Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy

Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy Emma J. Rendle n, Lynda D. Rodwell School of Marine Science and Engineering, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 16 February 2013 Received in revised form 20 June 2013 Accepted 9 September 2013

Artificial surfing reefs (ASRs) are a new breed of coastal engineering structures claimed to enhance local biodiversity, provide coastal protection and improve wave quality for surfing. By providing multiple functions ASRs are often expected to contribute positively to the local economy, especially through tourism related to surfing and other water sports or beach uses. However, there is a lack of independent studies to support this expectation. This study investigates the claims that an ASR will enhance a coastal economy through tourism. Using Boscombe ASR, UK as a case study a preliminary evaluation of visitor expenditure is conducted. Using targeted face-to-face questionnaires we gathered data from 523 seafront visitors over a 32 month period. Results show that the ASR initially acted as a tourist attraction after which the novelty wore off. However, the positive impacts of the seafront regeneration scheme on the local economy are longer lasting. Contrary to the original claims that the Boscombe ASR would attract an affluent surf market, surfers and water users interviewed in this study are low spenders and rarely stayed overnight in Boscombe. Although it has been demonstrated that the expenditure of surfers is not as high as expected, more affluent non-surfer visitors have been attracted by the marketing associated with the new surfing resort. The results of this study have led to the following recommendations with respect to the establishment of artificial surf reefs: a period of stakeholder consultation with surf community and local community is required to determine whether an ASR is desirable; robust impact assessments of the reef must be carried out by independent parties before a marine licence is granted; expectations of the community must be managed through honest marketing and careful media coverage; planning must include a contingency for the cost of maintenance, repair and even removal if the structure fails to deliver; and further research is required to determine the full social and economic potential of artificial surf reefs. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Surf tourism Amenity enhancement Artificial reef Coastal planning Coastal development

1. Introduction More than a decade has now passed since the construction of the world's first artificial surf Reef (ASR) at Cable Station near Perth in Western Australia [1]. Since then six further reefs have been constructed with varying degrees of success: USA (later removed), Australia, two in New Zealand, India and most recently the UK received Europe's first ASR. Each reef was constructed based on a detailed design [2–7] supported by numerical and/or physical model results, indicating a likely (or theoretically likely) improvement in surfing conditions [1]. There has been a growing interest in ASRs world-wide and surf reef construction has been discussed in countries such as Portugal [8] and Brazil [9]. The majority of physical and structural ASR research has been undertaken in the last decade [10]. The concept of ASRs has become a reality born from academics passionate about surfing

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 44 1752 584735; fax: þ44 1752 584710. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Rendle).

and studying the physics of breaking waves [3,6,10–13]. ASR Ltd. [14] is one commercial company set up for the purpose of advancing research, testing and constructing ASRs. Researchers have traced the evolution of artificial reefs from empirical and theoretical perspectives [15–17], whilst other studies have provided reviews and perspectives of ASRs [3,12,18–21] or focused upon specifics such as the use of ASRs to promote surf tourism or coastal protection [10,22–24]. Some monitoring studies have quantified the performance of ASRs objectively [25,26]. However many studies are published by professionals with a commercial interest in ASR development [22,24,27]. Compared to similar structures such as groynes and breakwaters, reporting on the progress and success of artificial reefs from a marine and coastal policy perspective is still in the early stages. Although the aforementioned studies have contributed significantly to current knowledge, they have tended to be narrow in focus, assessing ASRs in terms of economic theory or physical processes without extending their analysis beyond the bounds of the surf industry. Surfing is a popular and continuously growing trend in the UK with an estimated number of over 600,000

0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

2

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

participants in 2005 [28]. Today it is estimated that surfers and wave-riders combined make up over 1% of the UK population [29]. In comparison, in 2007 there were reported to be approximately 2.5 million surfers in the USA and 2 million in Australia [30]. Visit Britain [31] figures show growing popularity of British seaside resorts with a record 2.9 m inbound visitors to Britain in June 2011. Increased interest in activity breaks with tourists learning or trying new sports such as surfing and kayaking have been reported throughout the country. In the UK alone the learn-to-surf industry has grown by over 400% in the past 8 years and is a significant contributor to Cornish economy [32]. There are few references to socio-economic impacts of ASRs in the literature. In a cost-benefit analysis for the Northern Gold Coast Beach Protection Strategy (NGCBPS) [33], a project amounting to AUS$8 million which included both beach nourishment and the construction of an ASR, a high economic return value of 1:60 was estimated. The benefits were attributed to the protection of the beach face from cyclones and storms which in turn protected against loss of valuable tourism revenue. This high cost:benefit ratio is often misquoted in ASR Ltd. sales literature [2,34] as the achieved cost-benefit ratio of Narrowneck ASR. However, the ASR was only part of the overall NGCBPS, and there have been no economic studies that evaluate the ASR directly. Therefore evidence of the benefits of the ASR itself is lacking [35]. In a subsequent study in 1998, the same authors acknowledge that the transfer of surf tourism activity from other locations on the Gold Coast to Narrowneck would mean that “there would be no net benefit to the region” [36]. Slotkin and colleagues highlight that the assessment of sustainability of surfing is hampered by the paucity of economic data and the subjective interpretation of success [37]. These same issues arise whilst addressing the economics of ASRs. The benefits of ASR construction to the local community are therefore debatable and heavily reliant on economic monitoring pre- and postconstruction. In a further study Slotkin and colleagues independently assess the proposal for an ASR in Brevard County, Florida [38]. They significantly undermine the claim made by ASR Ltd. of a 1:4 cost to benefit ratio. They stated that the project recreational benefits were unlikely to justify costs since uncertainty surrounded the economic benefits of holding surf competitions at the site; the original economic analysis presumed to take these

