The surfonomics of the Superbank
Earlier this month the Gold Coast Bulletin ran a story that the swell from cyclones Tatiana and Winston had generated $20 million for the Gold Coast economy. The story painted surfers as useful contributors to Gold Coast society, and as such it was widely run in the surfing press.
But what wasn't explained was where the $20 million figure came from and how it could help Gold Coast surfers.
Screen shot from Swellnet's Greenmount surf camera on February 28th during Cyclone Winston [live surfcam link]
For the story, The Gold Coast Bulletin contacted Neil Lazarow. Though he currently works for the CSIRO as a senior research consultant, Neil spent many years at the Centre for Coastal Management at Griffith University, where he led the development of Gold Coast City Council’s Shoreline Management Plan. Neil was also undertaking a PhD at this time, with a strong interest in how natural resources are managed when there are contests about values and priorities. This led Neil to attempt to quantify the monetary and non-market value of surfbreaks, a field that became known as “surfonomics”.
“The information can get used in a number of ways,” said Neil when we recently spoke about his surfonomic studies, “but primarily it has a management or conservation focus. That is, the information provides policy makers and users with an improved understanding of the value of the assets under management or impacted by management decisions.”
The reason is purely pragmatic: surf economic studies put a tangible worth on waves, which in turn allows policy makers and politicians to weigh decisions using a common currency. No longer is the value of a wave merely intrinsic, when people such as Neil apply standard economic valuation techniques, they are able to ‘price’ waves and to put a tangible value on surfing. And that is something policy makers and politicians cannot ignore.
However, a legitimate criticism of surfonomics is that it runs the risk of distilling everything down to dollars – and thereby into winners and losers. Neil argues that a valuable lesson for surfonomics to learn from economics is to not lose sight of the broader cultural and societal contexts around which surfing takes place – things such as motivation and environmental quality, which is vital to understanding how well different societal values align.
A classic example of a surfonomic trade-off gone wrong is what happened at Bastion Point in eastern Victoria. Bastion Point was a beautiful yet infrequent wave located in a quiet rural area. In 2013 the wave was all but destroyed when a rock wall and boat ramp was built midway along the point. The rationale being the wave broke so rarely that its value to other ocean users – in this case boat users and fishermen - was greater than its value to surfers.
Yet the same complaint becomes a blessing when the theory is applied to areas of high surfing density. And that brings us to the $20 million for the Gold Coast.
Neil suggested that the glut of swell would have seen an increase in effort from both local and visiting surfers with each surfer forking out an average of $25 (locals) and $40 (visitors) per surf*. These figures are based on findings from a study Neil conducted in 2008 that estimated the value of recreational surfing to the Gold Coast. To account for population growth and other changes Neil ‘made some back of the envelope’ assumptions.
At this point it's important to note that Neil's figure was supplied to a curious journalist. It was an educated guess from someone who's studied the field and spent many years living in the area. As Neil says, “It would take a little more effort to ensure the figure was good enough for inclusion in a debate about public policy.”
And a good debate that includes surfing is needed. In June last year, Gold Coast City Mayor Tom Tate told the Gold Coast Bulletin he could care less about overcrowding on the Gold Coast's beaches. In fact, he was prepared to let millions of dollars “fall by the wayside” if surfers stayed away from the Gold Coast because of chronic overcrowding. In the article he said he didn't care “about creating more surf, that's not my priority,” in reference to artificial reefs.
Since winning office, Mayor Tate has shown he's avidly pro-development and pro-business. If anything is going to get a sign off from “Have-a-Go” Tate then it has to be shown as adding to the bottom line. In more recent times Mayor Tate's stance on surfing appears to be softening. Last Tuesday, Tate attended the inauguration of the Gold Coast as a World Surfing Reserve and while there said he hadn't ruled out building more breaks within the reserve to reduce overcrowding. Mayor Tate also said he'd make “sure that we look at potential artificial reefs to create other additional waves.” Which is a significant change of opinion in just six months ago.
Neil Lazarow says that studies such as his recent one "can assist all stakeholders make more informed decisions". At present the Gold Coast City Council has formulated its Surf Management Plan which is a collaboration of coastal scientists, board rider clubs, research bodies and the Gold Coast City Council. The Plan has finally given surfers a seat at the table where the big decisions are being made, and the recent $20 million figure supplied by Neil has the kind of gravitas that makes people like Mayor Tom Tate sit up and take notice.
*The figure for locals includes the cost of equipment such as the purchase of a board and wetsuit divided by the number of surfs per year e.g. a $600 board would add $6 to the cost of each surf if you surfed 100 times per year.
Comments
What about the money lost through 'sickies'?
When i lived on the Goldie i sure didn't spend an average of $25 per surf, if i had i would have blown my dole cheque in the first week.
