Project IBA

“Project Report”

Team 33

Team members:/ Paul Seip 129198/ Natan Halim 992732/ Tom de Vroome 461885/ Levien Verstappen 364618

Table of contents

1 Background & purpose.........................................................................................................................4

§ 1.1 Company.........................................................................................................................................4

§ 1.2 Problem statement.........................................................................................................................4

§ 1.3 Marketing research.........................................................................................................................4

§ 1.4 Financial research...........................................................................................................................5

2 Relevant theoretical frameworks.........................................................................................................6

§ 2.1 Theory and theoretical frameworks................................................................................................6

§ 2.1.1 The environment.....................................................................................................................6

§ 2.1.2 Stakeholder analysis................................................................................................................6

§ 2.1.3 Marketing mix..........................................................................................................................7

§ 2.1.4 Porter’s generic strategies.......................................................................................................7

§ 2.1.5 Relationship between strategic elements................................................................................7

§ 2.2 Financial models.............................................................................................................................8

3 Research method..................................................................................................................................9

§ 3.1 Method...........................................................................................................................................9

§ 3.2 Explanation.....................................................................................................................................9

4 Findings................................................................................................................................................11

§ 4.1 Marketing research.......................................................................................................................11

§ 4.1.1 Marketing research theoretical frameworks..........................................................................11

§ 4.1.2 Marketing research results questionnaire.............................................................................21

§ 4.2 Financial research.........................................................................................................................23

§4.2.1 Upfront costs..........................................................................................................................23

§ 4.2.2 Estimated revenues...............................................................................................................26

§ 4.2.3 Running costs.........................................................................................................................30

§ 4.2.4 Profitability............................................................................................................................32

§ 4.2.5 Payback period.......................................................................................................................32

5 Concluding chapter.............................................................................................................................35

§ 5.1 Conclusion....................................................................................................................................35

§ 5.2 Recommendations........................................................................................................................35

2 | P a g e

§ 5.3 Limitations....................................................................................................................................35

References.................................................................................................................................................37

Appendix A – Results questionnaire......................................................................................................38

Appendix B – Questionnaire..................................................................................................................40

3 | P a g e

1 Background & purpose

§ 1.1 CompanyThis report describes the project we have done for Zarah’s Hoeve, which is owned by Miss Bep Dijkhuizen. Zarah’s Hoeve is a farm, located in Lepelstraat, Noord-Brabant and is specialized in giving therapy to people who have psychological problems. This happens primarily through the use of therapy horses. Bep Dijkhuizen, the initiator, started the centre for people and horses in March 2007. Her main focus is to help people with psychological problems, autism and burnouts by getting them involved in usual work on the farm, for example by working with horses and other animals, which makes them feel more comfortable. Hence we can say Zarah’s Hoeve is operating in the farming and caring industry, the in Dutch so called ‘zorgboerderij’. Zarah’s Hoeve is also managed by Bep Dijkhuizen, one paid employee, and multiple volunteers. Bep is currently renting the land she is using for the farm. Since the present owner of the land does not allow her to build on it, she found an investor who will buy the land soon. The new investor does allow her to build on the land. This positive development will result in new possibilities for her to expand the company’s core activities and improve and build new facilities on the farm. Concerning these new projects, she needs a solid business plan to convince the bank to lend her the needed money.

§ 1.2 Problem statementCurrently the farm is running two core activities, namely coaching and training people with horses and running a care farm. In this project we investigate if a third activity, namely a terrace at the front side of the house, would be financially feasible and if there is any interest in. This brings us to our problem statement which is:How can a new terrace, from a financial point of view, be realized on Zarah’s Hoeve?

To investigate this we do a marketing research and a financial research.

4 | P a g e

§ 1.3 Marketing researchFor the marketing research we ask people who pass by if they would like some lemonade to drink. If the people stop to drink some lemonade we ask them questions about whether they are interested in stopping by at a terrace in the neighborhood. We also are going to count all people who pass by and estimate how many people would come by each day, week and year. Furthermore, we are going to check the area if there are (potential) competitors in the neighborhood by asking people who pass by if they are going to a terrace somewhere else and if they do, where they do that.

§ 1.4 Financial researchFor the financial research we will ask the people how much they would be willing to spend for a drink or a bite. When we know what the average person who passes by wants to spend we will multiply this number with the number of people who are willing to stop for a drink or bite at the terrace. Then we will get the revenue that Zarah’s Hoeve will get from people who are going relax on the terrace for a drink or a bite per day. Of course, realizing a new terrace brings also costs with it, but what kind of costs? Beneath is a list of the costs which should give a clear indication about which costs we take in use:

1. The costs for starting the terrace:

Building costs: To calculate how much it will cost to build a new terrace we will first estimate how big the terrace is going to be. Then we are going to call with some company’s who build terraces and ask them how much they would charge for a construction of the terrace.

Installations: This is the heavy equipment Bep has to buy to make a terrace work. Equipment costs: Tables, chairs, parasols and tents.

2. Costs for running the terrace:

Wages: Bep want the terrace to be controlled by people at her farm but she also needs to hire people who are going to work on the terrace. We will make an estimation of the number of people working, the wage per hour and how long these people will work a day.

Cost of goods sold: For these costs we will need number of units sold per day from the marketing research. Then we will multiply this number by costs of buying in one unit.

The main goal of doing the research and calculating the revenues and costs of the terrace is to see if a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve will be feasible. We will let to the owner decide whether she thinks the investment costs of starting a new terrace will be interesting enough. We estimate what the revenues for one year will be as well as the costs for one year. After that we subtract the costs from the revenues to see if there will be any profit in one year. If it turns out that the revenues and the costs of the terrace will break-even after one year, then, in our opinion, the terrace would be feasible. After all, Bep’s current business is helping people with psychological problems and if these people feel better by working on the terrace the main goal is achieved.

5 | P a g e

In chapter 2 of this report we will discuss relevant theoretical frameworks and models, both from a marketing point of view and a financial point of view. We will discuss the things that we think would be relevant to apply to this project. Furthermore, in chapter 3 we will talk about the research method we have used to measure the feasibility of the terrace. Chapter 4 will consist of all data we have collected and our interpretation of those data. To analyze this data we will use the theoretical frameworks and models we have discussed in chapter 2 of this report. In the end we will derive our conclusion with our findings and give some recommendations that our client could undertake. We will give our limitations of the research project in this chapter as well.

2 Relevant theoretical frameworks

§ 2.1 Theory and theoretical frameworksProjects are complex, one-time processes and limited by budget, schedule and resources. They are developed to resolve a clear goal and customer focused (Pinto, 2007). The main goal of our project is to get an indication of the feasibility of the terrace and if people are interested in it. First, we are now going to explain relevant theoretical frameworks we could apply to this project. In chapter 4 we will further discuss these frameworks and apply them to this project.To see whether this project is feasible, we have to analyze the marketing environment of this project. We now will discuss some frameworks and models that could be applied to this project from a marketing point of view.

