Recreational Beach Users in the Perth Metropolitan Area

RECREATIONAL BEACH USERS

IN THE PERTH METROPOLITAN AREA

March 2005 in Summer 2004-2005

August 2005

Ian Eliot, Matthew Tonts,

Matthew Eliot, Grant Walsh & John Collins

The Institute of Regional Development

School of Earth and Geographical Sciences

Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences

University of Western Australia

PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005

INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Brief for the a Study of Recreational Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area, between

Singleton and Two Rocks commission specified that the aim of the study was to provide a

better understanding of existing recreational and leisure use of Perth beaches, the adequacy

of existing facilities and open space, and an estimate of future demands. The document

presented here reports a first order analysis of information collected and collated ion

fulfilment of the general aims of the Study. It is anticipated that further analyses will be

undertaken as specific questions are formulated in response to the results reported.

OBJECTIVES & PURPOSE

The objectives of the study were to:

1 Describe and analyse the spatial and temporal distribution of beach users along the study

area, under favourable conditions;

2 Establish the locational origins of people using selected representative beach nodes;

3 Establish the relative importance of different sections of the study area for recreational

and leisure purposes, as measured under favourable conditions.

4 Identify the major types of beach use activities and their spatial and temporal distribution

within the study area both across beaches and within individual selected representative

beach nodes.

5 Establish the adequacy of existing open space provision as well as parking facilities and

access arrangements.

6 Estimate future beach use growth and demand patterns, classifying sectors along the

study area according to capacity to deal with current and expected demand.

Its purpose was to provide better and up-to-date data on which planning and management

decisions can be confidently based for lands within and adjacent to Perth’s coastal reserves.

PREVIOUS SURVEYS OF BEACH USE

Questionnaire surveys conducted to date provide a consistent picture of beach use along the

Perth Metropolitan Coast. Most visitors to the beaches are residents living within 10 to 15

minutes travel time of the beach regardless of the mode of transport. Unless there are

special circumstances, such as a surf life saving carnival or other attractions, they commonly

frequently visit the beach closest to their place of residence.

The beach going population is highly fluid, changing day-to-day and place-to-place as well as

throughout the day, with people only staying at the beach for short periods, usually less than

2 hours. This implies that the demography and recreational character of the crowd alters over

time. On some beaches, there appeared to be separate peaks for early use, followed by

mid-morning, mid-afternoon and early evening peaks. Under these circumstances, it is


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ii

hardly surprising that proposals for beach development commonly attract large numbers of

local residents. Issues of environmental change, particularly controversial issues, provide a

single focus for all local groups using the beach to come together and comment on the

proposals. The bias is real and based on a genuine ‘sense of place,’ although people from a

wider geographic area may contribute to debate on such issues.

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE COAST

The major challenge for those involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal

environments is to understand the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to

accommodate it in planning and management projects and decision-making. However, this

can be difficult, particularly as the extreme variability of coastal change creates uncertainty,

even when detailed environmental information is available. It is important that technical

advice is sought from fully qualified and personnel experienced with the local coast when

designing and engaging in planning and management projects. The advice is necessary to

fully understand the implications of action and inaction in management, particularly those

based on insubstantial and inadequate information.

The wide range of beach landforms and processes along the Perth Metropolitan Coast

provides potential for a highly diverse pattern of beach use. A major challenge for those

involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal environments is to understand

the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to accommodate it in planning and

management projects and decision-making. Separate beach nodes are components of the

five major sediment cells and sixteen secondary cells comprising the natural resource

management units along the coast. Beach states range from the very sheltered

environments of Shoalwater Bay and Cockburn Sound to exposed ocean beaches at Secret

Harbour and Scarborough.

The benign climate of the region indicates nodes of development along the coast could be

used throughout the year. Strong sea breezes in summer offer opportunities for wind surfing

but otherwise limit potential use of exposed beaches. A second challenge for management

is to develop landscape designs that provide adequate levels of shelter on beach nodes

where it is desirable to encourage year round use of the beach and its facilities.

PEOPLE ON THE BEACHES

Patterns of beach use have been determined by the aerial surveys and questionnaires, as

well as from records collated by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. Together, the surveys

provide a substantial picture of beach use on the metropolitan coast. During morning on the

first day of survey, the time of most intense use of the coast, 9514 people were

photographed between Silver Sands and Two Rocks. This total contrasted with a maximum

of 1315 for the mid-week surveys.


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT iii

The distribution of people along the coast was determined from aerial photography. First, the

results for Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon on align with expectation. Crowds were

highest at regional nodes where facilities have been provided, particularly in the central

metropolitan area between Fremantle (Bathers Beach) and Trigg. Peak use on Sunday

occurred at City Beach (am: 714 people), Cottesloe (pm: 610 people), Scarborough (am: 559

people), Pinnaroo Point (am 454 people) and Trigg (am 425 people). Substantial crowds

also were recorded for Rockingham (pm: 299 people), South Beach (am: 296 people), Secret

Harbour (am: 266 people), and Mullaloo (pm: 205 people). Data was not available for

Hillarys Boat Harbour.

Away from the central metropolitan area there are distinct nodes at Secret Harbour,

Rockingham, South Beach, Whitfords, Mullaloo and Burns Beach. Between these nodes are

tracts of coast where the levels of use were low at the time of photography.

Exceptionally large crowds with over 600 people counted in the section of beach surveyed,

indicate organised activity, such as a surf life saving carnival, at those beaches. They also

provide an indication that crowd size is generally well below the capacity of the each carrying

the crowd. However, this begs two questions: first, whether the provision of beachfront

facilities is adequate for large crowds on the beaches used; second, whether landscape

design of the beachfront at regional beaches fosters accommodation of the crowd over and

above accommodation of vehicular traffic. Bluntly, do we design principally for people or

vehicles?

Crowd estimates provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) span ten

summers from 1994/95 to 2004/2005. Base statistics are provided as monthly and annual

summaries for each of the fifteen locations patrolled by a surf life saving club. Collectively,

the beach use statistics suggest a general increase in beach use of approximately 4% per

annum over the period 1994 to 2004. Data sets from Peel and Coogee are insufficient to

describe general changes in beach use. Patrolled beaches most heavily visited are

Scarborough, Cottesloe and Mullaloo. Beach use on Scarborough and Cottesloe is variable

over the period 1994 to 2004 and does not suggest a trend. Swanbourne has experienced a

decline in beach use. Visitation has increased over the 10-year period on all other beaches,

at an approximate rate of 5-10% per annum.

A study conducted by Tourism Western Australia showed that the beaches of Perth

comprised one of top ten most important attractions in Perth (Tourism Western Australia,

2004a). Domestic visitors rated going to the beach as the fifth most important leisure activity

in Perth. International visitors rated going to the beach as the second most important leisure

activity in Perth. A time series provided by Tourism Western Australia that described

monthly variation in the number of international visitors indicated a strong seasonal variation

with visitor numbers being lowest (30,000 visitors) in June and highest in December (up to

60,000 visitors). There were significant secondary peaks in August and late February each

year. The number of international visitors for the July and August might be increased

following further market research and promotion of local coastal resources. Domestic

visitation also showed a marked seasonal pattern. However, it is significantly different from


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT iv

that for international visitors. The numbers of domestic visitors was lowest in May to June

(20,000 people) and highest between August and November (approximately 40,000 people).

Secondary peaks are apparent in August, November and February. Although the seasonal

changes remain apparent there was a marked increase in visitation by domestic visitors after

July 2003.

The characteristics of beach use also were established from questionnaire surveys, although

there was considerable variation in the size of the survey sample across the fourteen

beaches. This is largely a product of the total population in the beach precinct on the survey

dates. On Sunday, 5 March 2005, large numbers of respondents were concentrated at

Mullaloo Beach (226), Hillarys Boat Harbour (217), Cottesloe Beach (206) and Rockingham

Beach (202). These three beaches accounted for 46.7 per cent of all responses collected on

the Sunday. While the number of beach users dropped considerably on Wednesday, 9

March 2005, there were a number of beaches that received relatively high responses. The

largest numbers of survey completions were recorded at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe

Beach, Scarborough Beach and Whitfords Beach. These five beaches represented 51.1 per

cent of all responses received on the Wednesday. In terms of total use, three of the

designated regional beaches (Hillarys, Scarborough and Cottesloe) had the highest levels of

use, with Mullaloo, a district beach, also heavily used, particularly on the Sunday.

USER CATCHMENTS & ACCESS ROUTES

The data obtained from the questionnaire surveys and vehicle records indicate a strong

geographical dimension to beach use and the associated transport patterns. In summary,

the questionnaire surveys indicated that:

1. The catchment areas for most beaches are highly dispersed. However, the total number

of visitors travelling more than 10 kilometres to a beach is extremely low. Most beach

users live within 5-10 kilometres of a beach. This pattern of local use is evident on

regional, district and local beaches.

2. The most common mode of transport to the beach is the car. More than 70 per cent of

visitors arrived using this mode of transport. The next most common means of getting

to a beach was to walk, which reinforces the concentrated nature of many beach

catchments.

3. The use of public transport as a way of accessing beaches was extremely low. For most

beaches less than five per cent of visitors arrived by bus or train. The only exceptions

were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach, where the availability of public

transport resulted in more than 15 per cent of visitors arriving by train or bus.

4. Most visiting the beaches arrived on their own, or travelled with one other person.


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT v

5. There is a strong distance decay function present in the travel patterns to Perth’s

beaches. More than 50 per cent of people travel no more than 15 minutes to get to the

beach. Very few people travel more than 30 minutes. This is closely linked to the size

and scope of the catchment areas, which show that a large proportion of users live

very close to the beach they were visiting on the survey dates.

These observations were confirmed by the origins of vehicles parked in beachfront car parks

in that:

1. The catchment areas for beaches that are north of Cottesloe are weighted towards

suburbs north of the Swan River.

2. For beaches other than Hillarys, Scarborough and City, the main concentration for the

catchment is the northwest coastal corridor;

3. Cottesloe Beach represents a more comparable split between northern and southern

suburbs than any other beach;

4. From South Beach to the south, the suburb representation of catchments is weighted

towards suburbs south of the Swan River;

5. Beaches from Rockingham to the south have a catchment concentration comprising the

coastal suburbs from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and the adjacent suburbs of

Baldivis, Secret Harbour and Golden Bay;

6. Weekend use is larger on all beaches than weekday use;

7. Suburbs contained in catchments that are not on the coastal strip are normally adjacent

to main arterial road networks that provide easy access to beaches.

GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE

Considerable spatial and temporal variation characterises the nature of metropolitan beach

use. High levels of use occur on Perth’s major regional beaches, Hillarys Boat Harbour,

Scarborough Beach, Cottesloe Beach, and Rockingham Beach on both weekends and

weekdays. This use is not restricted to summer, but also includes relatively high levels of

use during winter. A number of district and local beaches also experience considerable

levels of use on weekends, while weekday use tends to be more variable.

There is considerable use of alternative beaches by users. This was particularly evident in

the beaches between Cottesloe and Yanchep Lagoon. Most users visited beaches that were

relatively close to the one on which they were surveyed, suggesting that location was an

important factor shaping the choice of beach.

In summer, more than 60 per cent of respondents visited the beach weekly or more. This

high level of use was particularly evident at some of the district or local beaches. At the

same time, however, a little over 20% of users were extremely infrequent visitors, using the

beaches less than once a month. In winter, the frequency of use dropped considerably

across all beaches, although 37 per cent of users still visit weekly or more.


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT vi

There were considerable variations in the temporal pattern of daily use. A number of

beaches experience an early morning crowd (6.00am – 8.00am), followed by a drop in

numbers. Often the most intense use occurs in the mid to late morning (10.00am to

12.00pm). Use of the beach in the afternoon is usually characterised by a peak around 2.00,

followed by a steady decrease in users. However, a number of beaches experience a late

afternoon rise following the end of the school and work days.

Most visitors to beaches stayed less than two hours. This trend was apparent across all

beaches, although in some cases less than one hour was the norm. This was particularly

apparent on the Wednesday survey date.

RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The survey respondents engaged in a range of activities when visiting Perth’s beaches. Not

surprisingly, the most common activity on all beaches was swimming. Other water-based

activities were also prominent on some beaches, such as snorkelling (notably at Yanchep

Lagoon and Mettams Pool), surfing (Secret Harbour), and fishing (Yanchep Lagoon and

Challenger Beach).

One of the most common activities was walking or running. On nine of the surveyed

beaches this most commonly mentioned activity. The number of respondents walking on

Peasholm Street (41.1 per cent of responses) and Whitfords Beach (36.8%), both dog

exercise areas, was particularly high.

Visiting cafes, restaurants and hotels was also common at certain beaches, particularly

Hillarys (31.3 per cent of responses), Rockingham (21.1%), Shoalwater Bay, and Cottesloe

(17.5%). Despite the presence of a considerable commercial zone at Scarborough, this

activity represented on 7.7 per cent of all responses.

As in the previous section, it was clear that location is one of the key drivers shaping the

nature of beach use. The proximity of beaches in relation to users’ place of residents was

among the main reasons for deciding to visit a particular beach. This is consistent with the

concentrated nature of user catchments and the relatively short travel times undertaken by

people using beaches (reported in section 4). The other main reason for deciding to visit

particular beaches was swimming conditions. Visiting to exercise, visit cafes, walk the dog,

and snorkel or surf were also mentioned as important, although these tended to be confined

to specific beaches where these activities were either allowed or supported by environmental

conditions or infrastructure.


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT vii

ISSUES

In general, survey respondents did not suggest that there were high levels of dissatisfaction

with Perth’s beaches. The majority of people did not report problems finding a car park. This

was reflected in the distance people parked from the beach. The majority of respondents

were able to mark within 250 metres of the beach on Sunday, and less than 100 metres for

the beach on Wednesday.

The overwhelming majority of beach users (91 per cent) did not experience conflict with other

users. Where conflict did exist, it was likely to be with boat and jetski users, surfers,

recreational fishers, and dogs/dog owners.

The most common requests were for additional or upgraded facilities, toilets and change

rooms, shade and shelter, and kiosks or cafes.


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT viii

CONTENTS PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... I

Objectives & Purpose............................................................................................................ i

Previous Surveys of Beach Use ........................................................................................... i

Physical Attributes of the Coast .......................................................................................... ii

People On the Beaches........................................................................................................ ii

User Catchments & Access Routes.................................................................................... iv

Geographic Variation in Beach Use..................................................................................... v

Recreational Activities ........................................................................................................ vi

Issues.................................................................................................................................. vii

CHAPTER 1. BEACH USE SURVEY: 2005 ...................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2

1.3. Previous Studies of Beach Use................................................................................ 2

1.4. Physical Attributes of the Coast .............................................................................. 6

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 24

2.1. Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................. 24

2.2. Aerial Surveys......................................................................................................... 28

2.3. Parked Vehicle Surveys.......................................................................................... 30

2.4. Surf Life Saving Club Records............................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 3. CROWDS AND TOURISTS....................................................................... 35

3.1. The Distribution of People along the Coast........................................................... 35

3.2. Patrolled Beaches................................................................................................... 41

3.3. Tourism and Beach Use ......................................................................................... 55


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ix

CONTENTS PAGE

CHAPTER 4. USER CATCHMENTS AND ACCESS ROUTES ....................................... 59

4.1. Catchments indicated by Vehicle Registrations.................................................... 59

4.2. Catchments Indicated by Questionnaire Surveys ................................................. 60

4.3. Catchment Areas for Each Beach .......................................................................... 61

4.4. Transport to Beach ................................................................................................. 84

4.5. Time Required to Travel to Beach.......................................................................... 89

4.6. Summary ................................................................................................................. 93

CHAPTER 5. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE............................................ 95

5.1. Usage Characteristics of Different Perth Beaches ................................................ 95

5.2. Temporal Variations in Beach Use....................................................................... 102

5.3. Summary ............................................................................................................... 122

CHAPTER 6. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES................................................................ 123

6.1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 123

6.2. Reason for Visit .................................................................................................... 123

6.3. Beach Activities .................................................................................................... 124

6.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 124

REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 128


INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1

CHAPTER 1. BEACH USE SURVEY: 2005

In March 2005, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure commissioned a Study of

Recreational Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area, between Singleton and Two Rocks

(FIGURE 1.1). The Brief for the commission specified that the study be conducted as six

linked components undertaken as sub-consultancies to expedite its completion. Two of the

sub-components enable project coordination and report production. The other four refer to

the body of the study and include administration of:

1. A questionnaire survey of beach users;

2. An aerial survey of crowd numbers and the distribution of people on the beaches;

3. Determination of catchment areas for vehicles parked in beachside parking areas;

and

4. Collation and interpretation of crowd estimates compiled by Surf Life Saving Clubs

in the Perth Metropolitan Area during the past decade.

The study briefs are presented in Appendices 1.1 to 1.7.

The aim of the study is to provide a better understanding of existing recreational and leisure

use of Perth beaches, the adequacy of existing facilities and open space, and an estimate of

future demands. Its purpose is to provide better and up-to-date data on which planning and

management decisions can be confidently based for lands within and adjacent to Perth’s

coastal reserves.

FIGURE 1.1 The Perth Metropolitan Coast

The Study Area extends from Singleton to Two Rocks



1.1. INTRODUCTION

The Metropolitan Area has grown considerably during the past two decades, both in extent

and population. The population was 1,110,500 in 1988 and 1,341,900 in 1998 - an average

annual growth rate of over 23,000 or about 2% per annum. In 2002 the population of the

Perth metropolitan area was 1,411,618 and is expected to grow to 2.2 million by

2031(Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004). Changes in lifestyle, community

expectations and settlement patterns have also occurred in the last decade.

As the expansion has taken place the coast has come under increasing pressure. This is a

result of greater access to a longer reach of coast and apparently higher levels of usage,

particularly during summer holiday periods. Additionally, implementation of a range of

development proposals is likely to affect usage patterns. Planning setbacks, access and

facilities for the coastal reserve must therefore take into account factors such as the

biophysical character of the coast being used, types of use, user catchments, conflict

between uses and parking and access requirements by the beach going community.

1.2. OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study are to:

1 Describe and analyse the spatial and temporal distribution of beach users along the study

area, under favourable conditions;

2 Establish the locational origins of people using selected representative beach nodes;

3 Establish the relative importance of different sections of the study area for recreational

and leisure purposes, as measured under favourable conditions.

4 Identify the major types of beach use activities and their spatial and temporal distribution

within the study area both across beaches and within individual selected representative

beach nodes.

5 Establish the adequacy of existing open space provision as well as parking facilities and

access arrangements.

6 Estimate future beach use growth and demand patterns, classifying sectors along the

study area according to capacity to deal with current and expected demand.

1.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF BEACH USE

Existing studies of beach use on the Perth metropolitan coast include ground surveys of

small sections of coastline, aerial surveys of crowd distribution and questionnaire surveys of

residents living close to particular beaches.

First, ground surveys focus on recreational activities and temporal variation in the intensity of

those activities (Keating, 1983; City of Stirling, 1984; Eliot et al., 1986; Houghton, 1988).

They establish temporal changes in beach use over a limited time span, usually one or two

days selected to illustrate particular conditions under which beaches are used.



Second, the aerial surveys of Houghton (1988), Coastwise (2000), Houghton et al. (2003)

and Blackweir and Beckley (2004) establish broad spatial patterns of use for long stretches

of coast. Commonly, these provide a ‘snapshot’ of beach use, although Blackweir and

Beckley (2004) developed a summer time series of 3 months with daily photography from a

shark patrol aircraft that flew along the metropolitan coast. Their record adds detail to the

crowd estimates made at beaches patrolled by members of Surf Life Saving Western

Australia on the days of patrol, a record that now extends over a decade for some beaches.

Third, use of particular beaches and attitudes to beach use by local residents has been

investigated through questionnaires of people respectively living close to Cottesloe (Keating

1983a,b), Swanbourne (Clarke 1982), Scarborough (City of Stirling 1984) and between Trigg

and Sorrento (Flanigan 1988; Keating 1983b).

1.3.1. Ground Surveys

In the early 1970’s, some of Perth’s more popular beaches began to attract increasing

numbers of visitors, most of whom apparently arrived by car. Several issues of immediate

concern to local government authorities were the impact of increasing numbers of people on

the physical environment, traffic flows, parking problems ad the availability of facilities.

Initially, attention focussed on the Scarborough beachfront (Silvester & Webb, 1973) but it

soon became apparent that a more comprehensive approach to coastal management was

needed and that this might, in part, be based on surveys of beach use and determination of

user attitudes and requirements.

In 1981, the Stirling City Council co-ordinated a questionnaire survey of nearly 750 beach

users at six locations between Scarborough and Sorrento on Saturday 7 February and

Sunday 15 February 1981 (City of Stirling, 1984). The information gathered included the age

and sex of people on the beach, frequency of visit, place of residence, node of travel and

satisfaction with existing facilities. The survey results indicated 78 per cent of those

interviewed visited the beach at least once a week (21 per cent visiting daily); less than 25

per cent gave geographical proximity as the major reason for visiting a particular beach; and

80 per cent arrived by car.

The Stirling City Council survey also found some interesting differences between the

recreational activities carried out on the broad sandy beaches between Scarborough and

Trigg Island and those on the smaller sheltered beaches further north. On this basis, a

Concept Plan proposed aimed to encourage further differentiation of recreational activities

through the provision of appropriate facilities. Under this strategy, the bay beaches would

cater for passive recreational activities and family groups, while the more open beaches

would ‘continue to cater for the younger age groups involved in more active recreational

pursuits….’ (City of Stirling, 1984:135).



Surveys by Eliot et al. (1986) focused on both spatial and temporal patterns of recreational

activity between Trigg Island and Ocean Reef in the mid 1980s. By observing rather than

interviewing people engaged in recreational activities, the survey’s aim was to establish what

activities were undertaken at what time and by how many people’ (Eliot et al., 1986: 67).

Fieldwork was undertaken on Wednesday 6 March and Sunday 10 March 1986. The section

of coast surveyed was divided into 11 sections. Recreational activities observed were

grouped under five main headings based upon where they were carried out: in the water; on

the reef; on the beach; on the headland; and on the reserve. A wide range of activities was

observed. These were later related to the physical characteristics of each section of the

coast. The data collected also revealed marked hourly variations in beach use with

maximum numbers of people present at 10.30 on Sunday 10 March.

The third study in this area was part of a wider investigation into beach use in the Perth

Metropolitan Area (Houghton, 1988). Like the surveys of Eliot et al. (1986), it relied on direct

observation rather than on questionnaire interviews and took place over several weeks in

March 1988. The results revealed a complex pattern of spatial behaviour in which the

numbers of visitors varied greatly according to the time of day. Different age-groups were

found to use different sections of the coastline and a significant amount of midweek activity

was observed to take place early in the morning. The same study also examined the travel

patterns of beach users in the metropolitan area. A sample of motor vehicle registration

number plates was obtained from car parks at eight major metropolitan beaches (Mullaloo,

Sorrento, Trigg, Scarborough, City Beach, North Swanbourne, Cottesloe and Leighton).

