curtinuniversityoftechnology …raven.curtin.edu.au/ics-wpd/pdf/planh_13_2016.pdf · 2016. 7....
TRANSCRIPT
Curtin University of Technology
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Assessing Potential Mental Health Benefits of Different
Park Typologies
An Empirical Case-‐Study of a Nature, Sport, and Recreation Space in the
City of Wanneroo, Western Australia
Presented to partially fulfill the requirements of Bachelor of Arts [Urban and Regional Planning]
Planning Honours Dissertation (URDE 4007)
Talia Turner (16138803)
3rd June 2016
School of Built Environment
Declaration
I (Talia Turner) declare that this dissertation represents my own research and does not use the work of others except where cited within the text. The ideas, views and opinions expressed are mine personally and do not represent those of my employer or Curtin University of Technology.
Signed:
Date:
II
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... II-‐V
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... V-‐VII
Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................ VII
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. VIII
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... IX
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1-‐6
1.1. Context of the Research: Rationale for Improving Mental Wellbeing through the Physical Environment ................................................................................................. 1-‐3
1.2. Research Focus-‐the Role of POS in Promoting Mental Health ................................... 3-‐4
1.3. Research Objectives and Methodology ...................................................................... 4-‐5 1.4. Structure of Thesis ...................................................................................................... 5-‐6
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................................ 7-‐25
2.1. Scientific Theories ...................................................................................................... 7-‐9
2.1.1. Mental Wellbeing Theories .............................................................................. 7-‐8
2.1.2. Nature Theories ................................................................................................ 8-‐9
2.2. Historical Context of Park Development .................................................................. 9-‐14
2.2.1. Utopianism .................................................................................................. 10-‐11
2.2.2. Modernism .................................................................................................. 11-‐12
2.2.3. Post-‐modernism and New Urbanism .......................................................... 12-‐14
2.3. General Park Activities and Mental Wellbeing ...................................................... 14-‐17
2.3.1. Physical Activity within Parks and Mental Wellbeing .................................. 14-‐15
2.3.2. Social Interaction within Parks and Mental Wellbeing ................................ 15-‐16
2.3.3. Park Demographics and Mental Wellbeing ................................................. 16-‐17
2.4. General Park Design and Mental Wellbeing ......................................................... 17-‐20
2.4.1. ‘Greenness and Restoration’ ............................................................................ 18
2.4.2. ‘Design or Accessibility?’ ............................................................................. 18-‐20
III
2.4.3. ‘Physical Characteristics and Amenities’ .......................................................... 20
2.5. Park Typologies and Mental Wellbeing .................................................................. 20-‐24
2.5.1. Nature Spaces ................................................................................................... 22
2.5.2. Recreation Spaces ....................................................................................... 22-‐23
2.5.3. Sporting Spaces ........................................................................................... 23-‐24
2.6. Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24-‐25
Chapter 3: Research Approach-‐Case Study ........................................................................ 26-‐45
3.1. Introduction to Case Study Approaches ................................................................ 26-‐27
3.2. Addressing the Concerns of Case Studies ............................................................. 27.28
3.3. Types of Case Studies ............................................................................................ 28-‐29
3.4. Case Study of Three Suburban Areas and their Parks ........................................... 29-‐33
3.5. Case Study Methods .............................................................................................. 33-‐34
3.6. Public Open Space Audit ....................................................................................... 34-‐36
3.6.1. Rationale ..................................................................................................... 34-‐35
3.6.2. Instrument Design ....................................................................................... 35-‐36
3.6.3. Procedure ......................................................................................................... 36
3.6.4. Measurement and Analysis ......................................................................... 36-‐37
3.7. Observational Survey ............................................................................................. 37-‐41
3.7.1. Rationale .......................................................................................................... 37
3.7.2. Instrument Design ....................................................................................... 37-‐38
3.7.3. Procedure .................................................................................................... 38-‐40
3.7.4. Measurement and Analysis .............................................................................. 41
3.8. Questionnaire Survey ............................................................................................. 41-‐45
3.8.1. Rationale .......................................................................................................... 41
3.8.2. Instrument Design ....................................................................................... 42-‐43
3.8.3. Procedure .................................................................................................... 43-‐44
3.8.4. Measurement and Analysis ......................................................................... 44-‐45
IV
Chapter 4: Findings ............................................................................................................ 46-‐70
4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 46
4.2. Public Open Space Audit ....................................................................................... 46-‐48
4.2.1 Park Quality .................................................................................................. 46-‐48
4.3. Observational Surveys ........................................................................................... 48-‐56
4.3.1. Demographics .............................................................................................. 48-‐50
4.3.2. Use of the Park ............................................................................................ 51-‐56
4.4. Questionnaire Surveys ........................................................................................... 56-‐70
4.4.1. Demographics .............................................................................................. 57-‐58
4.4.2. Satisfaction and Use of the Park .................................................................. 58-‐59
4.4.3. Valued Park Activities .................................................................................. 59-‐61
4.4.4. Valued Park Features ................................................................................... 61-‐63
4.4.5. Emotions and Feelings within the Park ....................................................... 63-‐67
4.4.6. The Park as a Mediator of Mental Wellbeing .............................................. 67-‐70
Chapter 5: Discussion ......................................................................................................... 71-‐81
5.1. Limitations ............................................................................................................. 71-‐72
5.2. Objective One ........................................................................................................ 72.74
5.3. Objective Two ....................................................................................................... 74.75
5.4. Objective Three ..................................................................................................... 75-‐77
5.5. Objective Four ....................................................................................................... 77-‐79
5.6. Objective Five ........................................................................................................ 79-‐81
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................ 82-‐83
References ......................................................................................................................... 84-‐94
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 95-‐114
Appendices 1: Weekly Household Income in Banksia Grove 2011 .................................... 95
Appendices 2: Weekly Household Income in Madeley 2011 ............................................. 95
Appendices 3: Weekly Household Income in Hocking 2011 .............................................. 96
V
Appendices 4: Qualification level of residents in Banksia Grove 2011 .............................. 96
Appendices 5: Qualification level of residents in Madeley 2011 ....................................... 97
Appendices 6: Qualification level of residents in Hocking 2011 ........................................ 97
Appendices 7: Dwelling structure in Banksia Grove 2011 .................................................. 98
Appendices 8: Dwelling structure in Madeley 2011 .......................................................... 98
Appendices 9: Dwelling structure in Hocking 2011 ............................................................ 99
Appendices 10: Aerial image of Pit Stop Park in Banksia Grove ........................................ 99
Appendices 11: Aerial image of Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex in Madeley ........ 100
Appendices 12: Aerial image of Amery Park in Hocking .................................................. 100
Appendices 13: Public open space auditing tool ..................................................... 101-‐102
Appendices 14: Observational Survey Forms ................................................................... 103
Appendices 15: Observational Survey Excel Spread-‐Sheet Tally ...................................... 104
Appendices 16: Questionnaire Survey ..................................................................... 105-‐109
Appendices 17: Age bracket of survey respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park ......................................................................... 110-‐111
Appendices 18: Professional status of survey respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park ........................................................... 111-‐112
Appendices 19: Purpose of visitation of respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park ................................................................................. 113
Appendices 20: Respondents’ frequency of visitation to Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park ................................................................................. 114
Table of Figures
Figure 1. Pit Stop Park Bushland ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 2. Pit Stop Park Pond .................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3. Pit Stop Park Stream ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 4. Pit Stop Park Walking Trail ....................................................................................... 31
Figure 5. Pit Stop Park Pathway .............................................................................................. 31
Figure 6. Pit Stop Park Picnicking Spot .................................................................................... 31
Figure 7. Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Playing Field ................................................. 32
VI
Figure 8. Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Buffer Zone ................................................... 32
Figure 9. Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Infrastructure ............................................... 32
Figure 10. Amery Park Parkland .............................................................................................. 33
Figure 11. Amery Park Vegetation ......................................................................................... 33
Figure 12. Amery Park Playground .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 13. Amery Park Amphitheatre ...................................................................................... 33
Figure 14. Observation Location in Amery Park ...................................................................... 39
Figure 15. Observation Location in Pit Stop Park .................................................................... 39
Figure 16. Observation Location in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex ............................. 40
Figure 17. Gender of Observed Visitors to Pit Stop Park ........................................................ 49
Figure 18. Gender of Observed Visitors to Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex .................. 49
Figure 19. Gender of Observed Visitors to Amery Park .......................................................... 49
Figure 20. Observed Age of Park Visitors ................................................................................ 50
Figure 21. Number of Observed Visitors to the Park Throughout the Day ............................. 51
Figure 22. Observed Visitation throughout the Day ............................................................... 52
Figure 23. Observed Length of Stay in the Park ...................................................................... 53
Figure 24. Observed Type of Activity Undertaken within the Park ......................................... 54
Figure 25. Specific Activities Observed within the Park .......................................................... 55
Figure 26. Social Interaction within the Park .......................................................................... 56
Figure 27. Gender of Survey Respondents at Pit Stop Park .................................................... 57
Figure 28. Gender of Survey Respondents at Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex .............. 57
Figure 29. Gender of Survey Respondents at Amery Park ...................................................... 58
Figure 30. Respondents Level of Satisfaction within the Respective Park .............................. 59
Figure 31. Respondents Rating the Importance of Park Activities .......................................... 61
Figure 32. Respondents Rating the Importance of Park Features ........................................... 63
Figure 33. Levels of Positive Emotions Reported by Respondents while in the Park (Mean Score out of 10) ....................................................................................................................... 65
VII
Figure 34. Level of Negative Emotions Reported By Respondents while in the Park (Mean Score out of 10) ....................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 35. Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: When I Feel Anxious, Visiting this Park Helps Me Relax .............................................................................. 68
Figure 36. Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: I am Often Able to Forget about the Burdens of Everyday Life Here ........................................................ 69
Figure 37. Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: When I Visit this Park, My Feelings of Happiness Increase ......................................................................... 70
Figure 38. Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: Even After Leaving this Park, My Feelings of Happiness Remain High for a Long Period of Time ........... 70
Table of Tables
Table 1: Summary Table of Public Open Space Audit Scores .................................................. 48
VIII
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my great appreciation to Mr Isaac Middle for his valuable and
constructive suggestions throughout all stages of my research project. My grateful thanks are
also extended to the Urban and Regional Planning academic staff at Curtin University, who
have taught me skills that assisted the completion of this research project and will continue
to help me in the next stage of my professional career. I also wish to thank my friends who
have provided emotional support throughout the completion of this project. Finally, I send
my deep gratitude to my parents for providing emotional support, encouragement, and
guidance throughout the entirety of my schooling and academic career, particularly
throughout the duration of honours. Without your support I would not have achieved what I
have to date.
IX
Abstract
Parks are recognised as an important setting for enhancing mental wellbeing in park users
and the community, however research has largely focused on general park design and
activities, rather than exploring how different park settings can influence mental wellbeing.
The objective of this research was to understand how different park typologies impact upon
the mental wellbeing of park users. Typologies were decided according to the classification
system set out by the Department of Sport and Recreation. The typologies analysed were
nature, sporting, and recreation spaces. Using a multiple case-‐study approach within the City
of Wanneroo, Pit Stop Park (nature space), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (sporting
space), and Amery Park (recreation space) were analysed using a public open space audit,
observational surveys, and questionnaire surveys. The findings concluded that nature and
sporting spaces have more potential to improve the mental wellbeing of park users and the
community, however more research to establish and confirm this finding is required.
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Context of Research: Rationale for Improving Mental Wellbeing
through the Physical Environment
Good quality mental health is acknowledged by international organisations such as
the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a basic human right, providing protection
from many physical and mental disorders (Francis et al. 2012). Mental health can be
affected by a wide range of social, cultural, economic, political, and environmental
determinants such as living conditions, working settings, community social support
systems, and national policies (WHO 2013) – all of which are highly influenced
through planning policies, regulations, and urban design.
Five of the ten leading causes of mortality and disability are psychological conditions
(Francis et al. 2012). Individuals who experience a mental disorder face greater
mortality and disability rates, and are also 40% to 60% more likely to die prematurely
in comparison to the general population due to untreated chronic illnesses and
suicide (WHO 2013). This shows that poor mental wellbeing can have significant flow
on effects to the longevity of individuals and should be addressed in a serious and
comprehensive manner. Statistics relating to suicide also highlights the importance
of protecting mental wellbeing at an individual and population level. Suicide is the
world’s second biggest killer for young people and is predicted to become the
second biggest worldwide cause of mortality by 2020 (Francis et al. 2012). While
suicide burdens the families and communities emotionally it also places great strain
on financial resources and services (WHO 2013). Between 2012 and 2013, over $7.6
billion dollars was spent on mental health related services within Australia
(Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2014). By improving mental health
through urban environments, financial resources can be saved and the strain placed
community services can be reduced. The WHO (2013) suggests that good mental
wellbeing allows people to cope with every-‐day stresses, realise their potential, work
productively, and be actively involved with their local community, and for these
2
reasons, mental health should be a fundamental outcome for every profession
especially urban planning.
A specific concern within the field of urban and regional planning is to provide equal
opportunities to all, specifically to people who are disadvantaged or facing hardship
(Geyer 2007). In light of recent planning movements towards more liveable and
healthy communities, as well as the cross over between the determinants of mental
health and urban planning, a case can be made for supporting mental wellbeing
through the planning profession.
The role of planning in improving mental health is supported by the socio-‐ecological
model, described by Fisher, Owen, and Sallis (2008), which suggests 4 factors that
shape the health of the population; individual, social, policy, and the physical
environment. For many centuries, cities and suburban settlements have influenced
and shaped the health and wellbeing of urban and rural populations all over the
world. The provision and design of the physical environment has become an
important research topic in the scholarly field, where it is now widely believed that
urban planning can have a meaningful and significant impact on the wellbeing and
health of an urban population. Coutts, Miles, and Mohamadi (2011) suggest that
elements of the physical environment can directly or indirectly impact the health and
wellbeing of the population. For example, urban features can heighten the effects of
personal sources of poor mental wellbeing or act as a barrier to these sources. In this
instance, elements of the physical environment can act as an indirect contributor to
wellbeing. Alternatively, the physical environment can directly influence wellbeing
and health through the facilitation of permeable, well treed, and attractive streets
that encourage physical activity and social interaction (Coutts, Miles, and Mohamadi
2011). A large body of research focuses on the physical health outcomes resulting
from the physical environment, however limited research has studied its connection
with mental wellbeing (Francis et al. 2012). Nonetheless, interest surrounding the
impact of the physical environment on mental wellbeing is gaining momentum.
3
In this context, the focus of this research project is on how the physical environment,
but particularly public open space or parks, can shape the mental wellbeing of the
population.
1.2. Research Focus – the Role of POS in Promoting Mental Health
Public open space (POS) is a particular physical environment that can encourage
positive wellbeing and health, particularly mental wellbeing. POS is defined by
Badland et al. (2015) as any open space valued by the public that can be utilised for
recreational activities and be admired for its visual amenity. POS presents itself in a
variety of forms like public squares, plazas, community gardens, and parks (Brown,
Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang 2013). This thesis will explore the effects of parks on the
mental wellbeing of the population.
Parks are known to foster physical and social activity, which is intrinsically linked to
good quality mental wellbeing (Badland et al. 2015; Francis et al. 2012; Kaczynski et
al. 2009). Parks also allow contact with nature, which is also known to promote
psychological restoration (Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang 2013). While parks are
known to facilitate good quality mental wellbeing, the ways in which parks achieve
this is not widely understood. Scholarly research has so far focused on how general
park design can influence mental wellbeing, such as park access, size, quality,
quantity, and greenness, but fails to consider the complexity of different park spaces
(Alcock et al. 2015). The generalisation of parks provide little research that can be
adopted and practically applied to the planning profession (Alcock et al. 2015; Shultis
and Stack 2013), and therefore an opportunity for studies to consider the extent to
which different park typologies influence mental wellbeing arises.
Using a case study of three different parks within the City of Wanneroo – an outer
metropolitan Local Government in the city of Perth – this thesis will research the
extent to which three different park typologies (as defined and adopted by the local
State Government’s Department of Sport and Recreation) foster good quality mental
wellbeing in users of each park. The park typologies researched were nature,
sporting, and recreation spaces. A nature space is defined as a space with the
4
primary purpose of enhancing and protecting nature with a secondary purpose of
allowing the public to undertake low impact and informal activities (Department of
Sport and Recreation 2012). Recreation spaces are defined as ornate and landscaped
parks with a primary purpose of facilitating informal play and recreation
(Department of Sport and Recreation 2012). A sporting space is defined as a large
grassy playing field that facilitates high impact physical activity and organised sport
(Department of Sport and Recreation 2012). The overall intent of this research is to
establish which park typology is better for enhancing mental wellbeing at a
population level in Western Australia, and thus which park typology should be
promoted at a local and state government level. This research will attempt to
deconstruct the field of research so deeper understandings about the way in which
park design can influence mental wellbeing can be developed, as well as providing
clarification to the practical planning profession about the way in which parks should
be designed.
1.3 Research Objectives and Methodology
A series of research objectives were developed in order to deconstruct the topic and
ensure that the research question was comprehensively addressed through all
aspects:
• To measure the quality of nature, sport, and recreation space attributes.
• To discover the extent to which nature sport, and recreation spaces evoke
positive and negative emotions.
• To understand the demographic diversity of each park and how this might
influence its potential to improve mental wellbeing.
• To explore how each park is used and how this might influence mental
wellbeing.
5
• To identify attributes of open space that park users value and how this can
improve mental wellbeing.
In order to address each of these objectives, three different methods were used
throughout the research phase. Initially, a public open space audit was completed in
each park to establish the quality of each space and to underpin the results of the
observational and questionnaire surveys. The public open space audit analysed the
extent to which each park supported healthy lifestyles, enhanced the quality of the
environment, was aesthetically pleasing, created a sense of community, and
provided high amenity to park users.
Observational surveys were also completed for each park and established how
frequently the park is used, the demographics of the park, and the activities
undertaken in each park. This helps understand how demographically diverse each
park is and the extent of activities undertaken within each park.
Questionnaire surveys were used to establish the emotions and feelings of park
users while in that park as well as the park features and activities that people value
and regard with importance. A detailed description of each method can be found in
Chapter 3.
1.4 Structure of Thesis
This thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 will explore the theories and paradigms
of mental health and also investigate how urban planning theories have shaped the
development of parks from a health and wellbeing perspective throughout the years.
It will also identify relevant literature linking parks and public open space to mental
wellbeing and identify disagreements and gaps within the literature. Following on
from this, Chapter 3 will explore the benefits, drawbacks, and variations of case
studies as a methodology. This section will provide an overview of the City of
Wanneroo, Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park in
order to justify the selection of these parks as a case study area. The Chapter will
then provide a detailed description of the rationale behind each method, the design
6
of each instrument, the procedure to collect data, and the measurement and
analysis process undertaken. Chapter 4 will then analyse the results through a series
of figures and tables to show the relationship between each park and different
aspects of mental wellbeing. Chapter 5 will then discuss the meaning and
significance of the results, while Chapter 6 will make recommendations to scholars
for future research and to local and state governments regarding the way in which
parks should be designed in the future.
7
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The following chapter presents the relevant theories and literature surrounding the
research topic and explores the conflicts and gaps within the field of research.
