The Royal Parks In-Park Research
Report 2008 – All Parks Combined
Prepared for:
Jason Dudley-Mallick
Prepared by:
Jeremy Speechley / Melania Gabrieli
Date:
25th February 2009
Copyright:
© 2009. Synovate Ltd. All rights reserved.
The concepts and ideas submitted to you herein are the
intellectual property of Synovate Ltd. They are strictly of
confidential nature and are submitted to you under the
understanding that they are to be considered by you in the
strictest confidence and that no use shall be made of the said
concepts and ideas, including communication to any third party
without Synovate Ltd's express prior consent.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
0
Contents - Page
1. Introduction .................................................................................... 2
1.1 Research objectives............................................................................................. 3
1.2 Research methodology ........................................................................................ 4
2. Executive Summary ....................................................................... 7
2.1 Overall Satisfaction and Key Action Areas ........................................................... 7
2.2 Visitor Profile...................................................................................................... 10
3. Main findings ............................................................................... 12
3.1 Overall quality of the Parks ................................................................................ 12
3.2 The Royal Parks awareness .............................................................................. 25
3.3 Royal Parks Information Centres ....................................................................... 30
3.4 Recycling facilities ............................................................................................. 36
3.5 Visitor profile ...................................................................................................... 40
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
1
1. Introduction
As part of the visitor survey programme that Synovate have conducted on behalf of
The Royal Parks Agency since 2004, two waves (one in summer and one in winter) of
the survey were conducted in 2008 in the five central Royal Parks.
The main aim of the research programme is to contribute towards achieving The Royal
Parks’ business objectives, as well as guiding future strategies and Park programmes.
The business objectives can be summarised as follows:

To improve the quality and range of visitor services;

To protect, conserve and enhance the environment of the Parks;

To develop policies and initiatives to encourage wider use of the Parks;

To raise the profile, understanding and value of the Parks;

To manage the Parks efficiently and effectively.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
2
1.1 Research objectives
The main objectives of the research are to:



Identify the profile of visitors of the Royal Parks in terms of:

Demographic characteristics

Visit frequency and length

Reasons for visiting the parks
Measure overall satisfaction with the Royal Parks and specific attributes,
services and facilities.
Investigate specific areas of interest in order to guide future developments
In 2008 the specific areas of interest were to understand:

Awareness of the Royal Parks brand

Usage and interest in recycling facilities in the parks

Usage and interest in a information centre/ souvenir shop in the parks.
This report details Synovate’s findings and recommendations from the 2008 in-park
visitor surveys in the context of comparison to the results from the 2006 in-park visitor
Surveys where relevant.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
3
1.2 Research methodology
The methodology can be described as follows:

Visitors were interviewed as they left the parks.

Two waves of the survey were carried out in 2008:





One in summer (fieldwork was conducted between the 25th August and
12th September);
One in winter (fieldwork was conducted between the 21st November and
the 9th December) 2008.
Interviews were conducted in the five central parks, namely:

Regent’s Park (and Primrose Hill within it)

St. James’s Park

Green Park

Hyde Park

Kensington Gardens.
‘Next available respondent’ recruitment technique used i.e. the next person
walking past the interviewer was approached for interview.
The survey was paper-based, with the interviewer reading out the questions
to the respondent.

Interview lasted about 10 minutes.

Interviews took place at various times on weekdays, and weekends.

Interviewers rotated around different park exits.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
4
In total in 2008 Summer Visitor Survey 1716 interviews were conducted. At the
analysis stage the data was weighted, so that each park has the same value in their
influence on the overall findings.
The table below shows the number of interviews achieved and the weighting values:
Number of interviews
Weighted numbers of
interviews
Regent's Park
250
200
Primrose Hill
162
100
St. James's Park
315
300
Green Park
317
300
Hyde Park
348
300
Kensington Gardens
324
300
Total
1716
1500
1.3 Notes on data analysis and comparisons between 2006 and
2008
Statistically significant differences between 2006 and 2008 data are shown as follows:
a green ring around a number signifies that the number in question is significantly
higher at the 95% confidence level than the equivalent number for the other year being
compared to.
Given the large sample sizes, in many cases only a small difference is needed
(typically 3-4%) for it to be statistically significant.
We advise taking the statistical differences identified with a certain level of caution,
since the time of year when interviewing was conducted for the second wave of the
study was different between 2006 and 2008. Specifically, in 2006 the second wave was
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
5
conducted in autumn, whilst in 2008 it was conducted in winter. This difference impacts
on the comparability of the data since it introduces a variation in the data which is not
measurable.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
6
2. Executive Summary
2.1 Overall Satisfaction and Key Action Areas
Overall quality

Ratings of the overall quality of the park visited is extremely high, with 99% of
visitors saying their visit was at least satisfactory. Forty seven per cent rate
their visit as excellent and a further 48% rate it as good.

The high ratings are consistent across all parks. Between 0 and 1% give a
rating of poor for each park.

Compared to 2006, the profile of scores is similar, although in 2008 there is a
decrease in the proportion of ‘excellent’ ratings in favour of ‘good’ ratings.
This is also the case for each of the individual parks except Primrose Hill.
For Primrose Hill, the proportion of ‘excellent’ ratings increase significantly
(from 24% to 49%).
KPI Performance


The main strengths of the Royal Parks continue to be:

All aspects related to the park environment

Ease of access by chosen method of transport

Ease of getting around the park.
The main weaknesses continue to be all aspects related to the toilet facilities.
In particular, the number of toilets is identified as a key action area in the
strategy matrix.

Other areas identified as key action areas are:
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
7


Number of catering facilities

Activities for adults

Seating.
KPI results for the individual parks are broadly consistent with that of all
parks combined, although there are some differences..

