barwon coast coastal management and beach usage research · the research project, and the approach...

Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation

Barwon Coast Coastal Management and Beach Usage Research

A partnership between Federation University Australia and the Barwon Coast Committee of Management Report Authors: Mr Patrick Bonney, Dr Angela Murphy Research Team: Dr Angela Murphy, Mr Patrick Bonney, Ms Jennifer Corbett, Ms Meghan Taylor, Associate Professor Helen Thompson Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation, Federation University Australia September 2018

ii

Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................... iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... v

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... v

Research study design and questions ........................................................................... v

Data collection methods ................................................................................................. vi

Research study findings .......................................................................................................... vii

Section 3 - Population and tourism ............................................................................... vii

Section 4 – Coastal living challenges and management issues ................................... viii

Research conclusion and recommendations.................................................................................. xi

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Background to the study ......................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 The Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation............................................. 3

1.2.2 The Barwon Coast Committee of Management Inc. ......................................... 4

SECTION 2: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 6

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Research questions ................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Research methods .................................................................................................. 8

2.3.1 Survey ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3.2 Focus group interviews and written submissions ........................................... 11

2.3.3 Document and demographic analysis ............................................................ 11

2.3.4 Site visits ....................................................................................................... 11

2.3.5 Email and telephone feedback ....................................................................... 12

2.4 Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 13

2.5 Ethics .................................................................................................................... 13

SECTION 3: POPULATION AND TOURISM IN THE BARWON COAST REGION ......... 14

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Population growth, coastal development and tourism ........................................... 14

3.2.1 Population: status and projections ................................................................. 14

3.2.2 Age structure and migration patterns ............................................................. 15

3.2.3 Tourism ......................................................................................................... 19

3.2.4 Understanding the essence of coastal living .................................................. 19

3.2.5 Community and management perspectives on population growth and tourism 21

3.2.6 Beach usage.................................................................................................. 23

iii

3.3 Summary of findings for population and tourism ................................................... 24

SECTION 4: COASTAL LIVING CHALLENGES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES................. 26

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Dogs on beaches .................................................................................................. 30

4.2.1 Key points of concern relating to dogs on beaches ........................................ 32

4.2.2 Management strategies ................................................................................. 36

4.3 Overcrowding ....................................................................................................... 45


4.4 Rubbish and waste management .......................................................................... 47


4.5 Infrastructure and car parking ............................................................................... 49


4.6 Wildlife and the environmental issues ................................................................... 50


4.7 Conflicts between beach users ............................................................................. 53

4.8 Signage effectiveness ........................................................................................... 55

4.9 Other issues ......................................................................................................... 56

4.10 Challenges of coastal management for management agencies ............................ 57

4.11 Summary of findings for coastal living challenges and management issues .......... 59

SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 63

Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 1 ...................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 2 ...................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 3 ...................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 4 ...................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 5 ...................................................................................................... 66

Recommendation 6 ...................................................................................................... 67

Recommendation 7 ...................................................................................................... 67

Recommendation 8 ...................................................................................................... 67

Recommendation 9 ...................................................................................................... 67

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 68

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix 1: Online Survey ......................................................................................... 71

Appendix 2: Interview and focus group questions ....................................................... 78

iv

List of Figures Figure 1: Barwon Coast Committee of Management jurisdiction (2016) Source: BCCM ....... 4 Figure 2: Living situation and postcode as reported by survey respondents (n=1715) .......... 9 Figure 3: Age structure of survey respondents (n=1715) ..................................................... 10 Figure 4: Length of residence in municipality of survey respondents (n=1636) ................... 10 Figure 5: Age structure for Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove ............................................. 16 Figure 6: Migration in and out trends across population centres.......................................... 18 Figure 7: Interconnection between valued characteristics and decision making .................. 21 Figure 8: Types of beach usage for permanent residents & visitors to Barwon Coast (n=1601) ........................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 9: Beach sections ranked as most commonly visited in the BCCM area (n=1601) ... 24 Figure 10: Identification that capacity to enjoy beach has been compromised .................... 26 Figure 11: Key issues compromising beach enjoyment (n=743) ......................................... 27 Figure 12: Linking issues compromising beach enjoyment to community identity characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13: Percentage of respondents reporting compromised capacity to enjoy shared coastal areas in the context of dog ownership and living (n=1500) ..................................... 31 Figure 14: Impacted by dogs on and off leash in the context of dog ownership (n=743)...... 32 Figure 15: Dog control map for the BCCM jurisdictional area .............................................. 37 Figure 16: Dog owner & non-dog owner attitudes toward various dog management issues. Percentages indicate combined responses for strongly disagree and disagree (red) and strongly agree and agree (green) (n=1535) ......................................................................... 39 Figure 17: Respondent attitudes toward management strategies for coastal issues (n=1715) ........................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 18. Familiarity, involvement and perceived usefulness of the BCCM ShareOurShores campaign (n=1715) ............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 19. Respondent attitudes to wildlife protection issues .............................................. 50 Figure 20. Respondent views on restriction of activity for wildlife protection issues ............. 52 Figure 21. Perception on the extent and effectiveness of signage in the BCCM jurisdictional area .................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 22. Respondent attitudes to wildlife protection issues .............................................. 65

List of Tables Table 1: Data Collection Methods and Source .................................................................... 12 Table 2: Population Forecasts, 2018 to 2036 ...................................................................... 15 Table 3: Peak population for Barwon Heads & Ocean Grove for Dec 2013 – Jan 2014 ...... 19 Table 4: Registered dogs and households in the City of Greater Geelong .......................... 30 Table 5: Frequency of dog management issues raised in survey responses ....................... 33 Table 6: Dog incidents in the Barwon Coast Committee of Management area of jurisdiction between the period July 2016 to June 2018 ........................................................................ 34 Table 7. Length of beach and seasonal dog access controls on BCCM coastal reserve areas ........................................................................................................................................... 38 Table 8: Attitudes toward dog management issues. ............................................................ 40

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction This is the Barwon Coast Coastal Management and Beach Usage research report for the Barwon Coast Committee of Management (BCCM), funded in 2017 as a research partnership with Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation (CeRDI) at Federation University Australia.

The research project, and the approach taken within it, was driven by a recognition of the shifts occurring within the coastal community of the Barwon Coast region and, specifically, in the area managed by the BCCM that includes the coastal reserves of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads. Research planning was committed to developing informed insights into key ongoing and emergent issues impacting on coastal management, and on the maintenance of valued attributes needed for a sense of community and a sense of place. The research was underpinned by key principles, supported by national and international literature, that:

1. There needs to be community involvement in issues exploration and problem resolution for sustainable change and development.

2. Inclusive community-based strategy development allows for the identification and classification of a range of characteristics for sustainable coastal communities. These characteristics, in turn, provide a framework for working with communities in issues exploration and problem resolution.

The research, guided by these principles, used a social research approach to explore a range of community perspectives on issues ranging from community identity to domestic animals on beaches, infrastructure demands, ecosystem protection and sustained recreational beach usage.

Research study design and questions A mixed methods approach, using a range of data collection tools, was chosen to shape the study design, with the following research questions driving data collection and analysis:

1. What is the knowledge base and attitude of beach users, residents and other relevant stakeholders around the key issues (such as recreational usage, the control of domestic animals and environmental protection) in the coastal community and how does this correlate to actions and behaviours for equitable community use of beaches and coastal areas?

2. What are the similarities and differences in how complex coastal issues are perceived by community members and management agencies?

3. How effective are current strategies for coastal management in meeting the needs of diverse members of the coastal population?

4. To what extent has the community been mobilised to engage, promote, adopt and advocate for the effective management of complex coastal community and environmental issues within the context of local identity? What are the key strategies to extend and strengthen this mobilisation into the future?

vi

Data collection methods A range of data collection methods were used to collect data from research participants. These methods comprised:

• Survey. A 15-minute survey, available in online and hard copy versions, was used to examine community perspectives on a range of coastal management issues. A range of recruitment techniques were used to maximise respondent numbers including direct email, the manning of data collection points, social and traditional media and the use of mailing lists. Surveys were completed by a total of 1636 respondents between December 2017 and April 2018. Additional survey responses (n=79) were collected as part of the ShareOurShores campaign launch in November 2017 where full responses were consolidated with the online survey taking the total number of survey respondents to 1715. Data from this survey were analysed using Excel and cross referenced with interview and focus group data, as appropriate.

• Focus group interviews and written submissions. Focus group interviews were used to gain targeted individual and subjective insights into user perceptions of issues such as environmental values, community and identity and issues of concern. Individual/focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 102 participants during late April 2018. An additional 13 written submissions for those who were not able to be part of the focus group process. Participants for this data collection methods included BCCM staff, organisational staff and community members. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and coding techniques and cross referenced with survey data, as appropriate.

• Document and demographic analysis. Program documentation was used to provide insights on organisational factors, coastal management approaches and educational and planning strategies in the region. Available population and population profile data and data relating to domestic dogs in the area was examined for data mapping. This data were used to support and validate data collected through the survey and the focus group interviews. Data were analysed using content and statistical analysis techniques.

• Site visits. A series of site visits were undertaken by FedUni researchers on January 24th, 25th and 26th, February 27th and April 13th, 14th and 15h in 2018 to observe movement and population levels on the beach at diverse timeframes, to view signage and to gain an understanding of similarities, differences and characteristics of the different beaches included within the parameters of the research study. Data were analysed using researcher collaboration on points of observation.

• Email and telephone feedback. Feedback provided by community members around coastal management issues and including personal narratives was collected across the life of the research study. Twenty-five contacts were analysed using content analysis techniques.

Ethical clearance for research involving humans was provided by the Human Research Ethics Committee with guidelines for ethical research practice shaping all stages of the research process (Ethics Approval Number A17-162).

vii

Research study findings Section 3 - Population and tourism The key findings for section 3 relating to population and tourism were that:

• The Barwon Coast region is experiencing similar phenomenon relating to coastal suburbanisation and amenities migration as other coastal communities across the state and nationally. Overall, however, the growth rates being experienced in the region are lower than non-coastal locations such as Ballarat and Geelong.

• The projected growth for the region is predicted to be lower than for coastal communities such as Torquay, Portarlington and Indented Heads however both Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads will experience population growth from 2018 to 2036 of 17.4% and 4.55% respectively. The large increase expected for Armstrong Creek (281.49%) and Mount Duneed (504.77%) is likely to impact on the region due to close locational proximity and high capacity for development.

• There will continue to be an outward migration of young adults aged 18 to 24 from both Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove although it is projected that there will be an increase in young families (25-39 years) seeking lifestyle changes. The age cohorts between 0 and 14 and 40 and 69 remain the key age groups within the region.

• Availability of housing stock is higher in Ocean Grove than Barwon Heads, subsequently having a small impact on population growth capacity in the short to medium term.

• Tourism remains a significant factor in seasonal population growth, with projections indicating there will be an increase, by 2030, from the current level of 5 million annually to 7 million visitors a year to the region. Population growth due to tourism has been tracked at reaching peaks of more than double the permanent resident population. Tourism was identified as having both positive and negative influences on the social, cultural, economic and environmental features of the townships.

• Data on beach usage trends found a close alignment between the nature of beach usage for both temporary residents/visitors to the region and local residents. Assessment of reasons for beach usage found that beaches were primarily used for dog walking, recreation with family, swimming and exercise. The main beach of Ocean Grove (10W-20W) was the most used beach by both permanent residents and temporary residents/visitors, followed by Collendina (7W-10W) and the Barwon River estuary. East of Collendina beach (east of 7W) was ranked lowest in terms of use but was used more frequently by permanent residents than temporary residents/visitors.

• A major finding of the research study was the importance placed by research participants on decision-makers understanding and valuing the attributes and amenities that define the Barwon Coast region. This aligns closely with existing evidence bases that have found that effective coastal management is dependent on linking with community and building an understanding of the factors that are valued attributes of that location.

viii

The key characteristics that were consistently identified as central to place, space and community identity for the Barwon Coast region were:

o A sense of place and community o Enjoyment and recreation in the natural environment o Access to metropolitan centres and proximity to health and education services o A positive family environment and holiday destination o Small town (village) feel with relatively low congestion and urbanisation o Opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles e.g. surfing, swimming, dog

walking, bird watching o A sense of freedom

Feedback specific to working to address issues of concern and accommodate changes brought about by tourism, population growth and migration in and out of the region consistently reinforced the importance of ensuring that these defining characteristics form part of the discussions when developing coastal management response strategies. Section 4 – Coastal living challenges and management issues The key findings for section 4 relating to coastal living and management were that: • On issues of beach enjoyment being compromised as a result of coastal management

challenges approximately 45% (n=789) of respondents responded affirmatively, while 54% (n=899) indicated that they had not been negatively impacted in any way on their enjoyment of their costal environment. It was more common for permanent residents to report that their capacity to enjoy the beach had been compromised than it was for temporary residents/visitors, 45.3% and 34.7%, respectively.

• ‘Dogs off-leash’ was the predominant issue for those reporting a compromised capacity to enjoy the beach areas. Other significant challenges included human impacts on coastal environments, such as littering, sand dune damage, and threats to wildlife, and beach overcrowding. Differences in responses from temporary residents/visitors and permanent residents were not highly divergent on most issues.

• Population shifts, particularly those caused by tourism were assessed as fundamental causal factors that influence and exacerbate coastal management issues. While the ebb and flow of population numbers is a normative feature of coastal living, these shifts exert a strong influence on the lived experience of individuals.

• The identification of coastal living and management issues by research participants was largely correlated with participant desire to maintain the valued attributes that underpin their sense of place and community. While the focus for research participants was often on identifying and seeking a resolution to a specific and tangible coastal management challenge (such as dogs off-leash) it was closely interrelated to concerns that highly valued concepts of a sense of place and sense of community were ultimately at risk.

• The issue of dog management and dog access to beach areas emerged as the leading management challenge in the BCCM area. It is a finding which may have been influenced by the high level of survey responses, a majority of 72.9% from dog owners. Findings revealed a high level of dog ownership among respondents, with 72.6% (n=1245) dog

ix

owners, 20.9% (n=358) non-dog owners and 6.5% (n=112) declining to answer. This high level of representation of dog owners in the survey respondent pool is flagged as statistically anomalous when compared to the percentage of people who are dog owners in the broader population.

• Research participants possess complex and competing perceptions on dog management. Predominant issues in relation to dog management are impacts on community safety and well-being, environmental protection and conservation, individual rights and freedom and conflicts among beach users. Dog access to beaches in the region is highly valued by community members and temporary residents/visitors to the region, indicating that dog access is a crucial feature that contributes to a range of individual- and community-level effects.

• Alternatively, research findings show that, for many community members in favour of dog friendly beach areas, they perceive the dog management issue to be overstated. The assessment was that reported dog incidents are infrequent, caused by a minority of irresponsible beach users, or that issues in the community are more complex, numerous and urgent than solely dogs off-leashes. These messages were bound together with comments reflecting a fear of losing individual rights and freedom, i.e. dog walking access. Despite general opposition to increasing restrictions on dog access to shared beach areas, many dog owners recognised that there was a problem that needed to be addressed and were open to fair and consistent management strategies.

• With respect to dog management in the region, analysis of research data shows that management challenges are impacted on by two separate, but linked issues:

1. Different perspectives on what constitutes needed regulation. There was distinct divergence between dog owners and non-dog owners in relation to attitudes towards coastal management staff presence, laws controlling dogs on beaches, compliance management, and enforcement of dogs on beaches. However, some commonality between dog owners and non-dog owners is revealed in attitudes to less complicated regulations about dog access, and mutual desire for stronger laws relating to beach use generally.

2. Shortfalls in monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations. A consistent message emerging in the focus group discussions was a desire by both dog owners and non-dog owners for an increase in the level of management staff or park ranger presence patrolling the beaches and, to ensure individual compliance.

• A summary of recommendations most commonly reported by community member in relation to dogs on beaches were the following:

o Separate areas for different beach users; o Ability to walk dog on beaches before ~8am and after ~6pm during summer

months; o A complete ban on dogs between 9am and 5pm; o Additional dog off-leash areas, including parks inland; o No changes to current regulations; o No dogs on beaches during summer months; o Education campaigns.

x

However, gaining consensus on the implementation of a number of these strategies will remain a significant challenge.

• Overcrowding was a raised as a significant issue by 35% of survey respondents, impacting on user enjoyment of coastal areas. This management challenge is placing pressure on public facilities, local infrastructure, traffic movement and car parking. Additionally, overcrowding can cause an alteration to normal individual behaviour, increase probability of negative beach user interactions and limit the enjoyment of, and access to, dog friendly areas. However, many research participants were adjusted to this aspect of coastal living and visitation and viewed it as an expected, but seasonal, phenomenon in the region. An area which participants identified as a future potential action was the provision of additional recreational and dog walking space inland. Future investment in collecting more precise and up to date data on beach and car parking capacity is needed if forward planning capacity on these issues is to be maximised.

• Coastal area cleanliness and waste management is an issue of common community and management concern. Many research participants expressed frustration with the amount of rubbish in the environment, and, at times, dissatisfaction with the number of bins provided in the coastal areas. Rubbish and waste management is a key priority for the BCCM and their work in this area was mostly highly regarded in the community. Coastal area cleanliness is helped significantly by the active involvement of community members collecting rubbish along the beach on their regular walks. Such community involvement is indicative of a strong sense of community and a willingness to protect valued area.

• Research participants offered additional management strategies to deal with the issues of rubbish in coastal environments. Suggestions made to supplement educative processes were:

o Providing more bins o Increasing frequency of rubbish collection during busy times o Developing a rubbish depot for tourists to reduce risks of illegal dumping.

Education and information sharing on rubbish and waste management for coastal protection remains the primary management strategy for addressing this issue into the longer term.

• Car parking was rated as the most significant infrastructure issue in the region across all data collection phases. Other frequently mentioned infrastructure issues related to improving walking and cycling trials in the region. Such infrastructure development is dependent on resourcing and strategic social and environmental targets identified through formal planning processes. Community members showed a general aversion to large scale infrastructure development, fearing a potential loss of town character that may come with such changes. Community members and management agencies showed a shared desire to provide long-term and sustainable solutions to infrastructure problems in the region.

• Environmental and wildlife impacts are issues of common concern among both community members and management agencies. Significant environmental issues in the region are: sand dune degradation and threats to Hooded Plover populations. Balancing the recreational pursuits of residents and visitors with environment conservation is a complex management challenge. Temporary exclusion zones are considered an effective management strategy (if properly enforced), and these generally have the support of community members.

xi

• Coastal living and management challenges have, in some cases, created conflicts and tension between different beach users due to divergent uses of the beach area and the way in which issues are being managed. The emergence of divisions between different beach users is something that needs to be proactively countered in the management approach adopted to address points of contention within this community.

• Signage in the region was considered in the survey research as being largely effective at engaging and informing residents about coastal management issues. Approximately, 73% of respondents considered signage easy to understand and 56.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is enough signage around the beaches. The focus group discussion were in slight contrast to the survey findings, revealing community members to have the following issues associated with signage in the region:

o Confusing and lacking clarity o Inconsistent messaging o A lack of signage, particularly at beach access points o Old and dilapidated signage that made it difficult to read messaging o ‘Effective control’ not clearly defined

Participants also identified that there was capacity for signage to use language that was inclusive rather than directive and that work needed to be undertaken to review how messages were presented

• A variety of other issues were raised across the range of data collection methods however they were not raised by large numbers of participants and could not be considered dominant, representative or generalisable themes. These include:

o Cycling and cycling behaviour o Jet skis o Horses on beaches o Alcohol on the beach o Fox (1080) bait.

• Coastal management and governance challenges included jurisdictional issues, information gaps and the need for better communication of agency roles and responsibilities to the public. There was evident frustration and confusion among both community members and management agencies regarding the roles and responsibilities of agencies operating in the region.

Research conclusion and recommendations This social research project sought to build insights into community and management perspectives relating to key coastal issues in the area managed by BCCM. The range of issues explored provide valuable insights into place and community and highlight the importance of implementing a response strategy that addresses the delicate management balance of ensuring community safety and reducing risk, protecting environmental values, maintaining recreation and lifestyle opportunities and encouraging social cohesion and community respect.

xii

The following recommendations provide some direction for action into the future, while the conceptual model provided below is presented as a suggested planning approach for working to resolve challenges and points of conflict in coastal management for this community

Recommendation 1 That work be undertaken within BCCM, involving both management and program staff to discuss concepts of community attributes and the role they play in the development of sense of place and community. This will provide the opportunity to build greater levels of understanding of the close links that exist between key coastal management challenges, the way in which they are resolved and perceived threats to characteristic attributes of community.

Recommendation 2 That consideration be given to the adoption of the conceptual model provided within this research report to encourage public participation and collaboration between stakeholders in planning decisions.

Recommendation 3 That the current commitment within BCCM to communication and marketing within and across community be continued and expanded. This is an important strategy for building the knowledge and understanding of the work of BCCM and strengthening the potential for public participation in planning for effective and inclusive coastal management. Areas that need to be a focus within that communication and marketing approach include:

• Information sharing relating to the jurisdiction, authority and roles and responsibilities of BCCM, and of agencies working in the region in order to increase understanding and knowledge relating to compliance, opportunities for shared input and long term planning in the region.

• Marketing of the opportunities for education and community engagement offered by BCCM.

• The development of a structured communication plan with community to maximise community involvement in, and understanding of, a range of management and strategic priorities for the region into the future.