2.1. Scientific Theories
There are a number of scientific theories that help explain the relationship between
mental wellbeing and urban planning, specifically public open space, in a systematic
and methodical way. These theories also provide contextual and background
knowledge relating to the topic of mental wellbeing and its relationship to public
open space as well as identifying links between the two that may not yet be
apparent.
2.1.1. Mental Wellbeing Theories
The complexities of mental wellbeing can be explained through a variety of theories,
however for the purpose of this literature review only a select few will be discussed.
The enjoyment account is a particular theory that expresses how wellbeing is
affected only by what the individual experiences and is exposed to (Kawall 1999).
This means that if an experience or circumstance is valued but absent from
someone’s life, this will reduce their quality of mental wellbeing (Kawall 1999). This
can be applied to urban planning, where people value social interaction and
aesthetically pleasing places that can be created through the physical environment,
however if they are not supplied then that will reduce the quality of mental
wellbeing.
Hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing are both paradigms that also attempt to
conceptualise mental wellbeing. The basis of hedonism is that mental wellbeing is
consistent of pleasure and happiness (Deci and Ryan 2001). Sirgy (2012) considers it a
state of mind, where the individual experiences pleasure, fondness, and
peacefulness. This theory assumes that the individual is motivated to enhance their
own wellbeing and focuses on the individuals own decision about what improves
their own happiness (Sirgy 2012). In this sense, the onus is on the individual to
improve his or hers own happiness. Eudaimonia views mental wellbeing differently,
8
and conceptualises it as the realisation of human potential within an individual in
regards to their purpose or nature (Deci and Ryan 2001). Sirgy (2012) suggests it
refers to a life that is good in all respects, specifically from a moral perspective. It
aims to increase mental wellbeing by improving an individual’s moral compass,
personal productivity, and individual contribution to society. In this instance, the
method in which a person’s mental wellbeing can be improved is already assumed.
Theories rooted in the concept of eudaimonia, such as the self-‐determination theory,
broaden-‐and-‐build theory of positive emotions, and the theory of human flourishing,
all touch upon these elements and essentially suggest that mental wellbeing is
achieved when a person can develop a sense of purpose, self-‐esteem, and can be
competent in every day life (Sirgy 2012). Different POS can evoke both hedonic and
eudaimonic characteristics of wellbeing. A sporting space can evoke feelings of joy,
relaxation, and can also allow social interaction that enhances an individual’s ability
to be productive in a civic sense (Asztalos et al. 2009). In this instance, sporting
spaces may improve mental wellbeing from a hedonic and eudaimonic perspective.
Findings from Przybylski, Ryan, and Weinstein (2009) suggest that exposure to areas
rich with natural and ecological qualities allow us to be more caring. In this instance,
natural spaces may improve mental wellbeing from a eudaimonic perspective.
2.1.2. Nature Theories
Theories regarding nature and its relationship to mental wellbeing also help give
context and precedence to the notion of planning for mental wellbeing and health
through public open space. They also help explain why humans need contact with
nature and open spaces. Bird (2007) discusses theories of nature and the connection
with mental wellbeing. The theory of biophilia proposed by Stephen Kellert and
Edward Wilson in the 1990’s (Heerwagen, Kellert, and Mador 2009) is evolutionary
theory where humans are naturally inclined to have an emotional attachment to
other living organisms and the natural environment. When we are in these
environments we are more likely to function better and feel more relaxed. The
attention restoration theory (ART) proposed by William James in 1892 (Kaplan 1995)
suggests that many people are affected by fatigue and a lack of concentration when
faced with important tasks that are intensive, tedious or dull. ART proposes that the
9
natural environment can help recharge the brain and re-‐focus our attention on
important daily tasks. The psycho-‐physiological stress recovery theory, proposed by
Roger Ulrich in 1983 (Fiorito et al. 1991) suggests that in the immediate aftermath of
being exposed to nature, stress levels decline, and that this is an evolutionary
reaction intended to protect us and enhance our mental state (Bird 2007). All three
of these theories demonstrate the important role that nature and open spaces have
in improving the mental wellbeing of individuals. Given the important role that
planning has in the conservation, development, design, and enhancement of parks
and public open spaces, it is obvious that planning can play a vital role in improving
mental health through public open space design.
2.2. Historical Context of Park Development
The previous section provided theoretical knowledge the ways in which mental
wellbeing can be affected by personal circumstances and surroundings. The following
section will explore urban planning theories that have shaped the design of public
open space with the intent to improve health and wellbeing.
Peterson (1985) suggests that parks are the most commonly identified public open
space throughout the world. Throughout the years, parks have been designed for a
variety of functions and therefore people value them differently depending on their
purpose and role. For example, we value conserved nature for aesthetical reasons
and playgrounds for the equipment (Peterson 1985). Over the last century the
provision of public open space, specifically parks, has changed dramatically within
urban and suburban locations. This has left a visual timeline of the history of public
parks and open spaces throughout the metropolitan landscape. As cities changed
from industrial to post-‐industrial and from modern to post-‐modern, the provision
and design of parks was reoriented (Cybriwsky 1999). These changes reflected the
‘urban revival’ and rapidly improving quality of life in cities that were perceived to be
devoid of activity and vibrancy (Cybriwsky 1999). Theories such as utopianism,
modernism, post-‐modernism, and new urbanism were implemented to improve the
liveability, population health, and sustainability. Additionally, these theories aim to
create public space for one common purpose: to cater to the requirements of
10
everyday urban life (Peterson 1985). These theories support the idea of POS and
green-‐space as an important tool for improving the health of the population and can
be used to provide a contextual basis to plan POS for the improvement of mental
wellbeing.
2.2.1. Utopianism
Before the latter half on the nineteenth century, parks and open spaces were largely
privatised and intended for the sole use of the elite class (Cybriwsky 1999). Change
began in the nineteenth century, where governments began developing parks within
the public domain for the unrestricted use of the working class population to
respond to the negative effects of overcrowding, urbanisation, and poor health
(Paden 2003). A similar change was experienced within Western Australia where
large pockets of POS were reserved for the use of the general population to improve
health and wellbeing (Grose 2009).
Utopianism best conceptualises this paradigm shift and is characterised by the belief
that cities should be reimagined using the wealth and abundance of nature within
urban settlements (Paden 2003). The garden city theory, proposed by Ebenezer
Howard in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, embraced utopian
concepts and sought to improve poor health conditions that arose from
industrialisation and rapid population growth within cities through the provision of
large and aesthetically attractive urban gardens (Lapping and Richert 1998). These
spaces were well designed, located centrally in the city, were easily accessible to the
working class population, and facilitated socialisation and recreation (Silva 2003).
They additionally acted as ornate outdoor sitting and passive recreational areas
(MacMaster 1990). Parks that exude these characteristics are now known as the
Victorian Public Park and are now some of the most admired spaces in the modern
world (Hedgcock 2012). Well-‐known Victorian Public Parks around the world include
Central Park in New York, Olmstead Park in Boston, and Hyde Park in London, which
were created in response to the public health movement of the late nineteenth
century (Grose, 2009). An example of a Victorian Public Park within Western
Australia is Kings Park, which is now considered the most admired Victorian Public
11
Park within Australia (Grose 2009). Physical features of the Victorian Public Park
include large shaded boulevards, benches for observation, drink fountains, and
playgrounds, and remain a physical reminder of the health and sanitation movement
in the 1870’s that lead to the creation of these spaces (Hickman 2013).
2.2.2. Modernism
The modernist theory is characterised by the rational ordering of land uses in a
standardised manner to achieve a high quality of individual freedom and wellbeing
(Irving 1993). Madanipour (1999) suggests that throughout the early twentieth
century, the modernist theory dominated the planning profession and complimented
aspects of utopianism specifically in relation to POS. He suggests that modernism,
like utopianism, attempted to redefine the relationship between public and private
spaces in order to create large expanses of open space for hygienic and aesthetic
purposes. He also states that priority was given to movement and efficiency within
cities, and as such incompatible land uses such as parks were segregated from the
built form and were bounded by roads. This undermined the relationship between
POS and the built form and created spaces that had little connection to the rest of
the city and that were often left under-‐utilised (Madanipour 1999). Hebbert (2008)
states that within new developments, edge planting and strips of greenery were
required besides roads, housing estates, and along the perimeter of the development
to increase public amenity, while an increase in surplus land also lead to the greater
provision of smaller green-‐spaces. While the intent was to create a picturesque
landscape incorporating nature and greenery in to everyday life, problems with
upkeep, practicality, and design emerged and ultimately these spaces were neglected
and under-‐utilised (Hebbert 2008). Another common characteristic of the modernist
movement was the shift towards active open spaces rather than spaces for passive
and informal activities. By the mid twentieth century, interest in the Victorian Public
Park and utopianism faded with a new theoretical approach to POS, and was
enshrined in the National Fitness Act 1941 (Hedgecock 2012). By the 1950's and after
the implementation of the Stephenson Hepburn Plan, it became clear that the
purpose of POS was to provide for active recreation and sports rather than informal
recreation such as walking, socialising, and relaxing (Grose 2009). Large playing fields
12
were developed in neighbourhoods and reflected the shift towards active recreation
(Hedgecock 2012). Lemmens et al. (2008) suggests that the intent of these parks was
to enhance the harmony between the community and the environment, create well-‐
defined and orderly public open spaces for the playing and viewing of sport, and
most importantly to enhance the physical health and fitness of the population. They
state that active spaces were largely characterised by large and flat expanses of grass
that were boarded by trees where civic land uses and clubhouses would
agglomerate. However by the 1960’s these spaces became the subject of much
criticism for its orderly and monotone landscape (Lemmens et al. 2008).
2.2.3. Post-‐modernism and New Urbanism
Throughout the 1970’s, scholars became increasingly concerned and critical of the
modernist approach to public open space and began proposing alternative methods
for green space development, which changed the function and form of public open
space in Western Australia once more (Grose 2009). Hebbert (2008) states these
alternative ideas are embodied in the paradigm shift towards post-‐modern and new
urbanist planning, and reflect the ideologies of the early twentieth century. He
suggests that scholars such as Ian McHarg, Ian Laurie, and Michael Hough identified
brownfield land as being ecologically rich and suggested that new urban parks should
conserve and balance existing nature with the built form and allow green-‐space to
grow naturally in order to improve the functionality and quality of parks. They
advocated for more public plazas and boulevards lined with mature trees and
canopies as a recognition that urban areas are vital to facilitate a balance between
work, life, and play, while ultimately facilitating alternative modes of travel and
improving overall wellbeing for the community (Hebbert 2008). Grose (2009)
specified that recreational parks emerged as areas for passive recreation and
rejected the notion of parks for purely active pursuits. The post-‐modern movement
moved away from the development of large grassy playing fields to more a more
complex POS design that encouraged a diverse range of informal activities such as
physical exercise, relaxation, and play (Grose 2009).
New urbanism compliments and builds upon the ideas of post-‐modern planning. It
emerged as a popular theory in the late twentieth and early twenty-‐first century and
13
has redefined the way planners and planning frameworks operate by encouraging
well-‐rounded communities that are liveable, sustainable, and promote physical
wellbeing and social connectedness (Coutts, Miles, Mohamadi 2011). They approach
the provision of POS markedly differently in comparison to the early paradigms and
movements of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Like post-‐modernism, new
urbanism favours the provision of passive open space throughout new developments
(Middle 2012). Additionally, new urbanism has expanded the idea of passive
recreation and changed the way these spaces are designed (Grose 2009). The aim is
to provide a range of highly accessible and well-‐designed public open spaces that
vary in size, shape and are scattered throughout the respective neighbourhood (Ahn
and Lee 2007). New urbanism aims to make cities and neighbourhoods greener,
however this aspiration is largely driven by ecological aspirations rather than
improving the mental wellbeing and health of the population (Hartig, Staats, and Van
Den Berg 2007; Hedgcock 2012). None the less, new urbanism has demonstrated a
direct and indirect effect on the health of the population.
Evenon, Khattack, and Rodriguez (2006) suggest that residents of new urbanist
neighbourhoods are more likely to be physically active in comparison to residents
living in more traditional neighbourhoods. Other studies have shown that residents
of new urbanist communities report a stronger sense of community and social
cohesion (Evenon, Khattak, and Rodriguez 2006). Social cohesion and physical activity
both have a positive influence over mental wellbeing and can be highly influenced by
public open space design. Hartig, Staats, and Van Den Berg (2007) discuss the green
urbanist movement, which acts as an extension to new urbanism and seeks to
implement nature into populated areas. The theory suggests that cities should
implement tree-‐lined streetscapes, parks, green rooftops, tree lined car parks,
community gardens, and green building facades for ecological purposes. More
importantly however, the movement is also driven by aspirations to improve quality
of life and mental wellbeing of the population (Hartig, Staats, and Van Den Berg
2007).
Criticism towards new urbanism has been rife within academia and planning, and
various critiques state the theory favours privacy over a sense of community and
14
ignores the preferences and conditions of the modern population (Ellis 2002).
Additionally, research has suggested that instead of increasing the amount of
physical activity residents achieve, it changes the type of physical activity, usually for
more leisurely activities such as walking (Boarnet 2007). This raises questions about
the ability of parks designed under new urbanism principles to facilitate social
cohesion and physical activity, both of which have strong ties to the quality of an
individual’s mental wellbeing.
2.3. General Park Activities and Mental Wellbeing
Having established the evolution and motive behind public park design through
theoretical perspectives, the following section will begin to explore how these parks
influence park activities and how this relates to mental wellbeing.
Badland et al. (2015) states POS is an important contributor to mental wellbeing
during the entirety of an individual’s life and also helps enhance the liveability of a
neighbourhood. Much of the discourse surrounding POS has studied the effects of
parks and green-‐spaces on general health and wellbeing (Badland et al. 2015). While
research from the scholarly field suggests that local neighbourhood parks are losing
their relevance in the twenty-‐first century as advances in technology have increased
mobility for social interaction, Francis et al. (2012) states that these parks are vital to
the wellbeing of communities, particularly to those who are economically
disadvantaged or lack virtual mobility. The provision of POS fosters positive physical
and social benefits such as an increase in physical activity and a greater sense of
social cohesion (Badland et al. 2015). Additionally, POS provides humans with the
ability to connect with nature in urban settings (Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang
2013). Researchers and policy makers are recognising the link between POS and the
mental wellbeing of communities and state it can play an important role in creating
healthy cities. With this in mind, the following sections identify aspects of park use
and their relationship with mental wellbeing.
2.3.1. Physical Activity within Parks and Mental Wellbeing
The relationship between physical activity and mental wellbeing is widely accepted
throughout a variety of scholarly fields. Korpela, Pasanen, and Tyrvainen (2014) state
15
that a wide body of previous research has found links between physical activity and
short and long term impacts on mental health. A growing body of evidence suggests
that the mental wellbeing benefits that stem from physical activity may also be
further enhanced through contact with the natural environment (Mitchell 2013;
Korpela, Pasanen, and Tyrvainen 2014). Mitchell (2013) concludes through his
research that carrying out physical activity in natural settings may benefit mental
wellbeing greatly. Badland et al. (2015) suggests that many academics and
researchers believe POS such as parks, green-‐spaces, and streetscapes, to be an
essential neighbourhood characteristic that increases physical activity. Walking,
recreation, and sports are common activities that are facilitated and encouraged
through the provision of such spaces and show that the physical environment
impacts upon physical activity (Badland et al. 2015).
Other studies have linked the provision of green-‐spaces and POS to a decrease in
sedentary lifestyles and an increase in physical health (Korpela, Pasanen, and
Tyrvainen 2014). Green areas increase physical activity because they provide
functionality for physical activity to be undertaken and contribute to an aesthetically
pleasant environment that people desire to experience (De Vries and Van Herzele
2011). These spaces support healthy lifestyle choices, enhance community wellbeing,
create healthy cities and are therefore used as a public health policy to influence
change on a broad scale (Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang 2013).
In contrast to these points, De Vries et al. (2013) states that research showing the
relationship between the quantity of green-‐spaces and its effect on physical activity
has produced mixed results. Additionally, Bell et al. (2014) states that other research
regarding the proximity to green space and physical activity at a broad level is
inconclusive, where some studies find associations between the two and other
studies find no correlation. Physical activity is carried out in different ways and has
varying benefits depending on the type of setting it is carried out in. This will be
explored later in the literature review.
2.3.2. Social Interaction within Parks and Mental Wellbeing
General wellbeing, and specifically mental wellbeing, is associated with a strong
16
sense of community, social connection, and community spirit (Francis et al. 2012). De
Vries et al. (2013) suggests that social cohesion impacts upon individual mental
wellbeing significantly, and broadly refers to the presence of strong family and
community relationships, values, and trust, where people feel a sense of belonging
and attachment. Parks are vital contributors to social cohesion within
neighbourhoods, where social cohesion is achieved through certain park features
that allow social contact for brief or extended periods of time (De Vries et al. 2013).
Parks provide shared spaces that allow local residents and park visitors strengthen
existing relationships and form new friendships, which also has positive
repercussions for mental wellbeing (Francis et al. 2012). Shared spaces are accessible
to all within the community and therefore allow all residents to have equal
opportunities for social cohesion and its flow on effects to mental wellbeing. Baur et
al., (2015) found that urban parks encourage a greater sense of community because
they facilitated leisure and recreation activities that encouraged social interaction
and greater feelings of community ownership. Cloutier, Jennings, and Larson (2016)
also supported this statement and suggested that urban parks create spaces for
social gathering which create a sense of community, ownership, and attachment to
the neighbourhood. Parks are therefore a vital setting for social cohesion and mental
wellbeing at a population level due to the wide range of people that are able to
experience its benefits. The length and type of social interaction is highly dependent
on park characteristics, and this will be explored later on in the literature review.
2.3.3. Park Demographics and Mental Wellbeing
Bell et al. (2014) proposes that a variety of personal factors influence how and when
we use POS and green-‐spaces and therefore the mental wellbeing benefits that flow
on from this. Havitz et al. (2009) found that women utilised parklands more than
men and therefore gained more physical and mental benefit. They attributed this to
the tradition of women staying at home as housewives and therefore having more
access and freedom to visit local parks. These findings are in contrast to Astell-‐Burt,
Hartig, and Mitchell (2014) who found that green spaces had more of an effect on
the mental wellbeing of men rather than women. It was discovered that the benefits
of green-‐space upon mental health impacted women more steadily but at a lower
17
level across a life course, while men experienced positive mental health benefits
from green space from early to mid adulthood. Havitz et al. (2009) noticed that
middle-‐aged adults used POS less than children and older adults, and attributed this
to the likelihood of this age group traveling out of the local suburb for work. They
specified this warrants further research in to the provision of POS near workplaces
for physical and mental benefit. Edwards et al. (2015) observed that adolescents
were more likely to use POS for physical activity when they have facilities and
amenities such as a skate park, lighting around basketball courts, trees, benches and
tables, toilets, and barbeques. Results from a study by Barclay et al. (2011)
demonstrated that POS that allowed free play and roaming were most influential in
increasing physical activity for adolescents. Francis et al. (2012) suggests that subsets
of the population value and use POS differently. As an example they suggest that the
elderly might find water features and amenities as relaxing however parents with
young children might find these features hazardous and stressful. POS may not have
a universal set of benefits across the entirety of the population because of the
alternative ways that men, women, children, teenagers, and the elderly use these
spaces (Francis et al. 2012). This shows that demographics play an important role in
the effects of POS on mental wellbeing and should be taken in to consideration when
researching this topic further.
