The value of surfing

International Symposium on the Protection of WavesBiarritz, France and San Sebastian-Donostia, Spain

October 24-25, 2011

Dr Neil LazarowVisitor, Fenner School of Environment and Society

Australian National University

Scope of presentation

• Valuing the coast– What kinds of values do we associate with the coast?

• How do we value the coast?– Can we measure some or all of these values?

• How do we value surfing?– Overview of surfing economic studies– Good For The Planet Study– Capturing non-economic values

• Moving forward

• The coastal zone contains a wide range of climatic, geographical and oceanographic regions, which accommodate a rich store of biological diversity:– Good source of food– Rainfall– Land is suitable for a wide range of uses (incl strategic)– Climate– Demand for coastal real estate– Transport– Leisure– Energy and manufactured water production– Free-rider principle embraced

• Close to half the world’s population live on or near the coast and this could grow to 2/3’s by 2030.

• Much of human economic activity is intrinsically linked to coastal margins (e.g. Martinez et al. estimate that the coast produces 77% of total global ecosystem services, valued at $US25.8 trillion (2007 dollars)).

• Increasing development and population growth is placing increasing dependency on coastal resources.

Why is the coast valued?

Contested values• Infrastructure and engineering

– Resource quality– Resource modification– Preferential use

• Environmental issues– Reef health– Water quality– Ecosystem health

• Economics– Economic impact– Non-market value

• Culture– Coastal ‘community’ culture– Social capital– Aesthetics– Significance

• Legislative and management issues– Public access– Recreation– Tourism– Stewardship– Attachment to place

Valuing environmental goods and services

• Environmental goods and services have both market and non-market values.

• Some uses are viewed in market terms even though a market for these goods and services does not really exist.

• Some goods and services do not have a market value or have a value to society that cannot be adequately expressed in market terms.

• Some of these are crucial to the maintenance of a healthy society and its economy.

• Even where an individual may not directly interact with the coast in any way, he or she may see the benefits to others, to society and to future generations from doing so.

Total Economic Value

Raybould (2006) Adapted from Bateman and Langford (1997) and Turner (1999)

Why surfing and surfers?• Significant marine and coastal user group• Little research on the value of surfing• High participation

– Global 20 million +– Australia 2.5 million +– USA 3.5 million +

• California 1.2 million +– and growing…….

• Economy– Estimated $15.5 billion globally (surfwear and equipment only)

• Value to local economies is unknown• Social and cultural value to local communities not accounted for• Non-market value not accounted for (+multipliers)• Travel and tourism often not accounted for

Some existing studiesYear / Location Type Value Context1973, Hawaii Market approximation $US13M p/a Estimated annual expenditure, including medical

1984-1998, California Market approximation $US300,000 Mitigation for loss of surf break

1990-1999, California Non-market (travel cost) $US16M p/a Lost recreation opportunities from oil spill

1999, Mt Maunganui Non-market (willingness to pay)

$NZ500,000 p/a 50 new surfers each time the wave breaks

2001, Pleasure Point, California

Non-market (travel cost $USD6.2M University study

2001, Cornwall Market approximation £21M p/a User survey to estimate value of surfing to Cornwall

2004, Geraldton Future market value $AUD1.3M p/a Estimated value of proposed artificial surf break to town

2006, Costa Rica Inbound visitor survey $US400M p/a Survey of total expenditure of surf related visitors

2007, North Narrabeen Market approximation $3.9M p/a Estimated expenditure from 145,000 visits p/a

2007, Mundaka Economic impact $US3M p/a Estimated economic impact of surf break to town

2008, Florida Construction cost $US12M + land + permits

Annual membership at RonJon Surfpark = $US3,000

2008, Trestles Market impact $US8-12M p/a$US10-55Mp/a

Economic benefit to San ClementeEconomic value to San Clemente

2009, Portugal Market estimate €150-200M p/a Estimated national economic impact

2009, Mavericks Economic value $US24M p/a Economic and cultural value

Location Year Item Approx. value (euros)

Gold Coast 2007-8 Expenditure (incl equipment) €10 - 16

American Trader (USA) 1999 Travel Cost Method (economic value) used to calculate

loss of amenity resulting from an oil spill €17

Orewa (NZ) 2004 Expenditure (excl accommodation & equipment) based on a new surfing reef €24

Trestles (USA) 2007-8 Expenditure (excl equipment) €31

RonJon Surfpark (USA) 2007 Entrance fee (excl all other costs) €23-46

Mavericks (USA) 2009 Travel Cost Method (economic value) €40

Geraldton (Australia 2004 Estimated expenditure (incl travel + gear hire) on a new surfing reef €91

Costa Rica 2006 Expenditure (incl accommodation, unlikely to include equipment) €94

Pleasure Point (USA) 2001 Travel Cost Method (economic value) €94

Expenditure per session - a comparison

Estimated benefits of artificial reefsYear Location Study type Estimated

B/C ratioPredicted

annual spend

Methods Reef size

1998 Gold Coast B:C 60:1 (70:1 in 2007) N/A Desktop 70,000m3

1999 Mt Maunganui

Economic impact N/A $NZ0.5M p/a Survey –

approx 1406,000m3

(incomplete)

