Beach Use & Carrying Capacity on the Gold Coast

Transcription

1 Beach Use & Carrying Capacity on the Gold Coast Peta Williams B. Env. Sc. Science, Engineering, Environment and Technology Griffith School of Engineering Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Masters of Philosophy. May 2009

2 Abstract Over the years many studies have been completed on the carrying capacity of specific recreational activities. These studies generally focus on the factors and interactions that are limiting the growth of an area and what barriers need to be removed to allow for this growth. This study looks specifically at the perception of carrying capacity of Gold Coast beaches and the way in which they are used by tourists and locals. For the purpose of this study the definition of Beach Carrying Capacity is the perceived number of people that can fit comfortably on a beach, including the surf zone, before adversely affecting an individual person s beach recreation experience and/or the surrounding environment. Beach usage encompasses all activities participated along any adjacent infrastructure including parks and oceanway, sandy beach and surf zone areas including swimming, surfing, walking, sunbaking and picnicking. During the research period a short questionnaire was produced and applied to a range of people along various Gold Coast beaches and within Griffith University. The questionnaire looked at what people used the beach for and how they perceived the crowding on the beaches. Results showed that the carrying capacity on Gold Coast beaches, by the survey respondents perceptions, has already been reached on some of the Gold Coast s most popular beaches. The study then looked at and compared the results from the Portugal study (da Silva, 2002) to those obtained on the Gold Coast. Results showed that the survey data collected from the two locations does not differ greatly. Perceptions of beach carrying capacity and the general activities people used the beach for were uniform in both study locations. This study highlights the importance of beach monitoring as it allows us to determine what people are using the beach for and how they would like them to be used. The information obtained about how people are using the beaches BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 2

3 will provide valuable data to coastal councils and coastal management authorities to help future beach planning and management. Recommendations are made to enhance and continue future beach monitoring research with the use of current beach camera technology such as CoastalCOMS. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 3

4

5 Contents Abstract 2 Statement 4 List of Figures 8 List of Tables 9 List of Appendices 9 Abbreviations 10 Acknowledgements 11 List of Publications Introduction What is Carrying Capacity? Concepts Used to Measure Carrying Capacity Physical Social Ecological Concepts in Research Reasons for Studying Carrying Capacity Carrying Capacity & Coastal Zone Management Carrying Capacity Research on Beaches Recent Studies Setting the Scene Sustainability and Public Participation Research Aims Study Area: Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia History of the Gold Coast The Coastal System Cyclone Events on the Gold Coast Development Pressure Development Responsibilities Responsibility for the Coast Past Responses to Erosion 39 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 5

6 2.6 Current Management Response Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy (NGCBPS) Palm Beach Protection Strategy (PBPS) Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project (TRESBP) Conclusion Gold Coast Survey Area Data Collection Questionnaire Participant Selection Controls Ethical Considerations Perception of Beaches Questionnaire Portugal, Introduction Survey Demographics Results and Discussion Conclusion Gold Coast, Introduction Survey Demographics Statistical Analysis Limitations Gold Coast, April Introduction Survey Demographics Statistical Analysis Limitations Results and Discussion Gold Coast Beaches Beach Use 65 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 6

7 4.5.2 Perceptions of Carrying Capacity Portugal vs. Gold Coast Beach Use Perceptions of Carrying Capacity Conclusion Implications for Future Management Future Analysis ARGUS Cameras CoastalCOMS Overall Findings References Appendix 87 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 7

8 List of Figures 1.0 LAC Planning System The limits of social carrying capacity tourist-resident interactions at various stages of social carrying capacity Map of the Gold Coast study area Structural damaged caused by cyclonic activity Mermaid Boulder wall construction behind the beach at Seashell Avenue street end, Mermaid Beach Beach survey locations Portugal study area - Sines Portugal study area - Sines Portugal study area Porto Covo Results of the number of Portuguese beachgoers at the beach Photos presented to participants in questionnaire Results of the most attractive beach to Portuguese participants Results of the least attractive beach to Portuguese participants Gold Coast study area Rainbow Bay Gold Coast study area Burleigh Heads Results for the number of visits to the beach by Gold Coast Results of the time spent at the beach by Gold Coast participants Results of the number of Gold Coast beachgoers at the beach Results of the most attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Comparison 2004/05 and 2006 results of the most attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Results of the least attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Comparison 2004/05 and 2006 results of the least attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the most attractive beach Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the least attractive beach Results of beach use activities by Gold Coast participants 75 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 8

9 26.0 Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of beach use activities Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the number of beachgoers present at the beach Rainbow Bay web camera picture Image showing areas (rectangles) that have been classified as a person object 80 List of Tables 1.0 Main characteristics of the beaches T-test results for most attractive beach Statistical results for most attractive beach results Statistical results for most attractive beach results T-test results for least attractive beach Statistical results for least attractive beach results Statistical results for least attractive beach results List of Appendices 1.0 Adapted Queensland Survey on Beach Perception Queensland Beach Use and Perception Survey Questionnaire information sheet Portugal Survey Survey Data SPSS Data 85 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 9

10 Abbreviations EPA Environmental Protection Authority GCCC Gold Coast City Council GCCM Griffith Centre for Coastal Management NGCBPS Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy PBPS Palm Beach Protection Strategy TRESBP Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 10

11 Acknowledgements I am thankful to a great number of people for making this project possible. Firstly I would like to thank my primary supervisor Associate Professor Charles Lemckert and associate supervisor Dr Nick Cartwright for all their help and advice. Special thanks to Ryan Dunn and all the Griffith students who helped conduct the research on the beach. Thank you to Carlos Pierra Da Silva for the use of his research and his hospitality while I was in Portugal. Thanks also to the participants in the study, for so willingly giving up their time to take part. Finally, I would like to thank Elaine Williams for spending every weekend in April 2006 walking up and down the beach and encouraging me to just do the best I can do. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 11

12 List of Publications WILLIAMS, P. AND LEMCKERT, C., Beach Carrying Capacity: Has it been exceeded on the Gold Coast? Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50 (Proceedings of the 9 th International Coastal Symposium), Gold Coast, Australia. List of Conference Papers WILLIAMS, P. AND LEMCKERT, C., Gold Coast Beach Use and Carrying Capacity. The Second International Conference on the Management of Coastal Recreational Resources, October, 2006, Gozo, Malta. WILLIAMS, P., TUXWORTH, G., AND LANE, C., Monitoring Beach Usage on Gold Coast Beaches: Is it beneficial? The Inaugural Queensland Coastal Conference, September, 2007, Bundaberg, Qld. WILLIAMS, P., TUXWORTH, G., AN LANE, C., Monitoring Beach Usage on NSW Beaches: Is it beneficial? The 16 th NSW Coastal Conference, 7-9 November, 2007, Yamba, NSW. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 12

13 1.0 Introduction The beach has long occupied a special place in the Australian identity. Summer for most Australians means one thing above all, the beach. People primarily use beaches for fun and recreation but it also occupies a place in almost everyone's lives, with most of the Australian population actually living near the ocean (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005). The Carrying Capacity of beaches is a term used often for the measurement of how many people can fit comfortably on a beach (i.e. not invading one s personal space). It is a fundamental concept in natural resources and environmental management referring to the ultimate limits to growth as constrained by environmental factors (Manning, 1999). Studies on the carrying capacity of beaches have been conducted over the years but little work has focused on Australian beaches, its uses, and its importance in beach management. Australian beaches are not just important to the Australian people for relaxation and recreation but they are a highly valuable tourist resource and therefore important to the Australian economy. Determining their carrying capacity is an essential factor for their sensible use and management. Monitoring beach usage, whether it be via cameras or visual counting, is necessary for providing data to help predict future beach needs. Beach monitoring allows us to determine what people are using the beach for and how they would like them to be used. For example, are they walking on the beach, sunbathing, or entering the water? The information obtained about how people are using the beaches will provide valuable data to coastal councils and coastal management authorities to help future beach planning and management. It will also be useful for surf lifesaving organisations and local lifeguards This thesis will examine the carrying capacity of Gold Coast beaches as obtained through surveys. The study also looks at how the beaches are used BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 13

14 and viewed by beachgoers. Queensland is Australia s fastest growing State with the Gold Coast remaining one of its key growth regions. The Gold Coast population is expected to increase by more than 50% in the next 30 years, between 724,100 and 867,200 by 2031 (Rohlin, 2009). This research will provide new knowledge on the current management and usage of the Gold Coast Beaches. Determining the usage and the perceptions of the users on the current carrying capacity of the beaches better management and development programs can be established to deal with the arising issues of population growth. The thesis will first present a literature review, concluding with the research aims in Chapter 1. Methodology and survey area details are discussed in Chapter 3. Finally the survey results and outcomes of the research will be summarised in Chapters What is Carrying Capacity? Traditionally, the concept of carrying capacity is referred to the number of animals and people that can use a resource without causing undesirable impacts. It was first applied to wildlife and land management to determine the maximum population density, which could be supported in a given area without causing degradation to the natural environment (Wilks, 1993). The rather basic view of the carrying capacity concept misled many natural resource managers into believing that the population threshold at which problems arise can unmistakably be identified on a biological basis (Wilks, 1993). Most resources have a variety of capacities, depending on exactly how the concept of carrying capacity is defined (Shelby, 1986). The capacities used to define the concept may include the type, duration and intensity of activity, the time of year, the behaviour and attitudes of resource users, the stability of soils and vegetation, and the level and type of management (Wilks, 1993). There are also many types of capacity that focus on different types of impacts social, cultural, perceptual, ecological and physical (Shelby, 1986). BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 14

15 Problems have arisen from attempts to apply a biologically based framework to resolve resource management problems, which have much broader dimensions. Research has revealed that complex relationships exist between use levels and ecological and other impacts. Reductions in resource uses may not result in reductions in impacts. Limitations on use may therefore not be the appropriate solution to particular resource management issues. Use of the carrying capacity approach may therefore obscure a much broader set of management issues that need to be addressed (Wilks, 1993). However, the notion that indicators of resource use limits can be used to address management problems means that interest in the concept remains high. As part of a strategic management approach, it provides a useful conceptual framework in which to analyse alternative resource uses and their biophysical and socio-economic impacts. Another strength of the concept is its value in making communities aware of the issues. In some cases it can indicate cases in which improved resource management is required and it can point to the risk of irreversible damage to resources (Wilks, 1993). Present-day use of the carrying capacity term can be applied to the sustainability of the coastal tourism industry. It has also been applied to many other resources, both natural and man-made. According to Clark (1996), the carrying capacity in a beach environment can be viewed in two different aspects. In one sense, carrying capacity is the limitations on the number of people who can use the area at any given time for different purposes. On the other hand, carrying capacity refers to a certain threshold of people activity beyond which damage to the environment will occur (Clark, 1996). According to da Silva (2002) beach carrying capacity is the maximum level of recreational use, in terms of numbers and activities, above which there is a decline in the overall enjoyable experience by the user or participant. This could be classed as a traditional definition which is similar to those definitions used by most researchers with the exception of Trousdale (1997) who states that carrying capacity should not be defined as the maximum number of people a destination can sustain instead it should be defined as how much BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 15

