Artificial Reefs as Recreational Scuba Diving Resources

This art icle was downloaded by: [ Universit y of Newcast le, Aust ralia] On: 09 February 2015, At : 16: 27 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable Tourism Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ rsus20

Artificial Reefs as Recreational Scuba Diving Resources: A Critical Review of Research a

Paul St olk , Kevin Markwell

a

& John M. Jenkins

b

a

Cult ural Inst it ut ions and Pract ices Research Cent re, The Universit y of Newcast le , Callaghan , Aust ralia b

The Universit y of Newcast le , Callaghan , Aust ralia Published online: 05 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Paul St olk , Kevin Markwell & John M. Jenkins (2007) Art ificial Reefs as Recreat ional Scuba Diving Resources: A Crit ical Review of Research, Journal of Sust ainable Tourism, 15:4, 331-350, DOI: 10.2167/ j ost 651.0 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.2167/ j ost 651.0

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s- and- condit ions

Artificial Reefs as Recreational Scuba Diving Resources: A Critical Review of Research

Downloaded by [University of Newcastle, Australia] at 16:27 09 February 2015

Paul Stolk and Kevin Markwell Cultural Institutions and Practices Research Centre, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia John M. Jenkins The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia This paper reports on the increasing practice of developing and promoting artificial reefs as sites for scuba diving tourism and recreation. A comprehensive definition of artificial reefs is presented that encapsulates the diversity of structures used by marine recreationists, particularly scuba divers, followed by a review of existing literature that specifically examines artificial reefs as a resource for the conduct of recreational scuba diving. Three main thematic areas were identified in the existing literature: social dimensions, socioeconomic impacts and environmental engineering. A typology of artificial reefs is offered to better describe and categorise artificial reef structures according to unit characteristics that may influence recreational use such as material used, appearance, complexity and cost. The paper presents a conceptual model that identifies the components of an artificial reef scuba diving experience and discusses the potential of artificial reefs to act as tourism resources and management tools to redistribute scuba diver numbers away from natural reefs. Directions for future research are suggested, emphasising collection of data on aspects of the artificial reef scuba diving experience to better inform marine resource management.

doi: 10.2167/jost651.0 Keywords: artificial reefs, scuba diving, natural reefs, sustainable tourism, ecotourism

Introduction When submerged underwater, most physically stable structures demonstrate a capacity to attract marine organisms. Over time, these structures may even mimic the characteristics displayed by naturally occurring reef systems.1 Frequently referred to as artificial reefs, such structures occur in the coastal waters of many nations. Managed examples can be found in the United States of America (USA), Canada, Japan, Italy, Israel, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Submerged structures vary significantly according to their origins, morphology, complexity, purpose, composition, immersion depth and – if deliberately sunk – deployment costs. Like agricultural land, golf courses, parks, sewage lagoons and urban landfill sites, artificial reefs are a form of ‘modified space’ (Lawton & Weaver, 2001: 343) 2007 P. Stolk et al. Vol. 15, No. 4, 2007

0966-9582/07/04 331-20 $20.00/0 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

C

331


332

Journal of Sustainable Tourism

capable of supporting wildlife populations commonly thought to reside only in unmodified or ‘natural’ settings. Artificial reefs aggregate fish and other mobile marine organisms very quickly after deployment and, given time, also host fixed life forms such as algae, barnacles, mussels, sponges and soft and hard corals. In fact, some ‘established’ artificial reefs have demonstrated an ability to sustain a greater density and/or variety of biota (particularly fish species) than nearby natural reefs (see Bohnsack, 1991; Clark & Edwards, 1999; Diamant et al., 1986; Wilhelmsson et al., 1998). By attracting marine species artificial reefs also attract recreationists seeking nature-based experiences. Marine tourism and recreation activity is a rapidly increasing phenomenon (Orams, 1999), and many artificial reefs have significant potential for use as recreation resources, particularly for non-consumptive underwater observation activities like scuba2 diving and snorkelling. However, research on artificial reefs has focused mostly on reef ecology and structure. The ecological and biophysical emphasis in the research literature is a reflection of the historically strong association that artificial reefs have had with commercial fishing, aquaculture and marine engineering projects (see Baine, 2001). Artificial reefs have not been widely promoted as recreational resources (Seaman Jr. & Jensen, 2000), and the small amount of leisure-based research that exists is attributed to just a handful of scholars. Recreational scuba divers can benefit greatly from artificial reef development. The experiences provided by recreating on and around artificial reef structures are valued by many divers (Stolk et al., 2005). Positive feedback from scuba divers, the demand for more artificial reef sites, and the opportunities that arise from related tourism development are some of the factors that have contributed to the growing interest in the deliberate creation of artificial reefs around the world. While fishing tends to be a much more popular recreational activity than scuba diving, diving is a strong economic contributor to an increasing number of local host economies (Tabata, 1992a) with an established reputation as being ecologically sustainable unlike consumptive activities such as fishing (Harriott et al., 1997; Salm, 1985). Scuba diving is often labelled as a marine ecotourism activity (Cater & Cater, 2001; Garrod & Wilson, 2003) because the key principles of ecotourism are, in most situations, clearly demonstrated – scuba diving is nature-based, can provide environmental education opportunities and can be sustainably managed (Blamey, 2001). Understanding scuba divers’ attitudes, perceptions and satisfaction levels with regard to artificial reef environments is important in order to adequately plan for sustainable tourism and recreation in the future. Natural coastal reefs and other aquatic systems face tremendous direct and indirect pressures from recreational activity. The severity of such pressures on the marine environment can be seen in places like Hurghada on the Red Sea, Egypt, where rapid, unplanned tourism development has negatively impacted popular coral reefs through problems like sedimentation and eutrophication (Hawkins & Roberts, 1994; Jameson et al., 2007). Artificial reefs may, if properly planned, designed and managed, augment the supply of marine resources available to diving enthusiasts without compromising their preferred type of experience. This paper has three aims. First, it reviews the literature on artificial reefs with respect to their use as a recreational resource for scuba diving. Second,

Artificial Reefs as Recreational Scuba Diving Resources

333

it considers three salient themes arising in the literature: social dimensions (such as use and participation rates), socioeconomic impacts and environmental engineering. Third, it presents a conceptual model portraying an artificial reef dive experience in terms of influential factors, significant outcomes and the relationship. Recommended directions for future research are given in the context of recent trends in marine recreation and tourism and diving on artificial reefs.


