Fluoride has been added to the water supply in WA’s largest regional city, but those opposed to the practice continue to spend significant amounts to filter it out.
Ever since Polynesian pioneers took to the ocean on wooden rafts, people have been hooked on riding waves. Today, surfing is one of the world’s fastest-growing sports and one of the latest additions to the Olympic games.
Surfing is especially valuable to Australia. My new research shows surf-related expenditure contributes nearly A$3 billion to the Australian economy every year. And the mental health benefits to Australian surfers are in the order of $6 billion a year.
Yet many surf breaks are subject to coastal erosion, water pollution and other threats. The surfing event in Tahiti for this year’s Olympics is a case in point: it involved drilling into delicate coral reef to build a new judging tower.
It’s vital to recognise and measure the true benefits of surfing in dollar terms, so decision-makers realise it makes sense to invest in protecting Australia’s surf breaks.
Waves are essentially free. All you need is a surfboard and you’re set. Well, you might want to grab yourself a leg rope and a wetsuit too.
If you have a wave virtually at your doorstep, it’s likely you’re paying a real estate premium. Otherwise, you’re probably spending your weekends chasing waves up and down the coast. You may even have your family in tow. The costs soon add up.
Using an online survey of 569 Australian surfers, my team and I explored the influence of recreational surfing on the economy and people’s wellbeing. We found the average Australian surfer spends more than $3,700 a year, within Australia, on surfing-related purchases. Half goes on equipment, while the rest is spent on domestic travel. A further $1,975 is spent on international travel.
There are an estimated 727,000 Australian adult surfers, which brings the total spend to $2.71 billion every year being pumped into the domestic economy. If we factor in flow-on effects, such as business-to-business spending, the overall contribution of recreational surfing comes to $4.88 billion.
Economic impacts can inform government priorities and public decisions affecting coastal management. For example, the 2023 Margaret River Pro drew $8 million and 3,500 visitors to the region. These figures, as well as local and international support, encouraged the organisers to renew the contest until 2028.
Besides direct economic impacts, surfing contributes to participants’ wellbeing in multiple ways.
In our survey, more than 94% of respondents reported improvements in their physical and mental health, as well as their ability to deal with stress and difficulty in their lives.
More than 75% of surfers reported an improvement in their sense of belonging to a community and ability to foster positive relationships.
One way to measure wellbeing in economic terms is by comparing workplace productivity and healthcare costs between groups. Previous research has quantified the benefits of being in nature to mental health, using data from national parks visits. When applying this approach to surfing, the researchers found gains in surfers’ mental health worth $7,650 per person per year – or $5.6 billion across Australia’s surfers.
The first-time inclusion of surfing in the 2020–21 Tokyo Olympics was hailed as a landmark recognition of the sport’s cultural significance. A year later, surfing was admitted as a permanent Olympic sport.
But built infrastructure, such as ports and sea walls, human-induced climate change, coastal erosion and water pollution are endangering waves around the world.
The tiny village of Teahupo’o, in Tahiti, is home to one of the world’s “heaviest” waves. But some residents feared the Olympics would irreversibly damage their pristine environment. In response, visitor numbers were capped and construction minimised.
The world-renowned wave of Mundaka, in Spain’s Basque Country, disappeared in 2005 as a result of dredging activity in the nearby rivermouth. The wave eventually came back, but the area had already suffered a slowdown in economic growth, including the cancellation of a professional contest.
In Australia, three surf breaks were lost to construction of Perth’s Ocean Reef marina in 2022. Local residents’ calls for an artificial reef are now being considered.
Australia is blessed with more than 1,440 surf breaks and a surf-loving culture.
But if we want those waves to exist for future generations, we must look after them now.
A good starting point could be to include surf breaks in the Australia State of the Environment Report. The review already evaluates pressures on recreational fishing, snorkelling and scuba diving – but not surfing, despite it attracting more participants than the other three sports combined.
Form a legal standpoint, only a few of our waves are protected: the iconic Bells Beach in Victoria comes under the Heritage Act 2027. A dozen of “surfing reserves” in New South Wales are safeguarded by the Crown Lands Act 1989. In Queensland, coastal protection policies are being developed for the Noosa and Gold Coast World Surfing Reserves.
Across the world, more countries are adopting protections for surfing’s recreational and environmental values. In Brazil, the waves at Doce River Mouth were recently granted special protection, as a new bill acknowledged the ocean as a living being with intrinsic rights.
