s o u t h d o w n s n a t i o n a l p a r k h e a t h l a...

S o u t h D o w n s N a t i o n a l P a r k H e a t h l a n d V i s i t o r S u r v e y 2 0 1 4

SueD

Typewritten Text

SWT DOC NO. 17


Date: 3rd December, 2014 Version: FINAL Recommended Citation: Lake, S. & Liley, D. (2014) South Downs National Park Heathland Visitor Survey 2014. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for the South Downs National Park Authority. Front cover: Iping Common by Chris Gunn licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Creative_Commons

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en


1

Summary

This report was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority in order to understand access patterns and visitor use of heathland areas within the National Park, focussing on the area approximately lying between Petersfield, Liphook, Haslemere and Pulborough. The survey included fieldwork to map the distribution of all car-parks and access points; counts of parked vehicles; counts of people and visitor interviews. A total of 224 access points were identified and mapped, 89 of which provided informal parking with a further 25 formal car-parks and 110 pedestrian access points. In total there were estimated to be 661 car-parking spaces. Six transects were undertaken counting all parked vehicles in the mapped parking locations. These counts covered a range of times of day and both weekdays and weekend days. Counts ranged from 79 to 114 vehicles, with a mean of 93.2. Accurate counts and face-face interviews were undertaken at a sample of nine access points, covering a range of different sites and different types of access points, including formal car-parks, informal parking locations and foot only access points. In total 306 groups were counted entering sites from the access points; these groups included 470 people and 422 dogs, giving an average group size across all survey points of 1.5 people and 1.4 dogs. This is equivalent to 0.89 dogs for each person counted. The survey point at Chapel Common was the busiest location. Across all sites combined and for four individual sites, early morning (0700-0900) on weekdays was the busiest survey session. In total, 242 interviews were conducted. Most interviewees were on a day trip/short visit and had travelled from home. The majority (78%) were dog walking. Other activities included walking (12%), wildlife watching (3%) and cycling (2%). The proportion of interviewees who were dog walking compared to other activities was particularly high at Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece. Ninety-six percent of interviewees with dogs said that they had (or intended to) let their dog off the lead on their visit. Most interviewees had spent or were planning to spend between 30 minutes and one hour on site and visited regularly (74% visited at least weekly). Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece had the greatest proportion of daily (or almost daily) visitors – corresponding to the sites with a high proportion of dog walkers. A high proportion of interviewees (86%) visited the site throughout the year. Most interviewees (85%) arrived by car, with only small numbers arriving on foot (12%), bicycle (2%) or horse (1%). People had chosen to visit the site where their interview took place for a range of reasons including habit or familiarity (44% responses), quality of the area (38%), scenery/views (30%), or it being good for the dog (28%). Most interviewees perceived access exclusions to protect wildlife, byelaws to limit BBQs, fines for not collecting dog waste and penalties to enforce anti-social behaviour as being positive measures, while a requirement to keep dogs on leads, the site being busy with lots of other people, and the provision of a cafe were perceived of as negative or unnecessary features. Interviewees’ routes (mapped as part of the interview) ranged from 50m to over 6km, with most between 2km and 3km. The mean route length for dog walkers was 2.19km. The median distance between the start of the route and the midpoint (measured ‘as the crow flies’) for all mapped routes


2

was 562m, indicating the distance that the majority of visitors ‘penetrated’ into the site. Most (83%) interviewees did not/were not intending to leave the path or trail during their visit. A total of 225 interviews (93%) generated valid, full postcodes that could be plotted within a GIS. The distribution of interviewee postcodes shows a wide scatter. Many were residents at local settlements but there were a range of visitors from further afield including a scatter of locations along the south coast. The median distance from home postcode to survey point was 3.47km and the third quartile (i.e. the distance from which 75% of visitors had originated) was 6.68km.


3

Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 5

Heathlands Reunited ................................................................................................. 5

Importance of Access ................................................................................................. 5

Nature conservation impacts of access...................................................................... 6

Aims of this report ..................................................................................................... 6

2. Methods .................................................................................................. 9

Distribution of car-parks and access points ............................................................... 9

Counts of parked vehicles .......................................................................................... 9

Counts of People and Visitor Interviews .................................................................. 11

Counts of people ................................................................................................................ 11

Face-face interviews ........................................................................................................... 11

Analysis and Data Presentation ............................................................................... 12

3. Results ................................................................................................... 15

Driving Transects...................................................................................................... 15

Tally Data ................................................................................................................. 17

Questionnaires ......................................................................................................... 20

Visitor interviews ............................................................................................................... 20

Type of visit ........................................................................................................................ 20

Activities ............................................................................................................................ 21

Duration, frequency and timing of visit .............................................................................. 22

Transport to site ................................................................................................................. 26

Reasons for visiting the site/area ....................................................................................... 27

Visitor perceptions of specific site features and how they might enhance their enjoyment

........................................................................................................................................... 31

Dogs ................................................................................................................................... 34


4

Other sites visited .............................................................................................................. 36

Routes ...................................................................................................................... 38

Postcodes ................................................................................................................. 42

4. Discussion .............................................................................................. 48

Limitations ............................................................................................................... 48

6. References ............................................................................................. 49

7. Appendices ............................................................................................ 52

Appendix 1: Summary of survey dates and rainfall ................................................. 52

Appendix 2: Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 53

Appendix 3: Reasons for visiting .............................................................................. 59

Appendix 4: Reasons why visitors chose the site where they were interviewed to

visit .......................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix 5: The importance of measures on site ................................................... 63

Appendix 6: Features that would enhance enjoyment ............................................ 64

Appendix 7: Other sites ........................................................................................... 65

Appendix 8: Choice of route .................................................................................... 67

Appendix 9: Choice of route (“other” factors) ......................................................... 68

Acknowledgements

This report was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority. We are grateful to Jonathan Mycock for overseeing the work. We are grateful to all the land-owners who gave access for the survey work and the following for long hours interviewing and counting people: Graham Ault; Emily Brennan (SDNPA); Sarah Fisk (NT); Neil Gartshore (Footprint Ecology); Alison Giacomelli (RSPB); Jonathan Mycock (SDNPA); Lee New; Alison Pitts; Doug Whyte (Footprint Ecology) and Jane Willmott (SWT). Route data were digitised by Zoe Chappell (Footprint Ecology) and Kate Aulman (SDNPA).


5

1. Introduction

Heathlands Reunited

1.1 This report was commissioned by the South Downs National Park Authority in order to

understand access patterns and visitor use on heathland areas within the National Park,

focussing on the area between Borden and Pulborough. The area includes a series of

heathland and wooded commons (Map 1), and these are the focus of ‘Heathlands

Reunited’, a project to facilitate and coordinate the conservation, enhancement,

reconnection and re-creation of the heaths. Heathlands Reunited has received initial

Heritage Lottery (HLF) funding to develop a full grant application, and the HLF funding is

being used to fund a range of surveys, of which this is one.

1.2 Access is a fundamental consideration in developing any plans or aspirations for

management, and looking strategically – at a landscape scale – brings particular

opportunities to both enhance access and ensure that negative impacts from access are

avoided or minimised. This survey therefore aims to explore the broad access patterns

and visitor use across a number of sites. The area of heathland within the project area

is around 1700ha1, spread across a number of fragments. The heaths are important for

nature conservation and the boundary encompasses at its northern end the Wealden

Heaths SPA, designated for the presence of Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler.

Importance of Access

1.3 People enjoy the natural environment in many different ways (e.g. TNS Research

International 2011). Targeted visitor work on heathland sites is now widely available

and shows people use heaths near to their homes for activities such as dog walking,

walking, cycling, jogging and family outings (Clarke et al. 2006; Liley, Jackson &

Underhill-Day 2006; Clarke, Sharp & Liley 2008, 2010; Sharp, Lowen & Liley 2008; Liley,

D et al. 2009; Cruickshanks, Liley & Hoskin 2010). Such activities are entirely legitimate

and for most heathland sites it is very difficult or impossible to restrict access.

1.4 There is increasing understanding and acceptance in the conservation sector of the

multiple roles played by nature reserves and designated sites, and an increased

willingness to take into account the desires and needs of different user groups. Hand in

hand with this is a pragmatic acknowledgement that in some cases user groups will

carry out specific activities despite land managers’ best efforts to persuade them

otherwise, and that it is most effective to engage positively with users to achieve

acceptable outcomes.

1.5 One component of this acknowledgement of the importance of nature sites for people

has been the recognition that people need nature for their physical, mental and

spiritual wellbeing (e.g. Tansley 1945; Snyder 1990; Hammond 1998; English Nature

2002; Miller & Hobbs 2002; Alessa, Bennett & Kliskey 2003; Morris 2003; Bird 2004;

1 This figure derived from Natural England priority habitat inventory and is the sum of the area of polygons

that have lowland heathland as their main habitat.


6

Thompson, Price & Galbraith 2005; Pretty et al. 2005; Saunders 2005; Robinson 2006). It

could be argued that conservation organisations have a moral obligation to promote

connectedness with nature to help meet peoples physical, mental and spiritual well-

being needs where possible. In any case, many organisations are in receipt of

government funding, a condition of which is often a contribution to societal well-being

(e.g. through educational visits).

1.6 Access may also play a positive role in engendering support and awareness of nature

conservation. There is evidence to suggest that an emotional affinity with nature plays a

role in individuals’ motivation to protect nature (Kals, Schumacher & Montada 1999;

Nisbet, Zelenski & Murphy 2009) and that increasing peoples connection to the natural

environment may be more effective than establishing laws and rules (Kaplan 2000).

Nature conservation impacts of access

1.7 In the past access and nature conservation have typically been viewed as opposing goals

(Adams 1996; Bathe 2007) to the extent that nature reserves often restricted visitor

numbers and access (e.g. through permits, fencing and restrictive routes). While such

approaches are now often considered old fashioned and inappropriate, recreational

access can impact on wildlife. Lowland heathland, particularly those sites in close

proximity to large human populations, have particular issues.

1.8 Impacts caused by recreational use of the heathlands have been well documented and

range from trampling damage to vegetation and soil, substrate erosion, path widening

and the creation of desire lines, dog fouling leading to vegetation change, litter,

introduction of non-native species, disturbance to species, increased incidence of fires,

pollution and noise (e.g. De Molinaar 1998; Kirby & Tantram 1999; Haskins 2000;

Murison 2002; Liley & Clarke 2003; Mallord 2005; Liley, Jackson, & Underhill-Day 2005;

Penny Anderson Associates 2006; Lowen et al. 2008). Impacts to breeding birds are a

particular issue. For Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler there are studies that

show disturbance effects to breeding populations ranging from changes in their

settlement patterns and lowered nesting densities (Liley & Clarke 2003; Mallord 2005;

Liley et al. 2006; Mallord et al. 2007), to reduced productivity (Murison 2002; Murison

et al. 2007).