Economics is known as the dismal science for good reasons. No data is reliable and economists predictions tend to be less accurate than random number generators. But, on the upside, it keeps them out of fields where they might do real damage. Surfonomics? Who was it said we know the price of everything and the value of nothing?
Sounds like climate scientists..oh hang on he was!!
if the data doesn't confirm your conclusion, just change it
economics is a religion not a science
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/is-economics-a-religion_b_4...
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2013/04/economics-as-religion.html
Yeah, there tends to be a lot of smoke and mirrors in this form of 'economics'. For example, how do you quantify the value of health, fitness attributed to surfing. It would be interesting to see the detail.
What do you mean crowded, about as many people as Scarborough on a shit day!!!
Yeah but no-one worries about getting dropped in on because you know it is going to close out anyway. It is Huey's way of keeping Perth surfers sane. Huey cares.
Interesting to see this article as econometrics starts to finally take some lumps for the bullshit that it is.
Too hard to calculate something remotely worthwhile, not dissing the guy who did, just all econometrics in general, and journalists' inability to express even the most mundane understanding of it. (also not having a go at you Stu, it's just that I read a lot of this stuff on the economy, and the average journo is a numbskull in front of a set of numbers)
But I am with blindboy on the keeping them off the streets argument. If only the buggers were not paid so much.
My take on Winston was more from the angle 'how many surfers went for the trip and said to themselves, 'never again'.
Which would amount to a loss for tourism, no?
Fellas, fellas....pay heed to Neil's point about surfonomics "primarily having a management or conservation focus". It's used to argue the case when developers want to destroy a wave or if surfers want to have their say in the surfing amenity.
Guys such as Neil speak the economists' language simply because they're advancing arguments that real economists (and developers and politicians) can understand, and hopefully can't ignore.
Neil Lazarow definitely knows what he is talking about. I'm biased because I'm his friend but I've seen him at work over many years and he is incredibly thorough, methodical and switched on.
Neil a past colleague of someone we know from that other cesspit?
Speaking if which, I haven't heard much from the Mensa member for a while. He been talking fishing with you freeride?
The Goldie boyz are doing their bit for the economy.
Mick's KPI is to bring the numbers up to two per wave - that should raise the bar to $40 mill.
If Dingo can get it up to three per wave, Mayor Tom will have $60 mill to play with per swell event.
Local glassers making wafer blades can up the ante from those cash cow blowins to $640 per person with a snappage.
Blindboy's 5% exponential growth rate is just pessimistic 20th century thinking.
Who needs a wall to keep those southerners out, when TC Billion is just five after Winston in the swell window, followed by TC Ca$h, then TC Dollar$.
Interesting how the language of neoliberalism has hijacked waves and the surfing experience and conversation. Matters are reduced and belittled into one of commercial transaction and experiences simply become instrumental market exchanges. The only way forward is said to be growth. When this hijacking of the discourse happens you've lost the battle already.
Hi hell, say hello to hand basket.
Neil is not a wanker. He is trying to negotiate with wankers.
SCOCL;)
The superbank is a huge visitor drawcard. If there was no surf on the Gold Coast, the town would probably be half the size. It is an industry town, the tourism industry, and it is largely run by tourism industry people. If you want to sit at the head table and discuss the value of protecting surf breaks with Gold Coast decision makers, you need to have tourism dollars as a part of the discussion. As they say, the first principle of policy making is 'it's the economy stupid'.
"the first principle of policy making is 'it's the economy stupid'."
And therein lies the problem.
Less so, if you have kids and you are wondering how they are going to get a job.
There's really nothing sinister about non market valuations of natural infrastructure. It's a no brainer that features like the super bank, the snowy mountains or whatever else, generate economic activity. They are the reason a certain amount of money changes hands on any given day. Estimating that makes absolute sense if you want to understand the dollar value of that particular natural feature or resource.
There are fairly well established methods that provide rough estimate, which is why you'll hear numbers like $20 million, which is two significant figures. Deliberately not very precise because it's very difficult to estimate things with much accuracy. No one pretends otherwise. But look up non market valuations in natural resource economics and environmental economics. A few common methods that try to get a sense of one or two components of the economic value (the travel cost method is one of the more easily understood approaches).
But honestly if you want to protect something, "because it's the right thing to do" just doesn't cut it as a reason because someone else might feel just as strongly that you're wrong. And when you get to value judgements, who's to say which is the correct set of values? An attempt to put a dollar value on a natural feature takes out the subjectivity and as others have mentioned it might get you a seat at the big table.
The alternative, arguing til you're blue in the face on a value judgement (we should protect the environment because a lot of us want to), leads to development winning in all but the most fortuitous occasions (heaps of us don't want to protect it so too bad).
Estimating the value of something according to how much activity it generates can help provide a way out of the tragedy of the commons.
