REEF JOURNAL

Environmental Sustainability of Constructing

the Newquay Artificial Surfing Reef
S. L. Challinor1 and A. Weight2
1
Chestnut Mews, Feniton, Honiton, Devon, UK EX14 3BA.
wislon22@yahoo.co.uk
2
Newquay Artificial Reef Company, Trevuzza Barns, Barton Lane, Fraddon,
St Columb, Cornwall UK TR9 6EY,

ABSTRACT
Artificial surfing reefs require the construction of large structures in coastal environments.
They pose a challenge to sustainable development because their construction requires inputs
of resources and energy. Sustainable development principles can be implemented into the
construction of an artificial surfing reef. An evaluation of construction options for an
artificial surfing reef proposed at Newquay in south-west England indicates that sustainable
construction is related to consumption of non-renewable resources for construction materials
and consumption of fossil fuels for transport energy. The reuse of waste materials such as
tyres instead of sand or rock can reduce non-renewable resource consumption if the function,
durability and stability of an artificial surfing reef are not compromised. Shorter distances
and less energy intensive transport methods reduce transport energy consumption for the
delivery of construction materials. However, both factors need to be considered in tandem in
order to identify the most environmentally sustainable construction option.

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Sustainable development, resources, energy, marine

sand, rock, tyres

INTRODUCTION
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development incorporates a triple bottom line approach to projects because it
requires a commitment to economic, environmental and social objectives. It recognises that
there are strong, interdependent links between economic, environmental and social
sustainability and, for example, it seeks to avoid economic development at the expense of the
environment and society.

In the UK, construction places the largest industrial demand on natural resources. It requires
260 million tonnes of non-renewable minerals per annum for raw materials and aggregates
(DETR, 2000), which equates to 6 tonnes of construction materials per person per year
(HOWARD, 2000), and the transport of construction materials accounts for around 5% of the
UK energy burden (ENERGY SAVING TRUST, 2003).

Artificial surfing reefs require the construction of large structures in coastal environments.
Like many other projects can be regarded as unsustainable because they replace a natural
environment with a man-made environment. In addition to their effects on the local
environment, artificial surfing reefs can be environmentally unsustainable in terms of the

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 33

 REEF JOURNAL

global environment because their construction requires significant inputs of natural resources
and energy, particularly non-renewable minerals such as sand and rock.

There are several artificial surfing reef projects being progressed at various locations around
the world. Each reef will undergo construction and will contribute to the global utilisation of
non-renewable resources and global energy consumption. Developing in the least
unsustainable way is an important challenge for all construction projects and is a key
objective of the Newquay artificial surfing reef (WEIGHT, 2004). Many construction
materials including non-renewable resources and reused wastes can be used to construct
artificial reefs for non-surfing purposes (e.g. LUKENS, 1997), but only a few are suitable for
constructing functional, durable and stable artificial surfing reefs.

Newquay Artificial Surfing Reef

The Newquay Artificial Reef Company (NARC) is proposing to construct an artificial surfing
reef on the seabed approximately 300m offshore of Tolcarne Beach, Newquay, situated on the
north Cornish coast in the south-west of England. A feasibility study (ASR LTD, 2002)
produced a design for a double arm reef generating world-class surfing waves with 200m long
rides. It also identified a series of construction options for the reef’s core using sand, rock
and tyres.

Figure 1. Newquay Artificial Surfing Reef (courtesy of NARC)

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 34

 REEF JOURNAL

SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION
The sustainable construction of the Newquay artificial surfing reef is considered in terms of
non-renewable resource consumption and transport energy consumption.

Non-Renewable Resource Consumption

An evaluation of the non-renewable resources consumed for the construction of the Newquay
artificial surfing reef construction is based on options for the reef’s core materials presented in
ASR Ltd (2002). The reef’s volume for all options is 88,500m3. The core materials are
considered to account for virtually 100% of the reef’s volume, to be the dominant product
required to construct the artificial surfing reef, and to be equally durable such that they will
last for 50 years following construction. The volumes for other products, such as geotextiles,
are considered to be negligible and are excluded from this study.

