A Nature Playground Design in Cleland Wildlife Park - Case Study Example

Name Course Instructor Date A Nature Playground Design in Cleland Wildlife Park Introduction Cleland refers to a safeguarding park situated in the Adelaide Mountains and it is among the most famous tourist attractions in South Africa. The park is situated in an excellent natural old-growth location in an area of thirty five hectares near the town of Adelaide. A project was conducted at the park and the main aim of the project was to propose a bounded playground behind the place of rest to act as recreation aptitude for children. This report summarizes the research, conclusions, and the recommendations from the project towards the development of a playground area as a reaction facility for children. Background Cleland is a famous Wildlife park and got an award of the most unique tourist attraction in South Australia between the year 2007 and 2009. It contributes greatly to the tourism of South Australia and in every year, the park receives more than 100, 000 guests (George, Gil‐Alana and Barros 166). The park is home to over 120 varieties of animals, and majority of the animals have free movement within the huge botanic garden so that majority of the tourists get a chance to interact with the animals. The park is a paradise for kids and it is among the most visited tourist attraction sites. Cleland Wildlife Park had the desire to see additional children enjoy koalas and wildlife. Due to this reason, the Cleland Wildlife Park had strategized to establish a nature playground for the provision of perfect venue for children to play and rest. The venue was to be called the ‘Nature Play.’ The plan would offer an opportunity for kids to have interaction with koalas and wildlife directly. For this construction, the South Australian government funded the project, utilization of natural materials without any concrete, brace, cement for the creation of natural environment which allows the children experience a natural environment. The project was planned and was anticipated to open to visitors in the coming future. The following step of this project was to research and propose a playground for kids. The project team consisted of one environmental science student and two civil engineering students from the University of South Australia. Aims and Objectives The major goal, of the project was to launch an enclosed playground behind the resting area, as a recreation facility for kids. The facility would offer children an opportunity to interact directly with koalas and other animals which would lead to increased number of visitors. The playground was to offer kids with an opportunity to study more concerning koalas and wildlife habits. The objectives were to establish an enclosed playground area and establish an opportunity of direct interaction for children with koalas. The expected outcome from the project included; increased number of visitors to the park, particularly children; improved comprehension of koala behavior; increased financial output for Cleland Wildlife Park. Processes The project consisted of one environmental science student and two civil engineering students. Before the project, various consultations were carried out. The team held the first consultation meetings at the executive office of the Cleland Wildlife Park. The initial briefing was made by James who was the Wild Park’s assistant for the project and it took place on the 5th August, 2014. He gave some background information for the park, advised the team on the necessary steps, and directed the group tour around the Park. The second briefing was conducted three weeks later, where James provided comprehensive information on the project and gave explanations to various problems. Belinda, a participant of the school project team student project team established an online team which was to hold conversations, share information concerning the project without direct physical interaction. The means of information delivery with other participants was determined after primary discussion and was based on suitability. This projected was divided into four major parts which included research, survey, design, and fieldwork. The participants were assigned distinct area in which they have experience in. Belinda aided in the functionality of The Nature Play, creation of a native environment in The Nature Play, and strategizing for a recreation facility of The Nature Play. Freskido aided in the collection of information, research, consultation with proficient individuals, strategy, and surveying of The Nature Play. Also, Calvin was involved in research, strategy, and survey of The Nature Play during the project. Stakeholders refer to people within or outside that had a role in the success of this project (Pascal 1529). The primary stakeholders included the Cleland Wildlife workers and the executives; Nalini Kloop (previous manager of the park); James Seller (current Cleland Manager); and guests visiting the park. The secondary stakeholders included; Community Education Services; neighboring Wildlife Park; Environmental Department; and the South Australian government. Extensive meetings and electronic mails were utilized between the community partners and the participants of this project. As proposed earlier, electronic mails was found to be more convenient in comparison to face-to-face communications (Jonelle and McCartney 1). However, it was discovered that face-to-face meetings offered a better understanding as to what was desired by James for the design of The Nature Playground and offered an opportunity for verbal expression of ideas. An excellent connection had already been established by preceding students with the Cleland executives which played a significant role for the execution of this project. During the commencement of this project, Klopp was the acting administrator at Cleland but was later replaced by James in the course of the project. The participants of this project experienced complete support from the community partnership. The manager was always available for the team to discuss any aspects of this project. The participants were allowed to freely visit the park during the course of the project at opening hours, which gave the group an opportunity to carry out all the necessary research in the required areas. James and the workers at the Cleland Park handled the participants as experts and their thoughts and approvals were highly considered. Meetings There were four successful meetings which took place at the Cleland Park. During the first meeting, the participants met the community partner, project coordinator. From this meeting, the participants acquired vital background information concerning the Park. The team also appointed communication connections and recognized the perfect situation at the back of the resting place for the construction of The Nature Ground. The second meeting occurred two weeks later and its main role was the establishment of improved