Whitehill & Bordon HRA Visitor Survey

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report

Final Report November 2012 P12/03-2C

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report

Report Release Sheet Draft/Final: Issue Number:

Final Report P12/03–2C

Date:

November 2012

Client:

East Hampshire District Council

Main Author(s):

Rebecca Brookbank BSc (Hons) PhD MIEEM

Contributors/Surveyors:

Ben Kite BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM AIEMA Ben Blowers BSc (Hons) Consumer Analysis Ltd. (external contributor)

Report Prepared for Issue by:

…………………………………

Rebecca Brookbank BSc (Hons) PhD MIEEM

Report Approved for Issue by:

…………………………………

Ben Kite BSc (Hons) MSc MIEEM AIEMA

Doc. No EPR 10 Issue 04

Ecological Planning & Research Ltd The Barn, Micheldever Station, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 3AR Tel: 01962 794720 Fax: 01962 794721 email: info@epr.uk.com www.epr.uk.com

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report

Contents Executive Summary 1.

Introduction

1

2.

Methodology

4

3.

Results and Analysis

10

4.

Discussion and Conclusions

38

5.

References

51

Maps Map 1

Site Location, Nature Conservation Designations & Proposed SANGs

Map 2

Visitor Access Points Surveyed 2009 & 2011

Map 3

Visitor Access Points Surveyed 2012

Map 4

Visitor Origins by Site Visited

Map 5

Visitors from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Settlement Policy Boundary

Map 6

Visitor Routes in 2012

Map 7

Recreational Pressure Exerted by Visitor Routes in 2012 (km/km2)

Map 8

Recreational Pressure in 2009 and 2012

Appendices Appendix 1

Visitor Questionnaire

Appendix 2

List of Alternative Sites

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ecological Planning and Research Ltd. was commissioned by the Eco-town Team (EHDC) to update the visitor survey work completed in 2009 and 2011 to inform future iterations of the Habitats Regulations Assessment of the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

The main aim of the 2012 visitor survey work was to obtain updated information on visitor access patterns and visitation rates to European sites and proposed SANGs surrounding Whitehill & Bordon, using a renewed or supplemented approach where appropriate.

37 access points were selected for survey across 8 European sites and 3 non-European sites, two of which included proposed SANGs for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town. Sites included Broxhead Common, Kingsley Common, Shortheath Common, Woolmer Forest, Longmoor Inclosure, Ludshott Common, Bramshott Common, Frensham Common, Hogmoor Inclosure, Bordon Inclosure and The Slab/The Warren.

The Whitehill & Bordon HRA Working Group was consulted on the visitor survey methodology in June 2012, and then onsite visitor questionnaires were completed in July 2012. Surveys spanned 8 days, with the majority of interviews completed in fair weather. A total of 495 groups, and 771 people were interviewed as they exited the sites. These people were accompanied by 519 dogs.

Most visitors were local residents who were accompanied by at least one dog, and had visited for the purpose of dog walking or walking. Visits were usually made daily or two to three times a week, at all times of the year. A slightly higher proportion of visits were made during the week, as opposed to the weekend; a trend that was reversed from that recorded during the 2009 survey.

Although 495 groups took part in the interviews as they exited sites, 1185 groups were recorded arriving at sites during the survey sessions. Only 2% of groups arriving refused to take part as they exited, therefore approximately 63% of visitors arriving subsequently exited sites either at access points that were not surveyed, outside of the survey sessions, or could not be intercepted because interviewers were already engaged in an interview.

Ludshott Common, Frensham Common and Kingsley Common had the greatest number of people exiting during the survey, and visitors had originated from a wide range of locations including Whitehill, Bordon, Lindford, Headley, Kingsley, Oakhanger, Alton, Farnham, Frensham, Hindhead, Grayshott, Liphook, Aldershot, Fleet, Hook, Camberley, Reading, Waterlooville, Lurgashall, Fareham, Salisbury and Chippenham.

The average travel distance recorded from home postcode location to point of access to site was 6.7km, although this figure was skewed by the upper 5% of visitors who had travelled more than 20km to reach sites; 70% of visitors had travelled from within 4.3km to reach sites.

Distance travelled from home postcode locations to access points to sites was influenced by site, access point type, method of transport, reason for visit and type of visitor. Based upon these parameters there was evidence for local (<4.3km) and distant (>4.3km) user types, with most â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;localâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; users visiting their nearest site.

Analysis of visitor postcodes falling within the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary found that only 19% of the total number of visitors interviewed at sites during the survey originated from the Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford area. A large proportion of the Whitehill

& Bordon visitors arrived to sites on foot, with 70% of these visitors travelling from within 2.4km to reach sites for dog walking and walking. Visitors living in Whitehill & Bordon therefore travelled relatively shorter distances to reach sites to pursue recreation, but tended to visit more regularly than visitors travelling further to reach sites.

The survey also showed that most visitors visit alternative sites to pursue similar pastimes, with similar factors influencing choice of site. The sites surveyed accounted for 38% of the named alternative sites, indicating that visitors tend to use the network of open spaces in and around Whitehill & Bordon for recreation. Visitors said that they visit alternative sites slightly less often, but often travel further to reach them.

A comparison between the survey results obtained in 2009, 2011 and 2012 is made, although this will be developed further in future Habitats Regulations Assessment work that will be carried out at the outline planning application stage.

103 fewer groups were recorded exiting during this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey than in 2009/2011 which may be explained by natural fluctuations in visitation rates to sites, weather conditions during the 2012 survey, or possibly other socioeconomic reasons.

For some of the access points it is possible that weather conditions on the day of the survey, or in preceding days during the relatively wet summer, may have had an influence on the number of visitors exiting the site. However statistical analysis did not show a significant correlation between the decreases in groups intercepted at sites and weather conditions.

Unfavourable weather conditions may therefore affect patterns of access in more subtle ways, for example travel distances from home postcode locations to points of access to sites were on average shorter in 2012 than those recorded in 2009, and average routes taken around sites were also shorter.

2

Patterns of recreational pressure exerted by visitor routes (km/km ) within and between sites were analysed for the 2009 and 2012 data using ArcGIS, with important differences discussed.

In all other respects, patterns of access were similar in the 2009, 2011 and 2012 surveys with visits made primarily for dog walking and walking, with a large proportion of visitors being accompanied by at least one dog, with visits being made at least once a week and at all times of year, and with visitors mostly arriving by car from the local area.

Recommendations for future work are made, which will feed into future Habitats Regulations Assessments, work on SANG Design and Delivery, and Access Management and Monitoring on the European sites.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the members of the HRA Working Group and the Whitehill & Bordon Ecotown Team for valuable input to the design of the 2012 visitor survey, and for providing helpful comments during the September 2012 HRA Working Group meeting which have helped to inform analysis and evaluation of the survey results.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report 1.

INTRODUCTION Background

1.1

In 2009 Whitehill & Bordon was awarded Eco-town status by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

Several European Designated Sites

(hereafter referred to as “European sites”) for nature conservation are located within 5km of the proposed Eco-town, including both Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) (Map 1), part of the ‘’Natura 2000’’ network of sites designated under the Habitats Directive. A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) of the Whitehill & Bordon framework masterplan was therefore initiated by the Eco-town Team within East Hampshire District Council (EHDC).

1.2

Work to date to inform the HRA (UE Associates, 2011) of likely significant effects on the surrounding European sites has included two visitor surveys and work on the design of potential Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and associated Green Infrastructure.

Previous Visitor Survey Work

1.3

In 2009 UE Associates completed a visitor survey on the European sites surrounding Whitehill & Bordon, in addition to adjacent access points outside of the European sites and sites proposed as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), to obtain information on the patterns of visitor access and total annual visitation rates to these sites. In total 34 vehicle and/or pedestrian access points were surveyed (UE Associates, 2009; Map 2).

1.4

In 2011 the Eco-town Team (EHDC) then undertook an additional visitor survey of 4 access points at Bordon Inclosure, which has been identified as a potential SANG (Map 2).

1.5

Table 1 below summarises the sites and the number of access points at each site that have been subject to visitor survey to date. The percentages of access points surveyed as a proportion of the total number of access points that are estimated for each site are also given for context.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

1

Table 1: Access points surveyed in 2009 and 2011. * Information on the total number of access points for sites was obtained from UE Associates (2009b), with the exception of Bordon Inclosure, and is subject to revision.

Site

European designation(s)

Number of

As a

access

percentage

points

of total *

Broxhead Common

Wealden Heaths SPA

3

20%

Kingsley Common

Wealden Heaths SPA

3

50%

Shortheath Common

Shortheath Common SAC

2

20%

Woolmer Forest

Wealden Heaths SPA; Woolmer

4

24%

Forest SAC Longmoor Inclosure

Wealden Heaths SPA

2

22%

Ludshott Common

Wealden Heaths SPA

3

19%

Bramshott Common

Wealden Heaths SPA

3

43%

Frensham Common

Wealden

1

5%

2

10%

1

9% (data on

Heaths

SPA;

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC Hankley Common

Wealden

Heaths

SPA;

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC Royal/Bagmoor Common

Thursley/OckleyCommon

Wealden

Heaths

SPA;

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and

access points

Chobham SAC

was pooled by

Wealden

Heaths

SPA;

1

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and

UE Associates for these sites)

Chobham SAC; Thursley

and

Ockley

Bogs

Ramsar site Witley Common

Wealden

Heaths

SPA;

1

7%

Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham SAC Hindhead Common

Wealden Heaths SPA

1

3%

Selborne Common

East Hampshire Hangers SAC

1

7%

Noar Hill

East Hampshire Hangers SAC

1

11%

Hogmoor Inclosure

Non-EU site, proposed SANG

3

30%

Bordon Inclosure

Non-EU site, proposed SANG

9

44%

Standford Grange Farm

Non-EU site, proposed SANG

1

50%

The Slab/The Warren

Non-EU

1

14%

site,

adjacent

to

Shortheath Common 1.6

The visitor survey work showed that visitors originating from the Whitehill & Bordon area did not visit the more distant and less accessible European sites including Frensham Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

2

Common (11E), Hankley Common (11C & D), Royal/Bagmoor Common (11A), Thursley/OckleyCommon (11B), Witley Common (11G), Hindhead Common (11F), Selborne Common (12A) and Noar Hill (12B). No-one was recorded leaving the visitor access point at The Slab/The Warren (4A) nor the access point at Standford Grange Farm (6A).

1.7

Based on the results of this work UE Associates concluded that the number of visitors likely to visit these sites from the Whitehill & Bordon area will be very low, and therefore likely significant effects on the above sites as a result of the proposed Whitehill & Bordon masterplan were scoped out of the HRA (UE Associates, 2011).

Aim of 2012 Visitor Survey Work

1.8

Following on from UE Associates’ work, Ecological Planning and Research Ltd was commissioned by the Eco-town Team (EHDC) to refresh the HRA and to update the visitor survey work completed to date. The two elements of work were completed in tandem, therefore this year’s visitor survey results will feed into future Habitats Regulations Assessment work that will be completed at the outline planning application stage.

1.9

The main aim of the 2012 visitor survey work is to obtain updated information on visitor access patterns and visitation rates to European sites and proposed SANGs surrounding Whitehill & Bordon, using a renewed or supplemented approach where appropriate.

1.10

A comparison between the survey results obtained in 2009, 2011 and 2012 is made in this report, although this will be developed further in future Habitats Regulations Assessment work, as described above.

Consultation

1.11

The Whitehill & Bordon HRA Working Group was consulted on the draft visitor survey methodology in early June 2012.

The methodology was finalised following receipt of

comments from Waverley Borough Council, AMEC, Hampshire County Council, the RSPB and Natural England. Satisfactory incorporation of stakeholder comments was validated at st

the HRA Working Group meeting held on 21 June 2012.

1.12

HRA Working Group members were also consulted on previous drafts of this report, and comments were incorporated where appropriate.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

3

2.

METHODOLOGY Background to Methodology

2.1

The previous survey work by UE Associates followed a standard questionnaire survey methodology developed from research on recreational impacts to the Dorset Heaths and Thames Basin Heaths and in particular, English Nature (now Natural England) Research Report 682â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths (Liley et al., 2005).

2.2

The scope, extent and intensity of the 2009 survey was discussed at a stakeholder workshop held in March 2009, which was attended by representatives from EHDC, Natural England, RSPB, MoD, National Trust, Deadwater Valley Trust and the local Biodiversity Planning Advisory Group.

2.3

The survey undertaken at Bordon Inclosure in 2011 did not follow the same standardised methodology; therefore survey effort at these access points differed from those surveyed in 2009. The dataset obtained in 2009 is therefore used as the main point of comparison for the 2012 survey results (Section 4).

Approach to 2012 Update Survey

2.4

The 2012 visitor survey update followed the same methodology used previously in 2009 to ensure that directly comparable data was obtained, allowing any increases or decreases in visitor numbers at particular access points and/or any variations in visitor access patterns to be drawn out. Additional questions were however added to the questionnaire, with the aim of acquiring additional useful information in certain specific areas.

2.5

The 2012 survey focused survey effort on the European sites that were shown during previous work to be visited by residents in the Whitehill & Bordon area, and therefore those European sites that remain scoped into the HRA.

These include Broxhead Common,

Kingsley Common, Shortheath Common, Woolmer Forest, Longmoor Inclosure, Ludshott Common and Bramshott Common. Access points at proposed SANGs, including those at Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure were also surveyed.