With the co-operation of the Police Department, the place of origin of these vehicles was

then established at the level of the individual Postcode. Rather than having well defined

catchment areas, most major beaches in Perth were found to attract visitors from suburbs

throughout the metropolitan area (Houghton, 1988). A statistical analysis of travel distances

to the beach was also carried out, using the same data (Houghton, 1989).

The survey of Houghton (1988) was repeated in March 2000 by Houghton et al. (2003),

although with greater focus on Port and Leighton beaches. In a study to establish a

methodology for collection and analysis of beach use information, Houghton et al. (2003),

estimated crowd size during the morning and afternoon on 20 beaches in the Perth

Metropolitan area.

1.3.2. Aerial Surveys

Four aerial surveys of beach use in the metropolitan area have been carried out in the last

twenty years. The first was undertaken by the Department of Conservation and Environment

to provide background information to the proposed M10 Marine Park Study (Eliot et al.,

1986). It used standard photogrammetric aerial survey techniques and covered only a short

strip of coastline between Trigg Island and Ocean Reef on 3 March 1985.



The second survey was part of the 1988 study of beach use by Houghton (1988). Its object

was to determine the distribution of visitors along a much larger section of the metropolitan

coastline during a period of intensive recreational activity. The survey commenced at 1130

hours on Sunday 7 February and covered approximately 28 kilometres of the coastline

between Mullaloo and Fremantle. Hand held cameras were used to capture information on

35mm film, using a fixed-wing aircraft flying at approximately 100 metres just off the coast. A

second flight commencing at 1500 hours on the same day provided additional information on

some of Perth’s more popular beaches.

A further survey of this type was undertaken in 7 February 1999 when a Perth planning

consultant photographed the entire metropolitan coastline from a height of approximately 300

metres. The results were subsequently prepared for the Western Australian Planning

Commission in two volumes (Coastwise, 2000). Volume 1 contains detailed information on

the distribution of people and motor vehicles in tabulated form, while Volume 2 contains a set

of 325 oblique aerial photographs covering all beaches between Two Rocks, near Yanchep,

and Singleton in the south. While the report provides little in the way of interpretation it forms

a useful basis for future comparative research.

1.3.3. Local Attitudinal Surveys

Several attitudinal surveys have been completed. These include the studies of Clarke (1982),

Keating (1983a;b) and Flanigan (1988). Through surveys of people living close to the beach

Clarke (1982) examined sociological aspects of beach use at North Swanbourne as part of

an academic study of nudism in Australia. He observed that the overwhelming majority of

beach users at Swanbourne were ‘regulars’; approximately 80 per cent of respondents

claimed to visit at least once a week in summer; and opposition from local residents to

development of a nudist beach played an important part in creating a strong sense of

‘community’ not found at other beaches in the metropolitan area. Similar concentration of

‘community’ attitude has since been expressed where more recent development proposals

have been opposed by ‘local’ residents using beaches at Leighton, South Beach, Coogee

and Scarborough.

Keating determined recreational patterns along the Cottesloe Coast (Keating, 1983a) and

examined use of the beaches by people living between Trigg and Sorrento (Keating 1983b).

Through a small-scale survey of local residents (Keating, 1983b) found 0.75 kilometres to be

the critical distance beyond which few people were prepared to walk to the beach. She

noted that most people walk less than 500 metres to reach the beach. Her results indicate a

pedestrian travel time of less than 10 to 15 minutes. Flanigan (1988) examined disparities

between attitudes of an interest group and those of the broader local community to

redevelopment of Trigg beachfront in 1988. Results from his questionnaire survey

differentiated between highly localised issues and those of the wider residential community at

Trigg.



1.3.4. An Overview

Questionnaire surveys conducted to date provide a consistent picture of beach use along the

Perth Metropolitan Coast. Most visitors to the beaches are residents living within 10 to 15

minutes travel time of the beach regardless of the mode of transport. Unless there are

special circumstances, such as a surf life saving carnival or other attractions, they commonly

frequently visit the beach closest to their place of residence.

Results from the questionnaires are supported by surveys of vehicles parked in beachfront

car parks. Unsurprisingly, there is a close correlation between the number of vehicles and

the number of people at any beach. Again, the catchment from which vehicles are drawn is

close to the beach at which the car is parked. Although some people are prepared to travel

over 10 km to reach their beach destination, beach use in the Perth Metropolitan Area is

highly localised and closely tied to the nearby residential areas.

The beach going population is highly fluid, changing day-to-day and place-to-place as well as

throughout the day, with people only staying at the beach for short periods, usually less than

2 hours. This implies that the demography and recreational character of the crowd alters over

time, as was described for beaches between Trigg and Sorrento. On some beaches, there

appear to be separate peaks for early use, followed by mid-morning, mid-afternoon and early

evening peaks. Each peak may meet a different recreational niche with the early morning

group exercising or board riding. The mid-morning peak commonly includes surfers and

bathers. The sea breeze conditions of the mid-afternoon attract windsurfers, and the early

evening group is frequently there for exercise and the sunset.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that proposals for beach development

commonly attract large numbers of local residents. Issues of environmental change,

particularly controversial issues, provide a single focus for all groups using the beach to

come together and comment on the proposals. The bias is real and based on a genuine

‘sense of place’ although people from a wider geographic area may contribute to debate.

1.4. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE COAST

Coastal environments are highly dynamic and complex. They are subject to continuous and

extensive change in response to variations in weather, wave and sea-level conditions (Allen

et al., 2003). The nature of this change is dependent on the way the coastal processes

interact locally with the diversity of geology, landforms and sediments in a coastal area. At

the time of writing, no single descriptive or numerical model describes all modes of coastal

variability observable on the Perth Metropolitan Coast, particularly the variability of the

beachface in response to short term change in climate and associated changes in sea level.

The need to recognise the severe limitations of existing models, developed in environments

other than the Perth Metropolitan Coast, and problems devolving from their application are

well known from the areas where they were developed (Bruun 1962, 1983; Thieler et al.,

2000). However, the limitations of the models seldom are fully acknowledged in their

application to the coastal environments of Western Australia.



The major challenge for those involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal

environments is to understand the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to

accommodate it in planning and management projects and decision-making. However, this

can be difficult, particularly as the extreme variability of coastal change creates uncertainty,

even when detailed environmental information is available (Camfield and Morang, 1996;

Galgano et al., 1998). It is important that technical advice is sought from fully qualified and

personnel experienced with the local coast when designing and engaging in planning and

management projects. The advice is necessary to fully understand the implications of action

and inaction in management, particularly those based on insubstantial and inadequate

information.

Coastal change in Southwestern Australia, as elsewhere in the world, is essentially

kaleidoscopic. Adjacent parts of the coast may display vastly disparate responses to climatic

and oceanographic processes at the same time, and over different spatial scales, with one

part of the coast undergoing severe erosion, the other rapid accretion and both likely to

switch state. This diversity is best understood in a geological framework through which the

physical structure of the continental shelf, particularly the inner part of the shelf close to

shore, provides primary control of waves, currents and sediment movement. In this respect

the geology of the coast sets the boundary conditions for landform development and hence

provides a structure for natural resource management of the coast and inshore waters.

1.4.1. The Geological Framework

The geology of the Perth Metropolitan Coast, between Mandurah and Two Rocks is known

from the work of Clarke (1926), Carrigy and Fairbridge (1954), Veevers (1974), Playford et

al. (1976), Playford and Leech (1977), Collins (1988), Searle and Logan (1979), Searle and

Semeniuk (1985), Searle et al. (1988), Semeniuk and Searle (1986), Harris et al. (1991), and

James et al. (1999). The essential features of the continental shelf include northern and

southern components separated by the Rottnest Canyon; inner and outer shelf platforms;

and a complex array of Pleistocene remnants outcropping as islands and calcarenite

limestone ridges on the inner continental shelf. The limestone has been described by

Playford (1988). The shelf is approximately 50 km wide off Fremantle, from the shore to the

200m isobath. The nearshore waters of the inner shelf, particularly those less than 30m deep

are of particular interest for coastal management. This is the zone in which waves shoal and

break and the character of the shore is established. It is also the zone of highest biological

productivity and diversity. Approximately along the 30 m isobath, the boundary between the

nearshore waters to the inner continental shelf plain curves in a concave arc to seaward. It

extends near parallel to the coast offshore from Mandurah to Garden Island then arcs

offshore to Rottnest. North of Rottnest the 30m isobath has a parabolic shape, with the

Rottnest Canyon in the southern hook of the parabola. It becomes near parallel to the coast

north of Mullaloo.



Overall, the structure of the inner continental shelf and nearshore waters implies that its

northern and southern coasts are essentially separate systems and are likely to respond to

climatic and oceanographic processes in markedly different ways. South of Fremantle the

waters of the nearshore waters are directly exposed to waves from the southwest quadrant.

This contrasts nearshore waters north of Fremantle where the Rottnest Island platform

provides shelter. The disparities are apparent in the work of Collins (1998) south of Rottnest

compared with that of James et al. (1999) to the north. The contrast is sharpened through

comparison of wave records obtained in deep water off Rottnest and in shallower water off

Cottesloe. Wave energy is markedly attenuated by refraction and shoaling in the northern

region (Steedman and Craig 1983; Lemm et al. 1999).

The distinction between the two regions is further compounded by geological structures close

to shore. These structures include complex chains of calcarenite ridges outcropping as reefs

and islands along the coast. They have been described by Fairbridge (1955), Searle and

Semeniuk, 1985; and Semeniuk and Johnston 1982).

1.4.2. Major Sediment Cells

Patterns of sediment movement affecting the shore are overlain on, and interact with, the

geologic framework. From a coastal planning and management perspective, the patterns

may usefully be considered conceptually in terms of sediment budgets operating in different

spatial domains (FIGURE 1.2). The domains are described as sediment cells (Inman and

Frautschy, 1966; Komar, 1996, 1998) in which sediment sources, transport pathways and

sinks are identified and the volume of material in each component estimated (USACE, 2001).

On the Perth Metropolitan Coast sediment sources include areas of erosion in the nearshore

waters and along the shore, as well as sediment production on seagrass banks and rock

platforms. The transport pathways are areas of active sediment movement such as occur in

deep water along the seaward margins of the calcarenite limestone ridges and in the shallow

nearshore and foreshore zones of sandy beaches. Little is known about sediment movement

in water deeper than 20m seaward of the calcarenite ridges. Sediment sinks are places

where sediment is lost from the cell as a result of being moved into deep water, locked into

vegetated sand banks, or blown landward into coastal dunes. The Holocene dunes of the

coast, those formed in the past 10,000 years, are major onshore sinks. Sediment locked into

sand banks and dunes may be subsequently reincorporated in the working budget due to

changed environmental conditions and erosion of those landforms.



FIGURE 1.2 Components of a coastal sediment budget

(WAPC, 2003: after Komar, 1998)

Arguably, because more detailed investigation of the budgetary cells remains to be

undertaken, there are five major sediment cells between Mandurah and Two Rocks with

variable amounts of leakage of sediment between them. Here they are referred to as the

Mandurah, Cockburn, City, and Whitfords and Yanchep cells. They comprise the natural

management sectors of the coast (TABLE 1.1).

The Mandurah cell approximately extends northwards from Halls Head, along the calcarenite

ridges and exposed western shore of Garden Island into offshore waters. The Cockburn cell

is essentially confined to the sheltered basin environment of Cockburn Sound from Point

Peron along the eastern shores of the Sound to Fremantle. Historically the Cockburn and

City cells were connected by sediment bypassing the mouth of the Swan River. However,

construction of Fremantle Harbour and other facilities in the northern part of Cockburn Sound

now restrict the exchange. North of Fremantle, the City cell extends from North Fremantle to

Mullaloo Point. Ocean Reef Cell extends from Mullaloo Point to Two Rocks and beyond.

The principal sediment sinks for the Mandurah cell include extensive sand banks near

Becher Point and Safety Bay; the Southern Flats bank at the entrance to Cockburn Sound,

Parmelia and Success Banks of Cockburn Sound; and shoals between Carnac and Rottnest

Islands. They also include cuspate forelands and tombolos comprising Becher Point, Mersey

Point and Point Peron, as well as the Quindalup dunes of Secret Harbour, Warnbro and

Garden Island described by McArthur and Bartle (1980). Further north, the major sediment

sinks of the City and Ocean Reef Cell includes the large parabolic dunes, particularly the

nested dune blowouts at City Beach, Scarborough and Trigg, as well as cuspate forelands at

Pinnaroo Point and Quinns Rocks.



1.4.3. Secondary Sediment Cells

Geological structures forming the four major sediment cells, particularly the limestone ridges

of the inner continental shelf, form discrete basins in which smaller sediment cells exist.

They are distinguishable by their landforms as well as the principal sediment transport

pathways, particularly the patterns of littoral drift along the beaches. Four smaller coastal

cells comprise the Mandurah Cell: Golden Bay, Warnbro Sound, Shoalwater Bay and

Garden Island West. The Cockburn Cell also has four: Garden Island East, Rockingham,

Naval Base and Coogee. A further four secondary cells are apparent in the City Cell:

Leighton, Floreat, Scarborough and North Beach. Secondary cells become more difficult to

discern in the Ocean Reef Cell. However, five are suggested for further consideration:

Mullaloo, Mindarie, Jindalee, Yanchep and Two Rocks.

Although the record is brief and in need of updating, secondary sediment cells of the major

City Cell are apparent in the variability of the shoreline along the coast from Rous Head to

Trigg (FIGURE 1.3) reported by Bowyer (1987). Zones of maximum variability occur at the

beach ends near Rous Head and Trigg; adjacent to rock outcrops, including Mudarup Rocks

near Cottesloe; next to the groynes at City Beach; as well as in association with wave

refraction patterns and offshore reefs between Scarborough and Trigg. These changes

should be interpreted in the context of long-term, net change in the shoreline position as a

basis for management decisions. The pattern of net change along the shore indicates a

tendency for the coast to have become increasingly embaymentised over the period of

observation, with the central part subject to erosion and accretion occurring at the beach

ends. Port facilities have been extended at Rous Head since completion of the study by

Bowyer (1987). Port Beach has undergone severe erosion with extreme variations in

shoreline position superimposed on a shore adjusting to the engineered changes, and the

locus of deposition appears to have moved slightly north to Leighton. The wider

ramifications of these changes are open to question. However they serve to indicate

potential value in coastal monitoring and sediment budget analysis.

Clear distinctions need to be made at a variety of temporal and spatial scales between those

parts of the coast that are eroding (source areas), functioning as transport pathways, and

accreting (sink areas). Potentially, erosion threatens structures built close to the shore;

disruption of transport pathways leads to changes in the patterns of erosion and accretion;

and accretion produces problems related to sand drift. Respectively, these are demonstrable

by circumstances at Port Beach, City Beach and Trigg, or through past circumstances at

Mandurah, Silver Sands and Secret Harbour. In each of the budgetary domains, further

distinction should be made between long-term trends, short-term fluctuations and irregular

but extreme events indicated by historical movement of the shoreline. This demands a

focussed monitoring program and the maintenance of long-term records for comparative

purposes. It is given further relevance by a rise in sea level forecast to occur as a result of

projected change in climate (IPCC 2001a, 2001b; Klein & Nicholls 1998; Klein et al. 2001).



1.4.4. Beach Setting: Climate, Oceanography & Landforms

Temperature, humidity and wind conditions all affect use of a beach by imposing boundary

conditions on particular forms of recreation. For example strong sea breezes are conducive

to wind surfing; high swell and offshore winds to board riding; and calm, hot, humid days to a

wide range of shore based activities. Since the metropolitan beaches vary significantly in

terms of their aspect and exposure to weather and oceanographic conditions, a problem is to

determine climatological and physical factors limiting and facilitating particular uses of

specific beaches along the Perth metropolitan coast. Planning and management of the coast

might then be directed to foster the opportunities offered by each set of circumstances.

Climate

The meteorological station at Fremantle is centrally located in the Perth Metropolitan Coast.

Observations from the meteorological station have been reported by the Bureau of

Meteorology (1989) and are summarised here. The metropolitan coast enjoys a very benign

climate. Climatic conditions described below indicate that it is a very comfortable living

environment characterised by mild winters and hot dry summers, typical of a Mediterranean

type climate (Gentilli, 1971). The average monthly maximum temperature recorded in

Fremantle ranges from 19.3oC in July to 30.8oC in February. The coldest month of the year

is August, with a mean maximum temperature of 19.3oC and a mean minimum of 9.3oC.

Rainfall is 564 mm per year, on average, with major falls occurring between May and August.

The climate supports outdoor recreational activities for the greater part of the year, on all but

a few rainy days or days with strong winds. The most comfortable periods of the year occur

in spring and autumn when the temperatures are moderate and wind velocities are generally

low. However, warmer temperatures make the coast an attractive recreational environment

for people, particularly during the hot summer months.



TABLE 1.1 Coastal Sectors, Major Sediment Cells and Sandy Beach Morphology

COASTAL SECTOR MAJOR SEDIMENT CELL SECONDARY SEDIMENT CELLS SANDY BEACHES

South Mandurah Golden Bay:Silver Sands (Mandurah) to BecherPoint

Wave dominated beaches extend from Silver Sands to SecretHarbour: This area is important for surfing.Sheltered beaches occur on the southern side of the BecherPoint tombolo.

Warnbro Sound:Beacher Point to Mersey Point

Sheltered beaches are common around the sound, being mostsheltered near Bridport Point and Safety Bay. The beaches areflanked by a subtidal terrace.

Shoalwater Bay:Mersey Point to Point Peron

Sheltered beaches occur in Shoalwater Bay with tombolos atMersey Point & Point Peron. A cuspate foreland comprises thecentral part of Shoalwater Bay

Garden Island WestPoint Peron to Rottnest Island

West Garden Island has small, steep, wave-dominated sandybeaches form in embayments between outcrops.

Central South Cockburn Garden Island East:Eastern Shores of Garden Island

Very sheltered beaches and occasional rock outcrops occuralong the Eastern Shores of Garden Island

Rockingham:Point Peron to Woodman Point

Beaches are very sheltered in Mangles Bay. Although sheltered,they become more exposed with distance NE to Kwinana Beach,after which engineered structures affect beach configuration.

Coogee:Woodman Point to James Rocks

Woodman Point is a tombolo in sheltered location. Beaches arevery sheltered on the north side of the tombolo and becomemoderately sheltered with distance north to James Rocks

Fremantle:James Rocks to Bathers Bay

Engineered beaches between groynes. Beaches are commonlywave dominated with a reflective morphology.

Central City Leighton:Rous Head (Sand Tracks) to NorthLeighton

Wave dominated sandy beaches with bars and rips. Morphologyvaries from reflective to transitional state with changes in thewave regime. Rock platforms underlie much of the beach northof the Vlamingh Memorial.

FloreatNorth Leighton to Hale RoadBeach

Between north Leighton and south City Beach the shore isunderlain by limestone. From south City Beach to Hale Road itis wave dominated and the beach is commonly in a reflectivestate with wide berm, steep beachface and planar inshoremorphology.



TABLE 1.1 Coastal Sectors, Major Sediment Cells and Sandy Beach Morphology (continued)

Scarborough:Hale Road Beach to Trigg

Exposed, wave dominated beach. The morphology changesfrom a mainly reflective at North Cottesloe to a transitional statewith transverse bars and rips at Scarborough and Trigg.

North Beach:Trigg to Hillarys Boat Harbour

Small sandy beaches, many of which are underlain by limestoneramps, alternate with rocky headlands between Trigg andHillarys Boat Harbour. The shore becomes increasinglysheltered with distance north. Beach morphology is commonlyindicative of wave reflection.

Central North Whitfords Mullaloo:Hillarys Beach to Ocean Reef

The shore is sheltered by offshore reefs north of Hillarys Boatharbour and the beach morphology is commonly indicative of thetransitional state between sheltered and wave dominatedenvironments. A cuspate foreland at Pinnaroo Point provides achange in beach aspect.

Burns Beach:Ocean Reef Boat Harbour toMindarie Keys

South of Burns Beach the shore becomes rocky with small sandybeaches, some perched, in embayments. North of Burns Beachis a long sandy beach. It is reflective in form and the bermwidens with distance north. The beach ends at a rock outcrop atMindarie.

North Yanchep Alkimos:Mindarie Keys to Two Rocks

A long sandy beach extends north from Mindarie. It rounds acuspate foreland at Quinns Rocks, where it changes aspect. Thebeach is reflective, broken by groynes and affected by littoral driftnorthwards.

Two Rocks:North of Two Rocks

The long sandy beach continues northwards to the next rockoutcrop at Yanchep. The shoreline includes a number of low-amplitude forelands, and the form of the beach varies fromsheltered to wave dominated as the aspect changes.



FIGURE 1.3 The mean shape of the shoreline, variability of the shoreline position

and net change in its location with distance along the coast from

Rous Head to Trigg Island from 1956 to 1985 (From Bowyer, 1987).



Winds in the region are related to several weather systems (Gentilli, 1971; Laughlin, 1997).

The major systems include the prevailing anticyclones, dominant mid-latitude depressions,

and infrequent, but intense tropical cyclones. Mid-latitude depressions are the major storm

systems. They have associated maximum wind speeds in excess of 100 kph and affect the

coast directly as well as through the generation of swell. Localised sea breezes blow on

approximately 60% of days per year. The sea breezes are strong, by global standards,

frequently attaining wind speeds of over 40 km/hr. Indeed, Southwestern Australia is on the

global windsurfing circuit because of the reliability and strength of its sea breeze. On the

metropolitan coast they are capable of generating seas of up to 1.0 m, longshore currents in

excess of 2.5 m/sec, and are responsible for a very significant volume of sediment transport

on the dry beach surface (Pattiaratchi et al., 1996; Masselink et al., 1997). Overall, the

prevailing (most frequent) winds of the area are south to southwesterly, while the dominant

(strongest) winds are westerly to north westerly. The prevailing winds directly influence the

direction of net littoral drift along the shoreline as well as the direction of dune migration. In

contrast to this, the dominant westerly and northwesterly winds may produce a reversal in

littoral transport that locally balances the prevailing alongshore drift.

The coast experiences a dominant winter rainfall pattern, with approximately 103 rain days

per year. Approximately 70% of the annual rainfall occurs between May and August. Rain

occurs only occasionally during the summer months. Evaporation rates are high during

summer with the mean daily evaporation rate for December to February varying from 10.0 to

11.1 mm per day. Such a high evaporation rate coupled with a low summer rainfall and hot

weather means that there is no effective rainfall during summer. In turn, this creates a

seasonal drought lasting approximately 4 months. Humidity is moderate from January to

March, the months recording the highest temperatures but is well within the limits to comfort

identified by Laughlin (1997).

Oceanography

The Perth metropolitan coast is in a mixed, mainly diurnal tidal regime with a spring tidal

range (MLLW to MHHW) of approximately 0.5 m (Department of Defence, 1999), which

identifies the coast as a microtidal environment following the nomenclature of Davies (1980).

