Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Users’ perceptions of the relative importance of different functions and attributes of neighbourhood… Joardar, Souro Dyuti 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A6_7 J62_7.pdf [ 8.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093244.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093244-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093244-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093244-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093244-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093244-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093244-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093244-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093244.ris

Full Text

USERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AND ATTRIBUTES OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS. by SOURODYUTI JOARDAR M.C.P., Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in the Department of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standyarjtl THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1975 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u lfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t fr e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission Department of COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date APRIL 1975 - i -USERS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AND ATTRIBUTES OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS. (ABSTRACT) This thesis enquires into users' perceptions of the various possible roles of neighbourhood parks and open spaces. The pr e v a i l i n g approach to neighbourhood park planning, based primarily on professional value judgements has often led to lack of appreciation of the present neighbour-hood parks by the residents. Further understanding of the residents' perception of the r e l a t i v e importance of the d i f f e r e n t functions of neighbourhood parks i s , therefore, necessary f o r successful future planning and design of these areas. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s study compares the preference of the teenage and adult residents l i v i n g i n low income areas of Vancouver for various active vs. passive types of recreation. I t also compares the perceived importance of various physical attributes of parks associated with t h e i r active and passive recreational use q u a l i t i e s as w e l l as t h e i r environmental amenity values. The investigations were made through a residence-based questionnaire survey around three parks of ten to f i f t e e n acres located i n low income neighbourhoods i n Vancouver. The parks were d i f f e r e n t i n terms of l e v e l of f a c i l i t i e s and landscape character. A c t i v i t y preferences were measured through the expressed popularity and frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y i n the selected parks as w e l l as i n a hypothetical i d e a l neighbourhood park perceived by the respondents. The park attributes were compared through the expressed importance of these attributes for a hypothetical Ideal park and by the correlations between the perceived quality of these attributes of the selected parks and the o v e r a l l impression and use of these parks. The effects of distance from the park on park use and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the di f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s were also analyzed. Among the s i x a c t i v i t i e s studied, walking for pleasure was found to be the most preferred one. The expressed l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the selected a c t i v i t i e s favoured the passive than the active types of recreation. Moreover, the ov e r a l l impression and use of the selected parks were found to correlate more strongly with the perceived scenic value, auditory, shade and privacy q u a l i t i e s of these parks than with the f a c i l i t i e s for active games and sports. Among the selected parks, the one less oriented to games and sports f a c i l i t i e s but ri c h e r i n terms of environmental q u a l i t i e s was found to be comparatively preferred to the one designed only f o r active recreation. Several demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with a c t i v i t y preferences. Distance from the parks showed s i g n i f i c a n t negative effects on the l e v e l of use, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n many a c t i v i t i e s and o v e r a l l image of the selected parks. Examples of public parks and open spaces designed s o l e l y as p l a y f i e l d s are not too few i n our c i t i e s . The findings of t h i s study suggest that keeping i n mind the need for multiple use planning, neighbourhood parks suitably landscaped to provide passive recreational opportunity and functioning as resource materials towards the ambient q u a l i t y of the r e s i d e n t i a l m i l i e u are l i k e l y to generate greater public appreciation than areas developed s o l e l y for active games and sports. Other implications of the findings and suggestions for further research have been discussed i n the concluding chapter. - i i i -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. W.E. Rees and Dr. Peter J. Dooling, my advisers, for t h e i r stimulating guidance and encouragement throughout the entire project. I also wish to express my sincere appreciation to a l l those who aided i n the course of t h i s research. Dr. Michael Seelig provided h e l p f u l advice during the planning stages. Thanks are also due to Tirthenkar Bose for his assistance, L i l i a n for typing and to my wife Anuradha for her assistance and encouragement. I am most grateful to the Government of Canada f o r providing me with the opportunity of pursuing studies i n Canada with a Commonwealth Scholarship. - iv -TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ± ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES i x LIST OF PLATES x CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1 NEED FOR THE STUDY 2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 6 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 13 REFERENCES 16 CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 21 SURVEY DESIGN 21 Method 21 Selection of Setting 22 Procedure of Measurement of Relative Importance 24 The Survey Questionnaire 28 Sampling Procedure 28 Collection of Data 31 STATISTICAL PROCEDURE 31 REFERENCES 34 - v -Page CHAPTER I I I : DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 36 DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PARKS 36 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 44 LANDUSE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 49 CHAPTER IV: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 50 RELATIVE PREFERENCE FOR THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES, FUNCTIONS AND ATTRIBUTES 50 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Different Recreation a c t i v i t i e s 50 Relationships between Demographic Characteristics and A c t i v i t y Preference 55 Perceived Importance of the Different Attributes for a Hypothetical Ideal Park Situation 61 The Role of the Different Attributes i n the Perception of the Sample Parks i n the Study Area 64 Comparison of the Perception of Each Selected Park 6 8 THE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE ON PARK USE AND PARTICIPATION 70 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 APPENDIX A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 90 B. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE 97 C. DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC SUBCLASSES IN THE RESPONSE 98 D. FREQUENCY SCALE FOR VISIT TO PARK AND PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES 100 - vi -Page APPENDIX E. AGE AND SEX SPECIFIC PREFERENCES FOR THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES UNDER A HYPOTHETICAL IDEAL PARK CONDITION 101 F. AGE SPECIFIC PARTICIPATION IN THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES IN THE SAMPLE PARKS 102 G. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS GIVING RANKS TO THE ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES 103 H. MAP OF VANCOUVER CITY 104 I. PROCEDURE FOR COMPARING PARK FUNCTION, ACTIVITY AND ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES. 105 - v i i -LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I INDICES FOR COMPARING ATTRIBUTE; FUNCTION AND 26 ACTIVITY VARIABLES I I STUDY OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURE VS. THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 28 I I I DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE PARKS 37 IV SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE PARKS 45 V INCOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA 46 VI LEVEL OF EDUCATION 47 VII OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS 48 VIII HYPOTHETICAL PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES 51 IN AN IDEAL PARK IX ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES IN THE 52 STUDY AREA X HYPOTHETICAL ACTIVITY PREFERENCES OF RESPONDENTS 54 OF EACH SERVICE AREA XI AGE IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION 55 IN ACTIVITIES XII AGE IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO THE 56 PARKS XIII AGE OF FIRST CHILD (OF THE RESPONDENTS) IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION IN 58 ACTIVITIES XIV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS RANKING THE PARK FUNCTIONS 59 XV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING THE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF EACH ATTRIBUTE FOR A HYPOTHETICAL 62 IDEAL PARK XVI ATTRIBUTES AS CORRELATES OF GENERAL IMAGE OF THE 65 SAMPLE PARKS XVII ATTRIBUTES AS CORRELATES OF FREQUENCY OF VISIT 67 TO THE PARKS - v i i i -TABLE Page XVIII COMPARISON OF USE AND PERCEPTION OF THE SAMPLE 69 PARKS XIX DISTANCE FROM PARK VS. FREQUENCY OF VISIT 71 XX SECTORAL DIFFERENCES IN FREQUENCY OF VISIT FROM THE FAR ZONES 72 XXI PARTICIPATION IN THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES VS. DISTANCE FROM THE PARKS 73 - ix -LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 THE ARRAY OF PARK ATTRIBUTE AND FUNCTION VARIABLES STUDIED 8 2 ZONE WISE DIVISION OF SERVICE AREA OF PARKS (Renfrew: a t y p i c a l example) 30 3 AGE SPECIFIC ACTIVITY PREFERENCE FOR A HYPOTHETICAL IDEAL NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK 57 - x -LIST OF PLATES PLATES Page 1 A VIEW OF THE ROLLING WESTERN SECTION OF CLARK PARK 38 2 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTH FROM CLARK PARK 38 3 A VIEW TOWARDS THE EAST FROM CLARK PARK 40 4 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST FROM CLARK PARK 40 5 EASTERN EDGE OF CLARK PARK 41 6 WESTERN SECTION OF RENFREW PARK 41 7 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTH FROM RENFREW PARK 42 8 THE 22nd AVENUE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PERIPHERY OF RENFREW PARK 42 9 A TYPICAL VIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND BUILDINGS AROUND RENFREW PARK 43 10 A GENERAL VIEW OF GORDON PARK ' 43 11 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTH FROM GORDON PARK 43a 12 A TYPICAL VIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND BUILDINGS AROUND GORDON PARK 43a - 1 -CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Parks and open spaces should perform a useful function i n the r e s i d e n t i a l areas of c i t i e s . Indeed the rationale for providing urban parks and open spaces stems from the wide range of functions they are t h e o r e t i c a l l y capable of serving. Nevertheless an understanding of the community's perception of the role and u t i l i t y of l o c a l parks has r a r e l y contributed to the planning for these areas. Presumably on the basis of such an understanding, we might formulate a more successful concept of planning and design better t a i l o r e d to the s o c i a l and physical needs of the community. In the broadest sense t h i s thesis i s an attempt to determine what "residents" expect of l o c a l parks and open spaces; i . e . , to determine what kind of parks and open space environments they would prefer to have i n t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l milieu. The study focusses on neXghbouJihood pculki and open ipacu of small to medium sizes of the type defined by the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board (1966) as being located at the centre of a neighbourhood, having a service radius of h to % mile and mainly providing f a c i l i t i e s for active outdoor sports. Such parks should be a minimum of four acres i n size'''. A large divergence of opinion however exists as to what features should characterize a l o c a l or neighbourhood park. A general point of convergence, however, i s on "ready a c c e s s i b i l i t y " to the l o c a l residents. As New York's Ar c h i t e c t u r a l League states: - 2 -Von. 4uc/i pank. t o c o n & U b u X e . z ^ z c j t i v o X y t o cAXy t i ^ z , t h e . y muAt be ficadULy a v a i l a b l e . ... i>u.ch a u p t u r n oj$ p a n i u <a> t o s u c c e e d , t h w a . mu&t be. p n o x i m L t y a6 \M0Xt pHO^UJilOYl. The usual time for use of such spaces may be after school for children, after work for adults and during the day for the r e t i r e d , small children and t h e i r mothers. NEED FOR THE STUDY Urban parks and open spaces have been j u s t i f i e d i n various ways. Their H.<LCMiatLorlcdL potentials provide, what i s perhaps the most obvious 3 j u s t i f i c a t i o n . Increasing l e i s u r e time, purchasing power and mobility along with a changing s o c i a l ethos favouring l e i s u r e and outdoor oriented l i f e s t y l e are among the major factors responsible for the r i s e of the 4 demand for outdoor recreation i n North America. In the U.S.A., for example, there has been a 70-fold increase i n the time spent i n outdoor recreation between 1900 and 1960.^  Approximately ten percent ($50 b i l l i o n i n 1970) of a l l discretionary income i s spent annually on sports and outdoor recreation. Clawson predicted an eight-fold increase i n expenditure for outdoor recreation between 1966 and the turn of the century.^ He also predicted that 900-1100 b i l l i o n Man-hours per year 8 would be diverted to outdoor recreation by 2000 A.D. In the context of a large demand for outdoor recreation, the potentials of urban parks and open spaces need not be disputed. Unlike "National" or " P r o v i n c i a l " Parks they may serve the entire cross-section of population and may be of p a r t i c u l a r value to lower income groups, the growing number of senior c i t i z e n s and the physically handicapped on - 3 -grounds of less mobility, physical a b i l i t y and income, as w e l l as to children needing proximity to home and close supervision. Urban parks may complement the nonurban f a c i l i t i e s by providing a range of alternative outdoor f a c i l i t i e s and reducing the demand for the l a t t e r areas. Moreover, with the adverse effects of the "Energy C r i s i s " on personal mobility and purchasing power, the opportunity for outdoor recreation i n future may have to be provided largely through increasing resources and f a c i l i t i e s w ithin urban areas. Besides t h e i r recreational potentials and the associated public 9 health, psychological, s o c i a l and educational j u s t i f i c a t i o n s , open spaces are highlighted i n the l i t e r a t u r e also for t h e i r p o t e n t i a l to perform various e.nvih,onme.ntal functions i n the urban milieu. Tunnard and Pushkarev summarizes them as productive, protective and ornamental."^ Lynch emphasizes thei r urban s t r u c t u r a l and aesthetic purposes"*""*" while 12 13 1A Niering, McHarg, Bernatzky and others emphasize t h e i r r o l e from the point of view of ecological protection, production and atmospheric p u r i f i c a t i o n . In the context of n e i g h b o u r h o o d pcUikA i n p a r t i c u l a r , New York's Ar c h i t e c t u r a l League emphasizes that "they have become necessities"."''"' In New York C i t y , among a l l the components of the modern municipal recreation system, the neighbourhood playground i s considered to be the most important by o f f i c i a l s . "^ The po t e n t i a l of neighbourhood open spaces may be further realized when we r e a l i z e that V z o p l e . p l a c e , mone. v a l u e , on t h e . q u a l i t y o£ t k e i n . imme.oU.ate. n e A i d e . n t i a l afiea t h a n on t h e . e n v i x o n r n z n t a l v a r i a b l e , w h i c h o c c u u a t t h e i c a l e . o£ t h e e n t i t e . c o m m u n i t y . But the question that remains largely unanswered i s how the community perceives neighbourhood parks and open spaces to be useful and the r e l a t i v e importance of the di f f e r e n t functions of these areas. Planners' attempt to provide these functions, no matter how noble, may be appreciated only when th e i r value judgements on the importance of these roles reconcile with the actual environmental and recreational preferences of the community. The contention here i s that there has been l i t t l e attempt, i n our present approach to planning and design of neighbourhood parks, to understand these preferences. The underuse of many neighbourhood parks to a great extent demonstrates the above fact. Although expenditure for parks and recreation have 18 increased sub s t a n t i a l l y i n recent years i n many North American c i t i e s , there i s evidence that only a f r a c t i o n of the population makes di r e c t use of the f a c i l i t i e s . In spite of the increasing amount of l e i s u r e time 19 proportionately less and less of i t i s being spent i n neighbourhood parks. As Revelle describes, ... the. veJiy wond pank ticuAZA in mo&t minch the. image. o\ a {onmat ajtea. ne.anZy empty on. paniZy filled w-ith dibnzpujtable. chan.acteja>. ^ In many c i t i e s , use levels seldom exceed ten percent of the t o t a l planned use at peak periods, and average between one to f i v e percent during normal use period. This i s true i r r e s p e c t i v e of differences i n location within the c i t y as w e l l as i n income, age, sex, race or national o r i g i n 21 of the neighbourhood residents. Such unused parks are disturbing not only because of the missed opportunities they imply but also because their dangers s p i l l over into the surrounding areas. Equipments suffer - 5 -22 from vandalism which i s quite a di f f e r e n t matter from wear. Such underuse of urban parks, as Gans suggests,may be due largely to the differences i n goals between "Supplier" of resources i n parks and t h e i r 23 expected "Consumers". Park standards are often f a c i l i t y oriented, expressed i n terms of gross space per unit population and service r a d i i while recreational needs could be better expressed i n terms of l e i s u r e behaviour patterns. In short, the so c a l l e d "Standards Approach" very often f a i l s to recognize the s p e c i f i c needs and preferences of a Community. More often than not standards become goals of the supplier rather than the community they serve and are expressed as authoritative requirements by planners, 24 suppliers and community decision makers. Thus the more needy " c l i e n t s " may suffer. As Clawson states, The. poofizkt people., who mo&t ne.e.d easily aczu^iblz paAfzi and playground*, o^ten havz them thz lexu>t.2$ 26 A recent study i n Vancouver (Cowie ) s i m i l a r l y i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s point. While apparent underuse of parks may reveal the deficiency of the planning approach, i t should be remembered that providing opportunity for outdoor recreation i s not the sole function of neighbourhood open spaces. Various "environmental r o l e s " which are independent of physical use, are recognized by recreation planners but again only a few studies attempt to determine the community's perception of these important functions. One such study i n Philadelphia found that "the respondents find the park more important as scenery or as a setting for t h e i r neighbourhood and for i t s ecological benefits than as a place to go for - 6 -27 active use or even for relaxation and contemplation". While the authors here f e e l that the r e l a t i v e l y high value accorded the "non-use" 28 functions are i n part due to the large size of th i s park (about 1200 acres) , i t would be worthwhile to examine i f such perceptions hold true for neighbourhood parks. A study on l o c a l parks of Vancouver s i m i l a r l y indicated that people did not generally recognize the areas as places of 29 a c t i v i t y . The study did not conclude, however, on people's perception of the functions of these areas. In the author's words "more s p e c i f i c questions r e l a t i n g to l o c a l space and function could r e s u l t 30 i n more conclusive evidence than has been possible to date". Thus further understanding of residents perception of the r e l a t i v e importance of the various functions of neighbourhood parks and open spaces i s necessary for successful future planning and design of these areas. