See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283153693

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach

conditions: demographic and attitudinal
influences, and the implications for beach
ecosystem management
Article in Journal of Coastal Conservation October 2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11852-015-0419-3

CITATIONS

READS

76

2 authors, including:
Serena Lucrezi
North West University South Africa
24 PUBLICATIONS 247 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GreenBubbles View project

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Serena Lucrezi

Retrieved on: 07 October 2016

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach

conditions: demographic and attitudinal
influences, and the implications for beach
ecosystem management
Serena Lucrezi & Marthienus Frederik
van der Walt

Journal of Coastal Conservation

Planning and Management
ISSN 1400-0350
J Coast Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s11852-015-0419-3

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint
is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com.

1 23

Author's personal copy

J Coast Conserv
DOI 10.1007/s11852-015-0419-3

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions:

demographic and attitudinal influences, and the implications
for beach ecosystem management
Serena Lucrezi 1 & Marthienus Frederik van der Walt 2

Received: 22 July 2015 / Revised: 17 September 2015 / Accepted: 14 October 2015

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Sandy beaches represent typical venues for recreation and tourism worldwide, as well as part of the lifestyle and
identity of coastal communities. Their overexploitation,
however, threatens their survival. Especially in urban
areas, beach management requires balancing needs by different users and obligations to protect beach functions,
including conservation. In light of this, research about
the human dimension of beach ecosystems has been advanced as a way to assist planning and decision making in
beach management. This study assessed beachgoers' perceptions of sandy beach conditions in South Africa, by
means of a questionnaire survey. The effects of demographic profile, travelling habits, motivations to visit, and
recreational preferences on beachgoers' perceptions of
beach conditions were tested. Beachgoers shared a general
concern for the wellbeing of sandy beaches, with particular reference to the state of biodiversity and conservation.
They also gave great importance to the values underlying
beach ecosystems. Three motivations to visit groups and
four recreational preferences types were identified. Demography, travelling habits, motivations to visit, and recreational
preferences all influenced perceptions of beach conditions.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11852-015-0419-3) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Serena Lucrezi
23952997@nwu.ac.za
1

TREES Tourism Research in Economic Environs and Society,

North-West University, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa

School of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, North-West University,

Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa

The results from this study were used to draw management

recommendations, with particular attention towards the
promotion of conservation while also maintaining the
recreational quality of urban sandy beaches. The results
also highlighted the relevance of considering users' views as a
tool in decision-making processes in Integrated Coastal Zone
Management.
Keywords Sandy beach . Perception . Beachgoer . Value .
Conservation . Management

Introduction
Sandy beach ecosystems provide invaluable services to humankind. Their functions have been exploited through history,
with significant anthropogenic effects (Schlacher et al. 2008;
Defeo et al. 2009). One of the most discussed uses of sandy
beaches is for recreational and tourism purposes. Beaches
worldwide have become large-scale recreational and tourism
areas, mostly due to economic development and settlements
along coastlines (Defeo et al. 2009; McLachlan et al. 2013).
Aside from being a desired destination for sand, sun, and sea
seekers, sandy beaches also represent part of the lifestyle and
identity of coastal communities. This results in a mix of preferences, uses, and attitudes towards beaches, which need to be
managed in accordance with principles of Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM) (Villares et al. 2006; Maguire
et al. 2011). The task is difficult, considering that human pressures tend to conflict with conservation obligations, all in the
backdrop of impinging global climatic changes and consequent rises in sea level (McLachlan et al. 2013).
Especially in urban areas, the traditional management of
sandy beaches has been prescribing reactive and top-down

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.

approaches, primarily focused on maintaining the physical

environment, with little regard for the opinion of various
stakeholder groups (James 2000; Villares et al. 2006). Even
when recreational and tourism services are prioritised,
this is done without consideration of the users' point
of view (Roca and Villares 2008; Lozoya et al. 2014).
With such approaches being unsustainable, proactive
ways to tackle the dynamic interaction between physical, ecological, social, and economic dimensions of
beaches have been advocated over the last few years.
Among the various recommendations made by the scientific community, is that research be done about the
human dimensions of beach ecosystems and environments. This type of research underpins the ICZM approach and is intended to highlight the diversity of
values, images, principles, cultures, and interpretations
defining users and their rapport with beach ecosystems
(Maguire et al. 2011; Voyer et al. 2015). The information
collected can assist and enhance planning and decision
making, therefore it should constitute an integral part of
beach management (Villares et al. 2006; Roca and Villares
2008; Roca et al. 2009).
South Africa is a developing country with a significantly
long coastline, almost half of which is characterised by sandy
beaches (Harris et al. 2011). The dry beach and surf zones are
relatively protected, thanks to a series of legislations such as a
general ban on beach driving, and the establishment of MPAs
(Marine Protected Areas) covering some 23 % of the shoreline
(Harris 2012; Mead et al. 2013). Nonetheless, sandy beaches
in the country have remained subject to development and to
tourism growth, leading to continuing conflicts between use
and ecosystem conservation which ultimately affect both of
these negatively (Mead et al. 2013; Colenbrander et al. 2015;
Harris et al. 2015). These conflicts can be aggravated by
poor decision making and a lack of a solid decision-support
framework in coastal policy, with the risk of causing further
ecosystem degradation and loss of appeal (Celliers et al.
2015). With this background in mind, user perception studies
in the country are still rare (e.g. de Ruyck et al. 1995; Lucrezi
et al. 2015) yet they are needed to stimulate and assist management decisions for beach ecosystems.
This study set out to assess beachgoers' perceptions of
sandy beach conditions in South Africa, using a number of
urban recreational beaches as case studies. Given that perceptions can vary across different user groups (Wolch and Zhang
2004; Roca and Villares 2008; Roca et al. 2009), this study
also tested the effects of demographic profile, travelling
habits, motivations to visit, and recreational preferences, on
beachgoers' perceptions of beach conditions. The ultimate
goal was to use the information gathered to draw management
recommendations, with particular attention being paid to the
promotion of conservation while also maintaining the recreational quality of urban sandy beaches.

Methods
Study area
This study was carried out in the Western Cape Province of
South Africa, in the municipalities of the City of Cape Town
and Mossel Bay (Fig. 1). In Cape Town, the beaches of Muizenberg (34630.00S-182814.43E), Camps Bay (3357
8.48S-182237.56E), Clifton 4th (335627.57S- 1822
30.05E), and Clifton 1st-3rd (335621.34S- 182236.36
E) were chosen. In Mossel Bay, the beaches of Santos (3410
41.45S-22816.17E), Diaz (34933.78S-22637.65E),
and Hartenbos (34737.87S-2277.16E) were selected.
All the beaches are exposed to the ocean (Indian and Atlantic),
are microtidal, and characterised by a Mediterranean climate.
While Muizenberg, Hartenbos, and Diaz are up to several km
long, Clifton, Camps Bay, and Santos are embayed beaches
not exceeding 1 km in length.
The beaches of Cape Town are located within the
boundaries of the Table Mountain National Park MPA.
These urban beaches bask in the popularity of the urban
centre of Cape Town, attracting domestic and international
visitors all-year-round (Ballance et al. 2000). Muizenberg
is a popular surfing beach, where a shark conservationspotting programme is being implemented, and regularly
receives the Blue Flag award for education, water quality,
management, and safety (Kock et al. 2012; Blue Flag
South Africa 2014). Camps Bay and Clifton are defined
as resorts for the super rich, with real estate prices up to
ZAR 120 million (USD almost 12.5 million). In 2014, the
beaches were listed among the best travel and beach destinations in the world (Tripadvisor 2014). Camps Bay and
Clifton 4th regularly receive the Blue Flag, although the
water quality at these beaches has been compromised due
to pollution (Weimann 2014).
Mossel Bay has a series of urban beaches primarily subject
to domestic or second-home tourism (Saayman et al. 2009).
The area has historical and palaeoanthropological value, as the
place where Bartholomeu Dias first discovered the southern
tip of Africa, and where the first human fisher settlements
were established on the continent. The beaches are famous
locations from where the migration of whales can be observed
(Davie 2008). Santos is a Blue Flag beach and the only northfacing beach in South Africa; its gentle surf renders it a desirable destination for families with children. Diaz is a base for
surfing and diving learners. Hartenbos is a Blue Flag beach
and an important congregating site for great white sharks
(Klimley and Ainley 1998).
Beach survey
The research followed a quantitative, descriptive and nonexperimental design, employing a structured questionnaire

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...

