WESTWOOD PARK SURVEYING CAREGIVERS AT AIDAN’S PLACE
Urban Planning 279 April 30, 2013
Written By: Carla Salehian Vicente Romero Amalia Merino
INTRODUCTION: During the initial stages of our research on Westwood Park, we utilized the powers of observation to develop a socio-physical park profile. Without having ever visited the park prior to this investigation, we were thrilled when we discovered an expansive neighborhood retreat from the hustle and bustle of city living. We discovered a wide variety of park facilities and features that allowed for both active and passive recreation and most exciting for us was the large amount of park users representative of a broad spectrum of ages and ethnicities taking part in an equally broad spectrum of activities. We were then able to take these observations and identify some of the more significant problems and potentials for improvement including the lack of cohesion in space, walking paths that were not well maintained and disjointed infrastructure. Overall, however, our impressions of the park were positive and we felt that with an increased effort on creating a singular park identity, Westwood Park could develop to reach its full potential. This initial research analysis served as an excellent introduction to the park but in order to gain a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the park’s identity, our next step was to engage with park users in an attempt to better understand their values and preferences. We did this by means of the incorporation of a new form of data collection – the survey. Being that our initial research identified Aidan’s Place, the “boundless” and fully accessible children’s playground, as one of the true gems of the park that made it stand apart from nearby parks in the greater area, we chose to survey the parent/caregiver user group and evaluate Westwood Park from their perspective. In doing so, we sought to answer questions that would shed light on their needs and values and in relation, the needs of their children.
METHODS: As mentioned, our primary method of gathering data on the parent/caregiver user group was by means of a survey. Our team visited Aidan’s Place during the week (on a Wednesday afternoon, from 1 to 3pm and on a Thursday afternoon, from 4 to 6pm) and identified a total of 30 park users who were there with children. These individuals were then verbally given a series of 15 questions covering park accessibility, an assessment on park facilities and recommendations, and the basic demographics. While we cannot claim the user group is random, efforts were made to ensure our survey participants were representative of the diversity exhibited in the park and by visiting the park on weekdays, we hoped to collect the opinions of some of the more frequent or regular users of the park. The following sections of this report summarize some of the main findings followed by a more general interpretation of the parent or caregiver user group’s relationship to the park as well as suggestions for improvements to meet their specific needs.
1
SURVEY RESULTS / MAIN FINDINGS:
Demographics
Preliminary observations in Westwood Park suggested that there was wide variety in user types and this was also demonstrated in much of our survey results. When asked their relationship to the child, the majority of the adults in our sample were parents (70%), the other adults were either family members (grandparents, aunts, or uncles) or non-relative caregivers that were either babysitters or nannies (See Figure 1). Of these parents and caregivers, the majority were women (twenty-two women and eight men were interviewed). This skewed relationship seemed to be a prevalent trend at Aidan’s Place. For the most part, there seemed to always be more women present than there were men. In relation, women were more communicative amongst each other while men were focused almost exclusively on their family. In terms of age, the birth years of these parents or caregivers spanned a wide range; the youngest caregiver was born in 1989 while the oldest was born in 1943, with a total average of about 44 years of age. However, half of the survey respondents were born during the 1970s, so they were in their 30s.
7%
Family 13%
3% 17%
African-American
Caregivers 17%
Asian/Pacific Islander Latino
Parents 70%
Figure 1: Relationship to Child
46%
27%
White Other
Figure 2: Racial Composition
Racial demographics also seemed to include a considerable amount of variety among the parents and caregivers at Aidan’s Place. Similar to trends exhibited in other park studies in Los Angeles, the predominant concentrations of race were White park users (at nearly 50%) followed by Latinos (around 30%). Interestingly enough, the Asian/Pacific Islander demographic, one that tends to be underrepresented in parks (Loukaitou-Sideris, 1995), constitutes the next largest racial group at 17% followed by African-American users and then the “Other” category, which consisted, in part, of Middle Eastern users (See Figure 2). The income ranges of these users were also greatly skewed. 25 out of the 30 respondents had a household income of either $50,000 or above. Figure 3 shows the geographic concentrations of the sample and what neighborhood they live in. Here, we see how Westwood Park truly serves as a “neighborhood” park primarily serving the needs of those living nearby; most of the families lived in Westwood. 2
NEIGHBORHOOD FREQUENCY Parents and caregivers were also asked to provide Bel-Air 1 information about the children they were accompanying. Beverly Hills 1 Brentwood 5 The distribution between male and female children was Century City 1 much more even than they were with the adults, 44% Culver City 1 Santa Monica 3 of the children at Aidan’s Place were female while 56% West Los Angeles 5 were male. In terms of age, most of the children were Westwood 13 TOTAL 30 considerably young, pre-school, aged children around 4 years old. In addition, those that were old enough to Figure 3: Aidan’s Park User Neighborhoods attend school were more likely to attend a private school.
