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