Fig. 1 Study area, Western Cape, South Africa. The beaches sampled were Clifton (a), Camps Bay (b), and Muizenberg (c) in Cape Town; Santos (d),
Hartenbos (e), and Diaz (f) in Mossel Bay

survey administered to people at the beaches under investigation (please refer to Appendix 1). The questionnaire was developed from previous studies such as those conducted by de
Ruyck et al. (1995); Cendrero and Fischer (1997); Leatherman
(1997); Morgan (1999); Pereira et al. (2003); Cervantes et al.
(2008); Ariza et al. (2010); and Maguire et al. (2011).
The questionnaire consisted of three sections. The first included demographic questions, specifically gender, age, marital status, origin, visitor type, education, occupation, and income. Participants were asked what accommodation they
were using; how many nights they were staying (overnight
visitors); how frequently they visited the beach annually;
who accompanied them; and their preferred time to visit the
beach. The second section asked about the importance of various motivations to visit (30 items) and recreational activities
(21 items) during beach visits. The level of importance was
accorded in terms of a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from
1 (extremely low) to 7 (extremely high). The last section
encompassed perceptions of beach conditions. Using a
seven-point Likert scale of condition, ranging from 1 (extremely bad) to 7 (excellent), beachgoers were invited to evaluate the state of the characteristics of the beach including
physical (18 items); bio-environmental (33 items); infrastructure and services (35 items); socioeconomic, cultural, and
religious-spiritual (eight items); and conservation (14 items).
Beachgoers were asked to rate the importance of both inherent

and utilitarian values (six items) associated with the beach,

using a seven point Likert scale of importance.
In total, 500 questionnaires were handed out to people at
the beach during school holidays in 2014 (2729 March in
Cape Town and 1819 April in Mossel Bay). Each beach was
sampled by two fieldworkers per day between 09:00 and
15:00. The data were collected via probability sampling, following a systematic approach (Maree and Pietersen 2007).
Every second person on the beach was reached by the
fieldworkers, either on a shore-parallel or shore-normal manner (Tudor and Williams 2006), and invited to participate in
the survey. Fieldworkers were instructed to indicate the aim of
the survey to the beachgoers. The participants took no longer
than 15 min to fill in the survey (Williams and Micallef 2009).
A total of 496 questionnaires were completed and returned,
yielding a success rate of 99 %. The number of questionnaires
returned per beach varied from 46 (Clifton 1st-3rd) to 91
(Muizenberg). Given that a sample size of 400 yields a standard error of 5 % (Williams and Micallef 2009), the final
number of surveys returned was considered appropriate for
data analysis.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics, breakdown statistics, and frequency tables were used to draw the participants' profile, and to capture

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.

average scores and response frequencies for each question.

Two exploratory techniques were used on motivations, recreational preferences, and perceptions of beach conditions. The
first technique is the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), normally employed to reduce the size of a dataset by identifying
relationships between questionnaire items, and extracting latent factors (determined by eigen values and factor loadings as
cut-off criteria, and then calculated as factor scores) underlying the items (Stevens 2012). The second technique is
characterised by reliability tests, which ascertain that the factor scores derived from EFA have internal consistency (represented by the Cronbachs value) (Nunnally and Bernstein
1994). A single EFA was performed for each set of variables in
the questionnaire, thus pooling the information coming from
different beaches. This decision was mainly based on common recommendations by the literature concerning acceptable
sample sizes for EFA (Comrey 1973; Comrey and Lee 1992;
Hair et al. 1995; Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). It is true that
minimum sample sizes for EFA can be small (<50) if data are
well conditioned (i.e. high factor loadings, low number of
factors, and high number of variables) (MacCallum et al.
1999; de Winter et al. 2009). In this study, however, minimum
sample sizes per beach for satisfactory factor recovery were
generally greater than 50 (calculated according to de Winter
et al. 2009), and the actual sample size on each beach ranged
between 46 and 91, thus not allowing separate factor analyses
to be performed for each beach.
Normality tests were performed for continuous variables,
while there were no cases where scores were greater than 90 %
within a category for categorical variables. Therefore, the variability of demographic characteristics and travelling habits
across beaches was assessed through a nested ANOVA, testing the effect of municipality and beach nested in municipality. The influence of demography and travelling habits on
peoples responses, that is, all reliable factors extracted from
EFA, were investigated through one-way ANOVA. Continuous independent variables such as age were categorised for the
purpose of this analysis. Demographic characteristics and
travelling habits which were significantly influential on peoples responses were included as covariates in a nested
ANCOVA, contrasting responses (i.e. all reliable factors extracted from EFA) across municipalities and beaches nested in
municipalities.
For each ANOVA and ANCOVA, partial eta squared (2p)
was reported as the effect size based on standardised differences between the means (Cohen 1973). This type of effect
size is normally recommended in cases where independent
variables have more than two levels, and describes the proportion of variability accounted for by each independent variable
(Fritz and Morris 2012). Significant interactions were investigated through Fishers least significant difference (LSD) posthoc tests. The variation in peoples perceptions of beach conditions across motivations to visit and recreational preferences

for the beaches studied was explored through canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) (Ter Braak 1986). This is a multivariate technique that investigates relationships between sets
of categorical variables. The result of CCA is the ordination of
the principal dimensions of the dependent variables in a space
constrained by the explanatory variables (Greenacre 2010).
All data were analysed with the software Statsoft Statistica
(Version 12, 2013) and PAST (Version 2.17, Hammer et al.
2001).

Results
The participants in the survey comprised 60 % female and
40 % male, from 11 to 73 years old. The average age was 34
and similar across all beaches, except for Camps Bay
(27 years) and Muizenberg (40 years) (Table 1). Most of the
participants were either single (39 %) or married (35 %) nationals (77 %) from the Western Cape (57 %). While there
were almost no foreigners in Muizenberg and Mossel Bay,
Camps Bay and Clifton hosted several (35 %-58 %), mostly
from northern Europe (Table 1). Locals and day visitors were
dominant in Muizenberg, while the rest of the beaches were
visited by many overnight stayers (41 %-75 %) (Table 1).
About half of the participants possessed a degree or diploma,
with some having attained postgraduate qualifications. Education level was higher in Cape Town than in Mossel Bay
(Table 1). The participants were employed (60 %) or students
(25 %), earning an average of ZAR 260,000 per annum (USD
23,700); people in Clifton 1st-3rd earned the highest income
(Table 1). The type of accommodation used was primarily
owned in Muizenberg and Mossel Bay, and rented at the other
beaches. Cape Town was visited for longer periods (29 nights)
compared with Mossel Bay (six nights) (Table 1). However,
visits to Mossel Bay were more frequent (40 visits per year)
compared with those to Cape Town (18 visits per year)
(Table 1). Most of the participants were travelling with
friends, family, and spouses. The favourite period to visit the
beach was weekdays and weekends in Clifton and Camps
Bay; weekends and holidays in Muizenberg and Mossel Bay.
Descriptive and exploratory statistics for all the factors extracted from EFA (i.e. motivations to visit, recreational preferences, and perceptions of beach conditions) are outlined in
the supplementary material (Appendixs 2 to 7). The most
important reasons for visiting the beach were relaxation, escape, and socialisation. Scenery, safety, and lifestyle also stimulated visitation. People were less likely to visit the beach for
work or convenience reasons. The EFA extracted three reliable motivation factors. The first factor, middle aged, described people enjoying quiet tourism in contact with nature,
but also reliant on supporting facilities and services on the
beach. The second factor, socialising bather, described people
seeking relaxation and socialisation, but were also bathers or