Artificial Reefs – History, Definitions and Typologies Information concerning the specific origins of artificial reef development is vague in detail and authors postulate that at some point in time ‘ancient’ people, perhaps thousands of years ago, discovered that foreign objects placed in or under the water attracted marine life (Seaman Jr. & Jensen, 2000; Stone et al., 1991). The placement of artificial reefs in modern times is motivated by more than just improvement of fishery harvests. Recreational fishing and diving, environmental restoration, natural resource management and scientific experimentation are now common motivations behind artificial reef developments (Seaman Jr. & Jensen, 2000). Despite no formal database to track or register global development of artificial habitats (Stone et al., 1991), USA, Japan and Europe are the major sources of artificial reef research and development in the world, with lower levels of research activity in Taiwan, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand (Coutin, 2001; Seaman, 1987). Canada has also been an active proponent of artificial reef development, particularly for the disposal of ships as artificial reefs. The Canadian government is well recognised for its leadership in the creation of environmental controls for artificial reef projects. However, the USA could be regarded as the world leader in the development of artificial reefs for marine-based recreation. Its south-eastern states, such as Florida, Texas and Louisiana, have had long term interests in artificial reefs and are particularly advanced in terms of the number of structures deployed, enacted legislation and related regulatory arrangements, management practices and research efforts (McGurrin et al., 1989). The term artificial reef is widely used in many publications but there are notable inconsistencies as to precisely determining which structures are suitable for inclusion or exclusion under this term (Pickering et al., 1998). Distinctions are often made based on how the structure arrived in the marine environment. Under some definitions, shipwrecks, for example, are not considered artificial reefs because they are not intentionally sunk. This is despite the fact that they will emulate certain characteristics of a natural reef in just the same way as that of a vessel that has been deliberately sunk. Because artificial reef research has a historic association with fishery and aquaculture practices, the definition of what constitutes an artificial reef has lacked input from reef users outside of these fields. Determining what user groups such as recreationists understand an artificial reef to be is vital for future planning and management efforts. Table 1 presents definitions of artificial reefs along with the particular perspectives through which the definitions were developed and applied. Seaman Jr. and Sprague (1991) use ‘artificial habitat’ rather than artificial reef as a term to cover both freshwater and saltwater settings and to address floating mid-water structures, known as fish aggregating devices (FADs), and benthic (sea floor)


334 Table 1 Selected artificial reef definitions


Author (Year)

Definition

Perspective

EARRN, see Jensen (1997) as cited in Pickering et al. (1998)

An artificial reef is a submerged structure placed on the substratum (seabed) deliberately, to mimic some characteristics of a natural reef (p. 505).

Fishing and aquaculture research and development

Seaman and Jensen (2000)

An artificial reef is one or more objects of natural or human origin deployed purposefully on the seafloor to influence physical, biological or socioeconomic processes related to living marine resources. Artificial reefs are defined physically by the design and arrangement of materials used in construction and functionally according to their purpose (p. 5).

Multidisciplinary evaluation of artificial reef performance

Coutin (2001)

An artificial reef is a structure placed on the bottom of the sea, estuary or river for the purpose of modifying the existing habitat. It is a form of habitat alteration that is intended to enhance the aquatic environment for a particular purpose (p. 4).

Recreational and commercial fishing

Storrie et al. (2003)

An artificial reef is any man-made structure that is colonised by plant and animal communities resembling those of a naturally occurring reef. Artificial reefs include scuttled vessels and other objects placed on the seabed, or any structure that extends offshore such as breakwaters, pipelines or even jetties. (p. 20)

Marine ecology

Hynes et al. (2004)

An artificial reef is anything placed on the near-shore sea bottom out to a depth of about 200 meters whose purpose is to stimulate fish production or (at near-shore depths) serve as an attraction to divers (p. 10).

Disposal options for vessels

structures that are commonly referred to as artificial reefs. However, this paper looks at ‘artificial habitat’ in the context of recreational scuba diving activity, which occurs mostly in the benthic zone3 of marine environments. Divers are known to visit artificial reefs in freshwater environments, but these structures are not the focus of this review paper as their use as tourism resources is infrequent and isolated to certain areas such as the shipwrecks of the Great Lakes region between Canada and USA (Holecek & Lothrop, 1980; Warner & Holecek, 1978). Pitcher and Seaman Jr. (2000) introduced the term ‘human-made reef’ as an alternative to dispel any negative connotations possible from ‘artificial’ (e.g. the ersatz meaning) but this term is yet to be widely adopted in literature. A constant in the more ecologically based definitions depicted in Table 1 (Jensen, 1997; Seaman Jr. & Jensen, 2000) is the stipulation that a structure must be intentionally deployed to be considered an artificial reef. The separation of intentionally versus unintentionally sunk structures might be warranted where



335

fishery, aquaculture or scientific organisations seek to manage a system of submerged structures for measurable outcomes, such as mapping the productivity or colonisation rates of one or more species. However, recreational use of artificial reefs seems to occur regardless of how or why the structure originated. Table 1 illustrates the content variance of artificial reef definitions, and it is not surprising that there is some confusion about what is or is not covered by the term. Therefore, for the purpose of this paper, artificial reefs will be examined in the context of the definition given by Storrie et al. (2003) because of its more inclusive application to recreational activities around such reefs and across many different settings. Indeed, the fact that a ship or object was unintentionally sunk may well hold some significance for recreationists, and this aspect may or may not serve as a means of promoting and attracting visitors. After all, the prospect of visiting the remains of a wrecked ship could hold high values of mystery and intrigue for some, while the origins of a deliberately created artificial reef may be of no consequence to others who are more interested in the diversity of surrounding flora and fauna. Seaman Jr. and Sprague (1991) illustrated the variety of forms that artificial marine habitats can take (see Figure 1). Only the benthic structures (artificial reefs) in Seaman Jr. and Sprague’s diagram have been included here as they are the point of analysis in this paper. The diagram shows items that are sunk for deliberate artificial reef formation, but according to Storrie et al. (2003), artificial

Figure 1 Materials commonly used for the deliberate creation of artificial reefs (Adapted from Seaman Jr. and Sprague (1991) and approximately ordered in terms of site complexity)

336


reefs also form serendipitously on and around pipelines, jetties and wharves, bridges and platforms.


