We have moved

The Surf Economics blog has been incorporated in the Sufrider Foundation's Coastal Blog under the tag: Surf Protection.

You can find the posts here.

Protecting Peruvian Waves

Learn more here.

Surf Protection, World Surfing Reserves, Malibu and other Case Studies

Big Day, Small Board: Erik "Frog" Nelsen dropping in at Cloudbreak, one of the world's iconic waves.

On October 9th, Malibu's famous Surfrider beach surfing areas was dedicated as the world's first World Surfing Reserve - an ambitious effort by a small NGO called Save the Waves.

The idea of protecting surfing areas and providing our iconic surfing spots around the globe protected status is something that is shared my many surfers as well as other NGO's that protect surf spots including the Surfrider Foundation USA, Europe, Japan, Argentina, Canada, WildCoast, Surfers Against Sewage, and others.

Here's a recent presentation I have on the topic of surf protection, the role of world surfing reserves in protecting surfing areas and some examples of surf protection efforts.

Surf Protection & World Surfing Reserves from Surfrider Foundation on Vimeo.

You can view and/or download the presentation here (Keynote).

In addition here are a couple of recent articles discussing surfing reserves:

A critique of Malibu's world surfing reserve designation here.

An essay by Neil Lazarow entitled, "What is a Surfing Reserve and why should surfers care about them?"

Perfect Anecdote: the wave value is so high...

Photo by TKO:

File Under: Perfect Anecdote

The other day, I was walking down to Trestles for a lunch time surf (in the name of research of course!) and I had a nice chat with a guy who had cut out of work early to surf. He was from Manhattan Beach - so he had driven over 60 miles (one way) and then committed to the 20 minute walk down to the surf. We talked about quality of the waves, the crowds, etc. In response to the discussion about the crowds he said, "you may only get a couple of waves, but the wave value is so high that it's worth it".

So this guy was willing to drive 120 miles round trip, give up 1/2 a day of work, walk 40 minutes round trip, and brave the crowds at Trestles for a couple of hours in the water - all for one or two waves, because the value of those waves was so high - they were so much fun- it made it all worth it.

Waves are Resources: WAR report from Surfer's Against Sewage

Surfer's Against Sewage released a new report called "Waves are Resources (WAR)".

The comprehensive report covers the basic physics of wave formation and breaking, efforts to value waves, activities that can impact waves (structures, dredging, pollution, oil spills, sewage, etc.), emerging efforts to generate power from waves and some of the efforts to protect waves, including World Surfing Reserves.

You can download and read the report here.

California World Ocean: Shoreline Armoring and the Ocean Economy

View more presentations from cnelsen.

Gulf Coast Surfers Are Suffering, Too — And Health Risks Are Unclear

“You can’t see the oil anymore, but you can taste it,” said Mcelroy, who surfed again last week and whose surf shop is down over 70% in business from last year since tourism in Alabama is almost nonexistent.

Gulf coast surfers and surf-related business are suffering despite good surf conditions.

When surfing was closed along a mere 14 miles of coast for 34 days in Huntington Beach due to the American Trader oil spill, the value of the lost recreational opportunity (beach going & surfing) was valued at $18 million.

Read more here...

Five reasons why surfers are more likely to get sick from polluted ocean water than beach goers

Any surfer who has leaned over to pick something up a few hours after surfing, only to suffer the embarrassment of having their nose drain all over the place, is a walking illustration of just how much ocean water surfers are exposed to when practicing their sport.

Here's a list of five reasons why surfers are more likely to get sick from polluted ocean water than other beach goers:

1. Surfers go to the beach & go in the ocean more than other beach goers

According to the 2001 Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation study, beach goers average 14 visits per year; in the same study surfers averaged 23 visits per year (Leeworthy and Wiley 2001).

Other studies in Oregon, California, and a national survey suggest surfer avidity is much higher. In Oregon, the average avidity was 77 visits/year (Stone et al. 2008). At Trestles, we found an average avidity of 109 visits/year (Nelsen et al. 2007). A pending Surf-First study found a average national avidity of 108 visits (unpublished).