Of course you live by the sword then you die by the sword so if a feature doesn't generate much economic activity then this line of analysis doesn't provide a solution for protection or conservation. So it's a very utilitarian approach. But there are attempts to quantify the value of ecosystem services as well so even if a place doesn't generate economic activity it might provide an service we benefit from (like bees pollinating crops) and the cost we'd have to pay to replace that ecosystem service with some kind of technological solution is a way to estimate its inherent value to us.
A famous example of that is the new York city water supply. The utility there figured out they could derive a significant ecosystem service from naturally vegetated catchments above the water supply reservoir. Instead of spending several billion on upgrading treatment plants they invested several hundred million buying land and protecting it to achieve cleanser incoming water. No need to upgrade the treatment plant. Cheaper clean water and a protected catchment was the result.
Public policy is made on these terms. We can either get on board and work within it or retain our ideals and watch the super bank get scoured out, kirra get lost forever and the cruise ship terminal get built on the broadwater. We might not win every battle this way but it's an effective tool to fight for some of em I reckon.
Good case.
Good points (no pun intended). The bees example is a good one. But in order to remove the subjectivity out of it is relevant to try to put some dollar value or at some key benefits to the society in general. That is a common set of metrics which all can understand and in away try to make it objective. It would have been interesting to see how Neil developed his model.
BTW, the cruise ship terminal is not happening - isn't it ?
This is correct. Having been given a glimpse of the horrifyingly utilitarian vision of council and engineers through my work with Neil, this is exactly what is going on.
There's a lot of soulless zombies in positions of power.
20 million dollars divide by 25 dollars = 800000 surfers in the water over the swell period....lol...I know its out of control crowded, but those figures are bull shit....lol
what a bunch of fucken wankers
Err...there's a little more to it than that mate....lol.
Great to see the range of comments here. Along with the surfonomics work I also collected some really rich data on surf culture, motivation, attachment to place, meaning in surfing, rules/law/lore etc as well as what I thought was compelling information about the non-monetisable aspects of surfing such as: mentoring, relaxation, bonding, fun, sport vs games vs competition, health benefits… I think this stuff is really interesting and helps to understand our more intrinsic values such as how surfers relate to each other and the environment, to other coastal users etc – but from a public policy / management perspective, it was the economic information that had a greater impact. I hope to publish some of this stuff soon and would be very interested in your feedback.
For those of you that are interested, here’s a bit of a glimpse beneath the bonnet for the numbers from the work.
• I interviewed close to 500 surfers on the Gold Coast between 2006-2008.
• How to estimate the number of surfers on the Gold Coast? I used three methods: 1) ask those who were interviewed – aggregated for the coast this figure came to 120,000 (see point below); 2) I used Council lifeguard data over an 18 month period – 75,000 surfers (see point below); 3) relied on a national outdoor sports survey (Sweeney Report) that reports 12-14% of Australians surf – so accounting for those too old and too young this was about 65,000 for the Gold Coast. The 12-14% figure is a national average and doesn’t take into account any differences between say Melbourne and surf towns like Wollongong, Torquay, Byron, Gold Coast etc so may be a lower bound estimate. The 3 methods return a huge range and I report the range rather than picking a number.
• It’s worth noting that the Gold Coast receives over 9 million tourists per year who make over 7 million beach visits while they are on the coast.
• On average Gold Coast surfers went surfing twice per week and surfed for a little over 2.5 hours per session. I used this data to interpret the figures above in order to come up with a total number of surfers. Think for a moment about what this means on a good day in Coolangatta Bay – by good day you might have 7.5 hours of surf. At any point in time there may be 350 or more surfers spread from Snapper to Kirra. That’s more than 1000 individual surfers in one day across these breaks, which account for about 30% of surfing effort on the Goldie. I don’t think that’s unreasonable…..
• Annual average expenditure per surfer was approximately $4000. This is the average over a significant number of surveys. Some people were just buying wax and others were buying a ski, 5 boards and making 3 overseas trips. A portion of expenses relate to effort and expenditure that is clearly outside of the Gold Coast e.g. an overseas trip, roadtrip to Crescent Head etc. With these costs excluded, the average annual expenditure comes down to $1942. This figure comprises $983 on equipment per year e.g. board, wetsuit, leash, accessories etc but not clothing) and the rest related to food and fuel costs. $1942 split over 104 sessions per year = $18.67 per session. If you add in all the additional expenses that I excluded then the upper end of the range is $30.36 per session.
