CONSULTATION STARTS HERE - THE REPORT, THE
RESULTS
CHAPTER 3 - DISTRIBUTION
3.1 The Campaign has an
established distribution network, consisting of dedicated
co-ordinators and distributors. The network was responsible
for distributing 40,000 copies of the newsletter door to
door within the five boroughs surrounding the Park, namely,
Bromley, Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark. 3.2 We aimed for complete
coverage within the postcode areas near to the Park,
together with further distribution in outlying postcode
areas, depending on the availability of distributors in
those areas. The extent of distribution may be seen from the
map, Figure 6, below. The term "inner zone" is used to refer
to postcodes close to the park and the term "outer zone" for
the rest.
Figure 6 : Distribution area (inner zone shown shaded)
3.3 From feedback, we are
satisfied that good coverage was achieved within the
postcodes near to the Park, although we do not pretend that
every single household was reached. 3.4 An interactive copy was
posted prominently on the Campaign's website and replies
have been received from a wide geographical area. This busy
site, which has received more than 41,000 hits since
inception, helped to publicise the study as well as elicit
direct responses. 3.5 The Campaign has achieved
widespread publicity about the questionnaire in the media,
so further stimulating responses. 3.6 The questionnaire was
distributed with the Dulwich Society newsletter, to the
homes of approximately 1,000 members of the Society. It was
also distributed to members of the Norwood Society, Herne
Hill Society and Croydon Society with 400, 250 and 300
members respectively. Reference to it has also been made in
the newsletter of the Sydenham Society (1,000 members)
amongst others. 3.7 On Sunday 9th September
2001, Campaign supporters took the questionnaire into the
Park, and asked Park users to complete it. We found people
in the Park pleased to provide answers. We regarded their
answers as particularly important, since it enabled us to
test how closely their answers corresponded with those
submitted by the public generally. This led us to conclude
that, while the members of the public who responded to our
questionnaire were self-selecting, their views were in line
with those of the park-using community as a whole: see
paragraph 4.9 below. 3.8 We thought it important
that the views of young people were canvassed. Their needs
are likely to differ from those of older people, and they
will have more years to enjoy the Park than their parents.
So we have also taken the questionnaire into schools,
consulting children as young as six years of age. It was not
possible to cover every school with pupils who enjoy the
Park. But we have taken a range of schools from around the
Park, both primary and secondary, and from both the state
and independent sector, so as to ensure a representative
range of views. We are particularly indebted to these
schools, which are listed in the acknowledgments. 3.9 Naturally, the style of
consultation varied depending on the age of the children
consulted. The questionnaire could safely be left
unexplained in the hands of older pupils, while a greater
degree of explanation was required for younger pupils. For
the youngest, we left the schools to carry out project work
with their pupils, so as to gain a more qualitative picture
of how they view their Park. All information received, where
possible, has contributed to this report (see
Appendix
C for data not
included). 3.10 We wanted to encourage
people to respond to the questionnaire, and so placed
collection boxes in a series of shops, libraries and
supermarkets in the Anerley, Beckenham, Dulwich, Penge,
Sydenham and Upper Norwood areas. The collection boxes were
advertised in the newsletter, and were widely
used.