solent car park and vantage point surveys · alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point...

Solent car park and vantage point surveys

Chris Panter & Durwyn Liley

Winter 2016/2017

S O L E N T C A R P A R K S U R V E Y S 2 0 1 6 / 1 7

2

Footprint Contract Reference: 365 Date: 12th July 2017 Version: Final Recommended Citation: Panter, C. & Liley, D. 2017. Solent car park and vantage point surveys. Winter 2016/2017.

F O O T P R I N T E C O L O G Y , F O R E S T O F F I C E , B E R E

R O A D , W A R E H A M , D O R S E T B H 2 0 7 P A W W W . F O O T P R I N T - E C O L O G Y . C O . U K

0 1 9 2 9 5 5 2 4 4 4


3

Summary This report was commissioned by Chichester District Council on behalf of the Solent

Recreation Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent. We provide results from a series of

transects, undertaken during the winter 2016/17, counting parked cars and people around

the Solent shoreline. The results form baseline data for monitoring visitor numbers around

the Solent as part of the Bird Aware Solent initiative.

An initial audit of all parking locations identified 181 parking locations, predominantly formal

car-parks (120 car-parks, 66% of parking locations), but also including roadside parking,

verges, lay-bys and gateways. We estimated 9,813 spaces across all these parking locations.

Counts of all 181 locations were subsequently undertaken 12 times between November 2016

and March 2017. Each count involved a transect, split into 6 routes driven simultaneously by

different surveyors. A total of 23,630 vehicles were counted across all 12 transects; 19,887

(84%) of these vehicles were cars without trailers, bicycle racks or roof racks for

canoes/boards etc.

The average count was 1,657 vehicles. The peak count of over 3000 vehicles was on the 12th

March (a Sunday, with a late morning start-time). The lowest count (1395 vehicles) was on

12th January (a Thursday, start time 08:00). Weekday counts and early morning (08:00 start)

counts tended to be lower than those at weekends and later in the day.

Each of the six routes were slightly different in terms of route length and the number of car-

parks involved. The Southampton-Gosport route was the section with the most cars counted.

The car-parks on the Portchester & Portsmouth route were the car-parks closest to capacity,

in that they tended to have more cars per space compared to other sections.

Alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point counts involved ‘snapshot’ counts of

people on the water, intertidal habitats and the beach; these counts were made from 39 of

the 181 car-parks. In total 1,989 people, 178 ‘active’ boats and 448 dogs were counted.

Walking (41% of people) and dog walking (31% of people) were the two main activities

recorded. Other activities included fishing (3.8%); jogging (3.1%); bird/wildlife watching (2.7%),

windsurfing (1.3%) and bait digging (1.0%).

Walkers without dogs accounted for the highest percentage (64%) of people observed on the

Isle of Wight, while the highest percentage of dog walkers was on the Southampton-Gosport

(42%) and Hayling-Wittering (39%) routes.

Most routes took around two hours to complete, although the time taken to drive each route

was variable and for three transect routes the average time taken to drive the route and

undertake the counts was over three hours.

We consider future monitoring and make recommendations for repeating the survey in two

years’ time.


4

Contents

Summary ......................................................................................................... 3

Contents .......................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................... 5

1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 6

2. Methods ................................................................................................. 8

Assessing car parking ....................................................................................................... 8

Coordinated car park counts .......................................................................................... 8

Vantage point counts ..................................................................................................... 10

3. Results .................................................................................................. 13

Overview of parking infrastructure and audit ............................................. 13

Headline transect results ............................................................................. 18

Car park counts: variation by date and type of vehicle ................................ 18

Car park counts: variation by route ............................................................. 19

Car park counts: counts in relation to car-park capacity .............................. 21

Car park counts: types of parking location and use by different vehicles ... 25

Maps showing use per car-park by different types of vehicle ...................... 27

Car-park counts: comparison between days ................................................ 35

Vantage point counts ................................................................................... 39

Duration/timing of transects ....................................................................... 46

4. Recommendations for future monitoring ....................................... 48

Car park counts ............................................................................................................... 48

Vantage point counts ..................................................................................................... 49

Summary of recommendations .................................................................................... 50

5. References ........................................................................................... 51

6. Appendix ............................................................................................. 52


5

Acknowledgements This report was commissioned by Chichester District Council on behalf of the Solent Recreation

Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent. We are grateful to the steering group for their support and

useful comment: Trevor Codlin (Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust); Tom Day (Chichester

Borough Council); Lindsay McCulloch (Southampton City Council); Anna Parry (Solent Recreation

Mitigation Partnership/Bird Aware Solent); Heather Richards (RSPB); Francesca Sanchez (Natural

England); Ed Rowsell (Havant Borough Council and Stuart Roberts (Solent Recreation Mitigation

Partnership/Bird Aware Solent). John Day (Footprint Ecology) provided comments on an early draft.

Fieldwork was undertaken by: Michael Alexander, Debbie Blake, Neil Gartshore, Carolyn Kelly, Fenella

Lewin, Ibby Moy, Su Powner, Chris Sadler, Graham Sadler, Doug Whyte (all Footprint Ecology). Data

were entered by Debbie Blake. .


6

1. Introduction This report provides results from a series of transects, undertaken during the

winter 2016/17, counting parked cars and people around the Solent shoreline.

The study provides baseline data for monitoring visitor numbers around the

Solent and is necessary as part of the Bird Aware Initiative.

The Solent shoreline between Hurst Castle and Chichester Harbour, including the

north shoreline of the Isle of Wight, measures some 250km in length. The

wintering bird interest includes three Special Protection Areas (SPAs): the Solent &

Southampton Water SPA, Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and

Portsmouth Harbour SPA. The shoreline is heavily populated and new housing

levels, as summarised in the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (‘PUSH’)

statement from 2016, indicate a level of new development of 104,350 dwellings in

the period through to 20341, much of it concentrated in the coastal strip.

The existing high local population and level of expected growth has prompted

concern regarding likely significant effects to the European sites, as a result of

increased recreation and disturbance to wintering waterbirds. Visitor surveys

(Fearnley, Clarke & Liley 2010, 2011), bird fieldwork (Liley, Stillman & Fearnley

2010) and modelling work (Stillman et al. 2012) provide the background and

evidence. Further work developed the approach for a mitigation strategy (Liley &

Tyldesley 2013), providing a strategic solution whereby development could come

forward. An interim mitigation strategy2 was produced by the Solent local

authorities in 2014. The package of mitigation measures included wardening of

sites; initiatives to encourage responsible dog ownership; appointment of a

project officer to coordinate the work and contribution to a pilot project (the Alver

Valley) to test the effectiveness of providing alternative spaces for recreation.

Integral to any such mitigation strategy is monitoring. Monitoring data provides a

check as to how well different approaches are working and allows mitigation to be

honed, for example through targeting resources slightly differently. A monitoring

strategy (Liley et al. 2015) recommended a range of data gathering and included a

recommendation for biennial car park and activity counts to monitor relative

changes in the use of shoreline sites around the Solent.

