You are on page 1of 46

Investigation of the Interest in a Dog Park in

Maryville, Missouri

The New Nodaway Humane Society


Client: Megan Dennis
Marketing Research 55-432-01 Fall Term 2018
Instructor: Deb Toomey
Presentation Date: Thursday, December 6

Student Researcher: Mallory Kissinger Student Researcher: Colton Downing


Academic Classification: Junior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing

Student Researcher: Meredith Turner Student Researcher: Megan Swanson


Academic Classification: Senior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing

Student Researcher: Michael Coleman Student Researcher: Mary Mahoney


Academic Classification: Senior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing

1
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 4
HISTORY.................................................................................................................................... 4
SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS ....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Strengths: ................................................................................................................................. 5
Opportunities: .......................................................................................................................... 6
Threats: .................................................................................................................................... 6
COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................... 6
TARGET MARKET ................................................................................................................... 7
CURRENT MARKETING MIX ................................................................................................ 8
Product: ................................................................................................................................... 9
Place: ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Price: ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Promotion: ............................................................................................................................... 9
RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES ....................................................................... 9
FORMAL HYPOTHESES........................................................................................................ 10
DATA COLLECTING, CODING, AND ANALYSIS ............................................................. 11
METHOD LIMITATION ..........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: ................................................................................................... 12
HYPOTHESES AND FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 19
LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 25
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 27
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 29

2
Executive Summary
The New Nodaway Humane Society in Maryville, Missouri agreed to participate in a
research project performed by Marketing Research students taught by Dr. Deborah Toomey in
the Fall Semester of 2018. The researchers included students of Northwest Missouri State
University named Mallory Kissinger, Michael Coleman, Colton Downing, Mary Mahoney,
Megan Swanson, and Meredith Turner. The students coordinated with Megan Dennis, a member
of the executive board of the New Nodaway Humane Society. Research was performed to
discover if there is a desire from the residents of Maryville for a dog park.

Our research team’s semester-long research project began with meeting Megan Dennis,
an executive board member of the New Nodaway Humane Society, to determine goals for the
project. Once those were determined, the team collected information about how many people in
Maryville had dogs, potential restrictions of having a dog park, and what the dog park could
possibly provide for the community. The team consulted Megan Dennis about survey questions
and agreed on what questions to put on the survey. The survey was split between residents of
Maryville who had dogs, residents who did not have dogs, and enrolled students with dogs.
Students from the Principles of Marketing and Principles of Management classes took the
survey, as well as 302 residents of Maryville. One issue with the sample size is many students
took the survey, so results tended to be “snowball samples”. Snowball samples are results that
are very repetitive, which is very prevalent in our open-ended responses. The researchers used a
software called SPSS to organize and effectively analyze the multiple-choice responses. After
receiving and analyzing the results, they were then compared with the original hypotheses, which
were formed before issuing the survey. To gain background information, secondary research was
conducted including the history of local parks and dog parks to better understand what a dog
park would mean to Maryville, Missouri. The team faced a few limitations including low
response rates from Maryville residents, the use of the “prefer not to respond” option, as well as
deciding which existing park should be transformed into a dog park.

To completely understand how a dog park could affect the Maryville community, the
team performed what is called a situational analysis, a competitive analysis, described current
and past marketing mixes of the parks in Maryville, and determined a target market. Based off of
these results, the team formulated recommendations for The New Nodaway Humane Society.
The first recommendation is to transform an existing park into a dog park. Many respondents
suggested locations such as Beal Park, Nature Park and Wabash Park. Some of the amenities
desired for the park included being within residential areas so people could potentially walk to
the park, in a protected, fenced in area, a water fountain, and a mixture of both grass and cement
areas. Many of the residents were also concerned about how the park was going to be kept clean
and sanitary.

The marketing research team was able to meet specified goals and expectations set by
Megan Dennis, gathering information from the residents of Maryville and what their thoughts
were on having a dog park built in town. Through the recommendations the team formulated, the
research team was able to see the overall interest of a dog park, as well as where the community
would want it to be, as well as what the dog park would be made up of.

3
Introduction

The purpose of this research project was to discover if there is currently a desire for a dog
park in Maryville, Missouri. Currently there are multitudes of parks, none of which are areas
people are allowed to let their dogs run free. The team conducted research through an online
survey to help evaluate if the residents of Maryville would enjoy and use a local dog park, as
well as what would make up a good dog park. The main goal of this research was to decide if
enough residents in Maryville would enjoy having a dog park placed, or if a dog park is even
desired. The following report includes a literature review with a brief history and secondary
research, a description of research methods and how it was conducted, an analysis of received
responses, limitations the research faced, as well as recommendations going further in the
building of the dog park. At the end of the report, there are open-ended responses as well as the
survey to provide further details from the respondents.

Literature Review
Secondary research was conducted on the following categories to determine if there is a
demand for a local dog park. First, the histories of dog parks as well as local parks were
researched; then, a situational analysis including internal strengths and weaknesses as well as
external opportunities and threats was conducted. Next, a competitive analysis was deciphered,
and a review of the target market as well as the current marketing mix were defined. The
literature review goes in-depth in all of these areas to help determine the desire of a local dog
park.

History
The first dog park established in the United States was located in Berkeley, California in
late 1979. Although the land was originally set aside for a subway line in the 1970s, it went
unused for several years. Local residents then decided to turn the land into a people’s park. Over
the next several years, the park was used solely for nature goers and was eventually transitioned
into a dog park by local residents. Though the park was established in 1979, the park would not
get its official sanction until 1983 (Dog Park: Where They Started, and How They Spread, 2017).

According to the Parks and Recreation website, Maryville currently has ten parks. Parks
in Maryville provide activities for all types of people including baseball fields, American football
fields, skate parks, nature parks, and an aquatic center. The city also maintains the Mozingo Lake
Park and a golf course. However, no records of a dog park in the city of Maryville have been
found. Currently, there is no place pet owners can let their dogs run leash free because Maryville
has a strict leash law requiring all dogs to be on a leash at all times (Find a Park, 2018).

The closest dog park is located in Saint Joseph, Missouri, roughly forty-five minutes
from Maryville. Since the establishment of this dog park on May 23, 2015, dog owners have
been able to register their dogs for a five-dollar annual fee to enter the park. Owners must be able
to prove their dog is current on their rabies shots, as well as have them spayed or neutered. Prior
to opening the park, the St. Joseph Animal Control hosted a rabies vaccination clinic where the

4
organization charged owners fifteen dollars, which allowed them to be registered for the park to
ensure the safety of pets and their owners (Animal Control & Rescue Sets Annual Rabies Clinic
Dates, 2015).

