Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019

Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources

Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources

Ed Atkin1,2, Karin Bryan2, Shaw Mead1, Terry Hume3, and Jordan Waiti2
1
eCoast, Raglan, New Zealand
email: [email protected]
2
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
3
Hume Consulting Ltd, Hamilton, New Zealand

Abstract
There are many cases of surf break degradation and mismanagement worldwide. Discourse between surf
break users and those who may compromise the resource is often the result of a void in baseline information
and a lack of clear methods for assessing surf breaks and managing surfing resources. Following numerous
incidences of poor management and inappropriate process, a 3-year project was undertaken to establish
baseline monitoring systems and to develop management guidelines. The project was completed in September
2018. The introductory sections of the guidelines provide the legislative context and information regarding the
relevant policies relating to surfing resources in New Zealand, and information concerning the significance of
surf breaks at local, regional and national scales. The guidelines are written in three main sections, i)
Guidelines for Authorities, ii) Guidelines for Resources Users and Consent Applications, and iii) Additional
Information for Users. The Guidelines for Authorities section consists of a set of recommended steps, of
increasing complexity and financial overhead, to effectively manage surfing resources within a given
jurisdiction. The Guidelines for Resources Users and Consent Applications section considers the types of
assessments and level of detail required to fairly assess the impacts of certain activities on surfing resources.
The Additional Information for Users contains a set of appendices providing detail, discussion and methodology
concerning stakeholder engagement; identification of surf breaks; swell corridors; risk assessments;
monitoring; physical surf science; surfing resources; data collection methods; and example consent conditions.
The benefits of the guidelines are to enable informed decision-making by council staff, engineers and
consultants about activities in coastal areas that relate to or influence the functionality of New Zealand’s surf
breaks. The guidelines, which were released in a beta version in October 2018 to provide a feedback period,
are a world-first and much of the content is applicable to surf breaks worldwide.

Keywords: Surfing, surf breaks, resource management, guidelines.

1. Introduction degradation, not only in New Zealand but globally

The history of surfing in New Zealand predates the [9,11,15,16].
popularization of surfing in the 1950s and 1960s,
with Māori partaking in wave riding using kōpapa The NZCPS was developed under the Resource
(boards) and pōhā (bags of kelp) [5,6] before Management Act (1991). While the RMA and
European contact. The Hawai'ian surfer Duke NZCPS provide a legislative framework for the
Kahanamoku travelled to New Zealand in 1915 and sustainable management of surf breaks in New
put on many demonstrations of the type of surfing Zealand, there have been a number of cases that
going on across the Pacific Ocean. By the 1920s have led to appeals in environment court, facilitated
and 1930s, New Zealanders were riding solid mediation and high court Injunctions [11]. These
wooden boards and in 1958 the concept of surfing appeals are based on maintaining the integrity of
smaller boards was introduced at Piha. By the natural processes that influence surf break
1960s, New Zealand had a surfboard building environments, and on a variety of aspects important
industry and a growing population of surfers. to surf break users including accessibility and
environmental health [13].
In New Zealand, surfing has participation numbers
equivalent to rugby [17], with the country’s top In many of these cases, disputes have revolved
athletes competing at the highest level on the world around: the collection of data, or lack thereof; the
stage. Surfing in New Zealand is a serious draw level of study required; and the methodologies
card for tourism, with “world class” waves implemented. In response to these common
advertised in almost every coastal region. Emphasis themes, a project, funded by New Zealand’s
on the importance of surf breaks as coastal Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment
resources was manifested in the inclusion of surf in 2016, entitled Remote Sensing, Classification
breaks in Policy 16 of the New Zealand Coastal and Management Guidelines for Surf Breaks of
Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) [8], which includes National and Regional Significance was initiated. As
a list of 17 Surf Breaks of National Significance in the project titled suggests, a major output of the
Schedule 1. The impetus for the surfing community project was to develop an adoptable consensus on
to provide submissions on the NZCPS was derived how surfing resources are sustainably managed in
from cases of surf break mismanagement and
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