The small tides of the region are commonly equalled or exceeded by the local wave regime

as well as by water level ranging associated with non-tidal fluctuations in sea level, such as

storm surge, at similar time scales. As a result, beaches in sheltered environments,

including those in Shoalwater Bay, southern Cockburn Sound, Hillarys Marina and the

northern sediment cells, are dominated by tides and non-tidal ranging of sea level rather than

by wave action.

The offshore wave climate is dominated by a persistent south-to-south westerly swell in a low

to moderate energy wave regime. The mean annual deepwater wave height is 2 to 3 m, with

a period of 10 to 14 seconds (Lemm et al., 1999). Superimposed on the deepwater swell

regime are waves generated locally by sea breezes, mid-latitude depressions and infrequent

tropical cyclones.



Beach Morphology

In terms of their dynamics, several types of beaches are found along the Perth metropolitan

coast. The principal groups are wave dominated sandy beaches similar to those described

by Short and Wright (1984) from the coast of NSW; sandy beaches sheltered from the direct

effects of swell by their aspect or protected by offshore structures such as islands and reefs

(Hegge et al. 1996; Travers 2005a); and perched beaches with sand shallowly overlying rock

(Semeniuk and Johnston, 1982). The classifications provide an indication of the susceptibility

of beaches to change with short-term variation in the local wave regime and the extent of

frontal dune development. Hence they have important ramifications for coastal planning and

management.

Research into the principal characteristics of wave dominated beaches in the Perth

metropolitan area has been reported by Masselink and Pattiaratchi (1998) from the high-

energy coast between Fremantle and Trigg. The range of categories identified for such

open-ocean beaches is illustrated in FIGURE 1.4. The categories describe the state of beach

morphology and dynamics for specific times or a statistical condition; for example a particular

beach may display all the attributes of an energy dissipative system during a storm event,

whereas its modal state is energy reflective.

Classifications such as that above do not fully describe beach state along the metropolitan

coast (Hegge, 1994; Velardo, 1998). These low-wave environments are sheltered by their

aspect and structurally protected by multiple chains of offshore reefs and islands. Here the

term low-energy refers to shores subject to annual modal wave heights of less than 50 cm

and commonly less than 25 cm. The sheltered low-energy shores south of Fremantle and

north of Sorrento have not been examined in any detail. Hegge et al. (1996), and Velardo

(1998) reported preliminary descriptions of low-energy beach types; and Jackson et al.

(2002) reviewed the suite of features characterising them. Most recently Travers (2005a,

2005b) has confirmed the beach morphotypes and their distribution in Cockburn Sound

(FIGURE 1.5). The low-energy beaches respond differently to extreme events than sandy

beaches in wave dominated environments (Nordstrom 1992; Slarke 1998; Travers 2005b).

Hence it is highly unlikely that their behaviour can be adequately projected from existing

numerical models.

Perched beaches (FIGURE 1.6), for example Swanbourne and North Beach, provide another

level of complexity, especially in the modelling of environmental change. Semeniuk and

Johnston (1982) described their general stratigraphy. However, little appears to be known

about the dynamics of such beaches, and consideration of them in numerical modelling of

projected shoreline change is currently only feasible at a very local level. Arguably, perched

beaches may be more responsive to changes in water level and fluctuation in the wave

regime than are sandy beaches in similar environments since they must affect groundwater

conditions in the beach. Intuitively, if a storm event has a capacity to move a fixed volume of

sediment it will cut further landward on a perched beach than on a nearby sandy beach.

Additionally, the underlying rock formation may produce edge effects, similar to a groyne or

breakwater, including destabilisation of foredunes as has occurred at Trigg. Further work is

required to ascertain the geography, morphology and dynamics of these beaches.



(A) WAVE DISSIPATIVE BEACH STATE

High wave conditions at Floreat Beach.

Waves dissipate energy over a wide surf

zone for this beach. They break on a long

straight bar that is separated from the shore

by a deep trough.

This is not the highest energy form of Perth

beaches since higher waves breaking on

multiple lines of bars may be observed at

Secret Harbour and Scarborough under

extreme conditions in late winter.

(B) TRANSITIONAL BEACH STATE

This aerial view looking south over Trigg

Beach shows a transitional beach

morphology typical of spring conditions

between the extreme states under high

energy in winter and low energy in summer.

The shoreline is rhythmic (undulating),

multiple lines of surf are present with waves

breaking over bars. Rip current activity is

apparent as gaps between the bars and as

lines of turbid water extending seaward of

the breakers.

(C) WAVE REFLECTIVE BEACH STATE

Beach cusps at South Sorrento in a

photograph taken from Indian Ocean Drive.

This is a common state of Perth beaches

and is the low energy state of beaches on

the open ocean coast elsewhere.

Waves break at the shore and tend to be

reflected back off a steep beach into deep

water. The shoreline is scalloped by cusps.

Here, small rips have formed and are

apparent as turbid (dirty) water off the cusp

embayments.

FIGURE 1.4 Beach types observed on wave dominated beaches of the open coast.

Down page: The photographs show wave dissipative, transitional and

reflective states. (Terminology follows Short 1996)



(A) ROUNDED BEACH STATE

Rounded beaches commonly are the high

energy forms of sheltered environments.

They intergrade with the reflective beach

states of the open ocean coast, differing

mainly in the mode of sediment exchange

between the beach and inshore waters and

the presence of a narrow sub-tidal terrace.

Rounded beaches display long lines of

wrack (seaweed and other flotsam) and

swash bars on the beach face. Often a

marked step separates the beachface from

the inshore terrace.

(B) SEGMENTED BEACH STATE

Segmented beaches, such as that shown

from Point Walter in the Swan River, have a

steep beach adjoining a low-gradient, sub-

tidal terrace in the inshore waters.

Waves may be reflected from the beach

during high wave conditions for such

beaches. However, their form may be due to

either differences in sediment size between

the upper and lower beach, longshore

currents, or a combination of these.

(C) FLAT BEACH STATE

View looking north along a flat beach in

Careening Bay on Garden.

Multiple lines of are apparent as parallel

lines of wrack along this low amplitude

beach. The lines of wrack are left by

successive high water and tidal conditions.

Very low waves shoal and are dissipated

over a broad, shallow sub-tidal terrace

adjoining the shore

FIGURE 1.5 Beach types observed on sheltered beaches of the Perth Metropolitan

Area. The beaches maintain form through changes in wave

conditions from low to high energy states. (Terminology follows

Travers 2005)



FIGURE 1.6 A perched beach: Watermans Bay

The photograph, taken in July 2005, shows overlying a Tamala Limestone

ramp that is exposed on the lower beachface.

1.4.5. Other Modes of Beach Formation

Complex patterns of wave refraction and diffraction caused by geologic structures affect

beach development and give rise to a suite of sedimentary landforms apparent in the plan

shape of the coast of southwestern Australia, including the metropolitan coast (Searle et al.,

1988; Sanderson and Eliot, 1996; Sanderson et al., 2000). These include tombolos and

cuspate forelands (FIGURE 1.7). They are ephemeral in a geologic context and commonly

subject to high levels of shoreline variability at a wide range of scales. The larger forms,

including Becher Point, Mersey Point, Point Peron, Woodman Point, Pinnaroo Point and

Quinns Rocks, are associated with substantial change in coastal orientation. In some

instances, such as at Quinns Rocks, the shelter afforded by the north facing coast of the

landforms has attracted development close to the shore and resulted in problems due to

shoreline movement.



Silvester (1974) and Hsu (2004) explored the engineering applications of coastal

geomorphology, particularly the formation of cuspate forelands and tombolos. From their

research they developed a model projecting change in shoreline shape likely to result from

the installation of shore stabilisation structures. Initial testing of some of their ideas resulted

in the successful installation of offshore breakwaters at James Point (FIGURE 1.7c) and

Quinns Rocks. Application of the model has been described from elsewhere by Klein et al.

(2003). It is model one, amongst several, that has potential for further application to parts of

the metropolitan coast.

The second group of structurally controlled beach landforms is associated with groynes and

breakwaters (FIGURE 1.7). The role of groynes and breakwaters in shore stabilisation is

well known and has been widely discussed in the literature; for example see reviews by

Silvester (1974), Silvester and Hsu (1993) and Klaus and Rankin (2004). A distinction must

be made here between properly engineered structures and rubble walls. The former are

designed to accommodate coastal change, including changes they introduce to the local

sediment budget. The latter, such as that on the southern end of Port Beach, are expedient

measures. They are subject to failure and incur high restoration and maintenance costs.

They also present a real hazard to beach users due to their inherent instability. Hence, it is

imperative that professional engineering advice be sort prior to the construction of shore

stabilisation works.

Groundwater discharge along the coast is another factor affecting beach formation. It is

significant in two respects. First, high groundwater conditions are conducive to beach erosion

(Clarke and Eliot, 1987). In this respect, interaction between the state of the superficial

groundwater lens and sea level is critical to shoreline change since the coast is in a semi-arid

environment with only one major stream, the Swan River, discharging at the shore.

Unfortunately, no information describing alongshore variation in groundwater discharge is

available, although flow is anticipated to vary with the underlying geology. Second, the

quality of water discharged from the superficial groundwater aquifer contributes to the degree

to which a beach is clean or polluted. This has been a matter of concern where beaches are

being rehabilitated for development, as occurred at South Beach and Coogee.



(A) WAVE DIFFRACTION

Waves travelling under the bridge

connecting the causeway to Garden

Island spread in arcs into Cockburn

Sound.

Sand is moved by waves and currents

from Broun Bay, around Parkin Point

and into Careening Cove where it forms

a spit.

(B) GROYNES AT CITY BEACH

Northerly littoral drift (right to left in the

photograph) is trapped by groynes at

City Beach and accumulates against the

southern side of each groyne. The

updrift, northern side of the groyne is

thus depleted of sediment.

This pattern may be reversed with the

occurrence of northerly storms in winter.

(C) OFFSHORE BREAKWATERS

A series of offshore breakwaters and a

groyne trap sand moving south along the

shore at James Point.

The offshore breakwaters mimic the

action of geologic structures to form

cuspate forelands and tombolos.

The presence of the forelands, seen

here as sandy promontories, does not

prevent the southward movement of

sediment, as does the groyne.

FIGURE 1.7 Wave diffraction, engineered structures and beach forms



1.4.6. Beach Safety

Despite apparent limitations in breadth of applicability to the Perth metropolitan coast, the

classifications of Wright and Short (1984) have provided a basis for assessment of hazards

on sandy beaches. They are used extensively in Australia to prepare beach management

programs for Surf Life Saving Australia (Short, 1999). Different beaches provide different

recreational opportunities and pose different problems for the management of coastal

hazards, as is indicated by the records maintained by Surf Life Saving Australia from

patrolled beaches (TABLE 1.2). In the latter context, extremely sheltered environments,

such as Rockingham, have calm, shallow inshore waters but tend to be subject to stingers.

Moderate-energy, wave-reflective beaches, for example Floreat Beach, are associated with

steep beaches, dumping waves breaking at the shore and broken bones. The high-energy,

wave-dissipative beaches like Scarborough and Trigg feature sand bars, rip currents and

frequent surf rescue of people dragged into deep water.

TABLE 1.2 Summary of SLSWA rescue and first aid data

Location Aggregate

Beach Use

Rescues Marine

Stings

Cuts &

Abrasions

Fractures Spinal

Yanchep 21,437 0.93 1.35 2.89 0.09 0.05

Quinns 39,020 0.46 6.10 1.03 - 0.03

Mullaloo 534,566 0.15 1.64 0.59 0.02 0.03

Sorrento 97,497 0.11 2.95 0.65 0.05 -

Trigg 386,160 3.09 3.72 1.00 0.05 0.03

Scarboro 597,534 0.77 1.18 0.40 0.02 0.05

Floreat 89,262 0.20 3.15 0.63 0.03 0.02

City of Perth 197,202 0.20 3.85 0.46 0.03 0.05

Swanbourne 29,388 0.20 5.65 2.25 - 0.07

NorthCottesloe 79,266 0.18 2.14 0.98 0.08 0.01

Cottesloe 478,393 0.07 1.82 0.69 0.01 0.01

Fremantle 183,369 0.04 1.69 0.53 0.01 0.01

Coogee 22,511 - 5.46 0.49 - 0.04

Secret Harbour 50,897 1.34 1.75 0.96 - -

Mandurah 14,511 0.41 0.48 1.17 - -



1.4.7. Overview

The wide range of beach landforms and processes along the Perth Metropolitan Coast

provides potential for a highly diverse pattern of beach use. A major challenge for those

involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal environments is to understand

the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to accommodate it in planning and

management projects and decision-making. Separate beach nodes are components of the

five major sediment cells and sixteen secondary cells comprising the natural resource

management units along the coast. Beach states range from the very sheltered

environments of Shoalwater Bay and Cockburn Sound to exposed ocean beaches at Secret

Harbour and Scarborough.

The benign climate of the region indicates nodes of development along the coast could be

used throughout the year. Strong sea breezes in summer offer opportunities for wind surfing

but otherwise limit potential use of exposed beaches. A second challenge for management

is to develop landscape designs that provide adequate levels of shelter on beach nodes

where is desirable to encourage year round use of the beach and its facilities.



CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY

The study has been conducted as four linked components:

1. A questionnaire survey of people using the beach at key nodes designated by the

Department of Planning and Infrastructure;

2. Determination of the catchments from which people were attracted to key beach

nodes;

3. Aerial surveys of the distribution of people along the Perth metropolitan coast

between Singleton and Two Rocks; and

4. Analyses of crowd estimates gathered at beaches patrolled by Surf Life Saving

Western Australia during the past decade.

The principal was the questionnaire survey. Beach users of the open beach, the foreshore

reserve and commercial land (the beach precinct) adjoining the beach were surveyed on two

days: during the weekend during the weekend on Sunday 6 March, and mid-week on

Wednesday 9 March 2005. Questions included enquiry concerning the place of residence of

beach users, their mode of travel to the beach, and their principal reason for accessing the

beach. The other components provide a context for the main survey. A detailed description

of the methods used in each component of the study is included below.

2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The questionnaire used in this research was based on the survey instruments used by

Keating (1983) and Houghton et al. (2003) in previous analyses of beach use in the Perth

metropolitan region. This provides a basis for comparing trends in beach use over nearly

two decades. While the samples used in these earlier studies are smaller than that used in

this research, the consistent use of questions means that there remains a strong basis for

comparison.

Respondents were asked to answer questions on the frequency of beach use, place of

residence, reasons for visiting, mode of transport, parking issues, length of stay, and the use

of facilities. A series of questions were also asked on planning problems, conflicts and levels

of satisfaction with the beach environment. Data were recorded on the basic demographic

characteristics of respondents, the time of the survey, and the location of the respondent

within the beach precinct. A copy of the questionnaire survey is provided in Appendix 2.1.

The questionnaire was administered on 14 metropolitan beaches between Yanchep Lagoon

and Secret Harbour (FIGURE 2.1). These beaches were selected in consultation with the

Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and included three beach clusters (TABLE 2.1).

These included:

i) Large regional beaches, with relatively high level facilities, infrastructure, commercial

development and use;

ii) District beaches, usually with a range of basic facilities, commercial activities and use;

iii) Local beaches, which have very few facilities and infrastructure and generally record

relatively low rates of use.



FIGURE 2.1 Perth Metropolitan beaches included in the questionnaire survey

TABLE 2.1 Beach clusters and the fourteen case study locations

Beach Cluster Beach Name

Regional Beaches Hillarys Boat Harbour

Scarborough Beach

Cottesloe Beach

Rockingham

District Beaches Yanchep Lagoon

Mullaloo Beach

City Beach

South Beach

Secret Harbour

Local Beaches Whitfords Beach

Mettams Pool

Peasholm Street

Challenger Beach

Shoalwater Bay



The sampling methodology involved pairs of research staff from The University of Western

Australia approaching beach users at random and administering the questionnaire on a face-

to-face basis. For each of the 14 case study beaches, the beach precinct was divided into a

series of survey zones, which provided a degree of spatial stratification in the sample. These

zones were developed in consultation with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure,

and were based on different functional units within the beach precinct (e.g. beach zone,

recreation zone, commercial zone). An example of this zonation for Secret Harbour is

provided in FIGURE 2.2. Surveyors divided their time between these zones in order to

ensure that users in different parts of the beach precinct were represented in the sample.

Thus, the survey captures the characteristics and views of a range of stakeholders well

beyond those simply using the beach face.

A total of 3112 useable questionnaires were completed over the two survey dates: 1821

were completed on Sunday, 5 March, and 1291 completed on Wednesday, 9 March. The

survey data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for

analysis. Given that most of the data were collected using nominal categories, the analysis

was based largely on frequency distributions, contingency tables and, where appropriate,

non-parametric statistical tests (e.g. Chi-square). Qualitative data from the survey were

organised into thematic categories and have been presented in Appendix 2.2.



FIGURE 2.2 An example of the beach precinct zones used for collecting the

survey sample



2.2. AERIAL SURVEYS

Aerial photography was used to enable estimation of beach use on Sunday 6 and

Wednesday 9 March 2005, respectively. They were flown between Silver Sands and Two

Rocks beaches coincidentally with a questionnaire survey of beach users at ground level.

The photography provided continuous coverage of Perth metropolitan beaches for

approximately 90 minute windows. Video footage and still images were then processed and

beach counts between specific beach boundaries were compiled. The boundaries and

results are indicated in (Appendix 3.1).

The survey broadly follows the methodology adopted by Houghton (1988), Houghton et al.

(2003) and Blackweir and Beckley (2004) in order that information obtained should be

statistically comparable with the earlier projects. Potentially, it provides a more detailed

description of use on a beach by beach basis than would be provided by ground surveys and

establishes a geographical context for the questionnaire interviews of people using the 14

beaches surveyed. However, aerial surveys are prone to large error. Hence, an attempt

was made to establish reliable survey methods that might serve as guidelines for future

surveys and the survey methods are described in detail.

Tasks

Tasks required by the Brief were to:

• Charter suitable aircraft to fly the coast from Singleton to Two Rocks starting between

10:00 and 10:30 am and between 1:30 and 2:00 pm on each day of survey;

• Acquire and use appropriate digital recording instruments to establish the distribution of

people on the beach and in the adjacent backshore areas, and determine recreational

activities on each beach between Singleton and Two Rocks;

• Download all digital information and transpose to records to DVD for copying and

analysis;

• Establish the number and distribution of people on each beach and in its adjacent

backshore area; and

• Determine from the digital images the type and frequency of recreational activities

being practiced on each beach at the time of each aerial survey.

2.2.1. Survey methods

Aerial photography was used to enable estimation of beach use on Sunday 6 and

Wednesday 9 March 2005, respectively on a high-use long weekend day and a low-use

weekday. Two flights were conducted each day. They were flown between Silver Sands and

Two Rocks beaches. The photography provided continuous coverage of Perth Metropolitan

beaches for approximately 40 minute windows. Video footage and still images were then

processed and beach counts between specific beach boundaries were compiled.



Aircraft Selection

The beach survey aircraft was selected for its ability to fly safely at a slow ground speed

during hot and windy climatic conditions (FIGURE 2.3). The aircraft needed to be able to

maintain a 35 to 40 knot ground speed so that the photographer had sufficient time to record

images with an adequate overlap.

The aircraft used was a Piper PA18 fitted with short take off and landing (STOL)

modifications including a larger engine to improve climb performance; a “Borer” propeller to

improve acceleration; and a vortex generator kit to improve low speed handling

characteristics and lower the aircraft aerodynamic stalling speed. These modifications

provide an expanded flight safety margin when operating at slow speeds and altitudes during

hot and windy conditions. Tandem seating in aircraft enabled filming from both sides. The

upper and lower doors were opened in flight to provide an unobstructed field of view.

FIGURE 2.3 VH_PQE the Piper PA18 used for the beach survey flights

Pilot Experience.

Operational requirements of beach surveys conducted at low level, slow speed and in busy

airspace necessitate commissioning of an experienced pilot. For this task the requirement

was for the pilot to have low-level experience as well as a minimum of 1000 hours and

recency on the aircraft type.

Camera Equipment, Interpretation Software and Computer Hardware

The video camera used for filming was a Sony Handycam DCR-IP55E with a MicroMV®

video cassette. The digital data was transferred to DVD format using the Sony Corporation

software Click to DVD® version 2.1.10.07080. Data was also extracted from the MicroMV

cassettes using the Sony Corporation software DVgate Plus® version 2.0.00.11010 to

temporary files, which were formatted for interpretation using Adobe Premier Standard®

version 7.0.



Still images were captured with a Nikon Corporation® Nikon D100 camera using version 2.00

software and fitted with an 18-70mm Nikon lens. Typically, the images were captured using

1/500th of a second exposure time, at F-Number 9, the shutter priority exposure program, a

lens focal length of 70.0 mm and stored as a JPEG format file with X & Y Resolutions of

1/300 inches. The images were post-compressed to Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW)

image technology using Irfan View® for Microsoft ® WinXP version 3.95, to facilitate file

handling without sacrificing image quality. The ECW files were arranged as simple

panoramic views using Irfan View to simplify the counting and interpretation. The digital still

and video images were displayed for interpretation on LCD computer monitors set to 1400

x1050 pixel resolutions. Beach boundaries were identified on the images and numbers of

people in the water and up to the back of the beach were counted.

Global Positioning System (GPS) Tracklog

A Micronics Tusani™ Marine Beacon DGPS fitted with a 2007S data logging computer

loaded with ESRI ArcPad® was used during the Wednesday flights. A combination of

installation and technical problems resulted in only partial capture of the aircraft track. It is

recommended that future projects of this type include a sub-metre accuracy GPS to record

the flight tracks as GIS files. The differential correction should be provided by VHF beacon

rather than satellite systems such as OminSTAR DGPS Services. Trimble Pathfinder®

Power equipment failed to capture any data during the Sunday flights due to difficulties in

acquiring continuous OmniSTAR satellite differential services when operating inside the

aircraft.

The example of tracklog data shown in FIGURE 2.4 represents the continuous capture of

points at one second intervals. The points are approximately 30 metres apart and when

compared to the time stamped images provides an accurate means of locating individual

photographs during interpretation. The precise location information for individual

photographs enables easier image interpretation in particular when correlating data against

beach locations.

2.3. PARKED VEHICLE SURVEYS

Registration plates of vehicles in parking areas adjoining the fifteen beaches in the Perth

Metropolitan Area between Singleton and Two Rocks were recorded on 6 and 9 March,

2005. The records were made between 10:00am and 12:00 pm, as well as between 4:00 pm

and 16:00 pm on each day.

The purpose of the survey was to:

(a) Determine the catchment areas of vehicles using the parking areas; and

(b) Estimate the use and adequacy of parking facilities; and

(c) Obtain information that extended and independently tested information collected in

the questionnaire survey of beach users.



The survey broadly follows methods reported by Houghton (1988) and Houghton et al.