competitions as a matter of fact. In a study of a proposed ASR proposed for Geraldton in Western Australia Rafanelli claimed that the ASR would generate $1.5 million per annum through tourism, with 97% of this income being re-spent within the city [39]. However, no cost-benefit ratio was estimated and there was no discussion of potential income from the ASR after the first year. This reef has not been constructed and so no figures exist to support this optimistic claim. In general, surfing has been shown to enhance coastal economies [40]. The results of a 2004 survey conducted by the Cornwall County Council and the South West Regional Development Agency in the UK showed visiting surfers spend approximately 8.5% more in Cornwall than the average visitor [40]. The study showed the surfing industry turnover was d64 million in Cornwall, about 20% more than the sailing industry and twice as much as the golf industry. Similarly, a Spanish study in 2008 investigated the impacts of surfing on the small coastal community of Mundaka (population size 2000), where they showed surfing attracts 30,000 visitors to the town per annum, supports 95 jobs and contributes up to US$3.4 million (d1.9 million) per annum [41]. A study of the confluence of surf tourism, artificial surf reefs and environmental sustainability in Florida found that the overall average daily spend per surf visit is about US $60 [37]. This is consistent with other similar studies in the US [42] and on the Gold Coast, Australia [43]. Lazarow [44] also gives a global estimation for the value of surfing at US$15.5 billion calculated from the three largest international surf companies based solely on surf equipment and clothing alone. Other artificial reef research provides a review with relation to the law and economics in the UK [45–48] for ecological enhancement or coastal protection. This research, however, was carried out over a decade ago and, in light of the surfing reef concept being adapted in Europe, investigation into the economics of ASRs needs updating. More recently, Fletcher [49] explores ASRs from the perspective of governance by reviewing the anticipated challenges facing the Boscombe ASR, UK. He found that the success of the reef project would be based on balancing a three way tension between; elevated visitor numbers resulting from an intentional policy to attract surfers to Boscombe, the need to ensure surf safety as far as is possible, and the need to generate a genuine surfing experience. The main international designer and constructor of artificial surf reefs (ASR Ltd.) makes a wide range of claims about geotextile

Fig. 1. Location maps showing (a) Boscombe on the south coast of England, UK, and (b) Boscombe artificial surf reef in relation to the coast and pier.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

technology; from ecological enhancement through coastal stabilisation and defence. Claims regarding the economic potential of ASRs and derived evidence of economic contribution from surf tourism include “International high-powered studies by reputable agencies all over the world show that multi-purpose soft reefs bring 10–80 times their full construction cost back to the community… through better, safer beaches, coastal protection and visitor spending” [50]. Resident surfers and local enthusiasts may have been enthused by ASR construction due to marketing claims such as “Multi-purpose soft reefs and surfing greatly increase tourism and property values” [50]. If they can prove to be successful, and these claims can be substantiated, ASRs offer an exciting innovative new commodity, both in terms of coastal management and social use. This paper focuses on the potential use of ASR technology at coastal resorts as a tool for income generation for the local coastal economy. Using Boscombe ASR, UK (Fig. 1) as a case study the impact of the artificial reef on visitor numbers and expenditure in Boscombe for the 32 months following its establishment will be evaluated. This information is used to provide recommendations to coastal managers and policy decision makers when planning future coastal developments on the potential suitability and performance of ASRs in generating income for local economies.

2. The case study: Boscombe artificial surf reef UK Tourism is a major industry in the UK contributing d96 billion to the economy in England (8.6% of GDP) and is an industry forecast to grow in the future with 250,000 jobs being created by 2020 [51]. The long-run Gross Value Added (GVA) growth rate of the visitor economy is forecast to be 3.5% per annum over the period 2010–2020, well ahead of the 2.9% forecast for the economy as a whole and tourism expenditure is forecast to grow at an annual real growth rate of 3.0% per annum over the period 2010– 2020 [51]. Estimates show tourism was a d600 million industry in the Bournemouth area in 2011[52]. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, urban sprawl linked Boscombe with Bournemouth, and Boscombe became one of the many railway linked seaside resorts on the south coast of England (Fig. 1a), with promenade hotels, and attractive gardens. With the help of the construction of Boscombe pier in 1889, Boscombe thrived as a Victorian seaside resort. However, in recent decades, Boscombe has suffered a lack of investment and the area is in decline [53]. In almost all seaside resorts, distinctiveness and uniqueness is an essential part of regeneration of the seafront and can often dictate the project's success or failure [54]. In renovation plans for Boscombe and its surrounding area, Bournemouth Borough Council looked for an innovative focal piece for the d12 m Boscombe Spa Resort and chose ASR technology to be a flagship element of the regeneration scheme at Boscombe seafront. The artificial surfing reef was poised to provide Boscombe Seafront with a new image. Construction of the ASR began in July 2008 and was officially completed on 2nd November 2009. The ASR is located 225 m offshore (Fig. 1b) and covers an area of seabed approximately 45,000 m2 at a depth of between 2.7 and 5.0 m. Boscombe ASR was designed to provide a high-quality right-hand surfing break up to 80 m long during clean swell conditions [55] and a shorter left hand break. Boscombe ASR is constructed from large geotextile sand-filled containers (SFC's), positioned onto the seabed by divers and filled with sand in situ. To date the reef has cost a total of d3.1 m but additional expenditure is likely as structural alterations to the reef are needed to enhance surfability and repair damage. As Mark Smith, director of tourism says “we [Bournemouth Borough Council] are still in a contractual obligation with ASR Ltd. which requires them to replace two containers and make additional repairs to the reef”