Now for the recent GC Bulletin piece, we made a few assumptions:
1. Average cost per surf was a roughly midway point between $18.67 and $30.36 – I used $25. The bigger unknown variable is the number of users. The question from the journalist was whether the increase in population on the Gold Coast since I published the original work in 2008 was causing overcrowding? So we bumped the total number of surfers up to 75,000 to account for a shift in the total number of surfers – still well within the range I reported in 2008. Useful here to say something about precision vs confidence. The point with this work is to have a number that you are reasonably confident with that is good enough to inform discussion, rather than to get lost in having a figure precise to the 3rd decimal point.
2. Locals - I assumed that for 50% of surfers the increase in waves had no difference on their average effort; 30% of surfers increased their effort by 60% (I used this number because that is what the journalist who interviewed me suggested he had done over an 8 week period) and it felt about right from my experience living on the Goldie (in practice this meant surfing 4 times per week over Jan-Feb); for the remaining 20% of locals I assumed that average effort was doubled. Total local expenditure worked out at about $14.7M over the 8 week period. As was pointed out in the original article, this is money that is redistributed within the local economy and not really a boost to the local economy.
3. Visitors - I made two calculations for visitors. In the 2008 results, I reported that 3 out of every 10 surfers on the Gold Coast is a non-resident. I retained this assumption. Visitors have a different expenditure profile to locals mostly because of accommodation costs, and surfers have a different expenditure profile to other beach users (about 25% more on average). I estimated that existing visitors (i.e. those who had already planned trips to the Gold Coast in Jan-Feb spent an extra $3M during the period directly related to surfing; and new visitors (i.e. those that decided to come up to the coast specifically to surf during this period) contributed almost $1.8M.
4. The total of $20M (I rounded up from $19.5M) is then made up of roughly $14.7M from locals and $4.8M from visitors.
Cheers
Neil
Thanks Neil, really appreciate your contribution here.
Just to confirm, in 2008 you estimated that there were 65,000 surfers who surfed anywhere on the Gold Coast, of which 70% were local? (ie 45,500 local surfers)
Great. Now to compare that with other income generators for the Goldie. Makes for good reading. Thanks for publishing this.
Hi Ben,
The simple answer is yes, but it’s not that clear. Let me give you a summary of the 3 methods I used to calculate surfer numbers on the Gold Coast:
1. Based on the Sweeney Report estimation that 12% of the Australian population surf, I estimated there were approximately 41,000 resident surfers on the Gold Coast based on 2006 population stats (and eliminating all those under 11 and over 70) and an additional 24,000 non-resident surfers. In my survey results the exact proportion of non-resident surfers was 37%. One of the biggest challenges for the Gold Coast was accounting for surfing effort coming out of Brisbane. If half of the Brisbane surfers came to the Gold Coast then that alone would boost numbers significantly – and it’s clear from the travel data that Brisbane surfers frequent the northern end of the coast. For example, a number of survey respondents who rated TOS as their most favourite surf break travel 60km or more each way to go surfing.
2. Using GCCC lifeguard data. Some caveats – lifeguard data is only collected well after the ‘surfing day’ starts. Dbah and TOS are outside of the count, and collectively they account for almost a ¼ of surfing effort on the Gold Coast. Lifeguard data was provided in the form of headcounts at various times during the day and is not consistent with what I earlier described as surfing sessions (the 2.5 hour windows). So, making a number of assumptions about the relationship of lifeguard counts to surfing sessions, and the number of sessions per surfer per week, I estimated that there were 75,000 surfers (a combined figure for residents and visitors) but excluding Dbah and TOS.
3. Ask a surfer. I discounted the outliers and applied the same process as with the lifeguard data, and arrived at a figure of 120,000 as the total surfing population. I also only had ethics approval to interview over 18s so there may be a bias here
So, I always report the range of 65,000-120,000 surfers on the Gold Coast because that’s about as accurate as I can get. Intuitively, I think the upper bound figure is too high, but I also think the lower bound figure might be a little low. Generally speaking it’s much easier to provide the estimate of expenditure than it is to calculate the number of surfers. However, even the lower bound figure is ‘big’, certainly big enough and robust enough to inform decision-making and for making comparisons with other sports (I know surfing is only a sport for some of us) and economic activities.
Hope this helps.
Appreciate the detailed replies Neil. They show there's a lot more going on here on the Goldy than most surfers are aware of. Thanks for your efforts.
Thanks again Neil. I certainly appreciate the level of detail that's gone into your research.
I gotta say though - I am staggered at the suggestion that there may be 65K+ 'surfers' living on the Goldy. I know it's super crowded, but that figure seems disproportionately large in my view.
For all of the data that I have access to via Swellnet, and other research that we've done elsewhere (or been made aware of via the industry), that number seems extraordinarily high.
I suppose it depends on what the definition of a 'surfer' is though. FWIW, I am certainly in disagreement with the Sweeney Report's estimates.
As you say Ben, it depends on how you define surfer.
Nick Carroll has made the point that the Sweeney survey figures line up pretty well over time with the ABS figures on how many Australians regularly go to the BEACH (roughly 14% of the overall population).