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The goal of t h i s study i s to analyze residents perception of the d i f f e r e n t functions of neighbourhood parks and th e i r r e l a t i v e preference for 0 d i f f e r e n t types of park environment. This has been achieved through a set of i n t e r r e l a t e d s p e c i f i c objectives: OBJECTIVE A .... To determine the r e l a t i v e importance of the major functions of neighbourhood parks as perceived by residents. OBJECTIVE B To determine the r e l a t i v e preference of residents for diffe r e n t types of recreation i n neighbourhood parks. - 7 -OBJECTIVE C .... To determine the r e l a t i v e importance, i n the perception of residents, of the dif f e r e n t attributes of neighbourhood parks that contribute towards the di f f e r e n t park functions. The array of function, a c t i v i t y and at t r i b u t e variables selected for this study i s shown i n TiguJtZ 1. This figure also describes the apparent relationships between the a t t A i b u t z A and the f u n c t i o n s . I t should be noted that a certain a t t r i b u t e may determine the qua l i t y of a park mOAZ with respect to a certain function than with respect to another. Again, a few a t t r i b u t e s , e.g., "Maintenance and Supervision Quality" have been assumed to have zquaZ influence on more than one function. Function Variables. This study focusses on the two major functions of neighbourhood parks: Recreational functions or the functions related to p h y s i c a l U6£; and Environment a l functions or the functions that relate to protection and improvement of the qua l i t y of the r e s i d e n t i a l subenvironment around the parks. These may be considered as i n d V i Z Z t U&Z functions. A c t i v i t y Variables Related to Recreation. The Dictionary of Sociology defines recreation as: Any a c t i v i t y p m u u z d duJving Izt&uJiz, z i t h z n i n d i v i d u a l on. c o l Z z c t i v z t h a t AJ> { n z z and plza&uJizfavJL h a v i n g i t s own Ajnmzdiatz a p p e a l , n o t impoJULzd b y a doJLayzd ntwan.d b z y o n d -LtseJLi on b y any i m m z d i a t z nzc.z&t><Lty.31 DIFFERENT ASPECTS OP PAR* AND SURROUNDING PABh ATT£15UTE ENVIRONMENT 5CENIC VALUE VISUAL QUALITY SURROUNDING LAND5CAPE QUALITY VISTA QUALITY AIR QUALITY AUDITORY QUALITY PRIVACY QUALITY 61)N £" SHADE QUALITY AIR. MODIFICATION CAPACITY NOISE PROTECTION FOR 5URROUNDING HOUSES PROTECTION OF USERS FROM OUTSIDE NOISE a u i E T WITHIN PARIS PRIVACY/VISUAL PROTECTION FOR HOUSES SCREENING USERS FROM VIEW FROM OUTSIDE PRIVACY OF USERS THROUGH VISUAL SEGREGATION WITHIN PARh  AVAILABILITY OF SHADE IN PARIS AVAILA6ILITY OF SUN IN PARIS MAINTENANCE AND SUPERVISION QUALITY PARh FUNCTION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (INDIRECT USE RELATED) PASSIVE REGULATION WftLtSING FOR PLEASURE SITTING AND RELAXING STUDYING NATURE £ SURROUNDING L A N D S C A P E OTHER. RECREATION (DIRECT USE RELATED) LEVEL OF GAMES t' SPORTS FACILITY OUTDOOR GAMES AND SPORTS FACILITY INDOOR GAMES FACILITIES CHILDR.ENS PLAY AREA AND EQUIPMENT II I I ACTIVE RECREATION BALL G A M E S OTHER ACTIVE 5POR.TS SWIMMING 6' WADING INDOOR. G A M E S OTHER, FIGURE 1: THE ARRAY OF PARK FUNCTION ACTIVITY AND ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES STUDIED - 9 -A wide range of a c t i v i t i e s may take place i n neighbourhood parks and these may be c l a s s i f i e d i n various ways (nature of a c t i v i t i e s , age or sex of par t i c i p a n t s , space requirements, season, cost, number of participants., 32 forms of organization etc). This study emphasizes a comparison between two broad types of recreation: Active Recreation, such as b a l l games, swimming and other active sports, i . e . those a c t i v i t i e s which r e l y on the l e v e l of manmade f a c i l i t i e s i n the park; and Passive Recreation, such as s i t t i n g and rela x i n g , walking for pleasure etc. or those which depend more on the landscape c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and various environmental attributes of the park. The r e l a t i v e preference of people for these two broad types of recreation may largely determine t h e i r preference for the type of park environments, e.g. i n terms of the development of f a c i l i t i e s , natural resources and physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Attribute Variables. Vi s u a l Quality Aspect: Webster's New World Dictionary defines "scenery" as "a picturesque view or landscape". The &CZ.YU.C vaZu.2. of a park or open space w i l l draw largely upon the v i s u a l quality of both Natural and Manmade elements within the space i n terms of th e i r l i n e , form, colour, texture, and scale, and, more importantly, upon the ove r a l l composition of the various elements into a coherent t o t a l landscape characterized by i t s harmony, contrast, balance, rhythm etc. Scenic value i s an important attri b u t e i n determining the qu a l i t y of a park for various passive recreation a c t i v i t i e s such as Nature study, relaxation, meditation etc. which draw largely upon the aesthetic and psychic value of the park. Again, i n the context of WviA.onme.ntal imph.ove.ment to the neighbourhood, Gold emphasizes, S e n s i t i v e l y d e s i g n e d p u b l i c o p e n s p a c e s c a n a l s o g i v e , t h e . unban r e s i d e n t s and v i s i t o r s a s e n s e oh i d e n t i t y , a s s o c i a t i o n and d i r e c t i o n . I t a m b e o n e d r a m a t i c k e y t o a v i a b l e unban e n v i r o n m e n t . " " V i s t a " , according to Webster i s "a distant view through or along an avenue or opening". While scenic value i s a r e l a t i v e l y general term and may ref e r to aesthetic enjoyment from both within and outside the open space the variable V i s t a Q u a l i t y refers s p e c i f i c a l l y to the capacity of the neighbourhood park and open space to provide a pleasant setting or "foreground" for the surrounding houses ( i . e . breaking the monotony of buildings) when viewed across or through the park. A study of a Philadelphia urban park indicates that more than 77 percent of respondents consider the park to be "very important" because i t breaks 34 the monotony of buildings. The variable S u r r o u n d i n g L a n d s c a p e Q u a l i t y refers to the a b i l i t y of the park to provide a view of the distant landscape for enjoyment of the park users. In Vancouver, the view of Northshore mountains i f available from a park may add to the recreational experience of users. Such view w i l l depend to a large extent on the loc a t i o n as w e l l as land-scape design of the park. Ai r Quality Aspect: P o l l u t i o n of the urban atmosphere i s of concern and public open spaces may help to ameliorate the problem to some extent. Plants i n p a r t i c u l a r may help to a t t a i n the A i r M o d i f i c a t i o n C a p a c i t y of these areas. Plants help to modify the urban micro climate by cooling 35 36 the air through evapo-transpiration, providing air shelter, controlling humidity etc. Pollution resistent varieties of plants may help to trap 37 dust and particulate pollutants with their leaf surface. While planted open spaces "dilute" pollution and odor laden air, the Literature suggests that such functions, however, wi l l depend upon the size of open space 38 and the amount and structure of vegetation. Auditory Quality Aspect: Noise pollution (excessive or unwanted sound) 39 is an increasing problem in cities today. Quiet within pa/ik in general is an important condition particularly for passive recreation and depends on both the noise environment and the sound attenuation capacity of the park landscape. Common sources of distinctive noise in neighbourhood parks may be associated with traffic, recreation activities themselves and surrounding residences.^ P/XOtzction of UAeAA fh.om outside. noi&Z wi l l largely depend on the attenuation of noise from surrounding traffic and residences. ?Zant6 , while not absolutely effective in the screening of a l l sounds, may help 41 to attenuate sound levels to which human ears are sensitive. While the average noise levels from residential areas and traffic peak between 0 and 250 hz. and 0 and 500 hz. respectively, a recent experiment in Vancouver demonstrates that these ranges of frequencies are highly favourable for attenuation by tree stands although the amount and rate 42 of attenuation may vary with season, species type and dimension of stand. Unfortunately for park designers, l i t t l e information is available, however, on the relationship between sound attenuation and stand characteristics such as physical arrangements of plants.^ Topogfuiphy - 12 -and g r o u n d c o v e r are important for attenuation through absorption and r e f l e c t i o n . Even bare landforms may be e f f e c t i v e under certain conditions. Noise l e v e l , distance of source, wind conditions, height 44 of landforms are however important correlates. Notwithstanding actual attenuation by the landscape, the p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t of screening the 45 source of noise from park users may not be overlooked. Noise p r o t e c t i o n foh. S u r r o u n d i n g h o u s e s w i l l s i m i l a r l y draw upon the noise attenuation capacity of the park landscape. The open space may act as a buffer especially between the t r a f f i c i n the surrounding streets and the houses adjacent to the parks. The park also simply di l u t e s the "noise" environment by being quiet. Privacy Aspect: The core of the concept of privacy l i e s i n the individual's a b i l i t y to control the degree to which others have access to him. This may depend on withdrawal, s o c i a l distancing, physical b a r r i e r and anonymity. To the designer, the question of privacy concerns v i s u a l a n d a u d i t o r y s e p a r a t i o n within the house and between dwelling 46 units. Privacy and visual p r o t e c t i o n f o r s u r r o u n d i n g h o u s e s refers to the capacity of the park landscape to ensure the v i s u a l and auditory separation of neighbouring houses from the streets and houses across the park. This quality w i l l largely depend on the amount and type of physical resources i n the park such as vegetation, landform etc. Unlike most active recreation, many passive recreation (e.g., s i t t i n g and relaxing, nature study, meditation etc.) i s generally carried out alone or i n small, intimate groups and the experience depends largely on p r i v a c y o r s o l i t u d e w i t h i n t h e p a r k . The v i s u a l s e g g r e g a t i o n of u s e r s may be ef f e c t i v e i n th i s regard. S i m i l a r l y , S c r e e n i n g of u s e r s from v i e w ffiom ovuti-i.de helps towards privacy. Sun and Shade Quality: The r e l a t i v e a v a i l a b i l i t y of sunlight and shade affects greatly the recreational function. While various kinds of active recreations r e l y on sun and shadows cast by large objects are 47 detrimental to play quality some shade area i s of course highly desirable for passive recreation l i k e s i t t i n g and relaxing, meditation etc. Maintenance and Supervision Quality: This a t t r i b u t e affects a l l the major functions of parks. Well designed and we l l maintained f i e l d s and 48 equipments add enormously to the active recreational q u a l i t y . Butler, 49 Nading, and others demonstrate the importance of "supervised recreation" i n playground attendance. Gold maintains that safety and security of users increase with good maintenance,supervision, a c c e s s i b i l i t y and r e l a t i v e abundance of parks. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study attempted to assess the r e l a t i v e importance of the above park attributes only as they were perceived by the residents. Actual physical measurement of these environmental q u a l i t i e s of neighbourhood parks was beyond the scope of th i s study. Socioeconomic. chcVvxctehAA&lcS of the population (income, occupation, l e v e l of education, race, r e l i g i o n etc.) are important correlate of 51 52 53 demand for outdoor recreation (Neumeyer, Guggenheimer, Jensen, Lindsay and Ogle, 5 4 Knopp, 5 5 S t u t z , 5 6 D o o l i n g 5 7 ) . In the North American 58 context, the O.R.R.R.C. studies, and the C a l i f o r n i a study on outdoor - 14 -59 recreation document the differences between di f f e r e n t socioeconomic groups i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n outdoor recreation. Sonnenfeld,*^ Beck,^ "*" 62 Segall et a l etc. i l l u s t r a t e the differences i n environmental perceptions and preferences with various socioeconomic and demographic factors. In t h i s study socioeconomic variables were "controlled" through focussing on r e s i d e n t i a l areas characterized by low family income, 0 education and occupation status. This focuss on lower income areas i n p a r t i c u l a r i s i n recognition of the i r greater need for urban parks and 63 open spaces than the rich e r section of the community (Clawson, Guggenheimer^4). In Vancouver, the e x i s t i n g discrepancies i n provision 65 of l o c a l parks generally disfavouring the poor (Cowie ) may add to the urgency of t h e i r need. Notwithstanding various other deficiencies i n lower income areas, recreational opportunity per se i s often an 66 important determinent of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the l i v i n g environment. In North America the spread of low density suburbs may speak for the importance given by the middle and upper income groups to the amenity values of open space i n the l i v i n g environment. I t may be worthwhile to examine to what extent the lower income group recognizes these values keeping i n mind t h e i r various s o c i a l needs and d e f i c i e n c i e s . Within any income group neighbourhood, however, recreation and environmental preferences may vary according to various d<LmogJuzplvLc f a c t o r which were taken into account i n t h i s study. Although some continuity i n recreation behaviour exists between the d i f f e r e n t phases of l i f e , age influences p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ^ 7 Besides physical capacity, income, mobility, s o c i a l status, family structure etc. may also change 68 with age and each of these factors ay infl ence r creation behaviour.- 15 -Differences between the sexes, besides r e f l e c t i n g t h e i r b i o l o g i c a l 69 differences, are also due to so c i o c u l t u r a l factors. The study was undertaken during a s p e c i f i c period of the year i . e . summer and the results should be interpreted as pertaining to t h i s season. Several q u a l i t i e s of t h i s season (flowering of plants, richness of vegetation growth, clear v i s i b i l i t y and sunshine, a v a i l a b i l i t y of view of distant landscape etc.) make i t the most e f f e c t i v e period for parks with regard to recreational use, general attractiveness and various environmental functions. Seasonal changes may have effects on park use.^' I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g , therefore, to compare t h i s study with those undertaken during less favourable weather conditions. - 16 -CHAPTER I : REFERENCES 1. Lower Mainland Regional 2. Seymour, Whitney N. 3. Gold, Seymour M. 4. Jensen, Clayne R. 5. Clawson, Marion 6. Gold, Seymour M. 7. Clawson, M. 8. Ibid, p.26. 9. Neumeyer, Martin H. and Esther S. 10. Tunnard, Chistopher and Boris Pushkarev 11. Lynch, Kevin 12. Niering, William A. Planning Board. A R e g i o n a l Rank* P l a n ion. t l x e LoweA M a i n l a n d Reg-con. A Report to the Regional Parks Committee of the Lower Mainland Municipal Association (New Westminister: L.M.R.P.B. 1966). (For a l l general purposes this park system, with standards, i s the same as used by the Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation. "Introduction" i n Small Utiban Spacer, ed. Seymour, New York University Press, N.Y. , 1969, p.3. Unban R e c A e a t i o n P l a n n i n g , Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1973, p.52. O u t d o o r R e c A e a t i o n I n K m e x i e a , Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, 1970, pp. 32-58. E c o n o m i c * o£ Outdoon. R e c A e a t i o n , John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966, p.25. Op. C i t . , p.31. Op. C i t . pp. 97-98 LeibuAe & Rn.CA.QMXi.on, A.S. Barnes Co., New York, 1949, and Jensen, Op. C i t . Man Made A m e r i c a , Yale, Univ. Press, New Haven, 1963. The Image 0^ t h e C i t y , Cambridge Press, Boston, 1960. N a t u n e i n t h e M e t A o p o t U , Regional Plan Association, N.Y. , 1960. r - 17 -13. McHarg, Ian L. 14. Bernatzky, A. 15. Seymour, W.N. 16. Gold, 17. Wilson, R.L. 18. Gold, 19. Gold, 20. Revelle, Roger 21. Gold, 22. Jacobs, Jane 23. Gans, Herbert 24. Gold, 25. Clawson, 26. Cowie, Arthur Robert 27. Scherer, Ursula and R.E. Conghlin, 28. I b i d , p. 19. 