1.9 The challenge for the long-term management of many southern heathland sites is

therefore reconciling the conflicts between access and nature conservation; ensuring

that the nature conservation interest of sites is protected and enhanced while also

providing the access that is appropriate, beneficial and meets the demands of the local

population.

Aims of this report

1.10 Within the context set out above, a clear understanding of the current access patterns -

in terms of who visits, why they visit and how they choose to behave - is important.

Understanding the needs and aspirations of visitors and how these will change in the

future will ensure that the National Park can respond to demands for access.


7

1.11 This report presents the results of visitor surveys undertaken by professional visitor

surveyors and local staff/volunteers at a selection of access points within the National

Park. Surveys included counts of parked cars, counts of people entering/leaving access

points and interviews with a random sample of people. A separate report

(predominantly maps) uses this data to develop models that capture the spatial

distribution of access across all heathland blocks and looks at the distribution of key

bird species in relation to access.


8


9

2. Methods

2.1 The survey included the following key components:

Mapping the distribution of all car-parks and access points

Counts of parked vehicles

Counts of people and visitor interviews

2.2 The geographical focus of the survey was the southern half of the study area, lying

south-east of a line between Petersfield and Haslemere. This area was the focus

because there are some relatively recent visitor survey data for the northern sites

within the project area (UE Associates Ltd 2009).

Distribution of car-parks and access points

1.1 Car parking locations adjacent to access points across the network of heaths were

recorded on the ground by a surveyor physically mapping and recording the GPS

location, car park type (formal or informal) and car capacity while driving around the

area.

1.2 The parking locations were also checked against an OS 1:25,000 map and foot access

points were added where public footpaths and bridleway intersected with the study

site. In total 224 access points were mapped (Map 2). These are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of access point type and parking capacity

Access point type Number of points Number of car parking spaces

Informal parking 89 364

Formal car parking 25 297

Foot access only 110 0

Total 224 661

Counts of parked vehicles

1.3 All car-parks were surveyed and counts of all parked vehicles in each were undertaken

as part of a series of driving transects. These transects involved driving round all sites

and counting the number of parked vehicles at each location and were carried out

between 18th and 27th July 2014.

1.4 In total six car-park transects (i.e. all locations counted six times) were undertaken at

the times listed below. These times were slightly different between weekends and

weekdays as budget constraints meant only a limited number of transects could be

undertaken and it was felt more important to cover a range of times of day rather than

allow a direct comparison between weekdays and weekend days.

On one weekday between 7am-9am, 10am – 12pm and 5pm – 7pm

On one weekend day between 10-12, 1pm -3pm and 5pm -7pm


10


11

Counts of People and Visitor Interviews

2.3 Accurate counts and face-face interviews were undertaken at a sample of access points.

Professional surveyors undertook 10 days (80 hours) of face-face visitor fieldwork, split

evenly between 5 survey locations. The survey days were split such that the same

standard time periods were used (0700-0900; 1000-1200; 1300-1500; 1700-1900). Four

additional locations were identified for volunteers/local site staff to survey. Each

surveyor counted all people passing during each two hour period and interviews were

conducted with a random sample of people.

2.4 Survey points were selected to ensure that different types of access points and types of

user were covered, and included foot access points from nearby housing and both

informal parking and formal parking. Given the relatively low number of survey days

available to cover the area (and a requirement to spread surveys across the heathland

parcels), the points surveyed by professional surveyors included one foot access point

with the highest levels of nearby housing. Other survey points were weighted towards

formal car-parks, with three formal car parks and one informal car park of middling

capacity chosen.

1.5 The resulting selection of survey locations provided a good geographic spread across

the study area (see Map 2). They are listed in Table 2. Dates of survey visits and rainfall

are summarised in Appendix 1. It can be seen that equal survey coverage was not

achieved at all survey points (only four weekday sessions were undertaken at

Blackdown and one weekend session was missed at Wiggonholt).

Counts of people

2.5 Surveyors kept a tally of all people seen passing and entering/leaving the site. The

details of each survey point and the tally data collected are summarised in Table 2.

Counts of people provided accurate data on the number of people undertaking

different activities.

Face-face interviews

2.6 Face-face interviews provided visitor profiles, details of home postcodes and

information about the choice of site and site features that were important. A random

sample of people was interviewed. This was achieved by the surveyor approaching the

next person seen when not already interviewing somebody. The number of interviews

at each survey point therefore varied. At busy locations survey effort was focussed on

people leaving the site rather than just starting their walk.

2.7 No unaccompanied minors were approached and only one person per group (or party)

was interviewed. Questionnaires took around ten minutes to complete using a tablet

computer in the field (or in some cases paper copies of the questionnaire). A copy of

the questionnaire can be seen in Appendix 2.

2.8 The questionnaire included a section on where the interviewee had been/would go

during their visit. Surveyors carried a range of paper maps and quizzed the interviewee

regarding the paths, directions etc. taken, showing the interviewee the blank map as


12

appropriate. Routes were cross-referenced to each interview and entered onto the GIS

as individual polylines.

Analysis and Data Presentation

2.9 Where possible, analysis has been undertaken to establish the statistical significance of

differences within the data collected (usually a Chi-square two-way test). Where this

was not possible (e.g. because of a high proportion of low or zero counts), the variation

is shown within tables and where appropriate shown graphically. Within tables, the

highest counts or percentages or totals have been shaded in grey to facilitate

interpretation of the data. In many cases it was necessary to exclude Iping Common

(north) from statistical comparison between sites, as only four people were interviewed

there.

2.10 Route data were summarised within the GIS (Mapinfo 10.5); with routes summarised by

route length (the length of the line, as mapped) and by ‘Penetration Distance’,

calculated as the distance between the interview point and the mid-point of the line,

measured as the crow flies. This distance therefore reflects how far visitors tend to

travel from the car-park/access point before turning back.

2.11 Postcodes were geo-referenced to a standard postcode database (Royal Mail Postzon

data), and the distance between interviewee’s home postcodes and the survey point

extracted within the GIS. This distance represents the straight-line distance (as the

crow flies) rather than the actual travel distance.

2.12 In considering differences between sites, it should be remembered that visitors were

usually only interviewed at one location per site, and that the nature of these locations

varied. For example, some were main access points with formal car parking provision,

others were subsidiary sites with little or no parking (see Table 2), and these factors

may account for some of the differences – in other words differences between sites

may relate to the choice of access point at each site surveyed as much as actual

differences based on geography.

2.13 Means are given + 1 standard error (a measure of the uncertainty of the mean) unless

otherwise stated.


13

.


14

Table 2: Survey locations for face-face interviews/direct counts of people. The numbers in the ID column are those used to label the points in Map 3. Grey shading indicates locations surveyed by Footprint Ecology surveyors.

Id Type CP

Spaces Site Name Notes Tally Details

15 Formal CP 10 Woolbeding Common main NT Woolbeding CP, view point, interpretation Tally counting all people passing through car-park or entering/leaving from the car-park on

foot.

45 Informal P 7 Chapel Common Series of pull-ins along track. Tally counting all people passing through car-park or entering/leaving from the car-park on

foot.

100 Informal P 8 Midhurst Common East side of road close to public footpath access to

common. Tally counting all people passing along path,

entering or leaving the common.

19 Formal CP 20 Blackdown Tennyson's Lane, 100m south, close to access to Owlswood

& Nuthatch (private houses. NT omega sign Blackdown.

Tally counting all people passing through car-park or entering/leaving from the car-park on

foot

150 Foot 0 Marley Common

Tally counting all people passing along path

181 Foot 0 Iping Common

Tally counting all people passing along path, entering or leaving the common or passing

past on circular path inside common

68 Formal CP 30 Lords Piece Berlavington Estate. Height restriction entrance to car-

park.

Tally counting all people passing through car-park or entering/leaving from the car-park on

foot

104 Formal CP 20 Iping (main car park) Height restriction entrance to car-park. Tally counting all people passing through car-park or entering/leaving from the car-park on

foot.

300 Formal CP 80 Wiggonholt Common In corner of RSPB car-park focussed only on people visiting

the Wiggonholt Common part

Tally counting all people entering/leaving from the car-park along track to Wiggonholt

Common .


15

3. Results

Driving Transects

3.1 Six driving transects were undertaken. The total number of parked cars across all

parking locations on a single transect ranged from 79 to 114, with a mean of 93.2.

Direct comparison between weekend days and weekdays is difficult because the times

of day covered were different (see methods), and only a limited number of transects

were undertaken, however there appears relatively little difference between the two

(Table 3). The session with the most cars was early evening on a weekend, which was

the only count with over 100 vehicles. The morning transect on the weekend (1000-

1200) was the quietest, with only 79 vehicles counted. Data are summarised in Map 4

which shows the mean number of cars per point.

Table 3: Summary of driving transect results

Day of week Time of day Total count of cars parked

weekday 0700-0900 98

weekday 1000-1200 82

weekday 1700-1900 95

weekday total

275

weekend 1000-1200 79

weekend 1300-1500 91

weekend 1700-1900 114

weekend total

284


16


17

Tally Data

3.2 Tally data are summarised in Table 4 (groups entering), Table 5 (people entering) and

Table 6 (dogs entering). In total 306 groups were counted entering the sites, these

groups included 470 people and 422 dogs, giving an average group size across all survey

points of 1.5 people and 1.4 dogs. This is equivalent to 0.89 dogs for each person

counted. The data suggest that people visiting between 0700 and 0900 are more likely

to be single visitors with a dog than at other times of day.

3.3 The survey point at Chapel Common was the busiest location (Figure 1); nearly a

quarter (23%) of all groups counted entering sites were counted here. Across all sites

combined, and for four individual survey points (Chapel Common, Iping Main Car-park,

Lord’s Piece and Blackdown2) the early morning session during the weekday was the

busiest survey period in terms of groups counted. For Midhurst Common the weekend

early morning session was the busiest.

