RECREATIONAL BEACH USERS
IN THE PERTH METROPOLITAN AREA
March 2005 in Summer 2004-2005
August 2005
Ian Eliot, Matthew Tonts,
Matthew Eliot, Grant Walsh & John Collins
The Institute of Regional Development
School of Earth and Geographical Sciences
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences
University of Western Australia
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Brief for the a Study of Recreational Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area, between
Singleton and Two Rocks commission specified that the aim of the study was to provide a
better understanding of existing recreational and leisure use of Perth beaches, the adequacy
of existing facilities and open space, and an estimate of future demands. The document
presented here reports a first order analysis of information collected and collated ion
fulfilment of the general aims of the Study. It is anticipated that further analyses will be
undertaken as specific questions are formulated in response to the results reported.
OBJECTIVES & PURPOSE
The objectives of the study were to:
1 Describe and analyse the spatial and temporal distribution of beach users along the study
area, under favourable conditions;
2 Establish the locational origins of people using selected representative beach nodes;
3 Establish the relative importance of different sections of the study area for recreational
and leisure purposes, as measured under favourable conditions.
4 Identify the major types of beach use activities and their spatial and temporal distribution
within the study area both across beaches and within individual selected representative
beach nodes.
5 Establish the adequacy of existing open space provision as well as parking facilities and
access arrangements.
6 Estimate future beach use growth and demand patterns, classifying sectors along the
study area according to capacity to deal with current and expected demand.
Its purpose was to provide better and up-to-date data on which planning and management
decisions can be confidently based for lands within and adjacent to Perth’s coastal reserves.
PREVIOUS SURVEYS OF BEACH USE
Questionnaire surveys conducted to date provide a consistent picture of beach use along the
Perth Metropolitan Coast. Most visitors to the beaches are residents living within 10 to 15
minutes travel time of the beach regardless of the mode of transport. Unless there are
special circumstances, such as a surf life saving carnival or other attractions, they commonly
frequently visit the beach closest to their place of residence.
The beach going population is highly fluid, changing day-to-day and place-to-place as well as
throughout the day, with people only staying at the beach for short periods, usually less than
2 hours. This implies that the demography and recreational character of the crowd alters over
time. On some beaches, there appeared to be separate peaks for early use, followed by
mid-morning, mid-afternoon and early evening peaks. Under these circumstances, it is
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ii
hardly surprising that proposals for beach development commonly attract large numbers of
local residents. Issues of environmental change, particularly controversial issues, provide a
single focus for all local groups using the beach to come together and comment on the
proposals. The bias is real and based on a genuine ‘sense of place,’ although people from a
wider geographic area may contribute to debate on such issues.
PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE COAST
The major challenge for those involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal
environments is to understand the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to
accommodate it in planning and management projects and decision-making. However, this
can be difficult, particularly as the extreme variability of coastal change creates uncertainty,
even when detailed environmental information is available. It is important that technical
advice is sought from fully qualified and personnel experienced with the local coast when
designing and engaging in planning and management projects. The advice is necessary to
fully understand the implications of action and inaction in management, particularly those
based on insubstantial and inadequate information.
The wide range of beach landforms and processes along the Perth Metropolitan Coast
provides potential for a highly diverse pattern of beach use. A major challenge for those
involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal environments is to understand
the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to accommodate it in planning and
management projects and decision-making. Separate beach nodes are components of the
five major sediment cells and sixteen secondary cells comprising the natural resource
management units along the coast. Beach states range from the very sheltered
environments of Shoalwater Bay and Cockburn Sound to exposed ocean beaches at Secret
Harbour and Scarborough.
The benign climate of the region indicates nodes of development along the coast could be
used throughout the year. Strong sea breezes in summer offer opportunities for wind surfing
but otherwise limit potential use of exposed beaches. A second challenge for management
is to develop landscape designs that provide adequate levels of shelter on beach nodes
where it is desirable to encourage year round use of the beach and its facilities.
PEOPLE ON THE BEACHES
Patterns of beach use have been determined by the aerial surveys and questionnaires, as
well as from records collated by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. Together, the surveys
provide a substantial picture of beach use on the metropolitan coast. During morning on the
first day of survey, the time of most intense use of the coast, 9514 people were
photographed between Silver Sands and Two Rocks. This total contrasted with a maximum
of 1315 for the mid-week surveys.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT iii
The distribution of people along the coast was determined from aerial photography. First, the
results for Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon on align with expectation. Crowds were
highest at regional nodes where facilities have been provided, particularly in the central
metropolitan area between Fremantle (Bathers Beach) and Trigg. Peak use on Sunday
occurred at City Beach (am: 714 people), Cottesloe (pm: 610 people), Scarborough (am: 559
people), Pinnaroo Point (am 454 people) and Trigg (am 425 people). Substantial crowds
also were recorded for Rockingham (pm: 299 people), South Beach (am: 296 people), Secret
Harbour (am: 266 people), and Mullaloo (pm: 205 people). Data was not available for
Hillarys Boat Harbour.
Away from the central metropolitan area there are distinct nodes at Secret Harbour,
Rockingham, South Beach, Whitfords, Mullaloo and Burns Beach. Between these nodes are
tracts of coast where the levels of use were low at the time of photography.
Exceptionally large crowds with over 600 people counted in the section of beach surveyed,
indicate organised activity, such as a surf life saving carnival, at those beaches. They also
provide an indication that crowd size is generally well below the capacity of the each carrying
the crowd. However, this begs two questions: first, whether the provision of beachfront
facilities is adequate for large crowds on the beaches used; second, whether landscape
design of the beachfront at regional beaches fosters accommodation of the crowd over and
above accommodation of vehicular traffic. Bluntly, do we design principally for people or
vehicles?
Crowd estimates provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) span ten
summers from 1994/95 to 2004/2005. Base statistics are provided as monthly and annual
summaries for each of the fifteen locations patrolled by a surf life saving club. Collectively,
the beach use statistics suggest a general increase in beach use of approximately 4% per
annum over the period 1994 to 2004. Data sets from Peel and Coogee are insufficient to
describe general changes in beach use. Patrolled beaches most heavily visited are
Scarborough, Cottesloe and Mullaloo. Beach use on Scarborough and Cottesloe is variable
over the period 1994 to 2004 and does not suggest a trend. Swanbourne has experienced a
decline in beach use. Visitation has increased over the 10-year period on all other beaches,
at an approximate rate of 5-10% per annum.
A study conducted by Tourism Western Australia showed that the beaches of Perth
comprised one of top ten most important attractions in Perth (Tourism Western Australia,
2004a). Domestic visitors rated going to the beach as the fifth most important leisure activity
in Perth. International visitors rated going to the beach as the second most important leisure
activity in Perth. A time series provided by Tourism Western Australia that described
monthly variation in the number of international visitors indicated a strong seasonal variation
with visitor numbers being lowest (30,000 visitors) in June and highest in December (up to
60,000 visitors). There were significant secondary peaks in August and late February each
year. The number of international visitors for the July and August might be increased
following further market research and promotion of local coastal resources. Domestic
visitation also showed a marked seasonal pattern. However, it is significantly different from
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT iv
that for international visitors. The numbers of domestic visitors was lowest in May to June
(20,000 people) and highest between August and November (approximately 40,000 people).
Secondary peaks are apparent in August, November and February. Although the seasonal
changes remain apparent there was a marked increase in visitation by domestic visitors after
July 2003.
The characteristics of beach use also were established from questionnaire surveys, although
there was considerable variation in the size of the survey sample across the fourteen
beaches. This is largely a product of the total population in the beach precinct on the survey
dates. On Sunday, 5 March 2005, large numbers of respondents were concentrated at
Mullaloo Beach (226), Hillarys Boat Harbour (217), Cottesloe Beach (206) and Rockingham
Beach (202). These three beaches accounted for 46.7 per cent of all responses collected on
the Sunday. While the number of beach users dropped considerably on Wednesday, 9
March 2005, there were a number of beaches that received relatively high responses. The
largest numbers of survey completions were recorded at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe
Beach, Scarborough Beach and Whitfords Beach. These five beaches represented 51.1 per
cent of all responses received on the Wednesday. In terms of total use, three of the
designated regional beaches (Hillarys, Scarborough and Cottesloe) had the highest levels of
use, with Mullaloo, a district beach, also heavily used, particularly on the Sunday.
USER CATCHMENTS & ACCESS ROUTES
The data obtained from the questionnaire surveys and vehicle records indicate a strong
geographical dimension to beach use and the associated transport patterns. In summary,
the questionnaire surveys indicated that:
1. The catchment areas for most beaches are highly dispersed. However, the total number
of visitors travelling more than 10 kilometres to a beach is extremely low. Most beach
users live within 5-10 kilometres of a beach. This pattern of local use is evident on
regional, district and local beaches.
2. The most common mode of transport to the beach is the car. More than 70 per cent of
visitors arrived using this mode of transport. The next most common means of getting
to a beach was to walk, which reinforces the concentrated nature of many beach
catchments.
3. The use of public transport as a way of accessing beaches was extremely low. For most
beaches less than five per cent of visitors arrived by bus or train. The only exceptions
were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach, where the availability of public
transport resulted in more than 15 per cent of visitors arriving by train or bus.
4. Most visiting the beaches arrived on their own, or travelled with one other person.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT v
5. There is a strong distance decay function present in the travel patterns to Perth’s
beaches. More than 50 per cent of people travel no more than 15 minutes to get to the
beach. Very few people travel more than 30 minutes. This is closely linked to the size
and scope of the catchment areas, which show that a large proportion of users live
very close to the beach they were visiting on the survey dates.
These observations were confirmed by the origins of vehicles parked in beachfront car parks
in that:
1. The catchment areas for beaches that are north of Cottesloe are weighted towards
suburbs north of the Swan River.
2. For beaches other than Hillarys, Scarborough and City, the main concentration for the
catchment is the northwest coastal corridor;
3. Cottesloe Beach represents a more comparable split between northern and southern
suburbs than any other beach;
4. From South Beach to the south, the suburb representation of catchments is weighted
towards suburbs south of the Swan River;
5. Beaches from Rockingham to the south have a catchment concentration comprising the
coastal suburbs from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and the adjacent suburbs of
Baldivis, Secret Harbour and Golden Bay;
6. Weekend use is larger on all beaches than weekday use;
7. Suburbs contained in catchments that are not on the coastal strip are normally adjacent
to main arterial road networks that provide easy access to beaches.
GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE
Considerable spatial and temporal variation characterises the nature of metropolitan beach
use. High levels of use occur on Perth’s major regional beaches, Hillarys Boat Harbour,
Scarborough Beach, Cottesloe Beach, and Rockingham Beach on both weekends and
weekdays. This use is not restricted to summer, but also includes relatively high levels of
use during winter. A number of district and local beaches also experience considerable
levels of use on weekends, while weekday use tends to be more variable.
There is considerable use of alternative beaches by users. This was particularly evident in
the beaches between Cottesloe and Yanchep Lagoon. Most users visited beaches that were
relatively close to the one on which they were surveyed, suggesting that location was an
important factor shaping the choice of beach.
In summer, more than 60 per cent of respondents visited the beach weekly or more. This
high level of use was particularly evident at some of the district or local beaches. At the
same time, however, a little over 20% of users were extremely infrequent visitors, using the
beaches less than once a month. In winter, the frequency of use dropped considerably
across all beaches, although 37 per cent of users still visit weekly or more.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT vi
There were considerable variations in the temporal pattern of daily use. A number of
beaches experience an early morning crowd (6.00am – 8.00am), followed by a drop in
numbers. Often the most intense use occurs in the mid to late morning (10.00am to
12.00pm). Use of the beach in the afternoon is usually characterised by a peak around 2.00,
followed by a steady decrease in users. However, a number of beaches experience a late
afternoon rise following the end of the school and work days.
Most visitors to beaches stayed less than two hours. This trend was apparent across all
beaches, although in some cases less than one hour was the norm. This was particularly
apparent on the Wednesday survey date.
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
The survey respondents engaged in a range of activities when visiting Perth’s beaches. Not
surprisingly, the most common activity on all beaches was swimming. Other water-based
activities were also prominent on some beaches, such as snorkelling (notably at Yanchep
Lagoon and Mettams Pool), surfing (Secret Harbour), and fishing (Yanchep Lagoon and
Challenger Beach).
One of the most common activities was walking or running. On nine of the surveyed
beaches this most commonly mentioned activity. The number of respondents walking on
Peasholm Street (41.1 per cent of responses) and Whitfords Beach (36.8%), both dog
exercise areas, was particularly high.
Visiting cafes, restaurants and hotels was also common at certain beaches, particularly
Hillarys (31.3 per cent of responses), Rockingham (21.1%), Shoalwater Bay, and Cottesloe
(17.5%). Despite the presence of a considerable commercial zone at Scarborough, this
activity represented on 7.7 per cent of all responses.
As in the previous section, it was clear that location is one of the key drivers shaping the
nature of beach use. The proximity of beaches in relation to users’ place of residents was
among the main reasons for deciding to visit a particular beach. This is consistent with the
concentrated nature of user catchments and the relatively short travel times undertaken by
people using beaches (reported in section 4). The other main reason for deciding to visit
particular beaches was swimming conditions. Visiting to exercise, visit cafes, walk the dog,
and snorkel or surf were also mentioned as important, although these tended to be confined
to specific beaches where these activities were either allowed or supported by environmental
conditions or infrastructure.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT vii
ISSUES
In general, survey respondents did not suggest that there were high levels of dissatisfaction
with Perth’s beaches. The majority of people did not report problems finding a car park. This
was reflected in the distance people parked from the beach. The majority of respondents
were able to mark within 250 metres of the beach on Sunday, and less than 100 metres for
the beach on Wednesday.
The overwhelming majority of beach users (91 per cent) did not experience conflict with other
users. Where conflict did exist, it was likely to be with boat and jetski users, surfers,
recreational fishers, and dogs/dog owners.
The most common requests were for additional or upgraded facilities, toilets and change
rooms, shade and shelter, and kiosks or cafes.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT viii
CONTENTS PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... I
Objectives & Purpose............................................................................................................ i
Previous Surveys of Beach Use ........................................................................................... i
Physical Attributes of the Coast .......................................................................................... ii
People On the Beaches........................................................................................................ ii
User Catchments & Access Routes.................................................................................... iv
Geographic Variation in Beach Use..................................................................................... v
Recreational Activities ........................................................................................................ vi
Issues.................................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1. BEACH USE SURVEY: 2005 ...................................................................... 1
1.1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 2
1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Previous Studies of Beach Use................................................................................ 2
1.4. Physical Attributes of the Coast .............................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY...................................................................................... 24
2.1. Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................. 24
2.2. Aerial Surveys......................................................................................................... 28
2.3. Parked Vehicle Surveys.......................................................................................... 30
2.4. Surf Life Saving Club Records............................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 3. CROWDS AND TOURISTS....................................................................... 35
3.1. The Distribution of People along the Coast........................................................... 35
3.2. Patrolled Beaches................................................................................................... 41
3.3. Tourism and Beach Use ......................................................................................... 55
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ix
CONTENTS PAGE
CHAPTER 4. USER CATCHMENTS AND ACCESS ROUTES ....................................... 59
4.1. Catchments indicated by Vehicle Registrations.................................................... 59
4.2. Catchments Indicated by Questionnaire Surveys ................................................. 60
4.3. Catchment Areas for Each Beach .......................................................................... 61
4.4. Transport to Beach ................................................................................................. 84
4.5. Time Required to Travel to Beach.......................................................................... 89
4.6. Summary ................................................................................................................. 93
CHAPTER 5. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE............................................ 95
5.1. Usage Characteristics of Different Perth Beaches ................................................ 95
5.2. Temporal Variations in Beach Use....................................................................... 102
5.3. Summary ............................................................................................................... 122
CHAPTER 6. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES................................................................ 123
6.1. Introduction........................................................................................................... 123
6.2. Reason for Visit .................................................................................................... 123
6.3. Beach Activities .................................................................................................... 124
6.4. Summary ............................................................................................................... 124
REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 128
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 1
CHAPTER 1. BEACH USE SURVEY: 2005
In March 2005, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure commissioned a Study of
Recreational Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area, between Singleton and Two Rocks
(FIGURE 1.1). The Brief for the commission specified that the study be conducted as six
linked components undertaken as sub-consultancies to expedite its completion. Two of the
sub-components enable project coordination and report production. The other four refer to
the body of the study and include administration of:
1. A questionnaire survey of beach users;
2. An aerial survey of crowd numbers and the distribution of people on the beaches;
3. Determination of catchment areas for vehicles parked in beachside parking areas;
and
4. Collation and interpretation of crowd estimates compiled by Surf Life Saving Clubs
in the Perth Metropolitan Area during the past decade.
The study briefs are presented in Appendices 1.1 to 1.7.
The aim of the study is to provide a better understanding of existing recreational and leisure
use of Perth beaches, the adequacy of existing facilities and open space, and an estimate of
future demands. Its purpose is to provide better and up-to-date data on which planning and
management decisions can be confidently based for lands within and adjacent to Perth’s
coastal reserves.
FIGURE 1.1 The Perth Metropolitan Coast
The Study Area extends from Singleton to Two Rocks
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Area has grown considerably during the past two decades, both in extent
and population. The population was 1,110,500 in 1988 and 1,341,900 in 1998 - an average
annual growth rate of over 23,000 or about 2% per annum. In 2002 the population of the
Perth metropolitan area was 1,411,618 and is expected to grow to 2.2 million by
2031(Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004). Changes in lifestyle, community
expectations and settlement patterns have also occurred in the last decade.
As the expansion has taken place the coast has come under increasing pressure. This is a
result of greater access to a longer reach of coast and apparently higher levels of usage,
particularly during summer holiday periods. Additionally, implementation of a range of
development proposals is likely to affect usage patterns. Planning setbacks, access and
facilities for the coastal reserve must therefore take into account factors such as the
biophysical character of the coast being used, types of use, user catchments, conflict
between uses and parking and access requirements by the beach going community.
1.2. OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the study are to:
1 Describe and analyse the spatial and temporal distribution of beach users along the study
area, under favourable conditions;
2 Establish the locational origins of people using selected representative beach nodes;
3 Establish the relative importance of different sections of the study area for recreational
and leisure purposes, as measured under favourable conditions.
4 Identify the major types of beach use activities and their spatial and temporal distribution
within the study area both across beaches and within individual selected representative
beach nodes.
5 Establish the adequacy of existing open space provision as well as parking facilities and
access arrangements.
6 Estimate future beach use growth and demand patterns, classifying sectors along the
study area according to capacity to deal with current and expected demand.
1.3. PREVIOUS STUDIES OF BEACH USE
Existing studies of beach use on the Perth metropolitan coast include ground surveys of
small sections of coastline, aerial surveys of crowd distribution and questionnaire surveys of
residents living close to particular beaches.
First, ground surveys focus on recreational activities and temporal variation in the intensity of
those activities (Keating, 1983; City of Stirling, 1984; Eliot et al., 1986; Houghton, 1988).
They establish temporal changes in beach use over a limited time span, usually one or two
days selected to illustrate particular conditions under which beaches are used.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 3
Second, the aerial surveys of Houghton (1988), Coastwise (2000), Houghton et al. (2003)
and Blackweir and Beckley (2004) establish broad spatial patterns of use for long stretches
of coast. Commonly, these provide a ‘snapshot’ of beach use, although Blackweir and
Beckley (2004) developed a summer time series of 3 months with daily photography from a
shark patrol aircraft that flew along the metropolitan coast. Their record adds detail to the
crowd estimates made at beaches patrolled by members of Surf Life Saving Western
Australia on the days of patrol, a record that now extends over a decade for some beaches.
Third, use of particular beaches and attitudes to beach use by local residents has been
investigated through questionnaires of people respectively living close to Cottesloe (Keating
1983a,b), Swanbourne (Clarke 1982), Scarborough (City of Stirling 1984) and between Trigg
and Sorrento (Flanigan 1988; Keating 1983b).
1.3.1. Ground Surveys
In the early 1970’s, some of Perth’s more popular beaches began to attract increasing
numbers of visitors, most of whom apparently arrived by car. Several issues of immediate
concern to local government authorities were the impact of increasing numbers of people on
the physical environment, traffic flows, parking problems ad the availability of facilities.
Initially, attention focussed on the Scarborough beachfront (Silvester & Webb, 1973) but it
soon became apparent that a more comprehensive approach to coastal management was
needed and that this might, in part, be based on surveys of beach use and determination of
user attitudes and requirements.
In 1981, the Stirling City Council co-ordinated a questionnaire survey of nearly 750 beach
users at six locations between Scarborough and Sorrento on Saturday 7 February and
Sunday 15 February 1981 (City of Stirling, 1984). The information gathered included the age
and sex of people on the beach, frequency of visit, place of residence, node of travel and
satisfaction with existing facilities. The survey results indicated 78 per cent of those
interviewed visited the beach at least once a week (21 per cent visiting daily); less than 25
per cent gave geographical proximity as the major reason for visiting a particular beach; and
80 per cent arrived by car.
The Stirling City Council survey also found some interesting differences between the
recreational activities carried out on the broad sandy beaches between Scarborough and
Trigg Island and those on the smaller sheltered beaches further north. On this basis, a
Concept Plan proposed aimed to encourage further differentiation of recreational activities
through the provision of appropriate facilities. Under this strategy, the bay beaches would
cater for passive recreational activities and family groups, while the more open beaches
would ‘continue to cater for the younger age groups involved in more active recreational
pursuits….’ (City of Stirling, 1984:135).
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4
Surveys by Eliot et al. (1986) focused on both spatial and temporal patterns of recreational
activity between Trigg Island and Ocean Reef in the mid 1980s. By observing rather than
interviewing people engaged in recreational activities, the survey’s aim was to establish what
activities were undertaken at what time and by how many people’ (Eliot et al., 1986: 67).
Fieldwork was undertaken on Wednesday 6 March and Sunday 10 March 1986. The section
of coast surveyed was divided into 11 sections. Recreational activities observed were
grouped under five main headings based upon where they were carried out: in the water; on
the reef; on the beach; on the headland; and on the reserve. A wide range of activities was
observed. These were later related to the physical characteristics of each section of the
coast. The data collected also revealed marked hourly variations in beach use with
maximum numbers of people present at 10.30 on Sunday 10 March.
The third study in this area was part of a wider investigation into beach use in the Perth
Metropolitan Area (Houghton, 1988). Like the surveys of Eliot et al. (1986), it relied on direct
observation rather than on questionnaire interviews and took place over several weeks in
March 1988. The results revealed a complex pattern of spatial behaviour in which the
numbers of visitors varied greatly according to the time of day. Different age-groups were
found to use different sections of the coastline and a significant amount of midweek activity
was observed to take place early in the morning. The same study also examined the travel
patterns of beach users in the metropolitan area. A sample of motor vehicle registration
number plates was obtained from car parks at eight major metropolitan beaches (Mullaloo,
Sorrento, Trigg, Scarborough, City Beach, North Swanbourne, Cottesloe and Leighton).
With the co-operation of the Police Department, the place of origin of these vehicles was
then established at the level of the individual Postcode. Rather than having well defined
catchment areas, most major beaches in Perth were found to attract visitors from suburbs
throughout the metropolitan area (Houghton, 1988). A statistical analysis of travel distances
to the beach was also carried out, using the same data (Houghton, 1989).