2.6

The draft methodology proposed that access points receiving no visitors from the Whitehill & Bordon area, including those at Frensham Common (11E), Hankley Common (11C & D), Royal/Bagmoor Common (11A), Thursley/OckleyCommon (11B), Witley Common (11G), Hindhead Common (11F), Selborne Common (12A) and Noar Hill (12B) would not be subject to repeat survey, in addition to access points at Slab/The Warren (4A) and at Standford Grange Farm (6A) which also saw no previous visitor access.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

4

2.7

Rather than reducing the total number of visitor access points to be surveyed, the 11 omitted access points were redistributed to the sites still â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;scoped inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; to the assessment, to increase the resolution of the assessment of these areas.

2.8

Due to comments received from the HRA Working Group during consultation, 3 additional access points were also included on top of the 34 initially proposed for survey. These included 2 access points at Frensham Common, and 1 access point at The Slab/The Warren. This was due to concern over the absence of visitor access during the 2009 survey despite anecdotal evidence of use of these sites by visitors originating from the Whitehill & Bordon area.

2.9

The previous 2009 survey recorded a greater number of visitors arriving at sites than leaving, suggesting that a proportion of visitors who had accessed the sites surveyed had not been intercepted on their way out. A greater number of access points were therefore surveyed at some of the sites than were surveyed previously, with the aim of casting a tighter net around visitor use. The aim was to obtain more complete information regarding visitor numbers and access patterns at the sites with the potential to be affected by increased levels of recreational pressure arising from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town.

2.10

All of the survey work involved structured face-to-face interviews utilising a standard set of questions, following the approach taken in the Thames Basin Heaths, the Dorset Heaths and in the previous Whitehill & Bordon survey (Liley et al. 2005; Clarke et al. 2005; UE Associates, 2009). Maps were used to aid interviews and to ensure robust data was obtained. Trained Market Researchers undertook the interviews in the field to maximise the credibility of the survey and visitor participation.

Questionnaire

2.11

As mentioned above, the questionnaire was modified from that used previously (Appendix IV of the Visitor Access Patterns report; UE Associates, 2009) to respond to developments within the Eco-town project and other recent survey work undertaken (e.g. EPR 2009 & 2010), and is reproduced at Appendix 1.

2.12

One notable addition to the 2012 questionnaire is that visitors were asked whether they were service personnel. This addition had the aim of informing future estimations of the increase in visitor numbers to the European sites as a result of the proposed development, by helping to quantify the extent to which existing service personnel contribute to the current baseline of pressure.

2.13

More detailed question options were also included regarding the reasons for visiting sites and the frequency of visit, where the latter was designed to better inform the estimation of future increases in visitor pressure.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

5

2.14

At European sites visitors were asked what would make the site more or less attractive, and for proposed SANGs visitors were asked what would make the site more attractive.

This was designed to inform the Outline Access Management Plans for the European sites, and the design of SANGs. The phrasing of language used regarding factors that would make sites less attractive was carefully considered to avoid raising alarm or suspicion amongst local recreational users.

2.15

Visitors were asked if they always use the same method of transport to visit sites, and if they always use the same access point(s). This was intended to inform understanding of visitor behaviour and the best approach for determining visitor catchments. Visitors were also asked if the route taken during their visit was shorter or longer than usual, to inform an assessment of the representativeness of the data obtained from the survey.

Survey Effort

2.15

37 access points were selected for survey; these are shown on Map 3. Access points not subject to previous survey were characterised using the approach previously employed by UE Associates; the list of access points proposed for survey is shown in Table 2.

2.16

In addition to the 9 newly added access points (highlighted in yellow within Table 2), the location of two previously surveyed access points was slightly altered to better intercept visitors exiting the SPA. Access point 7B (Conford Moor, Woolmer Forest) was moved south to the fork in the Public Right of Way, in order to intercept visitors exiting towards the B3004 and east towards the village of Conford.

Access point 8A (Oak Tree Road,

Woolmer Forest) was moved south on to the access track with the aim of intercepting multiple access points leading towards Petersfield Road and Liphook Road.

Table 2: Access points surveyed in 2012 (previously unsurveyed access points are highlighted in yellow).

ID

Type

1A

M

1B

L

1C

P

2A

H

2B

M

2C

P

Site Shortheath Common Shortheath Common Shortheath Common Kingsley Common Kingsley Common Kingsley

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Signs/

Café/

Interp.

picnic

Shortheath Common Pond

Y/Y

N/N

N

Village Triangle/Cricket Pitch

Y/N

N/N

N

Track from Gibbs’ Lane

N/N

N/N

N

Kingsley Pond

Y/Y

Y/N

N

Goldhill

Y/N

N/N

N

Oxney Farm

Y/N

N/N

N

Name

WC

Final Report – November 2012

6

ID

Type

Site

Signs/

Café/

Interp.

picnic

Forge Road

Y/N

N/N

N

Sports Club car park

Y/N

N/N

Y

East of B3004

Y/N

N/N

N

Y/N

N/N

N

East of A325

Y/N

N/N

N

Eastern bridleway

Y/N

N/N

N

Pond Cottages

N/N

N/N

N

East of Hogmoor Road

Y/N

N/N

N

Village Hall

Y/N

N/N

N

Fir Grove Road

Y/N

N/N

N

N/N

N/N

N

East of Hogmoor Road

N/N

N/N

N

Rudd’s Yard

N/N

N/N

N

Conford Moor

Y/N

N/N

N

Oak Tree Road

Y/N

N/N

N

Woolmer Pond

Y/Y

N/N

N

South of Conford Park House

Y/N

N/N

N

Liss Forest

Y/N

N/N

N

Weavers Down

Y/N

N/N

N

Car park south of B3002

Y/Y

N/N

N

Bewleswood Farm

Y/Y

N/N

N

Waggoners Wells

Y/Y

N/N

N

Headley Down

Y/Y

N/N

N

Downlands car park

Y/Y

N/N

N

Name

WC

Common Kingsley

2D

L

3A

M

3B

L

Common Broxhead Common

3C

P

Broxhead Common

3D

L

3E

P

4B

L

5A

P

5B

H

5C

P

Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure

5D

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

5E

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

7A

P

7B

P

8A

M

8B

P

8C

P

9A

M

9B

L

10A

H

10B

L

10C

L

10D

L

Common Ludshott Common Ludshott Common Ludshott Common

10E

H

Bramshott

Common Broxhead

Broxhead Common Broxhead Common The Slab/The Warren Hogmoor

Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Longmoor Inclosure Longmoor Inclosure Ludshott

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

North of B3002/Broxhead Common SINC

Woolmer Way (Industrial Estate)

Final Report – November 2012

7

ID

Type

Site

Signs/

CafĂŠ/

Interp.

picnic

Y/Y

N/N

N

Y/Y

Y/Y

Y

TBC

N/N

N

Woodlands Inn PH

TBC

N/N

N

East of sewage works

TBC

N/N

N

Trenchard Park (Road)

TBC

N/N

N

Alexandra Park

TBC

N/N

N

Name

WC

Common 10F

M

11E

H

11H

L

13A

L

13B

P

13C

P

13D

P

Bramshott Common

Bramshott Chase

Frensham

Frensham Great Pond/Country

Common

Park

Frensham

Car park south of Priory Lane,

Common

West of Frensham Little Pond

Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure

Timing 2.15

8 two-hour surveys were programmed at each access point, giving a total of 592 survey hours. Access points on individual sites were surveyed simultaneously where possible to ensure optimum coverage and direct comparison between entry and exit numbers at multiple locations. This was possible for all sites, with the exception of Bordon Inclosure where the two northern and two southern access points were surveyed on different days.

Visitors were interviewed as they left the site (questionnaire is set out at Appendix 1).

Only one person was interviewed per group and children under the age of 16 were not approached if alone.

2.16

The timing of surveys followed the methodology in the research undertaken on behalf of Natural England on the Thames Basin Heaths (Liley et al. 2005) to maintain comparability with previous survey work and other studies elsewhere:

2.17

Morning Survey Work =

07:00-09:00 and 10:00-12:00

Afternoon Survey Work =

13:00-15:00 and 17:00-19:00

Informal feedback during the design of the 2009 survey suggested that the 3-5pm time period might actually be busier around Whitehill & Bordon in comparison to the other twohour time periods. Whilst the above survey timings were used in the 2009 visitor survey, validation counts were done between 3-5pm at each access point. The results showed that visitor access between 3-5pm was higher than the average across other two-hour time periods for non-dog walkers, but was lower for dog walkers. Since dog walkers represent the largest user group (dog walking was the most common reason for visits), this suggests that surveying the standard two-hour time periods shown above would record the greatest number of visits and therefore use of the above survey times was considered to represent Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

8

the most precautionary approach.

The question regarding time of visits (Q7) was,

however, altered to record information on visitor access during the 3-5pm time period.

2.18

Survey work was completed during July 2012 before the start of the school summer holiday period.

This was to ensure that data representative of ‘normal everyday’ use was

obtained, an approach that was agreed with HRA Working Group members during the 21st June 2012 meeting.

2.19

4 two-hour surveys were completed between Monday and Friday, and another 4 two-hour surveys were completed between Saturday and Sunday.

GIS Analysis 2.20

During the questionnaire visitors were asked to give their home postcode, or if they were not willing, their approximate home location. Subsequent GIS analysis using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI UK) was then used to determine the point location of visitor origins and the distances travelled to reach each site (linear distance from point of origin to point of access to the SPA/SAC). This analysis utilised a Royal Mail Postcode Dataset for the UK (BHP Data Ltd.), and the point distance analysis capability of the ET GeoWizards add-in (www.ian-ko.com).

2.21

Visitors were also asked to annotate the route they took on each site on a map accompanying each questionnaire. These routes were digitised using ArcGIS 10.1 (ESRI UK) and then analysed using the line density function of the Spatial Analyst extension.

This analysis produced a thematic or ‘hotspot’ map showing the spatial distribution of recreational activity within and between sites, the parts of each site that were subject to the 2

highest levels of visitor use (km/km ) and therefore the parts of each site that are likely to be subject to the greatest density of recreational pressure. Such information will feed into future iterations of the HRA, and will inform the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy for the European sites.

Statistical Analysis 2.22

Statistical analyses were undertaken using Microsoft Excel and Minitab (version 16).

Analyses included both descriptive statistics such as minimum, maximum and average values (all average values represent the arithmetic mean). Tests of significant difference were also undertaken for key parameters likely to influence estimations of annual visits to sites in future iterations of the HRA; the tests used are described in the relevant paragraphs in Section 3.

For tests of significant difference between variables, the

probability threshold was set at P=0.05; where P-values were less than 0.05 this allowed rejection of the null hypothesis of no significant difference between variables being tested.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

9

3.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Visitor Profile All Sites

3.1

A total of 495 interviews were completed during the 592 hours of survey, across 37 access th

points and 11 different sites. Surveys were undertaken in July on Wednesday 4 , Friday th

th

th

th

th

st

6 , Saturday 7 , Tuesday 10 , Saturday 14 , Wednesday 18 , Saturday 21 , and Sunday nd

22 . Weather conditions varied considerably during the surveys with 44% of interviews completed in cloudy conditions, 30% completed in sunny conditions, 18% completed in cloudy/showery conditions, and 4% completed in sunshine/showers or heavy rain.

3.2

A total of 771 people were recorded exiting the sites, of which 66 were children. The minimum group size was 1 and the maximum was 25.

43% of groups interviewed

consisted of one person, 28% consisted of two people, 19% were three or four people, with the remaining groups consisting of five people or more (Table 3); average group size was 1.6 people.

Table 3: Group size observed during the survey (total people).

3.3

Group size 1 2 3 4 5

Count 335 214 75 68 20

% 43 28 10 9 3

6 7 9 25

18 7 9 25

2 1 1 3

Table 4: Number of dogs accompanying groups during the survey.

Number of dogs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Count

%

232 192 45 12 10 18 7

45 37 9 2 2 3 1

1185 groups were recorded arriving at sites, consisting of 1864 people. 30% of these groups were interviewed as they left the site, 2% refused to take part in the survey, 3% had completed the questionnaire on another occasion, and 2% did not take part as they were merely passing through as residents and were not visiting the site. The remaining 749 groups were not surveyed as they left the site because they exited outside of the survey session, at another access point, or could not be intercepted because interviewers were already engaged in an interview. The number of visitor exits recorded compared to the number of arrivals varied depending on site, and this is discussed further below.

3.4

71% of visitors had dogs with them and a total of 516 dogs exited the sites during the survey. This equates to 1.04 dogs per visit, or 1.47 dogs per dog owner. Most groups had

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

10

only one or two dogs with them (45% and 37%, respectively), with the remaining 18% of groups having between three and seven dogs (Table 4).

3.5

Dog walking (69%) was the most common activity recorded during the survey, with walking (17%) the next most common activity. When data for dog owners and non-dog owners was split, 97% of dog owners interviewed had visited to walk the dog, whilst non-dog owners had visited for walking (54%), picnicking (10%), jogging/exercise (7%) and bird/wildlife watching (6%) (Figure 1). 4% of visitors responded with ‘other’ when asked what their main reason for visiting was; when further analysed, 2% had visited to go swimming or to use the beach (presumably at Frensham Common), and 2% had taken a shortcut on their way to work, taking the children to school or whilst shopping, or were in the area for work.

3.6

92% of all groups interviewed were comprised of local residents, with a further 5% day visiting tourists, 2% overnight visiting tourists, less than 1% who were local residents and part of the garrison, and 1% were recorded as ‘other’.

Those who responded ‘other’

included those visiting friends or relatives, or those working in the area. A slightly higher proportion of dog owners were local residents (95% dog owner; 85% non-dog owner), whilst a slightly higher proportion of non-dog owners were day visiting tourists (8% non-dog owner; 3% dog owner) (Figure 2).