New Zealand, with this consensus taking the form The consultation process aimed to be inclusive with
of a set of guidelines. participation from local and non-local, surfer and
non-surfer, business owners, Māori and Pākehā
An aim of the project was to ensure the guidelines (non- Māori); with meaningful engagement and
assist: authorities with decision making; resource consultation with tangata whenua (local Māori,
users to understand their responsibilities; and people of the land) who have kaitiakitanga
stakeholders to understand the resources and how (guardianship) of each area.
they may be affected. The objectives were to
provide: information on the legislative and social A substantial component of developing the
context of surf breaks; an understanding of the guidelines was the review of existing literature,
physical characteristics of surf breaks and how they including everything from historical accounts to
function; a description of factors that can published articles and technical reports. Initial
compromise their amenity value; specific geomorphologic assessments of the 7 study sites
methodologies for management of surfing were combined with the literature review to develop
resources for authorities and consent applicants; an initial characterisation of each site which
information to assist with the identification, study, included surf break functionality.
monitoring and sustainable management of surf
breaks. Data collection over the duration of the project
included remote video imaging systems;
This paper presents the process undertaken to hydrographic surveys; and, surfer behaviour while
develop Management Guidelines for Surfing accessing and riding waves. A result of the literature
Resources [3] (referred to henceforth as “the review, stakeholder engagement, and data
guidelines”), the structure of their use and focuses collection is disseminated in several peer reviewed
on some of the key tools and content. articles contributing to the expanding body of
literature regarding surf science [1,7,11] and surfing
2. Methods resource management [9,11,12,18], which the
Atkin et al. [2] provide details on the methodologies guidelines [3] reference directly.
implemented as part of the wider research project.
Here the methodologies are briefly summarised. 3. Structure of the Guidelines
The primary section headings from the guidelines,
The collation of local knowledge at 7 study sites excluding peripheral information, are presented in
(Piha (South), Whangamata Bar, Manu Bay, Lyall Table 1. The introduction of the guidelines contains
Bay, Wainui Beach, Whareakeake and Aramoana; concise information concerning the background of
Figure 1) was achieved though stakeholder surfing resources and the legislative context of
engagement at advertised meetings and qualitative surfing resource management in New Zealand. Also
surveys (analogue and online). included are sub-sections on: the difference
between a surfing resource and the surf break; the
significance of surf breaks [12], the rights of mana
whenua (local iwi) [18]; and, the purpose of the
guidelines.

Table 1. Abridged Table of Contents from Atkin et al. [3]

Section 1 Introduction
Section 2 Guidelines for Authorities
Guidelines for Resource Users and
Section 3
Consent Applicants
Section 4 Additional Information for Users
Section 5 Summary and Outlook
Appx A. Physical Surf Science
Appx B. Surfing Resource
Appx C. Engagement with Māori
Remote Sensing, Classification and
Appx D. Management Guidelines for Surf Breaks
of National and Regional Significance
Appx E. Consent Conditions and Monitoring

The aim of providing such supplementary

Figure 1. Map of New Zealand showing the location of the information (beyond that of implementable
seven study sites. management strategies) is to provide users who are
foreign to the concept of surfing resource
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