16 and what kind of change is acceptable to both residents and tourists to reduce the impacts per visitor. Overall, carrying capacities, although not yet limited, can be used to set limits protecting a users experience by preventing overcrowding which can cause deterioration of the natural attributes of the area and impede on the users ability to move freely and fully enjoy the natural setting without distraction. Defining a beach s carrying capacity is a complex issue, where consensus is hard to achieve. The literature that exists is inundated by multiple definitions and there has been a considerable shift from the use of the traditional definition to the more contemporary one such as Trousdale (1997). Trousdales (1997) definition could be referred to as the limits of acceptable change approach and it is an effective framework for understanding and resolving resource management issues (Wilks, 1993). Under this approach, the question no longer becomes how much is too much? but is reformulated to how much change is acceptable? Specific attention is directed to management questions. By focusing on the outcomes, which are considered desirable by the public, it is possible to consider questions related to the types of use and the extent of those uses which are compatible with the desired outcome (Wilks, 1993). Based on the principle that change is an unavoidable consequence of resource use, the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework deals with the problems of resource management from the viewpoint of the degree to which change is satisfactory. According to Wilks (1993) it is used to help establish a maximum damage level of a resource that the community is prepared to accept both now and in the future. It is also used to define the maximum level of use that is consistent with the damage level. Traditionally, the LAC framework was applied to wilderness settings, however, there is no reason why it cannot be applied to recreational and non-recreational resource management problems such as in coastal management (Wilks, 1993). BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 16

17 The LAC framework requires a decision on what conditions are acceptable in a particular area and then developing actions or plans to help achieve those desired conditions (Stankey et al., 1985). It places an emphasis on the management of the resource use experience and the resource conditions desired, rather than the number of users. On another level, LAC places the issue of carrying capacity in a prescriptive context, establishing the point at which change becomes unacceptable which would require the views of managers, resource users and the community (Stankey et al., 1985). In order to recognise the community s needs and values, judge the acceptable limits, and define the range of opportunities for which management should be undertaken it is essential that a process of public participation be undertaken. Acceptable limits can also based on management objectives, legislation, policies, and scientific and social research (Wilks, 1993). The nine-step process (Figure 1.0) in the LAC approach emphasises the objectives and flexibility to review management objectives and actions (Wilks, 1993). Although difficulties may be encountered in reaching agreement on the values of a specific site, LAC generally leads to more effective resource management. This is because physical measurement and establishment of ecological and social thresholds and performance standards will be relatively less complicated to quantify and monitor than attempts to assign a capacity figure to a single site. Although the LAC approach is an improvement on the traditional carrying capacity concept, its success depends on acquiring agreement about acceptable ecological and social conditions for the area to be managed from relevant individuals and groups. It also depends on the variety of suitable resource and social indicators that can sufficiently define the desired conditions and ultimately be monitored. According to Wilks (1993) LAC should not be seen as a solution to resource management problems but as a valuable framework within which decisions can be made about acceptable conditions. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 17

18 STEP 9 Implement actions & monitor conditions Monitoring provides feedback on effectiveness of the management actions employed STEP 1 Identify areas concerns & issues Management of an area should reflect area-specific features and values so that the role of the area can be assessed at both regional and national levels STEP 2 Define & describe opportunity classes Opportunity classes represent sub-units, which increase the diversity of the area. These conditions are measured through indicators STEP 3 Select indicators of resource & social conditions STEP 8 Evaluate & select a preferred alternative Responsiveness of alternatives to issues and concerns raised in step 1 and the management requirements of step 7 STEP 4 Inventory resource & social conditions Data recorded and mapped and serve as basis of standards for each indicator in each opportunity class STEP 7 Identify management actions for each alternative Requires an analysis of the various costs and benefits of each alternative, in terms of environ impacts, visitor impacts and administration costs STEP 6 Identify alternative opportunity class allocations reflecting area issues & concerns & existing resource & social conditions STEP 5 Specify standards for the resource & social indicators for each opportunity class Figure 1.0 LAC Planning System (Source: Wilks, 1993, adapted from Stankey et al., 1985) BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 18

19 1.2 Concepts Used to Measure Carrying Capacity As seen in the background research above there has been a variety of carrying capacity concepts used over the last forty years. These have been developed to focus on different types of impact, including social, cultural, perceptual, physical and ecological and the interactions between these impacts. It is recognised that some carrying capacity criteria are measurable while others are not (in any practical sense (Clark, 1996)) Physical Physical carrying capacity is concerned with the amount of actual space one has. A similar example to the one Shelby (1986) used is, if on Queensland beaches, for example, locals and tourists were found to use the beach mainly for sunbaking it is possible to estimate the physical capacity for sunbaking on a given beach by considering the impacts of different numbers of people. If ten people sunbake on Surfers Paradise beach, for example, each person might have a 2 metre 2 space to occupy, but if twenty sunbake there the space per person will be cut in half. If an evaluative standard suggests that each person should have a 2 metre 2 space, then any number over ten exceeds physical capacity. The amount of space in natural areas is fixed. The only opportunity to increase physical carrying capacity lies in management parameters aimed at more complete or efficient utilisation of space. Physical carrying capacity is not limited to the amount of beach space one has to make use of but also the amount of space the surrounding area can provide. This would include the car parking facilities, local shops and restaurants, local transport, walking tracks or footpaths, boat ramps or docks, and beach access points Social Social carrying capacity refers to impacts, which impair or alter human experiences (Figure 2.0). It is the level of use beyond which social impacts BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 19

20 exceed acceptable levels specified by evaluative standards. Impacts focus on the number, type and location of encounters with other human groups, and on the way these human encounters affect the recreation experience. To use an example similar to that of Shelby (1986), a couple looking for a romantic secluded beach to spend the afternoon together on would say that the appropriate number of human encounters is zero and the social capacity is two. However, to establish capacity for an Ironman event on a popular Gold Coast beach would be seen as difficult, as social capacity had traditionally been difficult to determine, primarily due to the difficulty of establishing evaluative standards. Tourism visitation begins to decline Curiosity and friendly interest towards tourists Negative interaction between residents and tourists Generally friendly responses but minor irritations develop and commercialisation of tourism grows Tourists sense unfriendliness Local resentment increases towards visitors as a result of various perceived problems Commercialisation increases in response to growing number of tourists Figure 2.0 The limits of Social Carrying Capacity - Tourist-resident interactions at various stages of social carrying capacity (Source: Clark, 1996) Ecological BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 20

21 Ecological carrying capacity in defined as the amount of stress that an ecosystem can sustain before the ecological value is affected. This is in terms of changing visitor numbers or activities (MacLeod, 2005). Ecological carrying capacity is concerned with impacts on the ecosystem encompassing plants, animals, soil, water, and air quality. Research on ecological capacity in a recreation setting has concerned these types of impacts on the natural environment. Examples of ecological impacts include the percent of viable ground cover, ratios of various plant species, number of animals observed, and coliform counts (Shelby, 1986). 1.3 Concepts in Research Trousdales (1997) Boracay Islands report separated carrying capacity into five major parameters with sixteen parameter indicators: physical (ground water quality, ground water quantitiy, marine water quality, land sewage, solid waste), tourist perception (beach crowding, general perceptions), resident perception (general perceptions), transport (air access, boat, roads, vehicles), and governance (LGU, DOT, Regional Government). Based on these concepts, 40% of the indicators analysed in the Boracay Islands had exceeded its carrying capacity and 44% were demonstrating trends that were unsustainable. A carrying capacity analysis carried out in the Florida Keys also focused on three of the five concepts: social, physical, and ecological. They stated that each of these concepts had an associated threshold that was found to be documented in scientific literature, required by government legislation, or had been identified as a threshold indicating a decline in the quality of life (FKCCS, 1996). Of the carrying capacity studies completed in Portugal, Mira and Gomes (2002) focused on physical carrying capacity as the number of individuals an area can physically accommodate based on geology, morphology, surface sediment, tidal range, and infrastructure. Da Silva (2002) also focused on the physical carrying capacity but additionally looked at social carrying capacity BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 21

22 as being the concentration of individuals above which users become uncomfortable giving the perception of being overcrowded. The social research work completed in this study included people s perception of the area and some cultural issues as well, creating a link between some of the traditional concepts. Carrying capacity is very difficult to measure accurately due to the innumerable variables that affect population sustainability in certain environments. To get a most accurate estimate it is best to focus on one variable that has had a noticeable effect. Measure the presence of that variable as it already exists and use a model to measure to what extent that variable can exist while sustaining a healthy population within that environment (Shelby, 1986). It is important to also take into account behavioural aspects of the sample population being studied. 1.4 Reasons for Studying Carrying Capacity The concept of carrying capacity has become a major issue and concern for resource managers. Finding a balance between humans and nature is becoming more and more of a challenge, with humans being the dominant force. In today s society, with increased modes of transportation, mobility has been a major contributor in influencing the tourism industry and the way the locals use the beach. There is an urge to characterise, understand and minimise the impact caused by beach use, not only to protect the natural environment but also to promote quality among beach users (Mira and Gomes, 2002). There is an additional need to understand the differences between the carrying capacity concepts and how to link and integrate them within coastal management plans. Understanding carrying capacity is an important tool for growth management (Trousdale, 1997). As a planning tool, carrying capacity provides a useful conceptual framework within which managers can analyse use and impact issues, especially the BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 22

23 interaction between they types and levels of human activity and the environment. The concept may be used as an early warning system, to identify the point at which continued use of a resource will lead to its degradation and other problems affecting the resource s ability to sustain use and user satisfaction. It can also be used to identify improvements needed in resource management if the resource is to absorb the anticipated growth (Wilks, 1993). One of the key advantages of the concept is that it helps resource managers to think in a structured way about resource problems, in terms of use, users, activities, experiences, and ecological constraints. It is also a valuable community education and awareness tool (Wilks, 1993). 1.5 Carrying Capacity & Coastal Zone Management There is extensive literature on the application of the carrying capacity concept in regards to recreational and tourism management issues (Wilks, 1993). Most carrying capacity studies focus on the many factors and interactions that operate to limit continued growth and change. This is mainly due to the difficulty of carrying capacity estimates for broad-scale coastal zone management issues. Possible limiting factors can be identified in coastal zone management, but rarely can any one specific factor lead to the obligation of use limits. The lack of carrying capacity estimates may also be attributed to economic and political objections to growth limits, particularly when a coastal community has a strong reliance on tourism and development. According to Wilks (1993), the carrying capacity concept is applied to the management of coastal zone resources in three ways: To examine factors affecting the carrying capacity for specific coastal park and recreation areas and for planning the intensity of tourism activity at those sites; o This was originally developed for wilderness areas particularly in the United States. It has provided useful management BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 23

24 information about visitor experiences and perceptions of social impacts caused by crowding and regulations. It has also been used as the basis for the development of special purpose management policies such as zoning schemes. To investigate the ecological carrying capacity of coastal resources to support fishing and aquaculture activities; o This transfers the carrying capacity concept from the wilderness management areas to aquatic management areas. Would generally be used in an attempt to estimate the maximum production of a measured marine area. Could also be used to calculate the amount of coastline suitable for and available for aquaculture activities. To predict general growth limits for coastal areas experiencing development or tourism pressure. o This relates to general land use planning. Planning projects that use the carrying capacity concept are generally concerned with developing land use controls or providing regions with estimates of population limits at which the immediate environment including air quality and water quality begin to degrade to an unacceptable level. For each strategy put into place, appropriate biophysical, social and managerial conditions and the limits of acceptable change resulting from the resource need to be considered. Policies and actions must also be outlined in order to bring about the proposed change from the existing state to the desired one. These conditions and limits of acceptable change must be calculated to make continued monitoring and evaluation of the condition of desired resource attributes possible. 1.6 Carrying Capacity Research on Beaches Past Case Studies Limited research has been done on carrying capacity in relation to beaches and its uses. A small number of Governments around the world have commissioned inquiries into beach or coastal carrying capacity specifically for BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 24

