Insightful results of the online survey in summer 2024
Thanks to everyone, who participated in our survey!
Since early summer 2024, the Nature Park has been working on an update of the nature park concept that will contain development goals and tasks for the next 5 years. In order to get to know the opinions and wishes of our visitors better, we conducted an online survey from 17 July to 30 September 2024.
The survey was advertised via our website, social media, print media and in the display case on the Rathausplatz.
With 87 people, we received significantly more responses than expected. Just over half of the responses also provided their name and email address in order to take part in the competition or the regulars' table.
Our aim was to find out:
- How long the respondents have known our nature park, what is important to them about their visit and what bothers them.
- How do they rate our facilities (e.g. animal enclosures, play areas, hiking trails) and what improvements do they see?
- What development priorities they recommend for the next 5 years (we entered some ideas from the start workshop for each of the 4 pillars in advance, but they were also able to contribute their own ideas).
The online survey gave us valuable insights into the opinions and wishes of our visitors and partners, which we will take into account in future development.
Part 1: How and for how long have the respondents known our nature park; what is important to them during a visit and what bothers them?
How do the respondents know the nature park?
Most respondents know the nature park primarily through personal experiences. We were surprised to find that the influence of print media is more important than electronic “social” media.
How closely do the respondents feel connected to our nature park?
24% of participants stated in the introductory questions that they have a “close connection to the nature park”, i.e. that they are cooperation partners, nature mediators or part of the nature park schools, while 76% were visitors without close contact.
We have therefore analyzed these two groups separately as “partners” and “guests” because their assessments differ significantly in many questions.
Does the Nature Park have advantages for the town of Purkersdorf?
Only one answer said that the nature park offers no advantages for the town; all the others see great advantages.
Of the possible answers given, three advantages stand out in particular: firstly, that the nature park gives children the opportunity to develop environmental awareness, secondly, that the nature park offers a valuable local recreation area for the population and thirdly, that the nature park contributes to the preservation of the ecosystem.
What pleases and what disturbs
The vast majority of respondents expect a visit to the nature park to provide them with the opportunity to relax and unwind, to discover and experience nature and to offer children a varied nature experience.
Well-signposted hiking trails and information boards are particularly important to the “guests”, while the “partners” place less value on the signage. We were surprised that the motivation “so that I can find out about nature” was somewhat less important, with only 25% of responses.
When asked what sometimes disturbs the experience of nature, 70% of all responses mentioned off-leash dogs, followed by 47% mentioning garbage lying around and 37% mountain bikers.
Among the “guests” group in particular, 25% also mentioned the occasional poor accessibility of paths and 19% mentioned traffic noise.
Part 2: How do respondents rate our facilities (e.g. animal enclosures, play areas, hiking trails) and what improvements do they think are needed?
In this section, we asked respondents to rate the facilities as “good” - “is ok” - “should be better” or “don't know”.
For the evaluation, we weighted “good” with a school grade of 1, “is ok” with a school grade of 3 and “should be improved” with a school grade of 5 and calculated a “grade”.
The animal enclosures are a magnet for all visitors
The animal enclosures are all well known and receive consistently good marks of between 1.5 and 2 from visitors.
Only the deer enclosure at the nature park center is not known to about 10% of the “guests” and received a score of 2.2; no wonder, since it has been uninhabited for the second year. The best ratings were given to the deer enclosure at the nature park center.
Forest play areas need to be improved
While the “partners” are all very familiar with our play areas, the “guests” are mainly familiar with the Kellerwiese playground. Unms was surprised that around 1/3 of our “guests” are not familiar with the water research station - which is located directly on the most popular nature trail.
The “guests” consistently rate the play areas much more critically than the “partners”: almost a quarter of the “guests” state that the playground at the nature park center should be improved. We will therefore focus on redesigning the play area at the nature park center in the next projects.
Many hiking trails are unknown
Of our many signposted hiking trails, only the nature trail and the trail around the wild boar enclosure are apparently well known. The many other trails are unknown to around 30-45% of ‘guests’; the SAWI children's adventure trail is even unknown to more than half of the ‘guests’.
A rating of 1.8 to 2.1 is consistently good for the hiking trails; interestingly, the ‘partners’ rate the SAWI children's adventure trail lower than the ‘guests’, while the opposite is true for the nature trail.
We conclude from the results that we need to better signpost the less well-known trails - not least in order to relieve some of the pressure on the busy nature trail.
Points of interest
The Rudolfswarte and the Feilerhöhe orchard are consistently well known and are rated by both ‘guests’ and ‘partners’ with excellent scores of 1.6 and 1.7.
For the other stations, the picture is more mixed, with large differences in awareness and ratings by ‘partners’ and ‘guests’.
We were surprised to see that around 25-35% of ‘guests’ responded that they were not familiar with the Frauenbründl, the Schöffelsteinwiese, the water research stations on the Wienfluss, the forest biotope and the ‘Überblick’ platform.
The ‘partners’ are well acquainted with the ‘usual’ stations, but the partners are even less familiar than the ‘guests’ with the more remote striking points such as Schöffelsteinwiese or Frauenbründl!
