Geography IA

Research Question
How does distances from São affect the impact of tourism along the Litoral Norte?

Word Count: 2414

1
Contents Page

Introduction: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. page 2-4

Methodology: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. page 4-6

Data Analysis: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. page 7-25

Conclusion and Evaluation: ……………………………………………………………………………………… page 26-27

Appendix: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… page 27-29

2
Introduction
The aim of this investigation is to analyse the effect of distance on the impacts of tourism on
the south-eastern coast of Brazil (Litoral Norte).

The Litoral Norte is shared

by the states of SP and RJ

SP = São Paulo

RJ = Rio de Janeiro

The Litoral Norte is located here

Most of the region’s tourism is domestic. International tourists in Brazil are more likely to visit
RJ and SP2. This area receives most of its tourists from the city of SP and the interior of the
state. According to a study carried out by the Brazilian Minister of Tourism, 63.9% of domestic
tourists in the state of SP come from the state itself3.
To best analyse the effects of tourism on the south-eastern coast of Brazil, two hypotheses
have been formulated:
1. The further a tourist site is from SP, the lower the impact of tourism will be (this may be
economic, social and/or environmental).

1
Image taken from: [Link]
2
Carvalho, Luciana. "Os Destinos Brasileiros Mais Visitados Pelos Estrangeiros". EXAME, 2019,
[Link] Accessed 9
Dec 2019. (Portuguese)
3
"CARACTERIZAÇÃO E DIMENSIONAMENTO DO TURISMO DOMÉSTICO NO BRASIL –
2010/2011". Fundação Instituto De Pesquisa Economica, 2019,
[Link] Accessed 10 Dec 2019.

3
 2. The economic benefits of tourism will outweigh the environmental costs in the Litoral
Norte

This area is called the

Serra, a forest on hills
Only one road
São Paulo city home passing through Site 6: Boiçucanga Site 7: Maresias Site 8: Toque Toque
to 21 million people the Serra Distance (km): 171 Distance (km): 181 Distance (km): 192

That is the
border between
the state of Sao
Paulo and Rio de
Janeiro.

Site 1: Pitangueiras Site 2: Bertioga Site 3: Riviera Site 4: Juqueí Site 5: Camburí Border Between
Distance (km): 96 Distance (km): 114 Distance (km): 124 Distance (km): 158 Distance (km): 168
Rio de Janeiro
and São Paulo
state

The first hypothesis is based on distance decay theory, further a tourist site is from a major city
the less amenities it will offer. In the case of Brazil and the state of SP, it is most likely that this
theory is correct. During the weekends many residents of SP travel to the beach for recreational
and relaxation purposes. This has created the necessity for resorts and therefore, a demand for
jobs, leading to the creation of small towns along the coastline. At first, this opportunity was
limited to the very wealthy. However, due to increases in income, better infrastructure and car
ownership, middle class Brazilians are able to travel.
The second hypothesis states that the economic advantages of tourism in the Litoral Norte will
outweigh the environmental cost. Tourists in the region, mostly come from SP. Those areas

4
barely receive tourists from abroad, thus, there is little demand for developed tourist facilities,
such as Spain, greatly reducing the environmental costs.

Serra da Mantiqueira separating São Sao Paulo is on a Plane Serra do mar separating São
Paulo from the interior of the state (750m above sea level) Paulo from the coastline

Very hard to build Coastline is here

railways or highways

Methodology
Manner I Collected How I Collected it? Why I Collected this Way?
Data?
Questionnaire We agreed on a set of questions By asking the distance people had
in class (see in appendix). To travelled to get to the beach, we
carry out the questionnaire we analysed if people truly came
went to 8 beaches then split from SP or from far places. This
ourselves into groups. We tallied would have proved useful for
the responses and then collated hypothesis one because it would
the data from other groups. indicate the amount of people
coming from SP. Collating the data
reduced gave us more subjects to
work with.
Individual During class, we produced an The evaluation was done
Evaluation of environmental and amenities individually to keep the
Amenities and assessment for each site (criteria judgement consistent. We split,
Environmental in appendix). We did this causing people to look at different
Quality individually by giving a score parts of the beach. This would
between -2 (very poor) to 2 lead to differences in the score
(excellent) for every subject. We, because some areas of the beach
then, took an average of the were wealthier than others. By

5
 compiled data. compiling the data, the score for
wealthier and poorer areas was
averaged.