Artificial Reefs as Marine Tourism and Recreation Resources The modification of sunken objects by marine ecological processes generates a number of opportunities for recreation and can provide unique experiences for visitors. Much of the interest surrounding artificial reefs centres on their ability to provide a novel setting for humans to interact with natural environments, and, in many cases, cultural heritage. Shipwrecks and old piers are good examples of artificial reefs where a recreational user can experience a combination of social and natural history. In addition to scuba diving, common forms of marine tourism and recreation that take place around artificial reef settings include fishing (line and spear), swimming, snorkelling, surfing, kayaking, boating, submarine trips and observatory tours. However, the size, type and location of an artificial reef can act as constraints to the conduct of recreational activities through the generation of conditions that adversely affect access, produce unsatisfactory experiences or compromise user safety. Of all the recreational opportunities hosted by artificial reefs, this paper concentrates on scuba diving use because it is a growing leisure activity with a well-documented history concerning artificial reef sites (Blount, 1981). It also explores an example of the potential for sustainable tourism development and management. Participation in recreational scuba diving increased dramatically during the 1980s and continued to rise in the 1990s, prompting authors to claim that scuba diving was the fastest growing recreational activity in the world (Tabata, 1992b). Scuba diving is a tourism and recreational activity of growing significance in many countries. For example, at Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) Craik reports that ‘fishing and collecting. . . have been overtaken by nature appreciation’ and ‘guided and interpreted dive and snorkel tours, have displaced fishing as the major activity on charter boats’ (1992: 126). According to Windsor (1996), in 1994 the GBRMP dive industry generated annual revenue in excess of AUD$103 million. Figures from the Professional Association of Dive Instructors (PADI) – the largest scuba dive certification agency in the world, accounting for some 526,904 new diver certifications in the year 2000 – endorse this claim but their figures also show a decline in the rate of growth over the same period. The mean PADI certification growth rate worldwide, including certifications for new and existing divers, was 15.1% for the period 1980–89, but for 1990–99 this figure dropped to 7.7% (for more detail go to www.padi.com). Despite the recent ‘slowing’ in the growth rate of certifications, the cumulative volume of certifications issued by PADI and other dive training agencies during the last two decades indicates that scuba diving is a very popular recreational activity warranting research attention. Greater scrutiny of all facets of the recreational scuba diving experience is further justified, given the fragile nature of the marine environments in which much diving activity is played out and the increasing potential for damage from recreational use. To accurately analyse scuba diving and its relationship with artificial reef sites, a better appreciation is needed of previous research efforts.


337

Artificial Reef-based Scuba Diving Research


Studies specifically devoted to research on artificial reefs as resources for recreational scuba diving are very few in number. The papers published by Milon (1989), Brock (1994), van Treeck and Schumacher (1998), Wilhelmsson et al. (1998), Dowling and Nichol (2001) and Ditton et al. (2002) are the only works to directly engage with this subject area. Our review of the literature suggests that this small collection of papers can be grouped into three categories: (1) Social dimensions of scuba diving (Ditton et al., 2002; Milon, 1989). (2) Socio-economic impacts (Brock, 1994; Dowling & Nichol, 2001; Wilhelmsson et al., 1998). (3) Environmental engineering (van Treeck & Schumacher, 1998). The following section discusses these themes and related papers in more detail. Social dimensions of scuba diving In his study of recreational anglers and divers, Milon (1989) employed a mail-out questionnaire to measure participation and use rates at seven offshore artificial reef sites in Dade County, Florida, USA. Dade County has had an organised artificial reef development programme in place since the 1970s, resulting in four small sites in Biscayne Bay and seven large offshore sites (named as ‘A’ through to ‘G’) that formed the basis for Milon’s study. Some 3600 registered private boat owners were selected from the Dade County recreational pleasure craft registration file for 1984–85 (holding a total of 23,092 registrations), using a general stratified sampling method with proportional allocation by zip code. Only boats over 4.87 m (16 feet) in length were considered, as vessels smaller than this size were considered a low probability to venture offshore and visit the artificial reefs in question. From a total sample of 1182 respondents, 887 responses indicated that they participated in angling and 492 responses indicated that they participated in scuba diving activity on the reefs. Some respondents stated that they had participated in both activities. In Milon’s study, divers exhibited a high rate of use of the most centrally located reef (in terms of access), which was also relatively shallow (less than 30 m/100 ft deep). Known as reef site ‘C’, the reef hosted 38.18% (4.49) of the 11.76 annual reef trips by the average reef diver to the Dade County artificial reef system. By comparison, the second most frequently visited site was reef ‘E’, with only 14.71% (1.73) of the total annual reef trips. Reef ‘C’ is one of the oldest sites in the system (established in 1974) and is home to the largest number of sunken vessels (14). Accessibility and previous positive experiences were rated by divers as the most important reasons for use of an artificial reef site. Interestingly, both the diver and angler groups perceived that higher fish density at sites was not important unless accompanied by similar increases in ‘desirable’ species. Fishermen are commonly known to seek out specific fish species, but from the results of this research it seems divers may also exhibit similar behaviour. Rudd and Tupper (2002) have demonstrated that scuba divers do assign value to the presence of particular fish species and the size and abundance of those species at a dive site.