2. Surfers recreate year round

Studies and common knowledge show that beach going is highly seasonal. Most visit occur during the summer months. Often more than half of the total visits occur during the 3 months of summer. In contrast, surfers tend to visit beaches and enter the water year round. In some places, surfers are the predominant beach visitor during winter months. This is significant because in the northern latitudes, winters tend to be more rainy than summer months, which increases the exposure to storm water runoff.

3. Every visit to the beach to surf results in full immersion in the ocean

According to Dwight et al. (2007) less than half of Southern California beach goers are exposed to ocean waters. And of those that are, many are not fully immersed in the water. Surfers, on the other hand, are fully immersed while surfing (see photo). This increases their exposure to pathogens if the water is polluted.

4. Surfers probably spend more time in the water on each visit

Surfers tend to surf between 1.5 and 2 hours surfing during each visit. Although I am not aware of any data, my guess is that this is longer than most beach goers spend in the water, with the exception of some kids who seem to spend the whole day in the water (especially in places where the water is warm).

5. As a result of the above, surfers ingest 10 times more water than swimmers or divers

As summarized here, surfers tend to ingest 10 times more water than swimmers or divers. To their exposure to pathogens in the water is much higher than other groups. The repeated, full and sometimes violent immersion in the ocean that surfer experience increases ingestion and water getting forced into the sinuses (thus the delayed nose drip).

Conclusion

The combination of more days of exposure, during some of the most polluted times, and more complete immersion and ingestion increases the total exposure of surfers to pathogens and therefore the odds of getting sick. So the next time your nose starts to drip, think about the quality of the ocean water that just sat in your head for the last several hours - hopefully it was clean!

The papers referenced below provide a more in-depth look at these issues.

References:

Dwight, R. H., D. B. Backer, et al. (2004). "Health Effects Associated With Recreational Coastal Water Use: Urban Versus Rural California." American Journal of Public Health 94(4): 565-567.

Dwight, R. H., M. V. Brinks, et al. (2007). "Beach attendance and bathing rates for Southern California beaches." Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 847-858.

Leeworthy, V. R. and P. C. Wiley (2001). Current Participation Patterns in Marine Recreation, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Special Projects. National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 2000: 53.

Nelsen, C., L. Pendleton, et al. (2007). "A Socioeconomic Study of Surfers at Trestles Beach." Shore & Beach 75(4): 32-37.

Stone, D. L., A. K. Harding, et al. (2008). "Exposure Assessment and Risk of Gastrointestinal Illness Among Surfers." Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A 17(24): 1603-1615.

Surfers vs. Beachgoers: who is using the beach

For one year, starting in July 2008, 462 beach visitors were interviewed.
Source: CIC Research, July 2009

In an earlier post entitled "Intercepting Surfers", I discussed the fact that surfers have a different daily pattern of beach use than typical beach goers. Surfers are more likely to use the beach in the mornings and evenings than beach goers whereas most beach goers tend to visit the beach in the middle of the day. Because studies on beach use typically focus on beach goers, they tend to sample during the middle of the day when the crowds are at their peak but at a time when surfers might be missed. It has also been assumed that there are usually more beach goers than surfers.

A recent study of beach attendance in the City of Solana Beach (San Diego) conducted over an entire year found that surfing was the most common primary purpose for being at the beach. See graphic above.

While it could be argued that some of the other categories in combination represent "beach going", this study is notable in finding that surfing is such a strong driving force for visiting beaches in the City of Solana Beach.

Why is it so crowded in the line up: Do The Math

If you take the coast of California between San Francisco to the Mexican border, which is roughly 500 miles, and grossly estimate that there is one class “A” surf break every 50-miles, that would total 10. Then, say there is one class “B” break very 5-miles which adds 100 breaks to the total. Once again, let’s assume that there is yet another class “C” break every 5-miles to add another 100 breaks, making a grand total of 250, with, in truth, most of the surfers being drawn to the better third.

