[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



















                                      LOCAL GOVERNMENT



                                     BEACH ACCESS SURVEY










                                     Stephen M. Holland
                                   Principal Investigator

                                   University of Florida

                       Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism

                       Center for Tourism Research and bevelopment


                                             for


                      Florida Department of   Environmental Protection

                              T
                                        of Beaches and Shores

                                office of Beach Management






                                            1993



           Funds for this project weke provided by the Department of Community Affairs,
           Plorida Coastal Management Program-using funds made available through NOAA under
           the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as.amended.


                                Contract ko'. 005-08-13-00"16-001




















                                       OCAL GOVERNMENT



                                    BEACH ACCESS SURVEY










                                    Stephen M. Holland
                                  Principal Investigator

                                   University of Florida

                       Department  of Recreation, Parks and Tourism

                       Center-for  Tourism Research and Development


                                             for

   N)                Florida Department of Environmental Protection
     0                        Division of Beaches and Shores
                                Office c7f Beach Management



   \Q)
                                           1993



          Funds for this project were provided by the Department of Community Affairs,
          Florida Coastal management Program using funds made available through NO AA undek
          the'Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended.



                               Contract No. 9305-08-13-00-16-001











                                       Table of Tables

           Table 1: Frequency distribution of type of area
                       ,responding by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    6

           Table 2: County locations of respondents by region       . . . . . .   6

           Table 3: Frequency distribution of mode of beach access
                       (in percents) by region   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7

           Table 4: Frequency distribution of types of publicly
                       owned access available in the respondent's
                       city/county  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     8

           Table 5: Frequency distribution of evaluation of location
                       and number of sites by region    . . . . . . .     . . . . 8

           Table 6: Frequency distribution of number of areas ranking
                       each problem as one of their top 3 beach access
                       concerns by region   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     10

           Table 7: Estimated number of beach users per region      . . . . . . 11

           Table 8: Frequency distribution of degree of confidence
                       placed in annual beach user estimates by region          .12

           Table 9: Frequency distribution of number of persons per
                       vehicle visiting beach areas by region     . . . . . . . 12

           Table 10:   Mean percent of beach use by season and by region. .13

           Table 11:   Mean percent of origin of beach users annually
                       by region  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     13

           Table 12:   Frequency distribution of the adequacy of parking
                       throughout the week at beaches by region    . . . . . .  14

           Table 13:   Frequency distribution of days of the week that
                       parking lots are used to capacity in season
                       by region  . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     15

           Table 14:   Frequency distribution of estimate of beach use
                       rising if additional parking were made available
                       by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    15

           Table   15: Frequency distribution of manager's estimate of
                       distance the public would be willing to walk
                       from parking lot to beach access point    . . . . . . .  16

           Tabl e 16:  Mean ranking of degree of importance of 11 selected
                       beach facilities by region  . . . . . . . . . . . . .    17


                                               2



 I
 I
          Table 17: Frequency distribution of degree of importance of
 1                      11 selected beach facilities by region . . . . . .18
 1
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
                                           3
 1











           Introduction

                The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division
           of Beaches and Shores, Office of Beach Management secured a grant
           from the federal Coastal Zone Management Program in 1993 to better
           document the existing publicly owned beach access points in the
           state of Florida. The project is multi-faceted but one aspect of
           the study was to poll local and county governments about beach
           demand, adequacy of parking, management issues on public beaches
           and f@acility needs. As the state plans for existing and future
           public access to the coastal zone, it intends to incorporate the
           views of local government as to problem areas.          This report
           summarizes one attempt to solicit information of the current beach
           access situation on publicly owned coastal lands in Florida.

                In September 1993, a mailing list of local government (city
           and county) park and recreation managers was obtained from the
           Office of Recreation Services, Division of Recreation and Parks.
           After consultation with the office of Beach Management, it was
           agreed that the best source of contacting beach managers at the
           local level was through the city/county park and recreation
           department, as they are the "front line" managers in most areas.
           The cover letter (Appendix A) requested that the receiver forward
           the letter to a more appropriate office if parks and recreation 'was
           not applicable in a given situation. The mailing list of
           city/county recreation and park departments was reviewed to remove
           non-coastal city/counties, resulting in a final sampling frame of
           82 cities and counties.

                A four page survey was developed (Appendix B) addressing the
           issues of concern for the Office of Beach Management. In October,
           1993, the survey was mailed out to the target areas with a postage-
           paid response envelope returning the survey to the Division of
           Beaches and Shores. After three weeks, phone call reminders were
           attempted to delinquent agencies.