Compared to 2006, there is an improvement in performance in the following
areas:

Visibility and friendliness of Park staff

Number and quality of sport facilities.
2.2 Awareness of The Royal Parks

Overall awareness of The Royal Parks as an organisation managing the
visited park is low:


A fifth name it as when asked without being shown a list who manages
the parks
Around a third do so when prompted with a list of organisations.
2.3 Royal Parks Information Centres

The idea of opening an information centre with a shop in the parks receives a
mixed reaction from visitors, with four out of ten visitors thinking the idea is
excellent or very good and three in ten thinking it is poor or very poor.

The idea of an information centre with a shop is better received in Regent’s
and Hyde (46% and 44% respectively say it is excellent or very good), whilst
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
8
visitors to Primrose Hill express generally negative ratings (64% say it is
poor or very poor).

Nearly half of visitors would be interested in receiving information on the park
in such an information centre, a quarter in information on other nearby
attractions and one in seven would be interested in a souvenir gift shop.
2.4 Recycling facilities

Recycling facilities in the parks are currently used by a small minority of
visitors (7%).

Those who use the recycling facilities rate them highly: around four fifths give
positive ratings both for being conveniently located and easy to use.

This said visitors receive positively the idea of adding recycling facilities to
the park - two thirds say so - and nearly six in ten say they would use
recycling facilities more if additional recycling points were provided.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
9
2.5 Visitor Profile
The below table summarises the main differences in the visitor profile for each park.
Total
sample
Base
Regent's Primrose
St.
James's
Green
Hyde
Kensingt
on
1716
250
162
315
317
348
324
Average Age
(in years)
38
42
40
39
35
36
39
% AB
31
32
30
27
26
32
40
% from London
40
60
86
25
20
33
56
% from outside
the UK
45
26
9
54
61
50
38
% visit once a
week or more
22
37
57
12
7
11
34
% first visit
39
31
12
42
57
39
34
Average
journey length
(in min.)
19
19
14
22
20
21
17
Average length
of park visits
(in hours)
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.4
% who use car
to get to the
parks
5
4
20
3
1
5
5
% who walk to
the parks
39
44
61
35
22
37
52
Note: A number with a green ring around it indicates that it is significantly higher than a
number with a red ring around it (for the same data point) at the 95% confidence level.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
10
As shown in the table on the previous page:

On one hand, Primrose Park in particular but also Regent’s and Kensington
Park are characterised by:


a higher proportion of local and frequent visitors

with an older profile
Primrose Park has also the highest proportion of visitors who walk – along
with Kensington - or use a car to get to the park.

Kensington Park has by far the highest proportion of AB socio-economic
grade visitors

On the other hand, St. James’s, Green and Hyde Park are characterised by:

a higher proportion of non UK visitors and therefore of first time visitors

a higher proportion that uses public transport to reach the park.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
11
3. Main findings
3.1 Overall quality of the Parks
3.1.1 Overall quality of the Parks – All Parks Combined
Visitors were asked to rate overall quality of the park using a scale of ‘excellent’, ‘good’,
‘satisfactory’, ‘poor’ and ‘very poor’.
Overall quality of the Parks – All Parks Combined
%
55
Excellent
47
39
Good
48
5
Satisfactory
5
2006
2008
1
Poor
0
0
Very Poor
0
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
14
The rating of the overall quality of the parks combined is extremely high, with only a
very small proportion giving a rating of ‘poor’ and none giving a rating of ‘very poor’.
Nearly half (47%) rate the overall quality is ‘excellent’, while another half (48%) rate it
as ‘good’.
Compared to 2006, there has been a significant decline in the proportion of visitors
giving a rating of ‘excellent’. On the other hand, there has been a significant increase in
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
12
the proportion of visitors giving a rating of ‘good’ meaning overall levels of satisfaction
with the quality of the Parks has remained relatively stable at a high level.
Once again, we point out – as stated in section 1.3 – that these statistical differences
should be taken with a certain level of caution, since the time of year when interviewing
was conducted for the second wave of the study was different between 2006 and 2008.
Specifically, in 2006 the second wave was conducted in autumn, whilst in 2008 it was
conducted in winter. This difference impacts on the comparability of the data since it
introduces a variation in the data which is not measurable.
3.1.2 Overall Quality of the Royal Parks – By Park
Overall quality of the Parks – By Park
55
All Royal Parks 2006
39
47
2008
5 1
48
5
66
Regents Park - 2006
31
61
2008
24
Primrose - 2006
31
49
11
65
St James Park 2006
31
60
2008
Green Park 2006
53
40
6 0
12
58
Kensington Park 2006
Good
1
40
65
32
51
Excellent
4 10
46
36
2008
3
62
40
2008
4
37
31
Hyde Park 2006
3
73
49
2008
2008
3
36
3
40
Satisfactory
Poor
8
Very Poor
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
15
The chart above shows the overall quality rating of each of the six Parks, along with a
combined rating of all the Parks.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
13
Overall all parks receive very high overall ratings, with no more than 1% giving poor
ratings.
In terms of the proportion giving an ‘excellent’ rating, the park with the highest ratings
in 2008 are Regent’s Park (61%), and St. James’s Park (60%), which have
considerably higher ratings than all other parks.
The lowest proportions of ‘excellent’ ratings are given for Green Park and Hyde Park.
For Hyde Park this is consistent with 2006 results, while Green Park shows a
significant decrease compared to 2006.
Compared to 2006 and focusing on the proportion rating the Park as ‘excellent’, only
one Park saw a significant increase in rating, namely Primrose Hill, from 24% in 2006
to 49% in 2008.
Conversely other Parks saw a significant decrease in the proportion giving an
‘excellent’ rating. Regents Park fell from 66% in 2006 to 61% in 2008; St. James’s Park
fell from 65% in 2006 to 60% in 2008; Green Park’s rating fell from 53% in 2006 to 31%
in 2008 and Kensington Park fell from 65% in 2006 to 51% in 2008.
By analysing different sub-groups in the samples interviewed we can partly explain the
decrease in ‘excellent’ ratings between 2006 and 2008 by changes in the profile of
visitors interviewed. Sub-groups who walk to the park, live in London, are from a AB
socio-economic background and visit the park for three or more hours are all more
likely to give the parks a rating of ‘excellent’ and their prominence in the 2008 survey is
significantly lower than in 2006. This will almost certainly have had at least some effect
on the ratings for 2008 and in turn is most probably partly caused by the second wave
of the study being conducted in autumn, whilst in 2008 it was conducted in winter.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
14
3.1.3 KPI Performance Ratings – All Parks Combined
Following the rating of overall quality of the park, visitors were asked to state how
satisfied they were with the individual aspects of the parks (the Key performance
Indicators - KPI’s).
The chart below (1 of 2) shows the ‘excellent’ satisfaction ratings across all Parks in
respect of aspects relating to Park Environment, Information and staff and catering.
The chart overleaf (2 of 2) shows the ‘excellent’ score satisfaction ratings in respect of
aspects relating to Toilets, Other Facilities and Ease of Getting Around.
KPI Performance Ratings (1 of 2)
5
2006
2008
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.2
4
4.0
4.2
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3
Tidiness and Upkeep of the Peace and
cleanliness
park
quiet
Park Environment
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
Quality of the Visibility and Signposting
natural
friendliness of and maps
environment
park staff
Information
on park
features
Information and staff
Number of
catering
facilities
Quality of
catering
facilities
Catering
15
KPI Performance Ratings (2 of 2)
2006
5
2008
4.4
4.4
4.3
4
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.3
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.9
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.0
3
Cleanliness Number of
of toilets
toilets
Toilets
Quality of Facilities for Activities for Number of
toilets
children
adults
sports
facilities
Quality of
sports
facilities
Seating
Other Facilities
Ease of
access
Ease of Car parking
getting
facilities
around the
park
Ease of Getting Around
In 2008 the highest ratings were given to:

all aspects relating to the Park Environment

ease of access by chosen method of transport

ease of getting around the park
The worst rated aspects are all those related to toilet facilities (number, quality and
cleanliness).
Compared to 2006, there is an increase in the performance in the following areas:

Visibility and friendliness of park staff
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
16

Number and quality of sport facilities
3.1.4 KPI Performance Ratings – By Individual Park
As shown in the table below, best and worst performing aspects tend to be similar
across all parks and consistent with the overall picture.
Parks
Best performing aspects
based on mean score
Worst performing aspects
based on mean score

General tidiness and
cleanliness
Quality of the natural
environment
Upkeep of the park
Ease of access
Ease of getting around
Peace and quiet
Information on park features
Number of toilets
Ease of getting around
Ease of access
Upkeep of the park
General tidiness and
cleanliness
Quality of the natural
environment
Peace and quiet




Number of toilets
Number of catering facilities
Car parking facilities
Quality of catering facilities
General tidiness and
cleanliness
Ease of getting around
Upkeep of the park
Quality of the natural
environment
Ease of access




Overall quality of toilets
Cleanliness of toilets
Facilities for children
Number of toilets

Regent’s Park
Primrose Hill












St James’s Park




© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
17



Green Park




Hyde Park







Kensington Park




© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
Ease of access
Ease of getting around
Quality of the natural
environment
Upkeep of the park
Peace and quiet
General tidiness and
cleanliness


Number of toilets
Number of sports facilities
General tidiness and
cleanliness
Quality of the natural
environment
Peace and quiet
Ease of access
Ease of getting around
Upkeep of the park


Number of toilets
Overall quality of toilets
Upkeep of the park
Quality of the natural
environment
Ease of access
Ease of getting around
General tidiness and
cleanliness
Peace and quiet









Number of toilets
Car parking facilities
Quality of catering facilities
Number of sports facilities
Number of catering facilities
Overall quality of toilets
Quality of sports facilities
Cleanliness of toilets
Activities for adults
18
3.1.5
Key action areas
Strategy matrices are an effective way of identifying how KPI areas may be addressed,
given both their importance and performance. The matrices plot importance (derived by
conducting Key Driver Analysis1) versus performance (satisfaction rated by
respondents).
The four quadrants of the matrix show which aspects of the Parks’ offerings could
potentially:
-
be improved (Key Action Areas - top left)
-
be maintained and communicated (Communicate and Maintain
Performance- top right)
-
be considered lower priorities (Lower Priorities - bottom left)
-
be considered for communicate performance (Communicate
Performance - bottom right)
1
The relative importance of each of the different aspects are calculated using correlation
analysis.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
19
The Strategy Matrix for all of the Parks combined, based on the 2008 visitor data, is
shown below.
Strategic Matrix – Total Parks
Higher 0.25
Association
Key Action
Areas
Upkeep of the park
Signposting & maps
Communicate
and
Maintain
Performance
Quality of the natural
environment
General tidiness and
cleanliness
0.20
Derived Importance
Peace and quiet
Seating
0.15
N. of toilets
N. of catering facilities
Ease of getting around the
park
Activities for adults
Overall quality of toilets
0.10
Facilities for children
Quality of catering
Ease of access
N. of sports facilities
Park staff
0.05
Car parking facilities
Info on park features
Cleanliness of toilets
Lower
Association 0.00
Consider Performance
Quality of sports facilities
Improvement
3.5
Communicate
Performance
4.0
4.5
Performance
(Average)
Firstly, the matrix confirms that the main strengths of the Royal Parks are all the
aspects related to the park environment.
On the other hand in general all facilities are rated below average and the following are
identified as overall key action areas:

Number of toilets

Number of catering facilities

Activities for adults

Seating
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
20
The table below overleaf shows the Key Action Areas for each of the Parks and the
average across all nine Parks2.
Overall
across all
Parks
St. James’s
Park
Hyde Park
Kensington
Gardens
Primrose
Hill
Regent’s
Park
Green Park
Quality of
catering
facilities
Number of
toilets
Quality of
catering
facilities
Number of
toilets
Number of
toilets
Number of
catering
facilities
Seating
Number of
catering
facilities
Visibility and
friendliness
of Park staff
Number of
catering
facilities
Facilities for
children
Activities for
adults
Signposting
& maps
Overall
quality of
toilets
Facilities for
children
Overall
quality of
toilets
Seating
Number of
catering
facilities
Cleanliness
of toilets
Number of
catering
facilities
Activities for
adults
Activities for
adults
Signposting
& maps
Quality of
catering
facilities
Visibility and
friendliness
of Park staff
Seating
Information
on park
features
Signposting
& maps
Number of
toilets
Car parking
facilities
As shown above there is no key action are that is common to all parks and there is also
a high variation in the number of action areas identified per park. This said it seems
that aspects related to toilets and catering facilities are the most commonly identified.
2
Key action areas are identified as aspects that have higher derived importance and lower
performance than the overall (including all parks) averages for these measures.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
21
Specifically:


3.1.6
Number and quality of catering facilities in Hyde Park
Number, overall quality and cleanliness of toilets and number of catering
facilities in Kensington Gardens

Quality of catering facilities in Primrose Hill

Number of toilets and catering facilities in Regent’s Park

Number and quality both of catering facilities and toilets in Green Park
Activities requested in the parks
Following the evaluation of the different aspects and facilities of the parks, visitors were
also asked what information, educational or cultural activities they would like to see in
the park. When asked this question respondents were shown a list of activities from
which they could choose from as many as they liked.
Information , educational and cultural activities and events
requested in the Parks
14
Do not want to see anything
5
%
44
Music Events & Concerts
34
29
Theatre/open air theatre
19
20
19
18
18
18
Nature events
Historical events
Guided walks and talks
15
16
Childrens events or entertainment
12
12
11
Sports events
Open air film screenings
Cycle hire
9
Educational activities
9
9
12
Plant information
8
Gardening/horticultural events
8
8
8
9
Sculpture garden
6
5
2
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
Craft fair
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
2008
11
Farmers market
Notes
for children e.g. names of birds etc
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
2006
11
16
22
In 2008, the proportion of respondents saying they do not want any events in the park
is 5%, which is significantly lower than in 2006.
Music events and concerts are confirmed as the main activity requested by visitors,
although the proportion doing so in 2008 is lower than 2006.
Other requests made by around a fifth of visitors each in 2008 are ‘theatre/open air
theatre’ (19%), ‘nature Events’ (19%) and ‘historical events’ (18%).
As can be seen from the chart there have been a number of significant decreases in
requests since 2006 namely in the two most popular types of requests and also in
requests for ‘children’s events or entertainment’ and ‘educational activities’. This may,
in part be explained by an increase in the numbers of activities included in the list from
which visitors could choose from.
Compared to 2006, the 2008 study included also ‘open air film screenings’, ‘cycle hire’
and ‘farmers market’ in the list of potential activities/events, all of which have
somewhere in the region of a tenth of all visitors requesting them. ‘Sculpture garden’ is
also a new activity which visitors request and was asked for by around one in twenty
visitors.
In terms of differences by park, the following activities and events were named by a
considerable proportion (18% or more) by visitors in the park listed.
Music events & concerts: This aspect is identified by a significant proportion of
visitors interviewed as a possible activity that would enhance their enjoyment of:

All Parks, with the highest proportion of requests from visitors to Hyde Park.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
23
Theatre/open-air theatre: This aspect is identified by a significant proportion of
visitors interviewed as a possible activity that would enhance their enjoyment of:

All Parks except Primrose Hill and Green Park.
Nature events: This aspect is identified by a significant proportion of visitors
interviewed as a possible activity that would enhance their enjoyment of:

All Parks except Regent’s Park and St James’s Park.
Historical events: This aspect is identified by a significant proportion of visitors
interviewed as a possible facility that would enhance their enjoyment of:

All Parks except Primrose Park, St James’s Park and Green Park.
3.1.7 Feeling of Safety in Parks
Feeling of Safety in Parks
%
75
Very Safe
74
23
Quite safe
25
1
Not very safe
1
2006
2008
0
Not at all safe
0
1
Don’t know
0
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
13
24
Safety does not appear to be a problem in the parks at all. Encouragingly in both 2008
and 2006, almost all (98% to 99%) visitors felt safe to some extent (either ‘very safe’ or
‘quite safe’) and around three quarters felt very safe.
3.2 Awareness of The Royal Parks
3.2.1 Spontaneous awareness of The Royal Parks
Firstly visitors were asked who was responsible for managing the visited park.
A minority (22%) knew that The Royal Parks were responsible for managing the park
they visited. Over half (56%) didn’t have an opinion about who was responsible for
managing the park. One in ten (10%) thought it was managed by the Local Authority,
and one in fourteen (7%) thought it was managed by the City of London.
Responsibility of managing visited park
Q15a. Do you know who is responsible for managing the visited park?
10
Local authority
7
City of London
Corporation of
London
2
An org. responsible
for all London parks
1
Other
2
Don't know/ no
opinion
%
22
Royal Park Agency
56
Base – Total sample – n = 1500.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
25
Not surprisingly, knowledge of who owned the parks increases with visit frequency,
specifically those who visited five times a week (51%) compared to those who visited
once a year (16%) or less (12%). First time visitors had the lowest proportion of people
who knew who the parks were managed by (7%).
Visitors from London (39%) were more likely to know that the parks were managed by
the Royal Parks Agency than both those from elsewhere in the UK (27%) and outside
the UK (5%).
Examining the findings for the parks individually, those at Regent’s Park (34%) and
Primrose Park (29%) were more likely to know that the parks were managed by the
Royal Parks Agency, than those at Green Park (13%) and St James’s Park (18%).
3.2.2 Prompted awareness of The Royal Parks
Proportion knowing specific Park is a Royal Park
Q15b1. Visited park is a Royal Park
26
I knew this before
I sort of knew this before
I didn’t know this before
today but I would guess
this is the case
5
10
I didn’t know this before
59
Base – All respondents – n = 1500
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
2
26
After having been asked which organisation they thought was responsible of managing
the park, visitors were told that the park they were visiting was a Royal Park and were
asked if they were aware of this.
A third of visitors (31%) knew or sort of knew that the visited park is a Royal Park. Over
half (63%) of those who visited five times a week or more knew the park is a Royal
Park, compared to only 17% of those who visited the park less than once a year. The
same differences were seen between those who visited for more than three or more
hours (47%) over those who visited for 30 minutes or less (29%). Again, those from
London were more likely to know that the specific park was a Royal Park compared to
those from the UK but not London and outside of the UK.
Visitors were then also asked if they knew that the park they were visiting was one of
the parks managed by a central organisation. As shown in the chart below, awareness
of this fact is even lower than awareness of The Royal Parks, with around a quarter
(24%) knowing this was the case.
Proportion knowing specific Park is one of a number of parks
managed by a central organisation
Q15b2. Visited park is one of a number of parks managed by a central organisation
18
I knew this before
I sort of knew this before
I didn’t know this before
today but I would guess
this is the case
6
13
I didn’t know this before
Base – All respondents – n = 1500
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
63
2
27
The segments more aware of the fact that the park they are visiting is one of a number
managed by a central organisation are the same that are generally aware that it is a
Royal Park.
3.2.3
Sources of information
Sources of information
Q15c. From which of the following sources, if any, have you heard anything about the
visited park in the last year?
Word of mouth
26
10
Online / website
5
Advertising - leaflet
Advertising - TV
4
Advertising - posters
4
Advertising - national newspapers
3
Advertising - magazines
3
In the news
3
Somewhere else
9
Don’t know/No opinion
Base – Total sample – n = 1716
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
45
4
Finally, visitors were also asked from which sources of information, if any, they had
heard about the park they were visiting.
Nearly half of all visitors (45%) did not know of any information sources or did not have
an opinion on it. The most cited source of information concerning the specific parks
was word of mouth mentioned by around a quarter of respondents. Other sources
mentioned were online / website (10%), followed by advertising by leaflet (5%) and
advertising by posters (4%).
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
28
Visitors who went to the park more frequently were more likely to ‘not know’ or ‘not
have any opinion’ about sources of information for the park. Two thirds (61%) of those
visiting the park five times a week or more didn’t know of any sources, compared to
39% of those who visit two to four times a year and 40% of those who were at the park
on their first visit.
At the same time, people who visited less often were more likely to mention sources of
information. A third of people (34%) who visited two to four times a year mentioned
word of mouth as a source of information, compared to 15% of those who visit five
times a week and 16% of those who visit one to four times a week. Over a tenth (13%)
of those who were on their first visit cited online or the website as the source of
information for the park they were interviewed in. This compares to just 5% of those
who visit five times a week or one to four times a week.
Looking at parks specifically, those at St James’s Park (63%), Primrose Park (50%)
and Regent’s Park (50%) were significantly more likely than those at Green Park (33%)
and Hyde Park (36%) to not know or not have an opinion on sources of information.
Visitors to Green Park were significantly more likely (38%) than those from Regent’s
Park (24%) and Primrose Park (26%) to cite ‘word of mouth’ as the information source
on the park they were visiting. Those at Kensington Park (14%) were significantly
more likely than those at Primrose Park (5%), Regent’s Park (6%) and St James’s Park
(8%) to cite online or website as a source of information for the specific park they were
in.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
29
3.3 Royal Parks Information Centres
Visitors interviewed were asked their opinion about opening an information centre with
a shop in the park they were visiting at the time of the interview. There was a mixed
reaction to the idea. Four out of ten visitors (36%) think it is an ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’
idea, while three out of ten (29%) think the idea is ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.
It is significant that the proportion who rates the idea as excellent is relatively low (7%),
and twice this proportion (17%) rate the idea as very poor.
Evaluation of the idea of an information centre
Q16a. What do you think of the idea of information centre which would include
a shop selling gifts and souvenirs being opened in this Park?
Excellent
Very good
Satisfactory
Poor
Very poor
No opinion
7
0%
29
20%
Base – Total sample – n = 1716
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
21
40%
12
60%
17
80%
13
100%
4
Interest in an information centre varies by visitor type. As far as the different parks are
concerned, Primrose Hill visitors are significantly more opposed to an information
centre with a shop than visitors to all other parks, with six out of ten visitors (64%)
rating the idea as poor or very poor. On the other hand, visitors of Regent’s Park and
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
30
Hyde Park were gave the highest ratings to this idea, with 46% and 44% respectively
saying it was ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’.
Visitors from the UK but not London are more interested in the idea (50% rate the idea
as ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’) than those from London (36%) or overseas (32%). It is
worth noting that visitors from the UK outside London account for a relatively small
proportion of visitors in the survey (around 14%), meaning that their higher interest has
a relatively small impact on interest of the total visitor population.
Other differences in interest in the information centre by sub-group are associated with
the profile of visitors from the UK outside London, rather than any other independent
differences. Specifically:



Interest is greater among more infrequent visitors (one to three times a
month) than frequent visitors (once a week or more often) and first time
visitors.
Those whose length of visit to the parks is longer (two to three hours) have
greater interest than those whose visits are shorter (30 minutes or less);
Interest is higher among visitors with children in their group and among the
lowest socio-economic grade. Both of these subgroups are more prevalent
among visitors from the UK outside London.
After being asked what they thought of the idea of an information centre, visitors were
asked what services, if any, they would use if there were an information centre with a
shop in the park they were interviewed in. Respondents were able to name as many of
the three options read out to them as they liked. The findings of this question are
shown in the chart overleaf.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
31
Intended usage of services of an information
centre with a shop
Q16b. Which services would you make use of if there were an information centre with a shop?
Information on
the park - things to
do and see
45
Information on
other nearby
attractions
A souvenir / gift
shop
None of these
%
23
14
34
Base – Total sample – n = 1716
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
5
The chart above shows that around half of visitors (45%) said they would use the
centre for finding out information on things to do and see in the park, a fifth (23%) to
find out information on other nearby attractions and a sixth (14%) would use the
souvenir/gift shop. A third (34%) said they would not use any of the three services
offered.
As shown below, interest in the information centre offerings varies across the parks,
with statistically significant differences between the parks in evidence. The significant
differences between the parks are as follows:


Visitors to Regent’s Park (49%), Green Park (49%), Hyde Park (47%) and
Kensington Gardens (47%) would be most interested in using an information
centre to find out information on the park;
Using the centre for information on nearby attractions is named most by
visitors to Hyde Park (29%) and Green Park (26%);
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
32