The survey of Houghton (1988) was repeated in March 2000 by Houghton et al. (2003),
although with greater focus on Port and Leighton beaches. In a study to establish a
methodology for collection and analysis of beach use information, Houghton et al. (2003),
estimated crowd size during the morning and afternoon on 20 beaches in the Perth
Metropolitan area.
1.3.2. Aerial Surveys
Four aerial surveys of beach use in the metropolitan area have been carried out in the last
twenty years. The first was undertaken by the Department of Conservation and Environment
to provide background information to the proposed M10 Marine Park Study (Eliot et al.,
1986). It used standard photogrammetric aerial survey techniques and covered only a short
strip of coastline between Trigg Island and Ocean Reef on 3 March 1985.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 5
The second survey was part of the 1988 study of beach use by Houghton (1988). Its object
was to determine the distribution of visitors along a much larger section of the metropolitan
coastline during a period of intensive recreational activity. The survey commenced at 1130
hours on Sunday 7 February and covered approximately 28 kilometres of the coastline
between Mullaloo and Fremantle. Hand held cameras were used to capture information on
35mm film, using a fixed-wing aircraft flying at approximately 100 metres just off the coast. A
second flight commencing at 1500 hours on the same day provided additional information on
some of Perth’s more popular beaches.
A further survey of this type was undertaken in 7 February 1999 when a Perth planning
consultant photographed the entire metropolitan coastline from a height of approximately 300
metres. The results were subsequently prepared for the Western Australian Planning
Commission in two volumes (Coastwise, 2000). Volume 1 contains detailed information on
the distribution of people and motor vehicles in tabulated form, while Volume 2 contains a set
of 325 oblique aerial photographs covering all beaches between Two Rocks, near Yanchep,
and Singleton in the south. While the report provides little in the way of interpretation it forms
a useful basis for future comparative research.
1.3.3. Local Attitudinal Surveys
Several attitudinal surveys have been completed. These include the studies of Clarke (1982),
Keating (1983a;b) and Flanigan (1988). Through surveys of people living close to the beach
Clarke (1982) examined sociological aspects of beach use at North Swanbourne as part of
an academic study of nudism in Australia. He observed that the overwhelming majority of
beach users at Swanbourne were ‘regulars’; approximately 80 per cent of respondents
claimed to visit at least once a week in summer; and opposition from local residents to
development of a nudist beach played an important part in creating a strong sense of
‘community’ not found at other beaches in the metropolitan area. Similar concentration of
‘community’ attitude has since been expressed where more recent development proposals
have been opposed by ‘local’ residents using beaches at Leighton, South Beach, Coogee
and Scarborough.
Keating determined recreational patterns along the Cottesloe Coast (Keating, 1983a) and
examined use of the beaches by people living between Trigg and Sorrento (Keating 1983b).
Through a small-scale survey of local residents (Keating, 1983b) found 0.75 kilometres to be
the critical distance beyond which few people were prepared to walk to the beach. She
noted that most people walk less than 500 metres to reach the beach. Her results indicate a
pedestrian travel time of less than 10 to 15 minutes. Flanigan (1988) examined disparities
between attitudes of an interest group and those of the broader local community to
redevelopment of Trigg beachfront in 1988. Results from his questionnaire survey
differentiated between highly localised issues and those of the wider residential community at
Trigg.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 6
1.3.4. An Overview
Questionnaire surveys conducted to date provide a consistent picture of beach use along the
Perth Metropolitan Coast. Most visitors to the beaches are residents living within 10 to 15
minutes travel time of the beach regardless of the mode of transport. Unless there are
special circumstances, such as a surf life saving carnival or other attractions, they commonly
frequently visit the beach closest to their place of residence.
Results from the questionnaires are supported by surveys of vehicles parked in beachfront
car parks. Unsurprisingly, there is a close correlation between the number of vehicles and
the number of people at any beach. Again, the catchment from which vehicles are drawn is
close to the beach at which the car is parked. Although some people are prepared to travel
over 10 km to reach their beach destination, beach use in the Perth Metropolitan Area is
highly localised and closely tied to the nearby residential areas.
The beach going population is highly fluid, changing day-to-day and place-to-place as well as
throughout the day, with people only staying at the beach for short periods, usually less than
2 hours. This implies that the demography and recreational character of the crowd alters over
time, as was described for beaches between Trigg and Sorrento. On some beaches, there
appear to be separate peaks for early use, followed by mid-morning, mid-afternoon and early
evening peaks. Each peak may meet a different recreational niche with the early morning
group exercising or board riding. The mid-morning peak commonly includes surfers and
bathers. The sea breeze conditions of the mid-afternoon attract windsurfers, and the early
evening group is frequently there for exercise and the sunset.
Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that proposals for beach development
commonly attract large numbers of local residents. Issues of environmental change,
particularly controversial issues, provide a single focus for all groups using the beach to
come together and comment on the proposals. The bias is real and based on a genuine
‘sense of place’ although people from a wider geographic area may contribute to debate.
1.4. PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE COAST
Coastal environments are highly dynamic and complex. They are subject to continuous and
extensive change in response to variations in weather, wave and sea-level conditions (Allen
et al., 2003). The nature of this change is dependent on the way the coastal processes
interact locally with the diversity of geology, landforms and sediments in a coastal area. At
the time of writing, no single descriptive or numerical model describes all modes of coastal
variability observable on the Perth Metropolitan Coast, particularly the variability of the
beachface in response to short term change in climate and associated changes in sea level.
The need to recognise the severe limitations of existing models, developed in environments
other than the Perth Metropolitan Coast, and problems devolving from their application are
well known from the areas where they were developed (Bruun 1962, 1983; Thieler et al.,
2000). However, the limitations of the models seldom are fully acknowledged in their
application to the coastal environments of Western Australia.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 7
The major challenge for those involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal
environments is to understand the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to
accommodate it in planning and management projects and decision-making. However, this
can be difficult, particularly as the extreme variability of coastal change creates uncertainty,
even when detailed environmental information is available (Camfield and Morang, 1996;
Galgano et al., 1998). It is important that technical advice is sought from fully qualified and
personnel experienced with the local coast when designing and engaging in planning and
management projects. The advice is necessary to fully understand the implications of action
and inaction in management, particularly those based on insubstantial and inadequate
information.
Coastal change in Southwestern Australia, as elsewhere in the world, is essentially
kaleidoscopic. Adjacent parts of the coast may display vastly disparate responses to climatic
and oceanographic processes at the same time, and over different spatial scales, with one
part of the coast undergoing severe erosion, the other rapid accretion and both likely to
switch state. This diversity is best understood in a geological framework through which the
physical structure of the continental shelf, particularly the inner part of the shelf close to
shore, provides primary control of waves, currents and sediment movement. In this respect
the geology of the coast sets the boundary conditions for landform development and hence
provides a structure for natural resource management of the coast and inshore waters.
1.4.1. The Geological Framework
The geology of the Perth Metropolitan Coast, between Mandurah and Two Rocks is known
from the work of Clarke (1926), Carrigy and Fairbridge (1954), Veevers (1974), Playford et
al. (1976), Playford and Leech (1977), Collins (1988), Searle and Logan (1979), Searle and
Semeniuk (1985), Searle et al. (1988), Semeniuk and Searle (1986), Harris et al. (1991), and
James et al. (1999). The essential features of the continental shelf include northern and
southern components separated by the Rottnest Canyon; inner and outer shelf platforms;
and a complex array of Pleistocene remnants outcropping as islands and calcarenite
limestone ridges on the inner continental shelf. The limestone has been described by
Playford (1988). The shelf is approximately 50 km wide off Fremantle, from the shore to the
200m isobath. The nearshore waters of the inner shelf, particularly those less than 30m deep
are of particular interest for coastal management. This is the zone in which waves shoal and
break and the character of the shore is established. It is also the zone of highest biological
productivity and diversity. Approximately along the 30 m isobath, the boundary between the
nearshore waters to the inner continental shelf plain curves in a concave arc to seaward. It
extends near parallel to the coast offshore from Mandurah to Garden Island then arcs
offshore to Rottnest. North of Rottnest the 30m isobath has a parabolic shape, with the
Rottnest Canyon in the southern hook of the parabola. It becomes near parallel to the coast
north of Mullaloo.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 8
Overall, the structure of the inner continental shelf and nearshore waters implies that its
northern and southern coasts are essentially separate systems and are likely to respond to
climatic and oceanographic processes in markedly different ways. South of Fremantle the
waters of the nearshore waters are directly exposed to waves from the southwest quadrant.
This contrasts nearshore waters north of Fremantle where the Rottnest Island platform
provides shelter. The disparities are apparent in the work of Collins (1998) south of Rottnest
compared with that of James et al. (1999) to the north. The contrast is sharpened through
comparison of wave records obtained in deep water off Rottnest and in shallower water off
Cottesloe. Wave energy is markedly attenuated by refraction and shoaling in the northern
region (Steedman and Craig 1983; Lemm et al. 1999).
The distinction between the two regions is further compounded by geological structures close
to shore. These structures include complex chains of calcarenite ridges outcropping as reefs
and islands along the coast. They have been described by Fairbridge (1955), Searle and
Semeniuk, 1985; and Semeniuk and Johnston 1982).
1.4.2. Major Sediment Cells
Patterns of sediment movement affecting the shore are overlain on, and interact with, the
geologic framework. From a coastal planning and management perspective, the patterns
may usefully be considered conceptually in terms of sediment budgets operating in different
spatial domains (FIGURE 1.2). The domains are described as sediment cells (Inman and
Frautschy, 1966; Komar, 1996, 1998) in which sediment sources, transport pathways and
sinks are identified and the volume of material in each component estimated (USACE, 2001).
On the Perth Metropolitan Coast sediment sources include areas of erosion in the nearshore
waters and along the shore, as well as sediment production on seagrass banks and rock
platforms. The transport pathways are areas of active sediment movement such as occur in
deep water along the seaward margins of the calcarenite limestone ridges and in the shallow
nearshore and foreshore zones of sandy beaches. Little is known about sediment movement
in water deeper than 20m seaward of the calcarenite ridges. Sediment sinks are places
where sediment is lost from the cell as a result of being moved into deep water, locked into
vegetated sand banks, or blown landward into coastal dunes. The Holocene dunes of the
coast, those formed in the past 10,000 years, are major onshore sinks. Sediment locked into
sand banks and dunes may be subsequently reincorporated in the working budget due to
changed environmental conditions and erosion of those landforms.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 9
FIGURE 1.2 Components of a coastal sediment budget
(WAPC, 2003: after Komar, 1998)
Arguably, because more detailed investigation of the budgetary cells remains to be
undertaken, there are five major sediment cells between Mandurah and Two Rocks with
variable amounts of leakage of sediment between them. Here they are referred to as the
Mandurah, Cockburn, City, and Whitfords and Yanchep cells. They comprise the natural
management sectors of the coast (TABLE 1.1).
The Mandurah cell approximately extends northwards from Halls Head, along the calcarenite
ridges and exposed western shore of Garden Island into offshore waters. The Cockburn cell
is essentially confined to the sheltered basin environment of Cockburn Sound from Point
Peron along the eastern shores of the Sound to Fremantle. Historically the Cockburn and
City cells were connected by sediment bypassing the mouth of the Swan River. However,
construction of Fremantle Harbour and other facilities in the northern part of Cockburn Sound
now restrict the exchange. North of Fremantle, the City cell extends from North Fremantle to
Mullaloo Point. Ocean Reef Cell extends from Mullaloo Point to Two Rocks and beyond.
The principal sediment sinks for the Mandurah cell include extensive sand banks near
Becher Point and Safety Bay; the Southern Flats bank at the entrance to Cockburn Sound,
Parmelia and Success Banks of Cockburn Sound; and shoals between Carnac and Rottnest
Islands. They also include cuspate forelands and tombolos comprising Becher Point, Mersey
Point and Point Peron, as well as the Quindalup dunes of Secret Harbour, Warnbro and
Garden Island described by McArthur and Bartle (1980). Further north, the major sediment
sinks of the City and Ocean Reef Cell includes the large parabolic dunes, particularly the
nested dune blowouts at City Beach, Scarborough and Trigg, as well as cuspate forelands at
Pinnaroo Point and Quinns Rocks.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 10
1.4.3. Secondary Sediment Cells
Geological structures forming the four major sediment cells, particularly the limestone ridges
of the inner continental shelf, form discrete basins in which smaller sediment cells exist.
They are distinguishable by their landforms as well as the principal sediment transport
pathways, particularly the patterns of littoral drift along the beaches. Four smaller coastal
cells comprise the Mandurah Cell: Golden Bay, Warnbro Sound, Shoalwater Bay and
Garden Island West. The Cockburn Cell also has four: Garden Island East, Rockingham,
Naval Base and Coogee. A further four secondary cells are apparent in the City Cell:
Leighton, Floreat, Scarborough and North Beach. Secondary cells become more difficult to
discern in the Ocean Reef Cell. However, five are suggested for further consideration:
Mullaloo, Mindarie, Jindalee, Yanchep and Two Rocks.
Although the record is brief and in need of updating, secondary sediment cells of the major
City Cell are apparent in the variability of the shoreline along the coast from Rous Head to
Trigg (FIGURE 1.3) reported by Bowyer (1987). Zones of maximum variability occur at the
beach ends near Rous Head and Trigg; adjacent to rock outcrops, including Mudarup Rocks
near Cottesloe; next to the groynes at City Beach; as well as in association with wave
refraction patterns and offshore reefs between Scarborough and Trigg. These changes
should be interpreted in the context of long-term, net change in the shoreline position as a
basis for management decisions. The pattern of net change along the shore indicates a
tendency for the coast to have become increasingly embaymentised over the period of
observation, with the central part subject to erosion and accretion occurring at the beach
ends. Port facilities have been extended at Rous Head since completion of the study by
Bowyer (1987). Port Beach has undergone severe erosion with extreme variations in
shoreline position superimposed on a shore adjusting to the engineered changes, and the
locus of deposition appears to have moved slightly north to Leighton. The wider
ramifications of these changes are open to question. However they serve to indicate
potential value in coastal monitoring and sediment budget analysis.
Clear distinctions need to be made at a variety of temporal and spatial scales between those
parts of the coast that are eroding (source areas), functioning as transport pathways, and
accreting (sink areas). Potentially, erosion threatens structures built close to the shore;
disruption of transport pathways leads to changes in the patterns of erosion and accretion;
and accretion produces problems related to sand drift. Respectively, these are demonstrable
by circumstances at Port Beach, City Beach and Trigg, or through past circumstances at
Mandurah, Silver Sands and Secret Harbour. In each of the budgetary domains, further
distinction should be made between long-term trends, short-term fluctuations and irregular
but extreme events indicated by historical movement of the shoreline. This demands a
focussed monitoring program and the maintenance of long-term records for comparative
purposes. It is given further relevance by a rise in sea level forecast to occur as a result of
projected change in climate (IPCC 2001a, 2001b; Klein & Nicholls 1998; Klein et al. 2001).
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 11
1.4.4. Beach Setting: Climate, Oceanography & Landforms
Temperature, humidity and wind conditions all affect use of a beach by imposing boundary
conditions on particular forms of recreation. For example strong sea breezes are conducive
to wind surfing; high swell and offshore winds to board riding; and calm, hot, humid days to a
wide range of shore based activities. Since the metropolitan beaches vary significantly in
terms of their aspect and exposure to weather and oceanographic conditions, a problem is to
determine climatological and physical factors limiting and facilitating particular uses of
specific beaches along the Perth metropolitan coast. Planning and management of the coast
might then be directed to foster the opportunities offered by each set of circumstances.
Climate
The meteorological station at Fremantle is centrally located in the Perth Metropolitan Coast.
Observations from the meteorological station have been reported by the Bureau of
Meteorology (1989) and are summarised here. The metropolitan coast enjoys a very benign
climate. Climatic conditions described below indicate that it is a very comfortable living
environment characterised by mild winters and hot dry summers, typical of a Mediterranean
type climate (Gentilli, 1971). The average monthly maximum temperature recorded in
Fremantle ranges from 19.3oC in July to 30.8oC in February. The coldest month of the year
is August, with a mean maximum temperature of 19.3oC and a mean minimum of 9.3oC.
Rainfall is 564 mm per year, on average, with major falls occurring between May and August.
The climate supports outdoor recreational activities for the greater part of the year, on all but
a few rainy days or days with strong winds. The most comfortable periods of the year occur
in spring and autumn when the temperatures are moderate and wind velocities are generally
low. However, warmer temperatures make the coast an attractive recreational environment
for people, particularly during the hot summer months.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 12
TABLE 1.1 Coastal Sectors, Major Sediment Cells and Sandy Beach Morphology
COASTAL SECTOR MAJOR SEDIMENT CELL SECONDARY SEDIMENT CELLS SANDY BEACHES
South Mandurah Golden Bay:Silver Sands (Mandurah) to BecherPoint
Wave dominated beaches extend from Silver Sands to SecretHarbour: This area is important for surfing.Sheltered beaches occur on the southern side of the BecherPoint tombolo.
Warnbro Sound:Beacher Point to Mersey Point
Sheltered beaches are common around the sound, being mostsheltered near Bridport Point and Safety Bay. The beaches areflanked by a subtidal terrace.
Shoalwater Bay:Mersey Point to Point Peron
Sheltered beaches occur in Shoalwater Bay with tombolos atMersey Point & Point Peron. A cuspate foreland comprises thecentral part of Shoalwater Bay
Garden Island WestPoint Peron to Rottnest Island
West Garden Island has small, steep, wave-dominated sandybeaches form in embayments between outcrops.
Central South Cockburn Garden Island East:Eastern Shores of Garden Island
Very sheltered beaches and occasional rock outcrops occuralong the Eastern Shores of Garden Island
Rockingham:Point Peron to Woodman Point
Beaches are very sheltered in Mangles Bay. Although sheltered,they become more exposed with distance NE to Kwinana Beach,after which engineered structures affect beach configuration.
Coogee:Woodman Point to James Rocks
Woodman Point is a tombolo in sheltered location. Beaches arevery sheltered on the north side of the tombolo and becomemoderately sheltered with distance north to James Rocks
Fremantle:James Rocks to Bathers Bay
Engineered beaches between groynes. Beaches are commonlywave dominated with a reflective morphology.
Central City Leighton:Rous Head (Sand Tracks) to NorthLeighton
Wave dominated sandy beaches with bars and rips. Morphologyvaries from reflective to transitional state with changes in thewave regime. Rock platforms underlie much of the beach northof the Vlamingh Memorial.
FloreatNorth Leighton to Hale RoadBeach
Between north Leighton and south City Beach the shore isunderlain by limestone. From south City Beach to Hale Road itis wave dominated and the beach is commonly in a reflectivestate with wide berm, steep beachface and planar inshoremorphology.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 13
TABLE 1.1 Coastal Sectors, Major Sediment Cells and Sandy Beach Morphology (continued)
Scarborough:Hale Road Beach to Trigg
Exposed, wave dominated beach. The morphology changesfrom a mainly reflective at North Cottesloe to a transitional statewith transverse bars and rips at Scarborough and Trigg.
North Beach:Trigg to Hillarys Boat Harbour
Small sandy beaches, many of which are underlain by limestoneramps, alternate with rocky headlands between Trigg andHillarys Boat Harbour. The shore becomes increasinglysheltered with distance north. Beach morphology is commonlyindicative of wave reflection.
Central North Whitfords Mullaloo:Hillarys Beach to Ocean Reef
The shore is sheltered by offshore reefs north of Hillarys Boatharbour and the beach morphology is commonly indicative of thetransitional state between sheltered and wave dominatedenvironments. A cuspate foreland at Pinnaroo Point provides achange in beach aspect.
Burns Beach:Ocean Reef Boat Harbour toMindarie Keys
South of Burns Beach the shore becomes rocky with small sandybeaches, some perched, in embayments. North of Burns Beachis a long sandy beach. It is reflective in form and the bermwidens with distance north. The beach ends at a rock outcrop atMindarie.
North Yanchep Alkimos:Mindarie Keys to Two Rocks
A long sandy beach extends north from Mindarie. It rounds acuspate foreland at Quinns Rocks, where it changes aspect. Thebeach is reflective, broken by groynes and affected by littoral driftnorthwards.
Two Rocks:North of Two Rocks
The long sandy beach continues northwards to the next rockoutcrop at Yanchep. The shoreline includes a number of low-amplitude forelands, and the form of the beach varies fromsheltered to wave dominated as the aspect changes.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 14
FIGURE 1.3 The mean shape of the shoreline, variability of the shoreline position
and net change in its location with distance along the coast from
Rous Head to Trigg Island from 1956 to 1985 (From Bowyer, 1987).
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 15
Winds in the region are related to several weather systems (Gentilli, 1971; Laughlin, 1997).
The major systems include the prevailing anticyclones, dominant mid-latitude depressions,
and infrequent, but intense tropical cyclones. Mid-latitude depressions are the major storm
systems. They have associated maximum wind speeds in excess of 100 kph and affect the
coast directly as well as through the generation of swell. Localised sea breezes blow on
approximately 60% of days per year. The sea breezes are strong, by global standards,
frequently attaining wind speeds of over 40 km/hr. Indeed, Southwestern Australia is on the
global windsurfing circuit because of the reliability and strength of its sea breeze. On the
metropolitan coast they are capable of generating seas of up to 1.0 m, longshore currents in
excess of 2.5 m/sec, and are responsible for a very significant volume of sediment transport
on the dry beach surface (Pattiaratchi et al., 1996; Masselink et al., 1997). Overall, the
prevailing (most frequent) winds of the area are south to southwesterly, while the dominant
(strongest) winds are westerly to north westerly. The prevailing winds directly influence the
direction of net littoral drift along the shoreline as well as the direction of dune migration. In
contrast to this, the dominant westerly and northwesterly winds may produce a reversal in
littoral transport that locally balances the prevailing alongshore drift.
The coast experiences a dominant winter rainfall pattern, with approximately 103 rain days
per year. Approximately 70% of the annual rainfall occurs between May and August. Rain
occurs only occasionally during the summer months. Evaporation rates are high during
summer with the mean daily evaporation rate for December to February varying from 10.0 to
11.1 mm per day. Such a high evaporation rate coupled with a low summer rainfall and hot
weather means that there is no effective rainfall during summer. In turn, this creates a
seasonal drought lasting approximately 4 months. Humidity is moderate from January to
March, the months recording the highest temperatures but is well within the limits to comfort
identified by Laughlin (1997).
Oceanography
The Perth metropolitan coast is in a mixed, mainly diurnal tidal regime with a spring tidal
range (MLLW to MHHW) of approximately 0.5 m (Department of Defence, 1999), which
identifies the coast as a microtidal environment following the nomenclature of Davies (1980).
The small tides of the region are commonly equalled or exceeded by the local wave regime
as well as by water level ranging associated with non-tidal fluctuations in sea level, such as
storm surge, at similar time scales. As a result, beaches in sheltered environments,
including those in Shoalwater Bay, southern Cockburn Sound, Hillarys Marina and the
northern sediment cells, are dominated by tides and non-tidal ranging of sea level rather than
by wave action.