338


These examples of divers targeting sites based on the probability of encountering specific species has implications for the design and management of artificial reefs if encouraging scuba diving is a primary goal of reef creation. The rates of use and satisfaction levels of users of artificial reefs could be enhanced through manipulation of design features that encourage the presence of particular marine species sought after by scuba divers, e.g. the strategic incorporation of holes and recesses in an artificial reef might attract large predatory fish that divers want to see. While the outcomes of Milon’s research are specific to the Dade County artificial reef system, they are likely to be applicable to other contexts where the relationships between artificial reefs and artificial reef users are being studied. Hence, faced with a choice of sites, Milon’s work suggests that recreational divers would demonstrate: (1) a preference for artificial reef sites that are located relatively close to shore and thus accessible; (2) a preference for artificial reefs containing a sunken vessel; and (3) a preference for sites less than 30 m deep. The findings do, however, exclude visiting anglers and divers and, therefore, may not be representative of users who experience the Dade County artificial reef system as part of a tour or via a charter boat. Tourists, for example, may be more willing than local recreationists to trade the time and expense associated with travelling to an outer reef in the hope of experiencing something remote and/or unique. Ditton et al. (2002) also used a mail questionnaire approach to investigate the demographics, management preferences and resource requirements of recreational divers using artificial reefs in waters off Texas, USA. Among the features for divers in Texas offshore waters are a complex of over 800 petroleum production structures (rigs) and the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. The authors prefaced their study by noting the ‘paradigm shift’ in US natural resources management. In brief, this shift sees planning for recreational resource user needs as a legitimate component of ‘integrated natural resources management’. After creating an inventory of dive charter boat operators in 1997, an estimate of the number of dive trips and diver numbers was calculated for the previous year using data provided by the operators or projections where operators were unwilling to cooperate. The goal was to select a sample of 1200 divers proportional to the known/estimated number of diver trip days offshore in the previous 12 months by region of the Texas coast. Based on customer lists provided by cooperative operators, 1059 questionnaires were mailed out using names and addresses selected by an interval method. The study yielded 528 responses, a response rate of 56%. Two hundred and fifty six respondents indicated that they had taken at least one trip to artificial reefs in Texas offshore waters, and their responses were further analysed across demographic and attitudinal dimensions. The respondents displayed similar demographic characteristics to other sport diving samples (Graham & Ditton, 1975; Holecek & Lothrop, 1980; McCawley & Teaff, 1995). Most artificial reef divers in the sample were male (75%); the average age of respondents was 39 years, with most of them being 21 to 40 years of age. Ninety percent of respondents identified themselves as ‘Anglo or white’, and 64% had four or more years of college education. Median household income was US$ 60,000 to US$ 69,000.



339

The management preferences of respondents towards artificial reefs administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) were elicited by analysing answers to a series of attitude statements. Among the results were strong levels of agreement with statements such as ‘mooring buoys should be provided at artificial reef sites’ (80%), ‘certain artificial reefs should exclude spear-gun fishing’ (73%), ‘more funds should be used to deploy large naval ships as reefs’ (72%), and ‘certain reefs should be designated for specific uses such as for diving only or recreational fishing only’ (71%). Some 82% of respondents disagreed that there were too many artificial reef structures. When asked to indicate the one reef-building material that they preferred for future development, large naval ships (68.4%) was clearly preferred over all other materials. The authors refer to a closely related study by Ditton and Baker (1999) that reported divers would increase their diving activity if the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) sank a large naval vessel where they went diving most. The preference for a large navy vessel, as opposed to any other large vessel or structure, is worth noting. The initiative of using navy vessels to create artificial reefs has been adopted in a number of new reef projects around the world, and is a departure from past practice when such ships were recycled or ‘scrapped’ following decommissioning. Hynes et al. (2004) predicted that by 2005 the USA would have a supply of some 360 retired US Navy and Marine Administration vessels requiring disposal. Hynes et al. also suggest that demand for ‘reefing’ (i.e. the creation of artificial reefs), particularly along the US mid- and southern-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, is strong, with at least 400 sites looking to receive ships. What is unclear, however, is why navy vessels are so keenly sought after – can it be attributed to the intrigue and charm associated with a military vessel, and in particular a ship that has seen active service? Or is it more simply explained by reasons such as numerical availability or physical dimensions? More research is required to better understand this preference. While Ditton et al. (2002) commented that understanding sport divers’ motivations and their preferences for artificial reefs is a challenge due to difficulties accessing the entire population of sport divers, their study highlights some issues worthy of further investigation. Significantly, the respondents in their study exhibited support for:

r the use of mooring buoys on artificial reef sites (a measure that reduces anchoring damage);

r the designation of new artificial reef sites or zones within existing artificial reef sites, where specific recreational forms (e.g. line fishing, scuba diving, spear fishing) can be conducted exclusively; and r the additional deployment of large naval vessels to artificial reef dive sites. These findings are notable. As the authors point out, the findings necessitate the development of a system that will incorporate different reef types and match them with suitable reef uses and, thereby, meet multiple recreational diving motivations, preferences and needs that have in the past been required to compete for the same resource, and hence been a source of conflict. Their research further strengthens the case for disposal of ex-navy vessels to develop artificial reefs, with scuba divers from their sample demonstrating a strong preference for these structures.


340


Socioeconomic impacts Brock’s (1994) economic assessment of artificial reefs used for submarine and dive tour sites was based on fieldwork undertaken at the Atlantis Waikiki artificial reef, Hawaii, US. The Atlantis reef lies in 24–30 m of water, and is a composite structure consisting of a sunken vessel, concrete modules and two surplus aircrafts. An underwater visual census and onsite observations were conducted to obtain information on the fishery of the artificial reef. Fishing effort was measured by observation (including the use of land-based telescope) to collect data on time spent fishing at the site, type of fishing gear used and the number and size of fish caught. Interviews with fishers and submarine tour company staff also provided information on catches. Economic information on the various dive tour activities was calculated from information obtained via personal interviews with operators and/or in situ monitoring. Some estimates for smaller operators (such as overhead costs) were made using values obtained from the largest company (Atlantis Divers). Brock compared consumptive activity (commercial fishing) and nonconsumptive activity (submarine and diving tours) on the reef. For the period of July 1990 to July 1991 he calculated that non-consumptive uses yielded significantly greater economic returns than consumptive uses, despite lacking information on the overhead costs of fishermen angling at the Atlantis artificial reef site. Estimated annual pre-tax profit for all fishing effort was estimated at US$ 58,840, while for the submarine company and seven dive operators it was estimated to be US$ 1.37 million. Brock argued that the multiple use of a single resource by consumptive fishing and non-consumptive ‘ecotourism’ ventures was not sustainable. The former is predicated on the removal of underwater attractions (i.e. marine fauna and flora) that facilitate the latter. This observation follows from the previously discussed study of Ditton et al. (2002), where divers agreed that artificial reef sites should be zoned or designated exclusively for a particular recreational activity. The Atlantis site is located in State Waters and is, therefore, available to any user – leaving the artificial reef vulnerable to periodic spurts of high fishing effort leading to a major (albeit temporary) decline in resident fauna. Some form of no-take conservation area or sanctuary zone was, therefore, recommended by Brock for artificial reefs that are popular ecotourism resources. Brock also suggests that artificial reefs can be deployed in degraded or ‘unused’ habitat for non-consumptive use. This initiative, he argues, will decrease use pressures on more pristine/productive habitats, while supplementing the local economic base. Using the Atlantis site as an example, Brock also makes a case for the future role of artificial reefs in the delivery of marine education. Atlantis Submarines of Hawaii (the company responsible for developing the reef) instituted an education programme that includes lectures on marine ecology and a submarine tour of the site at a greatly reduced fare. Wilhelmsson et al. (1998) reviewed three artificial reef sites (Shles, Yatush and Satil) as part of their research on dive tourism in Eilat, Israel. In the absence of very recent estimates, in the early 1990s, dive tourism represented around 10% of the entire tourism income for the local area (Sheslinger, 1994). The authors elected to focus on the economic values of the artificial reef sites but also compared them with nearby natural coral reefs across ecological dimensions.



