Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393 } 410

A novel, user-based rating system for tourist beaches

Robert Morgan*
Coastal and Riverine Research Unit, School of Applied Sciences, University of Glamorgan, Pontypridd CF37 1DL, Wales, UK
Received 4 September 1998; accepted 7 November 1998

Abstract

Various award and quality assurance systems are in widespread use for promoting beach tourism in the UK. However, all existing
systems are of limited scope in terms of beach aspects taken into account and recent research has suggested poor public knowledge of
the awards. A novel system was devised based on beach-user opinions and taking account of all measurable aspects of importance.
A questionnaire survey (n"859) at 23 beaches in Wales, UK, generated preference and priority data for 49 beach aspects. Weightings
derived from the survey were applied to a detailed checklist. This checklist was used to assess and generate percentage rating scores for
70 Welsh beaches. The system also took account of the di!ering desires of beach users preferring to visit commercialised as opposed to
undeveloped beaches. Rating scores ranged from 39% (Trecco Bay at Porthcawl), to 69% (Broadhaven and Pembray). Although
scores correlated positively with other UK beach awards, the system described is the only one yet devised which takes account of all
aspects of importance to beach users and employs a scoring system derived from their views. Shortcomings in the system were
identi"ed and further work is desirable to assess whether a single overall score is the most suitable measure of beach quality.  1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Beach quality; Beach rating; Awards; Coastal management; Welsh coast; Checklists

1. Introduction not approach coverage of all measurable aspects of the

Anastassova (1996) identi"ed the use of beach awards
and evaluation systems as a valuable tool for the success-
ful development and promotion of beach tourism in an
area. Although many beach award/evaluation systems
endeavour to guide beach users with regard to beach
quality, UK beach awards in particular are handicapped
by proliferation of awards/awarding bodies, low public
awareness and distrust of their validity (House &
Herring, 1995). Those currently (1998) in use in the UK
include the European Blue Flag Award (administered by
the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe;
FEEE), the Seaside Award given by the Tidy Britain
Group (TBG) and the Good Beach Guide, a book pub-
lished annually by the Marine Conservation Society
(MCS, 1998). The criteria for these awards were sum-
marised by Williams and Morgan (1995). All are based
on a limited number of measurable parameters and do
* Tel.:#44 (0) 1443 480480; fax:#44 (0) 1443 482285; e-mail: rmorgan
@glam.ac.uk
beach environment (Williams & Morgan, 1995).
Work so far carried out to investigate public know-
ledge of existing UK beach awards/evaluation systems,
had produced results which may be regarded as giving
cause for concern. House and Herring (1995) found that
only 41% of beach users knew that the European Blue
Flag indicated that the beach met EC water quality
guidelines. The corresponding "gure for the Seaside
Award was 27%. Nelson and Williams (1997) found that
only about one-third of beach users had a reasonable
understanding of the European Blue Flag award criteria
and 11% of beach users actually recognised the Blue
Flag itself. Less than 1% recognised the Seaside
Award #ag. Seven percent thought that the Blue Flag
symbol indicated danger. Further work in the UK
(Nelson et al., with referees) has con"rmed poor public
knowledge of beach award/evaluation systems and
knowledge of award/recommendation status at particu-
lar beaches.
At the commencement of this study (1994), 1454 beach-
es and local administrations in the EU and other coun-
tires associated with the programme possessed a Blue