That's as opposed to people who going surfing on a board.
The idea that there is anything like 2.8 million board riders (12% of 23 million) in Australia does not seem to be remotely borne out by experience or board sales figures.
On the other hand, anyone who enjoys swimming at surf beaches is also a surfer, depending on how you look at it.
Outside the surfer stats and looking at the community value of surf breaks, I know plenty of people who never swim at a beach but love a view of the surf because, as they say, 'I could sit and watch the waves all day'.
Freeride76 wrote a blog article a few years back where he tried to contact several sports market research companies.
To broadly summarise (I can't find a link to the original article), Repucom - who are used by WSL - didn't reply, but the GM of Sports/Ent at Sweeney did, and he stated there were just over 1 million surfers. Which is way more than their 2.5 million Australian surfers claimed in previous reports.
The Kelly Slater Wave Company have frequently cited 6.5 million surfers. No idea where they're getting their figure from.
And lastly, Gemba - who are sometimes cited by Surfing Australia (when it's convenient) - had just started producing its own report. To quote Freeride76:
"Their numbers offered a similar but more interesting breakdown. They claim 1.25 million surfers with a definition of a surfer being someone who has surfed once in the last twelve months.
Don’t know about you but that definition sounds a little loose.
People who have surfed more than once a week in Australia in the last twelve months according to Gemba?
162,500.
Finally, we whittle down from 6.5million to a more realistic figure of the surfing population in Australia.
Add those who surf once a week, our weekend warriors and we get something like 250,000."
So, Gemba think there's a quarter of a million Australia surfers who surf once per week or more. Which is a pretty good yardstick in my opinion.
Which is why I doubt that one third of them live on the Goldy (though sometimes it certainly feels like it...).
Putting a monetary value on surfing is playing the economists at their own game and by doing that you acknowledge that it is a valid measure of its worth. You also run the risk of someone with a concept that generates more money out bidding the value of the break. Consider the comparison between the monetary value of a surf break and the value of a boat harbour. We are just not in the same league.
Surfing is a minor league sport/recreation that punches far above its weight as an advertising image. If we really want people to recognise the intrinsic worth of surfing we need to stop selling it cheap to anyone who will buy. Alcohol? Yep, we can help you out. Sugary, tooth rotting, obesity feeding swill? Our very lifeblood for a couple of decades along with casual clothing. We have spent decades hocking our culture at bargain basement prices and now we want to put a price on the actual breaks? Jesus cheeses people have we learnt nothing?
Of course not.
That's ideology for you.
Zizek nails it haha:
Yeah, it was once you started drilling into the numbers supplied by the market research companies that the figures became meaningful.
I got a good mate Sweeney comma who works offshore and I'm pretty sure it's not him question mark.
Blindboy, this isn't putting a dollar value on surfing it's the value of the natural feature that is used for surfing. There's no question every natural feature has some kind of dollar value in terms of the money that changes hands for people to engage with it. Be they purchases of boards, wetsuits and petrol bought for the specific purpose of accessing and using the feature or national park entry fees paid to go hiking. That money all changes hands in the economy because of that feature. If it's not there that money changes hands differently.
That's a fact of how people spend their money to do what they want. Ignoring it doesn't achieve anything. Getting a handle on it can be useful. And it's got nothing to do with capitalism, neoliberalism of anything else. It's simply a matter of understanding how much money circulates in the economy because of the given feature.
It's absolutely true that if the boat harbour is worth more than the point break then we would lose. But that would happen anyway because the boat harbour developers will be armed with this kind of information and more. We can get in the game and maybe stand a chance or hold to the purity of not being able to put a price on a barrel and lose every time.
The fact is you can put a price on a barrel, a price is actually paid for every wave ridden. Embarrassingly I'm currently at $500 for every wave I've caught at DI, based on how much I paid for the 4WD I bought to get there and the number of waves I've caught there so far. It's hard to estimate these things economy wide and might be unpalatable to think about but it's got nothing to do with ideology or the political spectrum, nor is it some sell out of surfing.
Sorry benski, I disagree on every point. Yes you can put a price on everything, that is the basis of capitalism, but that price tells you nothing about its actual value. Consider the ivory trade. Ivory has a dollar value that makes it worthwhile killing elephants. Presumably the true value of the dead elephant far exceeds the true value of the ivory. As I said at the very start.....we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Good luck with the 4WD. I walk to the beach most days!
Unfortunately for the moment walking isn't an option for me. It will be again one say though! One of the greatest privileges of my life has been the times I've been lucky enough to walk to the beach for a surf. It is truly magical to me but its value (its true value!) is outweighed by other considerations right now.