100% 90%

% of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Other

Off-road driving (bike, quad etc.)

Fishing

Picnic

Bicycling

Horse-riding

Jogging/exercise

Bird watching/wildlife

Walking

Dog walking

0%

Figure 1: Reasons for visit; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

3.7

The interviews completed were spread fairly evenly across the survey sessions, although a slightly higher proportion were recorded in the morning (55%). A higher proportion of dog

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

11

owners were interviewed in the morning sessions (60%), whereas non-dog owners were most often interviewed in the afternoon sessions (58%).

100% 90%

% of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Other

A touristovernight

A tourist- day visitor

Work outside of Whitehill/Bordon

Longmoor Barracks

Technical training area

Garrison

A local resident

0%

Figure 2: Type of visitor; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

Site Specific

3.8

There were distinct variations in the number of interviews completed at the different access points, and across the different sites, and therefore correspondingly visitor numbers also differed. Figure 3 summarises the number of groups interviewed at each access point, Figure 4 shows the number of groups interviewed at each site, and Tables 5 and 6 set out the number of adults, number of children and number of dogs by access point and by site, respectively.

3.9

Table 5 highlights the busiest (highest number of total people and dogs) access points in red, which included 2A at Kingsley Common, 10A and 10C at Ludshott Common, 10F at Bramshott Common and 11E and 11H at Frensham Common. Correspondingly Table 6 highlights the busiest (highest number of total people and dogs) sites in red, as listed above. No groups were recorded exiting at access points 4B and 1C, and very few groups were recorded exiting at access points 2C, 2D, 5E, 7B and 13C.

3.10

Although 495 groups took part in the interviews as they exited sites, 1185 groups were recorded arriving at sites during the survey sessions. Only a small proportion of groups arriving refused to take part as they exited, with approximately 63% exiting the sites either at access points that were not surveyed, outside of the survey sessions, or could not be intercepted because interviewers were already engaged in an interview..

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

12

70

60

Number of groups

50

40

Figure 3: Number of groups exiting by access point.

30

20

10

13D

13C

13B

13A

11H

10F

11E

10E

10D

10C

10B

9B

10A

9A

8C

8B

8A

7B

7A

5E

5D

5C

5B

5A

4B

3E

3D

3C

3B

3A

2D

2C

2B

2A

1C

1B

1A

0

120

Number of groups

100

80

60

Figure 4: Number of groups exiting by site.

40

20

0

Shortheath Common

Kingsley Common

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Broxhead Common

The Slab/The Warren

Hogmoor Inclosure

Woolmer Forest

Longmoor Inclosure

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

Frensham Common

Bordon Inclosure

13

Table 5: Number of children, adults, total people and dogs exiting at each access point surveyed. Access points with the greatest number of total people are highlighted in red.

1A 1B 1C 2A

Site Shortheath Common Shortheath Common Shortheath Common Kingsley Common

Children 2 8

Total Adults 9 15 56

Total People 9 17 64

Dogs 1 20 41

2B 2C 2D 3A 3B 3C 3D

Kingsley Common Kingsley Common Kingsley Common Broxhead Common Broxhead Common Broxhead Common Broxhead Common

2 2

18 1 2 19 9 5 15

20 1 2 19 9 5 17

18 1 1 13 3 4 15

3E 4B 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 7A 7B 8A 8B 8C 9A 9B 10A 10B 10C 10D 10E 10F 11E 11H 13A 13B 13C 13D Total

Broxhead Common The Slab/The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure Hogmoor Inclosure Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Woolmer Forest Longmoor Inclosure Longmoor Inclosure Ludshott Common Ludshott Common Ludshott Common Ludshott Common Bramshott Common Bramshott Common Frensham Common Frensham Common Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure Bordon Inclosure

1 1 2 3 1 3 6 19 11 1 2 2 66

13 8 7 11 6 1 5 2 13 30 4 15 8 56 17 46 9 19 43 106 75 17 33 2 10 705

13 8 8 12 6 1 5 2 13 32 4 15 8 59 17 47 12 19 49 125 86 18 35 2 12 771

15 8 1 6 6 6 3 9 28 1 20 17 57 17 30 12 29 28 20 61 4 15 4 2 516

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

14

Table 6: Number of children, adults, total people and dogs exiting at each site surveyed.

Sites with the greatest number of total people are highlighted in red.

Shortheath Common Kingsley Common Broxhead Common The Slab/The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure Woolmer Forest Longmoor Inclosure Ludshott Common Bramshott Common Frensham Common Bordon Inclosure Total

Children

Total Adults

Total People

Dogs

2

24

26

21

10

77

87

61

2

61

63

50

-

-

-

-

2

33

35

21

2

54

56

47

-

23

23

37

7

128

135

116

6

62

68

57

30

181

211

81

5

62

67

25

66

705

771

516

Table 7: Number of visitor types recorded exiting each site during the survey.

Shortheath Common Kingsley Common Broxhead Common The Slab/The Warren Hogmoor Inclosure Woolmer Forest Longmoor Inclosure Ludshott Common Bramshott Common Frensham Common Bordon Inclosure Total

Local Resident

Local Resident & Garrison

Tourist Day

Tourist Overnight

Other

20

-

-

-

-

52

1

4

1

2

45

-

2

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

29

1

-

-

-

42

-

-

1

1

20

-

1

-

-

82

-

3

-

-

35

-

1

2

-

89

-

13

3

1

41 455

2

24

1 8

1 6

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

15

3.11

The number of groups interviewed as they exited sites, as a percentage of the number of groups arriving at sites, varied by site. Figure 5 shows the number of groups arriving and exiting at each access point, and the number of exits as a percentage of arrivals. This shows a slightly lower proportion of interceptions as visitors exited for sites with more ‘permeable’ boundaries and for sites with lots of adjacent residential housing.

It also

shows that the relative numbers of groups arriving and exiting were the same across all of the sites; such that those considered ‘busiest’ based upon the number of interviews completed were also those considered ‘busiest’ based on the number of groups arriving.

The only exception to this rule was at The Slab/The Warren, where 6 people were recorded arriving but none were recorded exiting. This may be as a result of visitors merely passing through the access point, as opposed to recreating within the site; the numbers of groups arriving during the 16 hours of survey would certainly still be considered very low.

300

39

Number of groups

250

45

200

41

150

100

32 56

39

48

35

47 44

50

0 0 Shortheath Common

Kingsley Common

Broxhead Common

The Slab/The Warren

Hogmoor Inclosure

Woolmer Forest

Longmoor Inclosure

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Frensham Common

Bordon Inclosure

Figure 5: Number of groups arriving at each site (black bar) and number of groups interviewed as they exited (red line). The figures shown inset indicate the number of interviews completed upon exit as a percentage of arrivals.

3.12

For most sites the primary reasons for visiting were either dog walking or walking, although bird watching was relatively more popular at Broxhead Common (n=5; 50% of the total user group across all sites). For Bordon and Hogmoor Inclosure, a higher proportion of ‘other’ reasons for visiting were recorded. Closer inspection of these responses revealed that visits were made as part of a shortcut either as a route to/from the shops, work or children’s school. Several groups also stated ‘other’ for Frensham Common (n=9) where reasons for the visit were due to the beach or swimming.

3.13

Most of the visitors to the sites were local residents, although visitors who were local residents and part of the garrison were intercepted at Kingsley Common (n=1; 0.2% of total) and Hogmoor Inclosure (n=1; 0.2% of total). A higher relative proportion of day tourists were interviewed at Frensham Common (n=13; 2.6% of total), although day tourists were also recorded at Broxhead Common, Kingsley Common, Ludshott Common, Bramshott Common and Longmoor Inclosure.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Tourists staying overnight were only

Final Report – November 2012

16

recorded at Kingsley Common, Bramshott Common, Woolmer Forest, Frensham Common and Bordon Inclosure (Table 7).

Visitor Origins & Travel Distances All Sites 3.14

Of 495 interviews completed during the visitor survey, 345 of the groups interviewed released a full and accurate home postcode. 345 postcodes representing home origins of visitors were therefore spatially analysed using GIS. Analysis revealed that the origins (home postcodes) of visitors to the sites surveyed were largely distributed within North, Hampshire and Surrey, although one to two postcodes were also located in West Sussex, South Hampshire, Berkshire, South Wiltshire, North Wiltshire and West Gloucestershire (Map 4).

3.15

Common settlements from which visitors travelled included Whitehill, Bordon, Lindford, Headley, Kingsley, Oakhanger, Alton, Farnham, Frensham, Hindhead, Grayshott and Liphook. Some individuals/groups also travelled from further afield, with home postcode locations provided for Aldershot, Fleet, Hook, Camberley, Reading, Waterlooville, Lurgashall, Fareham, Salisbury and Chippenham.

3.16

The most common method of transport was car/van (68%), although walking (28%), bicycling (2%) and horse riding (1%) were other methods of arriving to a site.

3.17

The minimum distance travelled from home postcode location to point of access to site was 18m, the maximum distance travelled was 229km, and the average travel distance was 6.7km.

3.18

The distance travelled to reach a site was influenced by a number of different factors including reason for visit, type of visitor, method of transport and access point type (Table 8).

3.19

Shortest average travel distances were calculated for those visiting sites for bicycling and jogging; local residents, including those who are part of the garrison; those travelling to sites on foot or by bicycle; and those accessing at pedestrian access points.

3.20

Greatest average travel distances were calculated for those visiting sites for fishing and bird watching; tourists staying overnight; those travelling to site by car/van; and those accessing at medium or high capacity car parks.

3.21

20 visitors had responded with â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;otherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; when asked about their main reason for visiting a site. Further analysis revealed that these visitors were either visiting the beach/going for a swim, taking a shortcut, or were in the area for work. Average travel distance for this user Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

17

group was 8.5km, although those in the area for work or visiting the beach/going for a swim had travelled much greater distances (average 28.1km and 8km, respectively), whereas those taking a shortcut on their way to work/shopping/taking children to school had travelled only short distances (average 1km).

Table 8: Minimum, maximum and average (with standard error) travel distances (km) from home postcode locations to points of access to sites by reason for visit, type of visitor, method of transport and type of access point.

Reason for visit

Min

Max

Average

Standard Error

Fishing

1.9

93.8

26.2

17.3

Bird watching

1.0

36.2

16.6

8.7

Picnicking

0.7

19.3

9.6

2.6

Other (see below*)

0.09

36.6

8.5

3.8

* Beach/swim

1.8

16.6

8

4.4

* Work

19.6

36.6

28.1

8.5

* Shortcut

0.1

36.6

1

0.3

Walking

0.02

96.9

8.2

2.4

Horse riding

3.4

9.0

6.2

2.8

Dog walking

0.02

228.8

5.9

1.4

Jogging

0.5

12.6

4.3

1.7

Bicycling

0.4

4.8

2.0

0.8

Type of visitor

Min

Max

Average

Standard Error

Tourist- overnight visitor

0.7

228.8

99.4

44.1

Tourist- day visitor

4.2

96.9

23.6

5.7

Local resident Local resident and part of garrison

0.02

23.8

3.5

0.2

2.0

2.7

2.4

0.3

Other

2.8

93.8

36.1

15.9

Method transport

Min

Max

Average

Standard Error

Car/van

0.2

228.8

8.4

1.5

Horse

3.4

9.0

6.2

2.8

Bicycle

0.4

36.6

5.5

3.9

Walk

0.02

120.6

2.3

1.4

Access point type

Min

Max

Average

High capacity Medium capacity Low capacity Pedestrian

0.09 0.02 0.1 0.02

120.6 224.4 228.8 36.7

8.5 9.4 6.7 1.6

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Standard Error 1.6 3.9 2.2 0.6

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

18

3.22

Due to the wide variation in distances travelled, the average distances calculated were in some cases heavily skewed by the upper 5% of visitors who travelled over 20km to reach sites. This included 16 visitors who travelled between 20km and 229km to reach the site that they visited.

8 of these visitors travelled from further afield to reach Frensham

Common and were day and overnight tourists visiting for dog walking, walking and bird watching. Two of the Frensham visitors were also local residents who travelled 21 and 22km respectively for dog walking and fishing. 3 of the visitors travelling over 20km did so to reach Bramshott Common, 2 of which were local residents visiting for dog walking and the other was a tourist visiting for walking. The other 5 visitors travelling relatively greater distances visited Woolmer Forest as part of work or as a tourist for dog walking, Ludshott Common as a tourist for dog walking, Kingsley Common for fishing whilst working in the area and Broxhead Common for bird watching.

3.23

The cumulative frequency of the distance travelled to reach a site gives an indication of the catchment for a site (Liley et al. 2005).

th

Looking at the 70

percentile figure from a

cumulative frequency distribution curve gives you an indication of the distances from within which 70% of visitors travel to reach a site; this therefore gives a more representative understanding of predominant travel patterns because it excludes the upper travel distances which can skew the average. For example across the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, research has shown that 70% of visitors travel 5km or less to access sites (Liley et al., 2005). This data has been used to inform requirements for strategic mitigation across the region.

3.24

For all of the sites surveyed in the Whitehill & Bordon area, distance analysis revealed that 70% of the total numbers of visitors providing postcodes during the survey travelled from within 4.3km (Figure 6). Distances travelled to reach the Whitehill & Bordon sites therefore tended to be less than those typical for the Thames Basin Heaths.

80.0 70.0 60.0

%

50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Travel distance (km)

Figure 6: Cumulative frequency distribution curve of distances travelled to all sites.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

19

3.25

As described above, the extent of catchments projected by sites was influenced by reason for visit, type of visitor, method of transport and access point type. Cumulative frequency th

distribution curves for these user classifications are shown in Figure 7, and the 70 percentile figures are summarised in Table 9.

