Parking Study Report 1

University of West Florida
Parking Study
Organizational Change
and Development
2005
Brittany Bjorklund, Winifred Bourne, Blair Cranford,
Cathy Goss, Chris McGrath, Drew Price
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

1.1 Introduction and Purpose .............................................................6
2. Methods
2.2 Overview.........................................................................................6
2.3 Parking Observations.....................................................................7
2.4 Focus Group...................................................................................8
2.5 Survey.............................................................................................9
3. Results
3.1 Parking Observations.......................................................................9
3.2 Focus Group Participants...............................................................16
3.3 Focus Group Results......................................................................16
3.4 Survey Respondents ......................................................................18
3.5 Survey Results........................................................................20
3.6 Identifying the Dissatisfied............................................................27
4. Recommendations ....................................................................................................31
5. Appendices
5.1 Appendix A Data Collection Maps................................................35
5.2 Appendix B Parking Survey.......40
5.3 Appendix C Survey Results by Question...46
-2-
Executive Summary
To investigate the impact of recent parking changes on faculty and staff at the main
University of West Florida (UWF) campus, parking lot observations, a focus group, and a web-
based survey were undertaken.
Lots G, H, K, Q and V were chosen for assessment of parking lot usage and turnover.
Data was collected on Wednesdays and Thursdays during the two-week period of October 19th to
the 27th during the time intervals of 9:00am, 11:30am, and, 4:00pm. Selection of these days was
based on the perceived similarity of Monday/Wednesday/Friday and Tuesday/Thursday classes.
Results indicated that given the number of available unreserved spaces, the most turnover
occurred in lots Q, G and V during the afternoon. Lot G had the highest average utilization.
There was very little turnover in lots K and H. It may be helpful to point out that Lot H has 34
reserved spaces, and only 14 unreserved spaces (see Figure 7). Each lot showed prevalence for
illegal parking late in the day, especially in Lot Q, which is a multi-user lot shared with students
(see Figure 8). In fact, one might surmise by looking at the turnover data at 4:00pm (see Figure
7), that many of the turnover events observed at that time were students parking illegally before
open parking started at 4:30pm.
A focus group comprised of 11 faculty and staff members was conducted on November
15, 2005. Participants were randomly selected from faculty and staff who purchased reserved
parking spaces, and an equal number of faculty and staff who did not purchase reserved parking,
for a response rate of 23%. A content analysis of focus group comments revealed several
pertinent issues such as incongruent signage and curb color, lack of enforcement,
underutilization of the trolley system, improper allocation of parking spaces, and inadequate
dissemination of information (see Table 1).
An Internet survey was conducted during the period of November 15th to the 21st , with
181 employees completing the web survey for a 10% response rate. The majority of respondents
(122) were classified as administrative/staff, and 45 as faculty (see Table 2 for demographic
data). Demographic comparisons indicate that there is an over-representation in the survey data
of administration/staff and reserved permit holders. Therefore, caution must be taken in
generalizing the survey results to the university population as a whole.
Respondents of the web survey parked in 25 parking lots across campus, and the top five
lots were H (26%), G (17%), Q (9%), CC (8%), V (7%), and A (5%) respectively. In addition,
-3-
80% of the respondents were able to find a space in their preferred lots (see Figure 11). The
majority of respondents (83%) walked for 5 minutes or less from the parking lot to the desired
campus location (See Figure 12). This suggests that parking is convenient (see Question 19,
Appendix C), and in close proximity to the destination (see Figure 12).
A majority of respondents (59%) were dissatisfied with the new reserved parking policy
(See Figure 14). When only those who did not purchase reserved permits were considered, 72%
of respondents were dissatisfied, 20% were neutral, and 10% were satisfied. For those with
reserved parking permits, 62% are satisfied or very satisfied with the new permit policy, while
only 27% were dissatisfied. Overall, with regard to satisfaction with available parking, 41%
were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Of those who did not have reserved permits, 47%
were dissatisfied with parking availability. Surprisingly, 25% of those who had purchased
reserved permits were also dissatisfied.
On more detailed analysis of the respondents who were dissatisfied with parking
availability, one in three wanted to park in Lot H. If Lot G (just South of Lot H) was also
considered, fully one-half of the dissatisfied respondents wanted to park in these two closely
aligned lots. Of even more interest is that one out of three dissatisfied respondents said that they
could not find a space in their preferred lots, despite the fact that parking observations
demonstrated that no lots were filled beyond 72% capacity at any of the observed time periods.
If action can be taken to improve availability and convenience in Lots H and G, then,
potentially, it is possible that dissatisfaction could be reduced by 50%.
The 181 respondents made 194 complaints and suggestions for improvements (see Table
3). Table 4 gives specific examples for each of the major themes extracted from the survey.
Of 181 respondents, 113 survey respondents completed the open-ended questions
examining the fairest way to allocate parking. Content analysis extracted major 11 themes:
specifically open parking, proximity, convenience, reserved parking, status, present parking
system, designated parking, resident parking, lottery, parking garage and data collection (see
Table 5).
Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the results obtained by the three different methodologies, it appears that there is
excess parking capacity on campus for faculty and staff that is available and convenient based on
-4-
ability to park where desired, when desired, and at a short walk to destination. However, there is
still a high level of parking dissatisfaction, as indicated by both the focus group and survey
results. Below are suggested recommendations specifically based on these findings:
1. Revisit the rules, number of spaces allocated per lot, and the cost of reserved parking.
2. Address the parking availability in Lots G and H.
3. Increase percentage of student parking in Lot Q.
4. Increase parking enforcement, especially late in the afternoon.
5. Improve signage and curb color congruency.
6. Do not consider Village East and Village West residents as commuters.
7. Encourage utilization of the trolley in order to solve parking problems.
8. Develop a workgroup comprised of stakeholders (e.g., faculty, staff and students) to
participate in the decision-making process. Perspectives from such a diverse group are
likely to facilitate acceptance of pending changes for the parking constituents.
-5-
Introduction and Purpose
Graduate students in the fall 2005 Organizational Change and Development class were
engaged by our client, Parking Services within the University of West Florida (UWF), to
formally evaluate the impact of the new reserved parking system for faculty and staff on the
main UWF campus. Earlier this year, Walker Parking Consultants, a nationally recognized
parking consultant firm, presented UWF with a Parking Supply/Demand, Rate, and Business
Analysis for the main campus. Of the recommendations made, Parking Services implemented a
select few to increase the efficiency of parking at UWF. This change included reclassification of
the lots from a numerical system to an alphabetical system, broad banding faculty and staff
parking permits, adding reserved parking spots for faculty/staff, and designating parking areas by
signs rather than curb color.
During the 2005 spring semester, parking patrons were notified of the pending changes,
which took effect during the summer of 2005. During the 2005 fall semester, anecdotal evidence
suggested 1) that faculty and staff experienced difficulties in finding designated parking spaces
and 2) the reserved spaces purchased by faculty and staff were underutilized. These two issues
resulted in dissatisfaction with the new parking system due to inefficiency and inequity of
reserved spaces.
The purpose of this endeavor was to evaluate the impact of the recent parking changes on
faculty and staff. The findings will provide Parking Services with a synopsis of the faculty and
staff perspective, as well as provide a basis for recommendations to increase overall efficiency
and satisfaction with the new parking system.
Qualitative and quantitative analyses were utilized to evaluate the impact of the new
parking system. Parking lot observations, a focus group and a web-based survey were
conducted. Using various methodologies provides a comprehensive perspective on the impact of
the changes to the new parking system. The assessment included a review of preliminary
research, data collection, results of data analysis, conclusions and recommendations. The results
of this evaluation are included in this report.
Methods
Overview
Data was collected using three specific scientific methodologies. First, observations
were conducted on various parking lots at UWF in order to assess space usage and turnover.
-6-
Next, a structured focus group was conducted in order to assess opinions regarding the parking
policies at the University. Finally, a survey was administered and results were analyzed in order
to assess attitudes and behaviors regarding parking at UWF. The following sections will
describe each methodology in detail.
Parking Observations
An analysis of the New Parking Designations map indicated that the majority of faculty
and staff work in the north core. Specific criteria were used to select parking lot observations:
1. Parking lots located in the north core, which encompasses the majority of the
faculty and staff parking