management with the context of implementation In Step 3, the threats and risk assessment are
within the New Zealand setting and the importance provided to aid in prioritising resources for further
of surfing resources to the country’s wellbeing. steps such as monitoring. Step 4 lists the relative
items in the RMA (Sections 5, 6 and 7) and NZCPS
Sections 2 and 3 provide clear steps to guide the (Policies 2, 6, 13, 15 and 16). Steps 5 and 6 are
assessment process for guideline users, while proactive and recommend the collection of baseline
avoiding technical detail and specific data, especially for those sites identified in Step 3
methodologies. Instead, short lists of resources, as being particularly at risk.
tools and references are provided. These lists are
first expanded upon in Section 4, and then Section 3 is most relevant to consent applicants
underpinned by a set of detailed appendices. who need to assess the potential impact of an
activity on a specific surf break(s) as part of a
The steps provided in Section 2 aim to provide consent application. The process follows the
specific direction for authorities responsible for the content of Section 2, guidelines for authorities,
management of surfing resources. The section is however a much greater level of detail relating to the
broken down into 6 steps: characteristics of the surf break and the threats an
activity pose is required.
Step 1: Identify Surf Breaks
Step 2: Construct Swell Corridors Section 4, “Additional Information for Users”,
Step 3: Threats and Risk Assessment provides expanded descriptions of steps prescribed
Step 4: Surfing Resources in Policy and Plans in Sections 2 and 3 and covers: Stakeholder
Step 5: Baseline Studies Engagement; Identification of Surf Breaks; Swell
Step 6: Monitoring to Assess Change Corridors; Threats and Risk Assessment; Cultural
Impact Assessment; Surfing Resources in Policy
Steps 1 and 2 are included to support council and Plans; Baseline Monitoring; Considerations for
officers identifying, mapping and characterising surf Consenting Authorities; and, Detailed
breaks in their region. These steps have relatively Characterisation
low overheads and require minimal resources, and
result in basic management tools (Figure 2). They 4. Threats
are essentially a detailed interpretation of what the A relatively substantial portion of the guidelines is
NZCPS requires of subnational authorities. focussed on Section 2.3, “Step 3: Threats and Risk
Assessment”. This section contains a table of some
34 different activities, threats and/or sources that
were identified through literature reviews and public
consultation. These activities, threats and/or
sources fall under 4 subcategories: Hinterland,
Catchment and Waterways; In and around a Surf
Break Area (SBA); Nearshore, Offshore and Swell
Corridor; and, Social and Technological. For each
activity/threat/source, the potential effects on
surfing resources are provided with examples
and/or references from New Zealand and overseas
where surf breaks have been affected and/or been
assessed, and potential mitigation options. The
activities, threats and/or sources are presented in
Table 2.

5. Risk Assessment
Table 3 through Table 6 present the risk
assessment tools from the guidelines [3]. Table 3
draws on a large body of technical literature to
provide a tool that allows for an evaluation of a surf
breaks vulnerability and sensitivity. It categorises
surf breaks using the geomorphological categories
described by Mead [10], and later Scarfe [14]; the
context of which is described in Appendix A of the
guidelines. The sensitivity is evaluated on the size
of material that comprises the seabed, form fine
Figure 2. Relative Percentage Activity to construct the sand to consolidated rock, and the reliance of
swell corridor for Whareakeake, with the Territorial Sea surfing wave quality on any sediment transport
limit (red line) [1]. regime.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

Table 2. Potential activities/threats/sources of surf break integrity. Modified from Atkin et al. [3]
Hinterland, Catchment Nearshore, Offshore and
In and around an SBA Social and technological
and Waterways Swell Corridor

Forestry Beach nourishment Aquaculture Beach closure for events

Construction of jetties,
groynes, breakwaters, Dredging of port/harbours
Quarrying Different surfing abilities
boat ramps and other hard approach channels
structures in the nearshore
Material extraction in Different surfing (water)
Dune planting programs Dredge spoil disposal
waterways (e.g. dredging) craft
Port and marina
Nearshore dredge
construction, development Large scale seabed mining Improved equipment
operations
and maintenance
Restriction of access by Improved facilities,
Reclamation Oil Spills
land owners infrastructure and access
Runoff from rural and
Wind or wave energy
urban point and diffuse Recreational fishing Increasing surfer population
arrays
sources
Transgressive dune field:
River/Stream training Management requirements
Planting or; development.