29. Cowie, 30. I b i d V e S i g n W i t h N a t u r e , Natural History Press, N.Y. , 1969. "The Performance and Values of Trees", AntkoS, NO. 1, 1969 and "Climatic Influences of Greens and City Planning", AntkoS, N0.1 1966. Op. CXt., p.3. Op. C i t . " L i v a b i l i t y of the C i t y : attitudes and Urban development" i n Unban Growth D y n a m i c s , ed. F. Stuart Chapin, Wiley, New York, 1962. Op. C i t . , p. 271. Op. C i t . , p. 101. "Outdoor Recreation i n a Hyper-Productive Society" VaeduZuS. F a l l 1967., p. 1174. Op. C i t . , p. 102. "The Uses of Neighborhood Parks" i n S m a l l Unban S p a c e s , ed. Seymour. R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g f o r L e i s u r e B e h a v i o u r : a G o a l O r i e n t e d A p p r o a c h , Unpublished Ph.D. Dessertation, University of Pennsylvania 1957. Op. C i t . , pp. 172-173. Op. C i t . , p. 151. L o c a l 0pm S p a c e s i n Urban R e s i d e n t i a l A r e a , Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. A P i l o t H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y of P e r c e p t i o n and Use of a L a r g e P a r k , Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , Discussion Paper Series NO. 59, P h i l a -delphia, 1972, pp. 16-27. Op. C i t . , p. 5.34. - 18 -31. Neumeyer, Martin, H. and Ester S., 32. B u t l e r , G.D. 33. Gold, 34. Scherer and Conghlin, 35. United States, Dept. of I n t e r i o r , 36. Caborn, J.M., L e i s u r e and R e c A e a t i o n , A.S. Barnes Co., N.Y. , 1949, p. 22. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Community R e c A e a t i o n , McGraw H i l l , New York 1967, p. 235. Op. C i t . , pp. 48-49. Op. C i t . , p. 18. ? l a n t ! > , P e o p l e , and E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y , National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 1972, pp. 50-56. S h e l t e r , b e l t s and Windbn.eakA, Faber and Faber, 27 London, 1965. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Heggestad, H.E. et a l . "Plants that w i l l withstand P o l l u t i o n and Reduce i t " , i n L a n d s c a p e i o K L i v i n g , U.S. Dept. of A g r i c u lture, Yearbook 1972, pp. 16-22. U.S. Dept. of I n t e r i o r Op. C i t . I b i d , p. 36. I b i d , p. 39. I b i d , p. 41. Matthews, Russel, An I n v e s t i g a t i o n o£ S o u n d A t t e n u a t i o n b y Jn.ee S t a n d i , unpublished Master of Forestry Thesis, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. I b i d , pp. 68-87. Cook, David I. and Tn.ee C o v e r e d Land f o r m ion. N o i s e C o n t r o l , U.S. David F. Van Haverbeke Dept. of Ag r i c u l t u r e , Forest Service, Research B u l l e t i n 263, 1974. Sexton, Burton, H. Marshall, Nancy J., Butler, George D., Butler, G.D. "T r a f f i c Noise", T r a g i c Q u a r t e r l y , J u l y 1969, p. 438. "Environmental Components of Orientation Towards Privacy". R e e r e a t i o n A r e a s ; t h e i r d e s i g n and e q u i p m e n t , The Ronald Press Co., N.Y. 1958, p. 148. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Community R e c A e a t i o n , McGraw H i l l , New York, 1967, p. 84. - 19 -49. Nading, Martin, N., 50. Gold, 51. Neumeyer, 52. Guggenheimer, E.C. , 53. Jensen, 54. Lindsay J . J . and Richard A. Ogle 55. Knopp, Timothy B. 56. Stutz, P.P. 57. Dooling, Peter J . 58. United States Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission 59. United States Depart-ment of Parks and Re-creation C a l i f o r n i a Planning Monographs. 60. Sonnenfeld, Joseph 61. Beck, Roberts The filiations hips of Selected Vn.oQK.am Variables to tlte Playgrounds of Font Wayne, Indiana, unpublished M.S. Thesis, Indiana University, 1952, p. 125. Op. Cit., pp. 43-44. Op. ext. Planning for Panks and Recreational Needs In Unban Areas, Twane Publishers Inc., N.Y. 1969. Op. Cit. "Socioeconomic pattern of outdoor recreation use near urban areas" Journal of Leisure Re-search, Vol. 4 NO. 1, Winter 1972. "Environmental Determinants of Recreation Behaviour" Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 4, spring 1972. "Intra Urban Social Mixing and Leisure Be-haviour" Journal of Leisure Research, 1973. An explorative study of factors affecting outdoor recreation demand of the Edmonton adult population Alberta, Canada. Unpublished M.A. Thesis i n Phys. Ed., Univ. of Alberta, 1967. Participation In Outdoor Recreation: factors affecting demand amond American Adults, O.R.R.R.C. Report NO. 20 p. 10. Outdoor Research Outlook to 1980, 1966-67. "Environmental Perception and adaptation l e v e l i n the A r c t i c " i n Environmental Perception and Behaviour, ed. David Lowenthal, The University of Chicago, 1967, pp. 42-59. " S p a t i a l meaning and the properties of the Environment." Ibid, p. 18-41. - 20 -62. Segall et a l . 63. Clawson, Op. Cit. 64. Guggenhaimer, Op. Cit. 65. Cowie, Op. Cit. 66. Gold, Op. Cit., pp. 80-81. 67. United States Outdoor Op. Cit., p. 15. Recreation Resource Re-view Commission, 68. Ibid. 69. Emmett, Isabel, Youth and IQJJ,UKSL. in an uxgan sphjmt, Manchester Univ. Press, 1971. 70. Gold, Op. Cit., p. 103. - 21 -CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY SURVEY DESIGN  Method The assessment of attitudes and preferences could be made through various techniques such as v i s u a l observation or photographic recording of the use of parks and open spaces, examination of physical evidence of use from wear and tear on equipment, f a c i l i t i e s and areas"'", behavioral 2 mapping , etc., as w e l l as interviews and questionnaire surveys. A residence-based interview or questionnaire survey has been preferred to a s i t e based survey because t h i s study encompasses d i r e c t p h y s i c a l u s e as w e l l as i n d i r e c t use functions of neighbourhood parks and takes into account the opinions of both USeTS and n o n u s e r s . The questionnaire or interview survey also has the advantage of being a widely used technique. I t provides us with the most d i r e c t t o o l used i n attempts to understand people's i n t e r e s t . As Sommer suggests, I have, a l w a y s a s s u m e d t h a t H a p e r s o n i s a s k e d a r e a s o n a b l e q u e s t i o n i n a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d manner and h a s no r e a s o n t o c o n c e a l h i s o p i n i o n s , w h e t h e r f o r s e l l - a g g r a n d i z e m e n t o r f e a r of t h e i n t e r v i e w e r ' s r e a c t i o n s o r s o c i e t y ' & r i d i c u l e o r r e p r i s a l , h e w i l l a n s w e r h o n e s t l y a n d t o t h e b e s t o i h i s a b i l i t y . What i n t e r e s t s us i s t h e way p e o p l e s e e t h e w o r l d , a n d t h e i r opijnion a b o u t t h e m s e l v e s and t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t s a r e v a l i d d a t a from h i s s t a n d p o i n t . - 22 -This study therefore used a questionnaire survey as the major data generating device. I t was employed to study resident's perceptions of three e x i s t i n g neighbourhood parks to which they are exposed i n t h e i r day to day l i v i n g environment as w e l l as a hypothetical " i d e a l " neighbourhood park. The analyst, however, needs to be aware of the l i m i t a t i o n s of this t o o l . In the recreation context, as Gold argues, i t may give a distorted view of preference by omitting s i g n i f i c a n t components of the types of 4 l e i s u r e other than those normally supplied by the public sector . Structured questionnaires may leave i n s u f f i c i e n t scope for respondents to express t h e i r own l e i s u r e preferences. Although open ended questions are more h e l p f u l to overcome this f a u l t the analyst may face the r i s k of large inconsistencies i n response. Preferences are largely influenced by what r e a l l y exists and not what could e x i s t . However, i f the sample i s drawn from a population exposed to park environments having large d i v e r s i t y i n f a c i l i t i e s and attributes t h i s d i f f i c u l t y may be somewhat overcome. Thoughtful design of the survey questionnaire i s required. C l a r i f i c a t i o n of the purpose of the survey as w e l l as understanding of the c u l t u r a l and psychological milieu of the population may be necessary to reconcile the surveyer's viewpoints to that of those surveyed. Selection of Setting The basic condition for determining study areas for t h i s project was that the sample parks be located i n neighbourhoods characterized by low - 23 -income, education and occupational status. Wide d i v e r s i t y i n c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of race, r e l i g i o n etc. should be avoided. In the low income areas of Vancouver, where this study was undertaken, few neighbourhood parks possess a d i v e r s i f i e d landscape character or recreation f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n them. Therefore, the c r i t e r i a was to select several parks apparently having large d i v e r s i t y among t h t m i n terms of natural resources and recreation f a c i l i t i e s . An aggregate sample drawn from residents l i v i n g around d i f f e r e n t types of neighbourhood parks may hopefully avoid bias towards any p a r t i c u l a r type of park environment. Notwithstanding the l e v e l of natural or manmade resources i n the parks, size per se may af f e c t the environmental functions i n various ways, e.g. by opening up a wide panorama of view, a f f e c t i n g more the v e n t i l l a t i o n or a i r movement i n the surrounds, greater noise attenuation through a i r and ground etc. Relationships between si z e and parks attendance are also found? Since t h i s study focusses only on neighbourhood parks of a narrow size range of approximately ten to 15 acres,* such v a r i a t i o n i n qu a l i t y may not e x i s t . Since t h i s study focusses on r e s i d e n t i a l subenvironment, the c r i t e r i a have been to avoid large incompatible land uses (e.g. ind u s t r i e s , heavy commerce, major highways etc.) near to the parks. Such land uses a t y p i c a l i n the r e s i d e n t i a l area may affect greatly i t s ambient quality ( i . e . noise, privacy or a i r q u a l i t y ) . These i n turn may af f e c t people's *This size range was preferred since a large number of parks gf this s i z e range may be found i n the low income areas of Vancouver. - 24 -attitude towards the role and attributes of the selected parks. Studies 7 8 9 made by Brewer , Lies , C a l i f o r n i a Recreation Commission , etc. i l l u s t r a t e that density of the surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l area may influence park use, p a r t i c u l a r l y with respect to distance t r a v e l l e d by users. To overcome va r i a t i o n among the parks i n t h i s regard, wide differences i n r e s i d e n t i a l densities among thei r service areas should be avoided. Procedure of Measurement of Relative Importance The d i f f e r e n t a t t r i b u t e s , functions and a c t i v i t y variables were compared i n terms of thei r r e l a t i v e popularity with the help of several "indices". The a t t r i b u t e , and the f u n c t i o n variables were compared by using: 1. the "Level of Importance" and the "Rank" given by the respondents to each of these variables on an ordinal scale for a hypothetical i d e a l neighbourood park conceived by them, and 2. the degree of cor r e l a t i o n between the "Perceived Quality" of each a t t r i b u t e " i n the sample parks and a) the "General Image" and b) the "Frequency of V i s i t " to these parks. The selected parks were also compared among themselves i n terms of their General Image and Frequency of V i s i t made by the respondents l i v i n g around each of the parks. The respondents' opinion on the park's - 25 -"Contribution to thei r Neighbourhood Quality" was used as another indicator for t h i s comparison. The Perception of the Parks' effect on "property value" was i n i t i a l l y selected as another indicator i n recognition to i t s importance highlighted i n several studies such as, Kitchen and Hendson"''^  Hammer et a l . 12 Scherer and Coughlin etc. I t was, however, dropped from the analysis due to lack of response. In the questionnaire, ordinal "scales" were adopted for the indices. For each variable, the respondents were simply asked to check the i r preferred p o s i t i o n on the scale. In terms of each i n d i c a t o r , the ordinal measure of each variable was given by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of response under diff e r e n t positions on the scale. TABLE I introduces these indices and the corresponding scales adopted. The preferences for each KZCAZatloYl activity variable was measured i n terms of, 1. the proportion of respondents "hypothetically wishing to p a r t i c i p a t e " ( i n an i d e a l park situation) as w e l l as the proportion of respondents "actually p a r t i c i p a t i n g " ( i n the sample parks) i n each a c t i v i t y ; and 2. the "hypothetical" as w e l l as "actual Frequency" or Rate of P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y . The Frequency was given by the Number of Occasions on which an average respondent participate i n a year (TABLE I ) . - 26 -TABLE I INDICES FOR COMPARING ATTRIBUTE, FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY VARIABLES The Frequency scales adopted i n the survey are shown i n Appendix D. INDICES SCALE RANK given to (three) function variables FIRST SECOND THIRD LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE given to each at t r i b u t e variable Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important RANK given to (12) a t t r i b u t e variables FIRST TWELTH PERCEIVED QUALITY (Rating given) of each Very Good att r i b u t e of the sample parks Good Fa i r Poor Very Poor GENERAL IMAGE of the sample parks, ( i . e . how much a respondent l i k e s the park i n general). Like Very Much Like somewhat Do not care D i s l i k e somewhat D i s l i k e Very Much PERCEIVED CONTRIBUTION (of the sample parks) to NEIGHBOURHOOD QUALITY ( i . e . a respondent's opinion on the neighbour-hood quality i f the park were not there). Worse Unaffected Better FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION i n each a c t i v i t y : Hypothetical and Actual ( i n Per capita No. of occasions per year) for the t o t a l range of frequency* _ Z No. of Respondents x No. of occasions per year (Frequency) indicated Total No. of Respondents FREQUENCY OF VISIT to the sample parks (Per capita v i s i t i n No. of days per month) for the t o t a l range of frequency I No. of Respondents x Frequency (days per month) = indicated Total No. of Respondents - 27 -The Correlations between "Distance from the Parks" and Frequency of P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s have been used as another indicator to compare these a c t i v i t y variables. Distance may affect park use i n various ways. However, studies which attempt to d i f f e r e n t i a t e 13 between types of a c t i v i t i e s are rare. A graphical representation of the procedure for comparing the a c t i v i t y function and a t t r i b u t e variables i s shown i n Appendix I. The Survey Questionnaire The survey questionnaire i s shown i n Appendix A. Table I I l i s t s the major classes of questions and shows the relationship between the Procedure of Measurement and the Questionnaire. I t was estimated that approximately 15-20 minutes would be required, on the average, for the respondents to complete the questionnaire. As against an expected 50% a s l i g h t l y higher rate of return (54.1%) was obtained. Sampling Procedure Standards with regard to optimum S e r v i c e a r e a for neighbourhood parks vary. However, as Gold points out, Mo&t r e c r e j a t i o n s t a n d a r d s s u g g e s t a s e r v i c e , r a d i u s f o r t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d p l a y g r o u n d of h t o % m i l e .... m o s t s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of u s e r s come from u t i t h i n a h m i l e r a d i u s ... d e v e l o p i n g e v i d e n c e now i n d i c a t e s t h e optimum s e r v i c e r a d i u s t o b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 500 f e e t from a u s e r ' s h o m e . ' 4 For the purpose of t h i s study, areas with a h, mile radius from the centre of the selected parks were taken f o r surveying the residents' preferences. I t was assumed that from the point of view of both recreational use and perception of amenity values, small parks of the size 10-15 acres may not have s i g n i f i c a n t impact on residents l i v i n g beyond h, mile from the park. - 28 -TABLE I I STUDY OBJECTIVES AND PROCEDURES VS. THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Question Classes Indicating the Different Indices of Measure Question Numbers (Survey) Importance Rating and Ranking of Attribute variables for a Hypothetical Ideal Park 10, 11 Ranking of Function Variables for a Hypothetical Ideal Park 9 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Recreation A c t i v i t i e s : - Sample parks - a hypothetical Ideal Park 15 8 Perceived Quality (Rating) of attributes of the sample parks 18, 19 V i s i t to the sample parks 3, 6 General Image, Opinion etc. about the sample parks 12, 14, 16, 17 Demographic and Other Characteristics 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 * Landscape features of the sample parks 20, 21, 22, 23 Not related s p e c i f i c a l l y to the objectives of t h i s study t h i s set of questions was included for possible further research. - 29 -A p i l o t household survey* was conducted i n a low income group area i n East Vancouver near to Slocan Park. The experience from this p i l o t survey with regard to the percentage rate of return as w e l l as the t o t a l response size under each age and sex group formed a major basis for determining the Samplz &-lzz. for the f i n a l survey. An e f f o r t was made to obtain at least 30 respondents under each population 15 subgroups , especially under each age and sex groups. On the basis of experience from the p i l o t survey a sample s i z e of approximately 400 houses was considered for the f i n a l survey. This represents approximately 17% of the t o t a l number of houses i n the service areas around the three neighbourhood parks i n East Vancouver selected f o r this study. On the basis of the p i l o t survey and a few recent questionnaire surveys i n Vancouver, an approximately 50 percent rate of response was estimated to be possible. For the purpose of studying the Effects of "Distance from the Parks" each service area was subdivided into three d i s t i n c t "Zones" (Figure 2). The "Front" zone comprized houses d i r e c t l y facing the parks. The rest of the c i r c u l a r area was divided into two approximately equi-distant (from the centre of the Park) Zones: "Middle" and "Far". Equal sample size was derived from each zone. Thus, for each service area a l l the houses of the "front " zone were taken i n the sample. Within each of the other zones the sample was r a n d o m l y cko&m. This was done by numbering s e r i a l l y a l l the house plots on the Sectional Maps *In i t s f i n a l form the questionnaire was s l i g h t l y improved on the basis of experience with the p i l o t survey. - 30 -± A* 1 1 1 1 e - . 