Journal of
Applied Ichthyology J. Appl. Ichthyol. 31 (Suppl. 3) (2015), 60–73 © 2015 Blackwell Verlag GmbH ISSN 0175–8659
Received: November 20, 2014 Accepted: August 15, 2015 doi: 10.1111/jai.12951
Expectations of professional and recreational users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion, France By A. Tessier1,2,*, N. Dalias1 and P. Lenfant2,3 1
SEANEO, Perpignan, France; 2Centre de Formation et de Recherche sur les Environnements M editerran eens, Universit e de Perpignan Via Domitia, Perpignan, France; 3Centre de Formation et de Recherche sur les Environnements M editerran eens, CNRS, Perpignan, France
Summary Artificial reefs (ARs) have been deployed in France primarily to sustain artisanal fishery; however, based on their perceptions of these coastal management tools they can also be frequented by other sea users. In this work, the perceptions of AR professional and recreational users (direct users only) were studied by focusing on three AR sites located along the Gulf of Lion coastline (northwestern Mediterranean Sea, France) to determine whether they were becoming multi-use sites or were negatively perceived. Between 2011 and 2012, semi-directed interviews with artisanal fishermen, recreational fishermen, recreational spear fishermen and SCUBA divers were conducted to characterize their profiles, levels of knowledge, and expectations regarding ARs and how well these expectations were satisfied. The results showed although ARs were designed for use by artisanal fishermen that they were also frequented by others, mainly the local populations. The enhancement of fish at AR locations to maintain target species (e.g. Sparus aurata, Mullus sp.) for fishing activities was a common expectation. There were also expectations specific to AR usage, which varied among the different sites and users. Several factors influenced user satisfaction, such as AR design and communications by local authorities regarding this coastal tool. The results of this study indicate that AR users have either neutral or positive perceptions regarding ARs. In addition to their ecological objectives, ARs have socio-economic potential; therefore effective strategies for their management should be explored. Introduction Artificial reefs (ARs) exist worldwide (Baine, 2001; Fabi et al., 2011), and numerous studies have focused on their ecological characteristics (Baine, 2001). The main objectives of those studies were to characterise the fish colonisation of ARs (e.g. Relini et al., 1994; Seaman, 2000; Dos Santos et al., 2010; Folpp et al., 2011), to evaluate the role of ARs in the restoration of damaged coastal ecosystems (e.g. Antsulevich, 1994; Allemand et al., 1997; Iannibelli and
*Present address: UMR CARRTEL-INRA, 75 avenue de Corzent, F-74203 Thonon les Bains, France U.S. Copyright Clearance Centre Code Statement:
Musmarra, 2008; Charbonnel et al., 2011), to assess the effectiveness of ARs for fishery management (Bohnsack and Sutherland, 1985; Bortone et al., 1994; Santos and Monteiro, 2007; Tessier et al., 2014), and to determine the attractionconcentration vs production effects of ARs (Pickering and Whitmarsh, 1997; Powers et al., 2003; Brickkill et al., 2005; Cresson et al., 2014). In parallel ecological studies, both Milon et al. (2000) and Baine (2001) noted that few AR analyses focused on the socioeconomic features (4% of AR publications), and that this trend appears to have remained unchanged throughout the first half of the last decade (2010–2015). However, the need for socioeconomic studies utilizing humanities- and social science-oriented terminology appears in Seaman’s AR definition (2000), which states: ‘one or more objects of natural or human origin deployed purposefully on the seafloor to influence physical, biological or socioeconomic process related to living marine resources.’ These types of studies are also important because governments deploy ARs as a means of responding to social and economic expectations, such those associated with coastal ecosystem restoration, artisanal fishery maintenance, conflict reduction between artisanal fishermen and commercial trawlers within the three-mile nautical zone, and recreational activity development (Seaman, 2000). As ARs are installed in response to social and economic expectations, it makes sense to conduct more socioeconomically oriented AR assessments to identify whether they meet stakeholders’ expectations. Few international studies have sought to identify AR stakeholders, such as managers, recreational fishermen or SCUBA divers, to characterise their expectations, opinions, and the use of ARs (Milon, 1989; Murray and Betz, 1994; Ditton et al., 2002; Ramos et al., 2007, 2011; Sutton and Bushnell, 2007; Shani et al., 2012; Kirkbride-Smith et al., 2013). Very few socioeconomic studies on AR users have been conducted in France, and those were only conducted on artisanal fishermen (Duval-Mellon, 1987; Collart and Charbonnel, 1998; Leleu et al., 2012). It is surprising that socioeconomic effects on local populations are less studied than the ecological (colonization process) and fishing effects (yield). Moreover, the many potential uses of ARs have not been systematically evaluated while attempting to estimate their return on investment. Indeed, AR deployment repre-
0175-8659/2015/31S3–60$15.00/0
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
sents a substantial investment for contracting authorities. In 2010, the French government established a state doctrine to evaluate the effectiveness of ARs (Ministere de l’Ecologie du Developpement durable des Transports et du Logement, 2012). This is because several ARs hold marine concessions from public authorities, which will soon expire. The management plan states that if ARs have not reached their deployment objectives, the contracting authorities must then remove them. From this perspective, socioeconomic studies on the effectiveness of ARs (for fishermen and coastal communities at large) are necessary to provide answers to the French government to facilitate in deciding whether ARs should be maintained or removed. An interdisciplinary approach to environmental studies is more common in Anglo-Saxon countries than in France or in other countries (e.g. Spain, Italy, and Japan). In French environmental studies and in studies conducted in nonAnglo-Saxon countries, the lack of an interdisciplinary approach is a by-product of the academic system, as disciplines such as the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences do not frequently cooperate in over-arching projects. However, interdisciplinary research is needed in these studies. Users increasingly interact with the natural environment, and these relationships are more complex than in the past (Kalaora, 1998). It is impossible to consider the natural environment without taking stakeholders into account. Thus, to understand the global functioning of an ecosystem, either natural or artificial, it is necessary to use an interdisciplinary approach. The aim of this study was to provide information on AR users and to analyse the social benefits and constraints associated with ARs along the northwestern French Mediterranean coast. The main objectives were: (i) to determine the criteria that would enable sustainable artisanal fisheries; (ii) to study the expectations of professional fishermen who use ARs; (iii) to identify potential AR users other than professional fishermen, such as recreational fishermen (including recreational spear fishermen) and SCUBA divers; (iv) to identify the various levels of knowledge that AR users possess regarding this resource and their expectations and satisfaction in AR development and use.