25 tourism purposes. Some of these inquiries include Resource Assessment Commission Australia 1993 (Wilks, 1993), Florida Keys 1996 (FKCCS, 1996), Boracay Island Philippines 1997 (Trousdale, 1997), and County of Santa Barbara California 2000 (CoSB, 2000). Other beach carrying capacity research has been completed in Portugal in In previous studies, no research has been undertaken to find out why the population locals or tourists attend a particular beach and what they use it for. Most carrying capacity studies focus on the many factors and interactions that operate to limit continued growth and change. This research will aim to look at not only the carrying capacity of Gold Coast beaches but also what they are used for and how their uses can be managed to keep human activity under control. In 2000, Santa Barbara County Parks and Planning & Development began the process to incorporate the Environmental Carrying Capacity study undertaken in 1998 for Goleta Beach into their Local Coastal Program. The efforts to complete the Carrying Capacity Study and Management Plan for Goleta Beach Park were mandated by a Coastal Land Use Plan Policy (CoSB, 2000). This policy contemplated the adoption and implementation of a recreation management plan to protect environmentally sensitive habitat areas; the policy required a determination of the carrying capacity of the habitat and a plan to balance the recreational uses with that capacity. Further, when the Board considered the management plan, the Board had to determine whether the plan as a whole was adequate in meeting Coastal Plan objectives. As part of that analysis, the Board had to consider the feasibility of implementing and enforcing the proposed plan. An initial study was performed on the draft plan to determine whether a negative declaration or environmental impact report was required for the plan. Given that the study addressed controversial issues such as endangered species at the Beach Park, dog leash requirements and enforcement, Jet Ski use, dredging of Goleta Slough and set out a management plan for these activities, it was possible that the Carrying Capacity Study could require an environmental impact assessment. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 25

26 Recommendations have been developed from the initial carrying capacity study in order to enhance the park users experience while providing for an increased level of protection to biological resources of the park. The carrying capacity study concluded that the key to sustaining the full variety of plants and animals in the park was to reduce, minimise, or rectify threats that placed ecological communities and species in jeopardy (CoSB, 1998). Additionally, committed personnel together with good facility design that directs visitors to planned-use areas, and deters heavy use of sensitive areas, are essential to protecting the biologic resources of the park. The recommendations offered are both general in nature and site-specific, based on observations of land use patterns and activities in the park and adjacent areas. Recommendations were also provided to reduce impacts for future proposed development activities within the park. The control of activities that adversely affect biological resources currently relies upon restricting or modifying the behaviour of park users through the use of interpretive and regulatory signs and placement of facilities. They also concluded the most important challenge facing the parks department was to change a perceived restriction into a valued experience so that people derive satisfaction from protecting resources of the park (CoSB, 1998). Bonaire Marine Park is one of five islands making up the Netherlands Antilles just off the Venezuelan coast. In 1991 a study was undertaken by the World Bank to determine the carrying capacity limits of the Bonaire Marine Park and its dive sites. With existing concern over the possible degradation of sites due to heavy recreational diving, the study addressed, among other things, the impacts of recreational use (Clark, 1996). With a steady increase in the number of divers visiting the island, the Bonaire Marine Park Authority, which has been managing all of Bonaire's inshore waters since the early 1980s, was increasingly concerned about the long term sustainability of the industry and its impacts on reefs. The study compared biodiversity at sites of varying "diver intensity" indicated that the percentage coral cover was significantly lower at the heavily dived sites compared to non-dived sites. The study also showed that there seems to be a critical level of site visitation (5000 dives per year) beyond which impact becomes significant and unacceptable. With 86 dive BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 26

27 sites around the island the total carrying capacity for Bonaire was estimated at 387,000 dives per day, but due to differing site popularity a conservative estimate of 200,000 was set (Clark, 1996). The policies adopted by the Bonaire Island Government are a good example of the significance to limit growth of the tourism industry, with particular reference to limiting the impacts of recreational use in the marine environment (Clark, 1996). Many of the studies dealing with carrying capacity have dealt with wilderness or backcountry regions. There have been limited studies that examine high density use areas, such as the beach. Confer (1993) examined the perceived crowding on the beach, suggesting that different types of beaches may attract users with different attitudes about crowding. Confer (1993) conducted a survey with a variety of questions that addressed the users attitudes and opinions on crowding satisfaction as well as their reasons for visiting that particular beach. Confer (1993) found that these people fit into the traditional definition of crowding where low crowding levels increased enjoyment and high levels of perceived crowding decreased enjoyment. This conclusion suggests an importance for carrying capacity determination and visitor impact management. More specifically, da Silva s (2002) work aimed at the development and improvement of beach carrying capacity measurement techniques on several beaches of the Sines Municipality, Portugal. Da Silva (2002) specifically explored the concepts of physical and social carrying capacity. Two diverse methods of data collection were used. Measurements on georeferenced digitised aerial photography were used for the physical carrying capacity evaluation. For the social carrying capacity, several user counts, video images and personal interviews were conducted at the five different beaches, exploring landscape perception, landscape evaluation, and behaviour. Da Silva s (2002) beach user survey (Appendix 4) focused on the users perceptions of the beach, to determine the likes and dislikes of that particular BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 27

28 beach and their expectations for the future of the beaches. Da Silva (2002) didn t determine whether the users were locals or tourists, what they were there to do and what made them decide to attend that particular beach in the first place. Determining the types of users and beach uses are an important factor in determining the carrying capacity of an area. It can aid in the implementation of strategies to help maintain the population and the impacts that it may cause to its surrounding environment. Da Silva s (2002) results enabled the understanding of the fundamental differences between the two carrying capacity types and how to link and integrate them within management plans. The results also illustrated the difficulties in producing a universal carrying capacity formula, which can be applied to any beach unsystematically. In addition to da Silva s (2002) work, Mira and Gomes (2002) research was aimed at beach carrying capacity quantification as a critical parameter for coastal managers. As with da Silva (2002) the research was carried out on several beaches in the Sines Municipality, Portugal. They specifically wanted to understand and control the growth in the beach areas by firstly understanding beach characteristics. Many methods of data collection were adopted including aerial photography, field work, data analysis, and geographic information systems (GIS) integration. The field work undertaken included beach topographic surveys, sediment sampling and accessing roads, restaurants and hotel/camping data. Mira and Gomes (2002) strongly suggested that beach carrying capacity must be monitored continuously especially during peak season using a real time beach management system. This system should be supported by digital web cams and specific computer software and would allow for instant monitoring of actual beach usage according the available beach area. This information should then be crossed with other indicators including restaurant and car park usage. If potential beach users could view these images before they reached BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 28

29 the beach area they could choose the less crowded beach and facilities to minimise their impact. It is particularly important to conduct a beach analysis on the beaches surrounding built up environment. This should include retail shops, restaurants and cafes, toilet facilities, sporting clubs, and especially parking facilities. Both studies completed in Portugal (da Silva, 2002, Mira and Gomes, 2002) concluded that size and availability of the surrounding area adjacent to the actual beach in use could be more important than the total sand area utilisable for recreational purposes. In both cases the limiting factor for the carrying capacity seemed to be the size of the parking area, more than the dimensions of the beach (da Silva, 2002). 1.7 Recent Studies More recent studies relating to the topic of beach carrying capacity have shown that highly accessible beaches, such as those found on the Gold Coast, suffer from the most overcrowding issues concluding that the more available sand on a beach the more satisfied the beach user is. Other parameters such as physical characteristics, landscape and facilities are also highly relevant to beach users (Roca et al, 2008) as are water quality, clean sand, environment quality, safety, number of people, use type, leisure infrastructure, parking and ease of access (Silva et al, 2008). Dwight et al (2007) noted that an analysis of beach visitations would help produce important data that has direct implications for beach management, tourism, public health and the environment. However, more importantly another study by Silva et al (2008) found that in order to maximise user satisfaction and increase the likelihood of repeat visits, coastal managers should be aware that different beach user groups have different views about beach carrying capacity levels. Some users are indifferent to it; however others will avoid visiting a beach if it s perceived to be overcrowded. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 29

30 It is with this that coastal managers are increasingly turning to web-based and real-time beach management systems (Turner, 2007) (See Chapter 5). Remote sensing methods used by researcher to observe and quantify beach and nearshore change are also being used to help managers with the different aspects of recreational beach management, including optimising beach use and beach safety (Jimenez et al, 2007). With continued advances in the technology, the web-based management systems are a useful tool for accessing different information sources using a single portal. 1.8 Setting the Scene The main focus from the work done to date has been in social and physical carrying capacity concepts. To measure social carrying capacity, da Silva (2002) conducted surveys on the beaches in Portugal. 216 surveys were conducted over five of Portugal beaches during two weeks of the peak summer season. To obtain a more accurate beach perception measurement more people need to be surveyed over a longer period of time. Another way of overcoming this problem would be to shorten the survey. This would entice more people to take place in the survey and would also give the researcher more time to interview a greater number of people. The main limitation of the carrying capacity concept is its inability to determine use limits. For this to be achieved beach usage must first be determined. This can be monitored through the use of beach web cameras, beach surveys, and on site observations. To measure physical carrying capacity, many methods were used. In both studies completed in Portugal the method used to measure physical carrying capacity was aerial photography which was conducted over five beaches in Portugal in one day. To obtain a more accurate beach carrying capacity measurement constant monitoring of the beaches needs to be done over a longer period of time. This could be overcome with the use of beach web cameras. This would allow the researcher to monitor the proposed beaches at one time without having to travel to the actual beaches. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 30

31 In addition to the actual beaches physical carrying capacity, Mira and Gomes (2002) and da Silva (2002), looked at the beaches car parking access. Both researchers agreed that car parking facilities played an important role in the measurement of a beaches carrying capacity. Actual beach access points should also be taken into account. This would include car parking facilities but could also look at beach walkways, fencing, and the routes people take when accessing the beach. It is important to look at the controlled areas of a beach to make sure that they are being used to their full potential or whether alternatives should be applied. The main limitation of the carrying capacity concept is its application to determine use limits. The relationship between resource use levels, management and the impacts of use in neither simple or uniform. User limits may be avoided or made more effective by alternative management solutions, such as user education, investment in user facilities, and other strategies designed to enhance the sustainability of resource use. Before these management solutions can be structured and applied, the beach usage and users must be determined for individual locations. This forms the basis for a potential future study on how to determine beach usage and possible carrying capacity involving the method of web cam pictures. The CoastalCOMS system can measure the extent of beach usage by counting the number of people using the beach at any given time (See Section 7.2.1). 1.9 Sustainability and Public Participation The World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (p.8) defined sustainability as, development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Increasingly, this definition has been interpolated, and incorporated into environmental management and policy making, and sustainability has become the buzz word for contemporary decision making. Nevertheless, its meaning remains somewhat elusive as there is no one definition of sustainability and its meaning constantly evolves. The general view suggests BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 31

