Beach Users Perceptions Concerning Zuma Beach Restoration David K. Loomis University of Massachusetts Amherst May 19, 2009 Silver Spring, MD

Background Task was to survey Zuma Beach users –Evaluate perceptions of restoration area –Value and benefit of restoration area –Importance of various elements of beach going experience –Awareness of restoration area –Targeted use of restoration area Is there a social benefit to the restoration effort at Zuma Beach?

Purpose Discuss data collection methods Discuss methodological issues and some surprises Present some results of the survey

Zuma Beach

Zuma Beach and Restored Lagoon

Overview of Methods Visitors to Zuma Beach were intercepted on the beach during the summer of 2008; obtained address and/or address Six zones created for sampling and analysis purposes Survey of visitors conducted during fall of 2008 –Mail survey –Internet survey

Distribution of Intercept Outcomes Total visitors intercepted2,639 Refusals/other mortality Did not wish to participate (32.5%)857 Under age Language barrier207 Already intercepted53 Non-resident of United States3 Total Mortality1,233 Willing to participate1,416

Survey Administration Mail survey –Mail surveys followed Dillman method –Multiple mailings, personalized approach Internet survey –Same survey, same order, same questions – ed “cover letter” to visitor –Four “mailings”

Survey Response Rates MailInternet Initial sample……………… Non-deliverables……………6671 Effective sample…………… Completed surveys………… Response rate……………..53.7%40.9%

Beach Use Frequency of visitation: Visits/yearPercent Infrequent visitor………………… Occasional visitor………………… Semi-regular visitor……………… Regular visitor…………………… Mean = 11.2 visits, Median = 6.0 visits

Awareness of Restoration Project AwareNot Aware Infrequent visitor…………….10.1%89.9% Occasional visitor……………9.0%91.0% Semi-regular visitor………….10.4%89.6% Regular visitor……………….18.9%81.1% Overall, 13% of visitors were aware of the restoration project

Zuma Beach Zones A B C D E F

Use According to Zone NPercent Zone A……………………… Zone B…………………… Zone C…………………… Zone D…………………… Zone E…………………… Zone F……………………

Distribution of Use According to Awareness and Zone AwareNot Aware Most desirable zones –Zones A, B and C62.9%66.2% –Zones D, E and F37.1%33.8% Least desirable zones –Zones A, B, and C35.0% 37.0% –Zones D, E and F65.0% 63.0% Most desirable zone –Zone E only23.3%20.0% Least desirable zone –Zone E only6.5%4.6%

Importance of Beach Going Elements According to Awareness AwareUnaware Water cleanliness………………… Access to the beach……………… Improvement of overall env. quality……………………… Communication of reg/man. implications……………………… Abundance of wildlife …………… Temperature of water …………… Educational signs………………… =Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Importance of Beach Going Elements According to Awareness AwareUnaware Availability of ecological information…………….………… Abundance of birds………………… Abundance of native vegetation… Presence of big waves …………… Availability of educational information………………………… Abundance of native fish………… =Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Value of the Zuma Beach Restoration It is important to me to have ecological restoration in this region…………………………………………4.25 For me, the attractiveness of this area has been improved because of the Zuma Beach restoration…………………………………………3.93 I am satisfied with the Zuma Beach ecological restoration……………………………………………3.83 The Zuma Beach restoration benefits me………………….…….3.82 The Zuma Beach restoration has improved the quality of my beach going experience………………….….3.63 The Zuma Beach restoration has made it more likely that I will visit Zuma Beach…………………….… =Strongly disagree, 3=Neutral, 5=Strongly Agree (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Comparison of Restored Zuma Beach Area to Unrestored Trancas Creek Area Abundance of birds………………………… Improvement of overall environmental quality …………………… Abundance of wildlife ……………………….3.70 Abundance of native vegetation ……………3.64 Water cleanliness…………………………….3.62 Abundance of native fish…………………… =Not better, 3=Moderately better, 5=Extremely better (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Comparison of Restored Zuma Beach Area to Unrestored Trancas Creek Area Communication of regulations through signs……………………………… Educational signs…………………………… Availability of education information……………………….………….3.19 Availability of ecological information……..…3.13 Access to the beach………………….……… =Not better, 3=Moderately better, 5=Extremely better (includes only those aware of the restoration project)

Importance of Environmental Characteristics AwareNot Aware Proximity to natural areas………… Wildlife viewing opportunities…… Diversity of scenery………………… Nature/hiking trails………………… Presence of educational signs/information………………… Quality of educational signs/information………………… =Not at all important, 3=Moderately important, 5=Extremely important

Perceived Trend in Overall Ecological Health of Zuma Beach According to Awareness AwareNot Aware Perceived trend in overall ecological health……………… =Decreased significantly, 3=Remained about the same, 5=Increased significantly

Discussion Use levels are not high near restoration project Those who visit Zuma Beach most often are slightly more likely to be aware of the restoration project The most desirable zones are at the opposite end of Zuma Beach from the restoration project Visitors consider overall environmental quality to be important, but…

Discussion Visitors seem to consider the separate elements of the environment to be of lesser importance (birds, vegetation, wildlife, fish) Those aware of restoration project see value and benefits to the project Those aware of restoration project consider environmental characteristics to be more important than do those not aware of the project Those aware of restoration project see the ecological health of Zuma Beach to be increasing

Questions?