Materials and methods Study location
The current study was conducted on the Gulf of Lion coast (northwestern Mediterranean Sea) at three sites: Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares (Fig. 1). At each of the locations, ARs were deployed on flat and homogeneous sandy-mud bottoms between 1 and 2 km from the coast. The ARs at Agde were deployed in 1985, 1995 and 2009 at depths of between 10 and 35 m (Fig. 1) and form five zones (total: 2693 ha): three composed exclusively of pipes, one composed of a ‘Bonna’ type reef, and one composed of a ‘Comin’ type reef within an area composed of pipes, and two zones with steel cages (Fig. 2). The distance between
61
two modules (pipe or steel cage) in each zone is ~200 m. Agde also contains a vast expanse of natural rock (NR: 1149 ha) that extends from 8 to 40 m depth (Fig. 1). The ARs at Valras were deployed in 2006 in two zones (total: 1.18 ha) between 9 and 25 m depth (Fig. 1). The two zones are composed of pipes, and the more northerly zone is also composed of steel cages (Fig. 2). In each zone the distance between two units is ~50 m. A small area of NR (0.6 ha) is present at Valras that extends from 18 to 22 m depth. This NR has a low relief (0.5 m). The ARs at Leucate-Barcares were immersed in 2004 in six zones (total 72 ha; Fig. 1) between 15 and 30 m depth (Koeck et al., 2011). Each zone is composed of pipes, concrete boxes and chaotic heaps (Fig. 2). Chaotic heaps are unorganised arrangements of pipes, cubes with each side open, breeze blocks, or pieces of rock and beams. The units are spaced 50 m apart (Koeck et al., 2011). To the north, there is an NR that forms a plateau at depths ranging from 0 to 20 m.
Data collection and treatment
At the three sites, four types of users (artisanal fishermen, recreational fishermen, recreational spear fishermen and SCUBA divers) were studied between 2011 and 2012. Only individuals who used the studied ARs, or who could have used them but did not for diverse reasons, were considered in the estimation of population size. The population sizes were obtained by combining information from field observations and stakeholder details (Table 1). Exhaustive sampling was chosen for users comprising only small populations (artisanal fishermen and spear fishermen), and quota sampling was chosen for users of large populations, in which random selection was employed (recreational fishermen and SCUBA divers) (Blanchet and Gotman, 2010). As recreational fishermen could either be affiliated or not affiliated with fishing clubs, we decided that two-thirds of this study group would comprise club members (N = 30) and one-third (N = 10) non-club members, to conserve population stratification. To meet the club member quota, fishing club members were randomly selected using club listings, whereas snowball sampling was used to select individuals not affiliated with clubs. This method has proven to be appropriate in cases of difficult-to-locate populations (Blanchet and Gotman, 2010). In this study, snowball sampling consisted of locating individuals via fishermen encountered randomly at AR sites, who were asked during interviews to offer contact information for additional individuals belonging to the group under study. SCUBA divers affiliated with commercial diving outfits were chosen randomly for interviews as they returned from diving on the ARs. The interviews were semi-directed (combination of openended and closed questions); the open-ended questions were used to avoid influencing responses (Bunce et al., 2000; Grawitz, 2000). Each user type had its own question grid; however, certain sections and questions were similar among users (Table 2). The data were analysed using SPHINX PLUS² software. Answers to the open-ended questions were coded to obtain
62
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
Fig. 1. Map of three studied locations (Agde: AR deployment in 1985, 1995 and 2009; Valras: AR deployment in 2006; Leucate-Barcares: AR deployment in 2004) 2011 to 2012 along the French coast, Gulf of Lion. Black = natural rocky sites; grey = artificial reef sites. AR, artificial reef
quantitative data, which was analysed using cross-contingency tables (Ditton and Baker, 1999; Martin, 2011). The user expectations of ARs were identified by cross-checking the answers that each user provided for questions 6.1 and 6.4 (Table 2), which were presented in a question grid for each user type. Only answer modes with a ratio above 15% were identified as expectations. For certain mentioned objectives, user satisfaction was evaluated using a single question. Users were declared satisfied when a minimum of half of the interviewed individuals stated that they were satisfied, having noted positive effects. For the other objectives, user satisfaction was evaluated using radar charts that were enhanced with several questions so that the ‘degree’ of satisfaction was related to the area occupied by the representation surface: the greater the surface area, the greater the degree of apparent user satisfaction. Results There was a sufficient rate of participation for each user-type to allow for robust analysis at the population level (Table 1). Few spear fishermen were included because it was not only
difficult to identify them, but it was also necessary to reassure them as to how their interview data would be used. Thus, as the interview effect could not be exhaustive, the results cannot be generalised to represent the entire population. As the number of interviewed spear fishermen was low, the answer ratio was ineffective and not converted to a percentage for better understanding. Only the Leucate-Barcares site ARs were used for commercial diving activities, thus the only SCUBA divers who were interviewed were those who used this site.
Profiles of AR users
The included AR user populations were exclusively male, except for the SCUBA divers; however, the male gender still predominated the user population (87.0%). The average age of the interviewed artisanal fishermen was 42.9 years old, and that of the Valras population 34.8 years (Table 3). The majority of possible artisanal AR fishermen at the sites were locals, but several were from neighbouring locations (Table 3). They fished primarily along the coast, although the proportions of those who engaged in coastal
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
63
Fig. 2. Schema of types of modules deployed in studied artificial reef sites. Length (L), width (W), height (H), Bonna 4 at Agde; Comin: 9 heaps of 14 units at Agde; Pipe: 290 at Agde, 34 at Valras and 60 at Leucate-Barcares; Steel cage: 10 at Agde, 9 at Valras and 1 heap of 3 units; Concrete box: 72 at Leucate-Barcares; Chaotic heap: 36 at Leucate-Barcares
Table 1 Summary of population size, sampling strategy and number of interviewed individuals Users
Population size
Sampling strategy
Interviewed individuals
Artisanal fishermen Recreational fishermen Spear fishermen Scuba divers
A = 33; V = 7; LB = 18 Each site 200 A 20; V 10; LB 10 A = 0; V = 0; LB = 185
Exhaustive Quota (15%) Exhaustive Quota (42%)
A = 26; V = 6; LB = 16 Each site = 30 A = 9; V = 1; LB = 5 A = 0; V = 0; LB = 77
A, Agde; V, Valras; LB, Leucate-Barcares.
fishing may have differed between study locations due to the presence of lagoons or sea bottoms greater than 50 m in depth (Table 3). Trammel and gillnets were the most common fishing equipment at the ARs, but other types of equipment such as octopus pots, purse seining, bottom lines and traps were also used (Table 3). The artisanal fishermen at Valras had many years of experience, as did those at the other study sites. Average experience was 22 years, with a lower value at Valras due to the lower average age (Table 3).
