South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework. Year 1 Key Findings Summary. Produced for and on behalf of the South West Coast Path team

Transcription

1 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Key Findings Summary Produced for and on behalf of the South West Coast Path team By The South West Research Company Ltd. February 2013 The South West Research Company

2 Contents Overview 3 Introduction 6 SWCP Volume & Value Estimates 2010 & Coastal Visits Survey Key Findings 22 Local Business Survey Key Findings 56 Appendices The South West Research Company

3 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Results Summary Overview 3 The South West Research Company

4 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Overview Background As the longest of the 13 national trails in England and Wales with a length of 630 miles, The South West Coast Path follows the coastline of England s south west peninsular and is recognised as one of the region s principal tourism attractions and leisure facilities. Starting at Minehead in Somerset, it follows the coastline of Devon, Cornwall and Dorset until it reaches its end at Poole Harbour. The Unlocking Our Coastal Heritage project is well under way with 2.1m in European grant aid through the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to be invested by Its aim is to increase the economic value of the South West Coast Path by protecting and enhancing heritage features, improving the quality of the route and working with businesses to improve the facilities and information provided to visitors. As part of this the SWCP Team are required to produce and implement a full and robust monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure that the full range of its outputs, results and impacts of the project can be captured (including base-line data) and assess whether it meets its targets. Methodology A face to face visitor survey was conducted in each of the relevant counties to understand staying visitor movements whilst on holiday. This then allowed us to estimate leakage out of coastal locations and additional spend coming in from other areas which was then modelled alongside the national datasets to allow for an overall estimate of the volume and value of the coast path to be calculated. To enable tracking over time it was essential that the 2010 baseline was set using the latest 2011 day visits data as the comparative year. A local business survey along the South West Coast Path corridor was also undertaken to establish the change in business levels between 2010 and 2011 and 2011 and The findings were then be applied to 2011 data to establish the 2010 baseline figure and the 2012 data to establish the 2011 figures. GVA and employment estimates were calculated using ONS and Cambridge Model data. For the purpose of this project the definition of a coast path visit includes: Any visit to an 'other coastline area' as opposed to a beach, resort or town for leisure purposes and in line with the day visitor definition. The estimates do not include regular non-tourism residential use such as dog walking etc.

5 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Overview SWCP users summary Cornwall Devon Dorset Somerset TOTALSWCP AREA Total coastal staying visitors Total day visitors on holiday Total day visits from home 703, , , , , ,905 28,254 32,708 1,740,018 1,727, , , , , , ,189 28,104 35,535 1,194,064 1,383, , ,006 1,768,431 1,782,316 1,870,654 1,840, , ,319 4,925,200 4,902,457 Total SWCP users 2,095,586 2,245,186 2,961,686 2,960,928 2,449,810 2,444, , ,562 7,859,281 8,013,587 Total SWCP users spend 157,959, ,321, ,500, ,334,985 77,479,195 85,347,712 8,829,572 11,748, ,768, ,752,616 Associated employment (FTE's) related to SWCP user spend Direct 2,676 3,040 2,087 2,188 1,103 1, ,987 6,578 Indirect 874 1, ,045 2,255 Induced Total 3,882 4,419 3,096 3,242 1,604 1, ,733 9,600 Estimated GVA 128,734, ,123, ,934, ,791,000 59,421,000 65,268,000 5,788,000 7,786, ,877, ,968,000

6 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Results Summary Introduction 6 The South West Research Company

7 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Background & rationale As the longest of the 13 national trails in England and Wales with a length of 630 miles, The South West Coast Path follows the coastline of England s south west peninsular and is recognised as one of the region s principal tourism attractions and leisure facilities. Starting at Minehead in Somerset, it follows the coastline of Devon, Cornwall and Dorset until it reaches its end at Poole Harbour. Previous work by South West Tourism identified that six million people use the SWCP annually and research undertaken by Tourism Associates and South West Tourism in 2002/3 estimated it s value to local economy to be in the region of 307 million. The Unlocking Our Coastal Heritage project is well under way with 2.1m in European grant aid through the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) to be invested by Its aim is to increase the economic value of the South West Coast Path by protecting and enhancing heritage features, improving the quality of the route and working with businesses to improve the facilities and information provided to visitors. As part of this the SWCP Team are required to produce and implement a full and robust monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure that the full range of its outputs, results and impacts of the project can be captured (including base-line data) and assess whether it meets its targets. The South West Coast Path team therefore appointed The South West Research Company Ltd. to design an effective methodology and produce and implement a monitoring and evaluation framework for the South West Coast Path Unlocking our Coastal Heritage project, the specific aims and objectives of which are detailed overleaf. 7

8 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Project aims & objectives The SWCP Team required the following outputs to be measured and calculated as a baseline which is backdated to the start of the project in summer 2010 with comparison figures for 2011, 2012 and Increase in non-agricultural gross value added in supported businesses as a result of the project - increase in GVA as measured by growth in profitability( ). Overall economic value of the SWCP to the South West region. Gross number of jobs created - number of jobs (full time equivalent or 30 hours). Additional number of tourists - number of overnight stays. Additional number of tourists - number of day visitors. Calculating performance against the KPIs developed through the logical modelling process. All outputs above to be split between Cornwall and the rest of the South West Region. In short, it is envisaged that the results from the production and implementation of the monitoring and evaluation framework will offer a sound and reliable evaluation of the Unlocking our Coastal Heritage project. 8

9 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Volume and value A face to face visitor survey was conducted in each of the relevant counties to understand staying visitor movements whilst on holiday. For this approach to be considered robust each county required a total of 600 interviews to be conducted 200 in each location type (coastal, rural, urban). This then allowed us to estimate leakage out of coastal locations and additional spend coming in from other areas which was then modelled alongside the national datasets to allow for an overall estimate of the volume and value of the coast path to be calculated. Establishing a baseline To enable tracking over time it was essential that the 2010 baseline was set using the latest 2011 day visits data as the comparative year. The RDPE Baseline Study used the most recent available data at the time (2005) but changes in methodology for the 2011 survey meant comparison between the two surveys was not possible. We therefore also conducted a local business survey along the South West Coast Path corridor to establish the change in business levels between 2010 and 2011 and 2011 and The findings were then be applied to 2011 data to establish the 2010 baseline figure and the 2012 data to establish the 2011 figures. The survey will be repeated again later this year to ensure business levels mirror the results of the national surveys and allow for adjustments to be made to the methodology if needed.. GVA and Employment estimates These were calculated using ONS and Cambridge Model data. The methodology builds upon previous work conducted for the baseline at the start of the RDPE project. SWCP definition For the purpose of this project the definition of a coast path visit includes: Any visit to an 'other coastline area' as opposed to a beach, resort or town for leisure purposes and in line with the day visitor definition. Please note that the estimates do not include regular non-tourism residential use such as dog walking etc. 9