comprehension of the project and the major roles; clarify to the engineers; confer the last creation desired by the management. From this meeting; the members acquired insight concerning the desired materials for the construction of The Nature Ground. Moreover, the team acquired significant secondary market research and took a walk around the area and had an experience of close koala experience. During the third meeting, the participants met James and found out if the project would take a distinct direction. Also, the team made updates to the Cleland management concerning the achievements that had already been attained concerning the project. From this meeting, the participants did not experience any major changes to the project. The team established strong ties with James and he made clarifications of the major aspects of the projects he wished the project to concentrate on. The team had a chance to meet other project managers who provided vital information required for the success of the project. The team toured various regions of the park such in relation to this project. The forth meeting took place one month later and the team informed Cleland that there was necessity to put down some part of the resting area for development of the proposed structure. Also, the team made the necessary updates to the management concerning the completion of the project and obtained significant feedback. The Cleland management endorsed the team ideas, debated on the imminent student roles, and the endorsements for the Cleland management. The management was generally impressed with the advancement the project would bring to the park, thoughts, and recommendations. Situational analysis Between the years 2002- 2013, Cleland was estimated to have a typical estimate of 102,000 tourists yearly. South Australians accounted for around 64% while international and interstate tourists accounted for 36%. The park is the second most famous park in the Sothern Australia according to the survey conducted by the group. The research also indicated that almost all the tourists who visit the park had a signage experience and a few got lost due to unclear signs. Hence, there is need for great investment for the renovation of the signage on the park to certify customer gratification. Research indicated that in addition of picnic and casual events in the park concerning biodiversity would lead to increased customer satisfaction in the park (Alan 149). The only park that offers similar Koala experience is the Gorge Wildlife Park and was regarded to as the main competitor. The Park does not offer any extra cost to the tourist for this experience. Cleland does not include extra costs but charges $20 for the holding of a koala. The project was a big success to both the team and Cleland. The Pak has experienced significant increase in the number of tourists since the establishment of the nature children’s playground. However, further research ought to be carried out to establish other methods of handling market competition. Recommendations The improvement of tourist experience is a vital role in advancement of the Cleland Park regardless of the age, cultural contextual and personal interests of the visiting guests. From the project experience, the team came up with the following recommendations. There should be development of substitute koala hold packages which will cater for the needs of clients of distinct social classes. The park ought to augment the hold period to improve the supposed worth and customer gratification so as to deal with neighboring competition (George et al 30). The Park ought to carry out extensive promotion for the koala experience and consider renovation within the park and the introduction of different signage and elucidation around the park. For future projects, the team proposes a multidisciplinary strategy which will be inclusive of students undertaking graphic design, architectural courses, recreational courses, and environmental studies. Discussion The project participants included only of three participants and the project progress was extremely slow due to lack of partners. In general, the team was not able to work properly together due to membership deficiency. Every participant had huge workloads and assistance was required for the completion of fellow partner’s roles. The participants experienced challenges associated with travel expenses and time to and from Cleland. Every koala at the Park has limited availability and offer not offer enough for the koala experience. During the design process, there was requirement of various equipment and computer software which were expensive to purchase. The construction of the nature playground was thought to obstruct the guests rest and there was need for avoidance of any form of inconveniences which would result from the construction operation that would have negative impression on the tourists. Acquiring an assistant at the park who would be available throughout the period of project implementation was awfully challenging. Majority of the preferred individuals referred the team to other workers. The team encountered various unexpected events such as slight changes in the original structure of the project. The team attained enhanced working abilities, enhanced comprehension of the consultation project, and enhanced project managing abilities. After the project completion, the park experienced increased number of visitors to the park, particularly children; improved comprehension of koala behavior; and increased financial output for Cleland Wildlife Park. Conclusion This paper outlined the basic report of the research, conclusions, and the recommendations from the project towards the development of a playground area as a reaction facility for children. The project was conducted by a team of three students. The team idea was well endorsed by the Cleland management made only slight changes were made on the original project structure. The team faced various challenges during the execution of the project such as time and financial constraints. The project turned to be a great success for the Cleland Park; however, various recommendations were proposed by the team member such as the establishment of koala experience that would cater for tourists of distinct social classes. Works cited Assaf, A. George, Luis A. Gil‐Alana, and Carlos Pestana Barros. "Persistence Characteristics of Tourism Arrivals to Australia." International Journal of Tourism Research 14.2 (2012): 165-176. Athanasopoulos, George, et al. "The tourism forecasting competition." International Journal of Forecasting 27.3 (2011): 822-844. Cleland, Jonelle, and Abbie McCartney. "Environmental Economics Research Hub." (2010). Lew, A. Alan. "Tourism's role in the global economy." Tourism Geographies 13.1 (2011): 148-151. Tremblay, Pascal. "Integrating tourism and climate knowledge for destination adaptation: Challenges in the identification of knowledge gaps at the regional level." (2010): 1529. Read More