2. Considerable amount of spaces were allocated for faculty and staff parking
3. Lots with the majority of reserved spaces sold
4. Multi-user lots (i.e., faculty, staff, and other)
5. Lots suggested by the Parking Service Director
Based on individual observations, group discussion, and consultations with our research
advisor, Dr. Schneider, it was determined that in order to get a representative sample of on-
campus parking, lots G, H, K, Q, and V should be sampled. These lots were suggested by Chip
Chism, Director of Parking Services as being the most appropriate lots for observations due to
location and number of reserved spaces.
Each data collector surveyed one of the five lots over a two-week period from October
19th to October 27th. Wednesdays and Thursdays were chosen for data collection based upon
previous records indicating these as "peak" parking days (Walker Parking Consultants, 2005).
Furthermore, selecting Wednesday and Thursday represents the two primary class schedules (i.e.
Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes, and Tuesday, Thursday classes). Data was collected each
day at 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 4:00 p.m. on maps for each corresponding lot provided by
parking services (see Appendix A). Observations at three intervals, 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and
4:00 p.m., allowed the researchers to cover an entire day. In addition, open parking
commences from 4:30 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., therefore data needed to be collected before open
parking began each day (UWF, 2005). On the data collection maps, blank faculty/staff spaces
represent non-reserved spaces, while numbered faculty/staff spaces represent reserved spaces
(see Appendix A). If faculty/staff non-reserved spaces were occupied, the last two digits of the
-7-
vehicle's tag number were recorded, in order to assess turnover. If faculty/staff reserved spaces
were occupied an X was recorded. It was assumed that the purchaser of the reserved space
occupied the space. In addition, decals were assessed in order to assure accurate data collection.
Illegally and temporarily parked vehicles were recorded in order to avoid contamination of data.
At the completion of data collection, each collector compiled collected data for analysis.
Focus Group
Focus group participants were randomly selected from two pools: faculty and staff who
purchased reserved parking spaces, and those who did not. Parking Services Director Chip
Chism provided records that identified purchasers of the permits. A random numbers chart was
utilized to randomly select participants from the reserved permit owners. The same random
numbers chart was used to randomly select faculty and staff from the University directory.
Randomly selecting from the directory was the most efficient way of obtaining a list of faculty
and staff that did not purchase a reserved parking space. A total of 24 faculty and staff were
selected from each pool.
An invitation to participate in the UWF Parking Service Focus Group was emailed to all
48 selected faculty and staff. The email identified the purpose of the focus group, the group of
students conducting the focus group, and requested input from those interested as to the best time
to host the meeting. Of those invited, eight individuals confirmed that they would participate.
The focus group lasted for approximately two hours. One researcher facilitated the
discussion, while another transcribed comments verbatim without identifying information, while
two others identified themes. All attendees participated equally. Throughout the course of the
focus group, the five following questions were asked:
1. What is your understanding of the new parking policy concerning reserved
spaces?
2. What specific effects (positive or negative) have you seen or experienced since
the changes have taken place?
3. What have been some of the problems or issues that you have personally faced in
regards to parking?
4. What is your overall opinion of parking on campus: availability, locations,
restrictions, price, enforcement, etc.?
-8-
5. What are your opinions on the fairness of the current system, do you have
alternative suggestions?
Survey
The survey (see Appendix B) was developed by conducting an online search of current and
recent university and college surveys available for public viewing. Based on a review of those
surveys, the following common themes were extracted:
1. Commuting time to campus
2. Day/time/and location of typical parking
3. Space availability
4. Time to locate a space
5. Time to walk to location on campus
6. Flexibility of leaving and returning during the day
7. Convenience
8. Cost
9. Perceived fairness of space allocation
10. Comparison with other institutions
Questions were developed based on the common themes relevant to UWF. The questions
for the web-based survey were submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for approval,
which was subsequently granted. In addition, Provost Flake endorsed the survey for
advertisement on the ARGUS Webpage. The web-based survey was formatted using Perseus
Survey Software Version 6.0, which is utilized by the UWF Psychology Department. The final
survey was placed on the Universitys webpage on November 15th, 2005 for one week.
Results
Parking Observations
The primary goal of the parking observations was to determine general parking space
utilization in selected lots at the date and times sampled. Secondary interests were the total
turnover of space that occurred, as well as recording the number of vehicles parked illegally.
Beginning with space utilization, each of the lots observed along with the dates and time
blocks when observations were taken are illustrated (see Figures 1-5). TotalNR represents the
-9-
total number of non-reserved spaces in each lot. NROcc represents the number of occupied
spaces, while TotRes represents the total number of reserved spaces in each lot, with ResOcc
representing the number of occupied reserved spaces.
Figure 1
Times, dates, and observation periods in Lot H.
LOT H
60
50
# of Spaces
TotalNR
40
NROcc
30
TotRes
20
ResOcc
10
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/19/05 10/19/05 10/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
Figure 2
Times, dates, and observation periods in Lot Q.
LOT Q
70
# of Spaces
60
50 TotalNR
40 NROcc
30 TotRes
20 ResOcc
10
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/19/05 10/19/0510/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/0510/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/0510/27/05 10/27/05
-10-
Figure 3
Times, dates, and observation periods in Lot G.
LOT G
# of Spaces
160
140
120 TotalNR
100 NROcc
80
60 TotRes
40 ResOcc
20
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/19/05 10/19/05 10/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
Figure 4
Times, dates, and observation periods in Lot V.
LOT V
140
120
# of Spaces
100 TotalNR
80 NROcc
60 TotRes
40 ResOcc
20
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/19/05 10/19/05 10/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
Figure 5
Times, dates, and observation periods in Lot K.
LOT K
160
140
# of Spaces
120 TotalNR
100
NROcc
80
TotRes
60
40 ResOcc
20
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/19/05 10/19/05 10/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
-11-
Both the reserved and non-reserved faculty/staff spaces were not fully utilized. This was
true regardless of the time or date of the observations. Figure 6 shows the average percentage
utilization in each of the lots by category (reserved/non-reserved).
Figure 6
Summary of times, dates, and observation periods in Lots H, Q, G, V and K.
100.00%
90.00%
72.59%
80.00% 72.17% 72.22% 67.72%
70.00% 62.62%
60.78% 51.06%
60.00%
48.96% 46.43% 44.79% NR Utilized
50.00%
Res Utilized
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
H Q G V K
The highest average utilization of parking was found in lot G non-reserved at 72.59%,
while the lowest utilization of parking was found in lot K reserved at 44.79% (see Figure 6).
Clearly, there is excess capacity in each of the lots for faculty/staff parking within the two
parking categories.
Figure 7 examined turnover. For this project, it was decided that a parking spot would be
considered to have turned over if the car that was parked in a particular spot at 9:00am was
different from the car that subsequently parked there at 11:30am. If yet a third car was parked in
that spot at 4:00pm, the spot was considered to have turned over twice that day. Finally, if the
same car was in a spot at 9:30 and 11:30, but a different car was parked there at 4:00pm, this was
counted as one turnover. There are many different ways that lot turnover could be calculated. It
was decided to report total turnover events rather than any sort of percentage turnover, as any
one spot can turn over multiple times in a day. To interpret Figure 7, it is useful to look at the
magnitude of turnover in particular lots over the course of the day. Given the number of
available unreserved spaces, the most turnover occurs, in lots Q, G and V during the afternoon. It
-12-
should be noted that lot G had the highest average utilization. There was very little turnover in
lots K and H. It may be helpful to point out that Lot H has 34 reserved spaces, and only 14
unreserved spaces. Faculty and staff that park in one of the unreserved spaces in Lot H do not
move their cars during the day.
-13-
Figure 7
Turnover in Lots H, Q, G, V and K.
Turnover
45
40
35
30
Number of Cars
25
Turnover
20
15
10
5
Hour
0
Date 19 19 20 20 26 26 27 27 19 19 20 20 26 26 27 27 19 19 20 20 26 26 27 27 19 19 20 20 26 26 27 27 19 19 20 20 26 26 27 27
Lot H H H H H H H H Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q G G G G G G G G V V V V V V V V K K K K K K K K
Capacity H: 14 spaces Q: 54 spaces G: 128 spaces V: 110 spaces K: 97 spaces
-14-
Lastly, illegal parking data was collected only in lots Q, G and V as shown below (see
Figures 8, 9, and 10). Illegal parking data was not collected in lot K due to the fact that this lot is
open to the public for events held in the University commons. Public visitors are not ticketed
while on campus, therefore collecting incidence of illegal parking in this lot would have
contaminated the data set. It should be noted that each lot shows prevalence for illegal parking
late in the day, especially in Lot Q, which is a multi-user lot shared with students. In fact, one
might surmise by looking at the turnover data at 4:00pm (see Figure 7), that many of the turnover
events are students parking illegally before open parking starts at 4:30pm.
Figure 8
Illegal parking in Lot Q.
LOT Q
# of Illegally Parked Cars
12
10
8
6 # Illegally Parked
4
2
0
11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
Figure 9
Illegal parking in Lot G.
LOT G
14
12
10
8
# Illegally Parked
6
4
2
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
-15-
Figure 10
Illegal parking in Lot V.
LOT V
7
6
5
4
# Illegally Parked
3
2
1
0
9:00 11:30 4:00 9:00 11:30 4:00
10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05
Focus Group Participants