§ 2.1.1 The environmentThe hostility and the profitability of marketing environment will determine the feasibility of this terrace. The environment can be divided to two main divisions which are:

Macro environment (broad environment): consists of broader external environment surrounding a company which a company cannot control. This macro environment can be analyzed by a model known as PESTLE Analysis. PESTLE stands for Political-legal, Economical, Social-cultural, Technological, Physical and Ecological.

Micro environment (task environment): consists of outside environment of a company which a company can affect by its actions. The best model to analyze this environment is the Five Forces of Porter. Five Forces of Porter model describes how the threat of substitute products, threat of new entrants, industry rivalry, bargaining power of consumers and suppliers will determine the sustainability of a company’s market/environment to generate profit.

6 | P a g e

§ 2.1.2 Stakeholder analysisThere are also actors in the company itself and these actors are known as stakeholders. Any project has stakeholders which are people who have an active stake in the project. This stakeholder analysis can be a useful tool to demonstrate conflicts that can occur through the planned creation and introduction of a project (Pinto, 2007).

§ 2.1.3 Marketing mixAnalyzing the marketing environment only would not be sufficient to see the feasibility of the project. We also need to analyze the possible marketing mix of the project and see whether these are applicable with the marketing environment of the project.

Marketing mix consists of 7 Ps that stands for: Product, Price, Place, Promotion, Physical, Process and People. Although the last 3 elements of 7 Ps are used primarily to analyze the service sector, these elements are becoming more important in many marketing mixes of most companies. After analyzing the marketing mix, we then can continue to a more specific analysis of customer’s segmentation, targeting and positioning. Segmentation helps us to focus on the different needs of the different groups of customers. A company then may choose which customer segment it could possibly serve. After that a company must put a strong positioning of its brand/name in the mind of its customer. Knowing this theoretical framework would help us to determine the possible segmentation for this project and target our offers to a right target group with a right positioning.

§ 2.1.4 Porter’s generic strategiesEvery company can develop its own strategy or follow the generic strategies suggested by Porter. The decision will depend on the marketing environment, goals, mission, etc. Porter suggested 3 main generic strategies for companies, which are:

Overall cost leadership, by focusing on least-cost products Diversification, by focusing on products that consumers perceive more qualitative Focusing, by focusing on a particular consumer segment

§ 2.1.5 Relationship between strategic elementsAnother relevant framework for this project is model of the relationship between the strategic elements which should work in harmony with each other. The model is shown in figure 1.

Figure 1 – Model of relationship between strategic elements.

7 | P a g e

Source: Pinto, 2007

§ 2.2 Financial modelsThere are also several financial models that can be applied to this project:

The payback period is the amount of time that it takes to get the initial investment back. You can calculate it by dividing the initial investment by the annual cash savings.

The net present value method is the sum of the initial investment divided by the present value of the cash flows that will be generated in the future.

The internal rate of return method is used to determine what rate of return the terrace will earn. The internal rate of return can be calculated by setting the NPV till zero

The NPV and the internal rate of return methods are not really relevant for this project because they are too complicated and because there is not really one cost of capital. The payback period on the other hand is extremely important to determine the feasibility of the terrace.

8 | P a g e

3 Research method

§ 3.1 Method The research method to find out whether a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve will be feasible we have used a questionnaire. A questionnaire consists of a set of questions presented to respondents. It is by far the most common instrument used to collect primary data for the reason that it is very flexible. Closed questions specify all the possible answers and provide answers that are easier to interpret. Open questions allow the respondents to answer in their own words. It is difficult to get really accurate results. Therefore the questions in a questionnaire have to be simple and specific. Also, to get a more reliable result we have to avoid ambiguous and uncommon words(Kotler, Keller, Brady, Goodman & Hansen, 2009).Our questionnaire can be seen in Appendix B of this report.

§ 3.2 ExplanationThe questions 1,2,3,4 and 6 are to measure if there is any interest in a terrace in Lepelstraat and the fifth question is to find out whether there’s any competition in the neighbourhood of Zarah’s Hoeve. These questions are mainly about the marketing research of this project. The questions 7,8,9 an 10 are to calculate the financial part of the project. If we know what the average respondent will spend on a terrace for a drink and a bite and we know how many people per day pass by who would actually sit on the terrace we can calculate the revenue and the costs per day if the terrace. Question 10 is a general question to find out what the people really think about a terrace in Lepelstraat.

In chapter 4 we will elaborate further about how we are going to interpret the results and how we will calculate the financial data of this terrace. There we will apply the models and frameworks we have discussed in chapter two to the results of the questionnaire.

9 | P a g e

10 | P a g e

4 Findings

Chapter four, our biggest chapter, is divided into two main sections: the marketing research (see § 4.1) and the financial research (see § 4.2). For both, we will work out the models as presented in chapter 2.

§ 4.1 Marketing researchAs mentioned before, we are going to discuss the project from a marketing point of view first. This section, again, is divided into two main parts. Firstly, the five marketing models as presented in chapter 2 will be applied to the terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve (see § 4.1.1). Secondly, from the questionnaires that we distributed, some key marketing insights will be drawn with respect to what the customer wants and in which target groups they can be divided (see § 4.2.2).

§ 4.1.1 Marketing research theoretical frameworksCombining the models and the theoretical frameworks we have presented before in chapter 2, we can extract several key elements of our marketing feasibility research namely: marketing environment, possible marketing mixes, possible segmentation and targeting, the market prospects of the project, and ultimately the best possible marketing strategies.

§ 4.1.1.1 The marketing environmentThe marketing environment of Zarah’s Hoeve, as explained in chapter 2, can be divided to two main divisions. First, it is the macro environment that comprises of political-legal, economical , demographic (social) – cultural, technological, and environmental (physical). This macro environment for Zarah’s Hoeve is described using the PESTLE Analysis as presented below:

Political-legal: Since Zarah’s Hoeve is a Stichting (Foundation) that hires and trains mentally handicapped people, it is very much affected by this aspect. Depending partly to the subsidy given by the government as its source of capital and income, Zarah’s Hoeve is very prone to any changes in the legal and political system especially to those concerning agriculture, healthcare, education and welfare. This aspect will ultimately affect the capital structure of the project (terrace) and will therefore also naturally affect the licensing and legal structure of the coming project (the terrace). However the trend recently shows that the government is very supportive in these matters.

Economical: How much the customer are willing to spend will more or less be affected by this

11 | P a g e

which will lead to the quantity of products or services they require. As we might have known, there were some economical drawbacks in Europe recently that did not only affect how much customer are willing to spend in Europe but also in Holland and thus also for the potential customer of Zarah’s Hoeve.

