Solent car park and vantage point surveys · Alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point...
Transcript of Solent car park and vantage point surveys · Alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point...
Solent car park and vantage point surveys
Chris Panter & Durwyn Liley
Winter 2016/2017
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
2
Footprint Contract Reference: 365 Date: 12th July 2017 Version: Final Recommended Citation: Panter, C. & Liley, D. 2017. Solent car park and vantage point surveys. Winter 2016/2017.
F O O T P R I N T E C O L O G Y , F O R E S T O F F I C E , B E R E
R O A D , W A R E H A M , D O R S E T B H 2 0 7 P A W W W . F O O T P R I N T - E C O L O G Y . C O . U K
0 1 9 2 9 5 5 2 4 4 4
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
3
Summary This report was commissioned by Chichester District Council on behalf of the Solent
Recreation Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent. We provide results from a series of
transects, undertaken during the winter 2016/17, counting parked cars and people around
the Solent shoreline. The results form baseline data for monitoring visitor numbers around
the Solent as part of the Bird Aware Solent initiative.
An initial audit of all parking locations identified 181 parking locations, predominantly formal
car-parks (120 car-parks, 66% of parking locations), but also including roadside parking,
verges, lay-bys and gateways. We estimated 9,813 spaces across all these parking locations.
Counts of all 181 locations were subsequently undertaken 12 times between November 2016
and March 2017. Each count involved a transect, split into 6 routes driven simultaneously by
different surveyors. A total of 23,630 vehicles were counted across all 12 transects; 19,887
(84%) of these vehicles were cars without trailers, bicycle racks or roof racks for
canoes/boards etc.
The average count was 1,657 vehicles. The peak count of over 3000 vehicles was on the 12th
March (a Sunday, with a late morning start-time). The lowest count (1395 vehicles) was on
12th January (a Thursday, start time 08:00). Weekday counts and early morning (08:00 start)
counts tended to be lower than those at weekends and later in the day.
Each of the six routes were slightly different in terms of route length and the number of car-
parks involved. The Southampton-Gosport route was the section with the most cars counted.
The car-parks on the Portchester & Portsmouth route were the car-parks closest to capacity,
in that they tended to have more cars per space compared to other sections.
Alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point counts involved ‘snapshot’ counts of
people on the water, intertidal habitats and the beach; these counts were made from 39 of
the 181 car-parks. In total 1,989 people, 178 ‘active’ boats and 448 dogs were counted.
Walking (41% of people) and dog walking (31% of people) were the two main activities
recorded. Other activities included fishing (3.8%); jogging (3.1%); bird/wildlife watching (2.7%),
windsurfing (1.3%) and bait digging (1.0%).
Walkers without dogs accounted for the highest percentage (64%) of people observed on the
Isle of Wight, while the highest percentage of dog walkers was on the Southampton-Gosport
(42%) and Hayling-Wittering (39%) routes.
Most routes took around two hours to complete, although the time taken to drive each route
was variable and for three transect routes the average time taken to drive the route and
undertake the counts was over three hours.
We consider future monitoring and make recommendations for repeating the survey in two
years’ time.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
4
Contents
Summary ......................................................................................................... 3
Contents .......................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 6
2. Methods ................................................................................................. 8
Assessing car parking ....................................................................................................... 8
Coordinated car park counts .......................................................................................... 8
Vantage point counts ..................................................................................................... 10
3. Results .................................................................................................. 13
Overview of parking infrastructure and audit ............................................. 13
Headline transect results ............................................................................. 18
Car park counts: variation by date and type of vehicle ................................ 18
Car park counts: variation by route ............................................................. 19
Car park counts: counts in relation to car-park capacity .............................. 21
Car park counts: types of parking location and use by different vehicles ... 25
Maps showing use per car-park by different types of vehicle ...................... 27
Car-park counts: comparison between days ................................................ 35
Vantage point counts ................................................................................... 39
Duration/timing of transects ....................................................................... 46
4. Recommendations for future monitoring ....................................... 48
Car park counts ............................................................................................................... 48
Vantage point counts ..................................................................................................... 49
Summary of recommendations .................................................................................... 50
5. References ........................................................................................... 51
6. Appendix ............................................................................................. 52
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
5
Acknowledgements This report was commissioned by Chichester District Council on behalf of the Solent Recreation
Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent. We are grateful to the steering group for their support and
useful comment: Trevor Codlin (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust); Tom Day (Chichester
Borough Council); Lindsay McCulloch (Southampton City Council); Anna Parry (Solent Recreation
Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent); Heather Richards (RSPB); Francesca Sanchez (Natural
England); Ed Rowsell (Havant Borough Council and Stuart Roberts (Solent Recreation Mitigation
Partnership/Bird Aware Solent). John Day (Footprint Ecology) provided comments on an early draft.
Fieldwork was undertaken by: Michael Alexander, Debbie Blake, Neil Gartshore, Carolyn Kelly, Fenella
Lewin, Ibby Moy, Su Powner, Chris Sadler, Graham Sadler, Doug Whyte (all Footprint Ecology). Data
were entered by Debbie Blake. .
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
6
1. Introduction This report provides results from a series of transects, undertaken during the
winter 2016/17, counting parked cars and people around the Solent shoreline.
The study provides baseline data for monitoring visitor numbers around the
Solent and is necessary as part of the Bird Aware Initiative.
The Solent shoreline between Hurst Castle and Chichester Harbour, including the
north shoreline of the Isle of Wight, measures some 250km in length. The
wintering bird interest includes three Special Protection Areas (SPAs): the Solent &
Southampton Water SPA, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and
Portsmouth Harbour SPA. The shoreline is heavily populated and new housing
levels, as summarised in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (‘PUSH’)
statement from 2016, indicate a level of new development of 104,350 dwellings in
the period through to 20341, much of it concentrated in the coastal strip.
The existing high local population and level of expected growth has prompted
concern regarding likely significant effects to the European sites, as a result of
increased recreation and disturbance to wintering waterbirds. Visitor surveys
(Fearnley, Clarke & Liley 2010, 2011), bird fieldwork (Liley, Stillman & Fearnley
2010) and modelling work (Stillman et al. 2012) provide the background and
evidence. Further work developed the approach for a mitigation strategy (Liley &
Tyldesley 2013), providing a strategic solution whereby development could come
forward. An interim mitigation strategy2 was produced by the Solent local
authorities in 2014. The package of mitigation measures included wardening of
sites; initiatives to encourage responsible dog ownership; appointment of a
project officer to coordinate the work and contribution to a pilot project (the Alver
Valley) to test the effectiveness of providing alternative spaces for recreation.
Integral to any such mitigation strategy is monitoring. Monitoring data provides a
check as to how well different approaches are working and allows mitigation to be
honed, for example through targeting resources slightly differently. A monitoring
strategy (Liley et al. 2015) recommended a range of data gathering and included a
recommendation for biennial car park and activity counts to monitor relative
changes in the use of shoreline sites around the Solent.
This study was commissioned to provide the first of such counts. The aim of the
study was to conduct an audit of all parking locations around the Solent, and then,
1 http://www.push.gov.uk/work/planning-and-infrastructure/push_spatial_position_statement_to_2034-
2.htm 2 http://www.birdaware.org/strategy
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
7
based on this audit, count parked vehicles at all locations. Alongside counts of
vehicles, a series of counts of people on the shoreline and water were also
undertaken. As this work represents the first monitoring study, recommendations
for future monitoring were also required.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
8
2. Methods Assessing car parking
An initial assessment of parking along the Solent was made by referring to
Ordnance Survey, Open Street Map and other publicly available parking
databases. Mapped locations were subsequently visited and checked, and
additional searches undertaken to check for additional parking locations that had
been missed. For all locations, the following were recorded:
A unique number assigned to each car-park, with numbering sequential
from west to east;
Estimated capacity (visual estimate of maximum number of cars
possible to be parked; this was done by one person for all car-parks and
estimates were maximum number of cars extrapolated based on
vehicles already parked; for some formal car-parks, bays were counted
using aerial imagery);
Type of surfacing;
Type of parking (categorised as formal car-parks, roadside parking,
verges, lay-bys or gateways);
Whether charging for parking;
Presence of café, interpretation, dog bins;
Name of car-park, if present;
Notes about how to find/recognise;
Whether locked at certain times/times of opening.