Situational Analysis

An evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the internal and


external environments can help gain deeper knowledge about the advantages and disadvantages
of building a dog park in Maryville, Missouri. Strengths are the internal characteristics that give
a positive advantage over others. Weaknesses are the internal characteristics that give a
disadvantage relative to others (Katz & Green, 2011, p. 201). Opportunities are the external
openings for future development in the environment. Threats are external elements in the
environment that could cause trouble for the business (Katz & Green, 2011, p. 201). A better
understanding of these various environments allows suggestions to be made moving forward and
strengthen procedures the New Nodaway Humane Society will utilize when building a dog park.

Strengths:

Relationships: The Maryville community prides itself on building relationships with


other people within and outside of the community. Having a dog park would allow the New
Nodaway Humane Society to build relationships with other organizations as well as members of
the community (Percell, 2018).

Volunteering: Many college students complete service hours for different organizations
they are involved in on campus or in high school. Opening a dog park would allow for more
people to volunteer and gain service hours by cleaning up the park, taking the Humane Society
dogs to the park, as well as have the ability to familiarize shelter dogs with other dogs so they
can become more comfortable (Piper, D, 2018).

More Adoptions: The New Nodaway Humane Society building a dog park could lead to
more people being interested in adopting a dog. Since New Nodaway is the only humane society
in Maryville as well as the small surrounding cities, there would be a better chance that tenants
of Maryville would adopt from the New Nodaway Humane Society (Piper, D, 2018).

Weaknesses:

Incidents: One of the many situations that could go wrong inside of a dog park includes
dogs fighting or certain dogs not feeling comfortable around other dogs. If a dog were to start a
fight, the organization responsible for the park would have to take initiative to resolve the
problem, resulting in someone possibly being on duty at all times at the park (Percell, 2018).

Liability: For all incidents that were to happen within the dog park, the New Nodaway
Humane Society would be liable for them. Using the example of dog fighting, the Humane
Society is liable for any injuries that might occur between dogs or their owners. A waiver would
need to be signed at the entrance of the dog park stating the New Nodaway Humane Society is

5
not be responsible for any injuries, loss of items, or damage of items (Piper, J., 2018).

Structure of the Park: A dog park needs to be accessible for all sizes and breeds of dogs. A
specific height and type of fence implemented into the park is necessary. Some breeds of dogs
love to dig, so the fence needs to be deep enough into the ground to where the dog would be
unable to dig a hole and escape. The fence would also need to be high enough, so bigger dogs
would not be able to jump the fence (Piper, J., 2018).

Opportunities:

Profit Maximization: Building a dog park would be a great opportunity for the New
Nodaway Humane Society to gain profit to improve the shelter and the dog park (Piper, J.,
2018). Requiring a fee or some type of membership to enter the dog park would be an
opportunity for the Humane Society to gain profits to improve the organization (Percell, 2018).

Community Involvement: Advertising the dog park would be essential in getting people to
be more involved in the community. Building this dog park would bring outside people from the
community and give them the opportunity to get involved in an organization they may not
normally be involved. Small businesses could also use this as an opportunity to sponsor the park
and hang promotional signs around the dog park for advertisement (Piper, D., 2018).

Threats:

Weather: Missouri weather can be very unpredictable. Some days it is 75 and sunny, and
the next day it could be snowing. Something beneficial in the park could include both an inside
and outside area for when the weather is turbulent, because many people will not be willing to sit
outside in those conditions with their dog (Piper, D., 2018).

Dog Identification: A priority of the New Nodaway Humane Society is the safety of the
animals and their owners. Dog identification would be a concern because if the dogs have the
ability to run free without a leash inside of the fenced in park, accidents could happen. Animals
and their owners need to have proof of up-to-date vaccinations as well as proof of registration
with the city to avoid any lawsuits or fines. If the dog does not have proper documentation, they
should not be permitted entrance into the park (Percell, 2018).

Once a better understanding of the outside elements affecting the New Nodaway Humane
Society’s dog park have been recognized, appropriate procedures can be taken planning the
building of a dog park. The internal environment was evaluated to gain a better understanding of
the strengths and weaknesses of the processes in the future. The external environments that are
considered are the opportunities and threats that could be faced in the future.

Competitive Analysis

6
A dog park will be a new style of recreational park in the Maryville are. A formal
definition of a dog park is a park for dogs to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled
environment under the supervision of their owners (Sensagent, 2012). A dog park has not been
built in Maryville to date.

The best comparison to a dog park in the Maryville area would be the beach at Mozingo
Lake because it is the only area dogs can run free under supervision. Even though Mozingo is a
great recreational neighborhood, it is a fifteen-minute drive from the Maryville City Hall,
making it inconvenient for residents to use. Putting a dog park closer to city limits would give
local residents, tourists, and college students a place to let their dogs socialize and exercise in a
safe environment.

A great example of a dog park opened in the last five years close to Maryville is the
Corby Dog Park located in St. Joseph, Missouri, about forty-five minutes from Maryville,
Missouri. The park opened in May of 2015 and serves as the only “off-leash space” in the city.
The city of St. Joseph is responsible for constructing and maintaining the park, but there is an
annual fee of five dollars to maintain membership. To buy the annual membership, St. Joseph
requires citizens to provide proof of up-to-date vaccinations of their dog, a unique identifying
tag, and for the dog spayed or neutered. The city also hosts a “Howl-a-Palooza” every year on
the anniversary of the opening of the park where there is a costume contest for the dogs. Local
business can set up booths and there is no entrance fee for the day of the event so long as the dog
has tags. A design such as this is a great option for Maryville to promote a safe, dog-loving
community (Corby Dog Park Grand Opening, 2015).

Another great example of how the city of Maryville could build a dog park is to follow
the city of Norfolk, Virginia. The community wanted a dog park, so the local civic committee
created a petition that got enough attention from the city to begin negotiations. After meetings
with the civic community and the Parks and Recreation Department, the organizations came to
an agreement that the city would provide the land, but the community would need to handle all
maintenance, upkeep of fences, land, and general enforcement of park rules. The only exception
to this agreement is the city would not charge anyone for use of the water line to let the dogs
have water at the park. Although there is no cost for local dog owners to use the park throughout
the year, there is no maintenance from the city, so donations are encouraged along with
fundraising events throughout the year. Maryville as a community could support a dog park like
this based on how well the city does in general at coming together to help each other. On the
other hand, other factors could lead to the degradation of the park including the limited time and
money of tenants. If Maryville were to use this business plan, university organizations should be
able to donate hours of service, maintenance supplies and host fundraising events (Gómez,
2013).

Dog parks usually arise when cities become urbanized. Compared to other towns that
have dog parks, Maryville is on the smaller end, but the willingness to invest in a dog park shows
that Maryville is working towards being more modern and promoting community pride.

Target Market

7
To find how beneficial it would be to add a dog park in the city of Maryville, it is
important to take a look at who the target market is and how valuable the target market believes
the addition of a dog park would be. The target market for implementing a dog park in Maryville
is unique compared to other cities because of the high population resulting from Northwest
Missouri State University. Therefore, the target market is any resident of Maryville, college
student, or staff member of Northwest who owns a dog. The Northwest community consists of
6,857 students and 261 full-time faculty members (Northwest Facts, 2018). Knowing these
statistics is important to understand the lifestyles of the students and staff from Northwest and
who have a dog.

