Socio-economic aspects of artificial reefs - ResearchOnline@JCU

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829–846 www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Socio-economic aspects of artificial reefs: Considerations for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Stephen G. Sutton, Sally L. Bushnell CRC Reef Research Centre, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld. 4811, Australia Available online 24 March 2007

Abstract Artificial reefs are used to enhance recreational fishing and diving opportunities in the marine environment. Until recently, demand for artificial reefs in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) has been low due to the high value placed on the natural ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and the abundance of fishing and diving opportunities it provides. In the GBRMP, where there are multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and often conflicting values and opinions, the deployment of artificial reefs will be a complex and controversial social issue. We review the available socio-economic literature regarding the deployment, use, and management of artificial reefs, and aim to identify and understand potential socio-economic issues and information gaps surrounding deployment of artificial reefs in the GBRMP. We also outline a strategy to guide decision-making and maximize the socio-economic value of artificial reefs should they be deployed in the GBRMP. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is one of the world’s largest marine parks, extending approximately 2300 km along the north-east coast of Queensland, Australia and encompassing an area of approximately 345,000 km2. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) ecosystem consists of diverse habitats including inter-reefal areas, lagoons, Corresponding author. Fax: +61 7 4781 4099.

E-mail address: [email protected] (S.G. Sutton). 0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2007.01.003

ARTICLE IN PRESS 830

S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829–846

seagrass flats, mangrove swamp, deep-water continental slope, and approximately 2900 individual coral reefs [1]. The GBRMP was proclaimed in 1975, and the GBR was added to the list of World Heritage Areas in 1981. The GBRMP Authority (GBRMPA) is the lead management agency responsible for the care and development of the GBRMP and the World Heritage Area. The GBRMPA’s primary goal is to preserve and protect the outstanding natural values of the GBR while providing for the wise use, understanding, and enjoyment of the region [2]. Activities such as fishing, diving, boating, tourism, and research are permitted in the park but are regulated through a system of zoning and management plans. In July 2004 the GBRMPA implemented a new zoning plan for the park that increased ‘‘no-take’’ areas from 5% to 33% of the total park area. In response to the new zoning plan, several user groups have been lobbying for the deployment of artificial reefs within the park to enhance fishing and diving opportunities and compensate for loss of access to natural reefs. Although used to provide a variety of biological functions (e.g., increased fish aggregation and/or enhanced production), artificial reefs are deployed primarily for social reasons (i.e., to meet demand from stakeholders) [3], and have the potential to produce both positive and negative socio-economic impacts. In the GBRMP, where there are multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and often conflicting values and opinions surrounding use of the park, the deployment of artificial reefs is likely to be a highly complex and controversial social issue. To deal effectively with the emerging issue of artificial reefs and make fair and defensible decisions that are consistent with the goals of resource protection and wise use, managers will need a sound understanding of the potential socio-economic issues surrounding deployment and management of artificial reefs in the GBRMP. In this paper, we review the available socio-economic literature regarding the deployment, use, and management of artificial reefs to enhance fishing and diving opportunities. We aim to identify and understand potential socio-economic issues and information gaps surrounding the deployment of artificial reefs within the context of the GBRMP. We also outline a proposed strategy to guide decision-making and maximize the socio-economic value of artificial reefs should they be deployed in the GBRMP.

2. Artificial reef background 2.1. Artificial reefs: definition, materials, and purpose An artificial reef is defined as any material purposefully placed in the marine environment to influence physical, biological, or socio-economic processes related to living marine resources. Artificial reefs encompass a wide range of structures from specially engineered and prefabricated reef structures to ‘‘materials of opportunity’’ such as white goods and tires, and in recent years unwanted oil and gas recovery structures [4]. Artificial reefs are a readily accessible and widely used technology for modifying the aquatic environment, and as such they have been built and deployed by a range of interests from lay-level or semi-technical to specialists who have been formally educated in the area [5]. The most prominent use of artificial reefs has been for the enhancement of fishing and diving; however, their application, especially in the last few decades, serves various purposes including enhanced commercial and artisinal fishery harvest, aquaculture

ARTICLE IN PRESS S.G. Sutton, S.L. Bushnell / Ocean & Coastal Management 50 (2007) 829–846

831

production, habitat and coastal protection, research, and mitigation of habitat damage and loss [5]. 2.2. Artificial reefs around the world At least 40 countries have deployed artificial reefs [6]. Japan leads the world in artificial reef technology to increase commercial fishery yields and production, whereas the Philippines widely use reef structures for artisanal fishery activities. North America and Australia use artificial reefs predominantly for recreational activity including fishing and diving. European artificial reefs are generally in the development stage but include a number of research reefs and artificial reefs for trawler exclusion [4,7,8]. Artificial reef history in the United States of America has been well documented due to years of intense public interest leading to the deployment of an extensive artificial reef network (Florida is the leading state with over 1500 artificial reefs [9]). The USA artificial reef network began with ad hoc volunteer efforts by recreational and commercial fishers to enhance fishing using ‘‘materials of opportunity’’, but has evolved into a more technologically advanced approach. This evolution included the passing of the US National Fishing Enhancement Act (NFEA) in 1984 and the development of the National Artificial Reef Plan in 1985 to encourage more responsible and effective efforts to establish artificial reefs in US waters. Other federal programs (including the Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration Program) and grants provide hundreds of millions of dollars for sport fish management, which includes artificial reefs [10]. Europe has also made a concerted effort to ensure responsible and effective artificial reef development through creation of the European Artificial Reef Research Network (EARRN) in 1995 (funded by the European Commission). The objectives of EARRN include, but are not limited to, promoting regional collaboration, promoting awareness of issues, and guiding future research on artificial reefs [7]. 2.3. Artificial reefs in Australia Beginning with the first reported artificial reef deployed in Port Phillip Bay in 1965 [11], Australia now has approximately 72 artificial reefs [12]. Similar to the USA, Australia’s artificial reef network began in an ad hoc manner with artificial reefs deployed by both fisheries management agencies and public interest groups to enhance fishing and/or diving. Materials used were also mostly ‘‘of opportunity’’ i.e., tires, concrete or rock, and derelict vessels (see [11,13] for reviews of artificial reef development in Australia). Artificial reef placement and construction later became regulated by the passing of the Commonwealth Environment Protection (sea dumping) Act 1981. The GBRMPA has included guidelines for the management of artificial reefs in the GBRMP on its website, and further guidelines for artificial reefs in Australia are being developed by the Department of the Environment and Heritage [6]. Acknowledging the lack of strong evidence in support of the utility of artificial reefs, the South Australian government now discourages the construction of any additional artificial reefs in South Australian waters [14]. Queensland on the other hand, is still actively deploying artificial reefs as evidenced by the recent (July 2005) scuttling of the HMAS Brisbane off the Sunshine Coast. The new artificial reef created by this initiative will be protected and managed as a marine park [15].