32 it implies notions of longevity and planning for the future and producing manageable and adaptive solutions to environmental problems. Public participation is a term frequently used in environmental management, but is often misused, or used interchangeably with the term consultation (Treby & Clark, 2004). Its definition as, the involvement of ordinary citizens in both decisions about the implementations of social and economic change (Macnaghten & Jacobs, 1997), highlights the move away from an informingled process to an active involvement throughout the process, rather than just token consultation (Treby & Clark, 2004). Public participation recognises the value of different forms of knowledge; not just technical knowledge, but also knowledge based on common sense and personal experience (Glicken, 2000), and allows an amalgamation of knowledge forms so that managers are best equipped to make a decision. Public participation offers multiple benefits, and its main aim is not necessarily to produce one outcome or a consensus of views, but to increase understanding, or change behaviour as a result of negotiation and debate, thus contributing to sustainable management (Treby & Clark, 2004). Public participation can trigger debate, compromise and trade-offs between stakeholders, thus increasing the understanding of the issues involved, and showing a broader range of perspectives (Treby & Clark, 2004). Recent work argues that decisions made with public participation may be more sustainable, as stakeholders see how a decision is reached, are involved in the process, and thus may have a level of pre-acceptance before a scheme or decision is implemented (Treby & Clark, 2004). As a result, participation has taken on an increasingly statutory role, and whilst there is often a mandatory requirement, the public increasingly expect some involvement. Public participation offers new forms of knowledge to decision makers; experts or those in power may lack the direct experience of local residents. Such inputs are increasingly accepted in decision making offering a broader perspective and raising local issues experts were perhaps unaware of. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 32

33 Treby and Clark (2004) note that if policies or schemes are just implemented, they are often culturally (attitudinally) unacceptable. Participation can establish resident s preferences and priorities, and offer socio-cultural contributions beyond the realm of science alone. Not only can this empower the community, as it creates a sense of ownership of the project which strengthens individual commitment (Roe, 2000), but targets may be more achievable, as those implementing the outcomes have some say in its design. Participation can improve communication between groups, leading to greater understanding of viewpoints, an acceptance of differing views, or the potential resolution of conflict (Treby & Clark, 2004). Generally, some consensus can be reached (Treby & Clark, 2004), meaning the most appropriate solution can be implemented, thus replacing short-term solutions with long-term, more sustainable outcomes Research Aims From the previous discussions it is considered that the Beach Carrying Capacity is the perceived number of people that can fit comfortably on a beach, including the surf zone, before adversely affecting an individual person s beach recreation experience and/or the surrounding environment. The aims of the research project was to determine the beach usage on the Gold Coast and its carrying capacity. Specifically, the project has: Undertaken a series of sample surveys to determine beach usage and perception. Used a new method of data collection to help determine beach usage and carrying capacity. Investigated the current level of beach use and its perceived carrying capacity levels on the Gold Coast, Australia, considering: o The current level of use o The current policies implemented by local council BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 33

34 Examined the influence of current attitudes and cultural values, including: o Attitude towards the environment and sustainability BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 34

35 2.0 Study Area: The Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia Gold Coast City is located in south-east Queensland, on the East Coast of Australia (Figure 3.0). The region spans across 1402 square kilometres featuring 70 kilometres of beautiful coastline from South Stradbroke Island to Rainbow Bay (GCCC, 2005). The sixth largest city in Australia, with a resident population of approximately 466,000 people and close to 10 million visitors each year (GCCC, 2008). Current beach management responses keep the Gold Coast beaches stabilised and wide allowing for recreational use. The wide, clean beaches act as the main attraction for visitors to the region. With interruptions to the natural coastal processes experienced along the coastline, the coastal management practises detailed in this chapter aim at minimising further interference while maintaining the beaches aesthetic appeal. Without these management responses the Gold Coast beaches would suffer from beach erosion and subsequent beach loss. A loss of beaches would have major impacts on the region socially, environmentally and economically. According to the survey results, erosion is perceived as the main problem affecting Gold Coast beaches. This shows that even with current management practises the local council are perceived to be the main reason behind the problems of erosion and other coastal issues. It is this type of research into usage and perception of carry capacity that will aid local council and other coastal management people in the future management of our coastlines. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 35

36 Figure 3.0 Map of the Gold Coast study area (Source: Google Earth, 2008) 2.1 History of the Gold Coast The current City of the Gold Coast is bordered to the east by the sea, and stretches from Beenleigh in the north and south to the New South Wales border and west to the coastal mountains (Figure 3.0). Prior to European settlement, the Gold Coast region was a natural area of timbered mountains and hills, river valleys, floodplain, salt and freshwater wetlands (GCCC, 2005). The first Europeans to settle in the area, in the 1800s, were timber getters and cattle farmers. Large cattle stations were then divided into smaller sugar, cotton farms and dairy farms (GCCC, 2005). Over the next 100 years the agricultural industry on the Gold Coast boomed. Initially, no one was interested in the beautiful surf beaches of the region. By the end of the 19th Century people wanted to escape the summer heat. The railway built in 1889 between Brisbane and Coolangatta brought many people to the region either to live permanently or holiday at the beach. A new coastal road, linking Brisbane to the beaches of the Coast was completed in Motor cars brought more people to the coast and the string of small beach towns formed stretching from Labrador to Coolangatta (GCCC, 2005). BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 36

37 In the 1940s these seaside towns became well known to the thousands of Australian and US armed servicemen who came for recreational leave during the Second World War. In 1949, all the beach towns along the coast were joined to become the Town of the Gold Coast under one local town council (GCCC, 2005). In the 1950s Development increased rapidly with serviced holiday apartments and shopping arcades being erected. 2.2 The Coastal System The Gold Coast is renowned for its iconic beaches and surfing amenity, with 52km of oceanfront beaches, arguably among the most popular in Australia (McGrath & Boak, 2002). With an active and dynamic coastal system, longshore drift moves sand in a northerly direction up the coast and differential longshore transport rates (with more moving north than naturally replenishing in the south) result in a long-term sand loss of 300,000 cubic metres (Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1970) a year from the Gold Coast. Aside from long-term erosion, material is lost due to wave attack during severe storm events, forming an offshore storm bar, some of which returns to the each over time, or is lost to deeper water (Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, 1970) Cyclone Events on the Gold Coast The Gold Coast has a history of cyclone events, which cause significant temporary erosion (NGCBPS, 2002) (Figure 4.0). Of these events, 1967 was the most extreme, with seven cyclones in the Gold Coast area in one year alone (BOM, 2006), causing the worst erosion seen on the Gold Coast. Consequently, storm-induced erosion has become a key consideration in the Gold Coast s management strategy. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 37

38 Figure 4.0 Structural damage caused by cyclonic activity - Mermaid 1967 (Source: GCCC, 2005) 2.3 Development Pressure The Gold Coast has high levels of beachfront development, with 570 oceanfront properties alone, and valuable real estate (McGrath & Boak, 2002). Considerable pressure is placed on managers given the treat of storm erosion, high land values, and beachfront development on past dune systems. Combined with the pressures of tourism, representing the largest industry for the Gold Coast (McGrath, Boak & Jackson, 2002), there are a multitude of pressures acting on coastal managers Developer Responsibilities All new development along the coast has to be protected by a boulder wall, installed by the developer or private property owner unless buildings are publicly owned. Provision of the Gold Coast Planning Scheme requires that development on sites that front an ocean beach does not commence until an oceanfront boulder wall is constructed. The boulder wall is constructed along the oceanfront in accordance with a standard plan. The purpose of the construction of the boulder walls is to protect buildings from coastal erosion (GCCM, 2001). Managers now also recognise the value of dunal systems and public parkland as natural buffer zones and from 1998, a BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 38

39 local planning policy was implemented to restrict dune encroachment and vegetate dunes with Spinifex (McGrath & Boak, 2002). 2.4 Responsibility for the Coast Local government are responsible for funding, building and management of coastal works, and adopting a strategy based on the coastal (state and regional) plans (State Coastal Management Plan, 2001). A 25% subsidy on coastal works is offered to Gold Coast City Council, who is responsible for the day to day coastal management of the area (McGrath & Boak, 2002). 2.5 Past Responses to Erosion In 1962, a series of rock training walls were constructed at the mouth of the Tweed River, trapping sediment that usually moved north around Point Danger to the Gold Coast beaches. Following the cyclone events and severe erosion of 1967, the Queensland State Government employed the Dutch Delft Hydraulics Laboratory to examine coastal processes and make recommendations to mitigate erosion (McGrath, Boak & Jackson, 2002, GCCM, 2005). The Delft Report recognised the significant loss of sand resulting from the training walls, and thus recommended a nourishment project to widen the beaches and mitigate erosion, suggesting an initial nourishment of 10 million cubic metres, and an annual replenishment of 500,000 cubic metres per year, from the broadwater and other offshore sources (Delft Hydraulics Laboratory Report, 1970). Nourishment began in 1973 to areas including Main Beach, Surfers Paradise, Broadbeach, Burleigh, Palm Beach, and Kirra Beach, in conjunction with a covered boulder wall (Figure 5.0) running the length of the coastline, and mini-groynes at Palm Beach and Kirra Beach. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 39

40 Figure 5.0 Boulder Wall construction behind the beach at Seashell Avenue Street End, Mermaid Beach 2.6 Current Management Response Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy (NGCBPS) The NGCBPS focuses on widening beaches and expanding the dunal system to act as a storm buffer, and includes the pumping of 1.5 million cubic metres of sand, seaward of the boulder wall onto a 1.75km stretch of beach from Northcliffe to Narrowneck (NGCBPS, 2000). In conjunction with nourishment, an artificial reef was constructed in 1999 to dissipate storm energy by mitigating storm waves, and to improve the surfing amenity. Since the reef construction, beaches north of the reef were metres wider, and metres wider south of the reef than they were before the scheme (GCCM, 2003) Palm Beach Protection Strategy (PBPS) At Palm Beach, a submerged coastal control structure to protect and widen the beach (GCCM, 2004a) was planned alongside nourishment, but to date has not been implemented due to strong resistance and pressure from stakeholder groups, including the surfing community Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project (TRESBP) Constructed in 2000, the TRESBP represents a joint project between Gold Coast and Tweed Shire Councils, and was built in response to the trapping of BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 40

41 sediment by the Tweed River Training Walls (EPA, accessed 2006). Sand is collected before the river entrance using a 450 metre long sand collection jetty, and moves sand to southern Gold Coast beaches through a 3.1km pipeline (EPA, accessed 2006). The discharge points include the dominant outlet at Point Danger, alongside west Snapper Rocks and additional outlets at Kirra Point and Duranbah to be used as necessary (EPA, accessed 2006). In addition, the scheme included dredging of the river entrance for navigational purposes, and an initial movement of two million cubic metres of sand from the entrance to the southern Gold Coast Beaches (GCCM, accessed 2006). 2.7 Conclusion Local Council have adopted a range of coastal management techniques in response to the problem of beach erosion on Gold Coast beaches. Many of these techniques have been a successful way of stabilising the sand on the beaches. However, according to the 2006 Gold Coast survey the local Council are still not doing enough to protect the beaches from the problem of erosion. 2.8 Gold Coast Survey Area The survey area, for this present study, was located along four of the most popular, southern Gold Coast beaches: Kirra Beach, Greenmount/Coolangatta Beach, Rainbow Bay and Burleigh Beach (Figure 6.0). The decision to choose these four beaches was made due not only to their popularity but also due to the range of beach types and diverse facilities. Table 1.0 describes the various characteristics of the beaches visited during the 2006 study period. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 41

42 Figure 6.0 Beach survey locations (Source: Google Earth, 2008) BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 42