Recommendation 4 That a mapping process be undertaking, using the data captured in this social research study, to identify and document priority areas for action. These should be classified into areas identified by community as viable solutions to identified problems, areas with potential for development and/or adoption into the future, and areas that are unlikely to be successful within the community without significant loss of community support and risk to the characteristic attributes of community. This mapping process will provide a resource for forward planning on key challenges in the region.

Recommendation 5 That current signage stock be reviewed to determine the extent to which the signage is meeting the community goals of:

• Clarity and consistency • Use of positive messaging • Use of inclusive language • Being in good repair

xiii

Recommendation 6 That a strategy be developed for the capture and review of empirical data collection on issues such as car park demands at key points in time and measures of beach capacity across time points and locations.

Recommendation 7 That the current commitment of BCCM to the use of inclusive educative strategies on a range of issues be maintained and/or expanded to ensure that a range of issues of relevance to the community be addressed. These include wildlife protection, rubbish management and dog regulations. It is acknowledged that significant work has been undertaken in this area and feedback on this has been positive. More work is needed on ensuring that the reach of this educative work is extended across the community. Consideration should also be given to strategies to better engage new residents and temporary residents/visitors to the region.

Recommendation 8 That a strategy be developed to explore avenues to increase enforcement of regulations and strengthen levels of compliance. In line with community feedback this approach should not explore, as a first option, an increase in regulation. Rather there needs to be a strategy that increases capacity for a series of enforcement cycles, using existing compliance tools such as fines, to shift current culture relating to non-compliance. This approach will need to take into consideration strategies for achieving a balance between compliance and the maintenance of flexibility and community connection and engagement, as outlined within the body of this report.

Recommendation 9 That the longitudinal research plan with FedUni ensure that consideration be given to the following study areas:

• Building an understanding which factors reinforce or might alter existing beach user behaviour to ensure compliance with coastal management regulations

• Investigating the impacts of urbanisation on social and environmental values in the context of place, space and community

• Investigating the community-level factors that lead to positive development in coastal communities in the face of change.

• Investigating the impact of domestic animals on environment and strategies to engage community in working to meet coastal management challenges

1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Coastal regions are highly valued by many Australians for their distinct environmental, social, cultural and economic features. In the past three decades, rapid population growth in many coastal communities is indicative of a widespread desire of people to live in, and enjoy the features of, these regions. Widely regarded as a major demographic phenomenon (Gurran et al. 2005a), the influx of people to coastal areas from metropolitan centres is often referred to as the “sea change phenomenon”. “Sea changers” generally seek high amenity destinations in close proximity to major cities, a new, like-minded community, or greater housing affordability and lifestyle opportunities. Coastal settlements remain an important holiday destination for many Australians, with recent polling in Victoria suggesting four-in-five people visit the coast every year (Ipsos 2012).

Population shifts to coastal areas is expected to continue into the future, reflecting international trends (Neumann et al. 2015). These trends have had both a positive and negative impact on coastal communities. On the one hand, communities see many developmental benefits including more vibrant and diverse local economies, improvements to infrastructure and increases in service delivery (Gurran et al. 2005a). On the other hand, such sustained growth, in combination with increased visitation to coastal regions during summer months, brings a number of complex issues that challenge affected communities.

National and international literature on coastal communities undergoing such transformations report significant environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts (Burak et al. 2004; Gurran et al. 2016; Sharma et al. 2008). These include:

• Pressure on, and degradation of, highly sensitive natural environments, characteristic of coastal regions. New developments can cause environmental degradation through, for example, habitat fragmentation, introduction of exotic species and threats to beach-nesting shorebirds. Moreover, the recognition and management of climate change impacts in coastal regions is increasingly a top priority for many coastal management and government agencies nationwide (Harvey & Caton 2003; Neumann et al. 2015; State of the Environment (SoE), 2016).

• Impacts on the social fabric and town character of coastal communities. Research literature suggests community well-being and social cohesion can be impacted in communities experiencing sudden or sustained growth. The affective bonds people form with their local environment, or their “sense of place”, is seen to be threatened in the face of population growth, environmental change, or limits to existing norms and activities, such as management actions or proposals. Such impacts may also fundamentally alter existing township character which largely forms original attractiveness of the local area. Green (2000) suggests that these changes can have significant impacts on the individual:

“Loss of, or the threat of unwanted change to, such valued environments can result in people's sense of continuity with the socio-physical environment being severely disrupted. This in turn can negatively impact their more general sense of well-being.” (p. 76)

• Challenges related to the multi-use nature of coastal environments and the diverse perspectives of community members. Tensions may surface between different users and residents of the coast when these perspectives are in conflict (Gurran et al. 2005a). For example, there are reports in the literature of issues emerging between permanent residents and tourists due to differences in the value bases and community and development priorities

2

that these diverse groups can hold (Dredge 2010). Similarly, tensions may exist between incoming and existing residents, resulting from difficulties in integration (Gosnell and Abrams 2011; Stedman 2006).

• The complexity of managing the seasonal nature of tourism, and its associated development. Tourism development and visitation places pressure on local infrastructure, service delivery, as well as straining the limited resources of local governments and management agencies (Gurran et al. 2005a). This is despite the significant local economic benefits tourism brings to many coastal regions, nationally.

Challenges in coastal communities largely relate to accommodating the increases in numbers of residents, achieving a balance between recreational and ecosystem needs and maintaining notions of place within shifting community structures. These type of complex issues in local communities are often classified as ‘wicked’ problems. These are usually urgent with a complexity born from contradictory, competing and changing needs and views. Importantly they often have no clear solutions. Resolving wicked problems is made more difficult by the fact that different groups of individuals are seeking diverse, yet equally valid solutions and approaches to the problem (Davies et al., 2015; Jentoft & Chuenpagdee, 2009). Resolution of wicked problems is not possible through the imposition of a technical response strategy but rather through working with stakeholders, using evidence and existing knowledge, to identify diverse perspectives and potential solutions.

Overtime, the nature of these types of wicked problems in coastal communities has resulted exploration of potential solutions and opportunities to support change, particularly in relation to transitioning coastal towns. This work has validated two important principles in relation to management of change in coastal communities:

1. There needs to be community involvement in issues exploration and problem resolution for sustainable change and development. Systematic analyses of community feedback on tourism and coastal living challenges has been found to help planners, decision-makers and tourism promoters to identify issues and develop appropriate policy and management responses. The desire to base coastal management and growth development on sustainability principles is widely accepted in the academic literature, by government and industry. Coastal management research literature also highlights a critical important of understanding location-specific or “placed-based” issues before developing response strategies (Williams et al. 2013). Building connections with community is central to this endeavour, enabling more effective planning and design of management initiatives that match the different social, economic, cultural and governance contexts in the community.

2. Inclusive community-based strategy development allows the identification and classification of a range of characteristics for sustainable coastal communities. These characteristics in turn, provide a framework for working with communities for proactive action. The work that has been undertaken in this area provides a basis for beginning to explore and understand the needs of coastal communities working toward sustainability1 and a maintenance of valued characteristics and defining features.

The Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014, in a close alignment with the above principles, highlights government willingness to collaborate with the public as active participants in coastal and marine

1 Within this context, sustainability is broadly defined as a desire to balance environmental, social, economic aspirations in a community and work towards a shared vision of sustainable future growth.

3

planning and management. Creating opportunities to support valuable community knowledge and gaining community feedback for planning processes is of critical importance to successful forward planning and issues resolution. Furthermore, the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014 overtly acknowledges that there is a requirement to:

“Undertake longitudinal social research on community attitudes to Victorian coastal and marine environments, conservation and management, with an expanded emphasis on the extent and nature of community valuation of the coast” (Section 2.5, Action 4)

This emerging and consistent message on the importance of working with coastal communities for achieving successful change needs to be part of proactive planning and development action by coastal management. This message, in conjunction with the current dearth of research evidence relating to the impact of place-based coastal issues and the effectiveness of management approaches, has driven the development and implementation of the research study that is the focus of this current report.

The research study itself was a product of the research partnership developed to explore the unique features that shape and define the coastal community of Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads and surrounding townships.

1.2 Background to the study The research partnership between BCCM and the Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation (CeRDI) at Federation University Australia was developed due to the need to build knowledge and gain insights into community and management perspectives on a range of complex coastal management issues currently impacting on service delivery and coastal management. Developing this knowledge base was acknowledged as critical step to build organisational capacity and to effectively plan and implement response strategies that aligned with identified issues across the Barwon Coast community.

The development of the research partnership drew on the unique skills and attributes of each party to maximise capacity to gain important insights relating to coastal development and management.

1.2.1 The Centre for eResearch and Digital Innovation The Centre is located within the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research and Innovation) at Federation University Australia. CeRDI has successfully established a broad range of research initiatives defined by notions of knowledge management and data sharing, customised technologies and collaboration and partnership building. This work occurs across a range of disciplines including, but not limited to: business, environmental science, geology, geographic information science, history, information technology, graphic design, law, psychology and sociology.

Discipline and project expertise at CeRDI has enabled the delivery of research innovations that achieve:

• Real world application • Build evidence bases for enhanced

practice • Multidisciplinary approaches • Accessibility for, & empowerment of,

communities

• Open standards and open data • A Community and/or industry presence • Research using mixed methodologies • A mechanism for community and

research capacity building

4

As a program partner on the Barwon Coast Coastal Management and Beach Usage Research project, CeRDI has worked to support program development and implementation, and to develop a research framework through which to track key community and management issues. CeRDI has also worked to provide a baseline through which to measure, into the longer term, potential response strategies and approaches for effective coastal management. The research work undertaken through CeRDI was viewed as a mechanism through which to capture key community perspectives and, through this, to provide insights for the building of a longitudinal research program of community engagement and coastal use sustainability.

1.2.2 The Barwon Coast Committee of Management Inc. Across Victoria, approximately 20% of coastal Crown land is managed by Coastal Committees of Management (CoM). These committees play a critical role in ensuring coastal environments are kept safe, clean and accessible to visitors and permanent residents. All Coastal CoMs have been delegated considerable responsibility and decision-making powers by the Department of the Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP). In managing reserves, Coastal CoMs provide significant social value and economic benefits to the State of Victoria and local communities.

The BCCM was established in 1995 and is responsible for managing 13km of coastal Crown land reserves in the townships of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads. Specifically, the BCCM has responsibility for public land from beach access 7W at Collendina on the eastern boundary of Ocean Grove, through to 42W Blue Rocks to the west of 13th Beach. The BCCM also manages the local port of Barwon Heads, Riverside Camp Ground, Barwon Heads Caravan Park and Riverview Family Caravan Park.

This BCCM jurisdictional area is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Barwon Coast Committee of Management jurisdiction (2016) Source: BCCM

The environmental features of the BCCM area have high ecological, social and cultural values, comprising a broad estuary system, long beaches, sensitive dunes and wetlands. The BCCM’s vision statement shows its dedication to protect and conserve the environmental values in their area of management:

“As the custodian of the Barwon Coast environs, we will ensure its ecological diversity for present and future generations”

5

Under this vision statement, the BCCM has six key areas of responsibilities (BCCM 2012):

• Natural resource protection • Managing public use and development of the reserve • Operation, maintenance and promotion of camping areas and caravan parks • Implementation of services and facilities to support tourism, recreations and education • Management of commercial leases and licences • Port operations

Each of these key areas of responsibility has documented strategic directions and action statements/goals and tasks. Further information on the Strategic directions for each responsibility can be found in the BCCM Coastal Management Plan 2012/13 to 2014/15. The 2018-23 Coastal and Marine Management Plan is currently under development.

The Committee, as a community-based organisation, works closely with a number of organisations, with key strategic partners for the BCCM including:

• The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning • The City of Greater Geelong (responsibility for reserves at Buckley Park Foreshore

Reserve, Bancoora and Breamlea) • Barwon Water (responsibility for Black Rock area) • Parks Victoria (responsibility for Barwon Bluff Marine Sanctuary and Lake Connewarre

State Game Reserve)

These organisations have varying responsibilities to work across the BCCM area and the links that are in place provide important resources for BCCM in meeting the vision and goals that it has set for coastal management for the region. Additionally, a range of networks exist with:

• Corangamite Catchment Management Authority • Wathaurung Aboriginal Corporation • Bellarine Catchment Network & the Surf Coast & Inland Plains Network • Community groups including Life Saving Clubs, community associations, business

associations, service clubs, and sporting clubs, especially the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club

• Volunteer groups e.g. Friends of the Bluff, Ocean Grove Coastcare, Friends of the Lobster Pot

While not exhaustive, these lists provide insights into the scope of organisational and community-based links that BCCM has within the region. It is the organisational and community relationships in place that were central to the development of the current research study. They enabled the BCCM to provide location-specific insights into the key issues emerging across the area and, through this, facilitated the development of a strong research framework. Additionally, the local insights contributed by BCCM to the research partnership supported data collection by identifying collection sites and flagging methods most likely to be effective within the targeted coastal community.

The research applied a social research approach to explore a range of community perspectives on issues ranging from community identity to domestic animals on beaches, to infrastructure demands, to ecosystem protection and to sustained recreational beach usage. In order to maximise the insights gained, a range of data collection approaches were used. They are outlined in detail in Section 2 of this report.

6

SECTION 2: STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction As identified in the introduction and background to this research report, the insights sought through the mechanism of this current research study were closely aligned to knowledge building specific to a sense of community and a sense of place. This focus is pivotal to social research and, as outlined in Section 1, has been validated within national and international research as an appropriate and effective approach for working on issues impacting on coastal communities. The need to work with community to understand a range of perspectives pertinent to local issues was instrumental in determining the approach, and the subsequent research methods, used in this study.

The study design was shaped by an overt acknowledgement that traditional methods of data collection using purely quantitative measures (such as surveys and experimental or quasi experimental research) for coastal management research does not provide the insights needed in terms of community perspective, dominant value bases and narratives of the people living the experience. While the collection of purely scientific research data providing objective and measurable impact indicators is important, it does not facilitate the examination of the social impacts of change or shifts, nor does it enable a subjective capture of the drivers for behaviours and attitudes relating to particular issues.

Location, context, beliefs and tradition play a critical role in building knowledge about what is happening within and across communities over time. Gaining insights depends on the capacity for individuals and communities to tell their stories. It is these stories, and the insights they provide, that play an important role in shaping forward planning and development in all communities, including coastal ones. Consequently, the study design for this social research study applied a mixed methods approach to maximise insights and data validity.

The research attempted to provide a detailed understanding of community and management perspectives on a range of coastal management issues including domestic animals on beaches, overcrowding, infrastructure and environmental issues and how these impact on individual’s sense of place and community.

The issues and perspectives raised in this research are relevant to both the specific area over which the BCCM has jurisdiction (see section 1.2.2) and the Barwon Coast region, generally. Here, the ‘Barwon Coast region’ is defined as the coastal region encompassing the townships of Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads and surrounding townships whose population are significant users of the local beach areas.

Within the study design, to ensure that all data collected for the study was framed by consistent research goals, research questions were developed and applied.

2.2 Research questions The study was guided by a range of specific research questions developed to facilitate the building of a knowledge base around the key issues of relevance to the research project. In the initial development of the research study, there was a strong focus on data acquisition on community perspectives on dog management in the region. However, during the process of finalising study parameters, and drawing on: 1) discussions with the BCCM; and 2) an analysis of available national and international literature, issues such as population shifts, seasonal

7

variation in population numbers, infrastructure and the delivery of local services were also raised as critical to building a comprehensive knowledge base around coastal management issues.

This shift resulted in the development of overarching research questions that researchers used to focus on a range of issues, including, but not solely limited to, domestic dogs and their social and environmental impacts. Building this evidence base was addressed through the inclusion of additional survey questions on issues such as signage, parking, overcrowding and usage levels across different beaches. It was also addressed as part of focus group discussions within which the full range of issues relating to coastal management were explored. Focus group data was particularly important for building understanding and accessing new ideas to supplement, validate and strengthen insights gained through the survey component of the study.

It should be noted that the expansion of the research parameters created some level of confusion around the focus and intent of the study for some research participants. Some participants identified, in particular, the survey component of the study as being the ‘dog survey’, due to the large number of questions it contained relating to domestic animals on beaches. The evidence for this assessment was found in the written responses provided by some respondents in their survey returns in which they raised concerns and anger relating to the ‘dog survey’. This conceptualisation of the research created some level of tension between dog owners, non-dog owners and other groups within the region. Further, some research participants held the view that the research was a tool for implementation of a pre-determined agenda around limiting beach access for domestic dogs. It was important for the integrity of the research to overtly counter these views, wherever possible, particularly given that they are neither factual nor accurate.

While the need to explore the impact of domestic animals as integral to the research project is overtly acknowledged, the research partnership itself was shaped around the importance of building knowledge across a range of coastal management challenges. Maintaining the independence and integrity of the research, both for this research project, and for potential longitudinal research into the future, was dependent on the capacity to deliver a research project that was based on existing evidence bases on key coastal issues and on objective discussions between the research partners. It was these factors that resulted in the expanded research parameters that ultimately shaped and defined the research project. The expansion of research focus is flagged as an issue that was addressed during the development of the final research questions for the study.

In order to maximise the potential to explore the full range of coastal management issues, including the impact of domestic animals, the following research questions were developed and guided the data collection process:




4. To what extent has the community been mobilised to engage, promote, adopt and advocate for the effective management of complex coastal community and environmental

8

issues within the context of local identity? What are the key strategies to extend and strengthen this mobilisation into the future?

The subsequent research methods applied to the study were those assessed as most appropriate to enabling the research questions to be answered effectively.

2.3 Research methods The qualitative and quantitative methods used in this study included an online survey, focus group interviews, demographic analysis, participant feedback (through email and telephone contact) and program document analysis. This approach allowed findings to be cross-referenced and established a process whereby issues that were not addressed/identified through one data collection method could be picked up through alternative methods.

The use of a multi method approach enabled a process of data triangulation across methods (focus group, survey, email feedback and document analysis) and data sources (with feedback from BCCM employees, members of the community and representatives from particular interest groups). Data triangulation ensured a strong body of primary evidence from which to draw conclusions relating to the types of issues identified as being relevant to coastal management across the community. It also ensured that the research questions established for the study were able to be answered.

2.3.1 Survey A survey was developed as a central element of data collection for the study. Potential respondents were provided with the option of an online or hard copy format. The survey took around 15 minutes to complete and a range of recruitment techniques were used to maximise respondent numbers. These techniques included direct email to potential participants, the manning of data collection points on local beaches over holiday periods, social media, organisational newsletters and the use of existing mailing lists held by the research partner. Surveys were also provided to respondents who had heard about the research through their networks and requested hard copies to be sent to their home addresses. The survey method used tick box and Likert scale response options to gain a detailed insight into community attitudes, knowledge and experiences as they related to specific issues such as signage, dog access, waste management, use of coastal areas and environmental protection.

The survey also provided the opportunity for written feedback and the provision of suggestions on issues that were particularly important to individual respondents and which they felt had not been adequately explored within the body of the survey.

As there was an online component to the survey, the potential for individuals to submit more than one survey in order to shape or influence overall results is overtly acknowledged. Some capacity for monitoring this process was provided through cross referencing of date and time submission points. However, the capacity for multiple submission could not be precisely tracked. This meant that, as is always possible within an anonymous survey addressing issues of significant importance for community members, the potential for one person submitting more than one survey cannot be definitively discounted. The use of multiple methods of data collection and data methods triangulation provided some negating of this issue; however, it is flagged as a potential data validity issue.

As identified in Table 1, surveys were completed by a total of 1636 respondents between December 2017 and April 2018. Additional survey responses (n=79) were collected as part of

9

the ShareOurShores campaign launch in November 2017 where full responses were consolidated with the online survey taking the total number of survey respondents to 1715.

2.3.1.1 Survey respondent data An assessment of survey respondent characteristics revealed the following:

• Respondents were largely female (70.5%, n=1153). Male comprised 32.1% (n=525) of survey responses while 2.1% (n=20) did not, or declined to, answer this question.

• 79% (n=1353) of respondents live full-time in the municipality, whereas approximately 20% (n=348) were visitors to the region or live part-time or temporarily in the municipality. This information is presented diagrammatically as Figure 2.

Figure 2: Living situation and postcode as reported by survey respondents (n=1715)

• Almost half of survey respondents (48.2%, n=825) were aged between 45 to 64 years. Younger survey respondents aged between 18 to 29 made up approximately 9% of survey responses. This information is presented diagrammaticaly as Figure 3.

10

Figure 3: Age structure of survey respondents (n=1715)

• Survey respondents living in the municipality for more than 20 years were found to be approximately 27% of total responses. Newer residents living in the municipality for less than 2 years made up approximately 9% (n=150) total responses. This information is presented diagrammatically as Figure 4.

Figure 4: Length of residence in municipality of survey respondents (n=16362)

2 Please note that, for Figure 4, Length of residence in municipality for survey respondents, the number of respondents is only 1636. This is because ShareOurShores survey data did not collect data specific to the question ‘length of residence’ so the responses are drawn only from the survey data (n=1636).

50

100

150

200

250

No…75+

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

18-19

Num

ber o

f res

pond

ents

100 200 300 400 500

No answerMore than 20 years

15-20 years10-15 years5-10 years2-5 years

Less than 2 yearsLess than 1 year

Here for a short term stay

Number of respondents

11

These data enable an assessment on the representativess of the survey. It was important to assess whether demographics of the survey respondents reflected the characteritics of the overall population and age structure in the Barwon Coast region. In particular, age breakdown was important for generalisability of findings. This comparative analysis found that, while there were substantially more females responding to the survey, the age structure of respondents was largely reflective of the known age structure in region (For more detail on these demographics refer to see Section 3 of this report). A copy of the survey used for the study is provided as Appendix 1 of this report.

