Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Surf-riding tourism in coastal fishing communities: A comparative

case study of two projects from the Philippines
Brooke A. Porter a, b, *, Mark B. Orams a, c, Michael Lück a, b
a
New Zealand Tourism Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
b
School of Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
c
School of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Coastal inhabitants in the less developed world face growing challenges associated with dependence on
Received 29 January 2015 marine resources in decline. The development of alternative livelihoods is one potential solution to
Received in revised form alleviate dependency on fisheries. Tourism continues to be suggested as a potential development
14 July 2015
strategy for coastal communities, yet surf-riding tourism has received little attention as a means to
Accepted 20 July 2015
Available online xxx
achieve development goals. This paper documents two unique models currently being applied in remote
artisanal fisheries communities within the Philippines. The data used to document the models have been
derived from a combination of key informant interviews with surf-riding tourism developers/operators
Keywords:
Surf tourism
and in situ observations of the surf-riding tourism project operations. Results suggest the positive po-
Adventure tourism tential for surf-riding tourism as a development strategy in response to the changing needs of artisanal
Sustainable development fishing communities in developing nations.
Philippines © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Livelihood diversification

1. Introduction become a large and powerful economic sector worldwide (UNWTO,

Marine resources, primarily fisheries, have long been a liveli-
hood for coastal inhabitants (Allison et al., 2005). In areas where
alternative income opportunities are limited, fishers become criti-
cally dependent on coastal and marine resources not only for sus-
tenance, but also for income (Kronen et al., 2010). The heavy
reliance on fisheries creates considerable risks for the resource and
those dependent upon it, due to illegal fishing practices and
overfishing (Kronen et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2007). It is apparent
that with the continued degradation of coastal fisheries, the com-
munities reliant on them will be forced to change. The increasing
use of illegal and destructive fishing methods such as fine mesh set-
nets, dynamite and cyanide, are indicators of such adaptation
(Baticados, 2004). Necessity is altering traditional ways of living.
1.1. Tourism as development
Tourism is a rapidly evolving global industry and it has grown to
* Corresponding author. School of Hospitality and Tourism, Auckland University
of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
E-mail addresses: emailbrookey@gmail.com (B.A. Porter), mark.orams@aut.ac.nz
(M.B. Orams), mlueck@aut.ac.nz (M. Lück).
2004). Many authors have discussed (and advocated) for tourism
development as a potential response to declining resources and/or
weak economies such as those characteristic of coastal fishing
communities in lesser-developed nations (e.g., Bunce et al., 2008;
Croes and Vanegas, 2008; Laws, 2009; UNWTO, 2004). This
approach is justified by a significant overlap in equipment used by
fishers and marine tour operators (Cheong, 2005; Mensah and
Antwi, 2002). From an economic standpoint the introduction of
tourism as a supplemental activity to fishing could serve to maxi-
mise capital investments. Cheong (2005) suggested the benefits of
the industry overlap, where the skills necessary for fishing (e.g.,
captaining and crewing of vessels, knowledge of local marine
fauna) are of potential benefit to the tourism industry. Access to a
tourism economy by fishing households has the capability to pro-
vide a valuable supplemental economic activity and to contribute to
improved livelihoods.
The integration of marine tourism into fishing communities can
potentially serve as a resource management strategy when it adds
value to the marine resources by providing an alternate non-
extractive use of those resources. However, despite numerous
proposals and suggestions for pro-poor tourism or tourism as a
development strategy (e.g., Armada et al., 2009; Bauer, 2005; Croes
and Vanegas, 2008; Laws, 2009; Mensah and Amuquandoh, 2010;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.07.015
0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
170 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
Mograbi and Rogerson, 2007), cases of successful, transferable
models remain rare. Many examples of fisherfolk participation in
marine tourism and more specifically surf-riding tourism exist. For
example, in the Mentawais, a popular surf-riding tourism desti-
nation in Indonesia, some of the tour vessels that carry surfers are
converted fishing vessels (Ponting, 2001). Likewise, fisherfolk in
Lombok, Indonesia, offer ad hoc charters to the Gili Islands (per-
sonal observation, April 8, 2003). While some examples such as
these are available, there remains a lack of applicable marine
tourism development models. Fabinyi (2010) describes the current
trajectory of tourism development in the Philippines as having an
“ambiguous” effect on the fishers. This gap of applicable tourism
development models may be a consequence of research interests
responding to conflicts created by a shift to tourism or the difficulty
of documenting a gradual absorption of fisherfolk into the tourism
sector. Thus, there remains a need to document plausible models
for tourism development with specific benefits for fisherfolk
communities (Fabinyi, 2010).
1.2. Surf-riding tourism
Surf-riding tourism has been slow to gain recognition in the
academic literature (e.g., Buckley, 2002a, 2002b; Ponting et al.,
2005); however, there has been a recent surge of attention (e.g.,
Martin & Assenov, 2012, 2014; Orams and Towner, 2013; Ponting
and McDonald, 2013; Ponting & O'Brien, 2014; Shuman and
Hodgeson, 2009; Usher and Kerstetter, 2014). Buckley (2002a &
2002b) offered an early description of the economic, environmental
and social effects of surf-riding tourism development on Indo-
Pacific island communities. He notes social marginalisation as a
significant social risk, describing the effect as “second class citi-
zens” where community members are displaced by tourism
development and can no longer afford to live in the area (Buckley,
2002a, p. 421). More recently, Usher and Kerstetter (2014) used
ethnographic research to explore the perceptions of surf-riding
tourism development in coastal Nicaragua. They found commu-
nity perceptions to be overall positive; however, describe the
importance of appropriate planning for sustainable development.