                The responses were aggregated into four regions by county (see
           Figure 1):


                Region 1:  Nassau, Duval, St. Johns, Flagler, Volusia,
                           Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin
                Region 2:  Palm Beach, Broward, Dade
                Region 3:  Monroe, Collier, Charlotte, Sarasota, Manatee,
                           Hillsborough, Pinellas
                Region 4:  Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Dixie, Taylor,
                           Wakulla, Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Walton, Okaloosa,
                           Santa Rosa, Escambia






                                             4



                                                                                      vim a












                                      REGION 4



                                                                                           BEG]
















                                                       REGION 3













                                                Figure 1











           Distribution of Responses

                 A response rate of 51-0. (42/82) was achieved from the mailout
           and phone call reminders. Table 1 lists the portion of responses
           in each region that were from cities and counties. Most of the
           respondents were cities except in region 4 (Big Bend-West Florida)

           Table 1: Frequency distribution of type of area responding by
                 region.

            AREA TYPE    REG-1     REG-2      REG-3    REG-4         STATE
                         n=9       n=12      n=15      n=6        n=42    PCT

              City          6          10       11         3        29    690-.
             County     1   3    1      2   1     4   1    4     1 13     310-.


                 The specific distribution of      responses by county within
           regions is summarized in Table 2.           Cities responding were
           classified based on the county they    were in (for purposes of this
           summary table only).


           Table 2: County locations of respondents by region.

            RESPONDENT  REG-1         REG-2         REG-3              REG-4
                        n=9           n=12          n=15               n=6

            Counties    Nassau    1   Palm Bch 6    Pinellas        7  Bay        1
                        Duval     2   Broward 4     Hillsborough    1  Citrus     2
                        Volusia   1   Dade       2  Sarasota        2  Franklin   1
                        Brevard   4                 Manatee         1  Wakulla    1
                        St.Lucie  I                 Lee             2  Escambia   1
                                                    Collier         2




                 The lower response rate in the North part of the state
           reflects  two basic facts. First, the population is lower than in
           South Florida, and for West Florida, a substantial portion of the
           coastline is managed by the state or federal government. Hence,
           there are limited opportunities for local governments to manage
           coastal areas in West Florida. Much of the barrier island region of
           West Florida is not owned by local government entities leaving the
           cities and counties to manage adjacent bay or lagoon areas which
           are not within the.scope of this study. Thus, the low response rate
           in the Big Bend and Panhandle area (Region 4) was not unexpected or
           necessarily an indication of non-cooperation. It reflects lack of
           jurisdiction in most cases.




                                             6











            Types of Access

                  The high level of beach use in many areas is easily verifiable
            due to the presence of users on the beach for long periods of time.
            However, the mode of access is more difficult to determine since
            there are multiple options, there is a continuous change throughout
            the day and the mode is transient in that the user only uses the
            mode as a passage for a minute or two. The beach managers surveyed
            in this study were asked to estimate the percentage of their users
            who utilized each option (public, commercial and private) to access
            the beaches in their city or county. Results are summarized in
            Table 3.

            Table 3: Frequency distribution of mode of beach access
                        (in percents) by region.


              MODE OF              REG-1    REG-2     REG-3    REG-4      STATE
              BEACH ACCESS         n=9       n=12      n=15    n=6         n=42


                                   MEAN 06   MEAN -06  MEAN     MEAN 01   MEAN 0-6

              Public                 59        69        53        68        61

              Commercial             15        12        29        17        19

              Private                20        16        18        12        17
              Other                    6         3       0.4        3    1         1

                  In all regions,    more  than half   of the  access is   by publicly
            owned access points      (for  more detail, see Table 4       next page) .
            Commercial access (e.g., hotels, beach clubs, etc.) was utilized by
            about 1501 except in region 3 (Pinellas-Monroe) where about 30% of
            the access was by commercial means. Private means (e.g., private
            homes, condominiums, etc.) were employed by about 171-o of beach
            users except in region 4 (Big Bend-West Florida) where there is
            comparatively less privately owned land.

