Threats to Waves and Protection Strategies - Neil LAZAROW

Threats to 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

• The contested coast– Key coastal management challenges

• Surfing Capital and key threats• Recreation– Preferences and specialisation– Surfing Capital and Recreation Management

• Threats and management strategies• Discussion and opportunities• Framework to manage Surfing Capital

Pressures on the coast

• Population - growth and expansion of settlement footprint

• Development – changes and expansion in industry and land use types

• Natural Capital – changes in the natural resource base, including from climate change and climate variability (local to global scale)

¿Cómo se enfrentan los problemas?

Utilizando la metodología NISDES

• NEGANDO lo que existe• IMPROVISANDO soluciones• SUBESTIMANDO el problema• DESAUTORIZANDO a los expertos• EQUIVOCANDOSE en la aplicación• SORPRENDIENDOSE de los resultados

Dr Eduardo A. Vallarino, UMDP, 2010

Case study locations / country of origin GFTP

surveys

Surfers society and culture

Key surfing and ICM issues

Free-riderRomanticised notions of the sea rarely engage with, relate to or ‘genuinely recognise the economic, social or cultural issues that threaten it (Stocker, 2009) ’.

The ecosystem services provided by the ocean have for many years absorbed our waste and our pollution (how many times have coastal managers heard the phrases ‘out of sight out of mind’ or ‘dilution is the solution to pollution’).

On the one hand, the ocean has been used as a dumping ground for toxic waste, sewage and munitions and on the other hand we rely on the ocean for food, recreation and open-space, the ocean drives climatic conditions and the sea is the source of dreams and inspirations for so many.

Nowhere is the principle of the ‘free-rider’ better exemplified (and encouraged through poor policy and laws) than in our relationship with the ocean.

Typology of Surfing CapitalItem Description Natural or human impact

Wave quality Dominant local view of how the wave breaks. Both beauty and physical form become assessable.

• Construction of coastal protection/amenity structures (for example, groynes, seawalls, piers, seawalls, riverwalls, breakwaters, artificial reefs)

• Sand management (for example, beach fill, dredging, sandbar grooming) Wave

frequency‘Surfable’ waves measured against an accepted standard.

Environmental Environmental or biophysical conditions that may mitigate against a surfers’ physical health.

Biological impacts (for example, water quality or nutrient loading) Climate change/variability (for example, temperature change, sea level

rise, less or more storms less or more often) Amenity of the surrounding built and natural environment Marine predators (for example, sharks)

Experiential Societal conditions surrounding the surfing experience.

Legislation/regulation that might grant, restrict or control access (for example, community title, private property, payment strategies, craft registration, proficiency requirement, policing)

Code of ethics i.e. road rules for the surf Signage & education strategies Surf rage, aggression, intimidation Self-regulation/localism/lore Mentoring, sharing, physical activity, challenge, joy and laughter, well-

being, community spirit, Self-fulfilment Local aesthetic Risk, safety

Preferences and specialisation

• The importance of preferences• Ritual potential of surfing– Personal relevance– Scenes / collective expression

• Serious leisure• Specialisation• Subculture seduction

Surfers society and culture

SurfbreaksSurf break type

Headland or Pointbreak

Beach break

River mouth or estuary bar

Reef break

Ledges (including Bomboras)

Sea mount

Tidal bore

Bastion Point, Australia• Independent review sought by community

finds that the preferred option “will place the groyne across the end of the outer break, imposing an additional hazard to surfers as well as destroying part of the break.”

• EES states that there are “opposing views about the impact that the breakwater walls will have on surf further out..… The ‘region then becomes a more attractive place for the type of visitor who is family orientated and with young children, or teenagers who are interested in taking up surfing as a sport.”

Degradation of surf break – community health consequences

• Decrease in trust in government and loss of local sovereignty.• Increased negative social impacts on other already crowded surf breaks.• Increase in criminal behaviour with bored youths.• People may turn away from surfing and aspects of a healthy lifestyle, which would mean

increased longer –term health costs for the community. • Surfing provides a significant mentoring and intergenerational co-learning experience.• Changes in personal relevance, loss of self-worth and potential opportunities (for example,

Kyle, et al., 2007a).• Negative impact on local and visitor perceptions.• A local surf break may be the only recreational amenity facility that youth can access quickly

and safely.• Beaches and surf breaks often present the only access to ‘public space’ in highly urbanised

areas.• Increased potential for crowding and conflict at remaining venues (Manning, 1999).• Potential displacement of certain users (Manning, 1999).• Change or loss to the natural character of a location.