Social (demographical)-Cultural:

For Zarah’s Hoeve, this aspect is very much alike to the social (demographical) composition of the village Halsteren and town Bergen op Zoom and of its surroundings. For this project we make a projection to this composition by surveying some people passing by Zarah’s Hoeve. This composition consists of a substantial amount of elderly and smaller numbers of teenagers under 18. (See App A). From our survey it can be inferred that the amount of potential customers (demographically) is large enough to be profitable. In a broader sense, the social-cultural aspect of Zarah’s Hoeve is very much affected by the Dutch majority population culture that has developed nation-wide. However some provincial subcultures or some subcultures of the village can also be a major social-cultural environment for Zarah’s Hoeve. The Dutch culture is especially famous for drinking coffee. This might be beneficial to the feasibility of our project.

Technological: The development of technology has no direct effect to this project. Although to a small extent this might affect the process of the project, this will be explained later in the marketing mixes.

Environment (Physical):

With the growing awareness of customers and lawmakers for protecting the environment, this might seem less relevant to this project, but might indirectly affect the project through the policy made by the government or the customers’ demand. This aspect will be taken as irrelevant in this project.

After analyzing the macro environment of the project using PESTLE Analysis above, it can be concluded that the macro environment of this project is not very large, simple, and most probably supports the feasibility of the project.

Some suggestions can also be drawn based on it. First, our client has to have a legal license to begin this terrace. Second, since she has to set the prices for her product and services, she has to take into account the economical and political-legal perspective of the macro environment above. Third, she also has to pay attention the look of the terrace, referring to the physical perspective. Fourth, since the terrace is intended for the people in the neighbourhood, therefore it has to reflect the culture of the neighbourhood. When our client designs the terrace she has to take this into account. The technological and environmental aspects are not very relevant for this project.

We will analyze the micro environment of this terrace with the Five Forces Model of Porter. The micro environment for Zarah’s Hoeve is presented below:

12 | P a g e

Industry rivalry: From the results of the interview and using the map analysis (see stakeholder analysis, page X), we can conclude that there are not many competitors in the area of Lepelstraat. Although there are many terraces (competitors) in the larger cities like Bergen op Zoom and Halsteren, concerning the scope of our target group, these competitors could be considered as distant competitors of which their importance is not very significant. Hence the industry rivalry of Zarah’s Hoeve could be considered low.

Bargaining Power of Suppliers:

Suppliers in this project could consist of the manufacturers of her inventories or supplies such as: bread, fries, flour, cola, beer, etc. Also it could consist of the intermediaries or retailers. Although there will be no direct relation/interaction between our client and the suppliers, this aspect still affects our client. A slight change in the prices of supplies will affect tremendously our client’s pricing but, because there are many suppliers, our client will then choose another supplier. Therefore the bargaining power of suppliers is low.

Bargaining Power of Buyers:

The bargaining power of buyers is also high, because the preferences of customers are the most important factors in deciding whether they want to sit in our client’s terrace or other terraces. Although it will cost more (travel cost), they can easily go to Halsteren or Bergen op Zoom to sit on a terrace if the products and services provided by our project do not meet their preferences.

Threats of new entrants:

The possibility of starting a new terrace easily, like ones our client is interested in, cannot fully be determined. It will depend on how profitable the terrace is going to be. If the terrace is going to be profitable, the possibility that someone else will also set up a terrace in the neighbourhood is very likely. Then the threat of new entrants will be high.

Threats of substitutes:

Substitutes in this project can be considered all other providers of the same products and services outside the industry rivalry. This could come from, for instance, minimarket and supermarket. From the result of map analysis, we figure out that there are always some supermarkets or minimarkets in the surrounding of our client and therefore this threat is considered as moderately high.

To illustrate, in figure 2 the five forces are shown graphically.

13 | P a g e

Bargaining Power of Suppliers

Substitute Products

Bargaining Power of Buyers

Threats of new entrants

Industry rivalry

- The potential customers living nearby Lepelstraat

- Other providers offering the same products and services outside the industry rivalry (supermarket, minimarket, etc)

- Manufacturer of dairy and food products (bread, milk, etc)- Manufacturer of drinks (beer, cola, etc)- Intermediaries- Retailers (supermarket chain)- Other intermediaries (minimarket)

- This is any entrepreneur in the area who would start a new terrace, given it that that of Bep is profitable- Existing companies expanding in the area of Lepelstraat

Figure 2 – Porter’s five force analysis

Source: made by ourselves

From the analysis above it can be concluded that the micro environment of the project is seem to be rather adverse to the feasibility of the project. However the level of hostility cannot always be determined exactly using this model, hence there is always a possibility that this project will be feasible. Nevertheless, considering the weak industry rivalry, the relatively low threat of new entrants and small bargaining power of suppliers, the micro environment might offer opportunities. Beside this, we still

14 | P a g e

need to look at other aspects such as the stakeholders, the market and the customers. Strategy is also the main key for the feasibility of this project.

§ 4.1.1.2 Stakeholder analysisThe stakeholders of our project are not extensive. The stakeholders and the persons who are affected by the decisions we make in our project are:

The owner of the farm Competitors who have a similar terrace The visitors of the terrace People who have to work on the terrace including the patients

When our client is going to run the terrace she must set prices that do not differ much of the prices of competitors. When she sets the price to high she will sell nothing and when she sets the price to low the competitors will react by also setting the price lower and she might evoke a price war.

She also has to ensure that the visitors feel comfortable on the terrace and the people who are working there are always kind and friendly.

The people working in the terrace have a strong impact too on the feasibility of the project. In fact these people are also one of the main elements of the marketing mixes. Therefore if the people working there are not trained well and are not satisfied with their job, it will most likely trigger a bad service to the customers and the project feasibility will be at stake. They are also important because their participation allows our client to receive some subsidy from the government to start her business. Consequently they must well instructed and satisfied as workers.

From the analysis above we can see that the interests of the stakeholders above are not heavily conflicting with each other and are not complex. Therefore it is easier to be maintained and beneficial for the project. If the stakeholders are kept satisfied the project will be more feasible.

To give a more clear indication of the competitors of a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve we made four geographical maps of the area around Zarah’s Hoeve, as shown in figure 3, 4, 5 and 6

15 | P a g e

Figure 3 – Map of Lepelstraat

Source: Google maps

The first map, in figure 3, illustrates what competitors of a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve there are in the neighbourhood of Lepelstraat. As can be seen there not much competitors in this area. The blue dot is café Leonita which is located also in Lepelstraat and the red dot is Zarah’s Hoeve.

Figure 4 – Map of Steenbergen

Source: Google maps

16 | P a g e

This map, in figure 4, illustrates the competitors in Steenbergen which is a village in the neighbourhood of Lepelstraat. The blue dots are potential competitors of a terrace.

Figure 5 – Map of Halsteren

Source: Google maps

This map, in figure 5, shows the main competitors of a terrace in Halsteren.