3.26

Where there were fewer than 5 data points, robust frequency distribution curves could not be plotted, therefore for small samples sizes the minimum, maximum and average travel distances set out in Table 8 are likely to be the best representation of the pattern of access to the sites surveyed. This was the case where the reason for visiting sites was fishing, bird watching, horse riding and bicycling; where the method of transport for reaching a site was by horse; and where the type of visitor was local resident and part of the garrison.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

20

80

90

70

80 70

60

60

50

Local resident Tourist-day visitor

Jogging Walking

30

Other 20

Other

40

Dog walking 30

Tourist-overnight

%

%

50 40

Picnic

20

10

10

0

0 0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

0.0

50.0

100.0

Travel distance (m)

150.0

200.0

250.0

Travel distance (m)

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

High

40

Car/van

%

%

Bicycle

Medium

40

Low

Walk 30

30

20

20

10

10

Pedestrian

0

0 0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Travel distance (m)

Travel distance (km)

Figure 7: Cumulative frequency distribution curves of distances travelled to all sites by reason for visit (top left), type of visitor (top right), method of transport (bottom left) and type of access point (bottom right).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

21

8.0

Table 9: Distances travelled (km) to reach sites by reason for visit, type of visitor, method th of transport and type of access point, calculated as the 70 percentile from frequency distribution curves. th

th

Reason for visit

70 Percentile Travel Distance

Type of visitor

Fishing

Insufficient data

Tourist- overnight visitor

120.6

Bird watching

Insufficient data

Tourist- day visitor

19.6

Local resident

3.5

Picnicking

8

Other (beach/swim; shortcut; work)

6.1

Local resident and part of garrison

Walking

5.3

Other

Horse riding

Insufficient data 36

Insufficient data

Jogging

4

Dog walking

3.8

Bicycling

Insufficient data

Method transport

70 Percentile Travel Distance

th

Car/van

3.27

70 Percentile Travel Distance

5.4

th

Access point type

70 Percentile Travel Distance

High capacity

6.5

Medium capacity

4.5 4.2

Horse

Insufficient data

Bicycle

1.8

Low capacity

Walk

0.7

Pedestrian

1

Inspection of the cumulative frequency distribution curves, and average travel distances in the instances where there was insufficient data, allows identification of two types of user.

3.28

First, the more local user who may be characterised as: local residents; those travelling to sites either on foot or by bicycle; those visiting for the purpose of bicycling, dog walking or jogging; and those accessing via pedestrian or low capacity access points. This type of user tended to originate from within the 4.3km linear distance that 70% of all users travelled from within.

3.29

Second, the more distant user who may be characterised as: tourists or those visiting friends or relatives or work premises from further afield; those travelling to sites by car/van; those visiting for the purpose of walking, horse riding, visiting the beach/going for a swim, picnicking, bird watching or fishing; and those accessing via high capacity car parks. This

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

22

type of user tended to originate from beyond the 4.3km linear distance that 70% of all users travelled from within.

Whitehill & Bordon Visitors

3.30

Analysis of visitor postcodes falling within the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary (EHDC, 2012) shows that only 19% (n=94) of the total number of visitors interviewed at sites during the survey originated from the Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford area (Map 5).

These visitors only made one visit to Bramshott Common,

Longmoor Inclosure and Frensham Common, and Shortheath Common received only two visits (Figure 8).

Bordon Inclosure received the most visits (n=24), whilst Hogmoor

Inclosure (n=21), Broxhead Common (n=20), Woolmer Forest (n=12), Kingsley Common (n=7) and Ludshott Common (n=5) also received a number of visits.

60

Number of groups

50

40

30

20

10

13D

13C

13B

13A

11H

10F

11E

10E

10D

10C

10B

9B

10A

9A

8C

8B

8A

7B

7A

5E

5D

5C

5B

5A

4B

3E

3D

3C

3B

3A

2D

2C

2B

2A

1C

1B

1A

0

Figure 8: Number of groups visiting access points by visitors living in the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary.

3.31

A large proportion of the Whitehill & Bordon visitors arrived to sites on foot (52%), although 40% drove. They largely visited either daily (54%) or two-three times a week (25%) for the purposes of dog walking (63%) and walking (22%). Those that visited for dog walking had either one or two dogs with them in most instances (41% and 19%, respectively).

3.32

Calculation of travel distances for the visitors living within the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary (EHDC, 2012) showed that minimum travel distance was 18m, maximum was 6.4km, average was 1.6km, and 70% of these visitors travelled from within 2.4km to reach sites. Visitors living in Whitehill & Bordon therefore travelled relatively shorter distances to reach sites to pursue recreation than the whole visitor survey data analysed above, but visited slightly more regularly.

Travel distances were again

influenced by reason for visit and method of transport (Table 10).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

23

Table 10: Distances travelled (km) by visitors living in the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary to reach sites, by reason for visit and method of th transport, calculated as the minimum, maximum, average (with standard error) and 70 percentile from frequency distribution curves.

N

Min

Max

Average

Standard Error

70th Percentile

94

0.02

6.4

1.6

0.15

2.4

Bicycling

2

0.4

1.1

0.7

0.32

Insufficient data

Bird watching/wildlife

1

2.9

2.9

2.9

N=1

Insufficient data

Dog walking

59

0.1

6.4

1.8

0.21

2.5

Fishing

2

1.9

2.7

2.3

0.44

Insufficient data

Horse-riding

1

3.4

3.4

3.4

N=1

Insufficient data

Jogging/exercise

3

0.5

1.3

0.9

0.24

Insufficient data

Other

5

0.1

1.7

0.9

0.26

Insufficient data

Walking

21

0.02

4.9

1.1

0.27

0.9

Bicycle

4

0.4

1.1

0.6

0.16

Insufficient data

Car/van

38

0.8

6.4

2.9

0.23

3.3

Horse

1

3.4

3.4

3.4

N=1

Insufficient data

Other

2

Walk

49

All

Reason for visit

Method transport

0.03 0.02

4.4

0.7

0.10

0.8

Site Specific

3.33

Analysis of visitor home postcode locations in relation to sites visited showed that visitors tended to visit the site closest to home (Map 4). As above, the most common method of transport was car/van or on foot, although there were some slight site specific variations in the patterns of access observed including: • 100% of visitors to Bramshott Common drove; • 30% of visitors walked to Woolmer Forest; • 5% of visitors to Longmoor Inclosure arrived by horse and 5% arrived by bicycle; • 65% of visitors to Shortheath Common arrived on foot; • 97% of visitors to Hogmoor Inclosure arrived on foot; and • 93% of visitors to Bordon Inclosure arrived on foot.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

24

3.34

Travel distances from home postcode locations to points of access to the sites surveyed also varied by site. Table 11 shows the number of accurate postcode locations provided for each site, and the minimum, maximum and average distances travelled, in addition to the distance within which 70% of visitors had travelled from within (derived from the 70th percentile of the cumulative frequency distribution curve).

Table 11: Distances travelled (km) to reach sites, calculated as minimum, maximum, th average (with standard error), and 70 percentile of cumulative frequency distribution curves.

14.8

Standard Error 3.7

70th Percentile 10.7

93.8

6.8

1.9

7.4

1.0

42.4

6.8

1.7

4.5

29

0.2

224.4

11.2

7.7

3.4

Longmoor Inclosure

12

1.1

12.6

3.9

0.9

3.2

Ludshott Common

63

0.1

31.0

2.7

0.5

2.9

Broxhead Common

30

0.4

36.2

3.5

1.2

2.1

Hogmoor Inclosure

24

0.0

11.4

1.2

0.5

0.9

Shortheath Common

11

0.1

6.1

1.9

0.7

0.6

Bordon Inclosure

25

0.1

1.6

0.5

0.1

0.5

N

Minimum

Maximum

Average

Frensham Common

74

0.5

228.8

Kingsley Common

48

0.0

Bramshott Common

29

Woolmer Forest

3.35

Frensham Common and Kingsley Common had bigger visitor catchments than the other sites, with 70% of visitors travelling from within distances of 10.7km and 7.4km, respectively.

Bordon Inclosure, Hogmoor Inclosure and Shortheath Common had the

smallest user catchments, with 70% of visitors travelling from within 1km; this is explained by the high proportion of visitors to these sites arriving on foot from immediately adjacent residential areas (Map 4).

Description of Site Use All Sites

3.36

Visitors interviewed most often said they visit sites daily (44%) or two to three times a week (19%). 81% of all visitors visit at least once a week. This varied between dog owners and non-dog owners, where dog owners most commonly visited either daily or two-three times a week (54% and 18%, respectively), whilst a relatively higher proportion of non-dog owners visit occasionally (20% non-dog owners; 6% dog owners) (Figure 9).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

25

100% 90% % of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% First visit

Occasionally

Monthly

Once weekly

2-3 times a week

4-5 times a week

Daily

0%

Figure 9: Frequency of visit; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

3.37

When asked what time of day visits are usually made 38% of visitors responded â&#x20AC;&#x153;no particular timeâ&#x20AC;?, although a higher cumulative proportion said that they visit before 9am (24%) or between 9-12 noon (18%) (Figure 10). A similar pattern was observed for dog owners and non-dog owners, although fewer non-dog owners visit before 9am (15% vs.

28%) and more non-dog owners visit between 12 and 2pm (12% vs. 5%).

100% 90%

% of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Before 9am

Between 9am and 12noon

Between 12 and 2pm

Between 3 and 5pm

After 5pm

No particular time

Figure 10: Time of visit; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

3.38

57% of visitors were interviewed during the week, with 43% interviewed at the weekend.

89% of visitors said that they visit at all times of the year, although 11% said that they visit more in summer; looking at the data split by dog owner/non-dog owner, this 11% was attributed to non-dog owners as opposed to dog owners (Figure 11).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

26

100% 90% % of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Winter –(Dec, Spring – Jan, Feb) (March, April, May)

Summer – (June, July, Aug)

Autumn – (Sept, Oct, Nov)

All times of year

Figure 11: Time of year for visits; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

3.39

69% of visitors said that they always use the same access point to the site, and 88% of visitors said that they had begun their walk at the access point from which they exited the site thereby completing a circular walk. 100% of visitors interviewed (n=495) were willing to indicate the route they had taken around the site on a map.

3.40

8% of the total number of routes taken around the sites were linear, with 37% (n=14) of those linear routes completed in Bordon Inclosure and 29% (n=11) completed in Hogmoor Inclosure. Linear routes in proposed SANGs (Bordon and Hogmoor Inclosure) comprised shortcuts made between residential housing areas, or between housing and local shopping areas. Since the European sites are located away from shopping areas, the linear routes annotated that passed from one side of a site to another, indicate that only parts of a circular routes falling within the European site boundary were annotated during the interview, as opposed to the European sites being used for shortcuts (Map 6). The total number of people, and their accompanying dogs, who took linear routes through the proposed SANGs are shown in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Total number of people and dogs taking linear routes, departing from Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure, by access point.

Access Point 5A 5B 5C 5D 5E 13A 13B 13C 13D Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Total People Departing 2 3 6 2 1 7 4 2 7

Total Dogs Departing 3 0 2 1 0 3 1 4 1

Final Report – November 2012

27

3.41

Looking at data for all of the sites surveyed, the average distance walked during a visit was 2.3km; this was slightly longer for dog owners at 2.5km and shorter for non-dog owners at 1.9km. There was also a great amount of site specific variation (discussed below), and variation according to method of transport and reason for visit (Table 13).

Table 13: Distance walked on site in km.

3.42

Minimum

Maximum

Average

All

0.0

9.9

2.3

Standard Error 0.1

Dog owner Non-dog owner

0.1 0.0

7.8 9.9

2.5 1.9

0.1 0.1

Method of transport Bicycle Horse Car/van Walk

0.5 1.3 0.0 0.1

7.5 4.4 9.9 9.3

3.4 2.7 2.5 1.8

0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2

Reason for visit Jogging/exercise Horse riding Bicycling Dog walking Walking Bird watching/wildlife Other Picnic Fishing

0.8 1.3 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.5

9.9 6.0 7.5 7.0 7.3 3.3 7.2 1.7 1.0

5.2 3.6 3.2 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.1 0.7 0.7

1.1 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1

Those arriving to sites by bicycle, horse and car/van took longer routes around sites than those arriving on foot, and once there those that had visited for the purpose of walking took shorter routes than those visiting for jogging/exercise, horse riding, bicycling or dog walking. The shortest routes were taken by those that had visited for the purpose of bird watching, ‘other’ (which as described above including those visiting as part of shortcuts, on the way to work or to use the beach/go for a swim), picnicking and fishing.

3.43

Most visitors said that the route they had taken was roughly the same as usual (61%) or shorter than usual (23%).

3.44

Visitors most often spent 30 minutes to 1 hour on site (44%); this was true of dog owners (50%) but non-dog owners tended to spend over 1 hour (32%) (Figure 12).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

28

3.45

72% of visitors said that they remained on the main footpaths during their visit. All of the visitors interviewed specified the routes they took around the sites; analysis of these routes confirmed that the majority of visitor routes followed formal footpaths and trails (Map 5).

3.46

91% of dog owners said they let their dog(s) off the lead whilst on-site and 60% of interviewees said that their dog(s) ventured off the main footpath. Therefore disturbance beyond the main footpaths and trails is likely to occur.

