aware of the newly installed exercise stations in the park and 37.9% of the respondents were completely unaware. This reply is in accordance with the replies provided in question 1 regarding the reasons that prompt people to visit parks. A majority of people replied that they visit parks for exercising/walking/jogging. Therefore, they are able to have a glimpse of the whole park and that is why they are aware of the exercising stations at various areas in the park. Therefore, this provides the researcher with a good sample of respondents whereby the researcher can get a holistic view of the people’s perception and attitude towards the public exercise stations in the park. Perceptive question 6a stated that, “I think the equipments add value to the park.” To this statement 26.28% of the respondents said that that somewhat agreed to it. 20.92% of the people took a neutral standpoint, 20.44% of the respondents conveyed that they somewhat disagreed to the statement. 11.44% of the respondents agreed to the statement whereas 11.92% of showed their disagreement. On the other hand 6.08% of the respondents strongly agreed to the statement whereas 2.92% conveyed complete disagreement (refer to figure 5). Perceptive question 6b stated that. “I feel the park should be left free of equipment.” As far as this statement was concerned, 6.13% agreed to it whereas 17.40% conveyed their disagreement. A handful of respondents (0.25%) conveyed strong agreement in favor of keeping the park free of such equipments whereas 10.9% of the respondents conveyed strong disagreement. 18.87% of the respondents said that they somewhat agreed in favor of keeping the park free of such equipments and 16.42% of the respondents stated they somewhat disagreed to the statement. A majority of the respondents took a neutral ground. Perceptive question 6c stated that, “This equipment enhances my experience at the park.” 4.44% of the people conveyed their agreement to this statement whereas 20.25% of the respondents disagreed. As far as strong agreement is concerned, 2.47% of the people fell in this category whereas 10.62% of the respondents fell in the category who strongly disapproved of the statement. 16.05% of the respondents stated that they somewhat agree to the statement whereas 22.47% conveyed mild disagreement. A majority of the respondents took a neutral standpoint in this statement as well. Perceptive question 6e stated that, “I don't like having the equipment in the park.” 2.22% of the respondents strongly agreed in favor of this statement whereas 17% of them strongly disagreed. 6.65% of the respondents conveyed their agreement to this statatement whereas 19.46% of them conveyed their disagreement. 14.29% stated mild agreement to the statement whereas 19.7% of the respondents stated that they somewhat disagree to the statement. Again a majority of the respondents stated that neither agreed nor disagreed to the statement. Perceptive question 6f stated that, “Having the equipment here has encouraged me to participate in physical activity.” To this statement 2.23% of the respondents conveyed strong agreement whereas 13.37% of the respondents have conveyed strong agreement. 5.94% of the respondents agreed in favor of the statement whereas a staggering 23.02% disagreed to the statement. 13.37% of the respondents state that they somewhat agree that the equipment has inspired them to engage in physical activity whereas 23.02% somewhat disagreed. In this case as well a lot of people took a neutral standpoint. The feedback to these perceptive statements implies that people are somewhat happy with the installation of exercise equipments in the parks. They believe that although it has added some value to the park but it has not encouraged them personally to engage in physical activities. That is why despite belief against the device’s usefulness; they think that keeping the equipments free of the park is not an option. Moreover, a majority of the people may not yet be aware of the functionalities and the usefulness of the device which is why they are not encouraged to use it. In addition, given the fact that quite a lot of people visited the park for leisure purpose, the installation or removal of the device won’t matter to them all that much. Objective 3 The third objective was to investigate if the public exercise stations enhance people’s perception of the Local Council. In order to achieve this objective the perceptive statement that was provided to the respondents is, “I think the equipment is a good investment by the Local Council.” 5.37% of the respondents conveyed strong agreement to this statement whereas 4.39% of the respondents conveyed strong disagreement. 6.59% of the respondents agreed in favor of the statement and on the other hand 14.88% disagreed. 22.93% of the respondents conveyed mild agreement in favor of the statement whereas 17.32% disagreed to some extent. A majority of the respondents (28.54%) took a neutral standpoint. Figure 5 Perceptive question 6g stated that, “Investment in this gym equipment makes me feel good about the Local Council.” 2.45% of the respondents strongly agree to the statement and on the other hand 5.39% convey strong disagreement. 6.86% of the respondents conveyed their agreement in favor of the statement whereas 12.75% conveyed their disagreement. 22.065 of the respondents stated that they agree to this statement to such statement while 19.85% of the respondents stated that they somewhat disagree to the statement. 30.64% of the respondents chose to take a neutral ground. Figure 6 Perceptive question 8j stated that, “I think the Local Council should provide more equipment in this park.” 10.4% of the respondents stated that they strongly agreed to the statement. 3.47% of the respondents conveyed that they strongly disapprove of the statement. 20.3% of the respondents gave their verdict in favor of the statement whereas 6.44% disagreed to the statement. 21.78% of the respondents conveyed their mild agreement to the statement whereas 17.33% stated that they somewhat disagree to the statement. 