341

Shles Reef consists of a constructed mound of dead coral heads in 15 m of water, while the Yatush and Satil Reefs are scuttled navy vessels of 15 m and 45 m length, lying at depths of 30 m and 21 m, respectively. A visual census of each of the three artificial reefs and natural reefs were conducted using quadrants and counts for corals, and a belt-transect technique for fish counts. The authors reported higher concentrations of fish species at the artificial reefs compared to nearby natural sites, with certain individual species schooling in large numbers. Around seven species of fish were present mainly on the two wrecks but not on the natural reefs. However, coral densities and diversity were significantly higher on the natural reef sites compared to the artificial reefs. Wilhelmsson et al. list some of the reasons for these differing characteristics and propose that artificial and natural reefs may differ in terms of their function as shelters and producers of food. Any such variation in species composition between natural and artificial sites has implications for recreational diving, particularly if divers are seeking encounters with specific species (see Milon, 1989). Economic analysis was performed using an estimate of guided dives per annum for only one of the sites, albeit the one most frequently visited by dive groups: the Satil wreck. Using quarterly figures (low season) from local dive centres and extrapolating them to a full year, it was calculated that for the Satil, approximately 16,000 dives were performed each year. Annual income to local dive operators was estimated to be approximately US$ 368,000. Dowling and Nichol (2001) discuss the experience of sinking the ex-HMAS Swan to create an artificial reef and dive tourism resource offshore in Geographe Bay, south of Perth, Western Australia. The Western Australian Tourism Commission (WATC) estimates that the total regional economic impact of the Swan from the date of sinking (14 December 1997) to May 1999 to be around US$ 1.39 million. This figure was based on actual dive charter (tour) numbers (five dive charter operators held licenses to take tour groups) and an estimate of private use based on individual boat permits. Use of the Swan reef/wreck is seemingly well administered. The Geographe Bay Artificial Reef Society is responsible for the issuing of user licenses and a code of conduct is already in place to govern diver access and behaviour at the site. According to Dowling and Nichol (2001), if the Swan continues to demonstrate such positive economic impacts, then it should be considered a novel and potentially sustainable nature-based tourism activity in the region. They stated that if operators support local community development and if the results of environmental monitoring continue to be positive, then the site could eventually be classified as an ecotourism product. The authors made a case that the Swan artificial reef should be capable of supporting both nature-based tourism and ecotourism. While not readily apparent in their discussion, it is assumed that their reasoning for this classification follows arguments for the natural qualities of modified spaces presented by Lawton and Weaver (2001) and Low (2003). The authors suggest that artificial reefs and similar structures should be considered a nature-based attraction on the habits of many animal and plant species that take advantage of human-altered spaces. Some species, they argue, actually appear to prefer these altered environments. The three articles reviewed in this section present a positive economic perspective on the development and management of artificial reefs for scuba diving.

342


However, the studies differ in their approach and methodology over different time frames. No mention is made of the costs incurred in creating artificial reefs, nor is any mention made of detailed benefit/cost assessments, making it virtually impossible to assess their net economic impact. Regardless, it would appear that artificial reefs have the potential to generate new revenue streams for host communities if used as resources for recreational scuba diving and scuba diving tourism.


Environmental engineering The creation of artificial reefs that imitate not just the functional qualities, but also the physical appearance of natural reefs, are matters addressed by van Treeck and Schumacher (1998). van Treeck and Schumacher do not support the use of alien materials for artificial reef creation, ruling out steel, concrete and plastic as being inhibitors of ‘the important dynamics of carbonate deposition and bioerosion’ in marine ecosystems, and incompatible with a nature-like state. Instead, using mineral accretion in seawater technology (which draws calcium minerals from the seawater in situ by electrolysis), the authors claim that new calcium carbonate substrate, akin to limestone, can be generated to coat a flexible metal matrix such as chicken wire. Shaped in the likeness of natural boulders and rocks and adorned with transplanted corals to encourage ecological succession, this type of artificial reef has been proposed as a close substitute for natural reefs and offered as a viable option for redistributing divers away from fragile natural sites. This approach to the creation of artificial reefs is being trialled in places such as Pemuteran off the north coast of Bali, Indonesia. van Treeck and Schumacher propose innovative applications for their artificial reef technology. These include the formation of accessible ‘underwater theme parks’ with ‘specifically designed modules’ that address diver training, environmental education and ecological rehabilitation. The authors describe their underwater park idea as ‘visionary’ because the feasibility of such a notion has not really been tested. Nevertheless, further economic, ecological and social science research would be required before this type of development could be seriously considered by marine managers. For example, the authors provide no financial projections concerning the cost to apply technology at the scale proposed, while no longitudinal research was conducted in order to critically assess the functionality of ecological processes on this type of reef over time. They also made an assumption that divers would want to visit the proposed park in adequate numbers. With just one paper devoted to the methods described by van Treeck and Schumacher it is difficult to make an informed decision about the qualities of this form of artificial reef development for scuba diving use. The applications proposed by the authors are undoubtedly exciting, particularly if the reef structures can closely simulate a natural reef in appearance and function. Reefs experiencing heavy visitation in the Red Sea and Caribbean (for examples see Dixon et al., 1993; Hawkins & Roberts, 1994; Hawkins et al., 1999; Jameson et al., 1999, 2007) may find this type of structure particularly useful in diverting scuba divers away from natural formations to substitute sites that still feature a ‘natural aesthetic’.