Managing outdoor recreationModify supply or demand (Manning, in Buckley 2004)

1. Increase supply2. Limit demand

Fixed supply or demand3. Modify the character of the recreational activity4. Improve the durability of the resource base

Five basic management strategies to ration and allocate use:reservation systems; lotteries; first-come, first-served or queuing; pricing; and merit (Manning, in Buckley 2004)

Strategies to manage user impact and resource base

Do nothing Legislate/Regulate Modify the resource base Educate/advocate

Do nothing

Restrict users through strategies such as payments, restricted access or parking, craft registration, restricted time in the water

Modify user behaviour using legislation such as requiring proficiency to surf particular areas or policing a surf break on jetskis

Community title (for example, Tavarua)

Declaration of surfing reserves

Groynes Seawalls Artificial reefs Sand bypass systems Beach and nearshore

sandbar grooming Nourishment

campaigns Break becomes

unsurfable due to water pollution

Code of ethics (that is, road rules for the surf)

Signage Education strategies Surf rage, aggression,

intimidation Self-regulation/

localism Lore Declaration of surfing

reserves Direct action Protests and

demonstrations Lobbying and the

promotion of alternative strategies

Provision of new information

Legislation / regulation• New Zealand – National Coastal Policy Statement• Australia – Exclusion zones in southwest Western Australia• USA – restricted access for surfing in New Jersey (up to

2003)• Australia – shared zoning for surfers, swimmers and boats

at Bastion Point• Surfing Reserves and Sanctuaries

– NSR– WSR– Bells

Bells Beach Surfing Recreation ReserveYear Action

1971 Management responsibilities for land area handed to municipality

1973 (6 June) Reserve gazetted under State Government public land act ‘permanently reserved for public purposes’ (land area only)

1981 Tenure amended to be ‘permanently reserved for the protection of the coastline’

1983 Reserve extended from high water 600m out to sea (seabed)

2002 Marine Park declared (covers most of the offshore area of the Reserve (water column)‘surfing has minimal impact on environmental values’

2003 Reserve listed on the State Government Heritage Register for its social, recognising importance of cultural and natural landscape (terrestrial reserve and seabed out to 400m, but extent of state jurisdiction also relevant = 3nm)

Map of Bells Beach Surfing Recreation Reserve (Map layer courtesy of Surf Coast Shire, 2009)

Note: The lines have been modified to practically reflect the land and sea areas of the Reserve. The Shire has no management responsibilities seaward of high water.

Lines approximate.

Source: Moriarity & Nelsen, Surfrider Foundation

Education / information / advocacy

Modify the resource baseDevelopment (adapted from Scarfe, 2008)

• Artificial nourishment • Port developments • Jetty construction or extensions

• Breakwaters • Piers • Boat ramps

• Seawalls • Dredging • Dumping of dredge spoil

• Outfall pipelines • Marinas • Groynes

• Water quality • Biological inputs • Climate change

Surfing EIA input (adapted from Scarfe, 2008)

Wave climate (inshore and offshore) Sediment grain sizes within littoral cell

Surfer numbers and seasonal variations Precise location of surfing rides

Wind patterns Surfer skill level

Wave refraction/diffraction/shoaling Breaker intensity

Peel angle Breaking wave height ration (H/d)

Tidal patterns and long-term water level trends

Surfable days per year

Vector change projections

Storm surge Wave and tide induced current patterns

Water quality Biological inputs

Source: Vallarino

Source: Isla

Source: ICM

Bilinga to Kirra, 1983. Source: Dept. Harbours and Marine

Overtures of a framework to manage Surfing Capital

• Strategic use of legislation and regulations• Community health and sustainability• Appropriate knowledge e.g. identification of Surfing Capital,

surf economics, strategies to incorporate local knowledge

• Partnership approach• Multiple advocacy strategies (within and external to the

surfing community)

• Politicisation of surfing

MerciGracias

Thank [email protected]

Some useful references• 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.

• 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.

• Manning, R.E. (2004). Managing Impacts of Ecotourism Through Use Rationing and Allocation. In R. Buckley (Ed.), Environmental impacts of ecotourism (273-286). UK: CAB International.

• Rosenblatt, B., Unger, B., & Mencinsky, A. (2005). How to Save a Surf Break? The Story of Sandy Hook, New Jersey. In G. Hening (Ed.), Groundswell Society: Surfing, Art, Science and Issues Conference, Conference. Groundswell Society. Location, 78-93.

• Scarfe, B. (2008). The Value, Scarcity, and Fragility of Surfing Breaks. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.

• Stebbins, R.A. (1979). Amateurs: On the Margin Between Work and Leisure. Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.

• Stocker, L. (2009). Sea, Self and Sustainability. Life Writing, 6(1), 133-141.

Synthesis and implications for ICM and sustainability

1. Relationship between NRM outcomes and community/place2. Public involvement processes3. Post-policy partnerships4. Access to knowledge through partnership approaches5. Capacity to review of develop meaningful policy6. Sustainability requires purposeful and sustained effort7. Effective engagement requires specialist skills8. Environmental policy experiments are rarely compatible with policy

cycles9. Politicised nature of decision-making is often uneven10. Politicisation of coastal issues many improve the allocation of resources