                  As reported in Table 3, publicly owned areas are the primary
            route of access to the shore. A variety of publicly owned beach
            access types are available for communities to provide passage to
            the shore. Table 4 lists the major options and their distribution.
            About four-fifths of the areas provided street ends, the most
            common option. Pedestrian walkways and local parks were available
            in more than half of the areas (except in region 4). The type of
            area least likely to be available was a state or f ederal park which
            is to be expected considering the magnitude of resources needed to
            provide such an area compared to a street end or walkway.
                  on a regional basis, it seems surprising that only 58% of the
            respondents from region 2 (Palm Bch-Broward-Dade) provided street
            end access. This is perhaps an indication of the very high cost of
            coastal land in this region and the long sections which have been

                                                 7









                     privately developed. The indication of a relatively low number of
                     state/fed parks or undeveloped areas in region 4 (Big Bend-West
                     Florida) is clearly an incomplete picture due to the lower number
                     of responses from this region as there are examples of both in the
                     region.

                     Table 4: Frequency distribution of types of publicly
                                       owned access available in the respondent's
                                        city/county.

                      ACCESS TYPE                       REG-1 REG-2 REG-3 REG-4 STATE
                                                         n=9          n=12           n=15          n=6          n=42 PCT

                      Street End                              9             7            12              5          33      790-.

                      Ped Walkway                             6          10              11              2          29      690%_0

                      Small Park                              5             5            12              3          25      6006

                      Large Park                              5             9              8             3          .25     60%
                      Undeveloped Area                        2             3              7             3          15      360-0
                      State/Fed Park                          4             8              8             2          12      290-o




                     Access Issues


                             One of the most important evaluations of access points are
                     their locations and quantity. The managers surveyed in this study
                     were 'asked to summarily characterize these aspects of the access
                     sites within their area (Table 5).

                     Table 5: Frequency distribution of evaluation of
                                       location and number of sites by region.

                     ACCESS QUANTITY + REG-1 REG-2 REG-3 REG-4 STATE
                     DISTRIBUTION                         n=9          n=12           n=15         n=6          n=42 PCT

                     Adequate # Sites                         6             6               10           3         25       600-.
                     Good Locations                                                              I
                     Adequate # Sites                                                       1                       1          20-.
                     Poor Locations

                     Inadequate # Sites                       2             6               4            3         is       3 6 01
                     Good Locations

                     Inadequate # Sites
                      oor ocations

                     Other                                    1                                                     1          2-.





                                                                                8









                The results in table 5 indicate that there is little problem
           with the location of sites and that a majority of beach managers
           feel that there are an adequate number of sites. In region 2 (Palm
           Bch- Broward -Dade) and region 4 (Big Bend-West Florida) , there is an
           increased perception of an inadequate number of sites by half of
           the respondents.

                In addition to the quantity- location issue, there are a number
           of other potential problems that can arise in providing and
           managing access points. Table 6 presents the results of a request
           that managers rank the top three problems in their area.








































                                             -9












               Table 6: Frequency distribution of number of areas ranking each problem as one
                         of their top 3 beach access concerns by region.


               MOST IMPORTANT       REG-1       REG-2         REG-3        REG-4       STATE
               CONCERN             n=9         n=12         n=15          n=6          n=42

               RANK                  1   2   3   1   2   3    1   2   3 @ 1    2   3    1   2    3

               BEACH EROSION         4   3   0   4   1   2    6   1   1    1   2   1   is   7    4

               INSUFFICIENT
               PARKING               2   1   0   2   4   1    4   2   2    2   1   0   10   8    3

               LACK SUPPORT
               FACILITIES            2   3   0   2   0   5    2   3   1    1   2   0    7   8    6

               PERSONAL SAFETY       0   0   0   2   3   3    0   0   2    0   0   2    2   3    7

               DEVIANT BEHAVIORS     2   0   2   0   1   2    1   1   2    0   1   0   @3   3    6

               INSUFFICIENT NUMBER
               OF ACCESS SITES       0   0   1   0   2   1    1   3   0    1   0   3    2   5    5
               OTHER (see text       0   0   2   1   0   1    1   2   4    0   0   0    2   2    7
               below)

               LACK OF PUBLIC
               AWARENESS OF BEACH    0   1   1   0   2   0    0   0   0    0   0   0    0   2    1
               ACCESS

               IMPACTS OF DRIVING
               ON BEACH              0   0   1   0   0   0    0   0   0    1   0   0    1   0    1
               1
               POOR LOCATION OF
               ACCESS SITES          0   0   0   0   0   1    0   0   0    0   0   0    0   0