Martin and Assenov (2012) “placed surf tourism research into three
conceptual stages for discussion: an Early Period (1997e2000); a
Formative Period (2001e2006); and a Progressive Period
(2007e2011)” (p. 271).
The work of Orams and Towner (2013) emphasises the diversity
of the surf-riding industry offering descriptive definitions of rele-
vant activities, while Martin and Assenov (2014) suggest a con-
servation matrix for surf-riding resources based on environmental,
economic, and governance indicators. Drivers for surf-riding
tourism (production and consumption) have also been explored
in the research (Ponting and McDonald, 2013). Rendle and Rodwell
(2014) investigated the multiple functions of artificial surfing reefs
(ASRs) noting that they are designed to contribute to the local
community. However, they caution that there is a lack of research
supporting this claim. For example, Di Tota and Lück (2015) report
that the ASR in Mount Maunganui, New Zealand failed to deliver
the expected community benefits. Subsequently, the local council
announced to remove the ASR. Overall, sustainability of the surf-
riding tourism industry remains a predominant theme in much of
the research (Martin & Assenov, 2014; Ponting & O'Brien, 2014;
Shuman and Hodgeson, 2009; Usher and Kerstetter, 2014).
2. Rationale
Towner (2013) states there is a need for more research exploring
surf tourism development, specifically studies, “which investigate
emerging tourism destinations and tourism types,” including surf
tourism in less developed countries (p. 53).
The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of two surf-
riding tourism models currently being applied in the Philippines.
In doing so, this research draws attention to the potential role of
surf-riding tourism as a development strategy and adds the
Philippines to the currently limited number of published research
cases on surf tourism (Martin and Assenov, 2012). Apart from
common issues associated with any form of tourism, surf-riding
tourism carries its own set of unique characteristics and contin-
gencies. While the general characteristics of the surf-riding tourist
vary, many surf-riding tourists will sacrifice comfort for “good” surf
(e.g., low numbers of surfers and good, clean waves), as Buckley
(2002a) explains, “surf tourists are surfers first and tourists sec-
ond” (p. 414). This minimalism (in terms of expected infrastructure
and services typically found in tourism destinations) associated
with surf-riders can be viewed as beneficial to development pro-
jects seeking to involve artisanal fisherfolk where service skills, as
well as tourism infrastructure and services, may be limited. Addi-
tionally, the self-interest of surfers seeks to limit tourism growth as
surf-riders prioritise uncrowded surf breaks (Buckley, 2002a,b;
Orams and Towner, 2013; Ponting, 2014; Towner, 2013). The two
models proposed in this paper have diverse functional character-
istics; however, both reveal commonalities that may increase the
potential transferability of the models to other settings. Therefore,
this comparative case study analysis seeks to explore the relevance
of surf-riding tourism as a development strategy and in doing so
identify potentially beneficial components of existing surf-riding
tourism models being applied in remote fishing communities.
3. Research design
This research was qualitative, interpretive and based on a case
study approach. Flyvbjerg (2006) advocates the importance of a
case study stating:
One can often generalise on the basis of a single case, and the
case study may be central to scientific development via gener-
alisation as supplement or alternative to other methods. But
formal generalisation is overvalued as a source of scientific
development, whereas ‘the force of example’ is underestimated.
(p.12)
Our analysis was guided by Buckley's (2002a, b) documentation
of Indo-Pacific surf tourism in the sense that it provides an
“introductory overview” of two models worthy of “academic
attention” (p. 406). Pragmatism was adopted as the research
paradigm (James, 1907; Schuh and Barab, 2007). James (1907)
states that researchers should be “interested in no conclusions
but those, which our minds and our experiences work out together”
(p. 22). This justification does not condone a loose methodology;
instead James (1907) suggests that validity be improved by
choosing appropriate theologies as fitting for the benefit of the
data. Schuh and Barab (2007) argue pragmatism as “neither an
epistemology or an ontology,” and instead describe knowledge as
being, “derived from interaction among groups of individuals and
the artefacts in their environment, both of which create a reality”
(p. 72). Within the pragmatic approach, a constructivist paradigm
was adopted. Proponents of constructivism understand that the
interactions between the researcher and the participants
contribute to the knowledge construct, thus, affecting the research
outcomes adopted (Racher and Robinson, 2003). Such a paradigm is
appropriate here to accomplish the research goal of describing
cases of surf-riding tourism development projects.
The key informants (KI) in this study are the operators/founders
of the surf-riding tourism development projects. Thus, the choice to
 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
describe the projects based on operators as key informants and in-
situ observations can be considered pragmatic. The two KIs have
experience working directly or indirectly on livelihood improve-
ment programmes in remote coastal communities in the less
developed world. Additionally, both have been involved in the surf-
riding tourism sector and each has a diverse range of tourism ex-
periences to draw knowledge from. Data were collected via face-to-
face individual semi-structured interviews (a total of two interview
sessions) and through two in-situ observations at each surf-riding
tourism project (a total of four in-situ observation sessions). Data
from each interview were transcribed and manually coded and
categorised (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Field observations were
recorded in a journal. Anonymity of the key informants and their
projects was prioritised as potentially sensitive data were collected
during the research process.
3.1. The key informants
The first key informant (KI-A) is an American citizen and the
founder and managing director of a Philippines-based non-
governmental organisation (NGO) dedicated to improving marine
management strategy and marine conservation in the region. The
NGO's projects include a micro-finance programme that promotes
small-scale tourism development aimed at attracting surf-riders.