250 Surf spots

Now, let’s say that there are 500,000 active surfers in California, and that on any sunny weekend day with a 4-foot swell running, that 10% will hit the surf. Now, let’s consider that at least 1/3rd of those 250 breaks will be completely off-duty due to swell direction. That makes for 50,000 surfers sharing 250-less 83 breaks=50,000/167 which means that on average, there will be 299 surfers for each working surf break along the coast between San Francisco and the Mexican border.

299 Surfers per spot

Now let’s be real, the population is probably 2/3s in the south and 1/3 north, so the distribution at breaks would be weighted to the south. Therefore, let’s say 66% X 50,000 surfers=33,000 surfers for the working breaks in the south, and 17,000 for the working break in the north.

2/3 of those surfers live in Southern California

Of course, quantifying “the better break attracting more than their share” theory means that, let’s say, 35,000 surfers surfing the top third working breaks (56) or about 625 for each of those which leaves only 15,000 for the other 111, or 155 per.

625 surfers per spot in the South

155 surfers per spot in the North

In the real world, what actually happens is that over 500 surf Trestles during a day in roughly five shifts from dawn to dusk-the same at Malibu, and Huntington Pier and San Onofre, while most other breaks get way less.

500 surfers a day at Trestles, Malibu, Huntington & San Onofre on a good day

But any way you cut it the total mass of surfers and approximate number of surf breaks is undeniable.

This is, of course, completely theoretical and statically askew, but the numbers don’t lie. We have outgrown our supply.

From The Surfers Journal blog

Measuring stoke

While putting a monetary value on a great day of surfing can be seen as sacrilege to some, it can also provide an important counter weight to decision making that is often based on economic contributions, jobs, etc.

Putting a value of surfing or other non-market activities (beach going, bird watching, etc.) can also be important when seeking compensation for recreation lost when beaches are closed or lost due to impacts from oil spills, water quality impairment, or coastal development.

So how how to you measure the value of a day of surfing?

Since there is typically no market for access to surfing (access is free), resource economists have to estimate these values using other methods.

One approach to capturing this value or "willingness to pay" for a day of surfing is the Travel Cost Method.

The basic premise behind the travel cost method is that visitors who live farther away from a surf spot pay a higher travel cost and take fewer trips than visitors who live closer who can afford to visit more often. By modeling travel costs and the number of trips, we can develop a demand function for recreational use and estimate an average value that you, as a surfer, put on a visit to a surf spot.

Economic theory presumes that if you spend 20 bucks on gas and three hours of your free time getting to a surf spot, that the visit is worth at least that time and financial commitment. As a result, the travel cost method measures the lower bound of this value; it could be higher.

This average value is called the consumer surplus is the difference between the maximum someone would pay for a trip and the amount actually paid. In other words, the benefit you derive above and beyond the value of your time and travel costs.

For example, in a previous post I wrote about a guy whose "willingness to pay" to spend an afternoon at Trestles was very high. Despite his high travel cost he believed it was worth it because the waves are so good. In the model schematic above, he would be found on the upper left region of the demand curve.

An economic valuation of Mavericks

Save The Waves recently completed a study looking at the non-market value of the Mavericks area (wave and adjacent park). The study was conducted by Dr. Makena Coffman and Dr. Kimberly Burnett from the University of Hawaii. They based their findings on an on-site survey of visitors over a 6 month period in 2009. They used the Travel Cost Method to determine the non-market value (consumer surplus) of those visitors and their estimated an annual value ($24 million/year) using their best guess on annual attendance to the area.

Here are some of the key findings:

• The average visitor received $56.7 in consumer surplus per visit

• 7% of those interviewed were there to surf Mavericks

• ~12% were visiting to watch surfing
  

• Surfers were nearly 5 times more avid than other visitors

• They estimated 421,431 visits to the Mavericks area per year
  

• The total economic benefit from the Mavericks region is $23.8 million/year

• This study did not include the annual contest in their analysis
  

It is important to note that the study included all visitors to the Mavericks areas, not only surfers or those watching surfers, so this value includes the value of the whole Mavericks area.

The final study has not been published yet. Once it does, I'll post it.



You can read a Half Moon Bay Review article about the study here.