100% 90%

% of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 30 minutes

30 minutes â&#x20AC;&#x201C; I hour

Over an hour

Figure 12: Length of time spent on site; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

Site Specific

3.47

How often visitors said that they visit sites varied by site, with a smaller proportion of visitors to Frensham Common, Kingsley Common and Bramshott Common visiting daily and a greater proportion visiting occasionally (Table 14). Conversely, a greater proportion of visitors to Shortheath Common, Hogmoor Inclosure and Bordon Inclosure visit daily, with fewer visiting occasionally. Visitors to Woolmer Forest, Longmoor Inclosure and Broxhead Common most commonly said that they visit either daily, or 2-3 times a week.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

29

Table 14: Frequency of visit by site (shown as percentage of the total of responses for each site).

Daily

4/5 times a week

2/3 times a week

Once weekly

Monthly

Occasionally

First visit

Frensham Common

18

13

19

8

7

26

8

Kingsley Common

35

12

23

8

7

12

3

Bramshott Common

50

3

5

13

8

16

5

Woolmer Forest

52

20

23

2

0

2

0

Longmoor Inclosure

48

24

29

0

0

0

0

Ludshott Common

53

11

18

8

4

7

0

Broxhead Common Shortheath Common

33

4

29

15

4

8

6

60

5

10

5

20

0

0

Hogmoor Inclosure

77

3

13

3

0

3

0

Bordon Inclosure

70

5

14

5

0

2

5

3.48

In addition to the effects of owning a dog, method of transport and reason for visiting a site on the length of route taken whilst on site, analysis of route length by site shows that visitors took the longest routes in the largest sites, including Longmoor Inclosure, Woolmer Forest and Ludshott Common and vice versa the shortest routes were taken at the smallest sites, including Bordon Inclosure, Hogmoor Inclosure and Shortheath Common (Table 15). A relatively higher proportion of visitors to these larger sites said that the length of their stay on site tended to exceed one hour.

Table 15: Distance walked on site in km.

Longmoor Inclosure Woolmer Forest Ludshott Common Frensham Common Kingsley Common Broxhead Common Bramshott Common Shortheath Common Hogmoor Inclosure Bordon Inclosure

3.49

Minimum

Maximum

Average

1.3 0.7 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1

6.6 9.9 7.0 7.3 7.8 4.5 3.4 2.3 2.4 2.8

3.8 3.5 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.2 0.9

Standard Error 0.06 0.22 0.28 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.20

Access points 11H, 11E, 10A and 2A at Frensham Common, Ludshott Common and Kingsley Common, respectively (Map 3), had the highest number of visitors exiting during the survey (Table 5). Trails connecting these access points were subject to the greatest 2

density of recreational activity (km/km ) or recreational pressure (Map 7). There were also peaks in recreational pressure between access points 10E and 10F at Bramshott Common Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

30

around the Waggoners Wells lakes, at access 3A at Broxhead Common, and between access points 13A and 13B at Bordon Inclosure. Most visitors said that they use the same access point each time they visit (69%), indicating a consistent application of recreational pressure to those parts of the sites that are in the vicinity of the preferred access points.

Reasons for Visit All Sites

3.50

Peacefulness was the most commonly chosen key feature/attribute of the sites surveyed (62%) (Figure 13). Other valued features were the look and feel of the site (61%), ability to let the dog off the lead (56%), proximity to home (55%), the length and variety of tracks/paths available (49%) and the range of habitats and landscapes (43%). The top two reasons for visiting sites differed between user groups: dog owners prioritised the ability to let dog off the lead (74%) and peacefulness (64%); non-dog owners (who predominantly visited for the purpose of walking) valued peacefulness (56%) and the look and feel of the site (57%).

3.51

When asked what changes would make the site more or less attractive to visit, several options were considered to make the site less attractive including: the requirement to keep a dog on the lead (68%); lack of parking (67%); introduction of car park charges (76%); poorly maintained paths (56%); fencing/screening (57%); lots of facilities (52%); and lots of other visitors (56%) (Figure 14). All other options were considered to make the site more attractive, and included: excluding access from sensitive areas (43%); the presence of wardens (40%); bylaws preventing certain activities (52%); fines for not collecting dog waste (64%); and penalties/enforcement for unsociable behaviour (79%). None of the options presented, when considered across all of the sites, returned a ‘neutral’ response.

3.52

When asked about specific measures that would make a site more attractive, the most common response was better site management (41%), all-weather footpaths/better maintained footpaths (19%) or more seating (16%), although the option to record a bespoke response was also heavily utilised, with 43% of visitors opting for ‘other’. From the bespoke responses given, it was clear that visitors feel strongly about the management of the sites that they visit, with common issues raised including maintenance of car parks and roads, and issues with dog fouling.

Site Specific

3.53

The key features/attributes of specific sites were broadly consistent with the results analysed across all of the sites surveyed, although a higher proportion of visitors said that ‘diversity of wildlife’ was a key feature for Broxhead Common and Kingsley Common, and ‘access to water’ was a particularly key feature for Frensham Common. For Bordon and Hogmoor Inclosures, proximity to home (‘it’s close to where I live’) was a key feature.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

31

3.54

Again, when asked what changes would make sites more or less attractive, site specific data generally returned the same distribution of results to the data analysed across all of the sites (described above).

3.55

When asked about specific changes that would make sites more attractive the most common responses for Hogmoor Inclosure were: better site management; more seating; better signs and information boards; better marked routes; all weather footpaths/better maintained paths; and provision of wildlife facilities.

For Bordon Inclosure, the most

common responses were: better site management; more seating; and all weather footpaths/better maintained paths.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

32

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

0%

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

33

Figure 13: Key features/attributes of the sites surveyed; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red bar- all.

Other

Not too busy

Feel safe using this site

Peacefulness

No urban intrusion

Clearly marked routes

Well placed seating

Signs or information boards

Proximity to facilities or features

Access to water

Diversity of wildlife

Good car parking

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s close to where I live

Dry, well maintained paths

Range of habitats

Length and variety of tracks

The look and feel of this site

Dog off the lead

% of respondents 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

34

Other

Lots of other visitors

Lots of facilities

Fencing/screening

Penalties/enforcement for unsociable behaviour

Fines for dog fouling

Bylaws

Poorly maintained paths

The presence of wardens

Car park charges

Lack of car parking facilities

Public access exclusions

Dog/s on lead/s

% of respondents 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Figure 14: Changes that would make sites more or less attractive; black bar- more attractive; grey bar- neutral effect; white bar- less attractive.

Alternative Sites Visited 64% of visitors (68% for dog owners and 54% for non-dog owners) said they visited other open spaces to engage in the same pastimes. These alternative sites were also most commonly accessed by car (83%) (Figure 15), with the greatest proportion of visitors travelling more than 5kms to reach them (43%) (Figure 16). A lower proportion of visitors visit alternative sites on a daily basis, with most visiting either once weekly (26%) or two to three times a week (22%) (Figure 17).

100% 90%

% of respondents

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Walk

Car/van

Bus/coach

Bicycle

Motorbike

Horse

Other

Figure 15: Method of transport to alternative sites; black bar- dog owner; white bar- nondog owner; red line- all.

100% 90% 80% % of respondents

3.56

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Less than 400 400 metres- 2 km-5kms (1metres (quarter 2kms (a mile) 3 miles) mile)

More than 5kms (more than 3 miles)

Donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t know

Figure 16: Distance travelled to alternative sites; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red line- all.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

35

50% 45% % of respondents

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Daily

4-5 times a week

2-3 times a Once weekly week

Monthly

Occasionally

Figure 17: Frequency of visits to alternative sites; black bar- dog owner; white bar- nondog owner; red line- all.

3.57

Visitors selected alternative sites for similar reasons to those surveyed, with the most common reasons stated as the look and feel of a site (55%), the length and variety of tracks (51%), and the range of habitats and landscapes (40%) (Figure 18).

3.58

Many alternative sites were listed by visitors with a high proportion visiting one of the other sites surveyed, or other local open spaces in and around the settlements adjacent to the sites surveyed. The sites named as first, second, and third favourite sites are given in Appendix 2.

3.59

The sites surveyed accounted for 38% of the alternative sites named as either first, second or third favourite sites. A further 5% of named sites were located in the vicinity of the sites surveyed, and were therefore relatively local to the Whitehill & Bordon area. Frensham Common, Ludshott Common and Waggoners Wells, the Devilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Punchbowl/Hindhead Common, Alice Holt and Broxhead Common were the top five sites named as favourite alternative sites. In addition Longmoor Inclosure and Bramshott Common featured in the top five for sites named as second favourite alternative sites.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

36

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

0%

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

37

Figure 18: Key features/attributes of alternative sites; black bar- dog owner; white bar- non-dog owner; red bar- all.

Weather

Time available

Not too busy

Feel safe using this site

Peacefulness

No urban intrusion

Clearly marked routes

Well placed seating

Signs or information boards

Proximity to facilities or features

Access to water

Diversity of wildlife

Good car parking

Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s close to where I live

Dry, well maintained paths

Range of habitats

Length and variety of tracks

The look and feel of this site

Dog off the lead

% of respondents 100% 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Annual Visitation Rates to European Sites

4.1

One of the main aims of this year’s survey was to obtain updated information on visitation rates to European sites.

4.2

The previous visitor survey report (UE Associates, 2009) set out a method for extrapolating visitor numbers recorded during the survey to give an estimate of total annual visits to the European sites. The methodology used followed that set out in Liley et al. (2006), and provides an approach for accounting for the number of potential visits made to access points that are not included in a survey.

4.3

Using this approach total annual visits to the European sites (excluding data for Hogmoor Inclosure, Bordon Inclosure and The Slab/The Warren) surveyed may be calculated using the 2012 visitor survey data as follows (the equivalent calculation using the 2009 data is also given as a comparison, and differences between the results obtained in 2009 and 2012 are discussed further below):

2009

2012

1,645

669

29

27

56.72

24.78

16

16

3.54

1.55

12

12

• Total people leaving per access per day:

42.54

18.6

• Mean number of people leaving per access per year:

15,539

6,794

• Total number of access points (see para 4.4 below):

218

147

3,387,473

998,667

• Total number of people recorded leaving sites: • Number of access points surveyed: • Mean number of people leaving per access: • Number of hours surveying per access: • Mean number of people leaving per access per hour: • Daylight hours per day (assume 0700-1900):

• Estimated total annual visits to the European sites:

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

38

4.4

The total number of access points to the European sites surveyed in 2012 has been adapted from the list provided in UE Associates (2009), Appendix III, using the UE Associates access point inventory GIS dataset kindly provided by the Eco-town Team.

During an HRA Working Group Workshop held on the 3rd May to inform the Outline Access Management Strategy for the European sites, members were asked to annotate large scale maps to indicate where access points no longer existed or where there were known to be additional access points.

The access point inventory has been adapted

utilising this information, to yield the total number of 147 access points listed above, however as part of future HRA and Access Management work, the inventory of access points for the European sites should be refreshed following detailed ground truthing.

4.5

The method above does, however, assume equal visitation to all access points irrespective of their type (pedestrian, low capacity, medium capacity or high capacity car parks; refer to Table 2 for classification of access points surveyed).

4.6

The average number of people recorded arriving and departing at the different access point types varied, however, with high capacity access points seeing a greater average number of visitors pass through than pedestrian access points (Figure 19). Average visitor numbers were, however, similar for low and medium capacity car parks, and although average figures differed for pedestrian and low/medium capacity car parks, due to the amount of variation around the mean (indicated by the standard error) differences between these access point types may not be significant.

4.7

The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for significant differences between the access point types for arrivals and departures, since the datasets did not meet the assumptions for parametric testing using One-way ANOVA (the data was not normally distributed and variance was not homogeneous).

4.8

When comparing two datasets the Mann-Whitney U test is more powerful than the Kruskall-Wallis test (Dytham, 1999), and since post-hoc testing to determine where significance between access point types lies is not possible with K-W, the Mann-Whitney test was preferred.

4.9

This test found for both the arrivals and departures datasets that the total number of people recorded at high capacity car parks differed significantly from pedestrian access points (P<0.05), but that differences between the remaining access point types were not significant. Inspection of Figure 19 does, however, show observable differences between arrivals and departures at high vs. medium/low/pedestrian access points, therefore the data was re-grouped (high and medium/low/pedestrian) and reanalysed to compare arrivals and departures at high capacity access points vs. medium/low/pedestrian access points. This found significant differences between the two access point types (P<0.05).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

39

4.10

This suggests that access at high capacity car parks might skew the average visitation rate by access point for a site, and that applying a single average visitation rate (that incorporates data for high capacity car parks) to extrapolate data for every access point to a site might result in an overestimation of total annual visits. The extent to which this might occur would depend on the types of access points surveyed and the types of access points that were not surveyed (and for which data is extrapolated). This therefore suggests that extrapolations of total annual visits for sites could be further refined and made more accurate by taking into account the influence of access point type (i.e. greater and lower levels of access for different access point types).

180 160

Number of people arriving

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 H

M

L

P

L

P

80

70

Number of people departing

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 H

M

Figure 19: Average number of people arriving (top) and departing (bottom) by access point type; H- high capacity car park, M- medium capacity car park, L- low capacity car park, Ppedestrian access point. Error bars represent standard error.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

40

4.11

The approach set out above (UE Associates, 2009; Liley et al. 2006) also utilises the number of people recorded leaving sites (departures), as opposed to the numbers recorded arriving (arrivals), to determine annual visits to the European sites. However this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey, and the survey in 2009, recorded a greater number of people arriving at sites than departing.

The difference between the total number of groups arriving and

departing at each site is shown in Figure 5, with departures representing between 32 and 56% of arrivals (except in the case of The Slab/The Warren). A Mann-Whitney U test found this difference to be significant (P<0.05). This therefore suggests that extrapolations of total annual visits for sites could again be further refined by considering both arrival and departure data, perhaps presenting upper and lower figures for estimated annual visits for sites.