0261-5177/99/$ - see front matter  1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 2 6 1 - 5 1 7 7 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 1 5 - 1
394 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410
Flag (Williams & Morgan, 1995). This "gure rose to 1927
in 19 participating countries by 1998 (FEEE, 1998).
There are marked disparities between countries in terms
of numbers of Blue Flag beaches, in comparison with
their length of shoreline and total number of beaches.
For example, in 1998, the UK had 45 Blue Flag beaches
(approximately 10% of the total number of beaches);
Germany } 15 (5%); Denmark } 185 (15%); Greece } 326
(20%). In the UK context, the water utility company Dwr
Cymru Welsh Water has taken a leading role in the
Green Seas Initiative, which was formed in 1996 with the
aim of obtaining 50 Blue Flags for Welsh beaches by
2000. However, the total of Blue Flag beaches in Wales
has only increased from 2 in 1994 to 9 in 1998. Moreover,
there is concern that attempts at Blue Flag quali"cation
might lead to the installation of facilities at less developed
beaches which might not be desired by their users (Mor-
gan, 1999).
The Seaside Award is a UK award scheme introduced
in 1992 and administered by the TBG (in Wales, via its
subsidiary organisation Keep Wales Tidy; KWT), a
partly government funded but independent agency
campaigning for environmental improvements in many
"elds of interest. It encompasses both resort and less
developed &&rural'' beaches. In terms of the award criteria,
requirements at resort beaches are similar to those for the
Blue Flag (high standards of facilities and management,
beach cleanliness and water quality). There are 29 such
criteria for resort beaches compared to 13 for rural
beaches. However while the Blue Flag requires compli-
ance with strict &&Guideline'' (&&G'') water quality stan-
dards, Seaside Award beaches need only meet the much
less strict &&Mandatory'' (&&I'') standards. Not surprisingly
in view of the wider range of beaches eligible and the less
stringent criteria, a much larger number of UK beaches
have received the Seaside Award Flag than the European
Blue Flag. In 1994, 165 beaches received the Seaside
Award #ag and this rose to 249 by 1998. Both the Seaside
Award and the Blue Flag are promoted via lea#ets, press
releases, on-site noticeboards and display of award #ags
at qualifying beaches.
The Good Beach Guide is a book available for pur-
chase by the general public through retail outlets and
published annually by the MCS, a UK environmental
organisation working to safeguard the marine environ-
ment. Beaches are recommended on the basis of a high
standard of water quality and a low probability of
contamination from sewage (MCS, 1998). In 1998, the
eleventh year of assessment, almost 1000 beaches in the
UK and Channel Isles were assessed (including 205 in
Wales) and 109 were recommended (24 in Wales; MCS,
1998). In order to be recommended, a beach must achieve
a 100% pass of Mandatory Standards set out in the EC
Bathing Water Directive (Council of the European Com-
munities, 1976). Also 80% of samples taken during the
bathing season (15 May to 30 September) must pass the
Directive's Guideline Coliform standard and 90% must
pass the Guidelines Faecal Streptococcus standard.
There must be no sewage outfalls with low treatment
standards adjacent to the beach, bathing must be safe
and there must not be excessive marine litter or sewage
related debris present at the time of inspection.
In recent years, a few workers have attempted to devise
beach rating systems taking into account all measurable
beach aspects. Williams et al. (1993) devised a checklist
based on the views of international coastal experts to
assess 50 beach parameters. Beaches were scored for each
parameter on a scale from 1 to 5. Six hundred and "fty
beaches in the USA, 182 in the southwest peninsula, UK
and 28 in Turkey were evaluated using the checklist, to
produce an overall percentage rating score. Among the
highest scores obtained were for Sarigerme (Turkey)
} 89%; Porthmeir (Cornwall, UK) } 86% and Kapula
(Hawaii, USA) } 92%. After further consideration some
of those who devised this checklist detected weaknesses
in its approach (Williams & Morgan, 1995). For example,
in the checklist it was assumed that wide beaches were
preferable to narrow, but this assumption was not sup-
ported by "eldwork. Many aspects of the beach environ-
ment were classi"ed as good or bad without having
regard to the possibly varying preferences of beach users
and di!ering uses of the beach environment. Quantitative
values and hence scores, were attributed to categories for
some beach parameters, but many were judged on
a purely subjective basis. No weighting was attached to
the 50 parameters relative to each other, so that each
contributed 2% to the total rating score. Landscape was
assessed by means of a component-based system (pres-
ence/visibility of sea walls, buildings, industry, etc.),
but such methods of landscape evaluation have been
criticised by numerous authors (e.g. Kaplan, 1975; Apple-
ton, 1980; Penning-Rowsell, 1982; Bourassa, 1991). How-
ever, a checklist essentially similar to the original of
Williams et al. (1993) is still in widespread use for beach
quality assessment in the United States (Leatherman,
1997).
2. Methodology
The principal aim of this study was to ascribe percent-
age rating scores to 70 popular tourist beaches in Wales,
based on the preferences and priorities of Welsh beach
users and taking into account all aspects of importance
to these users. In light of the above criticisms and consid-
erations, it was regarded as essential that an objective
beach rating system should endeavour to:
(i) Take into account all aspects of beaches which
could be identi"ed (or reasonably assumed) to be of
importance to beach users, provided these could be as-
sessed in a quantitative or semi-quantitative manner.
Assessment could be made either on the basis of on-site
 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410
inspection of the beach, or from published or otherwise
obtainable data.
(ii) Weight all beach aspects in (i) above according to
the priorities of beach users.
(iii) Take account of the preferences of beach users for
those aspects where a preferred state for that aspect could
not be assumed.
(iv) Make allowance for the di!ering preferences and
priorities of beach users for various aspects of the beach,
according to their preference for visiting beaches with
varying levels of commercial development.
Having regard to these requirements, a beach rating
methodology was conceived, founded on the use of two
interrelated tools; a beach-user questionnaire to assess
preferences and priorities of a representative sample of
beach users in Wales and a checklist with which to record
quantitative beach data as in (i) above. Data from the
questionnaire survey would then be used to correctly
weight (in terms of scoring), the various beach aspects on
the checklist.
2.1. Questionnaire
A questionnaire (Morgan, 1999), was devised to assess:
(i) The preferences of beach users for selected beach
factors, where preference could be expected to vary from
one beach user to another. These factors included sand
colour, bathing water temperature, beach facilities, beach
regulation, etc. (Table 1).
(ii) The priority placed by beach users upon each of
the factors of the beach environment assessed by the
checklist. These beach factors were selected from those
which have been shown to be of importance to beach
users in previous work (Morgan et al., 1993), used in
existing beach rating systems, suggested by a variety of
European coastal experts or featured in previous beach
checklists (Williams et al., 1993; Chaverri, 1989).
(iii) The type of beach (according to level of commer-
cialisation), the particular beach user preferred to visit.
On the basis of knowledge and observations of beaches
in Wales, beaches were divided into "ve categories in
terms of level of commercialisation:
(a) Undeveloped beaches with no facilities for visitors
at all.
(b) Beaches with a few facilities, e.g. a toilet, small
refreshment kiosk and car park.
(c) Beaches at small resorts with toilets, a cafe selling
meals, drinks, ice-creams, car parking, etc.
(d) Beaches at medium-sized resorts, which might
have several cafes, one or more restaurants, fast food
outlets, car parks, etc.
(e) Beaches at large, highly developed resorts.
Questions on the questionnaire were closely aligned with
factors featured in the checklist (Table 1), so that a direct
link could be made between questionnaire responses and
checklist beach factors. This alignment was made in
395
terms of both the identity of the factors themselves (e.g.
sand colour, water temperature, absence of litter), and
also, where beach-user preferences were measured by the
questionnaire, in terms of the categories within them (e.g.
for sand colour, white, light tan, brown, grey, black sand).
As a result of this alignment and taking into account
stated preferences of beach users for the type of beach
they would prefer to visit (categories &&a'' to &&e'' above),
questionnaire data would be processed to attribute cor-
rectly weighted scores to particular values of each beach
factor featured in the checklist for each beach type. By
these means, factors most important to beach users could
make up appropriately large proportions of the total
beach rating score and the maximum possible scores for
each category of each factor could re#ect the preferences
and priorities of beach users.
Beaches were selected for the questionnaire survey by
dividing all identi"able beaches in Wales (&200), into
two categories; &&identi"ed'' bathing beaches (as de"ned
by the UK government and required to comply with the
EC Bathing Waters Directive 76/160/EEC), and non-
identi"ed beaches. From the list of 50 identi"ed beaches
geographically within Wales at the time of the study
(1994), 14 beaches were randomly selected and a further
10 were randomly selected from the remaining non-iden-
ti"ed beaches. This division aimed to produce a balance
between the generally more heavily used &&identi"ed''
beaches and the remaining 150 or so less heavily used
beaches in Wales. The Welsh Agricultural College (1992)
estimated a 2 : 1 ratio of weekend to weekday visitors to
Welsh beaches. The sampling programme was balanced
to re#ect this ratio, the aim being to obtain 34 question-
naires at weekends and 17 on weekdays at each beach.
Sampling was carried out during July/August 1994 and
June/July 1995. In the event, no visitors were reported at
one beach on the days available for questionnaire work
and shortfalls in sample numbers were signi"cant at "ve
other beaches. However, a total of 1004 questionnaires
were obtained (669 at identi"ed beaches and 335 at
others), with a reported refusal rate of (2% (Morgan,
1999). Eight hundred and "fty-nine of these question-
naires were suitable for full data analysis. Sampling of
beach users is fraught with di$culty in terms of obtaining
a representative sample of the total beach using popula-
tion (Morgan et al., 1993). At each beach, an approxima-
tion to a strati"ed sample was obtained by approaching
groups, couples and individuals of a variety of ages and
both sexes at various locations on the beach.
2.2. Checklist
The checklist comprised classi"cations and categories
for 49 beach factors (Table 1). These were divided into
&&physical'' (19 factors), &&biological'' (9) and &&human use''
(21) groups in similar fashion to the factors featured in
the checklist used by Williams et al. (1993). Categories for
396 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 1
Beach checklist

