The current paper has expanded on this approach. The current findings support Priskin’s (2003b) original conclusion that the public do distinguish between different activities; however Priskin also found that they generally underestimate the negative impacts on the environment compared to that of the marine expert. However, within the current

samples, there were only few differences, with the coastal user sample generally in agreement with the coastal LY294002 molecular weight experts. This may be due to methodological differences such as country, type of shoreline (sandy versus rocky) and the time of data collection (data collected in 1999 for Priskin, and 11 years later for this current work). It could also be because of the reliability of the expert ratings. For this current study, we used 25 coastal experts from around the UK and a further Selleck Ponatinib 44 international academics, whilst Priskin relied purely on her own expertise. Overall, the views between experts and coastal users were remarkably similar which can increase our confidence in these perception-based findings. We developed the questionnaire further in Study 2 and can therefore not make direct statistical comparisons between the two data sets. However, the pattern of findings was very similar between the two studies and no differences were

found between coastal experts from the UK as opposed to elsewhere. This seems to indicate that the findings can be seen as more global issues than only relevant to the United Kingdom. However, the exact level of detrimental impact on the environment may be different in other countries and would be interesting to explore further with a more cross-cultural study. In addition to the perceived impacts different activities

have on rocky shores, the open-ended questions offered in-depth insights. As mentioned above, participants used this opportunity to explain the depreciative behaviours linked with foraging activities, including turning rocks over and lack of knowledge Histidine ammonia-lyase or awareness. Another frequently mentioned theme, especially for the coastal user sample, was littering. Crucially, littering was mentioned spontaneously without a researcher prompt (as this study focussed on purposive recreational activities) yet it turned out to be a consistent key theme. Littering is known to be an important environmental issue, with roughly 2 000 litter items found per kilometre on the UK coastline alone (MCS, 2012). Litter can have numerous effects, including entanglement, ingestion and damage to the environment and its residents (Hall, 2000 and Laist, 1997). Interestingly, however, many of the responses did not only emphasise those detrimental effects of litter on the environment and organisms, but also highlighted the effect it has on visitors’ experiences. This is in line with the finding that marine litter can be a key deterrent for visiting specific beaches (Tudor and Williams, 2006).