Apart from the aforementioned frontrunners Rudolfswarte and Feilerhöhe, the average rating of the stations is around 1.9-2.2, although there are big differences between ‘guests’ and ‘partners’. The ‘guests’ rate the water research stations and the wild bee platform much lower than the ‘partners’, while the opposite is true for the Fauenbründl and the Sängerbrunnen. Only a few respondents see room for improvement, most likely at the Nature Park Centre, for which 14% of respondents answered ‘should be better’.
Facilities at the nature park centre
The wild boar feeding bridges are the best known and are also rated the highest (together with the nature park bee station).
Surprisingly, more than half of all respondents stated that they were not familiar with the earthworm station that was set up a few years ago. The deer photo point and the Vienna Woods farmers' exhibition were also unknown to almost a third of all respondents.
The Wienerwald Farmers' Exhibition, the Wood Laboratory and the Earthworm Station received the lowest ratings of 2,5, with “guests” giving consistently higher ratings than “partners”.
Only a few respondents indicated a need for improvement, the most likely being the wood laboratory and the Vienna Woods Farmers' Exhibition, where 14% of respondents answered “should be better”.
Respondents' own suggestions for a more attractive nature park experience
We were pleasantly surprised that 24 respondents took the time to make their own suggestions “for a more attractive nature park experience” in addition to the predefined response options.
Most of the suggestions related to the trail infrastructure, such as ‘Make it more suitable for pushchairs’, ‘Short footpaths for people who can't walk so quickly’, ‘Gravel up boggy parts of the trail’, ‘Interactive trails for children’, ‘Better signposting of hiking trails’.
The desire for better cycle connections including cycle parking stands at the entrances was also mentioned several times.
Finally, there were innovative suggestions on the subject of playgrounds, such as a ‘barefoot path with mud stations, watercourses, feeling stations through different surfaces and foot washing facilities at the beginning and end’, or ‘water games for kids in summer’.
Many suggestions related to improving the recreational infrastructure: more seating, more rest areas with tables, loungers and benches; more places to linger or picnic...
Part 3: What development priorities do respondents recommend for the next 5 years?
In our survey we asked respondents to their opinions about ideas floated at the initial workshop for the Nature Park concept as well as giving respondents the opportunity to make their own suggestions.
Nature and landscape conservation
All suggestions from the kick-off workshop were rated with more than 50% approval by the ‘guests’, with nature conservation measures (e.g. breeding opportunities for rare species) leading the way with more than 75% approval - the ‘partners’ even gave 86% approval!
This is closely followed by the recommendation to pay more attention to the topic of ‘water’ (e.g. with forest biotopes & the Wien River) with 67% approval from all ‘guests’, followed by raising awareness of climate protection and the near-natural management of the municipal forest.
6 people made their own suggestions, including 2 very relevant ones: combating neophytes and raising awareness of biodiversity.
Recreational facilities
While all 5 proposals for measures relating to nature conservation received over 50% approval, only 3 of the 9 proposals for measures relating to recreation received over 50% approval: namely the installation of eco-toilets, drinking fountains and washing facilities at the Kellerwiese, followed by the desire for additional benches, tables and loungers; and the inclusion of water areas.
he creation of quiet zones away from busy paths also received more than 45% approval.
There were clear differences between ‘guests’ and ‘partners’ when it came to the desire for additional forest play areas, the availability of printed hiking maps and an additional children's adventure trail: here, 35-42% of ‘guests’ agreed, while only around 10-25% of ‘partners’ considered this to be important.
6 people made their own suggestions, including the desire for bicycle parking spaces and the desire for ‘quiet zones for nature’ without visitors.
Education
Respondent have valued 3 of the 7 proposed measures as particularly important, namely the creation of a forest learning area for primary schools & kindergartens (76% of ‘partners’ and 64% of guests), the establishment of a fresh air classroom (67% of ‘partners’ and 52% of guests) and additional opportunities for learning & adventure camps for 10-14 year olds (43% of ‘partners’ and 30% of guests).
In 4th place among the ‘partners’ is the desire to expand the range of experiences with experts, while the ‘guests’ prefer additional small information boards with QR codes for detailed information (interestingly, this option was ranked last by the ‘partners’).
2 respondents contributed their own topics, including the suggestion worth considering to strengthen our offers for young people (13-18) & adults.
Regional development
With regard to regional development, the opinions of ‘guests’ are particularly important to us, as several ‘partners’ are presumably active in the field of regional development themselves.
55% of respondents have considered expanding the nature park to include the Georgenberg.
The other 4 predefined suggestions have comparable approval ratings of between 41-45%; these relate to the establishment of a network of partner businesses (for catering, production & services), the connection to regional cycle paths in the overview map & signposting, a stronger presence on the main square, as well as the recommendation to offer the nature park to regional associations as a venue for events.
4 people made their own suggestions; e.g. a ‘stronger presence at the railway station’.
Additional suggestions by respondents for development priorities
Almost a third of the ‘guests’ and a quarter of the ‘partners’ also made their own suggestions for development priorities - many of which were very well thought out and realistic.
Most suggestions relate to animal enclosures, hiking trails and information services.
Some of the most feasible suggestions include "Wheelchair users should be able to wheel to the Kellerwiese domestic animal enclosures"; "create more drinking water tapping points", "put up a nature park map at railway stations & bus stops"; "awareness-raising measures on the topic of the city & surrounding countryside"; "information on the effects of climate change in the forest (other tree species, animals etc...);" and "consider new topics such as green care".