Physical factors
1. Beach width at mean low tide

(20 m 20}50 m 50}200 m 200}400 m 400}800 m '800 m

2. Beach width at mean high tide

(20 m 20}50 m 50}200 m 200}400 m 400}800 m '800 m

3. Predominant beach material (above high water mark) } percentage of each

Cobbles Gravel Sand Mud Flat rock Sea wall/

('5 cm)/rock (1}50 mm) (0.1}1 mm) jagged rock

4. Predominant beach material (below high water mark) } percentage of each

Cobbles Gravel Sand Mud Flat rock Sea wall/

('5 cm)/rock (1}50 mm) (0.1}1 mm) jagged rock

5. Water temperature (mean during EC bathing season } May to September)

(103C 10}153C 16}213C 22}263C 27}323C '323C

6. Beach microclimate (shelter from wind, etc.)

Very exposed Sheltered, some breeze Tightly enclosed/

over sheltered

7. Size of breaking waves

(10 cm 10}30 cm 30 cm!1 m 1}2 m '2 m

8. Average beach slope above high water mark

(53 5}203 Very steep ('203)

 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 397

Table 1 (continued )

9. Distance from water edge to 50 cm water depth (mid-tide)

3 m or less 3}7 m 7}20 m '20 m

10. Submerged obstacles: trenches, pits, groynes, rocks, etc.

Many, or several large Few Occasional None

11. Colour of sand or other beach material

Black Grey Brown Light tan White

12. Presence of dangerous cli!s, precipices, etc. (above at least part of beach)

Dangerous, loose cli!s Unfenced cli!s, negligible None directly above beach
directly above beach stonefall danger

13. Water clarity; can see bottom at max.depth (at mid-tide) of:

(1 m 1}2 m 2}3 m 3}4 m '4 m

14. Beach safety rating: Subtract.........................................

15. Coastal landscape aesthetic quality score ........................................

16. Temperature sensation (from nomogram modi"ed from

Mieczkowski, 1985)

From nomogram:

1, 2 } very hot

3, 4 } hot

5 } warm

4, 3 } neither cold nor warm

2, 1 } cool

0 } cold
398 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 1 (continued )

17. Rainfall

Mean monthly Mean monthly

precipitation (mm) precipitation (mm)

(15 90}105

15}30 105}120

30}45 120}135

45}60 135}150

60}75 '150

75}90

18. Sunshine

Mean monthly hours Mean monthly hours

of sunshine per day of sunshine per day

'10 4}5

9}10 3}4

8}9 2}3

7}8 1}2

6}7 (1

5}6

19. Wind speed

Mean wind speed Mean wind speed

(m s\) (m s\)

(0.8 2.5}3.4

0.8}1.6 3.5}5.5

1.6}2.5 '5.5

Biological factors
20. Floating material: leaves, twigs, litter, other debris

Much present Some present Absent

21. Smells of rotting "sh, seaweed

Strong Detectable Absent

 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 399

Table 1 (continued )

22. Shoreline fauna (in rock pools, etc.)

Absent Some, little variety Many rockpools with

abundant, varied fauna

23. Insects or similar pests

Many present Some often present Absent

(e.g. in strandline debris)

24. Dangerous animals o!shore (jelly"sh, sharks,

weever"sh, etc.); average occurances per season

'5 1}5 (1

25. Seaweed (algae) washed up on beach

Abundant Signi"cant amount Absent/negligible amount

26. Sewage debris on beach (mean no. of items per 10 m of strandline; from examination of 100 m)

Abundant ('10 items) Some present (1}10 items) Average less than 1 item per 10 m

27. Water quality

(95% pass of &I' (mandatory) stds.

95% pass of &I' stds.

100% pass of &I' stds.

100% pass of &I' stds, 80% pass &G' (guideline) coliform stds.

100% pass of &I' stds, 80% pass &G' coliform stds, 90% pass
&G' faecal streptococcus stds.

28. Natural #ora (immediate vicinity of beach; accessible and within 100 m)

Absent or only patchy grass Some, little variety Varied, interesting plants
on embankments, etc. with '50% of beach
hinterland vegetated
400 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 1 (continued )

Human-use factors
29. Odours from industry (fumes, smog) and commerce
(other than food preparation)

Strong Detectable Absent

30. Fumes from engines and exhausts of cars, other road

vehicles, boats, etc.

Strong Detectable Absent

31. Odours from catering, food preparation

Strong Detectable Absent

32. Litter on beach (non-sewage derived)

Substantial amount Moderate amount Very little present Absent

present present

33. Oil (on rocks, pebbles, in sand, etc.)

Many patches evident on rocks/sand Traces (occasional spots) present Absent

34. Access (to resort/nearest car parking by vehicle)

Road mainly single track with passing places

Road mainly wide, but not signposted

Well signposted (to beach/resort/nearest car park) metalled road,

continuously over 4 m wide

35. Location of nearest car parking

No car parking within 1 km Car parking ore than 200 m Car parking within 200 m
from beach

36. Access (to beach itself from resort/car parking)

No clearly visible path to beach

Path rough/steep/with steps

Level path to beach

Road or wide tarmac/concrete path leading to edge of beach

 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 401

Table 1 (continued )

For 37 to 42, only facilities within 100 m of rear edge of beach considered

37. Toilets } number (of cubicles) } not in

a bar, cafe, shop or other private facility

Absent

1 per gender

1}3 per gender

'3 per gender

38. Toilets } cleanliness

Extremely "lthy and/or badly vandalised

Considerable dirtyness or much rubbish, litter, etc.

Slightly dirty/untidy

Very clean

39. Showers (for public use)

Absent or extremely "lthy/vandalised One only, or several but dirty '1, clean

40. Fresh water } washing & drinking (including those in toilet block)

None Tap in wash-hand basin only Standpipe (suitable for washing down)
& potable water

41. Refreshments/cafes

None Basic Wide selection of food & drink

(kiosks, etc, no seating for full meals) (full meals in seating facility)

42. Bars

Bars/cafes serving alcohol (with or without meals)

No alcohol served

43. Chairs/sunbeds

Not available

Available for hire

402 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 1 (continued )

44. Lifeguards

Absent

Present in busy periods only (e.g. peak season weekends)

Present throughout May to September

45. Motor vehicle noise (including from car park) and/or

railway/boat engine noise

High level Detectable None

46. Noise from industry/commerce/ funfairs, etc.

High level Detectable None

47. Are vehicles permitted on beach?

Vehicles allowed to drive on the beach

No vehicles allowed on beach (except patrol vehicles)

48. Are animals permitted on the beach?

Dogs/equines allowed on beach

Dogs, etc. banned from beach

49. Are watersports (water-skiing, jet-skiing, sail

boarding), permitted o!shore?

