COMMISSIONED REPORT
Commissioned Report No. 048
The beaches of the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland
For further information on this report please contact:
Alistair Rennie
Scottish Natural Heritage
INVERNESS
Telephone: 01463 706450
E-mail: [email protected]
This report should be quoted as:
Ritchie, W. and Mather. A.S. (1977). The beaches of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Commissioned by the Countryside Commission for Scotland 1977. Reprinted 2005 by
Scottish Natural Heritage as Commissioned Report No. 048.
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage.
This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should
not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage. Please note that all statistics, lists of
Sites of Special Scientific Interest, etc are given in the appendix in the project report and some of them may
have changed.
© Scottish Natural Heritage. First published CCS 1977.
COMMISSIONED REPORT
Summary
The beaches of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland
Commissioned Report No. 048
Contractor: W. Ritchie and A.S. Mather
Reprint: 2005 (originally published 1977)
Background
Beginning in 1969 and ending in 1981, all the sand beaches of Scotland, along with their associated
dunes, links and machair areas (thereafter referred to as a beach unit or beach complex), were surveyed
for the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Eighteen regional reports were published, and this report
describes the beaches of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Each survey consisted of a physical inventory of the location, dimensions, morphology, materials, vegetation
and land use of the beach complex areas. Additional information was recorded on ownership and access.
Particular attention was paid to those aspects of the environment that related to recreation and amenity.
Wherever possible, some account was given of trends in physical stability as could be deduced during the
brief period of fieldwork. The effects of the current types and levels of use were also assessed. The minimum
size of beach unit was set arbitrarily at a coastal length of 100m. For some of the vast beach and dune
areas such as occur in parts of Scotland, subdivision into more manageable units was necessary. In total,
647 units were surveyed. With the completion of the surveys of the 466 beach units in the Highlands
and Islands, a comprehensive report was prepared and this document is a reprint of the 1977 publication.
The purpose of the report is not to make detailed recommendations: rather it is a quantified description of
many aspects of one of Scotland’s most widespread and varied natural resources.
For further information on this project contact:
Helen Forster, Advisor y Ser vices Co-ordination Group, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2 Anderson Place,
Edinburgh EH6 5NP. Tel: 0131– 446 2420
For further information on the SNH Research & Technical Support Programme contact:
The Advisory Services Co-ordination Group, Scottish Natural Heritage, 2 Anderson Place, Edinburgh EH6 5NP.
Tel: 0131–446 2400 or [email protected]
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Acknowledgements
The fieldwork involved in this survey and the publication of the report were made possible by the financial
support of the Countryside Commission for Scotland.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor Kenneth Walton, Dr. John Smith, Mr. Roger Crofts,
Dr. lan Baugh, Mr. Wolfgang Kopp, and to other members of the academic and technical staff of the
Department of Geography, University of Aberdeen, as well as to members of staff of the Aberdeen University
Computing Centre, and to Miss Catriona Riddoch, who assisted in the research work presented in Appendix I.
Thanks are also due to numerous officials of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the
Crofters Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Scottish Development Department, and of
local authorities in the Highlands and Islands. In particular, the assistance of staff of the Countryside
Commission for Scotland is gratefully acknowledged.
We are grateful to Mrs. Margaret Wilson, for typing the manuscript and to Mrs. Grace Mather and
Mrs. Elspeth Ritchie for checking coding forms and for other assistance. Several stages of the preparation
of the report were under the direction of Mr. Charles Wilson, Manager of the Central Printing Service,
University of Aberdeen.
Finally, we must thank numerous other individuals, especially land owners and occupiers in the Highlands
and Islands, for providing information and stimulating discussions. We must emphasise, however, that the
authors alone are responsible for the factual content and views contained in this publication.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Authors’ note
The beaches of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland
In the above title ‘beaches’ refer to sand beach areas and include associated dunes, machair, links and
other blown-sand areas. The ‘Highlands and Islands’ includes all coastlines north and west of a line from
Helensburgh to Inverness, including Kintyre. This region is hereafter referred to as the area of study.
Some technical terms are used in parts of the book and these are defined in a Glossary.
March 1977
A.S.M. and W.R.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Contents
Summar y
Acknowledgements
Authors ’ note
Preface
1
INTRODUCTION
1
2
THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE RESOURCE
2.1
The sand-beach system and its linkages
2.2
Climate
2.3
Vegetational and habitat characteristics
2.4
Classification of beach complexes
2.5
Sizes of beach complexes
2.6
The regional distribution of the resource
2.7
Beach gradients and processes
2.8
Beach materials
2.9
Dune height and machair morphology
2.10 Erosional activity
2.11 Scenic quality
2.12 Scientific interest
10
10
14
17
28
33
38
39
41
47
53
59
62
3
THE BEACH RESOURCE IN THE PAST
65
4
INFLUENCES ON THE CURRENT USE OF THE BEACH RESOURCE
4.1
Location and accessibility
4.2
Tenure
4.3
Development control, policies and planning
70
70
77
83
5
USE OF THE BEACH RESOURCE
5.1
Agriculture
5.2
Recreational use
5.3
Caravanning and camping
5.4
Sand extraction
5.5
Other land uses
5.6
Multiple use
91
92
95
105
107
111
114
6
ADVERSE FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF USE
6.1
Frequency and distribution of adverse features
6.2
The environmental effects of land uses on beach complexes
116
117
124
7
THE EUROPEAN SETTING
135
8
THE FUTURE USE OF THE RESOURCE
141
Appendix I
Perception of the beach resource
150
Appendix II
List of beaches included in this study
171
Appendix III
Classification of beach complexes
182
Appendix IV
Recommendations relating to specific beach complexes
186
References and selected Bibliography
199
Glossar y
200
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
List of figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1.1a
1.1b
1.2a
1.2b
1.2c
1.2d
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.3.1
2.3.2a
2.3.2b
2.5.1
2.5.2
Figure 2.8.1
Figure 2.9.1
Figure 2.10.1
Figure 4.1.1a
Figure 4.1.1b
Figure 4.1.2
Figure 4.1.3
Figure 5.1
Figure 5.2.1
Figure 5.2.2
Figure 5.2.3
Figure 5.2.4
Area of study and administrative units.
Area covered by beach reports.
Distribution of beach units.
Distribution of beach units.
Distribution of beach units.
Distribution of beach units.
The sand-beach system.
Beach system flow diagram.
Schematic model of habitats on the landwards part of a beach complex.
Transect diagram, Dremisdale machair, South Uist – soil relationships.
Transect diagram, Coul Links – soil relationships.
Total beach complex – number of beaches in 10ha size categories.
Blown-sand areas – number of beaches in 50ha groups.
(inset shows breakdown of areas less than 100ha by 10ha groups).
Beach sand median diameters.
Non-dune blown-sand heights above beach level.
Postulated isobases of main post and late glacial shorelines
(adapted from Sissons (1967) and other sources).
Isochrones (in hours) of overland accessibility by car from Glasgow.
Cost surface map (centered on Glasgow).
Distribution of beaches by amount of tourist accommodation within 8km.
Distances of beaches from public roads and motorable tracks.
Frequency of occurrence of land uses on beach complexes in the
Highlands and Islands.
Pattern of distribution of beaches by intensity of use.
Intensity of recreational use in relation to distance from public road.
Estimated number of users per day in relation to distance from public
road.
Estimated number of users per day in relation to amount of tourist
accommodation.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
List of tables
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.6.1
2.7.1
2.8.1
2.8.2
2.8.3
2.8.4
2.9.1
2.9.2
2.9.3
2.9.4
2.9.5
2.10.1
2.11.1
Average scores for habitat diversity.
Distribution of habitat diversity score by size class of beach unit.
Percentage distribution of the components of the total beach complex.
Distribution of beach types by area.
Frequency distribution of beach settings.
Distribution of type of beach complex by setting.
Sizes of beaches by part of coast.
Mean and median beach lengths/widths by part of coast.
Distribution of the beach resource by administrative region.
Average (mean) distance and average gradient to 5-fathom line.
Distribution of beach materials.
Frequency distribution of sand size.
Distribution of sand size by area.
Distribution of lime contents of beach sand by area.
Maximum dune heights.
Maximum blown-sand heights.
Distribution of machair types.
Distribution of machair type by area.
Beach units with severe erosion.
Coastal edge stability.
Distribution of scenic quality of beaches by area.
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
2.12.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.2.1
4.2.2
5.6.1
6.1.1
6.1.2
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
Beach complexes of outstanding geomorphological interest.
Location of beaches.
Distribution of beaches by nearest road type.
Barriers to access.
Tenure.
Distribution of tenurial types by area.
Compatibility matrix for superimposed land uses on beach complexes.
Incidence of adverse features.
Distribution of adverse features.
Estimated impact of trampling and litter resulting from recreational use.
The distribution of recreational impact by distance from a public road.
Trampling impact and erosional damage.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
List of plates
Except where otherwise indicated, all photographs are by the authors.
Plate No:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Machir Bay, Islay (Skylens).
Machrihanish, Kintyre (R.S. Crofts).
North beach, Gruinard Bay,
Wester Ross.
Balta Island, Unst, Shetland ( J.S. Smith).
Brora (Dalchalm) beach, East Sutherland.
Burga Sand, Unst, Shetland.
Sorisdale, Coll.
Hynish, Tiree.
Camasunary, Skye.
Corpach, Jura.
Dunnet Bay, Caithness.
Balephetrish, Tiree.
Traigh Mhor, Tolsta, Lewis.
St. Ninian’s, Shetland (N. Rose).
Vatersay Bay.
Mae Sand, Westray, Orkney ( J.S. Smith).
Mangersta, Uig, Lewis.
Clachtoll, West Sutherland (I.H. Baugh).
West Geirinish, South Uist.
Rubha Sgor-lnnis, Coll.
Bay of Newark, Sanday, Orkney.
Sty Wick, Sanday, Orkney.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Kilbride Bay, Cowal.
Morrich More, Easter Ross ( J.S. Smith).
Back of Keppoch, Inverness-shire.
Little Sand, near Gairloch,
Wester Ross (R.S. Crofts).
Melness, North Sutherland.
Bellochantuy, Kintyre.
Dornoch, Sutherland.
Embo, East Sutherland.
Bunacaimb, West Inverness-shire.
St. Ninian’s, Shetland (N. Rose).
Sands of Evie, Orkney.
& 35. Quendale, Shetland.
Machrie, Arran.
Nigg, Easter Ross ( J.S. Smith).
Drumadoon Bay, Arran.
Rothesay Bay, Bute.
Lamlash, Arran.
Sraid Ruadh, Tiree.
Mellangaun, Wester Ross.
Achmelvich, West Sutherland.
Sandwood Bay, West Sutherland.
Oldshoremore, West Sutherland.
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 1
Machir Bay, Islay
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 2
Machrihanish, Kintyre
This view from the nor th illustrates one of the larger F-type beach complexes
(containing beach, dunes and links or machair) in the Highland mainland. The
complexity of dunes, sandhills and blow-out features is evident in the foreground.
Nor th beach (Camas Gaineamhaich)
Gruinard Bay, Wester Ross
A small F-type beach complex set in rugged
terrain of Lewisian Gneiss. The scrub on the
margins of the machair is an unusual feature.
One of the Highland beaches most intensively
used for informal recreation (Gruinard South)
is only 1km distant, but the Nor th beach,
although only 400m from a major tourist
route (A832), is only lightly used.
Plate 3
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Preface
The theme of this work is sandy beaches as natural resources, that is as parts of the environment seen
by man as being useful for one or more purposes. The work attempts to examine both the physical nature
of the resource, and its pattern of utilisation. Conceptually, the contents form a chain which begins with an
analysis of some of the physical attributes of the resource, and terminates with a review of how the resource
is perceived and used by different user groups. The chain is imperfect; some links are weak or even missing,
because the level of information and understanding is at present imperfect.
Sandy beaches are dynamic and fragile parts of the natural environment, and if they are to be used
efficiently and without long-term diminution of their usefulness, an understanding of their physical nature is
essential. Chapter 2 is a review of the present level of knowledge about the physical constitution of sandy
beaches (and their related dunes and machairs*) in the Highlands and Islands and is included both as a
contribution to scientific knowledge on the subject and as a basis for examining current utilisation of the
resource. Subsequent chapters review how the beach resource was used in the past and how it is used at
present, and also attempt to examine the main influences on the current pattern of use. The impact of use on
the resource is discussed in chapter 6, while the European setting of the beaches is reviewed in chapter 7.
Chapter 8 sets out our views, based on analysis of the resource, on the future of the beach resource in the
Highlands and Islands. These Chapters are supplemented by a number of appendices, the longest of which
(Appendix I) investigates how two major user groups, holiday-makers and crofters, perceive the beach
environments at a small number of localities in one part of the area of study, and in particular, how the
symptoms of impact of use on the resource are perceived. The conclusions reached in this appendix are
based only on a small case study, whereas those in the remainder of the work are based on all the sandy
beaches in the Highlands and Islands.
* Machair and similar areas called links are areas of fixed dune pasture. Normally long dune grass species have
been almost eliminated and replaced by a short grass sward. For a fuller definition see Ritchie (1976).
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
1
INTRODUCTION
The long and varied coastline of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland* enjoys the inestimable advantage
of relative freedom from the urban and industrial developments which characterise the coastline of much of
the remainder of Britain and the neighbouring parts of Europe. The low coastlines of the English Channel
and the North Sea margins have undergone developments of various types and of varying intensities over
a long period of time, and the rates of development have accelerated over the last few decades. In contrast
to these developed coastlines, the apparently empty beaches of much of the Highlands and Islands offer
an unsullied image, evocative of restfulness, tranquility and freedom. On the European scale, almost all the
least-visited beaches are on the Atlantic fringes, especially in Western Ireland and parts of south-west
Norway, but above all in the north and west of Scotland. Such semi-natural beach areas contrast sharply
in type and in intensity of use with the beaches of the crowded Mediterranean coastline, for example, and
even with the long, continuous beaches in Holland or Jutland.
Over the last twenty or thirty years, and especially in the last decade, the attractions of the apparently empty
and natural beaches of the Highlands and Islands have increasingly been appreciated by a growing number
of tourists and holiday-makers. In a few localities there have also been some commercial and industrial
developments. Camping and caravanning holidays have increased markedly, and the attraction of camping
on a grassy plain close by a white shell-sand beach, out of sight of any appreciable signs of built
environment, has come to be savoured by a growing, if in absolute terms small, number of mobile
holiday-makers. The apparent emptiness and lack of use of such beaches (and contiguous dune and machair
areas, for in reality the pressures are rarely on the resilient beach, but more usually on the adjacent blownsand surfaces) is an illusion. Almost every area of dunes, dune pastures and machairs in the Highlands and
Islands is used for grazing. Cultivation, sand extraction, airfields or airstrips, and golf courses are other
obvious uses in many beach areas. Perhaps less obvious is the importance of a number of beach units for
various forms and levels of nature conservation.
Tourist and recreational use has been superimposed on an often long established pattern of pre-existing land
uses. The addition of this new use, which is often highly seasonal and selective on some part of the beach/
dune/machair area, has given rise to a number of problems. In particular, physical damage or progressive
deterioration of the area may result, since many parts of the beach/dune/machair system are intrinsically
fragile. There are also less tangible problems associated with planning and development control, while
ownership is an important influence both in terms of access and of management. The institutional framework,
including the large area of crofting tenure, is a powerful factor influencing the management of the
multiple-use resource of the beach, dune and machair. As new demands emerge and new patterns and
intensities of use are superimposed on the resource, problems begin to arise. These problems may concern
not only the efficient use of the resource for a number of concurrent purposes, but may also threaten its
stability and long-term survival.
*
Defined as the Northern Isles, the Hebrides, and the Islands of the Clyde, together with the mainland from Loch Long
clockwise to Inverness. Collectively the Highlands and Islands are referred to as the area of study. This area, together with
its main towns and administrative areas, is illustrated in figure 1.1a.
1
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.1a
Area of study and administrative units
2
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.1b
Area covered by beach repor ts
3
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Against this background, the Countryside Commission for Scotland in 1969 commissioned members of staff
of the Department of Geography, University of Aberdeen, to report on certain beaches on the north and
west coasts of Sutherland, where the problem of the deterioration of the resource of the sandy-beach
complexes* was particularly severe. The terms of reference specified that the report should consist primarily
of physical descriptions of the beach complexes to be examined. In addition, attention was to be paid to
vegetation, grazing, ownership and tenure, recreational use, scientific value, dynamics and rates of change,
accessibility, water supply, and other factors as appropriate. On completion of this report, the survey was
extended to the entire coastal zone of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. By 1975, after thirteen reports
(hereinafter referred to as beach reports – see figure 1.1b and Bibliography), the survey was complete.
To achieve as much consistency of treatment as possible, standard procedures in fieldwork and subsequent
analysis were adopted, and only four investigators took part in the surveys. As far as possible, each beach
unit was examined by more than one investigator.
In order to synthesise the material contained in the 1969–75 reports, the authors were invited by the
Countryside Commission for Scotland in April 1975 to produce the present work on the ‘Beaches of the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland.’
The terms of reference for this work set out three main objectives – a description of the nature and distribution
of the beach resources of the Highlands and Islands, an analysis of their current use, and suggestions on
strategies and practical management proposals for their future use.
At the outset, the authors updated and standardised much of the material contained in the earlier series of
reports. This material was then abstracted and coded for computer storage. Thereafter it was re-organised
and analysed systematically. Approximately one hundred attributes were recorded, measured or evaluated
for each of the 466 beach units in the Highlands and Islands. These attributes include location, dimensions,
accessibility, physical characteristics, ownership and tenure types and land use. At this stage, the definition
of a beach complex or beach unit became critical. The working definition employed was that ‘a beach is
a contemporary marine deposit, mainly of sand, extending continuously for at least 100m, and Iying close
to present-day sea level.’ In practice, four main problems of definition arose:
(i) the very long, continuous beach areas of parts of the Western Isles required sub-division into
manageable units;
(ii) some low rocky coasts have several small connected sandy pockets, each perhaps less than 100m
in length but adding up to a sandy beach of considerable length: these pockets have been regarded
as a single unit;
(iii) some islands or island groups have a continuous blown-sand cover which is nourished by several
beaches: these are normally considered as a single unit;
(iv) sand isthmuses or peninsular dune and machair systems, nourished by beaches on both sides, are
considered as a single unit.
*
Defined as the beach itself, together with the blown-sand accumulations of dunes and machair.
4
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.2a
Distribution of beach units
5
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.2b
Distribution of beach units
6
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.2c
Distribution of beach units
7
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 1.2d
Distribution of beach units
8
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The requirement that the beach was mainly composed of sand also gives rise to some difficulty, since beach
materials may vary seasonally; moreover, some beaches have clearly segregated patches of different
materials such as sand, gravel and cobbles, while other beaches have mixtures. A further problem lies in
areas of tidal sand flats; while these fit the working definition, in practical terms both their physical
characteristics and patterns of use differ from the more steeply sloping beach deposits which dry out at low
tide, and so they generally have been excluded.
Thus the statistical analysis of the information collected on the beaches of the Highlands and Islands must be
viewed in the light of the difficulties of the working definition of the beach unit. Some small and inaccessible
beaches, as, for example at the foot of some Shetland cliffs or on uninhabited islands for which good quality
air-photo cover was unavailable, were not examined, although they would fit the definition. Nevertheless,
such omissions have a negligible effect on any generalisations which are made concerning the nature,
distribution and use of the beach complexes. The distribution of the beaches is shown in figure 1.2, and
they are named in Appendix II.
The computer-stored data bank has been used to calculate averages and other statistical descriptions of the
total ‘population’ or subsets of beach complexes, using locational or other parameters to define the subset.
It is this facility which enables the authors to make valid locational, physical and topical generalisations
about the nature and use of the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands.
This work is seen by the authors as both a synthesis and synopsis of the earlier reports on different parts
of the coastline, and as a context in which the earlier reports, with their descriptions of individual beaches,
can be viewed. In undertaking the work the authors have attempted to consider the beaches of
the Highlands and Islands against the background of the main functions of their sponsoring body, the
Countryside Commission for Scotland. These functions, as set out in Section 1(1) of the Countryside
(Scotland) Act, 1967 focus on the ‘provision, development and improvement of facilities for the enjoyment
of the Scottish countryside, and for the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity
thereof.’ In addition, under Section 1(2) of the same Act, the Commission are required to have ‘due regard
to the need for the development of recreational and tourist facilities, and for the balanced economic and
social development of the countryside.’ It is hoped that this work will make a positive contribution within
these terms of reference at two levels, firstly by providing a body of factual information about the beach
complexes of the Highlands and Islands, which will contribute to the reaching of informed decisions
concerning the use of the beach resource. Secondly, it is hoped that this work will help in the attainment
of the goal of efficient use and conservation of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands by suggesting for
consideration strategies based on a detailed evaluation of the nature and distribution of the resource.
9
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
2
THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE RESOURCE
‘The coastal zone is a system that regulates itself when small changes in environmental conditions occur.
The coasts pulsate, as it were, under the effects of fluctuations in the supply of sediment, small relative
changes in level, etc.’ Zenkovich (1967).
2.1
The sand-beach system and its linkages
Any sand-beach system, which may include areas of beach, dunes, machair and other surfaces formed by
wind blown deposits, is normally, by definition, low and unconsolidated. Moreover, on various timescales,
it is also mobile. As a physical system it is constrained by several boundaries: the sea, the sub-sand rock or
other material beneath the blown-sand, and the adjacent landforms against which the various sand surfaces
terminate. Within these physical constraints the energy for geomorphological development is mainly derived
from the sea, in the form of waves and tides, and the atmosphere in the form of wind action. The system
may be diagrammatically represented in figure 2.1.1.
This diagram also defines the five areas measured in the course of quantifying the information contained in
the regional beach surveys, viz. Intertidal beach, Backshore, Dunes, Machair and Transition zone.
The normal flow of sand from the offshore sediment bank to the beach is achieved by wave action.
Most sand remains in the intertidal zone, moving back and forward with waves and tides, and alongshore
as a result of beach drifting. Some sand reaches and remains on the backshore or upper beach. This accretion
is most common under constructive wave action in summer, but around the coast of Scotland it can occur
during any season. On drying, this nourishment zone of the upper beach and backshore provides a reservoir
from which sand may be taken by onshore winds to build up various forms of coastal dunes. The interface
between foredune and upper beach is a zone of considerable activity and dynamic change (Esler, 1976),
hence the ‘return arrow’ in figure 2.1.1. From the dunes the sand may be removed by wind action to build
up the machair area to the landwards. Some sand may be carried directly from the upper beach or backshore
Figure 2.1.1
The sand-beach system
10
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
to the machair. Often the mechanism of transport involves the development of blow-outs. These are erosion
hollows and corridors of various forms and sizes from which sand is excavated and carried by the wind.
Normally the sand moves landwards but at times there is a conspicuous movement from dune to beach.
This reverse flow is not uncommon where strong winds blow from the landwards and the erosion corridors
have trenched completely through the dune ridge. Good examples of this occur at Eoligarry (Barra) and
Dunnet Bay (Caithness). The mechanism of flow is complex. Normally the pattern of flow is turbulent and is
strongly affected by local topography. The main form of transport is by saltation and it has been demonstrated
that more than 75% of the transport load moves within 1m of the ground surface (Phillips, 1975, Bagnold,
1941, Belly, 1964, Johnson, 1965, Zingg, 1953).
Considerable technical and scientific literature exists on the nature of the relationships between wind flow
and sand transport. Equally, studies have shown the importance of variations in wind speed across the dune
profile and the creation of local turbulence and vortex zones (Olson, 1958), and Bagnold (1941) introduced
the important factor of ‘the surface roughness parameter.’ In general terms, sand grains begin to move above
a critical impact velocity of about 16km per hour. Larger particles require higher velocities and if there is
even a small increase in moisture content the sand requires very high wind velocities to initiate movement.
Sand movement thus requires high wind velocities and dry weather. This combination is not common in the
Highlands and Islands and may only occur once or twice a year. Effectively within a vegetated zone,
especially of high tussocky grasses such as Marram, the effects of surface roughness and shelter are so great
that little or no sand movement can occur and these areas, in practice, are zones of accretion and build-up.
In general sand can only move from and across bare sand surfaces; the presence of vegetation, especially
in the dune zone, restricts movement to a few metres except in the rare conditions of high velocity and
turbulence when ‘clouds’ of sand are carried at higher levels in suspension. It is clear from this that the
blow-out or deflation corridor is the main zone of aeolian transport.
Unless deflation has reached the base level of the water table, conditions of low surface roughness, exposed
sand particles and wind channelling (to produce higher relative wind velocities with a considerable degree
of turbulence and ‘lift’) are found in the floor and sides of the blow-out. As the sediment-laden air flow leaves
the blow-out, velocity is checked and there may be a vortex effect; streamlines of maximum velocity spread
outwards and upwards and the net result is rapid deposition. These depositional sand features, termed
monticules by Briquet (1923) are characteristic of most coastal dune and machair ridges where blow-out
activity is present. The bare sand, heaped up at the top of the lee slope, is very susceptible to lateral and
other movements by winds from other than the onshore direction, and many monticules show an oblique
orientation as a result of the interplay of varying wind directions. The dune ridge thus assumes a distinctive
morphology of lower and higher crest lines with a series of whale-back ridges running obliquely backwards
from the coastal edge and tapering gradually down the backslope into the lower slack area.
The main feature of this process is not the manner in which it develops but the initiation of a bare sand
surface. In the coastal dune and machair systems of the Highlands and Islands, unvegetated surfaces
normally occur at the coastal edge and backshore, or where there are steeper landward slopes which might
be subject to landslipping or mass movement, eg the slopes against the valley sides at Torrisdale Bay.
Frequently the fully vegetated dune and machair surfaces are also broken by biotic and anthropic agencies
such as rabbit warrens, vehicle tracks or sand-extraction sites. The mode and pattern of erosional
development and expansion is predictable but the point at which it started is random and often unrelated
to natural processes and conditions.
11
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Although coastal sand dune systems are intrinsically dynamic, mobile and, where coastal dunes are present,
geomorphologically youthful – indeed, there is evidence from many dune areas of appreciable and even
spectacular accretion in a lifetime – the system as a whole is frequently much older than might be expected.
Some machair systems of the Outer Hebrides have unambiguous evidence of having been in existence for
up to 4,000 years (Shepherd 1975, 1976, Crawford 1970, Lethbridge 1952). Within this period, there
is often evidence of several cycles of stability and sand drifting which may be identified from buried soil
layers with archaeological occupation layers. Several dune and machair systems contain similar buried soil
horizons and other forms of evidence which can be linked to known historical episodes. This topic is
discussed more fully in chapter 3 but in the present context, such evidence illustrates the palimpsest nature
of the dune/machair landform assemblage. Arguably, many of the full beach/dune/machair systems of the
Highlands and Islands of Scotland have their origins on a timescale of thousands of years, mature machair
landforms have a timescale of a few centuries and dunes of a few decades. Bare sand surfaces, including
those produced by erosion and active deposition or redeposition, are features of short timescales, to be
measured in years or even weeks.
In environmental mangement and conservation, the vital concern is not with the appreciation of form or even
the historical evolution of the landform elements. The crucial issues revolve around an awareness that there
are linkages between the various types of surfaces and features, and that these linkages are forged by the
interplay of natural processes. Processes may be deflected or interrupted; they may also be manipulated and
the aim of management, if it is to be more than palliative, must be to maintain or adjust these process interactions
to best advantage. Although most clearly seen in relation to surfaces and landforms, the argument is equally
tenable when applied to soil, water and biological elements of the total environmental system. Vegetation cannot
grow if there is no suitable soil; dunes will not grow if there is insufficient sand of the right calibre on the
upper beach or backshore; regenerative works will not succeed if irritant external factors are not removed.
In the beach/dune/machair system, physical processes are generated by marine and aeolian energy.
The linkages are relatively complex and may be summarised in the following flow diagram (figure 2.1.2).
Figure 2.1.2
Beach system flow diagram
12
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
If one begins at any ‘box’ and reads for any connecting line ‘effects,’ the delicate equilibrium of the system
can be readily appreciated. Such a balance pertains for every state of the beach/dune/machair system.
Thus if the system is presently in a sub-optimal condition it might be possible to use the linkage positively,
that is to ‘affect’ the system beneficially. In so doing however great care must be exercised for there is
no simple single cause-effect linkage and the intention to improve the ‘environment’ should be tempered by
the realisation that side-effect consequences are inevitable. Such ‘side-effects’ may also be in a different
systems realm, specifically the biological. For example, consider the result of drainage changes such as the
improvement of ditches and field drains:
1. Land use may alter.
2. Land use may affect fauna and flora.
3. Land use may affect some landforms.
4. Vegetation and fauna may be altered directly near the drainage areas.
5. New micro habitats will be created, others will be destroyed.
6. The water table will fall and this is crucial to dune and machair stability and resilience.
7. The pattern of fresh water seepage to the beach will alter. This may affect size and distribution of upper
beach and nourishment zone. It may also affect beach morphology.
8. Ditches and drains may take small quantities of fine sediment to the beach.
9. Ditches and drains may promote a more rapid movement of ground water. Leaching and nutrient cycles
may be locally affected.
The above is clearly an extreme example; response and reaction might be of negligible significance and
slow to take effect, and the intention of using it is not to exaggerate the fear of disrupting environmental balance
but to illustrate the validity of recommending a systems approach to beach/dune/machair management.
At the level of energy inputs only two zones are of critical importance, viz. the interface between dune and
upper beach or backshore, and any blown-sand surface where the vegetation cover has been broken.
Occasionally another zone of weakness is found at the base of the dune backslope, where the long dune
grasses tend to die out. At the dune face there is the possibility of wave undercutting during high tides and
stormwave action. This may be a natural response to changing climatic and sea level conditions. It may also
be a consequence of diminishing sand supply in the total beach zone, and may therefore be a perfectly
natural mechanism of landform adjustment. Where dune face erosion is not a purely natural process it is
normally caused by the removal of beach material at a rate which is greater than supply. In particular,
if material is removed from the backshore, especially shingle which is the best type of coastal protection,
the response may be rapid and serious. Dune cliffing by wave action creates a free sand face and is thus
a target for wind erosion.
In general terms, wind erosion is active wherever a free, bare sand surface is available. If the sand grains
are dry, then winds of suitable velocity will move the sand by rolling, saltation or suspension. In so doing
the hollow is enlarged and the process is self accelerating down to the limit of the water table or other less
mobile stratum. The process is more rapid on slopes and increases in potential severity with the slope angle.
Here it is aided by gravity and various forms of mass movement including slumping and slipping.
The excavated sand is redeposited, normally nearby, and may damage or kill other vegetated areas; it will
13
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
at least modify the type of vegetation cover. This process may be described as progressive but is easily
arrested by covering the bare sand areas with a protective layer, or by sheltering the surface directly by
wind breaks. In nature, revegetation will re-establish protection and cover once the process has run its natural
course. It is therefore necessary to distinguish between natural erosion which allows the system to function
as a flexible, dynamic series of landforms (indeed the process of erosion and redeposition is the creative
lifeblood of all beach/dune/machair systems), and induced erosion where the initial surface break is a
product of abuse or mismanagement. Even in the latter situation, such erosion may be seen as an
acceleration of natural trends or an artificial means of rejuvenating the environmental system. It is at this stage
that the question has to be asked whether or not the assumption that erosion is deleterious to the resource
is necessarily correct. The answer lies in the use to which the resource is put and the perception of those
who manage and use the environment. This topic is explored more fully in subsequent chapters, as are the
practical measures which may be taken to modify the process-landform interrelationships.
2.2
Climate
Climate affects both the physical nature of the beach resource and, to some extent, its pattern of use.
Wetness and windiness are major determinants of susceptibility to sand-blow, and both long-term average
climatic conditions and short-term weather events are strong influences on use for recreation.
The popular picture of the climate of the Highlands and Islands is that it is rather moist, sunless and windy.
While this picture is not altogether lacking in validity for the Highlands and Islands in general, it ignores on
the one hand the contrasts between the coastal and the interior parts of the Highlands, and on the other
hand the variations between the various parts of the coast. The coastal parts of the Highlands enjoy a drier
and sunnier although windier climate than the interior, and major contrasts in sunshine and rainfall exist
between, for example, the Firth of Lorne and Tiree.
Climate-recording stations in the Highlands and Islands are few and far between, and differences in
topography and aspect make interpolation between stations a dangerous exercise. Therefore categorical
statements cannot be made about individual localities, except in the immediate vicinity of recording stations,
and detailed studies of the physical processes operating on beaches tend to be thwarted by the inadequacy
of climatic data. Nevertheless distinct patterns, on the broad scale, can be discerned from the existing
climatic data.
One of the main characteristics of the Highland climate is its high rainfall, and figures of over 4000mm per
annum are not unknown. But these amounts are very largely confined to the mountainous parts of the interior
of the Highlands, and rainfall is usually much lower on the coastal fringes, and especially towards the tips
of peninsulas and on low-lying islands. Over 85% of the beaches in the region are estimated, on the basis
of the Ordnance Survey Rainfall Map, to have annual rainfall in the range of 800–1400mm (approximately
40–56in). Only about 10% of the beaches, mostly in situations where mountains approach close to the coast
as in Skye, Rhum and part of Mull, have rainfall of more than 1400mm. On the other hand, about 5% of
the beaches, mainly in Easter Ross and south-east Sutherland, have rainfall of less than 800mm. Thus the
annual average rainfall is moderate rather than high, and tends to decrease towards the peripheral parts of
the region. Unfortunately it attains moderately high levels on much of the most attractive and most visited
parts of the coastline in Wester Ross and north-west Sutherland, and the drier parts often have less spectacular
scenery, as in Caithness, or are difficult to reach, as in the case of some of the North Isles of Orkney or
Coll and Tiree.
14
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Perhaps more significant from the viewpoint of the physical nature of the resource is the effective wetness.
Potential Water Deficit (PWD) expresses the relationship between the total rainfall and amount estimated to
be lost by evapotranspiration. Birse and Dry (1970) produced a detailed map of PWD zones, with classes
ranging from where PWD was zero (ie where rainfall exceeds annual evapotranspiration) to a ‘dry’ class
where PWD exceeds 75mm. On the basis of this map, only 4% of the beaches have no deficit, while
2% fall in the dry category. Once again, the great majority of beaches experience moderate conditions;
47% of the beaches fall in the central class (‘moist’ – PWD 25–50mm) alone. Again, the wettest beaches
are in Skye, the Small Isles and part of Mull, where blown-sand, perhaps partly because of wetness, is very
rare. All the beaches in the driest class lie in Easter Ross or around Dornoch in Sutherland.
Rainfall is not evenly distributed throughout the year but displays marked seasonal variations. Throughout the
Highlands and Islands, May is the driest month, with June the second driest at most stations. Indeed one of
the characteristics of the Highland climate is its dryness in the late spring and early summer. Thus the driest
season precedes the main holiday months of July and August, by which time rainfall has increased by up to
50% or more compared with the May total. Dry spells in the late spring also mean that conditions are ripe
for sand-blow, while germination of seeds, and the general growth of vegetation are liable to be retarded.
Thus the lack of growth, combined with the dryness of the sand and the frequently windy conditions (at least
in the earlier part of spring) mean that this season is probably the most critical in terms of the physical processes
affecting the beach complex, and occasional unusually long dry periods, perhaps following stormy winter
weather when the likelihood of dune undercutting is greatest, can trigger off episodes of severe erosion.
Normally the frequency of rainfall during the summer months varies by nearly 60% within the Highlands and
Islands. The beaches with the least likelihood of rain are in Easter Ross and the adjacent area of Sutherland,
where the average expectation of rain (ie rainfall greater than 1mm) is about 10 days per month during the
summer months of June, July and August. On the other hand, the whole of North Argyll (except the tip of the
Ardnamurchan peninsula), West Inverness-shire, the Small Isles, Skye and most of Wester Ross have more
than 15 raindays per summer month. Thus rainfall expectation varies from about one day in two in the wetter
parts, to one day in three in the drier areas. Invariably, however, July and August are wetter than June, and
the extremities of mainland peninsulas and most of the islands are less likely to have rainfall than the more
central parts of the west Highland mainland.
The latter generalisation is true also of sunshine. The sunniest parts, both on a year-round basis and in the
summer months, are in the islands and the least sunny areas are on the west coast of the mainland; the lowest
point is in the upper part of the Firth of Lorne. The sunniest band forms a fringe around the south west of the
Highlands and Islands, from the south end of Kintyre through Coll and Tiree to the south end of the Long
Island. Here the average daily total of bright sunshine in the summer months is 5.5 hours compared with
under 4.5 hours in the upper part of the Firth of Lorne. The island of Tiree is renowned for its sunniness (in
the month of May, it has more sunshine than, for example, Eastbourne, Penzance or Blackpool, although its
comparative advantage drops later in the season), but the sunniness of similarly located areas such as parts
of Islay and South Kintyre is less widely known. Easter Ross again stands out as a relatively sunny area, but
its sunniness is less characteristic than its dryness, and in sunniness it yields first place to the southern part of
the study area by a considerable margin. The seasonal distribution of sunniness varies as much as that of
rainfall; again it is unfortunate that the sunniest season does not coincide with the main holiday months. May is
the sunniest as well as the driest month, especially in the south-west, and the average daily total of hours of
bright sunshine decreases sharply through July and August. At Machrihanish in Kintyre, for example, the
average daily hours of bright sunshine over the period 1966–74 was 6.72 in June, 5.23 in July and 5.09
15
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
in August, while for Fortrose in the Black Isle, the figures were 5.41, 4.57 and 4.47 respectively. Average
daily sunshine in July and August is usually at least one hour less than in June; over a two-week holiday the
differences between June and the other holiday months would amount to the equivalent of nearly two extra
sunny days, while the difference between May and the main holiday period would be even greater.
Windiness is probably more variable from place to place than rainfall or sunshine. Aspect and local topography
exert strong influences, and figures for average wind speeds have limited meaning on the regional scale.
It is clear, however, that parts of the Highlands and Islands are the windiest parts of Britain; the average
wind speed as shown in the Climatological Atlas (Meteorological Office 1952) is over 28km/h in the
Outer Hebrides, and over 20km/h throughout the rest of the study area. In general terms average wind
speed decreases from the west and north peripheries, and is probably lowest on the coast of Easter Ross,
south-east Sutherland, Cowal and Bute. Individual beaches may be exposed to average wind speeds
considerably different from those of the regional, or even the local setting, depending on aspect and
topography. It would be wrong, for example, to assume that all the beaches in the Outer Hebrides had
average wind speeds of over 28km/h. Birse and Robertson (1970) have produced a detailed map of
exposure conditions in Scotland, on the basis of a combination of anemometer readings and vegetational
evidence. Their map contains five exposure classes, ranging from ‘sheltered,’ with average wind speed
below 2.6m/s (approximately 9km/h) to ‘extremely exposed’ (over 8m/s or 29km/h). The majority of
beaches in the Highlands and Islands (63%) fall within the ‘very exposed’ category, with an average wind
speed of between 22 and 29km/h. Most of the remainder are in the ‘exposed’ category, with mean wind
speeds between 16 and 21km/h. Probably 75% of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands have average
wind speeds in excess of 16km/h, the threshold below which significant amounts of sand-blow will not
occur (Zenkovitch 1967). Thus wind conditions are suitable for sand-blow probably well over half the time
in the majority of beaches in the region, though wind energy inputs, and hence the dynamism of the blownsand areas, are very much less around the Dornoch and Cowal beaches, for example, than around those
on the open west coasts of Lewis, Uist or Orkney.
Although the coasts of the Highlands and Islands in general are windy, dramatic contrasts occur between
windward and leeward shores. Wind direction is variable, and strong winds can be experienced from
almost any quarter, but some part of almost every coastline, with the possible exception of the long straight
coastline of South Uist, offers some shelter at almost all times. Furthermore, local variations in dune and
machair relief offer additional small-scale shelter, so that winds experienced by any single beach complex
vary markedly both over space (both internally and externally) and through time.
Thus to categorise the climate of the Highlands and Islands as moist, sunless and windy is to oversimplify,
as rainfall, sunshine duration, and wind speeds all display marked variations. In general terms, the beaches
of the south-west part of the region, especially Coll and Tiree, Islay and Kintyre, have dry, sunny and windy
conditions, while those beaches Iying on inlets in the central part of the west coast of the mainland have
wetter, less sunny but more sheltered climates.
In physical terms the beach complexes in the former area should be more dynamic than the latter, since
susceptibility to sand-blow increases with windspeed and decreases with wetness. In relation to their use,
the beach complexes of the south-west suffer from some agricultural limitations, especially in dry years, but
their climate is potentially much more attractive to tourists than many of the beaches of the west mainland.
Contrasts also exist between the east and west coasts. Those on the east coast, especially around the
Dornoch Firth, benefit from relatively dry and sheltered climates, with the added advantage that the winds
16
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
are usually offshore, so that the beach is sheltered by the dune ridge or raised-shoreline terrace. Although
sunshine duration here is lower than in the south-west islands or the south tip of Kintyre, it is higher than on
most of the west-coast mainland, and the total climate is much more favourable to holiday-making.
2.3
Vegetational and habitat characteristics
Vegetation plays a primary role both in the evolution of the landward parts of beach complexes and in
their utilisation. One of the distinctive features of the blown-sand environment is the close and intricate
interrelationship which exists between vegetation and landform, frequently partly regulated through the
medium of soil development. The sharp contrasts which exist between vegetation on blown-sand and that on
the moorland or improved farmland which surrounds the beach complex are clear reflections of the
environmental differences between blown-sand substrates and the adjacent parent materials of rock or boulder
clay. Blown-sand usually drains freely, so that the regional problems of excessive moisture are confined only to
low-lying depressions, and indeed the availability of an adequate water supply is a major limiting factor to
vegetation on dunes and machair. Just as the dryness of many dunes and machairs contrasts with the
surrounding wetness, so also in many cases does the lime richness of the blown-sand contrast with the acidity
characteristic of many Highland rock types. In other respects, however, similarities may well occur; dune or
machair soils are frequently as deficient in nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates as are surrounding areas,
and in addition there may be problems related to exposure to salt spray or even inundation by salt water.
Thus the dune and machair environment is an exacting if distinctive one, and its harshness varies both over
time, and from place to place within the beach complex. In its most complete form, the beach complex
contains a number of separate but inter-related components, as is illustrated in figures 2.1.1 and 2.3.1.
On the backshore (unless it is thin, narrow and poorly nourished with sand) there is usually some seasonal
growth of annual species which find nourishment and moisture initially in the debris around the drift-line.
Sea rocket (Cakile maritima) is one of the most widespread of these backshore species, but gives way on
gravelly beaches to Common orache (Atriplex patula) and other species, and in areas where there
is cultivation nearby, even to agricultural weeds. Of the landward part of the beach complex, the two main
components are the dune zone and the machair, alternatively known as the links or dune pastures. These zones
are usually defined neither on purely vegetational nor purely landform criteria, but are ecotopographical or
landform-vegetation complexes whose main characteristic is the interrelationship between the various
environmental elements of which they are composed. (In analyses in subsequent parts of this work,
measurements relate to machair as landform, with presence of blown-sand being taken as the criterion for
definition). The closeness of the relationship is greatest in the dune zone, which is the youngest component and
the one in which plant life faces the greatest hazards of dryness and nutrient deficiency, and decreases towards
the machair, where the more mature environment has been moderated by successive generations of plants.
Figure 2.3.1
Schematic model of habitats on the landwards par t of a beach complex
17
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
While the active dune zone is easy to recognise by its ridge or mound-like topography and its tall-grass
vegetation, it is more difficult to define areas of old dune ridges in objective, comprehensive terms. Machair,
dune pasture and links are even more difficult to define and are almost impossible to distinguish on any basis
other than geographical occurrence – with the word machair being used in Gaelic-speaking areas and links
elsewhere (Ritchie, 1976).
Although the beach complex in its complete form contains both dunes and machair, many beach units in the
area of study lack one or other zone, and indeed some lack both zones. Approximately 7% of the beaches
have no blown-sand, and therefore dune and machair vegetation are by definition lacking. A further 8% of
the beach complexes have some blown-sand, but lack true dune or machair vegetation. Almost 22% of the
beach units lack dunes, but have machair vegetation extending over their landward parts. These dune-less
beach complexes usually also lack backshore vegetation and are widely distributed in the Hebrides and in
the Northern Isles, and also occur on the north-west coast of the mainland with a few isolated occurrences
on the east coast and in Argyll. Dunes and machair therefore occur together in just over 60% of the beach
units in the Highlands and Islands, so that the model diagrams illustrated in figures 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 cannot
be regarded as typical of all beaches in the area of study.
Although species such as Sand Couch Grass (Agropyron junceiforme) and Sea Lyme Grass (EIymus arenarius)
frequently but by no means always fulfil the pioneer role in colonising the top of backshore and accumulating
sand into small embryo dunes, the most abundant and widespread dune species is Marram Grass
(Ammophila arenaria), which occurs in large quantities in 50% of the beaches. Marram is by far the most
important dune-building grass. Its ability to extend rhizomes both vertically and horizontally means that it is
well equipped to survive burial by blown-sand, and in turn the stems of the plant hasten the deposition of
wind blown-sand by locally checking wind velocities. Likewise, the combined screening and binding effect
of the stems and complex rooting systems ensure that the deposited sand is not readily remobilised.
The plant varies enormously in vigour and life-form both between and within individual dune systems. Dunes
which are strongly exposed to salt spray usually have poor growth of Marram. It is also affected by burning,
cutting, sometimes even by immersion in sea-water, and is sensitive to grazing and trampling, especially by
cattle. In its natural state, its vigour is directly related to the rate and quantity of the influx of fresh sand from
the beach and backshore. Where the supply is copious, the growth of Marram is usually vigorous, and the
species is usually overwhelmingly dominant. As the supply of sand declines, Marram grows less vigorously,
and is joined by other grasses, flowering plants and mosses which effectively seal the bare sand surfaces
between the Marram tussocks. These species, typical of the ‘grey’ dune, in contrast to the actively growing
‘yellow’ dune, are able to colonise the bare sand surfaces only after they have been partially stabilised
by the Marram, and after the limiting factors of moisture and nutrients have been partially ameliorated by
the presence of the tall grasses. When such cover is achieved, the risk of wind erosion is reduced, and the
environment becomes slightly less unstable as well as slightly less extreme in its moisture and nutrient
conditions. Comparatively few beach units in the Highlands and Islands contain actively growing yellow
dunes. Indeed in some areas such as Shetland, actively growing dunes are almost completely absent, and
almost all the dunes are of the grey form, indicative of a lack of a copious sand supply.
The species composition of dunes varies from place to place, although Marram is usually completely
dominant. The beaches around Loch Inchard (for example Oldshoremore) are especially rich floristically, for
reasons which are as yet not fully understood. An important dune grass with a distinctive geographical
distribution is Sea Lyme Grass (Elymus arenarius). It occurs in significant quantities in approximately 13% of
the beaches, and although it does occasionally appear on the west coast, it is most common on the east
coast and in Orkney and Shetland. The three latter areas account for over 85% of its recorded distribution.
In these areas it is usually associated with low dunes, and sometimes with localised coastal edge accretion.
18
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
It is known that the species is unable to cope with rapid sand accretion and is unable to form the high dunes
which Marram can produce. It is not known, however, why it is largely confined to the north and east, nor
why it should be usually absent from many of the low dunes in the west.
Although there usually is, in general terms, an increase in species diversity landwards across the dune zone,
this increase is neither steady nor continuous. Sometimes the boundary between the yellow and grey dunes
is very sharp, and frequently small patches of vigorous Marram growth, typical of yellow dunes, occur on
the redeposition mounds of blow-outs which have cut far into the grey dune zone. Another factor which
complicates the simple landward gradient of dune-species diversity is the occurrence of dune slacks, or
flat-bottomed depressions Iying between dune ridges. The micro-environment in these slacks is very different
from that on the dune ridges. Moisture deficiency, in particular, is much less prevalent, and indeed the slacks
often carry standing water in winter. Nutrients leached from neighbouring dunes tend to migrate into the
inter-dune depressions, and the net effect is to produce a micro-environment which is moister, less nutrient
deficient and more sheltered than that of the dune. In this less exacting environment a wider range of species
is able to survive, and dune slacks typically have a short turf-forming vegetation carpet in contrast to the tall
Marram-dominated communities of the neighbouring dunes.
Where present, the dune zone may terminate on its landward side either in a relatively sharp backslope
concavity, or in a chaotic assemblage of formless hummocks. As the backslope decreases, the dune
vegetation gives way to the grassy sward of the machair or links, and the transition is marked by a reduction
or disappearance of Marram and other characteristic dune species such as Sand Sedge (Carex arenaria)
and Sand Couch (Agropyron junceiforme). Detailed species lists and discussions on machair vegetation
are given by MacLeod (1949), Gimingham, Gemmell and Greig-Smith (1949), Vose, Powell and Spence
(1957), Gillham (1957), Dickinson et al. (1971) and Randall (1972). Most of the work has been done on
Hebridean machairs.
Brief descriptions of machair vegetation in beaches in north Sutherland and Orkney are also given in the
relevant regional beach report (see Bibliography). Little work has as yet been published on east coast beach
complexes, although considerable survey work is currently underway in the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
The essential nature of machair vegetation has been the subject of considerable debate, but is concisely
reviewed by Gimingham (1974):
‘The species which show highest constancy represent a rather restricted selection from
the flora of calcareous grassland: eg Festuca rubra, Trifolium repens, Lotus corniculatus,
Achillea millefolium, Galium verum, Plantago lanceolata, Euphrasia spp., Bellis perennis,
Rhytidiadelphus squarrosus. In addition, Trifolium medium appears to be rather
characteristic.
This is not a very distinctive list; and the point has also been made that the more strongly
calcicolous species are not particularly well represented in machair.
However, machair is better distinguished by reference to the less constant species, which fall
into several groups:
(a) Species associated with a high water table or wet soil eg Carex flacca, Salix repens.
(b) Orchids.
(c)
Annuals and species of open situations.
(d) A small number of arctic-alpines.
19
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Hence machair habitats give rise to a type of calcareous grassland but are also quite
variable in regard to other edaphic factors. They show floristic links with dune communities,
but not a close conformity; and floristic links with calcareous grassland but not a close
conformity; and the differences are revealing.’
In considering possible differences between machair and other dune pasture areas, it is clear that lime content
(see chapter 2.8) is one important variable influencing the vegetation composition in the landward part of the
blown-sand area. Where the sand is silicious, as for example on Coul Links in East Sutherland or Gortenfern
in North Argyll, typical machair grassland is replaced by heathland in which Calluna vulgaris plays a major
role. It is true, therefore, that typical machair grassland is associated with a shell-sand substrate, but the shell
content must fall to negligible levels before the grassland gives way to heathland. Several other factors, such
as the stability of the landforms, age (and hence length and intensity of leaching), drainage and land-use
factors are also important influences on vegetational type. Indeed grazing is an almost ubiquitous influence,
and probably helps to maintain the distinctive assemblage of plants that constitute the machair sward. Since
no area has been entirely free over a long period of time from grazing by rabbits, sheep or other domestic
animals, the full successional relationships of machair vegetation are not known. It is clear, however, that at
present machair is almost invariably in the form of grassland, and the scrub typical of many beach complexes
in other parts of Europe is almost completely lacking. Where scrub does occur, it is usually confined to small
patches in sheltered dune slacks or in moist depressions in links or dune pastures. The relative roles of grazing,
severe exposure and lime-rich substrates in precluding the development of scrub is as yet unknown.
Although the minor blow-outs and redeposition mounds which occur on most machairs present environments
which are almost as exacting to vegetation as those in the dune zone, in general terms the machair
environment is less harsh. Its subdued relief means that the roots of machair vegetation, unlike that of dunes,
can frequently reach the water table, so that the problem of moisture supply is less severe. Futhermore, the
increase in organic matter from the decay of vegetation means that the water-holding capacity of the sandy
soil is improved. Lime content also decreases landwards across the machair, as figures 2.3.2a and b
illustrate in relation to the examples of a lime-rich Hebridean beach complex and a lime-poor unit on the
east coast of Sutherland. The modification wrought on the blown-sand surface by successive generations of
plants means that it becomes less susceptible to wind blow, more tolerant of trampling pressures, and, at
least until the complete leaching of lime results in acidity, more useful for agricultural purposes.
A further vegetation type is relatively widespread in the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands.
This type, described as sandy saltmarsh in the regional beach reports, is characterised by a sandy substrate
with an organically rich soil layer beneath the grassy salting sward, whose level surface is frequently broken
by creeks and pans. Usually the saltmarsh lies behind some enclosing or protecting feature such as a spit,
or in some other low-energy environment. The feature, which is found in about 12% of the beach complexes,
shows no marked distributional pattern, and occurs in all parts of the coastline although it is rare in Shetland.
Many area of sandy saltmarsh are small, but others such as those in Northton (Harris) and at Lochs
Caolisport and Stornoway in Argyll are extensive. Some appear to be mere fragments of their former extent,
and have probably been reduced in size by marine erosion along their seawards edge, which is frequently
in the form of an abrupt step a few centimetres in height.
The blown-sand area only rarely has a sharp landwards boundary; more frequently the sand thins out
gradually, and, in the marginal zone, may occur as patches. Around many beach complexes (especially in
the north part of the region) these marginal zones at the edges of hilly machairs contain interesting plant
communities and rare species, and represent the focus of ecological interest at beaches such as Torrisdale
Bay, Kyle of Durness and Sandwood Bay. On lower and flatter machairs and transitional zones, the direct
impact of man is greater; large areas of thin machair, especially in Orkney, have undergone cultivation, and
20
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 2.3.2a Transect diagram, Dremisdale machair, South Uist – soil relationships
Lines of circles is physiographic margin of the machair landform
Figure 2.3.2b Transect diagram, Coul Links – soil relationships
21
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
elsewhere improved grasses have been sown, so that the soil-vegetation complex of typical semi-natural
machair is by no means always found where there is calcareous blown-sand. Indeed the effects of cultivation
may well extend into the dune zone and even to the coastal edge and backshore. Weeds of cultivation play
significant roles in the vegetation immediately around many Orkney beaches, and detract to some extent
from the distinctive appearance of the beach-complex vegetation. The impairment of the attractiveness of the
beach is especially marked when the weeds are associated with the tipping of stones cleared from fields,
or of material excavated in the preparation of foundations for buildings.
Vegetation is at the same time a sensitive indicator of the total environment of the beach complex (including
grazing and trampling), and the key to the maintenance of stability. The establishment, retention and
management of vegetation is therefore one of the cornerstones of conservation of the beach environment.
In the assessment of the value of an area for nature conservation, one of the most important factors is diversity
of species and community, which is usually closely related to diversity of habitat (Ratcliffe 1971), or the local
environment where plants and animals live. There is also some evidence that diversity of habitat is related
to the attractiveness of a beach complex; it has been found in at least one part of the region that the beach
units perceived as the most attractive almost invariably have a high measure of habitat diversity (see Beaches
of West Inverness-shire and North Argyll pp. 193–4). One of the study reports in the Coastal Preservation
and Development programme of the Countryside Commission (England and Wales) (Special Study Report
Volume 2 – Nature Conservation at the Coast) produced a method for summarising the diversity of habitats
in coastal areas by listing 13 basic habitats, whose presence or absence could be recorded for each
locality. The total number of habitats recorded for each locality is an expression of the local habitat diversity.
This listing of thirteen habitats was used during the study of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands, but
had to be extended considerably to take account of local conditions. The full list of habitats is as follows:
Permanently flooded
Intermittently flooded
Terrestrial
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Creeks and drainage channels.
Lagoons.
Foreshore mud.
Foreshore sand.
Foreshore shingle.
Foreshore rock.
Saltmarsh and brackish marsh.
Shingle beach lows.
Sand-dune slacks.
Earth cliff and embankment.
Sand dune and sandy beach.
Shingle beach.
Rock cliff and sea wall.
(These are the 13 original habitats of Nature Conservation at the Coast. The following were added.)
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Coniferous plantation.
Deciduous woodland and scrub.
Cultivated land.
Dry heather moor.
Wet moor.
Grass heath (not on blown-sand).
Machair.
Freshwater marsh or swamp.
22
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
This list is to some extent arbitrary, and several of the habitats tend to overlap or to merge into each other.
The results produced in employing it must be viewed with great caution, as an element of subjectivity is
inevitably involved in deciding which of the habitats are present, especially in the marginal or transitional
zone around the beach complex where diversity and ecological interest are frequently high. Furthermore, the
ecological interest or value for conservation is not the same for each habitat, so that a simple summation of
the habitats represented at each beach complex is at the best only a partial indicator of the ecological
importance. Nevertheless, the habitat diversity score is a simple method of demonstrating ecological variety,
and relatively pronounced regional patterns emerge, as table 2.3.1 illustrates.
The average habitat diversity score is greatest on the mainland, and falls markedly in the Northern Isles and
the Outer Hebrides. Orkney has a low average score, reflecting the ecological simplification that has
occurred in many areas where agricultural improvements have been extended close to the shore (and in
several areas a distinctive dune zone is absent). In Shetland, the scores are also low compared with the
mainland and Inner Hebrides, and this may be at least partly due to the relative absence of improved
agricultural land.
The decrease in habitat diversity towards the periphery of the region is marked, and underlines the fact that,
in general terms, the mainland beaches have a greater variety of ecological habitats and hence landscape
components than the island beaches. This decrease in habitat diversity towards the periphery appears to be
paralleled, again in general terms, by a decrease in numbers of plant and animal species ( Johnson and
Simberloff,1974).
Table 2.3.2 illustrates the distribution of habitat diversity scores by the size classes of beach units.
There is no clear evidence that the larger beach complexes have greater habitat diversities (at least by the
indicator employed in this analysis); the distribution of habitat scores is similar for all size classes. It is
important to appreciate that for a beach complex which is less than 10ha in size to have more than 7 or
even 10 habitats means that some habitats must be very small and therefore vulnerable, particularly if they
are on the margins of the beach complex area.