17 | P a g e

Figure 6 – Map of Lepelstraat, Halsteren and Steenbergen, zoomed out.

Source: Google maps

To give a more clear indication of where Halsteren and Steenbergen are located with respect to Lepelstraat we have made this final map, as shown in figure 6, where the blue dots again mark the competitors of a terrace and the red dot marks Zarah’s Hoeve. With this map can be seen that setting up a terrace in Lepelstraat would be a feasible idea because there are not much competitors in Lepelstraat.

§ 4.1.1.3 Marketing mixWe now are going to use the 7P’s for analysing the project on Zarah’s Hoeve. The first P we are going to discuss is product. The product Zarah’s Hoeve wants to offer are multiple drinks and foods and the service of being served by others. We think that it is possible for Zarah’s Hoeve to obtain the necessary merchandise to sell by consulting a random food and drink supplier. We also think the selling of drinks is profitable, since we asked many people what they think is a reasonable price, which is the second P, and found out that the average price people are willing to pay for a drink is € 1,70. The purchase price is around € 0,26 and hence this is profitable for the company. The third P is place. As said before, we went to Zarah’s Hoeve to count how many people actually came by at Zarah’s Hoeve. Through this primary data source, we can conclude that enough people pass by Zarah’s Hoeve to consider building a terrace there. Furthermore, we held surveys in which we asked people whether they would come by for a drink this result was also sufficient enough to consider it. Combined with the knowledge that Zarah’s Hoeve is near a highway through which the supplies easily can be brought to the company, we can conclude that Zarah’s Hoeve is good place to start a terrace. The fourth P is about promotion. Looking at the area where Zarah’s Hoeve is located, we can state that the surroundings are beautiful and filled with nature.

18 | P a g e

Hence a lot of walking and cycling clubs come by. We think it is wise to drop some flyers off at the cafeteria of the clubs to improve the awareness. Furthermore, it could be a wise decision to put up some boards with directions and a small indication of what Zarah’s Hoeve exactly entails. The fifth P is about the people involved in building the terrace. First of all we have of course Bep, the owner of the farm. Other involved people are, among others, the investor, the builders of the terrace and the future employees. The sixth P is about physical evidence. As mentioned before, Zarah’s Hoeve is located in beautiful surroundings with the peaceful sound of the rural area. Despite the fact that it is near a road, there are quite a lot of trespassers walking or cycling in the neighbourhood. Hence we can stat that this does not influence the environment very negatively. The seventh and last P, also the least relevant in our opinion, is about process. We think Bep should make some kind of working routine for the future employees so that the working process is optimal. Furthermore it would be useful to obtain blueprints of the terrace and to make a building schedule.

§ 4.1.1.4 Porter’s generic strategiesWe think that the strategy Bep must follow is focusing on a particular market segment. Because there are not much terraces in the neighbourhood of Lepelstraat, Bep can set a relatively high price which makes cost leadership not very relevant. Many people who are passing by the potential place for the terrace are people who are just going out for a walk or take the bicycle to go out. Bep has to focus on people like this and not much on the younger people. People who have walked or have bicycled are more likely to sit on a terrace for a drink or a bite than an average scholar who passes by. Furthermore, when she focuses on this segment she can also charge higher prices because these people are willing to spend more. Because there are not much terraces in the neighbourhood of Lepelstraat, following the differentiation strategy would be not very effective because people have nothing to compare with.

§ 4.1.1.5 Relationship between strategic elementsAs it is well understood, our client has always taken much care of the condition of the mentally-ill people. That was also the reason why she did found Zarah’s Hoeve in the first place. As our project is an expansion of Zarah’s Hoeve, we believe that the mission of this project/terrace will be the same, which is to help mentally-ill people to be independent and reliable in a normal society. This mission has become the base of the creation of the objective for the terrace, which is to hire, trai, and educate mentally-ill people as many as possible, both effectively and efficiently (without generating any loss). After setting the objectives, we could suggest her to set these goals for a period of at most 10 years:

Operating without loss every year Able to break even in few years (3-5 years) Expanding market share and notoriety Earning healthy profit

To achieve those goals we need to set up some strategies. As already describe we have used the focusing strategy to this project in order to exploit the lifetime value of the target group to the fullest and to earn a healthy profit. In order to operate without loss and to reach a break-even point in a few years, it is important to keep the price in accordance to the cost. The most difficult goal is to expand

19 | P a g e

market share and notoriety, because it is difficult to get publicity in this area. Therefore we will offer some promotional campaign programs.

This can be done by hanging up banners in front of the terrace, so everyone who passes by will see that there is a terrace and the likelihood that more people will go sit on the terrace increases. To get more attention our client can also place signs to attract more people who pass by in cars. If she places a sign next to the large road that goes alongside of Lepelstraat she can attract much more customers. By mentioning the terrace on her site Bep can also increase the notoriety of the terrace. To illustrate this, Figure 7 shows an illustration of the relationship between strategic elements which we have discussed in chapter two.

Figure 7 – between strategic elements for the terrace on Zarah’s hoeve.

Source: made by ourselves

20 | P a g e

§ 4.1.2 Marketing research results questionnaireIn this section we will first segment the customers among other by using the questions 3 and 4 of the questionnaire. To look for the interest in a terrace we will interpret the questions 2 and 6 of our questionnaire. As has been explained in the theoretical framework, when it is impossible to serve all the customers, it is important to classify the potential customers to different segments. Although our potential customers could consist of every one, due to simplicity and relevancy we consider the pedestrians , cyclists and people on a scooter as the only potential customers. From our analysis on the field and the results of questionnaire (see appendix A) we can base the segmentation on the criteria below:

Demographic segmentation: age and gender Behavioural - Psychographic segmentation: willingness to pay, frequency rate, benefits

sought (drink or food) and lifestyle (what are they doing)

Using the results of the questionnaire(see Appendix A) we can classify our potential customers into several segments based on a distinct characteristic as presented in the cross-segmentation table below, in figure 8.

Demographic criteria Behavioural-Psychographic criteria

SegmentationGender Age Willingness to pay FrequencyBenefits sought Lifestyle

Male 12 - 25 years Low Low DrinksVisiting friends/Studying Segment 1 A

26 - 39 years Very Low Very Low Drinks Working Segment 2 A 40 - 65 years High Medium Drinks Sporting/Recreating Segment 3 A

> 65 years Medium HighDrinks and food Recreating Segment 4 A

Female 12 - 25 years Low Medium DrinksVisiting friends/Studying Segment 1 B

26 - 39 years Very Low Very Low Drinks Shopping/Working Segment 2 B

40 - 65 years Medium HighDrinks and food

Visiting friends/Recreating Segment 3 B

> 65 years Medium HighDrinks and food

Visiting friends/Recreating Segment 4 B

Figure 8 – cross-segmentation table of the potential customer groups, based on the questionnairesSource: made by ourselves.