2.4. General Park Design and Mental Wellbeing
Having established how general park activities can affect mental wellbeing in park
users, the following section will begin to explore how general park design can also
shape mental wellbeing.
Badland et al. (2015) suggests a growing body of research has examined the
relationship between access, size, and park design and wellbeing. While studies have
been undertaken to determine what type of POS characteristics are most influential
over physical and mental health, they have produced inconclusive evidence and
mixed results. These findings cannot be applied practically within the planning
profession to create specific evidence based guidelines that help planners apply
these principles in neighbourhood settings (Badland et al. 2015).
18
2.4.1. ‘Greenness and Restoration’
The mentally restorative benefits of nature and greenness have been widely
researched by scholars within the field of urban planning. The mental benefits of
nature can be received through brief or continued exposure to nature, as well as
views from nature from indoor locations such as cars, houses, and workplaces (De
Vries and Van Herzele 2011; Francis et al. 2012; Hartig, Staats, and Van Den Berg
2007). Determinants for mental wellbeing are greatly influenced by exposure to
nature. Korpela, Pasanen, and Tyrvainen (2014) found that emotional wellbeing after
physical activity was better in natural environments, while Francis et al. (2012)
reported that social wellbeing was improved when residents were exposed to high
levels of nature. Alcock et al. (2015) also found that open space that had denser
greenery promoted better psychological benefits than areas that were less dense.
While the presence of nature impacts upon mental wellbeing, perceptions of
greenness and nature also impact upon mental wellbeing. De Vries and Van Herzele
(2011) and Hartig, Staats, and Van Den Berg (2007) determined that neighbourhoods
with a greater perceived level of greenness had greater levels of happiness and
reduced levels of stress than neighbourhoods with lower levels of perceived
greenness. The physical design and layout of nature and greenness within parks also
determines the way people experience and gain benefit from these spaces.
Peschardt, Schipperijn, and Stigsdotter (2014) found that the quality and quantity of
ground cover, presence of greenery at eye level, and implementation of green
canopies improve the experiences reported by park visitors. Positive experiences
within parks increase happiness levels and may therefore contribute to good quality
mental wellbeing.
2.4.2. ‘Design or Accessibility?’
The quality versus quantity debate is rife throughout the scholarly field. While some
scholars argue that the quality of parks has a greater impact on mental wellbeing,
others argue that the quantity of parks and park features improve mental wellbeing
outcomes. Alcock et al. (2015) found that higher quality environments are associated
with improved psychological health. De Vries et al. (2013) found that the quality of
streetscape greenery encourages greater levels of ‘green activity’ rather than the
19
presence of greenery. Their study indicates that the quality of streetscape greenery
increases physical activity and thus the mentally restorative effects generated from
physical activity. Francis et al. (2012) assessed quality and quantity of public parks
and determined there was a significant correlation between the quality of these
spaces and social connectedness. They concluded social connectedness was greater
in areas with greater perceptions of park quality and this was irrespective of the
frequency that these parks were used. This weakens previous scholarly research,
such as Kaczynski and Henderson (2007) and Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang
(2013) who claim that that physical proximity and quantity of green space has a
positive relationship with physical, social, and mental wellbeing. Another study by
Francis et al. (2012) also concluded that areas with high quality parks had a lower
proportion of psychologically distressed residents compared to residents living in
neighbourhoods with lower quality parks. They found that low quality parks were
more commonly used for necessary activities such as exercising the dog while high
quality parks encouraged a range of recreational, physical, and social activities,
known for improving mental wellbeing. These findings open up potential questions
surrounding the type of park that offers better quality environments for improved
mental wellbeing.
Bell et al. (2014) states that previous research surrounding wellbeing is based on the
assumption that close physical proximity to green spaces and POS means that people
will use it. This wrongly equates proximity to wellbeing and requires further
comprehensive evidence. They concluded that the design of green-‐spaces and POS
should look past its physical location and proximity within neighbourhoods and focus
on more intricate details of POS that can manipulate use and generate flow on
effects for mental wellbeing. This can be achieved by “considering social
relationships and demographics, past place experience, changing life situations and
personal identities, and shaping the perceived importance of POS for mental
wellbeing” (Bell et al. 2014, 290). This is also reiterated by Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano,
and Wang (2013) who add that in order for public open space to be a successful tool
for improving health, policies must take in to consideration a variety of determinants
20
such as demographics, personal requirements, and neighbourhood characteristics to
determine the type and form of public open spaces within an area.
2.4.3. ‘Physical Characteristics and Amenities’
The size of parks and the infrastructure provided within these parks has also been a
topic of research within the field of mental health and public open space. Results
from a study undertaken by Havitz et al. (2009) found that the total area of POS
within a 1km radius of a residential location showed a positive relationship between
with mental wellbeing. Randrup et al. (2010) elaborated on this further and
concluded that large areas of close POS influenced use and visitation, while Francis et
al. (2010) found that large areas of POS facilitated a variety of activities and
recreation and that are mentally restorative. Their research found that large and
attractive POS within a walkable radius but not necessarily close to a residential
location was more influential over physical activity than small POS located close to
residential areas. This indicates that the larger sized parks have better mental
benefits at a population level than smaller pocket parks. These recommendations
contradict results from other studies. Francis et al. (2012) discovered that the size
and frequency of POS had no influence over social interaction and a sense of
community and therefore the flow on effects to mental wellbeing. The tangible
qualities of parks are significantly associated with good quality mental wellbeing,
more so than the intangible qualities of POS such as perceived levels of safety,
comfort, and friendliness (Francis et al. 2012). Hunter and Luck (2015) found that
urban parks are diverse and contain park characteristics of varying qualities. Parks
with amenities such as playgrounds, basketball courts, and BBQ areas generate
greater levels of social connectedness than parks without these amenities (Francis et
al. 2012). In can therefore be inferred that the provision of functional amenities
increases the mental benefits experienced by residents, in comparison to subjective
elements of public open space.
2.5. Park Typologies and Mental Wellbeing
Following on from the previous section, this section will explore the design and
functioning of different park typologies and the mental benefits that arise. It will also
21
identify gaps in the field of research, whereby more research is required to establish
the link between different types of parks and mental wellbeing.
Many studies have researched parks on a whole, with out considering the
complexities and differences of these spaces (Alcock et al. 2015). Generalising parks
to determine their mental health benefits do not provide useful information to the
practical planning profession, and future studies need to consider the variations in
parks in order to establish their varying outcomes on population health (Alcock et al.
2015). An emerging and significant theme for research is what ‘type’ of park
promotes better restorative outcomes at a population level (Shultis and Stack, 2013).
Identifying a park typology that best promotes mental wellbeing within communities
will help guide the practical design and application of parks within neighbourhoods.
Results from Kaczynski and Henderson’s (2007) study provide little clarity on the
relationship between alternate forms of parks and their relationship with types
physical activity and mental wellbeing. They concluded that the findings failed to
determine what type of park and park characteristics are better for promoting
wellbeing. Additionally, Francis et al. (2012) suggests that POS may only have mental
wellbeing benefits because it presents opportunities for contact with nature,
however they state this this is conjecture and further research is required to test this.
The old framework for Western Australia classified parks as either ‘passive’ or
‘active’. Passive open space referred to public open spaces that facilitated casual,
informal, and spontaneous activity such as socialisation, relaxation, walking, bird
watching, and observing scenery (Finlay et al. 2015). Active open space referred to
public spaces that facilitated intensive activities such as vigorous exercise, sport,
gardening, and play (Finlay et al. 2015). A new framework for the classification of
parks has emerged, as defined by the Department of Sport and Recreation (2012).
The new classification system refrains from using ‘passive’ and ‘active’ terminology,
and instead classifies parks as ‘nature’, ‘recreation, or ‘sporting’ spaces. For the
purpose of the research, the new classification system will be used to ensure
research is relevant to the Western Australian planning system.
22
2.5.1. Nature Spaces
Nature spaces are considered passive spaces because they allow the public to
participate in recreational pursuits in an informal and low impact manner
(Department of Sport and Recreation 2012). They differ from recreational spaces in
that their primary focus is to preserve important bio-‐diverse habitats for the benefit
of the environment while additionally allowing residents to appreciate and
experience nature while undertaking low impact recreational activities (Department
of Sport and Recreation 2012). Activities encouraged here include: picnicking, cycling,
exploring natural features, and playing. Nature spaces therefore limit their physical
intrusiveness on the natural environment, instead deciding to incorporate natural
features into the design and landscape of the park. Francis et al. (2012) determined
that residents exposed to high levels of nature reported stronger social ties,
neighbourhood friendships, and a sense of belonging. This indicates that parks with a
greater quantity and/or quality of natural features may influence mental wellbeing
greater than parks that don’t incorporate naturally bio-‐diverse features in the same
manner. Korpela, Pasanen, and Tyrvainen (2014) and Alcock et al. (2015) found that
emotional wellbeing was better quality in areas with denser greenery, while De Vries
and Van Herzele (2011) found that greener areas were associated with feelings of
happiness and reduced levels of stress. Nature spaces may therefore improve mental
wellbeing more so than parks with less natural features and greenery.
2.5.2. Recreation Spaces
Recreation spaces are considered spaces that facilitate informal physical and play
activities, social interaction, and relaxation, and are therefore considered a ‘passive’
type of park (Department of Sport and Recreation 2012). Peschardt, Schipperijn, and
Stigsdotter (2014) state that these spaces are popular for promoting health because
they provide a space for socialising and mental restoration. They add to this by
stating that these spaces are popular with local residents to socialise, relax, and de-‐
stress. Recreational spaces can present themselves in many shapes and sizes, both
linear and circular, and large and small. Streetscapes are a form of recreational and
passive spaces that can be influential over mental wellbeing. De Vries et al. (2013)
discovered that the quality and quantity of streetscape greenery is more important
23
to mental wellbeing than the quality and quantity of local green spaces. This supports
the previous statement by De Vries and Van Herzele (2011) that views of greenery
along the streetscape from the interior of the house are most influential over human
health and happiness. Pocket parks are another example of a small recreational
space that facilitates informal activities and relaxation, and their role in the
promotion of mental wellbeing is recognised (Peschardt, Schipperjin, and Stigsdotter
2014). The presence of more bushes, trees, and water in smaller pockets parks had a
positive correlation to mental wellbeing in comparison to places with hardscape
features (Peschardt, Schipperijn, Stigsdotter (2014). Fry et al. (2009) discovered that
smaller pocket parks have less of an impact on restoration in comparison to larger
parks. Francis et al. (2010) and Baur et al. (2015) concluded that larger recreational
spaces such as gardens and open parks facilitate a wider range of informal activities
and recreational pursuits and therefore have a greater impact on social cohesion and
mental wellbeing.
2.5.3. Sporting Spaces
Sporting spaces are classified as parks that encourage and facilitate formal and
organised activities such as team sports and personal training (Department of Sport
and Recreation 2012). Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang (2015) suggested that
spaces that facilitate physical activity enhancse community cohesion and individual
mental health, and therefore the activities encouraged within sporting spaces may
improve mental wellbeing more so than other spaces. Sporting fields are generally
large in size to accommodate for team sports, spectating, and the associated
infrastructure (Department of Sport and Recreation 2012). Edwards et al (2015)
suggested that adolescents use parks with infrastructure more so than other parks,
while Francis et al. (2012) suggested parks with infrastructure generate greater levels
of social connectedness. Randrup et al. (2010) suggested that large areas of POS are
used more intensely, while Francis et al. (2010) suggested that large spaces might
facilitate a variety of activities that are mentally restorative. Therefore the design of
sporting spaces may provide more mental benefits than other spaces. Sporting fields
usually have a clubroom for the local community and sporting team. Burgin, Passidi,
and Webb (2014) stated that club rooms and other community facilities, as well as
24
the layout of sporting spaces enhanced sense of community, culture, improved
health quality and lifestyles, and established a strong sense of community identity
and pride. Residents’ value spaces that allow for active sport and recreation and feel
these spaces provided good opportunities for social interaction and environmental
contact and conservation (Burgin, Passidi, and Webb 2014). Social cohesion and a
sense of belonging to the local community both have direct and indirect flow on
effects to mental wellbeing and therefore sporting field infrastructure may increase
mental wellbeing. A lack of access to sporting fields may contribute to local
unemployment, physical inactivity, crime, and substance abuse, which are all
determinants of mental wellbeing (Burgin, Passidi, and Webb 2014).
Hunter and Luck (2015) suggested that sporting spaces are less ecologically rich and
environmentally sensitive in comparison to nature spaces. None the less, local
governments in Western Australia are increasingly realising that policies such as
Liveable Neighbourhoods, Bush Forever, and Water Sensitive Urban Design are
limiting the provision of sporting fields in newer suburbs by providing smaller pocket
parks and larger conservation areas such as nature spaces (Middle and Tye 2011). A
study undertaken by Middle and Tye (2011) determined that sporting fields in post
1980's suburbs are being over used. Adding to this statement, Burgin, Passidi, and
Webb (2014) suggested that population increases and changing government regimes
are adding stress to the quality of sporting fields, especially on the grass in times of
drought. A greater provision of sporting fields should be provided in newer suburbs
to facilitate active and healthy behaviours (Burgin, Passidi, and Webb 2014).
2.6. Conclusions
In light of the previous research, it is clear that evidence has been gathered which
both supports and undermines different characteristics of POS in terms of their
potential to improve mental health. More specifically, scholarly research suggests
that the design and activities within sporting spaces may provide opportunities for
mental restoration, while other findings suggest that characteristics and activities
within nature and recreation spaces-‐which encourage more informal activities and
are designed to incorporate natural features-‐may be more effective. While
25
movements such as New Urbanism favour increase the provision of passive open
space, little is known about the effects of passive spaces on mental wellbeing. This
also extends to the newly created classification of nature space, which may provide
psychological restoration through contact with nature. Grose (2009) states that there
is a lack of clear understanding about how much POS should be set aside as playing
fields and active recreation and how much should be set aside as walkable bushland
and passive recreation. Other scholars such as Middle and Tye (2011) believe that
Western Australian planning should provide more active open space for the benefit
of the public. The conflicting literature surrounding the design of parks as a tool for
mental wellbeing provides little clarification to help guide planers in successfully
implementing POS for this purpose. In light of the lack of knowledge, conflicting
research, and arguments for nature, sport, and recreation spaces, it is important that
planners are provided with comprehensive evidence to help them understand what
type of POS best increases mental restoration and mental wellbeing at a population
level. An important question thus arises: are nature, sporting, or recreation spaces
better for enhancing mental wellbeing at a population level within suburban Western
Australia?
26
Chapter 3: Research Approach – Case Study
The following chapter will explore the methodology and methods adopted in this
research project. The chapter will also present a desktop analysis of the localities
and each case study park.
3.1. Introduction to Case Study Approaches
A case study is loosely defined as an empirical investigation that examines a
phenomenon in a real-‐life setting, where the boundary between the phenomenon
and the setting is not yet apparent (Meyer 2001). As explained by Dufour, Fortin, and
Hamel (1993), case studies can alternate between a research approach and a
research method. A case study as an approach to an investigation employs different
research methods such as interviews, participant observations, and field
observations to collect data. When a case study is used as an approach to an
investigation, it is usually driven by the desire to better understand specific element
of social life. They suggest that Bronislaw Malinowski and Frederic Le Play were the
first researchers to introduce the use of case studies in to the research profession in
the nineteenth century. However, it wasn’t until the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century when the use of case studies in the research profession rose. This
was substantially influenced by the Chicago School and their use of case studies to
understand unemployment, poverty, and violence issues that arose from mass
immigration to the USA during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
(Dufour, Fortin, and Hamel 1993).
Case studies are now a popular research methodology, useful for analysing real-‐life
situations and testing a hypothesis as it occurs in reality (Flyvbjerg 2006). They are
also useful for exploring new processes and concepts as they can be designed
specifically to suit the question (Meyer 2001). They use theory to guide research and
form conclusions from the data, in contrast to other qualitative methodologies such
as ethnography and grounded theory that collect data for the purpose of creating
new theories (Meyer 2001). Given that the relationship between mental wellbeing
and different park environments is not yet clear or studied widely within the
27
literature, it was important that this research methodology allowed for the
exploration of new ideas and concepts. A case study was therefore deemed most
suitable. Additionally, rather than creating new mental wellbeing and urban
development theories, this research project uses existing theory such as biophilia,
attention restoration theory, and new urbanism to guide the research and make
informed conclusions about the relationship between different types of public open
spaces and mental wellbeing.
3.2. Addressing the Concerns of Case Studies
Before outlining the case study approach taken by this research in more detail, it is
worth firstly addressing some of the key concerns that have been raised about case
studies in the literature. Flyvbjerg (2006) outlined several main criticisms of case
studies: that findings are not an accurate representation of the entirety of a region,
and therefore should not be generalized; that theory is more valuable than practical
evidence; that case studies can only develop hypotheses rather than accurately test
them; and that bias can emerge during these types of studies. However, the author
then discounts these concerns, stating that case studies of real-‐life settings enhance
theory and provide the highest level of educational value for a researcher.
Furthermore, true expertise regarding a specific topic can only be attained when the
researcher learns in a real-‐world situation.
Generalisation of the results of a case study can also be used to shed light on a
broader phenomenon when the case study is appropriately selected (Flyvbjerg
2006). In this instance, the City of Wanneroo has been selected as a broad case study
area as it contains a diverse range of parks within an area of similar socio-‐economic
characteristics. This reduces the potential for mental wellbeing results to be skewed
by uneven socio-‐economic characteristics across different localities, and also
provides some consistency with other variables like local government policies and
public open space quality.
Meyer (2001) argues that case studies provide the most reliable evidence in the
most efficient amount of time because they are underpinned by an established
framework of theory that provide meaning to the collected data. Without an existing
28
theoretical framework, researchers often collect basic data that provides no real
meaning to the research question or objectives, but simply helps them understand
the phenomenon better (Meyer 2001). Case studies also allow flexibility in the type
of data collected (Cousin 2005). Adopting a case study approach for this research
project therefore allows it to be underpinned by a broad and diverse range of data
that will increase the validity of the results and recommendations.
3.3. Types of Case Studies
Scholz and Tietje (2002) state that case studies can be either holistic or embedded.
Holistic case studies allow only for the use of qualitative methods to collect evidence
that relies heavily on narratives and descriptions. Embedded case studies allow more
flexibility and are not limited to the use of qualitative research methods, and require
the use of multiple methods of analysis that study different aspects important to the
case (Scholz and Tietje 2002). Given the increased flexibility and ability to use
quantitative methods, an embedded case study has been adopted, using multiple
research methods that focus on different aspects of the topic.
Another design aspect of a case study is the consideration of the use of either a
single-‐case or multiple-‐case study. When considering the use of a multiple-‐case
study, each case study area should serve an explicit purpose in the scope of the
study (Scholz and Tietje 2002). In this instance, a multiple-‐case study has been
selected, as the intent is to analyse how different parks influence the mental
wellbeing of park users. Pit Stop Park demonstrates typical features of a nature
space such as a walking trail, interactive stream, and native shrubland, and was
chosen to represent a nature space. Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
demonstrates typical sporting features such as a playing surface, buffer zone,
sporting infrastructure, and a clubroom, and was chosen to represent a sporting
space. Lastly, Amery Park demonstrated typical recreation space features such as
undulating fields, curvy pathways, and amenities for celebration and socializing, and
was chosen to represent a recreation space. The three parks demonstrate typical
features of the three park typologies referred to in local and state policies in
Western Australia and were therefore chosen for analysis to answer the research
29
question.