On November 15, 11 faculty and staff members out of the 48 invited attended the focus
group, for a 23% response rate. In order to make participants comfortable and to preserve
anonymity, participants were not identified as reserved versus non-reserved permit holders. Our
impression was that about equal numbers participated from each stratified sample, which would
over-represent reserved permit holders compared to the university population. However, the
23% response rate combined with the equal representation of the stratified samples means that
this data is a better representation of the population than the survey data, although the number of
participants is much smaller.
Focus Group Results

A content analysis of the responses and comments to all of the focus group questions were
combined and then examined to reveal several key issues regarding the University's parking
situation. These issues and sample supporting comments are included in the following Table 1.
-16-
Table 1
Focus Group Themes

1. Signs and curb color not congruent
a. "I am accustomed to looking at the curb color."
b. "The signs are very unclear. They should repaint the curbs."
c. "They should pay a couple of students to paint the curbs."
d. "The signage is not good."
2. Lack of enforcement
a. "Parking should be enforced from day one."
b. "There should be stricter parking rules."
c. "They should start towing people that illegally park."
d. "Enforcement is the issue here."
3. Trolley system should be revamped
a. "The trolley usually just has the driver and one other person on it."
b. "The trolley should be better utilized."
c. "Trolley should stop at designated locations every five minutes."
d. "The trolley system is very underutilized."
4. Parking spaces not properly allocated
a. "Having reserved spaces is probably not the best use of parking."
b. "Residents usually don't get to park so close at other campuses."
c. "Residents shouldn't be allowed to park on campus."
5. General lack of information
a. "More information regarding the parking changes should have been
given ahead of time."
b. "There should be a better information campaign."
-17-
Survey Respondents
The online survey was available on the ARGUS Webpage from November 15th to the
November 21st. Of approximately 1,757 employees (387 faculty, 370 adjuncts and 1,000
administration or staff members), 181 employees completed the web survey, a 10% response
rate. The majority of respondents (126) were female, 48 were male, and 7 failed to indicate
gender. The median age of the respondents was 46-55 years old, and 173 were full-time (see
Table 2 for demographic data).
Most employees (122) were classified as administrative/staff and 45 as faculty. A
disproportionate number of administration/staff (12%) filled out the survey compared to 6% of
the faculty. Furthermore, 52 reserved permit holders completed the survey, out of 141 total
reserved permits issued, for a 37% response rate for this group. Only 129 non-reserved permit
holders completed the survey, out of 722 non-reserved permits issued, for an 18% response rate
(As the number of permits issued is fewer than the number of employees who could have taken
the survey, these response rates are higher than 10%). It can be seen from these statistics that
there is an over-representation in the survey data of administration/staff and reserved permit
holders. Therefore, caution must be taken in generalizing the survey results to the university
population as a whole. Table 2 demonstrates the demographic makeup of the survey
respondents.
Respondents of the web survey parked in 25 parking lots across campus. The top five lots
were H (26%), G (17%), Q (9%), CC (8%), V (7%) and A (5%) respectively.
-18-
Table 2
Demographic Data for the Survey Sample
Demographics Frequency Percent
Work status
Missing 6 3.3
Full time 173 95.6
Part time 2 1.1
Total 181 100
Work classification
Missing 5 2.8
Admin/Staff 122 67.4
Faculty 45 24.9
Student 6 3.3
Other 3 1.7
Total 181 100
Gender
Missing 7 3.9
Male 48 26.5
Female 126 69.6
Total 181 100
Age
Missing 6 3.3
18-25 11 6.1
26-35 24 13.3
36-45 38 21.0
46-55 63 34.8
56-65 36 19.9
65+ 3 1.7
Total 181 100
Permit Type
Faculty/Staff 117 64.6
Res Faculty/Staff 52 28.7
Commuter 9 5.0
Handicapped 2 1.1
Total 181 100
-19-
Survey Results
Frequencies and means for each question on the survey are listed in Appendix C. A full
80% of the respondents were able to find a space in their preferred lots (see Figure 11). The
majority of respondents (83%) walked for 5 minutes or less from the parking lot to the desired
campus location. This suggests that parking is convenient, and in close proximity to the
destination (see Figure 12).
Figure 11
Percentage of employees who are able to find a parking space in the preferred lot.
Note. 0s in figures denote missing values.
-20-
Figure 12
Walking distance from parking lot to campus destination
-21-
With regard to satisfaction with available parking, a division was clear. For instance,
41% were dissatisfied, 16% were neutral, and 43% were satisfied (see Figure 13). A majority of
respondents (59%) were dissatisfied with the new reserved parking policy (see Figure 14). This
contrasts with 18% who were neutral, and a 23% satisfaction rate.
Figure 13
Satisfaction with parking availability
-22-
Figure 14
Satisfaction with new reserved parking policy
-23-
Of the 181 survey respondents, 130 participants completed the open-ended questions
examining complaints about the changes to the parking system. Content analysis extracted 11
major themes: apace availability, cost, policy, distance, curb colors, signage, safety,
enforcement, elitist, parking garage, and trolley issues (see Table 3). As many respondents had
more than one complaint; the number of comments exceeds the number of survey respondents.
Table 4 gives specific examples for each of the major themes extracted from the survey.
Of the 181 survey respondents, 113 participants completed the open-ended questions
examining the fairest way to allocate parking (see Table 5). Content analysis extracted 11 major
themes: open parking, proximity, convenience, reserved parking, status, present parking system,
designated parking, resident parking, lottery, parking garage and data collection. The most
prevalent suggestion for fairness was open parking for faculty and staff, with no reserved parking
available.
If you have any complaints or issues about the recent changes to parking at UWF, or you have
any ideas for improving parking at UWF, please briefly describe them.
Table 3
Complaints and Suggestions Concerning Recent Parking Changes
Items Number of Percent

responses of total
comments
Space Availability 42 22%
Cost 34 18%
Policy 23 12%
Distance 22 11%
Curb Colors 19 10%
Signage 17 9%
Safety 12 6%
Enforcement 10 5%
Elitist 6 3%
Parking Garage 5 3%
Trolley 4 2%
Total 194 100
Note. As many respondents had more than one complaint, the number of comments exceeds the
number of survey respondents.
-24-
Table 4
New Parking Policy Complaints and Suggestions
Complaints & Suggestions

Signage
The signs are too small, hard to read, confusing, and they do not necessarily match up to the spaces as they should. The numbers to
letters lot conversions are problematic as there are more lots than there are letters in the alphabet. Double lettered lots (e.g., CC)
and lettered/numbered lots (S1) are a little much.
Curb Colors
The colors of the curbs do not always correspond to the signs, which creates confusion.
Reserved Spaces Elitist