2.3.2 Focus group interviews and written submissions Focus group interviews were used to gain targeted individual and subjective insights into user perceptions of issues such as environmental values, community and identity and issues of concern. This method was included to maximise insights gained and to provide validation to other data collected during the research study. At the point of development of the study design it was intended that approximately 30 – 40 individuals would be targeted for either individual or focus group interview. Survey respondents were given the opportunity to nominate for an interview/focus group at the point that they completed the survey. A total of 448 individuals identified that they were interested in an interview/focus group session. It was not possible within the scope of the research study to undertake this number of interviews. Therefore, in order to support community members wishing to have input, an alternative data collection process was developed. This involved community members being provided with the option of a written response if unsuccessful in gaining a place in a focus group. This alternative and additional mechanism for input did not vary the project intent or project foci. It simply supported those unable to be accommodated in a focus group due to the high demand to have an alternative method for input on the identified issues.

As identified in Table 1, individual/focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 102 participants during late April 2018. An additional 13 written submissions were received responding to the same questions asked of interview/focus group participants.

Participants for this data collection methods included BCCM staff, organisational staff and community members. The interview schedules used to collect data are provided in Appendix 2.

2.3.3 Document and demographic analysis Program documentation was used to provide insights into the organisational goals of Barwon Committee of Management as well as the work that had been undertaken at the community level to address coastal management issues and identify educational and planning needs.

Analysis of this documentation provided an important knowledge base around existing issues and response strategies. Additionally, collection, collation and analysis of available population and population profile data and data relating to domestic dogs in the area was examined. This work also allowed for a mapping of data availability and shortfalls. The findings relating to document and demographic analysis are provided in the findings sections of this research report.

2.3.4 Site visits A series of site visits were undertaken by FedUni researchers on January 24th, 25th and 26th, February 27th and April 13th, 14th and 15 h in 2018. These were undertaken in order to observe movement and population levels on the beach at diverse timeframes, to view signage and assess clarity and positioning and to gain an understanding of similarities, differences and characteristics of the different beaches included within the parameters of the research study. These site

12

observations provided important profile and background data to inform the study and against which to review feedback provided through other methods employed for the research.

2.3.5 Email and telephone feedback Email and telephone feedback provided by community members relating to key coastal management issues was collected on an ongoing basis across the research project implementation timeframe of November 2017 – June 2018. While there was significant and ongoing email and telephone feedback across the life of the research project, there were 25 contacts which contained sufficient data for content analysis. The data drawn from these contact points provided important additional insights on the perception of community members on key issues of concern. Additionally, in some instances, data provided involved a tracking of personal experiences and narrative on key issues relating to coastal management, particularly relating to domestic dogs and environmental management and/or individual well-being. The insights provided from this method have been incorporated within the results section of this report.

A summary of the data collection methods, and the number of participants to each (where relevant), are captured in the Table 1.

Table 1: Data Collection Methods and Source

Data collection methods

Data collection period

Profile of data accessed/participant type

No. of participants

Online Survey Dec 2017- April 2018 • Community members 1636

ShareOurShores event survey submissions

Nov 2017 • Community members

79

Focus group interviews

Jan 2018 April 2018

• BCCM staff

• Advisory committee

• Community members

• Community group representatives

102

Written submissions

March – May 2018

• Community members 13

Document and demographic analysis

Nov 2017 - April 2018

• Documents relevant to coastal management, education strategies and community-based campaigns were reviewed using qualitative document content analysis techniques

N/A

Sites visits Jan 2018 - April 2018

• FedUni researchers visited local beaches to identify issues regarding signage, litter, parking and dog access

N/A

Email Feedback Nov 2017 -June 2018

• Community members 25

TOTAL 1,855 participants

13

2.4 Data analysis Data analysis varied dependent on the method used for data collection, with the following analysis approaches applied across the data collection pool:

• Document Analysis. Documents were analysed using standard content analysis techniques to identify purpose, recurrent themes relating to vision, mission and philosophy, policy links and forward planning themes. The documents were also analysed to build knowledge relating to the activities and strategies used by BCCM for coastal management and community engagement.

• Demographic analysis. Demographics were drawn from existing data sources for local area demographic profiles. Comparative analyses were undertaken using standard statistical analysis techniques and data graphing, as relevant and required.

• Interview, focus group and email data. All qualitative data was analysed using accepted thematic analysis techniques. All data was reviewed by study researchers and agreed upon themes developed verified. Interview, focus group and email data was then validated to themes using coding and coding trees. The themes were: o Population growth, coastal development and tourism: sensing impacts and

challenges. Associated codes: pop – population growth; sv – seasonal variation; capacity – towns/beaches at capacity; urban – housing developments and urbanisation; os – issues are overstated; df – dog fouling; dwl – dog impacts on wildlife; da – attacks/menacing/causing nuisance; rubbish – concerns about litter/rubbish; parking – concerns about lack of parking; access – difficulties of beach access; traffic – traffic issues and congestion; sd – sand dunes; hp – hooded plovers; env – general environmental concerns; other – minor issues e.g. cyclists, horses, jetskis, fox poison, cyclists

o Navigating shared spaces: individual rights and community responsibilities. Associated codes: dogpos – positive aspects of dog ownership; locals – tension between locals and tourists; tension – tensions between beach users; dc – dog control; comp – compliance with existing rules; share – respect and working together in shared spaces; loss – perceived loss of right or well-being; safety – concerns about safety on beach

o Managing coastal issues: safeguarding community well-being and environmental values. Associated codes: reg – comments on new/existing regulations; edu – education as a strategy; compare – comparisons with other coastal areas; enf – enforcement; pres – presence of management/rangers; goodsign – signs are effective; badsign – signs need improving; add – additional signage; location – poor location of signage; clarity – improving clarity and simplicity of signage; larger – larger signage; posmessage – positive messaging as a strategy; confusion – confusion over who manages certain issues; otherinfra – proposed infrastructure needs.

• Survey data. This was analysed using standard statistical analysis and graphing techniques including Excel.

• Site visits. Data collection and analysis used photography and standard participant observation techniques and cross referencing with study researchers to document and capture consistent site observations and conclusions.

2.5 Ethics

Ethical approval appropriate for research involving individuals was gained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of Federation University Australia and principles guiding the data collection and analysis process were observed to serve the best interests of all participants at each stage of the research process. Ethics Approval Number A17-162.

14

SECTION 3: POPULATION AND TOURISM IN THE BARWON COAST REGION 3.1 Introduction A foundational goal informing the development and planning of the current research study was to build accurate insights into rates of growth and change in the Barwon Coast region, including Ocean Grove, Barwon Heads and surrounding townships. Key issues of interest related to population and tourism data, including migration and drivers of population change. Within this context, insights were also sought relating to community perspectives on population change, valuation and use of the coastal environment.

Issues of coastal population growth and change are not unique to Barwon Coast, with the Victorian Coastal Council (2013) having identified that coastal communities are experiencing challenges brought about by growth in population rates and tourism demands (classified as the ‘sea change phenomenon’ and ‘coastal suburbanisation’). Acknowledging this as an issue of significance to all coastal communities, it is interesting to note that a consideration of national data found that coastal town population growth is generally lower in Victoria than in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. This is largely due to the high level of public land ownership in Victoria compared to other states (Victorian Coastal Council 2013).

During the decade 2001-2011, rates of growth in all coastal areas of Victoria were lower than, or similar to, those of non-coastal Victoria, with average annual growth rates around 1.3% in coastal areas and 1.4% in non-coastal areas (Victorian Coastal Council 2013). This was due to high growth in Melbourne, inland centres such as Bendigo and Ballarat, and non-coastal suburbs of Geelong over that decade. This has relevance for the Barwon Coast region given the close proximity of this region to Geelong and the likely correlation between this urban growth and increased tourism demands for nearby coastal areas. This is discussed within the following sub section.

While brief, these introductory snapshots provide a national and state context within which to consider the demographic data specific to the Barwon Coast region.

3.2 Population growth, coastal development and tourism This section summarises the population, age structure, and tourism data specific to the Barwon Coast region (Barwon Heads, including Connewarre and Breamlea, and Ocean Grove)3.

3.2.1 Population: status and projections An analysis of data relating to current and future projections of population and households in townships in the Barwon Coast region, as derived from the Estimated Resident Population from the ABS census data, highlight the following:

• The population of Ocean Gove and Barwon Heads is currently 14,990 and 4,752, respectively. These figures are indicative of a notable upward population shift when compared with population figures from the 2006 census when the population for Barwon Heads was 2,994 and for Ocean Grove was 11,274. This growth trend is projected to

3 Population statistics are drawn from the 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census count and the .id profile module (https://profile.id.com.au/). Population forecasts are drawn from the .id forecasting module (https://forecast.id.com.au)

15

continue for both of these locations for the timeframe 2018 to 2036, with Ocean Grove projected to increase at a higher rate than Barwon Heads.

o Ocean Grove is projected to experience a +17.4% population increase o Barwon Heads is projected to experience a +4.55% population increase.

While both townships will experience an increase in population rates, the projected growth for both communities will be at a slower rate than that expected for the City of Greater Geelong (31.9%).

• The areas of Armstrong Creek and Mount Duneed, which are located on the urban fringe of Geelong, are expected to grow rapidly in the next two decades 281.5% and 504.8%, respectively, largely driven by new housing development. These are very significant increases, with population growth in these areas likely to place pressures on nearby coastal communities such as Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads through increased visitation due to their close proximity and high capacity for development.

• The population of Drysdale and Clifton Springs who are significant users of the Barwon Coast is expected to grow at 37.7% and 24.4% between 2018 and 2036.

• Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads is generally expected to grow slower than other Victorian coastal regions such as Surf Coast Shire (43.2%) between 2018 and 2036.

The full scope of these population projections is captured in Table 2.

Table 2: Population Forecasts, 2018 to 2036

Area Population 2018

Population 2036

Pop. Change % between 2018 and 2036

% dwelling change between 2016 and 2036

Ocean Grove 14,990 17,545 17.4 % 27.2 % Barwon Heads - Connewarre – Breamlea 4,752 4,968 4.6 % 17.3 %

Rural Bellarine Peninsula 3,046 4,709 54.6 % 73.9 % St Leonards – Indented Heads 3,920 5,792 47.8 % 46.9 % Drysdale - Bellarine 4,714 6,493 37.7 % 24.3% Clifton Springs 7,832 9,746 24.4 % 21.4 % Armstrong Creek 6,479 24,718 281.5 % 498.9 % Mount Duneed 1,817 10,988 504.8 % 780.2 % City of Greater Geelong (total) 247,068 325,779 31.9 % 39.4 %

Other coastal regions

Surf Coast Shire 31,937 45,717 43.2 % 29.3 %

Mornington Peninsula Shire 164,246 181,097 10.3 % 11.2 % Source: ABS (2016) & .id forecasting module

3.2.2 Age structure and migration patterns Population age structure of the townships of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads is typical of coastal settlements generally. It is characterised by large gaps in young adult age groups due to migration to metropolitan centres for education and employment opportunities. This type of age

16

profile has been identified as a consequence of what has been termed ‘amenity migration’ and has been tracked internationally as being driven by the desire to access a range of natural and recreational amenities and lifestyle opportunities rather than placing the priority on employment opportunity (Gurran et al. 2005a). Consequent to this type of phenomenon, coastal settlements generally have higher proportions of children and retirement age populations than metropolitan centres (Victorian Coastal Council 2013).

This trend is mirrored in the available data for Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads where the close proximity to the cities of Geelong and to Melbourne allows employment opportunity to be pursued within non-coastal growth areas in parallel to allowing access to natural amenities as families seek a rural environment and new lifestyle (ABS 2016).

A breakdown of the age structure captured for Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove is depicted in Figure 5.

Source: ABS (2016)

Figure 5: Age structure for Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove

A specific breakdown of the key demographics defining the Barwon Coast region shows that:

• Age cohorts between ages 40 to 69 and young children ages 0 to 14 comprise the key age groups in both Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads.

• The population of retirees (over the age of 65 years) is similar in both locations at 18.7% and 18.3%, respectively.

• Ocean Grove also has a higher proportion of people and families between the 20-34 age range than Barwon Heads.

A specific analysis of migration rates for the Barwon Coast region reinforces concepts of amenity migration with migration emerging as one of the key drivers of population change for the region. Importantly, access to employment options, both within the localities themselves and within

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 to

4

5 to

9

10 to

14

15 to

19

20 to

24

25 to

29

30 to

34

35 to

39

40 to

44

45 to

49

50 to

54

55 to

59

60 to

64

65 to

69

70 to

74

75 to

79

80 to

84

85 a

nd o

ver

Perc

ent p

opul

atio

n

Age structure

Ocean Grove Barwon Heads

17

closely metropolitan centres, will support the potential for shifts in population structure and age profile into the future.

Projected migration patterns by age group for the Barwon Coast region show the following:

• Across the 2016-2026 period, Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads will see a strong attraction of young and mature families (0-9 and 25-39 years).

• Both townships will also witness a significant loss of young adults (18-24 years) as they move out of the area, and a small gain in empty nesters and retirees (55-64 years).

• In contrast to Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads, the rapidly growing area of Armstrong Creek is expected to strongly attract young adults (18-29 years) but will similarly show a gain of mature families (5-14 and 30-44 years). This trend is also mirrored in the figures for growth and migration for the City of Greater Geelong where growth is shown consistently across similar age cohorts.

These projected population migration trends across the locations of Barwon Heads, Ocean Grove, Armstrong Creek and Geelong are captured in Figure 6 (overleaf).

It should be noted that rates of migration and growth, regardless of age structure, are also impacted upon by housing stock availability into the future. While the specific impact of this type of constraint to migration is difficult to quantify, analysis of short to medium term housing supplies in the Barwon Coast region show that Ocean Grove has a higher availability of housing stock, an influencing factor on higher rates of population growth and migration (COGG 2015), while the supply of housing is decreasing in Barwon Heads, with an associated slowing of population growth (COGG 2017). These factors will impact on population movement independent to the issues that have been raised to this point as driving population structure and shifts within the region.

18

Figure 6: Migration in and out trends across population centres Source: .id population forecast data 2016 to 2021 and 2021 to 2026 (2017)

19

A final point for consideration in relation to population growth and development within the Barwon Coast region was that of tourism and the impact of this on the population profile across the region at peak times of the year.

3.2.3 Tourism Greater Geelong and the Bellarine Peninsula is a popular destination for a significant number of holiday-makers and tourists during the summer period, attracting around 5-million visitors annually. By 2030, visitation is expected to grow by around 25% to 7-million visitors per year (Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine 2017).

In Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads, peak overnight population can more than double that of the permanent resident population. Over the Christmas school holiday period during December 2013 and January 2014, the estimated peak overnight population for Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove rose by 275% and 235%, respectively. This increase is detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: Peak population for Barwon Heads & Ocean Grove for Dec 2013 – Jan 2014

Permanent Population in 2013

Population Holiday Homes

Population Caravan Parks

Population Hotels, Motels Units & B&Bs

Peak Population

Barwon Heads 4,332 4,482 2,780 340 11,924

Ocean Grove 13,105 10,174 7,280 200 30,759 Source: CoGG (2015; 2017)

This level of population growth, while transitory and seasonal, has significant implications for infrastructure, planning and resourcing.

Tourism was generally perceived to be both positive and negative influence on the social, cultural, environmental and economic features of the townships. Research participants across all data collection phases celebrated the region as a holiday destination that they were lucky to live in and recognised the benefits of tourism to the local economy. There was also a clear indication that tourism can bring about significant challenges in the community such as increases in rubbish, heavy traffic, car parking pressures and beach overcrowding. Nevertheless, these issues were, at the same time, regularly acknowledged as seasonal phenomenon and an expected aspect of living in the region.

The issues identified as a result of population shifts (both migratory and seasonal) provided a critical point around which community perspectives were sought as part of knowledge building on sense of community and place, and the identification of areas for action.

3.2.4 Understanding the essence of coastal living The demographic data for tourism, population change and migration, particularly given the trend for increased migration at key age points for the purpose of enhanced lifestyle options, highlighted the importance of building an understanding of community valuation of attributes and amenities in their town. The centrality of building understanding of community valuation of the coast has been identified in the Victorian Coastal Strategy (2014) as being inextricably tied to effective decision-making for coastal management. While coastal management decision making is shaped by a range of factors, including policy perspectives, climate and environmental imperatives, strategic planning directions and operational demands, evidence has shown clearly

20

that integral to effective coastal management into the longer term is linking with community and building of an understanding of the factors that are valued and that define a location (Green, 2000; Gurran et al., 2005a; 2005b; Gurran & Blakely, 2007; Lawless, 2015; Ratter, & Gee, 2012; Zagonari, 2008).

A logical extension of this is ensuring that these characteristics are included as an important part of planning and development.

An important element of the data collection process therefore was the building of understanding of the characteristics which people value about the community in which they live. The BCCM area has a distinct combination of environmental, social and cultural features delivering many benefits to the local community and visitors alike. While the positive aspects of coastal living and holiday-making were not captured quantitatively in the survey research, these benefits were widely and unfailingly discussed in all community member focus group discussions, telephone contacts, emails and site-based interviews.

The characteristics of the community that were consistently viewed as foundational in supporting the maintenance of a positive and valued community identity were:

• A sense of place and community • Enjoyment and recreation in the natural environment • Access to metropolitan centres and proximity to health and education services • A positive family environment and holiday destination • Small town (village) feel with relatively low congestion and urbanisation • Opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles e.g. surfing, swimming, dog walking,

bird watching • A sense of freedom

The key message emerging from the qualitative component of data collection was that coastal management and planning needs to ensure that these defining characteristics are viewed as integral to decision making processes. While migration, change and the accommodation of change was understood as part of living within a coastal environment, the need for consideration of how decision making might impact on these defining characteristics of community was raised as an important part of cooperative forward planning. The message was not that population growth and development should not occur, but rather that the characteristics of what is valued is understood, acknowledged and included as part of the forward planning vision for a growing and diversifying location.

The extent to which the characteristics outlined above were central to local identity, and a sense of place, are captured in the following statements which are provided as representative of the way in which the issue was shared and discussed across the qualitative data pool:

“I think the natural assets of [the Barwon Coast] are unprecedented. I think it’s a big part of why we all live here. When you’re walking along the beach, you can’t see any of the built environment. You’re completely in the wilderness, as opposed to [other coastal towns]” (Community member, focus group discussion)

“I absolutely love living here because it gives me a total sense of freedom. I’ve been here for 25 years and, sometimes, I can’t believe how lucky I am to live so close to the beach where I can walk my dog, where I can ride my bike, where I can breathe in fresh air. And I feel really happy when I see all these other people [also] enjoying the environment. I think it’s got lots of community benefits, too. Usually when I walk my dog, I have a chat with someone who I’ve never spoken to before. It creates a community.” (Community member, focus group discussion)

21

“One of the things that made me want to come and talk to you when I saw you from the window was to say that is it a great community and we work well together. It is healthy, and we have freedom and a healthy lifestyle and we can meet up on the beach and just talk and care about each other. That is who we are and why we keep staying here” (Community member, site-based interview)

While specific strategies for working cooperatively with community to address a range of emergent issues in this coastal region will be explored later in this report, the importance of an understanding of what participants viewed as foundational to their sense of place and community is highlighted as a key learning from the research process. These characteristics were not presented solely as a list of what individuals liked about their townships. They were characteristics defining the community within in which individuals wished to live into the future. Research participants emphasised the need for open communication for the development of shared understandings of community identity and place as integral to coastal management decision making. The extent to which the characteristics building a sense of community and a sense of place were viewed as being interlocked with forward planning for coastal management is captured in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Interconnection between valued characteristics and decision making 3.2.5 Community and management perspectives on population growth and tourism Information on community perspectives on population growth and tourism was collected across all research methods. Results show that permanent residents, visitors and management agency staff were acutely aware of population, housing development and tourism trends in the Barwon Coast region. These perspectives have been captured in the following data extracts which demonstrate awareness of the impacts of population growth and tourism and include representative insights from both community members and management agencies:

22

“What’s happened is that in the past 25 years, and especially the last five years with those growth areas, is that we are absolutely bombarded. [On] weekends the place is just packed [but] come Monday, it’s back to normal. You’ve got the place to yourself. That’s just the reality.” (Community member: focus group discussion)

“I think one of the biggest concerns is that with the population growth and trying to plan forward is the question of when do we say we are at capacity? How do we deal with that? We have the challenge in the next couple of years as potentially losing some of our pristine sites because pressures are going to be on for car parking and other beach access ways and more patrolled beaches.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

These data also highlight a highly consistent message, which emerged across all data collection methods, of the awareness of the significance of population growth and increased visitation to the region and its influence on coastal management challenges faced in the community. As reported above, the population profile analysis for the region showed rapid growth in towns Armstrong Creek and Mount Duneed on the urban fringe of Geelong. Data also reveals demographic profiles are expected to be different in these areas than in Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads. Some research participants associated the growth of these areas with the potential for increasing urbanisation of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads, or the potential for a permeation of a different set of norms and values into the region. Similar community concerns have been raised in other Australia towns undergoing a transition in tourism and population growth (Gurran 2008), which may lead to a reduction in community well-being and social cohesion.

The following quotes reveal and expand on these sentiments discussed in two separate focus groups discussions.

“There’s a distinction between those people who live here and have that kind of sense of community and ownership and those that just fly in to walk their dog and then leave. These people don't have or feel any sense of ownership. I think there is a real difference in the ethos there.” (Community member, focus group discussion)

“Community member 1: We talk about seasonal variation and we often say it’s the tourists [fault], but the more estates that are built—that are truly urbanised—[will] see people behave in an urbanised way. You see it happening more and more—it's not just tourists—it’s [also] people who have moved in with urban attitudes.

