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

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.

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.