Secondary Data Using the internet, I researched This helped set necessary context
the context of tourism in the for the investigation which helped
region. I used Google Maps to explain why, in the second
illustrate the land use of each site hypothesis, development was
being halted. The maps showed
each site in a larger picture so I
could analyse the development of
the site.

Car and Beach For the car count, we sat on a We sat in a specific place so that
Count sidewalk facing the main road we wouldn’t count the same
just before an inter-junction vehicle more than once. We also
counting the number vehicles sat before an inter-junction, to
that passed by in 10 minutes. not miss any cars that exited the
Meanwhile, for the beach count, road. We decided to keep the
we walked 200m in a particular time (10 minutes) the same for
direction and counted the each location so that the car
number of people that passed us. count would remain consistent for
each site. Unlike vehicles on the
road, people on the beach tend to
stay put, so if we stayed in a
specific location, we would miss
the people working at certain
installations, people sitting under
umbrellas and etc. Therefore, if
we didn’t walk, we would have an
inaccurate beach count
Land Use We decided in class to assign We decided to look at the land
keys for certain types of land use along 100m to focus on a
uses. For instance, RES for specific location of the beach.
residential and S for shops. At Taking the land use of the entire
each site, we walked 100m along length of the beach would have
the beach, identifying how land, been time consuming and of little
facing opposite the sea and along value, as land use seems to repeat
the beach was being used. itself. Also, 100m was not too
short as to not provide an
accurate picture of the land use,
but also not too long for it to be
time consuming.
Photos I decided to take photos of I decide to take photos of the

6
 shops, beaches, roads, special beach so that I could provide
events and other facilities. Then, some of the arguments and
we shared them between my numerical data with physical
group. proof.

Data Analysis
Hypothesis One
At first, due to the history of tourism in the region, I presumed that the impact on these sites
would be affected by distance. I was wrong.

The trend of distance decay Maresias is an anomaly but

theory is not present has high score (1.5)

A ve rage A me niti e s Quality A s s e s me nt

2.0
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.0 0.8
0.6 0.7
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
Score

-0.5

-1.0
-1.1
-1.5

-2.0
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8

Bertioga is off the trend, Boiçucanga is also an anomaly,

being lower than sites 1&3 has a high score (0.7)

Site’s 1 to 8 are organised by distance from SP. Is seems that distance decay theory isn’t
applicable to the Litoral Norte.

7
 4
Pitangueiras: How far have you Bertioga: How far have you traveled to Rivieira: How far have you traveled to get to
traveled to get to the beach? get to the beach? the beach?

5% less than 5 km 11% less than 5 km

27% less than 5 km
40% 22% 10-50 km 13% 10-50 km
10-50 km
50-100 km 53% 50-100 km
19% 50-100 km 59%
13% 14% over 100 km 24% over 100 km
over 100 km

1cm:1km

Juquei: How far have you traveled to Cambury: How far have you traveled to Boiçucanga: How far have you traveled top
get to the beach? get to the beach? get to the beach?

less than 5 km 28% less than 5 km 8% less than 5 km

28% 33% 33%
10-50 km 10-50 km 21% 10-50 km
50% 50-100 km
50-100 km 50-100 km
11% over 100 km over 100 km
28% 11% over 100 km 38%
11%