Shoreline armouring Overcrowding

Surf forecasts and

knowledge

Surf tourism

Use of SBA beyond surfing

Table 3. Surf Break Sensitivity Rating. Replicated from Atkin et al. [3]
Wave Quality Reliance on Sediment
Potential Break Type General Material Size
Transport Regime

1 Rock Ledge; Reef Consolidated Rock Low

2 Reef; Point

3 Point; Beach; Delta

4 Beach; Delta

5 Delta Fine Sand High

Table 4 presents the consequence of activity the likelihood assessment with thresholds/ranges of
assessment information. This table provides a sensitivity values referenced in the additional
definition of the consequence rating and examples definition information. Table 6 brings together the
for each consequence category to aid users in this category values established from the Consequence
evaluation. Table 5 provides user with a tool to of Activity and Impact of Activity tables. The result is
estimate the likelihood of an impact of an activity, a risk rating of either Low, Moderate, High or
with examples to assist in this assessment. The Extreme to fit in with standard risk assessment
sensitivity assessment (Table 3) ties directly in to methodology.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

Table 4. Consequence of activity. Replicated from Atkin et al. [3]

Consequence of
Category Definition Example
activity
Occupation of SBA
Permanent/irreparable damage to/loss of the
Catastrophic 1 Major reclamation
whole surf break(s)
Port construction
Activity permanently effects access to and/or
Complete loss of access
enjoyment of a surfing resource; and/or
Reduced ride length.
activity results in on-going health and safety
Reduced wave quality
issues; and/or potential for physical changes
Major 2 Wastewater outfall
to a large part of the SBA; and/or a
Coastal protection works
permanent change to the natural character,
Coastal landscape altered by
aesthetic or wilderness attributes of the
coastal development
surfing resource.
Activity temporally effects, for sustained
Turbid water
periods of time, access to and/or enjoyment
Contamination
Significant 3 of a surfing resource; and/or activity results
Regulated access
in health and safety issues.
Ski-lane
No physical impacts
Activity temporally effects access and/or
enjoyment to a surfing resource for relatively Beach closure for sporting
Minor 4
short periods of time (e.g. <24 hours). events/surf carnival
No physical impacts

Table 5. Likelihood of Impact. Replicated from Atkin et al. [3]

Likelihood of impact Category Definition

Will obviously occur frequently and/or permanently, activity

Very Likely (Permanent/ Frequent) A being undertaken in SBA; examples exist of impact; and/or a
sensitivity rating: 5

Potential for activity to occur frequently, activity being

Likely (Frequent) B undertaken in or near to SBA; and/or similar examples exist;
and/or sensitivity rating: 3-4

Moderate Potential for activity to occur, activity being undertaken near to

C SBA or within catchment; and/or examples exist; and/or
(Occasional) sensitivity rating: 2-3

Activity unlikely to occur, activity being undertaken outside of

Unlikely (Remote) D catchment and/or embayment; no examples exist; and/or
sensitivity rating: 1-2

Activity high unlikely to occur, activity being undertaken outside

Highly Unlikely (Rare) E of catchment and/or swell corridor no examples exist; and/or
sensitivity rating: 1

Table 6. Risk Rating. Replicated from Atkin et al. [3]