3

[56]. The entire Boscombe seafront regeneration scheme totalling d13.5 million [57] was funded through both private and public investment. Council funding was mainly through the sale of an underused car park to housing developer Barratt Homes (d10.4 million) as well as grants (d1.3 million) and sale of new beach huts (d1.8million). Barratt Homes then added to the regeneration scheme by developing the car park into apartments; this cost the company d48.8 million however Barratt Homes investment made a quick return with the sale of most apartments within the first year [58]. This equates to the entire scheme costing approximately d65.4 million [59]. In 2006 Bournemouth Borough Council estimated that the reef would “bring an economic impact of d10 million annually to the area and support an additional 60 full time jobs and 30 part-time jobs” [60]. Since, the Boscombe ASR was designed to enhance surfing opportunities in the area, not as a means of coastal protection [61], the site provides an ideal opportunity to investigate economic impacts of the ASR independently from the beach facilities. The cost benefit ratio prediction was 1:20 [62], and would represent a healthy return. However, these estimates are based on provision of additional amenities, beach widening and increasing aesthetic value. An independent report from Hydraulics Research, Wallingford, UK concluded that in principle of the concept of the reef would have ‘a broadly neutral’ effect upon coastal protection [61] and therefore unlikely to widen the beach. The initial performance assessment [25] found that the ASR was meeting four of the eleven performance criteria (in surfability, wave form, peel angle and wave height amplification) and partly meeting a further two (ride length and physical shape). Damage to the structure was discovered in spring 2011 and the reef was closed to the public; two of the upper most bags had to be removed following the failure of the geotextile material. Bournemouth County Council and ASR Limited were preparing refinement works for 2011–12 alongside maintenance works to improve Boscombe ASRs performance. However these refinements were never completed and the company went into liquidation in October 2012. The Artificial Surf Reef site is still being developed by the council and an alternative uses for the reef (such as snorkelling and diving) are being investigated.

3. Methodology 3.1. Questionnaire design A face-to-face questionnaire was developed to survey visitors to Boscombe Spa seafront to estimate visitor numbers and expenditure patterns after the establishment of the ASR. The survey method was employed due to its simplicity, cost efficiency and ease of being replicable quarterly. The survey was submitted to the University of Plymouth ethics committee to ensure approval to conduct questionnaire based research in the UK. A pilot study was carried out with 50 participants at Boscombe Seafront and revealed that respondents were reluctant to be questioned for more than 5 minutes, particularly those doing water sports in the winter. The final survey was therefore designed to quickly elicit the key data required to evaluate the contribution of Boscombe ASR to the local economy. The following data were collected: distance travelled to Boscombe, duration of stay (if in Boscombe), expenditure per day, reasons for visiting the seafront and demographic information. Respondents were asked to estimate their daily expenditure per person including: food; accommodation; transport; entertainment; parking; shopping expenses; and any other costs incurred. From these data it was possible to differentiate between those who had come for the regeneration of the seafront and those who had been attracted by the ASR.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

4

Visitors are described as anyone at the seafront location, both resident (o2 miles) and tourist (4 2miles). The two mile radius is given as a guide when communicating with respondents as it encompasses Boscombe residents living along the coast and inland. The town centre is 1 mile inland from the seafront and urban sprawl extends another mile north of the centre. Temporary residents are defined as second home owners living for short periods in Boscombe, usually in holiday periods. This investigation aimed to determine the reasons behind visitors being drawn to the 250 m stretch of Boscombe seafront, in the vicinity of the ASR and so businesses were not targeted. The town centre of Boscombe is approximately 2 km inland of the seafront. It is dilapidated and does not hold much tourist interest, therefore, visitors to the town were not questioned as part of this survey.

4. Results 4.1. Demographic details A total of 523 respondents were questioned randomly during 10 survey sessions. Approximately 1 in 4 of the visitors approached completed the survey. Those reluctant to be questioned were predominantly the older generation and parents with children. There was no pseudo replication in the data. Respondents were questioned on a random basis by the same interviewer. None of the respondents mentioned that they had previously participated. The modal age category was 25–34 with 23.9% of respondents in this age group (Fig. 2a). There was a gender bias towards men with 61.8% male (n¼ 323) and 38.2% female (n¼200) respondents. 51% were tourists, 44% were residents and 5% temporary residents. These data are divided into seasons to illustrate seasonal fluctuations in the visitors to the seafront (Fig. 2b).

3.2. Data collection and analysis 4.2. Distance travelled In total 10 surveys were conducted between December 2009 and August 2012 and represent one survey per season. These quarterly surveys represent a 32 month time frame starting shortly after the construction of the ASR was completed in November 2009. The surveys were carried out on Boscombe beachfront promenade; a 50 m stretch between the pier and ASR. The location was chosen due to the locality of amenities such as parking, shops, restaurants and beach side facilities as well as vicinity to the Boscombe ASR. Microsoft Excel and Nvivo8 were used to analyse the quantitative and qualitative data collected, respectively. To enable statistical analysis, the mid-range value was used for the variable ‘expenditure per day’ by taking the arithmetic mean of the maximum and minimum value of the range to obtain a single expenditure value per range [63]. Regression analysis was performed where appropriate in order to highlight general trends in data.

The non-resident respondents were questioned on how far they had travelled. Overall, 27% had travelled from the local area (classed as 2–15 miles) and 73% had travelled 4 15 miles. These data are given for the individual surveys (Fig. 2c). No clear temporal trend is apparent in the distance travelled by respondents, although seasonal fluctuations are apparent. In the Summer 2011 survey there is a rise in the number of respondents in the 4150 mile group, some of whom were visitors from outside the UK. There are more seafront visitors from the 2 to 60 mile radius during the autumn and winter month surveys. In general, higher proportions of visitors to Boscombe seafront in the 460 mile radius were recorded during the spring and summer months. The Summer 2012 survey does not reflect this same pattern and the proportion of visitors travelling 4100 mile has reduced since Summer 2010 and 2011.

Fig. 2. (a) Age of respondents as percentage with standard error of the mean (SEM); (b) seasonality in seafront visitor origin, whether tourist or resident; (c) the distance travelled by the tourists and temporary residents, in miles; and (d) the duration of stay of all respondents in days.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

4.3. Duration of stay in Boscombe Findings indicate that 80% of respondents were visiting Boscombe for less than 1 day (Fig. 2d). Predictably, visitor overnight trips are impacted by seasonality; summer months are more likely to see visitor's trips being extended from a few hours to a period of days or weeks. An increase in duration of stay (respondents staying 41 night) was observed during the spring/summer seasons from 2010, 2011 and 2012; from 25%, 26% to 36%, respectively. However,

5

an overall decrease in duration of stay (respondents staying 41 night) was observed during the autumn/winter season from 2010, 2011 and 2012; from 14%, 10% to 8%, respectively.