All parking locations recorded are listed in Appendix 1.
Coordinated car park counts
Driving and visiting all individual parking locations would have involved a total of
335km driving. We therefore split the coastline into six separate routes to cover
car parks, which varied in length from 80km to 25km. In Table 1 we summarise
details for each route and the routes are shown in Map 1.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
9
Table 1:Summary of the six routes and the number of car parks and vantage points each involves.
Route ID
numbers* Length
(km) Total spaces Parking
locations Vantage points
1. Isle of Wight 1-36 78 1917 36 7
2. Hurst Spit -
Totton 37-74 80 1734 38 6
3. Southampton-
Gosport 75-117 56 2363 43 7
4. Portchester &
Portsmouth 118-132 47 1380 15 5
5. Hayling Island 132-161† 25 1532 31 8
6. Hayling-
Wittering 162-179 48 887 18 6
Total 334 9,813 181 39
* each parking location has been given a unique ID number. They have been numbered sequentially
along the coast from west to east (and separately for the Isle of Wight).
† note two car parks added in post numbering on this route (assigned numbers 200 and 201), and
therefore total number of car parks surveyed is 181.
Together, these routes would ensure all car-parks would be counted and could be
counted simultaneously within a relatively small window of time. These counts
included all parked vehicles (cars, vans, motorbikes, campervans etc.). Counts at
each car-park were also broken down to include the following:
cars with roof rack (for canoe/surfboard);
cars with rear mounted/roof mounted bike racks;
vehicles with boat trailers;
commercial vehicles;
branded vehicles of professional dog walkers;
MPV/ minibus vehicles;
camper vans;
bicycles.
Coordinated car park counts were conducted along the entire Solent coast on 12
dates (Table 2). Dates of car park counts were distributed through late November
to late March, avoiding the mid-late December and early January period around
the Christmas holidays. Counts were conducted on a range of days of the week
and the times of day were varied to give an indicative sample of typical use at
various times of day, types of day and weather conditions. Direction of the
transect from east to west or west to east was varied by surveyors on each day to
give an even and random split in the directions.
Each of the six surveyors used a combination of paper maps, along with a pre-
programmed sat navs to find each car park.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
10
Table 2: Summary of the dates and times of driving transects.
Transect number Date Day of week Set start time
1 29/11/2016 Tuesday 13:30
2 01/12/2016 Thursday 08:00
3 10/01/2017 Tuesday 12:00
4 12/01/2017 Thursday 08:00
5 15/01/2017 Sunday 12:00
6 22/01/2017 Sunday 08:00
7 09/02/2017 Thursday 11:00
8 23/02/2017 Thursday 14:00
9 25/02/2017 Saturday 11:00
10 03/03/2017 Friday 14:00
11 12/03/2017 Sunday 11:00
12 16/03/2017 Thursday 08:00
During the survey work, the surveyors added to the information collected, such
that details on each parking location built up over time, ensuring these were easy
to find and updated.
Vantage point counts
A selection of parking locations were used as vantage points, where the surveyor
recorded the activities visible on the beach/foreshore, intertidal and on the water.
The number of these locations for each route are given in Table 1. Only those car-
parks that provided a clear view and where it was straightforward to park and
then conduct a quick count were included. We then chose a subset that provided
a good geographical spread.
The vantage point counts involved a count for the number of people and for some
activities the number of groups3 within a set recording area. We also counted the
number of dogs and ‘active’ boats (e.g. those moving or being manned, as
opposed to static boats, with no people on board). The set recording area was
mapped on the initial transect and the same count area used for subsequent
counts to ensure consistency, however there were some visits where fog meant
the entire count area was not necessarily clearly visible. On these occasions the
count made included all people visible but – particularly for any craft out on the
water or people out on the intertidal – small numbers may have been missed.
3 We count both people and groups as both are important information. A family of four together would
be one group with four people, a lone walker would be one group with one person. In terms of
disturbance the number of events (i.e. each passing group) is important.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
11
For the following activities both the number of people and the number of groups
were recorded:
Walkers without dogs;
Walkers with dogs (number of dogs on and off-lead also recorded);
Joggers;
Bird/wildlife watchers;
For the following activities counts were also made of the total number of people,
but no record was made of group size (because it is potentially difficult to define a
group):
Horse riding;
Angling/fishing (with rod);
Bait digging;
Kitesurfing;
Paddleboarding;
Windsurfing;
Canoeing;
Water skiing
All other activities (i.e. not listed above), pooled.
The number of ‘active’ boats (all manned craft excluding canoes and commercial
boats) was also recorded, but for this the number of people was not noted as this
would not always be known.
Recording Forms
The recording forms used for the driving transects and vantage point counts are
included in Appendix 2.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
12
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
13
3. Results
Overview of parking infrastructure and audit
In total, 181 parking locations were recorded and mapped. These parking
locations reflect locations we expect to be used by those visiting the coast,
although some (perhaps at least half) may also be used other users such as
shoppers, local residents etc. All locations are summarised in Appendix 1.
For each car-park we estimated the number of parking spaces and across all 181
parking locations our total estimate was 9,813 spaces. The locations were
predominantly formal car-parks (120, 66% of locations), but also included roadside
parking (27), verges (22), lay-bys (7) and gateways (5). Table 3 shows that the
average number of car parking spaces per car-park ranged from 73 (formal car-
parks) to 3 spaces (gateways).
Formal car parks typically accounted for three-quarters of the surveyed parking
locations, with the exception of route 2, where this was less than half the locations
(44%).
Table 3: The number of car parks, continuous lengths of roadside and verge parking, lay-bys and gateways
with average number of spaces in brackets; for each survey route and each category of park.
Route Formal Car-Park Roadside Verge Lay-by Gateway Overall
1 27 (62.6) 3 (68.3) 3 (4.7) 1 (3) 2 (2.5) 36 (53.3)
2 17 (80.1) 4 (11.5) 12 (18.3) 4 (26.3) 1 (2.0) 38 (45.6)
3 32 (66.2) 11 (22.4) 43 (55.0)
4 11 (117.7) 3 (20.0) 1 (25.0) 15 (92.0)
5 24 (62.6) 1 (2.0) 5 (5.4) 1 (1.0) 31 (49.4)
6 9 (91.9) 5 (6.0) 1 (15.0) 1 (5.0) 2 (5.0) 18 (49.3)
Overall 120 (73.3) 27 (21.8) 22 (13.6) 7 (16.3) 5 (3.4) 181 (54.2)
Car parking charges applied only at formal car parks and roadside parking
locations. Exactly 50% of the formal car park locations had charges and 8% of
roadside locations.
Maps 2-5 show the individual car parking locations labelled by capacity, type,
surfacing and charges.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
14
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
15
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
16
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
17
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
18
Headline transect results
In total, across the 12 transects, 23,630 vehicles (cars, vans, motor/pedal cycles)
were counted (Table 4). The majority of these (19,887 vehicles, 84%), were cars
(without any additional roof-racks/bike racks/trailers), with an average of 1,657
cars counted per transect. Commercial vehicles were the second most frequent
vehicle type recorded, with an average of 135 per transect, followed by:
mpv/minibuses, 79 per transect; cars with roof racks for canoe/surfboard, 45;
campervans, 36; cars with bike racks, 10; professional dog walker vehicles, 3.5 and
cars with boat trailers, 1.9.