Allowed anywhere

Allowed in one area only

Banned

Beach type } (Tick one box)

a) An undeveloped beach with no facilities for visitors at all

b) Beach with a few facilities, e.g. a toilet, small refreshment kiosk and car park

c) Beach at a small resort with toilets, cafe selling meals, drinks, ice-creams, car parking, etc.

d) Beach at a medium-sized resort

e) Beach at a large, highly developed resort

 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 403

these factors were based on the opinions of coastal ex-

perts or adapted from existing beach checklists/rating
systems. Categorisations were given on the checklist in as
quantitative a fashion as reasonably possible, given the
requirement to tie the checklist categories for many fac-
tors to preference selection on the beach-user question-
naire. Of the 49 factors, categories for 15 were de"ned
entirely on the basis of quantitative data (e.g. beach
width, number of toilets, climate, microbiological water
quality) and nine human-use factors were precisely de-
"ned in terms of activities permitted/banned or facilities
available/not available. Categorisation of beaches with
regard to the remaining beach factors was assisted and
simpli"ed as such as possible by providing concise de"ni-
tions for each category (e.g. for beach access: &&no clearly
visible path to the beach'', &&path rough/steep/with steps'',
&&level path to beach'', &&road or wide tarmac/concrete
path''; Table 1, factor 36). De"nitions of beach types in
terms of commercialisation were included so that all
assessed beaches could be classi"ed into one of the cat-
egories. For beach aspects where beach-user preference
was assumed and the aspect on the checklist was divided
into several categories (e.g. litter abundance, Table 1,
factor 32), relative scores for the categories were scaled
linearly from a maximum for the &&ideal'' condition (&&ab-
sent'') to zero for the least desirable category (&&substan-
tial amount present'').
Forty-nine bathing beaches in Wales identi"ed under Fig. 1. The 70 beaches assessed in Wales, UK.
the EC Bathing Water Directive (Council of the Euro-
pean Communities, 1976), were assessed using the check-
list. Twenty-one other beaches, mainly in the southern compared to scales previously used in relation to more
half of Wales, were also selected for assessment, making active tourism, e.g. sightseeing. Linkage was made be-
a total of 70 beaches (Fig. 1). These additional beaches tween the user-generated ratings from the questionnaire
were selected mainly on the basis that they had received survey (one set for those preferring each beach type based
TBG Seaside Awards in 1994, or had been recommended on commercialisation level), for various climatic condi-
by the 1994 Good Beach Guide (MCS, 1994). All beaches tions and published climate data (Meserve, 1974; Me-
were assessed once for main checklist completion and teorological O$ce, 1984) to evaluate beach climate on
temporally variable aspects (e.g. litter, debris, cleanliness a month-by-month basis from May to September. Mean
of toilets), were reassessed on a second visit. In the case of scores for each of the four climate parameters for each
pocket beaches and small resorts, the whole beach and month were computed. The average score for the "ve
(where applicable) adjacent resort area were assessed. months of May to September for each parameter was
For the large beaches, assessment took place where the then calculated and the score applied to beaches closest
main resort facilities were located or (for example, in the to the meteorological station from which the data was
case of Swansea Bay), in the area of the National Rivers taken.
Authority water sampling point. Landscape quality was assessed at the 70 beaches, by
Many tourists are largely (perhaps entirely) motivated production and subsequent judging of a S-VHS video
by climatic considerations to select their holiday destina- "lm panorama at each beach (Morgan & Williams, 1999).
tions and resort areas (Mieczkowski, 1985) and beach use All beaches were judged by a panel of 24 coastal man-
in particular is a highly weather-sensitive recreational agers comprising Wardens and other o$cers of the
activity (De Frietas, 1990). A climate index was devised Pembrokeshire Coast National Park (6), Glamorgan
(Morgan et al., 1997), based on beach-user preferences for Heritage Coast (4), Ceredigion Heritage Coast (4), Ken"g
thermal sensation and bathing water temperature to- Nature Reserve (3) and academics specialising in the
gether with priorities for these factors plus wind speed, coastal zone from the University of Glamorgan and Bath
duration of sunshine and absence of rainfall. An existing Spa University College (7). Judges were asked to give
nomogram was optimised for sedentary beach use (e.g. each panorama a score between zero and 20. Following
sunbathing), re#ecting di!ering thermal requirements correction of scores to take account of varying weather
404 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410
Table 2
Beach safety scale (modi"ed from Short, 1993)
Wave height (m)
(0.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 '3.0
Dissipative 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10
Intermediate/LTT 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
Re#ective 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
conditions at time of "lming (Morgan & Williams, 1999),
mean percentage scores for each beach were calculated
which formed part of the total beach rating scores. The
priority given by beach users to bathing water safety was
calculated as the sum of the four priority scores relating
to the intrinsic bathing safety characteristics of the beach
(i.e. strong currents, dangerous undertows/rip currents,
large waves and rapid increase in depth when wading
into the water). Checklist scores for individual beaches
were calculated on the basis of typical summer season
wave height (as observed at the time of beach visits for
checklist assessments and video "lming) and beach mor-
phology (as assessed from the beach video panoramas),
using a table modi"ed from that of Short (1993). Short's
(1993) work was carried out on Australian microtidal
sand beaches, so it was not appropriate to use the orig-
inal table for the macrotidal conditions of the Welsh
coast. The table used for this work (Table 2) condensed
Short's (1993) original six categories of beach morpho-
logy to three; dissipative, intermediate/low tide terrace
(LTT) and re#ective. &&Intermediate'' beaches may be clas-
si"ed as both dissipative and re#ective, depending on the
tide state.
In Short's (1993) original table, a high score (out of
a maximum of 10), equated to high level of danger and
this orientation was maintained in the modi"ed version
used in this study (Table 2). As a high score was undesir-
able for this aspect (in contrast to scores for all the other
aspects featured in the checklist), the score for &&bathing
safety'' was subtracted when totalling the checklist score
for a beach. The morphological assessment of beaches is
included in Table 3.
3. Results and discussion
The beach-user questionnaire survey demonstrated
substantial di!erences in preference and/or priority
(as percentage of total beach score), for many beach
aspects depending on beach user's preferred beach type
(Morgan, 1999). Particularly notable di!erences in
beach-user priority according to preferred beach type
were seen for scenery/landscape (varying from 8.8 to
14.8% of the total rating score at medium/large resort
beaches and undeveloped beaches respectively), lifeguard
provision (2.4}1.6%), availability of drinking water
(2.5}1.4%) and provision of showers (1.6}0.8%). These
di!erences were taken into account in rating beaches
of each type. There were also several notable di!erences
in priority for beach aspects according to age and gender
(Morgan, 1999). Fifty-three percent of those inter-
viewed originated from Wales, 45% from the rest of
the UK and 2% from overseas. Mean age of those
interviewed was 38 years (with more than half those
interviewed aged between 25 and 44) and 54% were
female.
No reliable data regarding harmful/dangerous animals
(Table 1, factor 24) were obtainable for many of the study
beaches, so the maximum score was given to all beaches
for this factor. The four factors concerning climate in the
beach resort area (sunshine, rainfall, temperature and
wind speed), accounted for a mean of 8.2% of the total
beach rating score. Actual scores for these factors were
almost identical for all the beaches in Wales, but substan-
tially lower than scores in Turkey (Morgan et al., 1995).
Four factors relevant to bathing safety accounted for
a mean of 8.3% of the rating score. &&Physical'' factors
(including scenery/landscape and safety) accounted for
39.2% of the beach rating, compared to 19.6% for the
&&biological'' factors and 41.2% for &&human-use'' factors
(Table 1). These percentages for &&physical'', &&biological''
and &&human-use'' groupings, were remarkably similar to
those in the checklist used by Williams et al. (1993; 35, 21
and 44%, respectively).
3.1. Beach scores
Broadhaven (in South Pembrokeshire) and Pembray
achieved the highest overall beach rating scores (69%),
while Trecco Bay, Porthcawl had the lowest (39%;
Table 4). It was noteworthy that the highest scoring
beaches in each of the four categories of commercialisa-
tion (Broadhaven } no facilities !69%; Pembray
} beach with basic facilities !69%; Langland Bay
} small resort } 64%; Tenby South } medium/large resort
!66%), achieved fairly similar scores. This suggested
that the scoring system based on beach user preferences
and priorities was able to generate broadly similar, high
scores for beaches meeting the requirements of visitors
wishing to go to beaches of various commercialisation
levels.
The overall score of 69% for Broadhaven (S. Pembs.)
can be attributed to the relatively high score (61%) for
&&physical'' factors, especially scenery/landscape for which
it achieved the highest score (80%) of any beaches fea-
tured in this study (Morgan & Williams, 1999). This
beach also earned scores of 77% for &&biological'' factors
and 74% for &&human use'' factors (Table 4). Sewage
debris amount (Table 1, factor 26) fell into the lowest
category and seaweed and #oating debris were absent or
negligible. Water quality in 1994 satis"ed the mandatory
 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 405