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...
Table 1 Significant effects of municipality and beach (nested in
municipality) on beachgoers demographic profile and travelling habits
(nested ANOVA); and on motivations to visit, recreational preferences,
and perceptions of beach conditions (nested ANCOVA). Partial eta
Treatment
Age
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Visitor type
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Income
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Length of stay
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Middle aged
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Water dependent
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Beach-sand
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

df

MS

p2

1
54.2
0.34
0.001
5
1297.7
8.25
***
0.09
426
157.4
Camps Bay < all other beaches p < 0.05
Muizenberg > all other beaches at p < 0.05

squared (2p) is reported as the effect size based on standardised

differences between the means. Significant interactions were
investigated through Fishers least significant difference (LSD) post-hoc
tests
Treatment
Nationality
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Education
1
0.05
0.08
0.001
Municipality
5
7.47
10.93
***
0.10
Beach (municipality)
482
0.68
Error
Muizenberg, Santos, and Diaz hosted more locals and Fishers LSD
day visitors compared with other beaches at
p < 0.05

1
12.11
2.42
0.001
5
12.80
2.56
*
0.03
388
5.01
Clifton 1st-3rd > all other beaches at p < 0.05

1
10,066.39
12.03
***
0.05
5
1192.47
1.43
0.03
454
836.79
Muizenberg and Mossel Bay < all other beaches at
p < 0.001

1
14.24
6.85
**
0.02
5
3.40
1.64
0.02
411
2.08
Cape Town > Mossel Bay at p < 0.05
Clifton 1st-3rd < all other beaches at p < 0.01
1
1.80
1.16
5
7.29
4.71
***
268
1.55
Clifton 1st-3rd < all other beaches at p < 0.05
1
7.11
10.91
**
0.02
5
3.88
5.94
***
0.06
449
0.65
Camps Bay, Clifton, and Hartenbos < all other
beaches at p < 0.05

Pollution-degradation
Municipality
1
Beach (municipality) 5

20.97
2.21

20.08
2.12

***

0.04
0.02

Occupation
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Annual visitation
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Habitual
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Nonintrusive
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD
Hazards
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

df

MS

p2

1
11.19
89.07
***
0.16
5
2.05
16.31
***
0.15
474
0.13
Cape Town hosted more overseas visitors than
Mossel Bay at p < 0.001
Clifton and Camps Bay hosted more overseas
visitors than all other beaches at p < 0.01
1
14.76
26.55
***
0.06
5
1.76
3.16
**
0.03
454
0.56
Cape Town > Mossel Bay at p < 0.001
Clifton 1st-3rd > all other beaches at p < 0.05
Muizenberg < Camps Bay and Clifton 1st-3rd at
p < 0.05
1
1.11
2.46
0.01
5
2.78
6.17
***
0.06
472
0.45
Camps Bay hosted more students than all other
beaches at p < 0.05
1
69,078
22.38
***
0.05
5
25,440.4
8.24
***
0.09
397
3086.5
Mossel Bay > Cape Town at p < 0.001
Santos, Diaz, and Muizenberg > all other
beaches at p < 0.05
1
13.08
5.69
**
0.02
5
2.89
1.25
0.02
330
2.30
Mossel Bay > Cape Town at p < 0.01
Camps Bay < all other beaches at p < 0.05
1
7.31
4.96
*
0.02
5
3
2.04
0.04
269
1.48
Clifton 1st-3rd < all other beaches at p < 0.05
1
1.17
1.42
0.001
5
3.07
3.71
**
0.04
396
0.83
Camps Bay, Clifton 1st-3rd, Hartenbos, and
Muizenberg < all other beaches at p < 0.05

Wildlife-landscape
Municipality
1
Beach (municipality) 5

7.42
7.78

5.58
5.85

*
***

0.01
0.06

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.
Table 1 (continued)
MS

p2

Treatment

df

Error
Fishers LSD
Crowding-pests
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

439
1.04
Santos and Diaz > all other beaches at p < 0.01
1
3.02
2.55
0.01
5
3.06
2.59
*
0.03
428
1.18
Diaz > all other beaches at p < 0.05
Muizenberg < all other beaches at p < 0.05

df

Error
Fishers LSD
Safety-management
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

425
1.33
Muizenberg < all other beaches at p < 0.05

Hygiene-parking
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

1
10.01
8.04
**
0.02
5
3.60
2.89
*
0.03
418
1.24
Clifton 1st-3rd < all other beaches at p < 0.05

Area for activities

Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

Culture
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

1
7.49
4.26
*
0.01
5
7.29
4.15
**
0.05
378
1.76
Clifton 1st-3rd < all other beaches at p < 0.05

Value
Municipality
Beach (municipality)
Error
Fishers LSD

MS

p2

Treatment

1
0.36
0.29
0.001
5
5.87
4.61
***
0.05
418
1.27
Clifton 1st-3rd and Diaz < all other beaches at
p < 0.05
1
6.37
4.71
*
0.01
5
8.65
6.40
***
0.07
415
1.35
Hartenbos > all other beaches at p < 0.05
Clifton < all other beaches at p < 0.05
1
2.03
1.90
0.01
5
4.04
3.77
**
0.06
294
1.07
Camps Bay and Clifton 1st-3rd < all other
beaches at p < 0.05

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

surfers reliant on good weather and safety. The third factor,

habitual, described people familiar with the beach, and visiting it as part of their lifestyle and wellbeing.
The greatest recreational preference was for relaxation and
socialisation. Intrusive recreation (four-wheel driving, horseriding, camping, and fishing) received the lowest interest. The
EFA on recreational preferences extracted four reliable factors. The first factor, intrusive-high cost, described people
enjoying motorised recreation (both in the water and on the
beach), shopping, and activities like fishing. The second factor, beach dependent, described people enjoying relaxation,
socialisation, and beach sports. The third factor, water
dependent, described people enjoying bathing, swimming,
surfing, or similar. The last factor, nonintrusive, described
people enjoying wildlife and scenery observation, photography, walking, and picnics.
The EFA on perceptions of beach conditions extracted
three reliable factors for physical characteristics, namely
beach-sand, hazards, and bathing area-water. Perceptions
of bio-environmental characteristics included the factors
pollution-degradation, wildlife-landscape, and crowdingpests. Perceptions of infrastructure and services included the
factors safety-management, outlets-accommodation, hygieneparking, and area for activities. Perceptions of socioeconomic,
cultural, and religious-spiritual characteristics formed the factors socioeconomics and culture. Perceptions of conservation

formed a single reliable factor, as did perceptions of values

associated with the beach. Perceptions of beach conditions
were generally positive, although some factors received higher
ratings than others. People accorded extreme importance to the
values of the beach, generational equity in primis. They allocated good ratings to physical properties like beach and sand
quality, the scenery and the lack of oil pollution, accommodation and walking areas, and beach popularity. They were more
critical of the condition of infrastructure and services such as
recycling and children facilities. They also assigned lower ratings to cultural aspects, natural aspects including wildlife
abundance and diversity, and conservation.
Motivations to visit, recreational preferences, and perceptions of beach conditions varied significantly according to
demography and travelling habits (Table 2). Habitual tourists
were likely to be South African local residents visiting the
beach more frequently, and interested in more active than
passive recreation compared with domestic and international
visitors. The latter group, especially if visiting for longer periods, tended to be more critical of beach and water quality, the
state of pollution and degradation, retail, accommodation, and
cultural features. Besides being a priority to visitors, relaxation and socialisation were particularly favoured by females.
Similarly, age, education, and a better income decreased expectations for intrusive-high cost and more active recreation.
The values of beaches were strongly supported by females,

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...
Table 2 Significant effects of demography and travelling habits (one-way
ANOVA) on beachgoers' motivations to visit, recreational preferences, and
perceptions of beach conditions. Partial eta squared (2p) is reported as the

effect size based on standardised differences between the means. Significant

interactions were investigated through Fishers least significant difference
(LSD) post-hoc tests where appropriate

p2

Treatment

df

MS

9.09

***

0.04

Nationality
Error

1
403

16.38
2.44

p2

6.70

**

0.02

***

0.03

Treatment

df

MS

Tourist type
Error

2
407

21.69
2.39

Fishers LSD

Local residents > day and overnight visitors at p < 0.01 Fishers LSD
Intrusive-high cost