Benski, I really respect you and the cases you put forward. But saying it has nothing to do with capitalism is wrong. Of course it does. It is a capitalist economy. Also, neoliberalism involves putting an economic value on everything and that trumping every other form of valuation, audit, etc. It has everything to do with ideology. Ideology is a system and you are part of this hence why your argument is what it is. You are not outside ideology. That's not how it works.
Presumably Clif, the state run market economy you work for does things differently?
You are not outside ideology either.
I mean at least we are in a position where we can argue a case ...a communist party run economy just crushes dissent.
Sorry freeride but economics is not a dichotomy. Rejecting the neocon version of capitalism, which is currently the dominant mode of economic thinking, does not mean embracing communism. There are a range of other possibilities including various forms of socialism.
I am absolutely NOT outside ideology. Never said I was. I'd argue nobody is - it is not possible given it is through this meaning-making takes place.
(There are different valuations based on ideology. China is capitalist, anyway - authoritarian capitalism [or as they call it - socialism with Chinese characteristics]. So, similar valuations - even the same - come into play. However, there are other alternative and/or post-capitalist ideologies which want and fight for very different approaches to these things, economic process, values, etc. But that is by and by and off topic)
I understand the context being worked in here and have heard what Benski has put forward, and Neil. I was simply contesting the point that it had nothing to do with capitalism, ideology, etc. )
ps. I am no longer in China.
yeah, fair enough Clif. it was a bit of a cheap shot. Thanks for responding reasonably.
Clif you're quite right it is nested within and therefore a part of capitalism. That was over reach from me. But calculating the amount of money that changes hands because of something is independent of ideology. It's simply making an assessment of what has happened among the population.
To clarify why I think it's independent of ideology, which is relevant to blindboy's point too, is that these approaches are not ascribing the entire value of the natural feature but a part of it. There are additional values, often broadly described as spiritual value to people and of course intrinsic value. The approaches being discussed here are simply about estimating the economic value in ways that aren't captured by a specific market. But to be clear no one who does this stuff will argue it's an estimate of the total or true value.
No but it is the tradeable value! It is what we will sell it for. The real value only enters the market place when someone behaves in an economically irrational manner. Try that at work! In fact try it at home! It is pretty much a guaranteed fail. The area I live in used to be full of cottages whose residents loved where they lived, but almost without exception they took the developers dollars and moved out. A slightly above the market price was enough of an incentive to forget the true value of their homes.
Hi Ben,
When I started my research I had two sets of data to play with – the Sweeney Report and the ABS data. The ABS reported 8,300 participants in organised surf sports and 242,800 participating in a non-organised manner in 2007 (surf sports is not specifically defined but it does not include lifesaving). This is the kind of ballpark you appear to be comfortable with – right?
I also have significant reservations about the Sweeney Report, in particular any attempt to derive a national number of surfers based on what I understand about the survey method that was used. I’m not familiar with the other studies that you mentioned. But I’m not arguing the point about a national estimate, just the numbers for the Gold Coast. The GCCC lifeguard data that I accessed suggest that the number is even higher than Sweeney Reports. Shall we dismiss them also? I’m aware of the challenges associated with doing manual headcounts and would be really interested in learning whether camera technology is better than it was a few years ago.
What data you do have to back up your assertion that my numbers are so far out? Let me add though that I’d love to be proven wrong – just show me enough evidence that your numbers are likely to be better?
One of the things that struck me from the surveys I did was the distribution of surfing effort on the Gold Coast. Naturally the points absorb the majority of the effort but there’s a huge effort across the beach breaks also that many people hardly ever take notice of – and this really adds to the overall numbers. I'll see if Ben can load up the graphic.
Here's Neil's graphic as mentioned.
Do you have a copy of the raw data or the report I can see? I'm curious to see their methodology. When I began work on my (as yet unfinished!) honours degree on the Gold Coast in 2003, I also tapped into the surf report data from the Gold Coast lifeguards (I spent many days in several towers, manually transcribing their beach conditions reports). Unfortunately, their data was unusable - for example, multiple week-long stretches where the surf was simply "one metre". I'm not implying that their surfer count data is of the same quality, because it's less subjective, however having had some personal experience with lifeguard data I am a little skeptical up front. Happy to be proven wrong though.
I don't have any other quantifiable data. I suppose at the end of the day, the notion that there are between 60,000 and 120,000 surfers living on the Gold Coast just doesn't pass the pub test for me.
How about if we try to use a metric everyone else can relate to: wax. Let's assume every surfer uses one block of wax per month (personally, I use a block of wax a week, but let's err on the conservative side of the coin).
Is the Gold Coast churning through an average of 90,000 blocks of wax per month - over a million blocks per year? I doubt you'll get any hard and fast figures from Mrs Palmers or Far King, but somehow - if at $4 per block - I'm doubtful the Gold Coast's wax economy is around four million per annum.