Cousin (2005) breaks down a case study in to three broad categories: intrinsic,
instrumental, and collective case studies. Instrumental case studies are used when
the researcher intends to make generalisations from the case study area to shed
light on a broader phenomenon (Cousin 2005). An instrumental case study has
therefore also been adopted throughout the research process, as the intent of this
research is to study different parks within the City of Wanneroo to make generalised
conclusions about the influence of different types of parks on mental wellbeing
throughout Western Australia.
3.4. Case Study of Three Suburban Areas and their Park
Prior to the use of the case study methods, three suburban areas within the City of
Wanneroo were selected as broad case study areas for the purpose of this research.
Case study areas were chosen for their similar socio-‐economic and built form
characteristics and differences in the form and function of public open space. This
ensured consistency in the affluence and quality of life of potential park users that
can otherwise impact on the way people use and experience parks. The suburbs
Banksia Grove, Madeley, and Hocking were therefore chosen as case study areas in
the City of Wanneroo.
Banksia Grove, Madeley, and Hocking had similar weekly household incomes, as
shown in appendix 1, 2, and 3. Within Banksia Grove, Madeley, and Hocking, 38%,
36%, and 42% of households have a weekly household income of $1500 to $2999;
this demonstrates that the majority of households within each of the three suburbs
earns a similar weekly income. Shown in appendix 4, 5, and 6 is the level of
qualification in each suburb. Within Banksia Grove, Madeley, and Hocking, 45%,
41%, and 44% of residents have no qualifications; this demonstrates that each case
study area has similar qualification levels and job prospects. Shown in appendix 7, 8,
and 9 is the dwelling type in each of the three case study locations. Over 96% of
dwellings within Banksia Grove, 86% of dwellings within Madeley, and 94% of
dwellings within Hocking are separate houses. While Madeley has a lower
percentage of single dwelling houses, it is still higher than percentages of single
30
dwellings houses in Greater Perth, where only 77% of houses are single dwelling.
This demonstrates that in each of the three case study localities the majority of
houses are single dwelling. From the discussion above, it can be inferred that each of
the three localities has similar socio-‐economic and built form characteristics.
A park from each suburban area was then selected according to the differences in
the parks typology, form, and function, in accordance with the classifications set out
by the Department of Sport and Recreation (2012). Using purposive sampling, which
is the deliberate selection of samples based on certain characteristics and features
that will enable the researcher to gain in-‐depth understandings of the phenomenon
(Lewis and Ritchie 2003) Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and
Amery Park were selected for the case study.
Pit Stop Park, located in Banksia Grove, was selected as a nature space. Appendix 10
shows an aerial image of Pit Stop Park. The park displays traditional nature space
characteristics as classified by the Department of Sport and Recreation (2012) such
as bushland (shown in figure 1) and a water stream with an aquatic habitat (shown
in figure 2 and 3). The park also facilitates a range of low impact activities such as
observing and exploring the natural environment, walking, and picnicking (shown in
figure 4, 5, and 6).
Figure 1: Pit Stop Park Bushland (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 2: Pit Stop Park Pond (Talia Turner 2016)
31
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, located in Madeley, was selected as a sporting
space. Appendix 11 shows an aerial image of the section of Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex that was surveyed and audited. As defined by the Department of
Sport and Recreation (2012), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex displays
traditional characteristics of a sporting space such as a playing field (shown in figure
7), buffer zone (shown in figure 8), and sporting infrastructure (shown in figure 9).
Figure 3: Pit Stop Park Stream (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 4: Pit Stop Park Walking Trail (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 5: Pit Stop Park Pathway (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 6: Pit Stop Park Picnicking Spot (Talia Turner 2016)
32
Amery Park, located in Hocking, was selected as a recreation space. Shown in
appendix 12 is an aerial image of Amery Park. The park displays traditional features
of a recreation space as defined by the Department of Sport and Recreation (2012)
such as landscaped parkland and formal open areas (shown in Figure 10), small
pockets of vegetation (shown in Figure 11), playgrounds (shown in Figure 12), and a
focal point used for socialisation, entertainment, and community events (shown in
Figure 13).
Figure 7: Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Playing Field (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 8: Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Buffer Zone (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 9: Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Sporting Infrastructure (Talia Turner 2016)
33
These parks were selected because they displayed traditional characteristics of
nature, sport, and recreation spaces and were used as case studies for the purpose
of the research question. While a study by Broomhall et al. (2005) assessed all public
open spaces within the respective case study areas, constraints such as time frames
and manpower limit the capacity for such an exhaustive approach for this research.
Each park was therefore carefully selected using purposive sampling to ensure that it
adequately represented a specific park typology.
3.5. Case Study Methods
Case studies require the researcher to undertake research in the field over a certain
time frame as an observer (Cousin 2005). In order to understand the problem and
recommend a solution, case studies generally require multiple pieces of evidence
Figure 10: Amery Park Parkland (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 11: Amery Park Vegetation (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 12: Amery Park Playground (Talia Turner 2016)
Figure 13: Amery Park Amphitheatre (Talia Turner 2016)
34
and data to be collected at least somewhat through personal observation (Scholz
and Tietje 2002). Embedded case studies not only allow for the use of qualitative
methods such as open ended interviews, they also accommodate the use of
quantitative methods such as questionnaires, participant observation, and site
observation (Scholz and Tietje 2002). To establish the relationship between nature,
sport, and recreation spaces and mental wellbeing, this research used observational
surveys, questionnaires, and public open space audits within Pit Stop Park, Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park because these parks reflected design
qualities and features that were typical of either a nature, sport, or recreation space.
The three methods are discussed in the following section.
3.6. Public Open Space Audit
3.6.1. Rationale
General auditing tools have been used to measure the extent to which physical
environments are safe for pedestrians and cyclists, but can also be tailored to
measure the quality of specific environments such as parks (Bull et al. 2002). Public
open space audits that measure the quality of parks are useful to comprehend the
extent to which the park influences mental and physical health (Besenyi, Kaczynski,
and Stanis 2012). The tool is flexible and can be tailored to emphasize qualities of
the park that are most appropriate to the field of study (Besenyi, Kaczynski, and
Stanis 2012). A public open space audit was therefore selected as an appropriate
method to collect data that was important in answering the research question.
The intent of my public open space audit was to assess and measure the quality of
each park and its attributes. This added another layer of research to the project and
helped determine which park was of better quality and maintained to a higher
standard by the local council. While the process enabled better understandings of
each park and its intricate qualities and gave context to the analysis of the
observational and questionnaire surveys, it also helped determine the extent to
which park quality and its specific attributes influences the mental wellbeing of park
users. Broomhall et al. (2005) used a similar process where they combined public
open space audits with questionnaires and observational surveys to analyse the
35
extent to which walking is influenced by the accessibility, attractiveness, and size of
public open space. They initiated their studies by undertaking a public open space
audit; this demonstrates that public open space audits are a useful research tool for
understanding the context of the phenomenon and initiating the research process.
3.6.2. Instrument Design
Bostock, Ellis, and Gidlow (2012) and Francis et al. (2012) both developed park-‐
auditing tools that assessed the quality of neighbourhood greenspaces in terms of its
health related benefits. They weighted sections of the audit depending on its
relevance to the field of study using templates from other reliable studies and
opinions from an expert panel of professionals. While an expert panel of
professionals was not available to provide their judgement, by studying other
reliable park audits that assessed the quality of the park to determine its overall
influence over mental wellbeing, an original public open space audit was created for
this research that assessed and weighted qualities of the park important to mental
wellbeing. This increased the validity of weightings within the public open space
audit and limited personal bias that may have arisen from weighting criteria based
on personal values. An original public open space audit was also required so it
considered elements of mental wellbeing.
Park auditing tools should use both subjective and objective forms of measurement
in order to reliably assess the quality of park attributes (Bostock, Ellis, and Gidlow
2012). The public open space auditing tool for this research therefore incorporated
measurements about perceptions of the park as well as the presence of specific park
features and amenities.
Boarnet et al. (2011) suggested that intricate and in-‐depth public open space audits
are time consuming and inconvenient to researchers, and that public open space
audits should be simplified and made as efficient as possible. The current public
open space audit therefore used only criteria relevant to mental wellbeing and used
a numerical scoring system to simplify the auditing process within each park. The
public open space audit analysed whether the park was supportive of healthy
36
lifestyles using criteria that addressed the quality and presence of sporting
infrastructure, park furniture, play equipment, and opportunity for multiple-‐use and
self reflection. Secondly, the audit analysed the quality and extent of biodiversity
within each park. Thirdly, the audit analysed the quality and presence of community
livelihood through criteria such as lighting, safety, and feelings, of community
ownership. The audit also addressed the aesthetics and amenity of each park using
criteria that analysed the presence of vandalism, litter, shaded areas, and park
furniture, and the maintenance and attractiveness of park amenities and natural
features. Lastly, the audit analysed whether the park was accessible and connective
using criteria such as provision and quality of cycle paths, pathways, parking bays,
and public transport. The themes and criteria within the audit were based on a study
of the relevant literature and other audits used in similar studies. The numerical
scoring system used within the audit ranged from 1 (the lowest score) to 9 (the
highest score). The full public open space audit can be found in appendix 13.
3.6.3. Procedure
During a weekend in March 2016, the public open space audit was undertaken by
the researcher on-‐site within each park, rather than using online services or existing
data from previous public open space audits. This upheld the integrity and originality
of the data and findings. Additionally, to ensure that the effect of bias and
subjectivity was eliminated, the audit was undertaken solely by the researcher. The
audits were undertaken consecutively rather than in a discontinuous manner, as
recommended by Edwards and Hooper (2012). This ensured that results for each
park were not skewed by uncontrollable variables like personal circumstances and
weather patterns.
3.6.4. Measurements and Analysis
Once scores were determined for each criterion under each section of the public
open space audit, they were added together and calculated to provide a weighted
score for each section. The weighted scores for each section of the public open
space audit were then summed and converted to a percentage for each park. This
score was then used to determine the overall quality of each park. A higher
37
percentage meant a better performance in regards to park quality.
3.7. Observational Survey
3.7.1. Rationale
Observational surveys are a research method that requires the researcher to record
sights and behaviors present in a case study area, and are generally used to increase
the understandings of a phenomenon or topic (Stake 1995; Engelhard et al. 2001).
They can be used as an additional method to questionnaire surveys to collect
behavioral data pertaining to health (Engelhard et al. 2001), or as an exploratory
technique used to strengthen and underpin the findings of other methods (Gillham
2010). While they cannot provide in-‐depth insights in to why people behave the way
they do, they are useful in showing general behaviors and activities undertaken in
certain settings (Denscombe 2010). When observational surveys are conducted in
the field, they are also useful for providing more a realistic depiction of behavioral
patterns in comparison to questionnaire surveys (Engelhard et al. 2001).
Additionally, observational surveys are flexible, have high internal validity, and
eliminate the burden of recruiting participants (Mars and McKenzie 2015).
Observational surveys were therefore selected as a suitable research method for this
study. It enabled the collection of data relating to the demographics, behaviors, and
use of each park, and could also be combined with findings from the questionnaire
surveys to explore how the use of each park broadly affects mental wellbeing in park
users.
3.7.2. Instrument Design
Original observational forms, shown in appendix 14, were created from a study of
the relevant literature using a detached observational approach. A detached
observational survey is formal and highly structured and produces quantitative
results through counts (Gillham 2010). Mars and Mckenzie (2015) stated that
observational forms could be used to assess single or multiple forms of observable
occurrences within the study area, such as events within the location and the
duration of these events. Multiple occurrences within the park were therefore
38
included on the observational form, such as the age of park visitors, the intensity and
type of activity undertaken, the length of stay, and whether park users socially
interacted with others. Rather than recording qualitative observations, the observer
was required to tick the boxes relevant to the observed park user. As recommended
by Engelhard et al. (2001), a sequential numbering system was used, in which
relevant information about each park user was recorded against a number. This
organised the data in a comprehendible way and improved the efficiency of the
measurement and analysis process.
3.7.3. Procedure
Observational surveys were undertaken from 8:30am to 5pm on three full days over
two consecutive weekends. One full day was allocated for each park. The
observations were conducted in a continuous manner so that the population of the
park was captured. It was important that all behaviors and activities occurring within
the park were recorded to fully reflect the diversity in park use and experiences
within each of the three parks. The observational surveys therefore adopted event
sampling to gather and collect relevant data. Event sampling is a form of continuous
observation where variables such as the frequency and time of event are recorded,
in contrast to interval sampling where observation is undertaken in specified blocks
or times due to the frequency of the event (Gillham 2010). As recommended by
Engelhard et al. (2001), the locations from where observations were made within
each park were specifically selected to maximise the observer’s safety and view of
the entire park. Observational surveys were therefore conducted from the
amphitheater in Amery Park (shown in figure 14), the pond area in Pit Stop Park
(shown in figure 15), and the tree line in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
(shown in figure 16).
39
Figure 14: Observation Location in Amery Park (Google Earth 2016)
Figure 15: Observation Location in Pit Stop Park (Google Earth 2016)
40
The observational process also adopted a naturalistic and detached approach to data
collection. Naturalistic observation examines the behaviours of people in their
everyday environments without being intruded upon by the observer (Hakemulder
et al. 2012). Detached observational surveys require the researcher to observe from
the ‘outside’ without participating in the environment (Gillham 2010). Therefore the
location of observations were also chosen so that the researcher blended in with
park users and was removed from unfolding activities in order to reduce participant
reactivity.
Weather is an uncontrollable variable that may alter typical park usage and
behaviors within the park (Engelhard et al. 2001). Observational surveys were
therefore completed in March so that weather was generally consistent and
desirable (e.g. sunny and warm) for typical users of the park.
Figure 16: Observation Location in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (Google Earth 2016)
41
3.7.4. Measurements and Analysis
Gillham (2010) suggested that recalling data from observational surveys might prove
too difficult to analyse if left too late. Therefore the measurement and analysis of
the observational surveys occurred immediately after its completion. The results
from the observational survey were measured through a tallying system on an Excel
spreadsheet, shown in appendix 15. The figures were then analysed by calculating a
percentage so that the results for each park were comparable to one another. They
were then presented in pie charts and graphs and displayed in the findings section.
3.8. Questionnaire Survey
3.8.1. Rationale
A questionnaire survey is a qualitative method that collects quantitative data
(Walliman 2006). Questionnaire surveys are a “procedure that describes, ‘what is’,
specifically how variables are distributed across a phenomenon” (Merriam 2009, 5).
They also collect data that describes the features and relationships between
phenomenons (Merriam 2009). The data is usually generalised and expressed in
numerical values to describe the trends and relationships between certain variables
(Creswell 2014). Surveys are an appropriate method to use because they provide a
high turnover of data, are more economical to undertake in comparison to other
research methods, and they allow the researcher to make informed and generalised
conclusions using only a small subset of the population (Fowler 2009). A
questionnaire survey was therefore chosen as a research method for this thesis
because it presented the most efficient and economical way to gather data that
explored thoughts and feelings within the park while also allowing generalisations to
be made. The questionnaire survey also provided in-‐depth understandings regarding
the type of parks, park features, and park activities that can improve the mental
wellbeing of park users. The results from the survey are not stand alone and are
accompanied with results from the observational surveys and public open space
audits to form conclusions about they way people experience each park and the
subsequent mental benefits that may arise.
42
3.8.2. Instrument Design
The questionnaire survey for this thesis was designed to generate a higher response
rate and is shown in appendix 16. It was also designed to ensure that responses
were well thought out and provided an accurate depiction of general thoughts and
feelings of the population of the park. The survey questionnaire used closed-‐ended
questions to attract a higher response rate. Closed ended questions are easier for
respondents to process, analyse, and answer (Hakemulder et al. 2012). Additionally,
closed ended questions leave less room for interpretation and therefore responses
will be equal across all respondents (Hakemulder et al. 2012). Questions about
demographics and use of the park, thoughts and feelings within the park, and valued
park features and activities were incorporated in to the survey. This enabled a wide
range of mental wellbeing related data to be collected. Questions about thoughts
and feelings in the park were framed positively and negatively to ensure that
respondents were thinking about their answers and the survey was not
unintentionally swaying responses in any particular way.
A common problem with creating questionnaire surveys for the general population is
the use of technical language that only experts familiar to the field of research can
understand (Converse and Presser 1986). Researchers tend to over complicate
questions to generate responses that directly relate to the question (Converse and
Presser 1986). Four important categories thus arise for the creation of a well written,
simplistic, and relevant questionnaire survey: “simple language, manageable tasks,
common concepts, and widespread information” (Converse and Presser 1986, 4).
The survey for this thesis incorporated a vocabulary that the general population
could understand. Additionally, the use of closed ended questions and simplistic
scoring systems simplified the tasks for respondents of the survey. Concepts
regarding emotions, park activities, and park features, and demographics were
designed to be easy for the general public to comprehend.
Batteries of request were also incorporated into the survey to simplify the survey
process for researcher and respondent. This involves a request that is stated at the
beginning of a task, which is subsequently followed by a series of stimuli or
43
statements in rows, and ratings in columns (Gallhofer and Saris 2007). This is
considered an efficient design method as it increases design and printing efficiency
for the researcher and reduces the amount that respondents have to read and write
(Gallhofer and Saris 2007).
While scholars such as converse and Presser (1986) and Gallhofer and Saris (2007)
suggest that surveys be as simplified and efficient as possible, the questionnaire
surveys for this thesis were five pages long. To reduce the burden of the length of
the questionnaire survey, only closed ended questions and batteries of request were
included. The length of the survey for this thesis was required to gather diverse data
to relate back to mental wellbeing of park users. Additionally, it increased the
validity of results as different sections were used to verify feelings and emotions
within the park.
3.8.3. Procedure
The questionnaire survey process was longitudinal, undertaken over a period of
time. Each park was visited on three occasions over the course of March 2016;
during the early morning, midday, and the evening. This increased the chance of a
wide proportion of different park users being reached, such as people going on an
early morning walk, parents with children, and sporting groups. It was important
that genders were surveyed equally, however a number of limitations arose. This
will be discussed later on in Chapter 5: Discussion.
The questionnaire surveys were administered face-‐to-‐face via interception within
each park. While other methods such as online and telephone surveys are a helpful
strategy for efficiently and economically collecting data across a large geographical
area, they cannot provide detailed and specific insights in regards to a specific
location (Walliman 2006; Diaz de Rada and Domoniguez-‐Alvarez 2014). Interception
methods therefore allow greater control over the sample of respondents (Gideon
2012). For the purpose of the study, responses had to be reflective of each park,
rather than parks on a whole, so that comparisons between the data and each park
could be made in the analysis. It was therefore important that surveys were
administered through interception within each park so that answers were reflective
44
of that park only.
Convenience sampling was used to survey visitors of each park. This sampling
strategy selects individuals based on their convenience and proximity to the
researcher (Abbott and McKinney 2013). While convenience samples are criticised
for their inability to be generalised and representative of the population (Abbott and
McKinney 2013), it was considered the most appropriate sampling method to the
study. As each park was relatively large and had many sections that were not visible
to the researcher, respondents could therefore only be selected if they were visible
to the researcher. Fowler (2009) suggested that good sampling should provide equal
opportunities for everyone in the respective population to participate in the survey.