Community member 2: What do you think that urban attitude does?

Community member 3: The urban attitude is worrying about yourself and not about anyone else” (Community members, focus group discussion)

“The nature of this region is becoming more urban-like rather than a 'cruisy' coastal village. With that, you're going to get more urban problems, which is people disconnected, which is people worrying about themselves, not taking the time to familiarise themselves with the local environmental programs. People have their blinkers on.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

This type of feedback further reinforces the importance of understanding what is valued within the community and ensuring that these values and defining characteristics form part of the discussions on coastal management strategies. At no point in the research process do participants state that they wished to stop growth (whether population or tourism related). Rather the concerns related to how to maintain the defining characteristics of what people valued and the need to ensure an integration of valued aspects of place and space, as outlined in Figure 7.

A final aspect to building a profile relating to the Barwon Coast region was the building of insights into beach usage and the different ways in which people access and conceptualise the natural environment.

23

3.2.6 Beach usage The beaches in the areas managed by BCCM are of significant value to locals and visitors alike. Survey findings indicate the following about types of beach usage in the Barwon Coast region from 1601 respondents (35 respondents did not provide this data):

• Beaches are primarily used for recreation with family (65%) swimming (64%), exercise (66%) and dog walking (76%).

• Only minor differences in beach usage were revealed between locals and visitors. Exercise and dog walking are more common among locals than visitors, while visitors are more likely to use the beach for recreation with family.

• The limited differences between locals and visitors in terms of beach usage indicates a uniformity in the ways these groups enjoy the beach environment.

• Less common activities included bird watching (8.2%), fishing (6.4%) and wildlife watching (6.6%)

• Other reported activities and reasons to use the beach included relaxation and meditation, recreation activities such as kayaking, and surf club activities.

Figure 8 provides a visual representation of the difference uses for the beach by research participants and shows clearly the close alignment in beach use within the region.

Figure 8: Types of beach usage for permanent residents & visitors to Barwon Coast (n=1601)4

The main beach of Ocean Grove (10W-20W) was the highest ranked beach in terms of usage for both locals and visitors, followed by Collendina (7W-10W) and the Barwon River estuary. East of

4 Note: ShareOurShores data not included due to slight inconsistency in question compared with online survey

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Other

Wild life watching

Fishing

Bird watching

Dog walking

Walking, running or other exercise

Surfing

Swimming

Recreation with friends

Recreation with family

PercentPermanent resident Temporary resident/Visitor

24

Collendina beach (east of 7W) was ranked lowest in terms of use but was used more frequently by locals than visitors. This breakdown is provided visually in Figure 9.

The drivers behind choice of beach section was not investigated in this research, but it is assumed that visitation is influenced by proximity to households, availability of public facilities, dog access and perceived safety. For example, some research participants alluded to the relative level of safety of different beach sections in the region and the influence that this factor has on visitation. In one case, it was also mentioned that those areas where the beach is safer, the challenges of coastal management are amplified, as the following discussion point explains:

“Most people don’t go to Thirteenth [Beach], because the beach is dangerous. If they are surfing or they have kids, they go to the river beaches or that safe stretch between Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove—and that’s where it’s impacted [most in terms of coastal management issues].” (Community member, focus group discussion)

Figure 9: Beach sections ranked as most commonly visited in the BCCM area (n=1601)

3.3 Summary of findings for population and tourism Section 3 focused on examining key demographic characteristics of the Barwon Coast region including population and population projections and community perspectives relating to population and tourism. The data presented in this section of the report also drew on both survey and interview data and provided some valuable insights into participant perspectives on a range of issues. The key findings relating to population and tourism are summarised here and show: • The Barwon Coast region is experiencing similar phenomenon relating to coastal

suburbanisation and amenities migration as other coastal communities across the state and nationally. Overall however the growth rates being experienced in the region are lower than non-coastal locations such as Ballarat and Geelong.

• The projected growth for the region is predicted to be lower than for coastal communities such as Torquay, Portarlington and Indented Heads however both Ocean Grove and Barwon

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

13th Beach (27W – 42W)

East of Collendina (east of 7W)

The Barwon River Estuary

Collendina (7W – 10W)

Ocean Grove (10W – 20W)

Percent

Permanent resident Temporary resident/Visitor

25

Heads will experience population growth from 2018 to 2036 of 17.4% and 4.55% respectively. The large increase expected for Armstrong Creek (281.5%) and Mount Duneed (504.8%) is likely to impact on the region due to close locational proximity and high capacity for development. The population of Drysdale and Clifton Springs who are also significant users of the Barwon Coast is expected to grow at 37.7% and 24.4% between 2018 and 2036.

• There will continue to be an outward migration of young adults aged 18 to 24 from both Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove although it is projected that there will be an increase in young families (25-39 years) seeking lifestyle changes. The age cohorts between 0 and 14 and 40 and 69 years remain the key age groups within the region.

• Availability of housing stock is higher in Ocean Grove than Barwon Heads, subsequently having a small impact on population grown capacity in the short to medium term.

• Tourism remains a significant factor in seasonal population growth, with projections indicating there will be an increase, by 2030, from the current level of 5 million annually to 7 million visitors a year to the region. Population growth due to tourism has been tracked at reaching peaks of more than double the permanent resident population. Tourism was identified as having both positive and negative influences on the social, cultural, economic and environmental features of the townships.

• Data on beach usage trends found a close alignment between the nature of beach usage for both visitors to the region and local residents. Assessment of reasons for beach usage found that beaches were primarily used for dog walking, recreation with family, swimming and exercise. The main beach of Ocean Grove (10W-20W) was the most used beach by both locals and visitors, followed by Collendina (7W-10W) and the Barwon River estuary. East of Collendina beach (east of 7W) was ranked lowest in terms of use but was used more frequently by locals than visitors.

• A major finding of the research study was the importance placed by research participants on decision makers understanding and valuing the attributes and amenities that define the Barwon Coast region. This aligns closely with existing evidence bases that have found that effective coastal management is dependent on linking with community and building an understanding of the factors that are valued attributes of that location. The key characteristics that were consistently identified as central to place, space and community identity for the Barwon Coast region were:

o A sense of place and community o Enjoyment and recreation in the natural environment o Access to metropolitan centres and proximity to health and education services o A positive family environment and holiday destination o Small town (village) feel with relatively low congestion and urbanisation o Opportunities for recreation and healthy lifestyles e.g. surfing, swimming, dog

walking, bird watching o A sense of freedom

Feedback specific to working to address issues of concern and accommodate changes brought about by tourism, population growth and migration in and out of the region consistently reinforced the importance of ensuring that these defining characteristics form part of the discussions when developing coastal management response strategies.

26

SECTION 4: COASTAL LIVING CHALLENGES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 Introduction The assessment of coastal living challenges and management issues in the BCCM area was a central aim of this research and was investigated across all data collection methods. Understanding community and management perspectives was viewed as a mechanism through which to build knowledge crucial for effective decision-making and increasing support for management and educative strategies.

In order to identify the key community challenges and management issues being experienced within the BCCM area, research participants were asked to provide specific feedback on issues impacting on individual well-being, or those that were assessed as creating conflict within their living environment.

As an initial question, survey participants were asked whether their capacity to enjoy the beach had been compromised in some way. Approximately 45% (n=789) of respondents responded affirmatively, while 54% (n=899) indicated that they had not been negatively impacted in any way on their enjoyment of their costal environment. Subsequent analyses differentiated responses according to levels of dog ownership and living situation (see Figure 13.)

Figure 10: Identification that capacity to enjoy beach has been compromised

There was a small proportion of respondents (1.6%, n=27) who did not provide an answer, as shown in Figure 10.

Further analysis of this data differentiated responses between permanent residents and those who were temporary residents or visitors. The research did not specifically track the reasons for these differences; however, it was a trend identified and, as such, is noted here. In this case, a ‘temporary resident/visitor’ was considered a survey respondent who identified as living part-time or temporarily in the municipality (e.g. holiday home), a caravan park visitor or other visitor. Of those who identified their living situation, it was more common for permanent residents to report that their capacity to enjoy the beach had been compromised than it was for temporary residents/visitors, 45.3% and 34.7%, respectively.

While there were some differences between respondent types, the issues raised across groups were consistent in their uniformity. These key issues are depicted in Figure 11, with ‘Dogs off-leash’ being the predominant issue for those reporting a compromised capacity to enjoy the beach areas. Approximately, 34% (n=590) of all survey respondents reported being impacted by dogs either on- or off-leash. Other significant challenges included human impacts on coastal

500 1000

Noanswer

No

Yes

27

environments, such as littering, sand dune damage, and threats to wildlife, and beach overcrowding.

Figure 11: Key issues compromising beach enjoyment (n=7435)

Differences in responses from temporary residents/visitors (n=124) and permanent residents (n=609) were not highly divergent on most issues. However, temporary residents/visitors identified ‘dogs off-leash’ as a more significant issue than permanent residents, and permanent residents had greater concerns about car parking issues than temporary residents/visitors. This level of uniformity in responses and issues identification provided researchers with a solid basis for issues exploration and maximised the capacity for issues to be extensively explored through the perceptions of the community and management agency staff. Importantly the issues identified within the survey were also raised consistently within focus groups, emails and written submissions, allowing for cross referencing and issues validation.

The following sub sections draw on data collected using both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore the following issues:

• Dogs on beaches • Overcrowding • Rubbish and waste management • Infrastructure and car parking • Wildlife and environmental issues • Conflicts between beach users • Other issues

5 Note: ShareOurShores survey data not included due to inconsistency with online survey for this question

0 20 40 60 80

Other

Water quality issues

Wildlife

Human impact on coastal environment (e.g. littering,…

Dogs off leash

Dogs on leash

Overcrowding because of parking at peak times

Lack of parking areas

Car parking issues (e.g. safety, inconvenience)

Conflict with other beach users

Overcrowding on the beach

Percent

Permanent resident

Temporaryresident/Visitor

28

However, before moving into an analysis and discussion of each of these issues, it is important to briefly explore two important conceptualisations that researchers assessed, during the site observation and data analysis components of the study, as key influencers in shaping the views expressed by research study participants.

1. Population shifts, particularly those caused by tourism. These are clearly specific causal factors within the Barwon Coast region that influence and exacerbate many of the issues identified by respondents that are relevant to the area BCCM manages. A significant number of the issues raised, particularly in relation to overcrowding, rubbish and waste management, infrastructure and car parking emerge as a direct result of population shifts and seasonal increases in visitor numbers. A high proportion of research participants viewed the impacts of population shifts as an embedded and accepted aspect of coastal living. Indeed, many of the issues raised are a specific result of the ebb and flow of population numbers as a normative feature of coastal living. They consequently become less problematic at different points of the year and have the potential to be considered transitory or limited to the season in which they occur. However, researcher observation of participant responses, particularly those gathered through qualitative methods, resulted in an assessment that population shifts exert an influence on individual lived experience, which extends beyond specific periods of the year. That is influence of population shifts, and the issues they create, shapes both the positive and negative aspects of coastal living in an ongoing way. They should not be viewed as less impactful simply because they can be aligned with peak and measurable points in time. This is something that should be overtly acknowledged in issues management and resolution processes.

2. Community values relating to place and space. The issues identified through the data collection process as compromising enjoyment of the coastal environment need to be considered within the context of the defining characteristics of community identified and discussed in Section 3 of this report. While each of the specific issues identified by research participants as compromising their enjoyment of the beach environment is a distinct and tangible point of concern, there is a correlation between these issues and valued attributes that create a sense of place and a sense of community. Indeed, it is the threat pose to valued community attributes that drove the identification of specific issues of concern by research participants. For example, a valued attribute identified by research participants was the ‘Opportunity for recreation and healthy lifestyles’. Within this valued community attribute, the ability to walk dogs on beaches or bird watching were assessed as specific actions which, in their potential for execution, enabled the attainment of the identified and valued community attribute. When this potential is compromised, a defining value that underpins a sense of place and a sense of community is also considered to be at risk. Therefore, when individuals identified a distinct issue they are were actually identifying that resolution of this issue was critical to the maintenance of valued characteristics and attributes that shape the cultural identity of the environment in which they have chosen to spend their time and/or live.

Importantly, researchers identified that characteristic attributes of community are extremely complex, multi-faceted and interconnected. For example, overcrowding in the coastal environment has the potential to compromise attributes relating to ‘small town (village) feel with relatively low congestion and urbanisation’, ‘a sense of place and community’; and ‘a sense of freedom’. Consequently, a specific issue, in reality, is likely to be viewed as a threat to a number of the community attributes valued by those who live in and visit the Barwon coast, either as a

29

temporary resident or as a visitor. The complex interrelationship and connections between issues compromising beach enjoyment and community identity is conceptualised in Figure 12.

Figure 12: Linking issues compromising beach enjoyment to community identity characteristics

The correlation between valued characteristics of the Barwon Coast region and specific and measurable issues of concern were evidenced by a consideration of the extent to which research participants have responded to the opportunity to share their views on a range of issues. As identified by one research participant to the research process:

“Let’s hope our specific concerns are listened to because our message is one which goes to the heart of why we love this place and why I live here with my family’. (Community member, site visit interview)

Consequent to this, the issues presented in the following sub sections not only provide valuable information around what the community consider to be issues of concern, they also provide important insights into concerns that participants have around a compromise to, and potential loss of, valued and defining traits of the local community.

In the following component of the report, where relevant, community and management agency perspectives and feedback on current and potential management actions, regulatory approaches and education strategies are detailed. These are found under the ‘Management strategies’ headings at the end of each sub section.

- A sense of place & community

- Enjoyment & recreation

- Positive family environment & holiday

destination- Small town (village)

feel- Healthy lifestyle

opportunities- Sense of freedom

Dogs on beaches

Overcrowding

Rubbish & waste

management

Infrastructure & car parking

Wildlife & environmental

issues

Conflicts between

beach users

Other issues

Township attributes & community identity characteristics

30

4.2 Dogs on beaches In this study, domestic dog management emerged as the leading coastal management issue from the perspective of both community members and management agencies. The issue of dog management and dog access to beach areas is a complex and divisive management challenge in the area managed by BCCM, and, indeed, in many other coastal townships in Australia (Schlacher et al. 2015; Weston et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2009) and internationally (Doherty et al., 2017; Esrom, 2004; Holderness-Roddam & McQuillan, 2014; Rohlf et al., 2010)

To investigate the issue of dog management, survey data were collated and analysed to first determine a range of factors influencing responses, including levels of dog ownership among survey participants. Findings revealed a high level of dog ownership among respondents, with 72.6% (n=1245) dog owners, 20.9% (n=358) non-dog owners and 6.5% (n=112) declining to answer. A large majority of these dog owners reported taking their dog(s) to the beaches in the townships (94.5%, n=1179).

This high level of representation of dog owners in the survey respondent pool is flagged as statistically anomalous when compared to the percentage of people who are dog owners in the broader population. Table 4 shows the number of registered dogs and households in Barwon Heads, Ocean Grove and the City of Greater Geelong. The percent of households with dogs is 50.2%, 49% and 34.7%, respectively, which is lower than rates of dog ownership in the response rate for the survey collected for this current study. This breakdown is provided in Table 4. Additionally, a recent report suggests rates of dog ownership in households in Victoria is around 40% (AMA 2016).

Table 4: Registered dogs and households in the City of Greater Geelong Location Total dogs

registered Number of households occupied on census night 2016

% households with dogs

Barwon Heads 680 1,354 50.2%

Ocean Grove 2,531 5,167 49.0%

City of Greater Geelong (total)

35,577 102,639 34.7%

Source: City of Greater Geelong 2016; ABS 2016

The dog ownership level in Barwon Coast region is notably higher than 40%, which is acknowledged as an influencer on the high response rate of dog owners to the survey. The ownership rate signals the important place of domestic animals in the community profile. Dog ownership, at this notably higher than average rate, is clearly one of the aspects of community life in this location that is closely intertwined with notions of recreation, enjoyment of environment and a sense of place and community. This fact meant that a high response rate to the survey by dog owners was something that was expected as reflective of the profile of at least 50% of respondents. However, the proportion of almost 75% of survey respondents being dog owners is statistically notable and may be, in part, due to multiple individuals within one family (and therefore owning the same dog) responding to the survey. While this is legitimate, it would

31

increase the percentage proportion to one that is higher than the actual number of dog owners (as a sample of survey respondent).

Also, the drivers for this high statistical representation of dog owners in the survey responses is potentially linked to the issues identified in Section 2 of this report where it was recognised that the survey was labelled the ‘dog survey’. As stated previously, this view resulted in a greater proportion of dog owners responding to the survey to counter what was perceived as a pre-determined agenda to change existing beach access guidelines regarding dog access to coastal areas. This assessment is validated by significant written and verbal feedback within which respondents indicated that they had completed the survey to ensure that there was adequate representation from dog owners for informing and shaping decision making.

This high level of representation from dog owners was not problematic in terms of providing opportunity for input from all interested community members. In fact, it enabled a clear comparative analysis to be made between dog owners and non-dog owners on a number of key issues and these are detailed later in this sub section. The issue is simply noted because the high levels of representation by dog owners does mean that the sample varies from what would be found in a random sample taken from the broader population. In order to ensure that there was an unbiased and equitable presentation of views on key issues, dog ownership status was identified as part of data analysis and results presentation. This process was applied across a number of variables, with results highlighting notable differences in perceptions between dog owners and non-dog owners.

Unsurprisingly, an area in which these different perspectives emerged related to the perceived negative impact on beach enjoyment created by dogs on beaches. The feedback provided on this issue showed that dog owners were less likely to assess that their capacity to enjoy shared coastal areas was compromised than non-dog owners. This difference in perspective is captured in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Percentage of respondents reporting compromised capacity to enjoy shared coastal areas in the context of dog ownership and living (n=1500)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Permanent residentdog owner (n=960)

Permanent residentnon-dog owner

(n=246)

Temporaryresident/Visitor dog

owner (n=210)

Temporaryresident/Visitor non-

dog owner (n=84)

Perc

ent

32

Importantly, when reasons for compromised enjoyment were explored, dogs off-leash was a more significant issue for both permanent residents and temporary residents/visitors, regardless of dog ownership status. This had already been identified as the most notable concern among all survey respondents (as depicted in Figure 11) whether they were permanent residents or temporary residents/visitors. It is of interest to note that this issue remained the most significant concern among respondents even when the question of dog ownership status was addressed. This is a finding that was subsequently confirmed in the focus group discussions, written feedback and open-ended survey responses. It is highlighted clearly in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Impacted by dogs on and off leash in the context of dog ownership (n=743)

It is a finding that underpins much of the information provided in the following sub sections of the report, even when not explicitly state.

4.2.1 Key points of concern relating to dogs on beaches

In a breakdown of the general concern relating to dogs on beaches, research participants were asked to identify key points of concern relating to dogs on beaches and this was analysed across all data collection methods.

Participants reported a number of issues of concern relating to dogs on beaches that can be summarised into five categories: dog fouling, negative dog-dog or dog-human interactions, safety concerns, environmental impacts and dog control and compliance issues (Table 5). Assessment of the frequency of category mention in 430 open-ended survey responses shows negative interactions between beach users and/or dogs as the most significant dog related issue, followed by dog control issues, non-compliance and dog fouling.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Permenent residentnon-dog owner

(n=222)

Permanent residentdog owner (n=397)

Temporaryresident/Visitornon-dog owner

(n=74)

Temporaryresident/Visitor dog

owner (n=50)

Perc

ent

Impacted by dogs on leash Impacted by dogs off leash

33

Table 5: Frequency of dog management issues raised in survey responses

Dog management issue Frequency of mention (n=430)

Dog fouling 22.3%

Negative human-dog and dog-dog interactions (e.g. nuisance, attacks, menacing, bites)

27.0%

Safety concerns 18.1%

Dog impacts on wildlife and other environmental values

9.8%

Dog control issues and non-compliance 22.8%

Analysis of n=430 open-ended survey responses. Dog ownership levels: dog owners 51.6%, non-dog owners 43.3%, 5.1% no answer

Research participants generally associated these issues with impacts on individual well-being and enjoyment of shared coastal areas. Safety concerns for themselves, and especially for their children, were also commonly raised, with numerous anecdotal stories of minor and major dog incidents. These views are captured in the following representative statements:

“Dogs off leash are a major concern as many are running wild causing a nuisance to other beach users, a threat to the wildlife, damage to the coastal environment. Many are not under any control and some owners fail to observe them fouling the beach. Not all young children enjoy the attention that loose dogs give them, and I have a concern that a serious injury may be the result.” (Survey respondent, permanent resident, non-dog owner)

“I have had several encounters with people with their dogs off lead in an off-lead area. They are not able to control their dogs and I have felt unsafe. I have asked many people to put their dog on a lead as their dogs have either rushed at either myself or my child or have jumped on us invading our personal space. I have found these situations too familiar. I have a young family I have been verbally attacked numerous times. These situations are very uncomfortable, and people don't seem to understand what 'effective control is'. It is all too common for people to be walking their dogs in a no dog area either on or off lead. I have never seen a ranger at any beach (especially on weekends) People seem to be confused about on lead and off lead areas and what effective control is a there is a lack of signage to educate people. The amount of dog waste and rubbish is excessive in recent years.” (Survey respondent, permanent resident, dog owner)

“I think there is a bit of a problem and we need to address that. I have dogs and walk them on the beach, sometimes twice a day, and I think there has been an increase in concerns by people who do have dogs and by people who don't have dogs, especially in the last six years.” (Community member, dog owner: focus group discussion)

For empirical data on dog incidents in the Barwon Coast region, the authors of this report contacted the Victorian Injury Surveillance System (VISS). The VISS reported for the period July 2011-June 2016, there were 17 hospital admissions and 13 emergency presentations resulting from dog incidents for people living in Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads (VISS 2018, personal communication). However, it cannot be determined whether these incidents occurred on local beaches or in other locations, such as residential premises, due to a lack of such information.