Table 4: Headline figures, number (%) of vehicles across all transects
Cars
(with
out r
acks
etc
.)
Cars
with
boa
t tra
ilers
Cars
with
bik
e ra
cks
Cars
with
roof
rack
for
cano
e/ su
rfbo
ard
Com
mer
cial
veh
icle
s
Prof
essio
nal d
og w
alke
r ve
hicl
es
Mpv
/ min
ibus
veh
icle
s
Cam
per v
ans
Bicy
cles
Tota
l
19,887
(84)
23
(<0.5)
122
(1)
539
(2)
1617
(7)
42
(<0.5)
946
(4)
426
(2)
28
(<0.5)
23,630
(100)
Car park counts: variation by date and type of vehicle
Data are summarised by date in Figure 1 and Table 5. The transect on the 12th
March was the highest, with over 3000 vehicles counted. The lowest count was
the 12th January (1,395 vehicles counted). The three highest counts were all
weekend counts and the two lowest counts were both early morning counts.
In Table 5, the date totals are split by vehicle type. The number of commercial
vehicles recorded per transect was relatively consistent, showing the smallest
relative deviation from the mean across transects (range 96-183). In contrast, the
number of branded professional dog walker vehicles varied the most (average 3.5
vehicles per transect, range 0-24).
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
19
Figure 1: Total vehicles counted by date. Pale green bars are weekends, dotted line shows the average
across all 12 counts. Labels give the start time.
Table 5: Summary of the number of vehicles recorded on each transect date.
Date
Car
par
ks c
ount
ed*
Total number of vehicles
Car
s
(wit
hout
rack
s et
c.)
Car
s w
ith
boat
trai
lers
Car
s w
ith
bike
rack
s
Car
s w
ith
roof
rack
for
cano
e/ s
urfb
oard
Com
mer
cial
veh
icle
s
Prof
essi
onal
dog
wal
ker
vehi
cles
Mpv
/ min
ibus
veh
icle
s
Cam
per v
ans
Bicy
cles
29/11/2016 178 1,325 2 7 21 135 1 27 28 0
01/12/2016 178 1,216 5 4 23 128 0 13 17 6
10/01/2017 178 1,895 0 6 30 167 1 47 32 3
12/01/2017 176 1,158 0 18 25 145 1 30 17 1
15/01/2017 178 1,979 1 4 51 124 4 180 40 2
22/01/2017 179 1,363 7 6 70 120 24 73 38 1
09/02/2017 177 1,663 0 8 21 183 3 60 32 4
23/02/2017 180 1,536 1 5 62 145 2 121 34 1
25/02/2017 179 2,182 1 19 56 111 1 167 60 5
03/03/2017 167 1,659 1 9 26 96 2 58 24 2
12/03/2017 178 2,532 4 28 113 144 1 134 75 0
16/03/2017 180 1,379 1 8 41 119 2 36 29 3
Total 2,128 19,887 23 122 539 1617 42 946 426 28
*Note number of car parks counted differs and none of the counts were able to cover all 181.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
20
It should be noted that the number of car parks counted differed on each transect
date and that no survey covered all 181 car parks. This is predominantly because
some car-parks were closed or access was not possible, and therefore no cars
would have been counted. In all, 159 of the 181 car parks (88%) were counted on
all twelve occasions. For the remainder, eleven car parks were counted eleven
times, usually due to single road/car park closures. Car park number 36 was
counted only nine times (road closures), number 62 eight times (car park
closures/construction vehicles), number 201 only four times (car park
closures/construction vehicles), and car park 60 only counted twice (winter car
park closure).
Car park counts: variation by route
The number of vehicles recorded for different routes varied as each differed in the
number of car parks and parking spaces they contained. Table 6 shows the
number of the different vehicle types recorded, and the relative composition of
these recorded in each route.
Typically, the number of cars (without any other recreational attachments)
composed at least 80% of all vehicles. However, on the Isle of Wight the
percentage of cars was 72% of vehicles recorded (see Table 6) and the average
percentage of commercial vehicles was 10.5%, higher than all other routes (4.4-
9.5%), and the percentage of mpv/minibuses, 11.5% also much higher than all
other routes (1.9-5.1%). The Isle of Wight also had the highest percentage of
professional dog walkers recorded. Hayling Island was similar to the Isle of Wight
in that it had a greater number of cars with roof racks and mpv/minibuses.
The Portchester & Portsmouth route had the highest percentage of cars with roof
rack for canoe/ surfboard (3%), followed by the Isle of Wight (2.8%). The relative
abundance of campervans was greatest on Hayling Island (3%) followed by Hurst
Spit – Totton (2.6%),
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
21
Table 6: Average number of vehicles of different types recorded per transect for each route of the Solent
coast.
Route
Average number per transect (% of total vehicles per transect)
Car
s (w
itho
ut ra
cks
etc.
)
Car
s w
ith
boat
tr
aile
rs
Car
s w
ith
roof
rack
fo
r can
oe/ s
urfb
oard
Com
mer
cial
veh
icle
s
Car
s w
ith
bike
rack
s
Prof
essi
onal
dog
w
alke
r veh
icle
s
Mpv
/ min
ibus
ve
hicl
es
Cam
per v
ans
Bicy
cles
1. Isle of Wight 195.3 0 7.5 28.5 2.2 2 31.2 3.9 0.4
(72.1) (0) (2.8) (10.5) (0.8) (0.7) (11.5) (1.4) (0.2)
2. Hurst Spit -
Totton
303.1 0.8 7.5 15.6 5.1 0.3 8.8 9.2 0.8
(86.4) (0.2) (2.1) (4.4) (1.4) (0.1) (2.5) (2.6) (0.2)
3. Southampton-
Gosport
479.5 0.2 12.3 27.3 1.4 0.6 15.8 5.3 0.5
(88.3) (0) (2.3) (5) (0.3) (0.1) (2.9) (1) (0.1)
4. Portchester &
Portsmouth
371.3 0.3 12.9 30.4 0.7 0.3 8.8 9.3 0.3
(85.5) (0.1) (3) (7) (0.2) (0.1) (2) (2.1) (0.1)
5. Hayling Island 186.0 0.3 3.3 22.0 0.7 0.1 11.8 7 0.3
(80.4) (0.1) (1.4) (9.5) (0.3) (0) (5.1) (3.0) (0.1)
6. Hayling-Wittering 122.1 0.4 1.5 10.9 0.2 0.3 2.7 0.8 0.1
(87.9) (0.3) (1.1) (7.9) (0.1) (0.2) (1.9) (0.6) (0.1)
Total 1657.3 1.9 44.9 134.8 10.2 3.5 78.8 35.5 2.3
(84.2) (0.1) (2.3) (6.8) (0.5) (0.2) (4) (1.8) (0.1)
Car park counts: counts in relation to car-park capacity
The average number of vehicles recorded per transect (Table 7) was greatest on
the Southampton-Gosport route (542 vehicles on average) and lowest on the
Hayling-Wittering route (139 average). This is unsurprising given the large
difference in the number of car parks and spaces between routes (difference of
1476 spaces between the Southampton-Gosport and the Hayling-Wittering route).
We can account for the difference in the number of car parks and spaces in
several ways. One approach is to consider an average number of vehicles (both
mean and median used) recorded per parking location. From this Portchester &
Portsmouth again rank highest for the largest typical number of vehicles in a car
park (see Table 7). However, this measure will be influenced by the composition of
the different car parks, as a route may just include more large car parks than
another.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
22
Another measure we used is how full each car-park was, expressed as the percent
‘fullness’ (calculated from the number of vehicles present relative to the estimated
number of parking spaces), expressed as a mean across all car parks in the route.