(2003), in order that information obtained should be statistically comparable with the earlier

projects. It was executed simultaneously with administration of questionnaire surveys on the

beaches selected as examples of local, district and regional beaches. The beaches are listed

in TABLE 2.2.

TABLE 2.2 Beaches at which vehicle registration information was collected

SECTOR BEACH NODE STATUS

1 South Secret Harbour District

2 Shoalwater Bay Local

3 Rockingham Regional

4 Central South Challenger (James Rocks) Local

5 South Beach District

6 Bathers Beach Local

7 Central Cottesloe Regional

8 City Beach District

9 Scarborough Regional

10 Peasholm Street (Dog) Local

11 Mettams Pool Local

12 Hillarys Boat Harbour Regional

13 Central North Whitfords (Pinnaroo Point) Local

14 Mullaloo District

15 North Yanchep Lagoon District

In the surveys conducted by Houghton (1988) and Houghton et al., (1998) vehicle

registration numbers were recorded for every second car in each beachside parking area,

and, in some instances, less frequently in large crowded car parks. The records obtained

were converted to the postcode address for which the vehicle was registered. This provided

an indication of the catchment areas for the beaches and demonstrated that a high

proportion of people were found to travel very short distances to reach the beach of their

choice. This proposition was tested I more detail in the surveys of the 6 and 9 March 2005,

through more exhaustive vehicle counts. Additionally, collection of registration numbers from

parked vehicles was complemented by the detail of the questionnaire surveys from which it

was also possible to collate sufficient information describing the postcode origin of beach

users.



2.3.1. Tasks

Tasks required for the survey of vehicles using the beachfront parking areas survey include

the following:

1. Preparation and printing of data sheets for the survey;

2. Appointment of staff to undertake the survey;

3. Convening of a meeting to explain the organization and administration of the survey

to the surveyors and DPI coordinators in the expectation there would be some

consistency in the procedure used to collect the information;

4. Cleaning and collation of information from vehicle registration plates for TRELIS

identification of the postcode for which the vehicle is registered. This required

compilation of the information in separate tables for morning and afternoon

observations at each beach on each day of survey.

5. Submission of vehicle registration numbers to the Department of Planning and

Infrastructure for TRELIS identification.

6. Following identification, collation of the postcode records in separate tables

describing the postcode area and suburb of registration.

7. Resubmission of separate frequency counts for postcode districts and suburbs to the

Department of Planning and Infrastructure for map compilation.

8. Interpretation of the mapped information.

FIGURE 2.4 An example of the GPS Tracklog displayed in ArcPad® showing the

distance interval between points and the feature properties of each.



2.4. SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB RECORDS

Surf Life Saving Western Australia regularly estimates the size of the crowd on each of the

13 beaches they patrol in the Perth Metropolitan Area between Singleton and Two Rocks

(TABLE 2.3).

Data collected by Surf Life Saving Clubs at the patrolled beaches include estimates of

crowds (frequently am and pm) on the days of patrol from mid spring (October) to late

autumn (late-March), as well as descriptions of wave and weather conditions at the time of

observation. Gaps in the data commonly indicated days of inclement weather during which

the beach was not patrolled and crowds were not present. Additionally, the data provides a

record of incidents requiring attention by members of the local SLSC.

Houghton et al. (2003) analysed the SLSWA time-series information for the summers of

1993/94 to 1997/98. The time series provided a very detailed record that was interpreted in

the context of weather changes and established the rationale for marked differences

between beaches in the type of recreation practiced on them. While the data set is limited in

not providing demographic information, it provides a first order description of temporal

change in beach use at the major recreational beaches in the Perth Metropolitan Area. As

such, it is primary information for predicting potential trends in future demand for beach use,

and may provide a basis for establishment of the carrying capacity of Metropolitan Beaches

from a facility provision perspective.

TABLE 2.3 Patrolled beaches

SECTOR BEACH NODE STATUS 2005 Survey

1 South Secret Harbour District Yes

2 Central South Coogee District No

3 Central Leighton District No

4 Cottesloe Regional Yes

5 North Cottesloe District No

6 Swanbourne District No

7 City Beach District Yes

8 Floreat District No

9 Scarborough Regional Yes

10 Trigg District No

11 Sorrento Local No

12 Central North Mullaloo District Yes

13 North Quinns Local No



The time series derived in Houghton et al. (2003) have been updated to include summers

from 1993/94 to 2004/2005 in order that information obtained is statistically comparable with,

and extends the earlier project. Statistical analysis of the time series describing user

population on each beach potentially can be used to identify growth spurts, plateaus and

down turns in beach use. The type of analysis applied to the time series is to plot a

cumulative summation curve of change in the monthly or annual average crowd size and

correlate turning points in the curve with specific events in other records, such as

construction of new facilities or a weather event. The present analysis presents a first order

reduction of the information in the form of cumulative summation curves to provide an

indication of the degree to which the crowds present on 5 and 9 March 2005 are

representative of crowds observed in the past ten years.

Data analysis includes:

• Data cleaning and compilation of monthly records;

• Combination with time series compiled by Houghton et al. (2003);

• Plotting of time series as cumulative frequency graphs for each beach;

• Interpretation by determination of trends and singular elements in the time

series that may be correlated with major natural (storm) and cultural (provision of

new infrastructure) events.



CHAPTER 3. CROWDS AND TOURISTS

Patterns of beach use have been determined by the aerial surveys and questionnaires, as

well as from records collated by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. The aerial surveys and

questionnaires provide a ‘snapshot’ of beach use at the time the information was obtained.

This picture is limited in time and space, as well as by error inherent to the methods used.

The observations are given some context by the hourly estimates of crowd size reported by

Eliot et al. (1986) and Houghton et al. (2003), daily observations of Blackweir and Beckley

(2004) over three months, and the ten year long time series collated for summer weekends

on patrolled beaches by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. One source of error is that there

is no consistency between the areas for which crowd estimates have been made, either in

the specification of beach limits for the interpretation of aerial photography or the designation

of patrolled beach areas from beach to beach in the Surf Life Saving records. As a result, no

one set of records provides a complete description of beach use and none is without

limitation or error. However, considered together the surveys provide a substantial picture of

beach use on the metropolitan coast.

3.1. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE ALONG THE COAST

The distribution of people along the coast was determined from aerial photography. Five

flights were flown during the two days of survey. On Sunday 6 March the photographic run

was flown between 09:30 and 13:30 hours, followed by video recording from 14:00 to 16:00

hours. The three flights on Wednesday 9 March were from 08:30 to 11:30 hours for

photography; 11:50 to 13:50 for video recording; and 14:00 to 16:30 hours for the final

photographic run. The difference in number of runs and techniques between the two days

was due to a need to develop operational familiarity with the air survey procedures adopted,

adjustment to ensure complete photographic coverage for two runs, and the large number of

people present on beaches. During morning on the first day of survey 9514 people were

photographed between Silver Sands and Two Rocks. This total contrasted with three counts

of 859, 999 and 1315 for the mid-week surveys. All results, including those for individual

beaches, are indicated in Appendix 3.1.

The results have been presented in graphic format for ease of interpretation and comparison.

Observations from Hillarys Boat Harbour are not included in the count due to piloting and

photographic error. First, the results for Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon (TABLE

3.1), on the day of most intense use of the coast, align with expectation. Crowds are highest

at regional nodes where facilities have been provided, particularly in the central metropolitan

area between Fremantle (Bathers Beach) and Trigg (immediately north of Scarborough on

the graph). Away from the central metropolitan area there are distinct nodes at Secret

Harbour, Rockingham, South Beach, Whitfords, Mullaloo and Burns Beach. Between these

nodes are tracts of coast where the levels of use were low at the time of photography.

Exceptionally large crowds with over 600 people counted in the section of beach surveyed,

indicate organised activity, such as a surf life saving carnival, at those beaches; for example,

those recorded from City Beach in the morning and Cottesloe in the afternoon.



Crowds were significantly lower during Wednesday, especially away from the central

metropolitan area. This is apparent in graphs for Wednesday (FIGURE 3.2), and even more

so in the comparisons between weekend and weekday morning and afternoon use shown in

FIGURE 3.3 and FIGURE 3.4 respectively. On Wednesday, (FIGURE 3.2) the crowds were

largest on the northern beaches in the morning, with approximately 50 and 75 people present

at Sorrento and Mullaloo. They were highest at Scarborough and Cottesloe, respectively

with approximately 150 and 250 people in the afternoon.

The characteristics of beach use were established from questionnaire surveys, although

there was considerable variation in the size of the survey sample across the fourteen

beaches. This is largely a product of the total population in the beach precinct on the survey

dates. On Sunday, 5 March 2005, large numbers of respondents were concentrated at

Mullaloo Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe Beach and Rockingham Beach (TABLE

3.1). These three beaches accounted for 46.7 per cent of all responses collected on the

Sunday. While the number of beach users dropped considerably on Wednesday, 9 March

2005, there were a number of beaches that received relatively high responses. The largest

numbers of survey completions were recorded at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe Beach,

Scarborough Beach, and Whitfords Beach. These four beaches represented 51.1 per cent of

all responses received on the Wednesday. In terms of total use, three of the designated

regional beaches (Hillarys, Scarborough and Cottesloe) had the highest levels of use, with

Mullaloo, a district beach, also heavily used, particularly on the Sunday.

TABLE 3.1 People Surveyed on Perth Beaches in March 2005

Date

Beach Names 5 March 2005 9 March 2005 Total

Yanchep Lagoon 90 68 158

Mullaloo Beach 226 96 322

Whitfords Beach 132 112 244

Hillarys Boat Harbour 217 172 389

Mettams Pool 130 79 209

Scarborough Beach 180 150 330

Peasholm Street 79 90 169

City Beach 139 108 247

Cottesloe Beach 206 118 324

South Beach 78 81 159

Challenger Beach 57 22 79

Rockingham Beach 202 75 277

Shoalwater Bay 50 78 128

Secret Harbour 35 42 77

Total 1821 1291 3112



FIGURE 3.1 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks in the morning (top) and

afternoon (bottom) of Sunday 5 March 2005

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Secre

t H

arb

our

Sa

fety

Ba

y

Rockin

gham

Beach

Challe

nger

Beach

South

Beach

Bath

ers

Bay

Cotteslo

e

City B

each

Peasholm

Scarb

oro

ugh

Mettam

s P

ool

Boat

Harb

our

(n/d

)

Wh

itfo

rds

Mulla

lloo

Yanchep

Su

nd

ay

AM

Co

un

t

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Su

nd

ay

PM

Co

un

t



FIGURE 3.2 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks in the morning (top) and

afternoon (bottom) of Wednesday 9 March 2005

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Secre

t H

arb

our

Safe

ty B

ay

Rockin

gham

Beach

Challe

nger

Beach

South

Beach

Bath

ers

Bay

Cotteslo

e

City B

each

Peasholm

Scarb

oro

ugh

Mettam

s P

ool

Boat

Harb

our

(n/d

)

Whitfo

rds

Mulla

lloo

Yanchep

Wed

nesd

ay A

M C

ou

nt

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Wed

nesd

ay P

M C

ou

nt



FIGURE 3.3 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks during the mornings of

Sunday 5 March 2005 (top) and Wednesday 9 March 2005 (bottom)

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Secre

t H

arb

our

Safe

ty B

ay

Rockin

gham

Beach

Challe

nger

Beach

South

Beach

Bath

ers

Bay

Cotteslo

e

City B

each

Peasholm

Scarb

oro

ugh

Mettam

s P

ool

Boat

Harb

our

(n/d

)

Whitfo

rds

Mulla

lloo

Yanchep

Su

nd

ay

AM

Co

un

t

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Wed

nesd

ay A

M C

ou

nt



-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

Secre

t H

arb

our

Safe

ty B

ay

Rockin

gham

Beach

Challe

nger

Beach

South

Beach

Bath

ers

Bay

Cotteslo

e

City B

each

Peasholm

Scarb

oro

ugh

Mettam

s P

ool

Boat

Harb

our

(n/d

)

Whitfo

rds

Mulla

lloo

Yanchep

Su

nd

ay P

M C

ou

nt

-800

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

Wed

nesd

ay P

M C

ou

nt

FIGURE 3.4 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks during the afternoons of

Sunday 5 March 2005 (top) and Wednesday 9 March 2005 (bottom)



3.2. PATROLLED BEACHES

Crowd estimates provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) span ten

summers from 1994/95 to 2004/2005. The information typically includes daily

morning and afternoon data for weekends between October and March. Fifteen surf

life saving clubs provided observations, with varied levels of completeness (Appendix

3.2). Thirteen were used in the detailed analyses, including Secret Harbour,

Fremantle, Cottesloe, North Cottesloe, Swanbourne, Floreat, City Beach,

Scarborough, Trigg, Sorrento, Mullaloo, Quinns Rock and Yanchep.

Crowd estimates provided by each surf life saving club are derived visually. The zone

over which the estimate is made is not clearly defined. As a result, the crowd

estimates are unlikely to have a high degree of precision, particularly during

unusually high beach use. Furthermore, on many occasions, no records are

available, which may be because no estimate was made.

Three sets of analyses have been completed for each summer. They identify:

1. Primary statistics - including the number of observations; mean and standard

deviation of crowd size, and the maximum number of people;

2. Seasonal trends; and

3. Variation in crowd size with changing environmental conditions.

The results are described below. Different sets of beaches are reported in different

components of the analysis because the record is neither complete nor consistent for

all beaches.

The accuracy of peak beach use is questionable, as the techniques used for crowd

estimation apparently have limited effectiveness for a beach population exceeding

1,000 people. Additionally, the techniques may be applied to different areas beach.

For example, counts may be made between patrol flags at one beach and on the

area occupied for another. While interbeach comparisons and the absolute values

may be questionable, the estimates nevertheless provide a picture of change

occurring on each beach.

It is important to note that the observations of beach use are highly skewed,

separating median and mean statistics (FIGURE 3.5). This determines that the

absence or presence of only a few peak observations will provide a significant

contribution to broader statistics such as mean or standard deviation. To improve the

statistical stability of interbeach comparisons would require comparison of statistics

at selected percentile levels, such as the 75% or 90% level. However, in the context

of this report, such statistics are less meaningful than the maximum observed beach

use and the pattern of change over time.



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Proportion of Observations

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

rop

ort

ion

of

Beach

Use

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Ind

ivid

ual

Ob

serv

ati

on

s o

f B

each

Use

Median Mean

High skew

produces potential

for bias by relatively

few observations

FIGURE 3.5 Cottesloe Beach Use 1988/89

3.2.1. Primary Statistics

Base statistics are provided as monthly and annual summaries for each of the fifteen

locations (Appendix 3.2). Collectively, the beach use statistics suggest a general

increase in beach use of approximately 4% per annum over the period 1994 to 2004

(FIGURE 3.6 to FIGURE 3.8). Data sets from Peel and Coogee are insufficient to

describe general changes in beach use.

These base statistics show that the most heavily visited beaches are Scarborough,

Cottesloe and Mullaloo. Beach use on Scarborough and Cottesloe is variable over

the period 1994 to 2004 and does not suggest a trend. Swanbourne has experienced

a decline in beach use. Visitation has increased over the 10-year period on all other

beaches, at an approximate rate of 5-10% per annum.

Peak beach use at each of the locations is significantly greater than the average

beach use. In many cases, this is associated with a special event, located at that

beach, such as Surf Lifesaving carnivals. Other occasions of increased popularity

include those where fine weather conditions coincide with school or public holidays.

The highest numbers of people observed and the highest number of people observed

on each patrolled beach are listed in TABLE 3.3 and TABLE 3.4 respectively.



FIGURE 3.6 Average Beach Use, Northern Beaches



FIGURE 3.7 Average Beach Use, Central Beaches



FIGURE 3.8 Average Beach Use, Southern Beaches



TABLE 3.2 The highest number of people observed on each beach

patrolled by Surf Life Saving Western Australia

NUMBER OF

PEOPLE

BEACH DATE

OBSERVED

20,000 Mullaloo 6 March 2000

18,000 Mullaloo 27 Dec 1999


11,000 Cottesloe 25 Dec 1999


10,150 Mullaloo 26 Jan 2001

10,000 Cottesloe 26 Dec 2002

9,900 Port 4 Mar 2001

9,000 Scarborough 27 Dec 1999

8,550 Scarborough 2 Mar 2003

8,500 North Cottesloe 22 Nov 2003

8,475 Port 7 Dec 2003

8,400 Mullaloo 24 Jan 1999

8,100 Mullaloo 9 Feb 2003

7,920 Port 26 Dec 2003

TABLE 3.3 The highest number of people observed on each beach

patrolled by Surf Life saving Western Australia

BEACH NUMBER

OBSERVED

DATE

Yanchep 550 11 Jan 2004

Quinns 1,700 26 Dec 2002

Mullaloo 20,000 6 Mar 2000

Sorrento 2,100 26 Jan 1999

Trigg 6,600 8 Feb 2003

Scarborough 9,000 27 Dec 1999

Floreat 2,880 3 Mar 2003

City Beach 6,000 9 Mar 2003

Swanbourne 3,000 2 Jan 1995

North Cottesloe 8,500 22 Nov 2003

Cottesloe 11,000 25 Dec 1999

Port 9,900 7 Dec 2003

Secret Harbour 2,060 26 Dec 2003



3.2.2. Seasonal Statistics

Limitations of the observed statistics have been noted previously, including a highly

skewed distribution, variability of observation and imprecision of estimate techniques.

In addition to these, a wide range of social and environmental conditions may affect

changes in use on a day-to-day or seasonal basis. Hence, a coarse and robust

evaluation of time series is most appropriate. One such method is cumulative

summation of the data on a seasonal basis. This technique was successfully applied

previously to the surf life saving data from 1994/95 to 1997/98 (Houghton et al.,

2003). The shape of the cumulative frequency curve indicates crowd response to

changing conditions for each season (FIGURE 3.9). This form of graphical

representation allows identification of singular relatively infrequent high use, without

obscuring seasonal patterns.

Classic pattern Regular use Early season

use

Late season

use

Atypical

pattern

Low summer

use

FIGURE 3.9 Characteristic profiles for the summer crowds on beaches

patrolled by Surf Life Saving Clubs

Cumulative summation plots have been prepared for each of the beach use data

sets, using the average of observations for each week, to reduce the effect of varying

observation frequency (FIGURE 3.10 to FIGURE 3.12). These show the high level of

variability of beach use observations, with several ‘jumps’ illustrating one-off beach

use events, such as festivals or surfing competitions. Interpretation of the seasonal

trends requires analysis of the curvature of the cusum plots. The profile of the plot

varies from beach to beach and thus identifies different patterns of summer use of

the beaches (TABLE 3.4).



FIGURE 3.10 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Northern Beaches



FIGURE 3.11 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Central Beaches



FIGURE 3.12 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Southern Beaches



TABLE 3.4 Patterns of beach use indicated by the cumulative frequency

graphs for each patrolled beach

BEACH PATTERN OF BEACH USE

Yanchep There is low use of Yanchep Beach in spring, but use is sustained

through into autumn

Quinns Quinns is subject to sustained use, with occasional large events,

such as during 2002/03 season

Mullaloo Mullaloo displays highly variable patterns of use, with occasional

extremely high use.

Sorrento Sorrento shows classic high summer use pattern, with a slow build

up to a late summer peak

Trigg Trigg commonly shows late summer use, although with some lay

off in 95/96, 98/99 and 2003/04

Scarborough Scarborough experiences sustained use, with some variability for

late season use

Floreat Floreat shows a tendency to classic summer beach use.

City Beach Crowd size at City Beach generally shows a classic summer beach

use pattern, with a slow build up to a late summer peak

Swanbourne Swanbourne displays a sustained pattern of use through the

summer seasons, with occasional high use events. Over the ten

year, the average crowd size has been declining.

North Cottesloe Beach use at North Cottesloe is variable, with some indication of

reduced summer use

Cottesloe There is generally sustained use of Cottesloe, with occasional high

levels of use

Port Crowd size at Port Beach is variable, with occasional high levels of

use.

Secret Harbour The pattern of summer use at Secret Harbour suggests sustained

use from spring through to late autumn.

3.2.3. Effect of Environmental Parameters

Comparison of the summer beach crowd on each beach with weather parameters

together with interpretation of the profiles of summer use (Appendix 3.3) indicated the

limiting environmental factors for each beach patrolled by surf life saving clubs and

confirmed results reported by Houghton et al. (2003). The analysis distinguishes

between beaches for which environmental conditions are the major limiting factors

and those where other factors are critical. For example, the size of the crowd on the

patrolled beaches at Scarborough and Secret Harbour is dependent on wind and



wave conditions whereas other factors determine variation in the crowd size at

Cottesloe and City Beach.

The summary of the major relationships between crowd size at each beach patrolled

by a surf life saving club and the associated environmental conditions reported by

Houghton et al. (2003:19–21) is provided below.

Yanchep

• There is a mild decrease in visitor numbers at Yanchep with increasing wind

speed;

• Wind direction is not a critical limiting factor.

• Visitor numbers increase with temperature. However, there is a lack of

observations for days with lower temperatures.

• Waves do not appear to have a large effect upon visitor numbers.

Quinns

• A marked decrease in visitor numbers occurs at Quinns with increased wind

speed.

• Wind direction does not appear to be a critical factor.

• Beach numbers significantly decrease with temperatures below 20oC. Above

this, there is a small increase in visitor numbers with temperature.

• Wave type affects visitor numbers. There is a tendency for larger crowds with

smaller wind waves.

Mullaloo

• There is a small increase in numbers in lower compared with higher wind

conditions.

• Visitors show a preference of for offshore winds.

• Beach numbers significantly decrease with temperatures below 20oC. Above

that, there is only a slight increase in visitor numbers with a rise in

temperature.

• Wave type or size does not appear to markedly affect visitation.

Sorrento

• Wind speed and wind direction are not critical to visitation, although crowd

size indicates a slight preference for offshore winds;

• Temperature does not appear to be a critical factor affecting visitor numbers.

• Wave type and size does not appear to be critical factor limiting the number of

people at the beach.



Trigg

• At Trigg there is a tendency for larger numbers to visit the beach during lower

wind conditions.

• Low use of the beach occurs during onshore winds. The crowd is greater

than 1000 people only during offshore wind conditions.

• High use requires temperatures greater than 20oC, otherwise there is not a

noticeable effect of temperature on crowd size.

• Large crowds typically occur during low-moderate sea and swell conditions.

Scarborough

• Use of the beach at Scarborough is strongly affected by wind speed and

direction, with crowd numbers indicating a marked preference for offshore

winds.

• High use is observed only for temperatures above 20oC. Otherwise, there is a

slight increase in beach use with rise in temperature.

• Large crowds commonly occur during low-moderate wind waves and low

swell conditions.

Floreat

• Wind speed has a moderate effect on crowd size at Floreat. The crowd

becomes smaller as speed increases.

• Wind direction does not have an apparent effect on the size of the crowd.