The offshore wave climate is dominated by a persistent south-to-south westerly swell in a low
to moderate energy wave regime. The mean annual deepwater wave height is 2 to 3 m, with
a period of 10 to 14 seconds (Lemm et al., 1999). Superimposed on the deepwater swell
regime are waves generated locally by sea breezes, mid-latitude depressions and infrequent
tropical cyclones.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 16
Beach Morphology
In terms of their dynamics, several types of beaches are found along the Perth metropolitan
coast. The principal groups are wave dominated sandy beaches similar to those described
by Short and Wright (1984) from the coast of NSW; sandy beaches sheltered from the direct
effects of swell by their aspect or protected by offshore structures such as islands and reefs
(Hegge et al. 1996; Travers 2005a); and perched beaches with sand shallowly overlying rock
(Semeniuk and Johnston, 1982). The classifications provide an indication of the susceptibility
of beaches to change with short-term variation in the local wave regime and the extent of
frontal dune development. Hence they have important ramifications for coastal planning and
management.
Research into the principal characteristics of wave dominated beaches in the Perth
metropolitan area has been reported by Masselink and Pattiaratchi (1998) from the high-
energy coast between Fremantle and Trigg. The range of categories identified for such
open-ocean beaches is illustrated in FIGURE 1.4. The categories describe the state of beach
morphology and dynamics for specific times or a statistical condition; for example a particular
beach may display all the attributes of an energy dissipative system during a storm event,
whereas its modal state is energy reflective.
Classifications such as that above do not fully describe beach state along the metropolitan
coast (Hegge, 1994; Velardo, 1998). These low-wave environments are sheltered by their
aspect and structurally protected by multiple chains of offshore reefs and islands. Here the
term low-energy refers to shores subject to annual modal wave heights of less than 50 cm
and commonly less than 25 cm. The sheltered low-energy shores south of Fremantle and
north of Sorrento have not been examined in any detail. Hegge et al. (1996), and Velardo
(1998) reported preliminary descriptions of low-energy beach types; and Jackson et al.
(2002) reviewed the suite of features characterising them. Most recently Travers (2005a,
2005b) has confirmed the beach morphotypes and their distribution in Cockburn Sound
(FIGURE 1.5). The low-energy beaches respond differently to extreme events than sandy
beaches in wave dominated environments (Nordstrom 1992; Slarke 1998; Travers 2005b).
Hence it is highly unlikely that their behaviour can be adequately projected from existing
numerical models.
Perched beaches (FIGURE 1.6), for example Swanbourne and North Beach, provide another
level of complexity, especially in the modelling of environmental change. Semeniuk and
Johnston (1982) described their general stratigraphy. However, little appears to be known
about the dynamics of such beaches, and consideration of them in numerical modelling of
projected shoreline change is currently only feasible at a very local level. Arguably, perched
beaches may be more responsive to changes in water level and fluctuation in the wave
regime than are sandy beaches in similar environments since they must affect groundwater
conditions in the beach. Intuitively, if a storm event has a capacity to move a fixed volume of
sediment it will cut further landward on a perched beach than on a nearby sandy beach.
Additionally, the underlying rock formation may produce edge effects, similar to a groyne or
breakwater, including destabilisation of foredunes as has occurred at Trigg. Further work is
required to ascertain the geography, morphology and dynamics of these beaches.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 17
(A) WAVE DISSIPATIVE BEACH STATE
High wave conditions at Floreat Beach.
Waves dissipate energy over a wide surf
zone for this beach. They break on a long
straight bar that is separated from the shore
by a deep trough.
This is not the highest energy form of Perth
beaches since higher waves breaking on
multiple lines of bars may be observed at
Secret Harbour and Scarborough under
extreme conditions in late winter.
(B) TRANSITIONAL BEACH STATE
This aerial view looking south over Trigg
Beach shows a transitional beach
morphology typical of spring conditions
between the extreme states under high
energy in winter and low energy in summer.
The shoreline is rhythmic (undulating),
multiple lines of surf are present with waves
breaking over bars. Rip current activity is
apparent as gaps between the bars and as
lines of turbid water extending seaward of
the breakers.
(C) WAVE REFLECTIVE BEACH STATE
Beach cusps at South Sorrento in a
photograph taken from Indian Ocean Drive.
This is a common state of Perth beaches
and is the low energy state of beaches on
the open ocean coast elsewhere.
Waves break at the shore and tend to be
reflected back off a steep beach into deep
water. The shoreline is scalloped by cusps.
Here, small rips have formed and are
apparent as turbid (dirty) water off the cusp
embayments.
FIGURE 1.4 Beach types observed on wave dominated beaches of the open coast.
Down page: The photographs show wave dissipative, transitional and
reflective states. (Terminology follows Short 1996)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 18
(A) ROUNDED BEACH STATE
Rounded beaches commonly are the high
energy forms of sheltered environments.
They intergrade with the reflective beach
states of the open ocean coast, differing
mainly in the mode of sediment exchange
between the beach and inshore waters and
the presence of a narrow sub-tidal terrace.
Rounded beaches display long lines of
wrack (seaweed and other flotsam) and
swash bars on the beach face. Often a
marked step separates the beachface from
the inshore terrace.
(B) SEGMENTED BEACH STATE
Segmented beaches, such as that shown
from Point Walter in the Swan River, have a
steep beach adjoining a low-gradient, sub-
tidal terrace in the inshore waters.
Waves may be reflected from the beach
during high wave conditions for such
beaches. However, their form may be due to
either differences in sediment size between
the upper and lower beach, longshore
currents, or a combination of these.
(C) FLAT BEACH STATE
View looking north along a flat beach in
Careening Bay on Garden.
Multiple lines of are apparent as parallel
lines of wrack along this low amplitude
beach. The lines of wrack are left by
successive high water and tidal conditions.
Very low waves shoal and are dissipated
over a broad, shallow sub-tidal terrace
adjoining the shore
FIGURE 1.5 Beach types observed on sheltered beaches of the Perth Metropolitan
Area. The beaches maintain form through changes in wave
conditions from low to high energy states. (Terminology follows
Travers 2005)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 19
FIGURE 1.6 A perched beach: Watermans Bay
The photograph, taken in July 2005, shows overlying a Tamala Limestone
ramp that is exposed on the lower beachface.
1.4.5. Other Modes of Beach Formation
Complex patterns of wave refraction and diffraction caused by geologic structures affect
beach development and give rise to a suite of sedimentary landforms apparent in the plan
shape of the coast of southwestern Australia, including the metropolitan coast (Searle et al.,
1988; Sanderson and Eliot, 1996; Sanderson et al., 2000). These include tombolos and
cuspate forelands (FIGURE 1.7). They are ephemeral in a geologic context and commonly
subject to high levels of shoreline variability at a wide range of scales. The larger forms,
including Becher Point, Mersey Point, Point Peron, Woodman Point, Pinnaroo Point and
Quinns Rocks, are associated with substantial change in coastal orientation. In some
instances, such as at Quinns Rocks, the shelter afforded by the north facing coast of the
landforms has attracted development close to the shore and resulted in problems due to
shoreline movement.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 20
Silvester (1974) and Hsu (2004) explored the engineering applications of coastal
geomorphology, particularly the formation of cuspate forelands and tombolos. From their
research they developed a model projecting change in shoreline shape likely to result from
the installation of shore stabilisation structures. Initial testing of some of their ideas resulted
in the successful installation of offshore breakwaters at James Point (FIGURE 1.7c) and
Quinns Rocks. Application of the model has been described from elsewhere by Klein et al.
(2003). It is model one, amongst several, that has potential for further application to parts of
the metropolitan coast.
The second group of structurally controlled beach landforms is associated with groynes and
breakwaters (FIGURE 1.7). The role of groynes and breakwaters in shore stabilisation is
well known and has been widely discussed in the literature; for example see reviews by
Silvester (1974), Silvester and Hsu (1993) and Klaus and Rankin (2004). A distinction must
be made here between properly engineered structures and rubble walls. The former are
designed to accommodate coastal change, including changes they introduce to the local
sediment budget. The latter, such as that on the southern end of Port Beach, are expedient
measures. They are subject to failure and incur high restoration and maintenance costs.
They also present a real hazard to beach users due to their inherent instability. Hence, it is
imperative that professional engineering advice be sort prior to the construction of shore
stabilisation works.
Groundwater discharge along the coast is another factor affecting beach formation. It is
significant in two respects. First, high groundwater conditions are conducive to beach erosion
(Clarke and Eliot, 1987). In this respect, interaction between the state of the superficial
groundwater lens and sea level is critical to shoreline change since the coast is in a semi-arid
environment with only one major stream, the Swan River, discharging at the shore.
Unfortunately, no information describing alongshore variation in groundwater discharge is
available, although flow is anticipated to vary with the underlying geology. Second, the
quality of water discharged from the superficial groundwater aquifer contributes to the degree
to which a beach is clean or polluted. This has been a matter of concern where beaches are
being rehabilitated for development, as occurred at South Beach and Coogee.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 21
(A) WAVE DIFFRACTION
Waves travelling under the bridge
connecting the causeway to Garden
Island spread in arcs into Cockburn
Sound.
Sand is moved by waves and currents
from Broun Bay, around Parkin Point
and into Careening Cove where it forms
a spit.
(B) GROYNES AT CITY BEACH
Northerly littoral drift (right to left in the
photograph) is trapped by groynes at
City Beach and accumulates against the
southern side of each groyne. The
updrift, northern side of the groyne is
thus depleted of sediment.
This pattern may be reversed with the
occurrence of northerly storms in winter.
(C) OFFSHORE BREAKWATERS
A series of offshore breakwaters and a
groyne trap sand moving south along the
shore at James Point.
The offshore breakwaters mimic the
action of geologic structures to form
cuspate forelands and tombolos.
The presence of the forelands, seen
here as sandy promontories, does not
prevent the southward movement of
sediment, as does the groyne.
FIGURE 1.7 Wave diffraction, engineered structures and beach forms
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 22
1.4.6. Beach Safety
Despite apparent limitations in breadth of applicability to the Perth metropolitan coast, the
classifications of Wright and Short (1984) have provided a basis for assessment of hazards
on sandy beaches. They are used extensively in Australia to prepare beach management
programs for Surf Life Saving Australia (Short, 1999). Different beaches provide different
recreational opportunities and pose different problems for the management of coastal
hazards, as is indicated by the records maintained by Surf Life Saving Australia from
patrolled beaches (TABLE 1.2). In the latter context, extremely sheltered environments,
such as Rockingham, have calm, shallow inshore waters but tend to be subject to stingers.
Moderate-energy, wave-reflective beaches, for example Floreat Beach, are associated with
steep beaches, dumping waves breaking at the shore and broken bones. The high-energy,
wave-dissipative beaches like Scarborough and Trigg feature sand bars, rip currents and
frequent surf rescue of people dragged into deep water.
TABLE 1.2 Summary of SLSWA rescue and first aid data
Location Aggregate
Beach Use
Rescues Marine
Stings
Cuts &
Abrasions
Fractures Spinal
Yanchep 21,437 0.93 1.35 2.89 0.09 0.05
Quinns 39,020 0.46 6.10 1.03 - 0.03
Mullaloo 534,566 0.15 1.64 0.59 0.02 0.03
Sorrento 97,497 0.11 2.95 0.65 0.05 -
Trigg 386,160 3.09 3.72 1.00 0.05 0.03
Scarboro 597,534 0.77 1.18 0.40 0.02 0.05
Floreat 89,262 0.20 3.15 0.63 0.03 0.02
City of Perth 197,202 0.20 3.85 0.46 0.03 0.05
Swanbourne 29,388 0.20 5.65 2.25 - 0.07
NorthCottesloe 79,266 0.18 2.14 0.98 0.08 0.01
Cottesloe 478,393 0.07 1.82 0.69 0.01 0.01
Fremantle 183,369 0.04 1.69 0.53 0.01 0.01
Coogee 22,511 - 5.46 0.49 - 0.04
Secret Harbour 50,897 1.34 1.75 0.96 - -
Mandurah 14,511 0.41 0.48 1.17 - -
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 23
1.4.7. Overview
The wide range of beach landforms and processes along the Perth Metropolitan Coast
provides potential for a highly diverse pattern of beach use. A major challenge for those
involved in coastal planning and the management of coastal environments is to understand
the diversity and the nature of coastal change, as well as to accommodate it in planning and
management projects and decision-making. Separate beach nodes are components of the
five major sediment cells and sixteen secondary cells comprising the natural resource
management units along the coast. Beach states range from the very sheltered
environments of Shoalwater Bay and Cockburn Sound to exposed ocean beaches at Secret
Harbour and Scarborough.
The benign climate of the region indicates nodes of development along the coast could be
used throughout the year. Strong sea breezes in summer offer opportunities for wind surfing
but otherwise limit potential use of exposed beaches. A second challenge for management
is to develop landscape designs that provide adequate levels of shelter on beach nodes
where is desirable to encourage year round use of the beach and its facilities.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 24
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
The study has been conducted as four linked components:
1. A questionnaire survey of people using the beach at key nodes designated by the
Department of Planning and Infrastructure;
2. Determination of the catchments from which people were attracted to key beach
nodes;
3. Aerial surveys of the distribution of people along the Perth metropolitan coast
between Singleton and Two Rocks; and
4. Analyses of crowd estimates gathered at beaches patrolled by Surf Life Saving
Western Australia during the past decade.
The principal was the questionnaire survey. Beach users of the open beach, the foreshore
reserve and commercial land (the beach precinct) adjoining the beach were surveyed on two
days: during the weekend during the weekend on Sunday 6 March, and mid-week on
Wednesday 9 March 2005. Questions included enquiry concerning the place of residence of
beach users, their mode of travel to the beach, and their principal reason for accessing the
beach. The other components provide a context for the main survey. A detailed description
of the methods used in each component of the study is included below.
2.1. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN
The questionnaire used in this research was based on the survey instruments used by
Keating (1983) and Houghton et al. (2003) in previous analyses of beach use in the Perth
metropolitan region. This provides a basis for comparing trends in beach use over nearly
two decades. While the samples used in these earlier studies are smaller than that used in
this research, the consistent use of questions means that there remains a strong basis for
comparison.
Respondents were asked to answer questions on the frequency of beach use, place of
residence, reasons for visiting, mode of transport, parking issues, length of stay, and the use
of facilities. A series of questions were also asked on planning problems, conflicts and levels
of satisfaction with the beach environment. Data were recorded on the basic demographic
characteristics of respondents, the time of the survey, and the location of the respondent
within the beach precinct. A copy of the questionnaire survey is provided in Appendix 2.1.
The questionnaire was administered on 14 metropolitan beaches between Yanchep Lagoon
and Secret Harbour (FIGURE 2.1). These beaches were selected in consultation with the
Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and included three beach clusters (TABLE 2.1).
These included:
i) Large regional beaches, with relatively high level facilities, infrastructure, commercial
development and use;
ii) District beaches, usually with a range of basic facilities, commercial activities and use;
iii) Local beaches, which have very few facilities and infrastructure and generally record
relatively low rates of use.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 25
FIGURE 2.1 Perth Metropolitan beaches included in the questionnaire survey
TABLE 2.1 Beach clusters and the fourteen case study locations
Beach Cluster Beach Name
Regional Beaches Hillarys Boat Harbour
Scarborough Beach
Cottesloe Beach
Rockingham
District Beaches Yanchep Lagoon
Mullaloo Beach
City Beach
South Beach
Secret Harbour
Local Beaches Whitfords Beach
Mettams Pool
Peasholm Street
Challenger Beach
Shoalwater Bay
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 26
The sampling methodology involved pairs of research staff from The University of Western
Australia approaching beach users at random and administering the questionnaire on a face-
to-face basis. For each of the 14 case study beaches, the beach precinct was divided into a
series of survey zones, which provided a degree of spatial stratification in the sample. These
zones were developed in consultation with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure,
and were based on different functional units within the beach precinct (e.g. beach zone,
recreation zone, commercial zone). An example of this zonation for Secret Harbour is
provided in FIGURE 2.2. Surveyors divided their time between these zones in order to
ensure that users in different parts of the beach precinct were represented in the sample.
Thus, the survey captures the characteristics and views of a range of stakeholders well
beyond those simply using the beach face.
A total of 3112 useable questionnaires were completed over the two survey dates: 1821
were completed on Sunday, 5 March, and 1291 completed on Wednesday, 9 March. The
survey data were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for
analysis. Given that most of the data were collected using nominal categories, the analysis
was based largely on frequency distributions, contingency tables and, where appropriate,
non-parametric statistical tests (e.g. Chi-square). Qualitative data from the survey were
organised into thematic categories and have been presented in Appendix 2.2.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 27
FIGURE 2.2 An example of the beach precinct zones used for collecting the
survey sample
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 28
2.2. AERIAL SURVEYS
Aerial photography was used to enable estimation of beach use on Sunday 6 and
Wednesday 9 March 2005, respectively. They were flown between Silver Sands and Two
Rocks beaches coincidentally with a questionnaire survey of beach users at ground level.
The photography provided continuous coverage of Perth metropolitan beaches for
approximately 90 minute windows. Video footage and still images were then processed and
beach counts between specific beach boundaries were compiled. The boundaries and
results are indicated in (Appendix 3.1).
The survey broadly follows the methodology adopted by Houghton (1988), Houghton et al.
(2003) and Blackweir and Beckley (2004) in order that information obtained should be
statistically comparable with the earlier projects. Potentially, it provides a more detailed
description of use on a beach by beach basis than would be provided by ground surveys and
establishes a geographical context for the questionnaire interviews of people using the 14
beaches surveyed. However, aerial surveys are prone to large error. Hence, an attempt
was made to establish reliable survey methods that might serve as guidelines for future
surveys and the survey methods are described in detail.
Tasks
Tasks required by the Brief were to:
• Charter suitable aircraft to fly the coast from Singleton to Two Rocks starting between
10:00 and 10:30 am and between 1:30 and 2:00 pm on each day of survey;
• Acquire and use appropriate digital recording instruments to establish the distribution of
people on the beach and in the adjacent backshore areas, and determine recreational
activities on each beach between Singleton and Two Rocks;
• Download all digital information and transpose to records to DVD for copying and
analysis;
• Establish the number and distribution of people on each beach and in its adjacent
backshore area; and
• Determine from the digital images the type and frequency of recreational activities
being practiced on each beach at the time of each aerial survey.
2.2.1. Survey methods
Aerial photography was used to enable estimation of beach use on Sunday 6 and
Wednesday 9 March 2005, respectively on a high-use long weekend day and a low-use
weekday. Two flights were conducted each day. They were flown between Silver Sands and
Two Rocks beaches. The photography provided continuous coverage of Perth Metropolitan
beaches for approximately 40 minute windows. Video footage and still images were then
processed and beach counts between specific beach boundaries were compiled.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 29
Aircraft Selection
The beach survey aircraft was selected for its ability to fly safely at a slow ground speed
during hot and windy climatic conditions (FIGURE 2.3). The aircraft needed to be able to
maintain a 35 to 40 knot ground speed so that the photographer had sufficient time to record
images with an adequate overlap.
The aircraft used was a Piper PA18 fitted with short take off and landing (STOL)
modifications including a larger engine to improve climb performance; a “Borer” propeller to
improve acceleration; and a vortex generator kit to improve low speed handling
characteristics and lower the aircraft aerodynamic stalling speed. These modifications
provide an expanded flight safety margin when operating at slow speeds and altitudes during
hot and windy conditions. Tandem seating in aircraft enabled filming from both sides. The
upper and lower doors were opened in flight to provide an unobstructed field of view.
FIGURE 2.3 VH_PQE the Piper PA18 used for the beach survey flights
Pilot Experience.
Operational requirements of beach surveys conducted at low level, slow speed and in busy
airspace necessitate commissioning of an experienced pilot. For this task the requirement
was for the pilot to have low-level experience as well as a minimum of 1000 hours and
recency on the aircraft type.
Camera Equipment, Interpretation Software and Computer Hardware
The video camera used for filming was a Sony Handycam DCR-IP55E with a MicroMV®
video cassette. The digital data was transferred to DVD format using the Sony Corporation
software Click to DVD® version 2.1.10.07080. Data was also extracted from the MicroMV
cassettes using the Sony Corporation software DVgate Plus® version 2.0.00.11010 to
temporary files, which were formatted for interpretation using Adobe Premier Standard®
version 7.0.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 30
Still images were captured with a Nikon Corporation® Nikon D100 camera using version 2.00
software and fitted with an 18-70mm Nikon lens. Typically, the images were captured using
1/500th of a second exposure time, at F-Number 9, the shutter priority exposure program, a
lens focal length of 70.0 mm and stored as a JPEG format file with X & Y Resolutions of
1/300 inches. The images were post-compressed to Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW)
image technology using Irfan View® for Microsoft ® WinXP version 3.95, to facilitate file
handling without sacrificing image quality. The ECW files were arranged as simple
panoramic views using Irfan View to simplify the counting and interpretation. The digital still
and video images were displayed for interpretation on LCD computer monitors set to 1400
x1050 pixel resolutions. Beach boundaries were identified on the images and numbers of
people in the water and up to the back of the beach were counted.
Global Positioning System (GPS) Tracklog
A Micronics Tusani™ Marine Beacon DGPS fitted with a 2007S data logging computer
loaded with ESRI ArcPad® was used during the Wednesday flights. A combination of
installation and technical problems resulted in only partial capture of the aircraft track. It is
recommended that future projects of this type include a sub-metre accuracy GPS to record
the flight tracks as GIS files. The differential correction should be provided by VHF beacon
rather than satellite systems such as OminSTAR DGPS Services. Trimble Pathfinder®
Power equipment failed to capture any data during the Sunday flights due to difficulties in
acquiring continuous OmniSTAR satellite differential services when operating inside the
aircraft.
The example of tracklog data shown in FIGURE 2.4 represents the continuous capture of
points at one second intervals. The points are approximately 30 metres apart and when
compared to the time stamped images provides an accurate means of locating individual
photographs during interpretation. The precise location information for individual
photographs enables easier image interpretation in particular when correlating data against
beach locations.
2.3. PARKED VEHICLE SURVEYS
Registration plates of vehicles in parking areas adjoining the fifteen beaches in the Perth
Metropolitan Area between Singleton and Two Rocks were recorded on 6 and 9 March,
2005. The records were made between 10:00am and 12:00 pm, as well as between 4:00 pm
and 16:00 pm on each day.
The purpose of the survey was to:
(a) Determine the catchment areas of vehicles using the parking areas; and
(b) Estimate the use and adequacy of parking facilities; and
(c) Obtain information that extended and independently tested information collected in
the questionnaire survey of beach users.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 31
The survey broadly follows methods reported by Houghton (1988) and Houghton et al.
(2003), in order that information obtained should be statistically comparable with the earlier
projects. It was executed simultaneously with administration of questionnaire surveys on the
beaches selected as examples of local, district and regional beaches. The beaches are listed
in TABLE 2.2.