Only those in higher positions appear to get the closest reserved spots. Many lower employees not sufficiently informed of the
Reserved Space policy. Others discouraged or intimidated into not purchasing a reserved spot. It did not appear that it was first
come, first serve, because some employees purchased reserved spots, and got spots further away than higher up employees that
purchased their spots at a later date.
Cost
Cost is too high for parking in general, but especially for Reserved Spaces. Employees that make less money should not have to
pay as much as other employees. Faculty/Staff should not have to pay to park at all.
Policy
Parking should be first come, first serve for everyone, not just faculty/staff.
Space Availability
There are too many reserved spaces being sold, which cuts down on the number of available non-reserved spots. The lack of spots
displaces both faculty/staff, and students. Students that live on campus should walk or take the trolley, they should not be able to
park, because they displace commuter and faculty/staff students. Reserved parking should not be 24/7. Many faculty/staff are not
on campus all day long, and their spaces are not being utilized when they are off campus. Many reserved spaces are too far away
from the appropriate buildings.
Trolley Issues
The Trolley schedule is seen as ineffective. There are not enough Trolleys on campus, nor do they run efficiently. Residential
students need to be able to better utilize the trolley. The Trolley schedule needs to be changed (e.g., more frequent pick ups, better
information as to the schedules of the trolley each day).
Safety Concerns
Many students and some faculty/staff must walk long distances later at night, which is seen as unsafe. Many faculty/staff, and
students must park and walk across roads with heavy traffic. Drivers do not stop like they should at cross-walks.
Enforcement
Too many people get away with parking violations in the first weeks of school. Enforcement should begin on day one, and
continue on through the year. Parking fines should be increased to discourage people from parking illegally. Parking Service
attendants need to be better informed of parking policies, and where it is legal for faculty/staff and/or students to park.
Parking Garages
Parking garages would help with overcrowded lots. Even if the parking garage was off campus, and the trolley had to run from the
garage to campus, it would still create more open spaces.
Distance
Reserved Spaces are not close enough to the buildings. Non-Reserved spaces are too far away and less convenient.
-25-
Assuming that convenient parking is limited, what is the fairest way to allocate parking?
Table 5
Parking Allocation Fairness
Items Number of Percent of

responses comments
Open parking 42 37.2%
Proximity 13 11.5%
Convenience 12 10.6%
Reserved parking 10 8.9%
Status 8 7.1%
Present parking system 7 6.2%
Designated parking 6 5.3%
Resident parking 6 5.3%
Lottery 5 4.4%
Parking garage 3 2.6%
Data collection 1 .9%
Total 113 100
-26-
Identifying the Dissatisfied
In any customer service survey of this type, it is important to identify the dissatisfied, and
if possible, the cause of their dissatisfaction. In this analysis, small categories of low incidence
such as student commuters, other, and handicapped categories were omitted to concentrate on the
biggest groupings of faculty and admin/staff who reported being either dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied across the satisfaction survey items of: Availability, Convenience, Fairness, New
Reserved Parking Policy, and Cost. These were grouped against the demographics of: Permit
Type, Lot Preference, whether they could find a space in their preferred lot, Age, Gender, and
Status.
Some of the demographics were stable across the four items of: Availability,
Convenience, Fairness, and New Reserved Parking Policy such as:
1. Men and women were split nearly 50/50 into the dissatisfied/satisfied categories
across the items.
2. There were no significant differences in dissatisfaction across age categories.
3. The most dissatisfied respondents across the four satisfaction questions preferred
to park in lot H (about 35% of all survey respondents reporting dissatisfaction)
and G (15% of dissatisfied respondents). All remaining dissatisfied respondents
were equally distributed among the other 23 Lots mentioned in the survey.
4. Roughly 33% of respondents who said they were dissatisfied with parking
availability also reported that they could not find a space in their preferred lot.
Reserved parking It comes as no surprise that the new reserved parking policy polarized
the survey respondents. A majority of respondents (59%) were dissatisfied with the new
reserved parking policy (see Figure 13). When only those who did not purchase reserved permits
were considered, 72% of respondents were dissatisfied, 20% were neutral, and 10% were
satisfied or very satisfied. For those with reserved parking permits, 62% were satisfied or very
satisfied with the new permit policy, while only 27% were dissatisfied. Faculty and staff with
non-reserved permits were significantly less satisfied with the new reserved parking policy
(M=1.8 out of 5, SD=1.18) than faculty and staff who purchased reserved permits (M=3.5,
SD=1.70), F(1, 168)=56.28, p < .0001 (see Figure 15).
-27-
Figure 15
Satisfaction with Reserved Parking Policy
Satisfaction with the Reserved Parking Policy
5
Avg Satisfaction with Policy (5=Very Satisfied)
Faculty/Staff Res Faculty/Staff

Permit Type
Remarkably similar results were found for the question: How satisfied are you with the
allocation of UWF parking spaces? Faculty and staff with non-reserved permits were
significantly less satisfied with the fairness of UWF parking (M=2.3 out of 5, SD=1.3) than
faculty and staff who purchased reserved permits (M=3.2, SD=1.6), F(1, 168)=14.42, p < .0001.
Satisfaction with the reserved parking policy is highly correlated with ratings of fairness for both
reserved permit holders (r=.70, p < .0001) and non-reserved permit holders (r=.78, p<.0001).
The high correlation between satisfaction with the new reserved policy and ratings of
fairness makes sense for the non-reserved permit holders. However, this correlation for reserved
permit holders is less understandable. Is it that these reserved permit holders believe that there is
a lack of fairness because there arent enough good reserved spots, or that price is too high, or
that they have to pay at all? Or is it possible that despite the fact they have purchased a reserved
-28-
space they think its unfair to be able to do so? Unfortunately this survey does not contain the
type of attitudinal measures to explain why reserved permit holders would consider the parking
system at UWF unfair.
With regard to satisfaction with available parking, 41% were either very dissatisfied or
dissatisfied. Of those who did not have reserved permits, 47% were dissatisfied with parking
availability. Surprisingly, 25% of those who had purchased reserved permits were also
dissatisfied. How can this be given that they have a reserved spot the ultimate in availability?
One possibility is that some may not have been able get the space they wanted to when
purchasing a reserved permit, therefore parking was not available where they desired.
However, this is only conjecture as the survey did not explore those issues.
A full 58% of the sample was not interested in buying a reserved spot (see Question 23,
Appendix C). When the individuals who have already purchased reserved parking were removed
from this analysis, 80% had no interest in reserved parking. When asked how much reserved
parking should cost annually (see Question 24, Appendix C), the majority of respondents (25%)
said Dont Know, while 18.2% preferred $40-$59 (near the current price for a regular permit),
the same number (18.2%) preferred $80-$99 (the current price for a reserved permit), and large
minority said over $200 (14.4%).
Problematic parking lots On more detailed analysis of the respondents who were
dissatisfied with parking availability, one in three wanted to park in Lot H. If Lot G (just south
of Lot H) was also considered, fully one-half of the dissatisfied respondents wanted to park in
these two closely aligned lots. Of even more interest was that one out of three dissatisfied
respondents said that they could not find a space in their preferred lot, despite the fact that
parking observations demonstrated that no lots were filled beyond 72% capacity at any of the
observed time periods. At least two possibilities exist. Either the lots filled to greater than 72%
capacity in between observation periods, and thus led to true lack of space availability; or,
alternatively, respondents may not have answered this question as it was asked, instead
responding that they could find no convenient space within their preferred lot, although spaces
were available. Given that 92% of all respondents reported that they were in their spaces by
9am before the first observational period, it was likely that convenience was the issue.
However, if something could be done to improve availability and convenience in Lots H and G,
it is possible that dissatisfaction could potentially be reduced by 50%.
-29-
Cost. The five satisfaction survey items correlated with one another except satisfaction
with cost, which stood alone. A high percentage of respondents (43.5%) were dissatisfied with
the cost of parking, 24% had no opinion, and 32.5% were satisfied. Of those dissatisfied with
Cost, 78% were non-reserved permit holders and 22% were reserved permit holders. The cost
item contains the highest percentage of reserved permit holders than any other item, clearly
indicating an issue with cost among reserved permit holders.
Respondents who prefer to park in Lots G and H were most dissatisfied with the cost of
parking. Also, 48.5% of those who reported that they could not find a spot in their preferred lot
were dissatisfied with the cost of parking. In summary, respondents who found convenient
parking difficult in their preferred lots were unhappy with cost.
Demographics Of the total number respondents who stated they were dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied with Parking Availability, 80% were non-reserved permit holders and 20% were
reserved permit holders. A fairly high percentage, 79% of dissatisfied respondents on this item,
belonged to the admin/staff group which only represented 67% of the total overall respondents.
Clearly the admin/staff group was slightly more represented among the dissatisfied on this item
than faculty.
The breakdown for respondents who stated they were dissatisfied with Parking
Convenience was very similar to those of Availability: 85% were non-reserved permit holders,
while 15% were reserved permit holders. Of the total, 82% belonged to the admin/staff group,
and 18% belonged to the faculty group.
It was perhaps more logical that the percentage of dissatisfied reserved space holders
went down on this item as again having an assigned spot is the ultimate in convenience.
However, the fact that any reserved permit holders at all show up as dissatisfied on either
convenience or availability is puzzling. Perhaps the reserved permit holders were not happy with
the specific space they were assigned. Some comments in the open survey items suggested that
those who were late in purchasing reserved spots felt they did not receive the best spaces, and
some even suggested that certain people (unnamed) got better spaces than others who purchased
their spaces at the same time.
Of the respondents who stated they were dissatisfied with Fairness, 79% were non-
reserved permit holders and 21% were reserved permit holders. Again, 77% belonged to the
admin/staff group and 23% belonged to the faculty group. Is it that these reserved permit holders
-30-
believe that there is a lack of fairness because there arent enough good reserved spots, or that
price is too high, or that they have to pay at all? Or is it possible that despite the fact they have
purchased a reserved space they think its unfair to be able to do so? Unfortunately this survey
does not contain the type of attitudinal measures to explain why reserved permit holders would
consider the parking system at UWF unfair.
What clues does this analysis provide about who the dissatisfied are, and what they are
dissatisfied about? Clearly the admin/staff group is more represented in the dissatisfied group as
compared to faculty when considering the overall percentages of each in the total population.
Also it is clear than parking Lots H and G account for nearly 50% of some of the dissatisfaction
that exists within this group. Failure to find a space or possibly a convenient space in their
preferred lots was a major issue. Lastly, there were reserved parking permit holders who were
clearly dissatisfied across the range of items here. Though many of these facts present good
focus for targeted improvements to reduce dissatisfaction (e.g., improvements in Lots H and G),
without delving deeper into why these reserved parking permit holders were dissatisfied, there is
no clear way to address their concerns. As they represent about 20% of the dissatisfied across
several categories, it may be worthwhile to formally or informally survey them to find out their
specific complaints.
Conclusion and Recommendations

