Developing a Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) to Enhance Sustainability and Visitor Experience through Holistic Monitoring

1. Introduction

Coastal and marine tourism represents a significant segment within the tourism sector, and it is estimated that its economic impact on global GDP is around 5%, approximately between 3 and 6 trillion dollars annually [1]. Beach tourism accounts for 80% of this, positioning beaches as the primary and preferred coastal resource [2]. Due to the significant economic benefits that beaches generate, along with the wide range of ecosystem services offered (e.g., provisioning resources and recreation spaces, regulation of protection services against natural disasters, etc.), the implementation of beach monitoring systems that ensure resource quality and safety for the users is becoming a standard practice in well-established tourist destinations often seeking safety awareness through the use of prestigious international certifications, such as Blue Flag, Green Key Eco-Label, ISO13009 [3,4,5]

However, most beaches lack a monitoring system, mostly due to budget constraints [6]. Previous studies have shown that the lack of continuous monitoring leads to less safe conditions which impacts visitors’ satisfaction levels, word-of-mouth promotion and visitors intentions to return [3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11]. In addition, research indicates that beaches without monitoring tend to have the highest number of fatal and non-fatal drownings [12,13] as well as increased crime incidents [14,15,16]. This situation has only worsened since the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to increased demand for beaches [17,18].

As beach usage increased, so too has the need for improved holistic monitoring. However, in many cases, resources have not been scaled to meet this demand [19], which may explain the rise in drowning incidents and beach-related crime in recent years [13,20].

This underscores an urgent need for accessible, affordable, and comprehensive beach monitoring that can be implemented across all beaches, not just those with ample resources, especially when, in many cases, the resources used in expensive certification schemes could be allocated more efficiently toward other forms of monitoring that are equally effective in beach management and cost less [22]. This is particularly relevant considering that beach users are generally neutral or uncertain about how these certifications ensure their safety or provide any present or future benefit [17]. Thus, effective beach management doesn’t necessarily require endorsement from a well-known and costly certification [18]. What is crucial, however, is a robust system of monitoring and controlling natural spaces and social activities in these environments [5]. While beach management and monitoring initially focused almost exclusively on protecting public infrastructure and private properties near the shoreline [19,20], this paradigm has evolved significantly over the past few decades. Today, beach monitoring encompasses mainly three key areas: 1) ensuring the quality and sustainability of natural resources - e.g., sand volume [6] ; 2) managing risks associated with adverse weather events and environmental pollution - e.g., rip current warnings [22,23,24]; and 3) implementing and maintaining safety infrastructure, along with providing essential support services and access to the beach- e.g., first aid stations [3,4,12,13].

Although most efforts in beach management and monitoring have focused on physical parameters—largely due to the severe degradation of natural resources caused by pollution and the effects of climate change [13]—this approach has often overlooked the social dimension of beach systems [25] Key aspects such as beachgoers’ behavior and their perceptions of coastal hazards have been neglected [5,10]. Despite recent specialized literature highlighting the importance of incorporating the social component for comprehensive beach management—particularly in response to generational behavior changes and social interactions in the post-COVID era—certifications and monitoring indices rarely include these social aspects [4,5,7,10] This omission could directly affect the user experience and their assessment of the risks they face as beachgoers [13].

Thus, we sought to develop a comprehensive index for beaches (CIB), based on a holistic and systematic conceptualization of beach monitoring, where the beach is viewed as a socio-ecological system [25,26,27]. As such, its management must include control of both natural and social aspects. Our goal is then to create an index that not only reflects the traditional facets of monitoring (natural resource quality, risks associated with adverse weather events and environmental pollution, and infrastructure management and implementation) but also includes social dimensions and safety perceptions, as suggested by previous research [5,10,11,13,21,23]. Integrating these dimensions would incorporate the perspective of social actors as a key part of beach evaluation and monitoring. If these dimensions are validated, the proposed index would provide beach and destination managers with data on safety perceptions to determine whether they align with actual risks. Additionally, they could assess whether the behavior of other beachgoers (such as crowding, noise, criminal activities, etc.) should be included in the overall evaluation of the beach and the beachgoers’ experience, as suggested by the literature.