343

Discussion


The main outcomes from the research reviewed in the previous section have been summarised in Table 2. These findings encompass many issues, including aspects of the scuba dive experience, the condition of the artificial reef resource and the measures by which performance of an artificial reef resource could be assessed. Despite being limited in number, the literature examined within this paper varies greatly in foci, frameworks, approaches and methods. This diversity and lack of comparative works indicate a need for the development of more robust theoretical tools and conceptual models to assist in a holistic Table 2 Key results from reviewed research Author

Finding

Milon (1989)

Divers appear to have artificial reef preferences based on a number of factors, including (among other things) the reef’s structure, size, location, depth, resident species and surrounding sea conditions.

Ditton and Osburn et al. (2002)

The exclusion of other recreational user groups may be required to improve the scuba dive experience – and in fact may be fundamental to dive quality.

Brock (1994)

Consumptive and non-consumptive uses cannot operate sustainably based on the same resource. No-take zones or some form of resource protection for artificial reefs may be required.

Wilhelmsson et al. (1998)

Artificial reefs and natural reefs offer differing functions for species shelter and food production and can therefore produce variations in species composition.

Dowling and Nichol (2001)

Artificial reefs are nature-based tourism resources and have the potential to generate positive economic impacts. Subject to the provision of ongoing benefits to the environment and local community artificial reefs can be considered ecotourism resources.

Brock (1994); van Treeck and Schumacher (1998)

Artificial reefs should be viewed as an augmentation or supplementation of the natural resource base.

Brock (1994); van Treeck and Schumacher (1998)

Marine managers can use artificial reefs for environmental education and diver training purposes.

van Treeck and Schumacher (1998)

Creation of specifically engineered recreational diving ‘parks’ of differing complexity to maximise diver enjoyment and challenge.

Theme Social dimensions

Socioeconomic impacts

Socioeconomic impacts and environmental engineering

Environmental engineering



344

analysis of recreational scuba diving use of artificial reefs. Accordingly, we present both a marine recreation typology of artificial reefs based on certain attributes apparent from academic and popular literature, and a conceptual framework for an artificial reef scuba diving experience. The TARRR typology (see Table 3) attempts to organise artificial reefs based primarily on their role, their physical appearance underwater and the materials used to construct them. The TARRR allocates three classes of artificial reefs: Simulation, Replication and Transformation. A Simulation Reef is a deliberate attempt to mimic the appearance and performance of a natural reef and is sympathetic to the characteristics of surrounding natural reefs. The research by van Treeck and Schumacher (1998) promotes this class of artificial reef. Replication Reefs place functionality before appearance, and these structures have distinctly anthropogenic shapes even after substantial colonisation by encrusting organisms. A Transformation Reef is the most invasive and difficult type of artificial reef to create, given the tendency for these structures to be ‘materials of opportunity’ (a term derived from the National Artificial Reef Plan of USA, see Gordon & Ditton, 1986; McGurrin et al., 1989) and thus large, complex and expensive to install and maintain. Consideration is also given in the TARRR to the recreational uses that each category of artificial reef could be expected to support. The feasibility of some recreational uses (e.g. surfing) may depend on a number of possible factors, including: (1) where the reef is sited (i.e. will the reef generate a breaking wave?); (2) what other recreational forms are supported or permitted (i.e. potential conflict between fishing and scuba diving use); and (3) how that reef type is Table 3 Typology of artificial reefs as recreational resources (TARRR) Category

Appearance (underwater)

Typical materials

Unit Recreational complexity use potential (low/moderate/ high)

(1) Simulation Reef (mimics form, aesthetics and performance of natural reefs)

Natural

Cast limestone boulders, rock walls or reefs

Low

Fishing, diving, snorkelling, surfing, observation

(2) Replication Reef (mimics performance of natural reefs but not necessarily form or aesthetics)

Quasinatural

Prefabricated modules, metal pyramids, concrete pipes, rubber tyres

Low– moderate

Fishing, diving, snorkelling, surfing, observation

(3) Transformation Reef (mimics neither form, aesthetics nor performance of natural reefs, but produces unique conditions)

Non-natural

Piers and jetties, bridges, ships, planes, cars and carriages

Moderate– high

Fishing, diving, snorkelling, observation


345


perceived by the recreational user group (scuba divers and snorkellers may have negative attitudes toward the aesthetics of tyre reefs). However, because this paper has chosen to focus specifically on recreational scuba diving activity, a model that addresses the key components of scuba diving on an artificial reef is deemed necessary. Figure 2 presents a conceptual model that seeks to

Figure 2 Conceptual model of an artificial reef scuba dive experience (This model has been developed from a review of available literature and with reference to the models of Leiper [1995] and Hall [1998].)


346


explain the relationship between the user group of interest (scuba divers) and the recreational resource (artificial reefs) in terms of the outcomes and impacts that arise from their interaction. Specific characteristics of both the resource and user group have been identified and included in the model, as the interplay between these characteristics will strongly influence the nature of the dive experience and hence the outcomes and impacts that are produced. External influences are denoted by the shaded grey area entitled ‘Environments’ and this is an adapted feature from Leiper’s (1995) basic whole tourism system and studies in public policy (e.g. see Hall & Jenkins, 1995). This aspect of the model acknowledges the role that societal forces such as public policy or technological advancement may have on the conduct of a recreational experience such as scuba diving on an artificial reef. As both the literature reviewed in this paper and the conceptual model show, artificial reefs can have a positive role in helping the sustainable practice of recreational scuba diving and can contribute to the principles and practices commonly associated with ecotourism. In the first instance, given the ways in which artificial reefs mature to support ecosystems (e.g. as a structural mechanism), they should also be considered part of the marine environment’s potential ecotourism resources. In the second instance, then, it is conceivable that scuba diving activity conducted responsibly at these sites should be considered a form of marine ecotourism. In other words, scuba dives on artificial reefs do occur in a natural environment. Provided there is an educational component delivered through pre-dive briefings and/or interpretative signage, then recreational scuba diving on artificial reefs practiced in this manner might be regarded as ecotourism. The advantages of promoting ecotourism-related activity around these artificial structures could include: (1) a redistribution of tourists away from undisturbed and perhaps less resilient and resistant locations; (2) easier access for most potential visitors than ecotourism in pristine natural areas; (3) revenues from ecotourism in modified spaces providing incentives for maintenance of these sites and the opportunity to further study human – environment relationships; (4) with creative environmental engineering, artificial reefs can be constructed that produce exciting, interesting and challenging diving experiences with high levels of biodiversity. Modern reef structures are being created specifically with diver access in mind, including consideration of issues such as the distance between reef site and shore, maximum reef depth and opportunities for safe penetration in enclosed spaces. Preparing these structures in such a fashion permits visits from divers with ranging levels of skill and experience and, hence, broadens the number of potential users.