From this Portchester & Portsmouth ranks highest with an average ‘fullness’ of
40% across all car parks, and Hayling Island lowest with 23%. We also calculated a
simple measure of the mean number of vehicles per transect per space, which
shows Portchester & Portsmouth had approximately a third of spaces occupied
(average of 0.31 vehicles per space, see Table 7).
Each of these calculations, shown in Table 7, differs slightly but the relative ranking
of routes was consistent. The different calculations suggest confidence in the
differences between routes and allow several different ways of thinking of about
car park occupancy to be considered.
Table 7: Summary of the number of vehicles with reference to the number of spaces and ‘fullness’ of car
parks along each of the routes.
Rout
e
Number of
parking locations counted
Total number of
parking spaces
Mean number
of vehicles
per transect
Mean number of
vehicles per
parking location
Median number of
vehicles per
parking location
Mean percent
‘‘fullness’’ of car park
Mean number of
vehicles per transect per space (e/c)
1. Isle of Wight 36 1,917 271 7.78 15.00 25.3 0.14
2. Hurst Spit -
Totton 38 1,734 350 9.55 22.41 26.9 0.20
3. Southampton-
Gosport 43 2,363 542 12.60 22.83 30.5 0.23
4. Portchester &
Portsmouth 15 1,380 434 28.90 28.59 40.1 0.31
5. Hayling Island 31 1,532 231 7.62 14.50 22.6 0.15
6. Hayling-
Wittering 18 887 139 7.86 13.72 33.4 0.16
Total 181 9813 1967 11.10 17.99 28.5 0.20
The percent ‘fullness’ of individual car parks was a useful measure to consider
across different parts of the Solent. The median values for each route of the
Solent, shown in Table 7, were statistically significantly different from each other
(Kruskall-Wallis H=32.70, df=5, p<0.001).
Other categories showed some statistically significant results. The ‘fullness’ of car
parks with cars with roof-racks was significantly different (Kruskall-Wallis H =32.70,
df=5, p=0.003), with highest at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight
and Hurst Spit - Totton. There were significant differences in the ‘fullness’ of car
parks with commercial vehicles (Kruskall-Wallis H =20.29, df=5, p=0.001) highest at
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
23
Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight and Hayling Island. Cars with
bike racks also differed significantly (Kruskall-Wallis H =13.90, df=5, p=0.016),
counts were highest at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight,
Southampton-Gosport and Hayling Island. The final significant difference was in
the ‘fullness’ of car parks with camper vans (Kruskall-Wallis H =33.98, df=5,
p<0.001) with the highest counts also at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by
Hayling Island and Hurst Spit – Totton. All other categories were not significant.
The average percent ‘fullness’ of individual car parks across the 12 transects is
plotted in Map 3, to allow the individual car parks to be compared and hotspots
examined. From this, there appear to be some dense clusters of busy car parks,
particularly around Lymington and Portsmouth. But within these clusters there
can equally be car parks which are rarely used. The differences between these
individual car parks in close proximity are likely to be due to size, spaces, quality
and any parking charges.
It should be noted that at some car parking locations more vehicles were recorded
than the estimated number of spaces. This is due to either, car parks being
extremely full (overflowing onto grass etc.), or an underestimate in the number of
parking spaces initially. Estimating the parking spaces in a location with unmarked
bays and at a quiet time can be difficult and therefore the capacity should be
constantly reviewed and informed by the observed counts.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
24
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
25
Car park counts: types of parking location and use by different vehicles
In total, from the 181 car parks surveyed, we recorded an average of 1657 cars per
transect (Table 8).
Cars without any attachments for other recreation were the dominant vehicle type
in all the car parks. These usually accounted for over 80% of vehicles recorded on
average across all parking locations, with the exception of verges. Verges had the
lowest relative proportion of cars, with a total average of 58.1 cars per transect,
equating to 70% of the vehicles. Other vehicles recorded at verges were a greater
proportion of cars with boat trailers (typically 0.3% of the vehicles), cars with roof-
racks (10.2%) and mpv/minibus vehicles (6.2%).
Commercial vehicles were relatively more common in laybys than other parking
types, on average constituting 3% of the vehicles in laybys. Cars with bike racks
also had a relative higher percentage in laybys, accounting for 3.6% of the vehicles
in laybys. Campervans were also common in laybys (8.4%), along with verges
where they accounted for an average of 10% of the vehicles in these locations on
an average transect.
Professional dog walker vehicles were only recorded in formal car parks or
continuous roadside parking locations.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
26
Table 8: Car park count data examined for different parking locations types. For each location type the
average number of different vehicles per total transects is shown. Percentage values in brackets show the
proportion of the total vehicles recorded for that location type.
Parking type
(Number of car park type)
Average of
parking spaces
for type
Average number of vehicles recorded per transect (% of vehicle type for each parking type)
Car
s
(n
o ad
diti
onal
info
)
Car
s w
ith
boat
trai
lers
Car
s w
ith
bike
rack
s
Car
s w
ith
roof
rack
for
cano
e/ su
rfbo
ard
Com
mer
cial
veh
icle
s
Prof
essi
onal
dog
w
alke
r veh
icle
s
Mpv
/ min
ibus
veh
icle
s
Cam
per v
ans
Bicy
cles
Formal
Car-Park
(120)
73 1443.0 1.6 40.3 111.0 8.8 3.3 67 23 1.7
(84.9) (0.1) (2.4) (6.5) (0.5) (0.2) (3.9) (1.3) (0.1)
Roadside
(27) 22
162.0 0.1 2.3 15.0 0.2 0.3 6.1 3.3 0.3
(85.6) (0.1) (1.2) (7.7) (0.1) (0.2) (3.2) (1.7) (0.2)
Lay-by (7) 16 11.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0
(80.2) (0.0) (3.6) (3.0) (3.0) (0.0) (1.8) (8.4) (0.0)
Verge
(22) 14
58.1 0.3 1.8 8.5 0.7 0.0 5.2 8.3 0.3
(70.0) (0.3) (2.1) (10.2) (0.8) (0.0) (6.2) (10) (0.3)
Gateway
(5) 3.4
5.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1
(84.0) (0.0) (1.2) (7.4) (1.2) (0.0) (3.7) (1.2) (1.2)
Total (181) 1657.0 1.9 44.9 135.0 10.0 3.5 79.0 36.0 2.3
(84.2) (0.1) (2.3) (6.8) (0.5) (0.2) (4.0) (1.8) (0.1)
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
27
Maps showing use per car-park by different types of vehicle
Maps 4-10 show the number of cars, commercial vehicles, mpv/minibus and cars
with roof racks recorded at each parking location. Class sizes used were defined
by jenks (natural breaks) and therefore are consistent across all maps. Map 4
shows the average number of cars recorded in each car park to identify locations
where the highest number of people may be accessing the coast.
Maps 5, 7 and 9 show the average number of commercial vehicles, mpv/minibus
and cars with roof racks recorded at each parking location. For each of these maps
there is a second version which shows the percentage of vehicles this number
constitutes (Maps 6, 8 and 10). The percentages observed could be quite variable,
as cars generally dominate the parking locations. Across all three vehicle
categories there were many which recorded 0% or close to 0% on average.