With that aim, the present study followed a multi-stage evaluation process. In the first phase, we reviewed the leading beach indices and certifications at both global and local levels, with a particular focus on South Carolina. We then compared the evaluation criteria of each index key factors considered in beach monitoring and certification. Following this, we performed an in-depth literature review to incorporate the dimensions and criteria suggested by the research, particularly those of a social nature and safety perceptions. Based on this analysis, we proposed an index to be validated in two stages: first through expert content validity and then through a survey targeting beach visitors in South Carolina. This survey helped to assess whether the proposed dimensions and criteria were held after running a exploratory factor analysis, allowing us to determine whether these dimensions should remain or be refined. We focused on Myrtle Beach, Hilton Head Island, and the Charleston coastal area for the geographical context since these beaches are already monitored for natural resources, infrastructure, and pollution, but the social component or visitors’ risk perception has not yet been evaluated. Given that these are highly visited beaches with well-developed tourism [6], we believe they provide an excellent context for testing the CIB.

This study contributes to the literature on safety in socio-ecological beach systems by contextualizing beachgoers’ social behavior and safety perceptions within monitoring these spaces through the lens of social – ecological systems framework. The findings provide an empirical foundation for safety monitoring in socio-environmental beach systems. The proposed CIB underscores the importance of critical social dimensions of beachgoers, which have been largely overlooked in traditional beach management practices. The five dimensions suggested by the CIB offer a more holistic approach to monitoring and integrating the social component into existing initiatives. In doing so, the CIB can assist beach and destination managers in enhancing user experiences and managing these environments more effectively.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Beaches as Socio Ecological-Systems

Beaches have supported communities for centuries, providing essential resources such as food, recreational spaces, cultural icons, and mental health benefits [25]. They provide multiple functions, such as natural reservoirs, coastal protection, and spaces for human recreational and economic activities [21]. The sustainability and quality of beach systems largely rely on the interconnectedness between human social systems and ecological systems, as humans are both participants in and influencers of these environments [25] thus, overlooking these connections can result in ineffective regulations [21]. Nonetheless, studying social dynamics within natural settings presents challenges. The Socio-Ecological System (SES) Framework was developed to overcome those challenges, offering a comprehensive approach to examining social and ecological interactions. Initially proposed by Ostrom in 2007, the SES framework facilitates the integration of governance and social actors’ roles within ecosystem studies, allowing for a multidisciplinary understanding of complex systems. The SES framework recognizes that actions taken by social actors (individuals and organizations) have a measurable impact on natural systems, and these actions are often intentional [28] As such, the SES framework enables both social and natural scientists to adopt a unified approach to research [15].

Many studies have applied the SES framework to marine and coastal environments in recent years—primarily to improve resilience, adaptive capacity, safety, and governance [29,30]—the majority has focused on the ecological component of the systems. These studies have primarily addressed the quality of natural resources and monitored physical parameters, such as water quality, sand levels, and the presence of algae and bacteria. However, a more socially centered socio-ecological analysis of beaches remains relatively unexplored [3,10,29,30,32].

Within the lens of beach management, the SES framework provides a robust theoretical foundation, especially for tourist destinations, where high visitor activity intensifies the impact on both natural and social elements of beaches [33,34]. SES framework emphasizes that managing systems are only efficient when they integrate social inputs—such as demographic and social activities undertaken by beach users (individuals, organizations, communities)—and the monitoring and management of ecological processes provided by ecosystem components (Figure 1).

Therefore, the SES framework offers a foundation for a holistic approach to beach monitoring, aligning seamlessly with the Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) goals. This framework is valuable for integrating these elements into effective beach management practices by incorporating both natural and cultural dimensions and acknowledging their interconnectedness.

