Surfing and marine conservation: Exploring surf‐break protection as IUCN protected area categories and other effective area‐based conservation measures

Abstract

The expansion of surfing as a multibillion‐dollar industry and sport has, on the one hand, increased awareness about threats posed to marine and coastal environments, but has also brought growing acknowledgement of the environmental, cultural and economic value that surfing provides. This has been accompanied by a growing movement of surfers and related stakeholders (e.g. communities and manufacturers that rely on the surf tourism and industry for income) that seek to protect surf breaks. This paper argues that certain emblematic surf breaks should be protected not only for their value to surfers, but also for the ecosystem services they provide and other benefits for marine conservation. Through a series of case studies from Peru, Chile and the USA, the paper discusses how, in areas where there is significant biodiversity or iconic seascapes, surf breaks can be integrated with marine conservation. Suggestions are given regarding the International Union for Conservation of Nature categories of protected areas that are most appropriate for such cases. The paper also explores how, in certain cases, several existing surf‐break protection mechanisms could qualify as other effective area‐based conservation measures, including Chile's proposed TURF–surf model, the international World Surfing Reserves, and Peru's Ley de Rompientes. In this way, certain surf‐break protection mechanisms could help contribute to countries' progress towards achieving the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11. Overall benefits of marine conservation groups and surfers joining forces are discussed, including how this can help reduce negative impacts of the sport on natural ecosystems.

Ocean Literacy and Surfing: Understanding How Interactions in Coastal Ecosystems Inform Blue Space User’s Awareness of the Ocean

“…This study echoes Scheske et al [ 35 ], who call on alliances between surf ecosystem users (surfers) and marine conservation groups, along with policy, to address the sustainability challenges that exist in the surf space. There is a delicate biodiversity where coastline meets ocean, yet both are invested stakeholders.…”

“…By incorporating adaptive management techniques, they add to the conversation around surfers playing the role of active marine stakeholders. An important point also included in the work of Martin and Assenov [ 33 ], Larson et al [ 34 ], Scheske et al [ 35 ], and Atkin et al [ 36 ].…”

Which Meteorological and Climatological Information Is Requested for Better Surfing Experiences? A Survey-Based Analysis

“…Indeed, Reiblich, who researches legal and policy implications of coastal adaptation, has stated that surfbreaks include three components: the submerged lands under the wave zone; a wave corridor that allows an unimpeded right of way for swells to reach the wave zone; and beach access. In this sense, sufficient surfbreak protection requires that policymakers employ a strategy that takes all three components into consideration [39,40]. In some surf spots such as the Bahía de Todos Santos World Surfing Reserve, surfbreak preservation has been applied.…”

“…In some surf spots such as the Bahía de Todos Santos World Surfing Reserve, surfbreak preservation has been applied. In addition, some studies in Peru, Chile, and the US have focused on the link between surfing and marine conservation, thus highlighting representative surfbreaks and the need for their protection not only for their value to surfers but also for the ecosystem services they provide, as well as other benefits for marine conservation [40].…”

First Steps at First Point: Protecting California Surf Breaks and the Malibu Historic District

“…This approach seeks direct partnerships with the institutions and advocacy groups of a larger marine conservation project, but management plans will normally, and for good reasons, prioritize natural resources above allowed uses, e.g., surfing. Scheske et al's (2019) example of allowed motorized personal watercraft use to assist surfing or surf rescues only within defined portions of Central California's 14,000 square kilometer Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in order to reduce environmental impacts prioritizes natural resource protection while reducing surfing access. Risks to marine biodiversity within these protected areas could be a reasoned rationale for altering management plans to further restrict surfing access, especially when it involves the use of motorized personal watercraft.…”