Based on the results obtained from three methodologies, it appears that there is excess
parking capacity on campus that is available and convenient based on ability to park where
desired, when desired, and at a short walk to destination. The focus group and open-ended
survey questions revealed four common issues: sign/curb incongruency, parking enforcement,
trolley usage, and allocation of parking. A high level of parking dissatisfaction existed, as
indicated by both the focus group and survey results. Based on the survey results, it appears that
there were two distinct groups of opinions expressed in parking satisfaction measures. Reserved
permit holders were more satisfied than others who responded to the survey.
Parking is a highly emotive issue. There is a need to combine cognitive elements of
persuasion (e.g., providing stakeholders with brochures describing the new parking regulations)
with emotional appeals (e.g., providing a forum for change agents to meet with the constituents
to discuss proposed changes). It is likely that the combination of these two methods to promote
-31-
organizational change will enhance perception and satisfaction levels with the new parking
policy.
Recommendations:
1. Revisit the rules, number of spaces allocated per lot, and the cost of reserved
parking. Most non-reserved permit holders were negative about the new
policy. While the reserved permit holders were more satisfied with the policy,
a significant minority were dissatisfied.
2. Address the parking availability in Lots G and H. Dissatisfaction with these
two lots was the highest. One solution may be to decrease the number of
reserved spaces. In Lot H, 34/48 total spaces (71%) are currently reserved. In
Lot G, 45/173 (26%) of total spaces are reserved. The percentage of reserved
spaces in other lots is much lower.
3. Increase percentage of student parking in Lot Q. Faculty parking was
underutilized, and there was a high incidence of illegal parking by students,
especially at 4:00pm.
4. Increase parking enforcement without a grace period, especially in the hours of
3:30pm-4:30pm.
5. Increase the size of parking signage and address curb color incongruency. It is
important that stakeholders are cognizant of where they are parking.
6. Restrict designated parking areas for residents at the Village Apartments, i.e.
dont consider Village residents as commuter students. Possible solutions
include assigning Village residents their own lot/permit color and encouraging
trolley usage.
7. Revamp the trolley system. To promote greater usage among campus
residents, the trolley should be available more frequently (e.g., five minute
intervals). This is likely to reduce the number of student vehicles on campus.
The feasibility of this option may be explored prior to renewing the trolley
contract. In addition, develop an advertising campaign that targets student
residents. Student residents should contribute to this campaign.
8. Develop a workgroup comprised of stakeholders (e.g., faculty, staff and
students) to participate in the decision-making process. Perspectives from such
-32-
a diverse group are likely to facilitate acceptance of pending changes for the
parking constituents
Stakeholder support is an integral component of the policys success, and is gained when
change agents empower the constituents in the organizational change process. In addition, it is
necessary that the organizational change strategy is backed by a data-driven approach.
-33-
References
University of West Florida. (2003). IT Strategic Plan. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from
https://nautical.uwf.edu/Files/ORG/ITC/ITPLAN_20030515_Referenced.pdf
University of West Florida. (u.d.). New Parking Designations.
Walker Parking Consultants (2005). Parking Supply/Demand Rate, and Business Analysis.
-34-
Appendix A: Lot Maps Used for Data Collection
-35-
-36-
-37-
-38-
-39-
Appendix B: Copy of the Web-Survey Questions (text format including variable labels)
You are invited to participate in a survey about the current parking services provided on the main
campus. This short survey is being conducted by graduate students enrolled in the Organizational
Change and Development class at the University of West Florida. We are especially interested in
your perceptions concerning the new reserved space policy. By completing this survey, you not
only will be helping UWF Parking Services, you will be helping students complete their class
assignment!
Informed Consent Form
Federal and university regulations require us to obtain informed consent for participation in
research involving human participants. After reading the following information, please indicate
your consent by selecting the appropriate box.
The survey will take between 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Your views will be kept strictly
confidential; the data will be compiled in aggregate form from all participants and provided to
Parking Services. You may stop participating at any time. However, if you chose to end your
participation before clicking on the "submit" button at the end of the survey, we will be unable to
use any of your responses. If you understand the information provided above, and wish to
participate in this study, kindly select the "I
agree" button.
Q. informed consent (Type an X between the brackets preceding your choice. Select only one
choice.)
( ) I agree to participate in this survey