4.4. Reasons for visiting Boscombe seafront When asked for three reasons for visiting the seafront respondents gave a total of 1031 responses, not all respondents could

Fig. 3. Ranked frequency table for the reasons for visiting Boscombe Seafront. Each respondent gave up to three reasons.

Fig. 4. The reason given for visiting the Boscombe seafront on the 10 surveys for (a) general tourism; (b) the restaurants, cafes, and bars; (c) to view the Boscombe ASR; and (d) to see the regeneration of the seafront.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

6

think of three reasons. 37% gave “general tourism (e.g. walking, taking the fresh air, looking at the sea)” as a reason to visit the seafront (Fig. 3). There is a general increase in trend in the attraction of “general tourism” over the 32 month period (Fig. 4a). The general attractions of the nature of the seafront are key to tourism and consistent with drawing visitors to the coast. “Water sports” were mentioned as an attraction by 19% of respondents (Fig. 3). This category varied from families paddling and swimming (21%) to respondents partaking in more extreme sports such as kayaking or surfing activities. Of these, longboard stand-up surfing was the most popular water sport (26% of the water sports), followed by short board stand-up surfing (20%) and body boarding (14%). Over the 32 month period studied, 4.5% of respondents mentioned Boscombe ASR as a reason for their visit to Boscombe Seafront. However, 85% of those respondents that replied “To view the ASR” were in the first two surveys (Winter 2009–10 and Spring 2010) indicating that there was initial interest in the ASR from seafront visitors, both local residents and tourists (Fig. 3). Respondents replied 85 times that they had come to use the restaurants, cafes or bars and to shop, compared to 47 times the ASR was mentioned, for surfing use or as a tourist attraction. The initial interest dwindled to between zero and two respondents mentioning the reef in each survey after spring 2010. The ASR was not mentioned at all in the last three surveys. This decline in interest is highlighted with sharply decreasing trends in reasons such as “To view the ASR” and “Renovation of the seafront” in attracting visitors to the beach front (Fig. 4c and d). The “Restaurants/Cafes/Bars” category had a strong positive trend over the three year period (Fig. 4b). 25 respondents replied “other” as a response (Fig. 3); these attractions to the Boscombe Seafront included watching the football, skateboarding, attending a wedding, spear fishing, photography and enjoying the scenery. 4.5. Expenditure Respondents who partake in water sports at Boscombe (n ¼100) included amongst others long, short and bodyboard surfers (60%), swimmers/paddlers (21%), bodysurfers (5%), windsurfers (3%) and kayakers (3%). Water sports respondents are less likely to stay overnight (Table 1), preferring to stay a few hours and return the following day (12% responded they would stay Table 1 Duration of stay in Boscombe for water sport enthusiasts and their associated daily expenditure category (n¼ 100). Length of stay

Stay few hours 1–2 days (overnight) 3–4 days 5–6 days 1 week

Number of water sport respondents

Number of respondents in range d0–5

d6–10

d11–20

d21–50

88 3 2

56

13

12 1

7 2 1

7

2

1 1

2

d50þ

2

1 night or more). The surfer market is neither affluent nor willing to spend; with 73% spending under d10 and 59% saying they would spend d0–5 during their visit to Boscombe (Table 1). Of the total survey population (n ¼523), 2% said that they were attracted to the seafront for water sports and would be staying overnight or longer. Of these respondents, 66% are spending d10 or more per day in Boscombe. To understand the potential extremes in the data the low, middle and high value of each expenditure range were considered (Table 2). The low estimate provides information based on the assumption that the respondent has spent at the bottom end of the expenditure range and so provides a conservative estimate. The high estimate is calculated using the highest value in the range. These expenditure estimates are averaged over the 10 surveys to illustrate the general trend. Taking the middle values, tourists and temporary residents were found to have an estimated mean daily expenditure at the seafront of d22 per person (sd ¼31) (Table 2). Residents had a significantly lower daily expenditure of d5.6 per person (sd ¼7). The ratio of resident to tourist expenditure is approximately 1:4 based on the mean expenditure of each group over the 10 surveys. Using the mid-range values for each survey, temporal information on mean expenditure of visitor groups was calculated. 96% of Boscombe residents do not spend more than d20 per day at the seafront and approximately 75% of residents spend d5 or less per day (Fig. 5b). Comparably, 38% of tourists will spend d5 or less per day, with increased expenditure during the spring and summer seasons (Fig. 5a). Resident expenditure decreases and become less variable over the survey period. Initially, results indicated an increase in the tourist visitor and temporary resident spending at the seafront during the first two summer seasons; from d22 (sd ¼29) during the first summer post-construction in summer 2010 to d57 (sd ¼72) in summer 2011 (Fig. 5c). Interestingly the most recent summer survey (Summer 2012) shows that nonresident spending is back down to d23 (sd ¼34). The high variation in expenditure can be explained by some visitors paying for accommodation and others are visiting family and friends and so have no accommodation expenditure. The highest mid-range resident expenditure of d9 (sd ¼13) was observed in the first survey (Winter 2009–10) (Fig. 5d). However, the lowest mid-range expenditure for the residents of d2.50 (sd ¼ 3) was observed in the last survey (Summer 2012).