Recreational fishermen were older (60.3 years) than the other three user types, the majority (68.9%) being pensioners (Table 4). Most of the fishermen (81.1%) were locals from the studied county (Table 4), and 74.5% had more than 10 years of experience (Table 4). The majority were boat owners (93.3%) who kept their boats at the harbour throughout the year (93.3%, Table 4). The interviewed spear fishermen had an average age of 42.4 years (Table 5). All socio-professional conditions were
64
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
Table 2 Sections of question grids applied to users and examples of interview questions
Artisanal
Recreational
Spear
SCUBA
fishermen
fishermen
fishermen
divers
1.1. How old are you?
1. Private data
1.2. What is the zip code of your principal residence? 1.3. What is your profession? 2.1. How many years have you practiced your activity (fishing or diving)?
2. Profile
2.2. How many years have you practiced your activity at the study location (fishing or diving)? 2.3. Can you show on the map the location of your fishing sites before AR immersion? 2.4. At whichlocales do
2.5. What is your level of
you fish?
diving?
(Possible answers: Lagoon, Coastal, Offshore) 3.
Knowledge of studied ARs
4.
Use of ARs
3.1. Do you know that there are ARs at this location? (Possible answers: yes, no) 3.2. Can you show on the map the locationsof the AR sites? 4.1. Do you use ARs for your activity?
4.5.What type of
4.2. How frequently do you visit the ARs per season for fishing trips?
diving led you to
4.3. Why do you go fishing on ARs? Or why do you not frequent ARs?
become aware of
4.4. What types of fishing do you practice on ARs?
ARs? 4.6. On what types of ARs do you dive?
5.
Consequences of AR use
5.1. What are the differences between your catches on ARs versus natural sites?
on activity
5.2. If you used AR sites before their immersion, do you see a modification
5.3. Did you come here to dive because of the ARs?
concerning your catches? 6.
AR perception
6.1. What elements must ARs have so that you would like frequent them? 6.2. What do you appreciateat AR sites? 6.3. What do you not appreciate at AR sites? 6.4. When did you become aware of the existence of the ARs at this location, andhow did you expect them to influence your activity?
7.
Data re tourists
7.1. What is the zip code of your home residence?
ARs, artificial reefs.
represented, with a slight predominance of middle managers (7 of 12 interviewees; Table 5). The interviewees came exclusively from the local population (Table 4), and all had more than 10 years of experience at the study site (Table 5). Except for one, all owned their own boats, which were typically moored at their domiciles (Table 5). The interviewed SCUBA divers who were potential AR users averaged 34.5 years of age (12.9 SD), ranging from 13 to 62 years, and mainly French tourists (85.7%), with a few residents (10.3%) and foreign tourists (4%). There was a diversity of socio-professional conditions (Fig. 3). The majority (61.1%) of SCUBA divers possessed an Open
Water Certification (CMAS*). The others were highly certified (CMASS**: 16.9%, CMASS***: 11.6%, CMASS****: 10.4%). Their experience levels were relatively low, with 80.5% having less than 9 years of practice with few dives per year (68.6% had fewer than 20 dives per year, or 10 days a year with two dives per day).
User knowledge of ARs
All users in the studied categories were aware that the ARs had been submerged at the study locations except for the SCUBA divers, of whom only 22.1% were aware of the exis-
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
65
Table 3 Summary profile of artisanal fishermen interviewed between 2011 and 2012 at the three studied locations (Agde, Valras and LeucateBarcares) Agde (N = 26) Mean interviewee’s age (years) Site of origin Deployment site Neighbourhood site Radius of fishing Only coastal Coastal+Lagoon Coastal+Offshore Coastal+Lagoon+Offshore Fishing methods on AR Trammel net Gill net Octopus pots Purse seining Bottom line Trap Mean years of experience in studied location All practiced in the studied location
Valras (N = 6)
44.7 (11.4 SD)
34.8 (9.3 SD)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 16)
All studied locations (N = 48)
43.2 (8.5 SD)
42.9 (10.6 SD)
100.0 0.0
100.0 0.0
68.8 31.2
97.7 2.3
73.1 3.8 23.1 0.0
33.3 16.7 50.0 0.0
6.3 25.0 12.5 56.2
45.8 12.5 22.9 18.8
69.2 50.0 30.8 20.4 7.7 7.7 24.5 (11.9 SD)
50.0 83.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 (10.4 SD)
43.7 93.7 12.5 25.0 6.2 25.0 22.0 (9.4 SD)
58.3 68.7 22.9 14.6 6.2 12.5 22.4 (11.2 SD)
93.7%
91.9%
88.5%
100.0%
N, number of persons interviewed; SD, standard deviation. Values in percentages.
Table 4 Summary profile of recreational fishermen interviewed between 2011 and 2012 at the three locations studied (Agde, Valras and LeucateBarcares) Agde (N = 30) Mean interviewee’s age (years) Socio-professional conditions Farmer/Fisherman Craftsman/Commerce Middle manager Public servant Liberal arts profession Employee Working Pensioner Unemployed Student Residence location Resident of studied department French vacationer Foreign vacationer Years of experience at studied location 0–10 10–30 ≥30 Personal boat Moored boat in a harbour
Valras (N = 30)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 30)
All studied locations (N = 90)
58.3 (9.9 SD)
64.7 (8.9 SD)
58.1 (7.0 SD)
60.3 (9.2 SD)
0.0 10.0 6.7 6.7 0.0 3.3 6.7 63.3 3.3 0.0
0.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 86.8 0.0 0.0
0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 3.3 56.7 10.0 0.0
0.0 7.8 6.7 3.3 1.1 4.5 3.3 68.9 4.4 0.0
86.7 13.3 0.0
80.0 20.0 0.0
76.7 23.3 0.0
81.1 18.9 0.0
16.7 50.0 33.3 93.3 93.3
30.0 20.0 50.0 93.3 100.0
30.0 46.7 23.3 93.3 93.3
25.5 38.9 35.6 93.3 95.5
N, number of interviewed individuals; SD, standard deviation. Values in percentage.
tence of the ARs (Table 6). The majority of users could accurately locate the ARs (Table 6), except for recreational fishermen at Agde, of whom only 23.3% knew where they were located (Table 6).