This study was commissioned to provide the first of such counts. The aim of the

study was to conduct an audit of all parking locations around the Solent, and then,

1 http://www.push.gov.uk/work/planning-and-infrastructure/push_spatial_position_statement_to_2034-

2.htm 2 http://www.birdaware.org/strategy


7

based on this audit, count parked vehicles at all locations. Alongside counts of

vehicles, a series of counts of people on the shoreline and water were also

undertaken. As this work represents the first monitoring study, recommendations

for future monitoring were also required.


8

2. Methods Assessing car parking

An initial assessment of parking along the Solent was made by referring to

Ordnance Survey, Open Street Map and other publicly available parking

databases. Mapped locations were subsequently visited and checked, and

additional searches undertaken to check for additional parking locations that had

been missed. For all locations, the following were recorded:

A unique number assigned to each car-park, with numbering sequential

from west to east;

Estimated capacity (visual estimate of maximum number of cars

possible to be parked; this was done by one person for all car-parks and

estimates were maximum number of cars extrapolated based on

vehicles already parked; for some formal car-parks, bays were counted

using aerial imagery);

Type of surfacing;

Type of parking (categorised as formal car-parks, roadside parking,

verges, lay-bys or gateways);

Whether charging for parking;

Presence of café, interpretation, dog bins;

Name of car-park, if present;

Notes about how to find/recognise;

Whether locked at certain times/times of opening.

All parking locations recorded are listed in Appendix 1.

Coordinated car park counts

Driving and visiting all individual parking locations would have involved a total of

335km driving. We therefore split the coastline into six separate routes to cover

car parks, which varied in length from 80km to 25km. In Table 1 we summarise

details for each route and the routes are shown in Map 1.


9

Table 1:Summary of the six routes and the number of car parks and vantage points each involves.

Route ID

numbers* Length

(km) Total spaces Parking

locations Vantage points

1. Isle of Wight 1-36 78 1917 36 7

2. Hurst Spit -

Totton 37-74 80 1734 38 6

3. Southampton-

Gosport 75-117 56 2363 43 7

4. Portchester &

Portsmouth 118-132 47 1380 15 5

5. Hayling Island 132-161† 25 1532 31 8

6. Hayling-

Wittering 162-179 48 887 18 6

Total 334 9,813 181 39

* each parking location has been given a unique ID number. They have been numbered sequentially

along the coast from west to east (and separately for the Isle of Wight).

† note two car parks added in post numbering on this route (assigned numbers 200 and 201), and

therefore total number of car parks surveyed is 181.

Together, these routes would ensure all car-parks would be counted and could be

counted simultaneously within a relatively small window of time. These counts

included all parked vehicles (cars, vans, motorbikes, campervans etc.). Counts at

each car-park were also broken down to include the following:

cars with roof rack (for canoe/surfboard);

cars with rear mounted/roof mounted bike racks;

vehicles with boat trailers;

commercial vehicles;

branded vehicles of professional dog walkers;

MPV/ minibus vehicles;

camper vans;

bicycles.

Coordinated car park counts were conducted along the entire Solent coast on 12

dates (Table 2). Dates of car park counts were distributed through late November

to late March, avoiding the mid-late December and early January period around

the Christmas holidays. Counts were conducted on a range of days of the week

and the times of day were varied to give an indicative sample of typical use at

various times of day, types of day and weather conditions. Direction of the

transect from east to west or west to east was varied by surveyors on each day to

give an even and random split in the directions.

Each of the six surveyors used a combination of paper maps, along with a pre-

programmed sat navs to find each car park.


10

Table 2: Summary of the dates and times of driving transects.

Transect number Date Day of week Set start time

1 29/11/2016 Tuesday 13:30

2 01/12/2016 Thursday 08:00

3 10/01/2017 Tuesday 12:00

4 12/01/2017 Thursday 08:00

5 15/01/2017 Sunday 12:00

6 22/01/2017 Sunday 08:00

7 09/02/2017 Thursday 11:00

8 23/02/2017 Thursday 14:00

9 25/02/2017 Saturday 11:00

10 03/03/2017 Friday 14:00

11 12/03/2017 Sunday 11:00

12 16/03/2017 Thursday 08:00

During the survey work, the surveyors added to the information collected, such

that details on each parking location built up over time, ensuring these were easy

to find and updated.

Vantage point counts

A selection of parking locations were used as vantage points, where the surveyor

recorded the activities visible on the beach/foreshore, intertidal and on the water.

The number of these locations for each route are given in Table 1. Only those car-

parks that provided a clear view and where it was straightforward to park and

then conduct a quick count were included. We then chose a subset that provided

a good geographical spread.

The vantage point counts involved a count for the number of people and for some

activities the number of groups3 within a set recording area. We also counted the

number of dogs and ‘active’ boats (e.g. those moving or being manned, as

opposed to static boats, with no people on board). The set recording area was

mapped on the initial transect and the same count area used for subsequent

counts to ensure consistency, however there were some visits where fog meant

the entire count area was not necessarily clearly visible. On these occasions the

count made included all people visible but – particularly for any craft out on the

water or people out on the intertidal – small numbers may have been missed.

3 We count both people and groups as both are important information. A family of four together would

be one group with four people, a lone walker would be one group with one person. In terms of

disturbance the number of events (i.e. each passing group) is important.


11

For the following activities both the number of people and the number of groups

were recorded:

Walkers without dogs;

Walkers with dogs (number of dogs on and off-lead also recorded);

Joggers;

Bird/wildlife watchers;

For the following activities counts were also made of the total number of people,

but no record was made of group size (because it is potentially difficult to define a

group):

Horse riding;

Angling/fishing (with rod);

Bait digging;

Kitesurfing;

Paddleboarding;

Windsurfing;

Canoeing;

Water skiing

All other activities (i.e. not listed above), pooled.

The number of ‘active’ boats (all manned craft excluding canoes and commercial

boats) was also recorded, but for this the number of people was not noted as this

would not always be known.

Recording Forms

The recording forms used for the driving transects and vantage point counts are

included in Appendix 2.


12


13

3. Results

Overview of parking infrastructure and audit

In total, 181 parking locations were recorded and mapped. These parking

locations reflect locations we expect to be used by those visiting the coast,

although some (perhaps at least half) may also be used other users such as

shoppers, local residents etc. All locations are summarised in Appendix 1.

For each car-park we estimated the number of parking spaces and across all 181

parking locations our total estimate was 9,813 spaces. The locations were

predominantly formal car-parks (120, 66% of locations), but also included roadside

parking (27), verges (22), lay-bys (7) and gateways (5). Table 3 shows that the

average number of car parking spaces per car-park ranged from 73 (formal car-

parks) to 3 spaces (gateways).

Formal car parks typically accounted for three-quarters of the surveyed parking

locations, with the exception of route 2, where this was less than half the locations

(44%).

Table 3: The number of car parks, continuous lengths of roadside and verge parking, lay-bys and gateways

with average number of spaces in brackets; for each survey route and each category of park.