Therefore to reduce concerns that arise from convenience sampling, I circled each
park periodically every 10 minutes and returned to the same spot. This increased the
ability for more park users to be included in the questionnaire survey. Denscombe
(2010) suggests that a minimum sample of 30 responses from each park be
generated for small-‐scale social research projects. Therefore the research aimed to
generate a minimum of 30 responses from each park. While a sample of 30 was
desirable, achieving this sample size proved difficult. This limitation will be discussed
in Chapter 5: Discussion.
3.8.4. Measurement and Analysis
Studies that produce a small to moderate sized data set have the advantage of
tabulating data into a simple spreadsheet (Bourque and Clarke 1992). The
questionnaire surveys that were deployed in each park produced a small data set of
nominal and ordinal data and were therefore entered in to an Excel spreadsheet
using a numerical tallying system. A nominal scale of measurement produces simple
data that is separated into categories and then compared to one another, while an
ordinal scale of measurement produces data that is ranked against a characteristic or
concept (Walliman 2006). Bourque and Clarke (1992) suggested that calculating the
mean, median, mode, and standard deviation of relevant data would enhance the
analysis of survey results. Therefore, the data produced from sections of the survey
that used ‘batteries of request’ were calculated to provide a mean score for each
45
stimuli in each park. Data for all sections of the questionnaire surveys were also
calculated as a percentage and represented in graphs and figures so that the results
for each park were comparable to one another.
46
Chapter 4: Findings
4.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the public open space audit, observational
surveys, and questionnaire surveys undertaken within Pit Stop Park, Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park. The data is presented and discussed in
order to reflect on the relationship between mental wellbeing and each of the three
parks. It does this by sequentially discussing key findings of the public open space
audit, observational surveys, and questionnaire surveys.
4.2. Public Open Space Audit
A public open space audit was completed for each park during March 2016. The
public open space audit helped determine the quality of the park from 6 different
perspectives, and gave each park a weighted score out of 100. A summary of scores
for each park can be found in figure 17, while images for each park can be found in
the methodology section.
4.2.1. Park Quality
The first category of quality calculated to determine the overall quality of the park
was whether the park was supportive of healthy lifestyles. This section was worth
20% of the total audit and addressed where the park provided for a range of
sporting, physical, and reflective activities through good quality infrastructure.
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (17.4%) performed the best under this
category, Pit Stop Park performed the second best (17.04%), while Amery Park
placed last (15.55%).
The second category of quality scored each park on the presence and quality of
biodiversity as well as the presence of environmentally sensitive design and was
worth 20% of the total audit. Pit Stop Park (18.52%) performed the best out of the
three parks, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (14.44%) ranked second, while
Amery Park placed last with a percentage of (13.7%).
47
The third category assessed the extent to which the park created a sense of
community through the presence of crime deterrent features such as lighting and
passive surveillance, the absence of undesirable behaviour, and general feelings of
community ownership and vibrancy, and was worth 17.5% of the audit. Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (15.55%) performed the best out of the three parks,
while Pit Stop Park (13.29%) performed the second best and Amery Park (11.34%)
placed last.
The fourth category assessed the quality of the aesthetics in each of the three parks
by assessing the presence of litter, the maintenance of park infrastructure and
natural features, and the attractiveness of park features, and was worth 17.5% of
the audit. Pit Stop Park (17.11%) performed the best out of the three parks, Amery
Park (16.33%) placed second, while Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (15.55%)
placed last.
The fifth category was worth 15% of the audit and assessed the amenity and
convenience of the park through gaging the presence of park furniture, shaded
areas, and internal footpaths. Pit Stop Park (12%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (12%) received the same score and equalled for first place, while Amery
Park (9%) placed last.
The sixth and final category of the audit was worth 10% of the audit and assessed
the extent to which the park was easily accessible to the community and integrated
with the surrounding environment through the provision of cycle paths, pedestrian
walkways, parking bays and ramps for the disabled as well as its location within the
neighbourhood and proximity to public transport. Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (8.15%) performed the best out of the three parks, while Pit Stop Park
placed second (6.11%) and Amery Park (5.37%) third.
All three parks received final scores that demonstrated each parks competency in
regards to quality, but to varying extents. Pit Stop Park received an overall score of
84.1% and performed the best overall, while Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
placed second with a score of 82.7% and Amery Park last with a score of 71.29%.
48
While Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Pit Stop Park received similar scores
and performed highly in regards to park quality, Amery Park received a considerably
lower score in comparison to its counterparts.
Table 1: Summary Table of Public Open Space Audit Scores
4.3. Observational Surveys
Over 9 consecutive days on the weekend, the observational surveys were conducted
in each park in time blocks, for example between 8am and 11am on one day, 11am
to 2pm the next day, and 2pm to 4:30pm on another day. This gathered data that
was equal a full day in the park. The observational surveys provided insights in to the
demographics of each park. Demographical data will provide valuable information
about the age group and gender of park users within each of the three parks.
4.3.1. Demographics
Figures 17. 18, and 19 demonstrate the gender of park users within Pit Stop Park,
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park. Pit Stop Park had more
female visitors (62.3%) in comparison to male visitors (37.7%). In contrast, both
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (76.1% to 23.9%) and Amery Park (59.1% to
40.9%) had more male visitors to the park in comparison to female visitors.
Pit Stop Park
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex Amery Park
Supportive of Healthy Lifestyles (20%)
17.04 17.4 15.55
Biodiversity (20%) 18.52 14.44 13.7
Community Livelihood (17.5%)
13.29 15.55 11.34
Aesthetics (17.5%) 17.11 15.16 16.33
Amenity (15%) 12 12 9
Accessibility and Connectivity (10%)
6.11 8.15 5.37
FINAL SCORE (100%) 84.07% 82.7% 71.29%
49
n=159
Figure 17: Gender of Observed Visitors to Pit Stop Park
n=729
Figure 18: Gender of Observed Visitors to Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
n=44
Figure 19: Gender of Observed Visitors to Amery Park
50
Figure 20 demonstrates the percentage of children (1-‐11), teenagers (12-‐17), adults
(18-‐69), and old (70+) visitors to each park. In Amery Park (72.7%), Pit Stop Park
(66%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (62%), adult visitors were observed
the most. Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex displayed a high proportion of
teenage visitors (21.2%) in comparison to Pit Stop Park (1.9%) and Amery Park (0%).
A higher proportion of teenagers may be attributed to its use as a sporting ground.
The greatest percentage of children was observed in Pit Stop Park (28.9%), while
Amery Park (18.2%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (11.4%) had lower
proportions of children. This could be attributed to the ability for a nature space to
facilitate free play and roaming. In Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (5.3%),
Amery Park (4.5%) and Pit Stop Park (3.1%) the old were observed at exceedingly
lower percentages in comparison to the other age brackets.
Figure 20: Observed Age of Park Visitors
51
4.3.2. Use of the Park
The observational surveys provided valuable insights in to the extent to which each
park is used and the activities currently undertaken within that park.
Figure 21 demonstrates the number of observed visitors to each park between 8am
and 5pm over one day on the weekend. The graph demonstrates that Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (729 visitors) experiences exceedingly higher visitation
from park users in comparison to its counterparts, while Amery Park (44 visitors)
experiences an exceedingly low amount of visitation from park users. Pit Stop Park
(159 visitors) experiences moderate levels of visitation in comparison to its
counterparts.
Figure 22 shows Amery Park experiences a high concentration of park visitation in
the “early morning” and “afternoon”, while Pit Stop Park experiences a high
concentration of park visitation only in the “afternoon” and Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex experiences a steady increase in the concentration of park use
through the day. Coupled with data from the previous graph, Kingsway Regional
Figure 21: Number of Observed Visitors to the Park throughout the Day
52
Sporting Complex experiences exceedingly high park visitation that intensifies
steadily as the day progresses, while Amery Park experiences a considerably lower
amount of park visitation that considerably drops throughout the middle of the day.
Pit Stop Park experiences medium levels of park visitation that dips slightly
throughout the middle of the day but rapidly increases in the evening.
Figure 23 illustrates that within Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex the percentage
of park users increases as length of stay increases, and therefore the majority of park
users in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex stay in this park for extended periods
of time. Amery Park experienced an opposite trend, whereby the longer the length
of stay the percentage of visitors staying at the park for that length of time
decreased. This suggests that visitors to Amery Park prefer brief encounters within
that park. While the majority of observed visitors to Pit Stop Park (30.8%) had an
observed length of stay between 0-‐15min, another 28.9% of visitors had an observed
length of stay between 1 and 1.5hrs. Trends therefore suggest that park visitors to
Pit Stop Park have varying lengths of stay at this park and that the park is utilised for
a range of diverse activities. Brief and extended lengths of exposure within parks are
both known to provide positive restorative and psychological benefits, and therefore
Figure 22: Observed Visitation Throughout the Day
53
Amery Park, Pit Stop Park, and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex may influence
mental wellbeing in different ways. However a greater number of park users and
consistency in park use in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex suggests it may have
a greater potential to target a wider selection of the population to improve mental
wellbeing.
Figure 24 demonstrates the type of activities undertaken within each park. Active
pursuits were classified as an activity undertaken without the direct intent to
improve fitness or participate in an organised sport. Activities classified as ‘active’
included dog walking, recreational bike riding, and informal play and sport.
Organised sport was classified as any physical activity involving skill that is controlled
by a set of rules and undertaken competitively. In this instance, organised sport
included sports such as soccer, football, and rugby. Sedentary activities were
classified as an activity that required little to no physical or vigorous movement.
Activities included spectating, reading, writing, and crafting. Fitness activities were
classified as activities that were physically intensive and undertaken to improve
individual physical health. Activities included jogging, walking, and cycling.
Figure 23: Observed Length of Stay in the Park
54
The highest proportions of park users within Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
(45.2%) were observed partaking in sedentary activities, while a high percentage of
sedentary activities were also observed in Pit Stop Park (39.6%) and Amery Park
(31.8%). In both Pit Stop Park (50.9%) and Amery Park (45.5%), the highest
percentage of park users participated in active pursuits, while a substantially lower
percentage of park users in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (17.8%) were seen
partaking in active pursuits. A high proportion of park users within Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (31.1%) were observed participating in an organised
sport, in contrast to Pit Stop Park and Amery Park where no park users were
observed partaking in organised sport. A low percentage of park users in Pit Stop
Park (8.8%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (5.9%) were observed
partaking in fitness activities, while Amery Park showed a noticeably higher
percentage (22.7%) of park users partaking it fitness activities. Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex displayed diversity in the activities undertaken within that park
and may have the ability to improve mental wellbeing for a variety of park users.
Figure 24: Observed Type of Activity Undertaken within the Park
55
Figure 25 demonstrates that over 10 different types of activities were observed in
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Pit Stop Park, while only 7 types of
activities were observed in Amery Park. The majority of park users in Amery Park
were observed walking dogs (52.5%) while small proportions of park users in Pit Stop
Park (7.1%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (6.2%) were seen walking dogs.
The largest proportion of park users in Pit Stop Park were seen socialising (36.8%)
while the largest proportion of park users in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
were observed as spectating (45.4%).
Figure 25: Specific Activities Observed within the Park
56
Figure 26 demonstrates that a considerable amount of park users within Pit Stop
Park (82.3%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (88.9%) socially interacted,
while Amery Park (34.1%) displayed low levels of social interaction. High levels of
social interaction suggest that Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Pit Stop Park
may facilitate stronger friendships and social ties which is rooted in the quality of
mental wellbeing.
4.4. Questionnaire Survey
Sixty participants in total were surveyed in all three parks throughout a period of 9
full days in March 2016. 23 responses were generated from Pit Stop Park, 22
responses were generated from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and 15 were
generated from Amery Park.
Figure 26: Did Visitors Socially Interact with Others During their Stay at the Park?
57
4.4.1. Demographics
Figure 27, 28, and 29 shows that noticeably more females were surveyed in
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (81.8% to 18.2%), while Amery Park (73.3% to
26.7%), and Pit Stop Park (61% to 39%) also had high proportions of female
respondents. This presents itself as a limitation to the research as the results may
not be reflective of genders within each park. An equal male/female ratio could have
been achieved through stratified sampling and may have been a better approach in
hindsight.
n=23
Figure 27: Gender of Survey Respondents at Pit Stop Park
n=22
Figure 28: Gender of Survey Respondents at Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex
58
Appendix 17 demonstrates the age breakdown of survey respondents in Pit Stop
Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park, while appendix 18,
demonstrates the professional status of survey respondents. A wide proportion of
age groups were surveyed in all three parks, while the employment categories of
survey respondents varied across all three parks. A more detailed analysis can be
found in the appendix.
4.4.2. Satisfaction and Use of the Park
Figure 30 shows that park satisfaction in Pit Stop Park rose as categories increased in
positivity, while results for Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Amery Park
declined at the maximum level of satisfaction. The majority of respondents in Pit
Stop Park (47.8%) reported being “very satisfied” with the park, while a lower
percentage of respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (31.8%) and
Amery Park (20%) were “very satisfied”. The highest percentage of respondent in
Amery Park (60%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (45.5%) reported being
“satisfied with the park”. The figure also supports the findings from the public open
space audit to varying extents. The public open space audit discovered that each of
n=15
Figure 29: Gender of Survey Respondents at Amery Park
59
the three parks were good quality, but to varying degrees. The graph above
demonstrates that visitor satisfaction in each of the three parks was high amongst
respondents, and therefore shows a relationship between quality park environments
and satisfaction levels.
Appendix 19 demonstrates the purpose of visitation of survey respondents in all
three parks, while appendix 20 demonstrates respondents’ frequency of visitation in
all three parks. Pit Stop Park and Amery Park appear to be a popular park for the
entertainment of children. Amery Park is also visited for the purpose of exercising
dogs, while Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex is mostly visited for organised
sports. Additionally, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Amery Park appear to
have greater frequency of visitation in comparison to Pit Stop Park.
4.4.3. Valued Park Activities
10 different park activities associated with mental wellbeing were presented to the
respondent, in which they were asked to score each park activity between 1 and 10.
A score of 1 represented low value and importance of that activity to the
respondent, while a score of 10 represented high importance of that activity to the
respondent. Exploring the type of activities that park users value the most will help
Figure 30: Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction within the Respective Park
60
determine the types of parks that people enjoy the most, which is rooted in the
concept of hedonic mental wellbeing.
Figure 31 demonstrates a strong connection between park users and ‘appreciating
nature’ as an important park activity. Respondents from Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (8.6) and Pit Stop Park (8.2) regarded ‘appreciating nature’ as highly
important, more so than respondents from Amery Park (6.7). None the less, all three
parks showed varying but positive relationships with park users and ‘appreciating
nature’ as a park activity. Respondents from Pit Stop Park (6.9) and Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (6.8) showed regarded ‘de-‐stressing’ slightly higher than
respondents from Amery Park (6), but in comparison to ‘appreciating nature’ this
park activity is not as valued. None the less there are still positive correlations
between ‘de –stressing’ as an important park activity. ‘Walking’ was highly regarded
by respondents in Amery Park (7.6), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (7.4) and
Pit Stop Park (7.4). Divergences in the importance of ‘socialisation’ as a park activity
existed between the three parks. Respondents from Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (7.9) demonstrated a considerable connection with ‘socialisation’ as a park
activity more so than Pit Stop Park (6.5) and Amery Park (5.5). Strong divergences
also existed between the three parks and the importance of ‘organised sports’ as a
park activity. While Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (7.1) regarded ‘organised
sports’ highly, Pit Stop Park (4.8) and Amery Park (3) did not. ‘Reading’ was not
considered an important activity in any of the parks.
61
4.4.4. Valued Park Features
Respondents were given a list of 16 park features, which they were required to
provide a rating between 1 and 10. The rating depended on what they valued as a
park feature and what they did not value as a park feature. A low score indicated
little importance to the respondent, while a high score indicated elevated
importance to the respondent. The determination of park features that are
important and unimportant to users of parks helps determine they types of spaces
park users enjoy the most, and the specific park features that help achieve a sense of
enjoyment from park users. This is also rooted in the concept of hedonistic mental
wellbeing.
Figure 32 demonstrates that natural features such as ‘shady trees’ and ‘large
expanses of grass’ are valued more so than hardscape features and infrastructure
such as ‘cricket pitches’, ‘football posts’ and ‘clubrooms’. ‘Shady trees’ are highly
valued by respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (9.4), Pit Stop Park
(9), and Amery Park (8.6). ‘Large expanses of grass’ are also highly valued by
respondents in Pit Stop Park (9.1) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (8.7), but
Figure 31: Respondents Rating the Importance of Park Activities
62
slightly less value was provided to this feature in Amery Park (7.7). None the less a
positive correlation between this park feature and its importance in all three parks
exists.
Divergences in the importance of ‘walking trails’ exist between respondents in all
three parks. While ‘walking trails’ are highly valued by respondents in Pit Stop Park
(8.5) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (8), less importance was given to this
park feature in Amery Park (6.2). Inferences can still be made towards ‘walking trails’
as being somewhat important to respondents in Amery Park. ‘Wildlife’ is also
regarded with high importance by respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (7.6) and Pit Stop Park (7.5), and regarded somewhat important by
respondents in Amery Park (6.5).
Slight divergences in the importance of ‘seating’ exist between respondents in Pit
Stop Park (8.9) and Amery Park (7.9) and respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (6.7). While ‘seating’ is highly valued by respondents in Pit Stop Park and
Amery Park, it is only somewhat valued by respondents in Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex. Relationships regarding the importance of seating still exist in all
three parks. ‘Tables’ are also only somewhat important in Amery Park (6.7) and
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (6.4), while slightly higher importance was
recognised in Pit Stop Park (7.4).
‘Cricket Pitches’ are not valued by respondents in Amery Park (3.5), Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (3.6), and Pit Stop Park (3.8). A divergence in the
importance of ‘football posts’ in parks exists. While respondents in Pit Stop Park
(3.9) and Amery Park (4.1) do not value this feature, respondents in Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (6.1) somewhat valued this feature. Similar divergences
exist in regards to the importance of ‘clubrooms’ as a park feature. While Amery
Park (3.3) and Pit Stop Park (4) do not value this feature, respondents in Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (5.8) somewhat valued this feature. In comparison to
natural features however, these features were viewed with less importance.
63
4.4.5. Emotions and Feelings within the Park
The survey presented the respondents with a set of 12 positive and negative
emotions, which they were asked to score based on their feelings of that emotion
when they visited that park. They were asked to score that emotion between 1 and
10, 1 meaning they felt low levels of that emotion within the park and 10 meaning
they felt high levels of that emotion within the park. Only emotions showing
noticeable and interesting trends are included in the results. Exploring how people
feel in each park will help determine the extent to which each park evokes
eudemonic mental wellbeing.
Figure 33 demonstrates the extent to which respondents in each of the parks
experience positive emotions. ‘Happiness’ demonstrates the extent to which park
users feel a sense of contentment and cheerfulness when in the park. Trends suggest
that Pit Stop Park (8.3) and Kingsway Park (8.2) stimulate greater feelings of
happiness in comparison to Amery Park (7), however respondents from all three
parks have varying but positive feelings of happiness. These figures indicate that
recreation spaces evoke lower levels of happiness in comparison to sporting spaces
Figure 32: Respondents Rating the Importance of Park Features
64
and nature spaces, and that nature spaces evoke the most intense feelings of
happiness.