The impetus behind KI-A's involvement in the Filipino tourism
sector and ultimately the marine conservation sector was a result of
a combination of personal interests (marine conservation and
surfing), realising the potential profitability based on current ca-
pacity of the area. KI-A stated a desire to try to “reinvent the way
people manage the resources by aligning the interests of tourists
and conservation.”
The second key informant (KI-B) is both a Filipino and American
national. KI-B's motivation to participate in the tourism sector came
from personal experience backpacking through Asia. As a result, KI-
B realised a gap in the industry. As a private entrepreneur, KI-B felt
that “we should make something available in the Philippines that is
on the beach and affordable, yet comfortable.” At the time of data
collection, KI-B had opened a single hostel offering low-budget
beach accommodation at a surf destination in Luzon, Philippines.
At the time of submission, two additional hostels based on the same
business model had been opened.
4. Results
4.1. Key informant interviews and in-situ observations
Both cases explored by this research involved coastal commu-
nities in the Philippines dependent on artisanal fishing for subsis-
tence and livelihood purposes. The cases focused on two different
surf-riding tourism models currently being applied/developed by
the KIs in various Luzon locations. Surf-riding tourism is defined as,
“the recreational use of waves where the participant has travelled
for the purpose of riding these waves for enjoyment” (Orams and
Towner, 2013, p. 175).
The two KIs contributed perception-based information
regarding the state of the fisheries, marine management and the
potential and existing roles of tourism in the fisheries drawn from
their personal and project-centric experiences. Additional data
were collected through unconcealed site visits to two project sites
by the primary researcher. Results have been drawn from a com-
bination of KI interviews and in-situ observations.
4.2. Operator motives
The KI interviews revealed similar themes. Both KIs prioritised
171
sustainable community development and the planned provision of
livelihood opportunities for members of coastal communities.
These motivations were interpreted as stemming from altruistic
intentions. However, the specific drivers behind these altruistic
intentions varied. Whereas a background in community develop-
ment motivated KI-B, KI-A was driven by marine conservation
goals. As altruism is a subjective description, it is thought that
relevant effects of the trait may be more accurately defined by
objectives associated with social entrepreneurship. Shaw and
Carter (2007) suggest, “the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ has
emerged as a new label for describing the work of community,
voluntary and public organisations, as well as private firms working
for social rather than for-profit objectives” (p. 419). In essence,
social entrepreneurship seeks to prioritise social benefits over
personal profits.
A second common theme that emerged from the KI interviews
was the draw of the surfing lifestyle. While both KIs are heavily
involved in the surf-riding lifestyle and both frequently partake in
surf-riding activities, the characteristics of these lifestyles vary.
These characteristics were identified from notes in the researcher's
field journal and interview responses. For KI-B, part of the lifestyle
attraction is associated with a commercial surfing image (e.g.,
promotion of surf-riding apparel and surf-riding equipment). For
KI-A, the lifestyle attraction is more driven by discovery (e.g.,
discovering and surfing previously un-surfed surf breaks).
4.3. The environment
In terms of benefits to the resource, both projects seek to
maintain or improve the marine environment and promote envi-
ronmental awareness and activism in the host communities. The
methods for achieving these goals vary. KI-B's project relies upon
informal education (e.g., word of mouth) and simple participatory
activities (e.g., beach cleanups). KI-A's project emphasises more
formal approaches (e.g., educational screenings of marine conser-
vation films, infrastructure development through the provision of
solar energy in trade for the ceasing of environmentally destructive
behaviours and the establishment of marine protected areas
(MPAs)).
In terms of current marine management, both key informants
felt that current marine management efforts at the local barangay
levels were lacking. A barangay is a Filipino term used to describe
the smallest political unit, which is headed by a barangay captain
who in turn is supported by a barangay council. The size of a bar-
angay varies in size from around 100 to 2000 persons. As KI-A
described in detail:
They [the barangay] lack the management expertise, the
commitment, and they are unwilling to make any sacrifices in
terms of restricting their fishing areas (e.g., the creation of
MPAs). And there is no enforcement; that is probably the
number one thing.
Likewise, both KIs identified multiple issues detrimentally
affecting the marine environment (e.g., overfishing, destructive
fishing practices, coastal development, pollution, management).
When asked about the impacts of tourism development on the
fisheries, both KIs identified potential environmental risks falling
under the theme of exhausting the resources and polluting the
ecosystems. An example of exhausting the resources was sum-
marised by KI-A who stated:
I consistently see lapuelapu [grouper] on all the buffets at all
these big hotels. So if they're creating demand for fish that are
already being overfished and local fishermen are now targeting
172 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
those species so that they can make money from that, then I
think they [hotels] are having a negative impact on the fisheries.
4.4. The community
Most pertinent to this case study research were the emergent
strategies used for engaging the communities in the respective
project areas. Project objectives for both KIs included providing
livelihood opportunities to members of the communities. This
theme was drawn from the summative responses of each KI:
KI-A: We hired a couple people from the community to work for
us and just over time convincing them that we really mean what
we say and are out to help the people and at the same time we
are trying to save the environment for future generations of
people who live in that area.
KI-B: We developed a business model that just focused on
lodging. We wanted to do a sustainable community growth, so
what we did was … We do the lodging and we outsource
everything else to the locals.