Route Formal Car-Park Roadside Verge Lay-by Gateway Overall

1 27 (62.6) 3 (68.3) 3 (4.7) 1 (3) 2 (2.5) 36 (53.3)

2 17 (80.1) 4 (11.5) 12 (18.3) 4 (26.3) 1 (2.0) 38 (45.6)

3 32 (66.2) 11 (22.4) 43 (55.0)

4 11 (117.7) 3 (20.0) 1 (25.0) 15 (92.0)

5 24 (62.6) 1 (2.0) 5 (5.4) 1 (1.0) 31 (49.4)

6 9 (91.9) 5 (6.0) 1 (15.0) 1 (5.0) 2 (5.0) 18 (49.3)

Overall 120 (73.3) 27 (21.8) 22 (13.6) 7 (16.3) 5 (3.4) 181 (54.2)

Car parking charges applied only at formal car parks and roadside parking

locations. Exactly 50% of the formal car park locations had charges and 8% of

roadside locations.

Maps 2-5 show the individual car parking locations labelled by capacity, type,

surfacing and charges.


14


15


16


17


18

Headline transect results

In total, across the 12 transects, 23,630 vehicles (cars, vans, motor/pedal cycles)

were counted (Table 4). The majority of these (19,887 vehicles, 84%), were cars

(without any additional roof-racks/bike racks/trailers), with an average of 1,657

cars counted per transect. Commercial vehicles were the second most frequent

vehicle type recorded, with an average of 135 per transect, followed by:

mpv/minibuses, 79 per transect; cars with roof racks for canoe/surfboard, 45;

campervans, 36; cars with bike racks, 10; professional dog walker vehicles, 3.5 and

cars with boat trailers, 1.9.

Table 4: Headline figures, number (%) of vehicles across all transects

Cars

(with

out r

acks

etc

.)

Cars

with

boa

t tra

ilers

Cars

with

bik

e ra

cks

Cars

with

roof

rack

for

cano

e/ su

rfbo

ard

Com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Prof

essio

nal d

og w

alke

r ve

hicl

es

Mpv

/ min

ibus

veh

icle

s

Cam

per v

ans

Bicy

cles

Tota

l

19,887

(84)

23

(<0.5)

122

(1)

539

(2)

1617

(7)

42

(<0.5)

946

(4)

426

(2)

28

(<0.5)

23,630

(100)

Car park counts: variation by date and type of vehicle

Data are summarised by date in Figure 1 and Table 5. The transect on the 12th

March was the highest, with over 3000 vehicles counted. The lowest count was

the 12th January (1,395 vehicles counted). The three highest counts were all

weekend counts and the two lowest counts were both early morning counts.

In Table 5, the date totals are split by vehicle type. The number of commercial

vehicles recorded per transect was relatively consistent, showing the smallest

relative deviation from the mean across transects (range 96-183). In contrast, the

number of branded professional dog walker vehicles varied the most (average 3.5

vehicles per transect, range 0-24).


19

Figure 1: Total vehicles counted by date. Pale green bars are weekends, dotted line shows the average

across all 12 counts. Labels give the start time.

Table 5: Summary of the number of vehicles recorded on each transect date.

Date

Car

par

ks c

ount

ed*

Total number of vehicles

Car

s

(wit

hout

rack

s et

c.)

Car

s w

ith

boat

trai

lers

Car

s w

ith

bike

rack

s

Car

s w

ith

roof

rack

for

cano

e/ s

urfb

oard

Com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Prof

essi

onal

dog

wal

ker

vehi

cles

Mpv

/ min

ibus

veh

icle

s

Cam

per v

ans

Bicy

cles

29/11/2016 178 1,325 2 7 21 135 1 27 28 0

01/12/2016 178 1,216 5 4 23 128 0 13 17 6

10/01/2017 178 1,895 0 6 30 167 1 47 32 3

12/01/2017 176 1,158 0 18 25 145 1 30 17 1

15/01/2017 178 1,979 1 4 51 124 4 180 40 2

22/01/2017 179 1,363 7 6 70 120 24 73 38 1

09/02/2017 177 1,663 0 8 21 183 3 60 32 4

23/02/2017 180 1,536 1 5 62 145 2 121 34 1

25/02/2017 179 2,182 1 19 56 111 1 167 60 5

03/03/2017 167 1,659 1 9 26 96 2 58 24 2

12/03/2017 178 2,532 4 28 113 144 1 134 75 0

16/03/2017 180 1,379 1 8 41 119 2 36 29 3

Total 2,128 19,887 23 122 539 1617 42 946 426 28

*Note number of car parks counted differs and none of the counts were able to cover all 181.


20

It should be noted that the number of car parks counted differed on each transect

date and that no survey covered all 181 car parks. This is predominantly because

some car-parks were closed or access was not possible, and therefore no cars

would have been counted. In all, 159 of the 181 car parks (88%) were counted on

all twelve occasions. For the remainder, eleven car parks were counted eleven

times, usually due to single road/car park closures. Car park number 36 was

counted only nine times (road closures), number 62 eight times (car park

closures/construction vehicles), number 201 only four times (car park

closures/construction vehicles), and car park 60 only counted twice (winter car

park closure).

Car park counts: variation by route

The number of vehicles recorded for different routes varied as each differed in the

number of car parks and parking spaces they contained. Table 6 shows the

number of the different vehicle types recorded, and the relative composition of

these recorded in each route.

Typically, the number of cars (without any other recreational attachments)

composed at least 80% of all vehicles. However, on the Isle of Wight the

percentage of cars was 72% of vehicles recorded (see Table 6) and the average

percentage of commercial vehicles was 10.5%, higher than all other routes (4.4-

9.5%), and the percentage of mpv/minibuses, 11.5% also much higher than all

other routes (1.9-5.1%). The Isle of Wight also had the highest percentage of

professional dog walkers recorded. Hayling Island was similar to the Isle of Wight

in that it had a greater number of cars with roof racks and mpv/minibuses.

The Portchester & Portsmouth route had the highest percentage of cars with roof

rack for canoe/ surfboard (3%), followed by the Isle of Wight (2.8%). The relative

abundance of campervans was greatest on Hayling Island (3%) followed by Hurst

Spit – Totton (2.6%),


21

Table 6: Average number of vehicles of different types recorded per transect for each route of the Solent

coast.

Route

Average number per transect (% of total vehicles per transect)

Car

s (w

itho

ut ra

cks

etc.