Maresias: How far have you traveled to get to Toque Toque: How far have you traveled Figure 1
the beach?
The to get to the beach? sphere of
influence is
the less than 5 km
distance
28% less than 5 km
people 37% 10-50 km 36% 10-50 km travel to a
50%
site. 50-100 km 50-100 km People will
17% over 100 km over 100 km
travel 17% 14% longer to

4
Image taken from Google maps

8
locations that offer better facilities and amenities; thus, the sphere of influence will help
analyse hypothesis one. Riviera has a large sphere of influence. It has the largest portion of
visitors traveling from over 100km (53%) and between 50-100km (23%). Riviera is a private
condominium and offers privacy and quality facilities. This makes it attract people from afar,
especially wealthier individuals coming from SP. Meanwhile, in Bertioga, 73% of visitors come
from a distance of less than 50km. Bertioga is underdeveloped and doesn’t have the facilities to
attract tourists from further distances. 50% of visitors to Toque Toque come from 5km of the
beach; however, the other 50% visit from a distance of more than 50km. The site doesn’t have
high quality facilities or road access but attracts tourists due to its isolation and natural beauty.

Beach Mobility
Site 8 has a very low vehicle Maresias has a mixture be-
Site 8 2 5 tween the three categories
(2) and beach (5) count

Site 7 137 37 91

Site 6 172 18 33

Site 5 20 3 21 No Particular increase

190 vehicles were with distance
spotted in Boiçucanga
Site 4 71 28
Riviera has hardly any
Site 3 10 1 64 vehicles (11) passing by
Pitangueiras has a very
Site 2 40 13 24 high beach count
(123)
Site 1 66 18 123

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

4 wheels (Cars, Trucks) 2 wheels (Bikes, Motorcycles) Beach Count

Pitangueiras has the largest beach count (123) and in the amenity’s assessment score (1.1). The
amount of people on the beach reflects the quantity and quality of the beach’s facilities, as
more people are willing to go there due to better facilities. Similarly, Maresias performs highly
in the amenity’s assessment score (1.7) and has high vehicle and beach counts. Maresias has
high quality facilities but was hosting a sports tournament at the time and many came to watch,
explaining the high vehicle count. Meanwhile, Boiçucanga, has a descent amenities score (0.7)
and a large vehicle count but a fairly low beach count. Boiçucanga is located on a highway. Due
to the Serra, this highway is the only one connecting towns in the Litoral Norte explaining why
many vehicles passed by.

9
 Price of Consumer
Coca Cola (R$)
Goods

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 20

Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8

10
Can of Beer (R$) Cocunut Water (R$)

The price of Açai changes more

Açai (R$) Corn (R$)

Demand is affected by the amount of people and their income. When goods are in high
demand, they have higher prices, therefore, high prices reflect the amount and wealth of
people. People are attracted to places which offer good facilities and amenities, this is the same
as wealth increases. The price of açai differs greatly between sites because it is a high-end good
and many different brands produce it, unlike Coca Cola. Therefore, it is the best good to
analyse. The price of açai in Maresias and Pitangueiras is R$20, while in Boiçucanga it costs
R$10. This differential might reflect that in site’s 1 and 7 more people can afford to buy acai,
increasing its price. Therefore, this suggests that the place attracts wealthier tourists than other
sites, and to attract wealthier tourists, sites must offer better amenities. The price of Açai
doesn’t follow a clear trend with distance and therefore, there is still little evidence that tourist
locations along the Litoral Norte follow the distance decay theory.

10
 Quality of Facilities
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Toilets Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8

2.0

0.0
Beach services (chairs/umbrellas) Range of Hotel/Restaurants

-2.0

Sites 1&7 have clearly better fa-

cilities than other sites

Shops Lifeguards
Diagram showing score of factors
determining the quality of facilities

Site 7 had high quality facilities due to a tournament that was occurring during the
investigation. The town had planned and prepared for the event; this might have inflated the
quality of facilities. Site 1, which had high scores in range of hotels/restaurants (1.4), shops (1.8)
and beach services (1.8), wasn’t hosting anything special and therefore its scores are more
reliable. However, it doesn’t score particularly well in toilets (-0.1) and lifeguards (-0.2). The
number of toilets might not be an accurate indicator for the quality of facilities for this site, as
there was a large residential area nearby that might have decreased the demand for public
toilets. Meanwhile, Maresias had portable toilets next to the beach to host the event. Site 8
scores very poorly; the site wasn’t able to host a large number of tourists, therefore, there
weren’t many facilities. The theory of distance decay might be more present if removing
Maresias and Boiçucanga but it doesn’t seem to be present.