4.12

Table 16 sets out the total number of people, and dogs, arriving and departing at each access point surveyed, by access point type. This therefore provides the raw data for rerunning the extrapolations, if desired, within future iterations of the HRA.

4.13

A proportion of the groups to proposed SANGs were also found to take linear routes through the sites, taken as shortcuts between residential housing areas or between housing and shops, as opposed to recreational routes within the sites. Whilst this group of people do visit the proposed SANG, they do not appear to pursue recreational activity within it and are therefore less likely to remain within the SANG for any significant length of time. They may therefore not be taking up the sitesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; carrying capacity for visitation at the same rate as someone visiting for the purpose of recreation. More research on this type of use of the SANG needs to be done, but the potential for a deduction of visitor numbers associated with this type of non-recreational use during future calculations of SANGs capacity should be considered, or alternatively a method for partial discounting of SANGs capacity could be developed. A precautionary approach to any such deduction/discounting should be applied, owing to the inherent uncertainty associated with visitor behaviour.

4.14

This information only exists for visitors departing, since those arriving were not asked about the route they were proposing to take. However, the proportion of visitors taking shortcuts, deduced from departure data, could be applied to arrivals data to work out the proportionate number of people arriving who were likely to be taking linear routes through the sites.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

41

Table 16: Total number of people and dogs arriving and departing by access point type.

Total Access

Total

People

Total Dog

People

Total Dog

Arrivals

Arrivals

Departures

Departures

Point

Type

Site

1A

M

Shortheath Common

19

1

9

1

1B

L

Shortheath Common

29

26

17

20

1C

P

Shortheath Common

23

0

0

0

2A

H

Kingsley Common

157

56

64

41

2B

M

Kingsley Common

33

28

20

18

2C

P

Kingsley Common

52

6

1

1

2D

L

Kingsley Common

13

4

2

1

3A

M

Broxhead Common

39

33

19

13

3B

L

Broxhead Common

25

12

9

3

3C

P

Broxhead Common

26

15

5

4

3D

L

Broxhead Common

13

8

17

15

3E

P

Broxhead Common

15

9

13

15

4B

L

The Slab/The Warren

6

4

0

0

5A

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

23

12

8

8

5B

H

Hogmoor Inclosure

25

1

8

1

5C

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

20

10

12

6

5D

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

21

16

6

6

5E

P

Hogmoor Inclosure

2

0

1

0

7A

P

Woolmer Forest

10

11

5

6

7B

P

Woolmer Forest

12

8

2

3

8A

M

Woolmer Forest

37

20

13

9

8B

P

Woolmer Forest

48

38

32

28

8C

P

Woolmer Forest

29

6

4

1

9A

M

Longmoor Inclosure

42

46

15

20

9B

L

Longmoor Inclosure

23

32

8

17

10A

H

Ludshott Common

134

117

59

57

10B

L

Ludshott Common

45

35

17

17

10C

L

Ludshott Common

63

44

47

30

10D

L

Ludshott Common

28

23

12

12

10E

H

Bramshott Common

45

65

19

29

10F

M

Bramshott Common

92

44

49

28

11E

H

Frensham Common

244

31

125

20

11H

L

Frensham Common

262

162

86

61

13A

L

Bordon Inclosure

34

9

18

4

13B

P

Bordon Inclosure

89

34

35

15

13C

P

Bordon Inclosure

40

7

2

4

13D

P

Bordon Inclosure

46

10

12

2

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

42

Summary of 2012 Survey Results 4.15

In order to determine the existing levels of recreational pressure on, and patterns of access to, the European sites and proposed SANGs in and around Whitehill & Bordon, an onsite visitor questionnaire survey was undertaken in July 2012. The survey spanned 8 days, with 74% of the interviews completed in fair weather (no rain).

4.16

A total of 495 groups, and 771 people were interviewed as they exited the sites. These people were accompanied by 519 dogs. Group sizes were predominantly one or two people. In contrast, 1185 groups, and 1864 people, arrived during the survey, with the difference attributed to visitors exiting outside of survey sessions, via access points not included in the survey, or because interviewers were already engaged in an interview and could not intercept or record their departure. Only 2% of those seen arriving refused to take part in the survey upon exit.

4.17

Most visitors were local residents (n=455), with only 2 visitors stating that they were local residents and service personnel: part of the garrison.

A small proportion of those

interviewed were tourists, or were visiting friends or relatives, or had travelled to work in the area.

4.18

71% of visitors were accompanied by at least one dog, with one or two dogs usually accompanying groups. Most visitors had visited for the purpose of dog walking or walking, and did so daily or two to three times a week.

4.19

Ludshott Common, Frensham Common and Kingsley Common had the greatest number of people exiting during the survey.

Visitors originated from a wide range of locations

including Whitehill, Bordon, Lindford, Headley, Kingsley, Oakhanger, Alton, Farnham, Frensham, Hindhead, Grayshott and Liphook. Some individuals/groups also travelled from further afield, with home postcode locations provided for Aldershot, Fleet, Hook, Camberley, Reading, Waterlooville, Lurgashall, Fareham, Salisbury and Chippenham.

Most people travelled to site by car/van, although a third also arrived on foot.

4.20

The average travel distance recorded from home postcode location to point of access to site was 6.7km, although this figure was skewed by the upper 5% of visitors who had travelled more than 20km to reach sites. Analysis of the cumulative frequency distribution showed that 70% of visitors travelled from within 4.3km to reach sites. This indicates a smaller visitor catchment for the sites around Whitehill & Bordon than the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, for example, where 70% of visitors were recorded travelling from within a distance of 5km (Liley et al., 2006).

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

43

4.21

Distance travelled from home postcode locations to access points to sites was influenced by: • Site; • Access point type; • Method of transport; • Reason for visit; and • Type of visitor.

4.22

Based upon the above parameters there is evidence for local (<4.3km) and distant (>4.3km) user types, with most ‘local’ users visiting their nearest site (Map 4).

4.23

Analysis of visitor postcodes falling within the proposed Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary found that only 19% of the total number of visitors interviewed at sites during the survey originated from the Whitehill, Bordon and Lindford area. A large proportion of the Whitehill & Bordon visitors arrived to sites on foot, with 70% of these visitors travelling from within 2.4km to reach sites for dog walking and walking. Visitors living in Whitehill & Bordon therefore represent ‘local’ users, travelling relatively shorter distances to reach sites to pursue recreation, but visiting more regularly.

4.24

This year’s survey found that most visitors use the same access point to a site, and most take roughly the same length route around sites during their visit. The average distance taken around sites was 2.3km, although this was slightly longer at 2.5km for dog walkers.

There was also evidence for longer routes being taken within larger sites such as Longmoor Inclosure and Woolmer Forest.

4.25

Most of the visitors stayed on footpaths and trails during their visit, although nearly all of the dogs accompanying groups were taken off the lead, therefore disturbance beyond the main footpaths and trails is likely.

4.26

2

The greatest density of routes in km/km were taken along footpaths and trails connecting the busiest access points at Frensham Common, Ludshott Common and Kingsley Common, so recreational pressure is likely to be greatest at these locations (Map 7).

There were also peaks in recreational pressure around the main car park at Broxhead Common (3A), and between access points 13A and B at Bordon Inclosure where the associated linear route is used as a shortcut between residential housing areas and/or the local shops.

4.27

The key attributes of sites most often included peacefulness, the site’s look and feel, the ability to let the dog off the lead and proximity to home. Visitors were also asked about changes to site management that would make sites more or less attractive, and this

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

44

information will feed into the design of SANGs and into the Outline Access Management Strategy for the European sites.

4.28

Most visitors visit alternative sites to pursue the same pastime, and those sites tend to be selected for similar reasons as the sites surveyed; in fact the sites surveyed accounted for 38% of the named alternative sites, indicating that visitors tend to use the network of open spaces in and around Whitehill & Bordon for recreation.

Visitors said that they visit

alternative sites slightly less often, but often travel further to reach them.

4.29

Analysis of the data collected during this yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey suggests that the type of access point, and data for the number of people arriving at sites, should be used to inform estimations of annual visitation rates in future iterations of the HRA. European Sites vs. Proposed SANGs in 2012

4.30

A moderate number of visitors were recorded leaving the non-European sites during the survey, although no visitors were recorded at The Slab/The Warren a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure, proposed as SANGs, saw greater numbers of visitors than Shortheath Common, Bramshott Common and Longmoor Inclosure, but fewer visitors than Kingsley, Broxhead and Ludshott Common and Woolmer Forest. Despite no visitors leaving from The Slab/The Warren, 6 people were recorded arriving, indicating that they were on site for a long period of time and exited outside of the survey session, or exited via a different access point with the site perhaps being used as a shortcut to Whitehill & Bordon.

4.31

A higher proportion of visitors arriving at Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure did so on foot, so smaller user catchments and travel distances to sites were observed. A greater proportion of visitors also visited daily, taking shorter average length routes during their visit, but visits were made for similar reasons: either for dog walking or walking. This indicates that the proposed SANGs are used regularly by people living in adjacent residential areas for relatively short and quick visits around the sites, predominantly to walk the dog.

Unsurprisingly the key feature of these sites was their proximity to home.

4.32

When asked what changes to Hogmoor and Bordon Inclosure would make them more attractive, the most popular responses were: better site management, better signs and information boards given explanations of features of interest, better marked routes, the provision of all weather footpaths and the provision of wildlife facilities. A requirement to keep dogs on leads, car park charges, poorly maintained paths, fencing/screening, lots of facilities and lots of other visitors were features/changes that would make the proposed SANGs less attractive.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

45

Comparison of 2009/2011 and 2012 Survey Results 4.33

103 fewer groups were recorded exiting during this year’s survey than in 2009/2011 (Table 17). Frensham Common, Shortheath Common, Hogmoor Inclosure and Bordon Inclosure had more groups exiting during the survey, although this is likely to be due to the application of a greater level of survey effort in 2012 than in 2009/2011 (more access points in respect of the first three sites, and more survey hours in respect of Bordon Inclosure). All of the other sites surveyed had fewer groups exiting during the survey (Figure 20).

160 140

Number of groups

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Shortheath Common

Kingsley Common

Broxhead Common

The Slab/The Warren

Hogmoor Inclosure

Woolmer Forest

Longmoor Inclosure

Ludshott Common

Bramshott Common

Frensham Common

Bordon Inclosure

Figure 20: Number of groups exiting during the 2009/2011 and 2012 surveys; black bar2009/2011, white bar- 2012.

4.34

Potential explanations for these variations include natural fluctuations in visitation rates to sites, weather conditions during the 2012 survey, or possibly other socioeconomic reasons such as fewer residents living in the local area in 2012 than in 2009/2011 or restrictions on car travel as a result of increases in fuel costs since 2009. Attributing a direct cause-effect relationship between these factors would however be speculative and cannot be ascribed with certainty due to various factors that could be having an effect.

4.35

For some of the access points it is possible that weather conditions on the day of the survey, or in preceding days during the relatively wet summer, may have had an influence on the number of visitors exiting the site (Table 17).

Where fewer groups had been

interviewed in 2012 than 2009/2011, statistical analysis using Spearman’s Rank-order Correlation found no significant correlation between the difference in groups interviewed and the number of interviews completed in showery or heavy rain conditions during the survey session (P=0.324, not significant).

4.36

The effects of bad weather on patterns of access may, however, be more subtle, resulting in shorter average routes taken around sites or selection of sites known to remain relatively dry in wet weather. Indeed shorter average routes were recorded during visits in 2012 Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

46

than in 2009 (2.3km vs. 2.7km, respectively; this data was not available for the 2011 survey).

4.37

Travel distances to sites in 2012 were also, on average, shorter than to sites surveyed in 2009 (although distances travelled to Bordon Inclosure in 2011 were similar in 2012), which may be another factor influenced by the relatively wet weather conditions in the summer of 2012; if the weather is not optimal, people choose to visit more local sites. It may also be indicative of the additional sites surveyed in 2009 which may have attracted users from relatively greater distances, for example Hindhead Common, Selbourne Common, Thursley Common and Noar Hill.

4.38

The spatial distribution of recreational pressure differed between sites in 2009 and 2012 (this analysis was not possible for data collected in 2011), where there was less recreational pressure exerted around the main car park at Longmoor Inclosure in 2012 than in 2009, and along the western edge of Woolmer Forest (Map 8). These sites are favoured by visitors for longer walks, therefore the generally poor weather conditions in the summer of 2012 may have deterred visitors from pursuing particularly long walks, thereby accounting for fewer visits and less recreational pressure at those sites.

4.39

The difference in recreational pressure observed at Woolmer Forest in 2009 and 2012 is also explained by the doubling of survey effort for Woolmer Forest in 2009 to compare visitation rates when the firing range was open and closed; figures for the number of groups visiting Woolmer Forest were adjusted in Figure 20 and Table 17, however, the visitor routes and recreational pressure analysis was not.

4.40

There was also a decrease in recreational pressure between 2009 and 2012 in the southwest corner of Bramshott Common, and this is associated with the MoD car park closure south of access point 10E which seems to have resulted in a consequent increase in pressure in 2012 around access point 10F and the Waggoners Wells lakes.

4.41

The day of the week that most people were interviewed differed in 2012 than in 2009; in 2009 58% of visits were made at the weekend, whereas in 2012 57% were made during the week. This suggests that regular users, such as dog walkers, continued their patterns of recreational activity during the week, but that perhaps due to the wet weather in the summer of 2012 people were seeking alternative recreational activities at the weekends.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

47

Table 17: Number of interviews completed in 2009/2011 and 2012 by site, and the weather conditions recorded during the surveys in 2012.