Table 2.3.1
Average scores for habitat diversity
Average scores for
habitat diversity
Table 2.3.2
All beach
units
Mainland
Inner
Hebrides
Outer
Hebrides
Orkney
Shetland
8.84
9.68
9.43
8.10
7.49
7.60
Distribution of habitat diversity score by size class of beach unit
size class (area in hectares of backshore, dunes and machair)
Habitat diversity score
under
over
0–10
11–50
51–200
Over 200
All beaches
9.0
3.4
2.1
0.2
14.7
7–9
27.9
14.1
8.2
3.6
53.8
10–12
15.7
6.2
1.9
0.9
24.7
3.6
1.5
1.3
0.2
6.6
6
13
Figures are percentages of all (466) beaches
23
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 4
Balta Island, Unst, Shetland
A T-type beach complex, comprising beach and machair with no intervening dune zone.
Plate 5
Brora (Dalchalm) beach, East Sutherland
Another example of a T-type beach complex. The links are used as a golf course.
24
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 6
Burga Sand, Unst, Shetland
A B-type beach complex set in an exposed coastline. There are no dunes or machair.
Plate 7
Sorisdale, Coll
A small B-type beach at the nor th end of Coll.
25
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 8
Hynish, Tiree
An example of a series of minor intersecting bays with areas of broken machair
topography. There are no dunes. The area is par tly croft land and par tly common
grazing.
Plate 9
Camasunar y, Skye
An example of a remote bayhead beach in a superb mountain setting.
26
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.4.1
Mean area
(ha)
% ratio
Plate 10
Percentage distribution of the components of the total beach complex
Total
Total beach
blown-sand
complex
Total beach
Dunes
Machair
Transition
Erosion
23.13
5.30
31.04
13.57
1.29
51.20
74.33
31
7
42
18
2
69
100
Corpach, Jura
This is a bleak, clif f-foot marginal strip on the nor th-west coast of Jura. Severe
stripping of the machair has revealed a base of raised shingle beaches. The machair
is grazed by deer. Few tourists visit the beach.
Plate 11 Dunnet Bay, Caithness
In winter, storm waves may reach the base of
the coastal dune ridge, causing undercutting
and clif fing of the dune. This is a mechanism
of both coastal retreat, and subsequently of
blow-out initiation.
Plate 12 Balephetrish, Tiree
A typical undercut machair coastal edge on
the nor th coast of Tiree. This section shows
the beds of raised beach shingle upon which
the machair has developed. Note the blocks
of machair which have slumped down the face.
27
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
2.4
Classification of beach complexes
In the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the range in type and scale of beach systems is immense. There
are small pocket beaches with areas less than 2ha and huge systems extending to more than 2,000ha.
Such beach systems occur in situations which range from full exposure to Atlantic waves and swell in the
Outer Hebrides to tranquil sea loch heads in the Firth of Clyde. There are systems which have hundreds of
hectares of beach area but a mere vestige of dunes or machair, and systems which have small beaches but
which have blown-sand surfaces extending up to 5km inland. The list of physical attributes is bewildering
and no single model can hope to encompass the range of types, scales, features and settings that are known
to exist. Nevertheless, certain broad types can be recognised and these have been used as a preliminary
stage of a classification that is morphological in origin. There are three main types:
type F – the full system – it has an intertidal beach, a backshore area above high water mark, dunes,
machair and transition zones (plates 2, 3 and 13).
type B – the beach-dominant system – it has a large area of intertidal sand but has little or no blown-sand
(plates 4 and 5).
type T – the truncated or distorted system – dunes are absent or of negligible extent (plates 6 and 7).
If such a method of classification is to have any value it must ideally be simple and uncompromising.
In reality, clear-cut classification is almost impossible since the most basic assumptions and criteria which
appear justifiable to the desk-bound investigator frequently encounter severe difficulties in the field. Where
does a beach end? What is a sandy beach? What is the distinction between a dune and a machair ridge
at the coast? Equally, what are the thresholds? What is meant by negligible areas of blown-sand?
Before proceeding to define the three types, F, T and B described previously, it is of some interest to begin
with gross totals from which one may derive various average or model compositions. At this stage,
measurements of areas are used to construct quantitative pictures of beach complexes. Ideally measurements
of volumes of sand would be used but these are almost impossible to determine. For every beach, the
intertidal area and the area above high water mark but below the average line of the coastal edge were
measured. When these areas are added together, the Total Beach Area is obtained.
The Dune Area is measured with the term ‘dune’ being defined as a blown-sand ridge or mound clothed
in tall grasses. The Machair Area is a convenience term for areas which may also be referred to as links
or dune pasture – a level, hillocky, hilly or undulating area of blown-sand supporting a grassy sward,
or occasionally heath. These are the areas where the tall dune grasses have been largely eliminated.
The Transition Area is the zone where blown-sand spreads out thinly and sometimes patchily onto adjacent
surfaces. It may not be recognisable as a ’landform.’ Often it is little more than a veneer and it is equally
frequently expressed best in the nature of the soil. The transition area is often most easily determined from
aerial photographs; field determination is normally difficult, especially where the machair spreads evenly
onto improved land or some similar landform such as a raised beach or river terrace. The Erosion Area is
measured separately and consists of those parts of the dune, machair and transition areas where there is
bare unvegetated sand. It includes an area resulting from the retreat of the dune or machair front from a
smooth continuously curved coastal edge. This is best explained by a sketch: the area measured as ‘eroded’
is marked by an asterisk. By adding the Eroded Area, the Dune Area, the Machair Area and the Transition
Area one obtains the Total Blown-sand Area. Adding Total Blown-sand Area to Total Beach Area gives
Total Beach Complex Area. These measurements form the basis of the subsequent analysis.
28
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Computer analysis of the field data as compiled in the
original regional beach reports gives the following
average areas in hectares. These may then be expressed
as percentages of Total Beach Complex.
From table 2.4.1, it can be seen that the average size
of a beach complex in the Highlands and Islands is
approximately 75ha. The beach itself, on average, extends
to 23ha, and accounts for almost one third of the total
area of the beach complex, while the machair is, again
on average, the largest component, accounting to over
two-fifths of the total area, and extending to over 30ha.
These average figures, however, conceal marked variations, both between different parts of the region, and
more especially, between different types of beach complex.
Of the 466 beach units examined, 38 have no blown-sand, and consist of beaches only. When beach area
is plotted against blown-sand area, a smooth curve is obtained which steepens at the point where the area
of the beach is four times that of the blown-sand. Although somewhat arbitrary, this ratio is taken as the class
boundary, and beach complexes in which the beach area is more than four times the blown-sand area are
defined as B-type or beach dominant units. Beach complexes where the beach area is more than four times
the blown-sand area are 42 in number. A total of 80 beach units, therefore, amounting to 17% of all the
beaches in the region can be regarded as B-type or beach-dominant complexes in which blown-sand is
completely lacking or of negligible extent. These beaches are listed in Appendix III, as are the beach units
falling in other classes.
Type T beach units are defined as those in which the dune (but not the machair) component is either
completely absent or is of negligible extent. Of the 428 beaches which have some blown-sand, no less
than 136, or 29%, are completely lacking in dunes. This high proportion of duneless beach units is surprising
in the light of the generally accepted models of vegetation development, most of which contend that the
dune is the vital stage where bare sand, derived from the beach, is fixed and prepared for eventual
colonisation by the more demanding species of the links or machair. The absence of an intermediate dune
zone between beach and machair can be explained in three ways. It may never have existed, and the
machair sward has formed by the direct and gradual expansion of machair species onto the backshore,
without the intervention of a tall-grass sand ridge. This mode of machair formation (or rather of machair
extension) is seen at a few places such as Brora in East Sutherland (plate 5) and Burrafirth in Unst but
is generally rare. Alternatively, a dune zone may once have existed but may have subsequently been
completely eroded away. The fact that the seawards edge of the machair plain (in beach complexes in
which dunes are lacking) is usually an erosional feature is in accordance with this explanation although it
does not prove it to be correct. A third possibility is that the dune is so old, mature and subdued that it has
completely lost its characteristic ridge or mound form and tall-grass vegetation.
The other variant of the T-type beach complex is where dunes do occur, but only in an area which is very
small in proportion to the blown-sand area. On plotting dune areas against blown-sand areas, a break in
the distribution is seen to occur where the dune area is less than 4% of the total blown-sand area. Using this
threshold, which is, again, admittedly somewhat arbitrary, 56 beach units (13% of those with some blownsand) were found to have negligible proportions of dunes, in relation to their blown-sand area. These T2 beach
29
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
units may be regarded as beach complexes where there is only a narrow fringe or edge of continuing
accumulation at the seawards margin of the blown-sand. On the other hand, some members of this class
have dunes which although negligible in extent in relation to the entire blown-sand area, are nevertheless
considerable in absolute terms. Dunnet Bay is an example of such a beach unit, which may be regarded as
imbalanced, in that the dune zone is disproportionately small (in the regional context) compared with the
links and transitional zone. It should be borne in mind, however, that caution is required in using and
interpreting a classification based on ratios and relative extents. A full analysis of the beach resource must
also take cognisance of absolute areas, and special local factors.
The third category, in addition to the B- and T-types, is the F-type, or full beach system, containing beach,
dunes and machair. Of the 466 beach units in the region 194 or 42% fall into this category. It is therefore
important to emphasise once again that the beach-complex models depicted in figures 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 are
not representative of all the beaches in the Highlands and Islands. In section 2.1, the physical linkages
between beach, dune and machair were discussed, and it was emphasised that functional relationships
existed between the component parts of the beach complexes. It becomes clear in the light of the beach
classification, however, that these relationships do not exist in all beach complexes, and that where they do
exist, they vary in intensity and in degree of development. In the B-type beaches, for example, blown-sand
has been unable to accumulate to form dunes or machair, while in the T-type units the dune zone, while it
may have existed in the past, no longer intervenes between the beach and the machair. Therefore both the
physical composition, in a static sense, and the physical processes, in a dynamic sense, vary from beach
unit to beach unit. This is a fact of fundamental importance not only in influencing the usefulness of the beach
resource, but also in influencing the response of the beach resource to various forms of utilisation.
In the Highlands and Islands as a whole,17% of the beach unit are members of the B class, 41% fall in the
T class, and the remaining 42% are F-type beaches. The proportions of beaches in the three classes,
however, vary considerably from area to area within the area of study, as table 2.4.2 illustrates.
Some areas, such as the north and west coasts of the mainland, and the Inner Hebrides, have distributions
very similar to that for the study area as a whole. Elsewhere, marked variations emerge. The Outer Hebrides
have a high percentage of F-type beach units, as has the east coast of the mainland.
In both cases, the frequency of B-type beaches is correspondingly low. Within smaller areas, such as the
Uists and Barra, the deviation from the regional distribution is even greater – within the Uists and Barra, for
example, there are no B-type beaches, and nearly three-quarters of the units fall in the F class. Conversely,
the Clyde islands, Orkney and Shetland have relatively few F-type units, highlighting the relative scarcity of
dunes in these islands, and have high percentages of B class beaches. Orkney and Shetland both have
above-average frequencies of T-type beaches, or truncated units with beach and machair, but without dunes.
Therefore the composition of the beach resource varies considerably within the region, and as the
composition varies, so also do the physical relationships within the complexes, and the likely physical
responses to the utilisation of the resource.
Another way in which a beach complex may be classified is on the basis of its physical setting. By far the
most common setting is in a bayhead, where the beach adopts an arcuate form supported by headlands or
promontories at both ends. Lochhead beaches have similar settings, but lie at the heads of narrower inlets,
30
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Distribution of beach types by area
Table 2.4.2
Area
B-type
T-type
F-type
Total no. of units
Highlands and Islands
17
41
42
466
Mainland
North coast
13
39
48
23
East coast
10
23
67
21
West coast*
18
41
41
74
Clyde coast
24
38
38
8
4
38
59
98
Inner Hebrides
14
44
41
102
Clyde Islands
60
13
27
15
Orkney
26
46
27
84
Shetland
24
54
22
41
Outer Hebrides
Figures are percentages except in ‘total’ column
* including Handa
and are hence exposed to narrower sectors of open sea. Open-coast and marginal-strip beaches are
basically similar in character, occurring on straight or very gently curving stretches of the coastline, and
lacking the markedly arcuate plan of the bay-head beach. Some beaches occur in the form of small pockets
of sand along low rocky coasts; the machairs and sometimes even the dunes of these beach complexes
coalesce continuously, and the type is defined as that of intersecting minor bays. Other beaches occur
in the form of spits, isthmuses or forelands (marine-built plains with triangular or quadrilateral shapes).
The distribution of beaches by type of physiographical setting is illustrated in table 2.4.3, together with
examples of each type.
The first four categories in table 2.4.3 therefore account for over 80% of all the beaches in the area of study,
with the bayhead category alone containing nearly half the units. Other settings, and particularly loch-head
and spits, are rare.
Table 2.4.4 reveals that in the bayhead and intersecting minor bays settings the distribution of beach type
is similar to that for all the beach units in the area of study, but the other settings show marked deviations
from the regional norm. The F-type is strongly represented in the open-coast setting, and also in the spit,
foreland and peninsular categories. The factor common to these settings is strong exposure; in front of the
beaches usually lies a wide sector of open sea. Conversely, the loch-head setting is sheltered, and dunes
rarely form. A high percentage of loch-head beach units consist of beaches only, with no blown-sand
accumulations in the form of either dunes or machair.
While the variable of setting tabulated in tables 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 relates to the total physiographical setting,
including both marine and terrestrial components, it is possible also to consider the terrestrial setting of the
landward part of the beach complex. Each beach unit was classified by terrestrial setting by attempting to
envisage the relief of the area presently occupied by dunes or machair without its cover of blown-sand.
Analysis of this information showed that the general embayment is the most common situation for beach
complexes to develop. The general embayment is usually a structural feature corresponding to a zone of
31
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
weaker rock, or a half-basin shape which has been produced by some ancient process of landform
development. Many embayments have been modified by glacial action, but most of them probably existed
in some form prior to glaciation. Thus like many landform elements in the Scottish landscape, the surface
may be a product of geologically recent or contemporary processes, but the general configurations are
ancient and often structurally controlled physiographical settings.
Table 2.4.3
Frequency distribution of beach settings
Percentages of
all beaches in
region
Examples
Bayhead
48
Melvich, Camasunary (plate 9)
Intersecting minor bays
13
North lona, Hynish (plate 8)
Open coast
12
Any west coast beach in South Uist, Traigh Mhor Tolsta
(plate 13)
Marginal strip
9
Balintore, Seana Chamas, Corpach ( Jura) (plate 10)
Island grouping/other
5
Monach Is, Papa Stronsay
Isthmus or peninsula
4
Sumburgh, Siar Bay (Vatersay) (plate 15)
Foreland
4
Morrich More, Rosemarkie
Loch-head
3
Loch Stornoway, Loch Breachacha (Coll)
Spit
2
Melbost, Tong
The distribution of beach types in general embayments is not unlike that for all the beaches in the area of
study, except that the F-type is relatively poorly represented, and the B-type slightly over-represented. On the
next most frequent foundation, that of the ‘sloping rock surface,’ the F-type is over-represented and the B-type
markedly under-represented. The sloping rock ramp, it appears, offers suitable conditions for the easy
movement of blown-sand landwards from the beach. To some extent, this is true also of the beach units
formed on rock platforms; here few units consist of beaches only. This type of basement is particularly
common in the Hebrides, where the rock platform is often a continuation of an extensive offshore platform
which extends many kilometres westwards to the edge of the continental shelf. Other more localised rock
platforms occur in the Inner Hebrides and in areas such as the Arisaig-Morar coast. They are sometimes
associated with former cliff-lines which mark the landwards boundary of blown-sand.
Sloping rock surfaces and rock platforms together constitute the foundations of 35% of the beach units in
the region, and it is noticeable that they share similar characteristics in terms of distribution of beach types.
No other basements occur in more than 10% of the beach units. Glacial and fluvial-glacial deposits are
varied in their morphology and in the types of beach complexes which they support, while the foundations
of spits, bars and isthmuses are equally diverse. Much more distinctive is the cliff-foot setting, which is
associated with some spectacular beach units. In this setting, with its characteristically steep backslope,
F-type beaches with full development of dunes and machair occur relatively infrequently; where there is a
formidable barrier to the landwards movement of blown-sand, the development of dunes and machair is
inhibited, and when sand-blow does occur, the usual forms of free-standing dunes and machair plains are
unable to develop. Finally, the valley-infill type is a variant of the general embayment, in which a beach unit
has been constructed, usually in arcuate form, across the mouth of a valley. The closure is largely effected by
the accumulation of blown-sand, and few of the beaches occupying this physical setting are of the B-type.
32
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
2.5
Sizes of beach complexes
Although as discussed in section 2.4, distinctions may be made on the basis of type, it is equally important
to describe the considerable range in the size of beach complexes.
Considering total beach complex areas ie beach plus blown-sand area, the total area in the Highlands
and Islands is 34,700ha (347 sq km or 135 sq miles) and the average area per unit is 74ha. There are,
however, 142 (or 30.5% of the total population of 466) beach complexes with a total size of less than
10ha, a further 85 units of less than 20ha and 68.7% of all beaches (320 cases) are less than 50ha.
Almost three quarters of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands are less than the average size.
Further statistics are that 98.1% of all complexes are less than 500ha, and 99.4% are less than 1000ha.
There are only three very large systems, Morrich More (2635ha), Eochar/Dremisdale (1175ha) and
Bridgend (Loch Indaal) (1065ha). These are followed in size by Dunnet Bay, Sollas, Laggan, West Berneray
(Harris), Baleshare and Newton. Some indication of the size dominance of the larger systems can be
gauged by the fact that the total areas of the smallest 350 beach complexes roughly equals the combined
total of the three largest. Indeed the Morrich More alone contains about 7% of all the total beach and blownsand area in the Highlands and Islands, although it is true that much of the area of the Morrich More is
classed as transitional, where sand is thin or discontinuous.
Table 2.4.4
Distribution of type of beach complex by setting
B-type
T-type
F-type
No. of
beach units
All beaches
17
41
42
466
Bayhead
18
46
35
223
Intersecting minor bays
16
48
36
61
6
33
61
54
27
41
32
44
9
36
55
22
Isthmus or peninsula
15
25
60
20
Foreland
16
16
68
19
Loch-head
38
44
19
16
0
14
86
7
Open coast
Marginal strip
Island grouping/other
Spit
Figures are percentages except in right hand column
33
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 13
Traigh Mhor, Tolsta, Lewis
A 2.5km long beach on the nor th-east coast of Lewis. The beach complex, which
is of the F-type, comprising beach, dune and machair, has built up in front of a
steep slope, upon which thin machair has accumulated.
Plate 14
St. Ninian’s, Shetland
A sand isthmus or tombolo linking St. Ninian’s Isle with the Shetland Mainland.
The isthmus is of outstanding scientific interest as it is a classic example of its
type.
Plate 15
Vatersay Bay (Island of Vatersay, Outer Hebrides)
A sand isthmus linking the two par ts of Vatersay. Unlike the St. Ninian’s isthmus,
it is capped with dunes and machair.
34
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Despite the Morrich More, and Laggan and Bridgend in Islay, the Outer Hebrides and, in particular, the
Uists, have the lion’s share of coastal sand deposits. This is most clearly demonstrated if the size relationships
are expressed with reference to blown-sand areas. The Uists appear to have approximately one-quarter of
all the blown-sand in the Highlands and Islands, and the Outer Hebrides, as a whole, have almost two fifths
(38% or 9160ha).
Figure 2.5.1
Total beach complex – number of beaches in 10ha size categories
The histogram for blown-sand areas by 50ha classes is shown in figure 2.5.2: 362 cases (77%) have
less than 50ha and 393 (84%) cases have less than 100ha. Morrich More (1625ha), Eochar/Dremisdale
(975ha), Dunnet Bay (875ha) and Sollas (625ha) again form the largest group. Blown-sand areas are less
than 500ha in 99.1% of all cases.
A further breakdown of those areas having less than 150ha of blown-sand area is also given in figure 2.5.2.
Thus shown, 218 beach complex areas are less than 10ha, 65 less than 20ha, 27 less than 30ha, 26 less
than 40ha and 26 less than 50ha with the remaining 61 in the range of 50–150ha.
35
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The most significant conclusion of this analysis is the overwhelming dominance of small areas in forming
the beach-resource stock in the Highlands and Islands. With the notable exceptions of Morrich More,
Dunnet Bay and Machrihanish Bay, the large units are almost invariably in the islands, and especially in
the Hebrides.
The average area of intertidal beach per unit in the Highlands and Islands is 23ha, but sizes range from
under 1ha to almost 1000ha. Again, there is marked variation in the distribution, both statistically and
geographically, as table 2.5.1 illustrates.
Figure 2.5.2
Blown-sand areas – number of beaches in 50ha groups (inset shows breakdown
of areas less than 100ha by 10ha groups)
36
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.5.1
Sizes of beaches by par t of coast
Mean
Median
Standard
deviation
No. of cases
West
12.1
6.2
20.6
73
North
26.0
10.9
35.6
23
East
93.2
11.5
230.9
21
15.1
7.3
19.3
23
6.8
4.5
6.2
15
28.3
7.4
103.8
88
36.4
12.4
61.1
98
Orkney
9.0
4.3
11.5
84
Shetland
2.4
1.4
3.1
41
Coast
Mainland
Clyde (within study area)
Inner Hebrides
Highland
Strathclyde
Outer Hebrides
Beach areas (beach only) in hectares
Table 2.5.2
Mean and median beach lengths/widths by par t of coast
Length (m)
Mean
Mainland
Width (m)
Median
Mean
Median
West
701
400
181
130
North
896
560
252
221
2448
2013
224
103
Clyde (within study area)
865
714
161
119
Inner Hebrides
Highland
381
344
152
147
Strathclyde
972
501
179
141
1481
866
191
173
Orkney
712
508
129
98
Shetland
356
266
60
42
East
Outer Hebrides
If the effect of a few very large units is minimised by using the median instead of the mean as the ‘average’
or measure of central tendency, the Outer Hebrides emerge as the area with the largest beaches, closely
followed by the east coast of the mainland. The Northern Isles have the smallest beaches (as distinct from
beach complexes), but those of Shetland are very much smaller than those of Orkney. This is probably at
least partly due to the low tidal range, and hence frequently narrow width of beach in the Shetland group.
As table 2.5.2 illustrates, the median width is only 42m in Shetland and 98m in Orkney, compared with
widths of over 100m in all other parts of the region.
Similarly, beach lengths are greatest on the east coast of the mainland. That this is not simply a result of
distortion by the huge beach unit of the Morrich More is confirmed by the fact that mean as well as median
figures for beach length are greatest for beaches on that part of the coastline. Shetland beaches, in general,
are the shortest in the study area as well as the narrowest, but the beaches in the northern part of the Inner
Hebrides (defined as those islands Iying within Highland Region) are also comparatively short.
37
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
2.6
The regional distribution of the resource
One of the main characteristics of the beach resource in the Highlands and Islands is the irregularity of its
distribution. Some parts of the coastline are almost completely lacking in beaches, while other parts are in
the form of almost continuous sand. Of the 466 beaches (as defined in chapter 1) in the region, 125 are
in the mainland, 103 are in the Inner Hebrides, 98 are in the Outer Hebrides, 84 in Orkney and 41 in
Shetland and 15 in the Clyde islands. The ratio of island to mainland beaches is therefore approximately
three to one.
Table 2.6.1
Distribution of the beach resource by administrative region
Percentage
Total beach
of all
Transitional
complex
beaches in
area
area
Highlands
(ha)
(ha)
and Islands
Beach
length
(km)
Dune
area
(ha)
Machair
area
(ha)
101.4
516.3
2468.2
1924.8
8151.8
23
122.2
951.3
4304.0
1111.4
9664.1
27
9.5
13.5
14.0
12.2
127.6
2
145.1
890.3
6010.2
1157.9
11906.2
21
Orkney
59.7
184.8
1489.0
1920.6
4373.8
18
Shetland
14.6
21.1
180.4
197.9
509.4
9
Mainland
128
716
2908
1932
9183
26
Islands
325
1860
11557
4393
17549
74
Total
454
2576
14465
6325
26732
100
Highland
Strathclyde
Argyll and
Bute District
Other
Western Isles
Clear disparities also occur when the distribution is considered in relation to administrative regions, within
which most planning decisions are likely to be made. This distribution is illustrated in table 2.6.1.
The table highlights the rarity of the beach resource, both within the Highlands and Islands as a whole and,
more especially, within parts of the area. Sandy beaches account for less than 5% of the coastline of the
Highland mainland but only for 1% of the Shetland coastline. In the area of study as a whole, therefore, the
resource is scarce, and in some localities is of negligible extent.
A more detailed breakdown of blown-sand areas in the five administrative areas within the area of study is
given in the upper part of table 2.6.1. Comparisons are self-evident but the main conclusions made in
chapter 2.5 are worthy of restatement here – ie that four of the administrative areas (excepting Western Isles)
show a dominance of very small blown-sand areas. Islands (other than those in the Western Isles) which tend
to have larger and more wide-ranging blown-sand areas are Tiree, Islay, Coll and Sanday.
The distribution of beach units shown in figure 1.2 reveals a pattern in which long stretches of the coastline
of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have no significant beach resource. In contrast, other areas have
groups of beaches which may be continuous as in Tiree or the Uists, or spaced at intervals as in Easter Ross,
or more widely spaced as along the north coast of the Mainland. Some beaches are isolated, for example
Rosinish on the east coast of Benbecula, and some are remote from their neighbours, for example most of
the Skye beaches.
38
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
On the scale of the total area of study these distributions are of considerable importance in planning for
recreational or other purposes. As will be discussed in chapter 4, location and accessibility are fundamental
controls on the type and intensity of recreational use. These maps emphasise the need to consider the scale
of the regional framework being used. This may be illustrated by one example. Consider the eleven units in
lona and the nearby peninsula of Mull; on the local scale there is a relative abundance of varied types of
beach units; on the scale of Mull and lona the concentration of the resource in this one part of the island is
striking; on the scale of the West Highlands between Applecross and Loch Linnhe the significance and
almost unique richness of this area of Mull is outstanding. Accordingly the evaluation of the beach units for
any specific purpose depends on the scale of the spatial context, and the distance/time relationships
between any specific beach or group of beach units and its nearest neighbours. Figure 1.2 is thus more
than a location diagram. On various regional scales, the spatial relationships of beach units are of
considerable importance for the appraisal of the beach resource stock. This appreciation would appear to
be particularly relevant at the early strategic planning stage (see chapter 8).
2.7
Beach gradients and processes
The usefulness of the beach resource and its response to utilisation depends on a number of physical
attributes. One of these is the energy level of the setting of the beach unit, which is partly dependent on the
extent of open sea in front of the beach, and partly on the gradient of the sea bed around it. Where the
sea bed is steep, waves are able to progress close to the beach without breaking, and the input of energy
into the shore zone is high. Conversely, where the sea bed is more gently sloping, a greater proportion of
the wave energy is dissipated before the waves reach the beach, and the input of energy (the driving force
of the beach system) is less. The gradient of the sea bed adjacent to the beach can be calculated by
measuring the distance from low water mark to the 5-fathom line. Marked variations in average distances
to the 5-fathom line, and hence in the gradient of the sea bed emerge, as table 2.7.1 illustrates.
Although this table must be viewed with caution, as it attempts to express the average gradient in front of
the beach unit by a single figure resulting from a single measurement, the differences in gradient which
emerge are large, especially when Shetland is compared with the Outer Hebrides. Off the Outer Hebrides
(at least on the west coast, where most of the beaches are located), the gradient is very gentle, and the
seabed takes the form of an extensive, gently sloping rock shelf. Vast quantities of shell debris and glacial
and fluvio-glacial deposits once lay on this submerged rock platform, and were swept landwards, up the
gently inclined plane, by waves and swell. Any small vertical change in land/sea level relationships results
in large areas of shelf being either placed above sea level or submerged below effective wave base. Similar
conditions occur off Coll and Tiree, which like the Outer Hebrides are now partially covered by quantities
of shell-rich sand which originated on the offshore shelves.
Offshore gradients are also relatively gentle off the east and north coasts of the mainland, both of which
have many F-type beaches which are continuing to receive a supply of sand. In contrast, offshore gradients
are very high off Shetland, and are relatively high in the northern part of the Inner Hebrides (Skye and the
Small Isles) and in the Clyde. It is noticeable that there are not only relatively few beaches in these localities,
but also that where beaches do occur, they are relatively infrequently of the fully developed F-type (containing
both dunes and machair as well as the sandy beach itself). Where the gradient of the seabed is relatively
steep, the movement of large quantities of sand onshore is difficult especially in situations such as the Clyde
where there is a strong degree of shelter.
39
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Thus as well as influencing the intensity of some of the physical processes to which the beach unit is exposed,
the offshore gradient plays a prominent role in explaining why beaches are so unevenly distributed around
the coastline of the Highlands and Islands.
The width and gradient of the beach itself, as opposed to the offshore zone, also vary considerably from
place to place. Beach width is of relatively little direct relevance to the extent or utilisation of blown-sand
areas, and except for recreation and sand extraction, the beach is relatively little used. Indeed excessive
width may even be a hindrance for recreational use, as very wide beaches dry out only slowly at low tide,
and a long walk is involved in reaching the sea. Nevertheless the beach is a crucial link in the
geomorphological system connecting the offshore supply of sand to the landward expression of dunes or
machair. It is also ecologically important for bird life and for marine or intertidal organisms.
From the physical standpoint, a narrow beach tends to allow higher energy conditions to prevail at the
coastal edge of the dunes and machair, and the beach is more dynamic. A wide beach tends to minimise
the effects of wave action, encourages accretional and constructive processes and offers a greater likelihood
for sand movement by the wind from the upper beach to the dunes and related surfaces. From the point of
view of recreational use a wide beach may offer advantages for safe sea bathing. Wide beaches often
have pools and lagoons where the water warms up relatively rapidly, and offer advantages for recreational
use by children.
Table 2.7.1
Average (mean) distance and average gradient to 5-fathom line
Mean distance
(m)
Mainland
West
Gradient
(slope %)
808
1.66
North
1136
1.12
East
2302
1.19
Clyde (within study area)
614
1.68
Inner Hebrides
North*
580
1.88
South*
905
1.32
1785
0.80
Orkney
840
1.50
Shetland
440
2.50
Outer Hebrides
* North is defined as the part within Highland Region, and south as the part in Strathclyde
In Scotland there are few equivalents of West Jutland, where firm wide beaches such as those of Romo
and Fano are used for car parking, thus releasing pressures on the dunes and links. The potential of the
beach (at least for some units) for this purpose can be recommended, however, as the beach is less fragile
and less sensitive to trampling damage than are dunes or machair. Another feature of the beach area
(especially its intertidal part) is that it is to some extent self-cleaning; each tidal cycle produces a fresh
surface. Obviously there are limits to the physical pressures and various forms of pollution which the beach
can sustain, but in some areas the self-renewing properties of the beach might be used to greater
advantage.
40
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Some beaches in the Highlands and Islands are steep and narrow, and others are much wider and more
gently sloping. One of the controls on beach gradient is exposure; many exposed beaches are steep and
have dynamic surfaces, whereas beaches in sheltered areas are usually much flatter and have less mobile
surface materials. The average beach gradient can be calculated simply by relating the width of the beach
to its tidal range. The mean value of the beach gradient for beaches in the Highlands and Islands is 1 in 63,
although three-quarters of the units have beaches steeper than this (the median value is 1 in 41). Several
very gently sloping beaches, almost resembling sand flats or tidal strands, occur with gradients of less than 1 in
240 – for example at Crinan, Loch Caolisport and Loch Stornoway in Argyll, Bridgend, Uisgeantiudhe, and
Gortbreck in Islay, Cuthill Links and the Morrich More on the east coast, Waulkmill Bay in Orkney and
Pool of Virkie in Shetland. Wide, flat beaches invariably occupy relatively sheltered settings, often at loch
heads or in almost enclosed embayments. The intertidal zones dry out only with difficulty, if at all, and usually
the associated areas of blown-sand are relatively small. Furthermore, where blown-sand does exist in these
units with flat beaches, the dune and machair topography is usually subdued, as are most of the physical
processes in operation.
At the other end of the gradient scale are steeper, and usually narrower, beaches. Beaches with gradients
equal to or less than 1 in 15 usually occupy exposed settings, but sometimes the steepness is more directly
associated with the influence of underlying rock, or with coarser gravel or shingle, than with exposure.
Examples of steeply sloping beaches where the gradient is largely attributable to the influence of rock or
shingle include Rosemarkie, Wilkhaven and Brora South on the east coast, several of the Orkney beaches,
and the Coral Beaches in north Skye. Where steepness is more directly a result of severe exposure – as at
Clachtoll and Sheigra in west Sutherland and Lunda Wick in Unst – the coastal edge is often severely
eroded, reflecting the high energy level of these beaches.
The majority of beaches in the region have much more modest gradients; for example over two-fifths of the
units have gradients of between 1 in 30 and 1 in 60. On these intermediate beaches, the energy levels
are usually more moderate. Also the suitability and safety of the gentler sloping beaches for bathing is
normally greater than in the more vigorous environments of the steeper beaches.
2.8
Beach materials
Beach sediments can occur in a number of combinations, viz:
(i) sand alone;
(ii) sand with backshore shingle and cobbles;
(iii) sand with gravelly sand;
(iv) sand in mixed sediments and sandflats;
(v) sand in patches on rock platforms; and
(vi) discrete patches of sand alongside gravel, shingle, rock or other materials.
The distribution of type of beach materials is set out in table 2.8.1.
41
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Significant regional variations emerge. What the holiday-maker would recognise as the ‘typical’ and
perhaps preferred beach, composed of sand only, occurs in only 45% of the beach units, and is found in
more than 50% of the cases only on the north coast and on the north part of the west coast, and in the
Western Isles. Pure sandy beaches are particularly infrequent in Orkney and Shetland, although it is true that
in these islands the coarser materials are frequently confined to the backshore, so that wide expanses of
sand may well occur on the intertidal beach. Beaches composed of sand alone, or in conjunction with
backshore shingle form the majority of cases in all localities, but in the Clyde area their joint proportion is
only 52%. In that area, many of the beaches contain admixtures of gravel, pebbles or other materials, with
the result that there is comparatively little material of the correct calibre to be easily blown into dune or
machair deposits.
The significance of distinguishing between a beach with shingle on its backshore and one which consists
solely of sand lies not only in the field of geomorphological interest; there is an additional interest in the
potential for shingle extraction, and more importantly, for the strength and resilience of coastline protection.
Where present, backshore shingle can help to protect the fragile front edge of sand dunes or machair by
absorbing much of the wave energy which would otherwise erode the coastal edge. There is no statistical
evidence that fewer coastal edges suffer erosion when backshore shingle is present, but the intensity of
erosion is almost certainly reduced when the toe of the dune is partially armoured by a facing of energyabsorbing shingle on the backshore.
In the course of the preparation of the regional beach reports, sand samples were collected from
approximately three-quarters of the 466 beaches in the region. Most of the beaches from which samples
were not taken are in uninhabited islands or in other remote and inaccessible locations. Each sample was
subjected to an analysis of grain size distribution and a determination of lime content. No obvious
differences in grain shape were detected between sand collected from beaches, dunes and machairs,
although theoretically, different depositional environments are expected to be associated with distinctive
textural characteristics. The conclusion reached is that there is considerable interchange between beach,
dune and machair, and that the distance of travel is short, so that different textural and grain surface
characteristics, as might be expected from different transporting agents, have not been imposed on
individual sand grains.
The median diameters of sand samples from over 80% of the beaches sampled in the Highlands and Islands
fall within the medium sand class, Iying between the class limits of 200 and 600 microns (a micron is one
thousandth of a millimetre). Just under 10% of the samples are finer than 200 microns, and most of these are
around 180 and 190 microns. Only 8% of the samples have median diameters in excess of 600 microns.
The frequency distribution of sand sizes is shown in table 2.8.2 and figure 2.8.1.
42
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.8.1
Distribution of beach materials
Sand only
Sand with
backshore
shingle or
cobbles
N
54
33
7
7
0
0
S
35
31
4
4
11
15
North
74
13
0
9
4
0
East
47
24
10
10
10
0
Clyde (within study area)
48
4
13
0
9
26
Western Isles
58
35
1
1
2
2
Orkney
18
61
0
5
13
0
Shetland
27
59
12
1
0
0
Mainland
West
Gravelly
sand and
sand
Figures are percentages
Figure 2.8.1
Beach sand median diameters
43
Mixed
sediments
and
sandflats
Rock
platform
with sand
patches
Discrete
patches of
sand, gravel,
shingle and/
or other
materials
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.8.2
Frequency distribution of sand size
Median diameter
(microns)
Percentage of all beaches from which
samples were taken
Less than 200
10
200–299
51
300–399
22
400–499
6
500–599
3
over 600
8
As can be seen from table 2.8.2 over half the beaches yield sand samples having median diameters in the
range 200–299 microns, while a further 22% are in the 300–399 micron range.
The origin and sedimentary history of the sand particles is a stronger influence on sand size than regional
or local variations in exposure conditions. Along the Scottish coastline, as indeed elsewhere, the main sources
(not in order of importance) are:
(i) cliff erosion (and the particles therefore vary in type and size depending on the rock type, which may
range from boulder clay to granite);
(ii) glacial deposits laid down at the coast and the neighbouring part of the continental shelf;
(iii) fluvial materials, which may be true fluvial sediments or may be reworked glacial or fluvio-glacial;
or even marine deposits;
(iv) organically-derived materials, especially shells and the hard parts of marine organisms.
It is possible to distinguish shell-sand from silicious and other sands by calcium carbonate content, but to
unravel the ultimate source of the other sands is very difficult. The question of sand supply and movement
appears to be a highly localised issue, with each beach unit being almost unique in the details of provision
of its sand, and subsequent transfer from sea to land. This being so, it is not surprising that the regional
breakdown in sand size depicted in table 2.8.3 reveals relatively few variations.
Table 2.8.3
Distribution of sand size by area
Median
diameter
(microns)
All
beaches
Mainland
Inner
Hebrides
Outer
Hebrides
Orkney
Less than 200
10
10
25
20
15
3
200–299
51
50
46
37
53
52
300–399
22
22
18
20
19
19
400–499
6
9
1
13
7
16
500–599
3
1
4
10
3
–
over 600
8
13
7
–
3
10
44
Shetland
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The most frequently occurring class in all parts of the region is that between 200 and 299 microns, and the
next most common class is usually from 300–399 microns. The Inner Hebrides are an exception, however,
and fine sand is more frequent there than in any other part of the Highlands and lslands. Coarse sand, and
the coarser part of the medium-sand range, is more frequently encountered in Shetland than elsewhere.
Coarse-medium sand is least common in the Inner Hebrides.
In all these localities, the internal range of sedimentary sources and exposure conditions is greater than the
differences between the localities so that broad regional contrasts are lacking. The controls on particle size
are complicated, especially since the glacial deposits which constitute the sources of beach sediments in
many areas are not wholly derived locally, but may have been transported considerable distances. Thus
while a strong influence between geology and particle size may exist, it may only do so in an indirect
fashion and the determinants are extremely difficult to isolate. Whatever the controls may be the practical
implications of variations in sand size are considerable; smaller sand grains, provided that they are able to
dry out, are blown more easily than coarser material, so that dunes and machair may develop more readily.
It may also be the case that erosion of dunes and machair may be achieved more easily where sand grains
are fine than when they are coarser. On the other hand, soil development may proceed more rapidly on a
parent material of fine sand than on coarser materials, so that there is an earlier and better development of
a protective vegetation cover. At this stage in our understanding of beach systems however, these possibilities
are only speculative.
One of the variables which impedes the understanding of the effect of sand size on dunes and machairs is
the occurrence of large quantities of shell-sand around the coasts of the Highlands and Islands. In relation
to the use of the beach resource for grazing and more particularly for sand extraction, one of the most
important properties of the sand of which a beach complex is composed is its content of calcium carbonate
(lime), which is closely related to its shell content. Shell-rich sand gives rise to a lime-rich soil, whereas
the soils in areas of the Highlands and Islands not affected by blown-sand are almost invariably acid.
The occurrence of these pockets of lime-rich soil in an otherwise acid environment is reflected in the relative
richness of many machair grazings, and has considerable ecological implications.
The ultimate source of these shell-sands is in the offshore and littoral zones, but little is known of the types of
shells involved, as they are usually so finely comminuted that species of origin cannot be easily identified,
or of the marine environments with which they are associated. Similarly, it is not known how and when these
shell-sands came ashore, or how long it takes for leaching and soil processes to reduce the calcium
carbonate content so that the lime-richness disappears. In Benbecula, for example, shell-sands taken from
beneath a Bronze Age site tentatively dated at greater than 4000 BP have textural and calcium carbonate
values similar to those from similar sands Iying above a Medieval occupation layer on the same site
(Shepherd 1976). Shell-sand from shallower deposits, where there is more exposure to percolating water
and hence to leaching, may well lose their alkalinity more quickly. Again this is a complex problem since
leaching is a selective process and the original variations in calcium carbonate content are unknown.
Although most shell fragments are usually comminuted down to fine and medium sand, usually between
170 and 250 microns in diameter, a few fragments are sufficiently large for their species of origin to be
easily identified. Both rock-dwelling and sand-dwelling species have been found to be represented, as also
are shallow and deep water types even in the same sample. To date, however, it has proved to be
impossible to work out the relative importance of different species as contributors to beach development.
45
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
In spite of the availability of considerable data on the regional distribution of shell-sands around the coast, and
also of the variations in shell content within certain beach complexes (see figure 2.3.2, Ritchie (1966a) and
Ritchie (1974a), the stage has not yet been reached where any explanations can be offered. There are too many
unknown inputs, too many variables that are both dependent and independent – for example age, topography,
moisture content, organic content and vegetation – and too many compounding factors such as agriculture and
artificial drainage to allow the study of shell-sand content to proceed far beyond the descriptive stage.
Attempts were made to correlate shell-sand content with energy, type of beach complex, beach gradient,
offshore gradient and with other variables, but in no case was a meaningful relationship discovered.
Shell content, like sand size, appears to be related to such a complex series of factors that each beach unit
is almost unique in regard to origin, rate of supply, and sedimentary history of its constituent sand.
Table 2.8.4 illustrates some of the regional variations in lime content of beach sands. No part of the
coastline of the Highlands and Islands is completely lacking in shell-sand beaches, but lime-rich sands are
most frequently encountered in the Outer Hebrides and in Orkney. In the Outer Hebrides in particular, there
are very few beaches with lime-poor sand, while in the Inner Hebrides and on the Clyde coast most of the
beaches are composed of sand with low lime content. Beaches with very high lime contents are relatively
few on the east coast, and, where they do occur, are mostly in Caithness.
If it is accepted that high lime content is one of the distinguishing features of machair in its fullest
development, the overwhelming island distribution of machair becomes clear. Beach units with very high lime
contents are relatively rare on the mainland, and occur mainly on the north and west coasts. It is not the
case that shell-sand is found only on the west coast and in the Hebrides, but it is true that the highest
carbonate values are found in, these areas, together with Orkney.
Marked variations in lime content exist within most of the regional units employed in table 2.8.4. In the Inner
Hebrides, for example, major contrasts exist between Skye and the Small Isles, where lime contents are
invariably very low, and Coll and Tiree where they are almost equally invariably very high. Likewise in
Orkney many of the beaches around Scapa Flow are composed mainly of silicious sand, while most of the
beaches on the outer, open coasts have very high shell contents. While it is true that no single variable
controls the relative importance of shell-sand as beach material, most of the very high lime contents are found
on relatively exposed coasts, where the seabed forms a shallow, gently sloping shelf in front of the beach.
In contrast, most of the beaches associated with more sheltered parts of the coastlines, and with deeper
water immediately offshore, have much lower shell contents.
The occurrence of so much shell-sand in so many areas is one of the main characteristics of the beaches of
the Highlands and Islands. Whatever the full explanations of the occurrence of shell-sand may be, its
practical implications are considerable. It offers a source of liming material in areas which are usually
lacking in other indigenous sources of lime. It gives rise to distinctive patterns of vegetation and associated
animal organisms; the grazing value of lime-rich areas is usually greater than in neighbouring acid pastures.
Finally, the creamy-white colour of the shell-sand beach is an important scenic resource; the combination of
the colours of shell-sand, machair and shallow sea water over a shell-sand seabed is one of the most
distinctive of attributes of beaches in the Highlands and Islands. Shell-sand beaches in north-west Europe are
not confined to the Highlands and Islands, but they are relatively infrequently encountered in other areas,
and rarely are they found in such extents, and in such varieties of physical settings.
46
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
During the course of fieldwork, outcrops of indurated or cemented sand were noted in 22 beaches, half of
which were in the Outer Hebrides and one-fifth in Orkney. Other examples were noted in Coll and Tiree,
and isolated occurrences were observed in localities as widespread as Balta Island in Shetland, Sinclair’s
Bay in Caithness, and Cul na Croise in north Argyll. The main factor controlling the distribution appears to
be high lime content; no examples of cemented sand were found in areas of silicious sand.
Table 2.8.4
Distribution of lime contents of beach sand by area
Less than 10%
11– 40%
41–70%
over 70%
West
49
25
11
15
North
20
50
20
10
East
16
68
16
–
Clyde
96
4
–
–
41
14
20
25
2
16
55
27
Orkney
26
11
15
48
Shetland
27
33
23
17
All beaches
30
21
25
24
Mainland
Inner Hebrides
Outer Hebrides
The process of induration produces a hard crust which may be several centimetres or exceptionally, up to a
metre in thickness. It is usually composed of sand, but in some localities (for example Swainbost and
Scarasta in Lewis and Harris, respectively), gravel and shingle may be incorporated into the matrix. Most of
the outcrops are in dunes or machair, but outcrops are visible on the beach at places such as Luskentyre
(Harris), Burray Links (Orkney) and Cul na Croise in north Argyll. At Luskentyre, the material passes below
high water mark, and may represent evidence of coastal retreat or submergence.
Cemented sands from three sites (Tolsta, Borve and Sinclair’s Bay) have been analysed (Roberts, Ritchie and
Mather 1973), but the interpretation of these early results was inconclusive.
Why the process should occur in specific situations is unknown. It is likely that fluctuations in water table may
be a significant factor, as well as local climatic effects. All the occurrences which have as yet been detected
have been in outcrops (as opposed to buried horizons) which are open to insolation and air-drying.
Differences in degrees of cementation are visible, and are probably related to the age and stage of
development; at later stages the dune sandstone is very firmly cemented and becomes relatively
impermeable. The extent to which induration extends beneath undisturbed dune or machair sediments is as
yet unknown, but if present it might well produce perched water tables, which could function as local base
levels for erosion, and might even have local effects on vegetation.
2.9
Dune height and machair morphology
The relief and shape of blown-sand deposits are as variable as their extents, and clear regional contrasts
emerge within the Highlands and Islands.
The heights attained by dunes appear to be controlled by two main factors operating together with a number
of subsidiary influences. The main factors are exposure, combined with availability of suitable grades and
quantities of sand. Orientation of the coast with respect to local wind regimes is also an influence, as is the
47
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
occasional occurrence of rock spurs close to the shore, which can function as foundations for dune construction.
Dunes are present in some form in 266 beach units (57% of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands) but in
over 70 of these cases, the dune area amounts to less than 4% of the blown-sand area (see section 2.4). In 213
of the 266 cases (80%), dune height is exceeded by the height of blown-sand in other forms – usually thin hilly
machair overlying marginal ridges and hillsides which form the landward boundary to the beach complex.
Therefore the model beach complexes depicted in figures 2.1.1 and 2.3.1 once again emerge as representative
of only some beach complexes; usually the greatest heights of blown-sand are found not in the dunes, but around
the margins of the machair. Table 2.9.1 illustrates the variations in average dune height from place to place.
Table 2.9.1
Maximum dune heights
No. of
cases
Mean dune
height (m)
West coast N*
24
9.1
West coast S
26
3.3
North coast
23
8.9
East coast
17
5.2
Orkney
44
6.5
Shetland
10
7.8
Barra and Islands
10
9.9
Uists and Benbecula
27
10.1
Harris and Islands
15
14.1
Lewis
17
10.1
Coll and Tiree
25
12.3
Rhum, lona and Mull
10
3.6
Islay, Jura and Gigha
15
7.9
9
49
Mainland
Arran and Bute
* North of Firth of Lorne
These heights are estimates made in the field, and are related not to Ordnance Datum but to the height of
the highest point in the dunes above mid-tide level of the beach.
The highest dunes are found to exist in the Inner and Outer Hebrides, and especially in Harris (notably in
Luskentyre), in Coll and Tiree, and in Colonsay and Oronsay. Throughout the Outer Hebrides, dune heights
tend to be high, and the average height falls below 10m only in Barra. Nevertheless some of the highest
dunes are found in Eoligarry where heights greater than 15m are not unknown. In the Inner Hebrides, dune
heights are especially variable, and the sharpest contrasts are between those in Coll and Tiree on the one
hand, and the Small Isles and Mull on the other. In the latter group, although the exposure is not markedly
different from that of the former, the availability of suitable sand for dune construction is very much less, and
dunes are typically much lower.
Outwith the Hebrides, the range variation in height is much less. The greatest heights are attained in the
north part of the west coast of the mainland, where conditions are not unlike those of the Atlantic coasts of
the Hebrides, and large, dramatic dunes are found at beaches such as Redpoint (North) and Sandwood.
Some of the north coast beaches, notably Balnakeil and Dunnet Bay, are also characterised by bold dunes,
48
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
but on the east coast the average height is very much less, especially if Sinclair’s Bay is excluded. Indeed
the dunes of beaches such as Sinclair’s Bay, Dunnet Bay and Balnakeil suggest that the greatest heights
are attained when the beaches are exposed to opposing wind directions. In the cases of Dunnet Bay and
Sinclair’s Bay, there is some funnelling through the low-lying, northwest-southeast corridor of central
Caithness, and the winds which frequently blow from these directions have piled blown-sand into
precipitously steep ridges, which at Sinclair’s Bay have a knife-edged form.
In Orkney and Shetland, average dune heights are much lower, and the dunes frequently have a much more
subdued, streamlined shape than those of much of the mainland and Hebrides. Where strong winds blow
from all directions, as opposed to from only one or two directions, the end product appears to be a broader,
more massive dune ridge, of the types found at Quendale in the south mainland of Shetland or Brekon in
Yell. On the other hand, the dunes formed in the more sheltered areas around the Clyde are subdued both
in height and in width, and indeed are rather attenuated in form. Poor development is probably attributable
as much to a shortage of suitable sand for dune construction as to shelter per se.
The height to which blown-sand is carried in areas other than dunes is mainly related to the height and slope
of the sub-sand structure, and to the topographical control on wind vectors. Hillsides and ridges with suitable
slopes and aspects may allow finer blown-sand particles to reach considerable altitudes above sea level,
with heights of nearly 100m being attained at Eoligarry in Barra, Sandwood and Torrisdale in Sutherland,
and Kiloran Bay in Colonsay. In a few areas, the heights of coastal dunes may even be exceeded by those
of ‘free-standing’ machair hills and ridges (in other words where the height is not related simply to the
underlying basement). Insufficient evidence was collected to permit a more detailed analysis of these high
machairs, which occur at places such as Balephuill and Gott Bay (Tiree), and in some of the North Uist machairs.
The distribution of machair heights is shown in table 2.9.2 and figure 2.9.1. The maximum heights of nearly
half the machairs are under 10m, and heights of over 50m are attained infrequently. Where they do occur,
they are usually in the Hebrides. The west coast of Lewis (especially in Uig), and Barra are the main
Hebridean localities of high machair, while secondary centres are in north west Sutherland, around Durness,
and on the north coast at Torrisdale and Farr Bays. Isolated occurrences of blown-sand at high altitudes are
found at Doun Helzie in Sanday (Orkney), and at Kilmote on the north part of east Sutherland.
Table 2.9.2
Mainland
Maximum blown-sand heights
Under 10m
10–24m
25–50m
West
51
24
22
3
North
31
19
23
27
East
Over 50m
50
31
13
6
Clyde ‡
95
5
–
–
Outer Hebrides
18
27
42
13
Inner Hebrides (N)*
68
29
4
–
Inner Hebrides (S) †
33
51
14
3
Orkney
65
29
5
2
Shetland
50
22
33
–
Percentages of beaches in each category
‡ East Kintyre, Cowal, Arran and Bute
* Skye, Small Isles and Mull
† Coll, Tiree, Islay, Jura, Colonsay and Gigha
49
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 2.9.1
Non-dune blown-sand heights above beach level
The Outer Hebrides and north and north-west coasts thus emerge as the areas where very strong winds,
suitable sand-catchment conditions, aspect and general topography permit sand to be carried high onto
adjacent surfaces. These high-altitude occurrences of blown-sand, in what are usually very vigorous
micro-environments, are frequently of considerable ecological importance, and most of the mainland
occurrences have high gradings for scientific interest and value for nature conservation.
During fieldwork, a range of types of machair morphology was recognised, and an attempt was made to
sub-divide the total area of each machair into five broad relief types, by estimating the percentage extent of
each type. Table 2.9.3 illustrates the distribution of these types, and clearly illustrates that machair in the
form of the typical level plain (of the Uist type) occurs in just over one-third of all machair areas.
Table 2.9.3
Distribution of machair types
Mainland
Islands
All beaches
Plain
32
38
36
Hilly
15
27
23
5
4
4
46
25
33
3
5
4
Hillocky
Undulating
Other
Percentage composition
Undulating machair, where the relief may be described as gently rolling, is almost as common. Hilly machair,
where the blown-sand surface adopts a steep inclination, usually as a result of the influence of the sub-sand
surface, is also widespread, but hillocky machair is comparatively rare. Hillocky machair has the form of
numerous small hummocks, usually 1–2m high, which sometimes coalesce to form a very irregular surface;
at other times the hummocks overlie a clearly discernible plain surface.
The regional breakdown of distribution of machair types is illustrated in table 2.9.4.
50
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.9.4
Distribution of machair type by area
Mainland
West
North
East
Clyde
Western Isles
Orkney
Shetland
Plain
36
11
42
32
31
57
23
Hilly
14
27
11
1
28
18
43
7
2
3
1
5
1
5
40
57
45
59
31
22
14
3
3
–
7
4
–
15
Hillocky
Undulating
Other
Percentages of total machair extent in each area
Plain machair is most extensive in Orkney, especially in Sanday, and is least common on the north coast
of the mainland, where hilly and undulating machair together account for 84% of the machair area. Hilly
machair itself is most common (in relative, if not in absolute terms) in Shetland, and is poorly represented
along the generally low Iying east coast of the mainland. The remaining category, ‘other,’ contains various
types of surfaces. Its relatively high value in the Firth of Clyde probably represents some indecision about
where a machair surface ends, and where the raised-beach surface on which it rests begins. In this context,
it should be emphasised once again that the measurements employed in this and other analyses are of
necessity rather than arbitrary, as broad transitional zones between dunes, machair and non-sand surfaces
are very much more common than sharp, linear boundaries. Similarly, it should be stressed that these
groupings relate to machair as landform rather than as vegetation type; the criterion for definition as machair
has been taken as presence of blown-sand. It should not be concluded that the vegetation is in the form of
a low grassy sward in every case; in Orkney, for example, much of the machair has been cultivated or sown
with improved grasses, and now resembles, at least to the cursory glance, neighbouring non-sand areas
more than the typical grassy sward of the uncultivated machair plain.
Plate 16
Mae Sand, Westray, Orkney
Erosion features in the level machair plain.
51
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 17
Mangersta, Uig, Lewis
A severely eroded machair. Erosion has removed most of the machair plain, leaving
a level bare sand sur face above high water mark but close to the water table.
Plate 18
Clachtoll, West Sutherland
Severe machair erosion. The machair plain has been dissected by numerous erosion
features. In summer the machair is intensively used for caravanning.
Plate 19
West Geirinish, South Uist
Spring grazing by the township herd on the extensive, mature machair plain of South Uist.
The area in the foreground is the gentle backslope of the broad coastal machair ridge.
52
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 20
Rubha Sgor-lnnis, Coll
The heavily grazed machair behind the small beach of Traigh Tuath.
Plate 21
Bay of Newark, Sanday, Orkney
The dune to the left of the fence is grazed by
cattle, while the area to the right is ungrazed.
2.10
Plate 22
Sty Wick, Sanday, Orkney
Rabbit burrow on severely grazed machair.
Erosional activity
Considerable attention is sometimes paid to the degree of erosional activity in the dune and machair areas.
Erosion occurs in the dune zone where it may take the form of retreat of the coastal edge resulting in a sandcliff feature, or in the form of blow-outs and other forms of deflation hollows. In the machair, erosion takes
the form of blow-outs, deflation hollows, linear scars (often promoted by grazing animals or vehicle tracks)
and, more rarely, extensive bare sand surfaces. Similar forms may be found on transitional blown-sand
areas. Investigation of all beach systems, including those having low grazing and recreational usage,
indicate that some level of erosional activity is usually present. Indeed, it is often completely natural, since
it is the mechanism by which the system evolves as a dynamic landform entity. It is frequently, for example,
the way in which sand is transferred from the upper beach and backshore through the dune barrier to the
machair or dune-pasture surface.
53
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The balance of field evidence shows that several situations are more vulnerable to erosional activity than
others. These may be listed as follows:
1. Near stream or river outlets.
2. Near rock outcrops.
3. On steep slopes where the blown-sand is relatively thin, and particularly where it lies directly on bedrock.
4. At the base of terraces and escarpment features.
5. At points or zones of concentration of animal tracks, footpaths and vehicle tracks.
The most common area however is the coastal edge or frontal dune ridge, especially the sand slope which
is exposed to both wave and wind attack.
The essence of erosion can be described as undercutting and slumping with associated removal of dry sand
by the wind. Some force or mechanism must break the vegetation layer and attack under the protective mat
of vegetation and soil. Natural initiation can only occur on steep slopes where mass movement is liable to
occur, terrace edges where another process such as stream or wave action is active, or on the flanks of those
sand landforms that actively accrete. These natural initiations are aggravated by cattle trampling and sheep
rubbing, and by rabbit burrows and direct excavation by man (see plates 22 and 23). There is also some
relationship between the type and vigour of vegetation and potential erosion sites. Marram and Sea Lyme
grasses have a sheltering effect but normally have no appreciable soil layer, so that once disrupted, erosion
features tend to develop quickly and dramatically. Mature machair sward is excellent protection but such
surfaces are attractive to grazing animals and are often easily crossed by vehicles and are thereby
damaged. Over-grazing is another general background factor which is common in many of the beach
systems of the area of study (see chapter 6.2).