Both KIs approached livelihood development with a business
strategy driven by what could be described as a “we know best”
attitude. Neither project hinged on community inclusion in the
planning stages. While such an approach goes against community
inclusion strategies promoted within community based tourism
(CBT) literature (e.g., Beeton, 2006; Johnston, 2006; Mensah and
Amuquandoh, 2010), both KIs had self-proclaimed goodwill to-
wards the communities. As KI-A explained, “our objectives are not
to steal their land, and take advantage of them and steal their re-
sources, which they would allow us to do no problem if we paid
them enough money.” Both cases described situations where the
surf-tourism development operators considered themselves as
favourably contributing to the local communities. Unsurprisingly,
both KIs described initial community resistance. KI-B explained this
saying:
They said you're going to take business away from us, blah, blah,
blah. But ever since, maybe a few months into it, and after we
had a few events, everybody loves us. Nobody wants to work
against us because now they all earn money.
KI-A described the community's opposition to parts of the
project proposal:
We were very transparent and we told them we wanted to have
wildlife cameras and surveillance cameras and when they heard
that they would be recorded and their daily activities would be
recorded they basically said, ‘no we don't want you here.’
Beyond the initial hesitations perceived by the KIs, neither KI
reported further negative effects of the projects on the commu-
nities. Both examples taken from KI interviews were interpreted as
a fear-based resistance to change. In one case the community was
afraid of economic change, while the other case showed a com-
munity unwilling to have their practices documented for fear of
having to change, or the potential negative consequences of pros-
ecution and punishment for use of illegal practices.
4.5. The use of private equity
Buckley (2012) describes regulatory modification as the primary
contribution of private initiatives. While involvement from the
private sector is common in the tourism sector (Buckley, 2012),
development strategy remains predominantly driven by large in-
ternational aid agencies (Easterly, 2006). The cases studied revealed
a similarity in an associated personal investment in the form of
private equity from the respective KIs.
5. Discussion
Though the projects documented by this research were different
in design, there were similarities in the drivers for development.
Specifically, both KIs were motivated by a surfing lifestyle, envi-
ronmental benefits, and social entrepreneurship objectives. Addi-
tionally, personal private equity was an input by the key informant
operators in both projects. These commonalities are discussed
below in relation to the literature.
Previous research has documented “lifestyle” as a driver of
employment in the surf industry (Marchant and Mottiar, 2011;
Towner, 2013) and in tourism in general (Ateljevic and Doorne,
2000). The surfing lifestyle was identified as an important driver
in the motivations of both KIs. While surfing an “un-surfed” break is
one of the greatest accomplishments (Brown, 1966), the associated
exclusivity is also a benefit to tourism (Buckley, 2002a; Orams and
Towner, 2013).
The efforts associated with both project designs seek to lessen
the dependency on marine resources; however, neither guarantees
an actual reduction in efforts on the fisheries (see Sievanen et al.,
2005). The impacts associated with increased visitors may also
hinder environmental benefits of tourism development (Buckley,
2002a, 2012). However, Shuman and Hodgeson (2009) found the
intrinsic characteristics of surf-riding tourism (e.g., surf breaks
reliant on a healthy reef ecosystem, beach aesthetics) to have
positive environmental effects. This idea has been shown at KI-B's
project sites where locals have taken an active interest in improving
the beach aesthetics (an effect described in Buckley (2012)).
Voluntary participation in environmental maintenance and/or
improvement suggests that the community may be associating, an
environmental value with tourism development. Voluntary active
participation in the project bodes well for countering the com-
munity marginalisation previously described in the surf-riding
tourism literature (Buckley, 2002a; Ponting et al., 2005; Ponting
and McDonald, 2013; Towner, 2013).
The social entrepreneurship objectives described by this
research offered a contrasting approach to the currently accepted
strategy of community inclusion associated with CBT. While both
projects prioritised community benefits over personal profits,
neither project emphasised or required participatory community
planning. Corruption has been well documented in the Philippines
(Batalla, 2001; Dalabajan, 2009; Fabinyi, 2010; Fabinyi & Dalabajan,
2011). Additionally, previous research has shown that surf-riding
tourism developments may lead to tensions in the community
creating issues of inequitable wealth distribution (Towner, 2013) or
create situations where locals are required as staff, but cannot
afford to stay at a resort (Buckley, 2002a). Similar effects have been
described from other forms of tourism in the Philippines (Fabinyi,
2010; Pine, 2007). In reference to coastal tourism development,
Fabinyi (2010) described the effects of government corruption
stating, “poorer migrant fisherfolk argue that they are in a similarly
powerless and marginalised situation, and are at the mercy of the
allegedly corrupt government,” (p. 423). While community partic-
ipation is a seemingly important component of anti-corruption in
development, the lack of community participation should not be
considered an immediate marker of corruption, as participation
may not equate to social justice (see Fabinyi & Dalabajan, 2011).
The differences in maturity of the projects currently prohibit a
 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
direct comparison of social effects. KI-A's project is under devel-
opment, while KI-B has opened three hostels. Although, commu-
nity perceptions regarding the development projects are outside
the scope of this paper, the in-situ observations at KI-B's project site
revealed positive social interactions between local residents and
surf-riders and other visitors. For both casual and recreational surf-
riders, surfing is a social experience (Buckley, 2002a, b) with its
own set of social norms for behaviour and conduct in the water
(Orams and Towner, 2013). While such “understood” rules of
conduct do not guarantee culturally appropriate behaviour they
may serve to foster positive social interactions. KI-A's project was
under development, and was not formally open to visitors at the
time of this study. In the future, it is possible that the provision of
immediate access to the tourism sector as potential business
owners/operators (e.g., in-water surf-riding instructors, food ven-
dors, transport operators) or philanthropic inputs could result in
positive host perceptions from those receiving benefits (see
McGehee and Andereck, 2009).