10 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview National survey data and Value of Tourism data for Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset input Estimates of % of SWCP users spend/trips made using activity data derived from GBDVS Spend by category calculated using SWCP 2012 survey data FINAL SWCP YEARLY OUTPUTS PRODUCED Data distributed to area of visit (coastal, rural, urban) All spend/trips to SWCP coastal areas calculated Yearly SWCP trips and spend estimates output Yearly comparisons made and sense checked using business survey data Revisions made to data to match coastline area in Dorset and Somerset Spend/trips redistributed to area of visit using SWCP 2012 survey data Spend data fed into Cambridge Model Employment outputs (Direct, Indirect and Induced) and GVA estimates

11 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview - distribution of Staying Visitor Spend to Coastal Areas Coastal area staying visitors accommodation spend Urban area staying visitors spend on visits to coastal areas Rural area staying visitors spend on visits to coastal areas Coastal area spend Day visitors from home spend on visits to coastal areas Coastal area staying visitors spend MINUS spend on visits out of coastal areas

12 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview The key points concerning the methodology used to calculate the South West Coast Path (SWCP) yearly estimates are detailed below; Great Britain Tourism Survey (GBTS) data used for details of domestic trips and spend to coastal, urban and rural areas in the four counties covering the coast path (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset). International Passenger Survey (IPS) data used for details of overseas trips and spend in the four counties covering the coast path. Overseas data has been proportioned to coastal, urban and rural areas assuming the same proportions as domestic visits and spend. To align staying visitor data with the coast path area the following revisions have been made to the data; All of Cornwall data included, all of Devon data included, Dorset less Bournemouth and Christchurch estimates included, Somerset has only West Somerset estimates included. Value of Tourism 2011 data used for details of coastal day visits (derived from the Great Britain Day Visits Survey (GBDVS)) in Cornwall and Devon. Dorset coastal visits figures exclude coastal day visits to Bournemouth and Christchurch and Somerset coastal visits includes West Somerset data only to align with SWCP area. The above process allows for estimates of trips and spend to coastal, urban and rural areas containing the SWCP. SWCP 2012 Visitor survey data has then been applied to these figures to adjust expenditure in coastal areas based upon visitor movement and area of expenditure data gathered through the survey. The survey data is based upon visit characteristics on the day prior to the interview and applied to all trips and spend. As such the data should be viewed as an estimate of visit characteristics as the survey was unable to capture data relating to visitors entire stay in the region. This is particularly in the case of visitor trips where the survey data is likely to underestimate the total number of coastal visits as a result. Ratios applied to trips and expenditure, derived from SWCP 2012 Visitor Survey data are shown on the following page along with the calculation used to estimate coastal trips and expenditure. Spend by category proportions established through the SWCP 2012 Visitor Survey were than applied to the total coastal spend figures to distribute spend to accommodation, food and drink, shopping, entertainment and travel and transport categories.

13 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview staying trips and spend ratios Trips Proportions in to coastal areas Coastal Urban Rural Cornwall 100% 51% 55% Devon 100% 36% 32% Dorset 100% 68% 52% Somerset 100% 20% 30% The table shows the proportions of visitors to each area type making trips to coastal areas during their visits. For example, 51% of visitors staying in urban areas in Cornwall made a trip to a coastal area during their stay. The calculation used to establish the total coastal trips in each area is shown below; Coastal staying visitors number of trips Plus Urban and rural staying visitors proportion of trips to coastal areas Plus Coastal day visitor trips Spend Proportions in to coastal areas (excluding accommodation spend) Coastal Urban Rural Cornwall 68% 35% 44% Devon 58% 23% 24% Dorset 63% 38% 35% Somerset 62% 10% 16% The calculation used to establish the total coastal spend in each area is shown below; The table shows the proportions of visitor spend going in to coastal areas during their visits (excluding their accommodation spend). For example, 44% of expenditure from visitors staying in rural areas in Cornwall went to a coastal area during their stay. Coastal staying visitors accommodation spend Plus the proportion of coastal staying visitor other spend remaining in coastal areas Plus Urban and rural staying visitors proportion of other spend (excluding accommodation) going to coastal areas Plus Coastal day visitor spend

14 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview - estimating SWCP users and value Once coastal trips and expenditure have been established the following calculations have been used to estimate SWCP users; Activity data from the Great Britain Day Visits Survey (GBDVS) has been used to inform the estimates of the proportions of visitors and visitor spend attributed to SWCP users. GBDVS data has been applied across all visitor types in the absence of any detailed activity data available from the national staying visitor surveys and so it is assumed that staying visitors will have the same trip characteristics as tourism day visitors. GBDVS regional (South West) data has been applied to coastal path areas. GBDVS breaks activity data down by the type of place visited and activities undertaken allowing for estimates of likely SWCP users to be made with a user defined as a person who visits a coastal path area for tourism/recreation for the purposes of this study. However, assumptions have been applied to the data to allow for the estimate of SWCP users, as day visits often included a number of activities during the course of a visit and as such it is not possible to analyse the data solely for those using the path for outdoor activities, recreation or a general day out for example. GBDVS breaks coastal visits into three categories; Visits to resorts/towns, visits to beaches and visits to other coastal areas. The calculation and assumptions made to estimate SWCP users are as shown below; All visits to other coastal areas included as SWCP users (13% of trips and 12% of spend in coastal areas). Visits to resorts/towns and beaches for outdoor activities such as walking, with this figure reduced to account for differentials in the proportions of the sample undertaking outdoor activities compared to the proportions in other coastal areas (80% of other coastal visits). With the coast path running through a large number of resorts/towns and beaches it is likely that walkers are included in these areas who then continue along the path and as such safe to include these areas in the calculations (although at a reduced scale). The calculations estimate that 26% of trips to coastal areas use the coast path and 19% of coastal expenditure is attributed to the path. These proportions are then applied to the number and value of coastal visits previously established to produce SWCP estimates. The SWCP 2012 Visitor Survey collected data on the proportions of visitors that are inclined to walk cliffs and headlands on a visit to the coast in the South West, however, as full trip details were not able to be collected due to the nature of the survey this information cannot be used as we do not know if the activity was carried out during the actual visit on this occasion. However, the proportions of visitors that the survey estimates are likely to walk cliffs and headlands during a visit to the coast (52% overall) suggest that GBDVS activity data should provide a safe basis from which to work and a likely underestimate.

