3.1 Frequency of visits
There are two groups of visitors of nearly the same size - around 40% of the total (see to Tab. 2). One visits EWP about once a week, the other more than twice per week. There were no major differences between the frequency of visits between spring/summer and autumn/winter.
3.2. Visitor's Expectation of EWP
Nature in general is highly valued and was reported by more than 90% of visitors. Moreover, most visitors (more than two thirds) know that EWP is artificial nature, and 87% value the artificial nature. However, only half of the visitors reported to expect something spectacular (unique plants or animals) Simple relaxation and no special interest in specific activities are expressed. For a majority (nearly 80%) a stay in cooler conditions after sunset or even overnight is very important. Due to these trend refreshments are available until 2 a.m. in the central part.
Most of the visitors demand an improvement of the connection of EWP to the city by public transport, especially for parking as well as an improvement of the accessibility by car as well and parking facilities. Based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the priority for visitors was the feeling of “being in nature” and the attraction of the natural setting (see to Tab.3).
The high number of visitors (nearly 70%) who access EWP with private vehicles further demonstrates the insufficiency of available public transport. Apart from regarding EWP as artificially designed nature the experience / feeling of being in nature is considerable, as 44% reported this to be “high” and even “very high” by 23%. Together two thirds of the respondents feel that they visit ‘nature’ in EWP.
The feeling of being safe is also important for most visitors. They expect adequate local park safety and monitoring.
Results from Friedman's analyses are shown in Fig.5 and rank the expectations of visitors. The most important expectations are natural attractions (mean rank = 3.20), followed by accessibility (mean rank = 2.92) and existing facilities (mean rank = 2.39). The least important criterion was "social monitoring" (mean rank = 1.49).
3.3. Assessing the "Current status" according to visitors' opinions.
Visitors reported the highest satisfaction regarding “access to EWP” (mean = 3.92, SD = 0.78,) followed by “variety and function” (mean = 3.66, SD = 0.75), “usage and perception” (mean = 3.63, SD = 0.79), “equipment and infrastructure” (mean = 3.36, SD = 0.97) and lastly “public safety” (mean = 2.67, SD = 0.64). After differentiating the answers, a more detailed perspective is revealed (s. Tab. 4). The most important aspect for visitors was the ability to reach EWP (34%), followed by the availability of picnic facilities (30%), a lighting system (33%) for safe night use (21%) and guard rails on step trails and steps (25%). Information on the nature within the park (e.g. botanical names of plants) was not a priority (10%).
According to Friedman's analyses about /of the current situation ranking (see Fig. 6), visitors reported the most satisfaction regarding the accessibility of EWP (mean rank = 4.19), followed by its variety and function (mean rank = 3.54), usage and perception (mean rank = 3.17), equipment and infrastructure (mean rank = 2.29), and are least satisfied with its safety (mean rank = 1.81).
The result of B-variate correlation for visitors’ expectations and the current situation in EWP (see Table.5) showed a moderately strong correlation (r = 0.526, a = 0.000) between usage and perception with the existing facilities in the current situation. Also, a moderately strong correlation (r = 0.504, a = 0.001) was revealed between safety for visitors and the current accessibility, a relatively strong correlation (r = 0.584, a = 0.000) between visitors' expectations of natural attractions with equipment and infrastructure. This means that, according to visitors' opinions, having the right infrastructure can increase natural attractions, as observed by a moderately strong correlation (r = 0.590, a = 0.001) between natural attraction and variety & function, and a moderately strong correlation (r = 0.586, a = 0.000) between social monitoring and protective measures. All correlation is significant at a level of 0.01.
Pearson correlation coefficient: < 0.3 negligible correlation, 0.3–0.5 weak correlation, 0.5–0.7 moderately strong correlation, 0.7–0.9 strong correlation, 0.9 < very strong correlation (Hinkle et al., 2003).
3.5. Mean Comparison for Visitors’ Expectations and the current EWP situation of dependent variables
In the expectations section, men have a greater expectation of natural attractions (mean = 3.47, t= -5.89) and access (mean = 3.08, t = -6.27) compared to women, with a significant difference (a= 0.00). However, women have more expectations than men for existing facilities (mean = 3.80, t = -6.51) and social monitoring (mean = 3.20, t = -5.29), with a significant difference (a= 0.00). Women are more satisfied with the usage & perception (mean = 3.44, t = -4.93) than men, but less satisfied with accessibility (mean = 3.32, t = -4.61), equipment & infrastructure (mean = 3.11, t = -4.72), variety & function (mean = 3.51, t = -5.04), and protective measures (mean = 2.63, t = -4.38) than men (see Table 6).