11
 Beach Access
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8

Infrastructure quality

0
Street Furniture Car parks

-2

Sign posting Sidewalks

Site 1 scores highly in both infrastructure quality (1.7) and car parks (1.7). This suggests that
people frequently travel there by car; therefore, more people can afford a vehicle. Wealthier
visitors are only attracted if the site offers quality amenities, such as Pitangueiras. Site 4 fairs
poorly in beach access, especially in car parks (-0.8), sidewalks (-0.1) and street furniture (-0.8).
This suggests the site is less frequented than other sites. The local government in Juqueí might
not feel that it needs to invest in car parks or sidewalks, as not as many people visit the beach
and there are many residential areas nearby. Again, there isn’t an apparent trend between
distance and beach access, except that sites 1 and 7 score well.
Spearman’s Rank
The spearman’s rank will measure the correlation between distance and the amenities score.
Site Distance Distance Rank Amenities Score Amenities Rank Difference between ranks D2
Site 1 96 8 1.1 7 1 1
Site 2 114 7 0.6 4 3 9
Site 3 124 6 0.8 6 0 0
Site 4 158 5 0.2 3 2 4
Site 5 168 4 0 2 2 4

12
 Site 6 171 3 0.7 5 -2 4
Site 7 181 2 1.5 8 -6 36
Site 8 192 1 -1.1 1 0 0

6 ×∑ d
2
Spearman’ s rank =1− 3
n −n
6 ×58 348
1− =1−
3
8 −8 504
'
Spearman srank=0.3095238095
To 3 significant figures:
Spearman' s rank =0.310

Hypothesis 2

Key 13
 Shop Shopping Mall Open Space
Site 1: Pitangueiras
Residential Non tourist business
PoorerRestaurant
housing away from
The high-rise buildings
the beach suggests tourist
suggest significant
influence
demand for property

Shopping Mall suggests

consumer demand,
and work availability

Road Connecting the

beach to the main road
Buildings designed in blocks
shows urban planning

17 stories tall

Mix between
Right facing sea residential, shops, Urban Planning suggests local regard
100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
restaurants Theandshopping mall
shopping that is
malls over development and cleanliness
land use of the blue line
located next to the beach
This suggest large tourist demand Cleanliness and development
for services, goods and property good for tourism

Well paved roads

High rise residential buildings

(15-17 stories high)

Site 2: Bertioga
14
 Disorganized street planning

No high-rise buildings suggest

underdeveloped housing

5 stories tall

15
 Right facing sea 100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
land use of the orange line

Underdeveloped housing suggests that Disorganized street planning suggests

there isn’t much tourist investment disorganized and poor urban sprawl.

Open space for future urban

development suggesting regional interest

Small Playground

Cycling pavement

Small recycling bin

Tidy and clean green space The local government has clearly invested
keeping touristic hotspots clean

Site 3: Riviera

16
Well known restaurant Golf Courses
in São Paulo

Creatively organised roads

More green spaces

between residences

6 floors

17
 Right facing sea 100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
land use of the orange line

Green spaces suggest the demand The golf courses suggest that the location
for a more peaceful and clean area attracts tourists with higher incomes

In private condominiums, tourists search Only wealthier tourists can afford to

privacy something absent elsewhere come here during the weekends

Site 4: Juqueí

Serra protruding into the town

preventing urban sprawl

Low buildings suggest Disorganised road system

underdeveloped housing
Housing clustered towards the coast
suggest tourist accommodations