However, maps do help to highlight some key areas. For example, commercial
vehicles could make up a large proportion of vehicles on the Isle of Wight and
around Hemsworth and on Hayling Island. They were rare along the New Forest
coastline and also between Gosport and Hamble-le-Rice. Mpvs and minibuses
were more common on the Isle of Wight and at certain key locations, such as
Calshot and around Hayling Island. There are also some key sites with reasonable
numbers of cars with roof racks for canoes/surfboards including, Hyde-
Bembridge, Calshot, Portchester and parts of Portsmouth.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
28
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
29
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
30
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
31
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
32
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
33
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
34
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
35
Car-park counts: comparison between days
Surveys included both weekends and weekend days, and the number of vehicles
on weekends was almost always greater than weekdays (Figure 2). The average
‘fullness’ for each car park also shows that typically, car parks were fuller on
weekends (31.8%), compared to weekdays (26.7%).
To
tal n
um
be
r o
f v
eh
icle
s p
er
tra
nse
ct
WeekendWeekday
3250
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
Figure 2: Boxplot to show the range in the total number of vehicles recorded for weekdays and weekend
days.
Individual vehicle types were examined by calculating the number of vehicles of
the type as a proportion of the number of spaces available. This showed at
weekends that typically a quarter of spaces (25%) were occupied with cars (with no
other recreational attachments), compared to 18% occupancy on weekdays (Table
9). This difference was statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis H=6.53, df=1, p=0.011,
along with differences in MPV/ minibuses (Kruskal-Wallis H =9.13, df=1, p=0.003)
and camper vans (Kruskal-Wallis H =7.13, df=1, p=0.008), all of which were highest
at weekends. Bicycles were the only vehicle type where the totals counted were
not significantly higher at the weekend.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
36
Table 9: Comparison of weekend and weekday car parks counts showing the percent ‘fullness’ of car parks
calculated for each individual car park averaged for weekend and weekday. Averaged occupancy of spaces
on weekends and weekdays is also shown for each of the different vehicle types.
Averaged percent ‘fullness’
of individual car parks
Average percent vehicles occupying spaces of car parks
Car
s
(n
o ad
diti
onal
info
)
Car
s w
ith
boat
trai
lers
Car
s w
ith
bike
rack
s
Car
s w
ith
roof
rack
fo
r can
oe/ s
urfb
oard
Com
mer
cial
veh
icle
s
Prof
essi
onal
dog
w
alke
r veh
icle
s
Mpv
/ min
ibus
veh
icle
s
Cam
per v
ans
Bicy
cles
Weekdays
(8) 26.7 18.20 0.01 0.33 1.46 0.09 0.02 0.51 0.28 0.03
Weekends
(4) 31.8 25.01 0.03 0.75 1.28 0.15 0.08 1.43 0.55 0.02
Total
(12) 28.4 20.49 0.02 0.47 1.40 0.11 0.04 0.82 0.37 0.02
Car-park counts: other factors affecting car park counts
It is recognised that a wide range of variables such as weather, tide states, car
parking quality, facilities, traffic conditions and national or local sporting events
(keeping people indoors or at sporting locations) will affect the use of car parks
observed here. Many of these would require a greater number of surveying
transects and possibly visitor questionnaires before we could attempt to examine
such relationships (for example tide states, local events) to allow identification and
study of other important variables. The aim of the data collection is to provide
monitoring for change and where use is focussed.
Nonetheless, in Table 10 we show the influence of parking charges, one of the
likely important variables in determining levels of car parking use. At both formal
car parks and roadside parking locations, the average percentage fullness of car
parks was usually greater at those car parks which did not charge. Locations which
charge are usually larger car parks (average 41 spaces in formal car parks without
charges and 105 spaces for those with charges).
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
37
Table 10: The average percent fullness of car park recorded at formal car parks and roadside car parks
shown separately for those with and without charges.
Parking type and charges
Average of %fullness (number of counts)
Formal car park Roadside
No charges 29.5 (707) 43.3 (298)
Charges 19.1 (696) 9.2 (24)
One of the issues that is particularly important to check is the use of parking areas
by those not involved in coastal recreation, for example local residents or
shoppers. Such use inflates the car park counts and complicates the relationship
between cars parked and visitor use, with a greater number of cars than expected.
In Map 14 we explore this by plotting the standard deviation in the total number
of car recorded across the 12 counts. Standard deviation expresses the level of
variation in the number of cars recorded across the 12 counts. Low standard
deviation will reflect a small variation and therefore a more consistent number of
cars across counts. Car-parks that draw recreational use may well be expected to
vary more as they will perhaps fluctuate more with weather and
weekend/weekday use, whereas car-parks used for a range of uses may well have
less variation. Such an approach is speculative but is potentially a useful check.
Also on Map 14 we have highlighted car parks in which surveyors thought
residents were parking on a regular basis. Surveyors were not asked to record this
information as part of the survey so this observation is based on anecdotal
evidence only.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
38
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
39
Vantage point counts
Vantage points were conducted at 39 of the 181 car-park count locations. At these
vantage points, the surveyor parked and walked to the coast to scan the people
and activities recorded along the shoreline and out on the water. In total, we
observed 1,989 people, 178 ‘active’ boats and 448 dogs.
Table 11 shows the number of people/boats/dogs recorded for each activity. The
two main activities were walking (41% of people counted) and dog walking (31% of
people counted). While there were clearly more people walking without dogs, the
actual number of groups counted for the two activities were relatively similar, as
dog walking tended to involve smaller groups. A total of 448 dogs were observed,
with dogs noted as recorded with activities other than dog walking (e.g. joggers,
anglers, and bird watchers).
A further 548 (28%) of people were counted undertaking activities other than
walking and dog walking. These included: angling/fishing (76 people, 3.8% of
total), joggers (62, 3.1%), bird/wildlife watching (55, 2.7%). Bait diggers were
recorded, but in small numbers, with 20 people and an average of 1.7 people per
transect. Water sports (mostly windsurfing) were also recorded relatively
infrequently, with only 32 people across all transects recorded. There were also a
range of ‘other’ activities that did not fit into our predetermined categories, these
included beach combing, metal detecting and photography, but a large proportion
were cyclists or people sitting (so their exact activity could not be determined in
the short period of observation, although some were possibly taking a break from
walking and enjoying the scenery).
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
40
Table 11: Summary of the number of people, groups (where recorded), boats and dogs observed during
counts shown as an average per transect, with the total across all transects in brackets. The final column
shows the average group size for activities where both number of groups as well as people were counted.
Activity
Count unit
Average group size Number of
people Number of
groups
Number of active
boats
Number of dogs
Walkers without dogs 67.9 (815) 32.7 (392) - - 2.1
Dog walkers 52.2 (626) 30.8 (369) - - 1.7
Dogs - - - 37.3 (448) 1.2*
Boats (all craft beside
canoes and commercial)
- - 14.8 (178) - -
Angling/fishing (with
rod) 6.3 (76) - - - -
Joggers 5.2 (62) 2.8 (34) - - 1.8
Bird/wildlife watching 4.6 (55) 1.5 (18) - - 3.1
Windsurfers 2.3 (27) - - - -
Bait diggers 1.7 (20) - - - -
Horse riders 0.8 (9) - - - -
Paddle boarders 0.3 (3) - - - -
Kayak/ canoes 0.1 (1) - - - -
Kite-surfers 0.1 (1) - - - -
Water skiing - - - - -
Other 24.5 (294) - - -
Total 165.8 (1989) 67.8 (813) 14.8 (178) 37.3 (448) -
*dogs per group of dog walkers. Dogs occurred with other groups for which group size was not
recorded.
Map 10 shows the average number of people recorded at each of the vantage
points across the Solent. Busy locations were often patchily distributed and could
be near relatively quiet places. From examination of the maps the effect of nearby
urban areas seems to be a factor associated with busy locations, although
headlands and other coastal features also clearly draw visitors.