2.4. Artificial reefs in the GBRMP There are few records of artificial reef deployment in the GBRMP, and no proposals for artificial reefs in the marine park have been approved since its establishment in 1975. This situation is not surprising given that the GBRMP contains the largest and healthiest system of coral reefs in the world, whereas artificial reef deployment elsewhere generally occurs against a backdrop of overfishing, degraded habitats, or in areas where natural reefs are lacking. It would appear that, until recently, the demand for artificial reefs in the GBRMP has been low due to the high value placed on the natural ecosystem of the GBR and the abundance of fishing and diving opportunities it provides. It is this situation— where high quality fishing and diving opportunities already exit within a highly valued and healthy natural ecosystem—that is likely to produce a unique set of social issues surrounding artificial reef deployment. 3. Artificial reef stakeholders The potential deployment of artificial reefs in the GBRMP is likely to generate interest among multiple stakeholder groups with diverse and conflicting values and opinions surrounding use of the marine park. To deal effectively with these groups and to foster a participative approach to decision-making, managers will need to identify and understand stakeholder groups and their values [16]. This section identifies the major stakeholders and their potential interest in the GBRMP artificial reef issue. 3.1. Artificial reef proponents Artificial reefs to enhance fishery habitats (elsewhere) have been deployed by a diverse range of groups and organizations including: recreational and commercial fishing groups, recreational diving groups, governments (including fisheries management agencies and environmental protection agencies), researchers, the aquaculture industry, community groups, and private businesses (e.g. dive operators) [11,17–20]. In the GBR, artificial reefs are being proposed and promoted primarily by recreational fishing and diving interests. However, with the exception of well-established commercial dive-tour operators, it is unlikely that groups promoting artificial reef development will have the capacity to implement and manage artificial reef programs. More likely, local fishing and diving interest groups will lobby governments and other organizations to take the lead on artificial reef projects. 3.2. Recreational fishers and divers Recreational fishers and divers are usually the primary direct users of artificial reefs [3,18,19,21–26], and would be the primary users of artificial reefs should they be deployed in the GBRMP. Fishers and divers using artificial reefs in the GBRMP would likely be a mix of local residents and non-local tourists accessing the reefs on either private or commercial vessels. Recreational fishers and divers elsewhere generally have very positive attitudes towards artificial reefs [19,26–28]; however, data about the attitudes, preferences, and opinions of fishers and divers regarding artificial reefs in the GBRMP have not been formally collected.


833

3.3. Commercial fishers Commercial fisheries in the GBRMP have a direct economic value of about $200 million/annum and comprise about 3700 professional fishers [29]. Commercial fishers have been identified as users of artificial reefs in other areas [19,21,22,24,27,30]. Although artificial reefs in the GBRMP are not currently being promoted for commercial fishing purposes, commercial fishers could potentially expect access to artificial reefs in the GBRMP, especially if reefs are placed in areas currently used for commercial fishing. Furthermore, commercial fishing interests could be negatively impacted if artificial reef deployment displaces commercial fishers from areas they currently use, or if artificial reefs increase the recreational take of shared fish stocks. 3.4. Tourism and related businesses Tourism is the largest commercial activity in the GBR region, generating over $4.2 billion/ annum [31]. Interests such as local dive and fishing charters, dive and fishing equipment stores, and other indirect businesses such as hotels and restaurants [32,33] could potentially benefit from artificial reef development in the park. These stakeholders could also potentially suffer negative consequences if artificial reef development results in changed patterns of use in the marine park, particularly if changes result in movement of tourism dollars within the region rather than attracting additional tourism to the area (see Section 5.3.1). 3.5. Management agencies Agencies responsible for managing the marine park and the activities which occur in it are also major stakeholders in decisions concerning artificial reefs [28,34]. The GBRMPA is the Commonwealth agency responsible for setting policy and making decisions regarding management of the park. The GBRMPA will be responsible for ensuring that any artificial reef development within the park is consistent with the goals set out in the GBRMP Act 1975 and other relevant legislation. The GBRMPA will also be responsible for ensuring that the values of other stakeholders are adequately considered in the artificial reef decision-making process. Three state agencies—the Queensland Department of Transport (QDOT), the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F)—will also have a stake in decisions related to artificial reef deployment in the park. The QDOT is the agency responsible for maritime safety in Queensland waters (including the GBRMP), and the QPWS is largely responsible for day to day management of the marine park. The QDPI&F is the agency responsible for fisheries management and enforcement in Queensland waters (including the GBRMP) and will be particularly interested in ensuring that artificial reefs used for fishing do not threaten the sustainability of fisheries in the GBR or result in a reallocation of fisheries resources from one fisheries sector to another. 3.6. Environmental organizations The GBR attracts a great deal of attention from environmental organizations worldwide. For example, the World Wide Fund for Nature was a strong supporter of