An equally pervasive factor is the water table. Put simply, damp sand will not be eroded or removed by the wind.
A small arithmetic increase in moisture content requires a logarithmic increase in wind velocity to effect erosion.
It is also true that wetter areas have richer vegetation, more organic material and therefore better surface
cohesion. Drainage schemes which have affected many dune, machair and pasture areas have often been
ancillary factors promoting erosional conditions. The logical extension of this argument is that sloping or higher
surfaces are quicker draining and thus prone to greater erosional risk. Such zones are also preferred by rabbits.
The dune zone is also very vulnerable since the water table is normally several metres below the surface.
As previously described in chapter 2.2, there is also a climatic factor in that drier regions such as the east
coast or some Hebridean islands are more liable to ‘dry-out’ in spring and in early summer.
The risk of erosion in the mature beach/dune/machair systems (and there are very few young, growing
dune systems in the Highlands and Islands) is high but the areas involved must be seen in perspective.
Looking at crude averages, only 2.5% of the area of dunes, machair and transition zones is a product of
recent or present erosional activity. It might therefore be suggested that this percentage be regarded as a
normal level of erosion and thereby provide a yardstick to identify areas with more serious or abnormal levels
of erosion. Areas having 5% of their total blown-sand surfaces undergoing erosion may be described as
suffering from erosion. Applying this standard, 110 cases are found (about one-quarter of those units having
blown-sand), and one might suggest that here we have reason to believe that either there maybe some
anthropic or biotic factor in operation or that some special condition is active.
54
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The full listing of beach complexes having ratios of 5, 10, 15 and 20% of the blown-sand area in erosion
is shown on table 2.9.5.
Table 2.9.5
Beach units with severe erosion
Area of erosion as percentage of blown-sand area
Greater than 20%
Bosta
Clashnessie
Sand
Mangersta
Gruinard South
Huney
Corpach Coast
Mellon Udrigle
Sandwick (Unst)
Camas Mor
Uidhe (Vatersay)
Opinan
20–15%
Dalmore
Melness
Lunda Wick
Garry
Sheigra
Rosinish
Sannox
Mungasdale
Allasdale
Invernaver
Inner Skaw
Sandray (Main)
Coldbackie
Balta Island
Sanaigmore
Swainbost
Balephetrish
Achnahaird Bay
Mealasta Island
Loch Staosnaig
Gruinard North
Achaidh Mhor
Loch Stornoway
Mellangaun
Cul na Croise
Carskey
Sands of Meal (Burra)
15–10%
Morar
Skipness
Kirk Sand
Sanna Bay
Macharioch
Brekon
Samhnan Insir (Rhum)
Scalpsie
Sand of the Crook
Bagh Chrossapol
Sannick
Scrimpo
Calgary
Melvich
Mheilein
Port an t Saoir
Clachtoll
Eoligarry
Traigh Tuath
Achmelvich
Hallaman
Traigh Logabhaig
Traigh na Teampull
Pabbay (Barra)
Oldshoremore
10–5%
Eoropie
Kilberry
Sand of Sound
Cross
Brunerican
Westsandwick
Barvas
Stravanan
Papa Stronsay
Traigh Mhor (Lt. Bernera)
Machrie
Newark Bay (S. Ronaldsay)
Traigh an t-Sanatachaidh
Murkle
Scarasta
North lona
Sandside (Caithness)
Borve More
Vaul
Strathy
Luskentyre
Hynish Coast
Armadale
Paible (Taransay
Machrins
Talmine
Killegray
Cable Bay
Traigh Allt Chailgeag
Kirkibost
Claddich
Creag Thairbe
Foshigarry
Ardnave
Kervaig Bay
Borve (Barra)
Killinallan
Sandwood
Sandray (Sheadar)
Traigh Bhan, Oa
Little Sand
Fudday
Kilmory
Gairloch
Varlish (Vatersay)
55
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Two points should be emphasised here. Firstly, the definition of severe erosion is on a relative, as opposed
to an absolute basis. Therefore in some of the smaller units, the eroded areas in absolute terms may be very
small, and yet still represent a significant proportion of the total blown-sand areas. Secondly, almost all the
beaches in the most severely eroded category have suffered marked backshore retreat; beaches such as
Bosta and Mangersta (plate 17), for example, have wide bare sand surfaces above high water mark. It is
probably true to say that erosion appears to be more severe where the machair is dissected by numerous
blow-outs and deflation fingers (plates 16, 18), which represent intermediate stages in the process of
machair erosion. Such an observation however is related to the perception of erosion as distinct from
measured erosion and is discussed in chapter 6.
Patterns of regional distribution are not particularly clearly marked, although it is noticeable that beaches on
the north-west coast of the mainland, the Western Isles, and Unst in Shetland figure prominently in the lists.
Conversely, beaches Iying on the east coast of the mainland and around the Clyde are poorly represented
in the severely eroded categories. The severely eroded beach complexes are almost invariably located in
exposed parts of the coastline, and there appears to be a close association between energy level and
degree of erosion. Several of the badly eroded units are also situated in areas of steep or rugged
topography, and severe erosion is frequently associated with lime-rich sand. This relationship or association
does not necessarily suggest that shell-sand beaches are inherently more prone to erosion simply by virtue
of their lime richness; there may well be related factors controlling or influencing both the supply of shellsand and the occurrence of erosion.
Some, but not all, of the badly eroded units are associated with intensive recreational use. Beaches such as
Mellon Udrigle and Gruinard South are heavily used, and bear obvious signs of trampling damage which
may well have contributed to the natural processes of erosion (a more detailed discussion of trampling is
given in chapter 6.2). Other beaches such as the Corpach coasts in Jura (plate 10) and Sandwick in Unst
are almost unused for recreation, but nevertheless have been severely eroded. Several other beach units
which are completely inaccessible to motor vehicles, and indeed which may be located on uninhabited
islands, are also severely eroded. It is clear, therefore, that intensive utilisation is not the only, or even the
main, cause of erosion; natural factors such as exposure and steepness are probably more important on the
regional scale, although anthropic and biotic processes may be very significant locally.
Without digressing into theories of sand-dune geomorphology, it is, however, necessary to state more fully
some of the main conditions under which erosion will occur. Firstly, if there is a marked diminution in sand
supply to the beach, the dynamic balance may be upset and wind energy may be channelled into
destructive rather than constructive process. Moreover, it is a feature of Marram and Sea Lyme grass (the
main dune-builders) that without a steady influx of fresh blown-sand, their growth rates wane, vigour declines
and gradual replacement occurs. Secondly, coast erosion (which may also be a product of a diminution in
offshore supply) may allow wave action to attack the dune face, and so to create cliffing conditions and
promote instability (plate 11). Thirdly, if there is a significant change in the level of the land/sea interface,
waves might have greater access to foredune areas. Since we are normally dealing with timespans of
decades or centuries, this is probably of negligible importance, unless the long-term trend of sea level
change crosses or has crossed some significant threshold. Recent changes in sea level are difficult to detect
and measure but evidence is available for long-term (ie post-glacial) trends. Most of the pertinent evidence
has been analysed by Sissons (1967) and from his findings it is possible to abstract the approximate line
of the zero isobases.
56
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Inside this baseline the trend is for coastal emergence, ie the land is rising relative to the sea and, in theory,
beaches should become wider and accretion more common. Outside the isobase the trend is exactly
opposite (figure 2.10.1). The net result is, however, much more complex. The evidence of raised shorelines
indicates several periods of adjustment and regional differences in isostatic uplift rates. From another
standpoint, it is also conceivable that as the sea rises against the land more sediment, if available, may be
transferred from the offshore sediment bank to the beach. There are several other such arguments and
problems. It is therefore facile and misleading to over-generalise about the probable effects of sea level
changes as being directly and simply related to dune and beach morphology and stability. Nevertheless,
the conclusion reached by Sissons (1967) that the average rate of eustatic rise in sea level in recent years
is about 15cm per century is highly relevant to the Outer Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland where ‘any
tendency of the land to subside is therefore being emphasised by this movement of the sea itself. On the
mainland the evidence points to a very slight upwards movement of the land’ (p. 213). The possibility of a
tendency for submergence in the islands on the periphery or beyond the limits of significant isostatic uplift
may have some correlation with the evidence of dune and coastal-edge sand cliffs which are so common
in the Outer Islands.
Figure 2.10.1 Postulated isobases of main post and late glacial shorelines (adapted from
Sissons (1967) and other sources)
Thus a number of physical conditions, operating in combination, are probably the main causal factors of
erosion. In high energy environments, where there is exposure both to strong winds and to powerful wave
action, these causal factors are likely to trigger off earlier and more intensive erosion than where the energy
level, or driving force, is weaker. Where there is strong wave action the seabed might be swept clear of
transportable glacial and other materials earlier than in more sheltered locations, and there is also a greater
likelihood that the coastal edge will be undercut by storm waves. Salt spray along exposed parts of the
coastline may also weaken Marram growth, and hence reduce its binding action, while winds sufficiently
strong to effect dune erosion will also be more frequently encountered in such situations.
57
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
There is some evidence that the rates and intensities of erosion of dunes and machair have varied over time.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, for example, machair erosion appears to have been vigorous and
widespread (see chapter 3), and there is some evidence that, on the regional scale, rates of erosion may
have slowed down since the end of the second world war. The first air-photograph cover dates back to
1946 and 1947, and examination of photographs of a number of beaches indicates that machair erosion,
especially on marginal, hilly machair was widespread at that time. It is possible that some of the variations
in the intensity of erosion are related to changes in the physical inputs into the beach systems: for example,
increasing dryness or windiness associated with short-term climatic fluctuations may have been partially
responsible. The magnitudes of variations in erosion, however, would suggest that these are not the only
factors involved. The nineteenth century upsurge in erosion may have been partly associated with rapid
increases in population, and hence with increased agricultural use, while the more modest decline in erosion
since the second world war (outwith the main recreational beaches) may be related to outbreaks of
myxomatosis and a decline in rabbit populations. Whatever the controls on erosion are, it is certain that
rates do vary over time, and that phases of severe erosion and of quiescence or stability can alternate.
Indeed it is possible that a cyclic pattern of growth and erosion may exist, with the beach complex
developing during periods of continuing and copious sand supply, and then undergoing erosion when sand
supply declines – perhaps even suffering erosion down to the water table, as in the examples of Mangersta
and Bosta, during the declining part of the cycle. Superimposed on this natural cycle, if it exists, may be
shorter cycles of growth and erosion related to short-term climatic fluctuations and to human pressures.
Nevertheless, the main causal factor is probably variation in the sand supply to the beach complex. When
supply declines, the first manifestations are usually seen on the coastal edge, which may undergo erosion.
Coastal edges which are accreting or prograding (ie where there is some form of accumulation)
are comparatively rare, and are completely lacking in some parts of the coastline. Only 32 out of the
466 beaches units in the Highlands and Islands have accreting or prograding coastal edges.
An analysis of the areas involved shows that there is a pronounced regional pattern. Only one site is in the
Outer Hebrides (on the east coast, at Tolsta in Lewis (plate 13)), and only two occurrences are in Shetland.
Four beaches with prograding coastal edges occur around Dornoch, six in Orkney, and the remainder are
in Colonsay, Islay, or the adjacent coast of Kintyre. At other beaches such as Opinan in Wester Ross and
Morar in west Inverness-shire the coastal edges are currently prograding, after a long period of erosion.
Erosional coastal edges, on the other hand, are widespread, and are found in almost every part of the area
of study. They are particularly numerous in the Outer Hebrides and in Shetland, where the effects of a rising
sea level might be most significant. In Shetland, for example, 50% of the beaches have coastal edges
classed as purely erosional, compared with an average of 26% for the whole region.
Where the coastal edge is in the form of an erosional sand cliff (plates 11 and 12), bare and unprotected
by vegetation, then the danger of wind erosion is high, and once initiated, erosional hollows can migrate
readily into the dunes and machair. The danger is less when the coastal edge is in the form of a low machair
cliff perhaps less than 1m in height; the rate of retreat of these low edges is usually slow, and wind erosion
is soon impeded by the water table. Where the coastal edge is high, however, then susceptibility to severe
wind erosion is very much greater. Table 2.10.1 illustrates the relative frequency of different types of coastal
edge in the beaches of the Highlands and Islands.
58
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 2.10.1
Coastal edge stability*
Condition
Frequency (percentages)
Neutral
26.6
Prograding
6.9
Eroding
26.4
Neutral and prograding
6.0
Neutral and eroding
13.3
Prograding and eroding
5.6
Neutral, prograding and eroding
6.9
Non sand
8.3
*Although desirable, no distinction can be made between long-term chronic
dune cliffing and short-term random erosion features.
Thus 26.4% are wholly eroding and 52.2% have some form of erosional activity at the coastal edge,
whereas only 6.9% are wholly prograding and 25.4% have some accretion somewhere along the coastal
edge. The consensus of opinion amongst coastal geomorphologists is that most beaches are facing a
general reduction in primary beach nourishment from offshore. Although there are local and regional
exceptions (and the North Sea coasts might be one) the reason for this diminution in supply is that the
sediment bank built up as the legacy of the Glacial periods has largely been transferred onshore and the
alternative sources, ie stream and river discharge and cliff erosion, are providing little or no replenishment.
Thus beaches which appear at first sight to be vast sources for dune and machair nourishment are deceptive.
Many are probably thinner and narrower than they were centuries ago. Moreover, the absolute size of a
beach is almost irrelevant for the landward movement of sand. It is the area of the nourishment zone,
between high water mark (or the water table seepage line, if it is higher) and the base of the dune face that
is vital. Here the sand is dry; here the sand may blow and nourish the dune system. Paradoxically some of
the widest nourishment zones are in Barra where there has been severe erosion and retreat of the dune front.
In fact it is the retreat of the dune-face line that has created an effective nourishment zone which is in origin
an erosion surface. Thus although there is general retreat and erosion in these situations the dunes or
segments of dunes are often tremendously steep and clothed in tussocky, strongly growing Marram grass.
Vigorous Marram grass is therefore not necessarily a measure of accretion and stability; it is more often a
sign of erosion and redeposition.
The steepness and youthful morphology of the associated landforms, both dune and machair, are thus
rejuvenated and often contrast markedly with neighbouring stable and mature surfaces. This rejuvenation is
the symptom that adjustments are being made in the total beach/dune/machair system to accommodate a
change in one or more of the main input factors.
2.11
Scenic quality
While many of the physical characteristics of sand-beach complexes are capable of objective analysis, one
of the most important properties defies completely objective appraisal. This property is scenic quality, which
is an essential component of the total beach resource, and is a component of primary importance from the
59
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
point of view of recreational use. Numerous methods of landscape evaluation have been devised in recent
years; examples include the methods of Linton (1968), Fines (1968), Shafer, et al. (1969) and Leopold
(1970). Unfortunately, none of these methods can be readily adapted for use in the context of sandy
beaches, and most of them are based on landscape units larger than the single beach complex. In addition,
it was felt that all the known methods of landscape evaluation lacked sufficient emphasis on the relative value
of the land-sea interface, and most of them were insufficiently sensitive to differentiate between different
beach complexes, many of which would tend to fall into the same class or grading. Accordingly, the authors
adopted a completely subjective system which is extremely simple, and which is based entirely on
comparative experience of the coastline of the Highlands and Islands, over a period of time and over
different weather conditions. This system simply grades each beach unit on a high-medium-low quality
ranking, with scores of 3, 2 and 1 being awarded respectively for the three ranks. Four separate scores
were awarded to each beach, for the scenic quality of the beach unit itself, for that of its setting, and for
the views into and out from the beach. It must be emphasised that the scoring was done completely
subjectively, and on the basis of the total impression made by the beach unit rather than by any systematic
analysis of its composition. Since some beaches in the area of study have not been seen by both authors,
both had to be involved in the scoring operation. Tests were made, however, to check for scorer variation by
comparing scores for the beaches seen by both authors (these amount to approximately three-quarters of all
the beaches), and it was confirmed that there was a negligible amount of disagreement. There may well be
disagreement, however, between the authors and other groups such as holiday-makers; indeed some evidence
is produced in Appendix I to suggest that the authors take a less sanguine view than most holiday-makers.
Since each beach unit is scored on a three-point scale for each of four scenic variables (the beach itself,
its setting, the view into the beach and the view out from the beach), then the maximum attainable score is 12,
while the minimum is four. A total of 74 beach units had the minimum score of four, and of these beaches
close on 70% are in the Northern Isles and over half are in Orkney. The other main grouping of low-scoring
beaches is in Lewis.
Outwith Orkney, Shetland, and to a lesser extent, part of Lewis, beaches with poor scenic quality are widely
scattered and no major pattern is discernible.
High ranking beaches, on the other hand, where the total score exceeds 11 are few and are largely
confined to the Hebrides.
Dalbeg
Dalmore
Traigh na Berie
Ardroil
Mangersta
Garry
Luskentyre
Mheilein
Hynish
Port a Chapuill
Kiloran Bay
Cable Bay
Oronsay
Bagh Gleann nam Muc
Glengarrisdale
Glenbatrick
Torrisdale Bay
Achininver
Sandwood
Gairloch
(for precise locations see Appendix II)
60
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The main concentration is in the Uig district of Lewis and in the neighbouring part of west Harris. Colonsay
also contains several high-scoring beaches, as does Jura. Elsewhere, very attractive beaches are largely
confined to the north and north-west coasts of the mainland. It is particularly noticeable that the Northern
Isles, the east coast, Argyll and the Clyde coast contain no beaches which are, on the regional scale,
judged as scenically outstanding.
In order to check if the apparent pattern of low scoring beaches in the Northern Isles and scenically rich
beaches in parts of the Hebrides was a product solely of the procedure of summing the scores of the scenic
variables, the exercise was repeated using scores for the scenic quality of the beach itself, and ignoring its
setting and views into and out from the beach. The results of this are given in table 2.11.1. Analysis of the
scores for the scenic quality of the beach itself confirms the previously established pattern; Orkney, Shetland,
and to a lesser extent the Clyde islands contain beaches which almost invariably are in the low or medium
category, while the Inner and to a lesser extent the Outer Hebrides have most of the high quality units.
Table 2.11.1
Scenic
quality
High
Distribution of scenic quality of beaches by area
All
beaches
Mainland
Outer
Hebrides
Inner
Hebrides
Orkney
Shetland
Clyde
Islands
8
6
9
20
–
5
–
Medium
45
40
70
50
27
37
13
Low
47
54
20
30
73
58
87
Figures are percentages
Analysis of the results of a subjective classification of this type is not easily achieved, and it is difficult to
isolate the specific attributes which are associated with high and low scenic qualities. Beaches on low
coastlines, however, almost invariably have low scores, both in summations and on the basis of scoring the
beach only. These low coastlines are often rather bleak, monotonous and exposed, and lack the variety of
shape, texture and colour often found in more rugged terrain. Beaches with high habitat diversities almost
invariably score highly. The presence of a mountainous backdrop (as in Wester Ross, Sutherland, Uig and
Harris) adds greatly to the perceived quality, as does the presence of rugged, if not necessarily very high,
terrain around the beach. Beaches occurring in coasts with a variety of internal and external relief and
landform features are scored highly, and the results suggest that small secluded beach complexes tend to be
preferred to very large units, where there may be a feeling of inhospitable bleakness. All the high scoring
areas are free from pollution, and obvious industrial or tourist-related developments. The perception of
erosion is irrelevant for high scoring, and some of the beach units judged as the most attractive (such as
Mangersta in Lewis) have suffered severe erosion. Conversely, many of the low scoring beaches have little
or no sign of erosion.
The evaluation of the scenic quality of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands has been done purely on
an internal or regional scale. Many of the beaches in the area of study, however, are of outstanding scenic
quality in a much wider context, and it is probably also true to say that many of the beaches which are of
modest scenic quality in the regional context would be ranked much higher in a British or European
classification. In other words the overall standard of scenic quality is high in beach areas in the Highlands
and Islands, and low evaluations in the regional context do not necessarily imply that individual beaches
are of no scenic value.
61
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
2.12
Scientific interest
Many of the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands are of scientific interest in their own right, or lie
within areas of strong scientific interest. Beach complexes are usually dynamic environments (see chapter 2.1)
and although few are entirely free from the hand of man, the degree and intensity of human influences are
frequently low. Because of these and other reasons, many beach complexes in the study area are of value
for nature conservation, and this value is reflected in the fact that almost one-third of these beach complexes
lie wholly or partly within Sites of Special Scientific Interest. (See chapter 4.3).
Over the last few years, the Nature Conservancy Council has compiled a Nature Conservation Review
which is due to be published in 1977 (Ratcliffe, in press). The objective of this review is to identify all sites
of national biological importance. The sites listed (known as ‘key sites’) are graded according to their value
for nature conservation, and include several which are of international importance as well as existing
National Nature Reserves. It is considered essential that all Grade 1 key sites should be safeguarded if there
is to be an adequate basis for nature conservation in Britain, and 24 beach complexes in the Highlands
and Islands (5% of the units in the area) are included in this category. In some of these cases, for example
in the Rhum beaches and at Marwick in Orkney, the main focus of scientific interest is in habitats outwith the
beach complexes, although the beach complexes lie within the site boundaries. Elsewhere, interest focuses
firmly on the beach complexes, some of which, such as Invernaver in Sutherland and the Loch Druidibeg
area in South Uist, already lie in National Nature Reserves. There is a concentration of Grade 1 key sites
between Cape Wrath and Faraid Head near Durness; again the inclusion of some of the beach complexes
is incidental to other interests, but Balnakiel and the Kyle of Durness beaches have in themselves a strong
biological (and to a lesser extent geomorphological) interest. Other key sites include Loch Gruinart in Islay
and Morrich More in Easter Ross. The former contains the beach complexes of Ard Nave and Killinallan and
is an extremely important winter haunt for wildfowl, in addition to containing a set of interesting coastal
habitats. Morrich More (plate 24) is regarded as one of the most important dune systems in Europe, and
has a rich variety of flowering plants and herbs. Ard Nave, Killinallan and Morrich More, together with
Invernaver and Torrisdale Bay, are probably the beach units of greatest value for nature conservation, and
besides, they are also of strong geomorphological interest. Of these only Invernaver and Torrisdale Bay are
at present within National Nature Reserves. There are two other groups of beach units in Grade 1 key sites,
one at the mouth of Loch Fleet in East Sutherland, and the other to the north of the mouth of Loch Inchard in
north-west Sutherland. Parts of the dunes and machair of Sandwood, Polin (Oldshorebeg) and Oldshoremore
in the latter group are amongst the most species-rich blown-sand areas in Britain, and there is also an
additional geomorphological interest at Sandwood and, to a lesser extent, at Oldshoremore. The Loch Fleet
group, where much of the interest is ornithological, also has strong geomorphological interest, especially at
Coul Links.
Within the nationally important key sites, a number are rated as Grade 2, being possible alternatives sites
to the Grade 1 sites referred to above. Sixteen beach units in the Highlands and Islands lie within Grade 2
sites, and of these it is estimated that twelve are of strong biological interest in their own right. The main
occurrences are on the west and north-west coasts of Tiree, on the north shore of the Lower Dornoch Firth,
and on part of the west coast of North Uist. Outlying Grade 2 beach units are found in Brekon in Yell,
Rackwick in Hoy, Northton in Harris and Rhunahaorine in Kintyre, while the Handa beaches lie within a
Grade 2 area but are not in themselves of outstanding interest.
62
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The Nature Conservation Review considers only sites of biological interest, and no comparable national
review has yet been made for sites of geomorphological interest. Recently, however, a report entitled
Shetland – Localities of geological and geomorphological importance was published by the Geology and
Physiography Section of the Nature Conservancy Council (N.C.C. 1976), and a similar report is currently
being produced for the Outer Hebrides. The Shetland report classifies sites of geomorphological interest into
three categories: Grade A sites are of the highest international importance; Grade B sites are of some
international and national importance, with scientific merit only slightly inferior to these in Grade A; and
Grade C sites have definite national but no significant international importance. Grade A sites are typically
large, and show a suite of features of a very high standard, and may provide the best developed example
of features of world-wide significance (N.C.C. 1976). In Shetland, one beach complex (St. Ninian’s) was
classed as Grade A, while three units (Balta Island, Burrafirth and Sandwick – all in or near Unst) were
assessed as Grade B units, and a further three – at Brekon in Yell and Quendale and Scousburgh in the
South Mainland – were placed in Grade C. Therefore seven beaches in Shetland (17% of the Shetland total)
are considered to be of geomorphological importance at the national or international levels. This relatively
high proportion is a further reflection of the high scientific interest associated with many beach complexes
in the Highlands and Islands. Although the remainder of the study area has not yet been graded by the
Nature Conservancy Council it can confidently be expected that a similarly high percentage of beach
complexes of outstanding geomorphological importance will be found in other parts of the Highlands and Islands.
Table 2.12.1
Beach complexes of outstanding geomorphological interest
(Shetland is excluded: please see text)
Grade 1
Sandwood Bay (Sutherland)
Torrisdale Bay (Sutherland)
Newton (Machar Robach) (N. Uist)
Morrich More (Easter Ross)
Traigh na Berie (Lewis)
Bay of Newark (Sanday, Orkney)
Ayre of Cara (Orkney)
Oronosay (Colonsay)
Jura (West coast north of Loch Tarbert)
Machir Bay (Islay)
Hynish (Tiree)
Grade 2
Balnakeil (Sutherland)
Coul (Sutherland)
Cuthill Links (Sutherland)
Achnahaird Bay (Wester Ross)
Traigh Mhor Tolsta/Garry (Lewis)
Luskentyre (Harris)
Traigh Mhor (Barra)
Vatersay Bay Isthmus
Rhunahaorine (Kintyre)
Waulkmill Bay (Orkney)
Baleshare (N. Uist)
Eochar to Dremisdale (S. Uist)
Balephuill-Bhasapoll (Tiree)
Caoles-Urvaig (Tiree)
Kilbride (Argyll)
Grade 3
Doun Helzie (Orkney)
Sand of the Crook (Orkney)
Dunnet (Caithness)
Kyle of Durness (Sutherland)
Oldshoremore (Sutherland)
Brora (Dalchalm) (Sutherland)
Littleferry/Golspie (Sutherland)
Dornoch South (Sutherland)
Redpoint North (Wester Ross)
Opinan (Wester Ross)
Eoropie (Lewis)
Mangersta (Lewis)
Traigh na Clibhe (Lewis)
Corran Seilibost (Harris)
Northton (Harris)
Feall/Crossapol (Coll)
Hogh Bay (Coll)
Machrihanish (Kintyre)
Daliburgh (S. Uist)
Kiloran Bay (Colonsay)
Ardskenish (Colonsay)
Traigh Bhan (Islay)
Corran (Jura)
Sannox (Arran)
For descriptions of these beach complexes, please see appropriate regional beach report. These are given
in Appendix II and in the Bibliography.
63
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
On the basis of knowledge acquired of the study area over the last few years, the present authors have
attempted to classify the geomorphological importance of beach complexes in other parts of the Highlands
and Islands. The criteria employed have not necessarily been the same as those used by the Nature
Conservancy Council in their Shetland work, so that direct comparison with the Shetland gradings may not
be possible. Grading by the present authors has been based on both morphology and process. Beach units
which have such outstanding physical features as to elevate them to the status of classic examples of types
of landforms or suites of landforms are ranked highly, but consideration has also been given to the
geomorphological processes in operation. We are strongly of the opinion that the dynamics of landforms
are just as worthy of conservation as landforms in the static sense. High rankings have been made where
these processes are especially vigorous, and where their study may elucidate problems of how beach
complexes develop through time. The selection which has been made of the most outstanding beach
complexes (from the geomorphological viewpoint) is therefore representative both in morphology and
process; some beach units are of interest in both respects (and these have been ranked particularly highly)
while others may be outstanding in only one or other of these regards.
Table 2.12.1 lists the beach complexes judged to be the most outstanding from the physiographical
viewpoint. Grade 1 units are of the highest geomorphological interest, and Grade 2 beaches are regarded
as of only slightly lesser interest. They may be slightly less dynamic, smaller, or of slightly lower value from
the viewpoint of elucidating problems of coastal development than those in Grade 1, but nevertheless are
still of major geomorphological interest, Grade 3 beach complexes are also of strong interest, and include
examples of geomorphological types not included in Grades 1 and 2.
It is noticeable that many of the beach complexes judged to be of geomorphological importance are also
listed in the Nature Conservation Review as being of biological importance. This is particularly true in
the case of Grade 1 units such as Sandwood, Torrisdale Bay and Morrich More. This concurrence is not
just coincidental; beach complexes which are highly dynamic are frequently characterised by a range
of different landforms which are the foundations of varied habitats. Therefore, where there is strong
geomorphological interest, it is probable that there is also a strong biological interest.
Finally, it should be emphasised that scientific interest and value for nature conservation are not confined to
the beach complexes mentioned by name in this section. Only the most outstanding units have been named,
and numerous other beach complexes are of both interest and value. Indeed groups of beaches, although
they are not outstanding individually, may be as useful in shedding light on the processes of development of
beach complexes as more conspicuous single units. It should also be emphasised that the scientific interest
intrinsic in many beach units may be of practical as well as of theoretical value. The more that can be
learned about the process of beach development and the ecological relationships within beach complexes,
the firmer will be the basis for the management of beach complexes.
64
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
3
THE BEACH RESOURCE IN THE PAST
At first sight the apparently empty Highland beach is the epitome of an intact, natural area which has
completely escaped the hand of man. But this view is in reality a distorted one, for man has had a strong
influence, albeit usually an indirect one, in the moulding of almost every beach in the Highlands and Islands.
The beaches are of the same age as man himself in the region, and they have evolved not in response to
a purely natural set of forces, but in response to an environment in which man has been an integral part.
The role of man in modifying the beach environment is therefore one which cannot be ignored, and
important lessons about the fragility of the beach resource, and about how it can be damaged by over-use,
can be learned from a review of its use in the past.
Until comparatively recently, agriculture was by far the most important use of dunes and machairs, and
recreational use was almost unknown. Only in the last century have beach areas been widely perceived as
attractive recreational environments. Up until as late as the end of the eighteenth century, terms such as
‘barren’, ‘desert’ and ‘waste’ are common in descriptions of beach complexes. Dr. Samuel Johnson’s reaction
to the Machair Mhor at Hogh Bay in Coll was that it was ‘horrible, if barrenness and danger could be so’
(Boswell 1785). Although the vehemence of his disapproval may have been unusual, and may have
stemmed in part from his well-known prejudices, it was typical of his time, and indeed is supported by his
companion Boswell, who found the same area to be ‘uncouth.’ Contemporary evidence of more positive
perceptions, reflected in the use of the term ‘beautiful’ by the local ministers to describe sandy beaches of
Tiree and Caithness (Old Statistical Account, vol. 10, no. (29) p. 394, OSA 11, (18), 245), is uncommon.
Records of the beaches having been used for recreation are even rarer. Apart from the possible use of areas
such as Dornoch Links for golf, one of the earliest records of informal recreational use is that of the minister
of Coll and Tiree who wrote in 1845 of the several fine sandy beaches in these islands which are ‘very
pleasant for walking or taking equestrian exercise upon.’ (New Statistical Account, vol. 7, p. 197).
Agriculture, on the other hand, has been carried on since time immemorial. The rich legacy of
archaeological remains in and around beach areas, especially in the Western and Northern Isles, might
suggest that the light machair soils were early favoured for agriculture. It is important to bear in mind,
however, that the machairs were evolving during the period of the primary agricultural colonisation of the
Highlands and Islands. According to Spencer (1975), sand-blowing and machair accumulation on the west
coast of Papa Westray in Orkney did not begin until the beginning of the Neolithic period, when agriculture
first arrived. Similarly, at Northton in Harris, blown-sand is stratified between two Neolithic occupation
horizons. The lower horizon rests on a boulder-clay surface (Evans 1971) and therefore predates the build-up
of the machair, while the upper layer has been dated to around 2500 BC (Burleigh et al. 1975). The role
of prehistoric man in the evolution of the machairs must remain speculative, but the stratigraphy of excavated
archaeological sites such as Northton, Skara Brae in Orkney (Childe 1931) and Udal in North Uist
(Crawford 1970) clearly indicates that man repeatedly returned to the same blown-sand areas despite
having suffered the burial of his habitations and perhaps also of his fields. In short, despite its limitations,
the machair environment was agriculturally attractive. Its light soils were relatively easily worked, and
occupation of the southern Outer Hebrides in prehistoric times probably would not have been so extensive
had there been no blown-sand deposits (Spencer 1975).
As yet, little is known in detail about the use which prehistoric man made of sandy beach areas, and of the
impact he had on them, and it is probably true to say that even less is known of the early historical period.
65
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Documentary references to beaches and their use are few. Perhaps one of the earliest which specifically
refers to identifiable beach areas is Dean Monro’s Western Isles of Scotland, a record of his voyage through
the Hebrides in 1549, in which he notes the existence in several localities of good grazing and productive
cropland, capable of producing rich crops of bere (Munro 1961) Some of the areas thus mentioned by
Dean Monro were later described as sandy deserts, and it is tempting to speculate that a considerable
measure of stability existed in the beach resource at the time of his visit. Indeed, until the rapid increases in
population in the late 18th and 19th centuries, a relatively harmonious relationship may well have existed
between man and the beach environment. Machairs were used both for grazing and for cultivation, but
complex institutional arrangements were devised for regulating agricultural use in such areas. While these
arrangements were probably partly motivated by a wish to maintain social harmony, they were almost
certainly also stimulated by an awareness of the fragility of the beach resource; and of the need to conserve it.
Cultivation, in particular, appears to have been closely regulated. Carmichael (1884) gives a detailed
description of the management of the arable land on machairs held in common. Basically a form of shifting
cultivation was practised; a patch of the machair was selected for cultivation and was divided into a number
of cultivation strips or rigs which were allocated to individuals by balloting. Cultivation was continued for
three seasons, after which the cultivated area reverted to grass, and a new cultivation site was selected for
the next three years. This rotational use helped to ensure that the most fragile areas were not cultivated, and
that no part of the machair was ever permanently exposed or completely depleted of its organic matter
content, thereby increasing the likelihood of sand-blow.
The uncultivated part of the machair was used for grazing. Grazing intensity was regulated by the township
constable, who ensured that the carry of stock was not excessive. In the absence of wire and other suitable
fencing materials, the livestock were kept off the cultivation areas by a herdsman, who, if the Monach Islands
example were typical, was given the outside cultivation strip, next to the grazing, to ensure the alertness of
his vigilance (Carmichael 1884). The key to the continued usefulness of the machair for arable use lay in
two factors; firstly a sufficiently long recovery interval between episodes of cultivation, so that the protective
vegetation cover could be re-established and the soil organic content could recover, and secondly, the liberal
use of seaweed as manure. This manure has the double function of supplying plant nutrients and, probably
more important, of increasing or at least maintaining the soil organic content, so that in turn the moistureretaining property of the sandy soil was maintained and the risk of wind erosion reduced.
Even under such a regime of management, the limitations of the machair as an arable area were widely
recognised. Oats could not be reliably grown on the very light soils (Crofters Commission, Evidence p. 879),
and crops were largely restricted to bere (a type of barley), and later, potatoes. During damp years, some
measure of success with oats might be obtained but in dry years there was not only the risk of almost total
failure of the oats crop, but also the bere yields would be greatly reduced (Crofters Commission, Evidence
p. 1189). Problems also existed in the use of the machair for grazing. Where changes of grazing were
available, as, for example between the machair and the hill, the machair was very useful, especially in
winter. But when no such changes could easily be made, as on some of the very extensive machairs of the
Outer Hebrides or Orkney, then problems of deficiency diseases, and even more so, problems of adequate
quantities and qualities of water supply, became severe (Crofters Commission, Evidence p. 778, p. 1478).
It was also realised that cultivation had to be very carefully timed. Ploughing had to be carried out quickly, and
immediately prior to sowing, so as to minimise the period of exposure of a bare sand surface. Too early cultivation
ran the risk of flooding, and too late cultivation, of crop failure through drought (O.S.A. 10, (29), 395):
66
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Thus the balance between the usefulness, the use and the conservation of the resource was delicately poised;
although occasional mention does exist of sand-blow occurring prior to the late 18th century (Anderson 1785,
Ritchie 1966a) there is evidence to suggest that sand-blow became much more widespread and severe
towards the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. From Islay, Coll and Tiree, the whole length
of the Outer Hebrides from Barra to Ness, the mainland, and the Northern Isles came reports of
sand-blow during the 1790s (O.S.A. various volumes). These reports were frequently accompanied by
observations that the productivity of the land was falling, and that grain yields were becoming abysmally
low. While the causes of this apparent change in the resource cannot be identified with complete certainty,
the rapid growth of the local population may have been at least partly responsible. As population grew,
more cultivation would be required to feed the increasing number of mouths. Thus the arable use of the
machairs increased, and cultivation not only increased in area but also became more frequent in time.
Indeed there is evidence that cultivation became continuous on some machairs, so that the recovery phases
were completely squeezed out. Just a short time earlier, potatoes had been introduced as a staple food crop,
and it is possible that the period which elapsed between cultivation of the soil and the re-establishment of
a protective canopy was longer for the new crop than it had been for the older-established cereal crops.
The lengthening of this period of bare soil, combined with expanding and more frequent cultivation, would
certainly increase the risk of damaging sand-blow. It is also possible that short-term weather changes (for
example a run of dry, windy springs) may have contributed to the instability of dunes and machair at this time.
The repercussions of changing cultivation practice arising from increasing population may well have been
exacerbated by the growth of the kelp industry around the end of the eighteenth century. Since beaches
were used as gathering grounds for driftweed (Rymer 1974), the growth of the industry attracted more
people onto the beaches, and in all probability, was accompanied by new intensities of trampling in the
dunes and machair behind the beach. Darling and Boyd (1964) attribute the corrugation of the Balephuill
machair in Tiree to damage done by the wheels of the kelp carts, and the passage of large numbers of feet
and wheels may well have contributed to the instability of the machair in the late eighteenth century. At the
same time, the growth of a commercial outlet for seaweed products led to a reduction in the use of the material
as a manure (O.S.A. 13, (22), 330). This may have further contributed to the weakening of the machair.
Two other factors were in operation, at least locally. Some machairs were drained around this period, as
for example in South Uist (Ritchie 1966a). An indirect effect of drainage and the lowering of the water table
is the exposing of parts of the machair to increased threats of erosion. Secondly, there is some evidence to
suggest that as population grew and cereal crops became poorer, Marram grass was substituted for straw
as a thatching material (Crofters Commission, Evidence p. 850). Although Marram had long been harvested
(Dean Monro writing in 1549 records that cut Marram was supplied as part of the rent of the island of Fuday
to MacNeill of Barra) the increased population and increased demand could only mean that the rotations
which were employed in the cutting of the Marram (Crofters Commission, Evidence p. 655) would be
shortened, again reducing the efficacy of the binding effect on the sand dunes, and thereby increasing the
likelihood of sand-blow.
That sand-blow was at some period in the past very active is evidenced not only in the literature but also in
the machair landforms visible today. A very frequent feature of the machair is a clearly defined machair
escarpment, sometimes extensively crenellated on its landward edge by long deflation fingers resembling
those of active erosion at the present day. These escarpments and their accompanying deflation fingers are
now usually completely fixed, but at some time in the past they must have been very active. Although at the
67
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
present state of knowledge, it is not possible to date these features, or even to establish if they were
contemporaneous, it seems probable that they date back to a period around the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. Indeed it is tempting to speculate further that the fixing of these old erosion faces may
in some areas be traced back to the clearance of the subsistence population and the laying out of new
commercial farms. This took place around the 1840s and 1850s in several parts of the islands and it could
be that a cessation of cultivation, combined with more controlled grazing, allowed a measure of physical
stability to return.
Although grazing and cultivation were the main uses of machairs in the past as at present, they were by no
means the only uses. Sand extraction was also widespread, particularly where the sand was shelly and
could be used as a liming material. The Old and New Statistical Accounts contain numerous mentions of
shell-sand being used in this way; so numerous, in fact, were the mentions that the minister of Dornoch felt
moved to record that the sand from the Dornoch beaches (which has a low lime content) was not so used
(O.S.A. 8, (1), 5). Most of this usage was probably on a very small scale, and, in the context of difficult
and costly transport, confined to the environs of the beach. But some longer distance transport was involved,
with the parish of Kilmore and Kilbride, a parish on the Firth of Lorne with no calcareous beaches, importing
shell-sand from Wester Ross (O.S.A. 11, (8), 123). Although a few other references exist to longer hauls of
beach sand, sand for example being taken from Gigha to Dumbarton for glass manufacture (O.S.A. 8, (3), 40),
most consumption is likely to have been purely local. This is particularly true for the use of beach sand as a
cattle-bedding material (Crofters Commission, Evidence p. 2076) and for the use of certain types of shellsand, as around Ardtoe in North Argyll, as a substitute for plaster (N.S.A. 8, 130).
These extractive uses are unlikely to have had more than purely local effects, and the scale of the extraction,
in relation to the volume of sand in the beach complexes, was probably very small. In terms of environmental
impact, the management of several machairs as rabbit warrens was probably much more significant.
Although not natives of the north and west of Scotland, rabbits are known to have been present in the area
for at least several centuries. Rabbits are recorded as constituting part of the rentals of Sanday and Papa
Westray from as early as the 15th century ( J. Ritchie 1920), while in the following century, Dean Monro
writes of a ’Great Conies’ Isle’ in West Loch Roag off the west coast of Lewis (Munro 1961). Later, in the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, several mentions are made of rabbit warrens on machair
areas. For example, Dr. Johnson records a warren owned by the Duke of Argyll in the north end of Coll
(Boswell 1785), while the minister of the parish of Wick writes in 1845 of the links of Reiss (Sinclair’s Bay)
being ‘stored’ with rabbits (N.S.A. 15, 128). Rabbits were realised to be threats to the stability of machairs
at an early date; the minister of the parish of Dunnet wrote of the ‘great mischief’ done by the rabbits on
Dunnet Links at the time of the Old Statistical Account in 1794 (O.S.A. 11, (18), 250).
Indeed an awareness of the fragility of the machair is a recurring theme in much of the historical literature.
As well as recording what was probably the purely natural phenomenon of coastal retreat, from settings as
diverse as the Monach Isles and Easter Ross, the writers of the Old and New Statistical Accounts were very
conscious of sand-blow occurring in their parishes, and, perhaps more surprisingly, some of them also seem
to have been aware of the role of man in triggering this instability. In the parish of Tain, for example, the
local minister observed that, as a result of sand-blow following on unsuitable agricultural practices, ‘some
parts (had) been wasted from use by man, and converted into barren downs’ (N.S.A. 14, 285). Both in
Tain and in Dunnet parishes it was implied that such ‘wasting’ was associated with the use of the links as
common pastures which were overgrazed; after Dunnet links were sub-divided and better controlled grazing
68
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
regimes were introduced, some re-habilitation appears to have been achieved (N.S.A. 15, 37). Likewise,
there is clear evidence that at least some managers were aware of re-habilitative techniques; in South Uist
and Barra, in particular, large areas (extending to ‘hundreds of acres’) were planted with Marram in the
nineteenth century in an effort to fix bare, drifting sand (Carmichael 1884).
The significance of the use of the beach resource in the past is considerable. Firstly, the physical nature of
the beach resource has been modified by man’s use; it can be confidently asserted that no area of dunes
or machair, with the possible exception of a few minute cliff-foot patches, is free from the influence of man.
Therefore, in a sense, no completely natural beach complex exists, and it further follows that there are no
natural beach complexes which can be used as models, towards which the management of beach
complexes for agriculture or recreation should aim. Secondly, the evidence suggests that the stability, and
continued usefulness, of the beach resource was impaired by the increasing intensity of use in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. When the intensity of use increased and damage thresholds were
exceeded, the beach resource deteriorated and became less useful. Thirdly, there was an awareness that
excessive use was damaging the resource, and that damage seemed to be correlated with certain forms of
tenure. But despite this awareness, and despite a further awareness that management techniques such as
the planting of Marram were available and could be effective, successful action to conserve the beach
resource seems to have been restricted to a relatively small number of places where the landowner, or his
factor, had the ability and inclination to intervene.
69
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
4
INFLUENCES ON THE CURRENT USE OF THE BEACH RESOURCE
Use of the beach resource is influenced by a number of factors, which operate individually and in
combination. The two most important of these factors are probably accessibility and tenure. The accessibility
of a beach, and in particular its location in relation to the main tourist routes, is a strong control on the
recreational pressures to which the beach is likely to be exposed. Type of ownership and tenure, on the other
hand, usually determine not only the main non-recreational land uses but also the way in which the other
land uses, and management of the beach complex in general, responds to the growth of recreational use.
The influences of accessibility and tenure operate within the context of planning legislation. Planning, therefore,
is an influence which cannot be ignored in, reaching an understanding of the patterns of beach resource
use, although its influence has usually been weaker and less direct than those of accessibility and tenure.
4.1
Location and accessibility
Location within the Highlands and Islands
The distribution of beaches in the Highlands and Islands is extremely irregular (see chapter 2.6 and
figure 1.2), and is undoubtedly one of the principal constraints on use. Beaches in remote and isolated parts
of the area are much less used for tourism and recreation than beaches which are more easily accessible.
At the broad, regional scale, the distribution of sandy beaches is peripheral; beaches are far more numerous
in the islands (especially on their outer coasts) than on the mainland coast. On the mainland coast, clusters
of beaches alternate with long stretches of coastline almost devoid of sand. Within these clusters, marked
variations occur in the distance between the beach and the nearest road. Thus at a variety of different scales,
location and accessibility are important variables influencing the type and intensity of use.
Table 4.1.1 illustrates the distribution of beaches at the scale of the Highlands and Islands. Just over onequarter of the beach units occur in the Highland mainland; the distribution of the beach resource is
overwhelmingly insular. Indeed the number of beaches on the mainland is about the same as that on islands
which are not served by car ferry.
This distributional pattern is of fundamental importance both in understanding current use, and in planning
for the future use of the resource. Pressures in general, and recreational pressures in particular, will always
be greatest on the mainland. Almost three-quarters of the beaches are protected from intensive tourist and
recreational use by virtue of their location on islands.
The effects of an island setting take two related forms. One is the time and effort required to get to the
islands, and the other is the heavy cost involved. The effect of the island location is illustrated in figures 4.1.1a
and b.
These maps are based on a number of assumptions. Firstly, both maps are based on Glasgow, which has
arbitrarily been taken as the centre of gravity of tourist demand. From Glasgow, the time taken and cost
involved in getting to the various parts of the Highlands and Islands has been calculated, based on the
module of a family with two adults, two children and an average-sized car, which can maintain an optimistic
average speed of 45m.p.h. and has a petrol consumption of 30m.p.g.
70
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 4.1.1
Location of beaches
Mainland
Island with
car ferry
Island with
scheduled
passenger
ferry but no
car ferry
Absolute percentage
26.8
46.1
18.5
3.0
5.6
Cumulative percentage
26.8
73.0
91.4
94.4
100.0
Percentage of beach
units (total = 466)
Island with no
regular ferry
Uninhabited
island
Time taken is based on a single journey, while costs have been estimated for a return trip (1975 timetables
and tariffs were used). Waiting times of 30 minutes have been assumed for all ferries, except the Skye
crossing (10 minutes) and the Islay crossing (20 minutes) but no allowance has been made for meal breaks
or the cost of meals or overnight accommodation. The results, therefore, are underestimates of the real time
and money costs. It should also be emphasised that while valid for the larger islands, the maps underestimate
the time and cost of travel to the smaller islands – particularly in the case of the North Isles of Orkney, where
shipping services are available only on a few days in the week.
The steepening of the time and cost gradients on water crossings is obvious. The whole of the Northern Isles
and most of the Western Isles lie outwith a reasonable day’s journey of 8 hours (most of mainland Britain
except for the extreme south of England would be within this radius). The cost gradient on water crossings
is even steeper. Lewis, Iying approximately 275km from Glasgow, has a cost position equivalent to an
overland distance of about 800km, while the geographical and cost distances of Shetland are respectively
525km and 1800km.
These cost and time barriers imposed by the Minch, the Pentland Firth and the other ferry crossings are even
more potent in relation to the haulage of caravans. They are also associated with the disadvantages and
inflexibility of requiring ferry bookings, sometimes well in advance of travel. The net effect is to confine much
of the casual use by tourists, and most of the caravanning use, to locations on the mainland.
Even within the islands, however, there are marked variations in accessibility, and hence in the intensity of
recreational use. Almost 9% of all the beaches in the area of study are on islands which have no scheduled
passenger ferries, and of these over half (5.6% of the regional total) are on uninhabited islands. At first sight
such islands may seem priceless reservoirs of unused ‘wilderness’ beaches. But since these beaches are
almost completely inaccessible for the ordinary tourist lacking his own boat, or without the wherewithal to
charter a vessel, they are virtually unusable; relative inaccessibility may help to ensure that the resource is
little used, but if the beach cannot be reached it is scarcely a recreational resource at all.
Within the main island groups there is also a tendency for the beaches to be peripheral, in the same way
as they are peripheral at the scale of the Highlands and Islands. In Orkney, for example, most of the beaches
are in the outer islands or on the parts of the mainland most remote from Kirkwall. The same pattern is true
in Shetland, where most of the beaches lie at the extreme north and south ends of the archipelago. Similar
patterns exist to some extent on Mull. Therefore even when he reaches the island ferry point, the tourist is
frequently still some considerable distance from the main beaches, and he may well have to undertake an
additional ferry journey if he is to reach the parts of the coastline best endowed with beaches.
71
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 4.1.1a Isochrones (in hours) of overland accessibility by car from Glasgow
(for assumptions on which the map is based please see text)
72
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 4.1.1b Cost sur face map (centered on Glasgow) (for assumptions on which the map is
based please see text)
73
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Thus both at the regional and island scales there is a strong inverse relationship between distribution of
beaches and accessibility. This relationship is further emphasised when the main tourist centres of the
Highlands are considered. Centres with large reserves of tourist accommodation, such as Dunoon, Oban,
Fort William and Inverness almost invariably lie on parts of the coastline with very few beaches, whereas
many of the parts of the Highland coastline which do contain sandy beaches are lacking in tourist
accommodation.
Figure 4.1.2
Distribution of beaches by amount of tourist accommodation within 8km
As figure 4.1.2 illustrates, less than 5% of the beaches in the Highlands and Islands lie within an 8km radius
of more than 500 tourist beds, whereas nearly one-quarter of the beaches have no tourist accommodation
in their vicinity.
There is therefore a mal-distribution of beaches from a tourist viewpoint, at the scale of the Highlands and
Islands as a regional unit, at the scale of individual island groups, and within the Highland mainland.
Accessibility and proximity to ser vices
Superimposed on these problems of location at the regional scale are problems of local levels of
accessibility. Many holiday-makers, especially if they are elderly or have young families, are reluctant to
walk far from their car; beaches Iying some distance from a road or track are therefore likely to be only
lightly used for day recreation, as well, of course, as being unused for caravanning. Figure 4.1.3 illustrates
the distribution of beaches by distance from a public road, and from the nearest track which is considered
to be motorable by a family car, irrespective of whether a vehicular right of way exists. Under a third of the
beaches lie within 100m of a public road, but the proportion increases to 40% when the mainland beaches
are considered alone. At the other end of the spectrum, over one-third of all beaches lie more than 500m
from a road, and over one-fifth are more than 1000m.
74
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 4.1.3
Distances of beaches from public roads and motorable tracks
Distances from a motorable track are usually less, but use of such a track usually requires prior knowledge
and perhaps a more adventurous spirit than most holiday-makers possess. Even so, only 56% of all
beaches and 64% of all mainland beaches are less than 100m from any motorable track. Therefore, local
accessibility imposes a second layer of constraints on use upon those resulting from regional distribution.
Furthermore, local accessibility includes a vertical component as well as horizontal distance; steep ascents
and descents have to be negotiated if access is to be gained at some beaches. Such climbs are strong
deterrents to use by the elderly, and indeed by the middle aged.
Tourist traffic in the Highlands and Islands is strongly concentrated on a few major routeways (Carter 1971
and STARS 1976), and many minor roads are but lightly used. The type of road approaching closest to a
beach is rarely a major route. Table 4.1.2 illustrates the distribution of nearest road types.
A and B class through roads between them are the nearest road types for less than one-quarter of the
beaches although their proportion rises to over one-third when the mainland beaches alone are considered.
On the other hand, unclassified roads are the nearest types for almost half of the beaches. Indeed
unclassified dead-end roads form the nearest type for approximately 40% of the beaches of the Highland
mainland as well as of the Highlands and Islands as a whole. Such roads are often little used, and unless
the tourist has prior knowledge of the existence of a beach, or has some other specific reason for venturing
along an unclassified dead-end road, he is unlikely to visit these beaches. From the viewpoint of the casual
75
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
tourist, therefore, about half the beaches are, in effect, well nigh unusable by virtue of their situation in
relation to the road network. Conversely the beaches which are likely to be heavily used by casual tourists
are those on the main circulation routes.
Yet another constraint on tourist use is the visibility of beach from the nearest road. Only 55% of all the
beaches in the region are visible from an adjacent public road, while a further 4% are visible only across
a sea loch or a sound. The casual tourist, therefore, is likely to be unaware of the existence of over 40%
of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands, even if he were to journey along every road in the area.
In practice, he is more likely to keep to the main through roads; only 18% of the beaches in the area of
study are visible from such roads.
Location, position in relation to the road network, and visibility are therefore all strong influences on how
beaches are used. Furthermore, these factors operate in combination rather than singly. When all are
considered together, as it were to form a nest of sieves, very few beaches pass through the combined
meshes of location, accessibility and visibility. For example, only the following 11 beaches have mainland
locations, lie within 200m of an A-class through road, are visible from the road, and have easy access
unobstructed by fences or railways.
Table 4.1.2
Ronachan
Port nam Marbh
Golspie-Littleferry
Thurso Bay
Tayinloan
Machrihanish
Dunnet Bay
Traigh allt Chailgeag
Sango Bay
Gairloch
Gruinard South
Distribution of beaches by nearest road type
Percentages of
beaches
A-class
through
road
B-class
through
road
A-class
dead end
B-class
dead end
Unclassified
through
Unclassified
road
dead end
All beaches (466)
17.0
7.8
7.1
17.0
8.7
42.4
Mainland only (125)
24.8
12.0
4.8
10.4
8.8
39.2
These beaches, which amount to only 3% of all the beaches in the Highlands and Islands, receive much of
the total casual use by passing tourists. Kintyre and Caithness (neither of which is in the most visited parts
of the Highlands) between them account for 7 of these 12 beaches. The remainder, including Gairloch,
Gruinard Bay and Sango Bay, receive very heavy use.
Position in relation to services such as mains electricity and piped water supply is also an important influence
on the actual and potential distribution of caravan sites if not to the same extent on day use. Approximately
one-third of the beaches are more than 500m from a piped water supply or mains electricity, and about
one-fifth are more than 1km from these services (these proportions drop to one-quarter and one-sixth on
the mainland). The extension of these services over long distances is often a costly and usually uneconomic
operation and could preclude the development of caravan sites at beaches which might otherwise be
considered suitable.
76
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Barriers to access
The beach may be well located in relation to the road network and to services but be rendered inaccessible
at the local scale because of physical or perceptual barriers to access, such as fences or railway lines.
As table 4.1.3 indicates, such barriers are relatively rare in the Highlands and Islands. By far the most
frequent type of barrier is the fence, which is normally designed to keep livestock in rather than visitors out.
Gates, and sometimes even stiles, are usually available and the fences are rarely impenetrable barriers, but
they may serve as deterrents to access, especially if the roadside is fenced so that car parking becomes
difficult. The next most frequent barrier is the occurrence of cultivated land, which usually exists in conjunction
with fences. Many of the beaches in the Orkney mainland, for example, are surrounded by cultivated land,
and indeed large parts of some of their machairs are cultivated. On the other hand, over 90% of the
beaches in the area of study are surrounded by rough land, and about 70% are unfenced. Therefore
de facto access is rarely a problem, provided, of course, that the visitor is prepared to walk from the road
to the beach. Deliberate attempts to discourage public access by the erection of notices and other such
means are very rare (only 3% of the beaches are so protected by their owners), and are largely concentrated
in the mainland, and particularly in Argyll. Whatever the de jure position may be, the public enjoys de facto
access to the coast and beaches in a manner unparalleled in Britain and indeed probably also in northwest Europe.
Location and accessibility, at all scales, are influences of primary importance on how beaches are used.
Comparatively few beaches exist in the areas most frequented by tourists. The small number of beaches
which are close to the major tourist routes, and where access is unhindered by fences or by other barriers,
receive most of the casual tourist use. Many of the problems of tourist use are concentrated on these
beaches. Few tourists digress from the main routes, and few are prepared to walk long distances from
their cars. The majority of beaches, therefore, are by their location and setting protected against intensive
recreational use.
Table 4.1.3
Barriers to access
Percentage of
beaches affected
Cultivated
land
Fences
Houses
Water
Bog
Notices
Railway
All beaches
7.3
30.5
4.1
6.7
4.3
3.4
0.6
Mainland only
7.2
32.8
7.2
0.8
1.6
8.8
2.4
4.2
Tenure
Superimposed upon the influence of location is the influence of land tenure. Tenure is closely associated with
the type of land use carried on in a beach complex, and strongly influences the pattern of recreational use.
Reliable information on tenure and ownership is more difficult to collect than any other type of information
relating to beach areas. There is no convenient single source such as a land registry to which reference may
readily be made, and dependence usually has to be placed on personal inquiries in the locality. Such
unsystematic procedures are not only time consuming but are also unreliable. Local residents themselves may
have only hazy ideas of the exact position of marches or of the true tenurial status of parcels of land, and
77
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
indeed the legal status of some parcels may well be in dispute. Confirmation of details from the landowner
himself is frequently almost impossible, since he is usually either not resident in the area, or is temporarily
away on business or holiday when fieldwork is conducted. Therefore the reliability of detailed information
on tenure and ownership is lower than in the case of other types of information, but although minor factual
inaccuracies exist in relation to the tenure and ownership of individual beach units, it is thought that they are
unlikely to distort the general patterns which emerge.