5. Discussion and recommendations In 2001 the English Tourism Council launched a damning report on seaside destinations, ‘Sea Changes’ [64], it stated that many seaside destinations fail to live up to modern expectations and needed to diversify by attracting new industry and improving transport links [65]. Since then, UK seaside resorts have been experiencing a revival: “a significant group of British seaside resorts have defied predictions of doom and decay, and emerged as twenty-first century success stories” [66]. UK holiday makers staying overnight are spending almost a quarter (23%) more money at

Table 2 Mean expenditure estimates of residents and tourists (non-locals and temporary residents) at Boscombe Seafront calculated using the low, middle and high values of expenditure ranges. Number of respondents

Tourists and temporary residents Residents

295 (57.4%) 228 (43.6%)

Mean expenditure d ( 7 sd) Low

Middle

High

14.5 (7 23) 2.5 (7 5)

22.0 ( 7 31) 5.6 ( 7 7)

26.0 ( 7 28) 8.8 ( 7 9)

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

7

Fig. 5. Expenditure per person of all 10 survey at Boscombe seafront; (a) tourists responses (non-locals and temporary residents) n ¼ 295 and (b) Boscombe residents (living in a o2 miles from seafront) n ¼ 228 responses. Mean expenditure (d) calculated using the mid-point analysis for each survey for (c) tourists responses and (d) the Boscombe residents responses.

the English coastline in 2011 than 2010 [67]. According to the findings of Cornish Enterprise [68], the trend has resulted in 21% more holiday makers staying overnight at seaside resorts. “After a decline in popularity in the 1990s the British seaside has been reinventing itself; high end tourism had seen a particular increase with upmarket boutiques, antique shops, art galleries and Michelin starred restaurants frequently setting up shop in seaside resorts” [67]. The revival of coastal resorts as stylish and upmarket places to frequent, alongside a fashionable beach-surf image, has been shown to spin higher expenditure amongst tourists. For example, Barrow [65] discusses how building points of difference (such as facilities for business tourism, or a reputation for ‘foodies’ or ‘surfies’) can mean a positive future for the seaside community, even in times of economic difficulties. A report examining the contribution of water sports in Cornwall finds that surfing culture has wider economic benefits than the direct participation in the sport itself [68]. It is difficult to establish how many visitors come to the coast to watch surfing but this form of spectator tourism is also considered important when examining the economic impacts of surfing to the area. Hundreds of thousands of spectators can be drawn to professional surfing events and competitions causing regions of the world's coastlines to be redesigned with not only surfers in mind but also the spectators [69]. The Californian (USA) and Aquitaine (France) coastlines have been transformed to support surf tourism with specific promenades and viewing platforms. In this paper it is argued that the claims made in original design documentation of Boscombe ASR [2,55,62], that the ASR itself would significantly enhance the local economy, lacked supporting evidence. It is clear that the Boscombe ASR has gained public attention through the media [70] providing a centrepiece for advertising and marketing at the resort [71] and so helped Boscombe in marketing itself as a surf destination. For example Boscombe's shops, restaurants and bars often use the terms “Surf” or “Reef” in their branding. Economic estimates by the

Bournemouth Borough Council claim the value of the benefits from regeneration to be d41.5 million GVA in addition to an estimated d10 million of international marketing due to press coverage and media attention [72], although this has never been substantiated by an economic study. These figures appear in media documents and verbal accounts in thesis only, not quantified independently. The claim regarding marketing has been explained as free advertising for the Boscombe site through the press and other media, rather than direct economic gain for local business. Local Councillor and Cabinet Member for Economy and Tourism, Rod Cooper said: “The contribution the reef has made to the reputation of Boscombe as a destination cannot be underestimated“ [73]. However, in a survey of businesses in the local area [58] several respondents stated that, despite the regeneration of the area, they would have preferred the Council to invest the d3.1 million spent on Boscombe ASR elsewhere in the town. The study highlighted that though the regeneration scheme and the ASR have provided a new focal point in the area, only some businesses within 250 m of the reef have financially benefited whilst others have experienced no net growth. This study represents a preliminary investigation into the potential of artificial surf reefs to enhance a local economy through tourism. It targeted beachfront visitors and asked specific questions designed to determine reasons for visiting and expenditure. From the study findings key themes emerged relating to the requirements for a successful planning process for ASR design and construction. The recommendations are detailed below. 5.1. Stakeholder consultation For an ASR project to genuinely to attract the surf community, there should be period of consultation with local and travelling surfers asking what they require from a new surf break. This should be followed by a period of research into whether these

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

8

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

needs can realistically be met. In Boscombe the reef's construction was designed as a tourist attraction to produce a ‘surfable’ wave for surfers and spectators. However, Davidson's [25] analysis of Seafront Ranger's data collected by the Bournemouth Borough Council revealed that over a three month period there were 39 days of surfing activity on the beach compared to only 24 days of surfing activity on the reef. The ASR has been inconsistent in wave and surf quality, as well as failing to increase the number of surfable days at Boscombe [25]; these findings suggest that the ASR has failed to achieve improved surfing conditions. Future projects of this nature need to clearly assess and then communicate with stakeholders under what environmental conditions (swell, tides and wind) the reef will form ‘surfable’ waves order to avoid the perception of failure. ASRs have the potential to provide a tourist attraction for coastal economies. However, interest from surfers may not be long lasting if the technology does not support design claims of an improved surfing experience. It should also be clear which type of surfer the construction will appeal to. Even with lifeguard presence, offshore ASR construction is for the experienced surfer and not those new to the sport. This misconception has been discussed as the possible reason for lack of return visitors to the Boscombe ASR. There was no stakeholder consultation process in the planning stages of the Boscombe project. Engaging stakeholders early on in the project and throughout its development would also help determine the reasons why tourists and locals would want to visit Boscombe seafront. The information enables the differentiation between the potential economic benefits derived from Boscombe ASR and those derived from the regeneration of Boscombe seafront and the pier and so an assessment of whether these benefits could be achieved by regeneration alone. Since the interest in Boscombe ASR dwindled after 6 months, the seafront regeneration is considered responsible for heightened popularity and the increase in overnight visitors over the longer term. The ASR does not appear to be directly aiding the local economy three years after its construction. This finding contradicts feasibility assessments and design documentation that stated that the ASR would directly enhance surf tourism [2]. Whilst the ASR may not be attracting visitors directly, the Boscombe Seafront attracts interest from water sports enthusiasts generally. However, the findings indicate that the affluent surfer market is not being attracted during quieter autumn and winter months and therefore do not support the claims of ASR Ltd. [2]. Results from this study suggest that the impact of the regeneration of Boscombe seafront is a greater influence on the coastal economy than Boscombe ASR. Responses indicated that people visit in order to go for a walk, get fresh air and/or have a drink or lunch at the seafront. This is supported by figures released by the Bournemouth Borough Council highlighting a move away from decline towards a phase of regeneration. Since 2008, visitor numbers and house prices have increased by 32% and 25%, respectively [74]. Also the reduction in incidents of antisocial behaviour by 40% since 2007 [74] is indicative of a safer community. The findings suggest that long term economic and social benefits from the attraction of the surf industry and community may be achieved through regeneration and modernising alone. Planners could aim to attract visitors who simply desire the associated lifestyle when visiting a new surf destination, by designing a fashionable surf scene and café culture on the seafront.