15 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Methodology Modelling overview - estimating associated employment and GVA To produce estimates of the associated employment and GVA the spend estimates attributed to SWCP users have been fed into The Cambridge Model; The Cambridge Model is a computer-based model developed to calculate estimates of the volume, value and economic impact of tourism on a County or District basis. It draws on the combined experience of PA Cambridge Economic Consultants Ltd, Geoff Broom Associates and the Regional Tourist Boards and utilises a standard methodology capable of application throughout the UK. It therefore offers the potential for direct comparisons with similar destinations throughout the country. The approach was the subject of independent validation (R.Vaughan, Bournemouth University) in December The Model was judged robust and the margins of error acceptable and in line with other modelling techniques. The Model has been used both nationally and in the South West region for a number years and used specifically in the South West to produce the annual Value of Tourism reports since For further details of the Cambridge Model methodology and limitations see Appendix 1 (2011 FAQ). Methodology Comparison with previous years To produce year on year comparisons for SWCP users the following methodology has been applied; 2010 national survey data and Value of Tourism data has been fed into a 2010 template using the same methodology used to produce 2011 outputs. This assumes similar visit characteristics as established through the SWCP Visitor Survey 2012 and GBDVS. The total values for 2010 and 2011 have then been compared and the percentage change calculated for SWCP users and compared to individual counties percentage change in value to allow the performance of the coast path to be measured. Performance change data gathered through the SWCP business survey has then been used to sense check the figures produced in the steps above and confirm the estimated change produced through the modelling. Ideally, with a more robust sample, business data could perhaps be used further in the modelling process in the future.

16 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Results Summary SWCP Volume & Value Estimates 2010 & The South West Research Company

17 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Key Point Summary Visitor spending related to SWCP users Staying visitor spend 300,229, ,889,415 % change 10.2% Day visitor spend 81,538,576 93,863,202 % change 15.1% Total direct spend (Direct value of SWCP) 381,768, ,752,616 % change 11.3% 17

18 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Key Point Summary Associated employment (FTE's) related to SWCP user spend Direct 5,987 6,578 Indirect 2,045 2,255 Induced Total 8,733 9,600 % change 9.9% Estimated GVA 304,877, ,968,000 % change 10.9% 18

19 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Key Point Summary Spend comparisons in SWCP areas Cornwall SWCP users 157,959, ,321,476 % CHANGE 15.4% SWCP County area 1,580,660,971 1,821,290,418 % CHANGE 15.2% Devon SWCP users 137,500, ,334,985 % CHANGE 5.7% SWCP County area 2,145,910,492 2,163,080,000 % CHANGE 0.8% Dorset SWCP users 77,479,195 85,347,712 % CHANGE 10.2% SWCP County area 936,483, ,661,093 % CHANGE 4.3% Somerset SWCP users 8,829,572 11,748,444 % CHANGE 33.1% SWCP County area 132,171, ,295,177 % CHANGE 6.1% SWCP AREA SWCP users 381,768, ,752,616 % CHANGE 11.3% SWCP County area 4,795,227,146 5,101,326,688 % CHANGE 6.4% 19

20 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Key Point Summary SWCP users summary Cornwall Devon Dorset Somerset Total Total coastal staying visitors 680, , ,905 32,708 1,727,141 Total day visitors on holiday 579, , ,189 35,535 1,383,989 Total day visits from home 985,006 1,782,316 1,840, ,319 4,902,457 Total SWCP users 2,245,186 2,960,928 2,444, ,562 8,013,587 Total SWCP users spend 182,321, ,334,985 85,347,712 11,748, ,752,616 20

21 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Key Point Summary in Context SWCP users summary in context 2011 Total trips (day & staying) Total direct spend Associated employment total FTE s Estimated GVA Total SWCP Users 8m 424.8m 9, m South West region Value of Tourism estimates 163.3m 9,783.0m 207,842 7,886.2 SWCP Users % of South West region estimates 5% 4% 5% 4% SWCP MENE estimates 17.5m SWCP Users % of MENE estimates 35% The figures contained in the table above help to put the SWCP user and spend estimates into context against the 2011 volume and value estimates for the South West Region* and the yearly estimate (March 2011-February 2012) from the MENE (Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment) Survey undertaken by Natural England which estimates the total numbers of visits taken by the English adult population to the SWCP areas which involved walking with or without a dog in other seaside locations. The figures show that SWCP users accounted for 5% of all trips and 4% of all spend to the South West region during 2011, along with 5% of all full time equivalent jobs (FTE s) created as a result of that visitor spend. In addition, 4% of tourism GVA is attributable to the South West Coast Path. When compared with the MENE (Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment) survey data SWCP users accounted for 35% of the 2011/12 annual MENE estimate of visits to other coastal areas. This differential is due to both the differing methodologies used in this report and the MENE survey and the fact that MENE estimates will include non-tourism regular residential use. * Produced by the South West Research Company Ltd. using the Cambridge Model

22 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Results Summary Coastal Visits Survey Key Findings 22 The South West Research Company

23 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Coastal Visits Survey Methodology A face to face survey of coastal users was conducted in key locations across Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset to understand staying visitor movements whilst on holiday. A total of approximately 600 interviews per county were conducted circa. 200 in each location type per county (coastal, rural, urban) allowing an estimate of spending leakage out of coastal locations and additional spend coming in from other areas to be calculated and then modelled alongside the national datasets to allow for the overall estimate of the volume and value of the coast path to be calculated. The interviews were conducted between July and November 2012 at key locations within each of the counties agreed in full consultation with the SWCP Team and included an equal split of urban, rural and coastal locations. There was also a balance of weekday and weekend interview sessions undertaken of an approximate 70% weekday to 30% weekend split. The number of interviews undertaken by county and by interview location for each of the survey months is shown in the table below overleaf. 23