A beach complex is rarely wholly within a single ownership or form of tenure. Much, but by no means all,
of the foreshore (the beach below high water mark) is held by the Crown. But although ownership of the
foreshore may be an important factor when industrial or port developments are under consideration, it is of
little relevance from the viewpoint of recreational use. It can, however, be of significance in relationship to
sand extraction from the intertidal zone. Where the foreshore is in private ownership, there is a greater
likelihood that sand or gravel will be taken than if it is held by the Crown or by a local authority.
Much more important from the viewpoint of use of the beach complex is the ownership of the area above
high water mark. Occasionally the owner of the dunes and machair is also the owner of the beach (in
Shetland, the traditional udal tenure stretched from the highest stone on the hill to the lowest stone on the
beach), but this is rare. Indeed the dunes and machair may well be held by several owners, each having a
different part, and the different parts may be under different forms of tenure. Thus to categorise a beach unit
by a single ownership or tenurial type can be misleading. Furthermore, some beaches have no dunes
or machair, and therefore it is not meaningful to talk of ownership or tenure other than in relation to
the foreshore. For the statistical analysis of ownership and tenure, however, the foreshore has been ignored,
and type of tenure has been decided in the light of the tenure of the area immediately adjacent to the beach.
This procedure is justified by the fact that use for tourism or recreation is usually more strongly influenced
by the pattern of ownership and tenure on the approaches to the beach, than by the ownership of the
foreshore.
Types of tenure and their distribution
The Highlands and Islands are often associated with crofting, and it is frequently assumed that most of the
land area comes under crofting tenure, especially in coastal areas. But as table 4.2.1 shows, under 40%
of the beaches in the region are in crofting tenure. Just under a half are under private tenure, which includes
owner-occupied farms and land held in hand by private estates. A variety of types of tenure applies to the
remainder of the beaches.
Table 4.2.1
Tenure
Percentages of all
beaches
Private
Tenanted
(non-crofting)
Crofting
(incl. D.A.F.S.
Crofting
estates)
44.8
6.9
39.0
Public*
(excl. D.A.F.S.)
Other or
not known
6.9
2.5
* This is a mixed category, including beaches owned (and occupied) by local authorities, government departments such
as Ministry of Defence, and by other state bodies such as the Civil Aviation Authority and Nature Conservancy Council.
Public ownership, in this sense, does not imply free public access.
78
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Aggregated proportions, however, conceal marked variations from place to place. Table 4.2.2 highlights
some of these variations – for example the prevalence of private ownership in Orkney clearly emerges, as
does the predominance of crofting tenure in the Hebrides. The full extent of variation is not revealed in the
table; the north part of the Hebrides is an area where crofting is overwhelmingly dominant, while private
tenure becomes much more widespread south of Tiree. Likewise, crofting on the mainland is largely
concentrated on the north-west coast.
Table 4.2.2
Distribution of tenurial types by area
Mainland
Hebrides
Orkney
Shetland
Clyde
59
27
76
24
48
4
9
7
5
9
Croft
10
9
9
50
–
Common grazing
Private
Tenanted
15
48
2
11
–
Local authority
8
–
5
2
35
State
2
4
–
2
4
Other/not known
3
3
–
5
4
(Figures are percentages of all beaches in area of study)
Crofting tenure
In strictly quantitative terms, crofting tenure may not seem to be of paramount importance. Yet many of the
more dynamic beach units are in crofting areas, and for historical, social and legal reasons, adaptation of
the traditional land-management practices to cater for the new pressures being exerted in some beach areas
has not come easily. Many of the environmental problems resulting from the use of beach complexes for
tourism and recreation have been concentrated in crofting areas. This is probably at least partly because
many of the more fragile beaches are in crofting areas, which are frequently on areas of high scenic value
and therefore popular with tourists. Nevertheless, the institutional background in some of these areas has
made the solution of these problems more difficult than would otherwise have been the case.
Land under crofting tenure falls within one of two main types, although graduations between the two types
often exist. The first is croft land, held and worked individually by a crofter, who enjoys almost complete
security of tenure under the landlord. Secondly, there are common grazings, which are used jointly by a
number of crofters, usually on a township grouping. These are the main divisions but they are not mutually
exclusive. Inbye arable land is still held in common and subject to periodical re-allotment in a few townships;
and in some townships the inbye land which is cropped or grazed individually in summer is used as common
grazing in winter. In recent years large areas of common grazings (including some common machairs) have
been apportioned to individual crofters.
Croft land contains most of the arable and improved land in crofting areas, and is usually enclosed by fences
and overlooked by croft houses. Beach complexes Iying within croft land are therefore less easy of access
to the casual tourist than unfenced areas. Approximately 11% of all the beach complexes in the region are
held as croft land. Only one-fifth of these are on the mainland, most of the others being in Shetland and the
Western Isles. On the mainland, the incidence is strongly concentrated on the Arisaig-Morar coast, where
numerous croft strips run from the A830(T) down to the sandy shore. This fragmented tenure on the machairs
is associated with small caravan sites which not only impair the scenic quality of the coastline, but also tend
to act as real or perceptual barriers preventing easy access to the beaches.
79
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Renard (1972) working on the coast of La Vendeé in France has documented the close relationship which
exists there between intensity of tourist developments and the occurrence of small fragmented land holdings.
Similarly in Norway, intense land fragmentation, compounded by a proliferation of small summer houses,
presents huge problems for planning and management of the coast. The difficulty is partly one of contacting
and remaining in communication with so many interested parties. It is true that in the Highlands and Islands,
the second-home developments also found by Renard to be associated with small land-holdings are as yet
lacking in areas of croft land, since the occupier (the crofting tenant) has been unable to sell his land for
building plots. Under the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act of 1976, however, a crofter may seek to buy his
croft land, and thereafter he can sell it, although the crofter’s purchase of his croft land does not in itself alter
the status of the land as croft land. It remains subject to the crofting acts, and to the restriction that the Crofters
Commission, if it thinks fit, can require the new owner to let the land to a crofter tenant. This restriction
prevents the operation of a completely free market, but it can be removed by the crofter successfully applying
to the Crofters Commission to have the land ‘decrofted,’ that is, to have it removed from the scope of the
crofting acts. When considering such an application, the Commission must take into account the general
interest of the local crofting community, and the demand for a croft tenancy from persons who could be
regarded as suitable tenants if the croft were to be offered for letting. Subject to these considerations, a
‘decrofting’ direction must be given if the applicant has applied for it in order to use the croft, or part of it,
for what the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act refers to as a ‘reasonable purpose’; a ’reasonable purpose’
means essentially a non-agricultural development (Crofters Commission 1976). The Commission, however,
have powers to impose conditions on the proposed use, and if these are breached, the Commission can
bring the land back into crofting tenure.
Therefore checks still exist on the sale of croft land for tourist developments or for the building of holiday
homes, but they are now less stringent than before the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act was passed. It is
possible that pressures for the sale of croft land for holiday-home developments may build up in some areas
in the future, and if so development-control policies (chapter 4.3) will have to be strict in order to avoid
problems of linear coastal development and difficulty of public access to the beaches.
Common grazings are the other component of crofting tenure. By definition, these grazings are used jointly
by a number of crofters who hold shares in them. Usually they have a more open appearance than croft
land, lacking small fence-encircled enclosures, and are more likely to be used by the casual tourist for wild
caravanning or camping. Many townships in coastal areas have two areas of common grazing. The smaller
one, frequently located on the machair quite close to the township, is sometimes known as the township
pasture, while the larger part is usually on moorland (but may also include a remote machair) at some
distance from the township. The two parts are usually managed differently, and fulfil different functions in
crofting agriculture.
To group common grazings into these two types is to oversimplify; a bewildering range of variations occurs.
Some pockets of land are common only between two or three crofts, and not between the whole township.
Some common grazings (such as Tresta (Fetlar)) are subject to an annual rotation (Coull 1968), with each
shareholder having exclusive rights for a year. Other machairs, such as Garry in Lewis, are regarded as
common grazings by local crofters and are used as such, although according to the landowners they have
no legal right to do so. Any generalisation on the subject of common grazings is therefore dangerous, and
certainly is not necessarily valid for all grazings in the region.
80
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Traditionally, common grazings were administered by a township constable, who had executive and
disciplinary powers to regulate grazing (Carmichael 1884). Today, they are normally administered by a
grazings committee elected by all the crofting shareholders. The committee in turn appoint a clerk who
administers the business of the committee but who, unlike the constable, has no disciplinary powers,
although the committee can (but rarely does) take action against a shareholder who contravenes the grazing
regulations. Regulations governing the use of most common grazings have been confirmed by the Crofters
Commission, and cover both the intensity of use, in terms of the number of stock that can be carried, and
the timing of operations such as the gathering of flocks. Application of the regulations is much stricter in some
common grazings than in others, and sometimes the set level of stocking (the souming) is exceeded (see
chapter 5.1), with the result that over-grazing may occur. Both the pattern and intensity of use can differ
considerably between the township pasture and the hill or moor grazings. Many machairs fall within the
former, but some of the remote ones, such as Traigh Mheilein in North Harris and Sandwood in north-west
Sutherland, are simply parts of large common grazings and are undifferentiated by fences or management
practices from open moorland. Therefore the significance of common-grazing status for the management of
the machair depends largely on the location of the machair in relation to the crofting township.
Many of the machairs which form problem areas in relation to recreational use and environmental damage
are held as common grazings, and in relative terms this form of tenure is more important than its numerical
proportion would suggest. Grazings committees have a legal responsibility only for agricultural management
(and in some cases for matters connected with peat cutting and the gathering of seaweed), and hence
problems arise when non-agricultural demands appear. These problems stem largely from the divisions of
responsibility, not only between individual shareholders, who are not always unanimous about the best line
of action to take, but also between the crofters and the crofting landlord. Even if the crofters were to reach
an agreement to develop a caravan site on a piece of common machair, the approval of the landlord would
be required for this non-agricultural use. It has been reported in some instances that the crofters have felt that
the landlord’s requirement of a share of the receipts has been a deterrent to development (Adam and Rankin
n.d.). Likewise, the landlord cannot proceed on a recreational development on common machair without
seeking the approval and the co-operation of the crofters, or by undertaking the legal procedure of seeking
to resume the piece of land out of crofting tenure.
Instances of crofter-landlord friction in this context, however, are rare. Much more frequent are problems
arising from the fact that the management institution of common grazings has been designed for agricultural
purposes, and cannot adapt readily to new demands and new uses. Although the grazings committee may
be able to prevent or to strongly discourage such use (as for example at Stoer or Sanna Bay), nevertheless
many common machairs are still used as unlicensed caravan sites or for wild caravanning, in some cases
with adverse erosional or sanitary effects. Solution of these problems has proved to be almost impossible
under this form of tenure and at the two most celebrated cases, at Achmelvich and Clachtoll in west
Sutherland, the local authority ultimately acquired the land, after the worst-affected areas had been resumed
out of crofting tenure.
Although it is closely associated with traditional ways of life in the Highlands and Islands, tenure as common
grazing is a comparatively recent phenomenon in some areas. Until the beginning of this century, several
machairs now held as common grazings were parts of sheep farms, which had usually been formed during
the early decades of the nineteenth century on the eviction of the previous population. In the early decades
of the twentieth century, several of these farms were turned over to croft land or more usually to common
81
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
grazings, in order to form enlargements to severely congested crofting townships. Machairs such as Traigh
na Berie and Mangersta in Lewis are examples. It is interesting to note that conversion of the former machair
to common grazings had been proposed by the Deer Forest Commission in 1896 (Royal Commission 1896),
but agricultural experts advised against this proposal on the grounds that machair erosion would be made
more likely. It was not until 1921 that the transfer finally occurred (Moisley et al. 1962).
Enlargement of croft land or common grazings was usually done on a voluntary basis, aided by the efforts
of the Congested Districts Board. Sometimes, however, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland (later the
Department) was involved in acquiring land, and several farms were acquired for sub-division into croft
holdings with common grazings, during the first three decades of this century. Examples of this type of
acquisition by the state include Vatersay, the Eoligarry peninsula of Barra, much of west Harris, the south-west
end of Sanday in Orkney, and part of Unst in Shetland. Approximately 5% of the beach complexes of the
Highlands and Islands lie within estates owned by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland;
although by definition these beaches are in state ownership, there is little practical difference from the
viewpoint of use and management between them and beach areas owned by a private crofting landlord.
The regulations and inherent inflexibility of crofting tenure are far more powerful influences on the current
patterns and problems of use than the personality of the landlord.
Other types of tenure
The next most common type of tenure, after private ownership, croftland and common grazing, is that of
tenancies (ie Iand rented but not subject to crofting regulations). Most tenanted beach complexes are on the
east coast of the Highlands, in Argyll, or in Orkney. Agriculture is usually the main land use in such areas,
and there are few operational differences compared with private ownership. It is conceivable, however, that
tenancies may inhibit long-term recreational developments such as the provision of caravan sites, and that
there may be problems in relation to where responsibility lies should anti-erosion or rehabilitation schemes
become necessary.
Only 4% of the beaches in the Highlands and Islands are under local-authority ownership. This figure
includes those beaches which lack blown-sand, and on which abut streets or built-up areas – for example
Thurso Bay and Mid Yell. Local authority ownership of dunes and machairs is less frequent. Examples include
Dornoch South beach complex, together with parts of the Achmelvich and Clachtoll machairs (until recently
common grazings) and Dunnet Bay dunes. Before the reform of local government in 1975, these areas were
owned by the local town or county councils.
State ownership (other than D.A.F.S. crofting estates) is rare, and is found on less than 3% of the beach
complexes in the study area. A few beach units are owned by the Ministry of Defence, while the Nature
Conservancy Council, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the Forestry Commission are the other state authorities
involved. In some instances the object of state ownership has been the beach complex itself (eg Morrich
More, which is used as a bombing range) but in most cases the acquisition of beach areas has been
incidental to the acquisition of other land, as in the case of the Nature Conservancy Council in Rhum and
the Forestry Commission in Mull.
Finally, the ’other’ category in tables 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 includes a wide range of tenurial types. Several
beaches with golf courses fall into this type; the golf club sometimes owns the links, as at Dornoch North,
but more usually rents it from a private owner, as at Golspie and Brora.
82
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Patterns of tenure and ownership therefore vary from beach to beach and from area to area within the
Highlands and Islands. They are influences of primary importance on the use of the resource. Most types of
tenure can accommodate informal and casual recreational use, if carried on at a low intensity, as it has little
effect on the main use. If the intensity of recreational use increases, however, it may well impinge more
directly on the other uses, and, in the absence of management specifically for recreational purposes, it can
have unfortunate environmental repercussions. These repercussions are most likely in areas of common
grazing, where recreational use, including wild camping, has moved into the partial vacuum which has
developed as the forms of management and land use of the common grazings have failed to respond to
changing conditions. The distribution of recreational use and environmental impact is thus uneven not only
in locational terms, but also in relation to type of tenure. Most of the problems are concentrated in a few
tenurial types in the same way as they tend to be concentrated in a few localities.
4.3
Development control, policies and planning
Like that of other land areas, the use of sandybeach complexes is to some extent circumscribed by the
legislation of town and country planning and is influenced by the policies of the local planning authorities.
But the ability of planning legislation to control the use of the beach resource is restricted. Agriculture, which
is by far the most widespread use (see chapter 5.1) is in effect exempt from planning control, as is forestry,
which affects only a few beach units. In the context of beach complexes, planning consent is required
usually only for changes of use involving industry, residential developments, commercial sand extraction (see
chapter 5.4), and most caravan sites and similar tourist developments. Industrial demands for land on beach
complexes have been confined to a very few beach units, and sand extraction on a commercial scale is
largely, but not wholly, confined to Lewis, Orkney and Shetland. Regulations on use by caravans and tents
are extremely complex and are poor tools for controlling the occasional or casual use of any land area,
whether on the coast or not. Furthermore, even where planning consent should have been sought for a
change of use, or where a planning application has been refused, enforcement may be extremely difficult.
This difficulty has been due partly to the shortage of planning staff (until recently no local planning authority
in the Highlands and Islands employed enforcement officers), and partly because in large, thinly populated
local authority areas constant vigilance on every pocket of land is impossible, and changes of use become
established by default.
For a number of reasons, therefore, the role of planning in the use of the beach resource has been a relatively
minor one, and has been largely confined to development control, frequently on an ad hoc basis. Until very
recently, few attempts have been made at co-ordinating coastal development and planning or at establishing
national guidelines.
National guidelines and special designations
One of the few attempts to introduce the national dimension to the planning of the coast in Scotland is
the recent (1974) publication by the Scottish Development Department of North Sea Oil and Gas – Coastal
Planning Guidelines, and its precursor, Interim Coastal Planning Framework. As the title of the 1974 document
indicates, the guidelines relate specifically to oil-related developments, and are not intended to serve as a
master plan for the Scottish coastline.
83
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Coastal Planning Guidelines classifies much of the Scottish coastline into Preferred Conservation and
Preferred Development Zones. The great majority of beaches in the Highlands and Islands lie within the
former, and only 3% occur in parts of the coastline classed as Preferred Development Zones. Of the 3%, half
are in the Broad Bay coast of Lewis. It is interesting to note that the local authority here felt that, partly
because of its beaches, the zoning of this part of the coast should be changed to that of the Preferred
Conservation Zone (Ross and Cromarty County Council – Minutes of Planning and Development Committee
2.12.1974). Such an attitude is comparatively rare in local authorities in the Highlands and Islands, where
for socio-economic reasons anything which facilitates the zoning of land for industry is usually welcomed.
Since Coastal Planning Guidelines was published only in 1974, it is perhaps too early to assess its effect
on the planning and use of sandy beaches. Nevertheless, the effect to date appears to have been limited,
partly because the main phase of searching for possible sites for oil-related developments was over before
the guidelines were published, and in any case the percentage of beaches in the study area likely to be
seriously considered for such developments was small. Also the framework was unspecific, with large parts
of the coastline of islands such as Lewis, Islay, Coll and Tiree (where sandy beaches are numerous) left
unclassified.
The publication of Coastal Planning Guidelines marked a welcome step forward in introducing a national
dimension into the planning of the coastline, limited though it was to oil-related developments. Previously
planning applications were usually considered solely within a local authority framework, with little overt view
to the national or even to the regional scale. The main exception to this generalisation has been in the parts
of the Highlands designated since 1948 as National Park Direction Areas (N.P.D.As). The Secretary of State
for Scotland has been able to exert his influence on development control in these areas, as he must be
notified by the local authority of all planning applications submitted from within an N.P.D.A., and in theory
can call in such applications for consideration by himself. This procedure is designed to ensure that national,
as well as local, considerations are taken into account in dealing with planning applications.
Only 4% of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands lie within N.P.D.As. The majority of these are in
Wester Ross, and the remainder are in Benderloch in North Argyll; both these areas are visited by large
numbers of tourists, and hence the beaches are under greater pressures than many of the beaches outwith
N.P.D.As. Therefore a rigorous statistical evaluation of the effect of designation, from the viewpoint of the
extent of development on beaches, is extremely difficult. It must be emphasised, however, that the object of
designation was not the coastline per se, but rather the mountainous scenery to the landward. If it is
considered that parts of the coastline are of sufficient quality to merit a national dimension in their planning,
then several areas outwith the current N.P.D.As are worthy of consideration for suitable designation
(see chapter 8).
Another designation with a component of national involvement is the ‘Area of Great Landscape Value’
(A.G.L.V.). In 1962, when landscape was coming to be seen as an increasingly valuable resource for
rapidly growing tourism and recreation, the Scottish Development Department requested each local planning
authority to define A.G.L.Vs. (S.D.D. circular 2/62) and to attempt to ensure that the landscape within such
areas would wherever possible be conserved. Criteria for definition varied markedly between local
authorities; some defined very large areas, while others were highly selective. Not all the A.G.L.Vs.
originally defined by the local authorities were eventually ratified by the Secretary of State for Scotland,
but 37% of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands lie within defined areas as shown on the
84
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Scottish Development Department map Conservation of the Countryside (1970). As in the case of designation
of N.P.D.As, the evaluation of the effect of definition as A.G.L.V. is fraught with difficulty, as the defined
areas are usually more attractive scenically, and subject to greater pressures from tourism and recreation,
than are the undefined areas.
Both N.P.D.As and A.G.L.Vs were established primarily with the objective of conservation of landscape.
Other designations have been made on criteria of scientific interest. These include both National Nature
Reserves (N.N.R.) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (S.S.S.I.). National Nature Reserves are selected
and established by the Nature Conservancy Council on the basis of the national importance of their scientific
interest. The degree of protection against major forms of economic development is strong, and if the
proposed development is contrary to the Conservancy’s wishes, it can only take place with ministerial
consent (Select Committee 1971). At present only 2% of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands lie within
National Nature Reserves (see chapter 5.5 for discussion of nature reserves as land uses).
A much higher percentage (30.5%) of beaches in the study area lie within Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
These sites, whose interest may lie in geological, physiographical or biological features, are notified by the
Nature Conservancy Council to the local planning authorities. Thereafter, the local planning authorities must
consult with the Nature Conservancy Council and take its views into consideration in dealing with any
planning application relating to the notified site. This procedure is designed to ensure that nature conservation
interests are taken into account when planning applications are under consideration. The Nature Conservancy
Council may also attempt to persuade owners of S.S.S.ls to adopt appropriate management practices, but
there is no statutory provision for adequate management of these sites to maintain their scientific interest
(Select Committee 1971).
Beaches Iying within notified Sites of Special Scientific Interest are found in most parts of the Highlands and
Islands. The effects of the notification of S.S.S.ls, however, are probably even more difficult to evaluate than
those relating to N.P.D.As and A.G.L.Vs, especially because many sites have been notified only relatively
recently.
Thus there exists a considerable array of designations or definitions, designed to protect landscape quality
or scientific interest, and taking into account national and to some extent regional assessments.
Local Planning Authority policies and problems of development control
In recent years almost all the local authorities in the Highlands and Islands have devised policies towards
various types of development. These policies are usually related towards specific types of use and
development, rather than towards the resource base; perhaps the most relevant example of such policies are
those relating to caravan sites.
As early as 1966, Ross and Cromarty County Council produced a policy document on caravan sites.
This policy statement was orientated more towards residential and static sites than towards touring sites.
Residential sites were not to be permitted in Areas of Great Landscape Value, and static sites would not
be granted planning permission in open country in A.G.L.V.s. The recommended policy towards tourist sites
was to ‘ignore generally unless complaints or obvious injury to amenity or other difficulties arise’ (Ross and
Cromarty County Council Caravan Sites Policy, 18.3.66). A further policy, however, entitled ‘Guidelines for
the siting of major touring (Caravan) sites,’ was approved by the Planning and Development Committee of
85
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
the County Council in 1972. It was proposed that the guidelines should apply only to sites of over
30 caravan stances or tent pitches, it being argued that sites of less than this size would have less impact
and would require less strict control. The guidelines indicated that major sites should not be located in
delicate natural areas such as sand dunes, where they might seriously aggravate erosion problems, where
they would inhibit access to the beach, or where they could not effectively be screened. At the same time,
it was stated that major sites should be located close to a number of specified tourist circuits.
Policies in other local planning authority areas have followed lines similar to those of Ross and Cromarty.
The Inverness County Council Caravan Policy (1972), for example, stated that caravan sites should not be
located on coastlines where they block access to beach and water, and that vulnerable ground such as
dunes and machair should be specifically avoided. The Argyll County Council policy (1974) did not refer
specifically to beach areas, but stated that sites would not be permitted in areas of National Nature Reserves
or Sites of Special Scientific Interest, or where they would affect views from the road across water.
These policies, most of which were evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s have served as constraints
against unsuitable forms of development. The policies do not have statutory validity, and hence cannot be
guarantees against forms of development ill-suited to the nature of the beach resources. The main problem,
however, is that to a large extent they were devised after caravanning had become established on many
machairs. Had they been in operation a decade earlier, then the pattern of use on many beaches, at least
on the mainland, would probably now be very different.
Even with firm policies, there are limits on what the local authority can do to control camping and
caravanning. In a few instances, the local authority has sought to solve the problem of casual or wild
caravanning by advising the Secretary of State for Scotland to confirm Article 4 Direction Orders. These
orders impose restrictions on ‘permitted development’ – in other words, developments which in the absence
of an Article 4 Direction Order would be outwith planning control now require planning consent. One of
the practical effects, in the context of beach complexes, can be the discontinuation of casual caravanning
in a prescribed area. The most notable use of this tool to date has been in the Achiltibuie peninsula of
Wester Ross. More generally, enforcement action powers under Section 84 of the Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act of 1972 are not perceived by some local authorities to be a suitable means of
controlling ‘wild’ caravanning (Argyll County Council Caravan Policy 1974). Furthermore, the occupier of
every holding of over two acres in the seven Crofting Counties has the right to have up to three caravans
on his ground during the summer months, without requiring planning permission (Caravan Sites and Control
of Development Act 1960, as amended by Statutory Instrument 976, 1961). This ‘rule of three’ is at its most
significant in crofting areas, where, if the croft is in the shape of a strip of land running down to the shore,
there could theoretically be a continuous line of caravans along the coast, over which the local planning
authority would have no control. In the event of subdivision of land holdings (and particularly the
apportionment of coastal common grazings) this problem could become even more acute in the future.
Powers of development control in relation to the main potential uses of beach complexes are therefore
limited; in relation to the most widespread uses – agriculture and informal day recreation – they are almost
completely absent, and in relation to uses such as caravanning and sand extraction, the powers are subject
to certain limitations. Nevertheless, in the absence of planning controls (including local authority policies,
and national and local authority designations), the amount of visual and ecological damage on beach
complexes would have almost certainly been greater.
86
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Thus while planning and local authority policies are influences within which use of the beach resource has
evolved, their influences have been relatively weak. Many of the decisions which have been made have
been reached in an ad hoc fashion, and wider views, reflecting an awareness of the nature and the
distribution of the beach resource, have not always been taken. The coastline in general, and sandy beach
areas in particular have sometimes occupied relatively low priorities for the attention of the local planning
authorities, and where the local authority has become involved it is usually either on a rather negative basis,
attempting to stop a particular type of use, or it has stepped in after the problems of use have become
severe. In the last few years the role of planning has begun to change, and to encompass positive provisions
of facilities instead of being mainly concerned with development control. At the same time a wider
appreciation of the value and the fragility of the coastal zone has been established, and broader views are
being taken. Had the present planning system been in operation 20 years ago when pressures were
beginning to build up on the beach resource, then the pattern of use would now be rather different and
problems would be fewer and less severe. The tragedy is that the current system, incorporating broader
outlooks, cannot begin on a clean slate, but has to contend with intractable problems inherited from the past.
87
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 23
Kilbride Bay, Cowal
This is one of the few sand beach and machair areas on the mainland between
East Kintyre and Helensburgh. The inset photograph shows the small ledges or
scars which are aggravated by sheep rubbing.
Plate 24
Morrich More, Easter Ross
This is one of the largest beach complexes in the Highlands and Islands. It contains
a wide range of habitats, from sand dunes to marshes, and suppor ts a wide
range of land uses, including grazing and forestr y, as well as a golf course and
bombing range. It is also of outstanding biological and geomorphological interest,
and is regarded as a key site for nature conser vation.
88
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 25
Back of Keppoch (Inverness-shire)
Caravans lining the small sandy beaches in the low coastline of the ArisaigMorar area.
Plate 26
Little Sand, near Gairloch, Wester Ross
A large, privately owned caravan site on an extensive machair.
89
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 27
Melness, Nor th Sutherland
A small pocket beach attractively situated in a sheltered bay below the crofting
township of Melness. The machair is unfenced grazing land, and is used by
visitors as an informal car parking and caravanning area.
Plate 28
Bellochantuy, Kintyre
The long beach complex between Glenbarr and Bellochantuy has two caravan
sites; this is the more southerly. The coastal edge is typical of the coastline;
it is low, lacks dunes and the vegetation contains many agricultural weeds.
90
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
5
USE OF THE BEACH RESOURCE
Use of the beach resource in the Highlands and Islands has been strongly influenced by factors such as
location, accessibility and tenure, and, in turn, use strongly influences the long-term nature of the beach
resource. One of the characteristics of land use in the beach setting is the wide range of intensities which
exist within each type of use. This range is perhaps best exemplified by informal recreational use, where the
intensity varies from a mere handful to several hundreds of users per day, but it also exists in other land uses
such as grazing and sand extraction. Because of the wide ranges in intensity of use, it is of limited value to
record each land-use type merely on a presence or absence basis, and indeed is of no value to do so for
informal recreational use. Figure 5.1, however, illustrates the relative frequency of occurrence of each of the
main types of use other than informal day recreation.
Figure 5.1
Frequency of occurrence of land uses on beach complexes in the Highlands and
Islands
The figure should be interpreted in the light of a number of points. Firstly, each beach may be used for a
number of different purposes, so that the sum of the individual incidences of uses greatly exceeds the total
number of beaches. No attempt is made to distinguish whether use is in solitary occupation of a beach
complex, or whether it is one of a number of uses. Secondly, some uses such as caravanning, camping, and
sand extraction are sporadic and extremely widespread. Some sand is extracted from almost every beach
91
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
which is accessible to a tractor and cart, and some wild caravanning occurs on almost every beach which
is easily accessible by car. Subjective decisions have had to be made on whether to record the existence
of these uses at individual beaches; the criteria for recording the presence of the uses have been whether
they are persistent and of such an intensity as to have a significant effect on other beach land uses or on
the beach environment.
5.1
Agriculture
As figure 5.1 indicates, agriculture is by far the most widespread form of land use on the beaches of the
Highlands and Islands. Close on 86% of all the beach units, and 93% of those with vegetated blown-sand,
are used for sheep grazing, while cattle grazing and cultivation occur on 70 and 30% respectively of all units.
Other uses such as sand extraction and caravanning are relatively rare at the scale of the Highlands and
Islands, occurring on only about 20% of the beach units, but locally they may be much more common.
Although agriculture is the most common type of use, its form varies markedly from place to place, partly
in accordance with tenure and partly in relation to the nature of land around the beach complexes.
Traditionally, the machair was used for grazing and some cropping, mainly for barley and potatoes
(see chapter 3). Grazing is still widespread, and sometimes exists in forms little different from those in the
late eighteenth century, but the arable role of the machair has changed considerably. Only in the Uists; in
Tiree and in Orkney is extensive arable use continued, and the products of cultivation are now mainly for
animal feed rather than for human consumption.
In Orkney the landward margins of large machairs such as the Bay of Skaill (west Mainland) and
Bay of Newark (Sanday) support forms of cultivation little different from those of the adjacent non-sand areas.
The central part of the machair, where the blown-sand is deep and the soils extremely light and deficient
in organic material, usually remains unenclosed in dune pasture, but many of the thinner margins are now
enclosed and support improved grassland, which is usually mown for silage. Cereals (usually barley used
as animal feed) and, very occasionally, root crops such as turnips may interrupt the mainly grassland
rotations. The cultivated margins of machairs in Orkney are almost invariably held as parts of owneroccupied farms, or more rarely as tenanted farms; communal tenure of cultivated areas is almost unknown.
The pattern of arable use in the Uists is different. The form of organisation is mainly that of crofting, and until
comparatively recently most of the arable areas were subject to periodic re-allocation within the crofting
townships. About 1400ha of machair is cropped in any one year, and normally cultivation continues for
three successive years and then the cultivated area is sown out in grass for a further three years (Knox 1974).
Mowing of sown grass for silage is much less common than on the margins of the Orkney machairs, and
the main arable crop is a two to one mixture of oats and rye, which is fed in the sheaf to cattle. Barley (or
rather bere), which was formerly the main subsistence crop, is now little grown. Potatoes, on the other hand,
are grown more than in the Orkney machairs, but are used only for home consumption and are not marketed
furth of the islands.
Arable use of machair in the Uists is more extensive in area but more restricted by the exigencies of the
machair environment than that of Orkney. Orkney is perhaps fortunate in having large areas where blownsand is sufficiently plentiful to lighten and to lime the soils formed on boulder clays and other parent materials
92
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
without itself being the sole parent material. In relation to the total surface area of the Orkney archipelago,
the transitional blown-sand areas are very small, but in relation to the individual machairs they are large.
By contrast, in the Uists the machairs terminate relatively abruptly, and then only against peat or bare rock.
Thus the useful transitional zones are lacking, and arable use, in the absence of other potentially arable land,
is concentrated within the machair rather than on its margins. Arable use of Tiree machairs is to some extent
intermediate between that of Orkney and of the Uists. Most of the cultivated area is held as croft land, but
is largely concentrated at the inner edge of the machair near its margin, where the blown-sand is thinner
and the soil less light than in the machair to the seaward. The pattern of cropping, nevertheless, resembles
that of the Uists with a rotation of grain, roots and grain followed by three years of grass (Coull 1962).
As on Uist, the grain crop is usually the small oat (sometimes with an admixture of rye) and very little bere
is now grown.
Outwith the Uists, Tiree and Orkney, relatively little arable use is made of the machair. On the Arisaig-Morar
coast, parts of Coll, parts of West Kintyre and small pockets such as Ness in Lewis some cropping is still
carried on, usually directed towards the production of potatoes and oats if on croft land, or towards the
production of grass for mowing if on farm land. Elsewhere, cultivation is largely confined to small potato
patches set within common machairs as at Barvas on the west coast of Lewis. This type of use is synchronised
with the movement of the township stock to the moor grazings in summer. Crops of potatoes for home
consumption are seldom grown on the common machairs on the west coast of the mainland, but are not
unusual in the Hebrides, especially in Lewis. In addition to Barvas, examples include Traigh na Berie (Kneep)
and Traigh na Clibhe (Cliff) in Uig. At the latter, potato cultivation had to be abandoned just before the
second world war because of problems of machair erosion (Moisley 1962), but it has since recommenced.
The intensity of arable use of machairs has almost invariably declined during this century, and particularly
since the second world war. The growing of bere, which was once widespread throughout the Western and
Northern Isles, as well as on some mainland machairs, has now almost died out, and potatoes are usually
the only food crop now grown. Decreasing arable use for subsistence crops has paralleled the dwindling
and aging of the crofting populations, and has resulted in a lengthening and slackening of the arable
rotations. Cultivation is now less frequent in time as well as less common in space, and it is possible that
this lessening of intensity of arable use has contributed to the apparent increases in stability which have
occurred in some machairs since the second world war (see chapter 2.10).
Declining arable use has been accompanied by an increase in the intensity of grazing on many machairs.
The intensity, form and management of grazing differ according to tenure, and the position and size of the
machair in relation to the crofting township or farm. Many of the most-used and least actively managed
machairs are held as common grazings (see chapter 4.2). Township common machairs are usually grazed
only in winter, and the machair sward may be able to recover during the following summer. On machairs
more remote from the township, however, there is usually year-round grazing. In the past several such
machairs were partially enclosed, and were overlooked by the houses of crofters or shepherds who could
control the intensity of grazing and as well as their use for special purposes such as lambing parks. Most of
these very remote habitations have now been abandoned, or are at the most used only during the lambing
season, and fences and enclosures have frequently fallen into disrepair. The result has been that the
uncontrolled grazing tends to concentrate on the greener islands of sweeter pastures which the machairs
form in the midst of the brown moorlands. The machairs consequently become not only overgrazed, but
badly fouled by the droppings of sheep which congregate on them. For this reason, many remote,
93
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
inaccessible beaches, which the casual visitor might expect to find almost untouched by the hand of man,
are rather disappointing, because of the amount of droppings, combined with the air of dereliction surrounding
the broken-down fences and former shepherd’s house.
Grazing management is usually also at a very low ebb on uninhabited islands, irrespective of whether the
island forms part of a common grazing under crofting tenure, or whether it is rented or even used by its
owner in conjunction with land on the mainland or neighbouring larger island. Although these remote
grazings are not necessarily overgrazed overall, the stock (usually sheep only) in the absence of fencing
and herding, tend to concentrate on the machair, so that it is almost certainly overgrazed. The concept of
overgrazing is a difficult one to define but by almost any standard many machair areas are overgrazed.
According to Knox (Randall 1974 – in discussion) two sheep per acre is the optimal grazing level during
winter on Outer Hebrides machair, but in practice the actual level is up to 20 sheep per acre. Grazing levels
in common machairs are in theory regulated by the soum, or the stock-carrying allowance of each
shareholder. According to several writers (eg Darling 1955, Moisley 1962 and Coull 1968), the soumings
have not always been heeded, with the result that the total carry of livestock may be in excess of that
stipulated in the regulations of the common grazings. The Crofters Commission, however, are of the opinion
that, at present, the total souming of a common grazing is rarely exceeded.
The sheep : cattle ratio in the Highlands and Islands is generally very wide, and this is as true of machairs
as it is of other areas; sheep are usually by far the leading grazing animal. Locally, however, cattle become
more important, and one of the most distinctive uses of the machair is its use for the outwintering of breeding
cows, sometimes with their followers. The machair has many advantages for this purpose, one of the most
important being that much of it remains dry underfoot during the winter. Some shelter from the seaward is
offered by the dune ridge which is usually but not always present; some grazing is available almost
throughout the winter, and it is easy to cart out silage or other feedstuffs. Many machairs are therefore used
primarily for this purpose, especially in the North Isles of Orkney, the Uists, Coll, Tiree and Islay. Cattle
outwintering on the machair is associated more with farm tenure (or croft land) than with common grazings,
where sheep are usually much more numerous than cattle. Usually the outwintering involves the integration
of the machair with non-sand land, with the latter being used for production of fodder crops during the
summer for consumption in winter. On many machairs, especially under single as opposed to common
management, silage pits have been constructed for the convenient storage of fodder close to the stock.
The beef-cow herd in the Highlands and Islands has increased steadily since the second world war (at least
until recently), and increases have usually been at least as great in the areas well endowed with machair
as in other parishes. Since 1970, however, there has been a marked decline in the number of cows in some
west coast machair areas and especially in South Uist. This deviation from the regional trend may be partly
attributable to the growth of employment opportunities in the South Uist rocket range, with consequent
reduction in intensity of croft management, but is believed also to have resulted at least in part from the size
of the herd having over-shot the fodder-producing capacity of the adjacent land. In areas such as Orkney,
where machair is usually juxtaposed with improved land capable of producing large quantities of silage and
other forms of fodder, the increase has been maintained down to 1975.
In an indirect way, this exemplifies a general principle: machair achieves its greatest usefulness when it
represents a small but significant part of the total farm area. It can then be integrated firmly into the farm
production unit, and its advantages can be realised without its disadvantages becoming seriously limiting.
94
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Where most of the holding has a machair substrate, problems of mineral deficiencies as well as physical
problems of working the land limit use for both grazing and cultivation, but where different land types occur
within the holding these problems can be much more easily overcome.
Livestock grazing is by far the most important form of agriculture on machairs at the present day, but,
comparatively recently, great hopes were held out for bulb-growing as a labour-intensive use well suited to
the Hebridean environment. Interest in bulb-growing dates back to the mid 1950s, when Dr. A.F.R. Nisbet of
the West of Scotland College of Agriculture conducted field trials in Colonsay, Coll and Tiree (Dawson and
Panton, 1960). These trials led to the setting up of Hebridean Bulb Growers Ltd., as a co-operative involving
the college together with the Department of Agriculture and the Crofters Commission. By 1962,
a total of 39 growers were active, with a combined area of 5.7ha. Coll and Tiree were by far the
most prominent areas, but small areas were also grown in South Uist, Barra, Lewis, Islay and Gigha
(Dean 1969). Although bulb growing was technically successful, serious problems of timely labour inputs,
and particularly of marketing, developed, and by the early 1960s the co-operative was in some difficulties.
The activity was revived by the Highlands and Islands Development Board after its inauguration, and
experimental areas were financed by the Board at Balemore and Kyles Paible in North Uist in the late 1960s
(Highlands and Islands Development Board Annual Reports).
The Board had decided that the previous organisation of bulb growing on a co-operative and part-time basis
was inadequate, and that experienced management, permanent labour and efficient marketing were essential
if the activity were to survive. Slight irregularities in the surface level of the machair, and hence irregularities in
water availability ruled out the use of most machair areas for large-scale bulb growing (Grontij, N.V. de Bilt,
1968), but the reclamation of large tidal sand strands or sand flats offered better possibilities. An ambitious
scheme for the reclamation of the Vallay Strand in North Uist so that 300ha of bulbs could be grown was put
forward by the Highlands and Islands Development Board to the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1969. This
scheme was ambitious not only technically and physically, but also economically and socially. The estimated
cost was £1.4 million, and permanent jobs were to be created for between 150 and 350 workers, with a
further 200–400 part-time jobs. Indeed this project was seen as offering a partial counterbalance to the
developments taking place on the Moray Firth on the east side of the Highlands (Dean, 1969). The scheme
was not implemented, however, and in 1972 the other bulb growing experiments in North Uist were also
abandoned (H.l.D.B. Annual Report 1972). Meanwhile, small scale bulb-growing on the former co-operative
basis had almost completely died out, and virtually all that now remains of the bulb industry are a few
incongruous patches of daffodils on the machairs of Coll and Tiree.
5.2
Recreational use
Almost every beach in the Highlands and Islands, with the possible exception of some of those uninhabited
islands which cannot easily be reached, is used to some extent for recreation. Recreation differs from most
of the other beach uses in being undertaken not by the owner or crofting tenants with an interest in the land,
but by visitors whose sojourns are ephemeral, and who are frequently unaware of the nature of the other
land uses carried on in the beach unit. Given this background, it is perhaps surprising that conflicts between
the growing recreational use and the other more traditional uses have been so few. That this is so is probably
largely due to the tolerance of the local land users, and to two other factors – firstly that recreational use is
strongly peaked over a few weeks in summer, and in most beaches does not occur in significant amounts
for most of the year, and secondly that there are strong variations from place to place in the intensity of
recreational use. Only a few beach units are heavily used; the great majority are used very lightly indeed.
95
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Recreational use occurs in widely differing forms. Some beach units are intensively used for caravanning,
and caravanning holiday-makers remain on the beach complex, if not on the beach, for most of the day.
Most beach users, however, are day-time visitors and are usually not resident on the beach complex. These
non-resident visitors may spend the whole day at the beach, or may just stop off en route elsewhere. Usually
they are holiday-makers, and one of the features of recreational use is that the indigenous population are
relatively unimportant, in terms of total demand for beach use, compared with holiday-makers. Only in a
small number of cases does the greater part of the recreational use come from permanent local residents.
Although there is some evidence that many tourists have a poor awareness of the existence and distribution
of beaches in the Highlands and Islands (see Appendix I), it is clear that beaches are a major tourist
attraction in the region. Carter (1974) reports that beaches were the fourth largest attraction of the
Highlands, according to the large number of holiday-makers he sampled, after ‘scenery,’ ‘peace and quiet,’
and ‘interesting places to visit.’ In terms of specific landscape units, as opposed to scenery in general,
beaches are probably one of the main attractions. Furthermore, countless visitors who might not rank
beaches as the leading attraction of the Highlands make some use of them during their stay. As many as
42% of the car-borne holiday-makers in the Highlands and Islands in 1968 reported that they had
participated in ‘swimming/beach activities’ (Carter 1974), compared, for example, with only 6% participating
in golf and 59% in walking.
By any standard, therefore, the contribution of beaches to the Highland holiday, and to Highland tourism,
is a major one. Yet by far the greater part of the demand for beach activities is met by a mere handful
of beaches, while numerous other beaches remain unknown and unvisited by the great majority of
holiday-makers.
An attempt has been made by the authors to estimate the intensity of the day recreational use of each beach
unit by classifying it into one of five intensity classes. This classification is subjective, in the sense that it is
not based on strictly comparable figures collected under constant conditions, but it has been undertaken by
the present authors using their comparative knowledge (sometimes over several years) of the beaches of the
area of study. The classification is based on the estimate number of users per day on the beach complex
during the peak season of late July/early August. No distinction is made between day visitors and residents
in caravans stationed near the beach. The estimates are based on counts of people and cars on the beach
complex, and classification is attempted only into five wide categories – under 5 users per day, 5–25 users,
26–100 users, 101–500 users, and over 500 users. Undoubtedly the classification of some beach units is
debatable, and it would be much better to employ a classificatory system based on information from daily
counts rather than on estimates. Since there is little prospect of such comparable information becoming
available for all the beaches in the area of study, reliance has had to be placed on estimation based on
the authors’ experience. The pattern of distribution of beaches by intensity of use is set out in figure 5.2.1.
The main feature emerging from the figure is the very large proportion of lightly used beaches. On a British
or even on an European scale, such a proportion must be unique; over 90% of the beaches of the Highlands
and Islands probably have fewer than 100 recreational users per day. When it is considered that the
average beach length is approximately 1000m, the very low intensity of recreational use on the vast majority
of beaches is even further emphasised. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that nearly 40% of the beaches
are estimated to be used by fewer than five people per day at the height of the season, and 63% have
fewer than 25 visitors. At the other end of the spectrum, under 2% are used by more than 500 persons per day.
96
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 5.2.1
Pattern of distribution of beaches by intensity of use
The pattern of intensity of use, as might be expected, differs when the mainland beaches are considered
alone. The distribution of intensity of recreational use becomes statistically much more normal, with by
far the biggest class (38% of the mainland beaches) having an estimated 26–100 users per day. Again,
however, lightly used beaches outnumber heavily used areas; twice as many mainland beaches have fewer
than five users per day as have more than 500 users. Nevertheless, the greater intensity of use on the
mainland beaches is clearly shown by the fact that seven out of the nine most intensively used beaches are
on the mainland, which has little more than a quarter of all the beaches, and over 25% of mainland beaches
are estimated to have more than 100 users per day. Compared with the rest of Britain or Europe, the intensity
of use of the Highlands and Islands is very low, but use is high in the Highlands compared with that in the Islands.
The most heavily used beaches, estimated to have over 500 users per day, are nine in number, and lie in
East Sutherland, Wester Ross, the Oban area, and Bute and Cumbrae.
Beaches most heavily used for recreation
(estimated to have over 500 users per day at peak of season)
Embo
Gruinard South
Gairloch
Ganavan
Millport
Dornoch South
Little Sand
Tralee Bay
Kilchattan
Although all three types have certain common features, three main types occur. The first type is that of the
town or resort beach, such as Millport in Cumbrae and Ganavan near Oban. Kilchattan Bay in Bute serves
a similar function in relation to Rothesay although it is further from town than either the Millport or Ganavan
beaches. The second type is that of the large caravan-site beach, represented by Dornoch South and
Embo (plates 29 and 30) in East Sutherland, and Little Sand near Gairloch in Wester Ross (plate 26).
These beaches have very large caravan sites, some of which offer numerous static caravans to let as
well as catering for touring vans. The third type is the roadside beach, situated close to a major tourist
route and easily accessible from it. The members of this group are Gruinard South and Gairloch, both in
Wester Ross.
97
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Characteristics common to these beaches are their close proximity to public roads, and more strikingly, to
large reserves of tourist accommodation. In all nine cases, the amount of holiday accommodation, as listed
in the 1975 accommodation booklets of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, exceeds 100 beds,
and in three of the nine cases more than 1000 beds are listed. In addition, all except two of the beaches
are within a short distance of large numbers of stances in caravan sites. Proximity to roads and to tourist
centres appears to be by far the main determinant of heavy use; other characteristics such as the scenic
attractiveness appear to be relatively unimportant; seven out of the nine most used beaches are in the low
category of scenic beauty (see chapter 2.11), and only one (Gruinard) is in the highest category. Perhaps
this last point is significant; scenic beauty may exert a strong pull on the passing motorist to stop and visit a
beach, while for the town and caravan-site beaches it is much less important than easy accessibility or the
existence of facilities. All the most used beaches, except for the roadside beach of Gruinard, have facilities
such as toilets, shops and cafes close at hand, although at some beaches such as Little Sand in Wester Ross
the facilities lie within the caravan site. Parking outwith the site is difficult, and both the use of facilities and
access to the beach itself are difficult for the passing tourist. Characteristics of tenure are rather different from
those for the beach areas of the Highlands and Islands in general; three of the most used beaches are in
local authority ownership, and most of the others, notably Embo and Little Sand, with their large privately
developed caravan sites, are in private ownership. Crofting is not strongly associated with the highest
intensity of recreational use, perhaps because of the difficulties facing the development of caravan sites and
other facilities under such tenure.
The second most intensively used group, with between 100 and 500 users per day, is much larger, and
contains 37 beach units. These are more widespread in location, and have fewer characteristics in common
than the first group. Nevertheless, they can be subdivided into a number of distinctive groups. The first of these
is the roadside group, containing beaches such as Traigh and Morar near Mallaig, and Sango Bay and Traigh
allt Chailgeag near Durness. Like Gruinard Bay, they are close to, and easily accessible from, major tourist
circuits, and are near to sizable centres of overnight accommodation. One constraint on the intensity of use in
this group is the amount of available parking; both Traigh and Morar, for example, would certainly figure in
the most-used group were it not for the sheer physical limitation on car parking by the busy and narrow
A830(T). Another major subdivision is the group of beaches close to towns or villages; examples include
Rosemarkie and Brora on the east coast, and Lamlash and Etterick in Arran and Bute respectively. A third group
consists of beaches where there are small licensed or unlicensed caravan sites. Examples include Back of
Keppoch and Bunacaimb near Arisaig (plates 25 and 31), Mellon Udrigle and Achnahaird Bay in Wester
Ross, and Clachtoll and Achmelvich (plates 18 and 43) in Sutherland. The fourth group contains heavily used
island beaches (excluding the Clyde islands). Some of the beaches are heavily used because of special
factors, such as the proximity of Skara Brae to the Bay of Skaill in Orkney, and the Glenbrittle camp site in
Skye. On the main islands. however, there is usually one beach which is more used than the others. Examples
include Garry in Lewis and Saligo in Islay. Easy access and scenic beauty are important influences here; use
is mainly by dayvisitors, but some such beaches (for example Nisabost in Harris) are also used by caravanners.
Over 70% of the beaches in the second highest use class are on the Mainland, and a further 10% are
in Arran and Bute. Invariably, there is easy vehicular access, and there is usually, but not always,
a considerable amount of residential accommodation or caravanning facilities within a short distance of the
beach. The beaches are generally more attractive than the most-used beaches, with more than half their
number being in the medium category of scenic beauty. Provision of facilities is far better than the average
for the area of study, although inferior to that of the most used group – 57% have toilets, while 54 and 62%
respectively have a cafe and a shop within 1km. Most of the beaches are under private or local authority
tenure, but some, including many of those used for licensed or unlicensed caravanning, are in crofting tenure.
98
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The intensity of recreational use decreases sharply with increasing distance from the road. One aspect of
the relationship between distance from a road and intensity of recreational use is illustrated in figure 5.2.2.
Nearly 60% of the beaches which are estimated to be used by more than 25 persons per day are within
100m of a road.
Figure 5.2.2
Intensity of recreational use in relation to distance from public road
The closeness of the relationship between proximity to a road and intensity of recreational use can be
verified in another way. If it is assumed that the average number of users within each use category is the
mid-point of the category (eg the average number of users in the 26–100 class being taken as 63), then
the average intensity of use for all the beaches can be calculated for each band of distance from a public
road. Figure 5.2.3 is based on this procedure, and reveals a remarkably regular relationship. For each
increase in distance class, the average intensity of use, as expressed by the average number of users per
beach, decreases by half. The calculated average is 115 users for beaches under 100m from a road, while
beaches more than 2500m from a road (excluding beaches on uninhabited islands) have an average of
only 12 users. Clearly the validity of the numerical value of this relationship depends on the rather sweeping
assumptions which have been made, but the figure nevertheless does bring out the strong relationship which
exists between use and proximity to a road.
Figure 5.2.4 is based on assumptions and a procedure similar to figure 5.2.3. The amount of tourist
accommodation within an 8km radius was calculated from the 1975 accommodation booklets published
by the Highlands and Islands Development Board. As figure 5.2.4 shows, intensity of use associated with
very large reserves of accommodation is very high. Beaches with large reserves of accommodation nearby
are usually also close to a road, and many are in fact town beaches such as Millport or Ganavan. As the
amount of tourist accommodation decreases, however, the estimated intensity of use tails off more slowly
than it does in relation to proximity to a road, suggesting that outwith town beaches, easy accessibility is a
stronger control on intensity of use than is availability of accommodation. The strongest influence of all,
however, is probably the existence of a large caravan site on the beach, although by definition beaches
99
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Figure 5.2.3
Estimated number of users per day in relation to distance from public road
Figure 5.2.4
Estimated number of users per day in relation to amount of tourist accommodation
100
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
with caravan sites are easily accessible by vehicles, and it is difficult to disentangle the effects of the two
variables. There is little doubt, however, that where use as a caravan site coincides with close proximity to
a major tourist route and to a large centre of tourist accommodation, intensity of recreational use will be
extremely high, especially if the beach area is in public ownership and if there are no barriers to access by
persons other than users of the caravan site.
At the other end of the spectrum of intensity of recreational use, there are numerous beaches which are
almost unused. Over 36% of the beaches in the region are estimated to be used by fewer than five persons
per day. Approximately 60% of the almost unused beaches are on islands with no car ferries. Only 11%
are on the mainland, and several of these are little used by virtue of their situation in areas where public
access is discouraged by notices or by fences and cultivated land, or by physical barriers such as streams.
Most of the almost unused beaches are also invisible from any road, but the main limiting factor is their
remoteness from a public road. The almost-unused mainland beaches have an average distance of 2.2km
from the nearest public road and 1.7km from the nearest motorable track, in addition to any other barriers
to access which may exist. The best known beaches in this group are probably the Gortenfern group at
the mouth of Kentra Bay in Moidart. Camas Mor on the Rubha Re peninsula in Wester Ross is not only
remote from any road or track, but also lies at the foot of a steep cliff, which effectively excludes access.
The Applecross beaches of Ard Bhan and Sand have also been almost unused, but the recent opening
(1976) of the north Applecross road, which skirts the beach at Sand, will undoubtedly lead to a greatly
increased use. Kilberry in Knapdale is a beach which is not only remote (and invisible) from a road, but is
also protected by notices and policy woodlands, while Kilmote in East Sutherland is protected from use by
fenced and cultivated fields and a railway line, in addition to distance from a road.
These almost unused beaches form a group which has a far greater value than their intensity of use would
suggest. Deserted beaches where complete solitude may be enjoyed are extremely rare phenomena on an
European scale as well as on a British or Scottish scale. If the completely inaccessible beaches are removed
from this class, comparatively few beaches remain, and fewer still remain which have a high degree of
scenic attractiveness and which are not disfigured in some way. It is therefore suggested that those beaches
which are accessible, attractive and little used should be carefully protected from any developments which
might impair their unusual characteristics.
Tentative estimates can be made of the total recreational use of the beach resources in the Highlands and
Islands by repeating the assumptions on which figures 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 are based – that is by assuming
that the average use within each use class corresponds to the mid point of the class interval. Obviously it is
difficult to substantiate such assumptions, and clear dangers are involved in any attempt to reach firm
conclusions on their bases. Nevertheless, if the assumptions are accepted, and the assumed average use
multiplied by the number of beaches in each class, then an estimate of the peak period use can be obtained
for the whole area of study. The estimated peak use is approximately 26,500 users per day, of whom
approximately 15,500 are on mainland beaches, and probably at least a further 3000 on the beaches of
the Clyde islands. The distribution of recreational use is remarkably uneven – it is thought that the most used
10% of the beach units account for over 60% of the recreational use, and the one-third of the beach units
which are least used probably account for just over 1% of the use. Unevenness in distribution is at the root
of the environmental problems resulting from recreational use. If the use were distributed evenly throughout
the Highlands and Islands, then each user would have, even at the peak of the season, about 20m of beach
to himself, together with nearly 1.5ha of dunes and machair. At this density, it is most unlikely that any
101
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 29
Dornoch (South beach), Sutherland
A large caravan site has been developed on the extensive beach complex. The
beach complex is much more resilient to this type of use than are most units on
the west coast Never theless there are some signs of trampling in the foreground.
102
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 30
Embo, East Sutherland
Par t of a large caravan site close to the beach. Despite the fence which separates
the caravans from the coastal edge, some trampling has been caused by visitors
seeking the shor test route to the beach.
Plate 31
Bunacaimb, West Inverness-shire
One of the several caravan sites on the Arisaig-Morar coast. The machair sward
has been weakened by the digging of a disposal pit (foreground).
103
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 32
St. Ninian’s, Shetland
A large sand-pit which has been excavated in the blown-sand deposits at the east
end of the sand isthmus (plate 14).
Plate 33
Sands of Evie, Orkney
Extraction of the lime-rich sand has resulted in the removal of much of the lowdune ridge.
104
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
problems of impact on the environment or on other uses would result. In practice, however, densities of one
person to 3m of beach and 50 persons per hectare of machair are not unknown at small, heavily used
beaches such as Sango Bay near Durness, and much higher densities occur at town beaches such as
Millport or Ganavan.
Estimation of the total recreational use over the season or over the year depends on even more assumptions,
and must therefore be even less reliable than estimation of peak day use. If it is arbitrarily assumed, however,
that the peak use rate is maintained over a total of 14 days (allowing for the frequent wet days which will
inhibit use), and that half of the peak rate is maintained for a further six weeks, then a figure can be obtained
for each use class. A major gap appears between the beaches in the 26–100 user class and those in
the class from 101–500, with computed annual usage of 2200 and 10,500 respectively. These figures,
depending as they do on so many assumptions, must be viewed with great caution. They do, however, offer
a basis from which the impact of recreation on the beach environment can be considered (see chapter 6).
5.3
Caravanning and camping
Like informal day recreation, caravanning and camping exist as land uses of widely differing forms and
intensities. Caravanning includes use by both static caravans, rented on site, and mobile tourers, as well as
by motorised caravans. It is frequently associated with the related use of camping, with which it is partially
interchangeable. Both activities may occur in recognised sites, where there is at least some management
and where the intensity of use is relatively high; on the other hand so-called wild caravanning or camping
may take place in machairs where no facilities are provided, and where there is little or no management
specifically for these purposes.
