Surfing at the Noosa World Surfing Reserve, Australia: Direct Expenditure and Travel Cost Analyses of Recreational Surfing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 50 years, wellbeing, tourism and recreation have driven significant changes to coastal areas, yet our understanding of the drivers remains focused on traditional activities like swimming, fishing and scuba diving. Over 50 million people worldwide practice recreational surfing, and the presence of high-quality waves is an increasing appeal for surf-rich locations. Focusing on Noosa World Surfing Reserve in Queensland, Australia, this study has two goals: understand the market and nonmarket values associated with recreational surfing; and highlight opportunities for surf break management to be better incorporated into coastal management activities. Based on our survey responses (n = 140), we found average surf-related expenditures are $1,897 per person per year, including direct expenditure in the reserve and surfing equipment. An application of the travel cost method reveals consumer surplus of A$48 per surfing trip to the Noosa World Surfing Reserve. We conclude that policies aimed at preserving surf breaks and improve users’ experience offer an important contribution to coastal management and planning, particularly when managed and natural coasts are under increasing pressures, such as from urban developments and coastal erosion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it