The exploratory two cases described in this study, demonstrate
examples of projects that were developed by outsiders without
community participation in the planning processes, but with
intended social benefits. Previous research has shown that out-
siders have the ability to improve business skills and increase
knowledge of the tourism sector in developing nations and remote
fishing communities (Buckley, 2012; Diedrich, 2007; Porter and
Orams, 2014; Towner, 2013). The exploratory case studies also
revealed personal private equity investment as an important factor
common in both cases. The willingness of outsiders to invest
personally in the development of small-scale surf tourism based
businesses with a social entrepreneurship “heart” may be a critical
factor in positive community development outcomes.
5.1. Models derived from two surf-riding tourism development
initiatives in the Philippines
Surf-riding tourism remains an under-explored community
development strategy. The two case studies presented here offer
new contributions to the limited literature on surf-riding tourism.
In particular, the use of surf-riding tourism as a potential devel-
opment option in the Philippines is new and has not been reported
before. More generally, the approach of the two KIs in these case
studies challenge the existing approaches advocated in the CBT and
community based management (CBM) literature (Martin and
Assenov, 2012) whereby the inclusion of local communities in the
planning processes is seen as fundamentally important. The surf-
tourism development projects presented here, while they did not
exclude local communities, proceeded in terms of decision-making
and implementation without any deliberate or explicit attempts to
consult with or include locals about the community desires in
respect to the development projects. Such an approach is a direct
challenge to a philosophy (in CBT and CBM models) which seeks to
involve locals in a meaningful way with development plans and
actions that affect their futures.
The two exploratory case studies examined in this research can
be summarised as two contrasting approaches or models. Both
models are offered as summaries of the cases and are derived from
data collected via semi-structured interviews and from field notes
taken from in-situ observations.
5.1.1. Model 1: the catalyst model
This model is based on KI-B's business which is based on three
small-scale, low-budget, hostel-type tourism establishments that
target surf-riding tourists. Due to the average swell size (<1e2 m)
of the nearby breaks, the hostels cater to what Orams and Towner
(2013) describe as “casual surf-rider tourists” and “recreational
173
surf-rider tourists” (p. 185). In contrast to much of the literature
calling for community-centric planning (Beeton, 2006; Johnston,
2006; Mensah and Amuquandoh, 2010), the Catalyst Model does
not emphasise community involvement in the planning stages.
Instead, the model produces an effect similar to what Junio-Menez
(2001) describes as a result of an implementation activity where
community members participate through the provision of services
(e.g., construction, monitoring and surveillance).
The model, though simple, is considered innovative in that by
only offering accommodation, it creates a demand for other
essential tourist services. This demand provides the catalyst for the
development and offering of other services to meet the needs/
wants of tourists and for which they are willing to pay. Thus, rev-
enue generating and income producing opportunities are recog-
nised and locals move into take advantage of such opportunities
(see Fig. 1).
The first process depicted in Fig. 1, ‘surf potential realised,’ may
come from within the community; however, is more commonly the
result of a visit from an outsider with previous surf-riding experi-
ence. The second process, the establishment of accommodation
services is offered by an outsider. Being that this model is depen-
dent on the operator offering limited services (accommodation),
the third process, the arrival of visitors creates a demand and thus a
gap in necessary tourism services (e.g., food, transport, bars, sou-
venirs, board rental/repair, lessons, photography). Thus, the
tourism developer not only relies upon the community to provide
the required basic services for the tourists, but also must engage in
a relationship with the host community to advocate for the supply
of those services. This engagement forges a relationship of mutual
dependency that is often difficult to achieve in less-developed
countries (e.g., Towner, 2013). As the Catalyst Model encourages
the individual entrepreneurship of community members, it allows
the community to organise accordingly and within their own
existing structures and power roles. It is noted, that the model does
not limit the involvement of tourism entrepreneurs and, therefore,
tourism entrepreneurs may include outsiders. The fifth and final
process is the broader economic development derived from the
cash influx from the tourism activities (e.g., retail, entertainment,
sightseeing, internet cafe).
5.1.2. Model 2: the Philanthropic model
The second model is based on KI-A's project. It relies upon a
monetary donation, volunteer work for the improvement of the
host community and a commitment to adhere to a code of ethics by
the guest in return for an invitation from the host community
(brokered by the operator) to surf in the local area. The donation
system seeks to reduce the power of the potential guests, thus
protecting the community. As explained by the operator, “the
donation is separate from the free invitation to visit so there are no
refunds. The customer is not always right at the [anonymous] surf
camp.” Guests are expected to be considerate of the indigenous
community's privacy by following a code of ethics that includes
appropriate behaviour (e.g., avoiding excessive intoxication, the use
of drugs, photography without permission, womanising or
engaging in prostitution and public nudity) that others have found
contribute to a negative perspective of surf-riding tourism (Towner,
2013). The key components of this model are summarised in Fig. 2.
In this model the visitor provides philanthropic actions in the
forms of both monetary donations and service donations. The
required donation represents the first philanthropic action/input
depicted in Fig. 2. In return the community provides access and
experiences for the visitor (uncrowded surfing opportunities). This
second philanthropic input through visitor participation in envi-
ronmental conservation projects may be considered a form of
volunteer tourism, according to the definition of Wearing (2001),
174 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176

Fig. 1. The Catalyst Model depicts the relationships between the community and outsiders as a function of development.