)

Car

s w

ith

boat

tr

aile

rs

Car

s w

ith

roof

rack

fo

r can

oe/ s

urfb

oard

Com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Car

s w

ith

bike

rack

s

Prof

essi

onal

dog

w

alke

r veh

icle

s

Mpv

/ min

ibus

ve

hicl

es

Cam

per v

ans

Bicy

cles

1. Isle of Wight 195.3 0 7.5 28.5 2.2 2 31.2 3.9 0.4

(72.1) (0) (2.8) (10.5) (0.8) (0.7) (11.5) (1.4) (0.2)

2. Hurst Spit -

Totton

303.1 0.8 7.5 15.6 5.1 0.3 8.8 9.2 0.8

(86.4) (0.2) (2.1) (4.4) (1.4) (0.1) (2.5) (2.6) (0.2)

3. Southampton-

Gosport

479.5 0.2 12.3 27.3 1.4 0.6 15.8 5.3 0.5

(88.3) (0) (2.3) (5) (0.3) (0.1) (2.9) (1) (0.1)

4. Portchester &

Portsmouth

371.3 0.3 12.9 30.4 0.7 0.3 8.8 9.3 0.3

(85.5) (0.1) (3) (7) (0.2) (0.1) (2) (2.1) (0.1)

5. Hayling Island 186.0 0.3 3.3 22.0 0.7 0.1 11.8 7 0.3

(80.4) (0.1) (1.4) (9.5) (0.3) (0) (5.1) (3.0) (0.1)

6. Hayling-Wittering 122.1 0.4 1.5 10.9 0.2 0.3 2.7 0.8 0.1

(87.9) (0.3) (1.1) (7.9) (0.1) (0.2) (1.9) (0.6) (0.1)

Total 1657.3 1.9 44.9 134.8 10.2 3.5 78.8 35.5 2.3

(84.2) (0.1) (2.3) (6.8) (0.5) (0.2) (4) (1.8) (0.1)

Car park counts: counts in relation to car-park capacity

The average number of vehicles recorded per transect (Table 7) was greatest on

the Southampton-Gosport route (542 vehicles on average) and lowest on the

Hayling-Wittering route (139 average). This is unsurprising given the large

difference in the number of car parks and spaces between routes (difference of

1476 spaces between the Southampton-Gosport and the Hayling-Wittering route).

We can account for the difference in the number of car parks and spaces in

several ways. One approach is to consider an average number of vehicles (both

mean and median used) recorded per parking location. From this Portchester &

Portsmouth again rank highest for the largest typical number of vehicles in a car

park (see Table 7). However, this measure will be influenced by the composition of

the different car parks, as a route may just include more large car parks than

another.


22

Another measure we used is how full each car-park was, expressed as the percent

‘fullness’ (calculated from the number of vehicles present relative to the estimated

number of parking spaces), expressed as a mean across all car parks in the route.

From this Portchester & Portsmouth ranks highest with an average ‘fullness’ of

40% across all car parks, and Hayling Island lowest with 23%. We also calculated a

simple measure of the mean number of vehicles per transect per space, which

shows Portchester & Portsmouth had approximately a third of spaces occupied

(average of 0.31 vehicles per space, see Table 7).

Each of these calculations, shown in Table 7, differs slightly but the relative ranking

of routes was consistent. The different calculations suggest confidence in the

differences between routes and allow several different ways of thinking of about

car park occupancy to be considered.

Table 7: Summary of the number of vehicles with reference to the number of spaces and ‘fullness’ of car

parks along each of the routes.

Rout

e

Number of

parking locations counted

Total number of

parking spaces

Mean number

of vehicles

per transect

Mean number of

vehicles per

parking location

Median number of

vehicles per

parking location

Mean percent

‘‘fullness’’ of car park

Mean number of

vehicles per transect per space (e/c)

1. Isle of Wight 36 1,917 271 7.78 15.00 25.3 0.14

2. Hurst Spit -

Totton 38 1,734 350 9.55 22.41 26.9 0.20

3. Southampton-

Gosport 43 2,363 542 12.60 22.83 30.5 0.23

4. Portchester &

Portsmouth 15 1,380 434 28.90 28.59 40.1 0.31

5. Hayling Island 31 1,532 231 7.62 14.50 22.6 0.15

6. Hayling-

Wittering 18 887 139 7.86 13.72 33.4 0.16

Total 181 9813 1967 11.10 17.99 28.5 0.20

The percent ‘fullness’ of individual car parks was a useful measure to consider

across different parts of the Solent. The median values for each route of the

Solent, shown in Table 7, were statistically significantly different from each other

(Kruskall-Wallis H=32.70, df=5, p<0.001).

Other categories showed some statistically significant results. The ‘fullness’ of car

parks with cars with roof-racks was significantly different (Kruskall-Wallis H =32.70,

df=5, p=0.003), with highest at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight

and Hurst Spit - Totton. There were significant differences in the ‘fullness’ of car

parks with commercial vehicles (Kruskall-Wallis H =20.29, df=5, p=0.001) highest at


23

Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight and Hayling Island. Cars with

bike racks also differed significantly (Kruskall-Wallis H =13.90, df=5, p=0.016),

counts were highest at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by Isle of Wight,

Southampton-Gosport and Hayling Island. The final significant difference was in

the ‘fullness’ of car parks with camper vans (Kruskall-Wallis H =33.98, df=5,

p<0.001) with the highest counts also at Portchester & Portsmouth, followed by

Hayling Island and Hurst Spit – Totton. All other categories were not significant.

The average percent ‘fullness’ of individual car parks across the 12 transects is

plotted in Map 3, to allow the individual car parks to be compared and hotspots

examined. From this, there appear to be some dense clusters of busy car parks,

particularly around Lymington and Portsmouth. But within these clusters there

can equally be car parks which are rarely used. The differences between these

individual car parks in close proximity are likely to be due to size, spaces, quality

and any parking charges.

It should be noted that at some car parking locations more vehicles were recorded

than the estimated number of spaces. This is due to either, car parks being

extremely full (overflowing onto grass etc.), or an underestimate in the number of

parking spaces initially. Estimating the parking spaces in a location with unmarked

bays and at a quiet time can be difficult and therefore the capacity should be

constantly reviewed and informed by the observed counts.


24


25

Car park counts: types of parking location and use by different vehicles

In total, from the 181 car parks surveyed, we recorded an average of 1657 cars per

transect (Table 8).

Cars without any attachments for other recreation were the dominant vehicle type

in all the car parks. These usually accounted for over 80% of vehicles recorded on

average across all parking locations, with the exception of verges. Verges had the

lowest relative proportion of cars, with a total average of 58.1 cars per transect,

equating to 70% of the vehicles. Other vehicles recorded at verges were a greater

proportion of cars with boat trailers (typically 0.3% of the vehicles), cars with roof-

racks (10.2%) and mpv/minibus vehicles (6.2%).

Commercial vehicles were relatively more common in laybys than other parking

types, on average constituting 3% of the vehicles in laybys. Cars with bike racks

also had a relative higher percentage in laybys, accounting for 3.6% of the vehicles

in laybys. Campervans were also common in laybys (8.4%), along with verges

where they accounted for an average of 10% of the vehicles in these locations on

an average transect.

Professional dog walker vehicles were only recorded in formal car parks or

continuous roadside parking locations.


26

Table 8: Car park count data examined for different parking locations types. For each location type the

average number of different vehicles per total transects is shown. Percentage values in brackets show the

proportion of the total vehicles recorded for that location type.