As figure 5.1 illustrates, caravanning occurs on approximately 20% of the beach complexes. The frequency
of camping is very similar. A wide range of different types and intensities of caravanning is carried on,
ranging from the occasional wild caravanning on, for example, a Hebridean machair, to the highly
developed and licensed touring and static sites on parts of the mainland coast. The sine qua non of
caravanning, is, of course, easy vehicular access. Only 80 mainland beaches are accessible by cars to
within 100m of the beach; a measure of the widespread nature of caravanning on mainland beach
complexes is given by the fact that 53 beaches on the mainland (over 66% of those vehicularly accessible)
are used to some extent for caravanning.
That caravanning use is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the mainland is illustrated by the fact that nearly
60% of all the beaches used for caravanning are concentrated on the mainland, which accounts for only
27% of all the beaches in the area of study. Furthermore, almost all the licensed sites are on the mainland.
Within the mainland, caravanning is strongly concentrated on the west coast where over 60% of the
mainland use is located, notwithstanding the local large concentrations around Dornoch in East Sutherland
and on the Clyde coast of South Kintyre. Well over two-fifths of all the west coast beaches, and nearly all
those accessible to vehicles are used to some extent for caravanning.
Caravanning use shows relatively little bias towards beaches under certain types of tenure, but there is a
slight bias towards local authority beaches. These amount to only 4.7% of the region’s beaches, but carry
9% of the caravanning use. The recent transfer of the beach complexes at Achmelvich and Clachtoll to public
ownership has emphasized this bias. Greater contrasts emerge, however, when distinction is made between
105
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
caravanning in recognised sites and elsewhere. Most recognised sites are either on privately held or local
authority land, with only a few sites occupying croft land. Caravanning on areas outwith recognised sites
very frequently occurs on common grazings. It is largely a phenomenon of the west coast, and, to a lesser
extent, the larger of the Hebridean islands. Wild caravanning has become established in the partial vacuum
of land use and land management which exists on some machairs held as common grazings, and many of
the environmental problems associated with recreational use are centred on such beaches.
The geographical distribution of recognised sites on or near beach areas is characterised by a marked
unevenness. Several local concentrations occur, invariably on the mainland, and large parts of the coast are
almost devoid of recognised sites. The biggest concentration is around Dornoch in East Sutherland. A major
site, with a listed capacity of 250 units, has been developed on Dornoch Links (Dornoch South beach
– plate 29) which was until reorganisation of local government owned by the local town council. Another
large site, with a licensed capacity of 200 units, occupies the privately owned Embo Links nearby
(plate 30). Beach sites also occur at Golspie and Brora, a short distance along the coast, and further sites
lie to the landward of Dornoch, and although off the beach, contribute heavily to its use. The net effect is
that within an 8km radius of the Dornoch beaches, there are nearly 600 stances in recognised caravan sites,
of which over 100 are occupied by static vans. This is by far the greatest concentration, but other smaller
centres exist in Easter Ross, around Portmahomack and Balintore, on the Black Isle around Rosemarkie, and
around Gairloch in Wester Ross. Further north on the west coast, a minor but locally very important centre
has grown up in the Stoer Peninsula. In the southern part of the Highlands the main centres are in the
Arisaig-Morar area (plate 25), in Benderloch near Oban, and in south Kintyre. Elsewhere in the Highlands,
most caravan sites on beach complexes are relatively small and scattered.
Duffield and Owen (1972) identify several areas which stand out as centres of wild caravanning in so far
as they have an average length of ‘wild’ stay of more than 3 nights. Some of these areas, such as the
Dornoch Firth, the Stoer Peninsula and the Arisaig-Morar coast have several sandy beaches, but most of the
accessible beaches in these parts of the coastline already have recognised caravan sites, and wild
caravanning on beach areas is a greater problem outwith these areas (although the strong demand in these
localities may lead to the exceeding of site capacities). One of the prominent wild caravanning areas
identified by Duffield and Owen, and where much of the activity does take place on machair, is in north-west
Sutherland around Durness, and especially at Sango Bay. Most of the wild caravanning on other beach areas
is in Wester Ross (where there are several unlicensed sites), in Kintyre, and in parts of west Lewis and Harris.
Caravanning is one of the most problematic of beach land uses. It has a strong visual expression, and
certainly detracts from the open, unspoilt nature of many beaches. Besides acting as a barrier to easy public
access at some beaches, it introduces new magnitudes of pressures to the beach environment. Residents in
caravans at beach sites are likely to make several return journeys between their caravan, toilets and beach
in the course of a day, while day visitors might make only one or two journeys between their arrival point
and the beach. Therefore pedestrian trampling pressures are increased several-fold when residential
accommodation is provided on the beach, compared with those on a beach used solely for day visits.
In addition there is also vehicular pressure, involving repeated passages of vehicle and caravan wheels,
under all conditions of moistness. Therefore the total trampling effect is increased markedly when
caravanning is introduced at a significant intensity. Superimposed on trampling pressures are hazards
associated with the digging of burial pits, the disposal of refuse and damage to the grassy sward
(plate 31). These problems are considered further in chapter 6.
106
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
On the regional scale, most of the beach-use problems associated with caravanning stem from touring vans
rather than static caravans to let, although locally the latter do present considerable problems. Where the
caravans are static, there is probably less movement and less vehicular pressure than in sites used by touring
vans, and it is easier to provide paved stances and pathways where necessary. On the other hand, the static
vans are more permanent intrusions in the landscape than the tourers whose summer season is usually very
short. There is another distinction to be made between static and touring vans; the former, when located by
sandy beaches, usually have their raison d’etre in the existence of the beach close by. Many owners of
touring caravans also deliberately select beach caravan sites so that they can enjoy a seaside holiday. But
many other touring caravanners are forced to use a beach site because no other site is available; this is
probably as true of beach areas used for wild caravanning as it is for recognised sites. In the Highlands
and Islands, machair is one of the few land types which offer relatively level, freely drained ground free of
irregular rocky outcrops and peaty hollows. Therefore there is a strong tendency to use machair areas for
caravanning, especially on the rugged, west coast, not primarily because of proximity to the beach, but
because of easy terrain. It can be argued that several caravan sites, especially in the north-west Highlands,
do not require beach locations, as many of their customers initially seek only a suitably equipped transit site.
On finding the beach site congenial, of course, many visitors stay on for a few days, so that the distinction
between the transit function and the seaside-holiday function cannot be finely drawn. Given the rarity of the
beach resource, at least in the Highland mainland, it is unfortunate that some beach areas have been used
as caravan sites not because of inherent demand for a seaside holiday, but simply because of the absence
of other terrain which can be easily and cheaply brought into service as a caravan site.
5.4
Sand extraction
Some sand is taken from almost every beach accessible by tractor and cart, and significant amounts are
taken from about one beach in five. Sand extraction is therefore a relatively widespread use, and in some
localities (mainly in islands) it has proved to be a contentious issue.
Unlike most other land uses carried on in beach complexes, sand extraction can be set on the beach itself
as well as from dunes and machair. Extraction from the beach is less obvious than from the dunes or machair,
where it leaves unsightly pits, but on the long-term its effects on the beach are insidious, and can be
transmitted throughout the beach complex (see chapter 6). Furthermore, sand extraction, if on a significant
scale, necessarily depletes the beach resource, and therefore cannot be carried on indefinitely, except
perhaps on the beaches which are presently accreting. It has been shown (chapter 2.10) that less than
7% of the beaches in the study area are accreting; even in these beaches, extraction causes some depletion
in the sense that it prevents the full physical development of the beaches. In the much more numerous neutral
or eroding beaches the effects of depletion are more obvious and more significant.
The distribution of sand extraction is primarily an island one. Although the use of beach material for building
or agricultural purposes is not unknown on the mainland, there are usually other sources of aggregate and
even liming material available within acceptable distances. Most of the Western and Northern Islands, on
the other hand, are almost devoid of other sources of sand, aggregate and liming material, and strong
reliance is placed on beach sources. This is true also in Bute and Arran. Three-quarters of the beaches used
for sand extraction and over 80% of those used for shingle extraction are on the islands. Extraction is
especially widespread in Shetland, where two-fifths of the mainland beaches have been or are being
used for this purpose, and to a slightly less extent in Orkney. The frequency of beach extraction in the
107
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Northern Isles may be partly associated with the tenure of the foreshore there (see chapter 4.2). Outwith the
Northern Isles, extraction is usually from the dunes or machair rather than from the beach itself, although
extraction from Crown foreshores is by no means unknown. Sand deposits in dunes and machairs normally
belong to the landowner, who may exploit them himself, or lease them to a contractor. The position is more
complicated in areas of crofting tenure; in theory the mineral rights are usually retained by the landowner,
but most of the shell-sand pits in Lewis, for example, are managed and regulated by the local common
grazings committees. Such de facto division of responsibility makes the application of enforcement action
difficult.
Demand for sand for both agricultural and building purposes has fluctuated markedly over the last few
decades. The first large scale use of beach sand was probably during the second world war, when several
beaches in Shetland, for example, were heavily depleted in connection with the construction of military
installations. In the 1960s, demand was greatest for shell-sand as a liming material for use in moorland
re-seeding operations. Vast quantities of sand were used in this way in Lewis, and, to a lesser extent in
Shetland. The importation of ground limestone from mainland quarries is prohibitively expensive compared
with the shell-sand, which is virtually free apart from cartage costs. On Lewis, for example, it is estimated
that over a 25-mile haulage radius, the net cost of liming material to the crofter, after deduction of the lime
subsidy, was in 1975 £7 per acre for shell-sand, compared with over £46 per acre for bagged Ullapool
lime (Mr. A. Jones, pers. comm.). The minimum application rate for eligibility for subsidy payment under
land improvement schemes is 6 tons per acre, while the recommended level is 8 tons per acre (Grant,
Lumsden and Gillespie 1958) and some crofters apply as many as 10 tons per acre. During the 1960s,
approximately 12,000 acres of land were treated in Lewis alone (Crofters Commission Annual Reports). The
volume of sand thereby used, assuming average application rates, amounts to over 100,000 cubic metres.
This volume corresponds to a sand ridge 300m long by 30m wide by more than 10m deep. Much of this
sand was taken from a few beach units such as Eoropie, Barvas and the Uig beaches, and although the
geomorphological effects of extraction are difficult to assess, the visual effects at some of these beaches have
been considerable.
Over the last few years the rate of re-seeding and of other forms of land improvement has slowed down.
Demand for building sand, on the other hand, has increased markedly, especially in Shetland and
Benbecula, and to a lesser extent in Lewis. Demand has been greatest around the island capitals, and so
the beaches most likely to be used for sand extraction are those closest to towns such as Kirkwall, Lerwick
and Stornoway – the very beaches, in fact, which are most likely to be used for recreational purposes by
local townspeople and visitors. Several beaches on the Orkney mainland, for example, have been heavily
exploited for sand extraction (plate 33); Sandside Bay on the Deerness peninsula has been almost
completely worked over, while the dunes at the Bu in Burray are being heavily quarried at present.
The beaches closest to Lerwick (such as Sand of Sound) have been almost completely worked out, and most
of the extraction is now at the South Mainland beaches of St. Ninian’s and Quendale (plates 32, 34 and
35). The small machair at Westsandwick in Yell has recently been opened up and serves the oil-related
developments at Sullom Voe, despite the original intention to import all necessary building materials for the
development. Several of the Broad Bay beaches around Stornoway have also been used, especially for
aggregate, although in recent years the landowner (the Stornoway Trust) and the local authority have
attempted to regulate extraction.
108
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plates 34 and 35
Quendale, Shetland
Sand was formerly taken from the beach, but extraction is now mainly confined
to a site on the landward margin of the dune pit. Although extraction from the
dune pit has a more greater visual impact, extraction from the beach is likely
to have greater long-term physical ef fects.
Plate 36
Machrie, Arran
This is one of the more impor tant sand quarries in Arran. The sand is extracted
by simple machiner y from old sand-dune ridges near the beach. The small inset
photograph shows a thick buried soil layer, and is evidence of the several stages
of build up which characterise such wind blown-sand deposits.
109
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 37
Nigg, Easter Ross
Construction of oil-fabrication yard. Nigg is
one of the ver y few beaches in the Highlands
and Islands which have been developed for
industrial purposes.
Plate 39
Plate 38
Drumadoon Bay, Arran
The golf course at Blackwater foot is an
example of a common recreational use
in dune and machair areas in some par ts
of the Highlands and Islands.
Rothesay Bay, Bute
Most of the larger tourist resor ts (such as Rothesay) in the Highlands and Islands
lack sizeable areas of sandy beach. Where accessible sandy beaches do occur
near major resor ts, they are invariably intensively used for recreation.
110
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Next to wild caravanning, sand extraction is probably the most difficult type of beach use to regulate.
Farmers and crofters do not require planning consent to take sand from the dunes or machair Iying within
land which they own or occupy, providing the sand is for their own use and that it is for agricultural
purposes. This does not mean, however, that they necessarily have a legal right to take sand (at least if they
are tenants) and it applies only to land within the farm or croft. Nevertheless, farmers and crofters frequently
feel that they have a right to take sand from the nearest or most convenient beach, and bodies such as the
Department of Agriculture indirectly encouraged extraction by paying lime subsidies on shell-sand. Even the
local authorities themselves, in some instances, indirectly encourage extraction by purchasing sand or shingle
won from beach areas for use by their roads or works departments. Because of the high costs of imported
materials, there is an understandably strong incentive to use local sand wherever possible. Amounts of sand
and shingle taken from beaches have gradually built up over the years, and the increased demands,
combined with protests from conservation interests, have recently led some local authorities to intervene more
strongly than previously. In some instances sand extraction from the beach has been stopped by enforcement
action on the part of the local authority, but usually only at the cost of granting planning consent for extraction
from dune or machair areas. Usually this consent is subject to several conditions designed to minimise the
environmental effects of extraction, but the conditions are not always enforced, nor is rigorous control always
exercised on extraction from areas where there is no planning consent. In theory, extraction of materials from
the beach can be prohibited by Coast Protection Orders, if it can be shown that the risk of coastal erosion
may be increased by extraction. Such orders are usually only promoted when roads or property are
endangered by coastal retreat, and are seldom issued in purely rural areas where no buildings or roads are
threatened. Several beaches around Stornoway, and some in Orkney and elsewhere have been protected
in this way, but even when a Coast Protection Order is in operation, continuous policing is impossible, and
there is no guarantee that extraction will cease.
Sand extraction, being a form of mining, uses the beach as a stock rather than as a flow resource (except
perhaps in the case of the few beaches which are accreting). Its duration, in the context of the physical nature
of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands, must be limited in time. Since it tends to consume the resource,
it can have a severe effect on the other beach land uses; this effect is considered further in chapter 6.
5.5
Other land uses
Uses other than those already discussed in this chapter are relatively insignificant on the regional scale,
although they may be locally important.
Usually, but not always, their nature or intensity is such that they are the sole use, in the sense that they
are incompatible with agricultural or recreational uses, although they may occupy only part of the
beach complex.
Industrial use
Industrial use is found on less than 2% of the beaches in the area of study. The best known and biggest scale
industrial site is at Nigg in Easter Ross (plate 37), where a large oil fabrication yard has been constructed
on part of the beach complex. It is true that the beach environment now occupied by the yard has been
obliterated, but it is important to see this development in perspective; industry in general and oil-related
industry in particular directly affect only a handful of beaches in the Highlands and Islands, and uses such
111
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
as caravanning, on the regional scale, are far more widespread, and constitute a far greater threat to the
beach resource. This is not to say that decisions to industrialise beach areas should be taken lightly; such a
decision may well mean the end of the beach as a recreational resource, and features of ecological or
geomorphological value may well be irreparably damaged. Furthermore, industrial developments in areas
some distance from beaches may well trigger off repercussions on beach environments; these repercussions
may take the form of residential caravan sites developed at least partly to house industrial workers (as for
example at Balintore in Easter Ross, near the Nigg yard) or of new demands for building sand, which may
be met from beach sources. These indirect effects from off-beach developments are probably a much greater
threat to the long-term well being of beach environments than industrial developments actually on beach
complexes, which so far have affected only a minute percentage of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands.
Air fields and militar y use
Several beach complexes, especially in the islands, are used as airfields or airstrips. The main airports of
Shetland, Lewis, Benbecula, Tiree, Islay and Kintyre, for example, all lie at least partly on blown-sand, while
smaller airstrips on islands such as Coll, Colonsay and Berneray have similar settings. The construction of
major airports undoubtedly constitutes a major upheaval in the machair and dune environment, but thereafter
the reconstructed environment usually becomes very stable. Public access to the part of the beach complex
used as the airfield is prevented, but access is usually possible along the flanks of the beach. At present,
the frequency of aircraft movements at most airports in the Highlands and Islands is not such as to constitute
a major annoyance to recreation seekers on nearby beaches, and indeed may even represent a feature
of interest to them. Likewise, the intensity of use of machair airstrips on the smaller islands is very low,
and interferes little with most other uses. Indeed the use of a machair as an airstrip may even ensure that the
management and stability are greater than would otherwise be the case.
Only a very small percentage of the beaches in the area of study are completely closed to the public
because of military use, which is largely concentrated in three main areas – Morrich More in Easter Ross,
Mellon Charles in Wester Ross, and the rocket range in the north part of South Uist. Part of the Morrich More
is used as a bombing range and public access is possible at times when no military use is being made,
while the west end of the beach, near Tain, is always available for use. The beach at Mellon Charles, which
is used as a small naval establishment, is small and unattractive compared with other beaches in the area,
while in South Uist and Benbecula there is a wealth of alternative beaches readily available for public use.
Golf courses
Beaches with industrial or military uses are greatly outnumbered by those with golf courses. Those in the
West Highlands and Islands are usually small and modest, but several high quality, 18-hole courses have long
occupied the landward parts of beach complexes in Kintyre and on the Moray Firth coast. Indeed the golf
courses at Rosemarkie, Dornoch, Golspie, Brora, and Sinclair’s Bay near Wick are distinctive features of the
beach environment in those parts of the coastline. Of the 26 beach units with golf courses, 15 are on the
mainland, with 9 on the east coast and 3 in South Kintyre. The remainder are short courses in islands or in
west-coast locations such as Traigh or Gairloch. Golf courses are probably managed more intensively than
machair areas used for most other purposes, and the first signs of wind erosion or trampling damage are usually
dealt with speedily. It is true, however, that in some cases the golf courses function as barriers to public access
to beaches, although access is usually possible along the flanks of the beach. Their adverse impact on the
beach environment, both ecologically and aesthetically, is usually far less than that associated with caravanning.
112
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Habitations and cemeteries
Habitations are surprisingly frequent features on sandy machair ground in the Highlands and Islands. Almost
20% of the region’s beach units have houses on them, although buildings are usually confined to the machair
margins where blown-sand is thinner, and are more typical of the Hebridean islands than of any other part
of the area of study. Paved roads or well-defined tracks lead to most houses, and high levels of trampling
damage are rarely encountered in their vicinity. Cemeteries are also common, and indeed are one of the
most distinctive features of the machair, at least in the north part of the Long Island. The rocky or peaty terrain
typical of much of the Western Highlands and the Western Isles means that the only suitable areas for
cemeteries are on the machair where there is an adequate depth of blown-sand. The existence of a cemetery
often means that at least part of a machair is tended more carefully than it would otherwise be and
the enclosed areas are, unlike most machair, usually free from grazing. On some beach complexes, such
as Dalmore in Lewis, the existence of the cemetery has also led to protective measures against erosion, such as
the construction of a sheet-pile sea wall along the coastal edge.
Nature reser ves
Many of the beach complexes in the Highlands and Islands are of both scientific interest and value for nature
conservation (see chapter 2.12). This interest and value are reflected in the establishment over the last
two decades of several nature reserves on beach complexes. At present, as figure 5.1 indicates, 3% of the
beach complexes in the area of study are used as nature reserves. These beach units either lie within
National Nature Reserves (see chapter 4.3) or are in reserves run by voluntary bodies such as the Scottish
Wildlife Trust (S.W.T.) or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (R.S.P.B.).
Four National Nature Reserves in the Highlands and Islands contain sandy beach complexes. Rhum N.N.R.
contains three beach units, and is owned by the Nature Conservancy Council. The primary land use within
the Rhum N.N.R. is nature conservation, but the main scientific interest centres on habitats other than sandy
beaches, which are not in themselves of outstanding interest. The other three N.N.Rs are at Invernaver
on the north coast of Sutherland, at Loch Druidibeg in South Uist (containing the Eochar-Dremisdale beach
complex) and in the Monach Isles. These reserves are not owned by the Nature Conservancy Council,
but are subject to management agreements between the landowners and the N.C.C. In these reserves,
management for purposes of nature conservation co-exists with other land uses, principally grazing.
R.S.P.B. reserves containing sandy beaches include Balranald in North Uist, Handa off the west coast of
Sutherland, and Waulkmill Bay and Copinsay in Orkney, while a S.W.T. reserve has been established at
Little Ferry at the mouth of Loch Fleet in East Sutherland. Management, in the form of wardening, is usually
on a part time or seasonal basis.
Although nature reserves have been established in only a relatively small number of beach complexes in the
Highlands and Islands, many other beach units are of considerable value for nature conservation, and
indeed in many instances this value co-exists with management and use for other purposes. The fact that a
nature reserve has not been established on a beach complex therefore does not indicate that the unit is of
no value for nature conservation, and indeed in some instances concern for nature conservation is a
significant influence on the management of beach complexes as practised by some owners.
113
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
5.6
Multiple use
Many beaches in the Highlands and Islands are used for more than one purpose, either as separate uses
or superimposed one upon the other. The compatibility of the potential beach land uses depends on the form
of multiple use which is contemplated. Most combinations of use are feasible when each use is segregated
into a separate part of the machair, although the effects of any one use can be transmitted beyond the area
in which it is set. Multiple use in the sense of the superimposition of uses, however, is more difficult
to achieve, and compatibility depends on intensity of use as much as on type of use. Table 5.6.1 attempts
to set out the main relationships for multiple use in the superimposed sense.
Compatibility between the users of different parts of the beach is even more dependent on intensity, and
generalisations are of limited value. In general terms, however, recreation on the beach itself is usually
compatible with other land uses on the dunes and machair, although obviously the proximity of a large
industrial plant nearby will reduce the quality of the beach recreation. The other main potential use of the
beach itself, sand extraction, is likely to have more marked effects on the blown-sand area to the landward,
as it leads to increased risks of erosion of the dunes and machair.
Single-purpose use is comparatively infrequent on the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands.
When it does exist, it is usually in the form of sheep grazing, or in a few cases industrial or airport use.
If sheep grazing is the sole use, the likelihood is that the machair is located in one of the smaller islands, or
else is remote from a public road. As accessibility increases, the range of land uses, in both the segregated
and superimposed senses, increases also. Sheep grazing may be joined by cattle grazing, together with
some wild caravanning and sand extraction. The range may also contain habitations and a cemetery.
Multipurpose use is feasible at low intensities, but as intensities increase, a stage may be reached at which
one type of use becomes so dominant that it precludes all other uses. This single use may be sand extraction
(as at Sandside Bay, Orkney) or even industrial use, as at Nigg. More usually, however, it involves day
recreation or caravanning. Several machairs have become areas of virtual ‘monoculture’ over the last
decade, when rapidly growing recreational use has meant that they have become of little use for grazing
or for other purposes. Examples include Sango Bay near Durness, Achmelvich and Clachtoll on the Stoer
Peninsula, Embo Links in East Sutherland, and many others. In the absence of firm statistics on the intensity
of recreational use at each beach, it is impossible to chart precisely this trend towards dominance by
recreation which has affected many beaches, but broad indications of the trend can be seen in other ways.
The average rate of growth in all traffic in the Highlands and Islands, on the basis of 57 census points, has
been 4.7% per annum over the period from 1963–74 (H.l.D.B. Annual Report 1974). Locally, the rate of
growth, and particularly the rate of growth of tourist traffic, has been much higher Growth of caravanning
over the last 15 years has also been rapid. In mainland Inverness-shire, together with Skye, the annual rates
of growth in the four years between 1969 and 1973 was 8% for trailer caravans and 23% for motorised
caravans (Inverness County Council 1974). In Argyll, the growth rate appears to have been even higher;
it is estimated that the number of touring caravans in the county increased by 78% between 1971 and 1973
(Argyll County Council 1974). Increases in fuel prices caused a temporary decline in 1974, but in 1975
caravan traffic increased once more, and the long-term trend is sharply upwards, especially if the falling
value of the pound sterling discourages overseas holidays.
These trends are not in themselves precise indicators of the trends in recreational or caravanning use on
beach complexes. Demand for recreation and for caravanning around beaches may well be growing more
rapidly than in the landward parts of the study area. The trend for recreational and caravanning use on
114
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
beach complexes has undoubtedly risen more steeply than that of any other beach land use. Over the last
10 or 15 years, the only other major land-use trend (with the exception of those beaches taken over for
industrial or large-scale sand-quarrying use) has been that of cattle grazing and outwintering. Not only has
the cattle trend been less dramatic than that of recreation, but it has also been characteristic of different parts
of the region.
Much of the growth on recreational demand has been on the mainland beaches, while much of the growth
in cattle wintering has been on the islands.
Thus at least on the mainland beaches, and on those in the larger islands served by car ferry, new pressures
and disequilibria between the various land uses, and between the land uses and the beach environment,
have come largely from recreation and caravanning. Manifestations of these disequilibria are as yet
confined to relatively few beach units, but as recreational demand continues to grow the symptoms of
disequilibria will become both more widespread and more acute. It is for this reason that an understanding
of the nature and distribution of the resource and of how it responds to different types and intensities of use
is so important.
Industry – airport
– military use
Sand extraction
Caravanning
Recreation
Cultivation
Compatibility matrix for superimposed land uses on beach complexes
Grazing
Table 5.6.1
Grazing
Key
Are uses compatible?
Cultivation
N
N – No
Recreation
LI
N
Caravanning
LI
N
U
Sand extraction*
N
N
N
N
Industry – airport – military use
N
N
R
N
N
Nature conservation
U
S
Ll
R
N
R – Rarely
115
LI – at light intensities only
S – Sometimes
U – Usually
R
* – from dunes or machair
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
6
ADVERSE FEATURES AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF USE
One of the characteristics of beach complexes, as distinctive land types, is that very delicate equilibria
exist between landform, soil and vegetation. A change in any of these elements of the beach environment
is unlikely to be confined to a single element, but is much more likely to be transmitted to other components
of the beach complex via the linkages and inter-relationships outlined in chapter 2.1. These changes may
be of a purely natural or physical nature – for example there may be a decrease in the rate of sandy supply
to the beach, which in turn leads to a lowering of the beach profile, wave erosion of the dune front, and
hence exploitation of the exposed dune face by wind erosion, which eventually may continue far back into
the machair. On the other hand, the changes may be brought about by man as he makes use of the beach
complex. If sand is extracted from the beach, the long-term effects could be the same as those resulting
from a natural decrease in sand supply. Similarly, the introduction of trampling or grazing pressures into
the dunes or machair may lead to the breaching of the vegetation cover which, to a large extent, holds in
place the blown-sand of which the dunes and machair are composed. The result may well be the
excavation of a hollow by wind erosion, and once initiated, the hollow may expand progressively until
much of the blown-sand area is affected.
These are simple examples of the changes which can be transmitted along the linkages of the beach system
and of the ways in which the beach complex is easily modified by man. The feeling or belief that
all changes affecting beach complexes are undesirable is untenable; without change in the past,
beach complexes could not have evolved to their present condition. Nevertheless, it can be argued that
certain types of changes are undesirable because they reduce the usefulness of the beach complex to man.
If a machair is severely eroded, then its grass cover decreases at the expense of bare sand. Not only is
the grazing value reduced, but problems of animal husbandry arise in environments where there is much
sand-blow. In this context, erosion can be seen as an undesirable or adverse feature (irrespective
of whether it is a natural process or one which is man-induced), as it reduces the usefulness of the
beach complex.
Adverse features can be defined on an aesthetic as well as on an utilitarian basis, although a greater
element of subjectivity is probably involved in this type of definition. One of the main attractions of
beaches in the Highlands and Islands (in their European setting) is their unspoilt and apparently untouched
appearance. Therefore any feature which detracts from this unspoilt appearance can be regarded as an
adverse feature. Since many beach complexes are open, expansive landscapes, adverse features such as
refuse dumps are difficult to screen or to conceal, and may be visible over wide areas. The presence of
such features is the very antithesis of the image which many visitors see embodied in the beach unit, namely
the natural, unspoilt landscape far removed from the urban and industrial landscapes from which many of
them have come. Thus just as the usefulness of the beach unit may be reduced by physical changes
transmitted along the linkages of the beach system, so also its aesthetic quality, and hence its usefulness
as a resource for tourism, can be reduced if the beach complex is used as a repository for ugly or offensive
materials, or if it is used for purposes which result in an impoverishment of its aesthetic quality. Likewise,
the ecological interest and conservation value of a beach complex can be reduced in parallel with
reductions in usefulness and aesthetic quality. The intricate and delicate relationships which exist in the
environment of the beach system can mean that any change in landform, for example, can rapidly lead to
116
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
changes in insect or animal life as well as in vegetation; hence it is possible to define adverse features on
an ecological basis as well as on the bases of usefulness and aesthetic quality. In practice, however, there
is usually a zone of overlap; many features which are adverse when judged from the pragmatic or utilitarian
viewpoint are also adverse from the aesthetic or ecological viewpoints.
Although some adverse features, such as discharging pipes or abandoned cars, can be recorded on a
simple basis of presence-or-absence, others such as erosion are present in some form on almost every
beach unit (see chapter 2.10) so that recording purely on a presence-or-absence basis is meaningless.
An element of subjectivity is involved in assessing the magnitude and impact of the adverse feature; the
rating of the severity of the adverse feature has been done by the authors purely on a subjective basis,
within their experience of the beaches of the area of study. It is possible that different assessments would
be made by people of different background, and there is some evidence that both crofters and
holiday-makers are less sensitive to adverse or negative features in the beach environment than are the
present authors (see Appendix I ).
6.1
Frequency and distribution of adverse features
The frequency of occurrence of most of the features perceived as adverse is generally low, and the most
obvious forms of adverse features, such as abandoned cars and physical pollution, affect fewer than 10%
of the beaches of the region. Table 6.1.1 illustrates the relative occurrence of the main adverse features,
and indicates that, for some adverse features, there are contrasts in their frequency between the mainland
and the area of study as a whole.
Table 6.1.1
Percentage of
beaches affected
Incidence of adverse features
Wild
caravanning and
camping
Dereliction
Industrial/
Abandoned Discharging military
Pollution
cars
pipes
installations
Erosion
damage
Refuse
Extraction
pits
All beaches
45
19
18
12
11
6
6
6
6
Mainland only
54
22
14
22
10
10
7
4
10
A further breakdown of the regional distribution and severity of adverse features is shown in Table 6.1.2.
117
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Table 6.1.2
Distribution of adverse features
Erosion damage
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Refuse
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Extraction pits
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Wild caravanning
and camping
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Dereliction
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Pollution
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Discharging pipes
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Abandoned cars
Absent
Low
Medium
High
Industrial/military
installations
Absent
Low
Medium
High
All
beaches
Mainland
Inner
Hebrides
Outer
Hebrides
Orkney
Shetland
Clyde
Islands
55
25
14
5
46
27
18
9
58
24
14
4
44
35
15
6
76
14K
10
–
71
10
10
10
40
53
7
–
81
13
5
–
78
11
10
–
83
13
3
1
85
11
4
–
80
17
4
–
93
5
–
2
47
40
13
–
82
11
6
2
86
10
2
1
90
8
2
–
72
15
12
–
77
11
8
4
81
5
7
7
73
20
–
7
88
8
1
3
78
11
2
9
90
8
1
1
88
9
2
1
98
2
–
–
98
2
–
–
87
7
7
–
89
8
2
1
90
6
3
1
92
6
1
1
84
14
2
–
88
7
4
1
90
7
–
2
87
7
7
–
94
4
2
1
90
6
2
2
94
6
–
–
97
2
1
–
98
2
–
–
100
–
–
–
67
20
13
–
94
5
1
–
93
6
2
–
96
4
–
–
96
4
–
–
95
5
–
–
93
2
5
–
60
27
13
–
94
5
1
–
96
3
1
–
95
4
–
1
87
11
2
–
95
5
–
–
100
–
–
–
93
7
–
–
94
4
1
2
90
6
1
3
94
6
–
–
95
1
2
2
95
4
1
–
98
–
–
2
100
–
–
–
Figures are percentages
118
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Perceived erosion damage is by far the most widespread adverse feature, both in the Highlands and Islands
as a whole and in each of its constituent parts. Almost one in two of all beaches, and nearly three in five
of the beaches of the Outer Hebrides suffer to some extent from erosion as an adverse feature, and the level
of erosion damage is high in 5% of the units. Only in Orkney are more than three-quarters of the beach units
free from this adverse feature. Proportions of beaches affected are especially high in the mainland and in
the Outer Hebrides as well as in the Clyde Islands where a high percentage figure tends to conceal the
relatively small absolute numbers of beaches affected. The worst affected beaches, where erosional damage
is perceived as high, are in the mainland (mostly in Wester Ross and west Sutherland), and in Shetland,
where a number of units, mostly in Unst, have been almost completely eroded away.
As chapter 2.10 shows, erosion is a phenomenon which is almost ubiquitous in the beach complexes of the
Highlands and Islands, and on average approximately 2.5% of the blown-sand area is in the form of a bare
sand surface which is a product of recent erosion. In many beach complexes, the areas currently undergoing
erosion are very small both in absolute terms and relative to the total blown-sand area, and agricultural or
recreational use is not hindered in any way. Sometimes, however, the effects of erosion can be much greater
than the relative extent of the bare sand area would suggest. Long blow-outs or fingers of erosion may dissect
the machair (plate 16) and make movement across it difficult, so that the effects of the erosion features
are greater than their relative surface area would indicate. A total of 208 cases are listed where erosion
is perceived by the authors as damaging, in the sense that it reduces the usefulness of the beach resource.
This compares with a total of 113 cases where erosion damage (in the sense of the bare sand surface it
produces) extends to more than 5% of the blown-sand area. It follows that in 95 beach units, erosion is seen
as damaging although it affects at present less than 5% of the total blown-sand area.
Of the 25 beach units where erosional damage is perceived as high, only 11 (44%) appear on the list of
beaches where the eroded areas extend to more than 15% of the blown-sand area.
Erosion damage
Quantitative assessment – HIGH ie bare sand area >15% of blown-sand area (see chapter 2.10)
Dalmore
Bosta
Garry
Mangersta
Corpach Coast
Sanaigmore
Sannox
Invernaver
Coldbackie
Melness
Sheigra
Clashnessie
Mungasdale
Gruinard South
Mellon Udrigle
Camas Mor
Opinan
Sand
Inner Skaw
Balta Island
Huney
Sandwick (Unst)
Lunda Wick
Rosinish
Allasdale
Sandray (Main)
Varlish (Vatersay)
Uidhe (Vatersay)
119
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Qualitative assessment – HIGH
Dalmore*
Garry*
Sheigra*
Mellon Udrigle*
Sandwick (Unst)*
Rosinish*
Morar
Traigh Tuath
Tralee Bay
Kervaig Bay
Achnahaird Bay
Kirk Sand
Bagh a Dheas (Vatersay)
Mangersta*
Sanaigmore*
Gruinard South*
Opinan*
Lunda Wick*
Cul na Croise
Port an t-Saoir
Claddich
Sango Bay
Clachtoll
Sands of Meal (Burra)
Eoligarry
(Asterisked beaches occur on both lists.)
There is thus a considerable difference between erosion as qualitatively perceived and as quantitatively
defined. Part of this difference can be attributed to the purely technical and methodological factors involved
in measuring small areas within small beach units; the percentage measuring error in small areas is large,
and even if no measuring error is involved, a small erosion site, of relatively little significance in itself, may
be a relatively high percentage of the total blown-sand area. The omission of several of the small beaches
on the quantitative list from the qualitative list can be explained in this way. Nevertheless, significant
differences still exist. It is thought that these differences arise largely from differences in forms and stages of
erosion. Most of the units which appear on the quantitative but not on the qualitative list have suffered
backshore retreat, and erosion of the machair down to a plane surface at or close to the water table. This
represents the end stage of erosion; stability returns as the base level of erosion is reached, and indeed
eventually the eroded surface will revegetate. Thus although in terms of area affected, erosion has been
severe, in terms of current rates and intensities it is much less so than in beach units where the end stage has
not yet been reached, and where the machairs are dissected by numerous blow-outs or deflation fingers, as
for example at Clachtoll (plate 18).
Although erosion can be seen as an adverse feature in that it reduces the usefulness of the beach resource,
it does not necessarily result from man’s use of the beach environment. Certain associations, which may or
may not be casual relationships, do appear to exist, however, between the incidence of erosion damage
(as defined qualitatively) and the incidence of certain resource processes or types of land use. For example,
71% of the beach units which contain extraction pits also suffer from erosional damage, while only 43% of
the units without extraction pits suffer in this way.
Similarly, 65% of the beaches used for wild caravanning or camping are affected by erosional damage,
compared with only 42% of the beaches not so used, and 60% of the beaches where there is significant
impact from trampling (see chapter 6.2) suffer from erosion compared with only 36% of the beaches where
there is no trampling impact. These comparisons do not, of course, prove that the erosion is man-induced;
such proof is virtually impossible to obtain on the regional scale, since other variables cannot be held
constant so that the effects of man may be isolated. Nevertheless, there is at least circumstantial evidence
that many of the more severe occurrences of erosion are at least partially associated with man. Man may
not directly be the cause of the erosion, but he may at least influence its rate and severity.
120
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Another factor which is probably both a cause of erosion and an influence on its intensity is infestation by
rabbits. A few rabbits exist on many if not on most beach complexes, but populations were judged to be
sufficiently large to constitute infestation on about 14% of the beach units in the region. Of the infested units
it was perhaps significant that 86% were adjudged to suffer from erosion damage compared with only 44%
of the uninfested units.
The tipping of refuse and rubble is one of the most widespread and unnecessary adverse features affecting
beaches in the region. It affects almost one in five of the beach units, and besides introducing eyesores into
the beach complex, it may also introduce dangers for grazing animals and children at play, and may bring
in plant species which are ecologically undesirable in the beach complex. A variant of refuse, namely
abandoned cars, is particularly obtrusive, and severely affects several beach complexes in small islands
where disposal in other ways is difficult. Neither the disposal of refuse nor the abandoning of cars is a
problem peculiar to the smaller islands, however, and the mainland is as badly affected as any of the main
island groups. The practice of refuse disposal (as distinct from litter which is mainly left by visitors) in the
beach complex is perhaps a clear reflection of the different attitudes held towards the beach environment
by visitors and by local residents. The local resident may see no great aesthetic quality in the beach area,
and find no recreational use for it; indeed it offers an opportunity of disposing material which would be
troublesome elsewhere on the farm or croft. Furthermore, the local resident may well argue that the beach
environment is extensive, so that the area affected by tipping is in relative terms very small. Some visitors,
on the other hand, may have a sharper awareness of the attractiveness and rarity value of the beach
environment, and regret that it has been impaired by the careless disposal of refuse, and there is some
evidence (see Appendix I) that the holiday-maker is very conscious of refuse, especially when it consists of
dangerous materials such as barbed wire or glass.
In a few cases, tipping has been done deliberately, in an effort to protect the coastal edge or to seal blowouts. Tipping at the coastal edge may be effective and aesthetically acceptable if the material tipped is stone
or rock, and is free from the wood and glass which building rubble frequently contains. Similarly, the use of
tipped material to seal blow-outs becomes more acceptable if sand is spread over the dumped material,
although there is always the danger that buried material becomes exposed if erosion is resumed.
Most of the occurrences of refuse disposal and abandoned cars, however, are motivated not by any wish to
check erosion, but solely by the wish to find the easiest solution to the local problem of disposing of unwanted
rubble, tin cans, agricultural machinery and other hardware which has outlived its usefulness (plate 41).
It is unfortunate that more efforts have not been made to clear beach areas of such debris, given that removal
is usually comparatively easy and almost always effects a marked improvement in the appearance of the
beach environment.
Sometimes organic material such as surplus turnips or silage or farmyard manure is dumped on the beach.
Although this type of dumping is less undesirable than the dumping of more durable materials, it gives rise
to unpleasant smells and noisome effluents, which constitute local pockets of water pollution, and detracts
from the attractiveness of the beach environment.
In a number of beach units the problem of refuse is linked to that of dereliction. Several beaches are
overlooked by derelict buildings from which various waste materials such as corrugated iron, glass or slates
find their way onto the beach. One of the most unfortunate aspects of dereliction is that it affects many of
121
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
the most remote beaches in the region, where the visitor expects to find a completely unspoilt scene. Several
remote units, such as Kervaig Bay near Cape Wrath and Rosinish on the east coast of Benbecula, are
marred by derelict houses. Quite apart from the direct visual impact in the beach landscape, for some
people these derelict buildings contribute an indefinable atmosphere of unpleasantness and decay which
further detracts from the attractiveness of the beach. It is unfortunate that there is little likelihood that these
features will be removed in the foreseeable future, as they usually occupy remote locations where demolition
vehicles would have great difficulty in penetrating, and in any case if demolition did occur then the likelihood
is that the rubble would be left on the beach and there would constitute an equally adverse feature. On the
other hand much could be done to remove the signs of decay and dereliction at the more accessible
beaches, and the improvements at these units would be more easily justified in terms of the number of beach
users who would benefit from the landscape enhancement.
Pollution is one of the least frequent adverse factors, affecting regionally only 6% of the beach units, and
rising to a frequency of over 10% only in the Clyde islands. Several sources may contribute polluting
materials; the more obvious forms are contaminated waters draining from refuse tips on the beach complex
or from toilets, and the existence of large quantities of flotsam and jetsam around and above high water
mark. In some beaches, rotting vegetation or seaweed (which cannot properly be described as pollution)
constitutes a local source of annoyance, and has an effect on the use and enjoyment of the beach which is
as strong as that of man-made sources of pollution.
The relative cleanliness of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands is probably due in part to the vigorous
tidal action which is found in most of the area, and which exerts strong cleansing and renewing effects on
the beach itself, if not on the blown-sand areas behind the beach. Raw sewage, completely untreated, is
discharged from local authority sewers near (although not necessarily on) approximately 7% of the beaches
in the area of study; these beaches are mainly in the Clyde islands, Easter Ross and East Sutherland, around
Broad Bay in Lewis, and in Shetland. At very few beaches, however, are there visible signs of such outflows,
and in most cases the visitor is blissfully unaware of any nearby discharges. In general terms, sewage
discharges are of very minor importance as adverse features, although if a pipe is visible on the beach the
fears and suspicions of the visitor are raised and his enjoyment is impaired regardless of the nature and
volume of any discharge which is taking place. In most cases the psychological effect is possibly much
greater than the physical or biological effects.
Much more significant is the strandline debris which accumulates in some parts of the area of study.
Plastic and polythene containers pose special problems because of their durability. The beaches around the
Firth of Clyde are the most likely to receive flotsam of this type as they are adjacent to busy shipping lanes,
but virtually no beach in the area of study, even if it is located in an uninhabited island, is completely immune,
as long-distance flotsam can accumulate almost anywhere, and especially on the outer coasts of the islands.
Extraction pits exist as adverse features in 18% of the beach units in the area of study, and are most frequent
in the Northern Isles, in the Outer Hebrides, and in the Clyde islands (plates 32, 33 and 36). In terms of
long-term effects on the total beach complex, extraction from pits in the dunes or machair is probably much
less harmful than from the beach itself. Yet extraction from the beach may leave no obvious features in the
short term, while extraction from pits leaves features which are obvious to all who visit the beach. Eventually,
most extraction pits revegetate naturally, and may even become almost indistinguishable from healed blowouts. Sometimes, however, the overburden is bulldozed into chaotic mounds, with shapes quite different from
122
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
those of any natural dune of machair land-form. Even when grassed over, these mounds remain obtrusive
features, and in addition to having a purely aesthetic impact, extraction pits and associated mounds of spoil
can interrupt drainage patterns, and lead to changes in the position of the water table, which in turn lead
to changes in vegetation.
The assessment of wild caravanning (plate 27) as an adverse feature involves a greater element of
subjectivity than does the assessment of features such as abandoned cars or extraction pits. The existence
of the adverse feature is more temporary, and it must be admitted that in some cases wild caravanning and
camping are no more obtrusive in the beach environment than caravanning and camping in listed sites.
In the latter, however, there is usually at least some degree of management, so that the worst of the side
effects of these activities, such as problems of sanitation and litter disposal, are better contained. Where
there is no recognised site, the caravanner may resort to practices such as the burial of refuse in the machair,
so weakening the sward, and he is also likely to drive at will over the machair area and may leave multiple
tracks along which the vegetation is damaged. Wild caravanning by its very nature is confined to beaches
which have some form of track or other access and is largely a phenomenon of the mainland. Outwith the
mainland, cases of wild caravanning are largely confined to the larger islands such as Lewis, Harris and
Islay, together with the Clyde islands, and are almost unknown in Orkney and Shetland. It is especially
noticeable that ten out of the twelve cases where the effects of wild caravanning are graded as high occur
in the mainland, and most of these lie on the west coast, particularly in Wester Ross.
The existence of industrial or military installations as adverse features is very rare, affecting in total only
6% of the region’s beaches, although this percentage rises to 10 when the mainland is considered alone.
Some beaches, such as Nigg in Easter Ross (plate 37) and Mellon Charles on Loch Ewe in Wester Ross are
completely dominated by such features, but their impact on the beach environment is usually less drastic.
Compared with the coasts of other parts of Britain and much of western Europe, the coastline is relatively
free from such features, and it is fortunate that very few of the more attractive and more scenic parts of the
Highland coastline have so far been impaired in this way.
Within the area of study as a whole, therefore, adverse features are comparatively rare on beach areas,
and the most frequent adverse feature – erosion – is at least partly natural, and is probably not perceived
by the majority of visitors as reducing the attractiveness of the beach complex (Appendix I). Nevertheless,
there is little room for complacency; it must be admitted that a sizable number of beaches in the Highlands
and Islands have an air of neglect, which is often compounded from combinations of a number of adverse
features. Attention has already been drawn to the associations which exist between erosion on the one hand
and wild caravanning and sand extraction on the other. Several beaches are also affected by combinations
of refuse, abandoned cars, pollution and dereliction, and occasionally these features are superimposed
upon the chaotic topography of mounds of overburden and worked-out extraction pits. The result is a
thoroughly disagreeable environment, and a beach complex which, in the absence of restoration works, is
virtually useless for any purpose other than the continuing disposal of refuse. Thus there is a danger that once
begun, deterioration will continue on a downwards spiral unless definite checks are imposed and restorative
works instituted. Beaches such as Sandside Bay in Deerness on the Orkney Mainland offer salutary lessons
on the extent to which the beach environment can deteriorate if abused, and it must be sincerely hoped that
such beaches remain, on the regional scale, very few in number.
123
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
6.2
The environmental ef fects of land uses on beach complexes
The side effects resulting from the utilisation of the beach complex may exert as strong an influence on the
beach environment as the adverse features, considered in chapter 6.1, with which they are inextricably
linked. The main effects arise from recreational use, from grazing, and from sand extraction. Grazing has
occurred on most beach complexes for many centuries, but recreational use and sand extraction (at least in
its recent scale) represent new influences which have been superimposed upon older established influences
on the beach environment.
Recreation
Recreational effects take a number of forms; the most obvious of these forms is the overall effect of caravans
and tents on the visually exposed coastal landscape. In addition to these landscape effects the physical
effects of introducing large numbers of people into previously little-used beach environments must also be
considered. This recreational input involves the input of new sources and forms of both energy and materials
into the environment.
The former is expended in movement across the beach complex, and is frequently manifested in the effects
of trampling in modifying or destroying vegetation (plate 29), while the latter finds expression in the litter
which is often associated with recreational use.
Subjective assessments of the amount of trampling and litter resulting from recreational use have been made
for all the beaches in the region. It is emphasised that the assessments are based on comparative knowledge
and experience of the beaches, and do not involve the use of quantitative indexes such as percentage
reduction in vegetation cover, or number of items of litter per unit area. Although subjective, however, the
checking of independent assessments made at the beaches visited by both authors gives assurance that
agreement between the workers is almost complete. Table 6.2.1 illustrates the frequency of occurrence of litter
and trampling impact on vegetation, and highlights some of the regional variations in distribution.
Table 6.2.1
Estimated impact of trampling and litter resulting from recreational use
All
beaches
Mainland
Inner
Hebrides
Outer
Hebrides
Orkney
Shetland
Clyde
Islands
Absent
56
25
57
71
91
68
–
Low
31
45
36
24
7
24
73
Medium
10
17
7
5
2
7
27
3
13
–
–
–
–
–
Absent
56
25
63
67
88
61
–
Low
Trampling
High
Litter
33
50
35
27
10
27
80
Medium
9
23
2
6
1
12
20
High
1
2
–
–
1
–
–
All figures in percentages
124
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
It is apparent that litter and trampling are closely associated, and have very similar frequencies of
occurrence. Both are widespread, and to some extent, affect almost half of all the beaches in the area
of study, and three-quarters of those in the mainland. No beach units in the Clyde islands are free from
trampling and litter, but in the Outer Hebrides and in Orkney, where the beaches are very extensive
in relation to the intensity of recreational use, the percentage of units affected is much less than elsewhere.
The distribution of trampling and litter is directly influenced by the intensity of recreational use, which was
shown in chapter 5.2 to be strongly influenced, in turn, by proximity to motorable roads. The decrease
in occurrence of trampling and litter with increasing distance from a public road is shown in table 6.2.2,
where it is seen that two-thirds of the beaches Iying within 100m of a road are affected, compared with
less than one-fifth of the beaches more than 2.5km from a road.
Table 6.2.2
The distribution of recreational impact by distance from a public road
Percentage of beaches
affected by
Under
100m
101–500
m
501–1000
m
1001–2500
m
2500
m
Uninhabited
islands
Trampling
66
58
28
26
15
7
Litter
68
49
30
22
18
–
Only two of the beaches affected by trampling are in uninhabited islands; these are both in Handa, which is
highly anomalous in terms of its intensity of recreational use since, unlike most uninhabited islands, it receives
many day-visitors drawn by its bird life, cliff scenery and convenient boat service.
Litter is visually offensive, and appears to be keenly perceived by holiday-makers (see Appendix I). It may
also be dangerous, both to humans and to livestock. In general, however, it is more easily controlled than
trampling, where long-term effects are probably more serious. Trampling gives rise to a number of problems.
The main concern is physical rather than solely aesthetic or ecological, as trampling can reduce the
usefulness of the beach complex as well as reducing its attractiveness.
Several studies of the effects of human trampling on coastal vegetation have been undertaken in recent years
(eg Goldsmith et al. (1970), Leney (1974), Liddle and Greig-Smith (1975) and Liddle (1975)). Some of
these investigations have involved experimental trampling under controlled conditions, and there is clear
evidence that vegetation cover and height are both reduced by moderate or intensive trampling, although it
appears that on some vegetation types very light trampling can promote vegetative growth (Bayfield, 1971),
probably by encouraging the breakdown of plant debris and the recirculation of nutrients. Physical
compaction of the sand by trampling around Marram may stimulate growth, as long as the shoots remain
undamaged (Leney, 1974). The thresholds above which damage occurs, however, vary considerably from
species to species; and observational evidence from numerous beach complexes suggests that the taller
dune grasses are much more susceptible to trampling damage than are the shorter machair species. The
susceptibility of Marram to trampling has been confirmed experimentally by Leney (1974), who found that
Marram on the Aberdeenshire coast was so badly damaged by one person sitting on it on one occasion
that the damage was still visible after two years. Likewise, Trew (1973) working on shorter Marram on old
grey dunes in South Wales found that the species became extremely rare above a trampling pressure of
1000 people per year, and died out completely above a pressure of 2000 per year. At Gibraltar Point
in Lincolnshire, Marram was found to be completely eliminated in an area of yellow dunes visited by 7500
persons in a season, while on fixed dunes at the same locality the pressure of 3500–4500 visitors resulted
125
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
in local exposure of sand (Schofield 1967, Lloyd 1970). These results have not been related to the acreages
of the areas from which they derive, and information on the diurnal and seasonal patterns of use is
incomplete. Therefore the findings cannot be translated directly to the dunes and machairs of the Highlands
and Islands since the basis of comparison needs to be more fully explored. Nevertheless they provide a
measure of the magnitude of pedestrian pressure which is associated with major effects on vegetation.
Marram is probably the most sensitive of the major dune and machair species; observation would suggest
that Sea Lyme grass is equally sensitive to mechanical damage but its sharp blades help to deter the
widening of trampled zones that sometimes occurs in Marram. Field evidence would also indicate that
Sand Couch is more tolerant of trampling than either Marram or Sea Lyme grass. Behind the dune zone, the
effects of trampling in the directly mechanical sense appear to be less, but indirect effects begin to be
exerted by soil changes following upon compaction. Machair grasses such as Festuca rubra (Creeping Red
Fescue) and Lolium perenne (Perennial Rye grass) can withstand very much higher trampling intensities than
Marram while other species such as Lotus corniculatus (Bird’s Foot Trefoil) and Bellis perennis (Daisy) may
increase on moderately trampled areas – perhaps because of the elimination of the shade formerly cast by
taller species. The thresholds of trampling pressures above which machair vegetation becomes completely
eliminated are unknown, but Trew (1973) discovered in specific linear sites that even species such as Daisy
and Bird’s Foot Trefoil disappeared at trampling pressures of above 3000 people per year; already at that
pressure bare ground was ’visually dominant’ and at a pressure of 4000 per year only a few grasses such
as Creeping Red Fescue, Perennial Rye grass and some Sand Sedge (Carex arenaria) remained. Although
at first sight a single figure for the threshold above which vegetation is eliminated would appear most useful
for planners and managers of dune and machair areas, its real usefulness is much more doubtful. Most
experimental investigations such as that of Liddle and Greig-Smith (1975) have been carried out on relatively
uniform terrain on links or at the margin of old grey dunes. Observation suggests, however, that the sites
most likely to suffer trampling damage are not on level, uniform terrain, but on irregularities such as low
mounds, where the vegetation is exposed to more frequent scuffing by passing feet as well as by actual
impacts of the foot. These topographical irregularities, therefore, are the first to lose their vegetation, at
pressures probably much less than the surrounding areas can sustain. After the vegetation has been exposed
and a small blow-out has been excavated, it can readily expand into adjacent areas where no trampling
damage has occurred. This problem is particularly acute at the coastal edge, where the access route leads
through the Marram-clad dune face, or the edge of the machair plain. Thus it is unrealistic to think in terms
of a single threshold beyond which trampling damage occurs. The threshold is low where Marram is present,
and is higher on machair. It is also very low on irregular ground (especially those of the coastal edge) and
is higher on level ground.
Nevertheless, comparison can be made of the estimates of total seasonal use (see chapter 5.2) with the
occurrence of local trampling damage. On beach complexes estimated to be used by fewer than 25 visitors
per day (c. 800–900 per season), trampling impact is judged to be completely absent on 60% of the cases,
and is invariably low in the remaining instances. At the level of the mid point of the 26–100 user class
(approximately 2000 users per season), some trampling damage was noted on 86%, and was moderate
or high on 21% of the cases. When estimated use was over 100 per day (approximately 3500 per season),
trampling damage was encountered on every beach unit, and was moderate or severe in 67% of the cases.
This analysis is set purely at the regional level, and includes all beach units, irrespective of whether dunes
were present or whether access stairways or other facilities had been provided, and regardless of the type
of recreational use. It does suggest, however, that the onset of trampling damage occurs somewhere in the
range of 26–100 users per day; at lower intensities of use there is some trampling damage but it is
126
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
invariably light. When the mid-point of the user range is exceeded, (approximately 60 users per day or
2000 per season) there is almost certainly likely to be some trampling damage.
Analysis of trampling effects on the beach environment is complicated by the fact that the effects arise
not only from the pressure of the human foot, but also from that of wheeled vehicles and grazing animals.
Liddle and Greig-Smith (1975) estimate that the pressure exerted on the ground surface by a car, even if
lightly loaded, is equivalent to at least five times that of a pedestrian, and the ratio is even higher if a
caravan is considered. Thus the effects of the passage of vehicles might be expected to be proportionally
greater than that of pedestrians, particularly since the passage of cars may expose the underlying vegetation
to exhaust fumes and even oil spillages as well as to the direct mechanical effects of shearing and bruising,
and to soil compaction. The fact that 92% of the beach complexes used for caravanning suffer some form
of trampling damage, compared with only 32% of the units not used for that purpose, would tend to confirm
the significance of motor traffic as a trampling agent, as would the existence of high trampling damage on
13% of the caravanning beaches compared with only 1% of those without caravans.
The importance of trampling damage in the beach environment would be much less if it were not for the
susceptibility of trampled areas to undergo wind erosion. The association between trampling damage and
the existence of erosion as an adverse feature is illustrated in table 6.2.3.
Table 6.2.3
Trampling impact and erosional damage
Severity of trampling impact
Percentage of beaches with
erosion as an adverse feature
High
Moderate
Low
Absent
100
80
50
44
When trampling impact is of a low order, it appears to increase the likelihood of erosion by a small margin
– 50% of the beaches which suffer from erosional damage also suffer from a low trampling impact
compared with 44% of the beaches where trampling is absent. Where there is a moderate trampling impact,
however, the frequency of occurrence of erosion increases to 80%, and all the beaches exposed to high
levels of trampling damage suffer from erosion as an adverse feature. Therefore while it is not the case that
all erosional damage results from trampling, it can be asserted quite categorically that the likelihood of
occurrence of erosion increases in line with trampling impact. There is also some evidence to suggest that
erosion is more likely where cars can be driven onto the machair than where vehicular access is not possible.
Several accessible machairs, especially in the Western Isles, are used very lightly, and the impact of
vehicular trampling is probably very slight. Nevertheless, it is noticeable that 76% of the machairs in the
Western Isles which can be driven over suffer from erosion, compared with only 38% of the machairs which
are not accessible to vehicles. Similarly 50% of the Shetland machairs which have easy vehicular access
are judged to suffer from erosion, compared with 26% of the other machairs.