                    Beach erosion and parking received the highest number of votes
              as the number 1 problems, with lack of support facilities (e.g.,
              restrooms, showers, etc.) receiving a moderate number of votes.
              Impacts of driving on the beach received only 2 votes of concern
              (even with 7 respondents in region 1 from counties allowing driving
              on the beach) - Poor location of access sites again came out as not
              a problem for the majority of areas. Lack of public awareness of
              access was a moderate concern for 3 areas but not for the others.
                    Because of the larger number of items, the distribution of
              votes was sparse for most concerns, so there are insufficient
              numbers to do much comparison across regions. The distribution of
              votes was scattered across the concerns, except in the case of
              erosion and parking. Erosion seemed to be of most concern on the
              northern Atlantic coast and southern Gulf coast.                      Some of the
               other" items where: Region 1, dogs on the beach, strong feeling of
              having the right to drive on the beach; Region 2, shoreline rocks
              (this was ranked #1 concern), homeless hanging around; Region 3,
              most of shoreline is mangrove, increasing cost and hassle to park
              at beach, oil on beach, that beaches remain in natural state (this
              was ranked #1 concern) , protection of the environment, education of
              the public, excessive overflow parking in residential areas of town
              providing beach access, and lack of funds to maintain and renovate
              facilities.


              Demand for Beach Use

                    Beach managers were asked to estimate the number of beach
              users their area accommodated last year (1992) (Table 7).

              Table 7: Estimated number of beach users per region.

               NUMBER OF              REG-1      REG-2         REG-3         REG-4       STATE
               BEACH USERS           n=9         n=12         n=1S          n=6          n=42

               MEAN COUNT              1800         2079         1098         2178       1722
                (in thousands)

               STD DEV                 3070         26S5         139S         4294       2649

               LOW RANGE                  10          140        50              40          10

               HIGH RANGE             8000,          7260        S000        10800       10800
              In region 1, 4 of the  estimates were in persons; 27-inperson-days. In region 2, 9
              of the estimates were  in persons; 2 in person-days. in region 3, 8 of the estimates
              were in persons; 4 in person-days. In region 4, 4 of the estimates were in persons;
              2 in person-days. For the state, 25 (7116) of the estimates were in persons; 10 (29k)
              in person-days.

                    The range of responses varied considerably as would be
              expected due to the various sizes of areas responding to the
              survey. About 1911 of the respondents were not able to provide an
              estimate, but among those that did, the lowest estimate was 10,000
              (Satellite Beach) and the two highest were 10,800,000 users per
              year (Santa Rosa Island Authority) and 8,000,000 (Brevard County).

                                                       11









                             The managers were asked to reveal the degree of confidence
                   they put in their estimate. Over half of the respondents said they
                   had total or almost total confidence in their estimates.

                   Table 8: Frequency distribution of degree of confidence
                                      placed in annual beach user estimates
                                      by region.

                      DEGREE OF                     REG-1 REG-2 REG-3 REG-4                                 STATE
                      CONFIDENCE IN                 n=9          n=12          n=15.          n=6          n=42
                      ESTIMATE

                         5                                           3             2                           5       140-.

                         4                               2           9             5              2           18       4906

                         3                               2                         3              3            8       220-o

                         2                                                         2              1            3         806

                         1                               2                         1                           3         80-.

                          5 = Total Confidence           - - - - - -      I     No Confidence



                            A common method                of estimating beach use is to                           count cars and
                   multiply by a constant which estimates the number of people per
                   vehicle. Managers were asked to reveal what multiplier they use in
                   this calculation (Table 9).
                   'Table 9: Frequency distribution of number of persons
                                      per vehicle visiting beach areas by region.

                      NUMBER OF               REG-1          REG-2           REG-3          REG-4             STATE
                      PEOPLE PER               n=9            n=12            n=15           n=6               n=42         PCT
                      VEHICLE

                      2                             4              4               9              1                18       44-06

                      3                             4              6               3              3                16       390-.

                      4                             0              1               1              1                  3        70-.

                      DON'T KNOW                    0              1               2              1                  3        70-.
                      NO RESPONSET                  1      1       0       1       0       1      0         1        1

                            The majority of respondents                          listed either 2               or 3 persons per
                   vehicle. A few respondents wrote                               in a number between 2 and 3 and
                   these were rounded to the nearest whole number.






                                                                              12









                  Another demand issue is the temporal distribution of demand
             across the year. Managers were asked to estimate the percent of
             annual beach use that occurs in each season (Table 9).

             Table 10: Mean percent of beach use by season and by region.