Risk Rating Table

Catastrophic-1 Major-2 Significant-3 Minor-4

Very Likely A Extreme Extreme Extreme High

Likely B Extreme Extreme High Moderate

Moderate C Extreme Extreme High Low

Unlikely D Extreme High Moderate Low

Highly Unlikely E High High Moderate Low

Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

6. Appendices As far as the authors are aware, this is the first

Appendix A brings together ~50 years of surf published methodology of its kind.
science literature, which is reliant on classic
oceanographic concepts. Appendix B expands on The value of a risk assessment is that it allows
Section 1.2.1 of the guidelines and provides details authorities to develop a “watch list”. This should aid
for differentiating between a surf break and a surfing in decision making processes by showing which surf
resource and leverages the content of Orchard et al. breaks require priority when allocating resources
[12]. Appendix C provides links to resources to aid such as those required for monitoring. The
with respectful and meaningful engagement with guidelines state that “any surf break, surfing
Māori. Appendix D provides background on the resource or SBA receiving a risk rating of extreme
overall research project (see 1. Introduction). requires immediate action and resources should be
Appendix E replicates real examples of conditions directed to enabling Baseline Studies if not already
for sustainable surf break management imposed on undertaken; and, Baseline Monitoring should be
consent applicants in New Zealand. initiated immediately should the consequence be
major or catastrophic” [3].
7. Discussion
Methodologies and tools specific to surfing resource While the qualitative risk assessment methodology
management have been collated/developed and provides a relatively simple method, it does require
established in one comprehensive document: an in depth knowledge of coastal processes, surf
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources. science and surf break dynamics (detailed
One of the objectives of the project was to create an characterisation). Furthermore, it suffers from the
easily referenceable document, with the main short comings of many qualitative assessment by
content light and digestible. being subjective. The method also lacks any
information to allow for economic considerations.
Activities, threats and sources range in spatial scale
(e.g. local, regional and global). Each of these can The recommendation is that an initial review/update
have different time frames. The effects of an of the Management Guidelines for Surfing
activity/threat/source can be temporary, or Resources will be undertaken after 2 years from
permanent; similarly, although some effects can be publishing. To keep the guidelines applicable, by
mitigated, many cannot. They can have negative or referencing the latest relevant research from both
positive effects on wave quality and the surf break New Zealand and overseas, annual reviews and 5
environment. Some threats are more common at yearly updates will be undertaken.
specific geomorphic types of surf breaks (e.g.
channel dredging, issues with boat traffic, and water 8. Conclusion
quality are more common to river/estuary bar This paper describes the rationale, methodology
breaks) [3]. and content of a project to develop guidelines for the
sustainable management of surfing resources in
The list of threats to surfing resources developed New Zealand, with global applicability. The resulting
from public consultation and the literature review is Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
extensive, but by no means exhaustive. More recent were released in October 2018 in beta format to
discussion by surfing and surf science researchers allow a period of feedback from users.
established an extensive list of activities, threats
and sources to surfing resources that eclipsed the The guidelines are aimed at assisting:
34 instances documented in this work [4]. • authorities tasked with implementing
policies and plans,
Through public consultation, literature reviews of • resource users and applicants, to manage
technical documentation, legal proceedings and expectations and responsibilities with
published articles, methodologies have been respect to resource consent requirements
developed for both management authorities and where proposed activities may affect
and those wishing to undertake activities in and surfing resources.
around surfing resources. The guidelines also • Stakeholders, to understand how
provide a reference point for stakeholders to developments might affect the amenity
understand how activities in the coastal zone, value of surf breaks and the responsibilities
regarding surfing resources, may affect them. of those proposing the developments.

A qualitative risk assessment methodology has It is expected that the Management Guidelines for
been developed using well-known coastal Surfing Resources in New Zealand will make the
geomorphologic settings and concepts for RMA (1991) resource consenting processes easier
sensitivity ratings, and consequence categories that to follow and reduce escalation to environment court
draw on examples of known surf break degradation. appeals, meditation and other legal and social
conflicts.
Australasian Coasts & Ports 2019 Conference – Hobart, 10-13 September 2019
Management Guidelines for Surfing Resources
Ed Atkin, Karin Bryan, Shaw Mead, Terry Hume and Jordan Waiti