The article got a few things confused and Deal LaTourrette, the Excutive Director responded:

Dear Editor,

We appreciate the coverage of the recently released results from our Mavericks economic study in Greg Thomas’ November 11th article, “The $24 Million Wave,” but feel compelled to clarify some key points with your readers:

1) While the study was designed to measure the economic value of the surf break and surrounding area, it also attempts to measure non-economic valuation factors such as the cultural, social and environmental value of the wave. The study is not all about dollars and cents, and a key finding was completely omitted from Thomas’ article: "Almost 90% of the respondents labeled surfing an ecotourism activity, and thus important to the cultural and environmental health of the community. Respondents believed that Mavericks helped to positively define the Half Moon Bay area." This underscores the importance of these studies to be used as a tool to help policy-makers make conservation decisions that allow ecotourism to thrive, while at the same time preserving unique environmental, social, and cultural phenomena.

2) This research project was funded by a grant from the Morgan Family Foundation. Mavericks Surf Ventures helped by supplying information on the area and connecting researchers with key local organizations, such as the Half Moon Bay Chamber of Commerce. MSV and Jim Beam DID NOT fund or financially support the study.

3) The Center for Responsible Travel at Stanford University and the University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, co-authors of the study, are independent researchers who were commissioned by Save The Waves to execute an academic study. They have no affiliation with Save The Waves, nor did commercial interests influence the study in any way.

Thanks for helping us clear up these important points.

The Cost of Poor Water Quality at Surfrider Malibu

Surfrider Beach at Malibu needs no introduction. Unfortunately, neither do the water quality problems. Malibu has been a chronically polluted beach for decades, consistently getting an "F" on Health the Bay's beach water quality report card. One of the primary culprits is over-capacity and improperly sited septic systems. For years, the City of Malibu has resisted constructing sewage systems as an anti-growth measure while polluting nearby beaches.



Thanks to a strong coalition that included the Malibu Surfing Association, Heal the Bay, Santa Monica Baykeeper and the West LA / Malibu Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation this all changed last Thursday when the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board voted to eliminate septics from Malibu and force the City to install waste water treatment systems. Read more about the outcome here and here and in the LA Times here.

$: Poor water quality is a public health burden that has costs.

Water quality contamination can cause skin rash, eye and ear infections, significant respiratory disease and Gastrointestinal (GI) illness. These illnesses have a variety of economic costs -- ranging from medical expenses to lost time at work to non-market impacts.

At Malibu, Given and Pendleton (2006) estimated that were were 25,000 to 100,000 excess GI illness (meaning above allowable level of illness at clean beaches) in Malibu due to poor water quality.

This results in $1.1 to $4.2 million in public costs annually due to illness associated with contaminated water in Malibu.

$: Clean water has benefits.

Clean water attracts more visitors who spend money (economic impacts) and clean water increase their enjoyment (consumer surplus).

Hanemann & Pendleton (2004) looked at economic benefits of improving beach water quality at Malibu Surfrider Beach by one letter grade. From a C to a B.

They showed that improving water quality at Malibu Surfrider would have two impacts on beach goers. First, the number of trips taken to Surfrider beach would increase by 1,538 visits per year.

The second major impact of an improvement in water quality is the annual consumer’s surplus of beach users improves by more than $140,000/ year.

In addition, the total economic impact (local spending) would increase by $45,000/year.

These are the benefits for one grade. The benefits would be much higher for a 3 or 4 grade level improvement (F to B/A)*.

*The model is nonlinear so you cannot use these figures to extrapolate directly.

These studies show that improving the water quality in Malibu will reduce the high public welfare burden associated with poor water quality and result in increased visits, increased societal benefits (consumer surplus benefits) and increase economics impacts (spending associated with beach visits).

You can read more detail and see the references in my testimony here.

The swell of surfing tourism

SURFING has emerged as an X-factor in the Tweed Shire's economy, after the Gold Coast estimated the sport injected billions of dollars into the city each year.

A recent Surf Industry Development Report, which was a world first, found $2 billion in activity was attributable to the surfing industry on the Gold Coast, making it the city's third biggest industry.