              SEASON OF             REG-1     REG-2     REG-3     REG-4      STATE
              BEACH USE             n=9       n=12      n=15      n=6        n=42
                                    MEAN 0-1, MEAN 01   MEAN 01   MEAN 01    MEAN 0-.

              Winter                  15        32        34          7        25

              Spring                  26        25        25        27         25

              Summer                  41        28        28        50         34
             @Fall                    18        14        16        16         16

                  There are the expected        differences of higher       beach  use in
             south Florida during the winter and higher beach              use in north
             Florida in the summer months. This has the effect of          averaging out
             the percent of use at the state level fairly evenly except for the
             notably slower fall season.

                  The source of this demand was probed in a question seeking to
             determine what percent of annual use was from residents or tourists
             (Table 11).

             Table 11: Mean percent of origin of beach users annually by region.

              TYPE OF BEACH         REG-1     REG-2     REG-3     REG-4      STATE
              USER                  n=9       n=12      n=15      n=6        n=42
                                    MEAN 0-o  MEAN OW   MEAN 06   MEAN 0i    MEAN  0-o

              Community Res           34        28        25        12         23

              County Res              34        29        27        19         28

              Other FL County         14          8       11        32         14

              Out-of-State            18        24        26        30         24

              International             3       11        11          7          9



                  There was variation     in the proportion of    beach users from each
             origin segment. Intra-community and intra-county and out-of-state
             visitation each accounted for about 1/4 of beach use statewide.
             Visitation from other Florida counties (1496) and international
             visitation (9%) accounted for substantially less beach visitation.
             However, there was regional variation in this with out-of-state
             demand ranging from 18-0. in region 1 to 3011 in region 4 and
             international visitation stronger in South Florida. These


                                                  13









               variations are in line with known visitation patterns with the West
               Florida coast hosting many visitors from Georgia, Alabama and
               Tennessee and South Florida coasts serving as a destination for
               many foreign travelers from Great Britain, Germany, France and
                entral and South American countries as well as American. with a
               little under an estimated half (44*1)                        of total state beach
               C

               visitation coming from outside of the host community or county, the
               need for parking accommodations, signage and access information for
               visitors who may be unfamiliar with existing access opportunities
               becomes clear.



               Parking

                      As reported in Table 6 above, parking was one of the major
               issues in beach management that received mention by about half of
               the respondents as one of their top three concerns. In order to
               understand this issue better several additional questions directed
               at parking issue were posed. To begin, beach managers were asked
               to respond to a continuum of five conditions ranging from parking
               being adequate throughout the week to parking being inadequate
               throughout the week for their area (Table 12).

               Table 12: Frequency distribution of the adequacy of parking
                             throughout the week at beaches by region.

                PARKING                  REG-1       REG-2       REG-3       REG-4         STATE
                SITUATION                 n=9        n=12        n=15         n=6           n=42     PCT
                ADEQUATE FOR

                PEAK    WEEKEND             1           2           4           0               7    1701

                AVERAGE WEEKEND             2           4           3           1             10     240-.

                ALL WEEKDAYS                5           3           3           1             12     2806

                SOME WEEKDAYS               1           3           2           4             10     2401

                NO TIMES                    0           0           3           0               3      706



                      The distribution was          fairly even across the          range of      options.
               About 17% of the areas said parking was adequate                     for virtually all
               times,. including peak weekends. Another 241 indicated that parking
               was adequate for all times except peak weekends. About half of the
               respondents said that parking was adequate during all or some
               weekdays but not for weekends. Only 70-. reporting that parking was
               almost always inadequate and these were all from region 3.






                                                            14









                            A additional question addressed the specific days of the week
                   that parking lots were                    filled to capacity in season (Table 13).


                   Table 13: Frequency distribution of days of the week
                                     parking lots used to capacity in season
                                     by region.

                     DAYS PARKING REG-1                       REG-2          REG-3           REG-4           STATE
                     LOTS USED TO n=9                          n=12           n=15.          n=6              n=42        PCT
                     CAPACITY

                     MONDAY                           0            2              6              1                 9      2201

                     TUESDAY                          0            2              5              0                 7      17 01

                     WEDNESDAY                        0            2              5              0                 7      17%

                     THURSDAY                         0            3              5              1                 9      2 2 Is

                     FRIDAY                           2            4              8              4               18       4 4 oc

                     SATURDAY                         8          11             12               6               37       900-S

                     SUNDAY                           8          11             12               6               37       900,

                     NEVER                            0            0              3              0                 3        706

                     DON'T     KNOW                   1                           0              0                 1        20,



                           About 90'-.            of   the     respondents          reported         that their           lots are
                   used to capacity on                 Saturday and Sunday. About 440-. said                              they were
                   filled on Friday and 22% on Monday, the shoulder days. Only about
                   200-o reported filled lots during the middle days of the week
                   (Tuesday, Wednesday,                 Thursday) with Thursday being a little higher
                   than the other two days.