6 floors

Right facing sea 100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
land use of the orange line

The town attracts more modest Disorganised road system shows There are open spaces and
tourists as suggested by housing lack of government planning businesses than usual

18
The Serra prevents the Lack of government planning A town more adapted to low
inwards growth of the town due low tourist investment demand

This suggests that they do not

receive many tourists occasionally
Good signing suggests
tourist hotspot
Site 5: Cambury

Serra protruding into the town

preventing urban sprawl Poor road quality
and prone to floods
Preserved natural feature

Disorganised road system

2 floors

Right facing sea 100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
land use of the orange line
19
Underdeveloped housing and road Preserved natural features also Residential land use suggests
system suggest low demand for tourism suggest low urban development low demand for services

Further suggesting lack of

tourism demand

Site 6: Boiçucanga

No high-rise buildings

Disorganised road system

Well preserved green spaces

Right facing sea 100m The diagram illustrates the Left facing sea
land use of the yellow line

Underdeveloped housing and road Shopping mall suggests tourist Some well-preserved green
system suggest low demand for tourism demand for goods and services due suggest lack of sprawl

20
 Shopping mall with a lot of restaurants
and parking for tourists

Well paved
roads

Site 7: Maresias

Serra protruding
into the town
preventing urban
sprawl

Room cleared and

planned for development Disorganised road system

21
 3 floors

Right facing sea 100m Left facing sea

Underdeveloped housing and road Number of hotels suggests Number of restaurants suggests
system suggest tourists are modest high demand for tourism town’s morenature
Its festive festivemight
naturelead to
more litter and waste

Poorly paved road

Skateboard ring and bar
susceptible to flooding
proof of festive nature
Site 8: Toque Toque (Praia Grande)

22
 Few roads Green space abundance

Poor housing

Right facing sea 100m Left facing sea

Poor housing and non-existent

urban sprawl leaves land untouched

Poor housing

Dirt road suggests area

is not a tourist hotspot

The relationship between the amenities and environmental assessment score is illustrated by
plotting a scatter graph. A negative gradient means that there is an inverse relationship
between the two, meaning that as the amenities score increases the environmental score

23
decreases. The opposite happens if its positive. A factor will outweigh the other if the gradient
is more than one or less than negative one.

Correlation Between Environmental and Amenities Assesment

2.0

1.5

1.0
Amentiies Assessment Score

0.5

0.0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5
Environmental Assessment Score

To find the gradient of the

√
trendline I will be using N

∑ ( y ¿¿ i− y )
i=1
N

√
m=r × ¿
N

∑ (xi −x ¿ )
i=1
¿
N
r is the correlation
m is the gradient
coefficient

x the environmental assessment score

y is the amenities
N is the number
assessment scoreof
variables

√
8

∑ ( y ¿¿ i−0.475)
i=1
=0.74119835 ¿
8

24
 √
8

∑ ( x i−0.3 ¿ )
i=1
=0.42130748 ¿
8
Substituting these calculations into the formula

0.7411983
×r =m
0.42130748

To find the correlation I will use this formula

∑ (( x i−x ) × ( y i− y ) )
i=1
r=

√ ∑(
N N
( x i−x )) ×( ∑ ( y i− y )¿)¿
i=1 i=1

Substituting the value r in

the first formula
8

∑ ( ( x i−0.3 ) × ( y i−0.475 ) )
i=1

√ ∑(
8 N
( x i−0.3 )) ×(∑ ( y i −0.475)¿)=−0.7125189 ¿
i=1 i=1

0.7411983
×−0.7125189=m
0.42130748
m=−1.253521056

To 3.s.f:

m=−1.25

25
The gradient is less than negative one this means that an increase in the environmental score
by a factor of one, results in a bigger decrease in the amenities score. My second hypothesis
can be concluded to have been correct.