The expected outcome from the project included; increased number of visitors to the park, particularly children; improved comprehension of koala behavior; increased financial output for Cleland Wildlife Park. Processes The project consisted of one environmental science student and two civil engineering students. Before the project, various consultations were carried out. The team held the first consultation meetings at the executive office of the Cleland Wildlife Park. The initial briefing was made by James who was the Wild Park’s assistant for the project and it took place on the 5th August, 2014.

He gave some background information for the park, advised the team on the necessary steps, and directed the group tour around the Park. The second briefing was conducted three weeks later, where James provided comprehensive information on the project and gave explanations to various problems. Belinda, a participant of the school project team student project team established an online team which was to hold conversations, share information concerning the project without direct physical interaction.

The means of information delivery with other participants was determined after primary discussion and was based on suitability. This projected was divided into four major parts which included research, survey, design, and fieldwork. The participants were assigned distinct area in which they have experience in. Belinda aided in the functionality of The Nature Play, creation of a native environment in The Nature Play, and strategizing for a recreation facility of The Nature Play. Freskido aided in the collection of information, research, consultation with proficient individuals, strategy, and surveying of The Nature Play.

Also, Calvin was involved in research, strategy, and survey of The Nature Play during the project. Stakeholders refer to people within or outside that had a role in the success of this project (Pascal 1529). The primary stakeholders included the Cleland Wildlife workers and the executives; Nalini Kloop (previous manager of the park); James Seller (current Cleland Manager); and guests visiting the park. The secondary stakeholders included; Community Education Services; neighboring Wildlife Park; Environmental Department; and the South Australian government.

Extensive meetings and electronic mails were utilized between the community partners and the participants of this project. As proposed earlier, electronic mails was found to be more convenient in comparison to face-to-face communications (Jonelle and McCartney 1). However, it was discovered that face-to-face meetings offered a better understanding as to what was desired by James for the design of The Nature Playground and offered an opportunity for verbal expression of ideas. An excellent connection had already been established by preceding students with the Cleland executives which played a significant role for the execution of this project.

During the commencement of this project, Klopp was the acting administrator at Cleland but was later replaced by James in the course of the project. The participants of this project experienced complete support from the community partnership. The manager was always available for the team to discuss any aspects of this project. The participants were allowed to freely visit the park during the course of the project at opening hours, which gave the group an opportunity to carry out all the necessary research in the required areas.

James and the workers at the Cleland Park handled the participants as experts and their thoughts and approvals were highly considered. Meetings There were four successful meetings which took place at the Cleland Park. During the first meeting, the participants met the community partner, project coordinator. From this meeting, the participants acquired vital background information concerning the Park. The team also appointed communication connections and recognized the perfect situation at the back of the resting place for the construction of The Nature Ground.

Read More