I'm not trying to play funny buggers with your report, as I know and greatly appreciate the hard work that's gone into it. But I have a deep fascination with statistics, and somehow I feel that the number of actual surfers on the Gold Coast - and indeed around Australia - is being overrepresented.
You & me know blokes that are so tight they have never bought a block a wax in there lives but surf plenty....but get your point.
blindboy, I'm not sure it's the tradeable value either (talking about a natural feature rather than a private citizen's home). It's just a best guess at how much economic activity it generates. If anything it's a relative assessment of its impact on the local population relative to all others. It objectively measures the importance of the feature to the economic activity of the population as a whole.
But without an avenue like examining willingness to pay or accept pay, how are we to say the true value of something? You said the older residents of your part of town forgot the true value of their homes. Who are you to say what that true value is when the only person who can make that assessment is the person themselves? By definition the value, relative to other items they may want or need, is what they're willing to accept or exchange for it. I don't understand how someone else can question that or suggest that a person forgot the true value when making their own private assessment of what the home was worth to them. Given the ownership is private, the value of the home is determined exclusively by the owner.
Regarding elephants, that's clearly different because they aren't privately owned. Equally I would ascribe them an intrinsic value, being a sentient animal. So yes I agree with you that the true value of an elephant is likely beyond the market value of ivory. This is where the utility of these approaches reaches conservation. If we can demonstrate the economic activity generated by a living elephant we go a long way to convincing policy makers to protect them. Because jobs jobs jobs etc. Clearly elephants should be protected regardless but when you're governing a region and need to figure out how to allocate your limited funds for public policy initiatives, you've got to get the best bang for your buck (so to speak) and sadly money talks.
Anyway I think you understand what I'm saying and the disagreement is on the lines of values rather than misunderstanding so I'll leave it there.
One thought I had though, is that if you apply these ideas to climate change and then rearrange the equation you very easily get to an emissions trading scheme (total price per ton paid becomes an estimate of the economic value of a clean atmosphere. That's a very rough thought and I haven't expressed it properly but I'm pretty sure it's a reasonable step). Are you down with that approach to CO2 reduction or do you prefer an alternative? I'm not asking for a debate or as a loaded question I'm just curious as I see a direct link between the ideas.
Clif, that clip from zizek is damn interesting. But what's the end point of that? Can we ever know if we've escaped our ideology as we interpret our surroundings and society? And should we even try since I imagine it would be impossible to define the 'right' ideology to which we should all aim?
This kind of stuff blows my mind.
Yep, it trips me out too.
Should we try? That's only a question we can ask. Those who are oppressed have to.
The thing is, ideology itself is the illusion. Perhaps it is the 'mad' who have the answers given they create their own ideologies/worlds? Is it 'us' who are 'mad' or 'them'?
hehe
I've had a serious existential crisis ever since.All this does my head in. So, I go surfing haha
What a sad sorry thread.... Like when punk became "new wave"... "Give me a slice of that" chortled the men in suits... This "Culture" BB speaks of becomes mainstream.... Then it becomes commonplace.... Kids in Denver or Alice Springs wearing Quicksilver... The men in suits move on coz there's another hip new thing to bring to the masses.... Manscaping I hear is big... Beards... Product for beards... Steam punk fashion... Perhaps we could do a study on how much men turning into hipsters has helped this entity called "the economy"...
Or perhaps collectively we could not give a fuck and go on an old fashioned weekend surfari....
News just in.... Old fashioned weekend surfaris all the rage.... Small coastal towns reap in bonanza...... Stats to follow......
Hey, leave new wave out of this. My hair was awesome.
Well to be fair, those kids in Denver probably ride a snowboard.
I like Neil. He is a thought leader.
This article prompted me to revisit one his papers from 2006 he presented at the NSW Coastal Conference, THE VALUE OF COASTAL RECREATIONAL RESOURCES.
Neil did some case studies - in a push to protect surf sites under threat. He compared Sth Straddies and estimated 11,500 surfers contributed $20mill to the local economy per year. He then looked at Bastion Point in Vic and estimated 75 surfers contributed only $230,000 p/a. (apologies Neil if I have misquoted you).
Interesting that Bastion Pt got a groyne through the guts and the economics for a new boat ramp proved superior in that community.
But what struck me - despite the hype about overcrowded surf spots at branded locations - the majority of surf spots would have less than 250 locals. (my estimate, no source). Over time, will boat ramps, sewage outfalls, clubbies flags, marinas and every other coastal encroachment, with a superior economic argument - win out at those locations too?
Which reminds me - I better send that annual $200 donation off to Surfrider Foundation.