Table 1. Volumes of Core Construction Materials for the Newquay Artificial Surfing Reef
(derived from ASR Ltd, 2001)
Option Reef Construction Volume of Core Materials
(m3)
Sand Rock Tyres
3
RB1A Sand filled geotextile containers (1.8m ) 88,500 0 0
RB1B Sand filled geotextile containers (10m3) 88,500 0 0
RB1C Sand filled geotextile tubes 88,500 0 0
RB2 Rock core + sand filled geotextile mattresses 22,125 66,375 0
RB3 Tyre core + sand filled geotextile mattresses 22,125 0 66,375
RB4 Sand filled geotextile container core + 88,500 0 0
geotextile mattresses

Assuming that the core materials are derived from conventional sources such as the seabed for
sand and quarries for rock, then reef options RB1A, RB1B, RB1C, RB2 and RB4 have the
potential to consume 88,5000m3 of non-renewable resources. Option RB3 consumes a
smaller volume of non-renewable resources because 75% of the core material volume
comprises reused tyres.

Transport Energy Consumption

Energy consumption is often considered as embodied energy and can be related directly to
construction materials. Embodied energy provides a measure of the energy consumed during
the entire lifecycle of a construction material, including the energy required during pre-
construction (raw material extraction and processing and transport), construction (installation
and maintenance) and post-construction (reuse or recycling and disposal). The embodied
energy incurred during pre-construction, or the upstream end, of a construction material’s
lifecycle, typically takes the form of fossil fuel consumption. Energy is consumed during the
extraction of minerals and other raw materials and during processing to produce materials
such as bricks, cement and metals. Embodied energy does not take account of the
environmental sensitivity of the construction material, its place of origin or its waste products.

Artificial surfing reefs use mineral-based construction materials such as sand and rock. These
types of materials generally require little or no processing before they can be used in
construction. For example, quarry run core material for an artificial surfing reef will undergo
no processing to remove small pieces of rock if no particular rock size is specified. Less

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 35

 REEF JOURNAL

processing means that the embodied energy of sand and rock is generally low compared to
other construction materials such as concrete, brick and steel.

It is not sufficient to simply compare the embodied energy of construction materials in order
to decide which is the most sustainable. For example, after extraction and processing, the
embodied energy of concrete will be higher than the embodied energy of rock. However,
smaller quantities of concrete in one coast defence structure (e.g. wave reflection wall) may
be sufficient to perform in the same way as higher quantities of rock in another structure (e.g.
offshore breakwater). For this reason it is preferable to compare the total embodied energy
for different options.

The embodied energy of core materials of artificial surfing reefs comprises low amounts of
energy during extraction and processing, and negligible amounts post-construction.
Therefore, energy consumption is dominated by transport of large quantities of construction
materials, which increases rapidly with weight and distance travelled. The transport of
construction materials between each of the lifecycle stages consumes energy through fuel
consumption. It also affects the global sustainability of a project by producing carbon dioxide
and depleting non-renewable fossil fuel reserves. Since energy consumption during the post-
construction lifecycle of construction materials used in coastal structures is negligible
(MASTERS, 2001), the sustainable performance of artificial surfing reefs can be improved by
reducing the energy consumed by transporting materials during the pre-construction phases of
projects.

CONSTRUCTION SCENARIOS FOR THE NEWQUAY ARTIFICIAL SURFING

REEF
Marine Sand
All construction options for the Newquay artificial surfing reef include some degree of marine
sand. There is no large-scale marine sand extraction off the north Cornish coast. The Bristol
Channel is the nearest source of marine sand. For transport purposes, marine sand can be
dredged and transported directly by ship to the reef construction site with a one-way trip of
100km and without the need for any land transport by road or rail.

Rock
Option RB2 has rock as its principal construction material. Due to the lack of large scale
quarries in Cornwall and SW England and the economics of supplying rock for coastal
projects, it is likely that the nearest economic source of rock will be imports from Ireland
(Cork), France (Brittany) or even Norway. For transport purposes, it is assumed that the rock
quarry is located 20 kilometres from its nearest port, and that rock will be transported by ship
to the reef construction site without the need for any further land transport (Figure 2). The
Irish and French ports are taken to be Cork and Brest and they require a one-way trip of
300km and 350km respectively.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 36

 REEF JOURNAL

Figure 2: Rock Barge during Construction of Coastal Defence Structure at West Bay, SW
England (courtesy of Royal Haskoning)

Tyres
Option RB3 has reused tyres as its principal construction material. It is assumed that the tyres
are prepared as bales (Figure 3) rather than used individually with cement ballast or anchors
to the seabed. Each bale contains around 100 tyres that are compressed and strapped together
by steel wires to form units of 1.5m x 1.25m x 0.75m which weight around one tonne (SIMM
et al., 2004). Since option RB3 requires 66,375m3 of tyres, it consumes 47,410 bales (at
1.4m3 per bale), which equate to 4,741,000 tyres. This is a substantial number of tyres and it
is assumed that they are provided from more than one source generating an average transport
distance of 50 km by road plus 200km by sea to Newquay. Each bale is strapped using four
5m long steel wires that are of 12mm diameter, consuming around 27m3 of steel.