Table 3
Assessment of beach morphology (also serves as key to Fig. 1)

Beach Morphology Beach Morphology

1 St. Mary's Well Bay LTT 36 Broad Haven D

2 Barry (Jackson's Bay) D 37 Newgale Sands D
3 Barry (Whitmore Bay) D 38 Caerfai Bay D
4 Cold Knap R 39 Whitesands Bay D
5 Llantwit LTT/R 40 Abereiddi Bay I
6 Nash R 41 Newport D
7 Southerndown I 42 Poppit Sands D
8 Ogmore D 43 Mwnt D
9 Porthcawl (Newton) D 44 Llangranog D
10 Porthcawl (Trecco Bay) D 45 New Quay D
11 Porthcawl (Sandy Bay) D 46 Aberaeron LTT/R
12 Porthcawl (Rest Bay) D 47 Aberystwyth (South) R
13 Aberafan D 48 Aberystwyth (North) I
14 Swansea Bay D 49 Borth D
15 Mumbles D 50 Aberdy" D
16 Bracelet Bay LTT 51 Tywyn D
17 Langland Bay D 52 Fairbourne I
18 Caswell Bay D 53 Barmouth D
19 Three Cli!s Bay D 54 Llandanwg D
20 Oxwich D 55 Harlech D
21 Port Eynon D 56 Morfa Bychan D
22 Rhossili D 57 Criccieth D
23 Pembray D 58 Pwllheli R
24 Pendine D 59 Abersoch D
25 Amroth I 60 Dinas Dinlli R
26 Wiseman's Bridge R 61 Rhosneigr (Traeth Llydan) D
27 Saundersfoot D 62 Rhosneigr (North) D
28 Tenby (North) D 63 Trearddur Bay D
29 Tenby (South) D 64 Benllech D
30 Lydstep Haven I 65 Llandudno (West) D
31 Manorbier D 66 Llandudno (North) D
32 Freshwater East D 67 Colwyn Bay D
33 Barafundle D 68 Kinmel Bay D
34 Broadhaven (S. Pembs.) D 69 Rhyl D
35 Marloes Sands D 70 Prestatyn D

Key: D } dissipative, R } re#ective, I } intermediate, LTT } low tide terrace.

(&&I'') standards su$cient to comply with the EC Bathing
Waters Directive (76/160/EEC). Although the beach had
essentially the character of one at which no visitor facili-
ties were provided, toilets were available within 100 m of
the beach (albeit up a steep path). Environmental detrac-
tors in terms of noise/fumes from industry, tra$c/com-
merce and pollution from oil, sewage debris and litter on
the beach, were absent or negligible. Broadhaven (S.
Pembs.) could be regarded as a prime example of a beach
where as a result of careful management (by the National
Trust) and development control, high standards of envir-
onmental and scenic quality have been maintained for
the bene"t of beach users preferring an uncommer-
cialised, &&natural'' beach environment.
Pembray attained an overall score of 69% (Table 4)
and may be seen as an example of a beach where a range
of basic visitor facilities of good quality are provided
without distracting from the unspoilt nature of the beach
environment. Scenery/landscape was given a mean score
of 62% (Morgan & Williams, 1999). Although the beach
scenery may be uninspiring, landscape &&detractors'' in
terms of human-built structures were almost invisible
since visitor facilities were screened from view by dunes
and/or trees. In contrast, Trecco Bay at Porthcawl has
50% of the beach covered by cobbles at high water, high
wind exposure and unattractive brown sand. It scored
only 25% for scenery/landscape (67th out of 70 beaches;
Morgan & Williams, 1999), with rows of static caravans
(trailers) immediately overlooking the beach and promin-
ently in view. Sewage debris and general litter were abun-
dant on the beach when visited for checklist comple-
tion and video "lming. Decaying seaweed containing
abundant insect pests was present on the strandline
and interesting #ora was absent. Tra$c fumes and
odours from food preparation were detectable when the
beach was visited. Noise from tra$c and the nearby
406 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 4
Percentage rating scores in ranking order, with percentages for physical, biological and human-use factors