There is also evidence to support the belief that cars and caravans are important agents of mechanical or
physical damage of the type which eventually develops into erosion. Car wheels tend to cut asymmetrical
grooves as they describe small-radius curves during turning, and these grooves may in turn be exploited by
rabbits or develop directly into blow-outs. Furthermore, as tracks develop and as the machair surface
becomes incised or rutted, the tracks tend to widen, so that the damaged zone is not confined to a simple
linear strip.
127
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The effects of trampling, therefore, whether by pedestrian or by wheel, are not confined to the visual effects
of the scarring of the machair or dune surface; there is a real danger that the trampled areas will suffer
erosion. The danger is accentuated by the fact that many of the trampled tracks or footpaths have no season
when complete recovery can take place. It is true that there is a negligible amount of tourist traffic in the
autumn, winter or spring, but most of the beach complexes are also used for grazing, especially by sheep.
Foot pressures exerted by sheep and cattle, at 160–225g per cm2 and 260–380g per cm2 (Frame 1971)
are similar to or higher than those exerted by humans, and well defined animal tracks have developed in
many beach areas. Indeed a 1946 air photograph of Sandwood Bay, for example, clearly shows a
trampled track in the same position as the present access route through the dunes. Recreational use at that
time was almost certainly too slight to cause the trampling of a clearly-defined footpath, and the track was
probably initiated by sheep prior to its use by visitors as recreational use built up. Thus the recreational
pressures were superimposed on the pre-existing pressures, and at most beach units they are now additional
to those emanating from agricultural sources. This is another reason for the impracticability of employing a
single threshold figure for the onset of trampling damage; the pressures can arise from various mixes of the
human foot, the car wheel, the caravan wheel, and the hooves of sheep and cattle. Little is known of the
comparable effects of these different agents of pressure, and certainly it would be imprudent to assume that
the relative effects were simply proportional to the relative pressures per unit area of foot or wheel.
Another set of variables which influence the resilience of the beach complex to trampling damage includes
local environmental conditions, but little is known in detail of the nature of these influences. No work has
been done on how the effects of trampling pressures vary with climate or weather, although it might be
suspected that dune and machair vegetation would be more vulnerable during dry periods and in dry, windy
areas. Moreover, little is known about the relative resiliences of dune and machair vegetation over lime-rich
and lime-poor sands. Westhoff (1967) concludes that, in the Netherlands, vegetation cover on dunes rich
in lime is more resistant to recreational erosion than that on dunes of lime-poor sand. Evidence from the
Highlands and Islands on the effects of variations in lime-richness on resistance to trampling is inconclusive;
if an arbitrary distinction is made between beaches composed of sand with a lime content greater than 20%
and those with sand with a lime content of under 20%, it is found that 15% of the lime-poor beaches are
free from trampling damage compared with 12% of the lime-rich beaches. However only 4% of the lime-rich
beach units were affected by high levels of trampling damage, compared with 14% of the lime-poor
beaches. In the analysis only beaches with estimated day-recreational use by more than 25 people were
included; the lime-poor group contained 88 units compared with the lime-rich group of 85. Much more work
requires to be done before conclusive evidence on the effects of lime content on beach resilience can be
presented, but it seems possible that the effect may vary according to the intensity of use, with the lime-rich
beach complexes possibly being slightly more resistant at high levels of trampling.
The physical impact of grazing animals
In recent years, recreational impacts have been superimposed on those arising from much longer established
agricultural uses. Almost every machair in the region has been used for grazing for many centuries
(see chapter 5.1), and no ungrazed machairs remain with which grazed areas can be compared. Therefore
the effects of grazing impacts on the machair environment are almost impossible to isolate precisely.
The main effect of grazing is simply to reduce the average length of the vegetation in the grazed area.
Hence it might be expected that the efficacy of the shortened vegetation as an agent of sand trapping and
binding is reduced, and in hard-grazed machairs there is evidence to support this expectation. The efficacy
128
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
of vegetation in retaining sand, however, is probably related not just to the height of the vegetation, but also
to its degree of cover and lateral spread. For some species at least, grazing may help to promote lateral
spread and hence the effects of the shortening of the vegetation are less than might be expected. Very little
is known, however, about the relative effects of grazing in lime-rich and lime-poor areas, for example, or of
the thresholds beyond which the vegetation is sufficiently severely damaged for its sand-binding capacity to
be severely threatened. More important than the direct effects of grazing are probably the indirect effects of
trampling and rubbing (plate 23). At a grazing intensity of 1250 grazing days per acre, (equivalent to a
year round stocking of just over 3 sheep per acre, which is far lower than most machairs carry) each point
on average would receive 6–10 treadings per year (Frame 1971). This level of trampling pressure would
almost certainly be sufficient to reduce Marram cover in yellow dunes; fortunately sheep tend to avoid such
areas and most of the pressures are expended on grey dunes and machair where the more resistant species
are able to absorb most of the pressures, unless they are concentrated linearly into sheep tracks.
When the trampling is on a sloping part of the dunes or machair, the foot pressure may well exceed the
shear strength of the sand-vegetation-root complex, so that small blocks of sand are displaced, exposing
bare sand where wind erosion can be initiated. Cattle probably have a greater trampling impact than
sheep, especially in dunes, and clear evidence of the combined effects of trampling and grazing by cattle
is seen on either side of fence lines separating grazed and un-grazed land (plate 21). Sheep, on the other
hand, probably play a greater erosive role in machairs, where they are frequently seen to rub against and
under the bare edges of small blow-outs (plate 23). By burrowing into these deflation faces in order to seek
shelter from the wind in winter or shade from the sun in summer, they not only loosen sand grains which can
subsequently easily be blown, but they also help to prevent the stabilisation of the blow-outs by the natural
colonisation of vegetation. Thus the effects of grazing animals are not just confined to grazing effects but
include also the mechanical effects of trampling and rubbing. The ability of domestic animals to initiate
erosion is probably limited to steep or uneven sites, but once initiated, there is little doubt that the existence
and growth of erosion features is favoured by the presence of sheep and cattle.
Many machairs are also severely grazed by rabbits, whose numbers constitute veritable infestations in some
areas. The close grazing behaviour of the rabbit is probably more inimical to the maintenance of a
protective machair sward than the grazing of domestic animals (plate 22). Even so the sward is rarely
completely removed over large areas; instead a vegetation community develops in which Senecio jacobea
(Ragwort) plays an important role, and appears to function as a base level below which little further direct
deterioration, in the sense of reduction of the biomass, occurs. Nevertheless such rabbit infestation not only
reduces the usefulness of the machair as grazing land for domestic stock (it is estimated that in terms of
grazing five rabbits are equivalent to one sheep (Hume, 1939)); it also reduces the attractiveness of the
machair as a recreational environment. Many of the more severely infested machairs bear the unmistakable
stench of rabbit infestation, and support vegetation which is less rich floristically and less attractive
aesthetically than machairs which are less severely grazed.
More important than the effects on vegetation, however, are the geomorphological effects of rabbits.
Their trampling pressures may be very low, but they produce numerous small bare sand faces in the machair
(especially where it is sloping) and so present numerous sites which can be exploited by wind erosion.
Once initiated, these bare sand patches readily grow, and stabilisation is prevented by the grazing and
other effects of both rabbits and domestic stock.
129
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Since many machair areas have been used for grazing for long periods of time, it is possible that nutrient
budgets have been significantly affected by the continual removal of certain nutrients in bone, mutton and
wool. Comparatively little is known, however, about nutrient cycling in machair ecosystems, and almost
nothing is known about the effects of grazing animals on such cycling.
Sand extraction
Some form of sand extraction is found in most beach areas which are accessible to a tractor and cart,
and this activity occurs on a significant scale on almost one beach in five in the region (see chapter 5.4).
The effects of extraction on the beach environment vary according to the volume extracted, the site of
extraction (whether on beach, dunes, or machair) and the grade of the material taken – whether it is sand,
gravel or shingle.
Extraction pits are usually unattractive and may be noisy. There is often the problem of deeply rutted tracks
leading to the nearest road; these tracks, if not managed, can develop into erosion sites. There is an element
of danger in some extraction areas with high vertical faces since children find such sites fascinating play
areas. The risk of collapse of the vertical faces is obvious, particularly in the evenings and at weekends when
the site may be unattended. The creation of bare, near-vertical faces during working provides ideal
conditions for sand erosion, especially where a large area of overburden has been stripped in advance of
the working face. Irrespective of the scale of the operation, extraction creates deflation surfaces and features
with erosional characteristics. During their active life, the small shell-sand diggings, which in many of the
islands initially exploit natural blow-outs, are liable to extend in size and in depth. When digging ceases,
which is normally because the access track becomes too difficult or the extraction requires too much effort
or the water table is reached, new digging begins nearby and the effects spread haphazardly. At this
spasmodic, agricultural scale, the total volume of sand involved is generally small, except where there has
been extensive removal from a few beaches in order to serve a large area – for example Barvas and
Eoropie in Lewis. The extraction pits are often scattered and may be seen at several stages of development
and restabilisation. At the stage of abandonment, the site may become a rabbit warren, or it may be used
as a rubbish tip and for the abandonment of old cars and machinery. At the scale of the larger commercial
activity, the physical manifestation is much greater, and may dominate the major part or even the whole of
the beach complex. The site is usually a single entity which proceeds along the most convenient dune ridge
or sandhill. Extraction rarely proceeds downwards; digging is horizontal rather than vertical, and the water
table is usually the base level of activity. Screening plants and conveyors may be erected, and, in the larger
sites, cobble or shingle-covered roads may be constructed. When the site is finally abandoned, little is
usually done to restore the devastated landscape, or even to remove the derelict structures.
The obvious visual effects of extraction from the beach or backshore are usually less than those of extraction
from the dunes or machair. Extraction from the beach, however, is insidious, as the unnoticed effects are
long-term and irreversible. Beach material is an integral part of the natural coastal system, and any reduction
in its quantity will eventually have effects throughout the system. Superficially, tides and waves may seem to
replenish the sand taken from the beach; usually all that this apparent replenishment represents is a
redistribution of sand along the beach. Extraction from the beach may set in motion a chain of events which
will occur somewhere in the beach system although not necessarily at the point of extraction. As the beach
profile is lowered, and perhaps as the beach becomes narrower and steeper, the coastal edge is exposed
to more severe erosion. The water table in adjacent dune and machair areas may be altered, and the supply
of sand for dune nourishment is reduced. Conditions for wind erosion of dunes and machair are therefore
130
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
improved, and the general physical, visual and ecological characteristics of the beach complex are
changed. Where the material extracted is of a coarse calibre, the dangers of these changes being set in
motion are increased. Thus although the visual effects, on the short term, of extraction from the beach may
be less than those of extraction from dunes or machair, the long-term effects are likely to be greater. If sand
must be taken from a beach complex, then the guiding principle should be that it is taken from its final resting
place in the blown-sand area, rather than from the beach, where it plays a more vital role in the functioning
of the beach system. It must be emphasised, however, that sand extraction necessarily depletes the beach
resource, and makes it less useful for other beach uses. It affects not only the actual site which it uses; in
some cases it is no exaggeration to say that it threatens the stability of the whole beach complex.
Thus land uses and land-use practices can modify the beach environment in a number of ways. They involve
modifications in the flows of materials and energy through the beach system. These modifications of flows
of materials are perhaps most obvious in relation to sand extraction, where visible quantities of tangible
materials are removed from the beach or the blown-sand area. Equally real, however, is the removal of
invisible nutrients from the machair ecosystem in the form of animal carcasses. Recreational use, on the other
hand, may involve the addition of materials in the form of refuse or organic debris, and invariably involves
additional energy inputs in the form of pedestrian and vehicular trampling. Unfortunately little is as yet known
about the magnitude of these inputs in relation to the magnitudes of natural inputs into the beach system,
and little is yet known about the thresholds beyond which these additional inputs can modify the directions
as well as rates of natural processes. In the absence of a beach complex untouched by the hand of man,
the modelling of flows of energy and materials under purely natural conditions is very difficult if not
impossible, and hence a base-line does not exist with which beach systems used for different purposes can
be compared. It is to be hoped that at least one or two beach systems can be set aside from uses such as
grazing and recreation so that their behaviour under natural conditions can be investigated.
Although both adverse features and the environmental impact of use at most beaches in the Highlands
and Islands are relatively minor, some beach complexes have suffered chronically and severely from
combinations of problems. These problems have proved to be intractable, and their eventual solution, in
addition to usually only being partial, has consumed a great deal of administrative effort.
The case of Achmelvich
One of the beach complexes which has suffered most from intensive recreational use combined with a lack
of effective conservational management is Achmelvich beach near Lochinver (plate 43). This small beach
complex is an example of a T-type unit (chapter 2) and both the beach itself and its setting are of high scenic
quality. Vehicular access is very easy, and it was possible to drive cars and caravans straight onto the
machair. From the late 1950s onwards, the combination of easy accessibility, high scenic quality and shelter
attracted increasing tourist use, mainly in the form of caravanning on the machair around the beach.
Little control was exercised on this caravanning, and the freedom which visitors had to drive almost at will
across the machair resulted in the trampling of a number of tracks, parts of which developed into blow-outs.
Almost certainly some erosional features had developed before the advent of tourism (although 1947 air
photographs show the machair to be comparatively stable), but there is little doubt that erosion was
aggravated by trampling damage caused by wheels and feet. In addition, sanitary arrangements and
arrangements for the disposal of litter were inadequate, and many visitors resorted to the burial in the
machair of both refuse and the contents of chemical toilets. This not only had the effect of further weakening
the machair sward, but also led to health hazards over which the medical officer of health for the county
131
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
expressed deep concern. Thus the twin problems of erosion damage and health hazards emerged from the
pattern of intensive and almost unmanaged use. The local authority, as the agency responsible for controlling
caravanning by the issue of site licences and planning permission as well as for maintaining health
standards, were conscious of the growing problems at least from the mid 1960s if not earlier, but many of
their efforts to remedy the situation were thwarted by the tenurial status of the machair, the key area of which
was common grazing. Eventually it was decided that the problems could be resolved only if the machair
were resumed out of crofting tenure and taken into local authority ownership. After protracted negotiations,
the resumption of 131/2 acres of machair was finally effected in 1972, and it was intended by the local
authority that it should provide a properly equipped caravan site which it would lease back to the local
crofters to run. At the same time, the crofters were under the impression they would receive grant aid for their
own caravan sites if they agreed to the land being resumed out of crofting tenure, and that they would be
permitted to connect their own caravan sites to the main drainage system provided for the local authority
site. The Countryside Commission for Scotland, however, were not prepared to offer grant aid for the
proposed local authority caravan site, on the grounds that further increases in caravanning would add to the
existing erosional problems, and in the absence of financial support the local authority dropped its plans to
develop a site. Instead it was decided to provide a day-use area, equipped with simple facilities such as
car parks and toilets, and combined with anti-erosion measures such as the exclusion of vehicles from the
most sensitive areas of machair, and treatment of the erosion sites so that they would be stabilised. This
day-use area and associated restorational works are now nearing completion, more than a decade after the
problems were identified, and the cost of the works has amounted to several tens of thousands of pounds.
The actual cost of the physical works, however, is only part of the real cost. The administrative effort involved
in attempting to resolve the environmental problems of Achmelvich machair has been enormous; there can
be little doubt that the combined costs of administration and restoration works far exceeds the monetary price
which the machair would command if it were offered in the open market.
The lessons to be learned from Achmelvich are obvious; if unsuitable uses are allowed to become
established on a beach complex, especially if it is under crofting tenure, these uses and their associated
environmental repercussions become very difficult indeed to control. The problems can probably be resolved
only if the land passes into public ownership, and they become increasingly severe as the inevitably
protracted negotiations run their course. The net result is that a large expenditure of money and effort is
required. Therefore the major lesson is that control is best established from the outset, and can probably be
best achieved by the local authority acquiring a recreational site before recreational use and its associated
impacts become so severe as to require remedial attention. If management is available from the beginning,
the most sensitive parts of the beach complex can be protected, and unsuitable uses prevented from
becoming established in unsuitable areas. If this is not done, only two alternatives exist – either a great deal
of effort and money is required to rectify the situation, or the deterioration is allowed to run its course, so
that in a literal sense, the beach resource eventually disappears.
132
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 40
LamIash, Arran
At the south end of Lamlash Bay is an
example of tipping at the coastal edge.
Along some par ts of the coastline, tipping
is used as a means to counteract erosion.
It is rarely successful but often unsightly.
Plate 42
Plate 41
Sraid Ruadh, Tiree
Sraid Ruadh is one of the most attractive beach
complexes in the Highlands and Islands. In one
corner, partly hidden by rock outcrops, is an
unsightly tip. The problem of refuse disposal,
particularly of bulky items such as old cars and
agricultural machinery, is acute in some islands.
Mellangaun, Wester Ross
This beach lies on the west side of Loch Ewe, and like many other beaches in the
Highlands and Islands, is ser ved only by a dead-end road.
133
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 43
Achmelvich, West Sutherland
An attractive beach and machair, heavily used for both day recreation and for
caravanning.
Plate 44
Sandwood Bay, West Sutherland
A large and spectacular beach complex near Cape Wrath. It is one of the most
remote beaches on the Highlands mainland.
134
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
7
THE EUROPEAN SETTING
In the previous chapters much has been claimed for the physical and scenic resources of the sand-beach
complexes of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. This evaluation is based on an awareness of the setting
of the resource from a European perspective. On this basis, the sandy coasts of Western Europe can be
grouped into two main categories, firstly, the long, continuous beach coastlines which are typical of West
Jutland, the Low Countries and much of West France (beaches which are exclusively set in low, non-rock
coastal lowland plains) and secondly, beaches in the more diverse physiographic settings such as are found
in South-west Norway, West Sweden, Brittany and North-west Spain, together with most of the coastlines
of Ireland, Wales and England. Almost all the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands fall into the
second category, with the west coast of the Uists and, possibly, parts of the east coast of the Mainland
having some claim to be considered in group one.
In considering the context of the Highland and Island beaches there are broad climatic similarities with
South-west Norway, West Ireland, Brittany, Wales and most of England. The geological setting may differ
in lithology and age, but there is a measure of similarity in the glaciated igneous and metamorphic rocks of
Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Beach complexes similar to those which are common in Brittany,
Norway, Wales and Ireland can be found somewhere within the Highlands and Islands region. The beach
type which appears to be least common elsewhere in Europe is the broad shell-sand beach, which is backed
by a gentle machair plain or links area, and which lacks a significant intervening dune zone – that is, the
type T beach complex, discussed in chapter 2.4.
The physical type of beach cannot be separated realistically from its hinterland. Many, but by no means all
the beaches of the Highlands and Islands have spectacular mountainous backdrops which are lacking in
most other parts of Europe. It is true that beaches such as Rhossilli in the Gower, Woolacombe in Devon
and Mandal in Norway have steep backslopes which seem more ’Highland’ than many Highland beaches,
but there are few equivalents of the magnificent scenic settings of west Sutherland and Wester Ross.
Another distinctive feature is the degree of inter-penetration of land and sea such as is found on the north-west
coast of the mainland and in the archipelagos and smaller island areas. It is difficult to think of European
equivalents of Scapa Flow or the sheltered ‘inland’ coasts of Harris between Luskentyre and Northton.
Thus although it is invalid to claim that many beach complexes in the Highlands and Islands are strictly
unique in a European context, the variety and abundance of the range of types available in a comparatively
small area have no European counterpart. Moreover, the true measure of environmental distinctiveness is
achieved when physical type and physiographic setting are combined; the variety is also enhanced when
the additional layer of man’s use of the environment is superimposed on the physical base.
There is a general absence of recreationally and commercially based developments around and on the
beaches of the Highlands and Islands. Many beaches in England, Wales, Brittany and West Sweden are
resort beaches where the built environment crowds into the general beach setting. Numerous beaches in
Anglesey, Brittany and, particularly, west Sweden and south Norway (especially around Oslo Fiord)
have been surrounded by second homes and summer houses, and near-continuous caravan sites line much
of the coast of parts of North Wales and South-west England. None of these types of coastal land use is
wholly absent from the Highlands, but, as is demonstrated in the previous chapters, such activities are
extremely rare.
135
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Lest the impression be gained that the beach resources of the Highlands and Islands are an unlimited
cornucopia of environmental assets, it is equally important to describe some of the major omissions as
compared to similar European areas. There are no vast beach and dune complexes which stretch for many
kilometres along a coastline and which can be systematically and comprehensively managed and utilised.
There are no alternative recreational areas for coastal activities to compare with the smooth rock (Svaberg)
coastlines of parts of western Sweden and southern Norway, which are just as popular and useful as are
beach coastlines. There are no tideless areas like Oslo Fiord and no macro-tidal areas like parts of Brittany
and to a lesser extent South Wales. There are no warm sea water areas to compare with Galicia or Brittany
or to a lesser extent South-west Ireland and South-west England. The summer climatic setting of the Highlands
and Islands is generally cooler, moister, windier and less predictable than any equivalent European area,
including Scandinavia. There are few forested dune and machair areas to compare with West Sweden,
many of the Danish Islands, South-west Norway or several sections of the coastline of France. Although there
is great beauty and variety in the scenery and general colour of the Highlands and Islands, there is a degree
of uniformity compared with the rich texture, variety and lushness of many beach settings in Brittany and
South-west England.
Accessibility is the crux of beach utilisation in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. On the wider scale,
accessibility becomes part of the general distribution of communication networks and population in the
catchment areas. Proximity to large population concentrations and dense route networks is much greater in
South-west England, South Wales, parts of Brittany, the Oslo Fiord region, the Jaeren region near Stavanger,
and most of West Sweden, which is not only close to Göteborg and Malmö but also to the large city area
of Copenhagen. Only the south-west part of the Highlands, near the Glasgow conurbation, has an
equivalent location. Beaches located in the islands of the west and north, and in the more remote parts of
the Mainland have low intensities of use, which is at least partly related to their distance from large
population centres, and are therefore without parallel in Europe south of Bergen. Easy accessibility, allied
to the proximity of large urban centres, leads to the situation where almost all beach areas, especially
the most attractive ones, are heavily used for recreational activities. The unused, unvisited, wilderness type
of beach is, in contrast, extremely rare elsewhere in Europe, thus heightening the value of the several
Scottish examples.
It is perhaps the number of units, albeit predominantly small units, that is the greatest strength of the
beach-resource base in the Highlands and Islands. Ignoring the huge beaches such as are found in Flanders
or Jutland since they represent a different type of beach resource, the 466 units in the Highlands and Islands
by their number and diversity far exceed any equivalent European region. For example, between Oslo and
Stavanger there are approximately 25 beaches, between Oslo and Ystod there are about 20 beaches, and
in Brittany there are fewer than 100 beaches.
The existence, size, physical nature, general environmental characteristics and location of a beach complex
is only one part of the group of factors which determine its current use and potential value. Ownership and
the general legislative and planning framework are equally, if not more, important. A further constraint is the
historical or traditional factor whereby the current use and manifestations of use are a product of a timespan
which may be measured in centuries. This gives rise to an inertial factor which may completely dominate the
perception and potential of the resource base. These varied aspects of the human environment are difficult
to synthesise and summarise, but some of the more important conditions which occur in the Highlands and
Islands may be compared with their European counterparts.
136
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The widespread occurrence of crofting tenure is a characteristic of beach complexes in the Highlands and
Islands which is not met elsewhere. The constraints and inflexibility associated with crofting have
undoubtedly contributed to some of the problems encountered as new pressures are brought to bear on the
beach, dune and machair areas. Readjustment to new pressures and demands is generally easier in most
of the coasts of Europe. The exception might be Norway where a long history of gavelkind has produced
extreme fragmentation of ownership in some areas. This ease of adjustment experienced in most of Europe
has disadvantages where the landowner is readily able to sell plots of land for building and other uses such
as recreation and tourist developments. In Brittany, this has created several areas where the beach is
completely surrounded by second houses and holiday houses. There is evidence to suggest that, in general,
areas of fragmented ownership are more likely to experience the development of various types of housing
at or near the coast than those areas where the landholding units are larger.
Thus it is probably true to state that crofting tenure, which may have contributed to some of the problems of
a few areas, has at the same time helped to protect several beaches from the more obvious forms of
commercial tourist developments. With the enactment of crofting-reform legislation, it is possible that new
pressures will build up (see chapter 4.3). A distinct possibility is that some areas of the islands as well as
the mainland may begin to suffer some of the forms of suburbanisation which have been experienced in
many European coastal areas.
In a few parts of Europe, and particularly in England and Wales, a form of ownership by protective bodies
such as the National Trust is found. Although the National Trust for Scotland has a number of properties in
the Highlands and Islands, none contain sandy beach areas. Accordingly the type and standard of
management found in several beach areas in Cornwall, Devon and South Wales is absent. Such beach
areas, and those under certain forms of public ownership such as that of the Nature Conservancy Council
are managed much better, gauged from the standpoint of conserving the physical and aesthetic qualities of
the beaches, than many of those held in private ownership.
Recreational pressures, superimposed upon pressures from other directions, have led increasingly to a
realisation of the national value of the coastline in many parts of Europe. Until recently, decision-making
relating to the use and development of the coastline was almost invariably set exclusively at the local scale.
There has, however, been a growing realisation that the coastline is a national as well as a purely local
resource, and national involvement in coastal planning has grown at an accelerating pace over the last
decade.
In England and Wales, this involvement took the form of a series of coastal conferences in the 1960s,
culminating in the concept of the definition of Heritage Coasts, whose principal qualities, judged on the
national scale, are their unspoilt character and exceptionally fine scenery. Although no new legislation has
been enacted, the concept of the Heritage Coast, where the twin objectives are conservation of fine scenery
combined
with
the
promotion
of
suitable
recreational
activities,
has
been
endorsed
by
the Department of the Environment. In addition to the definition of the Heritage Coast, the designations of
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and of National Parks are further contributions to the promotion of
a national dimension in the planning of the coastline.
In Brittany, national involvement has arrived later but in a sense has gone further than in England and Wales.
A regional plan has recently been devised for the Breton coastline, which, it is hoped, will help to protect
137
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
it from unsuitable forms of development such as sand extraction and uncontrolled sprawls of second homes.
Although the regional plan is advisory rather than statutory, the development-control powers of the
départment have been strengthened relative to those of the fundamental planning unit, the commune.
Furthermore, in addition to the state initiative in producing the regional plan, two state commissions have
been established in order to assist in the conservation and planning of the coastline. One, the Coastal
Conservancy, is charged with protecting parts of the coastline from development and is empowered to
acquire land (in a manner akin to the National Trusts in Britain) for protective management. The other, the
Service d’Etude et d’Aménagement Touristique du Littoral, is charged with developing a policy for the
strategic planning and management of the coast for tourism, and also has a research function, monitoring
coastal land use and planning trends, as well as a role in effecting liaison between the various ministeries
with coastal interests. In short, national and regional involvement in the planning of the coast of Brittany has
become very much more marked over the last few years, and conversely the relative importance of the
commune as the planning unit, and of the purely local view of the coastal resource, has declined.
Parallels to this growing national involvement in Brittany and in England and Wales can be seen elsewhere.
In Ireland, a National Coastline Study has recently been completed (An Foras Forbartha, 1973). It consists
of a nation-wide inventory of coastal resources, and on the foundation of the inventory a national strategy
for the utilisation of the coastline has been worked out. The study was commissioned by the state planning
department, which has sent out, to each of the maritime countries in Ireland, coastal planning packages
containing inventories of coastal information, together with strategy guidelines. The county as the decisionmaking unit in matters of planning and development control is the key unit, and problems may well arise
from the counties’ view of the coastline differing from the national view. To date however, several counties
have already written the recommendations of the National Coastline Study into their development plans
(pers. comm., Mr. K. Mawhinney).
In Norway, planning of the coastal zone is at an early stage under the Ministry of the Environment. Pressures
for development are increasing steadily, especially on the limited areas of low non-rock coastline and in
some areas such as Stavanger are related to a gradual diffusion of oil-related wealth. In Norway and
Sweden many of the recreational and leisure-related activities at the coast are to some extent relieved by
considerable use of inland lakes. There is also the practice of using the smooth rock (Svaberg) coastline for
many of the recreational and tourist uses associated in Scotland with beaches. Good, forward-looking plans
exist and are being developed at regional and Kommun level (approximately equivalent to a civil parish) in
Jaeren and Lista where nearly all the beach resources of Norway are concentrated. There are no large
estates and excessive fragmentation of private ownership of small parcels of land makes the process of
planning difficult. The state has the power of compulsory purchase but wherever possible prefers not to use
it. A specific form of ownership not found in Britain but locally important in Norway and Sweden is
ownership of entire beach complex areas by caravan and camping clubs. These clubs manage and
maintain the areas and provide facilities such as restaurants. Non-members may use the areas on a daily
basis by paying a small parking fee.
At the local level there are useful organisational and practical ideas. Some of these, such as the value of
coniferous forests in the dune and machair zones are characteristic of Scandinavia. There are also several
‘open areas’ where the public has access to the coast; parking is provided although camping is forbidden,
and signposted walks and paths radiate along the coast and inland. In the Oslo Fiord area an interesting
development is the ‘Open-Air Council.’ Much of its work is related to ski routes in winter but it also
138
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
co-ordinates summer activities at the coast. It produces an excellent map and information service on
open-access areas, public walks, and beaches. It has even created little beaches by placing sand in several
small inlets to the west of Oslo. It also has considerable interest in the provision of small marinas and landing
areas. This is important in Norway where small-boat ownership is very high and there is a traditional right
to land almost anywhere on the coast or islands. Its main role is the promotion and co-ordination of a range
of open-air activities within a recognisable regional area. The body has permanent executive staff but its
policy appears to be drawn up by a committee or council which is composed of a range of interested
groups and parties.
In some other respects the governmental and planning framework of Norway is similar to that of Scotland.
Most development is controlled by the Building Act and the Neighbouring Act but two specific acts
strengthen the role of Kommun and Regional authorities, viz. the Shore Planning Act and the so-called
100m Act. The latter is particularly important since it more or less prohibits all forms of development within
a zone approximately 100m inland from the coastal edge. Special permission is granted for important
developments which may, for example, be related to fishing and industry but the Act is an important
mechanism of general control.
The main difference between Norway and Scotland appears to be a greater level of involvement at national
government level. Although the executive functions rest with the region and the Kommun, there is nevertheless
a policy and strategic level of decision making, which operates at a much higher level, and this sets the
framework within which all other bodies operate.
In Sweden, coastal planning has developed further than in Norway. Knowledge of the resource base is
comprehensive. As in Norway, there is strong national planning and a macro-regional strategy embodied
in the National Physical Plan (1969) which recognises the coast as being of special national interest, and
specifies three unbroken coastal areas which should not be spoiled or developed. The emphasis in these
areas is not on sandy beaches but rocky coastlines, for example, north of Göteborg. In general, the Swedish
coastline is characterised by tight planning control. One of the main issues is to stop, somewhat belatedly,
the proliferation of summer houses. There is detailed positive planning for recreational and leisure activities
which takes place at municipality level (approximately equivalent to or less than Scottish District level).
At regional level the role of planning tends to be consultative and advisory. The Swedish equivalent of the
Nature Conservancy Council is a relatively powerful body with wider functions. It also owns and manages
several coastal areas, and works very closely with physical planning departments at municipality and
regional level.
The area of greatest difficulty and demand for multiple use of scarce coastal resources of the sand-beach
type lies between Göteborg and Malmö. There is a great concentration of population and long established
patterns of coastal usage. The key area for beach resources and recreational use is near Halmstad. The only
other area of extensive sand beaches and dunes is Gottland. In this area as elsewhere there is an impressive
list of existing plans, reports and policy documents at several scales of management, but all contained within
the firm guidelines of the National Plan. As in Norway, other relevant acts are the Building Act, the
Conservation Act, the Beach Protection Act and there is also an act which establishes general coastal
protection in a zone up to 100–300m inland from the coastal edge. A feature of the general planning
attitude embodied in these acts is a policy of regional location in optimal places. Various forms of public or
local authority ownership are common, and the coastline is generally most accessible. The Government has
139
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
used the right to buy land for public access, and has created small and large national-park type areas.
The agency for purchase is a County Board (regional level) which will also seek to obtain areas for day use
if a demand is seen to exist.
Attitudes in coastal planning in Sweden are strongly motivated by the public interest, and there is an
emphasis on the positive provision of various forms of tourist and recreational facilities. There is a marked
lack of private commercial developments related to tourism and recreation at the coast. There are a few
exceptions, as, for example, the occasional large camping and caravan site (none of which allow siting
within 100m or more from the coastal edge) and some minor resort-type developments near Varberg,
Falkenburg and Halmstad.
In general, the framework of planning and development control as it affects the coastline is at an advanced
stage of development in Sweden. The national interest is paramount and, as in Norway, the structure is
strongly controlled from government level. Nature conservation interests are also powerful as are checks to
prevent excessive, piecemeal exploitation. Some of the worst pre-planning features such as the clusters of
chalets and huts along some coasts are being considered for compulsory purchase so that such buildings
may be moved back from the coastline. This cannot, at present, be done without a good reason but the
attitude and intention to do so is certainly present. An important control is the need for major planning
applications to embody an environmental impact statement, as in the United States of America.
One lesson which emerges from an examination of beach-resource use in comparable parts of Europe is
that private ownership is often unable to provide a full range of recreational opportunities at the coast, and
at the same time to undertake management, on a basis of conservation, of beach areas used for informal
recreation. These objectives of conservation and provision for recreation are more often achieved under
some form of public ownership. This form may be that of a voluntary body such as the National Trust, the
local authority, or the state department. Moreover, areas which are important for minority use, for example
‘wilderness beaches’ can only be effectively managed if some level of executive power (but not necessarily
outright ownership) is vested in some form of public body or representative group. Countries such as
Norway, Sweden, Ireland and France have recognised the value of the coastal zone for a wide spectrum
of interests including conservation, tourism and general recreation, and have created the essential guidelines
for national planning of the coastline. Britain (and Scotland in particular) is sadly lacking in comparison, and
decisions on coastal land use appear sometimes to be taken in an ad hoc, piece-meal manner. Moreover,
the impact of the proposed land-use change is sometimes assessed only in a narrow local and regional
context. In short, the impression gained is that coastal planning in Scotland has often been concerned with
the solutions to problems arising from specific sites and from specific cases, rather than with formulating
broad strategies or identifying clear goals. The beach resource of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland,
as seen in the European context, is extensive in area and in number of units. It is diverse in environmental
type, in current types of use and in tenure and ownership. On the European scale, the beach complexes of
the Highlands and Islands are almost unrivalled in scenic quality and in relative freedom from urban or
industrial development. It is to be hoped that the planning environment in which they are set can ensure the
conservation of these characteristics.
140
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
8
THE FUTURE USE OF THE RESOURCE
The objectives of this work are closely related to the main functions of its sponsoring body, the Countryside
Commission for Scotland. These functions, as set out in Section 1(1) of the Countryside (Scotland) Act of
1967, focus on the ‘provision, development and improvement of the facilities for the enjoyment of the
Scottish countryside, and for the conservation of the natural beauty and amenity thereof.’ In addition, under
Section 1(2) of the Act, the Commission is required to have ‘due regard for the need for the development
of recreational and tourist facilities, and for the balanced economic and social development of the
countryside.’ This volume is concerned with one of the components of the countryside, namely sandy
beaches and related areas, and its goal is the provision of information and suggestions whereby sandy
beaches, dunes and machairs may be used and enjoyed without being degraded or damaged.
The emphasis in this work is primarily on the resource of sandy beaches – including its distribution, its
attributes and qualities, and its conservation. By conservation we mean not preservation or restriction of use,
but use and management in such a way as to avoid a diminution in the value and usefulness of the resource.
Although in the short-term, some of the means and principles of conservation may seem restrictive, the
long-term aim is the fullest use of the resource on a sustained basis. Uses which appear to the authors to be
forms of short-term exploitation, or which reduce the long-term value of the resource, are criticised as being
contrary to the goal of maintenance of usefulness and attractiveness.
In considering the conservation and development of the beach resource of the Highlands and Islands,
a number of precepts or principles can be identified:
(i) The beaches in the area of study (and development proposals relating to them) should not be regarded
on an individual, piece-meal basis. Instead, we would suggest that the setting at various scales – the
international, the national, the regional and the local – should be considered before the development of
individual beach units takes place. If consideration is confined to the local scale, beach A may seem
similar to beaches B, C and D nearby, but at the broader scale A, B, C and D may be the only beaches
of their type or character in western Europe. If other scales are considered, however, then the features
and characteristics which are rare at the international and national levels can be recognised. It is hoped
that the review volume, together with the regional beach reports produced between 1969 and 1975,
can contribute to the planning and management of the beach resource at the local and regional scale,
and at the international scale some broad comparisons are made with similar areas of Atlantic Europe
in chapter 7. As yet, however, a full assessment of the beaches of the area of study is not possible at
the Scottish level, until an inventory of sandy beaches in other parts of Scotland, similar to that now
available for the Highlands and Islands, is completed.
(ii) Within a suitable regional framework, the strategy for development should have regard for preserving
the maximum diversity of beach environments, diversity of uses (both general and recreational) and
diversity of ease of access, as well as for preserving scientific interest.
(iii) Developments for which a beach setting is inessential should not be permitted on a beach complex.
In other words, developments which can be sited off a beach complex should be refused planning
permission for a beach site, so that the distinctive characteristics of the beach resource can be utilised
by the uses and developments which make the best use of them.
141
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
(iv) Although the beach resource is extensive and varied, it is nevertheless finite. The greatest asset of the
resource is its relatively empty, unspoilt, undeveloped nature. It would be a tragedy if this priceless asset
were to be thoughtlessly eroded by unco-ordinated, piece-meal developments and activities.
(v) Some types of land uses on beach complexes are damaging to the usefulness and attractiveness of the
beach resource. If planning consents are given for these uses, or if the uses are permitted to continue,
then the long-term quality and usefulness of the resource will be adversely affected.
These five general principles, we suggest, are of crucial importance if the goals of making the best use of
and conserving the beaches of the Highlands and Islands are to be achieved. The principles represent broad
guidelines within which a number of strategic proposals are framed. These are:
(A) From the viewpoint of resource management, more information is required on the physical nature of the
resource, the effects of use on the physical nature of the resource, and of the demands made upon it.
From the viewpoint of resource use (especially for recreational purposes) more guidance and information
needs to be made available to present and potential users.
(B) The policy for day-recreational use should be one of dispersal.
(C) The policy for use by caravanning and camping should be one of concentration and containment in the
areas best suited for these uses.
(D) Improved development-control policies are required, especially in the areas where the beach resource
attains its most outstanding characteristics.
These four recommendations are not listed in order of importance; all are seen as equally important, and
they are intended to fit together in a complementary fashion.
A
Improved information
Although much has been learned about the physical nature of the beach resource in the Highlands and
Islands in recent years, what we have learned has in a sense served to highlight the imperfection and
incompleteness of our understanding. In particular, very little is known about how beach complexes function
in the absence of pressures in the form of grazing or even of recreation. Hence we would suggest that one
or two beach units should be regarded and managed as outdoor laboratories or as physiographical nature
reserves, where landform processes and perhaps budgets for flows of energy, materials and nutrients, could
be investigated. Similarly, we know little of the effects of uses such as grazing and recreation. Much work
has been done in some parts of Britain on the effects of trampling in dunes and links. None of this work,
however, has been done on machair environments, and very little has been done on the relative and
combined effects of trampling by feet, hooves and wheels.
Another gap in our knowledge lies in the patterns of beach use and demands for beach use in relation to
recreation. This work has attempted to consider the supply side of the demand-supply equation in relation to
the beach resource, and little consideration has been given to the investigation of demand.
More information is required on how many holiday-makers wish to visit beaches during their holidays in the
Highlands and Islands, how long they wish to stay at beaches, what facilities they wish to see provided,
and what factors influence their choice of recreational beaches.
142
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Allied to this information gap about the users is the almost total absence of any system for communicating
information on the locations and characteristics of beaches. In relation to their frequency of occurrence
in the coastline, beaches play a prominent role in tourist brochures advertising the Highlands and Islands;
for example over the last seven years, an average of 8% of the photograph space of Escape to the
Highlands and Islands, the main tourist publication of the Highlands and Islands Development Board, has
been devoted to beach scenes, with the beach photographs usually designed to convey an image of
emptiness, freedom and relaxation. Yet when tourists reach the Highlands and Islands, almost no information
is available to them on the whereabouts of these beaches or of their characteristics and facilities. If the goal
of ensuring full public enjoyment of beaches in the Highlands and Islands, within a framework of conservation
of the resource, is to be achieved, then it is essential that this deficiency is overcome. It is important to
emphasise, however, that care is required in the selection of information for dissemination. Indiscriminate
publicity about beaches might well result in the build up of severe pressures and ensuing environmental
damage in some beach units.
B
Dispersal of day-recreation use
We feel that the full enjoyment of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands by visitors, combined with the
maintenance of their usefulness to local residents, can best be achieved not by concentrating all use at a few
units, but by dispersing it widely. Strategies of dispersal and concentration should ideally be based on the
national level, and the beaches of the Highlands and Islands should not be seen in isolation from those in
other parts of Scotland. Within the Highlands and Islands, however, dispersal can be envisaged at two levels.
On the regional scale, the beaches of the southern Hebrides are relatively little known and relatively little
used. It would be idle to pretend that the climate of the Highlands and Islands can offer the conditions that
might be expected on a seaside holiday in the Mediterranean. But the sunshine and dryness of the south-west
of the Highlands and Islands offer better conditions for a seaside holiday than in any other part of the region,
with the possible exception of Easter Ross and south-east Sutherland. The combination of ample and lightly
used sandy beaches, relatively favourable climate, and relatively lightly used tourist facilities (at least in some
parts of the islands), offers an attractive environment for an unsophisticated seaside holiday. The cost of travel
to the islands is undoubtedly a major disadvantage, and greatly restricts the touring type of holiday. For a
fixed-centre holiday, however, travel costs are less limiting, and certainly the cost of travel to islands such as
Islay is much less than that to the Northern or Western Isles.
The main form of day-recreational use, however, is likely to remain that of the casual visit of the mobile tourist,
rather than that of the person taking a fixed-centre holiday by the seaside. The major difficulty facing this
type of user is usually a lack of information on where the beaches are, and on how to get to them. For such
tourists, a visit to the beach is often incidental rather than central to the holiday, and there is relatively little
likelihood that the mobile tourist will take the trouble to seek out, for himself, information on the location of
beaches. Beaches are perhaps not ranked very highly as priorities to be enjoyed during the holiday, but
nevertheless they can undoubtedly add greatly to the visitor’s enjoyment of the Highland countryside. Outwith
Forestry Commission roads and footpaths, there are relatively few places in the Highlands and Islands where
the casual tourist can walk dryshod over gentle terrain. Many beach complexes offer such an opportunity,
and a short stop at them could enhance the enjoyment of a touring holiday and perhaps even increase the
local length of stay. If beaches other than those close by the sides of major tourist routes are to be used for
this purpose, however, a much better information service is required. Positive provision of basic information
on how to get to local beaches, and perhaps on short walks along the sandy beach and other sections of
the coastline (for example shingle beaches and low rocky shores, which usually are more resilient to
recreational pressures than are beaches), could strongly influence the pattern of local use.
143
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The complement of a better information system is the provision of parking and other basic facilities at
beach-access points. At many beaches, old quarries and other informal parking places are adequate, but
at others there is a need for better parking areas. Thought and care are required in the design and siting of
these; ideally they should be placed so that access can be gained to the beach without passing through the
dunes or machair, so that trampling damage is minimised. Where such access is possible, and where there
are no dunes or machair, then the size of the car park can be quite large, depending on local tourist flows
and other local considerations. Where access can be gained only through a dune zone, then it is suggested
that the car park should be very small. It was shown in chapter 6 that trampling impact becomes visible
when the estimated number of users per day exceeds 50 or 60; this is a generalisation based on the whole
area of study, and is therefore not necessarily valid for every beach. As a rule of thumb, however, it is
probably useful, and would indicate that where no management inputs in the form of duckboards or other
protective devices are available, car parks should be limited to a capacity of about 10 cars.
Where the intensity of day-recreational use is in excess of this level, the beach complex is likely to require
some form of management if its environment is not to deteriorate. While some of the potential use can be
diverted to beaches at present lightly used, other beaches, especially if located close to a busy tourist route,
will continue to be heavily used, and thresholds of environmental deterioration will continue to be exceeded.
Under these conditions, some form of management is required if the value of the resource is not to be
impaired. As recreational use increases, the usefulness of the beach complex to other land uses diminishes,
and private owners or occupiers have little or no commercial incentive to manage the site for informal day
recreation. In a few instances, it is possible that Access Agreements, based on Part II of the Countryside
(Scotland) Act of 1967 may be useful in the context of public access to the beaches of Highlands and
Islands. It is doubtful, however, if such Access Agreements can provide for the comprehensive management
of beach complexes. Nor does Section 50 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act of 1972,
whereby local planning authorities may enter into agreements with landowners or occupiers ‘for the purpose
of restricting or regulating the development or use of land’, appear to offer great opportunities in this respect.
What is required is provision for more positive management. At present the Nature Conservancy Council
may enter into management agreements with the owners or occupiers of National Nature Reserves and
Sites of Special Scientific Interest. These agreements provide for management so that scientific interest can
be safeguarded, and in return for such management the N.C.C. is empowered to compensate the
landowner or occupier. At present analogous management agreements for the conservation of recreational
or landscape resources are not possible, but the Countryside Commission for Scotland (1975a) has
advocated the extension of the present limited range of management agreements to cover a wider field.
If suitable legislation can be enacted to provide for this extension, then the management agreement might
well be an effective means by which owners or occupiers could be encouraged to manage dune and
machair areas for informal recreational use as well as for agriculture and for other purposes. Until such
legislation is forthcoming, however, the best solution would seem to be for the local authority to acquire the
land, manage it for recreational use, and if necessary lease back the grazings to the previous owners.
A pre-requisite for the success of public acquisition is the availability of a ranger or other person able
to undertake minor works and to supervise and monitor the general use and management of the beach.
The number of beaches where this proposal is currently required is small, but the fact must be faced that,
sooner or later, management or husbanding of heavily used beaches will be required if they are to be
conserved. The expenditure involved in this husbanding would, in relation to the economic benefits of
tourism, be modest. Built facilities, with the possible exception of toilets at the busiest beaches, are generally
not required, and all that is needed are such things as occasional sleeper staircases and duckboards which
can be made comparatively cheaply off-season by local authority staff.
144
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
We do not construe a policy of dispersal and expansion of day-recreational uses to mean that the physical
accessibility of all the beaches in the area of study should be made easy. It is important, on the European
as well as on the Scottish and U.K. scales, that some beaches should be retained for the use of those
prepared to walk long distances to them, in the knowledge that when the destination is reached, solitude
and tranquillity can be enjoyed. It is suggested therefore, that new roads should not be extended out to all
beaches, and that the existence and location of every beach should not be publicised. It has been shown
that the number of remote, inaccessible beaches on the mainland is very small; nothing should be done to
improve the accessibility of these beaches.
C
Concentration and containment of caravanning
There is little doubt that caravanning by the seaside can offer a pleasant and relatively cheap holiday.
One of the great assets of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands, however, is that the serried ranks
of caravans which line the beaches in parts of North Wales and of Cornwall, for example, are infrequent
if not completely absent. Apart from intruding visually in the open Highland landscape, caravans are
undoubtedly agents of potential damage in machair environments, and they can function as barriers
deterring public access to the coast. We would strongly argue that any expansion of caravanning on
Highland beaches should be confined to a very few centres, and these should be selected on the basis of
where the beach resource is physically most suitable for such use. We have little doubt that the area of
greatest suitability is in East Sutherland; the beaches are physically resilient, and some of the sites are well
screened from the main roads, so that the visual intrusion is minimised. Furthermore, there is a good
infrastructure of roads, shops and hotels, and the climate, compared with other parts of the Highlands, is
dry and relatively sunny.
Conversely, we would argue that the north-west coast is eminently unsuitable for caravanning use. The number
(and area) of beach units is comparatively small. The roads are narrow and the infrastructure is less
developed. The climate is wetter and less sunny. Above all the beach complexes are fragile, and most of
them are exposed both visually and climatically. It is accepted that there is unsatisfied demand for
caravanning facilities in this area, but this demand probably does not focus specifically on beach areas.
It would, in our opinion, be deplorable if a touring site were opened up on a beach area, not because
proximity to the beach is in itself essential, but solely because no other suitable site can be identified.
If facilities cannot be easily provided in an area, then we feel that an attempt should be made to divert the
demand elsewhere, rather than to fritter away the valuable beach resource, which is in short supply on this
part of the coast, by using it for a purpose for which it is ill-suited.
One method of attempting to divert demand for caravanning facilities to where it can be met with least
harm to the environment is to adopt a strategy of ‘key holding locations,’ as outlined by the Countryside
Commission for Scotland (1975b). This concept of the ‘key holding location’ embodies the provision of
caravan sites at strategic road junctions, where major routes, capable of carrying caravan traffic, converge.
These sites are ideally located near service centres, where some evening entertainment and other services
are provided, and from where day trips may be made by car to attractive locations. The combination of the
holding-location strategy with that of providing more facilities on the east coast could well help to relieve
some of the pressure on west coast beaches. Undoubtedly, however, demand will remain in these areas,
and it was for this reason that the Countryside Commission for Scotland (1975b) recognised that small sites
might be required in areas of high demand as a complement to the policy of key holding locations.
145
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Small sites, with capacities of under thirty units, are usually regarded as being less damaging to fragile
environments than larger sites. Although in general terms this may be true, experience on many beach
complexes on the north-west coast has shown that the capacities of small sites are frequently grossly
exceeded, and that their effects can be just as great as those of sites with greater licensed capacities.
If small sites are to be provided in areas such as the north-west coast, the present authors are strongly of the
opinion that they should not be located on beach complexes.
Another method of attempting to divert demand to less fragile environments is the provision of a better
information service. At the entrance to the Gower peninsula in South Wales, which has a number of heavily
used and relatively fragile beaches, all caravan traffic is exhorted to pull into an information centre which
is in continual contact with the caravan sites in the peninsula. When one site is full, then caravans are
directed towards other sites, and when other sites are full, then the caravan owners are strongly advised not
to enter the Gower. We feel that if such a system were provided in the Northern Highlands, say between
Beauly and Muir of Ord, then much of the traffic could be diverted towards the east Sutherland sites, some
of which could be expanded if necessary, and much of the demand thereby deflected away from areas such
as northwest Sutherland. If the opposite approach is taken, and caravan sites are provided on every beach
along the coast, demand will be stimulated, and constant expansion of the sites will be necessary. The classic
example of this is in the Achiltibuie peninsula; before the provision of a caravan site on the Achnahaird
machair, a modest amount of wild caravanning was scattered throughout the peninsula; after the opening
of the machair site many more caravans were drawn out onto the peninsula by its very existence, and now
it is not unusual to find well over 100 tent and caravan units on the machair.
In addition, we would advocate that minor roads serving areas with fragile beach complexes should
be closed to caravan traffic. Provision for such closure exists in the Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1967,
in conjunction with the Countryside Act of 1968, and we would suggest that it should be implemented on
the B8007 Ardnamurchan road, the B8056 from Gairloch to Red Point, and perhaps after the temporary
planning consent to the Achnahaird caravan site expires in 1982, the unclassified road from the A835
at Drumrunie to Achiltibuie.
These measures, we feel, would assist in the conservation of the aesthetic and physical nature of the beach
resource while at the same time achieving a balance between the enjoyment of the resource by day users
and by caravanners.
D
Development control and the national dimension in the planning of the coastline
These suggestions on the dispersal of day use and the concentration of caravanning on beaches will stand
or fall to a large extent on the readiness of the local planning authorities to accept them. In Ireland, there is
already some evidence that the local planning authorities are prepared to accept the guidelines set out
in the National Coastline Study (see chapter 7) and to incorporate them into county plans and policies.
We are of the opinion, however, that the nature of the beaches in some parts of the Highlands and Islands
is so outstanding as to merit a more directly national component in their planning. We would therefore
suggest that the practicability and desirability be considered of designating some parts of the coastline as
Areas of Special Planning Control, under Section 9 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act. This would allow the
national dimension to play a greater role in the determination of planning applications emanating from such
areas. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has recently been carrying out a review of the areas which
might merit designation (C.C.S. 1975a); from the viewpoint of sandy beaches, the parts of the coastline
146
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
of the Highlands and Islands which we feel would be most appropriately designated are two; one is from
Cape Wrath (or perhaps even from the Kyle of Durness) to Loch Torridon, possibly with exclusions around
the main settlements such as Kinlochbervie, Lochinver, Ullapool and part of Loch Ewe, while the other is
from East Loch Roag in Lewis to Toe Head in Harris, perhaps with an exclusion at West Loch Tarbert.
The mainland segment contains many spectacular beaches, some of which are very fragile and are under
severe pressure, in addition to generally outstanding coastal scenery and to sites of ecological and
physiographical interest. The west coast of Lewis and Harris is, if anything, even more spectacular, and is
outstanding in quality on the international as well as on the national scale. It is under much less pressure
than the Wester Ross and West Sutherland coasts, but its main value is that it is so undeveloped.
Designation as an Area of Special Planning Control would not only permit any planning application to be
considered in the light of the national dimension, but would also allow suitable conditions to be framed
should consent be given. Despite the gradual emergence of firmer local authority policies towards
developments such as caravan sites, there are still occasions when developments are permitted to proceed
with what appears to be scant regard for the nature of the beach resource. Furthermore, some of the
conditions which have been applied by local authorities are not sympathetic to the nature of the beach
environment. In one case, consent was given for a machair caravan site on the condition that the developer
planted trees to screen the caravans. The rectangular enclosures of windstunted scrub which resulted are
if anything more alien to the exposed machair landscape than the caravans which they were intended
to conceal.
We accept that this proposal will meet with opposition in principle as well as with practical difficulties.
Not the least of these difficulties will be in coping with the distribution of beaches as points within what is
essentially an areal designation. It would be neither practicable nor desirable to designate just the beaches;
designation would have to apply to lengths of the coastline including non-beach segments. We have no
remit to consider the coastline outwith its beach areas, and we have not surveyed it in detail. We do,
however, feel that on the basis of quality of landscape and variety of physical type, the coasts of the
north-west Highlands and of south-west Lewis and west Harris are outstanding on an European scale as well
as on a Scottish scale and that of the United Kingdom. Designation of long stretches of these coastlines,
therefore, as Areas of Special Planning Control (A.S.P.C.) would not be inappropriate, and would help to
conserve both the aesthetic value and physical nature of the beach resource. Even the most stringent
development control policies cannot in themselves ensure that the goal of optimising both the enjoyment
and conservation of the beach resource is achieved, but some means of introducing a national dimension
into the planning process, and of guarding against unsuitable forms of development, is essential if the goal
is to be attained.
Our intention is in some ways similar to that of the definition of Heritage Coasts in England and Wales.
The objectives in the planning of a Heritage Coast are to conserve in its natural state, as far as is possible,
the quality of the coastal scenery, and to facilitate its enjoyment by the public by the promotion and
encouragement of recreational activities consistent with the conservation of fine scenery. We are doubtful
if the enjoyment and conservation of Highland beaches would be greatly improved by defining the stretches
of coastline in which they are set as Heritage Coasts on the English model. Part of the goal of landscape
conservation would, we feel, be better achieved by designation as an A.S.P.C.
147
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
These four recommendations – increased information, dispersal of day use, containment of caravanning use
and improvement of development-control policies – are seen as central and crucial to the achievement of
the twin goals of maximising the enjoyment and usefulness of the region’s beaches, and of conserving their
qualities. At the scale of the individual beach, however, the regional beach reports have shown that some
remedial action and improved management techniques are required at some beach units. Appendix IV lists
these proposals. Specific suggestions have been made on the need to remove abandoned vehicles and
agricultural machinery, to restrict or to remove rubbish tips, to restore beach complexes defaced by extraction
pits and to implement erosion-control works. Erosion-control works can be carried out relatively cheaply if
engineering solutions are eschewed, and reliance placed instead on simple devices such as the erection of
sand-trap fences and the planting of Marram. A considerable volume of literature now exists on these
techniques (for example Anon., 1970, Adriani and Terwindt, 1974, Ritchie 1974b), and a large pool
of expertise is available. The guiding aim should be to work within geomorphological and ecological
principles rather than to depend upon the bull-dozer and the sea-wall. Not only are such ‘natural’ solutions
much cheaper than engineering solutions, but they are also likely to be more successful and effective in the
long term. A few hundred pounds spent on rabbit extermination, for example, could in many instances do
much more for machair stability than thousands of pounds’ worth of civil engineering.
The beaches of the Highlands and Islands are valuable resources for tourism as well as for agriculture
and for other purposes. For this reason, therefore, as well as for their intrinsic scenic and scientific value,
they merit careful husbanding and conservation. Over the last two decades, however, recreational use has
developed much more rapidly than has management for recreational purposes. If the beaches are to be
of recreational value in the long-term then they will have to be managed, in the same way that agricultural
land has to be managed if it is not to deteriorate in quality and productivity. Furthermore, management for
recreational use must be set within a multi-purpose framework, and particular regard paid to the relationship
between recreational use and long established, year-round uses such as grazing.
In the course of this work the natural resource of sandy beaches in the Highlands and Islands has been
reviewed and analysed. It has been found to be extensive but unevenly distributed, and has been adjudged
to be of a quality rare on the European scale as well as on that of the United Kingdom. The beach
environment is fragile, and is easily damaged by ill-suited types and intensities of recreational and other land
uses. It is hoped that this work makes a contribution both to the understanding of the physical nature of the
beach resource, and to the conservation of its usefulness and its rare qualities.
148
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Plate 45
Oldshoremore, West Sutherland
149
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Perception of the beach resource
While numerous physical attributes of the beach resource can be measured and quantified, the key to
understanding how the resource is used lies to a large extent in the users’ view of it. The crofter and tourist
almost certainly see the beach and machair differently from the planner or geomorphologist or ecologist. After
a long period of looking at a topic from one standpoint, it is all too easy to become blinkered in perception
and attitude and to base conclusions and plans on an individual view. Many plans for resource use or resource
development have failed completely or fallen short of their goals, not because of any inadequacies in their
factual bases or in their design, but because the views of the resource users have not been taken into account.