‘Positivity’ helps explain the level to which visitors feel confident and optimistic
when in the park or participating in park activities. The trend in the graph implies
that respondents in Amery Park (6.9) experience lower levels of positivity when in
the park in comparison to respondents in Pit Stop Park (8.1) and Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex (8.5). In summary, the trends in this graph imply that sporting
spaces and nature spaces and have a greater impact over feelings of positivity in
park visitors in comparison to recreation spaces.
‘Engagement’ expresses the extent to which people feel interested and engaged
with the park its associated activities, as well as the extent to which they experience
a meaningful connection with the park. The trend in the graph shows that
respondents in Amery Park (5.9) feel lower levels of engagement in comparison to
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (7.8) and Pit Stop Park (7.6). In summary, it is
evident that sporting and nature spaces provide the most level of engagement for
park users, while recreation spaces provided the least level of engagement for park
users.
‘Amusement’ expresses the extent to which park users enjoy the park and the park’s
activities. Trends imply that respondents in Pit Stop Park (7.1) feel a greater sense of
amusement in comparison to Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (6) and
particularly Amery Park (5.1). In summary, nature spaces appear to stimulate the
greatest feelings of amusement in park users while recreation spaces stimulate the
least feelings of amusement in respondents.
‘Relaxation’ helps explain the extent to which the park allows visitors to reduce
feelings of anxiety, stress, and nerves. Trends in the graph therefore imply that
respondents in Amery Park (6.7) feel a reduced sense of relaxation, while
respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (8.1) and Pit Stop Park (7.7) feel
strong levels of relaxation. Levels of relaxation in Amery Park are still somewhat
65
present, but to a lesser extent. In summary, sporting spaces and nature spaces
appear to evoke greater feelings of relaxation in comparison to recreation spaces.
‘Optimism’ helps explain the extent to which the park allows respondents to feel
hopeful and optimistic about the immediate and distant future. General trends in
the graph implicate Pit Stop Park (7.8) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (7.8)
in evoking high levels of optimism in respondents, while Amery Park (6.9) appears to
evoke lower feelings of optimism in comparison to its counterparts. In summary,
nature and sporting spaces appear to have more influence over optimistic feelings in
park users in comparison to recreation spaces.
‘Inspiration’ explains the extent to which park visitors feel mentally stimulated to do
or feel something. Trends in the figure imply that respondents in Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex (7.5) feel strong levels of inspiration, while respondents in Pit Stop
Park (6.7) feel slightly reduced but noticeable levels of inspiration while in that park.
Respondents in Amery Park (5.7) only somewhat feel inspired while in that park.
None the less, trends suggest that while there is a weaker correlation between
feelings of inspiration and all three parks, respondents within sporting spaces
experience more intense feelings of inspiration in comparison to its counterparts.
Figure 33: Levels of Positive Emotions Reported by Respondents while in the Park (Mean Score out of 10)
66
Figure 34 demonstrates the extent to which negative emotions are experienced
within each of the three parks. Negative emotions and feelings illustrated less
correlation with the quality of mental wellbeing in the three parks. The data failed to
produce smooth and singular trends, indicating that internal feelings of negative
emotions varied vastly with each respondent. It also demonstrates that less of a
relationship exists between feelings of negative emotions and parks.
‘Loneliness’ indicates the extent to which as sense of isolation and a lack of strong
and positive friendships is enabled within each park and can also help express how
well the park is a facilitator of forming friendships and connecting individuals to the
landscape and their civic surroundings. Trends suggest that Pit Stop Park (3), Amery
Park (3), and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (3.7) do not enable feelings of
loneliness within respondents.
‘Boredom’ explains the extent to which park visitors are engaged, interested, and
stimulated by their surroundings. While data is spread across the data set, trends
indicate that low levels of boredom are experienced in Pit Stop Park (3.7), Kingsway
Regional Sporting Complex (3.9), and Amery Park (4). In summary, nature, sporting,
and recreation spaces evoke low feelings of boredom in park users.
‘Tiredness’ expresses the level of motivation felt by individuals to actively participate
in park activities, and also the extent to which the park stimulates the mind of the
individual. General trends suggest that Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (4.3),
Amery Park (4.3), and Pit Stop Park (4.3) show a relationship between moderate
feelings of tiredness within that park. While data is spread out across the data set,
general trends shown through the mean scores suggest park users of nature, sport,
and recreation spaces feel moderate levels of tiredness.
67
‘Tenseness’ expresses the extent to which the park enables individuals to relax and
de-‐stress. While Amery Park demonstrates a mean score of 3.8, Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex a mean score 3.3, and Pit Stop Park a mean score of 3.7, the
trends within this graph are irregular and show no noticeable patterns.
4.4.6. The Park as a Mediator of Mental Wellbeing
10 statements were presented to the respondent in which they were required to
report on the accuracy of that statement. The statements explore the extent to
which park users actively visit the park to improve their mental state. The
statements also pose more in-‐depth questions that delve in to how emotions and
feelings mediated within the park. The statements were also used to support the
findings of general thoughts and feelings. Only statements that showed trends are
included in the results.
Figure 35 illustrates the extent to which the park reduces anxiety levels and
increases feelings of relaxation for park visitors. The majority of respondents from
Pit Stop Park (39.1%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (40.9%) stated that
the park ‘mostly always’ helps them reduce feelings of anxiety and increase feelings
Figure 34: Level of Negative Emotions Reported by Respondents while in the Park (Mean Score out of 10)
68
of relaxation. In contrast, the majority of respondents from Amery Park (46.7%)
stated that only ‘occasionally’ feelings of anxiety decline and relaxation levels
increase when visiting that park. Therefore trends in the figure imply that nature and
sporting spaces reduce feelings of anxiety and increase feelings of relaxation more
so than recreation spaces.
Figure 36 explores the extent to which park users are able to forget about negative,
unpleasant, or stressful events and situations in their lives while at the respective
park. The majority of respondents from Amery Park (60%) and Pit Stop Park (39.1%)
stated that this statement was only ‘sometimes true’ for them, while the majority of
respondents from Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (40.1%) stated this was
‘mostly always true’ for them. Trends in the graph therefore suggest that sporting
spaces allow park visitors to escape stressful life situations more so than nature and
recreation spaces.
Figure 35: Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements:
When I Feel Anxious, Visiting this Park Helps Me Relax
69
Figure 37 illustrates the extent to which the respective park increases feelings of
happiness for the park visitor. The majority of respondents in Amery Park (53.3%)
reported that their feelings of happiness only ‘occasionally’ increased when visiting
the park, while an equal percentage of respondents in Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (36.4%). The majority of respondents from Pit Stop Park (50%) stated that
their feelings of happiness ‘mostly always’ increased while in the park. Figure
therefore suggest that feelings of happiness increase more so in nature spaces in
comparison to sporting and recreation spaces.
Figure 36: Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: I am Often Able to Forget about the Burdens of Everyday Life Here
70
Figure 38 demonstrates the extent to which feelings of happiness after visiting the
park are sustained throughout the day. The majority of respondents from both Pit
Stop Park (52.2%) and Amery Park (53.3%) stated that this was only ‘occasionally’
true from them, while the majority of respondents from Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (45.5%) suggested that this was ‘mostly always’ true for them. Trends
therefore suggest that park users in sporting spaces feel sustained levels of
happiness after leaving the park more so than park users in nature and recreation
spaces.
Figure 37: Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: When I Visit this Park, My Feelings of Happiness Increase
Figure 38: Respondents Reporting on the Accuracy of the Following Statements: Even After Leaving this Park, My Feelings of Happiness Remain High for a Long Period of Time
71
Chapter 5: Discussion
This chapter will explore the findings of the study, the interpretations and
significance of the findings, and its implications in the scholarly and practical field of
urban planning. It will address the extent to which nature, sporting, and recreation
spaces can stimulate good quality mental wellbeing within neighbourhoods at a
population level in an attempt to determine what type of space or spaces should be
the focus urban planning professionals, local councils, and state government in
Western Australia.
5.1. Limitations
Firstly, it is appropriate to address the limitations of this study and its significance to
the validity of the research – the most significant being the questionnaire sample
size and composition. The questionnaire surveys obtained a small sample size of 15
in Amery Park, 22 in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and 23 in Pit Stop Park,
and therefore the recommended quota of 30 responses from each park (Denscombe
2010) was not obtained. While the sample size for Amery Park was noticeably lower
in comparison to its counterparts, it represents a third of the total park population
observed over a single day (44 visitors). The length of the survey and activities
undertaken by park users made it difficult to generate a high response rate. Most
park users were constantly on the move, were walking dogs, taking care of children,
or were viewing activities in an intent manner, and therefore did not have the time,
ability, or interest in completing the survey. Future studies should consider
shortening the length of the survey and recruiting a group of participants before the
study commences to ensure that the recommended sample size is met.
In addition the sample size, the gender of recruited participants of the questionnaire
survey was disproportionate. Noticeably more females were surveyed in all three
parks due to involuntary preferences and increased feelings of comfort in
approaching female park users. The small sample size and gender disproportion
reduces the validity of the findings and makes it difficult for results to represent park
users at population level. None the less, the results show noticeable trends and
72
provide empirical evidence for future studies to be undertaken in this field of
research.
Beyond sampling issues, measuring emotions and feelings within the parks as an
indicator of mental wellbeing may also provide limitations. External forces could
impact emotions and feelings of survey respondents, however it was difficult to
measure the extent to which this was correct. As the researcher did not have the
relevant expertise, skills, or training to assess the mental wellbeing of park users
using scientific methods, it was difficult to take external forces in to account when
collecting data. Additionally, it would have required a greater level of ethical
approval that would have been in conflict with the timeframe of the research.
Therefore measuring the emotions and feelings of respondents through
questionnaire surveys was most relevant to the field of research and the researchers
level of expertise, but provides a strong foundation for future studies to be
undertaken in the humanities or science scholarly field.
Lastly, observation results lack precision due to the inability to view the entirety of
the park from any location. The intensity of visitation in Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex also decreased levels of precision in recording park users and the activities
undertaken. However, while lacking some precision, the observations results did
provide a solid foundation about the demographics and use of the park.
5.2. Objective One
To Measure the Quality of Nature, Sport, and Recreation Space Attributes.
The quality of neighbourhood parks, greenspace, and its attributes is deemed a vital
component to stimulating good quality mental wellbeing and psychological health in
the urban population (De Vries et al., 2013; Francis et al., 2012). It was therefore
important to establish the quality of the three case study areas to determine the
validity of this finding and to enrich the findings from the questionnaire and
observational surveys. This objective also helps develop understandings about the
different attributes of nature, sport, and recreation spaces and thus the overall
quality of these parks.
73
While findings from table 1 suggest that all three parks demonstrate a quality
environment, they also suggest that nature (84.07%) and sporting spaces (82.7%) are
of better quality than recreation spaces (71.29%). The table demonstrates that the
sporting and nature space provided an environment that was supportive of healthy
lifestyles (17.4% and 17.04%). The nature space provided a space that was
environmentally sensitive (18.52%), and aesthetically pleasing (17.11%). The sporting
space also performed well under these categories (14.44% and 15.16%), but
exceeded in facilitating a sense of community (15.55%)– the nature space
encouraged a good sense of community but to a lesser standard (13.29%). The
recreation space consistently performed to a lower standard in most categories of
quality, but still provided an aesthetically pleasing environment (16.33%).
While it should be careful not to generalise these findings from a single example of
each type of POS, they nonetheless provide both support and contrasts to the
current research base on POS quality. Firstly, these findings enrich the data from
previous studies such as Francis et al. (2012) who failed to consider variations in
greenspace typologies to assess greenspace quality and its associated mental
wellbeing affects. They also support both Alcock et al. (2015) and Hunter and Luck
(2015) who discovered that urban parks are diverse and contain park characteristics
of varying qualities. While the findings by Francis et al. (2012) are generalised to
represent the importance of park quality on a whole, the current findings provide a
more in depth look at how different park typologies can be of varying quality.
Broadly, the results could suggest that nature and sporting spaces provide a better
quality environment for park users in comparison to recreation spaces. Additionally,
the findings support Hunter and Luck (2015) and Alcock et al. (2015) who suggest
that nature spaces provide good quality biodiversity. In contrast, they challenge
Hunter and Luck (2015), who state that sporting spaces do not incorporate quality
ecological or biodiverse features in to the landscape. Findings from Baur et al. (2015)
and Cloutier, Jennings, and Larson (2016) suggested that urban parks increase
community ownership, a sense of community, and attachments to the
neighbourhood. The current findings suggest that this is true for sporting and nature
spaces, but not for recreation spaces. The findings also support the suggestion of
74
Burgin, Passidi, and Webb (2014), who stated that sporting spaces provide a strong
sense of community through park layout, culture, and activities – but added that
these parks are supportive of healthy lifestyles.
5.3. Objective Two
To Discover the Extent to which Nature, Sport and Recreation Spaces Evoke
Positive and Negative Emotions.
The findings from this study uncovered variations in the emotions and feelings of
park users in nature, sport, and recreation spaces. Figure 33 demonstrates that both
the nature and sporting spaces investigated in the case study stimulated high
feelings of happiness (8.3 and 8.2), positivity (8.1 and 8.5), engagement (7.6 and 7.8),
relaxation (7.7 and 8.1) and optimism (7.8 and 7.8). The nature space also stimulated
high feelings of amusement (7.1), while sporting and recreation spaces stimulated
lower levels of amusement (6 and 5.1). Lastly, the sporting space stimulated high
feelings of inspiration (7.5) while the nature space stimulated moderate feelings of
inspiration (6.7). In all categories of positive emotions, the recreation space was
inferior to its counterparts and only stimulated moderate levels of positive
emotions, while the counterparts stimulated considerable feelings of positive
emotions.
These findings can be directly related to theories underpinning the relationship
between public open space and mental wellbeing. Outlined in Chapter 2 of this
thesis is the biophilia theory and attention restoration theory. As stated by Bird
(2007) the biophilia theory suggests that humans have a natural inclination towards
other living organisms and the natural environment, and that when we are in these
environments we function better and feel more relaxed. The author also discusses
attention restoration theory, which refers to the ability for exposure to good quality
natural environments to help re-‐charge and re-‐focus the brain. The findings from
both the public open space audit and the questionnaire survey provide some initial
support for this theory. Both the sporting and nature spaces provided a quality
environment with greater richness of biodiversity and ecological features (14.44%
and 18.52%), and thus feelings of relaxation (8.1 and 7.7), optimism (7.8 and 7.8),
75
positivity (8.5 and 8.1), and engagement (7.8 and 7.6) were high amongst park users
in these spaces. In contrast, the public open space audit highlighted that the
recreation space did not provide a high quality natural habitat or bio-‐diverse
environment (13.7%) and thus positive emotions were not intensely felt by park
users within the recreation space (Chapter 4, figure 33).
Outlined in Chapter 2 of this thesis is the paradigm of eudaimonism; discussed by
Deci and Ryan (2001) and Sirgy (2012) and that suggests good quality mental
wellbeing is only achieved when an in individual can develop a sense of purpose,
self-‐esteem, and be competent in life. Sirgy (2012) adds that the broaden-‐and-‐build
theory of positive emotions, which is conceptualised under the eudaemonist
paradigm, suggests that experiencing positive emotions builds resilience to stressful
events and increases coping mechanisms. The results from this study suggest that
the nature and sporting space evoke high levels of positive emotions such as
relaxation, optimism, positivity, and engagement – which could suggest these parks
have the potential to stimulate good quality mental wellbeing in park users.
Additionally, the findings suggest that recreation spaces do not stimulate intense
feelings of positive emotions; if this were to be consistent across other recreation
parks, then the potential for this park typology to stimulate good quality mental
wellbeing in the population may be limited. This is in contrast to Peschardt,
Schipperijn and Stigsdotter (2014), who suggested that recreation spaces enabled
park users to relax and de-‐stress.
5.4. Objective Three
To Understand the Demographic Diversity of Each Park and how this Might
Influence its Potential to Improve Mental Wellbeing.
Bell et al. (2014) and Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang (2013) agree that park
design and future policies should not just focus on the physical attributes of parks
but consider more intricate detail such as demographics in order to create a space
that generates psychological benefits for a wide range of the population. It is
therefore necessary to consider the demographic makeup of the population of users
76
of each park in order to fully understand its potential to improve mental wellbeing
across a diverse proportion of the population.
The first demographic point of discussion is that of gender. Results of the
observational survey discovered slightly more park users within the nature space
were female (62.3% to 37.7%), while the sporting space had greater male visitation
(76.1% to 23.9%). The recreation space had more male than female visitors (59.1%
to 40.9%), however to a less degree than the sporting space. While only from three
parks, these findings nonetheless challenge Havitz et al. (2009), who suggested that
women utilise parks more than men because of the tradition that women stay home
and care for children and therefore have more freedom and need to visit the park.
Higher male visitation in sporting spaces may be attributed to more outdoor male-‐
dominated organised sport activities such as rugby and football within these spaces,
in which a large proportion of males both partake and observe these activities.
Sporting spaces may therefore provide opportunities for increased male visitation
and its associated psychological benefits. The findings also suggest that parks are not
a female centric environment, and are highly dependent on the park typology.
Additionally, the findings suggest that different park typologies may not be used
equally according to gender, and a variety of parks typologies and park design may
need to be implemented in neighbourhoods to improve mental wellbeing across
different genders.
Findings from the observations and questionnaires also showed variations in the age
of park visitors to nature, sporting, and recreation spaces. Adults were the most
commonly observed age category in all three parks (recreation space: 72.7%, nature
space: 66%, sporting space: 62%), while the elderly were not commonly observed in
any of the three parks (recreation space: 4.5%, nature space: 3.1%, sporting space:
5.3%). Additionally, while the nature space had the highest proportion of children in
comparison to its counterparts (28.9%), this was still substantially lower than adult
visitation. This is again in contrast to Havitz et al. (2009), who suggested that
middle-‐aged adults use parks less than children and older adults because of work
and personal commitments which require them to travel out of the neighbourhood.
These findings could suggest that all park typologies attract adult visitation, and may
77
therefore be used as a strategy to improve mental wellbeing amongst the adult
population.
Findings also showed that teenagers were present in the sporting space at a
relatively high level (21.2%), but not present in recreation and nature spaces (0% and
1.9%). This supports Edwards et al. (2015), who found that teenagers were more
likely to use the park for physical activity if amenities such as lighting, trees, benches,
tables, and sporting facilities were present. These findings also add to this by
suggesting that teenagers only use parks if sporting facilities and activities are
present, and that teenagers use the park more for sporting rather than recreational
pursuits.
Barclay et al. (2011) noticed that children were more likely to use parks that allowed
for free play and roaming. Again, this study supports this, as it was observed that
more children were present in the nature space, which was designed in a way that
allowed children to explore natural features such as the pond and birdlife. While the
findings are only representative of a single park typology, they could suggest that
nature and sporting spaces target a wider range of age groups such as teenager and
children in comparison to recreation spaces, and may therefore improve the mental
wellbeing of a wider proportion of the population. However future studies should
clarify this link.
5.5. Objective Four
To Explore how Each Park is Currently Used and how this Might Influence
Mental Wellbeing.