                           As a final estimate of parking adequacy, managers were asked
                   if beach        use would           increase in their area if additional parking
                   were made available (Table 14).


                   Table 14:         Frequency         distribution of estimate of beach use
                                     rising if         additional parking were made
                                     available         by region.

                     MORE PARKING                 REG-1          REG-2          REG-3          REG-4             STATE
                     WOULD INCREASE n=9                          n=12           n=15            n=6              n=42 PCT
                     BEACH USE

                     y                          1      5       1      8-      1     10       1       6              29 69%
                     NO                                4_             4               5              0              13 310-.



                                                                            is










                             About two-thirds of the respondents indicated that they
                    thought beach use would increase in their area if additional
                    parking were made available. This percentage was stable across all
                    regions except Region 4 where all 6 respondents indicated that
                    additional parking would increase beach use.

                             An additional aspect of parking as it relates to beach access
                    points was explored. Managers were asked to estimate how far would
                    the public be willing to walk from the parking lot to the access
                    corridor (Table 15).


                    Table 1S: Frequency distribution of manager's estimate of distance
                                      public.would be willing to walk from parking lot to beach
                                      access point.

                      WILLING        TO               REG-1          REG-2           REG-3          REG-4             STATE
                           WALK                        n=9            n=12            n=15           n=6               n=42        PCT

                      < 150 FT                                             3               1                                4      100-.

                      151 to 300 FT                         5              2               1              4                12      300-.

                      301 to 500 FT                         2              3               1              1                 7      180-.

                      501 to 660 FT                         2              4               5                               11      280-.

                      661 to 1320 FT                                                       4              1                 5      12%

                      1321 to 2640 FT                                                      1                                1        2


                      > 2640 FT                                                                                             0




                             The longest estimate was up to a half-mile (2640 ft), but 86%
                    of the respondents reported only up to 1/8 of a mile (660 ft) as
                    the maximum distance the public would be willing to walk. More than
                    half (58%) stated that the maximum walking distance would be no
                    more than 500 feet.                       It must be remembered that Florida has a
                    higher than average population of older adults and that many people
                    carry a variety of support equipment (towels, chairs, umbrellas,
                    flotation devices, food + drink, etc.) that would be awkward to
                    carry for substantial distances. This finding has a bearing on the
                    distance between access points and the size of parking lots
                    associated with access points. It seems to suggest that smaller
                    parking areas closer to the beach are more utilized by the public.







                                                                               16











           Beach Use Support Facilities

                Beach managers were asked to evaluate the importance of an
           assortment of support facilities to beach users (Table 16).


                Table 16: Mean ranking of degree of importance of 11
                          selected beach facilities by region.

               FACILITIES       REG-1    REG-2    REG-3    REG-4    STATE
                               n=9      n=12     n=15     n=G      n=42

                                 MEAN     MEAN     MEAN    MEAN      MEAN

               PARKING            1.1     1.0      1.1      1.0      1.1

               RESTROOMS          1.4     1.0      1.3      1.2      1.2

               ACCESS SIGN        1.7     1.3      1.4      1.7      1.5

               DRINKING WATER     1.8     1.3      1.6      1.3      1.5

               DUNE WALKOVER      1.1     1.8      1.4      2.2      1.6

               LIFEGUARDS         1.4     1.3      2.0      1.6      1.6

               PICNIC TABLES      1.9     1.5      2.0      1.3      1.8

               STREET LIGHTS      1.9     1.7      1.9      2.2      1.9

               SHELTERS           1.8     1.8      2.2      1.7      1.9

               BIKE RACKS         1.9     1.9      1.9      2.3      2.0
               CONCESSION         2.1     1.9      2.1      2.7      2.1    1
                   1 = Very Important, 2=Somewhat Important, 3=Not Important

                As expected from earlier data, parking was the primary concern
           of beach managers, although restrooms were also of high concern.
           These results are congruent with the concerns listed in table 6.

                The frequency distribution of responses to the level of
           importance of support facilities is presented in Table 17.
           Specific votes by region for each item can be seen in this table.