Segment 1 A : This segment represents male students who have limited resources (money and time) to spend on the terrace. Even if they had time, they would rather use their time to study or visiting friends, which results in that they will most likely not stop or sit on the terrace.

21 | P a g e

Segment 1 B : This segment represents female students. Although they show almost the same characteristics with their peers in 1 A, they are most likely willing to spend more time on the terrace. Usually their decision to sit on the terrace is also affected by their friends’ decision.

Segment 2 A : Segment 2 A represents the working-age-male population. They usually past by just to work or coming back from work. Thus, they have very limited time. Although they most likely have the money to buy, they seem not really willing to pay or to spend time on the terrace.

Segment 2 B : This segment shares the same characteristics as 2 A but for the female population. They are mostly representing the housewives, single moms, or working females.

Segment 3 A : This segment represents late-working-aged male population. Although they are still working, they usually are better established in their career and will probably have more free time in the weekend. Most people out of this segment were sporting at the time we did our questionnaire. Because their main intention is to sport, they most probably will not stay to sit longer for drinks. However after they have sported they could go sit on the terrace to have some drinks.

Segment 3 B : This segment represents housewives or smaller amount of working females. In contrast to their peers in 3 A, their willingness to pay is somewhat smaller, but are willing to spend more time on the terrace and also more days per week. Although their willingness to pay is not the highest, it is considerably larger than any other segments. The reason they pass by is usually to visit friends or for recreation. Since they have more time they are also most likely willing to eat some cakes or a snack with their drinks (tea or coffee).

Segment 4 A : This segment represents male pensioners who most likely have more time and resource to spend on a terrace. However, they are more dependent to their partner (wife) in deciding whether to sit on a terrace or not. It is rarely seen that a person from this group is walking alone.

Segment 4 B : This segment shares all the characteristics of 4 A. However, this segment seems to be larger than segment 4 A. Therefore we see more people of this segment walking alone to visit their friends. This segment is the most likely segment to stop by and have a drink on the terrace.

From all the segments above we can generally conclude that the most elderly segments are probably the most profitable. Therefore, based on the results of our survey and on on-the-field analysis, it can be concluded that the most profitable segments are the segments 4 B, 4 A, and to some extent also 3 B. Since these segments are willing to spend more time and money in our project exploiting these 3

22 | P a g e

segments will be most profitable. Because the number of people in these segments is high(30-40%) and their frequency rate is high, there is no doubt that these segments will bring the largest profit. If our client is able to apply the right strategy to exploit these target groups, from the marketing point of view, this project should be feasible.

When we look at the question: ‘How many times a week would you like to sit here?’ the sum of the answers of respondents who would actually go sit on a terrace, is 47,5. When we divide this number by the 27 people who would go sit on the terrace we get:

Meanof question 2=47,5÷27=1,76׿

To the question: ‘Do you think this is a suitable place to start a terrace? (on scale 1 - 7)’ all respondents, which are 43 answered. The sum of their answers is 225,5. When we divide this number by the number of respondents we get:

Meanquestion 6=225,5÷43=5,24

To make it more clear, see figure 9.

Figure 9 – Mean of question 2 and 6

Mean question 2 47,5/27 = 1,76 times a weekMean question 6 225,5/43 = 5,24

Source: made by ourselves

The number of times per week people would like to sit on terrace is not very large. However, the respondents think the place to start is very suitable. From these results we can conclude that their is relatively large interest in a terrace in Lepelstraat.

§ 4.2 Financial researchWe will now start with the second main section of chapter 4, the financial research. First, the upfront costs will be calculated (see §4.2.1). Second, the yearly revenues will be estimated (see §4.2.2). Third, the yearly costs for running the terrace will be estimated (see §4.2.3). Finally, the profitability will be discussed (see §4.2.4) and the payback period will be calculated (see §4.2.5).

§4.2.1 Upfront costsFirst we are going to calculate the upfront costs of a terrace. What will be the investment Bep has to make to realize the terrace? We will divide the upfront costs into three parts: building costs, installations and equipment costs.

23 | P a g e

§4.2.1.1 Building costsFor the building costs we have called with two companies named ‘van der Burg bestratingen’ and ‘Ronald Kei’ who are specialized in building terraces. We have measured the length and width of the potential place for the terrace. The length of terrace is 17,2 meters and the width is 14,2 meters which makes an total area of 17,2×14,2=244 square metre. He informed us of the following costs:

The place for the terrace has to be excavated at least 20 centimeters. This makes an total volume of 0,20×244=48,8cubical metre sand. The cost of one cubical metre sand is € 10,- which makes:

Total cost of the sand=48,8×10=€ 488 ,−¿

For the tiles of the terrace we have chosen the large concrete slabs of 60 by 40 centimeter which have a cost of € 7,99 per square meter VAT exclusive. With VAT this makes a cost of 7,99*1,19 = € 9,51 per square meter. The total area of the terrace is going to be 244 square meter and if we multiply this with the cost per meter we get:

Total cost of the tiles=9,51×244=€ 2320,44

To excavate and remove the sand the company will charge around the € 1200,00. The company charges a cost of € 26,00 per working hour. We estimate it will take 3 weeks to

build the terrace. One week will consist of 6 working days of 8 hours per day. This will make a total of 8×6×3=144hours. When we multiply this by € 26,00 we get:

144×26=€ 3744 ,−¿

For unanticipated situational factor we will hold € 1500,- for reserve.

In figure 10, a clear table is shown of these costs.

Figure 10 – Buildings costs

Cost: Amount:Cubical sand € 488,-Tiles € 2320,44Excavating and removing the sand € 1200,-Working hours € 3744,-Reserve € 1500,-

Total € 9252,44Source: made by ourselves

24 | P a g e

§4.2.1.2 InstallationsTo prepare the drinks and food for the customers Bep will need a new kitchen. We have called with ‘Bruynzeel keukens’ which is a company specialized in kitchens and is located in Bergen op Zoom. The said a decent kitchen called Romance will cost € 8995,00. It has 3 wall cabinets, 3 cabinets under the kitchen dresser, 1 fridge, 1 oven and 1 stove with a hood. In short, it has everything you need to prepare a nice meal. The average delivery time lies between 10 to 12 weeks. The investigation for the preparation of the kitchen is € 75,-. The delivery of the kitchen is for free and assembly costs are included in the price. We get:

Total cost of the kitchen=8995,00+75=€ 9070 ,−¿

§4.2.1.3 Equipment costsOff course, Bep has to buy equipment which will be used for the terrace. We have used the prices of Gamma which is an do-it-yourself shop particularly in the Netherlands. The nearest Gamma of Lepelstraat is in Bergen op Zoom. We will now make an estimate of what Bep has to buy on equipment to realize a decent terrace:

Tables

We will estimate that there will be five tables needed to stand on the terrace. The cost of a decent table called Fortuna at the Gamma is € 59,00. This will make:

Total cost of the tables=5×59=€ 295,00

Chairs

Bep will need four chairs per table but we will calculate two more to have reserve chairs for if one gets broken. This will lead to a total of 20+2 = 22 chairs. The cost of a normal chair called Navaro is € 39,95 which leads to:

Total cost of the chairs=22×39,95=€ 878,90

Parasols

If it is hot weather people don’t want to sit in the sun and therefore Bep will need parasols. We estimate she needs one parasol per table making five parasols and five parasol bases in total. The cost of a parasol is € 27,95 and the cost of a parasol base is € 26,95 which makes a total cost for a parasol set of 27,95+26,95=€ 54,90. For the five parasols it is going to be:

Total cost of the parasols=5×54,90=€ 274,50

Tents

To anticipate on bad weather Bep will need a tent where customers can sit under when it is raining. We estimate that she will need two small tents for when it is raining. The cost of a small tent called Kreta is € 59,95 which makes:

Total cost of the tents=2×59,95=€ 119,90

25 | P a g e

Thus, the total equipment costs of the terrace are going to be:

295,00+878,90+274,50+119,90=€ 1568,30

The total upfront costs for the terrace are going to be:

Figure 11 – Total upfront costs

Building costs € 9252,44Installations € 9070,-Equipment costs € 1568,30

Total upfront costs € 19890,74Source: made by ourselves

§ 4.2.2 Estimated revenuesNext to the costs, a second major component for the financial analysis is the expected revenues. In this section, we will try to make a prediction of the yearly revenues, according to the questionnaire results. Upfront however, it is important to mention a few limitation we faced in our attempt to make an accurate prediction of the revenues. Most importantly the time constraint. Next to that also our travelling time (4 hours) and we did not have access to the financial statements of Zarah’s Hoeve. These limitations are fully described in chapter 5. Despite these limitations, we tried to make an accurate prediction of what the terrace would generate. Firstly, the method to make the predictions will be described. Secondly, the actual calculations will be made, leading to the estimated revenues.

§ 4.2.2.1 MethodIn order to make this predictions, we did two things: we counted how many people passed the terrace on three separate days and we asked the people to fill out a questionnaire. Especially two questions are relevant for the prediction of the revenues:

Would you sit here on a terrace if you passed by this place? How many would you be willing to spend on a terrace here?

With the first question, we can investigate what percentage of the people passing the place are actually willing to sit on the terrace. This allows us to estimate the number of visitors per day (we take the average of the three days counting). Once we know the number of visitors per day, the second question is relevant. With this question, we have a good indication of what the average person sitting on the terrace would spend on one visit. If we then multiply the number of visitors by the amount of average spending, we get the estimated revenues for one day. Subsequently, we can multiply this by the number of days the terrace will be open. As mentioned before, this is of course not one hundred percent reliable, because we have to do with seasonal factors and because the number of people passing by may be different on days that we have not counted. These are the limitations of our research, and important

26 | P a g e

is to realize that we tried to make the most accurate estimations within our boundaries. To make it more reliable, we counted also on one day of the weekend, because in the weekends the number of recreants passing by might be higher.

§ 4.2.2.2 ResultsFirst, in order to find out the number of potential visitors, the results of the counting are presented in figure 12, 13 and 14.

Figure 12 – counting on day 1Tallying Wednesday April, 13

time: 10:45 - 13:45cyclists: 116pedestrians: 17scooters: 17

Source: made by ourselves

Figure 13 – counting on day 2Tallying Saturday April, 16

time: 11:08 - 14:38cyclists: 151pedestrians: 25scooters: 18horseriders: 2

Source: made by ourselves

Figure 14 – counting on day 3Tallying Wednesday April, 20

time: 13:45 - 16:45cyclists: 167pedestrians: 25scooters: 41horseriders: 2

Source: made by ourselves

Graphically represented, the following pie charts can be shown for each day (figure 15, 16 and 17):

27 | P a g e

Figure 15 – division of passers on day 1

cyclists:77%

pedestrians:12%

scooters:11%

Passers on Wednesday April, 13

Source: made by ourselves

Figure 16 – division of passers on day 2

cyclists:77%

pedestrians:13%

scooters:9%

horseriders:1%

Passers on Saturday April, 16

Source: made by ourselves

28 | P a g e

Figure 17 – division of passers on day 3

cyclists:71%

pedestrians:11%

scooters:17%

horseriders:1%

Passers on Wednesday April, 20

Source: made by ourselves

The overall image of the division of the passers is clear, the majority is cyclists. Bep should therefore focus particularly on cyclists as a target group for the terrace.

To go back to our calculations, as can be seen, we only have data of 3 or 3,5 hours each day (due to our time limitation, we could not sit there for a whole day, mainly due to travelling time of 4 hours). Therefore, based on incomplete data, we have to estimate the number of passers for the whole day. We do this by the following steps: first, we calculate the average number of passers per hour. Then we multiply this by 8 hours, because we assume that the terraces will be opened for 8 hours from 10h till 18h on normal days. This way, we can calculate an estimation of the average number of passers for the whole day, this is shown in figure 18.

Figure 18 – Number of passers Day: Total passers: Time: Average passers per hour: Estimated passers for the whole day (8 hrs):Wednesday April, 13: 150 10:45 - 13:45 50 400Saturday April, 16: 196 11:08 - 14:38 56 448Wednesday April, 20: 235 13:45 - 16:45 78 627

Source: made by ourselves

We can now easily make an estimation of the number of passers on an average day. We add the three numbers and divide it by three.

Estimationof the number of passersonan averageday=400+448+6273

=492

29 | P a g e

Up till now, we have estimated the average number of people that pass the terrace on an average day. Now, in order to proceed to revenues, we have to find out how many of those people would actually go to the terrace if they passed by. To find this out, we used a sample of totally 43 random people passing the place and asked them the following question: ‘Would you sit here on a terrace if you passed by this place?’ With the sample, we can find the percentage of people who would go to the terrace and we can use it to make an estimation for the whole population (all the people passing by). From the results of our questionnaires (see appendix XX), it turns out that in total 27 out of 43 people answered this question with “yes”. With those data, we can calculate the percentage of people who would go to the terrace when passing by:

Estimationof the percentageof pas sersthat would visit the terrace=2743×100%=63%

Now, we can make an estimation of the number of visitors on an average day, by multiplying the number of passers by the percentage of people who would go to the terrace.

Estimationof the average number of visitors per day=0.63×492=309

The following step is calculating the revenues per day. For this step, we use the question: ‘How many would you be willing to spend on a terrace here?’ With those data, we can calculate the average amount that people will spend sitting on the terrace. From the questionnaire results (see appendix XX), it can be calculated that the average amount that people would spend is € 12,51. Now, the revenue per day can be estimated, but multiplying this number by the number of people who would go to the terrace.