Following on from New Zealand’s ground breaking [8] Government of New Zealand, (2010). New Zealand
establishment of the Resource Management Act, Coastal Policy Statement. Wellington; Department of
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Conservation.
inclusion of surf break specific policy in the form of [9] Hume, T, Mulcahy, N and Mead, S., (2019), An
Policy 16, New Zealand once again leads the world overview of changing usage and management issues in
in environmental resource management by New Zealand’s surf zone environment. Paper submitted.
developing the first national guidelines for surf [10] Mead, S. T., (2000). Incorporating High-Quality
resource management. The volume of technical Surfing Breaks into Multi-Purpose Reefs. PhD thesis,
information applicable to the management of surfing University of Waikato, New Zealand. Pp 209 +
resources, including the principles of surf science appendices.
through to links relating to the engagement of
[11] Mead, S. and Atkin, E, (2019), Managing Issues at
indigenous people of Aotearoa, mean it is a New Zealand’s Surf Breaks, Paper submitted
valuable document for developers, prospectors,
public servants and authorities, practitioners and [12] Orchard, S., Atkin, E.A. and Mead, S.T. (2018),
stakeholders worldwide. Development of the Regional Significance Concept for
Surf Break Management in New Zealand. Manuscript
submitted to Journal of Coastal Research.
9. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of [13] Peryman, P. B., and Orchard, S. (2013),
Business, Innovation and Employment (UOWX502) Understanding the Values and Management Needs of
for funding this project; all the participants involved New Zealand Surf Breaks, Lincoln Planning Review, 4(2).
with stakeholder consultation; members of the [14] Scarfe, B., (2008). Oceanographic Considerations for
steering committee from containing representation the Management and Protection of Surfing Breaks. PhD
from the Department of Conservation, Landcare thesis, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
Research, Surfbreak Protection Society, Surf Life [15] Scarfe, B. E., Healy, T. R., Rennie, H. G., and Mead,
Saving New Zealand, Waikato Regional Council, S. T., (2009a). Sustainable management of surfing
Auckland Council, and Lincoln University; and those breaks: an overview. Reef Journal, 1(1), 44–73.
experts who reviewed the guidelines: Professor
[16] Scarfe, B. E., Healy, T. R., Rennie, H. G., and Mead,
Andrew Short, Graeme Silver, Dr Greg Borne,
S. T., (2009b). Sustainable Management of Surfing
Associate Professor Hamish Rennie, James Carley, Breaks: Case Studies and Recommendations. Journal of
Matt McNeil, Michael Gunson, Rick Liefting, Dr Coastal Research, 25(3), 684–703.
Shaun Awatere and Shane Orchard. We are
grateful for all your contributions. [17] Sport New Zealand (2015). Sport and Active
Recreation in the Lives of New Zealand Adults. 2013/14
Active New Zealand Survey Results
10. References
[1] Atkin, E. A and Greer D. (2018), A Comparison of [18] Waiti, J, and Awatere, S, (2019) Kaihekengaru: Māori
Methods for Defining a Surf Break’s Swell Corridor. surfers’ and a sense of place. Manuscript submitted to
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Coastal Research. Journal of Coastal Research.
[2] Atkin, E. A, Mead, S. T., Bryan, K., Hume, T. and Waiti,
J., 2017. Remote Sensing, Classification and
Management Guidelines for Surf Breaks of National and
Regional Significance. Proceedings of the 23th
Australasian Coasts and Ports Conference, Cairns,
Australia, 21-23 June 2017.
[3] Atkin, E. A, Bryan, K., Hume, T., Mead, S. T., and
Waiti, J., (2018), Management Guidelines for Surfing
Resources. Raglan, New Zealand: Technical Group on
Surfing Resources.
[4] Association for Surfing Research (2019), Second
Annual Meeting, Impact Zones & Liminal Spaces
Conference, 28th April 2019, San Diego State University.
[5] Beattie, H. (1919), Traditions and legends collected
from the natives of Murihiku (Southland, New Zealand).
The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 28(XI), 212–25.
[6] Best, E. (1924), Games and pastimes of the Maori.
Wellington, New Zealand: A. R. Shearer.
[7] Bryan, K.B, Davies-Campbell, J, Hume, T. and Gallop,
S.L., (2019), The influence of sand bar morphology on
surfing amenity at New Zealand beach breaks,
Manuscript submitted to Journal of Coastal Research.