TABLE 2.2 Beaches at which vehicle registration information was collected
SECTOR BEACH NODE STATUS
1 South Secret Harbour District
2 Shoalwater Bay Local
3 Rockingham Regional
4 Central South Challenger (James Rocks) Local
5 South Beach District
6 Bathers Beach Local
7 Central Cottesloe Regional
8 City Beach District
9 Scarborough Regional
10 Peasholm Street (Dog) Local
11 Mettams Pool Local
12 Hillarys Boat Harbour Regional
13 Central North Whitfords (Pinnaroo Point) Local
14 Mullaloo District
15 North Yanchep Lagoon District
In the surveys conducted by Houghton (1988) and Houghton et al., (1998) vehicle
registration numbers were recorded for every second car in each beachside parking area,
and, in some instances, less frequently in large crowded car parks. The records obtained
were converted to the postcode address for which the vehicle was registered. This provided
an indication of the catchment areas for the beaches and demonstrated that a high
proportion of people were found to travel very short distances to reach the beach of their
choice. This proposition was tested I more detail in the surveys of the 6 and 9 March 2005,
through more exhaustive vehicle counts. Additionally, collection of registration numbers from
parked vehicles was complemented by the detail of the questionnaire surveys from which it
was also possible to collate sufficient information describing the postcode origin of beach
users.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 32
2.3.1. Tasks
Tasks required for the survey of vehicles using the beachfront parking areas survey include
the following:
1. Preparation and printing of data sheets for the survey;
2. Appointment of staff to undertake the survey;
3. Convening of a meeting to explain the organization and administration of the survey
to the surveyors and DPI coordinators in the expectation there would be some
consistency in the procedure used to collect the information;
4. Cleaning and collation of information from vehicle registration plates for TRELIS
identification of the postcode for which the vehicle is registered. This required
compilation of the information in separate tables for morning and afternoon
observations at each beach on each day of survey.
5. Submission of vehicle registration numbers to the Department of Planning and
Infrastructure for TRELIS identification.
6. Following identification, collation of the postcode records in separate tables
describing the postcode area and suburb of registration.
7. Resubmission of separate frequency counts for postcode districts and suburbs to the
Department of Planning and Infrastructure for map compilation.
8. Interpretation of the mapped information.
FIGURE 2.4 An example of the GPS Tracklog displayed in ArcPad® showing the
distance interval between points and the feature properties of each.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 33
2.4. SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB RECORDS
Surf Life Saving Western Australia regularly estimates the size of the crowd on each of the
13 beaches they patrol in the Perth Metropolitan Area between Singleton and Two Rocks
(TABLE 2.3).
Data collected by Surf Life Saving Clubs at the patrolled beaches include estimates of
crowds (frequently am and pm) on the days of patrol from mid spring (October) to late
autumn (late-March), as well as descriptions of wave and weather conditions at the time of
observation. Gaps in the data commonly indicated days of inclement weather during which
the beach was not patrolled and crowds were not present. Additionally, the data provides a
record of incidents requiring attention by members of the local SLSC.
Houghton et al. (2003) analysed the SLSWA time-series information for the summers of
1993/94 to 1997/98. The time series provided a very detailed record that was interpreted in
the context of weather changes and established the rationale for marked differences
between beaches in the type of recreation practiced on them. While the data set is limited in
not providing demographic information, it provides a first order description of temporal
change in beach use at the major recreational beaches in the Perth Metropolitan Area. As
such, it is primary information for predicting potential trends in future demand for beach use,
and may provide a basis for establishment of the carrying capacity of Metropolitan Beaches
from a facility provision perspective.
TABLE 2.3 Patrolled beaches
SECTOR BEACH NODE STATUS 2005 Survey
1 South Secret Harbour District Yes
2 Central South Coogee District No
3 Central Leighton District No
4 Cottesloe Regional Yes
5 North Cottesloe District No
6 Swanbourne District No
7 City Beach District Yes
8 Floreat District No
9 Scarborough Regional Yes
10 Trigg District No
11 Sorrento Local No
12 Central North Mullaloo District Yes
13 North Quinns Local No
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 34
The time series derived in Houghton et al. (2003) have been updated to include summers
from 1993/94 to 2004/2005 in order that information obtained is statistically comparable with,
and extends the earlier project. Statistical analysis of the time series describing user
population on each beach potentially can be used to identify growth spurts, plateaus and
down turns in beach use. The type of analysis applied to the time series is to plot a
cumulative summation curve of change in the monthly or annual average crowd size and
correlate turning points in the curve with specific events in other records, such as
construction of new facilities or a weather event. The present analysis presents a first order
reduction of the information in the form of cumulative summation curves to provide an
indication of the degree to which the crowds present on 5 and 9 March 2005 are
representative of crowds observed in the past ten years.
Data analysis includes:
• Data cleaning and compilation of monthly records;
• Combination with time series compiled by Houghton et al. (2003);
• Plotting of time series as cumulative frequency graphs for each beach;
• Interpretation by determination of trends and singular elements in the time
series that may be correlated with major natural (storm) and cultural (provision of
new infrastructure) events.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 35
CHAPTER 3. CROWDS AND TOURISTS
Patterns of beach use have been determined by the aerial surveys and questionnaires, as
well as from records collated by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. The aerial surveys and
questionnaires provide a ‘snapshot’ of beach use at the time the information was obtained.
This picture is limited in time and space, as well as by error inherent to the methods used.
The observations are given some context by the hourly estimates of crowd size reported by
Eliot et al. (1986) and Houghton et al. (2003), daily observations of Blackweir and Beckley
(2004) over three months, and the ten year long time series collated for summer weekends
on patrolled beaches by Surf Life Saving Western Australia. One source of error is that there
is no consistency between the areas for which crowd estimates have been made, either in
the specification of beach limits for the interpretation of aerial photography or the designation
of patrolled beach areas from beach to beach in the Surf Life Saving records. As a result, no
one set of records provides a complete description of beach use and none is without
limitation or error. However, considered together the surveys provide a substantial picture of
beach use on the metropolitan coast.
3.1. THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE ALONG THE COAST
The distribution of people along the coast was determined from aerial photography. Five
flights were flown during the two days of survey. On Sunday 6 March the photographic run
was flown between 09:30 and 13:30 hours, followed by video recording from 14:00 to 16:00
hours. The three flights on Wednesday 9 March were from 08:30 to 11:30 hours for
photography; 11:50 to 13:50 for video recording; and 14:00 to 16:30 hours for the final
photographic run. The difference in number of runs and techniques between the two days
was due to a need to develop operational familiarity with the air survey procedures adopted,
adjustment to ensure complete photographic coverage for two runs, and the large number of
people present on beaches. During morning on the first day of survey 9514 people were
photographed between Silver Sands and Two Rocks. This total contrasted with three counts
of 859, 999 and 1315 for the mid-week surveys. All results, including those for individual
beaches, are indicated in Appendix 3.1.
The results have been presented in graphic format for ease of interpretation and comparison.
Observations from Hillarys Boat Harbour are not included in the count due to piloting and
photographic error. First, the results for Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon (TABLE
3.1), on the day of most intense use of the coast, align with expectation. Crowds are highest
at regional nodes where facilities have been provided, particularly in the central metropolitan
area between Fremantle (Bathers Beach) and Trigg (immediately north of Scarborough on
the graph). Away from the central metropolitan area there are distinct nodes at Secret
Harbour, Rockingham, South Beach, Whitfords, Mullaloo and Burns Beach. Between these
nodes are tracts of coast where the levels of use were low at the time of photography.
Exceptionally large crowds with over 600 people counted in the section of beach surveyed,
indicate organised activity, such as a surf life saving carnival, at those beaches; for example,
those recorded from City Beach in the morning and Cottesloe in the afternoon.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 36
Crowds were significantly lower during Wednesday, especially away from the central
metropolitan area. This is apparent in graphs for Wednesday (FIGURE 3.2), and even more
so in the comparisons between weekend and weekday morning and afternoon use shown in
FIGURE 3.3 and FIGURE 3.4 respectively. On Wednesday, (FIGURE 3.2) the crowds were
largest on the northern beaches in the morning, with approximately 50 and 75 people present
at Sorrento and Mullaloo. They were highest at Scarborough and Cottesloe, respectively
with approximately 150 and 250 people in the afternoon.
The characteristics of beach use were established from questionnaire surveys, although
there was considerable variation in the size of the survey sample across the fourteen
beaches. This is largely a product of the total population in the beach precinct on the survey
dates. On Sunday, 5 March 2005, large numbers of respondents were concentrated at
Mullaloo Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe Beach and Rockingham Beach (TABLE
3.1). These three beaches accounted for 46.7 per cent of all responses collected on the
Sunday. While the number of beach users dropped considerably on Wednesday, 9 March
2005, there were a number of beaches that received relatively high responses. The largest
numbers of survey completions were recorded at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Cottesloe Beach,
Scarborough Beach, and Whitfords Beach. These four beaches represented 51.1 per cent of
all responses received on the Wednesday. In terms of total use, three of the designated
regional beaches (Hillarys, Scarborough and Cottesloe) had the highest levels of use, with
Mullaloo, a district beach, also heavily used, particularly on the Sunday.
TABLE 3.1 People Surveyed on Perth Beaches in March 2005
Date
Beach Names 5 March 2005 9 March 2005 Total
Yanchep Lagoon 90 68 158
Mullaloo Beach 226 96 322
Whitfords Beach 132 112 244
Hillarys Boat Harbour 217 172 389
Mettams Pool 130 79 209
Scarborough Beach 180 150 330
Peasholm Street 79 90 169
City Beach 139 108 247
Cottesloe Beach 206 118 324
South Beach 78 81 159
Challenger Beach 57 22 79
Rockingham Beach 202 75 277
Shoalwater Bay 50 78 128
Secret Harbour 35 42 77
Total 1821 1291 3112
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 37
FIGURE 3.1 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks in the morning (top) and
afternoon (bottom) of Sunday 5 March 2005
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Secre
t H
arb
our
Sa
fety
Ba
y
Rockin
gham
Beach
Challe
nger
Beach
South
Beach
Bath
ers
Bay
Cotteslo
e
City B
each
Peasholm
Scarb
oro
ugh
Mettam
s P
ool
Boat
Harb
our
(n/d
)
Wh
itfo
rds
Mulla
lloo
Yanchep
Su
nd
ay
AM
Co
un
t
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Su
nd
ay
PM
Co
un
t
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 38
FIGURE 3.2 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks in the morning (top) and
afternoon (bottom) of Wednesday 9 March 2005
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Secre
t H
arb
our
Safe
ty B
ay
Rockin
gham
Beach
Challe
nger
Beach
South
Beach
Bath
ers
Bay
Cotteslo
e
City B
each
Peasholm
Scarb
oro
ugh
Mettam
s P
ool
Boat
Harb
our
(n/d
)
Whitfo
rds
Mulla
lloo
Yanchep
Wed
nesd
ay A
M C
ou
nt
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Wed
nesd
ay P
M C
ou
nt
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 39
FIGURE 3.3 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks during the mornings of
Sunday 5 March 2005 (top) and Wednesday 9 March 2005 (bottom)
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Secre
t H
arb
our
Safe
ty B
ay
Rockin
gham
Beach
Challe
nger
Beach
South
Beach
Bath
ers
Bay
Cotteslo
e
City B
each
Peasholm
Scarb
oro
ugh
Mettam
s P
ool
Boat
Harb
our
(n/d
)
Whitfo
rds
Mulla
lloo
Yanchep
Su
nd
ay
AM
Co
un
t
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Wed
nesd
ay A
M C
ou
nt
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 40
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
Secre
t H
arb
our
Safe
ty B
ay
Rockin
gham
Beach
Challe
nger
Beach
South
Beach
Bath
ers
Bay
Cotteslo
e
City B
each
Peasholm
Scarb
oro
ugh
Mettam
s P
ool
Boat
Harb
our
(n/d
)
Whitfo
rds
Mulla
lloo
Yanchep
Su
nd
ay P
M C
ou
nt
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
Wed
nesd
ay P
M C
ou
nt
FIGURE 3.4 Distribution of people along the metropolitan coast between Singleton and Two Rocks during the afternoons of
Sunday 5 March 2005 (top) and Wednesday 9 March 2005 (bottom)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 41
3.2. PATROLLED BEACHES
Crowd estimates provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia (SLSWA) span ten
summers from 1994/95 to 2004/2005. The information typically includes daily
morning and afternoon data for weekends between October and March. Fifteen surf
life saving clubs provided observations, with varied levels of completeness (Appendix
3.2). Thirteen were used in the detailed analyses, including Secret Harbour,
Fremantle, Cottesloe, North Cottesloe, Swanbourne, Floreat, City Beach,
Scarborough, Trigg, Sorrento, Mullaloo, Quinns Rock and Yanchep.
Crowd estimates provided by each surf life saving club are derived visually. The zone
over which the estimate is made is not clearly defined. As a result, the crowd
estimates are unlikely to have a high degree of precision, particularly during
unusually high beach use. Furthermore, on many occasions, no records are
available, which may be because no estimate was made.
Three sets of analyses have been completed for each summer. They identify:
1. Primary statistics - including the number of observations; mean and standard
deviation of crowd size, and the maximum number of people;
2. Seasonal trends; and
3. Variation in crowd size with changing environmental conditions.
The results are described below. Different sets of beaches are reported in different
components of the analysis because the record is neither complete nor consistent for
all beaches.
The accuracy of peak beach use is questionable, as the techniques used for crowd
estimation apparently have limited effectiveness for a beach population exceeding
1,000 people. Additionally, the techniques may be applied to different areas beach.
For example, counts may be made between patrol flags at one beach and on the
area occupied for another. While interbeach comparisons and the absolute values
may be questionable, the estimates nevertheless provide a picture of change
occurring on each beach.
It is important to note that the observations of beach use are highly skewed,
separating median and mean statistics (FIGURE 3.5). This determines that the
absence or presence of only a few peak observations will provide a significant
contribution to broader statistics such as mean or standard deviation. To improve the
statistical stability of interbeach comparisons would require comparison of statistics
at selected percentile levels, such as the 75% or 90% level. However, in the context
of this report, such statistics are less meaningful than the maximum observed beach
use and the pattern of change over time.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 42
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Proportion of Observations
Cu
mu
lati
ve P
rop
ort
ion
of
Beach
Use
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Ind
ivid
ual
Ob
serv
ati
on
s o
f B
each
Use
Median Mean
High skew
produces potential
for bias by relatively
few observations
FIGURE 3.5 Cottesloe Beach Use 1988/89
3.2.1. Primary Statistics
Base statistics are provided as monthly and annual summaries for each of the fifteen
locations (Appendix 3.2). Collectively, the beach use statistics suggest a general
increase in beach use of approximately 4% per annum over the period 1994 to 2004
(FIGURE 3.6 to FIGURE 3.8). Data sets from Peel and Coogee are insufficient to
describe general changes in beach use.
These base statistics show that the most heavily visited beaches are Scarborough,
Cottesloe and Mullaloo. Beach use on Scarborough and Cottesloe is variable over
the period 1994 to 2004 and does not suggest a trend. Swanbourne has experienced
a decline in beach use. Visitation has increased over the 10-year period on all other
beaches, at an approximate rate of 5-10% per annum.
Peak beach use at each of the locations is significantly greater than the average
beach use. In many cases, this is associated with a special event, located at that
beach, such as Surf Lifesaving carnivals. Other occasions of increased popularity
include those where fine weather conditions coincide with school or public holidays.
The highest numbers of people observed and the highest number of people observed
on each patrolled beach are listed in TABLE 3.3 and TABLE 3.4 respectively.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 43
FIGURE 3.6 Average Beach Use, Northern Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 44
FIGURE 3.7 Average Beach Use, Central Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 45
FIGURE 3.8 Average Beach Use, Southern Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 46
TABLE 3.2 The highest number of people observed on each beach
patrolled by Surf Life Saving Western Australia
NUMBER OF
PEOPLE
BEACH DATE
OBSERVED
20,000 Mullaloo 6 March 2000
18,000 Mullaloo 27 Dec 1999
18,000 Mullaloo 26 Dec 2000
11,000 Cottesloe 25 Dec 1999
10,500 Mullaloo 25 Dec 2002
10,150 Mullaloo 26 Jan 2001
10,000 Cottesloe 26 Dec 2002
9,900 Port 4 Mar 2001
9,000 Scarborough 27 Dec 1999
8,550 Scarborough 2 Mar 2003
8,500 North Cottesloe 22 Nov 2003
8,475 Port 7 Dec 2003
8,400 Mullaloo 24 Jan 1999
8,100 Mullaloo 9 Feb 2003
7,920 Port 26 Dec 2003
TABLE 3.3 The highest number of people observed on each beach
patrolled by Surf Life saving Western Australia
BEACH NUMBER
OBSERVED
DATE
Yanchep 550 11 Jan 2004
Quinns 1,700 26 Dec 2002
Mullaloo 20,000 6 Mar 2000
Sorrento 2,100 26 Jan 1999
Trigg 6,600 8 Feb 2003
Scarborough 9,000 27 Dec 1999
Floreat 2,880 3 Mar 2003
City Beach 6,000 9 Mar 2003
Swanbourne 3,000 2 Jan 1995
North Cottesloe 8,500 22 Nov 2003
Cottesloe 11,000 25 Dec 1999
Port 9,900 7 Dec 2003
Secret Harbour 2,060 26 Dec 2003
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 47
3.2.2. Seasonal Statistics
Limitations of the observed statistics have been noted previously, including a highly
skewed distribution, variability of observation and imprecision of estimate techniques.
In addition to these, a wide range of social and environmental conditions may affect
changes in use on a day-to-day or seasonal basis. Hence, a coarse and robust
evaluation of time series is most appropriate. One such method is cumulative
summation of the data on a seasonal basis. This technique was successfully applied
previously to the surf life saving data from 1994/95 to 1997/98 (Houghton et al.,
2003). The shape of the cumulative frequency curve indicates crowd response to
changing conditions for each season (FIGURE 3.9). This form of graphical
representation allows identification of singular relatively infrequent high use, without
obscuring seasonal patterns.
Classic pattern Regular use Early season
use
Late season
use
Atypical
pattern
Low summer
use
FIGURE 3.9 Characteristic profiles for the summer crowds on beaches
patrolled by Surf Life Saving Clubs
Cumulative summation plots have been prepared for each of the beach use data
sets, using the average of observations for each week, to reduce the effect of varying
observation frequency (FIGURE 3.10 to FIGURE 3.12). These show the high level of
variability of beach use observations, with several ‘jumps’ illustrating one-off beach
use events, such as festivals or surfing competitions. Interpretation of the seasonal
trends requires analysis of the curvature of the cusum plots. The profile of the plot
varies from beach to beach and thus identifies different patterns of summer use of
the beaches (TABLE 3.4).
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48
FIGURE 3.10 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Northern Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 49
FIGURE 3.11 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Central Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 50
FIGURE 3.12 Cumulative Seasonal Beach Use, Southern Beaches
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 51
TABLE 3.4 Patterns of beach use indicated by the cumulative frequency
graphs for each patrolled beach
BEACH PATTERN OF BEACH USE
Yanchep There is low use of Yanchep Beach in spring, but use is sustained
through into autumn
Quinns Quinns is subject to sustained use, with occasional large events,
such as during 2002/03 season
Mullaloo Mullaloo displays highly variable patterns of use, with occasional
extremely high use.
Sorrento Sorrento shows classic high summer use pattern, with a slow build
up to a late summer peak
Trigg Trigg commonly shows late summer use, although with some lay
off in 95/96, 98/99 and 2003/04
Scarborough Scarborough experiences sustained use, with some variability for
late season use
Floreat Floreat shows a tendency to classic summer beach use.
City Beach Crowd size at City Beach generally shows a classic summer beach
use pattern, with a slow build up to a late summer peak
Swanbourne Swanbourne displays a sustained pattern of use through the
summer seasons, with occasional high use events. Over the ten
year, the average crowd size has been declining.
North Cottesloe Beach use at North Cottesloe is variable, with some indication of
reduced summer use
Cottesloe There is generally sustained use of Cottesloe, with occasional high
levels of use
Port Crowd size at Port Beach is variable, with occasional high levels of
use.
Secret Harbour The pattern of summer use at Secret Harbour suggests sustained
use from spring through to late autumn.
3.2.3. Effect of Environmental Parameters
Comparison of the summer beach crowd on each beach with weather parameters
together with interpretation of the profiles of summer use (Appendix 3.3) indicated the
limiting environmental factors for each beach patrolled by surf life saving clubs and
confirmed results reported by Houghton et al. (2003). The analysis distinguishes
between beaches for which environmental conditions are the major limiting factors
and those where other factors are critical. For example, the size of the crowd on the
patrolled beaches at Scarborough and Secret Harbour is dependent on wind and
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 52
wave conditions whereas other factors determine variation in the crowd size at
Cottesloe and City Beach.
The summary of the major relationships between crowd size at each beach patrolled
by a surf life saving club and the associated environmental conditions reported by
Houghton et al. (2003:19–21) is provided below.
Yanchep
• There is a mild decrease in visitor numbers at Yanchep with increasing wind
speed;
• Wind direction is not a critical limiting factor.
• Visitor numbers increase with temperature. However, there is a lack of
observations for days with lower temperatures.
• Waves do not appear to have a large effect upon visitor numbers.
Quinns
• A marked decrease in visitor numbers occurs at Quinns with increased wind
speed.
• Wind direction does not appear to be a critical factor.
• Beach numbers significantly decrease with temperatures below 20oC. Above
this, there is a small increase in visitor numbers with temperature.
• Wave type affects visitor numbers. There is a tendency for larger crowds with
smaller wind waves.
Mullaloo
• There is a small increase in numbers in lower compared with higher wind
conditions.
• Visitors show a preference of for offshore winds.
• Beach numbers significantly decrease with temperatures below 20oC. Above
that, there is only a slight increase in visitor numbers with a rise in
temperature.
• Wave type or size does not appear to markedly affect visitation.
Sorrento
• Wind speed and wind direction are not critical to visitation, although crowd
size indicates a slight preference for offshore winds;
• Temperature does not appear to be a critical factor affecting visitor numbers.
• Wave type and size does not appear to be critical factor limiting the number of
people at the beach.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 53
Trigg
• At Trigg there is a tendency for larger numbers to visit the beach during lower
wind conditions.
• Low use of the beach occurs during onshore winds. The crowd is greater
than 1000 people only during offshore wind conditions.
• High use requires temperatures greater than 20oC, otherwise there is not a
noticeable effect of temperature on crowd size.
• Large crowds typically occur during low-moderate sea and swell conditions.
Scarborough
• Use of the beach at Scarborough is strongly affected by wind speed and
direction, with crowd numbers indicating a marked preference for offshore
winds.
• High use is observed only for temperatures above 20oC. Otherwise, there is a
slight increase in beach use with rise in temperature.
• Large crowds commonly occur during low-moderate wind waves and low
swell conditions.
Floreat
• Wind speed has a moderate effect on crowd size at Floreat. The crowd
becomes smaller as speed increases.
• Wind direction does not have an apparent effect on the size of the crowd.
• High levels of beach use occur for temperatures above 18oC only, with a
slight increase in crowd size for increasing temperatures.
• Crowd size indicates a preference for lower wind wave activity. Swell size
apparently is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.
City Beach
• Wind speed and direction are not critical to crowd size.
• Sustained beach use occurs throughout all temperatures above 18oC, with a
mild tendency for crowd numbers to increase with rise in temperature.
• Wave type and size is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.
Swanbourne
• Large crowds are weakly associated with low wind speeds.
• Wind direction does not appear to be critical to the size of the crowd.
• High levels of beach use only occur at temperatures above 18oC, but
otherwise temperature is not a critical factor.
• Wave type apparently is not a critical factor in limiting the size of the crowd.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 54
North Cottesloe
• Crowd size at North Cottesloe indicates a marked preference of people using
the beach for low wind speeds and offshore winds.