43 Table 1.0 Main characteristics of the beaches (Source: GCCC, 2005) Location of these beaches are presented in Figure 6.0. Beaches Characteristics 1. Kirra Beach Excellent conditions for experienced surfers Extensive sand stretch Gentle swimming conditions at North Kirra Surf club Life guards Limited kerbside parking 2. Coolangatta/Greenmount Beach Protected beach Beachside cafes and shops Life guards Gentle surf conditions Two-hour car park 3. Rainbow Bay Extensive sandy beach Sheltered swimming area Children s playground and bbq facilities Short walk to shops and facilities Surf club Life guards Limited kerbside parking BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 43

44 4. Burleigh Heads Excellent surf conditions International surfing competition venue Beachside cafes and shops Children s playground and bbq facilities Walking paths Surf Club Life guards BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 44

45 3.0 Data Collection 3.1 Questionnaire Semi-structured interviews in the form of a short questionnaire (Appendix 2) were employed as the main research method, providing richer, more detailed data. The questionnaire was approved by the Griffith University ethics committee prior to the interviews being conducted. Key topics and themes were selected for discussion and presented in both a closed and open format, allowing the respondent freedom to comment in their own words. The researcher played a minimal role, asking the listed questions and only mediating when necessary, to ensure maximum relevance, or to probe for further information. Double-barrelled and leading questions were minimised or avoided to reduce confusion and bias via the use of tick the box type questions and by allowing room for the respondent to write an expressed opinion. Sensitive issues and personal information were introduced towards the end of the interview, allowing for the establishment of trust and rapport, and also minimising data loss if the respondent was unwilling to commit further (Flick, 1998). 3.2 Participant Selection Participants were approached through a random selection process. 159 interviews were carried out with a range of stakeholders including developers, academics and coastal specialists, local residents, visitors, and community representatives. 3.3 Controls The majority of the interviews were conducted by the same person (the author, Peta Williams) or under strict guidance by the researcher for quality control, and to ensure a similar level of researcher intervention across interviews. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 45

46 3.4 Ethical Considerations Consideration was given to ethical issues arising from the study; all participation was voluntary and with informed consent (See Appendix 3). Furthermore, research should not have a negative effect on those participating, and so care was taken when discussing sensitive and personal issues. The researcher felt it necessary to give something in return for participation, and so participants were offered a chocolate Easter egg on immediate completion. Copies of the final report were also offered to all those who participated. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 46

47 4.0 Perception of Beaches Questionnaire A perception of beaches questionnaire was developed by da Silva and carried out in 1998 along various Portugal beaches in the Sines region. After translating the questionnaire into English the survey was undertaken on the Gold Coast between 2004 and The following chapter details the survey and its results both in Portugal and on the Gold Coast. 4.1 Portugal, Introduction In 1998, Carlos Pereira da Silva completed a beach carrying capacity assessment aimed at the development and improvement of beach carrying capacity measurement techniques on several beaches of the Sines Municipality, Portugal. The Sines Municipality is located at the centre of the Alentejo coast and is part of the St Vincent and Southwest Alentejo Coast Natural Park. Sines is an industrial town dominated by its oil refinery with its towers and pipelines, and the deep sea port with its huge container ships and tankers. The nearby village of Porto Covo attracts many visitors due to its pristine coastline. Da Silva (2002) specifically explored the concepts of physical and social carrying capacity using two diverse methods of data collection. Measurements on georeferenced digitised aerial photography were used for the physical carrying capacity evaluation. For the social carrying capacity, several user counts, video images and personal interviews were conducted at the five different beaches, exploring landscape perception, landscape evaluation, and behaviour. The study of the spatial distribution of beach users was essential to enable the exact number of people on the beach at a certain time to be measured, to BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 47

48 understand how the different areas of the beach are used, and to evaluate the intensity of that use. Da Silva s (2002) beach user questionnaire focused on the person s perceptions of the beach they were using (Appendix 4). Interviews of 216 people were carried out across five beaches in Portugal over a two-week period. The questionnaire was designed using a combination of open and close ended questions to understand how the beach was viewed by users, to establish the likes and dislikes of users regarding the beach as well as their expectations for the future of the beaches Survey Demographics The perception study of coasts was surveyed over a group of 216 people aiming to determine the likes and dislikes of users regarding the beach as well as there expectations for the future of the beaches (da Silva, 2002). From this group the majority of respondents were in the year old age bracket with slightly more females surveyed then males. The mass of people surveyed lived in the Municipal of Lisbon. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 48

49 Figure 7.0 Portugal study area - Sines (Source: Google Earth, 2008) Results and Discussion Question one of the survey asked for the respondents main idea associated with the word coast. The most popular response was sea. Other common responses were the proximity to the sea and coastline. The coast of Sines (Figure 7.0) was considered to be of great significance to the tourism industry followed by the fisheries and economic development. On the Sines coast Alentejo was by far considered the most popular. The main reasons those surveyed favoured this area was due to their knowledge of the area, better preserved, less polluted, better beaches, warm water, nice landscape, weather and uncrowded beaches. Although most people surveyed like their chosen beach for its cleanliness, pollution was stated as one of the most disliked features of the Sines coast as well as industry. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 49

50 Lack of development and environmental carelessness were believed to be the main problems associated by the Sines coasts with people in general being given the main blame along with the local government. The Sines area (Figure 8.0) is most liked for it attractive beaches with quality of life and landscape also rating highly among those surveyed. Pollution, planning and development, and tourism were the most disliked attribute of the area. Figure 8.0 Portugal study area - Sines (Source: Google Earth, 2008) The Sines region on the issues of accessibility, parking, traffic, planning and management, industry, tourism, cleanliness, restaurants, natural beauty, quality of environment, accommodation, beaches, and prices on the whole rated very well. Natural beauty rated very good. Industry rated poorly. Parking, traffic, planning and management, accommodation and prices rated reasonably. All others were rated as good. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 50

51 The most popular activity within the Sines region is going to the beach, with nearly everyone who goes to the beach also participating in swimming. Walking and visiting restaurants also rated highly among those surveyed. Urban development within the area was considered to integrate and be in harmony with the area. At present urban development is adequate but could be increased, with most of the development considered to be controlled. The actions of the local authorities in the area are considered reasonable with better roads, parking and planning needing attention. Porto Covo (Figure 9.0) and Samouqueira were considered the most popular beaches to visit due to their landscape and quietness. Most people disliked nothing about these areas except for its dirty water. When asked what could be done to improve these areas most people believed nothing should be changed or believed better access, facilities and cleanliness could be improved upon. The infrastructure in the Sines region was considered poor with safety, parking, cleanliness, size and natural beauty all considered good. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 51

52 Figure 9.0 Portugal study area Porto Covo (Source: Google Earth, 2008) The number of people on the beach was considered perfect like it is and could even do with some more visitors (Figure 10.0). Most changes that were noticed to have happen in the region were increased numbers of people and increased construction. In the future it is expected that the area will become a major tourist region and that construction will be increased although most people hop that the area will remain the same. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 52

53 Figure 10.0 Results of the number of beachgoers present at the beach to Portuguese participants From the photos (Figure 11.0) F was considered to be the best beach to holiday at mainly due to it being uncrowded and clean (Figure 12.0). Beach A was the least favoured location for holidays due to the large crowds (Figure 13.0). These questions were asked in order to determine the respondent s likes and dislikes when choosing a beach for holidaying purposes. The photos covered a range of issues that may help influence a person s decision to attend that particular beach including crowds, rocks, and pollution. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 53

54 Figure 11.0 Photos presented to participants in questionnaire (Source: da Silva, 2002) BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 54

55 Figure 12.0 Results of the most attractive beach to Portuguese participants Figure 13.0 Results of the least attractive beach to Portuguese participants Da Silva s (2002) assessment of beach perception was based on the analysis of two questions taken from the survey. The first question referred to the number of people present on the beach indicating the respondents crowding perception. The second question referred to the assessment made by the beach users about different aspects of the beach including safety, parking, cleaning, and facilities. These results were then assessed using a significance test. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 55

56 4.1.4 Conclusion Da Silva s (2002) results enabled the understanding of the fundamental differences between the two carrying capacity types and how to link and integrate them within management plans. The results also illustrated the difficulties in producing a universal carrying capacity formula, which can be applied to any beach unsystematically. 4.2 Gold Coast, Introduction The Perception Study of Coasts in Queensland survey was conducted twice over a period of two years once in 2004 and again in The questionnaire, as used by da Silva (2002), was translated from Portuguese to English and adapted to the Gold Coast Region. The adaptation process involved changing locations and questions to suit the Gold Coast region and lifestyle. The survey was distributed to first year engineering students at Griffith University s Gold Coast Campus. The questionnaire was designed using both open and close ended questions to understand how beaches in the Gold Coast region were viewed by users as well as their expectations on how they should be managed and maintained. The translated survey was over 40 questions long and took approximately 16- minutes to complete Survey Demographics A group of over 80 people each year were surveyed. From this group the majority of respondents (about 88%) were young males, mainly in the year old age group. The majority of people surveyed lived on the Gold Coast tending to be towards the northern end of the region. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 56

57 4.2.3 Statistical Analysis A statistical analysis was undertaken in order to compare survey results collected in 2004 to those collected in The statistical analysis was conducted on two questions relating to the most and least attractive beach for holidaying. Ho: The is no significant statistical difference between the survey results collected in 2004 and those collected in H1: There is a significant statistical difference. Conclusion: Ho is accepted. A t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other. This analysis is appropriate whenever you want to compare the means of two groups. The results of an unpaired t-test to determine any significant statistical difference between the results collected in 2004 and those collected in 2005 in relation to the most attractive beach for holidaying (Table 2.0). Table 2.0 T-Test results for most attractive beach TEST T Standard Deviation 16.4 Degrees of freedom 10 Probability of result, assuming the null hypothesis RESULTS BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 57

58 Using the formula (Niles, 2005): (Avg. of sample) - (presumed avg. of larger pop.) t = (St. Dev. of sample) / (sq. root of sample size) t = Table 3.0 Statistical results for most attractive beach results 2004 (Tools for Science, 2005) TEST RESULTS Mean %Confidence Interval for Mean to Standard Deviation 19.2 Hi and Low 49 and 0 Median 3 Average Absolute Deviation from 11.5 Median Table 4.0 Statistical results for most attractive beach 2005 (Tools for Science, 2005) TEST RESULTS Mean %Confidence Interval for Mean to Standard Deviation 13.1 Hi and Low 34 and 0 Median 3.5 Average Absolute Deviation from 8.33 Median BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 58

59 The results of the t-test showed that there is no significant statistical difference between the results collected in 2004 and those collected in 2005 in relation to the most attractive beach for holidaying. Therefore the null hypothesis must be accepted. For the results to show any significant difference there would need to be a greater sample size, if indeed there would be any difference. The results of an unpaired t-test to determine any significant statistical difference between the results collected in 2004 and those collected in 2005 in relation to the least attractive beach for holidaying (Table 5.0). Table 5.0 T-Test results for least attractive beach TEST T Standard Deviation 16.5 Degrees of freedom 10 Probability of result, assuming the null hypothesis RESULTS Using the formula (Niles, 2005): (Avg. of sample) - (presumed avg. of larger pop.) t = (St. Dev. of sample) / (sq. root of sample size) t = BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 59