• High levels of beach use occur for temperatures above 18oC only, with a

slight increase in crowd size for increasing temperatures.

• Crowd size indicates a preference for lower wind wave activity. Swell size

apparently is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.

City Beach

• Wind speed and direction are not critical to crowd size.

• Sustained beach use occurs throughout all temperatures above 18oC, with a

mild tendency for crowd numbers to increase with rise in temperature.

• Wave type and size is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.

Swanbourne

• Large crowds are weakly associated with low wind speeds.

• Wind direction does not appear to be critical to the size of the crowd.

• High levels of beach use only occur at temperatures above 18oC, but

otherwise temperature is not a critical factor.

• Wave type apparently is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.



North Cottesloe

• Crowd size at North Cottesloe indicates a marked preference of people using

the beach for low wind speeds and offshore winds.

• High levels of beach use only occur at temperatures above 18oC, but

otherwise there is no significant relationship between temperature and crowd

use.

• The pattern of beach use indicates a crowd preference for low wind wave

activity.

Cottesloe

• During summer wind direction and speed are not critical factors in limiting

crowd size at Cottesloe.

• Sustained beach use occurs throughout all summer day temperatures.

• The crowd apparently tolerates high wind-wave activity, probably due to

beach protection.

• Swell is not a critical factor, although there is a slight tendency for the largest

numbers of people to visit the beach during calmer conditions.

Port Beach

• People using Port Beach show a weak preference for light, offshore winds.

• There is a marginal increase in crowd size with increases in summer day

temperatures above 20oC.

• Slight preference for low wind and swell wave conditions.

Secret Harbour

• People using Secret Harbour show no marked preference for particular wind

conditions.

• Greater use of the beach occurs at day temperatures above 18oC, but

otherwise there is no significant relationship between temperature and crowd

size.

• Variation in crowd size suggests there is no clear preference for wave type.

However, the largest crowds observed occurred during average wind wave

and low swell conditions.

• The records indicated low levels of beach use throughout the observation

period.



3.3. TOURISM AND BEACH USE

Beaches are also significant tourism attractions for the domestic and international

visitor market to Perth. In 2004, there were 587 000 international visitors and 6.5

million overnight domestic visitors to Western Australia. Statistics provided by

Tourism Western Australia suggests that between 2000 and 2005, on average 30%

of interstate, 9% of intrastate and 62% of international visitors to Perth went to the

beach at least once during their stay (FIGURE 3.13). For example, in 2004 a total of

300 100 international visitors reported having gone to the beach at least once,

compared to 144 000 of interstate visitors in the same year (Tourism Research

Australia, 2004). This indicates that during any given year, there is likely to be a

significantly higher proportion of international visitors at Perth beaches than any other

type of visitor.

Information provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia indicates an average of

280,000 people per year visit patrolled beaches on weekends. In comparison to this,

statistics provided by Tourism Western Australia reveal that approximately 180,000

foreign nationals visited Perth beaches each year from 2000 to 2004. Assuming

tourist visitation to the beach is evenly distributed on a daily basis, approximately

52,000 international visitors per weekend. This is approximately 18% of the beach

going population reported by Surf Life Saving Western Australia as using Perth

beaches during weekends. The figure is indicative only, because of the underlying

assumptions and due to the dynamic nature of the beach crowd, which turns over

continuously throughout the day and from day to day. However, it is close to the

estimates obtained by Tourism Western Australia and underscores the significance

of the Perth coast as a preferred destination.

A study conducted by Tourism Western Australia showed that the beaches of Perth

comprised one of top ten most important attractions in Perth (Tourism Western

Australia, 2004a). Domestic visitors rated going to the beach as the fifth most

important leisure activity in Perth. International visitors rated going to the beach as

the second most important leisure activity in Perth.

As part of the Perth Destination Development Strategy, Tourism Western Australia

also assessed the key issues affecting the visitor experience in Perth using a

Destination Development Matrix (FIGURE 3.14). The results of this assessment

showed that beach and coastal activities are focus activities and are perceived to be

iconic. However, there are product and infrastructure gaps to be addressed before

further marketing of these attractions. Issues included the lack of organised beach

activities, lack of shade structures and shelter at many beaches, poor access tracks

and poor public transport to the coast. Scarborough and Cottesloe were equally

classified as highly iconic attractions and these beaches were perceived as market

ready. These beaches were perceived to have the same infrastructure gaps as the

other general coastal areas in Perth, as well as having limited opening hours to pools

in accommodation facilities. A lack of directional signs from the train station to

Cottesloe beach was also emphasised. Hillary’s Boat Harbour is a market ready



attraction but it was not identified as a major icon in Perth (FIGURE 3.14). Limited

directional signs to the facility and the lack of marine interaction opportunities were

identified as two development issues.

Although there is no precise data available to show the distribution of beach use over

time, there are strong seasonal patterns for interstate and international visitors

(FIGURE 3.15 to FIGURE 3.17). An important distinction is the high proportion of

international visitors compared to domestic visitors. International visitors have had a

consistent base level of 30,000 and a range to over 60,000 visitors for each of the

past 5 years. In contrast to this, the number of domestic visitors has as base level of

20,000 and a peak of approximately 45,000. The disparity between use off the coast

by domestic and international tourists increases if the number of beach visits is

estimated from Tourism Western Australia proportions of 30% beach use by

domestic visitors and 60% by international tourists.

The time series describing monthly variation in the number of international visitors

indicates a strong seasonal variation with visitor numbers being lowest in June and

highest in December (FIGURE 3.16). There are significant secondary peaks in

August and late February each year. The number of visitors for the July and August

might be increased following further market research and promotion of local coastal

resources. Domestic visitation also shows a marked seasonal pattern (FIGURE

3.17). However, it is significantly different from that for international visitors. The

numbers of domestic visitors is lowest in May to June and highest between August

and November. Secondary peaks are apparent in August, November and February.

Although the seasonal changes remain apparent there is a marked increase in

visitation by domestic visitors after July 2003.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

Interstate

Intrastate

International

FIGURE 3.13 Proportion of interstate, intrastate and international visitors to

Perth from 2000 to 2004 who went to the beach at least once



FIGURE 3.14 Destination Development Matrix

(Source: Tourism WA 2004b)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-0

0

Jul-00

Jan-0

1

Jul-01

Jan-0

2

Jul-02

Jan-0

3

Jul-03

Jan-0

4

Jul-04

Jan-0

5

Arr

ivals

(T

ho

usan

ds)

Domestic Arrivals

Foreign Arrivals

FIGURE 3.15 Monthly variation in the number of domestic and international

visitor arrivals to Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-0

0

Jul-00

Jan-0

1

Jul-01

Jan-0

2

Jul-02

Jan-0

3

Jul-03

Jan-0

4

Jul-04

Jan-0

5

Arr

iva

ls (

Th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Foreign Arrivals

Seasonal Average

FIGURE 3.16 Monthly variation in the number of international visitor arrivals

to Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Jan-0

0

Jul-00

Jan-0

1

Jul-01

Jan-0

2

Jul-02

Jan-0

3

Jul-03

Jan-0

4

Jul-04

Jan-0

5

Arr

iva

ls (

Th

ou

sa

nd

s)

Seasonal Average

Domestic Arrivals

FIGURE 3.17 Monthly variation in the number of domestic visitor arrivals to

Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005



CHAPTER 4. USER CATCHMENTS AND ACCESS ROUTES

The geography of beach user catchments and the transport patterns of survey

respondents are described in this section of the report. The catchment areas were

determined in two ways. First, survey respondents were asked the postcode of their

home address. These were then mapped for each beach as a total, and for the

Sunday and Wednesday survey dates. Second, catchments derived from

registrations of vehicles parked in beach car parks. The registration numbers were

collected during morning and afternoon periods on the same days as questionnaire

surveys were administered. Locations of origin were derived from registration

details, which were categorised under Perth suburbs and postcodes. Catchments

determined from the questionnaire survey are presented in the text. Unless otherwise

indicated, those determined from the parked vehicle surveys are included as

Appendices 4.1 and 4.2). Data on transport patterns were collected by asking

respondents questions relating to mode of transport and time taken to travel to the

beach.

4.1. CATCHMENTS INDICATED BY VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS

Over 9000 vehicle registration numbers were recorded at 15 beaches during the two

days of survey (Table 2): 6268 (68%) on Sunday 6 March, and 2998 (32%) on

Wednesday 9 March. Overall, 8431 (91%) of the 9266 registrations recorded were

linked to a suburb and or postcode address by TRELIS. The origin and number of

registered vehicles surveyed is listed in Appendix 4.1. Most vehicles, 93.7% of the

8431 with identifiable registration plates were from the Perth Metropolitan Area; 5.4%

(456 vehicles) from country districts in Western Australia; and the remaining 0.9%

(76) had interstate registration. Frequency counts associated with the origin and

number of registered vehicles from each postcode district and suburb in the Perth

Metropolitan Area is presented in Appendix 4 1. Maps of vehicle catchments for each

beach surveyed are presented in Appendix 4.2.

Only one vehicle was registered overseas. That vehicle was observed at Hillarys

Boat Harbour during the afternoon of Wednesday 9 march 2005. A further 835

vehicles had registration addresses that could not readily be traced. These account

for approximately 9% of the total number of vehicles surveyed. These, and the

vehicle with the overseas registration, have not been considered further in the

analysis.

Comparisons between beaches or between days of survey are unreliable due to

inconsistencies in the manner in which records were collected at each beach. For

example, vehicle registration plates were recorded hourly at Rockingham but only

once during the morning and afternoon on other beaches. Nevertheless, the large

size of the sample gives a good indication of differences between weekend and mid-

week use of the beaches surveyed, and some generalisations can be drawn.

Additionally there is consistency between the catchments determined by the

questionnaire and vehicle surveys.



TABLE 4.1 Origin and number of registered vehicles surveyed

Perth

Metropolitan

WA

Country

Other

States Not Found Total

6 March 2005

Morning 2813 141 8 307 3269

Afternoon 2515 186 29 270 2999

Totals: 6 March 5328 327 37 577 6268

9 March 2005

Morning 1254 57 11 132 1454

Afternoon 1316 74 28 126 1544

Totals: 9 March 2570 131 39 258 2998

TOTAL 7898 456 76 835 9266

4.2. CATCHMENTS INDICATED BY QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS

The combined catchment area derived from the questionnaire surveys for all 14

beaches is illustrated in FIGURE 4.1. This indicates that most survey respondents

were from postcode areas within five to ten kilometres of the coast. There is a

particularly strong concentration of users in the postcode areas between Cottesloe

and Sorrento. Not surprisingly, these respondents were often using the beaches

between Cottesloe Beach and Hillarys Boat Harbour. There is also a clear west-east

gradient in the spatial concentration of beach users, with decreasing levels of use the

further one moves inland from the coast.

The total beach catchment areas for Sunday, 5 March 2005 and Wednesday, 9

March 2005 do not differ significantly (FIGURE 4.2 and FIGURE 4.3). There remains

a strong concentration of users close to the coast, and a decrease in representation

from postcode areas further east. The geographical distribution of the catchment

areas is also quite similar, with most of the same postcode areas represented on

both days.

The catchment areas for the individual beaches in this study vary considerably in

their geographic scope (FIGURE 4.4 to FIGURE 4.17). It is clear that some of the

larger regional beaches, such as Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach and

Cottesloe Beach have extremely large catchment areas, while some of the smaller



local beaches tend to have rather confined catchments. The size of catchments not

only reflects the range and quality of facilities and commercial activities available at

beaches, but also patterns of transport. These factors are discussed in Sections 4.X

(Transport Patterns) and 5 (Recreational Activities) of this report.

4.3. CATCHMENT AREAS FOR EACH BEACH

The following provides a brief discussion of the user catchments for each beach,

based on a combination of the questionnaire and vehicle surveys. Figure numbers

refer to catchments derived from the questionnaire surveys. More detailed catchment

maps referring to postcodes and suburbs are derived from the vehicle surveys and

included as Appendix 4.2.

4.3.1. Yanchep Lagoon

Yanchep Lagoon has a relatively dispersed catchment, with a number of users

coming from Perth’s northern and, in some cases, southern suburbs (FIGURE 4.4).

While there is a reasonably high level of local use, with between 11 and 25

respondents coming from the local postcode area, there were few other sources of

large visitor numbers. This pattern did not change significantly between Sunday and

Wednesday (Appendix 4.2: Figures 1a to 1d).

Catchments derived from parked vehicle registrations are consistent with those

described. They identify Yanchep’s highest catchment as the Two Rocks/Yanchep

area. The distribution of other minor catchment suburbs (1 to 5 vehicles) is

concentrated on the northwest coastal corridor with some minor representation from

eastern and southern suburbs. Data sets collected on both days support a

consistent assessment. The dispersed catchment of Yanchep Lagoon might, in part,

reflect its relative proximity to the nearby Yanchep National Park.

4.3.2. Mullaloo Beach

Questionnaire surveys and vehicle origins indicate that Mullaloo Beach has a large

concentration of users from nearby postcode areas, with most visitors coming from

within 10 kilometres of the beach (FIGURE 4.5). The catchment incorporates a large

range of northern suburbs, with feeder suburbs located in the northeast, east and

south adjacent to main arterial roads supporting access to the beach. This includes

the Chittering region to the northwest of Perth. However, the high number of users

from the immediately surrounding area indicates that the users are predominately

local residents. This pattern of local use was observed on both the Sunday and

Wednesday survey dates. Despite the variation in number of people and vehicles at

the beach on the two days, the Wednesday pattern confirms the catchment

concentration to the northwest coastal corridor (Appendix 4.2: Figures 2a to 2d).



4.3.3. Whitfords Beach

Whitfords Beach has relatively heavy usage and a large catchment area (FIGURE

4.6). However, the number of vehicles counted at Whitfords was low on both days of

survey although full counts of all vehicles were made for the two parking areas,

Whitfords and Pinnaroo Point (Appendix 4.1). While there are a large number of

users from within 10 kilometres of the beach, it is also evident that people are willing

to travel some distance to visit, with a number of postcode areas in Perth’s eastern

suburbs forming part of the beach’s catchment. Hillarys, Duncraig, Craigie, Padbury,

Kingsley and Woodvale are most represented. This is consistent for morning and

afternoon counts for both days of survey. The size of the catchment was much larger

on the Sunday survey date than the Wednesday (Appendix 4.2: Figures 3a to 3d).

The level of use by local residents remained high on both dates.

4.3.4. Hillarys Boat Harbour

Hillary’s role as a large regional beach, tourist attraction and boat harbour are

reflected in its large catchment area (FIGURE 4.7). Visitors to Hillarys came from

across the metropolitan area, although on both the Wednesday and Sunday survey

dates there was a strong concentration of visitors from Perth’s northern corridor

(Appendix 4.2: Figures 4a to 4d). Vehicle registrations collected at Hillarys Beach

identify a widely distributed catchment from around the Perth metropolitan area

extending from Yanchep and Bullsbrook down to Mandurah. The main concentration

is generated from the northwestern suburbs within a 20 km radius of the beach. The

other suburbs represented are adjacent to main arterial routes providing access to

the coast. The size of the catchment remains comparable for both times of both

days.

4.3.5. Mettams Pool

Mettams Pool has a relatively large catchment area given its status as a local beach

(FIGURE 4.8). While visitor numbers from many postcode areas was low, Mettams

Pool’s catchment nevertheless covers a large geographic area. Across the two

survey dates, the catchment for Mettams Pool incorporated a large number of

northern corridor suburbs. In addition, visitors were recorded from both eastern and

southern suburbs. However, the catchment area on Sunday was clearly much larger

than Wednesday, when a pattern of local use was more evident (Appendix 4.2).

The vehicle registration data for Mettams Pool (Appendix 4.2: Figures 5a to 5d) do

not identify significant vehicle use on either day. The dominant catchment is based

on the northwestern suburbs south of Sorrento. Vehicle numbers are greatest for the

Sunday morning count and comparable on Sunday afternoon and Wednesday.



4.3.6. Scarborough Beach

Scarborough’s catchment extends across the Perth metropolitan area with the main

concentration being the northern and northwestern suburbs within a 20 km radius of

the beach. More distant suburbs represented in the eastern and southern suburbs

are generally located adjacent main arterial access roads. (FIGURE 4.9). In many

cases, however, the number of visitors that these areas contribute is quite low. The

most significant catchment is local, with a large number of visitors travelling less than

10 kilometres to visit the beach on both survey dates (Appendix 4.2: Figures 6a to

6d). Vehicle use at Scarborough is consistently high for morning and afternoon

counts on both days.

4.3.7. Peasholm Street

The catchment area for Peasholm Street was concentrated in a belt of suburbs to the

north of Perth’s Central Business District (FIGURE 4.10). It also extended into

Perth’s northern corridor, and to a handful of eastern suburbs. However, much of the

usage was from people living within 10 kilometres of the beach. Vehicle use to

access Peasholm Beach is minor on both days however the catchment is noticeably

more distributed on Sunday, in particular in the morning (Appendix 4.2: Figures 7a to

7d). This pattern of local usage was slightly more pronounced on the Wednesday

survey date. Those northwestern suburbs that are not located directly adjacent to

the beach are located on east-west arterials that give ready access to West Coast

Highway and the beach parking area.

4.3.8. City Beach

While City Beach has a relatively dispersed catchment, the majority of survey

respondents lived no more than 10 kilometres from the beach (FIGURE 4.11). City

Beach drew relatively large numbers of people from Perth’s western suburbs, with

the main draw from the north western and northern suburbs within a 20km radius of

the beach. This pattern was consistent across both the Sunday and Wednesday

survey dates.

The vehicle catchments for City Beach are displayed in Appendix 4.2:Figures 8a to

8d. Vehicles counted at City Sunday vehicle counts were largest and represent

suburbs within a 10km radius. Some vehicles counted on Sunday are from as far

south as Mandurah and as far east as the Swan Valley/Pickering Brook areas. There

is no representation from the northeastern suburbs further than Ellenbrook.

Wednesday counts concentrate the catchment mainly to the north eastern and

northern suburbs within a 20km radius of the beach. Significantly fewer vehicles were

counted on Wednesday than on Sunday.



4.3.9. Cottesloe Beach

Cottesloe Beach draws users from across the Perth metropolitan region (FIGURE

4.12). However, there is also a strong local dimension to its catchment, with most

visitors coming from within 10 kilometres of the beach. This trend was apparent on

both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.

The vehicle catchments for Cottesloe are displayed in Appendix 4.2: Figures 9a to

9d. The catchment pattern indicates a more comparable split between northern and

southern suburbs than any other beach. On Sunday the main concentration extends

to a 35 km radius with the highest vehicle registration counts representing suburbs

within 15 km. On Wednesday the main catchment concentration narrows to a 20 km

radius from the beach and numbers are considerably smaller. On both days, vehicles

from south of Mandurah are identified. Suburbs further than 15 km from the beach

are not necessarily adjacent to main arterial roads although they are in reasonable

proximity to them.

4.3.10. Bathers Beach

Questionnaire survey data was not analysed for Bathers Beach. Catchments based

on vehicle counts for both days (Appendix 4.2: Figures 10a to 10d) indicate a small

density but consistent catchment with a marginal increase on Sunday. The identified

catchment draws equally from suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The

distribution extends to a radius of 30 km with the further suburbs not always being

located adjacent to main arterials.

4.3.11. South Beach

The catchment for South Beach is almost exclusively south of the Swan River and

extending east to Kalamunda/Lesmurdie areas (FIGURE 4.13). It exhibits a strong

local user base, with the majority of visitors coming from within 5-10 kilometres of the

beach. The size of the catchment was much smaller on Wednesday survey date

than the Sunday. This is consistent with the vehicle catchments (Appendix 4.2:

Figures 11a to 11d).

More northern suburbs are represented on Sunday than on Wednesday, mainly from

the northwest coastal corridor to Kalaroo, Padbury and Kingsley. The concentrated

catchment extends to approximately 25 km from the beach. The highest counts

represent suburbs south of the River and within 10km of South Beach. Vehicle

numbers are much lower on Wednesday than on Sunday.



4.3.12. Challenger Beach

Challenger is a relatively lightly used beach with a geographically dispersed

catchment area (FIGURE 4.14). Although a large number of postcode areas are

represented, most only contributed between 1 and 10 visitors. There is, however, a

concentrated source of users in the postcode area directly adjacent to the beach.

Vehicle counts are negligible on Wednesday and Sunday afternoon and represent a

catchment mainly from some southern suburbs (Appendix 4.2: Figures 12a to 12d).

The data collected on Sunday morning show a significantly broader distribution from

suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The main concentration draws from

suburbs within a 38 Km radius, however suburbs as far north as Yanchep, northeast

as Gidgegannup and south as Bouvard are represented. Further suburbs lay

adjacent to main arterial roads. The highest catchment areas counted are the beach

suburbs from Rockingham south to Port Kennedy.

4.3.13. Rockingham

Rockingham has a relatively large catchment, although most visitors are from those

postcode areas within 10 kilometres of the beach (FIGURE 4.15). A similar trend

was evident on both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.

The data for Rockingham is displayed in. Rockingham counts represent a broad

distribution around the Perth metropolitan area weighted towards suburbs south of

the Swan River. The highest density vehicle counts are for the coastal suburbs south

from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and east to Baldivis (Appendix 4.2: Figures 13a to

13d). Suburbs immediately east of this coastal strip are not represented. This is

consistent for all vehicle counts. All distant suburbs to the north and east lie adjacent

to main arterial roads providing access to Rockingham.

4.3.14. Shoalwater Bay

On both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates, Shoalwater Bay demonstrated a

very localised catchment pattern (FIGURE 4.16). In all but a small number of cases,

visitors lived within 10 kilometres of the beach.

The vehicle catchments differ for Shoalwater between the Sunday and Monday

(Appendix 4.2: Figures 14a to 14d). Sunday data indicates a catchment that is

geographically represented by suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The

highest density links to the coastal strip from Rockingham to Port Kennedy.

Representation is identified from the adjacent suburbs: Baldivis, Secret Harbour and

Golden Bay. Northern suburbs identified extend to Yanchep although the main

northern concentration was to Hillarys. Northern suburbs and distant eastern

suburbs are located on the main arterial roads.



The vehicle counts are not high for Wednesday. They concentrate the catchment to

the southern suburbs, although there is some representation from northern suburbs

within 15km of the CBD. The main concentration is confirmed as the coastal strip

south of Rockingham. This result is consistent with that obtained from the

questionnaire survey information.

4.3.15. Secret Harbour

Secret Harbour’s catchment area includes a relatively large number of postcode

areas south of the Swan River (FIGURE 4.17). However, the general trend is one of

very localised use, with most visitors residing in the postcode area directly adjacent

to the beach

Catchments indicated from the vehicle registration information for Secret Harbour is

displayed in Appendix 4.2: Figures 15a to 15d. The vehicle catchment differs for

Secret Harbour between the Sunday and Monday counts. The catchment identified

by Sunday’s vehicle counts draws mainly from suburbs south of the Swan River with

some representation from the northern suburbs manly located in the northwest

coastal corridor. Suburbs east to the Kalamunda, Lesmurdie and Roleystone areas

are also represented. The main concentration of the catchment is the coastal strip

from Rockingham south to Singleton and east to Baldivis/Karnup. The highest

counts are from the immediate beach suburbs from Waikiki to Secret Harbour.