• High levels of beach use only occur at temperatures above 18oC, but
otherwise there is no significant relationship between temperature and crowd
use.
• The pattern of beach use indicates a crowd preference for low wind wave
activity.
Cottesloe
• During summer wind direction and speed are not critical factors in limiting
crowd size at Cottesloe.
• Sustained beach use occurs throughout all summer day temperatures.
• The crowd apparently tolerates high wind-wave activity, probably due to
beach protection.
• Swell is not a critical factor, although there is a slight tendency for the largest
numbers of people to visit the beach during calmer conditions.
Port Beach
• People using Port Beach show a weak preference for light, offshore winds.
• There is a marginal increase in crowd size with increases in summer day
temperatures above 20oC.
• Slight preference for low wind and swell wave conditions.
Secret Harbour
• People using Secret Harbour show no marked preference for particular wind
conditions.
• Greater use of the beach occurs at day temperatures above 18oC, but
otherwise there is no significant relationship between temperature and crowd
size.
• Variation in crowd size suggests there is no clear preference for wave type.
However, the largest crowds observed occurred during average wind wave
and low swell conditions.
• The records indicated low levels of beach use throughout the observation
period.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 55
3.3. TOURISM AND BEACH USE
Beaches are also significant tourism attractions for the domestic and international
visitor market to Perth. In 2004, there were 587 000 international visitors and 6.5
million overnight domestic visitors to Western Australia. Statistics provided by
Tourism Western Australia suggests that between 2000 and 2005, on average 30%
of interstate, 9% of intrastate and 62% of international visitors to Perth went to the
beach at least once during their stay (FIGURE 3.13). For example, in 2004 a total of
300 100 international visitors reported having gone to the beach at least once,
compared to 144 000 of interstate visitors in the same year (Tourism Research
Australia, 2004). This indicates that during any given year, there is likely to be a
significantly higher proportion of international visitors at Perth beaches than any other
type of visitor.
Information provided by Surf Life Saving Western Australia indicates an average of
280,000 people per year visit patrolled beaches on weekends. In comparison to this,
statistics provided by Tourism Western Australia reveal that approximately 180,000
foreign nationals visited Perth beaches each year from 2000 to 2004. Assuming
tourist visitation to the beach is evenly distributed on a daily basis, approximately
52,000 international visitors per weekend. This is approximately 18% of the beach
going population reported by Surf Life Saving Western Australia as using Perth
beaches during weekends. The figure is indicative only, because of the underlying
assumptions and due to the dynamic nature of the beach crowd, which turns over
continuously throughout the day and from day to day. However, it is close to the
estimates obtained by Tourism Western Australia and underscores the significance
of the Perth coast as a preferred destination.
A study conducted by Tourism Western Australia showed that the beaches of Perth
comprised one of top ten most important attractions in Perth (Tourism Western
Australia, 2004a). Domestic visitors rated going to the beach as the fifth most
important leisure activity in Perth. International visitors rated going to the beach as
the second most important leisure activity in Perth.
As part of the Perth Destination Development Strategy, Tourism Western Australia
also assessed the key issues affecting the visitor experience in Perth using a
Destination Development Matrix (FIGURE 3.14). The results of this assessment
showed that beach and coastal activities are focus activities and are perceived to be
iconic. However, there are product and infrastructure gaps to be addressed before
further marketing of these attractions. Issues included the lack of organised beach
activities, lack of shade structures and shelter at many beaches, poor access tracks
and poor public transport to the coast. Scarborough and Cottesloe were equally
classified as highly iconic attractions and these beaches were perceived as market
ready. These beaches were perceived to have the same infrastructure gaps as the
other general coastal areas in Perth, as well as having limited opening hours to pools
in accommodation facilities. A lack of directional signs from the train station to
Cottesloe beach was also emphasised. Hillary’s Boat Harbour is a market ready
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 56
attraction but it was not identified as a major icon in Perth (FIGURE 3.14). Limited
directional signs to the facility and the lack of marine interaction opportunities were
identified as two development issues.
Although there is no precise data available to show the distribution of beach use over
time, there are strong seasonal patterns for interstate and international visitors
(FIGURE 3.15 to FIGURE 3.17). An important distinction is the high proportion of
international visitors compared to domestic visitors. International visitors have had a
consistent base level of 30,000 and a range to over 60,000 visitors for each of the
past 5 years. In contrast to this, the number of domestic visitors has as base level of
20,000 and a peak of approximately 45,000. The disparity between use off the coast
by domestic and international tourists increases if the number of beach visits is
estimated from Tourism Western Australia proportions of 30% beach use by
domestic visitors and 60% by international tourists.
The time series describing monthly variation in the number of international visitors
indicates a strong seasonal variation with visitor numbers being lowest in June and
highest in December (FIGURE 3.16). There are significant secondary peaks in
August and late February each year. The number of visitors for the July and August
might be increased following further market research and promotion of local coastal
resources. Domestic visitation also shows a marked seasonal pattern (FIGURE
3.17). However, it is significantly different from that for international visitors. The
numbers of domestic visitors is lowest in May to June and highest between August
and November. Secondary peaks are apparent in August, November and February.
Although the seasonal changes remain apparent there is a marked increase in
visitation by domestic visitors after July 2003.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04
Interstate
Intrastate
International
FIGURE 3.13 Proportion of interstate, intrastate and international visitors to
Perth from 2000 to 2004 who went to the beach at least once
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 57
FIGURE 3.14 Destination Development Matrix
(Source: Tourism WA 2004b)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan-0
0
Jul-00
Jan-0
1
Jul-01
Jan-0
2
Jul-02
Jan-0
3
Jul-03
Jan-0
4
Jul-04
Jan-0
5
Arr
ivals
(T
ho
usan
ds)
Domestic Arrivals
Foreign Arrivals
FIGURE 3.15 Monthly variation in the number of domestic and international
visitor arrivals to Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Jan-0
0
Jul-00
Jan-0
1
Jul-01
Jan-0
2
Jul-02
Jan-0
3
Jul-03
Jan-0
4
Jul-04
Jan-0
5
Arr
iva
ls (
Th
ou
sa
nd
s)
Foreign Arrivals
Seasonal Average
FIGURE 3.16 Monthly variation in the number of international visitor arrivals
to Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Jan-0
0
Jul-00
Jan-0
1
Jul-01
Jan-0
2
Jul-02
Jan-0
3
Jul-03
Jan-0
4
Jul-04
Jan-0
5
Arr
iva
ls (
Th
ou
sa
nd
s)
Seasonal Average
Domestic Arrivals
FIGURE 3.17 Monthly variation in the number of domestic visitor arrivals to
Perth airport from January 2000 to June 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 59
CHAPTER 4. USER CATCHMENTS AND ACCESS ROUTES
The geography of beach user catchments and the transport patterns of survey
respondents are described in this section of the report. The catchment areas were
determined in two ways. First, survey respondents were asked the postcode of their
home address. These were then mapped for each beach as a total, and for the
Sunday and Wednesday survey dates. Second, catchments derived from
registrations of vehicles parked in beach car parks. The registration numbers were
collected during morning and afternoon periods on the same days as questionnaire
surveys were administered. Locations of origin were derived from registration
details, which were categorised under Perth suburbs and postcodes. Catchments
determined from the questionnaire survey are presented in the text. Unless otherwise
indicated, those determined from the parked vehicle surveys are included as
Appendices 4.1 and 4.2). Data on transport patterns were collected by asking
respondents questions relating to mode of transport and time taken to travel to the
beach.
4.1. CATCHMENTS INDICATED BY VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS
Over 9000 vehicle registration numbers were recorded at 15 beaches during the two
days of survey (Table 2): 6268 (68%) on Sunday 6 March, and 2998 (32%) on
Wednesday 9 March. Overall, 8431 (91%) of the 9266 registrations recorded were
linked to a suburb and or postcode address by TRELIS. The origin and number of
registered vehicles surveyed is listed in Appendix 4.1. Most vehicles, 93.7% of the
8431 with identifiable registration plates were from the Perth Metropolitan Area; 5.4%
(456 vehicles) from country districts in Western Australia; and the remaining 0.9%
(76) had interstate registration. Frequency counts associated with the origin and
number of registered vehicles from each postcode district and suburb in the Perth
Metropolitan Area is presented in Appendix 4 1. Maps of vehicle catchments for each
beach surveyed are presented in Appendix 4.2.
Only one vehicle was registered overseas. That vehicle was observed at Hillarys
Boat Harbour during the afternoon of Wednesday 9 march 2005. A further 835
vehicles had registration addresses that could not readily be traced. These account
for approximately 9% of the total number of vehicles surveyed. These, and the
vehicle with the overseas registration, have not been considered further in the
analysis.
Comparisons between beaches or between days of survey are unreliable due to
inconsistencies in the manner in which records were collected at each beach. For
example, vehicle registration plates were recorded hourly at Rockingham but only
once during the morning and afternoon on other beaches. Nevertheless, the large
size of the sample gives a good indication of differences between weekend and mid-
week use of the beaches surveyed, and some generalisations can be drawn.
Additionally there is consistency between the catchments determined by the
questionnaire and vehicle surveys.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 60
TABLE 4.1 Origin and number of registered vehicles surveyed
Perth
Metropolitan
WA
Country
Other
States Not Found Total
6 March 2005
Morning 2813 141 8 307 3269
Afternoon 2515 186 29 270 2999
Totals: 6 March 5328 327 37 577 6268
9 March 2005
Morning 1254 57 11 132 1454
Afternoon 1316 74 28 126 1544
Totals: 9 March 2570 131 39 258 2998
TOTAL 7898 456 76 835 9266
4.2. CATCHMENTS INDICATED BY QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS
The combined catchment area derived from the questionnaire surveys for all 14
beaches is illustrated in FIGURE 4.1. This indicates that most survey respondents
were from postcode areas within five to ten kilometres of the coast. There is a
particularly strong concentration of users in the postcode areas between Cottesloe
and Sorrento. Not surprisingly, these respondents were often using the beaches
between Cottesloe Beach and Hillarys Boat Harbour. There is also a clear west-east
gradient in the spatial concentration of beach users, with decreasing levels of use the
further one moves inland from the coast.
The total beach catchment areas for Sunday, 5 March 2005 and Wednesday, 9
March 2005 do not differ significantly (FIGURE 4.2 and FIGURE 4.3). There remains
a strong concentration of users close to the coast, and a decrease in representation
from postcode areas further east. The geographical distribution of the catchment
areas is also quite similar, with most of the same postcode areas represented on
both days.
The catchment areas for the individual beaches in this study vary considerably in
their geographic scope (FIGURE 4.4 to FIGURE 4.17). It is clear that some of the
larger regional beaches, such as Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach and
Cottesloe Beach have extremely large catchment areas, while some of the smaller
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 61
local beaches tend to have rather confined catchments. The size of catchments not
only reflects the range and quality of facilities and commercial activities available at
beaches, but also patterns of transport. These factors are discussed in Sections 4.X
(Transport Patterns) and 5 (Recreational Activities) of this report.
4.3. CATCHMENT AREAS FOR EACH BEACH
The following provides a brief discussion of the user catchments for each beach,
based on a combination of the questionnaire and vehicle surveys. Figure numbers
refer to catchments derived from the questionnaire surveys. More detailed catchment
maps referring to postcodes and suburbs are derived from the vehicle surveys and
included as Appendix 4.2.
4.3.1. Yanchep Lagoon
Yanchep Lagoon has a relatively dispersed catchment, with a number of users
coming from Perth’s northern and, in some cases, southern suburbs (FIGURE 4.4).
While there is a reasonably high level of local use, with between 11 and 25
respondents coming from the local postcode area, there were few other sources of
large visitor numbers. This pattern did not change significantly between Sunday and
Wednesday (Appendix 4.2: Figures 1a to 1d).
Catchments derived from parked vehicle registrations are consistent with those
described. They identify Yanchep’s highest catchment as the Two Rocks/Yanchep
area. The distribution of other minor catchment suburbs (1 to 5 vehicles) is
concentrated on the northwest coastal corridor with some minor representation from
eastern and southern suburbs. Data sets collected on both days support a
consistent assessment. The dispersed catchment of Yanchep Lagoon might, in part,
reflect its relative proximity to the nearby Yanchep National Park.
4.3.2. Mullaloo Beach
Questionnaire surveys and vehicle origins indicate that Mullaloo Beach has a large
concentration of users from nearby postcode areas, with most visitors coming from
within 10 kilometres of the beach (FIGURE 4.5). The catchment incorporates a large
range of northern suburbs, with feeder suburbs located in the northeast, east and
south adjacent to main arterial roads supporting access to the beach. This includes
the Chittering region to the northwest of Perth. However, the high number of users
from the immediately surrounding area indicates that the users are predominately
local residents. This pattern of local use was observed on both the Sunday and
Wednesday survey dates. Despite the variation in number of people and vehicles at
the beach on the two days, the Wednesday pattern confirms the catchment
concentration to the northwest coastal corridor (Appendix 4.2: Figures 2a to 2d).
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 62
4.3.3. Whitfords Beach
Whitfords Beach has relatively heavy usage and a large catchment area (FIGURE
4.6). However, the number of vehicles counted at Whitfords was low on both days of
survey although full counts of all vehicles were made for the two parking areas,
Whitfords and Pinnaroo Point (Appendix 4.1). While there are a large number of
users from within 10 kilometres of the beach, it is also evident that people are willing
to travel some distance to visit, with a number of postcode areas in Perth’s eastern
suburbs forming part of the beach’s catchment. Hillarys, Duncraig, Craigie, Padbury,
Kingsley and Woodvale are most represented. This is consistent for morning and
afternoon counts for both days of survey. The size of the catchment was much larger
on the Sunday survey date than the Wednesday (Appendix 4.2: Figures 3a to 3d).
The level of use by local residents remained high on both dates.
4.3.4. Hillarys Boat Harbour
Hillary’s role as a large regional beach, tourist attraction and boat harbour are
reflected in its large catchment area (FIGURE 4.7). Visitors to Hillarys came from
across the metropolitan area, although on both the Wednesday and Sunday survey
dates there was a strong concentration of visitors from Perth’s northern corridor
(Appendix 4.2: Figures 4a to 4d). Vehicle registrations collected at Hillarys Beach
identify a widely distributed catchment from around the Perth metropolitan area
extending from Yanchep and Bullsbrook down to Mandurah. The main concentration
is generated from the northwestern suburbs within a 20 km radius of the beach. The
other suburbs represented are adjacent to main arterial routes providing access to
the coast. The size of the catchment remains comparable for both times of both
days.
4.3.5. Mettams Pool
Mettams Pool has a relatively large catchment area given its status as a local beach
(FIGURE 4.8). While visitor numbers from many postcode areas was low, Mettams
Pool’s catchment nevertheless covers a large geographic area. Across the two
survey dates, the catchment for Mettams Pool incorporated a large number of
northern corridor suburbs. In addition, visitors were recorded from both eastern and
southern suburbs. However, the catchment area on Sunday was clearly much larger
than Wednesday, when a pattern of local use was more evident (Appendix 4.2).
The vehicle registration data for Mettams Pool (Appendix 4.2: Figures 5a to 5d) do
not identify significant vehicle use on either day. The dominant catchment is based
on the northwestern suburbs south of Sorrento. Vehicle numbers are greatest for the
Sunday morning count and comparable on Sunday afternoon and Wednesday.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 63
4.3.6. Scarborough Beach
Scarborough’s catchment extends across the Perth metropolitan area with the main
concentration being the northern and northwestern suburbs within a 20 km radius of
the beach. More distant suburbs represented in the eastern and southern suburbs
are generally located adjacent main arterial access roads. (FIGURE 4.9). In many
cases, however, the number of visitors that these areas contribute is quite low. The
most significant catchment is local, with a large number of visitors travelling less than
10 kilometres to visit the beach on both survey dates (Appendix 4.2: Figures 6a to
6d). Vehicle use at Scarborough is consistently high for morning and afternoon
counts on both days.
4.3.7. Peasholm Street
The catchment area for Peasholm Street was concentrated in a belt of suburbs to the
north of Perth’s Central Business District (FIGURE 4.10). It also extended into
Perth’s northern corridor, and to a handful of eastern suburbs. However, much of the
usage was from people living within 10 kilometres of the beach. Vehicle use to
access Peasholm Beach is minor on both days however the catchment is noticeably
more distributed on Sunday, in particular in the morning (Appendix 4.2: Figures 7a to
7d). This pattern of local usage was slightly more pronounced on the Wednesday
survey date. Those northwestern suburbs that are not located directly adjacent to
the beach are located on east-west arterials that give ready access to West Coast
Highway and the beach parking area.
4.3.8. City Beach
While City Beach has a relatively dispersed catchment, the majority of survey
respondents lived no more than 10 kilometres from the beach (FIGURE 4.11). City
Beach drew relatively large numbers of people from Perth’s western suburbs, with
the main draw from the north western and northern suburbs within a 20km radius of
the beach. This pattern was consistent across both the Sunday and Wednesday
survey dates.
The vehicle catchments for City Beach are displayed in Appendix 4.2:Figures 8a to
8d. Vehicles counted at City Sunday vehicle counts were largest and represent
suburbs within a 10km radius. Some vehicles counted on Sunday are from as far
south as Mandurah and as far east as the Swan Valley/Pickering Brook areas. There
is no representation from the northeastern suburbs further than Ellenbrook.
Wednesday counts concentrate the catchment mainly to the north eastern and
northern suburbs within a 20km radius of the beach. Significantly fewer vehicles were
counted on Wednesday than on Sunday.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 64
4.3.9. Cottesloe Beach
Cottesloe Beach draws users from across the Perth metropolitan region (FIGURE
4.12). However, there is also a strong local dimension to its catchment, with most
visitors coming from within 10 kilometres of the beach. This trend was apparent on
both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.
The vehicle catchments for Cottesloe are displayed in Appendix 4.2: Figures 9a to
9d. The catchment pattern indicates a more comparable split between northern and
southern suburbs than any other beach. On Sunday the main concentration extends
to a 35 km radius with the highest vehicle registration counts representing suburbs
within 15 km. On Wednesday the main catchment concentration narrows to a 20 km
radius from the beach and numbers are considerably smaller. On both days, vehicles
from south of Mandurah are identified. Suburbs further than 15 km from the beach
are not necessarily adjacent to main arterial roads although they are in reasonable
proximity to them.
4.3.10. Bathers Beach
Questionnaire survey data was not analysed for Bathers Beach. Catchments based
on vehicle counts for both days (Appendix 4.2: Figures 10a to 10d) indicate a small
density but consistent catchment with a marginal increase on Sunday. The identified
catchment draws equally from suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The
distribution extends to a radius of 30 km with the further suburbs not always being
located adjacent to main arterials.
4.3.11. South Beach
The catchment for South Beach is almost exclusively south of the Swan River and
extending east to Kalamunda/Lesmurdie areas (FIGURE 4.13). It exhibits a strong
local user base, with the majority of visitors coming from within 5-10 kilometres of the
beach. The size of the catchment was much smaller on Wednesday survey date
than the Sunday. This is consistent with the vehicle catchments (Appendix 4.2:
Figures 11a to 11d).
More northern suburbs are represented on Sunday than on Wednesday, mainly from
the northwest coastal corridor to Kalaroo, Padbury and Kingsley. The concentrated
catchment extends to approximately 25 km from the beach. The highest counts
represent suburbs south of the River and within 10km of South Beach. Vehicle
numbers are much lower on Wednesday than on Sunday.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 65
4.3.12. Challenger Beach
Challenger is a relatively lightly used beach with a geographically dispersed
catchment area (FIGURE 4.14). Although a large number of postcode areas are
represented, most only contributed between 1 and 10 visitors. There is, however, a
concentrated source of users in the postcode area directly adjacent to the beach.
Vehicle counts are negligible on Wednesday and Sunday afternoon and represent a
catchment mainly from some southern suburbs (Appendix 4.2: Figures 12a to 12d).
The data collected on Sunday morning show a significantly broader distribution from
suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The main concentration draws from
suburbs within a 38 Km radius, however suburbs as far north as Yanchep, northeast
as Gidgegannup and south as Bouvard are represented. Further suburbs lay
adjacent to main arterial roads. The highest catchment areas counted are the beach
suburbs from Rockingham south to Port Kennedy.
4.3.13. Rockingham
Rockingham has a relatively large catchment, although most visitors are from those
postcode areas within 10 kilometres of the beach (FIGURE 4.15). A similar trend
was evident on both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.
The data for Rockingham is displayed in. Rockingham counts represent a broad
distribution around the Perth metropolitan area weighted towards suburbs south of
the Swan River. The highest density vehicle counts are for the coastal suburbs south
from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and east to Baldivis (Appendix 4.2: Figures 13a to
13d). Suburbs immediately east of this coastal strip are not represented. This is
consistent for all vehicle counts. All distant suburbs to the north and east lie adjacent
to main arterial roads providing access to Rockingham.
4.3.14. Shoalwater Bay
On both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates, Shoalwater Bay demonstrated a
very localised catchment pattern (FIGURE 4.16). In all but a small number of cases,
visitors lived within 10 kilometres of the beach.
The vehicle catchments differ for Shoalwater between the Sunday and Monday
(Appendix 4.2: Figures 14a to 14d). Sunday data indicates a catchment that is
geographically represented by suburbs north and south of the Swan River. The
highest density links to the coastal strip from Rockingham to Port Kennedy.
Representation is identified from the adjacent suburbs: Baldivis, Secret Harbour and
Golden Bay. Northern suburbs identified extend to Yanchep although the main
northern concentration was to Hillarys. Northern suburbs and distant eastern
suburbs are located on the main arterial roads.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 66
The vehicle counts are not high for Wednesday. They concentrate the catchment to
the southern suburbs, although there is some representation from northern suburbs
within 15km of the CBD. The main concentration is confirmed as the coastal strip
south of Rockingham. This result is consistent with that obtained from the
questionnaire survey information.
4.3.15. Secret Harbour
Secret Harbour’s catchment area includes a relatively large number of postcode
areas south of the Swan River (FIGURE 4.17). However, the general trend is one of
very localised use, with most visitors residing in the postcode area directly adjacent
to the beach
Catchments indicated from the vehicle registration information for Secret Harbour is
displayed in Appendix 4.2: Figures 15a to 15d. The vehicle catchment differs for
Secret Harbour between the Sunday and Monday counts. The catchment identified
by Sunday’s vehicle counts draws mainly from suburbs south of the Swan River with
some representation from the northern suburbs manly located in the northwest
coastal corridor. Suburbs east to the Kalamunda, Lesmurdie and Roleystone areas
are also represented. The main concentration of the catchment is the coastal strip
from Rockingham south to Singleton and east to Baldivis/Karnup. The highest
counts are from the immediate beach suburbs from Waikiki to Secret Harbour.
Distant suburbs represented are generally located adjacent to main arterial roads.