Expectations of AR users
All of those interviewed users highlighted the goal of ARs to enhance the fish populations at the locations of AR immersion (Tables 7 and 8), which all users considered to be
66
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
Table 5 Summary profile of spear fishermen interviewed between 2011 and 2012 at the three locations studied (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares)
Mean interviewee’s age (years) Socio-professional conditions Farmer/Fisherman Craftsman/Commerce Middle manager Public servant Liberal arts profession Employee Working Pensioner Unemployed Student Residence location Resident of studied department French vacationer Foreign vacationer Years of experience at studied location 0–10 10–30 ≥30 Personal boat Boat at domicile
Agde (N = 9)
Valras (N = 1)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 5)
All studied locations (N = 15)
40.5 (7.9 SD)
50.0
44.2 (6.8 SD)
42.4 (7.5 SD)
0 1 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 2 7 3 0 2 0 0 1 0
9 0 0
1 0 0
4 0 1
14 0 1
1 6 2 8 7
0 0 1 1 1
0 0 5 5 5
1 6 8 14 13
N, number of interviewed individuals. Spear fishermen’s answers presented as ratios.
practice their activities (Table 7). However, there were specific expectations related to user type. One objective in installing ARs is to prevent illegal trawling within a three nautical mile band, which was desired by artisanal fishermen (77.1%) and, in a lower proportion, by recreational fishermen (22.2%; Table 6). One-fourth of artisanal and recreational fishermen considered ARs to serve as reproduction areas for fish (Tables 7 and 8). Concerning the diving population, one-third indicated that ARs could be more fun and have more complex designs and one-fifth also indicated that they should be spread over a greater area (Table 8). Fig. 3. Socio-professional conditions of SCUBA divers interviewed in summer 2011, and who dove at the artificial reefs at LeucateBarcares. Ratios presented as percentages; 77 individuals interviewed
Satisfaction of AR users
desirable. The artisanal fishermen stated that, ‘an artificial reef must attract more fish species on and around it, not only one or a few targeted species but also the other species (. . .). Large fish eat small fish; thus, if there were no diversity of fish species, the target species will not be on artificial reefs’ (Artisanal Fishermen no. 9). However, as a second step, those catching fish hoped that the ARs could also induce the enhancement of specific fish species (Tables 7 and 8). The choices of specific species were not the same between user types. Artisanal fishermen sought rockfish species of commercial interest (Sparus aurata, Mullus sp.), whereas recreational fishermen sought all rockfish species, and spear fishermen primarily sought sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax). Of the extractable users, one-third artisanal and recreational fishermen, as well as a majority of spear fishermen (11 of 15), expected the ARs to provide an increased number of sites at which to
Enhancement of fish. Regarding enhancement of fish, a difference appeared between the study locations (Fig. 4a). Artisanal fishermen at Leucate-Barcares seemed satisfied with respect to this expectation, as well as those at Agde, but in a lower proportion (Fig. 4a). However, the fishermen at Valras possessed more neutral opinions (Fig. 4a). A greater number of artisanal fishermen at Leucate-Barcares indicated that ARs are necessary for their activities because they enhance the zone with fish (75%) and because there are more fish on ARs than on NRs (63%). The percentage was approximately 40% at Agde but lower at Valras. Regarding this same expectation, recreational fishermen appeared to have neutral opinions (Fig. 4b,c). However, SCUBA divers were satisfied with this objective because when asked the question, ‘What do you appreciate about diving on artificial reefs?’, 61% answered with ‘the diversity of fish species’ and 26% responded with ‘the large density of fish.’
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
67
Table 6 The knowledge of users interviewed between 2011 and 2012 about Artificial Reefs (ARs) at three studied locations (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares)
Artisanal fishermen Agde (N = 26) Valras (N = 6) Leucate-Barcares (N All studied locations Recreational fishermen Agde (N = 30) Valras (N = 30) Leucate-Barcares (N All studied locations Spear fishermen Agde (N = 9) Valras (N = 1) Leucate-Barcares (N All studied locations SCUBA divers Leucate-Barcares (N
Knowledge of AR existence
Accurate knowledge of AR location
Yes
Yes
No
No
= 16) (N = 48)
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
76.9 100.0 100.0 87.5
23.1 0.0 0.0 12.5
= 30) (N = 90)
93.3 100.0 100.0 97.8
6.7 0.0 0.0 2.2
23.3 83.3 66.7 57.8
76.7 16.7 33.3 42. 2
= 5) (N = 15)
9 1 5 15
0 0 0 0
9 1 5 15
= 77)
22.1%
77.9%
0 0 0 0
Question not asked
Question not asked
N, number of interviewed individuals. The two question were closed; values in percentages; spear fishermen’s answers presented as ratios. Table 7 Expectations of users interviewed between 2011 and 2012 about artificial reefs at the three studied locations (Agde, Valras and LeucateBarcares) A-Artisanal fishermen
Agde (N = 26)
Valras (N = 6)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 16)
All studied locations (N = 48)
Enhancement of fish Specific commercial species enrichment Fix fish Reproduction zone for fish Anti-trawling in the 3 nautical mile zone More sites to practice their activity
42.2 3.8 11.5 7.7 80.0 19.2
33.3 16.7 0.0 0.0 66.7 16.7
31.3 50.0 12.5 18.8 75.0 31.3
37.5 20.8 10.4 10.4 77.1 22.9
B-Recreational fishermen
Agde (N = 30)
Valras (N = 30)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 30)
All studied locations (N = 90)
Enhancement of fish Specific commercial species enrichment Fix fish Reproduction zone for fish Anti-trawling in the 3 nautical mile zone More sites to practice their activity
30.0 0.0 3.3 33.3 33.3 6.7
43.3 0.0 16.7 20.0 23.3 10.0
60.0 0.0 10.0 16.7 10.0 33.3
44.4 0.0 10.0 23.3 22.2 16.7
C-Spear fishermen
Agde (N = 9)
Valras (N = 1)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 5)
All studied locations (N = 15)
Enhancement of fish Specific commercial species enrichment Fix fish Reproduction zone for fish Anti-trawling in the 3 nautical mile zone More sites to practice their activity
1 0 0 2 2 6
1 0 0 0 0 1
5 0 0 0 0 4
7 0 0 2 2 11
N, number of interviewed individuals. Open-ended questions, answers are coded and the number of answers can be multiple; values for artisanal and recreational fishermen in percentages, spear fishermen’s answers presented as ratios.