60 Table 6.0 Statistical results for least attractive beach 2004 (Tools for Science, 2005) TEST RESULTS Mean %Confidence Interval for Mean to Standard Deviation 20.9 Hi and Low 54 and 1 Median 2.5 Average Absolute Deviation from 11.2 Median Table 7.0 Statistical results for least attractive beach 2005 (Tools for Science, 2005) TEST RESULTS Mean %Confidence Interval for Mean to Standard Deviation 10.3 Hi and Low 27 and 0 Median 6.5 Average Absolute Deviation from 8 Median The results of the t-test showed that there is no significant statistical difference between the results collected in 2004 and those collected in 2005 in relation to the least attractive beach for holidaying. Therefore the null hypothesis must be accepted. For the results to show any significant difference there would need to be a greater sample size, if indeed there would be any difference Limitations The limitations of the initial Queensland survey were: BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 60

61 The survey was only distributed to Griffith University Students within the School of Engineering. The majority of students surveyed were Males in the age groups. The majority of those surveyed lived in the Gold Coast region. The Survey focused on the Gold Coast region only instead of the broader Queensland region. Due to this distribution, the results of the survey will be swayed towards the perceptions of young males on the Gold Coast and their views of the surrounding beaches. Many of the people surveyed were done so within the School of Engineering at Griffith University. Therefore, the results may be swayed towards a certain industry s perception of the coast. 4.3 Gold Coast, April Introduction The modified assessment of beach perception and usage, at four different Gold Coast beach locations (Figure 5.0), was carried out through more than 160 personal interviews with beach users, during the month of April Respondents were chosen at random from the areas along the beach. This included walkways, parks, and shops. Participants were not selected from the beach itself so not to disturb their day at the beach but were approached as they arrived or were leaving the area. The questionnaire was adapted from the one used in Portugal by Professor Carlos Pereira Da Silva in The questionnaire design was modified to include a combination of open and closed questions to understand how the beach was perceived and used by the public, to determine the like and dislikes of the users regarding the coast as well as their expectations for the future of the Queensland coast. The questionnaire is presented in Appendix 2. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 61

62 Weather conditions varied considerably during the survey, which is a very important factor for beach use. Surveying was only undertaken during favourable weather conditions: average temperature was 25.7ºC and average daily rainfall was 1.4mm (ABM, 2006). Surveys were conducted from 9am each morning with an average of two hours spent interviewing because these hours matched the time period when beaches were most crowded. This assessment was made by reviewing past images from the Gold Coast City Councils web cameras operating on six of the Gold Coasts beaches. Hourly images were viewed and a research timeframe was established based on the number of people present on the beaches each day. The users enthusiastically welcomed the survey with only a limited number of people refusing to participate. The average duration of each interview was approximately 5-minutes, an improvement on the original surveys 16-minute duration. Although the short survey time may suggest that people were in a hurry, the shorted styled survey was actually more appreciative of people s recreation time. The open-ended questions allowed the participants to discuss the topics in question demonstrating that the population shows a great interest in the current and future state of the Queensland coast Survey Demographics A group of 158 people were surveyed in April 2006 along four Gold Coast beaches (Figure 5.0). From this group the majority of respondents (69%) were male and within the year old age group (42%). The majority of people surveyed, 67%, resided on the Gold Coast with more than 50% currently tertiary students Statistical Analysis A statistical analysis was undertaken in order to compare survey results collected in with those collected in The results of a t-test showed that there is no significant statistical difference between the results collected in 2004 and 2005 and those collected in 2006 in relation to the most BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 62

63 and least attractive beach for holidaying. For the results of a t-test to show any significant difference there would need to be a greater sample size Limitations The limitations of the survey conducted in 2006 were: The survey was only completed over four days each week, Thursday to Sunday, and during a short time block Face to face interviews were conducted by one single person limiting the number of people that can be surveyed in one day The face to face surveying depended on weather conditions Pictures of overseas beaches were used as examples in the final question. Some respondents stated difficulty in relating to the pictures 4.4 Results and Discussion This research looks at both beach usage and carrying capacity in relation to specific questions asked within the questionnaire. Other questions asked related to each individual person s perception of a beach and their experiences. 4.5 Gold Coast Beaches The Macquarie Dictionary (1983) defines the word coast as the land next to the sea. According to the survey results, the main idea associated with the word coast is the beach. Other popular responses were the surf, the area where the land and ocean interact, or sand. The Gold Coast is most liked due to the cleanliness of the beaches followed by its beautiful beaches and great surfing conditions. Although crowds and population increases were stated as a major dislike of the Gold Coast, 23% of those surveyed disliked nothing about the Gold Coast. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 63

64 Erosion was believed to be the main problem faced by Queensland coasts with the Local Council being given the main blame for our coastal issues along with the general public. Over development and overpopulation were also other main problems facing Queensland s coastline. The most popular activity which the Gold Coast beaches are used for is swimming and surfing. Walking and other general exercise, along with picnicking were also popular activities and rated highly. From those surveyed the most popular beaches to visit included Burleigh (Figure 15.0), Rainbow Bay (Figure 14.0), Main Beach and Broadbeach. These beaches were considered to be the most popular due to their close proximity to home and their good surfing conditions. People surveyed thought it essential that the beach they visit be clean and of good quality and also have a lifeguard present. It was very important that the beach visited be close to home and in order to not encounter traffic problems, have adequate parking available, with good beach access, and appropriate beach planning and management strategies in place. Beaches close to shops and restaurants, as well as plenty of available beach activities, with excellent surf conditions and the added bonus of natural beauty were also seen as very importance to the beach decision process. Enjoying privacy at the beach was seen to have neutral importance in choosing a beach to visit. Choosing a beach that was popular, especially with tourists, was seen as not important to those surveyed. The majority of people surveyed had noticed some major changes to the Gold Coast beaches in the last 5 years. Major changes that were noticed to have happened along the Gold Coast beaches were increased development, increased population, and major changes in the sand, mostly due to dredging and sand pumping. At present urban development is considered to be adequate and verging towards excessive. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 64

65 An increase in crowds and population are the main things expected in the future along with more development. Most people hoped that the area would stay like it is now or that local Government would slow down or stop beachfront development. See Appendix 5 for results Beach Use Beach usage encompasses all activities participated along any adjacent infrastructure including parks and oceanway, sandy beach and surf zone areas including swimming, surfing, walking, sunbaking and picnicking. Figure 14.0 Gold Coast study area Rainbow Bay (Source: Google Earth, 2008) BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 65

66 Figure 15.0 Gold Coast study area Burleigh Heads (Source: Google Earth, 2008) The assessment of beach usage is based on the analysis of two questions in the survey: the first was about the frequency of visiting the beach (Figure 16.0). Gold Coast residents visited regularly either everyday or on a weekly basis. Other participants visited a few times a year. The second question was about the amount of time the users spent at the beach during each visit (Figure 17.0). Gold Coasts residents would spend around two hours on the beach while other participants were spending anywhere from three hours to a whole day at the beach. This is an interesting result as the parking limits in the areas surveyed were two hours with only restricted areas of no-limit parking available. This result shows that parking limits may play a very important role in the duration of time local people spend at the beach or just that local residents don t have to travel as far to the beach and don t need to spend the full day there to make the trip worth their time as visitors from further away might do. A later question revealed that 54% of respondents rated the importance of parking as essential or very important to the beach that they attend. Sun exposure could also play an important role in the amount of time people spend at the beach. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 66

67 Number of people WILLIAMS How often do you visit the beach? Every Day Once a week Few times a week Once a fortnight Once a month Every few months Once a year Few times a year Figure 16.0 Results of the number of visits to the beach by Gold Coast participants How long do you spend at the beach (average)? < 1 hr 1/2hrs 1hr 2/3hrs 2hrs 3 hrs 3/4hrs 4/5hrs 4hrs 5hrs 6 hrs All day Figure 17.0 Results of the time spent at the beach by Gold Coast participants Perceptions of Carrying Capacity Beach Carrying Capacity is the perceived number of people that can fit comfortably on a beach, including the surf zone, before adversely affecting an individual person s beach recreation experience and/or the surrounding environment. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 67

68 % WILLIAMS The assessment of beach perception is based on the analysis of two questions in the survey. The first question related to the number of people present at the beach during their visits, with the answers ranging from over crowded to could accommodate more people, with the middle meaning that the users felt comfortable with the number of people they usually encounter on the beach. This question produced surprising results with 36% of respondents stating that there were too many people on the beach or that it could do with less people at the time of visiting (Figure 18.0). This indicates that the carrying capacity on Queensland s beaches has already started to be exceeded. 54% of respondents stated that the number of people on the beach was currently perfect, but with 47% of respondents expecting an increase in population and development along the Queensland coast the perfect beach capacity would also be expected to change. Number of beachgoers? / Too many people Needs to be <50% capacity Should be 50% capacity Perfect like it is Needs to be >50% capacity Could hold twice as many more Could hold three times as many more Figure 18.0 Results of the number of beachgoers present at the beach to Gold Coast participants The second question was related to the assessment made by the beach users regarding the different aspects of the beach they visit including the distance travelled, parking, traffic, access, shops, tourism, cleaning, management, BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 68

69 activities, lifeguards, surf conditions, natural beauty, and privacy. The participants privacy was considered an important factor when choosing a beach to visit with 37% of respondents stating it was an essential or very important aspect in their beach decision making process. On the other hand, 41% of respondents stated a neutral importance. When discussed further with participants they stated that with the increasing population and popularity of Gold Coast beaches privacy was not possible or expected but would be preferred. From the photos shown (Figure 11.0) to those who participated in the survey beaches A and F were considered to be the overall favourites for a possible holiday destination (Figure 19.0). For beach A, this was mainly due to its close proximity to shops and accommodation and its nice sandy beach. Beach F was considered the most attractive due to its lack of people and aesthetics. As you would expect, the reasons given by the respondents that chose beaches A and F are very different. Of those surveyed in 2004/2005, 65% believed beach A was the most attractive beach for a holiday destination compared to only 17% in 2006 (Figure 20.0). Respondents in 2006 preferred beach F, 40%, as their holiday destination compared with only 25% in 2004/2005. This sort of result shows that the views and perceptions of Gold Coast locals, even in such a short timeframe, have begun to change with the coasts rapid population growth and increase in tourism. The two diverse beach locations also show that people not only enjoy convenience when travelling to the beach for a holiday with shops and accommodation close by but they also enjoy the aesthetic appeal and privacy of a sandy beach environment. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 69

70 Number of people WILLIAMS Most attractive beach for holidays? A B C D E F Photographs Figure 19.0 Results of the most attractive beach to Gold Coast participants With the region hosting 10.7 million visitors in 2004/ million being domestic visitors, 831,290 being international visitors and 6.3 million being day trip visitors (GCCC Tourism Branch, 2005) the Gold Coast is internationally recognised as one of Australia s premier tourist destinations. The number of tourist visitors Domestic and International is increasing yearly, with majority of the visitors travelling to the Gold Coast region for holidays and leisure. With the increase in tourist numbers comes the increase in beach users. The Gold Coast locals seem to be favouring the quiet and secluded beaches where they can relax and enjoy their day at the beach instead of the large tourist populated beaches where you have no personal space in or out of the water. The increase in the tourist population could account for the locals change in perception seen in the results from question 39, with those who answered in 2005/2004 differing from those who answered in BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 70

71 Most attractive beach? % / A B C D E F Figure 20.0 Comparison 2004/05 and 2006 results of the most attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Beach B was considered the least favoured location as a holiday destination with 72% in 2004/2005 and 47% in 2006 (Figures 21.0 and 22.0). This was due to the rocks and lack of sand. Beach A was also considered unattractive due to its crowds with 40% in 2006 and only 19% in 2004/2005. This result shows the aesthetic appeal of the beach environment to the users and reinforces the need for beach management in order to protect and stabilise the sand on the beach. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 71