In addition to this pragmatic justification for the study of perception and attitudes, it seems right that the views
of the users should be considered in the preparation of policies for the use of the resource. It is not contended
that the work described in this appendix is adequate either as an exercise in public participation or as an
investigation of the perception and attitudes of the beach users. Only a small part of the research budget
could be devoted to this field investigation of attitudes, and the results should be seen only as those of a
pilot survey or of a preliminary investigation of a large and complex field.
Numerous theoretical and practical problems beset the investigation of how people perceive their
environment. In the context of the beach complexes of the Highlands and Islands, these problems are
exacerbated by the unique combination of the cultural background, the tenurial system and the seasonal
nature of some of the land uses. Nevertheless an attempt was made during the summer of 1975 to
investigate the perceptions and attitudes of two sets of users, recreational and agricultural, of a number of
beaches in north-west Sutherland. This work was designed as a supplement to the main work of revising
material previously collected on the physical attributes of the beaches of the Highlands and Islands, rather
than as a central part of that work.
The problems facing the investigation of users’ perceptions of the beach resource can be divided into two
main groups, those common to all such investigations, and those peculiar to this investigation. The methods
available for ascertaining the perceptions and attitudes are still primitive and rely mainly on the use of
questionnaire techniques. A major problem in the design of questionnaires on attitudes and perceptions is
that the interviewee may be influenced by the wording and phrasing of the questions, and may therefore
give responses unrepresentative of his real feelings (Saarinen 1971). To minimise this danger, questions were
worded as carefully and as neutrally as possible, and several open-ended questions were employed. It was
difficult, however, to design questions which would probe the interviewee’s perceptions and attitudes
towards environmental features without inadvertently drawing their attention to these features which
previously they might not have noticed. No example could be found in the academic literature of a
questionnaire survey designed specifically to probe perception of this part of the environment. In the absence
of a model which could be used, the questionnaire was designed in such a way not to highlight its central
environmental focus. It began by seeking simple factual responses about how the interviewee first came to
know about the existence of the beach, and then proceeded to open-ended questions about what the
interviewee liked most and liked least about the beach complex. He was then asked which of a list of
facilities he would like to see provided on the beach complex, before the interview moved on to probe the
perception of adverse features. At this stage the interviewee was asked if he had noticed any of a list of
features, including litter and water pollution as well as signs of erosion damage. This area was then probed
in increasing depth, before the interview terminated with a request for any wishes or thoughts which the
interviewee might have which he would like to be taken into account in the planning of the beach.
150
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
The questionnaires were administered by a post-graduate student with an interest in the field of environmental
perception. Financial limitations meant that the interviewer could be employed only for two weeks, so that
only approximately two days’ interviewing was possible at each of the six beach complexes selected for the
survey. The interviewer was instructed to interview tourists on the beach during the day, between the hours
of 10.30 and 4.30, and to attempt to interview the agricultural users during the evening. Obviously such a
strict and hurried timetable is undesirable, but it was felt that, in an exploratory survey of this kind, it was
better to attempt to look at a number of beach complexes, albeit superficially, rather than to concentrate on
a single unit.
The area selected for this survey was north-west Sutherland, which offered the advantage of several types
of beaches, with differing characteristics of accessibility and use. Some of the beaches in north-west
Sutherland are by common consent amongst the most serious examples of eroded machairs in the Highlands
and Islands, and they have posed chronic and intractable environmental problems. The six beaches selected
were Achmelvich and Clachtoll near Lochinver, Oldshoremore and Sandwood Bay near Kinlochbervie, and
Balnakeil and Sango Bay at Durness. Achmelvich and Clachtoll machairs have recently been acquired by
the local authority after almost a decade of wrestling over serious problems of caravanning and machair
erosion. Both these machairs are easily accessible, and both were formerly held as common grazings.
Sandwood Bay in many ways is a complete contrast; it is also held as common grazing, but it is remote
and inaccessible, and is probably the best known ‘wilderness’ beach on the mainland. Although a
spectacular and highly dynamic beach complex, the intensity of recreational use is very low, and is unlikely
to have been a significant factor in triggering instability. Oldshoremore is more easily reached than
Sandwood, but less so than Clachtoll or Achmelvich. Sango Bay (Sangomore) at Durness is the most
accessible beach of all the group, Iying on the through route of the A939 close to Durness village, and has
a severely eroded machair. Like Oldshoremore, it is part of a common grazing. Finally, Balnakeil is a large
beach complex with spectacular dune fields, held under private tenure and accessible from the end of
an unclassified road near Durness. The beaches, therefore, vary in physical type, level of accessibility, and
in tenure, but they can be subdivided into two main groups. One group, comprising Achmelvich, Clachtoll
and Sangomore, is intensively used, especially for caravanning, and has suffered severe machair erosion;
the other group (Oldshoremore, Sandwood and Balnakeil) is used less intensively, and little or no
caravanning takes place.
The perception by tourists
The interviewer was instructed to seek responses from parties of tourists on the beach. The parties were to
be approached as they left the beach, or after they had spent some time on it. Strictly random sampling in
such circumstances was clearly not possible; at Sandwood, for example, only twelve parties visited the
beach during the two days of survey, and a 100% sample could be taken, while at the roadside beach of
Sangomore, only a few of the parties on the beach at any one time could be questioned. Factors such as
weather obviously could not be controlled, and in addition to reducing the use of the beaches, adverse
weather might well colour the attitudes of tourists. It should be pointed out that the interviewing at Achmelvich
and Clachtoll was carried out under cool, showery and overcast conditions. Because of the pattern of
recreational behaviour on beaches, the basic unit of survey had to be the party rather than the individual.
The number of parties interviewed at each beach is set out in table A, while the socio-economic class
structure of the parties interviewed is illustrated in table B.
151
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table A
(continued)
Average par ty size
Whole party
mean size
Adults
mean no.
Achmelvich
3.6
2.4
30
103
Clachtoll
4.6
2.8
44
197
119
”
Oldshoremore
4.8
2.6
30
139
78
”
Sandwood
3.8
3.7
12
45
38
”
Balnakeil
3.3
2.5
45
148
111
”
Sangomore
4.0
2.4
43
172
102
”
Total
3.9
2.5
204
804
517
”
Table B
No. of parties
interviewed
Total size of parties
interviewed
(69 adults)
Socio-economic class*
I
II
III
IV
V
I + II
Achmelvich
30
53
7
–
10
83
Clachtoll
23
36
25
9
7
59
Oldshoremore
30
37
20
7
7
67
Sandwood
50
42
8
–
–
92
Balnakeil
27
33
22
–
18
60
Sangomore
21
33
23
7
16
54
Percentages of parties
I
II
III
IV
V
Professional
Intermediate
Skilled
Partly skilled
Unskilled
* Registrar-General’s 1911 Classification.
For further details please see B. Edwards (1974)
Sources of Social Statistics London.
The objective of the survey was not to draw up a visitor profile, but to investigate the attitudes and
perceptions of the visitors. But it was felt that socio-economic class might be an important influence on how
the beach resource was seen. Further work would be required to establish if significant inter-class perceptions
do exist.
The main point emerging from table B is the apparently inverse relationship between accessibility and
socio-economic class of the visitors. Sandwood Bay, by far the least accessible beach, has the highest
percentage of professional visitors, while the easily accessible roadside beaches of Sangomore and
Clachtoll have considerably lower percentages in classes one and two. At all the beaches, however,
more than 50% of the visitors belong to the top two socio-economic classes. Despite the small sample sizes,
it seems clear that most of the visitors to Highland beaches are of the middle class, and the more inaccessible
the beach is, the more the visitors are of the middle class. At some of the beaches, the very high proportion
of visitors in socio-economic classes I and II would support the suggestions of Hecock (1970) that beaches
with outstanding physical characteristics draw visitors from the higher socio-economic groups.
152
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
Before the interview continued onto the apparently rather nebulous questions on how the visitors perceived
their recreational or holiday environment, they were asked how they had first come to know about the
existence of the beach. Their responses are set out in table 1.
Table 1
How did you first come to know about this beach?
By
chance
Friends/
relations
Tourist
office
Tourist
leaflets
Map
Guidebook
Magazine
Post
cards
Other
Achmelvich
20
40
0
0
10
17
0
3
10
Clachtoll
34
32
4
4
7
7
7
0
0
Oldshoremore
10
30
0
0
23
7
0
0
30
0
33
0
0
10
17
8
8
8
Balnakeil
36
27
2
2
18
4
0
0
11
Sangomore
59
14
0
2
16
2
2
0
5
Grouped total
32
28
1
2
15
7
2
1
11
Sandwood
Percentages of parties
Chance was the main factor in the roadside beaches, as might be expected, with Sangomore, Iying by
a main tourist circulation route, having the highest ’chance’ response. The percentage giving this response
dropped steadily with distance off a through route. Where the beach had not been stumbled upon by
chance, the most likely source of information was from friends or relations. Such word-of-mouth information
was for most beaches far more important than information from any other source. In particular, information
about the beach had rarely come from local tourist offices or from tourist leaflets. In the light of the attention
given to beaches in the tourist promotion literature of the Highlands and Islands Development Board
(see chapter 8), these low percentages may seem surprising; nevertheless tourist information channels are,
at present, insignificant as far as the knowledge of beaches is concerned.
It is possible that information centres and leaflets are inherently ineffective media for disseminating
information about the distribution and characteristics of beaches. A more likely possibility, however, is
that as yet tourist literature and information centres are untapped means by which information on beaches
could be communicated. The potential of these information systems as means by which information
on beaches could be disseminated, and perhaps thereby patterns of use influenced or modified, seems
worth evaluating.
The next question sought to investigate the general reaction of the interviewees to the beaches which they
were visiting. The questions were completely open-ended, but the responses have been grouped together in
tables 2a, 2b and 3. Most responses to the question ‘what do you like most about this beach?’ contained
the words ‘peaceful,’ ‘natural’ or ‘clean,’ with cleanliness being the most important single response except
at Sandwood, where ‘naturalness’ was the most liked feature.
153
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 2a
(continued)
What do you like most about this beach area?
Peaceful and/or
uncommercialised
Natural
Clean
Other
Achmelvich
13
7
40
40
Clachtoll
21
7
47
26
Oldshoremore
17
37
40
7
Sandwood
50
8
8
33
Balnakeil
16
27
31
27
5
9
44
42
16
16
38
29
Sangomore
Grouped total
Percentages of parties interviewed
Table 2b
Words specifically mentioned under ’other’ categor y
Uncrowded
few people
Shelter
seclusion
Sports
Easy
access
Safe
Occurrence
of ‘other’
Achmelvich
–
2
5
3
2
12
Clachtoll
–
–
4
2
10
11
Oldshoremore
8
1
3
–
4
2
Sandwood
2
2
–
–
–
4
Balnakeil
15
3
–
–
–
12
Sangomore
16
2
–
1
5
18
No. of mentions
Responses containing mentions of factors other than tranquillity, cleanliness or naturalness were further broken
down by number of mentions (some parties liked two features equally well). In this secondary breakdown
(table 2b) considerable variations emerged between the beaches; at Clachtoll, for example, the most liked
‘other’ factor was its perceived safety, while at Sangomore the perceived lack of crowding was much
appreciated. The latter point is perhaps surprising since Sangomore is one of the most visited beaches
in the north-west Highlands. This apparent contradiction, however, is only one of several. At Clachtoll,
for example, the most frequent response was cleanliness, while the most frequent response to the question
‘what do you like least about this beach?’ was the litter and refuse on the machair (table 3).
Despite these apparent contradictions, it is clear that tranquillity, cleanliness and absence of the more
obvious signs of commercialisation are strong attractions on Highland beaches, while factors such as
suitability for sports are ranked very much lower.
Dislikes were similarly wide ranging (table 3). On average one party in three had no dislikes, and this
proportion was higher than that of mentions of any single feature. Litter, in some cases combined with erosion
damage, was the leading response at two of the heavily used beaches, at Clachtoll and Sangomore,
but no litter problem was perceived at Achmelvich. At Achmelvich, however, 27% of the parties quoted the
existence of caravans as their main dislike, but caravans were seen less adversely at the other beaches used
for caravanning (Clachtoll and Sangomore).
154
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 3
(continued)
What do you like least about this beach area?
Caravans
Achmelvich
Other
people
Lack of
facilities
Litter/
erosion
Nothing
Other
27
–
–
–
37
37
Clachtoll
5
9
2
41
18
25
Oldshoremore
–
7
3
10
60
20
Sandwood
–
25
–
8
17
50
Balnakeil
–
4
2
33
38
22
Sangomore
2
5
14
39
33
7
Grouped total
5
6
4
26
34
23
Percentages of parties interviewed
The presence of other people on the beach was given as the main dislike more frequently at Sandwood
than anywhere else. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the Sandwood results, however, because
of the very small size of the sample, but the provisional finding that the least-used beach is perceived as
the most crowded would tie in with the findings of Burton (1974) in the Cannock Chase, where the busy,
intensively used areas were not perceived by the recreationists to be crowded but the little-used
areas were.
The absence of toilet facilities was a dislike of a few parties, mainly at Sangomore (where, incidentally there
are toilets within a few hundred metres of the beach), but generally a lack of facilities does not appear
to detract from the enjoyment of the beach. The category of ‘other responses’ included a wide range of
mentions, and varied considerably between beaches; at Sandwood, the existence of quicksands, or
perhaps more accurately the existence of a notice warning of the danger of quicksands but not describing
their location, worried 50% of the visitors, while jellyfish caused concern at Oldshoremore, and barbed wire
at Clachtoll.
As a follow up to the questions on the main likes and dislikes, the interviewees were asked ‘which, if any,
of the following facilities would you like to see provided on this beach area?’. The responses, which are set
out in table 4, show that many visitors are content with the beach as it is, and wish no change. This is
particularly the case at Sandwood, where there are at present no facilities. At the other beaches, toilets,
where not already present, were the main request. Nature trails were requested by a small but fairly
consistent proportion, but there was little demand for other facilities. Once again, the conclusion seems to
be that the beaches are liked as they are, and that the provision of facilities, other than toilets at the more
used beaches, would not be viewed as an improvement.
155
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Hotel
Caravan site
Children’s
playground
Chalets to let
Shop
Nature trail
Other
No change
Music
–
–
*
–
–
*
13
30
53
–
9
*
–
–
*
15
20
52
–
2
–
–
12
–
2
10
16
20
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
100
–
†2
12
*
–
6
4
–
–
27
6
44
–
†37
6
2
2
8
–
–
†
10
8
27
–
Cafe
Ice cream
stall
Which, if any, of the following facilities would you like to see provided on this
beach area?
Toilets
Table 4
(continued)
Achmelvich
*
3
Clachtoll
*
4
Oldshoremore
33
4
–
Sandwood
Balnakeil
Sangomore
Percentage frequency of mentions
* facility already present on beach complex
† facility already present near beach complex
Table 5
Prior to this inter view, did you notice any of the following features on the beach
or the area around it?
Litter
Achmelvich
Water
pollution
Burnt
patches
Rubbish
pits
Damage
to ground
vegetation
Worn patches
where bare
sand has
been exposed
7
–
–
3
50
57
Clachtoll
36
11
2
34
30
68
Oldshoremore
37
7
7
–
10
33
Sandwood
42
–
–
–
42
75
Balnakeil
27
27
4
7
13
42
Sangomore
61
9
7
–
25
50
Parties answering ‘yes’ as percentage of parties interviewed
The next set of questions represents the core of the survey, and relates to the perception of adverse features
in the beach landscape, and to attitudes towards these features. The wording of the question, and its responses,
are shown in table 5.
The last two features function to some extent as cross-checks. Once again, some surprising results emerge,
with the remote, little-used beach at Sandwood scoring highly on perception of litter, and also on damage
to ground vegetation.
156
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
In absolute terms, the amount of litter at Sandwood is very small and in the absence of vehicular access,
damage to the vegetation is very slight. Yet the visitors seem to be highly conscious of these features,
suggesting that at remote, little-used beaches very high environmental standards are expected. Again, this
finding is in agreement with that of Hecock (1970) who found that visitors of the higher socio-economic
groups, who are in the great majority at Sandwood (table B), are very demanding in terms of aesthetic
quality of their recreational beaches. Except for perceived water pollution at Balnakeil and rubbish pits at
Clachtoll, few other adverse features were noticed.
Not everyone who notices a particular environmental feature necessarily sees it adversely or is concerned
by it (Sewell, 1971); therefore a follow-up question was asked to ascertain which of the features which
had been noticed gave rise to concern. The responses are shown in table 6. Except at Clachtoll and
Oldshoremore, substantial percentages of the parties who had noticed litter were concerned by it, although
only a small minority of all the parties expressed concern. The exception was at Sangomore, where the
amount of litter, in absolute terms, is probably greatest; here 41% of all the parties interviewed felt worried
by the litter, whereas 67% had noticed it. Concern about damage to vegetation and exposure of sand was
extremely low at both Sangomore and Balnakeil. The former has been severely eroded but is now relatively
quiescent, while there is little trampling damage at the latter.
Water
pollution
Burnt patches
Rubbish pits
Damage to
ground vegetation
Worn patches
Litter
Water
pollution
Rubbish pits
Burnt patches
Damage to
ground vegetation
Worn patches
Do any of these features which you have noticed worr y you?
Litter
Table 6
Achmelvich
50
–
–
3
67
53
3
–
–
–
33
30
Clachtoll
44
–
–
30
69
27
16
2
11
–
20
18
Oldshoremore
27
–
–
–
–
–
10
–
–
–
–
–
Sandwood
60
–
–
–
60
22
25
–
–
–
25
17
Balnakeil
67
33
–
33
17
16
18
9
2
–
2
7
Sangomore
67
–
–
–
9
5
41
–
–
–
2
2
Positive responses as percentages
of parties noticing features
Positive responses as percentage
of all parties interviewed
At Achmelvich and Clachtoll, however, only one-third and one-fifth respectively of all the parties interviewed
were concerned about what might be called the erosion problem, although about two-thirds were conscious
of it. Thus a considerable gap seems to exist between awareness and concern. Whether this gap could be
bridged by the provision of information notices, and whether the gap is significant in the obtaining of visitors’
co-operation in rehabilitation schemes, are debatable points.
Once again, Sandwood produces a rather surprising result; although almost free from trampling damage
by virtue of its inaccessibility, there was a higher awareness of damage to vegetation than at Clachtoll where
the intensity of use, and, by any objective standard, the amount of recreational impact, is many times greater.
This result may stem solely from the small number of parties interviewed at Sandwood, and it would perhaps
be a mistake to read too much into the result, but again a possible interpretation would be that perception
of damage is high in little-used beaches, where the visitors expect a high-quality recreational environment.
157
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
The most sensitive part of the beach complex is not the beach itself, which is highly resistant to environmental
pressures, but the blown-sand areas behind. In order to ascertain the role of the machair and dune zone in
recreational use, interviewees were asked about their attitudes to the vegetated blown-sand area. The results
are set out in table 7.
Table 7
(a) Is the grassy area behind the beach important to the enjoyment of your visit here?
(b) Is freedom to walk over this grassy area important?
(a)
(b)
Achmelvich
73
87
Clachtoll
98
100
Oldshoremore
47
83
100
100
Balnakeil
84
86
Sangomore
80
82
Sandwood
Parties answering ‘yes’ as percentage of all parties interviewed
Although to some extent the machair is simply a transit zone between car and beach, it apparently occupies
an important role in recreational visits, and, in particular, freedom to walk over the machair is seen as
important (except, perhaps significantly, at Oldshoremore, where an access path leads to the flank of the
beach). Although the destination may be the beach rather than the dunes or machair, the area behind the
beach is not seen as irrelevant to the recreational visit, but rather as an integral part. Perhaps an important
part of the attraction of beach complexes is their openness and freedom from constraints of movement;
exclusion from the machair would reduce this freedom and hence the attractiveness of the beach complex
as a recreational environment.
The next set of questions sought specifically to investigate the perception of erosion features on the dunes
and machair. The questions and the breakdown of responses are set out in table 8.
Table 8
(a) Do you feel that patches of bare sand in the grassy area behind the beach
make the beach area more attractive or less attractive?
(b) If it were to be found that these areas of bare sand were getting bigger,
would you feel that this would be (i) undesirable, (ii) of no impor tance,
or (iii) desirable?
(a)
More
attractive
(b)
Less
attractive
Neutral
Undesirable
Of no
importance
Desirable
Achmelvich
77
13
10
87
13
–
Clachtoll
89
9
2
89
11
–
Oldshoremore
90
–
10
43
53
3
100
–
–
50
50
–
Balnakeil
96
2
2
58
38
4
Sangomore
84
14
2
67
28
5
Sandwood
Percentages of all parties interviewed
158
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
Perhaps the most notable feature is the overwhelming feeling that the existence of bare sand patches, or
erosion hollows, enhances the attractiveness of the dunes and machair. There is some evidence that the
percentage of the parties opting for ‘more attractive’ decreases as the severity of erosion increases, but even
in the most severely eroded machairs over three-quarters of the parties thought that the erosion features added
to rather than detracted from the attractiveness of the machair. This highly positive perception of bare sand
patches agrees with the findings of an experiment carried out during the compilation of the West Inverness-shire
and North Argyll beach report. A strong inverse relationship was discovered to exist between the physical
stability of a beach complex and its attractiveness as perceived on colour slides shown to audiences totalling
about 200 people. It also agrees with observations of all the writers involved in beach reports. Erosion hollows
are seen by many visitors as attractive and useful. In large beach complexes, these are the areas selected for
use, as for example at Machrihanish. Part of the attraction of the bare sand patches within the machair may
lie in contrasts of colour and texture with the machair sward. To some extent there is the advantage of some
shelter and privacy, and the possible establishment of a well-defined ‘territory’ may contribute to the highly
positive perception of the erosion patches. Whatever the explanation may be, the implications of this finding
pose certain problems; if people perceive erosion hollows on machairs as attractive and useful will they take
kindly to schemes to stabilise or rehabilitate machairs suffering from erosion at present?
The assessment of the practical implications are perhaps made even more difficult when table 8b is
considered. Although a strong feeling existed that the bare sand patches made the machair more attractive,
most people felt that any expansion of these patches would be undesirable. Perhaps significantly, undesirability
was felt most strongly at the most severely eroded machairs at Achmelvich, Clachtoll and Sangomore. At the
less used beaches of Sandwood and Oldshoremore neutral attitudes were expressed most frequently; very
few people wanted to see the bare sand patches expanding at any beach, despite feeling that the patches
made the machairs more attractive.
Most people also felt that efforts should be made to halt the growth of the bare sand patches. Opinions in
favour of such efforts were strongest at Achmelvich, Clachtoll and Sangomore, and weakest at the least-used
beaches. At Sandwood, in fact, opinions expressed by the small number of interviewees for and against
such intervention were equally balanced (table 9a).
Table 9
(a) Do you or do you not feel that ef for ts should be made to halt the growth
of these patches of bare sand?
(b) Supposing that such efforts were to be made to control the expansion of the
areas of bare sand, and that these efforts involved some restrictions on access,
would you feel that this restriction would be acceptable or unacceptable?
(a)
(b)
Yes
No
No
response
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Achmelvich
90
10
–
83
13
3
Clachtoll
84
7
9
68
25
7
Oldshoremore
57
43
–
47
47
6
Sandwood
50
50
–
25
75
–
Balnakeil
67
29
4
60
31
9
Sangomore
70
25
5
72
12
16
Percentages of all parties interviewed
159
No
response
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
A similar pattern emerges in attitudes to restrictions on freedom of movement, which might conceivably be
associated with machair rehabilitation schemes (table 9b). At the severely eroded beaches, about threequarters of the parties felt that such restrictions would be acceptable, but they frequently added that they
would be acceptable only if absolutely necessary, and if the objectives of the restrictions were explained.
Unacceptability was highest at Sandwood: the main attraction of this beach may lie in its freedom from such
restrictions, and any attempts to channel people or to divert them from sensitive areas at such a beach
apparently would be most unwelcome. To some extent, such attitudes may be surprising, since a high proportion
of the parties interviewed at Sandwood were conscious of bare patches and damaged vegetation. Indeed
a higher proportion expressed concern at Sandwood than at Sangomore, but this concern apparently does
not extend to a preparedness to sacrifice some freedom of movement. At Sangomore, on the other hand,
restrictions were more acceptable despite much less awareness and concern about signs of erosion.
Attitudes towards the existence or the possibility of existence of caravans on the beach complexes are
illustrated in table 10. Strong contrasts emerged between the beaches, with unanimous disapproval at
Sandwood to majority feelings of approval or neutrality at Clachtoll and Sangomore. Sharp contrasts emerge
between the two groups; at the Achmelvich – Clachtoll – Sangomore group, 34% of the parties gave
positive responses, while at the other group the percentage of positive responses was only one. A measure
of correlation is seen to exist with accessibility; the beaches on through routes have the highest positive
scores, while disapproval seems to strengthen with decreasing accessibility. Perhaps part of the contrast is
explicable by the different types of visitors at the different beach complexes, but part may lie simply in the
expectations of the visitors. Where no effort needs to be expended in reaching a beach, the visitor may well
expect to find numerous other visitors and their trappings such as caravans. Disappointment may register if
more effort has been, or were to be expended, only to find such signs. Another interpretation which might
be put on the responses to this question is that where caravans exist, they are to some extent accepted
(although about one quarter of the parties interviewed at Achmelvich quoted caravans as the feature they
liked least about the beach – table 3). On the other hand the prospect of caravans being parked on a beach
previously unused for this purpose is at the best received coolly, and usually with marked disapproval.
The role of the sandy beach in Highland holidays varies considerably not only from area to area but also
from beach to beach. At beaches where caravan sites have been provided, such as Achmelvich and
Clachtoll, almost everyone regards the sandy beach as important or very important to his or her holiday
(table 11).
Table 10
How do you/would you react to caravans on the area around the beach?
Positive
Neutral
Achmelvich
20
33
47
Clachtoll
43
40
16
Oldshoremore
–
7
93
Sandwood
–
–
100
Balnakeil
2
47
51
42
35
23
Sangomore
Percentages of all parties interviewed
160
Negative
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 11
(continued)
How impor tant to your holiday are sandy beaches?
Very
important
Important
Of little or no
importance
Achmelvich
50
37
13
Clachtoll
57
36
7
Oldshoremore
40
40
20
–
42
58
Balnakeil
38
33
29
Sangomore
35
44
21
Sandwood
Percentages of all parties interviewed
At the other extreme, the interviewees at Sandwood felt that beaches were much less important for
their holidays, while the remaining beaches of Balnakeil, Oldshoremore and Sangomore had more even
distributions between the three importance classes. Such a pattern of responses is perhaps to be expected.
Families with young children may choose a residential type of holiday near a beach, and therefore see the
beach as very important, while touring holiday-makers see the beaches as an extra to, rather than as an
essential part of, their holidays. Again, however, a paradox emerges; the visitors to a beach like Sandwood
do not regard their visit as an important part of their holiday, but they perceive environmental damage very
keenly, and dislike other people to be on the beach. They would also strongly disapprove of limitations on
their freedom of movement in the dunes and machair. If correct, these observations further highlight the
problem of planning and management in beaches of the wilderness type.
Another aspect of the importance of the beach to the holiday is the number of beaches visited during the
holiday (table 12a and b). The surprising outcome to this question is the relatively small percentage who
had, prior to the interview, visited at least one other beach in the Highlands. While comparatively few
positive answers to this question might be expected at the ‘residential’ beaches such as Clachtoll and
Achmelvich, it is more surprising that visitors to the roadside beaches such as Sangomore had visited such
few other beaches. Many visitors seem to make little effort to seek out beaches, and when visits are made
they are frequently incidental rather than central to the holiday.
Table 12a
(a) During this holiday have you visited any other beaches in the Highlands?
(b) How many other beaches have you visited during this holiday in the Highlands?
(a)
(b)
Yes
No
0
1
2
3
4
Achmelvich
47
53
53
23
13
7
3
Clachtoll
57
43
43
34
9
9
0
Oldshoremore
60
40
40
27
23
3
0
Sandwood
50
50
50
8
25
8
0
Balnakeil
73
27
27
33
24
4
2
Sangomore
67
33
33
36
16
7
5
Percentages of parties interviewed
(Some of the totals in 12b fail to add to 100 because some parties did not know how many they had visited)
161
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
In the last part of the interview, interviewees were asked where they had stayed on the night previous to
the interview (table 13). Invariably, the majority of parties had stayed within 8km of the beach. This is
perhaps surprising in the context of the sparseness of accommodation and other tourist facilities in the
north-west Highlands. Perhaps equally surprising were the large percentages who, even at the roadside
beaches, felt that they had made a special journey to the beach as opposed to just having stopped off
en route from elsewhere.
An apparent contradiction seems to exist between table 1 (How did you first come to know about this
beach?) and table 13b; at Sangomore 59% of the parties interviewed came to know about the beach by
chance, while 65% claimed to have made a special journey to the beach. This contradiction, however,
could well be apparent rather than real, since the beach could have been seen on entering Durness the
previous evening, and mentally earmarked for a visit prior to continuing on the tour the following day.
Table 13
(a) Where did you stay last night?
(b) Have you made a special journey from where you stayed last night to this
beach, or have you just stopped of f on your way to somewhere else?
(a)
(b)
Within
1km
Within
8km
Within
80km
Outwith
80km
Achmelvich
53
17
30
–
Clachtoll
86
–
14
Oldshoremore
33
43
–
Balnakeil
Sangomore
Sandwood
Special
journey
Stopped
off
No
response
80
17
3
–
64
36
–
23
–
83
17
–
92
8
–
100
–
–
44
9
47
–
78
22
–
77
–
23
–
65
30
5
Percentages of all parties interviewed
Finally the interviewees were asked if they had any thoughts about the future planning of the beach areas
which they were visiting (table 14). This question was asked in open-ended form, and a considerable time
had elapsed since the interviewees had been asked the question on which facilities they would like to see
provided (table 4). Therefore they are unlikely to have been strongly influenced by the previous question.
The outcome, however, was similar to that shown in table 4; the overwhelming response was a wish to
keep the beach as it was, and, in particular, to keep it from being commercialised. Even at Clachtoll and
Sangomore, where the levels of expressed satisfaction were lowest, more than 40% of the parties wished
the status quo to be maintained. Improvement of facilities was nowhere mentioned (in this open-ended
question) by more than about one quarter of the interviewees, and thoughts that could be categorised as
‘tidy-up’ occurred in less than one in five of the parties. There seems therefore to be a strong wish on the
part of tourists to retain the existing character of the beaches, and to avoid developments which might impair
the character.
162
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 14
(continued)
Have you any thoughts about this beach area which you would like to be taken
into account in planning for the future use of the area?
1
‘Leave
it as
it is’
2
‘Keep it
uncommercialised’
Achmelvich
50
27
77
–
7
17
–
Clachtoll
36
7
43
7
18
20
11
Oldshoremore
53
10
63
27
–
7
3
Sandwood
83
17
100
–
–
–
–
Balnakeil
58
11
69
4
13
9
4
Sangomore
33
16
49
26
12
7
7
1+2
‘Improve
facilities’
‘Tidy
up’
Other
No
thoughts
Percentages of all parties interviewed
Crofters’/farmers’ perception
The views of the local resident population, and particularly of those with a tenurial interest in the machair
areas, are probably even more important than the views of summer visitors. Thus a survey of the agricultural
users of the beach complexes was undertaken in order to obtain an impression of how the machairs looked
through their eyes. Five out of the six beach complexes are (or were until recently) held as common grazings,
while the sixth (Balnakeil) is under private tenure. Several problems beset this survey, not the least of which
was the tracking down of the shareholders in the various common grazings. Some parts of the grazings were
common to all shareholders and other parts only to some, while some crofters had de facto but not de jure
use. A number of shareholders were away temporarily or permanently, and some were too aged or too
infirm to be interviewed. Nevertheless the crofters who were interviewed in all probability were the most
active in their townships.
Interviews with the agricultural users centred on two main areas of interest – on how the crofters saw
the erosional problem in their area, and on how they saw the usefulness and limitations of the machair.
The same types of problems of survey design existed as in the tourist study, and in particular it was difficult
to sound out crofters’ real feelings towards machair erosion without specifically mentioning the subject.
Furthermore, formal interviews and rigid statistical analysis were less appropriate than with the tourist survey,
and the ‘feeling’ of the interview was as important as the detailed statistical breakdown of the results.
The first question and its responses are set out in table 15a.
Perhaps the main point emerging here is the relatively low percentage of crofters who feel that the machair
area is very important to the working of their croft. Apart from Balnakeil Farm, where the dunes and machair
play a vital part in the farm economy by providing wintering ground, less than half the common grazings
shareholders interviewed feel that the machair is very important to them. On the other hand, the heavily used
and severely eroded machairs at Achmelvich and Clachtoll are now regarded as of little or no agricultural
importance. Confirmation of this conclusion is seen in table 15b.
163
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 15a
(continued)
How impor tant to the successful working of your croft or farm is the dune and
machair area*?
No. of
respondents
Very
important
Important
Of little or
no importance
Achmelvich
2
–
–
2
Clachtoll
5
–
1
4
Oldshoremore
3
–
3
–
Sandwood
7
3
2
2
Balnakeil
1
1
–
–
Sangomore
7
3
1
3
* Within croft, farm or common grazing
Table 15b
Acre for acre, do you think that the machair land is more or less valuable for
crofting or farming than the rest of your land?
No. of
respondents
More
Less
Other/qualified
response
Achmelvich
2
–
2
–
Clachtoll
5
–
4
1
Oldshoremore
3
2
1
–
Sandwood
7
1
2
4
Balnakeil
1
1
–
–
Sangomore
7
–
5
2
At the heavily used and severely eroded machairs of Achmelvich, Clachtoll and Sangomore the machair is
now seen as less valuable, on an acre for acre basis, than the rest of the croft area. On the other hand
at Oldshoremore and Balnakeil, which are both less used by caravanning and less eroded, the feeling is
that the machair land is more valuable. It would seem therefore, as erosion progresses, and perhaps as
recreational use builds up, that the perceived agricultural importance of the machair declines. While this
conclusion might seem obvious, it is also to some extent rather surprising that the crofters should be prepared
to admit the minor importance which they attach to the machair areas, given the strong attachment to land
and to grazing rights in crofting areas.
The main limitations to the usefulness of the machairs were seen largely as the physical problems of
sand-blow. Several crofters could think of no limitations, and the occasional individual (even at Sandwood)
felt that tourists were the main hazard. But not more than one respondent, even at the beaches used
heavily for recreation, quoted tourists as being the main limitation at any beach. By far the most frequent
response was sand-blow. The frequency of mention of sand-blow as the main limitation is indicated in
table 16.
164
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 16
(continued)
What are the main limitations to the usefulness of your machair area?
No. of
respondents
No. of
mentions of
sand-blow
No. of
mentions of
tourists
No response
or ‘nothing’
Other
Achmelvich
2
2
0
0
0
Clachtoll
5
2
1
2
0
Oldshoremore
3
1
0
2
0
Sandwood
7
4
1
0
2
Balnakeil
1
0
1
0
1
Sangomore
7
5
0
2
0
At Sangomore in particular, sand-blow was seen as a major limitation, and despite the fact that the
Sangomore machair was still ‘very important,’ they also contended that the sand-blow problem had rendered
the machair almost useless.
Awareness of erosion and sand-blow is further evidenced by the responses to a question on whether any
changes on the beach or machair had been noticed during the time the interviewee had lived in the area.
These responses are set out in table 17.
Table 17
(a) Have you noticed any changes in the beach or machair during the time you
have lived here?
(b) If yes, could you describe these changes for me please?
(a)
(b)
Mean
length of
residence
(years)
No
Yes
Erosion
More
sand
Less
grass
Other
Achmelvich
(2)
50
–
2
–
1
2
–
Clachtoll
(5)
38
–
5
1
4
2
1
Oldshoremore
(3)
50
1
2
–
–
1
1
Sandwood
(7)
56
6
1
–
1
–
–
Balnakeil
(1)
30
–
1
1
–
–
–
Sangomore
(7)
37
2
5
–
2
4
1
No. of respondents in brackets
Except at Sandwood, where the fact that the machair and beach had not been seen for many years by
some of the respondents may partially explain the anomalous pattern compared with the other beaches,
there does seem to be an awareness of the dynamic nature of the beach complexes. On being questioned
about the types of changes noticed if positive responses were given, most people felt that more sand and
less grass were now visible compared with their recollection of the machair in the past. This conclusion was
confirmed at least in part by the responses to the next question (table 18).
165
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 18
(continued)
Some say that these bare patches in the machair are getting bigger, others say
that they are not. What do you think?
Bigger
Not bigger
Achmelvich
(2)
2
–
Clachtoll
(5)
3
1
(plus one ’don’t know’)
Oldshoremore
(3)
–
3
Sandwood
(7)
4
3
Balnakeil
(1)
1
–
Sangomore
(7)
4
3
No. of respondents in brackets
Except at Oldshoremore, a majority felt that the bare sand patches in the machair were getting bigger.
Thus there is some evidence to support the view that the local agricultural users see machair erosion as
a real and growing problem, which reduced the usefulness of the machair for grazing. Unlike the tourists,
the crofters see the bare sand patches in the machair in a negative light, but like the visitors they feel that
steps should be taken to prevent the patches from enlarging (table 19).
Table 19
Do you or do you not think that anything should be done to prevent these patches
from getting bigger?
Yes
No
Achmelvich
(2)
2
0
Clachtoll
(5)
5
0
Oldshoremore
(3)
0
3
Sandwood
(7)
4
3
Balnakeil
(1)
1
0
Sangomore
(7)
4
3
No. of respondents in brackets
At Clachtoll and Achmelvich the wish for remedial action is unanimous, while all of the three crofters giving
a negative response at Sangomore added, quite spontaneously and without prompting, that they felt
that action was no longer worth taking as the usefulness of the machair was now negligible. Only at
Oldshoremore, where the erosion problems are much less both in real and perceived terms, was there a
strong feeling that no action need be taken.
There is evidence, therefore, that not only do the crofters perceive an erosion problem which they feel
reduces the value of their land, but that they would also welcome remedial action, providing, presumably,
that it could be offered on acceptable terms and conditions.
Further, there is some awareness that biotic factors have contributed to erosion problems, at least in some areas.
Table 20 indicates that no single factor is perceived as being the sole cause of the problem (except at
Balnakeil) and that the most popular combination of perceived causes is wind and weather together with
rabbits.
166
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Table 20
(continued)
How do you think these erosion patches developed?
Tourist use
Wind & weather
Rabbits
Sheep grazing
Achmelvich
(2)
1
1
2
0
Clachtoll
(5)
1
4
2
0
Oldshoremore
(3)
1
2
2
0
Sandwood
(7)
1
6
5
0
Balnakeil
(1)
0
0
0
1
Sangomore
(7)
4
7
1
0
No. of respondents in brackets
The attitudes of the crofters towards tourists on the beach complexes, are essentially neutral (table 21).
Table 21
How do you feel about tourists visiting this beach area?
Welcome
them
No objections/
neutral
Dislike
them
Achmelvich
1
1
0
Clachtoll
1
3
1
Oldshoremore
2
1
–
Sandwood
1
6
–
Balnakeil
–
1
–
Sangomore
2
3
1
At all the beaches the most frequent response was one of ‘no objections’ and positive approvals tended to
outweigh disapprovals. Thus there is no evidence of antagonism towards tourists on the beach complexes.
Comparisons between user groups
To test for differences in perception and attitudes between the tourist and agricultural users, some questions
were posed to both groups. The first question was ’prior to this interview, did you notice any of the following
features on the beach or the area around it?’ This question was asked before any specific questions on
awareness of machair erosion, so that there should be no influence from leading questions. The response of
the tourists has been discussed (table 5); the responses of the agricultural group are set out in table 22.
Inter-group comparisons are difficult because of the small sample sizes at each beach. If the responses from
individual beaches, however, are aggregated, then comparisons become more meaningful. The validity of
aggregation depends on the fact that similar proportions of tourists and crofters were interviewed at the
group 1 and group 2 beaches (Achmelvich, Clachtoll and Sangomore form group 1, the heavily used and
badly eroded beaches, while the remaining group 2 units are less used and less eroded). Of all the tourist
parties interviewed, 57% were at group 1 beaches and 43 at group 2 units, while the percentages for
crofters were 56 and 44.
167
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
The main contrasts seem to be limited to awareness and concern about erosional features. Of the agricultural
group, 22 out of 25 interviewees (88%) noticed the worn patches, while only 52% of all the tourists were
aware of these features. Likewise, 40% of the crofters were worried by the worn patches, compared with
11% of the visitors.
Therefore awareness, concern, and the ratio of those concerned to those aware are all higher in the
crofters’ group. There are, of course, good reasons why this should be so; the crofter has had a greater
and longer familiarity with the machair than the tourist, he sees it in winter when there is more
geomorphological activity and it contributes, or has contributed, to his livelihood. Yet such predictable
results do not always emerge, and it is perhaps encouraging from the view-point of the possible
implementation of rehabilitation schemes that the conclusions that the crofters were sensitive to the problem
of machair erosion have been reinforced.
Table 22
Crofters’ perception of adverse features
(a) Prior to this inter view, did you notice any of the following features on the
beach or the area around it?
(b) Do any of these features which you have noticed worr y you?
Water
pollution
Damage to ground
vegetation
Burnt patches
Rubbish pits
Worn patches
where bare sand
has been exposed
Litter
Water
pollution
Damage to ground
vegetation
Burnt patches
Rubbish pits
Worn patches
where bare sand
has been exposed
(b)
Litter
(a)
Achmelvich
(2)
1
–
–
–
–
1
1
–
–
–
–
1
Clachtoll
(5)
5
–
2
–
2
5
4
–
1
–
1
4
Oldshoremore
(3)
5
–
1
–
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
Balnakeil
(7)
–
–
1
1
1
1
–
–
1
–
–
1
Sandwood
(1)
2
–
3
1
–
6
–
–
1
–
–
2
Sangomore
(7)
2
–
3
–
1
7
1
–
1
–
–
2
No. of respondents in brackets
Differences between crofters and recreationists in the perception of other adverse features were insignificant.
About 36% of the tourists compared with 40% of the crofters were, over the six beaches, aware of litter, and
20 and 24% respectively were worried about it. It would seem therefore that, apart from the erosional
features, little difference exists between how the permanent agricultural residents and the summer visitors see
their beach environment.
Although there is some evidence that the crofters were more aware of machair erosion than the tourists, their
feeling against caravanning on beach complexes was weaker. It has been shown that while about 60% of
tourists were neutral about caravanning, those against outweighed those in favour by a ratio of over two to
one (table 10). The proportions of crofters for and against, however, were evenly balanced, and over three-
168
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
(continued)
quarters were neutral (table 21). The very mild reaction of the crofters towards tourists is perhaps rather
surprising, if it is accepted that crofters see the recreational use of the machair as contributing to a reduction
in its usefulness to them. The conclusion once more must be that there is no strong antipathy between the
crofters and tourists (at least from the crofters’ side), and that the climate of feeling is not unfavourable for
multi-purpose use to continue.
Finally, as a check for differences in perception and attitudes between tourists and crofters, and the
academics producing this report, and as a means of calibrating the verbal qualitative assessments described
in chapter 2.11, the applicability of a number of adjectives to each beach was investigated. Interviewees
were shown a list of adjectives and asked to indicate which they felt to be applicable, while the academics
simply ticked their own list while at the beach in question. The results are set out in table 23.
Inter-group comparisons must be made with caution because of the small numbers involved in the groups.
Nevertheless there seems to be some evidence that the crofters and academics take a rather less rosy view
than do the tourists. More tourists than crofters thought that each of the six beaches was attractive; for
example neither of the two common grazings shareholders interviewed at Achmelvich felt that their beach
area would accurately be described as attractive, whilst 93% of the tourist parties felt that it could.
The contrast is clearer when the word ‘scenic’ is considered: once more almost all tourists thought that
each unit was scenic, but only one out of five crofters at Clachtoll and one out of two at Achmelvich. But
it is in the more negative feelings that the bigger differences emerge. The academics and sizable minorities
of the crofters felt that Achmelvich, Clachtoll and Sangomore were crowded, but very few tourists felt the
same way. Likewise, very few tourists thought that any beach was neglected, but well over a third of
the crofters did. Perhaps the high response from the crofters to ‘neglected’ reflects their awareness that
the intensity of use and management is low, rather than their visual perception. Finally, use of ‘devastated’
and ‘squalid’ is almost totally confined to the academics; neither crofters nor tourists seem to have such
strongly negative views.
Clearly such results must be treated with caution. Numbers of respondents are small, and the point should
be made that tourists who dislike the beach will in all probability not be interviewed, as they will either not
stop at the beach, or stay at it only for a very short time, and thereafter make no return visits. Nevertheless,
it does seem that the tourists have a more favourable perception of the beach complexes than either crofters
or academics. This would confirm the suspicion that the authors of this report do not necessarily see all the
beaches in the Highlands and Islands in the same way as do the tourists, and that the adjectives used by
the authors to describe the various beaches are probably less bright and glowing than those which the
tourists would use. The contrasts, in so far as they are valid, would also further support the earlier conclusions
that the crofters have no illusions that all is well in the management of the beach complexes. Although the
evidence may be fragmentary and incomplete, it all points in the same direction – crofters do perceive
adverse features in the machair environment. As in the case of attitudes towards caravanning, this conclusion
might be taken as evidence of a climate of opinion which is basically favourable to multi-purpose use, and
to the possible implementation of machair management and rehabilitation schemes.
169
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix I
Sangomore
90
67
40
57
13
30
3
–
–
Crofters
(2)
–
50
50
50
–
50
50
100
–
–
Academics
(3)
67
67
–
33
33
100
–
–
100
–
(40)
93
80
80
11
54
5
20
9
–
–
Crofters
(5)
80
20
–
–
–
40
60
40
–
–
Academics
(3)
–
67
–
33
–
100
–
33
100
66
(30)
100
93
97
47
90
–
–
–
–
–
Crofters
(3)
100
100
100
33
100
–
–
–
–
–
Academics
(3)
67
67
67
–
67
–
–
33
–
–
(12)
92
100
100
83
83
–
–
–
8
–
Crofters
(7)
71
86
86
71
14
29
57
57
14
–
Academics
(3)
100
100
100
67
67
–
–
–
–
–
(45)
98
93
67
40
96
4
4
4
2
–
Farm manager
(1)
/
/
/
–
/
/
/
–
–
–
Academics
(3)
67
33
–
33
33
–
67
33
–
–
(44)
100
97
77
37
88
5
12
9
–
–
Crofters
(7)
100
100
86
57
86
43
29
43
–
–
Academics
(3)
–
33
–
–
–
67
33
33
67
100
Tourists
Tourists
Tourists
Tourists
Tourists
Squalid
93
Devastated
(30)
Tourists
Neglected
Bleak
Balnakeil
Crowded
Sandwood
Inviting
Oldshoremore
Spectacular
Clachtoll
Unspoilt
Achmelvich
Scenic
Which of the following words do you think accurately describe this beach area?
Attractive
Table 23
(continued)
(Figures are in percentages)
Notes: The group of academics consists of the authors of this report, together with their colleague Dr. J.S. Smith who was
involved in the compilation of some of the county beach reports.
‘Crofters’ refers to shareholders in common grazings. Numbers in brackets indicate number of respondents – tourist
numbers relate to parties, not individuals.
The limitations of this very small-scale investigation of the perceptions and attitudes of the two main user
groups are obvious, and the findings can represent no more than a preliminary exploration or reconnaissance
of a large and little-known field. The number of interviews on which the findings are based is small, and it
would certainly be unjustifiable to attempt to make inferences about beaches in other parts of the Highlands
and Islands on the basis of the experience in north-west Sutherland.
Nevertheless, the types of results which emerge from this pilot study are very relevant to the planning and
management of the beach resource. Unless planning and management take into account the attitudes of the
resource users, they are likely to be doomed to failure, irrespective of the adequacy of the factual base of
information on the physical nature of the resource. It is therefore suggested that the detailed analysis of the
beach resource, which the main part of this work represents, should be complemented by a comparable
analysis of the attitudes of the users, as well as of the patterns of demand.
170
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
List of beaches included in this study
This study has been based on the following beaches: for criteria for inclusion, please see chapter 1. Details of
the Beach Reports in which the beaches are described are set out at the end of the Bibliography.
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Achaidh Mhoir
NM664922
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Achateny
NM520706
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Achininver
NC573650
Highland
Sutherland
–
–
Achmelvich
NC056248
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Achnahaird Bay
NC019138
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Allasdale
NF658037
Western Isles
–
Barra
4
A’Mhachair
NM267237
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
lona
5
An Doirlin
NR655542
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Gigha
11
Applecross Bay
NG713455
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Ardalanish Bay
NM375188
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Ard Bhan
NG700398
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
–
Ardnacross
NR760252
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Ardnamurchan Point
NM423675
Highland
Lochaber
–
Ardnave
NR291742
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Ardskenish
NR348919
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
11
Ardtala
NR466545
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Ardtoe
NM628708
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Armadale Bay
NC794647
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Ayre of Cara
ND477952
Orkney
–
Burray
9
Backaskaill Bay
HY647394
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Back of Keppoch
NM646883
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Bagh Ban
NL608870
Western Isles
–
Pabbay, Barra
–
Bagh Chrossapol
NM384540
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Bagh a Dheas
NL635938
Western Isles
–
Vatersay
4
Bagh an da Doruis
NR414788
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
5
11
Bagh na Doide
NR701763
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Bagh a Ghallanaich
NM407803
Highland
Lochaber
Muck
12
7
Bagh Gleann nam Muc
NM690003
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
11
Bagh an Trailleich
NM212613
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Balephetrish
NM010473
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Balephuill
NL950407
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Baleshare
NF782612
Western Isles
–
North Uist
Balintore
NH860750
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Ballavanich
NF785564
Western Isles
–
Benbecula
4
Balnakeil Bay
NC393695
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Balranald
NF711685
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
4
Balta Island
HP658077
Shetland
–
Unst
10
Banna Minn
HU365306
Shetland
–
West Burra
10
Barrapoll
NL938417
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Barvas
NB345515
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
171
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Baugh/Heanish
NM039435
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
Bay of Brough
HY457473
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Creekland
HY236045
Orkney
–
Hoy
9
Bay of Garth
HY470488
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Greentoft
HY560289
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Bay of Laig
NM471883
Highland
Lochaber
Eigg
12
12
Bay of London
HY565343
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Bay of Lopness (East)
HY750443
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Lopness (West)
HY728435
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Meil
HY477118
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Bay of Moclett
HY492497
Orkney
–
Papa Westray
9
Bay of Newark
HY710403
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Noup
HY413492
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Sandgarth
HY520158
Orkney
–
Shapinsay
9
Bay of Sandquoy
HY740447
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Skaill
HY235190
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Bay of Skaill
HY456515
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Sowerdie
HY761461
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Swartmill
HY480462
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Tafts
HY497418
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Bay of Tresness
HY698393
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Bay of Tuquoy
HY455450
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Beasdaire
NF934824
Western Isles
–
Berneray
4
Bhasapoll
NL975480
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
Bight of Baywest
HY617241
Orkney
–
Stronsay
12
9
Bight of Bomasty
HY616237
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Bight of Scarma
HY656218
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Birsay
HY245271
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Bornish and Kildonan
NF723291
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Borve
NF647016
Western Isles
–
Barra
4
Borve Beg
NG033950
Western Isles
–
Harris
4
Borve More
NG025943
Western Isles
–
Harris
4
Bosta
NB136402
Western Isles
–
Gt. Bernera
–
Branahuie
NB477326
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Brekon
HP527053
Shetland
–
Yell
10
Bridgend
NR325620
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Brock
NM072472
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
13
Brodick Bay
NS014370
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
Brora (Dalchalm)
NC915045
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Brora (South)
NC908036
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Brunerican
NR730096
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Bunacaimb
NM648888
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Burga Sand
HP573043
Shetland
–
Unst
172
10
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Burrafirth
HP612142
Shetland
–
Unst
Burray Links
ND485974
Orkney
–
Burray
Cable Bay
NR388907
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
Calgary
NM373512
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Camas Ban
NG493425
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
12
Camas a Chruthaich
NG953917
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
–
10
9
11
Camas an Lighe
NM614691
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Camas Mor
NG757917
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
–
Camas Sgiotaig
NM472900
Highland
Lochaber
Eigg
12
Camasunary
NG514187
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
12
Camusdarroch
NM661918
Highland
Lochaber
–
Caolas Ban
NM115520
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Caoles/Urvaig
NM085495
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Carnish
NB029324
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
5
Carradale
NR810374
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Carsaig
NR735878
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Carsaig Bay
NM535218
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Carskey
NR665078
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Cille Barra
NF711071
Western Isles
–
Barra
4
Clachtoll
NC041272
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Claddich
NR163533
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
Clashnessie
NC057310
Highland
Sutherland
–
11
Cliad Bay
NM198603
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
Coilleag a Phrionsa
NF787108
Western Isles
–
Eriskay
–
Coldbackie
NC610604
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Coll Sands
NB463384
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Copinsay
HY608017
Orkney
–
Copinsay
–
Coral Beaches
NG224551
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
1
12
12
Corpach Beaches
NR570914
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
11
Corran
NR550713
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
11
Corran
NB045004
Western Isles
–
Taransay
–
Corran Seilebost
NG064976
Western Isles
–
Harris
3
Coul
NC815950
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Cove
NG811897
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
–
Crago
NG073976
Western Isles
–
Harris
3
Crakaig
NC960096
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Cravadale
NB014134
Western Isles
–
Harris
–
Creagan Coast
NM038490
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
Creag Thairbhe
NC407685
Highland
Sutherland
–
–
Cretshengan Bay
NR707668
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Crinan
NR797937
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Croisebrig
NR425999
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
Cromarty
NH785675
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
173
12
7
11
8
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Cross Sands
NB494628
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
Cul na Croise
NM622697
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Culla and Aird
NF764541
Western Isles
–
Benbecula
4
Cumley Bay
HY655280
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Cuthill Links
NH 744870
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Dalbeg
NB227459
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Daliburgh
NF730220
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Dalmore
NB215451
Western Isles
–
Lewis
4
Dell
NB488625
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
Dingyshowe
HY551034
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Dorlin
NM665724
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Dornoch North
NH807905
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Dornoch South
NH805885
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Doun Helzie North
HY627366
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Doun Helzie South
HY622362
Orkney
–
Sanday
Drumadoon Bay
NR892286
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
Dunaverty
NR685078
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
9
13
7
Dunskeig
NR752567
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Dunnet Bay
ND214695
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Embo
NH816920
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Ensay
NF975865
Western Isles
–
Ensay
–
Eochar to Dremisdale
NF751430
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Eoligarry
NF695065
Western Isles
–
Barra
4
Eoropie
NB512646
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Erraid-Knockvologan
NM308195
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Eswick
HU493538
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Etterick Bay
NS040660
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
13
Farr Bay
NC713626
Highland
Caithness
–
Feall Bay/Crossapol Bay NM137537
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Fidden
NM300214
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Fintray
NS159570
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Gt. Cumbrae
Fionnphort
NM302234
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Fiscavaig
NG334344
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
12
Foshigarry
NF743764
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Freswick
ND378675
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Frobost and Askernish
NF725250
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Gairloch
NG805754
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Galmisdale
NM485841
Highland
Lochaber
Eigg
Ganavan
NM862327
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Garry
NB535498
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Garrynamonie
NF739166
Western Isles
–
South Uist
Gartbreck/Ardlarach
NR288590
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
Garvie Bay
NC040137
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
174
1
13
12
4
11
–
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Giordale Sands
NB545466
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Glenbatrick
NR520803
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
11
Glengarrisdale
NR645968
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
11
Glen Brittle
NG410205
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
12
Golspie-Littleferry
NC815970
Highland
Sutherland
–
Gossabrough
HU530834
Shetland
–
Yell
10
Gott Bay
NM054474
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Greenhill
NL938441
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
3
8
Gress Sands
NB493412
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Gribun
NM452352
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Grobust
HY429495
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Grogport
NR810444
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Gruinard Bay
NG952899
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Gruinard Bay
(north beach)
NG953910
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Gualann
NF775478
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Gulberwick
HU443387
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Gunna
NM110516
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Gunna
12
Hallaman Bay
NF645007
Western Isles
–
Barra
Hogh Bay
NM168574
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
Honeysgeo
ND489933
Orkney
–
South Ronaldsay
4
12
9
Hosta area
NF716731
Western Isles
–
North Uist
Hough Bay
NL937465
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Housa Voe
HUI 83604
Shetland
–
Papa Stour
10
Howmore
NF750362
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Huney
HP647066
Shetland
–
Unst
4
Husinish
NA992121
Western Isles
–
Harris
Hynish
NL981388
Strathclyde
–
Tiree
Inganess Bay
HY476088
Orkney
–
Mainland
Inganoust
HY656224
Orkney
–
Stronsay
Inner Skaw
HP663158
Shetland
–
Unst
Inver-Arboll
NH870828
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Invernaver
NC705607
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Keoldale
NC383662
Highland
Sutherland
–
–
Kervaig Bay
NC290730
Highland
Sutherland
–
–
Killegray
NF975843
Western Isles
–
Killegray
–
Kilberry
NR702635
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Kilbride Bay
NR960669
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
13
Kilchattan Bay
NS100555
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
13
Kildonan
NS030210
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
13
Kilfinan Bay
NR921790
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
13
Kilkenneth
NL937450
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Killeyan
NR274435
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
175
4
3
12
9
9
10
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Killinallan
NR310725
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
Kilmory
NR699746
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Kilmory
NM524706
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Kilmory
NG364040
Highland
Lochaber
Rhum
Kilmote
NC977110
Highland
Sutherland
–
Kilnaughton
NR347453
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Kiloran Bay
NR400982
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
11
Kilpheder
NF730195
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Kintradwell
NC930080
Highland
Sutherland
–
8
Kirkibost
NF755650
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Kirk Sand
HU178599
Shetland
–
Papa Stour
Kyle of Durness
NC370670
Highland
Sutherland
–
Laggan Bay
NR315515
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Lamlash Bay
NS030310
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
13
Ledaig
NM905360
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Levenwick
HU413214
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Lingness
HU488549
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Linique
NF754462
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Linklet Bay
HY768540
Orkney
–
North Ronaldsay
9
Little Sand
NG756781
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
11
12
8
10
–
7
Loch Breachacha
NM162537
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Loch Buie
NM614247
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Loch Caolisport
NR761758
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Loch Gorton
NM175535
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
Loch Kerry
NG813737
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
Loch Staosnaig
NR390934
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
Loch Stornoway
NR737612
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Lossit Bay
NR179560
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
Lossit
NR626203
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Lundawick
HP570040
Shetland
–
Unst
Luskentyre
NG060994
Western Isles
–
Harris
Macharioch
NR738088
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Machair Bay
NR206625
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Machrie Bay
NR892340
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
13
Machrihanish Bay
NR653235
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Machrins
NR357931
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
Mae Banks
HY480304
Orkney
–
Egilsay
12
–
11
7
11
7
10
3
7
7
11
9
Mae Sand
HY445427
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Mangersta
NB008308
Western Isles
–
Lewis
2
Marwick
HY228243
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Maywick
HU376246
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Mealasta
NA991244
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
Mealasta Island
NA984218
Western Isles
–
Mealasta Island
–
176
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
Beach name
(continued)
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Melberry
ND264886
Orkney
–
Hoy
9
Melbost
NB460340
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Melby
HU187578
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Mellangaun
NG815885
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Mellon Charles
NG844910
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Mellon Udrigle
NG892957
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Melness
NC580610
Highland
Sutherland
–
–
Melvich Bay
NC885652
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Mheilein
NA997141
Western Isles
–
Harris
Mid Yell
HU517908
Shetland
–
Yell
Mill Bay
HY569359
Orkney
–
Eday
Mill Bay
HY660260
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Miller’s Bay
NR708677
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Millport
NS165550
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Gt. Cumbrae
–
10
9
13
Milton
NF726261
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Mingulay Bay
NL566831
Western Isles
–
Mingulay
–
Monach Isles
NF630622
Western Isles
–
Monach Isles
–
Morar (Toigal)
NM673924
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Morrich More
NH835856
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Muasdale
NR680410
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Mungasdale
NG966934
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Murkle
ND167694
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Newark
HY571043
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Newark Bay
ND468906
Orkney
–
South Ronaldsay
9
Newton
NF875770
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Nigg
NH805688
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Nisabost
NG045970
Western Isles
–
Harris
3
North lona
NM290260
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
lona
5
Northness
HY768527
Orkney
–
North Ronaldsay
9
Northton
NF981931
Western Isles
–
Harris
3
Northwick
HY499534
Orkney
–
Papa Westray
9
Norwick
HP652147
Shetland
–
Unst
Oldshoremore
NC198587
Highland
Sutherland
–
10
1
Opinan
NG744724
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Ormaclett
NF730320
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Ormsary
NR733722
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Oronsay
NR360883
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Oronsay
NF845762
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Oronsay
Otterswick
HY684442
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Paible
NF732666
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
11
Paible
NG032992
Western Isles
–
Taransay
–
Papa Stronsay
HY660296
Orkney
–
Papa Stronsay
9
Pierowall
HY440481
Orkney
–
Westray
9
177
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Polin (Oldshorebeg)
NC190592
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Polliwilline
NR743096
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Pool of Virkie
HU394113
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Port A’ Chapuill
NR384904
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
11
Port Ellen
NR363458
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Port nam Marbh
NR655270
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Portmahomack
NH914844
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
Port Mor
NR665541
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Gigha
8
Port of Ness
NB538638
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Port an t-Saoir
NM148552
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Port Uisken
NM392188
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Quendale
HU380128
Shetland
–
Mainland
Rackwick
ND204984
Orkney
–
Hoy
Reawick
HU329447
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
10
11
–
10
9
Redbanks
HY527108
Orkney
–
Mainland
Redpoint North
NG727686
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Redpoint South
NG735674
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Rerwick
HU375189
Shetland
–
Mainland
Rhunahaorine
NR696485
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
10
7
Rhuban
NF782123
Western Isles
–
Eriskay
–
Ronachan
NR742552
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Rosemarkie
NH740570
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
8
Rosinish
NF874537
Western Isles
–
Benbecula
–
Saligo Bay
NR208668
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Salum
NM067485
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Samhnan Insir
NG378045
Highland
Lochaber
Rhum
12
Sanaigmore
NR235710
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Sand
NG683488
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
Sandaig
NG771147
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Sandside Bay
NC963654
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Sandside Bay
HY589067
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Sandwick
HU434237
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Sandwick
HP618024
Shetland
–
Unst
10
Sandwood Bay
NC220654
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Sandybank
HY543314
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Sand of Beeman
HY529091
Orkney
–
Mainland
–
Sand of the Crook
HU193578
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
–
Sand of the Crook
HY663213
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Sands of Doomy
HY558344
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Sands of Evie
HY377263
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Sands of Meal
HU375354
Shetland
–
West Barra
Sands of Mussetter
HY545334
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Sands of Ness
HY541093
Orkney
–
Mainland
–
178
10
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Sands of Odie
HY630297
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Sand of Ouse
HY550074
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Sand of Rothiesholm
HY633245
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Sand of Sand
HU582923
Shetland
–
Fetlar
10
Sand of Sound
HU463399
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Sands of Woo
HY512409
Orkney
–
Westray
Sand of Wright
ND422938
Orkney
–
South Ronaldsay
Sand Voe
HU365909
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Sand Voe
HU350474
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
Sand Wick
ND434895
Orkney
–
South Ronaldsay
9
Sango Bay
NC408677
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
–
9
Sangobeg
NC428663
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Sanna Bay
NM444692
Highland
Lochaber
–
5
Sannick
ND397735
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Sannox
NS017455
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
Saviskaill Bay
HY402335
Orkney
–
Rousay
Scalpsie Bay
NS055583
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
13
9
13
Scapa Bay
HY441089
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Scar
HY672453
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Scarasta
NG007931
Western Isles
–
Harris
3
Scarinish
NM041445
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
Scolpaig
NF728757
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Scourie
NC151447
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Scousburgh
HU373180
Shetland
–
Mainland
Scrimpo
HY455323
Orkney
–
Rousay
12
10
9
Scurrival
NF701086
Western Isles
–
Barra
4
Scuthvie Bay
HY765445
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Sealskerry
HY534321
Orkney
–
Eday
9
Seana Chaisteal
NF893867
Western Isles
–
Pabbay, Harris
–
Seana Chamas
NG742845
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Sheigra
NC182600
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Sheader
NL630915
Western Isles
–
Sandray
–
Sheilavig Mor
NB513432
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
Shian Bay
NR531874
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
Siar
NA010008
Western Isles
–
Taransay
–
Siar
NL630950
Western Isles
–
Vatersay
4
Sinclair’s Bay
ND340580
Highland
Caithness
–
2
11
Skeo Taing
HP645085
Shetland
–
Unst
Skipness Bay
NR910574
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
10
7
Slaggan Bay
NG841941
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Smerclett
NF745147
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Sollas
NF812770
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Sorisdale Bay
NM273633
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
179
12
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
Beach name
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Beach
report no.