1 " T v / S S M 69 . / •I / 11 .1. > J I" T~I r SCHOOL — ' l ' ' I I 1 i s PARK - 1' 1 e 1 0 1 Il, II 1 \ n ( 1II II M L V 1 i l ' i l »I o n AT © $4 L J — • i Z±±f-/ _ f ' FAR ZONE MIDDLE ZONE FRONT ZONE • SAMPLE HOUSES ( a l l FRONT ZONE houses were Included i n the sample) 1" = 400 ft. FIGURE 2: ZONE-WISE SUBDIVISION OF SERVICE AREA OF PARKS (Renfrew Park : a t y p i c a l example) - 31 -for Vancouver with three digit numbers and choosing the numbers from a Table of Random Numbers. In the f ield, however, slight inequality in sample size among the zones resulted when the randomly chosen plot numbers were found to be nonresidential structures, uninhabited or vacant plots. Collection of Data The study period was August to September 1974. The questionnaires were delivered, then collected in person three to five days later. As against the anticipated 50% a slightly higher rate of return (54.9%) was obtained. A Summary of Sample Size and Distribution is given in Appendix B. 1 STATISTICAL PROCEDURE The questionnaire answers were coded and punched onto computer cards and anlyzed through the Canned Statistical Programme: UBC MVTAB'1'7 on the IBM 370 Model 168 M.T.S. computer of the University of British Columbia. Goodman and Kruskal's Coefficient of Ordinal Association 18 (Gamma) was used to study relationship between two ordinal variables. 19 Freeman's Coefficient of Determination (Theta) was used to study relationships between o r d i n a l and n o m i n a l variables. The o r d i n a l variables in the study include: - 32 -INDICES; 1. Perceived Quality (Rating) of each att r i b u t e i n the sample parks. 2. General Image of the sample parks. 3. Perceived Contribution of the parks to neighbourhood qu a l i t y . 4. Frequency of v i s i t to the sample parks. 5. Frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n di f f e r e n t recreation a c t i v i t i e s . 6. Ranking and Importance Rating of each att r i b u t e for an Ideal Park. 7. "Zone" or Distance from the parks. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 8. Age Groups: 16-20 yrs/21-30 yrs/31-40 y r s / 41-50 yrs/51-60 yrs/ above 60. 9. Age of F i r s t Child: Grown up (above 20 yrs.) /Teenage/younger children. - 33 -10. Number of Children: No Child / One c h i l d / Two Children/ More than 2 Children. 11. Length of Resident i n the Study Area: Less than a year/ 1-2 yrs/2-4 yrs/above 4 yrs. The Nominal variables include: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS: 1. Sex: Male/Female 2. M a r i t a l Status: Married/Single/Widowed/Others For ORDINAL-ORDINAL associations "Gamma" i t s e l f was used to do the test 20 of S t a t i s t i c a l Significance . For NOMINAL-ORDINAL cases Pearson's 21 Chi-Square S t a t i s t i c was used . A 5% l e v e l of significance was used to do the test s . - 34 -CHAPTER I I : REFERENCES 1. Webb , E.J. et a l . , 2. I t t l e s o n , William H., et a l . 3. Sommer, Robert Gold, Seymour M. Bangs, Herbert P. and Stuart Mahler U n o b t r u s i v e . M e a s u r e s , Rand-McNally, Chicago, 1966. "The Use of behavioral maps i n environmental psychology. In I t t l e s o n , R i v l i n and Proshansky (eds). Environmental P s y c h o l o g y : Man a n d Wis P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g , New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970, pp. 658-668. P e A S o n a l S p a c e . , Prentice H a l l , New Jersey, 1969, p.91. Unban R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g , Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, 1973. "Users of Local Parks", A . J . P . J o u r n a l , September 1970, pp. 330-334. 6. Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation, A n n u a l R e p o r t , City of Vancouver, 1973. 7. Brewer, C.E. "The Influence of Zoning on the Design of Public Recreation F a c i l i t i e s " , P r o c e e d i n g s of t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of E c o n o m i c s , Chicago, 1925. 8. L i e s , Eugine T. A S t u d y of t h e l e i s u r e T i m e P u b l i c a n d R e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n C i n c i n a t i a n d V i c i n i t y , Bureau of Govt. Research, C i n c i n a t i , 1935. 9. C a l i f o r n i a Committee on Planning for Park Recreation Areas and F a c i l i t y . G u i d e f o r P l a n n i n g R e c r e a t i o n P a r k s i n C a l i f o r n i a , State Recreation Commission, 1956. 10. Kitchen, James. W. "Land values adjacent to an Urban Neighbourhood Park", Land E c o n o m i c s , Vol. 3, No. 3, August 1967, pp. 357-360. 11. Hammer, Thomas R. et a l . "The effects of large Urban Parks on Real Estate Value", R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e , D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r S e r i e s , No. 51, September 1971. - 35 -12. Scherer, Ursula and R.E. Conglin A P i l o t H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y of ? e x c e p t i o n and U s e of a L a r g e F o r k , Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , Discussion Paper Series, No. 59, Philadelphia, 1972. 13. Gold, C.M. 14. Ibid, pp.100 15. Blalock, Hubert M. J r . 16. City of Vancouver. Op. C i t . pp.99, S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , McGraw H i l l Book Company, New York, 1960, p.142. S e c t i o n a l Maps, Vancouver, B.C., 1970. 17. B j e r r i n g James et a l . U . B . C . : MVTAS: M u l t i v a r i a t e C o n t i n g e n c y Tabulations, Computing Centre, The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. , June 1974. 18. Freeman, Linton C. E l e m e n t a r y A p p l i e d S t a t i s t i c s , John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1965, pp.79-88. 19. I bid, pp.108-119 20. Bjerring, James et a l . Op. C i t . pp.79-84 21. Ibid - 36 -CHAPTER I I I  DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED PARKS A reconnaissance survey of several parks of the selected size range was conducted i n the low income areas of Vancouver. The Socioeconomic Data of Census Tracts (1971) guided the selection of r e s i d e n t i a l areas. After an extensive search, CLARK, GORDON and RENFREW Community parks were selected. The r e s i d e n t i a l areas around these three parks of east Vancouver constitute the t o t a l study area. TABLE 3 describes the s i z e , location and levels of recreation f a c i l i t i e s i n these parks. The map of Vancouver City (Appendix) shows the census tracts within which they are located and the photographs provide a broad description of thei r s i t e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and surrounding landscapes. CLARK park, donated by Mr. E.J. Clark to the City i n 1889 was one of the f i r s t parks i n Vancouver. Within i t s small s i z e and nearly square plan, topography and vegetation provides a pleasant variety and d i v e r s i t y i n landscape. From no single point i n the park i s the entire park v i s i b l e . Except f o r a large soccer f i e l d on the south east corner, the land slopes down gently to the west. A stand of large trees, many of them evergreen, provides a large shaded area on the r o l l i n g western half of the park (Plate 1). Moreover, the flowering shrubs (during spring and summer) and a few winding paths add to the v i s u a l q u a l i t y . From the elevated eastern section of the park a wide panorama of distant landscape towards the north and east i s seen . The view towards south and west are of l i t t l e i n t e r e s t . The surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l streets are quiet. Given the elevation from busy Commercial Drive on the east and the general downwards slope of TABLE I I I DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE PARKS Sample Parks Size* (i n Acres) Location Recreational F a c i l i t i e s * CLARK 10.04 Commercial and Woodland Drive, 14th & 15th Aves. 1 soccer ground, 1 baseball diamond, 2 ashphalt tennis courts, 1 small wading pool and a small children's play area and equipment. RENFREW COMMUNITY 12.38 Renfrew, Nootka, 19th & 22nd Aves. 1 f o o t b a l l ground, a lacrosse box, 1 s o f t b a l l diamond, 2 ashphalt tennis courts, 1 indoor swimming pool, 2 of f - s t r e e t parking l o t s , 1 small wading pool, a small children's play area and equipment (supervised), a f i e l d house with change rooms and a community centre. GORDON 15.00 49th & 54th Aves., Argyle and Commercial Streets 2 baseball and 3 s o f t b a l l diamonds, 2 combined f o o t b a l l and rugby f i e l d s , 1 soccer f i e l d , 2 grass hockey f i e l d s , 1 hundred yard straight track, 2 l i t t l e leagues and a f i e l d house with change rooms. *Source: Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation Report, and actual observation on s i t e . -3»-PLATE 1 A VIEW OF THE ROLLING WESTERN SECTION OF CLARK PARK PLATE 2 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTH FROM CLARK PARK - 39 -the ground towards the west the park i s protected to some extent from noise and v i s u a l p o l l u t i o n (Plate 5 ) . In RENFREW park the d i v e r s i t y i n landscape i s brought about mainly by a stream winding through a deep gulley along Renfrew Street and the stand of trees on both sides of i t (Plate 6 ) . This stream which gathers ground water drainage from above eventually finds i t s way into S t i l l Creek and Burnaby Lake. The landform, the waterbody and the shade provided by the trees during summer creates a pleasant setting for passive, nature oriented recreation. The trees further provide an e f f e c t i v e v i s u a l b a r r i e r against busy Renfrew Street. Another p o t e n t i a l l y important qu a l i t y of the park i s the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a wide panoramic view of the City towards the north with a backdrop provided by the range of mountains (Plate 7 ) . The remaining views are ordinary with the rest of the park having l i t t l e v a r i e t y i n topography and vegetation. The games f i e l d s are adjacent to the school onthe north. The community centre and indoor swimming pool building cover a large portion along 22nd Avenue. This i s also a f a i r l y busy street and flanked on the south side by a s t r i p of small stores across from the park (Plate 8 ) . Other surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l streets are quiet. The major man made elements such as the Community Centre b u i l d i n g , the f i e l d house and the children's play equipment have no unique variety or attractiveness. GORDON park, named after General Charles George Gordon who donated t h i s piece of land to the Ci t y , i s a f l a t and almost t o t a l l y bare rectangular piece of land that merely gives expression of a large play-ground suitable for various active games and sports (Plate 10). There i s almost no va r i e t y i n topography, vegetation or view of the surrounding - 4 0 PLATE 3 A VIEW TOWARDS THE EAST FROM CLARK PARK PLATE 4 A VIEW TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST FROM CLARK PARK - 4 1 -PLATE 5 EASTERN EDGE OF CLARK PARK PLATE 6 WESTERN SECTION OF RENFREW PARK THE 22nd AVENUE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PERIPHERY OF RENFREW PARK - A'b-PLATE 9 A TYPICAL VIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND BUILDINGS AROUND RENFREW PARK PLATE 10 A GENERAL VIEW OF GORDON PARK PLATE 12 A TYPICAL VIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND BUILDINGS AROUND GORDON PARK - 44 -landscape except for the view of mountain ranges towards the north (Plate 11). Fortyninth Avenue on the north i s a comparatively busy street; the rest of the surrounding r e s i d e n t i a l streets are quiet (Plate 12). There i s no unique manmade feature i n the park. Almost the entire park i s v i s i b l e from most of the adjacent buildings and streets. In broad terms, the park sample s a t i s f i e s the c r i t e r i a of providing a wide range of standards i n terms of l e v e l of recreation f a c i l i t i e s and landscape c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A COMPARATIVE VIEW of the three parks i s provided by TAELE SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREA In accordance with the selection c r i t e r i a , the selected study areas represent lower income neighbourhoods i n Vancouver as shown by the Socioeconomic Data for the Census Tracts (1971) within which the three parks are located. A comparison between these Census Tracts and average figures for the t o t a l C ity of Vancouver has been made to i l l u s t r a t e the low socioeconomic status of these areas. Income figures f o r each of the Census Tracts under consideration f a l l f ar below the average figures for the t o t a l C ity (TABLE V). The Level of education i s extremely low as compared to the average City l e v e l (TABLE VI). A high percentage of the population i n these areas has less than a Grade Nine l e v e l of schooling. The low socioeconomic status of these areas i s also reflected i n Occupational status (TABLE VII).There are very few workers i n high status jobs such as managerial, professional, administrative, teaching, etc., while percentages under comparatively lower order occupation such as c l e r i c a l , labour and tech n i c a l , construction, i n d u s t r i a l processing etc. are higher than the average c i t y figures. - 45 -TABLE IV SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE PARKS CLASS PARK SAMPLE QUALITY A CLARK Comparatively low l e v e l of Active Recreational F a c i l -i t i e s but with HIGH landscape quality and therefore apparently having high quality i n terms of Environmental Quality Attributes RENFREW MODERATE standard w.r.t. Recreational F a c i l i t i e s and MODERATELY HIGH Landscape Quality GORDON Comparatively HIGH l e v e l of Recreational F a c i l i t i e s but POOR Landscape Quality. TABLE V INCOME CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREAS* VANCOUVER CLARK PARK RENFREW PARK GORDON PARK (Average) ( C E N S U S T R A C T S ) INDICATORS 32 37 35 36 13 14 Average total income per family 8,012 7,303 9,269 9,365 9,050 8,582 10,422 Average total income of family heads 5,971 5,623 6,837 7,198 6,884 6,571 7,955 Average employ-ment income of family heads 6,313 5,763 6,943 7,301 7,070 6,990 8,003 Average (total) income of males 15+ years of age 5,363 5,153 6,189 6,346 6,142 5,977 6,701 *Source: Census' of Canada 1971 TABLE VI LEVEL OF EDUCATION* CLARK RENFREW GORDON VANCOUVER (Average) INDICATORS 32 35 ( C E N S U S 36 T R A C 37 T S) 13 14 Percentage of total population having some university training 5.26 3.99 5.20 5.09 4.1 23.43 Percentage of total population with university degree 1.33 1.24 1.56 1.61 1.54 5.86 Percentage of total population with less than Grade 9 level of schooling 43.60 41.17 43.07 41.54 40.75 32.78 *Source: Census of Canada 1971 TABLE VII OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS* CLARK RENFREW GORDON VANCOUVER (Average) ( C E N S U S T R A C T S ) 32 37 35 36 13 14 Percent Male workers under di f f e r e n t occupa-t i o n a l groups C l e r i c a l & related 9.71 10.47 10.00 9.13 10.97 8.99 Sales 7.10 7.85 9.36 9.80 7.83 11.67 Machining, Repairing, Assembling, Fabricating, etc. 15.87 15.00 18.00 13.78 15.98 11.17 Construction Trade 13.50 13.33 12.54 12.62 13.79 9.57 Managerial, Administrative, and related 1.42 2.14 1.45 2.65 2.50 5.38 Teaching and Related 0.23 0.71 0.72 0.99 0.62 2.28 Medicine and Health 0.71 0.71 0.90 0.99 0.94 2.01 Processing Occupation 6.39 5.71 7.27 8.30 8.15 4.62 Natural and Social Sciences, Engineering, R e l i g i o n , A r t i s t i c L i brary, Recreation and Related 3.08 3.33 4.00 2.82 3.44 7.43 *Source: Census of Canada, 1971 - 49 -LANDUSE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY AREAS Landuse ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l the three study areas are s i m i l a r . A l l are predominantly r e s i d e n t i a l landuse with no major i n d u s t r i a l , heavy commerce or i n s t i t u t i o n a l use within or nearby. A l l the three areas again constitute one or two storey detatched dwelling units on small l o t s . -50 -CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION OF RESULTS A summary of response from each service area i s given i n Appendix-B. In the t o t a l response, the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the diff e r e n t demographic sub-classes (Appendix-C) are s i m i l a r to those of the l o c a l population i . e . the t o t a l population of the s i x census tracts that incorporate the study area. A large majority of the respondents (79%) have l i v e d for more than four years i n the service areas of the selected parks. This long association with the sample parks may help to generate confirmed opinion about them. RELATIVE PREFERENCE FOR THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES, FUNCTIONS AND  ATTRIBUTES Pa r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Different Recreation A c t i v i t i e s TABLE VIII shows the r e l a t i v e preference for the diff e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s under a hypothetical i d e a l park condition. - 51 -TABLE VIII HYPOTHETICAL PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES IN AN IDEAL PARK * A c t i v i t i e s Number of Respondents wishing to par t i c i p a t e NO. % Total Hypothetical per Capita P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate (No. of Occasions per year) B a l l games and other sports Nature study Indoor games S i t t i n g and relaxing Swimming and Wading Walking for pleasure 93 42.6 88 41.3 83 38.9 102 47.9 93 43.7 133 64.4 35 32 28 39 40 65 Total 213 The variable "Any other (to be specified by the respondent)" was dropped from the analysis due to lack of response. Of the s i x a c t i v i t i e s considered, "walking for pleasure" appears to be the most popular since the largest proportion of the respondents (64.4%) would l i k e to pa r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s a c t i v i t y i f i d e a l park environment were provided. In terms of the percentage of respondents wishing to pa r t i c i p a t e i n the diff e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s the popularity for "walking for pleasure" i s nearly 1.4 times greater than that of " s i t t i n g and relaxing" which ranks second i n the a c t i v i t i e s selected. At the same time, given a choice an average respondent wish to "walk for pleasure" more frequently (65 occasions per year) than any other a c t i v i t y . - 52 -T'-se high preference for "walking for pleasure" found here i s i n conformity th the findings of an e a r l i e r study on outdoor recreation trends where this a c t i v i t y was found to be the highest preferred among 16 major summer time outdoor recreation a c t i v i t i e s selected (U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1967). No large difference among the rest of the a c t i v i t i e s i s evident. However "Indoor Games" appears to be the least preferred a c t i v i t y . Interesting to note that among the selected a c t i v i t i e s the t o t a l number of occasion an average respondent would hypothetically wish to devote i n the passive types of recreation (137 occasion i n a year) i n an i d e a l park i s higher than they wish to devote i n the active types * (102 occasion i n a year). Actual p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the different a c t i v i t i e s may be a strong indicator of preference although e x i s t i n g inadequacies i n the park environments i n the study area may have large e f f e c t s . TABLE IX compares the di f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s i n terms of actual p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the study area. TABLE IX ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES IN THE STUDY AREA A c t i v i t i e s Number of Respondents P a r t i c i p a t i n g NO. % Per Capita P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate (No. of occasions per year) B a l l games and other active sports. 