What You Want? Member Survey results summary


FoNNaP INDIVIDUALS SURVEY REPORT

Provided by: Helen Gibbons

For: FoNNaP Board

Dated: 17th July 2011


  1. A.   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Below is a list of the key points extracted and concluded from the FoNNaP individuals’ survey data. They are presented in order of the survey format and reveal a lot of relevant and pertinent information, to guide the focus and direction of the FoNNaP strategic plan.  At the end of the feedback section a few recommendations are proposed directly resulting from them.

Key Points of the FoNNaP Individuals Survey Data:

1. Majority of individuals joined as members owing to:

  1. Friends,
  2. Other members/Board members,
  3. Publicity related to NNP and KWS

2. Main interaction between individuals and FoNNaP is website/emails and newsletters

3. Individuals want the same frequency of contact from FoNNaP as current

4. The main activities individuals want in order of popularity are:

  1. Newsletter
  2. Members meetings
  3. Web/social media and NNP activities
  4. Training on related activities
  5. Events

5. Three-quarters of individuals are not interested in other membership categories.  Those that requested additional membership categories: Student, Retired, Junior

6. The main ideas for encouraging individuals to join as members (those who are not) are: information at key, identified points around Nbi, email membership reminders in the different types of communication with FoNNaP e.g., newsletter, website, social media

7. Individuals stated they can offer the following, stated in order of highest number:

  1. Opinions & viewpoints
  2. Skills
  3. Enthusiasm
  4. Time
  5. Experience

8. The two main activities that individuals state they have been involved with are:

  1. Members meetings
  2. Game counts

9. Activities that individuals would like to get involved with but haven’t yet are:

  1. Game counts
  2. Wildlife dispersal areas
  3. School activities
  4. Greenline project
  5. Park monitoring and clean ups
  6. Communication activities

10. Half the individuals use the Park, either monthly or quarterly

11. Annual pass: of the 67 individuals that responded to this point the main comments can be grouped as:

  1. 11 have a pass
  2. 16 state some financial reason, e.g., too expensive or not worth the money for the number of times they visit the Park,
  3. 9 state they didn’t know it existed
  4. Several state they don’t use the Park enough for the cost (similar to point b.)

12. The priority issues for individuals in relation to the Park in order of importance are:

  1. Dispersal area
  2. Encroachment
  3. Human-wildlife conflict
  4. Management of Park: management plan, species/habitat management, tourists management,
  5. Not being valued by Nairobian citizens – attracting more visitors especially Nairobians
  6. Keeping the Park in its entirety – not losing part of it (southern bypass issue stated)

13. Members believe the main role of FoNNaP in relation to KWS is as a:

  1. Supporter & Friend – 68 individuals (of 76 total)
  2. Sometimes a whistle-blower – 50 individuals (of 76 total)

14. Members stated high interest in all activities proposed for FoNNaP, the ones with the highest popularity are:

  1. Managing ecosystem and wildlife of the Park
  2. Informing the public about the Park including good behaviour
  3. Developing publicity for FoNNaP and increasing its membership
  4. Promoting the Park e.g., photo competition, media attention

15. From the verbatim feedback comments, the most prominent immediate priorities for FoNNaP are:

  1. FoNNaP strategy: clarity on what is FoNNaP and their activities – are they a programme organisation with staff or a lobby organisation through the membership?
  2. Securing the wildlife dispersal/corridor area – including stopping/managing the greater southern bypass
  3. Increasing FoNNaP membership, networking and fundraising
  4. What is the role of members in relation to being defenders of the Park?

16. Longer term priorities for FoNNaP:

  1. Facilitating a Park management plan
  2. Securing the wildlife dispersal area
  3. Sustainable and efficient FoNNaP organisation – with credability and confidence
  4. Involving a much larger number and diversity of Nairobians

17. The key messages that individuals would use to describe FoNNaP to others are:

  1. City Park – world’s greatest city park
  2. Committed group of people working together to save the Park
  3. A way of getting involved in the Park
  4. “Join the society that is working hard to keep this wonderful natural heritage alive”

18. Additional comments from individuals, not included above:

  1. To provide a schedule of each month’s activities in advance, including listings of them in newsletter and online (web plus Facebook)
  2. The Park and its issues, require a wider, participatory and consultative approach
  3. Several comments thanking and acknowledging the new Board and this consultative process

Recommendations for Strategic Plan (from the Survey results):

1. Undertake a campaign to create a way forward for the wildlife dispersal area, consisting of following elements (not conclusive):

  1. Education and campaign in media: on and off-line
  2. Debating forum: media (on and off-line and physical forum)
  3. Vote: online and physical forum (members and non-members alike)
  4. Credible scientific research with distribution and public education on the key scientific elements and conclusions

NB From individual members’ feedback, there is a ‘feel’ and some verbatim evidence that members’ support keeping the wildlife dispersal area open.

2. A number of issues would be pertinent for public debate:

  1. Wildlife dispersal area
  2. Park entirety – fencing vs. no fencing
  3. Burning
  4. Human – wildlife conflict and way forward
  5. Poaching and the way forward

3. A cheaper membership category for: students, unemployed, retired, plus a membership category for junior members.  This would require a working group for taking care of the junior members – this working group must be established first before the actual membership and would include undertaking school activities.

4. Do a FoNNaP membership drive in next 12 months:

  1. Through the current membership base and across Nbi at key, identified points: posters, forms, member-to-member
  2. Membership reminder/form to join, in all emails, newsletter and on website
  3. Launch drive at “special event/members meeting”: need to have maximum number of individuals attending – to do launch, e.g., October event?
  4. Set up a working group for this, with targets and a competitive spirit, made up of a diverse group

5. Continue with the current FoNNaP activities, however, start to organise them under three key directions: membership (includes organisational issues), wildlife dispersal area (programme), Park management (programme).  Identify three year and 12-months target for each and then all activities undertaken must be part of at least one strand and directly contribute towards the targets, e.g., park clean would be under Park management and integrated into KWS activities in a manner that elevates (improves) their work and later feeds into a management plan, or the newsletter is part of a drive to meet the membership target and therefore includes a campaign for members to tell their friends to join FoNNaP.  Fundraising would be integral to all directions with a sub-target in each.

 

Advertisements

2 responses to “What You Want? Member Survey results summary

  1. Key Points of the FoNNaP Individuals Survey Data:
    The priority issues for individuals in relation to the Park in order of importance are: 1. Dispersal area

    *From the verbatim feedback comments, the most prominent immediate priorities for FoNNaP are:
    …2. Securing the wildlife dispersal/corridor area…

    *Longer term priorities for FoNNaP:
    1. Facilitating a Park management plan
    2. Securing the wildlife dispersal area

    COMMENT: With the understandable interest in securing the Nairobi NP’s vital wildlife dispersal area, there is no reason, scientific or otherwise, to have a debate topic on the subject: fencing vs. no fencing. Fencing the entire Park is such an inflammatory and scientifically unjustified action, that it should not be dredged up again for a “debate topic”.

  2. Pingback: Game count update and count finances | FoNNaP·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s