Figure 1: Groups entering by site and time period (weekday in green, weekend day grey); from tally data

2 Note that Blackdown was however not surveyed at the weekend


18

Table 4: Total number of groups entering, from tally data. Grey shading highlights the cell(s) with the highest value for each site. Sites are ranked with the busiest sites

listed first.

Location Name Location Code weekday weekend

Total 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900

Chapel common 45 12 10 7 9 8 11 7 6 70

Iping main car-park 104 18 3 6 8 7 6 5 6 59

Lord's Piece 68 7 7 6 6 3 3 4 7 43

Wiggonholt 300 7 8 3 0 2

10 7 37

Woolbeding Common 15 3 4 7 5 0 5 2 5 31

Midhurst Common 100 5 2 2 1 8 5 4 3 30

Blackdown 19 8 0 6 5

19

Marley Common 150 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 12

Iping North 181 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 5

Total

63 38 38 35 30 30 35 37 306

Table 5: Total number of people entering, from tally data. Grey shading highlights the cell(s) with the highest value for each site. Sites are ranked with the busiest sites

listed first.


Total 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900

Chapel common 45 13 12 11 12 9 13 8 12 90



25 18 82


Lord's Piece 68 7 8 10 7 3 4 6 12 57

Midhurst Common 100 5 7 7 2 8 9 5 3 46


25

Marley Common 150 2 6 0 0 0 0 7 4 19

Iping North 181 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 5

Total

73 60 67 53 39 49 62 67 470


19

Table 6: Total number of dogs entering, from tally data. Grey shading highlights the cell(s) with the highest value for each site. Sites are ranked with the busiest sites

listed first.


Total 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900

Chapel common 45 21 12 7 11 11 18 11 10 101


Lord's Piece 68 12 9 13 11 3 1 10 11 70


11 6 51

Midhurst Common 100 4 6 5 0 12 8 9 2 46



22

Marley Common 150 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 7 15

Iping North 181 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 5

Total 91 46 49 43 51 43 53 46 422


20

Questionnaires

Visitor interviews

3.4 The total number of interviews across the nine sites was 242 (Table 7). Roughly equal

numbers of females and males were interviewed (51% female, 48 male, 1%

unspecified). Most interviewees were on their own (57%), with groups of two being the

next most common (36%) with small numbers of larger groups of up to nine individuals.

Table 7: The number of interviews carried out at different sites.

Site name No. of interviews carried out

Black Down 18

Chapel Common 53

Iping Common (main car park) 42

Iping Common (north) 4

Lords Piece 32

Marley Common 9

Midhurst Common 27

Wiggonholt Common 25

Woolbeding Common 32

Total 242

3.5 The age ranges for all members of groups from which one person was interviewed were

recorded for all but 10 groups. Sixty plus was the most common age range (38%),

followed by 46-59 (36%), with around five percent within the ranges of <16 and 17-25

and 15% within 26-45.

Type of visit

3.6 Most visitors were on a day trip/short visit and had travelled from home, with only 4%

on holiday in the area or staying with friends and family.

Table 8: Type of visit.

Which of the following best describes your situation today? No. of interviewees (%)

On a day trip/short visit & staying with friends or family 6 (2)

On a day trip/short visit and travelled from home 231 (96)

On holiday in the area, staying away from home 4 (2)


21

Activities

3.7 The activity most commonly undertaken was dog walking (78% of interviewees).

Walking was the next most popular activity, followed by wildlife watching. ‘Other’ main

activities included horse-riding and motor biking.

Table 9: Activities undertaken.

What is the main activity you are undertaking today? No. of interviewees (%)

Cycling 4 (2)

Dog walking 188 (78)

Enjoy scenery 3 (1)

Jogging/power walking/exercise 4 (2)

Meet up with friends 1 (<1)

Other 4 (2)

Outing with family 3 (1)

Walking 28 (12)

Wildlife watching 7 (3)

3.8 A small number of Interviewees also mentioned secondary activities, which included

walking to work, watching the evening sun, and visiting with a partner undertaking

botany.

3.9 The proportion of interviewees who were dog walking compared to other activities (see

Table 10) was higher than expected (compared to the overall proportion of dog walkers

across all sites) at some sites. These were Chapel Common and Lord Piece. The

proportion of dog walkers was lower than expected at Blackdown Common, Iping

Common (main car park), Woolbeding Common and Wiggonholt Common (Chi-Sq. =

24.24, DF = 7, P-Value = 0.001).


22

Table 10: The number of people (percentage) undertaking different activities at each site.

Bla

ck D

ow

n

Ch

ape

l Co

mm

on

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n (

mai

n

car

par

k)

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n (

no

rth

)

Lord

s P

iece

Mar

ley

Co

mm

on

Mid

hu

rst

Co

mm

on

Wig

gon

ho

lt C

om

mo

n

Wo

olb

edin

g C

om

mo

n

Cycling

1 (25)

2 (7)

1 (3)

Dog walking 11 (61) 50 (94) 31 (74) 3 (75) 30 (94) 7 (78) 20 (74) 17 (68) 19 (59)

Enjoy scenery

1 (4) 2 (6)

Jogging/power walking/exercise

1 (6)

1 (2)

1 (4)

1 (3)

Meet up with friends

1 (4)

Other

2 (5)

1 (4) 1 (3)

Outing with family 1 (6)

1 (3)

1 (3)

Walking 4 (22) 2 (4) 6 (14)

1 (3) 2 (22) 4 (15) 3 (12) 6 (19)

Wildlife watching 1 (6) 1 (2) 2 (5)

2 (8) 1 (3)

Total 18 53 42 4 32 9 27 25 32

Duration, frequency and timing of visit

3.10 Most interviewees had spent or were planning to spend between 30 minutes and one

hour on site. Very few people (<3%) spent over 2 hours, but a significant number spent

either less than 30 minutes or between one and two hours. Visit duration varied

between sites, with more interviewees than expected spending over one hour at

Blackdown and Wiggonholt Common, and fewer than expected spending over one hour

at Chapel Common, Iping Common (main car park) and Lord’s Piece (Chi-Sq = 39.365, DF

= 7, P-Value = 0.000.

Table 11. Visit duration.

How long have you spent/will you spend in the area today? No. of interviewees (%)

Less than 30 minutes 49 (20)

Between 30 minutes and 1 hour 152 (62)

1-2 hours 36 (15)

2-3 hours 4 (2)

More than 3 hours 1 (<1)

3.11 Most interviewees tended to visit daily, on most days or between one and three times a

week. A few visited monthly or less than one a month, and 8% were first-time visitors

(Table 12). One interviewee commented that she tended to avoid visiting in the winter

as it was muddy, while another liked to visit in hot weather as it was shady.


23

Table 12: Visit frequency.

Over the past year, roughly how often have you visited? No. of interviewees (%)

Daily 69 (29)

Most days (180+ visits) 47 (19)

1 to 3 times a week (40-180 visits) 63 (26)

2 to 3 times per month (15-40 visits) 22 (9)

Once a month (6-15 visits) 15 (6)

Less than once a month (2-5 visits) 14 (5)

First visit 8 (3)

Other 4 (2)

3.12 The proportion of interviewees who visited daily at different frequencies also varied

between sites (see Table 13) with the greatest proportion of daily (or most days )

visitors at Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece and the greatest proportion of less

frequent visitors at Woolbeding and Iping (main car park) commons (Chi-Sq = 35.424,

DF = 14, P-Value = 0.001).

Table 13: Visit frequency. + indicates greater than expected, - less than expected and = as expected

Daily (or most days) 1-3 times a week less than once a week

Black Down + = -

Chapel Common + = -

Iping Common (main car park) - + + Lords Piece + = - Marley Common + - - Midhurst Common + - + Wiggonholt Common - + + Woolbeding - + + 3.13 The data suggest that visits were spread out throughout the day, although more took

place before 9am than at other times of day. Fewest visits occurred in the afternoon.

The visit time of one quarter of interviewees tended to vary (or they were unable to

answer).

Table 14: Visit timing

Do you tend to visit this area at a certain time of day? No. of interviewees (%)

Early morning (before 9am) 78

Late morning (between 9am and 12) 59

Early afternoon (between 12 and 2) 25

Late afternoon (between 2 and 4pm) 40

Evening (after 4pm) 63

Varies / Don't know 62

First visit 8


24

3.14 There was an apparent difference between sites in terms of the time visits were usually

undertaken (a statistical test was not possible due a high number of low occurrences,

including periods where no interviewees were taken because no visitors were present).

Early morning was the most popular time at Chapel Common, Iping Common (north),

Marley Common and Wiggonholt Common. This is shown in Figure 2. At Blackdown and

Woolbeding, respondents did not have a particular time they visited (or were unable to

answer), and at Lords Piece evening was most popular.

Figure 2. Variation in the timing of visits between sites.

3.15 Most visitors interviewed tended to visit year around. A small number tended to visit

only in summer, winter, or a combination of other seasons. None visited only in spring

or autumn. Variation between sites is shown in Figure 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% in

terv

iew

ee

s w

ho

no

rma

lly v

isit

du

riin

g e

ach

tim

e s

pa

n

Early morning (before 9am) Late morning (between 9am and 12)

Early afternoon (between 12 and 2) Late afternoon (between 2 and 4pm)

Evening (after 4pm) Varies / Don't know

First visit


25

Table 15: Visit seasonality

Do you tend to visit this area at a particular time of year? No. of interviewees (%)

Equally all year 207 (86)

Spring (Mar-May) only 0

Summer (Jun-Aug) only 9 (4)

Autumn (Sept-Nov) only 0

Winter (Dec-Feb) only 2 (1)

Summer (Jun-Aug) & Winter (Dec-Feb) 1 (<1)

Summer (Jun-Aug) & Autumn (Sept-Nov) 1 (<1)

Spring (Mar-May), Autumn (Sept-Nov) & Winter (Dec-Feb) 3 (1)

Spring (Mar-May) & Summer (Jun-Aug) 2 (1)

Spring (Mar-May), Summer (Jun-Aug) & Autumn (Sept-Nov) 6 (2)

First visit 8 (3)

Don't know 2 (1)

Figure 3. Variation in the seasonality of visits between sites.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f in

terv

iew

ees

Spring (Mar-May) Summer (Jun-Aug) Autumn (Sept-Nov)

Winter (Dec-Feb) Equally all year First visit/Don't know


26

Transport to site

3.16 Car (or van) was easily the most common mode of transport to the sites where

interviews were carried out, although 12% of interviewees walked, and a small number

arrived by bike, motorbike or on horseback.