                                             17














                      Table 17: Frequency distribution of degree of importance of 11 selected
                                 beach facilities by region.

                   FACILITIES       REG-1       REG-2        REG-3        REG-4        STATE
                                   n=9          n=12         n=15        n=6           n=42

                   IMPORTANCE*      VI   SI  NI VI    SI  NI VI   SI   NI  VI  SI  NI  VI   SI   NI

                   PARKING           8   1    0 12    0   0  13   2    0   6   0    0  39     3   0
                   RESTROOMS         6   2    1 12    0   0  10   5    0   5   1    0  33     8   1

                   ACCESS SIGN       3   6    0  9    2   1  10   4    1   2   4    0  24   16    2

                   DRINKING WATER    4   3    2  8    4   0   7   6    2   4   2    0  23   15    3

                   DUNE WALKOVER     8   1    0  6    2   4  10   4    1   0   4    1  24   11    6

                   LIFEGUARDS        5   4    0 10    1   1   6   3    5   3   2    1  24   10    8

                   PICNIC TABLES     3   4    2  7    2   3   4   7    4   4   2    0  18   15    8

                   STREET LIGHTS     1   8    1  6    4   2   6   5    4   2   1    3  15   18    9

                   SHELTERS          3   5    1  4    5   3   3   6    6   3   2    1  13   18   10
                   BIKE RACKS        2   6    1  3    6   3   4   8    3 . 0   4    2     9 24    8
                   .122@CESSION      2   4    3  2    8   2   2   -9   4  FO   2    4     6 23   12

                        VI = Very Important, SI=Somewhat Important, NI=Not Important











                                     APPENDIX A
                                    COVER LETTER










                                          It# 5,3

                               UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

                           COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
           FLG 229    DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION, PARKS AND TOURISM     (904) 392-4042
     GAINESVILLE, FL 32611-2034                                      (904) 392-3186 FAX




         Name
         Address
         Beachcity, FL

         Dear Beach Manager:

              The beaches of Florida are among the most important natural
         resources in the state. The state is in the process of updating its
         information on beach access logistics and is always interested in
         the perceptions of local government managers on beach access
         issues. These issues can be taken into consideration for future
         beach management planning. The Division of Beaches and Shores and
         the University of Florida are interested in the responses of
         county, city or site level managers on what the local needs are in
         your area.

              Please forward this survey to the person in your agency who
         would be most familiar with the public's access to beaches in your
         city or county. If you are aware of another person in your city or
         county government who would be well qualified to respond to this
         survey, please enclose their name and address on a separate sheet
         of paper when you return the survey in the enclosed postage-paid
         envelope.

             I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Please
         write or call me. The telephone number is (904) 392-4048, or 4043.
         Thank you for your assistance.


                             Sincerely,


                             Stephen M. Holland
                             Associate Professor
                             Principal Investigator










                                                       APPENDIX B
                                                      MAIL SURVEY



                                    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BEACH ACCESS SURVEY
                                          DIVISION OF BEACHES AND SHORES
                                   DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION


               County / Municipality
               Survey Respondent's Name
                      Address

                      Phone Number


               I      What rAx of public beach access is currently available in your community?
                      (Please  all that apply)

                      0      Street end
                      0      Pedestrian walkway
                      0      Small developed park (less. than 400 feet of beach)
                      0      Large developed park (more than 400 feet of beach)
                      0      State or Federal park or recreation area
                      0      Undeveloped areas (limited or no parking, no facilities)

              2.      What do you think are the three most important concems your community has regarding
                      public beach access? Place a 'I' by the item that you feel is most important to Your
                      community, a7by the item next in importance, and a7by the item third in importance.

                             Insufficient parking
                             Lack of support facilities (i.e., restrooms, showers, etc.)
                             Insufficient number of access sites
                             Poor location of access sites
                             Lack of public awareness of beach access
                             Beach erosion
                             Lack of handicap accessibility
                             Personal safety of users at beach access sites (Le., crime)
                             Lack of supervision of users (i.e., vandalism, liter, violations of ordnances)
                             Impacts of driving on beach
                             Other (Please explain)



              3.    Which statement most accurately describes beach access sites located within your
                    community. (Please 4 only one)

                    0        Adequate number of sites, good locations.
                    0        Adequate number of sites, poorly located.
                    0        Good locations, inadequate number of sites.
                    0        Poorly located, inadequate number of sites.
                    0        Other (Please explain)