Fig. 2. The relationship between the visitor and community in the Philanthropic Model.

who defines volunteer tourists as, “those who, for various reasons
volunteer in an organised way to undertake holidays that might
involve aiding or alleviating the material poverty of some groups in
society, the restoration of certain environments or research into
aspects of society or environment” (p. 1). However, unlike volunteer
tourism, the participation in conservation efforts in this model is
not intended to be the main attraction for the majority of visitors.
Instead, the strategy employed by this model is similar to Forestell
(1993) call for the “modelling of desired behaviours, active
recruitment of participants to commit to change, and the presen-
tation of action alternatives, as essential components of nature-
based [tourism] programmes” (Forestell, 1993, p. 277). The pro-
posal behind Forestell (1993) concept was that through participa-
tion in environmentally responsible behaviours and through the
observation of environmentally preferable actions and options (e.g.,
eco-features of the tourism establishment such as use of native
locally-sourced materials, composting toilets, water reclamation,
LED lighting and solar power), the visitors might be prompted to
become more environmentally responsible themselves. This is
summarised by the second “experience” depicted in Fig. 2. The
spiral continues throughout the duration of the visit as depicted by
the third spiral. The dashed lines represent potential points of
severance of the relationship which may be influenced by sched-
uled length of the visit or by tourists being asked to leave.
In comparison, the Catalyst Model is noticeably simpler than the
Philanthropic Model. Another noticeable difference is the target
audiences of the projects on which the models are based. The
Catalyst Model is based on a project that targets budget travellers
and recreational surf-riders while the Philanthropic Model is based
on a project that targets a more affluent and expert surf-riding
 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
audience. Although the financial input into the host community is
lower in the Catalyst Model, its simplicity renders it more likely to
be transferable to other locations. In comparison, the Philanthropic
Model requires more complex inputs (on behalf of the operator(s)
and the visitors), yet it has the potential to produce greater envi-
ronmental benefits.
6. Conclusions
There is often a lack of tourism awareness and/or hospitality
skills in remote coastal communities (Diedrich, 2007; Porter and
Orams, 2014; Saarinen, 2010; Towner, 2013). This lack of aware-
ness of tourism arguably limits the efficacy of community partici-
pation in planning process but also a community's ability to fulfil
tourist expectations. Both models offered in this paper aim to
produce social benefits, yet do not deliberately seek community
inclusion in the planning stages of development. Research has
shown community participation in the planning processes to be
positively correlated with the success of pro-poor tourism initia-
tives (Beeton, 2006; Cattarinich, 2001; Johnston, 2006; Mensah and
Amuquandoh, 2010). However, Eder (2005) found community
meetings in the Philippines involving coastal management projects
are only weakly participatory and that “some local voices and
perspectives were simply never heard at all” (p. 164). Similar to
Eder (2005), Towner (2013) noted that communication between
community members in the Mentawais and other stakeholders in
the tourism industry rarely occurs.
6.1. Surf-riding tourism as development
Mensah and Amuquandoh (2010) argue, “the diverse nature of
the tourism industry makes it a more desirable strategy for
addressing poverty than other sectors” (p. 94). As Orams and
Towner (2013) state, “an additional important issue with regard
to the semantics of surfing is that there is now a very diverse range
of ways of riding waves and a wide range of craft used to do it” (p.
174). This, coupled with the flexible nature of many surf-riding
tourists (Buckley, 2002a; Orams and Towner, 2013), and the
preferred exclusivity of most surf-riding tourists (Buckley, 2002a;
Orams and Towner, 2013) suggest the surf-riding tourism sector's
relevance in terms of coastal development. The models described
by this study suggest the important potential role of surferiding
tourism in coastal development in remote coastal communities in
the less developed world.
6.2. Future implications
Pragmatic solutions that address the limitations of remote
coastal communities within the context of tourism development
remain necessary. The two cases described by this research were
planned and implemented without emphasis on community in-
clusion. This is counter to the recommended approaches within the
CBT and wider development literature; yet, the limited research on
surfing based tourism development suggests that community
participation may not be effective or even possible in any mean-
ingful way. The two models provided here show further examples
of this, however they also show potential ways forward, that is, that
surf-riding tourism development in remote coastal locations could
be beneficial in either a catalytic sense or when constructed with a
deliberate philanthropic approach.
References
Allison, E.H., Adger, W.N., Badjeck, M., Brown, K., Conway, D., Dulvy, N.K., Halls, A.,
Perry, A., Reynolds, J.D., 2005. Effects of Climate Change on the Sustainability of
175
Capture and Enhancement Fisheries Important to the Poor: Analysis of the
Vulnerability and Adaptability of Fisherfolk Living in Poverty (R4778J).
Retrieved from Fisheries Management Science Programme Department web-
site: http://www.fmsp.org.uk/Documents/r4778j/r4778j_1.pdf.
Armada, N., White, A.T., Christie, P., 2009. Managing fisheries resources in Danajon
Bank, Bohol, Philippines: an ecosystem-based approach. Coast. Manag. 37,
308e330. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750902851609.
Ateljevic, I., Doorne, S., 2000. ‘Staying within the fence’: lifestyle entrepreneurship
in tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 8, 378e392.
Batalla, E.C., 2001. De-institutionalizing corruption in the Philippines: Identifying
strategic requirements for reinventing Institutions. In: Pedro Jr., A.C. (Ed.),
Combating Corruption in East Asia. Yuchengco Center for East Asia, De La Salle
University, Manila, pp. 41e78.