Beach EC Beach Beach % Score Total

() type %
Physical Biological Human use

Broadhaven (S. Pembs.) a 61 77 74 69

Pembray  b 51 72 86 69
Mwnt a 53 79 75 67
Caswell Bay  b 49 80 76 66
Tenby (South) d/e 50 84 73 66
Barafundle a 63 63 67 65
Freshwater East b 52 82 67 64
Langland Bay  c 48 66 77 64
Whitesands Bay  b 40 74 83 64
Tenby (North)  c 52 66 74 64
Newgale Sands  b 44 69 78 63
Port Eynon  c 51 64 73 63
Bracelet Bay  b 47 72 74 62
Marloes Sands a 52 92 58 62
Llangranog c 43 77 73 62
Saundersfoot  d/e 45 68 73 62
Poppit Sands b 42 73 75 61
Barry (Whitmore Bay)  d/e 39 55 83 61
Rhosneigr (Traeth Llydan)  a 54 79 61 61
Abereiddi Bay b 43 83 65 60
Newport  b 47 65 70 60
Aberdy"  c 53 74 60 60
Barmouth  d 44 73 67 60
Llandanwg  b 45 64 73 60
Swansea Bay  d/e 48 68 67 60
Abersoch  c 42 78 69 60
Manorbier b 46 88 61 60
Three Cli!s Bay a 55 51 66 59
Rhyl  d/e 39 59 74 58
New Quay  d 40 67 70 58
Rhosneigr (North) b 46 82 58 58
Amroth  c 41 74 67 58
Trearddur Bay  b 50 80 53 57
Broad Haven  c 51 49 66 57
Oxwich  c 51 65 58 57
Wiseman's Bridge b 40 68 69 57
Dinas Dinlli  c 35 81 66 57
Cold Knap  b 36 60 73 56
Llandudno (West)  c 44 49 71 56
Kinmel Bay  b 42 57 71 56
Caerfai Bay b 48 65 60 56
Pwllheli  b 45 68 60 56
Tywyn  c 39 62 68 55
Harlech  b 49 61 59 55
Fairbourne  b 43 71 58 55
Pendine  c 41 70 60 55
Morfa Bychan  a 54 57 55 55
Llandudno (North)  d/e 43 39 71 54
Benllech  c 38 54 68 54
Mumbles d/e 40 62 60 53
Barry (Jackson's Bay)  d/e 37 55 65 53
Rhossili  b 49 61 53 53
Borth  c 33 70 63 53
Aberystwyth (South)  d 42 35 69 52
Southerndown  c 38 56 62 52
Aberystwyth (North)  d 39 38 64 50
Criccieth  c 32 44 66 49
Lydstep Haven c 44 74 40 48
Colwyn Bay  c 36 49 58 48
 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410 407

Table 4 (continued )

Beach EC Beach Beach % Score Total

() type %
Physical Biological Human use

St. Mary's Well Bay b 45 31 59 48

Porthcawl (Rest Bay)  a 36 61 54 48
Ogmore c 36 47 56 47
Prestatyn  c 29 42 66 47
Porthcawl (Newton Bay) b 38 44 54 46
Nash b 36 48 54 46
Porthcawl (Sandy Bay)  d/e 35 49 43 45
Llantwit c 31 62 50 45
Aberafan  d/e 34 52 52 45
Aberaeron  c 37 17 64 44
Porthcawl (Trecco Bay)  d/e 35 44 43 39

&&Coney Beach'' fairground complex were detectable. Al-
though lifeguards were present, management of litter,
dog access and watersports seemed ine!ective. Although
toilets were available in the locality they were quite dirty
and in any case too distant to be considered as being
conveniently available for use by beach users. Overall,
the picture at Trecco Bay was reminiscent of that painted
by Owen (1990) when he lamented the low standard of
many British seaside resorts.
The South Beach at Tenby had the highest score (66%;
Table 4), for a medium/large resort beach. An attractive
feature of the beach was the exceptionally clear water by
the standards of the Welsh coast where strong tidal
currents suspend a great deal of sediment in the water
column. &&Biological'' factors rated a high score of 84%
with seaweed, #oating material and sewage debris being
absent or negligible in quanity. The beach achieved
a 100% pass of &&I'' standards as set by the EC Bathing
Waters Directive (76/160/EEC) for 1994 and very little
litter was present on the beach. Overall, the South Beach
at Tenby represented a pleasant larger resort beach with
essential facilities in place and kept in good condition for
the bene"t of beach users.
Table 4 also shows a breakdown of percentage scores
for the 70 rated beaches into the sub-divisions of
&&physical'', &&biological'' and &&human use'' categories.
Percentages for &&physical'' factors ranged from 63%
(Barafundle), to 29% (Prestatyn). This score at
Barafundle can be attributed to the fact that the beach
was entirely covered with light tan-coloured sand, ab-
sence of submerged rocks and other obstacles and above
all, the high score (75%) for scenery/landscape (Morgan
& Williams, 1999). The main reason for Prestatyn's score
of 29% for &&physical'' beach factors (Table 4) was the fact
that it had easily the lowest score (19%) for beach scen-
ery/landscape (Morgan & Williams, 1999). The beach
e!ectively disappeared at high tide and many stone
groynes were present.
&&Biological'' factors ranged from 92% (Marloes
Sands), down to 17% for Aberaeron. The score at Mar-
loes was mainly attributable to the presence of interesting
#ora and fauna at the beach, (near) absence of sewage
debris and high-quality bathing water. In contrast at
Aberaeron, the bathing water failed in 1994 to reach the
minimum &&pass'' standard required by the EC Bathing
Waters Directive (76/160/EEC). During visits for check-
list assessment, sewage debris on the beach and #oating
debris in the sea were found to be abundant, there was
a strong smell of rotting "sh/seaweed and much seaweed
was washed up on the beach.
Scores for &&human-use'' factors ranged from 86% at
Pembray at 40% at Lydstep Haven. Management at
Pembray in terms of regulation of activities such as
watersports, lifeguard provision and litter control con-
tributed strongly to this score. Lydstep Haven has the
characteristics of a small resort, but most tourist facilities
except for parking were provided only within the enclos-
ure of a private holiday centre/caravan park. These facili-
ties were regarded as being unavailable for convenient
use by beach users not resident within the private holiday
complex. Unpleasant tra$c noise and fumes were how-
ever, generated by vehicles immediately at the rear of the
beach, in front of the complex. Management of the beach
during the season of the study (summer 1994) appeared
weak, with abundant litter, no lifeguards apparent and
no regulation with regard to watersports, vehicles or dog
access during checklist and video "lming visits. In 1998
however, Lydstep applied for and obtained a European
Blue Flag, suggesting that at least some of these problems
have been addressed.
3.2. Comparison of scores with existing beach awards
The percentage rating scores obtained for the study
beaches a relation to beach awards/ recommendations
commonly given in the UK (European Blue Flag, Seaside
408 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410

Table 5 Table 5 (continued )