2.2. Traditional Beach Monitoring

Beach management and monitoring involve a range of interventions, including recycling, replenishing, and reconstruction, often in combination. These efforts aim to achieve a practical balance between financial resources and various objectives: coastal defenses, natural conservation, public infrastructure for recreational use, and industrial goals [3]. Beach management practices date back to the interwar period in Europe, spurred by the growing economic importance of beach tourism, which initially emphasized a predominantly social focus on beach spaces [21]. In the 1960s, a new management paradigm emerged, recognizing the need for sustainable beach resources and incorporating Gaia theory (where the earth is perceived as a system where living organisms and the environment co-evolve to maintain conditions suitable for life). However, this perspective was more philosophical than actionable in those early days. Only in the 1980s did a sustainability-centered paradigm become dominant as globalization and pressures on beaches (population growth, demographic changes, economic development, and climate change) intensified[3]. Certification schemes and awards, such as Blue Flag, Q for Quality, and ISO 13009, soon followed, claiming to support these sustainability outcomes [3,21]

Today, society widely acknowledges the critical interdependence between human activities and ecological processes for mutual survival [21]. However, current beach management and monitoring still prioritize maintaining the natural appeal of beach resources by tracking only physical and biological factors, such as water quality and algae presence, with the aim of meeting beach users’ expectations. Unfortunately, this approach often fails to incorporate social dynamics, illustrating how beach management focuses mainly on sustainability rather than a more comprehensive socio-ecological perspective [5,21,32]. This oversight neglects important aspects like public safety and awareness of potential hazards, which can undermine the safety and confidence of beachgoers [21].

Traditional monitoring practices align with most certification and award schemes in beach management, offering a framework to showcase recreational attributes with a primary focus on sand cleanliness and water clarity [3,21] Although these prestigious programs have contributed significantly to maintaining beach infrastructure and reducing pollution by monitoring water quality and ensuring essential infrastructure and personnel, they frequently fall short of addressing socio-ecological principles or entirely understanding the social dimension [24,33,35,36].

Effective beach management and monitoring should promote sustainable use, reduce maintenance and restoration costs through efficiency, improve coastal defenses, conserve natural resources, and foster socio-economic benefits [21]. It should also recognize the unique local geography and community characteristics, develop an understanding of coastal processes based on data, implement cost-effective strategies, and ensure the enforcement of appropriate legislation[13,37,38]. Thus, effective management includes not only physical aspects (such as local geology and geomorphology) and biological attributes (flora and fauna) but also social factors (such as infrastructure). Additionally, incorporating human perceptions and behaviors into beach management goes far beyond simply maintaining infrastructure. Reducing the social dimension to infrastructure alone is a limited approach that only captures part of the scope of beach management [21].

2.3. Perceptions of beachgoers’ Anti-Social Behavior and Their Implication for Beach/Destination Management

Beaches are popular destinations for recreation, relaxation, and enjoyment, yet they can also foster conditions that lower inhibitions, leading to behaviors that disrupt the experience for others or nearby communities [39,40,41,42,43]. This issue is particularly pronounced on urban and semi-urban beaches located near residential areas [44]. While antisocial behavior has been extensively studied in psychology and criminology, its occurrence in recreational spaces remains underexplored despite its frequent presence in such settings and at events [45].

A key challenge in addressing antisocial behavior in tourism and recreation studies is the difficulty in defining it and differentiating it from criminal acts. Although all criminal behaviors are inherently antisocial, not all antisocial behaviors constitute crimes [40]. Criminal actions are typically deliberate and harmful, such as burglary, assault, or sexual offenses. In contrast, non-criminal antisocial behaviors, often subjective and less severe, can range from minor nuisances to borderline criminal activity [40,43].

Public space management is crucial in mitigating antisocial behavior since those who engage in such actions frequently act impulsively or aggressively, underscoring the need for policies and external mechanisms to regulate behavior [41]. Antisocial behavior interferes with others’ ability to enjoy shared spaces, such as homes or public areas like beaches, which are inherently prone to conflicts between users with diverse interests [46].