NA

Nationality

22.21

Nationality

23.73

Error
Fishers LSD

393
NA

2.26

Error
Fishers LSD

401
NA

1.77

Nationality

Nonintrusive
9.73
6.16

Nationality

Outlets-accommodation
5.76
5.29
*

Error

398

1.58

Error

412

1.09

Fishers LSD

NA

Fishers LSD

NA

Nationality
Error
Fishers LSD

1
384
NA

Habitual

Habitual

9.84

**

0.02

0.02

Water dependent

Culture
10.98
1.83

0.02

Tourist type
Error
Fishers LSD

2
2.47
3.57
*
0.02
454
0.69
Local residents > day and overnight visitors at p < 0.05
Pollution-degradation

0.02

Tourist type
Error

2
444

Fishers LSD

Local residents > day visitors at p < 0.01

Intrusive-high cost
2
24.93
11.83
***

Tourist type
Error

2
452

Fishers LSD
Gender

Local residents > day visitors at p < 0.01

Beach dependent
1
5.73
5.20
*

Error
Fishers LSD

403
NA

Education
Error
Fishers LSD

Income
Error
Fishers LSD
Income
Error
Fishers LSD
Employment
Error
Fishers LSD

Age
Error
Fishers LSD

0.01

Beach-sand
5.99

Bathing area-water
3.26
0.79

13.42

4.12

0.01

1.10

Water dependent
2
10.07
5.69
**
0.03
383
1.77
Matric or lower > diploma, degree and postgraduate at
p < 0.01
Intrusive-high cost
6
8.21
3.88
***
0.07
328
2.11
Earning over ZAR 431 000 < earning less at p < 0.05
Nonintrusive
6
3.40
2.17
*
0.04
333
1.57
Earning over ZAR 552 000 < earning less at p < 0.05
Values
3
4.41
4.06
**
0.03
399
1.09
Employed and retired > unemployed and students at
p < 0.05
Socialising bather
2
3.44
3.42
*
0.02
372
1.01
People 25 years old or under < older people at p < 0.05

Education
Error
Fishers LSD

3.83
1.03

3.53

0.02

0.06

Gender
Error
Fishers LSD

375
2.11
Matric or lower > diploma, degree and postgraduate at
p < 0.001
Nonintrusive
2
5.29
3.35
*
0.02
381
1.58
Matric or lower > diploma, degree and postgraduate at
p < 0.05
Water dependent
6
3.82
2.15
*
0.04
333
1.77
Earning over ZAR 431 000 < earning less at p < 0.05
Values
1
6.47
5.81
*
0.01
402
1.11
NA
Outlets-accommodation
1
7.51
6.93
**
0.02
413
1.08
NA

Age
Error
Fishers LSD

Intrusive-high cost
2
6.76
2.92
*
0.02
353
2.32
People 25 years old or under > older people at p < 0.05

Education
Error
Fishers LSD

Income
Error
Fishers LSD
Gender
Error
Fishers LSD

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.
Table 2 (continued)
MS

p2

Treatment

df

MS

2.99

0.01

Age
Error

2
401

2.92
0.84

Treatment

df

Age
Error

2
404

Fishers LSD

People 25 years old or under < older people at p < 0.05 Fishers LSD

Beach-sand
2.13
0.71

p2

3.46

0.02

Hazards

People 25 years old or under < older people at p < 0.05

Age

Bathing area-water
2.37
3.08

Error

402

0.77

Fishers LSD

People 25 years old or under < older people at p < 0.05 Fishers LSD
Values

People over 40 years old < younger people at p < 0.05

Socialising bather

Age

Error
Fishers LSD

361
1.09
Error
People 25 years old or under < older people at p < 0.05 Fishers LSD

Length of stay

Error
Fishers LSD

194
2.19
Error
People staying five nights or less > people staying for Fishers LSD
longer at p < 0.05

7.68

7.02

**

0.02

0.04

Age

Outlets-accommodation
3.15
2.93
*

Error

372

1.07

Length of stay

Intrusive-high cost

Annual visitation 2
Error
342
Fishers LSD

8.01

Habitual
15.73
2.35

3.66

6.69

**

0.04

0.04

Length of stay

4.01

0.04

207
0.9
People staying five nights or less > people staying for
longer at p < 0.05
Outlets-accommodation
2

4.98

5.41

**

0.05

202
0.92
People staying five nights or less > people staying for
longer at p < 0.05

Annual visitation 2
Error
339

People visiting for 15 days or more > people visiting Fishers LSD
for less at p < 0.01

3.60

0.02

Water dependent
13.99
8.09
1.73

***

0.05

People visiting for 15 days or more > people visiting for

less at p < 0.01

Nonintrusive
Bathing area-water
Annual visitation 2
6.95
4.5
*
0.03
Annual visitation 2
2.29
3.06
*
0.02
Error
338
1.55
Error
374
0.75
Fishers LSD
People visiting for 15 days or more > people visiting Fishers LSD
People visiting for one or two nights > people visiting for
for less at p < 0.01
longer at p < 0.05
Values
Annual visitation 2
6.29
5.64
**
0.03
Error
339
1.11
Fishers LSD

People visiting for 15 days or more > people visiting

for less at p < 0.05

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

older people, and employed or retired people. Satisfaction

with retail and accommodation was greater among females
and younger people. However, younger people were less
pleased with beach and water quality compared with older
people. Some perceptions varied significantly from location
to location (Table 1). For example, beach and sand quality
scores were consistently lower for Camps Bay, Clifton 1st3rd, and Hartenbos. This was also the case of hazards scores,
with Muizenberg also receiving lower ratings. Cape Town
was generally perceived to be more polluted and degraded in
comparison with Mossel Bay.
The CCA for perceptions using motivations to visit as explanatory variables revealed two factors (Axis 1 and Axis 2)
accounting for 64 % and 36 % of the variance in the data,
respectively (Fig. 2). Permutation tests yielded no significant

effects for both axes (Axis 1 p = 0.44; Axis 2 p = 0.14). Nonetheless, the ordination biplot revealed noteworthy patterns.
Motivations to visit were highly intercorrelated. Canonical
coefficients between Axis 1 and motivations were 0.44 for
the middle aged group, 0.15 for the socialising bather group,
and 0.12 for the habitual group. The gradient in this axis was
defined as one from characteristics of anthropogenic nature
(e.g. construction, management) to mainly natural characteristics (e.g. beach morphodynamics). Canonical coefficients
between Axis 2 and motivations were 0.85 for the habitual
group, 0.66 for the middle aged group, and 0.62 for the
socialising bather group. The gradient of this axis was defined
as one from basic characteristics (e.g. good sand and water) to
more complex ones sought by beachgoers (e.g. good quality
accommodation). Projecting perception points along the

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...

Fig. 2 Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination biplot with motivations to visit (arrows) and perceptions of beach conditions
(closed circles) at the beaches studied (open circles)

motivation axes shows that overall, motivations to visit had a

positive influence on beachgoers' perceptions at Muizenberg,
Clifton 4th, and Santos, a negative influence at Clifton 1st-3rd,
and mixed influences at the remaining beaches (Table 3).
Motivations positively influenced perceptions of hygieneparking and culture, while negatively influencing perceptions of socioeconomics, crowding-pests, wildlife-landscape, and conservation (Table 3). The middle-aged motivation group had a negative influence on perceptions of
most physical, biological, and environmental features, and
of values (Table 3). Habitual motivations almost had an
opposite effect on perceptions, while the socialising bather
group had mixed influences, positive on perceptions of
beach quality, outlets, and values, and negative on perceptions of the bathing area and area for activities (Table 3).
The CCA for perceptions using recreational preferences as
explanatory variables revealed two axes accounting for 47 %
and 35 % of the variance in the data, respectively (Fig. 3).
Permutation tests yielded significant effects for Axis 2
(p = 0.001) but not for Axis 1 (p = 0.62). The canonical
coefficients between Axis 1 and recreational preferences were
0.69 for the intrusive group, 0.53 for the nonintrusive
group, 0.39 for the water dependent group, and 0.23 for the
beach dependent group. Coefficients between Axis 2 and preferences were 0.77 for the water dependent group, 0.39 for
the beach dependent group, 0.23 for the nonintrusive group,
and 0.01 for the intrusive group. The gradient of both axes
remained similar to the explanation of Fig. 2, with the exception that socioeconomics fell under the category of basic

characteristics sought by beachgoers (Axis 2). Preferences

for intrusive and nonintrusive recreation were highly
intercorrelated, with a strong positive influence on perceptions
of most human-made characteristics, and a negative influence
on perceptions of natural and socioeconomic characteristics
(Table 3). Preferences for water-dependent recreation had similar influences on perceptions, with the exception that pollution, socioeconomics, and values were viewed in a more positive light (Table 3). Different from other groups, beachdependent recreation preferences positively influenced perceptions of most physical, environmental, and socioeconomic
characteristics, although views on conservation and wildlifelandscape were still influenced negatively, together with perceptions of most human-made features (Table 3). Recreational
preferences had a positive influence on beachgoers' perceptions at Muizenberg, Camps Bay, and Hartenbos, with the
exception of intrusive and high cost recreation at Muizenberg,
and beach dependent recreation at Camps Bay and Hartenbos.
They had a negative influence at Clifton and Santos, with the
exception of beach dependent recreation at Clifton 1st-3rd and
Santos. And they had positive (intrusive and nonintrusive recreation) and negative (water dependent and beach dependent
recreation) influences at Diaz (Table 3).