the recent initiative to increase ‘‘no-take’’ areas within the park, and played a role in generating support (both nationally and internationally) for the plan. Environmentalists place high value on the natural state of the GBR and are concerned primarily with resource preservation and protection [22,35]. Environmental interest groups have opposed artificial reef development elsewhere. For example, environmental groups successfully mobilized public opinion against the deep water abandonment of the Brent Spar oil platform (a potential artificial reef), despite a positive environmental impact assessment [36]. Murray and Betz [22] investigated the views of environmentalists on artificial reef development and found that they were concerned about adverse affects on the biological community through over fishing and dumping ‘‘junk’’ in the oceans. If artificial reefs are deemed to diminish the natural values of the GBR, they would likely be met with opposition from environmental organizations and their supporters. 3.7. Scientific community Artificial reefs provide a unique opportunity to study ecological processes, and are often used for research purposes [7,37]. It is likely that marine scientists would value the opportunity to investigate ecological process associated with artificial reefs, and would likely be called upon to evaluate the ecological consequences of artificial reef deployment in the GBR. Conversely, the scientific community has not yet reached consensus on the ecological benefits of artificial reefs [6,37]. Some members of the scientific community could potentially oppose the use of artificial reefs to enhance fishing and diving opportunities if they conclude that artificial reefs are not an ecologically sound option for the GBR. 3.8. Wider community Many people in the wider community locally, nationally, and internationally hold diverse values regarding the GBRMP. Although understanding the diversity of values held by the wider community regarding the park is difficult, it is known that the general public holds strong values related to protection of the unique environment of the GBR [38]. The GBRMP is a highly visited area enjoyed for its aesthetic features. The presence of artificial structures in the park (whether they are seen or not) may be perceived by some as diminishing the aesthetic values of the area [39]. Values related to protection of the natural and aesthetic values of the GBR are reflected in its National Park and World Heritage Area designations [1], obligating GBRMPA to ensure that these values are not diminished by development in the park. 3.9. Summary of stakeholder analysis It is clear that the artificial reef issue will be of interest to a wide range of GBR stakeholders with diverse and potentially conflicting values, opinions, and desires. Because potential artificial reef development in the GBRMPA is still an emerging issue, it is difficult to predict how various stakeholders may respond. The issue is clouded further by potential diversity of opinions within various stakeholder groups. For example, a recent survey of recreational fishers in Queensland demonstrated that fishers hold strong values related to protection of the natural environment and fisheries resources [40]. Those fishers who place


835

high value on preserving the GBR in its natural state may see artificial reefs as an inappropriate use of the GBRMP. Gaining an understanding of the various stakeholders (particularly those directly affected by the issue) and their values and attitudes regarding artificial reefs in the GBRMP will be a key component of a management strategy to deal with this emerging issue. 4. Social issues surrounding artificial reefs A review of the relevant literature has identified a number of social issues and outcomes—both positive and negative—that often surround the deployment and management of artificial reefs. The following sections outline these issues and, where possible, relates them to the potential deployment of artificial reefs in the GBRMP. 4.1. Enhanced recreational opportunities Artificial reefs are used to create new dive opportunities where none existed previously, or to enhance already existing diving opportunities and experiences. Recreational fishing is usually present in an area prior to artificial reef deployment, but reef deployment in an area can also enhance fishing opportunities and experiences. Artificial reefs can create or enhance recreational experiences in a number of ways. First, they can add to the variety of fishing and/or diving experiences that exist within an area by providing different types of structure and attracting different kinds of marine life [41,42]. Second, they can provide more accessible fishing and diving opportunities when placed close to access points, thereby enabling people who are limited by experience, boat size/horsepower, time, or money to enjoy recreational fishing or diving [41]. Third, they can enhance the recreational experience or success rate by attracting or producing more marine life and increasing the probability of observing and/or catching fish [43]. Fourth, they can help redistribute use throughout a given area thereby reducing user congestion and crowding [41]. 4.1.1. Will divers and fishers use artificial reefs in the GBRMP? Whereas the positive impacts of artificial reef deployment on recreation opportunities outlined above have been realized elsewhere, it is difficult to predict whether similar outcomes will be realized in the GBRMP. In general, artificial reef deployment elsewhere occurs against a backdrop of degraded natural systems, or in areas where natural reef habitat is limited, thus providing obvious ‘‘enhancement’’ of recreation opportunities. In contrast, the GBR already provides extensive world-class opportunities for fishing and diving in a relatively healthy natural environment. The few studies of diver and fisher preferences for natural vs. artificial habitat suggest that, all else being equal, fishers and divers prefer natural habitat over artificial habitat [18,23,44]. Furthermore, when natural and artificial reef habitat are both available, use of natural habitat by divers and fishers tends to be higher [23,44]. Of the enhancements to recreational opportunities identified above, increased accessibility to recreation opportunities is likely to be the outcome most perceptible to divers and fishers in the GBRMP (depending on where artificial reefs are located). In addition, the use of materials desired by divers (e.g. ships) to create artificial reefs may be seen as an enhancement of diving opportunities because such sites are relatively rare in the GBR. However, without prior information about the desires and preferences of GBR divers and fishers regarding artificial reefs, it is difficult to predict



whether the opportunities provided by artificial reefs will be valued, and whether artificial reefs will receive sufficient usage to produce social and economic benefits. 4.2. Social and economic impacts of overfishing at artificial reefs Catch rates of fish around artificial reefs are often higher than catch rates in surrounding non-reef areas [45,46], leading to the perception of ‘‘enhanced’’ fisheries. However, there is considerable debate over whether improved catch rates occur as a result of increased production (i.e., increased stock size) or through increased attraction and aggregation of pre-existing fish stocks [6,47,48]. Fished artificial reefs have the potential to lead to overfishing if they increase the aggregation/attraction of existing stocks without increasing overall stock size [49,50]. Such an outcome would be counter to the objectives of artificial reef deployment and would have direct social and economic impacts including reduced fishing opportunities, lower quality recreational fishing experiences, negative economic impacts on the communities and businesses that support the commercial and recreational fishing industries, and diminished natural values of the GBRMP. A recent study revealed that recreational fishers in Queensland place high value on conservation of fisheries resources and strongly support fisheries management tools designed to prevent overfishing by the recreational sector [40]. Consequently, it is doubtful that the recreational fishing community would support the use of artificial reefs for fishing in the GBRMP if artificial reefs were demonstrated to have high potential to lead to overfishing. 4.3. Changes in property and resource-use rights Marine areas have traditionally been characterized by an open-access or non-property regime under which the benefits of use were available to anyone. Although this regime is no longer as widely applied, the assumption of open access still prevails on a widespread basis [51]. Deploying an artificial reef can alter the traditional regime and change property and resource-use rights, which could be beneficial to some users and detrimental to others. For example, because of incompatibilities between gear and structure, placing an artificial reef on a seabed where commercial fishers operate can automatically exclude this group from the area that was formally open access and their ‘right’ to use. In Europe, artificial reefs are commonly used to exclude (illegal) trawling from sensitive habitats [35]. Changes to property and resource-use rights can also occur through management of artificial reefs. Commercial fishers are often excluded from using artificial reefs [11], and many artificial reefs deployed and managed for diving exclude both commercial and recreational fishing (i.e. the HMAS Swan [52] and the HMAS Brisbane [15]). Restrictions on use of artificial reefs (including the designation of the reef as a protected area) can be a point of contention because such restrictions can affect the institutional and human use characteristics of the locality [51]. The recent rezoning of the GBRMP demonstrated the high level of public interest and contention that can be generated when resource-use rights are changed. Although any changes in property or resource-use rights associated with artificial reefs would be minor compared to the rezoning of the GBRMP, there is still potential for conflict if new regulations are perceived to encroach on people’s right to access the marine environment [51]. In particular, exclusion of commercial or recreational fishing from artificial reefs could be interpreted by some fishers as further erosion of fishing rights in the GBRMP.