34

A scan of newspaper and media reports on incidents on beaches occurred across the life of the current research project and data provided in these tracked. These data were indicative of a high number of incidents in the region however they showed inconsistency in reporting, high levels of sensationalism and a lower evidence threshold. The decision was made not to include these data in this report as their content could not be validated by researchers.

The BCCM keeps also statistics on the prevalence of dog incidents in their area of jurisdiction as collected through BCCM staff and reports from members of the public. Table 6 provides a summary of the number of dog incidents for the two-year period between July 2016 to July 2018. The total number of incidents over this period equates to 75 incidents per year, or 6.5 incidents per month. However, these data do not provide a full picture of dog incidents as not all sightings are recorded. It can be assumed that these figures are indeed higher.

Table 6: Dog incidents in the Barwon Coast Committee of Management area of jurisdiction between the period July 2016 to June 2018

Incident type Number

In prohibited zones 57

Non-compliance with dog on-leash or under effective control zones across the reserve (excluding prohibited zones)

48

Harassing or causing nuisance to beach users across the reserve (excluding prohibited zones

19

Wildlife harassment 8

Wildlife attacks 18

Total 150

Source: BCCM

While the impact of dogs off-leash on beach user wellbeing, safety and enjoyment was raised consistently throughout the data collection process, there were a number of research participants who provided feedback that contrasted with these views. Consistent feedback from participants in favour of dog friendly beach areas included claims that the issue is overstated, such that reported dog incidents are infrequent or caused by a minority of irresponsible beach users, and that issues in the community are more complex or more numerous than solely dogs off-leashes.

The following data excerpts provide evidence of these perspectives:

“I've been coming down here for 35 years. I've had three dogs. I've spent a hell of a lot of time walking my dogs on the beach and the biggest challenge for me is that I don't see that there is any kind of a problem. There might be on the main beach, but for the rest of the beach there isn't a problem. And in my view there never has been a problem.” (Community member, focus group discussion)

“I think the challenge is how do we maintain our freedom down here? Because suddenly I feel like I have to defend my dog and defend my patch on the beach now [since] this has become such a flashpoint. How can we manage the issue but maintain our freedoms?” (Community member, focus group discussion)

“Restricted dog access over the peak periods is annoying for locals who want to be able to continue on with [their] regular schedule without interruption to the limits set on beach access during period of peak holidays. Hardly fair when I'm the rate payer who actually lives here ALL YEAR round!!!!” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

35

What is important to note is that, often, these messages were bound together with comments reflecting a fear of losing individual rights and freedom i.e. dog walking access. These highlight the close link between this issue and the attributes of a sense of place and a sense of community that are so valued about the local area.

Despite general opposition to increasing restrictions on dog access to shared beach areas, many dog owners recognised that there was a problem that needed to be addressed and were open to fair and consistent management strategies. Moreover, dog owners regularly described the positive aspects of dog ownership and dog walking on beaches in the region. These respondents asked that consideration be given to these views by management agencies and understood by those in favour of increasing restrictions of dogs on beaches. These positive aspects can be summarised as:

• Mental and physical health benefits • Dog socialisation • Community building with other dog owners

These benefits of dog ownership, dog walking and access for dogs on beach areas are evidenced by the following representative statement drawn from the survey responses:

“Before trying to impose further restrictions on beach access for dogs, I think that a lot of consideration be given to mental health. Many people use their time on the beach with their dogs to alleviate stress and severe depression. Making access difficult will have a severe impact. Also, consideration should be given to the mental health of older, isolated people, who use walking their dogs on the beach as a high point of their social interchange of the day, as they chat to other dog owners. Another important point is the exercise that it provides and the resultant health benefits - in many cases people are motivated to go out and walk or run on the beach to exercise their dogs, but probably wouldn't go without the dog. Reducing access for dogs in these cases is tantamount to contributing to the obesity crisis—surely not a positive action for Barwon Health. Allowing dogs to be exercised on the beach also actually enhances neighbourhood relationships, as a happy, exercised dog is less likely to bark and/or escape.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

The presence of dog friendly beaches has been a major motivator for a number of individuals to move to the region, as the following data extracts demonstrate:

“Having recently purchased a property here in Ocean Grove (after renting for a number of years) our decision and location was persuaded by the beachside location and the year round (day long) dog friendliness of the Collendina beach. Both my partner and I enjoy visiting the beach every day with our pet Kelpie and the off-leash beach is incredibly important for hers and our sanity. We use this time together to relax and meet other like-minded people. This is why we enjoy living in this community so much.” (Written feedback, dog owner)

“Part of the reason we live where we live, and not in areas where dogs are not permitted, is so we can enjoy the beach with our pets. In our experience, the overwhelming majority of beach users in the area love having their dogs on the beach and those that don't are aware of areas to enjoy the beach where dogs are not permitted. I would be devastated to have more restrictions put on when and where we can take our dogs to the beach, as I know many others would be too. I really hope that this survey can express those views from our community and we can continue to live in an awesome dog friendly neighbourhood.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

“Being able to walk our dog freely, off-leash on the beach is a big part of the reason we moved to Ocean Grove. It is a very important part of our lives and our friends’ and family’s life. Our quality of life and sense of well-being would be diminished in many

36

ways, were dogs not allowed freely on the beach.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

The issues of dog management and associated impacts within the area managed by BCCM have, in some cases, created notable tensions between different beach users. These tensions were tracked, as part of the researcher observation component of data collection, as creating the beginnings of community division centred around the issue of dogs on beaches. This was assessed through a range of observations made to researchers, often outside of the formal data collection process. It included informal comments such as ‘I am too frightened to come to meetings because I will be targeted’, ‘I believe that there are sub-cultures developing revolving around dogs and notions of them and us’ and ‘I am beginning to feel like a stranger in my own town losing the things that mean the most to me’.

The extent of emerging divisions was also tracked through the types of comments made to researchers relating to ‘pre-determined research outcome agendas’, the questioning of the integrity and impartiality of researchers and, in a few cases, open hostility toward researchers from both dog owners and non-dog owners. Such tensions, and resulting conflicts, indicate a reduction in community cohesion between dog owners, non-dog owners and those community members involved in the protection of important environmental values, such as Hooded Plover populations (issues specific to dogs on beaches and the environment are captured in section 4.6 of this report). A more detailed analysis of conflicts between beach users in shared coastal areas is considered in this study as a separate coastal management issue and is detailed in section 4.7; however, it is important to raise the issue here. Within this context it highlights the close link between the issue of dogs on beaches and perceived threats to valued community attributes. Importantly it highlights the priority that needs to be given to this issue and the need for a response strategy which is inclusive and built on principles of community capital building (such as shared problem solving, high levels of communication and engagement).

In summary, the above discussion reveals research participants to possess complex and competing perceptions on dog management. Predominant issues in relation to dog management are impacts on community safety and well-being, environmental protection and conservation, individual rights and freedom and conflicts among beach users. Dog access to beaches in the region is highly valued by community members and temporary residents/visitors to the region, indicating that dog access is a crucial feature that contributes to a range of individual- and community-level effects.

When considering management strategies for addressing these issues, it is important to highlight that, despite the tensions highlighted above, including those directed at researchers, there is real potential for working with community to address management of these issues. The focus group, reciprocal email and site visit interview process was defined by a strong spirit of collaboration and positive movement for resolution. Once individuals were engaged in the research process, 95% of participants, regardless of data collection method, were respectful and seeking to develop strategies work together for issues resolution. This was a consistent trend regardless of whether participants were dog owners or not and regardless of whether they were permanent or temporary residents or visitors.

4.2.2 Management strategies

Negotiating and managing the competing values and expectations about dog management is a complex challenge, which partly depends on clear, fair and effective management actions,

37

education strategies and regulatory approaches that have the support of beach users and are facilitated by management agencies.

The Barwon coast currently has three coastal sections that prohibit dogs all year round. Dogs are permitted on 13th Beach (except between 40W and 42W) and between 8W and 13W. Additional areas allow dogs at all times under effective control or only at certain times of the year, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Dog control map for the BCCM jurisdictional area

Table 7 illustrates that distance of beach available on the coastal reserve managed by BCCM where dog controls apply. The distance is an underestimate as straight lines are used in measurement and not curved lines as per the natural shape of the coastline. The total length of beach total 14,985m, with 16% (2,415m) of coastline not allowing dog access, 41% (6,170m) with effective control regulations and 43% (6,400m) of coastline where seasonal controls apply.

38

Table 7. Length of beach and seasonal dog access controls on BCCM coastal reserve areas

Landscape zone Ocean Grove Dunes

Ocean Grove Main Beach

Ocean Grove Spit

Barwon River Estuary

The Bluff 13th Beach

Control

NO DOGS 1,300m 1,115m

Dogs effective control

1,870m

4,300m

Dogs seasonal controls

150m

985m

1,725m

3,260m

280m

Seasonal controls

No Dogs 18 Dec to 31 Jan

18 Dec to 31 Jan

18 Dec to 31 Jan

Dogs on leash Dec to 17 Dec and 1 Feb To 30 Apr

1 Dec to 17 Dec and 1 Feb to 30 Apr

1 Dec to 17 Dec and 1 Feb to 30 Apr

Dogs on leash (bird roost, Spit point)

1 Feb to 17dec

1 Feb to 17 Dec

Dogs on leash - transit only

18 Dec to 31 Jan

18 Dec to 31 Jan

Dogs effective control

1 May to 30 Nov

1 May to 30 Nov

1 May to 30 Nov

Source: BCCM

While there are clear regulations in place relating to areas and times for beach access for dogs, management challenges remain. Analysis of research data collected for this study shows that these management challenges are impacted on by two separate, but linked issues:

1. Different perspectives on what constitutes needed regulation among those who are dog owners and those who are not.

2. Shortfalls in monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations.

Different perspectives impacting on finding common ground The survey research provided important insights into community perspectives on potential monitoring and management strategies in relation to dogs on beaches. A key finding within these data was the significant differences in perspectives between dog owners and non-dog owners in relation to what constituted reasonable and needed action in relation to dog management strategies.

39

These differences were captured using two different foci within survey data collection. In the first instance respondents were asked to rate their views on a number of different statements. These included views on levels of conflict caused by dogs on beaches, time and zone restrictions, and the importance of dogs to beach enjoyment. The responses are captured in Figure 16. The scale used within Figure 16 represents Likert scale from strongly disagree (dark red) to strongly agree (dark green); neutral response are in yellow.

Figure 16: Dog owner & non-dog owner attitudes toward various dog management issues. Percentages indicate combined responses for strongly disagree and disagree

(red) and strongly agree and agree (green) (n=1535)

The diagrammatical capture of these data in Figure 16 provides a strong visual representation of the extent of different perceptions on a number of key variables. They highlight immediately key differences on points considered important to different respondent groups.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree No answer

40

These differences have been summarised in Table 8 for ease of discussion.

Table 8: Attitudes toward dog management issues.

Management issue Dog-owners

%

Non-dog owners %

Dogs on beaches as an area conflict 23.9 67

Dogs should be restricted to different zones during summer

41.1 55.8

Dogs should be restricted to different zones all year 17.8 61.7

Dogs off leash should be restricted to different zones and times during the day during summer

29.6 25.4

Dogs off leash should be restricted to different zones and times during the day all year

12.1 40.6

Dogs off leash is an option that should be available at any time during the day

68.2 23.1

Allowing dogs on the beach is an important part of beach enjoyment for me and my family

88.8 29.8

Note: Percentages in this table indicate combined percentage of respondents reporting ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ to the management issue

An important benefit of capturing these different perspectives on a number of key issues relating to dog management is the building of definitive evidence around attitudinal differences on a key community attributes. While these differences were previously known anecdotally, there is now a measure, drawn from a solid sample size, of the importance individuals place on a number of management options and attitudes in relation to dog management.

More importantly, the results provide coastal managers with a blue print for action into the future as a review of these findings will allow coastal managers to map:

• The areas around which there is immediate capacity to find common ground (dogs restricted to different zones during summer and dogs off leash should be restricted to different zones and times during summer) among community stakeholders.

• The areas which are unlikely to be resolved at all and therefore should not be included within response strategies or will need to be addressed over an extended timeframe if a resolution is to be found (dogs off leash should be restricted to different times and zones all year; dogs should be restricted to different zones all year; and dogs off leash is an option that should be available at any time during the day)

These data also provide managers with a clear message about the value attributed to having dogs on beaches for a large proportion of the population within their catchment; a catchment with higher than average dog numbers.

In addition to differences in attitudes relating to potential changes to existing management strategies, data analysis also shows divergence between dog owners and non-dog owners in relation to attitudes towards coastal management staff presence, laws controlling dogs on beaches, compliance management, and enforcement of dogs on beaches. Figure 17 captures these divergent attitudes, showing that:

41

• A majority of non-dog owners (58.4%) agreed that there should be stronger laws regarding dog use on beaches, compared with 9.1% of dog owners.

• 54.5% of non-dog owners desired greater levels of regulation enforcement (e.g. fines), compared with 12.7% of dog owners.

• There is some commonality among dog owners and non-dog owners seen in a mutual desire for stronger laws relating to beach use generally, such as littering, dune damage and threats to wildlife.

• There was closer alignment in the views of permanent resident dog owners and permanent resident non-dog owners in their desire for less complicated regulations about dog use of beaches at 39.2% and 49.1% respectively.

Figure 17: Respondent attitudes toward management strategies for coastal issues (n=1715)

These data also provide a blueprint for action in that points of convergence and divergence can be readily identified and incorporated by coastal managers in their development of response strategies.

The second issue seen as impacting on successful coastal management of dogs on beaches was identified as being linked to monitoring and enforcement – and what were perceived to be shortfalls in relation to this.

Shortfalls in monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations. A consistent message emerging in the focus group discussions was a desire by both dog owners and non-dog owners to increase the level of compliance staff presence patrolling the beaches and, possibly, to ensure individual compliance.

A number of research participants reported that they have rarely seen such monitoring occur or take it upon themselves to point out irresponsible behaviour (i.e. community policing), which can

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

More coastalmanagementstaff presence

Stronger lawscontrolling dog

use onbeaches

Stronger lawsrelating tobeach use

generally (e.g.littering, dune

damage, threatto wildlife)

Greater levelsof compliancemanagement

Lesscomplicated

regulations fordog use on

beaches

Fewer lawsrelating to doguse on beachuse generally

Greater levelsof regulationenforcement(e.g. fines)

Separateareas on

beaches fordifferent user

groups (i.e. nodog areas)

Perc

ent

Permanent resident non-dog ownerPermanent resident dog ownerTemporary resident/Visitor non-dog ownerTemporary resident/Visitor dog owner

42

cause conflict. Enforcement of present rules and the issuing of fines was considered an important step in overcoming dog management issues and was often regarded as the only way to achieve individual compliance. Furthermore, there was a tendency for those commenting on dog management strategies to prefer greater presence and monitoring by management staff rather than stricter regulations.

These views are captured in the following representative statements:

“Many humans don’t self-manage well. They are often self-focussed to the detriment of others. They don’t control their dogs, their litter, their dune-destructing kids. Give coast officers enforcement power and have consequences for poor behaviour.” (Survey response, permanent resident, non-dog owner)

“As a dog owner…I'm concerned that the actions of a few inconsiderate dog owners will lead to changes that reduce the amenity for others. Improved compliance and enforcement would be welcomed rather than introduction of stricter and unnecessary regulations that the minority will ignore anyway” (Community member, focus group)

“I think we have sufficient rules governing the use of the beach areas, there just needs to be enforcement of current rules with all beach users. Putting in place tougher rules while failing to properly enforce current rules is pointless.” (Community member, focus group)

“I’m certainly aware that the beach is a shared resource. I do own dogs and having access to a beach for my family with dogs is important and I understand that other people prefer a beach with no dogs. I am against having specific time slots for dogs as it simply doesn’t suit everyone, e.g. shift workers. I am very supportive of segmented beach areas, one for dogs, the other with no dogs (which includes wildlife conservation). One of the big attractions of Ocean Grove is that we can have dogs on beaches, limiting this too far will impact a lot of people - I would suggest there are a large amount of the population with dogs. Having council staff enforcing the rules is also a good idea, I have rarely seen this happen.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

“We come to the Barwon Coast annually with our family and small dog. Any further restriction on our ability to walk our dog along the beach would result in us considering alternative holiday destinations. The dog owners we meet each summer are overwhelmingly responsible. That said, we have no problem with increased surveillance and penalties for irresponsible dog owners.” (Survey respondent, temporary resident, dog owner)

Some survey respondents reflected that enforcement should be consistent, but minimal, in order to ensure relations between management and dog owners remain unperturbed by a “heavy-handed approach”. This view is captured in the following data excerpts:

“I agree that more signage, more staff, and more compliance actions (i.e. fines) are a way to get the message across to the public, but I am also wary of taking a heavy-handed approach to dog owners. We shouldn't just be telling them what to do. We need to encourage them to make better decisions and adopt more appropriate behaviours. It would be great to make dog owners feel that their actions could help result in situations where both wildlife thrive, and they get to walk their dogs on the beach.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

“Majority of people are responsible with their dogs and I have never seen any major incidents or issues with dogs off the leash. But I have seen a few complaints on the Facebook pages. But overall, I think there is no need to enforce stoneground laws, just maybe have some more people monitoring it to ensure no one is taking advantage of the amazing facilities we have or ruining it for everyone else.” (Survey response, permanent resident, dog owner)

43

The need for, and difficulty associated with, achieving compliance among dog owners is not unique to this area. There has also been formal documentation of dog incidents, and their impact on coastal environmental values and human well-being in reports including the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-2012, implemented by the City of Greater Geelong. In the development of this report there was a process of community consultation in which community members in the Greater Geelong region were asked to give their opinion on the effectiveness of dog management (COGG 2016). The need to have increased compliance in the community was strongly expressed by community members on issues ranging from non-compliance with dog control orders, dog waste, dog attacks, barking dogs, roaming cats and other nuisance issues. This view was consistently mirrored in the data collected for this current research study. In addition to increasing compliance for the purpose of addressing issues of community wellbeing, enjoyment and safety, the issue of compliance for environmental protection was also raised. While environmental issues are addressed in section 4.6 of this report, within the context of compliance it is interesting to note that surveys conducted in 2010 by volunteers from two ‘Friends of the Hooded Plover’ groups reported that in areas of prime Hooded Plover habitat and with strict “dog on-leash” requirements, leashing was observed to be as low as 13% on average (BirdLife Australia 2012a). Similar non-compliance issues have been highlighted in other Victorian coastal regions such as the Mornington Pennisula (BirdLife Australia 2012b). Monitoring of compliance beyond that conducted by Birdlife Australia is not available.

The BCCM provided feedback about a potential for increased management presence and enforcement in the region to deal with dog management and other coastal issues, based on the following data extract:

“Positively, since the middle of January [2018] we've had a stronger presence of the local law officer on the beach who has been quite visible walking sections of the beach. At the moment we've had a little bit of an improvement. And if we step back, we've had a pair of local law officers who were very active, and we started to see a significant improvement particularly on the shared trails and [people] having their dogs on the lead. So, it comes back to one of the outcomes we've been trying to achieve is to have the presence of a person in uniform who engenders a bit of respect.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

At the same time, the BCCM commented about the difficulty of enforcement in the region:

“The frustration is because we haven't had any authority and we are expected to be educative and people just know that, yes, we'll speak to them [about the issue at hand], but there's nothing more than that and they just do the opposite once you're out of sight. And that's been the living experience” (BCCM focus group discussion)

One of the points of feedback received during the qualitative data collection process related to this issue. A majority of the community focus group members were unaware of enforcement restrictions for BCCM staff in managing compliance; i.e. that BCCM staff are not able to increase compliance through statutory powers due to legislative and practice guidelines and restrictions. This was an issue that created a significant level of interest and discussion. There was, among a high proportion of focus group members, limited understanding of enforcement powers. Once these were explained to participants, many people began to reconceptualise the issue and view it as much more complex than one of simply enforcement (or lack thereof) by BCCM. In discussions around this issue, there was a consistent message from participants that they would like the opportunity to gain more information relating to enforcement and compliance powers so that they are able to have a clearer understanding of how regulations operate. Increased

44

communication and information sharing with BCCM was generally discussed positively and viewed as being part of the process of community understanding and knowledge building.

The general challenges of managing the Barwon Coast region, including the area managed by BCCM, from the perspectives of management agencies, governance and enforcement potential is further detailed later in this report.

In summary, qualitative analysis across all components of the research process revealed the following to be the recommendations most commonly reported by community members in relation to dogs on beaches:

• Separate areas for different beach users (also captured in survey research); • Ability to walk dog on beaches before ~8am and after ~6pm during summer months

(captured in all focus groups); • A complete ban on dogs between 9am and 5pm (addressed by one or two individuals in

a small majority of focus groups); • Additional dog off-leash areas, including parks inland (captured in the majority of focus

groups); • No changes to current regulations (consistent across all focus group with an emphasis

on enforcement over regulatory change); • No dogs on beaches during summer months (raised as a discussion point in a number of

focus groups); • Education campaigns (captured in all focus groups).