The relationship between the number of people observed and the number of
vehicles in a car park is shown in Figure 3. As expected there is a positive
relationship between the two measures (correlation coefficient, β = 6.049,
significance, p value= 0.004), but there is a large amount of variation in these
values (variation, r² =0.180). This indicates that car-park counts are a useful metric
as a surrogate for visitor use but that other factors will also determine the levels of
access (and therefore bird disturbance) at a particular location. In particular in
some areas people may well walk to the coast rather than drive.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
41
However, this relationship was not always clear for example in some car parks
there where large numbers of cars recorded together with relatively low numbers
of people. Overall the average across all vantage points was 11.1 vehicles and 0.9
people, indicating higher numbers of cars than people. Reasons for this could
include: the limited visibility from some vantage points (so people may have
walked out of sight); people sitting in cars who were not counted; the use of car
parks by local residents who went elsewhere; commercial vehicles whose drivers
did not walk to the coast and the effect of overall season or general weather
conditions on the behaviour of visitors (whether to stay in the car or go for a walk
for example).
The outliers in Figure 3, include:
177, West Wittering beach (where the whole beach is visible resulting in
a count of most people from the car park even if they have walked
some distance?);
69, Calshot car park (vehicles in this car park can be there for other
reasons e.g. the climbing wall) and the vantage point has limited views
so visitors can soon walk out of view;
139, the car park at the Ship Inn near the bridge onto Hayling Island
used by people visiting the pub rather than the shoreline; and
100 Salterns Car Park, like West Wittering, there are extensive views
from the vantage point here.
Figure 3: Scatterplot to show the relationship between the average total number of vehicles in a car park
on a visit and the average total number of people observed at a vantage point on a visit. Individual points
are labelled by the vantage point ID number.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
42
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
43
Figure 4 shows on average the relative percentage of activities by ‘individuals’ from
the different counts (persons, boats, dogs). This shows the relative amount of
‘traffic’ by persons, dogs and boats, engaging in different activities. The same
calculations are presented for individual vantage points in Map 12.
On average, walkers without dogs accounted for the highest percentage of people
observed on the Isle of Wight while the lowest percentage was along the
Portchester & Portsmouth route (Figure 4). The highest percentage of dog walkers
was on the Southampton-Gosport and Hayling-Wittering routes. However, the
number of dogs as a proportion of all people was greatest at Portchester &
Portsmouth, where other activities such as joggers and cyclists were often
accompanied by a dog. Bait diggers and water activities (e.g. windsurfers, kite
surfers, kayak/ canoes, paddle boarders) occurred at a relatively low frequency,
but were most abundant on Hayling Island.
Figure 4: The average percent of activities at a typical vantage point on each of the six routes. The class “all
other water activities” groups windsurfers, kitesurfers, kayak/ canoes, paddle boarders and water skiing.
The relative number of dogs off lead, compared to on lead was greatest around
Hayling Island, Southampton-Gosport and Portchester & Portsmouth with under a
third (24%, 27% and 28%) of the dogs observed at an average vantage point on
lead. The locations at Isle of Wight and Hurst Spit – Totton typically had just under
half of the dogs observed on lead (46% at both route sections).
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
44
The parts of the shore in which the occurrences of people/dogs/boats were
observed was also recorded (Figure 5). Just under three quarters (72%) of people
were recorded on the higher parts of the shore, on the seawall/ promenade/
dunes (Figure 5). This was heavily influenced by the large numbers of walkers, dog
walkers and their dogs recorded in this area. The relative proportion of dog
walkers below the higher parts of the shore, both on the beach above Mean High
Water (MHW) and on the sand/mudflats below MHW, was greater for dog walkers
than walkers. Other than joggers who were virtually always on the highest part of
the beach, many other activities were often on the sand/mudflats below MHW
(e.g. bird/wildlife watchers, horse riders, bait diggers) or on the water (windsurfing,
paddleboarding, kitesurfing, canoeing).
Figure 5: The percentage of individual people/boats/dogs for each activity that were on different parts of
the shore.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
45
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
46
Duration/timing of transects
As a record for future surveys, we document here the time taken to complete the
surveys. The average duration for a surveyor to complete the route, and survey all
cars park and vantage points was three hours, but this varied considerably, as
shown in Table 122. Some routes were inherently much shorter or simply quicker
than others (e.g. 4. Portchester & Portsmouth), but there were also large
differences in time taken on the same route, depending on the surveyor (and
whether they had driven the route previously), how busy the car-parks were, time
of day and day.
Table 12: Summary of times and duration for each route
Route Length
(km) Parking
locations Vantage
points Average time
taken Minimum time
taken Maximum time
taken
1 78 36 7 03:45 03:00 06:18
2 80 38 6 03:08 02:13 04:45
3 56 43 7 03:19 02:26 04:21
4 47 15 5 01:47 01:30 02:18
5 25 31 8 02:24 01:29 04:19
6 48 18 6 02:33 01:50 03:34
Total 334 181 39
There were also differences in the typical time for each of the 12 transects to be
completed (Table 133). The average duration of each route was longest on the
first transect, as surveyors were familiarising themselves with the route. However,
on later transects there were also some long times taken to complete the route.
We tried to ensure surveyors were familiar with the route, but it was not always
possible to have the same surveyors on each date and the different peaks in time
taken across the 12 transects are due in part to surveyors conducting routes that
were new to them. Furthermore, some transects coincided with peak traffic/rush
hour and also took longer to complete.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
47
Table 13: Summary of the times and durations for routes to be completed in each transect. Tr
anse
ct
num
ber
Date Set start time for transect
Average duration of each route
Average finish
time of each route
Mininum finish
time for a route
Maximum finish time for a route
Average mid-point
time for routes
1 29/11/2016 13:30 03:17 16:47 15:48 17:32 15:08
2 01/12/2016 08:00 03:06 11:06 09:51 12:21 09:33
3 10/01/2017 12:00 02:46 14:46 13:44 15:26 13:23
4 12/01/2017 08:00 02:35 10:35 09:37 11:50 09:18
5 15/01/2017 12:00 02:33 14:33 13:33 15:44 13:16
6 22/01/2017 08:00 02:24 10:24 09:29 11:25 09:12
7 09/02/2017 11:00 03:06 14:06 12:38 15:38 12:33
8 23/02/2017 14:00 02:28 16:28 15:42 17:30 15:14
9 25/02/2017 11:00 02:34 13:34 12:42 14:18 12:17
10 03/03/2017 14:00 02:36 16:36 15:36 17:52 15:18
11 12/03/2017 11:00 03:10 14:10 12:49 15:45 12:35
12 16/03/2017 08:00 03:16 11:16 10:13 14:18 09:38
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
48
4. Recommendations for future monitoring The data collected provide a baseline for future monitoring. The key aim of the
monitoring is to provide spatially explicit information on levels of use, types of
activity and visitor behaviour around the Solent, in such a way that future changes
can be detected and used to refine mitigation measures. Future reports will need
to be able to compare back to previous data and identify any changes. Data
collection needs to be relatively simple and straightforward to replicate, and the
results need to be presented/collated such that they can be easily interrogated. In
this section of the report we make recommendations for future monitoring.
Car park counts
One of the main points for consideration for future monitoring is whether to
survey all car parks again or a subset of these. Covering all car parks is a large
undertaking, requiring six surveyors at the same time and coordinated. This is a
large use of resources for time and driving expenses.
We used a team of nine surveyors and where possible the surveyors conducted
the same routes each time. Surveyors usually become much quicker over time, as
they became familiar with their route. However, the average duration was still
three hours, more than originally estimated (our target was two hours). In order
to facilitate future transects and the data collected, using surveyors who are highly
familiar with the route/area will be important.