837

4.4. Creation of conflict within and between user groups Artificial reefs for recreational use are usually deployed to meet a demand which stems from lack of such opportunities in a particular area. It is rare, however, that demand is completely satisfied through artificial reef programs. Consequently, artificial reefs often become the focal point of conflict within and across user groups [21]. Conflict is defined as goal interference attributed to another’s behaviour [53], and has been documented on numerous artificial reef sites worldwide [21,22]. Conflict can arise from a number of factors including: (1) crowding and congestion; (2) stock effects; and (3) mode of use. Conflict within groups of artificial reef users is common and usually arises from crowding and congestion at artificial reef sites [22]. Crowding is a negative and subjective evaluation of use level, and occurs when use level reaches a point where it is perceived to interfere with one’s activities or intentions [54]. Divers appear to be particularly affected by crowding [22], possibly because of the non-consumptive nature of their activity and the associated value of natural aesthetics. However, recreational fishers can also be affected by crowding at artificial reefs [22] which can result in an increase in fishing costs, and a decrease in catch per unit of effort as boats manoeuvre to avoid other boats and gear [21]. Conflicts at artificial reefs can also arise through stock effects i.e., when users harvest from a common fish stock leading to the redistribution of catches and/or income from one group of fishers to another [21,55]. Conflict arises when perceived declines in catch rates (resulting in reduced satisfaction for recreational fishers and reduced income for commercial fishers) are attributed to the competing sector. Stock effects can also be felt by recreational divers who use artificial reefs where fishing is permitted. Brock [24] found that fishing (including line fishing, spearing, and netting) produced effects observable by divers on fish populations around an artificial reef in Hawaii. These observable effects— which would detract from the diving experience—included fish with ‘‘net burns’’ and spear wounds, as well as noticeably reduced population sizes after fishing events. Mode-of-use conflict often arises when different types of users (i.e., commercial fishers, recreational fishers, divers) simultaneously engage in activities at or around artificial reefs. Conflict between different types of users is due to differences in the goals of the activities and the values of the participants. For example, divers may view fishing as an inappropriate use of artificial reefs because they believe the removal of fish has negative impacts on the recreational diving experience [22,24]. Conflict may also occur due to the incompatibility of different activities. In particular, fishing and diving in the same area may be incompatible for safety reasons, and because the presence of one type of activity interferes with the conduct of the other. 4.4.1. Conflict management A number of measures to minimize or manage conflict at artificial reefs have been proposed including: (1) selective access controls; (2) gear and catch restrictions; and (3) temporal or spatial segregation of users [21,24]. Selective access controls involve user fees and/or limited licensing to monitor and control the number and type of users who gain access to artificial reefs. Gear and catch restrictions are usually imposed on fishers to reduce or eliminate stock effects caused by overfishing. Spatial and temporal segregation entails separating user groups to reduce crowding and mode conflict by allocating specific time periods or specific areas where each group is permitted access [21].



It is difficult to predict the type and amount of conflict that will occur over artificial reefs deployed in the GBRMP; however, the above discussion suggests that some level of conflict is likely. Likewise, it is difficult to predict what conflict management strategies will be effective in the GBRMP because preferences for various conflict management options will likely vary among and between the various artificial reef user groups [22]. It should also be noted that the implementation of some conflict management measures (e.g., user fees, spatial segregation of users) may cause conflict between the management agency implementing the regulation and some user groups. If artificial reefs are deployed in the GBRMP, managers will need to assess the amount and type of conflict likely to be generated and design appropriate conflict management strategies to enable the socioeconomic objectives of artificial reef development to be met. 4.5. Liability The potential for accidents resulting in personal injury or property damage at artificial reefs raises the issue of who should be held liable if such incidents occur. Because lawsuits have not yet passed through the courts [56,57], answers to liability questions remain speculative. One question concerns whether the group or organization granted a permit to deploy an artificial reef will be capable of withstanding a liability suit. In Australia, private citizens and interest groups can apply for artificial reef permits, and may be required to provide liability insurance for deployed structures [58]. However, such groups could potentially disband before the life expectancy of the reef they build has run its course, raising the question of who is then liable for the structures [56]. In the USA, a recommended revision to the National Fishing Enhancement Act 1984 will require that artificial reef permits are issued only to state agencies responsible for management of marine resources who can assume liability for the life of the artificial reef [56]. A second question concerns the liability of the government agency responsible for issuing artificial reef permits. The GBRMPA is responsible for issuing permits for artificial structures (including artificial reefs) in the GBRMP. The Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 listed item 76 which would protect the Commonwealth (including the GBRMPA) from any liability charges relating to artificial reef permits. However, the Environment Protection (sea dumping) Act 1984 has not been appropriately amended to legalize this item. Consequently, the liability of the Commonwealth for accidents involving permitted artificial reefs remains unclear. 5. Economic issues surrounding artificial reefs Economic arguments are frequently put forth in support of artificial reef development. This section examines the costs, impacts, and values associated with artificial reef development and questions whether the positive economic outcomes observed elsewhere will be realized with artificial reef deployment in the GBRMP. 5.1. Financial costs of reef deployment and management There are significant financial costs associated with deploying and managing artificial reefs. Costs associated with deployment will depend in part on the materials used. For example, preparing and sinking a decommissioned ship (the material most preferred by