Percentage rating scores compared to other beach awards and recom-
mendations (in 1994) Beach Total Blue Seaside Good
% #ag award beach
Beach Total Blue Seaside Good guide
% #ag award beach
guide St. Mary's Well Bay 48
Porthcawl (Rest Bay) 48
Broadhaven (S. Pembs.) 69 Y Ogmore 47
Pembray 69 Y Y Y Prestatyn 47
Mwnt 67 Y Y Porthcawl (Newton Bay) 46
Caswell Bay 66 Nash 46
Tenby (South) 66 Y Porthcawl (Sandy Bay) 45
Barafundle 65 Y Y Llantwit 45
Freshwater East 64 Y Aberafan 45
Langland Bay 64 Aberaeron 44 Y
Whitesands Bay 64 Y Y Y Porthcawl (Trecco Bay) 39
Tenby (North) 64 Y
Newgale Sands 63 Y Y
Port Eynon 63 Y
Bracelet Bay 62 Award and recommendation in the Good Beach Guide;
Marloes Sands 62 Y Y
Llangranog 62 Y MCS, 1994), are shown in Table 5. There were statist-
Saundersfoot 62 Y ically signi"cant positive correlations (p(0.01) between
Poppit Sands 61 Y all the awards/recommendations and the rating scores
Barry (Whitmore Bay) 61 obtained in this study. In 1994 only two Welsh beaches,
Rhosneigr (Traeth Llydan) 61 Pembray and Whitesands Bay were awarded a Blue Flag.
Abereiddi Bay 60 Y
Newport 60 These two beaches scored 69% (equal highest score) and
Aberdy" 60 64% (equal 7th) respectively in this study. The European
Barmouth 60 Blue Flag Award takes account of 15 beach factors fea-
Llandanwg 60 Y tured in this study, accounting for approximately 36% of
Swansea Bay 60 the total beach rating score.
Abersoch 60
Manorbier 60 Y Y Twelve of the 70 beaches rated in this study were
Three Cli!s Bay 59 recommended by the Good Beach Guide in 1994 and 7 of
Rhyl 58 these were in the top 16 beaches in terms of percentage
New Quay 58 Y ratings (Table 5). Microbiological water quality (the main
Rhosneigr (North) 58 Y selection criterion for the Good Beach Guide), accounted
Amroth 58 Y
Trearddur Bay 57 Y for only 2.99% (at small and medium/large resort beach-
Broad Haven 57 Y es) to 3.42% (at beaches with no tourists facilities) of the
Oxwich 57 Y Y total beach rating score. One must therefore look else-
Wiseman's Bridge 57 Y where to fully explain the apparent correlation between
Dinas Dinlli 57 Y the beach rating scores and recommendation in the
Cold Knap 56
Llandudno (West) 56 Good Beach Guide (MCS, 1994). There are other reasons
Kinmel Bay 56 for possible non-recommendation of beaches achieving
Caerfai Bay 56 Y Y the required bathing water quality standard (e.g. raw
Pwllheli 56 sewage discharge, military use, presence of medical
Tywyn 55 waste), but in 1994 these only applied to three Welsh
Harlech 55
Fairbourne 55 beaches (MCS, 1994). These factors alone would not be
Pendine 55 expected to have overriding in#uence on the rating
Morfa Bychan 55 scores. In conclusion, it is not obvious why beaches
Llandudno (North) 54 recommended in the 1994 Good Beach Guide (MCS,
Benllech 54 1994) seemed to score highly in this rating system. In-
Mumbles 53
Barry (Jackson's Bay) 53 deed, it may be noted that the 1997 (but not the 1998)
Rhossili 53 Y Good Beach Guide recommended Trecco Bay at Port-
Borth 53 Y hcawl, which when assessed in 1994 for the rating system
Aberystwyth (South) 52 described in this paper, was easily the lowest scoring
Southerndown 52 Y (39%; Table 4) of the 70 beaches.
Aberystwyth (North) 50
Criccieth 49 Thirty of the 70 beaches assessed in this study received
Lydstep Haven 48 Y Y the Seaside Award in 1994 (Table 5). The top three
Colwyn Bay 48 beaches in this rating system and eight of the top ten
 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410
received a Seaside Award in 1994. In the case of the
Seaside Award the apparent correlation between award
status and rating score appears to be easier to explain, as
the Seaside Award was mainly based on availability and
of beach facilities together with good beach regula-
tion/management, beach cleanliness (in terms of litter,
sewage, excessive seaweed and other debris), and water
quality. The number of separate factors included in the
Seaside Award was 29 for &&resort'' beaches and 12 for
&&rural'' beaches, not all of which featured in this rating
scheme. However an estimate can be made of the percent-
ages of the total beach rating scores in this study made up
by factors taken account of in the Seaside Award. For the
Seaside Award's &&resort'' beaches the 16 relevant factors
made up 38.1% of the total beach rating score for small
resort beaches (as de"ned for this study) and 38.9% for
medium/large resort beaches. For &&rural'' beaches the
9 relevant factors made up 22.3% (for beaches de"ned in
this study as having no tourist facilities) and 21.5% for
beaches with only basic visitor facilities. Given that the
di!erence between the highest and lowest rating scores in
this study was 30%, satisfaction of the criteria required
for the Seaside Award could make a substantial di!er-
ence to the relative rankings of the 70 beaches.
4. Conclusion
If a beach award/rating system seeks to inform poten-
tial users about which is the best beach of a particular
type in a certain area, it should take account of user
preferences, recognise that not all aspects of beaches are
of equal importance and have regard to di!ering require-
ments at di!erent types of beaches. This study was a pilot
attempt to devise and use such a system. It is not neces-
sarily true that another study using di!erent measure-
ment tools for beach user preferences and priorities
would generate similar results. Improved and modi"ed
questionnaires developed from the one used in this study
(e.g. as used by Young et al., 1996), might be quicker and
more convenient to complete, while possibly yielding
di!erent results. Indeed, whether an &&idealised'' beach
rating system re#ecting users' desires can be constructed
from preference/priority information for individual
beach aspects is questionable and raises many complex
issues. It would also be desirable to "nd some means of
more fully representing the views of water sport partici-
pants, who were probably underrepresented in the ques-
tionnaire survey.
In the rating system used in this study, it would be
possible for a beach to be totally de"cient in a single
important element (e.g. have badly polluted bathing
water or be substantially contaminated with oil) and yet
still record a high overall rating score. An important
aspect of future beach rating studies of this type should
be a requirement that beaches should meet minimum
409
standards for a range of the most important beach as-
pects (as required by some existing beah awards), in order
to achieve a particular overall rating level. This rating
level could either be in terms of a percentage as in this
study, or a numerical/alphabetical grade. In this study,
checklist aspects were divided into &&physical'', &&biolo-
gical'' and &&human-use'' parameters, with scores for these
groupings shown in Table 4. Further investigation is
required to assess whether these groupings are actually
meaningful to beach users. Additional study might eluci-
date exactly which beach aspects could be grouped into
a small number of sub-divisions relevant to assisting
choice of destination. Separate scores/grades for such
groupings could be of greater value than an overall beach
rating score.