24 Final sample sizes achieved by county and interview location per month July August Sept Oct Nov TOTAL Newquay 19 19% % 20 20% % Mevagissey 19 19% % 20 20% % Truro 39 39% 49 49% % % St Austell 11 10% % 35 33% % Lanhydrock % % 35 17% 10 5% % Siblyback lake CP % % Cornwall 88 14% % % % 10 2% % Torbay 20 16% 42 34% 20 16% 40 33% % Woolacombe/Croyde 40 43% 33 35% 20 22% % Exeter 20 20% 40 41% 21 21% 15 15% 2 2% % Totnes 20 20% 41 41% 40 40% % Castle Drogo % 41 34% 40 33% % Haytor Visitor Centre % 20 27% % Devon % % % 95 16% 2 <1% % Weymouth 38 27% 52 37% 23 16% 21 15% 6 4% % Lulworth/Wareham % 44 31% 31 22% 6 4% % Poole 40 27% 27 18% 36 25% 43 29% % Dorchester 20 16% 63 51% 19 15% 21 17% % Moors Valley CP 12 16% 43 57% 20 27% % Dorset % % % % 12 2% % Minehead 41 30% 37 27% 20 15% 19 14% 20 15% % Porlock 19 23% 40 48% 19 23% 6 7% % Taunton % 30 52% % Wells % 17 11% 60 40% % Clarks Village 30 30% 40 40% 20 20% 10 10% % Tarr Steps % 17 18% % Somerset 90 14% % % 95 15% 20 3% % TOTAL % % % % 44 2% % 24

25 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Coastal Visits Survey Methodology Robustness of data All sample surveys are subject to statistical error with the size of this error dependent on the sample size and also with the order of magnitude of the research findings being considered. The table below demonstrates the margins of error within which one can be 95% certain that the true figures will fall (assuming the sample is random). 95% confidence limit by sample size 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50% 200 sample per location type +/ / / / /- 6.9 Overall county sample of 600 interviews +/ / / / /

26 % of respondents COUNTY WHERE STAYING 35% County where staying % 25% 25% 29% 27% 24% 25% 27% 23% 20% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Cornwall Devon Dorset Somerset All respondents Cliff/headland walkers Around a quarter of all respondents in each case were staying in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset & Somerset, however, these results are largely due to the sampling method used for the survey. The largest proportion of cliff/headland walkers were staying in Cornwall (27%) followed by 27% in Dorset, 24% in Devon and 20% in Somerset. 26

27 % of respondents LOCATION WHERE STAYING 70% 60% 50% 40% 55% 57% Location where staying % 27% 27% 20% 10% 18% 16% 0% Seaside/coastal (Coastal) City/town (Urban) Countryside/village (Rural) All respondents Cliff/headland walkers The majority of respondents (55%) were staying in a seaside/coastal location whilst a further 27% were staying in a countryside/village location and 18% in a city/town location. There was little variation in the results amongst all respondents and cliff/headland walkers. 27

28 % of respondents GROUP COMPOSITION 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Group Composition % 27% 23% 29% 24% 74% 73% 77% 71% 76% All respondents Coastal Urban Rural Cliff/headland walkers Adults with children Adults only Ave. group size All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Average adults Average children Average group size Around three quarters of respondents (74%) were visiting the South West in an adult only group whilst 26% were visiting the area with children there was little variation in the results amongst all respondents and cliff/headland walkers. 29% of all respondents staying in a rural location were visiting the region with children. Average group size was 2.84 people for all respondents and 2.68 for cliff/headland walkers. All respondents staying in a rural location had the highest average group size at 2.89 people. 28

29 % of respondents AGE PROFILE 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 23% 26% 23% 18% 17% 17% 15% 14% 15% 17% 19% 13% 14% 8% 7% 3% 4% Age Profile % 13% 9% 3% 18% 19% 21% 20% 9% 7% 3% 4% 19% 19% 22% 19% 17% All respondents Coastal Urban Rural Cliff/headland walkers 0-17 yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs 65+ yrs 14% 23% of groups contained people aged 65+ years and a further 18% aged years old. 19% of groups represented by the survey contained people aged 0-17 years, 15% years and 13% years. 8% of groups contained people aged years and just 3% years. A slightly larger proportion of Cliff/headland walker groups contained middle-aged people (33% aged years) than groups overall (28% aged years). 29

30 REGION OF ORIGIN County of origin All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers South West region including: 16% 16% 16% 18% 17% - Devon 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% - Somerset 3% 3% 2% 3% 3% - Dorset 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% - Wiltshire 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% - Former Avon 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% - Gloucestershire 2% 3% 1% 3% 3% - Cornwall 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% Other UK regions including: 75% 78% 67% 73% 75% - West Midlands 6% 8% 3% 4% 5% - London 6% 5% 9% 7% 7% - Hampshire 5% 4% 5% 7% 6% - Yorkshire 5% 6% 5% 3% 4% - Kent 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% - Wales 4% 6% 3% 3% 4% Overseas 9% 6% 17% 9% 8% 16% of all respondents interviewed as part of the Coastal Visits Survey 2012 lived within the South West region including 3% in each case from Devon and Somerset. 75% of respondents lived elsewhere in the UK and including 6% of respondents in each case from London and the West Midlands and 5% in each case from Hampshire and Yorkshire. 9% of all respondents were from overseas including countries such as Australia, Germany and the USA. There was little variation in the results according to the type of location where they were staying and amongst cliff/headland walkers. 30

31 EMPLOYMENT STATUS Employment status All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Employed full-time (30+ hours per week) 54% 52% 53% 60% 58% Employed part-time (8-29 hours per week) 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% Self-employed 7% 7% 6% 9% 8% Retired with company/private pension 29% 32% 30% 24% 26% Unemployed - less than 6 months 0% 1% - 0% - Full-time student 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% Unemployed - over 6 months 0% 1% - 0% - Retired with state pension ONLY 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% Working less than 8 hours per week 0% 0% Refused 0% 0% - 1% 1% 54% of all respondents interviewed as part of the survey lived in a household where the higher earner was in full time employment (30+ hours per week) including 60% of respondents staying in a rural location in the region and 58% of cliff/headland walkers. A further 29% of respondents lived in a household where the higher earner was retired with a company or private pension, including 32% of respondents staying in a coastal location and 30% in an urban location in the region. 31

32 % of respondents MAIN REASON FOR VISIT 100% 80% Main reason for visit % 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 11% 6% 1% 14% 9% 20% 60% 40% 86% 91% 74% 84% 88% 20% 0% All respondents Coastal Urban Rural Cliff/headland walkers Other Business/attending a conference Special shopping trip Visiting friends or relatives Leisure/holiday visit 86% of respondents were on a leisure/holiday related trip, including 91% of those staying at a coastal location and 88% of cliff/headland walkers. A further 11% of respondents were visiting friends or relatives including 20% and 14% of those staying at urban and rural locations respectively. 32

33 DURATION OF STAY Duration of stay (nights) All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Average duration of stay for all respondents interviewed as part of the Coastal Visits Survey 2012 was 6.63 nights, increasing to 6.78 nights amongst cliff/headland walkers. There was little variation in the results according to the type of location where respondents were staying. DOG OWNERSHIP Around a quarter of all respondents interviewed as part of the survey (23%) were dog owners including 29% of respondents staying in a rural location in the region and 26% of cliff/headland walkers. Dog ownership All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Yes 23% 21% 22% 29% 26% No 77% 79% 78% 71% 74% 33