The Wednesday counts are small but confirm a concentration on the beach suburb
strip from Rockingham, south to Singleton.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 67
FIGURE 4.1 Catchment area for all survey respondents from 14
metropolitan beaches, Sunday 5 March 2005 and Wednesday 9
March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 68
FIGURE 4.2 Catchment area for survey respondents for 14 metropolitan
beaches, Sunday 5 March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 69
FIGURE 4.3 Catchment area for survey respondents for 14 metropolitan
beaches, Wednesday 9 March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 70
FIGURE 4.4 Catchment area for survey respondents using Yanchep
Lagoon
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 71
FIGURE 4.5 Catchment area for survey respondents using Mullaloo Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 72
FIGURE 4.6 Catchment area for survey respondents using Whitfords
Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 73
FIGURE 4.7 Catchment area for survey respondents using Hillarys Boat
Harbour
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 74
FIGURE 4.8 Catchment area for survey respondents using Mettams Pool
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 75
FIGURE 4.9 Catchment area for survey respondents using Scarborough
Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 76
FIGURE 4.10 Catchment area for survey respondents using Peasholm Street
Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 77
FIGURE 4.11 Catchment area for survey respondents using City Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 78
FIGURE 4.12 Catchment area for survey respondents using Cottesloe Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 79
FIGURE 4.13 Catchment area for survey respondents using South Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 80
FIGURE 4.14 Catchment area for survey respondents using Challenger
Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 81
FIGURE 4.15 Catchment area for survey respondents using Rockingham
Beach
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 82
FIGURE 4.16 Catchment area for survey respondents using Shoalwater Bay
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 83
FIGURE 4.17 Catchment area for survey respondents using Secret Harbour
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 84
4.4. TRANSPORT TO BEACH
4.4.1. Mode of Transport
The most common mode of transport to Perth beaches is the car (FIGURE 4.18). Of
3112 survey respondents, 2302 (74 percent) arrived by car. The next most common
mode of transport was walking, which represented 18 percent of all survey
respondents. The relatively high levels of pedestrian access are linked in part to the
spatially concentrated catchments evident for many of Perth’s beaches (Section 4.3).
Other forms of transport, including bus, train and bicycle represented less than eight
percent of all respondents. FIGURE 4.19 indicates that there is very little variation
between the Wednesday and Sunday survey dates in terms of the mode of transport
used to access the beach.
18%
3%
2%
61%
13%
2%
1%
Walk Bus
Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver)
Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle
Other
FIGURE 4.18 Mode of transport to Perth metropolitan beaches
(percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 85
FIGURE 4.19 Mode of transport to beach on Sunday and Wednesday survey
dates (percent)
FIGURE 4.20 shows the mode of transport to each of the beaches under analysis. It
indicates that the most common means of getting to all beaches is by car. Indeed,
on seven of the beaches (Yanchep Lagoon, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour,
Peasholm Street, City Beach, Challenger Beach, and Secret Harbour), more than 80
percent of respondents had arrived by car. A number of beaches had a
comparatively high proportion of people walking to the beach, including Rockingham
(34%), South Beach (33%), Scarborough (27%), Secret Harbour (27%), and Mettams
Pool (25%). In large part, this is linked to relatively dense populations living within
close proximity of these particular beaches.
Across most of Perth’s metropolitan beaches, the use of public transport is extremely
low. FIGURE 4.21 shows that the percentage of respondents arriving at Perth’s
metropolitan beaches by train or bus was generally less than 4 percent. The only
exceptions to this are Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach. At both of these
beaches, 16 percent of respondents arrived by train or bus. In the case of Cottesloe,
the accessibility of the Fremantle railway line and the presence of a number of
regular bus services along the beachfront are likely to contribute to this. In the case
of Scarborough, a number of bus routes converge on the commercial zone in the
beach precinct, making it easily accessible from the Perth city centre and a number
of nearby suburbs.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Walk
Bus
Train
Car
/mot
orcy
cle
(as a
driver
)
Car
/mot
orcy
cle
(as a
pass
enge
r)
Oth
er
Mode of Transport
Perc
en
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Sunday Wednesday
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 86
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Walk Bus Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver) Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle Other
FIGURE 4.20 Mode of transport to Perth metropolitan beaches by individual beach (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 87
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Yan
chep
Lago
on
Mul
lalo
o B
each
Whi
tford
sB
each
Hill
arys
Boa
tH
arbo
ur
Met
tam
s P
ool
Sca
rbor
ough
Bea
ch
Pea
shol
mS
tree
t
City
Bea
ch
Cot
tesl
oeB
each
Sou
th B
each
Cha
lleng
erB
each
Roc
king
ham
Bea
ch
Sho
alw
ater
Bay
Sec
ret H
arbo
ur
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
F
FIGURE 4.21 People arriving at beach using train or bus by individual beach (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 88
4.4.2. Size and Characteristics of Group
An important component of any analysis of transport patterns is number of people
travelling together to a particular location. For the 14 beaches analysed in this
research, a total of 1957 respondents, or 62.9 percent arrived either on their own, or
with one other person (FIGURE 4.22). Given that more than 30 percent of people
(937) travel to the beach on their own, it seems likely that beaches are significant as
spatial nodes in social networks, providing a place for people to meet with family and
friends. In terms of transport issues, the arrival of solitary individuals or pairs of
people by car has the potential to place pressure on parking resources and transport
networks.
Indeed, FIGURE 4.23 shows that most people (55%) who arrive at the beach on their
own travel by car. More than 70 percent of those arriving in a pair also do so by car.
It is also apparent that those who arrive on their own, or in a pair, are the most likely
to have walked to the beach. The number of people walking drops significantly as
the size of the party increases.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 or more
Number of People in Party
Res
po
nd
ents
FIGURE 4.22 Total number of people in party (including respondent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 89
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of Persons in Party
Per
cen
t
Walk Bus
Train Car/motorcycle (as a driver)
Car/motorcycle (as a passenger) Bicycle
Other
FIGURE 4.23 Percentage of people in party by mode of transport
4.5. TIME REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO BEACH
As part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked approximately how long it took
to travel from their home to the beach they were visiting. Of the 3112 people
surveyed, 1800, or 57.8 percent indicated that they travelled less than 15 minutes to
get to the beach (FIGURE 4.24). 24.5 percent travelled between 15 and 30 minutes,
with the remainder (33.3 percent) travelling more than half an hour. When
considered alongside the data on beach user catchments, it is clear that accessibility
is one of the most important variables in understanding patterns of beach use. From
the data presented in FIGURE 4.24, it is clear that there is a significant decrease in
the willingness of users to visit a beach if it is more than 15 minutes travelling time
from home. This is consistent with the data on user catchments, which shows that
the majority of beach users live no more than 10 kilometres from the beach on which
they were surveyed.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 90
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
0-15 mins 15-30 mins 30-45 mins 45-60 mins More than 60mins
Time Taken to Travel to Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
FIGURE 4.24 Estimated time taken to travel to beach from respondents’
home (percent)
There is some variation in the time taken to travel to individual beaches (FIGURE
4.25). More than 70 percent of respondents on Whitfords and Mullaloo beaches took
less than 15 minutes to travel to the beach, which tends to conform with the relatively
concentrated catchment area outlined in Section 4.3. For most other beaches,
between 60 and 70 percent of users travelled less than 15 minutes.
The exceptions to this were the larger regional beaches, which also tend to have
much wider catchment areas. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach, and
Cottesloe Beach, fewer than 50 percent of respondents travelled less than 15
minutes to the beach, with between 30 and 40 percent travelling between 15 minutes
and half an hour. The relatively lightly used Challenger Beach also recorded a
number of users with travelling times longer than 15 minutes. This is likely to be
linked to the presence of a boat ramp at this beach, and possibly the presence of the
holiday shacks on the beachfront.
The most apparent trend from these data is the relatively short travelling times to all
of the beaches under analysis. For respondents on all of Perth’s beaches, more than
75 percent travelled no more than 30 minutes to visit. This suggests that, in building
scenarios of future beach use, close attention needs to be paid to demographic
trends and transport developments in those areas that are within 15-30 minutes
driving time of the beach.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 91
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Beach
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s Boa
t Har
bour
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Bea
ch
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
0-15 mins 15-30 mins 30-45 mins 45-60 mins More than 60 mins
FIGURE 4.25 Estimated time taken to travel to different Perth beaches from respondents’ home (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 92
4.5.1. Parked Vehicles
Over 9000 vehicle registration numbers were recorded at 15 beaches during the two
days of survey (TABLE 4.2): 6268 (68%) on Sunday 6 March, and 2998 (32%) on
Wednesday 9 March. Overall, 8431 (91%) of the 9266 registrations recorded were
linked to a suburb and or postcode address by TRELIS. The origin and number of
registered vehicles surveyed is listed in Table 4.1. Most vehicles, 93.7% of the 8431
with identifiable registration plates were from the Perth Metropolitan Area; 5.4% (456
vehicles) from country districts in Western Australia; and the remaining 0.9% (76)
had interstate registration. Frequency counts associated with the origin and number
of registered vehicles from each postcode district and suburb in the Perth
Metropolitan Area is presented in Appendix 4.1. Maps of vehicle catchments for each
beach surveyed are presented in Appendix 4.2.
TABLE 4.2 Origin and number of registered vehicles surveyed
Perth
Metropolitan WA Country
Other
States Not Found Total
6 March 2005
Morning 2813 141 8 307 3269
Afternoon 2515 186 29 270 2999
Totals: 6 March 5328 327 37 577 6268
9 March 2005
Morning 1254 57 11 132 1454
Afternoon 1316 74 28 126 1544
Totals: 9 March 2570 131 39 258 2998
TOTAL 7898 456 76 835 9266
Only one vehicle was registered overseas. That vehicle was observed at Hillarys
Boat Harbour during the afternoon of Wednesday 9 march 2005. A further 835
vehicles had registration addresses that could not readily be traced. They account
for approximately 9% of the total number of vehicles surveyed. These, and the
vehicle with the overseas registration, have not been considered further in the
analysis.
Comparisons between beaches or between days of survey are unreliable due to
inconsistencies in the manner in which records were collected at each beach. For
example, vehicle registration plates were recorded hourly at Rockingham but only
once during the morning and afternoon on other beaches. Nevertheless, the large
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 93
size of the sample, together with the consistency of these results with those from the
questionnaire survey, give a good indication of differences between weekend and
mid-week use of the beaches surveyed, and some generalisations can be drawn,
Vehicle catchment areas for 15 metropolitan beaches are displayed in Appendix 4.2.
Each beach is covered by mapping that links catchment to postcodes, and catchment
to suburbs, for morning and afternoons of both days. Postcode data is shown in
FIGURE 4.4 to FIGURE 4.17. The suburb data is a more discriminating
representation of the catchment because a number of suburbs are captured by some
postcodes. Therefore the suburb comparison has been used for the assessment in
this section.
4.6. SUMMARY
The data obtained from the questionnaire surveys and vehicle records indicate a
strong geographical dimension to beach use and the associated transport patterns.
In summary, the questionnaire surveys indicated that:
• The catchment areas for most beaches are highly dispersed. However, the total
number of visitors travelling more than 10 kilometres to a beach is extremely
low. Most beach users live within 5-10 kilometres of a beach. This pattern of
local use is evident on regional, district and local beaches.
• The most common mode of transport to the beach is the car. More than 70
percent of visitors arrived using this mode of transport. The next most common
means of getting to a beach was to walk, which reinforces the concentrated
nature of many beach catchments.
• The use of public transport as a way of accessing beaches was extremely low.
For most beaches less than five percent of visitors arrived by bus or train. The
only exceptions were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach, where the
availability of public transport resulted in more than 15 percent of visitors arriving
by train or bus.
• Most visiting the beaches arrived on their own, or travelled with one other
person.
• There is a strong distance decay function present in the travel patterns to Perth’s
beaches. More than 50 percent of people travel no more than 15 minutes to get
to the beach. Very few people travel more than 30 minutes. This is closely
linked to the size and scope of the catchment areas, which show that a large
proportion of users live very close to the beach they were visiting on the survey
dates.
These observations were confirmed by the origins of vehicles parked in beachfront
car parks in that:
• The catchment areas for beaches that are north of Cottesloe are weighted
towards suburbs north of the Swan River.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 94
• For beaches other than Hillarys, Scarborough and City, the main concentration
for the catchment is the northwest coastal corridor;
• Cottesloe Beach represents a more comparable split between northern and
southern suburbs than any other beach;
• From South Beach to the south, the suburb representation of catchments is
weighted towards suburbs south of the Swan River;
• Beaches from Rockingham to the south have a catchment concentration
comprising the coastal suburbs from Rockingham to Port Kennedy and the
adjacent suburbs of Baldivis, Secret Harbour and Golden Bay;
• Weekend use is larger on all beaches than weekday use;
• Suburbs contained in catchments that are not on the coastal strip are normally
adjacent to main arterial road networks that provide easy access to beaches.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 95
CHAPTER 5. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN BEACH USE
5.1. USAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT PERTH BEACHES
The age cohort of the survey respondents for each beach is illustrated in FIGURE
5.1. In all cases, the majority of respondents were aged between 26 and 45 years,
although on Scarborough and Cottesloe a higher proportion of people between the
ages of 18 and 25 responded to the survey. This is likely to be linked to the
presence of a range of hotels and other entertainment at these beaches, together
with relatively high levels of accessibility by public transport. Older age cohorts (26
years or more) were more strongly represented at Mettams Pool, City Beach and
Rockingham. However, it should be borne in mind that FIGURE 5.1 does not reflect
the age profile of all beach users, only survey respondents. The survey did not seek
responses from children, or request data on the demographic characteristics of those
people accompanying the respondent to the beach.
FIGURE 5.1 Age of respondents by beach (percent)
Across the sample the gender balance is relatively even. A higher proportion of
males were sampled at Yanchep Lagoon (55.1%), City Beach (56.3%), Cottesloe
Beach (54.0%), and Rockingham Beach (53.8%) (FIGURE 5.2). At Shoalwater Bay
and Secret Harbour the representation of males was even more pronounced at 57.0
percent and 66.2 percent, respectively. By contrast, women formed a greater
proportion of the sample at Mettams Pool (56.0%) and Peasholm Street (55.0%).
Given the lack of baseline data on the gender distribution of the total population using
the various beaches, it is not possible to determine the extent to which these
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Percentage
14-17 years 18-25 years 26-45 years 46-60 years 60+ years
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 96
differences are the result of sampling bias. However, qualitative observations by the
surveyors suggested that some beaches are more likely to be used by members of
one gender than another (see also Keating, 1983). This often reflects the nature of
activities, facilities and infrastructure available at a particular beach. For example,
according to the surveyors based at Secret Harbour, the high representation of males
occurred as a result of a number of workers from the nearby housing construction
industry using the beach precinct’s lunch and snack bar facilities. Furthermore, given
the very large size of the total sample, the probability of sampling error is very low.
FIGURE 5.2 Gender of respondent by beach (percent)
5.1.1. Distribution of Respondents in Beach Precinct
The majority of respondents (58.4 percent) were recorded in the beach zone, i.e. on
the beach itself (TABLE 5.1). However, there was considerable geographic variation
across the 14 metropolitan beaches analysed. This is largely a function of the
availability of facilities and services, and the environmental characteristics of
particular beaches. For those beaches with grassed/recreational areas and a range
of commercial facilities, such as Rockingham Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour,
Cottesloe Beach and Shoalwater Bay, less than 50 percent of respondents were
recorded in the beach zone (FIGURE 5.3). Indeed, considerable use was made of
grassed or recreational areas on those beaches where these facilities were available.
However, in a number of cases, almost exclusive use was made of the beach zone.
At Challenger Beach, Peasholm Street and Whitfords Beach, more than 90 percent
of respondents were recorded on the beach itself.
The commercial areas were also an important component of many of Perth’s beach
precincts. At Hillarys Boat Harbour, for example, more than 40 percent of
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Percentage
Male Female
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 97
respondents were recorded in the commercial area. At Shoalwater Bay and Secret
Harbour more than 30 percent were recorded in this area. By contrast, the number
of respondents in the cafe strip/commercial area of Cottesloe and Scarborough was
relatively low. This is noteworthy given the popular view that the cafe and
entertainment areas of these beach precincts are an essential part of their
attractiveness to visitors. In both cases less than less than 20 percent of
respondents were recorded in this area of the beach precinct. In part, this may be
linked to aspects of urban/environmental design, particularly the separation of the
beach face from the commercial area(s) by roads or large areas of open space.
TABLE 5.1 Location of survey respondents in beach precinct
Beach Zone
Beach Name
Beach zone
Grassed/
recreation
zone
Commercial
zoneTotal
Yanchep Lagoon 125 10 23 158
Mullaloo Beach 201 111 10 322
Whitfords Beach 231 12 1 244
Hillarys Boat Harbour 121 108 160 389
Mettams Pool 107 102 0 209
Scarborough Beach 176 128 26 330
Peasholm Street 167 2 0 169
City Beach 181 56 10 247
Cottesloe Beach 140 124 60 324
South Beach 86 70 3 159
Challenger Beach 79 0 0 79
Rockingham Beach 87 139 51 277
Shoalwater Bay 63 12 53 128
Secret Harbour 53 4 20 77
Total 1817 878 417 3112
The proportion of respondents recorded on the beach zone of the various
metropolitan beaches is indicated in FIGURE 5.4. The relatively low concentration of
respondents on the beach face at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Rockingham Beach,
Cottesloe Beach, and Shoalwater Bay emphasises the use of other parts of the
beach precinct. The heaviest use is often concentrated in the grassed and
recreational areas of these beaches (TABLE 5.1). Also the high concentrations of
respondents in the beach zone of Challenger Beach, Peasholm Street and Whitfords
Beach are highlighted in FIGURE 5.4. This reflects the absence of
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 98
grassed/recreational areas at these beaches, particularly Challenger and Peasholm
Street, as well as their role as animal exercise areas.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Beach
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s Boa
t Har
bour
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Bea
ch
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f re
spo
nd
ets
Beach zone Recreation zoneCommercial zone
FIGURE 5.3 Proportion of survey respondents in different parts of the
beach precinct (percent)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Peash
olm S
treet
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
City B
each
Secre
t Har
bour
Mull
aloo
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Cotte
sloe
Beach
Rockin
gham
Bea
ch
Hillary
s Boa
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
FIGURE 5.4 People recorded in the beach zone by individual beach
(percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 99
5.1.2. Use of Alternative Metropolitan Beaches
There is considerable diversity in beach use within the Perth metropolitan region (
FIGURE 5.5). Between 60 and 70 percent of respondents on 10 of the 14
metropolitan beaches under analysis in this research visited other beaches. At the
same time, however, it is clear than there are large numbers of respondents who
make exclusive use of a single beach. This trend is illustrated in
FIGURE 5.6, and suggests that beaches in the southern part of the metropolitan
region tend to have relatively high levels of exclusive use. For 45 percent of
respondents, exclusive use was made of South Beach, Secret Harbour and
Challenger Beach. This trend was even more pronounced for Rockingham, with
close to 55 percent of people making sole use of that location.
Selection of alternatives has a strong geographical dimension for respondents who
use other beaches (TABLE 5.2). Most alternatives are within relatively short distance
of the beach on which respondents were surveyed. For example, users of Mullaloo
Beach indicated that the most frequently used alternatives were Hillarys Boat
Harbour, Scarborough Beach, Trigg Beach, and Sorrento Beach. All of these are
less than 10 kilometres from Mullaloo Beach. Similarly, users of Scarborough Beach
indicated that the most common alternatives were Cottesloe Beach, Trigg Beach,
City Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and Mullaloo Beach. Again, all of these alternative
beaches are within 10 kilometres of Scarborough.
There are, however, some notable exceptions to this trend. The most common
alternatives for users of Yanchep Lagoon were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe
Beach, more than 40 kilometres away. Similarly, the most popular alternative
beaches for users of Secret Harbour were Scarborough Beach and Cottesloe Beach,
more than 50 kilometres away. Indeed, Scarborough and Cottesloe were regularly
cited as alternative beaches for survey respondents. This emphasises both their
popularity and large catchment areas (see Chapter 4.). Scarborough and/or
Cottesloe were recorded as the two most common alternatives for 10 of the 14
beaches analysed as part of this research (TABLE 5.2).
The frequency of use of alternative beaches by survey respondents did not vary
significantly across the 14 beaches (TABLE 5.3). Most alternative beaches were
used between once a week and 1-3 times per month. The most frequent use of an
alternative beach was by people at Secret Harbour, City Beach and Whitfords Beach,
with more than 25 percent of respondents using these beaches once a week or
more. It was also apparent that the frequency of alternative beach use was higher
around Hillarys Boat Harbour, Mettams Pool and Scarborough Beach than
elsewhere. For these beaches, more than 15 percent of respondents indicated that
they used alternative beaches more than once a week. This is likely to be a result of
the large number of alternative beaches available within a relatively small
geographical area. This high level of choice appears to result in a diverse pattern of
beach selection and use.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yan
chep
Lag
oon
Mullaloo
Bea
ch
Whitfo
rds Bea
ch
Hillar
ys B
oat H
arbo
ur
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Sca
rbor
ough
Bea
ch
Pea
sholm
Stre
et
City
Bea
ch
Cot
tesloe
Bea
ch
Sou
th B
each
Cha
lleng
er B
each
Roc
king
ham
Bea
ch
Sho
alwat
er B
ay
Sec
ret H
arbo
ur
Beach
Perc
en
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
FIGURE 5.5 Survey respondents’ use of another metropolitan beach
(percent)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Yan
chep
Lag
oon
Mullaloo
Bea
ch
Whitfo
rds Bea
ch
Hillar
ys B
each
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Sca
rbor
ough
Bea
ch
Pea
sholm
Stre
et
City
Bea
ch
Cot
tesloe
Bea
ch
Sou
th B
each
Cha
lleng
er B
each
Roc
king
ham
Bea
ch
Sho
alwat
er B
ay
Sec
ret H
arbo
ur
Beach
Perc
en
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
FIGURE 5.6 Exclusive use of a beach (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 101
TABLE 5.2 Four most used alternative beaches used by survey respondents (percentage of responses)
BeachAlternativeBeach One
AlternativeBeach Two
AlternativeBeach 3
AlternativeBeach Four
AlternativeBeach Five
Other AlternativeBeaches
Total Responses
Yanchep LagoonScarborough
(16.8)Cottesloe
(11.0)Mullaloo
(8.7)Hillarys
(8.1)Quinns Rocks
(6.4)49.0
100.0(n=173)
Mullaloo BeachHillarys(16.9)
Scarborough(16.9)
Trigg(16.9)
Sorrento(8.7)
Cottesloe(8.4)
32.2100.0
(n=391)
Whitfords BeachScarborough
(16.6)Mullaloo(16.2)
Trigg(12.6)
Hillarys(10.7)
Sorrento(8.5)
35.4100.0
(n=271)
Hillarys Boat HarbourMullaloo(14.9)
Scarborough(14.4)
Cottesloe(13.0)
Trigg(11.8)
Sorrento(6.9)
39.0100.0
(n=431)
Mettams PoolTrigg(22.4)
Cottesloe(13.4)
Scarborough(13.4)
City(8.6)
Hillarys(5.6)
36.6100.0
(n=268)
Scarborough BeachCottesloe
(27.6)Trigg(20.9)
City(11.9)
Hillarys(6.2)
Mullaloo(4.6)
28.8100.0
(n=388)
Peasholm StreetScarborough
(20.0)Trigg
(19.0))Cottesloe
(10.8)City(9.2)
Brighton(6.7)
34.3100.0
(n=195)
City BeachCottesloe
(29.6)Scarborough
(23.9)Trigg(10.9)
Floreat(8.1)
North Cottesloe(4.6)
22.9100.0
(n=284)
Cottesloe BeachScarborough
(21.1)Leighton
(15.7)City
(12.0)Trigg(7.5)
Port(6.3)
37.4100.0
(n=332)
South BeachCottesloe
(31.0)Leighton
(16.3)Port
(14.7)Scarborough
(9.3)City(5.4)
23.3100.0
(n=129)
Challenger BeachCoogee(16.9)
Cottesloe(10.4)
Rockingham(9.1)
Woodman's Point(6.5)
Mandurah(5.1)
52.0100.0(n=77)
Rockingham BeachShoalwater
(17.6)Warnboro
(16.1)Waikiki(12.2)
Cottesloe(9.3)
Secret Harbour(6.8)
38.0100.0
(n=205)
Shoalwater BayRockingham
(30.4)Warnboro
(14.3)Shoalwater
(6.8)Waikiki
(6.8)Cottesloe
(6.2)35.5
100.0(n=161)
Secret HarbourCottesloe
(25.4)Scarborough
(9.5)Leighton
(7.9)Port(7.9)
Rockingham(7.9)
41.4100.0(n=63)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 102
TABLE 5.3 Frequency alternative beaches are used by respondents (Here,
frequency is shown as a percentage.)
