Victoria_Park_Re port Final.pdf - City of Charlottetown
Victoria_Park_Re port Final.pdf - City of Charlottetown
Victoria_Park_Re port Final.pdf - City of Charlottetown
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
VICTORIA 19. Do you PARK think that COMPREHENSIVE <strong>Victoria</strong> <strong>Park</strong> is ecologically MASTER well PLAN managed<br />
21. What issues do you feel need to be addressed regarding <strong>Victoria</strong> <strong>Final</strong> <strong>Re</strong><strong>port</strong> <strong>Park</strong> • June 2013<br />
Yes, there are excellent natural<br />
areas<br />
<strong>Re</strong>sponse <strong>Re</strong>sponse<br />
Percent Count<br />
21.8% 66<br />
1 (Needs<br />
5 (Not a Rating<br />
Immediate 2 3 4<br />
priority) Count<br />
Attention)<br />
<strong>Park</strong>ing 14.1% (40) 19.0% (54) 23.2% (66) 15.8% (45) 27.8% (79) 284<br />
Somewhat, natural areas seem<br />
adequate.<br />
58.7% 178<br />
Balance <strong>of</strong> Vehicle / Pedestrian<br />
access<br />
20.4% (58) 30.2% (86) 27.0% (77) 11.6% (33) 10.9% (31) 285<br />
No, natural areas are stressed and<br />
overburdened<br />
19.5% 59<br />
answered question 303<br />
Bicycle Circulation 27.5% (78) 33.1% (94) 23.6% (67) 9.5% (27) 6.3% (18) 284<br />
Maintenance <strong>of</strong> buildings and<br />
structures<br />
10.5% (30) 34.3% (98) 36.7% (105) 12.2% (35) 6.3% (18) 286<br />
skipped question 20<br />
Signage 7.4% (21) 20.4% (58) 37.3% (106) 22.2% (63) 12.7% (36) 284<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> scheduled activities 8.1% (23) 24.3% (69) 36.3% (103) 19.4% (55) 12.0% (34) 284<br />
20. Please prioritize the following elements in terms <strong>of</strong> their im<strong>port</strong>ance to <strong>Victoria</strong> <strong>Park</strong><br />
1 (Highly<br />
5 (Not Rating<br />
2 3 4<br />
Im<strong>port</strong>ant)<br />
Im<strong>port</strong>ant) Count<br />
Safety and security 60.8% (178) 21.8% (64) 11.6% (34) 4.1% (12) 1.7% (5) 293<br />
High quality design 36.4% (106) 38.1% (111) 19.9% (58) 4.5% (13) 1.0% (3) 291<br />
Overuse <strong>of</strong> Facilities 8.5% (24) 13.8% (39) 40.6% (115) 26.1% (74) 11.0% (31) 283<br />
Natural Areas 34.8% (101) 41.0% (119) 18.6% (54) 4.5% (13) 1.0% (3) 290<br />
Vandalism 19.1% (54) 32.5% (92) 30.7% (87) 13.4% (38) 4.2% (12) 283<br />
Loitering 14.2% (40) 20.3% (57) 31.3% (88) 16.0% (45) 18.1% (51) 281<br />
Sustainable design 61.0% (177) 31.7% (92) 5.9% (17) 1.0% (3) 0.3% (1) 290<br />
Other (please specify)<br />
46<br />
Durability / longevity <strong>of</strong> facilities 47.6% (137) 41.3% (119) 8.3% (24) 1.7% (5) 1.0% (3) 288<br />
Low capital costs 14.8% (43) 32.4% (94) 38.3% (111) 9.7% (28) 4.8% (14) 290<br />
answered question 294<br />
skipped question 29<br />
Universal accessibility 49.1% (141) 35.5% (102) 11.5% (33) 2.8% (8) 1.0% (3) 287<br />
Year round activities 36.5% (105) 34.4% (99) 21.2% (61) 4.2% (12) 3.8% (11) 288<br />
All-ages activities 49.5% (142) 32.4% (93) 13.6% (39) 2.8% (8) 1.7% (5) 287<br />
Educational op<strong>port</strong>unities 22.1% (64) 36.6% (106) 27.6% (80) 9.0% (26) 4.8% (14) 290<br />
Ecological health / diversity 50.2% (145) 34.3% (99) 10.7% (31) 3.5% (10) 1.4% (4) 289<br />
answered question 294<br />
skipped question 29<br />
9 <strong>of</strong> 38<br />
10 <strong>of</strong> 38
Change language