Using the kuznets model, I

can explain why:

Pitangueiras Most of sites are in the

is here left side of the curve

Most sites are here

Brazil is still a
developing nation

Here the priority

is development
and expansion
Here authorities have
more money to spend on
the environment

Economic Development

Authorities in the region still They also are not worried They are more focused
do not have enough funds with environment with development

26
Conclusion
The theory of distance decay was very difficult to spot amongst the data. The spearman’s rank
gave a weak positive correlation (0.3) meaning that there wasn’t any relation between distance
and quality of amenities. However, the investigation was able to highlight three anomalies and
explain their nature. These anomalies were Maresias, Boiçucanga and Bertioga. Maresias
attracted people due to a festival and Boiçucanga had a big influx of people due to a sport
tournament. Bertioga was still under development and didn’t offer a lot of amenities despite its
proximity to SP.
Meanwhile, the second hypothesis was proven by the investigation. Using the Kuznets curve
and the gradient of the relationship between the environmental and amenities assessment
score, the investigation concluded that the economic benefits of tourism outweighed the
environmental costs. Many of the sites were still under development except Pitangueiras; the
region wasn’t developed enough to damage the environment. In Pitangueiras most of the
damage to the environment was caused by urban sprawl and not the mismanagement of the
environment. The gradient of the trendline between the two factors (-1.25) proved that for
every decrease of 1 in the environmental score there was a larger increase in the amenities
score and vice versa. In other words, as the amenities score increased by one, the
environmental score decreased by a factor less than one.
Evaluation
While collecting data at 8 sites on Friday, Saturday and Monday the weather developed against
our favour. The weather significantly affects tourism; if the weather forecast predicts a rainy
weekend less people will go to the beach. This is especially the case for tourists from SP. If we
had carried out the same investigation in the following 10 weeks (every weekend), we could
have interviewed more people at each site and seen if the weather affected our judgement on
the amenities and environmental assessment, both increasing the reliability and accuracy of the
investigation.
Each individual in our group used their own criteria to grade the quality of amenities and the
environment. This system was problematic because each person had very different sets of
criteria when evaluating. This caused the range between the highest and lowest score for each
assessment to be high. First, we didn’t have a model which was already assessed, so we might
have given unfair scores to certain sites. Second, there were biases resulting from individual
opinions. To resolve these errors in our investigation, we could try discussing and evaluating the
assessments in groups. We could have also gone to Rio to evaluate the beaches of Leblon and
Ipanema and see if we used the same criteria for the evaluation.
Despite errors committed during the investigation, we made sure that our methods were
consistent in every site. We would ask people the same questions and look at the land use of
the site over 100m for every site. This prevented random error to occur in our investigation. We

27
were also able to look at each of the 8 sites during those three days so to minimise error caused
by analysing each site during very distant dates.
Finally, we could have compared our results to beaches in HICs. This could give us a model to
evaluate the amenity and environmental assessment in the Litoral Norte. This would analyse if
distance decay theory was more applicable in HICs than in LICs.

Appendix
Amenities assessment score:
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Number of Roads 1.8 1.3 1.3 0.5 1.2 1.5 1.2 -1.4
Quality of Roads 1.6 0.9 1.8 0.8 0.3 1.8 1.8 -1.3
Car parks 1.7 -0.2 1.3 -0.8 -0.1 0.5 1.2 -1.3
Sidewalks 1.1 1.5 1.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 -1.2
Sign posting 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.9 -0.6
Street Furniture 1.6 1.3 0.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 1.3 -0.1
Toilets -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.9 -0.5 1.0 -1.2
Shops 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 -0.6 1.5 1.7 -1.5
Range of Restaurants/bars 1.7 -0.1 1.2 1.8 -0.1 1.3 2.0 -1.5
Range of Hotels/Pousadas 1.0 -0.1 0.1 1.4 0.8 1.4 1.3 -1.3
Children’s´ play equip. -0.2 1.8 -0.9 -1.1 -0.7 -0.7 1.6 -1.2
Beach services (chairs/umbrellas) 1.8 1.3 1.5 -0.1 -0.1 0.8 1.8 -1.2
Water sports 0.1 -1.0 -0.2 -0.5 0.8 0.9 1.7 -1.2
Lifeguards -0.2 -0.8 1.8 -1.0 -0.7 0.2 1.8 -0.8
Average 1.1 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.5 -1.1