Table 16: Modes of transport

How did you get here today? What form of transport did you use? No. of interviewees (%)

Car / van 204 (85)

On foot 28 (12)

Horse 3 (1)

Bicycle 4 (2)

Motorbike 1 (<1)

3.17 The average group size for interviewees arriving by car was 1.63 + 0.08, slightly higher

than for those arriving by foot: 1.39 + 0.09.

3.18 There was considerable variation between sites in the proportions of interviewees who

arrived by car/van and who walked, cycled or arrived by other means of transport (see

Figure 4). The proportion of interviewees arriving on foot were particularly high at Iping

Common (north) (but note that only four people were interviewed here and there is

very limited parking), also at Marley Common and Midhurst Common, whereas nobody

arriving on foot was interviewed at Black Down and Chapel Common.

Figure 4. Variation in the mode of transport between sites.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f in

terv

iew

ees

Bicycle

Car / van

On foot

Other


27

Reasons for visiting the site/area

3.19 All respondents were asked to give their reasons for visiting the particular site where

they were being interviewed, and to identify the main reason influencing their choice of

destination on that occasion. Responses were varied, but 44% visited out of habit or

familiarity with the site, and 38% because of the quality of the area. Thirty percent

mentioned the scenery or views, and 28% said it was good for the dog or the dog

enjoyed it. Parking and travelling was important for 27%. A proportion gave other

reasons than those listed in the questionnaire (31%). The most frequent of these was

that the site was “close to home” (13% of all respondents). Other reasons included flat

terrain, dry underfoot, a change of scene from their regular site, the mix of habitats, the

presence of shade and shelter, meeting other people and safety for dogs plus a range of

more personal reasons (meeting family, dropping someone off nearby etc.).

Table 17: Why interviewees chose to visit the site

Why did you choose to specifically visit this area today, rather than another local site?

No. of responses*

(%)

No. of interviewees (%) who gave this as main reason influencing their

choice of destination

Quick & easy travel route 49 (20) 19 (8)

Good / easy parking 18 (7) 1 (<1)

No need to use car 14 (6) 6 (2)

Habit / familiarity 107 (44) 82 (31)

Closest place to take the dog 15 (6) 4 (2)

Ability to let dog off lead 57 (24) 5 (2)

Closest place to let dog safely off lead 57 (24) 2 (1)

Good for dog / dog enjoys it 68 (28) 19 (8)

Quality of the area 93 (38) 13 (5)

Scenery / variety of views 72 (30) 10 (4)

Rural feel / wild landscape 18 (7) 4 (2)

Particular wildlife interest 19 (8) 7 (3)

Choice of routes 71 (29) 11 (5)

Right place for activity 21 (9) 5 (2)

Feels safe here 23 (10) 3 (1)

Quiet, with no traffic noise 26 (11) 2 (1)

Not many people 37 (15) 0

Refreshments / cafe/ pub 3 (<1) 2 (1)

Other, please detail 76 (31) 49 (20)

*Note that interviewees could give more than one response 3.20 The main reason most commonly given (for choosing the site where the interview took

place rather than another) was again habit or familiarity. Convenience (quick and easy

travel route) (8%), and closeness to home under “other” (13%) and factors concerning

suitability for dogs (13% in total) were also important. Reasons listed under “other” can

be seen in Appendix 3 .


28

3.21 Reasons for visiting varied somewhat between sites (see Figure 5). Some key

differences are drawn out in Table 138 and all data are given in Appendix 4.

Table 18. Some key difference between sites in terms of the relative proportions of interviewees visiting for specified reasons.

High proportion Low proportion None

Reasons relating to dogs (all

combined)

Lord’s Piece

Chapel Common

Midhurst Common

Black Down

Marley Common Iping (north)

No need to use car/quick or

quick and easy travel route”

Iping Common (north)

Midhurst Common

Chapel Common

Iping Common (main car

park)

Lords Piece

Woolbeding Common

Quality of the area Wiggonholt Common

Woolbeding Common


Marley Common

Scenery/rural feel Woolbeding Common Iping Common (north)

Marley Common

Habit Chapel Common

Lord’s Piece


Marley Commons

Midhurst


29

No need to use car Quick & easy travel route Good / easy parking Feels safe here Choice of routes Quality of the area Scenery / variety of views Rural feel / wild landscape Habit / familiarity Right place for activity Particular wildlife interest Good for dog / dog enjoys it Ability to let dog off lead Closest place to take the dog Closest place to let dog safely off lead Quiet, with no traffic noise Refreshments / cafe/ pub Not many people Other

Black Down Chapel Common

Iping Common (main car park)

Iping Common (north) Lords Piece


30

Wiggonholt Common

Marley Common Midhurst Common Woolbeding

Figure 5: Variation in the reasons for visiting given between sites (all responses – note that this is not the proportion of individuals giving each response, as multiple responses were possible, but the proportion of responses that fall within each category). This data can be seen expressed in terms of percentages of interviewees in Appendix 7.


31

Visitor perceptions of specific site features and how they might enhance their enjoyment

3.22 Visitors were asked whether they would find particular features negative or positive on

the site where they were interviewed. For most features, the majority of interviewees

expressed the same opinion. For example, access exclusions to protect wildlife, byelaws

to limit BBQs, fines for not collecting dog waste and penalties to enforce anti-social

behaviour were perceived of by most interviewees as being positive, while a

requirement to keep dogs on leads, a cafe, and the site being busy with lots of other

people were perceived as negative. Most people felt that the presence of a warden was

of little importance, and views were divided about picnic tables although more

interviewees considered these to be negative features than positive or of little

importance, similarly with path surfacing/maintenance3

Table 19. Visitor perceptions of specific site features.

Please indicate whether you see these site features as negative or positive at the site you visited?

No. of interviewees (%)

Little/no importance/irrelevant

Negative Positive

A requirement to keep dogs on leads 22 (9) 184 (77) 34 (14)

Access excluded from certain areas to protect wildlife 33 (14) 25 (10) 182 (76)

Byelaws to limit BBQs 35 (15) 16 (7) 189 (79)

Cafe 36 (15) 160 (68) 41 (17)

Fines for not collecting dog waste 38 (16) 45 (19) 156 (65)

Path network surfaced and maintained 45 (19) 126 (53) 68 (28)

Penalties/enforcement for unsociable behaviour 51 (21) 2 (1) 185 (78)

Picnic tables 57 (24) 106 (44) 77 (32)

Presence of a warden 152 (64) 14 (6) 73 (31)

Site busy with lots of other people 58 (24) 151 (63) 30 (13)

Toilets 43 (18) 147 (31) 50 (21)

3.23 Again, there were differences between sites (full data are presented in Appendix 5). A

smaller proportion of interviewees at Black Down than at other sites felt that a

requirement to keep dogs on leads would be negative. A particularly high proportion of

interviewees at Iping Common (north), Chapel Common and Lord’s Piece felt it would

be negative. A notably high proportion at these three sites also felt that access

restrictions to protect wildlife would be beneficial.

3.24 Views on whether improved path surface/better path maintenance would be beneficial

were very varied, with 100% of interviewees at Marley Common perceiving it as

negative, and 75% at Iping Common (north) and 68% at Wiggonholt saying it would be

positive.

3.25 At most sites, a requirement to pick up dog waste was perceived as being positive by

the majority of interviewees, although this was smaller at Lord’s Piece than other sites,


32

and at Woolbeding Common opinion was fairly equally divided between negative and

positive, with about 25% feeling it was of little or no importance or irrelevant.

3.26 Views on the site being busy with lots of people were varied, with particularly high

proportion of interviewees suggesting this would be negative at Lord’s Piece, Marley

Common and Woolbeding Common.

3.27 Interviewees were also asked about features or actions that might enhance their

enjoyment of the site where they were interviewed. A large minority suggested that

there were no particular changes that would enhance their enjoyment (or they were

not sure). However, 15% felt that vegetation management would do so. Where

specified, this generally related to cutting back bracken along paths, ragwort control

and cutting grass. Vegetation management specifically for wildlife was mentioned by

two interviewees, and one asked for more views to be opened up while on the other

hand one stated they did not approve of cutting. Fourteen percent of respondents felt

that more dog bins would enhance their enjoyment of the site, although in several

cases this was mentioned in the context of enforcement (i.e. they felt that if penalties

were to be introduced, dog bins should be provided). One person felt that dog owners

should be more considerate, and another requested that an area with no access for

dogs should be provided.

3.28 Improvements to parking were mentioned by 11% of interviewees, and, in cases where

specific comments were recorded, related to dealing with potholes or improving

security, with one request to make the car park secure for dogs. Path maintenance was

mentioned by four percent of interviewees, and generally related to keeping paths clear

or resurfacing in very specific locations such as entry points.

3.29 Other features mentioned included installing more seating (benches or more informal

seating such as logs) (three percent of interviewees). The presence of cattle was raised

by 11 people (three percent), most of whom stated that they were worried by the

presence of cattle or requested notice of when they would arrive, although three

people specifically mentioned that they liked the cattle. There were requests for more

footpaths signs, interpretation about management, a map, more habitat management

and a bird viewing platform. All comments given can be seen in Appendix 6.


33

Table 20: Changes that would enhance interviewees’ enjoyment.

Are there any particular changes at this site that you would like to see that would enhance your enjoyment of visits here?


No change/nothing/not sure 112 (46)

Vegetation management: cutting/mowing etc. 37 (15)

More dog bins or measures relating to dog fouling 33 (14)

Improvements to parking (more spaces, better surface etc.) 26 (11)

More interpretation, information or guidance 20 (8)

More litter bins or measures relating to litter 11 (5)

Improved path surfacing/better maintained paths 9 (4)

More paths, e.g. longer routes, circular routes 2 (1)

Cafe, toilets or other facilities 1 (<1)

3.30 There were some clear differences between sites (see Table 21), particularly with regard

to the proportion of interviewees who felt no change was needed, vegetation

management, and measures relating to dog fouling. Measures falling under the “other”

category were given by a particularly high proportion of interviewees at Chapel

Common, who indicated that changes in the presence of cattle and in ragwort

management would increase their enjoyment of the site, among a variety of other

comments.

Table 21: Changes that would enhance interviewees’ enjoyment at each site (n.b. total number interviewed at Iping Common (north) was only four).

Site

No

ch

ange

/no

thin

g/n

ot

sure

Im

pro

vem

ents

to

par

kin

g (m

ore

sp

ace

s, b

ette

r su

rfac

e et

c.)