Park Access
While a portion of the survey gathered demographic information on our user group, the majority of it had to do with their relationship to Aidan’s Place, itself. Park access was a subject of considerable interest for us based off of our initial observations that the park’s space was disconnected both internally and from the greater West Los Angeles area. When asked how users first learned of Aidan’s Place or Westwood Park, the most frequent response was that they lived close by or through word of mouth. No users described having found the park through more formal communication methods such as websites or advertising furthering the image that this is a neighborhood park geared toward serving its residents. The features that ultimately attract users and caregivers into entering the park were primarily the facilities, themselves. Multiple parents spoke of the fun playgrounds for their children and even mentioned their appreciation of the padded surface for children to walk on. Convenience was another major attractor to the park. Apart from proximity to their home, a few parents spoke of how they appreciated the availability of parking. This comes as no surprise considering how half the user group sample arrives to the park by car. The other half of users primarily walked to the park while a very small minority took the bus. None of the survey participants came to the park by bike (See Figure 4). Our initial park observations described the surrounding streets as being
Picture 1: Parking availability for users
Walk 47%
Car 50%
Bus 3%
Figure 4: Method of Transport
3
predominantly car-oriented. For this reason, it came as little surprise that a great number of parents or caregivers would drive to the park. What came as more of a pleasant surprise was the number of individuals that would walk to the park with their children, which perhaps speaks to the greater nature in which the park does seem to be used by local, nearby residents.
17%
More than 2 hours
13%
60-90 minutes
Almost every day 1-5 times per week
17%
1-4 times a month Less than once a month
53%
Figure 5: Visitation Frequency
30-60 minutes
Less than 30 minutes
Figure 6: Duration of Visit
The survey results also described frequency and duration of park visits. A little over half the parents/caregivers described visiting the park 1-5 times per week while the other categories were more evenly distributed (See Figure 5). The frequency of park visits here suggests that for many, the park is a regimented part of their regular schedules. Children, therefore, expect to visit the park consistently and parents know to plan around this. For example, it was common for divorced fathers to take their children to the park on a particular day of the week to spend time with their child. For them, the park served a greater need of providing an atmosphere to connect. In planning these regular visits to the park, it also seems clear that parents/caregivers know to dedicate a considerable amount of time at the park. None of the survey respondents claimed to have spontaneously decided to take a quick trip to the park (lasting under thirty minutes.) Instead, the majority of parents and caregivers brought their children to the park for at least an hour (See Figure 6).
Patterns of Use and Behavior
In terms of user behavior, the park has become a paramount manifestation of the public realm (Lofland 1989). Upon arriving to the park, parents, caregivers, and children gather at Aidan’s place to socialize and spend time talking to other adults, watching the children, or playing with them directly. It is clear most parents value leisure time and consider it as important as working time. However, we found that the people socializing the most were Hispanics and caregivers. Contrarily, Whites and parents were seen to enjoy the park alone or running after their children. In this way, Hispanics and caregivers, as opposed to Whites and certain parents, come to the park to share their parochial life too: they share their leisure time with others, primarily other
4
caregivers and mothers they seem to already know. We also found that people surveyed during the morning were all mothers, with an income higher than $70.000, and diverse in race. During the afternoon, much more variation in age, gender, race, and income came into play. At first sight, patterns of use were quite similar for the majority of parents and caregivers that were enjoying the park. Through information gathered from the survey and through observation, behaviors in the playground could be differentiated. The younger adults in the playground, between 30 to 40 years old, were primarily parents and were constantly looking after their child/ren. In this case, because the parents were younger in age, their children also tended to be younger in age (from 1 to 3 years old) compared to the other children in the park. Because of this, it was assumed that younger parents seemed to worry more about their children and hesitated to let them freely discover the playground possibilities. They were usually in very close proximity to their children while on the swings or running after them around the playground. As such, their territory is mainly concentrated within the playground. They do not make use of other parts of the park unless they are arriving or leaving so they use the pathways to reach the playground/ parking. As expected, the older caregivers (over 50 years old) were not parents but caregivers or family members (mainly aunts or grandmothers). They were all seated or walking in the periphery, leaving their older children in care (from 4 to 6 years old) playing by their own, running, and on the swings.