The population of Maryville, Missouri is quoted at 11,792 according to the 2017


estimates of the United States Census (Maryville MO Population, 2018). Maryville is on the
smaller side of the spectrum of the cities who have built a dog park. The population size is an
important aspect to consider because not every resident in the city will own a dog. Something to
consider is the increasing population change. From the 2000 census, the overall population in
Maryville was 10,581, and increased to 11,972 by 2010 (Census Data, 2010). A population
increase is important to consider because as the population begins to rise, demand for a dog park
will likely rise. Another fact to established is the vast majority of the residents are people
between 18 to 65 years old, meaning many are able-bodied and generally independent, and the
per capita income is $16,000 (QuickFacts Maryville city, Missouri, 2016). The income per capita
is relatively low, which might be an indicator that people will either not be willing to pay for a
dog park or may not be able to afford a dog. The per capita income could also be considering
college student’s income as well.

Through all the research into the data, the research team is better suited to have an idea of
who to market. When looking at the Census data, it is easier to depict where people are more
likely to stand on the dog park issues because those with lower incomes are less likely to want to
pay for a dog park. People that may be more willing to have a dog park include middle class;
able-bodied dog owners aged 18-65, which includes the majority of Maryville residents.

Current Marketing Mix


A marketing mix involves four different elements of marketing including product, place,
price, promotion. The four key characteristics are important to any business that is looking to
build a public facility and be effective and efficient. The New Nodaway Humane Society has no
past information due to the absence of prior research on dog parks. The product is the use of the
dog park for the city of Maryville residents and their pets. The price is not a factor to residents if
the park is free of charge. However, if there is a fee associated with the park, the price will affect
the dog owners who want to enter the park. The place is where the facility of the dog park would
be geographically located. Promotion is the different elements used to market the dog park to the
residents of Maryville. If one of these elements is not correctly implemented, the project will not
be successful.

8
Product:

The New Nodaway Humane Society is looking to build a dog park in the city of
Maryville, where owners can enjoy letting their pets go leash-free in a safe, enclosed space. The
services will include different elements of current dog parts from other cities but have yet to be
determined. Some ideas included providing a watering hole for the dogs and spots for the owners
to sit and watch, as well as very a very large area of land.

Place:

The location of the dog park will either be located at one of the ten existing parks in the
city of Maryville (Find a Park, 2018), or will be built at a new location. An investigation will
decide which location will be the most effective and suitable for dogs and their owners. Many
elements will come into play when deciding which current park to use. Two of the most
important elements are location and size.

Price:

The New Nodaway Humane Society will be in charge of the maintenance and upkeep to
keep it operating. If citizens are able to use the park freely without any charge, it will likely
increase traffic for the dog park.

Promotion:

The New Nodaway Humane Society has not executed many promotional tactics for the
implementation of the dog park. Promotion efforts are necessary to reach the goal of gaining
more involvement from the community if the organization wants the park to succeed. So far, a
survey on the company's Facebook wall has been the single promotional tool (New Nodaway
Humane Society Facebook Wall, 2018).

Conclusion

A dog park in Maryville, Missouri has the potential to grow the town as a whole in both
community as well as tourism. Because of the research of current and previous parks in
Maryville, as well as dog parks in the general, it is a big step in the progression of the town as a
whole. The reason this would be so important to the town is it would increase comradery
between residents, heighten tourism, and promote a healthier lifestyle for both the dogs and their
owners. When looking into the situational and competitive analysis, there will be a few
precautions that will need to be taken to ensure safety for not only the dogs and their owners, but
also to protect the New Nodaway Humane Society. All the aspects discussed in the literature
review will help to better focus the drive to create a dog park in Maryville, Missouri.

Research Method and Procedures

9
After receiving the assigned research project to evaluate the necessity of a dog park in
Maryville, a group of students from the Booth School of Business sought to access the desire of a
dog park in Maryville, Missouri. To begin the assignment, our group first met with our local
humane society to address the parameters of the project. The humane society had previously
sought to create a dog park in Maryville but did not generate enough publicity to get the
community behind them. Finally, the group discussed with Dr. Deb Toomey about the overall
goals and requirements for the assignment.

To increase the response rate and gain community involvement, the marketing research
group constructed a short survey via survey monkey to be taken by Northwest Missouri State
students as well as community members. To reach both groups, the group tried several methods.
The team relied on general networking to distribute our surveys via email by attending
community dog sponsored events and contacted local organizations to help generate responses.

The survey was a single blind study because the client did not know names of people
taking the survey, but the group doing the project had to verify age and had to reach out to
people within the community of Maryville. To increase the response rate and gain community
involvement, the marketing research group constructed a short survey via survey monkey to be
taken by Northwest Missouri State students, as well as community members. To be able reach
both groups, several different methods were used. Relying on general networking to distribute
surveys via email was one effective way to get responses for the survey. Researchers also
attended community dog sponsored events and contacted local organizations to help generate
survey responses.

Due to the fact that the team had one version of the survey rather than multiple versions
for student versus community members, it was important for the team to gather as many
responses as possible. Our goal was to get over 300 responses to ensure our data was an
acceptable representation of the community. To reach this goal, the team needed to include both
non-dog owners and dog owners, which helped the team evaluate the desire of a dog park across
the community and was not bias towards dog owners.

Formal Hypotheses

Six hypotheses were formed upon the completion of the survey to evaluate the results
collected. An alternate hypothesis was developed to represent what the research team expects the
results to be, and a null hypothesis to represent the opposite of what the research team expects
the results to be.

H1: At least 80% of people who own dogs will agree or strongly agree to having a dog park.

H0: Less than 80% of people who own dogs will not agree or strongly agree to having a dog park
want a dog park.

10
H2: At least 60% of people who live less than 5 miles from Maryville City Hall will want a dog
park.

H0: At least 60% of people who live less than 5 miles from Maryville City Hall, will not want a
dog park.

H3: People with large or medium sized dogs are more likely to take their dogs to the dog park
more often than those with small dogs.

H0: People with small sized dogs will be less likely to take their dogs to the dog park than those
with large dogs.

H4: A majority of people who do not own dogs will not be enrolled at Northwest Missouri State
University.

H0: A minority of people who do own dogs will be enrolled at Northwest Missouri State
University.

H5: At least 70% of people who are willing to pay a fee will be willing to pay between $1-$3.

H0: At least 70% of people who are willing to pay a fee will be not be willing to pay $1-$3.

H6: Owners of small dogs will be more likely to agree or strongly agree to have separate areas
for dog size of large dogs.

H0: Owners of small dogs will be less likely to agree or strongly agree to have separate areas for
dog size of large dogs.