Veg

etat

ion

man

age

men

t:

cutt

ing/

mo

win

g et

c.

Mo

re d

og

bin

s o

r m

easu

res

rela

tin

g

to d

og

fou

ling

Mo

re li

tte

r b

ins

or

mea

sure

s

rela

tin

g to

litt

er

Im

pro

ved

pat

h s

urf

acin

g/b

ette

r m

ain

tain

ed p

ath

s

Mo

re p

ath

s, e

.g. l

on

ger

rou

tes,

ci

rcu

lar

rou

tes

Mo

re in

terp

reta

tio

n, i

nfo

rmat

ion

or

guid

ance

Oth

er/m

ore

det

ails

Caf

e, t

oile

ts o

r o

ther

fac

iliti

es

Black Down 33 6 0 17 11 17 0 39 17 0

Chapel Common 38 2 36 17 0 2 0 8 68 0

Iping Common (main car park)

62 0 7 2 0 17 0 2 17 0


25 0 50 25 25 25 0 25 50 0

Lords Piece 44 6 0 41 6 0 0 0 50 0

Marley Common 78 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 22 0

Midhurst Common 48 7 11 11 15 15 0 4 26 0

Wiggonholt Common

40 12 4 8 0 16 8 12 24 0

Woolbeding 47 0 25 3 6 16 0 9 50 3


34

Dogs

3.31 The majority of people interviewed had one of more dogs with them. There were 306

dogs recorded during interviews with 242 people, giving a mean figure of 1.24 dogs per

person4. Seventy-nine percent of interviewees had one or more dogs with them. Of

these, about 40% had more than one dog with them (including one person with eight

dogs).

4 Note that this is slightly lower than the figure derived from the tally data (1.4 dogs/person). The tally data is

likely to be more accurate as it is a total count of people, rather than a sample.


35

Table 22: The number of interviewees with difference numbers of dogs.

No. of dogs with interviewee No. of interviewees (%)

0 51 (21)

1 116 (48)

2 54 (22)

3 11 (5)

4 6 (2)

5 2 (1)

7 1 (<1)

8 1 (<1)

3.32 Most dogs were off the lead (84%) when observed by the interviewers. Ninety-six

percent of interviewees with dogs said that they had (or intended to) let their dog off

the lead on their visit (note that some interviewees had one dog on a lead and one or

more dogs off the lead at the same time). There was substantial variation between

sites, with nearly all dogs (>90%) off the lead at Iping Common (north), Lord’s Piece,

Marley Common and Woolbeding Common and a relatively low proportion at Black

Down (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: The number of dogs (and dogs off the lead) at each site surveyed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Black Down Chapel Common

Iping Common (main car

park)


Lords Piece Marley Common

Midhurst Common

Wiggonholt Common

Woolbeding Common

No. of dogs No. dogs off lead


36

Other sites visited

A total of 136 other sites were listed by interviewees as places that they also visited for the same

activity. Table 23 lists the most commonly visited sites. All sites mentioned can be seen in Appendix

7 and Figure 7 provides a visual representation of the frequency with which sites were mentioned.

Table 23: Other sites visited by interviewees to carry out the same activities as they enjoyed at the site where they were interviewed.

Do you visit any other open spaces locally to undertake the same activity? No. of references

Hindhead/Devil's Punch Bowl 30

Iping Common 30

Durford Heath 25

Bignor Hill 24

Harting Down 24

Linchmere Common 18

Woolbeding Common 18

Blackdown 17

Cowdray Park 17

Petworth Park 15

South Downs 15

Fittleworth common 10

Liss Forest 10

Marley Common 10

Pulborough Brooks 10

Midhurst Common 9

Stedham Common 9

The Severals 9

Chapel Common 7

Graffham Common 7

Iron Hill 7

Ludshott Common 7

Kithurst Hill 6

Petersfield Heath 6

Rogate Common 5

Sullington Warren 5

Swan Barn Farm 5


37

Figure 7: Visual representation of the frequency with which interviewees mentioned other sites as other places they visited for the same activity (see

Appendix 7 for a full list).


38

Routes

3.33 For the majority of people (62%), the route undertaken on the day when interviewed

was reflective of their usual route (Table 24). Roughly similar proportions had taken a

route that was much longer (16%) or much shorter (17%) than normal.

Table 24: Responses to Question 11, whether the route today was reflective of usual route

Response No. of interviewees (%)

Yes, normal 151 (62)

Much longer than normal 3 (1)

Much shorter than normal 39 (16)

Not sure/no typical visit 41 (17)

N/A (first visit) 8 (3)

3.34 Routes are shown in Map 5, which shows the extent to which interviewees’ routes

extended out from each surveyed access point.

3.35 Route lengths are summarised by activity in Table 25. For the main activities route

lengths ranged from just 50m to 6.65km. Most routes were between two and three

kilometres in length.

Table 25: Summary statistics of route lengths (km) by activity. Only activities with at least 4 routes mapped

are included.

Activity Routes mapped

Mean (+ 1 S.E.)

Min Max Median

Cycling 4 3.51 (0.96) 2.04 6.26 2.87

Dog walking 188 2.19 (0.07) 0.42 5.97 2.06

Jogging/power walking

4 3.72 (0.79) 2.64 6.06 3.08

Walking 28 2.81 (0.29) 0.05 6.65 2.55

Wildlife Watching

7 2.70 (0.56) 1.34 5.08 2.06

3.36 The ‘penetration distance’ (i.e. how far people tended to travel from the interview

point, measured as the crow flies) for one route was over 2km, but most interviewees

tended to stay much closer to the access point, with the median distance being 562m

from the interview point (Figure 8).


39

Figure 8: Cumulative Percentage Curve for ‘Penetration Distance’ (the distance between the mid-point of

each route and the interview point, measured as the crow flies).

3.37 Interviewees were asked what might have influenced their choice of route. Most (49%)

indicated that they used their previous knowledge of the site to choose a route. Other

important factors were the weather, time and the activity undertaken. In all cases

where this was specified, except two, this related to dog walking. The two other cases

related to looking for wildlife. Appendix 8 gives the breakdown of reasons by site.

What, if anything, influenced your choice of route here today? No. of interviewees (%)

Activity undertaken (e.g. presence of dog) 47 (19)

Daylight 2 (1)

Followed a marked trail 11 (5)

Interpretation/leaflets 2 (1)

Muddy tracks / paths 4 (2)

Other people 11 (5)

Other/please detail: 37 (15)

Previous knowledge of area / experience 118 (49)

Shade 7 (3)

Time 41 (17)

Wanting to be near water 9 (4)

Weather 34 (14)

*Note that interviewees were able to give more than one response.

3.38 Other factors specified by interviewees included allowing the dog to choose the route,

choosing a short, flat or easy route, avoiding ponds due to blue-green algae, exploring,

0

25

50

75

100

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

%

'Penetration Distance' (m)


40

following a whim, avoiding cyclists, horse-riders or other dogs and a variety of other

reasons (see Appendix 9).

3.39 Most people interviewed were not intending to leave the footpath or trail during their

visit.

Table 26: Number (%) of interviewees starting off paths and trails during visit

Did you/do you intend to go off the footpath or trails during your visit today?


Yes 38 (15)

No 200 (83)

Not sure 2 (1)


41


42

Postcodes

3.40 A total of 225 interviews (93%) generated valid, full postcodes that could be plotted

within the GIS. Home postcodes of all visitors interviewed (apart from one person who

was on holiday and lived in Scotland) are shown in Maps 6-9.

3.41 The distribution of interviewee postcodes shows a wide scatter. Many were residents

at local settlements (Table 27), but there were a range of visitors from the south coast

(see Maps 6-8). Across all survey points, the mean distance from interviewee’s home

postcode to the survey point where interviewed was 8.44km (+ 2.63). There was one

interviewee from Scotland (their postcode was 582km from the survey point) and the

majority of interviewees were much more local than the mean suggests: the median

distance was 3.47km (i.e. 50% of interviewees came from postcodes within 3.47km) and

the third quartile (i.e. the distance from which 75% of visitors had originated) was

6.68km. Comparison between survey points (Figure 5) shows particularly local visitors

at Marley Common, Midhurst Common and to some extent Blackdown.

Figure 9: Distance from survey point to home postcode by survey location. Y axis truncated at 30km.

Boxplot shows the median value (horizontal line), interquartile range (box), the upper and lower limit of the

data (vertical lines) and outliers (asterisks).

Dis

tan

ce (

km)

Woo

lbeding

Wig

gonho

lt Com

mon

Mid

hurst

Com

mon

Marle

y Com

mon

Lord

s Piece

Ipin

g Comm

on (n

orth

)

Iping C

omm

on (m

ain car p

ark )

Chape

l Com

mon

Black D

own

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


43

Table 27: Number of interviewees by settlement. Settlements defined using OS urban areas (2001) open source boundary data. Grey shading indicates combinations of

settlements and survey points with at least 5 interviewees.

Settlement

Survey Point

Total Black Down Chapel Common

Iping Common (main Car Park)

Iping Common (north) Lords Piece Marley Common Midhurst Common Wiggonholt Common Woolbeding

Amberley

1

1

Arundel

1

1

Bognor Regis

1 2

3

Chichester

1

2

3

Climping

1

1

Coldwaltham

3

1

4

Egham

1

1

Fernhurst

3 3

Fittleworth

5

5

Fleet

1

1

Grayswood 1

1

Haslemere 12

2

4

1 19

Haywards Heath

1

1

Liphook 1 7

2 10

Liss

20

1 21

Littlehampton

2

2

4

Lodsworth

1

1

Midhurst

10

19

7 36

Oxford 1

1

Petersfield

10 3

1 14

Pulborough

4

5

9

Richmond upon Thames

1

1

Rushfield

1

1

Shoreham

1 1

South Harting

3

3

Stedham

5 3

3 11

Steyning/Upper Beeding

1

1

Storrington

4

4

Waterlooville

1

1

West Chiltington Common

1

4

5

Worthing

1

1

Total 15 38 28 3 17 5 23 21 19 169


44


45


46


47


48

4. Discussion

4.1 A range of visitor data are presented and summarised and these describe a snapshot of

access patterns across a wide area. The survey design is one that can be repeated in

the future and the data is tiered with different levels of detail/coverage. The counts of

parked vehicles provide counts across all the southern heathland blocks. At a sample of

access points there are detailed counts of people and then a sub-set of these has been

interviewed.