Discussion
Sandy beaches provide a variety of services, allowing the
development of supporting infrastructure that can enhance

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.
projections of centres of distribution along each motivation and
preference axis of CCA ordination biplots

Table 3 Main directions of influence of motivations to visit and

recreational preferences on perceptions of beach conditions; and across
the beaches under study. Positive and negative signs were obtained from
Motivations to visit

Culture
Hygiene-parking

Recreational preferences

Middle aged

Socialising bather

Habitual

Intrusive-high cost

Nonintrusive

Water dependent

Beach dependent

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

Safety-management

Outlets-accommodation
Area for activities
Hazards

+
+

+
+

+
+

+
+

Pollution-degradation

Values

Beach-sand
Bathing area-water
Socioeconomics

+
+

+
+
+

Wildlife-landscape

Crowding-pests

Conservation
Muizenberg
Camps Bay

+
+

+
+

+
+

Clifton 4th
Clifton 1st-3rd
Santos
Diaz

+
+

+
+

+
+
+

Hartenbos

Fig. 3 Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) ordination biplot with recreational preferences (arrows) and perceptions of beach conditions
(closed circles) at the beaches studied (open circles)

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...

their use. However, they also carry vital functions for a variety
of species. While many studies have focused on the human
dimensions of sandy beaches as tourism and recreation attractions (Beerli and Martn 2004; Yoon and Uysal 2005;
Ramseook-Munhurrun et al. 2015), more research aimed at
understanding peoples' links with beaches as ecosystems is
required (Tunstall and Penning-Rowsell 1998; Ariza et al.
2014; Voyer et al. 2015). This study set out to explore beachgoers' perceptions of beach conditions. The information collected facilitated a discussion of adaptive beach management.
The results presented also highlighted the relevance of integrating users' views into the planning and management of
sandy beaches, an approach already advocated by ICZM.
Demographic heterogeneity
This study revealed that while Mossel Bay and Muizenberg
had a strong domestic, local, and loyal component, the
Cape Town visitors were more international and ephemeral.
Local beachgoers were driven by habitual motivations and
preferences for active recreation during holiday periods. Visiting tourists favoured passive recreation during weekdays,
and were more critical of beach quality, water quality, and
pollution.
People of different backgrounds may perceive the beach in
different ways, and have different attitudes towards it. Repeat
visitors or local users may either grow tolerant of situations
and phenomena on beaches, or take them for granted, or regard them as part of a natural process. They may perceive their
beaches to be in better condition than visitors do, as a reaction
to the threat that outsider assessments pose to place identity
(Bonaiuto et al. 1996). In contrast, first time visitors and international tourists may judge the conditions of a beach based
on other realities serving as a frame of reference (Baysan
2001; Beerli and Martn 2004; Kontogianni et al. 2014; but
see Roca et al. 2009). In this case, international visitors were
mainly northern European. Their favouring nonintrusive recreation and greater criticism concerning pollution may be partially explained by values, practices, and media attention regarding environmental issues in their country (Baysan 2001).
However, visitors sharing strong environmental awareness
may still require beaches to be adequately developed and
commercialised. They may not necessarily be willing to
incentivise beach protection. In contrast, local users may be
opposed to commercialisation and development in their area,
take responsibility for the degradation of their beaches, and be
willing to carry some financial costs required to improve
beach conditions. These contrasting attitudes can result from
the locals' sense of attachment and stewardship for their coast
as opposed to outsiders, different needs and preferences, and
different views on who should hold responsibility for beach
maintenance and protection (Baysan 2001; Oh et al. 2010). In
this study, visitors assigned lower ratings to the cultural

attributes of beaches. This may reflect a weaker sense of spiritual and cultural connection between outsiders and the
beaches they visit. In contrast, local users are more likely to
possess better knowledge of the cultural value of their
beaches, and to have established a bond with their beaches
through various experiences (Voyer et al. 2015). These people
normally perceive the beach to be a symbol that identifies their
town (Villares et al. 2006; Cervantes et al. 2008).
Female, older, affluent and educated beachgoers favoured
nonintrusive recreation. It is understandable that females accompanying children and older people tend to seek a tranquil
recreational experience. These groups also accorded greater
importance to the values of beach ecosystems, indicating
greater ecological sensibility compared with other beachgoer
groups. This sensibility may be attributed to greater responsibility, sensitivity, soft approaches, care, knowledge, experience, conservative ways, and more time available (Morgan
et al. 1993; Kontogianni et al. 2014; Leonidou et al. 2015).
A stable economic condition may also lead to better disposition towards conservation. Cinner and Pollanc (2004) have
used the Maslow hierarchy of needs (Maslow 1970) to argue
that conservation would be associated with complex needs
including belonging, esteem, knowledge, aesthetics, and
self-actualisation, and not with basic needs such as food and
security. Unless basic needs are fulfilled, conservation would
be difficult to pursue.
Sociodemographic influences on peoples perceptions of
beach environments have relevant implications for management, for example, the need to develop different communication strategies for different user groups, to diversify management plans across beaches with different uses, and to adapt
management plans to satisfy different user groups. To address
such sociodemographic influences, decision makers need to
focus on at least four tasks. The first is to address the concerns
of various user groups. The second is the establishment of
campaigns of education regarding the potential short-term
and long-term impacts, whether positive or negative, of proposed plans. The third is the design of marketing strategies
that will work for a balance between user demands and the
need to protect beach ecosystems. Lastly is the development
of co-management approaches aimed at providing users with a
sense of stewardship and responsibility for sandy beaches.
The common denominator of these tasks should be striving
for a sustainable beach management model, where environmental protection and the preservation of beach ecosystem
functions are prioritised, although not to the entire expense
of users.
Motivations to visit and recreational preferences
This study looked at commonly investigated concepts in tourism research, including motivations to visit and recreational
preferences. The information gained from these constructs,

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.

and their influence on peoples evaluation of their recreational

environment, are relevant to understanding the dispositions of
people towards sandy beaches. Recreational orientations and
experiences can influence environmental behaviours of coastal users, potentially playing an educational role (Kontogianni
et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2015). Certain perceptions and views
may translate into willingness to learn, to adapt to regulatory
actions such as temporary beach closures and zoning, to financially support beach protection and conservation, to actively participate in management and science through volunteer work and citizen science, and to engage in environmentally responsible behaviours at home. For example, habitual
users who have developed a sense of emotional attachment to
the beach may be easily encouraged to participate in a volunteer programme (Lee 2011). Users who feel that their favoured
activities are threatened by environmental degradation may be
more inclined to pay for supporting scientific research aimed
at problem solving (Kontogianni et al. 2014).
In this study, motivations to visit were strongly
intercorrelated, influencing perceptions of most beach characteristics similarly. Motivations and recreational preferences
positively influenced perceptions of human-made features,
which were offered and maintained to varying degrees at all
the beaches studied. These results support the assumption that
people with different motivations to visit will assess their destination in a similar manner, if they feel that the destination
provides them with the sought-after resources (Beerli and
Martn 2004). Beachgoers may also be satisfied with the condition of services provided on beaches either because they do
not play a decisive role in beach enjoyment, or because they
can be sacrificed for the ultimate purpose thereof (Tudor and
Williams 2006; Roca et al. 2008; Snider et al. 2015).
Motivations to visit and recreational preferences negatively
influenced perceptions of biological and environmental factors, including wildlife abundance and diversity, crowding,
and conservation. Interestingly, perceptions of the socioeconomic state of the beaches were correlated with perceptions of
conservation and management (Fig. 2), and even physical and
environmental characteristics (Fig. 3). Beachgoers may perceive the environmental and ecological quality of beaches to
be dependent on the economic resources available to beach
managers. Such quality will be reflected in the investments
made by municipalities, districts, and the country. Beachgoers
can also see themselves as playing a role in financing beach
management. In this study, preferences for beach-dependent
recreation, favoured by domestic and international visitors,
positively influenced socioeconomic perceptions. Visitors
staying for a certain period tend to seek experiences in addition to beach recreation, spending more money in a municipality compared with local users (Roca and Villares 2008).
Being aware of the impact that their spending could exert on
the local economy, these users may opine that beaches indirectly benefit from this impact. Given their still unsatisfied