5.2. Independent and robust impact assessments Prior to the establishment of an ASR, independent environmental and socio-economic impact assessments should be carried out to inform the licensing process. Regulations vary between countries, however, it is important that ASR licensing should

follow some simple policy guidelines including a robust licensing process based on sound scientific findings and the establishment of pre-construction baselines. It is essential that the licensing process and the impact assessment reports are objectively considered and not written by those with commercial interest in the project's execution. This should then ensure that the claims of potential performance both the ASR in terms of surfable waves as well as contribution to the local economy are realistic and based on the best available information. This should help avoid the future criticism of the project from both the surfing and coastal communities when the ASR fails to deliver as in the case of Boscombe ASR. 5.3. Managing expectations The management of expectations is crucial for a community establishing an ASR. There is a need to balance the support for an ASR whilst avoiding unrealistically high expectations of eventual performance [38]. Shand [1] discusses a misalignment between community perception of ASRs and the expectation of waves that can be designed. The comments of respondents in this study suggest a misconception of the ability of an ASR to enhance surfing conditions. They were expecting a wave machine. They view the ASR as a failure because they cannot see waves breaking on the reef nor surfing at the site. Enthusiastic sales pitches by the funding body and marketing teams contribute to performance misconceptions. Reef research really is in its early stages and more research attention is required before it can be fully trusted. Shand [1] suggests that whilst the concept of ASRs should not be dismissed altogether, ASR technology currently being employed is too expensive for construction on the scale needed for success. Quality surfing waves in nature have generally been preconditioned (shoaling and/or wave focusing) over a number of wave lengths [1,75], and over large seabed configurations. In this case study, Boscombe ASR is small on the scale of natural surfing breaks and subsequently limited in what it can deliver as a surfing break. Marketing of ASRs should focus on their innovative and experimental nature rather than unproved claims of performance design. This would allow the project room for development and provide less cause for criticism. Media attention to such projects can often produce unrealistic expectations in the community. Careful management of media and press coverage is essential to the success of the ASR project in the public eye, and ensuring there is strong positive communication providing explanation to the project and the performance expectations from the start. If failure or problems arise in the project, transparency is essential in avoiding rumours and feelings of deception. In Boscombe the negative media coverage regarding the ‘failure’ of the ASR [76–78] is likely to have caused surfers to be less inclined to travel to the site. In spring 2011, after media coverage regarding the ASR's closure due to damage [76], two respondents did give “to view the ASR” as their reason to visit the seafront. This reflects the small resurgence of interest by those who travelled to view the damage reported in the media, rather than the ASR or surfing at the reef. 5.4. Contingency plans The construction of ASRs at coastal resorts should be undertaken with caution. There is clearly no guarantee that their economic effects will be positive, and there is a danger that artificial reefs will be constructed in circumstances which do not justify them [48]. For example, the cost of an ASR is usually considerably more than originally quoted; in 2000 the expected cost for an ASR in the Bournemouth area was quoted around d500,000 [62], the price was agreed pre-construction at d1.1

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

million [79], although costs escalated during the construction phase to d3.1 million. Alongside this initial fee there are other costs associated with an ASR: a maintenance budget is required to meet future remedial construction costs, alongside the cost of correcting or repairing the structure which involves mobilising large and expensive teams offshore. The cost of removal also needs to be factored in, in the event that the ASR fails to deliver or begins to disintegrate at the end of its design lifespan. It is essential that project management and construction are carried out by those experienced in construction in the marine offshore environment and aware of the potential to overrun due to weather downtime, construction issues and maintenance, the costs for which must all be included in the initial budget. It is possible that some potential economic losses could be offset by some indirect and/or nonmarket benefits such as surf spectator tourism, or the provision of a protected area for safer swimming. However, these potential benefits should not be relied upon. 5.5. Further research This research was limited by the availability of surfers (and other water sports enthusiasts) at the time of the surveys. Surfers have shown to be attracted by local environmental conditions and events and therefore their attendance varied on survey dates. A more detailed investigation is required on British surfers and their opinions of ASR technology to determine the need for ASRs as a tourism attraction. There is an indication of seasonality influencing the data, yet the UK recession may be a confounding influence on the low expenditure of visitors in Boscombe. The socio-economic value of ASR construction to a local community is yet to be fully understood and further research is required. Since the novelty factor for the reef at Boscombe dropped rapidly whilst tourism continues to be strong, investigations need to focus on whether the same level of tourist attraction can be achieved without the construction of an ASR. Though limited to a 32 month period, the findings of this study provide a clear indication of attitudes towards Boscombe artificial reef in the period soon after construction. Further research is on-going at Boscombe to provide more detailed understanding using business and stakeholder engagement. These more comprehensive stakeholder and surfer interviews will be used in the next stage to investigate the socioeconomic impacts of Boscombe ASR.

[7] [8]

[9] [10]

[11]

[12]

[13] [14] [15]

[16]

[17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22]

[23] [24]

[25] [26]

[27]

Acknowledgements [28]

Thank you to Dr. Stephen Mangi for advice on statistical analysis. This research has been funded through the Plymouth University's Research Studentship Scheme, 2009. Maps reproduced with permission from the SeaZone Chartered Raster product with permission of the controller of from Her Majesty's Stationery Office and SeaZone Solutions Ltd.