In the questionnaire survey, 13% of beach users inter-
viewed stated a preference for visiting beaches without
any commercial facilities. It seems that many beach users
in the area surveyed did not desire beaches to be &&im-
proved'' either in terms of supplementation of facilities
(e.g. refreshments, car parking) or in terms of resort/area
infrastructure development to ease access (wider access
roads, constructed paths), as required by the Blue Flag
and Seaside Award. These views may be products of
a desire by some beach users to preserve pristine, uncom-
mercialised beach environments, or result from a fear
that such developments could increase visitor numbers
with consequent reduction in the solitude and calm they
desire. Many beaches in the UK and particularly in
Wales (more than half of the 200 or so beaches), are of
this pristine type. People who wish to use them deserve
an evaluation system which takes into account what they
want at the beach, rather than one based on criteria more
appropriate to large resorts.
As far as the UK is concerned, the Blue Flag now
(1998) appears entrenched as the leading beach award
and only minor modi"cations to its criteria seem likely in
the short term. The Seaside Award may be more open to
review in the near future. The TBG are attempting to
assess the importance beach users attach to various
beach aspects and hope to use this input to modify the
award criteria. It remains to be seen whether such modi"-
cations (if actually made), result in a beach award system
genuinely based on the preferences and priorities of users.
As far as other countries are concerned, authorities devis-
ing beach awards in the future would do well to take
end-user views into account.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Prof. Allan T. Williams (Bath
Spa University College, UK), Ms. T.C. Berrow (Univer-
sity of Glamorgan), Prof. Erdal OG zhan (Middle East
Technical University, Ankara, Turkey) and Mr. Anton
Micallef (University of Malta) for their contributions to
410 R. Morgan / Tourism Management 20 (1999) 393}410
the design of the checklist. I am also grateful to Dr. Jens
Sorensen (University of Massachusetts, USA) for his
comments on the system. I would particularly like to
thank Prof. Williams for his advice regarding the beach
safety assessments.
References
Anastassova, L. (1996). Unpublished presentation at training course in
beach management in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, Malta,
11}17 May.
Appleton, J., (1980). David ¸inton1s contribution to landscape evaluation.
Department of Geography, Occasional Publication No. 13, Univer-
sity of Birmingham.
Bourassa, S. C. (1991). ¹he aesthetics of landscape. Belhaven Press.
Chaverri, R. (1989). Coastal management: The Costa Rica experience.
In O. T. Magoon (Ed.), Costal zone 187, Proceedings of xfth Symposium
on Coastal and Ocean Management (vol. 5; pp. 1112}1124). American
Society of Civil Engineers.
Council of the European Communities. (1976). Council Directive of
8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, 76/160/
EEC. O.cial Journal of the European Community, 19(L31), 1}7.
De Frietas, C. R. (1990). Recreation climate assessment. Interntional
Journal of Climatology, 10, 89}103.
FEEE (1998). ¹he Blue Flag Awards of 1998. Foundation for Environ-
mental Education in Europe.
House, M. A., & Herring, M. (1995). Aesthetic pollution public percep-
tion survey } Report to =ater Research Centre. Flood Hazard Re-
search Centre, Middlesex University.
Kaplan, S. (1975). An informed model for the prediction of preference.
In E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, & J. G. Fabos, ¸andscape assessment
(pp. 92}101). Stroudburg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Leatherman, S. P. (1997). Beach rating: A methodological approach.
Journal of Coastal Research, 13(1), 253}258.
Marine Conservation Society. (1994). Reader1s Digest good beach guide
} 1994. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
Marine Conservation Society. (1998). Reader1s Digest good beach guide
} 1998. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
Meserve, J. M. (1974). ;.S. Navy marine climatic atlas of the world } <ol.
1: North Atlantic Ocean. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce, National Climatic centre.
Meteorological O$ce. (1984). ¹ables of temperature, relative humidity
and precipitation and sunshine for the world -part III: Europe and the
Azores. London: HMSO.
Mieczkowski, Z. (1985). The tourism climate index: A method of evalu-
ating world climates for tourism. ¹he Canadian Geographer, 29(3),
220}233.
Morgan, R., Jones, T. C., & Williams, A. T. (1993). Opinions and
perceptions of England and Wales Heritage Coast beach users: Some
management implications from the Glamorgan Heritage Coast,
Wales. Journal of Coastal Research, 9(4), 1083}1093.
Morgan, R., Bursalioglu, B., Hapoglu-Balas, L., Jones, T. C., Ozhan, E.,
& Williams, A. T. (1995). Beach user opinions and beach ratings:
A pilot study on the Turkish Aegean Coast. In E. Ozhan (Ed.),
Medcoast &95 (pp. 373}383). Ankara, Turkey: METU.
Morgan, R., Junyent, R., Micallef, A., OG zhan, E., & Williams, A. T.
(1997). The development of a beach user climate index and its
application to Euro-Mediterranean/Black Sea coastal tourism areas.
In E. Ozhan (Ed.), Medcoast +97 (pp. 605}620). Ankara, Turkey:
METU.
Morgan, R., (1999). Beach user preferences and priorities in Wales, UK
Journal of Coastal Research, in press.
Morgan, R., & Williams, A. T., (1999). Video panorama assessment of
beach landscape aesthetics on the coast of Wales, UK. Journal of
Coastal Conservation, in press.
Nelson, C., & Williams, A. T., (1997). Bathing water quality and health
implications. In R. Rajar & C. A. Brebbia (Eds.), =ater pollution I<:
Modelling, measuring and prediction (pp. 175}183). Computational
Mechanics Publications.
Nelson, C., Morgan, R., Williams, A. T., & Wood, J. (with referees,
Coastal Management). Beach awards and management.
Owen, C. (1990). Better days at the seaside } can UK resorts learn from
the European experience? ¹ourism Management, 11(3), 190}194.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C. (1982). A public preference evaluation of land-
scape quality. Regional Studies, 16(2), 97}112.
Short, A. D., (1993). Beaches of the New South =ales Coast. Australian
Beach Safety and Management Programme.
Welsh Agricultural College. (1992). South =ales recreational site survey
1991 } planning for the future.
Williams, A. T., Leatherman, S. P., & Simmons, S. L. (1993). Beach
aesthetic values: The South West Peninsula, UK. In H. Sterr,
J. Hofstide, & P. Plag (Eds.), Interdisciplinary discussions of coastal
research and coastal management issues and problems. (pp. 240}250).
Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Williams, A. T., & Morgan, R. (1995). Beach awards and rating systems.
Shore & Beach, 63(4), 29}33.
Young, C., Barugh, A., Morgan, R., & Williams, A. T. (1996). Beach
user perceptions and priorities at the Pembrokeshire Coast National
Park, Wales, UK. In J. Taussik, & J. Mitchell (Eds.), Partnership
in coastal zone management (pp. 111}118). Samara Publishing
Limited.