view of conservation and other natural features of the beaches

under study, they may be more critical of current money-using
policies by managing authorities.
Beachgoers generally favoured nonintrusive recreation,
possibly because intrusive activities such as four-wheel driving and camping are not allowed on the beaches studied.
However, this is not the first case of users giving poor credit
to aggressive recreation, particularly four-wheel driving on
sandy beaches (Priskin 2003; Maguire et al. 2011). Fourwheel driving in South Africa has been banned from most
beaches for more than fourteen years (Celliers et al. 2004).
Domestic beachgoers may have possessed knowledge of the
harmful impacts of four-wheel driving, probably thanks to
media influences and educational campaigns running alongside the implementation of the ban. However, to date no study
has yet set out to investigate peoples perceptions of largescale management interventions of the sort, but should be
contemplated in the future, as a means to assess the receptiveness of the public to managerial actions, and to assist the
development of new management plans.
Beach characteristics rated poorly
Beachgoers were sensitive to the state of physical and bioenvironmental features at some of the beaches studied.
Cape Town was perceived to be more polluted and degraded
compared with Mossel Bay, probably due to the urban nature
of the former, as opposed to a more semi-natural feel of the
latter. Beach configuration and hazards received lower ratings
in Clifton 1st-3rd, Camps Bay, Hartenbos, and Muizenberg.
Clifton 1st-3rd does not have a permanent lifesaving installation, and is not cleaned of washed-up kelp accumulations,
which can take beach space and emit an unpleasant odour.
Erosion was visible in Hartenbos, while Camps Bay was particularly crowded. Hazards in the bathing area may include rip
currents and the presence of great white sharks. Mitigation
measures to reduce the risk of rip current incidents are normally adopted on Blue Flag beaches, where boards are
installed to warn and instruct bathers. While these boards were
present on some of the beaches studied, they could have
remained unnoticed by beachgoers (Brannstrom et al. 2015).
Shark attack mitigation measures are also in place on South
African beaches (Kock et al. 2012), and beachgoers do possess some awareness of them (Lucrezi et al. 2015). However,
it may still take time before these initiatives gain momentum
and improve public perceptions of shark-associated risks.
Users' perceptions of beach configuration could represent a
difficult challenge to managers. Beach dimensions can be perceived negatively in urban beaches, where users are likely to
sense a lack of space compared with more natural scenarios
(Roca and Villares 2008). As a consequence, the demand for
space in urban beaches is likely to increase. Addressing such a
demand implies managing conflict between recreation and

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...

conservation, or between capped recreation and overexploitation. An example is Clifton 1st-3rd, where cast-up kelp accumulations prevented beachgoers from occupying the beach
space. While managers may consider beach cleaning as an
option to alleviate the problem, this approach would have
negative ecological impacts (Mead et al. 2013). A win-win
solution should be to exploit the natural division of Clifton
into inlets, followed by education campaigns (perhaps run by
the Blue Flag programme at Clifton 4th) on the value and
function of wrack in beach ecosystems. Peoples demands
for beach space and amenities as well as wildlife and better
conservation initiatives may seem like paradoxical expectations to managers, which often derive from users' lack of understanding of the requirements of a healthy beach ecosystem
(Maguire et al. 2011). However, the coexistence of conservation and recreation on beaches can be worked out and should
be encouraged, for example, in scenarios of degraded beaches
subject to tourism declines (McLachlan et al. 2013). Further,
user demand for better management could reflect a real discontent with current management practices, especially when
one-sided and based on a priori decisions that have neglected
the public perspective (Maguire et al. 2011).
User evaluations may determine whether beaches retain
those attributes creating recreational experiences capable of
positively influencing environmental attitudes and behaviours. These experiences are education, aesthetics, escapism,
and experiential engagement (Pine and Gilmore 1998; Lee
et al. 2015). In this study, aesthetics was highly appreciated
by the beachgoers. Escapism and experiential engagement
were reflected in the motivation to relax and socialise and in
the preference for nonintrusive recreation. However, intrusive
activities such as collecting shells and motor boating/jet skiing
were still favoured among some people. Spirituality, a cultural
aspect normally indicating a strong bond with the coast, and
capable of predicting pro-environmental behaviours (Voyer
et al. 2015), was generally rated poorly by the participants;
likewise, education, among other conservation initiatives.
These findings imply a need to provide education about beach
ecosystems in various ways, and to implement tangible conservation programmes. Some of the beaches studied are Blue
Flag beaches, providing some education in the form of boards
and occasional activities such as beach clean-ups. These
efforts, however, did not seem to satisfy the participants'
desire to witness (and perhaps participate in) education and
conservation. Educational strategies may deploy modern
technologies, such as mobile phone applications, to disseminate environmental information and engage users in participatory coastal science (Merlino et al. 2014; Adriaens et al.
2015; Ghermandi et al. 2015). Initiatives promoting active
stewardship, such as simple beach litter campaigns or bird
monitoring, can strengthen spiritual bonds between users
and the coast (Storrier and McGlashan 2006; Ferreira et al.
2012; Voyer et al. 2015).

The participants' concern for beach conservation does not

guarantee willingness to participate in it if it were more tangible and accessible. While users wish for a beach with greater
wildlife abundance and diversity, they may not be interested in
participating in environmental monitoring, or be opposed to
restrictions that would compromise their recreational experiences. Generally users prefer moderate restrictions (Oh et al.
2010) and are capable of adapting when these are implemented (Maguire et al. 2013). Users can also be supportive of selftaxation to aid research, management, and conservation, especially when they realise that the long-term benefits to the ecosystem will also impact them positively (Shivlani et al. 2003;
Kontogianni et al. 2014). Therefore, the potential for public
participation in beach management and conservation should
be tapped.
Beach characteristics rated highly
Beachgoers placed great importance on the values associated
with beach ecosystems. These included inherent, fundamental, eudaimonistic, and instrumental values described by Jax
et al. (2013), and re-proposed by Schlacher et al. (2014) as a
perspective from which to address beach ecosystems, and design management and conservation plans. Beachgoers indirectly acknowledged the status of beaches as generators of
provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services to
humankind. They also recognised the non-human rights of
beach ecosystems, and humankinds responsibility to protect
beaches. The recognition and importance attributed by users
to beach ecosystem values can be reflected in sentiments of
benevolence, manifested through actions of care and stewardship of the coast (Tunstall and Penning-Rowsell 1998;
Maguire et al. 2011; Voyer et al. 2015). These can range from
direct participation in volunteering and citizen science, to
more personal and informal ways of monitoring and reporting.
Appreciation of these values can also accompany a change of
the self-prescribed standards concerning the sustainable use of
resources and compliance with rules and regulations to protect
beaches.
The governance of coastal ecosystems should be
characterised by a better study and consideration of human
dimensions including values, images, and principles shared
by users (Voyer et al. 2015). This is also in line with prescriptions of ICZM (Schernewski 2014). Given that values, images, and principles shape different cultural models, the integration of these models into management and conservation
policies needs to be orchestrated in a balanced manner, and
will require the use of different engagement approaches
(Tunstall and Penning-Rowsell 1998; Maguire et al. 2011;
Voyer et al. 2015). Views are also likely to differ and cause
conflict among other stakeholder groups in beach management systems, including managers, politicians, municipal authorities, NGOs, academic institutions, and the private sector.