Data Collecting, Coding, and Analysis


At the beginning of this research project, the research team realized an electronic survey
would be the best way to collect desired information from the target audience. The survey was
put together using SurveyMonkey. Through SurveyMonkey, all group members as well as Dr.
Deborah Toomey had access. The survey had been coded by assigning numbers to each possible
response to the multiple-choice questions. By coding, this allowed data to be compiled into the
SPSS program. Using the SPSS program along with Microsoft Excel, the research team

11
converted the responses into color coded pie graphs and bar charts, so it would be easier to see
the statistical information. Based off of these pie graphs and charts, the group could analyze the
date in further detail for the client and the community.

Method Limitation
Researchers faced limitations directly related to the survey when preparing to send it out
to community members. Some limitations included deleting or ignoring the email that was sent
out that included the survey. Deletion of the email directly correlated with the number of
responses on the survey. To overcome this limitation, the group used personal connections when
sending the survey to friends and community members. Results of the survey may be skewed
because of this limitation.

Analysis and Findings


Below are graphs representing all of the data and information gathered from the survey.
The programs SPSS and Excel were used in combination to create graphs and show a
visualization of the data. There were 302 responses to the survey, which are represented in
graphs along with conclusions gathered from the graphs placed below. In addition, these
conclusions are used to support the recommendations regarding the project.

How many dogs do you own?


12
13

1
2
70 3
137
4+

Analysis: The pie chart above shows if the respondent answered “yes” to owning a dog, the
number of how many dogs they currently have. Considering there were 302 respondents,
majority, 137 have only one dog.

12
Do you think your dog would be
comfortable around other dogs in a
park setting?
3
27
Yes

No

Prefer not to
respond
205

Analysis: Of the 235 dog owners, the respondents of the above question were asked if they
thought their dog would be comfortable interacting with other dogs in a park setting. As shown
in the above pie chart, an overwhelming 205 out of 235 answered “Yes”.

How far would you be willing to travel to


use a dog park?
3 5
26

0
62
1-3 miles
4-6 miles
7-10 miles
63
11+ miles
Prefer not to respond

76

Analysis: Of the 235 dog owner respondents, they were asked how far they would be willing to
travel to use a dog park. As shown in the pie chart above, 143 out of the 235 respondents would
travel 4-6 miles or less.

13
Would you utilize a dog cleaning/dog
washing station?

23%
Yes
No

77%

Analysis: Of the 232 respondents to the above question, 235 are dog owners. Dog owners were
specifically asked if they would utilize a dog cleaning/dog washing station. As shown in the
above display, 77% of the 235 dog owners, 178 respondents, would utilize a dog cleaning/dog
washing station.

Would you prefer a cement flooring,


grass flooring, or a mixture of both?

76 Cement
Grass
149 Mixture of both

Analysis: Of the 235 dog owner responses, 149 prefer a mixture of both cement and grass
flooring in a potential dog park. This is 65% of all of the dog owners who responded to the
survey.

14
If there was a fee associated with using
the dog park, how often would you
prefer to pay?

37

24
19
14

DAILY WEEKLY MONTHLY YEARLY

Analysis: Of the 235 dog owner respondents, 94 answered “Yes” that they would be willing to
pay a fee to enter the dog park. Of these 94 respondents, the majority, 61, are willing to pay over
longer periods of time (monthly or yearly), rather than more frequently (daily or weekly).

Would you prefer the following water


features?

254

178
162

106

LAKE CREEK FOUNTAIN POND

Analysis: The bar graph above shows how interested dog owners are to have a water feature in a
potential dog park, as well as which one they would prefer. Respondents were allowed to choose
more than one answer, resulting in a higher number of responses when added all together. As
shown, the majority of respondents prefer a fountain as a main water feature in the dog park.

15
How often do you go to recreational parks
in Maryville?

91

56
51

14 14

DAILY 4-6 TIMES A OTHER NEVER PREFER NOT TO


WEEK RESPOND

Analysis: As shown in the bar graph, only 226 out of 302 respondents answered the above
question. Out of the 226 responses of how often the respondents of the survey currently use the
recreational parks in Maryville, 91 responded with “Never”.

How satisfied are you with the current


recreational parks in Maryville?

116

82

62

20 15

VERY DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERY SATISFIED


DISSATISFIED

Analysis: Out of the total 302 respondents of the survey, 295 answered the question that is
displayed in the bar chart above. There were a total 178 respondents who answered they were
either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the current recreational parks in Maryville.

16
Respond to the following statement: I
think we should convert an existing park
in Maryville to a dog park.
2%
6%
Strongly Agree
19% Agree
39%
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree

34%

Analysis: As displayed in the pie chart above, an overwhelmingly amount of 73% residents
responded “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” on the idea of converting an existing residential park in
Maryville to a dog park.

Would you like to see the following


parks transformed into a dog park?

122 122

115

111

NATURE PARK SUNSHINE PARK HAPPY HALLOW WABASH PARK


PARK

Analysis: Of the respondents who were interested in converting an existing recreational park in
Maryville to a dog park, residents were asked which park would be a best fit to convert. The
survey respondents were able to pick more than one option, however, a tie of 122 people wanted
to convert either Wabash Park or Nature Park into a dog park.

17
Which best describes your
employment status?

26% 27%
Full-time worker
Part-time worker
None of the above

47%

Analysis: As shown in the pie chart above, 53% of everyone who took the survey is employed,
either full-time or part-time. The remaining 47% are assumed unemployed.

Do you live on or off campus?

21%

On campus
Off campus

79%

Analysis: The above chart displays the amount of people who live either on or off campus. This
question was asked to everyone person who took the survey. As shown above, 79% of
respondents live off campus.

18
Hypothesis and Findings

The graphs below were constructed using SPSS with the formatting and use of cross
tabulations. Cross tabulations are useful to compare relationships between two different
variables. The graphs generated are the data derived from the responses of both Maryville
residents and students of Northwest Missouri State University.

H1: At least 80% of people who own dogs will agree or strongly agree to have a dog park.

H0: Less than 80% of people who own dogs will agree or strongly agree to have a dog park.

Analysis: The findings from the surveys taken do not support the alternative hypothesis stating
that 80% of dog owners would be in favor of a dog park. Only a little over 60% of dog owners
agreed or strongly agreed for the implementation of a dog park.

19
H2: At least 60% of people who live less than three miles from Maryville City Hall will want a
dog park.

H0: At least 60% of people who live less than three miles from Maryville City Hall will not want
a dog park.

Analysis: The findings of the respondents support the alternative hypothesis; residents living less
than three miles from Maryville City Hall strongly agree/agree there should be a dog park. The
total surpassed 60% to reach the alternative hypothesis.

20
H3: People with large or medium sized dogs are more likely to take their dogs to the dog park
more frequently than those with small dogs.

H0: People with small sized dogs will be less likely to take their dogs to the dog park than those
with large dogs.