Number of Interviews Completed

Number of Interviews Completed by Weather Condition

2009/2011

2012

Diff. 09-12

Sunshine & hot

Sunshine & showers

Cloudy

Cloud & showers

Heavy rain

Shortheath Common

16

20

4

0

4

5

4

7

Kingsley Common

80

60

-20

28

7

19

5

1

Broxhead Common

57

48

-9

25

5

3

14

1

-

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

Hogmoor Inclosure

28

30

2

0

0

16

14

0

Woolmer Forest

74

44

-30

0

1

24

19

0

Longmoor Inclosure

55

21

-34

0

2

14

2

3

Ludshott Common

154

85

-69

15

2

62

6

0

Bramshott Common

68

38

-30

10

0

20

7

1

Frensham Common

33

106

73

55

0

44

3

4

Bordon Inclosure

33

43

10

15

0

10

17

1

Total

598

495

Site

The Slab/The Warren

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

48

4.42

In all other respects, patterns of access were similar in the 2009, 2011 and 2012 surveys with visits made primarily for dog walking and walking, with a large proportion of visitors being accompanied by at least one dog, with visits being made at least once a week and at all times of year, and with visitors mostly arriving by car from the local area.

Recommendations for Future Work

4.43

This year’s visitor survey results will be used to inform the next iteration of the HRA, the outline planning application process, the design of SANGs and other associated Green Infrastructure, and the design of the Access Management and Monitoring Strategy for the European sites.

4.44

As part of future HRA and access management work, the inventory of access points for the European sites should be refreshed following detailed ground truthing; this will help to improve the accuracy of the extrapolations of total annual visits.

4.45

A greater number of visitors were recorded arriving but not subsequently departing from sites. This may have been because interviewers only recorded the numbers of visitors who were directly intercepted and interviewed as they departed, so if additional visitors were departing whilst they were carrying out interviews then those visitors would not have been counted. A full count of visitors, and accompanying dogs, both arriving and departing from sites should therefore be kept by interviewers positioned at access points in future visitor surveys in order to better understand the visitation rates to sites.

4.46

Extrapolations of total annual visits for the European sites and proposed SANGs could also be further refined by taking into account the following: • the influence of access point type; • by considering both arrival and departure data, perhaps presenting upper and lower figures for estimated annual visits for sites; and • in respect of proposed SANGs only, deduction of (or accounting for) visitor numbers associated with linear routes (‘’cut-throughs’’) through sites.

4.47

Differences in the number of visitors interviewed in 2009/2011 and 2012 have been identified in this study. Although there appeared to be no statistical relationship between the weather conditions encountered during interviews and the number of interviews completed, the effects of weather on patterns of access may be more subtle. For example, shorter routes around sites were completed in the generally wetter summer of 2012 than in 2009, and on average distances travelled to reach sites were also shorter in 2012. The effects of weather should be investigated further in any future questionnaire work in order to fully understand the factors influencing visitor access.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

49

4.48

Another potential factor influencing travel distance and site selection may be the costs associated with travel. The effects of increasing petrol prices on household finance may be forcing shorter travel distances and more local visitation patterns. This would have consequences on the future pattern of visits to the European sites and SANGs, and so the influence of travel cost should be investigated further in any future questionnaire work, in order to feed into the HRA and access management and monitoring on the European sites.

4.49

Work on an outline planning application for the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town is currently being progressed. This work will pick up on, and interpret, the data that has been gathered and presented by this Visitor Survey Report, for the purposes of progressing the HRA of the Eco-town proposals.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; November 2012

50

5.

REFERENCES Clarke R., Liley D., Underhill-Day J. & Rose R. (2005) Visitor Access Patterns on the Dorset Heathlands. English Nature Research Report 683, Dorset.

Dytham, C. (1999) Choosing and Using Statistics: A Biologist’s Guide. Blackwell Science, reprinted in 2002.

East Hampshire District Council (2012) Whitehill & Bordon Draft Revised Framework Masterplan (May 2012).

EPR (2009) Broadmoor Hospital Questionnaire Survey Research Report.

EPR (2010) Shinfield West Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy.

Liley D., Jackson D., and Underhill-Day J. (2005) Visitor Access Patterns on the Thames Basin Heaths. English Nature Research Report 682, Peterborough.

Natural England (2008) Guidelines for the Creation of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space.

UE Associates, 2009. Visitor Access Patterns on European Sites Surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, East Hampshire.

UE Associates, 2009b. Visitor Access Patterns on European Sites Surrounding Whitehill and Bordon, East Hampshire. Appendices Document.

UE Associates, 2011. Habitats Regulations Assessment for the Whitehill Bordon Eco-town Draft Framework Masterplan (June 2010), HRA Report – Revised November, 2011.

Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Visitor Survey Report P12/03-2C

Final Report – November 2012

51

Maps

Map 1

Site Location, Nature Conservation Designations & Proposed SANGs

Map 2

Visitor Access Points Surveyed 2009 & 2011

Map 3

Visitor Access Points Surveyed 2012

Map 4

Visitor Origins by Site Visited

Map 5

Visitors from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town Settlement Policy Boundary

Map 6

Visitor Routes in 2012

Map 7

Recreational Pressure Exerted by Visitor Routes in 2012 (km/km2)

Map 8

Recreational Pressure in 2009 and 2012

MAP 1 Site Locations & Nature Conservation Designations KEY Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary

Frensham Common

Special Protection Area (SPA) Thursley, Hankley & Frensham Common SPA Thursley, Ash, Pirbright & Chobham SAC Frensham Common SSSI

Special Area of Conservation (SAC) The Warren SINC

Frensham Common

Proposed SANG Wealden Heaths SPA Broxhead and Kingsley Commons SSSI

Functional site names given in black; Nature conservation designations given in red.

Kingsley Common Broxhead Common Shortheath Common Shortheath Common SAC Shortheath Common SSSI

The Warren SINC

Bordon Inclosure

Ludshott Common

Hogmoor Inclosure

Standford Grange Farm

Wealden Heaths SPA Bramshott and Ludshott Commons SSSI Bramshott Common

Woolmer Forest SCALE: 1:47,000 at A3

Wealden Heaths SPA Woolmer Forest SAC Woolmer Forest SSSI

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research Longmoor Inclosure Wealden Heaths SPA Woolmer Forest SSSI

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map1_SiteLoc_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

MAP 2 Visitor Access Points Surveyed in 2009 and 2011 KEY Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) ( 11A !

Ramsar site

Royal/Bagmoor Common

Surveyed in 2009 ( 11C !

Frensham Common

Hankley Common

( 11E !

Thursley/Ockley Common ( 11B ! ( 11G !

Witley Common

Frensham Common ( 11D !

Kingsley Common ( ! ( 2A 2B ! ( 2C !

3B

Shortheath Common ( 1A !

1 ( 4A !

Broxhead Common

( !

( 11F !

( !

# *

#2 *

Bordon Inclosure ( 10D !

Standford Grange Farm

( 5A ! ( 5B !

( ! ( 12A !

Hogmoor Inclosure

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

Surveyed in 2011

3* # #4 *

The Slab/ The Warren

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

# *

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

# *

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by/ roadside parking)

( 3A !

3C

( 1B !

( !

( 6A !

5C ( ! 8A

( 7B !

( 7A !

( 10B ! ( 10A !

Ludshott Common

Hindhead Common

Functional site names are shown inset

( 10C !

( 10F Bramshott !

Common ( 10E !

Selbourne Common Woolmer Forest ( 12B !

Noar Hill

( 8B !

SCALE: 1:75,000 at A3

( 9B !

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Longmoor Inclosure

5,000 Metres

Âą

( 9A !

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map2_VS_APs_2009-2011_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

MAP 3 Visitor Access Points Surveyed in 2012 ( 11H !

KEY

( 11E !

Frensham Common

Special Protection Area (SPA) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) Frensham Common

Kingsley Common ( ! ( 2A !

2B

( 1B !

Car park- high capacity (>29 spaces)

( !

Car park- medium capacity (16-29 spaces)

( !

Car park- low capacity (<16 spaces)

( !

Pedestrian access (some with lay-by)

( 2D !

Functional site names are shown inset

Broxhead Common

( 2C !

( 1A !

( !

( 3B ! ( 3E ! ( 3D ! ( 3A !

( 1C !

13A ! ( 3C ( !

Shortheath Common

( !

13B ( 10B !

Bordon Inclosure

( 10A !

( 13C !

The Slab/ The Warren

( 10D !

( 13D !

( 5E ! ( 5A !

Ludshott Common

( 10C !

( 5D !

( 4B !

Hogmoor Inclosure

( 5C !

( 10F !

Bramshott Common

( 5B !

( 8A !

( 10E !

( 7A ! ( 7B !

( 8C !

Woolmer Forest

SCALE: 1:47,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

( 8B !

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research ( 9B !

CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council

Longmoor Inclosure

PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012

( 9A !

C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map3_VS_APs_2012_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

OVERVIEW

( !

( !

!! ( (! ( ( !

( !

( ! ( !

( ! ( !

( !! ( ( ! ( ! (! ( (! ( ! !! (

( !

( ! ( !

( !! (

(! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! (! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( (! ! (! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! (( ! (! ! ( ! (! ( ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! (! (! ! (! ( ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! (! (! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ! ( ! (( ( ! (! ( ! (! ! ( ( (! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ! (! ! (! (! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

( !

( !

( ! ( !

( ! ( ! ( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

! ( ( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! (( ! ( ! ( ! (( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! (! ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! ( (! (! ( ! !

KEY

! ( (! ! (! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( !

( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (! (! (! ( ( ! (! ! ( (( ! (! ! (!

MAP 4 Visitor Origins by Site Visited ( !

20km linear distance from site boundaries *

Visitor home origins (postcodes) colour coded by site visited

Sites surveyed: Bordon Inclosure

! ( ( !

( ( ! !

Bordon Inclosure

( !

Bramshott Common

( !

!! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! !

( !

( ( ! !

( !

( !

Broxhead Common

( !

Broxhead Common

Frensham Common

( !

Hogmoor Inclosure

Hogmoor Inclosure

( !

Frensham Common

Kingsley Common

( !

Kingsley Common

Longmoor Inclosure

( !

Longmoor Inclosure

Ludshott Common

( !! ( ( !

( !

( !! ( ( ! ( ( ! ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ! (( ! ( ( ! (! ( (! ! (! (! ! ( ! ! (! ! (! ( ! ( ! (( ( ! ( ( ! (! ( (! ! ! ( ( ! ! !! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( (! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ( ! (! (! ! ( ( (! ! (! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( (! (! ! ( ! ( ! ((! ( ! (! ! (! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ( ! (! !

( !

( !

( !

Ludshott Common

( !

Shortheath Common

( !

Shortheath Common

Woolmer Forest

( !

Woolmer Forest

Bramshott Common

( !

( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( !

( !

( !

( !

!! ( ( ! (( (! ! ( (! ! ( (! ! ( (! (! !

( ! ( ! ( ( ! !

( !

(! ! !( ( ( ( ! !! ( !! ( (! !( ( ( ! ! (! ( ! (! ! ( (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( !

INSET

( !

! ( ( ! ( !

( !

( !

( !

( ! ( !

!! ( ( (! ! (! ( (!

( ! ! (

( !

( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( !

( !

( ! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ( ! !

( ! ( ! ! ( ( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( !

( ( ! !! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (

! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( (! ! (! (( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ! ( (! ! ( ( ( !

( ! ( !

! (( ! ( ! ( !

( !

( (! !

( !

! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ! (

! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ( (! ! (

( !

* derived from the 95% cumulative frequency distribution of distances travelled to all sites surveyed

SCALE: 1:150,000 at A3 (main frame only) 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000 Metres

( !

±

(( ! ! ( ( ! !

( !! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! (! ( ! ( !! ( (( ! ( ! ( !

( !

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council

( ! ( !

PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map4_VisitorOriginsBySite_P1203_161112.mxd

( ! ( !

© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

MAP 5 Visitors from the Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary KEY Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town settlement policy boundary Sites surveyed: Bordon Inclosure Bramshott Common Broxhead Common Frensham Common Hogmoor Inclosure Kingsley Common Longmoor Inclosure Ludshott Common ( ! ( !

( !

( !

( ! ( !! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ( (! ! (

( !

Shortheath Common Woolmer Forest Visitor home origins (postcodes) colour coded by site visited

(! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( !

( (! !

( ! ( !

( ! ( !

( ! ( ! ! (( !

( !

Bordon Inclosure

( !

Bramshott Common

( !

Broxhead Common

( !

Frensham Common

( !

Hogmoor Inclosure

( !

Kingsley Common

( !

Longmoor Inclosure

( !

Ludshott Common

( !

Shortheath Common

( !

Woolmer Forest

( !

( ! (! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( !

( ! ! ( ( (! !

( !

! ( ( ! (( ! ( ! ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ! ( ( ! ( ( ( ! !

( ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( !! ( ( ( ( ! ! ( (! ! ( !