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.

While the fragility of beach ecosystems is generally acknowledged, their protection is not necessarily ranked as a top priority by some of these groups (Ariza et al. 2014). Conflicting
views can retard decision making and hamper the effective
management of beach ecosystems. Further, certain values
may be underrepresented in a scenario of technocracy-driven
governance of sandy beaches (Ariza et al. 2014). In order to
embody the multiplicity of values underpinning sandy
beaches, the multiplicity of stakeholder groups involved
in these ecosystems needs to be properly represented. Addressing the needs that are dictated by the values each
stakeholder group holds is a complex socio-political and
financial matter. However, there are simple steps that can
initiate a dialogue of co-management, including participation opportunities in decision making, policy, planning,
implementation, and monitoring.

Conclusions
Sandy beaches are used by heterogeneous groups of users.
While these groups can differ greatly, they can all share concerns for the wellbeing of sandy beaches, as well as regard the
values underlying these fragile ecosystems. This was so in this
study. These attitudes could represent fertile ground in which
to plant the seed of proactive management including participatory planning, decision making, management, and science.
They are an invitation for testing new propositions including
zoning, conservation taxes, regulations, and restrictions. The
coexistence of uses and conservation remains a problematic
management issue, particularly in urban and tourism areas,
and where anthropogenic stressors exert chronic effects on
beach ecosystems (Roca and Villares 2008; McLachlan et al.
2013). Beach users may yet be far from understanding that
higher demands for conservation can translate into recreational constrictions. Research has demonstrated that proper educational campaigns can positively affect peoples disposition
towards a more sustainable management of beach resources,
including actions that will require compromise and restrictions
(Ormsby and Forys 2010). In this study, beachgoers may still
have been unable to properly discern the condition of various
beach properties. Further, this study could not take the full
diversity of beach types into consideration. Finally, beachgoers' perceptions need to be treated carefully before being
translated into management practices. Nonetheless, studies
such as this generate bottom-up information that can be crucial in the understanding of beach users' profiles. Such an
understanding is relevant in the context of differential beach
management, including the design of adaptive plans that will
prioritise the preservation of beach ecosystem functions, but
will also engender respect and foster positive connections between humans and sandy beaches.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to extend their gratitude to all the

beachgoers who participated in the beach survey, and to the fieldworkers.
This study was funded by TREES at the North-West University and the
National Research Foundation (NRF).

References
Adriaens T, Sutton-Croft M, Owen K, Brosens D, van Valkenburg J,
Kilbey D, Groom Q, Ehmig C, Thrkov F, Van Hende P,
Schneider K (2015) Trying to engage the crowd in recording invasive alien species in Europe: experiences from two smartphone applications in northwest Europe. Manag Biol Invasion 6(2):215225
Ariza E, Jimnez JA, Sard R, Villares M, Pinto J, Fraguell R, Roca E,
Marti C, Valdemoro H, Ballester R, Fluvia M (2010) Proposal for an
integral quality index for urban and urbanized beaches. Environ
Manag 45:9981013
Ariza E, Lindeman KC, Mozumder P, Suman DO (2014) Beach management in Florida: assessing stakeholder perceptions on governance.
Ocean Coast Manag 96:8293
Ballance A, Ryan PG, Turpie JK (2000) How much is a clean beach
worth? The impact of litter on beach users in the cape peninsula,
South Africa. S Afr J Sci 96:210213
Baysan SK (2001) Perceptions of the environmental impacts of tourism: a
comparative study of the attitudes of German, Russian and Turkish
tourists in kemer, Antalya. Tourism Geogr 3(2):218235
Beerli A, Martn JD (2004) Tourists characteristics and the perceived
image of tourist destinations: a quantitative analysisa case study
of lanzarote, Spain. Tourism Manag 25:623636
Blue Flag South Africa (2014) Retrieved March 20, 2014, from www.
blueflag.org.za
Bonaiuto M, Breakwell GM, Cano I (1996) Identity processes and environmental threat: the effects of nationalism and local identity upon
perception of beach pollution. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 6:
157175
Brannstrom C, Brown HL, Houser C, Trimble S, Santos A (2015) BYou
cant see them from sitting here^: evaluating beach user understanding of a rip current warning sign. Appl Geogr 56:6170
Celliers L, Moffett T, James NC, Mann BQ (2004) A strategic assessment
of recreational use areas for off-road vehicles in the coastal zone of
KwaZulu- natal, South Africa. Ocean Coast Manag 47:123140
Celliers L, Colenbrander DR, Breetzke T, Oelofse G (2015) Towards
increased degrees of integrated coastal management in the City of
Cape Town, South Africa. Ocean Coast Manag 105:138153
Cendrero A, Fischer DW (1997) A procedure for assessing the environmental quality of coastal areas for planning and management. J
Coastal Res 13(3):732744
Cervantes O, Espejel I, Arellano E, Delhumeau S (2008) Users perceptions as a tool to improve urban beach planning and management.
Environ Manag 42:249264
Cinner JE, Pollanc RB (2004) Poverty, perceptions and planning: why
socioeconomics matter in the management of Mexican reefs. Ocean
Coast Manag 47:479493
Cohen J (1973) Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in fixed factor
ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 33:107112
Colenbrander D, Cartwright A, Taylor A (2015) Drawing a line in the
sand: managing coastal risks in the city of cape town. S Afr Geogr J
97(1):117
Comrey AL (1973) A first course in factor analysis. Academic Press,
New York
Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis. Erlbaum,
Hillsdale
Davie A (2008) The Whale Trail of South Africa. 30 South Publishers,
Johannesburg, p. 144

Author's personal copy

Beachgoers perceptions of sandy beach conditions: demographic and attitudinal influences, and the...
De Ruyck AMC, Soares AC, McLachlan A (1995) Factors influencing
human beach choice on three South African beaches: a multivariate
analysis. GeoJournal 36(4):345352
De Winter JCF, Dodou D, Wieringa PA (2009) Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivar Behav Res 44:147181
Defeo O, McLachlan A, Schoeman DS, Schlacher TA, Dugan J, Jones A,
Lastra M, Scapini F (2009) Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a
review. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 81:112
Ferreira MA, Soares L, Andrade F (2012) Educating citizens about their
coastal environments: beach profiling in the coastwatch project. J
Coast Conserv 16:567574
Fritz CO, Morris PE (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):218
Ghermandi A, Galil B, Gowdy J, Nunes PALD (2015) Jellyfish outbreak
impacts on recreation in the Mediterranean sea: welfare estimates
from a socioeconomic pilot survey in Israel. Ecosyst Serv 11:140147
Greenacre M (2010) Canonical correspondence analysis in social science
research. In: Locarek-Junge H, Weihs C (eds) Classification as a tool
for research. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 279286
Hair J, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1995) Multivariate data
analysis, 4th edn. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Hammer ., Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics
software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron
4(1):9. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm
Harris LR (2012) An ecosystem-based spatial conservation plan for the
South African sandy beaches. Dissertation, Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth
Harris LR, Nel R, Schoeman DS (2011) Mapping beach morphodynamics
remotely: a novel application tested on South African sandy shores.
Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 92:7889
Harris L, Nel R, Holness S, Schoeman D (2015) Quantifying cumulative
threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a tool to guide ecosystem-based
management beyond coastal reserves. Ocean Coast Manag 110:
1224
James RJ (2000) From beaches to beach environments: linking the
ecology, human-use, and management of beaches in Australia.
Ocean Coast Manag 43(6):495514
Jax K, Barton DN, Chan KMA, de Groot R, Doyle U, Eser U, Grg C,
Gmez-Baggethun E, Griewald Y, Haber W, Haines-Young R,
Heink U, Jahn T, Joosten H, Kerschbaumer L, Korn H, Luck GW,
Matzdorf B, Muraca B, Nehver C, Norton B, Ott K, Potschin M,
Rauschmayer F, von Haaren C, Wichmann S (2013) Ecosystem
services and ethics. Ecol Econ 93:260268
Klimley AP, Ainley DG (1998) Great white sharks: the biology of
carcharodon carcharias. Academic Press, San Diego, p. 517
Kock A, Titley S, Petersen W, Sikweyiya M, Tsotsobe S, Colenbrander
D, Gold H, Oelofse G (2012) Shark spotters: a pioneering shark
safety program in cape town, South Africa. In: Domeier ML (ed)
Global perspectives on the biology and life history of the white
shark. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 447466
Kontogianni A, Damigos D, Tourkolias C, Vousdoukas M, Velegrakis A,
Zanou B, Skourtos M (2014) Eliciting beach users willingness to
pay for protecting European beaches from beachrock processes.
Ocean Coast Manag 98:167175
Leatherman SP (1997) Beach rating: a methodological approach. J
Coastal Res 13(1):253258
Lee TH (2011) How recreation involvement, place attachment, and conservation commitment affect environmentally responsible behavior.
J Sustain Tourism 19(7):895915
Lee TH, Jan FH, Huang GW (2015) The influence of recreation experiences on environmentally responsible behavior: the case of liuqiu
island, Taiwan. J Sustain Tourism 23(6):947967
Leonidou LC, Coudounaris DN, Kvasova O, Christodoulides P (2015)
Drivers and outcomes of green tourist attitudes and behavior:
sociodemographic moderating effects. Psychol Market 32(6):
635650