Visitors to Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill (7% each) are significantly less
interested in a souvenir / gift shop compared to the other parks, while visitors
to Green Park (19%), Hyde Park (17%) and St James’s Park (16%) were the
most likely to be interested in a souvenir/gift shop.
Significantly more visitors of Primrose Hill (65%) would not use any of the
services offered, while only one out of five visitors of Green Park (22%) said
this.
Intended usage of information centre services per park
Total
sample
Regent's
Primrose
St.
James's
Green
Hyde
Kensington
(n=1716)
(n=250)
(n=162)
(n=315)
(n=317)
(n=348)
(n=324)
Information
on the Park
45
49 +
25 --
40 +
49 +
47 +
49 +
Information
on nearby
attractions
23
17
8 --
22 +
26 +
29 +
24 +
A souvenir /
gift shop
14
7 --
7 --
16 +
19 +
17 +
12
None of
these
34
38 --
65 +
38 --
22 --
30 --
33 --
%
+/--: positive and negative significant differences compared to total sample.
The 14% of visitors, who said they would use a souvenir / gift shop if there was one in
the park where they were interviewed, were then asked additional questions about
what items they might buy, how much they might spend and how they would prefer
items in a shop to be branded. The sample sizes are too small for any analysis to be
conducted on data relating to these questions by individual park.
The chart below shows interest in purchasing different items from a souvenir / gift shop
among those who would be interested in a shop and among the total visitor sample.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
33
Purchase intention of specific items in a souvenir / gift shop
Q16c. Which of the following items, if any, do you think you might buy if there were a shop?
% of all
visitors
57
Stationery
37
Historic prints of park
33
Clothing
28
Landscape photos of the parks
%
8
5
5
4
Educational toys
13
2
Seeds
12
2
Picnic-ware
12
2
Plants
11
2
8
Garden / outdoor games
Gardening equipment
4
1
1
Beauty products
2
0.3
None
2
0.3
Don’t know
2
0.3
Base – All that would use a souvenir / gift shop – n = 241.
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
6
It is important to note that the findings relating to visiting the information centre / shop,
purchase the items and intended spend cannot be taken at face value, as respondents
are prone to over-claim their interest when answering these sorts of questions.
Moreover, the questions assume that in real life there would be complete awareness of
the information centre / shop. The findings emerging from the research should
therefore be assumed to be best-case scenario data.
According to the responses given by visitors in the survey, stationery would be by far
the most bought product category, with two thirds (57%) of those interested in a shop
saying they would buy it, equating to 8% of the total visitor sample. Other product
categories named by more than a quarter of the ‘interested’ sample are prints of
historic paintings of the park (37% of those interested and 5% of the total visitor
sample), clothing (33% and 5% respectively) and contemporary landscape photos of
the Park (28% and 4% respectively).
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
34
The intended spend in a souvenir / gift shop is shown in the chart below. Most people
who say they would use the shop would spend between £4 and £20 (70% said this,
which equates to 10% of all visitors), with £7 to £10 being the most likely spend. One in
ten visitors interested in the shop (13%, equating to 2% of all visitors) would spend
more than £20 in a shop. The average intended spend of those visitors interested in a
shop would be £14.90, therefore £2.09 among all visitors interviewed.
Intended spend of total visitor party in a souvenir / gift shop
Q16d. Can you give me an estimate of how much you think you and the people you are with
today might spend if you went to the gift shop? Please can you tell me the total for all of
the people in your group?
Nothing
3
%
6
£1 - £3
12
£4 - £6
30
£7 - £10
12
£11 - £15
16
£16- £20
£21 - £30
5
£31 - £50
5
£50 - £100
More than £100
Don’t know
Average intended spend
Among those who would
visit shop: £14.90
2
Among all visitors: £2.09
1
9
Base – All that would use a souvenir / gift shop – n = 241.
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
7
As for how the products sold in the souvenir shop should be branded, there is no clear
opinion among potential users of the gift shop whether items should be branded with
‘Royal Parks’ or with the name of the specific Park in which the visitor centre is located.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
35
Preferred branding of items in a souvenir / gift shop
Q16e. If you bought items from the shops would you prefer them to have a ‘Royal Parks’ brand
on it or the name of the Park where you go to the shop?
%
Prefer it with
‘Royal Parks’
Prefer it with the
name of the park
No preference
32
36
32
Base – All that would use a souvenir / gift shop – n = 241
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
8
Over a third (36%) would prefer it to be branded by the name of the park, a slightly (but
not statistically significant) higher proportion than the third (32%) who would prefer it to
be branded with Royal Parks. A third (32%) had no preference in the branding used.
3.4 Recycling facilities
Recycling facilities are currently used by very few park visitors in the Parks. Fewer than
one in ten (7%) have used recycling facilities in the Park they were interviewed in.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
36
Current usage of recycling facilities
Q14a. Can you tell me if you have used the recycling facilities in this park?
Yes
No
7
0%
93
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Base – Total sample – n = 1716
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
1
The proportion using recycling facilities is similar across all visitor types, although it
increases slightly as the length of the visit to the park increases. Specifically, 6% of
visitors who stayed less than 30 minutes used a recycling facility, compared to 14% of
those who stayed more than three hours.
Visitors to Primrose Park appear to be using recycling facilities more often, with 13%
saying they have done so. The proportion is lowest among visitors to Regent’s Park
4%.
Those who have used the recycling facilities rate them highly both for being
conveniently located and for being easy to use. Around half rate each aspect as
‘excellent’ or ‘very good’, and a further half rate them as ‘satisfactory’.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
37
Around one in twelve (8%) rate the recycling facilities as ‘poor’ in terms of being
conveniently located. A further 4% rated them as poor in terms of being easy to use.
Very few visitors rated them as ‘very poor’.
Evaluation of current recycling facilities
Q14b. How would you rate them on being conveniently located?
Q14c. How would you rate them on being easy to use?
Excellent
Very good
Satisfactory
Conveniently located
4
40
45
8 12
Poor
Very poor
No opinion
Easy to use
6
0%
39
20%
39
40%
60%
4 2 10
80%
100%
Base – All who have used recycling facilities – n = 122
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
2
Although current usage of recycling facilities in the parks is low, two thirds (66%) of
visitors think that having more recycling facility points would be a positive addition to
the park and two thirds (58%) state they would use them if more facilities were
provided. This is shown in the chart below.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
38
Interest in and intended usage of additional recycling points
Q14d. Do you think that more recycling points would be a positive addition to
the park?
6
66
20%
0%
28
100%
80%
60%
40%
Yes - they would
No - they wouldn't
No opinion
Q14e. Would you use them if more were provided?
Yes - much more
Yes - a little more
13
45
14
26
3
Nor more nor less
No - less
No opinion
20%
0%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Base – Total sample – n = 1716
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
3
Visitors at Primrose Hill were the most likely to believe that they would be a negative
addition (11%), while those at Hyde Park were more likely to think that they would
make a positive addition (69%). Visitors aged 20 to 29 years old, 30-39 years old and
40-49 (69%, 67% and 70% respectively) were more likely to think recycling points
would make a positive addition to the park than visitors aged 60+ (54%). The same
was seen with visitors from a higher socio-economic grade (AB 67% and C1 69%) than
those from the lowest socio-economic grade (DE 55%). This profile probably generally
identifies the segments of the population that are more favourable to recycling.
When asked, over half of visitors would use them if more were provided (58%). Given
the very low current usage of the facilities we do not suggest to take this proportion at
face value since other variables could impact on actual usage.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
39
3.5 Visitor profile
This section of the report provides the findings for all Parks in 2006 (summer and
winter combined), making comparisons to the findings from 2006 combined where