The goal to better understand and protect the value of surf breaks is in line with the 2021–30 Oceans Decade, a United Nations initiative to leverage scientific knowledge for ocean sustainability.
It’s often said “only a surfer knows the feeling” of riding a wave, but research quantifying the benefits of surfing can help decision-makers appreciate the need to preserve a truly irreplaceable resource.
Ana Manero is a volunteer with not-for-profit Surfing Mums.
The recent failure of a deal to deliver hydrogen-powered trucks to New Zealand, and the removal of a NZ$100 million government rebate scheme for green hydrogen users in the 2024 budget, make a transition to the much-lauded energy technology increasingly less certain.
The government had invested $6.5 million for the purchase of up to 25 heavy freight hydrogen trucks as part of a wider energy strategy due by the end of the year. But the US company Hyzon, which makes hydrogen fuel-cell trucks and had been modifying diesel trucks to use hydrogen, pulled out at short notice.
Nonetheless, interest in hydrogen for future transport and energy systems has soared globally, and New Zealand is no exception. But we argue that critical voices have been largely missing from the debate here.
In New Zealand, green hydrogen (which is produced with electricity from renewable sources) has attracted government support of $186.3 million from 2017 to 2023. This provided funding for a hydrogen refuelling network, vehicle conversions and purchases, research, and the establishment of the New Zealand Hydrogen Council (now Hydrogen New Zealand).
Proponents of green hydrogen argue it is essential for fuelling economic sectors they believe will be hard to decarbonise by direct electrification. As well as heavy road transport, this includes shipping and fertiliser production.
But opinions differ considerably on which sectors to focus on, and whether hydrogen is the best choice.
In the wake of the previous government’s ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, the 2019 H2 Taranaki roadmap outlined a vision for the region as a leader in hydrogen production.
Former energy minister Megan Woods reinforced this, indicating her government would be interested in any associated economic opportunities. This largely positive narrative continued in two further government reports.
The first, A Vision for Hydrogen in New Zealand, suggested the case for hydrogen was already settled:
Hydrogen is poised to fulfil its potential as a clean alternative to hydrocarbons in the global pursuit of decarbonisation to address climate change.
Development of green hydrogen was largely implicit in the second report, the Interim Hydrogen Roadmap, which aimed to:
optimise the potential for green hydrogen to contribute to New Zealand’s emissions reductions, economic development, and energy sector to the extent compatible with our broader electrification goals.
We analysed these reports using a content analysis approach focused on identifying how often strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats are mentioned. This revealed the words “opportunities” and “challenges” were used frequently, while “weaknesses” and “threats” were absent.
The use of “strengths” was confined to perceived advantages of New Zealand as a location for hydrogen production. Where difficulties were identified, they were framed as challenges rather than weaknesses.
This optimistic tone is generally reflected in descriptions of several government-funded projects, including green hydrogen research at GNS Science, and international collaborations such as the German-NZ Green Hydrogen alliance.
Media reports have typically reflected the enthusiastic narrative. Of 83 articles on green hydrogen published in New Zealand between 2019 and 2023, only 15 (18%) contained any critical analysis.
While some experts have voiced serious concerns about green hydrogen, this has not featured prominently in the debate in New Zealand.
For example, research by University of Cambridge engineering expert David Cebon shows battery electric vehicles are superior to hydrogen vehicles for heavy transport.
The emergence of fast (five minutes or less) automated and manual battery-swap systems, which provide an alternative to high-powered fast-charging systems, supports this point.
Climate and energy strategist Michael Barnard, who covers the green hydrogen debate extensively, writes:
Since 2000, application after application of hydrogen has found it to be inefficient, ineffective and expensive compared to obvious alternatives.
A German rail company which launched the world’s first hydrogen line last year has since opted for cheaper all-electric trains. Rising costs have also forced one Austrian state to abandon plans to introduce hydrogen buses.
Recent research suggests developments in battery-run and fast-charging electric trucks could soon make hydrogen fuel cells superfluous in road transport in most cases.
UK energy analyst Michael Liebreich has quantified the immense scale, significant impracticalities, enormous subsidies and costs associated with green hydrogen.
Liebreich’s “hydrogen ladder” ranks both actual and potential uses. It provides an evidence-informed guide on where to best focus attention and resources. Based on this, the previous government’s funding for the manufacture of green fertiliser (for which hydrogen is an input) was a sensible allocation.
In New Zealand, a 2019 report sponsored by industry and the government, and a letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, have both provided some critical analysis of the potential for green hydrogen.