The viability of these recommendations, such as a no dogs on beaches during summer months, have been discussed previously and identified as being very difficult to implement and gain consensus on. A number of points were considered to be greater viability across all participant groups and these included:

(1) the ability to walk dogs on beaches before approximately 8 am and after 6 pm, (2) no changes to current regulations, (3) greater enforcement for compliance, and (4) educative strategies.

With respect to education, the most recent strategy implemented by the BCCM is the ShareOurShores campaign6, launched in November 2017, which aims to “promote the respect, responsibilities and rights that are important in minimising conflict between different beach users” (BCCM, 2018). At the centre of the ShareOurShores campaign are educative strategies for management dogs on beach areas and behaviour change among different beach users. This remains one of the most significant public issues BCCM are presently managing.

This strategy aligns closely with the feedback gained during data collection relating to community education. Consequently, data was collected and analysed to provide BCCM with a snap shot of how effective the ShareOurShores campaign has been in achieving their goals of engagement and connection with community. The results of this analysis have been graphed in Figure 18.

6 The BCCM YouTube channel has additional information on the ShareOurShores campaign launch https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9HPSEiGNBPdDuiHM65zxUw/featured?view_as=subscriber

45

Figure 18. Familiarity, involvement and perceived usefulness of the BCCM ShareOurShores campaign (n=1715)

Analysis of collected data shows that approximately 89% (n=1502) of survey respondents had little involvement or were not aware with the ShareOurShores campaign. Of those familiar or involved with the campaign, which includes those who completed a survey at the ShareOurShores campaign launch, just over half of respondents (54.3%, n=190) agreed or strongly agreed that the campaign is valuable for addressing key issues relating to coastal management in the local community.

These findings reinforce the value attributed to community education strategies. While only a small minority of survey respondents assessed the specific ShareOurShores campaign as a valuable educative tool, this data, when combined with the focus group feedback about the importance of educative work with community, places community education as an important strategy for BCCM to pursue into the future.

The next issue to emerge from the data collection process related to issue of overcrowding and this is the focus of the following sub section of this report.

4.3 Overcrowding Overcrowding, most particularly during the peak times, was a consistently raised issue across all data collection methods. The survey research revealed that of 743 respondents, approximately 35%, reported that their capacity to enjoy the shared coastal areas was impacted by a tendency

n=23, 1%

n=902, 53%

n=190, 11%

n=600, 35%

No answer

No

Yes

Not aware of theShareOurShores Campaign

21.7% 23.9% 54.3%

No answer Not at all useful (5) Slightly useful (4) Neutral (3) Useful (2) Very useful (1)

46

for these areas to be at capacity. Subsequent assessment of qualitative data in the survey research and focus group discussions confirmed overcrowding as a significant community and management issue, which places pressure on public facilities, local infrastructure, traffic movement and car parking. The analysis of qualitative data also revealed that overcrowding has further impacts on individual behaviour and well-being, including:

• Changing behaviour or adjusting lifestyles, i.e. avoiding certain areas during overcrowded periods.

• Increasing the probability of negative interactions between different beach users. • Limiting enjoyment of, and access to, dog friendly areas.

The following data excerpts provide support for the above impacts:

“[It is] very busy over summer holiday period, [I] tend not to use the beach as much as I would normally because it gets a bit crazy down there with all the extra people and dogs. [I] also avoid main beach on really busy days. [I] used to always go to RAAFs or one of the carparks towards Barwon Heads on busy days, but traffic jams on Barwon Heads Road have put me off doing that, too. I now head to Queenscliff on super-hot days to avoid overcrowding.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“I hope that we can stop the over development in our little Barwon Heads. Overcrowding would be an awful headache to Barwon Coast and our population that does care for our village beaches, parks and wildlife.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“I enjoy surfing but do not go out nearly as much as I used to due to overcrowding.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

Despite raising concerns about the issue of overcrowding, many research participants highlighted, across all focus group sessions, that it is an expected part of living in the Barwon Coast region, and that the associated negative impacts only last for a few months during the summer period. This view is captured in the following representative quote from a research participant:

“While my enjoyment of the beach is affected by overcrowding, I’m not necessarily complaining. It’s an understandable by-product of where we live and it’s a short term and seasonal phenomenon.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

This is an important qualifier to the identification of negative impacts due to overcrowding because it reinforces that this is an issue that is generally understood and accommodated within the community, despite pressures it creates for day to day life at particular times of year. This is a valuable finding of the research, particularly given that literature on this issue has highlighted that overcrowding can result in the high levels of community tension between a range of stakeholders and a breakdown in a sense of community and a sense of place (Dredge 2010; Gosnell and Abrams 2011; Stedman 2006). The majority of those involved in the research continue to view tourism and economic development, and the diversity they provide to their coastal location, as benefits that help balance the impacts of overcrowding.

4.3.1 Management strategies It was beyond the scope of this research study to provide immediately implementable management strategies on addressing issues of overcrowding as much of the impact of overcrowding on local infrastructure and car parking capacity would need to be addressed through new infrastructure development. This is likely to require significant financial investment to reduce pressure on existing shared spaces. It also has implications in terms of the loss of natural environment and currently valued shared community spaces. The issue of overcrowding was acknowledged by management agencies as being difficult to effectively manage as the following discussion point in the BCCM focus group discussion indicates:

47

“I think one of the biggest concerns is that with the population growth and trying to plan forward is the question of when do we say we are at capacity? How do we deal with that? We have the challenge in the next couple of years as potentially losing some of our pristine sites because pressures are going to be on for car parking and other beach access ways and more patrolled beaches.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

Areas which participants identified as potentially beneficial in reducing the impacts of overcrowding included the provision of additional recreational and dog walking space inland. Research participants regularly highlighted a lack of fenced-off dog parks in the region and desired more space to walk their dog. However, such actions, although desired by research participants, require a strategic approach and coordination across all level of government. Management agencies also noted that increasing car parking is difficult and costly and needs to be balanced with other values, particularly the environment.

What was identified by researchers in the data collection process is that empirical data on overcrowding, such as car parking and beach capacity statistics, are generally lacking or outdated. While there is good anecdotal information on these issues, a strong body of empirical data is needed if forward planning capacity on this issue is to be maximised. Data collection on issues such as car park demands at key points in time and/or definitive measures of beach capacity across time points and locations would be beneficial.

This is a long-term knowledge enhancement strategy that should be considered to support strategic planning for capacity management into the future.

4.4 Rubbish and waste management Coastal area cleanliness and waste management was identified in the survey research, and subsequently confirmed in the focus group discussions, as a significant issue of common community and management concern. Analysis of data collected in this study indicated many citizens are disappointed with the amount of rubbish in the environment, of which food wrappings, plastic bags, fishing lines and hooks, cans, broken glass and cigarette butts are commonly found items. Sources of rubbish include that left by temporary residents/visitors to the beach, but also that which is washed ashore. These findings are in line with recent social research on community attitudes and behaviours towards the coast, which showed one of the greatest concerns to Victorians was rubbish and litter in coastal environments (Ipsos 2012).

The BCCM consider rubbish and waste management as a key priority for the region, particularly with growing population pressures. The BCCM reported challenges related to disposing of rubbish from illegal dumping of household waste, including hard rubbish, green waste and sometimes dangerous materials such as asbestos. Some BCCM staff members considered the coastal areas of Barwon Coast to be in a cleaner state than in previous years largely due to effective educative strategies.

Some research participants showed dissatisfaction with the number of bins provided in the coastal areas and provided feedback that on occasion bins have been overflowing with litter. However, a similar number of community members showed appreciation for the work BCCM do with respect to waste management, and assessed that, generally, the coastal areas are clean. The following survey comments and focus group discussions illustrate these views:

“I’d reflect that on the beach itself it’s often left cleaner than it was quite a period of time ago because people have got at least one step in the educative process of taking things to the bin. But still it’s the volume [of rubbish] that’s the issue” (BCCM staff focus group discussion)

48

“The crew at Barwon Coast [Committee of Management] are just fantastic with the work they do [and] the way [the coastal areas] always look fantastic. But, on a hot day and the numbers coming from Warralilly and Armstrong Creek, there are thousands more people coming to the beach areas now and this is going to put more pressure on the [rubbish] issue.” (Community member focus group discussion)

This was a valuable insight on how BCCM is currently perceived within the community in terms of the work they do in this important area of coastal management. These assessments should also be noted by BCCM in their forward planning, and in the feedback they provide to coastal management staff.

Finally, numerous research participants, usually permanent residents, reported that they regularly pick up rubbish during their walks along the beach. It was a theme that recurred across groups and, importantly was an issue that many participants, while frustrated that they were put in a position to have to pick up litter, also saw as a normal contribution to caring for their environment.

This body of qualitative evidence of community involvement is indicative of a strong sense of community and a willingness of these residents to protect and care for the local environment in order to maintain a highly valued coastal amenity.

4.4.1 Management strategies The approach of BCCM to address issues of rubbish and waste management involves developing and implementing educative strategies, installing signage and fulfilling various management responsibilities. Existing BCCM management strategies is this area, drawn from personal communication with staff and analysis of focus group discussions, include, but are not limited to:

• Managing rubbish collection from beaches and reserves; • Implementing changes to local infrastructure to promote positive waste disposal; • Installing new signage on beach access areas; • Providing free and ongoing access to school programs covering topics such as litter

and marine debris and responsible fishing behaviour; • Actively supporting marine debris programs such as Seal the Loop and When

Balloons Fly; • Assist and partner with community groups, such as Coastcare and “Friends of”

groups.

With respect to education, the BCCM places a particularly high value such strategies to achieve individual behaviour change, as the following data extract indicates:

“It's the individual behaviour that is best going to protect all the things that we are otherwise doing. As an organisation we are providing services, but we've also been trying to, in the background, provide the educative services to improve responses.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

The feedback drawn from the focus group component of the research provided a clear validation of this strategy. Research participants endorsed the notion of education is an important part of overcoming issues of rubbish and waste management and supported the implementation of such strategies as a primary mechanism for change and issues management.

49

Research participants also offered additional management strategies to deal with the issues of rubbish in coastal environments. Suggestions made to supplement educative processes were:

• Providing more bins • Increasing frequency of rubbish collection during busy times • Developing a rubbish depot for tourists to reduce risks of illegal dumping.

These approaches require additional resourcing and, in one case, would require infrastructure investment. They are included in this section to accurately represent the feedback provided by research participants; however, they should be considered interim measure, or in the cast of the rubbish depot, an issue for discussion in forward infrastructure planning. Education and information sharing on the need for effective rubbish and waste management for coastal protection remains the primary management strategy drawn from the data collection process for addressing this issue into the longer term.

4.5 Infrastructure and car parking Population growth and tourism is placing pressures on infrastructure in the Barwon Coast region, as identified in the Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads Structure Plans (CoGG 2015; 2017). As previously stated in the section on overcrowding, car parking was rated as the most significant infrastructure issue, with 31% (n=227) of respondents identifying a lack of car parking areas as impacting their enjoyment of the coastal environment. The issue was confirmed in the qualitative research components and was assessed as worsening in line with population and tourism increases. This view is captured in statements such as:

“Parking was a little more frustrating this year (even though we totally embrace the tourism [and] love the energy it brings to the town), but the added traffic on the road towards Barwon heads from Ocean Grove makes it difficult to find a park. Minor I know, but it hadn’t been as bad until this season, banked up to the dunes to get to Barwon heads.” (Survey participant, permanent resident)

Other frequently mentioned infrastructure issues related to improving the extent of walking and cycling trails in the region, particularly east of Ocean Grove towards Point Lonsdale. Participants highlighted the importance of this type of infrastructure development in facilitating the active lifestyle of the residents in Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads and generally supported their maintenance and future development.

4.5.1 Management strategies The capacity to provide management strategies relating to infrastructure development within this research report is limited. This is because infrastructure development is dependent on both resourcing, and on the strategic and social and environmental planning targets that have been identified through formal planning processes, and documented in relevant planning documents. Consequent to these limitations, the most relevant management strategy insights that can be provided for this issue, as a direct result of the research process, relate to what community members view as the key infrastructure and infrastructure development issues for their community.

Small scale infrastructure development such as car parks, cycling and walking trails were viewed as necessary responses to population increases, particularly seasonal increases, if balanced with reasonable protection of significant environmental values. They were considered to be linked to increasing safety (so cyclists and walkers could have safer transport options at times of high traffic congestion), as well as being ways to manage issues of overcrowding. Importantly they

50

were closely aligned to maintaining lifestyle traits and characteristics consistently valued by the majority of research participants

Multiple focus group discussions reported that, despite a need for small scale infrastructure, there was general aversion to larger scale developments. Larger scale development to accommodate population growth were viewed as jeopardising the ‘village’ feel in the townships of the region – one of the attributes creating the sense of place and sense of community that was highly valued by participants.

Overall, there were clear indications in the focus group discussions that community members and management agencies have a shared desire to provide long-term and sustainable solutions to the current infrastructure demands emerging as part of the challenges facing coastal management processes.

4.6 Wildlife and the environmental issues The Barwon Coast is a region with significant and highly valued coastal landscapes and wildlife. The BCCM’s foremost responsibility is to ensure the protection and conservation of landscape and biodiversity values in their jurisdiction. Research participants in this study were consistent in highlighting their enjoyment of the local environment and wildlife and expressed a strong desire for its continued protection and conservation. As captured in Figure 19, a large majority of 83.3% of survey respondents assessed that wildlife protection was a very important aspect of coastal management.

Figure 19. Respondent attitudes to wildlife protection issues

Of particular concern to research participants were impacts on two environmental features in the BCCM area: sand dunes and Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis populations.

First, sand dunes play a vital role in protecting the coastline from wave damage during storms and act as a barrier to coastal water intrusion (SoE 2016). Dune vegetation is key to maintaining the integrity of sand dunes in coastal systems, primarily through dune stabilisation. A majority of research participants who were concerned about environmental issues recognised the important role sand dunes play in the local coastal environment and were concerned over incidents of sand dune degradation. The most common issues related to children playing in and sliding down the dunes, parties in the dunes and dogs-off-leash running through these areas.

Second, Hooded Plovers have become widely recognised in the Barwon Coast region, and along the coast of Victoria more broadly. Due to its listing as Vulnerable in the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DELWP 2013), the species is subject to the greatest research and management focus in the region, and many community members are actively involved in its conservation (Birdlife Australia 2012). The Hooded Plover is particularly threatened by coastal impacts because it relies exclusively on ocean beach habitat. There are approximately 550 Hooded Plovers along the Victorian coast, less than 5% of breeding efforts are successful in the Hooded Plover population. Usually 11 breeding pairs are on the stretch of coast between

51

Pt. Lonsdale and Pt Impossible with an estimate that two pairs are likely to successfully breed in each given season. Research indicates that the four highest risks that impact the species are (SWIFFT 2018):

• human disturbance • introduced predators - primarily the Red Fox Vulpes vulpes • habitat modification • dogs off leashes

Other threats include: • horses on beaches • vehicles on beaches

A majority of research participants recognised that there were a number of potential impacts on Hooded Plover populations in the region. The key concerns related to the potential impacts of population growth, coastal development and dogs off-leash on this sensitive coastal species.

“The main issues that impact my enjoyment of my local beach environments is when off leash dogs harass wildlife (esp. Hooded Plovers), when people increase the chances of wildlife harassment by walking off leash dogs in areas that are designated otherwise, or when human behaviour results in the damage to natural environments (e.g. sliding down dunes).” (Survey response, permanent resident)

However, some research participants, despite recognition of the issues surrounding Hooded Plover populations, questioned the relative impact of domestic dogs on Hooded Plover populations. This view is captured in the following representative statement from the survey research:

“It is apparent there has been a significant increase in recent years in efforts to isolate hooded plover breeding areas on the beach. I understand the concerns for these endangered birds and am fully cooperative with requests to leash my dog in marked areas. Naturally, this impacts our level of enjoyment. I understand that, despite the considerable efforts, there has been very limited success for birds breeding in this and nearby areas. Given the breeding habits of these birds and the multiple risks they face, this is not surprising. An easy target for blame is dog walking, even absent any evidence that this will lead to any recovery of the hooded plover population. I am concerned that, evidenced based or not, the hooded plover activists will press for greater controls over dogs walking off leash on the beach, even to the extent of outright exclusion. The prospects for saving the birds needs to be weighed against the very significant number of people who own dogs and the benefits that both they and their dogs derive from off leash beach walking.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

The above comments highlight a general scepticism by dog owners about the relative impact domestic dogs are having on Hooded Plover populations and frustration that Hooded Plover protection may result in a loss of enjoyment of coastal areas. It is outside the scope of this current research to review the state of Victorian coastal wildlife protection and conservation; however, recent academic literature indicates dogs do affect wildlife, particularly shorebirds, through direct mortality or disturbance of normal behaviour (Weston et al. 2014). In order to stem the loss of Hooded Plover populations, exclusion zones are recognised as an important management strategy utilised in coastal environments across the world.

The issue of climate change is a key theme of focus in the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014. Coastal environments in Australia are set to experience impacts from sea level rise to increased frequency of extreme weather events (Gurran et al., 2008). Despite this widespread

52

acknowledgement, climate change was not a dominant theme creating concern among permanent resident and temporary resident/visitor research participants. In contrast, management agencies in the focus group discussions were acutely aware of this challenge and are implementing strategies, such as photo point monitoring, to investigate changes in coastal areas and address the shortfall of data on local, climate-related issues. While this research was not explicitly focussed on climate change adaptation, investigating the attitudes and perspectives among community members about climate change impacts at a local level represents a valuable avenue of future research.

4.6.1 Management strategies The balance between recreation and environmental values has been a topic of considerable research in the academic literature and has long been recognised (e.g. Cole 1993). The following survey response clearly demonstrates that community members are also aware of this conflict:

“What’s more important? Davo’s dog or the species of Hooded Plovers? Pristine beaches or Julie’s kids dune-surfing?” (Survey response, permanent resident)

Seasonal and temporal restrictions on coastal access, including dog access, is a common management strategy to protect significant environmental values. However, a review of dogs in recreational areas by Weston et al. (2014) indicates there is limited research on the effectiveness of such strategies. Moreover, this research suggests that while exclusion zones are a common feature of coastal management, there is little associated enforcement or compliance.

This emerging evidence questioning the effectiveness of exclusion zones and the conflict between recreation and conservation is important to note when the BCCM is considering management strategies likely to be supported by community members. A majority of 71.7% of survey respondents identified that they agreed that restriction on a range of activities was an acceptable part of wildlife protection, as shown in Figure 20. The types of restrictions that were considered to be acceptable for the protection of wildlife and environment included having exclusion zones and keeping dogs on leash. With respect to signage, many research participants called attention to the ineffective signage related to Hooded Plover exclusion zones and suggested that there should be in place additional and clear signage for these zones.

Figure 20. Respondent views on restriction of activity for wildlife protection issues

Education and community engagement on wildlife and environmental issues are a key feature of the BCCMs educative strategy. Programs implemented by BCCM include:

• Installation of signage about native flora and weed species and dog management • School workshops about local wildlife, waterway importance, responsible pet ownership

and responsible fishing • Hands on dune restoration works • Education about swooping birds and protection of bird species

53

• Professional development program on seal health with Zoos Victoria • Dune awareness campaign in association with Victoria Police, Ocean Grove Coastcare,

CFA and City of Greater Geelong • Coastal management work placement programs for TAFE and University students • Facilitating community feedback and engaging the public on coastal management issues,

such as ShareOurShores campaign • Support for Coastcare and EstuaryWatch • Summer holiday program in Barwon Coast caravan parks with an environmental message

The above examples of programs illustrate the extensive work BCCM conduct in relation to education about environmental issues. In addition to these programs, many individual community members are activity involved as volunteers in the protection of coastal resources through BirdLife Australia or community-based resource management and monitoring programs such as Coastcare and EstuaryWatch. Actively supporting this participation is recognised to be crucial in supporting positive environmental attitudes, particularly for agencies with limited resourcing.

4.7 Conflicts between beach users In a previous section of this report, consideration was given to the issue of emergent conflicts and the impacts that these were having on social cohesion within the study population. This discussion occurred within the context both of dog management and overcrowding and tensions arising from seasonal population increases and population shifts. In that discussion, it was identified that there was a level of accommodation of seasonal change and that this was reflective of a population working to balance economic benefit and lifestyle impacts relating to parking and overcrowding. One area in which emergent conflicts were identified and discussed was in the interactions that were occurring between beach users, specifically in regard to dog management and environmental concerns. These conflicts occurred across all groups (i.e. permanent residents and permanent residents, permanent residents and temporary residents/visitors, temporary residents/visitors and temporary residents/visitors). This issue is revisited briefly at this point because of the importance that is placed by research participants on addressing conflict in order to maintain valued attributes and address emergent community divisions.

The emergence of conflict arising from different views and perceptions of how shared spaces should be managed is not unusual. Shared spaces are generally experienced and valued in different ways by different people. The coastal areas in Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads clearly deliver many positive benefits to the community and holiday-makers (e.g. community building, dog socialisation, mental and physical health benefits), but analysis of the data gathered found that there is sense of anxiety surrounding the conflicts that are emerging due to these divergent views, and the way in which they are being managed.

Most commonly, the conflicts reported to researchers arose when one beach user informed another of a particular coastal management rule or regulation that they identified was being not adhered to by the person with whom they entered into a discussion. The points of regulation consistently identified to be strongly associated with non-compliance include sand dune and Hooded Plover exclusion areas, dog walking and access areas, and littering on the beach.

