Client study · Service research · Visitor insight
Cemetery visitor experience and service modernisation
How could two historic cemeteries in Porto, Agramonte and Prado Repouso, better meet the needs of the people who use them? I worked as the academic research consultant: I developed the questionnaires, advised on how to organise the study, and carried out the analysis and the visuals.
The commissioning body is withheld.
The study
Two sites, one questionnaire.
The project examined visitor journeys, service interactions, wayfinding, accessibility, physical conditions and possible improvements.
Locations approximate. Boundaries: official administrative boundaries of the parishes of Porto and neighbouring municipalities (Direção-Geral do Território, CAOP).
My role
I acted as academic research consultant. I developed the questionnaires and advised on how to organise the study and its data collection. I then carried out the analysis and produced the visuals, connecting the research design with practical interpretation and reporting. Interviewers hired for the project did the fieldwork on site.
Approach
225 personal interviews with visitors, held over weekends: 153 at Agramonte and 72 at Prado Repouso. The survey combined visitor characteristics and visit patterns with service-use questions, ratings, accessibility questions and open suggestions. The analysis compared the two sites and visitor groups, mainly family visitors and tourists.
Visitors
Different visitors, different journeys.
Visitor experience depended on who was visiting and why, so a single visitor profile was not enough for planning services.
Who visits
Visitor type at each cemetery
First visit
Share of first-time visitors
Why people come
Visiting a loved one and cleaning the grave were the main reasons at both sites. Agramonte also drew many people for its architecture, art and landscape. Those reasons were rare at Prado Repouso.
Reasons for visiting
Number of respondents giving each reason
Services and wayfinding
Useful information has to reach visitors.
The analysis separated access to information from its usefulness, and overall ratings from group-specific difficulties.
Staff contact
Share who used each staff service, Agramonte
Wayfinding
Share who noticed each element on site
Information reach was limited
Only 10% of respondents had accessed online information (21 of 208 recorded answers) and 5% a printed map (11 of 202). Among those who had, 19 of 21 found the online information quite or extremely useful, and 10 of 11 the map. Low reach could therefore sit alongside useful content, although these are small groups.
Pathways divided opinion
Low satisfaction with pathways (a score of 1 or 2 out of 4) was reported by 38% of family visitors and 17% of tourists at Agramonte, and by 3% of family visitors at Prado Repouso. Prado Repouso tourists are left out, with only seven responses.
Safety and access
Where security and access mattered most.
Family visitors were asked about safety. All tourists reported no negative experience.
The most common experiences were theft (3% and 9%), then vandalism and personal attack at Prado Repouso. Percentages are of family visitors, n=72 and n=61.
Safety measures
What would increase the feeling of safety (up to two options)
Visitors who cannot come
9 of 152 respondents at Agramonte (6%) and 5 of 72 at Prado Repouso (7%) knew someone who would like to visit but could not, because of physical or mobility limits. The barriers named were the distance between services inside the cemetery (6 mentions), lack of ramps (4), secure storage (3) and other (1).
A gap the interviews cannot fill
People who cannot visit are not in an on-site sample, so their barriers can only be inferred. The study recommends complementing the interviews with research among them.
What visitors asked for
Practical improvements ranked above amenities.
Visitors rated how important each of 17 possible additions would be, from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important).
Importance ratings
Family visitors at Agramonte and Prado Repouso
Not important234
Very important
In their own words
Open suggestions by theme, number of respondents
Limits
What the evidence does not show.
Stated up front, so the findings are read as a map of priorities, not as proof of effects.
- This page uses the quantitative visitor survey only. Weekend on-site interviews capture the people present at the sites, not everyone who might wish to visit.
- Comparisons between sites and visitor groups are descriptive. No significance tests or causal effects are claimed.
- Some groups are small, such as tourists at Prado Repouso (7) and the people who rated online information (21). They do not represent all visitors.
- The study points to directions for modernisation. It does not claim that any change was implemented.
Where it sits in the method: Stage 03 · Collect the data · Stage 04 · Analyse · Stage 05 · Deliver