Estimated revenue per day=309×12.51=€ 3,861.81

Finally, we can calculate the total revenue per year, the number we are aiming for. In order to calculate this number, we assume that the terrace will be opened 5 months of the year, only the sunny months. Furthermore, we assume that the terrace is opened for five days of the week. Therefore, totally the terrace will be opened for about 100 days per year.

Estimated yearly revenue=100×3,861.81=€ 386,181.40

§ 4.2.3 Running costsBefore, the costs for starting up the terrace were calculated. To make the picture complete, the yearly costs for running the terrace will now be calculated. These costs consist of wage costs and Cost of goods sold. First the yearly wage costs will be calculate.

§ 4.2.3.1 Wage costs. As mentioned before, the purpose of the terrace is to help people with psychological problems, such as autism. Because the people are hired for this purpose, and because it is trainings ground for them, a wage is not obliged. Yet, in our opinion a small compensation is good for the workers and will motivate

30 | P a g e

them. We think a wage of €4 per hour is reasonable. For the terrace, about three people are needed for serving the meals and drinks and about two people for the kitchen. Furthermore, a supervisor will be hired to watch over the workers. This person will earn €12 per hour, because he is a ‘normal’ employee and because he bears the responsibility for the other workers. We can now calculate the daily and yearly wage costs, assuming an 8h workday. This is shown in figure XX.

Figure 19 – calculation of the yearly wage costsYearly wage costs

Number needed: Costs per day (8 hrs):Daily costs: Disabled workers: € 4 /hour 5 € 160

Normal workers: € 12 /hour 1 € 96+

Total wage costs for one day: € 256

The terrace will be open for 100 days per year. Yearly wage costs: € 25.600

Source: made by ourselves

The yearly wage costs are € 25.600.

§ 4.2.3.2 Cost of goods soldIn order to find out the cost of goods sold, an estimation needs to be made about how much is sold every day. To keep our calculations simple, we assume that only ‘drinks’ (soda) and pancakes can be bought. We asked in our questionnaire what people considered to be a reasonable price for a drink and for a pancake. On average, people considered € 1,70 to be a reasonable price for a drink and € 4,27 for a pancake (see appendix A). As mentioned before, people would spend on average € 12,50. This is roughly equal to two drinks and two pancakes. We will therefore assume that the average customer buys two drinks and two pancakes. As already calculated, around 309 visitors can be expected per day. So we need:

Drinks per day :309×2=618drinks

Pancakes per day : 309×2=618 pancakes

Now, the cost of one drink and one pancake need to be found out. Looking in the catalogue of ‘Makro’, a wholesale in the Netherlands, it can be seen that 12 bottles of coke are sold for € 13,79. The bottles are 1,5 litre, so € 13,79 is paid for 18 litre of coke. If we assume that a glass of coke contains 33 centilitre of coke, we can calculate the costs of one glass of coke:

Cost of one glass of coke=13,7918×3

=€ 0,26

31 | P a g e

Because it is hard to find exactly the cost of one pancake (different ingredients), we will estimate this cost on € 1, for a big pancake with several different options of ingredients to put on the pancake.

Now we can calculate the total cost of goods sold on one working day:Cost of goods sold onone working day=(618×€ 0,26 )+(618×€ 1 )=€ 778,68

Next, we calculate the yearly cost of goods sold, the terrace will be opened for 100 days:

Yearly cost of goods sold=778,68×100=€ 77868

Figure 20 gives a short summary of these calculations.

Figure 20 – Yearly cost of goods soldYearly cost of goods soldEstimated cost of one glass of coke: 0,26€ Estimated cost of onepancake: 1,00€ (it is estimated that everyday 608 drinks and pancakes

will be sold)

Total estimated cost of goods sold per day: 766,08€

Total estimated yearly COGS (100 days): 76.608,00€ Source: made by ourselves

§ 4.2.4 ProfitabilityWe have now estimated the yearly revenues of the terrace and the yearly costs for running it, both based on the questionnaires. Now we can see if the terrace is going to be profitable and feasible. This is done in figure 21.

Figure 21 – Profitability of the terraceProfitabilityYearly estimated revenues: 386.181,40€ Yearly estimated cost of goods sold: 76.608,00€ Yearly estimated wage costs: € 25.600

-Yearly estimated profit: 283.973,40€

Source: made by ourselves

The initiative of starting a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve seems quite profitable.

§ 4.2.5 Payback periodThe last component in our financial analysis, an important model for a project, is the payback period. Before, we first estimated the upfront cost and next we estimated the yearly profit, or cash flows. Now

32 | P a g e

we can calculate the payback period. In figure XX, the initial investment and expected cash flows are projected, as calculated before.

Figure 22 – initial investment and expected cash flowsInitial investment: 19.890,74€ Expected yearly cash flow: 283.973,40€ expected daily cash flow: 2.839,73€

Source: made by ourselves

Normally, the payback period is calculated in years. In our case however, this period is so small that we chose to calculate it in days. The formula to calculate the payback period is as follows:

Payback period= Investmentannual(daily∈our case)cashsavings

=19890,742839,73

=7,004days

This is equal to about 0,070 years. Indeed, the terrace is opened for 100 days and 0,070 times 100 is about 7 days. To make it graphically clear, in figure XX, the table of the payback period is shown and in figure XX the graph of the payback period is shown.

Figure 23 – Table payback periodPayback period

Cash flow Cum. Cash flowDay 0 -19.890,74€ -19.890,74€ Day 1 2.839,73€ -17.051,01€ Day 2 2.839,73€ -14.211,27€ Day 3 2.839,73€ -11.371,54€ Day 4 2.839,73€ -8.531,80€ Day 5 2.839,73€ -5.692,07€ Day 6 2.839,73€ -2.852,34€ Day 7 2.839,73€ -12,60€ Day 8 2.839,73€ 2.827,13€ Day 9 2.839,73€ 5.666,87€ Day 10 2.839,73€ 8.506,60€ Payback period = 7.004 days

Source: made by ourselves

33 | P a g e

Figure 24 – Graph of the payback period

€ -25.000,00

€ -20.000,00

€ -15.000,00

€ -10.000,00

€ -5.000,00

€ -

€ 5.000,00

€ 10.000,00

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cum. Cash flow

Cum. Cash flow

Source: made by ourselves

34 | P a g e

5 Concluding chapter

§ 5.1 ConclusionOut of this project report and the results of the questionnaire we can conclude that a terrace, both from a marketing point of view and an financial point of view can be realized on Zarah’s Hoeve. The more elderly people have a very high interest in a terrace on Zarah’s Hoeve, as can be concluded from our marketing research. Despite the high costs in the beginning of setting up a terrace, the terrace will generate a high yearly profit. Of course, the main goal of the terrace was to help people with psychological problems, but we think the terrace could be the main source of income for Bep and we will let it to her to decide what she will do. Because of the high interest and the favourable environment of Lepelstraat to set up a terrace, we think that this project is going to be highly profitable.