34 % of respondents ACTIVITIES WHEN VISITING THE SOUTH WEST COAST 100% 80% Top 10 activities when visiting the South West Coast % 90% 89% 91% 86% 86% 81% 79% 77% 73% 100% All respondents Cliff/headland walkers 60% 52% 59% 40% 41% 39% 32% 27% 25% 20% 14% 11% 0% Eat or drink out Go for a walk - on the promenade/sea front Sightsee, pic nic, drive Go for a walk - on the beach Visit the beach/ sunbathe/paddle in the sea Go for a walk on the cliffs and headland Wildlife watching Go swimming in the sea Play with children Take part in water sports The most popular activities amongst all respondents when visiting the South West coast were eating or drinking out (89%), going for a walk on the promenade/sea front (89%), sightseeing/having a picnic/going for a drive (81%), going for a walk on the beach (79%) and visiting the beach to sunbathe/paddle in the sea (73%). There was little variation in the results according to whether respondents were cliff/headland walkers or not. The table overleaf details the results for the full list of activities explored by the survey. 34

35 ACTIVITIES WHEN VISITING THE SOUTH WEST COAST Activities take part in when visiting the SWCP All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Eat or drink out 89% 89% 89% 90% 90% Go for a walk - on the promenade/sea front 89% 91% 88% 85% 91% Sightsee, picnic, drive 81% 80% 81% 84% 86% Go for a walk - on the beach 79% 79% 78% 82% 86% Visit the beach/ sunbathe/paddle in the sea 73% 72% 72% 78% 77% Go for a walk on the cliffs and headland 52% 49% 52% 58% 100% Wildlife watching 41% 39% 43% 45% 59% Go swimming in the sea 32% 31% 28% 35% 39% Play with children 27% 27% 25% 28% 25% Take part in water sports 11% 11% 10% 12% 14% Fishing 8% 8% 6% 11% 10% Sailing/yachting/boating 8% 7% 9% 9% 10% Cycling - off-road 7% 6% 9% 10% 11% Cycling road 6% 5% 6% 8% 8% Other 4% 4% 2% 5% 3% Other outdoor sport/pursuit 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 35

36 % of respondents REASONS FOR NOT GOING WALKING WHEN VISITING THE SOUTH WEST COAST 30% Reasons for not going walking when visiting the South West Coast % 20% 24% 21% 21% 15% 10% 5% 14% 14% 14% 12% 12% 10% 7% 5% 0% Poor health Old age A physical disability Poor weath er No car access Other Of no interest No particular reason Too expensive Prefer other Have young leisure children activities 24% of respondents who indicated that they did not take part in any form of walking when visiting the South West Coast said that this was due to poor health and a further 21% in each case because of old age and/or a physical disability. 14% in each case said it was due to the poor weather, not having access to a car or an other reason. 12% of these respondents said going walking was of no interest to them when visiting the South West coast. 14% of respondents gave an other reason for not taking part in any form of walking when visiting the coast path and these are listed in full in the appendices which accompanies this report. 36

37 IMPORTANCE OF WALKING ALONG THE COAST PATH IN THE DECISION TO VISIT THE SOUTH WEST Importance of walking the SWCP in the decision to visit the South West on this occasion 2012 Cliff/headland walkers 10% 16% 16% 25% 33% Rural 13% 25% 27% 16% 20% Urban 16% 20% 22% 21% 18% 2% Coastal 15% 20% 19% 22% 21% 2% All respondents 15% 21% 22% 21% 20% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very unimportant Neither unimportant nor important Very important % of respondents Unimportant Important Not aware of the SWCP 41% of all respondents who indicated that they took part in some form of walking when visiting the South West Coast indicated that walking along the South West Coast Path (SWCP) had been important (21%) or very important (20%) to them when deciding to visit the South West on their current trip including 43% of respondents who were staying in a coastal location. This proportion increased to 58% amongst cliff/headland walkers. 37

38 WHETHER BEING ABLE TO WALK ALONG THE COAST PATH WAS THE MAIN REASON FOR VISITING THE SOUTH WEST Whether being able to walk along the SWCP was the MAIN reason for your visiting the South West on this occasion 2012 Cliff/headland walkers 24% 72% 3% Rural 16% 82% 2% Urban 10% 85% 5% Coastal 14% 83% 3% All respondents 14% 83% 3% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents Yes No Don t know/unsure 14% of respondents who indicated that they had taken part in some form of walking when visiting the South West Coast indicated that being able to walk along the South West Coast Path (SWCP) was the main reason for their visiting the South West on their current visit. This proportion increased to 24% amongst cliff/headland walkers. 38

39 % of respondents AVERAGE DISTANCE WALKED Average distance walked % 35% 30% 25% All respondents Cliff/headland walkers 25% 33% 34% 34% 23% 20% 15% 10% 10% 14% 9% 16% 5% 0% 2% Less than 1 mile Between 1-2 miles Between 2-4 miles Between 4-7 miles More than 7 miles The largest proportion of respondents who indicated that they did take part in some form of walking when visiting the South West Coast said that, on average, they walk for between 2-4 miles (33%). A further 25% walk for between 1-2 miles on average when visiting the South West Coast and a similar proportion (23%) between 4-7 miles. Unsurprisingly, cliff/headland walkers typically walked further on average (50% 4 miles or more) than all respondents collectively (32% walked 4 miles or more on average). 39

40 IMPORTANCE INDICATORS The Coastal Visits Survey 2012 explored the importance of a number of indicators amongst cliff/headland walkers when walking the South West Coast Path. Each factor, or indicator, was rated on a range of one to five where 1 = very unimportant (or the most negative response), 2 = unimportant, 3 = neither unimportant nor important, 4 = important and 5 = very important (or the most positive response), allowing an importance score (out of a maximum of five) to be calculated. The results for the 18 indicators explored by the survey are shown below for all cliff/headland walkers. These results are also shown in graphical format overleaf. Importance indicator Cliff/headland walkers 2012 Importance indicator Cliff/headland walkers Path being away from roads Wheelchair or pushchair friendly Attractive views & scenery Being able to see wildlife A clearly signposted path Nearby pubs Having destinations & distances on fingerposts Not being overgrown with vegetation Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are made out of natural materials (e.g.. stone or wood rather than plastic or metal) Nearby cafes Having information about routes/walks and what you will be able/likely to see available: On a website On a smart phone Places to sit & relax A challenging route 2.94 In printed books & leaflets sold locally On information panels along the path/route