839

divers [22,26]), can be labour intensive [59] and can cost up to US$2 million depending on the size of the vessel [60]. On-going maintenance costs can also be significant. It is estimated that the ongoing costs associated with maintaining the recently-scuttled HMAS Brisbane in south Queensland will be on the order of AU$200,000/annum over 10 years [15]. Financial costs associated with artificial reef deployment and management have been covered in various ways. In the US, funds collected through an excise tax on fishing equipment under the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program (among other sources) have been used to create and manage artificial reefs for fisheries enhancement [10,49]. On the west coast of Canada, the Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia has used volunteer efforts (up to 8000 h/ship) to prepare decommissioned ships for use as artificial reefs. The British Columbia projects were funded through sale of scrap materials removed from the ships prior to scuttling as well as grants from governmental economic development programs and community fundraising [59]. In Australia, the HMAS Swan and HMAS Brisbane were ‘‘gifted’’ to Western Australia and Queensland, respectively, from the Commonwealth Government. The costs of scuttling the Swan were borne locally through fundraising, through the sale of scrap materials removed from the ship, and by the investment of approximately 10,000 h of volunteer labour [52]. The AU$5 million cost of preparing and scuttling the HMAS Brisbane was born primarily by the Queensland government [15]. Ongoing management costs of artificial reefs are often borne by reef users through user fees. For example, funds to cover the $200,000/year management costs for the former HMAS Brisbane will be raised through a user fee for private and club divers, and through permitting fees charged to commercial dive companies who use the reef [15]. Currently, visitors to the GBRMP on private vessels are not required to pay fees to use the park; however, visitors using commercial vessels are required to pay a $5 ‘‘reef tax’’ collected by operators of commercial vessels. Although divers and fishers have shown a willingness to pay for artificial reef diving and fishing opportunities elsewhere [19,22,23], it is not known whether divers and fishers (particularly those on private vessels) would be willing to pay user fees to support artificial reef deployment and management in the GBRMP. 5.2. Economic impact of artificial reefs One of the arguments frequently used in support of artificial reef development is that artificial reefs can have positive economic impacts on local communities through increased tourism and recreation activity. Economic impacts can occur at local, regional, or state levels and are measured in terms of employment, sales, income, and tax revenue [36]. Economic impacts are derived from expenditures on items such as user fees, charter fees, equipment, lodging, meals, fuel, and bait made by artificial reef users in the local, regional, or state-wide area of interest. The most important expenditures in terms of economic impact are those made within the local area by visitors from outside the area. (Expenditures by non-locals represent new money injected into the local economy, whereas expenditures by locals are assumed to occur within the local area regardless of whether they are spent on artificial reef use or something else). When artificial reef users purchase goods and services in the local area, they transfer money to local businesses who in turn make purchases to supply the goods and services needed. Local businesses also use



this new money to pay wages to employees who in turn spend money in the local economy. This re-spending of money in the local economy has a multiplier effect that results in the total economic impact being larger than the actual expenditures made [36]. Impacts on local economies due to artificial reef use can be significant. Johns et al. [23] estimated that the total economic impact of artificial reefs in Broward County (southeast Florida) from June 2000 to May 2001 amounted to US$962 million in sales, $502 million in income, and 16,800 full- and part-time jobs. Estimates of economic impact of artificial reefs for three other southeast Florida counties range from $131 million to $419 million in sales, $33 million to $195 million in income, and 1,800 to 6,000 jobs. Ditton and Baker [25] estimated that the total economic impact of non-resident divers using charter boats to access artificial reefs in Texas (1997 dollars) ranged from US$0.58 million to $1.7 million. In Australia, the total economic impact of the reef created by the former HMAS Swan in the initial 15 months of operation was estimated to be US$1.39 million [52], and the Burnett Coast’s Cochrane artificial reef in Queensland is estimated to inject approximately AU$1 million dollars into the region annually [61]. 5.3. Economic value of artificial reefs Economic value measures the value that users place on the opportunity and experience of using resources like artificial reefs. The extent to which users value artificial reefs is expressed by the money they spend to use the reefs plus any additional amount they would be willing to pay before foregoing the opportunity to use the reefs [62]. Measures of willingness to pay in excess of actual trip expenditures (commonly called consumer’s surplus) have been used to estimate use value of artificial reefs. Johns et al. [23] estimated that the total use value of artificial reefs in southeast Florida in 2000–2001 was US$8.59/ person/day, which equates to an annual use value for all users of US$85 million (compared to values of $12.47 per person per day and $229 million annually for natural reefs at the same location). Pendleton [44] reviewed 7 studies investigating the economic value of artificial reefs and reported non-market values for diving on artificial reefs ranging from US$5.45 per person per day to US$339 annually per diver. Johns et al. [23] found recreational users’ willingness to pay for new artificial reefs was significant (US$27 million/ year), but was lower than willingness to pay for protection of both existing artificial reefs (US$85 million/year) and existing natural reefs (US$229 million/year). 5.3.1. Will artificial reefs in the GBRMP result in increased economic impacts and benefits? It is clear that artificial reefs have the potential to be highly valued by users and to inject significant amounts of new money into local economies; however, what is not clear is the extent to which these positive outcomes will be realized through artificial reef development in the GBRMP. As noted previously, artificial reef deployment elsewhere generally occurs against a backdrop of degraded natural systems, or in areas where natural reef habitat is limited. The GBR, however, already provides extensive world-class opportunities for fishing and diving in a relatively healthy natural reef ecosystem. Studies conducted in areas where natural and artificial reef habitat co-exist suggest that, all else being equal, users prefer natural reefs over artificial reefs, place higher value on natural reefs, and use natural reefs more than artificial reefs [23,44]. Studies also indicate that there is declining marginal value with increasing number of reefs (artificial or natural) in an area [23,44]. Given the extensive natural reef system that already exists within the GBRMP, these results suggest