4.2 The car-park counts indicate – at any one time – around 93 vehicles present. The mean

group size for interviewees who arrived by car was 1.63 people; this would suggest that

at any one time there would be 155 people on the surveyed heaths who had arrived by

car. These data are summarised in more detail spatially in a separate report (Liley &

Lake 2014) , where they are used to derive a model showing predicted access levels

across all sites. Such data provides a basis for comparing sites and can be combined

with other data such as bird distribution or productivity data.

Limitations

4.3 The data provide a basis for generating estimates of visitor numbers and distribution

across all sites. In scaling up the data or using it for comparative purposes it is

important to highlight that the interviews were with a sample of visitors. While every

attempt was made to ensure a random sample of people were interviewed, certain

activities (such as cycling), are likely to be under-sampled (in the case of cycling as users

are likely to travel at speed and therefore harder to stop and interview).

4.4 Given that only a small sample of access points were surveyed (9 out of 224), the visitor

interviews may not have captured the full range of activities and the proportions of

visitors undertaking different activities may not necessarily reflect the overall levels of

each type of use.


49

6. References

Alessa, L., Bennett, S.M. & Kliskey, A.D. (2003) Effects of knowledge, personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviors in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 207–218.

Clarke, R.T., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J.C. & Rose, R.J. (2006) Visitor Access Patterns on the Dorset Heaths. English Nature.

Clarke, R.T., Sharp, J. & Liley, D. (2008) Access Patterns in South-East Dorset. The Dorset Household Survey: Consequences for Future Housing and Greenspace Provision. Footprint Ecology.

Clarke, R.T., Sharp, J. & Liley, D. (2010) Ashdown Forest Visitor Survey Data Analysis. Natural England Commissioned Report, Natural England.

Cruickshanks, K., Liley, D. & Hoskin, R. (2010) Suffolk Sandlings Visitor Survey Report. Footprint Ecology / Suffolk Wildlife Trust.

English Nature. (2002) Lowland Heathland- a Cultural and Endangered Landscape. English Nature, Peterborough.

Hammond, N. (1998) Modern Wildlife Painting. Pica Books, Sussex.

Haskins, L. (2000) Heathlands in an urban setting - effects of urban development on heathlands of south-east Dorset. British Wildlife, 11, 229–237.

Kals, E., Schumacher, D. & Montada, L. (1999) Emotional Affinity toward Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.

Kaplan, S. (2000) New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Human Nature and Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 491–508.

Kirby, J.S. & Tantram, D.A.S. (1999) Monitoring Heathland Fires in Dorset: Phase 1.

Liley, D. & Clarke, R.T. (2003) The impact of urban development and human disturbance on the numbers of nightjar Caprimulgus europaeus on heathlands in Dorset, England. Biological Conservation, 114, 219 – 230.

Liley, D., Clarke, R.T., Mallord, J.W. & Bullock, J.M. (2006) The Effect of Urban Development and Human Disturbance on the Distribution and Abundance of Nightjars on the Thames Basin and Dorset Heaths. Natural England / Footprint Ecology.

Liley, D, Jackson, D & Underhill-Day, J C. (2005) Visitor Access on the Thames Basin Heaths. Unpublished report to English nature, Footprint Ecology, Wareham Dorset.

Liley, D, Underhill-Day, J, White, J & Sharp, J. (2009) Evidence Base Relating to Cannock Chase SAC and the Appropriate Assessment of Local Authority Core Strategies. Footprint Ecology / Stafford Borough Council.

Liley, D., Jackson, D.B. & Underhill-Day, J.C. (2006) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature, Peterborough.


50

Liley, D. & Lake, S. (2014) Distribution of Annex I Birds in Relation to Visitor Pressure in the SOuth Downs National Park. Unpublished report by Footprint Ecology for the South Downs National Park Authority.

Lowen, J., Liley, D., Underhill-Day, J. & Whitehouse, A.T. (2008) Access and Nature Conservation Reconciliation: supplementary guidance for England.

Mallord, J.W. (2005) Predicting the Consequences of Human Disturbance, Urbanisation and Fragmentation for a Woodlark Lullula Arborea Population. UEA, School of Biological Sciences, Norwich.

Mallord, J.W., Dolman, P.M., Brown, A.F. & Sutherland, W.J. (2007) Linking recreational disturbance to population size in a ground-nesting passerine. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 185–195.

Miller, J.R. & Hobbs, R.J. (2002) Conservation Where People Live and Work. Conservation Biology, 16, 330–337.

De Molinaar, H.J.G. (1998) On-the-Spot Appraisal of the Dorset Heathland, UK. Report and Recommendations to the Standing Committee on The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Council of Europe., Strasbourg:

Morris, N. (2003) Health, Well-Being and Open Space Literature Review. Edinburgh Colleage of Art and Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh.

Murison, G. (2002) The Impact of Human Disturbance on the Breeding Success of Nightjar Caprimulgus Europaeus on Heathlands in South Dorset, England. English Nature, Peterborough.

Murison, G., Bullock, J.M., Underhill-Day, J., Langston, R., Brown, A.F. & Sutherland, W.J. (2007) Habitat type determines the effects of disturbance on the breeding productivity of the Dartford Warbler Sylvia undata. Ibis, 149, 16–26.

Nisbet, E.K., Zelenski, J.M. & Murphy, S.A. (2009) The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.

Penny Anderson Associates. (2006) A Review of the Effects of Recreation and Sport on Nature Conservation. English Nature, Peterborough.

Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Selens, M. & South, N. (2005) A countryside for health and well-being: the physical and mental health benefits of green exercise. Countryside Recreation, 13, 2–7.

Robinson, J.G. (2006) Conservation Biology and Real-World Conservation. Conservation Biology, 20, 658–669.

Saunders, G. (2005) Knowing from the start. ECOS, 26.

Sharp, J., Lowen, J. & Liley, D. (2008) Recreational Pressure on the New Forest National Park, with Particular Reference to the New Forest SPA. New Forest National Park Authority / Footprint Ecology.

Snyder, G. (1990) The Practice of the Wild. North Point Press, New York.


51

Tansley, A.G. (1945) Our Heritage of Wild Nature. Cambridge University Press.

Thompson, D.B.A., Price, M.F. & Galbraith, C.A. (2005) Mountains of Northern Europe: Conservation, Management, People and Nature. Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, UK.

TNS Research International. (2011) NECR083 - Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment: The national survey on people and the natural environment - Annual Report from the 2010-11 survey, http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NECR083

UE Associates Ltd. (2009) Visitor Access Patterns on European Sites Surrounding Whitehill and Bourdon, East Hampshire.


52

7. Appendices

Appendix 1: Summary of survey dates and rainfall

The table shows the dates individual locations were surveyed. Grey shading indicates a two hour period with rain, with the intensity of shading reflecting

the amount of time during the two hour session that rain was falling: the darkest shade indicates rain for at least three quarters of the time (this intensity

was recorded for three 2 hour sessions); medium grey shading indicates rain for 25-50% of the session (one session) and pale grey reflects rain for up to a

quarter of the session (11 sessions). 52 sessions were without rain.

Location Name

Location Code

weekday weekend Total number survey

sessions

0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900 0700-0900 1000-1200 1300-1500 1700-1900

Blackdown 19 21/08/2014 21/08/2014 20/08/2014 20/08/2014

4

Chapel common 45 13/08/2014 13/08/2014 13/08/2014 13/08/2014 19/07/2014 19/07/2014 19/07/2014 19/07/2014 8

Iping main car-park 104 31/07/2014 31/07/2014 31/07/2014 31/07/2014 02/08/2014 02/08/2014 02/08/2014 02/08/2014 8

Lord's Piece 68 11/08/2014 11/08/2014 11/08/2014 11/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014 10/08/2014 8

Marley Common 150 01/08/2014 01/08/2014 01/08/2014 01/08/2014 03/08/2014 03/08/2014 03/08/2014 03/08/2014 8

Midhurst Common 100 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 06/08/2014 23/08/2014 24/08/2014 24/08/2014 24/08/2014 8

Iping North 181 18/08/2014 12/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 09/08/2014 24/08/2014 20/08/2148 09/08/2014 8

Wiggonholt 300 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 10/08/2014

10/08/2014 10/08/2014 7

Woolbeding Common 15 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 12/08/2014 20/07/2014 20/07/2014 20/07/2014 20/07/2014 8


53

Appendix 2: Questionnaire Good morning/afternoon. I am conducting a visitor survey for the South Downs National Park Authority and wondered if you could spare me a few minutes to answer some questions about your visit today? Q1 Which of the following best describes your situation today? Read list, single response only. On a day trip/short visit and travelled from home On a day trip/short visit & staying with friends or family On holiday in the area, staying away from home Other, please detail Further details Q2 What is the main activity you are undertaking today? Tick closest answer. Do not prompt. Single response only. Dog walking Walking Jogging/power walking/exercise Outing with family Cycling Wildlife watching Meet up with friends Enjoy scenery Photography Other: Further details/other Q3 How long have you spent / will you spend in the area today? Single response only. Less than 30 minutes Between 30 minutes and 1 hour 1-2 hours 2-3 hours More than 3 hours Q4 Over the past year, roughly how often have you visited this area? Tick closest answer, single response only. Only prompt if interviewee struggles. Daily Most days (180+ visits) 1 to 3 times a week (40-180 visits) 2 to 3 times per month (15-40 visits) Once a month (6-15 visits)


54

Less than once a month (2-5 visits) Don't know First visit Other, please detail Further details: Q5 Do you tend to visit this area at a certain time of day? Tick closest answers. Multiple answers ok. Early morning (before 9am) Late morning (between 9am and 12) Early afternoon (between 12 and 2) Late afternoon (between 2 and 4pm) Evening (after 4pm) Varies / Don't know First visit Q6 Do you tend to visit this area more at a particular time of year for [insert given activity]? Multiple answers ok. Spring (Mar-May) Summer (Jun-Aug) Autumn (Sept-Nov) Winter (Dec-Feb) Equally all year Don't know First visit Q7 How did you get here today? What form of transport did you use? Single response only. Car / van On foot Public transport Bicycle Other, please detail Further details: Q8 Why did you choose to specifically visit this area today, rather than another local site? Tick all responses given by visitor in the 'other' column. Do not prompt, tick closest answers. Then ask Which would you say had the most influence over your choice of site to visit today? Tick only one main reason. Use text box for answers that cannot be categorised and for further information. Don't know / others in party chose Main Other


