1. Thriving Neighbourhoods Conference October 2013 David Vial & Michelle Prior S HOPPING PRECINCT USER - PROFILES : INFORMING STREETSCAPE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

2. S HOPPING PRECINCT USER - PROFILES  Outline  Introduction  Program Objectives  Data Collection  Findings & Insights

3. I NTRODUCTION 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

4. P ROGRAM O BJECTIVES  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

5. S TREETSCAPE F OCUS A REA Outdoor precincts – Shopping strips  Retail  Commercial  Hospitality  Professional services  Community facilities  Increasingly mixed use: residential

6. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS F REQUENCY OF V ISIT FrequencyLocalSub-RegionalOverall Daily30% Few days per week31%30%31% Weekly14%17%16% Fortnightly4% Monthly5%4% Every few months6% Twice per year3% Yearly3%2% < Once per year1%0%1% First time4%3%4% Total100% Majority visit daily or a few days per week - Ready location for place making

7. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS L ENGTH OF S TAY Stay LengthLocalSub-RegionalOverall < 15 mins38%17%23% 15-30 mins32%36%35% ½ -1 hr16%27%24% 1-2 hrs7%11%10% 2-4 hrs3%4% > 4 hrs4%5%4% Total100% Length of stay is longer in larger shopping precincts – more variety

8. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS R EASONS FOR V ISITING Note: Multiple Response Question Group segmentation possibility for further analysis of a larger data base Reason% Participants Shopping (all types)74% Social31% Professional Services15% Exercise9% Vocational5% Access Somewhere Else4% Community Centre / Library1%

9. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS M EDIAN D ISTANCE & T IME Distance (km) Motor Vehicle – Private Non Motorised Public Transport Local3.00.55.5* Sub-regional4.00.55.0 Time (min) Motor Vehicle – Private Non Motorised Public Transport Local5620* Sub-regional10915 * Small sample size Median distance for non- motorised is 500 metres travelling distance – not as the crow flies

10. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS C HOICE OF TRANSPORT M ODE Reason for Choice Motor Vehicle – Private Non Motorised Public Transport Distance40%44%14% Convenience41%31%37% Enjoy walking / exercising-28%- Access other places12%5%11% No access to a car1%2%12% Time9%8%7% Lack of physical ability4%3%8% Cost1%2%9% Weather6%5%2% Distance & convenience often motivate the choice of transport mode Note: Multiple Response Question

11. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS T RANSPORT M ODE Transport modes vary with age

12. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS W ALKABILITY Multifaceted factors affect walkability Walkability Factor AgeAmenity Barriers - physicalConnectivity of routes DistanceDiversity of land use PavementPhysical ability Population densityReason for visit SafetyShade SlopeTime availability Traffic volume / noiseWeather

13. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS I MPORTANCE / S ATISFACTION P ROVISION The higher the negative the greater the dissatisfaction to importance Provision ItemLocalSub-RegionalOverall 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% Vehicle parking & bin provision have highest gap between importance & satisfaction

14. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS I MPORTANCE / S ATISFACTION M AINTENANCE The higher the negative the greater the dissatisfaction to importance Maintenance Item LocalSub-RegionalOverall 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% Street Trees 6%-6%-3% Graffiti Removal 1%-4%-3% Car Parks 1%3% Council Signs 10%7%8% Street Furniture 14%6%8% Footpath, toilet maintenance & rubbish removal are priorities

15. F INDINGS & I NSIGHTS E NHANCEMENTS Category % Participants Main Qualitative Comments Parking18%Provision, fees Layout / Character 12%Facelift, greenery, vitality Pedestrians12% Path provision, maintenance, encroachments Maintenance10%Clean, green Comments provide a richness and powerful insight into creating better shopping precincts