Analysis: Owners who have medium sized dogs are projected to visit the park more often than
any other size dogs. The alternative hypothesis is supported through both medium and large size
dog owners stating they will visit multiple times in one week compared to those who own
smaller dogs.

21
H4: A majority of people who do not own dogs will not be enrolled at Northwest Missouri State
University.

H0: A minority of people who do own dogs will be enrolled at Northwest Missouri State
University.

Analysis: The data from the table matches the alternative hypothesis; most responders who are
students at Northwest Missouri State University are not dog owners. The majority of dog owners
in Maryville are its current residents rather than the students of the university.

22
H5: At least 70% of people who are willing to pay a fee will be willing to pay $1-$3.
H0: At least 70% of people who are willing to pay a fee will be not be willing to pay $1-$3.

Analysis: Of the respondents, 68% responded they are willing to pay $1-3 dollars. The
information does not support the alternative hypothesis.

23
H6: Owners of small dogs will view it as more important or somewhat important to have
separate areas for dogs over large dog owners.

H0: Owners of small dogs will view it as less important or somewhat important to have separate
areas for dogs over large dog owners.

Analysis: The alternative hypothesis is supported by the data collected; smaller dog owners have
the largest number of their dogs not comfortable in a park setting. Large dog owners had the least
amount uncomfortable around other dogs.

24
Limitations

Throughout the project, the group encountered a variety of limitations. A major limitation
affecting the study was from a difficulty of gaining responses from Maryville residents. As a
result, the sample was biased to the Northwest Community. Another limitation came from
deciding which existing park to transform into the dog park because of the wide number of
options. The final limitation came from offering the option of “Prefer not to respond” on the
questions of the survey, resulting in data that was not as valuable and harder to generate answers.

Recommendations

Most respondents would prefer an existing park in Maryville updated and transformed
into a dog park. The reason for this is because residents believe the parks already existing are not
efficient and unsatisfactory on how they are utilized. Transforming and existing park would cut
down costs of creating a new park and allow faster and easier fixing of the property to users’
liking. Respondents prefer Nature Park and Wabash Park. The respondents would prefer the park
closer to residential areas inside the city within walking distance. If created properly, the dog
park would be utilized more frequently by Maryville dog owners. In this case, the park projected
to be most effective is the Nature Park located on Prather Avenue. Reasoning for this is trees
surround the park lessens the fear factor of the owners’ dog running into the street. In addition,
there is already a scenic creek, a covered sitting area, and a parking lot for owners who would
not live within walking distance to the park.

In the recommended park, there are specific features that would need added to make it an
effective dog park. One feature is a water fountain for the dogs from which to drink. In addition,
a washing station in case the dogs get dirty while using the dog park, which can be placed near
the parking area. Most respondents would also prefer a mixture of both grass and cement areas
for the dogs to run around. Most land in Maryville is already made up of spacious grass areas, so
the cement would be the main expense. The cement areas can used for the washing station and
water fountain for the dogs, or even a walking path throughout the park. Currently, a wood chip
path can already be followed through Nature Park.

A majority of people who took the survey responded they would like a low-cost charge, if
there were an entry fee to the park. The recommendation is to have the park fee be an optional
donation, which will give owners a chance to decide how much they would like to give back to
the dog park. A small donation of $1-$3 per visit to the park, which most were willing to pay,
would help support the park with any repairs or help with any additional upkeep of the dog park.
Many respondents are willing to pay a small fee, having it as an option could bring in more
support and generate more donations down the line to add features to their liking.

25
For the recommended park, our research team believes that it would be a great idea to
implement some obstacles or have toys available for all dogs. An example would be a tennis ball
dispenser or even just regular chew toys. Having these toys readily available would create an
appeal for people to want to attend the park and it would allow dog owners to interact with their
dog more and would allow for the dogs to get necessary exercise, as well as for the owners to get
exercise as well.

Community members own a variety of different breeds and sizes of dogs. As a research
team, we recommend a designated area for small, medium, and large sized dogs. Different areas
for different sized dogs would not only make dog owners feel more comfortable, but it would
make the dogs feel more comfortable in the park setting as well. For example, if there were to be
a chihuahua or a dog similar in size, and a Saint Bernard in the same, enclosed park, it could be
hypothesized that the chihuahua would not feel comfortable around the Saint Bernard because
that breed of dog is much bigger in size and can be seen as intimidating to both the smaller dog
and the owner.

Posted rules as well as a way to enforce these rules is something that is very important
when there are potentially going to a large amount of people and animals in one area. Posted
rules include a large sign at the entrance of the dog park that lists the rules and expectations of
dog owners and their dogs, as well as these same postings throughout the park. A way to enforce
these rules could be to have a human monitor at all times watching over the park. However, this
employee would need to be trained in breaking up potential dog fights, as well as resolving any
sort of conflict that could arise.

Conclusion

In the Fall Semester of 2018, a marketing research project was conducted for the New
Nodaway Humane Society. The research team formulated a survey, which was sent to both
residents of Maryville as well as students of Northwest Missouri State University. Our research
team felt a survey would be best fit to gain a better understanding on how a dog park in
Maryville would be perceived from a portion of the community.

Currently, a dog park in Maryville does not exist, as well as a strict leash law, meaning
many dog owners struggle to give their dogs’ sufficient exercise. Through the research teams’
efforts, they believe the town could benefit greatly from an addition of a dog park. The data
shown in SPSS led the team to understand many of the parks are underutilized. Through
transforming, one of the underutilized parks, namely Nature Park, would help bring a solution to
the problem. Building a dog park would lead to an increase in Maryville’s sense of community, a
possible increase in tourism, as well as promote a healthier lifestyle for not only the dogs, but
their owners as well.

26
References
Animal Control & Rescue Sets Annual Rabies Clinic Dates. (2015). City of Saint Joseph Health
Department. http://www.stjoemo.info/documentcenter/view/2937. Accessed
10/17/2018.

Census Data. (2010). U.S. Census Bureau.


https://www.maryville.org/pview.aspx?id=22657&catID=507. Accessed 10/18/2018

Corby Dog Park Grand Opening. 2015. City of St. Joseph Missouri.
http://www.stjoemo.info/documentcenter/view/2989. Accessed 10/17/2018

Dog Parks: Where they started, and how they spread. (2017). South Bay History
http://blogs.dailybreeze.com/history/2017/06/24/dog-parks-where-they-started-
and-how-they- spread/. Accessed 10/18/2018

Find a Park. (2018). Maryville Parks and Recreation. https://www.maryvilleparks.org/parks-map.


Accessed 10/18/2018

Gómez, E. (2013). Dog Parks: Benefits, Conflicts, and Suggestions. Journal of Park &
Recreation Administration, 31(4), 79–91.
http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=f0c2af96-
6c67-489f-85b8-887c2b205c08%40sdc-v-sessmgr04 Accessed 10/17/2018

Katz, J., & Green, R. (2011). Entrepreneurial Small Business. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.