The report estimated the sport generated up to a further $3 billion in output and created 21,760 employment positions paying $1 billion per annum in wages and salaries.

Jim Wilson, General Manger of Connecting Southern Gold Coast said the report showed the southern Gold Coast's economy relied heavily on its pristine beaches.

“That is why we all must respect and not tamper with what nature has created. We need our region to continue to offer up waves of excellence and consistency, as this is what the surfing industry and other businesses depend on to underpin the true surfing experience on the Gold Coast,” Mr Wilson said.

Read the whole thing here....

SurfEcon Myth Busting: Surfers are lazy

Sunrise Surfer from LA times

This morning, I woke up at 4:45 AM to go for a surf at dawn. I suffered through the groggy transition to wakefulness hoping to get better morning conditions and to beat the summertime crowds. I was in the water by 5:30 - 6 guys out. By 6:30 the water was already started to get crowded and by 7:30 is was packed - on a Sunday AM.

I returned home to find these two Facebook messages. Many surfers get up very, very early to go surfing either to get the best conditions (the wind if often blowing offshore), beat the crowds or to get a surf in before work or family obligations.


(Names blurred to protect the committed)

These early beach visits are one of the reasons why surfers are so hard to intercept when economists study beach visitation.

Every morning around the country legions of surfers are waking in the dark, heading to their favorite spot, often changing into a wetsuit before jumping into the chilly ocean at first light. This phenomenon is so common is has its own name - "dawn patrol".

Lazy? I don't think so.

The Coasts & CZMA: A Stimulus for the U.S.

This morning Dr. Linwood Pendleton provided a federal congressional briefing on the coastal economy and the importance of investing in the Coastal Zone Management Act, which provides the management framework for balancing conservation and development in our coastal communities. Here are a few tidbits from Linwood's testimony:

If coastal counties in the US were their own country they would have the world's second largest economy.

The coastal economy is more complex than the rest of our economy because the natural foundations upon which it is based are fluid and constantly changing.

In 2008, the total funding for state coastal programs was only $65.5 million with a cap of $2 million for each of 34 states with coastal programs.

Keep in mind, the coastal economy contributes 5 times more to GDP than the financial sector.

You can read Linwood's entire briefing here: The U.S. Economy Needs the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Effective management of our coasts is essential to protect water quality, beach access, beaches, coral reefs and coastal communities - all elements that are essential to protecting and enjoying our favorite surf spots. As surfers, beach goers and coastal community members, we should all support federal investment in the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The briefing was sponsored by the Coastal States Organization.

Dr. Pendleton is the Senior Fellow and Director of Economic Research at The Ocean Foundation and directs the Coastal Ocean Values Center.

You can keep up with Coastal Values at: www.twitter.com/coastalvalues

If Long Beach had surf, would more people visit?

Image from Surfline.

The obvious answer to this question is yes. The more challenging question is how many people would come to surf. Predicting how many people would come to visit Long Beach to surf would likely depend on the quality of the surf and how often the surf was good.

The Long Beach Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation has a long running campaign to "Sink the Breakwater and Restore the Shore"



As part of their campaign they convinced the City of Long Beach to do a feasibility study of the breakwater removal. Part of that study was an economic analysis of the benefits to tourism resulting from improved water quality, beach conditions & surfing.

To better understand how the surfing would improve and how many surfers might visit, the Chapter contracted with Sean Collins at Surfline (a leading surf forecasting site) to use their models, historical surf records and expertise to predict how many days of surf Long Beach would see, how many good days and how many poor days and then estimated how many surfers would show up to surf it.

You can read this very interesting report here.

So what's the conclusion? Based on this approach, Collins estimates that restoring surf to Long Beach could result in over 394,000 annual visits.

This visitation estimate is being fed into an economic analysis that should be available in mid-July. We'll report on that when its available.

Duke Kahanamoku surfing in Long Beach before the breakwater was installed.