The result of one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between visitors’ ages and visitors’ expectation variables such as attractiveness of nature "F (273, 3) = 4.17, a = 0.00", access "F (273, 3) = 5.06, a = 0.00", existing facilities "F (273, 3) = 4.89, a = 0.00", public safety "F (273, 3) = 4.71, a = 0.00" , it can be seen that young visitors (31-45) have the highest expectations for access (mean = 3.10). The age group above 70 years has more expectations for existing facilities (mean = 4.00) and the age group of 18-30 years has more expectations for social monitoring. The result of one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the variables of the current situation such as usage & perception "F (273, 3) = 7.36 , a = 0.00", accessibility "F (273, 3) = 7.09, a = 0.00", equipment & infrastructure "F (273, 3) = 6.98, a = 0.00", variety & function "F (273, 3) = 7.18, a = 0.00" and safety "F (273, 3) = 7.76, a = 0.00". However, in the section of satisfaction regarding the current status, the age group of 46-70 year aged visitors were least satisfied with the accessibility of EWP (mean = 3.03). They also reported low satisfaction regarding the equipment & infrastructure (mean = 2.79). Amongst all age groups visitors above 70 years reported the lowest level of satisfaction for the section “variation” with variation (mean = 3.12) and finally, visitors of the age group 46 -70 years were least satisfied with the aspect of protective measures (see Table 7).
The result of one-way ANOVA using the Tukey HSD showed (s. Tab.8) that significant differences exist between the type of park-use and visitor's expectation (attractiveness of nature "F (274,2) =6.18, a= 0.00 " , access " F (274,2) =5.97, a= 0.00", existing facilities " F (274,2) =6.59, a= 0.00" and social monitoring " F (274,2) =5.88, a= 0.00") and the current situation ( usage & perception " F (274,2) = 6.37, a= 0.00" ,accessibility F (274,2) =7.17, a= 0.00", Equipment & Infrastructure " F (274,2) =6.61, a= 0.00", Variety & Function " F (274,2) =3.15, a= 0.00" , protective measures" F (274,2) =7.41, a= 0.00" ). Single visitors have the highest expectations (mean = 3.53) (see Table 8) for natural attractions, family visitors have the highest expectations for access (Mean = 3.10), existing facilities (mean = 3.81) and public safety by social monitoring (mean = 3.30). They show significant differences with other user groups. Single visitors reported the highest satisfaction for usage and perception regarding the current situation (mean = 3.56), family visitors exhibited the highest satisfaction for accessibility of EWP (mean = 3.41). Group visitors (whom coming to EWP in the group form, e.g. friendly, work and etc.) have the highest satisfaction for equipment and infrastructure (mean = 3.23) and family visitors exhibited the highest satisfaction for protective measures (mean = 2.83) and show significant difference with other user types.
3.5. Comparison between the Expectations of Visitors and the Current Situation
The expectations were compared with the current situation in EWP based on visitors’ opinions and compared to each section as an index to separate them (see Fig.7),
(i) safety / Protective measures in the current situation is lower than the expectations of visitors regarding public safety by social monitoring therefore, the visitors are not satisfied with the current level of safety provided in EWP.
ii) Regarding the attractiveness of nature, the level of satisfaction with the current situation is higher than the average visitor’s expectations; this means that by using variety and function has been successful at satisfying the visitors’ attraction to nature.
iii) The facilities do not quite meet the expectations and visitors are less satisfied with their current situation (facilities and infrastructure) compared to their expectations for existing facilities.
iv) The accessibility of EWP largely meets the expectations and the results show that visitors are more satisfied with the current situation of accessibility inside EWP compared to their expectations. However, most visitors are still concerned about the accessibility and how to get to EWP.
v) There is very little difference in this criterion between people's expectations and the satisfaction with the current situation.
3.6. Visitors’ preferences of EWP's green space (visual questionnaire)
EWP offers different sceneries regarding the arrangement of natural and artificial elements, a large variety of plants and landscape designs However, so far, no academic studies have been conducted on the interests, perceptions and attitudes of visitors in this regard. For this section, 16 images categorized into 4 sections were selected (Nature 1-4 A, Nature 1-4 B, Nature 3-5A and Nature 3-5 B).
3.6.1. Visitors' preferences of nature in "more natural – nature" combinations
In the first sample NB (41.2%) is the most preferred nature type, followed by PB, (32.9%), PA (16.2%), and NA (9.7%).
In the second sample of “more natural nature” combinations PB (40.4%) is preferred most, followed by NA (26%), NB (20.9%), and PA (12.6%) (see to Fig.8).
3.6.2. Visitors' preferences of "less natural – nature" combinations
In two further samples (sample 3 and 4), the “nature-near” types of nature NA and NB were excluded but artificial constructions (nature A) were added.
In the first of these, two samples nature a reached 50.9%, in the second 41.9% and 30.7% (two options of A in the second sample). These were always the most selected nature scenes, followed by PA (18.1%, in the first and 16.2% in the second sample), PB, 15.9% and 15.2% (two options in the second sample) and 11.2% (see to Fig.9).
Table 9 shows the preferred types of nature in the two combinations.