Maryville Mo Population. (2018). World Population Review.


http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/maryville-mo/. Accessed 10/18/2018.

New Nodaway Humane Society Facebook Wall (2018).


https://www.facebook.com/NodawayHumaneSociety/. Accessed 10/18/2018.

Northwest Facts. (2018). Northwest Missouri State University.


https://www.nwmissouri.edu/facts/index.htm. Accessed 10/15/2018.

Parks Map. (2018). Maryville Parks and Recreation. https://www.maryvilleparks.org/parks-map.


Accessed 10/18/2018

27
Percell, S., personal communication, October 17, 2018

Piper, D., personal communication, October 17, 2018

Piper, J., personal communication, October 17, 2018

QuickFacts Maryville city, Missouri. (2016). United States Census Bureau.


https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/maryvillecitymissouri/AGE295217#
viewtop. Accessed 10/18/2018

Sensagent. (2012). definition Dog – park. Accessed 10/17/2018


http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Dog%20park/en-en/

28
Appendices

BOOTH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS


2017-2018 Request for UNDERGRADUATE or GRADUATE Research Funds

Student Researcher: Mallory Kissinger Student Researcher: Colton Downing


Academic Classification: Junior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing
Researcher's Address: 802 N Walnut St Researcher’s Address: 222 W 2nd St.
E-Mail: S526932@nwmissouri.edu E-Mail: S523344@nwmissouri.edu
Telephone: 816-206-2954 Telephone: 712-355-8758

Student Researcher: Meredith Turner Student Researcher: Megan Swanson


Academic Classification: Senior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing
Researcher’s Address: 416 W 7th St Researcher’s Address: 334 E 3rd St
E-Mail: S524009@nwmissouri.edu E-Mail: S523976@nwmissouri.edu
Telephone: 605-759-8738 Telephone: 402-779-1877

Student Researcher: Michael Coleman Student Researcher: Mary Mahoney


Academic Classification: Senior Academic Classification: Senior
Major: Business Management & Marketing Major: Marketing
Researcher’s Address: 222 W 2nd St Researcher’s Address: 416 W 7th St
E-Mail: S520066@nwmissouri.edu E-Mail: S523663@nwmissouri.edu
Telephone: 816-216-9251 Telephone: 816-261-2461

Faculty Sponsor: Dr. Deborah Toomey

Research Title: Investigation of the Interest in a Dog Park in Maryville, Missouri

Approximate length of project: Fall 2018

Specific Project Completion Date: December 8th

1. Description of the proposed research (which must include: a) statement of research purpose
or problem; b) research methods (WHAT specifically do you intend to do?); c) measure(s) used
to evaluate research (HOW will you know if you have reached your purpose or goal?):

For the proposed research, we are intending to find out if residents of Maryville would like to
have a dog park in Maryville, MO. To determine this interest, we will complete the following:

 Statement of research purpose or problem: There is a lack of a dog parks in Maryville.


MO.

29
 Research methods: As a team, we intend on using an online survey to gather the
necessary information.
 We can spread this between local residents we know on and off campus.
 Measures to evaluate research: review of survey by clients, Dr. Deb Toomey, as well as
classmates
 Approximately 350 surveys will be completed to measure our status of completion.

2. Provide a brief timetable for the research.

September 10th Research Proposal – draft due in Northwest Online by 11:59 p.m.

September 17th Client Form and Research Proposal – Final due by 7:59 a.m.

September 19th Group meeting with Dr. Deb Toomey at 8:00 a.m.

September 21st Survey, cover letter, and IRB proposal – drafts due in Northwest
Online by 11:59 p.m.

September 28th Group meeting with Dr. Deb Toomey at 8:25 a.m.

October 1st Survey, cover letter, and IRB – final only IRB signature page is
required to be printed, signed by group member on one page and
hand delivered to instructor

October 5th Survey Monkey electronic survey – final ready to be reviewed by


11:59 p.m.

October 10th Hypothesis – draft due by 11:59 p.m. in Northwest Online

October 17th Group meeting with Dr. Deb Toomey at 8:30 a.m.

October 19th Literature Review – draft due in Northwest Online by 11:59 p.m.

October 22nd Peer Evaluation – midterm due by 11:59 p.m.

November 5th Data collection ends & analysis begins

November 14th Group meeting with Dr. Deb Toomey at 8:05 a.m.

November 19th Project – draft and presentation – draft due in Northwest Online by
11:59 p.m.

November 26th Class practice presentation

December6th Final presentation and paper due to client at 7:00

Peer Evaluation – final due by 11:59 p.m. in Northwest Online

30
What public outlets, if any, are you proposing to use to present the results of the research?
Include level of presentation (e.g. national, regional, and state).

3. Public outlets that are going to receive our results of this research project will include the
client and the city of Maryville. The results of our research project will include our final
presentation and final paper.

4. What other sources of funding exist?


Due to the fact all surveys are online, and the final draft will be submitted online, no
additional funding is needed.

List any additional funds already approved: $0 Source: N/A

5. Provide a budget for the project. (Equipment, travel, lodging, supplies, etc.)
A budget is not anticipated in this research project.

6. Research/Preparation Funds Requested: $0 Presentation Funds requested: $0

7.**All research involving human subjects must be approved by the Institutional Review Board;
all research involving laboratory animals must be approved by the Animal Welfare Committee**
Does this project fall under either of the above criterion? Yes: X - pending No: _____

8. Appropriate Signatures:

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Student _____________________________________ Date: _______________

Sponsor _____________________________________Date: _______________

9. Approval signatures:

Amount awarded $__________

Booth Director ________________________________ Date: _______________

31
IRB Proposal

(For committee Use only) Research file Number # B-1819-

Request for Exemption from Review of Research to the

Institutional Review Board for Research Involving Human Participants

Northwest Missouri State University

Attention: Form must be typed. Hand written forms will not be accepted.

DATE: 9-13-18

NAME(S) OF INVESTIGATOR(S): Mallory Kissinger

ADDRESS: 802 North Walnut Street

E-MAIL ADDRESS: S526932@nwmissouri.edu

PHONE: 816-206-2954

UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT: School of Business

ADVISOR’S NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE):


Dr. Deb Toomey, Colden Hall 2110, x1053

PROJECT TITLE: Investigation of the Interest in a Dog Park in Maryville, Missouri

SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
For the proposed research, we are intending to find out if the residents of Maryville, Missouri
would like to have a dog park. Our client is Megan Dennis. Megan sits on the board for the
Nodaway Humane Society. The board of the humane society would like to see the overall

32
interest of Maryville residents to build a public dog park. To determine the interest, we will
complete the following:

Statement of research purpose or problem:


 There is a lack of dog parks in Maryville, MO
 Our Marketing Research team has been tasked with establishing the importance of a dog
park to residents in the area.