Picture 2: Caregivers ‘in action’
Picture 3: Emily & Kevin’s City
User Opinions & Recommendations
In terms of the parents’ opinions, Westwood Park is a public space that definitely seems to stand apart from other parks in the area. The playground offers many more facilities, innovative equipment, and activities to entertain their children. It fosters their creativity and imagination so every time they go it is a new experience. In fact, 90% of the survey respondents thought Westwood Park was better than other parks in the area when it comes to meeting their and the child’s needs. Only three people considered it to be similar to other parks. Within Aidan’s Place, children and parents all agreed that their favorite features are slides, swings, and see-saw; while the opinions were more negative when it comes to the sand box (especially for the adults).In
5
addition, almost all the survey respondents (90%) stated that the playground’s design is very good or excellent (See Figure 7). They felt the space is visually appealing and flexible enough to allow for children to exert their energy in a variety of ways. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60%
5 4
50%
3 2
40%
1 30% 20% 10% 0% Design
Safety
Education
Communication
Figure 7: Aidan’s Place Ratings by Category
Another facility that was frequently mentioned by parents and caregivers in the survey were water fountains. First, all of them agreed in that there weren’t enough water fountains, which forced them to bring their own plastic water bottles from home. This complaint came as no surprise. There was only one water fountain in the playground; a simple and cold anachronism that does not correspond with the playground’s friendly design whatsoever: two rusty beamlike metal bars in the form of an inverted “L” in which water stream was almost non-existent. In addition, a lot of survey respondents also agreed in the possibility of having sprinkler style fountains for children to play with water, especially during summer. They proposed that the water streams could come up from the ground at different rhythms and quantities, sometimes following the music and colored lights. In this regard, they also mentioned that the one feature in the playground that does contain a water/mister feature (an interactive wall with buttons) is broken and in need of repair. In a similar vein, they also voiced a concern for a lack of restrooms, since the existent ones are in the Recreation Center, which sometimes is closed; and a lack in food places too. Almost the same quantity said that the playground is a safe place (See Figure 7). Others recommended that there is an inexcusable lack of security presence. They suggested that some security guards or security cameras Picture 4: Fountain at Westwood Park
6
should be installed in the place so children, or more likely transients, could be monitored. In this regard, some pointed out that they are worried because of the proximity of both Sepulveda Boulevard and the Federal Building, the former because of the high traffic it has, the latter because of a potential terrorist attack. However, we were surprised to find that none of them considered the presence and noise of the close highway to be an issue. Two thirds of the adults we surveyed thought the playground is a place where their children can be educated (See Figure 7). From these, the majority agreed that there is an incredible opportunity for interaction with other children. In fact, almost all the interviewees visited the park to meet friends there. Some others said that in situations where friends weren’t able to come, children made friends very easily at the park. Some of them also said that there is a certain opportunity for interaction with nature, especially with the grass where they felt children were safer. In this respect, an aspect to take into account was the importance that parents give to trees, shade, and breeze. In fact, parents preferred Aidan’s Place above Veteran’s Park because of the shade they find in the former. One caregiver indicated that Picture 5: “Sounds’ circle” children did not like the latter because of its lack of trees and high exposure to sunlight. Another recommendation that parents made in regards to education was the possibility of creating a series of organized activities in the playground or in the open grass areas. They were all aware that the Recreation Center offers a bunch of indoor activities: a little girl takes ballet classes and a young caregiver and the 11-year old child in her care used to come on weekend afternoons to swim or to play basketball and tennis. However, the park’s great potential could host organized activities for children outdoors, too such as like storytelling, team games, or painting.
Picture 6: The Lucky Sand Castle
Finally, over two thirds of the survey respondents said that the parks rate very poorly in communication (See Figure 7). Much like our initial observations on Westwood Park’s lack of unified identity seemed to suggest, most parents came to the park without knowing about activities, programs, or events at all. One father stated that children liked the storytelling activity that is sometimes offered in the park but he did not know where to find information about the program or the next shows. Another respondent said that on some days, nearby schools bring their students to the park to play and that all children could benefit from a more formalized partnership with them. 7
INTERPRETATION / CONCLUSIONS:
What do the survey results tell us about parents’ needs and values?
Survey results provided us with sufficient information to interpret parent/caregivers’ needs and values. We perceive their top needs to be engaging play features, comfort, access and ease of use in the public spaces their children play in. They also need information about public spaces suitable for their children to play in and about what is going on (programming) in the space. They value quality time spent with their children that serves as playtime and contributes to their development (physical, social, cognitive). The quality time spent can be with the parent, other family members or with a hired caregiver as long as the child has this focused time. The enjoyment and location of the valued quality time spent playing with their children is determined by the amenities the place provides. Caregivers need a place to play that provides engaging playground infrastructure with open space and that provides a variety of play options for a family unit (caregiver and child, etc.) or for supervised play with other children (play dates, those met at the park). The place needs to be accessible by foot or by car, with accessibility from the street and a parking lot. The place needs to be safe within the playground infrastructure (padded ground, etc.) and within in the park (security presence). The place needs to provide amenities like functional and accessible water fountains, bathrooms and preferably with food options nearby/onsite. The place needs to have a covered area (for bad weather, shade) and trees to provide shade and nature.