Directions for Future Research Artificial reefs are prime examples of modified spaces, where human intervention in nature is noticeable but not necessarily detrimental to flora and fauna



347

in the longer term (however their initial impacts also warrant investigation). The studies cited in this paper have demonstrated the capacity of artificial reefs to aggregate populations of marine species and emulate ecological processes of naturally formed reef systems. While artificial reefs have been used by recreational divers for many years, interest is emerging within the scuba diving industry and the broader public for the deliberate creation and promotion of new artificial reefs for tourism and recreational benefits. Governments in the USA, Canada and Australia, for example, have actively supported such projects. The historic links between artificial reefs and various forms of fishing and aquaculture remain strong, but the emergence of alternative, non-extractive use of these resources has flowed from paradigm shifts underpinned by less invasive forms of human activity, nature conservation concerns and the principles of sustainable tourism development. Scuba diving, along with snorkelling and other marine observation-based tours, is frequently positioned as an exemplary form of marine ecotourism. As shown in this paper, existing research grounded in ecology and biology demonstrates the capability of artificial reefs to mimic natural habitat and support marine biota. However, social-science-based research to determine the experiential attributes of non-consumptive forms of recreation (particularly scuba diving) hosted by artificial reefs is lacking. There is, for instance, little understanding of what recreational divers consider to be an artificial reef; whether divers perceive a scuba dive on an artificial reef to be a nature-based experience; and indeed, whether many divers are even willing to consider artificial reefs as valid substitutes for natural reefs in their truest sense. Perhaps, in some instances, divers are not aware of significant differences. This information is critical to the future efforts of marine tourism management if artificial reef structures are to be deliberately created as substitute sites for heavily visited natural reefs, and if we are to successfully expand the spectrum of recreational diving opportunities. Furthermore, research should attempt to identify specific characteristics of artificial reefs conducive to attracting divers. These characteristics might involve determining the ways in which a reef’s age, size, shape, complexity, safety and location influence recreational accessibility and divers’ recreational decisionmaking behaviour, motivations, preferences and satisfaction. With such a small number of published studies focusing on scuba diving and artificial reefs, there are many potential avenues of enquiry. In particular, given the threats posed to coral reefs by global warming scenarios (e.g. coral bleaching), artificial reefs may well become increasingly important to the recreation diving industry. Future research needs to focus on the perceptions and needs of divers, ways to integrate income-generating opportunities into the design and planning of these reefs and design features that can be incorporated so that the experience is stimulating, challenging and unique. Sustainable tourism management requires a balanced, multidisciplinary approach. Management of artificial reef-based tourism and recreation cannot adopt such a balanced approach until more is known about all aspects of competing and complementary activities, host resources and surrounding environments. Armed with a greater understanding of divers’ motivations, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours, marine managers and people related to tourism and recreation industry will be able to plan for the future recreational use of artificial

348


reefs with strategies that aim to generate satisfying and educational user experiences, achieve ecological sustainability and contribute to positive regional development. Correspondence


Any correspondence should be directed to Paul Stolk, Cultural Institutions and Practices Research Centre, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia ([email protected]). Notes 1. The term natural reef refers to all temperate and tropical reef systems of either coral or rock composition. On http://www.reef.edu.au/index.html. 2. Scuba – self contained underwater breathing apparatus. 3. Benthic – pertaining to the sea floor.

References Baine, M. (2001) Artificial reefs: A review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Management 44, 241–259. Blamey, R.K. (2001) Principles of ecotourism. In D.B. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 5–22). Wallingford: CAB International. Blount, S. (1981) Why sport divers like artificial reefs. In D.Y. Aska (ed.) Artificial Reefs: Conference Proceedings (pp. 72–74). Daytona Beach, FL.: Florida Sea Grant College. Bohnsack, J.A. (1991) Habitat structure and the design of artificial reefs. In S.S. Bell, E.D. McCoy and H.R. Mushinsky (eds) Habitat Structure: The Physical Arrangement of Objects in Space (pp. 412–426). London: Chapman & Hall. Brock, R.E. (1994) Beyond fisheries enhancement: Artificial reefs and ecotourism. Bulletin of Marine Science 55 (2&3), 1181–1188. Cater, C. and Cater, E. (2001) Marine environments. In D.B. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 265–282). Wallingford: CAB International. Clark, S. and Edwards, A.J. (1999) An evaluation of artificial reef structures as tools for marine habitat rehabilitation in the Maldives. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 9, 5–21. Coutin, P.C. (2001) Artificial Reefs – Applications in Victoria from a Literature Review. Queenscliff: Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute. Craik, W. (1992) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Its establishment, development and current status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25 (5–8), 122–133. Diamant, A., Ben Tuvia, A., Baranes, A. and Golani, D. (1986) An analysis of rocky coastal eastern Mediterranean fish assemblages and a comparison with an adjacent small artificial reef. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 97, 269–285. Ditton, R.B. and Baker, T.L. (1999) Demographics, attitudes, management preferences and economic impacts of sport divers using artificial reefs in offshore waters. Human Dimensions of Fisheries Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station. Ditton, R.B., Osburn, H.R., Baker, T.L. and Thailing, C.E. (2002) Demographics, attitudes, and reef management practices of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59, 186–191. Dixon, J.A., Scura, L.F. and van’t Hof, T. (1993) Meeting ecological and economic goals: Marine parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22 (2&3), 117–125. Dowling, R.K. and Nichol, J. (2001) The HMAS Swan artificial dive reef. Annals of Tourism Research 28 (1), 226–229. Garrod, B. and Wilson, J.C. (2003) Marine Ecotourism: Issues and Experiences. Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Gordon, W.R. and Ditton, R.B. (1986) A user-resource planning framework for offshore recreational artificial reefs. Coastal Zone Management Journal 13 (3&4), 369–395.