The construction scenarios considered for the Newquay artificial surfing reef are identified in
Table 2. These scenarios are used to evaluate the relative sustainability of construction
options.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 37

 REEF JOURNAL

Figure 3. Tyre Bale (courtesy of HR Wallingford)

Table 2. Construction Scenarios for the Newquay Artificial Surfing Reef

Scenario Construction Source Transport Distance

Material Method (km)
RB1A Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB1B Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB1C Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB2 (1) Rock Ireland (Cork) Truck + ship 20 + 300
Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB2 (2) Rock France (Brest) Truck + ship 20 + 350
Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB3 Tyres UK Truck + ship 50 + 200
Steel UK Truck + ship 50 + 200
Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel
RB4 Marine sand Bristol Ship 100
Channel

METHODOLOGY
The sustainability of the Newquay artificial surfing reef’s construction options is measured
using ecopoints and transport energy intensity. Ecopoints are devised by the Building
Research Establishment (BRE). In the UK, ecopoints are calculated by dividing a project’s
environmental impacts (e.g. fossil fuel depletion, climate change) by the environmental
impact of one UK citizen (for normalisation purposes), and then multiplying the normalised
outcomes by a dimensionless impact weighting of sustainability (as %), to give a score in
ecopoints (MASTERS, 2001). Impacts are scored individually and totalled for the project.
More ecopoints equate to more environmental impact and less sustainability.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 38

 REEF JOURNAL

Ecopoints are used to quantify the environmental impacts of the different construction options
in a sustainability context by measuring the environmental impact of the extraction,
processing and transport parts of the lifecycles for sand and rock. Tyres are not included in
the evaluation of ecopoints because they are a reused material and do not represent a non-
renewable resource (with the exception of the steel wires required to create bales).

Transport energy consumption for construction materials relates to the weight carried and
distance travelled and is measured as energy intensity in terms of consumption per tonne
transported over one kilometre (t/km). Energy intensity for freight transport has been
reasonably constant in the UK since 1990. Although vehicle efficiency has improved over
this time, trucks have increased in size, carried more freight and have consumed more fuel
(DTI, 2004). Both ecopoints and transport energy consumption are calculated for the different
artificial surfing reef construction options using the ecopoints estimator spreadsheet
developed by HR Wallingford and included in Masters (2001).

RESULTS
The results shown in Table 3 identify that resource consumption has the greatest influence on
the relative sustainability of construction material options as measured by ecopoints. Of the
options requiring non-renewable resources, the options based on marine sand (RB1A, RB1B,
RB1C and RB4) incur less ecopoints for resource consumption than options based on rock
(RB2A and RB2B). Ecopoints are not calculated for the resource consumption associated
with the reuse of tyres in RB3, but in practice there will be at least ecopoints incurred for
transport. Ecopoints calculated for the use of marine sand and steel in RB3 indicate that this
option consumes at least one third of the resources of the other options. The results for energy
consumption during transport identify that transport methods and distances are a major factor
affecting energy consumption. Options based on marine sand (RB1A, RB1B, RB1C and
RB4) incur less energy consumption than options based on rock (RB2A and RB2B) and tyres
(RB3).

Table 3. Relative Sustainability of Construction Material Options

Scenario Ecopoints Ecopoints Total Transport

(Resources) (Transport) Ecopoints Energy
Consumption
(GJ)
RB1A 88,611 7,169 95,780 4,280
RB1B 88,611 7,169 95,780 4,280
RB1C 88,611 7,169 95,780 4,280
RB2A* 126,335 36,484 162,819 20,825
RB2B* 126,335 41,173 167,508 23,624
RB3* Tyres = reused Tyres = reused Tyres = reused Tyres =
Steel = 4,707 Steel = 63 Steel = 4,770 18,015**
Sand = 22,153 Sand = 1,792 Sand = 23,945 Steel = 38
Sand = 1,070
RB4 88,611 7,169 95,780 4,280
* Based on truck size of 25+ tonnes for road transport
** Based on transport of “synthetic rubber”

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 39

 REEF JOURNAL

DISCUSSION
Non-Renewable Resource Consumption
Marine sand and rock are non-renewable resources and they are the most likely core materials
for artificial surfing reefs. Sand and rock have been used to construct artificial surfing reefs at
Narrowneck (Gold Coast, Australia) and Cable Station (Western Australia) respectively.
Sand filled geotextiles are attractive construction option because of ease of placement and low
cost (RANASINGHE et al., 2001). Sand is estimated to have saved 50% of the costs of rock
construction for the Narrowneck reef and allow the reef to be easily maintained (HEERTEN
et al., date unknown). Although sand and rock both have low embodied energy compared to
other construction materials that require more processing (e.g. bricks, concrete, steel), they
strongly influence the sustainability of a construction project such as an artificial surfing reef
if they are the predominant construction material.