[31] [32] [33]

References

[34] [35]

[1] Shand T. Making waves? A rational review of artificial surfing reef projects Shore and Beach 2011;79:12–6. [2] ASR Ltd. Boscombe surfing reef: construction design and environmental effects. Prepared for leisure and tourism. Bournemouth Borough Council. ASR Ltd. Raglan, New Zealand; 2006. [3] Borrero JC, Nelson C. Results of a comprehensive monitoring program at Pratte's reef; 2003. [4] Jackson L, Smith A. Economic value and impact on coastal zone — the gold coast case study. In: Proceedings of California and the world ocean conference; 1997. [5] Mead S, Black K. A multipurpose artificial reef at Mount Maunganui Beach, New Zealand. Coastal Management 1999;27:355–365. [6] Pattiaratchi C. Design studies for an artificial surfing reef: cable station, Western Australia. Centre for Water Research Department of Environmental

[29] [30]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39] [40]

9

Engineering. The University of Western Australia〈http://hmf.enseeiht. fr/travaux/CD0102/travaux/optsee/bei/2/g2s/reefdesign.pdf〉; 1999 [accessed 12.07.12]. p. 5. Skelly DW. Surfrider Foundation El Segundo surf enhancement project. Encinitas, California USA: Skelly Engineering; 2002. Mendonca A, Fortes CJ, Capitao R, Neves MG, Antunes do Carmo JS, Moura T. Hydrodynamics around an artificial surfing reef at Leirosa, Portugal. Journal of Waterway Port Coastal and Ocean Engineering 2012;138:226–35. Aguiar L, de Oliveira Filho L, Valentini E. Proposed artificial surfing reef for Macumba Beach, Rio de Janeiro - Brazil. Reef Journal 2009;1:74–84. Scarfe BE, Healy TR, Rennie HG. Research-based surfing literature for coastal management and the science of surfing – a review. Journal of Coastal Research 2009;25:539–57. Black KP, Mead S. Artificial surfing reefs for erosion control and amenity: theory and application. Journal of Coastal Research 2001;29:115–30(special issue). Ranasinghe R, Hacking N, Evans P. Multi-functional artificial surf breaks: a review. New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation; August 2001. p. 53. Pitt A. A surfing bathymetry for Harbord Headland. In: proceedings of the NSW Coastal Conference. New South Wales, Australia; 1996. p. 19. ASR Ltd. Multi-purpose reefs, 〈http://www.asrltd.com/our_solutions/multi_ purpose_reefs/〉 [accessed 16.07.10]. Ranasinghe R, Turner IL. Processes governing shoreline response to submerged breakwaters: multi-function structures — a special case review. In: McKee Smith J, editor. Proceedings of 29th international conference coastal engineering. Lisbon, Portugal: World Scientific; 2004. p. 1984. Pilarczyk KW. Composite breakwaters utilizing geosystems. In: Allsop NWH, Telford Thomas, editors. Coastlines, Structures and Breakwaters. London, England, UK: Institute of Civil Engineers; 1998. p. 278–93. Jackson L, Corbett B, Tomlinson R, McGrath J, Stuart G. Narrowneck reef: review of 7 years of monitoring results; 2007. Bohnsack JA, Sutherland DL. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 1985;37:11–39. Jackson L, Corbett B. Review of existing multi-functional artificial reefs. In: Proceedings of the Australasian conference on coasts and ports 2007: international coastal management; 2007. Bortone SA. A perspective of artificial reef research: the past, present and future. Bulletin of Marine Science 2006;78:1–8. Baine M. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Managment 2001;44:241–59. Pattiaratchi C. Performance of an artificial surfing reef: cable station Western Australia. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on coastal and port engineering in developing countries. Colombo, Sri Lanka; 2003. p. 18. Mead S. Multiple-use options for coastal structures: unifying amenity, coastal protection and marine ecology. Reef Journal 2009;1:291–311. Black KP, Blenkinsopp ST, Mead S, Weight D, Gerrish B. Artificial surfing reefs for erosion control and amenity: theory and application. West Sussex, UK: Posford Haskoning Ltd.; 2003. Davidson M. 6-month interim report: performance of boscombe surfing reef. UK: Bournemouth Borough. CouncilUniversity of Plymouth; 2010. Simioni B, Esteves LS. Analysing the performance of multi-functional artificial reefs. Revista de Gestão Costeira Integrada 2010;10:127–45 (full text in Portuguese, extended abstract in English). Mead S, Black K. Multi-purpose reefs provide multiple benefits – amalgamating coastal protection, high quality surfing breaks and ecological enhancement to maximise user benefits and development opportunities. SASIC. Holiday Inn Conference Centre, Ventura, California; 2002. Watersports and Leisure Participation Survey. Technical report. BMF, MCA, RNLI, RYA. Sponsored by Sunsail; 2005. Surfers against sewage. Protect Our Waves; 2012. Lazarow N. The value of coastal recreational resources: a case study approach to examine the value of recreational surfing to specific locals. Journal of Coastal Research 2007:12–20. Visit Britain. Staycation latest; 2011. Ticket to ride. Worldwide surfing adventures; 2011. Raybould M, Mules T. A cost-benefit study of Australia's gold coast beaches. Tourism Economics 1999;5:121–39. ASR Ltd. Multi-purpose reefs and economic growth. Ragland, NZ; 2006. Slotkin M, Chaberliss K, Vamosi A, Lindo C. Feasibility study of multi-purpose artificial surf reefs for Brevard County, Florida (economic segment). Palm Bay, FL: Praecipio EFS Inc; 2008. Raybould M, Mules T. Northern gold coast beach protection strategy: a benefit-cost analysis. Report prepared for Gold Coast City Council, Australia; 1998. Slotkin MH, Chambliss K, Vamosi AR, Lindo C. Surf tourism, artificial surfing reefs and environmental sustainability. In: Nelson GL, Hronszky I, editors. Sustainability. Melbourne, FL: The Next Horizon; 2009. Slotkin MH, Chambliss K, Vamosi AR, Lindo C. Feasibility study of multipurpose artificial reefs for Brevard Country. Florida. Palm Bay, Florida: Praecipio; Economic Financial Statistics; 2008. Rafanelli C. Mahomet's beach artificial surfing reef socio economic impact study. Geraldton, Western Australia: Back Beach Improvement Group; 2004. Butt T. The WAR report: waves are resources. In: Ferris D, editor. Surfers Against Sewage. Cornwall: St Agnes; 2010.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i