Exploring the way in which the parks were used will also help establish the extent to
which the can potentially improve psychological wellbeing for users. Social
interaction and feelings of connectedness are associated with stronger mental
wellbeing (Francis et al. 2012). As such, the current study explored the extent to
which visitors within the park socially interacted with others.
A key finding under this objective was that both the nature and sporting space had
high levels of social interaction (82.3% and 88.9%) and low levels of solitary use
78
(17.7% and 11.1%), while recreation spaces had low levels of social interaction
(34.1%) and high levels of social inactivity (65.9%). These findings enrich those of De
Vries et al. (2013) and Francis et al. (2012), who suggest that parks are a vital
contributor to strengthening social relationships and forming new friendships –
encouraging social cohesion within neighbourhoods through certain features that
allow social contact for brief or extended periods of time. The findings of this study
suggest that sporting and nature spaces are better able to encourage social
interaction and thus increase social cohesion, which could be attributed to the
design and subsequent activities encouraged within these park typologies. However
more research to justify and support this link is required. Additionally, the findings
from this study also suggest that sporting spaces may encourage lengthy park
encounters, while nature spaces may encourage diversity in the length of park
encounters (Chapter 4, figure 23). This could suggest that the length of social
interaction within both of these parks varies, which also enriches the findings from
De Vries et al. (2013). The observed high levels of social activity in the sporting space
also support the findings from Burgin, Passidi, and Webb (2014) who discovered that
residents feel that sporting spaces provide good opportunities for social interaction.
This suggests that the design and subsequent activities undertaken within sporting
spaces allow for social interaction and thus may improve mental wellbeing. These
findings suggest a lesser capacity for recreation spaces to encourage social
interaction amongst park users – in contrast to Peschardt, Schipperijn, and
Stigsdotter (2014) who found that recreation spaces facilitate socialisation and are
popular amongst resident for socialisation purposes. The findings therefore suggest
that sporting and nature spaces may provide more opportunities for social
interaction and its associated mental benefits in comparison to recreation spaces,
however more research to justify this link is required.
This study also investigated the type and range of activities undertaken in each park.
Francis et al. (2010) suggested that larger recreational parks facilitate a wide range
of informal activities and recreational pursuits, and therefore have a greater impact
on the psychological and mental wellbeing of park users. In contrast to their findings,
those of the current study suggest that, in comparison to nature and sporting
79
spaces, recreation parks do not attract a wide range of informal activities (Chapter 4,
figure 25). Additionally, coupled with the findings of lower experiences of positive
emotions and feelings within recreational spaces, the lack of activities and features
encouraged in these spaces may reduce the mental benefits received by park users.
Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and Wang (2013) found that the intensity of park use is an
important consideration for policy makers and urban planners in the development of
parks from a health and wellbeing perspective. This research found that the selected
recreation space lacked intensity and consistency in use throughout the day (Chapter
4, figure 21and 22). The space received low visitation numbers in comparison to its
counterparts (44 visitors), where park users only utilised this space in the early
morning and late afternoon for a small range of activities (Chapter 4, figure 22). In
contrast to the recreation space, the sporting space was intensely used by park
visitors (729 visitors). Additionally, the sporting space was consistently used
throughout the day (Chapter 4, figure 22) for a wider range of activities (Chapter 4,
figure 24 and 25). The nature space was used at varying intensities (Chapter 4, figure
21 and 23) and more consistently throughout the day in comparison to the
recreation space (Chapter 4, figure 22). Following Brown, Mateo-‐Babiano, and
Wang’s (2013) recommendations and the findings from this research, recreation
spaces may not be an appropriate park typology to promote through policy or the
planning profession. Sporting spaces and nature spaces appear to generate more
constancy in park use and may be a more appropriate park typology to implement.
Again, it should however be stressed that these conclusions emerge from the study
of only a single example of each park typology.
5.6. Objective Five
To Identify Attributes and Activities of Open Space that Park Users Value
and how this can Improve Mental Wellbeing.
Determining the specific park attributes and activities that park users value will help
establish a way forward in the development of parks from a health and wellbeing
perspective. Deci and Ryan (2001), and Sirgy (2012) discuss hedonistic wellbeing and
explain that it is only achieved when the individual can decide what improves their
80
own pleasure and happiness. From a hedonist perspective, it is therefore important
that park attributes and activities valued by park users are considered in order to
create a space that enhances hedonist mental wellbeing.
The observations and questionnaire results suggest that sedentary and low intensity
physical activities such as appreciating nature (nature space: 8.2, sporting space:
8.6), de-‐stressing (nature space: 6.9, sporting space: 6.8, recreation space: 6), and
walking (nature space: 7.4, sporting space: 7.4, recreation space: 7.6) are valued by
park users, while high intensity activities such as organised sport are not valued by
park users (nature space: 4.8, recreation space: 3). Additionally, natural features
such as shady trees (nature space: 9, sporting space: 9.4, recreation space: 8.6), large
expanses of grass (nature space: 9.1, sporting space: 8.7, recreation space: 7.7),
walking trails (nature space: 8.5, sporting space: 8, recreation space: 6.2), and
wildlife (nature space: 7.5, sporting space: 7.6, recreation space: 6.5) are more
valued by park users in comparison to hardscape features such as clubrooms (nature
space: 4, sporting space: 5.8, recreation space: 3.3), football posts (nature space: 3.8,
sporting space: 6.1, recreation space: 4.1), and cricket pitches (nature space: 3.8,
sporting space: 3.6, recreation space: 3.5). This supports findings from Peschardt,
Schipperjin, and Stigsdotter (2014) who found that park users valued green
canopies, the presence of green ground cover, and greenery at eye level. It is
however slightly at odds with Burgin, Passidi, and Webb (2014), who suggest that
park users value spaces that have sporting infrastructure for the purpose of sport
and recreation. The paradigm of hedonism, first mentioned in Chapter 2 of this
thesis, suggests that mental wellbeing is affected by pleasure and happiness and
focuses on the individuals own judgement about what makes them feel happy (Sirgy
2012). From a hedonist perspective, these findings suggest that nature spaces are
highly valued by park users in comparison to sporting and recreation spaces, and
may therefore have the ability to improve mental wellbeing at a population level.
There are however some contradictory findings: while positive emotions were
recorded at high levels in sporting spaces, traditional sporting features were valued
to a lesser extent. More research to establish and clarify this link is therefore
required.
81
Another relevant concept for this objective is the enjoyment account, first
mentioned in Chapter 2 of this thesis. As explained by Kawall (1999), the theory
suggests that mental wellbeing is affected only by what the individual is exposed to.
Thus, if something that an individual values is absent from their life, it will reduce the
quality of their mental wellbeing. This theory can be related to the current findings,
which suggest that park users in the nature, sport and recreation space valued
natural features such as shady trees and wildlife. The public open space audit
highlighted that the sport and nature space have good quality biodiversity (14.44%
and 18.52%), while the recreation space contains biodiversity at lower quality
(13.7%). Following the enjoyment account theory, park users in the sporting and
nature space would likely experience positive emotions to a higher standard in
comparison to the recreation space. Figure 33 demonstrates this and shows that
respondents in the nature and sporting space experienced higher feelings of positive
emotions in comparison to the recreation space. Therefore it might be hypothesised
that recreation spaces do not cater to the requirements of the population, and thus
the quality of mental wellbeing is reduced. However more research to clarify this link
is required.
82
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations
While it is important to remember that this study was only based on a single
example of each park, the results of this study suggest that sporting and nature
spaces have an increased ability to improve the mental wellbeing of users of the
park and the community in comparison to recreation spaces. If future studies are
undertaken to clarify this link, sporting and nature spaces should be considered by
local and state government bodies as an appropriate design strategy to improve
community health and mental wellbeing.
Both the nature and sporting space generated high levels of social interaction and
feelings of positive emotions, which are both intrinsically linked to good quality
mental wellbeing. The recreation space generated high levels of solitary use and only
moderate feelings of positive emotions. Both the sporting and nature space were of
good quality and allowed for contact with the environment and community, the
facilitation of healthy lifestyles, and an aesthetically pleasing landscape. The sporting
space appeared to be used heavily throughout the day, which suggests these spaces
are popular for park visitors and may have the potential to reach a wide proportion
of the population. Additionally, the sporting space was used by more teenagers than
any other park, suggesting that this space may be important for this age group to
improve their mental wellbeing. The nature space was used less frequently but
consistently throughout the day and suggests this space can also target a wide range
of the population. This space was also used by more children than any other park
and indicates that this space may be important for children to experience positive
feelings and interact socially with peers. Both the nature and sporting space targeted
different subsets of the population, and therefore future planning could consider the
implementation of both of these spaces in neighbourhoods. Environmental features
such as shady trees, grass, wildlife and walking trails were also considered important
by users of each park, and therefore it may be necessary for future park design to
incorporate these features more thoroughly. The recreation space appeared to be
inconsistently used throughout the day by a limited subset of the population for a
smaller range of activities. This could suggest that these spaces have a reduced
potential to improve the mental wellbeing of park users and the community.
83
While these findings only provide empirical evidence that needs to be clarified and
justified through further research, they will be of interest to a variety of different
groups. Scholars may find this study interesting, as these results have begun to
deconstruct the body of knowledge that currently exists regarding this topic. The
study also has an element of practicality, in which the professional field of urban and
regional planning can begin to adapt and adopt these results if future studies were
undertaken to clarify the links made within this research. Scholars may therefore
wish to replicate this study using a wider selection of parks, or investigate different
avenues such as how different subsets of the population experience positive and
negative emotions within different park typologies. If a wide body of research can be
established regarding the effects of park typologies on the mental wellbeing of park
users and the community, local and state governments such as the Western
Australian Planning Commission, the Department of Planning, and the Department
of Sport and Recreation can begin to refine policies and design parks that will enable
the creation of strong, adaptable, and mentally healthy communities.
84
References
Abbott, M.L., and J. McKinney. 2013. Understanding and Applying Research Design.
New Jersey, U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons
Ackrill, G, C. Clark, H.F. Guite. “The Impact of the Physical and Urban Environment on
Mental Wellbeing.” Public Health 120:1117-‐1126.
DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.005
Ahn, K.H, and C.M. Lee. 2007. “Is Kentland's Better than Radburn?. The American
Garden City and New Urbanist Paradigms.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 69(1): 50-‐71. DOI:10.1080/01944360308976293
Alcock, I., M.H. Depledge., S.L. Higgins., K. Husk., R. Lovell., N.J. Osborne., C.E. Sabel.,
B.W. Wheeler., M.P. White. 2015. “Beyond Greenspace: An Ecological Study of
Population General Health and Indicators of Natural Environment Type and
Quality.” International Journal of Health Geographics 14: 1-‐17. Doi:
10.1186/s12942-‐015-‐0009-‐5
Astell-‐Burt, T, T. Hartig, and R. Mitchell. 2014. “The Association between Green
Space and Mental Health Varies Across the Life Course: A Longitudinal Study.”
Epidemiol Community Health 68: 578-‐583. Doi:10.1136/jech-‐2013-‐203767
Asztalos, M., I.D. Bourdeaudhuji., G. Cardon., W. Duquet., N. Duvigneaud., J.
Lefevre., L. Matton., R. Philippaerts., M. Thomis., and K. Wijndaele. 2009.
“Specific Associations Bteween Types of Physical Activity and Components of
Mental Health.” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 12: 468-‐474. Doi:
10.1016/j.jsams.2008.06.009
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2014. Expenditure on Mental Health
Services. https://mhsa.aihw.gov.au/resources/expenditure/
Badland, H, B. Giles-‐Corti, A.T. Kaczynski, M.J. Koohsari, S. Mavoa, N. Owen, T.
Sugiyama, and K. Villaneuva. 2015. “Public Open Space, Physical Activity, Urban
85
Design and Public Health: Concepts, Methods, and Research Agenda.”Health and
Place 33: 75-‐82. DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.02.009
Badland, H, M. Davern, B. Giles-‐Corti, S. Goldfeld, P. Hooper, M. Koohsari, S. Mavoa,
R. Roberts, and K. Villanueva. 2015. “Developing Indicators of Public Open Space
to Promote Health and Wellbeing in Communities.” Applied Geography 57: 112-‐
119. DOI:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.003
Barclay, G.E, T. Cassidy, C. Freeman, N.J. Rehrer, D.L. Waters, and N. Wilson.
2011.“Through the Eyes of Young People: Favourite Places for Physical Activity.”
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 39: 492-‐500.
DOI:10.1177/1403494811401478
Baur, J.W.R., S. Georgiev., E. Gomez., and E. Hill. 2015. “Urban Parks and
Psychological Sense of Community.” Journal of Leisure Research 47(3): 388-‐398.
ISSN: 0022-‐2216
Bell, S, R. Lovell, C. Phoenix, and B.W. Wheeler. 2014. “Green Space, Health, and
Wellbeing: Making Space for Individual Agency.” Health and Place 30: 287-‐292.
DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.005
Bennet, D, A. Buckley, P. Dzidic, R. Jones, I. Middle, and M. Tye. “Integrating
Community Gardens into Public Parks: An Initiative Approach for Providing
Ecosystem Service in Urban Areas.” Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 13: 638-‐
645. DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.001
Bergland, P.A., S.G. Heeringa., and B.T. West. 2010. Applied Survey Data Analysis.
London, U.K: Chapman & Hall.
Besenyi, G.M., A.T. Kaczynski., and S.A.W. Stanis. 2012. “Development and Testing
of Community Stakeholder Park Audit Tool.” American Journal of Preventative
Medicine 42(3): 242-‐249. Doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.018
Bird, W. 2007. Natural Thinking: Investigating the Links the Natural Environment,
Biodiversity, and Mental Health. London, U.K.: Royal Society for the Protection of
86
Birds.
Boarnet, M. G., K. Day., A. Forsyth., and M. Oakes. 2011. “ The Street Level Built
Environment and Physical Activity and Walking: Results of a Predictive Validity
Study for the Irvine Minnesota Inventory.” Environment and Behaviour 43(6): 735-‐
775. Doi: 10.1177/0013916510379760
Boarnet, M.G. “About This Issue: Planning's Role in Building Healthy Cities: An
Introduction to the Special Issue.” Journal of the American Planning Association
72(1): 5-‐9. DOI:10.1080/01944360608976719
Bostock, S., N. Ellis., and C.J. Gidlow. 2012. “Development of a Neighbourhood
Greenspace Tool (NGST).” Landscape and Urban Planning 106: 347-‐358. Doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.007
Bourque, L.B., and V.A. Clarke. 1992. Processing Data. Newberry Park, C.A: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Broomhall, M.H., C. Collins., R.J. Donovan., K. Douglas, B. Giles-‐Corti., M. Knuiman.,
A. Lange., and K. Ng. 2005. “Increasing Walking: How Importance is Distance to,
Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space?” American Journal of Preventative
Medicine 28: 169-‐176. Doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.018
Brown, G., I. Mateo-‐Babiano., and D. Wang. 2013. “Rethinking Accessibility in
Planning of Urban Open Space Using and Integrative Theoretical Framework.” In
the State of Australian Cities Conference: Refereed Proceedings of a National
Conference Held in Sydney, New South Wales, 26-‐29 November 2013, edited by
Kristian Rumming, Bill Randolph, and Nicole Gurran, 1-‐11. Brisbane, Q.L.D.: State
of Australian Cities Research Network.
Bull, F., R.J. Donovan., B. Giles-‐Corti., K. Jamrozik., M. Knuiman., and T.J. Pikora.
2002. “Developing a Reliable Audit Instruments to Measure the Physical
Environment for Physical Activity.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine
23(3): 187-‐194. Doi: 10.1016/S0749-‐3797(02)00498-‐1
87
Burgin, S, C. Parissi, and T. Webb. 2014. “The Unintended Consequences of
Government Policies and Programmes for Public Open Spaces in Inner-‐Urban
Sydney.”International Journal of Environmental Studies 71(2): 154-‐166.
DOI:10.1080/00207233.2014.896185
Cloutier, S.A., V. Jennings., and L.R. Larson. 2016. “Public Parks and Wellbeing in
Urban Areas of the United States.” Plos One 11(4): 1-‐19. Doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0153211
Converse, J.M., and S. Presser. 1986. Survey Questions. Thousand Oaks, C.A: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Cousin, G. 2005. “Case Study Research.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education
29(3): 421-‐427. Doi: 10/1080/03098260500290967
Coutts, C, R. Miles, and A. Mohamadi. 2011. “Neighbourhood Urban Form, Social
Environment, and Depression.” Journal of Urban Health 89(1): 1-‐18.
DOI:10.1007/s11524-‐011-‐9621-‐2
Creswell. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. California, U.S.A.: SAGE Publications.
Cybriwsky, R. 1999. “Changing Patterns of Urban Space: Observations and
Assessments from the Tokyo and New York Metropolitan Areas.” Cities 16(4):
223-‐231. DOI:10.1016/S0264-‐2751(99)00021-‐9
De Vries, S, A. Van Herzele. 2012. “Linking Green space to Health: A Comparative
Study of Two Urban Neighbourhoods in Ghent, Belgium.” Population Environment
34: 171-‐193. DOI:10.1007/s11111-‐011-‐0153-‐1
De Vries, S, P.P. Groenewegan, P. Spreeuwenberg, and S.M.E. Van Dillen. 2013.
“Streetscape Greenery and Health: Stress, Social Cohesion and Physical Activity as
Mediators.” Social Sciences and Medicine 94: 26-‐33.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030
88
Deci, E.L, and R.M. Ryan. 2001. “On Happiness and Human Potentials: A Review of
Research on Hedonic and Eudaimonic Well-‐Being.” Annual Reviews of Psychology
52: 141-‐166. DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141
Denscombe, M. 2010. The Good Research Guide: For Small-‐Scale Social Research
Projects. Berkshire, U.K: Open University Press.
Diaz de Rada, V., and J.A. Dominiguez-‐Alvarez. “Response Quality of Self-‐
Administered Questionnaires: A Comparison Between Paper and Web
Questionnaires.” Social Science Computer Review 32(2): 256-‐269. Doi:
10.1177/0894439313508516
Dufour, S., D. Fortin, and J. Hamel. 1993. Case Study Methods. Newberry Park, C.A:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
Edwards, N, S. Foster, B. Giles-‐Corti, and M. Knuiman. 2015. International Journal of
Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 12(21): 1-‐10. DOI:10.1186/s12966-‐
015-‐0178-‐4
Edwards, N., P. Hooper. 2012. Public Open Space Desktop Audit Tool (POSDAT) Part
2: Auditor’s Manual. Centre for the Built Environment and Health.
Ellis, C. 2002. “The New Urbanism: Critiques and Rebuttals.” Journal of Urban Design
7(3): 261-‐291. DOI:10.1080/1357480022000039330
Engelhard, S., S. Fitzgerald., B. Giles-‐Corti., D. Honeysett., A.J. Milat., J. Stubbs., and
P. Weston. 2001. “Methodological considerations when conducting direct
observation in an outdoor environment: our experience in local parks.” Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 25(2): 149-‐151. Doi: 10.1111/j.1753-‐
6405.2001.tb01837.x
Evenson, K.R, A. Khattak, and D.A. Rodriguez. “Can New Urbanism Encourage
Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighbourhood with Conventional
Suburbs.” Journal of the American Planning Association 72(1): 43-‐54.