                4.       Please estimate the number of beach users your community received last year.


                         (Estimated number of beach users)
                4. (a)   Is the above estimate recorded in (1) persons or (2) person-days? (Please 4 one)

                         0       Persons
                         0       Person-days

               4. (b)    On a scale of I to 5, how confident are you in this estimate of the number of beach
                         users? (Please circle one number)

                         No Confidence           1       2        3       4       5        Total Confidence

               4. (c)    Please describe how your community gathers its estimates of the number of beach users.
                         Include in your response how often (i.e., daily, I per week, 2 per year) beach user data
                         is collected. (Please use as much space as needed including attachments)















              5.       We would like to know what percentages of beach users in your community are
                       residents versus non residents. To indicate your estimate of residents to non
                       residents, please distribute 100 percentage points between all five categories. You can give
                       as many or as few points to any one category provided that the combined total equals 100
                       percentage points, no more no less.

                                                Community residents
                                                Residents of your county, not of your municipality
                                                Residents of another Florida county
                                                Out-of State visitors, from other U.S. states
                                                International visitors
                               100 TOTAL PODM









              6.      It is important for us to know how beach use varies from season to season. Please
                      indicate the percentage of total beach use which occurs during each of the four seasons.
                      Again please divide 100 percentage points between the following four seasons.

                                           Winter (December, January, February)
                                           Spring (March, April, May)
                                           Summer (June, July, August)
                                           Fall (September, October, November)
                             100 TOTAL POINTS

              7.      Do you feel that there are a sufficient number of public beach access sites to meet the
                      needs of your community during the peak beach use season? (Please 4 one)

                      0      Yes                  0      No

              8.      Which statement most accurately describes parking at public beach access sites located
                      within your community during your peak beach use season? (Please 4 only one)

                      0      There exists adequate parking to accommodate peak weekend use.

                      0      There exists adequate parking to accommodate average weekend use.

                      0      There exists adequate parking to accommodate all weekday use,
                             but not weekend use.

                      0      There exists adequate parking to accommodate some weekday use,
                             but not weekend use.

                      0      Parking is inadequate throughout the week.

              9.      On what days of the week are the beach parking lots used to capacity during the peak beach
                      use season? (Please 4 all that apply)

                      0      Monday                      0      Saturday
                      0      Tuesday                     0      Sunday
                      0      Wednesday                   0      Never
                      0      Thursday                    0      Don't know
                      0      Friday

              10.     For those access sites which have on-site parldng, estimate the number of people per
                      vehicle visiting the site? (Please 4 only one)

                      0      1 person                    0      5 persons
                      0      2 persons                   0      6 persons
                             3 persons                   0      More than 6 persons
                      0      4 persons                   0      Don't know
                      0      5 persons


             11.      Do you believe that if additional parking was made available, beach use would
                      increase in your area?

                      0      Yes                  0      No









              12.   Based on your observations, what distance would the public be willing to walk from
                    the parking area to the beach access site? (Please only one)

                    0      Less than 150 feet
                    0      151 feet to 300 feet
                    0      301 feet to 500 feet
                    0      501 feet to 660 feet (1/8 mile)
                    0      661 feet to 1320 feet (1/4 mile)
                    0      1321 feet to 2640 feet (1/2 mile)
                    0      2641 feet to 3960 feet (3/4 mile)
                    0      3961 feet to 5280 feet U mile)
                    0      Over 1 mile

             13.    We would like to know how beach users access the beach in your community. To
                    respond, please distribute 100 percentage points between the following four categories.
                    You can give as many or as few points to any one category provided that the combined
                    total equals 100 percentage points.

                           Public access sites (i.e., public parks, street ends, etc.)
                           Commercial means (i.e., hotels, beach clubs, etc.)
                           Private means (i.e., private homes, condominiums)
                           Other, please explain
                    100 TOTAL POINTS


             14.    How would you rate the importance of the following public beach access support
                    facilities to beach users?

                                               Very                Somewhat            Not
                                               bRortan             I=ortan             im

             Availability of:
                    Drinking water
                    Restrooms
                    Picnic Tables

                    Shelters
                    Concessions

                    Dune Walkovers
                    Lifeguards
                    Parking
                    Bike Racks
                    Signage to Public
                    Beach Accesses
                    Street Lights

            Thank you for your responses to this survey! Please use the self-addressed postage- paid
            envelop to return your questionnaire.








                                                                                                                                  NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                                  3 6668 14111731 9