Do survey results clarify, verify or falsify previous preconceptions?
We had proposed the following improvements to park facilities and design in the first assignment: internal signage to connect the different park areas; assigning a new use where the current Veteran Park playground space is located, which we assumed was underused; introducing interactive elements to the park through public art; increasing the number of water fountains so they are designed to fit adults, children and disabled persons; creating a consistent infrastructure design; and improving the overall awareness of the park as a West L.A. destination.
Picture 7: Sierra & Kailyn’s Cockpit
8
From our surveys we learned that caregivers know about the Veteran Park playground and several use it regularly, especially for older children because of its open space to run. Some caregivers found Aidan’s Place as a result of first using the older playground. Several would like more functional interactive elements in Aidan’s Place but did not mention a need or a lack of interactive elements in the rest of the park. While water fountain design was not mentioned, the lack of water was noted by caregivers as their and children’s least favorite feature of the park. No caregiver mentioned the design of park infrastructure (bench, trash can design). The design of the park was evaluated as very good or excellent; however, this question and responses were geared towards Aidan’s Place. We also found that the park was not necessarily a Westwood neighborhood park. The largest number of caregivers came from Westwood, however, Brentwood was a close second and there was representation from other west Los Angeles areas (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, West LA, Culver City). We were correct in that Aidan’s Place and the Rec Center were perceived by most as individual places and there was not a perception of Westwood Park as a cohesive place. Communication (internet, other sources of information) about the park and Aidan’s Place was considered poor, which verifies one of our major preconceptions: the park is in need of branding.
Picture 8: Construction Zone
Picture 9: Swings
Design Improvement and Policy Suggestions
We found that overall caregivers and the children in their care at Aidan’s Place were very enthusiastic and full of praise of the park. Ninety percent of respondents considered Westwood Park to be better than other parks in the area to meet their and their children’s needs. Of the park improvement recommendations provided, the majority were enhancements (more of something) of an element of the park that was already considered positive. There were, however, responses that pointed the lack of a feature or facility or identified that something was broken and needed to be fixed.
9
Pulling from our survey results we recommend the following policies / design improvements: • Improve communications about park, its facilities, what is going on (Cuff, 2003) • Increase number of water fountains • Maintain and keep public restrooms open • Introduce security in the form of lighting, cameras, guard • Program events and activities in the park for children and their families • Increase popular playground features (swings) • Provide more covered areas (for shade, rainy weather) There are certain things that we cannot necessarily provide policies for nor were they pointed out by our survey respondents needing to be addressed: • Attracting a diverse socio-economic user group (save for promoting the park) • Diversifying the race/ethnicity of the user group • Increasing the number of male caregivers accompanying children (this result may be biased due to time of day surveys occurred) • Increasing the number of tweens and teenagers who come to the park (only 10% of respondents have children of that age, providing insufficient feedback on why we do not see this “missing user group” at the park)
Picture 10: Aidan’s Place
Picture 11: Playing with the sand
In conclusion, our surveys demonstrated that Aidan’s Place is a very active space, valued by the caregivers and children who attend it. The playground serves a need for play time and time together for adults and the children under their care, whether they come on a daily or monthly basis. This area of Westwood Park is popular and praised, however, it has elements that can be fixed, improved or introduced to enhance the caregivers’ experience - such as features, facilities, branding and programming. We believed that it could be better connected physically to the rest of Westwood Park for it to be perceived as part of a cohesive space. However, the caregiver user group appears to only have a need for and attaches value to what Aidan’s Park provides them. In summary, this neighborhood park’s boundless playground, which attracts both Westwood and some West L.A. caregivers, is considered a real asset to the lives of its visitors.
10
REFERENCES Cuff, D. (2003): Immanent Domain: Pervasive Computing and the Public Realm. Journal of Architectural Design 57(1), pp. 43-49. Hoffnagle, E. (2013): Chicago Announces Strategy to Improve 300 Parks and Playgrounds. National League of Cities. Accessible on: http://www.nlc.org/media-center/news-search/ chicago-announces-strategy-to-improve-300-parks-and-playgrounds (29/12/2013). Lofland, L.H. (1989): The Morality of Urban Public Life: The Emergence and Continuation of a Debate. Places 6(1), pp. 18-23. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995): Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in the Uses of Urban Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, pp. 89-102. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2013): Lecture PowerPoint Presentations, Weeks 2–4.
11