EXEMPTION CATEGORY:
Consult the document INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH for full descriptions of
exempt categories. Using categories under Section II: Exempt Research Categories, list the
category of exempt research activity that applies to your project. Read each category carefully, if
your research does not fit under a category listed, you must submit your proposal to the
expedited or full review process of the Institutional Review Board.

Remember that:
 Studies that involve minors and utilize survey or interview procedures are not eligible
for exemption.

 Studies that involve the observation of minors are eligible for exemption only if the
researcher does not participate in or manipulate the activity being observed.

CATEGORY: 2. Using EDUCATIONAL TESTS, SURVEYS, INTERVIEWS, or


OBSERVATION OF PUBLIC BEHAVIOR.

EXEMPTION CRITERIA:
1. If your project uses a questionnaire or structured interview, attach a copy of the forms to this
application. Have you attached documents? YES

2. Are all questionnaires prefaced with voluntariness and confidentiality issues written into
questionnaire or verbally given to participants? (See section III of the document
INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH) YES

3. Are privacy concerns and confidentiality procedures outlined for participants in a written or
verbal form (as evidenced by attached documentation). If verbal, enclose a copy of the script.
YES

4. If students or other vulnerable parties have a relationship with the researcher (e.g.
professor/student), are steps taken by the researcher to avoid coercion (e.g. primary researcher
has an assistant gather data)? YES

5. Age and number of participants (See section III of the document INSTRUCTIONS FOR
EXEMPT RESEARCH)

33
(NOTE: If participants are children under age 18 and the researcher is an agent outside the
education system, research cannot be considered exempt and either expedited or full review is
mandated by law).

Adults (age 18 and over): YES Number: 1,000


Minors (under age 18): NO Number: 0

6. If minors are involved, are you functioning in the role of teacher for these participants? N/A

Describe the nature of involvement of human participants (personal Interview, questionnaire,


educational tests, etc.) AND the reason you believe this is an exempt project (Consult the
document INSTRUCTIONS FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH).

 If using Category 1, be sure to explain how your project relates to instructional


techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods.
 If using Category 4, be sure to explain how you have access to a pre-existing database
and how the data will be managed throughout the project.

HUMAN PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT:


 The research will be conducted by a structured survey through online and printed copies.
 The survey will be anonymous to all participants and the client.
 The survey will be completed by fellow students and faculty members of Northwest
Missouri State who either do or do not own a dog.
 The survey will be completed by local residents who are over the age of 18.

Research methods:
 As a team, we intend on using an online survey to gather the necessary information.
 We can spread this between local residents on and off campus.
Measure to evaluate research:
 Review of survey by clients, Dr. Deb Toomey, as well as classmates.
 The project will include approximately 350 completed surveys to measure our status of
research completion.

I affirm that all materials submitted are accurate and that the statements I have made
herein are truthful, to the best of my knowledge:

Signature of the Principal Investigator/Date: __________________________

Advisor/Supervisor (if applicable)/Date: ______________________________

Prepared by/Date: Mallory Kissinger 9-12-18

Send an electronic copy of this form and necessary documentation to the Institutional
Review Board Chair at IRBNWMS@nwmissouri.edu.

34
Prior to IRB approval, a printed copy of this application (containing all signatures) and
necessary documentation should be sent to the IRB Chair. View the Faculty Senate list of
committee members to find the current chair of the committee (find chair).

35
36
Survey Instruments
COVER LETTER
Email Subject: Dog Park Interest

Hello Maryville Residents!

As a resident of Maryville, Missouri, and/or a local dog owner, you have been selected to
participate in a study by a group of students in the Marketing Research class at Northwest
Missouri State University. The following survey will help the New Nodaway Humane Society in
determining if they should investigate the building of a dog park within the city limits of
Maryville. Conducting this survey will measure overall interest in investing in a dog park in
Maryville.

Clicking on this link, https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DogParkInterest will enable you to


complete a short survey to share your opinion. In addition, completion of the survey will indicate
your consent to participate in the research.

The survey results you provide us are kept completely anonymous. Although we encourage you
to participate, you are under no obligation to do so and you may exit the survey at any time.
Your relationship with Northwest Missouri State University will not be impacted by your
decision to participate in this study.

We appreciate any and all feedback. If you have any questions concerning this study, please
contact Mallory Kissinger via email at S526932@nwmissouri.edu.

Sincerely,

Mallory Kissinger
Michael Coleman
Colton Downing
Mickie Mahoney
Megan Swanson
Meredith Turner

37
DOG PARK SURVEY
Please read each question carefully. Select the option that best represents your response.
Please note: your answers will be kept anonymous, your participation in this process is
voluntary, your answers will not impact your relationship with Northwest, and you may
exit the survey at any time.

1. Are you at least 18 years old?


1. Yes
2. No

2. Are you a dog owner?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to respond

3. How many dogs do you own?


1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4+
5. Prefer not to respond

4. Do you own small, medium or large dog(s)?


1. Small
2. Medium
3. Large
4. Mixture of sizes
5. Other (please specify)
6. Prefer not to respond

5. Do you think your dog would be comfortable around other dogs in a park setting?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to respond

6. How often would you take your dog to the park if one was available?
1. 4-7 times a week
2. 1-3 times a week
3. Once or twice a month
4. Never
5. Prefer not to respond

7. How far would you be willing to travel to use a dog park?


1. 1-3 miles
2. 3-5 miles
3. 5-10 miles

38
4. 11+ miles
5. Prefer not to respond

8. How important is it to have a separate area for different sizes of dogs?


1. Important
2. Somewhat important
3. Not so important
4. Not at all important
5. Prefer not to respond

9. Would you utilize a dog cleaning/dog washing station?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Maybe
4. Prefer not to respond

10. Would you prefer a cement flooring, grass flooring, or both?


1. Cement
2. Grass
3. Mixture of both
4. Prefer not to respond

11. Would you be willing to pay a fee to enter the dog park?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to respond

12. How much would you be willing to pay to enter the dog park per visit?
1. $1-$3
2. $4-$6
3. $7-$9
4. $10
5. Prefer not to respond

13. If there were a fee associated with using the dog park, how often would you prefer to pay?
1. Daily
2. Weekly
3. Monthly
4. Yearly
5. Prefer not to respond

39
14. Would you prefer the following water features in a dog park?