On beaches, these behaviors can range from interpersonal conflicts, such as threats or altercations, to environmental disturbances, such as excessive noise, graffiti, littering, and misuse of recreational vehicles. Other forms include restricting access, aggressive panhandling, and substance abuse, which undermine the atmosphere and accessibility of these spaces [41,44,45,46,47]

Because individuals exhibiting antisocial tendencies often lack self-regulation, managing such behaviors in recreational areas is critical to preserving their value and benefits. Effective management should include not only implementing policies but also monitoring user behaviors to identify and address emerging issues promptly. Monitoring is particularly important as antisocial behavior has been recognized as one of the main threats to the social benefits of coastal tourism, potentially undermining the sense of community and shared enjoyment that these spaces are meant to foster [48]. By understanding and anticipating the actions of beachgoers, conflict can be minimized, and the social and recreational value of these areas can be protected[5,49,50].

2.4. Crowding

Beach overcrowding refers to a high density of people in a specific area, which can diminish user satisfaction, lead to conflicts, and contribute to environmental degradation[51]. Perceptions of overcrowding are subjective and influenced by visitors’ expectations, tolerance levels, cultural factors, and the purpose of their visit. Generally, excessive crowding creates discomfort, increases conflicts, and lowers satisfaction levels for most users [46]. Overcrowding also impacts visitor well-being and long-term satisfaction since negative experiences can affect sleep quality, expectations, and perceptions of destination accommodations [52].

Determining how many people are “too many” on a beach is challenging, as the maximum density at which users feel comfortable varies. While some visitors enjoy the lively atmosphere of a crowded beach, others may find it overwhelming [48]. Overcrowding can also exacerbate conflicts among users with differing needs, such as swimmers versus water sports participants, and reduce the perceived quality of the environment [52].

From a management perspective, overcrowding poses significant challenges. Studies suggest that beachgoers are more tolerant of crowding when recreational infrastructure is adequate or when events like tournaments are taking place [48]. However, respecting ecological and social carrying capacities is also essential to avoid overuse and degradation [46]. Thus, addressing overcrowding requires balancing the economic benefits of tourism with the preservation of natural and social environments to maintain sustainable and enjoyable spaces for all [53].

For that reason, monitoring overcrowding perceptions is crucial because diminished satisfaction from overcrowding discourages repeat visits, which negatively impacts the local economy [52]. Also, safety concerns often increase as the likelihood of crimes or antisocial behaviors, such as violence, grows in crowded settings [50]. Furthermore, excessive visitor numbers can strain natural resources and accelerate environmental degradation. Effectively managing these perceptions helps balance use and conservation efforts while maintaining the destination’s appeal. By understanding visitors’ perceptions of overcrowding, managers can implement targeted strategies such as regulating beach capacity, improving infrastructure, or promoting less congested visit times.

Safety perceptions among beach users

Safety is the condition of feeling protected from harm, risk, or danger [54]. It encompasses both physical and psychological dimensions, ensuring individuals feel secure in their environment and free from threats that could cause injury, illness, or emotional distress [55]. It is foundational to quality of life, enabling people to thrive without constant worry about their physical or mental well-being [56]. In social contexts, safety fosters trust, cohesion, and productive interactions, while in economic and tourism sectors, it directly impacts visitor satisfaction, investment, and sustainability [57].

In beach destinations, safety perceptions play a critical role in shaping visitors’ experiences and their decisions to return [58]. These perceptions involve how users feel about their environment—whether they perceive it as safe or unsafe—based on the behavior of others sharing the space and the inherent risks of coastal settings, such as strong currents or waves [56]. This is particularly important because research indicates that beachgoers, especially experienced ones, often underestimate these environments’ natural and social risks [59,60].