( ) I decline to participate in this survey at this time
Q. Permit
What kind of parking permit do you possess?
(Type an X between the brackets preceding your choice. Select only one choice.)
( ) Faculty/Staff
( ) Reserved Faculty/Staff
( ) Commuter
( ) Resident
( ) Handicapped
Q. Carpool
Do you carpool with others?
( ) Never
( ) Almost Never
-40-
( ) Sometimes
( ) Very Often
( ) Always
Q. Number days (Type your answer between the brackets. Don't worry about extra spaces at the
end of your response.)
On average, how many days per week do you park on campus? Number of days:
[]
Q. Time arrive (Type your answer between the brackets. Don't worry about extra spaces at the
Typically, what time of day do you arrive at the University? Indicate hour and AM or PM:
[]
Q. Time to park
Typically, how long does it take you to park after arriving on campus?
(Type your answer between the brackets. Don't worry about extra spaces at the end of your
response.)
Minutes:
[
Q. Preferred Lot (Type your answer between the brackets. Don't worry about extra spaces at the
What parking lot do you prefer to park in? List lot (ex. AA-Z or describe general location):
[]
Q. Space
Can you usually find a space in your preferred lot?
( ) Yes ( ) No
Q. Usual lot
-41-
response.) If No, which lot do you usually park in?: []
Q. Walk
Typically, how long does it take to walk from your parking place to your campus destination?
response.) Minutes: [ For each weekday, typically, how many hours do you remain on campus?
Q. Which days_A
(For each topic below, type an X between the brackets preceding your choice. Select only one
choice per topic.)
Monday ()1()2()3()4()5()6()7()8()9() 10
Tuesday ()1()2()3()4()5()6()7()8()9() 10
Wednesday ( ) 1( ) 2 ( )3 ( )4 ( )5 ( )6 ()7 ( )8 ( )9 ( ) 10
Thursday ()1()2()3()4()5()6()7()8()9()10
Friday ()1()2()3()4()5()6()7()8()9() 10
Please read each statement carefully and select the number which, in your opinion, best applies
to you.
Q. Extent_A
choice per topic.)
To what extent does the time that you spend on campus vary much during the week? ( ) No
Extent ( ) Small Extent ( ) Moderate Extent ( ) Great Extent ( ) Very Great Extent
To what extent does parking availability influence the time of day you arrive on campus? (
) No Extent ( ) Small Extent ( ) Moderate Extent ( ) Great Extent ( ) Very Great Extent
To what extent does parking availability influence whether you leave campus temporarily
during the
day? ( ) No Extent ( ) Small Extent ( ) Moderate Extent ( ) Great Extent ( ) Very Great
-42-
Extent Are you aware of the changes made to campus parking this Fall? ( ) No Extent ( ) Small
Extent ( ) Moderate Extent ( ) Great Extent ( ) Very Great Extent
Q. Satisfied_A
choice per topic.)
How satisfied are you with the availability of UWF parking?( ) Very Dissatisfied ( )
Dissatisfied ( ) Neutral ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied
How satisfied are you with the convenience (Le. location) of UWF parking?( ) Very
Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Neutral ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied
How satisfied are you with the cost of UWF parking?( ) Very Dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( )
Neutral ( ) Satisfied ( ) Very Satisfied
How satisfied are you with the fairness of allocation of UWF parking spaces?( ) Very
How satisfied are you with the new policy regarding reserved parking spaces?( ) Very
Q. Reserved Yes
Which of the following statements best reflects your preferences regarding reserved parking on
campus?
( ) I am not at all interested in purchasing a reserved parking space.

( ) I am somewhat interested in purchasing a reserved parking space.
( ) I am very interested in purchasing a reserved parking space.
( ) I have purchased a reserved parking space.
Q. Pay
What would be a fair price to charge annually for a reserved parking space on campus?
( ) Don't Know
( ) $40-59
( ) $60-79
-43-
( ) $80-99
( ) $100-119
( ) $120-139
( ) $140-159
( ) $160-179
( ) $180-199
( ) $200+
Q. Experience
Do you have experience with parking at similar colleges and universities?
( ) Yes
( )No
(For each topic below, type an X between the brackets preceding your choice. Select
only one choice per topic.)
If yes, overall, how do UWF parking facilities compare to similar colleges and universities
with which you are familiar? ( ) Much Worse ( ) Slightly Worse ( ) About the Same ( ) Slightly
Better ( ) Much Better
Q. Complaints
If you have any complaints or issues about the recent changes to parking at UWF, or you have
any ideas for improving parking at UWF, please briefly describe them.
(Type your answer between the brackets, using as much space as necessary. Don't worry
about extra spaces at the end of your response.)
Q. Fair
Assuming that convenient parking is limited, what is the fairest way to allocate parking?
(Type your answer between the brackets, using as much space as necessary. Don't worry
about extra spaces at the end of your response.)
-44-
Demographic Information Please take a moment to provide us with some demographic
information. This information will be used only to ensure that all of the needs of the employees
of this organization are being addressed.
Q. Status
What best describes your status?
( ) Administration/Staff( ) Faculty( ) Student( ) Other [
Q. Fulltime
Are you fulltime or part-

time?
( ) Full Time ( ) Part Time
Q. Sex
What is your gender/sex?

( ) Male ( ) Female
Q. Age
Check the age category that represents you best.

( ) 18-25( ) 26-35( ) 36-45( ) 46-55( ) 56-65( ) Over 65
-45-
Appendix C: Survey Results by Question
1. What best describes your status?
Statistics Status
Status
Valid 181 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
N
Missing 0 0 5 2.8 2.8 2.8
Mean 1.34 Admin/Staff 122 67.4 67.4 70.2
Median 1.00 Faculty 45 24.9 24.9 95.0
Valid
Std. Deviation .669 Student 6 3.3 3.3 98.3
Range 4 Other 3 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Note: 0 indicates missing data responses
-46-
2. Are you full time or part time?
Statistics Full/Part Time

Full/Part Time
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 No response 6 3.3 3.3 3.3
Mean .98 Full Time 173 95.6 95.6 98.9
Valid
Median 1.00 Part Time 2 1.1 1.1 100.0
Std. Deviation .210 Total 181 100.0 100.0
Range 2
Comment: No chart necessary. 96% are full time.
3. What is your gender/sex?
Statistics Gender
Gender
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 0 7 3.9 3.9 3.9
Mean 1.66 Male 48 26.5 26.5 30.4

Valid
Female 126 69.6 69.6 100.0
Median 2.00
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Std. Deviation .552
Range 2
Comment: The skewed response pattern for females is a concern. May not be a representative
sample.
-47-
4. Check the age category that represents you best.
Statistics Age
Age
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 0 6 3.3 3.3 3.3
Mean 3.44 18-25 11 6.1 6.1 9.4
Median 4.00 26-35 24 13.3 13.3 22.7
Std. Deviation 1.335 36-45 38 21.0 21.0 43.6

Valid
46-55 63 34.8 34.8 78.5
Range 6
56-65 36 19.9 19.9 98.3
65+ 3 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-48-
5. What kind of parking permit do you possess?
Statistics Permit Type

Permit Type
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 No response 1 .6 .6 .6
Mean 1.43 Faculty/Staff 117 64.6 64.6 65.2
Median 1.00 Res-Faculty/Staff 52 28.7 28.7 93.9
Valid
Std. Deviation .700 Commuter 9 5.0 5.0 98.9
Range 5 Handicapped 2 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-49-
6. Do you carpool with others?
Statistics Carpool?
Carpool?
N
Missing 0 No response 1 .6 .6 .6
Mean 1.57 Never 120 66.3 66.3 66.9
Median 1.00 Almost Never 31 17.1 17.1 84.0
Std. Deviation .973 Valid Sometimes 17 9.4 9.4 93.4
Range 5 Very Often 9 5.0 5.0 98.3
Always 3 1.7 1.7 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Note: NR indicates No Response
-50-
7. On average, how many days per week do you park on campus?
Statistics Number of Days Parked on Campus per Week

#Days Park/Week
Valid 181
N 0 2 1.1 1.1 1.1
Missing 0
1 3 1.7 1.7 2.8
Mean 4.70
2 3 1.7 1.7 4.4
Median 5.00
3 8 4.4 4.4 8.8
Std. Deviation 1.032
4 25 13.8 13.8 22.7
Range 7
Valid 5 1 .6 .6 23.2
5 123 68.0 68.0 91.2
6 3 1.7 1.7 92.8
6 9 5.0 5.0 97.8
7 4 2.2 2.2 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Comment: Bar chart not necessary for this data. 82% park 4-5 days per week.
-51-
8. Typically, what time of day do you arrive at the University?
Statistics Arrival Time

Arrival Time
N
Missing 1 Unusable 19 10.5 10.6 10.6
Mean 7:08 5:00 1 .6 .6 11.1
Median 7:45 5:30 1 .6 .6 11.7
Std. Deviation 2:41 6:00 3 1.7 1.7 13.3
Range 14:30 6:30 5 2.8 2.8 16.1
6:45 3 1.7 1.7 17.8
6:55 1 .6 .6 18.3
7:00 19 10.5 10.6 28.9
7:15 2 1.1 1.1 30.0
7:20 1 .6 .6 30.6
7:30 18 9.9 10.0 40.6
7:40 2 1.1 1.1 41.7
Valid 7:45 17 9.4 9.4 51.1
7:50 5 2.8 2.8 53.9
7:55 3 1.7 1.7 55.6
8:00 34 18.8 18.9 74.4
8:15 3 1.7 1.7 76.1
8:30 17 9.4 9.4 85.6
9:00 12 6.6 6.7 92.2
9:30 4 2.2 2.2 94.4
10:00 7 3.9 3.9 98.3
12:00 1 .6 .6 98.9
13:00 1 .6 .6 99.4
14:30 1 .6 .6 100.0
Total 180 99.4 100.0
Missing System 1 .6
Total 181 100.0
Key Findings for Arrival Times:

29% arrive before 7AM
45% arrive between 7-8AM
18% arrive between 8-9AM
92% are in a space by 9AM
-52-
9. Typically, how long does it take you to park after arriving on campus?
Statistics
Time to Park Time to Park
Valid 181
N Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Missing 0
0 40 22.1 22.1 22.1
Mean 2.99
1 52 28.7 28.7 50.8
Median 1.00
2 2 1.1 1.1 51.9
2 17 9.4 9.4 61.3
Range 45
3 2 1.1 1.1 62.4
3 9 5.0 5.0 67.4
4 4 2.2 2.2 69.6
5 40 22.1 22.1 91.7
Valid
6 1 .6 .6 92.3
8 2 1.1 1.1 93.4
10 5 2.8 2.8 96.1
13 2 1.1 1.1 97.2
15 3 1.7 1.7 98.9
18 1 .6 .6 99.4
45 1 .6 .6 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-53-
Key Findings for Time to Park:
92% are able to locate a spot in 5 minutes or less

50% in less than a minute
-54-
10. What parking lot do you prefer to park in?
Statistics Preferred Lot

Preferred Lot
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 NoResp 1 .6 .6 .6
A 9 5.0 5.0 5.5
CC 11 6.1 6.1 11.6
DD 1 .6 .6 12.2
DP1 1 .6 .6 12.7
EE 2 1.1 1.1 13.8
F 1 .6 .6 14.4
G 31 17.1 17.1 31.5
G2 1 .6 .6 32.0
H 47 26.0 26.0 58.0
I 9 5.0 5.0 63.0
J 1 .6 .6 63.5
K 7 3.9 3.9 67.4
Valid
L 1 .6 .6 68.0
NR 13 7.2 7.2 75.1
P 3 1.7 1.7 76.8
Q 16 8.8 8.8 85.6
R 1 .6 .6 86.2
S1 2 1.1 1.1 87.3
S11 2 1.1 1.1 88.4
S2 3 1.7 1.7 90.1
U 2 1.1 1.1 91.2
V 13 7.2 7.2 98.3
X 1 .6 .6 98.9
Z 2 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Preferred Lots: Overall 25 Lots were identified. Top Lots were:
H 26%
G 17%
Q 9%
V 7%
CC 6%
I & A 5%
-55-
11. Can you usually find a space in your preferred lot?
Statistics Find space in Preferred Lot?

Find space?
Valid 181 No Resp 7 3.9 3.9 3.9
N
Missing 0 Yes 148 81.8 81.8 85.6
Valid
Mean 1.10 No 26 14.4 14.4 100.0
Median 1.00 Total 181 100.0 100.0
Std. Deviation .415
Range 2
-56-
12. Typically, how long does it take to walk from your parking place to your campus
destination?
Statistics Walking Time

Walking Time
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 1 31 17.1 17.1 17.1
10 8 4.4 4.4 21.5
15 2 1.1 1.1 22.7
2 34 18.8 18.8 41.4
2.5 2 1.1 1.1 42.5
20 2 1.1 1.1 43.6
3 24 13.3 13.3 56.9
3 .5 1 .6 .6 57.5
3.5 2 1.1 1.1 58.6
Valid 4 9 5.0 5.0 63.5
5 35 19.3 19.3 82.9
5.5 2 1.1 1.1 84.0
6 5 2.8 2.8 86.7
7 5 2.8 2.8 89.5
7.5 3 1.7 1.7 91.2
8 1 .6 .6 91.7
9 1 .6 .6 92.3
NR 14 7.7 7.7 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-57-
Key Findings for Walking Time:
83% have 5 minutes or less walk from where they usually park
13. For each weekday, typically, how many hours do you remain on campus?
Statistics Hours on Monday

Hours Monday
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 0 15 8.3 8.3 8.3
Mean 7.51 1 1 .6 .6 8.8
Median 8.00 3 1 .6 .6 9.4
Std. Deviation 2.697 4 4 2.2 2.2 11.6
Range 10 5 5 2.8 2.8 14.4
Valid 6 10 5.5 5.5 19.9
7 11 6.1 6.1 26.0
8 56 30.9 30.9 56.9
9 51 28.2 28.2 85.1
10 27 14.9 14.9 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-58-
Hours for Tuesday:
Statistics Hours Tues Hours Tues

Valid 181
Missing 0
0 11 6.1 6.1 6.1
Mean 7.94
1 2 1.1 1.1 7.2
Median 9.00
4 1 .6 .6 7.7
5 2 1.1 1.1 8.8
Range 10
6 11 6.1 6.1 14.9
Valid
7 9 5.0 5.0 19.9
8 53 29.3 29.3 49.2
9 52 28.7 28.7 77.9
10 40 22.1 22.1 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Hours for Wednesday:
Statistics Hours Weds

Hours Weds
Valid 181
N 0 11 6.1 6.1 6.1
Missing 0
Mean 7.75 1 1 .6 .6 6.6
Median 8.00 2 2 1.1 1.1 7.7
Std. Deviation 2.527 4 4 2.2 2.2 9.9
Range 10 5 4 2.2 2.2 12.2

Valid
6 10 5.5 5.5 17.7
7 10 5.5 5.5 23.2
8 52 28.7 28.7 51.9
9 54 29.8 29.8 81.8
10 33 18.2 18.2 100.0
-59-
Hours for Thursday:
Statistics Hours for Thursday

Hours Thursday
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 0 14 7.7 7.7 7.7
Mean 7.75 1 1 .6 .6 8.3
Median 8.00 4 4 2.2 2.2 10.5
Std. Deviation 2.673 5 6 3.3 3.3 13.8
Range 10 6 6 3.3 3.3 17.1
Valid
7 7 3.9 3.9 21.0
8 56 30.9 30.9 51.9
9 48 26.5 26.5 78.5
10 39 21.5 21.5 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Hours for Friday:
Statistics Hours for Friday

Hours Friday
Valid 181
N
Missing 0 0 23 12.7 12.7 12.7
Mean 6.78 1 1 .6 .6 13.3
Median 8.00 2 3 1.7 1.7 14.9
Std. Deviation 3.156 3 2 1.1 1.1 16.0
Range 10 4 11 6.1 6.1 22.1
5 5 2.8 2.8 24.9
Valid
6 9 5.0 5.0 29.8
7 5 2.8 2.8 32.6
8 60 33.1 33.1 65.7
9 43 23.8 23.8 89.5
10 19 10.5 10.5 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-60-
14. To what extent does the time that you spend on campus vary much during the
week?
Time Variance
Statistics Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Time Variance
No response 6 3.3 3.3 3.3
Valid 181 no extent 45 24.9 24.9 28.2
N
Missing 0 small extent 83 45.9 45.9 74.0
Mean 2.08 Valid moderate extent 30 16.6 16.6 90.6
Median 2.00 great extent 10 5.5 5.5 96.1
Std. Deviation 1.057 very great extent 7 3.9 3.9 100.0
Range 5 Total 181 100.0 100.0
-61-
15. To what extent does parking availability influence the time of day you arrive on
campus?
Statistics Time to Arrive

Time to Arrive
Valid 181
N
Mean 2.22 no extent 78 43.1 43.1 48.6
Median 2.00 small extent 26 14.4 14.4 63.0
Std. Deviation 1.562 Valid moderate extent 21 11.6 11.6 74.6
Range 5 great extent 21 11.6 11.6 86.2
very great extent 25 13.8 13.8 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-62-
16. To what extent does parking availability influence whether you leave campus
temporarily during the day?
Statistics Leave Campus
Leave Campus
Valid 181
N
Mean 2.81 no extent 59 32.6 32.6 37.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-63-
17. Are you aware of the changes made to campus parking this Fall?
Statistics Aware of Parking Changes