I recall when economists thought they would help out in conserving and protecting endangered species and habitats by putting a price tag on every natural thing. This has worked an absolute treat in Africa where wild animals are conserved simply because people can make a lot of $$$$ by breeding them to be killed by wealthy trophy hunters from across the globe. A significant amount of money made goes into breeding more of the species for hunting and the objective of keeping endangered species populations breeding and viable is achieved.
But just what do we pay for this in terms of our diminished ethics, respect and appreciation of these species as wild creatures. In a short time we will go from being awed by the sight of an African Lion, to considering it as simply the equivalent of just another battery chicken. Just another commodity to be used by humanity for what ever purposes we choose.
The same thing applies to waves. When economists start to place an economic value on any "earth resource" it immediately looses its soul and by association its fascination for humanity. It just becomes another means to make a buck.
The truth is that that when it comes to wild waves, wild landscapes, wild animals or any wild thing, these are entities that are all actually beyond placing a simple value on. They are all in effect priceless.
Humans don't manufacture these things, only natural world can do that. In that regard they are not ours to put a price on! They are part of an intrinsic natural environment that keeps us alive as a species. Without nature generating all these things, the very elements of our planet that sustains us as a species would not exist. They are a finite entity provided by the fragile planet which we seem hell bent on f%#&*!* up. Would you like to put a price on the air, water and soils that sustain us. Economists already have, but it is irrelevant, because without them we would not exist in any case.
I understand that this is all a well meaning attempt to make waves relevant in terms of a language we all understand and get us in to the game. But is it a game we really want to play. As in the end when you turn things into a simple commodity to be traded and given a $$ value, you kill its very soul and diminish the reason why it is as valuable and priceless as it is.
When you start down this road, you begin to not only loose your respect and awe of the natural world, you loose your basic humanity. And then maybe, with a bit of really bad luck thrown in, you loose your planet!
Most don't like to make surfing or surf development a matter of economics. But lets face it we all use economics in making the majority of decisions in our lives. It is certainly the most commonly used factor when making decisions for a cross section of society.
Given the demand that we all want 'uncrowded' surf close to where we live, this maybe just one way to present to various decisions why we need more surf spots. This includes artificial reefs, bathymetric modifications to natural points, etc. Just as we build parks, skate ramps etc.
We need research like this and it needs to be reliable.
Correct me If I am wrong, but skin cancer was not deducted... It is a major cost, and numbers are steadily increasing...
In 2014 alone, The gold coast had 460 melanoma's diagnosed, Brisbane had 1176. Pure speculation to say a major portion of these people are beachgoers, with a major portion of those being surfers or ex surfers.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/skin-cancer-rates-highest-in-...
In 2010, 351 people died in Queensland from melanoma. the median age was quite old, but still below retirement age.. And with more people than ever before now surfing, and with younger people not heeding warnings, the median age will drop and incidence rates will increase.
https://qccat.health.qld.gov.au/Melanoma%20in%20Queensland.html
Non melanoma skin cancer (which includes basal cell carcinoma and the very dangerous often metastasising Squamous cell carcinoma) ;
133 000 non melanoma skin cancers are diagnosed in Queensland each year!!!
Queensland has the highest rate of skin cancer IN THE WORLD..
http://www.uv.hlth.qut.edu.au/resources/fast-facts/skin-cancer.jsp
So if we're going to talk about "surfonomics", one has to include the medical bill, which all taxpayers chip in for.
why stop at Skin cancer?
As a non-surfing citizen and non-surfing suit, how much do I think surfing and surfers contribute to the economy? Zilch, pwett, nil, fuck all. In fact - negative contribution.
Surfing and surfers suck from the economy like parasitic ticks on a pair of bulls balls. Most good surfers are selfish, egocentric, doll bludging, pot smoking non-working, winging whiners that sit out in the ocean all day. Do a survey of those you know, the better the surfer is at surfing, the less money he has. Surfernomics? Give it a rest.
Sounds like you're stuck in the 1970s, mate.
.
I resent that silver-surfer I have never bludged on a doll in my life. Come to think of it I haven't even winged while I whined, though I will admit to whinging while wining.
sheepdog, you might not like this, and many idealists don't, but as far as GDP goes as a measure of economic activity, skin cancer could represent another increase of the economic value of the super bank, so long as it doesn't end their life or take them out of the workforce.
If more surfers get skin cancer because they spent longer in the water waiting for that magical, next wave in, then that means more doctors and nurses get paid to treat them. That means more jobs in the health sector and more money changing hands in the economy as a direct result of the super bank.
Now absolutely it's a cost to the health system, and it means surfers are taking nursing time away from vulnerable people who need care such as oldies with broken hips etc, but as far as generating economic activity goes, well it's a dark truth that those kinds of things boost it.
Not a palatable truth but it is the case. Added cost to the health system and drain on resources, for sure, but increase in economic activity too.
How's that for the dismal science?