55

No need to use car Quick & easy travel route Good / easy parking Feels safe here Choice of routes Quality of the area Scenery / variety of views Rural feel / wild landscape Habit / familiarity Right place for activity Particular wildlife interest Good for dog / dog enjoys it Ability to let dog off lead Closest place to take the dog Closest place to let dog safely off lead Quiet, with no traffic noise Refreshments / cafe/ pub Not many people Other, please detail Further details: Q9 I would now like to ask you about different site features and in general whether you see them as positive or negative features at the sites you visit. For each of the following features in turn, please indicate whether you see it as negative, little/no importance or positive features. A requirement to keep dogs on leads Negative Little/no importance/irrelevant Positive Access excluded from certain areas to protect wildlife Presence of a warden Path network surfaced and maintained Byelaws to limit BBQs Fines for not collecting dog waste Penalties/enforcement for unsociable behaviour Picnic tables Toilets Cafe Site busy with lots of other people


56

Q10 Are there any particular changes at this site that you would like to see that would enhance your enjoyment of visits here?Do not prompt. Tick any that apply. Use free text box for any responses that are not easily categorised. No change/nothing/not sure Improvements to parking (more spaces, better surface etc) Vegetation management: cutting/mowing etc More dog bins or measures relating to dog fouling More litter bins or measures relating to litter Improved path surfacing/better maintained paths More paths, e.g. longer routes, circular routes More interpretation, information or guidance Cafe, toilets or other facilities Other/more details Now I'd like to ask you about your route today. looking at the area shown on this map, can you show me where you started your visit today, the finish point and your route please. Probe to ensure route is accurately documented. Use P to indicatewhere the visitor parked, E to indicate the start point and X to indicate the exit. Mark the route with a line; a solid line for the actual route and a dotted line for the expected or remaining route. Q11 Is / was your route today reflective of your usual route when you visit here for [insert given activity]? Tick closest answer, do not prompt. Single response only. Yes, normal Much longer than normal Much shorter than normal Not sure / no typical visit First visit Q12 What, if anything, influenced your choice of route here today? Tick closest answers, do not prompt. Multiple responses ok. Weather Daylight Time Other people Group members (eg kids, less able) Muddy tracks / paths Followed a marked trail Previous knowledge of area / experience Activity undertaken (eg presence of dog) Interpretation/leaflets


57

Wanting to be near water Shade Other/please detail: Further details: Q13 Did you/do you intend to go off the footpath or trails during your walk today? If interviewee refuses to answer then leave blank Yes No Not sure Q14 If 'dog walker main 'Dog walkers only: Did you/will you let your dog off the lead during your walk here today? If interviewee refuses to answer then leave blank Yes No Not sure Q15 Do you visit any other open spaces locally for [insert activity]? Yes No Don't know/not sure Q16 if 'yes' If yes, could you tell us the name of up to three of the main other sites you visit? site 1 site 2 site 3 Q17 What is your full home postcode? This is an important piece of information, please make every effort to record correctly. Q18 If visitor is unable or refuses to give postcode: What is the name of the nearest town or village? Q19 If visitor is on holiday ask: Which town / village are you staying in? Q20 How many people in your party fall into the following age categories? Enter the number of people per category. Children under 16 Adult 16-25 26-45 46-59 60+


58

Q21 Finally, do you have any other comments about your visit and access to this area? That is the end of the questionnaire. Thank you very much indeed for your time. While the questionnaire has not personal information we are separately also collecting details of people's names and contact details if they might be interested in becoming more involved with the National Park, for example as a volunteer. Please feel free to put your name on the list if you are interested. Q22 Details to be completed by surveyor after interview completed Surveyor initials Month (number, eg 01) Day (number, eg 02) Hour (24 hour, eg 09) Minute (number, eg 05) Survey location code Gender of respondent Total number people in Interviewed group Total males Total females Number of dogs Number of dogs off lead Q23 Surveyor comments. Note anything that may be relevant to the survey, including any changes to the survey entry that are necessary, e.g. changes to answers.


59

Appendix 3: Reasons for visiting

Reasons for which interviewees visited the site where they were interviewed rather than another

listed under the category “other”

Because it is invigorating

Because it is scenically beautiful

Been to local scout hut

Better today for horse no flies and good going

Came to have a picnic and let the children run about

Change of scenery, sociable

Close to home (x32)

Easy access for horse

Convenience x 3

Convenient/equidistant for both people x 2

Curiosity

Dog can enjoy absolute freedom

Dropping son off locally

Drove by yesterday, moved recently to the area

Dry underfoot (x7)

Can work dogs in the bracken

Defined route

Mixed habitats/Good variety of habitat and terrain/good mixture/natural habitat x5

En route from bird surveying elsewhere

Family connection

Favourite site

Fenced in so dogs are safe x3

Flat terrain x 5

Following a trail from newspaper/internet x2

For a change of site (x6)

Give the dog a change

Hadn't been here for a week

Have time, like the area

Husbands family live here, refresh memories

Interesting site, young dog

Introduced by a friend

Lack of other local sites

Like the open landscape x2

Like the ponds/proximity of a pond/dog pools x 3

Looking for two species of eye bright

Lots of space to run around/space x3

National trust info re walk

Nice to meet other people/sociable site/good to meet other dog owners x 5

No deer

No traffic x 2

Parents live nearby - visiting

Part of a circuit

Passed by a few days ago

Personal reasons

Quick/short/easy walk x3


60

Quiet site/peaceful /never gets too busy x3

Relatively flat walk required

RSPB visit (x2)

Safe for the dog (x2)

Sense of history

Shady important when hot. Sometimes in bad weather use this site for dog walking as shady and sheltered x 3

To avoid Cowdray park

Used to be local

Visiting parent’s house

Visiting shop nearby so decided to come here/ passing close by so popped in rather than go to usual places near home/en route to Midhurst x3

Walking/exercise x2

With overseas visitor/ to show a friend x2

Work locally

Young dog training


61

Appendix 4: Reasons why visitors chose the site where they were interviewed to visit Number of people (%) at each site who gave specific reasons why they visited the site they were interviewed at to visit.

Bla

ck D

ow

n

Ch

ape

l Co

mm

on

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n

(mai

n c

ar p

ark)

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n

(no

rth

)

Lord

s P

iece

Mar

ley

Co

mm

on

Mid

hu

rst

Co

mm

on

Wig

gon

ho

lt

Co

mm

on

Wo

olb

edin

g

No need to use car

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (50) 1 (3.1) 1 (11.1) 9 (33.3) 0 (0) 1 (3.125)

Quick & easy travel route

5 (27. 8) 6 (11. 1) 2 (4.7) 3 (75) 3 (9.4) 0 (0) 19 (70.4) 11 (44) 0 (0)

Good / easy parking

1 (5. 6) 9 (16.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (6.3) 0 (0) 2 (7.4) 3 (12) 1 (3.125)

Feels safe here 1 (5. 6) 7 (13.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (15.6) 0 (0) 4 (14.8) 5 (20) 1 (3.125)

Choice of routes 3 (16. 7) 32 (60.4) 5 (11.9) 1 (25) 11 (34.45) 0 (0) 3 (11.1) 4 (16) 12 (37.5)

Quality of the area

4 (22.2) 23 (43.4) 4 (9.5) 0 (0) 23 (71.8) 0 (0) 2 (7.4) 12 (48) 25 (78.125)

Scenery / variety of views

4 (22.2) 13 (24.5) 6 (14.3) 0 (0) 14 (43.8) 0 (0) 5 (18.5) 4 (16) 26 (81.25)

Rural feel / wild landscape

2 (11.1) 8 (15.1) 3 (7.13) 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) 2 (7.4) 1 (4) 2 (6.25)

Habit / familiarity

3 (16. 7) 45 (84.9) 4 (9.5) 0 (0) 28 (87.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (20) 22 (68.75)

Right place for activity

2 (11.1) 5 (9.4) (0) 0 (0) 1 (3.1) 0 (0) 7 (25.9) 2 (8) 4 (12.5)

Particular wildlife interest

1 (5. 6) 6 (11.3) 2 (4.7) 0 (0) 1 (3.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (24) 3 (9.375)

Good for dog / dog enjoys it

2 (11.1) 21 (39.6) 8 (19.0) 0 (0) 7 (21.9) 1 (11.1) 9 (33.3) 10 (40) 10 (31.25)

Ability to let dog off lead

0 (0) 24 (45.3) 1 (2.4) 0 (0) 16 (50) 0 (0) 7 (25.9) 0 (0) 9 (28.1)


62

Bla

ck D

ow

n

Ch

ape

l Co

mm

on

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n

(mai

n c

ar p

ark)

Ipin

g C

om

mo

n

(no

rth

)

Lord

s P

iece

Mar

ley

Co

mm

on

Mid

hu

rst

Co

mm

on

Wig

gon

ho

lt

Co

mm

on

Wo

olb

edin

g

Closest place to take the dog

1 (5.6) 2 (3.7) 3 (7.1) 0 (0) 4 (12.5) 0 (0) 4 (14.8) 1 (4) 0 (0)

Closest place to let dog safely off lead

0 (0) 25 (47.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 24 (75) 0 (0) 4 (14.8) 0 (0) 4 (12.5)

Quiet, with no traffic noise

2 (11.1) 7 (13.2) 1 (2.3) 1 (25) 2 (6.25) 0 (0) 1 (3.7) 1 (4) 11 (34.3)

Refreshments / cafe/ pub

0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (12) 0 (0)

Not many people

1 (5. 6) 13 (24.55) 1 (2.3) 0 (0) 9 (28.125) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (8) 11 (34.3)

Other 0 (0) 17 (32.1) 24 (57.1) 0 (0) 13 (40.6) 8 (88.8) 1 (3.7) 1 (4) 12 (37.5)


63

Appendix 5: The importance of measures on site The percentage of interviewees at each site who considered measures to be of Little/no importance/irrelevant (0), negative (-) or positive (+). BD – Blackdown, CC – Chapel

Common, IP(m) Iping (main car park), IP(N) Iping Common north, LP – Lords Piece, MaC Marley Common, MiC – Midhurst Common, WC – Wiggonholt Common, WbC –

Woolbeding Common.