Enhancement of specific fish species. The artisanal fishermen at all studied locations seemed satisfied with the specific fish species enhanced by ARs, and a majority (approximately
75%) indicated that they chose to fish on ARs because they presented specific target species (Fig. 5a). Artisanal fishermen at Leucate-Barcares were more satisfied than fishermen at
68
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
Table 8 Elements that ARs must present to users, based on interviews conducted between 2011 and 2012. Answers are coded for open-ended questions; numbers of answers can be multiple. Spear fishermen’s answers presented as ratios; artisanal and recreational fishermen with SCUBA divers’ answer presented as percentages; no SCUBA divers were interviewed at Agde or Valras. A-Artisanal fishermen
Agde (N = 26), %
Valras (N = 6), %
Leucate-Barcares (N = 16), %
All studied locations (N = 48), %
Enhancement of fish Specific fish species enrichment Presence of large fish Fixing of fish Gathering of fish Reproduction zone for fish AR design more complex AR with important surface No idea
26.9 15.4 3.8 15.4 11.5 26.9 0.0 0.0 11.5
33.3 0.0 33.3 0.0 16.7 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
18.8 37.5 25.0 0.0 18.8 31.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
25.0 20.8 14.6 8.3 14.6 27.1 0.0 0.0 6.3
B-Recreational fishermen
Agde (N = 30), %
Valras (N = 30), %
Leucate-Barcares (N = 30), %
All studied locations (N = 90), %
Enhancement of fish Specific fish species enrichment Presence of large fish Fixing of fish Gathering of fish Reproduction zone for fish AR design more complex AR with important surface No idea
40.0 20.0 10.0 6.7 10.0 43.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
33.3 16.7 13.3 20.0 10.0 26.7 0.0 0.0 6.7
33.3 16.7 13.3 20.0 13.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 6.7
35.6 17.8 14.4 15.6 11.1 27.8 0.0 0.0 4.4
C-Spear fishermen
Agde (N = 9)
Valras (N = 1)
Leucate-Barcares (N = 5)
All studied locations (N = 15)
Enhancement of fish Specific fish species enrichment Presence of large fish Fixing of fish Gathering of fish Reproduction zone for fish AR design more fun/complex AR with important surface No idea
0 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 2
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 5 3 0 0 2 3 2 2
D-SCUBA divers
Agde
Valras
Leucate-Barcares (N = 77), %
All studied locations
Enhancement of fish Specific fish species enrichment Presence of large fish Fixing of fish Gathering of fish Reproduction zone for fish AR design more fun/complex AR with important surface No idea
– – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – –
48.1 11.7 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 36.4 19.5 3.9
– – – – – – – – –
the other locations: 40% mentioned that ARs brought target species to the site (Fig. 5a). At all of the study locations, recreational fishermen had neutral opinions regarding this expectation (Fig. 5b). The spear fishermen could be considered satisfied, since 10 out of 15 stated that they used ARs because of target species presence (Fig. 5c). Addition of sites for the practice of activities at the studied locations. Artisanal fishermen at Leucate-Barcares were satisfied with this objective (Fig. 6a); however, artisanal fisher-
men at Agde and Valras seemed to have neutral opinions. Several (between 13 and 23%) mentioned that additional sites were provided, even though a majority did not use these areas prior to the AR (Fig. 6a). The recreational fishermen were satisfied with this expectation, except at Agde. None of the respondents mentioned feeling that there were increased numbers of fishing sites, although 76% of them did not use the sites prior to the submersion of the ARs (Fig. 6b). Spear fishermen possessed neutral opinions: as they had occasionally used the sites prior to the submersions, the submersions
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
(a)
69
(a)
(b) (b)
(c) (c)
Fig. 4. Satisfaction of users interviewed between 2011 and 2012 regarding fish enhancement due to artificial reef (AR) immersions at three studied locations (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares). (a) Artisanal fishermen, (b) Recreational fishermen, (c) Spear fishermen. NR, natural reef
did not significantly modify the number of sites available for the practice of their activity (Fig. 6c). Anti-trawling within a three nautical mile zone. The artisanal fishermen were particularly satisfied with the role played by ARs in anti-trawling, with more than 75% mentioning that the ARs caused significant modification of trawling behaviours (Fig. 7). This was also the case with recreational fishermen at Leucate-Barcares. However, recreational fishermen at Agde and Valras had neutral opinions, whereby approximately 40% mentioned a positive effect of ARs (Fig. 7). AR design and size. The SCUBA divers were dissatisfied with the AR design. When responding to the question, ‘What are the points you dislike in diving ARs?’, 44.2% mentioned
Fig. 5. Satisfaction of users interviewed between 2011 and 2012 regarding enhancement of specific fish species in areas surrounding artificial reef (AR) immersions at three studied locations (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares). (a) Artisanal fishermen, (b) Recreational fishermen, (c) Spear fishermen
the lack of design aesthetics. The majority of interviewed SCUBA divers responded similarly to this question. The SCUBA divers were satisfied with regard to AR size, as only one-fifth mentioned that the surface was too small. Discussion Profiles of AR users
With regard to artisanal fishermen, the current results are in agreement with a previous study of ARs at Agde (Collart and Charbonnel, 1998). The present study shows a common profile of potential AR artisanal fishermen users. Local resident recreational fishermen were those who most often (80%) frequented the ARs. Most likely, local recreational fishing in Languedoc-Roussillon is by residents rather
70
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 6. Satisfaction of users interviewed between 2011 and 2012 regarding creation of supplementary sites to practice their activity regarding artificial reef (AR) immersions at three studied locations (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares). (a) Artisanal fishermen, (b) Recreational fishermen, (c) Spear fishermen
than tourists, reinforced by the fact that harbour access is difficult due to limited mooring places. This hypothesis is supported by several previously conducted local studies (pers. comm., Jarraya, Blouet and Dupuy de la Grandrive, 2005). However, these differing proportions of residents and tourists could also be due to sampling bias. Having to resort to utilizing fishing clubs to identify respondents could have led to overrepresentation in this category. It is also possible that only area residents were aware of the ARs because local authorities provided no information. A majority of local recreational fishermen were aware of the ARs, but most mentioned having learned of them by witnessing their deployments (outside of the summer period). Only experienced spear fishermen were interviewed; they did not present the same profile as the other LanguedocRoussillon fishermen populations. Generally, the spear fishermen did not own boats because they fished from the beach (unpubl. data, CEFREM). To practice spear fishing on ARs
requires a boat and good physical condition due to AR immersion depths. That spear fishing on ARs was only practiced by a small proportion of the population was reinforced by the fact that the practice was very different than on a natural reef. On NRs, the immersion lapse time is very short compared to the lapse time needed for ARs. On ARs, spear fishing is more stressful because the individual must immerse quickly to find the AR on the bottom. As with recreational fishing, use was exclusively addressed to residents who had time to explore the AR areas and find the GPS positions. The ARs were of interest to commercial diving outfitters and, by extension, their customers. However, only ARs at Leucate-Barcres were used for this purpose. Diving managers could not use the Agde and Valras sites due to the small AR surface (25 m²). At Leucate-Barcares, only the chaotic heap type of ARs was used because the surface was appropriate for this activity (110 m²). ARs were addressed to a small part of the clientele (20%), who had diving certifications. However, the managers said that 90% of their clientele were people on initiation dives. Thus, although the French government identified artisanal fisherman as AR users, others who were not initially identified also used the ARs in the Gulf of Lion. It was found that mostly local residents used the ARs, in contrast to what occurs in other countries. Recreational users (recreational fishermen and divers) are usually the principal users of ARs in Australia and the USA (Milon, 1989; Sutton and Bushnell, 2007). Furthermore, not only local residents but also vacationers use ARs (Sutton and Bushnell, 2007; KirkbrideSmith et al., 2013). The public politics of a country, as well as the local authorities, could influence the AR user profile. Both the relationships that users have with their natural environment and societal conditions could also explain the different AR user profiles among countries.