The following data extracts provide important examples of common situations of conflict:

“We’re happy to stay away from the sand dunes area where the plover birds are nesting but the volunteers who patrol the beach are unnecessarily aggressive towards

54

other people, even when you walk along the water’s edge. It makes going down the beach a very unpleasant experience.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“Dog owners can think that they are the only legitimate users of the beach even in areas that are designated no go zones. [They] feel that they have some divine right to walk their dogs off leash [and] not pick up poo. [When] this is pointed out they behave aggressively to the point of physical attack!” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“There have been a few times I have asked unsupervised dog owners to clean up or restrain their uncontrollable dogs, but have been abused or told to P-Off, [so] for safety reasons I do not speak to unsupervised dog owners anymore.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

These data extracts, as representative examples of community feedback on developing conflicts, provide evidence of the human impact of the issues that have been raised within the body of this report. As research participants identified to researchers, and as was discussed in section 4.2 of this report, there was evidence of emerging sub cultures and divisions fuelled by divergent views on a range of issues. This is an issue that needs to be addressed as part of the response strategies put in place to work with community. The categorisation and compartmentalisation of issues and groups (dog owners, non-dog owners, volunteers working on environmental issues etc.) is divisive and reinforces a siloed approach to what are whole of community concerns. This siloed view of issues, and the groups with responsibility for their emergence, was evident in how points of contention were discussed during data collection. This was at odds with the importance that research participants attribute to maintaining the important characteristics that have built their sense of place and the sense of community. Above all, the notion of respect between beach users, for the environment and for the rules and regulations in place in the region, was consistently highlighted as the key ingredient for overcoming conflict issues, as the following statements demonstrate:

“It’s obvious that some people like to walk their dog, others exercise, others just sit on their towel and enjoy the beach and play in the sand, others protect hooded plovers. To my knowledge all of these activities exist in perfect harmony as long as people have general respect for each other.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“Humans are a diverse species. Differences of opinion are a normal part of life. Respect is paramount. The bottom line is the application of common sense at all times.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

“The strength of the beach in this region has been the relaxed atmosphere where people with diverse needs get along and understand and respect each other’s perspective.” (Survey response, permanent resident)

The emergence of divisions between different beach users is something that needs to be proactively countered in the management approach adopted to address points of contention within this community. An overwhelming positive to emerge from the research process, and one identified at all stages of data collection, was the message of a commitment to addressing issues through collaboration, communication and education. This provides a solid basis for moving forward. Strategy development must not address the coastal management issues identified within this report in isolation. It is important that strategies adopt a holistic approach which work within and across interest groups to rebuild notions of community and break down the divisions which are beginning to emerge.

55

4.8 Signage effectiveness Signage is installed in the BCCM area to inform residents and visitors about numerous issues, including environmental sensitivities of particular areas, dog management and regulations, and general expectations of shared coastal areas such as waste disposal.

An element of the research process was to assess the extent to which signage was adequate to support and inform community members about these factors, and how adequate the signage was in supporting beach users to understand, and consequently adhere to requirements on dog regulations to environmental protection and waste management. This issue was explored across the survey and focus group methods of data collection to measure participant understanding and perceptions of the nature, extent and effectiveness of signage. The results from the survey component of the research is presented in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Perception on the extent and effectiveness of signage in the BCCM jurisdictional area

Analysis of this data reveals the following about participant attitudes and perceptions towards signage (n=1636):

• A majority of survey participants indicated that the signage around beaches (73.3%) is easy to understand. A smaller majority of 56.6% agree or strongly that there were enough signage points to ensure that beach users could access information of relevance to the coastal area. This was countered by the fact that only 25.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that what was contained on signage adequately addressed the range of questions that the public might have about beach use.

• 57.8% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed there was a requirement for a clearer distinction between start and end points for areas with different dog regulations.

• Almost half of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there should be separate signs related to dog regulations.

67.7%

62.0%

41.7%

31.8%

32.2%

26.9%

18.6%

23.9%

17.2%

32.7%

20.7%

11.2%

15.3%

8.1%

8.4%

20.7%

25.6%

47.5%

56.6%

57.8%

73.3%

There is too much signage around beaches

The signage around beaches is too complex

Beach signage does not address many of the questions thatpeople have about beach use

There should be separate signs about dog regulations

There is enough signage around beaches

There should be clearer distinction between where areaswith different dog regulations start and end

I understand the signage around beaches

No answer Strongly disagree (5) Disagree (4) Neutral (3) Agree (2) Strongly agree (1)

56

In slight contrast to the survey findings, feedback about signage effectiveness drawn from the qualitative components of data collection was both positive and negative. For example, a majority of community member focus group discussions spoke of dissatisfaction with the present nature and extent of signage. The following were consistently discussed as problems associated with signage in the region:

• Confusing and lacking clarity • Inconsistent messaging • Shortage of signage, particularly at beach access points • Old and dilapidated signage that made it difficult to read messaging • ‘Effective control’ not clearly defined

Focus group participants consistently recommended that signage, particularly with reference to dog management, needs to be clear and easy-to-understand and in appropriate locations. This was also supported by management agencies.

The need for additional signage, repairing of old signage, and the inclusion of positive messaging was also mentioned across focus group discussions. Participants identified that there was capacity for signage requiring action by community to use language that was inclusive rather than directive and that work needed to be undertaken to review how messages were presented. For example, telling people when they were welcome on the beach rather than listing the times when using the beach was prohibited was an important positive message strategy likely to build improved relationships and increase adherence to the message being delivered.

It should be noted that a number of participants in the focus group discussions disagreed that signage was a significant issue. These participants either considered it too expensive make efforts to change signage in the region, viewed the current nature and extent of signage as adequate, or commented that the problem is individual compliance rather than signage inadequacy.

“Community education is key, [not] wasting money with more signs” (Survey response)

“I think the signs are very clear, however it is obvious that some locals either ignore the signs or don't read and distinguish the date changes” (Survey response)

The dominant message across both survey and focus group data however was that, in a community with transitory population trends, complex rules relating to dog management and key environmental concerns that need to be managed, there needed to be work done on reviewing signage with a focus on: 1) location points of signage display; 2) nature of the messages provided (positive messaging); 3) considering the condition of signs; and, 4) simplification and consistency of language and message

4.9 Other issues A variety of other issues were raised across the range of data collection methods however they were not raised by large numbers of participants and could not be considered dominant, representative or generalisable themes providing a strong evidence base for management action. They are briefly included here to because they were raised consistently by small numbers of participants during data collection. They are:

Cycling and cyclist behaviour. The speed of cyclists and irresponsible behaviour along roads in the region was commonly raised by research participants as an issue that needs to be

57

addressed. Management strategies recommended by some research participants was the addition of signage with positive messaging about cycling etiquette.

Jet skis. The use of Jet skis in Barwon River estuary was identified as an issue of concern due to excessive noise, speed and individual safety. Non-compliance with speed limits was also noted.

Horses on beaches. Horses training near Thirteenth Beach were an issue for some research participants who were concerned about the impacts on beach nesting birds, negative interactions with dogs and owners not cleaning up after their horses.

Alcohol on the beach. Some research participants commented on the lack of monitoring of alcohol consumption on the beach, particularly during summer months. Parties in the dunes as an issue causing significant environmental damage and excessive rubbish was also highlighted.

Fox (1080) bait. The use of 1080 fox bait in the region was raised by some community members who were concerned about bait ingestion by domestic dogs or uptake in other wildlife.

4.10 Challenges of coastal management for management agencies While many of the issues raised by both the BCCM staff and advisory group focus group discussions have been incorporated into the body of this report, this final section focuses specifically on the insights offered by these groups on the organisational challenges influencing management capacity in the BCCM area.

The most consistent themes to emerge from these discussions related to jurisdictional issues, information gaps and communication of agency roles and responsibilities to the public.

The area managed by BCCM has multiple agencies with jurisdiction for a range of actions and activities. These organisations include, but are not limited to, Parks Victoria, BCCM, City of Greater Geelong and the Victoria Police. Each of these agencies has its own boundaries for action and, within the Barwon coastal environment this can result in many agencies working on different aspects of coastal management at the same point in time, and sometimes at the same location.

The overlap of agency jurisdictional control and responsibility has implications for both management staff and for the community.

For those with coastal management responsibility, the complex bureaucratic arrangement that results means that it is difficult to address or enforce compliance on an identified issue unless it is clearly within the jurisdictional boundaries that comprise the work areas covered by BCCM. There are instances in which staff are working in an area (e.g. on the beach) but do not have the authority to enforce penalty for breaches of regulation or law (e.g. non-compliance with dog regulations).

This results in both frustration and confusion. The frustration relates to the fact that there is limited power available to take definitive action on the type of non-compliance issues that have been raised consistently throughout this report. This frustration is captured effectively in the following excerpt of focus group discussion:

“The [management] problem is two things: [first is the] capacity for us to be able to manage the various pieces of legislation applicable to this part of the world. I'm the only authorised officer in my team and we technically need to have two [people] before we can enforce compliance [Second,] between the beach and Sheepwash Road, which is what we call "Bourke Street", you've got Barwon Coast [Committee of Management], a port manager, City of Greater Geelong, Parks Victoria, you've got Department of

58

Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) as the waterway manager [all with jurisdiction]. There's a whole range of complexities with this and a huge number of pieces of legislation [that we all deal with]." (Advisory group member, focus group discussion)

“The frustration is because we haven't had any authority and we are expected to be educative and people just know that, yes, we'll speak to them [about the issue at hand], but there's nothing more than that and they just do the opposite once you're out of sight. And that's been the living experience.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

The confusion relates to the difficulty that management staff have in working with community who oftentimes fail to understand the scope of BCCM jurisdictional power. This assessment was reinforced in the feedback from community on issues of compliance (refer section 4.2). Many community members do not understand the limits or nature of jurisdictional boundaries and interpret lack of authority on an issue as lack of interest, laziness or incompetent management.

This lack of understanding, and the associated confusion, were consistently identified within the community focus group component of the research and raised by management and advisory group research participants who acknowledged that there was evident confusion within the community regarding the roles and responsibilities of the BCCM:

“I still think there is a perception that we are council run and operated. I reckon there is a huge opportunity to tell people [about the BCCM] who have no idea what [we] do. And I think that's go better now with new things in place: we've got a Facebook page, we've got people out at places doing the education and community stuff on weekends. I still think there is a huge gap in people understanding what we are trying to achieve as an organisation.” (BCCM focus group discussion)

This confusion relates not only to the roles and responsibility of BCCM but also a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of other agencies, and the jurisdiction they have within the region. In one community focus group, a participant lead a detailed discussion point around this issue identifying a total of 5 telephone calls involving the City of Greater Geelong, BCCM and Parks Victoria relating to a non-compliance issue. All three agencies referred this participant to other agencies indicating that the issue was not within their jurisdictional control. The level of anger and frustration experienced by the participants has implications for their seeking to resolve issues through formal channels into the future. This example effectively highlights the level of confusion that exists on areas of responsibility and authority for action.

The issues captured in the discussion point outlined above highlight the importance of development of a strategy for increased communication between management agencies and community members in order to build mutual understanding, and subsequent to this, support for management issues.

This is an action that would be welcomed by community members who assessed this as an important and positive step in working collaboratively into the future. As highlighted in the quote provided above, and reinforced in community discussions, the situation has improved significantly since the establishment of a range of marketing and communication strategies. This however needs expansion, particularly in regard to jurisdictional issues and authority. There were a number of individuals identified in the data collection process that they did not know who BCCM was. There were others who questioned why BCCM didn’t enforce non-compliance (indicating a lack of understanding of jurisdiction and authority). And, there were some who thought that BCCM were staff from Geelong Council. These are issues to be addressed through social media and community education strategies as soon as practicable, and before the next peak season.

59

Both the BCCM and advisory group discussion highlighted the importance of working and learning with the community to address the multi-faceted coastal management issues in the region. This mutual commitment to issues resolution is a positive starting point for moving forward.

4.11 Summary of findings for coastal living challenges and management issues

• On issues of beach enjoyment being compromised as a result of coastal management challenges approximately 45% (n=789) of respondents responded affirmatively, while 54% (n=899) indicated that they had not been negatively impacted in any way on their enjoyment of their costal environment. It was more common for permanent residents to report that their capacity to enjoy the beach had been compromised than it was for temporary residents/visitors, 45.3% and 34.7%, respectively.

• ‘Dogs off-leash’ was the predominant issue for those reporting a compromised capacity to enjoy the beach areas. Other significant challenges included human impacts on coastal environments, such as littering, sand dune damage, and threats to wildlife, and beach overcrowding. Differences in responses from temporary residents/visitors and permanent residents were not highly divergent on most issues.

• Population shifts, particularly those caused by tourism were assessed as fundamental causal factors that influence and exacerbate coastal management issues. While the ebb and flow of population numbers is a normative feature of coastal living, these shifts exert a strong influence on the lived experience of individuals.

• The identification of coastal living and management issues by research participants was largely correlated with participant desire to maintain the valued attributes that underpin their sense of place and community. While the focus for research participants was often on identifying and seeking a resolution to a specific and tangible coastal management challenge (such as dogs off leash) it was closely interrelated to concerns that highly valued concepts of a sense of place and sense of community were ultimately at risk.

• The issue of dog management and dog access to beach areas emerged as the leading management challenge in the BCCM area. It is a finding which may have been influenced by the high level of survey responses, a majority of 72.9% from dog owners. Findings revealed a high level of dog ownership among respondents, with 72.6% (n=1245) dog owners, 20.9% (n=358) non-dog owners and 6.5% (n=112) declining to answer. This high level of representation of dog owners in the survey respondent pool is flagged as statistically anomalous when compared to the percentage of people who are dog owners in the broader population.

• Research participants possess complex and competing perceptions on dog management. Predominant issues in relation to dog management are impacts on community safety and well-being, environmental protection and conservation, individual rights and freedom and conflicts among beach users. Dog access to beaches in the region is highly valued by community members and temporary residents/visitors to the region, indicating that dog access is a crucial feature that contributes to a range of individual- and community-level effects.

• Alternatively, research findings show that, for those community members in favour of dog friendly beach areas, the dog management issue is overstated. The assessment was that

60

reported dog incidents are infrequent, caused by a minority of irresponsible beach users, or that issues in the community are more complex, numerous and urgent than solely dogs off-leashes. These messages were bound together with comments reflecting a fear of losing individual rights and freedom, i.e. dog walking access. Despite general opposition to increasing restrictions on dog access to shared beach areas, many dog owners recognised that there was a problem that needed to be addressed and were open to fair and consistent management strategies.

• With respect to dog management in the region, analysis of research data shows that management challenges are impacted on by two separate, but linked issues:

1. Different perspectives on what constitutes needed regulation. There was distinct divergence between dog owners and non-dog owners in relation to attitudes towards coastal management staff presence, laws controlling dogs on beaches, compliance management, and enforcement of dogs on beaches. However, some commonality between dog owners and non-dog owners is revealed in attitudes to less complicated regulations about dog access, and mutual desire for stronger laws relating to beach use generally.

2. Shortfalls in monitoring and enforcement of existing regulations. A consistent message emerging in the focus group discussions was a desire by both dog owners and non-dog owners for an increase in the level of management staff or park ranger presence patrolling the beaches and, to ensure individual compliance.

• A summary of recommendations most commonly reported by community member in relation to dogs on beaches were the following:

o Separate areas for different beach users; o Ability to walk dog on beaches before ~8am and after ~6pm during summer months; o A complete ban on dogs between 9am and 5pm; o Additional dog off-leash areas, including parks inland; o No changes to current regulations; o No dogs on beaches during summer months; o Education campaigns.

However, gaining consensus on the implementation of a number of these strategies will remain a significant challenge.

• Overcrowding was a raised as a significant issue by 35% of survey respondents, impacting on user enjoyment of coastal areas. This management challenge is placing pressure on public facilities, local infrastructure, traffic movement and car parking. Additionally, overcrowding can cause an alteration to normal individual behaviour, increase probability of negative beach user interactions and limit the enjoyment of, and access to, dog friendly areas. However, many research participants were adjusted to this aspect of coastal living and visitation and viewed it as an expected, but seasonal, phenomenon in the region. An area which participants identified as a future potential action was the provision of additional recreational and dog walking space inland. Future investment in collecting more precise and up to date data on beach and car parking capacity is needed if forward planning capacity on these issues is to be maximised.

• Coastal area cleanliness and waste management is an issue of common community and management concern. Many research participants expressed frustration with the amount of rubbish in the environment, and, at times, dissatisfaction with the number of bins provided in

61

the coastal areas. Rubbish and waste management is a key priority for the BCCM and their work in this area was mostly highly regarded in the community. Coastal area cleanliness is helped significantly by the active involvement of community members collecting rubbish along the beach on their regular walks. Such community involvement is indicative of a strong sense of community and a willingness to protect valued area.

• Research participants offered additional management strategies to deal with the issues of rubbish in coastal environments. Suggestions made to supplement educative processes were:

o Providing more bins o Increasing frequency of rubbish collection during busy times o Developing a rubbish depot for tourists to reduce risks of illegal dumping.

Education and information sharing on rubbish and waste management for coastal protection remains the primary management strategy for addressing this issue into the longer term.

• Car parking was rated as the most significant infrastructure issue in the region across all data collection phases. Other frequently mentioned infrastructure issues related to improving walking and cycling trials in the region. Such infrastructure development is dependent on resourcing and strategic social and environmental targets identified through formal planning processes. Community members showed a general aversion to large scale infrastructure development, fearing a potential loss of town character that may come with such changes. Community members and management agencies showed a shared desire to provide long-term and sustainable solutions to infrastructure problems in the region.

• Environmental and wildlife impacts are issues of common concern among both community members and management agencies. Significant environmental issues in the region are: sand dune degradation and threats to Hooded Plover populations. Balancing the recreational pursuits of residents and visitors with environment conservation is a complex management challenge. Temporary exclusion zones are considered an effective management strategy (if properly enforced), and these generally have the support of community members.

• Coastal living and management challenges have, in some cases, created conflicts and tension between different beach users due to divergent uses of the beach area and the way in which issues are being managed. The emergence of divisions between different beach users is something that needs to be proactively countered in the management approach adopted to address points of contention within this community.

• Signage in the region was considered in the survey research as being largely effective at engaging and informing residents about coastal management issues. Approximately, 73% of respondents considered signage easy to understand and 56.6% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is enough signage around the beaches. The focus group discussions were in slight contrast to the survey findings, revealing community members to have the following issues associated with signage in the region:

o Confusing and lack of clarity o Inconsistent messaging o A lack of signage, particularly at beach access points o Old and dilapidated signage that made it difficult to read messaging o ‘Effective control’ not clearly defined

Participants also identified that there was capacity for signage to use language that was inclusive rather than directive and that work needed to be undertaken to review how messages were presented

62

• A variety of other issues were raised across the range of data collection methods however

they were not raised by large numbers of participants and could not be considered dominant, representative or generalisable themes. These include:

o Cycling and cycling behaviour o Jet skis o Horses on beaches o Alcohol on the beach o Fox (1080) bait.

• Coastal management and governance challenges included jurisdictional issues, information gaps and the need for better communication of agency roles and responsibilities to the public. There was evident frustration and confusion among both community members and management agencies regarding the roles and responsibilities of agencies operating in the region.

63

SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This social research project was developed and implemented with the aim of building an understanding of a range of community and management perspectives relating to key coastal issues in the area managed by BCCM. A common problem in planning and management of coastal areas is that community perspectives, and the way residents and temporary residents/visitors experience their local environments, is ignored by planners. Instead, professional judgement or the views of consultants determine planning and development. Providing opportunities for the public to have their say on key coastal issues is a priority for the BCCM and is a core tenet of the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014. Participation by the public is recognised to generate more effective management by improving the quality of decisions and generating support for management or policy actions (Reed 2008).

A point of particular interest related to the issue of dogs on beaches and this was explored extensively across all data collection phases. There were also important insights gained on a range of related and critical coastal management and community identity issues which are central to building knowledge about community, place and potential strategies for action. The response rate to the call for input, and the high levels of research interest by both permanent residents and temporary residents/visitors of Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads is indicative of a passionate and engaged community sensing and responding to variety of coastal management challenges. Coastal communities, generally, have a deep connection with their local environment, or a strong ‘sense of place’. This close physical connection is clearly seen in the Barwon Coast community and, in many ways, the distinct social, environmental, cultural and economic features are pivotal in forming community identity.

Underlying the current suite of challenges is the complex issue of a growing resident and visitor population; a phenomenon creating new challenges and/or amplifying existing ones. Indeed, the challenges faced in the region are consistent with findings from decades of social research on coastal towns experiencing similar changes and challenges (Burnley & Murphy, 2004; Cater et al., 207; Dredge 2010; Gurran, 2008; Gurran et al., 2005a; 2005b). Community and management awareness of this growth is accompanied by levels of anxiety and uncertainty about the region’s future and the impact this will have on characteristic attributes highly regarded by residents and visitors alike. Moreover, community and management research participants raised similar concerns about the shifts in demographics altering the social fabric in the community.

Community well-being and social cohesion can be impacted in communities experiencing sudden or sustained growth as the affective bonds people form with their local environment, or their “sense of place”, is seen to be threatened in the face of population growth, environmental change, or limits to existing norms and activities, such as management actions or proposals. International literature reports that the positive attitudes towards, and interactions with, different beach users and the level of community participation in management issues are essential components that promote positive outcomes. However, there is only limited research on the community-level factors that lead to positive development in coastal communities in the face of change, particularly in Australian coastal communities, and this is flagged as a fruitful avenue of future research.