Parking type

(Number of car park type)

Average of

parking spaces

for type

Average number of vehicles recorded per transect (% of vehicle type for each parking type)

Car

s

(n

o ad

diti

onal

info

)

Car

s w

ith

boat

trai

lers

Car

s w

ith

bike

rack

s

Car

s w

ith

roof

rack

for

cano

e/ su

rfbo

ard

Com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Prof

essi

onal

dog

w

alke

r veh

icle

s

Mpv

/ min

ibus

veh

icle

s

Cam

per v

ans

Bicy

cles

Formal

Car-Park

(120)

73 1443.0 1.6 40.3 111.0 8.8 3.3 67 23 1.7

(84.9) (0.1) (2.4) (6.5) (0.5) (0.2) (3.9) (1.3) (0.1)

Roadside

(27) 22

162.0 0.1 2.3 15.0 0.2 0.3 6.1 3.3 0.3

(85.6) (0.1) (1.2) (7.7) (0.1) (0.2) (3.2) (1.7) (0.2)

Lay-by (7) 16 11.2 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.0

(80.2) (0.0) (3.6) (3.0) (3.0) (0.0) (1.8) (8.4) (0.0)

Verge

(22) 14

58.1 0.3 1.8 8.5 0.7 0.0 5.2 8.3 0.3

(70.0) (0.3) (2.1) (10.2) (0.8) (0.0) (6.2) (10) (0.3)

Gateway

(5) 3.4

5.7 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1

(84.0) (0.0) (1.2) (7.4) (1.2) (0.0) (3.7) (1.2) (1.2)

Total (181) 1657.0 1.9 44.9 135.0 10.0 3.5 79.0 36.0 2.3

(84.2) (0.1) (2.3) (6.8) (0.5) (0.2) (4.0) (1.8) (0.1)


27

Maps showing use per car-park by different types of vehicle

Maps 4-10 show the number of cars, commercial vehicles, mpv/minibus and cars

with roof racks recorded at each parking location. Class sizes used were defined

by jenks (natural breaks) and therefore are consistent across all maps. Map 4

shows the average number of cars recorded in each car park to identify locations

where the highest number of people may be accessing the coast.

Maps 5, 7 and 9 show the average number of commercial vehicles, mpv/minibus

and cars with roof racks recorded at each parking location. For each of these maps

there is a second version which shows the percentage of vehicles this number

constitutes (Maps 6, 8 and 10). The percentages observed could be quite variable,

as cars generally dominate the parking locations. Across all three vehicle

categories there were many which recorded 0% or close to 0% on average.

However, maps do help to highlight some key areas. For example, commercial

vehicles could make up a large proportion of vehicles on the Isle of Wight and

around Hemsworth and on Hayling Island. They were rare along the New Forest

coastline and also between Gosport and Hamble-le-Rice. Mpvs and minibuses

were more common on the Isle of Wight and at certain key locations, such as

Calshot and around Hayling Island. There are also some key sites with reasonable

numbers of cars with roof racks for canoes/surfboards including, Hyde-

Bembridge, Calshot, Portchester and parts of Portsmouth.


28


29


30


31


32


33


34


35

Car-park counts: comparison between days

Surveys included both weekends and weekend days, and the number of vehicles

on weekends was almost always greater than weekdays (Figure 2). The average

‘fullness’ for each car park also shows that typically, car parks were fuller on

weekends (31.8%), compared to weekdays (26.7%).

To

tal n

um

be

r o

f v

eh

icle

s p

er

tra

nse

ct

WeekendWeekday

3250

3000

2750

2500

2250

2000

1750

1500

Figure 2: Boxplot to show the range in the total number of vehicles recorded for weekdays and weekend

days.

Individual vehicle types were examined by calculating the number of vehicles of

the type as a proportion of the number of spaces available. This showed at

weekends that typically a quarter of spaces (25%) were occupied with cars (with no

other recreational attachments), compared to 18% occupancy on weekdays (Table

9). This difference was statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis H=6.53, df=1, p=0.011,

along with differences in MPV/ minibuses (Kruskal-Wallis H =9.13, df=1, p=0.003)

and camper vans (Kruskal-Wallis H =7.13, df=1, p=0.008), all of which were highest

at weekends. Bicycles were the only vehicle type where the totals counted were

not significantly higher at the weekend.


36

Table 9: Comparison of weekend and weekday car parks counts showing the percent ‘fullness’ of car parks

calculated for each individual car park averaged for weekend and weekday. Averaged occupancy of spaces

on weekends and weekdays is also shown for each of the different vehicle types.

Averaged percent ‘fullness’

of individual car parks

Average percent vehicles occupying spaces of car parks

Car

s

(n

o ad

diti

onal

info

)

Car

s w

ith

boat

trai

lers

Car

s w

ith

bike

rack

s

Car

s w

ith

roof

rack

fo

r can

oe/ s

urfb

oard

Com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Prof

essi

onal

dog

w

alke

r veh

icle

s

Mpv

/ min

ibus

veh

icle

s

Cam

per v

ans

Bicy

cles

Weekdays

(8) 26.7 18.20 0.01 0.33 1.46 0.09 0.02 0.51 0.28 0.03

Weekends

(4) 31.8 25.01 0.03 0.75 1.28 0.15 0.08 1.43 0.55 0.02

Total

(12) 28.4 20.49 0.02 0.47 1.40 0.11 0.04 0.82 0.37 0.02

Car-park counts: other factors affecting car park counts

It is recognised that a wide range of variables such as weather, tide states, car

parking quality, facilities, traffic conditions and national or local sporting events

(keeping people indoors or at sporting locations) will affect the use of car parks

observed here. Many of these would require a greater number of surveying

transects and possibly visitor questionnaires before we could attempt to examine

such relationships (for example tide states, local events) to allow identification and

study of other important variables. The aim of the data collection is to provide

monitoring for change and where use is focussed.

Nonetheless, in Table 10 we show the influence of parking charges, one of the

likely important variables in determining levels of car parking use. At both formal

car parks and roadside parking locations, the average percentage fullness of car

parks was usually greater at those car parks which did not charge. Locations which

charge are usually larger car parks (average 41 spaces in formal car parks without

charges and 105 spaces for those with charges).


37

Table 10: The average percent fullness of car park recorded at formal car parks and roadside car parks

shown separately for those with and without charges.

Parking type and charges

Average of %fullness (number of counts)

Formal car park Roadside

No charges 29.5 (707) 43.3 (298)

Charges 19.1 (696) 9.2 (24)

One of the issues that is particularly important to check is the use of parking areas

by those not involved in coastal recreation, for example local residents or

shoppers. Such use inflates the car park counts and complicates the relationship

between cars parked and visitor use, with a greater number of cars than expected.

In Map 14 we explore this by plotting the standard deviation in the total number

of car recorded across the 12 counts. Standard deviation expresses the level of

variation in the number of cars recorded across the 12 counts. Low standard

deviation will reflect a small variation and therefore a more consistent number of

cars across counts. Car-parks that draw recreational use may well be expected to

vary more as they will perhaps fluctuate more with weather and

weekend/weekday use, whereas car-parks used for a range of uses may well have

less variation. Such an approach is speculative but is potentially a useful check.