41 IMPORTANCE INDICATORS Importance of indicators when walking the SWCP - Cliff/headland walkers only Path being away from roads Having information available on 5 Attractive views & scenery information panels along the path/route Having information available in printed books & leaflets sold locally Having information available on a smart phone Having information available on a website Nearby cafes A clearly signposted path Having destinations & distances on fingerposts Not being overgrown with vegetation Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free Nearby pubs Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use Being able to see wildlife Wheelchair or pushchair friendly A challenging route Places to sit & relax Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are made out of natural materials (e.g stone or wood rather than plastic or metal) 41

42 IMPORTANCE INDICATORS RANKING Indicator Cliff/headland walkers Importance ranking Attractive views & scenery A clearly signposted path Path being away from roads Not being overgrown with vegetation Having destinations & distances on fingerposts Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use On information panels along the path/route Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are made out of natural materials (e.g. stone or wood rather than plastic or metal) Being able to see wildlife Places to sit & relax Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free In printed books & leaflets sold locally On a website Nearby cafes Nearby pubs A challenging route On a smart phone Wheelchair or pushchair friendly

43 SATISFACTION INDICATORS The Coastal Visits Survey 2012 also explored satisfaction levels with the same indicators amongst cliff/headland walkers when walking the South West Coast Path. Each factor, or indicator, was rated on a range of one to five where 1 = very poor (or the most negative response), 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = good and 5 = very good (or the most positive response), allowing a satisfaction score (out of a maximum of five) to be calculated. The results for the 17 indicators explored by the survey are shown below for all cliff/headland walkers. These results are also shown in graphical format overleaf. Satisfaction indicator Cliff/headland walkers 2012 Satisfaction indicator Cliff/headland walkers Path being away from roads Being able to see wildlife Attractive views & scenery Nearby pubs A clearly signposted path Nearby cafes Not being overgrown with vegetation Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use Places to sit & relax Having information about routes/walks and what you will be able/likely to see available: On a website On a smart phone 3.42 In printed books & leaflets sold locally A challenging route Wheelchair or pushchair friendly On information panels along the path/route Overall experience of using the SWCP

44 SATISFACTION INDICATORS Satisfaction when walking the SWCP - Cliff/headland walkers only Having information available in printed books & leaflets sold locally Having information available on a smart phone Overall experience of using the SWCP Having information available on information panels along the path/route Path away from roads Attractive views & scenery A clearly signposted path Not being overgrown with vegetation Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free Having information available on a website Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use Nearby cafes Places to sit & relax Nearby pubs A challenging route Being able to see wildlife Wheelchair or pushchair friendly 44

45 SATISFACTION INDICATORS RANKING Indicator Cliff/headland walkers Satisfaction ranking Attractive views & scenery Overall experience of using the SWCP Path away from roads Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use A clearly signposted path Not being overgrown with vegetation In printed books & leaflets sold locally On a website Places to sit & relax Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free Being able to see wildlife On information panels along the path/route A challenging route Nearby cafes Nearby pubs On a smart phone Wheelchair or pushchair friendly

46 ROUTES/PATHS Cliff/headland walkers rated the SWCP routes/paths as.. A challenging route 2% 5% 30% 37% 20% 6% 3.73 Places to sit & relax 3% 4% 19% 37% 33% 4% 3.97 Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use 1% 12% 42% 39% 5% 4.25 Good path surface which is reasonably mudfree 1% 4% 20% 43% 29% 2% 3.96 Not being overgrown with vegetation 1% 3% 14% 41% 39% 2% 4.18 A clearly signposted path 1% 3% 13% 37% 43% 3% 4.21 Attractive views & scenery 2% 19% 77% 2% 4.76 Path away from roads 1% 9% 39% 48% 3% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know 46

47 FACILITIES/AMENITIES Cliff/headland walkers rated the SWCP facilities/amenities as.. Nearby cafes 6% 7% 23% 38% 17% 9% 3.58 Nearby pubs 7% 10% 26% 31% 15% 11% 3.42 Being able to see wildlife 2% 6% 23% 42% 25% 3.85 Wheelchair or pushchair friendly 10% 7% 9% 7% 5% 62% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know 47

48 INFORMATION PROVISION Cliff/headland walkers rated the SWCP information provision as.. Information available on information panels along the path/route 5% 6% 18% 37% 23% 10% 3.76 Information available in printed books & leaflets sold locally 1% 2% 7% 34% 27% 29% 4.15 Information available on a smart phone 3% 4% 6% 8% 7% 72% 3.42 Information available on a website 2% 1% 7% 19% 16% 55% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very poor Poor Average Good Very good Don't know 48

49 OVERALL EXPERIENCE OF USING THE SWCP Cliff/headland walkers rated their overall experience of using the SWCP as.. Overall experience of using the SWCP 2% 29% 66% 2% % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average Good Very good Don't know 49

50 Importance IMPORTANCE Vs. SATISFACTION HIGH 5 Importance vs. Satisfaction of walking the SWCP PRIORITY AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT MEDIUM/HIGH LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE BUT LOWER LEVEL OF SATISFACTION AREAS OF HIGH IMPORTANCE WITH HIGH SATISFACTION LEVELS LOW Satisfaction 1 Path being away from roads 9 Wheelchair or pushchair friendly 2 Attractive views & scenery 10 Being able to see wildlife 3 A clearly signposted path 11 Nearby pubs 4 Not being overgrown with vegetation 12 Nearby cafes 5 Good path surface which is reasonably mud-free 13 Information available on a website 6 Stiles, gates & steps etc. that are easy to use 14 Information available on a smart phone 7 Places to sit & relax 15 Information available on printed books & leaflets sold locally 8 A challenging route 16 Information available on information panels along the path/route HIGH 50