20.30% of the respondents took an impartial standpoint. Figure 7 The responses to the above mentioned statements suggest that the installed equipments have not been up to the standard expected by the daily walkers and joggers. Installation of these equipments has not changed the perception of the people towards the local council. Not many of them covey a strong agreement in favor of the installation of this equipments. A number of reasons can be attributed to this fact. For example, the unawareness of the ways to use this product may lead to people to believe that the installation of these equipments would not make much difference to the society. Moreover, a lot of respondents are member various gym clubs of fitness centers which is why they do not pay much attention to the devices that have been installed. Another significant reason is the fact that people are not satisfied with the equipments that have been installed. It is believed that this feedback was provided by people who are active users of this machine. According to these respondents the local council should provide more exercise equipments in the park which would offer more benefits. Objective 4 The final objective was to analyze the reasons behind people using the public exercise stations, their attitudes towards them, and whether these equipments have contributed to positive physical activity behavior in them. When asked about how often do people use the gym equipments, it was learnt that majority of the respondents have never used the equipments. One of the major reasons behind this is that people are not really satisfied with the equipments that have already been installed. Moreover, a lot of them are probably members of fitness centers which are equipped with highly advanced exercise stations. This can be one of the reasons behind their non usage of the equipments which have been placed in the park. Only a handful of people either engage often or rarely in exercising with the products that are placed in the park. The survey has revealed that people’s attitude towards the products are largely negative to neutral. People have largely disagreed to the statement that this equipment has increased their usage of the park. In addition, the survey feedbacks revealed a considerable proportion of disagreement, on behalf of the respondents, to the statement that using this equipment make them feel fitter. This is perhaps because either they prefer walking and jogging to the usage of this exercise stations or they are engaged in fitness clubs that has advanced exercise machines (Bauman, et al., 2012). This can be a major reason as a majority of the reasons provided their verdict in favor of placing more equipment in the parks. As far as enjoying the equipment is concerned, a lot of people conveyed their agreement in favor of this statement. The quality of the equipments has also been appreciated to some extent. Despite such appreciation, a majority of the respondents believed that this equipment had nothing to do with the enhancement of their experience. This is precisely because a lot of respondents visit the park for several other reasons but exercising (Humpel, Owen & Leslie, 2002). For some, socializing may be an experience enhancer whereas for some dog walking can be an experience enhancer. The survey also revealed that this equipment is not the major reason that prompts the respondents to visit the park. The equipment is an auxiliary facility which can be used if wished. People rather prefer to walk and jog in the park and exercise at fitness centers or at house (Shelton, 2011). This fact can also be justified by the responses that suggested that people would have come to the park regardless of whether there were any exercise stations in the park or not. Some people prefer to use the exercise stations because they are free and give the people an option to stretch a bit before engaging in heavy exercise. A lot of people do not feel like going to the park and exercising using the equipment as the park is too far away from their house. Conclusion The survey revealed that a considerable amount of people were not really interested in using the equipments that were provided in the parks. The responses suggested the equipments do not really bear much importance in the life of the park users. They come to the park for the purpose of walking, jogging, playing with their children, socializing, walking their dog and so on and so forth. They do not really feel like using the equipments for the purpose of exercising. According to the respondents they would come to the park regardless of the presence of the equipments. Their desire for fitness is fulfilled when they spend time in their fitness centers. A lot of people believed that exercising in the park would their daily routine and for some the park is too far to visit for the purpose of exercising. The park is more often than not used for the purpose of engaging in leisure activities. However, the survey also revealed that people do not disapprove of the presence of the equipments in the park. In fact they want the local council to install more advanced equipments as that may encourage people to exercise using them. A considerable proportion of people chose to take a neutral standpoint in all the survey questions probably because the equipments did not mean much to them as they are unaware of its utilities; they exercise in fitness centers; they are not fitness frenzy people. Given all the above stated findings the council is recommended to not install any more equipments as not many respondents are interested in using this equipment. References Bauman, A. E., Reis, R. S., Sallis, J. F., Wells, J. C., Loos, R. J. & Martin, B. W. (2012). Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not?. The lancet, 380(9838), 258-271. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research in Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon. Humpel, N., Owen, N. & Leslie, E. (2002). Environmental factors associated with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. American journal of preventive medicine, 22(3), 188-199. Mukherji, P. & Albon, D. (2009). Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide. London: SAGE. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhil, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Shelton, R. C., McNeill, L. H., Puleo, E., Wolin, K. Y., Emmons, K. M. & Bennett, G. G. (2011). The association between social factors and physical activity among low-income adults living in public housing. American journal of public health, 101(11), 2102-2110. Somekh, B. & Lewin, C. (2004). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. California: SAGE. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Rinehart and Winston. Bibliography Giles-Corti, B. & Donovan R.J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1793–1812. Granner, M.L. Sharpe, P.A., Hutto, B., Wilcox, S. & Addy, C.L. 2007. Perceived Individual, Social, and Environmental Factors for Physical Activity and Walking. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4, 278-293. Kaczynski, A.T., Potwarka, L.R. & Saelens, B.E. (2008). Association of Park Size, Distance, and Features With Physical Activity in Neighbourhood Parks. Am J Public Health, 98(8), 1451–1456. Kruger, J. (2008). Parks, Recreation, and Public Health Collaborative. Environmental Health Insights, 2, 123–125. McCormack, G.A. et al. (2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health & Place, 16, 712–726. Mowen, A., Kaczynski A. & Cohen, D. (2008). The Potential of Parks and Recreation in Addressing Physical Activity and Fitness. President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports Series, 9(1), 1-8. Van Holle, V., et al. (2012). Relationship between the physical environment and different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 12, 807. Read More