As challenges to social and environmental values emerge, there is a danger of the emergence of silos and sub cultures within the community. This highlights the importance of finding a balance that works to meet multiple needs across groups and agencies, which will require the development of collaborative response strategies involving public participation, awareness

64

raising and communication. This ensures that the views of diverse parties are considered and incorporated, where possible. The need for this type of approach has been consistently identified in the literature as being critical to success in coastal management involving the resolution of issues that are closely linked to identity and a sense of community (Blouin, 2013; Graham & Glover, 2014; Hung et al., 2013; Leung et al, 2015; Moore et al, 2015; Rohlf et al, 2010; Williams et al., 2009).

Domestic dog management emerged as the leading coastal management issue in this study and was met with competing attitudes and perspectives amongst research participants. Dog access to shared beach areas was regarded consistently as a positive aspect to many people’s lives through mental and physical health benefits and building community connections. It was one of the key elements assessed as building key community characteristics and attributes. Community members and management agencies were concerned about the impacts of dogs on community safety, significant environmental values and on general beach enjoyment. Issues of non-compliance with leashing requirements, dog fouling, incidents of dog attacks and conflicts between dog-owners, non-dog owners and other beach users were also commonly raised issues.

While there was acknowledgement of these issues, to varying levels, by both dog owners and non-dog owners, many residents and visitors remain concerned about increases in dog regulation and restrictions to beach areas. These types of changes are seen as leading to significant impacts on rights as beach users, their quality of life and/or on visitor experience. In acknowledging this perspective, there was also a call for increased management through compliance and enforcement strategies, education and the development of collaborative approaches to issues resolution. However, for a significant number of research participants, particularly those involved in the focus group component of the study, it was determined that dogs on beaches, while important, was ultimately as only one of a range of issues that create coastal challenges in the region.

In addition to this research project providing a validation of what is already known about place and community within the established literature, it has allowed for the building of an important empirical evidence base on what people view to be the key issues and challenges within their community. The findings provide a clear message around the importance of ensuring that management responses to issues address community well-being, the strengthening of social cohesion and the preserving town character in the face of change (Gurran et al. 2006). The research found that the level of uniformity and cohesion in community values that exists, despite emerging conflicts, provides a strong basis of utilising social capital for community action.

The BCCM and community members had largely similar perspectives on key coastal management issues, considering dogs on beaches, wildlife impacts, car parking, traffic congestion, rubbish and the pressures on local infrastructure as the main issues in the region. Furthermore, both groups were consistent in their desire for building respect among beach users and both raised concerns about the shifts in demographics altering the social fabric in the community. However, in many instances in this research, participants expressed a desire to be better informed, or have a greater say, in the coastal management issues that are affecting the region. The high levels of interest and participation in this research by residents and temporary residents/visitors of the Ocean Grove and Barwon Heads is a prime example of a passionate and engaged community with a willingness to be involved.

It is acknowledged that such changes in the community have increased the difficulty of providing educative services to new and existing residents in the community. Furthermore, the BCCM identified difficulties in the clear communication of their areas of responsibility and role with

65

public. This view was supported by community member focus group discussions where a consistent message regarded confusion over the roles, responsibilities and enforcement powers of the BCCM in the region. Despite this, it was found that the BCCM has a good relationship with the community but is struggling to keep pace with rapid development in the area.

A major challenge for the BCCM is the delicate management balance of ensuring community safety and reducing risk, protecting environmental values, maintaining recreation and lifestyle opportunities and encouraging social cohesion and community respect.

To this end, it is suggested that the conceptual model provide here be considered as representative of the planning approach to be applied when working to resolve challenges and points of conflict in coastal management for the BCCM into the future.

Figure 22. Respondent attitudes to wildlife protection issues

66

Recommendations The following recommendations have been drawn from insights gained from the data collection and analysis process. They are provided for consideration of ways in which a number of issues identified within this research report might be addressed. They also explore potential areas for research into the future.

Consequently, it is recommended:

Recommendation 1 That work be undertaken within BCCM, involving both management and program staff to discuss concepts of community attributes and the role they play in the development of sense of place and community. This will provide the opportunity to build greater levels of understanding of the close links that exist between key coastal management challenges, the way in which they are resolved and perceived threats to characteristic attributes of community.

Recommendation 2 That consideration be given to the adoption of the conceptual model provided within this research report to encourage public participation and collaboration between stakeholders in planning decisions.

Recommendation 3 That the current commitment within BCCM to communication and marketing within and across community be continued and expanded. This is an important strategy for building the knowledge and understanding of the work of BCCM and strengthening the potential for public participation in planning for effective and inclusive coastal management. Areas that need to be a focus within that communication and marketing approach include:

• Information sharing relating to the jurisdiction, authority and roles and responsibilities of BCCM, and of agencies working in the region in order to increase understanding and knowledge relating to compliance, opportunities for shared input and long-term planning in the region.

• Marketing of the opportunities for education and community engagement offered by BCCM.

• The development of a structured communication plan with community to maximise community involvement in, and understanding of, a range of management and strategic priorities for the region into the future.

Recommendation 4 That a mapping process be undertaking, using the data captured in this social research study, to identify and document priority areas for action. These should be classified into areas identified by community as viable solutions to identified problems, areas with potential for development and/or adoption into the future, and areas that are unlikely to be successful within the community without significant loss of community support and risk to the characteristic attributes of community. This mapping process will provide a resource for forward planning on key challenges in the region.

Recommendation 5 That current signage stock be reviewed to determine the extent to which the signage is meeting the community goals of:

• Clarity and consistency

67

• Use of positive messaging • Use of inclusive language • Being in good repair

Recommendation 6 That a strategy be developed for the capture and review of empirical data collection on issues such as car park demands at key points in time and measures of beach capacity across time points and locations.

Recommendation 7 That the current commitment of BCCM to the use of inclusive educative strategies on a range of issues be maintained and/or expanded to ensure that a range of issues of relevance to the community be addressed. These include wildlife protection, rubbish management and dog regulations. It is acknowledged that significant work has been undertaken in this area and feedback on this has been positive. More work is needed on ensuring that the reach of this educative work is extended across the community. Consideration should also be given to strategies to better engage new residents and temporary residents/visitors to the region.

Recommendation 8 That a strategy be developed to explore avenues to increase enforcement of regulations and strengthen levels of compliance. In line with community feedback this approach should not explore, as a first option, an increase in regulation. Rather there needs to be a strategy that increases capacity for a series of enforcement cycles, using existing compliance tools such as fines, to shift current culture relating to non-compliance. This approach will need to take into consideration strategies for achieving a balance between compliance and the maintenance of flexibility and community connection and engagement, as outlined within the body of this report.

Recommendation 9 That the longitudinal research plan with FedUni ensure that consideration be given to the following study areas:

• Building an understanding which factors reinforce or might alter existing beach user behaviour to ensure compliance with coastal management regulations

• Investigating the impacts of urbanisation on social and environmental values in the context of place, space and community

• Investigating the community-level factors that lead to positive development in coastal communities in the face of change.

• Investigating the impact of domestic animals on environment and strategies to engage community in working to meet coastal management challenges

68

REFERENCES ABS (2004). Seachange—New Coastal Residents in Australian Social Trends (Cat. No. 4102.0),

Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Animal Medicines Australia (AMA) (2016) Pet Ownership in Australia 2016 Barwon Coast Committee of Management (BCCM) (2018). Share Our Shores: Campaign

Launch. (http://www.barwoncoast.com.au/SOSlaunch) Accessed July 8th 2018 Birdlife Australia (2012). Submission to Parks Victoria on the Mornington Peninsula National

Park Dog Walking Review November 2012 Birdlife Australia (2012a) Submission to the City of Greater Geelong on the Domestic Animal

Plan 2013-2016. Burak, S. A., Dogan, E., & Gazioglu, C. (2004). Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal

environment. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47(9-10), 515-527. Burnley, I. Murphy, P. (2004) Sea Change: Movement from Metropolitan to Arcadian Australia, Sydney,

UNSW Press Carter, J., Dyer, P., & Sharma, B. (2007). Dis-placed voices: sense of place and place-identity on the

Sunshine Coast. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(5), 755-773. Caton, B., & Harvey, N. (2010). Coastal management in Australia (p. 342). University of

Adelaide Press. City of Greater Geelong (2015). Ocean Grove Structure Plan. City of Greater Geelong (2017). Barwon Heads Structure Plan. Cole, D. N. (1993). Minimizing conflict between recreation and nature conservation. In: Smith,

DS; Hellmund, PC, eds. Ecology of greenways: design and function of linear conservation areas. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. of Minnesota Press: 105-122.

Davies, K. K., Fisher, K.T., Dickson, M.E., Thrush, S,F. & Le Heron. R. (2015). Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecology and Society 20(2): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07581-200237

DELWP (2013) Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/50450/Advisory-List-of-Threatened-Vertebrate-Fauna_FINAL-2013.pdf. Accessed July 8th 2018

Doherty, T.S., Dickman, C.R., Glen, A.S., Newsome, T.M., Nimmo, D.G., Ritchie E.G., Vanak, A.T. & Wirsing, A.J. (2017). The global impacts of domestic dogs on threatened vertebrates, Biological Conservation 210: 56–59.

Dredge, D. (2010). Place change and tourism development conflict: Evaluating public interest, Tourism Management, 31(1), pp.104-112.

Esrom, J.A. (2004). Dogs, Shorebirds, and Conflict Management Recreation and Ecological Integrity at Long Beach, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, B.C. Doctoral Thesis, York University Toronto.

Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303-322.

Green, R (2000). Notions of Town Character. Australian Planner, 37 (2), pp: 76 – 86. Gurran, N. (2008). The turning tide: amenity migration in coastal Australia. International

planning studies, 13(4), 391-414. Gurran, N. & Blakely, E. (2007) Suffer a Sea Change? Contrasting perspectives towards urban

policy and migration in coastal Australia, Australian Geographer, 38 (1): pp. 113-131, DOI: 10.1080/00049180601175899

69

Gurran, N., Hamin, E., & Norman, B. (2008). Planning for climate change: Leading practice principles and models for sea change communities in coastal Australia. University of Sydney, Faculty of Architecture Design & Planning.

Gurran, N., Squires, C. & Blakely, E. (2005b), Planning for sea change in coastal Australia, Australian Planner, 42(4): pp. 10-11, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2005.9982442

Gurran, N., Squires, C., & Blakely, E. J. (2005a). Meeting the Sea Change Challenge: Sea Change Communities in Coastal Australia: Report for the National Sea Change Taskforce, 31 March 2005. University of Sydney Planning Research Centre.

Harrill, R. (2004). Residents’ attitudes toward tourism development: A literature review with implications for tourism planning. Journal of planning literature, 18(3), 251-266.

Holderness-Roddam, B. & McQuillan, P.B. (2014). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) as a predator and disturbance agent of wildlife in Tasmania, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 21 (4): pp. 441–452, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.952787

Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute, 2012, Coastal and Marine Environment Community Attitudes & Behaviour (Wave Four) Report, prepared for Victorian Coastal Council, Ipsos Project: 11-000498-01 Melbourne.

Jentoft, S. & Chuenpagdee, R. (2009). Fisheries and coastal governance as a wicked problem, Marine Policy, 33 (4): 553 – 560.

Lawless, P (2015). Application of Sociometric Methods to Collaborative Coastal Management. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 19 (5): pp. 653–665

Neumann, B., Vafeidis, A. T., Zimmermann, J., & Nicholls, R. J. (2015). Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea-level rise and coastal flooding-a global assessment. PloS one, 10(3), e0118571.

Ratter, & Gee. (2012). Heimat – A German Concept of Regional Perception and Identity as a Basis for Coastal Management in the Wadden Sea. Ocean and Coastal Management, 68 (C); pp. 127–137.

Rohlf, V.I., Bennett, P.C., Toukhsati, S. (2010). Why do even committed dog owners fail to comply with some responsible ownership practices? Anthrozoos, 23(2): pp.143-155.

Schlacher, T.A., Weston, M.A., Lynn, D.,Schoeman, D.S., Huijbers, C.M., Olds, A.D., Masters, S. Connolly, R.M. (2015). Conservation gone to the dogs: when canids rule the beach in small coastal reserves, Biodivers Conserv 24: pp.493–509

Sharma, B., Dyer, P., Carter, J., & Gursoy, D. (2008). Exploring residents' perceptions of the social impacts of tourism on the Sunshine Coast, Australia. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9(3), 288-311.

SoE (2016). Australia state of the environment 2016: Coasts https://soe.environment.gov.au/theme/coasts. Accessed July 8th 2018

State Wide Integrated Flora and Fauna Teams (SWIFFT) (2018). Hooded Plover. (http://www.swifft.net.au/cb_pages/hooded_plover.php_ Accessed July 8th 2018

Stedman, R. C. (2006). Understanding place attachment among second home owners. American behavioral scientist, 50(2), 187-205.

Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine (2017) Annual Report Victorian Coastal Council (2013). Population and Settlement along the Victorian Coast

Background Research Paper to inform the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2013 Victorian Coastal Council (2018). Population and Growth http://vcc.vic.gov.au/page/victorian-

coastal-strategy/population-and-growth. Accessed July 8th 2018

70

Victorian Government, Victorian Coastal Strategy (2008) http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/assets/media/files/VCCCoastalStrategyfinal.pdf Accessed July 8th 2018

Victorian Government, Victorian Coastal Strategy (2014) http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/assets/media/menu_files/VCS_2014.pdf Accessed July 8th 2018

Williams, D. R., Stewart, W. P., & Kruger, L. E. (2013). The emergence of place-based conservation. In Place-based conservation (pp. 1-17). Springer, Dordrecht.

Williams, K.J.H., Weston, M.A., Henry S. (2009). Birds and beaches, dogs and leashes: dog owners’ sense of obligation to leash dogs on beaches in Victoria, Australia. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14(2): pp. 89-101.

Zagonari, F. (2008). Integrated coastal management: Top–down vs. community-based approaches. Journal of environmental management, 88(4), 796-804.

71

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Online Survey

Section 1 1. Which of the following best describes you?

☐ Living full-time in the municipality ☐ Living part-time in the municipality (e.g. holiday home) ☐ Temporary resident to the municipality (e.g. holiday renting) ☐ Caravan park visitor ☐ Visitor ☐ Other:_________________________________

2. Could you please provide your residential postcode?

_________________________________________

3. Could you please indicate your age?

☐ 18-19 ☐ 20-24 ☐ 25-29 ☐ 30-34 ☐ 35-39 ☐ 40-44 ☐ 45-49 ☐ 50-54 ☐ 55-59 ☐ 60-64 ☐ 65-69 ☐ 70-74 ☐ 75+

4. What is your gender?

☐ Male ☐ Female ☐ Prefer not to state gender

5. How long have you been a resident of the municipality?

☐ Here for a short term stay ☐ Less than 1 year ☐ Less than 2 years ☐ 2-5 years ☐ 5-10 years ☐ 10-15 years ☐ 15-20 years ☐ More than 20 years: _____________________

6. Have you had any involvement with the ShareOurShores Campaign?

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Not aware of the ShareOurShores Campaign

72

7. If you have been involved in the ShareOurShores campaign, how would you rate value of the program for addressing key issues relating to coastal management in the local community?

Very useful

(1) Useful

(2) Neutral

(3)

Slightly useful

(4)

Not at all useful

(5)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

8. Do you visit the beach in your local Barwon Coast area?

☐ Yes ☐ No

9. Could you indicate which beach(es) you visit in Barwon Coast:

☐ East of Collendina (east of 7W) ☐ Collendina (7W – 10W) ☐ Ocean Grove (10W – 20W) ☐ The Barwon River Estuary ☐ 13th Beach (27W – 42W)

10. Rank the following Barwon Coast beaches in order of use:

___ East of Collendina (east of 7W) ___ Collendina (7W – 10W) ___ Ocean Grove (10W – 20W) ___ The Barwon River Estuary ___ 13th Beach (27W – 42W)

11. What are the main reasons for your visit to Barwon Coast beaches:

☐ Recreation with family ☐ Recreation with friends ☐ Swimming ☐ Surfing ☐ Walking, running or other exercise ☐ Dog walking ☐ Bird watching ☐ Fishing ☐ Wildlife watching ☐ Other: ________________________________

73

12. Do you believe that there are times when your capacity to enjoy the beach has been compromised?

☐ Yes ☐ No

If ‘No’ go to Question 15.

13. Which of the following have impacted on your level of enjoyment of your local beach environments:

☐ Overcrowding on the beach ☐ Conflict with other beach users ☐ Car parking issues (e.g. safety, inconvenience) ☐ Lack of parking areas ☐ Overcrowding because of parking at peak times ☐ Dogs on leash ☐ Dogs off leash ☐ Human impact on coastal environment (e.g. littering, damage to dunes, threat to wildlife) ☐ Wildlife ☐ Water quality issues ☐ Other: ________________________________

14. If you would like to further comment on the issues you have identified in above, please do so below:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Section 2 15. Do you own one or more dogs?

☐ Yes ☐ No


16. Do you take your dog(s) to the beach(es) in Barwon Coast?

☐ Yes ☐ No

74

17. Please estimate how often you take your dog(s) to the beach

☐ Daily ☐ A few times a week ☐ Once a week ☐ A few times a month ☐ Once a month ☐ Less than once a month

18. Where do you mainly exercise your dog(s)?

___ On the beach ___ On paths and roads along the coast ___ Local parkland and reserve areas ___ Along town roads and paths in residential areas

19. If there are other places you exercise your dog(s), please indicate below:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

20. Are you aware of differences in how people use, or think beaches should be used?

☐ Yes ☐ No


21. Could you briefly outline what these differences have been related to (exercise, family outings, relaxation, wildlife observation):

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

22. Do you believe that there is enough beach monitoring and animal control at the beaches which you use?

23. Which of the following monitoring options do you believe should be considered for introduction?

☐ More coastal management staff presence ☐ Stronger laws controlling dog use on beaches ☐ Stronger laws relating to beach use generally (e.g. littering, dune damage, threat to wildlife)

75

☐ Greater levels of compliance management ☐ Less complicated regulations for dog use on beaches ☐ Fewer laws relating to dog use on beach use generally ☐ Greater levels of regulation enforcement (e.g. fines) ☐ Separate areas on beaches for different user groups (i.e. no dog areas) ☐ Other: ________________________________

Section 3 24. Please indicate your view on each of the following statements:

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree

Strongly disagree

Wildlife protection is a very important aspect of coastal management

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Restriction on human recreation activity (such as roped off areas, dogs on leash) is an acceptable part of wildlife protection

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Restriction on human recreation activity (such as no dogs, roped off area, people only areas or dogs on leash) is an acceptable part of ensuring everyone is able to enjoy their beach experience

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Allowing dogs on the beach is an important part of beach enjoyment for me and my family

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Allowing dogs to be off-leash is an important part of beach enjoyment for me and my family

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Dogs off leash is an option that should be available at any time during the day

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Dogs off leash should be restricted to specific time slots during the day all year

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

76


Strongly disagree

Dogs off leash should be restricted to specific time slots during the day only during summer months

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

25. In terms of signage, please indicate your view on each of the following statements:


Strongly disagree

There is enough signage around beaches ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I understand the signage around beaches ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The signage around beaches is too complex ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

There is too much signage around beaches ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

There should be separate signs about dog regulations

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

There should be clearer distinction between where areas with different dog regulations start and end

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Beach signage does not address many of the questions that people have about beach use

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

26. Please indicate what changes to signage you think are needed:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

27. Are there any other comments you would like to make?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

77

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

28. Would you like to be involved in an interview or focus group for this research? If so please provide your contact details below.

Name: ___________________________________ Email: ___________________________________

Thank you

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your responses have been successfully recorded.

If you have any questions, further feedback about this project or would like to participate in future research, please contact one of the following researchers:

Dr. Angela Murphy Email: [email protected]

Ms Meghan Taylor Email: [email protected]

Ms Jennifer Corbett Email: [email protected]

Mr Patrick Bonney Email: [email protected]

78

Appendix 2: Interview and focus group questions In order to maximise the potential to explore the full range of coastal management issues, including the impact of domestic animals, the following research questions were developed and guided the data collection process:




4. To what extent has the community been mobilised to engage, promote, adopt and advocate for the effective management of complex coastal community and environmental issues within the context of local identity? What are the key strategies to extend and strengthen this mobilisation into the future?

Barwon Project – questions for alternative option to provide written responses

1. Could you please tell us what you consider are some of the most positive aspects of living within, and making use of, the local coastal environment for work and/or recreation?

2. Could you please tell us about any occasions in which you have observed and/or have

experienced potential issues around shared beach usage as it relates to recreation and/or eco system protection (e.g. car parking, littering, overcrowding)?

3. The use of the beach by domestic dogs has been identified as a potential issue for shared

recreation and overall environmental protection. What is your view and/or experience in regard to this issue?

4. Are there seasonal variations in regard to the issues you have raised? Why do you think this and

what is the impact of this variation (if identified as an issue)?

5. Do you have any suggestions for working with community to address coastal management

issues?

Barwon Project – Questions for staff and advisory focus groups

1. Could you please tell us what you consider to be some of the key staffing/coastal management challenges for the local coastal environment?

a. In terms of coastal infrastructure b. In terms of working with community

79

In this response, please identify positive aspects/strengths of the community and work environment that support addressing these challenges

2. What would you identify as some of the priority issues needing to be addressed in relation to

recreation, shared beach usage and eco system protection (e.g. car parking, littering, overcrowding, domestic dogs).

a. As a staff member b. As an advisory group member

3. Are there seasonal variations in regard to the issues you have raised? Why do you think this and

what is the impact of this variation (if identified as an issue)?

4. Please outline your future strategies for working to engage community to address priorities within

your work/advisory role.

5. Do you have any additional suggestions (not currently planned) for working with community to address coastal management issues? E.g. potential strategies, recommendations, community and/or board of management action.