Also on Map 14 we have highlighted car parks in which surveyors thought

residents were parking on a regular basis. Surveyors were not asked to record this

information as part of the survey so this observation is based on anecdotal

evidence only.


38


39


Vantage points were conducted at 39 of the 181 car-park count locations. At these

vantage points, the surveyor parked and walked to the coast to scan the people

and activities recorded along the shoreline and out on the water. In total, we

observed 1,989 people, 178 ‘active’ boats and 448 dogs.

Table 11 shows the number of people/boats/dogs recorded for each activity. The

two main activities were walking (41% of people counted) and dog walking (31% of

people counted). While there were clearly more people walking without dogs, the

actual number of groups counted for the two activities were relatively similar, as

dog walking tended to involve smaller groups. A total of 448 dogs were observed,

with dogs noted as recorded with activities other than dog walking (e.g. joggers,

anglers, and bird watchers).

A further 548 (28%) of people were counted undertaking activities other than

walking and dog walking. These included: angling/fishing (76 people, 3.8% of

total), joggers (62, 3.1%), bird/wildlife watching (55, 2.7%). Bait diggers were

recorded, but in small numbers, with 20 people and an average of 1.7 people per

transect. Water sports (mostly windsurfing) were also recorded relatively

infrequently, with only 32 people across all transects recorded. There were also a

range of ‘other’ activities that did not fit into our predetermined categories, these

included beach combing, metal detecting and photography, but a large proportion

were cyclists or people sitting (so their exact activity could not be determined in

the short period of observation, although some were possibly taking a break from

walking and enjoying the scenery).


40

Table 11: Summary of the number of people, groups (where recorded), boats and dogs observed during

counts shown as an average per transect, with the total across all transects in brackets. The final column

shows the average group size for activities where both number of groups as well as people were counted.

Activity

Count unit

Average group size Number of

people Number of

groups

Number of active

boats

Number of dogs

Walkers without dogs 67.9 (815) 32.7 (392) - - 2.1

Dog walkers 52.2 (626) 30.8 (369) - - 1.7

Dogs - - - 37.3 (448) 1.2*

Boats (all craft beside

canoes and commercial)

- - 14.8 (178) - -

Angling/fishing (with

rod) 6.3 (76) - - - -

Joggers 5.2 (62) 2.8 (34) - - 1.8

Bird/wildlife watching 4.6 (55) 1.5 (18) - - 3.1

Windsurfers 2.3 (27) - - - -

Bait diggers 1.7 (20) - - - -

Horse riders 0.8 (9) - - - -

Paddle boarders 0.3 (3) - - - -

Kayak/ canoes 0.1 (1) - - - -

Kite-surfers 0.1 (1) - - - -

Water skiing - - - - -

Other 24.5 (294) - - -

Total 165.8 (1989) 67.8 (813) 14.8 (178) 37.3 (448) -

*dogs per group of dog walkers. Dogs occurred with other groups for which group size was not

recorded.

Map 10 shows the average number of people recorded at each of the vantage

points across the Solent. Busy locations were often patchily distributed and could

be near relatively quiet places. From examination of the maps the effect of nearby

urban areas seems to be a factor associated with busy locations, although

headlands and other coastal features also clearly draw visitors.

The relationship between the number of people observed and the number of

vehicles in a car park is shown in Figure 3. As expected there is a positive

relationship between the two measures (correlation coefficient, β = 6.049,

significance, p value= 0.004), but there is a large amount of variation in these

values (variation, r² =0.180). This indicates that car-park counts are a useful metric

as a surrogate for visitor use but that other factors will also determine the levels of

access (and therefore bird disturbance) at a particular location. In particular in

some areas people may well walk to the coast rather than drive.


41

However, this relationship was not always clear for example in some car parks

there where large numbers of cars recorded together with relatively low numbers

of people. Overall the average across all vantage points was 11.1 vehicles and 0.9

people, indicating higher numbers of cars than people. Reasons for this could

include: the limited visibility from some vantage points (so people may have

walked out of sight); people sitting in cars who were not counted; the use of car

parks by local residents who went elsewhere; commercial vehicles whose drivers

did not walk to the coast and the effect of overall season or general weather

conditions on the behaviour of visitors (whether to stay in the car or go for a walk

for example).

The outliers in Figure 3, include:

177, West Wittering beach (where the whole beach is visible resulting in

a count of most people from the car park even if they have walked

some distance?);

69, Calshot car park (vehicles in this car park can be there for other

reasons e.g. the climbing wall) and the vantage point has limited views

so visitors can soon walk out of view;

139, the car park at the Ship Inn near the bridge onto Hayling Island

used by people visiting the pub rather than the shoreline; and

100 Salterns Car Park, like West Wittering, there are extensive views

from the vantage point here.

Figure 3: Scatterplot to show the relationship between the average total number of vehicles in a car park

on a visit and the average total number of people observed at a vantage point on a visit. Individual points

are labelled by the vantage point ID number.


42


43

Figure 4 shows on average the relative percentage of activities by ‘individuals’ from

the different counts (persons, boats, dogs). This shows the relative amount of

‘traffic’ by persons, dogs and boats, engaging in different activities. The same

calculations are presented for individual vantage points in Map 12.

On average, walkers without dogs accounted for the highest percentage of people

observed on the Isle of Wight while the lowest percentage was along the

Portchester & Portsmouth route (Figure 4). The highest percentage of dog walkers

was on the Southampton-Gosport and Hayling-Wittering routes. However, the

number of dogs as a proportion of all people was greatest at Portchester &

Portsmouth, where other activities such as joggers and cyclists were often

accompanied by a dog. Bait diggers and water activities (e.g. windsurfers, kite

surfers, kayak/ canoes, paddle boarders) occurred at a relatively low frequency,

but were most abundant on Hayling Island.

Figure 4: The average percent of activities at a typical vantage point on each of the six routes. The class “all

other water activities” groups windsurfers, kitesurfers, kayak/ canoes, paddle boarders and water skiing.

The relative number of dogs off lead, compared to on lead was greatest around

Hayling Island, Southampton-Gosport and Portchester & Portsmouth with under a

third (24%, 27% and 28%) of the dogs observed at an average vantage point on

lead. The locations at Isle of Wight and Hurst Spit – Totton typically had just under

half of the dogs observed on lead (46% at both route sections).


44

The parts of the shore in which the occurrences of people/dogs/boats were

observed was also recorded (Figure 5). Just under three quarters (72%) of people

were recorded on the higher parts of the shore, on the seawall/ promenade/

dunes (Figure 5). This was heavily influenced by the large numbers of walkers, dog

walkers and their dogs recorded in this area. The relative proportion of dog

walkers below the higher parts of the shore, both on the beach above Mean High

Water (MHW) and on the sand/mudflats below MHW, was greater for dog walkers

than walkers. Other than joggers who were virtually always on the highest part of

the beach, many other activities were often on the sand/mudflats below MHW

(e.g. bird/wildlife watchers, horse riders, bait diggers) or on the water (windsurfing,

paddleboarding, kitesurfing, canoeing).