relevant.
Once again, we point out – as stated in section 1.3 – that these statistical differences
should be taken with a certain level of caution, since the time of year when interviewing
was conducted for the second wave of the study was different between 2006 and 2008.
Specifically, in 2006 the second wave was conducted in autumn, whilst in 2008 it was
conducted in winter. This difference impacts on the comparability of the data since it
introduces a variation in the data which is not measurable.
3.5.1 Age Profile
Age
%
2006
17-19
2008
17-19
4
20-29
30
30-39
27
40-49
17
50-59
13
7
60-74
75+
2
Total sample 2006 / 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
6
20-29
30
30-39
25
40-49
20
50-59
10
8
60-74
75+
1
Average age of Visitors:
2006 Total: 38.2 years
2008 Total: 37.9 years
1
40
Of all the visitors to the Parks interviewed in 2008, over half (55%) were aged between
20 and 39 and just under four in ten were aged over 40.
Overall, the average age of visitors interviewed at the park is 38 years, which is the
same as 2006. This said, there have been significant decreases in the numbers 17-19
year olds and 40to 49 year olds since 2006. On the other hand there has been a
significant decrease in the numbers of visitors aged 50 to 59 and 75 and over.
3.5.2 Gender Profile
Gender
%
51
Male
51
Total 2006
Total 2008
49
Female
49
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
2
The gender profile of visitors across all Parks is identical in 2008 to what it was in 2006
and is very similar to the national profile.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
41
3.5.3 Socio-economic grade
In 2008, compared to the population as a whole, visitors across all parks are skewed
towards the higher ABC1 socio-economic grades. Around a third is from an A or B
socio-economic grade (31%), compared to 26% for the overall population of Great
Britain.
However, significantly fewer respondents from A and B socio-economic grades were
interviewed in 2008 than in 2006, while significantly more from C1 socio-economic
grade were interviewed.
Social Grade
%
38
AB
2006
31
2008
38
C1
44
9
C2
10
12
DE
10
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
3
42
3.5.4 Ethnicity Profile
Ethnic Origin
%
42
White Other
45
39
White British
33
3
3
3
3
Indian
Black/ Black British
2
2
White - Irish
1
Chinese
2
Any other Black background
1
2
1
White & Black African
1
1
1
2
Pakistani
0
White & Black Carribean
White & Asian 0
Bangladeshi 0
Other
Refused
Base –©Total
sampleLtd.2006 and 2008
2008. Synovate
2008
0
Black / Black British - Caribbean
Any other Mixed Background
2006
1
1
Any other Asian background
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
In 2008, as in 2006 the vast majority (78%) are white, either ‘White other’ or ‘white
British’. Compared to 2006 there has been a significant decrease in the proportion of
visitors being ‘White British’, though overall the 2008 profile is broadly similar to the
2006 profile.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
43
3.5.5 Visitor Residence
Regional Residence
%
England (London)
7
6
England (South East)
England (Eastern)
England (South West)
England (West Midlands)
England (East Midlands)
England (Yorkshire & Humberside)
England (North West)
England (North East)
Wales
Scotland
Northern Ireland
Outside UK
50
40
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
2006
33
2008
45
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
6
As in 2006, the visitors of the Royal Parks are mainly constituted of London residents
or oversee tourists. Specifically in 2008, four out of ten visitors reside in London and a
slightly higher proportion (45%) come from outside the UK. Compared to 2006, there
has been a significant decrease in the proportion of visitors who reside in London from
50% in 2006 to just 40% in 2008 and an increase in the proportion of visitors from
outside the UK, increasing from a third (33%) in 2006 to just under half (45%) in 2008.
Those who did not come from the UK were then asked which region they came from.
As shown in the chart below, a third of oversees visitors come from Western Europe
and overall around half (52%) come from Europe generally. Other significant
proportions of visitors come from North America and Australia or New Zealand.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
44
Country of origin
%
24
Western European
34
18
16
North American
9
Australian & New Zealand
11
11
Southern Europe
6
8
Northern Europe
6
8
Eastern Europe
South America
Eastern Asia
Southern Asia
South Eastern Asia
Western Asia
6
2006
2008
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
Base – All visitors from outside the UK 2006 and 2008 – Mentions over 2%
Compared to 2006 the profile is similar although in 2008 there was a significantly
higher proportion from Western Europe and a lower proportion from Southern Europe.
3.5.6 Frequency of Visiting the Parks
In 2008, around a third (29%) of visitors visited the parks at least once per month, with
further 13% visiting twice a year or more often.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
45
Frequency of visiting Parks
%
11
5 times a week or more
9
14
1-4 times a week
13
10
1-3 times a month
5-10 times a year
7
9
2006
3
2008
12
2-4 times a year
Once a year
10
7
8
9
Less than once a year
First Visit
10
28
39
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
7
The frequency of visiting is broadly similar in 2008 to what it was in 2006, although
notably there has been a decrease in the proportion visiting one to three times a month
as well as five to ten times a year since 2006. There has also been a significant
increase in the proportion visiting the parks for the first time that is probably a reflection
of the higher proportion of oversees visitors registered in 2008.
3.5.7 Journey length
Respondents were asked how long their journey to the park took; the average time
taken to reach the Park is 19 minutes that is the same as in 2006. Four in ten (43%)
visitors took less than 15 minutes, while six in ten (55%) took more than 15 minutes.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
46
How long journey to Park took
%
9
Less than 5 minutes
7
20
5 - 10 minutes
21
2006
2008
18
10 - 15 minutes
15
Mean journey time
2006: 19 min.
2008: 19 min.
13
15 - 20 minutes
13
14
20 - 30 minutes
19
25
More than 30 minutes
23
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
9
Compared to 2006, there has been a decrease in the proportion of visitors whose
journey took less than five minutes and those whose journey took 10 to 15 minutes. At
the same time there has been an increase in the proportion whose journey times took
between 20 to 30 minutes.
3.5.8 Main Method of Transport to Park
In 2008, the profile of modes of transport used to reach the parks is broadly similar to
2006. The two main modes used are ‘Walking’ (39%) and ‘Tube / underground’ (36%).
The proportion travelling by underground (36%), though, is significantly higher in 2008
than in 2006. At the same time, the proportion walking to work (45%) is significantly
lower than in 2006.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
47
Main transport to Park
%
45
Walk
39
30
Tube/underground
36
11
Local bus
9
6
Train
7
4
Car
Coach
Bicycle
Taxi
Other
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
5
2006
2008
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
10
3.5.9 Length of visit
In 2008 the average length of visit across the Parks is one hour and 20 minutes which
is shorter than the average length of time in 2006. The most common length of stay is
30 minutes or less (33%), followed by one to two hours (28%). There were significant
declines compared to 2006 in the proportion of visitors visiting for two to three hours,
three to four hours, four to five hours and more than five hours. Please note that since
in 2008 the second wave of fieldwork was conducted in winter instead of autumn the
lower average time spent in the park could be a reflection of the timings of the
research.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
48
Length of Park visit
%
26
30 minutes or less
33
26
25
25
28
31-60 minutes
1 to 2 hours
12
2 to 3 hours
3 to 4 hours
Average length of park visit:
2006: 1hr 46 minutes
2008: 1 hour 20 minutes
9
7
2006
2008
2
3
4 to 5 hours
1
1
More than 5 hours
0
0
Don’t know
1
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
11
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
3.5.10 Main purpose for visiting Parks
Main purposes for visiting Parks
%
43
Walk/stroll
58
55
Peace and quiet
29
48
For fresh air
26
7
Sightseeing in the park specifically
16
11
Part of a days sightseeing
11
11
See the trees, plants and flowers
10
9
See the animals
2008
12
Picnic/lunch/refreshments
8
10
A shortcut/On way elsewhere
Just spent the day in the park
2006
9
6
0
6
Base – Total sample 2006 and 2008
© 2008. Synovate Ltd.
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
12
49
As the chart above highlights there is a wide variety of reasons given for having visited
the Parks on the day of the interview. In 2008, the main reasons for visiting was for a
‘to walk or stroll’ (58%), ‘peace and quiet’ (29%), and ‘for fresh air’ (26%).
© 2009. Synovate Ltd.
50