The previous government’s commitment to finalise New Zealand’s hydrogen strategy, and to deliver an overall energy strategy, remains in place. But we need a more nuanced perspective.
This must start with an acknowledgement that hydrogen is an energy carrier (which has to be produced from other sources of energy), and not an energy resource like solar radiation, wind or hydro.
We need an approach that can continue to adapt to changes in “hard to abate” sectors of the energy system. Critiques of green hydrogen need to enter the discussion if we are to make informed choices.
Government policy on this topic must be informed by independent advice free from commercial interests. A new green hydrogen narrative will enable us to focus our limited resources on applications with the best chance of delivering on New Zealand’s decarbonisation and sustainability aspirations.
This could include key New Zealand industries switching from fossil fuels to hydrogen to produce green steel, green ammonia and fertiliser and green methanol.
The authors are grateful to Paul Callister for his helpful comments and suggestions.
Ian Mason is affiliated with the NZ Offshore Wind Working Group.
Robert McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Globally, many Indigenous people want to help protect their traditional lands and waters, drawing on knowledge stretching back millenia. Indigenous people have an obligation to look after species and habitats that are culturally important to them.
But how can Indigenous voices be supported to make land management decisions? And how do we ensure the process is Indigenous-led and culturally safe? New research by myself and colleagues can help.
We engaged Indigenous people from Bundjalung Country on Australia’s east coast. In a process they led, the Bundjalung people identified which culturally significant species they considered priorities for “collaborative management” – that is, management built on mutual respect for both Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems.
We hope this process might be used elsewhere, to give Indigenous people a genuine say in decisions about managing Country.
Bundjalung Country stretches from Grafton in northern New South Wales to the Logan River in Queensland and inland to Warwick.
The term Country describes the lands, water and seas to which Indigenous people are connected. Country contains complex ideas about lore, custom, language, spiritual belief, culture, material sustenance, family and identity.
For Indigenous Australians, some plants, animals and habitats hold special cultural significance. This may be, for example, because they are used in ceremonies, they feature in Creation stories or are used as a traditional food source.
The importance of this concept was was summed up during our project by Bundjalung man Oliver Costello, who said:
[Culturally significant entities] are the teachers of Country, they hold the stories and are the indicators for the health of Country. If you look after Country, it will look after you.
Our study set out to establish a process by which Indigenous people can come together to identify culturally significant species. The list of priority species would then be used to inform collaborative land and sea management with governments, conservation groups and others.
The process should be led by Indigenous people themselves, and aligned with their obligations and values.
We partnered with the Bundjalung-owned Jagun Alliance. This was crucial to ensuring the project was conducted in a culturally safe manner and developed with an Indigenous lens.
Our project adhered to cultural protocols and protected Indigenous cultural and intellectual property at all times.
First, we convened a meeting of five non-Bundjalung Indigenous experts with extensive experience in Indigenous-led work biodiversity work.
They identified six objectives for decision-making around culturally significant species. The objectives involved not just environmental values, but also social, spiritual, economic and cultural values.
We hosted several on-Country workshops with Bundjalung people and distributed an online survey, to determine which species might be prioritised for collaborative management. Of the responses we received, 32 yielded usable data.
The culturally significant plant and animal species identified as the top priority by Bundjalung respondents were:
Participants were also asked which habitats were most important for collaborative management. Some 70% identified wetlands, followed by grasslands and big scrub (a mosaic of lowland rainforest, swamp forest and wet eucalypt forest extensively cleared by colonists).
Once the results were in, Bundjalung knowledge-holders identified threats to these species, as follows:
The Bundjalung also identified management actions which should be integrated into Western management under a collaborative approach:
Unlike the current threatened species approach, which largely manages only parts of the problem, the actions identified by Bundjalung people were holistic and landscape-wide. This means these actions can benefit many species and habitats.
Bundjalung people were then invited to a meeting to share findings from the work. This provided an opportunity to heal from past trauma over a shared vision for Country.
In Bundjalung language, the koala is known as the boorabee.
The boorabee is the only culturally significant species identified by Bundjalung people with an active “national recovery plan”. This plan guides and coordinates conservation efforts by governments and others.
The koala recovery plan calls for Indigenous-led action, which offers Bundjalung people an avenue for collaborative management. Likewise, many management actions proposed by the Bundjalung are clearly aligned with the plan.
The koala and coastal emu are listed as threatened species under various pieces of state and federal legislation. However, a species need not be imperilled to be central to Indigenous-led management.
Our process helped a group of Bundjalung people agree on their conservation priorities, and how to act on them.