10

E.J. Rendle, L.D. Rodwell / Marine Policy ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

[41] Murphy M, Bernal M. The Impact of surfing on the local economy of Mundaka, Spain. Oregon State University, USA, and University Madrid, Spain. Commissioned by Save The Waves Coalition; 2008. [42] Nelsen C, Pendleton L, Vaugn R. A socioeconomic study of surfers at Trestles Beach. Shore and Beach 2007:32–7. [43] Lazarow N, Miller M, Blackwell B. Dropping in: a case study approach to understanding the socio-economic impacts of recreational surfing and its value to the coastal economy. Shore and Beach 2007:21–31. [44] Lazarow N. The value of surfing. In: Proceedings of the global wave conference: international symposium on the protection of waves. Biarritz, France; 2011. [45] Christie M. An economic assessment of the amenity benefits associated with alternative coastal defence options. Reef Journal 2009;1:247–66. [46] Pickering H. Legal framework governing artificial reefs in the european union. In: Jensen A, Collins K, Lockwood A, editors. Artificial Reefs in European Seas. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press; 2000. [47] Whitmarsh D. Editorial; artificial reefs: the law and the profits. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 1997;34:2–3. [48] Whitmarsh D, Pickering H. Investing in artificial reefs. In: Jensen AC, Colins KJ, Lockwood APM, editors. Artificial reefs in european seas. Dortrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2000. [49] Fletcher S, Bateman P, Emery A. The governance of the boscombe artificial surf reef, UK. Land Use Policy 2011;28:395–401. [50] Ltd ASR. Multi-purpose reefs for coastal protection and prosperity. Raglan, New Zealand: ASR Ltd; 2009. [51] Visit Britain. Visitor economy facts – Updated July 2011. 2011. 〈http://b2b. visitbritain.org/ntop/newslettermail.aspx? cultureInfo=en-GB&cid=121467&subschduleid=1298&act=serverlink〉. [52] John T. New strategy to boost tourism; 2011. [53] Tourist information centre online (〈www.bournemouth.co.uk〉). Boscombe Surf Reef — the story; 2010. [54] Agarwal S. Restructuring seaside tourism: the resort lifecycle. Annals of Tourism Research 2002;29:25–55. [55] Mead ST, Haggitt TR, editors. Raglan, New Zealand: ASR Ltd.; 2007. [56] Bailey S. Revealed: Boscombe surf reef damage worse than thought. The Bournemouth Echo. Bournemouth 2012. [57] Marsh, D. RICS South West Regional Awards 2010: Boscombe Spa Village regeneration scheme; 2010. [58] Glenn W. The physical and socio-economic effects of constructing an artificial surf reef at Boscombe. Dorset UK: Cardiff University; 2011 ([Thesis]). [59] Bournemouth Borough Council. Bournemouth Seafront: information for new members; 2011.

[60] Bournemouth Borough Council. Boscombe Surf Reef 〈http://www.bourne mouth.co.uk/things-to-do/surf-reef〉; 2006 [Accessed 2008]. [61] West R. Joint economy and tourism and administration and resources overview and scrutiny panel meeting, 13th July 2010. Councillor for the Bournemouth Borough Council; 2010. [62] Black KP, Mead S, Jackson A. Beach amenity options and coastal protection at Bournemouth. Technical report prepared for leisure and tourism services. Ragland, New Zealand: Bournemouth Borough Council: Artificial surfing reefs Ltd; 2000. [63] Dodge Y. The Oxford dictionary of statistical terms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2003. [64] English Tourism Council. Sea changes, 〈http://www.tourisminsights.info/ONLI NEPUB/etc/etc%20PDFS/SEA%20CHANGES.pdf〉; 2001 [accessed 24.11.11]. [65] Barrow S. The British Seaside Revival; 2009. [66] Walton JK. Whitby as a seaside resort: from the eighteenth century to the twentieth, 〈http://www.culturahistorica.es/walton/whitby.pdf〉; 2012. [67] CSMA. British Seaside Towns See Resurgence in 2011. Brighton, 〈www. csmaclub.co.uk〉; 2011. [68] Cornwall Enterprise. Assessment of the potential contribution of marine and watersports to increasing prosperity in Cornwall. Ove Arup and Partners International Ltd.; 2001. [69] Augustin J. Emergence of surfing resorts on the Aquitaine Littoral. The Geographical Review 1998;88:587–95. [70] BBC News. Boscombe's surf reef project: will the reef damage marine life? BBC News Dorset, 〈http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/dorset/hi/people_and_places/nat ure/newsid_8256000/8256705.stm〉; 2009 [accessed 02/11/09]. [71] The Surf Reef. Bournemouth Tourism PR Department; 2009. [72] MacWilliam E. Planning for sustainable surf tourism: a case study of Boscombe. Bournemouth: Oxford Brookes University; 2011 (Thesis). [73] Jenkins Marine. Jenkins Marine return to surf reef; 2011. [74] Bournemouth Borough Council. RICS South West Regional Awards 2010. Supporting Information: Boscombe spa village regeneration scheme; 2010. [75] Mead S, Black K. Field studies leading to the bathymetric classification of worldclass surfing breaks. Journal of Coastal Research 2000;29:5–10(special issue). [76] Dorset BBC. Boscombe surf reef closed over safety concerns. 2011. [77] Dugan E. New surfers' reef fails to make waves. London: The Independent; 2009. [78] Bloxham A, Bingham J. Council admits d3 m Boscombe artificial reef produces wrong kind of waves. London: The Telegraph; 2010. [79] ASR Ltd. Boscombe Surfing Reef: construction manual; 2006.

Please cite this article as: Rendle EJ, Rodwell LD. Artificial surf reefs: A preliminary assessment of the potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.004i