51 LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING Recommendation scores are a simple but effective new method for measuring customer loyalty invented by Bain consultant Fred Reicheld who discovered that a single question provides the ultimate measure of just how loyal customers are and that this method could then be used to accurately predict future revenue growth. Recommendation scores (RS) are calculated by asking a sample of customers a single question How likely is it that you would recommend xyz to a friend or colleague?. The respondent is asked to respond on an 11 point scale from 0 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely) depending on how positive they feel about the product/event/location. The proportion of those who think it unlikely they would recommend it (Detractors) subtracted from the proportion that are likely to recommend it (Promoters) produces a single number know as a Recommendation Score or RS. Based on their response to this question respondents are then divided into three distinct groups: 0-6 score are Detractors These are customers that have generated sales but are actually bad for the company over the long haul. They are less likely to buy anything/visit the event/location again and more likely to spread bad word of mouth and more costly to serve because of their dissatisfaction. 7-8 are Passives These customers are generally more positive about the product/event/location but are significantly less valuable than Promoters. Many companies over estimate their success by assuming relatively high customer satisfaction will lead to future growth. In reality Passives may be satisfied but that may not be enough in the longer term are Promoters These customers drive business growth. The company/product/event/location has gone beyond satisfying their needs and truly delights them. As a result they will buy more from this company or visit an event or location again in the future, will recommend it to many others and therefore the company/product/event/location will not need to undertake costly ad campaigns or sales promotions to retain their business. The Recommendation Score or RS is created by calculating what percentage of the customer base are Promoters and then subtracting the percentage who are Detractors. % Promoters - % Detractors = Recommendation Score (RS) The higher or more positive the RS score the more satisfied the customer base. 51

52 LIKELIHOOD OF RECOMMENDING Net Promoter Score All respondents All respondents Coastal All respondents Urban All respondents - Rural Cliff/headland walkers Detractors (score of 0-6) 5% 5% 8% 6% 4% Passives (score of 7-8) 39% 39% 41% 39% 37% Promoters (score of 9-10) 55% 56% 51% 55% 59% RECOMMENDATION SCORE (RS) +50% +51% +43% +49% +55% Visiting a coastal location in the South West achieved a Recommendation Score of +50% amongst all respondents and increased to +55% amongst cliff/headland walkers visiting the region. 55% of all respondents were categorised as Promoters giving a score of 9 or 10 out of 10 for their likelihood of recommending a visit to a coastal location in the South West to their friends or family (59% cliff/headland walkers), 39% gave a score of 7 or 8 and were categorised as Passives (37% cliff/headland walkers), whilst just 5% gave a score of 0-6 and were therefore categorised as Detractors (4% cliff/headland walkers). This is a good score for coastal locations in the South West on a metric that can range from -100% to +100%. 52

53 LIKES, DISAPPOINTMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Respondents who were visiting or had previously visited a coastal location in the region were asked what they particularly liked about visiting coastal locations in the South West. 54% of respondents particularly liked the scenery/views, including 61% of cliff/headland walkers, whilst a further 20% mentioned the beach and sea (16% of cliff/headland walkers). For a full list of the likes listed by respondents please see the appendices which accompanies this report. Likes All respondents Cliff/headland walkers Scenery/views/attractive/beautiful/beauty/countryside/landscape/picturesque/pretty/ rugged/unspoilt 54% 61% Beach/sea/coast/sand 20% 16% Ambience/atmosphere 3% 2% Fresh/clean air 3% 2% Peaceful/quiet/relaxing 3% 3% Climate/weather/warmer 2% 1% Lovely/Love it!/wonderful 2% 2% Walking/walks 1% 2% Base:

54 LIKES, DISAPPOINTMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Respondents who were visiting or had previously visited a coastal location in the region were also asked what disappointed them about visiting coastal locations in the South West. 18% of respondents were particularly disappointed by the parking facilities/charges at coastal locations including 16% of cliff/headland walkers whilst a further 14% mentioned the weather (16% of cliff/headland walkers). For a full list of the disappointments listed by respondents please see the appendices which accompanies this report. Disappointments All respondents Cliff/headland walkers Parking/charges 18% 16% Weather 14% 16% No/nothing 7% 6% Dog mess 7% 9% Too busy/many people/crowded 6% 5% Narrow lanes/roads/access 5% 5% Expensive/prices 4% 2% Litter/rubbish 4% 5% Traffic 4% 3% Base:

55 LIKES, DISLIKES & SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT Finally, respondents who were visiting or had previously visited a coastal location in the region were asked what could be done to improve their experience at coastal locations in the South West. 24% of respondents mentioned parking facilities/charges at coastal locations including 22% of cliff/headland walkers whilst a further 8% mentioned the need for areas to be cleaner & tidier (9% of cliff/headland walkers). For a full list of the improvements listed by respondents please see the appendices which accompanies this report. Improvements All respondents Cliff/headland walkers Parking/charges 24% 22% Cleaner/tidier/litter/bins 8% 9% Roads/road network 6% 7% Lower prices/too expensive 6% 5% Public transport 5% 4% Toilets 5% 5% Access/accessibility 4% 3% Signs/signage 4% 6% No/nothing 4% 5% Dog mess/fouling 3% 3% Base:

56 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Year 1 Results Summary Local Business Survey Key Findings 56 The South West Research Company

57 South West Coast Path Monitoring & Evaluation Framework Local Business Survey Methodology An online survey of business located near to the South West Coast Path was conducted using a database of approx. 900 businesses including luggage transfer businesses which regularly deliver walkers bags along the South West Coast Path routes. In addition, a further database of approx. 50 walking holiday companies based in and around the South West was also used.. The online survey link was distributed via during early November 2012 and a total of 188 completed online questionnaires were submitted by the beginning of December approx. 20% of the total contacts available. 57

58 Business Type Business Type Accommodation Type 3% 2% 2% A hotel (10 rooms or less) 6% A hotel (more than 10 rooms) 3% 93% A bed & breakfast / guest house 77% Self catering accommodation 3% An accommodation establishment Holiday park 3% Sports or activities based business Base = 188 Food & drinks related business Other type of business Base = 175 Other 6% The large majority of respondents were accommodation providers. Serviced accommodation providers accounted for 86% of accommodation responses. 58

59 Business Location and Years Operating Business Location 5% 14% 41% Cornwall Devon Dorset Somerset 39% Base = 188 Cornwall businesses accounted for 41% of responses along with 39% from Devon. A further 14% of businesses were from Dorset and 5% from Somerset. 59

60 Performance Customers (2011 compared with 2010) 77% of businesses reported that their customers had increased (38%) or remained at the same level (39%) as 2010 whilst 23% reported that they had decreased in 2011 compared with the previous year. 86% of businesses reported that the number of their customers using the coast path in 2011 compared with 2010 had increased (36%) or remained at the same level (50%) whilst 15% reported that the numbers using it had decreased in 2011 compared with the previous year. Overall number of customers The numbers of customers using the Coast Path 2011 vs % 36% 39% 50% 23% 15% Base = 178 Increased Stayed the same Decreased Base =