Individual safety perceptions vary widely, reflecting personal factors that influence how people assess and respond to risks [56]. This individual spectrum of safety encompasses psychological, social, cultural, and situational influences [61]. Unlike generalized safety concerns that apply broadly, individual perceptions are highly subjective, explaining why people react differently to the same environment or potential threats. For instance, some may feel secure on a crowded beach, while others may experience discomfort or anxiety in the same situation.

Understanding the individual spectrum of safety is essential for effective management of tourism, recreation, and public spaces. Tailoring safety measures to address diverse needs is more effective than a universal approach. For example, families might prioritize visible lifeguards and safe swimming areas, while solo travelers might value clear signage and accessible emergency services.

External factors such as media coverage, past experiences, and visible safety measures at the destination also shape safety perceptions on beaches[61]. These elements influence how visitors evaluate their surroundings and impact their overall satisfaction [59]. Addressing these perceptions is crucial for fostering positive visitor experiences and encouraging repeat visits[60]. Tailored strategies can enhance safety perceptions, ensuring beaches remain enjoyable and sustainable destinations.

3. Methods

Our methodology for developing the Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB) followed the procedures recommended by Hair et al. [62], which are suited for studies aiming to create indices that capture complex constructs. The process involved three key stages: (1) generating and evaluating items, (2) purifying items, and (3) finalizing items. In the first stage, we reviewed prominent beach indices and certifications related to beach monitoring, comparing them to identify items covering social and ecological dimensions. Additionally, we conducted a literature review on social behavior in coastal spaces and tourists’ safety perceptions. This resulted in an initial index of 94 items, which two experts then reviewed for content validity. In the second stage, we assessed item reliability by conducting a survey and applying Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to test for construct validity. In the final stage, we refined the index by testing the reliability of each construct through independent Cronbach’s alpha tests for each dimension. We used IBM SPSS version 29 to perform statistical analyses. Figure 2 illustrates the flow of index development, with each step detailed in the following section.

3.1. First Step: Generating and Evaluating Items

Step 1 involved creating an initial pool of items by analyzing four prominent and widely recognized indices: Blue Flag, ISO 13009, Dr. Beach, and NOAA Beach Safety Index. These indexes were selected due to their extensive use and acceptance among both academics and practitioners [4,5,6,10,13,15]. Our objective was to evaluate and compare the indicators monitored locally and globally, identifying similarities, differences, and points of convergence. This information was gathered with the understanding that indicators should comprehensively reflect the scope of the latent variable, as outlined in the content specification [63], to form the foundation of our item pool (see Table 1).

Through this comparison, we identified that social indicators beyond infrastructure for beachgoers (e.g., restroom availability and first aid services) were generally absent—a gap contrary to recommendations in the specialized literature [64,65,66]. Thus, we conducted a literature review of the social behavior of beachgoers and safety perception to establish a robust item pool that included the recommendation of the specialized literature (Table 2)

The initial CIB included five set dimensions derived from the literature review (beach environmental issues, beach infrastructure/amenities, perception of safety, social behavior, aesthetics of the natural environment) and 94 items (Table 3).

To ensure the CIB’s comprehensiveness, we assessed content and face validity [62]. Face validity assesses whether the items accurately represent the intended construct. In contrast, content validity refers to the degree to which elements of an assessment instrument are relevant to and representative of the targeted construct for a particular assessment purpose [62]. Following Netemeyer et al. [67], we invited two experts (sustainable tourism faculty) to review the item pool, providing valuable input to refine and validate the content and face validity. The experts confirmed that the items adequately captured the five core dimensions of the construct, and ultimately, all 94 items were retained for the next step of the analysis.

3.2. Second Step: Purifying Items

To further refine the 94 items identified in Step 1, we conducted a survey from May to August 2024 (Step 2), targeting beach visitors to Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and Hilton Head Island—recognized as key coastal tourism destinations in the State [6]. The survey was administered via the Pollfish platform and focused on individuals aged 18 and older who had recently visited one of the three study sites: Hilton Head, the Charleston area (including Isle of Palms, Folly Beach, and Kiawah Island), or Myrtle Beach. Participants were asked to reflect on their most recent beach experience during the summer of 2024. To control for potential bias, residents of South Carolina were excluded, as their familiarity with these destinations could lead to more informed or subjective perceptions.