Once a
day or
more
4-6 times
per week
2-3 times
per week
Once a
week
1-3 times
per month
Less than
once a
month
Do not
use other
beaches
Total
Yanchep Lagoon 3.2 1.3 10.1 9.5 19.0 17.7 39.2 100
Mullaloo Beach 3.7 1.2 5.3 17.1 26.7 13.4 32.6 100
Whitfords Beach 2.9 2.5 9.8 20.1 16.8 13.9 34.0 100
Hillarys 4.4 1.8 10.5 12.9 21.1 17.2 32.1 100
Mettams Pool 4.3 4.8 12.9 12.9 22.0 12.0 31.1 100
Scarborough 3.3 2.7 10.6 18.5 15.8 17.0 32.1 100
Peasholm Street 2.3 9.5 10.7 11.8 18.3 15.4 32.0 100
City Beach 2.4 2.8 8.1 21.1 22.7 10.9 32.0 100
Cottesloe Beach 2.7 2.2 7.1 15.7 17.6 14.5 40.2 100
South Beach 1.3 1.3 7.5 11.9 17.0 11.3 49.7 100
Challenger Beach 1.3 0.0 7.6 6.3 21.5 17.7 45.6 100
Rockingham 4.3 2.2 7.6 9.7 10.1 13.4 52.7 100
Shoalwater Bay 1.4 1.6 10.2 8.6 24.2 18.8 35.2 100
Secret Harbour 1.2 2.6 1.3 24.7 10.4 11.7 48.1 100
5.2. TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN BEACH USE
5.2.1. Frequency of Beach Use
Respondents to the questionnaire were asked how frequently they used the beaches
they were visiting in summer and winter (Figure 3.11). The aggregate data for all
beaches shows that that, in summer, 63.8 percent of users visit the beach once a
week or more. In winter this figure is still relatively high at 37.0 percent. There are
also a relatively large number of very infrequent beach users in both summer and
winter. In summer, 22.4 percent of respondents visited less than once a month. Not
surprisingly, infrequent beach use rises considerably in winter, with 48.6 percent of
respondents visiting less than once a month.
There was considerable variation in the patterns of temporal use from beach to
beach (TABLE 5.3). Rockingham experienced particularly high levels of daily use,
with 9.4 percent of respondents visiting more than once a day in summer and 5.1
percent in winter (TABLE 5.4 and TABLE 5.5). In summer, 24.2 percent of visitors to
Rockingham used the beach once a day. Similar daily use patterns in summer were
recorded at Whitfords Beach (24.2%), Mullaloo Beach (23.3%), Mettams Pool
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 103
(22.0%) and South Beach (22.0%) (TABLE 5.4). In winter, Rockingham Beach had
the highest reported daily use of all beaches (16.2% of respondents). Other beaches
with comparatively high daily winter use were Shoalwater Bay (14.1%) and South
Beach (11.9%) (TABLE 5.5).
In summer, a number of beaches recorded a large proportion of respondents who
claimed to use the beach once a week or more (TABLE 5.4). More than 70 percent
of respondents at South Beach (79.9%), Whitfords Beach, Rockingham Beach
(74.8%), Secret Harbour (72.8%), Mullaloo Beach (71.4%), and City Beach (70.4%)
indicated that they used these beaches more than once a week in summer. By
contrast, Yanchep Lagoon (42.4%) and Hillarys Boat Harbour (45.7%) had the lowest
proportion of respondents who used the beach weekly or more. Indeed, it was also
these beaches that had the highest proportion of respondents who visited the beach
less than once a month in summer (50% at Yanchep and 29.6% at Hillarys).
In winter, some beaches recorded relatively high levels of frequent use (TABLE 5.5).
More than 50 percent of respondents at Rockingham Beach (58.1%), Whitfords
Beach (54.5%), and South Beach (53.5%) indicated that they used these beaches
once a week or more in winter. These beaches share a number of common
characteristics that may contribute to this, including relatively sheltered recreational
areas, cycle/walk paths and, in the case of Whitfords, an animal exercise area.
Low levels of winter use (visits less than once a month) were particularly evident
amongst respondents at Yanchep Lagoon (66.5%), Scarborough Beach (60.6%),
Hillarys (57.3%), and Cottesloe Beach (57.1%) (TABLE 5.5). This trend is
particularly noteworthy in relation to Scarborough, Cottesloe and Hillarys given their
large commercial/tourist precincts. The tendency of respondents not to visit
frequently in winter suggests that there are likely to be considerable seasonal
variations in business patronage and the pressure placed on infrastructure and
facilities.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 104
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
More thanonce a day
Once a day 4-6 times perweek
2-3 times perweek
Once aweek
1-3 times permonth
Less thanonce amonth
Frequency of Visit
Res
po
nd
ents
Summer Winter
FIGURE 5.7 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in summer and
winter
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 105
TABLE 5.4 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in summer by individual beach (percent)
More than
once a dayOnce a day
4-6 times
per week
2-3 times
per week
Once a
week
1-3 times
per month
Less than
once a
month
Total N
Yanchep Lagoon 3.8 9.5 12.0 10.1 7.0 7.6 50.0 100.0 158
Mullaloo Beach 2.2 23.3 9.9 14.6 21.4 17.1 11.5 100.0 322
Whitfords Beach 0.8 24.2 17.6 18.4 17.6 9.4 11.9 100.0 244
Hillarys Boat Harbour 1.5 8.0 5.4 14.1 16.7 24.7 29.6 100.0 389
Mettams Pool 3.3 22.0 14.4 17.7 11.5 12.0 19.1 100.0 209
Scarborough Beach 3.0 17.6 6.7 19.7 11.8 12.4 28.8 100.0 330
Peasholm Street 0.6 17.8 12.4 21.9 14.8 12.4 20.1 100.0 169
City Beach 0.4 19.0 9.3 22.3 19.4 12.1 17.4 100.0 247
Cottesloe Beach 2.2 14.8 8.0 16.4 16.4 15.1 27.2 100.0 324
South Beach 6.9 22.0 17.0 20.8 13.2 7.5 12.6 100.0 159
Challenger Beach 7.6 5.1 16.5 12.7 13.9 16.5 27.8 100.0 79
Rockingham Beach 9.4 24.2 6.9 19.1 15.2 8.3 17.0 100.0 277
Shoalwater Bay 3.9 19.5 6.3 10.9 14.8 16.4 28.1 100.0 128
Secret Harbour 0.0 9.1 16.9 28.6 18.2 13.0 14.3 100.0 77
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 106
TABLE 5.5 Frequency of visits to metropolitan beaches in winter by individual beach (percent)
More than
once a dayOnce a day
4-6 times
per week
2-3 times
per week
Once a
week
1-3 times
per month
Less than
once a
month
Total N.
Yanchep Lagoon 0 2.5 5.7 6.3 9.5 9.5 66.5 100 158
Mullaloo Beach 0 9.9 3.1 12.1 12.4 19.3 43.2 100 322
Whitfords Beach 0 7.8 9.4 20.9 16.4 13.1 32.4 100 244
Hillarys Beach 1.5 3.9 2.6 6.7 8.2 19.8 57.3 100 389
Mettams Pool 1.9 10.0 4.3 15.8 6.7 12.0 49.3 100 209
Scarborough Beach 1.2 6.7 3.3 10.3 7.3 10.6 60.6 100 330
Peasholm Street 1.2 5.3 7.1 18.9 11.2 17.2 39.1 100 169
City Beach 0.4 6.1 2.8 9.7 11.3 15.8 53.8 100 247
Cottesloe Beach 0.3 5.6 6.5 9.3 10.5 10.8 57.1 100 324
South Beach 3.8 11.9 8.2 19.5 10.1 13.2 33.3 100 159
Challenger Beach 2.5 1.3 3.8 10.1 7.6 29.1 45.6 100 79
Rockingham Beach 5.1 16.2 4.3 14.4 18.1 10.8 31.0 100 277
Shoalwater Bay 0.8 14.1 3.1 7.0 6.3 12.5 56.3 100 128
Secret Harbour 0 6.5 6.5 23.4 10.4 13.0 40.3 100 77
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 108
5.2.2. Time of Beach Use
The time of the interview with each respondent was recorded during the survey. On
Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was
between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents recorded on
beaches). Following a general decrease in use between 10.00-10.59am and 12.00-
12.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the early afternoon. The total
number of beach users decreased steadily from 2.00-2.59pm until 6.00pm.
A very similar trend was evident on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 (FIGURE 5.8 Time
of day respondents recorded on beaches). The total number of beach users
increased in the early morning, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and
8.59am. The number of respondents then increased during the mid morning,
peaking around 10.00am. A decrease leading into the lunch time period was
followed by an increase between 1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was
followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm, which coincides with the end of the
school day.
020
4060
80100
120140
160180
200
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm
3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59
5.00pm-6.00pm
Time
Respondents
Sunday Wednesday
FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents recorded on beaches
The daily temporal use patterns on individual beaches were, in general, not dissimilar
to the macro-level trends reported in FIGURE 5.8 Time of day respondents
recorded on beaches. However, the nature of use does vary according to specific
local conditions. The following section provides an overview of the different temporal
use patterns of Perth beaches on both the Sunday and Wednesday survey dates.
Yanchep Lagoon
The use of Yanchep Lagoon increased steadily between 8.00am and 10.00am on
Sunday, 5 March 2005 (FIGURE 5.9). Usage then dropped over the lunch time
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 109
period (11am – 1.00pm), followed by a rise in the mid afternoon. Use of this beach
dropped steadily from about 3.00pm.
On the Wednesday survey date, use of the beach grew slowly until about 1.00am,
followed by a general decrease (FIGURE 5.10). There was, however, a sharp
increase in use towards the end of the working day. Indeed, the number of
respondents on the beach after 5.00pm was higher than at any other point during the
day.
Mullaloo Beach
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was
between 7.00am and 7.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a decrease in use between
10.00-10.59am and 11.00-11.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the
early afternoon. After a dip between 4.00-4.59pm the total number of beach users
increased until 6.00pm.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach
was between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of respondents
decreased for the rest of the morning, reaching a low point between 12.00-12.59pm.
An increase between 1.00-1.59pm was followed by a decrease at 2.00-2.59pm. An
increase in the total number of respondents occurred between 3.00-3.59pm and
4.00-4.59pm, which coincided with the end of the school day.
Whitfords Beach
The largest number of respondents using the beach on Sunday, 5 March, was
between 10.00am and 10.59am followed by a decrease of numbers for the rest of the
morning and early afternoon (FIGURE 5.9). Numbers reached a low between 2.00-
2.59pm. The number of respondents increased between 3.00-3.59pm, then dipped
during 4.00-4.59pm and increased again by 5.00-5.59pm.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach
was between 7.00am and 7.59am, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am
and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of respondents then increased during the
9.00-9.59am period, followed by a decrease at 11.00-11.59am. The number of
respondents increased at lunchtime 12.00-12.59pm, then decreased to the lowest
point of the day at 3.00-3.59, which was followed a rise to the second highest level of
use during the day, between 4.00-4.59pm.
Hillarys Boat Harbour
The largest number of respondents using the beach on the Sunday survey date was
between 10.00am and10.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a general decrease in
users until 12.00-12.59pm, the number of respondents increased in the early
afternoon. The total number of beach users decreased steadily from 2.00-2.59pm
until 6.00pm.
The number of beach users at Hillarys on Wednesday, 9 March 2005, increased in
the morning before dropping between 12.00am and 12.59pm (FIGURE 5.10). The
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 110
number of respondents then increased to peak between 1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in
mid afternoon was followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm.
Mettams Pool
The number of respondents at Mettams Pool on the Sunday survey date was highest
between 7.00am and 7.59am (FIGURE 5.9). Following a general decrease in users
between 8.00-8.59am and 10.00-10.59am, the number of respondents increased
around midday, which is unlike most of the other beaches surveyed. The total
number of beach users decreased between 2.00-2.59pm, and then rose again during
4.00-4.59pm to decrease to 6.00pm.
On Wednesday, the total number of beach users increased in the early morning,
followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.10). The number of
respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking between 9.00-9.59am.
A decrease leading into the lunch time period was followed by an increase between
1.00-1.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was followed by an increase in the early
evening.
Scarborough Beach
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased in the early
morning, followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.11). The
number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking between
9.00-9.59am. A slight decrease leading into the lunch time period was followed by
an increase between 1.00-1.59pm. The lowest number of respondents was recorded
between 3.00-3.59pm, followed by an increase between 4.00-4.59pm.
The total number of beach users increased in the early morning on the Wednesday
survey date, followed by a drop between 9.00am and 9.59am (FIGURE 5.12). The
number of respondents then increased during the morning and early afternoon to
decrease sharply between 2.00-2.59pm. An increase during the late afternoon
peaked between 4.00-4.59pm.
Peasholm Street
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was
between 10.00am and 10.59am (FIGURE 5.11). Following a general decrease in
use until 12.00-12.59pm, the number of respondents then increased in the early
afternoon. An increase during the late afternoon occurred between 4.00-4.59pm.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2005 the total number of beach users increased in the early
morning, followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.12). The
number of respondents then increased in the following hour. A decrease followed
until the lowest number of respondents during the day was recorded at 1.00-1.59pm.
The day’s busiest hour of the day was between 4.00-4.59pm.
City Beach
The total number of beach users increased in the early morning on the Sunday
survey date, followed by a decrease between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.11). During
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 111
late morning early midday the numbers increase, dipping during 1.00-1.59pm. The
day’s busiest hour was 2.00-2.59pm, followed by a sharp decrease the following
hour.
The number of beach users began with 15 respondents between 6.00-6.69am and
again between 7.00-7.59am (FIGURE 5.12). Use decreased between to 8.00am and
9.59am. The number of respondents peaked between 10.00-10.59am, and then
decreased leading into the lunch time period. This was followed by an increase
between 2.00-2.59pm. A decrease in mid afternoon was followed by an increase
between 4.00-4.59pm
Cottesloe Beach
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased steadily
throughout the morning, followed by a decreasing between 11.00am and 12.59pm
(FIGURE 5.11). The number of respondents increased during the afternoon with a
dip during 2.00-2.59pm to peak at 6.00pm. This coincides with increasing patronage
of local hotels and cafes late in the day.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the total number of beach users increased in the
early morning, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE
5.12. The number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking
around 11.00am. A decrease leading into the lunch time period is followed by an
increase between 1.00-1.59pm. Following a decrease in the mid afternoon there is a
late increase in use from about 4.00pm.
South Beach
The number of beach users on Sunday, 5 March, increased during the morning to
peak at 9.00-9.59am (FIGURE 5.13). This was followed by a decrease from about
11.00am. The number of respondents increased during the afternoon until 3.00-
3.59pm, after which the number of respondents decreased.
On Wednesday, 9 March, the total number of beach users rose until 7.00-7.59,
followed by a drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14). The highest use
occurred between 9.00-9.59am, followed by a sharp decrease and more consistent
pattern of use throughout the rest of the day.
Challenger Beach
The largest number of respondents on Challenger Beach on Sunday, 5 March was
between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.13). Usage was consistent until 3.00-3.59pm,
when numbers decreased. During 4.00-4.59pm users increased, though this was
followed by a steady decline until 6.00pm.
On the Wednesday survey date, as on Sunday, the largest number of respondents
using the beach was between 10.00-10.59am (FIGURE 5.14). Usage was consistent
until 2.00-2.59pm when numbers decreased. During late afternoon the numbers
increased to decrease by 6.00pm.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 112
Rockingham Beach
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of users on Rockingham Beach was
recorded at two separate times: 9.00-9.59am and 11.00-11.59am (FIGURE 5.13).
Between these times there was a sharp decline in respondents. After the peak
during 11.00-11.59am, numbers decreased over the midday period and rose again
slightly between 3.00-3.59pm. The pattern from 4.00pm was one of decreasing
usage.
On Wednesday, 9 March 2005, the heaviest use was recorded between 7.00-
7.59am, followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14).
The number of respondents increased during the mid morning, decreasing around
noon. An increase was recorded between 1.00-1.59pm. This was followed by a
decrease in the mid afternoon, and another rise around 4.00pm.
Shoalwater Bay
The heaviest use of Shoalwater Bay was recorded between 11.00-11.59am and
12.00-12.59pm in the Sunday survey (FIGURE 5.13). Following a decrease in use
between 1.00-1.59am, the number of respondents increased in the early afternoon.
The total number of beach users decreased steadily from 3.00-3.59pm to 6.00pm.
On Wednesday, the total number of beach users increased in the early morning,
followed by a substantial drop between 8.00am and 8.59am (FIGURE 5.14). The
number of respondents then increased during the mid morning, peaking during
10.00-10.59am. After a decrease between 11.00-11.59am, an increase occurred
during the lunchtime period followed by a decrease between 1.00-1.59pm. The mid
afternoon was followed by slight increases and decreases until decreasing after 4.00-
4.59pm.
Secret Harbour
On Sunday, 5 March 2005, the largest number of respondents using the beach was
between 11.00-11.59am (FIGURE 5.13). Following a general decrease in use
between 12.00 and 2.59pm, the number of respondents increased during 3.00-
3.59pm. The total number of beach users then decreased steadily to 6.00pm.
The total number of beach users of the Wednesday survey date remained relatively
constant in the morning, peaking between 9.00-9.59am (FIGURE 5.14). Beach use
then decreased slightly, and remained relatively constant for the remainder of the
day.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 113
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-6.00pm
Time
Respondents
Yanchep Lagoon Mullaloo Whitfords Beach Hillarys Mettams Pool
FIGURE 5.9 Time of day respondents recorded at Yanchep Lagoon, Mullaloo Beach, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and
Mettams Pool, Sunday, 5 March, 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 114
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-
6.59am
7.00am-
7.59am
8.00am-
8.59am
9.00am-
9.59am
10.00am-
10.59am
11.00am-
11.59am
12.00pm-
12.59pm
1.00pm-
1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-
3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-
6.00pm
Time
Respondents
Yanchep Lagoon Mullaloo Whitfords Beach Hillarys Mettams Pool
FIGURE 5.10 Time of day respondents recorded at Yanchep Lagoon, Mullaloo Beach, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour and
Mettams Pool, Wednesday, 9 March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 115
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm
3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59
5.00pm-6.00pm
Beach
Respondents
Scarborough Beach Peasholm Street City Beach Cottesloe Beach
FIGURE 5.11 Time of day respondents recorded at Scarborough Beach, Peasholm Street, City Beach and Cottesloe Beach, Sunday, 5
March, 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 116
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm 3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59 5.00pm-6.00pm
Time
Respondents
Scarborough Beach Peasholm Street City Beach Cottesloe Beach
FIGURE 5.12 Time of day respondents recorded at Scarborough Beach, Peasholm Street, City Beach and Cottesloe Beach,
Wednesday, 9 March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 117
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm
3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59
5.00pm-6.00pm
Time
Respondents
South Beach Challenger Beach Rockingham Shoalwater Bay Secret Harbour
FIGURE 5.13 Time of day respondents recorded at South Beach, Challenger Beach, Rockingham Beach, Shoalwater Bay and Secret
Harbour, Sunday, 5 March, 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 118
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
6.00am-6.59am
7.00am-7.59am
8.00am-8.59am
9.00am-9.59am
10.00am-10.59am
11.00am-11.59am
12.00pm-12.59pm
1.00pm-1.59pm
2.00-2.59pm
3.00pm-3.59pm
4.00pm-4.59
5.00pm-6.00pm
Time
Respondents
South Beach Challenger Beach Rockingham Shoalwater Bay Secret Harbour
FIGURE 5.14 Time of day respondents recorded at South Beach, Challenger Beach, Rockingham Beach, Shoalwater Bay and Secret
Harbour, Wednesday, 9 March 2005
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 119
5.2.3. Expected Duration of Visit
The majority of people surveyed as part of the questionnaire expected to spend less
than two hours on the beach. On the Sunday survey date, 27 percent of respondents
expected to spend less than one hour at the beach, while 41 percent expected to
spend two hours (FIGURE 5.15). The anticipated time on the beach was generally
much shorter on the Wednesday, with 46 percent of people expecting to spend less
than an hour.
05
101520253035404550
Less than 1 hour 1-2 hours More than 2 hours
Time spent on beach
Per
cen
t
Sunday Wednesday
FIGURE 5.15 Expected duration of visit to Perth beaches on Sunday, 5
March 2005, and Wednesday, 9 March 2005
The expected time spent on the beach on Sunday, 5 March 2005 was longest at
Challenger Beach, Secret Harbour, Cottesloe Beach and Scarborough Beach, with
more than 40 percent of respondents at these locations indicating that they planned
to spend more than two hours (FIGURE 5.16). Beaches with the shortest anticipated
visitations were Mettams Pool, Whitfords Beach and Peasholm Street, the latter two
of which are dog exercise beaches. More than 40 percent of respondents at
Yanchep Lagoon, Whitfords Beach, Hillarys Boat Harbour, Peasholm Street and City
Beach planned to visit for one to two hours.
The amount of time respondents planned to spend on the individuals beaches on
Wednesday tended to be considerably less than on Sunday. For Yanchep Lagoon,
Whitfords Beach, Mettams Pool, Challenger Beach and Secret Harbour, more than
60 percent of visitors planned to spend less than one hour at the beach (FIGURE
5.17). Only at Hillarys Boat Harbour, Scarborough Beach and Shoalwater Bay did
more than 30 percent of respondents plan to spend more than three hours at the
beach. On most beaches, less than 10 percent planned to visit for more than three
hours.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 120
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Beach
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s Boa
t Har
bour
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Bea
ch
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Less than 1 hour 1-2 hours More than 2 hours
FIGURE 5.16 Anticipated time spent on individual beaches on Sunday, 5 March 2005 (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 121
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yanch
ep L
agoo
n
Mull
aloo
Beach
Whit
ford
s Bea
ch
Hillary
s Boa
t Har
bour
Met
tam
s Poo
l
Scarb
orou
gh B
each
Peash
olm S
treet
City B
each
Cotte
sloe
Beach
South
Bea
ch
Challe
nger
Bea
ch
Rockin
gham
Bea
ch
Shoalw
ater
Bay
Secre
t Har
bour
Beach
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
den
ts
Less than 1 hour 1-2 hours More than 2 hours
FIGURE 5.17 Anticipated time spent on individual beaches on Wednesday, 9 March (percent)
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 122
5.3. SUMMARY
The data presented in this section illustrates considerable spatial and temporal
variation in the nature of metropolitan beach use. Some of the most apparent trends
are:
• High levels of use of Perth’s major regional beaches, Hillarys Boat Harbour,
Scarborough Beach, Cottesloe Beach, and Rockingham Beach on both
weekends and weekdays. This use is not restricted to summer, but also
includes relatively high levels of use during winter. A number of district and
local beaches also experience considerable levels of use on weekends, while
weekday use tends to be more variable.