Aware Park Changes
Valid 181
N
Mean 4.14 no extent 5 2.8 2.8 8.3
Total 181 100.0 100.0
-64-
18. How satisfied are you with the availability of UWF parking?
Statistics Satisfaction with Availability
Sat Availability
Valid 181
N
Mean 2.93 Very dissatisfied 34 18.8 18.8 21.0
Median 3.00 Dissatisfied 41 22.7 22.7 43.6
Std. Deviation 1.459 Valid Neutral 24 13.3 13.3 56.9
Range 5 Satisfied 47 26.0 26.0 82.9
Very Satisfied 31 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Availability Satisfaction:
41% dissatisfied, 16% neutral/no opinion, 43% satisfied
-65-
19. How satisfied are you with the convenience (i.e. location) of UWF parking?
Statistics Satisfied with Convenience

Sat Convenience
Valid 181
N
Very Satisfied 31 17.1 17.1 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Convenience Satisfaction:
36.5% dissatisfied, 17% neutral/no opinion, 46.5% satisfied
-66-
20. How satisfied are you with the cost of UWF parking?
Statistics Satisfaction with Cost
Satisfaction Cost
Valid 181
N
Very Satisfied 24 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Cost Satisfaction
43.5% dissatisfied, 24% neutral/no opinion, 32.5% satisfied
-67-
21. How satisfied are you with the fairness of allocation of UWF parking spaces?
Statistics Satisfied with fairness

Satisfied w/fairness
Valid 181
N
Very Satisfied 26 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Fairness Satisfaction
51% dissatisfied, 24% neutral/no opinion, 25% satisfied
-68-
22. How satisfied are you with the new policy regarding reserved parking spaces?
Statistics Satisfaction with New Parking Policy

Sat New Policy
Valid 181
N
Very Satisfied 29 16.0 16.0 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for New Policy Satisfaction:
59% are dissatisfied, 18% neutral/no opinion, 23% satisfied
-69-

23. Which of the following statements best reflects your preferences regarding reserved
parking on campus?
Statistics
Pref Rsv. Parking Preferences Regarding Reserved Parking
Valid 181
Missing 0
Mean 1.99 No response 4 2.2 2.2 2.2
Median 1.00 Not at all interested 105 58.0 58.0 60.2
Std. Deviation 1.362 Somewhat interested 12 6.6 6.6 66.9
Valid
Range 4 Very interested 9 5.0 5.0 71.8
Have purchased 51 28.2 28.2 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Key Findings for Interest in Buying Reserved Parking:
58% not interested, 11.5 interested, 28% purchased, 2.5% no response
-70-
24. What would be a fair price to charge annually for a reserved parking space on
campus?
Statistics Fair Price

Fair Price
Valid 181
N
Mean 3.62 Don't Know 45 24.9 24.9 31.5
Median 3.00 $40-59 33 18.2 18.2 49.7
Minimum 0 $60-79 15 8.3 8.3 58.0
Maximum 10 $80-99 33 18.2 18.2 76.2
$100-119 7 3.9 3.9 80.1
Valid
$120-139 1 .6 .6 80.7
$140-159 6 3.3 3.3 84.0
$160-169 2 1.1 1.1 85.1
$180-199 1 .6 .6 85.6
$200+ 26 14.4 14.4 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
Note: NR indicates No Response
Key Findings for Fair Price:
25% say Dont Know, 18% say $40-59 and another 18% says $80-99, 14.5% say
$200+
-71-
25. Do you have experience with parking at similar colleges and universities?
Statistics Experience at Other Universities?

Exp Other Univ?
Valid 181
N
Mean 1.35 Yes 109 60.2 60.2 62.4
Valid
Median 1.00 No 68 37.6 37.6 100.0
Std. Deviation .524 Total 181 100.0 100.0
Range 2
Key Findings for Experience with other Universities:
60% of respondents were familiar with parking services at other Universities
26. If yes, overall, how do UWF parking facilities compare to similar colleges and
universities with which you are familiar?
Compare to Others?
Statistics
Compare to Others? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 181
N No response 68 37.6 37.6 37.6
Missing 0
Much Worse 23 12.7 12.7 50.3
Mean 1.86
Slightly Worse 25 13.8 13.8 64.1
Median 1.00
Valid About Same 22 12.2 12.2 76.2
Slightly Better 18 9.9 9.9 86.2
Range 5
Much Better 25 13.8 13.8 100.0
Total 181 100.0 100.0
The opinion on the comparison was split nearly equally:
Much Worse 13%

Slightly Worse 14%
About Same 12%
Slightly Better 10%
Much Better 14%
-72-
27. If you have any complaints or issues about the recent changes to parking at UWF, or
you have any ideas for improving parking at UWF, please briefly describe them.
Key Findings for Open Question #1.

Signage and curb colors
Similar to comments from focus groups
Reserved spaces
Perceived inequity in principle and in assignment, some prefer open parking for
all first come/first serve
Cost
Too high in general, esp. for reserved, sliding scale, faculty/staff should not pay at
all
Availability
Too many reserved spots, residents should use their own spots and take trolley, no
24/7 on reserved, (all) leads to too many convenient spaces not available to be
used
Trolley
Trolley schedule ineffective, not enough, more pickups, need more use by
residents
Safety
Distance to lots and parking at night a concern, walking across main roads
Enforcement
Need more
Parking Garages
28. Assuming that convenient parking is limited, what is the fairest way to allocate
parking?
Key Findings for Open Question #2

Open Parking
Resident Parking
Reserved Parking
Generally negative - esp. 24/7
Lottery
Convenience & Proximity
Lots of disagreement
Convenience seems to be defined strictly by proximity to building and allocated
by status
How to allocate by status though is polarized
Reserved Parking
If you want premium convenience then you should pay a premium price
Flat rate for a reserved lot, but then first come/first serve
-73-

Parking Study Report 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Parking Study Report 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of West Florida

1. Executive Summary .................................................................................................3

Conclusion and Recommendations

faculty and staff parking

3. Lots with the majority of reserved spaces sold

4. Multi-user lots (i.e., faculty, staff, and other)

5. Lots suggested by the Parking Service Director

10/19/05 10/19/0510/19/05 10/20/05 10/20/05 10/20/0510/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/0510/27/05 10/27/05

Capacity H: 14 spaces Q: 54 spaces G: 128 spaces V: 110 spaces K: 97 spaces

10/20/05 10/20/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05

10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05

10/26/05 10/26/05 10/26/05 10/27/05 10/27/05 10/27/05

Focus Group Participants

Focus Group Results

Focus Group Themes

Note. 0s in figures denote missing values.

Walking distance from parking lot to campus destination

Note. 0s in figures denote missing values.

Note. 0s in figures denote missing values.

Satisfaction with new reserved parking policy

Note. 0s in figures denote missing values.

Items Number of Percent

number of survey respondents.

New Parking Policy Complaints and Suggestions

Complaints & Suggestions

Reserved Spaces Elitist

Parking Allocation Fairness

Items Number of Percent of

Reserved parking 10 8.9%

Present parking system 7 6.2%

Designated parking 6 5.3%

Resident parking 6 5.3%

Parking garage 3 2.6%

Data collection 1 .9%

Total 113 100

Satisfaction with the Reserved Parking Policy

Faculty/Staff Res Faculty/Staff

Conclusion and Recommendations

University of West Florida. (u.d.). New Parking Designations.

Informed Consent Form

( ) I agree to participate in this survey

end of your response.)

end of your response.)

( ) I am not at all interested in purchasing a reserved parking space.

Do you have experience with parking at similar colleges and universities?

What best describes your status?

( ) Administration/Staff( ) Faculty( ) Student( ) Other [

Are you fulltime or part-

( ) Full Time ( ) Part Time

What is your gender/sex?

Check the age category that represents you best.

( ) 18-25( ) 26-35( ) 36-45( ) 46-55( ) 56-65( ) Over 65

1. What best describes your status?

Note: 0 indicates missing data responses

Statistics Full/Part Time

Comment: No chart necessary. 96% are full time.

3. What is your gender/sex?

Mean 1.66 Male 48 26.5 26.5 30.4

Note: 0 indicates missing data responses

Mean 3.44 18-25 11 6.1 6.1 9.4

Median 4.00 26-35 24 13.3 13.3 22.7

Std. Deviation 1.335 36-45 38 21.0 21.0 43.6

Note: 0 indicates missing data responses

Statistics Permit Type