The survey gathered 607 responses: 203 from Hilton Head visitors, 203 from the Charleston area, and 201 from Myrtle Beach. To validate the dimensions and finalize the Comprehensive Index for Beaches (CIB), the collected data underwent Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). EFA was chosen for its ability to test whether the data fits a hypothesized measurement model, thereby confirming the factor structure of the CIB and assessing the reliability and validity of each dimension identified in the initial phase. The final sample (N = 607) exceeded the conservative minimum sample size of 300 recommended for CFA [62], enhancing the analysis’s robustness.

3.3. Third Step: Finalizing Items

After confirming the initial factor structure, the third step involved assessing the reliability of each dimension. To achieve this, we conducted Cronbach’s alpha analysis for each dimension to refine further and purify the items. This process ensured that each dimension possessed a high level of internal consistency, contributing to the overall reliability of the CIB.

4. Results

A total of 608 participants made up the sample to confirm the underlying structure of the CIB. Among respondents, 58% identified as female and 42% as male. The age distribution of survey participants indicated a higher concentration in the middle age ranges, with 23.0% of respondents between 45–54 years and 20.1% between 35–44 years. Younger adults (ages 18–24) represent a smaller portion at 7.4%, while older adults, particularly those 65 and over, make up 11.8% of the sample. This distribution suggests a balanced representation across age groups, with a notable emphasis on individuals in their mid-career and pre-retirement years. This diverse sample provided a comprehensive foundation for the CFA, helping to validate and refine the CIB’s dimensions.

To confirm the factor structure, we applied two criteria to assess the suitability of the data for factor analysis: the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO value was 0.95, well above the recommended threshold of 0.60 [62], indicating excellent sampling adequacy. Bartlett’s test was also significant (p < 0.001), supporting the presence of adequate correlation patterns.

To verify the number of items, we conducted principal component factor analysis using the Direct Oblimin rotation method [68]. This iterative process validated our item analysis and led to the removal of 12 items across the five dimensions (Table 4).

In the Beach Environmental Issues dimension, items removed included “Scenery,” “Is polluted,” “Has a good environment,” “Is beautiful,” “Is well preserved,” “The beach is well preserved,” and “The beach has a good environment.” In the Beach Infrastructure/Amenities dimension, removed items included “Developed local urbanism,” “Explanatory signage,” “Car and bicycle parking areas,” “Defined zoned areas (swimming, surfing, sailing, boating, etc.),” and “Information on major access points, lifeguard stations, other beach facilities, or parking areas.” The CFA confirmed 82 items within the five dimensions of Beach Environmental Issues, Beach Infrastructure/Amenities, Climate and Natural Factors, Social Behavior, and Perception of Safety.

Additionally, some items shifted from their original dimensions to others based on factor loadings. In Beach Environmental Issues, items such as “Presence of domestic animals” and “There is frequent overcrowding” were reassigned to Social Behavior. In Beach Infrastructure/Amenities, items like “The area patrolled (for beaches with lifeguards)” and “There are enforcement patrols in the destination” were reassigned to Perception of Safety. In Perception of Safety, general safety items such as “Is the beach safe” remained, while items like “The beach is well preserved” were moved to Beach Environmental Issues. All remaining items loaded on their respective factors, with no cross-loadings exceeding 0.40, confirming the five underlying dimensions of the CIB and demonstrating satisfactory validity for each dimension.

After confirming the five-dimension structure underlying the CIB, we conducted a Cronbach’s alpha analysis for each dimension, as recommended by Hair et al. [62], to assess the reliability of the items following the initial factor structure confirmation. Cronbach’s alpha values for the five dimensions ranged from 0.86 to 0.75, exceeding the minimum criterion of 0.70 [62], indicating satisfactory internal consistency across the dimensions (Table 5).

5. Conclusions and Limitations

This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.