User knowledge about ARs
Almost all users were aware of the existence of the study sites, except for the SCUBA divers, a result possibly due to differences in the level of communications regarding ARs. As the ARs were originally deployed to maintain artisanal fisheries, local authorities typically did not communicate their existence, either to avoid user conflicts or subconsciously. This explained why artisanal fishermen were better informed of AR deployments than recreational fishermen. However, at Valras, numerous recreational fishermen were aware of regions containing ARs due to their investment in the initial project (pers. comm., Palacio, President of a recreational fishing club at Valras). User knowledge of ARs typically depended on local context, except for artisanal fishermen who were always well informed (Collart and Charbonnel, 1998; CREOCEAN, 2003; Leleu et al., 2012). In Portugal, artisanal fishermen were also the most familiar with ARs (Ramos et al., 2007), the primary objective of Portuguese and French ARs being the sustainment of artisanal fisheries. In countries where the primary objective is recreational development, recreational fishermen and SCUBA divers are better informed than are those in France (Milon, 1989; Sutton and Bushnell, 2007).
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion
71
Fig. 7. Satisfaction of artisanal fishermen and recreational fishermen interviewed between 2011 and 2012 regarding anti-trawling roles of artificial reefs in the 3 nautical mile zone at three studied locations (Agde, Valras and Leucate-Barcares) Expectations of AR users
For all users, the main expectation of ARs was to provide locations of fish enhancement to conserve target fish. For artisanal and recreational fishermen, ARs were also expected to provide habitats for invertebrate and fish reproduction. Furthermore, they expected ARs to maintain an anti-trawling role within a three nautical mile zone. These expectations have been discussed in several French studies (Collart and Charbonnel, 1998; CREOCEAN, 2003) and are similar to those of the French government, particularly the littoral protection band and fish population increases (Ministere de l’Ecologie du Developpement durable des Transports et du Logement, 2012). SCUBA divers expect ARs to provide a fun and aesthetic design. These results were corroborated across several international studies on ARs and particularly applied to shipwreck sites (Ditton et al., 2002; Shani et al., 2012; KirkbrideSmith et al., 2013). SCUBA divers expect ARs to be fun and visually appealing and to provide high biodiversity levels of several specific species. For recreational and spear fishermen, it was not possible to generalise beyond the present study because of the availability of previous studies from other countries on this subject.
Satisfaction of AR users
All interviewed artisanal fishermen seemed satisfied with the level of fish enhance at the ARs, except for those at Valras. This satisfaction corroborated previous results from halieutic studies that demonstrated higher fishing yields at ARs vs NRs (Santos and Monteiro, 1997; Leit~ao et al., 2009). The neutral opinions of the ARs at Valras may originate due to local AR history. AR deployment at this location was put into effect by recreational fishermen and not the will of artisanal fishermen (pers. comm., Palacio). This neutral satisfaction could also be attributed to a lack of interest in AR deployment or because of the ARs not having a positive effect on fish enhancement. Indeed, an overwhelming number of AR users at Valras seemed to have neutral opinions regarding the fish enhancement at this site. A neutral level of satisfaction regarding this expectation was also found for
users of other sites. It is unlikely that their neutral opinions were actually due to the effects of ARs on fish enhancement because ecological surveys have demonstrated their effectiveness (Blouet et al., 2012; Dalias et al., 2012). Recreational fishermen also had neutral opinions regarding the enhancement of target species, whereas artisanal fishermen and spear fishermen were satisfied. With the data collected in the present study, it was not possible to propose a hypothesis to explain these perception differences in their expectations. Levels of user satisfaction regarding the provision of additional sites at which to practice activities differed between user type and location. This divergence could have arisen regarding the degree of user knowledge of the AR areas. If users are unaware of the AR locations, then they will not be used as additional sites for activities. This was likely the case at Agde because a majority of respondents answered that they had not used these areas prior to AR deployment and also declared that they did not know exactly where they were immersed. They were unaware of their existence until being interviewed. The users at the other locations mainly knew of the AR positions; thus, their expectations were satisfied. It is also possible that other factors influence user satisfaction. The choice of AR placement could be important: if they are established at a site already utilised, then additional activity sites will not be created. Furthermore, it is possible that the annual frequency of AR use influences satisfaction, particularly with respect to recreational users. This did not seem to be the case for artisanal fishermen. For these fishermen, it is possible that the design of an area containing an AR influences their satisfaction. Indeed, they typically fish with trammel nets and gillnets of approximately 1.5 km length, which requires very wide AR areas because the nets are positioned parallel to the coast. Narrower AR areas were less often used as fishing sites by artisanal fishermen because of difficulties in positioning the lower portions of their nets. This was also likely the case with the AR at Valras, as it has a narrow width (approximately 250 m). Critical statements made by artisanal fishermen regarding the perpendicular positioning of AR areas support this supposition. The role of ARs in preventing trawling satisfied those users who mentioned this, a satisfaction shared by artisanal
72