Figure 5: The percentage of individual people/boats/dogs for each activity that were on different parts of

the shore.


45


46

Duration/timing of transects

As a record for future surveys, we document here the time taken to complete the

surveys. The average duration for a surveyor to complete the route, and survey all

cars park and vantage points was three hours, but this varied considerably, as

shown in Table 122. Some routes were inherently much shorter or simply quicker

than others (e.g. 4. Portchester & Portsmouth), but there were also large

differences in time taken on the same route, depending on the surveyor (and

whether they had driven the route previously), how busy the car-parks were, time

of day and day.

Table 12: Summary of times and duration for each route

Route Length

(km) Parking

locations Vantage

points Average time

taken Minimum time

taken Maximum time

taken

1 78 36 7 03:45 03:00 06:18

2 80 38 6 03:08 02:13 04:45

3 56 43 7 03:19 02:26 04:21

4 47 15 5 01:47 01:30 02:18

5 25 31 8 02:24 01:29 04:19

6 48 18 6 02:33 01:50 03:34

Total 334 181 39

There were also differences in the typical time for each of the 12 transects to be

completed (Table 133). The average duration of each route was longest on the

first transect, as surveyors were familiarising themselves with the route. However,

on later transects there were also some long times taken to complete the route.

We tried to ensure surveyors were familiar with the route, but it was not always

possible to have the same surveyors on each date and the different peaks in time

taken across the 12 transects are due in part to surveyors conducting routes that

were new to them. Furthermore, some transects coincided with peak traffic/rush

hour and also took longer to complete.


47

Table 13: Summary of the times and durations for routes to be completed in each transect. Tr

anse

ct

num

ber

Date Set start time for transect

Average duration of each route

Average finish

time of each route

Mininum finish

time for a route

Maximum finish time for a route

Average mid-point

time for routes

1 29/11/2016 13:30 03:17 16:47 15:48 17:32 15:08

2 01/12/2016 08:00 03:06 11:06 09:51 12:21 09:33

3 10/01/2017 12:00 02:46 14:46 13:44 15:26 13:23

4 12/01/2017 08:00 02:35 10:35 09:37 11:50 09:18

5 15/01/2017 12:00 02:33 14:33 13:33 15:44 13:16

6 22/01/2017 08:00 02:24 10:24 09:29 11:25 09:12

7 09/02/2017 11:00 03:06 14:06 12:38 15:38 12:33

8 23/02/2017 14:00 02:28 16:28 15:42 17:30 15:14

9 25/02/2017 11:00 02:34 13:34 12:42 14:18 12:17

10 03/03/2017 14:00 02:36 16:36 15:36 17:52 15:18

11 12/03/2017 11:00 03:10 14:10 12:49 15:45 12:35

12 16/03/2017 08:00 03:16 11:16 10:13 14:18 09:38


48

4. Recommendations for future monitoring The data collected provide a baseline for future monitoring. The key aim of the

monitoring is to provide spatially explicit information on levels of use, types of

activity and visitor behaviour around the Solent, in such a way that future changes

can be detected and used to refine mitigation measures. Future reports will need

to be able to compare back to previous data and identify any changes. Data

collection needs to be relatively simple and straightforward to replicate, and the

results need to be presented/collated such that they can be easily interrogated. In

this section of the report we make recommendations for future monitoring.

Car park counts

One of the main points for consideration for future monitoring is whether to

survey all car parks again or a subset of these. Covering all car parks is a large

undertaking, requiring six surveyors at the same time and coordinated. This is a

large use of resources for time and driving expenses.

We used a team of nine surveyors and where possible the surveyors conducted

the same routes each time. Surveyors usually become much quicker over time, as

they became familiar with their route. However, the average duration was still

three hours, more than originally estimated (our target was two hours). In order

to facilitate future transects and the data collected, using surveyors who are highly

familiar with the route/area will be important.

One way to simplify the fieldwork approach would be to repeat the car park

surveys every other year, using a subset of car parks. Only on every third repeat

(e.g. every six years) would the count cover all car parks. A likely subset could

include between 40-70 car parks instead of the current 181, potentially involving

three routes. This would reduce the logistical challenges and potentially enable

recording that could be undertaken by the existing Ranger team.

Selecting an appropriate subset would require careful thought. The subset would

need to be representative of the spatial area across the Solent and should include

a representative range of sizes and types of parking locations.

A further key point is that car-parking locations will change over time. Car-parks

can close and new locations start to be used. Car-parking charges and opening

times can change. Lay-bys, verges and other such locations are likely to be

particularly likely to change. It is essential that these changes are documented

each year and recorded. Future monitoring will therefore need to include a review

of locations. In two years’ time, when monitoring is repeated, the counts should


49

record any changes and – if new locations need to be included or others dropped,

these should be documented.

During car park counts surveyors did comment that they saw the same cars (local

residents/ local business employees) or commercial vehicles parked more than

once at certain locations. Clearly many locations are used repeatedly by local

residents or commercial vehicles/construction workers. Such use, if a regular and

common behaviour may make it difficult to detect changes over time in

recreational use at those locations. While it is possible to note anecdotally where

there appears to be parking that is less likely to relate to recreational use, there is

no clear way to record this systematically without using some form of

questionnaire survey.

In one early morning count, after a very cold night, surveyors commented that

some cars in some car-parks were covered in frost. This suggests that these are

cars were parked overnight. It might be possible in future counts to use this

approach opportunistically to record cars that have been parked overnight (and

therefore potentially belonging to residents), and if a future count takes place on a

morning where a hard frost is forecast we recommend surveyors are made aware

and an estimate is made for each car-park.

A further point for the car park recording forms is to explicitly detail when the car

park was closed, and also if the road was closed. While this has been recorded on

all forms, we found this information can be hard to find in detailed notes (see

Appendix 2 for an example of the recording form used) and is so important, that it

should be explicitly detailed for each count.


For the vantage point counts a key change would be the addition of cyclists and

people sitting and standing (enjoying the scenery) to the recording form (see

Appendix 2 for form as used). These two groups appear to be the most common

in the large ‘other’ category used in the current recording form. It would be

valuable to have an explicit ‘other’ column in the form to detail this number and

state the exact types of other activities being conducted. It would be helpful if

surveyors could be briefed on how to determine the exact activity, without wasting

lots of time observing people.

There were also difficulties in recording people at times of poor visibility. While

this is hard to avoid, it is suggested that an estimate of the visibility (within pre-

determined broad categories) is recorded so that the area of visible vantage point

can be adjusted each time to allow calculation of the people per visible area.


50

Summary of recommendations

In summary, key recommendations are:

Future counts should be conducted by a small team familiar with the

route, area to survey and all the different car-parks. This will ensure

consistency.

Undertaking surveys of all car parks is a significant undertaking. We

suggest conducting the co-ordinated car park counts every other year,

with every third survey to cover all car-parks. The other biannual

surveys could be conducted on a representative subset of the car parks.