2000 Bournemouth B:C, economic impact 21:1

10M image value + 3M

direct income p/a

Economic impact

assessment

25,000m3

approx. (incomplete)

2004 Geraldton Market expenditure N/A $AU1.5M p/a

Survey of approx 140 surfers + 90

general publicN/A

2008 Brevard County B:C 4:1 ; 0.33:1

$US191,000 (best case scenario)

Desktop, interviews 23,000m3

Case study locations / country of origin GFTP

surveys

Surf breaks of the Gold

Coast

Adapted from Google Maps

Location Percentage of total

Value (to nearest million euros)

Duranbah 10 €7 - 12Snapper 11 € 8 - 13Rainbow Bay 3 € 2 - 4Greenmount / Coolangatta 4 € 3 - 5Kirra 2 € 1 - 3Bilinga / Tugun / Flatrock 2 € 1 - 2Currumbin / Alley 12 € 8 - 13Palm Beach (Lacey’s Lane to Tallebudgera) 6 € 3 - 7Burleigh Heads / beach 14 € 8 - 13Miami / Nobby / Mermaid 7 € 4 - 6Broadbeach / Surfers 2 € 1 - 2Narrowneck 3 € 3 - 5Main Beach / Southport 3 € 3 - 5Spit 6.5 € 5 - 8South Stradbroke Island 14.5 € 11 - 17 Total 100 € 68 - 125

Economic impact of Gold Coast surf breaks

Worth considering together

Participation & expenditure

Source No. of surfers Estimated no. of sessions

Total estimated expenditure p/a

Estimation Strategy 1 65,000 6,7M p/a €68 million*

Estimation Strategy 2 75,000 7,8M p/a €80 million*

Estimation Strategy 3 120,000 12,5M p/a €125 million*

* Annual per capita estimate = €1,064

Comparison - Gold Coast and TrestlesLocation Gold Coast (n=471) Trestles (n=973)

Method Web + face-to-face survey Web-survey

Average age 54% = 36 years or less 35.6 (of those over 18)

Gender 90% male 92% male

Education (% college or above) 35% 65%

Income (€2011) €32,000 - €47,000

(median household)

€40,000 - €56,0000

(median individual within range)Unemployed 2% 1%

Fully Employed 21% 76%

Experience level 43% advanced 84% high level of experience

Number of surfing sessions per week 2.5 3

Distance travelled to surf (one way) 60% = 10km or less 36.8km (average)

Surf sessions per year 104 109

Expenditure per trip (€2011) €201 €322

Expenditure range per visit (€2011) €15-25 €18-32

1 Annual expenses divided by number of sessions per year 2 Revealed preference based on last trip

Surfers society and culture

Surfers society and culture

Key messages• Surfing has significant economic and social benefits• Valuing coastal resources important for integrated coastal

management• Develop accepted standards• Management goals must be developed for recreational

amenity

• On managed or altered coastlines especially surfing must be recognised as a legitimate and important recreational activity of socio-economic value

• Strategies that manage / improve surfing amenity whilst not compromising coastal security or safety

Moving forward

Typology of Surfing Capital

Item Description Planning / legislative context

Wave Quality

Dominant local view of how the wave breaks

Both beauty and physical form are assessed

•Federal / State / Local Government Coastal Policies

•Regional Plans•Outdoor Recreation Policies and Plans

•Development Applications•Environmental Impact Statements

•Social Health Reports•Tourism strategies•Business development plans•Socio-economic reports•Marine planning legislation•Water quality issues

Wave frequency ‘Surfable’ waves measured against and accepted standard

Environmental factors

Environmental or biophysical conditions that may mitigate

against a surfers’ physical health

Experiential factorsSocio-cultural and societal

conditions surrounding the surfing experience

Thank YouMerci

Gracias

Neil.Lazarow@anu.edu.au

Some useful references• Lazarow, N., Raybould, M., Anning, D., 2011. Beach, Sun and Surf Tourism, in The Handbook of Tourism

Economics: Analysis, New Applications and Case Studies, Tisdell, C. (ed). World Scientific Publishing Company (in press).

• Lazarow, N. 2010. Managing and Valuing Coastal Resources: An Examination of the Importance of Local Knowledge and Surf Breaks to Coastal Communities. Fenner School of Environment and Society. Canberra, Australian National University. PhD Thesis.

• Coffman, M., & Burnett, K., 2009 The Value of a Wave: An Analysis of the Mavericks Region, Half Moon Bay, California. Report for Save The Waves Coalition, www.savethewaves.org

• Lazarow, N. 2009. Using Observed Market Expenditure to Estimate the Economic Impact of Recreational Surfing to the Gold Coast, Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 56: Proceedings of the 10th International Coastal Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 1130-1134.

• Lazarow, N., Miller, M. L., & Blackwell, B. 2008. The Value of Recreational Surfing to Society. Tourism in Marine Environments, 5(2-3), p.145-158.

• Nelsen, C., Pendleton, L., & Vaughn, R. 2007. A socioeconomic study of surfers at Trestles Beach. Shore and Beach, 75(4), 32-37.

• Lazarow, N., Miller, M.L., Blackwell, B., 2007. Dropping In: A Case Study Approach to understanding the socio-economic Impact of Recreational Surfing and its Value to the Coastal Economy, Shore and Beach, Vol 75, No 4 Fall, p.21-31.