fishermen in other French AR areas (Collart and Charbonnel, 1998; CREOCEAN, 2003). ARs create obstacles on the sea bottom that can damage a trawl. A field study showed a decrease in the frequency of trawlers in areas where ARs were immersed (Charbonnel and Bachet, 2010). However, some respondents reported adapting the levels of their trawls to enable fishing in AR areas without causing damage to their nets. The French AR design did not appear to be well adapted for SCUBA diving. This was not surprising, as they were not designed for this purpose. SCUBA divers seek out ARs where they can enter the reef, not only observing it from the outside. However, previous studies have shown that the level of SCUBA diver satisfaction is dependent on the type of AR (Stolk et al., 2005; Kirkbride-Smith et al., 2013). It is possible that the discrepancy in the results produced by the present study vs previous studies is due to the varying relationships that SCUBA divers have with the natural environment. Conclusions As this topic has not been studied in France, our study of AR users in the Gulf of Lion offers new information regarding the types and perceptions of individuals who use ARs. Although French ARs were originally designed to support artisanal fishermen, other activities are also performed on the reefs. Originally, the French government considered ARs to be of mono-use; however, they are evolving into multiuse. This is already the case in numerous countries (Milon, 1989; Murray and Betz, 1994; Milon et al., 2000; Ramos et al., 2007). Perceptions of what is expected of an AR tend to be positive or neutral, and any negative perceptions are user-manifested. However, our findings demonstrate the necessity to consider user satisfaction when implementing ARs. Our results seem to indicate that not only the design of the surrounding area but also the design of the AR itself, as well the level of communication by local authorities and tourist populations regarding the ARs, can affect user satisfaction. Thus, French ARs possess socioeconomic potential. However, ARs also have ecological objectives. Thus, it is necessary to institute an effective management plan for French ARs, a topic that has long been debated in France. Our study confirms the urgency of this endeavour because of the growing popularity of ARs. Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Regional Council of Languedoc-Roussillon. Anne Tessier was supported by a doctoral scholarship, CIFRE, from the National Association for Technical Research (ANRT) for SEANEO – UPVD. The authors would like to thank the artisanal fishermen, recreational fishermen, spear fishermen, presidents of the fishing club, scuba divers, and the managers of the commercial diving outfitter who participated in and made significant and highly valuable contributions to this study.
A. Tessier, N. Dalias and P. Lenfant
References Allemand, D.; Ferrier-Pages, C.; Debemardi, E., 1997: Protection and management of the water along the coast of Monaco. Hydro. Inter. 1, 23–25. Antsulevich, A. E., 1994: Artificial Reefs project for improvement of water quality and environmental enhancement of Neva Bay (StPetersburg county region). Bull. Mar. Sci. 55, 1189–1192. Baine, M., 2001: Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean Coast. Manag. 44, 241– 259. Blanchet, A.; Gotman, A.. 2010: L’entretien [Interview]. Armand Colin, Paris, 126 pp. ISBN 978-2-200-24809-3 Blouet, S.; Dupuy de la Grandrive, R., 2005: Etude socio-economique et spatialisee de la p^eche recreative en mer dans la zone marine agathoise [Socioeconomical and spatial study of recreational fishing within the marine zone of Agde]. Association de la Defense de l’Environnement et de la Nature des pays d’Agde. Report, France, 55 pp. Blouet, S.; Chere, E.; Dupuy de la Grandrive, R.; Foulquie, M.; Dalias, N.; Lenfant, P.; Tessier, A., 2012: Suivi scientifique des recifs artificiels au large de la commune d’Agde, Annee 3. [Scientific monitoring of artificial reefs of Agde, Year 3]. Mairie d’Adge & Association de Defense de l’Environment et de la Nature des pays d’Agde. Report, France, 135 pp. Bohnsack, J. A.; Sutherland, D. L., 1985: Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37, 11–39. Bortone, S. A.; Tassell, J. V.; Brito, A.; Falcon, J. M.; Mena, J.; Bundrick, C. M., 1994: Enhancement of the nearshore fish assemblage in the Canary Islands with artificial habitats. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55, 602–608. Brickkill, M. J.; Lee, S. Y.; Connolly, R. M., 2005: Fishes associated with artificial reefs: attributing changes to attraction or production using novel approaches. J. Fish Biol. 67, 53–71. Bunce, L.; Townsley, P.; Pomercy, R.; Pollnac, R., 2000: Socioeconomic manual for coral reef management. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, 251 pp. ISBN 0-642-32205-8 Charbonnel, E.; Bachet, F., 2010: Artificial reefs in the Cote Bleue Marine Park: assessment after 25 years of experiments and scientific monitoring. In: Global change: mankind-marine environment interactions: Proceedings of the 13th French-Japanese Oceanography Symposium. H. J. Ceccaldi, I. Dekeyser, M. Girault and G. Stora (Eds). pp. 73–79. Charbonnel, E.; Harmelin, J. G.; Carnus, F.; Le Direac’h, L.; Ruitton, S.; Lenfant, P.; Beurois, J., 2011: Artificial reefs in Marseille (France, Mediterranean Sea): from complex natural habitats to concept of efficient artificial reef design. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59, 177–178. Collart, D.; Charbonnel, E., 1998: Impact des recifs artificiels de Marseillan et d’Agde sur le milieu marin et la p^eche professionnelle-Bilan du suivi 1996/1997. [Impact of artificial reefs of Marseillan and Agde on the environment and professional fisheries – Assessment of monitoring 1996/1997]. Contrat Conseil Regional Languedoc-Roussillon et Conseil General de l’Herault. CEGEL et GIS Posidonie, Report, France, 168 pp. CREOCEAN, 2003: Impact des recifs artificiels sur le milieu marin et la p^eche professionnelle dans le golfe d’Aigues-Mortes. [Impact of artificial reefs on the environment and professional fisheries in the Gulf of Aigues-Morte]. CREOCEAN, Report no. 100049, France, 53 pp. Cresson, P.; Ruitton, S.; Ourgaud, M.; Harmelin-Vivien, M., 2014: Contrasting perception of fish trophic level from stomach content and stable isotope analyses: a Mediterranean artificial reef experience. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 452, 54–62. Dalias, N.; Blouet, S.; Foulquie, M.; Tessier, A.; Chere, E.; Dupuy de la Grandrive, R.; Lenfant, P., 2012: Suivi scientifique des recifs artificiels de Valras-Plage (2008-2012) Rapport final.Contrat Mairie de Valras-Plage & SEANEO- Association de la Defense de l’Environnement et de la Nature des pays d’Agde, Centre de Formation et de Recherche sur les Environnement