Environmental Assessment Score

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Cleanliness of beach -0.5 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.3 0.7 -0.2 1.6
Cleanliness of Sea -0.2 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.5
Traffic congestion -0.7 0.5 1.2 -0.3 0.8 0.0 -0.5 1.9
Noise pollution (humans) -0.6 0.3 1.0 -0.3 0.8 -0.6 -1.2 1.7
Noise Pollution (Traffic) -0.8 0.1 1.0 -0.4 1.1 -0.9 -1.1 1.6
Air Pollution -0.3 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6 -0.4 -0.4 1.6
Traffic Safety 1.0 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.7 -0.9 -0.5 1.0
Architectural condition 0.8 0.5 1.4 0.9 1.1 -0.7 0.8 -0.8

28
 Litter on beach -0.3 -0.2 0.9 0.2 -0.6 -0.9 -0.5 0.3
Litter on Boardwalk -0.3 -0.5 0.8 -0.8 -0.6 -0.8 -0.5 0.6
Landscaping/vegetation -0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.3 1.8
Urbanisation level 1.6 1.2 1.4 1.4 0.3 1.6 1.2 -1.3
Vandalism -0.2 -1.0 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.6
Graffiti 0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.1 -0.7 0.7
Average -0.1 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.4 -0.1 -0.3 0.9

What is the reason for your visit?

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Work 27 14 13 6 3 4 22 6
Water Sports 17 1 1 4 2 17 39 3
Relaxation 43 13 27 7 2 1 36 5
Friends and Family 26 9 13 1 10 1 8 8

How far have you travelled to get to the beach?

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
less than 5 km 40 22 6 6 9 8 29 11
10-50 km 13 5 7 2 2 9 18 0
50-100 km 19 8 13 5 2 5 18 3
over 100 km 27 2 29 5 5 2 38 8

Beach Mobility
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
4 wheels (Cars, Trucks) 66 40 10 71 20 172 137 2
2 wheels (Bikes, Motorcycles) 18 13 1 2 3 18 37 0
Beach Count 123 24 64 8 21 33 91 5

Consumer Goods Pricing

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Coca Cola (R$) 8 6 6 5 6 5 5 n/a
Cocunut Water (R$) 10 8 8 8 10 7 8 n/a
Corn (R$) 6 4 7 5 6 5 7 n/a
Açai (R$) 20 12 15 10 15 10 20 n/a
Can of Beer (R$) 11 10 5 5 10 5 6 n/a

29
Beach Access
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Infrastructure quality 1.7 1.1 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.7 1.5 -1.4
Car parks 1.7 -0.2 1.3 -0.8 -0.1 0.5 1.2 -1.3
Sidewalks 1.1 1.5 1.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 -1.2
Sign posting 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.9 -0.6
Street Furniture 1.6 1.3 0.5 -0.8 -0.6 -0.5 1.3 -0.1

Quality of Facilities
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8
Toilets -0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.9 -0.5 1.0 -1.2
Range of Hotel/Restaurants 1.4 -0.1 0.7 1.6 0.4 1.4 1.7 -1.4
Lifeguards -0.2 -0.8 1.8 -1.0 -0.7 0.2 1.8 -0.8
Shops 1.8 1.2 0.6 1.5 -0.6 1.5 1.7 -1.5
Beach services (chairs/umbrellas) 1.8 1.3 1.5 -0.1 -0.1 0.8 1.8 -1.2

30