SCALE: 1:47,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map5_VisitorsFromPolicyBoundary2012_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

MAP 6 Visitor Routes Walked in 2012

KEY Sites surveyed Circular walk Linear walk

SCALE: 1:50,000 at A3 0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map6_VisitorRoutesWalked_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

Recreational Pressure Exerted by Visitor Routes in 2009 (km/km2)

MAP 7 Recreational Pressure Exerted

by Visitor Routes in 2012 (km/km2) KEY Sites surveyed Recreational Pressure 0 - 12.8 km

2

12.9 - 47.6 km 47.7 - 97 km

2

2

97.1 - 161.1 km

2

2

161.2 - 250.8 km

2

250.9 - 466.8 km

SCALE: 1:50,000 at A3 0

750

1,500

2,250

3,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map7_RecPressure2012_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

Recreational Pressure Exerted by Visitor Routes in 2009 (km/km2)

Recreational Pressure Exerted by Visitor Routes in 2012 (km/km2)

MAP 8 Recreational Pressure in 2009 & 2012 KEY Sites surveyed Recreational Pressure 0 - 12.8 km

2

12.9 - 47.6 km 47.7 - 97 km

2

2

97.1 - 161.1 km

2

2

161.2 - 250.8 km

2

250.9 - 466.8 km

SCALE: 1:75,000 at A3 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000 Metres

Âą

Ecological Planning & Research CLIENT: East Hampshire District Council PROJECT: Whitehill & Bordon Eco-town DATE: November 2012 C:\Project Data\WhitehillBordonEco-tow n\GIS\VisitorSurvey\VS_Report\Map8_RecPressure09and12_P1203_161112.mxd

P12/03

Ordnance Survey (c) Crown copyright 2007. All rights reserved. License number 100005596.

Appendix 1 Visitor Questionnaire

WHITEHILL & BORDON ECO-TOWN VISITOR SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE “I am working on behalf of East Hampshire District Council to obtain information on the patterns of visitor access to heathland sites surrounding Whitehill and Bordon” Interviewer:

Day of the week:

Access point:

Date:

Time?

7-9am 10-12noon 1-3pm 5-7pm

Circle ONE only 01 02 03 04

Weather conditions?

Sunshine and hot Sunshine and showers Cloudy Cloud and showers Heavy rain

Circle ONE only 01 02 03 04 05

_______________________________________________ Q1. How many adults and children are present in your group, including yourself?

Give number of each age group Adult 16-25 26-45 46-59 60+ Children under 16 Q2. How many dogs have you taken for this visit? If none, mark 0 Number =

Q3. How did you get to this site today?

Circle ONE only Walk Car/van Bus/coach Bicycle Motorbike Horse 0ther – specify:

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Q4.How do you usually get to this site?

Circle ONE only Walk Car/van Bus/coach Bicycle Motorbike Horse 0ther – specify:

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Q5. Can you give the postcode of where you travelled from to visit this site?

Postcode No postcode but precise location/road name is: Q6. Are you?: Circle ONE only A local resident A local resident and service personnel: part of garrison A local resident and service personnel: part of technical training area A local resident and service personnel: work at Longmoor Barracks A local resident and service personnel: but work outside of Whitehill/Bordon A tourist – day visitor A tourist – overnight/multiple night stay Other- specify: Q7. What was the MAIN reason for your visit to this site today?

Circle ONE only- choose one which applies the most Dog walking 01 Walking 02 Bird watching/wildlife 03 Jogging/exercise 04 Horse-riding 05 Bicycling 06 Picnic 07 Fishing 08 Off-road driving (bike, quad etc.)

09 Other- specify: 10 Q8. How often do you visit this site?

Circle ONE only – choose closest answer Daily Four-five times a week Two-three times a week Once weekly Monthly Occasionally/sporadically First visit

01 02 03 04 05 06 07

skip to Q11

Q9. What time of day, if any, do you normally visit the site?

Circle ONE only Before 9am 01 Between 9am and 12noon 02 Between 12 and 2pm 03 Between 3 and 5pm 04 After 5pm 05 No particular time 06 Q10. Do you tend to visit the site more at a particular time of year?

Circle ANY that apply (if circle 05, don’t circle any others) Winter –(Dec, Jan, Feb) 01 Spring – (March, April, May) 02 Summer – (June, July, Aug) 03 Autumn – (Sept, Oct, Nov) 04 Or…All times of year 05

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Q11. What do you feel are the key features/attractions of this site?

Circle ANY that apply Ability to let dog off the lead The look and feel of this site Length & variety of tracks/paths available Range of habitats & landscapes (variation in countryside e.g. grassland, woodland etc.)

Dry, well maintained paths It’s close to where I live (easy to reach) Good car parking close by Diversity of wildlife Access to water (pond/river/lake) Proximity to facilities or features (eg. café, picnic table, toilets) Signs or information boards giving an explanation of features of interest Well placed seating Clearly marked routes No urban intrusion Peacefulness Feel safe using this site Not used by too many other people Other – specify:

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Any specific comments?

Q12. Are sites with the following features more or less attractive to you?

Circle for ALL ROWS A requirement to keep dog/s on lead/s Public access excluded from certain areas to protect sensitive wildlife features Lack of car parking facilities Car park charges The presence of wardens Poorly maintained paths Bylaws preventing certain activities (eg. BBQs) Fines for not collecting dog waste Penalties/enforcement for unsociable behaviour (eg. vandalism) Fencing/screening Lots of facilities (eg. café, picnic table, toilets) Lots of other visitors Other Any specific comments?

MORE 01 03

LESS 02 04

05 07 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

06 08 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Q13. What changes would make this site more attractive to visit?

Circle ANY that apply Better site management (vegetation clearance, litter collection, dog bins) Better range of habitats & landscapes (variation in countryside e.g. grassland, woodland etc.)

Provision of car park More seating Better signs or information boards giving an explanation of features of interest Better marked routes All weather footpaths/better maintained footpaths Better access to water (pond/river) Longer circular walking routes Better variety of footpaths of varying lengths Provision of wildlife facilities eg. bird hides Provision of toilets, restaurant/cafe or other facilities Fewer other visitors (they feel the site is too busy) Increased feeling of safety More natural, less man-made feel Other Any specific comments?

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Q14. Where did you access the site when you started your visit today? Show MAP.….

Circle ONE only Entered from this access point 01 Entered from another named access point, specify access 02 number: Other – specify/mark on MAP

03

Q15. Do you always use this access point to the site?

Circle ONE only Yes 01 No 02 Not a regular visitor 03

Q16. Where did you go when you were on the site? – Please draw rough path on MAP. Q17. How does today’s route compare with other visits?

Circle ONE only Shorter route 01 Longer route 02 Roughly same as usual 03 Don’t know 04 First visit 05 Q18. How long were you on this site for?

Circle ONE only Less than 30 mins 30 mins – I hour Over an hour

01 02 03

Q19.To dog-owners ONLY When you take dogs to these sites, are they normally let off the lead?

Yes 01 No 02 Q20. To dog-owners ONLY When you take dogs to these sites, do they normally go off the footpath or trails?

Yes 01 No 02 Q21.To ALL interviewees Do you ever go off the footpaths or trails?

Yes 01 No 02 Q22. Do you visit any other open spaces for the same purpose?

Circle ONE only Yes 01 No 02 Don’t know 03 Q23. If yes, could you tell us the name of the main alternative sites (max 3), with a description of their location?

1.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q24. How far do you typically travel to get to these sites? (if varies state for main alternative site) Circle ONE only Less than 400 metres (quarter mile) 01 400 metres – 2 kms (a mile) 02 2km – 5kms (1-3 miles) 03 More than 5kms (more than 3 miles) 04 Don’t know 05 Q25. How do you usually travel to get there? (if varies state for main alternative site) Circle ONE only Walk 01 Car/van 02 Bus/coach 03 Bicycle 04 Motorbike 05 Horse 06 0ther – specify: 07

Q26. How often do you tend to visit these sites? (if varies state for main alternative site) Circle ONE only â&#x20AC;&#x201C; choose closest answer Daily 01 Four-five times a week 02 Two-three times a week 03 Once weekly 04 Monthly 05 Occasionally/sporadically 06 Q27. What are your reasons for visiting these alternative sites rather than this site?

Circle ANY that apply Ability to let dog off the lead The look and feel of a site Length & variety of tracks/paths available Range of habitats & landscapes (variation in countryside e.g. grassland, woodland etc.)

The presence of dry, well maintained paths How close it is to home Availability of car parking Diversity of wildlife Access to water (pond/river/lake) Proximity to facilities or features (eg. cafĂŠ, picnic table, toilets) Signs or information boards giving an explanation of features of interest Well placed seating Clearly marked routes No urban intrusion Peacefulness Feeling of safety Not used by too many other people Time available Suitability given weather conditions Any specific comments?

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Appendix 2 List of Alternative Sites

Count of Favourite Site 1

Total

Count of Favourite Site 2

Total

Count of Favourite Site 3

Total

Frensham Common Ludshott Common & Waggoners Wells Devils Punch Bowl/ Hindhead Common

36

Ludshott Common & Waggoners Wells

27

Ludshott Common & Waggoners Wells

14

36

Alice Holt

22

Frensham Common

10

36

Frensham Common

21

6

Alice Holt

33

Longmoor Inclosure

14

Alice Holt Devil's Punchbowl/Hindhead Common

5

Broxhead Common

18

7

Blackdown, Haslemere

4

Bourne Woods

9

Bramshott Common Devil's Punchbowl/Hindhead Common

6

Broxhead Common

4

Kingsley Common

9

Bourne Woods

5

Bramshott Common

3

Other beaches/seaside

8

Broxhead Common

5

Chapel Common

3

Hankley Common

7

Butser Hill

5

3

Blackdown Common Longmoor Ranges/Weavers Down

6

Puttenham Common

5

Farnham Park Queen Elizabeth Country Park

6

Hankley Common

4

Bordon Army ranges

2

Bramshott Common Farnham Ponds/Park/Common Queen Elizabeth Country Park

5

Selbourne Common

4

BOSC

2

5

Shortheath Common

4

Bourne Woods

2

5

Bordon Army Sites

3

Grayshott

2

Shortheath Common

5

Chawton Park Woods

3

Hankley Common

2

The Ranges/Army Ranges

5

Farnham Park

3

Iron Hill

2

Bosc Club- Army land

4

Kingsley Common

3

Selbourne Common

2

Chawton Park Woods

4

Thursley Common

3

Whitehill

2

3

Blackmoor

3

BOSC

2

Bath Riding Club Field

1

Deadwater Valley

3

Chapel Common

2

Binstead Hanger

1

Headley Down

3

Deadwater Valley

2

Borevere Estate, Alton

1

Thursley Common

3

Home Farm

2

Dauns?

1

Anstey Park

2

Marley Common

2

Deadwater Valley

1

Barossa Woods, Camberley

2

New Forest

2

Elstead

1

Chapel Common

2

Parade Ground

2

Fleet Pond

1

Conford Common

2

Passfield Common

2

Four Marks, Alton

1

Fleet Pond

2

Queen Elizabeth Country Park

2

Golden Valley

1

Hartley Mauditt

2

Virginia Waters

2

Guildford

1

Hogmoor Inclosure

2

Alexander Park

1

Haselmere - National Trust

1

Iron Hill

2

Ambersham Common

1

Hayling Island

1

Martinique Square Recreation Ground/MOD, Bordon

2

Anstey Park, Alton

1

Headley Woods

1

2

Any area of woodland

1

Hogmoor Inclosure

1

Alton

1

Anywhere

1

Iping Common

1

Another Footpath Near Anywhere Within Walking Distance

1

Beaches

1

Kingsclere Down

1

1

Beech Hill

1

Kingsley Common

1

Basingstoke Canal

1

Blackdown

1

Liphook

1

Blackmoor Ranges Blackwater Valley path Frimley

1

Local woods - The Bourne/Farnham Heath

1

1

Milford Common

1

Bentley

1

Binswood/Worldham Bottom Beech Hill-by Pond Rd

1 1

Boars Hill, Oxford

1

Shortheath Common

1

Box Hill

1

Brisol Avon

1

Passfield

1

Britty Woods

1

Caudery

1

Petersfield

1

Bushy Leaze, Alton

1

Chase Lane

1

Pewley Downs, Guildford

1

Crooksbury Hill

1

Crooksbury Hill

1

Pig Walk

1

Count of Favourite Site 1

Total

Count of Favourite Site 2

Total

Count of Favourite Site 3

Total

Dibchurch/Hastings/various

1

Danebury Hill

1

Puttenham Common

1

Dun Ranges

1

Durdle Door

1

1

Easebourne

1

Emsworth Coast

1

The coast The Rookery, Streatham Common

1

Elstead Common

1

Feltham

1

The Straits

1

1

Footpath from Frensham to Docken? field

1

Thursley

1

Frimley Lodge Park General Woodland by House

1

Frensham Recreation Ground

1

Tilford

1

Glory Pond occasionally

1

Hawkley

1

Velmead Common, Fleet

1

Golf Course

1

Hayling Island

1

Viginia Water

1

Grayshott Common

1

Headley Recreation Ground

1

Whitmore Vale

1

Greatham Woods

1

Hogmoor Inclosure

1

Hamner Lane

1

Noar Hill

1 1

Hawley Woods

1

Lepe Country Park

Hollybourne Down

1

Linford

1

Hurlands Lane, Headley

1

Local National Trust Areas

1

Kennett & Avon Canal

1

Long Valley, Aldershot

1

Liss & Rake Villages

1

MOD land

1

Mill Lane, Alton

1

National Trust

1

Moor Hill

1

National Trust Gardens

1

Netley, Southampton

1

Older Hill

1

Noar Hill

1

Rushmere

1

Not local

1

Solent footpath

1

Older Hill

1

South Downs

1

Riverside Walks

1

Swinley Forest, Bracknell

1

Selbourne Common

1

Tilford Woods

1

The Slab Common

1

Tweseldown

1

Slough

1

Wellington Statue Memorial

1

South Downs, Harting

1

West Wittering

1

The Bourne - Frensham

1

Windy Gap

1

The Flashes

1

Woolmer Forest

1

Virginia Waters

1

Wardall Water Meadows - Frensham village

1

Watership Down

1

1

West Wittering

1

Whitehill

1

Woolmer Hill

1

Grand Total

314

Grand Total

220

Grand Total

104