72 % Number of people WILLIAMS Least attractive beach for holidays? A B C D E F Photographs Figure 21.0 Results of the least attractive beach to Gold Coast participants Least attractive beach? / A B C D E F Figure 22.0 Comparison 2004/05 and 2006 results of the least attractive beach to Gold Coast participants 4.6 Portugal vs. Gold Coast The perception of beaches questionnaire was first conducted in Portugal in 1998 with a group of over 216 people surveyed in the Sines region (da Silva, 2002). This survey was then translated into English and conducted in the Gold BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 72

73 % WILLIAMS Coast between 2004 and 2006 (Appendix 1). Although some question were altered or changed in the Gold Coast survey, questions relating to beach use and perceptions of carry capacity remained the same. This included the use of beach imagery to identify a person s most and least desired beach as a holiday destination (Figure 11.0). Of those surveyed in Portugal, 86% found beach F to be the most attractive as a holiday destination. Those surveyed on the Gold Coast were split between beach F with 35% and beach A with 33% (Figure 23.0). The reasons given for its attractiveness were very similar in both regions and included uncrowded, clean, the landscape, peaceful, unspoilt, and large. Most attractive beach? /2005 Portugal 0 A B C D E F Figure 23.0 Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the most attractive beach There was little difference again between the two locations in the responses for the least attractive beach as a holiday destination. Of those surveyed in Portugal, 56% disliked beach A, followed by beach C with 18%. On the Gold Coast, 55% of respondents disliked beach B, followed by beach A with 33% BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 73

74 % WILLIAMS (Figure 24.0). The reasons given for the unattractiveness of beach A, by both regions, were the crowds. Least attractive beach? /2005 Portugal 0 A B C D E F Figure 24.0 Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the least attractive beach Beach Use The question asked in the Portugal survey stated What activities do you do in this area?, 22% stated that they use the Sines region to access the beach. Another 16% stated they use the area for swimming and also walking. 15% use the Sines region for dining out in restaurants (Figure 26.0). The Gold Coast survey more specifically asked What activities do you use the beach for?. 15% of respondents used the beach for swimming followed by 11% for surfing and 10% for walking or other general exercise (Figure 25.0). BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 74

75 Fishing Swimming Scuba/Snorkel Games Picnics 4WD Camping Walk/Exercise Boats Surfing Sunbaking Running Walk the dog Family Natural Live near it Restaurants Monuments Beach % Number of people WILLIAMS What activities do you use this beach for? Fishing Swimming Scuba/Snorkel Games Picnics 4WD Camping Walk/Exercise Boats Surfing Sunbaking Running Walk the dog Family Natural Beauty Live near it Restaurants Monuments Beach Figure 25.0 Results of beach use activities by Gold Coast participants What activities do you use this beach for? /2005 Portugal 5 0 Figure 26.0 Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of beach use activities Perceptions of Carrying Capacity Both Portugal and the Gold Coast are happy with the present numbers of beachgoers, with 53% and 54% respectively, stating that the numbers on the beaches were perfect as they are (Figure 27.0). However, more Gold Coast respondents were unhappy with the crowds with 36% of those surveyed BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 75

76 % WILLIAMS stating that the beaches were overcrowded. This is compared to the 26% of those surveyed in Portugal who were unhappy with the number of people present on the beach. 21% of those surveyed in Portugal thought more people could be accommodated on the beaches, whereas, only 9% of those surveyed on the Gold Coast believed more people were welcome. Number of beachgoers? /2005 Portugal 10 0 Too many people Needs to be <50% capacity Should be 50% capacity Perfect like it is Needs to be >50% capacity Could hold twice as many more Could hold three times as many more Figure 27.0 Comparison Gold Coast 2004/05, Gold Coast 2006 and Portuguese 2002 results of the number of beachgoers present at the beach BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 76

77 5.0 Conclusion 5.1 Implications for Future Management This study has detailed some interesting results from collected data, specifically questionnaires with beach goers. Questionnaires, although more representative that interviews, provide less flexibility, with a set of predetermined questions, and perhaps lack explanatory power and qualitative depth. Comments expressed by participants are opinions, and may not be wholly representative. Further research with greater immersion in the field could help to validate findings and provide further insight into public perceptions. Alternatively, studies of beach use and carrying capacity in other areas of Australia, other countries, and other arenas in environmental and coastal management could help identify cross-cultural commonalities in the perception of our coasts. Studies that include the use of camera and computer technology would compliment any questionnaire data collected especially when looking at the number of people on a particular beach and what those people are using the beach for. 5.2 Future Analysis ARGUS Cameras Beach web cameras are present along six of the Gold Coast s premier beaches. The coastal monitoring cameras have been installed 100 metres above beach level in various locations on buildings. The general public can access this information on the beaches and determine if the beach they planned to attend is crowded, whether the sun s shining, or how the waves are looking (GCCC, 2005). Images can be used to determine the number of people on the beach at one time, their distribution along the beach, and their possible beach usage. It is also a more economical and productive way to BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 77

78 determine the total beach area in comparison to aerial photography as used by da Silva (2002). Images (Figure 28.0) are collected every daylight hour and processes by computers to build up detailed information about how the beaches are proceeding. This information is important to Council s coastal management staff and to university and government organisations studying beach behaviour such as erosion and sand bar formations. The ARGUS cameras are operated and analysed by the Water Research Laboratory (WRL) at the University of New South Wales and the results are made available to coastal researchers and the general public across the web (GCCC, 2005). Figure 28.0 Rainbow Bay Web Camera Picture - Monday April 17, am (Source: Coastal Imaging Centre, 2006) CoastalCOMS The Coastal Conditions Monitoring System (CoastalCOMS) is an automated observation system for coastal monitoring. The system is comprised of a shore-mounted video camera network and sophisticated image processing routines for analysis and display of coastal environment information. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 78

79 Currently, there are cameras along 15 Gold Coast Beaches. These can be accesses via the Coastal Watch website along with surf reports, surf forecasts, news and event information. CoastalCOMS provides comprehensive real-time and predictive information about beach and surf conditions. The real-time data includes offshore wave height, nearshore wave height, wind direction and strength, surf quality, beach state, beach usage and shoreline position. Combined with data from other sources, such as tide predictions and expert observations, the collected data is stored and used to train predictive algorithms for short term forecasting of nearshore wave height and surf quality, beach state changes, and beach user risk. CoastalCOMS offers seven modules of information relating to beach conditions. These are vision, wave height, beach state, beach risk, surf quality, beach usage, and shoreline position. The information provided in each module is often related to, and dependant upon, the information in the other modules. Each module may consist of display elements derived directly from video, raw data from climatic and other physical processes, and processed information (including predictive information) derived from this raw data. Beaches are used primarily for recreation and fun. Monitoring beach usage is important for providing data to help predict future beach needs. The CoastalCOMS can measure the extent of beach usage by counting the number of people using the beach at any given time. Figure 29.0 shows an image captured from a CoastalCOMS camera. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 79

80 Figure 29.0 Image showing areas (rectangles) that have been classified as a person object. (Source: CoastalWatch, 2007) Information gained from CoastalCOMS is important for use in future beach planning and beach safety management. This shows the importance of beach monitoring and being able to ascertain what people are doing on the beach, for example: Is the person walking on the beach, sunbathing or entering the surf? CoastalCOMS addresses a need for readily accessible real-time and predictive information on beach usage and surf conditions. It is easily installed and provides coverage over wide areas of coastline while conveniently displaying the information at a single location. Effective coastal management recognises the need to manage and plan for the long-term impacts of natural and human activities to protect coastal resources for future generations. Coastal management authorities require adequate and timely access to information on the health of the beach system in order to effectively manage the distribution of resources and to address community concerns regarding beach amenity and safety. A system, which combines the wide array of ever-changing environmental parameters in one graphical display, enables efficient communication of information to stakeholders and the public. The benefits of CoastalCOMS, as demonstrated in the case of the two Gold Coast beaches, are varied and can be applied to any beach area along the BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 80

81 Queensland coast or Australia coast. The information provided by CoastalCOMS is especially useful for coastal councils and their lifeguards, coastal management authorities and surf life saving organisations. 5.3 Overall Findings Determining the types of users and beach uses are an important factor in determining the carrying capacity of an area. It can aid in the implementation of strategies to help maintain the population and the impacts that it may have on its surrounding environment. Survey work on the Gold Coast revealed some interesting results including that the majority of the people surveyed, 54%, thought beach crowds were perfect in their current state. Over half of the remaining respondents, 36%, indicated that carrying capacity had already been exceeded; with Gold Coast beaches perceived as either over-crowded or could do with less people (Figure 19.0). This shows that maximum carrying capacity by people s perceptions has already been reached on the Gold Coasts most popular beaches. Important attributes for choosing a beach to visit included privacy with 37% of Gold Coast respondents stating it was an essential or a very important aspect in their beach decision making process. On the other hand, 41% of respondents stated a neutral importance with participants stating that with the increasing population in South-east Queensland and the popularity of Gold Coast beaches privacy was not seen as possible or expected but would be preferred. The answers collected in Portugal and the Gold Coast do not differ greatly. Both areas perceived that the beaches carrying capacity had not yet been reached stating that current beachgoer numbers are perfect, 53% and 54% respectively. However, more Gold Coast respondents thought some beaches to be at capacity with only 9% of those surveyed willing to welcome more people on the beach as compared to 26% of the Portugal respondents. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 81

82 Both regions selected beach F as the most attractive beach for a holiday destination, although Portugal respondents, with 86%, were more favourable to this beach (Figure 24.0). The responses for the least attractive beach as a holiday destination differed with 56% of Portugal respondents choosing beach A and 55% of Gold Coast respondents selecting beach B (Figure 25.0). The Beaches were used for majority of the same activities although Portugal coastlines are used more for dining out in restaurants (Figure 27.0). Whilst some cultural values, such as the importance of the beach the beach to Australians, and an expectation for it to be there may play a more significant role than in countries such as Portugal, there are certainly shared experiences and attitudes played out in coastal management worldwide. With the aim of this research to provide new knowledge on the current management and measurement techniques used on the Gold Coast to help determine beach usage and carrying capacity, it is thought that once usage and carrying capacity is determined, Gold Coast City Council can establish better development and conservation programs. BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 82

83 6.0 References Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2006) Queensland Cyclones, accessed June 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) Regional Statistics, accessed 1 June 2005 Clark, JR., (1996) Coastal Zone Management Handbook, Lewis Publishers, United States of America Confer, J., Graefe, A. and Falk, J. (1993) Crowding on the beach: Examining the phenomena of over- and under-manning in alternative environments In: C.P. Dawson (ed.) Proceedings of the 1995 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report NE-218. (p ). County of Santa Barbara (1998), Goleta Beach County Park Environmental Carrying Capacity Study and Management Plan, Cited 15 June 2005 Da Silva, C., (2002) Beach Carrying Capacity Assessment: How Important is it? Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 36, , accessed 8 March 2005 Delft Hydraulics Laboratory (1970) Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, Coastal Erosion and Related Problems, Volume 1, Conclusions and Recommendations, Delft Hydraulics Laboratory, The Netherlands Dwight, R., Brinks, M., SharavanaKumar, G. and Semenza, J. (2007) Beach attendance and bathing rates for Southern California beaches. Ocean and Coastal Management. Vol 50, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (no date) Tweed River Entrance Sand Bypassing Project, Environmental Protection Authority, Queensland Government, accessed Flick, U. (1998) An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage, London Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS), (1996) Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study: Carrying Capacity Analysis/Impact Assessment Model, Cited 8 March 2005 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 83

