Post on 03-Jan-2016
Thriving Neighbourhoods ConferenceOctober 2013
David Vial & Michelle PriorSHOPPING PRECINCT USER-PROFILES:
INFORMING STREETSCAPE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
SHOPPING PRECINCT USER-PROFILES
Outline Introduction
Program Objectives
Data Collection
Findings & Insights
INTRODUCTION
Shopping precincts:
Essential community places
Focal point for local communities
Localities provide a unique signature
Conflicting uses – pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, types of shops
Capital & recurrent spending by LGA
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Align planning & expenditure with user requirements
Gain an understanding of users opinions about shopping precincts
Inform streetscape planning and management decision making
Contribute to the creation of healthy & vibrant places
STREETSCAPE FOCUS AREA
Outdoor precincts – Shopping strips
Retail
Commercial
Hospitality
Professional services
Community facilities
Increasingly mixed use: residential
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSFREQUENCY OF VISIT
Frequency Local Sub-Regional OverallDaily 30% 30% 30%Few days per week 31% 30% 31%Weekly 14% 17% 16%Fortnightly 4% 4% 4%Monthly 5% 4% 4%Every few months 6% 6% 6%Twice per year 3% 3% 3%Yearly 3% 2% 2%< Once per year 1% 0% 1%First time 4% 3% 4%Total 100% 100% 100%
Majority visit daily or a few days per week - Ready location for place making
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSLENGTH OF STAY
Stay Length Local Sub-Regional Overall< 15 mins 38% 17% 23%15-30 mins 32% 36% 35%½ -1 hr 16% 27% 24%1-2 hrs 7% 11% 10%2-4 hrs 3% 4% 4%> 4 hrs 4% 5% 4%Total 100% 100% 100%
Length of stay is longer in larger shopping precincts – more variety
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSREASONS FOR VISITING
Note: Multiple Response Question
Group segmentation possibility for further analysis of a larger data base
Reason % Participants
Shopping (all types) 74%
Social 31%
Professional Services 15%
Exercise 9%
Vocational 5%
Access Somewhere Else 4%
Community Centre / Library 1%
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSMEDIAN DISTANCE & TIME
Distance (km) Motor Vehicle – Private
Non Motorised
Public Transport
Local 3.0 0.5 5.5*
Sub-regional 4.0 0.5 5.0
Time (min) Motor Vehicle – Private
Non Motorised
Public Transport
Local 5 6 20*
Sub-regional 10 9 15
* Small sample size
Median distance for non-motorised is 500 metres travelling distance – not as the crow flies
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSCHOICE OF TRANSPORT MODE
Reason for Choice Motor Vehicle – Private
Non Motorised
Public Transport
Distance 40% 44% 14%
Convenience 41% 31% 37%
Enjoy walking / exercising - 28% -
Access other places 12% 5% 11%
No access to a car 1% 2% 12%
Time 9% 8% 7%
Lack of physical ability 4% 3% 8%
Cost 1% 2% 9%
Weather 6% 5% 2%
Distance & convenience often motivate the choice of transport mode
Note: Multiple Response Question
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSTRANSPORT MODE
14-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Motorised - Private Non-Motorised Public Transport
Age Group
Transport modes vary with age
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSWALKABILITY
Multifaceted factors affect walkability
Walkability Factor Walkability Factor
Age Amenity
Barriers - physical Connectivity of routes
Distance Diversity of land use
Pavement Physical ability
Population density Reason for visit
Safety Shade
Slope Time availability
Traffic volume / noise Weather
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSIMPORTANCE / SATISFACTION
PROVISION
The higher the negative the greater the dissatisfaction to importance
Provision Item Local Sub-Regional Overall
Vehicle Parking -23% -32% -29%
Rubbish Bins -10% -23% -20%
Disabled Access -7% -20% -18%
Direction Signs -11% -15% -14%
Street Furniture -4% -9% -8%
Council Signs -7% -6% -6%
Vehicle parking & bin provision have highest gap between importance & satisfaction
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSIMPORTANCE / SATISFACTION
MAINTENANCE
The higher the negative the greater the dissatisfaction to importance
Maintenance Item Local Sub-Regional Overall
Footpaths -11% -17% -15%
Council Public Toilets & Parent Rooms 2% -15% -12%
Rubbish Bins & Ground Litter Removal -1% -13% -9%
Garden Beds, Nature / Median Strips -6% -3% -4%
Local Roads -5% -2% -2%
Street Trees 6% -6% -3%
Graffiti Removal 1% -4% -3%
Car Parks 1% 3% 3%
Council Signs 10% 7% 8%
Street Furniture 14% 6% 8%
Footpath, toilet maintenance& rubbish removal are priorities
FINDINGS & INSIGHTSENHANCEMENTS
Category % Participants Main Qualitative Comments
Parking 18% Provision, fees
Layout / Character 12% Facelift, greenery, vitality
Pedestrians 12% Path provision, maintenance, encroachments
Maintenance 10% Clean, green
Comments provide a richness and powerful insight into creating better shopping precincts