Yes No Prefer not to


respond

Lake

Pond

Creek

Fountain

15. How many miles do you live from Maryville City Hall?
1. 1-3 miles
2. 3-5 miles
3. 5-10 miles
4. 11+ miles
5. Prefer not to respond

16. Respond to the following statement: I think Maryville should have a dog park.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
6. Prefer not to respond

17. What amenities make a good dog park?

18. Where would be a good location in Maryville for a dog park?

19. How often do you go to recreational parks in Maryville?


1. Daily
2. 4-6 times a week
3. Other _______
4. Never
5. Prefer not to respond

20. How satisfied are you with the current recreational parks in Maryville?
1. Very Dissatisfied
2. Dissatisfied

40
3. Neutral
4. Satisfied
5. Very Satisfied
6. Prefer not to respond

21. Respond to the following statement: I think we should convert an existing park in Maryville
to a dog park.
1. Strongly agree
2. Agree
3. Neutral
4. Disagree
5. Strongly Disagree
6. Prefer not to respond

22. Would you like to see the following parks transformed into a dog park? Click to open
Maryville map of parks: Parks Map
1. Nature Park (Prather Ave)
2. Sunrise Park (S. Alvin St.)
3. Happy Hollow Park (N. Water St.)
4. Wabash Park (N. Mulberry St.)
5. Any of the above
6. Prefer not to respond

23. Which best describes your employment status?


1. Full-time worker
2. Part-time worker
3. None of the above
4. Prefer not to respond

24. Are you an enrolled student at Northwest Missouri State University?


1. Yes
2. No
3. Prefer not to respond

25. Do you live on or off campus?


1. On campus
2. Off campus
3. Prefer not to respond

The survey is now complete. Click done to finalize your answers. Thank you for your time
and feedback.

41
Open-Ended Questions Answers, Feedback, and Results

Do you own small, medium, or large dog(s)?


Other (please specify)
 No additional responses

How far would you be willing to travel to use a dog park?


Other (please specify)
 I wouldn’t utilize it
 None my dog wouldn’t go
 Not applicable
 Would love it in town

What amenities make a good dog park?


 A high jump
 A place for dogs to run off leash - 9
 Activities for dogs to participate in - 3
 Agility equipment - 5
 Bags/bag stations to clean up dog waste - 40
 Benches for dog owners to sit - 32
 Body of water for dogs to swim in - 11
 Buckets or food dishes available
 Canopies
 Controlled entrance with lighting
 Different areas for different sized dogs - 9
 Different leveled surfaces for dogs to jump on - 2
 Dock on a lake or pond
 Dog playground - 2
 Dog toys - 20
 Dog washing station - 9
 Dogs - 2
 Double entry gate - 3
 Dry walk off area entering and leaving park
 Easily accessible
 Equipment for dog and owner interaction - 4
 Fence - 59
 First-aid kits
 Flowers
 Fountains - 8
 Free access to park
 Good hours or open 24/7 - 2
 Human monitor - 2
 I think it should be half grass and half cement
 In a good spot in town

42
 Lake
 Lessons/training
 Lighting for safety and security
 Lots of land/grass/room for dogs to run - 110
 Lots of paved paths
 Low maintenance landscaping
 No restriction on breeds
 Not located by busy streets
 Obstacle courses for all sizes of dogs - 12
 Offer stuff people could buy, such as drinks, snacks, treats and other accessories
 Only friendly dogs allowed
 Park cleanliness - 11
 Picnic tables
 Play area - 5
 Playground equipment for dogs - 5
 Pond - 5
 Posted rules and enforcement - 5
 Proof of dogs being up to date on vaccinations - 2
 Public restrooms - 5
 Safe method for removing aggressive dogs
 Safety - 3
 Separate areas for different sizes/ages of dogs - 13
 Shade - 12
 Shelter
 Sidewalks - 2
 Soft grass
 Some structure toys such as ramps
 Something that all dogs can use without being able to destroy easily
 Splash station in the summers
 Tables - 2
 Tennis ball dispenser
 Things for them to explore such as tubes, ramps, and bushes
 Trash cans - 9
 Treat stations - 4
 Trees - 19
 Vehicle parking close by - 2
 Walking trails - 11
 Water faucet/bowls for dogs - 61
 Water feature - 9
 Water fountain for people - 11
 Well trained dogs

Where would be a good location in Maryville for a dog park?


 1st street towards Mozingo
 9th street - 2

43
 Across road from college new complex building
 A new Dog Park location to be identified
 Any existing parks in town - 28
 Anywhere - 16
 Anywhere away from heavy traffic - 6
 A place where there’s a lot of land - 2
 Area behind Applebee’s
 Away from downtown - 3
 Away from major roads, but no more than a couple miles outside of city limits
 Beal Park - 10
 By 11th Street
 By Hughes Fieldhouse - 2
 By Pizza Ranch
 By the park located by baseball fields
 By the softball fields - 4
 By the Wellness Center
 Close to the town square/center of town - 10
 Close to the University - 28
 Donaldson Park - 12
 Douglas Park - 2
 Franklin Park - 4
 In a secluded area
 In close proximity to town and within a fair walking distance for residents of Maryville
 In town - 8
 Judah park - 6
 Nature Park - 3
 Near a creek
 Near Maryville High School
 Near Mozingo Lake - 19
 Near one of the larger parks
 Near the CIE - 2
 Near the Humane Society - 20
 Near the Maryville Aquatic Center - 2
 Near the soccer field - 2
 North Casey’s - 3
 Northeast part of town
 North side of town - 2
 Off the highway
 On campus
 On the other side of city hall towards Mozingo
 Outside of town - 14
 Peach Creek Park - 2
 Not by many houses
 Robinson Crist Park - 3
 Skatepark
 Somewhere where there is an open field - 5

44
 South Avenue
 Sunrise Park - 3
 The city park closest to campus
 The park by 8th street
 The park down the road behind the courthouse on 4th Street
 The park near Finish Line - 5
 The park off of Main Street
 The park on Prather Avenue
 The big grass lot on First Street
 There is a park between Mulberry and Munn that would be perfect
 Wabash park
 West side of town

How often do you go to recreational parks?


Other (please specify)
 Bi-monthly
 Couple times a year
 Depends on the amenities available and the available space
 Haven't been to one since I moved to Maryville
 If I had a place I would take my grand dog
 It depends on the weather
 Just kind of whenever there is a need
 Not often
 Occasionally in the spring/summer
 Rarely – 2

IF STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, OR NEUTRAL ON CONVERTING AN EXISTING PARK IN


MARYVILLE TO A DOG PARK:
Would you like to see the following parks transformed into a dog park? Click to open Maryville
map of parks.
Other (please specify)
 Anywhere - 3
 Baseball field at end of 11th St.
 Beal Park - 3
 Cannot recall the parks, but I think the one with the dinosaur might be good to have a dog
park
 Donaldson park - 4
 Franklin Park
 I never use parks, but I support parks and dog parks. I guess which ever park gets the
least amount of use
 Judah Park- 9
 Just one of these, but they're all good choices
 Nature Park
 Peach Creek
 Robertson Crist - 2

45
 The Humane Society would prevent disgruntled residents. No houses near the land.
 The park on 4th Street/N Water Street
 Wabash and Happy Hollow are surrounded by houses/not as big as Sunrise Park or
Nature Park

Which best describes your employment status?


Other (please specify)
 Disabled - 2
 Part time employee and full-time student.
 Retired - 4
 Student - 4
 Unemployed and full-time student

46