Baticados, D.B., 2004. Fishing cooperatives' participation in managing nearshore
resources: the case in Capiz, central Philippines. Fish. Res. 67, 81e91. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2003.07.005.
Bauer, J.J., 2005. Conservation, Poverty Alleviation and Community Development
through Tourism in Developing Countries: the International Program of the CRC
for Sustainable Tourism (1999e2002) (1). CRC Sustainable Tourism, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Beeton, S., 2006. Community Development through Tourism. CSIRO Publishing,
Collingwood, Australia.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.
3 (2), 77e101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brown, B., 1966. The Endless Summer [Format: Motion Picture]. Bruce Brown Films,
USA.
Buckley, R., 2002a. Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-Pacific
Islands I. The industry and the islands. J. Sustain. Tour. 10, 405e424.
Buckley, R., 2002b. Surf tourism and sustainable development in Indo-Pacific
Islands. 2. Recreational capacity management and case study. J. Sustain. Tour.
10, 425e442.
Buckley, R., 2012. Sustainable tourism: research and reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 39,
528e546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2012.02.003.
Bunce, M., Rodwell, L.D., Mee, L., Gibb, R., 2008. Shifting baselines in fishers' per-
ceptions of island reef fishery degradation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51 (4),
285e302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.09.006.
Cattarinich, X., 2001. Pro-poor Tourism Initiatives in Developing Countries: Analysis
of Secondary Case Studies. Retrieved from. http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/
bitstream/123456789/449/1/Pro-poor%20tourism%20initiatives%20in%
20developing%20countries%20analysis%20of%20secondary%20case%20studies.
pdf.
Cheong, S., 2005. Korean fishing communities in transition: limitations of
community-based resource management. Environ. Plan. 37, 1277e1290. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1068/a37139.
Croes, R., Vanegas, M., 2008. Cointegration and causality between tourism and
poverty reduction. J. Travel Res. 47, 94e103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0047287507312429.
Dalabajan, D., Of crimes and no punishment: fisheries law offenses and the criminal
justice system in the Calamianes group of islands, In: Anda, R.D., Dalabajan,
D.A., (eds.), Against the Tide: Enforcement and Governance in the Sulu Sulawesi
Seas (pp. 50e64).
Diedrich, A., 2007. The impacts of tourism on coral reef conservation awareness and
support in coastal communities in Belize. Coral Reefs 26, 985e996.
Di Tota, D., Lück, M., 2015. The artificial surf reef impacts at mount maunganui, New
Zealand: a study of stakeholder perceptions. In: Lück, M., Velvin, J.,
Eisenstein, B. (Eds.), The Social Side of Tourism: the Interface between Tourism,
Society, and the Environment. Answers to Global Questions from the Interna-
tional Network of Tourism Research and Education (ICNT). Peter Lang Verlag,
Frankfurt.
Easterly, W., 2006. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest
have done so much Ill and so Little Good. Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Eder, J.F., 2005. Coastal resource management and social differences in Philippine
fishing communities. Hum. Ecol. 22, 147e169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10745-
005-2430-Z.
Fabinyi, M., 2010. The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: competing
coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands. Philipp. Hum. Ecol. 38, 415e427.
Fabinyi, M., & Dalabajan, D., Policy and practice in the live reef fish for food trade: a
case study from Palawan, Philippines, Mar. Policy 35, 371e378.
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq. 12
(2), 219e245.
Forestell, P.H., 1993. If Leviathan has a face, does Gaia have a soul?: incorporating
environmental education in marine eco-tourism programs. Ocean Coast.
Manag. 20, 267e282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0964-5691(93)90070-F.
James, W., 1907. Lecture II: what pragmatism means [PDF]. In: James, W. (Ed.),
Pragmatism: a New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. Retrieved from.
http://iws.collin.edu/amiller/William%20James%20-%20Pragmatism.pdf.
Johnston, A.M., 2006. Is the Sacred for Sale? Tourism and Indigenous Peoples.
Earthscan, Sterling, VA.
Junio-Menez, M.A., 2001. Myths and Realities of Participation in Philippine CBCRM:
Lessons from an Analysis of Who Participates in What (State of the Field of
CBNRM. Philippines: Coastal Component). Community-based Coastal Resource
Management Learning Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Magron, F., McArdle, B., 2010. Socio-economic drivers and
indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific island countries and terri-
tories and their use for fisheries management strategies. Mar. Policy 34,
176 B.A. Porter et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 116 (2015) 169e176
1135e1143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.013.
Laws, E., 2009. ProPoor tourism e who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and
poverty reduction. Tour. Manag. 30, 143e145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2008.05.002.
Marchant, B., Mottiar, Z., 2011. Digging beneath the issue of profits: profiling surf
tourism lifestyle entrepreneurs in Ireland. Tour. Dev. Plan. 8, 171e183.
Martin, S.A., Assenov, I., 2014. Investigating the importance of surf resource sus-
tainability indicators: stakeholder perspectives from surf tourism planning and
development. Tour. Plan. Dev. 11, 127e148.
Martin, S.A., Assenov, I., 2012. The genesis of a new body of sport tourism literature:
a systematic review of surf tourism research (1997-2011). J. Sport Tour. 17 (4),
257e287.
McGehee, N., Andereck, K., 2009. Volunteer tourism and the “voluntoured”: the
case of Tijuana, Mexico. J. Sustain. Tour. 17, 39e51.
Mensah, J.V., Antwi, B.K., 2002. Problems of artisanal marine fishermen in Ghana:
the way ahead. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 23, 217e235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-9493.00126.