61 Performance Customers (2012 compared with 2011) 55% of businesses reported that their customers had increased (24%) or remained at the same level (31%) as 2011 whilst 46% reported that they had decreased in 2012 compared with the previous year. 69% of businesses reported that the number of their customers using the coast path in 2012 compared with 2011 had increased (25%) or remained at the same level (44%) whilst 31% reported that the numbers using it had decreased in 2012 compared with the previous year. Overall number of customers The numbers of customers using the Coast Path 2012 vs % 25% 31% 44% 46% 31% Base = 177 Increased Stayed the same Decreased Base =

62 Performance Turnover (2011 compared with 2010) 78% of businesses reported that their business turnover had increased (38%) or remained at the same level (40%) as 2010 whilst 22% reported that it had decreased in 2011 compared with the previous year. Turnover 2011 vs % 40% 22% Base = 175 Increased Stayed the same Decreased 62

63 Performance Turnover (2012 compared with 2011) 53% of businesses reported that their business turnover had increased (18%) or remained at the same level (35%) as 2011 whilst 46% reported that it had decreased in 2012 compared with the previous year. Turnover 2012 vs % 35% 46% Base = 179 Increased Stayed the same Decreased 63

64 Performance Estimated Actual Change The table below shows the estimated actual change in overall customers, customers using the South West Coast Path and turnover for 2011 vs and 2012 vs Performance estimated actual change 2011 vs vs Overall customers 1.9% -8% Customers using the SWCP 6.1% -2.4% Turnover -0.1% -9.6% 64

65 Performance Main Factors Affecting General Performance During 2011 & 2012 The cloud diagram below shows some of the main factors affecting general business performance during 2011 and The poor weather and poor economic climate/recession were the main factors listed by respondents. Poor economy Improved marketing/advertising Olympics Weather Staycation effect Recession Good reputation/repeat business Increase in walking holidays/use of the coast path

66 Performance Main Reasons for Any Change in the Numbers of Customers Using the Coast Path During 2011 (Compared to 2010) and 2012 (Compared to 2011) The table below shows some of the main reasons for any change in the numbers of customers using the coast path during 2011 compared to 2010 and 2012 compared to 2011 there was little change in the reasons given by year of comparison. Increased usage Improved awareness/advertising/promotion Accepting luggage transfers, from guests booking coastal walking holidays Good word of mouth/recommendations/repeat business Increase in popularity/walking holidays/the coast path/active holidays Improved/better access/walking conditions Decreased usage Poor weather Poor economic/financial climate Fewer visitors/shorter stays Increase in fuel costs Olympics Good weather during Spring/Autumn Increase in German visitors/overseas visitors Just a little more money in people s pockets Fewer establishments taking one night stays More bookings via agent/luggage Transfers More people holiday at home/in the UK Quality of service

67 Coast Path Information SWCP Information Format 21% 37% 70% 79% 63% 30% On your website Bedroom browsers Other Base = 188 No Yes 79% of businesses would be interested in more information on coast path walks which they could use on their website and 63% similar information to use in bedroom browsers. 67

68 Coast Path Information Other Formats 30% of businesses would be interested in more information on coast path walks in other formats including: Leaflets/booklets/flyers/hand-outs Maps Mini-guides (local focus) Posters Apps & QR codes linking directly to SWCP website Improved local signage 68

69 South West Coast Path Maintenance Are There Any SWCP Areas Near to You Which Are Not Well Maintained? Whether Report Any Problems With SWCP 26% 22% 35% 35% 52% 31% Yes No Don't know Yes No Don't know Base = 188 Base = % of respondents stated that there were areas of South West Coast Path near them that were not well maintained. A full list of the areas mentioned by respondents are provided in the appendices which accompanies this report. 35% of businesses said that they do report any problems with the SWCP in their area. 69

70 South West Coast Path Maintenance Reporting Problems Amongst the 31% of businesses who said that they do not report any problems with the SWCP in their area, the largest proportion (45%) did not know who to report any problems to. A further 37% would report any problems to the SWCP Association/SWCP team and a further 8% their local council. 1 business in each case mentioned the tourist board, using the phone book, local ranger and the National Trust. Amongst the 35% of business who said that they do/would report any problems with the SWCP in their area, the largest proportion (28%) had encouragingly not yet had to actually report any problems but would do so if necessary. The same proportion would report them to the SWCP Association/SWCP team whilst 18% would do so to their local council. 10% would report problems to the National Trust and 3% The Ramblers Association, 70

71 South West Coast Path Maintenance Satisfaction When Reporting Problems with the SWCP 11% 3% 38% 12% 23% 12% Base = 65 Very unsatisfied Neither unsatisfied nor satisfied Very satisfied Unsatisfied Satisfied Don't know/can't remember 35% of those businesses reporting problems with the SWCP were either very satisfied (12%) or satisfied (23%) with the response that they received. 14% were very unsatisfied (11%) or unsatisfied (3%) with the response they received and the reasons given for this included getting no response or the problem not being sorted/resolved. A further 38% did not know or could not remember. 71

72 Attracting More Walkers Whether Would Like to Attract More Walkers Most Beneficial Way of Attracting More Walkers 12% National promotion of Coast Path walking Better information about local walks on your website 55% 80% 88% Advice/training on promoting to the walking market Better information about walks available elsewhere Path surface improvements to help make Coast Path walking more of a year round activity 40% 35% 34% Yes No Other 6% Base = 188 Base = 166 None of the above 4% 88% of businesses would like to attract more walkers. 80% of businesses felt that national promotion of walking the coast path would be the most beneficial method of helping them to attract more walkers to their establishment. 72

73 Attracting More Walkers - Other 6% of businesses mentioned other methods which they felt would be the most beneficial method of helping them to attract more walkers to their establishment. These are listed in the table below. Other Ways of Attracting More Walkers Better weather/ better economy How about producing a subsidised DVD to show to guests If coast path promotional material mentioned other activities they can do when they walk this section of the coast path (kayaking in the Fowey Estuary). International promotion It is not just national walkers that walk this path, I have had Australians, Germans, Swiss, Canadians this year as well as UK national, But no French! Luggage transfer information - we promote this anyway and several of our coast path walkers are already aware and use this service. The trail needs to be looked at as a business and provide the level of appropriate service...give the customer everything and more before they look elsewhere. Noting our establishment on maps and documentation etc. so prospective walkers can see we could cover three days' worth of walking. That some of the coast path is possible to be ridden on with a bike!!!!! Get Wiggo down here! This year we are advertising through the SWCP with the hope that it will bring in more customers To make sure that internet walks and information about the coast and path are correct, so much is giving out the wrong information. 73

74 Other Comments A number of other comments were made by businesses about current level of business or usage of the coast path amongst their customers and these are provided in full in the appendix which accompanies this report. It would be recommended that these comments are read in full. 74

75 For further information please contact or visit