One way to simplify the fieldwork approach would be to repeat the car park
surveys every other year, using a subset of car parks. Only on every third repeat
(e.g. every six years) would the count cover all car parks. A likely subset could
include between 40-70 car parks instead of the current 181, potentially involving
three routes. This would reduce the logistical challenges and potentially enable
recording that could be undertaken by the existing Ranger team.
Selecting an appropriate subset would require careful thought. The subset would
need to be representative of the spatial area across the Solent and should include
a representative range of sizes and types of parking locations.
A further key point is that car-parking locations will change over time. Car-parks
can close and new locations start to be used. Car-parking charges and opening
times can change. Lay-bys, verges and other such locations are likely to be
particularly likely to change. It is essential that these changes are documented
each year and recorded. Future monitoring will therefore need to include a review
of locations. In two years’ time, when monitoring is repeated, the counts should
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
49
record any changes and – if new locations need to be included or others dropped,
these should be documented.
During car park counts surveyors did comment that they saw the same cars (local
residents/ local business employees) or commercial vehicles parked more than
once at certain locations. Clearly many locations are used repeatedly by local
residents or commercial vehicles/construction workers. Such use, if a regular and
common behaviour may make it difficult to detect changes over time in
recreational use at those locations. While it is possible to note anecdotally where
there appears to be parking that is less likely to relate to recreational use, there is
no clear way to record this systematically without using some form of
questionnaire survey.
In one early morning count, after a very cold night, surveyors commented that
some cars in some car-parks were covered in frost. This suggests that these are
cars were parked overnight. It might be possible in future counts to use this
approach opportunistically to record cars that have been parked overnight (and
therefore potentially belonging to residents), and if a future count takes place on a
morning where a hard frost is forecast we recommend surveyors are made aware
and an estimate is made for each car-park.
A further point for the car park recording forms is to explicitly detail when the car
park was closed, and also if the road was closed. While this has been recorded on
all forms, we found this information can be hard to find in detailed notes (see
Appendix 2 for an example of the recording form used) and is so important, that it
should be explicitly detailed for each count.
Vantage point counts
For the vantage point counts a key change would be the addition of cyclists and
people sitting and standing (enjoying the scenery) to the recording form (see
Appendix 2 for form as used). These two groups appear to be the most common
in the large ‘other’ category used in the current recording form. It would be
valuable to have an explicit ‘other’ column in the form to detail this number and
state the exact types of other activities being conducted. It would be helpful if
surveyors could be briefed on how to determine the exact activity, without wasting
lots of time observing people.
There were also difficulties in recording people at times of poor visibility. While
this is hard to avoid, it is suggested that an estimate of the visibility (within pre-
determined broad categories) is recorded so that the area of visible vantage point
can be adjusted each time to allow calculation of the people per visible area.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
50
Summary of recommendations
In summary, key recommendations are:
Future counts should be conducted by a small team familiar with the
route, area to survey and all the different car-parks. This will ensure
consistency.
Undertaking surveys of all car parks is a significant undertaking. We
suggest conducting the co-ordinated car park counts every other year,
with every third survey to cover all car-parks. The other biannual
surveys could be conducted on a representative subset of the car parks.
An increased number of categories added to the recording form for
recording types of vehicles to separate ‘marked commercial vehicles
(cars and vans)’, and ‘unmarked vans’.
Have the option to count the number of frosted/snowed over cars
(approximate to number of residential cars) in a morning survey
following a very cold night. This would require an assessment of the
weather to be made the day before, so that all surveyors would be
expecting to record this.
On vantage point form add columns for activities of standing, sitting and
cycling.
Explicitly count the total ‘other’ activities and state what activities this
consisted of (but not the numbers of each).
Categorise visibility on the vantage point (e.g. 25% of area, 25-50% of
area etc.).
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
51
5. References Fearnley, H., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project. Phase
II. On-Site Visitor Survey Results from the Solent Region. Footprint Ecology/Solent Forum.
Fearnley, H., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2011) The Solent Disturbance & Mitigation Project. Phase II.
Results of the Solent Household Survey. Footprint Ecology Unpublished Report.
Liley, D., Stillman, R., Austin, G. & Panter, C. (2015) Advice on How to Monitor the Effectiveness of
the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Bournemouth University /
BTO / Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership.
Liley, D., Stillman, R.A. & Fearnley, H. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase
II. Results of Bird Disturbance Fieldwork, 2009/10. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.
Liley, D. & Tyldesley, D. (2013) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase III: Towards an
Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.
Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2012) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project
Phase II: Predicting the Impact of Human Disturbance on Overwintering Birds in the Solent.
Solent Forum / Bourneouth University / Footprint Ecology.
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
52
Appendix 1: Details of parking locations Table 14: Details of the car parking locations
Route ID
C ar Park ID
Grid Reference Car Park Type
Car Park Surfacing
Total car parking spaces
Parking charges
1 1 SZ327877 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 46
1 2 SZ332879 Gateway Concrete/tarmac 2
1 3 SZ338897 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 60
1 4 SZ340897 Verge Gravel/stone 10
1 5 SZ341897 Verge Gravel/stone 2
1 6 SZ353894 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 256
1 7 SZ353894 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 250
1 8 SZ354897 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 25
1 9 SZ354897 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 22
1 10 SZ358897 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 45
1 11 SZ358897 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 28
1 12 SZ367898 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 12
1 13 SZ367898 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 10
1 14 SZ390906 Verge Gravel/stone 2
1 15 SZ400891 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 14
1 16 SZ414894 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 16
1 17 SZ420907 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 8
1 18 SZ423905 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 10
1 19 SZ429904 Gateway Gravel/stone 3
1 20 SZ477960 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 150
1 21 SZ478959 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 20
1 22 SZ486966 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 51
1 23 SZ495964 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 80
1 24 SZ502948 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 50
1 25 SZ502961 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 90
1 26 SZ509928 Formal Car-Park No surfacing
(grass/earth) 40
1 27 SZ510919 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 90
1 28 SZ557930 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
1 29 SZ600927 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 125
1 30 SZ605922 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 134
1 31 SZ623918 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 83
1 32 SZ629916 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 10
1 33 SZ636891 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 50
1 34 SZ636894 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 30
1 35 SZ643887 Lay-by Gravel/stone 3
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
53
Route ID
C ar Park ID
Grid Reference Car Park Type
Car Park Surfacing
Total car parking spaces
Parking charges
1 36 SZ657879 Formal Car-Park No surfacing
(grass/earth) 80
2 37 SZ292912 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 180
2 38 SZ293912 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 12
2 39 SZ295911 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 25
2 40 SZ299909 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 50
2 41 SZ299909 Lay-by Gravel/stone 40
2 42 SZ306914 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 125
2 43 SZ307915 Roadside Gravel/stone 7
2 44 SZ308915 Verge Gravel/stone 30
2 45 SZ318927 Verge Gravel/stone 10
2 46 SZ321932 Verge Gravel/stone 3
2 47 SZ322936 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 8
2 48 SZ323934 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 6
2 49 SZ326940 Verge Concrete/tarmac 3
2 50 SZ328955 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 54
2 51 SZ330941 Gateway No surfacing
(grass/earth) 2
2 52 SZ331946 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 15
2 53 SZ333951 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 124
2 54 SZ346953 Verge Gravel/stone 5
2 55 SZ364952 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 10
2 56 SZ409998 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 50
2 57 SU417002 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 1
2 58 SZ432986 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 4
2 59 SZ444987 Lay-by No surfacing
(grass/earth) 3
2 60 SZ451985 Formal Car-Park No surfacing
(grass/earth) 85
2 61 SZ455985 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 100
2 62 SZ456985 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 150
2 63 SU478013 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 15
2 64 SU480012 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 9
2 65 SU480013 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 145
2 66 SU483014 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 45
2 67 SU485016 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 47
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
54
Route ID
C ar Park ID
Grid Reference Car Park Type
Car Park Surfacing
Total car parking spaces
Parking charges
2 68 SU487018 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 100
2 69 SU488023 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 110
2 70 SU465024 Verge Gravel/stone 2