45 21.1 14 Nature study 41 19.2 19 Indoor games 13 6.1 2 s i t t i n g and relaxing 72 33.8 29 swimming and wading 31 14.5 11 walking for pleasure .". .114 .' .'. 53.5 47 I t may be mentioned here that of the only 20 who responded to the open-ended question "Any Other", 12 wish to have " p i c n i c i n g " f a c i l i t i e s of modest nature i n an id e a l neighbourhood park. - 53 -In terms of r e l a t i v e preference for the different a c t i v i t i e s , the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the "hypothetical" and the "actual" p a r t i c i p a t i o n (TABLES VIII and IX) are worth noting. Actual p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n "walking for pleasure" far exceeds those of the others. This i s followed by " s i t t i n g and relaxing" while "Indoor games" again bottoms the l i s t . The actual number of occasions spent i n "passive" recreation (95 occasion per year) i s considerably higher than that spent i n "active" recreation (27 occasions per year). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note further that, i n each a c t i v i t y , the actual p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the respondents i s lower than the indicated p a r t i c i p a t i o n under a hypothetical i d e a l park condition. This, among other things, may r e f l e c t the e x i s t i n g inadequacies of the sample parks to meet the p o t e n t i a l l y higher demand for each a c t i v i t y i n the study area. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true for "swimming". Only Renfrew park has swimming or indoor games f a c i l i t i e s . Thus i f f a c i l i t i e s are provided "swimming" i s l i k e l y to be a much more popular a c t i v i t y i n these areas than i t i s now. In order to analyze i f the e x i s t i n g park f a c i l i t i e s and environment have effect on the respondents' a c t i v i t y preferences i n the hypothetical i d e a l park s i t u a t i o n , the responses from each service area were compared (TABLE X). - 54 -TABLE X HYPOTHETICAL ACTIVITY PREFERENCES OF RESPONDENTS OF EACH SERVICE AREA A c t i v i t i e s Percentage of respondents par t i c i p a t e wishing to CLARK RENFREW GORDON B a l l games and other active sports 51.9 38.1 40.0 Nature Study 46.8 41.3 35.7 Indoor Games 36.7 41.3 40.0 S i t t i n g and Relaxing 58.2 39.7 42.9 Swimming and Wading 51.9 41.3 37.1 Walking for pleasure 61.4 52.4 70.9 TOTAL 79 64 70 I t may be worth noting that irresp e c t i v e of the differences among the parks i n terms of games f a c i l i t i e s and natural environment, the highest proportion of respondents from each study area wish to par t i c i p a t e i n "walking for pleasure" under a hypothetical i d e a l park condition. In terms of percentage of respondents wishing to p a r t i c i p a t e , " s i t t i n g and relaxing" enjoys second highest popularity i n the service areas around Clark and Gordon. However, i n the service area around Renfrew park the s l i g h t l y higher hypothetical popularity for "swimming and wading", "Indoor Games" and "Nature Study" than " s i t t i n g and relaxing" may r e f l e c t only a very minor influence of the ex i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s on hypothetical preferences. But again, i n spite of the large contrast between Clark and Gordon parks i n terms of " B a l l games and Active sports" f a c i l i t i e s the rank order of popularity of t h i s a c t i v i t y i s the same among the respondents around these two parks. Thus there i s no clear evidence of the influence of the selected park environments on the respondents' r e l a t i v e preference for the di f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s i n a hypothetical i d e a l park. * Relationships between demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and a c t i v i t y preference TABLE XI i l l u s t r a t e s that p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates i n each active recreation varies inversely with age under both e x i s t i n g and a hypothetical i d e a l park s i t u a t i o n . TABLE XI AGE IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES Ideal Park Condition E x i s t i n g Park Condition A c t i v i t i e s Coefficient of Association (GAMMA) Pro b a b i l i t y Coefficient of Association (GAMMA) Pro b a b i l i t y B a l l Games & active sports -0.45 .0001 -0.53 .0001 Nature Study - - - -Indoor Games -0.20 .01 -0.64 .0001 S i t t i n g and Relaxing - - -0.18 .03 Swimming and Wading -0.37 .0001 -0.48 .0001 Walking for Pleasure -A l l s t a t i s t i c a l relationships appearing i n th i s chapter have been tested at 5% l e v e l of significance. - 56 -For "Indoor Games" the large difference i n the degree of c o r r e l a t i o n , between the "Ideal" and the " e x i s t i n g " situations may be due to the exis t i n g inadequacy of the study area i n terms of t h i s f a c i l i t y . Other-wise, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n B a l l Games and Active Sports (the most preferred a c t i v i t y of the "16-20" yrs. Age group) shows sharper decline with increasing age than any other active recreation. The lack of any si g n i f i c a n t relationship between Age and P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n "Passive" recreation i n most cases and the comparatively higher p a r t i c i p a t i o n interest i n i t for the respondents i n general indicate that preference for passive recreation remains high and comparatively stable, i r r e s p e c t i v e of age differences. Appendix-E l i s t s the indicated p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y by the i n d i v i d u a l age groups. Although i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n the case of Passive Recreation, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y shows some decline with increasing age. The negative co r r e l a t i o n between Age and Frequency of v i s i t to the sample parks confirms further that park use decreases with increasing age (TABLE XII) TABLE XII AGE IN.RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO THE PARKS AGE GROUPS Per Capita V i s i t per month (No. of Days) . 16 - 20 yrs 9.6 21 - 30 yrs 7.5 Gamma.(Coefficient of Association) 31 - 40 yrs 6.9 » -0.19 41 - 50 yrs 4.9 P r o b a b i l i t y = .07 51 - 60 yrs 4.8 above 60 yrs 6.3 FIGURE 3; AGE-SPECIFIC ACTIVITY PREFERENCES IN A HYPOTHETICAL IDEAL - 58 -Of the age groups studied, an average i n d i v i d u a l of the "16 - 20 yrs" age group makes the highest physical use of the sample parks, almost twice that of an average i n d i v i d u a l from the upper middle age group (41-60 y r s ) . A study on Parks and Recreation i n Burnaby s i m i l a r l y found that the mature adults seldom make v i s i t to any park (A.V.G. Management Science Ltd., 1970). The uppermost age group, presumably r e t i r e d , however register a higher rate of use than the upper middle age group. The park use of thi s age group (above 60 yrs) i s , however, directed s o l e l y to passive recreation (Appendix-E). The negative associations found between "Age of f i r s t c h i l d (of the respondents)" and Frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n active recreation (TABLE XIII) further confirms that p a r t i c i p a t i o n interest i n active recreation declines s i g n i f i c a n t l y with increasing age since "Age of F i r s t C h i l d " i s a surrogate of age. TABLE XIII AGE OF FIRST CHILD (OF THE RESPONDENTS) IN RELATION TO FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES. A c t i v i t i e s Ideal Park Condition E x i s t i n g Park Condition GAMMA Pr o b a b i l i t y GAMMA Pr o b a b i l i t y B a l l Games & Active Sports Nature Study Indoor Games S i t t i n g & Relaxing Swimming & Wading Waling for Pleasure -0.31 .09 -0.33 .007 -0.33 .03 -0.38 .04 -0.30 .01 -0.50 .008 - 59 -Age of F i r s t Child has a negative association also with Frequency of v i s i t to the Sample parks (Gamma = -0.30, P r o b a b i l i t y = .006). Thus the higher the age of children of the respondents the less he i s interested i n park use and s p e c i f i c a l l y i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Active Recreation. Although there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l relationships between "sex" and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the different a c t i v i t i e s the "female" wish to parti c i p a t e more frequently than the "male" i n a l l the selected a c t i v i t i e s (excepting B a l l Games and Other Active Sports)if an id e a l neighbourhood park condition i s provided (Appendix-E). Relative Preference for the Function Variables for a Hypothetical  Ideal Neighbourhood Park The respondents were asked to indicate t h e i r r e l a t i v e preference for the three selected functions (TABLE XIV) i n the role of an i d e a l neighbourhood park. TABLE XIV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS RANKING THE PARK FUNCTIONS Park Functions First Rank Second Rank Third Rank NO. % Total NO. % Total NO. % Total Providing Opportunity for: Passive Recreation Active Recreation Environmental Protection and Improvement 82 44.3 61 32.9 57 30.8 66 37.7 56 30.3 57 30.3 37 20.0 68 36.7 71 38.3 TOTAL 185 - 60 -The preceeding analyses indicated that the passive type of a c t i v i t i e s has an edge over the active type i n terms of hypothetical as well as actual frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these two types of a c t i v i t i e s . In a comparison d i r e c t l y made by the respondents between Passive vs. Active Recreational Opportunity i n a hypothetical i d e a l neighbourhood park, the largest proportion of the respondents give " F i r s t " preference to the former function and at the same time the smallest, proportion show the l a s t preference for i t . No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t relationship has been found, however, between Age, Sex, M a r i t a l status or Age of F i r s t c h i l d of the respondents and Ranking of these functions for an Ideal park. Respondents c l a s s i f i e d by number of children, however, show some relationships. The larger the Number of children the higher the preference given to Opportunity for Active Recreation i n the neighbourhood parks (Gamma = 0.38, pro b a b i l i t y = .001) and less the preference given to Passive Recreation (Gamma = -0.24, p r o b a b i l i t y = .01). Age s p e c i f i c hypothetical p a r t i c i p a t i o n (Appendix-E) reveal that the "teenagers" show greatest p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate i n active recreation. For the subteen children, s i m i l a r l y , active recreation may have higher preference to passive recreation. Thus t h i s relationship between Number of Children and preference for the Opportunity f o r Active Recreation i n an Ideal neighbourhood park may indicate that people with large number of children seek t h e i r children's opportunity i n the parks. - 61 -Perceived Importance of the different Attributes for a hypothetical  Ideal Park Situation * A comparison of 12 park attributes was made with the help of "Level of Importance" given to each attr i b u t e by the respondents on a "one to three" ordinal scale. The TABLE XV indicates that the largest proportion of the respondents (71%) rated " A i r Modification Capacity" or the a b i l i t y of the park to improve the ambient a i r qua l i t y of the neighbourhood as a "very important" quality for an "Ideal" neighbourhood park and at the same time the least proportion of the respondents (3%) deny i t s importance. Notwithstanding the actual capacity of a neighbourhood park of size 10-15 acres to improve the l o c a l a i r q u a l i t y , i t i s in t e r e s t i n g to find that the respondents do perceive these parks to have an important role i n t h i s regard. A concern for a i r qua l i t y of the l i v i n g environment i s , nevertheless, apparent. The "scenic" and the "auditory" q u a l i t y of the park environment are other attributes which are r e l a t i v e l y more popular as "Very Important" than other category. A rank order of preference for the selected park attributes has been attempted on the basis of number of positive response i . e . the number of respondents considering an at t r i b u t e to be important (TABLE XV). The attributes related to "view of distant landscape from the park", the "Parks' a b i l i t y to provide pleasant foreground as w e l l as noise protection for neighbouring houses" and "Shade i n the park" appear to be r e l a t i v e l y more popular as "Somewhat Important" attributes for an i d e a l neighbourhood park. * Due to l i m i t a t i o n s i n the questionnaire the attributes related more to Active Recreation could not be included In th i s section of the Analyses. TABLE XV NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INDICATING THE LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE OF EACH ATTRIBUTE FOR A HYPOTHETICAL IDEAL PARK PARK ATTRIBUTES (Passive Recreation Related) Quiet w i t h i n Park Protection of Park users from outside noise Surrounding landscape qual i t y A v a i l a b i l i t y of shade i n park Privacy within park through v i s u a l seggregation A v a i l a b i l i t y of sun i n park Screening park users from outside Scenic value of the Park (Environmental Importance Related) A i r modification Capacity V i s t a Quality Noise protection f o r surrounding houses Privacy & v i s u a l protection for surrounding) houses LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important ai ( ? ) ( V f No. % T o t a l N o ^ % T o t a l N o . %Total 100 53.2 78 41.5 10 5.3 82 43.6 81 43.1 25 13.3 61 32.4 83 44.1 44 23.4 36 19.1 82 43.6 68 36.2 36 19.1 54 43.6 98 52.1 15 7.9 72 38.3 101 53.7 13 6.9 43 22.9 132 70.2 84 44.7 85 45.2 21 11.2 134 71.3 47 25.0 7 3.7 59 31.4 76 40.4 53 28.2 49 26.1 80 42.5 59 31.4 31 16.5 67 35.6 90 47.9 CUMMULATIVE POSITIVE RESPONSE Co l . ( l ) + Col.(2) No. %Total 178(2) 163(4) 144(5) 118(8) 90(10) 87(11) 54(12) 169(3) 94.7 86.7 76.6 62.8 47.8 46.3 29.8 89.9 18KD 96.3 135(10) 7 1 . 8 129(7) 98(9) 68.6 52.1 RANK Second Fourth F i f t h Eigth Tenth Eleventh Twelth Third F i r s t Sixth Seventh Ninth TOTAL RESPONSE 188 - 63 -Interesting to note that the attributes related to "Privacy" within the park were perceived as least important for an Ideal park environment. The very low preference shown to "screening of park users from view from outside" may have relationship with the concern for Aafidty and AuAveAHancz of park users. Vandalism and other a n t i - s o c i a l behaviour are not uncommon i n c i t y parks and there have been such incidents i n Clark and Renfrew parks i n the recent past. "Shade" i n the parks apparently enjoy greater popularity than the a v a i l a b i l i t y of "Sun". Since "Sun" i s more a prerequisite than shade for active games and sports, t h i s i s consistent with the r e l a t i v e l y lower preference for Active Recreation. Interesting to note that the perceived importance of the group of a t t r i b u t e related to the Environmental Improvement Functions or the amenity values of the park has an edge over the group of attributes related to the Direct use function or the Passive Recreational Quality of the park when compared i n terms of the average number of p o s i t i v e response which i s higher f o r the former group (136) than the l a t t e r (119). Besides giving the "Level of Importance" to each a t t r i b u t e v a r i a b l e , the respondents were asked to "Rank" these 12 variables i n order of t h e i r importance for an i d e a l park environment. The majority of the respondents did not, however, show the rank order. Of the 75 persons who ranked these variables, more than 80 percent gave Top Rank ( i . e . between " F i r s t " and "Fourth" Ranks) to " A i r Modification Capacity", "Quietness within park" and "Scenic Value" of the park (Appendix-F) while only one person ranked them Low ( i . e . between "Ninth" and "Twelth" Ranks). At the other end of the scale, only nine percent gave Top Rank to "Screening of park users from view from outside" while 80 percent ranked this variable Low. - 64 -No s i g n i f i c a n t relationship could be found between the di f f e r e n t population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the perceived importance of the majority of the a t t r i b u t e variables excepting a few scattered observations: some pos i t i v e associations exists between "age" and the "Level of Importance" shown to "scenic value" (Gamma = 0.24, P r o b a b i l i t y = .04) and " A i r Modification Capacity" (Gamma = 0.25, P r o b a b i l i t y = .03) indicating that preference for these attributes increases with age. The negative associations between "number of children" (of the respondents) and the "Level of Importance" given to "Privacy and Solitude within park through v i s u a l seggregation" (Gamma = -0.21, P r o b a b i l i t y = .05) "Quietness within Park" (Gamma = -0.22, P r o b a b i l i t y = .05) and "Protection of park users from outside noise" (Gamma = -0.28, P r o b a b i l i t y = .006) are consistant with our previous findings that respondents with larger number of children place higher value on Active Recreation Function of the parks and the above subtle environmental attributes related more to "Passive Recreation" are of lesser concern. I t may also indicate that the parents of large member of children l i k e to have v i s u a l and acoustic access to the i r children i n a neighbourhood park. The role of the di f f e r e n t attributes i n the perception of the sample  parks i n the study area The preceeding section compares the att r i b u t e variables i n terms of t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance perceived for an i d e a l park environment. Here, an attempt has been made to understand to what extent these a t t r i b u t e s , as they ex i s t i n the sample parks, correlate with the general impression as w e l l as use of these parks. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i t analyzes i f the perceived I - 65 -quality of each a t t r i b u t e i n the sample parks bear any relationship with a) the General Image, and b) the Frequency of v i s i t or use of these parks. I t compares the di f f e r e n t attributes i n terms of t h e i r degree of association with the above factors. The respondents rated the qu a l i t y of each a t t r i b u t e of the sample parks and the "General Image" of these parks on "one to f i v e " o rdinal scales (defined i n "Methodology" pp. ). TABLE XVI i l l u s t r a t e s that the perceived quality of each a t t r i b u t e of the sample parks i s a s i g n i f i c a n t correlate of the General Image of these parks i n d i c a t i n g that the standard of each a t t r i b u t e i s important i n the perception of a favourable image of these areas. TABLE XVI ATTRIBUTES AS CORRELATES OF GENERAL IMAGE OF THE SAMPLE PARKS. Coefficient of ATTRIBUTES IN THE SAMPLE PARKS Association P r o b a b i l i t y (Gamma) (Active Recreation Related) Outdoor games & Sports f a c i l i t i e s 0.19 .035 Indoor games f a c i l i t i e s 0.21 .04 Children's Play Area & Equipment Fac. 0.48 .0001 (Passive Recreation Related) Surrounding Landscape Quality 0.61 .0001 Quiet within Park 0.56 .0001 Protection of park users from outside Noise 0.40 .004 Privacy & Solitude within park 0.45 .0001 Screening of park users from outside view 0.35 .008 Shade Quality 0.44 .0001 Scenic Value 0.66 .0001 (Environmental Improvement related) V i s t a Quality 0.56 .0001 A i r Modification Capacity 0.49 .0001 Noise Protection for surrounding houses 0.49 .0001 Privacy/Visual Protection for surrounding houses 0.47 .0001 Maintenance and Supervision Quality 0.49 .0001 - 66 -I t may be worth noting however that the quality of Active Recreational F a c i l i t i e s i n these parks (with the exception of Children's Play Area and Equipment Quality) show weaker associations than any other a t t r i b u t e with the Image of these parks demonstrating t h e i r lower significance than others i n shaping the general impression of these. As correlates of the General Image the group of attributes related to the "Environmental Improvement Function" appear to have an edge over the group of attributes related more to direct "Passive Recreational" use function of these parks when compared i n terms the average values of c o e f f i c i e n t of Association for these groups (0.52 and 0.47 respectively). I t may be worth noting further that the perception of the " v i s u a l q u a l i t y aspect" of the environment such as the scenic value of the parks, the quality of the surrounding landscape from the parks and the " V i s t a Quality" of the parks show the &&WYlQ2A>t relationship with the General Image of these parks as given by the co e f f i c i e n t s of Association. The r e l a t i v e l y low importance of the at t r i b u t e "screening of park users" i s again evident. TABLE XVII shows the relationships between the perceived quality of each a t t r i b u t e i n the sample parks and the frequency of v i s i t to these parks. Since v i s i t relates to direct physical use, only those attributes that are related to the passive and active recreational use qu a l i t y of the parks have been compared here. - 67 -TABLE XVII ATTRIBUTES AS CORRELATES OF FREQUENCY OF VISIT TO PARKS ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES Coefficient of Association (Gamma) Pro b a b i l i t y Outdoor games & Sports F a c i l i t i e s — _ Indoor Games F a c i l i t i e s - -Children's Play Area & Equipment Quality _ Quiet within Park 0.21 .01 Scenic Value 0-26 .001 Shade 0.19 .01 Privacy & Solitude within Park 0.16 .03 Screening users from view from outside 0.13 .01 Surrounding Landscape Quality 0.31 .001 Protection of Users from outside noise 0.21 .01 Maintenance & Supervision Quality 0.18 .02 Important to note that the perceived qu a l i t y of Active Recreational f a c i l i t i e s i n these parks have no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with the respondents frequency of v i s i t to these parks. In contrast, each at t r i b u t e related to Passive Recreational use q u a l i t i e s of these parks i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e correlate i n d i c a t i n g the higher importance of "passive" than "active" recreational f a c i l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the physical use of these parks. Within the set of passive recreational a t t r i b u t e s , the " v i s u a l " q u a l i t y aspect of the park environment such as the "scenic value" of the park and the view of the "Surrounding Landscape" from the park appear to be the most important correlate of frequency of v i s i t . Next i n importance appear to be the "auditory" quality of the park environment. - 68 -Interesting to note further that the "privacy" quality of the park p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s t r i c t i o n of v i s u a l access to the park users from the surrounding houses i s the least important correlate of park use. In th i s context, the r e l a t i v e l y higher importance of "Maintenance and Supervision Quality" of the parks as correlates of both General Image and Use of the parks may be worth mentioning. Since supervision i s an important factor for safety and security of users, i t may again indicate the r e l a t i v e l y greater concern for safety, surveillance or v i s u a l assess to park users from the houses than privacy of the park users. Although the perceived qu a l i t y of the sample parks to improve l o c a l " A i r Quality" has s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with the respondents General Image of these parks (TABLE XVI) such relationship i s weaker than those found i n the case of " v i s u a l " and "auditory" q u a l i t i e s of the parks. "Scenic value" of the parks appear to be a very important at t r i b u t e consistently i n a l l the measures employed i n the analyses. Comparison of the perception and use of each selected park While comparing the r e l a t i v e importance of active vs. passive recreational use qu a l i t y of neighbourhood parks the differences among the selected parks i n terms of l e v e l of use and opinion about them were also noted with i n t e r e s t . TABLE XVIII i l l u s t r a t e s the r e l a t i v e s uperiority of Clark park i n terms of value accorded by the respondents from i t s service area. Compar-ing the response from each service area, Clark registers the highest amount of Per Capita v i s i t . The largest percentage of the respondents within i t s service area have a high image and opinion of this park. Renfrew park TABLE XV111 COMPARISON OF THE USE AND PERCEPTION OF THE SAMPLE PARKS PARKS FACTORS COMPARED Per Capita Visit per month (in no. of days) % respondent rating the general image of the park % respondent rating the park's contribution to Neighbourhood quality Like Very Much Like Some-what Do Not Care Dislike Some-what Dislike Very Much Quality Would be Worse Without Park Quality be unaff-ected without park Quality be better without park TOTAL RESPONSE! CLARK GORDON RENFREW 7.8 5.4 5.4 58.4 42.9 47.6 25.3 34.3 46.0 8.9 1.4 3.2 2.5 14.3 3.8 7.1 3.2 85.0 66.5 72.4 5.1 24.3 9.5 8.9 8.9 3.3 79 70 64 - 70 -ranks second i n terms of favourable opinion shown by the respondents of the service area while Gordon park ranks bottom i n t h i s comparison. While Clark i s the smallest i n size among the three and also has the lowest l e v e l of outdoor games and sports f a c i l i t i e s , t h i s high image about t h i s park, therefore, bear re l a t i o n s with the high opinion about i t s environmental attributes. The majority of the respondents from i t s service area give high rating ("Good and "Very Good") s p e c i f i c a l l y to i t s scenic value (64%), shade (71%), surrounding landscape qu a l i t y (72%), and A i r Modification Capacity (65%). While only 24 percent give high r a t i n g to i t s outdoor games f a c i l i t i e s and children's play area and equipment quality. In contrast, despite i t s largest size and highest l e v e l of outdoor games and sports f a c i l i t i e s the r e l a t i v e l y low opinion accorded to Gordon may be largely due to i t s deplorably low standard with regard to the environmental attributes. Of the respondents from the service area around Gordon, only 20% give high rati n g ("Good" and "Very Good") to i t s scenic value, 7% to i t s shade q u a l i t y , and 25% to i t s A i r Modification Capacity, while 60% have high opinion about i t s outdoor games f a c i l i t i e s . In broad terms, therefore, t h i s comparison highlights again the superiority of these environmental attributes over opportunity for active recreation i n the perception of these parks. THE EFFECTS OF DISTANCE ON PARK USE AND PARTICIPATION The frequency v i s i t to the sample parks showed s i g n i f i c a n t negative correlation with the distance from the parks. - 71 -TABLE XIX DISTANCE FROM PARK VS FREQUENCY OF VISIT ZONE (Distance from park) Approximate average distance between edge *-> Per Capita v i s i t per month (No. of days) of the parks and centre of Zone. Adult Respondent Teenage Children Younger Children FRONT 75 Feet 8.64 10.32 14.03 MIDDLE 300 Feet 5.70 9.35 10.43 FAR 700 Feet 3.21 3.66 6.88 Coefficient of Association (Gamma) between Zone and Frequency of V i s i t -0.39 -0.47 -0.59 Pr o b a b i l i t y .02 .02 .004 Within a narrow range of distance between approximately 75 feet and 900 feet (outer edge of the "FAR" Zone) from the edge of the park there i s nearly a 65 percent reduction i n the amount of v i s i t made by an average adult respondent. This sharp v a r i a t i o n i n the use of the parks over such small distance adds support to several authorities (Bangs and Mahler, 1970; Whyte, 1968) who recommend a much smaller service radius than the conventional %-mile for the neighbourhood parks. Comparing between the Adults, the Teenagers and the Subteens, the f r i c t i o n of Distance increases with decreasing age and appear to be the greatest for the Subteens or the "Younger Children" group, which may be due to the obvious reasons of safety and surveillance. For the Teenagers, the reduction i n v i s i t to the sample parks, however, i s perceptible only beyond the MIDDLE zone i . e . beyond approximately 500 feet from the edge of the parks. Since the Teenagers make maximum use of these parks, t h i s sharp reduction i n v i s i t - 72 -from the "FAR" or peripheral zone may be due to the influence of other l o c a l parks nearby. TABLE XX further provides some evidence of possible intervention made by other nearby parks on the use of the sample parks. TABLE XX SECTORAL DIFFERENCES IN FREQUENCY OF VISIT FROM THE FAR ZONES PARKS Sectors i n the FAR Zones Per Capita V i s i t (Days per month) REMARKS Eastern Sector 2.37 John Hendry (57 acres) CLARK Western Sector 4.25 located within %-mile from the eastern edge of the service area of CLARK. North West 3.58 Beaconsfield (Approx. 10 acres) North East 4.40 located with 1/8-mile from the RENFREW North West edge of the service South West 4.60 area of RENFREW South East 4.40 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a l l a c t i v i t i e s with the exception of "Indoor Games" and "swimming" reduces s i g n i f i c a n t l y with increasing Distance from the parks (TABLE XXI). - 73 -TABLE XXI PARTICIPATION IN THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES VS DISTANCE FROM THE PARKS ACTIVITIES Per Capita P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate (No. of occasions per year) Coefficient of Association (Gamma) Pr o b a b i l i t y FRONT Zone MIDDLE Zone FAR Zone B a l l Games 22 13 4 -0.37 .0353 Nature Study 36 7 7 -0.48 .04 Indoor Games 1 2 1 - -S i t t i n g and Relaxing 51 14 11 -0.27 .05 Swimming and wading 7 10 16 - -Waling for Pleasure 74 37 15 -0.37 .003 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Indoor Games i s however i n s i g n i f i c a n t . But the lack of any relationship between p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n "Swimming" and Distance from the parks i s worth noting. The hypothetical p a r t i c i p a t i o n rates i n d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s for an i d e a l neighbourhood park indicates that swimming may be more popular than other active , f a c i l i t y oriented recreation. Besides, being less ubiquitous than other f a c i l i t i e s , swimming enjoys a larger influence zone than any other a c t i v i t y . The differences among the selected parks, i n terms of "Use-Distance" relationships indicate that the presence of swimming f a c i l i t y alone may make large differences i n the l e v e l of use of the parks. In spite of the large difference between Clark and Gordon i n terms of active and passive recreational f a c i l i t i e s the correlations between the distance from these parks and the frequency of v i s i t to these areas are nearly the same - 74 -(Gamma = -0.45 and -0.42 for Clark and Gordon respectively) where as for Renfrew, the only park having swimming f a c i l i t i e s i n the study area, the adverse effect of distance on the frequency of v i s i t i s much less (Gamma = -0.16). Distance had s i g n i f i c a n t negative effects also on the respondents' General Image (Gamma = -0.38, pr o b a b i l i t y = .001) as w e l l as perception of the contribution of the sample parks on t h e i r neighbourhood qu a l i t y (Gamma = -0.37; P r o b a b i l i t y = .006). People leaving adjacent to these parks appear to have the strongest l i k i n g as w e l l as high opinion about them. - 75 -CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Public parks and open spaces i n urban areas are j u s t i f i e d by planners on grounds of t h e i r increasing recreational p o t e n t i a l as w e l l as t h e i r various environmental amenity values. Unfortunately, however, planners have shown l i t t l e regard to the community's perception of the various roles of these parks i n th e i r designs. The pr e v a i l i n g approach, based primarily on professional value judgements has often led to lack of appreciation of the present neighbourhood parks by the residents. Thus there i s a need for better understanding of the users' perceptions of the various possible functions of neighbourhood parks and t h e i r r e l a t i v e preference for these functions. Working towards t h i s broad purpose the present study s p e c i f i c a l l y investigated the r e l a t i v e preference of the teenage and adult residents l i v i n g i n low income areas of Vancouver for various active vs passive types of recreation i n neighbourhood parks. I t also compared the perceived importance of several physical attributes of parks that apparently contributes towards t h e i r active and passive recreational use q u a l i t i e s as w e l l as t h e i r environmental amenity values i n the r e s i d e n t i a l m i l i e u . The study was implemented through a residence based questionnaire survey around three neighbourhood parks of east Vancouver during the Summer of 1974. Ranging i n si z e between 10-15 acres, these parks were widely d i f f e r e n t among themselves i n terms of recreational f a c i l i t i e s and landscape c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The a c t i v i t y preferences were measured i n - 76 -terms of the hypothetical l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the selected a c t i v i t i e s indicated by the respondents for an " i d e a l " neighbourhood park as w e l l as th e i r actual l e v e l of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these a c t i v i t i e s i n the selected parks. The perceived importance of each selected park a t t r i b u t e was measured by the " l e v e l of importance" and the "rank" given to each a t t r i b u t e by the respondents for a hypothetical i d e a l park environment and by the degree to which the perceived q u a l i t y of each at t r i b u t e of the selected parks correlated with the "general image" and frequency of use of these parks. The effects of distance (from the parks) on the frequency of park use and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y were also analyzed. Of the s i x major active and passive types of recreation studied, "Walking for Pleasure" was found to be more popular than the other a c t i v i t i e s among the respondents, when measured i n terms of proportion of respondents hypothetically wish to pa r t i c i p a t e as w e l l as ac t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n each a c t i v i t y . For an average respondent, the hypothetical as w e l l as actual frequencies of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n "Walking for Pleasure" were also found to be higher than those i n the other selected a c t i v i t i e s . Notwithstanding the large difference among the three parks i n terms of f a c i l i t i e s and environment the popularity for t h i s a c t i v i t y was highest i n the response from the service area around each park. "Indoor Games" appeared to be the least preferred among the selected a c t i v i t i e s . The hypothetical as w e l l as actual frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the selected a c t i v i t i e s generally favoured the passive than the active types of recreation. Further, the perceived q u a l i t y of the games and sports f a c i l i t i e s i n the selected parks showed no s i g n i f i c a n t r e lationship with the frequency of v i s i t to these parks by the respondents while the - 77 -perceptions of the various v i s u a l , auditory, shade and privacy q u a l