349

Graham, R.D. and Ditton, R.B. (1975) Recreational behavior patterns and selected socioeconomic characteristics of the Texas scuba diver. Marine Recreation Lab Report 75-01, Department of Recreation and Parks, Texas A&M University. Hall, C.M. (1998) Introduction to Tourism: Development, Dimensions and Issues. Melbourne: Longman. Hall, C.M. and Jenkins, J. (1995) Tourism and Public Policy. London: Routledge. Harriott, V.J., Davis, D. and Banks, S.A. (1997) Recreational diving and its impact in marine protected areas in eastern Australia. Ambio 26 (3), 173–179. Hawkins, J.P. and Roberts, C.M. (1994) The growth of coastal tourism in the Red Sea: Present and future effects on coral reefs. Ambio 23 (8), 503–508. Hawkins, J.P., Roberts, C.M., van’t Hof, T., De Meyer, K., Tratalos, J. and Aldam, C. (1999) Effects of recreational scuba diving on Caribbean coral and fish communities. Conservation Biology 13 (4), 888–897. Holecek, D.F. and Lothrop, S.J. (1980) Shipwreck vs. Nonshipwreck Scuba Divers: Characteristics, Behaviour and Expenditure Patterns. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Sea Grant Program. Hynes, M.V., Peters, J.E. and Rushworth, D. (2004) Artificial Reefs: A Disposal Option for Navy and MARAD Ships. Fort Belvoir, VA: RAND National Defense Research Institute. Jameson, S.C., Ammar, M.S.A., Saadalla, E., Mostafa, H.M. and Reigl, B. (1999) A coral damage index and its application to diving sites in the Eygptian Red Sea. Coral Reefs 18, 333–339. Jameson, S.C., Ammar, M.S.A., Saadalla, E., Mostafa, H.M. and Riegl, B. (2007). A quantitative ecological assessment of diving sites in the Egyptian Red Sea during a period of severe anchor damage: A baseline for restoration and sustainable tourism management. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15 (3), 309–323. Jensen, A.C. (1997) European Artificial Reef Research. Proceedings of the first EARRN Conference, March 1996, Ancona, Italy. Southampton Oceanography Centre. Lawton, L.J. and Weaver, D.B. (2001) Modified spaces. In D.B. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 315–326). Wallingford: CAB International. Leiper, N. (1995) Tourism Management. Melbourne: RMIT Press. Low, T. (2003) The New Nature: Winners and Loosers in Wild Australia. Camberwell: Penguin. McCawley, R. and Teaff, J.D. (1995) Characteristics and environmental attitudes of coral reef divers in the Florida Keys. In S.F. McCool and A.E. Watson (eds) Linking Tourism, The Environment and Sustainability (pp. 40–46). Minneapolis, MN: Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. McGurrin, J.M., Stone, R.B. and Sousa, R.J. (1989) Profiling United States artificial reef development. Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 1004–1013. Milon, J.W. (1989) Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation behavior by sport anglers and divers. Bulletin of Marine Science 44 (2), 853–862. Orams, M. (1999) Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management. London: Routledge. Pickering, H., Whitmarsh, D. and Jensen, A. (1998) Artificial reefs as a tool to aid rehabilitation of coastal ecosystems: Investigating the potential. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37 (8–12), 505–514. Pitcher, T.J. and Seaman Jr., W. (2000) Petrarch’s principle: How protected human-made reefs can help the reconstruction of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Fish and Fisheries 1, 73–81. Rudd, M.A. and Tupper, M.H. (2002) The impact of Nassau Grouper size and abundance on scuba diver site selection and MPA economics. Coastal Management 30, 133–151. Salm, R.V. (1985) Integrating marine conservation and tourism. International Journal of Environmental Studies 25, 229–238. Seaman Jr., W. (1987) Global and national status of artificial reefs. In S. Andree (ed.) Florida Artificial Reef Summit (pp. 5–7). Miami, FL: Florida Sea Grant College Program. Seaman Jr., W. and Jensen, A.C. (2000) Purposes and practices of artificial reef evaluation. In W. Seaman Jr. (ed.) Artificial Reef Evaluation with Application to Natural Marine Habitats. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Seaman Jr., W. and Sprague, L.M. (1991) Artificial habitat practices in aquatic systems. In W. Seaman Jr. and L. M. Sprague (eds) Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries (pp. 1–29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.


350


Sheslinger, Y. (1994) Management of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Aqaba. In The Ecosystem of the Gulf of Aqaba in Relation to the Enhanced Economical Development and the Peace Process. Eilat. Stolk, P., Markwell, K. and Jenkins, J. (2005) Perceptions of artificial reefs as scuba diving resources: A study of Australian recreational scuba divers. Annals of Leisure Research 8 (2&3), 153–173. Stone, R.B., McGurrin, J.M., Sprague, L.M. and Seaman Jr., W. (1991) Artificial habitats of the world: Synopsis and major trends. In W. Seaman Jr. and L.M. Sprague (eds) Artificial Habitats for Marine and Freshwater Fisheries (pp. 31–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc. Storrie, A., Morrison, S. and Morrison, P. (2003) Beneath Busselton Jetty. Kensington: Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. Tabata, R.S. (1992a) Hawaii’s Recreational Dive Industry and Use of Nearshore Dive Sites. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program. Tabata, R.S. (1992b) Scuba-diving holidays. In B. Weiler and C.M. Hall (eds) Special Interest Tourism (pp. 171–184). New York: Belhaven Press. van Treeck, P. and Schuhmacher, H. (1998) Mass diving tourism – A new dimension calls for new management approaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37 (8–12), 499–504. Warner, T.D. and Holecek, D.F. (1978) Underwater parks: An unexplored recreation frontier? Parks & Recreation 13, 20. ¨ Wilhelmsson, D., Ohman, M.C., St´ahl, H. and Sheslinger, Y. (1998) Artificial reefs and dive tourism in Eilat, Israel. Ambio 27 (8), 764–766. Windsor, D. (1996) A study into the number of dives conducted on the Great Barrier Reef in 1994. South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society Journal 26, 72–74.