Mensah, E.A., Amuquandoh, F.E., 2010. Poverty reduction through tourism: resi-
dents' perspectives. J. Travel Tour. Res. (Spring 2010) 77e96.
Mograbi, J., Rogerson, C.M., 2007. Maximising the local pro-poor impacts of dive
tourism: Sodwana Bay, South Africa. Urban Forum 18 (2), 85e104. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12132-007-9002-9.
Orams, M.B., Towner, N., 2013. Riding the wave: history, definitions, and a proposed
typology of surf-riding tourism. Tour. Mar. Environ. 8, 173e188. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3727/154427313X13631129554901.
Pine, R., 2007. Donsol Whale Shark Tourism and Coastal Resource Management e a
Case Study on the Philippines. Retrieved from. http://www.wwf.org.ph/
downloads/DonsolCaseStudy.pdf.
Porter, B.A., Orams, M.B., 2014. Exploring tourism as a potential development
strategy for an artisanal fishing community in the Philippines: the case of
Barangay victory in Bolinao. Tour. Mar. Environ. 10, 49e70.
Ponting, J., 2014. Comparing modes of surf tourism delivery in the Maldives. Ann.
Tour. Res. 46, 163e184.
Ponting, J., 2001. Managing the Mentawais: an Examination of Sustainable Tourism
Management and the Surfing Tourism Industry in the Mentawai Archipelago,
Indonesia (unpublished master's thesis). University of Technology, Sydney,
Australia. Retrieved from. http://www.mentawai.org/surfing-industry/surfing-
tourism-mentawai/.
Ponting, J., McDonald, M.G., 2013. Performance, agency and change in surfing
tourism space. Ann. Tour. Res. 43, 415e434.
Ponting, J., McDonald, M., Wearing, S., 2005. De-constructing wonderland: surfing
tourism in the Mentawai Islands, Indonesia. Soc. Leis. 28, 141e162.
Ponting, J., O'Brien, D., 2014. Liberalizing Nirvana: an analysis of the consequences
of common pool resource deregulation from the sustainability of Fiji's surf
tourism industry. J. Sustain. Tour. 22, 384e402.
Racher, F.E., Robinson, S., 2003. Are phenomenology and postpositivism strange
bedfellows? West. J. Nurs. Res. 25 (5), 464e481.
Rendle, E.J., Rodwell, L.D., 2014. Artificial surf reefs: a preliminary assessment of the
potential to enhance a coastal economy. Mar. Policy 45, 349e358.
Saarinen, J., 2010. Local tourism awareness: community views in Katutura and King
Nehale conservancy, Namibia. Dev. South. Afr. 27 (5), 713e724. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/037685X.2010.522833.
Schuh, K., Barab, S., 2007. Philosophical perspectives. In: Spector, J.M., Merrill, M.D.,
vanMerrienboer, J., Driscoll, M.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, New York,
NY, pp. 67e82.
Shuman, C.S., Hodgeson, G., 2009. Reef ¼ Barrels: the Quiksilver crossing reef check
expedition. Reef J. 1, 131e139.
Shaw, E., Carter, S., 2007. Social entrepreneurship. Theoretical antecedents and
empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes. J. Small Bus.
Enterp. Dev. 14, 418e434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000710773529.
Sievanen, L., Crawford, B., Pollnac, R., Lowe, C., 2005. Weeding through assumptions
of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and
Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 297e313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2005.04.015.
Towner, N., 2013. Surf Tourism and Sustainable Community Development in the
Mentawai Islands, Indonesia: a Multiple Stakeholder Perspective (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10292/7149.
Turner, R.A., Cakacaka, A., Graham, N.A.J., Polunin, N.V.C., Pratchet, M.S., Stead, S.M.,
Wilson, S.K., 2007. Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South
Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs 26,
997e1008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00338-007-0238-6.
UNWTO, 2004. Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Recommendations for Action (1).
United Nations World Tourism Organization, Madrid, Spain. Retrieved from.
http://ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login?url¼http://YU7RZ9HN8Y.search.serialssolutions.
com/?V¼1.0&L¼YU7RZ9HN8Y&S¼JCs&C¼TC_003011953&T¼marc.
Usher, L.E., Kerstetter, D., 2014. Residents' perceptions of quality of life in a surf
tourism destination: a case study of Las Salinas, Nicaragua. Prog. Dev. Stud. 14,
321e333.
Wearing, S., 2001. Volunteer Tourism: Experiences that Make a Difference. Cabi,
Wallingford, UK.
Brooke Porter is a Ph.D. graduate from the New Zealand Tourism Research Institute at
the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand. Her doctoral research focused
on the potential for surf tourism as supplemental livelihood for remote fisheries-based
communities in the Philippines. Brooke is an avid surfer and marine conservationist
currently based in the Philippines.
Mark Orams is Professor of Marine Recreation and Tourism at the Auckland University
of Technology in New Zealand. He has actively surfed for over 40 years and has been a
professional competitive yachtsman. He is currently cochair of the International
Coastal and Marine Tourism Society and has authored over 50 articles in the coastal
and marine tourism area.
Dr. Michael Lück is an Associate Professor of Tourism in the School of Hospitality and
Tourism. He is founding co-chair of the International Coastal & Marine Tourism Society
(ICMTS). Michael has more than 10 years work experience in the tourism industry and
his research interests include marine wildlife tourism, the cruise industry, ecotourism,
the impacts of tourism, and aviation. He has published in a number of international
journals, is founding editor-in-chief of the academic journal Tourism in Marine Envi-
ronments, and Associate Editor of the Journal of Ecotourism.