i t i e s of the park environments were s i g n i f i c a n t correlates of v i s i t . The o v e r a l l impression or the "General Image" of these parks also had stronger relationships with the perception of the above park q u a l i t i e s than the games and sports f a c i l i t i e s i n these parks. Among the selected parks, the one less oriented to active recreational f a c i l t i e s but richer i n terms of the environmental q u a l i t i e s was found to be r e l a t i v e l y more l i k e d and mor"e frequently v i s i t e d than the one designed only for active games and sports. A c t i v i t y preferences were, however, found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated to several demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents. The "16-20 year" age group showed the highest preference for " B a l l games and Active Sports". P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each selected active recreation declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y with increasing age while no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship between age and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n passive recreation could be found. The larger the number of children the higher the preference for active recreational opportunity was shown for a hypothetical i d e a l neighbourhood park environment. The l e v e l of importance given to the selected attributes by the respondents for a hypothetical i d e a l park and the correlations between the general image and the perception of these attributes of the selected park suggested that the " i n d i r e c t use" functions or the amenity values of neighbourhood parks may be of no less importance than t h e i r passive recreational use q u a l i t i e s i n the perception of the respondents. By the above measure of comparison, the " v i s u a l q u a l i t y " aspect of the park environment, p a r t i c u l a r l y the "scenic value" of the park appeared to be - 78 -a very important a t t r i b u t e i n the perception of the residents, while the "privacy" quality aspect of the park, p a r t i c u l a r l y the r e s t r i c t i o n of v i s u a l access to park users from the surrounding houses was found to be least preferred. Safety and surveillance of park users was apparently of greater concern to the respondents than privacy within the park. The "auditory" quality of the park environment and i t s a b i l i t y to provide noise protection for the surrounding houses and to contribute to the l o c a l a i r qu a l i t y were also perceived by the respondents as very important q u a l i t i e s for an i d e a l neighbourhood park. Even within such a small distance of a one-fourth mile from the centre of the parks (or approximately an average distance of 900 feet from the edge of the parks), the amount of v i s i t as w e l l as p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n each a c t i v i t y decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y within increasing distance from the parks. Exception, however, was p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n swimming, an a c t i v i t y that r e l y on r e l a t i v e l y higher order (less ubiquitous) and at the same time popular f a c i l i t i e s . The adverse effect of distance on park use was found to be least for adult respondents and maximum for the subteen children of the respondents. Within an approximate distance between 50 to 900 feet from the edges of the parks there i s a 60% v a r i a b i l i t y i n the use of the parks made by subteen children. In i n terpreting the above findings of the study one should bear i n mind the facts that the questionnaire survey generated only a l i t t l e over 50% rate of response and only a l i m i t e d number of a c t i v i t y variables were considered i n the survey. An attempt to assess respondents preference for a c t i v i t i e s other than those s p e c i f i e d , through open ended questions f a i l e d to generate v a l i d data. The observations made here, however, - 79 -throws considerable l i g h t on how a sizeable number of people of the low income group perceive the functions and usefulness of neighbourhood parks i n the i r day to day l i v i n g environment. Their implications i n the context of neighbourhood park planning as w e l l as i n the broader realm of urban design may not be overlooked. The finding that may be of p a r t i c u l a r interest i n the context of park design and i s worth of further empirical research i s that r e l a t i v e l y great importance was accorded to neighbourhood parks as settings for passive recreation as w e l l as for t h e i r amenity values, p a r t i c u l a r l y as, aesthetic resource, i n comparison to t h e i r importance as active recreation resource. Such perceptions, i f proven generally v a l i d , may suggest that greater public benefits would accrue through emphasis on careful landscape design and s i t e planning of these areas than a "playground" approach to t h e i r design. Age-specific differences i n a c t i v i t y preferences, however, should not be overlooked. Separation of incompatible age groups wi t h i n the neighbourhood park may be an e f f e c t i v e p o l i c y i n t h i s regard. Although the study did not probe into the preferences of the subteen age group, i t nevertheless brought out the perceived importance of children's play area and f a c i l i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to respondents image of the neigh-bourhood parks. However, the "distance vs park use" relationship for the subteen children of the respondents suggests that the children need play areas i n greater proximity to home. Tot l o t s , side walks, open spaces associated with Day Care Centres may not only supplement but also may have greater p o t e n t i a l than neighbourhood parks of 10-15 acres to serve the children. The neighbourhood park was focussed i n t h i s study as a s e t t i n g for - 80 -the selected recreation a c t i v i t i e s . However, i n view of the popularity for "walking for pleasure" highlighted i n this study, i t may be worthwhile to investigate into the potentials of alternative settings such as landscaped streets, sidewalks or a l l e y s to supplement neighbourhood parks and open spaces. In the realm of urban design, the perceived importance of the various amenity values of neighbourhood parks throws some l i g h t on the concern of the economically weaker section of the community for the physical attributes that create the environmental q u a l i t y of the r e s i d e n t i a l milieu. Open space planning may be an ef f e c t i v e means to achieve a l i v a b l e environment. However, researches i n physical and natural sciences are necessary to provide information i n quantitative terms to the designer as to the actual effectiveness of urban parks and open spaces with regard to noise abatement, microclimatic control etc. This study nevertheless i l l u s t r a t e s that differences among the parks i n the "perceived q u a l i t y " of scenic value, quietness, noise protection q u a l i t y etc. could be brought about even within such small size as 10-15 acres. The contrast between Clark and Gordon may be a case i n point. ) This study employs only one technique, i . e . questionnaire survey to assess the residents' a c t i v i t y preferences as w e l l as perception of the various roles of neighbourhood parks. Data generated through various other methods may be valuable supplements to the findings of t h i s study. In the recreation context, actual observation i n neighbourhood parks of a wide variety may be made to record the types of a c t i v i t i e s conducted and the types of f a c i l i t i e s used. Visu a l display of d i f f e r e n t types of park landscape may be made through photographs and models and the residents' reactions to them may generate useful data to assess the type of park environment people are interested i n . - 82 -BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Appleyard, Donald and F.M. Casp, Blalock, Hubert, M. ( J r . ) , Burton, T.L. (Ed.) , Butler, George D., Chermayeff, Serge and Christopher Alexander, Cook, David I. and David F. Van Haverbeke, Cullen, Gordon, Drive, B.L. (Ed.), Eckbo, Garnett, Eldredge, H.W. (Ed.) Emmett, Isa b e l , Freeman, Linton C., T h e BART R e s i d e n t i a l I m p a c t S t u d y . A l o n g i -t u d i n a l e m p e r l c a l s t u d y of E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p a c t , I n s t i t u t e of Urban and Regional Development, University of C a l i f o r n i a , Bark-le y , February 1973. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s , McGraw H i l l Book Co., New York, 1960. R e c A e a t i o n R e s e a r c h , avid P l a n n i n g , University of Birmingham, Aldan and Mowbray Ltd. , Oxford, 1970. R e c A e a t i o n A r e a s : T h e i r d e s i g n a n d e q u i p m e n t , The Ronald Press Co., New York, 1958. I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Community R e c A e a t i o n , McGraw H i l l Book Co., New York, 1959. Community and P r i v a c y , Garden C i t y , Doubleday, New York, 1963. T r e e C o v e r e d Land P o m s f o r N o i s e C o n t r o l , U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research B u l l e t i n 263, 1974. T o w n & c a p e , Reinhold Book Corporation, New York, 1961. E l e m e n t s of O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n , University of Michigan, 1970. L a n d s c a p e We S e e , McGraw H i l l , New York, 1969. L a n d s c a p e f o r L i v i n g , F.W. Dodge Corporation, New York, 1961. Urban L a n d s c a p e V e s i g n , McGraw H i l l , New York, 1961. Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , Vol. 1, Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , New York, 1967. Y o u t h and L e i s u r e I n an Urban S p r a w l , Man-chester University Press, 1971. E l e m e n t a r y A p p l i e d S t a t i s t i c s , John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1965. - 83 -Gold, Seymour M. , Guggenheimer, E.C. , Hammer, T.R., E.T. Horn and R.E. Conghlin, Hibberseimer, L. , It t l e s o n , W.A., H.M. Pro-shansky, L.G. R l v l i n and G.H. Winkel, Jacobs, Jane, Jensen, Clayne R., Kuper, Leo, Lowenthal, David (Ed.) , Lynch, Kevin, Mcharg, Ian L. Michelson, W., Neumeyer, Martin H. and Esther S. Neumeyer, Niering, William A., Olgyay V i c t o r and Aladar Olgyay, Unban RecAe.aJU.on Planning, Leo and Febiger, Philadelphia, 1973. Planning {or Ranks and RecAeation Heeds in Unban AheaS, Twayne Publishers, Inc., New York, 1969. The Ejects of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Values, R.S.R.I. Discussion Paper Series, NO. 51, Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , Philadelphia, September, 1971. The Nature of Cities, Paul Theobald & Co., Chicago, 1955. An Introduction to Environmental Psychology, Holt, Rinihart and Winston, Inc., New York, 1974. The Death and Life o{, Great American Cities, Random House, New York. Outdoor Recreation in America, National Re-creation and Park Association, U.S.A., 1970. Living in Towns, Selected Research papers i n Urban sociology, University of Birmingham, The Crescent Press, London, 1953. Environmental Perception and Behaviour, University of Chicago press, Chicago, 1967. The Image of the City, Cambridge Press, Boston, 1960. Vesign with Nature, Natural History Press, Garden C i t y , New York, 1969. Man and His Urban Environment: A Sociological Approach, Add Wesley Publishing Co., Don M i l l s , Ontario, 1970. Leisure and Recreation, A.S. Barnes and Co., New York, 1949. Mature in the Metropolis, Regional Plann Associa-t i o n , New York, 1960. Vesign with Climate, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1963. - 84 -Oppenheim, A.N. Rutledge, A.J. Scherer, Ursula and R.E. Coughlin, Q u e s t i o n n a i r e D e s i g n and A t t i t u d e M e a s u r e m e n t , Basic Book Inc., New York, 1966. Anatomy of a p a r k . McGraw H i l l , New York, 1971. A p i l o t H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y o£ p e r c e p t i o n and u s e of a l a r g e P a r k . R.S.R.I. Discussion Paper Series No. 59 Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e , Pennsylvania, December 1972. Seymour, Whitney North (Ed.) S m a l l Urban S p a c e s , New York University Press, New York, 1969. Simonds, J.O. Speiregen, Paul D. Stipe Robert E. (Ed.) L a n d s c a p e A r c h i t e c t u r e , F.w. Doge Corporation, New York, 1958. Urban V e s i g n : T h e A r c h i t e c t u r e of Towns and C i t i e s . McGraw H i l l Book Co., New York, 1965. ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS Bacon, Edmund N. "The Townscape" Taming M e g a l o p o l i s Vol. 1. H.W. Eldredge (Ed.) Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , New York, 1967. Beck, Robert Bernatzky, A. "S p a t i a l meaning and the Properties of the Environment". E n v i r o n m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Man a n d H i s P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g . Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, 1970. pp. 134-140. "The Performance and values of Trees". A n t h o s , No. 1, 1969. "The Performance and values of Trees". AnthoS. No. 1, 1969 and "Climatic Influences of Greens and City Planning". A n t h o s , No. 1, 1966. - 85 -Bultena, Gordon and Vivian Wood. Christensen, J.E. and D.R. Yoesting. Dee, Norber and J.C. Liebman. Gold, Thrope, John H. Hamill, Eonis. "Leisure and Recreation a c t i v i t i e s of Retirement Community Residents". Journal o i L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h . Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1970, pp. 3-15. "Soci a l and A t t i t u d i n a l Variants i n high and low use of Outdoor recreation f a c i l i t i e s " . J o u r n a l o i L e i s u r e ReiQ.aA.ck. Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring, 1973. "A S t a t i s t i c a l Study of attendence at Urban Playgrounds". J o u r n a l o i L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h . Vol. 2, No. 1, Winter 1970. " S o c i a l S t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n I n d u s t r i a l Society", i n R e a d i n g I n S o c i a l S t r a t i l i c a t i o n Melvin M. Tumin (Ed.), N.J. Prentice H a l l , Englewood C l i f f s , 1970. "Po t e n t i a l for increasing recreational opportunities i n Urban area". P r o c e e d i n g * o i C a n a d i a n A s s o c i a t i o n o i G e o g r a p h e r s . Dept. of Geography, University of Manitoba, 1970. Hauser, P.M. "Demographic and ecological changes as factors i n outdoor recreation". O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n S t u d y R e p o r t No. 22. U.S. Govt. P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C., 1962. Heggestad, H.E. et a l . "Plants that w i l l withstand P o l l u t i o n and Reduce i t " , i n Landscape l o r L i v i n g . U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Yearbook 1972, pp. 16-32. Hendee, J.C. "Rural Urban difference r e f l e c t e d i n Outdoor Recreational P a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Journal o l L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h . Vol. 2. pp. 333-341. Jacobs, Jane. "The Uses of neighbourhood Parks". S m a l l Urban S p a c e s . Whitney North Seymour (Ed.) New York University Press, New York, 1969, pp. 23-28. "Maintenance i n Urban Parks and Open Spaces". Taming M e g a l o p o l i s . Vol. 10 H.w. Eldredge (Ed.) Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , New York, 1967. Kitchen, Knopp, Timothy B. Lawrence, K.F. Leopold, Luna B. Lindsay, J . J . and Richard A. Ogle. Lynch, Kevin and Rivkin, M. Mercer, David Meharg, Ian. P e r l o f f , H.S. and Wingo, L. Proshansky, H.M., W.H.J. Itt l e s o n and L.G. R i v l i n . "Environmental Determinants of Recreation Behaviour". Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 4, Spring 1972. "Outdoor Recreation i n Relation to Physical and mental health". Outdoor. Recreation Resource. Review Commission, Study Report No. 11 and 13. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C., 1962. "Landscape esthetics". Natural History Magazine. September 1969. "Socio-economic Pattern of Outdoor Recreation use near Urban Areas". Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 4, No. l , Winter 1972. "A Walk Around the Block". Environmental Psychology. H.M. Phoshansky et a l . (Ed.) Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1970. "The Concept of recreation need". Journal of Leisure Research, Winter 1972. "The Place of man i n Nature and the place of Nature i n the environment of Man". Taming Megalopolis. H.w. Eldredge (Ed.) Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , New York, 1967. "Urban growth and the Planning of Outdoor Recreation". Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission, Study Report No. 22 and 13. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C., 1962. "The use of Behavioural maps i n Environmental Psychology", i n Prohansky et a l . (Eds.). Environmental Psychology: Man and his Physical netting. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., New York, 1970. Rosenberg, G. "Ci t y Planning Theory and Quality of L i f e " . EkisticS, May 1969. < - 87 -Segall, M.H., D.T. Campbell and M.J. Herskovitz. Tankel, Stanley B. Weaver, Robert C. Wilson, R.L. William, Sydney H. Zisman, S.B. "Some Psychological Theory and Predictions of C u l t u r a l Differences." Environmental Psychology: Man and his Physical Setting. Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., Chicago 1970, pp. 153-168. "The Importance of Open Space i n the Urban Pattern" i n Cities and Space. Lowdon Wingo, (Jr.) ed. Resources for the Future Inc. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963). "Recreation needs i n Urban Areas". Small Unban Spaces. W.N. Seymour (Ed.) New York University Press, New York 1969, pp. 23-28. " L i v a b i l i t y of the Cit y : Attitudes on Urban Development" i n Urban Growth Dynamics. E. Stuart Chapin and S.F. Weiss (Eds.), Wilsey, New York, 1962. "Urban Aesthetics". Town Planning Review. Vol. 25 1954, pp. 95-113. "Open Spaces i n Urban Growth". Taming Megalopolis. Vol. 1 H.W. Eldredge (Ed.) Doubleday and Co. Inc., Garden C i t y , New York, 1967. GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS C a l i f o r n i a Committee on Planning for Recreation, Park Areas and F a c i l i t i e s . Guide foA. Planning recreation parks In California. C a l i f o r n i a Recreation Commission, Sacramento, 1956. C a l i f o r n i a Department of Parkland and Recreation. Outdoor Recreation Outlook to 1980. Department of Parks and Recreation, 1967. City of Vancouver. Sectional map&. P r o v i n c i a l Land Registry O f f i c e , B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, 1970. Clawson, Marion. Dynamics of Park Demand. Park, Recreation and Open Space Project of the Tri-State, New York Metropolitan Region, 1960, No. 94. - 88 -Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission. Park UieAS Sun.ve.y- Recreation in the Detroit Region. The Commission, Detroit, Michigan. National League of C i t i e s , Department of Urban Studies, RecAeation in the Motion'6 Cities. National League of C i t i e s , Washington D.C., 1968. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Census of Canada 1971. Vancouver Population and Housing Characteristics by Census. Catalogues: 95-728 (CT-28A) May 1973, and 95-758 (CT-28A) August 1974. United States Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Outdoor Recreation for America. No. 18, 20-22, 26. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C. 1962. Department of I n t e r i o r , National Park Service. A study of Plants and their environmental functions. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C, 1972. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. P a c i f i c Northwest Region. Handbook on Visual Management System. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C, 1972. Vancouver Board of Parks and Public Recreation. Annual Reports 1966-73. City of Vancouver, 1973. The Parks of Vancouver. City of Vancouver, October 1968. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Bjering, J . J . , Campbell, J. Halen and R. Morley. U.B.C. MI/TAB Multivariate Contingency Tabulations. Computing Centre, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Chambers, A.D. Simulation of Cottage Lot Subdivisions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. Cowie, Arthur Robert The provision and distribution of Local open spaces in Urban Residential Areas. M.Sc. Thesis i n Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. - 89 -Dampsey, N.M. Heuer, H. Ing, Albert Howie, F.G. Mathews, Russel Pattern and Complexity: ?t>ycho logical need as determinant in the visual environment. M.A. Thesis i n Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. An operational framework, relating generic Activity pattern in the residential open spaces environment to physical design. M.A. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. An Investigation of sign regulation and its effects on the Urban environment. M.A. Thesis i n Community and Regional Planning, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968. The visual Landscape and resource Inventories, Master of Forestry Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. An Investigation of Sound Attenuation by Tree Stands. Unpublished Master of Forestry Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. - 91 -i . z. How long hove you boon r e s i d i n g i n t h i s neighbourhood ( i . e . In the l o c a l i t y around Park)? Tor less than a year I Ii for the l a s t 1 to 2 years Q | f o r the l a s t 2 to 4 years Q i f o r nor* than k years 1 I. Tour age? 16 to 20 years Q | 21 to JO years j\ to kO years fZJl *° 5<> years 51 to 60 years Q | above 60 • Hew often do you v i s i t (your neighbourhood Park) during winter and during the warn seasons? SPRING AND SUMMER FALL AND VINTER Several t i n e s a week . . . . . . . . I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i~l Ones a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Once every 2 or 3 weeks . . . . . . CD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d Less than above . . . . . . . . . . Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Never • • Are you: Married? fj] or s ingle? Q or widowed? I h or other? Q Do you have any c h i l d r e n ? No I li Tes I I. Ages o f c h i l d r e n ? ' How often do your c h i l d r e n v i s i t (your neighbourhood Park)? Teenagers SPRING & STOKER VINTER Tonnger Chi ldren  SPRING & SUMMER VINTER Several t inea a week . . Once a week . . . . . . Once every 2 o r 3 weeks. Leas than above . . . . Never . . . . . . . . . • • a • • . a . • . • a • • p • a . • 7. Are you: Male Q or Female 8. (a) Vhieh a c t i v i t i e s YOU would prefer to do i n your neighbourhood parks (say Park) i f the f a c i l i t i e s were ava l i a b l e and the environment suitable? (Check the appropriate boxea • ) (b) How often would you p a r t i c i p a t e in your chosen a c t i v i t i e s ? (check the appropriate space). ACTIVITIES every day twice a veek once a veek once in tvo weeks once a month leas than once a month B a l l eaaies A other t c t i v e sports Q Enjoying & studying nature or surrounding landscape L_l Indoor gaoea [ZI - 92 -twice a ones a on**e in lea a th*n S i t t i n g and relaxing Q Swimming or wading Walking for pleastire f j Any other (apaclfy) 10. Ye Ilka to know what type of neighbourhood park TOP prefer. Supposing a new part (approximately same size as _____________ Park) would be designed i n your neighbourhood which of the following three aspects TOU would you prefer most f o r this new park? Please rank them i n TOUR order of preference, ( i . e . put FIRST, SECOND and THIRD under the RANK column provided. RANK ( l ) I t should be a place vhere I or my family could v i s i t for enjoying landscape* relaxing or walking for pleasure . • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( i l ) It should be a place vhere I or my family can v i s i t for active games and sports « . * • • • • • . . * • . • • • • • • • • . . . - • * • • • • _____________ ( i l l ) It should be something that helps to improve or maintain fresh a i r quality* quietness and appearance of the neighbourhood whether people v i s i t i t or not • • • • » • • • » • . • • • • . . • • • • • • • • • ____________ How here are some of the considerations for design of such a new neighbourhood park as mentioned in Question No. 9 above. How important to TOP are each of these considerations? DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS NOT IMPORTANT (1) SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT (2) VERT IMPORTANT (1) (for Question t 11 ) (4) The neighbourhood park should haTO high scenic value with attractive features and landscaping. • D • There should be privacy and solitude for individuals or small groups within the park. View of other people within the park should be minimized. • • • The park should help to clean the a i r i n the neighbourhood. • • n The park should be so located and designed as to provide good view of the distant landscape from the park. • • The park ahould be more open to sun and have less shade. • a • The park should be as much shaded aa possible. • • • The park should be such that one feels quietness within i t . • • • (continued 4n nt^ct wre) - 93 -:.o? SCE-.'S.HVr The park ahoald be such that the appearanoe of surrounding buildings and streets i s improved when viewed through or from the park. ;:i — -• • • The park should provide privacy and protection to surrounding houses against view from surrounding streets or houses across the park. a a The park i t s e l f should be protected from surrounding noise from t r a f f i c or other sources. D a • People using the park should not be seen from surrounding street and houses. • • D The park should proteot the surrounding houses from the noise from surrounding t r a f f i o and other sources a a • 1 1 . „ u a v s c u e c J t e a as V M I ana oUMfcWnAT IMPORTANT (.column No. (2) and No. (3) in the above Question 10) cannot be attuned at the same time, which ones would YOU favour more than the others? Please RANK them i n TOUR order of preference ( i . e . put FIRST, SECOND, THIRD etc. under column No. (4) (extreme right) i n the above Question No. 10. ) 1 2 . How much do you l i k e (your neighbourhood Park) i n general? 1 3 . l i k e very much 1 {: li k e somewhat Q l a o n 0 * care f~t d i s l i k e somewhat Qj d i s l i k e very much 1 L Do you v i s i t any other LOCAL PARKS i n Vancouver, occasionally or frequently? (Do not consider parks that are much larger than Park of your neighbourhood). NO Qj TES • ( I f yest, please mention their names below. NAMES OF PARKS 1 2 3 V i s i t more often than Park V i s i t aa often as Park V i s i t less often than Park 14 Can you aee Park from your house? NO • ; TES Q I f TES how much do you l i k e the view? l i k e very much Ot l i k e somewhat £]> d° not care •} d i s l i k e somewhat O l d i s l i k e very much f~\. 1 5 . (a) Vhlch of the following a c t i v i t i e s do TOU carry out when you v i s i t the appropriate b"xes I h. (set next P«d«) Park? (Check - 94 -(h) Hov often do yju participate in your chosen a c t i v i t i e s ? (Check the appropriate spaces). ACTIVITIES every day tvlco a veek once a veek once in tvo weeks once a month less than once a month Ploy b a l l cane3 [ ™ ] Enjoy or atudy nature or surrounding landscape | J Play active games A sports [__] Play indoor games [~J S i t and relax [_] Swim or vade £ J Valk for pleasure Q Any other (specify) J—J I t i s said that property value (or rent) Increases -with nearness to a park. Vhat do you f e e l a b o u t ; Park i n this respect'/ Do you think property value w i l l Increase ~ ] or decrease [_] or remain the same [_] with nearness to this park? 17. 18. 19. Imagine your neighbourhood without ______________ with houses l i k e the ones now i n your neighbourhood, ference to your neighbourhood quality7 Park. Assume i t has been b u i l t up Do YOU fe e l i t would make serious d i f -I t would be worae or unaffected or better How would you rate _____ o • • without the park. .Park, i n general, for each of the following? Indoor games f a c i l i t i e s Children's play area and equipment Quality of maintenance & supervision Quietness within the park Visual appearance/acenlc value of the park. Shade Privacy or solitude wlthing the park Providing cleaner 4> better a i r in the neighbourhood ' Do you agree with the following statements about neighbourhood? ( see next «ige) VERY VERT POOR POOR FAIR GOOD GOOD ••• a D • a • • • • • • • a ..a • a • • • • • • • • • • . 0 • • a .• • • a P . • a • • a Park of your - 95 -_Park helps to protect ray house from surrounding t r a f f i o & other noise, 1 enjoy vlev of the surrounding landscape from Park. Park helps to provide more privacy to my house from tho surrounding houses and streets. The appearance of surrounding buildings & streets i s greatly improved vhen viewed from or through the park. People using the park are protected from view from surrounding streets and houses. People using the park are protected from the T \ O I S « from surrounding t r a f f i c and other sources. STRONGLY DISAGREE a • D D • • DISAGREE • • • • • • AGIISB n • • • D • STHONGLY AGREE • a Q a a | 2 0 . Please try to remember the following features of Park of your neighbourhood and t e l l how much YOU l i k e each of them. I f you li k e you may also express b r i e f l y your feelings about them under the REMARKS column. FEATURES LIKE VERY MUCH LIKE SOMEWHAT DO NOT DISLIKE CARE SOMEWHAT DISLIKE VERY MUCH REMARKS Appearance of the surrounding buildings. Q Appearance of the surrounding | | streets. J_j View of the distant landscape from the park • » towards NORTH O • towards SOUTH D • towards EAST Q • towards VEST Q Shape of the GROUND or FLOOR of the park (e.g. Its I—i flatness or r o l l i n g nature — or steep slope etc. ) The TYPE of trees (Large ones) existing i n the park ( i f I I any) shrubai the • Small plants (e.g. bushes, vines etc.) existing i n park ( i f any) Arrangement or composition of the various typos of trees ex- 1—1 ia t l n g in the park Overall shape of the perk I I (continued In n""4. Q • • • n a • • • • a D • D • n a • D a • • • a • a • • • • a D • • a • • • • D • D Q - 96 -LI KK FEATURES VERY MUCH LIKE SOMEWHAT DO NOT CARE DISLIKE SOME VII AT Dl SLI KE , VERY MUCH REMARKS The walk from your house 1 | to the park • — • • • t_ Appearance o f the c l u b , community c e n t e r or o t h e r | j b u i l d i n g s w i t h i n t h e.park • a • • Loc a t l o n and arrangements o f the games f i e l d s , c o u r t s i—i and p l a y equipment w i t h i n *— J the park • • • • D e s i g n and appoarance o f p l a y apparatus; benches, f l o w e r | | boxes, f o u n t a i n s , s c u l p t u r e s ( i f any) i n the park • a a • Des i g n and appearance o f paths and t r a i l s ( i f any) i n the LJ park • • D a Appearance o f the wa t e r b o d i e s ( i f any) i n the park e.g. outdoor swimming p o o l o r J_J wading p o o l o r c r e e k s o r r a v i n e o r ponds e t c . • a a • 2 1 . Do you have something more t o say about the above o r any.any o t h e r such f e a t u r e s o f the park? 22. Are you s a t i s f i e d w i t h the number o f t r e e s i n the above park? n too few i n number __, s a t i s f a c t o r y number n. too many i n number 23 . Vhat do you f e e l about the s i z e o f the park? too s n a i l Q l 0 ' K - L_1 too l a r g e (~l I f y ou have f u r t h e r comments pleat >e use the back o f t h i s page. T H A N E T O D F O R T O U R T I M E A N D A S S I S T A N C E . - 97 -APPENDIX-B DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION TOTAL STUDY AREA Clark Park Gordon Park Renfrew Park Sample Size 394 137 135 122 Response 213 79 70 64 % rate of return 54.1 57.7 51.9 51.6 "Zone" wise d i s t r i b u t i o n : Sample "Front" Zone 126 52 45 29 Response "Front" Zone 90 47 27 16 % rate of return 71.4 90.4 60.0 55.2 S Sample "Middle" Zone 133 42 45 46 Response "Middle" Zone 67 20 26 21 % rate of response 50.4 47.6 57.8 45.6 Sample "Far" Zone 131 43 41 47 Response "Far" Zone 56 12 17 27 % rate of response 42.7 27.9 41.5 57.4 - 98 -APPENDIX-C DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC SUBCLASSES IN THE RESPONSE POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS STUDY AREA CENSUS TRACT Response No . % t o t a l response % t o t a l population SEX: Male 96 49.5 48.8 Female 98 50.5 51.2 MARITAL STATUS: Married 155 72.4 68.6 Single 44 20.7 22.2 Widowed 6 2.8 6.3 Other 7 3.3 2.9 NUMBER OF CHILDREN: No c h i l d 82 41.0 36.8 1 c h i l d 26 13.0 20.0 2 children 47 23.5 21.5 > 2 children 45 22.5 21.7 AGE GROUPS: 16-20 yrs 18 8.7 (15-19 yrs) 10.3 21-30 yrs 46 22.1 (20-34 yrs) 27.4 31-40 yrs 46 22.1 (35-44 yrs) 19.6 41-50 yrs 49 23.5 (45-54 yrs) 17.5 51-60 yrs 27 12.9 (55-64 yrs) 13.1 above 60 yrs 22 10.6 (above 65) 12.1 AGE OF FIRST CHILD: Subteen 42 20.3 Teen 49 23.7 Grown up 34 16.4 No c h i l d 82 39.6 APPENDIX-C Cont'd... DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE STUDY AREA LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN STUDY AREA Response No. % Total Response Less than 1 year 15 7.2 1 - 2 years 25 12.1 2 - 4 years 10 4.8 above 4 years 157 75.8 - 100 -APPEND1X-D RANGE OF FREQUENCY PARTICIPATION IN RECREATION ACTIVITIES ONCE EVERY DAY TWICE-A-WEEK ONCE-A-WEEK ONCE IN TWO WEEKS ONCE-A-MONTH LESS THAN ONCE-A-MONTH* NEVER Assumed as s i x occasions per year, AMOUNT OF VISIT  TO PARKS Assumed as 16 Days per month Assumed as 1 Day per month RANGE OF FREQUENCY SEVERAL TIMES-A-WEEK* ONCE-A-WEEK ONCE EVERY TWO WEEKS LESS THAN ABOVE NEVER for c a l c u l a t i o n of Amount of v i s i t (days) per month. Age and Sex Sp e c i f i c Preferences for the Different A c t i v i t i e s under a hypothetical Ideal Park Condition ACTIVITIES AGE GROUPS SEX 16 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 above 60 Male Female B a l l games and other Active Sports Percentage of t o t a l Respondents wishing p a r t i c i p a t e to (X) 94.4 56.5 52.2 32.6 22.2 13.6 48.9 43.9 Per Capita P a r t i c i p a t i o n rate (no. of occasions per year) (Y) 84 43 48 25 11 4 43 32 Nature Study (X) 44.4 45.6 30.4 40.8 44.4 50.0 42.7 43.9 00 49 28 28 35 21 26 29 32 Indoor Games (X) 55.6 47.8 43.5 32.6 37.0 22.7 38.5 43.9 00 43 26 39 34 17 9 24 38 S i t t i n g and Relaxing (x) 61.1 52.2 39.1 51.0 33.3 63.6 43.7 52.0 00 76 54 32 47 20 37 35 48 Swimming and Wading (x) 61.1 67.4 50.0 32.6 33.3 13.6 40.6 52.0 00 81 53 48 37 23 3 31 56 Walking for Pleasure (X) 50.0 65.2 63.0 57.1 62.9 72.7 67.7 62.2 00 89 79 82 61 40 51 66 72 Age S p e c i f i c P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Different A c t i v i t i e s i n the Sample Parks ACTIVITIES AGE GROUPS 16 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 60 above 60 B a l l games and other Active Sports Percentage of Respondents P a r t i c i p a t i n g (X) 66.7 21.7 30.4 10.1 11.1 0 Per Capita P a r t i c i p a t i o n (Days per Year) (Y) 49 14 21 4 1 0 Nature Study (X) 33.3 17.8 17.3 16.3 18.5 22.7 00 37 14 12 26 17 25 Indoor Games (X) 16.7 13.0 6.5 2.0 0 0 (Y) 3 5 2 0 0 0 S i t t i n g and Relaxing (X) 50.0 39.1 39.1 26.5 25.9 27.3 00 57 22 31 32 9 28 Swimming and Wading (X) 38.9 15.2 23.9 10.2 0 0 00 25 5 24 9 0 0 Walking for Pleasure (X) 55.6 58.7 65.2 53.1 40.7 40.9 00 65 38 65 57 11 45 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS GIVING RANKS TO THE ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES TOP RANKS MIDDLE RANKS LOW RANKS PARK ATTRIBUTES (RANKS l S t t o 4 t h ) (RANKS 5 t h t o 8 t h ) (RANKS 9 t h t o l 2 t h ) Total Response No. % Total No. % Total No. % Total A i r Modification Capacity 63 84 12 16 0 0 75 Quietness within park 68 90.6 6 8 1 1.3 75 Scenic Value 62 82.6 12 16 1 1.3 75 Protection of park users from outside noise 44 58.6 23 30.6 8 10.6 75 Surrounding Landscape Quality 40 53.3 21 28 14 18.6 75 V i s t a Quality 38 50.6 27 36 12 16 75 Noise Protection for Surrounding Houses 36 48 27 36 12 16 75 A v a i l a b i l i t y of shade i n park 36 48 29 38.6 14 18.6 75 Privacy & Visual Protec-t i o n for surrounding houses 34 45.3 21 28 20 26.6 75 Privacy within park through v i s u a l seggrega-tion 27 36 19 25.3 29 38.6 75 A v a i l a b i l i t y of sun i n park 21 28 14 18.6 40 53.3 75 Screening of park users from view from outside 7 9.3 8 10.6 60 80 75 Scale in miles MAP OF VANCOUVER CITY INDICES LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE RANh (POR A HYPOTHETICAL IDEAL PARrV) PERCEIVED QUALITY(RATIMO) OF EACH ATTRIbUTE ( I N S A M P L E P A R K S ) I N R E L A T I O N T O G E N E R A L IMAGE FREQUENCY OP Vlt>n RANh I FOR. A H Y P O T H E T I C A L 0 D E A L P A R h ) FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION ( H Y P O T H E T I C A L IDEAL P A R K ) ( S A M P L E P A R T I C I P A T I O N ) VARIABLES -\ G R O U P E D INTO Y — i ATTRIBUTE VAR1A&LES T G R O U P E D INTO £ 1 . FUNCTION VARIAbLES FREQUENCY OF PARTICIPATION \N RELATION TO DISTANCE FROM PAUh . SAMPLE PARISH ACTIVITY IVARlAbLES DIFFERENT ASPECT!) VISUAL QUALITY AUDITORY QUALITY A I R Q U A L I T Y PRIVACY QUALITY S U N / S H A D E QUALITY > — — ? — \ DIFFERENT FUNCTION ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/ IMPROVE-M E N T RECREATIONAL ACTIVE G R O U P E D INTO-PASSIVE COMPARISON! OF ASPECTS ATTRlbUTEf) P O R AM IDEAL PARIS AllklDUTES I N R E L A T I O N T O I M P R E S S I O N A N D U5E| O F S A M P L E P A K I S S FUNCTION!) O ACTIVITIES APPENDIX-I: PROCEDURE FOR COMPARING PARK FUNCTION, ACTIVITY AND ATTRIBUTE VARIABLES 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093244/manifest

Comment

Related Items