Lozoya JP, Sard R, Jimnez JA (2014) Users expectations and the need
for differential beach management frameworks along the costa
Brava: urban vs. natural protected beaches. Land Use Policy 38:
397414
Lucrezi S, Saayman M, van der Merwe P (2015) Managing beaches and
beachgoers: lessons from and for the blue flag award. Tourism
Manag 48:211230
MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S (1999) Sample size in
factor analysis. Psychol Methods 4:8499
Maguire GS, Miller KK, Weston MA, Young K (2011) Being beside the
seaside: beach use and preferences among coastal residents of southeastern Australia. Ocean Coast Manag 54:781788
Maguire GS, Rimmer JM, Weston MA (2013) Stakeholder perceptions of
threatened species and their management on urban beaches.
Animals 3:10021020
Maree JG, Pietersen J (2007) Sampling. In: Maree JG (ed) First steps in
research. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria, p. 174
Maslow A (1970) Motivation and personality, 2nd edn. Harper & Row,
New York
McLachlan A, Defeo O, Jaramillo E, Short AD (2013) Sandy beach
conservation and recreation: guidelines for optimizing management strategies for multi-purpose use. Ocean Coast Manag
71(1):256268
Mead A, Griffiths CL, Branch GM, McQuaid CD, Blamey LK, Bolton JJ,
Anderson RJ, Dufois F, Rouault M, Froneman PW, Whitfield AK,
Harris LR, Nel R, Pillay D, Adams JB (2013) Human-mediated
drivers of changeimpacts on coastal ecosystems and marine biota
of South Africa. Afr J Mar Sci 35(3):403425
Merlino S, Marini C, Tosi D, Caselli L, Marini D, Lucchinelli P, Vetteroni
D, Lunardelli F, Agrusa A, Lombardi D, Stroobant M (2014) Project
Seacleaner: From cooperation among ISMAR-CNR researchers, high
school students and the Ligurian Cluster for Marine Technologies to
an application for environmental monitoring and scientific research.
Geophys Res Abstr 16:EGU-2014-5454-1
Morgan R (1999) A novel, user-based rating system for tourist beaches.
Tourism Manag 20:393410
Morgan R, Jones TC, Williams AT (1993) Opinions and perceptions of
England and wales heritage coast beach users: some management
implications from the glamorgan heritage coast, wales. J Coastal Res
9(4):10831093
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGrawHill, New York, p. 752
Oh CO, Draper J, Dixon AW (2010) Comparing resident and tourist
preferences for public beach access and related amenities. Ocean
Coast Manag 53:245251
Ormsby AA, Forys EA (2010) The effects of an education campaign on
beach user perceptions of beach-nesting birds in Pinellas county,
Florida. Hum Dimens Wildl 15:119128
Pereira LCC, Jimnez JA, Medeiros C, da Costa RM (2003) The influence
of the environmental status of casa caiada and Rio doce beaches
(NE-Brazil) on beach users. Ocean Coast Manag 46:10111030
Pine BJ, Gilmore JH (1998) Welcome to the experience economy.
Harvard Bus Rev 76(4):96105
Priskin J (2003) Tourist perceptions of degradation caused by coastal
nature-based recreation. Environ Manag 32(2):189204
Ramseook-Munhurrun P, Seebaluck VN, Naidoo P (2015) Examining the
structural relationships of destination image, perceived value, tourist
satisfaction and loyalty: case of Mauritius. Procedia Soc Behav Sci
175:252259
Roca E, Villares M (2008) Public perceptions for evaluating beach quality
in urban and semi-natural environments. Ocean Coast Manag 51(4):
314329
Roca E, Riera C, Villares M, Fragell R, Junyent R (2008) A combined
assessment of beach occupancy and public perceptions of beach
quality: a case study in the costa Brava, Spain. Ocean Coast Manag
51(12):839846

Author's personal copy

Lucrezi S., van der Walt M.F.
Roca E, Villares M, Ortego MI (2009) Assessing public perceptions on
beach quality according to beach users profile: a case study in the
costa Brava (Spain). Tourism Manag 30(4):598607
Saayman M, Slabbert E, Van der Merwe P (2009) Travel motivation: a
tale of two marine destinations in South Africa. S Afr J Res Sport
Phys Educ Recreation 31(1):8194
Schernewski G (2014) Integrated coastal zone management. In:
Encyclopedia of marine geosciences. Springer Netherlands, pp 15
Schlacher TA, Schoeman DS, Dugan JE, Lastra M, Jones AR, Scapini F,
McLachlan A (2008) Sandy beach ecosystems: key features, sampling issues, management challenges and climate change impacts.
Mar Ecol 29:7090
Schlacher TA, Schoeman DS, Jones AR, Dugan JE, Hubbard DM, Defeo
O, Peterson CH, Weston MA, Maslo B, Olds AD, Scapini F, Nel R,
Harris LR, Lucrezi S, Lastra M, Huijbers CM, Connolly RM (2014)
Metrics to assess ecological condition, change, and impacts in sandy
beach ecosystems. J Environ Manag 144:322335
Shivlani MP, Letson D, Theis M (2003) Visitor preference for public
beach amenities and beach restoration in south Florida. Coast
Manag 31:367385
Snider A, Luo S, Hill J, Herstine J (2015) Perceptions of availability of
beach parking and access predictors of coastal tourism. Ocean Coast
Manag 105:4855
Stevens JP (2012) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences
5th edn. Routledge, Taylor and Francis, p. 664
Storrier KL, McGlashan DJ (2006) Development and management of a
coastal litter campaign: the voluntary coastal partnership approach.
Mar Policy 30:189196

Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics. Pearson

Education, Boston
Ter Braak CJF (1986) Canonical correspondence analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology
67(5):11671179
Tripadvisor (2014) Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://www.
tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice
Tudor DT, Williams AT (2006) A rationale for beach selection by the
public on the coast of wales, UK. Area 38(2):153164
Tunstall SM, Penning-Rowsell EC (1998) The English beach: experiences and values. Geogr J 164(3):319332
Villares M, Roca E, Serra J, Montori C (2006) Social perceptions as a tool
for beach planning: a case study on the Catalan coast. J Coastal Res
SI 48:118123
Voyer M, Gollan N, Barclay K, Gladstone W (2015) Its part of me;
understanding the values, images, and principles of coastal users and
their influence on the social acceptability of MPAs. Mar Policy 52:
93102
Weimann E (2014) Blue flag beaches-bathers at risk for thalassogenic
diseases. J Environ Ecol 5(1):3845
Williams AT, Micallef A (2009) Beach management: principles and practices. Earthscan, London
Wolch J, Zhang J (2004) Beach recreation, cultural diversity and attitudes
toward nature. J Leis Res 36(3):414443
Yoon Y, Uysal M (2005) An examination of the effects of motivation and
satisfaction on destination loyalty: a structural model. Tourism
Manag 26:4556