841

that the value placed on artificial reefs deployed in the GBRMP may be lower than that demonstrated in other areas. The potential for artificial reefs in the GBRMP to produce substantial positive economic impacts on local communities is also uncertain. As discussed previously, positive economic impacts will result only if artificial reefs attract new or additional money to local or regional areas. Even if artificial reefs are used extensively, the economic impact could be minimal if the majority of use comes from locals or from visitors to the area who forego other opportunities during their trip in order to visit artificial reefs. Moreover, positive economic impacts in communities close to artificial reefs could be offset by negative impacts in other communities if artificial reef development results in a redistribution of tourism dollars among communities rather than attracting additional tourism dollars to the region [32]. Ultimately, whether there are significant economic impacts realized by artificial reef development will depend on whether the recreation opportunities created by artificial reefs are sufficiently valued to attract additional visitors to the region or increase the expenditures of visitors already there. Unfortunately, prediction of economic impacts and benefits from artificial reef development in the GBRMP is difficult due to lack of relevant data from the GBR area. 6. A strategy to maximize the socio-economic values of artificial reefs in the GBRMP If artificial reefs are deployed in the GBRMP, it will be primarily for the purpose of producing social and/or economic benefits. Based on the preceding discussion, it is clear that attention must be paid to socio-economic issues if the values and benefits of artificial reefs in the GBRMP are to be realized; without considerable advance planning, artificial reefs are unlikely to meet their socio-economic objectives [17]. This section outlines a strategy for making informed decisions regarding artificial reef permitting and for maximizing the socio-economic values of artificial reefs should they be deployed in the GBRMP. To ensure that the socio-economic values of artificial reefs are realized, we suggest that the planning, implementation, and management process should include the following steps: (1) assess the demand for artificial reefs in the GBRMP; (2) consult relevant stakeholders; (3) conduct a cost/benefit analysis; (4) decide whether to permit artificial reefs in the marine park; (5) involve stakeholders in the planning and management process; (6) set clear socio-economic goals and objectives; (7) consider social and economic issues in an appropriate management plan; (8) monitor and evaluate social and economic issues. Each of these steps will be outlined briefly below. 6.1. Step 1: Assess the demand for artificial reefs Artificial reefs will only produce social and economic benefits if there is sufficient demand for the opportunities and experiences they provide—artificial reefs will be ineffective at meeting social and economic objectives if they are not valued and used. Gordon and Ditton [17] suggest that before any reef is built, there should be an accurate ‘‘needs assessment’’ of which and how many user groups will benefit from the reef; only if sufficient demand exists should the reef be built. Currently, nothing is known about the preferences and attitudes of GBRMP fishers and divers (or other potential users) regarding artificial reefs in the marine park. Before decisions can be made about artificial reef deployment in the GBRMP, research is needed to answer a range of questions including:



(1) Who will use artificial reefs in the GBRMP?; (2) To what extent will artificial reefs be used?; (3) What benefits do potential users expect from artificial reefs?; (4) Where will users come from?; (5) Are users willing to pay for reef deployment and management?; and (6) Will users accept regulations (e.g., user fees, segregation of users) necessary to manage artificial reefs? 6.2. Step 2: Consult relevant stakeholders As discussed previously, a wide range of GBRMP stakeholders will likely have an interest in the artificial reef issue. To deal effectively with various stakeholders and incorporate their values in the decision-making process, managers will need to understand the attitudes, opinions, and values of various stakeholder groups regarding the potential deployment of artificial reef in the GBRMP. Groups to be consulted should include not only potential users of artificial reefs, but also those likely to be affected by artificial reef decisions (e.g., commercial fishers, tourism operators, etc.) as well as the wider community at the local, regional, and national level. 6.3. Step 3: Conduct a cost– benefit analysis Artificial reefs should not be deployed unless a detailed analysis suggests that the expected socio-economic benefits will outweigh the potential socio-economic costs [17,63]. Information obtained through Steps 1 and 2 above as well as information presented elsewhere in this review will be crucial for estimating the socio-economic costs and benefits of artificial reefs in the GBRMP. Benefits examined should include the potential for enhanced recreation opportunities, as well as the creation of economic value and impacts. Costs to be examined should include the financial cost of deploying and managing the reefs as well as social costs such as changes in tourism patterns, changes in resource use rights, increased conflict, diminished social values, etc. The socio-economic cost benefit analysis suggested here would necessarily be conducted as part of a larger cost-benefit analysis that also considers potential ecological costs and benefits (see [6]). 6.4. Step 4: Decide whether to permit artificial reefs in the GBRMP A decision will be necessary as to whether to permit artificial reefs in the GBRMP. This will be a complex decision based on a range of social, economic, and ecological factors, the outcome of which will not be consistent with the desires and values of all interested stakeholders. To be defensible, the decision should be based on the best information available, including information collected in Steps 1 anf 2 and the outcome of the socioeconomic and ecological cost–benefit analyses described in Step 3. 6.5. Step 5: Include stakeholders in the planning and management process If a decision is made to permit artificial reefs in the GBRMP, then stakeholders should be included to the greatest extent possible in further planning, management, and monitoring (i.e., Steps 6–8 below) [16]. There are many benefits to incorporating public participation in artificial reef projects, particularly where one or more user groups may perceive negative impacts. Involving those who may be negatively affected provides an


843

opportunity for the values of that group to be identified and potential negative impacts to be considered in the decision-making process. Stakeholder involvement may also help diffuse potential conflicts [51]. Involvement of potential users and other beneficiaries of artificial reef development will help ensure that artificial reefs meet user needs so that social and economic values are maximized. User involvement also provides an opportunity to educate stakeholders about potential problems and issues surrounding artificial reef deployment, use, and management. Furthermore, involvement of stakeholders will be vital for monitoring the social, economic, and ecological outcomes of artificial reef development. 6.6. Step 6: Set clear socio-economic goals and objectives To maximize social values, artificial reef development should have clear and measurable socio-economic goals and objectives. Goals and objectives will depend in part on the nature of the demand identified in Step 1 and the expected benefits identified in Step 3. Goals may be social (e.g., increase the number of shore-accessible recreational fishing sites) or economic (e.g., increase dive-tourism related expenditures in community X by a Y%). Importantly, goals and objectives should be measurable to enable the success of the project to be evaluated in social and economic terms. 6.7. Step 7: Consider social and economic issues in an appropriate management plan To meet socio-economic goals and objectives, plans designed to manage artificial reefs in the GBRMP will need to address social and economic issues such as those identified previously (e.g., crowding, displacement, liability, cost recovery, etc.). Because some specific management measures used to meet socio-economic goals (e.g., user fees, segregation of users) may be less acceptable to some groups, choice of management tools should be informed by data on user preferences and attitudes. It is recognized that ecological considerations will take precedence in some management decisions (e.g., reef location, materials, and impacts on natural ecological systems and processes); however, social and economic values will be maximized by incorporating user needs and desires whenever possible. 6.8. Step 8: Monitor and evaluate social and ecological factors To ensure that social and economic goals are met and that values are maximized, it will be necessary to monitor socio-economic variables and periodically evaluate progress toward achieving socio-economic goals. In particular, attention should be paid to monitoring use levels, users’ perceptions of crowding, levels of conflict, users’ attitudes, opinions, and satisfactions, and artificial reef-related expenditures. It will also be important to monitor public attitudes and values surrounding artificial reefs and the GBRMP and evaluate the extent of negative social and economic impacts of artificial reef development. 7. Conclusion It is clear that artificial reef development can produce a variety of positive and negative social and economic impacts. It is also clear that the potential deployment of artificial reefs