An increased number of categories added to the recording form for

recording types of vehicles to separate ‘marked commercial vehicles

(cars and vans)’, and ‘unmarked vans’.

Have the option to count the number of frosted/snowed over cars

(approximate to number of residential cars) in a morning survey

following a very cold night. This would require an assessment of the

weather to be made the day before, so that all surveyors would be

expecting to record this.

On vantage point form add columns for activities of standing, sitting and

cycling.

Explicitly count the total ‘other’ activities and state what activities this

consisted of (but not the numbers of each).

Categorise visibility on the vantage point (e.g. 25% of area, 25-50% of

area etc.).


51

5. References Fearnley, H., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project. Phase

II. On-Site Visitor Survey Results from the Solent Region. Footprint Ecology/Solent Forum.

Fearnley, H., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2011) The Solent Disturbance & Mitigation Project. Phase II.

Results of the Solent Household Survey. Footprint Ecology Unpublished Report.

Liley, D., Stillman, R., Austin, G. & Panter, C. (2015) Advice on How to Monitor the Effectiveness of

the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Bournemouth University /

BTO / Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership.

Liley, D., Stillman, R.A. & Fearnley, H. (2010) The Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase

II. Results of Bird Disturbance Fieldwork, 2009/10. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.

Liley, D. & Tyldesley, D. (2013) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project Phase III: Towards an

Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. Footprint Ecology / Solent Forum.

Stillman, R.A., West, A.D., Clarke, R.T. & Liley, D. (2012) Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project

Phase II: Predicting the Impact of Human Disturbance on Overwintering Birds in the Solent.

Solent Forum / Bourneouth University / Footprint Ecology.


52

Appendix 1: Details of parking locations Table 14: Details of the car parking locations

Route ID

C ar Park ID

Grid Reference Car Park Type

Car Park Surfacing

Total car parking spaces

Parking charges

1 1 SZ327877 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 46

1 2 SZ332879 Gateway Concrete/tarmac 2


1 4 SZ340897 Verge Gravel/stone 10






1 10 SZ358897 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 45






1 16 SZ414894 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 16



1 19 SZ429904 Gateway Gravel/stone 3







1 26 SZ509928 Formal Car-Park No surfacing

(grass/earth) 40









1 35 SZ643887 Lay-by Gravel/stone 3


53

Route ID

C ar Park ID


Car Park Surfacing


Parking charges


(grass/earth) 80


2 38 SZ293912 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 12


2 40 SZ299909 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 50



2 43 SZ307915 Roadside Gravel/stone 7





2 48 SZ323934 Verge No surfacing

(grass/earth) 6

2 49 SZ326940 Verge Concrete/tarmac 3


2 51 SZ330941 Gateway No surfacing

(grass/earth) 2





(grass/earth) 10


2 57 SU417002 Verge No surfacing

(grass/earth) 1


(grass/earth) 4

2 59 SZ444987 Lay-by No surfacing

(grass/earth) 3


(grass/earth) 85



2 63 SU478013 Roadside Concrete/tarmac 15


2 65 SU480013 Formal Car-Park Concrete/tarmac 145


(grass/earth) 45



54

Route ID

C ar Park ID


Car Park Surfacing


Parking charges


(grass/earth) 100


2 70 SU465024 Verge Gravel/stone 2

2 71 SU466032 Formal Car-Park Gravel/stone 15






















3 93 SU493050 Roadside Gravel/stone 8















55

Route ID

C ar Park ID


Car Park Surfacing


Parking charges





























5 135 SU679044 Verge Concrete/tarmac 10












56

Route ID

C ar Park ID


Car Park Surfacing


Parking charges



(grass/earth) 3




















6 165 SU777053 Gateway Gravel/stone 4






6 171 SU803032 Lay-by Concrete/tarmac 5

6 172 SU800022 Gateway Gravel/stone 6









57

Appendix 2: Recording forms used In this appendix, we provide examples of the recording forms used. The first was that used

for recording parked vehicles (the form is the one for route 5) and the second sheet is a

generic sheet for recording the vantage point counts.

S O L E N T D R I V I N G T R A N S E C T R E C O R D I N G F O R M : R O U T E 5 , H a y l i n g

58

Date: Surveyor: Section: Weather description/notes

Start time:

End time:

Cloud cover (8ths)

Car park number (yellow ones are vantage points)

Time Total parked motor vehicles

Subset of total Bikes Rain (enter 1 if present otherwise blank)

Notes

Number with boat trailers

Number with roof rack for surfboards/canoes etc

Commercial vehicles

Number with bike racks

Number branded with dog walking

MPV / minibus vehicles

Camper vans

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

200

201

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

S O L E N T D R I V I N G T R A N S E C T R E C O R D I N G F O R M : R O U T E 5 , H a y l i n g

59

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

Record any details here relating to route/traffic or other general issues on the day that might affect count (road closures, world cup finals etc)

Notes

Car-park number is the unique ID number assigned to each car-park. Yellow highlights indicate locations where vantage point counts also required.

Total parked motor vehicles is the total number of parked vehicles (cars, motor bikes, vans, lorries, etc) – columns to the right are subsets of this total apart from

bicycles, which are not motor vehicles

Commercial vehicles are vans or similar that have company branding on and may relate to people at work or linked to work, include ice cream vans, outdoor pursuit

type companies, but NOT commercial dog walkers.

Dog branded vehicles are those used by commercial dog walkers

Campervans are separated from MPV/minibus type vehicles in that they clearly are used for sleeping in

Bikes is simply the total number of bikes parked in the car-park separate to any on racks on cars – some car-parks do have dedicated bike racks

S O L E N T V A N T A G E P O I N T F O R M

Vantage point number: Tide: High

Intermediate (some mud)

Low

Notes (record any unusual activities or general comments about events):

Start Time:

Date: Surveyor:

Count unit Seawall/promenade/dunes Beach above MHWM Sandflats/mudflats below MHWM On water Notes

All activities People

Horse riders People on horseback

Joggers Groups

People

Bird/wildlife watching Groups

People

Walkers (without dogs) Groups

People

Dog walkers Groups

People

Dogs off lead Dogs

Dogs on lead Dogs

Angling/fishing (with rod) People

Bait diggers People

Kitesurfers People

Paddle-boards People

Wind-surfers People

Kayak/canoes People

Water-skiing Skiiers

Boats (all craft beside canoes & commercial) Boats

Record within set count area only. Counts are ‘snapshots’. Scan count area systematically (e.g. left – right) and count as you do, do not add additional people if they then enter the count area

after your scan. You may need to do a number of scans for the different rows in the table. All activities is a count of all people visible in count area, including those on boats. Subsequent rows

relate to specific activities. “Seawall/promenade/dunes” relates to the area well above Mean High Water Mark (MHWM) – elevated and supporting vegetation. Beach is open unvegetated zone

above the strandline. Sandflats/mudflats is the intertidal. Not all zones will be present at each vantage point and may vary depending on tide state.

solent car park and vantage point surveys · alongside the counts of parked vehicles, vantage point...

Documents