DOI:10.1080/01944360608976723
89
F.J. Fowler. 2009. Survey Research Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, C.A: SAGE
Publications.
Finlay, J, T. Franke, H. McKay, and J. Sims-‐Gould. 2015. “Therapeutic Landscapes
and Wellbeing Later in Life: Impacts of Blue and Green Spaces for Older Adults.”
Health and Place 34: 97-‐106. DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.05.001
Fiorito, E., B.D. Losito., M.A. Miles., R.F. Simons., R.S. Ulrich., and M. Zelson. 1991.
“Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 11:201-‐230. Doi: 10.1016/s0272-‐4944(05)80184-‐7
Fisher, E.B., N.J. Owen., and J.F. Sallis. 2008. Ecological Models of Health Behaviour:
Health Behaviour and Health Education Theory, Research, and Practice. San
Fransisco, C.A: Jossey-‐Bass.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case Study Research.” Qualitative
Inquiry 12(2): 219-‐245. Doi: 10.1177/1077800405284363
Francis, J, B. Giles-‐Corti, M. Knuiman, and L. Wood. 2012. “Creating a Sense of
Community: The Role of Public Space.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 32:
401-‐409. DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
Francis, J, B. Giles-‐Corti, M. Knuiman, and L.J. Wood. 2012. “Quality or Quantity?
Exploring the Relationship between Public Open Space Attributes and Mental
Health in Perth, Western Australia.” Social Sciences and Medicine 74: 1570-‐1577.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032
Francis, J, B. Giles-‐Corti, M. Knuiman, and L.J. Wood. 2012. “Quality or Quantity?
Exploring the Relationship between Public Open Space Attributes and Mental
Health in Perth, Western Australia.” Social Sciences and Medicine 74: 1570-‐1577.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.032
Francis, J, B. Giles-‐Corti, N.J. Middleton, N. Owen, and T. Sugiyama. 2010.
“Associations between Recreational Walking and Attractiveness, Size, and
90
Proximity of Neighbourhood Open Spaces.” American Journal of Public Health
100(9): 1752-‐1757. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2009.182006
Frank, G, J. Sundquist, and K. Sundquist. 2004. “Urbanisation and Incidence of
Psychosis and Depression.” British Journal of Psychiatry 184: 293-‐298. ISSN:
1472-‐1465
Fry, G, C.M. Hagerhall, T. Hartig, and H. Nordh. 2013. “Components of Small Urban
Parks that Predict the Possibility for Restoration.” Urban Forestry and Greening 8:
225-‐235. DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003
Gallhofer, I.N., and W.E. Saris. 2007. Design, Evaluation, and Analysis of
Questionnaires for Survey Research. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Geyer, H.S. 2007. International Handbook of Urban Policy. Northampton, M.A:
Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Gideon, L. 2012. Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. New
York, N.Y: Springer.
Gillham, B. 2010. Case Study Research Methods. London, U.K: Continuum
International Publishing.
Grose, M.J. 2009. “Changing Relationships in Public Open Space and Private Open
Space in Suburbs in South-‐Western Australia.” Landscape and Urban Planning 92:
53-‐63. DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.02.006
Hakemulder, F., W. Van Peer., and S. Zyngier. 2012. Scientific Methods for the
Humanities. Amsterdam, N.L.D: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hartig, T, H. Staats, and A.E. Van Den Berg. 2007. “Preference for Nature in
Urbanised Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability.”
Journal of Social Issues 63(1): 79-‐96. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-‐4560.2007.00497
Havitz, M.E, A.T. Kaczynski, L.R. Potwarka, and B.J.A. Smale. 2009. “Associations of
Parkland Proximity with Neighbourhood and Park-‐based Physical Activity
91
Variations by Gender and Age.” Leisure Sciences 31:174-‐191.
DOI:10.1080/01490400802686045
Hebbert, M. 2008. “Re-‐enclosure of the Urban Picturesque: Green-‐space
Transformations in the Postmodern Urbanism.” The Town Planning Review 79(1):
31-‐59. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40112746
Hedgecock, D. 2012. Public Open Space: Part 1-‐Public Open Space Issues and
Challenges. Perth, W.A. City of South Perth.
Heerwagen, J.H., S.R. Kellert., and M.L. Mador. 2009. “Biophilic Design: The Theory,
Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life: Book Review.” Landscape and
Urban Planning 93: 262-‐265. Doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.09003
Hickman, C. 2013. “To Brighten the Aspects of our Streets and Increase the Health
and Enjoyment of our City’: The National Health Society and Urban Green Space
and the Late-‐Nineteenth Century London.” Landscape and Urban Planning
118:112-‐119. DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.007
Hunter, A.J., and G.W. Luck. 2015. “Defining and Measuring the Socio-‐Ecological
Quality of Urban Greenspace: A Semi-‐Systematic Review.” Urban Ecosystems 18:
1139-‐1163. Doi: 10.1007/s11252-‐015-‐0456-‐6
Irvin, A. 1993. “The Modern/Postmodern Divide and Urban Planning.” University of
Toronto Quaterly 62(4): 474-‐487. ISSN: 0042-‐0247
Kaczynski, A.T, and K.A. Henderson. 2007. “Environmental Correlates of Physical
Activity: A Review of Evidence about Parks and Recreation.” Leisure Sciences
29:315-‐354. DOI:10.1080/01490400701394865
Kaplan, S. 1995. “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative
Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 169-‐182. Doi:
10.1016/0272-‐4944(95)90001-‐2
Kawall, J. 1999. “The Experience Machine and Mental State Theories of Well-‐
Being.” The Journal of Value Inquiry 33: 381-‐387. DOI:10.1023/A:1004557501837
92
Korpela, K.M, T.P. Pasanen, and L. Tyrvainen. 2014. “The Relationship between
Perceived Health and Physical Activity Indoors, Outdoors in Built Environments,
and Outdoors in Nature.” Applied Psychology 6(3): 324-‐346.
DOI:10.1111/aphw.12031
Lapping, M.B, and E.D. Richert. 1998. “Ebenezer Howard and the Garden City.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 64(2): 125-‐127.
DOI:10.1080/01944369808975966
Lemmens, Bert, Maarten Mesman, Wido Quist, and Dirk van den Heuvel. 2008.
“Healthy Bodies, Healthy Minds: Everyday Modernism in Australian Suburban
Communities.” The Challenge of Change: Dealing with the Legacy of the Modern
Movement. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press BV.
Lewis, J., J. Ritchie. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students and Researchers. London, U.K: SAGE Publications.
MacMaster, N. 1990. “The Battle for Mousehold Health 1857-‐1884 “Popular
Politics” and the Victorian Public Park.” Past and Present 127: 117-‐154. URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/650944
Madanipour, A. 1999. “Why are the Design and Development of Public Spaces
Significant for Cities?.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26(6):
879-‐891. DOI: 10.1068/b260879
Mars, H., and T.L. Mckenzie. 2015. “Top 10 Research Questions Related to Assessing
Physical Activity and Its Contexts Using Systematic Observation.” Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86(1): 13-‐29. Doi:
10.1080/02701367.2015.991264
Merriam, S. B. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
San Francisco, C.A: Jossey-‐Bass.
Meyer, C.B. 2001. “A Case Study in Methodology.” Field Methods 13(4): 329-‐352.
http://edocs.library.curtin.edu.au/eres_display.cgi?url=DC65089579.pdf
93
Middle, G, and M, Tye. 2010. Emerging Constraints for Public Open Space in Perth
Metropolitan Suburbs: Implications of Bush Forever, Water Sensitive Urban Design
and Liveable Neighbourhoods for Active Sport and Recreation. Perth, W.A.:
Centre for Sport and Recreation Research.
Middle, G. 2012. “Public Open Space as a Diminishing Resource Under threat from
New Planning Policies.” Australasian Parks and Leisure 15(2): 28-‐29. ISSN: 1446-‐
5604
Mitchell, R. 2013. “Is Physical Activity in Natural Environments Better for Mental
Health than Physical Activity in Other Environments?”Social Science and Medicine
91: 130-‐134. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.012
Paden, R. 2003. “Marxism, Utopianism, and Modern Urban Planning,” Utopian
Studies 14(1): 82-‐111. ISSN: 1045991X
Peschardt, K.K, J. Schipperijn, and U.K. Stigsdotter. 2014. “Identifying Features of
Pocket Parks that may be related to Health Promotion Use.” Landscape Research:
1-‐16. DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2014.894006
Peterson, A.J. 1985. “The Evolution of Public Open Space in American Cities.”
Journal of Urban History 12(1): 75-‐88. DOI:10.1177/009614428501200104
Profile.id. 2016. City of Wanneroo Community Profile. Profile.id. Accessed May 10.
http://profile.id.com.au/wanneroo
Przybyiski, A.K., R.M. Ryan., N. Weinstein. 2009. “ Can Nature Make Us More
Caring? Effects of Immersion in Nature on Intrinsic Aspirations and Generosity.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35(10):1315-‐1329. Doi:
10.1177/0146167209341649
Randrup, T.B, J. Troelsen, J. Schipperijn, and U.K. Stigsdotter. 2010. “Influences on
the Use of Urban Green Space -‐ A Case Study in Odense, Denmark.” Urban
Forestry and Greening 9: 25-‐32. DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.09.002
94
Scholz, R.W., and O. Tietje. 2002. Embedded Case Study Methods. Thousand Oaks,
C.A: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Shultis, J, and K. Stack. 2013. “Implications of Attention Restoration Theory for
Leisure Planners and Managers.” Leisure/Loisir 37(1): 1-‐16.
DOI:10.1080/14927713.2013.776747
Silva, C.N. 2003. “Urban Utopias in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of Urban
History 29(3): 327-‐332. ISSN: 00961442
Stake. R. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research: Data Collection. Thousand Oaks, C.A:
SAGE Publications.
Walliman, N. 2006. Social Research Methods. London, U.K: SAGE Publications.
World Health Organisation. 2012. Mental Health Action Plan 2013-‐2020. Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organisation.
95
Appendices
Appendix 1: Weekly Household Income in Banksia Grove 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
Appendix 2: Weekly household income in Madeley 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
96
Appendix 3: Weekly household income in Hocking 2011
Appendix 4: Qualification level of residents in Banksia Grove 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
(Profile.Id 2011)
97
Appendix 5: Qualification level of residents in Madeley 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
Appendix 6: Qualification level of residents in Hocking 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
98
Appendix 7: Dwelling structure in Banksia Grove 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
Appendix 8: Dwelling structure in Madeley 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
99
Appendix 9: Dwelling structure in Hocking 2011
(Profile.Id 2011)
Appendix 10: Aerial image of Pit Stop Park in Banksia Grove
(Google Earth 2016)
100
Appendix 11: Aerial Image of Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex in Madeley
Appendix 12: Aerial image of Amery Park in Hocking
(Google Earth 2016)
(Google Earth 2016)
101
Appendix 13: Public open space auditing tool
v Auditor:
v Date:
v Time:
v Park Type:
v Park Name:
v Size (ha):
v Suburb:
v Frequency of Use
Marking Scale (Please circle one): (Very poor) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Very good)
SUPPORTIVE OF HEALTHY LIFESTYLES (20%)
Presence of sporting facilities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quality of sporting facilities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Opportunity for multiple uses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Opportunity for self reflection: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of play equipment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quality of park furniture: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score:
BIODIVERSITY (20%)
Presence of wildlife: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of vegetation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Quality of vegetation: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Diversity of habitats: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Ability for contact with nature: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Environmentally respectful design: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score:
COMMUNITY LIVELIHOOD (17.5%)
Presence of lighting: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
102
Feelings of safety: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of passive surveillance: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Absence of undesirable behaviour: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Feelings of community ownership: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Connection with community facilities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score:
AESTHETICS (17.5%)
Presence of litter: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of vandalism: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Maintenance of park facilities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Attractiveness of park amenities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Maintenance of weeds/overgrowth: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score:
AMENITY (15%)
Presence and quality of public toilets: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence and quality of BBQ facilities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of shaded areas: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of benches and tables: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence and quality of internal pathways: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score:
ACCESSIBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY (10%)
Provision and quality of cycle paths: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Provision and quality of pedestrian walkway 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Proximity to public transport: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Presence of parking bays: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Accessibility for the disabled: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Location within neighbourhood: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total score: Total weighted score: FINAL SCORE:
103
Appendix 14: Observational Survey Forms
104
Appendix 15: Observational Survey Excel Spread-‐Sheet Tally
105
Appendix 16: Questionnaire Survey
v Administrator
v Date
v Time
v Park Type
v Park Name
v Suburb
I have received information regarding this research and had an opportunity to ask questions. I believe I understand the purpose, extent and possible risks of my involvement in this project and I voluntarily consent to take part.
PART A: BASIC INFORMATION
1. Gender Male Female
3. Occupation (Please circle the category that best fits your occupation)
Manager Professional Technician and trade Worker
Community and personal service
worker
Clerical and administrative
worker
Sales worker Machinery operator and
driver
Labourer
Homemaker Unemployed Other (Please State):
2. Age 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-59 60-69 70-84 85+
I am an Honours Student studying Urban and Regional Planning within the Humanities Department at Curtin University. I am administering surveys in parks within the City of Wanneroo to understand what types of public open spaces are better for stimulating good quality mental wellbeing, where individuals have an improved ability to concentrate on important tasks, meaningfully contribute to the local community, cope with everyday stresses, and recognise their own potential.
The survey will ask questions that help me gain a more in depth understanding of how people experience and feel when visiting the respective park. It will also ask questions about how you use the park and the perceived mental benefits you receive from visiting this location.
106
4. Why did you visit this park?
5. Overall, how satisfied with this park are you?
6. How often do you visit this park?
a. Couple of times a day
b. Once a day c. Couple of times a week
d. Once a week
e. Couple of times a month
f. Once every few months
g. First time visitor
7. On average, how long do you spend here?
Very unsatisfied
1
Unsatisfied
2
Neither
3
Satisfied
4
Very Satisfied
5
a. Personal exercise
b. Recreation c. Organised sports
d. Relaxation
e. Socialisation f. Fresh air g. Experience nature
h. Exercise dog
i. Entertain children
j. Other (please state):
a. 0-15 min b. 15-30 min c. 30 min-1hr
d. 1hr-1.5hrs e. 1.5 hrs-2hrs f. 2hrs +
107
PART B: GENERAL THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS
8. Over the last few weeks, you’ve been:
PART C: THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS IN THE PARK
9. On a scale of 1 to 10, (1 being associated with low levels of the feeling and 10 being associated with high levels of the feeling), when you visit this park you feel:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Happy
Engaged
Tired
Positive
Bored
Amused
Relaxed
Optimistic
Inspired
Tense
Energetic
Lonely
Never 1
Rarely 2
Sometimes 3
Often 4
Always 5
Feeling optimistic about the future
Feeling useful
Feeling tense
Coping well with challenges
Thinking clearly
Feeling connected to others
Feeling indecisive
108
10. How accurate are these statements:
a. When I feel anxious, visiting this park helps me relax:
Never
1
2
Occasionally
3
4
Always
5
b. I am unable to relieve lots of stress within this park:
Not True
1
2
Sometimes True
3
4
True
5
c. I am often able to forget about the burdens of everyday life here:
Not True
1
2
Sometimes True
3
4
True
5
d. When I visit this park, my feelings of happiness increase:
Never
1
2
Occasionally
3
4
Always
5
e. Even after leaving the park, my feelings of happiness remain high for a long period of time:
Never
1
2
Occasionally
3
4
Always
5
f. I have visited this park before to de-stress from the events of the day:
Never
1
2
Occasionally
3
4
Always
5
g. When I’ve visited this park I’ve felt a greater sense of belonging and inclusion in the community:
Not True
1
2
Sometimes True
3
4
True
5
H. I find myself worrying about other things while at this park:
Never
1
2
Occasionally
3
4
Always
5
PART D: VALUES
11. Please rank the following park activities from 1 to 10 according to your own personal values, 1 being the least important and 10 being the most important:
109
a. Self reflection
b. Socialising with friends
c. Forming new friendships
d. Walking
e. Cycling
f. Organised sport
g. Reading
h. Writing
i. De-stressing
j. Appreciating nature
k. Other: please state and rank
12. Out of the above activities, which activity do you value the most:
13. Using the activity you just selected, please rank the following park features from 1 to 10, 1 being unimportant and 10 being extremely important:
a. Shady Trees
b. Water features
c. Large expanses of grass
d. Wildlife
e. Football Posts
f. Cricket Pitch
g. Tennis Court
h. Seating
I. Playground
j. Tables
k. BBQ
l. Bike Path
m. Walking Trail
n. Untouched Scrubland
o. Club rooms
p. Public toilets
q. Other
110
Appendix 17: Age bracket of survey respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park
111
While a wide range of age groups were reached in the survey process, noticeably
more 25-‐34 year olds and 35-‐49 years olds were surveyed in Pit Stop Park (39.1%
and 34.8%), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (22.7% and 45.5%) and Amery Park
(40% and 26.7%). A higher proportion of 18 to 24 year olds were surveyed in Amery
Park (20%) in comparison to Pit Stop Park (8.7%) and Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (4.5%). A low proportion of survey respondents in Kingsway Regional
Sporting Complex (4.5%) and Amery Park (6.7%) were aged between 70 and 84,
while Pit Stop Park had no survey respondents in this age bracket. Additionally, no
respondents from any of the parks were aged 85+. This supports the findings from
the observational surveys, where an exceedingly low proportion of observed park
users were old aged which reduced the probability of this age group being reached
in the survey process.
Appendix 18: Professional status of survey respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park
112
In Pit Stop Park (34.8%), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (31.8%) and Amery
Park (20%), professionals were surveyed at a higher percentage than any other
employment category. Homemakers were also commonly surveyed in Pit Stop Park
(17.4%), Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (18.2%) and Amery Park (13.3%). A
significantly greater proportion of “clerical and administrative workers” were
surveyed in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (22.7%) in comparison to Pit Stop
Park (4.3%) and Amery Park (6.3%). A greater proportion of “technician and trade
workers” and the “unemployed” were surveyed at Amery Park (13.3% and 20%)
while slightly higher proportions of “retirees” were surveyed at Pit Stop Park (13%).
113
Appendix 19: Purpose of visitation of respondents in Pit Stop Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park
Pit Stop Park and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex demonstrated more diversity
in purpose of visitation in comparison to Amery Park. This indicates that Amery Park
presented less opportunity for a wide range of potential park activities to be
undertaken. Organised Sports was the most popular activity undertaken within
Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (23.3%), while no respondents from the other
two parks selected this category. Relaxation was the second most selected category
in Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (16.3%). Exercising the Dog was the most
popular activity nominated in Amery Park (35.3%), which is considerably higher than
the percentages for Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex (3.4%) and Pit Stop Park
(10%). Entertaining Children a popular activity selected by respondents in Pit Stop
Park (42.5%) and Amery Park (29.4%), but not in Kingsway Regional Sporting
Complex (5%).
114
Appendix 20: Respondents’ frequency of visitation to Pit Stop
Park, Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex, and Amery Park
The figure above demonstrates that Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and Amery
Park attract higher levels of frequent and repeated visitation amongst park users,
while Pit Stop Park generates less frequency is park use amongst individuals. This
shows a trend towards Amery Park and Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex having
a high frequency of repeated visitation while nature spaces having a low frequency
of repeated visitation.