Users of artificial reefs in the Gulf of Lion Mediterranees UMR 5110 CNRS-UPVD-CEFREM. Perpignan. 120 pp. Ditton, R. B.; Baker, T. L., 1999: Demographics, attitudes, management preferences, and economic impacts of sport divers using artificial reefs in offshore Texas waters. Human Dimensions of Fisheries Lab, Texas A&M University, College Station, 44 pp. Ditton, R. B.; Osburn, H. R.; Baker, T. L.; Thailing, C. E., 2002: Demographics, attitudes, and reef management preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 59, 186–191. Dos Santos, L. N.; Brotto, D. S.; Zalmon, I. R., 2010: Fish responses to increasing distance from artificial reefs on the Southeastern Brazilian Coast. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 386, 54– 60. Duval-Mellon, C., 1987: Impact halieutique des recifs artificiels du Languedoc-Roussillon [Impact of artificial reefs on fishery resource in Languedoc-Roussillon]. IFREMER, Report DRV.87.016/RH/SETE, France, 156 pp. Fabi, G.; Spagnolo, A.; Bellan-Santini, D.; Charbonnel, E.; C ß icßek, B. A.; Garcıa, J. J. G.; Jensen, A. C.; Kallianiotis, A.; Dos Santos, M. N., 2011: Overview on artificial reefs in Europe. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59, 155–166. Folpp, H.; Lowry, M.; Gregson, M.; Suthers, I. M., 2011: Colonization and community development of fish assemblages associated with estuarine artificial reefs. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59, 55– 67. Grawitz, M., 2000: Methodes des sciences sociales [Social science methods]. Dalloz, Paris, 1019 pp. ISBN 2257010938 Iannibelli, M.; Musmarra, D., 2008: Effects of anti-trawling artificial reefs on fish assemblages: the case of Salerno Bay (Mediterranean Sea). Ital. J. Zool. 75, 385–394. Kalaora, B., 1998: Au-dela de la nature, l’environnement: l’observation social de l’environnement [Beyond nature, environment: social observation of environment]. L’Harmattan, France, 199 pp. ISBN 2738463878 Kirkbride-Smith, A.; Wheeler, P. M.; Johnson, M. L., 2013: The relationship between diver experience levels and perceptions of attractiveness of artificial reefs – examination of a potential management tool. PLoS One 8, e68899. Koeck, B.; Pastor, J.; Larenie, L.; Astruch, P.; Saragoni, G.; Jarraya, M.; Lenfant, P., 2011: Evaluation of impact of artificial reefs on artisanal fisheries: need for complementary approaches. Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59, 1–11. Leit~ ao, F.; Santos, M. N.; Erzini, K.; Monteiro, C. C., 2009: Diplodus spp. assemblages on artificial reefs: importance for near shore fisheries. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 16, 88–99. Leleu, K.; Alban, F.; Pelletier, D.; Charbonnel, E.; Letourneur, Y.; Boudouresque, C. F., 2012: Fishers’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine Protected Area (MPAs). Mar. Policy 36, 414–422. Martin, O., 2011: L’analyse de donnees quantitatives [Analysis of quantiative data]. Armand Colin, reedition coll. > Paris, 127pp. ISBN 978-2-200-24461-3 Milon, W. J., 1989: Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation behaviour by sport anglers and divers. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44, 853–862.
73 Milon, W. K.; Holland, S. M.; Whitmarsh, D. J., 2000: Social and economic evaluation methods. In: Artificial reef evaluation with application to natural marine habitats. W. Seaman (Ed.). CRC Press, New York. pp. 165–194. Ministere de l’Ecologie du Developpement durable des Transports et du Logement, 2012: Strategie nationale pour la creation et la gestion des aires marines protegees [National strategy for creation and management of marine protected areas]. Ministere de l’Ecologie, du Developpement durable, des Transports et du Logement. Report, France, 89 pp. Murray, J.; Betz, C., 1994: User views of artificial reef management in the southeaster U.S. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55, 970–981. Pickering, H.; Whitmarsh, D., 1997: Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fish. Res. 31, 39–59. Powers, S. P.; Grabowski, J. H.; Peterson, C. H.; Lindberg, W. J., 2003: Estimating enhancement of fish production by offshore artificial reefs: uncertainty exhibited by divergent scenarios. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 264, 265–277. Ramos, J.; Santos, M. N.; Whitmarsh, D.; Monteiro, C. C., 2007: Stakeholder perception regarding the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Algarve artificial reefs. Hydrobiologia 580, 181–191. Ramos, J.; Oliveira, M. T.; Santos, M. N., 2011: Stakeholder perceptions of decision-making process on marine biodiversity conservation on Sal Island (Cap Verde). Braz. J. Oceanogr. 59, 95–105. Relini, M.; Torchia, G.; Relini, G., 1994: Seasonal variation of fish assemblages in the Loano artificial reef (Ligurian Sea Northwestern-Mediterranean). Bull. Mar. Sci. 52, 401–417. Santos, M. N.; Monteiro, C. C., 1997: The Olh~ao artificial reef system (south Portugal): fish assemblages and fishing yield. Fish. Res. 30, 33–41. Santos, M. N.; Monteiro, C. C., 2007: A fourteen-year overview of the fish assemblages and yield of the two oldest Algarve artificial reefs (southern Portugal). Hydrobiologia 580, 225–231. Seaman, W., 2000: Artificial reef evaluation: with application to natural marine habitats. CRC Press, New York, 264 pp. ISBN 9780849390616 Shani, A.; Polak, O.; Shashar, N., 2012: Artificial reefs and mass marine ecotourism. Tourism Geogr. 14, 361–382. Stolk, P.; Markwell, K.; Jenkins, J., 2005: Perceptions of artificial reefs as scuba diving resources: a study of Australian recreational scuba divers. Ann. Leisure Res. 8, 153–173. Sutton, S. G.; Bushnell, S. L., 2007: Socio-economic aspects of artificial reefs: considerations for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean Coast. Manag. 50, 829–846. Tessier, A.; Verdoit-Jarraya, M.; Blouet, S.; Dalias, N.; Lenfant, P., 2014: A case study of artificial reefs as a potential tool for maintaining artisanal fisheries in the French Mediterranean Sea. Aquat. Biol. 20, 255–272. Author’s address: Anne Tessier, UMR CARRTEL-INRA, 75 avenue de Corzent, F-74203 Thonon les Bains, France. E-mail:
[email protected]