in the GBRMP will be a complex and controversial issue that will need a high level of management to ensure that artificial reef development produces positive social and economic benefits without diminishing the existing social, economic, and ecological values of the GBR. In this paper, we have outlined some of the issues that might be encountered based on experiences elsewhere. However, given the unique situation in the GBRMP, other unanticipated issues are likely to arise. Almost 20 years ago, Gordon and Ditton [17] identified a need for a more integrated and interdisciplinary approach to artificial reef research and management that includes the expertise of marine scientists, social scientists, and planners. However, most research on artificial reefs and artificial reef management is still ecological in nature, with few studies focusing on the socio-economic aspects [4]. We suggest that a strong social science research program in support of decision-making will give managers and other stakeholders the information they need to deal effectively with issues that will arise regarding the potential development of an artificial reef program in the GBRMP.

References [1] Lucas PH, Webb T, Valentine PS, Marsh H. The outstanding universal value of the great barrier reef World Heritage Area. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 1997. [2] Craik W. The great barrier Reef Marine Park: its establishment, development and current status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 1992;25:5–8. [3] Milon JW. Artificial marine habitat characteristics and participation behaviour by sport anglers and divers. Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):853–62. [4] Baine M. Artificial reefs: a review of their design, application, management and performance. Ocean and Coastal Management 2001;44:241–59. [5] Seaman Jr W, Jensen AC. Purposes and practices of artificial reef evaluation. In: Seaman Jr W, editor. Artificial reef evaluation with application to natural marine habitats. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2000. p. 1–19. [6] Pears R, Williams DMcB. Potential effects of artificial reefs on the GREAT BARRIER reef. Cooperative Research Centre for the great barrier Reef World Heritage Area technical report 60. Townsville: James Cook University; 2005. [7] Jenson A. Final report of the European artificial reef research network. European Artificial reef research network 1998. Web reference: /http://www.icit.hw.ac.uk/Finalreport.rtfS. Accessed: 19 October 2005. [8] Sayer MDJ, Wilding TA. Planning, licensing, and stakeholder consultation in an artificial reef development: the Loch Linnhe reef, a case study. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S178–85. [9] Gravitz L. The double-edged lure of man-made reefs. Cyber Diver News Network 2000. Web reference: /http://www.cdnn.info/article/artificial_reefs/artificial_reefs.htmlS. Accessed 22 July 2005. [10] McGurrin JM, Stone RB, Sousa RJ. Profiling United States artificial reef development. Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):1004–13. [11] Branden KL, Pollard DA, Reimers HA. A review of recent artificial reef developments in Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(2–3):982–94. [12] Jebreen E. Artificial reefs and their effects on fish stocks. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2001. Information Series Q101031. [13] Pollard DA. Artificial habitats for fisheries enhancement in the Australian region. Marine Fisheries Review 1989;51(4):11–28. [14] Primary Industries and Resources South Australia. (2005). Artificial reefs—to build or not to build? Web reference: /http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pages/fisheries/environmental/artificial_reefs.htm:sectID=1983&temp ID=1S. Accessed: 01 August 2005. [15] Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Sink the Brisbane. Environmental Protection Agency/ Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service 2005. Web reference: /http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/about_the_epa/ coming_events/sink_the_brisbaneS. Accessed 22 July 2005. [16] Claudet J, Pelletier D. Marine protected areas and artificial reefs: a review of the interactions between management and scientific studies. Aquatic Living Resources 2004;17:129–38.


