Beach Users Perceptions Beach Users Perceptions Concerning Zuma Beach RestorationConcerning Zuma Beach Restoration

David K. LoomisDavid K. LoomisUniversity of Massachusetts AmherstUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

May 19, 2009May 19, 2009Silver Spring, MDSilver Spring, MD

BackgroundBackground

• Task was to survey Zuma Beach users– Evaluate perceptions of restoration area– Value and benefit of restoration area– Importance of various elements of beach going

experience– Awareness of restoration area– Targeted use of restoration area

• Is there a social benefit to the restoration effort at Zuma Beach?

PurposePurpose

• Discuss data collection methods

• Discuss methodological issues and some surprises

• Present some results of the survey

Zuma BeachZuma Beach

Zuma Beach and Restored LagoonZuma Beach and Restored Lagoon

Overview of MethodsOverview of Methods

• Visitors to Zuma Beach were intercepted on the beach during the summer of 2008; obtained address and/or email address

• Six zones created for sampling and analysis purposes

• Survey of visitors conducted during fall of 2008– Mail survey– Internet survey

Distribution of Intercept OutcomesDistribution of Intercept Outcomes

Total visitors intercepted 2,639Refusals/other mortality

Did not wish to participate (32.5%) 857Under age 18 103Language barrier 207Already intercepted 53Non-resident of United States 3

Total Mortality 1,233Willing to participate 1,416

Survey AdministrationSurvey Administration

• Mail survey– Mail surveys followed Dillman method– Multiple mailings, personalized approach

• Internet survey– Same survey, same order, same questions– Emailed “cover letter” to visitor– Four “mailings”

Survey Response RatesSurvey Response Rates

Mail InternetInitial sample………………. 949 467Non-deliverables…………… 66 71Effective sample……………. 883 396Completed surveys………… 474 162

Response rate…………….. 53.7% 40.9%

Beach UseBeach Use

Frequency of visitation:Visits/year

PercentInfrequent visitor………………….. 0-2 22.5Occasional visitor………………… 3-5 22.0Semi-regular visitor………………. 6-9 20.1Regular visitor…………………… 10-365 35.4

Mean = 11.2 visits, Median = 6.0 visits

Awareness of Restoration ProjectAwareness of Restoration Project

Aware Not AwareInfrequent visitor……………. 10.1% 89.9%

Occasional visitor…………… 9.0% 91.0%

Semi-regular visitor…………. 10.4% 89.6%

Regular visitor………………. 18.9% 81.1%

Overall, 13% of visitors were aware of the restoration project

Zuma Beach ZonesZuma Beach Zones

A

BC

DE

F

Use According to ZoneUse According to Zone

NPercentZone A……………………… 92 20.8Zone B…………………….. 130 29.4Zone C……………………. 101 22.8Zone D…………………….. 61 13.8Zone E…………………….. 29 6.6Zone F…………………….. 29 6.6

Distribution of Use According to Distribution of Use According to Awareness and ZoneAwareness and Zone

Aware Not Aware• Most desirable zones

– Zones A, B and C 62.9% 66.2%– Zones D, E and F 37.1% 33.8%

• Least desirable zones– Zones A, B, and C 35.0% 37.0%– Zones D, E and F 65.0% 63.0%

• Most desirable zone– Zone E only 23.3% 20.0%

• Least desirable zone– Zone E only 6.5% 4.6%

Importance of Beach Going Importance of Beach Going Elements According to AwarenessElements According to AwarenessAware Unaware

Water cleanliness…………………. 4.66 4.57Access to the beach………………. 4.19 4.35Improvement of overall env. quality……………………… 4.14 3.89Communication of reg/man. implications………………………. 3.16 3.08Abundance of wildlife …………….. 2.95 2.58Temperature of water …………….. 2.89 3.12Educational signs………………….. 2.82 2.50

1=Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Importance of Beach Going Importance of Beach Going Elements According to AwarenessElements According to AwarenessAware Unaware

Availability of ecological information…………….………….. 2.70 2.30Abundance of birds………………… 2.69 2.22Abundance of native vegetation….. 2.58 2.34Presence of big waves ……………. 2.54 2.57Availability of educational information………………………… 2.54 2.19Abundance of native fish………….. 2.53 2.18

1=Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Value of the Zuma Beach Value of the Zuma Beach RestorationRestoration

It is important to me to have ecological restoration in this region………………………………………… 4.25

For me, the attractiveness of this area has been improved because of the Zuma Beach restoration………………………………………… 3.93 I am satisfied with the Zuma Beach ecological restoration…………………………………………… 3.83

The Zuma Beach restoration benefits me………………….……. 3.82

The Zuma Beach restoration has improved the quality of my beach going experience………………….…. 3.63

The Zuma Beach restoration has made it more likely that I will visit Zuma Beach…………………….….. 3.36

1=Strongly disagree, 3=Neutral, 5=Strongly Agree (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Comparison of Restored Zuma Comparison of Restored Zuma Beach Area to Unrestored Beach Area to Unrestored

Trancas Creek AreaTrancas Creek Area

Abundance of birds………………………….. 3.84Improvement of overall environmental quality …………………….. 3.78Abundance of wildlife ………………………. 3.70Abundance of native vegetation …………… 3.64Water cleanliness……………………………. 3.62Abundance of native fish……………………. 3.54

1=Not better, 3=Moderately better, 5=Extremely better (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Comparison of Restored Zuma Comparison of Restored Zuma Beach Area to Unrestored Beach Area to Unrestored

Trancas Creek AreaTrancas Creek Area

Communication of regulations through signs……………………………….. 3.27Educational signs…………………………….. 3.24Availability of education information……………………….…………. 3.19Availability of ecological information……..… 3.13Access to the beach………………….………. 3.00

1=Not better, 3=Moderately better, 5=Extremely better (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Importance of Environmental Importance of Environmental CharacteristicsCharacteristics

Aware Not AwareProximity to natural areas…………. 3.37 2.87Wildlife viewing opportunities…….. 3.31 2.85Diversity of scenery………………… 3.17 2.80 Nature/hiking trails…………………. 2.91 2.63Presence of educational signs/information………………… 2.63 2.46Quality of educational signs/information………………… 2.66 2.46

1=Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Perceived Trend in Overall Perceived Trend in Overall Ecological Health of Zuma Beach Ecological Health of Zuma Beach

According to AwarenessAccording to Awareness

Aware Not AwarePerceived trend in overall ecological health……………… 3.19 2.77

1=Decreased significantly, 3=Remained about the same, 5=Increased significantly

DiscussionDiscussion

• Use levels are not high near restoration project

• Those who visit Zuma Beach most often are slightly more likely to be aware of the restoration project

• The most desirable zones are at the opposite end of Zuma Beach from the restoration project

• Visitors consider overall environmental quality to be important, but…

DiscussionDiscussion• Visitors seem to consider the separate elements of the

environment to be of lesser importance (birds, vegetation, wildlife, fish)

• Those aware of restoration project see value and benefits to the project

• Those aware of restoration project consider environmental characteristics to be more important than do those not aware of the project

• Those aware of restoration project see the ecological health of Zuma Beach to be increasing

Questions?Questions?