Distant suburbs represented are generally located adjacent to main arterial roads.

The Wednesday counts are small but confirm a concentration on the beach suburb

strip from Rockingham, south to Singleton.



FIGURE 4.1 Catchment area for all survey respondents from 14

metropolitan beaches, Sunday 5 March 2005 and Wednesday 9

March 2005



FIGURE 4.2 Catchment area for survey respondents for 14 metropolitan

beaches, Sunday 5 March 2005



FIGURE 4.3 Catchment area for survey respondents for 14 metropolitan

beaches, Wednesday 9 March 2005



FIGURE 4.4 Catchment area for survey respondents using Yanchep

Lagoon



FIGURE 4.5 Catchment area for survey respondents using Mullaloo Beach



FIGURE 4.6 Catchment area for survey respondents using Whitfords

Beach



FIGURE 4.7 Catchment area for survey respondents using Hillarys Boat

Harbour



FIGURE 4.8 Catchment area for survey respondents using Mettams Pool



FIGURE 4.9 Catchment area for survey respondents using Scarborough

Beach



FIGURE 4.10 Catchment area for survey respondents using Peasholm Street

Beach



FIGURE 4.11 Catchment area for survey respondents using City Beach



FIGURE 4.12 Catchment area for survey respondents using Cottesloe Beach



FIGURE 4.13 Catchment area for survey respondents using South Beach



FIGURE 4.14 Catchment area for survey respondents using Challenger

Beach



FIGURE 4.15 Catchment area for survey respondents using Rockingham

Beach



FIGURE 4.16 Catchment area for survey respondents using Shoalwater Bay



FIGURE 4.17 Catchment area for survey respondents using Secret Harbour



4.4. TRANSPORT TO BEACH

4.4.1. Mode of Transport

The most common mode of transport to Perth beaches is the car (FIGURE 4.18). Of

3112 survey respondents, 2302 (74 percent) arrived by car. The next most common

mode of transport was walking, which represented 18 percent of all survey

respondents. The relatively high levels of pedestrian access are linked in part to the

spatially concentrated catchments evident for many of Perth’s beaches (Section 4.3).

Other forms of transport, including bus, train and bicycle represented less than eight

percent of all respondents. FIGURE 4.19 indicates that there is very little variation

between the Wednesday and Sunday survey dates in terms of the mode of transport

used to access the beach.

18%

3%

2%

61%

13%

2%

1%

Walk Bus

Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver)

Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle

Other

FIGURE 4.18 Mode of transport to Perth metropolitan beaches

(percent)



FIGURE 4.19 Mode of transport to beach on Sunday and Wednesday survey

dates (percent)

FIGURE 4.20 shows the mode of transport to each of the beaches under analysis. It

indicates that the most common means of getting to all beaches is by car. Indeed,

on seven of the beaches (Yanchep Lagoon, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour,

Peasholm Street, City Beach, Challenger Beach, and Secret Harbour), more than 80

percent of respondents had arrived by car. A number of beaches had a

comparatively high proportion of people walking to the beach, including Rockingham

(34%), South Beach (33%), Scarborough (27%), Secret Harbour (27%), and Mettams

Pool (25%). In large part, this is linked to relatively dense populations living within

close proximity of these particular beaches.

Across most of Perth’s metropolitan beaches, the use of public transport is extremely

low. FIGURE 4.21 shows that the percentage of respondents arriving at Perth’s

metropolitan beaches by train or bus was generally less than 4 percent. The only

exceptions to this are Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach. At both of these

beaches, 16 percent of respondents arrived by train or bus. In the case of Cottesloe,

the accessibility of the Fremantle railway line and the presence of a number of

regular bus services along the beachfront are likely to contribute to this. In the case

of Scarborough, a number of bus routes converge on the commercial zone in the

beach precinct, making it easily accessible from the Perth city centre and a number

of nearby suburbs.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Walk

Bus

Train

Car

/mot

orcy

cle

(as a

driver

)

Car

/mot

orcy

cle

(as a

pass

enge

r)

Oth

er

Mode of Transport

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Sunday Wednesday



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Walk Bus Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver) Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle Other

FIGURE 4.20 Mode of transport to Perth metropolitan beaches by individual beach (percent)



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Yan

chep

Lago

on

Mul

lalo

o B

each

Whi

tford

sB

each

Hill

arys

Boa

tH

arbo

ur

Met

tam

s P

ool

Sca

rbor

ough

Bea

ch

Pea

shol

mS

tree

t

City

Bea

ch

Cot

tesl

oeB

each

Sou

th B

each

Cha

lleng

erB

each

Roc

king

ham

Bea

ch

Sho

alw

ater

Bay

Sec

ret H

arbo

ur

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

F

FIGURE 4.21 People arriving at beach using train or bus by individual beach (percent)



4.4.2. Size and Characteristics of Group

An important component of any analysis of transport patterns is number of people

travelling together to a particular location. For the 14 beaches analysed in this

research, a total of 1957 respondents, or 62.9 percent arrived either on their own, or

with one other person (FIGURE 4.22). Given that more than 30 percent of people

(937) travel to the beach on their own, it seems likely that beaches are significant as

spatial nodes in social networks, providing a place for people to meet with family and

friends. In terms of transport issues, the arrival of solitary individuals or pairs of

people by car has the potential to place pressure on parking resources and transport

networks.

Indeed, FIGURE 4.23 shows that most people (55%) who arrive at the beach on their

own travel by car. More than 70 percent of those arriving in a pair also do so by car.

It is also apparent that those who arrive on their own, or in a pair, are the most likely

to have walked to the beach. The number of people walking drops significantly as

the size of the party increases.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or more

Number of People in Party

Res

po

nd

ents

FIGURE 4.22 Total number of people in party (including respondent)



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Persons in Party

Per

cen

t

Walk Bus

Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver)

Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle

Other

FIGURE 4.23 Percentage of people in party by mode of transport

4.5. TIME REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO BEACH

As part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked approximately how long it took

to travel from their home to the beach they were visiting. Of the 3112 people

surveyed, 1800, or 57.8 percent indicated that they travelled less than 15 minutes to

get to the beach (FIGURE 4.24). 24.5 percent travelled between 15 and 30 minutes,

with the remainder (33.3 percent) travelling more than half an hour. When

considered alongside the data on beach user catchments, it is clear that accessibility

is one of the most important variables in understanding patterns of beach use. From

the data presented in FIGURE 4.24, it is clear that there is a significant decrease in

the willingness of users to visit a beach if it is more than 15 minutes travelling time

from home. This is consistent with the data on user catchments, which shows that

the majority of beach users live no more than 10 kilometres from the beach on which

they were surveyed.



0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

0-15 mins 15-30 mins 30-45 mins 45-60 mins More than 60mins

Time Taken to Travel to Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

FIGURE 4.24 Estimated time taken to travel to beach from respondents’

home (percent)

There is some variation in the time taken to travel to individual beaches (FIGURE

4.25). More than 70 percent of respondents on Whitfords and Mullaloo beaches took

less than 15 minutes to travel to the beach, which tends to conform with the relatively

concentrated catchment area outlined in Section 4.3. For most other beaches,

between 60 and 70 percent of users travelled less than 15 minutes.

The exceptions to this were the larger regional beaches, which also tend to have

much wider catchment areas. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach, and

Cottesloe Beach, fewer than 50 percent of respondents travelled less than 15

minutes to the beach, with between 30 and 40 percent travelling between 15 minutes

and half an hour. The relatively lightly used Challenger Beach also recorded a

number of users with travelling times longer than 15 minutes. This is likely to be

linked to the presence of a boat ramp at this beach, and possibly the presence of the

holiday shacks on the beachfront.

The most apparent trend from these data is the relatively short travelling times to all

of the beaches under analysis. For respondents on all of Perth’s beaches, more than

75 percent travelled no more than 30 minutes to visit. This suggests that, in building

scenarios of future beach use, close attention needs to be paid to demographic

trends and transport developments in those areas that are within 15-30 minutes

driving time of the beach.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Beach

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s Boa

t Har

bour

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Bea

ch

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

0-15 mins 15-30 mins 30-45 mins 45-60 mins More than 60 mins

FIGURE 4.25 Estimated time taken to travel to different Perth beaches from respondents’ home (percent)



4.5.1. Parked Vehicles

Over 9000 vehicle registration numbers were recorded at 15 beaches during the two

days of survey (TABLE 4.2): 6268 (68%) on Sunday 6 March, and 2998 (32%) on

Wednesday 9 March. Overall, 8431 (91%) of the 9266 registrations recorded were

linked to a suburb and or postcode address by TRELIS. The origin and number of

registered vehicles surveyed is listed in Table 4.1. Most vehicles, 93.7% of the 8431

with identifiable registration plates were from the Perth Metropolitan Area; 5.4% (456

vehicles) from country districts in Western Australia; and the remaining 0.9% (76)

had interstate registration. Frequency counts associated with the origin and number

of registered vehicles from each postcode district and suburb in the Perth

Metropolitan Area is presented in Appendix 4.1. Maps of vehicle catchments for each

beach surveyed are presented in Appendix 4.2.

TABLE 4.2 Origin and number of registered vehicles surveyed

Perth

Metropolitan WA Country

Other

States Not Found Total

6 March 2005

Morning 2813 141 8 307 3269

Afternoon 2515 186 29 270 2999

Totals: 6 March 5328 327 37 577 6268

9 March 2005

Morning 1254 57 11 132 1454

Afternoon 1316 74 28 126 1544

Totals: 9 March 2570 131 39 258 2998

TOTAL 7898 456 76 835 9266

Only one vehicle was registered overseas. That vehicle was observed at Hillarys

Boat Harbour during the afternoon of Wednesday 9 march 2005. A further 835

vehicles had registration addresses that could not readily be traced. They account

for approximately 9% of the total number of vehicles surveyed. These, and the

vehicle with the overseas registration, have not been considered further in the

analysis.

Comparisons between beaches or between days of survey are unreliable due to

inconsistencies in the manner in which records were collected at each beach. For

example, vehicle registration plates were recorded hourly at Rockingham but only

once during the morning and afternoon on other beaches. Nevertheless, the large



size of the sample, together with the consistency of these results with those from the

questionnaire survey, give a good indication of differences between weekend and

mid-week use of the beaches surveyed, and some generalisations can be drawn,

Vehicle catchment areas for 15 metropolitan beaches are displayed in Appendix 4.2.

Each beach is covered by mapping that links catchment to postcodes, and catchment

to suburbs, for morning and afternoons of both days. Postcode data is shown in

FIGURE 4.4 to FIGURE 4.17. The suburb data is a more discriminating

representation of the catchment because a number of suburbs are captured by some

postcodes. Therefore the suburb comparison has been used for the assessment in

this section.

4.6. SUMMARY

The data obtained from the questionnaire surveys and vehicle records indicate a

strong geographical dimension to beach use and the associated transport patterns.

In summary, the questionnaire surveys indicated that:

• The catchment areas for most beaches are highly dispersed. However, the total

number of visitors travelling more than 10 kilometres to a beach is extremely

low. Most beach users live within 5-10 kilometres of a beach. This pattern of

local use is evident on regional, district and local beaches.

• The most common mode of transport to the beach is the car. More than 70

percent of visitors arrived using this mode of transport. The next most common

means of getting to a beach was to walk, which reinforces the concentrated

nature of many beach catchments.

• The use of public transport as a way of accessing beaches was extremely low.

For most beaches less than five percent of visitors arrived by bus or train. The

only exceptions were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach, where the

availability of public transport resulted in more than 15 percent of visitors arriving

by train or bus.

• Most visiting the beaches arrived on their own, or travelled with one other

person.

• There is a strong distance decay function present in the travel patterns to Perth’s

beaches. More than 50 percent of people travel no more than 15 minutes to get

to the beach. Very few people travel more than 30 minutes. This is closely

linked to the size and scope of the catchment areas, which show that a large

proportion of users live very close to the beach they were visiting on the survey

dates.

These observations were confirmed by the origins of vehicles parked in beachfront

car parks in that:

• The catchment areas for beaches that are north of Cottesloe are weighted

towards suburbs north of the Swan River.



• For beaches other than Hillarys, Scarborough and City, the main concentration

for the catchment is the northwest coastal corridor;

• Cottesloe Beach represents a more comparable split between northern and

southern suburbs than any other beach;

• From South Beach to the south, the suburb representation of catchments is

weighted towards suburbs south of the Swan River;

• Beaches from Rockingham to the south have a catchment concentration

comprising the coastal suburbs from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and the

adjacent suburbs of Baldivis, Secret Harbour and Golden Bay;

• Weekend use is larger on all beaches than weekday use;

• Suburbs contained in catchments that are not on the coastal strip are normally

adjacent to main arterial road networks that provide easy access to beaches.



CHAPTER 5. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE

5.1. USAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT PERTH BEACHES

The age cohort of the survey respondents for each beach is illustrated in FIGURE

5.1. In all cases, the majority of respondents were aged between 26 and 45 years,

although on Scarborough and Cottesloe a higher proportion of people between the

ages of 18 and 25 responded to the survey. This is likely to be linked to the

presence of a range of hotels and other entertainment at these beaches, together

with relatively high levels of accessibility by public transport. Older age cohorts (26

years or more) were more strongly represented at Mettams Pool, City Beach and

Rockingham. However, it should be borne in mind that FIGURE 5.1 does not reflect

the age profile of all beach users, only survey respondents. The survey did not seek

responses from children, or request data on the demographic characteristics of those

people accompanying the respondent to the beach.

FIGURE 5.1 Age of respondents by beach (percent)

Across the sample the gender balance is relatively even. A higher proportion of

males were sampled at Yanchep Lagoon (55.1%), City Beach (56.3%), Cottesloe

Beach (54.0%), and Rockingham Beach (53.8%) (FIGURE 5.2). At Shoalwater Bay

and Secret Harbour the representation of males was even more pronounced at 57.0

percent and 66.2 percent, respectively. By contrast, women formed a greater

proportion of the sample at Mettams Pool (56.0%) and Peasholm Street (55.0%).

Given the lack of baseline data on the gender distribution of the total population using

the various beaches, it is not possible to determine the extent to which these

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Percentage

14-17 years 18-25 years 26-45 years 46-60 years 60+ years



differences are the result of sampling bias. However, qualitative observations by the

surveyors suggested that some beaches are more likely to be used by members of

one gender than another (see also Keating, 1983). This often reflects the nature of

activities, facilities and infrastructure available at a particular beach. For example,

according to the surveyors based at Secret Harbour, the high representation of males

occurred as a result of a number of workers from the nearby housing construction

industry using the beach precinct’s lunch and snack bar facilities. Furthermore, given

the very large size of the total sample, the probability of sampling error is very low.

FIGURE 5.2 Gender of respondent by beach (percent)

5.1.1. Distribution of Respondents in Beach Precinct

The majority of respondents (58.4 percent) were recorded in the beach zone, i.e. on

the beach itself (TABLE 5.1). However, there was considerable geographic variation

across the 14 metropolitan beaches analysed. This is largely a function of the

availability of facilities and services, and the environmental characteristics of

particular beaches. For those beaches with grassed/recreational areas and a range

of commercial facilities, such as Rockingham Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour,

Cottesloe Beach and Shoalwater Bay, less than 50 percent of respondents were

recorded in the beach zone (FIGURE 5.3). Indeed, considerable use was made of

grassed or recreational areas on those beaches where these facilities were available.

However, in a number of cases, almost exclusive use was made of the beach zone.

At Challenger Beach, Peasholm Street and Whitfords Beach, more than 90 percent

of respondents were recorded on the beach itself.

The commercial areas were also an important component of many of Perth’s beach

precincts. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, for example, more than 40 percent of

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Percentage

Male Female



respondents were recorded in the commercial area. At Shoalwater Bay and Secret

Harbour more than 30 percent were recorded in this area. By contrast, the number

of respondents in the cafe strip/commercial area of Cottesloe and Scarborough was

relatively low. This is noteworthy given the popular view that the cafe and

entertainment areas of these beach precincts are an essential part of their

attractiveness to visitors. In both cases less than less than 20 percent of

respondents were recorded in this area of the beach precinct. In part, this may be

linked to aspects of urban/environmental design, particularly the separation of the

beach face from the commercial area(s) by roads or large areas of open space.

TABLE 5.1 Location of survey respondents in beach precinct

Beach Zone

Beach Name

Beach zone

Grassed/

recreation

zone

Commercial

zoneTotal

Yanchep Lagoon 125 10 23 158

Mullaloo Beach 201 111 10 322

Whitfords Beach 231 12 1 244

Hillarys Boat Harbour 121 108 160 389

Mettams Pool 107 102 0 209

Scarborough Beach 176 128 26 330

Peasholm Street 167 2 0 169

City Beach 181 56 10 247

Cottesloe Beach 140 124 60 324

South Beach 86 70 3 159

Challenger Beach 79 0 0 79

Rockingham Beach 87 139 51 277

Shoalwater Bay 63 12 53 128

Secret Harbour 53 4 20 77

Total 1817 878 417 3112

The proportion of respondents recorded on the beach zone of the various

metropolitan beaches is indicated in FIGURE 5.4. The relatively low concentration of

respondents on the beach face at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Rockingham Beach,

Cottesloe Beach, and Shoalwater Bay emphasises the use of other parts of the

beach precinct. The heaviest use is often concentrated in the grassed and

recreational areas of these beaches (TABLE 5.1). Also the high concentrations of

respondents in the beach zone of Challenger Beach, Peasholm Street and Whitfords

Beach are highlighted in FIGURE 5.4. This reflects the absence of



grassed/recreational areas at these beaches, particularly Challenger and Peasholm

Street, as well as their role as animal exercise areas.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Beach

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s Boa

t Har

bour

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Bea

ch

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f re

spo

nd

ets

Beach zone Recreation zoneCommercial zone

FIGURE 5.3 Proportion of survey respondents in different parts of the

beach precinct (percent)

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Peash

olm S

treet

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

City B

each

Secre

t Har

bour

Mull

aloo

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Cotte

sloe

Beach

Rockin

gham

Bea

ch

Hillary

s Boa

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

FIGURE 5.4 People recorded in the beach zone by individual beach

(percent)



5.1.2. Use of Alternative Metropolitan Beaches

There is considerable diversity in beach use within the Perth metropolitan region (

FIGURE 5.5). Between 60 and 70 percent of respondents on 10 of the 14

metropolitan beaches under analysis in this research visited other beaches. At the

same time, however, it is clear than there are large numbers of respondents who

make exclusive use of a single beach. This trend is illustrated in

FIGURE 5.6, and suggests that beaches in the southern part of the metropolitan

region tend to have relatively high levels of exclusive use. For 45 percent of

respondents, exclusive use was made of South Beach, Secret Harbour and

Challenger Beach. This trend was even more pronounced for Rockingham, with

close to 55 percent of people making sole use of that location.

Selection of alternatives has a strong geographical dimension for respondents who

use other beaches (TABLE 5.2). Most alternatives are within relatively short distance

of the beach on which respondents were surveyed. For example, users of Mullaloo

Beach indicated that the most frequently used alternatives were Hillarys Boat

Harbour, Scarborough Beach, Trigg Beach, and Sorrento Beach. All of these are

less than 10 kilometres from Mullaloo Beach. Similarly, users of Scarborough Beach

indicated that the most common alternatives were Cottesloe Beach, Trigg Beach,

City Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and Mullaloo Beach. Again, all of these alternative

beaches are within 10 kilometres of Scarborough.

There are, however, some notable exceptions to this trend. The most common

alternatives for users of Yanchep Lagoon were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe

Beach, more than 40 kilometres away. Similarly, the most popular alternative

beaches for users of Secret Harbour were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach,

more than 50 kilometres away. Indeed, Scarborough and Cottesloe were regularly

cited as alternative beaches for survey respondents. This emphasises both their

popularity and large catchment areas (see Chapter 4.). Scarborough and/or

Cottesloe were recorded as the two most common alternatives for 10 of the 14

beaches analysed as part of this research (TABLE 5.2).

The frequency of use of alternative beaches by survey respondents did not vary

significantly across the 14 beaches (TABLE 5.3). Most alternative beaches were

used between once a week and 1-3 times per month. The most frequent use of an

alternative beach was by people at Secret Harbour, City Beach and Whitfords Beach,

with more than 25 percent of respondents using these beaches once a week or

more. It was also apparent that the frequency of alternative beach use was higher

around Hillarys Boat Harbour, Mettams Pool and Scarborough Beach than

elsewhere. For these beaches, more than 15 percent of respondents indicated that

they used alternative beaches more than once a week. This is likely to be a result of

the large number of alternative beaches available within a relatively small

geographical area. This high level of choice appears to result in a diverse pattern of

beach selection and use.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yan

chep

Lag

oon

Mullaloo

Bea

ch

Whitfo

rds Bea

ch

Hillar

ys B

oat H

arbo

ur

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Sca

rbor

ough

Bea

ch

Pea

sholm

Stre

et

City

Bea

ch

Cot

tesloe

Bea

ch

Sou

th B

each

Cha

lleng

er B

each

Roc

king

ham

Bea

ch

Sho

alwat

er B

ay

Sec

ret H

arbo

ur

Beach

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

FIGURE 5.5 Survey respondents’ use of another metropolitan beach

(percent)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Yan

chep

Lag

oon

Mullaloo

Bea

ch

Whitfo

rds Bea

ch

Hillar

ys B

each

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Sca

rbor

ough

Bea

ch

Pea

sholm

Stre

et

City

Bea

ch

Cot

tesloe

Bea

ch

Sou

th B

each

Cha

lleng

er B

each

Roc

king

ham

Bea

ch

Sho

alwat

er B

ay

Sec

ret H

arbo

ur

Beach

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

FIGURE 5.6 Exclusive use of a beach (percent)



TABLE 5.2 Four most used alternative beaches used by survey respondents (percentage of responses)

BeachAlternativeBeach One

AlternativeBeach Two

AlternativeBeach 3

AlternativeBeach Four

AlternativeBeach Five

Other AlternativeBeaches

Total Responses

Yanchep LagoonScarborough

(16.8)Cottesloe

(11.0)Mullaloo

(8.7)Hillarys

(8.1)Quinns Rocks

(6.4)49.0

100.0(n=173)

Mullaloo BeachHillarys(16.9)

Scarborough(16.9)

Trigg(16.9)

Sorrento(8.7)

Cottesloe(8.4)

32.2100.0

(n=391)

Whitfords BeachScarborough

(16.6)Mullaloo(16.2)

Trigg(12.6)

Hillarys(10.7)

Sorrento(8.5)

35.4100.0

(n=271)

Hillarys Boat HarbourMullaloo(14.9)

Scarborough(14.4)

Cottesloe(13.0)

Trigg(11.8)

Sorrento(6.9)

39.0100.0

(n=431)

Mettams PoolTrigg(22.4)

Cottesloe(13.4)

Scarborough(13.4)

City(8.6)

Hillarys(5.6)

36.6100.0

(n=268)

Scarborough BeachCottesloe

(27.6)Trigg(20.9)

City(11.9)

Hillarys(6.2)

Mullaloo(4.6)

28.8100.0

(n=388)

Peasholm StreetScarborough

(20.0)Trigg

(19.0))Cottesloe

(10.8)City(9.2)

Brighton(6.7)

34.3100.0

(n=195)

City BeachCottesloe

(29.6)Scarborough

(23.9)Trigg(10.9)

Floreat(8.1)

North Cottesloe(4.6)

22.9100.0

(n=284)

Cottesloe BeachScarborough

(21.1)Leighton

(15.7)City

(12.0)Trigg(7.5)

Port(6.3)

37.4100.0

(n=332)

South BeachCottesloe

(31.0)Leighton

(16.3)Port

(14.7)Scarborough

(9.3)City(5.4)

23.3100.0

(n=129)

Challenger BeachCoogee(16.9)

Cottesloe(10.4)

Rockingham(9.1)

Woodman's Point(6.5)

Mandurah(5.1)

52.0100.0(n=77)

Rockingham BeachShoalwater

(17.6)Warnboro

(16.1)Waikiki(12.2)

Cottesloe(9.3)

Secret Harbour(6.8)

38.0100.0

(n=205)

Shoalwater BayRockingham

(30.4)Warnboro

(14.3)Shoalwater

(6.8)Waikiki

(6.8)Cottesloe

(6.2)35.5

100.0(n=161)

Secret HarbourCottesloe

(25.4)Scarborough

(9.5)Leighton

(7.9)Port(7.9)

Rockingham(7.9)

41.4100.0(n=63)



TABLE 5.3 Frequency alternative beaches are used by respondents (Here,

frequency is shown as a percentage.)