New York Surfers Defy Surfer Stereotype

Photo from: Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

A recent article from the NY Times about surfer's objections of an offshore LNG facility in New York had this quote:

“Our community is both much bigger and far more diverse than people give it credit for,’’ said Chris Wade, the chairman of the Surfrider Foundation’s New York City chapter and one of the organizers of Saturday’s protest. “The average outsider who doesn’t surf has stereotypical ideas of who a surfer is and where they live and we defy those stereotypes here in New York.”

Chris is right and he's also a classic example of someone who defies the surfer stereotype - he was an infantry officer in the Marines, he has an Ivy League education, he has a Masters in History from Duke University, he's a teacher and a very active volunteer for the Surfrider Foundation.

He's also not alone and its also not only a phenomenon in New York.

A paper I wrote on the socioeconomics of surfers Trestles in Southern California had similar findings - surfers tend to be fully employed, well educated and earn high incomes. They essential reflect the communities they come from - that probably shouldn't be a surprise.

To help better understand who surfer's are, Surf First has launched a national survey of surfers to better understand their demographics, surfing habitats and economic impacts to coastal communities. You can check out the survey here.

Impacts of Coastal Development on Surfing

Nicolas Corne recently published an interesting paper entitled, "The Implications of Coastal Protection and Development on Surfing" in the Journal of Coastal Research (reference and link below).

The paper is noteworthy because it is one of the only attempts to quantify if coastal structures (groins, jetties, seawalls, breakwaters) are good or bad for surfing. This is common topic of debate within the Surfrider Foundation because we typically fight against coastal structures because they tend to alter coastal process, harm beaches and can destroy surf spots. On the other hand we are aware that many surfing areas are the result of shoreline structures (many of which have still have other negative consequences). This is especially true on the East Coast of the US where there are few natural reefs to make surf spots.

Not too surprisingly this paper finds that coastal protection structures do both, but with the bad out weighing the good for the projects analyzed. Here are some of the other notable elements of the paper.

• Because physically measuring the physical features of a surfing wave is extremely challenging (here is one attempt at Pleasure Point in Santa Cruz), Corne relies on user surveys to guage perceptions on the change in quality and crowds.
  

• It was found that crowds decreased when wave quality decreased as expected, but surprisingly there were no cases were it was reported that the crowd increased when the surf improved. As suggested this has a lot to do with the proximity of substitute sites.

• The results show that seawalls, emergent break waters and beach fill tend to reduce wave quality, where as jetties tended to improve wave quality. The "other categorey and "combo" projects showed mixed results.

This paper had a number of short comings that challenge its validity that put it at risk of being a formalization of surfing anecdotes.

• The survey frame is largely Surfrider Foundation members who may have a bias against shoreline structures that is reflective of the organization's beach preservation policy.

• The paper doesn't say how many people were surveyed so its impossible to know if the responses are based on one persons opinion or if the results had a wide variation in responses (error bars)

• The survey asks questions about some places that were altered 10 to 15 years ago (e.g the Wedge in Newport Beach) and it begs the question whether survey respondents are able to truly recall changes in surf quality or if crowds have changed for reasons other than wave quality (the author does acknowledge this shortcoming).

This paper represents a first attempt to quantify the impacts of coastal protection on surfing, which is an admirable research topic. I believe using crowds as a proxy for surf quality is a sound means of estimating changes over time and is something that warrants further research.

Attendance data at surf spots is essential information to better understand the economics, protection and management of surfing areas but has proven difficult to find.

Reference:

CORNE, N.P., 2009. The implications of coastal protection and development on surfing. Journal of Coastal Research, 25(2), 427–434. West Palm Beach (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208.

Download it here.


Thanks to Linwood Pendleton from the Coastal Ocean Values Center for his comments on this post.

Monster Wave in Super Slo-Mo

High-definition cameras shooting 600 frames reveal the inner dynamics of Monster Waves in the new BBC series South Pacific: Oceans of Islands premiered May 10 on BBC Two. The trailer above shows the first images of underwater spiralling vortices created by the wave’s action, off the coast of Pohnpei in the Caroline Islands, part of the Federated State of Micronesia. Read more about monster waves and super slo-motion techniques here at BBC Earth News.