In the case of the Newquay artificial surfing reef, construction options using rock incur 1.73
ecopoints per m3 of resource consumed and are less sustainable than options using marine
sand, which incur 1.2 ecopoints per m3 of resource consumed. Resource sustainability for
marine sand and rock reflects differences in extraction and processing. First impressions
suggest that reusing tyres is likely to be the most sustainable option because it offsets the need
to use large volumes of non-renewable resources even though processing into bales uses small
volumes of steel, which incurs 174.3 ecopoints per m3 of resource consumed. Fortunately,
only 27m3 of steel is required.

Transport Energy Consumption

Transport incurs ecopoints due to global issues such as climate change and fossil fuel
depletion, and local issues such as transport pollution and congestion. The importance of
transport relates to the distance travelled, weight of materials, and the transport method.
Transport energy intensities are the same for all construction materials but different for
transport methods: 0.00039GJ/t.km for transport by ship, 0.00094 GJ/t.km km for transport by
rail, and 0.00102 GJ/t.km km for transport by road (based on a 25+ tonnes rigid truck)
(derived from MASTERS, 2001). Transport by ship is the least energy intensive and the most
sustainable transport method for large volumes of construction materials. It consumes around
40% of the energy consumed by road transport.

Trucks can be the most energy intensive transport method. Figure 4 shows the relative
transport energy consumption for different truck sizes (derived from MASTERS, 2001).
Clearly, larger truck sizes consume less energy than small truck sizes if sufficient construction
materials to fill larger trucks are being transported.

In the case of the Newquay artificial surfing reef, energy consumption for transporting rock
for (RB2A and RB2B) and tyres (for RB3) by truck in combination with sea transport incur
higher energy consumption than transporting marine sand by ship for options RB1A, RB1B,
RB1C and RB4.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 40

 REEF JOURNAL

30,000

25,000
Energy Consumption (GJ)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
7.5 10.75 15.5 21 25

Truck Size (tonnes)

Figure 4. Road Transport Energy Consumption for Rock by Rigid Truck

Sustainability of Reusing Tyres

Overall, it appears that option RB3 offers the most sustainable construction option for the
artificial surfing reef in terms of reducing the consumptions of non-renewable resources. The
transport of tyres includes some road transport from source to Newquay and avoids an
intermediate transport stage to a processing plant on the basis that mobile baling equipment is
used. Tyre transport for RB3 incurs more energy consumption than reef options RB1A,
RB1B, RB1C and RB4 using marine sand only transported by ship for the core material.
Depending on the actual transport requirements for tyres, energy consumption could be
significant enough to counter the environmental benefit of their reuse, potentially leaving
marine sand as a more sustainable construction option.

However, the current practice of using tyres for construction in the coastal and marine
environment is in its infancy and raises some uncertainties about the sustainability of tyres as
the primary construction material for an artificial surfing reef. There is only one significant
coastal defence project in the UK to date that has reused tyres as a primary construction
material. This project - coast defences at Pevensey Bay along the south coast of England -
reused around 30,000 tyres (300 bales) as a bulk filler buried beneath a new shingle beach and
reduced the consumption of non-renewable gravel resources required to nourish the beach
(SIMM et al., 2004).

There is some uncertainty about the long-term durability and stability of tyre bales in the
marine environment, which may compromise a reef’s design life of (say) 50 to 100 years.
The durability of tyre bales relates to tyre degradation if exposed to ultra-violet light and to
tyre buoyancy if bale integrity changes. Despite a bale’s initial negative buoyancy,
interconnected voids within its porous structure allow it to sink in water. However, the steel
wires that compress and maintain a bale’s integrity may degrade over time and break. Even

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 41

 REEF JOURNAL

though the tyres will retain their bale-derived individual forms, a change to a bale’s integrity
may change the interconnectivity of voids and affect buoyancy.

There is also some uncertainty about the stability of tyre bales exposed to the hydraulic forces
that occur where artificial surfing reefs are constructed. An artificial surfing reef will increase
wave impacts on its structure which means that stability is an important consideration for the
structure’s design (PILARCZYK, 2003). The tyre bales in the Pevensey Bay project are
placed in a relatively benign hydraulic environment (buried beneath a beach) and are not
exposed to the forces that may occur at an artificial surfing reef as a result of waves breaking
in the open sea. Tyre bales require some form of physical protection from hydraulic forces if
they are to be used successfully in high energy hydraulic environments.