§ 5.2 RecommendationsWe will give now a few recommendations:

Because of this high interest in a terrace Bep has to anticipate on large numbers of customers. We think that only letting the mentally disabled people and a few employees work on the terrace will not be sufficient, because the work on the terrace is going to be busy.

Focus on the people who are recreating. They will be the most profitable ones.

§ 5.3 LimitationsIt is important to mention a few limitations we have faced in our attempt to make an accurate prediction of the revenues:

For a terrace, seasonal factors need to be considered. Especially concerning the number of recreants passing the place this is of major importance. In the months of the summer holidays, there will be considerably more recreants willing to sit on the terrace than in the other months. However, because our research was bound to the time period of this project, we were forced to do our research in the month April (if we would do it later, we would not have time left to process the data). This gives us an unilateral view, because we only know the data of one month, while in the summer months it might be busier.

35 | P a g e

Due to a limited time we could spend on the project (because of other courses), we could not sit at Zarah’s Hoeve everyday to count people. Also because of a long travelling distance (two hours one way) this was impossible. Therefore we had to pick three days.

We did not have access to the financial statements of Zarah’s Hoeve. Because the questionnaire was in Bep’s opinion not appropriate to show to the people, we

had to ask the questions orally. This might be a reason for people to be not strictly fair and give more positive answers in order to be ‘nice’ to us.

36 | P a g e

References

Kotler, P. (2009). Marketing management K. L. Keller, M. Brady, M. Goodman, T. Hansen, (Ed.). Essex: Pearson education

Pinto, J. K. (2007). Project management. Achieving competitive advantage. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson education

37 | P a g e

Appendix A – Results questionnaire

38 | P a g e

survey resultsRespondent 1 2 3 4 5

Gender: male female male male maleAge: 68 60 40 83 57

1. Would you sit here on a terrace if you passed by this place? yes yes no no yes2. If so, how many times a week would you like to sit here? 3 1 73. Are you interested in food, drinks or both? drinks drinks both4. With what reason are you passing this place right now? hiking shopping shopping hikingget the youth bus5. Do you go to similar terraces here in the neighbourhood. If so, which ones? no yes yes no Yes6. Do you think this is a suitable place to start a terrace? (on scale 1 - 7) 5 5 4 6,5 17. How many would you be willing to spend on a terrace here? 4,00€ 12,50€ 10,00€ 5,00€ 7,00€ 8. What is, in your opinion, a reasonable price for a drink? 1,50€ 1,50€ 1,50€ 2,00€ 1,50€ 8. What is, in your opinion, a reasonable price for a pancake? 4,50€ 7,50€ 4,00€ 5,00€ 2,50€ 10. Do you think it is realistic to start a terrace here? (on scale 1 - 7) 6 6 4 5,5 7

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17male male male female male female female female female female female female

55 74 85 40 46 52 44 44 46 57 53 53

yes yes yes yes no yes yes no no yes yes yes1 2 3 1 7 1 1 2 1

both drinks both both both both both both drinksbiking with dog hiking bikingdog walkingbiking to steenbergenfrom cemeterykids to schoolwork to house bikinginhabitantkids from school course

Yes no no yes no yes yes yes no yes yes no7 7 6 6 6 4 5 5 2 7 7 7

25,00€ 5,00€ 7,50€ 50,00€ 5,00€ 10,00€ 25,00€ 12,50€ 15,00€ 10,00€ 5,00€ 1,50€ 1,75€ 1,75€ 1,50€ 1,50€ 1,50€ 2,00€ 1,50€ 1,30€ 2,00€ 1,70€ 2,00€ 5,00€ 3,75€ 5,60€ 7,50€ 3,50€ 1,50€ 7,00€ 3,00€ 5,00€ 5,00€ 4,50€

7 6 6 4,5 6 4 5 6 2 3 7 7

39 | P a g e

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29female male male female male female female female female female female female

13 18 68 15 40 47 70 50 61 80 56 65

no yes yes no yes yes no yes no yes yes no2 1 2 0 1 1 0,25

both both both drinks drinks both drinksschool runninghiking with dog school biking shopping shoppingbiking, hiking shopping familyshopkeeper in Lepelstraatto a friend

yes yes no yes yes no yes no yes no no no5 4 5,5 5 7 2 5 6 4 5 1 6

6,00€ 10,00€ 5,00€ 10,00€ 25,00€ 5,00€ 4,00€ 5,00€ 5,00€ 7,00€ 10,00€ 10,00€ 1,60€ 1,75€ 1,50€ 1,30€ 1,95€ 1,50€ 1,00€ 1,75€ 2,00€ 2,50€ 1,75€ 1,00€ 2,00€ 3,00€ 2,00€ 3,00€ 6,00€ 7,50€ 5,00€ 7,00€ 4,00€ 5,00€

6 4 6 5,5 4,5 2 5 7 2 5 1 5

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43female female female female female male male female male female female female female female

72 65 49 16 67 62 23 50 18 67 35 61 19 16

no yes yes yes no yes no yes no yes no yes no yes1 1 2 1 0,25 1 1 3

both drinks both drinks both drinks both drinksbikingasparagus farmerto parentsschool to house to house biking workshopping in Halsteren fitnessShopping in Halsterenkids from schoolgetting bike from daughtherBiking home from Bergenback from internship

no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes7 6 7 7 4 7 5 4,5 3 7 5 7 4 6

5,00€ 9,00€ 3,00€ 10,00€ 8,00€ 15,00€ 25,00€ 10,00€ 50,00€ 5,00€ 15,00€ 20,00€ 10,00€ 30,00€ 1,75€ 1,90€ 1,50€ 2,00€ 2,00€ 2,00€ 1,75€ 1,75€ 1,80€ 1,50€ 2,00€ 1,75€ 2,00€ 1,80€ 4,00€ 5,50€ 3,00€ 4,00€ 4,50€ 3,00€ 4,00€ 1,50€ 2,00€ 4,50€ 4,00€ 2,75€

6 6 7 5 3 4 3 3 4 7 6 6 2 6

Appendix B – Questionnaire

Age: Gender:

1. Would you sit here on a terrace if you passed by this place?

Yes / No

2. If so, how many times a week would you like to sit here?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (a week)

3. Are you interested in food, drinks or both?

4. With what reason are you passing by this place right now?

5. Do you go to similar terrace here in the neighbourhood? If so, which ones?

6. Do you think this would be a suitable place to start a terrace? (on scale 1-7)

Not suitable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very suitable

7. How many would you be willing to spend on a terrace here?

8. What is, in your opinion, a reasonable price for a drink?

9. What is, in your opinion, a reasonable price for a pancake?

10. Do you think it is realistic to start a terrace here? (on scale 1-7)

No, not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Yes, very realistic

40 | P a g e