• There is considerable use of alternative beaches by users. This was particularly
evident in the beaches between Cottesloe and Yanchep Lagoon. Most users
visited beaches that were relatively close to the one on which they were
surveyed, suggesting that location was an important factor shaping the choice
of beach.
• In summer, more than 60 percent of respondents visited the beach weekly or
more. This high level of use was particularly evident at some of the district or
local beaches. At the same time, however, a little over 20% of users were
extremely infrequent visitors, using the beaches less than once a month. In
winter, the frequency of use dropped considerably across all beaches, although
37 percent of users still visit weekly or more.
• There were considerable variations in the temporal pattern of daily use. A
number of beaches experience an early morning crowd (6.00am – 8.00am),
followed by a drop in numbers. Often the most intense use occurs in the mid to
late morning (10.00am to 12.00pm). Use of the beach in the afternoon is
usually characterised by a peak around 2.00, followed by a steady decrease in
users. However, a number of beaches experience a late afternoon rise
following the end of the school and work days.
• Most visitors to beaches stayed less than two hours. This trend was apparent
across all beaches, although in some cases less than one hour was the norm.
This was particularly apparent on the Wednesday survey date.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 123
CHAPTER 6. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
6.1. INTRODUCTION
Perth’s beaches form one of the most important recreational resources in the
metropolitan region. Not only do they attract large numbers of visitors, but they also
host a wide range of activities. This section reports on the main reasons for people
visiting particular beaches and the activities undertaken while at the beach.
6.2. REASON FOR VISIT
For most respondents to the questionnaire, one of the most important reasons for
deciding to visit a particular beach was its proximity to home. Of the 4,891
responses to the question on why people chose to visit a beach, 1,113 (22.8 per
cent) mentioned its closeness to home. The beaches where the largest number of
responses stated that proximity to home was important were important in selecting
the particular beach were Mullaloo Beach (35.9%), City Beach (34.7%), South Beach
(30.3%), Scarborough Beach (29.9%), and Rockingham Beach (23%).
The decision to visit a beach based on proximity to home resonates with the data on
beach user catchments and transport patterns, discussed in section 3 of this report.
The catchment data suggested that the majority of beach users lived within about 10
kilometres of the beach, while the transport data suggested that people generally
travel less than 30 minutes (and predominantly less than 15 minutes) to visit the
beach. The data presented here further emphasise the importance of location in
determining patterns of beach use.
The other most commonly mentioned factor in deciding which beach to visit was
swimming conditions. 19 per cent (928 responses) nominated this as an important
factor. The next most important reasons given were the availability of a dog exercise
area (8.5%), access to cafes and restaurants (7.6%), relaxation (6.5%), and meeting
with family and friends (6.4%).
While aggregate data on the main reasons for visiting beaches highlights the role of
proximity, other reasons for visiting become more apparent at the individual beach
level (TABLE 6.1). These reasons are often linked to specific environmental, social
or regulatory factors, such as swimming conditions, the presence of particular
facilities (e.g. cafes), or regulations that permitted certain activities on the beach,
such as animal exercise. For those beaches where proximity to home was not the
most common answer, the following were the most popular responses:
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 124
• Yanchep Lagoon: swimming conditions (28.4 per cent)
• Whitfords Beach: dog exercise area (38.7 per cent)
• Hillarys Boat Harbour: access to cafes/restaurants (22.3 per cent)
• Mettams Pool: swimming conditions (44.6 per cent)
• Peasholm Street: dog exercise area (62.6 per cent)
• Cottesloe Beach: swimming conditions (24.8 per cent)
• Challenger Beach: swimming conditions (17.5 per cent)
• Secret Harbour: surfing conditions (29.4 per cent)
With the exception of Hillarys Boat Harbour, for all of the above beaches proximity to
home was the second most common response. At Hillarys children’s safety was the
second most important reason for visiting.
6.3. BEACH ACTIVITIES
The survey respondents engaged in a range of activities when visiting Perth’s
beaches. (TABLE 6.2) Not surprisingly, the most common activity on all beaches
was swimming. Other water-based activities were also prominent on some beaches,
such as snorkelling (notably at Yanchep Lagoon and Mettams Pool), surfing (Secret
Harbour), and fishing (Yanchep Lagoon and Challenger Beach).
One of the most common activities was walking or running. On nine of the surveyed
beaches this most commonly mentioned activity. The number of respondents
walking on Peasholm Street (41.1 per cent of responses) and Whitfords Beach
(36.8%), both dog exercise areas, was particularly high.
Visiting cafes, restaurants and hotels was also common at certain beaches,
particularly Hillarys (31.3 per cent of responses), Rockingham (21.1%), Shoalwater
Bay, and Cottesloe (17.5%). Despite the presence of a considerable commercial
zone at Scarborough, this activity represented on 7.7 per cent of all responses.
6.4. SUMMARY
As in the previous section, it was clear that location is one of the key drivers shaping
the nature of beach use. The proximity of beaches in relation to users’ place of
residents was among the main reasons for deciding to visit a particular beach. This
is consistent with the concentrated nature of user catchments and the relatively short
travel times undertaken by people using beaches (reported in section 4). The other
main reason for deciding to visit particular beaches was swimming conditions.
Visiting to exercise, visit cafes, walk the dog, and snorkel or surf were also
mentioned as important, although these tended to be confined to specific beaches
where these activities were either allowed or supported by environmental conditions
or infrastructure.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 125
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Clo
se to
hom
e
Dog
exe
rcis
e ar
ea
Rel
axat
ion
and
Soc
ialis
e
Oth
erre
crea
tion/
tour
ism
Lack
of c
row
ds
Sur
fing
cond
ition
s
Goo
d fis
hing
Bus
ines
s or
wor
k
Oth
er w
ater
base
d re
crea
tion
Reason for Visit
Per
cen
tag
e o
f R
esp
on
ses
FIGURE 6.1 Reasons given for visiting beaches1
1 Multiple responses were permitted. A total of 4891 responses were received from the 3112 interviewees.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 126
TABLE 6.1 Reasons given for visiting individual beaches
Yanchep
Lagoon
Mullaloo
Beach
Whitfords
Beach
Hillarys
Beach
Mettams
Pool
Scarborough
Beach
Peasholm
Street
City
Beach
Cottesloe
Beach
South
Beach
Challenger
Beach
Rockingham
Beach
Shoalwater
Bay
Secret
Harbour
Close to home 15.5 35.9 22.3 9.4 22.3 29.9 17.4 34.7 17.5 30.3 15.4 23 21.4 26.1
Surfing conditions 3.7 1.2 0.7 0.3 1.1 8.4 0.9 4 1 0.3 0 0.2 0.4 29.4
Good fishing 9.6 0.5 1.2 0.5 0 0.7 0.9 1.6 1.3 0.6 8.4 2.6 4.8 4.2
Children's safety 8.5 6.2 0.5 10.8 8.6 1.9 0.5 3.2 3.3 3.9 2.8 8 4.4 2.5
Meet family/friends 3 6.9 1.7 7.8 4.7 7.2 1.8 7.5 6.3 8.8 10.5 10.4 5.6 1.7
Dog exercise area 4.8 1.7 38.7 0.5 1.7 1.7 62.6 0.3 1.3 11.2 7 2 6.5 3.4
Swimming conditions 28.4 20.9 11.4 15.5 44.6 15.8 9.1 14.8 24.8 17.6 17.5 16.7 11.3 7.6
Available parking 0.7 1.4 6.3 0.8 0.8 1 0 4.8 3.8 5.8 6.3 0.9 0.4 0.8
Availability of barbecues& shelters 1.5 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 0 2.4 1.3 3 0 4.1 0.4 0
Lack of crowds 4.1 1.7 7.5 0.5 5 1.7 2.3 10.5 1.3 6.7 9.8 2.2 6.5 5
Access cafes/restaurants 3.7 0.7 0 22.3 1.7 6.2 0 3.2 11.5 4.8 2.8 9.3 14.5 14.3
Access to commercialarea 0.7 0 0 11.6 0 1.9 0 0 6.5 0.9 0 1.1 0 1.7
Other water basedrecreation 2.2 0.2 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 4.9 0.4 3.6 0
Relaxation and Socialise 8.1 3.8 2.9 9.1 1.7 12.4 1.4 4.8 14.2 3.3 2.1 5.6 6.9 3.4
Business or work 1.1 0.2 0 1.7 0 1.7 0 2.4 2.1 0.3 4.9 0.9 1.2 0
Other recreation/tourism 4.4 7.4 4.8 6.9 5.3 4.5 3.2 3 2.5 2.4 7.7 12.1 12.1 0
Surf Club 0 6.4 0 0 0 3.8 0 2.4 0.6 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 1 0 1.1 1.1 0.2 0 0.3 0.8 0 0 0.4 0 0
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
N. 271 421 413 638 359 418 219 372 479 330 143 461 248 119
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 127
TABLE 6.2 Beach activities2
YanchepLagoon
MullalooWhitfords
BeachHillarys
MettamsPool
ScarboroughBeach
PeasholmStreet
CityBeach
CottesloeBeach
SouthBeach
ChallengerBeach
RockinghamShoalwater
BaySecret
Harbour
Swim 44.0 52.4 46.1 32.9 44.5 45.8 48.5 51.0 42.0 43.3 41.9 35.5 27.6 39.8
Walk/run 14.6 20.5 36.8 5.8 16.9 10.6 41.1 16.3 16.4 20.4 14.7 16.6 19.3 16.3
Visit cafes/restaurants/hotels 3.2 1.4 0.0 31.3 5.8 7.7 0.0 3.4 17.5 13.4 0.7 21.1 18.8 9.2
Sit/Read/Relax/Socialise 2.3 4.5 1.7 5.9 3.3 4.9 2.5 9.3 4.5 4.2 5.9 3.0 0.5 6.1
Snorkel 10.7 0.4 2.6 0.7 20.2 0.9 0.4 0.0 3.7 2.8 7.4 3.0 7.8 0.0
Surf 5.2 3.5 2.0 0.2 2.5 9.3 5.4 7.1 2.9 1.4 0.7 1.7 0.5 20.4
Sunbath 2.6 5.7 2.6 1.8 3.6 8.4 1.2 4.4 5.7 3.2 2.2 0.5 0.0 1.0
Sightseeing 3.9 1.4 2.0 5.8 1.1 4.2 0.0 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.2 2.5 18.2 1.0
Catch fish 9.4 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.8 1.8 14.7 6.9 3.6 2.0
Other 4.2 9.2 5.2 14.7 1.9 7.9 0.4 4.9 4.2 7.0 9.6 9.2 3.6 4.1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
N. 309 487 345 556 362 546 241 410 645 284 136 403 192 98
2 Multiple responses were permitted. 5014 responses were received from the 3112 interviewees.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 128
REFERENCES
Blackweir, D.G. and Beckley, L.E. (2004) Beach usage patterns along the Perth metropolitan
coastline during shark surveillance in summer 2003/04 . Report for Western Australian
Department for Planning & Infrastructure, 122pp.
Bowyer, J.K., 1987. Photogrammetric techniques for the assessment of shoreline variability
between North Mole Fremantle and Trigg Island, 1955 to 1985. BSc Honours Thesis in
Geography, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, 195pp.
Bruun, P., 1962. Sea level rise as a cause of shore erosion. Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Waterways and Harbours Division. 88: 117-
130.
Bruun, P., 1983. Review of conditions for uses of the Bruun Rule of erosion. Coastal
Engineering. 7: 77-89.
Bureau of Meteorology, 1989.
Camfield,F. and Morang,A., 1996. Defining and interpreting shoreline change. Ocean &
Coastal Management, Vol 32, No. 3. pp 129-151.
Carrigy , M.A. and Fairbridge, R.W., 1954. Recent sedimentation, physiography and
structure of the continental shelves of Western Australia. Journal of the Royal Society
of Western Australia, 38:65-95.
City of Stirling, 1984. Coastal Report: A Report on Coastal Management in the Coastal
Reserve of the City of Stirling Municipality in Western Australia, Government Printer,
Perth.
Clarke, D.J. and Eliot, I. G., 1987. Groundwater level changes in a coastal dune, sea-level
fluctuations and shoreline movement on a sandy beach. Marine Geology, 77: 319-326.
Clarke, E. de C., 1926. The geology and physiography of the neighbourhood of Perth,
Western Australia. Handbook of the Australian Association for the Advancement of
Science, Perth, 23-30.
Clarke, M., 1982. Nudism in Australia: a first study. Deakin University Press. 357 pp.
Collins, L.B., 1988. Sediments and history of the Rottnest Shelf, southwest Australia: a swell
dominated, non-tropical carbonate margin. Sedimentary Geology, 60:15-49.
Coastwise, 2000. Metropolitan Beach User Survey: 7 February 1999, 2 vols, prepared for the
Western Australian Planning Commission, Subiaco.
Davies, J.L., 1980. Geographical Variation in Coastal Development, Second Edition,
Longman, London.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 129
Department of Defence, 1999. Australian National Tide Tables, Australian Hydrographic
Publication 11,, Hydrographic Service, Australian Government printer, Canberra
Eliot, I., Elliott, K., O’Connor A. & Shepherd, R.A. 1986. Recreational use of the coastal
reserves and potential environmental impacts on the shoreline between Trigg Island
and Ocean Reef, Seminar on the Proposed M10 Marine Park, Department of
Conservation and the Environment, Bulletin No, 256, 63-99.
Fairbridge, R.W., 1955. Some bathymetric and geotectonic features of eastern part of the
Indian Ocean. Deep-sea Research 2, 161-171.
Flanigan, M., 1988. Coastal planning and management in the City of Stirling: Public attitudes
and participation in the planning and management of Trigg Beach. B.A. Honours Thesis
in Geography, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 190 pp.
Galgano,F. Douglas,B. and Leatherman,S., 1998. Trends and Variability of Shoreline
Position. Journal of Coastal Research. Special Issue No. 26. pp 282-291.
Gentilli, J., 1971. Climates of Australia and New Zealand, Volume 13, World Survey of
Climatology, Edited by H.E. Landsberg, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Harris, P.T., Baker, E.K. and Cole, A.R., 1991. The Indian Ocean - Western Australia.
Chapter 6 in Physical Sedimentology of the Australian Continental Shelf, Ocean
Sciences Institute Report No. 51, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Hegge, B.J., Eliot, I.G. and Hsu, J.R.-C., 1996. Sheltered sandy beaches of southwestern
Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, 12(3): 748–760.
Hegge, B.J., 1994. Low-energy sandy beaches of south-western Australia: two-dimensional
morphology, sediments and dynamics. Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Geography, The
University of Western Australia. 419.pp.
Houghton D.S., 1988. Beach Use in the Perth Metropolitan Area: a Report to the State
Planning Commission, Department of Geography, University of Western Australia,
Nedlands.
Houghton D. S., 1989. Some aspects of beach use in the Perth metropolitan area, Australian
Geographer, 20, 173-184.
Houghton, D.S., Eliot, I.G. and Eliot, M.J., 2003. Use of Beaches on the Perth Metropolitan
Coast Between Rockingham and Ocean Reef, Report prepared for the Department of
Planning and Infrastructure, School of Earth and Geographical Sciences, The
University of Western Australia, Nedlands.
Hsu, J.R.C. (2004). Engineering applications of coastal geomorphology. In Encyclopedia of
Coastal Science, (ed., M. L. Schwartz), Kluwer Academic, 515-520
Inman, D.L. and Frautschy, 1966. Coastal engineering. Santa Barbara Speciality
Conference. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 511-536.
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 130
IPCC 2001a. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. The IPCC ThirdAssessment Report, Working Group II Report, McCarthy JJ, Canziani OF, Leary NA,Dokken DJ and White KS (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
IPCC 2001b. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the thirdAssessment Report Metz BO, Davidson R, Swart & Pand J eds, Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.
Jackson, L., Nordstrom, K.F., Eliot, I., Masselink, G., 2002. Low-energy sandy beaches in
marine estuarine environments: a review. Geomorphology, 48, 147-162.
James, N.P., Collins, L. B., Bone, Y., and Hallock, P. 1999. Subtropical carbonates in a
temperate realm: Modern sediments on the southwest Australian shelf. Journal of
Sedimentary Research Section A – Sedimentary Petrology and Processes 69, 1297-
1321.
Keating, F., 1983a. Recreational Use of Beaches between Trigg Island and Sorrento Beach.
BA Honours Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Western Australia,
Nedlands
Keating, F., 1983b. Winter Recreational patterns along the Cottesloe Coast, Report to the
Town of Cottesloe (unpublished).
Klein, A.H.F., Benedet, L. and Hsu, J.R.C., 2003. Stability of headland bay beaches in Santa
Catarina: A case study. J. Coastal Research, Special Issue SI 35: 151-166
Komar, P.D., 1998. Beach Processes and Sedimentation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, Second Edition.
Komar, P.D., 1996. The budget of littoral sediments: concepts and applications, Shore and
Beach, 64(3): 18-26.
Laughlin, G.P., 1997. The User’s Guide to the Australian Coast. New Holland, Sydney.
Lemm, A., Hegge, B.J. and Masselink, G., 1999. Offshore wave climate, Perth, (Western
Australia), 1994 – 96. Marine and Freshwater Research, 50: 90–102.
Masselink, G., Hegge, B.J., Pattiaratchi, C.B., 1997. Beach cusp morphodynamics. Earth
Surface Processes Landforms 22, 1139-1155.
McArthur W.M. & bartle g.a. 1980. Landforms and soils as an aid to urban planning in the
Perth metropolitan northwest corridor, Western Australia. Land resources Management
Series no. 5. CSIRO.
Nordstrom, K.F., 1992. Estuarine Beaches: An Introduction to the Physical and Human
Factors Affecting Use and Management of Beaches in Estuaries, Lagoons, Bays and
Fjords. Elsevier Applied Science, Amsterdam.
Pattiaratchi, C., Backhaus, J.O., Abu Shamleh, B., Alaee, M., Burling, M., Gersbach, G.,
Pang, D. and Ranasinghe R., 1996. Applications of a three-dimensional numerical
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 131
model for the study of coastal phenomena in south-western Australia. In Proc.Ocean-
Atmosphere-Pacific Conference, Adelaide, pp. 282-287.
Playford, P. E., Cockbain, A. F. and Low, G. H.,1976. Geology of the Perth Basin, Western
Australia. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Western Australia, 124, 311 pp.
Playford, P.E. and Leech, R.E., 1977. Geology and hydrology of Rottnest Island. Report of
the Geological Survey of Western Australia, 6, 98 pp.
Playford, P.E., 1988. Guidebook to the Geology of Rottnest Island. Geological Society of
Australia, W.A. Division, and the Geological Survey of Western Australia, Perth. 67 p.
Searle and Logan 1978 A report on sedimentation in Geographe Bay / to the Public Works
Department of Western Australia, by J.D. Searle and B.W. Logan. Sedimentology and
Marine Geology Group, The Department of Geology at the University of Western
Australia Nedlands. 72 pp.
Searle, D.J. and Semeniuk, V., 1985. The natural sectors of the inner Rottnest Shelfcoast
adjoining the Swan Coastal Plain. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia,
67, 116-136.
Searle, D.J., Semeniuk, V. and Woods, P. J., 1988. Geomorphology, stratigraphy and
Holocene history of the Rockingham-Becher Plain, South-western Australia. Journal of
the Royal Society of Western Australia, 70(4) 89-100.
Semeniuk, V. and Johnson, P.D., 1982. Recent and Pleistocene beach/dune sequences,
Western Australia. Sedimentary Geology, 32, 301-328.
Semeniuk, V. and Searle, D.J., 1986. The Whitfords Cusp – Its geomorphology, stratigraphy
and age structure. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, 68(2) 29-36.
Short, A.D. (Editor), 1999. Handbook of Beach and Shoreface Morphodynamics, John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester.
Silvester, R, 1974. Coastal Engineering, 2. Developments in Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 4B, Elsevier Scientific, Amsterdam. pp 127- 157.
Silvester, R. and Hsu, J.R.C., 1993. Coastal Stabilization: Innovative Concepts, Prentice
Hall, New Jersey, USA, 1993
Silvester R.A. & Webb, M.J. 1973. Report on Scarborough Beach Development for the City
of Stirling, Departments of Civil Engineering and Geography, University of Western
Australia, Nedlands.
Slarke, E. 1998. Lucky Bay: An Estuarine Sandy Beach. BSc Honours Thesis in Geography,
The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA
PERTH METROPOLITAN BEACH USE JULY 2005
INSTITUTE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 132
Steedman, R.K. and Associates, 1979. Numerical Model of circulation and other
oceanographic aspects of Cockburn Sound. A report prepared for Cockburn Sound
Study Group and the Department of Conservation and Environment.
Steedman, R K. and Craig, P. D. 1983. Wind driven circulation of Cockburn Sound.
Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 34, 187-212.
Thieler, E.R., Pilkey, O.H., Jnr, Young, R.S., Bush, D.M. and Fei Chai, 2000. The use of
mathematical models to predict beach behaviour for U.S. coastal engineering: a critical
review. Journal of Coastal Research. 16(1): 48-70.
Tourism Research Australia, 2004. National (NVS) and International Visitor Survey (IVS)
Results 2000 to 2005. Tourism Australia. Government of Australia, Canberra.
Tourism Western Australia (2004a) Experience Perth Tourism Perspective 2004.
Government of Western Australia, Perth.
Tourism Western Australia (2004b) Experience Perth Destination Development Strategy. An
Action Plan Approach 2004-2014. Government of Western Australia, Perth.
Travers, A. 2005a. Low-energy beach morphology with respect to physical setting: a case
study from Cockburn Sound, Southwestern Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, (In
press)
Travers, A. 2005b. Relative exposure indices for low-energy microtidal beaches. Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science (In press)
USACE (United States Army Corp of Engineers) 2001. Coastal Engineering ManualEM 1110-2-1100 (6 volumes), Washington, D.C.
Veevers, J.J., 1974. Western continental margin of Australia, In Burk, C. A. and Drake, C. L.
(eds.) The geology of continental margins. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 605-616.
Velardo, S., 1998. Patrolled Sandy Beaches of Southwestern Australia: Characteristic
Morphology and Public Hazards and Risks, BA Honours Thesis in Geography, The
University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA
Western Australian Planning Commission, 2003. State Coastal Planning Policy: Statement of
Planning Policy No. 2.6, Available online (8 February 2005), from:
http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/policies/SPP/SPP_2_6.pdf
Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004. Network City. Community Planning Strategy
for Perth and Peel. Report for Public Comment. Government of Western Australia
Perth. 124 pp.
Wright, LD and Short, AD., 1984. Morphodynamic variability of surf zones and beaches: A
synthesis. Marine Geology, 56:93-118