Option RB3 for the Newquay artificial surfing reef has the inner tyre core overlain by sand
filled geotextile mattresses that aid the reef’s function, durability and stability. Requiring
49,167 bales, RB3 requires significantly more tyre bales than the 300 used for the Pevensey
Bay coastal defence project. In the UK there is a Department for Trade and Industry (DTI)
project investigating the sustainable reuse of tyres in ports, coastal and river engineering (see
www.tyresinwater.net). Reporting in late 2004, this project provides guidance on planning,
implementing and maintaining the reuse of tyres in construction projects in the UK and may
be able to answer the uncertainties of reusing tyres for artificial surfing reefs.

CONCLUSIONS
In terms of consumption of non-renewable resources and assuming similar volumes of
construction materials are needed to construct a reef’s core, the reuse of waste materials
(tyres) over non-renewable materials (marine sand and rock) is likely to improve the
sustainability of constructing an artificial surfing reef. However, the reused material must be
able to sustain the function, durability and stability required of an artificial surfing reef. If a
reuse option is not available, then the use of non-renewable materials with low embodied
energy (marine sand and rock) over materials with higher embodied energy such as (steel,
brick and concentre) is likely to improve the sustainability of constructing an artificial surfing
reef.

In terms of energy consumption due to transporting construction materials, the energy

intensities of road, rail and sea transport methods are the same but the energy consumed per
tonne of construction material per kilometre is markedly different. Transport by sea is more
sustainable than transport by rail and road. Transport by road is usually the least sustainable
method to transport construction materials, especially if small trucks are used when large
trucks are also suitable. Artificial surfing reefs are constructed in the sea and offer an
opportunity to transport construction materials totally by sea if the construction materials
originate from the seabed (marine sand) or can be sourced from a location such as a coastal
quarry (rock). Distance is fundamental to the energy consumed by transport but must be
considered alongside the energy intensity of transport methods. For example, transporting
construction materials over a short distance by truck may be less sustainable than a long
distance by ship.

Both non-renewable resource consumption and transport energy consumption are important
considerations for improving the sustainability of artificial surfing reef construction.
However, they need to be considered in tandem in order to identify the most environmentally
sustainable construction option.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 42

 REEF JOURNAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Information about the progress of the DTI project on the sustainable reuse of tyres in ports,
coastal and river engineering was provided by Jonathan Simm of HR Wallingford and Simon
Howard of Royal Haskoning.

REFERENCES
ASR LTD, 2002. Developing a surfing reef at Newquay Bay. Feasibility study. Prepared for
Newquay Artificial Reef Company. April 2002.
DETR, 2000. Building a better quality of life. A strategy for more sustainable construction.
April 2000. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London, 31p.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, 2004. Energy consumption in the United
Kingdom. 2004 Update, 47p.
ENERGY SAVING TRUST, 2003. Sustainable construction briefing note. July 2003, 5p.
HEERTEN, G., JACKSON, A., RESTALL, S., AND STELLJES, K., date unknown.
Environmental benefits of sand filled geotextile structures for coastal applications, 6p.
HOWARD, N., 2000. Sustainable construction - the data. CR258/99. Centre for Sustainable
Construction, March 2000, 46p.
LUKENS, R. R., 1997. Guidelines for marine artificial reef materials. Compiled by the
Artificial Reefs Subcommittee of the Technical Coordinating Committee, Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission, January 1997, 118p.
MASTERS, N., 2001. Sustainable use of new and recycled materials in coastal and fluvial
construction. A guidance manual. Thomas Telford Publishing, London. 204p.
PILARCZYK, K. W. (2003). Design of low-crested (submerged) structures – an overview.
6th International Conference on Coastal and Port Engineering in Developing
Countries (Colombo, Sri Lanka), 2003.
RANASINGHE, R., HACKING, N. AND EVANS, P., 2001. Multi-functional artificial surf
breaks: a review. New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation,
August 2001, 53p.
SIMM, J. D., WALLIS, M. J., COLLINS, K. J. AND ATKINS, R., 2004. Reuse of materials
in coastal and river engineering. Engineering Sustainability 157, Issue ES3.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 113-121.
WEIGHT, A., 2004. Artificial reef in Newquay, UK. Municipal Engineer 157, Issue ME2.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, pp. 87-95.

Vol. 1, No. 1 2009 Page 43