84 Glicken, J. (2000) Getting stakeholder participation right : A discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp Gold Coast City Council (GCCC), (2005) Gold Coast City Council About Gold Coast, accessed June 2005 Gold Coast City Council Tourism Branch, (2005) Gold Coast Statistical Snapshot March 2005, accessed 10 October 2005 Gold Coast Shoreline Management Plan, (2005) Gold Coast Shoreline Management Review Information Sheet #1, accessed 14 October 2005 Gold Coast. Net, (2005) Gold Coast Accommodation, Information and Maps, accessed 20 July 2005 Griffith Centre for Coastal Management (GCCM) (2001) Ocean Front Boulder Walls Information Sheet No. 1, Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Gold Coast Griffith Centre for Coastal Management (GCCM) (2003) Narrowneck Reef Summary of Monitoring. Baseline Data Assessment for the Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy, Environmental Monitoring Program, Volume 3, Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Gold Coast Griffith Centre for Coastal Management (GCCM) (no date) Tweed River Entrance System Bypassing Project Information Sheet No. 1, Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Gold Coast Jimenez, J., A., Osorio, A., Marino-Tapia, I., Davidson, M., Medina, R., Kroon, A., Archetti, R., Ciavola, P. and Aarnikhof, S. G. J. (2007) Beach recreation planning using video-derived coastal state indicators. Coastal Engineering. Vol 54, MacLeod, M. & Cooper, J. A. G (2005) Carrying Capacity in Coastal Areas, Encyclopaedia of Coastal Science, pp.226, (Ed.) M. Schwartz, Netherlands Macnaghten, P. & Jacobs, M. (1997) Public identification with sustainable development, investigating cultural barriers to participation, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.5-24 BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 84

85 Macquarie Dictionary, The (1893) The Macquarie Library, Australia Manning, RE., (1999) Studies in Outdoor Recreation, Oregon State University Press, Oregon McGrath, J. & Boak, L. (2002) The Management of Urban Dune Areas in Gold Coast City, accessed from McGrath, J., & Tomlinson, R. (2002) Draft Educational Resources for Gold Coast Beaches, It s All About Sand CD-ROM, Gold Coast City Council, Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Gold Coast McGrath, J., Boak, L. & Jackson, A. (2002) Provision of Tourism Infrastructure in Highly Valued Environments, A Case Study: The Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy, accessed from McGrath, J., & Tomlinson, R. (2002) Draft Educational Resources for Gold Coast Beaches, It s All About Sand CD-ROM, Gold Coast City Council, Griffith Centre for Coastal Management, Gold Coast Mira, N. & Gomes, N., (2002) Integrated Beach Use Management: SW Portugal Study Case, Littoral 2002, The Changing Coast, , accessed 8 March 2005 Niles, R. (2005) Statistics every writer should know, accessed June 2005 Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy (NGCBPS) (2000) Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy, Information Sheet No. 19 Roca, E. and Villares, M. (2008) Public perceptions for evaluating beach quality in urban and semi-natural environments. Ocean and Coastal Management. Vol 51, Roca, E., Riera, C., Villares, M., Fragell, R. and Junyent, R. (2008) A combined assessment of beach occupancy and public perceptions of beach quality: A case study in the Costa Brava, Spain. Ocean and Coastal Management. Vol 51, Roe, M. (2000) Landscape planning for sustainability: Community participation in estuary management plans, Landscape Research, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp Rohlin, C. (2009) Demographic trends and population growth on the Gold Coast. Planning Information and Forecasting Unit, Queensland BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 85

86 Government. Presented at the St George Bank State of the Region Summit, Gold Coast Connecting the Coast, October 15, 2009 Santa Barbara County (2000), County of Santa Barbara, cited 15 June 2005 Shelby, B. & Heberlein, TA., (1986) Carrying Capacity in Recreational Settings, Oregon State University Press, Oregon Silva, J. S., Leal, M. C., Araujo, S. C., Barbosa, S. C. and Costa, M. F. (2008) Spatial and temporal patterns of use of Boa Viagem Beach, Northeast Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research, Vol 24, Issue 1, Stankey, G. et al., (1985) The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning, United States Department of Agriculture, US Government Printing Office State Coastal Management Plan, (2001) Queensland s Coastal Policy, Queensland Government, accessed August 18, 2006 Tools for Science, College of Saint Benedict/Saint John University (2005) Statistics to use, accessed June 2005 Treby, E.J., & Clark, M.J. (2004) Refining a Practical Approach to Participatory Decision Making: An Example from Coastal Zone Management, Coastal Management, Vol. 32, No.4, pp Trousdale, W., (1997) Carrying Capacity Considerations: The Need for Managing Change in a Unique Tourism Destination, Boracay Island, Philippines Department of Tourism, accessed 8 March 2005 Turner, I. and Anderson, D. (2007) Web-based and real-time beach management system. Coastal Engineering. Vol 54, Wilks, L., (1993) Coastal Zone Enquiry The Carrying Capacity Concept and its Application to the Management of Coastal Resources, Resource Assessment Commission, Australian Government Publishing, Canberra Zann, L.P. (1995) Our Sea, Our Future: Major Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Published by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 86

87 7.0 Appendix Please refer to the enclosed cd for the following listed appendices. 1.0 Adapted Queensland Survey on Beach Perception 2.0 Queensland Beach Use and Perception Survey Questionnaire information sheet 4.0 Portugal Survey Survey Data 6.0 SPSS Data BEACH USE & CARRYING CAPACITY ON THE GOLD COAST 87

88 Appendix 1 Queensland Survey on Beach Perception. Adapted from Da Silva (2002) Questionnaire. Perception Study of Coasts 1. What do you associate with the word coast? (eg. word, idea) Of what significance do you think the coast is to Queensland? Which is your favourite stretch of the Queensland coast? Why? What you like most about the Queensland coast?... 5.What you dislike most about the Queensland coast? What in your opinion is the main problem affecting the Queensland coast? Who do you think is responsible for this problem? (Government, Local councils, people in general etc ) What you like most about the Gold Coast?

89 What you dislike most about the Gold Coast? List three words or ideas that you associate to the Gold Coast area List three attractive features and three non-attractive features relating to the Gold Coast region. Attractive Non-attractive How would you classify the Gold Coast region (please tick only one)? Industrial... Residential... Recreational...Transient...Tourist...Other (specify) How you assess the following issues about the Gold Coast region? Very Good Good Reasonab le Poor Very Poor Don t know Accessibility Parking Traffic Planning/Management

90 Industry Tourism Cleanliness Restaurants Natural Beauty Quality of the Environment Accommodation Beaches Prices 14. Do you know if this region has any protected areas (please tick one)? Yes...No...Not Sure Do you agree with the protection status? What activities do you do in this area? Going to the beach Swimming Scuba diving Picnics Visiting restaurants Visiting monuments Walking Angling Boat trips Surf/body/windsurfi ng Snorkelling Spear fishing 17. About the urban development of this area you think: (Please tick)

91 It is well integrated and in harmony with the landscape... Only in some places is it well integrated and in harmony with the landscape... Interrupts the landscape At present, would you rate the urban development is: Excessive... Adequate.... Can Increase How would you consider the urban development: Chaotic... Controlled How would you rate the actions of the local authorities: Very Good. Good... Reasonable... Poor... Very Poor... Don t know If you had the power, what would you change in this area? Do you usually visit Gold Coast beaches? Which ones are your favourites? (maximum of 3)...

92 23.Why?... Questions 24 to 30 relate to one beach only. 24. Which beach have you visited most recently? What do you like most about this beach? What do you dislike most about this beach? What you would change to improve it? How would you evaluate this beach in relation to: Very Goo d Goo d Reas onab le Poor Very Poor Don t know Safety Parking Cleanliness Infrastructure Natural Beauty Size

93 29. From the following list of activities, choose two you would retain and two that you would ban from this area. Activities Spear Fishing Swimming Scuba diving Beach Games Picnics Four wheel driving Camping Walking on the dunes Angling Boat rides Surf, Bodyboard Windsurfing Protect Ban 30. Would you consider the number of beachgoers you usually see on the beach as: Too many people... Should be less then 50% to be satisfactory... Should be only 50% to be satisfactory... It s perfect like it is... Could accommodate 50% more people.

94 Could accommodate twice the people that were there... Could accommodate three times more then the people that are at moment How long have you been familiar with this beach? What major changes have you noticed since then? ( only if you have known the area more than 5 years) What do you think is going to happen to this area in the future? What you would like to happen? Please specify your age range: < 18years Are you: Male... or Female Suburb where you live (Including post code) Occupation (if other than full time student)...

95 Questions 39 to 42 relate to the images presented 39. From the photographs presented which is the most attractive beach for holidays? Why? From the photographs presented which is the least attractive beach for holidays? Why?....

96 Appendix 2 Survey: Perception and Usage Study of Queensland Coasts 2006 Beach Perception 1. What do you associate with the word COASTS (eg word, idea, etc)? 2. What do you like about the Queensland coast? 3. What do you dislike about the Queensland coast? 4. What in your opinion is the main problem affecting the Queensland coast? 5. Have you noticed any major changes to the coastline over the last five years? (Please circle one only) a. Yes b. No If yes, describe the changes

97 6. At present, would you describe the rate of urban development along the coastline as (Please circle one only) a. Excessive b. Adequate c. Could be increased 7. Who do you think is responsible for the problems on Queensland s coasts? (Government, Local Council, public, developers, etc.) 8. What do you think is going to happen to the Queensland coast in the future? 9. What would you like to see happen? Beach Usage 10. Which beach do you visit most often? 11. How often to you visit the beach? (Please circle one only)

98 a. Every day b. Once a week c. Few times a week d. Once a fortnight e. Once a month f. Every few months g. Once a year h. Few times a year i. Never 12. On average how much time would you spend at the beach per visit? 13. Why do you visit that particular beach? 14. What importance do the following issues have on the beach you attend? (Please tick appropriate boxes) Essential Very Fairly No Important Important Importance Distance from home Parking Traffic Accessibility to beach Access to shops/restaurants Tourism Planning/Management of beach

99 Cleanliness/Quality of beach Availability of beach activities eg fishing, boating, etc Lifeguard/Beach flag presence Surf conditions Natural beauty of area Privacy/Seclusion 15. What activities do you use the beach for? (Please tick appropriate boxes) Activity Yes No Fishing Swimming Scuba diving/snorkelling Beach games Picnics Four wheel driving Camping Walking/Exercise Boating Surfing/wind surfing Sunbaking Running Walk the dog Family activities No activities but visit the beach for scenic beauty/aesthetic Do not use the beach

100 but value living near it Do not use the beach 16. Would you consider the number of beach goers you usually encounter at the beach? (Please circle one only) a. Too many people b. Should be less than 50% to be satisfactory c. Should be only 50% to be satisfactory d. It is perfect like it is e. Could accommodate 50% more people f. Could accommodate twice the people that are there g. Could accommodate three times the amount of people there Questions 17 to 20 relate to the images presented below. 17. From the photographs presented which is the most attractive beach for holidays? 18. Why? 19. From the photographs presented which is the least attractive beach for holidays? 20. Why?

101 21. Please specify you age range (Please circle one only) a. Under 18 b c d e f. Over Are you a. Male b. Female 23. Are you a? (Please circle one only if applicable) a. Local Resident b. Local business owner