2 71 SU466032 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 15
2 72 SU431073 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 12
2 73 SU424079 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 100
2 74 SU365124 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 32
3 75 SU435103 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 12
3 76 SU435102 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 32
3 77 SU435101 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
3 78 SU441098 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 23
3 79 SU445094 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 50
3 80 SU446094 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 13
3 81 SU452087 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 35
3 82 SU453086 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
3 83 SU457080 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 20
3 84 SU457080 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 12
3 85 SU461076 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 35
3 86 SU468069 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 3
3 87 SU469068 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 10
3 88 SU482068 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 65
3 89 SU481063 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 8
3 90 SU483058 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 25
3 91 SU489061 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 45
3 92 SU489062 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 102
3 93 SU493050 Roadside Gravel/stone 8
3 94 SU499047 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
3 95 SU495092 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 30
3 96 SU530023 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 43
3 97 SU532022 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 48
3 98 SU535023 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 38
3 99 SU539022 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 8
3 100 SU546018 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 144
3 101 SU554014 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 132
3 102 SU556012 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 33
3 103 SU557011 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 39
3 104 SU559008 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 68
3 105 SU561005 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 75
3 106 SU562004 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 32
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
55
Route ID
C ar Park ID
Grid Reference Car Park Type
Car Park Surfacing
Total car parking spaces
Parking charges
3 107 SU563003 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 195
3 108 SZ566999 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 35
3 109 SZ569996 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 58
3 110 SZ586988 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 141
3 111 SZ588988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 85
3 112 SZ589987 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 31
3 113 SZ593986 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 32
3 114 SZ596984 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 182
3 115 SZ600980 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 164
3 116 SZ610990 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 50
3 117 SZ613981 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 172
4 118 SU600051 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 44
4 119 SU624047 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 64
4 120 SU630048 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
4 121 SZ636988 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 380
4 122 SZ638983 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 225
4 123 SZ654981 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 36
4 124 SZ656982 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 138
4 125 SZ661983 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 100
4 126 SZ673988 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 160
4 127 SZ678990 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 60
4 128 SZ677993 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 20
4 129 SZ684995 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 80
4 130 SZ684999 Verge Gravel/stone 25
4 131 SU674005 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 30
4 132 SU676017 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 8
5 133 SU675042 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 15
5 134 SU677043 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 30
5 135 SU679044 Verge Concrete/tarmac 10
5 136 SU698054 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 18
5 137 SU702053 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 71
5 138 SU708049 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 31
5 139 SU718046 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 65
5 140 SU719039 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 16
5 141 SU722041 Verge Gravel/stone 3
5 142 SU724041 Verge Gravel/stone 3
5 143 SU728037 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 7
5 144 SZ688998 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 60
5 145 SZ688999 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 65
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
56
Route ID
C ar Park ID
Grid Reference Car Park Type
Car Park Surfacing
Total car parking spaces
Parking charges
5 146 SZ690997 Verge Gravel/stone 8
5 147 SZ691996 Verge No surfacing
(grass/earth) 3
5 148 SZ693996 Lay-by Gravel/stone 1
5 149 SZ704988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 250
5 150 SZ705988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 45
5 151 SZ707988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 100
5 152 SZ711988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 100
5 153 SZ712987 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 70
5 154 SZ713988 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 70
5 155 SZ713987 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 100
5 156 SZ714987 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 70
5 157 SZ718987 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 100
5 158 SZ724986 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 50
5 159 SZ728984 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 75
5 160 SZ739981 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 70
5 161 SZ734992 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 2
5 200 SU717029 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 14
5 201 SU717029 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 10
6 162 SU728054 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 12
6 163 SU762044 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 15
6 164 SU765050 Verge Gravel/stone 15
6 165 SU777053 Gateway Gravel/stone 4
6 166 SU786049 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 2
6 167 SU787044 Roadside Gravel/stone 2
6 168 SU793034 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 10
6 169 SU793042 Roadside Gravel/stone 4
6 170 SU806039 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 425
6 171 SU803032 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 5
6 172 SU800022 Gateway Gravel/stone 6
6 173 SU841032 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 10
6 174 SU836028 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 15
6 175 SU799014 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 7
6 176 SU798012 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 75
6 177 SZ769980 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 200
6 178 SZ793970 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 70
6 179 SZ793968 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 10
S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7
57
Appendix 2: Recording forms used In this appendix, we provide examples of the recording forms used. The first was that used
for recording parked vehicles (the form is the one for route 5) and the second sheet is a
generic sheet for recording the vantage point counts.
S O L E N T D R I V I N G T R A N S E C T R E C O R D I N G F O R M : R O U T E 5 , H a y l i n g
58
Date: Surveyor: Section: Weather description/notes
Start time:
End time:
Cloud cover (8ths)
Car park number (yellow ones are vantage points)
Time Total parked motor vehicles
Subset of total Bikes Rain (enter 1 if present otherwise blank)
Notes
Number with boat trailers
Number with roof rack for surfboards/canoes etc
Commercial vehicles
Number with bike racks
Number branded with dog walking
MPV / minibus vehicles
Camper vans
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
200
201
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
S O L E N T D R I V I N G T R A N S E C T R E C O R D I N G F O R M : R O U T E 5 , H a y l i n g
59
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
Record any details here relating to route/traffic or other general issues on the day that might affect count (road closures, world cup finals etc)
Notes
Car-park number is the unique ID number assigned to each car-park. Yellow highlights indicate locations where vantage point counts also required.
Total parked motor vehicles is the total number of parked vehicles (cars, motor bikes, vans, lorries, etc) – columns to the right are subsets of this total apart from
bicycles, which are not motor vehicles
Commercial vehicles are vans or similar that have company branding on and may relate to people at work or linked to work, include ice cream vans, outdoor pursuit
type companies, but NOT commercial dog walkers.
Dog branded vehicles are those used by commercial dog walkers
Campervans are separated from MPV/minibus type vehicles in that they clearly are used for sleeping in
Bikes is simply the total number of bikes parked in the car-park separate to any on racks on cars – some car-parks do have dedicated bike racks
S O L E N T V A N T A G E P O I N T F O R M
Vantage point number: Tide: High
Intermediate (some mud)
Low
Notes (record any unusual activities or general comments about events):
Start Time:
Date: Surveyor:
Count unit Seawall/promenade/dunes Beach above MHWM Sandflats/mudflats below MHWM On water Notes
All activities People
Horse riders People on horseback
Joggers Groups
People
Bird/wildlife watching Groups
People
Walkers (without dogs) Groups
People
Dog walkers Groups
People
Dogs off lead Dogs
Dogs on lead Dogs
Angling/fishing (with rod) People
Bait diggers People
Kitesurfers People
Paddle-boards People
Wind-surfers People
Kayak/canoes People
Water-skiing Skiiers
Boats (all craft beside canoes & commercial) Boats
Record within set count area only. Counts are ‘snapshots’. Scan count area systematically (e.g. left – right) and count as you do, do not add additional people if they then enter the count area
after your scan. You may need to do a number of scans for the different rows in the table. All activities is a count of all people visible in count area, including those on boats. Subsequent rows
relate to specific activities. “Seawall/promenade/dunes” relates to the area well above Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) – elevated and supporting vegetation. Beach is open unvegetated zone
above the strandline. Sandflats/mudflats is the intertidal. Not all zones will be present at each vantage point and may vary depending on tide state.