Sorobaidh
NL990424
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
South Bay
HY755525
Orkney
–
North Ronaldsay
12
9
South-East Sandray
NL654909
Western Isles
–
Sandray
–
South Glenbarr
and Bellochantuy
NR661345
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
South Glendale
NF801145
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Southwest Benbecula
NF769500
Western Isles
–
Benbecula
4
Southwick
HY496524
Orkney
–
Papa Westray
9
Sraid Ruadh
NL955476
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
St. Catherine’s Bay
HY645260
Orkney
–
Stronsay
St. Ninian’s
HU372208
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
9
St. Ninian’s Bay
NS040615
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
13
Stoer
NC039283
Highland
Sutherland
–
1
Stoneybridge
NF735334
Western Isles
–
South Uist
4
Stotfield Bay
NR713683
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
Strath
NG800770
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
6
Strathy Bay
NC836660
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Stravanan Bay
NS078562
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Bute
Stursy
HY620294
Orkney
–
Stronsay
9
Sty Wick
HY685393
Orkney
–
Sanday
9
Sumburgh
HU400100
Shetland
–
Mainland
Swainbost
NB501636
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Swarister
HU526838
Shetland
–
Yell
10
Talisker
NG314303
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
12
Talmine
NC588625
Highland
Sutherland
–
Tarbert Bay
NR607821
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Jura
12
12
13
10
3
–
Tarskavaig
NG587088
Highland
Skye and Lochalsh
Skye
Tayinloan
NR694468
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
7
The Ayre
ND288892
Orkney
–
Hoy
9
The Ouse
HY455510
Orkney
–
Westray
9
Thurso Bay
ND117687
Highland
Caithness
–
2
Tigharry and Hougharry NF705712
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Tong
NB448353
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Torrisdale
NC690620
Highland
Caithness
–
1
Torrylinnwaterfoot
NR963203
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
13
Traigh
NM655902
Highland
Lochaber
–
Traigh Bagh
NM005438
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
Traigh Baile Fo Thuath
NF906875
Western Isles
–
Pabbay, Harris
Traigh nam Barc
NR358917
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Colonsay
Traigh na Berie
NB107358
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Traigh Bhan
NR214700
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Traigh Bhan, Oa
NR345441
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
11
Traigh Bhousd
NM256643
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
180
5
12
–
11
3
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix II
(continued)
National grid
reference
Region or
islands area
District
Island
Traigh Cill Mhic
Eoghainn
NM400190
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Traigh Cille lonnaig
NM221623
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Traigh na Clibhe
NB083365
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Traigh Gheal
NM340175
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Traigh Logabhaig
NM268643
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Beach name
Beach
report no.
3
Traigh na Luibe
NF856810
Western Isles
–
Boreray
–
Traigh Mhor
N280230
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
lona
5
Traigh Mhor
NB147412
Western Isles
–
Little Bernera
–
Traigh Mhor Tolsta
NB544484
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Traigh Rebac
NB490401
Western Isles
–
Lewis
–
Traigh na Reill
NF729085
Western Isles
–
Fuday
Traigh an t-Santachaidh
NM340248
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Mull
5
Traigh Shourie
NC140474
Highland
Sutherland
Handa
–
Traigh na Teampuill
NC146475
Highland
Sutherland
Handa
–
Traigh Thorastain
NM232630
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Traigh Tuath
(Rudha Sgor-lnnis)
NM272640
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
12
Traigh na h’Uamhag
NC443656
Highland
Sutherland
–
Traigh nam Uan
NM243635
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Coll
Traigh Varlish
NL619972
Western Isles
–
Vatersay
Tralee Bay
NM895389
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
–
Tussleby Sand
HU176596
Shetland
–
Papa Stour
Uidhe
NL660958
Western Isles
–
Vatersay
Uig Sands
NB040327
Western Isles
–
Lewis
Uisgeantuidhe
NR280633
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Islay
Unnamed beach
NB149410
Western Isles
–
Little Bernera
1
12
4
7
10
–
3
11
–
Unnamed beach
NG385043
Highland
Lochaber
Rhum
Vallay
NF782765
Western Isles
–
North Uist
4
Valtos
NB097367
Western Isles
–
Lewis
3
Vaul
NM054485
Strathclyde
Argyll and Bute
Tiree
12
Veantrow Bay
HY510192
Orkney
–
Shapinsay
9
Warebeth
HY234088
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
Wastbist
HY485428
Orkney
–
Westray
–
Waulkmill Bay
HY378068
Orkney
–
Mainland
9
West Ayre (Hillswick)
HU278771
Shetland
–
Mainland
10
West Coast Beach
NF911834
Western Isles
–
Berneray
Westsandwick
HU444890
Shetland
–
Yell
12
3
10
Whitemill Bay
HY692464
Orkney
–
Sanday
Whiting Bay
NS038260
Strathclyde
Cunninghame
Arran
13
Wick of Skaw
HP660166
Shetland
–
Unst
10
10
Wick of Tresta
HU606904
Shetland
–
Fetlar
Wilkhaven
NH944870
Highland
Ross and Cromarty
–
181
9
8
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix III Classification of beach complexes
Three main classes of beach complexes are recognised (see chapter 2.4). These are B-type beaches, where
the blown-sand component is absent or of negligible extent in relation to the beach area, T-type beaches,
where dunes are absent or of very small extent, and F-type beaches, where the beach complex consists of
beach, dunes and machair.
I – B-type beach complexes
B1 units, consisting of beach only, with no blown-sand.
Port of Ness
Mealasta
Giordale Sands
Tarskavaig
Fiscavaig
Talisker
Kilmory
Unnamed (Rhum)
Carsaig
Sorisdale
St. Ninian’s (Bute)
Millport
Whiting Bay
Lamlash
Cromarty
Thurso Bay
Garvie Bay
Seana Chamas
Strath (Gairloch)
Loch Kerry
Maywick
Sandwick
Gulberwick
West Ayre (Hillswick)
Mid Yell
Swarister
Gossabrough
Sand of Sand
Bight of Baywest
Stursy
Sand of Ness
Sands of Beeman
Redbanks
Sands of Wideford
Saviskaill
Sands of Woo
Bay of Greentoft
Mill Bay
B2 units, where the beach area is more than four times greater than the blown-sand area. (Asterisked units
have beach areas more than eight times greater than their blown-sand areas).
Galmisdale*
Bay of Laig
Camas Sgiotaig
Fionnphort*
Traigh Gheal*
Tarbert Bay*
Bridgend
Gartbreck/Ardlarach*
Crinan*
Loch Caolisport
Loch Stornoway
Kilfinan
Polliwilline
Kilchattan*
Scalpsie
Etterick*
Torrylinnwaterfoot
Kildonan*
Cuthill Links*
Melness*
Sangobeg
Gruinard South*
Slaggan Bay
Sand*
Applecross*
Rerwick
Sand Voe (North Roe)*
Inganoust*
182
Bight of Bomasty
Veartrow Bay*
Sand of Wright
Scapa Bay*
Waulkmill Bay*
Newark (Deerness)
Bay of Meil
The Ouse
Bay of Tuquoy*
Bay of Creekland
The Ayre
Corran Seilibost
Ormsary
Port Ellen*
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix III
(continued)
II – T-type beach complexes
T1 units, with beach and machair but without dunes.
Dell
Dalmore
Traigh Mhor (Lt. Bernera)
Unnamed (Lt. Bernera)
Carnish
Mealasta Island
Garry
Sheilavig Mor
Traigh Rebac
Sandaig
Camas Ban
Camasunary
Coral Beaches
Glen Brittle
Achateny
Ardtoe
Back of Keppoch
Bunacaimb
Dorlin
Traigh
Bagh a’ Ghallanaich
Bagh Chrossapol
Calgary
Knockvoligan
Gribun
Port Uisken
Port an t-Saoir
Loch Gorten
Traigh Tuath
Traigh Logabhaig
Creagan Coast
Brock
Scarinish Area
Baugh/Heanish
Hynish Coast
Loch Staosnaig
Bagh Gleann nam Muc
Inner Skaw
Balta lsland
Skeo Taing
Huney
Sandwick (Unst)
Burga Sand
Papa Stronsay
Cumley Bay
Glengarrisdale
Corpach Coast
South Bay
Linklett Bay
Northness
Husinish
Crago
Cravadale
Beasdaire (Berneray)
Boreray
Fo Tuath (Pabbay, Harris)
Scolpaig
Stoneybridge
Smerclett
South Glendale
Claddich
Sanaigmore
Bagh am da Dhorius
Ardtala
Uisgeantuidhe
Carsaig
Stotfield
Miller’s Bay
Cretshengan
Grogport
Ardnacross
Wilhaven
Brora (South)
Brora (Dalchalm)
Sannick
Invernaver
Talmine
Achininver
Kervaig Bay
Keoldale
Sheigra
Scourie
Bight of Scarma
Sand of Rothiesholm
Bay of Sandgarth
Birsay
Marwick
Bay of Skaill
Warebeth
Scrimpo
183
Clashnessie
Stoer
Clachtoll
Achmelvich
Mellon Udrigle
Mellon Charles
Mellangaun
Cove
Camas Mor
Ard Bhan (Applecross)
Pool of Virkie
Rhuban
Sandray-Sheader
Sandray-Main
Pabbay (Barra)
Mingulay
Bagh a Dheas
Uidhe
Shian
Fintray
Port nam Marbh
Bagh na Doide
Killeyan
Levenwick
Sand of Sound
Eswick
Lingness
Sands of Meal
Banna Minn
Reawick
Sand of the Crook
Melby
Kirk Sand
Tussleby Sand
Housa Voe
Burrafirth
Wick of Skaw
Bay of Noup
Grobust
Bay of Skaill
Bay of Tafts
Wasbist
Bay of Moclett
Southwick
Northwick
Sandybank
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix III
(continued)
T2 units, where dune area is less than 4% of total blown-sand area.
Swainbost
Barvas
Traigh Valtos
Traigh na Clibhe
Gress
Branahuie
Achaidh Mhor
Traigh an t-Santachaidh
Loch Breachacha
Sraidh Ruadh
Vaul
Caoles Urvaig
Gott Bay
Traigh Bagh
Sorobaidh
Barrapoll
Greenhill
Hough
Machrins
Saligo
Kilnaughton
Tralee Bay
Kilberry
South Glenbarr-Bellochantuy
Carskey
Carradale
Stravanan
Golspie-Littleferry
Freswick
Dunnet Bay
Farr
Sango Bay
Oldshorebeg
Achnahaird Bay
St. Ninian’s (Shetland)
Sand of the Crook
(Stronsay)
Sand of Odie
Newark Bay (South Ronaldsay)
Sandside Bay (Orkney)
Mae Sand
Bay of Swartmill
Pierowall
Bay of London
Scar
Whitemill Bay
Otterswick
Bay of Sandquoy
Bay of Sowerdie
Bay of Lopness (East)
Sty Wick
Doun Helzie (South)
Doun Helzie (North)
Northton
Borve Beg
Coilleag a’ Phrionnsa
Varlish
III – F-type beaches, with beach, dune and machair
Eoropie
Cross
Dalbeg
Bosta
Traigh na Berie
Ardroil
Mangersta
Traigh Mhor Tolsta
Coll
Tong
Melbost
Ardnamurchan Point
Camas an Lighe
Camusdarroch
Cul na Croise
Morar
Sanna Bay
Samhnan Insir
Kilmory (Rhum)
Ardalanish
Fidden
Loch Buie
Traigh Cill Mhic
Balephetrish
Salum
Balephuill
Kilkenneth
Croisebrig
Kiloran
Ardskenish
Traigh nam Barc
Port a’Chapuill
Cable Bay
Oronosay
An Doirlinn
Port Mor
Glenbatrick
Corran
Lossit (Islay)
Machir
Traigh Bhan
Ardnave
Killinallan
Traigh Bhan, Oa
Laggan
Ledaig
184
Machrie
Drumadoon
Brodick
Rosemarkie
Nigg
Balintore
Portmahomack
Inver-Arboll
Morrich More
Dornoch South
Dornoch North
Embo
Coul Links
Kintradwell
Crakaig
Kilmote
Sinclair’s Bay
Murkle
Sandside
Melvich
Strathy
Armadale
Torrisdale Bay
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix III
(continued)
III – F-type beaches, with beach, dune and machair
Eoghainn
A’Machair
North Iona
Traigh Mhor (Iona)
Gunna
Caolas Ban
Feall Bay/Crossapol Bay
Hogh Bay
Traigh Bousdh
Traigh nan Uan
Traigh Thorastain
Traigh Cille Ionnaig
Bagh an Trailleich
Cliad Bay
Bhasapoll
Little Sand
Gairloch
Opinan
Redpoint North
Redpoint South
Sumburgh
Quendale
Scousburgh
Sand Voe
Westsandwick
Brekon
Wick of Tresta
Norwick
Lunda Wick
Mill Bay
St. Catherine’s Bay
Copinsay
Burray Links
Honeysgeo
Sandwick (South Ronaldsay)
Ayre of Cara
Dingyshowe
Sand of Ouse
Sands of Evie
Mae Banks
Bay of Skaill (Westray)
Bay of Brough
Bay of Garth
Sealskerry Bay
Sands of Mussetter
Ganavan
Kilmory (Knapdale)
Ronachan
Rhunahaorine
Tayinloan
Muasdale
Machrihanish
Lossit (Kintyre)
Dunaverty
Brunerican
Dunskeig
Kilbride
Skipness
Macharioch
Sannox
Sands of Doomy
Rackwick
Melberry
Scuthvie Bay
Bay of Lopness (West)
Bay of Newark
Bay of Tresness
Backaskaill Bay
Scarasta
Borve More
Nisabost
Luskentyre
Mheilein
Paible (Taransay)
Siar (Taransay)
Corran (Taransay)
Killegray
Ensay
West Coast Berneray
Boreray
Chaisteal (Pabbay)
Fo Tuath (Pabbay)
Monach Islands
Newton
Oronsay (N. Uist)
Fuday
Mingulay
Siar and Vatersay Bay
Sollas
Vallay
185
(continued)
Coldbackie
Traigh Allt Chailgeag
Creag Thairbe
Balnakeil
Kyle of Durness
Keoldale
Oldshoremore
Sandwood
Clashnessie
Traigh na Teampuill
Traigh Shourie
Mungasdale
Camas a Chruthaich
Gruinard North
Camas Mor
Hosta
Tigharry and Hougharry
Balranald
Paible
Kirkibost
Baleshare
Foshigarry
Rosinish
S.W. Benbecula
Culla and Aird
Ballavanich
Borve
Hallaman
Gualann
Linique
Eochar to Dremisdale
Howmore
Stoneybridge
Ormaclett
Bornish and Kildonan
Milton
Frobost and Askernish
Daliburgh
Kilpheder
Garrynamonie
Scurrival
Cille Barra
Eoligarry
Allasdale
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix IV Recommendations relating to specific beach complexes
The following lists have been synthesised from recommendations contained in the regional beach reports,
produced between 1969 and 1975. Further details on the nature of the recommendations are available
in these reports. Please see chapter 1 and Bibliography for details of these reports.
A
Beaches requiring comprehensive management or restoration
Sandside Bay (Orkney Mainland)
Warebeth (Orkney Mainland)
Sango Bay (Sutherland)
Clachtoll (Sutherland)
Gruinard South (Ross and Cromarty)
Mellongaun (Ross and Cromarty)
Opinan (Ross and Cromarty)
Morar (Lochaber)
Ardtoe (Lochaber)
Saligo (Islay)
Ganavan (Argyll)
Brodick (Arran)
B
Bay of Skaill (Orkney Mainland)
Scapa Bay (Orkney Mainland)
Clashnessie (Sutherland)
Achmelvich (Sutherland)
Mellon Udrigle (Ross and Cromarty)
Gairloch (Ross and Cromarty)
Balintore (Ross and Cromarty)
Traigh (Lochaber)
Calgary (Mull)
Tralee (Argyll)
Whiting Bay (Arran)
Lamlash (Arran)
Beaches requiring minor works such as erosion control, refuse removal, footpath
provision or rabbit extermination
Scousburgh (Shetland)
Sands of Meal (Shetland)
Dingyshowe (Orkney)
Sty Wick (Orkney)
Dunnet Bay (Caithness)
Invernaver (Sutherland)
Brora South (Sutherland)
Embo (Sutherland)
Kervaig Bay (Sutherland)
Gruinard North (Ross and Cromarty)
Redpoint North (Ross and Cromarty)
Camasunary (Skye)
Branahuie (Lewis)
Nisabost (Harris)
Hosta (North Uist)
Eoligarry (Barra)
Sraid Ruadh (Tiree)
Greenhill (Tiree)
Sanaigmore (Islay)
Laggan (Islay)
Ardalanish (Mull)
A’Mhachair (lona)
Achaidh Mhoir (Lochaber)
Sanna Bay (Lochaber)
Etterick Bay (Bute)
St. Ninian’s (Shetland)
Sand of Sound (Shetland)
Tresness Bay (Orkney)
Backaskaill Bay (Orkney)
Coldbackie (Sutherland)
Crakaig (Sutherland)
Golspie (Sutherland)
Oldshoremore (Sutherland)
Mungasdale (Ross and Cromarty)
Little Sand (Ross and Cromarty)
Cromarty (Ross and Cromarty)
Garry (Lewis)
Traigh Valtos (Lewis)
Tigharry and Hougharry (North Uist)
Howmore (South Uist)
Hallaman Bay (Barra)
Traigh Bagh (Tiree)
Scarinish (Tiree)
Kilnaughton (Islay)
Corran (Jura)
Fidden (Mull)
Machrins (Colonsay)
Camusdarroch (Lochaber)
Machrihanish (Argyll)
Stravanan Bay (Bute)
186
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix IV
C
(continued)
Beaches where parking might be improved
Sumburgh (Shetland)
Birsay (Orkney)
Evie (Orkney)
Kintradwell (Sutherland)
Brora (Dalchalm) (Sutherland)
Sangobeg (Sutherland)
Mungasdale (Ross and Cromarty)
Gruinard North (Ross and Cromarty)
Redpoint North (Ross and Cromarty)
Scarasta (Harris)
Northton (Harris)
Tigharry and Hougharry (North Uist)
Culla Bay (Benbecula)
South coast of South Uist
Ardalanish (Mull)
Knockvologan (Mull)
Gribun (Mull)
Port Uisken (Mull)
Morar (Lochaber)
Traigh (Lochaber)
Kilmory (Argyll)
Glenbarr (Argyll)
Drumadoon (Arran)
Torrylinnwaterfoot (Arran)
D
Beaches where control or restriction of caravanning or camping is desirable (on areas
where practice currently exists)
Sango Bay (Sutherland)
Balnakeil (Sutherland)
Sheigra (Sutherland)
Clachtoll (Sutherland)
Melness (Sutherland)
Achnahaird (Ross and Cromarty)
Mellon Udrigle (Ross and Cromarty)
Nigg (Ross and Cromarty)
Balintore (Ross and Cromarty)
Nisabost (Harris)
Claddich (Islay)
Laggan (Islay)
Uisgeantuidhe (Islay)
Port Mor (Gigha)
Ardtoe (Lochaber)
Tralee Bay (Argyll)
Carsaig Bay (Argyll)
Dunskeig (Argyll)
Rhunahaorine (Argyll)
Tayinloan (Argyll)
Bellochantuy (Argyll)
Carradale (Argyll)
Dunaverty (Argyll)
E
Beaches where rehabilitation of sand pits is, or will be, required
Quendale (Shetland)
St. Ninian’s (Shetland)
Westsandwick (Shetland)
Burray Links (Orkney)
Newark Bay (South Ronaldsay) (Orkney)
Bay of Skaill (Mainland) (Orkney)
Evie (Orkney)
Birsay (Orkney)
Sandside Bay (Orkney)
Melberry (Orkney)
Scrimpo (Orkney)
Murkle Bay (Caithness)
Freswick Bay (Caithness)
Eoropie (Lewis)
Barvas (Lewis)
Skipness (Argyll)
Carskey (Argyll)
Laggan (Islay)
Machrie (Arran)
187
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Appendix IV
F
(continued)
Beaches where remoteness or wilderness quality should be preser ved
Sandwood (Sutherland)
Kervaig Bay (Sutherland)
Uninhabited islands in Sounds of Harris, Eriskay and Barra, and south of Barra
Taransay beaches (Harris)
Cravadale (Harris)
Rosinish (Benbecula)
Traigh Tuath (Rubha Sgor-lnnis) (Coll)
Hynish (Tiree)
Croisebrig (Colonsay)
Port a’ Chapuill (Colonsay)
Killinallan (Islay)
West coast beaches (Jura)
Camasunary (Skye)
Traigh Gheal (Mull)
Camas an Lighe (Lochaber)
Mheilein (Harris)
North Sollas (North Uist)
South Glendale (South Uist)
Caolas Ban (Coll)
Creagan coast (Tiree)
Kiloran (Colonsay)
Traigh Bhan (Islay)
Killeyan (Islay)
Jura House beach (Jura)
Traigh Cill Mhic Eoghainn (Mull)
Traigh an t-Santachaidh (Mull)
Cul na Croise (Lochaber)
188
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
References and selected Bibliography
This review volume is based on material contained in the regional beach reports (see chapter 1). These reports
are listed at the end of this Bibliography.
Adam, A.W. & Rankin, l.
n.d.
Report of the survey of the parishes of Assynt and
Eddrachillis.
(Unpublished report to Scottish Development Department).
Adriani, M.J. &
Terwindt, J.H.J.
1974
Sand Stabilisation and Dune-building.
Rijkwaterstaat Communications No.19. Directie
Waterhuishonding en Waterbewegung, den Haag.
Anderson, J.
1785
An account of the present state of the Hebrides.
(Report to Lords of the Treasury).
An Foras Forbartha
1973
National Coastline Study (3 Volumes) Dublin.
Annezo, J.P.
1974
Degradation des dunes de Bretagne.
Penn ar Bed, 9 (79) 443–451.
Anonymous
1970
Dune Conservation.
North Berwick Study Group.
Argyll County Council
County Planning Officer
1974
Caravan Policy.
(Unpublished).
Bagnold, R.A.
1941
The physics of blown-sand and desert dunes. London.
Baugh, l.
1976
Personal Communication based on the manuscript
of Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Bayfield, N.
1971
Some effects of walking and ski-ing on vegetation
at Cairngorms, pp. 469–485 in The scientific
management of animal and plant communities
for conservation ed. Duffey, E. & Watt, A.S.
Belly, P.Y.
1964
Sand movement by wind.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C.E.R.C. Tech. Memo 1.
Bennett, R.G.
1973
Classification of beach areas.
Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr 27, 51–61.
Birse, E.L. & Dry, F.T.
1970
Assessment of climatic conditions in Scotland.
1. Based on accumulated temperature and
potential water deficit.
Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen.
Birse, E.L. & Robertson, L.
1970
Assessment of climatic conditions in Scotland.
2. Based on exposure and accumulated frost.
Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, Aberdeen.
189
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Blumenthal, K.P.
1964
The construction of a drift sand dyke on the island
of Rottumenplaat.
Proc. IXth Conf. Coastal Engineering.
Boswell, J.
1785
Journal of a tour to the Hebrides with Samuel Johnson, D.D.
London.
Briquet, A.
1923
Les dunes littorales.
Ann. de Geographie 32, 385–394.
Burleigh, R., Evans, J.G. &
Simpson, D.D.A.
1973
Radio-carbon dates for Northton, Outer Hebrides.
Antiquity 47, 61–64.
Burnett, J.H. (ed.)
1964
The Vegetation of Scotland.
Edinburgh.
Burton, R.C.S.
1974
The recreation carrying capacity of the countryside.
Keele University, Occasional Paper 11.
Carmichael, A.
1884
Grazing and agrestic customs of the Outer Hebrides.
Appendix A, XCIX, Report of Her Majesty’s
Commissioners of Inquiry into the condition of the
Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands
of Scotland (c. 3980).
Carter, M.R.
1971
A method of analysing patterns of tourist activity in a
large rural area: the Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
Regional Studies 5, 29–37.
Carter, M.R.
1974
Developing a research base for the planning of
tourism in the regions of Scotland.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Strathclyde.
Childe, V.G.
1931
Skara Brae.
London.
Comité Interministériel
d’Amenagement du Territoire
1973
Littoral français – perspective pour l’aménagement.
Rapport au gouvernment.
Coull, J.R.
1962
The Island of Tiree.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag., 78(1), 17–32.
Coull, J.R.
1968
Crofters’ common grazings.
Agricultural History Review 16(2) 142–154.
Countryside Commission
for Scotland
1970a
Nature conservation at the Coast.
Coastal Preservation and Development. HMSO.
Countryside Commission
for Scotland
1970c
The Coastal Heritage.
HMSO.
Countryside Commission
for Scotland
1975a
A Park System for Scotland.
Perth.
190
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Countryside Commission
for Scotland
1975b
The touring caravan in the North-West Highlands:
towards a co-ordinated policy.
(Unpublished).
Crawford, l.A.
1970
Excavations at Coileagan an Udail 7th Interim Report,
Cambridge.
Crofters Commission
1884
Minutes of evidence and report of Her Majesty’s
Commissioners of Inquiry into the condition of the
Crofters and Cottars in the Highlands and Islands of
Scotland (c.3980).
Crofters Commission
1976
Owner-occupied croft land.
Information for Crofters.
Darling, F.F.
1955
West Highland Survey.
Oxford.
Darling, F.F. & Boyd, J.M.
1964
The Highlands and Islands of Scotland.
London.
Dawson, J. & Panton, J.S.
1960
Bulb growing in the Hebrides.
Agriculture 67, 410–413.
Dean, R.
1969
Bulbs from the Western Isles.
(Unpublished paper, Highlands and Islands
Development Board).
Dickinson, G., Mitchell, J.
& Tivy, J.
1971
The application of phytosociological techniques
to the study of vegetation.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag. 87, 83–102.
Dickinson, G.
1973
Vegetation studies at Luskentyre Banks, South Harris.
(Unpublished Report, Dept. of Geography,
University of Glasgow).
Dubreuil, J.A.L.
1973
Contribution a 1’étude du littoral des Côtes du Nord:
dunes, Levees de galets marais, amenagement (2 parties).
DAA Preservation et Amenagement du Milieu Natural,
Rennes.
Ducsik, D.
1974
Shoreline for the Public.
Lexington.
Duffield, B.S. &
Owen, M.L.
1971
1972
The Touring Caravan in Scotland.
Scottish Tourist Board, Edinburgh.
Duffey, E.
1972
Effects of trampling on the fauna of grassland litter.
Monks Wood Experimental Station.
Report 1969–71, 64–65.
Dufournet, P.
1974
Le littoral de l’ocean et de la Manche.
Urbanisme, 145, 78–80.
191
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Esler, D.
1976
Personal communication based on his M.Sc. on
dune-face erosion at Sands of Forvie.
Europa Nostra
1972
Resolutions of London Conference, July 1972.
Evans, J.G.
1971
Habitat changes on the calcareous soils of Britain:
the impact of Neolithic man.
In Simpson, D.D.A. (ed) Economy and settlement
in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Britain and Europe.
Fines, K.D.
1968
Landscape evaluation: a research project in East Sussex.
Regional Studies 2, 41–55.
Frame, J.
1971
Fundamentals of grassland management:
10 – the grazing animal.
Scottish Agriculture 50, 28–44.
Garner, J.F.
1975
Planning Law in Western Europe.
London.
Gillham, M.E.
1957
Coastal vegetation of Mull and lona in relation
to salinity and soil reaction.
J. Ecology 45, 757–778.
Gimingham, C.H.,
Gemmell, A.R. &
Greig-Smith, P.
1949
The vegetation of a sand-dune system in the
Outer Hebrides.
Trans. Proc. Bot. Soc. Edinb. 35, 82–96.
Gimingham, C.H.
1964
The Maritime Zone, in Burnett, J.H. (ed).
The Vegetation of Scotland, Edinburgh.
Gimingham, C.H.
1974
Plant communities of the machair and floristic
relationships with non-dune vegetation.
In Sand Dune Machair ed. Ranwell, D.S. N.E.R.C.,
Norwich.
Grant, N.W., Lumsden, C.I.
& Gillespie, A.
1958
Improvement of hill pastures by surface seeding.
(Mimeographed, North of Scotland College of
Agriculture).
Grontij, N.V. de Bilt.
1968
Reclamation Vallay Strand.
(Unpublished report to Highlands and Islands
Development Board).
Goldsmith, F.B.,
Munton, R.J.C. &
Warren, A.
1970
The impact of recreation on the ecology and
amenity of semi-natural areas; methods of
investigation used in the Isles of Scilly.
Biol. J. Linn, Soc. 2, 287–306.
Hecock, R.D.
1970
Recreation behaviour problems as related to site
characteristics of beaches.
J. Leisure Research 2 (4), 235–250.
192
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Hewett, D.G.
1970
The colonisation of sand dunes after stabilisation with
Marram grass.
J. Ecol. 58, 653–668.
Annual Reports.
Inverness.
Highlands and Islands
Development Board
Hume, C.W.
1939
The rabbit menace.
Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 7, 132–138.
Inverness County Council
County Planning Officer
1974
Caravans and Camping – 1974 Survey.
(Unpublished report).
Inverness County Council
County Planning Officer
1972
Caravans and Camping – Draft Policy notes.
(Unpublished).
Jelgersma, S. &
Van Regteren Altena, J.F.
1969
An outline of the geological history of the coastal
dunes in the Western Netherlands.
Geol. en Mijnbouw 48 (3), 355–362.
Johnson, J.W.
1965
Sand movement on coastal dunes.
U.S. Dept. of Agric., Misc. Publication No. 570
Symp. 3 paper 75, 747–755.
Johnson, M.P. &
Simberloff, D.S.
1974
Environmental determinants of island species numbers
in the British Isles.
Journal of Biogeography 1, 149–154.
Kidson, C.
1976
Coastal Geography in England and Wales
Geoscience and Man 14, 93–98.
Klemsdal, T.
1969
Aeolian forms in parts of Norway.
Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 23(2), 49–66.
Klemsdal, T.
1969
A Lista-Stage moraine on Jaeren.
Norsk. Geogr. Tidsskr. 23(4), 193–199.
Knox, A.J.
1974
The agricultural use of the machair.
In Sand Dune Machair, ed. Ranwell, D.S. N.E.R.C.,
Norwich.
Leney, F.
1974
The ecological effects of public pressure on picnic sites.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen.
Leopold, L.B.
1970
Landscape Esthetics.
Ekistics 29 (173), 271–277.
Lethbridge, T.C.
1952
Excavations at Kilpheder.
Proc. Prehist. Soc. N.S. 18.
Liddle, M.J.
1975
A selective review of the ecological effects of human
trampling on natural ecosystems.
Biol. Conserv. 7, 17–36.
193
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Liddle, M.J. &
Greig-Smith, P.
1975
A survey of tracks and paths in a sand dune ecosystem:
1. Soils
2. Vegetation
J. appl. Ecol., 12(3), 893–908; 909–930.
Linton, D.L.
1968
The assessment of scenery as a natural resource.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag., 84, 219–238.
Lloyd, R.J.
1970
Countryside Recreation: the ecological implications.
Lindsey County Council.
Martin, A., Shipman, P.,
Brady, H., & Hyde, N.
1974
A conservation strategy for the Irish coastline.
Ekistics, 37 (218), 74–79.
MacLeod, A.M.
1949
Some aspects of the plant ecology of the island of Barra.
Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. 35, 67–81.
Meteorological Office
1952
Climatological Atlas of the British Isles.
H.M.S.O. London.
Moisley, H.A. (ed)
1962
Uig – a Hebridean parish.
Geographical Field Group, Nottingham.
Munro, R.W. (ed)
1961
Monro’s Western Isles of Scotland.
Edinburgh and London.
National Parks
Commission
1967
The Coasts of South Wales and the Severn Estuary.
The Coasts of South-West England.
Coastal Preservation and Development Series, H.M.S.O.
Nature Conservancy Council
1976
Shetland: Localities of Geological and
Geomorphological Importance.
Nature Conservancy Council, Physiography Branch,
Newbury, Berks.
Netherlands Government
1971
Openlucht Recreatie (1971–75)
Ministrie van Cultur
‘s – Gravenhage.
Norman, J.O.
1976
Coastal research in Scandinavia.
Geoscience and Man 14, 89–92.
N.S.A.
1845
New Statistical Account.
Edinburgh.
O.S.A.
1794
Old Statistical Account.
Edinburgh.
Olson, J.S.
1958
Lake Michigan dune development.
1. Wind velocity profiles.
J. Geol., 66, 254–263.
194
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Phillips, C. J.
1975
Review of selected literature on sand stabilisation.
Dept. of Engineering, University of Aberdeen.
Randall, R.E.
1972
Vegetation in a maritime environment: the Monach Isles.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge.
Randall, R.E.
1974
Aspects of machair ecology on the Monach Isles.
In Sand-Dune Machair, ed. Ranwell, D.S. N.E.R.C.,
Norwich.
Ranwell, D.S.
1972
Ecology of Salt Marshes and Sand Dunes.
London.
Ranwell, D.S. (ed)
1974
Sand Dune Machair.
N.E.R.C. Institute of Terrestrial Ecol., Norwich.
Ratcliffe, D.A.
1971
Criteria for selection of nature reserves.
Adv. Sci., 27, 294–296.
Ratcliffe, D.A. (ed)
1977
(in press)
A Nature Conservation Review.
(A selection of biological sites of national importance
to nature conservation in Britain).
Cambridge.
Renard, J.
1972
Tourisme balneaire et structures foncieres:
I’example du littoral Vendéen.
Norois 73, 67–79.
Ritchie, J.
1920
The influence of man on animal life in Scotland.
Edinburgh.
Ritchie, W.
1966a
The physiography of the machair of South Uist.
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Glasgow.
Ritchie, W.
1966b
The post-glacial rise in sea level and coastal changes
in the Uists.
Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 39, 79–86.
Ritchie, W.
1967
The machair of South Uist.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag., 83(3), 161–174.
Ritchie, W.
1968
The coastal geomorphology of North Uist.
O’Dell Memorial Monograph 1.
University of Aberdeen.
Ritchie, W. &
Mather, A.S.
1971
Conservation and Use: Case study of the beaches
of Sutherland, Scotland.
Biol. Conserv. 3(3), 199–207.
Ritchie, W.
1972
The evolution of coastal dunes.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag., 88, 19–35.
195
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Ritchie, W. &
Mather, A.S.
1974
The machair landform and its spatial variation.
In Sand-Dune Machair, ed. Ranwell, D.S., N.E.R.C.,
Norwich.
Ritchie, W.
1974a
Spatial variation of shell content between and within
machair systems.
In Sand-Dune Machair, ed. Ranwell, D.S., N.E.R.C.,
Norwich.
Ritchie, W.
1974b
Environmental problems associated with a pipeline
landfall in coastal dunes at Cruden Bay, Aberdeenshire.
Proc. 14th Coastal Engineering Congress, 3,
2568–2580.
Ritchie, W.
1976
The meaning and definition of machair.
Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. 42, 431–440.
Roberts, H.W., Kerr, D.H.
& Seaton, D.
1959
The machair grasslands of the Hebrides.
J. Brit. Grassland Soc. 14, 223–228.
Roberts, H.H., Ritchie, W.
& Mather, A.S.
1973
Cementation in high latitude dunes.
Tech. Rep. 131, Coastal Studies Bulletin 7, 95–112.
Ross and Cromarty
County Council
1966
Caravan Sites Policy.
(Unpublished).
Ross and Cromarty
County Council
1972
Guidelines for the siting of major touring sites.
(Unpublished).
Royal Commission
1894
Report of the Royal Commission (Highlands and Islands)
c. 7681.
Rymer, L.
1974
The Scottish kelp industry.
Scott. Geogrl. Mag., 90 (3), 142–152.
Saarinen, T.F.
1971
Research approaches and questionnaire design.
In Perception and Attitudes in Resources Management
ed. Burton, l. and Sewell, W.R.D. Policy Research
and Co-ordination Branch, Resource Paper No. 2.
Dept. of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa,
Canada.
Schofield, J.M.
1967
Human impact on the fauna, flora and natural features
of Gibraltar Point.
In The biotic effects of public pressures on the
environment, ed. Duffey, E. Natural Environment
Research Council.
Scottish Development
Department
1973
North Sea Oil and Gas – Interim Coastal Planning
Framework – A discussion paper.
196
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Scottish Development
Department
1974
North Sea Oil and Gas – Coastal Planning
Guidelines.
Scottish Development
Department
1976
The Coast of Scotland: Some recently collected
survey material.
Select Committee on
Scottish Affairs
1971
Land Resource Use: Minutes of Evidence:
The Nature Conservancy.
H.C. Papers, 511–iii.
Sewell, W.R.D.
1971
Integrating public views in planning and policy making.
In Perception and Attitudes in Resources Management
ed. Burton, l. and Sewell, W.R.D.
Shafer, E.L.,
Hamilton, J.F. &
Schmidt, E.A.
1969
Natural landscape preferences, a predictive model.
Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 1–19.
Shepherd, l.A.G.
1975
Preliminary results from the Beaker settlement at
Rosinish, Benbecula.
Unpublished Manuscript.
Shepherd, l.A.G.
1975
Rosinish.
Discovery and Excavation in Scotland
1975 p.50.
Shepherd, l.A.G.
1976
Personal communication on his work at Rosinish
archaeological site, Benbecula.
Sissons, J.B.
1967
The evolution of Scotland’s scenery.
Edinburgh.
Spencer, D.J.
1975
Habitat change in coastal sand-dune areas:
the molluscan evidence.
In The effect of man on the landscape: the Highland
Zone ed. Evans, J.G. et al. Council for British
Archaeology, Research Report 11.
Scottish Tourism and
Recreation Study
1976
The holiday-maker in Scotland.
STARS Series No. 3, TRRU Research Report No. 19.
Edinburgh.
Steers, J.A.
1973
The Coastline of Scotland.
Cambridge.
Swedish Government
1972
Environmental Protection in Sweden.
Terwindt, J.H. J. &
Walther, A.W.
1976
Current trends in coastal research in the Netherlands.
Geoscience and Man 14, 73–88.
Trew, M.J.
1973
The effects and management of trampling on sand
dunes.
J. Env. Planning & Polln. Control 1(4), 138–149.
197
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Vose, P.B.,
Powell, H.G.
& Spence, J.B.
1957
The machair grazings of Tiree.
Trans. Bot. Soc. Edinb. 37, 89–110.
Walton, K.
1976
The Coastline of Scotland.
Geoscience and Man 14, 99–104.
Westhoff, V.
1967
The ecological impact of pedestrian, equestrian
and vehicular traffic on vegetation.
In Vers un nouveau type de relation entre l’homme
et la nature en région temperée, Partie l er, impact
ecologique du développement des loisirs et du
tourisme sur les habitats en region temperée.
IUCN, Morges, Switzerland.
Zenkovich, V.P.
1967
Processes of coastal development.
Edinburgh.
Zingg, A.W.
1953
Some characteristics of aeolian sand movement
by saltation processes.
Actions Eoiliennes, C.N.R.S. Paris 35, 197–208.
198
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
The regional beach reports on which this review volume is based are as follows:
1.
Beaches of Sutherland
1969
W. Ritichie and A.S. Mather.
2.
Beaches of Caithness
1970
W. Ritchie and A.S. Mather.
3.
Beaches of Lewis & Harris
1971
A.S. Mather and W. Ritchie.
4.
Beaches of Barra & the Uists
1971
W. Ritchie.
5.
Beaches of West Inverness-shire & North Argyll
1972
A.S. Mather and R.S. Crofts.
6.
Beaches of Wester Ross
1972
R.S. Crofts and A.S. Mather.
7.
Beaches of Mainland Argyll
1973
W. Ritchie and R.S. Crofts.
8.
Beaches of East Sutherland & Easter Ross
1973
J.S. Smith and A.S. Mather.
9.
Beaches of Orkney
1974
A.S. Mather, W. Ritchie and J.S. Smith.
10. Beaches of Shetland
1974
A.S. Mather and J.S. Smith.
11. Beaches of Islay, Jura and Colonsay
1974
W. Ritchie and R.S. Crofts.
12. Beaches of Northern Inner Hebrides
1975
A.S. Mather, W. Ritchie and J.S. Smith.
13. Beaches of Cowal, Bute and Arran
1975
W. Ritchie.
All reports were produced by the Department of Geography, University of Aberdeen, for the Countryside
Commission for Scotland.
199
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
Glossar y
ABRASION PLATFORM
:
Surface cut by wave action, forming flat rock platform in
intertidal zone.
ACCRETION
:
Process of accumulation of sand or other sediment.
AEOLIAN
:
Pertaining to the wind.
AEOLIAN ENERGY
:
Energy created or derived from wind flow.
ANTICLINE
:
When the rock beds are upfolded into an arch-like form,
the structure is called an anticline.
AYRE
:
Gravel isthmus or beach (this term is used mainly in the
Northern Isles).
BACKSHORE
:
Zone of beach or other shore Iying between high water mark
and coastal edge.
BAR
:
A general term describing several types of coastal depositional
ridges.
BEACH
:
Intertidal sand accumulation thrown up by wave action.
BEACH COMPLEX, beach unit
:
Assemblage of beach, dunes and links.
BEACH DRIFTING
:
A process engendered by oblique waves which tend to move
unconsolidated sediments along a beach.
BEACH RIDGE
:
Ridge of beach sand migrating up-beach by wave and tidal
action, individual ridges usually separated by hollows or
runnels.
BERM
:
A ridge of sand on a beach; usually low, temporary and
constructed by wave action.
BLACK LAND (SLIABH in Gaelic)
:
Land on the margins of machair and other blown-sand deposits.
It usually has a dark (acid) soil. Often this land has had its
former peat cover removed.
BLOW-OUT
:
Erosional hollow or depression in dune or machair surface,
created by wind action.
CALCICOLES
:
Plants that prefer a lime rich soil.
COASTAL EDGE
:
Feature marking landward limit of wave activity, and frequently
dividing vegetated from unvegetated surfaces.
CONGLOMERATE
:
Type of rock in which pebbles are cemented together in a matrix
of finer materials.
CUSPATE FORELAND
:
Triangular shaped plain of accumulation of marine sediments.
200
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
DEBRIS SLIDE
:
Rapid mass movement of materials downslope due to slope
failure.
DEFLATION
:
Process of removal of sand by wind action.
DEFLATION CORRIDOR
:
A linear erosion hollow excavated by the wind. It is a form
of blow-out (q.v.) development.
DIFFRACTION
:
Bending and channelling of waves by coastal obstacles such
as narrow straits.
DIP and STRIKE
:
Terms used to describe the direction and slope of rock strata.
DRIFT
:
Unconsolidated sediments.
DRIFT-LINE
:
Backshore zone of accumulation of debris such as vegetation
and seaweed.
DUNES-BUTTE
:
Residual yellow dunes with Marram capping, resulting from
accelerated erosion.
DUNE-EMBRYO
:
Small, often ephemeral, depositional mound of sand on backshore.
DUNE-GREY
:
Dune fixed under grasses and herbs, with complete vegetation
cover over sand.
DUNE-PARABOLIC
:
Crescent-shaped dune where advancing face is orientated
convex downwind.
DUNE-PASTURE
:
An area inland from the zone of active dunes. Normally
consists of low mature landforms. The short grass association
is normally used for grazing.
DUNE-SANDSTONE
:
Indurated dune deposits. The normal cementing agency is
calcium carbonate. Such indurated layers are most common
in lime-rich sands such as shell-sands.
DUNE-SLACK
:
Inter-dune hollow with high water table.
DUNE-YELLOW
:
Dune with incomplete vegetation cover – bare sand exposed
between plant stems.
ECOSYSTEM
:
A complex natural system involving the interaction of plants
and animals with each other and with their surroundings.
ERRATICS
:
Far travelled or foreign boulders carried by glacial action
from their parent outcrops (eg Moine blocks on underlying
Old Red Sandstone).
ESKER
:
Ridges of sand and gravel, usually more or less stratified,
formed under the ice sheets in tunnels. The main ridges often
receive tributary ridges, and have steep ice-contact slopes.
EUSTATIC
:
World wide (changes in sea level).
201
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
FLANDRIAN TRANSGRESSION
:
Rise in sea level about 5000–3000 BC.
FOLIATION
:
The alteration of parallel layers of rock with different mineral
compositions, characteristic of schists and gneisses.
FETCH
:
Amount and direction of open water in front of any specified
point along the coast.
FIORDS
:
Ice-deepened submerged inlets characteristic of much of
W. Scotland.
FLUVIO-GLACIAL
:
Pertaining to water action in conjunction with bodies of ice.
FORESHORE
:
Zone of beach between low and high water marks.
FOREDUNE
:
The first line of dunes; the line of dunes nearest the beach.
FOSSIL CLIFF
:
Cliff formerly at the coast and now no longer washed by waves.
GEO
:
A narrow coastal inlet, normally developed along a rock
fissure or other line of weakness.
HEAD
:
Soliflucted rock debris.
HIGH SAND PLATFORM
:
An area of sand, normally dry, above high water mark.
Often equivalent to the dune nourishment zone of a beach.
IMPACT VELOCITY
:
The speed of a particle entrained in an airstream (or other
fluid motion) at the moment of collision with another particle
eg in the saltation (q.v.) process.
ISOSTATIC
:
Pertaining to relative movements of land and sea levels,
resulting from loading and unloading by glacial ice.
KAMES
:
Mounds of glacially-derived material formed at the sides of
a glacier.
KETTLEHOLE
:
Depression which occurs in drift, usually stratified, formed
by the wasting away of a mass of ice that had lain wholly or
partially buried within the drift. Note that the irregular dumping
of ridges and mounds of glacial debris will inevitably produce
enclosed basins.
LAG DEPOSIT
:
Residual coarse particles from which finer material has been
removed.
LINKS
:
Wind-built sand surface, stabilised under sward of short grasses
and herbs (also machair).
MACHAIR
:
Wind-built sand surface, stabilised by sward of short grasses
and herbs (see also links).
MARRAM
:
Ammophila arenaria.
202
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
METAMORPHIC ROCK
:
Rock whose original characteristics have been modified by
heat and pressure.
MICRON
:
A metric unit of length equal to one thousandth of a millimetre.
MOINE
:
Group of metamorphic rocks of which much of Highland
land-mass is constructed.
MONTICULES
:
A term used by French geomorphologists to describe small
depositional mounds of wind blown-sand. They are usually
associated with blow-out development.
MORAINE
:
A general term used for deposits left by ice. It is often used in
hyphenated form to denote its position relative to the glacier or
ice-sheet eg ground–moraine, end–moraine, terminal–moraine.
MUSHROOM DUNES
:
Severe dissection of a dune ridge produces isolated sand pillars
with a convex surface of (normally) strong dune grass growth.
They resemble ‘mushrooms’ and are named accordingly.
OUTWASH FANS
:
Water-borne deposits produced by melting ice in front of a
decaying ice mass.
OYCE, OUSE
:
Wide burn mouth; a freshwater lake held up by an ayre (this
term is largely confined to the Northern Isles, especially Orkney).
PHYLLITE
:
Metamorphosed sedimentary rock intermediate in structure
between slate and crystalline schist.
PLANATION SURFACE
:
Surface of low relief, usually in upland areas, resulting from
slow erosional levelling of land surface.
POCKET BEACH
:
A small detached beach area. This is often a patch of sand
between or on a rock surface.
PROGRADING
:
When referring to a coastline or a line of dunes, it means
that they are moving outwards towards the sea ie the land
is gaining on the sea.
PROGRADING COAST
:
A shoreline which is building out, as opposed to being cut
back by wave action.
QUATERNARY
:
Geological term for period of last few million years, consisting
of glacial, inter-glacial and post-glacial phases.
RAISED BEACH
:
Accumulation of marine sediments built up by a sea level
different from that of the present.
RAISED SHORELINE
:
Feature representing a period of sea level higher than present,
in the form of erosional rock platform or depositional terrace
of sands and shingle.
203
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
REFRACTION
:
A process of wave deformation which causes an approaching
wave front to bend so that it becomes increasingly parallel to
the bathymetry and, ultimately, to the beach outline.
REGIME
:
The condition of a river with respect to the rate and volume
of its flow.
REGOLITH
:
The mantle of loose material consisting of soils, sediments,
broken rock, etc., overlaying the solid rock of the earth.
RELICT CLIFFLINE
:
Cliffline cut by the sea at a higher level than at present.
SALTATION
:
The main mechanism whereby sand grains are moved by the
wind (or other fluid). It consists of each particle moving in a
series of curved trajectories or ’jumps’.
SAND FLAT
:
Intertidal sand plain with high water table and exceptionally
low gradient.
SANDY SALTMARSH
:
A type of marsh developed on sand deposits, near, or just
above, high tide mark.
SEA LYME GRASS
:
Elymus arenarius.
SCHISTS
:
Crystalline, metamorphic rock.
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
:
A general term for layered (bedded) sediments of detrital origin
usually laid down by water.
SHEEP RUB
:
Undercut, steep sand faces are often used by sheep for shelter
and rubbing. This accelerates bank erosion.
SKERRY
:
Small offshore rocky island.
SLUMP
:
A quantity of unconsolidated material which has collapsed or
slid to the base of a slope. A type of slope failure and mass
movement.
SOIL CREEP
:
Slow down-slope movement of soil.
SPIT
:
Marine-built, linear landform.
STORM RIDGE
:
Littoral deposits thrown above high water mark by storm wave
action.
STRAND
:
A flat, often extensive, normally wet intertidal beach.
STRANDPLAIN
:
Low relief landform constructed by processes of marine
deposition.
SUB-LITTORAL ZONE
:
Offshore zone Iying just below low water mark.
204
Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 048
SURFACE ROUGHNESS PARAMETER
:
A measure of the degree of roughness or irregularity of a surface.
This roughness affects the velocity of an air stream passing
over it and thereby alters the relative amounts of deposition,
erosion and transportation of sand and other particles.
SYNCLINE
:
When the rock beds are downfolded into a trough-like form,
the structure is called a syncline.
TALUS
:
Steeply sloping accumulation of debris at base of cliff.
TILL
:
Unsorted sediments laid down by glacial ice.
TORRIDONIAN
:
A geological period in the pre-Cambrian; usually associated
with sandstones.
TRANSGRESSION
:
Relatively rapid sea level rise causing land submergence.
UNDERCUT and SLUMP
:
A process of erosion whereby a vegetated sand surface is
attacked by the wind. The sand is excavated at the base to
form an overhang which may break and the block of sand
and turf above breaks-off, slumps and falls to the base of the
slope.
VALLEY TRAIN
:
Aggraded plains built up by melting ice from a glacial front.
VEGETATED SAND FLAT
:
Sand plain with low gradient with high water table and
colonised by low grasses, usually behind the shoreline.
WAVE BASE
:
The depth of water below which wave action is negligible.
WILD CARAVANNING
:
Caravanning and camping which does not occur in a
recognised site: may occur by the roadside.
WRACK
:
Dead or decaying seaweed and flotsam left on the upper beach
– forms base for sand accumulation.
ZERO ISOBASE
:
The line marking the approximate position where raised
shorelines meet present mean sea level.
AND CAMPING
205