It’s important to note, however, that the Bundjalung community consists of ten clans – it is not a homogeneous group. As such, our findings may not be supported by all Bundjalung people.
We hope our findings help policymakers understand what Indigenous-led action could look like, if integrated into biodiversity management. The structured process we undertook may benefit other groups – although applied elsewhere, it may involve different objectives, modes of engagement and results.
Indigenous Australians are ready to sit at decision-making tables to improve the management of Country. They intimately understand our precious environment – and their contribution could be transformative.
Teagan Goolmeer receives funding from the Resilient Landscapes Hub of NESP. She is affiliated with Biodiversity Council and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.
With the rise in e-commerce, 161 billion parcels were delivered worldwide in 2022, doubling in just four years. In Australia, more households are shopping online than ever before. In 2023, 5.6 million households made a monthly online purchase. This implies millions of parcels are being shipped each month.
High-emitting diesel vans or trucks undertake almost all last-mile or doorstop parcel deliveries. In cities, these vehicles add to traffic congestion, parking pressures, carbon emissions and air pollution. So how can we reduce the environmental impact of all these deliveries?
Using low-emission vehicles, such as electric delivery vans powered by renewable energy sources, can certainly help. However, electric delivery vans and trucks are still uncommon. Their global sales share in 2023 was just under 5%. Increasing the numbers of vehicle chargers powered by renewable energy will also take time.
To complement the transition to cleaner vehicles, shorter-term solutions can include optimising the organisation of deliveries, as well as more novel ideas. One of these ideas is crowdshipping.
The concept applies crowdsourcing to delivery services. Members of the public elect to deliver parcels in the course of their journeys. In this way, crowdshipping integrates passenger and freight transport to streamline movement in cities.
Crowdshipping taps into “the crowd” to fulfil parcel deliveries. Instead of having dedicated couriers, we can match people with parcels bound for destinations close to where they are already headed, with minimal detours.
The concept leverages existing transport capacity. “Crowdshippers” are already travelling privately in their own vehicles or by public transport, or even cycling or walking. Through a service-matching platform, such as Roadie or DoorDash, crowdshippers can be paid for taking a parcel along their way.
In cities with good public transport and high levels of use, passengers can hand-carry small parcels across the network. Automated parcel lockers installed at stations can serve as mini distribution centres, where passengers pick up and drop off parcels.
We modelled crowdshipping in Singapore. The city has an excellent public transport system used by nearly 60% of commuters.
Algorithms were developed to match a selection of parcels to available passengers, considering their origins and destinations. The simulation used real-world datasets on daily parcel deliveries from the Singapore road network and public transport journeys.
The simulation showed crowdshipping can have multiple benefits. By outsourcing only 11% of parcel deliveries to crowdshippers riding public buses, an e-commerce carrier will require fewer delivery vehicles. Delivery vehicle distances fall by 20%, with matching cuts in emissions.
And even after paying crowdshippers, the carrier will enjoy cost savings.
There are several practical considerations.
For a start, would passengers be willing to deliver parcels? A survey of potential crowdshippers had a positive response.
Motivated by being able to earn some income while travelling, most passengers polled said they were willing to serve as crowdshippers. They were especially keen if paid one to two times their transport fare.
Next, might transporting parcels on public transport cause extra congestion or delay during peak-hour commutes? We should avoid adding more loads on crowded buses or trains.
We explored limiting crowdshipping to off-peak hours and found good availability of potential crowdshippers to deliver parcels. Many public transport systems tend to have excess capacity at these times, so making use of this to move parcels is feasible.
Finally, there’s a need to assure parcel shippers, carriers and receivers that the service is reliable. The service platform should be designed to develop and maintain accountability and trust among users. The system would have to be able to verify identity and track parcel status.
Crowdshipping using public transport would be ideal for cities with good public transport networks and high passenger numbers. Similar to outsourcing to a logistics provider, carriers can explore using people movements to complement their regular deliveries.
Cities need new solutions to make urban mobility sustainable. Integrating passenger and freight transport could make city logistics operations more efficient. By carrying out data-driven transport modelling and simulation, we can explore ideas such as crowdshipping, develop trials to test them and bring them closer to realisation.
This article draws on research conducted with Dr Meijing Zhang from Singapore University of Technology and Design.
Lynette Cheah receives funding from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads. She previously received funding from the Singapore National Research Foundation, Ministry of National Development, Land Transport Authority, Public Transport Council, Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), and Daimler Mobility.