845

[17] Gordon Jr WR, Ditton RB. A user-resource planning framework for offshore recreational artificial reefs. Coastal Zone Management Journal 1986;13(3–4):369–95. [18] Milon JW. A nested demand shares model of artificial marine habitat choice by sport anglers. Marine Resource Economics 1988;5:191–213. [19] Milon JW. Economic evaluation of artificial habitat for fisheries: progress and challenges. Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):831–43. [20] Jensen A, Collins K. Appendix 1: Artificial reef research in the European Union: a review. In Jensen A. Final report of the European artificial reef research Network 1998. Web reference: /http://www.icit.hw.ac.uk/ Finalreport.rtfS. Accessed: 19 October 2005. [21] Samples KC. Assessing recreational and commercial conflicts over artificial fishery habitat use: theory and practice. Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):844–52. [22] Murray JD, Betz CJ. User views of artificial reef management in the southeastern US. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(2–3):970–81. [23] Johns GM, Leeworthy VR, Bell FW, Bonn MA. Socioeconomic study of reefs in Southeast Florida—final report. Report prepared for Broward County, Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Hazen and Sawyer: Environmental Engineers and Scientists, 2001. [24] Brock RE. Beyond fisheries enhancement: artificial reefs and ecotourism. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(2–3):1181–8. [25] Ditton RB, Baker TL. Demographics, attitudes, management preferences, and economic impacts of sport divers using artificial reefs in offshore Texas waters. Report prepared for the Texas Park and Wildlife Department. Texas A&M University, College Station; 1999. [26] Ditton RB, Osburn HR, Baker TL, Thailing CE. Demographics, attitudes, and reef management preferences of sport divers in offshore Texas waters. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S186–91. [27] Chii A. A case study on the function and attribute of artificial reefs as an ideal type of social overhead capital. In: IPFC Symposium on artificial reefs and fish aggregation devises as tools for the management and enhancement of marine fishery resources, Colombo, Sri-Lanka, 1990. p. 96–104. [28] Murray JD. A policy and management assessment of US artificial reef programs. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(2–3):960–9. [29] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Commercial fisheries. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2005. Web reference: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/fisheries/index.htmlS. Accessed 19 October 2005. [30] Clarke S, Leung AWY, Mak YM, Kennish R, Haggan N. Consultation with local fishers on the Hong Kong artificial reefs initiative. ICES Journal of Marine Science 2002;59:S171–7. [31] PDP Australia. An economic and social evaluation of implementing the representative areas program by rezoning the great barrier Reef Marine Park. PDP Australia Pty. Ltd., 2003. [32] Enemark, T. The tourism aspects of artificial reefs: the nine fundamental lessons. Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia 1999. Web reference: /http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/Resources/Nine%20Tourism %20Aspects%20of%20Artificial%20Reefs.pdfS. Accessed: 22 July 2005. [33] Ivanova I. Recreational scuba diving in British Columbia survey report. Dive Industry Association of British Columbia 2004. Web reference: /http://tourism.bc.ca/PDF/DIABC_Survey_Report_Final_Sept_2004.pdfS. Accessed 01 August 2005. [34] Steimle FW, Meier MH. What information do artificial reef managers really want from fisheries science? Fisheries 1997;22(4):6–8. [35] Baine M, Side J. Habitat modification and manipulation as a management tool. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 2003;13:187–99. [36] Milon JW, Holland SM, Relini G. Social and economic evaluation methods. In: Seaman Jr W, editor. Artificial reef evaluation with application to natural marine habitats. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2000. p. 165–94. [37] Seaman Jr W. What if everyone thought about reefs? Fisheries 1997;22(4):4–5. [38] AEC Group. Market research for the great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Coastal Research-2003. Great barrier Reef Marine Park Authority internal report, 2003. [39] Bolding B, Bonar S, Divens M. Use of artificial structure to enhance angler benefits in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs: a literature review. Reviews in Fisheries Science 2004;12:75–96. [40] Sutton SG. An assessment of the social characteristics of Queensland’s recreational fishers. Cooperative Research Centre for the great barrier Reef World Heritage Area technical report 65. Townsville: James Cook University; 2005.



[41] Radonski GC, Martin RG, DuBose WP. Artificial reefs: the sport fishing perspective. In: D’Itri FM, editor. Artificial reefs: marine and freshwater applications. Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc.; 1985. p. 529–36. [42] Chou LM. Artificial reefs of southeast Asia–do they enhance or degrade the marine environment? Environment Monitoring and Assessment 1997;44:45–52. [43] McGlennon D, Branden KL. Comparison of catch and recreational anglers fishing on artificial reefs and natural seabed in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. Bulletin of Marine Science 1994;55(2–3):510–23. [44] Pendleton LH. Creating underwater value: the economic value of artificial reefs for recreational diving. The San Diego Oceans Foundation 2004. [45] Santos MN, Monteiro CC. The OLHAO artificial reef system (south Portugal): fish assemblages and fishing yield. Fisheries Research 1997;30(1-2):33–41. [46] Santos MN, Monteiro CC. Comparison of the catch and fishing yield from an artificial reef system and neighbouring areas off Faro (Algarve, south Portugal). Fisheries Research 1997;39(1):55–65. [47] Bohnsack JA. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or behavioural preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 1989;44(2):631–45. [48] Pickering H, Whitmarsh D. Artificial reefs and fisheries exploitation: a review of the ‘attraction versus production’ debate, the influence of design and its significance for policy. Fisheries Research 1997;31:39–59. [49] Jebreen E. An investigation into the effects of artificial reefs on fish stocks. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, 2005. Web reference: /http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/far/9279.htmS. Accessed: 22 August 2005. [50] Bohnsack JA, Sutherland DL. Artificial reef research: a review with recommendations for future priorities. Bulletin of Marine Science 1985;37:11–39. [51] Cocklin C, Craw M, McAuley I. Marine reserves in New Zealand: use rights, public attitudes, and social impacts. Coastal Management 1998;26:213–31. [52] Dowling RK, Nichol J. The HMAS Swan artificial dive reef. Annals of Tourism Research 2001;28(1):229–32. [53] Jacob G, Schreyer R. Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 1980;12:368–80. [54] Manning RE. Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press; 1999 (374pp). [55] Willmann R. Economic and social aspects of artificial reefs and fish aggregation devises. In: IPFC symposium on artificial reefs and fish aggregation devises as tools for the management and enhancement of marine fishery resources, Colombo, Sri-Lanka, 1990. p. 384–91. [56] Lukens RR. Artificial reefs: habitat for marine resources national policy? In: Horn W, editor. Proceedings from the Florida artificial reef summit ’01. Florida: Fort Lauderdale; 2001. p. 16–20. [57] Schroeder DM, Love MS. Ecological and political issues surrounding decommissioning of offshore oil facilities in the Southern California Bight. Ocean and Coastal Management 2004;47:21–48. [58] Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage. Artificial Reefs. Department of the Environment and Heritage 2002. Web reference: /http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/dumping/ reefs.htmlS. Accessed: 29 July 2005. [59] Enemark T. Recycling economics from the perspective of artificial reef creation: remarks made to the ship recycling conference, Philadelphia, September 11, 2001. Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia 2001. Web reference: /http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/Resources/Remarks%20for%20Philedelphia%20Ship%20Recycling%20Conference.pdfS. Accessed 22 July 2005. [60] Hess R, Rushworth D, Hynes MV, Peters JE. Disposal options for ships. RAND 2001. Web reference: /http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1377/S. accessed 22 July 2005. [61] Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Artificial attraction. FISH Newsletter, 2004; (1). Web reference: /http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fish/14257.htmlS. Accessed: 22 August 2005. [62] Huppert DD. NMFS Guidelines on economic valuation of marine recreational fishing. US Department of Commerce 1983. NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-SWSC-32. [63] Whitmarsh D. Cost benefit analysis of artificial reefs. In: Jensen AC, editor. European artificial reef research. Proceedings of the first EARRN conference, March 1996, Ancona, Italy. Southampton Oceanography Centre, 1997. p. 175–94.