TINYOS

7.1. Introduction

This chapter looks at how well the community’s preferred beneficial outcomes are reflected in current and proposed provision of Christchurch parks and Council’s aims and objectives. To add to the information obtained about the community’s views on parks and presented in earlier chapters, respondents were asked about their satisfaction with Christchurch parks and any changes they wanted in parks. The results of these two questions are presented in the next section followed by a discussion of how the CCC’s practices are meeting community needs.

7.2. Community Satisfaction and Park Changes Needed – Results Respondents were asked to score their overall level of satisfaction with Christchurch parks on a seven point scale where 1 was extremely dissatisfied, 4 was neutral, and 7 was

extremely satisfied. The mean score was 5.64. Differences between the three study areas were statistically significant. Satisfaction was highest in Fendalton (mean score 5.84) and lowest in Linwood (mean score 5.35). Spreydon had a mean score of 5.71. Clearly, most respondents were reasonably satisfied with Christchurch parks, consistent with previous research (National Research Bureau Ltd., 2004), but Linwood respondents were less satisfied than respondents from the other two areas. This was due to elevated levels of graffiti, vandalism, and anti-social behaviour allegedly experienced in the area.

Respondents were asked what changes were required to make parks better meet their needs. Many different changes were suggested but almost half (49 per cent) of the respondents had no suggestions for changes. The responses were coded and categorised and percentages are presented in Table 24. Suggestions with statistically significant differences between the study areas are shaded.

Table 24. Changes suggested in Christchurch parks Study Area Suggested change Total n=600 Linwood n=200 Spreydon n=200 Fendalton n=200 Visitor conveniences, for example, more bins,

toilets, and seating

19.7 21.5 19.5 18.0

Recreation activities and facilities, for example, more activities, dog areas, picnic tables, and events

18.2 23.0 13.5 18.0

Maintenance and management, for example, continue maintenance, involve the community in park management, open longer hours, keep cars out, regulate use

12.5 17.0 7.5 13.0

Safety, for example, improve safety of

equipment, control dogs, have security patrols

11.2 13.0 7.0 13.5

Landscaping and design, for example, have bigger parks, more exotic plants, more shade and shelter, more native planting

11.0 13.5 5.5 14.0

Information about parks, for example, provide information and publicity about parks, more interesting historic facts

5.7 5.0 4.5 7.5

Other 1.3 2.5 0.0 1.5

Table 24 shows that the changes suggested by respondents were largely to do with adding to parks rather than changing them. Innovation from park managers is needed to drive park changes to meet community needs as the community are limited by their own experience and have illustrated that they want ‘more of the same’. They may know what they want from parks but not how to get it. Spreydon respondents expressed fewer suggestions for changes than the other two areas despite having the lowest use rate. They appeared to be the most nonchalant about parks and lacked the clearly defined attitudes toward parks apparent in the other two areas.

The next section discusses these results and considers how well the community’s preferred beneficial outcomes are reflected in current provision of Christchurch parks and the CCC’s aims and objectives.

7.3. Christchurch City Council Effectiveness - Discussion

At first glance, it appears that the CCC is doing well in providing for the community’s preferred beneficial outcomes. The community perceived that parks provide many benefits (refer to Table 5) and community satisfaction with parks was high. Respondents suggested only minor improvements to parks.

While the CCC’s community outcomes and strategic directions (refer to section 2.6.1) correspond strongly with the community’s preferred outcomes (refer to sections 5.2.4 and 5.2.5), it is not clear how the CCC intends to plan and manage parks to achieve the preferred outcomes as there is no park strategy. Park planning in Christchurch currently tends to be activity-based and often occurs as an ad hoc response to demand. This study advocates adoption of the BOA as a strategic approach to planning and managing a city-wide network of parks.

The CCC’s current site-by-site consultation practices risk creating a “sameness” between parks which has previously attracted criticism (refer to section 2.6.4). Decision-making appears to be aimed at pleasing as many people as possible. This can result in a merging of different park types and loss of distinctive character in an attempt to make all parks all things to all people. Property developers, driving development of parks in new subdivisions, add to this problem with their narrow focus on creating parks that appeal to potential property buyers. It was evident during the survey that residents did not distinguish between the different park types but simply thought of them all as their “local park”.

The CCC’s existing, but ill defined, typology of parks (refer to section 2.6.2) seems to have been developed more for administration and budget purposes than to guide planning and management of parks. The different park types are not clearly defined nor is it clear if their management objectives differ. With refinement however, the park typology could provide a useful framework for establishing a network of outcome-focussed parks, each with their own distinctive character.

Christchurch parks are often planned in isolation from other parks and separately from other aspects of the city. Yet the outcomes desired from parks are broad and entwined with many aspects of people’s lives. There is potential for improved park linkages and for better relationships between parks and other recreation facilities, schools, transport routes, and wildlife habitats.

This study has advocated use of the BOA for park planning and management in

Christchurch. The BOA is not a radical change from existing park management, rather it is an extension of other approaches that have been applied. It will however, require a shift in thinking to become outcome-focussed as opposed to output-focussed.