Once a

day or

more

4-6 times

per week

2-3 times

per week

Once a

week

1-3 times

per month

Less than

once a

month

Do not

use other

beaches

Total

Yanchep Lagoon 3.2 1.3 10.1 9.5 19.0 17.7 39.2 100

Mullaloo Beach 3.7 1.2 5.3 17.1 26.7 13.4 32.6 100

Whitfords Beach 2.9 2.5 9.8 20.1 16.8 13.9 34.0 100

Hillarys 4.4 1.8 10.5 12.9 21.1 17.2 32.1 100

Mettams Pool 4.3 4.8 12.9 12.9 22.0 12.0 31.1 100

Scarborough 3.3 2.7 10.6 18.5 15.8 17.0 32.1 100

Peasholm Street 2.3 9.5 10.7 11.8 18.3 15.4 32.0 100

City Beach 2.4 2.8 8.1 21.1 22.7 10.9 32.0 100

Cottesloe Beach 2.7 2.2 7.1 15.7 17.6 14.5 40.2 100

South Beach 1.3 1.3 7.5 11.9 17.0 11.3 49.7 100

Challenger Beach 1.3 0.0 7.6 6.3 21.5 17.7 45.6 100

Rockingham 4.3 2.2 7.6 9.7 10.1 13.4 52.7 100

Shoalwater Bay 1.4 1.6 10.2 8.6 24.2 18.8 35.2 100

Secret Harbour 1.2 2.6 1.3 24.7 10.4 11.7 48.1 100

5.2. TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN BEACH USE

5.2.1. Frequency of Beach Use

Respondents to the questionnaire were asked how frequently they used the beaches

they were visiting in summer and winter (Figure 3.11). The aggregate data for all

beaches shows that that, in summer, 63.8 percent of users visit the beach once a

week or more. In winter this figure is still relatively high at 37.0 percent. There are

also a relatively large number of very infrequent beach users in both summer and

winter. In summer, 22.4 percent of respondents visited less than once a month. Not

surprisingly, infrequent beach use rises considerably in winter, with 48.6 percent of

respondents visiting less than once a month.

There was considerable variation in the patterns of temporal use from beach to

beach (TABLE 5.3). Rockingham experienced particularly high levels of daily use,

with 9.4 percent of respondents visiting more than once a day in summer and 5.1

percent in winter (TABLE 5.4 and TABLE 5.5). In summer, 24.2 percent of visitors to

Rockingham used the beach once a day. Similar daily use patterns in summer were

recorded at Whitfords Beach (24.2%), Mullaloo Beach (23.3%), Mettams Pool



(22.0%) and South Beach (22.0%) (TABLE 5.4). In winter, Rockingham Beach had

the highest reported daily use of all beaches (16.2% of respondents). Other beaches

with comparatively high daily winter use were Shoalwater Bay (14.1%) and South

Beach (11.9%) (TABLE 5.5).

In summer, a number of beaches recorded a large proportion of respondents who

claimed to use the beach once a week or more (TABLE 5.4). More than 70 percent

of respondents at South Beach (79.9%), Whitfords Beach, Rockingham Beach

(74.8%), Secret Harbour (72.8%), Mullaloo Beach (71.4%), and City Beach (70.4%)

indicated that they used these beaches more than once a week in summer. By

contrast, Yanchep Lagoon (42.4%) and Hillarys Boat Harbour (45.7%) had the lowest

proportion of respondents who used the beach weekly or more. Indeed, it was also

these beaches that had the highest proportion of respondents who visited the beach

less than once a month in summer (50% at Yanchep and 29.6% at Hillarys).

In winter, some beaches recorded relatively high levels of frequent use (TABLE 5.5).

More than 50 percent of respondents at Rockingham Beach (58.1%), Whitfords

Beach (54.5%), and South Beach (53.5%) indicated that they used these beaches

once a week or more in winter. These beaches share a number of common

characteristics that may contribute to this, including relatively sheltered recreational

areas, cycle/walk paths and, in the case of Whitfords, an animal exercise area.

Low levels of winter use (visits less than once a month) were particularly evident

amongst respondents at Yanchep Lagoon (66.5%), Scarborough Beach (60.6%),

Hillarys (57.3%), and Cottesloe Beach (57.1%) (TABLE 5.5). This trend is

particularly noteworthy in relation to Scarborough, Cottesloe and Hillarys given their

large commercial/tourist precincts. The tendency of respondents not to visit

frequently in winter suggests that there are likely to be considerable seasonal

variations in business patronage and the pressure placed on infrastructure and

facilities.



0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

More thanonce a day

Once a day 4-6 times perweek

2-3 times perweek

Once aweek

1-3 times permonth

Less thanonce amonth

Frequency of Visit

Res

po

nd

ents

Summer Winter

FIGURE 5.7 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in summer and

winter



TABLE 5.4 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in summer by individual beach (percent)

More than

once a dayOnce a day

4-6 times

per week

2-3 times

per week

Once a

week

1-3 times

per month

Less than

once a

month

Total N

Yanchep Lagoon 3.8 9.5 12.0 10.1 7.0 7.6 50.0 100.0 158

Mullaloo Beach 2.2 23.3 9.9 14.6 21.4 17.1 11.5 100.0 322

Whitfords Beach 0.8 24.2 17.6 18.4 17.6 9.4 11.9 100.0 244

Hillarys Boat Harbour 1.5 8.0 5.4 14.1 16.7 24.7 29.6 100.0 389

Mettams Pool 3.3 22.0 14.4 17.7 11.5 12.0 19.1 100.0 209

Scarborough Beach 3.0 17.6 6.7 19.7 11.8 12.4 28.8 100.0 330

Peasholm Street 0.6 17.8 12.4 21.9 14.8 12.4 20.1 100.0 169

City Beach 0.4 19.0 9.3 22.3 19.4 12.1 17.4 100.0 247

Cottesloe Beach 2.2 14.8 8.0 16.4 16.4 15.1 27.2 100.0 324

South Beach 6.9 22.0 17.0 20.8 13.2 7.5 12.6 100.0 159

Challenger Beach 7.6 5.1 16.5 12.7 13.9 16.5 27.8 100.0 79

Rockingham Beach 9.4 24.2 6.9 19.1 15.2 8.3 17.0 100.0 277

Shoalwater Bay 3.9 19.5 6.3 10.9 14.8 16.4 28.1 100.0 128

Secret Harbour 0.0 9.1 16.9 28.6 18.2 13.0 14.3 100.0 77



TABLE 5.5 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in winter by individual beach (percent)

More than

once a dayOnce a day

4-6 times

per week

2-3 times

per week

Once a

week

1-3 times

per month

Less than

once a

month

Total N.

Yanchep Lagoon 0 2.5 5.7 6.3 9.5 9.5 66.5 100 158

Mullaloo Beach 0 9.9 3.1 12.1 12.4 19.3 43.2 100 322

Whitfords Beach 0 7.8 9.4 20.9 16.4 13.1 32.4 100 244

Hillarys Beach 1.5 3.9 2.6 6.7 8.2 19.8 57.3 100 389

Mettams Pool 1.9 10.0 4.3 15.8 6.7 12.0 49.3 100 209

Scarborough Beach 1.2 6.7 3.3 10.3 7.3 10.6 60.6 100 330

Peasholm Street 1.2 5.3 7.1 18.9 11.2 17.2 39.1 100 169

City Beach 0.4 6.1 2.8 9.7 11.3 15.8 53.8 100 247

Cottesloe Beach 0.3 5.6 6.5 9.3 10.5 10.8 57.1 100 324

South Beach 3.8 11.9 8.2 19.5 10.1 13.2 33.3 100 159

Challenger Beach 2.5 1.3 3.8 10.1 7.6 29.1 45.6 100 79

Rockingham Beach 5.1 16.2 4.3 14.4 18.1 10.8 31.0 100 277

Shoalwater Bay 0.8 14.1 3.1 7.0 6.3 12.5 56.3 100 128

Secret Harbour 0 6.5 6.5 23.4 10.4 13.0 40.3 100 77



5.2.2. Time of Beach Use

The time of the interview with each respondent was recorded during the survey. On

Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was

between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents recorded on

beaches). Following a general decrease in use between 10.00-10.59am and 12.00-

12.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the early afternoon. The total

number of beach users decreased steadily from 2.00-2.59pm until 6.00pm.

A very similar trend was evident on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 (FIGURE 5.8 Time

of day respondents recorded on beaches). The total number of beach users

increased in the early morning, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and

8.59am. The number of respondents then increased during the mid morning,

peaking around 10.00am. A decrease leading into the lunch time period was

followed by an increase between 1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was

followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm, which coincides with the end of the

school day.

020

4060

80100

120140

160180

200

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm

3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59

5.00pm-6.00pm

Time

Respondents

Sunday Wednesday

FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents recorded on beaches

The daily temporal use patterns on individual beaches were, in general, not dissimilar

to the macro-level trends reported in FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents

recorded on beaches. However, the nature of use does vary according to specific

local conditions. The following section provides an overview of the different temporal

use patterns of Perth beaches on both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.

Yanchep Lagoon

The use of Yanchep Lagoon increased steadily between 8.00am and 10.00am on

Sunday, 5 March 2005 (FIGURE 5.9). Usage then dropped over the lunch time



period (11am – 1.00pm), followed by a rise in the mid afternoon. Use of this beach

dropped steadily from about 3.00pm.

On the Wednesday survey date, use of the beach grew slowly until about 1.00am,

followed by a general decrease (FIGURE 5.10). There was, however, a sharp

increase in use towards the end of the working day. Indeed, the number of

respondents on the beach after 5.00pm was higher than at any other point during the

day.

Mullaloo Beach

On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was

between 7.00am and 7.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a decrease in use between

10.00-10.59am and 11.00-11.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the

early afternoon. After a dip between 4.00-4.59pm the total number of beach users

increased until 6.00pm.

On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach

was between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of respondents

decreased for the rest of the morning, reaching a low point between 12.00-12.59pm.

An increase between 1.00-1.59pm was followed by a decrease at 2.00-2.59pm. An

increase in the total number of respondents occurred between 3.00-3.59pm and

4.00-4.59pm, which coincided with the end of the school day.

Whitfords Beach

The largest number of respondents using the beach on Sunday, 5 March, was

between 10.00am and 10.59am followed by a decrease of numbers for the rest of the

morning and early afternoon (FIGURE 5.9). Numbers reached a low between 2.00-

2.59pm. The number of respondents increased between 3.00-3.59pm, then dipped

during 4.00-4.59pm and increased again by 5.00-5.59pm.

On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach

was between 7.00am and 7.59am, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am

and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of respondents then increased during the

9.00-9.59am period, followed by a decrease at 11.00-11.59am. The number of

respondents increased at lunchtime 12.00-12.59pm, then decreased to the lowest

point of the day at 3.00-3.59, which was followed a rise to the second highest level of

use during the day, between 4.00-4.59pm.

Hillarys Boat Harbour

The largest number of respondents using the beach on the Sunday survey date was

between 10.00am and10.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a general decrease in

users until 12.00-12.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the early

afternoon. The total number of beach users decreased steadily from 2.00-2.59pm

until 6.00pm.

The number of beach users at Hillarys on Wednesday, 9 March 2005, increased in

the morning before dropping between 12.00am and 12.59pm (FIGURE 5.10). The



number of respondents then increased to peak between 1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in

mid afternoon was followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm.

Mettams Pool

The number of respondents at Mettams Pool on the Sunday survey date was highest

between 7.00am and 7.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a general decrease in users

between 8.00-8.59am and 10.00-10.59am, the number of respondents increased

around midday, which is unlike most of the other beaches surveyed. The total

number of beach users decreased between 2.00-2.59pm, and then rose again during

4.00-4.59pm to decrease to 6.00pm.

On Wednesday, the total number of beach users increased in the early morning,

followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of

respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking between 9.00-9.59am.

A decrease leading into the lunch time period was followed by an increase between

1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was followed by an increase in the early

evening.

Scarborough Beach

On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased in the early

morning, followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.11). The

number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking between

9.00-9.59am. A slight decrease leading into the lunch time period was followed by

an increase between 1.00-1.59pm. The lowest number of respondents was recorded

between 3.00-3.59pm, followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm.

The total number of beach users increased in the early morning on the Wednesday

survey date, followed by a drop between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.12). The

number of respondents then increased during the morning and early afternoon to

decrease sharply between 2.00-2.59pm. An increase during the late afternoon

peaked between 4.00-4.59pm.

Peasholm Street


between 10.00am and 10.59am (FIGURE 5.11). Following a general decrease in

use until 12.00-12.59pm, the number of respondents then increased in the early

afternoon. An increase during the late afternoon occurred between 4.00-4.59pm.

On Wednesday, 9 March 2005 the total number of beach users increased in the early

morning, followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.12). The

number of respondents then increased in the following hour. A decrease followed

until the lowest number of respondents during the day was recorded at 1.00-1.59pm.

The day’s busiest hour of the day was between 4.00-4.59pm.

City Beach

The total number of beach users increased in the early morning on the Sunday

survey date, followed by a decrease between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.11). During



late morning early midday the numbers increase, dipping during 1.00-1.59pm. The

day’s busiest hour was 2.00-2.59pm, followed by a sharp decrease the following

hour.

The number of beach users began with 15 respondents between 6.00-6.69am and

again between 7.00-7.59am (FIGURE 5.12). Use decreased between to 8.00am and

9.59am. The number of respondents peaked between 10.00-10.59am, and then

decreased leading into the lunch time period. This was followed by an increase

between 2.00-2.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was followed by an increase

between 4.00-4.59pm

Cottesloe Beach

On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased steadily

throughout the morning, followed by a decreasing between 11.00am and 12.59pm

(FIGURE 5.11). The number of respondents increased during the afternoon with a

dip during 2.00-2.59pm to peak at 6.00pm. This coincides with increasing patronage

of local hotels and cafes late in the day.

On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased in the

early morning, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE

5.12. The number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking

around 11.00am. A decrease leading into the lunch time period is followed by an

increase between 1.00-1.59pm. Following a decrease in the mid afternoon there is a

late increase in use from about 4.00pm.

South Beach

The number of beach users on Sunday, 5 March, increased during the morning to

peak at 9.00-9.59am (FIGURE 5.13). This was followed by a decrease from about

11.00am. The number of respondents increased during the afternoon until 3.00-

3.59pm, after which the number of respondents decreased.

On Wednesday, 9 March, the total number of beach users rose until 7.00-7.59,

followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14). The highest use

occurred between 9.00-9.59am, followed by a sharp decrease and more consistent

pattern of use throughout the rest of the day.

Challenger Beach

The largest number of respondents on Challenger Beach on Sunday, 5 March was

between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.13). Usage was consistent until 3.00-3.59pm,

when numbers decreased. During 4.00-4.59pm users increased, though this was

followed by a steady decline until 6.00pm.

On the Wednesday survey date, as on Sunday, the largest number of respondents

using the beach was between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.14). Usage was consistent

until 2.00-2.59pm when numbers decreased. During late afternoon the numbers

increased to decrease by 6.00pm.



Rockingham Beach

On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of users on Rockingham Beach was

recorded at two separate times: 9.00-9.59am and 11.00-11.59am (FIGURE 5.13).

Between these times there was a sharp decline in respondents. After the peak

during 11.00-11.59am, numbers decreased over the midday period and rose again

slightly between 3.00-3.59pm. The pattern from 4.00pm was one of decreasing

usage.

On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the heaviest use was recorded between 7.00-

7.59am, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14).

The number of respondents increased during the mid morning, decreasing around

noon. An increase was recorded between 1.00-1.59pm. This was followed by a

decrease in the mid afternoon, and another rise around 4.00pm.

Shoalwater Bay

The heaviest use of Shoalwater Bay was recorded between 11.00-11.59am and

12.00-12.59pm in the Sunday survey (FIGURE 5.13). Following a decrease in use

between 1.00-1.59am, the number of respondents increased in the early afternoon.

The total number of beach users decreased steadily from 3.00-3.59pm to 6.00pm.

On Wednesday, the total number of beach users increased in the early morning,

followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14). The

number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking during

10.00-10.59am. After a decrease between 11.00-11.59am, an increase occurred

during the lunchtime period followed by a decrease between 1.00-1.59pm. The mid

afternoon was followed by slight increases and decreases until decreasing after 4.00-

4.59pm.

Secret Harbour


between 11.00-11.59am (FIGURE 5.13). Following a general decrease in use

between 12.00 and 2.59pm, the number of respondents increased during 3.00-

3.59pm. The total number of beach users then decreased steadily to 6.00pm.

The total number of beach users of the Wednesday survey date remained relatively

constant in the morning, peaking between 9.00-9.59am (FIGURE 5.14). Beach use

then decreased slightly, and remained relatively constant for the remainder of the

day.



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-6.00pm

Time

Respondents

Yanchep Lagoon Mullaloo Whitfords Beach Hillarys Mettams Pool

FIGURE 5.9 Time of day respondents recorded at Yanchep Lagoon, Mullaloo Beach, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and

Mettams Pool, Sunday, 5 March, 2005



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-

6.59am

7.00am-

7.59am

8.00am-

8.59am

9.00am-

9.59am

10.00am-

10.59am

11.00am-

11.59am

12.00pm-

12.59pm

1.00pm-

1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-

3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-

6.00pm

Time

Respondents

Yanchep Lagoon Mullaloo Whitfords Beach Hillarys Mettams Pool

FIGURE 5.10 Time of day respondents recorded at Yanchep Lagoon, Mullaloo Beach, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and

Mettams Pool, Wednesday, 9 March 2005



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm

3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59

5.00pm-6.00pm

Beach

Respondents

Scarborough Beach Peasholm Street City Beach Cottesloe Beach

FIGURE 5.11 Time of day respondents recorded at Scarborough Beach, Peasholm Street, City Beach and Cottesloe Beach, Sunday, 5

March, 2005



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-6.00pm

Time

Respondents

Scarborough Beach Peasholm Street City Beach Cottesloe Beach

FIGURE 5.12 Time of day respondents recorded at Scarborough Beach, Peasholm Street, City Beach and Cottesloe Beach,

Wednesday, 9 March 2005



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm

3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59

5.00pm-6.00pm

Time

Respondents

South Beach Challenger Beach Rockingham Shoalwater Bay Secret Harbour

FIGURE 5.13 Time of day respondents recorded at South Beach, Challenger Beach, Rockingham Beach, Shoalwater Bay and Secret

Harbour, Sunday, 5 March, 2005



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

6.00am-6.59am

7.00am-7.59am

8.00am-8.59am

9.00am-9.59am

10.00am-10.59am

11.00am-11.59am

12.00pm-12.59pm

1.00pm-1.59pm

2.00-2.59pm

3.00pm-3.59pm

4.00pm-4.59

5.00pm-6.00pm

Time

Respondents

South Beach Challenger Beach Rockingham Shoalwater Bay Secret Harbour

FIGURE 5.14 Time of day respondents recorded at South Beach, Challenger Beach, Rockingham Beach, Shoalwater Bay and Secret

Harbour, Wednesday, 9 March 2005



5.2.3. Expected Duration of Visit

The majority of people surveyed as part of the questionnaire expected to spend less

than two hours on the beach. On the Sunday survey date, 27 percent of respondents

expected to spend less than one hour at the beach, while 41 percent expected to

spend two hours (FIGURE 5.15). The anticipated time on the beach was generally

much shorter on the Wednesday, with 46 percent of people expecting to spend less

than an hour.

05

101520253035404550

Less than 1 hour 1-2 hours More than 2 hours

Time spent on beach

Per

cen

t

Sunday Wednesday

FIGURE 5.15 Expected duration of visit to Perth beaches on Sunday, 5

March 2005, and Wednesday, 9 March 2005

The expected time spent on the beach on Sunday, 5 March 2005 was longest at

Challenger Beach, Secret Harbour, Cottesloe Beach and Scarborough Beach, with

more than 40 percent of respondents at these locations indicating that they planned

to spend more than two hours (FIGURE 5.16). Beaches with the shortest anticipated

visitations were Mettams Pool, Whitfords Beach and Peasholm Street, the latter two

of which are dog exercise beaches. More than 40 percent of respondents at

Yanchep Lagoon, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour, Peasholm Street and City

Beach planned to visit for one to two hours.

The amount of time respondents planned to spend on the individuals beaches on

Wednesday tended to be considerably less than on Sunday. For Yanchep Lagoon,

Whitfords Beach, Mettams Pool, Challenger Beach and Secret Harbour, more than

60 percent of visitors planned to spend less than one hour at the beach (FIGURE

5.17). Only at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach and Shoalwater Bay did

more than 30 percent of respondents plan to spend more than three hours at the

beach. On most beaches, less than 10 percent planned to visit for more than three

hours.