Site

A r

equ

irem

ent

to

kee

p d

ogs

on

lead

s

Acc

ess

excl

ud

ed

fro

m c

erta

in a

reas

to

pro

tect

wild

life

Pre

sen

ce o

f a

war

den

Pat

h n

etw

ork

surf

aced

an

d

ma

inta

ined

Bye

law

s to

lim

it

BB

Qs

Fin

es f

or

no

t co

llect

ing

do

g w

aste

Pen

alti

es/e

nfo

rcem

ent

for

un

soci

able

b

ehav

iou

r

Pic

nic

tab

les

Toile

ts

Caf

e

Site

bu

sy w

ith

lots

o

f o

ther

peo

ple

0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - + 0 - +

BD 17 56 28 6 17 78 56 6 39 11 56 33 0 11 89 6 17 78 0 0 100 22 33 44 0 67 33 17 56 28 22 61 17

CC 4 85 11 8 2 91 79 2 19 21 68 11 9 6 85 17 21 62 28 0 72 15 62 23 9 85 6 4 87 10 30 60 9

IP(m) 15 68 17 17 20 63 54 12 34 12 61 24 20 2 78 17 12 71 17 0 83 20 56 24 22 61 17 20 71 10 37 54 10

IP(N) 0 100 0 0 0 100 25 25 50 25 0 75 0 0 100 0 25 75 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 75 25 0 100 0 25 25 50

LP 3 87 10 0 0 100 77 0 23 19 58 23 3 6 90 16 32 52 30 3 67 26 45 29 10 84 6 6 87 6 10 87 3

MaC 22 67 11 44 0 56 44 22 33 0 100 0 33 0 67 22 11 67 11 0 89 22 56 22 11 67 22 11 78 11 11 89 0

MiC 7 74 19 33 7 59 59 11 30 30 19 52 37 11 52 19 7 74 22 0 78 30 48 22 48 30 22 41 44 15 42 31 27

WC 12 76 12 20 28 52 54 0 46 28 4 68 12 8 80 4 4 92 4 0 96 28 4 68 32 0 68 29 0 71 20 64 16

WbC 9 78 13 9 13 78 63 3 34 16 69 16 16 9 75 26 35 39 39 3 58 38 22 41 13 69 19 6 84 9 6 81 13


64

Appendix 6: Features that would enhance enjoyment

Comments made about features that would enhance interviewees’ enjoyment of the site at

which they were interviewed:

Better security, car break-ins a problem and damage to cars

Boardwalks

Bracken needs to be cut back from paths/for wild flowers x 4

Byways should remain open to all traffic and classification should not change

Cafe, picnics and litter bins will attract more rubbish

Car park holes need maintenance from time to time- not tarmacked

Cattle presence is worrying /quieter cattle needed/ would like to know when cattle returning x 8

Clear vegetation along footpaths x 6

Covers for leaflets

Cutting grass (earlier) x3

Dog bins or measures needed/ can't enforce no dog fouling if no alternative provided x 7

Don’t approve of all cutting down

Entrance at both entry points should be resurfaced to make it safer and more accessible

Glad to see the ragwort topped

Guidance on management aims/more communication on future work plans (x3)

Horses need controlling as they go off bridle paths

Improvements to the car park surfaces - fill in potholes

Information on routes/map on website x 2

Leave it as it is

Less birch

Like to see the cattle grazing x 3

Litter cleared up, litter bins at strategic points

Maintain bike area.

Make car park more open, Can be scary in winter

Map of site on website

Marked routes would be useful/ fingerposts to car park/better signage for South Downs Way x 4

More benches/logs for sitting on x 8

Open up views

More guided walks round heathland

More habitat management

More secure area in car park for dogs

More than ever there is a need to manage recreation

More wild flowers

Better liaison with local community

Nice diversity of woods and heathland

Occasional presence of ranger would help prevent motorcyclists driving over heath

open up area restricting dogs

penalties for motorcyclists

Ragwort has been worrying/is a problem/should be pulled as it used to be x 13

Remove height restriction

Repair of potholes along the byway


65

Some seats need repair/replacing

This area is almost exclusively used by dog walkers, presumably no problem with not picking up?

Viewing area over gravel pit to see birds

Wish that dog owners would be more considerate

Clearing fallen trees would be good

Worried about adders

Would like more interpretation on reasons for fencing and on heathland restoration

Remove green algae from the pond

Would like to see more security

Appendix 7: Other sites

Other sites visited by interviewees.

Do you visit any other open spaces locally to undertake the same activity?

No. of references

Do you visit any other open spaces locally to undertake the

same activity?

No. of references

Hindhead/Devil's Punch Bowl 30 Duncton Common 3

Iping Common 30 Flexham Park 3

Durford Heath 25 Frensham Common 3

Bignor Hill 24 Henley Common 3

Harting Down 24 Pagham 3

Linchmere Common 18 Stedham Common 3

Woolbeding Common 18 Bramshott Common 2

Blackdown 17 Butser Hill 2

Cowdray Park 17 Chiltington Common 2

Petworth Park 15 Coates Common 2

South Downs 15 Cocking Common 2

Fittleworth common 10 Easebourne area 2

Liss Forest 10 Fittleworth 2

Marley Common 10 Goodwood Country Park 2

Pulborough Brooks 10 Highdown Hill 2

Midhurst Common 9 Liphook 2

Stedham Common 9 Lords Piece 2

The Severals, Pagham Harbour 9 Millennium field at sheet 2

Chapel Common 7 Minstead Common 2

Graffham Common 7 Monkmead Wood 2

Iron Hill 7 Rackham Woods 2

Ludshott Common 7 River Rother 2

Kithurst Hill 6 Sandgate Park 2

Petersfield Heath 6 Storrington Downs 2

Rogate Common 5 The Trundle 2

Sullington Warren 5 Witley Common 2

Swan Barn Farm 5 Abbotstone Down 1

Ambersham Common 4 Adversane 1


66

Do you visit any other open spaces locally to undertake the same activity?

No. of references

Do you visit any other open spaces locally to undertake the

same activity?

No. of references

Cold Harbour Wood 4 Amberley 1

General countryside 4 Arun valley 1

Grayshott 4 Ashford Hangers 1

Hesworth Common 4 Bexley Hill (Eastbourne) 1

Heyshott Common 4 Bottingdean 1

Queen Elizabeth Country Park 4 Burton Mill 1

Slindon 4 Burton Rough 1

Waggoners Wells 4 Caron Lane - open space at top 1

Weavers Down 4 Chanctonbury Ring 1

Alderhill 3 Cissbury Ring 1

Arundel Park 3 Codmore 1

Coast 3 North stoke 1

Duncton Down 1 Old Thornes 1

Cowdray (woods near) 1 Other heathland sites 1

Didling 1 Parham 1

Ditchling Common 1 Patching hill 1

East meon 1 Pound common 1

Elsted 1 Pulborough area 1

Elsted (South Downs way) 1 Rackham Plantation 1

Farlington 1 Radford Park 1

Fernhurst 1 Rake common 1

Findon 1 River Arun 1

Fittleworth woods 1 Southwater Country Park 1

Glinding Field 1 St Anne's Hill 1

Grayswood Common 1 Stanley Common 1

Hatch? 1 Steep hangers 1

High Salvington Hill 1 Stopham 1

Houghton Forest 1 Storrington Recreation Ground 1

Hurston Warren 1 Sustainability centre, Clanfield 1

Kingley Vale 1 Trafford Hill 1

Lavington Woods 1 Verdley Wood 1

Leven Down 1 Washington Common 1

Liphook golf course 1 Washington Woods 1

Liphook local park 1 West Dean woods 1

Love Lane Field 1 West Heath Common 1

Meon valley 1 West Sussex Golf Course 1

Milland area 1 West Wittering Beach 1

MoD ranges 1 Whip Hill 1

Monarch's way 1 Woods Mill 1


67

Appendix 8: Choice of route The percentage of interviewees at each site who considered specific factors influenced their choice of site.

Site

No

ne

ed t

o u

se c

ar

Qu

ick

& e

asy

tra

vel r

ou

te

Go

od

/ e

asy

par

kin

g

Fee

ls s

afe

he

re

Ch

oic

e o

f ro

ute

s

Qu

alit

y o

f th

e a

rea

Scen

ery

/ v

arie

ty o

f vi

ew

s

Ru

ral f

ee

l / w

ild la

nd

scap

e

Hab

it /

fam

iliar

ity

Rig

ht

pla

ce f

or

acti

vity

Par

ticu

lar

wild

life

inte

rest

Go

od

fo

r d

og

/ d

og

enjo

ys it

Ab

ility

to

let

do

g o

ff le

ad

Clo

sest

pla

ce t

o t

ake

the

do

g

Clo

sest

pla

ce t

o le

t d

og

safe

ly o

ff

lead

Qu

iet,

wit

h n

o t

raff

ic n

ois

e

Re

fre

shm

en

ts /

caf

e/

pu

b

No

t m

any

peo

ple

Black Down 0 28 6 6 17 22 22 11 17 11 6 11 0 6 0 11 0 6

Chapel Common 0 11 17 13 60 43 25 15 85 9 11 40 45 4 47 13 0 25

Iping Common (main car park) 0 5 0 0 12 10 14 7 10 0 5 19 2 7 0 2 0 2

Iping Common (north) 50 75 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0

Lords Piece 3 9 6 16 34 72 44 0 88 3 3 22 50 13 75 6 0 28

Marley Common 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0

Midhurst Common 33 70 7 15 11 7 19 7 0 26 0 33 26 15 15 4 0 0

Wiggonholt Common 0 44 12 20 16 48 16 4 20 8 24 40 0 4 0 4 12 8

Woolbeding 3 0 3 3 38 78 81 6 69 13 9 31 28 0 13 34 0 34


68

Appendix 9: Choice of route (“other” factors)

“Other” factors influencing interviewee’s choice of route:

Avoiding the pond, worried about the blue-green algae x3

Avoiding other dogs x3

Circular walk x2

Dog chooses route x6

Dog's ability (old/infirm/young) x4

Dry tracks to keep dogs clean

Easy/short/flat walk x8

Exploring the area x2

Avoiding cyclists x2

Avoiding horses

Lack of interpretation

Longest route

No deer (greyhound owners)

Nothing x5

Open pathways, trying to find the way through bracken, disorientating dogs

Parking - location

Routine walk x2

Visit viewpoint

Visiting places that they used to come before husband/father died

Walk in the heather x2

Whim/depends on mood x3

Wildlife interest x2

Will divert if see horses or cyclists

Worried about being mugged

s o u t h d o w n s n a t i o n a l p a r k h e a t h l a...

Documents