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Beach

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s Boa

t Har

bour

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Bea

ch

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


FIGURE 5.16 Anticipated time spent on individual beaches on Sunday, 5 March 2005 (percent)



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Yanch

ep L

agoo

n

Mull

aloo

Beach

Whit

ford

s Bea

ch

Hillary

s Boa

t Har

bour

Met

tam

s Poo

l

Scarb

orou

gh B

each

Peash

olm S

treet

City B

each

Cotte

sloe

Beach

South

Bea

ch

Challe

nger

Bea

ch

Rockin

gham

Bea

ch

Shoalw

ater

Bay

Secre

t Har

bour

Beach

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


FIGURE 5.17 Anticipated time spent on individual beaches on Wednesday, 9 March (percent)



5.3. SUMMARY

The data presented in this section illustrates considerable spatial and temporal

variation in the nature of metropolitan beach use. Some of the most apparent trends

are:

• High levels of use of Perth’s major regional beaches, Hillarys Boat Harbour,

Scarborough Beach, Cottesloe Beach, and Rockingham Beach on both

weekends and weekdays. This use is not restricted to summer, but also

includes relatively high levels of use during winter. A number of district and

local beaches also experience considerable levels of use on weekends, while

weekday use tends to be more variable.

• There is considerable use of alternative beaches by users. This was particularly

evident in the beaches between Cottesloe and Yanchep Lagoon. Most users

visited beaches that were relatively close to the one on which they were

surveyed, suggesting that location was an important factor shaping the choice

of beach.

• In summer, more than 60 percent of respondents visited the beach weekly or

more. This high level of use was particularly evident at some of the district or

local beaches. At the same time, however, a little over 20% of users were

extremely infrequent visitors, using the beaches less than once a month. In

winter, the frequency of use dropped considerably across all beaches, although

37 percent of users still visit weekly or more.

• There were considerable variations in the temporal pattern of daily use. A

number of beaches experience an early morning crowd (6.00am – 8.00am),

followed by a drop in numbers. Often the most intense use occurs in the mid to

late morning (10.00am to 12.00pm). Use of the beach in the afternoon is

usually characterised by a peak around 2.00, followed by a steady decrease in

users. However, a number of beaches experience a late afternoon rise

following the end of the school and work days.

• Most visitors to beaches stayed less than two hours. This trend was apparent

across all beaches, although in some cases less than one hour was the norm.

This was particularly apparent on the Wednesday survey date.



CHAPTER 6. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES

6.1. INTRODUCTION

Perth’s beaches form one of the most important recreational resources in the

metropolitan region. Not only do they attract large numbers of visitors, but they also

host a wide range of activities. This section reports on the main reasons for people

visiting particular beaches and the activities undertaken while at the beach.

6.2. REASON FOR VISIT

For most respondents to the questionnaire, one of the most important reasons for

deciding to visit a particular beach was its proximity to home. Of the 4,891

responses to the question on why people chose to visit a beach, 1,113 (22.8 per

cent) mentioned its closeness to home. The beaches where the largest number of

responses stated that proximity to home was important were important in selecting

the particular beach were Mullaloo Beach (35.9%), City Beach (34.7%), South Beach

(30.3%), Scarborough Beach (29.9%), and Rockingham Beach (23%).

The decision to visit a beach based on proximity to home resonates with the data on

beach user catchments and transport patterns, discussed in section 3 of this report.

The catchment data suggested that the majority of beach users lived within about 10

kilometres of the beach, while the transport data suggested that people generally

travel less than 30 minutes (and predominantly less than 15 minutes) to visit the

beach. The data presented here further emphasise the importance of location in

determining patterns of beach use.

The other most commonly mentioned factor in deciding which beach to visit was

swimming conditions. 19 per cent (928 responses) nominated this as an important

factor. The next most important reasons given were the availability of a dog exercise

area (8.5%), access to cafes and restaurants (7.6%), relaxation (6.5%), and meeting

with family and friends (6.4%).

While aggregate data on the main reasons for visiting beaches highlights the role of

proximity, other reasons for visiting become more apparent at the individual beach

level (TABLE 6.1). These reasons are often linked to specific environmental, social

or regulatory factors, such as swimming conditions, the presence of particular

facilities (e.g. cafes), or regulations that permitted certain activities on the beach,

such as animal exercise. For those beaches where proximity to home was not the

most common answer, the following were the most popular responses:



• Yanchep Lagoon: swimming conditions (28.4 per cent)

• Whitfords Beach: dog exercise area (38.7 per cent)

• Hillarys Boat Harbour: access to cafes/restaurants (22.3 per cent)

• Mettams Pool: swimming conditions (44.6 per cent)

• Peasholm Street: dog exercise area (62.6 per cent)

• Cottesloe Beach: swimming conditions (24.8 per cent)

• Challenger Beach: swimming conditions (17.5 per cent)

• Secret Harbour: surfing conditions (29.4 per cent)

With the exception of Hillarys Boat Harbour, for all of the above beaches proximity to

home was the second most common response. At Hillarys children’s safety was the

second most important reason for visiting.

6.3. BEACH ACTIVITIES

The survey respondents engaged in a range of activities when visiting Perth’s

beaches. (TABLE 6.2) Not surprisingly, the most common activity on all beaches

was swimming. Other water-based activities were also prominent on some beaches,

such as snorkelling (notably at Yanchep Lagoon and Mettams Pool), surfing (Secret

Harbour), and fishing (Yanchep Lagoon and Challenger Beach).

One of the most common activities was walking or running. On nine of the surveyed

beaches this most commonly mentioned activity. The number of respondents

walking on Peasholm Street (41.1 per cent of responses) and Whitfords Beach

(36.8%), both dog exercise areas, was particularly high.

Visiting cafes, restaurants and hotels was also common at certain beaches,

particularly Hillarys (31.3 per cent of responses), Rockingham (21.1%), Shoalwater

Bay, and Cottesloe (17.5%). Despite the presence of a considerable commercial

zone at Scarborough, this activity represented on 7.7 per cent of all responses.

6.4. SUMMARY

As in the previous section, it was clear that location is one of the key drivers shaping

the nature of beach use. The proximity of beaches in relation to users’ place of

residents was among the main reasons for deciding to visit a particular beach. This

is consistent with the concentrated nature of user catchments and the relatively short

travel times undertaken by people using beaches (reported in section 4). The other

main reason for deciding to visit particular beaches was swimming conditions.

Visiting to exercise, visit cafes, walk the dog, and snorkel or surf were also

mentioned as important, although these tended to be confined to specific beaches

where these activities were either allowed or supported by environmental conditions

or infrastructure.



0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Clo

se to

hom

e

Dog

exe

rcis

e ar

ea

Rel

axat

ion

and

Soc

ialis

e

Oth

erre

crea

tion/

tour

ism

Lack

of c

row

ds

Sur

fing

cond

ition

s

Goo

d fis

hing

Bus

ines

s or

wor

k

Oth

er w

ater

base

d re

crea

tion

Reason for Visit

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

ses

FIGURE 6.1 Reasons given for visiting beaches1

1 Multiple responses were permitted. A total of 4891 responses were received from the 3112 interviewees.



TABLE 6.1 Reasons given for visiting individual beaches

Yanchep

Lagoon

Mullaloo

Beach

Whitfords

Beach

Hillarys

Beach

Mettams

Pool

Scarborough

Beach

Peasholm

Street

City

Beach

Cottesloe

Beach

South

Beach

Challenger

Beach

Rockingham

Beach

Shoalwater

Bay

Secret

Harbour

Close to home 15.5 35.9 22.3 9.4 22.3 29.9 17.4 34.7 17.5 30.3 15.4 23 21.4 26.1

Surfing conditions 3.7 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.1 8.4 0.9 4 1 0.3 0 0.2 0.4 29.4

Good fishing 9.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 0 0.7 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.6 8.4 2.6 4.8 4.2

Children's safety 8.5 6.2 0.5 10.8 8.6 1.9 0.5 3.2 3.3 3.9 2.8 8 4.4 2.5

Meet family/friends 3 6.9 1.7 7.8 4.7 7.2 1.8 7.5 6.3 8.8 10.5 10.4 5.6 1.7

Dog exercise area 4.8 1.7 38.7 0.5 1.7 1.7 62.6 0.3 1.3 11.2 7 2 6.5 3.4

Swimming conditions 28.4 20.9 11.4 15.5 44.6 15.8 9.1 14.8 24.8 17.6 17.5 16.7 11.3 7.6

Available parking 0.7 1.4 6.3 0.8 0.8 1 0 4.8 3.8 5.8 6.3 0.9 0.4 0.8

Availability of barbecues& shelters 1.5 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 0 2.4 1.3 3 0 4.1 0.4 0

Lack of crowds 4.1 1.7 7.5 0.5 5 1.7 2.3 10.5 1.3 6.7 9.8 2.2 6.5 5

Access cafes/restaurants 3.7 0.7 0 22.3 1.7 6.2 0 3.2 11.5 4.8 2.8 9.3 14.5 14.3

Access to commercialarea 0.7 0 0 11.6 0 1.9 0 0 6.5 0.9 0 1.1 0 1.7

Other water basedrecreation 2.2 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 4.9 0.4 3.6 0

Relaxation and Socialise 8.1 3.8 2.9 9.1 1.7 12.4 1.4 4.8 14.2 3.3 2.1 5.6 6.9 3.4

Business or work 1.1 0.2 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.4 2.1 0.3 4.9 0.9 1.2 0

Other recreation/tourism 4.4 7.4 4.8 6.9 5.3 4.5 3.2 3 2.5 2.4 7.7 12.1 12.1 0

Surf Club 0 6.4 0 0 0 3.8 0 2.4 0.6 0 0 0 0 0

Other 0 1 0 1.1 1.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.8 0 0 0.4 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

N. 271 421 413 638 359 418 219 372 479 330 143 461 248 119



TABLE 6.2 Beach activities2

YanchepLagoon

MullalooWhitfords

BeachHillarys

MettamsPool

ScarboroughBeach

PeasholmStreet

CityBeach

CottesloeBeach

SouthBeach

ChallengerBeach

RockinghamShoalwater

BaySecret

Harbour

Swim 44.0 52.4 46.1 32.9 44.5 45.8 48.5 51.0 42.0 43.3 41.9 35.5 27.6 39.8

Walk/run 14.6 20.5 36.8 5.8 16.9 10.6 41.1 16.3 16.4 20.4 14.7 16.6 19.3 16.3

Visit cafes/restaurants/hotels 3.2 1.4 0.0 31.3 5.8 7.7 0.0 3.4 17.5 13.4 0.7 21.1 18.8 9.2

Sit/Read/Relax/Socialise 2.3 4.5 1.7 5.9 3.3 4.9 2.5 9.3 4.5 4.2 5.9 3.0 0.5 6.1

Snorkel 10.7 0.4 2.6 0.7 20.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 3.7 2.8 7.4 3.0 7.8 0.0

Surf 5.2 3.5 2.0 0.2 2.5 9.3 5.4 7.1 2.9 1.4 0.7 1.7 0.5 20.4

Sunbath 2.6 5.7 2.6 1.8 3.6 8.4 1.2 4.4 5.7 3.2 2.2 0.5 0.0 1.0

Sightseeing 3.9 1.4 2.0 5.8 1.1 4.2 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 18.2 1.0

Catch fish 9.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.8 1.8 14.7 6.9 3.6 2.0

Other 4.2 9.2 5.2 14.7 1.9 7.9 0.4 4.9 4.2 7.0 9.6 9.2 3.6 4.1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

N. 309 487 345 556 362 546 241 410 645 284 136 403 192 98

2 Multiple responses were permitted. 5014 responses were received from the 3112 interviewees.



REFERENCES

Blackweir, D.G. and Beckley, L.E. (2004) Beach usage patterns along the Perth metropolitan

coastline during shark surveillance in summer 2003/04 . Report for Western Australian

Department for Planning & Infrastructure, 122pp.

Bowyer, J.K., 1987. Photogrammetric techniques for the assessment of shoreline variability

between North Mole Fremantle and Trigg Island, 1955 to 1985. BSc Honours Thesis in

Geography, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, 195pp.

Bruun, P., 1962. Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Proceedings of the American

Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Waterways and Harbours Division. 88: 117-

130.

Bruun, P., 1983. Review of conditions for uses of the Bruun Rule of erosion. Coastal

Engineering. 7: 77-89.

Bureau of Meteorology, 1989.

Camfield,F. and Morang,A., 1996. Defining and interpreting shoreline change. Ocean &

Coastal Management, Vol 32, No. 3. pp 129-151.

Carrigy , M.A. and Fairbridge, R.W., 1954. Recent sedimentation, physiography and

structure of the continental shelves of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society

of Western Australia, 38:65-95.

City of Stirling, 1984. Coastal Report: A Report on Coastal Management in the Coastal

Reserve of the City of Stirling Municipality in Western Australia, Government Printer,

Perth.

Clarke, D.J. and Eliot, I. G., 1987. Groundwater level changes in a coastal dune, sea-level

fluctuations and shoreline movement on a sandy beach. Marine Geology, 77: 319-326.

Clarke, E. de C., 1926. The geology and physiography of the neighbourhood of Perth,

Western Australia. Handbook of the Australian Association for the Advancement of

Science, Perth, 23-30.

Clarke, M., 1982. Nudism in Australia: a first study. Deakin University Press. 357 pp.

Collins, L.B., 1988. Sediments and history of the Rottnest Shelf, southwest Australia: a swell

dominated, non-tropical carbonate margin. Sedimentary Geology, 60:15-49.

Coastwise, 2000. Metropolitan Beach User Survey: 7 February 1999, 2 vols, prepared for the

Western Australian Planning Commission, Subiaco.

Davies, J.L., 1980. Geographical Variation in Coastal Development, Second Edition,

Longman, London.



Department of Defence, 1999. Australian National Tide Tables, Australian Hydrographic

Publication 11,, Hydrographic Service, Australian Government printer, Canberra

Eliot, I., Elliott, K., O’Connor A. & Shepherd, R.A. 1986. Recreational use of the coastal

reserves and potential environmental impacts on the shoreline between Trigg Island

and Ocean Reef, Seminar on the Proposed M10 Marine Park, Department of

Conservation and the Environment, Bulletin No, 256, 63-99.

Fairbridge, R.W., 1955. Some bathymetric and geotectonic features of eastern part of the

Indian Ocean. Deep-sea Research 2, 161-171.

Flanigan, M., 1988. Coastal planning and management in the City of Stirling: Public attitudes

and participation in the planning and management of Trigg Beach. B.A. Honours Thesis

in Geography, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 190 pp.

Galgano,F. Douglas,B. and Leatherman,S., 1998. Trends and Variability of Shoreline

Position. Journal of Coastal Research. Special Issue No. 26. pp 282-291.

Gentilli, J., 1971. Climates of Australia and New Zealand, Volume 13, World Survey of

Climatology, Edited by H.E. Landsberg, Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Harris, P.T., Baker, E.K. and Cole, A.R., 1991. The Indian Ocean - Western Australia.

Chapter 6 in Physical Sedimentology of the Australian Continental Shelf, Ocean

Sciences Institute Report No. 51, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.

Hegge, B.J., Eliot, I.G. and Hsu, J.R.-C., 1996. Sheltered sandy beaches of southwestern

Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, 12(3): 748–760.

Hegge, B.J., 1994. Low-energy sandy beaches of south-western Australia: two-dimensional

morphology, sediments and dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Geography, The

University of Western Australia. 419.pp.

Houghton D.S., 1988. Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area: a Report to the State

Planning Commission, Department of Geography, University of Western Australia,

Nedlands.

Houghton D. S., 1989. Some aspects of beach use in the Perth metropolitan area, Australian

Geographer, 20, 173-184.

Houghton, D.S., Eliot, I.G. and Eliot, M.J., 2003. Use of Beaches on the Perth Metropolitan

Coast Between Rockingham and Ocean Reef, Report prepared for the Department of

Planning and Infrastructure, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The

University of Western Australia, Nedlands.

Hsu, J.R.C. (2004). Engineering applications of coastal geomorphology. In Encyclopedia of

Coastal Science, (ed., M. L. Schwartz), Kluwer Academic, 515-520

Inman, D.L. and Frautschy, 1966. Coastal engineering. Santa Barbara Speciality

Conference. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 511-536.



IPCC 2001a. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. The IPCC ThirdAssessment Report, Working Group II Report, McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA,Dokken DJ and White KS (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

IPCC 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the thirdAssessment Report Metz BO, Davidson R, Swart & Pand J eds, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Jackson, L., Nordstrom, K.F., Eliot, I., Masselink, G., 2002. Low-energy sandy beaches in

marine estuarine environments: a review. Geomorphology, 48, 147-162.

James, N.P., Collins, L. B., Bone, Y., and Hallock, P. 1999. Subtropical carbonates in a

temperate realm: Modern sediments on the southwest Australian shelf. Journal of

Sedimentary Research Section A – Sedimentary Petrology and Processes 69, 1297-

1321.

Keating, F., 1983a. Recreational Use of Beaches between Trigg Island and Sorrento Beach.

BA Honours Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Western Australia,

Nedlands

Keating, F., 1983b. Winter Recreational patterns along the Cottesloe Coast, Report to the

Town of Cottesloe (unpublished).

Klein, A.H.F., Benedet, L. and Hsu, J.R.C., 2003. Stability of headland bay beaches in Santa

Catarina: A case study. J. Coastal Research, Special Issue SI 35: 151-166

Komar, P.D., 1998. Beach Processes and Sedimentation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey, Second Edition.

Komar, P.D., 1996. The budget of littoral sediments: concepts and applications, Shore and

Beach, 64(3): 18-26.

Laughlin, G.P., 1997. The User’s Guide to the Australian Coast. New Holland, Sydney.

Lemm, A., Hegge, B.J. and Masselink, G., 1999. Offshore wave climate, Perth, (Western

Australia), 1994 – 96. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50: 90–102.

Masselink, G., Hegge, B.J., Pattiaratchi, C.B., 1997. Beach cusp morphodynamics. Earth

Surface Processes Landforms 22, 1139-1155.

McArthur W.M. & bartle g.a. 1980. Landforms and soils as an aid to urban planning in the

Perth metropolitan northwest corridor, Western Australia. Land resources Management

Series no. 5. CSIRO.

Nordstrom, K.F., 1992. Estuarine Beaches: An Introduction to the Physical and Human

Factors Affecting Use and Management of Beaches in Estuaries, Lagoons, Bays and

Fjords. Elsevier Applied Science, Amsterdam.

Pattiaratchi, C., Backhaus, J.O., Abu Shamleh, B., Alaee, M., Burling, M., Gersbach, G.,

Pang, D. and Ranasinghe R., 1996. Applications of a three-dimensional numerical



model for the study of coastal phenomena in south-western Australia. In Proc.Ocean-

Atmosphere-Pacific Conference, Adelaide, pp. 282-287.

Playford, P. E., Cockbain, A. F. and Low, G. H.,1976. Geology of the Perth Basin, Western

Australia. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, 124, 311 pp.

Playford, P.E. and Leech, R.E., 1977. Geology and hydrology of Rottnest Island. Report of

the Geological Survey of Western Australia, 6, 98 pp.

Playford, P.E., 1988. Guidebook to the Geology of Rottnest Island. Geological Society of

Australia, W.A. Division, and the Geological Survey of Western Australia, Perth. 67 p.

Searle and Logan 1978 A report on sedimentation in Geographe Bay / to the Public Works

Department of Western Australia, by J.D. Searle and B.W. Logan. Sedimentology and

Marine Geology Group, The Department of Geology at the University of Western

Australia Nedlands. 72 pp.

Searle, D.J. and Semeniuk, V., 1985. The natural sectors of the inner Rottnest Shelfcoast

adjoining the Swan Coastal Plain. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia,

67, 116-136.

Searle, D.J., Semeniuk, V. and Woods, P. J., 1988. Geomorphology, stratigraphy and

Holocene history of the Rockingham-Becher Plain, South-western Australia. Journal of

the Royal Society of Western Australia, 70(4) 89-100.

Semeniuk, V. and Johnson, P.D., 1982. Recent and Pleistocene beach/dune sequences,

Western Australia. Sedimentary Geology, 32, 301-328.

Semeniuk, V. and Searle, D.J., 1986. The Whitfords Cusp – Its geomorphology, stratigraphy

and age structure. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 68(2) 29-36.

Short, A.D. (Editor), 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics, John Wiley

and Sons, Chichester.

Silvester, R, 1974. Coastal Engineering, 2. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering

Volume 4B, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam. pp 127- 157.

Silvester, R. and Hsu, J.R.C., 1993. Coastal Stabilization: Innovative Concepts, Prentice

Hall, New Jersey, USA, 1993

Silvester R.A. & Webb, M.J. 1973. Report on Scarborough Beach Development for the City

of Stirling, Departments of Civil Engineering and Geography, University of Western

Australia, Nedlands.

Slarke, E. 1998. Lucky Bay: An Estuarine Sandy Beach. BSc Honours Thesis in Geography,

The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA



Steedman, R.K. and Associates, 1979. Numerical Model of circulation and other

oceanographic aspects of Cockburn Sound. A report prepared for Cockburn Sound

Study Group and the Department of Conservation and Environment.

Steedman, R K. and Craig, P. D. 1983. Wind driven circulation of Cockburn Sound.

Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 34, 187-212.

Thieler, E.R., Pilkey, O.H., Jnr, Young, R.S., Bush, D.M. and Fei Chai, 2000. The use of

mathematical models to predict beach behaviour for U.S. coastal engineering: a critical

review. Journal of Coastal Research. 16(1): 48-70.

Tourism Research Australia, 2004. National (NVS) and International Visitor Survey (IVS)

Results 2000 to 2005. Tourism Australia. Government of Australia, Canberra.

Tourism Western Australia (2004a) Experience Perth Tourism Perspective 2004.

Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Tourism Western Australia (2004b) Experience Perth Destination Development Strategy. An

Action Plan Approach 2004-2014. Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Travers, A. 2005a. Low-energy beach morphology with respect to physical setting: a case

study from Cockburn Sound, Southwestern Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, (In

press)

Travers, A. 2005b. Relative exposure indices for low-energy microtidal beaches. Estuarine,

Coastal and Shelf Science (In press)

USACE (United States Army Corp of Engineers) 2001. Coastal Engineering ManualEM 1110-2-1100 (6 volumes), Washington, D.C.

Veevers, J.J., 1974. Western continental margin of Australia, In Burk, C. A. and Drake, C. L.

(eds.) The geology of continental margins. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 605-616.

Velardo, S., 1998. Patrolled Sandy Beaches of Southwestern Australia: Characteristic

Morphology and Public Hazards and Risks, BA Honours Thesis in Geography, The

University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA

Western Australian Planning Commission, 2003. State Coastal Planning Policy: Statement of

Planning Policy No. 2.6, Available online (8 February 2005), from:

http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/policies/SPP/SPP_2_6.pdf

Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004. Network City. Community Planning Strategy

for Perth and Peel. Report for Public Comment. Government of Western Australia

Perth. 124 pp.

Wright, LD and Short, AD., 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: A

synthesis. Marine Geology, 56:93-118

Recreational Beach Users in the Perth Metropolitan Area

Documents

Transcript of Recreational Beach Users in the Perth Metropolitan Area